The Brothers Grimm (die Brüder Grimm or die Gebrüder Grimm), Jacob Ludwig Karl (1785–1863) and Wilhelm Carl (1786–1859), were German academics, philologists, cultural researchers, lexicographers and authors who together collected and published folklore during the 19th century.
Less well known in the English-speaking world is the brothers' pioneering scholarly work on a German dictionary, the Deutsches Wörterbuch, which they began in 1838. Not until 1852 did they begin publishing the dictionary in installments.[43] The work on the dictionary could not be finished in their lifetime because in it they gave a history and analysis of each word.[42]
a.^ 《新編德國人物傳》（Neue Deutsche Biographie）將他們的名字拼作「Grimm, Jacob Ludwig Carl」[9]及「Grimm, Wilhelm Carl」。[10]《Deutsches biographisches Archiv》將威廉的名字寫作「Grimm, Wilhelm Karl」。[10]《德國人物傳》（Allgemeine deutsche Biographie）寫作：「Grimm: Jacob (Ludwig Karl)」[11]和「Grimm: Wilhelm (Karl)」。[12]《The National Union Catalog Pre-1956 Imprints》也將威廉的名字寫作：「Grimm, Wilhelm Karl」。[10]而在中文世界，一般寫作雅各布·格林和威廉·格林。
Nonfiction master Russell Freedman illuminates for young readers the complex and rarely discussed subject of World War I. The tangled relationships and alliances of many nations, the introduction of modern weaponry, and top-level military decisions that resulted in thousands upon thousands of casualties all contributed to the "great war," which people hoped and believed would be the only conflict of its kind. In this clear and authoritative account, the Newbery Medal-winning author shows the ways in which the seeds of a second world war were sown in the first. Numerous archival photographs give the often disturbing subject matter a moving visual counterpart. Includes source notes, a bibliography, and an index.
此外，有一大批毛皮貨物從炸藥製造商杜邦德內穆爾（Dupont de Nemours）送出，90噸黃油、豬油被運往埃塞克斯皇家海軍武器試驗所。雖然當時是五月分，豬油和黃油無須冷藏，政府也投保特殊費率，但是保險不曾發放。2008年9月，潛水員約恩·瑪蒂在沈船中發現英國軍方使用的子彈，這個地區先前未被認為曾經裝載貨物[15]。
2001: A Space Odyssey, number 4In a 1965 interview with Jeremy Bernstein, writer Arthur C Clarke said: “Science-fiction films have always meant monsters and sex, so we have tried to find another term for our film.” Director Stanley Kubrick argued: “About the best we have been able to come up with is a space odyssey – comparable in some ways to the Homeric Odyssey. It occurred to us that for the Greeks the vast stretches of the sea must have had the same sort of mystery and remoteness that space has for our generation.”
Over his extensive career, Dyson applied elegant mathematics to aspects of nuclear engineering, biology, astrophysics and solid state physics — the study of solid matter.
We're saddened by the death of prominent physicist Freeman Dyson. We want to help celebrate his life and his work by sharing this story he wrote for us in 2006. In it, he recalls the time he spent developing analytical methods to help the British Royal Air Force bomb German targets during World War II.
“Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics describes the universe when you look forward into the future and the theory gives you probabilities. General relativity describes the universe when you look backward into the past and the theory gives you facts. Probabilities describe the future. Facts describe the past. Quantum mechanics and general relativity together give us a coherent view of nature with all its magical beauty and diversity. General relativity is half of the picture, and to my taste the more beautiful half.”
Christmas Day, 1942, was the three hundredth birthday of Isaac Newton. I was then an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge. Since Newton was our most famous fellow, the college organized a meeting to celebrate his…
A wide-ranging interview with the legendary mathematical physicist Freeman Dyson in which he discusses his work…
YOUTUBE.COM
Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society
Uploaded on Mar 30, 2010
Freeman Dyson with dry wit and self-effacing good humor explains that by heretical he means ideas that go against prevailing dogmas, and that in his self-appointed role as heretic, he is unimpressed by conventional wisdom.
There is no such thing as a unique scientific vision, any more than there is a unique poetic vision. Science is a mosaic of partial and conflicting visions. But there is one common element in these visions. The common element is rebellion against the restrictions imposed by the locally prevailing culture, Western or Eastern as the case may be. The vision of science is not specifically Western. It is no more Western than it is Arab or Indian or Japanese or Chinese. Arabs and Indians and Japanese and Chinese had a big share in the development of modern science. And two thousand years earlier, the beginnings of ancient science were as much Babylonian and Egyptian as Greek. One of the central facts about science is that it pays no attention to East and West and North and South and black and yellow and white. It belongs to everybody who is willing to make the effort to learn it. And what is true of science is also true of poetry. Poetry was not invented by Westerners. India has poetry older than Homer. Poetry runs as deep in Arab and Japanese culture as it does in Russian and English. Just because I quote poems in English, it does not follow that the vision of poetry has to be Western. Poetry and science are gifts given to all of humanity.
For the great Arab mathematician and astronomer Omar Khayyam, science was a rebellion against the intellectual constraints of Islam, a rebellion which he expressed more directly in his incomparable verses:
And that inverted Bowl they call the Sky, Whereunder crawling cooped we live and die, Lift not your hands to It for help, —for it As impotently rolls as you or I.
For the first generations of Japanese scientists in the nineteenth century, science was a rebellion against their traditional culture of feudalism. For the great Indian physicists of this century, Raman, Bose, and Saha, science was a double rebellion, first against English domination and second against the fatalistic ethic of Hinduism. And in the West, too, great scientists from Galileo to Einstein have been rebels. Here is how Einstein himself described the situation:
When I was in the seventh grade at the Luitpold Gymnasium in Munich, I was summoned by my home-room teacher who expressed the wish that I leave the school. To my remark that I had done nothing amiss, he replied only, “Your mere presence spoils the respect of the class for me.”
Einstein was glad to be helpful to the teacher. He followed the teacher’s advice and dropped out of school at the age of fifteen.
From these and many other examples we see that science is not governed by the rules of Western philosophy or Western methodology. Science is an alliance of free spirits in all cultures rebelling against the local tyranny that each culture imposes on its children. Insofar as I am a scientist, my vision of the universe is not reductionist or anti-reductionist. I have …
In June 1948, as Jack Kerouac was recovering from another of the amphetamine-fueled joy rides immortalized in “On the Road,” Freeman Dyson, a young British physicist studying at Cornell, set off on a road trip of a different kind. Bound for Albuquerque with the loquacious Richard Feynman, the Neal Cassady of physics, at the wheel, the two scientists talked nonstop about the morality of nuclear weapons and, when they had exhausted that subject, how photons dance with electrons to produce the physical world. The hills and prairies that Dyson, still new to America, was admiring from the car window, the thunderstorm that stranded him and Feynman overnight in Oklahoma — all of nature’s manifestations would be understood on a deeper level once the bugs were worked out of an unproven idea called quantum electrodynamics, or QED.
William E. Sauro/The New York Times
“One brick at a time”: Freeman Dyson at Princeton, 1972.
Dyson recounted the journey years later in “Disturbing the Universe,” contrasting Feynman’s Beat-like soliloquies on particles and waves with the mannered presentations (“more technique than music”) he heard later that summer from the Harvard physicist Julian Schwinger. On a Greyhound bus crossing Nebraska — Dyson had fallen in love with the American highway — he had an epiphany: his two colleagues were talking, in different languages, about the same thing. It was a pivotal moment in the history of physics. With their contrasting visions joined into a single theory, Feynman, Schwinger and the Japanese scientist Sin-Itiro Tomonaga were honored in 1965 with a Nobel Prize, one that some think Dyson deserved a piece of. In “The Scientist as Rebel,” a new collection of essays (many of them reviews first published in The New York Review of Books), he sounds content with his role as a bridge builder. “Tomonaga and Schwinger had built solid foundations on one side of a river of ignorance,” he writes. “Feynman had built solid foundations on the other side, and my job was to design and build the cantilevers reaching out over the water until they met in the middle.” Drawing on this instinct for unlikely connections, Dyson has become one of science’s most eloquent interpreters. From his perch at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, he followed “Disturbing the Universe,” a remembrance of physics in the making, with “Infinite in All Directions,” his exuberant celebration of the universe, and other books like “Weapons and Hope,” “Imagined Worlds” and “The Sun, the Genome and the Internet” — speculations on how science and technology might one day ennoble humanity, eliminating war and poverty, if only we can avoid blowing ourselves up. Science, Dyson says, is an inherently subversive act. Whether overturning a longstanding idea (Heisenberg upending causality with quantum mechanics, Gödel smashing the pure platonic notion of mathematical decidability) or marshaling the same disdain for received political wisdom (Galileo, Andrei Sakharov), the scientific ethic — stubbornly following your nose where it leads you — is a threat to establishments of all kinds. He quotes the biologist J. B. S. Haldane: “Let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.” It’s debatable whether anyone’s book reviews — even those as thoughtfully discursive as Dyson’s — belong embalmed between covers, but “The Scientist as Rebel” can be perused for a sampling of his iconoclastic takes on a science that sometimes seems to be turning into an establishment of its own. So much has been written about the grand quest to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity into a theory of everything — “to reduce physics,” as Dyson puts it, “to a finite set of marks on paper” — that it’s bracing to consider his minority view: that the existence of a compact set of almighty equations may be a dogma in itself. “As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small is unacceptable,” he wrote in a review republished here of Brian Greene’s book “The Fabric of the Cosmos.” “I am happy with the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and electrons.” It’s jarring at first to hear the Scientist as Rebel describing himself as a conservative. But that’s Dyson: as resistant to categorization as the universe his colleagues are trying to mathematicize. “In the history of science,” he writes, “there is always a tension between revolutionaries and conservatives, between those who build grand castles in the air and those who prefer to lay one brick at a time on solid ground.” Dyson, the brick layer, comes down on the side of Baconian science, built piecemeal from scraps rather than deduced through pure Cartesian thought, a science driven more by new tools — microscopes, particle accelerators, gene sequencers — than new ideas. In contrast to the science of Athens, as he drew the distinction in “Infinite in All Directions,” he prefers the science of Manchester, where Ernest Rutherford, cobbling together a picture of the nucleus, complained of theorists who “play games with their symbols” while “we turn out the real facts of Nature.” In a science of unifiers, Dyson prides himself as a diversifier. “I gazed at the stars as a young boy,” he once wrote. “That’s what science means to me. It’s not theories about stars; it’s the actual stars that count.”
George Johnson’s books include “Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in 20th-Century Physics.”
21世紀三事 台北:商務 贈送品
這本21世紀三事的翻譯或原文 在提到Richard Tawney 是有問題的 因為標準的名字是 Tawney, R. H. (1880-1962). Tawney made a significant impact in four interrelated roles, as Christian socialist, social philosopher, educationalist, and economic historian. In 1908 he became the first tutorial class teacher in an agreement between the Workers' Educational Association and Oxford University. The classes he took became renowned for their excellence. As a socialist, he wrote Secondary Education for All (1922), which informed Labour policy for a generation. His two most influential books, The Acquisitive Society (1921) and Equality (1931), exercised a profound influence on socialists in Britain and abroad and anticipated the welfare state. Tawney was also a professor of economic history from 1931, having made his reputation with Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926).
"You may not always agree with Dyson's view of the future, but this fascinating book by one of the great scientific visionaries of our time will certainly make you think" - Marcus Chown, New Scientist
"Dyson's arguments are illuminating even if his strictures are sometimes less than just," - Walter Gratzer, Nature
"It's been a long time since a respectable scientist voiced such grand aspirations in print, making Dyson's book refreshing and thought-provoking, if a bit farfetched." - Wade Roush, Technology Review
Please note that these ratings solely represent the complete review's biased interpretation and subjective opinion of the actual reviews and do not claim to accurately reflect or represent the views of the reviewers. Similarly the illustrative quotes chosen here are merely those the complete review subjectively believes represent the tenor and judgment of the review as a whole. We acknowledge (and remind and warn you) that they may, in fact, be entirely unrepresentative of the actual reviews by any other measure.
We have always admired Freeman Dyson highly. A talented scientist with many interests he has also managed to convey his interests and thoughts in his thoughtful and accessible writing. From the brilliant (and brilliantly titled) Disturbing the Universe to the present he has never failed to be provocative and insightful -- and to express himself well. This small book, based on lectures given at the New York Public Library in 1997 again allow him to share his interesting thoughts with a wider audience. Meandering about through three chapters Dyson discusses the tools of scientific revolutions (so the subtitle of the book). Suggesting how science advances and could advance in the future, as well as the unexpected consequences of advancement, Dyson offers his broad and unusual perspective on significant questions facing the world. Dyson's greatest asset as a scientist and thinker is his openness to all possibilities. He understands that the unexpected is often the most likely of outcomes, and he is prepared to entertain that and most other possibilities. Dyson does not insist on being right, as so many scientists do, or get bogged down in a single idea. He truly is interested in the big picture, and is more than willing to acknowledge when he strays down the wrong path (as he does here in cheerfully recounting his 1985 guesses as to the three most important technologies of the coming century). Dyson is also a humanist in the broadest sense of the word. His writing always shows his humanist background (nowhere more clearly than in Disturbing the Universe, though it is also evident hear). In addition (though perhaps one should suggest that it is something that one should expect from a scientist, as well as a humanist) his great concern for the true betterment of the human condition comes to the fore here. For Dyson one of the marvels of science is that it can make life so much better for so many, and one of his goals is to help in that regard. In this small book he also gives some examples of what has been -- and what can and should be -- done to better the conditions of the world's population. Dyson's thoughts are always intriguing, his examples well-chosen and fascinating. He is an admirable fellow, and this is an admirable book. Our one regret is that there is so little of it, that he breezes through these topics, touching on them but not going into great detail. Nevertheless, we can recommend it for anyone interested in the future, and the possibilities before us.
Freeman Dyson is Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. Winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, he has written numerous works. He is also the father of Esther, who gets a lot of press of her own. In 2000 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion -- a payday worth almost a million dollars.
Dom Sébastien, Roi de Portugal is a French grand opera in five acts by Gaetano Donizetti. The libretto was written by Eugène Scribe, based on Paul Foucher's play Don Sébastien de Portugal which premiered ... Wikipedia
Gioachino Antonio Rossini was an Italian composer who wrote 39 operas as well as some sacred music, songs, chamber music, and piano pieces. He was a precocious composer of operas, and he made his debut at age 18 with La cambiale di matrimonio. Wikipedia
To celebrate Pauline Tinsley's recent 80th birthday - Rossini's Cat Duet. Elizabeth Vaughan (in the dark dress) joins her at a…
------ 1916年
有不少小毛病，以11月13日為例， Frederick Septimus KellyDSC (29 May 1881 – 13 November 1916) was an Australian and British musician and composer and a rower who competed in the 1908 Summer Olympics. He was killed in action during the First World War.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Septimus_Kelly 該書人名寫成Septimus Kelly，好像沒根據。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKeCkfRf9HM
Frederick Septimus Kelly - Elegy for strings in Memoriam Rupert Brooke - St. George
-----
1940年 整整一代(美國)兒童受到古典音樂的洗禮。
2016年6月15日 星期三
電影《幻想曲》 "Fantasia" 1940
電影《幻想曲》 "Fantasia" 1940
Disney's Fantasia (1940) English HQ with subtitles FULL FILM
Disney's Fantasia (1940) HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7gLlIv4ito 無英文字幕，聲音/影像都"很好"
趙元任1975年元旦寫給朋友的第四封《綠信》(FOURTH GREEN LETTER ) ，第182條： 182. The movie "Fantasia" is such a good concert of well-known pieces that after seeing it first in Naking and then several times in America, I will still see it comes to town.
The Doctor Faustus Dossier Arnold Schoenberg, Thomas Mann, and Their Contemporaries, 1930-1951. ... Arnold Schoenberg and Thomas Mann, two towering figures of twentieth-century music and literature, both found refuge in the German-exile community in Los Angeles during the Nazi era.
Arnold Schoenberg and Thomas Mann, two towering figures of twentieth-century music and literature, both found refuge in the German-exile community in Los ... *****
Robert Louis Balfour Stevenson was a British novelist, poet, essayist, and travel writer. His most famous works are Treasure Island, Kidnapped, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and A Child's Garden of Verses. Wikipedia
Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.
I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
There are no foreign lands. It is the traveler only who is foreign.
"Them that die will be the lucky ones!" –from TREASURE ISLAND (1883) by Robert Louis Stevenson
Perhaps the greatest of all adventure stories for boys and girls, Treasure Island began, a brave boy who finds himself among pirates, and of the sinister pirate-cook Long John Silver holds children as entranced today as it did a century ago. It has appeared with illustrations by many leading artists, but none so apt as Peake’s–first published in 1949 and out of print until now. READ an excerpt here: vhttps://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/173202/treasure-island-by-robert-louis-stevenson/
Romain Rolland was a French dramatist, novelist, essayist, art historian and mystic who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1915 "as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with ... Notable awards: Nobel Prize in Literature; 1915 Born: 29 January 1866; Clamecy, France Died: 30 December 1944 (aged 78); Vézelay Spouse: Marie Romain Rolland, m. 1934-1944; .
Drama in the Modern World: Plays and Essays (pirate edition, 1990, p.87) "...... To judge between good and bad, between successful and unsuccessful, would need eye of God." Anton Chekhov , 1860-1904
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov died in Badenweiler, German Empire on this day in 1904 (aged 44).
"Perhaps the feelings that we experience when we are in love represent a normal state. Being in love shows a person who he should be." -- from "Seeing Chekhov: Life And Art" by Anton Chekhov
In 1890, Chekhov undertook an arduous journey by train, horse-drawn carriage, and river steamer to the far east of Russia and thekatorga, or penal colony, on Sakhalin Island, north of Japan, where he spent three months interviewing thousands of convicts and settlers for a census. The letters Chekhov wrote during the two-and-a-half-month journey to Sakhalin are considered to be among his best.[56] His remarks to his sister about Tomsk were to become notorious.[57][58]
"Tomsk is a very dull town. To judge from the drunkards whose acquaintance I have made, and from the intellectual people who have come to the hotel to pay their respects to me, the inhabitants are very dull, too."[59]
The inhabitants of Tomsk later retaliated by erecting a mocking statue of Chekhov.
Chekhov witnessed much on Sakhalin that shocked and angered him, including floggings, embezzlement of supplies, and forced prostitution of women. He wrote, "There were times I felt that I saw before me the extreme limits of man's degradation."[60][61] He was particularly moved by the plight of the children living in the penal colony with their parents. For example:
"On the Amur steamer going to Sakhalin, there was a convict who had murdered his wife and wore fetters on his legs. His daughter, a little girl of six, was with him. I noticed wherever the convict moved the little girl scrambled after him, holding on to his fetters. At night the child slept with the convicts and soldiers all in a heap together."[62]
Chekhov later concluded that charity and subscription were not the answer, but that the government had a duty to finance humane treatment of the convicts. His findings were published in 1893 and 1894 as Ostrov Sakhalin (The Island of Sakhalin), a work of social science – not literature – worthy and informative rather than brilliant.[63][64] Chekhov found literary expression for the "Hell of Sakhalin" in his long short story The Murder,[65] the last section of which is set on Sakhalin, where the murderer Yakov loads coal in the night, longing for home. Chekhov's writing on Sakhalin is the subject of brief comment and analysis in Japanese writer Haruki Murakami'snovel 1Q84.[66] It is also the subject of a poem by the Nobel prize winner Seamus Heaney entitled Chekhov on Sakhalin collected in the volume Station Island.[67]
A generalisation of this kind will, of course, even if it has some degree of truth when applied to the body of literature, be changed profoundly when a writer of genius sets to work on it. At once other questions arise. It is seen that an “attitude” is not simple; it is highly complex. Men reft of their coats and their manners, stunned by a railway accident, say hard things, harsh things, unpleasant things, difficult things, even if they say them with the abandonment and simplicity which catastrophe has bred in them. Our first impressions of Tchekov are not of simplicity but of bewilderment. What is the point of it, and why does he make a story out of this? we ask as we read story after story. A man falls in love with a married woman, and they part and meet, and in the end are left talking about their position and by what means they can be free from “this intolerable bondage”.
“'How? How?' he asked, clutching his head. . . . And it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found and then a new and splendid life would begin.” That is the end. A postman drives a student to the station and all the way the student tries to make the postman talk, but he remains silent. Suddenly the postman says unexpectedly, “It's against the regulations to take any one with the post”. And he walks up and down the platform with a look of anger on his face. “With whom was he angry? Was it with people, with poverty, with the autumn nights?” Again, that story ends. But is it the end, we ask? We have rather the feeling that we have overrun our signals; or it is as if a tune had stopped short without the expected chords to close it. These stories are inconclusive, we say, and proceed to frame a criticism based upon the assumption that stories ought to conclude in a way that we recognise. In so doing, we raise the question of our own fitness as readers. Where the tune is familiar and the end emphatic — lovers united, villains discomfited, intrigues exposed — as it is in most Victorian fiction, we can scarcely go wrong, but where the tune is unfamiliar and the end a note of interrogation or merely the information that they went on talking, as it is in Tchekov, we need a very daring and alert sense of literature to make us hear the tune, and in particular those last notes which complete the harmony. Probably we have to read a great many stories before we feel, and the feeling is essential to our satisfaction, that we hold the parts together, and that Tchekov was not merely rambling disconnectedly, but struck now this note, now that with intention, in order to complete his meaning. We have to cast about in order to discover where the emphasis in these strange stories rightly comes. Tchekov's own words give us a lead in the right direction. “. . . such a conversation as this between us”, he says, “would have been unthinkable for our parents. At night they did not talk, but slept sound; we, our generation, sleep badly, are restless, but talk a great deal, and are always trying to settle whether we are right or not.” Our literature of social satire and psychological finesse both sprang from that restless sleep, that incessant talking; but after all, there is an enormous difference between Tchekov and Henry James, between Tchekov and Bernard Shaw. Obviously — but where does it arise? Tchekov, too, is aware of the evils and injustices of the social state; the condition of the peasants appals him, but the reformer's zeal is not his — that is not the signal for us to stop. The mind interests him enormously; he is a most subtle and delicate analyst of human relations. But again, no; the end is not there. Is it that he is primarily interested not in the soul's relation with other souls, but with the soul's relation to health — with the soul's relation to goodness? These stories are always showing us some affectation, pose, insincerity. Some woman has got into a false relation; some man has been perverted by the inhumanity of his circumstances. The soul is ill; the soul is cured; the soul is not cured. Those are the emphatic points in his stories. Once the eye is used to these shades, half the “conclusions” of fiction fade into thin air; they show like transparences with a light behind them — gaudy, glaring, superficial. The general tidying up of the last chapter, the marriage, the death, the statement of values so sonorously trumpeted forth, so heavily underlined, become of the most rudimentary kind. Nothing is solved, we feel; nothing is rightly held together. On the other hand, the method which at first seemed so casual, inconclusive , and occupied with trifles, now appears the result of an exquisitely original and fastidious taste, choosing boldly, arranging infallibly, and controlled by an honesty for which we can find no match save among the Russians themselves. There may be no answer to these questions , but at the same time let us never manipulate the evidence so as to produce something fitting, decorous, agreeable to our vanity. This may not be the way to catch the ear of the public; after all, they are used to louder music, fiercer measures; but as the tune sounded so he has written it. In consequence, as we read these little stories about nothing at all, the horizon widens; the soul gains an astonishing sense of freedom. In reading Tchekov we find ourselves repeating the word “ soul” again and again. It sprinkles his pages. Old drunkards use it freely; “. . . you are high up in the service, beyond all reach, but haven't real soul, my dear boy . . . there's no strength in it”. Indeed, it is the soul that is the chief character in Russian fiction. Delicate and subtle in Tchekov, subject to an infinite number of humours and distempers, it is of greater depth and volume in Dostoevsky; it is liable to violent diseases and raging fevers, but still the predominant concern. Perhaps that is why it needs so great an effort on the part of an English reader to read The Brothers Karamazov or The Possessed a second time. The “soul” is alien to him. It is even antipathetic. It has little sense of humour and no sense of comedy. It is formless. It has slight connection with the intellect. It is confused, diffuse, tumultuous, incapable, it seems, of submitting to the control of logic or the discipline of poetry. The novels of Dostoevsky are seething whirlpools, gyrating sandstorms, waterspouts which hiss and boil and suck us in. They are composed purely and wholly of the stuff of the soul. Against our wills we are drawn in, whirled round, blinded, suffocated, and at the same time filled with a giddy rapture. Out of Shakespeare there is no more exciting reading. We open the door and find ourselves in a room full of Russian generals, the tutors of Russian generals, their step-daughters and cousins, and crowds of miscellaneous people who are all talking at the tops of their voices about their most private affairs. But where are we? Surely it is the part of a novelist to inform us whether we are in an hotel, a flat, or hired lodging. Nobody thinks of explaining. We are souls, tortured, unhappy souls, whose only business it is to talk, to reveal, to confess, to draw up at whatever rending of flesh and nerve those crabbed sins which crawl on the sand at the bottom of us. But, as we listen, our confusion slowly settles. A rope is flung to us; we catch hold of a soliloquy; holding on by the skin of our teeth, we are rushed through the water; feverishly, wildly, we rush on and on, now submerged, now in a moment of vision understanding more than we have ever understood before, and receiving such revelations as we are wont to get only from the press of life at its fullest. As we fly we pick it all up — the names of the people, their relationships, that they are staying in an hotel at Roulettenburg, that Polina is involved in an intrigue with the Marquis de Grieux — but what unimportant matters these are compared with the soul! It is the soul that matters, its passion, its tumult, its astonishing medley of beauty and vileness. And if our voices suddenly rise into shrieks of laughter, or if we are shaken by the most violent sobbing, what more natural?— it hardly calls for remark. The pace at which we are living is so tremendous that sparks must rush off our wheels as we fly. Moreover, when the speed is thus increased and the elements of the soul are seen, not separately in scenes of humour or scenes of passion as our slower English minds conceive them, but streaked, involved, inextricably confused, a new panorama of the human mind is revealed. The old divisions melt into each other. Men are at the same time villains and saints ; their acts are at once beautiful and despicable. We love and we hate at the same time. There is none of that precise division between good and bad to which we are used. Often those for whom we feel most affection are the greatest criminals, and the most abject sinners move us to the strongest admiration as well as love.
^"This use of stream-of-consciousness would, in later years, become the basis of Chekhov's innovation in stagecraft; it is also his innovation in fiction." Wood, 81; "The artist must not be the judge of his characters and of their conversations, but merely an impartial witness." Letter to Suvorin, 30 May 1888; In reply to an objection that he wrote about horse-thieves ( The Horse-Stealers , retrieved 16 February 2007) without condemning them, Chekhov said readers should add for themselves the subjective elements lacking in the story. Letter to Suvorin, 1 April 1890. Letters of Anton Chekhov .
^"You are right in demanding that an artist should take an intelligent attitude to his work, but you confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist." Letter to Suvorin , 27 October 1888. Letters of Anton Chekhov .
《契訶夫傳》還是讓我找到些Suvorin的資料
In many ways, the right-wing Suvorin, whom Lenin later called "The running dog of the Tzar" (Payne, XXXV), was Chekhov's opposite; "Chekhov had to function like Suvorin's kidney, extracting the businessman's poisons." Wood, 79 .
《立場新聞》訪問了一個連登群組「我要攬炒」的真身，他們連續發出八波有效的攻勢，依靠的只是一個信念，就是「攬炒」，他們引用電影《饑餓遊戲》中主角對白：「If we burn, you burn with us.」也就是中國《尚書》所說的「時日曷喪，予及汝皆亡」。這是夏朝爆發的歷史上規模最大的奴隸起義時奴隸發出的誓言。針對夏桀自比為太陽，奴隸誓言是：「這個太陽為甚麼不消失？」「我就和你一起死吧！」
Jack Welch, who led GE through two decades of unparalleled growth with a brash style that changed the landscape of American corporations, has died at 84.
"We'll see how solvent they are at year end, and we'll see if they make it into 2020"
3 時間前 - A private financial investigator who flagged warnings about Bernard Madoff's $65bn Ponzi scheme is now targeting one of America's blue chip companies. In a 175-page report Harry Markopolos claimed General Electric (GE) ...
General Electric fought back Thursday night after the company was accused of fraud and its stock experienced its worst one-day percentage drop since April 2008.
Turbines built by GE create a third of the world's electricity. But with a $9.8 billion loss and the looming risk of being dropped from the Dow, GE is in a real-time meltdown.
GE represents the height of American business. The godfather of modern electricity, Thomas Alva Edison, provided notable inventions including the lightbulb and the locomotive while other GE scientists invented the x-ray machine, the jet engine and everyone's favorite summertime appliance: the electric fan. Katharine Burr Blodgett, the first female scientist hired by GE, invented the non-reflective glass that is used in cameras today. GE built a large portion of the American economy, expanding across industries with the grit and moxie American companies pride themselves on.
"While I believe Immelt compounded GE's problems, I also think these started under Welch, particularly when he allowed GE Capital to borrow way too much money," says investigative reporter Charles Ortel, one of the first to predict GE's downfall. "At heart of GE's pain likely were too many ill-advised and debt-financed investments that may, in theory, have offered earnings per share accretion potential, but confused financing and investment decisions."
And that brings us to GE Capital. Most people don't know much about GE Capital. Functioning as the financial services unit for GE it finances GE customers buying products like jet engines, industrial equipment, power turbines and medical machines. But under Jack Welch GE Capital amassed a portfolio of highly specific assets, financing everything from Mexican warehouses to condos, to leasing railcars and fleets, all of which came to a head during the 2008 financial crisis.
But they wanted it to be bigger
Responding to pressure from investors, Jack Welch expanded GE Capital, making it the largest issuer of commercial paper in the world, incurring debt to invest beyond their means. GE Capital made up 60 percent of GE's earnings growth between 1990 and 2005.
Jeff Immelt, nicknamed by the Harvard Business Review as "The Great Transformer" claimed to remodel GE toward industrial businesses, where GE's enormous scale made it a good fit. Immelt's letter, published in the HBR was titled "How I Remade GE" and describes a different company than the one investors saw.
In 2001, Welch received the largest retirement package in history. Valued at $420 million, it included access to an $80,000-per-month Manhattan apartment, tickets to elite sporting events and lifelong use of airplanes and other GE facilities. And it wasn't until Immelt stepped down that GE finally cut some costs.
During his tenure, it was not uncommong for Immelt to take company aircrafts to business meetings, often having an empty jet follow behind, just in case.
The 2008, crisis marked a point when GE had to make some big decisions. Rana Faroohar, an economic analyst for CNN, had conversations with executives who knew the choice was between being a bank or going back to innovation, "They decided to do the latter and they have moved away from finance. They have been selling off their financial assets and they are trying to now move into making things particularly geared for the emerging markets.
A lot of people are really watching that company to see, hey, can a big American company that went this far into the process of financialization pull back and really move to a different paradigm?"
What next?
A recent $6.2 billion charge for problems with its finance unit is only stoking concern about its survival. GE's new chief executive John Flannery has spoken with analysts about his plan to focus GE on its three main businesses: health care, aviation and power generation. GE has since disassembled GE Capital, reinstating it to its former purpose.
The options are increasingly limited and investor confidence has been pummeled. Unless GE can convince another billionaire like Warren Buffett to bail them out again, many analysts are surmising the company will only survive if broken apart. One can interpret what Immelt said in his departure letter with new eyes, given the current state of affairs, "We were a classic conglomerate. Now people are calling us a 125-year-old start-up."
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Jan 12, 2011 - Business & Economics -480 pages
本書 At Any Cost: Jack Welch, General Electric, and the Pursuit of Profit By Thomas F. O'Boyle， 1998年初版，書名意思是Jack Welch 把他在中學時"不惜一切代價追求贏 (Win- At-All-Cost)心態帶入企業界。 (p.69) 它說明20世紀90年代GE的CEO，Jack Welch，他的一心追求的財務上短視績效，只是美國崇拜華爾街心態下應運而生的"假"英雄.....。 由本書的索引中的Peter Drucker和W. Edwards Deming，我們很可以知道作者如何利用這兩位管理學理論大師的基礎來寫他的史詩。
Drucker 的另外一位企業英雄是創IBM的Thomas J. Watson Sr (他大Sloan一歲)。Sloan建立的是大而分權的企業，不過Watson 十年之後所建立的IBM，更尊重員工個人，創立Drucker夢寐以求的"全廠共同體" (plant community，如公司俱樂部等)，對於要求尊守高商業道德標準等等，都是日本公司戰後學習的楷模--這是日本的友人告訴他的。(頁240-41)
Google Books這版本是2001版--Afterword 寫於2001年4月。上述2011年版應該是補充近35頁。由書內搜索。
這本書很難能可貴處是沒寫 Jack Welch的緋聞與離婚記。簡述故事：美國著名的商業刊物Harvard Business Review 的編輯某人去訪談 Jack Welch 董事長，兩人一見鍾情，可能還一起去珠寶店為 Jack Welch太太買結婚紀念禮物？後來 Jack Welch太太知道先生偷情，兩人就離婚。
2011 前幾天在CNN看 Jack Welch 的訪問 才知道有人認為他是20世紀最了不起的經理---才怪 約10多年前 哈佛商業評論HBR的一位編輯訪問他 結果是兩人煞到 開始約會 (此 Jack 還將新書 送其妻) 一年後女有高升 最後辦公室革命 群起而攻之 他們戀情公開後結婚......
John Francis "Jack" Welch, Jr. (born November 19, 1935(1935-11-19)) is an American chemical engineer, businessman and author. He was Chairman and CEO of ...
Join us on Thursday, March 5 for a talk by Prof. Lin Sheng-chih on "Rethinking the Religious Elements in the Tombs of Early Medieval China" (w/ Prof. Eugene Wang as chair/discussant): http://ow.ly/Q0xV50ykqBQ
同時期粟特人（Sogdians）的一封家書生動描述出西晉末年的動亂。1907年斯坦因（Sir M. A. Stein, 1862-1943）於甘肅敦煌西側九十公里的一座烽燧（編號：XII a）下發現一組粟特文的書信殘片，這是至今在中國所知最早的粟特文獻。此信書於312至314年之間，述及永嘉之亂洛陽陷於戰火，河南洛陽至敦煌一帶的粟特人流離失所，可知粟特人的貿易活動一時遭受頓挫。
其次是本書所採用的美術史研究取徑。奧村伊九良（1901-1944）最早由美術史的角度考察北朝墓葬圖像，他對納爾遜－阿特金斯美術館藏（The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas）孝子石棺的高度評價，對日後學界如何認識北魏繪畫產生深遠影響。長廣敏雄（1905-1990）於1969年出版的《六朝時代美術研究》為關於南北朝美術史的第一部專著，其中雖包含佛教藝術，整體而言仍以墓葬材料為主。由於當時考古材料的限制，該書主要以傳世遺物為研究對象，當中雖曾提到「墳墓美術」，但作者的基本立場是將遺物視為復原名畫家風格的線索，並未充分重視墓葬的相關問題。儘管如此，該書作為中國美術史學界首度以系統化的方式考察南北朝墓葬圖像的著作，在研究史上具有里程碑的意義。
朱安耐（Annette L. Juliano）於1975年曾在美國華美協進社（China Institute in America）舉辦「六朝美術─世紀之變與創新」特展，展覽圖錄中指出應該重視佛教美術之外的各類遺物，並認為這類涵蓋陶俑、石棺的材料可概括為「墓葬美術」（mortuary art）。由於出土史料的限制，此見解並未得到太多迴響。朱安耐於1980 年出版《鄧縣─一座六朝時代的重要墓葬》，代表此階段西方學界對於特定墓葬的深入個案研究。書中將墓葬視為整體，以系統化的方式處理風格、圖像、建築、隨葬品、題記、歷史情境等不同面向。相較於長廣敏雄的《六朝時代美術研究》，該書更強調由墓葬美術的角度重建特定墓葬的歷史脈絡。
在此同時，西方學界也拓展了對於北朝考古材料的視野。2001年朱安耐與樂仲迪（Judith A. Lerner）引領風氣，舉辦以漢唐之間河西至寧夏一帶絲路沿線考古文物為主體的展覽與研討會。2005年美國大都會博物館亦舉辦以魏晉南北朝文物為主的漢唐出土文物大展，規模空前。丁愛博（Albert Dien）於2007年出版的《六朝文明》則代表西方漢學界對於魏晉南北朝物質文化的整體認識。在學界倡導與博物館展覽的推波助瀾之下，原來為漢唐考古所遮掩的魏晉南北朝出土材料重新受到矚目。
3点すべてのイメージを見る
