论文部分内容阅读
Internet的出现及其迅速扩大持续地改变着人们的行为和思想方式。它是任何传统工具所不能描述的一个新对象,正因为如此,从虚拟文本作者(如电影、小说),到严肃的科学家(从计算机、逻辑学到建筑学),再到不同立场的哲学家,各色人等都加入到与此有关的讨论中来。如果按照当代社会学的意见,把自我反思性视为高级或晚期现代性的基本品质,那么在全部讨论中,有一个问题必须提出:在网络背景中,思想或思想生产本身究竟发生何种变迁,我们是否能够按照传统思想方式来对待网络?本期编发的这组稿件便直接面对了这一类问题。张亮的《网络·历史·思想》从历史/非历史的界限勾勒了思想生产的本质,并在此基础上把“信念和抉择”这个古老问题拉回到当代语境之中;胡大平的《网络·界面·思想》以七个网络关键词描述了思想生产方式的本体论张力在网络中的诸种表现,从而把历史地面对由网络所征兆的当代社会张力作为当代思想生产的核心问题;赵涛的《超文本·全球脑·内爆》则对网络时代思想生产所面临的困局进行了一次完整的社会学考察。从整个讨论看,虽然三位作者都没有给出终极性的技术或政策结论,但有趣的是,从不同的侧面共同地把主体置于某种显著的位置上。或许,这见证了要想回答网络给思想生产提出的问题实质上是非常困难的。编辑部支持讨论但不期望得到最终的结论,我们相信,问题本身及其答案只能在讨论过程中深化或得以理解。
The advent of the Internet and its rapid expansion continue to change the way people behave and think. It is a new object that any traditional tool can not describe, and as a result, from virtual text authors (such as cinema and fiction) to serious scientists (from computer and logic to architecture) to philosophers , All kinds of people are added to the discussion related to this. If we regard self-reflection as the basic quality of advanced or late modernity in accordance with the views of contemporary sociology, then in all the discussions one question must be raised: what kind of changes have actually taken place in the production of thought or thought in a cyber-context? Will we be able to treat the network according to the traditional way of thinking? The issues compiled in this issue have directly faced this type of issue. Zhang Liang’s “Network · History · Thoughts” outline the essence of ideological production from the historical / non-historical boundaries and on this basis, pull back the ancient question of “faith and choice” into contemporary contexts; The Network Interface Thought describes the ontology tensions of the mode of thought production in the network with seven network keywords and thus takes the historical ground facing the contemporary social tension manifested by the network as the core of contemporary thought production Issue; Zhao Tao’s “hypertext global brain implosion” carried out a complete sociological examination of the predicament faced by ideological production in the Internet age. Throughout the discussion, although none of the three authors gave the ultimate technical or policy conclusion, it is interesting to place the subject in a prominent position from different perspectives. Perhaps this testified that it was essentially very difficult to answer the question posed by the Internet to the production of ideas. The editorial board supports the discussion but does not expect the final conclusion. We believe the issue itself and its answer can only be deepened or understood during the discussion.