in the name of fact

昨天用了一个多小时，看了20页，第一章“towns"。Geertz同学别字连篇，满纸铺陈。动不动用“post-colonial"或者pieced-together patterning这样的词汇，他细致地描述pare的暴乱，一个共产党领导人如何被分尸，并且3/4脑袋挂在门廊上，剩下的挂在大门外，嘴巴里插着一支雪茄。胳膊腿摆在篱笆上，生殖器钉在电话杆上。在夜里阅读，像是恐怖小说，非常刺激感官。
今天跟西毒聊天，他批评localkownledge 的别有用心。每个学者，都有自己的用意，或者有意，或者无意。有意者，是某种主义的走牛；而无意者，不过也是被某种主义所化，成了pretended non-polarist.每个经验后头，都有自己的视域，胡塞尔如是说。
因事实之名，学者假借事实的本真性，如何言说，又说了些什么呢？Geertz一边说些闲话，一边在反思。其实，”反思“，对于中国的学者，尤其是2000年后入道的学人，算不得什么新鲜。脑袋的记忆卡里还没有内存的时候，我们已经已经学会反思了。李皖写乐评道，”这么早就开始反思了？“，其实，我们也一样。没学会建构，先学着庖丁解牛。然后用牛刀，来解构蚂蚁。轮到自己建构时发现，全然不是那么回事。就像是我8岁那年拆我爹的收音机，然后原样装回去，居然多了好几个零件，并且收音机也不再响了。
还是把Geertz的问题抄录如下：
1.What has become of objectivity? What assures us we have things right?Where has all the scicence gone?It may just be ,however,that all understanding trails life in just this way.Floundering through mere happenings and then concerning concocting accounts of how they hang together is what knowledge and illusion alike consist in.....If objectivity,rightness,and scicence are to be had it is not by pretending they run free of the exertions which make or unmake them.
2.Partly it lies in what these grand idealities are taken to mean.But more cirtically,it lies in the workings of the discoursw they are designed to improve.
3.Where does the way we talk about it come from?
4.Building systems of discourse,structures of representaion within which what might be going on can be set out as assertions and arguments,dressed with evidence,is what anthropologists who claim,as most of us still do,to be recounting things that are indeed the case are up to.And up against.
昨天晚上，鼓起勇气，接着读了两章"countries"/"cultures"。国家这一章，可能我之前读过Anthony Giddens，觉得Geertz实在没什么。文化这一章，Geertz谈到他被导师要求：PARE和SEFROU那里有文化，至于文化是什么样子的，你去调查，然后回来告诉我们。这个要求，已经表露了人类学的惯习：以”异文化“为观察对象，人类学家，在这个对象之外，是个价值中立，与这种文化无涉的观察者。