内容提要
序
胡项城先生的作品总是让人产生许多联想。
胡先生关于神的思考与艺术表达让我想到：为什么自古至今绝大多数房子都是四四方方的？我们为自己创造的空间总是被我们自己设想为成直角的？直角空间在自然界中原本是极难得碰到的啊！
似乎只可能有两种解释。
一种解释是，人类总希望自己的创造物是自然界中没有的。对自然的“整理与加工”，或者说是对自然施加某种“暴力”，一直是人类英雄主义的表现，是人类的理想之所在。中国古有“愚公移山”的精神，今有“可上九天揽月，可下五洋捉鳖”的豪迈。“没有规矩，不成方圆”，是判别社会文明与否的标准。西方则在文艺复兴后兴起科学精神，并将之视为人类的“理性”亦即“人性”。这样去理解，对直角空间的推崇代表了“理性”，因而也就代表了人类的“文明与进步”。
另一种解释似乎正好相反。人类对极其复杂多变的自然世界无力把握，更无力模仿，于是不得不用最简单的方式，比如直线与直角，来塑造我们所力所能及的空间。那些极少数冲破了直角束缚的空间塑造被看成是极富想象力的天才所为。而其实，非直角空间在自然界中原本是极普遍存在的呀！这样去理解，对直角空间的推崇则代表了“简单”，因而也就代表了人类的“幼稚与无奈”。
我更愿意将这两种解释视为同一个解释的两个面。
这两个面在现当代历史中表现得更为纠结。一方面，人类科学技术的进步使人类享受到了前所未有的物质文明，——科学与技术——人类“理性”的力量，使人的自信极度膨胀。另一方面，人类对世界认识得越多就反而认识得越少，人类对自然施加的影响越大就反而越给人类自身带来灾难。这又使人类更易悲观和忧伤。
现代文明使人们相信人类无往而不胜。现代文明也使人们相信人类对自然无能为力。现代文明中的这种矛盾使我们比以往任何时代的人类都更为困惑和迷茫。
胡先生相信在已被我们抛弃的神——也许只是神像——的身上，可以找到帮我们走出困惑和迷茫的钥匙。
我是无神论者。我不信神。我相信神本是人想象出来的人造物。但我却更愿意相信人造出神是一种更聪明的选择。当我们开始知道人类的力量其实是根本无力与自然世界抗争的时候，当我们对自然世界施加的暴力反而向我们预示了人类自身的毁灭的时候，我又相信有神比没神好。神更容易使人产生敬畏感，更容易使人敬畏自然，敬畏生命。神也会使人不敢对没把握的事盲目行动。对神的敬畏大大限制了我们对自然世界施加暴力的冲动。
正是从这个意义上说，神在人的理性仍未发育完善之前，更容易让人倾向于理智。为此，我们不必重新请回已远离我们的神灵，但却可以从前人对神灵的敬畏中重新学会对自然的敬畏，将我们自己对自己“理性”的迷信打破，在天人观上也提倡一种“有限暴力”，更准确地估计我们人类智慧的实际水平，更准确地判断人类对自然施加影响的实际能力，更主动地限制我们对客观世界的“暴力行为”，从而与养育我们的自然世界和我们的祖先为我们创造的人文世界更为和谐地相处，那么我们人类将会得到更为持久的发展空间，人类的文明才不至于毁于刚刚起步，人类智慧的进步才不至于半途而废。
这是我读胡先生作品的感想，且充序。
伍江 2010年11月11日
Preface
Xiangcheng’s work leads people to make many associations.
His thoughts and artistic expressions about God make me think, why since ancient times have most houses have been box-shaped? Why is the space that we have created for ourselves always conceived in right angles? Right angle spaces are actually extremely hard to find in nature! It seems that there are only two possible explanations.
One explanation is that humanity always wants its creations to exist outside of nature. It is a testament to human heroism, an idealistic stance where human beings try to classify, process, or even act violently towards nature. In ancient China there was a legend about the spirit of a foolish old man who thought he could move a mountain by himself. Nowadays, people have similar exaggerated convictions in their own abilities. For example, some people think that like Superman, they can leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yet you cannot make a circle without a rule to gauge it. Rules are also standards to judge whether a society is civilized. In the West an ideology grounded in rational thought and scientific theory took precedence after the Renaissance. Westerners tend to view science as an expression of human rationality. If we look at it this way, then the respect for right angles represents rationality, civilization and human progress.
Another explanation seems to produce exactly the opposite conclusion. Human beings lack the confidence to control nature’s complex processes and are powerless to imitate them. Consequently, human beings must choose the path of least resistance, such as using lines or right angles to create a world in which they have autonomy. Those spaces that break the rules - that are not formed by straight lines and right angles - are seen as expressions of genius. Yet non-right angle spaces are very common in nature! If we look at this way, the respect for right angles represents simplicity and therefore the na?ve and helpless condition of human beings. But I am more willing to analyze these different explanations as two sides of the same coin.
These two sides have become increasingly entangled in the context of contemporary history. On the one hand, because of mankind’s scientific and technological progress humans are able to enjoy unprecedented material benefits. Yet at the same time, science and technology – the supposedly ‘rational human forces’ – also inflate our self-confidence. On the other hand, the more human beings understand the world, the less they actually know. The greater humans impact nature, the worse the disaster they bring upon themselves. This situation weighs heavily on the human spirit, and make people prone to pessimism and sadness.
Modern civilization leads one to believe that mankind is invincible. Paradoxically, modern civilization also makes people believe humans are powerless to resist the forces of nature. Such a contradiction makes people feel more confused and lost than at any other time in our history.
Hu Xiangcheng believes that forgotten Gods, rendered as statues, although seemingly simple objects of idol worship, can be a key to help us emerge from these feelings of confusion and loss.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I believe that God is a creation of human beings. However, when we begin to understand that humanity lacks the strength to fight with the natural world or when we consider that our destruction of the natural world could lead to our own annihilation, I’d rather believe that God exists. Believing in God is more likely to instill in humans a sense of awe, a greater respect for nature and reverence for life itself. God will make sure that people are aware of their actions. Our respect and fear of God greatly limits our urges to destroy nature.
Following the previous point, I want to emphasize that God existed before the advent of ‘rationalism’, and essentially helped to spur man’s inclination to develop rationality. Therefore, we do not have to reinvent Gods that have left us, but people can relearn fear of Gods and respect for nature, while at the same time using our own ‘rationality’ to overcome superstition. ‘Limited Violence’ is advocated in the theory of Heaven and Humanity. That is, we should have a more accurate estimate of human intelligence; a more accurate estimate of human influence on nature; and should be active in limiting the impact of our violent actions upon nature. Our objective is to achieve a more harmonious relationship with both the civilized world that we have created as well as with nature, for it is nature that has enriched our lives and those of our ancestors. If we follow this path, then human development will eventually become more sustainable, more protective of the natural world, and active in deterring the destruction of human intelligence and civilization.
After reading Hu’s works I am glad that my thoughts can be the preface.
Wu Jiang, November 11th, 2010（文章来源：《出入神 胡项城作品展》）
|
