본 연구는 일상의 금융화에 따른 투기적 삶의 양식이 신자유주의적인 소유주의 문화와 계산적 합리성에 인도되거나, 비합리적인 열정과 무분별한 탐욕에 이끌린다기보다 투기적 선취와 안전에 대한 기대라는 역설적인 논리를 따른다는 점을 분석한다. 신자유주의에 대한 이단경제학 진영의 비판은 근본가치와 허구 적 가치라는 이분법 속에서 금융과 투기를 단지 허구적이고 비합리적인 것으로 치부하곤 한다. 그러나 가치의 결정이 미래의 불확실성과 집단적인 가치평가에 의존하는 금융시장에서 투기는 필연적이며, 안정 적인 가치 준거의 부재 속에서 경제적 기호로서 화폐에 대한 맹목적 믿음과 가치와 가격의 괴리를 일치시 키려는 투기적 욕망은 더욱 강화된다. 이에 본 연구는 신자유주의에 대한 규범적이고 도덕적인 비판을 넘어, 그것이 가치증식 행위와 통치 합리성을 성공적으로 결합함으로써 금융적 합리성과 주체성을 사회화 한 논리와 과정을 진지하게 검토한다. 이를 통해 금융이 사회경제적 재생산의 점증하는 위기와 교란을 수반하면서도 여전히 사회적 질서를 조직하고, 개인들의 행위 패턴을 지도하며, 식지 않는 투기의 열정을 동원하는 방식과 동학에 주목한다.

本文的悖论不同于逻辑学中的悖论，而是文学上的悖论，是指有些语句，表面看来内容具有相反性或矛盾性，深层的含义却更加准确合理。事物有表象与本质，语言仅表达事物的概念，不一定是真理或真实，因此，用语言表述事实容易陷入明显的局限。人们洞察事物真实面目后，有时更需要用悖论来揭示本质：不仅使用语言表达表层意味，更需要透过语言表层，运用悖论来表现更加深层的含义。在诸子百家中，老子比其他任何人都更多地使用悖论来展示自己的思想。这篇论文针对老子如何通过悖论提出治国方略进行研究。 『老子』的悖论总共三个类型。第一，我们所认知的现象，经常与事物的本质不一样。老子最典型的句子就是“大巧若拙”。老子用意义完全相反的词语来描述现象和本质，指出人们所认知的只是与本质恰恰相反的表象，以此来告诉君王必须准确地洞察国家现实。第二，老子强调“物壮则老”这一规律。这是中国自古就有的思想，它表明，事物达到极端的一面就会自然产生回归的反作用力，这是所有事物运行的自然循环规则。老子以此来劝勉君王不要追求过度的、做作性的治国方式，并说明这种背道而驰的治国方式将带来灾难性后果。第三，“无为而无不为”，这是老子五千言的最高命题。“无为”在文字上看“不做”，而最终追求的却是“无事不能成”。君王治理国家，所有的政策与措施就应该顺其自然，才能马到成功。这就是老子所希望的最高治国方略。 为了这种治国方略的实现，他进而要求君王积极地退让、谦虚、慈爱及俭约。让君王积极追求雌性的柔软性、婴儿般的赤子心、水流般的自然性、溪谷江海般的包容性。这是使君王和国家平安无事、长存永保的原则。因此老子的这些治国方略是极其现实的，也是非常积极的。在他的悖理语句里，正反两面词语的指向是非常明确的。正面意义的词语是指君王和国家的走向：君王必须成为真正的君王（“大方”、“大器”、“大音”、“大象”），而不是空壳般的君王。为了成为真正的君王，必须善于洞察，把握事物本来的真实面目（“大直”、“大巧”、“大辩”）。以此英明政策来管理国家，君王本人的理想人品（“上德”、“大白”、“广德”、“建德”、“质真”）就会与老百姓浑然一体。君王推动国家政策时，必须透彻地把握现实，用更准确更先进的原则（“明道”、“进道”、“夷道”)施行各种措施。必须以谦让朴素的态度包容天下，细心周到（“疏而不失”）地关怀老百姓。这样的国家就会永不衰亡（“大成不弊”、“大盈不穷”)。君王所希望的（“立”、“行”）国家不断地繁荣成长（“全”、“正”、“盈”、“新”、“得”），君王自己获得真正的成功（“明”、“彰”、“功”、“長”、“知”、“名”、“成”)。这没有任何勉强做作，全是自然而然发展繁荣（“无不为”、“无不治”)。这样的国家，是老百姓人人都幸福、温暖、安全（“民利百倍”、“民复孝慈”、“盗贼无有”)的国家。这就是王弼所谓“崇本息末”的“崇本”方略。 反面词语则集中表达了君王本身要持有的心态和力行的言行。老子要求君王不要做作（“企”、“跨”），不要伪善（“自见”、“自是”、“自伐”、“自矜”），不要过度的“有为”。君王不要顽固地执着，一意孤行（“无隅”、“晚成”、“希声”、“无形”)。君王要谦虚（“不武”、“不怒”、“不与”、“为之下”)，少做（“不行”、“不见”、“不为”），淳朴（“屈”、“拙”、“讷”、“曲”、“枉”、“洼”、“敝”、“少”)，甚至于愚钝（“不德”、“若谷”、“若辱”、“若不足”、“若偷”、“若渝”、“若昧”、“若退”、“若纇”)。这样他的政策松散而宽裕（“天网恢恢”），也不必处处标榜人伦价值（“绝圣弃智”、“绝仁弃义”、“绝巧弃利”）。如此进行“无为之治”，就是王弼所谓“崇本息末”的“息末”方策。 总而言之，老子的悖论具有以下三个要点。一是其悖论有“正言若反”、“物壮则老”、“为无为”三种类型。 二是老子所说的悖论的确拥有“崇本息末”的含义。三是老子所追求的理想的治国方略具有非常积极而值得肯定的意义与价值。

자유민주주의는 자유주의와 민주주의의 결합어이다. 그러나 양 개념은 생각보다 잘 조화되는 개념이 아닌데, 대표적으로 칼 슈미트가 이 점을 통렬하게 지적한 바 있다. 칼 슈미트는 사람을 추상적 인류로 파악하는 자유주의적 인간관과, 구체적인 평등을 확보한 인민으로 파악하는 민주주의의 인간관이 충돌한다고 주장한다. 특히 그는 자유주의는 우적의 관계를 기본으로 하는 정치적인 것을 사유할 능력이 없음을 지적한다. 이는 오늘날의 자유주의, 특히 심의민주주의 이론이 갖는 문제이기도 하다. 궁극적으로는 자유민주주의가 몰락의 길을 걸을 수밖에 없다고 그는 말한다. 반면, 샹탈 무페는 양자가 조화되기 어려운 게 사실이라고 보면서도 양자가 일종의 역설 관계를 이루기 때문에 현대 민주주의 정치의 다이내믹스를 생성해낸다고 본다. 그녀에 따르면, 우리는 자유주의가 제시하는 자유와 민주주의가 제시하는 평등의 ‘이념의 접합’에 대하여 갈등적 해석을 가진다고 한다. 그리고 이러한 해석은 경쟁적 다원주의의 비전을 제시하고 있다고 한다.

이 글은 마가복음이 ‘슬픈 이야기’로서 헬라 비극의 요소를 갖고 있음을 밝히고, 비극의 주인공인 예수의 불안에 대하여 다루고자 한다. 마가복음에서 예수는 죄 없는 의인으로 묘사된다. 예수는 겟세마네에서 자신이 당할 수치와 죽음을 앞두고 놀라며 괴로워한다. 그런데 예수의 불안은 당시 마가공동체의 현실적 불안이기도 하였다. 마가공동체는 예수의 본을 따라 살도록 부름 받았다. 그들에게 닥친 불안을 어떻게 대처해야 하는가를 겟세마네의 예수를 통하여 배우게 된다. 예수가 겪었던 불안은 인간의 보편성 특성이다. 대상관계 심리학에 관점에서 보면 인간은 불안을 외부로 투사하고자한다. 이렇게 투사한 불안을 담아줄 대상이 없을 때 그 불안은 해결되지 않는다. 인간은 스스로 불안은 극복할 수 없다. 불안은 자신의 내부에 담아내야 한다. 어린시기에 양육자에게 충분히 담겨있는 경험을 통하여 성인기에 불안을 해결할 수 있는 능력이 생긴다. 예수와 제자들은 자신의 견딜 수 없는 불안을 투사하면서 불안을 극복하고자 한다. 그러나 제자들은 끝내 불안에 굴복하여 잠에 빠지고 결국은 도망친다. 그러나 예수는 ‘아바(Abba)’ 하나님과의 관계 경험을 통하여 불안을 자신 안에 담아낸다. 예수의 불안 해결의 모델은 서기 70년의 시대적 상황에서 불안에 처한 원시 기독공동체인 마가공동체를 위로한다. 이러한 위로와 가르침은 마가복음을 읽는 독자가 자신의 삶에서 겪는 다양한 불안을 처리할 수 있도록 한다.

Analysis of how texts’ rhetorical strategies endanger or sustain the narcissistic structure of the self is an important approach in recent deconstruction criticism. This criticism carries out a challenge to the analogy between the mind and nature that is to establish a coherent image of the mind and the self. By taking Wordsworth’s the Prelude and a few poems in the earliest Yeats, this essay focuses more centrally on threats to the self and the possibility of self-representation posed by the process of representation itself. In Book IV of The Prelude, the dynamic of passion and memory operates through the image of self-knowledge as a ‘reflection.’ The motion from past to present is a totalization of the self by means of metonymical substitution: the mere eye that looks into the water receives a whole image. But as the word hang, deeps, and gleam suggest, the motion is not necessary to lead to a totality of the self. Passion and prop of affection is always already involved in the self-reflection, preventing it from closing upon itself. The complex dynamic of passion and memory thus is inimical to self-representation. The Blessed Babe passage in Book II is also governed by the figure of passage, present here in the word passion as a sort of originary movement. The self-recognition of the poet is structured as crossing between past and present relations. Here substitution occurs as a transformation of the negation of the mother into a positive gain of nature. But the phrase ‘unknown cause’ and the reference to a ‘trouble’ imply the disruption of the passage from the maternal props to natural properties. The dominant mood of Yeats's earliest poetry is one of narcissistic self-contemplation. The poet in the mood does not contemplate a thing in nature but the working of his own mind. The outside world is used as a pretext and a mirror for self-representation. In “The Song of the Happy Shepherd,” the shell is not sheer nature, impressing itself upon a passively receptive consciousness, but the subjective dream of a human imagination. In spite of the apparent replacement of all the substance of the object by its reflection, however, the image of the shell remains altogether conditioned by the existence of this object. The reflection can be left to exist as a mere phantom of the self without substantial existence of nature. The failure is made explicit in “The Sad Shepherd” where the same shell shatters his song into confusion. Yeats is well aware of this paradox. In order to escape from this narcissistic predicament, for example, he uses the image of a parrot in “The Indian to His Love” who rages “at his own image in the enamelled sea.”

W. B. Yeats poetic purpose is to advocate to Sophia who is suffering in the world with mankind as a hidden God and the feminine principle in Christian Gnostic myth. He searched for two of Sophia’s aspects: Mother and Daughter Sophia. Yeats believed that Mother Sophia abodes in heaven. On the other hand, Daughter Sophia is suffering in the world, and he thought himself as a chosen man of the sole priest for Daughter Sophia. Yeats tried to dedicate his life for Daughter Sophia from his early rose poetry. The immortal rose is a symbol of Helen of Troy or Countess Cathleen who sacrificed her life for rescuing her people’s souls. Yeats also waited for the time of the recovery of Sophia’s glory again. The decided time is coming to follow the theory of the Gyres in A Vision. After dominating the masculine gyre for 2000 years, the androcentric society will disappear by returning to the feminine gyre. Yeats thought the new age would be dominated by Sophia who was not only feminine but androgynous. Yeats also called the new age a ‘rosy peace’ which is a symbol of ’Unity of Being’ and the immortal world. Yeats was eager to search for achieving ‘Unity of Being’ by uniting with Sophia. As he got older, he was a passionate old man who still indulged in Sophia. Yeats believed in Sophia as a hidden and defeated god. But when decided time comes, Sophia will be recovered her glory. In “The second coming,” Sophia as an androgynous god, is symbolized by the sphinx. Yeats often used to the sphinx image to explain Sophia. Especially, the sphinx is identified with the Judge of the Last Judgement. It is important to the symbol of Sphinx’s eyes; ‘a blank and pitiless as the sun.’ The sun symbolizes God’s fury of the Last Judgement as well as the unchangeable supernatural world. Sphinx’s eyes of the sun image are compared with the cat’s eyes of the moon. The moon is a symbol of the wheel of reincarnation and mortal world. In A Vision, the moon has 28 aspects as a symbol of the wheel of reincarnation. Sophia has controlled the souls after death by following the rules of the moon’s 28 aspects. Yeats symbolized Sophia as the Judge of all souls by portraying her as a ‘cook.’ On the contrary, when the sphinx comes, there will be no more the moon’s changeable aspects in the world. Therefore, although the sphinx looks like an evil image, it is only a symbol of Sophia. Yeats always wanted to be Sophia’s sole priest. So he was a Christian Gnostic priest just as W. Blake. In fact, he identified with Ribh who was his poetic hero as well as the Christian Gnostic priest. God’s fury and the rough sphinx image are paradoxical symbols of the God’s glory and the age of the rosy peace. The sphinx’s ‘pitiless eye’ is connected with the horseman’s ‘cold eye’ on his epitaph. The ‘cold eye’ is symbolized to achieve Yeats’s final poetic purpose, ‘Unity of Being.’ That is, the symbol suggested that Yeats would be a Daimon after his death.

A paradoxical response in tuberculosis is defined as clinical and radiological worsening of previous lesions or development of new lesions after initial improvement during the process of anti-tuberculous treatment. The authors report on a patient who developed massive pleural effusion as a paradoxical response after 8 weeks of anti-tuberculous treatment. The patient’s symptoms were improved with thoracostomy without any change of anti-tuberculous medications. If symptoms worsen during the process of anti-tuberculous treatment, drug resistance, non-compliance, or other diseases should be excluded first. If it is regarded as a paradoxical response, the treatment plan need not be changed except for additional conservative treatment.

Yun Jae-Sung. 1996. On Bracketing Paradox. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 8: 47-70. This thesis deals with bracketing paradoxes, i.e. constructions in which it seems necessary to assign two distinct structures to a word. We traces the recent history of this set of problems and some of the proposal for tackling them. Bracketing paradoxes that arise in the current framework of Lexical phonology give rise to some major complications. A main point made by Kiparsky is that morphological rules can only have access to information found on the level where they operate. In particular, bracketing paradoxes arise when attachment of level 1 presupposes the presence of level 2 affixes, or when level 2 affixation needs to see the internal bracketing of a word which is only available at level 1. We review two different theories that involve `rebracketing,`(Kiparsky, 1983ㆍPesetsky, 1985) and one different theory which rely on analogical word-formation(Spencer 1988, 1991). We also look into the prosodically based account that simply denies the morphological relevance of bracketings. Their approaches, it is claimed, can at best be regared as only a partial solution to the problem. We deal with an analysis diametrically opposed to previous studies, namely, the position of Robert Beard who argues for a separation of lexicon and morphology, a claim known as `Lexeme/Morpheme-Base Morphology.` In this model, the grammatical process of derivation and inflection are affected by L-rules in the lexicon, whereas processes of affixation are M-rules in the morphology. We show this thesis with a case study of the paradigm cases of the paradoxes which suggest that some of the paradoxes at least provide evidence for a `Lexeme/Morpheme-Base Morphology` approach. In conclusion, the idea of separating lexicon from morphology has an explanatory adequacy in accounting for bracketing paradoxes. This thesis speaks in favor of an autonomous morphological component.