左右不分

An interview with Professor Douglas Hofstadter

      Recently, the book on my bedside cupboard is Gödel, Escher, Bach(aka GEB). The first time I saw this book on Douban, it was not that attractive to me. Cause I am not interested either in Bach or in classical music, and have never heard of the name Escher. Admittedly, the title does strike a chord with me. It reminds me of an old movie called the good the bad and the ugly. While the reviews of this book on amazon and Douban are surprisingly positively given. Most people give five star and seems totally fascinated by the author’s charisma. With the fact that I had to take Math 414 in the next semester(which involves Godel’s theorem) and the book is really cheap, I decided to give it a try and ordered one on amazon.

                   Front Cover of GEB

      Generally, reading a book with over 1000 pages is out of comfort zone. But I find this one is ok. Chapter one and two talks about the inner connection between Bach’s fugue and Escher’s painting, of which I am not interested at all. Anyway I finished reading them.

      Bach, the great German composer of the Baroque period, famous for his strictly structured canons, fugues and contrapuntal techniques.

      Escher, Dutch painter, known for his often mathematically inspired woodcuts, lithographs, and mezzotints.(Wikipedia)

      Endlessly rising and repetition of loops are the structural similarities of these two great artists’ works. While repetition of loops involves the most dangerous thing in logic and mathematics—self reference.

Endlessly rising in Escher’s painting

       Endlessly rising in Bach’ fugue

      It is the power of self reference that lead to the the Foundational Crisis of Mathematics. After Godel Incompleteness Theorem(which is based on the paradox of self reference. Russell’s Barber Paradox is a famous example. ) was proved, mathematicians started to doubt the basis of mathematics. This crisis had great influence on other fields such as computer science and cognitive science. One of the famous problems lead by the crisis is the halting problem. In 1936, Allan Turing proved that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. The general idea is that if there exists a plugin(a program) in the compiler that can tell whether a piece of code goes on forever in an infinite loop or not(if yes, output is a boolean value true. otherwise no), use the plugin on itself. If the plugin itself does not halt, then it halts(because it will eventually halt and give the answer true). If it halts, then it is in an infinite loop. A PERFECT SELF REFERENCE!

      Actually, if these exists a solution to halting problem, we can easily prove or disprove Goldbach’s conjecture. We can just build a program to test if every even number can be expressed as a sum of two prime numbers. Then use the “halting” plugin on this program. If it halts, Goldbach’s conjecture is false. Otherwise, it’s true. QED. Unfortunately, we can never do it in this way.

s 

             A variation of halting problem

      In the book, the author gave another wild idea that the elegant structure of self reference is happening everyday in our daily life. Our conciousness is referencing itself all the time! So maybe the key to Artificial Intelligience is self reference. I was astonished by the idea! Combining mathematics and human brain, that is exactly what I think AI is all about.

      Out of curiosity, I googled the author, Professor Douglas Hofstadter, and find out the following information:

          Douglas Richard Hofstadter (born February 15, 1945) is an American academic whose research focuses on consciousness, analogy-making, artistic creation, literary translation, and discovery in mathematics and physics. He is best known for his book Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, first published in 1979, for which he was awarded the 1980 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction. He is the son of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Hofstadter. He was the successor of Martin Gardner as the columnist of Scientific American. His book was so influential that

      The only word I can think of to describe him is “大神”. What’s more,  he is going to give a lecture at U of I!!

      So I started the idea of having an interview with him.

      Here, special thanks give to @丁永康, @黄卓尔, @王雨晗， @李乃一, and the white board in Room331, Grainger Library, those who took an important part and paid a lot of efforts. Thank @丁永康 for his advice on question preparing, thank @黄卓尔 for his wonderful video taping and Chinese version GEB, thank @王雨晗 for her great reception and enthusiasm and thank @李乃一 for what he did to the white board. We established an imaginary student organization — Campus Chinese Group(Right on your face, CSSA). In the name of CCG, I sent Professor Hofstadter an email to invite him to have an interview with us on the day of the lecture. Unsurprisingly, he replied and gave a postive answer. So I had a meeting room reserved in Grainger and got everything prepared.

      On October 8th 2011, We had the interview as scheduled. The professor was nice, easygoing and really talkative. The lecture he given that day was about the highly parallel IBM computer system named “Watson” winning human in TV show Jeopardy early this year. Actually, lots of “大神” were invited that day, such as Josh Bloch, Chief Java Architect in Google and Jon ‘maddog’ Hall, advocate for open source. After Giving his lecture and signing autographs for his followers, we led him to the meeting room and started the 2-hour long interview (with probably the worst host of all time). Here is part of the dialogue in the interview, from which I think we can envision the future of AI:

      (Background:Earlier this year, a highly parallel IBM computer system named “Watson” played a massively publicized game of the television quiz show Jeopardy against two champion human players, winding up crushing them both. Some commentators described Watson’s (or rather, IBM’s) accomplishment as a major step toward the computer understanding of language. )

      Q:Hi, Professor Hofstadter. We know that you are here at U of I to give a speech about IBM computer system “Watson”. Is that your recent research orientation?

      A: No, I have to say over the last thirty years, I’ve always been interested in trying to be aware of what is going on in world of computer modes of thinking and I ‘ve always wanted to know whether things that gives a lot of press merit that press or not. I’ve taught courses over the years. I taught a course called Hype versus Hope, you know in Artificial Intelligience, in that course we tried to figure out the extent to which whether a lot of highly-touted programs should be taken seriously or not. I’ve been interested in this question and I organized some symposia on this topic over the years. But I wouldn’t call that my major part of my research. It’s more been a kind of worry on my part. I’ve always been worried that artificial Intelligience unpsychologically realistic. We’ve managed to do things that seems very “human”, but we do it in a “cheap” technology and I don’t like that idea and I’ve always trying to find out..

      Q:So you mean there are systematic differences between how our brain really works and how they try to simulate the brain?

      A: I wouldn’t say that simulate the brain, but programs try to do some of the activities. So in the case of Watson, they tried to get Watson to be able to respond to questions written in English about as they called it “trivial”. Some of the claims made are that this is the deep nature language understanding. I think there is nothing  like that. That is not true. That’s what my talk was about. I am just trying to give people a prospective much more skeptical then the press.

      Q: Yeah, you mentioned a lot of interesting questions in the lecture, like “Does President Obama have prime number of friends?”, do you find youself enjoy doing what you did?

      A:Yeah, we’ve made a lot of questions that Watson would not be able to answer or understand at all. And it was a lot of fun making those questions. ……

      Q:Do you think we can realize the dream of Artificial Intelligience?

      A: I don’t foward to, it troubles me. But I think in principle it’s possible that computers or devices… I don’t like the word “computers: because it seems to me there going to have to be things that have a lot of autonomy, but whatever they are, it seems to me that in the long run, devices, I wouldn’t call them computers. I don’t like the word “robot” either, it has certain connotations. Robots make you think of a big metallic objects that goes in a row.(with hands waving)

      Q:Just like in your book, you choose the word “soul” rather than “conciousness”?

      A: Yeah, sometimes I use that word. But in any cases, artificial devices that has its own goals have to struggle in the world, you know, sometimes having successes and sometimes having failures and creating over a long period of time a modern of itself. You could imagine a computer exploring itself, not knowing anything about itself at all, but watching itself doing certain things.

      Q: It’s like halting problem?

      A: Yeah, a little bit. Of course it get to paradoxical, but you can’t get into paradoxical. But what I mean is that if a computer were to gain knowledge about its own strength and own weaknesses over a long period time and build up modern of itself, I’d successed. I don’t see that why they couldn’t be like us.

      Q: So is that your version of Turing’s test? Like Hofstadter version of Turing’s test?

      A: No, I don’t replace turing’s test by any kind of tests. I mean it seems to me that Turing’s idea was that ask a device that is hidden to you and interact with language. It seems to me that a good way trying to figure out whether it is intelligient…

      Q: And this kind of test is very deep.

      A: Yeah, very deep. Very very profound. You might haven’t seen my other books. I’ve got a book published in 1997, it got a french title Le Ton beau de Marot.  And I had a dialogue, an interrogator interacting with a program. It just takes place where the Turing’s test should take place. So there are two participants DRH and AMT, means Douglas Richard Hofstadter and Alan Mathison Turing. But I gave them different meanings, DRH=Dull Rigid Human and AMT=ACE mechanical Translator. ACE is the first computer that Turing has made. It’s a very funny dialogue, it’s extremely funny and shows how deep, as you said, is the Turing’s test, how complex the questions can be and how complex the answers can be.

  (DRH: Douglas Richard Hofstadter        AMT:Allan Mathison Turing)

…

      Q: I think you really love analogy.

      A: I do. I meant any human love. What people don’t understand is that they are constantly making analogies. They don’t understand that all words are made of analogy. They don’t understand that they make analogy ten times a second. Every word, every microact of cognition is an analogy.

      Q: So you mean analogy is the bases of our brain or how it works?

      A: Absolutely. That’s what my next book is all about. It’s called surfaces and essences.

…

      Q: So you do think we can realize the dream of AI?

      A:Well, you know, the word dream sounds positive. Thirty years ago I believe it’s a dream, but now I think it’s more like a nightmare.

      Q: You mean because we can’t see that day coming or?

      A: I think it’s a nightmare cause it’s frightening because the old thing people called sigularity.

      Q: Like in physics?

      A:No, no. I mean, you know Kurzweil? Maybe you don’t familiar with him. The singularity is the notion that in a few decades, because of Moore’s Law, the constant acceleration of the speed and sizes of computation, that idea that sooner or later, within 40 years or 60 years, there will be absolute point of which human mind will be overtaken by computers and then computers being smarter than us and would be able to create their own successors even faster so the spiral totally out of control.

      Q: So the point where human intelligience equals to computer intelligience is singularity?

      A: That’s correct. And so the idea is that we would be left in the dust. We would be like dogs or ..

      Q: Just like in the Science fiction? Human are dominated by computers?

      A: Yeah, we would be left in the dust, we would be like dogs, like *&*^(didn’t understand), like bacteria. (laugh) and these other beings would be our successors. And I don’t know, to me that’s sad. That’s frightening, that’s not the “dream” of me. I don’t call it the dream of AI, I call it the nightmare of AI. But there are a lot of people look foward to that. They think that’s great. Because they want to be immortal.

      Q: That sounds evil…

…

      Q:Thanks, Professor Hofstadter. It’s a great talk.

      A:Thanks.

星夜

Sony NEX-5C
18-55mm 3.5-5.6
f18mm F4.5 30′

---

织女

---

Sony NEX-5C
18-55mm 3.5-5.6
f18mm F4.5 30′

---

Sony NEX-5C
18-55mm 3.5-5.6
f18mm F4.5 30′

---

Sony NEX-5C
18-55mm 3.5-5.6
f18mm F4.5 30′

---

Sony NEX-5C
18-55mm 3.5-5.6
f18mm F4.5 30′

---

      今天7月21日。 一晃来美国已经半年了。

      半年里, 写过半首歌, 用完了两支牙刷, 剪过三次头发, 旅行过三次, 用完四瓶洗发水, 写完四个本子, 打过十次八十分, 清理过十二次房间, 看过十四本闲书, 十六部电影, 熬过十九个通宵, 打了20多次球, 洗过24次衣服, 跑过30天步, 去过31次超市, 交了若干可以勉强称为朋友的人, 认识若干师兄师姐, 被若干人认为很强, 认为若干人很强。在一个安静的小镇里读着一间还不错的学校, 有着看似不错的未来, 日子应该很完美。

      可是还是很慌乱。

      有时候做最简单的事情手也会抖, 睡觉前不吃片阿司匹林会胸痛得睡不着, 有时披条毯子对着电脑不断按着F5, 麻木的看着人人网一条条更新流过。总感觉有非常重要的事在等待着, 飞快的把手头的事做完, 结果发现什么也没有。

      我去过很多地方, 懂很多大道理, 但是还是不能把握自己的生活。

      在哪里绝对不等于你是谁。

      暑假每天下午从lab回家后会去跑步, 没有任何锻炼身体的目的。或者为了达到一个心理的平衡。一般不会设定一个目标, 但是到一定公里数后身体会形成惯性, 只要能扛过肌肉的酸痛, 就能一直不停。如果没有扛过, 所避免的痛苦肯定没有损失的快感多。跑到后面时, 急促沉重的呼吸压抑着各种念头, 大脑以一定节奏的空白着, 身体则享受着得到刺激的快感, 一直下意识的往前冲刺, 直到肌肉中乳酸含量上升到无法忍受再停下来。倒在马路一边的草坪, 感受着世界的片刻停止。 在运动中得到宁静, 很难发现的事。

      偶尔不跑步的时候我会在篮球场泡着。篮球场上可以碰到很多人, 在球场边跟别人交谈可以了解世界上发生的很多事: 芝加哥罗斯mvp party的疯狂, 危地马拉很美的海, U of I某些教授的可爱, 伊利诺伊考驾照的技巧。大家只是认真的打球, 偶尔侃一阵, 出一身汗然后回去。感觉很轻松。没有人需要分担别人的包袱。这很重要。有时候两个人建立关系之后就会慢慢的把自己的包袱压在对方身上, 于是就觉得不是自己的了, 直到对方不堪重负。这是和某同学聊过后发现的。没有人喜欢包袱, 尤其是别人的。

      和以前很遥远的朋友聊天总是很惬意, 因为他们看不出你的变化。我很小心翼翼的维护着自己已经变了的这个事实, 不让以前世界里的人发现。审视自己: 棱角已经被部分磨去, 没有进取心, 没有远大的志向, 不再好面子, 乐于过着平庸平静的生活, 对时事, 社会毫不关心, 更为自私, 没有丰富的感情。偶尔会到人人网上去开几个蹩脚的玩笑, 分享一些并不喜欢的内容, 装作很关心别人关心的事, 弥补自己在那里的空白。但是我不想去面对以前, 因为我无法解释如何从一个人变成了完全另外一个。

      也许是因为哈尔滨。

      在哈尔滨的生活还是很温馨的, 可以恬淡的过每一天。但是那不是我要的。当我惊奇的发现周围的人做的事在我看来都是错的的时候, 我知道自己在强烈的渴望着什么。

      其实, 现在也在强烈的渴望着, 只是我已经不知道自己能不能驾驭它了。因为我放不开对现在安稳生活的依赖。

      所以我不知道跑步是麻痹还是刺激。

      当然现在生活的中心还是学习和实验室的工作。每天去实验室都会很高兴。因为在那里不用剧烈运动心也能很平静。连上防静电的手链后, 脑子里就不会想到别的事情了。而且不会有人带上任何包袱。即使在他们生活很困难的时候。当我知道Allison和Noa以前一起一个星期只用30刀的助学金过日, Noa为了Allison而放弃自己的事业, 眼睛总是有点湿润。

      现在总是能被为了生活而拼搏的人而感动, 比如林超和表姐。

      跟Gus一起做事, 或者在Gus手底下做事是很愉快的, 在中国你不可能找到一个26, 7岁还如此纯净的人。诚实, 一丝不苟, 有原则而内向腼腆。总让我想起《海边的卡夫卡》里的大岛, 虽然两者差别很大。无论多繁琐零碎的小工作, 和他讨论之后总会觉得很乐趣。好吧, 这个去加州公费旅游的人啊～

      最近又坚定了一点以后继续读物理的想法。是在看完《量子物理史话》后。现在的泪点似乎很奇怪, 看着这些早已熟稔的故事, 竟然还会百分感动。海森堡, 爱因斯坦, 波尔, 那些为自然的秘密而前仆后继的伟大灵魂, 要如何去接近。 如果我还仅存一点乌托邦式的梦想, 那么肯定是理解这个世界的本质。

      睡吧。要开始写读书笔记了。

     没有城市的霓虹 极度地找寻自我
　　对于欲望的渴求 如同地球污染那么多
　　总要等到我贰拾贰 才想扭转过去的生活
　　总是不停地挥霍着 自以为精采的
　　虚掷一空 我还在想通
　　
　　时间非静止不动 失望是期待落空
　　青春的气味太浓 谁带走我所有的寂寞
　　于是等到我贰拾贰 开始逆风努力往前走
　　灰头土脸才感受到 这世界诉说着伟大的梦
　　有残缺的口
　　
　　我说 那就飞吧 我的天马行空
　　相同天空有着不同的梦
　　平凡的和特别说没空
　　被操纵的都有苦衷
　　
　　那就飞吧 我的天马行空
　　反正眼泪是故事始末
　　自己感动就是感动
　　故事的全剧终 你陪我疯狂走过
　　
　　我说 那就飞吧 我的天马行空
　　当梦想又再度向我招手
　　地图尚未标志的路口
　　就是开启希望的时候
　　
　　那就飞吧 我的天马行空
　　每天不停有奇迹降落
　　自己拥有就是永久
　　故事的全剧终 你陪我疯狂走过
　　故事的全剧终 你陪我疯狂走过

二十二

      放假一个星期, 把人一个个送走回国后就开始窝在家看闲书, 放e-reader和ipad里没动过的5，6本一并扫掉。看到下学期离散数学的要求, 顺手把LaTeX学了个大概。然后,

      终于开始假期的实验室生活。

      很爽快的拒了一个假期给三千刀的Hubler教授, 来到不给什么钱的Jim的MBE实验室, 有些肉痛。 Standford的condensed matter大神就像邻家大叔一样, 六项专利, 顶级杂志发篇无数, 见面第一件事就开始推导, 写满一张纸然后不知道自己开始想说什么了, 我在一旁暗爽幸亏不是推倒。拿到钥匙, 很快被安排到做qubit的system E小组。组里有很鄙视本科生但是每天被我问得很烦的Allison大姐大, 坚持自己不是欧洲人的Zach Yoso&^(&..sky, 宅得一塌糊涂的Gauss, 搞不清性取向的Caroline。好吧, 很和谐。隔壁组的机器猫博士师兄Mao也欢乐无比, 每天玩玩液氮, 放放臭氧，用labview编编小程序, 每次音箱里一个男低音吼一声Nitrogen, 他那组小弟就屁颠屁颠的跑去加液氮。

      我们这组玩得很Nb, 因为玩的就是Nb(Niobium)。Nb属于一种高温超导体, 几十K的时候电流会流得非常爽, 但是大家觉得它还不够Nb, 所以在上面还镀了一层Au, 就是俗称Gold的东西。虽然镀上的那层Gold可能还远远不值耗的电费, 因为它只有10nm左右厚。

      等待是件折磨人的事。尤其是你在一间七八个泵学着侏罗纪公园的声音狂抽, 液氮seperator测试高音极限, 电线绕得热带雨林一样的屋子里对着一个奇形怪状的UHV炉子等待Nb原子一个个的打在substrate上, 直到打成一副面膜。时间一个小时一个小时的过去, 每时每刻都要注意这个庞大MBE系统的电压, 温度, 膜层厚度, 等等。巨大的嘈杂也随着时间慢慢消失。

      没有人带耳塞, 因为Allison说你仔细听可以听出液氮的温度。但是Caroline偷偷告诉我, 她是怕在隔壁组的她老公来了, 她不知道。Allison的老公来了每个人都很高兴, 他每次来都有很多笑话。Gauss高兴是因为不用一个人自己傻笑, 其他人也很高兴是因为有人中断Zach引起的无聊话题。

      其实我的工作非常爽, 因为我直接和成品打交道。把制成的Josephson Junction放到8K多的He里面测试超导属性。很难想象, 在一个占地十多平米的系统上耗时几天就做出来个指甲盖大小的小片, 还一不小心就被氧化。 但是大家对小芯片一点也不感冒, 柜子里还有200多个, 对于他们, 实验室里什么都不新鲜。只有Mao和另外一个腼腆的印度小伙Chandra的工作本身就很有开创性, 他们就每天在刺激之中, 因为只要成功一次就能毕业了。顺便, Mao在这里五年了。最近Mao很高兴, 因为实验比较顺利, 而且下周就要和Jim去西雅图开会, 可以穿西装。 我觉得西装上的毛和机器猫不同的一点应该是前面有两个口袋。

      除了我和Caroline, 大家都呆了四五年, 大家都很习惯彼此的存在和实验室的生活。不过对未来也很迷茫。在condensed matter排名第二的学校, PhD压力巨大。每天的发泄方式也就是对着MBE挥锤子。Zach想去公司做科研, 给学宗教研究的老婆一个稳定的生活。Gauss还想继续宅。Allison当我问她的时候只是鄙视的望了我一眼, 继续捶那个坏了的电压表。

      我仿佛看到自己未来。要说学校上还有什么追求, 那么在这个方向能去的只有MIT了。然而应该是不可能的, 因为搜到MIT主页上这个方向的教授长得都像住在阿兹卡班。要让他们给你毕业证书, 首先估计要外形上达标。要是想去公司, 估计也就是从一个电路环绕的实验室换到另外一个电路环绕的实验室, 而且鉴于它们的噪音等级, 都不会在地面上。

      其实现在的生活是我很久以来就盼望的, 在一个安静的小镇每天做喜欢的事, 看很多书。 但是每天都有个时候感觉心口很痛, 所以很怕左胸会长出奶子, 不是怕有, 怕不对称。突然就会想到痞子蔡的《槲寄生》和那个天平的比喻。

      不论我在哪里 都只离你一个转身的距离。

      很奇怪竟然会喜欢一本对其中两个女主角都没感觉的书。我知道谁是明菁, 但是还没有遇到过荃。

      有时候会突然做很多莫名其妙的事, 比如把加州戴维斯的Google地图开到最大的视角, 把城市的各个角落完完全全扫一遍。前几天在qq上碰到倩姐, 讲了很多无聊的话题, 互相问了很多无聊的问题。最后我要她去看看HIMYM, 因为她很像里面的Robin, 只是没她白。她要我没事去加州看看, 我说没钱。两个注定要在实验室或者办公室呆很久的人总会有点互相理解。虽然她可以在病房里调戏病人, 我只能调戏锤子, 很共产主义的感觉。

      好在现在还是有很多东西可以忙的, 量子力学, 偏微分方程, 数据结构。一开始看书感觉左胸就往回收了, 不知道这是不是理科女生都平胸的原因。一般计划两个小时看书, 总是会看一个半小时的google地图, 然后用剩下半个小时把该看的页数翻完, 然后出去点根烟, 看看阳台对面的无忧无虑的黑人哥们儿。不知道他们心里放着些什么, 可能也就是”喜欢你躺着的方式”那种农业重金属吧。

      室友是非常有志向的一个室友, 立志明年要转去康奈尔然后研究生哈佛, GPA确实不错, 而且烧得一手好土豆。不过他在房间里看奥特曼的时候一般我不太打扰的。我们俩还有另外一个长沙伢子永康总是一起出去吃饭。我和永康也没事在阳台抽下烟, 然后听他弹弹蹩脚的表面的和平。暑假他回去之前最后一起吃了顿饭, 他说下个学期来的时候抱条狗就走了。我说你还真有母性。

      我不知道让时间回转十年让我提前看看现在的生活会是怎么样。会不会把当时可以泡的妹子全都泡一遍, 然后现在起码就可以拿着照片打打扑克什么的。但是事情不能这样说, 要是让我现在提前看十年后的生活我可能立马会自杀在这里。你不能掌握才好玩。

      五点二十了。外面松鼠又开始叫。睡去, 等下继续去烦Allison。

      又是一个灿烂的毕业季, 来往于校园之间的MTD巴士前头闪烁着”GOOD LUCK! U OF I GRADS”, 穿着海蓝色博士服的毕业生们嬉笑着。同学该走的都走了。阳光充满的校园一下空荡荡的。一个学期下来的疲惫也早已无影无踪, 留下的只有我和漫长而充满期待的三个月。

      不敢想象两年后博士服穿在自己身上的样子。因为我现在还不够格。 只有你真正经历过, 你才能安心的接受。

---

读《中国农民调查》

      这是一本看完要拍桌子骂娘的书。没有勾心斗角, 没有你虞我诈, 有的是毫无遮拦, 名正言顺的暴行, 不需要手段, 伎俩, 只需要血腥的镇压。中国所有赤裸裸的丑恶和野蛮, 残酷和屈辱都在其中被生动的揭开。
　　
　　 这部长篇纪实文学是前阵清华校庆时久未露面的朱镕基特意推荐的。80多岁的高龄, 本应是远离政治这趟浑水, 享受人生云淡风轻的时候。而他执意在公众之中推荐这本禁书, 可见其痛心疾首。书中所描写的一个个事件也足以令人瞠目结舌, 让人怀疑这一切竟不是在中世纪的欧洲, 而是在二十世纪末, 我们经历的时代所发生的。
　　
　　 也许在进行某次城际旅行, 在欣赏着车外那幅优美的乡村风俗画时, 路过的就是某个村的地狱, 让他们屈辱的为了生活被使来唤去的地方。也许你街上1块钱买的一个面饼, 就是一个农民家庭家徒四壁, 穷困潦倒的原因。你不能想到名满天下的安徽黄山市会有一个乡人均年收入不到700元, 瓦片买不起, 房顶是树皮盖的, 在这种已经接近原始社会模式之下还被乡政府认为已经脱贫, 税收层层加紧, 各种苛捐杂税最高达到25%, 超过当时国家规定3倍。你不会想到农民因被县政府欺压, 全村人凑起路费派代表,上访中央, 回来后直接被打死。在中国1.2亿公顷的耕地上, 有你想不到的罪恶, 贫穷, 苦难和悲壮。
　　
　　 农民, 地方政府, 中央政府三者形成十分微妙的对立关系, 也就是农业研究中所说的所谓”四位一体, 强弱双线关系”（《农民与国家关系的演变模式及前景》 周作翰 张英洪)。这三个阶级其中每一个都宏大得可以单独拿出来独立细致的研究。而三者交叉产生的反应更是巨大的。
　　
　　 人生来便是追求不平等。个人认为法国大革命左翼的所谓”自由, 博爱, 平等”与乌托邦式的共产主义大同小异, 说着玩玩便是。每一个能真实存在的社会必有一个最底层的, 被剥削的阶级, 这是人类本性所致。它的名字无论是奴隶, “不可接触者”, 无产阶级, 都是一种必然的存在, 没有在能力大小不均等的情况下存在的绝对均衡的互相制约的阶级。评判一个社会制度优越性的一个标准便是这个最底层阶级的规模以及和其他阶级的差距。在现今的中国大地上, 这个最底层阶级便是占全世界农民40%的中国农民。
　　
　　 农业, 在本质上讲与工业相差无几, 均是提供生产力。所以在生产关系中的位置应该相同。然而唯一的一点区别是, 人不开车可以, 但是不能不吃饭。于是农业便是关乎民族命运的一个支点, 在这种高度中央集权国家, 同能源产业一样, 关乎命运的必须单独拿出来, 于是有了户口制度, 城乡的分离, 农民们被锁在家乡的土地上。然而这种分离恰恰是造成了农民悲惨命运的根源。在中央政府触及不到的地方, 农民阶级与地方国家所对峙的绝对劣势, 让他们”真苦, 真穷, 真危险”(李昌平致朱镕基的信中所言)。地方政府作威作福, 在这种分离制度的有利情况下, 最大程度的诈取利益, 成了名副其实的”土皇帝”。这种情况下应该有强有力的制度的制约和法律的公平来权衡, 但是这个在发达的城市都不能奢望的要求, 怎么能在农村达到。
　　
　　 这一切的一切, 归根结底都是制度的缺失。在粗劣的制度下, 人性中的恶和欲望被无限放大。你把现在一个受苦受难的农民与作威作福的乡长对掉, 不过几年, 身处乡长位置的淳朴农民也会变得骄横跋扈, 不可一世。
　　
　　 另外一方面导致农民苦难境遇的原因是长久的文化倾向中农民一直代表的是最为低下的生产力和社会等级。在社会文化的长期歧视下, 你很难让一个阶级真正的站起来。
　　
　　 在地球另一面的美洲大陆, 情况便是恰恰相反。在美国大农村四个月的生活让我有机会窥一斑而见全豹。在美国, 农民是绝对的富人阶级, 或者说3%的人口让他们还成为不了一个阶级。首先, 农民和地方政府的接触几乎为零, 大大小小的农场独立的运营着, 自产自销, 州政府也无需对谁交代政绩, 相安无事, 曾经布什当总统时把自己家的农场当作招待外国贵宾的场所就可见美国农场的规模。其次, 美国对于农业这个命脉提供的是直接经济和技术的支持, 而不是制度上的疏离。在美国一年上缴1万亿的个人所得税中只有200亿是农业税, 还不算发下的各种补贴, 这种象征性的收税无疑极大促进农民积极性。再者, 美国政府所有发现的新技术首先是给军方使用, 接着便投入农业生产。卫星定位用于土质监测, 作物种植安排, 所有耕种全机械化, 农民几乎无劳动量。最重要的是教育, 各种州立大学为了农民的子女而建, 在州内的学费几乎是州外四分之一不到, 这在中国是无法想象的。到现在为止, 以工程闻名的德州农工还保持着传统的名字。前几天邀请一个伊大的同学来家中吃饭, 他是一个农场主的儿子, 其中的骄傲之情就无法掩盖。而其谈吐学识也与城市人无异。
　　
　　 也许, 这也只是中国的一种策略, 把一切苦难和包袱, 和问题丢给8亿农民, 让剩下5亿精英和别国竞争。如果是这样, 你又能怎么评判它的对错呢。
　　
　　 引用书中一句话:”美国哈佛大学经济学家德怀特·帕金斯曾经说过的一句话，至今值得我们深思：’对于未来的改革者来说，中国经历的政治经验显而易见但又常常被遗忘——改革进程中应该有明确的受益者。’ ”
　　
　　 也许在今后, 改革的受益者里包括中国的8亿农民。但是这段血与泪的历史永远不会被磨灭。

      凌晨四点的香槟。

      放下笔, 戴上耳机, 回到了三年前日光倾城的拉萨。眩晕的阳光把空气烤的透明, 在浓密如泡沫般的云层上泛起涟漪。

      我跳出窗, 爬下阳台, 一路飞奔, 穿过草原, 昏暗的地平线摇曳着, 卷起浑身的稻草香, 风不止的往后退; 穿过溪地, 裤脚开始腐烂, 血液开始沸腾, 满身泥泞如此亲切; 穿过灼热的湖面, 远山飘动, 积雪纷飞, 已经不知道挥动的谁的双臂。

      参差狰狞的老树下, 平稳摆放的老旧全身镜框, 穿过去, 剔透的水银碎满地, 木纹开始龟裂。

      无数因缘变幻一齐湮灭, 一切前朝现世于此收束。

      俯在水泥地上粗重地喘息, 体味着英雄般的夸张悲壮, 然后

      闭上眼睛, 静静的听。
      

日光倾城

      学了一个学期的伊斯兰教, 关于这个又宏大的话题一致有所感慨, 先贴篇paper。自己真正的感想另找时间写。

  

Islamic Modern Tendencies

         Islam, among the three major religions in the world, from its establishment by Muhammad in the 7th century to now, has existed for more than 1300 years. During its long process of expansion and flourishing , this cosmopolitan religion has left us enormous cultural and religious treasure and altered the trail of world history in a unique but influential way. While with the rapid development of technology and ideological evolution in western countries, the political and economical situation for Muslims is changing, bringing both challenges and opportunities to whoever holds the traditional Islamic vision. It’s time for Muslims to face the all the formidable problems their religion brought to the world: The tragedy of 9/11 and the following high profile terrorist actions; degradation of women in countries like Saudi Arabi; the killing of civilians in countless suicide attacks; endless armed conflicts between Islamic authorities. Admittedly Islam is a huge and complex topic, these events can only reflect one aspect of Islam. While it’s a necessity for people to pay attention to problems like what are the major tendencies of Islamic thought in the modern world context, in which ways they represent continuity with Islamic tradition and in which ways that they represent a departure from Islamic tradition and how Islam reassert itself. I would like to focus on these questions in the following paragraphs.

        From late 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century, European empires broke into the Muslim world successively by physical and technological means. Subsequently, Islamic countries was gradually under the political control or influence of European countries and the following “cultural imperialism”. Islamic social structure experienced dramatic and profound social transformations: Egypt was “civilized” by Napoleon, India became a colony of British, Algeria was occupied by French and being held as a colony until 1962. The door to modernization was opened. Reactions of different classes of Islamic society varied. Some advocated learning “the ‘secrets’ of Western success” and “accepted that they needed a period of European tutelage”(William Shepard 198), some emphasized continuity with the past. Generally, the major reactions, which later developed into major Islamic thought tendency, can be classified into four categories: traditionalism, Islamic modernism, secularism and Islamism.

Traditionalism

        Unlike western culture, which have held the view(especially since the Enlightenment) that religion and the Bible and believism are outmoded, Modern Isam has travelled a different path. During the nineteenth century, the majority of Islamic society, especially “lower classes, most of the ulama and Sufis”(William Shepard 201), were considered to be traditionalist. Although their responses to imperialism and Westernization were not exactly the same, sometimes even contradict to each other, they all attached importance to the inheritance and continuity with the Islamic tradition, and “attributed Muslim impotence to divergence from Islam and deviation from tradition”(Esposito 153). On the other hand, traditionalism is also characterized by its rejection of western culture and technology. The term of traditionalism originated from Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of Hanbali school, the most strict one of the four major schools in Sunni Islam. Wahhabi movement, the influential pre-modern reform in eighteenth century, or more general—salafiyya, also agreed with the doctrine of traditionalism, in terms of consistency of Islamic tradition and strict interpretation of the Qu’ran and Sunna.

       Because of the impossibility of insisting on pure traditionalism brought by western military strike and cultural penetration, many of the conservative traditionalists turned to be considered as neo-traditionalists, including leaders of the Sufi movement, Tijaniyya in Africa and Sanusiyya in Libya. They made compromise between especially emphasizing continuity with the past and absorbing western ideas and practices.

        In the twentieth century, neo-traditionalists continued having great influence on the history of Islam, though they emerged in different forms and their views are not exactly the same. Here we have to mention an important and most representative figure—Ayatollah Khomeini(d.1989), great Islamic scholar, leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which saw the collapse of Muhammad Reza Khan Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. According to the doctrine of Qu’ran, he condemned the Shah in three aspects: the autarchy of Reza Khan; the closeness of the United States; the corruption of morality of the country through the secularizing laws. This condemnation and his slogan—”No East and no West, Islam is for us”, show his loyalty to the the Islamic tradition. While during his reign, he didn’t return to pre-modern modes of government, but rather take a modernized political strategy to govern the nation. He “made remarkable use of such modern technology as tape recorders tospread his message from exile to the people of Iran”(Buchman 90). Despite the one-sidedness, his political success and examples of other rulers like Nahdlatul Ulama in Indonesia, to some extent represented the success of neo-traditionalism in twentieth century and compatibility of Islamic tradition with modern society and the necessity of it.

        Traditionalism(or neo-traditionalism) tried their best to persist Islamic tradition to the greatest extent and their flexible attitudes toward western culture gave opportunities to improve Islam at the same time, that’s why it was prevailing in many countries such as Iran and Indonesia and provided the ideology for them. On the other hand, their endless efforts show the modern Muslims’ dependence on their religious belief and the eternal charm of Islam itself.

Islamic modernism

        Another major ideological trend we have to mention is Islamic modernism. With the Western imperialism and severe social crisis, class differentiation it brought in the beginning of modern time, some upper class and well-educated group in Islamic society started to rethink Islam in a different way from traditionalism. It was the beginning of Islamic modernism. Unlike traditionalism, modernism was against the unquestioned acceptance of the past and advocated internal reform of Muslim society “through a process of reinterpretation (ijtihad) and selective adaptation (Islamization) of Western ideas and technology”(Esposito 154).

        In terms of interpretation of Qur’an and attitude toward Islamic tradition, there were both similarities and contradictions between traditionalism and modernism and they shared the same goal—reviving Islam and driving out West. Modernism admitted the uniqueness and irreplaceablility of Qur’an just like the traditionalists did. While they embraced the theoretical and ideological exercise ijtihad, the intellectual efforts to make legitimate decisions using Qur’anic doctrine and madhhab independently, which is opposite to tarqlid , connoting no independent interpretation of legal sources. One of the great examples was Jamal al-Din al-Afghani(d.1897), an indefatigable reformist of Middle East, the founder of Pan-Islamism. Al-Afghani was an prominent early modernist. As a traditional as he was, he nonetheless remained a strident critic of taqlid. For him, ijtihad was an Islamic views of value based on rational thought rather than a jurisprudence tool, which in the view of traditionalists, was “unwarranted innovations, an accommodationism that permitted alien, un-Islamic, Western Christian practices to infiltrate Islam”(Esposito 169). His famous disciple Muhammad Abduh(d.1905), grand mufti of Egypt, even compared tarqlid to pre-Islamic heresies. What is worth mentioning here is , because of the unreliability of the sanad, modernists also rejected hadith.

         Another characteristic of modernists was their positive attitudes toward western science and technology. Al-Afghani said:”Sovereignty has never left the abode of science…There are no riches in the world without science, and there is no wealth in the world other than science.”(Afghani 17) Although “The Islamic religion is the closest of religions to scienceand knowledge, and there is no incompatibility between science and knowledge and the foundation of the Islamic faith”(Afghani 19), he thought “in truth, the Muslim religion has tried to stifle science and stop its progress”(Afghani 17). However, it departured the Islamic belief that Qur’anic description of the supreme principle of the world, even though the science he referred to here includes the philosophy of the Shari’a. On modern technology, Ahmad Khan, another great early modernist, stated:”Today we need, as in former days, a modern theology by which we either render futile the tenets of modern sciences or doubtful, or bring them into harmony with the doctrines of Islam”(Khan 42) But at the same time, they also criticized the moral degeneration of western life.

        On reform of family laws and women’s rights, modernists made positive and effective efforts. Muhammad Abduh advocated women’s liberation and his follower Qasim Amin, who “criticized lack of education, child marriages, arranged marriages,polygamy, and easy male-initiated divorce as causes of the bondage of Muslim women.”(Esposito 173) Compared to Khomeini’s attitude toward women’s right, which regarded women as seduction to men and primary cause of degeneration, modernists’ views were much more open and conducive to women.

        Modernism, all in all, bridged the past and the future of Islam in a unique way, inspired many enthusiastic Muslims to preserve Islamic tradition and promoted the usage of ijtihad and the consensus between traditional concepts jurisprudence and modern parliamentary forms of government. However it took a kind of top-bottom structure, by which the most influenced Muslims were upper class and scholars. Thus, its affects were relatively limited and it didn’t provide any ideological bases to any modern authorities.

Secularism

        In the modern Islamic history, the nightmare of Western imperialism started to fade away in the first half of the twentieth century, especially after World War II. Thus, Islamic nations could achieve national independence and state sovereignty on after another, began to establish their own independent governments. While the problem they have to face was what path they should take, considering the political situation for Muslims in the modern world context was much more complex than several hundreds years ago, when governmental system can only base on Qur’an and Shari’a. The diversity of political and ideological strategies in the world: Western Capitalism, socialist pattern of Soviet Union, constitutional monarchy, and the impotence of Islamic authorities in the modern history made some Muslims feel that they could make alternatives other than Islam. This didn’t necessarily mean that they reject Islam, but they “reject the proposition that Islam is a total way of life”(William Shepard 206). This tendency is often regarded as secularism, which was prevailing in some area like Albania, Turkey and Pakistan during the twentieth century. What distinguish secularists and modernists is that the former though respect Islamic moral value, even personally are pious Muslims, they completely resist to have the government supervised by Shari’a. However, in fact, many of the secularists started to wear Western suits instead of Islamic traditional garment, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the first president of Turkey.

        What the secular reform brought was the severe lost of Islamic tradition. In Egypt, Muhammad Ali promoted secular policies based on French codes on a large scale. In Albania, all religious legislation were officially abolished in 1989. In Turkey, Islam was annuled as the religion of Turkey in 1928, Perso-Arabic script were replaced by new Turkish alphabet in 1928, limitation on wearing traditional clothing were placed gradually and forcedly. Although secular leaders like Mustafa Kemal made unprecedented success on modernization, the flagrant departure from Islamic tradition left their countries deep social conflict and little spiritual and religious heritage.

        Secularism made great contribution to Islamic modernization and democracy, especially on the problem of family laws and women’s rights. Anyway, it was blamed by traditionalists, Islamists and conservative Muslims severely for their “betrayal”.

Islamism

        Islamism, largely known as “fundamentalism”, the term appropriated by European scholars from Christian religion, emerged in the first half of the twentieth century. Islamists’ ideal was Utopian— returning to the prosperity of Islam, recreating a perfect, unified Umma regularized by Shari’a and erasing all the ugliness and secularism of the world. On the problems of interpretation of Qur’an and Islamic jurisprudence, their attitudes ressembled modernists. Both of them held the view that Qur’an was supreme and ijtihad must be practised. And both of them “wish to eliminate the bid’a and superstitions inherited from the past that traditionalists accept”(William Shepard 208).

        The most dominant and famous Islamist group was the Muslim Brothers. Hasan al-Banna(d.1949) founded it in Egypt in 1928, members of which lately widely spreaded in Islamic world, bringing remarkable political impact on Islamic society. Their constant efforts on establishing a complete Islamic state in Egypt embraced the Islamic tradition, awaring lots of Muslims to return to Islam from secularization.

Conclusion

        The topic of relationship between modern Islam and traditional Islam is extremely huge, which I can’t elaborate thoroughly and specifically. But from the illustration above we can tell, for Muslims and Islamic world, Islam is a necessity. No matter how it changes, the essence of Islam never fade away. Although Islam is facing a lot of problems nowadays, with the endless efforts of pious Muslims, the future of Islam is brilliant.

      已经凌晨12点40了, 今晚的任务还没有开始做, 但还是忍不住写几句。

      晚上去听了John L. Esposito教授的演讲。读了他一个学期的reading(还有William Shepard), 咒了他无数回写这么多gp东西干什么, 但在见到这位伊斯兰研究的顶级人物, 美国政府的外交顾问后还是有点兴奋。他十分有风度, 典型的演讲家气质, 铿锵有力, 引经据典, 本来忙了一天疲惫的身心又被他带得兴奋起来。演讲的题目是伊斯兰的明天和美伊关系, 内容懂了50%左右, 从纳赛尔到穆巴拉克, 从穆斯林兄弟会到近期的利比亚暴乱, 均有见解, 风格又和Hoffman教授平时授课各有千秋了。到场的几乎是穆斯林, 全都听得近乎痴迷, 让我第一次接触到这种集体性宗教狂热的冰山一角。让人感到钦佩的是教授是意大利籍美国人, 先后研究的是天主教和佛教, 最后转到了伊斯兰教研究。虽不了解他的人生经历, 但是在一个全新的领域能做到最好, 后来居上, 着实不容易。就以Hoffman教授早年在突尼斯和埃及十多年的经历和不错的天赋(每次凭她记得我迟到的记忆力)对伊斯兰研究也不能作出他这么大的贡献, 可见此人之彪悍。所以, 天时地利都是狗p, 人剽悍才是王道。

      之后回来路过灯火通明的Siebel Center, 又一次心潮澎湃。想着自己嚷嚷要学计算机这么多年, 自己小打小闹这么久, 终于可以在个老大不小的年龄里在世界最顶尖的计算机中心开始正式开始了(前提是选课能抢到位置!!mb的公立学校), 心中又是一股幸福感, 立刻觉得刷夜, 折腾算什么, 喷点印度神油什么的, 一下就扛过了。大三下开始不是问题, 想想Esposito世界宗教差不多玩遍了才玩出名堂, 想想姚期智混到27才知道物理没前途来UIUC学计算机, 我这的确算早慧了。虽然图灵奖什么的应该跟我无缘。

      mb扯了这么久, 刷夜去～