유시민의 ‘알릴레오’ 등장에 대한 네이버 댓글.
취업은 알바레오.
통계는 바꿀레오.
경제는 망칠레오.
부칸은 퍼줄레오.
세금은 올릴레오.
잘한다고 우길레오.
여기에 생각는 대로 몇 개 더하자면,
자영업자는 울릴레요.
기업은 조질레오.
노조는 편들레오.
우파는 죽일레오.
좌파는 챙길레오.
야당은 안볼레오.
언론은 잡을레오.
진실은 감출레오.
안보는 허물레오.
중국은 섬길레오.
미국은 떠밀레오.
일본은 싸울레오.
국민은 속일레오.
사찰은 숨길레오.
원전은 세울레오.
성장은 멈출레오.
으니품에 안길레오.
욕은 먹을레오.
---------------------------------------------------------------
최응표(뉴욕에서)
‘짧은 인생에서 잘난 척하며 사는 이는 사람으로 칠 수 없잖아요’라며 세상 사람을 두 부류로 나눠 설명한 미국 여류시인 엘러 휠러 윌콕스(Ella Wheeler Wilcox:1850~1919)는 시(詩) ‘당신은 어느 쪽인가요?(Which Are You?-장영희 교수 역-)에서 이렇게 말했습니다.
“…내가 말하는 이 세상 사람의 두 부류란/ 짐 들어주는 자와 비스듬히 기대는 자랍니다./ 당신은 어느 쪽인가요? 무거운 짐을 지고/ 힘겹게 가는 이의 짐을 들어주는 사람인가요?/ 아니면 남에게 당신 몫의 짐을 지우고/ 걱정 근심 끼치는 기대는 사람인가요?" (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------
金永男(조갑제닷컴)
트럼프의 연설 일부
<일각에서는 장벽 하나가 비인간적이라고 주장한다. 그렇다면 부유한 정치인들은 왜 장벽과 펜스, 그리고 게이트를 자신들의 집에 설치하는 것이냐. 이들은 밖에 있는 사람들을 증오해서가 아니라 안에 있는 사람들을 사랑하기 때문에 이같이 한 것이다. 비인간적인 유일한 것은 정치인들이 아무것도 하지 않고 죄 없는 사람들이 끔찍한 피해자가 되는 것을 계속 내버려두는 것이다. Some has suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politician build walls, fences and gates around their homes. They don’t build the walls because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.> (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------
미국-일본-중국 경제 '동반 하락', 한국 경제 ‘직격탄’ 불가피
김필재
https://youtu.be/a5hm3y5g148
--->아베노믹스가 약발이 듣지 않는 이유는, 시장에 돈을 풀어 인플레를 일으키고, 그로써 경제를 부양시키겠다는 케인즈의 이론에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문이다.
한국의 소득주도 성장도 거의 같은 논리이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
문가와 조명균을 여적죄로 형사고발해라 북비핵화 사기쇼 들통났다
북은 핵보유국지위로 트럼프와 협상 한단다
비핵화 선동 하면서 기무사 해체등 군 무장해제한 역도들 !
종전선언유도하는목적은 주한미군철수에있다
속으면안되 조명균도 북의비핵화와 우리의 비핵화는 다르다고 말하면서
북이 핵을포기하지않을것이라는것을 피력햇다
문가의 사기극 비핵화에속지마라
조명균이 비핵화어렵다는것을 밝히면서 문가의 비핵화는 모두 사기고
종전선언으로 주한미군철수시키려는 의도가 다분하다
[출처] 문가와 조명균을 여적죄로 형사고발해라 북비핵화 사기쇼 들통났다
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
저건 세금이 아니라 수탈이고 약탈이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<퀼레트>라는 인터넷 언론이 나타나 우파적 견해를 발표하자, 좌파들이 매도하고 공격하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
문죄인: 신재민이 자기만의 좁은 세계에서 문제를 제기했으며, 정책은 복잡하게 결정된다.
헛소리다! 신재민은 정부 부채 담당자였다. 그는 말하자면 열차의 운전사처럼, 그에게는 자신이 해야할 일의 매뉴얼이 있었다. 그것은 세수가 여유가 있을 때는 그 돈으로 부채를 갚은 것이었다. 이는 마치 서울에서 부산을 가는 열차의 행로가 정해진 것과 같다.
그것은 대통령이 관여할 사안도 아니고, 대통령이 와도 바뀔 수 없는 일이다. 그런데 그걸 지금 문죄인은 자신만의 좁은 세계에서 문제를 제기했다고 그를 비난하고 있다. 그렇다면, 문죄인은 중앙정부의 모든 공무원의 업무를 대신하고 있다는 말인가?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the U.S. President Needs a Council of Historians
We suggest that the charter for the future Council of Historical Advisers begin with Thucydides’s observation that “the events of future history … will be of the same nature—or nearly so—as the history of the past, so long as men are men.” Although applied historians will never be clairvoyants with unclouded crystal balls, we agree with Winston Churchill: “The longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward.”
인간이 계속해서 인간인 이상, 미래 역사의 사건들은 과거 역사의 사건들과 동일한 성격이거나 거의 유사한 것들이다. ---투키디데스
과거를 오래 관찰할수록, 우리는 미래를 더 멀리 내다볼 수 있다. ---처칠
-----------------------------------------------------------
지난 3개의 영국 정부가 소비자들을 희생시켜 가며 그린 정실자본주의자들에게 보상을 주었다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
영국 헌법은 개인의 이성이 아닌, 진화를 해온 집합적인 이해의 산물이며, 따라서 그 안에는 많은 타협과 지혜가 담겨 있다. 정치가인 버크는 그것을 오랜 세월에 걸친 다수의 작품이라고 말했다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
문화 막시즘은 실재한다.
Cultural Marxism Is Real
Allen Mendenhall
Samuel Moyn, a Yale law professor, recently asked, “What is ‘cultural Marxism?’” His answer: “Nothing of the kind actually exists.” Moyn attributes the term cultural Marxism to the “runaway alt-right imagination,” claiming that it implicates zany conspiracy theories and has been “percolating for years through global sewers of hatred.”
Alexander Zubatov, an attorney writing in Tablet, countered that the “somewhat unclear and contested” term cultural Marxism “has been in circulation for over forty years.” It has, moreover, “perfectly respectable uses outside the dark, dank silos of the far right.” He concluded that cultural Marxism is neither a “conspiracy” nor a “mere right-wing ‘phantasmagoria,’” but a “coherent intellectual program, a constellation of dangerous ideas.”
In this debate, I side with Zubatov. Here’s why.
Despite the bewildering range of controversies and meanings attributed to it, cultural Marxism (the term and the movement) has a deep, complex history in Theory. The word “Theory” (with a capital T) is the general heading for research within the interpretative branches of the humanities known as cultural and critical studies, literary criticism, and literary theory — each of which includes a variety of approaches from the phenomenological to the psychoanalytic. In the United States, Theory is commonly taught and applied in English departments, although its influence is discernable throughout the humanities.
A brief genealogy of different schools of Theory — which originated outside English departments, among philosophers and sociologists for example, but became part of English departments’ core curricula — shows not only that cultural Marxism is a nameable, describable phenomenon, but also that it proliferates beyond the academy.
Scholars versed in Theory are reasonably suspicious of crude, tendentious portrayals of their field. Nevertheless, these fields retain elements of Marxism that, in my view, require heightened and sustained scrutiny. Given estimates that communism killed over 100 million people , we must openly and honestly discuss those currents of Marxism that run through different modes of interpretation and schools of thought. To avoid complicity, moreover, we must ask whether and why Marxist ideas, however attenuated, still motivate leading scholars and spread into the broader culture.
English departments sprang up in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century, ushering in increasingly professionalized studies of literature and other forms of aesthetic expression. As English became a distinct university discipline with its own curriculum, it moved away from the study of British literature and canonical works of the Western tradition in translation, and toward the philosophies that guide textual interpretation.
Although a short, sweeping survey of what followed may not satisfy those in the field, it provides others with the relevant background.
The New Criticism
The first major school to establish itself in English departments was the New Criticism. Its counterpart was Russian formalism, characterized by figures like Victor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson, who attempted to distinguish literary texts from other texts, examining what qualities made written representations poetic, compelling, original, or moving rather than merely practical or utilitarian.
One such quality was defamiliarization. Literature, in other words, defamiliarizes language by using sound, syntax, metaphor, alliteration, assonance, and other rhetorical devices.
The New Criticism, which was chiefly pedagogical, emphasized close reading, maintaining that readers searching for meaning must isolate the text under consideration from externalities like authorial intent, biography, or historical context. This method is similar to legal textualism whereby judges look strictly at the language of a statute, not to legislative history or intent, to interpret the import or meaning of that statute. The New Critics coined the term “intentional fallacy” to refer to the search for the meaning of a text anywhere but in the text itself. The New Criticism is associated with John Crowe Ransom, Cleanth Brooks, I. A. Richards, and T.S. Eliot. In a way, all subsequent schools of Theory are responses or reactions to the New Criticism.
Structuralism and Post-Structuralism
Structuralism permeated French intellectual circles in the 1960s. Through structuralism, thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, and Louis Althusser imported leftist politics into the study of literary texts. Structuralism is rooted in the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist who observed how linguistic signs become differentiated within a system of language. When we say or write something, we do it according to rules and conventions in which our anticipated audience also operates. The implied order we use and communicate in is the “structure” referred to in structuralism.
The French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss extended Saussure’s ideas about the linguistic sign to culture, arguing that the beliefs, values, and characteristic features of a social group function according to a set of tacitly known rules. These structures are “discourse,” a term that encompasses cultural norms and not just language practices.
Out of structuralism and post-structuralism emerged Structural Marxism, a school of thought linked to Althusser that analyzes the role of the state in perpetuating the dominance of the ruling class, the capitalists.
Marxism and Neo-Marxism
In the 1930s and 1940s, the Frankfurt School popularized the type of work usually labeled as “cultural Marxism.” Figures involved or associated with this school include Erich Fromm, Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin. These men revised, repurposed, and extended classical Marxism by emphasizing culture and ideology, incorporating insights from emerging fields such as psychoanalysis, and researching the rise of mass media and mass culture.
Dissatisfied with economic determinism and the illusory coherence of historical materialism—and jaded by the failures of socialist and communist governments—these thinkers retooled Marxist tactics and premises in their own ways without entirely repudiating Marxist designs or ambitions.
Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, scholars like Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson were explicit in embracing Marxism. They rejected the New Critical approaches that divorced literature from culture, stressing that literature reflected class and economic interest, social and political structures, and power. Accordingly, they considered how literary texts reproduced (or undermined) cultural or economic structures and conditions.
Slavoj Žižek arguably has done more than any member of the Frankfurt School to integrate psychoanalysis into Marxist variants. “Žižek’s scholarship holds a particularly high place within cultural criticism that seeks to account for the intersections between psychoanalysis and Marxism,” wrote the scholar Erin Labbie. She added, “Žižek’s prolific writings about ideology, revealing the relationships between psychoanalysis and Marxism, have altered the way in which literary and cultural criticism is approached and accomplished to the extent that most scholars can no longer hold tightly to the former notion that the two fields are at odds.” Žižek is just one among many continental philosophers whose Marxist and Marxist-inflected prognostications command the attention of American academics.
Deconstruction
Jacques Derrida is recognized as the founder of deconstruction. He borrowed from Saussure’s theory that the meaning of a linguistic sign depends on its relation to its opposite, or to things from which it differs. For instance, the meaning of male depends on the meaning of female; the meaning of happy depends on the meaning of sad; and so forth. Thus, the theoretical difference between two opposing terms, or binaries, unites them in our consciousness. And one binary is privileged while the other is devalued. For example, “beautiful” is privileged over “ugly,” and “good” over “bad.”
The result is a hierarchy of binaries that are contextually or arbitrarily dependent, according to Derrida, and cannot be fixed or definite across time and space. That is because meaning exists in a state of flux, never becoming part of an object or idea.
Derrida himself, having re-read The Communist Manifesto, recognized the “spectral” furtherance of a “spirit” of Marx and Marxism. Although Derrida’s so-called “hauntology” precludes the messianic meta-narratives of unfulfilled Marxism, commentators have salvaged from Derrida a modified Marxism for the climate of today’s “late capitalism.”
Derrida used the term diffèrance to describe the elusive process humans use to attach meaning to arbitrary signs, even if signs—the codes and grammatical structures of communication — cannot adequately represent an actual object or idea in reality. Derrida’s theories had a broad impact that enabled him and his followers to consider linguistic signs and the concepts created by those signs, many of which were central to the Western tradition and Western culture. For example, Derrida’s critique of logocentrism contests nearly all philosophical foundations deriving from Athens and Jerusalem.
New Historicism
New Historicism, a multifaceted enterprise, is associated with Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt. It looks at historical forces and conditions with a structuralist and post-structuralist eye, treating literary texts as both products of and contributors to discourse and discursive communities. It is founded on the idea that literature and art circulate through discourse and inform and destabilize cultural norms and institutions.
New historicists explore how literary representations reinforce power structures or work against entrenched privilege, extrapolating from Foucault’s paradox that power grows when it is subverted because it is able to reassert itself over the subversive person or act in a show of power. Marxism and materialism often surface when new historicists seek to highlight texts and authors (or literary scenes and characters) in terms of their effects on culture, class, and power. New historicists focus on low-class or marginalized figures, supplying them with a voice or agency and giving them overdue attention. This political reclamation, while purporting to provide context, nevertheless risks projecting contemporary concerns onto works that are situated in a particular culture and historical moment.
In the words of literary critic Paul Cantor, “There is a difference between political approaches to literature and politicized approaches, that is, between those that rightly take into account the centrality of political concerns in many literary classics and those that willfully seek to reinterpret and virtually recreate class works in light of contemporary political agendas.”4
Cultural Marxism Is Real
Much of the outcry about cultural Marxism is outrageous, uninformed, and conspiratorial. Some of it simplifies, ignores, or downplays the fissures and tensions among leftist groups and ideas. Cultural Marxism cannot be reduced, for instance, to “political correctness” or “identity politics.” (I recommend Andrew Lynn’s short piece “Cultural Marxism” in the Fall 2018 issue of The Hedgehog Review for a concise critique of sloppy and paranoid treatments of cultural Marxism.)
Nevertheless, Marxism pervades Theory, despite the competition among the several ideas under that broad label. Sometimes this Marxism is self-evident; at other times, it’s residual and implied. At any rate, it has attained a distinct but evolving character as literary scholars have reworked classical Marxism to account for the relation of literature and culture to class, power, and discourse.
Feminism, gender studies, critical race theory, post-colonialism, disability studies — these and other disciplines routinely get pulled through one or more of the theoretical paradigms I’ve outlined. The fact that they’re guided by Marxism or adopt Marxist terms and concepts, however, does not make them off-limits or unworthy of attention.
Which brings me to a warning: Condemning these ideas as forbidden, as dangers that corrupt young minds, might have unintended consequences. Marxist spinoffs must be studied to be comprehensively understood. Don’t remove them from the curriculum: contextualize them, challenge them, and question them. Don’t reify their power by ignoring or neglecting them.
Popular iterations of cultural Marxism reveal themselves in the casual use of terms like “privilege,” “alienation,” “commodification,” “fetishism,” “materialism,” “hegemony,” or “superstructure.” As Zubatov wrote for Tablet, “It is a short step from Gramsci’s ‘hegemony’ to the now-ubiquitous toxic memes of ‘patriarchy,’ ‘heteronormativity,’ ‘white supremacy,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ ‘and whiteness.’” He adds, “It is a short step from the Marxist and cultural Marxist premise that ideas are, at their core, expressions of power to rampant, divisive identity politics and the routine judging of people and their cultural contributions based on their race, gender, sexuality and religion.”
My brief summary is merely the simplified, approximate version of a much larger and more complex story, but it orients curious readers who wish to learn more about cultural Marxism in literary studies. Today, English departments suffer from the lack of a clearly defined mission, purpose, and identity. Having lost rigor in favor of leftist politics as their chief end of study, English departments at many universities are jeopardized by the renewed emphasis on practical skills and jobs training. Just as English departments replaced religion and classics departments as the principal places to study culture, so too could future departments or schools replace English departments.
And those places may not tolerate political agitations posturing as pedagogical technique.
The point, however, is that cultural Marxism exists. It has a history, followers, adherents, and left a perceptible mark on academic subjects and lines of inquiry. Moyn may wish it out of existence, or dismiss it as a bogeyman, but it is real. We must know its effects on society, and in what forms it materializes in our culture. Moyn’s intemperate polemic demonstrates, in fact, the urgency and importance of examining cultural Marxism, rather than closing our eyes to its meaning, properties, and significance.
Editor’s Note: Allen Mendenhall’s recent video interview with the Martin Center touches on themes from this article.
This article was originally published by the Martin Center.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
鼻炎是西医的病名，西医把鼻炎分得比较细，有急性，慢性之不同，慢性鼻炎又有单纯性、肥厚性、萎缩性以及过敏性之不同。另外还有鼻窦炎，亦类似于鼻炎。其治法一般是见症治症，或者宣通鼻窍，或者消炎杀菌，甚或手术切除。就我所体会，中医的治疗思路和方法显然比西医更为高明有效。
从中医来看鼻炎到底是什么病呢?
中医一般称为鼻鼽、鼽嚏或鼻窒。鼽即鼻出清涕，嚏乃鼻中因痒而气喷作声，窒是以鼻塞时轻时重，或双侧鼻窍交替堵塞，反复发作，经久不愈，甚至嗅觉失灵为特征的慢性鼻病。中医在两千年前即明确地诊断了此病，并且提出了有效的治疗思路和方法。
鼻炎的本质是正气不足，无力祛邪
《内经》认为：“肺开窍于鼻”，故鼻病似当责之于肺。
但人体是一个动态的阴阳气血脏腑经络的平衡体，凡病需要整体辨证，以求其根本。且多数慢性病往往不拘泥于一个脏腑的问题，而是整体影响，所以，治疗鼻炎当然也不能拘泥于肺脏。
中医认为鼻炎多因脏腑功能失调，再加上外感风寒，邪气侵袭鼻窍而致。此病往往缠绵难愈，一则是正虚而邪恋，二则是外邪久客，化火灼津而痰浊阻塞鼻窍。因此五脏六腑功能失调为本，主要包括肺、脾、肾之虚损。
脾属土，为肺之母，脾虚则肺之生源化绝而肺虚;肾属水，金水互生，且肺纳气归于肾，二者互相影响。因此，治疗鼻炎先需治本，重点是温补肺气、健脾益气、温补肾阳。正气是祛邪的基础，扶正即所以祛邪，治鼻炎如此，治疗其他大病亦如此。(발췌)
从中医来看鼻炎到底是什么病呢?
中医一般称为鼻鼽、鼽嚏或鼻窒。鼽即鼻出清涕，嚏乃鼻中因痒而气喷作声，窒是以鼻塞时轻时重，或双侧鼻窍交替堵塞，反复发作，经久不愈，甚至嗅觉失灵为特征的慢性鼻病。中医在两千年前即明确地诊断了此病，并且提出了有效的治疗思路和方法。
鼻炎的本质是正气不足，无力祛邪
《内经》认为：“肺开窍于鼻”，故鼻病似当责之于肺。
但人体是一个动态的阴阳气血脏腑经络的平衡体，凡病需要整体辨证，以求其根本。且多数慢性病往往不拘泥于一个脏腑的问题，而是整体影响，所以，治疗鼻炎当然也不能拘泥于肺脏。
中医认为鼻炎多因脏腑功能失调，再加上外感风寒，邪气侵袭鼻窍而致。此病往往缠绵难愈，一则是正虚而邪恋，二则是外邪久客，化火灼津而痰浊阻塞鼻窍。因此五脏六腑功能失调为本，主要包括肺、脾、肾之虚损。
脾属土，为肺之母，脾虚则肺之生源化绝而肺虚;肾属水，金水互生，且肺纳气归于肾，二者互相影响。因此，治疗鼻炎先需治本，重点是温补肺气、健脾益气、温补肾阳。正气是祛邪的基础，扶正即所以祛邪，治鼻炎如此，治疗其他大病亦如此。(발췌)
중의학에 비염은 장부 기능의 문제에서 비롯된다고 믿는다. 여기에 풍한(風寒)을 만나 코에 병사들면 더욱 치료가 어려워진다. 관련 장부는 폐와 비(脾)그리고 신(腎)의 허손이다. 비장은 폐의 어머니로서 비가 허약해지면, 폐의 생원(生源)이 끊겨서 폐도 허해진다. 신장은 수(水)에 속하는데, 폐가 속하는 금(金)과 수는 호생(互生) 관계이다. 따라서 비염을 치료하려면 먼저 폐를 따뜻하게 하고, 비장의 기운을 돋우며, 신장을 온보(溫補)해야 한다.
作者：笛苼健康荟
來源：简书
简书著作权归作者所有，任何形式的转载都请联系作者获得授权并注明出处。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기