retend we are reading a poem while reading such sentences. 
As is well known and has often been described, the machine industry of recent times took its rise by a gradual emergence out of handicraft in England in the eighteenth century. Since then the mechanical industry has progressively been getting the upper hand in all the civilized nations, in much the same degree in which these nations have come to be counted as civilized. This mechanical industry now stands dominant at the apex of the industrial system.
The state of the industrial arts, as it runs on the lines of the mechanical industry, is a technology of physics and chemistry. That is to say, it is governed by the same logic as the scientific laboratories. The procedure, the principles, habits of thought, preconceptions, units of measurement and of valuation, are the same in both cases.
The technology of physics and chemistry is not derived from established law and custom, and it goes on its way with as nearly complete a disregard of the spiritual truths of law and custom as the circumstances will permit. The realities with which this technology is occupied are of another order of actuality, lying altogether within the three dimensions that contain the material universe, and running altogether on the logic of material fact. In effect it is the logic of inanimate facts.
The mechanical industry makes use of the same range of facts handled in the same impersonal way and directed to the same manner of objective results. In both cases alike it is of the first importance to eliminate the “personal equation,” to let the work to forward and let the forces at work take effect quite objectively, without hindrance or deflection for any personal end, interest, or gain. It is the technician’s place in industry, as it is the scientist’s place in the laboratory, to serve as an intellectual embodiment of the forces at work, isolate the forces engaged from all extraneous disturbances, and let them take full effect along the lines of designed work. The technician is an active or creative factor in the case only in the sense that he is the keeper of the logic which governs the forces at work.
These forces that so are brought to bear in mechanical industry are of an objective, impersonal, unconventional nature, of course. They are of the nature of opaque fact. Pecuniary gain is not one of these impersonal facts. Andy consideration of pecuniary gain that may be injected into the technician’s working plans will come into the case as an intrusive and alien factor, whose sole effect is to deflect, retard, derange and curtail the work in hand. At the same time considerations of pecuniary gain are the only agency brought into the case by the businessmen, and the only ground on which they exercise a control of production.
the只能给这点帮忙
occupy oneself with
从事于..., 忙于..., 专心于
▶FILL TIME◀
if something occupies you or your time, you are busy doing it
Football occupies most of my leisure time.
occupy somebody with (doing) something
Only six percent of police time is occupied with criminal incidents.
俺也看不懂，ETS这种狗屁句子特恶性，看上去很简单，读起来不知所谓，看了guandream给出的解释也搞不懂
杨鹏的那套我感觉在这种句子上也是不成的，主要这些句子太抽象，不光是用词抽象，意思也抽象，
比如英文小说吧，你看小说多长的句子都可以看得快，懂，我觉得把很多句子柔和成一个句子其实并不难懂，因为
最起码主干你是可以看懂的，其他就当时补充好了。比如guandream给出的解释这样。
可是搞一篇哲学博士的论文给你，就算把简单句给你，你也绝对晕菜，再看看翻译的国外的哲学著作，简直比文言文还难懂。
我想最主要的是你不明白他的抽象意识，各个词所代表的功能，之间的关系。比如这里说dimension，lying .... and running 到底想表达一个什么意思呢？也许这就是ets考你东西了。
前面我翻一下，后面是在搞不清楚
技术所致力于的真实是事实的另外一种顺序，这种真实在一起包含在三维之中，基于事实运行。
The realities with which this technology is occupied are of another order of actuality, lying altogether within the three dimensions that contain the material universe, and running altogether on the logic of material fact.
The realities with which this technology is occupied 是主语。
are是谓语。
表语是
of another order of actuality
然后2个动名词修饰actuality。
1。该句由于都是抽象词故显得特难理解，不过该段落三句话表达的是同一层意思：就是物理和化学研究的是物质世界的东西，不是精神世界的东西，它存在于人的精神之外。是物质存在。
2。该句的意思：该学科研究的对象属于不同的客观存在，它完全存在于三维的物质空间，完全依照物质的逻辑规律运作。
retend we are reading a poem while reading such sentences.
Lawyer is right.
The realities (with which this technology is occupied) are of another order of actuality, lying altogether within the three dimensions (that contain the material universe), and running altogether on the logic of material fact.
some thoughts about reading:
We Chinese seem to have no problem with English grammar. We even have a upper hand in analying sentence structure than native speakers. Yet when come to such abstract and complex sentence, we are stuck.
I rencently picked up a book on legal theories in one American university library. The book is targeting American undergraduates. it was such a frustrating experience for me because i really had a tough time reading it. It was totally different from reading Time, New York Time or the Wall Street Journal (which obviously gave me illusory confidence). I have been learning English for over 10 years and i am still less than an American under in terms of reading? (I would not mention writing or speaking, as a matter of fact).
I started pondering, seriously.
My answer is that we tend to comprehend English in Chinese. We subconsciously translate every sentence we read and hear to Chinese. We are desperate to find a kind of certain equivalency between English and Chinese. And we lose our sense of safety when such certainty is unavailable.
I will try to forget Chinese for a while before i finally find a sense of safety in English.
It is simply because most of Chinese just read , but do not "think"--a spontaneously continuous process of connecting previous information with ongoing context in order to abstract a general idea for what a structural developement of the whole story can manifest.
While staying idle in mind, people tend to surrender themselves to the exact meaning of each specific word by resorting translation. As result, they stray their minds in endless details without a clear vision upon the bigger picture.
Months ago, I read a book by a Chinese girl who has ever worked as interpreter for White House. In her opinion, most of people will all have to experience a process from the stage of translating english into mother language to the stage of converting idea to idea. To me, it is a shifting focus from how it said to what it said. When people really get involved in the reading content, a few unknown words or intriguing phrases will not hinder their step to follow the major line and waven a methodical comprehension fabric of the whole story.
Just personal view.
when read famous legal works, especially legal philosophy, I experience the same problem. In my opinion, the problem stems from two aspects. First, We accustom ourself to understanding English expressions in Chinese, which means the real meaning of these expressions we understand are Chinese, not English. In fact, English expressions can not mirror its meaning in Chinese. Because they actually do not have same extension. Second, we have different culture background and knowledge. we understand English from Chinese culture perspective.So it is difficult for us to catch the subtle different connotation. Therefore, I recommend to use English-English dictionary to understand English expressions. Also do my best to read as more as possible articles in English
Some great linguists are firmly convinced that every expression in one language can meet an exact corresponding translation in another lanuguage. I basically agree with this view.
However, most of us are not doing interpretation or translation. So, what we'd better to do is just try to substantialize tangible concept from obscure expression.
I bascially disagree that there is always exact equivalency across languages, especially between two languages of distinct cultures. For example, in the translation of the Bible, God's "message" or" words of God" are usually construed as "道”in Chinese. For a non-Christian culture like ours, any Chinese term is not able to communicate such information overloaded with a foreign culture. In the process of translation, loss and adding of meaning is inevitable in some occasions.
I believe most translation theorists as well as linguists agree on this point.
well, actually this has nothing to do with English learning, i guess.
there is a theory on Englis learning that i think useful. it is suggested that we should take English reading as a means of acquiring information, so that you can merge inot the text. A blind area for many Chinese is that they tend to have their eys on new words and expressions. Remember that we never read Chinese in order to learn Chinese words and expressions (probalby exept when we were kids), rather, we read in order to ger information. it is in such a process that we master Chinese.
2。该句的意思：该学科研究的对象属于不同的客观存在，它完全存在于三维的物质空间，完全依照物质的逻辑规律运作。
译得真好啊。谢谢。
关键是，看了译文后，就可以明白原句的意思了。It is simply because most of Chinese just read , but do not "think"--a spontaneously continuous process of connecting previous information with ongoing context in order to abstract a general idea for what a structural developement of the whole story can manifest.
While staying idle in mind, people tend to surrender themselves to the exact meaning of each specific word by resorting translation. As result, they stray their minds in endless details without a clear vision upon the bigger picture.
Months ago, I read a book by a Chinese girl who has ever worked as interpreter for White House. In her opinion, most of people will all have to experience a process from the stage of translating english into mother language to the stage of converting idea to idea. To me, it is a shifting focus from how it said to what it said. When people really get involved in the reading content, a few unknown words or intriguing phrases will not hinder their step to follow the major line and waven a methodical comprehension fabric of the whole story.
Just personal view.
1。该句由于都是抽象词故显得特难理解，不过该段落三句话表达的是同一层意思：就是物理和化学研究的是物质世界的东西，不是精神世界的东西，它存在于人的精神之外。是物质存在。
2。该句的意思：该学科研究的对象属于不同的客观存在，它完全存在于三维的物质空间，完全依照物质的逻辑规律运作。
总算有点明白了，
我觉得这一段话要讲的重点就是logic，就如最后一句说得In effect it is the logic of inanimate facts.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |