A Sporadic Review of 'I'll Believe In Anything' by Wolf Parade

Listening to the song for the first time, I almost immediately knew what it meant, the imagery was just so clear in a vague way that there could be no other explanation. For me, it was as if the horizon had been spun around the axis of the city dweller and now the landscape became the erected monument against the city which now lay at our feet. We were released from civilizations imposing ways, spilt forth from our cubicles and classrooms, removed from the artificial sense of connectedness. Now we were all worshiping together, and of each other. The gray mass of the city now bore fruit for a better place, an orchard that grew from the ashes of something reminiscent of the rural, of the natural.

In the end, people could not find their own genesis in the metropolis; they could not garner any warmth from what they have created collectively, so they stored a piece of where they truly came from deep in their hearts separately. Nobody should know what this piece of home is, nobody could falsify our own convictions, and nobody would find that two people were inconveniently the same. It was a cult of mass grievance, of mystified individuals carrying fabricated pasts. For some it was the olive tree, for others the pine forest, the stone that came from the river bed. Wolf Parade is calling the bluff on modernity, this song is telling people they could not have originated from the iron beams and concrete pavements, that no son of Adam and Eve could have come from the Big Apple, no soul of ours could have come sprung from the head lights, and most importantly, no love could have come from the “fire in the wire”.

“I’ll take you away”, he says, “to a place where no one knows your name”. Where is that place? If it isn’t in your eyes than it must be in your bones, if it isn’t in your soul, than it must be in your ghost. There is a place called home for all of us, and it doesn’t have to be a lonely place. Take me to your place of birth, and I’ll show you mine, and together we can roam an imagined world, truer than the one we’ve met.

台語求愛十訣

每次回到老家，阿公總是會問我:信啊，你有沒有交到女朋友?我以前說沒有的時候，他總會說一定是我沒有膽量。細問之後才發現阿公對於追求女孩的要領有一套順口溜，它就是從這套順口溜裡面判斷我一定是不敢追求所以才沒有女朋友。
以下是台語的順口溜，阿公說他在讀高中的時候聽別人說的:

一、錢
二、緣
三、水
四、少年
五、敢
六、好膽
七、固誠
八、求
九、皮
十、綿

順口溜的念法是兩個、兩個念，阿公說有按照重要性來排的，針對的是男生這方的特質。有興趣的人檔案在這裡，可以自行去下載。
http://www.divshare.com/download/13347508-c54

一、錢
念法和國語一樣，屬於文讀。阿公說沒錢女孩子怎麼會看上你?

二、緣
你看上別人、別人要看上你，都是要投緣才會發生；興趣相似和碰面的機運都算是緣的一部份。

三、水
長的帥氣、漂亮。

四、少年
阿公說:談戀愛當然是你們年輕人的是，像我這樣老老的誰要?
其實阿公對於穿著的品味大概是我們家中男生最講究的，說不定現在的女孩子更喜歡。阿公以前做過房屋仲介所以知道穿著體面的重要性，有好幾套西裝，出門的時候也會把頭髮上油、帶上金絲框的墨鏡，很帥氣。

五、敢, 六、好膽
阿公說兩者很像似，但有一些區別。他說要追求一個人是要「敢」，時機到了該牽女孩子的手時，要牽起來要「好膽」。我不是很能掌握這個區別，或許有更懂台語的人能說說看?阿公說，他覺得我長得還算帥，家境也沒有太差，那一定是沒有勇氣才追不到女孩子了。

七、跪, 八、固誠
這兩者的也是意思上很相似。跪的意思是說姿態要放的低，在行為上要刻意的放軟，對方才會接受你。「固誠」這個詞是音譯，沒有對應的國語詞，阿公說大概的意思是「求」，也是要對孩子真摯的請求、裝可憐之意，阿公說延伸的意思是把對方不要的講到要，就是「固誠」。

九、皮, 十、綿
這兩者也是有點相似。「皮」沒有國語的字，我聽講解的時候感覺像是在討價還價。阿公說是不要把姿態放的太高，人家拒絕你的邀約就算了，是要一再的勸說，「和我看電影又不會怎麼樣?挨，來拉來拉」這樣的人就可說是「皮皮的」。「綿」有點像是「皮」的柔情版，一方面有溫柔的討好對方，另外一方有很密集的意思。

順口溜之外，阿公對於愛情的想法蠻傳統的，以家庭的和諧為重點；阿公就認為不應該取和自己學歷相當的女孩子，因為這樣就像一部車一樣同時兩個人在開，雙方就容易起口角。對他而言女孩子的特質最好是開朗、漂亮、勤勞、會燒菜、吃得了苦又柔順，家裡若是有點錢更好。而作為一家之主的男人首要的工作就是提供家裡的穩定的經濟基礎、工作賣命，還要為全家大小的未來規劃的好。如果和西方連續劇裡那種「你愛她就好」的態度而言，阿公的觀點很顧及現實面，也不太談情感；他說人自然而然就會有喜歡的偶像，只是你「應該」喜歡上哪個女孩子還是聽他的未來生活比較快樂；我的理解是說，人對於自己的情感是有些掌握的能力，不是一種人處與完全被動、情感是完全自發性的地步；你如果知道了哪一些特質對你是好的，你就會比較容易去喜歡上對方。

阿公有時候會出我考題，特別是陪他看綜藝節目的時候，他有次問說蔡依林和Coco哪一個比較好。我回他蔡依林比較漂亮，他說我應該選Coco因為她英文比較好這樣才不會讓你把英文給忘了(讓我還蠻啼笑皆非的，不過他真的有為孫子著想)。他又問我說Coco和林志玲你選哪一個，這次我選林志玲。阿公就說我選對了，因為林志玲看起來比較乖，不像Coco染一頭紅頭髮。

Love and its Discontents

This is a transcript created from the video “Jaques Derrida on Love and Being”, which I believe comes from the 2002 documentary of the master himself, though I can’t confirm it.

You can find the video here.

Interviewer: Just whatever you want to say about love…
J Derrida: About what?
Interviewer: Love.
J Derrida: Love or death?
Interviewer: Love, tell me more on love.
J Derrida: I have nothing to say about love. At least pose a question. I can’t examine “love” just like that. You need to pose a question. I’m not capable of talking in generalities about love. I’m not capable… Maybe that’s what you want me to say in front of the camera. That I have nothing to say about love in general.
Interviewer: (Laughs)
Interviewer: Okay, could you explain why this topic has concerned philosophers for centuries? It’s an important philosophical subject, isn’t it?
J Derrida: You can’t ask this of me Amy. Why have philosophers always spoken of love? That’s how philosophy started- No, no. It’s not possible. I have an empty head on love in general. And as for the reason philosophy has often spoken of love, I either have nothing to say or I’d just be reciting clichés.
Interviewer: Plato often spoke of this maybe you could just talk about that.
J Derrida: One of the first questions one could pose, I’m searching a bit… is the question of the difference between the “who” and the “what”. Is love of someone or love of something? Okay supposed I loved someone, do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are? I love you because you are you. Or do I love your qualities, your beauty, your intelligence? Does one love someone, or does one love something about someone? The difference between the “who” and the “what” at the heart of love separates the heart. It is often said that love is the movement of the heart. Does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity, or because I love the way that someone is? Often, love starts with some type of seduction. One is attracted because the other is like this or like that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realize the other person doesn’t merit our love. The other person isn’t like this or that. So at the death of love, it appears that one stops loving another not because of who they are, but because they are such and such. This is to say, the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the “who” and “what”. The question of “Being” to return to philosophy- because the first question of philosophy is: what is it “to Be?” What is being? The question of Being is itself always already divided between the who and the what. Is being someone or something? I speak of it abstractly, but I think that whoever starts to love, is in love, or stops loving, is caught between this division of the “who” and the “what”. One wants to be true to someone- singularly, irreplaceably- and one perceives that this someone isn’t X or Y. They didn’t have the qualities, properties, the images, that I thought I’d loved. So fidelity is threatened by the difference between the “who” and the “what”.

What is impressive about Derrida is his refusal to talk in generalities, or in other words “blanket terms” or “transcendental signified”, he doesn’t open up until the question is framed under the discourse. Though it may seem as a mere lack of specifics on the part of the interviewer, or one might even think that he is stalling, I find his approach on most interviews similar. In the second part of this blog I would like to go in to Simmel and his short paragraph on Love, and maybe then I will have more time to share my thoughts of the two.

林開世 on Theory of Anthropology sice the 60's, 逐字稿

這個文章顯示的問題與他提出的框架為何, 問題的困難度是什麼?為何持續的出現?
新民族誌, 歷史人類學的發展好像和practice有不同的走向. 他在80年代中期主要的著作和限制都出來了, 難以在發展. 頂多是個案研究上的深入.Practice很快的成熟, 也到極限了. Ortner指出是一個西方二元對立的問題, 地方和外在, 結構和個人的關係如何處理. 這些問題從來沒有被解決.
Practice和前面的派別最大的不同, 是之前的理論都偏向某一方, 都沒有降到個人的層次來思考這個問題.

這個問題本身不一定是能被克服的. Practice雖然看似解決了這樣的問題, 但其他的理論也未失去他們的效用, ie. structuralism的範圍還是被P廣的多. 60年代的象徵論, Schneider只要把文化的系統和規則找出來就算是文化, 個人層次是難以解決的. 不過處理社會變遷上面都無用, 可以告訴你文化的特性和心靈結構但對於經驗研究較無用. 社會變遷基本上都有它的系統層面, 造成個人的constraint, 如何發展出一個理論能處理constraint, 又找出他的機制來檢視呢? Geertz成功的點在於象徵的公開性, 開始有了practice研究的可能性. 但Geertz少處理認知與系統的問題. Strauss, Schneider把文化的層次抽得太高, 其中Strauss的神話研究抽出社會脈絡完全是現時性的, 如果個別的神話來看的話對於社會、歷史中的個人是什麼意義? 如果這樣的理論沒有辦法根本的解決個人行為的原因, 那還有用嗎?

雖然P沒有辦法超越, 但卻產生了很多種的理論, 個別的理論可以用在不同的case, 有不同的限制. 主要有三種重要的類型:

1.Foucault, 可以進入micro-macro控制的層次, 對個人來說幾乎是無意識的, 在90年00年帶是進展最快的一塊, Bourdieu 也可以放入這一塊. 透過殖民控制的研究, 我們了解到結構不一定是以抽象的面貌出現, 其實有非常多不同的制度性的結構, 且是日常社會生活中常出現的. Dirk 等對統計戶口的研究, 如何去認識人, 新的科技怎麼創造不同的persona, 使我們非常的僅覺我們思考的模式是受現代性的發展. 時空感, 實踐感, 社會感都是權力結構的產物.

2.下一塊是比較強調人的agency.Bourdieu非常矛盾的在於它擺盪在一和二裡, 但他可以和rational choice等結合. James Scott為二類代表. 強調人在結構下用策略擺脫它的影響, 這樣的文獻在Gramci的框架之下又出現一批研究, 作peasant, 工人等.

3.第三種理論, 像Sahlins, Raymond Williams等人. RW認為hegemony不可能是絕對的, 要在歷史的框架之下看, 有數個, 同時在競爭的文化結構. Sahlins認為結構的限制並不是那麼的嚴密, 但是與個人意識和不一定有關, 重點是過程, 歷史研究成為重點. 現在視為當然的結構其是在很多鬥爭和妥協的過程中產生的. 重視結構和歷史的辯證理論.

三個通通沒有克服二元對立, 但是有很有趣的理論. 新民族誌相當有趣的interrupt所有的理論建構, 但在經驗研究上面相較於P理論是比較貧乏的. James Clifford "Traveling Theory".

Levi-Strauss也試圖想超越物質, 唯心的二元結構, 不論是親屬的, 社會組織上大家都是處理二元對立的緊張關係. 這些社會上的處理策略和藝術有一個對比性的關係, 幾何形, 裝飾形. Strauss想要打破super-structure和infra-structure, 結構論裡兩者都是深層結構. 我們現在脫離一下Strauss的心靈結構是想逃脫對立的方式, 社會一定有某些緊張關係, 假設這些緊張的關係會投射到所有的結構上面, 是不是所有的地方都有在處理這個問題? 所以才會說Harris他們是vulgar因為所有人都在處理這樣的問題. Marx在霧月18裡面就脫離了德意志意識形態裡面機械性的解決方法, Hegel的也不同. 結構論的啟發是人們可以從一個結構性的原則去處理這個問題, 而不掉入二元對立. EP Thompson, 在Poverty of theory當中批評的十分精采. 結構馬克斯主義雖然也看到了, 但最後last determinate還是經濟面象的. 結構馬克思主義性質上和結構功能論性質很像, 每個都relate到each other, SM裡也是每個moment組合起來, 這就是為什麼他們很快在英美受到重視, 其實就是因為他們使用的學者熟悉於此.

為什麼P會以這樣的面貌出現, 哪個在前, 哪個在後等等? Sahlins的框架有一個問題存在, 在一個P裡面似乎人類的agency最重要, 但卻往往是unintended consequence. 這不是很矛盾嗎, 和人說是Practice但最後重要的卻是無意識的. 回到P的三種, 其實大家都有這樣的問題, 都沒有處理到革命這樣的東西, 他是一定要intended. 到芬蘭車站Edmund Welson寫的在寫馬克思主義的形成與歷史是如何被發現的, 歷史是可以被掌握的這個vision是Marxism很重要的貢獻. 人在重要歷史juncture跳出來捉住歷史, 是一種很18世紀的浪漫思想. Class for itself如何變成Class in itself的問題. Sahlins相對上沒有那麼清楚, 像拿破崙, 列寧都是相當有意識的行為, 其實S也想解釋這樣的問題, 他分出一個Heroic History, 人是可以改變歷史的, 但要對的人, 對的時機下. 例如夏威夷Fiji酋長為了獲得西方的軍事幫助全體改宗, 成為可能是因為結構上酋長本身非常的有權力. 個個社會怎麼樣分配這樣的權力是很重要的問題, S不要我們只看一般社會的慣習而矯枉過正.

批評人家說不處理變遷其實是一個沒有意義的, 因為你必須要先定義出變遷的定義為何, 如果沒有一些結構的框架其實不可能想像變遷. 不可能想像結構變遷是什麼意思, 歷史變遷是什麼意思.

理論這些東西發展其實很慢. 都繞來繞去, 其實可以不用上那麼多, 大家熟一部分後面就都通了

Some thoughts concerning Jon Stewards and the Rally to Restore Sanity

Steward’s ending speech can be summarized as in a few simple sentences. Americans do not live in a realm of pure politics. We live in a world of everyday life where we accommodate each other and get on be making little concessions. If we can throw off the distortion by caused by our political parties and their pundits, we can all live in harmony with honest disputes.

It was quite uplifting to see the number of people that got together for this rally, and Stewards statements made some sense. If we can build out politics from the common ground (provided by our cohabitation with one another) up, perhaps the political discourse will not divide us as deeply. Being calm and objective is a great tool to have on your side, for it exposes the demagogues and the bigots, which quite frankly, all come from the same side.

It’s hard being an American these days. I fear sanity will be short lived, because the divides have begun to reached the everyday life. If the Democrats win the presidency in o’12, there will be a chance of civil war. However, if the Republicans win, World War is almost guaranteed.

3 Types of Symbols in Art and Literature

These distinctions come from the works of Raymond Firth, on Symbols. I have not finished the book nor had the time to write systematic notes on it. For the time being, this is this will be the form that I put these vague ideas in.

The Concrete Symbol-Those symbols that refer to specific socio-culture circumstances that link the symbol to the signified, the Chinese full moon to the regrouping of kin, the western snake to original sin, etc. A host of less particular symbols that are seen as quite natural to the people employing them are also of specific socio-cultural nature, such as spring to youth, darkness to fear, etc. and can be regarded as Concrete.

The Abstract Symbol-Those symbols that wish to touch on the fundamental conditions and emotions common to all man, often employing garbled and nonsensical language to achieve a sudden “revelation” Such examples are hard to give, what I think of is a Jackson Pollock, maybe autumn. I have a hunch that Turner would place the color symbols of red, black and white to this category since we all share the same physical bodies.

The Mute Symbol- The most interesting of the three. Here the artist uses geometrical lines and angles to assert a certain relation between objects, and stands back to let the viewer fill in the symbol with his own content. This is a very intriguing concept since it points to a symbolic form existing outside the circumstances which tie the symbol to its meaning. How would this distinguish from seeing a new symbol which we have no context of understanding? How do we recognize that a symbol is being presented to us?

It would be interesting to note here the similarities of the social sciences to art, namely that they both seek to gain a new insight on the world. As the saying from Erza Pound goes, art is to “Make it new!” New is to some degrees always insightful, by providing opposite examples and letting the bizarre elevate the mundane, though in the social sciences, perhaps sticking to what can be proven is best.