- 发帖可能变空内容，邪门暂不知所以然
- 『稷下学宫』新认证方式，24年网站打算和努力目标
主题：【原创】文 字 与 道 -- 谭伯牛
旧式观点，“字”没有单独的今天的“字”的意思，今天意义上的“字”们统称为“文”（单字）。文，所谓物相杂故曰文，最开始的意思就是纹路，花样，痕迹；后来，许慎说仓颉作书，依类象形，故谓之文。到后来，形声相益，才称为字。至于文字连用，有今天的意义，那已经到了唐代。
造字，鬼神对泣，删书，乱贼相惧。孔子以后，文言兴。三代以下，文章出。看看四部的排列，就能知道其中消长的信息。经，圣人之道。史，圣人之迹。子，文少胜质。集，情多乱性。
至于唐宋标榜文以载道，流风不绝，至于今日。窃以为颇中肯綮，未可抹杀。慎文者，?ㄒ玻?叟也；道者，路也。凡走咿，必有痕叟；其叟，又非其所以叟也。故曰：文以明道，而文章道?嘁病?
今人文字崇拜，走上邪道，主要原因，就是把文字??成真理，?⑾筢缯J作??有也。哲学流派中之以语言学为立身根本者，难辞其咎，以现象学为镇山法宝者，其罪匪浅。因此，语言文字，都为津梁，而证道明心，还在于过河拆桥，回到那前语文的境界。
所以，“说道”终于可笑，“体道”方为正经。大言不惭，指明道路，可以视作荒谬；小心谨慎，心中有，嘴边无，却是非常痛苦。
道可道，非常道。诚不我欺。
壬午年十一月初五日
本帖一共被 2 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)
四库全书，先生所评极为精辟
只有这集部，愚以为堪称诗文史话
如何落得乱性之评
还望不吝赐教指点迷津
如若 上
"大言不惭，指明道路，可以视作荒谬；小心谨慎，心中有，嘴边无，却是非常痛苦。"
小的时候,读大书,希望能从各式理论里,找到指引方向的真理明灯,却每每碰壁,最大的那次是碰在天安门广场上,从此不读理论了.后来,遇到困难,就开始读故事,希望能从别人的眼睛里,找到解决的办法,却发现别人与自己的错误始终各有不同.
终于开始有自己的朴素的理论了,却又发现现在的状态不是痛苦,而是糊涂.
《中庸》：“天命之谓性”；可见，“性”是天赋。《庄子》：“惠子谓庄子曰：人故无情乎？庄子曰：然”；可见，情是逐渐养成。
《中庸》又说：“率性之谓道”；那么，“如保赤子”般护持这天赋的“性”，也就是“体道”了。而人之情，常生是非，难泯物我，不免与“性”冲突；文人尤甚。故曰：“集，情多乱性”。
这是鄙人一些粗浅的体会，请如若君指正。
有点‘我说故我在’的意思；如果从文以载道的角度说，又有些皮之不存，毛之焉附的意思。另一方面说到某个程度, 语言为语义就开始制造麻烦。据说有记载而来人类的第一句话是ENKIDU在和他的女人欢好之后说的, 飘飘以前转过一篇有意思的文章【语言――起源于叫床？】 http://www.cchere.com/article/110;ID=121955
这有一个洋人的说法。
Language is an inherent, even a defining, property of being human.
Ian Tattersal ("Becoming Human", 1998) adopts the position that symbolic language (I don't recall if he makes a distinction between symbolical and grammatical) defines humanity. He tries to explain the biological evidence of moderns humans appearing around 130-100 ky ago and evidence of "human" activity appearing only 40-30 ky ago. [that may have been pushed back by recent finding in South Africa if I recall correctly].
He suggests that the development of the vocal apparatus was an adaption for unknown evolutionary reasons (and even points out that it's a disadvantage in losing the ability to breath and swallow at the same time). That adaptation was used later for speech, making language an evolutionary exaptation.
I think the argumentation in the book is flawed (pre-postulating a conclusion), but it's interesting as a speculative explanation that language could be a defining factor in spite of the time difference between biological and cultural evidence.
Addressing "defining" issues is always a problem in a continuous process without discrete states. Even the biological definition of species is problematic in border-line cases. Hybrids are not that uncommon, with different degrees of fertility.
And there's the current debate concerning the child skeleton from Portugal who is said by some to be a Neanderthal-modern hybrid (though since the identification is morphological, not genetic, I doubt if it'll be settled without further evidence).
The cold reality is that the earliest evidence of language we have is from the 3rd mbc (Mesopotamia or Egypt, choose your favorite). It's not at all clear that proto-cuneiform represents language, natural language. See Damerow, "The origins of writing as a problem of historical epistemology":
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P114.PDF
What we do know (to the degree we trust the translations of these texts) is that the early language-representing texts (to the degree we trust our ability to identify language representation in texts) testify that speech exists, so it's probably safe to assume that speech appeared sometimes before - any time between the late 4th mbc and 130 ky ago.
All the rest is speculation.
We do try to narrow it down by assuming that humanity and language are strongly connected, but it's not proven to any acceptable degree of likelihood, and the terms themselves are debated. The early myths do not make that assumption, though it's not clear if they address "being human" or "being a civilized human". Speech is used by both humans and animals before the forbidden fruit is eaten in Genesis, but, OTH, speech is the tool of creation. Enkidu stops being feral by having sex with a woman (he is first mentioned as speaking after the sex, but it's not clear if it's a result of the sex or not). Etc.
Personally I'd use the scope that can be communicated as a factor in defining humanity, rather than the method in which it is communicated. Animals can communicate both concrete information and some abstract concepts ("danger" etc). In fact I don't know if some complex animal languages can't be said to have generative grammars (bees? is there a concept in linguistics to address what can be generated by a grammar, similar to the aleph cardinality of infinities in mathematics?). And I also notice that we don't have separate words for animal language and human language which seems to indicate that in the context of natural language we don't use the concept of "language" as something specifically human. But that's just a personal opinion, and not a firm one.
[There's more to reply to, specifically on the innateness issue, but it's past 4am, so I'm dividing in hope to conquer the backlog ...]
Ariel L. Szczupak
先生博闻强记，引经据典，十分佩服
不过，西西, 先生尚未能完全说服我
环顾尘上，足以乱性之惑比比皆是，何唯冠罪罪于情?
有时间，如若还要仔细地冒昧地讨扰请教
这里先谢过
先生不要这么客气，直呼如若即可
否则不敢向先生讨教了