香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "沈旭暉: Roundtable 社區主義與Putnam 社會資本——後現代古物諮詢實驗與電影"

好新wo.....個idea

"如何收集民意其實是政府責任所在，我們只能稍作輔助，更關心的是「諮詢」邏輯和制度的未來，這是整個實驗的目標所在。"
-------------------------------------------------
咁請問沈生會如何因應實驗成果,
建議政府在「諮詢」邏輯和制度上進行實質的改革?

如果沈生做既係[次咨詢]
咁又點樣去向政府證明數據既可信性?

Gratitude; and Brief Rejoinder to 101/102

Thank you for reproducing the article here. After reading it in full, I am even more convinced that Mr. Shen ought to jettison his former communtarian language. What he has discerned to be a deep problem in HK today, is not the same problem which communiarianism was first formulated to address; but is, to put it plainly, the increasing polarization in face of various social issues, which is both cause and effect of the failure to maintain a necessary degree of mutual confidence among interested parties. Thus we read:

"今天政府不斷擴大吸納版圖，「代表」民間的委員會愈來愈多，社會卻愈加分化，媒體民眾對參與的犬儒與日俱增，能衡量「諮詢」如何「反映民意」的科學機制從不存在，連反映專家意見部分的公信力也被泛政治化拖得愈來愈低。

"在吸納政治外，權力絕緣體缺乏渠道和政府互動，有時訴諸外間眼中的身體政治，主要根源也是諮詢制度為雙方帶來的負誠信。熱血嘉年華無疑創意與智慧並重，但一時一刻聚焦過後，社會和媒體始終無意、無法、無暇理解背後理念，港式示威與示弱有時在媒體眼中是一線之差，忽然深入的探討又會被揶揄為「過分解讀」。官辦諮詢固然形式主義主導，公眾相信另類聲音是宏觀調控下的花瓶，感覺委員會再「開明」也是一切黑箱，再透明也難予以信任；民辦論壇無法逼政府開誠布公，唯有不時滲入「向人民交代」表態元素，又反過來成為政府對民間邊緣化的理據，連背後的理念也被邊緣化處理。如此循環，對政客和媒體以外毫無建設性；如此「溝通」，是結構性的失衡。

"我們認為單純的行政吸納、基進運動、透過第四權引導輿論，只是燃燒已所剩無幾的青春。目前的諮詢和溝通機制與意識，令政府與民間只能通過削弱對方才得到自身合理性，順道毁掉可作為中介的橋樑，強迫有點誠意付出又希望每事保持獨立思考的人部落儀式化地布殊主義式歸邊。碰上政府是官僚，碰上運動是暴民，聲稱獨立思考的都是偽君子騎牆，還不是源自同一溝通失衡？"

Reading such notions as "泛政治化"; "負誠信"; "如此「溝通」，是結構性的失衡"; "令政府與民間只能通過削弱對方才得到自身合理性，順道毁掉可作為中介的橋樑": I think that Mr. Shen is really re-articulating what many commentators have in the past put this way: HK is becoming increasingly unharmonious. It has little, if at all, to do with community or communitarianism. I shall have more to say on this matter; but for the moment, let me prorogue.

轉貼：沈旭暉等，皇后不拆又如何？

世紀人文．關懷．視野
D06 明報沈旭暉黃培烽李祖喬
2007-01-25
世紀．Our Land

皇后不拆又如何？

編按：持續近兩月的民間天星皇后抗爭運動，首爭取得政府較正面的回應。昨天立法會會議上，政府終答應在沒有與各關注團體達成共識前，不會遷拆皇后碼頭，並會考慮原址保留。相信，市民都以此承諾，來監察政府以及古物諮詢委員會在未來是否、和如何兌現它。而Roundtable 主席沈旭暉答應加入古物諮詢委員會後同樣受到很多質詢和注視，他早前以文章回應，既「我是我」，又「在會議內外沒有一句自己話，不以這（諮詢委員）身分接受任何訪問以免騎劫實驗，不臨急抱佛腳出現公眾論壇以免實驗被騎劫」。一個決心不直接面向大眾的諮詢委員，想對諮詢架構作出「宏調實驗」，這個神秘的實驗如何進行，又如何造福關注古物古蹟、舊社區保育議題的香港人，且細讀沈博士的解畫。

文．沈旭暉/ 黃培烽/ 李祖喬@ Roundtable

加入那古物會前後，Roundtable 核心成員設計了一個「次諮詢機制」，公開目標以外，也有意測試Roundtable 能否承擔作為建制與社會的橋樑。設計雖屬客觀，但自有局限，協助名單只是曾對我說關注保育的友人，內有社運友好、街頭青年、專業人士、學院派，也有開宗明義的政府fans。我們邀請了無保育負擔、甚至不常在港的朋友一同抽離分析其意見，結論難免還是主觀的，不同人也可能得出不同結論。無論如何，這數周我們就皇后事件作了一個pilot test，以14 人小組提供的信息為原材料，進行研究分析。他們主動到論壇、團體、網絡等蒐集資料時，提供和接收資訊的個體都沒有被吸納的負擔，部分明言對諮詢框架全無寄望，意見毋須任何扭曲，只是要共同完成這實驗，資料真實性應相對可信。在官方機制未能提供議題設定權、亦未公報諮詢民意的準則前，我們唯有倚賴他們由下而上地研判政府應關注的相關資訊，以免完全被官方委員會議程牽着鼻子走。這些基於他們不同在地化意見的異地化分析，算是我們參與研究的人以個人身分向古物會的扼要綜合和建議，也比硬件本身更重要：

一、保衛天星或皇后碼頭的民間活動，蘊藏有多項未被媒體充分介紹的理念，包括城市規劃、官商互動、社區網絡、軟件保育、選舉以外的公民參與等，這些是比集體回憶更有深遠影響的議題；

二、一般青年多對清拆天星或皇后碼頭感可惜，原因不一，比提出上述理念更普通的是「純粹唔捨得」或「對政府做法反感」；

三、認為政府已盡責的青年，相信化解清拆危機有其他stakeholders 責任（地產商、議員等），例如建議立法會有提出無約束力動議來反映民意的責任，相信強行清拆而讓政府獨自承受後果，也屬不公；

四、不少年輕專業人士相信一切應以依法辦事原則解決，從而維繫香港的理性形象，這同樣是不會主動到諮詢會發表的聲音；五、清拆皇后碼頭在目前情况下，將成為否定不同議題的單一聚焦點，媒體亦可能放大肢體碰撞的場景報道，而忽略未被討論的背後理念，即使政府有任何誠意也不易傳訊。我們建議在不同理念釐清前，即使專業團體就硬件的技術清拆達成共識，政府現階段亦應擱置暫停清拆，先為社會建立多元討論的基礎，不應單是關注每座古物技術性的去留，否則對和諧社會或強政厲治都屬不利。

在這政治大氣候，我們只能明化不易稱職的橋樑/分析角色，舉辦一些公眾主動發掘文化遺產的比賽，深化相關論述，這是積極或消極，應有公論。上述建議只治標不治本，如何收集民意其實是政府責任所在，我們只能稍作輔助，更關心的是「諮詢」邏輯和制度的未來，這是整個實驗的目標所在。

從前港英政府為解決認受危機，沿用吸納政治，避免精英投奔當年還未成形的公共領域，自然無鼓勵多元參與。今天政府不斷擴大吸納版圖，「代表」民間的委員會愈來愈多，社會卻愈加分化，媒體民眾對參與的犬儒與日俱增，能衡量「諮詢」如何「反映民意」的科學機制從不存在，連反映專家意見部分的公信力也被泛政治化拖得愈來愈低。

諮詢制度的堵塞

在吸納政治外，權力絕緣體缺乏渠道和政府互動，有時訴諸外間眼中的身體政治，主要根源也是諮詢制度為雙方帶來的負誠信。熱血嘉年華無疑創意與智慧並重，但一時一刻聚焦過後，社會和媒體始終無意、無法、無暇理解背後理念，港式示威與示弱有時在媒體眼中是一線之差，忽然深入的探討又會被揶揄為「過分解讀」。官辦諮詢固然形式主義主導，公眾相信另類聲音是宏觀調控下的花瓶，感覺委員會再「開明」也是一切黑箱，再透明也難予以信任；民辦論壇無法逼政府開誠布公，唯有不時滲入「向人民交代」表態元素，又反過來成為政府對民間邊緣化的理據，連背後的理念也被邊緣化處理。如此循環，對政客和媒體以外毫無建設性；如此「溝通」，是結構性的失衡。

我們認為單純的行政吸納、基進運動、透過第四權引導輿論，只是燃燒已所剩無幾的青春。目前的諮詢和溝通機制與意識，令政府與民間只能通過削弱對方才得到自身合理性，順道毁掉可作為中介的橋樑，強迫有點誠意付出又希望每事保持獨立思考的人部落儀式化地布殊主義式歸邊。碰上政府是官僚，碰上運動是暴民，聲稱獨立思考的都是偽君子騎牆，還不是源自同一溝通失衡？我們部分成員曾參與清華大學對內地聽證改革的研究，發現連內地的相類機制也比香港諮詢制度進步得多。我們實驗目的不過是從fieldwork 角度出發，一年內向政府提交研究報告，建議根本扭轉諮詢遊戲不合時宜的邏輯、和這些年來連中學生也要不斷形式峰會的類諮詢虛耗，內容可以是將諮詢和民意直接掛鈎、將專業意見變成純技術性聽證、由政務官直接進行「次諮詢」並承擔問責、政府提供資源予民間自行研究而避免任何形式的吸納等，並有其他無限可能。我們深化這些研究後自會離開舞台，只是一廂情願地相信，扭轉目前溝通的多輸，也是政府願意我們帶來的變革。

尊重差異什麼都不是

這樣的實驗背後有鬆散的理念，就是我們認為新社會參與模式與政治意識，固然不應墜入對立的深淵，甚至不應被任何新標籤概括。在政治取態、文化認同、性別取向等不同面向尊重差異，讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇，這是多元文化主義初階，也是它令人對「多元」又愛又恨的原因，這和單純的「中立」有根本不同。畢竟搞政策的，總習慣對「多元」意見分門別類對症下藥吸納分化；搞運動的，總把「多元」定義為異於政權、為民請命的革命性推翻，把疲於示威抗爭但又精神上支持的當成政治冷感的消費一族。不要嘗試收編、扭曲、代表任何人，不要苛求十多歲青年認定一生主義理想，鄧小平說「實踐是檢驗真理的唯一標準」，但各人的實踐、真理和標準都不同，單一化的「溝通」只會造就有利政客寄生的溫室。

不少同齡友好曾理想無限，但不論曾相信什麼左中右，近年都說大徹大悟，愈是了解政治的愈是討厭參與；諷刺地，vice versa。這裏的無奈，比保育失衡更甚。保護被政黨、運動與媒體政治嚇怕的渾沌力量了解、進而參與社會，隨便他們日後獨立選擇什麼，釋放社會潛能，形成即使不很清的清流，讓沉默、具參與意識而不願背負標籤包袱的人，在共有的平台上百花齊放，沒有人吸納或要求他們幹什麼不幹什麼，只希望在那一天前，確立香港的多元文化傳統。這是我們唯一的理念，未來也不應再贅言。當沒有皇后、只有阿公，我們相信民智多於理論和理想、政府和政客，假如有那一天。

A Brief Rejoinder to 101/102

(1) Could you, or anyone else, reproduce on this Forum the second article by Mr. Shen, so that we may have a fuller view of his aspirations? Thank you.

(2) I find in point 2. of your remarks this large claim: "最可能的解釋，是沈先生認為社群主義和多元文化主義，根本是同一套理論，只是叫法不同而已。" Which I am indeed slightly inclined to support. To me, much confusion in Mr. Shen's representation of his ideas and ideals originates from this one central question: what he takes the word "community" to mean and to imply.

There is much talk of neutrality and plurality (or pluralism), participation and respect. One hears the footsteps of many writers writing on these hot topics, and I am quite sure that you can find in each of them something to support Mr. Shen's statements (as well as something to rebut them). But before we engage Mr. Shen along such lines - neutrality and plurality, etc. - we should do well first to invite him to clarify his notion of community.

I mentioned last time - I mean many posts before - that for most communitarians (in the sense given the word by current intellectual usage), community points to a rather holistic (contra individualistic) conception of the human condition; there is, to paraphrase a well-known slogan, indeed such thing as the collective - and that thing, importantly, can take precedence before the individual, giving him values, meanings, and a sense of connectedness.

It is this dimension - the holistic dimension - of community which I believe is, knowingly or not, avoided by Mr. Shen in his writing. But if this dimension be abandoned, then quite a lot that is dear to the communitarians must also go. What is left, it seems, is but an image of the contingent grouping - pluralistic, post-modern, and (occasionally) playful (Mr. Shen should have cited M. Lyotard's Au Juste and Le Differend?). To this new PPP then adds Mr. Shen a fourth P, participatory; and a fifth (in a light way), political. The difficulty is: how to fit the ethos of these five P's into some current intellectual language?

A pluralistic post-modern playful participatory politics is not quite communitarianism; instead of fitting his new wine into that old bottle, Mr. Shen might do well to jettison the communitarian language, and articulate his aspirations more directly.

從社群主義到多元文化主義

我們耐心的等候，終於有了一點結果。沈先生聯同Roundtable另外兩位朋友，昨天在《明報》世紀版刊登了一篇題為〈皇后不拆又如何〉的文章，嘗試進一步解釋Roundtable的「宏調實驗」（下稱第二文）。這篇文章同樣有許多值得討論之處。不過，延續之前的方式，我只集中其中最重要的一段，提出我的疑惑，候教作者。

在文章的最後部份，作者談及其理念部份，有這種說法：

「這樣的實驗背後有鬆散的理念，就是我們認為新社會參與模式與政治意識，固然不應墜入對立的深淵，甚至不應被任何新標籤概括。在政治取態、文化認同、性別取向等不同面向尊重差異，讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇，這是多元文化主義初階，也是它令人對「多元」又愛又恨的原因，這和單純的「中立」有根本不同。」

讓我們重看一次沈先生之前的文章（下稱第一文）：

「Roundtable Community 叫Community （社區）而不是Society（社會），前者是天然整體，後者是人工制度建構。對中立和多元的堅持，源自社區主義（Communitarianism）。它認為政府干預應設限，好些社會議題不應由政府主導，應由公民社會NGO 負責。與此同時，公民社會個體不應信奉絕對自由主義，內部起碼要有共同價值，否則集體自私犬儒。」

這兩段文字，都牽涉到所謂「背後的理念」，我假定這體現了沈先生和Roundtable的實驗的某些經過認真思考的理論和價值基礎。就此點言，前後兩文理應具有相當高的一致性。以下是我的疑惑：

1.第一文中最常提及的「社區主義」（communitarianism，譯社群主義較為妥當）和「社會資本」（social capital），在第二篇文章中完全不見了，取而代之的，是「多元文化主義」（我猜度應指Multiculturalism吧）。那麼，「社群主義」和「多元文化主義」兩者之間，有何理論關係？這是極為重要的問題。很可惜，作者在文中完全沒有說明。

2.最可能的解釋，是沈先生認為社群主義和多元文化主義，根本是同一套理論，只是叫法不同而已。從文本上看，的確有此意思。在第一文中，沈先生說「對中立和多元的堅持，源自社區主義。」在第二文中，沈先生再說：「讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇，這是多元文化主義初階。」由此可見，兩套理論都強調多元與中立，只是為免他人誤會，第二文加了一句「這和單純的『中立』有根本不同。（到底有何不同，作者並沒說明。）

既然如此，沈先生有必要繼續為我們解惑：

A. 到底有那一套社群主義理論，是主張多元和中立的？

B. 到底又有那一套多元文化主義理論，是主張「讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇」的？

C.　設若（A）和(B)真的成立，又有什麼人，是同時被人視為這樣的社群主義者和多元文化論者的？我想很多朋友會馬上想起Charles Taylor。但只要對Taylor有些認識，都會知道他既不主張價值中立，也不主張「讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇」。他所說的多元文化主義，主要是要求政府對那些有自己獨特語言傳統的少數族裔文化，給予某些特別保護或群體權利，讓它們不致被主流文化侵蝕，令其消失。正因為他反對原子論式的（atomistic）個人主義和自由主義式的多元中立，並相信人渴望得到他者的「承認」（recognition），而此種對被承認的渴求，則和一個人所生活的文化社群密不可分，所以他才提出一種基於社群主義的多元文化主義。（換言之，是可以有非社群主義式的多元文化主義的。）

我擔心，在這兩篇文章中，沈先生既誤解了社群主義，也誤解了多元文化主義。

3.沈先生非常推崇多元，所以說：「在政治取態、文化認同、性別取向等不同面向尊重差異，讓各人在價值觀上有多重（甚至精神分裂自相矛盾的）選擇」，但這為什麼不更接近自由主義的立場呢？很有趣，在第一文中，沈先生卻說：「公民社會個體不應信奉絕對自由主義，內部起碼要有共同價值。」前後兩種立場，似乎自相矛盾。如果將前者的尊重差異推到極致，那如何在內部建立起碼的共同價值？會不會推到極致，盡頭反是虛無主義和犬儒主義──雖然掛的是多元文化主義的稱號？

沈先生或會回應，「尊重差異和選擇」本身便是共同價值，那麼我們可以追問，這種共同價值的基礎在哪裡？為什麼所有選擇都同樣值得尊重？例如如果有人說，為了加快經濟發展，香港所有古物都應在一年內拆毀，Roundtable是否也尊重這種選擇，而不作任何價值判斷，然後如實向政府反映便算盡了責任？難道這便是所謂實驗的精粹？

（又，如我之前的留言指出，自由主義雖然尊重多元，其實也堅持社會要有一套共享的核心價值。因此，沈先生在第一文中，似乎也誤解了自由主義。）

再次聲明，以上只是就文本本身提出的一些學理上的討論。這樣一個重要的社會實驗，我們期望Roundtable在其理念上有基本的一致，應不是過份的要求吧。謹此候教！

假狗報導

可以得到 y.t 回應, 太好了. 真希望有人將我同 y.t 君你歸埋一類嚟回應呢...

從文筆方面睇, H 係兩篇天星文的確可以, 但係兩篇都係裝假狗的 "報導", 又無訪問, 又無參與, 無咩獨特觀點, 講真揭開報紙, 呢度抄一句, 嗰度抄一句就抄出來了 (H抄人野的本領, 大家都見識過了), 點及得 y.t 君你, 字字原裝正版呢?

至於立場問題, 獨媒的立場明顯偏頗, 佢地都無否認過, 不過李金鳳嗰篇都擺左上焦點啦. 如果鳳姐嗰篇唔上 focus, 就好抵鬧了.

A Reply to tsw

(1)
In the first place, I respect your right to dispute my interpretation of your statement. Which let me quote in full:

"阿晨講得好。所有支持「實驗」的人都考慮誠意；「對保育一竅不通，個人意見毫無價值」，「不主動關注保育，不嘗試代表他人」、「不接受訪問、不出席論壇」、「實驗時，他們行動立場取向各不相干；實驗後，會按快閃原則各自歸邊」，不能算是誠意吧。掏空主體內涵的人無責任，故無誠意可言。"

I hope you would allow me to say, that in this brief passage you endeavored to argue, principally, that, on the basis of several utterances by Mr. Shen, he was utterly insincere ("故無誠意可言"). Now, I think it proper to infer, from this judgment, two things: 1. That, you believe, Mr. Shen accepted the appointment not really for the sake of advancing the cause which you wished to be advanced; 2. That, you also believe, the new experiment, given Mr. Shen's insincerity, ought not to receive your support.

Perhaps you believed, and I failed to discern, that 1. need not involve any suspicion about Mr. Shen's true political motives. He is insincere, not really for the thing, but perhaps has no private design after all. How much you would maintain this agnosticism respecting Mr. Shen's motives, in your rejection of his new experiment, is something you ought to make clear. At the end, you were passing a PUBLIC judgment upon Mr. Shen's sincerity--his disposition in a POLITICAL event. It is possible for you to come back and rectify--which indeed you shall, if I be wrong--my reading of your position on the basis of hundred something words; it is, alas, not quite possible for Mr. Shen to come back and dispute your characterization of him.

(2)
Secondly, to your charge: "這已經不是第一次。上次你在長長的文題裡引用我的「有錯要認，打就企定」，已經是一次純粹聯想而毫無脈絡聯繫的引用," I shall thus answer:

I fail to see what you meant by "純粹聯想而毫無脈絡聯繫的引用." The phrase 「有錯要認，打就企定」 suggests a principle which you obviously endorsed. If so, then when Frostig repeatedly refused to acknowledge that she had committed a double wrong in provoking me in that low manner, you would, consistently, declare that she was wrong, on the very principle just now mentioned. I did not fancy, that the principle was applicable only to your opponents; for then it would be no principle, but only an excuse, a very nice-sounding slogan. In point of fact, you did not elect to judge Frostig; so maybe on this reason you found my reliance on your principle "純粹聯想." But that "純粹聯想" is, I hold, perfectly legitimate: so far as you did hold it--the phrase 有錯要認，打就企定--a principle and not a slogan.

Perhaps you believed that you articulated that principle in a very specific context; but a principle receives its force precisely from its capacity of transcending contexts. I take it that this much you also agree.

(3)
On the question of 泥彩, I shall say a little more. I agree with you that "大家上網，身份不明，地位比現實中平等很多"; indeed this much I tried to argue in my previous post. But our cheer-leader seemed not to respect this thought, but loved to make much of my identity. So far as I can see, few commentators, let alone the Editors of Inmedia, have undertaken to dispute that and other similar utterances. You have, for one, not censured him in any express manner.

But 泥彩's very hilarious way of demonizing persons and things--which I call "文革其事"--is not new. It appears that this has scarcely caused any concern, while some rejoinders (let me not say who) seem even to rejoice in the demonizing. Repeated occurences of this sort must force one to ask, why. I repeat, I speak not of his views, but of his manner of putting those views. Which, if you cannot recall, let me quote anew by way of some specimens:

"但你竟然只有興趣觀察誰跟誰是有關係，誰曾經附和過誰。坦白說，泥彩對你完全、徹底的失望。你這樣的表現，只合做秘密警察，做情報人員，做告密者，打小報告，完全不配作知識份子。

"(老實說，你大部分的發言只有興趣記錄誰跟誰支持過誰又反對過誰排斥過誰，簡直味同嚼腊，形如寫給中聯辦、kgb，cia，政治部的間諜小報告，毫無價值)"

This brings us to the question of 「主臣」. I hope you grant that 主臣 is a metaphor. No doubt 泥彩 is not your, nor any Editor's, subject, strictly taken. Yet his hilarious interventions, so much tolerated, if not surreptitiously enjoyed, by those who would have, had he been deploying the same tactic AGAINST Inmedia, long CENSURED him most severely, seem to suggest that his existence on this forum shares some resemblance with that of a subject, who tries every minute to fan off his lord's opponents by all means, enjoying, in the process, absolute immunity from every charge--on authority, of course, of the latter.

If the lord wants not the subject, he should publicly disown him. In the present case, perhaps you may prove that I was deeply mistaken, by censuring the way 泥彩 slandered his opponents. I am scarcely interested in writing slanderous responses on this forum (to which I hope you would testify); but if a writer loves to slander so frequently and so UNRESERVEDLY (see above) as our cheer-leader does, and is permitted to go on that way, I think I have cause to resort to self-help.

Lastly, I assure you that I purpose not to embroil myself in a word-fight. Your strictures upon my interpretation of your statement I respectfully receive (and any similar undertaking in the future I shall eagerly encourage). If you deem it useful further to clarify the matter, I sincerely invite you so to do.

Y.T.

恕沒有時間與你多談。你將我的第一個留言解讀為「suspicious of Mr. Shen's political motive」；如果在這裡，原發言者即本人的意願還可以受到少少重視，我會說，我的第一個留言不過一百來字，但你接近完全搞錯了我的留言重點。大概是因為你與運動本身及社運這個題目只能遠觀所致。我無力無暇一一辯難。

這已經不是第一次。上次你在長長的文題裡引用我的「有錯要認，打就企定」，已經是一次純粹聯想而毫無脈絡聯繫的引用。我認為「合理引用」和「合理解讀」的門檻應該是很低的，誠意尊重你的自由；不過，如果你以後不再引用或解讀我的話，我會很感激你。這樣可以減少溝通上的誤會，節省彼此的時間。

你的文言文很淺白易懂，以後寫文言文吧。謝謝。然而你自引那段中，「主人」、「小臣」什麼的二元對立，完全是不適合的。泥彩在這裡有支持者，以我自己來說，有時真的佩服他說話擲地有聲，在理論脈絡間他抓得住關鍵重點。泥彩在很多篇文章裡亦提出了反對意見，包括我的「惡死能登會」紀錄，阿丙的中大語言政策文。大家上網，身份不明，地位比現實中平等很多，支持反對都是一時一地而非永恒的，這種「主臣」的想像酸得令人不適。希望你在堅持古語的同時，尋找能夠表達今日新現象（例如網絡社群中人的關係）的新語言，而非只沿用舊有的比喻系統。

A Very Brief Reply to LTM

To this charge: "但竟然話唔比 H 君啲文上 focus 就唔獨立, 大佬, 獨立唔等於垃圾埇呀, 唔該你再讀下 H 君啲文先. 唔係立場問題, 而係佢根本亂讀書, 散播各種歪理. 你唔好自我貶值啦..." I shall answer:

I mentioned very specifically hevangel's two essays reflecting on the Star Ferry Incident; I did not plead that all his essays be put up in Focus. (See my Observation on 魯迅 etc.) You may not like those essays; but the question to ask is, whether or not they are so patently worse (and worse in what sense?) than all the reflections written by the activists themselves, matters of position aside?

If this sort of selection must put the Editors constantly under the suspicion of favoritism, then, as I argued many times formerly, the problem would be easily solved by reverting to the old layout. This the Editors having rejected, they must prove in some other way that they do select articles fairly. Admitting a conspicuously oppositional piece to Focus is, I would say, one such way.

Remarks on the Proper Mode of Critical Engagement

I intend to speak on the question of identity and of the force of argument. But before coming to these two, I should like to comment on 泥彩's frequent allusion to "派性." Hence a two-part rejoinder.

(A)
阿藹 urged us not to "猜測泥彩的身份及其他." She would be right, and I with her, if by this statement she meant to argue that an open online discussion should be based, not on the identity of writers, but on the arguments they put forward. But immediately following the urge, she intimated: "中午過後還會在這裡留言的, 一是不在香港, 一是我們不大認識的人. 這是明顯不過的了, 大家無謂猜測, 說誰在挻誰的言論, 其實都是一些黨派思維, 指責別人的, 其實也在反射自己了." Patently, the question of identity returned through the backdoor. That phrase, "明顯不過," cannot help reminding us 泥彩's "其用意就不能不防。" A strange thread seems to go directly from 泥彩's lovely use of "派性" to 阿藹's majestic invocation of "黨派思維." But what thread is it after all?

The whole controversy seems to originate from 泥彩's reading of my Considerations on Mr. Shen's Article. For him, I was guilty of trying to connect isolated views, as evinced in various responses, to give a survey of one sort of reaction (namely, conspiratorial) to Mr. Shen's appointment and Article. I was further guilty, in the eye of that cheer-leader, of trying to clarify 101/102's and chan charles's later challenge to the Article, distinguishing it from the challenge formerly launched by tsw and 熊一豆. For 泥彩, this is all "派性"; or to follow 阿藹, "黨派思維."

Now, when a writer -- 阿藹, tsw, 熊一豆, 101/102, chan charles, 林輝, 汽車碼頭 or, for that matter, YT, 泥彩, and indeed anyone -- writes anything in an online forum, he willingly exposes himself to the critical examination of others, and his position exists not in a vacuum, but is situated in a dense discursive context (or else, what means it to call the undertaking an engagement?), wherein different positions echo each other in various ways. Some reflect a common stand on a certain issue; some attack the same from a totally different perspective, with perhaps a totally different concern; some register the writer's own interest; some attest to nothing but the writer's grudge.

I do not think it very fruitful to lump all these things together and simply blast. In the present controversy, and to instance just this, I see that the positions I examined fall naturally into three groups:

(1) tsw and 熊一豆: suspicious of Mr. Shen's political motive;

(2) 101/102's and chan charles's: critical of Mr. Shen's presentation of his new experiment in the Article;

(3) 林輝, 汽車碼頭: desirous of a sympathetic reading by the public of the appointment, the Article, and, above all, the new experiment.

In what way, we may ask our cheer-leader, does this classification evidence 派性 or 黨派思維? If the classification succeeds in pointing out the key differences in presumption, concern, and perhaps even interest among the named writers, such differences, I plead, come not from my fancy, but from the very statements the writers themselves elected to make.

Our cheer-leader might retort that I ought only to say what I support and what I reject, but never to juxtapose others' statements, or do any survey of the discussion. I know not on what basis he might ground such a demand; but there are two reasons that I do not find it anywise conducive to a proper discussion:

1. Many misunderstandings and misfirings, especially in online discussions, originate precisely from a failure, if not unwillingness, to attend to the differences between various challenges; which failure causing the rejoinder therefore to react categorically: "Either you support me, or you oppose me, say which!" Some writers, and here I think I should liberally include our cheer-leader, do believe that this is the way to go: to act, means a Kierkegaardian either-or, and to write, means a Schmittean friend-and-foe.

2. When a writer writes something in an online forum, he must be presumed to stand by what he said. He must, furthermore, be ready to let his interlocutors quote his statements, for the sake of engaging his position more closely. If A, B and C happen to share a similar view on a certain issue, the writer making such a claim may show it by citing their various statements. The result, I grant, may be that A, B and C come out as a group, compared and contrasted with other groups likewise discerned. In an open online forum, A, B, or C can readily dispute the grouping, arguing that the writer has mis-interpreted their statements. But none of them, I believe, shall cry that the writer is wrong simply because he quoted them, or because he made of them a group. If A, B and C do stand by their statements, and the writer has not mis-interpreted them, then readers have the right to demand that A, B and C accept the writer's grouping as well, it being a natural inference from the positions they are holding.

Our cheer-leader paid no heed to any of this. He has little interest, I dare say, in attending closely to a discourse; but only in blasting. Hence something of this sort: "但你竟然只有興趣觀察誰跟誰是有關係，誰曾經附和過誰。坦白說，泥彩對你完全、徹底的失望。你這樣的表現，只合做秘密警察，做情報人員，做告密者，打小報告，完全不配作知識份子。" Let me add that according to our cheer-leader's criterion, ALL serious discussions involving the comparing and contrasting of positions must prove that the participants "只合做秘密警察，做情報人員，做告密者，打小報告，完全不配作知識份子." I think I have cause to worry--though 阿藹 seemed not--that "天下讀書之人之於泥彩，又得自慚天穢，而告罪於英明耳。"

(B)
I take it that both 1. and 2. are reasonable guiding thoughts for a constructive online discussion. What, then, are their relationship to the question of identity and of the force of argument?

If a writer ought to stand by what he said, he also, I grant, has the right to demand that his interlocutors restrict the engagement to his public statements. If a writer's arguments--expressly stated in his statements, or inferred thence by his interlocutors--have force, then, whether he be in Hong Kong or not, whether he be an Inmedia activist or not, whether he be a founding member or a recent recruit: none of these should cast a favorable or unfavorable light on the arguments themselves. The writer's online identity would then be constituted chiefly by his arguments, past and present; all online discussions are in this sense necessarily limited.

I have little desire to know who our cheer-leader is. I would not have been curious to put him that question, which triggered him to write at much length, had he not himself made so much of my identity ("其用意就不能不防"). 阿藹, and for that matter all other Editors as well, should, I believe, have been concerned when a writer declared generally that posting by pseudonym (including initials, in my case) ought to be suspected. For what would an online forum become, if posting by pseudonym be made a basis for suspicion? The strategic language "不能不防" puts everybody immediately under a hyperbolic doubt; and what is this if not, I say, an attempt to "文革其事"?

泥彩 has some talent in availing himself of liberal slogans: "我一向以為參加獨媒的人，是有基本的自由主義心智，無論如何在語言和意見上交鋒，都互相尊重每個是獨立思考的人。可是，一次又一次，讓我失望的是，派性的有色眼鏡蒙蔽了一切。" It is clear, however, that by forbidding, as he purposed to, other writers from attending to a discourse more closely, from, i.e., discerning the different positions and different lines of arguments present in a discussion, our cheer-leader's high hope "無論如何在語言和意見上交鋒，都互相尊重每個是獨立思考的人" is but chimera: "Please write and fight as fiercely as you would," he effectively says, "but make no comparisons nor contrasts: Say generalities, do not look at the matter too closely." In retrospect, he has indeed written very little on any substantive issue, but only so many hilarious defenses of Inmedia, and cultural-revolution-style provocations as his talent allows him to.

Let me in closing make two further observations. Writers on this forum, unhappy with certain of my positions, have not hesitated to put me in the same bin as hevangel and celeron. I believed, as I still do, that I ought not to dispute their attempt to classify, but only the crassness of their classification. In the present controversy, likewise, 阿藹 might dispute my initial attempt to associate her with the politically conspiratorial perspective of tsw and 熊一豆; if she made it clear that she did not look at the matter that way, I should be glad to revise my survey of the discourse, and, thus revising, declare my agreement with her. It is proper to dispute other writers' view; but not, I say, to dispute their very act of viewing.

Last of all, I should assure 阿藹 that I hold no grudge against her as a person. Nothing prevents me from agreeing with her--so much I did, respecting her remark that Mr. Shen's Article was meant for public consumption. If I be allowed to recommend just one thought to her--and to tsw and 熊一豆 as well (whom I have criticized in the present controversy)--it would be this: In putting up an essay online, one presents it not only to one's comrades, but also to one's critics and opponents. It is no doubt more delightful to hear supportive remarks from comrades, than to endure sympathetic, or even unsympathetic, criticisms from other parties. The art is, how to take the latter. If one resorts too quickly to insinuations, conjectures on political motives, and suchlike, one effectively demonstrates, to follow 泥彩's formulation, "派性的有色眼鏡蒙蔽了一切." I do not say that this is a predominant practice; on many occasions you all write very good essays and rejoinders. But if, as writers or as Editors, you believe that the cheer-leader's way is indeed the way to go, embracing it as readily as you would disregard his language and the implications of his insinuations, I think I must be permitted to maintain, what I put forth formerly in these many words:

"...抄書引句...文革其事...雖不能駁人之議，庶幾可舒主之心，主人愛之，愛其足資洩恨也。而泥彩亦深知小臣之道，韜略以陳，終未嘗一言迕主；褒其所褒，貶其所貶，主人所不能言者，泥彩言之，言之不足，則鼓之動之，主人尤賞之也."

I have not described in detail what I take to be the proper mode of critical engagement. But I hope, that the remarks I sketched so far may further that effort at least in some way.

討論貴乎自重

幾位, 近乎人身攻擊的語言暴力, 還是可免則免吧!

哎唷, 泥彩一話戒網, 狗就跑出來咬人了

不過這隻狗, 竟然在自己窩裡拉屎, 如戀屎癖的蛆蟲般的狗, 實難養也.

說我垃圾也不如, 也證明不了你不是垃圾, 垃圾就是垃圾, 無辦法, 回收唔到.

To:hevangel

"獨媒的人則只懂為反對而反對﹐連為什麼要反對﹐做與政府相反的事有什麼價值也說不出來。這此人只懂躲在文化的包裝紙後面﹐遮住底下內裏空無一物的虛無本質。像古老鬼片中那些飄飄下床單扮的幽靈﹐獨媒明乎其實是本土霸權主樣的文化幽靈。"
這樣子說你也是那些"躲在文化的包裝紙後面﹐遮住底下內裏空無一物的虛無本質"的人，和幽靈吧﹖反轉來說，你也是那些只支持而且沒理據和愛支持就支持的人。因為你都是獨媒的人、作家。

"LTM﹐你程度底睇唔明唔怪你。可是你連思辯的能力也沒有﹐分析批判我的文章也談不上﹐只懂當個人芸亦芸的應聲蟲。獨媒這兒的那些所謂的本土價值﹐何嘗又不是垃圾歪理﹖"
既然你不喜歡獨媒的方向又來幹什麼﹖請問你那些人類霸權主義、自我中心主義、地球是服侍人類的主義又是什麼的垃圾歪理﹖你又憑什麼認為LTM是人云亦云的應聲蟲和沒有思辨能力﹖

如果不需要本土價值，那還要什麼文物保育﹖把那些什麼的古蹟都拆掉吧﹗

LTM﹐垃圾也不如

// 本來都覺得 Y.T 英文好, 幾學究, 但竟然話唔比 H 君啲文上 focus 就唔獨立, 大佬, 獨立唔等於垃圾埇呀, 唔該你再讀下 H 君啲文先. 唔係立場問題, 而係佢根本亂讀書, 散播各種歪理. 你唔好自我貶值啦... //

LTM﹐你程度底睇唔明唔怪你。可是你連思辯的能力也沒有﹐分析批判我的文章也談不上﹐只懂當個人芸亦芸的應聲蟲。獨媒這兒的那些所謂的本土價值﹐何嘗又不是垃圾歪理﹖

// 你成日插獨媒, 我覺得無問題, 我都覺得你某啲文可以上下 focus. 但有啲野唔可以強求, 你啲英文咁高深, 唔係個個睇得掂...但你依家竟然為咗插獨媒而捧 H 君, 呢下點都幫你唔落. 我由李天命嗰邊睇佢睇到呢邊, 都好少搵到啲人咁廢, 獨媒比佢係度繼續, 算係咁. //

看來閣下認錯人了﹐李天命那邊我一向少去﹐而我來獨媒的時間比去李天命版還早。

不過李天命那邊的人至少有一樣好﹐就算不認同對方立論。但是反對歸反對﹐大家都是客觀理性的討論﹐至少會懂邏輯懂思考。不像獨媒的人那樣﹐對異見者只懂漫罵妖魔化﹐以感情代替思考。與特區政府的高官相比﹐只是五十步笑百步﹐甚至更差。高官們至少說有文有路﹐獨媒的人則只懂為反對而反對﹐連為什麼要反對﹐做與政府相反的事有什麼價值也說不出來。這此人只懂躲在文化的包裝紙後面﹐遮住底下內裏空無一物的虛無本質。像古老鬼片中那些飄飄下床單扮的幽靈﹐獨媒明乎其實是本土霸權主樣的文化幽靈。

Thanks, Y.T.!

You are willing to type in 'Chinese' finally,still from another century though, haha.

Anyway, glad to know that the others' voices are heard. It is such an encouragement, just as if you are telling us with your own actions that our voices would be heard by the Government and proper actions will be taken soon!

Star Ferry Pier will be back!!! :-)