Suixuan’s miserably sparse comments and messages have always left me rather depressed. But when I look at those more popular academic blogs, most of the comments there are just “Good post,” “Respect,” “Adore,” “Saved,” and so on, or else a couple of contemptuous insults. Readers like me who can respectfully offer criticism are still very rare. Thinking of it that way, the quiet on Suixuan is actually a good thing.
Many friends would rather communicate with me privately than leave even a few words on the blog, and of course I can understand that—as I, too, would rather argue online than ask questions in class. Everyone has his or her own preference. Some people like to communicate through blogs and forums, some prefer instant messaging tools, some like email, some favor telephone calls, and some would rather talk face to face… My own order of preference, in contrast, runs through those options in that sequence: I most like to converse through the blog, and what I dread most is face-to-face communication. Still, I remain open to any channel of communication. As long as you are willing, you may contact me in whatever way you prefer. To show my sincerity, I am pinning this post to publish my contact information.
I myself almost never take the initiative to contact other people. It is an annoying trait, but it is truly deep-rooted, so there it is. But that does not mean I reject socializing; in fact, I am very happy to socialize with people of any temperament or status. Whether you are a sage or a robber, if you come to my door wanting to talk with me, I will sincerely welcome you and treat you with equal respect—no matter how great you may be, I will not feel inferior before you; no matter how base and despicable you may be, I will not put on airs before you. Of course, all this is on the premise that you are willing to converse with me; if you are unwilling to converse with me, then I will still look up where I should look up, and look down where I should look down. (This is because when you converse with me, you appear before me as a whole person; whereas if I am merely watching from afar, your actions or traits can be peeled away, and your name can also be treated as a label for certain specific behaviors and temperaments, rather than as a whole person.)
I do not take the initiative to contact others, yet I expect others to come looking for me. This apparently makes me look as if I am “putting on airs”; there is nothing I can do about that. In a certain sense, I do have the capital to put on airs, especially with this enormous blog, which allows others to learn a great deal about me before they ever speak to me directly, whereas I may know absolutely nothing about them. The most troublesome thing is that, since almost everyone reads blogs without leaving footprints, I have no way of knowing exactly how much you have learned about me, or how serious your misunderstandings may be. In many real-life conversations, one thing I fear most is hearing, “I read one of your posts…” That often leaves me at a loss, not knowing what to say next—because the relevant things may already have been said on the blog; since you have read them, repeating them would be meaningless, yet you may very well have misunderstood what I wrote, or simply failed to care about the point I was trying to make… If you have not read anything at all, that is much easier: I can start from the beginning and try to proceed along your line of thought and focus. But if you have already read some things, and I do not know which things you have read, how you read them, what your reactions were afterward, and what prejudices you have now retained… In short, you have some idea of my line of thought, but I have no idea about anything. I was not good with words to begin with, and when you add this anxious, unsettled state of mind, the consequences are easy to imagine.
For that reason, ever since the blog was first established, I have not encouraged my real-life friends to read it, and this is mainly due to the selfish considerations just mentioned. When I converse with real-life friends, I prefer to assume that he has not read any of the articles on my blog, rather than the other way around. Of course, if you are truly willing to read it, I will be very happy; but if, after reading, you can also leave a comment by the way, or at least leave the word “read” so that I can feel reassured, then that would be even better.
The blog can be said to be a window through which I open myself to the outside world. This window is so large that if you merely stand outside and stare at it, you can still see my whole self; yet of course you can also bypass the window entirely, come closer, and establish a more direct contact with me. The other doors are all open as well.
Although, in general, my communication is open to anyone, there are of course some preferences in practice, such as:
First, if you want to question or criticize some of my views, that will be most welcome. Of course it would be best if you left your comment directly on the blog, but if you do not wish to do so, you may also contact me by any other means—though you must tolerate the possibility that I may find it hard to respond as confidently and freely as I do on the blog.
Second, if you want me to question or criticize some of your views, that is also something I am relatively willing to do. Of course, you should first provide a relatively brief but fairly complete statement (say, between 300 and 30,000 characters, perhaps), giving the context and basis of your view, rather than bringing out a single sentence and asking me to comment on it in isolation.
Third, you may invite me to comment on another person’s view, or on an article or book. Of course, that depends on whether I am interested in it; if it is boring, long-winded, and utterly unable to arouse my interest, then I can only apologize. But even if I am not interested in writing a serious commentary, I will still give my own response, for example by trying to explain why I am not interested in it, rather than brushing it off with a mere “not interested.”
If you are an editor or other relevant person and want to invite me to write a book review, commentary, or other article, or if you are interested in taking one of my existing pieces for publication, I am also welcome to that. But I have the following requirements: 1. Preferably not an academic journal in the strict sense; at the very least, it cannot be a “core journal”; 2. Page fees are out of the question, although whether or not there is an honorarium does not matter; however, I hope a copy can be mailed to me; 3. Editing and polishing are fine, but any obvious cuts or changes that affect the overall line of thought must be brought to my attention; 4. All articles first published on Suixuan may be freely taken for publication, as long as Suixuan or Gubu is indicated, and I am notified in any way; 5. If you want me to write a book review, just tell me the title, and I will buy it myself to read. If it is indeed interesting, I will write; if I am not interested, I will not. Book gifts are welcome by mail, but if I take them, I am simply taking them; I will not assume any obligation thereby.
If you have fallen into trouble in your studies, life, or emotions and come to me seeking help, I am also willing to help. But I should state in advance that, no matter what setbacks you have suffered, no matter how painful and vexing they are, do not expect me to be able to comfort you. I can only help you see the problem clearly in a factual way, but very often the more clearly one sees the problem, the more hopeless it becomes, and then I am helpless.
Of course, beyond the academic sphere, there are many other things we can talk about. For example, you can invite me to play table tennis (if you are also at Peking University or nearby), or chat with me about Japanese animation and the like, or simply invite me to dinner~. My personal life is rather monotonous; apart from academia, reading, and buying books, there is basically only animation, table tennis, eating, and sleeping left. But on any other topic, if you are willing to talk with me, I will also be glad to listen.
Finally, well, to put it bluntly, I am currently in a single & available state, and the mm who are interested in me personally are the ones I most want to see right now (I’m being very frank, aren’t I~). Up to now, I have always “accepted whoever comes” (after all, no one has come anyway), and I welcome any possibility to present itself~ It should be explained that my blog has so many articles, especially some about love (more important narratives may perhaps be written in the near future); however, if you are only interested in becoming my girlfriend rather than my academic comrade, then all these things are irrelevant. At any time, you do not need to read them, much less agree with them—or rather, I hope you do not agree with them. If you do agree, that becomes rather troublesome; if you indicate complete agreement, it will be headache-inducing (if after reading them you say that you dare not fully agree, yet can still be interested in me, that is undoubtedly the best situation). I can accept and appreciate anyone who is different, but I can absolutely not tolerate someone who is the same as me. I am heterosexual, and what I long for is also someone different from me.
Of course, this last item has an expiration date; whenever the vacancy is filled, or if I do it myself, this passage will be withdrawn. The preceding paragraphs, however, are comparatively stable.
Finally, here is my bio and contact information:
Real name: [古月][上羽下立][上雨下林] (I would rather not have others find this place by searching my real name); pen name / screen name: Gubu (call me Xiaogu); male; born in Shanghai on November 10, 1985; attended the National Science Experimental Class of the Second High School Affiliated to East China Normal University for high school; undergraduate, Class of 2004, Department of Philosophy, Peking University; currently a graduate student in the philosophy of technology program in the Department of Philosophy, Peking University. A lover of wisdom, OTAKU.
Blog: here
QQ1: 160467 (this account will be cleaned periodically of friends who never chat and whom I do not know)
QQ2: 398628181 (this account will not kick people out, but is often invisible)
Email: HYL510＠gmail.com (using Google Talk)
Msn: HYL510＠hotmail.com
Private residence: Room 802, Building B, Zhichun Building, 118 Zhichun Road, Haidian District, 100086 (book mailings welcome; visits by appointment only)
Private car: classic Shanghai Forever-brand large 28-inch bicycle~~
Mobile: 1367******* (can be requested from me)
Tel/Fax: (010) the last eight digits of the mobile number plus 11504083
Often found online at: Peking University philosophy of science forum, Wu Guosheng’s blog, Future Peking University community.
Often found offline at: Peking University (mainly Chengze Garden), academic bookstores at and around Peking University, and Carrefour in Zhongguancun.
October 8, 2008
The bird that farts on one leg
2008-10-08 16:44:28 Anonymous 116.21.252.105
As an mm, I feel that you are a person with a very prominent and very strong sense of self; your self-feeling is quite good, but in fact your soul is very hungry and thirsts for the caress of gazes. Clearly, you are “manifest” rather than “hidden”; in other words, you are more “Russell” and even a bit “Yu Qiuyu,” rather than “Wittgenstein”-like concealment and silence or “Duchamp”-like ease and self-sufficiency.
2008-10-08 22:10:00
You may well be right, although I do not know much about Yu Qiuyu or Duchamp. But when you say that Wittgenstein was “concealed and silent,” I find that doubtful; I do not know where you read that concealment and silence into him. In fact, if you were to never read any of the words I write, but instead look only at my life and behavior, I am afraid you would also form impressions such as “concealed and silent.”
When I read Wittgenstein’s writings, I do not feel any concealment or silence at all; rather, there is a certain sense of arrogance mixed with a certain restlessness. The old V. is by no means “hidden.” The reason he withdrew from the world for a period in his middle years was that he believed he had already solved all philosophical problems, and he had also achieved fame and success, everything was done, so he might as well retire from the world. But if he truly liked concealment, then he would never have gone so fearfully to visit Russell in the first place, and later he would not have returned to Cambridge again.
In any case, philosophers, especially philosophers in the Western rational tradition (of course including Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, and so on), often have this so-called “strong sense of self.” Moreover, philosophy, beginning with ancient Greece, has also had a tradition of “pursuing excellence.” So I am very willing to accept being described as having a strong “sense of self” and being “manifest,” and so on. The notion of philosophy as an aloof and tranquil way of life is a common misunderstanding or prejudice among ordinary people in China.
As for things like “a hungry soul” and “longing for the caress of gazes,” I do not really understand those expressions. In any case, who does not long for the attention and caress of others? Unless he hates other people.
But what do these impressions have to do with your declaring yourself to be an mm? When I first saw it, I even got a little excited~~~
2008-10-08 23:17:42 Anonymous 221.221.165.208
For safety’s sake, I suggest that you hide your private residence address. An online contact method is enough.
2008-10-08 23:43:59
Thanks for your concern, but why would it be unsafe? It seems I have not yet made any great enemies. Nowadays, human-flesh search is very powerful; if someone is truly an enemy and wants to come to my door, I am afraid he could find me even if I did not make it public, so it would be better for me to tell you proactively~ Of course, I am not a child; I will not open the door to anyone whose background is unclear, hehe. Unless you have already spoken to me through some other channel and shown yourself to be reliable, I will not receive you under any circumstances. There is a professional security guard in this building on duty 24 hours a day, so there is no need to worry about getting rid of troublemakers.
On the other hand, as a single, live-alone young adult male with the strength of an average person, if trouble really does come to my door, I have nothing to fear—who is afraid of whom? Rather, my life is perhaps too peaceful; a bit of excitement would not be a bad thing~
As for theft or robbery, I think if a thief also happens to read my blog, I would actually be very willing to chat with him. My home does not have much of value anyway; besides the immovable bulky furniture, there is also that pile of books, and nothing else. Carry off as much as you can, then steal as much as you can~
2008-10-09 00:45:47
As for that question of “longing for the caress of gazes,” at present, rather than saying that I long for caressing gazes, it would be more accurate to say that what I long for even more are gazes of provocation and challenge. I do not mean that contemptuous gaze that says a couple of insulting words and then pats its ass and walks away, but rather a gaze that truly regards me as an opponent, that truly intends to refute me seriously, and will not stop until it has put me in an impossible position. Such a gaze is what I am hungering and thirsting for. I do indeed long to be watched by more eyes, but absolutely not to become that kind of star idol adored by the masses; I would not yearn in the slightest for a situation like “Yu Qiuyu’s.” I do not long for the gaze of the “masses,” because the masses often either look up at a person or look down on a person; in short, the “masses” will not “treat me like a human being.” If I became famous among the “folk,” I would definitely strive to withdraw and hide away in an ivory tower. I do want to be “manifest,” yes, but absolutely not manifest among the masses; rather, I want to be manifest within the ivory tower.
2008-10-09 01:34:52 Anonymous 116.21.254.61
“Hidden” does not mean truly transcending everything, but rather the limit of one’s self-knowledge.
1) At first glance, in Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein’s sense of self is very prominent. The number of times “I” appears is about the same as the number of times it appears in your article; he even mentions that his “vanity was hurt.” Yet in the main text Wittgenstein talks about perfectly serious philosophical content. Thinking of the fact that the old V. spent his whole life in thoughtful austerity, being so “self-centered,” even retreating into a small trench, a small hut, unwilling to confide in others, and only aspiring to “the shining of God’s glory”—why? Heidegger experienced the “Hannah gate,” and then rose and fell in the Nazi affair, yet throughout his life he took Aristotle’s “he was born, he worked, he died” as his motto, never uttering a single defense of the self, never drawing a portrait of it. And why is that? Is it not because what real philosophers value precisely is their own thought? Only thought allows a person’s life to continue; whereas his self-justifications vanish along with the perishable body.
2) Whether one is an artist, a thinker, or a writer, after seriously completing a work, one should let it be as it is and add not a single word. But when a person stands before his own work, desperately waving and calling everyone to come look, and then slyly raises a sign saying “Welcome corrections,” that probably has the smooth, oily, slickness of Russell (Wittgenstein’s judgment).
3) Nothing recorded in a diary wants to be seen by prying eyes; precisely because of its secrecy and privateness can it reflect the most sincere side of a person. Public media, by contrast, are people actively expressing their thoughts for others to see, with an intended reader already in mind. Blogs contain both at once, and stand within the tension between privacy and publicity. Hanging private feelings out on a network available for public communication—this is the first paradox every blogger must face. One must both claim the truth of what one writes and face the shaping of oneself by potential readers. If one decides to keep writing, then what gets written is likely to be a rather awkward text in which both privacy and publicity are damaged.
4) Duchamp’s attitude toward life is uniquely charming: silence, slowness, solitude. He negates the self and never offers any defense of his actions or views. Whether others ignore him or flatter him, that is other people’s business; he simply does what he wants to do as he wishes.
ps: mm means a man with relatively strong intuition and vigilance toward men whose sense of self is too strong.
2008-10-09 10:58:10
Your comment is very interesting, and in some places it hits the key point. Of course, I can add a few rebuttals:
1) First of all, there is no doubt that what philosophers value is their own thought. But what do you think I would value here if not my own thought? What is self-justification? What I am willing, and able, to justify is only my thought—of course, thought must be expressed through words or actions in order to become visible, so I will justify the words and actions through which I defend myself, but certainly not the feelings or anything else behind them. What I care about is always “reasons”; I defend my reasons. As for Heidegger, in action he participated in Nazism; that fact does not need to be justified. But in what he said, through his articles, he also supported Nazism; that should be justified. He does not need to justify himself to the media or to journalists, but he should have justified himself in his speeches and writings. If he always refused to justify himself, then either that is itself a way of justifying himself (“I have nothing to justify”), or else it is an evasion. I think Heidegger may not have been honest enough, nor brave enough.
Different philosophers also differ vastly in how they view “thought.” Traditional philosophers often seek some independent world of thought that transcends history and transcends the life-world, so what they care about can be some so-called pure self that has nothing to do with the self in reality or in life. But this is no longer the philosophical view I accept. The “world of thought” is rooted in the “life-world,” and the “self” is also “historical”; therefore, when I reflect within thought, when I turn back to observe myself, I can no longer completely exclude the reality and historicity of the self.
2) What exactly is the basis of this “should be left to be what it is” “should”? If that really were the case, why would so many philosophers seek publication for their works? Why would Wittgenstein be so picky about his English translator, and express dissatisfaction with Russell’s preface? Why would Kant care about other people’s comments and then go and reread a primer on the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics? Why did Plato and Aristotle both have to set up schools and discuss problems along the forest paths? …
Also, first of all, I did not “seriously complete a work.” I have not completed any real work of mine; everything I am doing now is laying the groundwork and preparing for the completion of my work. And where on earth was I “shouting myself hoarse, urging everyone to come and take a look”?? I did not urge everyone to come and look, nor do I hope for more spectators. Rather, I am saying: if you have looked, why not offer criticism?
3) First, I do not claim “the truth of the words written.” I do not know what this truth even is. As I have already said, I do not defend my feelings, but only my reasons. Second, different eras have different media of communication; when movable type printing spread in Europe, this so-called tension between privacy and publicity had already emerged. Or rather, when philosophers entered university classrooms, this tension had already emerged. Facing students, how should a philosopher speak? Do you think a good philosopher should simply ignore everyone and put up a sign in front of the audience saying “No corrections welcome”? Or do you think philosophers simply should not enter the classroom at all? Yet in fact, from Plato and Aristotle to Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, many philosophers’ most important texts are precisely the edited versions of their classroom lectures; compared with papers, Heidegger especially praised the immediate spoken word in the classroom. I do not know whether their works therefore became “quite awkward.”
4) I know nothing at all about Duchamp. Nor do I want to compare myself with him.
2008-10-09 11:26:00
Philosophers are lonely, but this loneliness does not mean “living in seclusion from the crowd”; rather, it means that even among a crowd, they are always alone.
Philosophy has from the very beginning been some kind of masculine, that is to say public, mode of speaking. Even works written in private and not intended for publication often remain argumentative in form; that is to say, they still imagine themselves unfolding on some public stage.
In the history of philosophy, there are no private, classic works? There are, for example, the Roman emperor’s Meditations. But it is obvious at a glance that that mode of writing is not the typical collaborative mode of philosophy. The more numerous, more important, and more typical works in the history of philosophy were not written in the form of private diaries or letters, but for public lectures and public debate. In ancient times, the main stage for philosophers’ public discussion was the academy; and in modern times, after printing became widespread, philosophers in fact communicated with one another through printed books. Then in the age of developed transportation, platforms for exchange such as academic conferences emerged and somewhat supplemented face-to-face communication; and today, in the age of widespread networking, although the previous kinds of platforms for exchange will still remain, certain new changes are undoubtedly taking place. As the first generation in a world where the internet has become universal, we can probe the possibilities that this new platform will open up.
2008-10-21 10:44:27 Anonymous 124.67.216.160
A lonely person chose an unfashionable major
I’ll be watching you
2008-10-23 17:25:18 Anonymous 166.111.123.27
Read the post, just passing by.
2008-11-28 18:34:02 Anonymous 221.220.231.134
I like philosophy, and I like medicine even more.
Today, what made me happy was accidentally stumbling into your blog and seeing many incisive remarks and good ideas; what I hate is that it made me sit in front of the computer for so long, sigh….
Still, it was worth it. Thanks~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply