close
這兩週為了寫Justification for the paradigm and methodology，腦部嚴重充血，日夜徹底顛倒（早上近中午才入睡，下午清醒繼續奮鬥）；整天都在昏昏沉沉中渡過，搞不清楚今夕是何夕的日子，每天充塞著各大主義的研究，到今天為止，終於把這一段落的初稿（短短六頁）完成，可以放下忐忑的心情，好好寫篇日誌了。
寫自己的惡夢，倒是成了一種創作娛樂作用，雖然犯了好久的惡夢，近期開始明瞭這些惡夢帶來的其他收穫，就是創作能力會因為受到夢境的壓迫而提昇，昨天因為一場惡夢，把自己從夢中嚇得驚醒，內耳還聽得到心臟砰砰不停的聲響，全身肌肉又是陷入一場僵硬的狀態，不過還好，還是讓自己接著入睡，好完整調整兩週來時差問題。
其實惡夢前兆都是很類似，就是自己會至少清醒三到四次，而半夢半醒下，又顯得格外的真實，記憶也特別深刻。驚醒後，閉上眼又是看到四五個陌生臉孔，男女老少皆有，已經很少是一次遇到一個靈魂，多半都是一群靈魂，大家也都會自動報上名來，免得我跟人說話報錯名字；這樣夢裡團體說話讓我想到counselling下的group process。（也真奇怪，路人甲乙丙丁在夢裡來找我聊天話當年，怎都不來跟我報樂透明牌咧？老娘欠錢欠到慌了，怎不來幫下忙哪？）其實偶爾想想近期的夢境與生活的結合，也是挺有趣；白天都在房間裡，一個人安安靜靜的看期刊、寫論文，吃飯時，看電視節目來娛樂自己一番，也是很享受一個人生活的快樂；半夜疲憊摸上床時，多半不到半個鐘頭就可以開始跟夢中的人們對話了。
怎知道半個鐘頭呢？因為我多半都會清醒，看看時鐘，平均約一到兩個鐘頭就會清醒一次，一天下來的夢境也挺多產，大概四五個跑不掉。各各都挺有趣，也似乎在身歷其中時，也不會有如過去般驚慌，雖偶然間會受到驚嚇，清醒後還是可以自己稍回調節氣息，接夢續睡，也挺佩服自己能多夢境，多次驚醒，短暫睡眠下，依然還是集中精神，專心投入日常該做的工作。這也就說明自己開始可以在十多年的夢境騷擾經驗後，漸漸體會調節生活且調適自己了。不過，這場頓悟，還經過這般漫長的波折後，才讓我領會與接受，果真還真不是一般的駑鈍之才啊。
這兩週的讀書心得，應該是說，非得要找到一個合理說明Paradigm & Methodology的主義下，每天上網看參考資料，瞭解細節性質，也真會讓我從健康的眼睛變成大近視眼，除了加重身體筋骨的疲憊，還讓自己的眼睛相當的酸痛。另外，老師前陣子借我的睡前小品：How to survive from your viva更是讓人如坐針氈的睡前小品；我還真的想說這本工具書比任何顫慄恐怖小說、聊齋誌異，或是恐怖電影還讓我打從心底的毛起來，從腳底毛到頭皮上，是惶恐到了極點了。每每看到裡頭的任何一點，就覺得自己的論文缺東缺西，自己的對研究的認知，還有專業深入的瞭解，都還是相當的淺薄，看到考官要問的相關問題，就對自己的論文的結構安排、細節說明更是戰戰兢兢，果真是好一本睡前小品，應該拿到廁所去當廁所文學來閱讀。（啊～那會不會在廁所看了後，把自己搞到有便祕徵狀？）
前兩週一邊閱讀瞭解幾個哲學性質，一邊寫justification的部份，終於搞定針對自己研究議題下的分析方法，讀了一堆哲學理論跟方法學，瞭解自己是依據Realism（註一）下的Critical Realism（註二），結合了Ontological Realism（註三）& Epistemological Relativism（註四），研究議題所採用的Quantitative & Qualitative methods應用了Ontological & Epistemological methodologies的結合。其中以Realism些微批判了Positivism（註五） & Constructivism（註六）的缺失面，也結合這兩大派的criteria，細部說明自己應用分析方式。長長的兩週間才完成六頁的報告，進步相當遲緩，天曉得，一段可以寫到兩週這麼久！不過終於弄懂了一堆哲學主義與如何將這些哲學的思想運用在研究議題裡的methodologies下實踐，也瞭解PhD裡的”Ph”不是虛有名堂的成份而已。
這接下來十天，打算修正跟補足Research Methodology & Analysis Process剩下的四十多頁的細節，答應老師兩週半完成的第四章，不想為自己找任何藉口來延長；雖然是極為不容易如期達成，就對整體論文的大任務來說，只要能提早兩個月完成的目標，老娘要發狠拼了！
P.S. 1. 陳小函小朋友，咱兩一起畢業吧！希望快點有機會偶們好姊妹幾個可以再聚會八卦一番。
P.S. 2. 洪小秀小朋友，聽陳小函說你跟她一起八卦到我喔！我咧～不過我有手上很多可以八卦的資料就是了。
參考資料：有些部份簡單地擷取了Wikipedia的基本定義，提供一個簡單的說明。
註一：Realism（唯實論）
Realism is the doctrine that an external world exists independently of our representations of it. Representations include perceptions, thoughts, language, beliefs and desires, as well as artefacts such as pictures and maps, and so include all the ways in which we could or do know and experience the world and ourselves. Relativism repudiates this doctrine, arguing that since any such external world is inaccessible to us in both principle and practice, it need not be postulated or considered. (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999, p. 6).
註二：Critical Realism（批判現實主義）
In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some of our sense-data (for example, those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other of our sense-data (for example, those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. In short, critical realism refers to any position that maintains that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, whilst acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition. There are real structures which exist independently of our experience – but we can only access the circular relationship between reality and discourse. Discourse shapes reality, and is shaped by it; persons also. (Parker, 1996, 1998 & 1999; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Madill, Jordan & Shirley, 2000)
註三：Ontological Realism（本體實在論）
Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy. "A realist ontology maintains that the world is made up of structures and objects that have cause-effect relations with one another." (Willig, 2001, p. 13).
註四：Epistemological Relativism（認知相對論）
Cognitive relativism (also called epistemic or epistemological relativism) is a philosophy that claims the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or individual. The reality variously depends on different perceptions (or feelings) led by personal experiences. Thus, everyone owns different views (or feelings) to tell about right and wrong; in addition, everything is a matter of opinion, including science.
註五：Positivism（實證主義）
Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.
註六：Constructivism（結構主義）
Constructivism is a perspective in philosophy that views all of our knowledge as "constructed", under the assumption that it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on the constructed reality. Notably, this rather relativist theory tends to contradict itself as a true affirmation: because this view also becomes "constructed" / made up itself in someone's mind, rather than extracted from reality. Then, it's "true" because people "wants to think it's right", not because it's been proven irrefutably that it is.
寫自己的惡夢，倒是成了一種創作娛樂作用，雖然犯了好久的惡夢，近期開始明瞭這些惡夢帶來的其他收穫，就是創作能力會因為受到夢境的壓迫而提昇，昨天因為一場惡夢，把自己從夢中嚇得驚醒，內耳還聽得到心臟砰砰不停的聲響，全身肌肉又是陷入一場僵硬的狀態，不過還好，還是讓自己接著入睡，好完整調整兩週來時差問題。
其實惡夢前兆都是很類似，就是自己會至少清醒三到四次，而半夢半醒下，又顯得格外的真實，記憶也特別深刻。驚醒後，閉上眼又是看到四五個陌生臉孔，男女老少皆有，已經很少是一次遇到一個靈魂，多半都是一群靈魂，大家也都會自動報上名來，免得我跟人說話報錯名字；這樣夢裡團體說話讓我想到counselling下的group process。（也真奇怪，路人甲乙丙丁在夢裡來找我聊天話當年，怎都不來跟我報樂透明牌咧？老娘欠錢欠到慌了，怎不來幫下忙哪？）其實偶爾想想近期的夢境與生活的結合，也是挺有趣；白天都在房間裡，一個人安安靜靜的看期刊、寫論文，吃飯時，看電視節目來娛樂自己一番，也是很享受一個人生活的快樂；半夜疲憊摸上床時，多半不到半個鐘頭就可以開始跟夢中的人們對話了。
怎知道半個鐘頭呢？因為我多半都會清醒，看看時鐘，平均約一到兩個鐘頭就會清醒一次，一天下來的夢境也挺多產，大概四五個跑不掉。各各都挺有趣，也似乎在身歷其中時，也不會有如過去般驚慌，雖偶然間會受到驚嚇，清醒後還是可以自己稍回調節氣息，接夢續睡，也挺佩服自己能多夢境，多次驚醒，短暫睡眠下，依然還是集中精神，專心投入日常該做的工作。這也就說明自己開始可以在十多年的夢境騷擾經驗後，漸漸體會調節生活且調適自己了。不過，這場頓悟，還經過這般漫長的波折後，才讓我領會與接受，果真還真不是一般的駑鈍之才啊。
這兩週的讀書心得，應該是說，非得要找到一個合理說明Paradigm & Methodology的主義下，每天上網看參考資料，瞭解細節性質，也真會讓我從健康的眼睛變成大近視眼，除了加重身體筋骨的疲憊，還讓自己的眼睛相當的酸痛。另外，老師前陣子借我的睡前小品：How to survive from your viva更是讓人如坐針氈的睡前小品；我還真的想說這本工具書比任何顫慄恐怖小說、聊齋誌異，或是恐怖電影還讓我打從心底的毛起來，從腳底毛到頭皮上，是惶恐到了極點了。每每看到裡頭的任何一點，就覺得自己的論文缺東缺西，自己的對研究的認知，還有專業深入的瞭解，都還是相當的淺薄，看到考官要問的相關問題，就對自己的論文的結構安排、細節說明更是戰戰兢兢，果真是好一本睡前小品，應該拿到廁所去當廁所文學來閱讀。（啊～那會不會在廁所看了後，把自己搞到有便祕徵狀？）
前兩週一邊閱讀瞭解幾個哲學性質，一邊寫justification的部份，終於搞定針對自己研究議題下的分析方法，讀了一堆哲學理論跟方法學，瞭解自己是依據Realism（註一）下的Critical Realism（註二），結合了Ontological Realism（註三）& Epistemological Relativism（註四），研究議題所採用的Quantitative & Qualitative methods應用了Ontological & Epistemological methodologies的結合。其中以Realism些微批判了Positivism（註五） & Constructivism（註六）的缺失面，也結合這兩大派的criteria，細部說明自己應用分析方式。長長的兩週間才完成六頁的報告，進步相當遲緩，天曉得，一段可以寫到兩週這麼久！不過終於弄懂了一堆哲學主義與如何將這些哲學的思想運用在研究議題裡的methodologies下實踐，也瞭解PhD裡的”Ph”不是虛有名堂的成份而已。
這接下來十天，打算修正跟補足Research Methodology & Analysis Process剩下的四十多頁的細節，答應老師兩週半完成的第四章，不想為自己找任何藉口來延長；雖然是極為不容易如期達成，就對整體論文的大任務來說，只要能提早兩個月完成的目標，老娘要發狠拼了！
P.S. 1. 陳小函小朋友，咱兩一起畢業吧！希望快點有機會偶們好姊妹幾個可以再聚會八卦一番。
P.S. 2. 洪小秀小朋友，聽陳小函說你跟她一起八卦到我喔！我咧～不過我有手上很多可以八卦的資料就是了。
參考資料：有些部份簡單地擷取了Wikipedia的基本定義，提供一個簡單的說明。
註一：Realism（唯實論）
Realism is the doctrine that an external world exists independently of our representations of it. Representations include perceptions, thoughts, language, beliefs and desires, as well as artefacts such as pictures and maps, and so include all the ways in which we could or do know and experience the world and ourselves. Relativism repudiates this doctrine, arguing that since any such external world is inaccessible to us in both principle and practice, it need not be postulated or considered. (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999, p. 6).
註二：Critical Realism（批判現實主義）
In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some of our sense-data (for example, those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other of our sense-data (for example, those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. In short, critical realism refers to any position that maintains that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, whilst acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition. There are real structures which exist independently of our experience – but we can only access the circular relationship between reality and discourse. Discourse shapes reality, and is shaped by it; persons also. (Parker, 1996, 1998 & 1999; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Madill, Jordan & Shirley, 2000)
註三：Ontological Realism（本體實在論）
Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy. "A realist ontology maintains that the world is made up of structures and objects that have cause-effect relations with one another." (Willig, 2001, p. 13).
註四：Epistemological Relativism（認知相對論）
Cognitive relativism (also called epistemic or epistemological relativism) is a philosophy that claims the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or individual. The reality variously depends on different perceptions (or feelings) led by personal experiences. Thus, everyone owns different views (or feelings) to tell about right and wrong; in addition, everything is a matter of opinion, including science.
註五：Positivism（實證主義）
Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.
註六：Constructivism（結構主義）
Constructivism is a perspective in philosophy that views all of our knowledge as "constructed", under the assumption that it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on the constructed reality. Notably, this rather relativist theory tends to contradict itself as a true affirmation: because this view also becomes "constructed" / made up itself in someone's mind, rather than extracted from reality. Then, it's "true" because people "wants to think it's right", not because it's been proven irrefutably that it is.
全站熱搜
留言列表
Creativities/小說與設計 (3)
