为获得对烟草赤星病有效的生防菌,通过平板对峙培养法和双层平板打孔法从贵州省瓮安县植烟土壤中筛选对烟草赤星病菌有较强拮抗作用的细菌;通过菌株形态、生理生化特征,结合16S r DNA及gyrA联合基因序列分析对筛选出的菌株进行鉴定;采...为获得对烟草赤星病有效的生防菌,通过平板对峙培养法和双层平板打孔法从贵州省瓮安县植烟土壤中筛选对烟草赤星病菌有较强拮抗作用的细菌;通过菌株形态、生理生化特征,结合16S r DNA及gyrA联合基因序列分析对筛选出的菌株进行鉴定;采用单因素试验对生防菌株的生长条件进行初步研究。结果表明,筛选出对赤星病菌有较强拮抗作用的生防菌株F11,其无菌发酵上清液对病原菌生长的抑菌带可达23. 5 mm,根据菌株形态、生理生化特性、16S r DNA及gyrA联合基因序列分析,将生防菌F11鉴定为甲基营养型芽孢杆菌(Bacillus methylotrophicus)。该菌株在10～45℃、pH值3. 5～10. 0条件下均能生长,对碳源、氮源利用较广泛,最适生长条件为:培养时间18 h,温度35℃,pH值6. 0,葡萄糖作为碳源,蛋白胨作为氮源。菌株F11对烟草赤星病菌抑菌作用较强,具有应用于该病害生物防治的潜力。展开更多
This paper focuses on the question concerning the order of priority between authenticity and inauthenticity in Heidegger’sBeing and Time.Heidegger’s own words suggest sometimes that authenticity precedes inauthentic...This paper focuses on the question concerning the order of priority between authenticity and inauthenticity in Heidegger’sBeing and Time.Heidegger’s own words suggest sometimes that authenticity precedes inauthenticity,sometimes the opposite.This has given rise to a dispute,not only about exegesis,but also about the normative implication of the book.Engaging with interpreters like Dreyfus,Zimmerman,Stambaugh,andGuignon,I argue that it is problematic to assume a distinct mode of“undifferentiatedness”apart from the modes of authenticity and inauthenticity,for the model neither finds textual support nor is systematically tenable.Textual analysis shows that what Heidegger calls a“modal undifferentiatedness”does not itself constitute a distinct undifferentiated mode.Systematic examination shows that the assumption of a distinct mode of undifferentiatedness would oblige the interpreter to assume a“seed”of inauthenticity in this undifferentiatedness,which,once taken seriously,would make superfluous the distinction between undifferentiatedness and inauthent-icity.Moreover,this interpretation leaves incomprehensible how one begins to pursue authenticity.I suggest,instead,a“transformational model”of authenticity,for which philosophical understanding entails a transformation of one’s way of living.To make sense of Heidegger’s seemingly contradictory claims,I distinguish between the existential and the existentiell level of discourse.Authenticity is prior to inauthenticity at the existential level(of understanding),while inauthenticity is prior to authenticity at the existentiell level(of factical existence).I demonstrate that,thanks to a dialogue between these two levels,a global hermeneutic circle is at work in the overall project ofBeing and Time,where authentic living feeds into authentic understanding and vice versa.This makes the tension between authenticity and inauthenticity productive rather than aporetic;it also gives an idea of how the book would‘work’,in an intertwinement of two levels,for a reader as a Dasein.展开更多
文摘This paper focuses on the question concerning the order of priority between authenticity and inauthenticity in Heidegger’sBeing and Time.Heidegger’s own words suggest sometimes that authenticity precedes inauthenticity,sometimes the opposite.This has given rise to a dispute,not only about exegesis,but also about the normative implication of the book.Engaging with interpreters like Dreyfus,Zimmerman,Stambaugh,andGuignon,I argue that it is problematic to assume a distinct mode of“undifferentiatedness”apart from the modes of authenticity and inauthenticity,for the model neither finds textual support nor is systematically tenable.Textual analysis shows that what Heidegger calls a“modal undifferentiatedness”does not itself constitute a distinct undifferentiated mode.Systematic examination shows that the assumption of a distinct mode of undifferentiatedness would oblige the interpreter to assume a“seed”of inauthenticity in this undifferentiatedness,which,once taken seriously,would make superfluous the distinction between undifferentiatedness and inauthent-icity.Moreover,this interpretation leaves incomprehensible how one begins to pursue authenticity.I suggest,instead,a“transformational model”of authenticity,for which philosophical understanding entails a transformation of one’s way of living.To make sense of Heidegger’s seemingly contradictory claims,I distinguish between the existential and the existentiell level of discourse.Authenticity is prior to inauthenticity at the existential level(of understanding),while inauthenticity is prior to authenticity at the existentiell level(of factical existence).I demonstrate that,thanks to a dialogue between these two levels,a global hermeneutic circle is at work in the overall project ofBeing and Time,where authentic living feeds into authentic understanding and vice versa.This makes the tension between authenticity and inauthenticity productive rather than aporetic;it also gives an idea of how the book would‘work’,in an intertwinement of two levels,for a reader as a Dasein.
