迈克尔·斯旺(Michael Swan)的文章,写得雄辩阔论,激人一读,是篇绝妙地挑起论争之作。对此,应多多致谢。然而,应该注意到别把它当作一种认真分析、平心静气的批评文章去读。确切点说,该文写得义愤填膺,是一份控告书,仿佛斯旺觉得他所反对的观念是对他个人的当众侮辱。他那不时挖苦理论家并迎合反理性偏见的心愿,把学术讨论沧为一幕笑剧。文章标题纵有“批判”二字,然而文章本身只是吹毛求疵意义上的“批判”。所以,是毫无价值的东西。不过,文章表明对本人观点的误会和误解方面,因此有理由予以回答。 Michael Swan’s essay, eloquent and thought-provoking, is a wonderful provocation of controversy. A lot of thanks for that. However, it should be noted that it should not be read as a critically analyzed, calmly criticizing article. To put it more precisely, the article is outrageous and is an indictment, as if Swann felt his objection was a personal and public affront to him. His painstaking attempts to scribe theorists from time to time and cater to the anti-rational bias prejudiced the scholarly discussion of mime scenes. The title of the article has the word “critical”. However, the article itself is only “criticism” in the sense of nitpicking. So, it is worthless thing. However, the article shows some misunderstandings and misunderstandings about my point of view, so I have some reason to answer it.