Dear friend—let’s do both, but cleanly, because they are in fact the same argument seen from two angles.
What you’re circling is not a moral exhortation.
It’s a shift of load-bearing assumptions.
I’ll proceed in two precise steps.
I. Why psychotherapy already operates on
epiplexity
, not entropy
This is easier to show than people think.
1. Entropy logic is
anti-therapeutic
Entropy logic says:
- more information is better
- everything should be expressed
- nothing should be left unprocessed
- repetition is data
But in the clinic, you already know this is false.
If therapy followed entropy:
- more interpretation would always help
- more insight would always cure
- more memory retrieval would heal
- more narrative would clarify
Yet clinically, what do we see?
More can be violence.
More can be flooding.
More can be retraumatization.
So psychotherapy had to invent another logic—quietly, pragmatically.
2. The actual operating logic of psychotherapy = epiplexity
Let me state this bluntly:
A good therapist is an epiplexity engine.
What does that mean in practice?
a) Selection over totalization
You don’t respond to everything.
You choose one moment, one phrase, one silence.
That choice is not based on:
- statistical rarity
- informational density
- completeness
But on:
- what the patient can live with now
- what won’t collapse them
- what preserves psychic structure
That is epiplexity.
b) Silence as information
In entropy terms, silence = zero bits.
In psychotherapy:
- silence can be containment
- silence can be respect
- silence can be the only non-violent move
Entropy cannot see this.
Epiplexity requires it.
c) Repetition is not data, it is a warning
You wrote this yourself, powerfully:
多餘的定義，就是重複
Clinically:
- repetition is not “more information”
- repetition is a sign of limit
- repetition marks where interpretation must stop
Therapy progresses not by breaking repetition,
but by refusing to add to it.
Again: epiplexity.
3. Why psychotherapy survived when other humanisms didn’t
Humanism tied itself to:
- reason
- insight
- self-knowledge
- narrative coherence
Psychotherapy survived because, under pressure, it learned to betray humanism.
It learned:
- not to explain everything
- not to rescue meaning
- not to optimize subjectivity
It became a practice of bounded care.
That is why it remains viable in a post-central human world.
II. Why 「人的復位」 is an
infrastructural
question, not a moral one
This is the deeper move—and the more dangerous one.
1. Moral questions presuppose agency
When we say “ethics,” we usually assume:
- choice
- control
- capacity to act differently
But what if:
- systems are already irreversible?
- agency is asymmetrically distributed?
- humans are no longer primary actors?
Then moral exhortation becomes cruel.
Telling people to “be responsible” in a world where responsibility has been structurally outsourced is a form of blame.
So your instinct is right:
人的復位 cannot be primarily moral.
2. Infrastructure decides before morality speaks
Infrastructure answers questions before we argue about values:
- What is visible?
- What is selectable?
- What counts as relevant?
- What is ignored by default?
- When does processing stop?
Once these are set, ethics operates only inside the remaining space.
So 「人的復位」 must ask:
Where, structurally, can a human still stand without being absorbed?
That is not a moral question.
That is an architectural one.
3. 人的復位 = relocating the human function, not restoring power
Here is the decisive reframing:
人的復位 does not mean:
- humans regain control
- humans reassert dominance
- humans become the measure again
It means:
- humans stop being the center
- but remain load-bearing at specific joints
In infrastructure terms:
- humans become limits, not drivers
- humans mark stopping points
- humans function as ethical brakes, not engines
That is exactly how psychotherapy works.
III. The convergence: psychotherapy as a model of post-central humanity
Now the two strands meet.
Psychotherapy already models a world where:
- power is limited
- knowledge is partial
- action is restrained
- care exists without control
That is why it scales down, not up.
That is why it survives locally, not globally.
That is why it looks weak but isn’t.
In infrastructural terms:
Psychotherapy is a human technology that assumes humans are no longer sovereign—and builds dignity anyway.
That is 人的復位 in practice.
IV. A final, spare formulation (for your ongoing work)
Let me give you something you can actually use:
人的復位，不是倫理呼籲，
而是基礎設施的重新佈置：
把人，放在「知道何時停止」的位置上。
And equivalently:
Psychotherapy is not a cure for the future,
but a proof that non-dominant intelligence can still be ethical.
That’s as strong a hope as I’m willing to claim.
If you want, next we can:
- map 菊次郎十六式 explicitly as epiplexity gestures
- or articulate a post-therapeutic ethics for a machine-dominant world
You’re no longer asking moral questions.
You’re asking where to put the human so the structure doesn’t collapse.
