曰天譴者,仇共而已

標籤:

夫國有大難,海內同悲,救猶不及,而曰天譴者,非循儒以觀世也,仇共而已。此仇共之心,非關庶命,非關治平;國是日進,而仇心反增,蓋恨所仇者之不墜也。必翻聳人之論以貶之,貶之不足則諷之,諷之不足則稽古而戕賊之。若鞭屍者樂,得暢懷也。故曰天譴者,欲執鞭而已。其所以如此,一歸於妒。妒,忌也。

15 留言:

ll 說...

痛快!

sam 說...

妙哉斯言: 妒,忌也!

Meshi 說...

以死屍喻中共,Y.T.兄是深層反共,妙哉!

倉海君 說...

妙文,結語尤佳。

言論自由

Y.T. 說...

死屍非以喻中共也,以喻某人心中之中共而已。鞭屍,射稻之藝也。有好之者,終日鞭射,自以為高,如馬戲也。

匿名 說...

近日網上又流傳「512=8x8x8=京奧○八年八月八日」的說法,與「天譴論」真可謂「互相輝映」!

李怡、林忌等人提出的「天譴論」,有可能是想效法元末劉福通、韓山童的故智,以為可藉天災而搧起反共巨浪,可惜,他們這次都錯判了形勢,徒惹人反感!

Meshi 說...

//死屍非以喻中共也,以喻某人心中之中共而已。//
某人心中既視中共如死屍,則兄謂其「恨所仇者之不墜」誤矣,蓋彼視中共為已死者焉。然則兄之絕妙結語:「妒,忌也」亦成空中樓閣矣。

倉海君 說...

「恨所仇者之不墜」--所仇者,中共也。
「若鞭屍者樂,得暢懷也」--若鞭屍者樂,則以「鞭屍」喻其樂,旨在明其「復讎之快」(請參考伍子胥典故),非以「屍」喻中共,特謂鞭中共之樂「若」鞭屍之樂而已。

越俎代庖,不好意思,但實在忍不住說:閱讀要一句一句地理解,不是一字一字地看的。

Meshi 說...

倉海君所提固是一個可能的疏解之法,但您可認同「作者權威」這回事?作者Y.T.於22/5/08 00:09已承認「屍」是喻「某人心中之中共」。我22/5/08 15:00之說只是依從作者的權威解釋而已。

gwai 說...

>>閱讀要一句一句地理解,不是一字一字地看的。

或許倉海君一時手誤。閱讀也不是一句一句地理解,而是從整個語境去理解。若針對文本,「語言語境」指語音、詞彙、語法和整個語篇的上下文。印象中倉海君過往行文多用「脈絡」一詞來表示以上意思。「非語言語境」指讀者在閱讀時會自發推理而憶及有關情景的特定信息和一般的百科知識,使得文章中的空泛代詞有具體指涉,或者補出省略含意,又或者解歧,更或推測作者動機等。語境即是以上兩個子集的合集。

一句一句地理解也免不了墮入 literal meaning 的偏狹。如一個句子 literally 意謂A,但從較大畫面的段落看該句實為反諷,故整句是A的否定;又某段落謂B,從全個篇章看卻實是反語,意在否定B;甚至成篇文章在說C,但當其與作者過往文章風格和價值取向作對照比較,整篇實是對C的相反嘲弄。某位所謂第一才子的文字文章就常常是這樣子,表面看通篇在讚譽,但將文章放到才子的整個賣文歷史、政治取態和文化心態上來理解,即見全文皆為挖苦。有些人不從宏觀語境去理解,還以為那位才子突然轉性。

其實從語境看,毋妨將倉兄的「一句一句」也權宜地理解為「一段一段」甚或「一篇一篇」,但到底還只是文字脈絡的意思而未及「非語言語境」的含義,所以小弟斗膽補充。見諒。

P.S.
Y.T.和倉海君分別兩篇文言,指摘的再非關那些「天譴論」作者的文字論證,而是他們的偏執「動機」(為反共而反共),足見「非語言語境」在作用著。

倉海君 說...

meshi:

訴諸「作者權威」是浪漫主義的詮釋方法,是老古董了。由Heidegger開始,已把文本理解帶回人的存在上去看,之後Gadamer及Ricoeur皆沿這條存有學路線發展詮釋學,重視的是作為主體的文本(而非作者心靈);此時,自我了解和文本世界才是閱讀焦點啊。對我來說,只要文本自足,根本不必理會作者怎樣說。當然,如果你是浪漫主義的fan,硬要追問作者本人,也只好悉隨尊便了。

Gwai:

你講得比我透徹,謝謝補充!但那不是手誤,是我偷懶:你一講「語境」,就要像你那樣寫一大段去說明,粗略地講無疑是不太準確,唉,但有時真的厭了...

Meshi 說...

//對我來說,只要文本自足,根本不必理會作者怎樣說。//
對啊,對我來說,那文本就是以死屍比喻中共,不過恰巧作者在解讀自己的文本時也是以死屍喻「某人心中之中共」而已。

匿名 說...

//非以「屍」喻中共,特謂鞭中共之樂「若」鞭屍之樂而已。//

Such reading focused squarely on 「若」which had the effect of 「去屍化」. Under this context, the original sentence could be, for instance, re-written as:

若自瀆者樂,得暢懷也。故曰天譴者,即執撚自屌而已。

Then, why was 鞭屍, as an analogy, used in the first place? Did it really reflect an inner motive of 「深層反共」?

And, if

//對我來說,只要文本自足,根本不必理會作者怎樣說。//,

then the reader's own reading is the only, the ultimate and the supreme reading of the 文本.

Assuming in this case that Y.T.'s 文本 is a 自足文本. then why would one want to 越俎代庖 and feel 不好意思?

倉海君 說...

1.Then, why was 鞭屍, as an analogy, used in the first place? Did it really reflect an inner motive of 「深層反共」?

--I've ALREADY said:

若鞭屍者樂,則以「鞭屍」喻其樂,旨在明其「復讎之快」(請參考伍子胥典故),非以「屍」喻中共,特謂鞭中共之樂「若」鞭屍之樂而已。Haven't I said in the most explicit manner that 鞭屍is itself an allusion? Is it really so hard for you to understand that an allusion like this only allows of the interpretation (in the sense that it is justified, and not arbitrary), to say the least, based on some prior knowledge of the reference? Is it quite obvious that the text alone suffices to get the meaning, namely 「復讎之快」, across to any COMPETENT reader?

2.And, if

//對我來說,只要文本自足,根本不必理會作者怎樣說。//,

then the reader's own reading is the only, the ultimate and the supreme reading of the 文本.

--I've ONLY said:
只要文本自足,根本不必理會作者怎樣說, and, if you care not to overlook, 重視的是作為主體的文本(而非作者心靈). Did I say or intimate that "the reader's own reading is the only, the ultimate and the supreme reading of the 文本"? Is it so hard for you to understand that the focus is rather on the TEXT than on the reader? To justify your interpretation in this case, mere coherence within your own reading is not enough. An explanation is acceptable only by virtue of being supported by an adequate analysis of the language employed in the text, the genre to which it belongs, the tradition in which it is placed, the actual situation related to the act of writing, etc.

Seeing that you can't even recognize the use of allusions characteristic of Classical Chinese, I'd better terminate this discussion, which seems hardly worthwhile for me. Sorry. Enjoy your own supreme reading.

Z.Y. 說...

"妒,忌也"誠警句也。

But here's a minor point. Were not the modern punctuation a given, a grammatical punctuation would be needed, i.e. 妒者忌也