两年前第一次听说捷克前总统哈维尔这个人，并读到崔卫平老师翻译的《哈维尔文集》时，被其事迹和文字里智慧、博爱的光芒所深深打动。对捷克平滑完成社会转型羡慕不已，直到今日我在很多社交网络的头像都还是天鹅绒革命的现场照片。因为不太认同崔老师的某些译笔，在她的译文基础上重译了一下《给胡萨克的公开信》，不过因为懒惰，一直没译完。

哈维尔先生现在上了大船，我们能做的也只能缅怀。希望他的精神能激励更多正在遭受苦难和不公正待遇的人民，以使他们能够有勇气和智慧完成属于他们自己的不流血革命。

现送上完整英文版和部分中文译文，后面的译文接下来几天会补上，如有错漏，还望指正：

下文出自：http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/index.php?sec=1&id=1

此处转载纯为学习目的，原文版权归属请见：http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/Index.php?sec=6&id=4 。

“Dear Dr. Husák” (April 1975), addressed to Dr. Gustav Husák, who was then the general secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, is Havel’s first major public statement after being blacklisted in 1969. He describes the circumstances surrounding the writing of this letter in the interview with Jiří Lederer on page 84. The letter was first published in English, in this translation, in Encounter (September 1975). It has subsequently appeared in several anthologies of Czech writing, most recently in Václav Havel or Living in Truth, edited by Jan Vladislav (London: Faber & Faber, 1986). The translator is not identified.

此信写于1975年4月，收信人是时任捷克斯洛伐克总统和捷共总书记的古斯塔夫·胡萨克。这是哈维尔于1969年被官方加入黑名单之后首次公开发表的文章。此文最早用英文发表于1975年9月的英国自由主义刊物 Encounter 杂志上，随后收录于多部捷克作家文集中。英文译者不详。

Dear Dr. Husák,

亲爱的胡萨克博士：

In our offices and factories work goes on, discipline prevails. The efforts of our citizens are yielding visible results in a slowly rising standard of living: people build houses, buy cars, have children, amuse themselves, live their lives.

现如今，我们的办公室和工厂都有序运行，国民的努力成果有目共睹，大家的生活水平正缓慢提升着：人们造房子，买汽车，生小孩，娱乐消遣，过他们的生活。

All this, of course, amounts to very little as a criterion for the success or failure of your policies. After every social upheaval, people invariably come back in the end to their daily labors, for the simple reason that they want to stay alive; they do so for their own sake, after all, not for the sake of this or that team of political leaders.

当然，所有这些，并不能拿来证明您的政策成功与否。每一次社会动荡之后，人们都会回归于日常劳作。原因再简单不过——他们要活着，而且是为他们自己而活，归根结底，并不是为了这个或那个政治领导人的统治集团。

Not that going to work, doing the shopping, and living their own lives is all that people do. They do much more than that: they commit themselves to numerous output norms which they then fulfill and over-fulfill; they vote as one man and unanimously elect the candidates proposed to them; they are active in various political organizations; they attend meetings and demonstrations; they declare their support for everything they are supposed to. Nowhere can any sign of dissent be seen from anything that the government does.

但除了上班、购物、过自己的生活，他们还会做很多很多事：他们投身于需要不断完成并超越的巨大生产计划；他们行动一致地投票选举某个提名给他们的候选人，就像只有一个人在投票一样；他们活跃于各种政治组织；他们参加会议和游行；他们表达对每一件他们应该支持的事的支持。无论在哪里，政府无论要做什么，都不会有人提出异议。

These facts, of course, are not to be made light of. One must ask seriously, at this point, whether all this does not confirm your success in achieving the tasks your team set itself-those of winning the public’s support and consolidating the situation in the country.

这些事情所展现的，当然不是什么轻松的状况。它让人不禁要认真询问，现在的所有这一切是否还能昭示您的成功？您是否完成了您和您的团队早先确立的任务——赢得公众支持并稳定国家局势？

The answer must depend on what we mean by consolidation.

问题的答案必须建立在对稳定的理解之上。

Insofar as it is to be measured solely by statistical returns of various kinds, by official statements and police accounts of the public’s political involvement, and so forth, then we can hardly feel any doubt that consolidation has been achieved.

如果单靠各式各样的统计数字来衡量，或者靠官方声明和警方对民众参与政治事务的记录之类，我们不难得出结论——统一而团结的稳定已然达到。

But what if we take consolidation to mean something more, a genuine state of mind in society? Supposing we start to inquire about more durable, perhaps subtler and more imponderable, but nonetheless significant factors, such as what, by way of genuine personal, human experience lies hidden behind all the figures? Supposing we ask, for example, what has been done for the moral and spiritual revival of society, for the enhancement of the truly human dimensions of life, for the elevation of man to a higher degree of dignity, for his truly free and authentic assertion in this world? What do we find when we thus turn our attention from the mere outward manifestations to their inner causes and consequences, their connections and meanings, in a word, to that less obvious plane of reality where those manifestations might actually acquire a general human meeting? Can we, even then, consider our society “consolidated”?

但是，如果我们把稳定的含义更推进一步，把它定义为社会中一种真实的精神状态呢？让我们开始考虑那些更为持久，也许还更微妙、更难以捉摸的因素——尽管如此，它们仍是有意义的——譬如，所有这些数字背后，真实的个人到底是何种体验？让我们再问一些问题，例如，对于社会之道德与精神复兴，对于生活中真正人性一面之扩增，我们做了什么？对于将人的尊严提升至一个新的高度，让人更自由更真切地表达他对世界的看法，我们又做了些什么？当我们停止关注那些浅层的外在表现，转而关注其内在诱因与潜在结果，关注这些现象之间的联系与意义，也就是说，如果我们去关注现实的不那么明显的层面，我们能获得什么？在这一层面，说不定可以从那些现象中挖掘出某种普遍的人性特点。至此，我们还能说我们的社会“统一”、“团结”、“稳定”吗？

I make so bold as to answer, No; to assert that, for all the outwardly persuasive facts, inwardly our society, far from being a consolidated one, is, on the contrary, plunging ever deeper into a crisis more dangerous, in some respects, than any we can recall in our recent history.

请容我冒昧作答——不，完全不能。因为所有这些看起来颇具说服力的事实，亦显示出我们社会内部的脆弱。我们的社会远不是一个稳定的存在，恰恰相反，她正陷入一场史无前例的危机。在某些方面，这是一场比我们近代史中所能忆起的任何时候还要严重的危机。

I shall try to justify this assertion.

我会尝试解释我的观点。

The basic question one must ask is this: Why are people in fact behaving in the way they do? Why do they do all these things that, taken together, form the impressive image of a totally united society giving total support to its government? For any unprejudiced observer, the answer is, I think, selfevident: They are driven to it by fear.

首先需要弄清楚一个基本问题：我们的人民到为何表现得如此这般？他们为什么要做那些事情？他们的行为，总体上给人十分深刻的印象——这是一个对政府百分百支持的百分百团结的社会。我想，对于任何不带偏见的观察者来说，答案不言自明：他们被恐惧所驱动。

For fear of losing his job, the schoolteacher teaches things he does not believe; fearing for his future, the pupil repeats them after him; for fear of not being allowed to continue his studies, the young man joins the Youth League and participates in whatever of its activities are necessary; fear that, under the monstrous system of political credits, his son or daughter will not acquire the necessary total of points for enrollment at a school leads the father to take on all manner of responsibilities and “voluntarily” to do everything re~ quired. Fear of the consequences of refusal leads people to take part in elections, to vote for the proposed candidates, and to pretend that they regard such ceremonies as genuine elections; out of fear for their livelihood, position, or prospects, they go to meetings, vote for every resolution they have to, or at least keep silent: it is fear that carries them through humiliating acts of self-criticism and penance and the dishonest filling out of a mass of degrading questionnaires; fear that someone might inform against them prevents them from giving public, and often even private, expression to their true opinions. It is the fear of suffering financial reverses and the effort to better themselves and ingratiate themselves with the authorities that in most cases makes working men put their names to “work commitments”; indeed, the same motives often lie behind the establishment of Socialist Labor Brigades, in the clear realization that their chief function is to be mentioned in the appropriate reports to higher levels. Fear causes people to attend all those official celebrations, demonstrations, and marches: Fear of being prevented from continuing their work leads many scientists and artists to give allegiance to ideas they do not in fact accept, to write things they do not agree with or khow to be false, to join official organizations or to take part in work of whose value they have the lowest opinion, or to distort and mutilate their own works. In the effort to save themselves, many even report others for doing to them what they themselves have been doing to the people they report.

因为害怕丢掉工作，教师讲授自己并不相信的东西；因为担心自己的前途，学生跟着老师重复这些东西；因为害怕无法继续学业，青年人加入共青团并参加组织上要求的活动；因为恐惧在这畸形的庞大政治积分体系中自己的子女达不到入学所需分数，父母承担起五花八门的责任并“志愿”去做被要求的所有事情。因为不敢承受拒绝服从的后果，人们参加选举，投票给安排好的候选人，并且还装作这是一场真正选举的样子；出于对生计、地位或者前程的担忧，它们出席会议，投票赞成每一项决议，或至少保持沉默：正是恐惧让他们甘愿经受自我检讨、深刻忏悔、乃至违背本意地填写大量卑劣调查材料的羞辱；因为恐惧有人告发检举，它们不敢公开地，甚至私下里也不敢，表达自己的真实观点。因为害怕遭受经济条件的倒退，因为只有讨好权势者才能获得提拔，有工作的人只好在“工作承诺”上署上大名——至少大多数情况下是如此；事实上，同样的动机也隐含于“社会主义生产队”的筹建背后，他们清楚地意识到这一组织的主要功能不过是让他们的名字适时地出现在给上层领导的某些报告之中。是恐惧让人们参加所有那些官方庆典、示威游行；因为害怕被停止工作，许多科学家和艺术家不得不对他们实际上并不接受的思想表示爱戴，不得不写一些他们并不赞同乃至明知是错误的话，不得不加入一些官方组织或者接下那些自己十分鄙夷的工作，又或者把自己的作品歪曲、破坏得面目全非。为了保住自己，很多人还去举报他人，理由是被举报者对他们做着恰恰是他们自己正对被举报者所做之事。

The fear I am speaking of is not, of course, to be taken in the ordinary psychological sense as a definite, precise emotion. Most of those we see around us are not quaking like aspen leaves: they wear the faces of confident, self-satisfied citizens. We are concerned with fear in a deeper sense, an ethical sense if you will, namely, the more or less conscious participation in the collective awareness of a permanent and ubiquitous danger; anxiety about what is being, or might be, threatened; becoming gradually used to this threat as a substantive part of the actual world; the increasing degree to which, in an ever more skillful and matter-of-fact way, we go in for various kinds of external adaptation as the only effective method of self defense.

我所说的恐惧，当然不是通常心理学意义上所定义的一种确切情感。我们身边的大部分人并没有像杨树叶一样颤栗不已：他们看起来都是信念坚定、心满意足的样子。我们面对的是一种更深层次的恐惧，毋宁说一种社会伦理层面的恐惧。具体表现为，或多或少地参与到针对某种持久且普遍之危险的集体警觉之中；忧心于正在进行或可能会发生的威胁；逐渐习惯于这种威胁，并把它当作现实世界必然存在的一部分；以一种更为娴熟和世故的方式，越来越多地曲意逢迎，如同只有如此才能自卫一般。

Naturally, fear is not the only building block in the present social structure.

Nonetheless, it is the main, the fundamental material, without which not even that surface uniformity, discipline, and unanimity on which official documents base their assertions about the “consolidated” state of affairs in our country could be attained.

自然，恐惧并非当前社会结构的唯一支撑。然而，它却是最重要、最基本的建筑材料。没有了它，官方文件中判定我国“稳定”状况所依据的表面的团结、纪律、统一也无法达到。

The question arises, of course: What are people actually afraid of? Trials? Torture? Loss of property? Deportations? Executions? Certainly not. The most brutal forms of pressure exerted by the authorities upon the public are, fortunately, past history-at least in our circumstances. Today, oppression takes more subtle and selective forms. And even if political trials do not take place today-everyone knows how the authorities manage to manipulate them-they only represent an extreme threat, while the main thrust has moved inco the sphere of existential pressure. Which, of course, leaves the core of the matter largely unchanged.

接下来我们又不禁想问另一个问题：大家到底在惧怕些什么？审讯？拷打？破财？被驱逐？极刑？当然不是。我们应当庆幸，当局施加于公众最严苛的压力，其实是“过去的历史”——至少现在我们的境况如此。现如今，压迫的形式更为微妙和充满心机。即便政治案件已成为历史——大家十分清楚当局对此如何操纵——那也只是一种极端威胁，而主要推动力早已由生存压力来提供。不难看出，事情的本质并未发生什么改变。

Notoriously, it is not the absolute value of a threat which counts, so much as its relative value. It is not so much what someone objectively loses, as the subjective importance it has for him on the plane on which he lives, with its own scale of values. Thus, if a person today is afraid, say, of losing the chance of working in his own field, this may be a fear equally strong, and productive of the same reactions, as if’-in another historical context-he had been threatened with the confiscation of his property. Indeed, the technique of existential pressure is, in a sense, more universal. For there is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable- Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste and all the special opportunities afforded to the powerful-such as the enjoyment of undisturbed work, advancement and earning power, the ability to work in one’s field, access to higher education-down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens, instead of finding oneself amongst the special class to whom not even those laws which apply to the rest of the public apply, in other words, among the victims of Czechoslovak political apartheid. Yes, everyone has someihing to lose. The humblest workman’s mate can be shifted to an even more lowly and worse-paid job. Even he can be cruelly punished for speaking his mind at a meeting or in the pub.

人人心知肚明，威胁的绝对大小并不重要，其相对大小才更重要。人们客观上失去的并不能说明什么，还要看以他生活水平里的价值尺度来看，可能失去的东西对他具有何种主观意义。因此，举个例子来说，今天某人害怕失去合适工作机会的程度或与其在另外的历史背景下害怕财产被完全充公一样强烈，并且将引发几乎完全相同的反应。实际上，从某种意义上来说，若以生存压力作为武器，几乎无人可以幸免。因为，在我们这个国家，广义来看，没有人的存在是不脆弱的——人人皆有可失去的东西，人人皆有理由忧心。人们可失去的东西范围之广，往高处说，包括统治阶层的种种特权与权势者的特殊便利——例如，可以安心享受无人打扰的工作，轻松获得职位晋升及谋求更多权力，拥有在自己擅长领域工作和接受高等教育的资格；往低处说，包括其他公民得以享受有限法定权利的仅存可能性，而不是成为某特殊群体的一员——对这一群体，连适用于其他公民的律法也不能适用，意即，成为捷克斯洛伐克政治隔离的受害者。是的，人人皆有可失去之物。最卑微的工人还可以被安排去做更为下贱、薪水更少的工作。即使是他也可能因在会议上或小酒馆里说出自己的想法而遭受残酷惩罚。

This system of existential pressure, embracing the whole of society and every individual in it, either as a specific everyday threat or as a general contingency, could not, of course, work effectively if it were not backed up-exactly like the former, more brutal forms of pressure-by its natural hinterland in the power structure, namely, by that force which renders it comprehensive, complex, and robust: the ubiquitous, omnipotent state police.

生存压力系统覆盖了整个社会以及其中的每一个人，它可能作为某种特定的日常威胁出现，也可能是某种不经意的潜在意外，但如果没有人在背后支撑，它的效用将大打折扣——这与历史上某种更残酷的压力形式如出一辙——也就是，我们无处不在，无所不能的国家警察。它们都由其在权力结构中自然而生的隐秘腹地所支持，正是这力量让它们变得如此全面、复杂和难以击破。

For this is the hideous spider whose invisible web runs right through the whole of society; this is the vanishing point where all the lines of fear ultimately intersect; this is the final and irrefutable proof that no citizen can hope to challenge the power of the state. And even if most of the people, most of the time, cannot see this web with their own eyes, nor touch its filaments, even the simplest citizen is well aware of its existence, assumes its silent presence at every moment in every place, and behaves accordingly-behaves, that is, so as to acquit themselves in those hidden eyes and ears. And he knows very well why he must. For the spider can intervene in someone’s life without any need to have him in hisjaws. There is no need at all actually to be interrogated, charged, brought to trial, or sentenced. For one’s superiors are also ensnared in the same web; and at every level where one’s fate is decided, there are people collaborating or forced to collaborate with the state police. Thus, the very fact that the state police can intervene in one’s life at any time, without his having any chance of resisting, suffices to rob his life of some of its naturalness and authenticity and to turn it into a kind of endless dissimulation.

这力量是一只丑恶的蜘蛛，织出一张无形的网，精准覆盖了整个社会；这力量是一个灭点，所有恐惧之线最后都交会于此；这力量是一场无从辩驳的终极力证，证明没有哪位公民可以与国家的力量抗衡。虽然大多数人大多数时候都无法亲眼见到这张网，亦不能触碰其一丝一线，但就连头脑最简单的平民也清楚地知道其存在，并相信它静静地存在于每时每刻、每个角落。于是他们恰如其分地规范着自己的言行，以免激怒那些看不见的眼睛和耳朵。大家十分清楚为什么要这么做。因为这只蜘蛛连嘴都不用动一动就可以扰乱一个人的生活。完全不需要讯问、起诉、庭审，直到宣判的过场。人们的各层上级也被这张巨网网罗；在每一个决定命运的时刻，总会有人自愿或者被迫地站出来与国家警察合作。他们能随时对他的生活横加干涉，而他又毫无反抗的机会，这样的事实已足够夺去人们生活中的部分本真和纯善，并将其转变成一种无止无尽的虚伪逢迎。

If it is fear which lies behind people’s defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.

如果说是恐惧让人们做出自我保护性的举动，是恐惧让他们努力留存个人所有之物，那么，我们也更愿意相信，令他们不择手段地争取还未到手之物的最大冲动则来于他们的自私自利和对名利的勃勃野心。

Seldom in recent times, it seems, has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors’ and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.

近代似乎很少有这样一种社会体系，如此恬不知耻地公然赐予这些人生存空间：给那些只要自己能得到一点好处就心甘情愿支持任何事情的人；给那些为了追名逐利什么都肯做的无原则无骨气之人；给那些可以任意羞辱的拍马天才，他们随时愿意为讨好权势者而放弃身边亲朋乃至自己的尊严。

In view of this, it is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied, more than ever before, by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record; in short, by typical collaborators, men, that is, with a special gift for persuading themselves at every turn that their dirty work is a way of rescuing something, or, at least, of preventing still worse men from stepping into their shoes. Nor is it surprising, in these circumstances, that corruption among public employees of all kinds, their willingness openly to accept bribes for anything and allow themselves shamelessly to be swayed by whatever considerations their private interests and greed dictate, is more widespread than can be recalled during the last decade.

有鉴于此，我们也就不奇怪为什么如此多重要公职都已越来越多地被臭名昭著的名利至上者、机会主义者、花言巧语者和背景可疑的人所占据。总而言之，这些人都是典型的“合作人士”。他们天赋异禀，总能在关键时刻劝服自己，说自己所做的坏事是为了挽救什么东西，或者，至少可以防止更坏的人接替他们。在这样的情形下，出现史上最大规模的公务员腐败也就不足为奇了。他们坦然地接受任何目的的贿赂，寡廉鲜耻地因着自己的私利与贪欲摇摆不定。

The number of people who sincerely believe everything that the official propaganda says and who selflessly support the government’s authority is smaller than it has ever been. But the number of hypocrites rises steadily: up to a point, every citizen is, in fact, forced to be one.

真心实意相信所有官方话语，并且支持政府权威的民众已经减少至史上最少，而口是心非的伪君子的数量却稳步上升——已达到几乎所有人，每个公民，都被迫成为其中之一的程度。

This dispiriting situation has, of course, its logical causes. Seldom in recent times has a regime cared so little for the real attitudes of outwardly loyal citizens or for the sincerity of their statements. It is enough to observe that no one, in the course of all those self-criticisms and acts of penance, really cares whether people mean what they say, or are only considering their own advantages. In fact, one can safely say that the second assumption is made more or less automatically, without anything immoral being seen in this. Indeed, the prospect of personal advantage is used as the main argument in obtaining such statements. For the most part no one tries to convince the penitent that he was in error or acted wrongly, but simply that he must repent in order to save himsel^ At the same time, the benefits he stands to gain are colorfully magnified, while the bitter taste, which will remain after the act of penance, is played down as an illusion.

这一令人伤感的现象自然有其逻辑成因。

And should some eccentric repent in all sincerity and show it, for example, by refusing the appropriate reward on principle, the regime would, in all probability, treat him with suspicion.

In a way, we are all being publicly bribed. If you accept this or that official position at work-not, of course, as a means of serving your colleagues, but of serving the managementyou will be rewarded with such-and-such privileges. If you join the Youth League, you will be given the right and access to such-and-such forms of entertainment. If, as a creative artist, you take part in such-and-such official functions, you will be rewarded with such-and-such genuine creative opportunities. Think what you like in private; as long as you agree in public, refrain from making difficulties, suppress your interest in truth, and silence your conscience, the doors will be wide open to you.

If the principle of outward adaptation is made the keystone to success in society, what sort of human qualities will be encouraged and what sort of people, one may ask, will come to the fore?

Somewhere between the attitude of protecting oneself from the world out of fear, and an aggressive eagerness to conquer the world for one’s own benefit, lies a range of feelings which it would be wrong to overlook, because they, too, play a significant role in forming the moral climate of today’s “united society”: feelings of indifference and everything that goes with them.

It is as though after the shocks of recent history, and the kind of system subsequently established in this country, people had lost all faith in the future, in the possibility of setting public affairs right, in the meaning of a struggle for truth and justice. They shrug off anything that goes beyond their everyday, routine concern for their own livelihood; they seek ways of escape; they succumb to apathy, to indifference toward suprapersonal
values and their fellow men, to spiritual passivity and depression.

And everyone who still tries to resist by, for instance, refusing to adopt the principle of dissimulation as the key to survival, doubting the value of any self-fulFillment purchased at the cost of self-alienation-such a person appears to his ever more indifferent neighbors as an eccentric, a fool, a Don Quixote, and in the end is regarded inevitably with some aversion, like everyone who behaves differently from the rest and in a way which, moreover, threatens to hold up a critical mirror before their eyes. Or, again, those indifferent neighbors may expel such a person from their midst or shun him as required, for appearance’ sake while sympathizing with him in secret or in private, hoping to still their conscience by clandestine approval of someone who acts as they themselves should, but cannot.

Paradoxically, though, this indifference has become an active social force. Is it not plain indifference, rather than fear, that brings many to the voting booth, to meetings, to membership in official organizations? Is not the political support enjoyed by the regime to a large degree simply a matter of routine, of habit, of automatism, of laziness behind which lies nothing but total resignation? Participation in political rituals in which no one believes is pointless, but it does ensure a quiet life-and would it be any less pointless not to participate? One would gain nothing, and lose the quiet life in the bargain.

Most people are loath to spend their days in ceaseless conflict with authority, especially when it can only end in the defeat of the isolated individual. So why not do what is required of you? It costs you nothing, and in time you cease to bother about it. It is not worth a moment’s thought.

Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, conformity to routine performance-which is then quoted as evidence of “mass political involvement” All this goes to make. up the contemporary concept of “normal” behavior-a concept which is, in essence, deeply pessimistic.

The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising inftuence in an “outward” direction, the more his energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, i.e., “inwards:’ People today are preoccupied far more with themselves, their families and their homes. It is there that they find rest, there that they can forget the world’s folly and freely exercise their creative talents. They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort. In short, they turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.

Clearly, this social orientation produces favorable economic results. It encourages improvements in the neglected fields of consumer goods production and public services. It helps to raise the general living standard. Economically, it is a significant source of dynamic energy, capable, at least par tially, of developing society’s material wealth, which the intlexible, bureaucratized, and unproductive state sector of the economy could hardly ever hope to accomplish. (It is enough to compare state and private housing construction as to quantity and quality.)

The authorities welcome and support this spillover of energy into the private sphere.

But why? Because it stimulates economic growth? Certainly, that is one reason. But the whole spirit of current political propaganda and practice, quietly but systematically applauding this “inward” orientation as the very essence of human fulfillment on earth, shows only too clearly why the authorities really welcome this transfer of energy- They see it for what it really is in its psychological origins: an escape from the public sphere. Rightly divining that such surplus energy, if directed “outward,” must sooner or later turn against them-that is, against the particular forms of power they obstinately cling to-they do not hesitate to represent as human life what is really a desperate substitute for living. In the interest of the smooth management of society, then, society’s attention is deliberately diverted from itself, that is, from social concerns. By fixing a person’s whole attention on his mere consumer interests, it is hoped to render him incapable of realizing the increasing extent to which he has been spiritually, politically, and morally violated. Reducing him to a simple vessel for the ideals of a primitive consumer society is intended to turn him into pliable material for complex manipulation. The danger that he might conceive a longing to fulfill some of the immense and unpredictable potential he has as a human being is to be nipped in the bud by imprisoning him within the wretched range of parts he can play as a consumer, subject to the limitations of a centrally directed market.

All the evidence suggests that the authorities are applyiug a method quite adequate for dealing with a creature whose only aim is self-preservation. Seeking the path of least resis~ tance, they completely ignore the price that must be paidthe harsh assault on human integrity, the brutal castration of man’s humanity.

Yet these same authorities obsessively justify themselves with their revolutionary ideology, in which the ideal of man’s total liberation has a central place! But what, in fact, has hap~ pened to the concept of human personality and its manysided, harmonious, and authentic growth? Of man liberated from the clutches of an alienating social machinery, from a mythical hierarchy of values, formalized freedoms, from the dictatorship of property, the fetish and the might of money? What has happened to the idea that people should live in full enjoyment of social and legaljustice, have a creative share in economic and political power, be elevated in human dignity and become truly themselves? Instead of a free share in eco~ nomic decision making, free participation in political life, and free intellectual advancement, all people are actually offered is a chance freely to choose which washing machine or refrig~ erator they want to buy.

In the foreground, then, stands the imposing facade of grand humanistic ideals-and behind it crouches the modest family house of a socialist bourgeois. On the one side, bom~ bastic slogans about the unprecedented increase in every sort of freedom and the unique structural variety of life; on the other, unprecedented drabness and the squalor of life reduced to a hunt for consumer goods.

Somewhere at the top of the hierarchy of pressures by which man is maneuvered into becoming an obedient member of a consumer herd, there stands, as I have hinted, a concealed, omnipotent force: the state police. It is no coincidence, I suppose, that this body should so aptly illustrate the gulf that separates the ideological facade from everyday reality. Anyone who has had the bad luck to experience personally the “working style” of that institution must be highly amused at the official explanation of its purpose. Does anyone really believe that that slimy swarm of thousands of petty informers, professional narks, complex-ridden, sly, envious, malevolent petits bourgeois, and bureaucrats, that malodorous agglomeration of treachery, evasion, fraud, gossip, and intrigue “shows the imprint of the working man, guarding the people’s government and its revolutionary achievements against its enemies’ designs”? For who would be more hostile to a true workers’ government-if everything were not upside downthan your pedit 6ourgeois, always ready to oblige and sticking at nothing, soothing his arthritic self-esteem by informing on his fellow citizens, a creature clearly discernible behind the regular procedures of the secret police as the true spiritual author of their “working style”?

It would be hard to explain this whole grotesque contrast between theory and practice, except as a natural consequence of the real mission of the state police today, which is not to protect the free development of man from any assailants, but to protect the assailants from the threat which any real attempt at man’s free development poses.

The contrast between the revolutionary teachings about the new man and the new morality, and the shoddy concept of life as consumer bliss, raises the question of why the authorities actually cling so tenaciously to their ideology. Clearly, only because their ideology, as a conventionalized system of ritual communications, assures them the appearance of legitimacy, continuity, and consistency, and acts as a screen of prestige for their pragmatic practice.

The actual aims of this practice do, of course, leave their traces on the official ideology at every point. From the bowels of that infinite mountain of ideological rhetoric by which the authorities ceaselessly try to sway people’s minds, and whichas its communication value is nil-the public, for the most part, scarcely notices, there emerges one specific and meaningful message, one realistic piece of advice: “Avoid politics if you can; leave it to us! Just do what we tell you, don’t try to have deep thoughts, and don’t poke your nose into things that don’t concern you! Shut up, do your work, look after yourself-and you’ll be all right!”

This advice is heeded. That people need to make a living is, after all, the one point on which they can rather easily agree with their government. Why not make good use of it, then? Especially as you have no other choice anyway.

Where is the whole situation which I have tried to outline here ultimately leading?

What, in other words, is the effect on people of a system based on fear and apathy, a system that drives everyone into a foxhole of purely material existence and offers him hypocrisy as the main form of communication with society? To what level is a society reduced by a policy where the only aim is superficial order and general obedience, regardless of by what means and at what price they have been gained?

It needs little imagination to see that such a situation can only lead toward the gradual erosion of all moral standards, the breakdown of all criteria of decency, and the widespread destruction of confidence in the meaning of values such as truth, adherence to principles, sincerity, altruism, dignity, and honor. Amidst a demoralization “in depth,” stemming from the loss of hope and the loss of the belief that life has a meaning, life must sink to a biological, vegetable level. It can but confront us once more with that tragic aspect of man’s status in modern technological civilization marked by a declining awareness of the absolute, and which I propose to call a “crisis of human identity.” For how can the collapse of man’s identity be slowed down by a system that so harshly requires a man to be something other than he is?

Order has been established. At the price of a paralysis of the spirit, a deadening of the heart, and devastation of life. Surface “consolidation” has been achieved. At the price of

a spiritual and moral crisis in society.

Unfortunately, the worst feature of this crisis is that it keeps deepening. We only need to raise our sights a little above our limited daily perspective in order to realize with horror how hastily we are all abandoning positions which only yesterday we refused to desert. What social conscience only yesterday regarded as improper is today casually excused; tomorrow it will eventually be thought natural, and the day after be held up as a model of behavior. What yesterday we declared impossible, or at least averred we would never get accustomed to, today we accept, without astonishment, as a fact of life. And, conversely, things that a little while ago we took for granted we now treat as exceptional: and soon-who knowswe might think of them as unattainable chimeras.

The changes in our assessment of the “natural” and the “normal,” the shifts in moral attitudes in our society over the past few years have been greater than they might appear at first glance. As our insensitivity has increased, so naturally has our ability to discern that insensitivity declined.

The malady has spread, as it were, from the fruit and the foliage to the trunk and roots. The most serious grounds for alarm, then, are the prospects which the present state of affairs opens up for the future.

The main route by which society is inwardly enlarged, enriched, and cultivated is that of coming to know itself in ever greater depth, range, and subtlety.

The main instrument of society’s self-knowledge is its culture: culture as a specific field of human activity, influencing the general state of mind-albeit often very indirectly-and at the same time continually subject to its influence.

Where total control over society completely suppresses its differentiated inner development, the first thing to be suppressed regularly is its culture: notjust “automatically,” as a phenomenon intrinsically opposed to the “spirit” of manipulation, but as a matter of deliberate “programming” inspired byjustified anxiety that society be alerted to the extent of its own subjugation through. that culture which gives it its selfawareness. It is culture that enables a society to enlarge its liberty and to discover truth-so what appeal can it have for the authorities who are basically concerned with suppressing such values? They recognize only one kind of truth: the kind they need at the given moment. And only one kind of liberty: to proclaim that “truth.”

A world where “truth” flourishes not in a dialectic climate of genuine knowledge but in a climate of power interests is a world of mental sterility, petrified dogmas, rigid and unchangeable creeds leading inevitably to creedless despotism.

This is a world of prohibitions and limitations and of orders, a world where cultural policy means primarily the operations of the cultural police force.

Much has been said and written about the peculiar degree of devastation which our present-day culture has reached: about the hundreds of prohibited books and authors and the dozens of liquidated periodicals; about the carving up of publishers’ projects and theatre repertoires and the cutting off of all contact with ihe intellectual community; about the plundering of exhibition halls; about the grotesque range of per secution and discrimination practiced in this field; about the breaking up of all the former artistic associations and countless scholarly institutes and their replacement by dummies run by little gangs of aggressive fanatics, notorious careerists, incorrigible cowards, and incompetent upstarts anxious to seize their opportunity in the general void. Rather than describe all these things again, I will offer some reflections on those deeper aspects of this state of affairs which are germane to the subject of my letter.

In the first place, however bad the present situation, it still does not mean that culture has ceased to exist altogether. Plays are put on, television programs go out every day, and even books get published. But this overt and legal cultural activity, taken as a whole, exhibits one basic feature: an overall externalization due to its being estranged in large measure from its proper substance through its total emasculation as an instrument of human, and, therefore of social, self-awareness. And whenever something of incontestably excellent value does appear-a superb dramatic performance, let us say, to stay in the sphere of art-then it appears, rather, as a phenomenon to be tolerated because of its subtlety and refinement, and hence, from an official point of view, its relative innocuousness as a contribution to social self-awareness. Yet even here, no sooner does that contribution begin to be at all keenly perceived than the
authorities start instinctively to defend themselves: there are familiar instances where a good actor was banned, by and large, simply for being too good.

But that is not what concerns me at this point. What inter ests me is how this externalization works in fields where it is possible to describe the human experience of the world far more explicitly and where the function of promoting social self-awareness is, thus, far more manifestly fulfilled.

For example, suppose a literary work, a play perhaps, um deniably skillful, suggestive, ingenious, meaningful, is published (it does happen from time to time). Whatever the other qualities of the work may be, of one thing we may always be perfectly certain: whether through censorship or selfcensorship, because of the writer’s character or his selfdeception, as a consequence of resignation or of calculation, it will never stray one inch beyond the taboos of a banal, conventional and, hence, basically fraudulent social consciousness that offers and accepts as genuine experience the mere appearance of experience-a concatenation of smooth, hackneyed, superficial trivia of experience; that is, pallid reflections of such aspects of experience as the social consciousness has long since adopted and domesticated. Despite, or rather, because of this fact, there will always be people who find such a work entertaining, exciting, and interesting, although it sheds no light, offers no flash of real knowledge in the sense that it reveals something unknown, expresses something unsaid, or provides new, spontaneous, and effective evidence of things hitherto only guessed at. In short, by imitating the real world, such a work in fact, falsifies the real world. As regards the actual forms this externalization takes, it is no accident that the vat most frequently tapped should be the one which, thanks to its proven harmlessness, enjoys the warmest approval of the authorities in our country, whether bourgeois or proletarian. I refer to the aesthetics of banality, safely housed within the four walls of genial petit bourgeois morality; the sentimental philosophy of kitchen-sink, country-bumpkin earthiness, and the provincial conception of the world based on the belief in its general goodness. I refer to the aesthetic doctrine whose keystone is the cult of right-thinking mediocrity, bedded in hoary national selfsatisfaction, guided by the principle that everything must be slick, trivial, and predigested, and culminating in that false optimism which puts the basest interpretation on the dictum that “truth will prevail.”

Of works designed to give literary expression to the government’s political ideology, there is today-as you must be aware-an extreme scarcity, and those few are clearly, by professional standards, bad ones. This is not merely because there is no one to write them, but also, I am sure, paradoxical as it may appear, because they would not be particularly welcome. For, from the standpoint of actual contemporary attitudes (those of the consumer society, that is), even if such works were available, were professionally competent, and attracted somebody’s interest, they would divert too much attention “outwards,” rub salt into too many old wounds, provokethrough their general and radical political character-too much general and radical political reaction, thus stirring up too many pools that are meant to be left as stagnant as possible. Far more suitable to the real interests of the authorities today is what I have called the aesthetics of banality, which misses the truth much more inconspicuously, acceptably, and plausibly, and (since it is far more digestible for the conventional mind) is far more suited to the role accorded to culture in the consumer philosophy: not to excite people with the truth, but to reassure them with lies.

This kind of artistic output, of course, has always predominated. But in our country, there had always been some chinks at least through which works of art that could truthfully be said to convey a more genuine kind of human self-wareness reached the public. The road for such works was never particularly smooth. They met resistance not only from the authorities, but from the easygoing inertia of conventional attitudes as well. Yet until recently they had always managed in some mysterious way, by devious paths and seldom without delay, to get through to the individual and to society, and so to fulfill the role of culture as the agent of social self-awareness.

This is all that really matters. This is precisely what I take to be really important. And it is also precisely this that the present government-arguably for the first time since the age of our national revival-has managed to render almost completely impossible, so total is the present system of bureaucratic control of culture, so perfect the surveillance of every chink through which some major work might see the light of day, so greatly does that little band of men, who hold the keys to every door in their own pockets, fear the government and fear art.

You will, of course, appreciate that I am speaking at this moment not of the indexes, listing the names of all creative artists subject to a total or partial ban, but of a much worse list-of that “blank index” which includes, a priori, everything which might contain the spark of a slightly original thought, a perceptive insight, deeper sincerity, an unusual idea, or a suggestive form; I am speaking of that open warrant for the arrest of anything inwardly free and, therefore, in the deepest sense “cultural,” I am speaking of the warrant against culrixre issued by your government.

Once more the question which I have been posing from the start arises. What does it all really mean? Where is it leading? What is it going to do to society?

Once more, I take a particular case. Most of the former cultural periodicals, as we know, have ceased to appear in our country. If any have survived, they have been so made to conform to official policy that they are hardly worth taking seriously.

What has been the effect of that?

At first glance, practically none. The wheels of society continue to go round even without all those literary, artistic, theatrical, philosophical, historical, and other magazines whose number, even while they existed, may never have filled the latent needs of society, but which nevertheless were around and played their part. How many people today still miss those publications? Only the few tens of thousands of people who subscribed to them-a very small fraction of society.

Yet this loss is infinitely deeper and more significant than might appear from the numbers involved. Its real implica~ tionš are again, of course, hidden, and can hardly be assessed precisely.

The forcible liquidation of such a journal-a theoretical review concerned with the theatre, say-is notjust an impoverishment of its particular readers. It is not even merely a severe blow to theatrical culture. It is simultaneously, and above all, the liquidation of a particular organ through which society becomes aware of itself and hence it is an interference, hard to describe in exact terms, in the complex system of circulation, exchange, and conversion of nutrients that maintain life in that manydayered organism which is society today. It is a blow against the natural dynamic of the pro~ cesses going on within that organism; a disturbance of the balanced interplay of all its many functions, an interplay reflecting the level of complexity reached by society’s anatomy. And just as the chronic deficiency of a vitamin (amounting in quantitative terms only to a negligible fraction of the human diet) can make a person ill, so, in the long run, the loss of a single periodical can cause ihe social organism far more damage than would appear at first sight. And what if the loss involves notjust one periodical, but virtually all?

It is easy to show that the real importance of knowledge, thought, and creation is not limited, in the stratified world of a civilized society,. to the
significance these things have for the particular circle of people who are primarily, directly and, as it were, physically involved with them, either actively or passively. This is always a small group, especially in the sciences. Yet the knowledge in question, conveyed through however many intermediaries, may in the end profoundly affect the whole society,just as politics, including the nuclear threat, physically concerns each one of us, even though most of us have had no experience of the speculations in theoretical physics which led to the manufacture of the atom bomb. That the same holds for nonspecific knowledge is shown by many historic instances of an unprecedented cultural, political, and moral upsurge throughout society, where the original nucleus of crystallization, the catalyst, was an act of social selfawareness carried out, and indeed directly and “physically” perceived, only by a small and exclusive circle. Even subsequently, that act may have remained outside the apperception of society at large, yet it was still an indispensable condition of its upsurge. For we never know when some inconspicuous spark of knowledge, struck within range of the few brain cells, as it were, specially adapted for the organism’s self awareness, may suddenly light up the road for the whole of society, without society ever realizing, perhaps, how it came to see the road. But that is far from being the whole story. For even those other countless flashes of knowledge which never illuminate the path ahead for society as a whole have their deep social importance, if only through the mere fact that they happened; that they might have cast light; that in their very occurrence they fulfilled a certain range of society’s potentialities-either its creative powers, or simply its liberties; they, too, help to make and maintain a climate of civilization without which none of the more illuminating flashes could ever occur.

In short, the space within which spiritual self-awareness operates is indivisible; the cutting of a single thread must injure the coherence of the whole network, and this itself showed the remarkable interdependence of all those fine processes in the social organism that I spoke of, the transcendent importance of each one of them, and hence the transcendent destructiveness wrought by its disruption.

I would not wish to reduce everything to this single and still relatively minor aspect of the problem. Still, does it not in itself confirm the deeply injurious intluence on the general spiritual and moral state of society which the “warrant against culture” already has and will have in future, even though its immediate impact is only on a limited number of heads?

If not a single new Czech novel, of which one could safely say that it enlarges our experience of the world, has appeared in recent years in the bookshops, this will certainly have no public effect. Readers are not going to demonstrate in the streets and, in the end, you can always find something to read. But who will dare assess the real significance of this fact for Czech society? Who knows how the gap will affect the spiritual and moral climate of the years to come? How far will it weaken our ability to know ourselves? How deeply will such an absence of cultural self-knowledge brand those whose selfknowing begins only today or tomorrow? What mounds of mystification, slowly forming in the general cultural consciousness, will need to be chipped away? How far back will one need to go? Who can tell which peopte will still find the strength to light new fires of truth, when, how, and from what resources, once there has been such thorough wastage not only of the fuel, but of the very feeling that it can be done?

A few novels of the kind absent from the bookshops do nevertheless exist: they circulate in manuscript. In this respect, the situation is not yet hopeless: it follows from everything I have said that if such a novel, over the years, remained unknown to all but twenty people, the fact of its existence would stilt be important. It means something that there is such a book, that it could be written at all, that it is alive in at least one tiny area of the cultural consciousness. But what about the fields in which it is impossible to work, except through the so-called legal channels? How can one estimate the damage already done, and still to be done, by the strangling of every interesting development in the stage and cinema, whose role as social stimuli is so specific? How much greater still may be the long-term effect of the vacuum in the humanities and in the theory and practice of the social sciences? Who dares measure the consequences of the violent interruption of the long processes of self-knowledge in ontology, ethics, and historiography, dependent as they are on access to the normal circulation of information, ideas, discoveries, and values, the public crystallization of attitudes?

The overall question, then, is this: What profound intellectual and moral impotence will the nation suffer tomorrow, following the castration of its culture today?

I fear that the baneful effects on society will outlast by many years the particular political interests that gave rise to them. So much more guilty, in the eyes of history, are those who have sacrificed the country’s spiritual future for the sake of their present power interests.

Just as the constant increase of entropy is the basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to be ever more highly structured and to struggle against entropy.

Life rebels against all uniformity and leveling; its aim is not sameness, but variety, the restlessness of transcendence, the adventure of novelty and rebellion against the status quo. An essential condition for its enhancement is the secret constantly made manifest.

On the other hand, the essence of authority (whose aim is reduced to protecting its own permanence by forcibly imposing the uniformity of perpetual consent) consists basically in a distrust of all variety, uniqueness, and transcendence; in an aversion to everything unknown, impalpable, and currently obscure; in a proclivity for the uniform, the identical, and the inert; in deep affection for the status quo. In it, the mechanical spirit prevails over the vital. The order it strives for is no frank quest for ever higher forms of social self-organization, equivalent to its evolving complexity of structure, but, on the contrary, a decline toward that “state of maximum probability” representing the climax of entropy. Following the direction of entropy, it goes against the direction of life.

In a person’s life, as we know, there is a moment when the complexity of structure begins suddenly to decline and his path turns in the direction of entropy. This is the moment when he, too, succumbs to the general law of the universe: the moment of death.

Somewhere at the bottom of every political authority which has chosen the path to entropy (and would like to treat the individual as a computer into which any program can be fed with the assurance that he will carry it out), there lies hidden the death principle. There is an odor of death even in the notion of “order” which such an authority puts into practice and which sees every manifestation of genuine life, every ex~ ceptional deed, individual expression, thought, every unusual idea or wish, as a red light signaling confusion, chaos, and anarchy.

The entire political practice of the present regime, as I have tried to outline it here step by step, confirms that those con cepts which were always crucial for its program-order, calm, consolidation, “guiding the nation out of its crisis,” “halting disruption,” “assuaging hot tempers” and so on-have finally acquired the same lethal meaning that they have for every regime committed to entropy.

True enough, order prevails: a bureaucratic order of gray monotony that stifles all individuality; of mechanical precision that suppresses everything of unique quality; of musty inertia
that excludes the transcendent. What prevails is order without life.

True enough, the country is calm. Calm as a morgue or a grave, would you not say?

In a society which is really alive, something is always happen ing. The interplay of current activities and events, of overt and concealed movement, produces a constant succession of unique situations which provoke further and fresh move~ ment. The mysterious, vital polarity of the continuous and the changing, the regular and the random, the foreseen and the unexpected, has its effect in the time dimension and is borne out in the flow of events. The more highly structured the life of a society, the more highly structured its time dimension, and the more prominent the element of uniqueness and unrepeatability within the time flow. This, in turn, of course, makes it easier to reflect its sequential character, to represent it, that is, as an irreversible stream of noninterchangeable situations, and so, in retrospect, to understand better whatever is governed by regular laws in society. The richer the life society lives, then, the better it perceives the dimension of social time, the dimension of history.

In other words, wherever there is room for social activity, room is created for a social memory as well. Any society that is alive is a society with a history.

If the element of continuity and causality is so vitally linked in history with the element of unrepeatabidity and unpredicb ability, we may well ask how true history-that inextinguishable source of “chaos,” fountainhead of unrest, and slap in the face to law and order-can ever exist in a world ruled by an “entropic” regime.

The answer is plain: it cannot. And, indeed, it does noton the surface, anyway. Under such a regime, the elimination of life in the proper sense brings social time to a halt, so that history disappears from its purview.

In our own country, too, one has the impression that for some time there has been no history. Slowly but surely, we are losing the sense of time. We begin to forget what happened when, what came earlier and what later, and the feeling that it really doesri t matter overwhelms us. As uniqueness disappears from the flow of events, so does continuity; everything merges into the single gray image of one and the same cycle and we say, “There is nothing happening-” Here, too, a deadly order has been imposed: all activity is completely organized and so completely deadened. The deadening of the sense of unfolding time in society inevitably kills it in private life as well. No longer backed by social history or the history of the individual within it, private life declines to a prehistoric level where time derives its only rhythm from such events as birth, marriage, and death.

The loss of the sense of social time seems, in every way, to cast society back into the primeval state where, for thousands of years, humanity could get no further in measuring it than by the cosmic and climatic pattern of endlessly repeated annual seasons and the religious rites associated with them.

The gap left by the disquieting dimension of history has, naturally, to be filled. So the disorder of real history is replaced by the orderliness of pseudo-history, whose author is not the life of society, but an official planner. Instead of events, we are offered nonevents; we live from anniversary to anniversary, from celebration to celebration, from parade to parade, from a unanimous congress to unanimous elections and back again; from a Press Day to an Artillery Day, and vice versa. It is no coincidence that, thanks to this substitution for history, we are able to review everything that is happening in society, past and future, by simply glancing at the calendar. And the notoriously Familiar character of the recurrent ritu als makes such information quite as adequate as if we had been present at the events themselves.

What we have, then, is perfect order-but at the cost of reverting to prehistory. Even so, we must enter a caveat: whereas for our ancestors the repeated rituals always had a deep existential meaning, for us they are merely a routine performed for its own sake. The government keeps them going to maintain the impression that history is moving. The public goes through the motions to keep out of trouble.

An “entropic” regime has one means of increasing the general entropy within its own sphere of influence, namely, by tightening its own central control, rendering itself more mon olithic, and enclosing society in a straitjacket of onedimensional manipulation. But with every step it takes in this direction, it inevitably increases its own entropy too.

In an effort to immobilize the world, it immobilizes itself, undermining its own ability to cope with anything new or to resist the natural currents of life. The “entropic” regime is, thus, doomed to become the victim of its own lethal principle, and the most vulnerable victim at that, thanks to the absence of any impulse within its own structure that could, as it were, make it face up to itsel^ Life, by contrast, with its irrepressible urge to oppose entropy, is able all the more successfully and inventively to resist being violated, the faster the violating authority succumbs to its own sclerosis.

In trying to paralyze life, then, the authorities paralyze themselves and, in the long run, make themselves incapable of paralyzing life.

In other words, life may be subjected to a prolonged and thorough process of violation, enfeeblement, and anesthesia. Yet, in the end, it cannot be permanently halted. Albeit quietly, covertly, and slowly, it nevertheless goes on. Though it be estranged from itself a thousand times, it always manages in some way to recuperate; however violently ravished, it always survives, in the end, the power which ravished it. It cannot be otherwise, in view of the profoundly ambivalent nature of every “entropič’ authority, which can only suppress life if there is life to suppress and so, in the last resort, depends for its own existence on life, whereas life in no way depends on it. The only force that can truly destroy life on our planet is the force which knows no compromise: the universal validity of the second law of thermodynamics.

If life cannot be destroyed for good, then neither can history be brought entirely to a halt. A secret streamlet trickles on beneath the heavy cover of inertia and pseudo-events, slowly and inconspicuously undercutting it. It may be a long process, but one day it must happen: the cover will no longer hold and will start to crack.

This is the moment when once more something visibly begins to happen, something truly new and unique, something unscheduled in the official calendar of “happenings,” something that makes us no longer indifferent to what occurs and when-something truly historic, in the sense that history again demands to be heard.

But how, in our particular circumstances, could it come about that history “demands to be heard”? What does such a prospect really imply?

I am neither historian nor prophet, yet there are some observations touching on the structure of these “momentš’ which one cannot avoid making.

Where there is, in some degree, open competition for power as the only real guarantee of public control over its exercise and, in the last resort, the only guarantee of free speech, the political authorities must willy-nilly participate in some kind of permanent and overt dialogue with the life of society. They are forced continually to wrestle with all kinds of questions which life puts to them. Where no such competition exists and freedom of speech is, therefore, of necessity sooner or later suppressed-as is the case with every “entropic” regime-the authorities, instead of adapting themselves to life, try to adapt life to themselves. Instead of coping openly and continually with real conflicts, demands, and issues, they simply draw a veil over them. Yet somewhere under this cover,
these contlicts and demands continue, grow, and multiply, only to burst forth when the moment arrives when the cover can no longer hold them down. This is the moment when the dead weight of inertia crumbles and history steps out again into the arena.

And what happens after that?

The authorities are certainly still strong enough to prevent those vital conflicts from issuing in the shape of open discussion or open rivalry for power. But they have no longer the strength to resist this pressure altogether. So life vents itself where it can-in the secret corridors of power, where it can insist on secret discussion and finally on secret competition. For this, of course, the authorities are unprepared: any substantive dialogue with life is outside their range of competence. So they panic. Life sows confusion in their council chambers in the shape of personal quarrels, intrigues, pitfalls, and confrontations. It even infects, as it were, their own representatives: the death mask of impersonality that their officials wore to confirm their identity with the monolith of power is suddenly dropped, revealing live people competing for power in the most “human” way and struggling in selFdefense, one against the other. This is the notorious moment for palace revolutions and putsches, for sudden and outwardly mystifying changes of portfolio and changes of key points in set speeches, the moment when real or construed conspiracies and secret centers are revealed, the moment when real or imaginary crimes are made known and ancient guilt unearthed, the moment for mutual dismissals from office, mutual denigration, and perhaps even arrests and trials. Whereas before every man in authority had spoken the same language, used the same clichés, applauded the successful fulfillment of the same targets, now suddenly the monolith of power breaks down into distinguishable persons, still speaking the same language, but using it to make personal attacks on one another. And we learn with astonishment that some of them-those, that is, who lost in the secret struggle for power-had never taken their targets seriously and never successfully fulfilled themfar from it-whereas others-the winners-had really meant what they said and are alone capable of achieving their aims.

The more rational the construction of the official calendar of nonevents over the years, the more irrational the effect of a sudden irruption of genuine history. All its lorig-suppressed elements of unrepeatability, uniqueness, and incalculability, all its long-denied mysteries, come rushing through the breach. Where for years we had been denied the slightest, most ordinary surprise, life is now one huge surprise-and it is well worth it. The whole disorderliness of history, concealed under artificial order for years, suddenly spurts out.

How well we know all this! How often we have witnessed it in our part of the world! The machine that worked for years to apparent perfection, faultlessly, without a hitch, falls apart overnight. The system that seemed likely to reign unchanged, world without end, since nothing could call its power in question amid all those unanimous votes and elections, is shattered without warning. And, to our amazement, we find that nothing was the way we had thought it was.

The moment when such a tornado whirls through the musty edifice of petrified power structures is, of course, far from beingjust a source of amusement for all of us who are outside the ramparts of authority. For we, too, are always involved, albeit indirectly. Is it not the quiet perennial pressure of life, the ceaselessly resisted, but finally irresistible demands and interests of all society, its conflicts and its tensions, which ever and again spoke the foundations of power? No wonder society continually reawakens at such moments, attaches itself to them, receives them with great alertness, gets excited by them, and seeks to exploit them! In almost every case, such tremors provoke hopes or fears of one kind or another, create-or seem to create-scope for the realization of life’s various impulses and ambitions, and accelerate all kinds of movements within society.

Yet, in almost every case, it is equally true that this situation, owing to the basically unnatural structure of the kind of confrontation with life which such shakeups of power bring about, carries with it many incalculable risks.

I shall try to illuminate further one such risk.

If every day someone takes orders in silence from an incompetent superior, if every day he solemnly performs ritual acts which he privately finds ridiculous, if he unhesitatingly gives answers to questionnaires which are contrary to his real opinions and is prepared to deny himself in public, if he sees no difficulty in feigning sympathy or even affection where, in fact, he feels only indifference or aversion, it still does not mean that he has entirely lost the use of one of the basic human senses, namely, the sense of dignity.

On the contrary: even if they never speak of it, people have a very acute appreciation of the price they have paid for outward peace and quiet: the permanent humiliation of their human dignity. The less direct resistance they put up to itcomforting themselves by driving it from their mind and deceiving themselves with the thought that it is of no account, or else simply gritting their teeth-the deeper the experience etches itself into their emotional memory. The man who can resist humiliation can quickly forget it; but the man who can long tolerate it must long remember it. In actual fact, then, nothing remains forgotten. All the fear one has endured, the dissimulation one has been forced into, all the painful and degrading buffoonery, and, worst of all, perhaps, the feeling of having displayed one’s cowardice-all this settles and accumulates somewhere in the bottom of our social consciousness, quietly fermenting.

Clearly, this is no healthy situation. Left untreated, the abscesses suppurate; the pus cannot escape from the body, and the malady spreads throughout the organism. The natural human emotion is denied the process of objectivi2ation and instead, caged up over long periods in the emotional memory, is gradually deformed into a sick cramp, into a toxic substance not unlike the carbon monoxide produced by incomplete combustion.

No wonder, then, that when the crust cracks and the lava of life rolls out, there appear not only well-considered attempts to rectify old wrongs, not only searchings for truth and For reforms matching life’s needs, but also symptoms of bilious hatred, vengeful wrath, and a feverish desire for immediate compensation for all the degradation endured. (The impulsive and often wayward forms of this desire may also spring largely from a vague impression that the whole outbreak has come too late, at a time when it has lost its meaning, having no longer any immediate motive and so carrying no immediate risk, when it is actually just an ersatz for something that should have happened in quite a different context.)

No wonder, again, that the men in power, accustomed for years to absolute agreement, unanimous and unreserved support, and a total unity of total pretense, are so shocked by the upsurge of suppressed feelings at such a moment that they feel exposed to such an unheard-of threat and, in this mood (assuming themselves to be the sole guarantors of the world’s survival), detect such an unprecedented threat to the rest of the world, too, that they do not hesitate to call upon millions of foreign soldiers to save both themselves and the world.

We experienced one such explosion not long ago. Those who had spent years humiliating and insulting people and were then so shocked when those people tried to raise their own voices, now label the whole episode an “outbreak of passions.” And what, pray, were the passions that broke out? Those who know what protracted and thoroughgoing humiliations had preceded the explosion, and who understand the psycho-social mechanics of the subsequent reaction to them should be more su
rprised at the relatively calm, objective and, indeed, loyal form which the explosion took. Yet, as everyone knows, we had to pay a cruel price for that moment of truth.

The authorities in power today are profoundly different from those who ruled prior to that recent explosion. Not only because the latter were, so to speak, “originals” and their successors a mere formalized imitation, incapable of refiecting the extent to which the “originals” had meanwhile lost their mystique, but primarily for another reason.

For whereas the earlier version rested on a genuine and not inconsiderable social basis derived from the trustful support accorded, though in declining measure, by one part of the population, and on the equally genuine and considerable attractiveness (which also gradually evaporated) of the social benefits it originally promised, today’s regime rests solely on the ruling minority’s instinct for self preservation and on the fear of the ruled majority.

In these circumstances, it is hard to foresee all the feasible scenarios for a future “moment of truth”: to foresee how such a complex and undisguised degradation of the whole of society might one day demand restitution. And it is quite impossible to estimate the scope and depth of the tragic consequences which such a moment might inflict, perhaps must inflict, on our two nations.

In this context, it is amazing that a government which advertises itselF as the most scientific on record is unable to grasp the elementary rules of its own operations or to learn from its own past.

I have made it clear that I have no fear of life in Czechoslovakia coming to a halt, or of history being suspended forever with the accession to power of the present leaders. Every situation in history and every epoch have been succeeded by a fresh situation and a new epoch, and for better or worse, the new ones have always been quite remote from the expectations of the organizers and rulers of the preceding period.

What I am afraid of is something else. The whole of this letter is concerned, in fact, with what I really fear-the pointlessly harsh and long-lasting consequences which the present violent abuses will have for our nations. I fear the price we are all bound to pay for the drastic suppression of history, the cruel and needless banishmenc of life into the underground of society and the depths of the human soul, the new compulsory deferment of every opportunity for society to live in anything like a natural way. And perhaps it is apparent from what I wrote a little way back that I am not only worried about our current payments in terms of everyday bitterness at the spoliation of society and human degradation, or about the heavy tax we shall have to pay in the long-lasting spiritual and moral decline of society. I am also concerned with the scarcely calculable surcharge which may be imposed on us when the moment next arrives for life and history to demand their due.

The degree of responsibility a political leader bears for the condition of his country must always vary and, obviously, can never be absolute. He never rules alone, and so some portion of responsibility rests on those who surround him. No country exists in a vacuum, so its policies are in some way always influenced by those of other countries. Clearly the previous rulers always have much to answer for, since it was their policies which predetermined the present situation. The public, too, has much to answer for, both individually, through the daily personal decisions of each responsible human being which went to create the total state of affairs, or collectively, as a socio-historic whole, limited by circumstances and in its turn limiting those circumstances.

Despite these qualifications, which naturally apply in our current situation as in any other, your responsibility as a political leader is still a great one. You help to determine the climate in which we all have to live and can therefore directly influence the final size of the bill our society will be paying for today’s process of consolidation.

The Czechs and Slovaks, like any other nation, harbor within themselves simultaneously the most disparate potentialities. We have had, still have, and will continue to have our heroes, and, equally, our informers and traitors. We are capable of unleashing our imagination and creativity, of rising spiritually and morally to unexpected heights, of fighting for the truth and sacrificing ourselves for others.

But it lies in us equally to succumb to total apathy, to take no interest in anything but our bellies, and to spend our time tripping one another up. And though human souls are far from being mere pint pots that anything can be poured into (note the arrogant implications of that dreadful phrase so frequent in official speeches, when it is complained that “we”-that is, “the government”-find that such-and-such ideas are being instilled into people’s heads), it depends, nevertheless, very much on the leaders which of these contrary tendencies that slumber in society will be mobilized, which set of potentialities will be given the chance of fulftllment, and which will be suppressed.

So far, it is the worst in us which is being systematically activated and enlarged-egotism, hypocrisy, indifference, cowardice, fear, resignation, and the desire to escape every personal responsibility, regardless of the general consequences.

Yet even today’s national leadership has the opportunity to influence society by its policies in such a way as to encourage not the worse side of us, but the better.

So far, you and your government have chosen the easy way out for yourselves, and the most dangerous road for society: the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances; of deadening life for the sake of increasing uniformity; of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power.

Yet, even within the given limitations, you have the chance to do much toward at least a relative improvement of the situation. This might be a more strenuous and less gratifying way, whose benefits would not be immediately obvious and which would meet with resistance here and there. But in the light of our society’s true interests and prospects, this way would be vastly the more meaningful one.

As a citizen of this country, I hereby request, openly and publicly, that you and the leading representatives of the present regime consider seriously the matters to which I have tríed to draw your attention, that you assess in their light the degree of your historic responsibility, and act accordingly.

April 1975

©2011 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 已经有5条评论了 | 推荐到豆瓣

今天一位朋友推荐我看这个奥巴马的“周报”，一下就觉得非常自惭形秽。连美国总统都需要每周给全国人民做周报，我一个小小公司职员怎么还好意思在写周报的时候有怨言。

请看：

（看不到？点这里。）

这个周报还很用心，为什么很用心呢？因为奥巴马的英语已经讲得这么清晰标准了，还要为我们提供字幕。最后为了方便海内外各路粉丝，还提供了高清下载….

既然奥先生每周都要做周报，那这周又有什么特别的？为什么我要单单拿出这一次的周报不辞辛劳做出双语字幕给大家呢？第一，因为这是我第一次知道有这个东西；第二，其实是我那朋友建议我做的… =。=

据说，这周的这段视频也是特别打动美国人，短短5分钟，奥巴马总结了这周财政预算通过的经过，并解释了自己所谓“平衡提案”为何物，还十分真诚地请民众到网上查看自己的税赋去路。

中国的纳税人早就开始羡慕西方国家的财政预算公开，而现在每位美国公民都可以在白宫官网上输入纳税额，获知每一份税收的去处，得到政府的对您的贡税的“收据”。为了给国民信心，绝对的公开透明越来越有必要。因为你既然减了我的福利，我自然不免怀疑剩下来的钱是否会进入利益集团的腰包。但白宫这个“收据”也确实挺形式化的，无非按联邦政府的财政预算的比例乘一下你的纳税额，甚至只需要我们WD来开发……(^o^) 。

不过在中国，则不需要这种作秀，因为有些事情，总是毋庸置疑的。即使我们看不到清楚的预算和财政报表，我们也相信政府把钱真的用到了我们相信他们会用到的地方。因为中国的“民主集中制”是最先进最美好最适合中国国情的制度，我们是真正“权利在民”的国家。我们国家的主权在民，很好地保障着我们的人权。如果没有这种主权，我们肯定会丢失自个儿的人权。而美国那些东西都是虚伪的，是资本家拿来骗无知平民的。即使他们的总统在电视讲话上宣称“我这样的人不需要减税”，那也是因为他已经通过其他渠道掠夺了民众很多财产。为了巩固自己的统治，必然要说一些冠冕堂皇的话。哼哼，在这一点上，可是全世界都一样，天下乌鸦一般黑呢。

©2011 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 已经有2条评论了 | 推荐到豆瓣

转发者按：

转发这篇文章有两个原因。一是本博客实在很久没有更新了（博主都干嘛去了？）；二是此文的作者还算是博主的一个熟人，写得么，也还不错…… 我觉得应该让更多的人看到。请各位读者根据文章所述，自行反思一下，自己是否已经被物化为机器，然后再对照我之前写的这篇文章，想想自己接下来的生活要怎么过…

好吧，我检举揭发自己，上面那种很讨打的调调是向原文作者学的。其实我觉得，这种唧唧歪歪，喜欢对他人指指点点的人本身也是平庸人士的一种。其平庸之最根本在于，他的大部分想法是想当然的，是一个人躲在小黑屋里瞎想出来的，是没有经过田野调查的，是没有接受与他人思维直接碰撞的锤炼的。牛逼人士与准牛逼人士的差别就在于他们对现实、对人民的热爱是否足够深沉 与真心。当然，思路要放开，想法要独立，这是根本。最最最重要的，要勇于思考、热爱思考。

把根子理清、理顺

按：

“曾经多少次跌倒在路上，多少次折断过翅膀，

如今已不再感到彷徨，超越平凡的欲望；

我想要怒放的生命，就像飞翔在辽阔天空，就像穿行在无边的旷野，拥有挣脱一切的力量。

曾经多少次失去了方向，多少次磨灭了梦想；

如今已不再感到迷茫，要生命得到解放；

我想要怒放的生命，就想矗立在彩虹之巅，就像穿行在最灿烂星河，拥有超越平庸的力量。”

一个人始终是难以摆脱一些东西的束缚。第一，既得利益是束缚人的一道大门，它，往往决定了那些不用自己‘心灵思考问题’的人的行为路径与人生杯具，也有‘屁股决定脑袋’一说。第二，无意识经验所形成的潜意识的束缚，这一点潜移默化而且深刻的影响你。它来源于a你小时候的家庭（经历）环境（贫寒、富裕、锻炼、溺爱、单亲、健全、民主、暴力、多子女、单子女等等你不能控制的外界‘强加’经历，而同时又是你的无意识经历，因为你无法识别、无法控制、无法思辨，在无意识时期的孩童）；来源于b学校的启蒙教育（什么样的老师方法、什么样同学经验等等）；来源于c社会大环境对你的互相对象化，以及你的社会大环境化。因此在反思时候，先把这样束缚你的根根上的东西理顺，再来谈其他。否则，根子不理顺，干什么都有‘既得物’的束缚与烙印，干什么都会有既定的未超越的局限。什么‘打通’、‘救赎’都难以谈起。当然，我并没说这不正常。“一切已死的先辈们（历史）的‘传统’，像梦魇一样纠缠着活人的头脑。”所以精神分析学派才频频说，“孩童时期的无意识经验，是日后人格特征与心理障碍的根源”。呵呵，扯远了。

当今社会也许需要很多这样的人，他们一方面觉得自己是自主的，并且认为自己是有所谓‘主见’与所谓‘规则’的；但另外一方面，他们又习惯于接受别人的命令与社会的操弄，心甘情愿地被纳入社会这部大机器中，规规矩矩听人摆布，自愿服从令他感到‘尊敬’的领导的盲目指挥。“现代社会只希望人保留一种作为人的一个主动性——那就是他们拼命的为他们连自己都搞不清楚原因的事情全力的工作、充分发挥自己的技术去追求“修齐治平”与出人头地。设定的各项目标诸如当富商、当官员、当教授等等，连自己都不知道为什么要这样做，这样做又是为了什么？”

其结果就是，现代人与自身、与其他人、与自然之间的关系被异化了。人、人格变成了一种可以进行交易的商品，宝贵的、人的真正的生命力在被掩盖后（能体会吗？）只不过沦为一笔资本（一定要弄清楚这里，资本的涵义），这样而言，在这些人眼中，人与人的关系在本质上是陌生的，是一群可以自由行动的机器之间的关系而已。早在50年前的欧洲就有人这样指出“哪怕这类人谈所谓的恋爱，也永远不能实现真正的内心的生命力、爱的结合，他们的相敬如宾只是为了使对方感到满意，以及让别人觉得他们还可以；他们极端的‘如胶似漆’只不过是互相的某种占有欲（色、利、名等）得以实现。是的，仅此而已。”

人‘被’安排重复而刻板的机械化工作，这种千篇一律的、周而复始的工作习惯，让人们忽视内心追求的创造性。当仅凭这些还不够。因此，人们就不得不通过娱乐工业提供的音乐、图片，为人们提供所谓的大规模的“精神享乐”，以及通过不断地商品性的、物质性的刺激去掩盖、去淡漠心中那无法回避的无奈。在这样的情况下，凤姐芙蓉姐脑残物质女等人物及其相关节目等等不仅不会减少，而且会以几何级数增加。《美丽新世界》中早就对今人的生活做出过描述“营养充分、穿戴讲究，性欲得到满足，但却没有真正的自我，与周围的其他人的接触只停留在表面，从不深入内心。”“一些人心中‘幸福’，就是享受，就是满足消费，就是和同一群人保持没有原因的简单一致。”以此，来规避自己不想面对的、也没有面对的东西，那东西又是什么呢？

那么这种背后真的东西，本质在哪里呢？没有情感的血缘只不过如同清水，没有爱情的性-交只不过如同畜生的本能，没有心灵交换的友情只不过是利益的畸形交换。在经常被提及的，所谓物质化的、物欲横流的、物质男女频频闪现以至于泛滥的时代，有什么特点呢？资本控制劳动力，没有生命的东西的价值高于有生命的意义；也就是，资本原则统治‘人’本身，统治人与人、人与社会的一切关系。物质与利益或者意识化了的物质与利益，对于没有灵魂的人，就如同得了蜱虫病的狗身上的脓包一样，难以摆脱。老王说，‘人不能在自己创造的对象中迷失自己’就是这个意思，但是有些人在别人创造的对象中迷失，岂不是更可悲？有一种‘非人非生命’的物质利益资本的东西，掩盖人心中真正的‘人’的特性与品质，并且胁迫和统治一个作为有生命的人的行为，岂不是既悲哀可恨又活该可怜。

什么叫做让他们开始思考？聪明的人满街都是，但是他们的聪明只限于：想与他们的物质利益（化）相关的事情，连自己的内心都不能够涉及。因此在这里，聪明几乎是一个贬义词。当他们比关心自己的物质利益那样还要关心自己的心灵的时候，也许就是开始学会思考的起步。敢于思考、鼓励思考、善于思考，让思考成为生活的重要一部分，这是多么美妙的事情。实际上，“聚精会神的冥思是灵魂在活跃的运转，是‘生命力’积极行动的最高境界，只有那些内心真正自主、人格真正独立的人才会具有这样的境界。”诚如‘爱’就是一种积极行动，人自己的真正的人格力量的运用，这种力量只有在自由自主状态才能得到发挥，而且永远不是强制的产物。

……

在当下的虚无与浮躁中，你寻找到了失落，还是探悟到了信仰？别在一次又一次的极其纵欲的物质刺激 与 强演欢笑的装逼装神 中，去躲避、掩盖自己心中那尚未觉醒的深刻的悲凉和绝望~

……

我想起了《悲惨世界》中，让·瓦让对小警察讲的最后一句话：“你什么时候明白过？”（此句杀伤力极大，这哥们儿极其生猛，哈哈一条好汉！）。在让·瓦让死去的时候，作者这样讲道：“他，将幸福的死去，因为，他，真正的活过！”

……

“我深信，愿意学习的人，一定会像孩子学会走路一样找到自己的信仰；我也深信，每一个人都有实现自己的权利，只要他不放弃作为一个真正的人的资格。”

请原文作者见到此文后联系本人索取稿费。

©2010 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

与大家共勉：

1. 人活着是为了什么？

失去对终极问题的追问，人类的存在就和普通动物无异了。要减少将来后悔的几率，就需要事先想清楚自己为什么而活。如果等到四五十岁才发现自己以前做的都是没有意义的，就太悲剧了。在我看来，人活着是为了体验人生，是为了享受活着的过程，因为人总归是要一死的。在结果都一样的情况下，过程就尤为重要。造物主创造的世界如此神奇，人的生存就是将这种神奇最大程度地发挥利用，并让未来人类的生存更加“神奇”！

2. 你想成为什么样的人？

对于这个问题，不应该有一个具体的参照目标。“XXX一样的人…”这样的答案不合适。你应该为自己列一系列形容词，或者具体的状态描述。比如“对社会有用”、“博学”、“知足常乐”、“引领潮流”… 想一想哪几个形容词对你最重要，哪一类描述最无愧于你的存活于世？

3. 这个社会到底是什么样子？

每个人都对自己存活的环境有一定理解，但其现状究竟如何，其本质是什么，其中的运作规律是怎样，这些你又都知道么？社会的发展变化极为迅速，你如何去理解她的变化，是否要跟随，也应该成为考虑的问题。这个社会错综复杂，人性的机巧灵活令人称奇，世上有太多你无法预料的事，请小心自己的眼光，尽量做出独立、中立的判断。

4. 你为何而奋斗？

青年人活着，完全不奋斗，那是不可能。在你做出努力前，你应该想清楚，你是为了什么而努力？她有利于完善你的人生吗？她符合你第二问的答案吗？“努力”的定义很宽泛，任何一种有目标的行动都可以看作是“努力”。她耗费你的时间和精力，消耗着你短暂的人生。甚至，“思考一件事值不值得奋斗”也是一种“努力”，一场“奋斗”。像我写这篇文章也是一种“努力”的行为。我对这行为的解释是，这篇文章能帮助整理我的思路，也可能启发读者你，这些对我都是有意义的。

————————

很想听听你的答案。

©2010 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 已经有10条评论了 | 推荐到豆瓣

这是一篇受密码保护的文章。您需要提供访问密码：

密码：

©2010 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 已经有5条评论了 | 推荐到豆瓣

香港首富李嘉诚率”李嘉诚基金会西部教育计划”访问团一行在青海大学考察，当青海大学负责人谈到校园网络建设需要资金800万元时，这一超常规的数字使李嘉诚说：”要我马上拿一个亿，我面不改色，但谁要在地上丢一元钱，我会马上拣起来。”

根据材料请回答：

(1)李嘉诚这段话所蕴涵的哲理是什么？简述相关原理。

(2)运用有关原理品评李嘉诚这段话，并指出给我们的启示。

—————-——————————————

好像还是高考复习题（这个地址在和谐版的股沟的网页快照中打不开）。

于是更加无语。我不得不说我们的命题老师很有才。

这种题不是网上炒作的雷人小学语文试卷，是实实在在的大学生试题！课程名字叫《马克思主义基本原理概论》。

我还能怎么答呢？考虑到老师划重点的时候说了质量互变规律会考论述题。所以我也答的这个。不过除了一亿和一元这个差异，我实在看不出这里没的逻辑和(同一个事物的)量变飞跃到质变有关。这不瞎鸡巴扯淡么？李嘉诚当时说这话时可能想到这些鸡巴哲理了么？

另据考证，李嘉诚的原话是“如果要我拿出一个亿来作投资，我会毫不犹豫地拿出来，但如果要我在地上扔一分钱，那我同样也要把它捡起来，我的成功也正在于此”。哼，哼哼，连是不是在青海大学说的都还得打个问号呢。还他妈“面不改色”呢…… 作为一个关注投资的商人，要他投一亿给你贪污，不改色才怪！

第二个问题，他让我“品评”这段话，还说一点启示。我能有什么启示呢？关键的“投资”一词被略去了，在出题者臆想的这个情境中，正常的理解只可能有一种——李嘉诚先生很热心公益，很关心教育事业。于是我只能说“李嘉诚先生是我们的榜样，我们应该像他学习（，以后成了首富一样拿一亿来整校园网。首先要整的就是川农校园网！）” 。括号内的是没有答在试卷上的（我还不想挂科）。让老子在体会出什么破哲理，简直就是强人所难嘛。

附上参考答案（一字未改）：

(1)李嘉诚这段话所蕴涵的哲理就是量变和质变的关系；内因是事物发展的动力和源泉。唯物辩证法认为，量变引起质变，质变以量的积累为前提，当量变达到一定程度，突破事物的度，就产生质变。唯物辩证法还认为，事物的发展有内因和外因，外因作为外部条件对事物的发展起加速或延缓的作用，而不起决定作用，只有内因才是事物发展的最终动力和源泉，才起决定作用。

(2)量变引起质变。一亿元是个庞大的数字，但却是由一亿个一元钱积累而成。如果没有一元钱一元钱的积累，就不会有一亿元的财富。李嘉诚的财富就是靠一点一滴的努力和奋斗得来的。此外，内因是事物发展的动力和源泉，外因是事物发展的条件。李嘉诚的致富不是靠外来的施舍得来的，而是靠自身艰苦奋斗的结果。更难能可贵的是他仍然保持富后有个平常人的心态，不忘创业的艰辛，珍视已有的财富，反对铺张浪费。可以预测，他仍将取得更大的财富。

我操，最后一句话，太欠扁了。

明天母亲节。希望这些出题的mother fucker们能歇息一天。

啊，最后投递一条新闻：浙大男生被富家子飙车撞飞空中翻滚若干来回后惨死

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

看到横幅前一段的时候，内心直接产生一种抵制情绪，看到后面突然发现原来五四已经90周年了！于是忍不住指着横幅向身边的同学大吼“五四运动已经90周年了诶！”。

看吧，五四运动倒成了共青团纪念日的附属了。90周年居然还不能打败87周年！

昨晚寝室夜谈的时候，TC同学还说以前初中的时候五四运动都还要搞纪念活动，有文艺汇演什么的，上高中以后反而没有了。我也依稀记得我初中经历过的唯一一次学校组织的文娱表演，好像就是为纪念五四搞的。当时要放长假，所以在五一前给搞完了。（那个啥…. 我是乡坝头的娃娃…… 囧 ）

前年五四的时候，在网上看了一些文章，才开始真正思考起五四的意义来。五四运动的核心是什么？狭义的五四运动是指1919年由学生主导的抗议北洋政府在巴黎和会的懦弱表现的爱国运动。广义的五四运动是指1915年起，中国知识界发动的以除旧革新为核心的新文化运动。

现在当局正在弱化五四运动，或者说，至少在弱化五四运动精神的某一部分。爱国主义是得被利用起来的。暴力对抗政府的方式是我们不想看到的。我们已经是最先进了的，没必要再除旧革新。

是吧，一切都很好理解……

啊~ 一想到这周六要考马克思我就头大…… 潘坤讲得再好，我对这个不感兴趣又能怎样啦！~ 疯掉~ 囧。这句话好娘。

今天的动感超哥报：

【动感超哥报No.44 纪念日提醒】今天是5月4日，是中国的青年节、日本的黄金周和北大的校庆日。象征着除旧革新、反对强权和爱国主义的五四运动90周年了。同时今天也是康熙皇帝、奥黛丽·赫本、马加爵、汪精卫、唐国强、赫胥黎、陈键锋的诞辰。井冈山会师、撒切尔夫人上任、北大建校、九三学社成立、共青团成立都是在历史上的今天发生。

顺便提一下，想要下载全部英国达人的同学，如果有用IPv6的话，可以到东北大学的BT站——六维空间去找一下我发布的种子。

啊…… 突然想起超哥报里面居然都没有提到1869年5月四日，法国传教士吉恩·皮埃尔·阿曼德·戴维在中国四川雅安宝兴县首次捉到野生大熊猫。可惜鸟~

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

估计根据这个噱头进去观影的后勤公司的保安大叔和食堂大婶们会大呼上当受骗。

虽然这部片子和菜头用cos小资体万番调侃，我还是要说，好片，真的是好片。

以前决定看原版的时候其实挣扎了老半天，真开始看后，又没有看完。第一感觉是，神叨叨的。然后看豆瓣上有人形容它“太磨叽了”，顿时觉得十分贴切。

终极版出来后，还是决定看一下吧，因为毕竟是公认的经典，况且某人还特别喜欢，没有看完始终是点遗憾。今天下午强忍着感冒的不适，连续看完了。看完之后电脑前已经摆满了擤过鼻涕的卫生纸……（哈哈，和以前看完porn，电脑前满是擦过JY的卫生纸的情景实在是有莫大的对比讽刺效果）

此次重看终极版，可能因为是720P的缘故，可能因为经过了数码修复，一开场我就觉得，这画面怎么这么漂亮。片头做得真他妈的好。可以列为我看过的电影的最美片头TOP 10。演员名一个个列出来，我靠，大卡司啊~ 以前我怎么没发现啊……于是就觉得自己真的很老土了……

OK，回到影片本身上来，今次我要图文并茂一下。

我喜欢这一条一条的纹路……

这个笼子和阳光形成的光影，在那么一瞬间让我震撼住了。

亲爱的调色盘，你是否可以帮我作画？

看到这种酒碗的时候，我就想起我还有很多画没有画啊。我都找不到合适的调色盘诶~~

接下来公布一个穿帮镜头。在林青霞（话说我一度以为她是张曼玉…… 啊，我真的很老土！）摸张国荣的时候，前一秒钟张国荣都还是有胡子的！

有胡子很性感

当时我还说，这胡子好性感…… 摸了几个来回之后，胡子没了！

没胡子我一样性感

好吧，我承认张国荣的蚊帐衣服让我想起high fashion

哦…… 性感地想摸一摸...

影片终了之时，胡子又出现了~~ 哦也~

甩个正面再摸一下

都说画面很漂亮了

好吧。完了。观影体会？没有……  我就一大俗人一个，要我写，真写不出来……

话说林青霞独白的那段戏蛮感人的。送上当时的配乐：

[media id=2 width=480 height=320]

OK, Ending Q&A:

其实，整部片我有两次笑场，你能猜得出来分别是在哪里吗？

妈的，鼻子一直淫水四溢，我看得找什么东西把它日两火，让它高潮了它才肯歇息……

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

当时我觉得，这敢情好啊，很有意义的一个活动，要环保嘛。本来平时都该节约用电的，有个统一的活动提醒一下大家，蛮好。

不过，今天在Q群里收到这样一条消息，晕菜了：

同志们，最近美国所谓的环保组织发起“地球一小时”的关灯活动， 大家千万别响应啊，因为2009年3月28日晚上8：00——9：30正好是中央 电视1台并机在全球播出的庆祝西藏百万农奴解放50周年文艺晚会，很明 显，这个时候，所谓的环保分子发起的“地球一小时”，阴谋大家可想而 知，“地球一小时”这个活动，为什么这次偏偏在这个时候提出，而且为 什么是中央电台公布的这个晚会后，才在中国传播？时间真那么巧合吗？请大家关注我们国家的命运和历史的真相，观看今晚的晚会！

这群爱国青年，什么东西都能给扯到政治上去。首先，“地球一小时”是世界自然基金会澳洲组织发起的活动，不是美国的“所谓”环保组织。以前高中的时候我们外教的父亲就为WWF工作， 她还给我们讲他父亲的一些事迹，所以我从来就对这个组织很是向往。然后，“地球一小时”07年就已经举行过第一次了，当时就确定举办时间是每年3月的最后一个星期六。今年的“地球一小时”将有82个国家超过2100个城市参与进来。如果真如脑残们所说，美国人就应该是提前两年就预料到今天我们有这样一场晚会，然后跑到澳洲去策划这个活动，接着再发动全球半数以上的国家参与进来。这么大阵仗，就是为了让部分我朝人民不去看敬爱的CCTV的一档主旋律晚会？

这个理由忒扯淡了。

另外有人说，活动举行的时候用电量这样陡升陡降我们的电网承受不了。这还不算太扯淡。可是，“地球一小时”只提倡“关掉不必要的电灯和耗电设施”，我想也没人脑残到在那一个小时里完全什么电都不用，干坐着过原始人生活。而且就算再怎么宣传，也不会所有人都参与进来吧？07年发起城市悉尼省电量是2.2%至10.2%，远远小于我国电网能够承受的60%左右的峰谷差（这个数值是我推算的，也许不准确，但并不影响论证结果。via：电力调峰方式及其存在的问题）。如果电网真的会出问题，那么07年，08年的时候为什么没有人发现？反而09年还把活动更进一步地推广开来了？难道外国电网就比中国的电网更耐折腾一点？

还可以设想一种情况，如果某处电线突然断落，电路下游的用电量突然就为0了，是不是也会造成用电量的陡然变化？上游电路会因此发生事故吗？也许会…… 不过广大聪明的科技工作者应该有对这种情况采取措施的吧？

当然，就算可以折腾，也并不代表应该折腾。这种用电量的陡增陡减确实会给电网造成一定影响——国家也一直提倡“错峰用电”。所以当时看到这个活动的时候我就没往心里去，也没想到时候就真响应号召，关掉室内的灯，然后去逛公园什么的。还是照着自己平时的用电习惯和当时的需求来。我自认为一直都挺懂得节约的。

我的理解是，这个活动的重点是并不是集体关灯的这个过程，而是希望能够唤起大家的环保意识，让大家看到：诶哟，这些不必要的破灯关掉后我的生活也没有什么不方便嘛，并且还能省这么多钱（保守估算09年的活动中，仅联合国大厦关灯一小时即可节约102美元）。可是有些人脑子就是简单，千方百计要挑“集体关灯”这一行动的毛病。如果你觉得这种形式主义的做法脑残，还是先问问自己平时有没有节约用电吧！

这样一个主旨是“唤醒人们节约能源意识”的活动，前几年没有中国参与进来的时候搞得好好的，中国一参与进来，就有人闹民族情绪了，就要从很简单的一个破事上看出政治深意来。没有深意他还要给你造出一个深意来。而真正需要你深刻认识的东西呢，你又视而不见，觉得没有意义。

另外有人觉得这样的“行为艺术”是形式主义，起不了多大的作用，喜欢浪费的人还是会继续浪费下去。可是，正是这样统一的行动，能够让这些人意识到，浪费是不对的，让他们不再那么心安理得。而另外有些人可能根本没有意识到浪费问题，没有想过要节约用电，这样的活动过后，他们肯定是会有些想法的。

呵呵，很简单一个活动，左愤右愤都看它不过，WWF还真是不得民心。

几十年的政治训练，让中国人学会了把一切问题都上纲上线。

每日一歌，陈奕迅《今天只做一件事》。歌曲文件比较大，可能需要缓冲久一点。

[media id=1 width=320 height=240]

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

以及http://blog.benhuoer.com/2008/10/super-brother-is-sending-sm-to-you-2/

【动感超哥报】是本人利用中移动的飞信业务推出的一款免费的手机报服务。每周不定期为您送上天下大事，超哥精选时事新闻点评，纪念日提醒，电影及音乐推荐等信息…

如有兴趣订阅，请发送“DY CGB”给+86 15892680644。等待我人工验证通过，您就可以享受本服务了。

或者您也可以直接添加手机号15892680644为飞信好友，并且留言告知您想订阅超哥报。

【动感超哥报No.39 心情和天气一样冷】貌似最近全国各地普遍较冷。气温在近期会回升吧？大家注意增添衣物。近期两会上政协委员央视煽情系主持人倪萍挎着LV包包，提案立法禁 止“山寨文化”。被问到山寨手机很便宜，几百元就可以买一个时，倪萍说：“垃圾也便宜，你捡吗？咱们不能这样，有时总要付出一点代价，是不是？”超哥曰： 你帮我付代价我就支持你。

【动感超哥报No.39 偶然冒泡才让人惊喜】某北外女生在腾讯博客（也就是Qzone）上发文批评教育部的外语强制教育制度，文章炒热之后，突然爆出她被北外劝退了，无比冤屈地说自己是因言获罪。大家觉得可信度高不？事实上，也有北外校友指出该女生实为炒作，她本来就因为“签约经纪公司”自己提出了退学。超哥倾向于相信北外没那么恶心。不管哪一方说的是真的，这个事情都展示了中国人的瞎折腾才干。

【动感超哥报 No.40 国际消息 | 超哥决定放弃作践自己】朝鲜宣布将于4月4日至8日期间试射卫星火箭，但美日韩怀疑发射的是洲际导弹。美国方面宣布不会拦截导弹，除非威胁到美国国土。日本部署了“爱国者”拦截。三方联合派出舰艇进行威慑。如果朝鲜真的发送的是导弹？清明节后亚太局势将如何变化？我们拭目以待…… |超哥觉得，朝鲜啥也发不出来… 囧。

【动感超哥报 No.41 愚人节?】广电总局日前发出通知，禁止网上传播未取得许可证的影视作品。这意味着美剧、韩剧、日剧、港剧、台湾偶像剧，绝大部分都不应该出现在我们的视野。你说这些人是不是闲得蛋疼啊？这样的通知有任何可操作性么？|成都作家谭作人因为倡议公民自发调查，并编写5·12死难学生档案，被以“涉嫌颠覆国家政权罪”拘留。5·12究竟死了多少人？现在也没有官方公布的具体的实际数字。

【动感超哥报No.42 艺术时间】彼得·埃森曼是20世纪下半叶最重要的建筑师和建筑理论家之一，生于1932年，康奈尔的学士，哥大的硕士，剑桥的博士。目前任教于耶鲁大学。纽约五人组之一，被认为是解构主义大师，他把住宅当成一个自主的、可拆分的、抽象的序列，著名作品包括弗兰克住宅，威克斯那艺术中心，歐洲被害猶太人紀念碑，哥伦布会议中心，阿诺夫艺术与设计中心等。

【动感超哥报No.43 纪念日提醒】今天是4月27日，莫尔斯电码发明者萨缪尔·莫尔斯（1791-1872.4.2）的诞辰。Google为此专门推出由莫斯电码的长线短点组成的纪念LOGO。今天会上网的同学可以登陆Google主页看一下。同时今天也是蒋经国的诞辰和麦哲伦的忌日。05年的今天是载客量最大的客机空中巴士A380的首航日。

【动感超哥报No.44 纪念日提醒】今天是5月4日，是中国的青年节、日本的黄金周和北大的校庆日。象征着除旧革新、反对强权和爱国主义的五四运动90周年了。同时今天也是康熙皇帝、奥黛丽·赫本、马加爵、汪精卫、唐国强、赫胥黎、陈键锋的诞辰。井冈山会师、撒切尔夫人上任、北大建校、九三学社成立、共青团成立都是在历史上的今天发生。

【动感超哥报No.45】重庆市长薄熙来日前向重庆市大学生发送“红色短信”，内容是毛主席语录，作为“红色短信创作传播大赛”的启动仪式。| 09年“超女”变身快乐女声继续登台，海选阶段不会上卫视，节目播出时间推到晚10点半，增加公益环节和按选手品行打分。| 猪流感死亡率在1%-1.5%之间，还是比较安全的哇？| 强力推荐选秀节目《英国达人》 | 各位晚安！

【动感超哥报No.46 纪念日提醒】今天是世界红十字日，同时也是红十字会创始人琼·亨利·杜兰诞辰以及邓丽君逝世九周年纪念日。1886年的今天可口可乐第一次发售。去年的今天奥运火炬珠峰登顶。今天出生的名人还有美国总统杜鲁门、历史学家顾颉刚、国民党立法委员邱毅。逝世的还有文学家福拜楼福楼拜，画家保罗·高更，化学家拉瓦锡（都是法国的）。后天母亲节，在这里也提前提醒一下。

———————

超哥报的读者们是怎么回事，这么大的错误都没发现。95年到09年，应该是14周年啊……  最近算术太差咯

【动感超哥报No.46 Plus】应陈经纬同学之邀，特出邓丽君先生大姐特刊。邓丽君1953年生，14岁时推出首张唱片《凤阳花鼓》，70年代初赴日本发展，取得极大成功，成为在日本发展最好的外国歌手之一。文革后邓丽君的歌传入大陆，广受欢迎。但因为政治倾向，始终未能完成在大陆开演唱会的心愿。她曾说“我回大陆演唱的一天，就是三民主义统一中国的一天”。95年不幸死于哮喘。

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣

下面做一个小小的批注，说明一下自己的译法。然后把原文中有用的写作技巧找出来，对大家应该会有帮助。

以下内容，绿色部分代表不太好猜到意思的部分，紫色部分代表生词或不熟悉的——也就是你自己写作文不会想起要用的单词，蓝色部分代表重点词组和用法（有可能会被出到完形填空的），粗体部分代表很有用的用法，将来写作时可以直接套用的，中括号内的代表长难句（对理解文章意思很重要）。

是不是有点眼花缭乱啊？？我自己都要昏了。没关系，慢慢来嘛！

Yes, More Mr. Nice Guy

是的，我们需要更多好好先生

———————————-

Not quite seven weeks into Barack Obama‘s presidency, the capital’s leading thinkers seem to agree that the era of postpartisanship is over. Obama’s team made little secret of their intention to win broad support for his stimulus plan – an effort that yielded three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. The president’s pick for the Commerce Department, Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, turned down the job, citing his personal opposition to the bill. According to E. J. Dionne Jr. of  The Washington Post, Obama himself, speaking to a group of columnists aboard Air Force One, suggested that in the future, he would approach Republicans with more wariness. “You know, I am an eternal optimist,” the president said. “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”

巴拉克·奥巴马上任不过七周，他的智囊团国会的领先主导思想家（leading thingker）们似乎已然承认“跨党派分歧”时代“后党派时代”（超越党派分歧的时代）的结束。奥巴马团队为其经济刺激方案争取广泛支持的意图明显路人皆知，但他们的努力只在参议院换来三张共和党支持票，而在众议院一无所获。总统钦点的商务部长，参议员贾德·格雷格（Judd Gregg），一位来自新罕布什尔州的共和党员，拒绝了这项工作就任，并声称原因之一是他个人反对奥巴马的方案。 根据《华盛顿邮报》记者E. J. 迪翁（E. J. Dionne Jr.) 的报道，奥巴马本人，在空军一号上对一群专栏作家说，将来他会更加审慎地着手处理(approach)与共和党人的关系。”大家知道，我是个永恒的乐天派，”总统说，” 但这并不代表我是个傻蛋。”

【词汇】
postpartisanship post-前缀 ，…之后，partisanship，party的衍生词，党派观念；党派观念滞后，超越党派观念，跨党派分歧
yielded 动词yield，产出，收获…；勉强交出；让步，承认：I yield to no one in my admiration for (ie am one of the greatest admirers of) her work. 我比任何人都佩服她的工作.
make little secrect of 不掩饰。这个短语的意思很明显。This phrase makes little secrect of itselfe.
the Senate，参议院；the House，the House of Representatives的缩写，众议院
turn down 拒绝，让某人失望
cite 引用，原句中表达了“他个人的反对是拒绝部长职位的原因之一 ”这层意思。
approach 靠近，开始处理  wariness 名词，谨慎；固定搭配：with wariness
sap 俚语，傻瓜。原意是“植物的汁液”，引申含义“元气，精力”

【翻译心得】
sap我译成了“傻蛋”，更具俚语特征。the capital’s leading thinkers 受译言上的推荐者影响，最开始理解成了奥巴马的智囊团。实际上应该指国会政治人物中所有党派的领先思考家占主导地位的政策考虑者（感谢译言网友“小水爸爸”提醒），因为不论党内党外都认为奥巴马的团结策略是失败的。make little secrect of 的含义要准确而不动声色地译出十分困难。“路人皆知”是我觉得比较接近的译法，只是好像与原文有一点语气上的差异。

“是个傻蛋”，删掉中间的“个”，行文更加简洁，语气得到加强，也更符合中文语言习惯

———————————-

Such talk acted like a shot of adrenaline to the stilled hearts of liberal bloggers and columnists who had feared that Obama might squander a chance to stomp on his bewildered opposition. So much energy has been spent berating the idea of bipartisanship, in fact, that no one has stopped to ask what Obama means by it. As the political scientist James Morone recently pointed out on The Times’s Op-Ed page, legislative bipartisanship, in the sense of two-party unity behind a single agenda, has never really existed.[1]【 The presidents we tend to immortalize hardly managed to transcend party politics; their greatness grew from their willingness to articulate arguments that were calibrated to be divisive.】 Franklin Roosevelt infuriated generations of conservatives who reviled his concept of expansive government. Ronald Reagan‘s passionate counterargument made him an enduring enemy to the left.

此番言论就像给开明的(?)博客作者和专栏作家们缺乏动静的内心打了一剂肾上腺素。此前，他们一度担心奥巴马会错失将骚动的对手踩在脚下的良机。两党合作的想法被不遗余力地痛斥，事实上，也一直有人在不断质问奥巴马，这样做究竟是作何考虑。正如政治学者詹姆斯·马龙（James Morone ）在《时报》的特稿专页上所说，立法上的两党合作，若是企图通过在一个简单的日程表内实现两党联合而达到，是从不可能真正实现的。那些我们愿意让他永垂不朽的总统都尝试过超越党派间的政治分歧；他们希望道破那些被我们修正到使我们分裂的争端，而这些希望使他们的形象更加伟大。那些我们认为是永垂不朽的总统，几乎从未尝试过超越党派分歧；而正是随时准备展现自己辩论风采的热切意愿让他们的伟大形象更加熠熠发光。他们论证时用词精准，每一句话都被认真调节到足以引起分裂的程度。富兰克林·罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）让几代保守派气急败坏，他们咒骂他把政府扩大化的怪想法 扩张政府的理念让几代保守派气急败坏，破口大骂。罗纳德·里根（Ronald Reagan）的激情抗辩让他成为左派的长期敌人。

【词汇】
a shot of 一管针剂    adrenaline [ə'drenəlin] 肾上腺素
squander / ˈskwɔndə(r); ˋskwɑndɚ/v. 浪费（时间、金钱、机会、感情…）。这个词比waste高级多了吧，哇咔咔？
stomp / stɔmp; stɑmp/ v. (infml 口) move, walk, dance, etc with a heavy step (in the specified direction)
bewildered /bɪˈwɪldəd US -ərd/ adj. totally confused    动词bewilder，使混乱，使迷惑
berating 原词berate / bɪˈreɪt; bɪˋret/ v [Tn] (fml 文) scold sharply 严厉责备; 痛斥.
means by it means经常和by it联系起来用
Op-Ed page Op-Ed是形容词，也可以不必大写首字母，词源是opposite (the) editorial [社论背面]。美国英语特有词。美国报纸的署名评论版一般在社论所在版面的背面。社论代表报纸立场，署名评论只代表作者观点。
legislative /ˈledʒɪslətɪv US -leɪtɪv/ 与立法相关的。动词legislate，立法。
in the sense of 从…的意义上说
immortalize also immortalise BrE /ɪˈmɔːtəlaɪz US -ɔːr-/ 使不朽
articulate 用词准确的，发音清晰的
calibrate 校准（仪器刻度）
divisive 引起分歧的，divide + active。
infuriate / ɪnˈfjuərɪeɪt; ɪnˋfjʊrɪˏet/  使大怒
conservative 保守的，保守者
revile 咒骂
counterargument 反争辩，couner- 前缀，表示“回应reaction”，“相对的opposite”，“配对的matching”
enduring 持续的，长期的

【难句】

[1]【 The presidents we tend to immortalize hardly managed to transcend party politics; their greatness grew from their willingness to articulate arguments that were calibrated to be divisive.】
那些我们认为是永垂不朽的总统，几乎从未尝试过超越党派分歧；而正是随时准备展现自己辩论风采的热切意愿让他们的伟大形象更加熠熠发光。他们论证时用词精准，每一句话都被认真调节调校到足以引起分裂的程度。

我的翻译比较冗长，因为我觉得只有这样才能表达清楚原文的意思。也许还有更简洁的译法，我想不出来。最开始我没有注意到那个hardly，结果整个段落都理解错误，搞得我还认为作者的逻辑禁不起推敲。

这个句子的前半部分还比较好理解，难点就在那个hardly，可不要把它看做是immortalize的修饰语。“竭尽全力使其不朽”算怎么回事？后半部分只要能准确断句，也不难理解。正确的语素关系应该是： their greatness grew| from their willingness [to articulate arguments (that were calibrated to be divisive)]。N重嵌套的修饰语在中文实在少见，翻译的时候十分困难。如果大家觉得还有更好的译法，请留言告知。

【翻译心得】

“扩张政府的理念让几代保守派气急败坏，破口大骂”的译法是我力求翻译腔的尝试。

———————————-

This doesn’t mean, though, that our politics have not fundamentally changed over the last few decades. Roosevelt and his Republican critics had profound disagreements, but both sides understood that their dispute was ideological rather than personal, the clash of opposing theories in a common pursuit. In his outstanding biography of  Tip O’Neill, John A. Farrell describes how, far from slamming the Oval Office door on a politician who didn’t agree with them, Reagan’s aides kept O’Neill’s favorite cigars on hand. Reagan and the Democratic speaker would spar heatedly for hours in the Oval Office (and in the news media), only to shake hands and do it again. Unlike Obama, of course, Reagan had little choice but to do business with his adversary, who controlled the House. But from the stormy dialogue between Reagan and O’Neill came a more balanced program than either man might have authored alone.

不过，这并不代表我们的政治家在过去几十年中没有发生根本上的改变。罗斯福和他的共和党批评者之间有深刻的对立，但双方都很清楚，他们的争论与其说是个人的恩怨，还不如说是意识形态上的[差异]，是拥有共同追求的对立观点之间的冲突。在其杰出著作《迪普·奥尼尔（Tip O’Neill）传》中，约翰·A·法雷尔（John A. Farrell）描述了里根总统是如何帮助奥尼尔，而不是在总统办公室遇到这位不同意自己的政客，就甩门而去。由于里根的帮助，奥尼尔才能一直抽到自己喜爱的雪茄。里根和民主党发言人在总统办公室（以及新闻媒体上）可以激烈争吵互相争辩上几个小时，最终还是会总是握手言和。如此吵吵停停，循环往复。当然，与奥巴马不同，里根是不得不和对手打交道，因为当时他们控制着众议院。不过，里根和奥尼尔之间暴风雨般对话的结果总是一个更为平衡各方利益的方案。

【词汇】
fundamentally 根本上的
profound 深刻的，极大的，可用于sigh,silence,sleep,shock,interest,changes,ignorance等等…  pro-前缀代表”在..之前”，在成立之前就存在着的，是不是很大很深刻呢？
dispute / dɪˈspjuːt; dɪˋspjut/ 争论，口角
ideological /ˌaɪdiəˈlɔdʒɪkəl US -ˈlɑː-/ 意识形态的，观念上的
in a common pursuit 出于共同追求
the Oval Office 椭圆形办公室，也就是总统办公室
spar (通常指带善意地) 争吵
adversary / ˈædvəsərɪ; US -serɪ; ˋædvɚˏsɛrɪ/ 敌手，竞赛中的对手

【翻译心得】
In his outstanding biography of  Tip O’Neill 这句意思明白的话反而不好译。“在他的杰出的迪普·奥尼尔的传记中”，“的”字太多，显得很低级，翻译腔太重。若去掉任何一个“的”，要么不符合汉语平常的说话习惯，要么产生歧义，要么翻译腔更重。最终采用“在其杰出著作《迪普·奥尼尔（Tip O’Neill）传》中”这一译法，算是比较满足自然准确的要求，我不信他的biography of  Tip O’Neill不叫《迪普·奥尼尔传》。其实，”Tip”算是奥尼尔的绰号，但是这层意思不好翻译出来，再加上Tip本来就是由“Thomas Phillip”而来，也算是发音贴合，音译也没错。

than either man might have authored alone 直接省略不译。因为在英语中这样的强调很正常，但在汉语中就显得有点罗嗦了。

本段第一句话和最后一句话都以“不过”开头，显得有点奇怪。谁能帮我找一个更好的处理方法？

———————————-

[2]【Such an acknowledgment of common purpose has all but vanished, as the realignment in American politics – a hardening of regional loyalties that began with battles over civil rights and Vietnam – deepened the cultural divisions in Washington.】 Each party has demonized the other and embraced the notion that dissent can have no moral or intellectual value. True, we’ve not quite reached the depths of the 1850s, when the pro-slavery congressman Preston Brooks severely beat his colleague Charles Sumner with a cane (it’s a shame they didn’t have YouTube), but nonetheless, the two sides rarely breach their mistrust long enough to bicker like ordinary humans, let alone share a cigar.

这一显而易见的政治目标几乎已经无人注意到 ，因为美国政治格局的重组深化了华盛顿的文化分歧。自关于公民权利和越南问题的斗争起，宗教忠诚就被不断强化。但随着美国政治格局的重组，这种大家其实殊途同归的政治共识已经几乎消失殆尽。自民权争端和越战问题起，宗教地区忠诚就被不断强化，华盛顿内部出现了更严重的文化分歧。两个党派都妖魔化对方，并且臣服于“异议既不道德，也无智慧”这一信条。不错，我们的确还没有达到19世纪50年代的那些前辈们的厉害程度(，) —— 当年亲奴隶制的国会议员普雷斯顿·布鲁克斯（Preston Brooks）用藤条手杖狠狠鞭打笞打他的同僚查尔斯·萨姆纳（Charles Sumner）（很可惜当时的人们没有YouTube）。但是话说回来，政治上对立的这两派始终还是很少放弃对彼此的不信任，像正常人一样斗嘴都尤不可为，更别说分享雪茄了。

【词汇】

【难句】

[2]【Such an acknowledgment of common purpose has all but vanished, as the realignment in American politics – a hardening of regional loyalties that began with battles over civil rights and Vietnam – deepened the cultural divisions in Washington.】

———————————-

This is why Obama is right to value bipartisanship, even if he doesn’t manage to win a single Republican vote – and even if he doesn’t need any to enact his legislative program. During the closing weeks of the fall campaign, Obama told me that bridging the cultural chasm in America would require of him, as president, a governing style that acknowledged differences rather than exploited them. This is why he intends to keep Republican leaders on speed dial, even if they vote against him – in doing so, he demonstrates to the voters that he will not be dragged into the pettiness and derision that have caused so many of them to lose faith in their government. He may also, over time, accumulate enough goodwill to wrangle Republican votes when he really does need them. [2]【If Obama is serious about making the difficult choices necessary to reform entitlements, for instance, he is bound to lose some support within his own party, and he may well find himself in need of partners from unexpected quarters.】

这就是为什么奥巴马重视两党合作是一个正确的决定，即便他都无法获得共和党的一张支持票——而且他要使自己的法案生效其实并不需要这些投票。在去年秋季竞选的最后一周，奥巴马告诉我，要在美国的文化鸿沟之上架起一座沟通的桥梁，需要他当总统时采取承认差异而不是利用差异的执政风格。这就是为什么他打算继续保存共和党领导人的快速拨号，即使他们总是投他的反对票——通过这样做，他向他的支持者表明了决心：他不会陷入让民众失去对政府信心的卑鄙而可笑的境地。随着时间的推移，他也能够积攒足够的声望和善意，当他真的实在需要共和党支持票的时候，作为与他们争辩的砝码。例如，如果奥巴马非常认真地要执行某项改革特定权益(entitlements)的艰难决定，他可能不得不丧失部分党内支持，而此时他还可以在一些意想不到的阵营中找到伙伴。

———————————-

In this way, Obama’s efforts haven’t been the failure that some think them to be. Eric Cantor, the Republican House whip, told me that he had met with the president four times already and thought him sincere and likable. The last of these meetings came on the night when senior Republicans in the House managed to corral their caucus into unanimously rejecting Obama’s stimulus program, then marched straight up Pennsylvania Avenue for drinks at the White House. [3]【He sought Republican backing for his plan to withdraw from Iraq and won conditional support from no less an adversary than John McCain.】 [4]【And while the president has taken to chastising his critics for old ideas, and while they have pilloried his economic instincts as being essentially Marxist, neither side has yet done so with anything like the venom that characterized the previous era.】

由此看来，奥巴马的努力并不是像某些人认为的，是毫无收益的失败。艾瑞克·坎特（Eric Cantor），众议院的共和党纪律委员（whip），告诉我说他已经面见总统四次，并且认为他是一个诚恳的、值得喜欢的人。最后一次见面是在一个晚上，众议院的共和党高层使出手段，让党内决策人员一致反对奥巴马的刺激计划，然后直接游行到了宾夕法尼亚大道，要在白宫讨杯喝的。奥巴马寻求共和党人对其从伊拉克撤军方案的支持，并且至少获得了约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）这一老对手有条件的支持。在奥巴马总统严厉斥责他的批评是出于守旧观念时，在共和党人嘲笑奥巴马的经济直觉本质上是马克思主义时，双方都没有做任何过分的事，比如说用恶毒的言语评价上个总统任期内对方的表现。

———————————-

The tone of a presidency reveals itself only in time. After all, George W. Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to create his signature education plan during his first months in office, and he enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the months after Sept. 11, 2001. It would have been hard to foresee then that the totality of his two terms would be remembered as one of the least cooperative periods in the country’s history. Similarly, it’s far too soon to assume that Obama’s opening act signals the curtain coming down on his bipartisan ideal. Only the most reactionary forces in Obama’s own party would demand that he stop trying to overhaul the contemptuous culture of the capital. And only a sap would listen to them.

总统执政风格只有经过时间的磨洗才会尽显本色。毕竟，乔治·W·布什（George W. Bush）与泰德·肯尼迪（ Ted Kennedy）在其任内第一个月内，合作提出了教育改革方案，并在9·11后几个月内，享受了压倒性的两党合作支持。当时谁又能料想到他的两个任期最终会被人们看作是历史上党派间最缺乏合作的时期之一。同理，现在断言奥巴马失败的开场标志着他的两党合作理想就要落幕，还为时尚早。只有奥巴马自己党内的极端倒退势力才会要求他停止修正国会大厦里傲慢文化的步伐。而只有“傻蛋”才会听他们的。

———————————-

Matt Bai, who covers politics for the magazine, is the author of “The Argument: Inside the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.”

作者简介：马特·白（Matt Bai），《纽约时报》政治方面专业作者，曾著有《论证：重建民主政治的斗争局内》（The Argument: Inside the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics）。

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 板凳还在 | 推荐到豆瓣

而上豆瓣则纯粹是因为我喜欢这个网站的内容，喜欢自己参与进去的形式。可以将我每天为豆瓣贡献上百个PV的原因归纳如下：

1. 我要记录我关注的书、电影和音乐。算是对自己生活品味的记录。
2. 我可以在这里发现自己可能喜欢的书、电影和音乐
3. 这里的小组有网友们推荐的有趣的或引人思考的内容
4. 这里有大量品味极高的优质同志（囧一下这一条）

但是最近，我发觉豆瓣网变得不是那么有趣了。一系列变故如下：

1. 首页每次改版总是会引发用户的大量抗议。但结果总是慢慢平息下去。大家还是不得不适应新版首页。
2. 以为可以在上面认识一些有思想的现实中的朋友。试着加了个川农豆瓣QQ群，却发现我和他们其实不大谈得来。说实话，我不喜欢这样的人。说不出来什么感觉，总之就是不喜欢。也许觉得他们太作了。也许知道他们不是在作，但那种气场就让我想敬而远之。
3. 低俗之风刮起，豆瓣开始自宫。网友们不乐意了，每天豆瓣的焦点都集中在这件事上，有意思的东西和真正让人思考的东西的生存空间被挤压。一大堆与抗议有关的新鲜事让我很是反感。

吃午饭时想起豆瓣和豆豉这个概念。我觉得那些一直吵闹着豆瓣不够自由的家伙可以去办一个豆豉网。别在我们豆瓣上闹腾。豆豉网的宣传文案可以这样写：

我们和豆瓣的区别

1. 豆豉比豆瓣黑
2. 豆豉是黄豆做的，豆瓣是胡豆做的
3. 豆豉比豆瓣咸

可惜的是，刚才去搜了一个douchi的域名，.com和.cn都被注册了。

对于豆瓣近期的不正常举动，对我来说，大可以忍下去。因为豆瓣带给我的正是其在“关于我们”里面宣称的，这部分功能也是对我最重要的，只要这些东西还在，其他就不是很重要。如果要分享激进的言论，大可以去其他地方，或者自己私底下交流。互联网这么大，难道还容不下你说话的地方。理解并支持豆瓣明哲保身的行为。

想对那些还在反豆瓣第一战线战斗的人说，你们要把豆瓣搞死才心安吗？也不看看现在是个什么情势。

©2009 笨活儿 | 永久链接 | 等你来抢沙发呢 | 推荐到豆瓣