我們先談佛洛伊德作為一個科學家的自我定位。佛洛伊德儘管是十九世紀歐洲科學文化的產物，但在他的成長期的年代德國浪漫主義仍饒有生命力；他雖活到二十世紀卻始終是處身在十九世紀的世界中。他自己承認：他是在閱讀了歌德（Goethe）有關自然的啟發性文章後才決定習醫的；也是透過友人Wilhelm Fliess而涉入浪漫主義醫學的──那其中的許多假設都來自於謝林（Schelling）的自然哲學（naturphilosophie）。他這個涉入之深，致使Robert Holt將佛洛伊德著作中的一整個書寫體例（genre）溯源到它上面。Holt稱這體例為「種系發生理論」（phylogenetic theory），其中包括的著作有：Totem and Taboo（圖騰與禁忌）、Beyond the Pleasure Principle（超越快樂原則）、Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego、The Future of an Illusion（幻想之未來）、Civilization and its Discontents（文明及其不滿）和Moses and Monotheism（摩西與一神教）。
Holt的文章在1963年出刊；作者本身有如佛洛伊德，對這一類的臆測玩意兒是有矛盾心理的。但不到十年，Iago Gladston就已經不再那麼為佛洛伊德強作解人了。他認為浪漫主義傳統在佛洛伊德的思想裡的中心地位足以將他稱為「一個民族學者、生態學者和整體論的科學家」了。
然而，支撐佛洛伊德作為一個整體論科學家的科學文化在當時也開始受到實驗方法和實證主義語辭沉重的入侵。George Rosen簡賅地點到了當佛氏還是學生及青年研究者的年代裡，科學文化方面的改變──特別提到是Ernst Brucke、Emil du Bois-Reymond、Hermann H... (查看原文)
Politics：多數人見到這個字便即會譯為政治或政治學，並沒有考慮到它出現的理脈或用法。其實，我們常聽到「What is your politics?」、「What was the politics involved?」、「His politics is not consistent!」、「The political is personal.」等語句中，它指涉的都是個人的、特定位向的、廣義的「政治」；即個人及對事物的特定政治位勢與政治選取旨向──甚至擴及於一個的人立身處事，安身立命的處所與立場。我們常見不同的兩個人使用一些通用的語詞、它們可以被聽起來講的似乎是一回事，但在具體的日常踐行上卻可南轅北轍；究其所以，乃這兩個人的「Politics」不一樣；這個「Politics」在中文裡沒有現成的辭語可以採用；我只好暫時把它譯為「政勢」，乃指一個人的種種行止所由生的意向，其政治位勢與立場旨向。 (查看原文)
Every vision requires to be grounded in public consciousness through categories that emerge from a society's memories and myths, more so if the vision seeks empowerment within a democratic order. (查看原文)
India has 'always been a separate world, hard for any outsider, Eastern or Western, to penetrate.’ Such a culture becomes a projective test; it invites one not only to project on to it one's deepest fantasies, but also to reveal, through such self-projection, the interpreter rather than the interpreted. All interpretations of India are ultimately autobiographical. (查看原文)
They were helped in this by the split that had emerged in the Victorian culture between two ideals of masculinity. To draw upon Ballhatchet and others, the lower classes were expected to act out their manliness by demonstrating their sexual prowess - the upper classes were expected to affirm their masculinity through sexual distance, abstinence and self-control. (查看原文)
It also explains why colonialism never seems to end with formal political freedom. As a state of mind, colonialism is an indigenous process released by external forces. Its sources lie deep in the minds of the rulers and the ruled. Perhaps that which begins in the minds of men must also end in the minds of men. (查看原文)
