[[alternative]]The archaeology, critique and reconstruction of Cyber-publicness--focus on‘Intersubjectivity’of Habermas

[[abstract]] 本文主題在於對「網路公共性」進行考源、批判與重建的工作。主要分為四大部分進行論證： 首先，筆者試圖尋求J. Habermas公共領域理論的討論，從中汲取其精華，希冀以其進行對於網際網路的公共性討論。從整體上來說，Habermas的「公共性」討論呈現一種時序、階段性的成熟與精練過程，經由「交互主體性」的哲學思考，早期粗糙以Kant之「主體理性」建構出來的「資產階級公共性」已「提昇」成為具普遍解釋力與富實踐性的理論。其關鍵在於「交互主體性」的提出，可以說「交互主體性」保證了「公共性理論」於理論、實踐之間的聯繫，「交互主體性」使「公共性」成為可能。總言之，筆者對於公共性的理解，認為公共性乃是作為一個公眾共同參與的場域，公眾自由公開運用理性。其中必須強調主體之間的「共存」意義，著重參與者以交互主體作為共同建構生活世界的前提。 再則，筆者接續將關懷點置於網路公共性的討論；然而自從市場律則的干預，「排他自利性」觀點成為網路空間中的主流論述，大型財團、跨國公司以網際網路作為收編對象，視之為營利的新型工具，控管資訊、形塑消費意識型態致使網路空間不再表現為主體共存、共享的世界，而是為少數人擁有或操弄，甚而形成「營利者」與「他者」的不對稱交往形式。循此，筆者這裡關心的就是網路商業化、與其自利排他性現象對於公共性可能造成的衝擊與傷害。 但筆者並非就此陷入科技悲觀者的論調中，反之，據以經驗事實為佐證，試圖提出網路新型技術P2P（Peer to Peer）技術，作為主體參與的可能重建方案。認為P2P並非僅作為技術，更呈現一種有別於排他自利的價值與精神，尤其在網路空間中表現著交互主體、主體共存的意義，提供了重建網路空間中「理想言談情境」或「公共性」的可能。[[abstract]] In the first place, the author try to discuss the theory of J. Habermas, that is about ‘publicity’. In this way, the author want to explain Cyber-publicity.The author finds that : the key point is ‘the concept of intersubjectivity’. By ‘intersubjectivity’, making the ‘publicity’ possible. In short, ‘publicity’ is that : Public co-participates in this sphere, emphasize the value of ‘co-existence’. To point that : intersubjectivity is the premise of lifeworld. In the second, the author is attentive to Cyber-publicity. However, commercialization of Internet to brings about ‘exclusiveness’ and ‘self-enjoyment’. This situation likely hurt the ideal of Cyber-publicity. Thus, the author brings up an concept of ‘Peer to peer’, thinks that : P2P is not merely a matter of ‘technique’, it also embodies the value of ‘co-existence’ and ‘sharing’ of subjects. The mainstream discourse regarding economic intervention overly emphasizes the values of ‘exclusionary self-interestness’ and ‘self-enjoyment,’ in so doing the other has been barred from the opportunity of praticipating the discourse. As well as, the author takes and ‘Blog’ and ‘Smart Mobs’ as examples to clarify the concrete details of social Practice. The author supposes that P2P is potentially able to generate a possible state of ‘ ideal speech situation’. The most important is : P2P likely brings the reconstruction of Cyber-publicness