Just a play of words

This is not a poem :))

pleasantly surprised the famous geneticist also writes poems - can't say he is that good but hey, word play is always fun. So I made up a few lines, too:

first you would decipher, Dr. Stefansson,
in the genomic forest of Icelandic fellows
the faulty code of diabetes
then you could scrutinize the fine hairs
of your dear Northern fairies - me


Where do I find, lost in the brightness of a sunlit day,
The happiness of an unhappy man
Fortunate only to be just one copy of himself.
Everything else stinks - Kári Stefansson

lifted from this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/world/what-in-the-world/on-an-island-named-for-ice-the-poets-are-just-getting-warmed-up.html

2016 reading list

2016 Reading List

barely made to 12. year of sci-fi's. 

Sci-fi

1. Blindsight by Peter Watts (wrote a review)
2. I, robot; Foundation series by Issac Asimov
3. Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams: (only first two)
4. The player of games by Iain Banks

Non-fiction

5. GEB by Douglas Hafstadter (re-read; wrote a review that I myself was satisfied)
6. Sapiens: a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari (read twice; wrote a review)
7. Road to serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek (I feel strong affinity to his thoughts)
8. Man’s search for meaning by Viktor Frankl (the first part was very intense and unforgettable; not sure about logotherapy itself)

Fiction

9. Neapolitan novels by Elena Ferrante (recommended to everyone; may re-read)
10. Angle of repose by Wallace Stegner (rather interesting angle of the American Western history and people)

Unfinished

11. My struggle book 1 by Karl Ove Knausgaard (I struggled more, endless mumbling)
12. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn biography (couldn’t bear all the horrific details)

My new roommate (a short story)

My new roommate

A short story

A

It was in a moment of thoughtlessness that I allowed her to move in.

“What can we do together?” I asked, leaning on the door, arms folding.

“We can run 5K.”

How lovely! I immediately warmed up to her. You see, I’ve loved many things in life, but running is never one of them. In fact, it would have ranked very very high in the few things I dislike.

It must have been the way she phrased it: suddenly “5K”, a not so unfamiliar term, crystallized in my consciousness, demanding a run for the sake of it. Okay.

B

The first 5K was a smashing success.

It was a Sunday morning in early spring. We checked the google map, drew the running route in mind and followed it methodically. And slowly. When the run ended, euphoria, not exhaustion, flooded me. Runner’s high?  Aha! I embraced her and praised her for having brought such novelty to my life. I also thought that was the end of it.

C

Three days later. Evening. I turned on the stove to cook my favorite dish after a long work day: noodles. Everyone has a comfort food. Mine since childhood has always been noodles. Chinese noodles, lots of veggies, lots of spice and an egg. What could beat a cheerful meal and a peaceful night?

She showed up in the kitchen, turned off the stove and said “good time to run.”

“You must be kidding me!” I screamed in silence, shocked beyond reason.

She didn’t hear me and shoved the shoes to my feet. Off we ran, into the darkening sky. “Activity started.” I saw she now had her iphone on and was recording.

In this way, my new roommate settled in and was convinced that I would want what she wanted: 5K, twice a week; then every other day. I didn’t even know her existence days ago.

D

“This is so NOT me,” I brooded over the unexpected intrusion. What’s the point of long-distance running? I don’t care about exercises. I don’t need lose weight (gaining a couple would be nice). I don’t have anything to prove or disprove. How could one sustain such a strenuous activity without a tangible motivation?

And running is such a fad now, incentive enough to quit, not to jump in!

She was obliviously to this, of course. Instead, she showed me one “record” after another: the fastest speed, the longest distance, the most calories burned.... We were so good that we were breaking records every time we got out of the door.

But I must break out of this March madness. Or shall I say running madness? That would be redundant.

E

Opportunities came promptly.

One mile into the run one day, a sharp pain started from just below the right ribs and then spread to the whole belly. I gave her a knowing glance: stop now. But she merely slowed down and sped up again the moment the pain relented a little, as a result of the slowing down. This way, we soldiered on till the end. The end of 5K.

One day later, with another “recording breaking pace” we were so winded that I wouldn’t have crawled if left by myself. Yet we again completed the whole 5K. Is 5K an arbitrary distance or a moral creed?

I suspected addiction, but not the kinds I’m familiar with, like internet addiction or something. It’s certainly not dopamine; is it endorphine? Or adrenaline? Anyway, I did some research and showed her the scholarly verdict - exercise addiction:

• Tolerance: increasing the amount of exercise in order to feel the desired effect, be it a” buzz” or sense of accomplishment; (told you, we have been running faster, longer and more frequently)
• Lack of control: unsuccessful at attempts to reduce exercise level or cease exercising for a certain period of time; (because I’m the only one trying)
• Reduction in other activities: as a direct result of exercise social, occupational, and/or recreational activities occur less often or are stopped; (well, we haven’t been doing much else; that thin sci-fi fiction has been renewed twice; the kindle Neapolitan novel is stalled at 1%)
• Continuance: continuing to exercise despite knowing that this activity is creating or exacerbating physical, psychological, and/or interpersonal problems. (enough said!)

She didn’t know what I was talking about, nor did she show the slightest interest. I realized she was a hopeless simpleton, a singular drive: to run.

F

While not reading much, I did flip through a few writings about running. The one which caught my attention was about what runners think while running very long distances alone. I sought to find it out myself.  

We were running along a fabulous pond. It was a cool evening after storms. She as usual wore a most serious expression, as if deep in thought. I called her attention to the glowing clouds over the setting sun and the glittering reflection in the water.  Only in New England could there be such a glorious sight. She followed my waving arms but registered nothing. Then she looked down at her iphone and frowned. Hmm, 9:45, instead of 9:25.

As far as I could tell, her deep thought was occupied by two “too”s: too slow or too fast. Otherwise, she was busy counting: cha-cha-bre-ath, cha-cha-bre-ath. “Cha-cha” is the sound of our steps on the sandy paveway.

Then I saw a family walk up: mom, dad and seven goslings! I shook her out of her daze, yet her gaze was vacant. And we breezed away. The geese might as well be rocks, with this signature over them: make way for runners.

G

It’s been a long while since I had sat down with leisure. How familiar and pleasant. How good old time-ish! After this strange two months, the running has become mundane. The daily screeching of “records” has quieted down. It’s about time to break up, to say goodbye to her for good.

The badge of honor

The door was slammed open. She rushed in, in a burning red shirt, which says: “JP Morgan corporate race”.

“First official 5K!”

The bib didn’t even have the correct name: we would substitute for someone who dropped out.

I have no answer to such senseless act. I only wish I could wipe that goofy glee off her face.

H

(You said "new roommate", does that mean you had an old roommate before?)

Of course, of course. Quite a few actually. We are still all here. Reading science papers about running?! That's nerdy -- I wouldn't do that! Who let her in? The impulsive lady! She never hesitates and always regrets....

It's just that we have been living together forever, putting up with one another forever, we forget. And talk like one....Now that you've mentioned, we used to fight a lot, too, less absurd, but far more fierce. Once I even....Oh right, let's not scratch open old wounds....

But who is she? How did she show up so suddenly? Where had she been hiding all these years? Will there be others? The house is getting a little craz....disorderly.

Well, enough chatting. Got to go. See you after 10K!

I

It's been an exhausting summer at work. Everyone was irritated; no one agreed with anyone. Today was particularly brutal, running around like mad for useless meetings. At dinner, I was dis-spirited and she gave me a cautious glance now and then.

Then, I surprised myself and blurted out: "I have to take my mind off the nonsense. Let's go running!"

She brightened up and disappeared.

She re-emerged with a pretty running shorts to match another freebie shirt we got for our "official 5K”. It was colored like a blue night sky over dark shadow. Many trails down there, I’m sure.

We greeted the setting sun over the glittering pond. A pair of visiting swans swam leisurely, among a mob of angry geese. I couldn't say that I totally took in the beauty of the scene, but for the first time I felt a harmonious bond with her and knew, there and then, that we would soon merge into one. Well, for better or for worse.

Insightful and Enjoyable: the Age of Insight

洞察内心的时代：探索无意识在艺术，内心和大脑中的功能的征程；从维也纳1900到今天

艾尔克•坎德尔著

The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present
by Eric Kandel

“吻” （古斯塔夫•克林姆特作）

如果问艺术欣赏的神经生物机制是什么？ 我猜大多数人会说：这个太难了无法研究；即使能够做到，这样的研究也没有意义，只会破坏艺术的美感。

艾尔克•坎德尔于2012出版的《洞察内心的时代》，恰恰试图解答这个问题。坎德尔任教哥伦比亚大学，是美国著名的神经精神病学专家。他凭借记忆的神经机制的研究成果共享了2000年诺贝尔奖。 坎德尔的求学经历比较独特，他并非从小就立志要当科学家。 坎德尔在哈佛念的大学学位是”历史和文学“，但年轻时的恋人安娜•克里斯，改变了他的一生。 安娜的父母是佛洛伊德的好友，也是心理分析家，这个因缘使坎德尔对佛洛伊德的精神分析理论产生了浓厚的兴趣。 但他很快认识到，要真正懂得人的复杂心理，必须使用现代生物科学的方法，先把问题彻底简化，“从一个个的细胞开始”。于是，坎德尔绕过心理学，直接进入了神经科学研究的前沿。

但《洞察内心的时代》不是科研论文，而是坎德尔一生对文学艺术的爱好与科学追求的结晶。 这也是他的寻根之作：坎德尔生长在维也纳，二战前奥地利排犹时，九岁的他随全家移民美国。 获得诺奖后，坎德尔被授予维也纳名誉居民，算是衣锦还乡。因此，这本书不能作为研究艺术审美的学术著作来学习；坎德尔其实是在给一个假想并理想化的“维也纳博物馆”做导游：读者眼观一幅幅的匠心巨作，耳听他侃侃而谈、如数家珍，几乎随心所欲地把自己丰富的历史人文，心理学和神经科学知识应用到讲解之中。


《洞察内心的时代》一共有五百多页，分成五大部分。

第一部分描述世纪之交的维也纳；几个伟大的人物

二十世纪初的维也纳是引领世界文明的繁华盛地、帝国之都。 正是在维也纳医学院里，院长卡尔•罗基坦斯基开创了病理学，不再用想当然的理论，而是透过身体表面，直接寻找、确定疾病的部位和致因。科学家甚至开始研究大脑的结构和损伤以找到精神病的根源。不仅如此，科学家们还认识到，疾病是“大自然做的实验”，可以帮助我们找到人的行为和思维的正常运转规律。维也纳的知识阶层（科学家，艺术家，医生）互动频繁：新发明、新思想通过犹太贵妇人的沙龙，及时地传播扩散到各个领域。

在这样的文化和时代背景下，维也纳医学院毕业生佛洛伊德发明了精神分析法，奠定了现代心理学的基石。佛洛伊德认定性欲和死亡本能的原始、潜意识冲动是人类一切情感纠结和心理疾病的根源。佛的理论和实践，错多对少，不谈也罢，却犹如打开山洪之门，对人类文化产生了巨大、深远，而且不可逆转的冲击。相对于大多数生物学家，坎德尔对佛赞誉、宽容有加，反复强调他大的理论轮廓和经验主义的研究方式 -- 不论具体理论的对错 --为后人铺了路。

与佛洛伊德同时，也是维也纳医学院毕业的阿瑟•施尼茨勒（Arthur Schitzler）开始用独白式小说来探讨人的梦幻、幽密的情感、性和死亡。施尼茨勒的影响也不小，1999年库布里克拍摄的“大开眼戒”（Eyes Wide Shut），就是根据他的小说编写的。

同时代的维也纳还接踵出现了三个伟大的艺术家。古斯塔夫•克林姆特（Gustav Klimt）首先尝试用象征主义来表现女人的内心世界。金碧辉煌的“吻”是他的代表作之一。一反时髦的三维画法，画中人是平面构图，简略抽象，给观者一种超越现实的，甚至永恒的震动；其衣物上作为装饰频繁出现的椭圆圈意指卵细胞，而长方条则是精子 -- 象征性欲和繁殖力。这是医生朋友显微镜下的细胞图像给他的灵感。。。稍后的奥斯卡•柯克西卡（Oskar Kokoschka）和埃贡•席勒 （Egon Schele ）是表现主义画派的代表人物。前者常常通过夸张的表情、手势，即兴随意的油画手法来表达个性，心境和情感；后者则用肢体扭曲、暴露无遗的人物，黑黯低沉的色彩，来抒发人内心的压抑，性欲和死亡。坎德尔重点描述了三位大家的肖像画和素描。插图既多又精美，很多作品，散见各个博物馆，或属私人收藏，平常难得一见。惊鸿一瞥，与内容介绍相映生辉。

坎德尔认为，这些似乎完全不相干的艺术创作和科学研究有一个共同的目标，就是透过表象去认识人的本质。找到的答案似乎也一致：侵略（aggression）和性冲动是人类行为的原动力。

不熟悉现代艺术的读者，大概会对很多画的“少儿不宜”的内容和形式感到震惊；但作者引雕塑家罗丹的名言：艺术不存在丑陋，除非它缺乏品质，亦即缺乏外在或内在的真实。换句话说，艺术表达真实，崇尚真实，哪怕是丑陋的真实。

这部分比重很大，占了全书三分之一强的篇幅。


第二部分介绍艺术欣赏的认知心理学。

这里主要强调的是，任何作品没有观赏者的参与就是不完整的，即所谓“观赏者的那份子” （the beholder's share）。这是几代美术史家逐渐完善的一个重要概念。 最早提出这个观点的是里格尔。他在研究荷兰十七世纪的绘画时认识到，画中士兵和官员的位置安排，其实反映了那个特定文化对人的地位和彼此关系的价值观。没有这个文化背景的观赏者只看见几个人坐在那里，而有此背景的则能感受出、读出这样那样的、微妙的文化和审美内涵来。总之，艺术是文化的产物和传递。一个文化的象征符号，对艺术创造和欣赏都极其重要。贡布里奇甚至说，每一幅画的意义，更多源于其它画作，而不是本身的内容和形式。

“不完整”也反映在艺术的模棱两可上。坎德尔说，当一个伟大的艺术家根据自己的生活经历而画时，这种抽象出来的内容本来就是模糊的。因此，画的意义依赖于每个观赏者的联想，他本人对世界、对艺术的认知，他是否能够及时从记忆中唤起这些知识，并且付诸于此时此景。

贡布里希认为，观赏的过程其实有两步：从下至上，视觉接收外在的信息，得到一个总体印象，这个能力是天生的；从上至下：观赏者应用既有的知识，记忆和情感，把接收到的信息分析处理，从而赋予作品独特的理解和新的意义，这个能力需要学习和积累。

观赏者如何参与呢？沃林格尔的看法是，观赏者必须具有两个禀性：“设身处地”，把自己跟作品的主题合二为一；抽象能力，把自己从日常生活的琐碎中解脱出来，而去追随绘画形式和色彩这样的象征语言。就是说，艺术欣赏是一个主动的过程，观众自己要有参与的欲望和学习的能力。缺乏这种观念熏陶的人往往会假设“艺术美”是一个客观存在，如果真好，“自然而然”会把自己吸引住。


第三部分解释对视觉艺术背后的生物机制

心理学把人的思维和情感用“内心”（mind：中文没有完全确切的对应词）来解释，但mind是一种相对抽象和含糊的概念；“生物机制”意指把感知和情感冲动标记在大脑及神经组织的具体部位，并用神经细胞的激活和信息传递的方式和路线来解释，也就是把mind物质化。所以下面两部分要与第二部分对照着读。

第三部分着重于介绍大脑和视觉神经组织的结构；负责视觉的神经细胞如何从眼到脑，从低到高逐级接收、处理和解读视觉信息，包括实物或画中的色彩和形状：脸，手，身体，事物与周遭的界定等等。 视觉信息的接收和处理，是一个从“解构”，到“组装”，到“解读”的过程。 当眼睛聚焦观看一个实物或画时，视网膜上会暂时产生一个分辨率并不高的二维图像。最低级的视觉细胞或从中识别线条、边缘、角落，或吸收特定的不同波长的光波给出色彩，或确定相对的位置。。。这些零散的信息在中级神经节得以整合，而产生一个模糊的雏形。再往上传，大脑视觉中心先清除自认不相关的细节；寻找效果一致的形状和色彩；抽象出人物、景致或实物的特点；再根据已有的知识，记忆和联想，最后创造出一个丰富详细完整的“图像”。至此，几经周折，遵循一个与相机成像完全不同的原理，我们才算“看见”了。举一反三，这也是我们处理听觉，嗅觉，味觉和触觉的原理。这就是为什么作者反复强调我们有一个创造性的大脑：所谓的真实，“亲眼所见”，“亲耳所闻”，都是大脑反复处理解释外在信息的结果，都是一定程度上的幻觉或误读。

人的大脑对人脸的解读最为细致详尽和精确。张三李四，正面侧面，远看近看，细微的情绪波动。。。识别记忆似乎都不费吹灰之力。然而，做一个简单实验，仅仅把头像倒过来，识别就会突然变得非常困难。进一步说明视觉不是被动的完整的客观再现，而是有选择有重点的主观解读。

说到大脑通过脸，手，身体，以及它们的移动、变化来捕捉情绪的变化，坎德尔指出，优秀的艺术家如科克西卡，席勒似乎早就直觉地悟出了这个原理，所谓的“表现主义”正是通过夸张的脸部表情，扭曲的四肢和身体来传递内在情绪、心理状态的。感情还可以通过色彩来强调，这在克里姆的作品里尤其突出。 而艺术之所以能够打动观众，是因为观赏者用同样的大脑功能来解读、再创造艺术家的初衷。


第四部分介绍大脑的情感调节功能

人的情绪不仅仅是主观感受和社交的方式，不是理智的对立面，而是思维不可或缺的元素。这方面的发现，很多都是通过对病人脑损伤前后的行为巨大变化的详细分析得出来的。科学家发现，前额叶皮层是整合情感，理智和社交信息的中心。这个部位受损，并不影响人的智力，但基于受损伤的具体部位和程度，病人或变得喜怒无常不负责任，不能做长远计划，或不再能感受体会他人的喜怒哀乐，甚至失去良知和道德感。

这里所谓的情感，不仅仅是对外在的冷热，身体的病痛的本能反应，还参杂了主观好恶的价值判断。人对艺术中什么是美什么是丑的反应，也是这两者的综合。比如对称性自然而然地给人以美感和愉悦，健康美貌的希腊雕像让人心旷神怡。但这只是审美的最简单形式。随着社会的发展，人的认知能力和情感也越来越复杂，“美即真，真即美”就让位于能够展现复杂人生的“现实主义”，暴露内心挣扎的“表现主义”。。。人的社会性的发展，又使人具备进入他人的内心世界（坎德尔称之为“私人剧院”）的欲望和能力。观赏者并通过模拟他人的内心世界，来增强调节自身情绪和设身处地的能力。

作者在这里介绍了“从下至上”，直接调控人的情绪的六大神经递质，以及它们的信息传递机制 -- 神经细胞的信息传递功能主要依靠细胞之间的电传递和化学分子的交流。1）多巴胺系统的神经细胞释放多巴胺，一种小分子，其功能是奖赏有利于动物或人生存和繁衍的行为 -- 比如获取食物或性 -- 使之变得愉快。这样，动物就会重复这些行为。不仅如此，期待“奖励”的过程甚至导致更多的多巴胺释放，这就是“上瘾”或“勾起馋虫”的生物机理。2）脑下垂体的神经细胞释放一个叫内啡肽的蛋白多肽。内啡肽减低疼痛产生快感。极度兴奋、痛苦、紧张、性高潮、高强度运动，甚至欣赏美画，都会导致内啡肽的释放。3）脑下垂体还分泌催产素和升压素两种多肽。它们是情爱，母爱，友情和能够为他人作想的物质基础。4）正肾上激素系统在紧急和恐惧的情形下释放的正肾上腺素，让人瞬间心跳过速血压上扬，功能是帮助动物提高警惕对付意外和压力，所谓“战或逃”激素。5）脑干神经元分泌的血清素调节人的情绪，增加警觉，兴奋。血清素过低会导致抑郁和产生自杀的念头。6）散布大脑数处的胆碱神经元释放乙酰胆碱，提高学习功能，注意力和记忆。

这六大系统是人的直接、迅捷的情绪表达；“从上至下”的情绪调控功能位于大脑皮层更高级的部位，包括抑制本能冲动，审视情感，并做出重新评估。“重新评估”是用理智来探讨苦难，它使我们能够跳出自身的不幸，对事件、对世界做出更客观冷静的评价。


第五部分，作者总结并展望艺术和科学之间的不断变迁的对话。

从2008年在德国发现的“最古老的维纳斯”象牙雕说起，坎德尔指出，艺术伴随人的进化而产生，是所有文化不可或缺的重要部分。他相信艺术不仅仅是进化的副产品，更是人类生存和进化必不可少的学习方式，因为人的想象力和创造性，激情和同情心，对他人的理解和社交能力。。。这些重要品性都在艺术创作和欣赏中得以淋漓尽致的发挥和巩固。 艺术既是普世的又充满个性的魅力，使人流连忘返，“寓教于乐”。

接下来，坎德尔讨论了科学和艺术的异同，科学家试图建造客观的模型来认识世界，而艺术家表达的是对世界的主观印象。但两者都是抽象和简化的过程，都是大脑创造性的表现。同理，观赏者对艺术的品评，也是这么一个抽象简化的创造过程。

那大脑的创造性从何而来？这几章最有意思的讨论集中在“顿悟” -- “恍然大悟”那个瞬间的产生上。简而言之，科学家能够检测确定这个瞬间的产生，因为它伴随在右脑的颞叶部位产生高频率的神经放电那一刻。 难以置信的是，这个神经激活的时刻总是比被测试者“啊哈！我知道了！！”的那个“顿悟”瞬间早0.03秒！换句话说，人之豁然开朗产生新想法、勘破难题，很大程度上是在下意识里完成的。

事实上，用同样的研究推理，神经科学家认识到所谓的自由意志，在很大程度上也是一个幻觉。根据心理学家巴尔斯的模型，自我意识是大脑的工作记忆（以前也称为短时记忆）功能的一个瞬间的、活跃的、主观的感受，而非指挥人的智力活动、调解情感和道德的最高统帅。因此，心理学家韦格勒说，自由意志是内心的指南针：它不断地审视思想和行为的关系；当两者一致时，就说“这是我的意志。”

另外一个有趣的细节，是科学家通过比较“白痴天才”的绘画和在法国发现的三万年前的岩洞壁画的相似性，提出了这样一个假设，那些精美绝伦的壁画，代表的并非新一级的心理功能，更可能是旧的大脑最后的“天鹅之歌”。。。大脑的语言功能产生于视觉功能之后，其进化是以超凡的视觉艺术才能的退化为代价的；随着语言功能的不断发达完善，艺术才重新慢慢起步。。。。


如果一定要挑缺点的话，坎德尔的文字比较单调刻板，内容不是科研论文，行文风格却像：条理清晰，描述准确，但缺乏色彩、激情和韵味。


坎德尔在最后一章回答了本文开篇提出的问题。他说，探讨艺术的科学原理是希腊神谕“认识你自己”传统的继续。科学知识不仅不会使直觉的美感消失，还会增加新的审美感悟，在更多的层次和不同的角度，使我们对事物，对艺术有更深刻的理解和激赏。

人的大脑是一个神奇的智能机，它的想象力和创造性是无限的多元的。新的知识造就新的艺术，新的艺术要求观赏者更加努力地贡献他的那份子。这就是读这本书的最大体会。

Some quotes from the book.
----------------------------
Rodin: "There is nothing ugly in art except that which is without character, that is to say that which offers no outer or inner truth." p103

Worringer argued that two sensitivities are required of the viewer: empathy, which allows the viewer to lose himself or herself in a painting and be one with the subject, and abstraction, which allows the viewer to retreat from the complexities of the everyday world and follow the symbolic language of the forms and colors in a painting. p192

there are entities where the behavior of the whole cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from the way these elements fit together; rather the opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic structural laws of the whole. p199

Gombrich realized that the powerful, largely innate principles of Gestalt psychology apply primarily to the lower levels of visual perception, or "bottom-up" visual processing. Higher-order, or "top-down," perception also incorporates knowledge based on learning, hypothesis testing, and goals, which are not necessarily built into the developmental program of the brain. p202

when a great artist creates an image out of his or her life experience, that image is inherently ambiguous. As a result, the meaning of the image depends upon each viewer's associations, knowledge of the world and of art, and ability to recall that knowledge and bring it to bear on the particular image. this is the basis of the beholder's share -- the recreation of a work of art by the viewer. cultural symbols, recalled from memory, are similarly critical for the production and viewing of art. this has led Ernst Gombrich to argue that memory plays a critical role in the perception of art. in fact, as Gombrich emphasized, every painting owes more to other paintings than it does to its own internal content. p304

as Ernst pointed out, to be successful in creating an important work of art, the artist must from the start produce an essentially untrue painting. the painter must strictly limit himself to producing a work of the imagination,which in turn serve the viewer's imagination. p315

among his many contributions was the profound insight that consciousness is a process, not a substance. - p348

art enriches our lives by exposing us to ideas, feelings, and situations that we might never have experienced, or even want to experience, otherwise. art gives us the chance to explore and try out in our imagination a variety of different experiences and emotions. p390

Dennis Dutton, art gives us "some of the most profound, emotionally moving experiences available to human beings" p392

Dutton argues further that the arts are not a by-product of evolution; rather, they are adaptations -- instinctual traits -- that help us survive. p.393

this is what the painter does, and the poet, the speculative philosopher, the natural scientist, each in his way way. into this [simplified and lucid] image [of the world] and its formation, he places the center of gravity of his emotional life, in order to attain the peace and serenity that he cannot find within the narrow confines of swirling personal experience. - Albert Einstein p449

Wegner found that the feeling of conscious will helps us to appreciate and remember our authorship of the things our minds and bodies do. the conscious will is thus the compass of mind: it is a course-sensing mechanism that examines the relationship between thoughts and actions and responds with "I willed this" when the two correspond appropriately. p463

cave art, far from being the sign of a new order of mentality, might just be the swan song of the old. ... Instead, language may have evolved later and may have come at the expense of the fantastic artistic ability that Nadia and the cave artists manifested; after the advent of language, art may have developed along more conventional lines. p492

the workshop stage theory of consciousness.

信手涂鸦：读《右手左手》

右手左手：脑、身体、原子和文化中的不对称性的起源

Right Hand, Left Hand: the Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Culture

by Chris McManus


最早的记忆，相当独特。大概三岁左右吧，坐在书桌旁吃饭。父亲突然伸出筷子，轻轻地打一下我拿着勺正往嘴边去的手，问：“该用哪只手？！”我的脑子里马上闪现出自己坐在平常吃饭的桌子边的模样，我对照“她”拿勺的手，赶紧把勺换过来 -- 从左手换到右手。

这是我一生“左手情结”的开始。此后，我再没遇到过需要选择左右手的难题。我用右手做几乎所有的事；只有不学就会的个别琐事，会用左手，比如抓牌、开瓶盖、穿针引线等等。父亲是典型的“左撇子”，我因此认定我是被他“扳”过来的。父亲为人正直热情，心灵（左）手巧，在工作单位、远亲近邻中有口皆碑，是我从小仰慕的对象。所以，我从来就不觉得左撇子有什么不好，甚至认为那是一个难得的与众不同之处。不用说，左右手是我家永恒的话题。抓着机会，我不知“埋怨”过父亲多少次。

年末外出度假，我带了伦敦大学心理学教授Chris McManus在2003底出版的《右手，左手》一书。我想好好地听一听对左手的赞歌，从中找回一个失去的自我，那个擅长用左手的我。

但第一章就出乎意料。作者开篇并没提左右手这岔儿，却描述了一种罕见的疾病“内脏反位“（situs inversus）：这类病人内脏器官的位置，跟常人完全反过来，比如其心脏位于身体右侧，肝脏却在左边。接下来，作者又跳到十九世纪巴斯德的著名发现：酒石酸分子晶体其实是由两种互为镜像的分子组成的，一种把极光往顺时针方向折射，另一种则往逆时针方向折射。。。总之，生命从最小的分子构件：氨基酸和糖类，到个体、到文化都是不对称的！原来，作者并不仅仅钟情于左右手的区别；如同书的副标题所示，他想要探讨的是“脑、身体、原子和文化中的不对称性的起源。” 这虽然不是我阅读的初衷，但读完第一章后，我已经完全被这本书迷住了。我暂时放下自己的“左手情结”，跟着作者走进了他的爱丽丝镜像王国。

这个王国包罗万象。人类的文化是“右倾”的文化：“右”代表正确、主流、高尚、强壮，而“左”则跟蹩脚的、偏激的、坏的、脆弱的脱不了干系（看来，二十世纪的左倾激进思潮受宠是个例外）。作者指出，这种黑白，或曰左右分明的象征意义，并不是随机的，而是绝大多数人擅长使用右手的必然结果。但是，人为什么总是爱用右手呢？原来，身体的左右侧是由脑的左右半球交叉控制的；而人的左脑比右脑更发达，这就造成右手天然的主动性，以及优于左手的基本能力。在此基础上，右手的技能更在反复使用中不断提高。慢慢地，两手的能耐便有了质的不同。因此，使用右手是一个很基本的生物学现象，最终由基因，而不是社会压力决定的。同理，左脑比右脑更发达，因为人的语言中心和逻辑思维往往位于大脑的左半球。人群中占少数的左撇子（１０％）呢，则是基因变异的结果。从其左手占主导，可以反向猜测，左撇子的左右脑大概跟一般人也不太一样。但这个问题比较复杂。简而言之，右手占主动的人中，绝大多数（９５％）其语言中心位于左脑半球；而左撇子里，也只有少数，大约３０％的人，语言中心移到了右脑半球。事实上，这种左右脑结构和功能的复杂多样化，比偏爱使用哪只手更重要 -- 这是不同的人，有不同的直觉、思维和创造性的根本所在。

人的发育，从受精卵一分为二，二分为四开始，对称着进行。不对称的发育始于心脏细胞的分化。您想没有想过，胚胎怎么能够分清左右，而使心脏始终位于身体的左侧？！这个，说起来，话就长了。科学家发现，其中最关键的一个步骤，竟然是由一个基因决定的。这个基因表达的蛋白，形成特定的胚胎细胞表面的纤毛。这种纤毛能够、而且只能够沿顺时针方向旋转。结果，控制心脏分化的信息蛋白，被纤毛转动而形成的涡流，都甩到胚胎中线的左边，从而确定了心脏的位置！其它器官则随后相应分化。如果您还想知道，纤毛为什么不能够逆时针转，那就得追究到构成纤毛蛋白的氨基酸的不对称性了。天然氨基酸，既有左旋，也有右旋；但地球生物的蛋白质几乎都是由前者构成的。再追根刨底问下去，作者就搬出李政道和杨振林的诺贝尔奖，关于宇宙本身的不对称了！这本书的奇妙繁杂，由此可见一斑。

McManus教授是一个“收藏家”。跟不对称有关的科学发明、文学艺术、风俗人情，事无巨细，他都一一收集研究。类似下面的这两个典故，就写了整整一章。策划电影《泰坦尼号》的拍摄时，制作者为了节省开支，大船的模型其实只造了右边一半，左边一半是后期制作时，靠镜像原理复制的。电影中一个主要镜头，是船在英国港口出发前，乘客们从船的左边上去（那里的船总是左边靠岸）。船的左右复制容易，但演员这么一“复制”，就全反了－下回再看这电影时，瞧仔细了，港口道别的人，尽是左撇子！美国总统里一共有六个左撇子。因为水门事件接任总统的福特，上任后很不受大众喜爱。其中一个原因，是他显得很笨拙，跌跌撞撞的，毫无领袖风范。福特去世时，纪念文章里谈到，他上大学时曾是校足球队的主力。记得我当时还琢磨，既然是运动员，怎么会给人不协调的印象呢？这个疑问，里根的助理们却有完美的解释。原来，福特是左撇子，举手投足常常跟周围的人反过来，结果就老撞在一起。因为里根也是左撇子，大家就立下规矩，所有人任何时候都要站在离总统左右一步或身后半步以外。这样，无论他往哪个方向转身，都不会撞上：里根总统的完美形像就这样塑造起来的。

最后，作者还在书中一一解答、破除关于左右手的各种神话：左撇子是否更聪明？更有创造性？寿命更短？尼安德塔人都是左撇子吗？（答案全是否定的）

该书的不足之处，是作者的文字风格：很多看似简单的长句，却出人意料的拗口，常常得重读几遍，才能搞清楚该怎样断句，非常影响阅读的流畅、专注。但瑕不掩玉，丰富精彩的内容，教授对该书倾注的感情和心力，怎么赞扬都不过份。

书中第七章列有确定一个人是否为左撇子的测验题。我做了一遍，不甘心，又做一遍：十个问题里，只有开易拉罐一项，我肯定是用左手。如果把人群大致分为“极左”“偏左”，“偏右”和“极右”的话，我“仅仅”属于占人口８０％以上的极右派！原来，萦绕一生的“左手情结”只是一个错觉。。。如果说，读这本书有所遗憾的话，这就是了－它使我彻底地失去了那个擅长用左手的我。

冷血杀手

In Cold Blood

by Truman Capote 

这过去一周的两起校园惨案，我都只能读读标题，没有勇气跟踪，更不忍心去了解 细节。　自然而然地联想到最近刚读过的“传记小说”《In Cold Blood》，以及据 此改编拍摄的，关于作者Truman Capote的电影“Capote”。扮演Capote的Philip Seymour Hoffmam去年荣获奥斯卡最佳男主角奖。


1959年感恩节前的一夜，在堪萨斯州的一个偏僻平静的小城镇里发生了一件谋杀案： 善良的农场主Clutter夫妻和一双儿女被人枪杀在自己的家里，家中财产丝毫无损。 很长时间内，警察既找不到罪犯的线索，更猜不透他（们）的作案动机……

纽约时报寥寥数百字的报道，引起了当时已经相当有名气的小说家Capote的兴趣。 他因此花了四、五年的时间跟踪，采访与这个案件有关联的所有人，最后几乎和做案的两个杀人犯作了朋友。《In Cold Blood》于1965年在《纽约人》上连续登出，次年由蓝灯书屋出版发行。

人为什么会犯罪？社会的不公，家庭的破碎，童年的不幸，信仰的召唤，……？
作者没有像一般人那样，简单地用推理，论证来笼统解答；而是想方设法地去接近， 熟悉，了解这两个年轻人，以及他们的朋友亲人，全面地观察纪录其言行举止，思 维逻辑，感情爱好。最终，读者从他们自身中找到了答案。而这个答案是怎样的不 可思议，意味深长，可以把人的“心都凉透”！

不想把书中的细节都描述出来，只在这里笼统地说，跟普通人一样，一个自由社会 里的罪犯，也是千人千面，“多姿多彩”的。很多时候，犯罪的深刻动机在他们内 心深处，而作案的具体方式方法，“特点”，也无不再现他们的个性，能力，智力， 甚至“爱好”。而这种“内在”的东西，普通人几乎不可能涉足，猜测和防备。 每个读者，大概也会有不同的感受；我自己读罢，心中产生一种强烈的绝望，因为 我意识到，这种人是无法杜绝的，各种各样的令人发指的惨案，是必然地，永远会 发生的。虽然发生的频率，时机，细节有一定的偶然性，但总的说来，应该跟这类 人在人口中的比例成正比。
值得一提的是，字里行间之中，作者对他熟悉的这两个罪犯，也寄予了相当的同情。 因为当你对这样的人有了这么深入的了解后，唯一可以得出的结论是，他们也无法 改变自己。在给他人，给社会造成巨大伤害的同时，他们对怎样改善自己的生活处 境，也常常做出类似的，莫名其妙的“灾难性”决定。作者这种同情，大概就是英 文的“ｅｍｐａｔｈｙ”一词的含义。
这本书的文字语言，对事件人物的叙述描写也都非常出色，让人拿起来就放不下。 总之，无论从哪个方面讲，都是一本难得的好书。

（我是在网友ｖｅｒａ的督促下才读的。在此致谢。）

stopping at birch woods

stopping by birch woods on a snowless evening

who's this fellow? i think i know,
tarred & feathered he is a scholar though.
he does not know me scribbling here,
something frosty with no feel of snow.

our little Lucy must think it queer,
to behold a poet while bricks disappear.
between birch swings and the coffee break,
the oddest transformation -- of the year.

She gives old Papa Smurf a head shake,
To see if there is some unmanly mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep,
Of easy wind from a muddy lake.

Papa Smurf is lovely, dark and plump deep,
But now he has a fallen comrade to weep.
And miles to go (alone) before his sleep,
And miles to go (alone) before his sleep.

still more ways to look at a blackbird

XIV

The red-tailed hawk is moving. 

The red-winged blackbird must be flying.

XV

The abyss is cold, deep and scary

The blackbird is angry, angrier,

And angriest.