景中: 那天晚上的谈话。给我留下了很深的印象。在短短的几个小时里,我们的话题不断转换,禅宗——艺术史——中国文化——价值观,……,我们甚至谈到了个人的经历对自己学术观点的影响。期间,我再也不觉得语言、乃至整个话题,是我们哪一方的私有财产。这种创造共同语言的快感,使我想到了伽达默尔的那个关于谈话与体育比赛的巧妙比喻,只不过体育比赛的规则是普遍有效的,而谈话的规则则是我们双方之间默契的。(就象你与你的孩子之间会默契另一种谈话规则一样)因此,我又想到那些没有默契的谈话或争论,该是多么的无聊。我想,一次富有意义的对话,除了有这种规则的默契之外,还应当有语义的默契,或者说,语 King: the conversation that night. Left a deep impression on me. In just a few hours, our topic is constantly changing, Zen - art history - Chinese culture - values, ... ... and we even talk about the impact of personal experiences on our academic perspectives. During this period, I never felt that language, or even the whole topic, is the private property of either of us. This pleasure of creating a common language reminds me of Gadamer’s clever metaphor of conversation and sports, except that the rules of the sport are generally valid, and the rules of the conversation are those of our mutual understanding . (Just as you and your child have a different tacit understanding of the rules of conversation.) So, again, I wonder how boring it is to talk or debate without a tacit understanding. I think there should be a semantic tacit understanding in addition to the tacit understanding of such a rule in a meaningful dialogue. In other words,