국회를 통과하는 모든 법은 법사위의 체제, 자구 심사를 거쳐 본회의 표결을 통하여 시행이 됩니다. 특별위원회라고 하더라도 법사위를 거치지 않는 법은 국회법 위반일 뿐만 아니라 법 체제의 이상이 있을 경우 고칠 수가 없기 때문에 그러합니다.
문희상 의장이 그것을 모를 리 없고 또 전문가 자문에서도 압도적으로 법사위를 거쳐야 한다고 자문했음에도 불구하고 법사위를 배제하고 본회의에 바로 부의하겠다고 우기는 것은 패스트 트랙 법안들이 위헌적인 요소가 있고 법사위원장이 야당이기 때문에 그런 무리수를 둔다고 보여집니다.
그러나 그보다 더 큰 이유는 자기 아들을 의정부에 세습 공천해 달라고 문 대통령에게 청탁하기 위해서라고 아니 볼 수 없습니다. 자식을 세습 국회의원으로 만들기 위해 나라의 근간을 뒤흔드는 위헌 법률을 강행 처리하려는 문희상 의장의 노욕을 엄중히 꾸짖고 규탄합니다. 정치 24년을 거치면서 이런 후안무치한 의장은 처음 봅니다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
홍문종 우리공화당 대표 조문…“사면 얘기엔 미소만”
홍문종 "박근혜 前대통령 잘 부탁"…文대통령 "배려하고 있다"
문재인 대통령이 31일 “박근혜 전 대통령을 병원으로 보내드리고 책상도 넣어드리며 배려하고 있다”고 밝혔다
--->기가 막힌 배려다!
------------------------------------------------------
미국산 부품 재고 상황에 화웨이 패닉 | 신세기TV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Eisenberg
"Importance of the India-Japan Dharma Guardian Military Exercises." The flanks are coordinating, and that's good.
인도-일본 달마 가디언 합동군사훈련.
--->저 군사훈련의 대상은 중국이 가장 유력하다.
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China has had a remarkably consistent--and fierce--strategy over the course of decades: infiltrate our elites, undermine our economy, and destroy our free institutions. What do you say, fellow Americans? Shall we fight back?
중국은 일관되게 미국의 엘리트 세계에 침입해 경제와 자유의
제도들을 파괴하려는 목적을 가지고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN: XI’S TRULY GRAND STRATEGY
Xi’s Vision and Priorities
At the 19th Chinese Communist Party National Congress on Oct. 18, 2017, Xi Jinping delivered a major speech in which he declared, “The Chinese nation […] has stood up, grown rich, and is becoming strong.” He articulated a new era with the historic mission to “realize the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation.” For its implementation, Xi laid out a timeline with three major target dates: By the Party Centenary in 2021, China should “finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.” By 2035, China should be much stronger economically and technologically, have become a “global leader in innovation,” and have completed its military modernization. By the People’s Republic of China Centenary in 2049, China should have “[r]esolv[ed] the Taiwan question” and be a “strong country” with “world-class forces.” Party leadership is crucial to the realization of this “Chinese Dream,” Xi insists, and his own leadership is crucial for now.
시진핑의 중국 굴기 구상은 스케일은 다르지만 박정희 대통령의 민족중흥 전략과 유사하다. 시진핑은 자신이 진시황이나 한무제(漢武帝)처럼 중국의 영토를 확장하고 통일하는 황제가 되려는 야심이 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
A pro-US friend tells me it's important for Congress to pass Graham-Van Hollen, which would sanction #Turkey. If we don't, Asian countries will see Washington as irresolute and wonder why they should align with us. Then, #India, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar "will fall like dominoes."
친미 인사가 나에게 그레이엄-밴 홀렌 법안을 통과시켜야 한다고 말했다. 터기를 제재하는 이 법안이 통과되지 않으면, 인도, 사우디, 카타르 등이 도미노처럼 떨어져나갈 거라고 경고했다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
#BREAKING Chile has cancelled the hosting of the next global climate change conference in December and the Asia-Pacific Summit in November due to ongoing unrest in the country.
칠레가 12월의 기후변화회의를 개최하지 않고, 또
아시아-태평양정상회의도 취소한다고 발표.
---------------------------------------------------
China sends top financial officials to clean up debt-laden provinces amid growing signs of economic risk
*Senior state bankers and financial regulators have been appointed vice-governors of at least 15 of China’s 31 provincial level governments
*Postings come amid signs of growing financial stress in China, including local government fiscal trouble and a slowing economy
중국 정부가 적어도 15개의 부채에 허덕이는 지방정부에 재정 관리들을 파견했다.
Michael Pettis
It’s a start, but I’m afraid very few officials (and not just in China) understand how much debt is “too much”, why it’s a problem, and how it gets resolved. For the most part their idea of “resolving” the debt will mean.
-------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
70 years after Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic, Xi Jinping visited Xinyang to rekindle revolutionary traditions. Its survivors of mass starvation went unmentioned.
시진핑이 혁명 전통을 재점화 하기 위해 신양을 방문했지만, 그곳의 대량 아사에서 살아남은 사람들은 언급하지 않았다.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yaxue Cao
I happened to be reading the audio transcript our recent interview w Guo Luoji #郭羅基, a colleague of Nie Yuanzi at Philosophy Dept. To get away from Nie, Guo offered to teach Sihanouk’s son! His recollection of the Cultural Revolution reads like a #群魔亂舞的瘋人院 @ChuBailiang
궈루어지가 회상하는 문화혁명은 마귀들이 날뛰는 정신병동群魔亂舞的瘋人院이었다.
---------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
1/n Just listened on way to #RWRI the @econtalker podcast with @mazzucatoM about the government role in innovation "investor of first resort". Will comment further after I read the book, but found many flaws in reasoning by Mazzucato:
2/n Govt bureaucrats are not boring & lacking in innovative drive because they didn't study strategy in business schools (i.e. because of their education) as claimed by @mazzucatoM, rather boring people tend to work for government
정부 관료가 따분하고 창의력을 결핍한게 아니라, 따분한 사람
들이 주로 관료가 된다.
4/n Problem of teleology: the French Gov. started explicitly an internet (Minital) and failed, what survived is the side effect of a military application.
@MazzucatoM: Given the % of GDP by government, what % of innovation came from government? Didn't gov displace private invt?
혁신의 얼마만큼이 도대체 정부에서 나온 것인가?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Try to be predictable to your friends and unpredictable to your enemies, rather than the opposite." - @nntaleb
당신의 친구들에게는 당신의 행동을 예측 가능하도록 하고, 적에게는 예측 불가능하게 하라.
----------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Wisdom
"The cult of the youth (by the youth) results from an elementary logical fallacy. If 90% of successful innovations come from the young, less than 1/1000 of innovations by youth work. Statistically, youth correlates w/mediocrity, sloth, physical weakness, & lack of creativity."
통계적으로 청춘은 평범, 나태, 육체적 나약, 창조력 결핍과 관
계 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Henderson
Twitter followers are “distributed far more unequally than wealth. The top 1 percent of accounts has 72 percent of the followers...It is much, much harder to get to a million followers than it is to make a million dollars”
트위터 추종자들은 부(富)보다 더 불평등하게 분포되어 있다. 계정의 1%가 전체 추종자들의 72%를 거느리고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann
Fascinating new article from @michaelshermer explaining why our propensity for conspiratorial thinking probably has some adaptive function, given the past & present threats in our environments
음모론적 사고가 모종의 적응 기능을 지니고 있다는 마이클 셔
머의 글
The Danger Is Real:
Why We’re All Wired for ‘Constructive Conspiracism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Clark
Thread of polls on academic self-censorship (1/6):
1. n = 356 academics: 59% have been afraid to publish something for fear of personal consequences & 32% have been afraid and then did not publish the thing:
학계의 자기 검열. 59%가 글을 발표하는데 있어 개인적 피해
를 두려워하고 있고, 32%는 두려운 나머지 발표를 하지 않았
음.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School reform scorecard: decades of frenetic activity, soaring rhetoric, and billions of federal expenditure yield the following results: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/reading-scores-national-exam.html …
학교 개혁을 위해 수십년 동안 미친듯이 일하고 수십억 달러
의 연방정부 돈을 퍼부운 결과. 수학과 읽기에서 진전이 없었
고, 열등생들의 성적은 더욱 나빠졌다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
사회적 지출을 통한 경제적 평등의 추구는 한계가 있다.
2004년부터 2017년 사이에 미국에서의 사회적 지출은 17.7% 증가했지만, 경제적 불평등은 감소하지 않고 오히려 8.3% 증가했다.
The Limits of Social Spending as a Driver of Economic Equality
Allen Gindler
In the history of the development of the concept of equality, it has traditionally been understood as equality of individual rights before the law. Great minds from antiquity to modernity gradually created what are probably the most significant of man’s doctrines — equality and freedom — which became the basis of public order and justice in developed societies.
However, followers of egalitarianism argue that people are not entirely free unless economic equality exists in society. Using some perverse logic, they made a quantum leap from the concept of equality of individual rights before the law to universal economic justice. Economic justice is habitually understood to be the equality of income among members of society. Libertarian scholars who have identified “human actions” as the main engine of economic development most adequately indicated the futility and danger of such an intent.
Murray Rothbard, in his book Power and the Market (1970), asserts “that equality cannot be achieved because it is a conceptually impossible goal for man, by virtue of his necessary dispersion in location and diversity among individuals.” Scientists in the field of evolutionary genetics have long ago emancipated themselves from the anathema of eugenics and biological determinism, explaining the diversity of traits and human actions as the interplay of innate nature and nurture.
Each born person is not only genetically unique but also exposed to heterogeneous environments in its development, not excluding random factors, of course. This, in turn, leads to a unique set of skills and a specific place in the division of labor. Therefore, it is impossible to achieve either equal opportunities or equal rewards for various economic actions. One might think that this state of affairs is regrettable, but this is the price that humanity pays for being an intelligent and complex creature and not a single-celled bacterium. Only among primitive life forms can equality akin to communism be achieved, not in human society.
Proponents of egalitarianism believe that the idea of income equality is noble, and its implementation results in an organization with higher moral qualities. The irony is that compulsory equality leads to the economic and moral degradation of society. History shows that social experiments undertaken by collectivists of all kinds have failed to achieve the desired result. Centralized distribution of income, universal leveling (excluding elites), and decoupling of remuneration from efforts led to the suppression of incentive, reduced economic efficiency, increased corruption, and illegal dealings. The attempt to gain equality for a mass population was made by arriving at the least common denominator of living standards. Borrowing the terminology from physics, one could say that economically and morally, collectivist societies are at a lower energy level than individualistic ones and are characterized by a state of equal misery.
It would seem that theoretical conclusions, reinforced by the lessons of history, should put an end to a futile attempt to achieve compulsory economic equality; alas, the world bureaucracy and the left academy are still trying to do the impossible. The redistribution of welfare through a generous social policy is the chief conductor of the modern left in the goal of achieving socialism. Over the course of the 20th century, wealth redistribution has converted from a purely abstract and political slogan into a crucial economic category. Economists of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other international institutions calculate different indexes that are supposed to describe economic inequality within societies. The most popular is the Gini index, which is selected as an official measurement of inequality for OECD countries.
The Gini coefficient measures the difference between the levels of an income frequency distribution. It has two theoretical values of 1 and 0; a Gini coefficient of 1 expresses a situation of total inequality, where one person consumes all income while the rest of the population has nothing. A Gini coefficient of 0 describes perfect equality, where everyone has the same income.
The OECD has developed a Social Expenditure Database (SOCX) that provides internationally comparable statistics on social spending that covers 36 countries for the period of 1980–2015/16 and estimates for 2016–2018. It is reasoned that the actual level of government social spending can be more adequately evaluated if one is accounting for the full effects of the tax system. SOCX delivers "total net social spending" value in % of GDP that "takes into account public and private social expenditure, and also include the effect of direct taxes (income tax and social security contributions), indirect taxation of consumption on cash benefits as well as tax breaks for social purposes."
It would be logical to analyze how social spending affects economic inequality. The figure below shows the latest data on social expenditure in %GDP and Gini coefficient (post-tax) for OECD countries. The first thing that catches your eye is that there are three distinct outliers: countries that have minimal social spending. There are two schools of thought on how to deal with outliers. The first suggests excluding them from the model and analyzing them individually. If one follows this logic, then it is found that there is no correlation between the magnitude of public spending and economic inequality whatsoever. Thus, the Gini coefficient is inert with respect to changes in social expenditure, and it depends on some other factors.
The second school of thought suggests including outliers in the model if they are not measurement errors. In this case, there is a slight negative correlation between spending and the Gini coefficient. If we assume that, in this particular case, correlation indeed implies causation, it means that an increase in social expenditure might lead to a decrease in economic disparity. As presented in the figure, quadratic regression achieves the best fit to empirical observations; however, only 44.6% of the variation in the response is explained by the model.
The quadratic regression is a remarkable function that is characterized by the inflection point. At this data point, the value of economic inequality is minimal. The regression line reaches its minimum at 22.74% of GDP spending, which corresponds to the Gini coefficient of 0.29. The function descends before reaching an inflection point, meaning that, on average, an increase of social spending leads to a decrease in economic inequality. However, the function begins to ascend after an inflection point, which suggests that an increase in social spending results in a rise in economic inequality.
The lines passing through the inflection point divide the graph into four quadrants. Countries in the upper left corner are characterized by low social spending and high inequality. As they are located on a descending part of the curve, it is plausible to suggest that an increase in spending could result in a better Gini coefficient. Countries in the bottom left quadrant exhibit higher social expenditure and almost optimal inequality indexes. The bottom right quadrant unites countries that achieve low inequality by utilizing excessive social spending. Countries in the upper right quadrant are characterized by wasteful expenditure that does not benefit the cause of diminishing inequality. The latter result is entirely unexpected for the adherents of a constant increase in social benefits. This case is especially compelling, as it includes such world economic powerhouses as the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
If we look at the dynamics of changes in social expenditure and inequality in the United States from 2004 till 2017, we can see the following picture. Social spending increased by 17.7%, but at the same time, economic inequality did not decrease but on the contrary, rose by 8.3%. How to make sense of the phenomenon?
First of all, economics is not a zero-sum game in which one person’s gain is another person’s loss. It is instead a positive-sum game. In a positive-sum game, all participants are engaged in mutually-beneficial relations, which leads to the production of additional wealth. The extra wealth is created by people actively taking part in the economy. Recipients of social programs are more free to not participate in the creation of new value for various reasons. The longer a person is alienated from productive work and other wealth-creating activities, the more his share in cumulative wealth diminishes compared to that of an active member of the market. Moreover, excessive social spending stimulates some people to stay away from real jobs and become dependent on societal generosity. Excessive and long-term social programs become ineffective because they exclude people from active production and exchange, that is, cut them off from the proportionally more significant portion of cumulative wealth. Rothbard points out that such a situation “is likely to freeze the economy into a mold of (non-productive) inequality.”
Therefore, economic equality is a senseless idea. It is a dream that cannot be reached, but efforts to achieve it can lead to rather adverse consequences. At the same time, economic inequality either does not depend on the magnitude of social spending or responds to it mysteriously. An increase in social expenditure might slightly reduce economic disparity; however, the effect of spending declines and becomes marginal at higher levels of spending. Or, as in the case of countries in the upper-right corner, it might lead to an increased level of disparity.
Allen Gindler is a scholar from the former U.S.S.R., specializing in Political Economy, Econometrics, and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economic Cybernetics, Standard Data Systems, and Computer-Aided Work Design in the Khmelnytskyi National University, Ukraine. He is currently a private consultant to IT industry on Database Administration and Cryptography. As a hobby, he is interested in political philosophy, history, population genetics, and Biblical archaeology. He has published articles and opinion pieces in Mises Wire, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and Biblical Archaeology Review.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A major scientific revolution has begun, a new paradigm that rivals Darwin's theory in importance. At its heart is the discovery of the order that lies deep within the most complex of systems, from the origin of life, to the workings of giant corporations, to the rise and fall of great civilizations. And more than anyone else, this revolution is the work of one man, Stuart Kauffman, a MacArthur Fellow and visionary pioneer of the new science of complexity. Now, in At Home in the Universe, Kauffman brilliantly weaves together the excitement of intellectual discovery and a fertile mix of insights to give the general reader a fascinating look at this new science--and at the forces for order that lie at the edge of chaos.
We all know of instances of spontaneous order in nature--an oil droplet in water forms a sphere, snowflakes have a six-fold symmetry. What we are only now discovering, Kauffman says, is that the range of spontaneous order is enormously greater than we had supposed. Indeed, self-organization is a great undiscovered principle of nature. But how does this spontaneous order arise? Kauffman contends that complexity itself triggers self-organization, or what he calls "order for free," that if enough different molecules pass a certain threshold of complexity, they begin to self-organize into a new entity--a living cell. Kauffman uses the analogy of a thousand buttons on a rug--join two buttons randomly with thread, then another two, and so on. At first, you have isolated pairs; later, small clusters; but suddenly at around the 500th repetition, a remarkable transformation occurs--much like the phase transition when water abruptly turns to ice--and the buttons link up in one giant network. Likewise, life may have originated when the mix of different molecules in the primordial soup passed a certain level of complexity and self-organized into living entities (if so, then life is not a highly improbable chance event, but almost inevitable). Kauffman uses the basic insight of "order for free" to illuminate a staggering range of phenomena. We see how a single-celled embryo can grow to a highly complex organism with over two hundred different cell types. We learn how the science of complexity extends Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection: that self-organization, selection, and chance are the engines of the biosphere. And we gain insights into biotechnology, the stunning magic of the new frontier of genetic engineering--generating trillions of novel molecules to find new drugs, vaccines, enzymes, biosensors, and more. Indeed, Kauffman shows that ecosystems, economic systems, and even cultural systems may all evolve according to similar general laws, that tissues and terra cotta evolve in similar ways. And finally, there is a profoundly spiritual element to Kauffman's thought. If, as he argues, life were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected fulfillment of the natural order, then we truly are at home in the universe.
Kauffman's earlier volume, The Origins of Order, written for specialists, received lavish praise. Stephen Jay Gould called it "a landmark and a classic." And Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson wrote that "there are few people in this world who ever ask the right questions of science, and they are the ones who affect its future most profoundly. Stuart Kauffman is one of these." In At Home in the Universe, this visionary thinker takes you along as he explores new insights into the nature of life. 출처 아마존
We all know of instances of spontaneous order in nature--an oil droplet in water forms a sphere, snowflakes have a six-fold symmetry. What we are only now discovering, Kauffman says, is that the range of spontaneous order is enormously greater than we had supposed. Indeed, self-organization is a great undiscovered principle of nature. But how does this spontaneous order arise? Kauffman contends that complexity itself triggers self-organization, or what he calls "order for free," that if enough different molecules pass a certain threshold of complexity, they begin to self-organize into a new entity--a living cell. Kauffman uses the analogy of a thousand buttons on a rug--join two buttons randomly with thread, then another two, and so on. At first, you have isolated pairs; later, small clusters; but suddenly at around the 500th repetition, a remarkable transformation occurs--much like the phase transition when water abruptly turns to ice--and the buttons link up in one giant network. Likewise, life may have originated when the mix of different molecules in the primordial soup passed a certain level of complexity and self-organized into living entities (if so, then life is not a highly improbable chance event, but almost inevitable). Kauffman uses the basic insight of "order for free" to illuminate a staggering range of phenomena. We see how a single-celled embryo can grow to a highly complex organism with over two hundred different cell types. We learn how the science of complexity extends Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection: that self-organization, selection, and chance are the engines of the biosphere. And we gain insights into biotechnology, the stunning magic of the new frontier of genetic engineering--generating trillions of novel molecules to find new drugs, vaccines, enzymes, biosensors, and more. Indeed, Kauffman shows that ecosystems, economic systems, and even cultural systems may all evolve according to similar general laws, that tissues and terra cotta evolve in similar ways. And finally, there is a profoundly spiritual element to Kauffman's thought. If, as he argues, life were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected fulfillment of the natural order, then we truly are at home in the universe.
Kauffman's earlier volume, The Origins of Order, written for specialists, received lavish praise. Stephen Jay Gould called it "a landmark and a classic." And Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson wrote that "there are few people in this world who ever ask the right questions of science, and they are the ones who affect its future most profoundly. Stuart Kauffman is one of these." In At Home in the Universe, this visionary thinker takes you along as he explores new insights into the nature of life. 출처 아마존
원시의 혼란 상태에서 다양한 분자들의 혼합이 일정한 복잡도를 넘어서면 그것들이 스스로 살아 있는 생명으로 조직한다. 그렇다면 생명은 필연적인 현상이다.
Dianelos Georgoudis
The basic idea of Kauffman's book is that the complexity we see in nature (including life or technology) is contingent to math, i.e. can be explained and predicted by mathematical reasoning. The same is true of statistical thermodynamics and evolution. He states that Darwin's evolutionary theory explains only how complex life emerged from simple life, but it does not explain how simple life emerged from matter. There is probably a larger jump in complexity from matter to the first simple cell, than from that simple cell to a modern human being. Darwin does not explain that first jump. Kauffman doesn't either even though he is convincing in showing that life must have started through autocatalytic sets of molecules. He points out that these sets are self-organizing, stable and can vary as a reflex to external stimuli. What he mentions, but does not explain, is that autocatalytic sets can (or must) self-reproduce, a necessary step before evolution sets in. On page 66 of the paperback edition he states that "such breaking in two happens spontaneously as such [auto-catalytic] sets increase in volume", but, maddeningly, he does not explain how or why. One has to wonder: if life is such a necessary result of matter (therefore the title "at home in the universe") why then has it proven so difficult to synthesize anything approaching life in the laboratory? He doesn't say.
The book is full of incredibly interesting ideas. He explains ontogeny (the transformation of a fertilized egg to a highly complex and differentiated organism) using a simple model of on/off enzymes which allows him to build a Boolean network in which different cell types correspond to different "attractors", which are intrinsic in such a network. He shows that the same relationship that holds between number of attractors and size of a network, also holds between number of cell types and size of DNA of a wide range of organisms. Very impressive. He goes on to discuss things like fitness landscapes and genetic algorithms, the edge between boring order and supracritical instability where the really interesting stuff happens, the co-evolution of coupled systems, the structure of efficient companies or countries, and more.
The only criticism I have is about his poetical language that does indeed resemble fluff; anyone who even partly understands his ideas would be excited enough without all that sauce. Also I missed a deeper development, the book does point into one interesting direction and then jumps into another matter, leaving one hungering for more. But maybe this is the author's intent.
This is an excellent book even though it resembles more a symphony of ideas than a theorem. Very highly recommended: a mind opener.
The book is full of incredibly interesting ideas. He explains ontogeny (the transformation of a fertilized egg to a highly complex and differentiated organism) using a simple model of on/off enzymes which allows him to build a Boolean network in which different cell types correspond to different "attractors", which are intrinsic in such a network. He shows that the same relationship that holds between number of attractors and size of a network, also holds between number of cell types and size of DNA of a wide range of organisms. Very impressive. He goes on to discuss things like fitness landscapes and genetic algorithms, the edge between boring order and supracritical instability where the really interesting stuff happens, the co-evolution of coupled systems, the structure of efficient companies or countries, and more.
The only criticism I have is about his poetical language that does indeed resemble fluff; anyone who even partly understands his ideas would be excited enough without all that sauce. Also I missed a deeper development, the book does point into one interesting direction and then jumps into another matter, leaving one hungering for more. But maybe this is the author's intent.
This is an excellent book even though it resembles more a symphony of ideas than a theorem. Very highly recommended: a mind opener.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facing complexity means befriending uncertainty and ambiguity
One of the defining properties of complex dynamic systems is that they are fundamentally unpredictable and uncontrollable (beyond controlled laboratory conditions). Uncertainty and ambiguity are therefore fundamental characteristics of our lives and the natural world, including human culture, society and our economic systems.
More than 2,500 years ago, Pericles reminded his fellow Athenians: “We may not be able to predict the future, but we can prepare for it”. In our learning journey of human survival and our quest for a thriving regenerative culture, all answers and solutions will at best be partial and temporary. Yet by asking the appropriate guiding questions repeatedly and entering into conversations about our collective future in all the communities we participate in, we may be able to find a set of patterns and guidelines that will help us to create a culture capable of learning and transformative innovation. Living the questions together is an effective way of preparing for an unpredictable future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
六块六毛六那点事
<六块六毛六那点事(6위엔 6마오 6으로 인해 생긴 일)>은 제목 그대로 6위엔 6마오 6지아오로 인해 생긴 일이다.
원래 제목은 遥远的幸福이고 南京瑞星影视文化传播有限公司에서 만들었다. 周小兵이 극본과 감독을 맡았고, 黄曼、李乃文、张少华, 房子斌 등이 주연이다.
마샤오친马小勤은 음식점 종업원인데, 어머니는 옛날 황실 출신의 거거(格格)이고, 오빠는 절름발이이다. 처우즈臭子는 그녀의 남자친구이자, 그 자신이 경찰이다. 배경은 문화혁명이 폭발하기 바로 전이다.
그런데 여기에 러시아에서 농업을 연구하고 온 유학파이자, 고위간부의 아들 우위에武越가 나타난다. 그는 마샤오친의 바로 옆집에서 사는데, 계모와 갈등을 빚고 있는 상황이다. 그런데 우위에가 마샤오친을 보고 한 눈에 반해서 그녀에게 구애를 시작하는데, 마샤오친이 일하는식당에 가서 마침 6위엔 6마오 6원 짜리 음식을 주문해 먹었는데, 마샤오친이 그 돈을 받아놓고 깜빡해서 계산대에 내지 않고 자신이 보관하다 도둑의 혐의를 받게 된다. 그리고 한걸음 더 나아가 식당 지배인의 성적 추행을 받고, 마침내는 싱카이후兴凯湖(러시아와 국경에 있는 거대한 호수) 로 쫓겨나게 된다.
그런데 마침 우위에 역시 그곳의 농업연구소로 가게 되어 인연이 계속된다. 그리고 거기에서 그치는 게 아니라, 마샤오친 일행의 호송관으로 남자친구인 처우즈가 싱카이후까지 동행하고, 거기에서 또 일단의 사람들을 만난다.
그곳에는 마샤오친의 사오즈(오빠의 아내)이자 유명 경극 가수 메이얜치우梅艳秋 그리고 우위에의 아버지 휘하에 있던 음모꾼 천완량, 우위에 아버지의 부하 싱창만邢场长 등이 있어서, 새로운 이야기들을 만들어낸다.
이 드라마는 크게 보면 마샤오친과 우위에의 사랑이 결실을 맺는 과정을 그린 것인데, 드라마 후반으로 가면, 우위에가 종자를 개발해서 싱카이후 근처의 황무지를 개간해 옥토로 만든다는 또 하나의 이야기가 있다. 하지만 이런 이야기는 두 사람의 연애담에 가려져 배경으로 물러서 있는 편이다.
이 드라마의 원작은 杨宝琛이 쓴 《北京往北是北大荒》인데, 이 연극의 각본은 《将军的战场》、《大青山》、《天鹅湖畔》 3부로 이루어졌다고 한다. 원작과 연극이 얼마나 차이나는지는 잘 모르겠는데, 아마도 연극에서는 황무지 개간이야기가 전면으로 등장하는 듯 싶다.
드라마 속의 처우즈와 마샤오친 그리고 우위에.
마샤오친의 연인이 드라마 속의 우위에라고 하는데, 아마도 이 드라마를 찍다가 눈이 맞은 듯하다. 우위에를 연기한 저 배우는 한국의 이병헌을 반쯤 닮은 듯하다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기