----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
손병호
# 사족;
文가집단이 방북 경제인들에게
교육을 시겼답니다. 내용을보니
완전 노예교육입니다.
제일 웃기는게 [검토하겠다]는
말을해서는 안된다는 겁니다.
경제인들은 백번을 검토해서
한번을 실행하는 집단입니다.
그들은 생활이 검토예요.
그래서 그들의 입에는[검토]란
말이 달라붙어있어요.
그런 그들에게 [검토]란 말을
하지 말라는 것은, 묵시적 벙어리가
되란 말이 아니라... 정으니가 어떠한
요구를해도{검토]가 아니라
[yes, ok]로만 대답하라는 협박입니다.
극악무도하게 미친놈들이지요.
(끝)
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
문화일보의 광고
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…one of the most eloquent and even moving evocations of the conservative tradition in Western politics, philosophy and culture I have ever read…the ideal primer for those who are new to conservative ideas…” ―Richard Aldous, Wall Street Journal
A brief magisterial introduction to the conservative tradition by one of Britain’s leading intellectuals.
In Conservatism, Roger Scruton offers the reader an invitation into the world of political philosophy by explaining the history and evolution of the conservative movement over the centuries. With the clarity and authority of a gifted teacher, he discusses the ideology's perspective on civil society, the rule of law, freedom, morality, property, rights, and the role of the state. In a time when many claim that conservatives lack a unified intellectual belief system, this book makes a very strong case to the contrary, one that politically-minded readers will find compelling and refreshing.
Scruton analyzes the origins and development of conservatism through the philosophies and thoughts of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, among others. He shows how conservative ideas have influenced the political sector through the careers of a diverse cast of politicians, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Disraeli, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He also takes a close look at the changing relationship between conservative politics, capitalism, and free markets in both the UK and the US. This clear, incisive guide is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand Western politics and policies, now and over the last three centuries.
우파들이 반드시 읽어야 할 책
John F. Gilligan
Sometimes things must be changed to preserve them. This may seem paradoxical, but for the political philosopher, Roger Scruton, it’s at the heart of Conservatism. This is a power packed book of 164 pages of text that traces the origins, development, evolution and definition of Conservatism to present day America and Great Britain.
The book transcends political parties. So, first, some distinctions to avoid confusion. Americans tend to politically bifurcate their fellow citizens as either liberals or conservatives, the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans), often labeled as either liberals/progressives or conservatives. The reality is that there is a spectrum of political nuances. These range from the far-left to the far right including Independents who claim no party affiliation and vote for candidates regardless of their political party affiliations.
Yet both parties have their origin in Classical Liberalism. That is, they root their political legitimacy in the preambles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. This is what ultimately bonds Americans as fellow citizens.
The key difference between Conservatives and Progressives, says Scruton, is about what’s to be emphasized: freedom or equality. But these two concepts albeit interdependent and interrelated are inherently antagonistic when it comes to prioritization. As the economists say: “there’s a price for everything.” If freedom is emphasized, equality suffers. If equality is emphasized, freedom is lessened. And getting the right balance quickly becomes heated.
Scruton’s Conservatism is certainly related to but distinct from conservative—a lower case c—as used in our daily political vocabulary. For the true Conservative is never a prisoner of a political party or its ideology or dogmas. Conservatism is about preserving the heritage of Western civilization and its American birthchild: the dignity of the person, natural rights, and the consent of the governed.
As the world changes so too does our understanding of the concepts of freedom and equality deepen, mature and are animatedly debated. With over 325 million Americans pursuing their own goals of happiness, conflict will be as abundant as the air we breathe. Add to that the buffeting of 7.5 billion other human beings on the planet with their own worldviews and interests. Thus, there will be no end to human conflict and a constant struggle to maintain national political order, ever exacerbated by the geopolitical.
Scruton’s well-made argument is that Conservatives must adapt to these new realities to preserve the inheritance of Western civilization. To make these adjustments, Conservatives place great emphasis upon the wisdom distilled from human experience and learning handed down through tradition, customs, and religion. They are highly skeptical of utopian isms: communism, socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Instead of a pathway to a heaven on earth, they have resulted in a living hell.
Given human imperfection and the propensity of the lesser angels of our nature to run wild, Conservatives stress practical solutions over theory, the good over the perfect, and the necessary virtues of justice, fortitude, prudence, and temperance (emblazoned on the walls of the Library of Congress) to maintain order and achieve prosperity.
Scruton identifies two operating and differing philosophies, rarely articulated, that underlies political order. For Conservatives political order (a democratic system) is what makes freedom possible and secures it. For Liberals/Progressives political order arises first from individual freedom. These views, he insightfully and tightly argues, are what ultimately underlies an emphasis on what comes first: freedom or equality.
The book deserves reading by both Conservatives and Progressives to better understand one another. An automobile works best with both a break and a gas pedal. So, too, in a democracy. Furthermore, reading Conservatism may reduce some of the demonization that seems to characterize the current state of both political bodies.
-------------------------------------------------------
비판 이론이 있는데 수학과 문해력이 무슨 소용인가?
---------------------------------------------------------
인터섹셔낼러티는 오늘날 캠퍼스에 유행하는 지적 프레임웍이다. 하지만 그것은 부족적 사고를 증폭시키고, 우리 대 그들의 적대감을 조장한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------
경제 발전으로 인해 산림이 재녹화(再綠化)되고 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------
공산주의에 의해 약 2억명의 주민들이 학살당했다. 중국에서 약 8천만 명, 소련에서는 6천4백만명이 죽임을 당했다.
----------------------------------------------------------
우리는 어떤 사람이 한 말이나 또는 그가 한 말의 의미를 공격할 수 있다. 누군가가 한 말은 더욱 선동적으로 이용될 수 있다. 사기꾼은 자신이나 타인의 견해가 아닌 특정한 발언에 초점을 맞춰, 자신을 방어하거나 타인을 비난한다.
광란의 프랑스 혁명 때는, “나에게 누가 쓴 글이든 몇 줄만 주면, 그를 교수형에 처할 수 있다.”라는 말이 나돌았다.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
2015년 11월 22일 ·
THE ETHICS OF DEBATING
or
HOW TO NOT BE A CHARLATAN
(revision of earlier discussion)
You can attack what a person *said* or what the person *meant*. The former is more sensational. The mark of a charlatan is to defend his position or attack a critic by focusing on *some* of his/her specific statement ("look at what he said") rather than attacking his position ("look at what he means" or, more broadly, "look at what he stands for"), the latter of which requires a broader knowledge of the proposed idea. Note that the same applies to the interpretation of religious texts.
Given that it is impossible for anyone to write a perfectly rationally argued document without a segment that, out of context, can be transformed by some dishonest copywriter to appear totally absurd and lend itself to sensationalization, politicians and charlatans hunt for these segments. "Give me a few lines written by any man and I will find enough to get him hung" goes the saying attributed to Richelieu, Voltaire, Talleyrand, a vicious censor during the French revolution phase of terror, and others.
I take any violation by an intellectual as a disqualification, some type of disbarment --same as stealing is a disbarment in commercial life. It is actually a violation of journalistic ethics, but not enforced outside of main fact-checking newspapers.[Note 1]
Take for instance the great Karl Popper: he always started with an unerring representation of the opponents positions, often exhaustive, as if he were marketing them as his own ideas, before proceededing to systematically destroy them. Or take Hayek's diatribes "contra" Keynes and Cambridge: at no point there is a single line misrepresenting Keynes or an overt attempt at sensationalizing*. [**I have to say that it helped that people were too intimidated by Keynes' intellect to trigger his ire.]
Read Aquinas, written 8 centuries ago, and you always see sections with QUESTIO->PRAETERIA, OBJECTIONES, SED CONTRA, etc. describing with a legalistic precision the positions being challenged and looking for a flaw in them and a compromise. That was the practice by intellectuals.
Twitter lends itself to these sensationalized framing: someone can extract the most likely to appear absurd and violating the principle of charity. So we get a progressive debasing of intellectual life with the rise of the media, needing some sort of policing.
Note the associated reliance of *straw man* arguments by which one not only extracts a comment but *also* provides an interpretation, promoting misinterpretation. I consider *straw man* no different from theft.
COMMENTS
I just subjected the *principle of charity* as presented in philosopy to the Lindy test: it is only about 60 years old. Why? Does it meant that it is transitory? Well, we did not need it explicitly before discussions were never about slogans and snapshots but synthesis of a given position.
An answer came as follows. Bradford Tuckfield (earlier post) wrote: " I think this principle is much older than 60 years. Consider in the book of Isaiah, chapter 29, verse 21: he denounces the wicked who "make a man an offender for a word," implying that people were focusing on specific words rather than positions, and that this is a bad practice."
So it seems that the Lindy effect wins. In fact as with other things, if the principle of charity had to become a principle, it is because an old practice had to have been abandoned.
Thanks Tredag Brajovic for the Richelieu story.
[Note 1: Journos seem to make the mistake but freak out when caught --they have fragile reputations and tenuous careers. I was misinterpreted in my positions on climate change in a discussion with David Cameron in 2009 (presenting them backwards) and when I complained, the editors were defensive and very apologetic, the journos went crazy when I called them "unethical", some begged me to retract my accusation.]
[Note 2: In my experience, the "neuroscientist" Sam Harris who fits the characterization of a perfect charlatan, has recourse to spreading what people say.]
近日广州登革热颇为严峻，8月中旬已发现400多例。广东省9月20日报载已发现4800多例。从利于监控疫情出发，有发热的病人，都要引导到发热门诊就诊，并向卫监部门报告疫情。我近日也接诊了五例经发热门诊确诊或高度疑似的病例。有三例正处于高热阶段，有二例高热已退一周，均是用经方辨治，以小柴胡汤类方为主，缩短了病程，收到满意效果。登革热为蚊传播。此病起病突然，体温迅速达39℃以上，伴有恶寒，一般持续2～7日，热型多不规则，部分病例于第 3～5日体温降至正常，1日后又再升高，呈双峰热。同时胃肠道症状较突出，常有呕吐恶心，腹痛腹泻。发病后2～5日多出现皮疹。严重病例还可出现出血倾向、肝肾功能损害等。此病患者病后常感虚弱无力，完全恢复常需数周。
登革热患者的白细胞总数及血小板起病时即有减少，至出疹期尤为明显。
个人认为，此病病机和症状颇似小柴胡汤的汤证。《伤寒论》第67条：“血弱气尽，腠理开，邪气因入，与正气相搏，结于胁下，正邪分争，往来寒热，休作有时，嘿嘿不欲饮食……”病者出现“双峰热”，正是小柴胡汤的“往来寒热”，我认为所谓“往来寒热”临床可见一忽儿冷一忽儿热，发热时不恶寒，恶寒时不发热之“交替热”外。也会是“双峰热”即发热恶寒退了之后，又重复发热。
所见病者均有呕吐恶心，胸闷。符合《伤寒论》379条：“呕而发热者，小柴胡汤主之。”及96条：“往来寒热，胸胁苦满，嘿嘿不欲饮食，心烦喜呕。”当然病者还可能见“舌上白苔”（第230条）。
此病患者常可见头痛，骨节疼痛，颇似麻黄汤证及大青龙汤证。但此两方汤证除无呕吐外，也无虚弱感（因此病白细胞显著降低，血小板减少，病人常有虚弱感，所谓“血弱气尽”。）。所以不要和麻黄汤证、大青龙汤证混淆。患者发热恶寒时多无汗出，故同样不适用桂枝汤（“若其人脉浮紧，发热汗不出者，不可与之，常须识此，勿令误也。”16条）。
发热期间，病人如果有口渴，这就是少阳阳明合病了。可以加入石膏。（97条：“服柴胡汤已，渴者，属阳明，以法治之。”）所谓“以法治之”即按治阳明的治法，只有口渴者加石膏便可，如果更有便秘等，则应考虑承气了，不过，登革热者多是伴腹泻，而非便秘。）
如果发热期间出现腹泻（”利遂不止”34条）等可以小柴胡汤合葛根芩连汤（即小柴胡汤加葛根黄连）。如果发热已退，病人腹泻不止（我的病人中有三个是严重的腹泻，脘痞腹胀的）。那么便是半夏泻心汤证了。半夏泻心汤其实是小柴胡的变方。柯韵伯说此方：“稍变少阳半表之治，推重少阳半里之意”。即小柴胡去柴胡、生姜。加黄连、干姜。（149条“伤寒五六日，呕而发热者，柴胡汤证具，而以他药下之，柴胡证仍在者，复与柴胡汤，此虽已下之，不为逆，必蒸蒸而振，却发热汗出而解，……但满而不痛者，此为痞，柴胡不中与之，宜半夏泻心汤。”）当然，如果“腹中雷鸣下利者”（157条）又应用生姜泻心汤主之了，即半夏泻心加生姜。
大多以为高热病人多属温病范畴，採用温病治疗，动不动就银翘散。这就有违“辨证施治”的思维了。《伤寒论》第6条明明写着：“发热而渴不恶寒者为温病”。第3条也说：“太阳病，或已发热，或未发热，必恶寒”。我的病例中都是有恶寒的，所以即使口渴，加石膏便是。吴鞠通《温病条辨》第5条银翘散条姑不论他这条条文是否合乎逻辑，但他也说了银翘散是无恶寒的。“太阴温病，恶风寒，服桂枝汤已，恶寒解，余病不解。”才用“银翘散主之。”第4条：“但恶热，不恶寒而渴者，辛凉平剂，银翘散主之。”
我的几个病人，用小柴胡汤后都是一两天内退烧。不过柴胡的用量可是要参考仲景原量的。仲景是用柴胡半斤的。现在由于受世俗的影响，不敢重用柴胡，这又是不相信仲景的一种表现。以几首治发热方如桂枝汤，麻黄汤，大青龙汤，小柴胡汤等的主药比较一下，桂枝汤桂枝不过是三两，麻黄汤麻黄不过是三两，大青龙是峻剂才用麻黄六两。但小柴胡汤却用的是半斤！可见柴胡不重用不足为功。半斤即八两。汉代之八两即相当近代120克多。一剂分三服，每服约40克。我常用 45~50克。古人120克是一日量，我们虽用50克，也是一日一剂一服量（最多是复渣服两次）。所以仍未达仲景的原量。何惧之有？小柴胡汤的煎煮法很特殊，“去滓再煎”。医家以为有什么玄机，其实是因为柴胡质轻用量重，体积大，虽用多水煎（一斗二升），为煎煮方便，只好去滓再浓缩。仲景书是从实出发，并无虚言，读仲景书不宜臆度。
这几例病者我用石膏是90~120克。其实也不算重。仲景白虎汤是用一斤的，吴鞠通却在《温病条辨》中白虎汤一两。误导世人，畏石膏如虎矣。
其中一例是我的中医同学，十余天前高热，高度疑似登革热。高热退了，但十多天来仍恶风，汗出，倦怠乏力。此却是桂枝汤证了。
一例，热退后出现皮疹，搔痒。又要观其脉证，知犯何逆，随证治之。第23条：“面色反有热色者，未欲解也，以其不能得小汗出，身必痒，宜桂枝麻黄各半汤”。”面色反有热色者”可作两种理解，1.皮疹色红2.阳邪不能发越，故面潮红。桂麻各半汤芍药用赤芍，并加石膏，丹皮。
一例，高热40°C,小柴胡汤加石膏、连翘后次日热减，38.5°C。腹泻一天七八次。合葛根芩连汤。
一例，75岁老太婆，柴胡用45克，一剂热退。
一例，大学生，高热退后四五天仍腹泻，要回北京念书。半夏泻心汤。
发热病人，用小柴胡汤，应参考桂枝汤的将息法：“服已须臾，啜热稀粥一升余，以助药力，温覆令一时许，遍身漐漐似有汗者益佳”。
综上观之。每一步都是按《伤寒论》走，仲景方何其实用！怎么会有”古方不宜今病”之说？怎么会有“守其法不泥其方”之说？怎么会天天喊“辨证论治”却一见高热就只往温病中考虑？同时“方证对应”是看得见，摸得着的。
