小熊 1968
Iwanami
福田 デモクラシーと国民国家
上野 家父長制と資本制――マルクス主義フェミニズムの地平
吉見俊哉著『ポスト戦後社会 シリーズ日本近現代史9』
竹信三恵子著『ルポ 雇用劣化不況』
兵藤裕己著『琵琶法師―〈異界〉を語る人びと』
日本庭園―空間の美の歴史小野健吉著
見田x2
Chuko
天野郁夫 著大学の誕生(上)帝国大学の時代
Bungei
原 武史『松本清張の「遺言」』
文藝春秋『論争若者論』
Kodansha 現代新書
1724 葬祭の日本史 高橋繁行
Ijime
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
現代都市論/森川嘉一郎
「現代都市論A・B」 森川 嘉一郎 准教授
海外から日本に対して向けられる関心の中で、国内の人々に意識されている以上に大きいのが、日本の都市や現代建築に対するそれです。海外の諸都市との比較に立脚して日本の都市の特徴を把握し、その成り立ちや現状を歴史的に説明する教養を持ち、さらに自らの眼で街を読み取る力を養うことは、日本についてプレゼンテーションをするさまざまな局面で重要な素養となります。本講義では現代のデザインの諸相や、西洋の建築・都市史を概説し、今の日本の街並みを構成する建築物や広告物等のスタイルとの関係性を、多角的に見てゆきます。建築やデザインの様式史から日本の都市を見た「現代都市論A」に対し、後期に行う「現代都市論B」では、都市を舞台とする人々のライフスタイルやストリートカルチャー、さらにはメディアに描かれたイメージとの相互作用において都市風景をとらえてゆきます。最初に事例研究として海外からの観光客も多い秋葉原を取り上げた後、日本の表象、ジェンダーの構造、そして家族像の変化といった、戦後日本の文化構造に関わる諸問題が、いかに日本の都市、とりわけ東京において表出されているのかを例示してゆきます。
海外對日本的關心,通常比日本國内人對自己的關心,意識要大很大。日本都市與現代建築就是其中一例。本科透過比較海外都市,然後由此立腳把握日本都市的特徵,並以歷史角度,説明其委,培養同學透過自己的眼睛解讀都市的能力,這也是訓練同學如何自我表達日本人的素養。
本講義從現代的設計諸相、西洋建築、都市史出發,多角度分析構成日本街道的建築物、廣告設計的關係。上學期特別從建築與設計樣式的發展歷史,分析都市;下學期從以都市作爲舞臺的各種人們的生活體驗、街道文化、媒體重的意象等跟出發,看看它們跟都市的相互關係,由此觀察何謂都市風景。最初事例從秋葉原開始,然後是各種日本的表象,性別的構造,家族形象的變化,到日本戰後文化結構的各種問題,分析日本的都市,特別是東京,如何被表徵出來。
海外から日本に対して向けられる関心の中で、国内の人々に意識されている以上に大きいのが、日本の都市や現代建築に対するそれです。海外の諸都市との比較に立脚して日本の都市の特徴を把握し、その成り立ちや現状を歴史的に説明する教養を持ち、さらに自らの眼で街を読み取る力を養うことは、日本についてプレゼンテーションをするさまざまな局面で重要な素養となります。本講義では現代のデザインの諸相や、西洋の建築・都市史を概説し、今の日本の街並みを構成する建築物や広告物等のスタイルとの関係性を、多角的に見てゆきます。建築やデザインの様式史から日本の都市を見た「現代都市論A」に対し、後期に行う「現代都市論B」では、都市を舞台とする人々のライフスタイルやストリートカルチャー、さらにはメディアに描かれたイメージとの相互作用において都市風景をとらえてゆきます。最初に事例研究として海外からの観光客も多い秋葉原を取り上げた後、日本の表象、ジェンダーの構造、そして家族像の変化といった、戦後日本の文化構造に関わる諸問題が、いかに日本の都市、とりわけ東京において表出されているのかを例示してゆきます。
海外對日本的關心,通常比日本國内人對自己的關心,意識要大很大。日本都市與現代建築就是其中一例。本科透過比較海外都市,然後由此立腳把握日本都市的特徵,並以歷史角度,説明其委,培養同學透過自己的眼睛解讀都市的能力,這也是訓練同學如何自我表達日本人的素養。
本講義從現代的設計諸相、西洋建築、都市史出發,多角度分析構成日本街道的建築物、廣告設計的關係。上學期特別從建築與設計樣式的發展歷史,分析都市;下學期從以都市作爲舞臺的各種人們的生活體驗、街道文化、媒體重的意象等跟出發,看看它們跟都市的相互關係,由此觀察何謂都市風景。最初事例從秋葉原開始,然後是各種日本的表象,性別的構造,家族形象的變化,到日本戰後文化結構的各種問題,分析日本的都市,特別是東京,如何被表徵出來。
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
公共知識分子
CR中大本社 說: tomoro 公共知識分子訪問
X 說:hahaha, interesting
CR中大本社 說:reviewing SY's notes; not to be "公共知識分子" is hard it is too seductive
X 說:i think it is about your attitude, not about the labelling.if you want to do sth good for the public, you'll be a "公共知識分子". if you just want to get high with yourself, to hell "公共知識分子".
CR中大本社 說:too long to repeat sy's arguments on "professional academic freedonm" and 'public intellectual"his point is that many arguments are quite contextual (and surely power-related)
X 說:客觀環境很大程度不能掌握。作為一篇個人訪問而非社會政治分析,讀者祈望看到的是受訪者個人如何看待對「公共知識分子」的取態。
CR中大本社 說:um i think so. so depends on the type of readers and the interviewer as well
i think similar to who is "電車男" defination debate la. qute useless lor. so also need to analyze the context as well
X 說:i think 'public intellectuals' is quite well defined.... at least in the understanding of the general public.
just like denshaotoko.
CR中大本社 說:agree
然後你們的人要威 but 又不想要所承擔的負面image/ 責任
X 說:so in my view, down to the bottom, it's still all about personal moral attitude
CR中大本社 說:yeah
X 說:haha, for the public, one hardly knows what scholar is saying. everyone accept that. everyone have the image of Einstein with his crazy hair when speak of 'professors'. so, the only thing they can demand the intellectuals/academics, is they speak truthfully and they want to do good.that's why we hate XXX and XXX, not really becoz they are pleasing the public, but becoz they are not honest.
CR中大本社 說:ummmm i am thinking somthing similar on your last point, but still can't express it and logically articulate it clearly
X 說:mm...
CR中大本社 說:we hate , because1) not honest, cos2) by using the name of the public to win students and academic fame3) by using the name of the professional to be elitist among the publici.e. having the worst things in both worlds
CR中大本社 說:or in sum
你總是見到他們不斷在迴避
好似自己是呢的identity的受害者
X 說:oh suddenly i want to go back to the defintions
being 'public intellectual' or 'academic', the almost only function is to throw light on the public sth they dont know. by reversing to reinforce what the public already BELIEVES so as to please them, these guys have cut all grounds of being a 'public intellectual'. and their acts of doing so weaken the authority of 'public intellecutal' and their
X 說:the abitliy of those other true academics of speaking out those things the public cant understand yet still repescts.
CR中大本社 說:
酸氣 = public intellectual (outside instution)
腐氣 = academics (withint institution)
Said : "speaking truth to power" ma
X 說:yeah they are actually salesman, their only aim is 搵餐晏仔/做好呢份工. although the only reason why they are interviewed or have newspaper printing their article or have their book publish is because they are 'professors' / 'lecturers' -- and 'public intellectuals' because they are 'professors giving newspaper interviews', they hate the moral standard expected on these labels, and they think they are not bounded by such moral standards, because they are really not 'professors' / 'lecturers', but salesmen. Nobody expect salesmen to be honest, right? So, they are denied their 'trueself', and they cannot admit publicly because if the public found out they are salesman nobody would listen to them again so they cant even be salesmen, so they are in a very confused and refused mental condition
CR中大本社 說:haha. 如此複雜的topic, 我懷疑他們上次搞了那麽一大堆訪問,根本無人清楚明白自己up 什麽
X說:oh that's why the interviews can go on and on and on for weeks and monthsif in the first article everything is crystal clear, why need write next?
X 說:hahaha, interesting
CR中大本社 說:reviewing SY's notes; not to be "公共知識分子" is hard it is too seductive
X 說:i think it is about your attitude, not about the labelling.if you want to do sth good for the public, you'll be a "公共知識分子". if you just want to get high with yourself, to hell "公共知識分子".
CR中大本社 說:too long to repeat sy's arguments on "professional academic freedonm" and 'public intellectual"his point is that many arguments are quite contextual (and surely power-related)
X 說:客觀環境很大程度不能掌握。作為一篇個人訪問而非社會政治分析,讀者祈望看到的是受訪者個人如何看待對「公共知識分子」的取態。
CR中大本社 說:um i think so. so depends on the type of readers and the interviewer as well
i think similar to who is "電車男" defination debate la. qute useless lor. so also need to analyze the context as well
X 說:i think 'public intellectuals' is quite well defined.... at least in the understanding of the general public.
just like denshaotoko.
CR中大本社 說:agree
然後你們的人要威 but 又不想要所承擔的負面image/ 責任
X 說:so in my view, down to the bottom, it's still all about personal moral attitude
CR中大本社 說:yeah
X 說:haha, for the public, one hardly knows what scholar is saying. everyone accept that. everyone have the image of Einstein with his crazy hair when speak of 'professors'. so, the only thing they can demand the intellectuals/academics, is they speak truthfully and they want to do good.that's why we hate XXX and XXX, not really becoz they are pleasing the public, but becoz they are not honest.
CR中大本社 說:ummmm i am thinking somthing similar on your last point, but still can't express it and logically articulate it clearly
X 說:mm...
CR中大本社 說:we hate , because1) not honest, cos2) by using the name of the public to win students and academic fame3) by using the name of the professional to be elitist among the publici.e. having the worst things in both worlds
CR中大本社 說:or in sum
你總是見到他們不斷在迴避
好似自己是呢的identity的受害者
X 說:oh suddenly i want to go back to the defintions
being 'public intellectual' or 'academic', the almost only function is to throw light on the public sth they dont know. by reversing to reinforce what the public already BELIEVES so as to please them, these guys have cut all grounds of being a 'public intellectual'. and their acts of doing so weaken the authority of 'public intellecutal' and their
X 說:the abitliy of those other true academics of speaking out those things the public cant understand yet still repescts.
CR中大本社 說:
酸氣 = public intellectual (outside instution)
腐氣 = academics (withint institution)
Said : "speaking truth to power" ma
X 說:yeah they are actually salesman, their only aim is 搵餐晏仔/做好呢份工. although the only reason why they are interviewed or have newspaper printing their article or have their book publish is because they are 'professors' / 'lecturers' -- and 'public intellectuals' because they are 'professors giving newspaper interviews', they hate the moral standard expected on these labels, and they think they are not bounded by such moral standards, because they are really not 'professors' / 'lecturers', but salesmen. Nobody expect salesmen to be honest, right? So, they are denied their 'trueself', and they cannot admit publicly because if the public found out they are salesman nobody would listen to them again so they cant even be salesmen, so they are in a very confused and refused mental condition
CR中大本社 說:haha. 如此複雜的topic, 我懷疑他們上次搞了那麽一大堆訪問,根本無人清楚明白自己up 什麽
X說:oh that's why the interviews can go on and on and on for weeks and monthsif in the first article everything is crystal clear, why need write next?
Saturday, May 02, 2009
抑止力
世界的抑止力
論文Speeding Up--->瘟疫再來(....
ch 2 資本主義==〉股市崩坏
ch 3 民主主義==〉何もないよ♪
ch 4 國族主義==〉時間的法則は乱れる
説來下面的歌,跟銀河鐵道之夜有關?
論文Speeding Up--->瘟疫再來(....
ch 2 資本主義==〉股市崩坏
ch 3 民主主義==〉何もないよ♪
ch 4 國族主義==〉時間的法則は乱れる
説來下面的歌,跟銀河鐵道之夜有關?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
日本政治
對日本政治研究的立場
1)最好不要比較
2)最好不要弄中日關係研究,因爲對任何人也沒有用(日米關係--〉可能有用?)
3)日本政治絕大部分問題無關日本政府
4)日本政治是現代歷史的悲劇
5)小心不要被漢字欺騙
閒談
印象:
小學生文章
主權爭議的發表
1)地域研究的問題
誰的框架? 讀日文學做日本人 VS 西方的概念框架
e.g.師奶的政治
我是誰?
2)
政治學知識的由來
part 1 = jap
part 2 = western
part 3 = chinese?
3)
誰去定義政治
(框架)
bijin giin
4)
西方與全球經驗
歷史經緯
對抗西方,用西方辦法
Japan=Identity / India = Countinuity/ China = Unity
心結特多(哥斯拉爲何只攻擊日本)
故事特別難説(黑澤明、宮崎駿)
5)
同一名字,不同意思;統一制度,不同後果
社會關係=信
弄了套概念,做了些字,搞了套儀式,令你相信
政治/權力=控制信不信的最後制度(教育/宗教)
1)最好不要比較
2)最好不要弄中日關係研究,因爲對任何人也沒有用(日米關係--〉可能有用?)
3)日本政治絕大部分問題無關日本政府
4)日本政治是現代歷史的悲劇
5)小心不要被漢字欺騙
閒談
印象:
小學生文章
主權爭議的發表
1)地域研究的問題
誰的框架? 讀日文學做日本人 VS 西方的概念框架
e.g.師奶的政治
我是誰?
2)
政治學知識的由來
part 1 = jap
part 2 = western
part 3 = chinese?
3)
誰去定義政治
(框架)
bijin giin
4)
西方與全球經驗
歷史經緯
對抗西方,用西方辦法
Japan=Identity / India = Countinuity/ China = Unity
心結特多(哥斯拉爲何只攻擊日本)
故事特別難説(黑澤明、宮崎駿)
5)
同一名字,不同意思;統一制度,不同後果
社會關係=信
弄了套概念,做了些字,搞了套儀式,令你相信
政治/權力=控制信不信的最後制度(教育/宗教)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
無責任艦長
中學時代的新作
在土豆看回
1990年頭還真是奇妙的時代....
剛巧S教授提起,除了取笑大和號,
無責任艦長就是日本理想的leader啊(汗...也有道理
(注:無責任 艦長(かんちょう)=>官庁(かんちょう)?)
故事好看,姐姐多(?),艦隊戰,
説來我還是喜歡OP (Just Think of Tomorrow) 與ED (Down Town Dance)
在土豆看回
1990年頭還真是奇妙的時代....
剛巧S教授提起,除了取笑大和號,
無責任艦長就是日本理想的leader啊(汗...也有道理
(注:無責任 艦長(かんちょう)=>官庁(かんちょう)?)
故事好看,姐姐多(?),艦隊戰,
説來我還是喜歡OP (Just Think of Tomorrow) 與ED (Down Town Dance)
Friday, February 20, 2009
[業務聯絡用] Contem
Contemporary Theory 聯絡用
[updated=>after 2nd tuto]
補課 ==〉6 Mar (Fri) 1:20-3:20pm
内容:
美國社會學理論思想史解説
Levi-Strauss and 結構主義 (Ben)
閲讀資料:
required: 神話與意義(中文)=> 一般地讀
然後以下選一份:
1/ Strutural Study of Myth =>
有些地方比較難,但嘗試讀一次。
如果不想看英文....
OR
請從頭到尾看一次以下動畫片:
2/ " Baccano ! " (第1-13集)
http://www.tudou.com/playlist/id/3643849/
觀看指示
a. 不管明不明白,也從第一集開始看到第13集
b. 第一次看不明白不要緊,總之先繼續看
c. 不要回頭看,不要翻前看
d. 我們上tuto的時候再看一次
Bonus Track:
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5206/snapshot20061028140641sz7.png
[更新 1st tuto]
==〉已印好Parsons,請到房門口拿
==>已訂“規訓與懲罰”中文版9本
[時刻表]
6/2
Parsons (Hamilton eds 4 parts)
20/2
Berger & Luckmann part 1 + 2
Goffman ch 1 + conclu
Grafinkel ch 1
20/3
Levi-Strauss Myth and Meaning (chinese) + Structural Study of Myth
Foucault“規訓與懲罰”+ Archaelogy of Knowldge part I(?) + part II
17/4 Habermas Strutural Transformation of the Public Sphere Party V + Interview
21/4
Beck Risk Society chapter 1,2
Bourdieu An invitation to Reflexive Sociology (chinese: 264-320, 45-106)
[updated=>after 2nd tuto]
補課 ==〉6 Mar (Fri) 1:20-3:20pm
内容:
美國社會學理論思想史解説
Levi-Strauss and 結構主義 (Ben)
閲讀資料:
required: 神話與意義(中文)=> 一般地讀
然後以下選一份:
1/ Strutural Study of Myth =>
有些地方比較難,但嘗試讀一次。
如果不想看英文....
OR
請從頭到尾看一次以下動畫片:
2/ " Baccano ! " (第1-13集)
http://www.tudou.com/playlist/id/3643849/
觀看指示
a. 不管明不明白,也從第一集開始看到第13集
b. 第一次看不明白不要緊,總之先繼續看
c. 不要回頭看,不要翻前看
d. 我們上tuto的時候再看一次
Bonus Track:
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5206/snapshot20061028140641sz7.png
[更新 1st tuto]
==〉已印好Parsons,請到房門口拿
==>已訂“規訓與懲罰”中文版9本
[時刻表]
6/2
Parsons (Hamilton eds 4 parts)
20/2
Berger & Luckmann part 1 + 2
Goffman ch 1 + conclu
Grafinkel ch 1
20/3
Levi-Strauss Myth and Meaning (chinese) + Structural Study of Myth
Foucault“規訓與懲罰”+ Archaelogy of Knowldge part I(?) + part II
17/4 Habermas Strutural Transformation of the Public Sphere Party V + Interview
21/4
Beck Risk Society chapter 1,2
Bourdieu An invitation to Reflexive Sociology (chinese: 264-320, 45-106)
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
政治思考/社會學思考1
SY Ma的政治思考(四)
如何distinguish這是廣告另外一個不是?
什麽東西motivate 人去找新的知識?
放在一個思路覺得是理由,
轉了思路,爲什麽看似真理的變了不是?
What constitutes a good reason
--------------------------------------
Tony Tam的社會學思考(1)
For Chris
contigency theory x
qualification of institutional argument but not itself an institutional argument
ciririsim ok
situation specified
general couter punch
not institutional mechanism
not a replacement / edited mechanism
upper: legitimacy constrainst people behave
impact
core still the same不是修正
story line not so straightforward
on myself:
argument/historical case是一個完美地show到制度化的school所夢想有的一個analysis,可以economical/political/cultural interest都能inteplay with institutional legitimacy的結構
t is very interstingcos it's so perfectly an institutional analysisthen say, no need to think of any explanatory problem or thereotical puzzle
perhaps can organize chapters into roughly three categories(economic / political / cultural interest)then argue all of them across history is strictly institutional buildingperfectly matching Meyer's framework
cos he said, institutional arguments to his best of knowdlge, always avoid to talk about problems of agency and/or interest
they talk about legitimacy, which is indeed important, but discard how agencies frame their interest by interplay and approapirate collective discourses to draw legitimacy
when i use the word"frame" he said he prefers the later two works
o him, as people who agree more to rational choice, whatever frame or interplay is ok. the point is he is very interested of instutional arugment do account this case very much
n my case, all interests (pol/eco/cul) are perfectly appeared and succesfully developed that "institutional structure" in consecutive periods for a wide variety of diversed interests, which are mircaely devoted to frame their words and actions , contributing to the building of institution.
如何distinguish這是廣告另外一個不是?
什麽東西motivate 人去找新的知識?
放在一個思路覺得是理由,
轉了思路,爲什麽看似真理的變了不是?
What constitutes a good reason
--------------------------------------
Tony Tam的社會學思考(1)
For Chris
contigency theory x
qualification of institutional argument but not itself an institutional argument
ciririsim ok
situation specified
general couter punch
not institutional mechanism
not a replacement / edited mechanism
upper: legitimacy constrainst people behave
impact
core still the same不是修正
story line not so straightforward
on myself:
argument/historical case是一個完美地show到制度化的school所夢想有的一個analysis,可以economical/political/cultural interest都能inteplay with institutional legitimacy的結構
t is very interstingcos it's so perfectly an institutional analysisthen say, no need to think of any explanatory problem or thereotical puzzle
perhaps can organize chapters into roughly three categories(economic / political / cultural interest)then argue all of them across history is strictly institutional buildingperfectly matching Meyer's framework
cos he said, institutional arguments to his best of knowdlge, always avoid to talk about problems of agency and/or interest
they talk about legitimacy, which is indeed important, but discard how agencies frame their interest by interplay and approapirate collective discourses to draw legitimacy
when i use the word"frame" he said he prefers the later two works
o him, as people who agree more to rational choice, whatever frame or interplay is ok. the point is he is very interested of instutional arugment do account this case very much
n my case, all interests (pol/eco/cul) are perfectly appeared and succesfully developed that "institutional structure" in consecutive periods for a wide variety of diversed interests, which are mircaely devoted to frame their words and actions , contributing to the building of institution.
Monday, January 26, 2009
理論大綱
從weber的social action定義起手
---〉點解我們作套字 (discoursing/Foucaul) /
----> 做些行爲(ritualizing/Bell) 本來想令對方信以爲我這樣想
---〉搞搞下大家都有個共識 (imagining/Castoriadis)
===> 自己都信埋 (Wiggenstein)
---〉以爲個世界這樣 (Weber = instituion)
berger and luckman 很類似,但有些地方我懷疑搞錯了,要讀多次
我同流浪貓的關係點解不是social action (Weber's defination),到一個nation的做法,其實都好類似
(Foucault: Order of Things => 畫畫的問題)
建立了個制度之後--〉
問題在於如何應付新的變化、新後代etc
再重新調整過myth 與ritual (sendimentation/Berger) 與 imagination (Mediating/MuLuhan)
最後要講得番個故事出來(narrating/ Hervieu-Leger)
Reference:
S Lash, C Lury 2007 "Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things"
C. Castoriadis "The Imaginary Institution of Society"
==>alienation 的定義:記不得自己社會的幻想歷史過程
S.Y.:如何分辨廣告與事實?
See also
John Tomlinson "Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction"153-157*
囯鉄化==〉1890s資本主義變成1905政商財閥,股票與金融市場被國家統制
地方鐵道與政黨制==〉1910的民主主義/分配利益隨1920的慢性經濟而被打成貪污;1930初的海恩斯政策最後也是不得而終
天皇==〉1900-1910比較開明的明治天皇被儀式與廣大的壓力逼癲;集體感覺的找尋 e,g, 體現於旅遊/小説
最後chapter該是argue最後還是一種tribal感覺的nationalism
一種不斷以道德外號來反對資本與民主主義的國族主義
---〉點解我們作套字 (discoursing/Foucaul) /
----> 做些行爲(ritualizing/Bell) 本來想令對方信以爲我這樣想
---〉搞搞下大家都有個共識 (imagining/Castoriadis)
===> 自己都信埋 (Wiggenstein)
---〉以爲個世界這樣 (Weber = instituion)
berger and luckman 很類似,但有些地方我懷疑搞錯了,要讀多次
我同流浪貓的關係點解不是social action (Weber's defination),到一個nation的做法,其實都好類似
(Foucault: Order of Things => 畫畫的問題)
建立了個制度之後--〉
問題在於如何應付新的變化、新後代etc
再重新調整過myth 與ritual (sendimentation/Berger) 與 imagination (Mediating/MuLuhan)
最後要講得番個故事出來(narrating/ Hervieu-Leger)
Reference:
S Lash, C Lury 2007 "Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things"
C. Castoriadis "The Imaginary Institution of Society"
==>alienation 的定義:記不得自己社會的幻想歷史過程
S.Y.:如何分辨廣告與事實?
See also
John Tomlinson "Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction"153-157*
囯鉄化==〉1890s資本主義變成1905政商財閥,股票與金融市場被國家統制
地方鐵道與政黨制==〉1910的民主主義/分配利益隨1920的慢性經濟而被打成貪污;1930初的海恩斯政策最後也是不得而終
天皇==〉1900-1910比較開明的明治天皇被儀式與廣大的壓力逼癲;集體感覺的找尋 e,g, 體現於旅遊/小説
最後chapter該是argue最後還是一種tribal感覺的nationalism
一種不斷以道德外號來反對資本與民主主義的國族主義
Sunday, January 25, 2009
波兒說什麽?
詮釋(一)Actor-centered
執到條魚 => 條魚喜歡了小子要做人 => 大龍鳳,大迷惑 => 變了做人,めでだしめでだし
(副社長提供)
詮釋(二)Non-actor-centered
很多魚、水母==〉海嘯、魚、魚、魚、魚==〉船==〉古代魚===〉大魚===〉月亮掉下來===〉魚變了人啦
詮釋(三)Author-theory
波兒偷了法術===〉fujimoto的人類補完計劃失敗===〉月球毀滅地球==〉婆婆+住民吃花生===〉兩個豆丁去玩(順道找無責任媽媽)===〉兩個媽媽替他們約定終身==〉波兒法術解除===〉madetashi medetashi
詮釋(四)
(宮崎駿與波兒的幻想政治學)
執到條魚 => 條魚喜歡了小子要做人 => 大龍鳳,大迷惑 => 變了做人,めでだしめでだし
(副社長提供)
詮釋(二)Non-actor-centered
很多魚、水母==〉海嘯、魚、魚、魚、魚==〉船==〉古代魚===〉大魚===〉月亮掉下來===〉魚變了人啦
詮釋(三)Author-theory
波兒偷了法術===〉fujimoto的人類補完計劃失敗===〉月球毀滅地球==〉婆婆+住民吃花生===〉兩個豆丁去玩(順道找無責任媽媽)===〉兩個媽媽替他們約定終身==〉波兒法術解除===〉madetashi medetashi
詮釋(四)
(宮崎駿與波兒的幻想政治學)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)