文/许晟  编/李金思

Text：Xu Sheng ；Editor：Li Jinsi

Anatomists have always been attempting to prove that “memory” is lodged within a specific brain area, like the way hard-dish stores memory. If you are persuaded by this theory already, this passage won’t appear to be any attractive to you. If the respectful anatomy theory could explain everything about human brains and that memories could be stored just by freezing brains, humans would turn out to be merely robots. There would be no need to study “philosophy” at all; to put it in other word, the existence of “philosophy” would be a pseudoscience.

如果你还在继续看，就会发现，“记忆”已经牵扯到另一个更加艰深的问题：人究竟是如何认知这个世界的？只有弄清了这一点，我们才能够为“记忆”找到特别之处，也才能够适当地描述它。

If you are still following my words, however, you’ll find that the “memory” discussed here actually involves a much more profound matter: how do humans perceive this world? Only by figuring this out could we truly recognize the uniqueness of “memory”, thereby describing it properly. 

不幸的是，虽然人类中最具智慧的成员，已经思考了这么久，但直到今天，人仍然不知道，自己是如何认识这个世界的。好消息是，人已经认识到，首先应该弄清楚的，便是“自己是如何认识这个世界的”。然后，才有可能弄清楚，“这个世界是什么样的”。

Unfortunately, the mystery of “memory” remains unsettled after such a long period of contemplation of humans, the most intelligent creatures. Fortunately, we have realized that figuring out “how humans perceive the world” should be a priority before we find the key to “what the world looks like”.

“记忆”便可以被看作是连接这两问题的中间点：当人们试图为“记忆”下定义的时候，会立刻发现，自己为万事万物所下的定义，所有关于“这个世界是什么样”的讨论，都变得可疑了。

Hence, “memory” is a “go-between” of these two questions. But as we define what memory is, we can immediately notice that the attempt of giving definitions to different things and even the discussions concerning “what the world looks like” seem to be suspicious. 

这一讨论的转变，就是由“后现代思潮”所产生的。而在讨论“后现代思潮”之前，又不得不先讨论“后现代”。是的，当一个常识需要被讨论的时候，如果这个讨论要变得有趣一点点，那么，就没有捷径可走了。

The shift of this discussion is exactly driven by “the wave of post-modernism”. Before introducing this concept, it’s indispensible to understand “postmodernism”. Indeed, there is no shortcut if we want to initiate an interesting discussion over a common sense. 

“后现代（postmodern）”是一个综合了时间、空间、思想、现象及其相对性的形容。它首先反应在对理论和意识形态的不信任，以及对惯例的反思。这就意味着，后现代本身不是一个固定的形容或意识形态。

“Postmodernism” is a term encompassing time, space, thoughts, phenomenon and their relativities. It indicates the mistrust to theories and ideologies, as well as the reflections to conventions. In another word, postmodern itself is neither a stationary state nor a certain ideology.

“后现代”作为对现象的概括，并没有核心或者原则，而是一种相对于过去现象的变化，以及变化的路径或方式。“后现代”设立了一个基准，帮助人们去尝试描述某种状况，或者存在的状态，或者有关基准本身的变化。因此，韦氏词典(Merriam-Webster)将“后现代”定义为：1，属于，或关于现代；2，或者位于现代之后；3，属于，或关于对现代主义的反应；典型表现为对传统材料或形式的回归（建筑的引用；文学的自省或荒诞等等）；4，属于，或关于对现代主义的文化，身份，历史，或语言的极端重新评价。此定义的第一条尤其重要，所谓“属于，或关于现代”意味着，当“现代”作为一个整体，成为讨论的对象时，那么此讨论就只能发生在“后现代”的情境中，或者说，此讨论就必然意味着“后现代”情境的出现。

As an encapsulation of phenomenon, “postmodernism” doesn’t have any core or principle; instead, it represents the changes of old phenomena and the changing routes. “Postmodern” sets a tune, helping people to depict certain situations or states of existence, or even the changes of relevant standards. As such, Merriam-Webster gives the definitions of “post-modern”: (1) of, relating to modern; (2) being an era after a modern one; (3) of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature); (4) of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language. The first definition, above all, is particularly crucial. “Of, relating to modern” means that when “modern” is taken as an integral whole and a subject of discussion, then such discussion only happens in “postmodern” scenario; in another word, it inevitably leads to the emergence of “postmodern”.

到今天，随着信息的扁平化，“后现代主义”一词的含义又发生了变化，成为一个更为宽泛的术语。就像某位笔者记不住名字的学者所说：人们已经可以用“后现代主义”去形容房间的装修、建筑的设计、电影的拍摄、“草稿”式的影像、电视广告、纪录片、或者它们之间的“互文本”关系、时尚杂志或者报纸的排版、一种反目的性的认识论、对“存在的形而上层面”的攻击、感知的弱化、进入中年后的普遍悲伤和忧虑、自省的困难、修辞的转义、无尽的表面现象、新的物质崇拜、对图像的着迷、模式与风格、文化、政治、直至存在层面的破碎和危机、主体的去中心化、对本源的怀疑、从一元到多元的力量或言说、意义的坍塌、文化阶层的陷落、世界末日带来的恐惧、大学教育的堕落、微型化科技带来的变化、社会与经济的媒体化，消费化和跨国化、“本地感”的消失；或者对“无本地感”的放弃、或者对暂时及虚拟空间的普遍接受……

Up to day, in the information era, “postmodern” has changed to a more general term, as has pointed out by a scholar, “now people can refer ‘postmodern’ to a number of things, the house interior decoration, architect design, film, ‘draft’ video, TV commercials, documentary, or the ‘inter-text’ relations between them, the editing of fashion magazine or newspaper, the epistemology against skopos rule, an attack to ‘metaphysics’, the weakening of perception, the widespread sorrow and melancholy, the difficulties of self-introspection, the incarnation of rhetoric, endless superficial phenomenon, worship of newly emerged things, obsessions with images, patterns and styles, the collapse or risks in culture, politics, or even consciousness, the decentralization of the main entity, the suspicion to the origin, the powers of shifting from one dimension to multi-dimensions, the bankrupt of meanings, collapse of literate class, the looming fears of the doomsday, the corruption of higher education, the changes brought by micro-technologies, the omnipotence of media in dealing with social and economic issues, the mass consumption and internationalization, the vanish of the sense of “being local”, the helplessness of ‘being alien’, and the general acceptance of transient or virtual space…..”

虽然“后现代思潮”主要开始于1960年代，但它的哲学脉络却可以追述至更早的时间。索伦·克尔凯格尔（Soren Kierkegaard）和尼采（Friedrich Nietzsche）的写作开始于19世纪，他们被认为是存在主义哲学的先驱，也因此被视作后现代哲学的先驱——虽然后现代的哲学家们在后来呈现了普遍的反存在主义倾向。克尔凯格尔最早提出了人的存在先于人的本质的思想，在此立场上，人必须靠自己的行动，感觉，和一切切实的经验，赋予自己确切的真实性；并通过建立在自由之上的选择，来确立自己的本质和身份。由此，人可以坚持任何无法被证明的信念。他也最早提出了世界的荒诞性，因为每个个体在获得经验之前，世界都是无意义的。这里的“经验”，又和“记忆”有什么不同呢？

The origin of philosophy can be dated back to even earlier than the emergence of “the wave of post-modern”, which mainly started in the 1960s. Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche embarked upon writing in the 19th century. They were regarded as the pioneers of the existentialism, and also recognized as initiators of the post-modernism—despite the anti-existentialism preferences of modern philosophers. Kierkegaard first proposed the principle that humans exist prior to their nature, based on which, he argued that humans have to rely on their behavior, feelings, and real experiences to endow their body genuine authenticity, and thus confirm their nature and identity on basis of free choices. Humans can also insist on any unproven beliefs. He was also the first to point out the absurdity of the world, as the world was meaningless before each human entity gains experiences. In his theory, isn’t the term “experience” the same with what we refer to as “memory”? 

后现代思潮最为重要的影响来自20世纪早期的现象学家胡塞尔（Edmund Husserl）和马丁·海德格尔（Martin Heidegger）。海德格尔受到亚洲哲学的影响，并首先于1927年前后，推翻了西方哲学关于“主观”和“客观”的基本观念，将自己的哲学置于与柏拉图相同的起点上，也因此被认为是后现代哲学的奠基人。他打破了欧洲哲学传统对“本体”的一贯认识，将基于广义的，可感知的“现象”的经验，看作一切知识的基础。由此，他将“存在”重新放置在时间和感知中，将人放置于存在的核心——又并非决定性的——位置。也许是无意的，但他却打破了之前存在主义的形而上方式的论述，将其推进到新的层面：人的经验不再是一个固定的整体，而是一种过程，而对这一过程的分析，正是重新认识“存在”本身的关键。他自然也推翻了笛卡尔（Rene Descartes）的理性主义学说，指出真实来自被发现的过程，因此“思考”或“理性”也只是发现的方式之一。同时，海德格尔将语言称为“存在之屋（house of being）”的学说，十分深刻地影响了后现代哲学的发展。海德格尔所说的这一“过程”，又如何与“记忆”区分开来呢？

The most influential impacts in the wave of postmodern came from two phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger in the early 20th century. Heidegger, influenced by Asian philosophy, overthrew the basic western philosophical concepts regarding “subject” and “object”, placing his own theory on the same level with that of Plato, and thus was recognized as a founder of post-modern philosophy. Shattering traditional concepts toward “ontology”, he perceived general, sensatory, “phenomenon-based” experience as the basis of all knowledge, and he therefore placed “existence” in time and sense, and put human in the essential, if not decisive, position of the existence. Unintentional as it might be, he disrupted the original metaphysical analysis of existentialism and propelled it to a new phase: human experience is no longer a static concept, but rather a process, the analysis of which represents the key to rediscovering the “existence” of perception. He also toppled the rationalism theory of Rene Descartes, pointing out that truth is unveiled in the process of discovery, and thereby “thought” or “sense” is merely one of the ways to discover. Meanwhile, Heidegger’s theory, which sees language as “house of being”, influenced deeply the development of post-modern philosophy. In this theory, isn’t the “process” he referred to the same with “memory”?

维特根斯坦属于分析哲学的传统，他在自己于二十世纪初期完成的学说中认为，只要找到一种可以描述“命题”与“世界”关系的逻辑，或者说，一种语言方式，就可以解决一切哲学问题。在二战前后，他的思想发生了巨大转变，而这些直到他去世后两年，才在1953年出版的“哲学研究（Philosophical Investigations）”中得以完整呈现。他将语言作为一种游戏，而语言自身在游戏的模式中发展并起作用。他认为哲学的问题在于，哲学家试图让词汇独立于它们的背景，存在于形而上的陌生环境中，而这会使语言失去作用。他认为语言必须回到各自的环境中，与环境经验共同发生作用，而这样会使哲学问题得以“消解”，而非被“解决”，因为最终的目标是一切哲学问题的消失。这相当于否定了自己早期的努力，甚至也否定了哲学研究本身。是的，这是一种回答“什么是记忆”的方式。但是，汉斯·J·格罗克（Hans-Johann Glock）却认为，这违背了维特根斯坦自己所强调的，一种“难以言喻的洞察”。

Wittgenstein, as a traditional analytical philosopher, completed his theory in the 20th century, in which he argued that so long as the logic, or rather a language, of describing the relationship between “proposition” and “world” is identified, all philosophical problems can therefore be solved. Around the Second World War, his thoughts experienced huge changes, and all these new thoughts hadn’t been known thoroughly until the publication of his Philosophical Investigations in 1953, two years after his death. Language is a game, he argued, and it develops and plays a role in the game. He believed that the problem of philosophy lies on that fact that philosophers attempt to isolate words from their original background and place them in a metaphysically alienated context, rendering them meaningless as such. He held that only through language retreating to its own context to interact with contextual experience could philosophical problems be “dissolved” rather than “solved”, which is the ultimate goal of human beings. Such an argument is actually a negation to his early endeavors, as well as to the philosophical research per se. Indeed, it is a key to “what the memory is”. Nevertheless, Hans-Johann Glock believed that this violated what Wittgenstein called and emphasized as “indescribable insight”. 

然后，就要谈到“结构主义”的逻辑。它兴起于二十世纪初，可以被看作是对存在主义学说的延续。索绪尔（Ferdinand de Saussure）被看作是结构主义的主要奠基者，而这一概念似乎最早出现在人类学家克劳德·斯特劳斯（Claude Levi-Strauss）的结构人类学研究中，并影响了这一思想运动。结构主义学说以语言的基本结构和模式为出发点，将人类文化，以及人的行为、思考、感知、感觉等等，都置于其相互关系，以及某种包含一切的抽象系统和逻辑当中。正如布莱克本（Simon Blackburn）所总结的，结构主义相信，人类生活的一切现象都只能在它们的相互关系中被理解；而这些关系构成了固定的结构和规范，包含着一切具体的现象和文化。自然，也就包含了“记忆”在内。

It then shifts our focus to the logic of “structuralism”, which emerged at the outset of the 20th century, and could be regarded as the continuity of the existentialism. Although Ferdinand de Saussure is known as a main funder of the structuralism, is theory first appeared in the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss’s research in structural anthropology, and his study impacted this movement of thought. Structuralism, based on the basic language structure and pattern, considers human culture, behavior, thoughts, senses, and feelings interactive, and encompasses all of them in an abstract system and logic. As concluded by Simon Blackburn, structuralists believe that human’s lives could only be understood in interactive relations, and these relations consist a fixed structure and norm, involving all specific phenomenon and culture. Nature, of course, also embodies “memory”. 

同样在60年代，德里达延续了海德格尔的现象学线索，而他的与“结构主义”逻辑相对立的“解构”方法，是最为重要的。他认为，柏拉图以来的西方哲学都建立在语言与真实的固定相对关系之上，这种对应也正是结构主义所依存的对应关系的基本点。但是，他指出：这种对应是未经检验的。他重新审视写作的基本要素，及其对哲学的普遍影响，并希望破坏整个西方形而上学的语言体系，也就是整个“西方文明”的根基。他甚至称自己为“历史学家”而非“哲学家”。因此，德里达也被称为“解构之父”。在50年代末期，结构主义学说正有取代想象学的势头，因为结构主义学者认为，现象学所强调的经验，只能在“非经验”的结构当中才能产生效果。而德里达作为现象学的拥护者，犀利地指出，结构本身是无法有起源的——结构主义的弱点在于，必须依赖一套既有的，被规定的，封闭的语言体系，因此，建立在这一体系上的批判，是永远无法批判这一体系本身的。也就是说，除非假设有一种超验的，永恒的，普遍适用的语言系统，否则结构主义的论述就是空洞的。在1960年代后期，德里达阐明了自己将哲学作为一种文本批判形式——而非发现真理的形式——的态度，并批评了西方哲学推崇在场和理性，而不是他所强调的，抽离式的不在场和记号，或者书写。

Similarly, in the 1960s, Derrida, continuing the phenomenology method of Heidegger, proposed the most import “structural” method, which is contrary to “structuralism” logic. He believed that since Plato, western philosophies, language, and truth stay in relatively fixed contrasting relations, serving as the basic point the structuralism theory relies on. However, he pointed out, this relativity is untested. He reexamined main elements of writings and the general impacts on philosophies in an attempt to disrupt the entire western metaphysical system of language— the root of the entire “western civilization”. He even claimed himself a “historian” instead of a “philosopher” and was also acclaimed as the “father of structuralism” later. At the end of 1950s, structuralists were tempting to replace phenomenology, as they held that phenomenology, with prominence to experiences, can only be effective in “non-experience” structure. Supporters of Derrida incisively pointed out that structuralism itself doesn’t have a root— the weakness of structuralism lies in the fact that it has to rely on a given, formulated, and closed language system, and henceforth, criticism based on such system could never exert any effect on the system itself. To put it in other words, unless there is a transcendent, eternal, generally adaptable language system, structuralism theories are rendered abstract and vague. In the end of 1960s, Derrida articulated his attitude of treating philosophy as a text-based criticism rather than a form of discovering the truth. He criticized western philosophies in worshiping the present rationality and advocated the marks or writings of absence and non-existence. 

拉康并未得到欧陆或分析哲学界的普遍认可，主要原因是他被认为是“含混”的评判体系。另外，在1960年代还出现了“反精神病学”思潮，主要就体现在对精神分析法本身的批判上。胡塞尔对精神分析主义的总体批判很具哲学层面的代表性：他认为，精神分析主义对公式和逻辑的运用是“先入为主”的，其原因主要在于，混淆了先验的中立逻辑和预设的评判逻辑——从追求真理的方式来说，一种评判必须符合评判之外的逻辑，而非评判自身预设的标准，以及仅仅由这些标准所建立的结构。同理，精神分析中的“真实”并没有提供一个更加可靠的，精神分析之外的根基，而只是依靠经验的“显然的”真实，却试图建立一个非经验的理性框架。这实际上与后结构主义对结构主义的批判有非常类似之处；只不过，一个是关于人的内在精神结构；一个是针对宏观的语言及其与真实的关系。

Jacques Lacan hadn’t received general recognition in continental Europe or in the field of analytical philosophy, mainly due to the fact that his criticism theory had been perceived as “blurred”. In addition, the 1960s witnessed a tide of “anti-psychiatry”, with substantial criticisms on psychoanalysis. Edmund Husserl’s overall comments on psychoanalysis are fairly representative, from the philosophical point of view. He argued that psychoanalysis uses “preconceived” notions when adopting equations and logics, blurring transcendent neutral logic and preset critical logic— as a way to pursue truth, a criticism must be in line with logic beyond, rather than the criteria preset by the criticism itself or the structure created on the basis of these criteria. Similarly, the “truth”, according to psychoanalysis, does not provide any reliable foundation apart from psychoanalysis. What psychoanalysis endeavors is to build a non-empirical rational framework by relying on empirically “obvious” truths. Such criticism, in fact, bears some similarities with those again structuralism, initiated by post-structuralists; but the difference lies in the fact that one is about the internal psychological structure of humans, while the other concerns macro-language and its relations with the truth.

“记忆”在后现代思潮中并未作为一个主要的对象被讨论。但是，人类关于知识和历史的宏观叙事，作为一种外在的，可见的记忆模型，已经被改写了：一切记忆都可能是虚假的，唯一可以讨论的是记忆形成的机制。这种机制，对于狭义的“记忆”来说，是位于人的内部的。但是，对这种内在路径的探索，却一直是隐晦的。直到拉康的精神分析出现，才试图明确地分析这一内在路径的结构。但是，拉康的问题就在于，他将内在路径外在化了，并认为内在的个体记忆与外在的知识与历史记忆具有同质性。这便是结构主义的影响：总认为有一种普遍适用的结构，可以说明一切问题。

“Memory” was not treated as a main subject in the wave of postmodern. Nevertheless, the macro-narratives concerning knowledge and history, as an external, visible memory model, have been rewritten: all memories could be unreal; what could be discussed might be the mechanism of memorization, which, from a narrow sense, exists inside human beings. However, the exploration of such an internal route remains to be subtle and obscure. It was not until Lacan’s psychoanalysis that such internal route started to be analyzed clearly. The problem for Lacan’s approach was that he treated such internal route as an external one, and believed in the homogeneity of individual memory and external knowledge and history, which is the impact of structuralism: arguing that there is a universal structure to explain every problem. 

这样看来，结构主义和解构思想都无法论述“记忆”的机制，这便导致了“记忆”在哲学论述中的边缘化和常识化。其实，作为解构思想的源头，海德格尔的思想被后世误解了。他讨论的正是人的认知的内在路径，但是，他的讨论，却被后人用来讨论外在的部分了。这样看来，其实，所有的解构思想，在一开始，都是用结构主义的方式，挪用了海德格尔的学说，这不得不说是一种哲学之于自身的后现代性的讽刺。另一个人，其实已经在更早的时候，澄清了这一误解，但却又被忽视了。

As such, structuralism and deconstructive thoughts fail to explain the mechanism of “memorization”, and thus, in the study of philosophy, “memory” was marginalized and became a common sense. In fact, as the originator of deconstruction theory, Heidegger’s thoughts, which focused exactly on human’s internal route of perception, were misunderstood and wrongly applied to discussions of external events by the following generations. Actually, in the beginning, all deconstructive thoughts adopted structuralism and employed the theory of Heidegger. Admittedly, it is such an irony to philosophy itself in the postmodern era. Far prior to this, another figure had already clarified this misunderstanding, but was ignored later on. 

《物质与记忆》是唯一专门讨论记忆的，并且被普遍认为是哲学领域最难的一本书。它主要讲述的便是：世界上的一切都是“记忆”。为何世界上的一切都是“记忆”呢？因为首先，人能够感知到的一切，都是身体的感官所传递的，都经历了传递所耗费的时间。即便这个传递只有几毫秒，人也无法感知到“现在”，而只能感知到几毫秒之前的过去。其次，人的所有动作，包括思考的动作，都是经由学习得来的，这是一种记忆化的结果。第三，人在每一刻的所有动作，都是由之前的记忆决定的，而且，之前的记忆还会决定，选择哪些记忆来决定此刻的动作。这一选择常常是不经过意识的，比如，人认得的每一个字，都是学习得来的，但是，人在阅读的时候，不会回忆起学习这个字的过程，但是这个过程却是一直在那里的。第四，这个过程并没有变成一种信息被存储，而是作为固态的时间，作为其本身存在于那里，也就是作为记忆存在于那里。于是，最终，人自身的所有动作，所有感知，都是“记忆”的结果。如果进一步说，那么人的生命运转，也是由基因的记忆而决定的动作。

Matter and Memory is a book dedicated to the study of memory, and is well received as the most difficult book in the field of philosophy. Its main argument is: everything in the world is consisted of “memory”. Why is it so? Firstly, humans can sense everything by their body; the transmission takes time, though only several milliseconds, and because of this, humans can only feel the past several milliseconds ago, but hardly the “presence”. Secondly, human behaviors, including “thinking”, are all learned, and are the results of “remembering”. Thirdly, every human action in any moment is determined by previous memories, and those previously stored memories decide what memory to use to initiate an action at present. The process of selection is unconscious, for instance, people know the words they’ve learned, but when reading, people won’t recall the process of learning, though it never disappears. Fourthly, the process has never been lodged as a sort of information; instead, it remains as a stationary time, or to say, in the form of “memory”. Hence, human actions and perceptions are all results of “remembering”. Taking one step further, it means human’s life is also actions determined by the “memories” of genes. 

这样理解记忆，有什么意思呢？首先，它发现了一条反观人这一主体的路径。如果说海德格尔的反观是通过对概念，以及对外在感知的梳理而达到的，那么，博格森的理论，就是以时间和动作为切入点，对内在的直接剖析。其次，人的“内在”到底在哪里呢？从“记忆”的累积方式就可以看出，人的所有外在，都是内在的组成部分，而人的所有内在，也都是外在所决定的。这就是海德格尔与博格森的共同之处：他们都取消了主观与客观，感性与理性，内在与外在的边界。区别在于，如果说海德格尔对内在的论述是去中心化的，那么，博格森对内在的论述，就是将“记忆”作为了核心，但这一核心，是以基本单位的方式存在的，而非一个实体。它接近海德格尔所说的“过程”，但更加具体化了。如果按照宋代新儒家的说法，记忆就会有一个随时在变化的实体，也就是“心”。陆九渊所说的，“心即是宇宙，宇宙即是心”，也可以从这个角度来理解。

What are the purposes of understanding memory? Firstly, it unveils a new route to perceive human body. While Heidegger looked at this issue through analyzing concepts and feelings from outside, Bergson tackled it directly from within, starting from studying the time and action. Secondly, where is human’s “internal source”? Judging from the way of how “memories” are accumulated, all matters outside humans are components of what’s inside, and vice versa, the internal is determined by the external. This defines the common point of Heidegger and Bergson theories: they all eliminate the boundaries between subject and object, sense and rationality, and the internal and external. But the difference lies in the fact that Heidegger’s points on the internality is decentralized, while Bergson’s is one that takes “memory” as a core that exists in a form of the basic unit but rather a body. It approaches what Heidegger refers to as “process”, except that it’s more specific. In the words of the new Confucianism during Chinese Song dynasty, memory is embodied in an ever-changing body, the “heart”. Similarly, Jiuyuan Lu (1139-1193) remarks of “the heart is the universe, and vice versa” can also be interpreted from this prospect. 

还需要注意的是，在这样的理解中，是没有学科的界限的，任何学科的发现，都可以纳入其中，才能论证其观看方式的有效性。按照上文所说，这样的“记忆”，其实提供了一种观看世界的范例。但是，与科学研究的范例相比，它又是“无效”的。这里的“无效”是说，它论述了人类的一切活动及其动作的根源，因此，也无法实际指导人的任何动作。它所能指导的，是人对自身的认识，以及人对自身与世界之关系的认识。它是一种论述“认识的产生”的机制，却不是一种知识。可以说，它是一种“心法”，用来理解此时此刻关于“自我”的一切。它也在告诉人，“自我”原本就不存在，只有“记忆”而已。

It’s worth noticing that such understanding is not confined to any one discipline; instead, discoveries in any field can be encompassed; as such, the approach can be proved valid. Accordingly, “memory” actually provides a paradigm to perceive the world. However, when comparing with paradigms of scientific studies, it is “invalid”, since it argues the root of all human activities and actions, it is helpless in guiding any action. What it is capable of is to guide human’s perception of his own and of the relations between himself and the world. It is a mechanism to explain “the birth of perception” instead of knowledge. To put it in another way, it is like a secret mantra used to interpret everything about “ego”. It also tells us that there is only “memory”, but no “ego” at all. 

这样的说法，为何在欧美哲学界没有引起更多的注意呢？其实，还是被注意到了，不然，我也不会知道这本书。但是，它流行不起来，因为在大多数人看起来，它就是在“扯淡”而已。因为，“记忆”，即便对大多数哲学工作者来说，它仍然就是一个常识性的问题。打破常识，往往是讨论问题的开始。而讨论记忆的有趣之处就在于，我们终于可以用讨论，去触及所有讨论赖以形成的根基——那里不仅仅是讨论，还有对自我的身体与意识的感知与审视。它所意味着的，也许已经超越了普遍意义上的“哲学”范畴，变成了一种探寻智慧的方式，而非仅仅是哲学的名称本身所表白的，“对智慧的爱”。

Why didn’t such interpretation draw more attention in the circles of European and American philosophies? Actually, it was noticed, otherwise, I wouldn’t have noticed this book. The reason for people’s indifference to it lies in the fact that most people thought it is “nonsense”. “Memory” remains to be a common-sense issue, even in the eyes of many philosophical workers. To shatter a common sense usually marks the beginning of new discussions. The intriguing aspect of discussing memory is that we can finally discuss the foundation of all discussions in the form of discussion— where we not only discuss, but also sense and examine our body and consciousness. The ramifications could transcend the scope of “philosophy” in a general sense, but rather it becomes a way for wisdom, for “the love of wisdom”, something that goes far beyond the name “philosophy” conveys. 

在具体的创作层面，并没有艺术家对这一层面的问题作出过直接的回应，但是，在20世纪以来的艺术创作里，却有不同领域的艺术家，对“后现代”这一概念的推动作出过巨大的贡献。而任何推动“后现代”这一概念的艺术创作，其实都与“记忆”这一概念所提供的观看方式有关——当然，当这些作品被阐释的时候，可能并没有“记忆”这个字眼被提起。

From the specific perspective of creation, no artists have ever given any direct response to this question. Yet now, in art creation since the 20th century, artists in various fields have made the tremendous contribution to promote the concept of “postmodernism”. Any endeavor to promote “postmodernism” in art creation has been associated with “memory”, despite the absence of the word “memory” in the work interpretation. 

例如，1971年，梅尔·波什纳尔（Mel Bochner）在伦敦的当代艺术学院讲座，认为艺术领域出现了“后现代主义(post-modernism)”，并以加斯帕·琼斯（Jasper Johns）的作品为案例，因为他是“第一个拒绝了感觉材料（sense-data）和单一视点的艺术家，以此为基础，琼斯将艺术变成了批判式的调查。” 总之，一种批评，怀疑的氛围，对多样性的强调，对唯一性的反对，正是后现代美学的特征。批评家查尔斯·杨克斯（Charles Jencks）是这一美学的鼓吹者，在80年代，他几乎成为后现代主义的代言人。

For instance, in 1971, when Mel Bochner gave a talk in the Contemporary Art College of London, he contended that “post-modernism” has its presence in the field of art, and he further analyzed the works of Jasper Johns, who was the “first artist who turned down sense-data and single visual point, based on which, Johns turned art into a critical investigation.” In a word, the critical and suspicious atmosphere, the emphasis on diversity, and the objection to exclusivity all together featured the postmodern aesthetics. Critics Charles Jencks, an advocate of such aesthetics, almost became the representative of the post-modernism. 

在文学领域，到1942年，H·R·海耶斯（H.R.Hays）开始用这个词汇形容新的文学形式。乔治·波尔奇（Jorge Luis Borge）1939年的短篇作品“皮埃尔·莫纳（Pierre Menard）”和“堂吉柯德的作者（Author of the Quixote）”，一般被认为是后现代主义文学的先驱。另一位重要人物自然是萨穆埃尔·贝克特（Smuel Beckett）。此外，标志性的后现代主义文学刊物是美国的“第二边界 －－后现代文学与文化报（boundary 2 – Journal of Postmodern Literature and Culture）”，创刊于1972年。大卫·安丁（David Antin）,查尔斯·奥尔森（ Charles Olson）,约翰·凯奇（ John Cage），以及黑山学院派（Black Mountain College school）的诗人和艺术家们主导了当时的后现代主义艺术。这一刊物今天仍然存在。1971年，伊哈布· 哈桑（Ihab Hassan）将萨德（Marquis de Sade）、卡夫卡（Franz Kafka）、海明威（Ernest Hemingway）、贝克特（ Beckett）等人，以及荒诞戏剧（Theatre of the Absurd）和新小说（nouveau roman）归入“安静文学（literature of silence）”。

In the field of literature, by 1942, H.R Hays started to use this word to describe a new form of literature. Jorge Luis Borge, the author of the Pierre Menard and the Author of the Quixote, has been recognized as the pioneer of post-modern literature. Along with Jorge, Samuel Beckett is another prominent figure in this field. The symbolic post-modern literature, Boundary 2- Journal of Postmodern Literature and Culture, was launched in 1972. David Antin, Charles Olson, John Cage, and poets and artists from the Black Mountain College School became leading figures in the postmodern art at that time. This journal has remained up to date. In 1971, Ihab Hassan set a category of “literature of silence”, and included Marquis de Sade, Franz Kafka, Ernest Hemingway, Beckett, as well as the Theatre of the Absurd and Nouveau Roman in this category. 

在欧洲艺术史以“风格”为主线的观看逻辑中，建筑风格的改变常常作为一种风向标，引领着视觉艺术的变革。但在“后现代”的兴起过程中，视觉，文化等非实体的领域却展现出远胜以往的敏锐度。现代主义建筑的批评者们认为，完美和极简的属性本身就是主观的，并指出了现代思潮中的时代错误与“不合时宜”（anachronism），质疑其哲学的益处。代表性的后现代建筑来自米歇尔·格拉夫斯（Michael Graves）和罗伯特·文杜里（Robert Venturi），他们拒绝了“纯粹”的形式或“完美”的建筑细节，并有意采用各种方法，材料，形式，及色彩。在美学层面，后现代建筑首先挑战现代主义的美学形态，指出其陈旧性和“极权主义”的色彩，推崇个人偏好和丰富性，排斥客观性，终极真实，或终极原则。现代主义者密斯·凡·德罗（Ludwig Mies van der Rohe）提出过著名的“少即是多（Less is more）”；对此，文杜里反驳道：“少即是无聊(Less is a bore)”。

In the history of European art, changes of the style of the architect are often treated as trendsetters, which could lead the revolution of visual art. But in the “postmodernism”, vision, culture and other unsubstantial field reveal high agility far beyond previous eras. Modern critics of architecture contended that the attributes of perfectness and simplicity are subjective, and further they pointed the finger at the mismatch and anachronism in the tide of modernism, calling into question the benefits of philosophy. Michael Graves and Robert Venturi, who rejected the “pure” form or “perfect” architectural details, attempted to use different methods, materials, forms, and colors in buildings, giving birth to a typical postmodern architecture. From the perspective of aesthetics, postmodern architecture firstly challenged the aesthetic forms of modernism and exposed their obsoleteness and “totalitarianism”, their worship of individual preferences and richness, the objectiveness and exclusiveness, the ultimate truth and principle. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a modernist, has a famous saying, “less is more”; responding to this remark, Lionello Venturi argued, “Less is a bore”. 

相对应的，在城市规划方面，后现代主义反对“总体性”，尤其反对“普遍性”的，无视背景和具体合理性的规划。在这方面，它与现代主义非常不同。1920年代以来，现代主义运动对城市的设计是遵循大型工业生产逻辑的，崇尚大型而统一的解决方案，采用统一的美学标准，和程式化的设计。在现代主义理念里，城市规划需要稳定的，结构性的，理性的方案，远离混乱，流动，和变化。设计师们相信能找到一种唯一的“正确的方式”。实际上，在二战后，通过城市规划，资本主义成为一种可以被管理出来的结果，城市开发者与大型公司的利益也是可以被管理条例预见的。现代主义的城市规划倾向于将建筑看作孤立于于整个同质化的城市生态系统之外的部分。其更大的问题在于对居住者意见的不尊重，多数人被迫被少数人管理。管理者无法预见城市发展的具体问题：平民窟，拥挤，基础设施损坏，污染，疾病，等等。现代主义规划本应解决这些问题，却被“一劳永逸”式的统一规划变得更糟。因此，从1960年代开始，一种更加民主的，更多人参与的规划方式开始出现。

Comparatively, in the field of urban planning, postmodernism opposes the concept of “entireness”, particularly the “universal” and “unjustifiable” planning which fails to factor in specific contexts, which also distinguishes postmodernism from modernism. Since 1920, the movement of modernism in urban planning has been preceded in tandem with the development of large-scale industrial production; it advocates scaled and unified planning solutions, following unified aesthetic standard and programmed design. In the philosophy of modernism, urban planning needs to be stable, structural, and rational, away from chaos, mobility, and changes. Designers believe that there is a unique “correct method”. In fact, after the Second World War, through urban planning, capitalism has become a mechanism that can be maneuvered, and the benefits of those urban developers and large corporations can be anticipated by management rules and procedures. Urban planning in modernism inclines to see architects as an independent part of the homogeneous urban ecosystem. A bigger problem lies in the fact that residents are not respected and that the majority is unwillingly managed by the minority. Administrators have no ways to foresee specific problems in the process of urban development: slums, crowds, infrastructure damages, contamination, diseases, and so on. Modern planning is supposed to address these problems, but the situation has been, instead, exacerbated by the “once for ever” planning. Hence, since 1960, a more democratic and more involving planning method started to emerge. 

这些领域的重要创造，看似与“记忆”无关，然而，他们却构成了今天一切“艺术”或“文化”的前提，它们是今天的艺术赖以立足的“记忆”。在这一点上，他们比“历史”更加重要，因为它们几乎已经被历史遗忘了——这便是真正进入记忆的开始。

These major inventions seem unassociated with “memory”, but they have constitute all forms of “art” of today or the prerequisites of “cultures”, they are “memories” that today’s art has to rely on. As such, they are more essential than “history”, since they have almost been forgotten by the history— this is the true beginning of the memory.