What I want to do today is spend some time talking about some stuff that's giving me a little bit of existential angst, for lack of a better word, over the past couple of years. And basically, these three quotes tell what's going on. "When God made the color purple, God was just showing off," Alice Walker wrote in "The Color Purple." And Zora Neale Hurston wrote in "Dust Tracks On A Road," "Research is a formalized curiosity. It's poking and prying with a purpose." And then finally, when I think about the near future, we have this attitude, "Well, whatever happens, happens." Right? So that goes along with the Cheshire Cat saying, "If you don't care much where you want to get to, it doesn't much matter which way you go."
我今天想要做的 是花一些時間來談談 在過去的幾年當中, 讓我感到「存在擔憂」的事情, 我找不到更好的形容方式。 基本上這三句話 解釋了發生什麼事。 「當上帝創造紫色這種顏色的時候, 上帝只是在炫耀。」 愛莉絲握克在《紫色姊妹花》中這麼說。 佐拉泥爾賀森 在《路上的塵土》中說 「研究是公式化的好奇心。 它是有目的的窺探、打聽。」 最後, 當我在想緊接著的未來時, 你知道我們有 「該發生的就是會發生」的態度對吧? 所以這與柴郡貓(愛莉絲夢遊仙境中的角色)說的 「如果你不是很在乎你要去哪, 那麼你往哪裡走 也不大重要。」吻合。
But I think it does matter which way we go and what road we take, because when I think about design in the near future, what I think are the most important issues, what's really crucial and vital, is that we need to revitalize the arts and sciences right now, in 2002.
但我覺得我們往哪裡走、 選擇什麼路是重要的。 因為當我在想未來的設計時, 我認為最重要、 最必須、最具決定性的 是我們現在在2002年 需要復興 藝術與科學。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
If we describe the near future as 10, 20, 15 years from now, that means that what we do today is going to be critically important, because in the year 2015, in the year 2020, 2025, the world our society is going to be building on, the basic knowledge and abstract ideas, the discoveries that we came up with today, just as all these wonderful things we're hearing about here at the TED conference that we take for granted in the world right now, were really knowledge and ideas that came up in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s. That's the substrate that we're exploiting today. Whether it's the internet, genetic engineering, laser scanners, guided missiles, fiber optics, high-definition television, remote sensing from space and the wonderful remote-sensing photos that we see in 3D weaving, TV programs like Tracker and Enterprise, CD-rewrite drives, flat-screen, Alvin Ailey's "Suite Otis," or Sarah Jones's "Your Revolution Will Not [Happen] Between These Thighs," which, by the way, was banned by the FCC, or ska -- all of these things, without question, almost without exception, are really based on ideas and abstract and creativity from years before. So we have to ask ourselves: What are we contributing to that legacy right now?
如果我們把緊接著的未來想成 接下來的10、20、15年, 那表示我們現在 做什麼很重要, 因為在2015年, 在2020、2025年, 我們的社會會是以 現在的基本知識、抽象想法、 現在的發現為基石發展。 就像是我們現在在TED聽到的 這些很棒的事情, 這些我們視為理所當然的事情, 其實都源於 五零、六零、 七零年代的知識與想法。 那些都是我們現在用的材料。 不論是網路、基因工程、 雷射印表機、引導飛彈、光纖、 高解析度電視、 感應器、太空遙控器, 和其它我們看到的遙感照片、 3D搖晃、 像Tracker和Enterprise的電視節目、 CD燒錄器、液晶銀幕、 艾文艾利的《Suite Otis》、 或是莎拉瓊斯《Your Revolution Will Not Be Between These Thighs》 雖說它曾被FCC禁止 或是牙買加流行舞音樂, 這些被認為是理所當然的東西, 都是源於 好幾年前的 想法和構思。 所以我們要問自己: 我們對這些有什麼貢獻?
And when I think about it, I'm really worried. To be quite frank, I'm concerned. I'm skeptical that we're doing very much of anything. We're, in a sense, failing to act in the future. We're purposefully, consciously being laggards. We're lagging behind. Frantz Fanon, who was a psychiatrist from Martinique, said, "Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission and fulfill or betray it." What is our mission? What do we have to do?
當我這麼想的時候, 我是擔憂的。直話直說, 我非常擔心。 我不認為我們有在做些甚麼。 我們,以某種角度來說, 並沒有在為未來做什麼。 我們故意的、有意識的在當懶蟲。 我們是落在後面的。 法蘭茲法濃是個馬提泥克的心理學家, 他說:「每一代 都需要在有點模糊的狀況下 發現自己的使命並達成或毀壞它。」 我們的使命是什麼?我們
I think our mission is to reconcile, to reintegrate science and the arts, because right now, there's a schism that exists in popular culture. People have this idea that science and the arts are really separate; we think of them as separate and different things. And this idea was probably introduced centuries ago, but it's really becoming critical now, because we're making decisions about our society every day that, if we keep thinking that the arts are separate from the sciences, and we keep thinking it's cute to say, "I don't understand anything about this one, I don't understand anything about the other one," then we're going to have problems.
該做什麼? 我認為我們的使命是 使人文和科學融合, 因為現在在大眾心裡, 這兩者是分裂的。 你知道人們有這種想法, 就是科學跟藝術是很不相同的。 我們認為他們是不一樣的東西。 而這種想法或許是在好幾百年前 就存在了。 但現在這很重要, 因為我們每天都在為 我們的社會作決定, 如果我們繼續認為 科學跟藝術非常不同, 且我們繼續認為說:「 我完全不了解這個, 我完全不了解那個。」是聰明的, 那麼我們就有問題了。
Now, I know no one here at TED thinks this. All of us, we already know that they're very connected. But I'm going to let you know that some folks in the outside world, believe it or not, think it's neat when they say, "Scientists and science is not creative. Maybe scientists are ingenious, but they're not creative." And then we have this tendency, the career counselors and various people say things like, "Artists are not analytical. They're ingenious, perhaps, but not analytical." And when these concepts underlie our teaching and what we think about the world, then we have a problem, because we stymie support for everything. By accepting this dichotomy, whether it's tongue-in-cheek, when we attempt to accommodate it in our world, and we try to build our foundation for the world, we're messing up the future, because: Who wants to be uncreative? Who wants to be illogical? Talent would run from either of these fields if you said you had to choose either. Then they'll go to something where they think, "Well, I can be creative and logical at the same time."
好,我不認為在TED這裡的任何人 這麼想。我們都已經知道 這兩者很有關係,但我要讓你們知道, 在外面有些人, 不論你信與不信, 他們都認為科學家和科學 是不具創造力的。 科學家可能是天才,但他們 沒有創造力。 然後我們有職涯顧問 和很多人會說 「藝術家是沒有分析能力的。 他們可能很有原創力, 但他們沒有分析力。」 當這樣的想法存在於我們的教育當中, 並影響我們對這世界的看法, 那我們就有麻煩了,因為我們 會阻擋所有事情的發展, 只因為接受了這樣的二分法, 就算只是口耳相傳, 當我們試著把這樣的想法置入這世界, 然後試著以這樣的基礎建造世界, 結果是我們正在把未來搞砸。 因為,有誰想要當沒有創造力呢? 誰想要沒有邏輯? 如果你說必須選擇一邊的話, 天資可以在任何一邊出現。 然後他們會想說 「其實我可以同時有創造力
Now, I grew up in the '60s and I'll admit it --
也有邏輯。」
actually, my childhood spanned the '60s, and I was a wannabe hippie, and I always resented the fact that I wasn't old enough to be a hippie. And I know there are people here, the younger generation, who want to be hippies. People talk about the '60s all the time. And they talk about the anarchy that was there. But when I think about the '60s, what I took away from it was that there was hope for the future. We thought everyone could participate. There were wonderful, incredible ideas that were always percolating, and so much of what's cool or hot today is really based on some of those concepts, whether it's people trying to use the Prime Directive from Star Trek, being involved in things, or, again, that three-dimensional weaving and fax machines that I read about in my weekly readers that the technology and engineering was just getting started.
我是在六零年代長大的。 我承認我的童年就是在六零年代, 而我非常想要當嬉皮, 痛恨我年紀不夠 不能當嬉皮。 而且我知道這裡有些人, 就是更年輕的一輩想要當嬉皮的, 但人們總是在談論六零年代, 且他們會講當時的無政府狀態。 但當我想起六零年代, 我從中學到的 是未來是有希望的。 我們認為每個人都有機會參與。 那時有很多很棒、很驚人的想法, 在人群中傳播, 而且現在熱門的很多東西 都是從當時那些想法而來的。 不論是人們試著用 星際大戰中的頭等方針 來應用在生活中, 不論是3D穿梭, 還是我從周刊中 讀到的傳真機, 這些科技工程那時才正在開始。
But the '60s left me with a problem. You see, I always assumed I would go into space, because I followed all of this. But I also loved the arts and sciences. You see, when I was growing up as a little girl and as a teenager, I loved designing and making doll clothes and wanting to be a fashion designer. I took art and ceramics. I loved dance: Lola Falana, Alvin Ailey, Jerome Robbins. And I also avidly followed the Gemini and the Apollo programs. I had science projects and tons of astronomy books. I took calculus and philosophy. I wondered about infinity and the Big Bang theory. And when I was at Stanford, I found myself, my senior year, chemical engineering major, half the folks thought I was a political science and performing arts major, which was sort of true, because I was Black Student Union President, and I did major in some other things. And I found myself the last quarter juggling chemical engineering separation processes, logic classes, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and also producing and choreographing a dance production. And I had to do the lighting and the design work, and I was trying to figure out: Do I go to New York City to try to become a professional dancer, or to go to medical school? Now, my mother helped me figure that one out.
但六零年代給我帶來一個問題。 也就是因為我一直跟著這個潮流, 我一直認為我會去外太空。 但我也熱愛藝術及科學。 當我還是個小女孩 及青少年的時候, 我喜歡設計和做娃娃衣服, 且想要成為時尚設計家。 我修了藝術和陶藝。我也熱愛跳舞: 羅拉法拉那、艾文艾利、吉羅米羅賓絲。 我也熱忠於雙子星 和阿波羅計畫。 我有科學計畫和很多的天文書。 我修了微積分和哲學。 我思考無限的概念 和宇宙大爆炸理論。 當我在史丹佛的時候 在大四那年我主修化工, 但大部份人認為我是主修 政治或表演藝術, 這也有點對, 因為我是黑人學生組織主席, 而且我也有主修其他東西。 在最後一個學期, 我發現我自己在化工分離實驗和 邏輯課、核磁共振學中找平衡, 同時正在為一個舞蹈展演 編舞、製作中。 我需要做燈光和設計的工作。 我那時正在想 我是不是應該去紐約市 試著當一名職業舞者? 還是去念醫學院? 還好我母親幫忙我做這個決定。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But when I went into space, I carried a number of things up with me. I carried a poster by Alvin Ailey -- you can figure out now, I love the dance company -- an Alvin Ailey poster of Judith Jamison performing the dance "Cry," dedicated to all black women everywhere; a Bundu statue, which was from the women's society in Sierra Leone; and a certificate for the Chicago Public School students to work to improve their science and math. And folks asked me, "Why did you take up what you took up?" And I had to say, "Because it represents human creativity; the creativity that allowed us, that we were required to have to conceive and build and launch the space shuttle, which springs from the same source as the imagination and analysis that it took to carve a Bundu statue, or the ingenuity it took to design, choreograph and stage "Cry." Each one of them are different manifestations, incarnations, of creativity -- avatars of human creativity.
但當我進到太空時, 當我進到太空,我帶了一些東西。 我帶了一張艾文艾利的海報。 你們應該可以看出 我非常喜歡這個舞團。 一張艾文艾利的海報上面是 裘第絲裘密森表演舞作《哭》, 奉獻給所有黑人女生。 還帶了一尊本社雕像, 是從獅子山婦女協會那來的, 還有一張為芝加哥公立學校學生 改善他們科學及數學能力的證書。 人們問我: 「為什麼要帶這些東西?」 我會說: 「因為這些代表人類的創造力。」 有了這樣的創造力, 我們才能夠瞭解、建構 並發射太空船。 源於同樣的想像力和分析力, 才能夠雕刻出本社雕像 或是設計、編排《哭》, 所需要的天賦。 他們每一樣都是創造力的 表現和象徵。 人類創造力的代表。
And that's what we have to reconcile in our minds, how these things fit together. The difference between arts and sciences is not analytical versus intuitive. Right? E = mc2 required an intuitive leap, and then you had to do the analysis afterwards. Einstein said, in fact, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." Dance requires us to express and want to express the jubilation in life, but then you have to figure out: Exactly what movement do I do to make sure it comes across correctly? The difference between arts and sciences is also not constructive versus deconstructive. A lot of people think of the sciences as deconstructive, you have to pull things apart. And yeah, subatomic physics is deconstructive -- you literally try to tear atoms apart to understand what's inside of them. But sculpture, from what I understand from great sculptors, is deconstructive, because you see a piece and you remove what doesn't need to be there. Biotechnology is constructive. Orchestral arranging is constructive.
這就是我們需要在我們的腦袋中 融合、合而為一的。 科學和人文藝術的差別 不是在於分析和直覺。對吧? E=MC平方 需要一定的直覺反應, 然後才能做後續分析。 愛因斯坦曾說: 「我們能體驗的最漂亮的東西是神秘感。 它是所有真正的藝術與科學的源頭。」 舞蹈需要我們去表現、 去想要表達生命中的歡騰。 但你就必須想 「我確切要做什麼樣的動作, 才能確保傳達正確?」 藝術與科學的差別也不是在於 建構與毀壞。對吧? 很多人覺得 科學是毀壞性的。 你必須把東西拆開。 是的,次原子物理是毀壞性的。 你真的試圖把 原子拆開然後 瞭解裡面是什麼。 但雕刻,從我知道的偉大雕刻中得知, 也是毀壞性的, 因為你要看一塊材料, 然後移走你不要的部份。 生物科技是建構性的。 管弦樂是建構性的。
So, in fact, we use constructive and deconstructive techniques in everything. The difference between science and the arts is not that they are different sides of the same coin, even, or even different parts of the same continuum, but rather, they're manifestations of the same thing. Different quantum states of an atom? Or maybe if I want to be more 21st century, I could say that they're different harmonic resonances of a superstring. But we'll leave that alone. They spring from the same source. The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity. It's our attempt as humans to build an understanding of the universe, the world around us. It's our attempt to influence things, the universe internal to ourselves and external to us.
事實上我們在所有事情 都用到建構及毀壞技巧。 科學與藝術的差別 也不在於 他們是硬幣的兩面, 或是一物體的 不同面相, 而是同一樣東西的建構。 一個原子的不同量子狀態? 或是我應該更21世紀一點 我可以說超弦理論中 不同的諧波震蕩。 但我們就先不討論那些。(笑聲) 他們都是同源的。 科學與藝術 是人類的代表作。 是我們以人類的角度, 試圖建構及瞭解我們周遭的世界。 是我們試圖影響東西, 影響我們體內 及體外的世界。
The sciences, to me, are manifestations of our attempt to express or share our understanding, our experience, to influence the universe external to ourselves. It doesn't rely on us as individuals. It's the universe, as experienced by everyone. The arts manifest our desire, our attempt to share or influence others through experiences that are peculiar to us as individuals. Let me say it again another way: science provides an understanding of a universal experience, and arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience. That's what we have to think about, that they're all part of us, they're all part of a continuum. It's not just the tools, it's not just the sciences, the mathematics and the numerical stuff and the statistics, because we heard, very much on this stage, people talked about music being mathematical. Arts don't just use clay, aren't the only ones that use clay, light and sound and movement. They use analysis as well.
科學對我來說,是代表著 我們試著表現或分享 我們瞭解的、 我們的經驗, 來影響外在的世界。 它不是只靠我們個人。 是一個大家一起體會的世界。 藝術代表著我們的渴望, 我們透過我們個人 特殊的經驗, 試圖分享及影響他人。 讓我再以一個不同的方式來說: 科學提供一個 瞭解宇宙的方式。 然後藝術提供一個大家都能理解的方式 來傳達個人經驗。 這正是我們需要思考的, 這些都是我們的一部份, 都是連續體的一部份。 不是只是工具, 不是只是科學。 你們知道的,數學和技術性東西 和統計,因為我們在這聽過很多次, 有人說音樂是很數學的。 對吧?藝術不是只用泥土, 也不是只用泥土、 燈光、聲音和動作。 他們也使用分析能力。
So people might say, "Well, I still like that intuitive versus analytical thing," because everybody wants to do the right brain, left brain thing. We've all been accused of being right-brained or left-brained at some point in time, depending on who we disagreed with.
所以人們或許會說 「我還是比較喜歡那個直覺與分析的東西, 因為每個人都希望用那個 左腦右腦的東西。對吧?」 我們都有在某個時候被指控為 用右腦多或是用左腦多, 看當時是誰
(Laughter)
跟我們不合。(笑聲)
You know, people say "intuitive" -- that's like you're in touch with nature, in touch with yourself and relationships; analytical, you put your mind to work. I'm going to tell you a little secret. You all know this, though. But sometimes people use this analysis idea, that things are outside of ourselves, to say, this is what we're going to elevate as the true, most important sciences, right? Then you have artists -- and you all know this is true as well -- artists will say things about scientists because they say they're too concrete, they're disconnected from the world. But, we've even had that here on stage, so don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
當人們說直覺, 就有點像是你跟自然有接觸, 跟你自己有關連。 分析力,你讓你的腦袋工作。 然後我要告訴你們一個小祕密。 其實你們都知道的,但有時候人們 利用這個分析的概念, 讓事情在我們之外, 來說這是我們要說 是對的,尤其是在科學當中。對吧? 然後也有藝術家。 你們也都知道這個, 藝術家會說科學家閒話, 因為他們說他們過於固執、 無法跟世界接軌。 但我們在這台上也有碰過, 所以不要假裝
(Laughter)
你不知道我在說什麼。(笑聲)
We had folks talking about the Flat Earth Society and flower arrangers, so there's this whole dichotomy that we continue to carry along, even when we know better. And folks say we need to choose either-or. But it would really be foolish to choose either one, intuitive versus analytical. That's a foolish choice. It's foolish just like trying to choose between being realistic or idealistic. You need both in life. Why do people do this? I'm going to quote a molecular biologist, Sydney Brenner, who's 70 years old, so he can say this. He said, "It's always important to distinguish between chastity and impotence." Now --
我們有人講過扁平地球組織 和花朵編排者。 所以我們繼續這個二分法, 就算我們知道這樣不好。 但人們還是說需要選擇其中一個。 但選擇一個是很笨的做法。 對吧? 直覺還是分析? 這是很笨的決定。 很笨,就像是試著選擇 現實和理想一樣。 你兩樣都需要。 人們為什麼這樣做? 我要引用分子生物學家Sydney Brenner的話。 他已經七十歲了所以他可以這麼說。 「分辨貞節和無能 永遠是很重要的。」 好(笑聲)
(Laughter)
我想要跟你們分享
I want to share with you a little equation, OK? How does understanding science and the arts fit into our lives and what's going on and the things we're talking about here at the design conference? And this is a little thing I came up with: understanding and our resources and our will cause us to have outcomes. Our understanding is our science, our arts, our religion; how we see the universe around us; our resources, our money, our labor, our minerals -- those things that are out there in the world we have to work with. But more importantly, there's our will.
一個小式子,好嗎? 如何瞭解科學與藝術 怎麼融入我們的生活。 到底現在正在發生什麼事 和我們在這設計會議 談的東西。 這是我想的一個小東西, 瞭解加上我們的資源和意念, 讓我們有結果。 我們對科學、藝術、宗教, 我們怎麼看待周遭世界、 資源、金錢、 勞工、礦物, 那些在世界上我們需要合作的 對象。
This is our vision, our aspirations of the future, our hopes, our dreams, our struggles and our fears. Our successes and our failures influence what we do with all of those. And to me, design and engineering, craftsmanship and skilled labor, are all the things that work on this to have our outcome, which is our human quality of life. Where do we want the world to be? And guess what? Regardless of how we look at this, whether we look at arts and sciences as separate or different, they're both being influenced now and they're both having problems.
但更重要的,是我們的意志力。 這是我們的遠見, 是我們對未來、希望、夢想的心願, 我們的掙扎與恐懼。 我們的成功、我們的失敗 將會影響我們如何對待這些事情。 對我來說,設計和工程、 手工藝者和資深勞工都是 在這方面努力的結果, 也就是我們人類生活的品質。 我們希望這個世界未來是如何的? 你知道嗎? 不論我們怎麼看待這個, 不管我們認為藝術和科學是分開的 或是不同的,他們兩個都正在被影響,
I did a project called S.E.E.ing the Future: Science, Engineering and Education. It was looking at how to shed light on the most effective use of government funding. We got a bunch of scientists in all stages of their careers. They came to Dartmouth College, where I was teaching. And they talked about, with theologians and financiers: What are some of the issues of public funding for science and engineering research? What's most important about it? There are some ideas that emerged that I think have really powerful parallels to the arts.
且都有自己的問題。 我開始了一個叫作「S.E.E.ing the Future」的計畫: 科學、工程和教育。 而這個計畫就是要 如何更有效的使用政府經費。 我們有一群在職涯各個階段的科學家。 他們從我曾經任教的 Dartmouth College來, 他們談論神學家和金融家, 現今的科學與工程經費 問題是什麼? 最重要的是什麼? 有一些從中發展出來很有意義的點子 讓我認為是跟藝術平行的。
The first thing they said was that the circumstances that we find ourselves in today in the sciences and engineering that made us world leaders are very different than the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s and the '70s, when we emerged as world leaders, because we're no longer in competition with fascism, with Soviet-style communism. And by the way, that competition wasn't just military; it included social competition and political competition as well, that allowed us to look at space as one of those platforms to prove that our social system was better.
他們第一個說的是 我們現在所在的狀況, 處在一個科學與工程的年代, 這樣讓我們成為世界領袖, 跟四零、五零、六零 甚至七零年代我們才剛開始嶄露頭角非常不同, 因為我們不再 與法西斯主意競賽、 不再與蘇聯式共產主義對抗, 別忘了這個對抗不只是軍事上的, 還包括社會、 政治上的競爭, 讓我們可以將時空 看成一個改善社會 的平台。
Another thing they talked about was that the infrastructure that supports the sciences is becoming obsolete. We look at universities and colleges -- small, mid-sized community colleges across the country -- their laboratories are becoming obsolete. And this is where we train most of our science workers and our researchers -- and our teachers, by the way. And there's a media that doesn't support the dissemination of any more than the most mundane and inane of information. There's pseudoscience, crop circles, alien autopsy, haunted houses, or disasters. And that's what we see. This isn't really the information you need to operate in everyday life and figure out how to participate in this democracy and determine what's going on.
另外一個他們探討的是 支持基礎科學的基礎架構 快要過時了。 我們看國內各研究形大學、 社區大學, 他們實驗室也快要過時了, 但這也是我們訓練 我們的科學工作者和研究者的地方。 和我們的老師, 還有那些 僅僅只能傳播 平凡與空洞議題的媒體。 有假科學、麥田怪圈、 外星人剖屍、鬼屋、災難。 而這是我們所看到的。 但這並不是 每天過生活所需要的訊息, 也不是去尋找該如何在民主中存活 和決定未來的世界。
They also said there's a change in the corporate mentality. Whereas government money had always been there for basic science and engineering research, we also counted on some companies to do some basic research. But what's happened now is companies put more energy into short-term product development than they do in basic engineering and science research. And education is not keeping up. In K through 12, people are taking out wet labs. They think if we put a computer in the room, it's going to take the place of actually mixing the acids or growing the potatoes. And government funding is decreasing in spending, and then they're saying, let's have corporations take over, and that's not true. Government funding should at least do things like recognize cost benefits of basic science and engineering research. We have to know that we have a responsibility as global citizens in this world. We have to look at the education of humans. We need to build our resources today to make sure that they're trained so they understand the importance of these things. And we have to support the vitality of science. That doesn't mean that everything has to have one thing that's going to go on, or that we know exactly what's going to be the outcome of it, but that we support the vitality and the intellectual curiosity that goes along [with it].
他們也說企業心態 也有所改變了。 雖然政府給科學、工程的 資金一直都在。 我們也期許企業會做基礎研究, 但真正發生的 是公司將精力 放在短期產品開發 而不是放在基礎工程 和科學研究。 而且教育也沒能跟上。 在孩童教育中,他們把實體實驗移去了。 他們以為如果我們放一臺電腦到教室, 電腦就可以 幫我們將酸鹼混合、 幫我們種馬鈴薯。 然後政府資金正在減少 然後他們會說 讓企業來出錢吧! 但這是不對的。 政府資金應該至少 要瞭解基礎科學和工程研究 的成本效益。我們必須知道 身為地球子民 我們是有責任的。 我們必須看人類的教育。 我們需要培養這些資源 確定他們被訓練到 他們可以瞭解這些事情的重要性, 我們還要支持 科學的永續性, 但這並不表示所有事情 都需要成為一個個體, 或是我們需要完全知道結果會怎麼樣, 而是我們會一直持續支持 對知識的好奇心,
And if you think about those parallels to the arts -- the competition with the Bolshoi Ballet spurred the Joffrey and the New York City Ballet to become better. Infrastructure, museums, theaters, movie houses across the country are disappearing. We have more television stations with less to watch, we have more money spent on rewrites to get old television programs in the movies. We have corporate funding now that, when it goes to support the arts, it almost requires that the product be part of the picture that the artist draws. We have stadiums that are named over and over again by corporations. In Houston, we're trying to figure out what to do with that Enron Stadium thing.
但如果你想想那些跟藝術平行的, 為了和波修瓦芭蕾舞團競爭, 讓傑弗睿 和紐約市力芭蕾舞團 越來越好。 全國的基礎設施博物館、劇院、 戲院都正在消失中。 我們有更多電視台 但能看的卻更少, 我們有更多錢 可以花在舊電視節目、電影 重建上。 我們有企業贊助, 但有些公司, 當他們支持藝術, 總是要他們的產品出現在 藝術作品當中, 然後我們有一再一再被不同企業 重新命名的體育館。 在修士頓,我們正在
(Laughter)
想要怎麼處理Enron體育館。
Fine arts and education in the schools is disappearing, And we have a government that seems like it's gutting the NEA and other programs. So we have to really stop and think: What are we trying to do with the sciences and the arts? There's a need to revitalize them. We have to pay attention to it. I just want to tell you quickly what I'm doing --
(笑聲)而且學校中的 藝術教育正在消失, 然後我們有個好像不想支持 NEA和其他計畫的政府, 所以我們真的很需要停下來想想, 我們對科學和藝術 想要怎麼做呢? 它們有必要被復興。 我們需要注意這個。 我只是想要很快的告訴你們我在做什麼。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
I want to tell you what I've been doing a little bit since ... I feel this need to sort of integrate some of the ideas that I've had and run across over time.
我想要告訴你們一些 從我認為有需要將這些 我在不同時候碰到的想法融合在一起 之後所做的一些事情。
One of the things that I found out is that there's a need to repair the dichotomy between the mind and body as well. My mother always told me, you have to be observant, know what's going on in your mind and your body. And as a dancer, I had this tremendous faith in my ability to know my body, just as I knew how to sense colors. Then I went to medical school,
其中一件我發現的事是 心靈和肉體的分裂 是急需補救的 我母親一直告訴我, 你必須很認真觀察, 瞭解你的腦袋和身體正在發生什麼事。 身為一個舞者, 我對於自己的身體很瞭解, 就像我可以認出不同顏色一樣。
and I was supposed to just go on what the machine said about bodies. You know, you would ask patients questions and some people would tell you, "Don't listen to what the patient said." We know that patients know and understand their bodies better, but these days we're trying to divorce them from that idea. We have to reconcile the patient's knowledge of their body with physicians' measurements.
然後我念了醫學院, 我被教育成 只看機器上的數據來瞭解身體。 你知道的,你會問病人問題, 然後有些人會跟你說 「不、不、不、不要聽病人說的。」 我們知道病人 比較瞭解他們自己的身體, 但我們正在讓他們遠離這樣的想法。 我們需要在病人對他們身體的認知 和儀器數據當中 找到一個平衡。
We had someone talk about measuring emotions and getting machines to figure out what to keep us from acting crazy. No, we shouldn't measure. We shouldn't use machines to measure road rage and then do something to keep us from engaging in it. Maybe we can have machines help us to recognize that we have road rage, and then we need to know how to control that without the machines. We even need to be able to recognize that without the machines. What I'm very concerned about is:
我們有人談過 測量情緒且讓機器 阻止我們發神經。 對吧? 不,我們不該測量這些。 我們不該用機器 來測量開車上的憤怒行為, 然後讓機器防止這些行為。 或許我們可以讓機器 告訴我們這樣憤怒的行為, 然後我們需要知道如何 不使用機器來控制這些情緒。 我們更應該要不用機器就可以辨認出這些憤怒行為。
How do we bolster our self-awareness as humans, as biological organisms? Michael Moschen spoke of having to teach and learn how to feel with my eyes, to see with my hands. We have all kinds of possibilities to use our senses by, and that's what we have to do. That's what I want to do -- to try to use bioinstrumentation, those kind of things, to help our senses in what we do.
我很擔心的是 我們要怎麼加強我們身為人類、 身為生物個體的自我意識? Michael Moschen談到如何 教育和學習用眼感受、 用雙手觀看。 我們使用感官的方式 有很多不同的可能性, 而那正是我們需要做的。 我想要做的, 就是利用生物儀器 來幫助我們的感官。
That's the work I've been doing now, as a company called BioSentient Corporation. I figured I'd have to do that ad, because I'm an entrepreneur, and "entrepreneur" says "somebody who does what they want to do, because they're not broke enough that they have to get a real job."
這正是BioSentient Corporation (生物知覺公司)正在做的。 我覺得我需要做這則廣告, 因為我是個企業家, 因為企業家說這是一群 沒有窮到要找一個真正的工作 所以在做自己想要做的事的人。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)但這是我在
But that's the work I'm doing, BioSentient Corporation, trying to figure out: How do we integrate these things? Let me finish by saying that my personal design issue for the future is really about integrating; to think about that intuitive and that analytical. The arts and sciences are not separate.
BioSentient Corporation正在試圖瞭解 如何把這些東西組合在一起。 讓我用這個來做結尾, 就是我個人對未來的設計議題 事實上就是在講融合, 去思考直覺和分析。 藝術和科學不是分開的。
High school physics lesson before you leave: high school physics teacher used to hold up a ball. She would say, "This ball has potential energy. But nothing will happen to it, it can't do any work, until I drop it and it changes states." I like to think of ideas as potential energy. They're really wonderful, but nothing will happen until we risk putting them into action.
在我們離開前來點物理課。 高中物理老師曾經拿著一顆球。 她會說這顆球有位能, 但如果什麼事都沒發生, 它不會做功, 直到我讓它掉下去才能改變它的狀態。 我喜歡把想法想成位能。 他們很棒, 但如果沒有採取行動
This conference is filled with wonderful ideas. We're going to share lots of things with people. But nothing's going to happen until we risk putting those ideas into action. We need to revitalize the arts and sciences today. We need to take responsibility for the future. We can't hide behind saying it's just for company profits, or it's just a business, or I'm an artist or an academician.
就甚麼都不會發生。 這個論壇充滿了 很棒的想法。 我們要分享這些給人們, 但直到我們把這些想法化為行動, 否則什麼事都不會發生。 我們今天需要重新建立藝術和科學, 我們需要為未來負責。 我們不能躲在後面 說這只是公司獲利、 或只是企業、或我是藝術家 或學術人員。
Here's how you judge what you're doing: I talked about that balance between intuitive, analytical. Fran Lebowitz, my favorite cynic, said, "The three questions of greatest concern ..." -- now I'm going to add on to design -- "... are: Is it attractive?" That's the intuitive. "Is it amusing?" -- the analytical, and, "Does it know its place?" -- the balance.
這是你如何評估你做的事。 我談了直覺和 分析均衡發展。 Fran Lebowitz是我最喜歡的諷世家, 她說了三個 最讓人困擾的問題 那就是 「是有吸引力的嗎?」 那是直覺。 「是令人驚奇的嗎?」這是分析。 「它知道自己的定位嗎?」
Thank you very much.
這是平衡。非常謝謝你們。
(Applause)
(掌聲)