“‘局’字从厂从句句亦声”说

“局”字字形,小篆写作“局”,它的形声义三者之间的关系,便间隔不通,于是诸家只有曲为之说。《说文》隶“局”字于口部之下。大徐本说:“局,促也,从口在尺下,复局之。一曰博,所以行棋,象形。”这里两说并存,一是会意,但口在尺下怎么能得出局促的意思呢?另一说是象形,然而此字怎么会象博局的形状呢?这两说都难以成立。尽管徐锴、段玉裁、朱骏声、王筠等人作了许多解释,还是不能令人信服。另一些学者则另立新说。徐灏《说文解     

中国法理念中的“天”与“天下”秩序初探——江山《中国法理念》阅读札记

在中国传统哲学中,"天"是一个复杂的概念,它既是"体",抽象到一定层次以事物的根本形象出现,难以现实把握;又是确实的"定在",具有多重的含义。前者是指具有绝对精神意义上的天(位格之天),后者最初当然是指作为自然意义的天(自然之天)。自然之天,当然是物质化的确实存在,同时在中国哲学里又从具体认识中升华出来,神圣化为具有神灵意义的指称(神格之天)。因此,天在中国传统哲学中超越了作为自然定在意义上的东西,发展出了一套以"天"、"天道"、"天命"、"天意"为内容的秩序理念。此种理念贯穿历史始终,成为中国自古至今最重要的价值理念。     

字本位和逻各斯中心主义两种证据观及其历史演变

本文重点讨论了两种证据观：字本位的证据观和逻各斯中心主义的证据观。并进一步认为，中国传统证据观是字本位性的。表现在言、文、象三重证据符号的关系中以“书写”或经典为中心。现代中国发生了证据观的革命性变化，主要表现为“去汉字化”的逻各斯中心主义证据观，即在言、文、象三重证据符号的关系中以“言、象”为中心。“去汉字化”建立了中国现代性证据现，同时也难以避免地导致了与传统文化的断裂。     

墨比春江飞书上 笔托苍龙缘法深——为徐小东书法集出版致贺

书法有法，书为心画。千百年来，中国的书法家们，仅以横竖撇捺等几节有数的笔画，就将宏括的中华文明尽收笔底。除去汉字所要表现的内容另论，仅以汉字的结构意义及象形意义的造境来讲，书法家们的功绩便可鼎立不朽。     

论"语言是现实的编码体系"——读徐通锵先生《语言学是什么》有感

一直以来,不同的语言学家对"语言"的定义都有各自的理解,徐通锵先生在《语言学是什么》一书中,根据对语言性质的认识,提出"语言是现实的编码体系",笔者通过回顾部分具有代表性的"语言"定义,认为把语言看成编码体系很好地解释了语言符号的音义关系及相关问题。     

君权监督与和平转移:中国传统法学的盲点

“现代新儒家”的学者牟宗三先生曾把中国传统政治学说的特征总结为“有治道无政道。”此说对我们认识中国传统法学说也有特别的启示意义。中国传统法学说实在也是一种“有治道无政道”的法学说。因为在古代中国，政治学说与法律学说本来就是浑然不分的。所谓“政道”，就是关于政权问题的理论。从法律角度看，主要是关于权力合法性问题、权力的合法正常更迭问题、权力的分工与监督制约问题等等的理论。所谓治道，就是关于行政管理对象及管理方法问题的理论。从法律角度看，主要是关于具体事务的立法及执法问题的理论。在法的领域．政道相当…     

象刑考辩

《尚书·舜典》有"象以典刑"的说法,引起了数千年来人们对它的不同理解和争辩.一般认为,象刑是尧舜时设置的刑罚,是以服象来警戒人们行为规则的.法学词典对象刑的解释有三:一说象刑的意思是象征性的刑罚,即采用区别犯罪者衣服冠饰色质的办法,使见者知为受到了某种刑的惩罚,以资警戒.一说是绘画施用刑罚的情状,公布于众,使人们知所警戒.此说与前说颇为相似,都是说以目治警来者.又一说"象"是法的意思,所谓"象以典刑",即是按照规定的法律对犯罪者加以惩罚.目前,在中国法制史的研究者中,采用第一种说法的较多,即认为在氏族社会时期,对于违反氏族行为规则的人,施以象刑.他们的论断是:     

记忆中的史东山先生

2012年是史东山先生110岁诞辰,所以我一定要写篇怀念他的文章。因为他是我18岁在家乡重庆进"中制"(中国电影制片厂的简称)后第一位认识的大导演。他爱憎分明,常常在办公大楼的走道上大骂"满厂官僚,满厂腐败"。本来我叫他"史先生",官课长提醒我说,像大家一样称呼"东老"好。我立即醒悟到可能他的姓叫了犯忌,所以很快就改了口。但是"东老"却喜欢叫我"小四川",我很     

“汉字图象”的美学观照

"汉字图象"是中华民族的"元书写"。"汉字学"经历了古代的深厚积淀,在现代迎来了新的拓展。当代西方学术的进展,尤其是西方哲学中的"语言学转向"和德里达的"文字学",促使我们更为深刻地重新认识自己的"文字学"。"汉字图象"概念的提出,则呼应着当代文化的"图像转向"以及中国学术界的"文学与语言"的转变。中国美学需要注重自身的特殊性,因此,"汉字学转向"是必然趋势;其中"汉字图象"研究的展开是重要一环。构建"汉字图象美学",需要以"汉字图象美学理论构架"为核心,展开"汉字图象各谱系所包涵的美学意蕴"、"汉字图象的生成与还原"两翼。在"汉字图象"研究中,"本质还原"需要经由汉字造字原初情境的直观来实现。如此,汉字图象美学的目标便指向了中华民族的精神现象学。     

作为镜鉴的中国法制史

中国自青铜时代以来,法律即以"刑"为主体,夏商周三代,从传统氏族往作为新政治实体的国家过渡,其间夹杂着大量异族征伐,家族要维护等级血脉,统治者要确立地位威仪,战争是基本的生活形态.刑就是从战争来的,故而古人说"刑起于兵",法律等同于"刑律",只有暴力的一面.     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.