论文部分内容阅读
这是一个充满视觉冲击的时代，大家习惯了“有图有真相”的各种声色浮躁。如果我们来大胆假设这样一天，让你的眼睛完全休息，只用耳朵去倾听，将会发生什么？请大家在浮沉世界中反思平日的生活方式——你是否太过依赖视觉，而忘记了倾听心的声音？你是否太过相信目光之所及，却忽略了用心灵进行原创？且听本期《无限播客》栏目带来精彩讨论。
Host: This is The Forum from the BBC World Service. Our guest presenter: Davie Baddiel, the novelist and comedian. And it’s time now for our Sixty Second Idea to Change the World. And in the hot seat this week is Professor of International Peace and Security, James Gow. You’ve just got one minute, James, to win over me, Dave Baddiel, and my other two guests—Per Ramsey Rasser and 1)neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone. He’s in Hilversum in Holland, and she’s in Boston, so it’s quite an exciting kind of world 2)domination process I’ve put you in now. And, of course, the BBC World Service audience, so there’s about a hundred and fifty million people that you could win over now with this idea. And your minute starts now.
James Gow: The idea to improve the world is this: In order to become 3)visually more creative, we need at some point to
4)eliminate images from our lives, altogether, at least for some moment in the week. We’ve all become so heavily 5)reliant on still and moving images to engage us with the world around us that we need something to change. We need to be free from the 6)tyranny of the image, just for that moment somewhere in the week. Turn off the TV if you’ve got televisions; stop the cinema; stop the computer screens. And have nothing but sounds. No pictures. We’d then have the opportunity to start developing images in our minds.
We’d like to have that stimulation from the 7)aural world around us. It might be the radio, the World Service. It could be just conversations, sounds around. And this would be exciting. It’d enable us to think away from the things we do normally, outside the box, beyond the boundaries of anything dominated by images and the screen.
Life would be transformed and the idea would be to encourage us to use imagination to liberate 8)inherent creativity.
(Sound of alarm clock)
Host: The clock’s gone. I love the game show aspect of this
9)bit. Well done! That was excellent. And I think you’re playing to a home crowd here because you’re essentially saying, listen to the radio, and nothing else for one day a week.
James: Well, not only, you can listen to Ramsey’s poetry as well.
Host: Yeah, but on the radio, perhaps.
James: Yeah.
Host: But just to listen, to listen and not to look.
James: To get the space. You will see better, I think, if you spent [sic] time away from just looking.
Host: It will enrich your sense of vision.
James: One of the things that Ramsey said earlier was the difference between, I think, sight and seeing. You can see something, but it’s only when you engage with it that you begin to see things properly, or maybe, to uncover them. The idea that seeing is a process, going through 37 neurological stages or whatever it might be, in order to have that one image that you get in your mind.
Host: Ramsey, do you think it would help the poetic imagination of the people in general if they would have to think harder about how to create images in the mind, if they just listened to words, solely, for one day?
Ramsey: In general, yes, and I only think it will improve many movies because we won’t be able to see them any more, and we won’t see how bad they are.
Host: Yeah, that’s true. So people would still go along, though, to watch completely blank screens with just words on them on this day?
Ramsey: (Laughing) Yeah, exactly.
James: Well, that has been known, Derek Jarman…
Host: Derek Jarman did a film called Blue, which is just blue, when he was blind, in fact. That was one of his works. So, yeah, that it clearly can be done.
Margaret, what do you think of this idea? Do you think it would help the way that we process images? It would be healthy for the brain not to see anything for a day?
Margaret Livingstone: We’re really very visual. And if you take away vision, that part of the brain is gonna be pretty inactive unless you take it away early, in which case you’ll use it kind of as RAM for some other
10)sensory system.
Host: But might it not be good in the way of letting the brain lie fallow for a day, if it’s overfed with images like we are, just to not have that for a day?
Margaret: Well, 11)admittedly, I don’t watch television; most of the magazines I read don’t have pictures in them. So I guess I do that automatically.
Host: Yeah. Is there a difference in the way the brain processes an image when it sees it in the real world, to when it just creates it in the mind from words?
Margaret: Yes, very much. You can see this in children’s drawings. So you ask a three-year-old child to draw a person, and you’re gonna get a face on legs. Right? You’ve seen ’em. Why is that? Because when the kid processes information about people, what’s really important about them are their faces. And so, when the kid now gives you back what’s in his head about who that person is, what comes back is what’s important about them. So, yes, when you’re 12)visualizing something you’re being aware of the things you’ve
13)extracted, the important things.
Host: What’s interesting as well is when you hear a very well 14)rendered image in words, the way that it can
15)resonate and stay in the mind. Ramsey do you think that that’s one of the things that doesn’t sort of just 16)flicker, it’s there and it stays in the head? Do you think when it is well rendered in words?
Ramsey: Yes. Of course. I mean, that’s how advertisement works, I think. And if you have a really good concept, a good 17)slogan, it sticks there. For instance, you have the slogan, “A country for a people, for a people without a country.” You know, that is the old…early 19th century 18)Zionist slogan, which worked
19)fantastically because it’s a concept that stuck. And even later on if you find out well, actually, there were people living there, so it wasn’t that empty after all, it doesn’t influence the image you have anymore. It is a concept, a slogan, that is purely from the visual point of view, it is 20)exquisite. It’s just not true. But it’s exquisite.
Host: Well, thank you for that. And thank you James for your idea about how to change the world in 60 seconds.
主持人：这里是英国广播公司全球服务频道的《论坛》节目。我们的特邀嘉宾是小说作家和喜剧演员戴维·巴蒂尔。现在是我们的《60秒想法改变世界》节目时间。本周做此节目的是国际和平与安全协会的詹姆斯·高尔教授。詹姆斯，你只有1分钟的时间，来获得我的支持、戴维·巴蒂尔的支持，以及我的另外两位客人——佩尔·拉姆齐·拉塞和神经生物学家玛格丽特·利文斯通的支持。他在荷兰的希佛萨姆，她在波斯顿。所以我现在就带你们进入这个令人兴奋的引领世界的过程。当然，还有英国广播公司全球服务频道的听众们。因此，你现在可以用你的这个想法来获得一亿五千万人的支持。你的一分钟时间开始了。
詹姆斯·高尔：让世界进步的这个想法是：为了能看上去更有创意，我们需要在某种程度上让影像从生活中消失，至少一周里要有几个这样的时刻。我们已经变得如此严重地依赖动静影像来融入周围的世界，因此我们需要一些东西来改变。就在一周里的某个地方某个时刻，我们需要摆脱影像的横行。如果你有电视机, 那就关掉电视机；不再去电影院；关掉电脑显示器。只有声音, 没有影像。然后我们就有机会在脑海里开始构想影像了。
我们将从周遭的听觉世界里受到那样的鼓舞。也许是收音机,是(英国广播公司的)全球服务。周围可以只有对话和声音，这会是个让人兴奋的想法，它使我们远离常规思维去思考，在电视以外，超越一切受控于图像和屏幕的事物。
生活会有改变，这个想法将鼓励我们用想象力去释放内在的创造力。
(闹钟响)
主持人：闹钟响了。我很喜欢这档节目的游戏环节。说得好！非常棒！我想你赢得了主场听众的支持，因为你的基本意思就是，一周要用一天来听电台节目，不做其他事情。
詹姆斯：嗯，不只这样，你也可以听拉姆齐的诗。
主持人：是的，不过或许是通过电台收听。
詹姆斯：是的。
主持人：但只是听，听却不看。
詹姆斯：有了这样的空间后，我想，如果你花了时间在视觉之外，你能看得更清楚。
主持人：这会增强你的视觉感受力。
詹姆斯：拉姆齐之前提到过这样一件事情，我想是在看见和看之间的不同。你可以看到某样东西，但是只有当你融入进去时你才能准确地看清它，又或许是发现它。看是一个过程这样的想法，通过37种神经学的展现或者随便怎么叫吧，就是为了得到那一个你脑海中的图像。
主持人：拉姆齐，你认为这会在大体上有助于人们的诗意想象力吗？如果他们将不得不在脑海里思考如何创作影像，如果他们只是听了一天的话语。
拉姆齐：总而言之：是的。不过我只是认为这会改进很多电影，因为我们不再能看见它们了，我们就无法看到它们有多糟糕。
主持人：是的，不错。所以尽管如此，人们还是会赞同在这一天看只有文字在上面的完全空白的荧幕吗？
拉姆齐：（笑）是的，正是这样。
詹姆斯：嗯，大家都知道的，德里克·加曼……
主持人：德里克·加曼创作了一部名为《蓝》的电影，画面只是一片蓝，事实上是在他失明时创作的。那是他的作品之一，所以很明显，这是可以做到的。
玛格丽特，你觉得这个想法如何？你认为它能改进我们处理影像的方法吗？一天不看任何东西对大脑来说健康吗？
玛格丽特·利文斯通：我们确实很形象化。如果你把视觉拿走，大脑的那一部分真的会很不活跃，除非你一早就将它取走了。那样的话，你为其他一些感官系统使用它就有点如同使用随机存取存储器。
主持人：但是也许让大脑休息一天不活动的方式并不好呢？如果像我们一样，大脑已经装了太多的图像，就没有空间来过这样的一天了。
玛格丽特：嗯，我得承认，我不看电视，我读的大部分杂志都没有图片。所以我想我是无意识地就那样做的。
主持人：是的。大脑处理从现实中看到的图像方式和只是由（听到）语言而在脑海里产生图像的方式有不同吗？
玛格丽特：是的，非常不同。你可以在孩子们的绘画中看出端倪。因此当你让一个三岁的孩子画一个人，你可能会得到一张脸长在腿上的图片，对吧？你看见过这样的画。为什么是这样呢？因为当小孩处理有关人的信息时，真正重要的是脸部。所以，当小孩现在呈现给你他脑海中的那个人是谁的时候，在记忆中浮现的就是关于他们的重要信息。所以，没错，当你将某样东西形象化时，你所知道的就是你已经提炼过的信息，那些重要的东西。
主持人：同样有趣的是当你听说一幅用语言生动描述的图像时，那种情况可以引起回应并存留于你的脑海。拉姆齐，你认为这是那种不同于电影一类的影像在那里并留在头脑里的事物吗？当用语言形象描述时你这样认为吗？
拉姆齐：是的，当然。我的意思是，我想广告就是那样操作的。而如果你有一个真正好的理念，一句真正吸引人的广告语，它就深入人心了。比如，有一句广告语：“为了一个民族的国家，为了一个没有国家的民族” 。那是很早以前，十九世纪初犹太复国主义者的口号，因为它是一个很突出的概念，所以就获得了成功。而且事实上，甚至在之后如果你能好好地查找一下，确有人住在那里，所以它终究不是那么空泛，它不再影响到你所勾勒的那些影像。这是个概念，一句标语，单纯地来自于一个直观的观点，它是完美的。只是不真实，但它是完美的。
主持人：好的，谢谢你的发言。也谢谢你，詹姆斯，谢谢你在60秒内改变世界的观点。
Host: This is The Forum from the BBC World Service. Our guest presenter: Davie Baddiel, the novelist and comedian. And it’s time now for our Sixty Second Idea to Change the World. And in the hot seat this week is Professor of International Peace and Security, James Gow. You’ve just got one minute, James, to win over me, Dave Baddiel, and my other two guests—Per Ramsey Rasser and 1)neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone. He’s in Hilversum in Holland, and she’s in Boston, so it’s quite an exciting kind of world 2)domination process I’ve put you in now. And, of course, the BBC World Service audience, so there’s about a hundred and fifty million people that you could win over now with this idea. And your minute starts now.
James Gow: The idea to improve the world is this: In order to become 3)visually more creative, we need at some point to
4)eliminate images from our lives, altogether, at least for some moment in the week. We’ve all become so heavily 5)reliant on still and moving images to engage us with the world around us that we need something to change. We need to be free from the 6)tyranny of the image, just for that moment somewhere in the week. Turn off the TV if you’ve got televisions; stop the cinema; stop the computer screens. And have nothing but sounds. No pictures. We’d then have the opportunity to start developing images in our minds.
We’d like to have that stimulation from the 7)aural world around us. It might be the radio, the World Service. It could be just conversations, sounds around. And this would be exciting. It’d enable us to think away from the things we do normally, outside the box, beyond the boundaries of anything dominated by images and the screen.
Life would be transformed and the idea would be to encourage us to use imagination to liberate 8)inherent creativity.
(Sound of alarm clock)
Host: The clock’s gone. I love the game show aspect of this
9)bit. Well done! That was excellent. And I think you’re playing to a home crowd here because you’re essentially saying, listen to the radio, and nothing else for one day a week.
James: Well, not only, you can listen to Ramsey’s poetry as well.
Host: Yeah, but on the radio, perhaps.
James: Yeah.
Host: But just to listen, to listen and not to look.
James: To get the space. You will see better, I think, if you spent [sic] time away from just looking.
Host: It will enrich your sense of vision.
James: One of the things that Ramsey said earlier was the difference between, I think, sight and seeing. You can see something, but it’s only when you engage with it that you begin to see things properly, or maybe, to uncover them. The idea that seeing is a process, going through 37 neurological stages or whatever it might be, in order to have that one image that you get in your mind.
Host: Ramsey, do you think it would help the poetic imagination of the people in general if they would have to think harder about how to create images in the mind, if they just listened to words, solely, for one day?
Ramsey: In general, yes, and I only think it will improve many movies because we won’t be able to see them any more, and we won’t see how bad they are.
Host: Yeah, that’s true. So people would still go along, though, to watch completely blank screens with just words on them on this day?
Ramsey: (Laughing) Yeah, exactly.
James: Well, that has been known, Derek Jarman…
Host: Derek Jarman did a film called Blue, which is just blue, when he was blind, in fact. That was one of his works. So, yeah, that it clearly can be done.
Margaret, what do you think of this idea? Do you think it would help the way that we process images? It would be healthy for the brain not to see anything for a day?
Margaret Livingstone: We’re really very visual. And if you take away vision, that part of the brain is gonna be pretty inactive unless you take it away early, in which case you’ll use it kind of as RAM for some other
10)sensory system.
Host: But might it not be good in the way of letting the brain lie fallow for a day, if it’s overfed with images like we are, just to not have that for a day?
Margaret: Well, 11)admittedly, I don’t watch television; most of the magazines I read don’t have pictures in them. So I guess I do that automatically.
Host: Yeah. Is there a difference in the way the brain processes an image when it sees it in the real world, to when it just creates it in the mind from words?
Margaret: Yes, very much. You can see this in children’s drawings. So you ask a three-year-old child to draw a person, and you’re gonna get a face on legs. Right? You’ve seen ’em. Why is that? Because when the kid processes information about people, what’s really important about them are their faces. And so, when the kid now gives you back what’s in his head about who that person is, what comes back is what’s important about them. So, yes, when you’re 12)visualizing something you’re being aware of the things you’ve
13)extracted, the important things.
Host: What’s interesting as well is when you hear a very well 14)rendered image in words, the way that it can
15)resonate and stay in the mind. Ramsey do you think that that’s one of the things that doesn’t sort of just 16)flicker, it’s there and it stays in the head? Do you think when it is well rendered in words?
Ramsey: Yes. Of course. I mean, that’s how advertisement works, I think. And if you have a really good concept, a good 17)slogan, it sticks there. For instance, you have the slogan, “A country for a people, for a people without a country.” You know, that is the old…early 19th century 18)Zionist slogan, which worked
19)fantastically because it’s a concept that stuck. And even later on if you find out well, actually, there were people living there, so it wasn’t that empty after all, it doesn’t influence the image you have anymore. It is a concept, a slogan, that is purely from the visual point of view, it is 20)exquisite. It’s just not true. But it’s exquisite.
Host: Well, thank you for that. And thank you James for your idea about how to change the world in 60 seconds.
主持人：这里是英国广播公司全球服务频道的《论坛》节目。我们的特邀嘉宾是小说作家和喜剧演员戴维·巴蒂尔。现在是我们的《60秒想法改变世界》节目时间。本周做此节目的是国际和平与安全协会的詹姆斯·高尔教授。詹姆斯，你只有1分钟的时间，来获得我的支持、戴维·巴蒂尔的支持，以及我的另外两位客人——佩尔·拉姆齐·拉塞和神经生物学家玛格丽特·利文斯通的支持。他在荷兰的希佛萨姆，她在波斯顿。所以我现在就带你们进入这个令人兴奋的引领世界的过程。当然，还有英国广播公司全球服务频道的听众们。因此，你现在可以用你的这个想法来获得一亿五千万人的支持。你的一分钟时间开始了。
詹姆斯·高尔：让世界进步的这个想法是：为了能看上去更有创意，我们需要在某种程度上让影像从生活中消失，至少一周里要有几个这样的时刻。我们已经变得如此严重地依赖动静影像来融入周围的世界，因此我们需要一些东西来改变。就在一周里的某个地方某个时刻，我们需要摆脱影像的横行。如果你有电视机, 那就关掉电视机；不再去电影院；关掉电脑显示器。只有声音, 没有影像。然后我们就有机会在脑海里开始构想影像了。
我们将从周遭的听觉世界里受到那样的鼓舞。也许是收音机,是(英国广播公司的)全球服务。周围可以只有对话和声音，这会是个让人兴奋的想法，它使我们远离常规思维去思考，在电视以外，超越一切受控于图像和屏幕的事物。
生活会有改变，这个想法将鼓励我们用想象力去释放内在的创造力。
(闹钟响)
主持人：闹钟响了。我很喜欢这档节目的游戏环节。说得好！非常棒！我想你赢得了主场听众的支持，因为你的基本意思就是，一周要用一天来听电台节目，不做其他事情。
詹姆斯：嗯，不只这样，你也可以听拉姆齐的诗。
主持人：是的，不过或许是通过电台收听。
詹姆斯：是的。
主持人：但只是听，听却不看。
詹姆斯：有了这样的空间后，我想，如果你花了时间在视觉之外，你能看得更清楚。
主持人：这会增强你的视觉感受力。
詹姆斯：拉姆齐之前提到过这样一件事情，我想是在看见和看之间的不同。你可以看到某样东西，但是只有当你融入进去时你才能准确地看清它，又或许是发现它。看是一个过程这样的想法，通过37种神经学的展现或者随便怎么叫吧，就是为了得到那一个你脑海中的图像。
主持人：拉姆齐，你认为这会在大体上有助于人们的诗意想象力吗？如果他们将不得不在脑海里思考如何创作影像，如果他们只是听了一天的话语。
拉姆齐：总而言之：是的。不过我只是认为这会改进很多电影，因为我们不再能看见它们了，我们就无法看到它们有多糟糕。
主持人：是的，不错。所以尽管如此，人们还是会赞同在这一天看只有文字在上面的完全空白的荧幕吗？
拉姆齐：（笑）是的，正是这样。
詹姆斯：嗯，大家都知道的，德里克·加曼……
主持人：德里克·加曼创作了一部名为《蓝》的电影，画面只是一片蓝，事实上是在他失明时创作的。那是他的作品之一，所以很明显，这是可以做到的。
玛格丽特，你觉得这个想法如何？你认为它能改进我们处理影像的方法吗？一天不看任何东西对大脑来说健康吗？
玛格丽特·利文斯通：我们确实很形象化。如果你把视觉拿走，大脑的那一部分真的会很不活跃，除非你一早就将它取走了。那样的话，你为其他一些感官系统使用它就有点如同使用随机存取存储器。
主持人：但是也许让大脑休息一天不活动的方式并不好呢？如果像我们一样，大脑已经装了太多的图像，就没有空间来过这样的一天了。
玛格丽特：嗯，我得承认，我不看电视，我读的大部分杂志都没有图片。所以我想我是无意识地就那样做的。
主持人：是的。大脑处理从现实中看到的图像方式和只是由（听到）语言而在脑海里产生图像的方式有不同吗？
玛格丽特：是的，非常不同。你可以在孩子们的绘画中看出端倪。因此当你让一个三岁的孩子画一个人，你可能会得到一张脸长在腿上的图片，对吧？你看见过这样的画。为什么是这样呢？因为当小孩处理有关人的信息时，真正重要的是脸部。所以，当小孩现在呈现给你他脑海中的那个人是谁的时候，在记忆中浮现的就是关于他们的重要信息。所以，没错，当你将某样东西形象化时，你所知道的就是你已经提炼过的信息，那些重要的东西。
主持人：同样有趣的是当你听说一幅用语言生动描述的图像时，那种情况可以引起回应并存留于你的脑海。拉姆齐，你认为这是那种不同于电影一类的影像在那里并留在头脑里的事物吗？当用语言形象描述时你这样认为吗？
拉姆齐：是的，当然。我的意思是，我想广告就是那样操作的。而如果你有一个真正好的理念，一句真正吸引人的广告语，它就深入人心了。比如，有一句广告语：“为了一个民族的国家，为了一个没有国家的民族” 。那是很早以前，十九世纪初犹太复国主义者的口号，因为它是一个很突出的概念，所以就获得了成功。而且事实上，甚至在之后如果你能好好地查找一下，确有人住在那里，所以它终究不是那么空泛，它不再影响到你所勾勒的那些影像。这是个概念，一句标语，单纯地来自于一个直观的观点，它是完美的。只是不真实，但它是完美的。
主持人：好的，谢谢你的发言。也谢谢你，詹姆斯，谢谢你在60秒内改变世界的观点。