Re: Ba`n ve^` Ta^`n Co^'i

[Tran Minh Tien <tran@idefix.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de>]

Hi ba'c Ho^`ng La^m,

> > Khi dda~ xa'c ddi.nh ne^`n ta?ng va(n ho'a cu?a nhu+~ng be^n tham
> > gia tranh lua^.n thi` ddie^`u quan tro.ng thu+' hai la` ca'c be^n
> > tham gia tranh lua^.n co' ddu+'ng cu`ng tre^n mo^.t ne^`n ta?ng
> > va(n ho'a hay kho^ng. Ne^'u kho^ng thi` kho^ng the^? tranh lua^.n
> > ddu+o+.c, cu~ng nhu+ kho^ng the^? ddu+'ng tre^n hi`nh ho.c
> > Lobatrevxkyi tranh lua^.n vo+'i ngu+o+`i ddu+'ng tre^n hi`nh ho.c
> > Euclid ve^` hai ddu+o+`ng tha(?ng song song.
> 
> Marx/Engels also wrote in the Communist Manifest that you can
> not criticize a standpoint from a different standpoint. I have the
> same opinion. But be careful. It makes no sense to criticize the
> Lobachevski geometry from the point of view of the Euclides geometry. Yet
> it is OK to criticize the Lobachevski as well as the Euclides geometry
> from a meta geometry. So in order to criticize the Lobachevski geometry, 
> you must not stand on the Lobachevski geometry at all.

Ba'c vie^'t cha? kha'c gi` to^i dda~ vie^'t. Kho^ng the^? tranh lua^.n
tre^n 2 ne^`n ta?ng kha'c nhau, ma` pha?i tre^n cu`ng 1 ne^`n ta?ng
(ca'i ma` ba'c go.i la` meta-X). Tu`y tu+`ng tru+o+`ng ho+.p cu.
the^? co' the^? o+? trong X la` ddu?, ma` kho^ng ca^`n pha?i le^n
meta-X.
Tie^.n dda^y tha^'y ba'c nha('c ve^` meta-geometry. To^i tra
Encyclopeedia of Mathematics as well as Philosophy Dictionary
ma` kho^ng tha^'y. Co' the^? ta.i sa'ch cu~ hay nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i
bie^n soa.n do^'t ma` kho^ng bie^'t cha(ng ?
Ba'c co' the^? gia?ng cho to^i ddu+o+.c kho^ng ?
Bo^. mo^n na`y co' ddi.nh ly', ddi.nh lua^.t, u+'ng du.ng etc.
gi` kho^ng ? Do ai sa'ng ta'c ra va^.y ?
A` ma` X thuo^.c loa.i gi` thi` mo+'i co' meta-X ? Meta-X la` gi` ?
Ho^.i tu. ddie^`u kie^.n gi` mo+'i co' the^? go.i la` meta-X ?
DDo^'i tu+o+.ng nghie^n cu+'u cu?a meta-X la` gi` ?  


> 
> > DDie^`u na`y cu~ng tu+o+ng tu+. (nhu+ng kho^ng ha(?n hoa`n toa`n
> > gio^'ng) trong li.ch su+? cu?a chu'ng ta co' Tra^`n I'ch Ta('c.
> > Tra^`n I'ch Ta('c cu~ng la` mo^.t ngu+o+`i co' ho.c va^'n cu+.
> > pha'ch, nhu+ng trong khe^' u+o+'c va(n ho'a cu?a da^n to^.c
> > Vie^.t, o^ng bi. nga`n ddo+`i nguye^`n ru?a la` te^n ba'n nu+o+'c,
> > ha.i da^n\. Mo.i co^' ga('ng bie^.n ho^. cho Tra^`n I'ch Ta('c
> > la` ddi ngu+o+.c vo+'i va(n ho'a Vie^.t Nam, la` cho^'ng la.i
> > da^n to^.c Vie^.t Nam.  
> 
> The Vietnamese "contrat culturel" is not an "unchanged melody". It is
> not made once for all. It is a resultate of a historical process, the
> Vietnamese history. The Vietnamese culture, or with other words the
> Vietnamese value system was and is always under change. 
> 
> The Vietnamese nation is not necessarily to be identical with the

Va^.y xin ho?i ba'c ba'c ddi.nh nghi~a the^' na`o la` culture ?
I never say that a culture must be identical with the corresponding
 nation. By that reason I have written 2 sentences, one with "culture",
one with "nation".
I never say that Vietnamese value system is unchangeable. 
But in the case of Tran Ich Tac (as well as of Le Chieu Thong,
Hoang Cao Khai ...) I never see that someone tries to change 
the view. In my opinion the view is stable. It reflects
the vietnamese culture as well as vietnamese nation in all
vietnamese history.

Kho^ng the^? no'i ve^` tu+o+ng lai khi cha(?ng ai trong ta
co' the^? bie^'t ve^` tu+o+ng lai\. Chuye^.n vie^~n tu+o+?ng
ne^n da`nh cho o'c tu+o+?ng tu+o+.ng cu?a tre? con thi` thi'ch
ho+.p ho+n

> 
> Ddu'ng qu'a, Ta^`n Co^'i lu+`a lo.c, do^'i tra', sa't nha^n. Cha('c
> ba'c kho^ng cho ca'i va(n hoa' nha^n va(n na`y la` "ba(`ng vai pha?i 
> lu+'a" vo+'i va(n ho'a VN, TQ, ca'c thu+', vi` ne^'u va^.y thi` ba'c 
> tu+. ma^u thua^~n. Do do' tui hie^?u ba'c coi "va(n ho'a nha^n va(n" na`y
> la` mo^.t thu+' "meta culture". Tu+'c la` kho^ng pha?i va(n ho'a da^n


To^i se~ kho^ng no'i nhu+ va^.y vi` meta-culture KHO^NG pha?i la`
ca'i chung cu?a 2 va(n hoa'. Ba'c cu+' ddu+a ra ca'i hie^?u cu?a 
ba'c ve^` va(n ho'a, ve^` meta-culture thi` mo+'i co' the^? no'i
ddu+o+.c. To^i co' kha'i nie^.m va(n ho'a cu?a DDa`o Duy Anh trong
"Va(n ho'a su+? cu+o+ng", nhu+ng to^i co' the^? ddo+.i cho+`\.



> to^.c ma` la` va(n ho'a nha^n loa.i hoa(.c va(n ho'a giai ca^'p cha(?ng
> ha.n. A` ma` theo ba'c thi` co' mo^.t ne^`n ta?ng va(n ho'a chung cho
> toa`n nnha^n loa.i kho^ng? Ne^'u co' thi` he^. gia' tri. cu?a no' sa('p
> xe^'p ra sao, ca'i gi` tre^n, ca'i gi` duo+'i? Ca'c kha'i nie^.m: Lu+`a
> lo.c, do^'i tra', sa't nha^n co' trong he^. gia' tri. na`y kho^ng? Ne^'u
> co', thi` na(`m o+? vi. tri' na`o? 
> 
> Nha^n no'i dde^'n sa't nha^n, xin ho?i ba'c ne^'u gie^'t 1 nguo+`i dde^?
> cu+'u muo^n nguo+`i thi` la` to^'t hay xa^'u? Co' bao nhie^u loa.i gie^'t
> nguo+`i? Loa.i na`o to^'t, loa.i na`o xa^'u? Ba'c Machiavelli dda~ ba`n
> chuye^.n na`y ru`i nhu*ng tui muo^'n nghe y' kie^'n ca'c ba'c.
> 

Kho^ng the^? no'i la` xa^'u hay to^'t chung chung ddu+o+.c, pha?i dda(.t
va`o trong tu+`ng ne^`n ta?ng va(n ho'a cu. the^?\. Ma~ Vie^.n tha('ng
Ba` Tru+ng dda~ cu+'u bao ngu+o+`i kho?i pha?i tie^'p tu.c chie^'n tranh.

Cheers,

Tran Minh Tien