色情物品審查竟排拒了什麼社群？乂？)a
(我是閒來看鹹書的人XD不過我很"保守"的，尺度的問題吧？)(另一方面我很討厭不去珍惜別人/自己，當人/自己是一種工具的做法，盡量區分藝術和色情吧^-^)y

我並不是完全贊成中大學生報情色版的語言策略。我想他們一開始所採取的無防御式調侃、直接呈現姿態，對現下的外界也許比較難以理解。據說已有匯賢智庫的成員正面將情色版的「低俗」和使用粵語連結起來。是的，在粵語和書面語之間，學生報又選擇了不安全的粵語。大學的導修討論是可以使用粵語的，但那份outline，就恐怕不能使用粵語了。

趙來發以港大《學苑》為例，說「壞品味由來已久」，現在大家也許都不能理解那種無防御的低俗了。

低俗的部分就只能存在於話語的沉默背面嗎？還是一旦要提起還是要援引克莉絲蒂娃？說什麼真小人與偽君子的二分很老土，但在大眾傳媒和商業市場所表現出來的品味愈加下降的同時，我們連低俗的幽默感都失去了——這種狀態應該如何言說。

讓我覺得不能釋懷的，還是大家對跨界者的嚴苛。與以前我所感受到的那種鼓勵「出格」的風氣相比，現在一旦出了事，大家還是喜歡談「怎麼才可以不出事」，給予一種安全的勸喻。勸喻當是好意，策略只講成效。學生報回到大學裡就不會出事，就像知識份子回到學院裡就最安全一樣。為什麼社會單元保守到一個地步，以致我連王晶的粗鄙都要懷念？

是不是要變成「不是自己」，才能捍衛自己？

梁公文道日前曾提到王小波，忍不住想在這裡貼一段鄙人那破論文裡的一節：

韋伯（Max Weber）認為，現代化的理性化過程包括了科學、道德、藝術三個範疇的獨立。它們各自歸屬於不同的固有標準，而認知—工具、道德—實用、美學—表現的理性結構於焉出現，無一不在專業人士的掌握之中。哈貝馬斯認為這種理性化的結果是：

專家文化與為數更多的公眾文化兩者的距離愈來愈大。經由專業處理與思索所衍生的文化效益並沒有立即，也不見得必然成為日常實用的資產。由於這種文化的理性化，傳統要義本已貶值的生命世界將會越來越貧瘠的威脅有增無已。

而王小波是這麼獨特的例子：他相當肯定專家的精英地位，力稱科學家和藝術家超越愚昧大眾，而值得跟隨；但他本身，其實是一跨範疇的人物：他學習理工，在大學教授理工，卻從事文學創作，並辭去教職而專心寫作。這種跨範疇當然不止是身份上的，同時也表現在其思想及創作上。例如上文已經分析過的，「科學」在王氏身上，不但展現為一種破除迷信的啟蒙武器，同時也是一種前衛藝術。「科學」的最大價值在於，它不為現世服務，它的追求本身就有獨立價值，即使被證實為錯誤也不傷害其價值。而這是哈貝馬斯所謂的前衛藝術的「美學現代性」：「前衛明白自己的角色是侵入未知的領域，把自己暴露在驟然而至、令人心驚的遭遇戰的危險中，征服尚未佔領的未來。」 王氏並不將專家式的標準即「真實性」（authenticity）視為「科學」的最高標準，「科學」在王小波那裡也不切合「認知—工具」的理性結構。上文亦已分析過，王小波在高舉啟蒙理念之時，他其實是深切反對以為現世服務的「工具性」角度去看待科學、道德和藝術。一般對王小波的理解是，他在科學、藝術兩個範疇都是專家，但筆者的看法恰恰相反：王小波在藝術創作時極少將藝術凌駕於科學， 在科學話語中滲入藝術思維，恰恰表示他在兩個範疇裡都不是專家，沒有完全服膺專家的標準。王小波獨特的意義，就在於他是一個高舉專業權威的非專家。如果哈貝馬斯說克服現代性中過於絕對的範疇分工所導致的專家與大眾及實踐的隔絕，乃是一未完成的方案；那麼早逝的跨範疇者王小波，則象徵性地提醒著我們現代性問題之解決方案，的「未完成」。

[...]

而且，王小波作品中的敘事者往往是具有相當知識的，故在面對平庸無知的論點、荒謬無理的措施時，敘事者可以訴諸自己的知識來批判和嘲弄之； 而相對於故事中古板而不識情趣的知識份子而言，敘事者又顯得更具市井的人性（例如好色）、語言活潑風趣而更得讀者認同。 換言之，這（多）個反抗、批判的敘事者，是游離於傳統知識份子與市井平民之間，兼具二者之長的跨範疇者，敘事與批判的活力都於此產生。在王氏雜文中的情況如一。弔詭而令人傷感地，跨範疇性是王小波力量的根據，也同時是他孤獨的源頭。〈未來世界〉的敘事者本來是一位史學家，在受罰的學習班上，受到同樣受罰的小說家、詩人、畫家的調侃，其中小說家道「我以為犯直露錯誤是我們的專利哪」。這些嘲弄令敘事者頗為傷心。這是由於敘事者採取了與一般歷史書寫不同的方式：他寫自己的嫡親娘舅的私生活，裡面有個人的情感投入，他堅持稱之為歷史。而這種跨範疇（歷史、小說）的創作令敘事者受到同樣受罰、本來應為難友的人的羞辱，跨範疇者的孤立於焉可見。

The long passage on which I purpose to make several tentative observations starts from "韋伯（Max Weber）認為，現代化的理性化過程包 [...]," where the author proposes, I take it, that the way 王小波 crosses disciplinary boundaries might furnish some clue about how to tackle the problem, engendered by--shall we say--the division of disciplines in modern times, of the increasing distance between the expert and the non-expert. In the author's own words: "王小波獨特的意義，就在於他是一個高舉專業權威的非專家。如果哈貝馬斯說克服現代性中過於絕對的範疇分工所導致的專家與大眾及實踐的隔絕，乃是一未完成的方案；那麼早逝的跨範疇者王小波，則象徵性地提醒著我們現代性問題之解決方案，的「未完成」。"

Animating the author's very valuable exploration in the said passage is this common observation, again in her own words: "專家文化與為數更多的公眾文化兩者的距離愈來愈大。經由專業處理與思索所衍生的文化效益並沒有立即，也不見得必然成為日常實用的資產。由於這種文化的理性化，傳統要義本已貶值的生命世界將會越來越貧瘠的威脅有增無已。" To see whether a certain practice, literary or otherwise, or a certain attitude towards social and intellectual life, say writing constantly to the public or crossing disciplinary boundaries, may be a solution, so to speak, to the problem here identified, we need to examine a little more closely what the problem really is, and what caused, or is daily worsening, it.

Our author seems to believe, with Weber, that the problem is a natural outcome of a long process of rationalization, which in turn fragments social and intellectual life into various, increasingly distinct and isolated, spheres, each of which following its own criterion of the legitimate and the illegitimate, the admissible and the inadmissble, and so forth. This as a description of modern social and intellectual life, we may fairly accept. But why must it be the case, that all these criteria, and all the social and intellectual production under those criteria, "無一不在專業人士的掌握之中"?

In the brief analysis of the problem our author gives, something seems to be missing, something that, to my way of thinking, must be put back into this discourse on "expert culture" if we are really to understand where the predicament lies. That thing, I submit, can be summarized in one word: Technicality.

Looking at the scientist from the outside, i.e., as one trained in the humanities tend to, we would be inclined to describe him in such terms as "expert," "instrumental reason," "non-normative," "authenticity," etc. (Cf. "王氏並不將專家式的標準即「真實性」（authenticity）視為「科學」的最高標準，「科學」在王小波那裡也不切合「認知—工具」的理性結構。") From this external description, author and reader are led to think that the "problem" is how to overcome some traditional dichotomies such as "normative-instrumental," or how to prevent science from becoming a purely instrumental undertaking.

I beg to suggest that most practising scientists would, while accepting the truth of some version of the above diagnosis, find it largely beside the point. Looking from the inside, a scientist would say, that the greatest problem he encounters in his scientific undertaking is the imperative to immerse in so many technicalities, none of which he can avoid, and none of which he can ever hope to explain to the non-experts. These technicalities might, on one level, appear to resemble those encountered in other disciplines, say, history, or cultural studies; but on another level, they differ tremendously from those found in the latter disciplines.

A historian has to immerse himself in archives, in which perhaps only very few on earth have ever immersed to the same extent; but when he reads his paper to a general audience, he can often rely on the hope that the latter should be able to understand the story he is to tell, and the conclusion they are to draw. Not so for scientists. The sort of technicality that besieges a scientist destroys every hope of the same form of expert-non-expert communication; worse, the scientist, to master the technicalities, must develop skills that are not general: a historian need be able to read (and be patient and be meticulous), a scientist need to master experimental skills which often differ so greatly across topics of investigation.

If we look back at the West, we see that disciplinary division is not a new thing. In the High Middle Ages, for instance, an arts scholastic, who had mastered grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, might fail to understand a single thesis in theological scholasticism: just as today a historian of the contemporary West might fail to understand the debate among historians of Antiquity. But still, patience and hard work might very well allow the contemporary historian to understand the ancient historian, or the arts scholastic the theological scholastic before long; not so for the solid state physicist and the cognitive scientist specializing in spinal cord research.

If, as we observe, even the physicist and the cognitive scientist cannot talk to each other--but each must invest so much time and energy in his own discipline--how ever can we hope that they can talk to the public intelligibly? This has little to do with matters of criterion ("normative" versus "instrumental," "authentic" or otherwise), but everything to do with the very technical nature of present-day science. Rene Descartes could write learnedly on physics and physiology, while engaging in the most pressing epistemological debate of his time; a present-day scientist would scarcely have that time privilege (and, sad to say, that all-rounded capacity).

王小波 may be able to cross disciplinary boundaries. But what kind of crossing has he in fact achieved? The late Stephen Jay Gould, great evolutionary biologist, was able to propose to the public a way to go beyond the evolution vs. creation debate. But that is philosophy, not evolutionary biology itself. When a scientist--Gould, 王小波, or any other--crosses the boundary, so to speak, he must to a large extent leave the technicalities behind, but leaving the technicalities behind he essentially leaves behind the core day-to-day practice of modern science.

The problem of technicalities is, I believe, central to any discourse on modernity, of which the distance, or even antagonism, between expert and non-expert is no doubt a vital part. If criteria of truth might still be a matter of "discourse," if not collective "choice," it is very hard to imagine how technicalities, whose growth over time seems both limitless and quite independent from, say, how the arts or humanities fare, can be effectively influenced by boundary-crossing, or any other strategies favored by cultural critics when they speak of other domains of social life (e.g. identity, gender, culture, etc.).

The predicament is very real, whose depth and recalcitrant nature can be grasped only if one looks at science not just from the outside, but also from the inside.

＞＞有關廣東話被視為低俗... 講真的, 有時間將雅歌用廣東話譯左佢係字花出

「﹝新郎﹞儀態萬千的少女啊...妳的雙乳像一對孿生的小鹿，像一對羚羊..像一串串的果子，我要爬上棕樹去摘果子(雅歌．7:3-8)」

「﹝新娘﹞跟你接吻，誰也不會介意。我要帶你進我母親的家，讓你指點我怎樣愛你。(雅歌．8:1-2)」

「﹝新娘的兄弟﹞我家有一小妹，她的雙乳尚未豐滿，年輕人前來求愛，我們怎麼辦呢？(雅歌．8:8)」

加油，支持用粵語譯左佢！