#storyteller #trinitarianism
本雅明对长篇小说的深刻洞见：
本雅明对长篇小说的深刻洞见：
The earliest symptom of a process whose end is the decline of storytelling is the rise of the novel at the beginning of modern times. What distinguishes the novel from the story (and from the epic in the narrower sense) is its essential dependence on the book. The dissemination of the novel became possible only with the invention of printing. What can be handed on orally, the wealth of the epic, is of a different kind from what constitutes the stock in trade of the novel. What differentiates the novel from all other forms of prose literature — the fairy tale, the legend, even the novella — is that it neither comes from oral tradition nor goes into it. This distinguishes it from storytelling in particular. The storyteller takes what he tells from experience — his own or that reported by others. And he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening to his tale. The novelist has isolated himself. The birthplace of the novel is the solitary individual, who is no longer able to express himself by giving examples of his most important concerns, is himself uncounseled, and cannot counsel others. To write a novel means to carry the incommensurable to extremes in the representation of human life. In the midst of life’s fullness, and through the representation of this fullness, the novel gives evidence of the profound perplexity of the living. Even the first great book of the genre, Don Quixote, teaches how the spiritual. greatness, the boldness, the helpfulness of one of the noblest of men, Don Quixote, are completely devoid of counsel and do not contain the slightest scintilla of wisdom. If now and then, in the course of the centuries, efforts have been made — most effectively, perhaps, in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre — to implant instruction in the novel, these attempts have always amounted to a modification of the novel form. The Bildungsroman, on the other hand, does not deviate in any way from the basic structure of the novel. By integrating the social process with the development of a person, it bestows the most frangible justification on the order determining it. The legitimacy it provides stands in direct opposition to reality. Particularly in the Bildungsroman, it is this inadequacy that is actualized.
接着作者强调了现代 AI 的优劣势，其中劣势包括巨额费用以及过度个人主义（技术并非中立，这个观点我已经说过很多次了）：
其他选择：将 AI 作为探索多样性和可能性的实验室。
重要问题是：探索技术如何实现不受问题解决或特定目标驱动的行动？以及上述所说的教育问题。
怎么做？── 将技术从市场驱动模式中解放出来，转向公共、团结和社会化的替代方案。并且：
最后，归根到底，改变从来都是世界观的问题。What's the context?
🌐 文章链接
...
today’s large language models are powered by data and statistics. Though some rules still shape them, their outputs are driven by changing data, not fixed protocols.
...
In this sense, ChatGPT isn’t the eolith itself—it’s too amorphous, too shapeless, too generic—but it functions more like the experimental workshop where the eolithic flâneur takes his discovery to see what it’s really good for. In other words, it lets us test whether the found stone is better suited as a spearhead, a toy, or an art object.
...
For all the ways tools like ChatGPT contribute to ecological reason, then, they also undermine it at a deeper level—primarily by framing our activities around the identity of isolated, possibly alienated, postmodern consumers. When we use these tools to solve problems, we’re not like Storm’s carefree flâneur, open to anything; we’re more like entrepreneurs seeking arbitrage opportunities within a predefined, profit-oriented grid. While eolithic bricolage can happen under these conditions, the whole setup constrains the full potential and play of ecological reason.
Here too, ChatGPT resembles the Coordinator, much like our own capitalist postmodernity still resembles the welfare-warfare modernity that came before it. While the Coordinator enhanced the exercise of instrumental reason by the Organization Man, ChatGPT lets today’s neoliberal subject—part consumer, part entrepreneur—glimpse and even flirt, however briefly, with ecological reason. The apparent increase in human freedom conceals a deeper unfreedom; behind both stands the Efficiency Lobby, still in control. This is why our emancipation through such powerful technologies feels so truncated.
其他选择：将 AI 作为探索多样性和可能性的实验室。
Another pivotal figure in this intellectual milieu was Oscar Varsavsky, a talented scientist-turned-activist who championed what he called “normative planning.” Unlike the proponents of modernization theory, who wielded computers to project a singular, predetermined trajectory of economic and political progress, Varsavsky and his allies envisioned technology as a means to map diverse social trajectories—through a method they called “numerical experimentation”—to chart alternative styles of socioeconomic development. Among these, Varsavsky identified a spectrum including “hippie,” “authoritarian,” “company-centric,” “creative,” and “people-centric,” the latter two being his preferred models.
Computer technology would thus empower citizens to explore the possibilities, consequences, and costs associated with each path, enabling them to select options that resonated with both their values and available resources. In this sense, information technology resembled the workshop of our eolithic flâneur: a space not for mere management or efficiency seeking, but for imagination, simulation, and experimentation.
重要问题是：探索技术如何实现不受问题解决或特定目标驱动的行动？以及上述所说的教育问题。
怎么做？── 将技术从市场驱动模式中解放出来，转向公共、团结和社会化的替代方案。并且：
While we do so, we must not forget the key insight of the Latin American experiments: technology’s emancipatory potential will only be secured through a radical political project. Without one, we are unlikely to gather the resources necessary to ensure that the agendas of the Efficiency Lobby don’t overpower those of the Humanity Lobby. The tragic failure of those experiments means this won’t be an easy ride.
最后，归根到底，改变从来都是世界观的问题。What's the context?
Boston Review
The AI We Deserve - Boston Review
Critiques of artificial intelligence abound. Where’s the utopian vision for what it could be?
#ai #eolithism
我在三主义中使用的「classicism」实际上并不贴切，用「eolithism」或许会更好。
早期 AI 中根植的目的论（控制论）和官僚主义暗通，或者设计/工程：
与此相对应的是 Storm 所说的「eolithism」，是「junkman」这种类型的人，是反进步、后现代性以及对现代生产设计牺牲个性与多样性的反抗：
现代社会推崇系统的工程学教育，对「eolithism」存在偏见，需要重新审视整个教育体系。这是生态理性（一种强调不确定性以及我们自身与环境之间互动关系的智能观）对工具理性的抗争，也是对线性理解目的与手段的拒斥。
我在三主义中使用的「classicism」实际上并不贴切，用「eolithism」或许会更好。
早期 AI 中根植的目的论（控制论）和官僚主义暗通，或者设计/工程：
Winograd, to his credit, proved far more self-reflexive than most in the AI community. In a talk in 1987, he observed striking parallels between symbolic AI—then dominated by rules-based programs that sought to replicate the judgment of professionals like doctors and lawyers—and Weberian bureaucracy. “The techniques of artificial intelligence,” he noted, “are to the mind what bureaucracy is to human social interaction.” Both thrive in environments stripped of ambiguity, emotion, and context—the very qualities often cast as opposites of the bureaucratic mindset.
与此相对应的是 Storm 所说的「eolithism」，是「junkman」这种类型的人，是反进步、后现代性以及对现代生产设计牺牲个性与多样性的反抗：
is that the stones were picked up . . . in a form already tolerably well adapted to the end in view and, more important, strongly suggestive of the end in view. We may imagine [the ancient man] strolling along in the stonefield, fed, contented, thinking preferably about nothing at all—for these are the conditions favorable to the art—when his eye lights by chance upon a stone just possibly suitable for a spearhead. That instant the project of the spear originates; the stone is picked up; the spear is, to use a modern term, in manufacture. . . . And if . . . the spearhead, during the small amount of fashioning that is its lot, goes as a spearhead altogether wrong, then there remains always the quick possibility of diverting it to some other use which may suggest itself.
This is Veblen’s idle curiosity at work. Separated from it, design principles are fundamentally limited because they require fixed, predetermined goals and must eliminate diversity from both methods and materials, reducing their inherent value to merely serving those predetermined ends. Storm goes on to argue that efforts to apply design to solve problems at scale, using the uniform methods of mass production, leave people yearning for vernacular, heterogeneous solutions that only eolithism can offer. Its spirit persists into modernity, embodied in unexpected figures—Storm identifies the junkman as the quintessential eolithic character.
现代社会推崇系统的工程学教育，对「eolithism」存在偏见，需要重新审视整个教育体系。这是生态理性（一种强调不确定性以及我们自身与环境之间互动关系的智能观）对工具理性的抗争，也是对线性理解目的与手段的拒斥。
Can we really talk about means and ends as separate categories, when our engagement with the means—and with one another—often leads us to revise the very ends we aim to achieve? In Storm’s terms, purposive action might itself emerge as the result of a series of eolithic impulses.
With this, we have arrived at a picture of human intelligence than runs far beyond instrumental reason. We might call it, in contrast, ecological reason—a view of intelligence that stresses both indeterminacy and the interactive relationship between ourselves and our environments. Our life projects are unique, and it is through these individual projects that the many potential uses of “eoliths” emerge for each of us.
#word
入洞门
作词: 民间宝卷
作曲: 民间宝卷
编曲: 民间宝卷
入洞门，
黑暗无明，好心惊。
着我省悟寻出路,
独自孤身闯玄门。
为人若把诸尘卸，
万圣千贤一般同。
早早挣，下苦功，
意马心猿莫放松。
在洞中，
思前想后，泪直倾。
而今寻你超生死，
谁知去路共来踪。
往上不知山头路，
往下不知浅合深。
乾摸乱，好难寻，
不着知晓道不通。
入洞门
作词: 民间宝卷
作曲: 民间宝卷
编曲: 民间宝卷
入洞门，
黑暗无明，好心惊。
着我省悟寻出路,
独自孤身闯玄门。
为人若把诸尘卸，
万圣千贤一般同。
早早挣，下苦功，
意马心猿莫放松。
在洞中，
思前想后，泪直倾。
而今寻你超生死，
谁知去路共来踪。
往上不知山头路，
往下不知浅合深。
乾摸乱，好难寻，
不着知晓道不通。
#word
保持一种高贵的姿态太容易，尚且无用...吗？
保持一种高贵的姿态太容易，尚且无用...吗？
师问仰山：“《涅槃经》四十卷，多少佛说，多少魔说？”
仰山云：“总是魔说。”
师云：“已后无人奈子何！”
仰山云：“慧寂即一期之事，行履在什么处？”
师云：“只贵子眼正，不说子行履。”
—— 《景德传灯录》卷九页一五一
#anarchy #avant_garde
节选自 Tiqqun 的文章，一针见血地指出了先锋派最大的问题，是故转向三主义。
🌐 文章链接
节选自 Tiqqun 的文章，一针见血地指出了先锋派最大的问题，是故转向三主义。
在宣言中，同样回响着一种希望，一种纯粹的否定可以产生一种决心，一种话语可以奇迹般地创造一个世界。但是先锋派的行动不是很好。没有人能坚持“实践”、“生活”或“社区”，原因很简单，每个人都已经存在了，这只是一个对什么样的实践、什么样的生活、什么样的社区负责的问题；并使自己成为适当技术的承担者来修改这些。但是，在主体化的先锋派制度中，只有存在的东西恰恰是不可假设的。
.....
决定像先锋派这样的集体事业的失败的内在部分是它没有能力创造一个世界。先锋派所有的辉煌，所有的行动，所有的话语都不断地没有给它一个实体；这一切都是在少数人的头脑中发生的，在那里，集体的统一性，即有机的内容，在思想中，也就是说，在思想的外部，得到了发展。共同的纽带，武器，独特的时间性，对日常生活的共同阐述，各种确定的东西都是必要的，这样一个世界才能到来。因此，如果先锋艺术的所有表现形式最终都在博物馆里结束，这是公正的，因为它们在被曝光之前就已经在那里了。他们的实验性的自命不凡说明不了别的：事实上，手势、实践和关系的集合——尽管它们可能是越界的——并不能构成一个世界。
......
对古典元素的使用，被先锋派所谴责，这只是标志着这种主权的超越，标志着后历史时代的巨大飞跃，在这种飞跃中，过去的所有美学元素都可以同样地被借用，并利用起来，在一种功利的突发奇想中，发现一个全新的社会，和过去的历史没有联系，也没有对它的仇恨。所有后先锋主义永远不会放弃这种活尸式的观点，这种彻底改造世界的计划；通过这种方式，把自己想象成一个至高无上的主体，同时与它所处的时代同时，又被一种必要的审美距离所分隔。对于那些踌躇满志的先锋派来说，这无疑是一件越来越滑稽的事情。
......
作为一种类型，先锋派是作为对世界可居住性的男性反应而诞生的，因此帝国机器已经开始发展，作为重新占有自主技术的非世界的愿望。
......
“先锋派”从来没有指定一种确定的积极性，而总是指定一种假装的积极性的事实：首先，在否定中持久地维持自己，其次，赋予自己自己的否定性，“激进性”，自己的革命本质。这样一来，先锋派就从来没有一个真正的敌人，尽管它在这个或那个方面表现出了各种各样的敌意；先锋派只是宣称自己是这个或那个的敌人。这就是它在自身背后运作的投影，以赢得它在表征系统中为自己打算的位置。因此，先锋派自然开始使自己幽灵化，也就是说，表现出自己的所有方面，从而阻止敌人这样做。
......
必须顺便说一句：这不是头脑的问题，而是身体和行动的瘫痪。
#word
一个人应该能够给孩子换尿布、计划一次侵略行动、杀猪、驾驶飞船、设计建筑物、写诗、做会计账目、砌墙、接合断骨、照顾临终的人、执行命令、下达命令、与人合作、独立行动、解方程式、分析一个新问题、施肥、编程、做一餐美味的饭、高效地战斗、勇敢地死去。专业化是为昆虫准备的。
—— 罗伯特·海因莱恩
一个人应该能够给孩子换尿布、计划一次侵略行动、杀猪、驾驶飞船、设计建筑物、写诗、做会计账目、砌墙、接合断骨、照顾临终的人、执行命令、下达命令、与人合作、独立行动、解方程式、分析一个新问题、施肥、编程、做一餐美味的饭、高效地战斗、勇敢地死去。专业化是为昆虫准备的。
—— 罗伯特·海因莱恩
#literature #ai #humanities
但我感兴趣的点在于这一段：
让我想到了一个「文学诈骗集团」。
🌐 文章链接
Phil Christman 的长文从人文学科的本质出发，揭示了一个更深层的危机：功利主义思维正在蚕食教育的灵魂。
但我感兴趣的点在于这一段：
The other form of education that our society seems willing to respect, which is little modules and workshops dispensed to well-off professionals, also seems a likely enough vehicle for the survival of some sort of literary culture. Tell a bunch of young men that you can teach them what women really want, and then, when they show up, give them a plateful of nachos, a copy of the collected works of the Brontë sisters, a burned CD of ten or twelve Joan Armatrading songs. Maybe throw in “The Wife of Bath’s Tale.” You’d be doing them a favor. Fans of high culture should welcome vulgarization in a pinch, the same way that devout Sunday school teachers welcome the untutored, inarticulate, undirected faith of a child. People gotta start somewhere.
让我想到了一个「文学诈骗集团」。
Plough
Does Teaching Literature and Writing Have a Future?
Learning that one’s job might soon be eliminated by the emergence of an overhyped new technology puts one in good company.
