英文翻译 不要翻译软体
Giventhatthisvolumefocusesonfuneralritesandmortuarypractices,itseemsappropriatetobegi...
Given that this volume focuses on funeral rites and mortuary practices, it seems appropriate to begin with a general discussion of ritual. There is, of course, a vast literature on this problem, and I do not propose to review all aspects of the topic here. Suffice it to note that anthropologists have long debated the meaning and definition of ritual; unfortunately, little agreement has been reached among contending schools, and there is still no generally accepted definition. However, in all studies of the subject of the subject it is generally assumed that ritual is about transformation-in particular it relates to the transformation of one being or state into another, changed being or state. Most anthropologists would agree that it is this transformative aspect that sets ritual apart from other social actions. That which is merely repeated is not necessarily ritual. Rather, rituals are repeated because they are expected to have transformative powers. Rituals change people and things; the ritual process is active, not merely passive.
One of the most insightful studies of ritual to appear in recent years is Gilbert Lewis’ Day of Red. This study is a minute “unpacking” of a puberty rite practiced by New Guinea villagers. The author works his way through the received definitions of ritual only to find them wanting. He concludes: “What is clear and explicit about ritual is how to do it-rather than its meaning.” The people he worked among knew how to perform rites, and they knew when something was performed incorrectly, but they could not provide ready explanations (in words) for what was being expressed, communicated, or symbolized. This, of course, is familiar problem to all fieldworkers, not just those who work in New Guinea.
Lewis raises a fundamental question that, at one time or another, has haunted most scholars who attempt to analyze rituals: How can we go beyond what we are told by informants, texts, or documentary sources? Many anthropologists try to create meaning by reassembling symbols, metaphors, and actions into a coherent set of messages-thereby engaging in structural analyses of various types. Lewis is not alone in questioning such procedures. Whose meaning are we constructing when rituals are interpreted: our informant’s or our own? Nor is it possible, as some have suggested, to present “value free” or “pure” descriptions of ritual, devoid of contaminating interpretations by the observer. The very act of description involves multiple judgments regarding the behavior being performed. Even the most detailed description demands that one isolate certain actions as being more significant than others.
Films and photographs of ritual present equally complicated problems of analysis. During the conference that preceded this volume participants observed nearly twenty hours of slides and films dealing with Chinese funerary ritual. It was fascinating, and enlightening, to learn that everyone present “saw” something different in the visual records of Chinese rites. Historians and anthropologists, in particular, did not even appear to be witnessing the same events, to judge from their comments (the historians were preoccupied with written messages and texts evident in the slides or films, whereas anthropologists tended to treat these message as peripheral or at least secondary to the actions of ritual specialists; see Evelyn Rawski’s observation on this matter, chapter 2). I might add that such variation in interpretation is also true for those who actually participate in funerals and perform the rites portrayed in ethnographic films or slides. 展开
One of the most insightful studies of ritual to appear in recent years is Gilbert Lewis’ Day of Red. This study is a minute “unpacking” of a puberty rite practiced by New Guinea villagers. The author works his way through the received definitions of ritual only to find them wanting. He concludes: “What is clear and explicit about ritual is how to do it-rather than its meaning.” The people he worked among knew how to perform rites, and they knew when something was performed incorrectly, but they could not provide ready explanations (in words) for what was being expressed, communicated, or symbolized. This, of course, is familiar problem to all fieldworkers, not just those who work in New Guinea.
Lewis raises a fundamental question that, at one time or another, has haunted most scholars who attempt to analyze rituals: How can we go beyond what we are told by informants, texts, or documentary sources? Many anthropologists try to create meaning by reassembling symbols, metaphors, and actions into a coherent set of messages-thereby engaging in structural analyses of various types. Lewis is not alone in questioning such procedures. Whose meaning are we constructing when rituals are interpreted: our informant’s or our own? Nor is it possible, as some have suggested, to present “value free” or “pure” descriptions of ritual, devoid of contaminating interpretations by the observer. The very act of description involves multiple judgments regarding the behavior being performed. Even the most detailed description demands that one isolate certain actions as being more significant than others.
Films and photographs of ritual present equally complicated problems of analysis. During the conference that preceded this volume participants observed nearly twenty hours of slides and films dealing with Chinese funerary ritual. It was fascinating, and enlightening, to learn that everyone present “saw” something different in the visual records of Chinese rites. Historians and anthropologists, in particular, did not even appear to be witnessing the same events, to judge from their comments (the historians were preoccupied with written messages and texts evident in the slides or films, whereas anthropologists tended to treat these message as peripheral or at least secondary to the actions of ritual specialists; see Evelyn Rawski’s observation on this matter, chapter 2). I might add that such variation in interpretation is also true for those who actually participate in funerals and perform the rites portrayed in ethnographic films or slides. 展开
3个回答
展开全部
鉴于此卷侧重于葬礼及殓的做法,似乎是适当的开始进行了一般性讨论的仪式。有,当然是广大文学就这个问题,我不打算检讨各方面的话题在这里。只要注意,人类学家一直在争论的意义和定义仪式;不幸的是,没有达成正式协议,学校之间的竞争,以及还没有普遍接受的定义。然而,在所有研究的主题的主题人们普遍认为,礼仪是转变,特别是它涉及到一个变革正在或到另一个国家,正在改变或状态。大多数人类学家都同意,正是这种变革方面,集仪式有别于其他社会行动。这是只是重复并不一定是例行公事。相反,礼仪重复,因为他们预计到变革的权力。仪式改变人们和事物;仪式进程是积极的,而不仅仅是被动的。
其中最深刻见解的研究报告的仪式出现在最近几年是吉尔伯特刘易斯的红日。这项研究是一分钟“拆包”的青春期仪式实行新几内亚村民。作品的作者通过他收到的定义仪式才发现他们缺少。他的结论是: “什么是明确的仪式是如何做到这一点,而不是其含义。 ”人民之间,他知道如何履行仪式,和他们知道什么东西是不正确履行,但他们无法提供现成的解释(文字)为正表示,通报,或象征。当然,这是熟悉的问题向所有实地工作人员,而不仅仅是谁的工作在新几内亚。
刘易斯提出了一个根本的问题是,在同一时间或其他,已困扰大多数学者谁试图分析礼仪:我们如何才能超越我们被告知的举报人,文字,或书面来源吗?许多人类学家试图创建意义的重新象征,隐喻,和行动统一到一套连贯的信息,从而进行结构分析各种类型。刘易斯不单单是质疑这种程序。其含义是我们建设仪式时解释:我们的线人或我们自己?这也不是不可能的,因为一些人所建议的,提出的“价值自由”或“纯粹”的说明仪式,没有污染的解释的观察员出席了会议。非常行为的描述涉及多个方面的判决正在执行的行为。即使是最详细说明的要求,一个孤立的某些行动,更重要的是比其他国家。
问题补充:电影和照片的仪式本同样复杂的问题的分析。在会议之前,此卷与会者近20小时的幻灯片和电影处理中国丧葬仪式。这是迷人的,和启发,学习,人人本“看到”不同的视觉记录的中国仪式。历史学家和人类学家,尤其是甚至没有似乎看到同样的事件,来判断他们的意见(历史学家的关注书面信息和文本体现在幻灯片或电影,而人类学家倾向于把这些邮件或周边最少中等教育的行动礼仪专家;见伊夫林罗斯基的观点在这个问题上,第2章) 。我可以补充,这种变化的解释也是对那些谁实际参加葬礼,并履行仪式描绘人种电影或幻灯片。
其中最深刻见解的研究报告的仪式出现在最近几年是吉尔伯特刘易斯的红日。这项研究是一分钟“拆包”的青春期仪式实行新几内亚村民。作品的作者通过他收到的定义仪式才发现他们缺少。他的结论是: “什么是明确的仪式是如何做到这一点,而不是其含义。 ”人民之间,他知道如何履行仪式,和他们知道什么东西是不正确履行,但他们无法提供现成的解释(文字)为正表示,通报,或象征。当然,这是熟悉的问题向所有实地工作人员,而不仅仅是谁的工作在新几内亚。
刘易斯提出了一个根本的问题是,在同一时间或其他,已困扰大多数学者谁试图分析礼仪:我们如何才能超越我们被告知的举报人,文字,或书面来源吗?许多人类学家试图创建意义的重新象征,隐喻,和行动统一到一套连贯的信息,从而进行结构分析各种类型。刘易斯不单单是质疑这种程序。其含义是我们建设仪式时解释:我们的线人或我们自己?这也不是不可能的,因为一些人所建议的,提出的“价值自由”或“纯粹”的说明仪式,没有污染的解释的观察员出席了会议。非常行为的描述涉及多个方面的判决正在执行的行为。即使是最详细说明的要求,一个孤立的某些行动,更重要的是比其他国家。
问题补充:电影和照片的仪式本同样复杂的问题的分析。在会议之前,此卷与会者近20小时的幻灯片和电影处理中国丧葬仪式。这是迷人的,和启发,学习,人人本“看到”不同的视觉记录的中国仪式。历史学家和人类学家,尤其是甚至没有似乎看到同样的事件,来判断他们的意见(历史学家的关注书面信息和文本体现在幻灯片或电影,而人类学家倾向于把这些邮件或周边最少中等教育的行动礼仪专家;见伊夫林罗斯基的观点在这个问题上,第2章) 。我可以补充,这种变化的解释也是对那些谁实际参加葬礼,并履行仪式描绘人种电影或幻灯片。
展开全部
假设这容量集中于葬礼礼拜式和太平间实践,从关于仪式的概论开始似乎适当。 有,当然,在这个问题的浩大的文学和我不提议回顾题目的所有方面这里。 足够了它注意到,人类学家长期辩论了仪式的意思和定义; 不幸地,一点协议在角逐的学校之中被达成了,并且仍有没有通常承认的定义。 然而,在主题的主题的所有研究通常假设,它与变革一个关系是的仪式是变革在特殊性或状态入别的,改变是或状态。 多数人类学家同意它是除其他社会行动之外,设置仪式的这个变化的方面。 仅仅被重复的那不一定是礼节的。 相反,因为他们预计有变化的力量,仪式被重复。 仪式变动人和事; 礼节过程是活跃,不仅仅被动。 仪式的最通透的研究的One近年来出现的是Gilbert Lewis’天红色。 这项研究是青春期礼拜式的一分钟新几内亚村民实践的“unpacking”。 作者通过仪式的被接受的定义工作他的方式只发现他们要。 他结束: “What是确切,并且明确关于仪式比它的meaning.”他工作在之中是如何做它宁可的人民会执行礼拜式,并且他们知道某事什么时候不正确地执行了,但是他们不可能提供准备好解释(在词)为什么被表达,沟通或者象征。 这,当然,是熟悉的问题给所有实地考察工作者,不仅在新几内亚工作的那些人。
Lewis提出,曾经,困扰了多数学者试图分析仪式的一个根本问题: 我们怎么可以在什么之外去我们由通知者、文本或者新闻纪录片的来源告诉? 许多人类学家设法通过重新召集标志、隐喻和行动创造意思入参与对各种各样的类型的结构分析的连贯套消息从而。 刘易斯不是单独的在对这样做法表示怀疑。 谁的意思是修建仪式什么时候的我们被解释: 我们的informant’s或我们自己? 亦不是它可能,一些建议,提出仪式的“value free”或“pure”描述,无沾染的解释由观察员。 描述行动介入关于执行的行为的多评断。 详细描写比其他要求一孤立某些行动作为重大。仪式礼物的问题补充:Films和照片平等地使分析复杂化的问题。 在之前的会议期间这容量参加者观察了几乎应付中国殡葬仪式的二十个小时幻灯片电影。 它是引人入胜和启迪,获悉大家礼物“saw”事不同在中国礼拜式视觉纪录。 史学家和人类学家甚而,特别是,没有看上去目击同样事件,从他们的评论判断(史学家对书面消息和文本出神了显然在幻灯片或影片,而人类学家倾向于对待这些消息如周边或至少次要对礼节专家的行动; 看见在这个问题上的伊夫林Rawski’s观察,第2)章。 我也许补充说,在解释上的这样变化也真实对在民族志学影片实际上参加葬礼并且执行被刻画的礼拜式的那些人或滑。
Lewis提出,曾经,困扰了多数学者试图分析仪式的一个根本问题: 我们怎么可以在什么之外去我们由通知者、文本或者新闻纪录片的来源告诉? 许多人类学家设法通过重新召集标志、隐喻和行动创造意思入参与对各种各样的类型的结构分析的连贯套消息从而。 刘易斯不是单独的在对这样做法表示怀疑。 谁的意思是修建仪式什么时候的我们被解释: 我们的informant’s或我们自己? 亦不是它可能,一些建议,提出仪式的“value free”或“pure”描述,无沾染的解释由观察员。 描述行动介入关于执行的行为的多评断。 详细描写比其他要求一孤立某些行动作为重大。仪式礼物的问题补充:Films和照片平等地使分析复杂化的问题。 在之前的会议期间这容量参加者观察了几乎应付中国殡葬仪式的二十个小时幻灯片电影。 它是引人入胜和启迪,获悉大家礼物“saw”事不同在中国礼拜式视觉纪录。 史学家和人类学家甚而,特别是,没有看上去目击同样事件,从他们的评论判断(史学家对书面消息和文本出神了显然在幻灯片或影片,而人类学家倾向于对待这些消息如周边或至少次要对礼节专家的行动; 看见在这个问题上的伊夫林Rawski’s观察,第2)章。 我也许补充说,在解释上的这样变化也真实对在民族志学影片实际上参加葬礼并且执行被刻画的礼拜式的那些人或滑。
本回答被提问者采纳
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
展开全部
你好,The lens match wear the method
After clean both hands, puts the lens on the index fingerfingertip, the attention frontage faces on (sees also right chart)front the binocular gaze, both hands middle finger about the eyelidwill pull open, then will be attaching the lens in the cornea, thenwill put aside the index finger downward to look again will cause thelens to attach on the eye, both hands middle finger slowly will relaxthe eyelid.
The lens dismount the method
After both hands cleaning, the eye looks at the mirror about,pulls open the eyelid right hand thumb and the index finger after theleft hand index finger right middle finger gently holds down the lenslower limb two sides to cause the lens to haunch up slowly takes out.
Matches wears the contact lenses matters needing attention
1st, if has stimulates the feeling please to take down the lensreinspects whether has the dust or 毛絮, is clean after the entirefunction maintenance fluid flushing wears again.
2nd, please do not have simultaneously to turn on two lids, in orderto avoid the lid exchanges.
3rd, the astigmatism lens match when wears, please the lens on thebeginnings and ends angle target, by the horizontal direction the lensis attaching to the cornea.
4th, the maintenance wears the mirror finger dryly, if wears themirror finger to refer to the end moisture content excessively to bemany, then in Dai Jingshi the lens easily with the finger adhesion,with difficulty wear into intraocularly
About 5th, fully pushes aside the eyelid, enable the lens tohave the enough space to enter the eye
6th, if in wears in the mirror process the lens not to be ableto enter the eye, do not have eagerly again the second wife to wearthe lens, after but should again wear the lens full flushing
レンズのマッチの摩耗方法
きれいの后に手は両方とも索引のfingerfingertip 、注意の正面の表面に、レンズを置く(右のchart)front を双眼熟视、开いたeyelidwillの引きについての両方の手の中指また见たりそして角膜、thenwill のレンズを再度见るために下方にわき置く人差し指を目、両方の手の中指ゆっくり付すためにもたらすthelens を意志のrelaxthe の睑で付ける。
レンズは方法を降ろす
ミラーで、目の一见は约きれいになる両方の手の后で引き睑の右の亲指を开け、haunch にレンズを引き起こすためにtheleft 手の人差し指の権利の中指により穏やかにlenslower の肢双方をゆっくり维持した后人差し指は取る。
マッチは注意を必要とするコンタクトレンズの问题を身に着けている
第1 、持っていれば尘をまたは持っているどうかlensreinspects を降ろすように感じを刺激する 毛絮、entirefunction の维持の液体洗い流すことが再度身に着けていた后きれいがある。
第2 、orderto の2 つのふたを、つけるために避けるふた交换を同时に持っていない。
第3 の身に着けている时乱视レンズのマッチ、thebeginnings のレンズを喜ばし、端は横の方向によってターゲットを、角膜に付すlensis 曲げる。
第4 、维持はintraocularly に难しさの摩耗の指の付着と戴Jingshi でthemirror 指をbemany を端の含水率を过度に参照するために身に着けていればミラー指を、そして容易のレンズ、无味乾燥に身に着けている
第5 について、十分に睑を、目に入ることを可能にするレンズのtohave が十分なスペースわき押す
第6 wearthe レンズに、ミラープロセスでableto がないレンズを身に着けていれば再度レンズの完全な洗い流を身に着けるべきだった后、目に、再度热心に持っていない第2 妻を入る 17131希望对你有帮助!
After clean both hands, puts the lens on the index fingerfingertip, the attention frontage faces on (sees also right chart)front the binocular gaze, both hands middle finger about the eyelidwill pull open, then will be attaching the lens in the cornea, thenwill put aside the index finger downward to look again will cause thelens to attach on the eye, both hands middle finger slowly will relaxthe eyelid.
The lens dismount the method
After both hands cleaning, the eye looks at the mirror about,pulls open the eyelid right hand thumb and the index finger after theleft hand index finger right middle finger gently holds down the lenslower limb two sides to cause the lens to haunch up slowly takes out.
Matches wears the contact lenses matters needing attention
1st, if has stimulates the feeling please to take down the lensreinspects whether has the dust or 毛絮, is clean after the entirefunction maintenance fluid flushing wears again.
2nd, please do not have simultaneously to turn on two lids, in orderto avoid the lid exchanges.
3rd, the astigmatism lens match when wears, please the lens on thebeginnings and ends angle target, by the horizontal direction the lensis attaching to the cornea.
4th, the maintenance wears the mirror finger dryly, if wears themirror finger to refer to the end moisture content excessively to bemany, then in Dai Jingshi the lens easily with the finger adhesion,with difficulty wear into intraocularly
About 5th, fully pushes aside the eyelid, enable the lens tohave the enough space to enter the eye
6th, if in wears in the mirror process the lens not to be ableto enter the eye, do not have eagerly again the second wife to wearthe lens, after but should again wear the lens full flushing
レンズのマッチの摩耗方法
きれいの后に手は両方とも索引のfingerfingertip 、注意の正面の表面に、レンズを置く(右のchart)front を双眼熟视、开いたeyelidwillの引きについての両方の手の中指また见たりそして角膜、thenwill のレンズを再度见るために下方にわき置く人差し指を目、両方の手の中指ゆっくり付すためにもたらすthelens を意志のrelaxthe の睑で付ける。
レンズは方法を降ろす
ミラーで、目の一见は约きれいになる両方の手の后で引き睑の右の亲指を开け、haunch にレンズを引き起こすためにtheleft 手の人差し指の権利の中指により穏やかにlenslower の肢双方をゆっくり维持した后人差し指は取る。
マッチは注意を必要とするコンタクトレンズの问题を身に着けている
第1 、持っていれば尘をまたは持っているどうかlensreinspects を降ろすように感じを刺激する 毛絮、entirefunction の维持の液体洗い流すことが再度身に着けていた后きれいがある。
第2 、orderto の2 つのふたを、つけるために避けるふた交换を同时に持っていない。
第3 の身に着けている时乱视レンズのマッチ、thebeginnings のレンズを喜ばし、端は横の方向によってターゲットを、角膜に付すlensis 曲げる。
第4 、维持はintraocularly に难しさの摩耗の指の付着と戴Jingshi でthemirror 指をbemany を端の含水率を过度に参照するために身に着けていればミラー指を、そして容易のレンズ、无味乾燥に身に着けている
第5 について、十分に睑を、目に入ることを可能にするレンズのtohave が十分なスペースわき押す
第6 wearthe レンズに、ミラープロセスでableto がないレンズを身に着けていれば再度レンズの完全な洗い流を身に着けるべきだった后、目に、再度热心に持っていない第2 妻を入る 17131希望对你有帮助!
参考资料: . opehact
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
推荐律师服务:
若未解决您的问题,请您详细描述您的问题,通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询