精選
Excerpt：湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle）的《衣裳哲學》
2025/02/14 05:22
瀏覽211
迴響0
推薦6
引用0
Excerpt：湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle）的《衣裳哲學》
既然孟德斯鳩寫了《法意》，那我也能寫《衣意》（Spirit of Clothes）。法律有法律的意義，衣裳自然有衣裳的意義，所以我們也該寫本書來談談衣裳的意義。因為不論裁縫或立法，人都不是憑偶然，而是憑思想神秘地導引雙手來進行。所有款式和成衣過程裡都隱含建築的概念，衣裳是建材，身體是工地，從中蓋出「人」這棟美麗的大樓來。
(As Montesquieu wrote a Spirit of Laws, so could I write a Spirit of Clothes; thus, with an Esprit des Lois, properly an Esprit de Coutumes we should have an Esprit de Costumes. For neither in tailoring nor in legislating does man proceed by mere Accident, but the hand is ever guided on by mysterious operations of the mind. In all his Modes and habilatory endeavours an Architectural Idea will be found lurking; his Body and the Cloth are the site and materials whereon and whereby his beautified edifice, of a Person, is to be built.)
——湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle），〈衣裳裡的世界〉(The World in Clothes)
閱讀及分享湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle）的《衣裳哲學》。
耳聞這一本經典之作甚久，終於有機會一償所願，從將近40頁的導讀、20頁的附錄資料，更可以佐證本書融合小說、傳記、哲學的精彩內容。
「名不虛傳」——大概就是第一時間的讀後感，以下摘要分享其中一個章節，讓讀友們一睹為快。
書名：衣裳哲學（奠定英美現代人文精神的哲學經典‧繁體中文版全新譯本）
Sartor Resartus
作者：湯瑪斯‧卡萊爾
原文作者：Thomas Carlyle
譯者：賴盈滿, 導讀｜方志強
出版社：麥田
出版日期：2023/12
https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010973920
內容簡介
《衣裳哲學》向來是文學史上公認的關鍵轉向之作，標誌著浪漫時期到維多利亞時期的轉變，對十九世紀中葉美國文學的影響更是難以估量。表面上本書是一部「書中之書」，是一位編輯評論、製作一本書的過程，實際上談的是社會不公不平，以及正確的處世之道──信念。
故事從一位編輯自述收到一份書稿開始。書稿作者主張：「語言是思想的服裝，身體是精神的服裝，因此，一切學問的本質即是衣裳哲學。」對於科學邏輯與經驗主義至上的當代潮流有諸多不認同，認為一味追求理性的時代思潮破壞了人類對大自然真理的追求，並宣揚：遭到理性主義貶抑的宗教體驗、神祕主義，與浪漫精神才值得人們再次重視。
【Excerpt】
〈展望〉(Prospective)
正如我們所料想的，這套衣裳哲學向所有讀者開展的，是一片前所未有的疆土，雲霧遮蔽，漫無邊際，甚至帶著空想，但遠方仍然見得到藍天，以及幾道天堂般的光輝。因此，對於它大有問題的意圖與應許，我們愈來愈有必要理清楚。許多旅途中人怯怯問道，那真的是天堂的光輝，還是地獄火光的反照？是帶領我們走向喜樂天堂草原的真理，還是遍地焦土的人間煉獄？
(The Philosophy of Clothes is now to all readers, as we predicted it would do, unfolding itself into new boundless expansions, of a cloudcapt, almost chimerical aspect, yet not without azure loomings in the far distance, and streaks as of an Elysian brightness; the highly questionable purport and promise of which it is becoming more and more important for us to ascertain. Is that a real Elysian brightness, cries many a timid wayfarer, or the reflex of Pandemonian lava? Is it of a truth leading us into beatific Asphodel meadows, or the yellow-burning marl of a Hell-on-Earth?)
和其他神秘主義者一樣，不論我們的教授是狂言亂語，抑或靈光閃現，都讓編者不得清閒。他帶我們去的地方愈高、愈令人目眩，他的看法和眼光就愈犀利、愈無所不包又極度混淆。譬如他認為自然不是一個集合，而是單一整體：
「詩篇的希伯來作者歌詠得好：『我若展開清晨的翅膀，飛到宇宙盡頭居住，神就在那裡。』哦，飽學的讀者啊，你或許不是詩人，同樣沒有詩意，只因為傳統而知道上帝，你豈會知道世上哪個角落沒有力量存在？從你打濕的手上抖落的水珠，並不會在滴下的地方逗留，明天你就會見到它走了，乘著北風的翅膀已經快到北迴歸線了。它怎麼會蒸發，而不是待著不動？難道你以為一切都靜止不動，沒有力量存在，徹底死寂嗎？
(Well sang the Hebrew Psalmist: ‘If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the universe, God is there.’* Thou too, O cultivated reader, who too* probably art no Psalmist, but a Prosaist, knowing GOD only by tradition, knowest thou any corner of the world where at least FORCE is not? The drop which thou shakest from thy wet hand, rests not where it falls, but to-morrow thou findest it swept away; already, on the wings of the Northwind, it is nearing the Tropic of Cancer. How came it to evaporate, and not lie motionless? Thinkest thou there is aught motionless; without Force, and utterly dead? )
「當我騎馬經過黑森林，我告訴自己：漸黑（nachtende）的曠野上那點火光，是滿身煤煙的鐵匠在彎腰打鐵。你想去那裡請他為你的馬補上脫落的馬蹄鐵。那火光是獨立分開的小點，自外於整個宇宙，抑或是整體不可分割的一部分？你這笨蛋，鐵匠的火最初來自太陽，由空氣助燃，而那空氣自挪亞洪水之前就已存在，遠在天狼星之外。鐵鋪裡還有鐵的力量、煤的力量，以及更強大的人的力量；所有力量巧妙相吸，彼此對抗爭勝，最終做成了一小塊馬蹄鐵。它是這個無邊生命體系裡的神經中樞。你可以稱它為無意識的祭壇，在萬物之內燃燒。它獻祭的鐵、它的煙和它的影響滲及萬物，而那渾身骯髒的祭司不靠話語，乃是靠頭腦和肌肉傳講力量的奧秘，甚至（淺顯地）傳講了一小段關於自由、關於人的力量的福音，威風凜凜，有一天將威震萬物。
「獨立？分開？我說根本沒有獨立這回事；太初以來，沒有一樣東西被拋棄，被擱在一旁。萬物永遠和萬物並行，哪怕是一片枯葉。萬物生於無邊無際的行動洪流之中，不斷變換存在的樣態。枯葉沒有死去，也沒有消失，力量仍在它裡外四周，只是順序倒轉過來，不然它怎麼會腐爛？不要看輕破爛，人就是從那裡面造出紙來；也別看輕雜碎，大地就是從那裡面生出了五穀。正確去觀察，再低賤的事物也不是無關緊要。所有事物都是一扇窗，用哲學之眼看過去，就能瞥見無限。」
(Detached, separated! I say there is no such separation: nothing hitherto was ever stranded, cast aside; but all, were it only a withered leaf, works together with all; is borne forward on the bottomless, shoreless flood of Action, and lives through perpetual metamorphoses. The withered leaf is not dead and lost, there are Forces in it and around it, though working in inverse order; else how could it rot? Despise not the rag from which man makes Paper, or the litter from which the Earth makes Corn. Rightly viewed no meanest object is insignificant; all objects are as windows, through which the philosophic eye looks into Infinitude itself. )
才告別玄妙的黑森林鐵匠祭壇，你瞧他又造出多麼空幻的飛天船，而我們又會被帶到哪裡？
「所有可見的事物都是象徵。你所見之物都不是自立的，甚至根本不存在。物質只以精神的方式存在，代表某個概念，是概念的具現。因此，儘管我們瞧不起衣裳，它們實際上卻難以名狀地重要。自王袍以降，所有衣裳都是象徵，不只象徵需要，更象徵對需要的各種巧妙克服。另一方面，所有象徵之物，不論用思想或用手編織，都是衣裳。難道不是想像織出了服裝及可見的形體，讓原本不可見的理性意念與靈感像精神一樣顯露出來，並且首次獲得力量，甚至如我們常見的那樣，在手（及羊毛等材料）的協助下得到形體，連眼睛都能看見？
(All visible things are Emblems; what thou seest is not there on its own account; strictly taken, is not there at all: Matter exists only spiritually, and to represent some Idea, and body it forth. Hence Clothes, as despicable as we think them, are so unspeakably significant. Clothes, from the King’s-mantle downwards, are Emblematic, not of want only, but of a manifold cunning Victory over Want. On the other hand, all Emblematic things are properly Clothes, thought-woven or hand-woven: must not the Imagination weave Garments, visible Bodies, wherein the else invisible creations and inspirations of our Reason are, like Spirits, revealed, and first become all-powerful;—the rather if, as we often see, the Hand too aid her, and (by wool Clothes or otherwise) reveal such even to the outward eye?)
「正確來說，人是以權威為衣裳，以美、以詛咒等等為衣裳。甚至你想想，人和人在塵世的這一生，不也只是一個象徵？是他內在神聖的『我』，那宛如天上來的光點的外衣、可見的覆蓋物？因此才會說人是以身體為衣裳。
(Men are properly said to be clothed with Authority, clothed with Beauty, with Curses, and the like. Nay, if you consider it, what is Man himself, and his whole terrestrial Life, but an Emblem; a Clothing or visible Garment for that divine ME of his, cast hither, like a light-particle, down from Heaven? Thus is he said also to be clothed with a Body.)
「有人說語言是思想的外衣；其實應該說，語言是思想的肉身外衣與驅體。我之前說這件肉身外衣是想像編織的，難道不是嗎？隱喻就是她用來編織的材料。你瞧語言，除去少數原始成分（自然聲）之後，剩下的豈不全是隱喻？有些隱喻人認得出，有些不再有人認得；有些還生龍活虎，有些已經僵化，血色盡失。如果說那些原始成分是語言這件肉身外衣的骨架，那隱喻就是它的肌肉、組織與活外皮。不帶象徵的式樣，你是找不到的。所謂『注意者延伸也』，不是嗎？而差別就在這裡：有些式樣精實強韌，其肌肉宛如骨骼一般，有些式樣蒼白消瘦，面如死灰，還有些式樣紅潤健康，強健地自我成長，甚至（像我就是）有過度興奮的傾向。此外還有一些假隱喻，同樣會附著在思想（最好裸裎）的軀體上，過分打扮或以假亂真，可以說都是一些虛假的填塞物、膚淺的秀服（Putz-Mäntel）和俗氣的羊毛破爛，能跑能讀的人可以將這些礙事的東西收集起來，一把火全燒了。」
(Language is called the Garment of Thought: however, it should rather be, Language is the Flesh-Garment, the Body, of Thought. I said that Imagination wove this Flesh Garment; and does she not? Metaphors are her stuff: examine Language; what, if you except some few primitive elements (of natural sound), what is it all but Metaphors, recognised as such, or no longer recognised; still fluid and florid, or now solid-grown and colourless? If those same primitive elements are the osseous fixtures in the Fleshgarment, Language,—then are Metaphors its muscles and tissues and living integuments. An unmetaphorical style you shall in vain seek for: is not your very Attention a Stretchingto?* The difference lies here: some styles are lean, adust, wiry, the muscle itself seems osseous; some are even quite pallid, hunger-bitten, and dead-looking; while others again glow in the flush of health and vigorous self-growth, sometimes (as in my own case) not without an apoplectic tendency. Moreover, there are sham Metaphors, which overhanging that same Thought’s-Body (best naked), and deceptively bedizening, or bolstering it out, may be called its false stuffings, superfluous show-cloaks (Putz-Mäntel), and tawdry woollen rags: whereof he that runs and reads may gather whole hampers,—and burn them.”)
讀者曾幾何時見過一段論隱喻的文字說得比這段話還隱喻的？但我們最頭痛的還不是這個。教授接著又說：
「為何舉這麼多例子？曾有人寫道，天地將如衣服般消失。天地確實是衣裳，是永恆的時間外衣。任何感官能察覺的東西，任何向精神顯現精神的事物，其實都是外衣，只穿一季就會脫下的衣裳。因此，正確來說，衣裳這個主題內容豐富：人所有想過、夢過、做過、成為過的事物，整個外在宇宙和宇宙裡的東西都只是衣裳。所有科學的精髓都包括在衣裳哲學裡。」
(Why multiply instances? It is written the Heavens and the Earth shall fade away like a Vesture; which indeed they are: the Time-vesture of the Eternal. Whatsoever sensibly exists, whatsoever represents Spirit to Spirit, is properly a Clothing, a suit of Raiment, put on for a season, and to be laid off. Thus in this one pregnant subject of CLOTHES, rightly understood, is included all that men have thought, dreamed, done, and been: the whole external Universe and what it holds is but Clothing; and the essence of all Science lies in the PHILOSOPHY OF CLOTHES.)
……
既然孟德斯鳩寫了《法意》，那我也能寫《衣意》（Spirit of Clothes）。法律有法律的意義，衣裳自然有衣裳的意義，所以我們也該寫本書來談談衣裳的意義。因為不論裁縫或立法，人都不是憑偶然，而是憑思想神秘地導引雙手來進行。所有款式和成衣過程裡都隱含建築的概念，衣裳是建材，身體是工地，從中蓋出「人」這棟美麗的大樓來。
(As Montesquieu wrote a Spirit of Laws, so could I write a Spirit of Clothes; thus, with an Esprit des Lois, properly an Esprit de Coutumes we should have an Esprit de Costumes. For neither in tailoring nor in legislating does man proceed by mere Accident, but the hand is ever guided on by mysterious operations of the mind. In all his Modes and habilatory endeavours an Architectural Idea will be found lurking; his Body and the Cloth are the site and materials whereon and whereby his beautified edifice, of a Person, is to be built.)
——湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle），〈衣裳裡的世界〉(The World in Clothes)
閱讀及分享湯瑪斯．卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle）的《衣裳哲學》。
耳聞這一本經典之作甚久，終於有機會一償所願，從將近40頁的導讀、20頁的附錄資料，更可以佐證本書融合小說、傳記、哲學的精彩內容。
「名不虛傳」——大概就是第一時間的讀後感，以下摘要分享其中一個章節，讓讀友們一睹為快。
書名：衣裳哲學（奠定英美現代人文精神的哲學經典‧繁體中文版全新譯本）
Sartor Resartus
作者：湯瑪斯‧卡萊爾
原文作者：Thomas Carlyle
譯者：賴盈滿, 導讀｜方志強
出版社：麥田
出版日期：2023/12
https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010973920
內容簡介
《衣裳哲學》向來是文學史上公認的關鍵轉向之作，標誌著浪漫時期到維多利亞時期的轉變，對十九世紀中葉美國文學的影響更是難以估量。表面上本書是一部「書中之書」，是一位編輯評論、製作一本書的過程，實際上談的是社會不公不平，以及正確的處世之道──信念。
故事從一位編輯自述收到一份書稿開始。書稿作者主張：「語言是思想的服裝，身體是精神的服裝，因此，一切學問的本質即是衣裳哲學。」對於科學邏輯與經驗主義至上的當代潮流有諸多不認同，認為一味追求理性的時代思潮破壞了人類對大自然真理的追求，並宣揚：遭到理性主義貶抑的宗教體驗、神祕主義，與浪漫精神才值得人們再次重視。
【Excerpt】
〈展望〉(Prospective)
正如我們所料想的，這套衣裳哲學向所有讀者開展的，是一片前所未有的疆土，雲霧遮蔽，漫無邊際，甚至帶著空想，但遠方仍然見得到藍天，以及幾道天堂般的光輝。因此，對於它大有問題的意圖與應許，我們愈來愈有必要理清楚。許多旅途中人怯怯問道，那真的是天堂的光輝，還是地獄火光的反照？是帶領我們走向喜樂天堂草原的真理，還是遍地焦土的人間煉獄？
(The Philosophy of Clothes is now to all readers, as we predicted it would do, unfolding itself into new boundless expansions, of a cloudcapt, almost chimerical aspect, yet not without azure loomings in the far distance, and streaks as of an Elysian brightness; the highly questionable purport and promise of which it is becoming more and more important for us to ascertain. Is that a real Elysian brightness, cries many a timid wayfarer, or the reflex of Pandemonian lava? Is it of a truth leading us into beatific Asphodel meadows, or the yellow-burning marl of a Hell-on-Earth?)
和其他神秘主義者一樣，不論我們的教授是狂言亂語，抑或靈光閃現，都讓編者不得清閒。他帶我們去的地方愈高、愈令人目眩，他的看法和眼光就愈犀利、愈無所不包又極度混淆。譬如他認為自然不是一個集合，而是單一整體：
「詩篇的希伯來作者歌詠得好：『我若展開清晨的翅膀，飛到宇宙盡頭居住，神就在那裡。』哦，飽學的讀者啊，你或許不是詩人，同樣沒有詩意，只因為傳統而知道上帝，你豈會知道世上哪個角落沒有力量存在？從你打濕的手上抖落的水珠，並不會在滴下的地方逗留，明天你就會見到它走了，乘著北風的翅膀已經快到北迴歸線了。它怎麼會蒸發，而不是待著不動？難道你以為一切都靜止不動，沒有力量存在，徹底死寂嗎？
(Well sang the Hebrew Psalmist: ‘If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the universe, God is there.’* Thou too, O cultivated reader, who too* probably art no Psalmist, but a Prosaist, knowing GOD only by tradition, knowest thou any corner of the world where at least FORCE is not? The drop which thou shakest from thy wet hand, rests not where it falls, but to-morrow thou findest it swept away; already, on the wings of the Northwind, it is nearing the Tropic of Cancer. How came it to evaporate, and not lie motionless? Thinkest thou there is aught motionless; without Force, and utterly dead? )
「當我騎馬經過黑森林，我告訴自己：漸黑（nachtende）的曠野上那點火光，是滿身煤煙的鐵匠在彎腰打鐵。你想去那裡請他為你的馬補上脫落的馬蹄鐵。那火光是獨立分開的小點，自外於整個宇宙，抑或是整體不可分割的一部分？你這笨蛋，鐵匠的火最初來自太陽，由空氣助燃，而那空氣自挪亞洪水之前就已存在，遠在天狼星之外。鐵鋪裡還有鐵的力量、煤的力量，以及更強大的人的力量；所有力量巧妙相吸，彼此對抗爭勝，最終做成了一小塊馬蹄鐵。它是這個無邊生命體系裡的神經中樞。你可以稱它為無意識的祭壇，在萬物之內燃燒。它獻祭的鐵、它的煙和它的影響滲及萬物，而那渾身骯髒的祭司不靠話語，乃是靠頭腦和肌肉傳講力量的奧秘，甚至（淺顯地）傳講了一小段關於自由、關於人的力量的福音，威風凜凜，有一天將威震萬物。
「獨立？分開？我說根本沒有獨立這回事；太初以來，沒有一樣東西被拋棄，被擱在一旁。萬物永遠和萬物並行，哪怕是一片枯葉。萬物生於無邊無際的行動洪流之中，不斷變換存在的樣態。枯葉沒有死去，也沒有消失，力量仍在它裡外四周，只是順序倒轉過來，不然它怎麼會腐爛？不要看輕破爛，人就是從那裡面造出紙來；也別看輕雜碎，大地就是從那裡面生出了五穀。正確去觀察，再低賤的事物也不是無關緊要。所有事物都是一扇窗，用哲學之眼看過去，就能瞥見無限。」
(Detached, separated! I say there is no such separation: nothing hitherto was ever stranded, cast aside; but all, were it only a withered leaf, works together with all; is borne forward on the bottomless, shoreless flood of Action, and lives through perpetual metamorphoses. The withered leaf is not dead and lost, there are Forces in it and around it, though working in inverse order; else how could it rot? Despise not the rag from which man makes Paper, or the litter from which the Earth makes Corn. Rightly viewed no meanest object is insignificant; all objects are as windows, through which the philosophic eye looks into Infinitude itself. )
才告別玄妙的黑森林鐵匠祭壇，你瞧他又造出多麼空幻的飛天船，而我們又會被帶到哪裡？
「所有可見的事物都是象徵。你所見之物都不是自立的，甚至根本不存在。物質只以精神的方式存在，代表某個概念，是概念的具現。因此，儘管我們瞧不起衣裳，它們實際上卻難以名狀地重要。自王袍以降，所有衣裳都是象徵，不只象徵需要，更象徵對需要的各種巧妙克服。另一方面，所有象徵之物，不論用思想或用手編織，都是衣裳。難道不是想像織出了服裝及可見的形體，讓原本不可見的理性意念與靈感像精神一樣顯露出來，並且首次獲得力量，甚至如我們常見的那樣，在手（及羊毛等材料）的協助下得到形體，連眼睛都能看見？
(All visible things are Emblems; what thou seest is not there on its own account; strictly taken, is not there at all: Matter exists only spiritually, and to represent some Idea, and body it forth. Hence Clothes, as despicable as we think them, are so unspeakably significant. Clothes, from the King’s-mantle downwards, are Emblematic, not of want only, but of a manifold cunning Victory over Want. On the other hand, all Emblematic things are properly Clothes, thought-woven or hand-woven: must not the Imagination weave Garments, visible Bodies, wherein the else invisible creations and inspirations of our Reason are, like Spirits, revealed, and first become all-powerful;—the rather if, as we often see, the Hand too aid her, and (by wool Clothes or otherwise) reveal such even to the outward eye?)
「正確來說，人是以權威為衣裳，以美、以詛咒等等為衣裳。甚至你想想，人和人在塵世的這一生，不也只是一個象徵？是他內在神聖的『我』，那宛如天上來的光點的外衣、可見的覆蓋物？因此才會說人是以身體為衣裳。
(Men are properly said to be clothed with Authority, clothed with Beauty, with Curses, and the like. Nay, if you consider it, what is Man himself, and his whole terrestrial Life, but an Emblem; a Clothing or visible Garment for that divine ME of his, cast hither, like a light-particle, down from Heaven? Thus is he said also to be clothed with a Body.)
「有人說語言是思想的外衣；其實應該說，語言是思想的肉身外衣與驅體。我之前說這件肉身外衣是想像編織的，難道不是嗎？隱喻就是她用來編織的材料。你瞧語言，除去少數原始成分（自然聲）之後，剩下的豈不全是隱喻？有些隱喻人認得出，有些不再有人認得；有些還生龍活虎，有些已經僵化，血色盡失。如果說那些原始成分是語言這件肉身外衣的骨架，那隱喻就是它的肌肉、組織與活外皮。不帶象徵的式樣，你是找不到的。所謂『注意者延伸也』，不是嗎？而差別就在這裡：有些式樣精實強韌，其肌肉宛如骨骼一般，有些式樣蒼白消瘦，面如死灰，還有些式樣紅潤健康，強健地自我成長，甚至（像我就是）有過度興奮的傾向。此外還有一些假隱喻，同樣會附著在思想（最好裸裎）的軀體上，過分打扮或以假亂真，可以說都是一些虛假的填塞物、膚淺的秀服（Putz-Mäntel）和俗氣的羊毛破爛，能跑能讀的人可以將這些礙事的東西收集起來，一把火全燒了。」
(Language is called the Garment of Thought: however, it should rather be, Language is the Flesh-Garment, the Body, of Thought. I said that Imagination wove this Flesh Garment; and does she not? Metaphors are her stuff: examine Language; what, if you except some few primitive elements (of natural sound), what is it all but Metaphors, recognised as such, or no longer recognised; still fluid and florid, or now solid-grown and colourless? If those same primitive elements are the osseous fixtures in the Fleshgarment, Language,—then are Metaphors its muscles and tissues and living integuments. An unmetaphorical style you shall in vain seek for: is not your very Attention a Stretchingto?* The difference lies here: some styles are lean, adust, wiry, the muscle itself seems osseous; some are even quite pallid, hunger-bitten, and dead-looking; while others again glow in the flush of health and vigorous self-growth, sometimes (as in my own case) not without an apoplectic tendency. Moreover, there are sham Metaphors, which overhanging that same Thought’s-Body (best naked), and deceptively bedizening, or bolstering it out, may be called its false stuffings, superfluous show-cloaks (Putz-Mäntel), and tawdry woollen rags: whereof he that runs and reads may gather whole hampers,—and burn them.”)
讀者曾幾何時見過一段論隱喻的文字說得比這段話還隱喻的？但我們最頭痛的還不是這個。教授接著又說：
「為何舉這麼多例子？曾有人寫道，天地將如衣服般消失。天地確實是衣裳，是永恆的時間外衣。任何感官能察覺的東西，任何向精神顯現精神的事物，其實都是外衣，只穿一季就會脫下的衣裳。因此，正確來說，衣裳這個主題內容豐富：人所有想過、夢過、做過、成為過的事物，整個外在宇宙和宇宙裡的東西都只是衣裳。所有科學的精髓都包括在衣裳哲學裡。」
(Why multiply instances? It is written the Heavens and the Earth shall fade away like a Vesture; which indeed they are: the Time-vesture of the Eternal. Whatsoever sensibly exists, whatsoever represents Spirit to Spirit, is properly a Clothing, a suit of Raiment, put on for a season, and to be laid off. Thus in this one pregnant subject of CLOTHES, rightly understood, is included all that men have thought, dreamed, done, and been: the whole external Universe and what it holds is but Clothing; and the essence of all Science lies in the PHILOSOPHY OF CLOTHES.)
……
自訂分類：Selected & Extracts
你可能會有興趣的文章：
限會員,要發表迴響,請先登入
