道教书法艺术

道教书法,同道教的符有密切联系,可以说,道教书法渊源于道教符,符是道教特有的一种书法。一、符,一种具有抽象意义的书法艺术符,又称“神符”、“符字”、“墨符”、“丹书”等,是一种用朱或墨画于黄色纸、帛上或木板上的特殊符号,形似书,难以辨认,给人神秘莫测之感。《玄门大义》解释说:“(神符)即龙章凤之文,灵迹符书之字是也。”道教认为,这种符号文字,是仿天上“三元五德八会”之,自然结成“天书云”而产生的。相传道教符最早来自黄帝“云书”。黄帝善作云书,故以云为纪。“云书”是以流云为主要模拟对象的一种书法。云书在秦汉之际演变…     

“兵主”蚩尤神话形象还原

蚩尤与黄帝涿鹿一战,千古留名,被后世奉为“兵主”“战神”。而儒家对蚩尤的评价是“及利无义”,“不顾厥亲,以丧厥身”,“欲而无厌者也”,他的形象也被妖魔化。然从后世史料中有关蚩尤记载来看,蚩尤并未因此战败而彻底沉沦为反面形象,反而在中华文明史上有着自己独特地位。本文着意从蚩尤事迹出发,还原蚩尤的真实面貌,及其后世影响。     

道教的"神符"和书法艺术

道教的“神符”是一种特殊的书法艺术符咒是重要道术。许慎《说文》:“符,信也。汉制以竹,长六寸,分而相合。”《汉书·文帝纪》:“初与郡守为铜虎符、竹使符。”应邵注曰:“国家当发兵遣使者,至郡合符,符合乃听受之。”张晏曰:“符以代古之圭璋。”镌刻篆书于竹简上,半留京师,半予郡守,使达帝王旨意,符合是取信的凭证。道士书符以召役鬼神或即沿用其意而来。以为天神垂符图,示以云采图像,即所谓“云篆”,录之而神符。又以为天神降授神符,焚之取信天神,可役使、召劾不同司职的鬼神,或镇邪祛疾,或倒转日月,或称位五岳。《山海经》记有一则神…     

清华简《筮法》“楒”试释

清华大学藏战国竹简《筮法·祟》章所见“艮祟”之鬼神名“楒■”,当读作“蚩尤”。“蚩尤”之读,与《祟》章所见鬼神体系及《筮法》恶爻用象不悖。据此可推得“劳祟”之“风”当解作“风伯”,而“巽祟”之“巫”当是巫咸之类也。     

道教的财神

道教的《太上正一盟威法箓》载有“太上招财镇宝妙箓”，其中有三张内在逻辑性很强的符箓。 第一张是紫微中阁招财神符，据说佩之可以招五方钱财。第二张是紫微中阁镇宝神符，佩之可以使钱财不失，六畜兴旺，万厄不侵。第三张是紫微中阁佑神符，佩之可以使你不断进财。中国人对财神有普遍的信仰，因为对普通人来讲，谁不想要钱呢？现在我们经常可以看到商店里供奉着财神，贴着这样的对联生意兴隆通四海，财源茂盛达三江。这就是招财进宝、不失珍宝、不断进财宝的遗风写照。 财神有文武之分。赵公明、关帝被看作武财神，文昌帝君是文财神。他…     

《列子》是早期的道家黄老学著作——兼论稷下黄老学之兴起高潮

过去被认为是伪书的《列子》。经近人研究并非伪出,作者赞同这一观点。证之以刘向《列子序录》,《列子》实为道家黄老学的早期著作。《列子》一书有九处言及“黄帝书”“黄帝曰”或黄帝事,大体皆托黄论道或托黄解老,其道家性质可以确定。逮至稷下学宫,其黄老学派传承《列子》,可证《列子》为稷下黄老之先导,而战国中期的田齐变法,为黄老学的传播掀起了高潮     

试论《阴符经》的人天观

《阴符经》相传为黄帝所著,又称《黄帝阴符经》,是一部重要的典籍,历代都受到人们重视,认为它与《道德经》同是“达真诠”成正果的钥匙。诗云：“《阴符》宝字逾三百,《道德》灵文止五千,自古上仙无限数,尽从此处达真诠”。《阴符经》认为,天道与人道同根一[死灬] ,有阴符暗合之理,故以“阴符”名之。[第一段]     

“嫫母力父,是之喜也”解

《荀子集解·赋篇第二十六·诡诗》小歌部分“嫫母、力父,是之喜也”一句历来难解,特别是“力父”指谁,未有确解,故兹试解如下.“嫫母”是黄帝妃,虽貌丑,内政却处理得很好.“是之喜也”乃“莫之喜也”之误.“力父”乃“力牧”之误,力牧辅佐黄帝,天下大治,乃黄帝得力助手.“嫫母、力父,是之喜也”当是“嫫母、力牧,莫之喜也”之误.荀子在此抒发了其心中愤懑之情.     

《管子》的主流属“黄帝之言”

《管子》的主流属“黄帝之言”知水黄帝有没有学说？持否定论者以为黄帝乃是传说人物，怎么会有思想呢？他们偏偏忘记了，战国之世，被托名立说的岂止黄帝。孟夫子不是曾大力抨击过那位“为神农之言者许行”（《孟子·滕文公上》）么？许行倡言“贤者与民并耕而食，饔飧而...     

天师道名称小议

天师道,在汉、魏时期称五斗米道,这在《后汉书》、《三国志》的有关传记中,记载相同,学术界也无异辞;后来改称天师道,但为什么改称?何时改称?学术界的看法却不一致。有说因张陵自称天师,故名天师道;有说因道徒尊张陵为天师,故称天师道。至于何时改称,有说起于西晋陈瑞自称天师以后;有说起于汉熹平时,或更早。这些,在道数史研究中虽不是大问题,但讨论清楚,还是有意义的。“天师”一词,最早见于《庄子·徐无畏》,该篇设黄帝与小童问答,中云:“黄帝再拜稽首,称天师而退。”后之《黄帝内经素问》,设黄帝与岐伯、雷公等之问答,首篇首句云:“昔在黄帝生而神灵,……乃问于天师曰”,注云:“天师,岐     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.