科幻《三体问题》与科学偶像

我尝试观看了科幻电视剧《三体》。这部30集的系列剧改编自刘慈欣现已著名的小说《三体问题》。我坚持不了超过一个小时，不得不快速地浏览到结尾。通常我对科幻作品有喜欢的倾向，即使是低质量的作品，我也能被动地接受相当的时间，直到我的大脑发出坚定的“停止”信号。

但《三体》比垃圾更糟。它是毒药。

这真应了弗兰克·赫伯特（科幻名著《沙丘》的作者）曾经警告过的：

“曾经，人们把思考交给了机器，希望这能让他们获得自由。但这只是让拥有机器的其他人奴役了他们。”

如果将《三体》视为杰作，那它的杰出就在于其清楚的证明了弗兰克·赫伯特是多么正确和有先见之明。后者正是有价值的科幻作品的特点，能正确警告在未来将要涌现出来奴役人的各样妖魔鬼怪，而不是靠虚空的想象为妖魔鬼怪做倡导来使人加速失去自由。

《三体》纯粹是科学迷信和技术偶像崇拜。

我给它起了个名字：Scidolatry 科学偶像。

《三体》出自一位中国作者之手实际上并不令人惊讶。缺乏自由文理 (liberal arts) 教育（我使用“自由文理”这个词的真正含义，代表自由人的知识，而不是今天文理学院 liberal arts colleges 所教授的颓废内容），并在过去一个世纪，特别是过去近50年，深受技术政治(technopolitics) 宣传的影响，导致中国最有创造力和大胆的自由思想科幻作家在一个虚构的宇宙中扩展了他的想象力，但仍然被锁在科学崇拜的茧中。 他很可能是无意识的，但并未能提供对人类现存问题的深刻洞察和有益的诊断，更没有指引出更好的方向。

相反，作者拒绝人类有关永恒的最高价值观 (实际上他似乎并不明白这种价值观)，并傲慢无知地假设科学和技术是人类唯一的希望。从他的世界观出发，这个假设并不是深入考察和探究之后的选择，而是前提性假设。

但如果作者坚持他所写的是他所相信的，那么那是他自己的观点，即使是错误的观点，也可以令人尊重的方式呈现。可悲的是，作品以傲慢和造作的方式呈现，充满了明显的无知和偏见。

如果你问，“什么偏见？” 这里有一个例子，是沈玉飞和一个男人（我没记住他的名字，但他被描绘成非常智慧）之间的简短对话：

沈：你什么意思？

智慧男人：“没意思，你看我没意思，我看你也没意思，所以这就很有意思。”

沈：（无言，显然被这位男士“深奥”的话语所震撼）

智慧男人所说的是毫无意义的废话，但在剧中却被描绘成超凡的智慧。

如果你问，无论有没有意思，偏见在哪里？ 这里是个提示：沈是剧中主要的邪恶角色之一，因为她是领头的救赎主义科学家，但她实际上是作者用来代表基督徒的妖魔化典型，其掩盖的面纱是薄薄的，而 “神秘化” 的智慧男人则是一个佛教徒的代表。他所说的是典型的 “禅语”。

那场对话中的伪哲学不仅对基督徒是诽谤，同时也可能是对佛教的误解。

《三体》中，对宇宙或人类意义的深刻反思根本不存在。一切都被降低为渲染。不一定是政治宣传，而是作者个人的渲染。不幸的是，尽管他在想象力上非常惊人，但其价值观却出奇地肤浅和狭隘。

此外，作者对真正科学缺乏理解的程度也是惊人，唯有他毫无根据的丰富想象力可以匹敌。即使我通常对科幻作品的科学真实性及可能性持宽容态度，也还是无法不感觉到其低级趣味。

然而，我必须对值得称赞的地方表示赞扬：摄影和表演都不错。

不要读它；不要看它，除非你是一个科学崇拜者（崇拜科学的人），不介意成为机器的奴隶或控制机器的人的奴隶。

英文原文：

I tried to watch the TV series “The Three-Body”.  The 30-episode series is based on the now-famous novel “The Three-Body Problem” by Liu Cixin.  I couldn’t last more than an hour and had to skim over to the and quickly.  I generally have a soft spot for sci-fi and can often receive low-quality junk passively for quite a while before my brain can come up with a firm “stop” signal.

But this is worse than junk.  It’s poison.

Its philosophy is exactly what Frank Herbert (the author of Dunes) warned about:

“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.  But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”

If The Three-Body is regarded as a masterpiece, it is a powerful proof of how correct and prescient Frank Herbert was.  The latter is exactly the characteristic of valuable science fiction works, which can correctly warn of the various monsters and demons that will emerge in the future to enslave people, rather than using vain  imaginations to pave the ways for the monsters and demons to enter into people and make them lose their freedom faster.

The Three-Body is pure science-superstition and techno-idolatry.

I gave it a name: Scidolatry.

This coming from a Chinese author is actually not that surprising.  Lacking liberal arts education (I use the phrase “liberal arts” in its true meaning, representing knowledge of a free man, not the corrupt and degenerating liberal thoughts taught in today’s liberal arts colleges) and heavily influenced by techno-political propaganda for the past century, especially the last 50 years, China’s most creative and audacious freethinking sci-fi author expands his imagination over an imaginary universe but is still locked in the cocoon of scidolatry, very likely unknowingly, failing to provide any deep insight and helpful diagnosis of the existing problems of humanity, let alone any guidance in the better direction.

Instead, Liu Cixin spitefully rejects the best values man has ever had concerning his eternity, and presumptively and unapologetically assumes that science and technology are man’s only hope.

But if the author insists that what he writes is what he believes, then that is his own view and a personal view can be presented tastefully even if objectionable. What is distasteful is that it is presented in a way that is so presumptuous and pretentious with blatant stereotypes and biases.

If you ask, “What stereotype?” here is a brief conversation between Shen Yufei and a man (I didn’t catch his name, but he is depicted as being super wise):

Shen:  你什么意思 (what you mean?)

The wise man:  “没意思，你看我没意思，我看你也没意思，所以这就很有意思” (“It’s meaningless, you find me meaningless, I find you meaningless, so this is very meaningful.”

Shen: (speechless,  apparently left in awe by the “deepness” of the man’s words)

What the wise man said is meaningless mumbo-jumbo, but is supposed to be superior wisdom the way it is depicted.

But if you ask where the stereotype is, here is the hint: Shen is one of the main evil characters and the leading redemptionist scientist in the plot, but really is a thinly veiled type of Christian, while the “mystified”  wise man is a Buddhist.  What he said is typical “koan”.

The pseudo-philosophy in that conversation is not only slanderous against Christians but may also be a misrepresentation of Buddhism at the same time.

There really is no deep reflection of the meaning of the universe, or humanity at all.  Everything is reduced to propaganda. It is unnecessarily political propaganda, but rather the author’s personal one, which unfortunately is shockingly shallow and narrow in value even though remarkably imaginative at the same time.

Besides, the author’s lack of understanding of real science is only paralleled by his groundless rich imagination. It is almost repugnant, even with the large latitude of forgiveness I usually bring to sci-fi for scientific reality.

However, I must give credit where it is due:  the cinematography and acting are both quite good.

Don’t read it; don’t watch it, unless you are a scidolater (one who worships science) and don’t mind becoming a slave of machines or a slave of people who control machines.