1.
以往我們所讀的東西都在談人們如何想像國家,例如想像自己身處一個共同體當中;但是,我們常遭遇到的不是我們如何想像國家的問題,而是國家如何想像你:你是誰?尤其是當你擁有自主活動能力,跟他們所期待的方向有所交集時,你是「什麼」?

最常見的例子,就是你是一個研究助理。無論你過去有什麼樣的經歷、資歷,你都必須依照國家過往的歷史來「計價」,重新計算自己的人力價值。你作為一個研究助理,等於研究人員手下的一個員工,這讓研究人員成為一個小團隊的 leader;如何防範這個團隊的 leader 濫權貪污,將研究經費以助理名義來做利益輸送?除了從監督的審查過程來去預防之外,更釜底抽薪的就是把每一個單位可「運載」的金額限定。失去了彈性,這樣的載具也就喪失了利益輸送的價值。所以無論這個研究助理的工作能力與表現是另外一位「載具」的 50 倍或 100 倍,在國科會底下他就是一個固定意義的容器與載具。在國家的想像下,他根本不可能也不應該超過這個「載具」的限制,乘載「超量的價值」。

在這樣的基本單位限制下,研究人員就被定義成為能夠領導特定數目的價值「載具」的小包商。無論你的研究成果多麼傑出,有學術領域內與真實世界外的驚異成果,影響全世界人類宇宙大無限,你就是一個小包商。你的價值不應該在研究當下就發生,在一個計畫完成的時間限度內,也不可能有任何重要的合作與變化。你所產出的意義在申請計劃時就應該可以被預知與掌握,而你(唯一對此有所貢獻的研究人員),這個無助的小包商,只需要把你計劃書內允諾的結果生產出來,這段遊戲就告結束。

如果說這些以往不被當做經濟活動的「實質經濟活動」,代表著國家在經濟上如何想像人們的話,我們是否可以理解為什麼創新不容易在此發生?因為這裡根本沒有創新所關連的活動樣貌的任何想像。我們是在用一個數十年之久的制度機器在面對新的挑戰。跨領域、對話、結合根本是一個沒有相對應現實的高難度實踐。

2.
公共電視獨立特派員所播放的新聞深入報導:《紀錄難破:等待升旗》,裡面針對台灣田徑紀錄多年沒有辦法突破的問題,提到一句令人驚悚但卻不能不正視的結論:「畸形政策才是紀錄難破的原因。」這句話可以用在別的個案上、別的領域嗎?

當制度有問題,國家想像你是個無法嵌入機器的突出齒輪時,接下來就麻煩了。這個系統不會改變它的想像方式,透過層層運作,系統只會爆炸、只會跳出錯誤訊息。中時電子報這篇非常詳細的專訪:《盧彥勳的孤涼 台灣選手的菜籽命》,就描述了一個系統出錯的樣子。所有人都說,要不是盧彥勳在奧運幹掉了英國人的希望、拿下了國內男單歷年來的最佳成績(甚至是亞洲一哥),沒有人會關心這個系統到底出了什麼問題。

為何從盧彥勳講起?因為跆拳、射箭、棒球,這些被視為奪牌重點項目的選手,國家多少已經挹注資源投入培訓;反觀事前不被看好的盧彥勳,幾乎是在有限的條件下,靠一己之力闖出名號。

盧彥勳目前在世界網球男子單打排名七十,在他之前,台灣男單最高排名只約三、四百,他也是當今亞洲排名最高的男單選手,所以球迷封他「亞洲一哥」。

不過在台灣,知道他此一紀錄的人並不多。其實,網球是世界上曝光度僅次於足球的全球性運動;也就是說,即使台灣棒球或跆拳拿下金牌,其他國家注目的程度並不如我國,反而是網球,當盧彥勳打敗「英國希望」Andy Murray時,真的是「全世界都在看」,退一萬步講,至少整個英國都在看。

但是他所碰到的艱難是超級誇張的。你可以想像一個人去北京奧運打球的樣子嗎?

沒有教練、與中華隊八十名選手共用六個防護員……,台灣首度闖到世界排名七十的網球好手,就像公園打網球的阿伯一樣,隻身前往北京打奧運。
「在奧運中有教練,甚至比在自己的職業賽有教練更重要。」盧威儒分析,因為在奧運,練球、預訂球場都要透過國家教練,何況還要分析對手、臨場戰術應變。師大運動科學所教授相子元也強調,隨身教練才知道選手特性、習慣動作,何時該讓選手喝水、怎樣講話選手才會聽……,尤其是單項對峙的項目,賽中變化非常大,教練的臨場指導非常重要。前體委會主委、台灣運動科學之父陳全壽甚至不解:「怎麼可能沒有教練呢?這是沒有任何理由的!」

他所碰到的,就是「沒有任何理由」的艱難。

台灣的主管機關認為,盧彥勳已經轉入職業網壇,所以國家不宜再投入資源。不過,日本、英國可不是這樣對待他們的網球好手,錦織圭和Andy Murray也是職業選手,但政府仍指派國家隊教練在各種比賽隨行指導,就因為他們是國家重要資產。

反觀盧彥勳,國家給了他什麼幫助?台灣政府培植奧運選手的「挑戰二○○八黃金計畫」,每年給他一百二十萬的補助(體委會號稱給了六百萬,那是 120萬 × 3年 + 盧彥勳參賽應得的獎金 = 600萬),但要自費請教練、防護員,一年一百二十萬哪裡夠用?結果,盧彥勳為了替台灣爭取奧運門票,還要自己出錢,發給教練、防護員一星期各一千五百美元的薪水,還不包括機票、食宿等開銷。

奧運得自己出錢爭取參賽權,之前到世界各地打球,還曾因為睡爛旅館被跳蚤咬,沒有防護員、醫生照顧,又怕吃藥違反禁藥規定的盧彥勳,搞到差一點罹染蜂窩性組織炎。

國家想像他是一個職業選手,他自己會「繼續在這個職業當中奮鬥」,而且已經錦上添花給了他每年百萬年薪了。到底他還要什麼?難道因為他表現不錯,就該給他差別待遇嗎?他難道不就是一個拖著行囊到世界各地征戰表演的小包商嘛?體壇又不是只有他,還有別人,別人都沒有要求這麼多,為什麼他可以一直叫窮、要求各式各樣的資源?

我其實真的很好奇,想要知道奧運相關的人們怎麼看待盧彥勳。體委會的官員、體育精英獎的評審、官員媒體記者,在挑選年度最佳運動員的時候,怎麼想盧彥勳。我很想要拿錄影機把所有人對於不能夠好好嵌在系統裡面的螺絲,到底有什麼樣的評語,通通錄起來,蒐集起來,作數位典藏。因為這裡面有寶貴的,國家對於一個一個不一樣的、特別的、奇奇怪怪的我們的真實想像。

Thanks from Isaac, I saw FirefoxMozilla Lab’s alpha 0.1 prototype: Ubiquity.


Ubiquity for Firefox from Aza Raskin on Vimeo.

I do think this kind of service should be supported from two sides: one is from server’s side, the other is from client’s side. While web 2.0 adding too much weight on the server sides’ magic solutions, current one is a huge step forward from the client’s side (web client). Good job, Mozilla!

Yesterday Russian president Dmitry Medvedev officially recognize the independence of the 2 regions in Georgia: South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and had his article published on London Financial Times. While reading this, I am thinking about the US recognition of Kosova.

“Russia had no option but to crush the attack, to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory, but we had to halt a murderous assault.”

So I am interested in reading “his lips” and observe what would be going on after his recognition. -i

Why I had to recognise Georgia’s breakaway regions

By Dmitry Medvedev

Published: August 26 2008 18:48 | Last updated: August 26 2008 18:48

On Tuesday Russia recognised the independence of the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was not a step taken lightly, or without full consideration of the consequences. But all possible outcomes had to be weighed against a sober understanding of the situation – the histories of the Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples, their freely expressed desire for independence, the tragic events of the past weeks and inter­national precedents for such a move.

Not all of the world’s nations have their own statehood. Many exist happily within boundaries shared with other nations. The Russian Federation is an example of largely harmonious coexistence by many dozens of nations and nationalities. But some nations find it impossible to live under the tutelage of another. Relations between nations living “under one roof” need to be handled with the utmost sensitivity.

After the collapse of communism, Russia reconciled itself to the “loss” of 14 former Soviet republics, which became states in their own right, even though some 25m Russians were left stranded in countries no longer their own. Some of those nations were un­able to treat their own minorities with the respect they deserved. Georgia immediately stripped its “autonomous regions” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia of their autonomy.

Can you imagine what it was like for the Abkhaz people to have their university in Sukhumi closed down by the Tbilisi government on the grounds that they allegedly had no proper language or history or culture and so did not need a university? The newly independent Georgia inflicted a vicious war on its minority nations, displacing thousands of people and sowing seeds of discontent that could only grow. These were tinderboxes, right on Russia’s doorstep, which Russian peacekeepers strove to keep from igniting.

But the west, ignoring the delicacy of the situation, unwittingly (or wittingly) fed the hopes of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians for freedom. They clasped to their bosom a Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, whose first move was to crush the autonomy of another region, Adjaria, and made no secret of his intention to squash the Ossetians and Abkhazians.

Meanwhile, ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia. We argued consistently that it would be impossible, after that, to tell the Abkhazians and Ossetians (and dozens of other groups around the world) that what was good for the Kosovo Albanians was not good for them. In international relations, you cannot have one rule for some and another rule for others.

Seeing the warning signs, we persistently tried to persuade the Georgians to sign an agreement on the non-use of force with the Ossetians and Abkhazians. Mr Saakashvili refused. On the night of August 7-8 we found out why.

Only a madman could have taken such a gamble. Did he believe Russia would stand idly by as he launched an all-out assault on the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, murdering hundreds of peaceful civilians, most of them Russian citizens? Did he believe Russia would stand by as his “peacekeeping” troops fired on Russian comrades with whom they were supposed to be preventing trouble in South Ossetia?

Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.

A heavy decision weighed on my shoulders. Taking into account the freely expressed views of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples, and based on the principles of the United Nations charter and other documents of international law, I signed a decree on the Russian Federation’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I sincerely hope that the Georgian people, to whom we feel historic friendship and sympathy, will one day have leaders they deserve, who care about their country and who develop mutually respectful relations with all the peoples in the Caucasus. Russia is ready to support the achievement of such a goal.

I am glad to have chance to read Russion Union’s president’s declaration word by word, but I still feel a lot of questions unanswered in the important statement to support independence in these 2 regions. When he mentioned the West instilled people in Georgia with hope (unwittingly or wittingly), the president they vote choose to oppress the minorities (most of them are Russians); when the West unwisely support Kosovo’s independence, Russia had no choice to base on same rules to recognize them, even through they had warned the world before Kosovo. I really don’t understand the logic of
president Dmitry Medvedev, when “Russia had no choice…” to stay in the terrortory of Georgia, to recognize the independence.

The comment in the article/issue: Missing Cultures & Communities in SL5B.

"They came first..."

When the Linden’s came for the Goreans,
I remained silent;
I was not a Gorean.

When they excluded up the role-players,
I remained silent;
I was not a role player.

When they came for the child avatars,
I did not speak out;
I was not a child avatar.

When they came for the furries,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a furry.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

這首詩作品的原文在 wikipedia:“First they came…”.

虛擬世界中的言論自由與個人隱私,相對於社會如何平衡?對於想要更了解這個議題跟前一篇文章的插圖,虛擬《真善美》(The Sound of Music)家庭演唱會,在 Secondlife 裡面的意義的朋友,請參考這篇文章:SL5B Continued Breaking Up the Families

“you can’t have a picture of a child and an adult in the same picture.”

背景的資料建議閱讀:英文維基百科的 Second life 條目(特別是關於「兒童性議題與色情」的段落),以及對 Secondlife 的批評

(更有趣的典故:von Trapp 一家人最後是在演唱會後消失了,逃離納粹的魔掌…這個消失,對比 SL 中社群、文化與人形替身的消失….美國國家檔案局有收藏這家人的真實故事,這部電影也成為國家數位典藏的收藏品。)