系統(tǒng)的功能

林巍

原 文

[1] 現(xiàn)代意義上的“系統(tǒng)”一詞 ，轉(zhuǎn)譯自日文，從西方而來(lái)，如希臘文的systema，英文的system，其功能大于各個(gè)部分相加之和。

[2] 世界上的事物不是隨意堆加在一起的，而是有著內(nèi)在規(guī)律，即形成了系統(tǒng)。一切事物都是復(fù)雜的系統(tǒng)集合，有宏觀亦有微觀，包括天體、地理、社會(huì)、人體、思維等等。

[3] 然而，人類取得這樣的認(rèn)識(shí)卻經(jīng)歷了幾千年。特別是四百多年前牛頓發(fā)現(xiàn)了萬(wàn)有引力，一百多年前愛因斯坦創(chuàng)立了相對(duì)論，使我們的這種認(rèn)識(shí)有了科學(xué)的依據(jù)——事物各系統(tǒng)之間、各層次內(nèi)部，發(fā)生著永無(wú)休止的相互影響；只有從系統(tǒng)的角度，才能真正認(rèn)識(shí)、把握事物的實(shí)質(zhì)。

[4] 人們對(duì)于世界的認(rèn)識(shí)之所以要分門別類，是出于理解的便利，而非事物本身的面目。在古希臘，最初并沒有“分科”的學(xué)問(wèn)，而只有唯一的“學(xué)問(wèn)”——哲學(xué)，因?yàn)槟抢锔爬巳祟悓?duì)世界的所有認(rèn)識(shí)。在中國(guó)，對(duì)學(xué)問(wèn)的分類，也是到了漢代司馬談的《論六家要旨》才出現(xiàn)的。所以，“學(xué)問(wèn)”是人為做出來(lái)的；而人的認(rèn)識(shí)系統(tǒng)與客觀世界的系統(tǒng)之間永遠(yuǎn)有著差距。在這個(gè)意義上講，學(xué)問(wèn)應(yīng)當(dāng)永遠(yuǎn)讓位于真相。

[5] 人無(wú)論多么復(fù)雜，都是一個(gè)有限系統(tǒng)，而認(rèn)識(shí)的對(duì)象——世界，卻是一個(gè)無(wú)限系統(tǒng)，這就要求人在信息處理方面具有以簡(jiǎn)馭繁、以有限形式去容納無(wú)限內(nèi)容的能力。在生理結(jié)構(gòu)和功能上，人的感覺器官并不比其他高等生物更敏銳，但卻可以在本質(zhì)上認(rèn)識(shí)無(wú)限的物質(zhì)世界，這主要得益于人的抽象思維能力和與之配套的語(yǔ)言系統(tǒng)。

[6] 人的所謂“預(yù)知”或“觸類旁通”，其實(shí)都是系統(tǒng)功能的作用。俄國(guó)化學(xué)家門捷列夫在發(fā)明了化學(xué)元素周期表后，從該表中的幾個(gè)空洞預(yù)測(cè)了新元素的存在。果然，15年后，其他科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)了與預(yù)測(cè)相符的三種元素。理論物理學(xué)家狄拉克研究電子的性質(zhì)，認(rèn)為“真空”正如充滿電子的海洋，那里其實(shí)沒有正電子的“泡泡”，卻預(yù)測(cè)了正子的存在。在物理學(xué)上，許多基本粒子的發(fā)現(xiàn)，都是先用對(duì)稱理論預(yù)測(cè)，然后通過(guò)復(fù)雜試驗(yàn)找尋出來(lái)的，從而彌補(bǔ)了主觀與客觀間的差距。

[7] 系統(tǒng)的核心是結(jié)構(gòu)；不同的結(jié)構(gòu)決定了不同的性質(zhì)與功能。金剛石和石墨都是由碳元素組成的單質(zhì)，但由于其碳原子排列順序的不同，形成了世界上最硬和最軟的物質(zhì)。人的認(rèn)識(shí)體系、知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)也是如此。同樣的信息量在不同人身上會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的效果。所以，學(xué)習(xí)“系統(tǒng)”，搭建“結(jié)構(gòu)”，有時(shí)比學(xué)習(xí)“零件”更重要。

譯 文

[1] The Chinese character xitong in the modern sense is a transplanted term from the West， such as “systema” in Greek and “system” in English， retranslated from Japanese. The functional effectiveness of a system is supposed to be greater than the aggregation of its individual parts.

[2] Matters on earth are arranged not by random collection but by inner laws， namely a systematic mechanism. Everything exists in a complex system consisting of macro-cosmos and micro-cosmos， including cosmology， geography， society， human beings， thinking mode and so on.

[3] However， it took several thousand years for human beings to reach this realization. In particular， Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation （400 or so years ago） and Einsteins Relativity （about 100 years ago） laid a scientific foundation for us to grasp the essence of ever lasting interactions among different systems at various levels. In short， the best realization about our world comes from a systematic approach.

[4] Categorization of the world into academic disciplines has blurred its originality， for no purpose other than easy understanding. In Ancient Greece， there was no such thing as different branches of learning except “philosophy”， which was believed to embrace all human knowledge of the world. Similarly， in China the disciplines did not occur until “On the Theme of the Six Scholarships” was written by Sima Tan （？—B.C.110） in the Han Dynasty. Knowledge of any kind is， after all， designed and produced by man， who may fail to reveal the totality of the world. In this way， scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth.

[5] No matter how complicated a human is as a system， it is a limited one compared with the unlimited world that he tries to understand. In handling the overwhelming information that human beings are confronted with， highly efficient approaches have thus been developed. In terms of biological structure and functions， the sensory organs of human beings are in fact no more developed than other highly evolved creatures， and yet humans can catch more of the essence of the world， mainly due to their abstract thinking capacity and their language systems.

[6] What is so-called “prediction” or “knowing the rest by analogy” is essentially generated by systematic analysis. Taking chemistry as an example， some gaps in the Periodic Table discovered by the Russian chemist Mendeleyev predicted several new chemical elements； three of which were found by other chemists 15 years later. Similarly， the theoretical physicist Diac revealed that there were no positron “bubbles” in a vacuum during his research into the nature of electrons， and then predicted that something called a positron might exist. In physics， many basic particles are found by way of repeated experiments based on a symmetrical theory， thus bridging the gap between the subjective and objective worlds.

[7] The core of a system is the structure which determines its nature and functions. Diamond and graphite， for example， are both solely made of carbons. However， their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms result in the hardest and softest substances in the world. The same principle applies to our perceptual and knowledge systems， where the same amount of information may cause different effects. In this way， one could say that learning “parts” sometimes may not be as effective as mastering a “system” or a “structure”.

譯 注

在[3]中，“只有從系統(tǒng)的角度，才能真正認(rèn)識(shí)、把握事物的實(shí)質(zhì)”，一般而言，很容易譯成：Only from a systematic point of view， can the true nature of a matter be realized. 然而所謂“從系統(tǒng)的角度”指的其實(shí)是一種認(rèn)識(shí)事物的方式、方法，故不妨為systematic approach；而“真正認(rèn)識(shí)、把握事物的實(shí)質(zhì)”體現(xiàn)了中文長(zhǎng)于復(fù)述、強(qiáng)調(diào)的特性，在英文里則不妨簡(jiǎn)化為 best realization。故此，該句不妨譯為：The best realization... comes from a systematic approach. 其中 come from為源自何處，如We believe that good results come from effort and not just from what someone gave us.（我們相信好的結(jié)果來(lái)自努力，而不是別人的賜予）。

在[4]中，“而非事物本身的面目”，這里沒有以否定的方式譯成 is not the true appearance of the matter，而是以肯定的方式處理為 …h(huán)as blurred its originality。這里的blur 意為 to smear or stain something but not to efface。同時(shí)，“對(duì)學(xué)問(wèn)的分類，也是到了漢代司馬談的《論六家要旨》才出現(xiàn)的”，在譯文中不但加入了Similarly以便接續(xù)，同時(shí)在“司馬談”后增添了生卒年代“（？–B.C.110）”，以使西方讀者對(duì)此有一時(shí)代的概念?！叭说恼J(rèn)識(shí)系統(tǒng)與客觀世界的系統(tǒng)之間永遠(yuǎn)有著差距”，若將其徑直翻譯為 There is always a gap between human conceptional system and the world system，固然是“形近”了，但并未揭示出該句的主旨——人們的主觀認(rèn)識(shí)與客觀世界無(wú)限性之間的矛盾，故其后半句不妨譯為 …who may fail to reveal the totality of the world。在文字形式上看似差距大了，但實(shí)際離原意卻更近了。

在同一段中，“學(xué)問(wèn)應(yīng)當(dāng)永遠(yuǎn)讓位于真相”，似可譯成knowledge should always give away to the truth，或 knowledge should always be led by the truth。然而分析起來(lái)，這里的“學(xué)問(wèn)”不是一般意義上的knowledge，而是人們?yōu)榱搜芯繉W(xué)問(wèn)而對(duì)其所作的分門別類的學(xué)科，故可為branch of learning， discipline， school subject， course of study，但更準(zhǔn)確的為scholarship；而“讓位”，不是一般意義上的give away——該詞更多的是“失去”之意——故不妨譯為scholarship is always vulnerable when confronted with newly revealed truth。其中，兩個(gè)詞值得一述——vulnerable和revealed。這里的vulnerable可引申之open to attack or damage。進(jìn)而言之，其含義為susceptible to criticism or persuasion or temptation，例如an argument vulnerable to refutation （一個(gè)可被輕易駁倒的立論）。相應(yīng)地，其中的“（學(xué)問(wèn)應(yīng)當(dāng)永遠(yuǎn)讓位于）真相”，不是一般意義上的reality、fact或truth， 而是相對(duì)“學(xué)問(wèn)”而言的“已知事實(shí)”。故此，不妨譯為newly revealed truth。

在[6]中，“其實(shí)都是系統(tǒng)功能的作用”，其中的“功能”很容易譯成 function，然而該詞是從客觀的“系統(tǒng)作用”而言的，而原文實(shí)際指人通過(guò)該系統(tǒng)所做出的分析與結(jié)果，是從主觀角度著眼的，故應(yīng)用systematic analysis，整句為is essentially generated by systematic analysis。同時(shí)，“從而彌補(bǔ)了主觀與客觀間的差距”，其中的“彌補(bǔ)”并非通常意義上的 make up， remedy， make good， make up for weaknesses， fill in the shortage等等，而實(shí)則是 bridge the gap；而且“主觀”、“客觀”指的是主客觀世界。

此外，為了行文的連貫，在同段中，“俄國(guó)化學(xué)家門捷列夫在發(fā)明了化學(xué)元素周期表后”，該句在中文里的銜接不顯唐突，甚是緊湊，而在英譯文中，則要在此之前插入Taking chemistry as an example，以示過(guò)渡。

在[7]中，“碳原子排列順序的不同”，不可依字面譯為the difference of arranging order of carbonaceous atoms，而化學(xué)教科書上的表述為their different arrangements of carbonaceous atoms。同時(shí)，“學(xué)習(xí)‘系統(tǒng)，搭建‘結(jié)構(gòu)，有時(shí)比學(xué)習(xí)‘零件更重要”，在中文詞匯里搭配得當(dāng)、錯(cuò)落有致，然而若照樣譯成英文，如study the system， establish the construction…則重復(fù)、冗贅；同時(shí)，“更重要”也不必譯為more important，可對(duì)此加以整合與簡(jiǎn)化。