论文部分内容阅读
原 文
[1] 现代意义上的“系统”一词 ，转译自日文，从西方而来，如希腊文的systema，英文的system，其功能大于各个部分相加之和。
[2] 世界上的事物不是随意堆加在一起的，而是有着内在规律，即形成了系统。一切事物都是复杂的系统集合，有宏观亦有微观，包括天体、地理、社会、人体、思维等等。
[3] 然而，人类取得这样的认识却经历了几千年。特别是四百多年前牛顿发现了万有引力，一百多年前爱因斯坦创立了相对论，使我们的这种认识有了科学的依据——事物各系统之间、各层次内部，发生着永无休止的相互影响；只有从系统的角度，才能真正认识、把握事物的实质。
[4] 人们对于世界的认识之所以要分门别类，是出于理解的便利，而非事物本身的面目。在古希腊，最初并没有“分科”的学问，而只有唯一的“学问”——哲学，因为那里概括了人类对世界的所有认识。在中国，对学问的分类，也是到了汉代司马谈的《论六家要旨》才出现的。所以，“学问”是人为做出来的；而人的认识系统与客观世界的系统之间永远有着差距。在这个意义上讲，学问应当永远让位于真相。
[5] 人无论多么复杂，都是一个有限系统，而认识的对象——世界，却是一个无限系统，这就要求人在信息处理方面具有以简驭繁、以有限形式去容纳无限内容的能力。在生理结构和功能上，人的感觉器官并不比其他高等生物更敏锐，但却可以在本质上认识无限的物质世界，这主要得益于人的抽象思维能力和与之配套的语言系统。
[6] 人的所谓“预知”或“触类旁通”，其实都是系统功能的作用。俄国化学家门捷列夫在发明了化学元素周期表后，从该表中的几个空洞预测了新元素的存在。果然，15年后，其他科学家发现了与预测相符的三种元素。理论物理学家狄拉克研究电子的性质，认为“真空”正如充满电子的海洋，那里其实没有正电子的“泡泡”，却预测了正子的存在。在物理学上，许多基本粒子的发现，都是先用对称理论预测，然后通过复杂试验找寻出来的，从而弥补了主观与客观间的差距。
[7] 系统的核心是结构；不同的结构决定了不同的性质与功能。金刚石和石墨都是由碳元素组成的单质，但由于其碳原子排列顺序的不同，形成了世界上最硬和最软的物质。人的认识体系、知识结构也是如此。同样的信息量在不同人身上会产生不同的效果。所以，学习“系统”，搭建“结构”，有时比学习“零件”更重要。
译 文
[1] The Chinese character xitong in the modern sense is a transplanted term from the West， such as “systema” in Greek and “system” in English， retranslated from Japanese. The functional effectiveness of a system is supposed to be greater than the aggregation of its individual parts.
[2] Matters on earth are arranged not by random collection but by inner laws， namely a systematic mechanism. Everything exists in a complex system consisting of macro-cosmos and micro-cosmos， including cosmology， geography， society， human beings， thinking mode and so on.
[3] However， it took several thousand years for human beings to reach this realization. In particular， Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation （400 or so years ago） and Einstein’s Relativity （about 100 years ago） laid a scientific foundation for us to grasp the essence of ever lasting interactions among different systems at various levels. In short， the best realization about our world comes from a systematic approach.
[4] Categorization of the world into academic disciplines has blurred its originality， for no purpose other than easy understanding. In Ancient Greece， there was no such thing as different branches of learning except “philosophy”， which was believed to embrace all human knowledge of the world. Similarly， in China the disciplines did not occur until “On the Theme of the Six Scholarships” was written by Sima Tan （？—B.C.110） in the Han Dynasty. Knowledge of any kind is， after all， designed and produced by man， who may fail to reveal the totality of the world. In this way， scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth. [5] No matter how complicated a human is as a system， it is a limited one compared with the unlimited world that he tries to understand. In handling the overwhelming information that human beings are confronted with， highly efficient approaches have thus been developed. In terms of biological structure and functions， the sensory organs of human beings are in fact no more developed than other highly evolved creatures， and yet humans can catch more of the essence of the world， mainly due to their abstract thinking capacity and their language systems.
[6] What is so-called “prediction” or “knowing the rest by analogy” is essentially generated by systematic analysis. Taking chemistry as an example， some gaps in the Periodic Table discovered by the Russian chemist Mendeleyev predicted several new chemical elements； three of which were found by other chemists 15 years later. Similarly， the theoretical physicist Diac revealed that there were no positron “bubbles” in a vacuum during his research into the nature of electrons， and then predicted that something called a positron might exist. In physics， many basic particles are found by way of repeated experiments based on a symmetrical theory， thus bridging the gap between the subjective and objective worlds.
[7] The core of a system is the structure which determines its nature and functions. Diamond and graphite， for example， are both solely made of carbons. However， their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms result in the hardest and softest substances in the world. The same principle applies to our perceptual and knowledge systems， where the same amount of information may cause different effects. In this way， one could say that learning “parts” sometimes may not be as effective as mastering a “system” or a “structure”.
译 注
在[3]中，“只有从系统的角度，才能真正认识、把握事物的实质”，一般而言，很容易译成：Only from a systematic point of view， can the true nature of a matter be realized. 然而所谓“从系统的角度”指的其实是一种认识事物的方式、方法，故不妨为systematic approach；而“真正认识、把握事物的实质”体现了中文长于复述、强调的特性，在英文里则不妨简化为 best realization。故此，该句不妨译为：The best realization... comes from a systematic approach. 其中 come from为源自何处，如We believe that good results come from effort and not just from what someone gave us.（我们相信好的结果来自努力，而不是别人的赐予）。
在[4]中，“而非事物本身的面目”，这里没有以否定的方式译成 is not the true appearance of the matter，而是以肯定的方式处理为 …has blurred its originality。这里的blur 意为 to smear or stain something but not to efface。同时，“对学问的分类，也是到了汉代司马谈的《论六家要旨》才出现的”，在译文中不但加入了Similarly以便接续，同时在“司马谈”后增添了生卒年代“（？–B.C.110）”，以使西方读者对此有一时代的概念。“人的认识系统与客观世界的系统之间永远有着差距”，若将其径直翻译为 There is always a gap between human conceptional system and the world system，固然是“形近”了，但并未揭示出该句的主旨——人们的主观认识与客观世界无限性之间的矛盾，故其后半句不妨译为 …who may fail to reveal the totality of the world。在文字形式上看似差距大了，但实际离原意却更近了。 在同一段中，“学问应当永远让位于真相”，似可译成knowledge should always give away to the truth，或 knowledge should always be led by the truth。然而分析起来，这里的“学问”不是一般意义上的knowledge，而是人们为了研究学问而对其所作的分门别类的学科，故可为branch of learning， discipline， school subject， course of study，但更准确的为scholarship；而“让位”，不是一般意义上的give away——该词更多的是“失去”之意——故不妨译为scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth。其中，两个词值得一述——vulnerable和revealed。这里的vulnerable可引申之open to attack or damage。进而言之，其含义为susceptible to criticism or persuasion or temptation，例如an argument vulnerable to refutation （一个可被轻易驳倒的立论）。相应地，其中的“（学问应当永远让位于）真相”，不是一般意义上的reality、fact或truth， 而是相对“学问”而言的“已知事实”。故此，不妨译为newly revealed truth。
在[6]中，“其实都是系统功能的作用”，其中的“功能”很容易译成 function，然而该词是从客观的“系统作用”而言的，而原文实际指人通过该系统所做出的分析与结果，是从主观角度着眼的，故应用systematic analysis，整句为is essentially generated by systematic analysis。同时，“从而弥补了主观与客观间的差距”，其中的“弥补”并非通常意义上的 make up， remedy， make good， make up for weaknesses， fill in the shortage等等，而实则是 bridge the gap；而且“主观”、“客观”指的是主客观世界。
此外，为了行文的连贯，在同段中，“俄国化学家门捷列夫在发明了化学元素周期表后”，该句在中文里的衔接不显唐突，甚是紧凑，而在英译文中，则要在此之前插入Taking chemistry as an example，以示过渡。
在[7]中，“碳原子排列顺序的不同”，不可依字面译为the difference of arranging order of carbonaceous atoms，而化学教科书上的表述为their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms。同时，“学习‘系统’，搭建‘结构’，有时比学习‘零件’更重要”，在中文词汇里搭配得当、错落有致，然而若照样译成英文，如study the system， establish the construction…则重复、冗赘；同时，“更重要”也不必译为more important，可对此加以整合与简化。
[1] 现代意义上的“系统”一词 ，转译自日文，从西方而来，如希腊文的systema，英文的system，其功能大于各个部分相加之和。
[2] 世界上的事物不是随意堆加在一起的，而是有着内在规律，即形成了系统。一切事物都是复杂的系统集合，有宏观亦有微观，包括天体、地理、社会、人体、思维等等。
[3] 然而，人类取得这样的认识却经历了几千年。特别是四百多年前牛顿发现了万有引力，一百多年前爱因斯坦创立了相对论，使我们的这种认识有了科学的依据——事物各系统之间、各层次内部，发生着永无休止的相互影响；只有从系统的角度，才能真正认识、把握事物的实质。
[4] 人们对于世界的认识之所以要分门别类，是出于理解的便利，而非事物本身的面目。在古希腊，最初并没有“分科”的学问，而只有唯一的“学问”——哲学，因为那里概括了人类对世界的所有认识。在中国，对学问的分类，也是到了汉代司马谈的《论六家要旨》才出现的。所以，“学问”是人为做出来的；而人的认识系统与客观世界的系统之间永远有着差距。在这个意义上讲，学问应当永远让位于真相。
[5] 人无论多么复杂，都是一个有限系统，而认识的对象——世界，却是一个无限系统，这就要求人在信息处理方面具有以简驭繁、以有限形式去容纳无限内容的能力。在生理结构和功能上，人的感觉器官并不比其他高等生物更敏锐，但却可以在本质上认识无限的物质世界，这主要得益于人的抽象思维能力和与之配套的语言系统。
[6] 人的所谓“预知”或“触类旁通”，其实都是系统功能的作用。俄国化学家门捷列夫在发明了化学元素周期表后，从该表中的几个空洞预测了新元素的存在。果然，15年后，其他科学家发现了与预测相符的三种元素。理论物理学家狄拉克研究电子的性质，认为“真空”正如充满电子的海洋，那里其实没有正电子的“泡泡”，却预测了正子的存在。在物理学上，许多基本粒子的发现，都是先用对称理论预测，然后通过复杂试验找寻出来的，从而弥补了主观与客观间的差距。
[7] 系统的核心是结构；不同的结构决定了不同的性质与功能。金刚石和石墨都是由碳元素组成的单质，但由于其碳原子排列顺序的不同，形成了世界上最硬和最软的物质。人的认识体系、知识结构也是如此。同样的信息量在不同人身上会产生不同的效果。所以，学习“系统”，搭建“结构”，有时比学习“零件”更重要。
译 文
[1] The Chinese character xitong in the modern sense is a transplanted term from the West， such as “systema” in Greek and “system” in English， retranslated from Japanese. The functional effectiveness of a system is supposed to be greater than the aggregation of its individual parts.
[2] Matters on earth are arranged not by random collection but by inner laws， namely a systematic mechanism. Everything exists in a complex system consisting of macro-cosmos and micro-cosmos， including cosmology， geography， society， human beings， thinking mode and so on.
[3] However， it took several thousand years for human beings to reach this realization. In particular， Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation （400 or so years ago） and Einstein’s Relativity （about 100 years ago） laid a scientific foundation for us to grasp the essence of ever lasting interactions among different systems at various levels. In short， the best realization about our world comes from a systematic approach.
[4] Categorization of the world into academic disciplines has blurred its originality， for no purpose other than easy understanding. In Ancient Greece， there was no such thing as different branches of learning except “philosophy”， which was believed to embrace all human knowledge of the world. Similarly， in China the disciplines did not occur until “On the Theme of the Six Scholarships” was written by Sima Tan （？—B.C.110） in the Han Dynasty. Knowledge of any kind is， after all， designed and produced by man， who may fail to reveal the totality of the world. In this way， scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth. [5] No matter how complicated a human is as a system， it is a limited one compared with the unlimited world that he tries to understand. In handling the overwhelming information that human beings are confronted with， highly efficient approaches have thus been developed. In terms of biological structure and functions， the sensory organs of human beings are in fact no more developed than other highly evolved creatures， and yet humans can catch more of the essence of the world， mainly due to their abstract thinking capacity and their language systems.
[6] What is so-called “prediction” or “knowing the rest by analogy” is essentially generated by systematic analysis. Taking chemistry as an example， some gaps in the Periodic Table discovered by the Russian chemist Mendeleyev predicted several new chemical elements； three of which were found by other chemists 15 years later. Similarly， the theoretical physicist Diac revealed that there were no positron “bubbles” in a vacuum during his research into the nature of electrons， and then predicted that something called a positron might exist. In physics， many basic particles are found by way of repeated experiments based on a symmetrical theory， thus bridging the gap between the subjective and objective worlds.
[7] The core of a system is the structure which determines its nature and functions. Diamond and graphite， for example， are both solely made of carbons. However， their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms result in the hardest and softest substances in the world. The same principle applies to our perceptual and knowledge systems， where the same amount of information may cause different effects. In this way， one could say that learning “parts” sometimes may not be as effective as mastering a “system” or a “structure”.
译 注
在[3]中，“只有从系统的角度，才能真正认识、把握事物的实质”，一般而言，很容易译成：Only from a systematic point of view， can the true nature of a matter be realized. 然而所谓“从系统的角度”指的其实是一种认识事物的方式、方法，故不妨为systematic approach；而“真正认识、把握事物的实质”体现了中文长于复述、强调的特性，在英文里则不妨简化为 best realization。故此，该句不妨译为：The best realization... comes from a systematic approach. 其中 come from为源自何处，如We believe that good results come from effort and not just from what someone gave us.（我们相信好的结果来自努力，而不是别人的赐予）。
在[4]中，“而非事物本身的面目”，这里没有以否定的方式译成 is not the true appearance of the matter，而是以肯定的方式处理为 …has blurred its originality。这里的blur 意为 to smear or stain something but not to efface。同时，“对学问的分类，也是到了汉代司马谈的《论六家要旨》才出现的”，在译文中不但加入了Similarly以便接续，同时在“司马谈”后增添了生卒年代“（？–B.C.110）”，以使西方读者对此有一时代的概念。“人的认识系统与客观世界的系统之间永远有着差距”，若将其径直翻译为 There is always a gap between human conceptional system and the world system，固然是“形近”了，但并未揭示出该句的主旨——人们的主观认识与客观世界无限性之间的矛盾，故其后半句不妨译为 …who may fail to reveal the totality of the world。在文字形式上看似差距大了，但实际离原意却更近了。 在同一段中，“学问应当永远让位于真相”，似可译成knowledge should always give away to the truth，或 knowledge should always be led by the truth。然而分析起来，这里的“学问”不是一般意义上的knowledge，而是人们为了研究学问而对其所作的分门别类的学科，故可为branch of learning， discipline， school subject， course of study，但更准确的为scholarship；而“让位”，不是一般意义上的give away——该词更多的是“失去”之意——故不妨译为scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth。其中，两个词值得一述——vulnerable和revealed。这里的vulnerable可引申之open to attack or damage。进而言之，其含义为susceptible to criticism or persuasion or temptation，例如an argument vulnerable to refutation （一个可被轻易驳倒的立论）。相应地，其中的“（学问应当永远让位于）真相”，不是一般意义上的reality、fact或truth， 而是相对“学问”而言的“已知事实”。故此，不妨译为newly revealed truth。
在[6]中，“其实都是系统功能的作用”，其中的“功能”很容易译成 function，然而该词是从客观的“系统作用”而言的，而原文实际指人通过该系统所做出的分析与结果，是从主观角度着眼的，故应用systematic analysis，整句为is essentially generated by systematic analysis。同时，“从而弥补了主观与客观间的差距”，其中的“弥补”并非通常意义上的 make up， remedy， make good， make up for weaknesses， fill in the shortage等等，而实则是 bridge the gap；而且“主观”、“客观”指的是主客观世界。
此外，为了行文的连贯，在同段中，“俄国化学家门捷列夫在发明了化学元素周期表后”，该句在中文里的衔接不显唐突，甚是紧凑，而在英译文中，则要在此之前插入Taking chemistry as an example，以示过渡。
在[7]中，“碳原子排列顺序的不同”，不可依字面译为the difference of arranging order of carbonaceous atoms，而化学教科书上的表述为their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms。同时，“学习‘系统’，搭建‘结构’，有时比学习‘零件’更重要”，在中文词汇里搭配得当、错落有致，然而若照样译成英文，如study the system， establish the construction…则重复、冗赘；同时，“更重要”也不必译为more important，可对此加以整合与简化。