他者之目：從王侯炫耀至像素之美

 

他者之目：從王侯炫耀至像素之美

在一個被精心策劃的圖像與生活所充斥的時代，我們日益真切地感受到，我們似乎不再為自身的深層發展而活，而是活在他者的無所不在的凝視之下。此種現象絕非新近產物；其根源可追溯至數世紀之前，並隨文化脈絡而演變。從托爾斯坦·凡勃倫所描述的歷史性「炫耀性消費」，到邱澎生教授觀察到的16世紀以後中國獨特的「消費社會」，直至當代自拍文化所構建的數位舞台，一條貫穿始終的線索浮現：人類透過外在認可來標示地位與身份的內在驅力。

托爾斯坦·凡勃倫在其開創性著作《有閒階級論》中，首次闡明了炫耀性消費的概念。他認為，個體，特別是「有閒階級」成員，其購買商品與服務之主要目的，並非為其實用價值或基本需求，而是為了向他人展示其財富、社會地位與權力。他論證，此種行為乃是一種確立優勢地位並贏得他人尊敬的手段。從擁有奢華莊園到維持過多的僕從，其本質皆在於證明其能夠僅為炫耀自身優越經濟地位而浪費資源。對於凡勃倫而言，此類行為關乎的並非個人滿足，而是社會定位。

將目光轉向地球的另一端，時間回溯至數世紀前，邱澎生教授關於16世紀以後中國「消費社會」的學術研究，提供了一個引人入勝的非西方類比。邱教授挑戰了「消費革命」獨屬於西方現象的觀點。他細緻地闡述了明清時期中國國內外貿易加速發展後，一種獨特的消費模式是如何興起的。這不僅僅關乎基本需求；它囊括了通過纏足（作為精英地位的象徵）、大量藏書，乃至於煙草與情色消費的微妙之處所體現的「炫耀性消費」。儘管這些行為或許不像西方那樣由工業資本主義驅動，但它們無疑反映了在等級森嚴的社會中展示財富、精緻與社會地位的渴望。他所描述的「富而好禮」的社會躍動，暗示了一個消費與社會價值及個人呈現深度交織的社會。

快轉至21世紀，社交媒體平台上自拍文化的興起，為活在他者之目下提供了極致的放大。對線上形象的持續策劃，個體精心記錄其經歷——無論是在高端咖啡館品嚐咖啡，在商務艙座位上休憩，還是在異國情調的地點度假——皆是凡勃倫炫耀性消費在數位時代的直接體現。這些不僅僅是個人記憶；它們通常是精心建構的視覺訊息，旨在引發追隨者的羨慕、嫉妒或認可。「點讚」、「分享」和評論成為了現代社會認可的貨幣，使得「活著」的行為次於「被看見活得很好」的行為。這種投射成功與幸福形象的渴望，可能凌駕於真實體驗之上，將個人發展轉變為一場為未見觀眾而演出的行為藝術。

本質上，無論是透過凡勃倫筆下有閒階級的宏大姿態，明清中國微妙的文化展示，還是今日社交媒體的即時廣播，人類在他人判斷與欽佩之下生活的潛在衝動都保持著驚人的一致性。對一種外向型身份的追求，被社會期望和對外部認可的渴望所塑造，往往掩蓋了自我修養和真實發展的內在旅程。或許，認識到這種普遍存在的「他者之目」，是我們奪回敘事主導權、將精力重新導向內在、並真正為自己而活的第一步。

The Gaze of the Other: From Princely Displays to Pixelated Perfection

 

The Gaze of the Other: From Princely Displays to Pixelated Perfection

In an age saturated with curated images and curated lives, it feels increasingly true that we are living not for our own profound development, but under the omnipresent gaze of others. This phenomenon is by no means new; its roots stretch back centuries, evolving through different cultural contexts. From the historical "conspicuous consumption" described by Thorstein Veblen to the unique "consumption society" observed in 16th-century China by Professor Qiu Pengsheng, and finally to the contemporary digital stage of selfie culture, a consistent thread emerges: the human drive to signal status and identity through external validation.

Thorstein Veblen, in his seminal work The Theory of the Leisure Class, first articulated the concept of conspicuous consumption. He posited that individuals, particularly those of the "leisure class," engage in the acquisition and display of goods and services primarily to signal their wealth, social status, and power, rather than for practical utility. This behavior, he argued, was a means of asserting dominance and garnering respect from others. From owning lavish estates to maintaining an excessive retinue of servants, the essence was to demonstrate one's ability to waste resources purely for the sake of showing off one's superior economic standing. For Veblen, such acts were not about personal fulfillment but about social positioning.

Moving across the globe and back in time, Professor Qiu Pengsheng's scholarship on China's "consumption society" after the 16th century offers a fascinating, non-Western parallel. Qiu challenges the notion that the "consumer revolution" was a uniquely Western phenomenon. He meticulously details how, with the accelerated growth of domestic and international trade in Ming and Qing China, a distinct pattern of consumption emerged. This wasn't merely about basic needs; it encompassed "ostentatious consumption" through practices like foot-binding (as a symbol of elite status), extensive book collecting, and even the nuances of tobacco and erotic consumption. While perhaps not driven by industrial capitalism as in the West, these behaviors nonetheless reflected a desire to display wealth, refinement, and social standing within a hierarchical society. The "rich and courteous" social dynamism he describes suggests a society where consumption was deeply intertwined with social values and personal presentation.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and the rise of selfie culture on social media platforms provides the ultimate amplification of living under others' eyes. The constant curation of online personas, where individuals meticulously document their experiences—whether it's sipping coffee at a high-end cafe, lounging in a business class airplane seat, or vacationing in an exotic locale—is a direct manifestation of Veblen's conspicuous consumption, adapted for the digital age. These aren't just personal memories; they are often carefully constructed visual messages designed to elicit admiration, envy, or validation from followers. The "likes," "shares," and comments become the modern currency of social affirmation, making the act of living secondary to the act of being seen to be living well. The desire to project an image of success and happiness can override genuine experience, transforming personal development into performance art for an unseen audience.

In essence, whether through the grand gestures of Veblen's leisure class, the subtle cultural displays of Ming-Qing China, or the instantaneous broadcasts of today's social media, the underlying human impulse to live under the judgment and admiration of others remains remarkably consistent. The pursuit of an outward-facing identity, shaped by societal expectations and the desire for external validation, often overshadows the intrinsic journey of self-cultivation and authentic development. Perhaps recognizing this pervasive "gaze of the other" is the first step towards reclaiming our narratives and redirecting our energies inward, cultivating a life lived truly for ourselves.

存有與無有之舞：海德格、死亡與佛教曼荼羅

 

存有與無有之舞：海德格、死亡與佛教曼荼羅

在人類錯綜複雜的生命織錦中，很少有概念能像死亡一樣，既令人深感不安卻又無可否認地居於核心地位。數世紀以來，哲學家和靈性傳統都在努力理解其意義，對我們有限的本質如何塑造生命提出了多樣的觀點。本文將探討馬丁·海德格爾（Martin Heidegger）「向死而生」的哲學概念與佛教曼荼羅深刻象徵意義（特別是其瞬逝性）之間引人入勝的異同。

20世紀德國哲學家海德格爾提出，人類的此在（Dasein）本質上是「向死而生」（Sein zum Tode）。對他而言，死亡不僅是未來發生在我們身上的事件，而是一種無時無刻不在的、定義我們自身存在的可能性。它是我們此在的最終且非關係性的可能性，意味著我們必須獨自面對它，無法避免或轉嫁。海德格爾認為，這種對自身終有一死的持續意識，能將我們從不真實的「常人」（沉浸於社會規範和分心事物中）中解放出來，並驅動我們走向真實的自我。在面對我們的有限性時，我們才意識到時間的珍貴，以及使我們的生命真正屬於自己的緊迫性。從這個角度看，死亡不是生命的終結，而是一種貫穿每個時刻的「存在方式」。

轉向東方，佛教曼荼羅為這些哲學沉思提供了豐富的視覺和精神對應。曼荼羅，梵語意為「圓圈」，是一種由符號組成的幾何圖形，在各種靈性傳統，特別是佛教中，被用作冥想和精神轉化的工具。雖然曼荼羅常以藝術品或建築中的永久結構呈現，但其中一種特別動人的形式是沙曼荼羅。

藏傳佛教僧侶會精心製作這些複雜的沙曼荼羅，通常需要數天甚至數週的時間，將數百萬顆彩色沙粒排列成代表宇宙或神聖居所的複雜圖案。然而，沙曼荼羅最引人注目的特點是其刻意的毀滅。完成後，經過一段時間的沉思，僧侶們會儀式性地將這些鮮豔的沙粒掃去，通常將其倒入附近的河流或湖泊中。

這種創造與毀滅的行為體現了佛教關於無常（anicca）的深刻教義。沙曼荼羅儘管美麗且耗費心力，最終卻是瞬逝的。它的消散是所有現象，包括我們的生命，皆無常且會變化的有力提醒。這種無常並非恐懼之物，而是應被理解為實相的內在面向，它引導我們從執著和痛苦中解脫。

儘管海德格爾的「向死而生」強調個體面對其獨特有限性以實現真實性，但佛教曼荼羅則突顯了無常的普遍本質。然而，兩者都強調了我們有限時間的重要性。海德格爾的哲學敦促我們之所以要真實地生活，是因為我們是會死的；而曼荼羅則因為萬物無常，故鼓勵我們不執著並獲得智慧。

沙曼荼羅的短暫性可被視為海德格爾「死亡是一種存在方式」的視覺隱喻。當第一粒沙子被放下時，曼荼羅就已經「向著毀滅而存在」了。它的存在本質上是由其最終的消解所定義的。同樣地，我們的生命從出生那一刻起，就永遠「向著死亡而存在」。

總之，海德格爾對死亡的深刻見解和佛教曼荼羅中所蘊含的永恆智慧，都為我們與終結的關係提供了強大的視角。雖然一個是為了個體真實性的哲學框架，另一個是為了普遍理解的靈性實踐，但它們都邀請我們將有限性視為存在的根本面向，而非終結，這可以引導我們走向更深層的意義、自由和智慧。

The Dance of Being and Unbeing: Heidegger, Death, and the Buddhist Mandala

 

The Dance of Being and Unbeing: Heidegger, Death, and the Buddhist Mandala

In the intricate tapestry of human existence, few concepts are as profoundly unsettling yet undeniably central as death. For centuries, philosophers and spiritual traditions have grappled with its meaning, offering diverse perspectives on how our finite nature shapes our lives. This article explores the intriguing parallels and distinctions between Martin Heidegger's philosophical concept of "being-towards-death" and the profound symbolism of the Buddhist mandala, particularly in its ephemeral nature.

Heidegger, a 20th-century German philosopher, famously posited that human existence, or Dasein, is fundamentally a "being-towards-death" (Sein zum Tode). For him, death is not merely a future event that happens to us, but an ever-present possibility that defines our very being. It is the ultimate and non-relational possibility of our existence, meaning it is something we must face alone and cannot be avoided or outsourced. This constant awareness of our mortality, according to Heidegger, is what can free us from the inauthentic "they-self" (being caught up in societal norms and distractions) and propel us towards authentic selfhood. In confronting our finitude, we realize the preciousness of our time and the urgency to make our lives truly our own. Death, in this view, is not the end of life, but a way of being that permeates every moment.

Turning to the East, the Buddhist mandala offers a rich visual and spiritual counterpart to these philosophical musings. A mandala, meaning "circle" in Sanskrit, is a geometric configuration of symbols used in various spiritual traditions, particularly Buddhism, as a tool for meditation and spiritual transformation. While often depicted as permanent structures in art or architecture, a particularly poignant form is the sand mandala.

Tibetan Buddhist monks meticulously create these intricate sand mandalas, often taking days or even weeks to arrange millions of grains of colored sand into complex patterns representing cosmic or divine dwellings. However, the most striking aspect of the sand mandala is its deliberate destruction. After its completion and a period of contemplation, the monks ritualistically sweep away the vibrant sands, often pouring them into a nearby body of water.

This act of creation and destruction embodies profound Buddhist teachings on impermanence (anicca). The sand mandala, despite its beauty and painstaking detail, is ultimately fleeting. Its dissolution serves as a powerful reminder that all phenomena, including our lives, are impermanent and subject to change. This impermanence is not something to be feared but to be understood as an intrinsic aspect of reality, leading to liberation from attachment and suffering.

While Heidegger's "being-towards-death" emphasizes the individual's confrontation with their unique finitude to achieve authenticity, the Buddhist mandala highlights the universal nature of impermanence. Both, however, underscore the significance of our limited time. Heidegger's philosophy urges us to live authentically because we are mortal, while the mandala encourages non-attachment and wisdom because everything is impermanent.

The ephemeral nature of the sand mandala can be seen as a visual metaphor for Heidegger's "death as a way of being." The moment the first grain of sand is laid, the mandala is already "being-towards-its-destruction." Its existence is inherently defined by its eventual dissolution. Similarly, our lives, from birth, are always "being-towards-death."

In conclusion, both Heidegger's profound insights into mortality and the timeless wisdom embodied in the Buddhist mandala offer powerful perspectives on our relationship with the end. While one is a philosophical framework for individual authenticity and the other a spiritual practice for universal understanding, they both invite us to embrace our finitude not as an ending, but as a fundamental aspect of our existence that can lead to deeper meaning, freedom, and wisdom.

習仲勛艾奧瓦之思：集體之逝與信念之鑑

 習仲勛艾奧瓦之思：集體之逝與信念之鑑

習仲勛，中華人民共和國之元勳，歷經坎坷，深懷黨國。歲在庚申（一九八〇年），時值國門初啟，其受命廣東主政，親率使團，遠赴重洋，西遊美利堅。

抵艾奧瓦州，觀亞曼那聚落。此地乃德裔先民所建，秉公產之志，立集體之社，八十八載，相守不渝。然聞其導者述，聚落已然解散，昔日社業，變為市肆，遊客往來，熙熙攘攘。

仲勛聞之，初則默然，繼而動容，神采煥然，狀若趨近。蓋其所感，非僅市井之繁華，實乃集體理想之凋零也。彼一生為黨國奮鬥，少年繫獄，屢經危難，備受折辱，乃至骨肉離散，皆為信念所繫。今見彼方鄉社，昔日共產之形，終歸消散，青年學子，趨向物慾，其心之震動，可謂深矣。

時廣東邊陲，萬民湧向香江，黨紀鬆弛，思潮紛亂，彼正憂心社稷之存續。艾奧瓦之行，實如明鑑，照見其畢生所堅之集體理想，在現實衝擊下之脆弱。此番省思，於其治粵之道，乃至其子近平之思慮，皆啟迪深遠。

故艾奧瓦之緣，非僅異域風情之覽，乃仲勛個人與時代命運之深刻對話，對中華未來之路，或有潛移默化之影響焉。

Echoes of Wisdom: Kissinger and Brzezinski on the Harvard Foreign Student Issue

 In the corridors of history, two titans of American foreign policy—Dr. Henry Kissinger and Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski—"reunite" in a hypothetical conversation, as they contemplate the complex situation facing foreign students in American higher education, particularly at Harvard University.

Kissinger: (Clears throat, voice calm) Zbig, you see, this controversy at Harvard regarding foreign students, especially those young people from the great Eastern power, seems to have become a new front in the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing. The balance between academic freedom and national security has always been a subtle art, not a science.

Brzezinski: (Voice slightly hoarse, tone sharper) Henry, you and I know well that no geopolitical chessboard is confined to borders and military might. The exchange of ideas, the dissemination of technology, and even potential influence penetration have always been part of great power rivalry. America's spirit of openness is certainly commendable, but if it leads to a loss of vigilance, it places itself in danger. I have warned many times that if we fail to understand the nature of the challenge, arrogance and carelessness will be our greatest enemies.

Kissinger: Indeed, national interest is the highest principle. We cannot ignore the possibility of certain countries exploiting academic channels to acquire sensitive technologies or conduct intelligence activities. However, America's strength lies not only in its military power but also in its ability to attract top talent globally. If we tighten too much and push these potential allies and thinkers elsewhere, it will, in the long run, damage our soft power. Diplomacy is always about seeking the best balance among contradictory options.

Brzezinski: Balance is important, but the bottom line must be clear. We cannot allow so-called "academic freedom" to become a cover for certain regimes to engage in intellectual property theft or influence operations. During the Cold War, we had specific regulations for Soviet students. Today's China, in some respects, with its geopolitical ambitions and ideological control, surpasses the Soviet Union of yesteryear. We should attract students who genuinely embrace the values of freedom and democracy, rather than providing convenience for potential adversaries.

Kissinger: But that also raises another question: how do we define "potential adversary"? Too broad a definition could lead us to create enemies among potential collaborators. Globalization has tightly connected the world, and even if we close our doors, the flow of knowledge will not stop. More importantly, allowing these young people to experience American society and values firsthand is itself a long-term strategic investment. Who can say that, years from now, these elites who have personally experienced America's openness and vitality will not become forces of understanding, or even affinity, towards us in their own countries?

Brzezinski: Of course, the long-term impact of education cannot be underestimated. But at the same time, we must soberly recognize that these elites from specific backgrounds, their upbringing and thinking patterns, may differ from our expectations. We cannot rely solely on wishful "soft power persuasion" to build national security. What is important is that we must possess the ability to identify potential risks and take decisive action when necessary. The formulation of rules should be precise and specific, avoiding generalized strikes, and absolutely not allowing for vague gray areas.

Kissinger: Ultimately, it boils down to whether we have a clear national strategy. If we know where we are going and how to deal with different powers, then the policy towards foreign students is just one piece on this grand chessboard. Without an overarching plan, any isolated adjustment might gain one thing only to lose another, or even backfire. History never stops; complexity is its norm, and a clear strategy is the only way to navigate chaos.

Brzezinski: (Sighs softly) Yes, a clear strategy. That seems to be the rarest commodity in our era. In a world consumed by short-termism and domestic political considerations, contemplating a truly grand strategy and consistently executing it is far more difficult than it was in our time. The issue of foreign students at Harvard is but the tip of the iceberg, reflecting deeper strategic dilemmas.

Brief Biographies and Harvard Connections:

• Henry Kissinger (1923-2023): A German-born American diplomat, political scientist, and geopolitical consultant who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He was a central figure in U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War, pioneering the policy of détente with the Soviet Union and opening relations with China.

  • Harvard Connection: Kissinger earned his A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University. He then joined the Harvard faculty, where he taught in the Department of Government and at the Center for International Affairs for many years before entering government service.

• Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928-2017): A Polish-American diplomat and political scientist who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson and as the National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter. He was a prominent strategist who emphasized the importance of geopolitical advantage and was known for his hawkish stance on the Soviet Union.

  • Harvard Connection: Brzezinski received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1953 and was a member of the faculty there from 1953 to 1960. He taught Soviet and international politics, establishing himself as a significant figure in Cold War studies.

智慧的迴響：基辛格與布熱津斯基論哈佛外籍生問題

 在歷史的長廊，兩位美國外交政策的巨擘——亨利·基辛格博士與茲比格涅夫·布熱津斯基教授，再次「相遇」於一場假設的對談中，他們凝視著當前的美國高等教育界，特別是哈佛大學外籍學生所面臨的複雜局面。

基辛格： (輕咳一聲，語氣沉穩) 茲比格納，你看，這哈佛校園裡關於外籍學生的爭議，尤其那些來自東方大國的年輕人，似乎已成為華盛頓與北京之間戰略競爭的新前線。學術自由與國家安全之間的平衡，從來都是微妙的藝術，而非科學。

布熱津斯基： (聲音略帶沙啞，語氣更為銳利) 亨利，你我深知，任何地緣政治的棋局都不會僅限於疆界與軍事。思想的交流、科技的傳播，甚至潛在的影響力滲透，從來都是大國博弈的一部分。美國的開放精神固然值得稱頌，但若因此而失去警惕，便是將自身置於危險之中。我曾多次警示，若不認清挑戰的本質，傲慢與輕忽將是最大的敵人。

基辛格： 的確，國家利益是最高的準則。我們不能無視某些國家利用學術通道，獲取敏感技術或進行情報活動的可能性。然而，美國的實力不僅在於其軍事實力，更在於其吸引全球頂尖人才的能力。若我們過於收緊，將這些潛在的盟友和思想家推向他處，長遠來看，對我們的軟實力亦是一種損害。外交從來都是在相互矛盾的選項中尋求最佳平衡。

布熱津斯基： 平衡固然重要，但底線必須清晰。我們不能讓所謂的「學術自由」成為某些政權進行知識產權盜竊或影響力操作的掩護。冷戰時期，我們對待蘇聯學生亦有其特定的規範。今日之中國，在某些方面，其地緣政治野心與意識形態的控制，較之當年的蘇聯有過之而無不及。我們應當吸引那些真正認同自由民主價值觀的學生，而非為潛在的對手提供便利。

基辛格： 但這也引出另一個問題：如何界定「潛在的對手」？過於寬泛的定義，可能導致我們在潛在的合作者中製造敵人。全球化已將世界緊密相連，即便我們關上大門，知識的流動也不會停止。更重要的是，讓這些年輕人親身體驗美國的社會與價值觀，本身就是一種長期的戰略投資。誰能說，若干年後，這些親身經歷過美國開放與活力的精英，不會在各自的國家中成為理解甚至親近我們的力量？

布熱津斯基： 當然，教育的長期影響力不可小覷。但同時，我們也必須清醒地認識到，這些來自特定背景的精英，其成長環境與思維模式，可能與我們的預期有所不同。我們不能僅憑一廂情願的「軟實力感化」來構建國家安全。重要的是，我們必須具備識別潛在風險的能力，並在必要時採取果斷行動。規則的制定應當精準且具體，避免泛化打擊，同時也絕不容許模糊不清的灰色地帶。

基辛格： 說到底，這歸結於我們是否擁有清晰的國家戰略。如果我們知道自己要往何處去，以及如何應對不同的力量，那麼對待外籍學生的政策，便只是這盤大棋中的一個子。若缺乏整體規劃，任何單點的調整都可能顧此失彼，甚至適得其反。歷史從未停止，複雜性是其常態，而清晰的戰略是應對混沌的唯一途徑。

布熱津斯基： (輕輕嘆息) 是啊，清晰的戰略。這似乎是我們這個時代最稀缺的商品。在一個充斥著短期主義和國內政治考量的世界裡，思考真正的大戰略，並堅持執行，其難度遠超你我在世時。哈佛的外籍生問題，不過是冰山一角，折射出更深層的戰略困境。