2016年1月7日 星期四

Edgar Morin To understand the Other /作品:《方法:天然之天性》, authropolitique

我想起Edgar Morin 合著的【地球 祖國】TERRE-PATRIE.....

Method 原意是行路。 [ラテン語ギリシャ語méthodos méta-あとに+hodós方法, 道=あとに続いて進む道きちんとした方法)]
我們有可能在沒路處行路,或是在行路時闢開道路。亦及是西班牙詩人Machado說的 Caminante no haycamino (於無路處行出去) 。方法只能在尋找中產生。
--Edgar MORIN《方法:天然之天性La Methode. Tome1: la nature de lature, 19802版》北京大學出版社,2002,頁17


《人本政治導言》內容簡介:“人本政治”的法文原詞為 authropolitique,它是由authrop0—logie和politique兩個法文 詞拼合構成的。Authropologie一詞原義為“人類學”,又有轉義“人本學”;而politique一詞兼有“政治”與“政治學”兩義。這給中文 翻譯造成一定困難,因為當莫蘭使用前一詞時可以在“人類學”和“人本學”之間游移,使用后一個詞時可以在“政治”和“政治學”之問轉換(所以莫蘭的“人本 政治”其實涵蓋“為人服務的政治的理論和實踐”),而在中文中不行。所以我在翻譯中根據不同情況把authropologie有時譯為“人類學”有時譯為 “人本學”,把authropolitique有時譯為“人本政治”,有時譯為“人本政治學”。


1.1 抽取邏各斯
1.2 孕育中的世界性:技術文明
l.3 破碎的世界性:民族存在(nation)
1.4 社會的多元規定性
1.5 西方的邏輯
1.6 東方的邏輯
1.7 東西方關係的邏輯
1.8 第三世界的邏輯,
1.9 持續的危機
2.1 革命主義和現代主義
2.2 “善意的人們
2.3 規範和調節
2.4 全球政治
2.5 民主社會主義的模式
2.6 民主的問題
2.7 最不嚴重損害人的道路
2.8 發展的最適宜方式(第三世界)
2.9 發展的革命
2.10 東方的搭建腳手架的工作
2.1l 處于夾縫之中的西方


1.1 生態學的意識
1.2 生態化的思想
1.3 范式的改革
1.4 全球的會合
2.1 未來的失落
2.2 新基礎主義和新現代主義
2.3 未知的探險
2.4 重新武裝我們的理智
4.1 颶風
4.2 后末日啟示錄
4.3 達摩克利斯的時代
4.4 莫洛博士島
4.5 團結互愛和/或死亡
5.1 自由、平等及其接續
5.2 認識的民主和思想的改革
5.3 走向邦聯
5.4 地球-祖國
5.5 結論

Edgar Morin is a French philosopher and sociologist born Edgar Nahoum in Paris on July 8, 1921. He is of Judeo-Spanish (Sefardi) origin. He is known for the transdisciplinarity of his works.


At the beginning of the 20th century, Morin's family migrated from the Greek town of Salonica to Marseille[1] and later to Paris, where Edgar was born. He first became tied to socialism in connection with the Popular Front and the Spanish Republican Government during the Spanish Civil War. When the Germans invaded France in 1940, Edgar fled to Toulouse, where he assisted refugees and committed himself to Marxist socialism. As a member of the French Resistance he adopted the pseudonym Morin, which he would use for the rest of his life. He joined the French Communist Party in 1941. In 1945, Morin married Violette Chapellaubeau and they lived in Landau, where he served as a Lieutenant in the French Occupation army in Germany.
In 1946, he returned to Paris and gave up his military career to pursue his activities with the Communist party. Due to his critical posture, his relationship with the party gradually deteriorated until he was expelled in 1951 after he published an article in Le Nouvel Observateur. In the same year, he was admitted to the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS).
Morin founded and directed the magazine Arguments (1954–1962). In 1959 his book Autocritique was published.
In 1960, Morin travelled extensively in Latin America, visiting Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Mexico.He returned to France where he published L'Esprit du Temps.
That same year, French sociologist Georges Friedmann brought him and Roland Barthes together to create a Centre for the Study of Mass Communication that, after several name-changes, became the Edgar Morin Centre of the EHESS, Paris.[2]
Beginning in 1965, Morin became involved in a large multidisciplinary project, financed by the Délégation Générale à la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique in Plozévet.
In 1968, Morin replaced Henri Lefebvre at the University of Nanterre. He became involved in the student revolts that began to emerge in France. In May 1968, he wrote a series of articles for Le Monde that tried to understand what he called "The Student Commune." He followed the student revolt closely and wrote a second series of articles in Le Monde called "The Revolution without a Face," as well as co-authoring Mai 68: La brèche with Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort.[3]
In 1969, Morin spent a year at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.
In 1983, he published De la nature de l’URSS, which deepened his analysis of Soviet communism and anticipated the Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Morin was married to Johanne Harrelle, with whom he lived for 15 years.
In 2002, Morin participated in the creation of the International Ethical, Scientific and Political Collegium.

Philosophical development

According to Alfonso Montuori in "Edgar Morin: A partial introduction"
"The 5 volume Method is perhaps Morin’s culminating work, a remarkable and seemingly inexhaustible treasure trove of insights, reflection, and a real manual for those who are interested in broadening the nature of human inquiry. Drawing on cybernetics, information theory, systems theory, but also integrating all the work he has done before, from the work on imagination in his research on movies to his profound reflections on death, Method integrates Morin’s journey and provides the reader with an alternative to the traditional assumptions and method of inquiry of our time.".

Literary Work


  • 1951, L’Homme et la mort
  • 1956, Le cinema ou l'homme imaginaire
  • 1957, Les Stars
  • 1969, La Rumeur d’Orléans
  • 1967, Commune en France: La Metamorphose de Plodemet
  • La Méthode (6 volumes)
    • 1977, La Nature de la nature
    • 1980, La Vie de la vie
    • 1986, La Connaissance de la connaissance
    • 1991, Les Idées
    • 2001, L’Humanité de l’humanité
    • 2004, L'Éthique complexe
  • 1970, Journal de Californie
  • 1973, Le paradigme perdu: la nature humaine
  • 1981, Pour sortir du siècle XX
  • 1982, Science avec conscience
  • 1983, De la nature de l’URSS
  • 1988, Penser L'Europe
  • 1990, Introduction à la pensée complexe
  • 1993, Terre-patrie
  • 1994, Mes démons
  • 1994, La Complexité humaine
  • 1997, Comprendre la complexité dans les organisations de soins
  • 1999, L’Intelligence de la complexité
  • 1999, Relier les connaissances
  • 1999, La Tête bien faite
  • 2000, Les Sept savoirs nécessaires à l'éducation du futur
  • 2001, Journal de Plozévet, Bretagne
  • 2002, Pour une politique de civilisation
  • 2002, Dialogue sur la connaissance. Entretiens avec des lycéens
  • 2003, La Violence du monde
  • 2003, Éduquer pour l’ère planétaire, la pensée complexe comme méthode d’apprentissage dans l’erreur et l’incertitude humaine
  • 2003, Les Enfants du ciel: entre vide, lumière, matière
  • 2004, Pour Entrer dans le siècle XXI
  • 2006, Le Monde Moderne et La Question Juive
  • 2007, Vers l'abîme ?
  • 2007, Où va le monde ?
  • 2011, La Voie, Pour l'avenir de l'humanité


  • “The Noise and the Message”. Telos 33 (Fall 1977). New York: Telos Press.



  1. ^ Edgar Morin, Véronique Nahoum-Grappe, Haïm Vidal Sephiha (1989) "Vidal et les siens", Paris: Seuil, 317 pages.
  2. ^ "Centre Edgar-Morin". iiac. http://www.iiac.cnrs.fr/cetsah/spip.php?article207. Retrieved 2010-01-23. [dead link]
  3. ^ Van Herpen, Marcel. "PARIS MAY ’68 AND PROVO AMSTERDAM ‘65". pp. 19. http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Marcel_Van_Herpen_May_68_and_Provo_Amsterdam_65.pdf. Retrieved 2010-01-23.

External links


作者: [法] 埃德加·莫兰
译者: 陈一壮
出版社: 商务印书馆
出版年: 2010-7-1
页数: 182
定价: 15.0
装帧: 平装
丛书: 当代法国思想文化译丛
ISBN: 9787100065610


埃德加 莫兰复杂性思想述评

作者:陈一壮 著 日期:2006
出版:未知 精装:平装

本 书是法国当代提出“复杂性范式”的著名哲学家,社会学家埃德加?莫兰(Edgar Morin)的思想述评。全书首先追述了莫兰的身世,早年成长经历,把它们作为莫兰复杂性思想起源的背景因素。继而叙述了莫兰多彩多姿的政治、学术生涯, 它们与莫兰复杂性思想的发展过程互为表里。然后考察了莫兰在最终投入哲学认识论的研究之前运用复杂性方法在人类学、社会学、政治学领域内分别取得的研究成 果,它们代表着莫兰复杂性思想形成的发展阶段。最后作者全面剖析了莫兰的复杂性理论,先是论述了它在莫兰的多卷本代表作《方法》中的原始表现形态,进而通 过逻辑分析提出了莫兰复杂性思想有机构成的三个基点:自组织原则,多中心原则和反思性原则。本书体现了奠兰的理论原理的复杂性内容与其思想体系的表现形式 的复杂性的统一,从哲学与科学、人文文化与科学文化相互渗透的角度来把握莫兰的思想体系。...

引言第一章 家世和童年
第二章 成长历程
第三章 学术生涯和社会活动
第四章 整体人类学 1.人类如何面对死亡 2.电影中的人性问题 3.整体人类学
第五章 当前社会学1.大众文化2.危机和逆流3.社会学诊断
第六章 人类政治学 1.人类政治学 2.复杂的和全球的政治学 3.文明的政治
第八章 复杂性方法的逻辑构成1.自组织的原则2.多中心的原则3.反思性的原则

  To understand the Other (Edgar Morin’s)

Dialogue assumes equality
For the French philosopher and sociologist, dialogue is only possible between individuals who recognize each other as subjects with the same dignity and the same rights. That is why he is pessimistic about our era, which he describes as marked by Manichaeism and a breakdown in understanding.
Este elemento no está disponible en Español. Está disponible actualmente en Inglés, Francés.
Could you help us define the concept of “dialogue among civilizations”, or even the notion of “civilization”, particularly in contrast to “culture”?
According to a classic distinction, proposed by 19th century German sociology, we call culture that which belongs to an ethnic group, a nation or community – in other words its customs, beliefs, mores, rites, celebrations, gods and myth. Whereas civilization is what can be transmitted from one culture to another. For instance, potato farming was transmitted from Andean America to Europe and then to the rest of the world, just as the use of the plough started in one corner of the world and spread everywhere. In other words, civilization is technical and material: it is what can be passed on.

The idea of “dialogue among civilizations”, however, takes the word “civilization” more in the sense of “culture” because it makes reference to a set of distinct features that supposedly can’t be mixed. When we speak of dialogue between civilizations in its ordinary meaning, we think in a simplified way of western civilization, or Chinese, Islamic, Christian, Iranian, African and so on. Yet if I speak of Chinese civilization, I think of the Tao or Confucianism, which of course can circulate. And Islamic civilization, for instance, encompasses countries and populations who have different cultures, even if it can obviously spread elsewhere in the world. In short, civilization and culture are vague concepts and subject to uncertainty!

It seems to me, however, that what UNESCO means is “We are different, we have different beliefs and religions, but our unique characteristics should not prevent us from engaging in dialogue.”

What does it mean for a civilization to “dialogue”?
From my point of view, civilizations or cultures do not dialogue. Only individuals can engage in dialogue. Those concerned are part a culture, they are open and can recognize the existence of the Other. By using our differences as a starting-point, they think we can find common ground and a common language – for example “We are all seeking peace.” If you take the medieval Christian world at the time of the Crusades, dialogue was not possible either with Muslims or Jews. With the fundamentalist Islamic fanatics of today, there is no dialogue possible either, because for them all others are “infidel dogs”. As soon as the Other becomes a wrongdoer or an infidel, dialogue becomes impossible.

And today, are Westerners open to dialogue?
Right now, a Good Empire and an Evil Empire have been defined as such by those in power in the United States, while from Al-Qaeda’s point of view it’s the exact opposite. Each claims to represent Good while the other represents Evil. And Manichean situations make dialogue impossible.

Certain Westerners, however, who have studied other civilizations, think that Islam cannot be reduced to fundamentalism; it’s a great religion that had an eminently civilizing role in the past, particularly in the era of Baghdad, the califates and Andalusia. They point out furthermore that it was the only great civilization of the High Middle Ages, that there are several interpretations of Islam, and that even in the heart of the Islamic world there are partisans of secularity. As soon as you have diversity in a culture or a civilization, you have people who are ready for dialogue. Generally they are the least conformist minds, “deviant” minds, sometimes the mixed-breed products of several civilizations.

What is a “dialogue”?
It’s when each person can set out his thesis, produce his arguments, and the other person is not prohibited from doing the same.

What are the conditions for dialogue?
First of all, recognition of the Other as an interlocutor having rights equal to one’s own. Real dialogue is when you recognize the same dignity in the other. No dialogue is possible between a master and his slave. Dialogue assumes equality – which is a relatively new viewpoint in European culture! Western Europe dominated and exploited the world starting with the conquest of America; it practiced slave trading and slavery; it carried out the longest and harshest dominations in history. Yet in that same Europe, and perhaps as early as the conquest, deviant minds developed some of the key ideas that allow dialogue: it was Bartolomeo de Las Casas, Spanish priest, who said that the American indigenous people were humans like everyone else, and it was Montaigne who said we called other civilizations “barbarians”. It continued with Montesquieu who imagined a so-called Persian coming to examine France in the manner of an anthropologist brought up on human rights philosophy. In other words, Western Europe was simultaneously the home of domination and of ideas about emancipation. And it was by appropriating those ideas that colonized people were able to relatively obtain emancipation.

What are the obstacles to dialogue in today’s world?
There is an obstacle when what is sacred for one is not sacred for the other. For example, a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew cannot have a dialogue to establish whether Jesus rose on the third day, Moses received the Ten Commandments, or Mohammed had a revelation from the Angel Gabriel. But we can recognize what is sacred for the Other and engage in dialogue, that is to say make progress in knowing the Other.

Those who dialogue are a minority, but they exist. Though when they are very few, it does not go far.

What is the difference between dialogue and negotiation?
Negotiating is bargaining for interests, to reach an agreement. Whereas genuine dialogue is understanding the Other. To understand the Other, first we have to try and know him in his entirety, know his beliefs, his customs, his rites, his civilization – which presupposes erudition or a certain education. We must understand that the Other is a subject like oneself, meaning an autonomous individual who commands respect. Then you need the subjective impetus of interest and sympathy. Without that, there is no comprehension. Today we are in conditions of collective hysteria and Manichaeism that prevent sympathy and therefore understanding. We are in a period where understanding is losing ground because of the war and its consequences.

How can we encourage this impetus towards sympathy, which you refer to?
Take the example of France and Germany who fought for a century and a half. In France, it was taught in schools that the Germans were brutes and in Germany that the French were worthless. After World War II, it was decided that history books should be revised and that the socio-centric vision should be replaced by a wider point of view. But on the other hand, today in Western Europe, we continue to obscure certain parts of history when we study this continent. We forget, for instance, that the Ottoman Empire went as far as Hungary and the former Yugoslavia and that it played a civilizing role for centuries. You have to have a background in history to sympathize with the Other.

In other words, many conditions must be fulfilled before engaging in dialogue. Certain individuals with a key role in the government or civil society can also facilitate the process by producing manuals and books helping us to understand others. Mutual understanding is a condition for dialogue.

Do you agree with Huntington that after the Cold War a clash between Western civilization and Islamic civilization was unavoidable?
No, it was avoidable. But I would say that today the clash is under way, even if it hasn’t really occurred yet. Several elements point to it. For example, until the intervention in Iraq, the kamikaze (suicide bomber) phenomenon was limited to a very small group of Palestinian militants from the Islamic Jihad. Now it’s spread to Iraq, where you also find another form of kamikaze behaviour, close to what existed in Japan during World War II: even people who are not fundamentalist believers are ready to sacrifice their lives for their country. As soon as we’re dealing with escalation of war, repression of terrorism and military terror, a vicious circle of hate, contempt, rejection and disgust emerges, and perhaps at that very moment a war between civilizations starts, which we must combat.

How can we fight?
With words, intelligence and conscience. We know what principles we must respect: understanding others and recognizing their rights. There are periods, such as ours, in which very little dialogue is possible. I think we are entering a dark period.

Interview by Sophie Boukhari
Photo Ulf Andersen/Gamma, Paris.

Philosopher of complexity

Philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morin is one of France’s leading contemporary thinkers. Born in Paris in 1921, he joined the Resistance during World War II. With university degrees in history, economics and law, he began his career in 1950 at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research), with a particular concern for cross-disciplinary dialogue.

He has concentrated on developing a method that can meet the challenge of the complexity of all modern knowledge, and reform politics and thought, in order to overcome the current global crisis. The five volumes of the “Method” – la Nature de la nature, la Vie de la vie, la Connaissance de la connaissance, Les idées, L’identité humaine – were published between 1977 and 2001 by Seuil.

His extensive body of work, translated into many languages, includes L’Homme et la Mort (Seuil, 1951); Introduction à une politique de l’homme (Seuil, 1965); L’Esprit du Temps (Grasset, 1962-1976); Pour sortir du XXe siècle (Nathan, 1981); Les Sept savoirs nécessaire à l’éducation du futur (Seuil, 2000); “Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future” (UNESCO, 2001); Pour une politique de civilisation (Arléa, 2002).

Among his other responsibilities, he is the President of UNESCO’s European Agency of Culture and holder of the itinerant UNESCO Edgar Morin Chair created in 1999 at the Universidad del Salvador in Argentina.

Edgar Morin’s most recent books are Eduquer pour l’ère planétaire, la pensée complexe comme Méthode d’apprentissage dans l’erreur et l’incertitude humaines (with Raoul Motta et Emilio-Roger Ciurana, Balland), Les Enfants du ciel : entre vide, lumière, matière (with Michel Cassé, Odile Jacob), and La Violence du monde (avec Jean Baudrillard, Ed. du Félin), all published this year.
Autor(es) Interview by Sophie Boukhari

Nombre de la publicación the new Courier