[胡言乱语,神经兮兮] 陈梦谈·第一道茶

Posted by 浥尘 on Mar 10th, 2008
2008
Mar 10

梦,未经加工。

纳粹扫荡过的街区,尸横遍野。全是黑白色调的。
一个牧师躲过了这场屠杀,在尸场中为自己的怯懦和渎神而痛苦。
忽然他看见一点红色。那是一个死人手中的一枝红玫瑰。于是他奔过去抓住那枝玫瑰,捧在胸前。又一点红色。他奔过去——那是一支号角。红色的小喇叭,躺在一个小姑娘的手边。牧师仿佛穿上了红舞鞋,疯狂地奔走于这新造就的坟场中,捡拾着一点又一点的红色。玫瑰和号角。玫瑰和号角。一支又一支。
镜头慢慢推移,牧师的宿命没有终点。

然后镜头转到一个纳粹军官与女俘虏的营帐嬉戏中。(和我做过的所有这类梦差不多,镜头偶尔是女俘的主视角。)
他高大英武,她窈窕美丽。她为了活下去,使出了浑身解数——只求他不腻烦她,不会让她这么快就如前几个女俘一样被赐死。她已经陪了他数个月,大大超过了前几个女俘的平均时间。所以她危在旦夕。
她围着他起舞。身姿曼妙。她观察到他微微闭了眼——要腻了。于是她拉着他离开镜头。再出现的时候,他们都换上了冰舞的表演服。红色的天鹅绒,漂亮的流苏。
旋转,起舞。跪倒,抛掷。他又恢复了兴趣。眼里激情闪烁,英俊的面容变得柔和。在旁人的眼里,他们可称得上是令人艳羡的一对。
女子的眼神暧昧,邀请着进一步的征服。
忽然他从舞台的暗箱里甩出一条长长的蛇。女子被压抑的吸气声——她不敢惊呼,生怕军官一气之下对她挥起军刀。为了在军帐里活下去,她已经学会顺从。
但她仍然舞向了离蛇较远的方向。军官读到了她的恐惧,快意地笑着。把蛇袋子上的标签用军刀挑给她。她飞快地扫了一眼——无毒。但是她不信!她怎么可能傻到相信这是无毒的蛇呢!她哀哀地看着他,他英俊的面庞上是无辜的笑容。“过来!”他命令道。他强迫女子躺倒在他与蛇中间,然后他吻着女子,让她安心。与此同时,蛇的吻印在女子的右臂上。
镜头开始模糊。女子的瞳孔慢慢散大。军官没有说一句话,只是吻着。彼此都好安静。
旁边扫地的嬷嬷嘟哝了一声:不愧是长官最喜欢的女人。

[旧诗匣]思凡

Posted by 浥尘 on Mar 10th, 2008
2008
Mar 10

05年的旧作,写一首名为《思凡》的箜篌曲,附会成一个尼姑私逃出寺院的故事。与爱情无涉。与青春大概有关。
当时显然是应了学完《琵琶行》之后老师希望让大家以音入诗的景。
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
泠泠箜篌密密落,袅袅钟音絮絮吟。灯青懒看缁衣旧,枝红还数落英勤。
空门槛外人罕至,鼓瑟吹笙无嘉宾。钟钟鼓鼓颜易老,暮暮朝朝悔自频。
自悯泪化倾盆雨,伤心弦断箜篌琴。弦断音凝哀声在,百转千回诉愿殷。
梨花一枝感时泪,子归数啼动归心。弦弦急切珠玉迸,声声清越凤凰吟。
跨凤弄玉停箫蹙,霓裳杨妃侧耳颦。丝丝似诉富贵事,缕缕还念旧绣衾。
纵恋佛前清静地,仍愿凡间萦苦辛。抛却青袍罗裙挽,唇点胭脂鬓压金。
滴呖啼啭枝头闹,天光云影波色粼。寺檐渐远炊烟近,箜篌明澈钟鼓喑。
佳人已去风波定,绕梁余音犹琳琳。箜篌抚罢人皆叹,思凡一曲动苍旻。

初识余华,是读那本鲜红封面的《活着》。默默无言中,“活着”这两个沉重的字,被岁月之犁压进一条条深沟里,来年结成沉甸甸的红高粱,粒粒看来皆是血。轻咬慢嚼,有甜丝丝的腥气。

很难把《活着》里的余华归为一个先锋派作家:张扬恣肆的语言,画面感强烈的叙事,字里行间作者淡淡的自鸣得意,以及那个不停咀嚼生活记忆的福贵老汉——怎么看怎么主流。对死亡的描写是俭省的、平静的。《活着》中的死亡,不可谓不荒诞:为营救当权者难产的妻子,抽血过多而死。然而,尽管死亡的设计是如此荒谬,作者对死亡的渲染却十分严肃。这种巧妙的暗讽,如同西服革履却穿了不同颜色的袜子,与有心人增一笑耳,先锋之名,恐不妥当。过于纯熟的手腕下,绘出的线条也许就失于圆滑。

然而《一九八六》里的余华,却是一个年轻的余华,锋芒毕露的余华,摇旗呐喊的余华。一个表情丰富不屑于掩饰的余华。

再说两句题外话。

写浩劫和伤痛的小说,往往喜欢写两种人。英雄和常人。都是走极端。英雄就是处处异象,弄潮时代,翻手为云覆手雨。常人就是普普通通平平凡凡,一张间谍脸,掉进人堆都不见。写英雄是为了写波诡云谲史海沉浮之中,一个英雄如何迎风而立英姿飒爽,写常人却是为了写黑云压城之时,被毒害的内心是如何挣扎纠结扭曲——因此,越普通越正常的人,内心的旅程才越一波三折。

然而余华写的这个中学教师,当然不是英雄,“一个循规蹈矩的中学历史教师”而已;却更不是正常人。大学里便醉心于酷刑研究,埋首书卷、积累笔记,并不是常人所为,而明白无误地潜埋着一颗黑暗的种籽。特异的美学爱好,对暴力的向往,对罪与罚的执著……这个“循规蹈矩”的中学教师,在还是一个大学学生时候,内心的风暴便小有显露。

虽然这颗种籽的发芽,是在十年风暴之中。

中国传统上就有个很有趣的意象:阵。阵之所以伟大,在于其对于敌方军队的囚禁作用。既然有阵,就有破阵。《兰陵王破阵乐》,金石之声,今世再不闻也。

囚禁,是余华审美语汇中的一个组成部分。

作茧自缚,为阵自困。因为害怕失去,中学教师囚禁了美——假以保护之名。他爱的妻子的美,本是个源于自由的意象:两只红蝴蝶驮着油黑的辫子在空中翩翩飞翔——却横遭了他的囚禁。妻子没有反对(在他的审美世界里,美的化身总因该是柔顺的,譬如走上刑场的囚徒,周身环绕着自我牺牲的光彩),从此与他一样禁足不出。

安全感是囚禁之举最初的意义,却也是囚禁之举最终的尴尬。妻子的确收获了虚假的安全感,但失去了自由的美,渐渐变得麻木。人渐渐成为木偶,不见了飞扬的灵动。这种虚假的安全感却未能欺骗他自己:身兼狱卒与囚徒二职的他,因为担心将从自己构建的牢笼走入别人构建的牢笼,总是惊怖异常。

终于,他的被捕结束了他的自我囚禁。然而被捕之后,等待他的又是囚禁。这一次的囚禁却是有终点的:通向审判,通向刑罚。

当红卫兵的脚步渐渐逼近的时候,他预感到自己将要领受的刑罚渐渐逼近。大踏步地,他将走上那一条自己已经千遭万遍幻想过的鲜血之路,作刀尖之舞,以生命为刑罚之美献祭。破阵!破阵!刑罚,将如九天之雷降临大地,终结压抑憋闷的囚禁之夜,让一场鲜血之雨荡涤世间万物,再无尘埃。也许是被记忆深处对于暴力美学的热爱所激动着,他变得兴奋异常,呐喊跳跃。红色的舞鞋,穿上便不停起舞,再不停歇。破阵!破阵!——竟无意间逃到了街上。

忽然“自由”了的他,并不愿意领受这一份“自由”——不知怎地,他又一次成功地把自己囚禁:囚禁在过去的时间里。记忆闪回,蝴蝶飞舞,一幕幕一重重,让他无法离开。这一次囚禁的是心魂,他永远无法解脱。这种囚禁与天地同寿,成为横亘在宇宙间的一个巨大的孤独。

不知不觉间,新的时代已经到来。曙光下没有他的位置:新的时代已经不接纳刑罚,不接纳囚禁,不接纳他的美学观,不接纳伤疤,不接纳鲜血——不接纳属于过去的他。

成为了不合时宜的疯子,他行走在白骨森森鲜血淋淋的世间,徒劳地寻找这一场囚禁的终点:刑罚。红舞鞋踏上刑场,他用脚丈量囚禁的长度。破阵,破阵!只有通过刑罚,囚犯才能解脱。献祭越是惨烈,解脱越是彻底。而他,有资格享受极品刑罚——他大学时代心心念念的中国酷刑。有了刑罚为囚禁封缄,囚禁才有了意义,有了荣光万丈。

琵琶继续乱弹。多骨少肉的音色,铮铮琮琮。

他,即使是沦为一个可怜的疯子,仍然实现了他对囚禁的抗争。而同时代的人,更多的却是选择了接受囚禁。妻子自不必说,屈服于他的囚禁,又反过来囚禁了她和他的女儿。千千万万个走过浩劫的家庭,为了能够沐浴在新的曙光中,不惜割断了与过去连接的脐带,而把自己囚禁在了没有历史感的现在,甘心成为不知从何来、向何去,坐以待毙的囚徒。

难道,这样的囚禁,便不可悲?

Thoughts on Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness

Posted by 若水 on Mar 7th, 2008
2008
Mar 7

In his History and Class Consciousness, Georg Lukacs attempts to reemphasize Marxism’s Hegelian origin and redeem dialectics from attacks of revisionism. Opposing Kantian metaphysics, which makes an arbitrary difference between thing and thing-in-itself, the dialectic is supposed to be a relative dynamic between opposite ideas; in addition, it is supposed to be praxis, or unified thoughts and action. Consciousness is a dialectical notion: it is supposed to be “practical critical activity” with the task of “changing the world” (78). Class consciousness, in addition, “approaches society from another world and leads from the false path it has followed back to the right one” (78). In order to bring historical movement, the proletariat must organize itself and realize its own class consciousness.

This reading of class consciousness, while recognizing its aim for praxis, nonetheless place it primarily in the realm of thought. Even though upon realization of class consciousness action towards revolution must be on the way, the class consciousness itself does not quite contain action yet. This reading suggests that the realization of class consciousness is the exact moment that the thought is leading towards action; and, by virtue of its transition, class consciousness contains both thoughts and action. That which comes before class consciousness is either false consciousness or political unconsciousness; that which comes after consciousness–well, I think orthodox Marxism calls it revolution.

However, an opposing interpretation challenges this reading. It states that realization of class consciousness is revolution already because the proletariat class has already recognized its condition, and changes are already made in thoughts. To this point I object: where forth is praxis, that which unites thought and action? Defenders of this reading replies that because class consciousness is already defined as “thought and action”, the realization of such fulfills the dialectics of praxis. But isn’t this logic circular? Class consciousness is both thought and action, hence realizing it fulfills both thought and action. This interpretation seems to reduce class consciousness into a mere game of semantics, making it no more than a play of definitions. The condition of the proletariat does not change; perhaps it can imagine its socioeconomic condition changed–but usually we call that “false consciousness”.

If we are to talk about Marxism, I think it would be for the best that we stay within its historical materialist framework. And perhaps our critique of it should come from historical perspective as well. For example: why the proletariat? Reliance on this particular class by today’s standard seems absurd. Even in Marx’s, or perhaps later, in Lukacs’ time, such a class would be unable–too uneducated to understand the meaning of alienation, of fetishism, and of class consciousness–to carry out anything on its own. It is merely a reified object to the Marxist intellectuals and politicians, whom, symbolizing thought, required an outlet for action. What of subject-object relations and praxis? Well, I believe that in Hellenic Athens a group of professionals named sophists often taught their disciples ways of deceiving and taking advantage of others through the art of speech.

Bernstein, Revisionism, and Hauntology

Posted by 若水 on Mar 6th, 2008
2008
Mar 6

When the term “revisionism” first appeared in Eduard Bernstein’s work Evolutionary Socialism, it lacked its latter stigma as any form of deviance to an arbitrarily established “orthodoxy” of Marxism. Had Bernstein lived, he would have rejected with disgust Mao’s calling of Khrushchev “revisionist” and other abuses of his term.

Is Bernstein’s revisionism truly “revisionist” by its later attribution? The answer is clear: Bernstein would disagree with Mao by stating that Khrushchev’s thaw and destalinization was not enough. Only a genuine move away from Communist ultimate goal and violent means of achieving for parliamentary socialism would suffice the burden of the term “revisionist”. Revisionism, in its philosophical grounds, further represents the move away from Hegelian dialectics for Kantianism. Bernstein undermines the theory of value that Marxist creates in Das Kapital. As an associate of Marx and a close friend (and one of the two literary trustee) of Engels, then, Bernstein had truly disowned the original foundation of Marxism.

The historical reception of Bernstein, however, is dim; he was criticized immediately by orthodox Marxists of his time–most famously by Sparticist Rosa Luxemburg, who called him the first of Marxist “opportunists”. His “revisionism” was often mentioned as a label against political enemies while his positive contribution to Marxism to call for self-examination: “the further development and elaboration of the Marxist doctrine must begin with criticism of it” (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, 25). His reception outside of Marxism fared no better. Even though European democratic socialist parties in practice followed many of Bernstein’s points, they find Bernstein perhaps too tainted by his associations with Marx and Engels for orthodoxy. Had Bernstein been less practical and more capable of producing a sound theoretical work of his own, perhaps he would have found better receptions.

Of course, one must not forget that in the post-Marxist world, the specter of Marx (and his followers, critiques, friends and enemies) lives. Derrida’s hauntology found its way even into Marx’s prodigal son, Eduard Bernstein. When Bernstein’s spirit was invoked by Xie Tao in his famed article last February in support of Chinese adoption of Democratic Socialism, would it know that through such invocation Luxemburg’s criticism of Bernsteinian “opportunism” was again conjured into existence as well? Perhaps, instead of criticizing Xie Tao’s citation of Bernstein as an anachronism, we can see this act in the light of huantology and accepted our fate that the haunt is long from over.

« Prev