Deep assimilation and adjustment of reader subject and text subject

There are two reasons that make text reading invalid or inefficient. One is stale mechanical materialism and narrow social utilitarianism. Second, it is an absolute reader-centered theory that postmodernism leaves the text subject. Postmodernism pushes the reader's subject to the extreme, showing spontaneity and openness, completely ignoring the psychological schema of the reader's subject. The assimilation of the text is not absolutely free, but guided by the text subject. Text, especially classic text, is not as profound and essential as western postmodern philosophy says, but has its stable three-dimensional hierarchical structure. Reading is the assimilation and adjustment of readers, texts and authors from the surface to the deep. If we want to gain insight into the text and have a deep dialogue with it, we must constantly accumulate the psychological schema of the spontaneous subject and construct it with updated features, so that it can reach the height of professional consciousness. The process of construction is that readers follow the hierarchical structure of the text, analyze the historical experience of reading and climb the height of the times of text reading. There are two reasons why text reading is ineffective and inefficient. One is the reflection theory of stale mechanical materialism and the narrow social utility theory. Second, it is an absolute reader-centered theory that postmodernism leaves the text subject. [1] Just now, Mr. Wang Rongsheng said that a teacher came to the conclusion when reading "The Back" that climbing the platform was the most touching part because the author was good at observation, so students were arranged to do observation exercises after class and write on the basis of observation. This is a typical example of mechanical materialism metaphysics. Observation is regarded as the success of writing, but there is no basic research on observation, and observation can be said to be everywhere in the current Chinese classroom. Observation is not taking pictures. The human brain is not a whiteboard envisioned by the British classical philosopher Locke. Unlike the modern American behaviorists, when external information stimulates the senses, there will be corresponding reactions. Many years ago, 42 psychologists met in G? ttingen, West Germany. Suddenly, two men broke into the house. A black man chased a white man with a gun. Then there was a fight, a gunshot, a scream, and the two chased each other away. Only 20 seconds passed before and after, and another high-speed camera recorded it. The chairman of the meeting announced: "Gentlemen, don't panic. This is a test. " The result of the test is very interesting. Of the 42 experts, none got all the answers correctly, only one person's error was below 10%, 14 was 20% ~ 40%, 12 was 40% ~ 50%, and 13 was 50%. Some of them are pure nonsense. [2] This example alone can explain how the reflection theory of mechanical materialism can't stand the test. Observation is not a mechanical reflection, it is different from watching, that is, it has a purpose and the purpose is the expectation of the subject. Without expectation, we often know nothing. This is a human problem, or to put it mildly, a limitation. Expectation, in a sense, is the selectivity of senses. Perception is only open to the purpose, and the rest are closed. What is not expected, even if it exists clearly, can not be seen at all. In Nanshan Temple in Zhangzhou, Fujian, there is a very old clay bodhisattva. It is said that the sculptor was confident that it would be perfect after molding, and he would bring nothing if he could find faults. The government launched an interview with the people, but one child could see that the fingers were too thick and the nostrils were too small, so picking the nostrils was a problem. Why can't adults see obvious problems, but children can see them at a glance? The reason is that children are interested in picking their noses and have such expectations, while adults don't. Associated with the closeness of psychological expectation, there is also subjective projection. And you obviously don't have it, because you have it in your heart and you see it. The story of Zheng's axe loss said that the axe was lost, and it was suspected that the neighbor had stolen it. When he went to observe his neighbors, he looked more and more like a thief. Later, the axe was found, which proved that the neighbor didn't steal it. When he went to observe, he became less and less like a thief. This is the limit of human beings. According to Piaget's genetic epistemology, external information can only be assimilated and reacted if it is interlinked with the internal psychological schema, otherwise it will be ignored, heard and felt. On the contrary, the psychological schema already exists, but the outside world does not, but it may die. In A Dream of Red Mansions, Jia Baoyu first met Lin Daiyu. Obviously, he had never seen her before, but he insisted that I had seen the girl. Of course, we should not be pessimistic. Can't people break through their own limitations? No, people's psychological schema, at its edge, also has the possibility of opening. Under the repeated action of novel stimuli, adjustment will occur. [3] Constructivism teaching requires students to work hard at the junction of new knowledge and old knowledge, which is the reason. Mechanical materialism is characterized by obliterating the subjectivity of readers and authors, with strong residual poison and not being completely liquidated. Our educational authority introduced the western contemporary reader-centered theory with great fanfare, went to the other extreme, made the reader's subjectivity absolute, advocated that the reader's subjectivity transcended the text, and unconditionally put respect for the student's subjectivity first. This leads to two principled problems: first, the restriction of the text subject on the reading subject is completely ruled out; Secondly, there is a lack of analysis of the closeness and openness of the reading subject, and there is no minimum vigilance against the closeness of the subject. This is blind in theory and practice. Subjectivity, like anything else, can be analyzed, and at least it can be divided into two levels: spontaneous and conscious. The subject without analysis can only be spontaneous and vulgar. Letting vulgar subjectivity drift with the tide is more deceptive and destructive than mechanical materialism in current reading teaching. There are endless strange theories that violate the main body of the text in classrooms all over the country, and their theoretical roots are rooted in this. The father in "The Back" violated the traffic rules, "learned the spirit of refusing to remarry" from Sister Xianglin, the swindler in the emperor's new clothes "bullied the city", the fool moved mountains to destroy the ecological environment, and so on. All this shows that the closeness of contemporary life experience and value in students' subject schema overwhelms the openness, resulting in the wanton distortion of classic texts. The dogmatism of authoritative education theory is probably the chief culprit that causes confusion and even absurdity in text analysis.