Thursday, January 30, 2020
How AI, Blockchain and Analytics Turn Your Business Into a Data Organisation (Mark Van Rijmenam, Routledge, 2019-7-30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23QFA-ttXw
https://vanrijmenam.nl/the-organisation-of-tomorrow/
https://www.amazon.com/Organisation-Tomorrow-blockchain-analytics-organisation/dp/036723470X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mark+van+rijmenam&qid=1580375404&s=books&sr=1-1
https://vanrijmenam.nl/the-organisation-of-tomorrow/
https://www.amazon.com/Organisation-Tomorrow-blockchain-analytics-organisation/dp/036723470X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mark+van+rijmenam&qid=1580375404&s=books&sr=1-1
ens a se (Max Scheler)
http://www.special-dictionary.com/latin/e/ens_a_se.htm
a being in itself
https://mymemory.translated.net/en/Latin/English/ens-a-se
by being herself
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33330
Being. In philosophy ens is the common denominator of all reality, and is variously classified according to the different kinds of reality known to the human mind. Thus ens a se is being from itself, or the uncaused Being who is God; ens ab alio is being from another, namely produced or caused being or creature; ens in se is being in itself, and also ens per se which is being through its own nature or being in an unqualified sense, and in both cases is substance; ens entis is being of being, which means that it cannot have existence in itself but only in a substance, hence an accident; ens rationis is a "being" or creation of reason hence a purely logical or conceptual being or idea of something that does not really exist outside the mind; and ens ut sic is being as such, apart from its manifold and varied forms of existence, and is the object of metaphysics or the philosophy of being. (Etym. Latin ens being, a being, something having existence.)
Roughly speaking, it was during the first three decades of this century that the foundation of contemporary European philosophy were laid by three German thinkers: Husserl (phenomenology), Scheler (Philosophy of Man), and Heidegger (Ontology of Dasein).
But throughout all these studies his philosophy is directed towards two major objectives: the determination of man's place in nature and the determination of the ens a se (as primordial source of being) in both philosophy and religion. (Manfred Frings, 1996, p. 1)
a being in itself
https://mymemory.translated.net/en/Latin/English/ens-a-se
by being herself
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33330
Being. In philosophy ens is the common denominator of all reality, and is variously classified according to the different kinds of reality known to the human mind. Thus ens a se is being from itself, or the uncaused Being who is God; ens ab alio is being from another, namely produced or caused being or creature; ens in se is being in itself, and also ens per se which is being through its own nature or being in an unqualified sense, and in both cases is substance; ens entis is being of being, which means that it cannot have existence in itself but only in a substance, hence an accident; ens rationis is a "being" or creation of reason hence a purely logical or conceptual being or idea of something that does not really exist outside the mind; and ens ut sic is being as such, apart from its manifold and varied forms of existence, and is the object of metaphysics or the philosophy of being. (Etym. Latin ens being, a being, something having existence.)
Roughly speaking, it was during the first three decades of this century that the foundation of contemporary European philosophy were laid by three German thinkers: Husserl (phenomenology), Scheler (Philosophy of Man), and Heidegger (Ontology of Dasein).
But throughout all these studies his philosophy is directed towards two major objectives: the determination of man's place in nature and the determination of the ens a se (as primordial source of being) in both philosophy and religion. (Manfred Frings, 1996, p. 1)
Alfred Schutz (1899-1959) (Max Scheler)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sch%C3%BCtz
Schultz studied Scheler's works intensively especially toward the end of his life. (Manfred Frings, 1997, p. 17)
Schultz studied Scheler's works intensively especially toward the end of his life. (Manfred Frings, 1997, p. 17)
Annabel Lee (Edgar Allan Poe, 1949) (1809-1849) (Max Scheler)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Lee
Max Scheler was deeply moved by this poem. (Manfred Frings, 1997, pp. 10-11)
Max Scheler was deeply moved by this poem. (Manfred Frings, 1997, pp. 10-11)
Edith Stein (Teresia Benedicta a Cruce) (1891-1942) (Max Scheler)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
Edith Stein was Husserl's assistant from 1916, for a few years (?).
In April 1913 Stein arrived in Göttingen in order to study for the summer semester with Edmund Husserl. By the end of the summer she had decided to pursue her degree in philosophy under Husserl and chose "Empathy" as her thesis topic. Her studies were interrupted in July 1914 because of the outbreak of World War I. She then served as a volunteer wartime Red Cross nurse in an infectious diseases hospital at Märisch-Weisskirchen in 1915. In 1916, Stein moved to Freiburg in order to complete her dissertation on Empathy. Shortly before receiving her degree she agreed to become Husserl's assistant. After her dissertation entitled Zum Problem der Einfühlung (On the Problem of Empathy) was awarded on 3 August 1916, which made her a doctor of philosophy with the summa cum laude honor,[6] she began working independently as Husserl's assistant. In his 2007 thesis, "The Philosophical Contributions of Edith Stein",[7] John C. Wilhelmsson argues that Stein influenced the work of Husserl significantly during this period. She then became a member of the faculty at the University of Freiburg, where she worked as a teaching assistant to Husserl, who had transferred to that institution. Because she was a woman, Husserl did not support her submitting her habilitational thesis (a prerequisite for an academic chair) to the University of Freiburg in 1918. Her other thesis, Psychische Kausalität (Sentient Causality),[8] submitted at the University of Göttingen the following year, was likewise rejected.
Edith Stein was Husserl's assistant from 1916, for a few years (?).
In April 1913 Stein arrived in Göttingen in order to study for the summer semester with Edmund Husserl. By the end of the summer she had decided to pursue her degree in philosophy under Husserl and chose "Empathy" as her thesis topic. Her studies were interrupted in July 1914 because of the outbreak of World War I. She then served as a volunteer wartime Red Cross nurse in an infectious diseases hospital at Märisch-Weisskirchen in 1915. In 1916, Stein moved to Freiburg in order to complete her dissertation on Empathy. Shortly before receiving her degree she agreed to become Husserl's assistant. After her dissertation entitled Zum Problem der Einfühlung (On the Problem of Empathy) was awarded on 3 August 1916, which made her a doctor of philosophy with the summa cum laude honor,[6] she began working independently as Husserl's assistant. In his 2007 thesis, "The Philosophical Contributions of Edith Stein",[7] John C. Wilhelmsson argues that Stein influenced the work of Husserl significantly during this period. She then became a member of the faculty at the University of Freiburg, where she worked as a teaching assistant to Husserl, who had transferred to that institution. Because she was a woman, Husserl did not support her submitting her habilitational thesis (a prerequisite for an academic chair) to the University of Freiburg in 1918. Her other thesis, Psychische Kausalität (Sentient Causality),[8] submitted at the University of Göttingen the following year, was likewise rejected.
While Stein had earlier contacts with Catholicism, it was her reading of the autobiography of the mystic Teresa of Ávila during summer holidays in Bad Bergzabern in 1921 that prompted her conversion. Baptized on 1 January 1922, and dissuaded by her spiritual advisers from immediately seeking entry to the religious life, she obtained a position to teach at the Dominican nuns' school in Speyer from 1923 to 1931. While there, she translated Thomas Aquinas' De Veritate (Of Truth) into German, familiarized herself with Catholic philosophy in general, and tried to bridge the phenomenology of her former teacher, Husserl, to Thomism. She visited Husserl and Heidegger at Freiburg in April 1929, the same month that Heidegger gave a speech to Husserl on his 70th birthday. In 1932 she became a lecturer at the Catholic Church-affiliated Institute for Scientific Pedagogy in Münster, but antisemitic legislation passed by the Nazi government forced her to resign the post in 1933. In a letter to Pope Pius XI, she denounced the Nazi regime and asked the Pope to openly denounce the regime "to put a stop to this abuse of Christ's name."
Edith Stein attended the private lectures of Max Scheler in Gottingen, was very much impressed, and reported that Scheler's influence on her went far beyond philosophy. (Manfred Frings, 1997, p. 10)
Rudolf Eucken (1846-1926) (Max Scheler)
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1908/eucken/biographical/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Christoph_Eucken
Nobel Prize for Literature (1908)
Rudolf Eucken was the PhD advisor of Max Scheler (1897) (Manfred Frings, 1997, p. 9)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Christoph_Eucken
Nobel Prize for Literature (1908)
Rudolf Eucken was the PhD advisor of Max Scheler (1897) (Manfred Frings, 1997, p. 9)
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Ressentiment (Max Scheler) (Daseinsanalysis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment_(Scheler)#Essential_structures_of_Ressentiment_proper:_%22Pathological_Ressentiment%22
https://www.amazon.com/Ressentiment-Marquette-Studies-Philosophy-Scheler/dp/0874626021/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Pathological+Ressentiment&qid=1580272960&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0 (accessible via scribd)
https://www.amazon.com/Re-thinking-Ressentiment-Limits-Criticism-Critics/dp/3837621286/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Re-thinking+Ressentiment%3A+On+the+Limits+of+Criticism&qid=1580272783&s=books&sr=1-1
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=bjp.034.0393a&type=hitlist&num=4&query=zone1%2Cparagraphs%7Czone2%2Cparagraphs%7Ctitle%2Cressentiment%7Cviewperiod%2Cweek%7Csort%2Cyear%2Ca#hit1
Scheler's analysis also provides us with a way of understanding how ressentiment can be a response to real social injustices. Indeed social ressentiment is now widely regarded as the affective foundation of reactionary forms of populism.
https://www.amazon.com/Ressentiment-Marquette-Studies-Philosophy-Scheler/dp/0874626021/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Pathological+Ressentiment&qid=1580272960&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0 (accessible via scribd)
https://www.amazon.com/Re-thinking-Ressentiment-Limits-Criticism-Critics/dp/3837621286/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Re-thinking+Ressentiment%3A+On+the+Limits+of+Criticism&qid=1580272783&s=books&sr=1-1
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=bjp.034.0393a&type=hitlist&num=4&query=zone1%2Cparagraphs%7Czone2%2Cparagraphs%7Ctitle%2Cressentiment%7Cviewperiod%2Cweek%7Csort%2Cyear%2Ca#hit1
Scheler's analysis also provides us with a way of understanding how ressentiment can be a response to real social injustices. Indeed social ressentiment is now widely regarded as the affective foundation of reactionary forms of populism.
Mimpathy (Daseinsanalysis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimpathy
Max Scheler describes mimpathy, or "emotional imitation", as the basis for sympathy, but of no help in understanding another person in and of itself.
Max Scheler describes mimpathy, or "emotional imitation", as the basis for sympathy, but of no help in understanding another person in and of itself.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
The Human Place in the Cosmos (Max Scheler, Northwestern University Press, 2008)
Upon Scheler's death in 1928, Martin Heidegger remarked that he was the most important force in philosophy at the time. 'The Human Place in the Cosmos', the last of the works Scheler completed, is a pivotal piece in the development of his writing as a whole, marking a peculiar shift in his approach and thought. (amazon)
see also
Man's Place in Nature, by Max Scheler, Farrar Straus & Giroux,1962
In 1927 at a conference in Darmstadt, near Frankfurt, arranged by Hermann Keyserling, Scheler delivered a lengthy lecture entitled 'Man's Particular Place' (Die Sonderstellung des Menschen), published later in much abbreviated form as Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos [literally: 'Man's Position in the Cosmos']. His well-known oratorical style and delivery captivated his audience for about four hours. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Scheler )
see also
Man's Place in Nature, by Max Scheler, Farrar Straus & Giroux,1962
In 1927 at a conference in Darmstadt, near Frankfurt, arranged by Hermann Keyserling, Scheler delivered a lengthy lecture entitled 'Man's Particular Place' (Die Sonderstellung des Menschen), published later in much abbreviated form as Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos [literally: 'Man's Position in the Cosmos']. His well-known oratorical style and delivery captivated his audience for about four hours. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Scheler )
Max Scheler (Daseinsanalysis)
Max Scheler: A Concise Introduction into the World of a Great Thinker, by Manfred Frings, Marquette University Press, 1 ed, 1965, 2 ed, 1996 (accessible via questia)
The Mind of Max Scheler: The First Comprehensive Guide Based on the Complete Works, by Manfred Frings, Marquette University Press,1997 (accessible via questia)
Max Scheler (1874–1928) was a less well‐known phenomenologist because his work was suppressed by the Nazis. His unique contribution was to emphasize the importance of emotional understanding in pinpointing human existence. Scheler followed Husserl’s idea that experience is what knowledge starts from and thus we should always end with experience again in a loop of verification. This led to Scheler’s understanding that human relationships are a form of participation in another person’s world and in their being. This is an important aspect of practical training as it is not the same to allow ourselves to participate in other people’s experience as to feel or show empathy. Scheler indeed spoke of sympathy rather than of empathy and this is about deeply joining with the other in their experience. Instead of disengaging in order to see the other objectively, we become subjectively connected. This is not dissimilar to Kierkegaard’s injunction that we should learn to be subjective about others and objective about ourselves and it links directly with Husserl’s notion of inter‐subjectivity, which is the idea that we are always in relationship rather than separate.
van Deurzen, Emmy. The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy (p. 16). Wiley. 2019, Kindle edition.
中國科學家揭發武漢肺炎病毒來自解放軍舟山蝙蝠病毒
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%A4%B1%E6%8E%A7%E7%9A%84%E7%98%9F%E7%96%AB-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%B8%E5%AE%B6%E6%8F%AD%E7%99%BC%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E4%BE%86%E8%87%AA%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E8%BB%8D%E8%88%9F%E5%B1%B1%E8%9D%99%E8%9D%A0%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92-012933030.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALZm0f3F7CeaiFMO27LIO1JjREyxf6WapEntTLD9tSanawpDnbIejq4QUI2-HhwYhchajhZZNRb00ZK4MN4SR_rdtv16CQfqh121DkysKqxF4wnKCpUobROD0lgYavEq0vFllwgpgVxOIWkBGa56t0uOyBFGzO46TQcs4NQVt0lp
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/
中國內部專家爆料，病毒來自解放軍研究所
然而早在1月19日，當武漢確診病例達198例時，一位來自中國內部的科學家向《路德社》爆料，當時中國第一次交給世界衛生組織的病毒基因序列是假的，世衛組織從資料庫中比對不出來。隨著疫情擴散與惡化，這位專家指出，中國政府在今年1月12日第2次提供給世界衛生組織武漢病毒的基因序列還是假的。
直到1月14日中國第三次交給世界衛生組織的病毒基因序列之後，經過美國國家衛生研究院中病毒基因資料庫比對，竟然是舟山蝙蝠病毒，這個病毒，是2018年解放軍研究單位在論文中承認發現，並且發表在國際期刊的一種病毒。
從2003年震驚全球的SARS病毒事件談起，號稱帶原的果子狸身上的SARS-Like病毒和真正的SARS病毒基因有99％相似，唯一的區別就靠基因片段ORF8，而這位中國科學家指出，這次武漢肺炎病毒中的ORF8片段和近親病毒例如SARS的相似度僅達到60％，但和舟山蝙蝠病毒相似度達94.21％。
中國官方拖延一個月，才給世衛正確的病毒基因
而且，2003年的SARS病毒後來在2013年被發現來自於雲南蝙蝠病毒，其中一個證據就是RDRP基因（作用是適應宿主的身體），SARS與雲南蝙蝠病毒在此基因相似度達到87％到92％，而武漢肺炎病毒與舟山蝙蝠病毒基因對比相似度達95.7％。
這位專家還強調，武漢肺炎的病毒，就是來自於中國軍方於2018年在舟山蝙蝠身上發現並分離的新型冠狀病毒，其病毒序列可以在美國國家衛生研究院。（National Institutes of Health，NIH）的基因資料庫找到，當年，由南京軍區軍事科學研究所撰寫研究論文，還收錄在國際知名病毒期刊Emerging Microbes & Infections（EMI）裡。
弔詭的是，當中國把正確的武漢肺炎病毒交給世界衛生組織之前，外界尚未知道來自於舟山蝙蝠病毒時，長期為中國官方發聲、帶風向的《財新網》，突然出現一篇香港專家袁國勇指稱是舟山蝙蝠病毒，再由來自中國內陸的香港大學教授朱華晨出面否認。
《財新網》的主持人胡舒立被郭文貴指稱是國家副主席王岐山的女人，長期為王岐山建立好形象，曾指出「王岐山是中國的救火隊長」，2018年王岐山家族持股的海航集團前CEO王健被謀殺時，《財新網》第一時間說死因是腳疼。
這次武漢肺炎，《財新網》也稱可控制、不會人傳人，甚至在1月5日的報導中聲稱找到當年非典（SARS）醫師，表示防護措施和非典一樣，而且病患皆來自華南水產攤販，正如當年SARS初期，《財新網》也報導「找到SARS的源頭」了如出一轍。
官方媒體刻意帶風向，隱藏軍方早發現舟山蝙蝠病毒
《路德社》認為，在中國提交正確的病毒基因序列之前，《財新網》報導的目的就是帶風向，讓人從一開始就排除掉舟山蝙蝠病毒。而爆料的中國內部科學家說，當時就是看了《財新網》報導，去查基因資料庫，發現什麼都查不到，直到中國交出正確的基因序列為止。
此外，為何中國官方運作刻意隱瞞舟山蝙蝠病毒？跟最早案例來自華南水產市場有關，《路德社》懷疑，由於華南水產市場並沒有買賣舟山蝙蝠，食用舟山蝙蝠，因此這個病毒可能是人為散佈在水產市場中，若被外界發現武漢肺炎是舟山蝙蝠病毒，將難以自圓其說。
另外，武漢也有專門研究SARS和伊波拉等危險病原體的中國科學院武漢國家生物安全實驗室（P4等級實驗室），更引起外界對病毒來自中國本身的懷疑，但究竟是人為還是失控的意外，目前尚未有直接的證據。
當年SARS病毒被指生化武器，武漢肺炎病毒也很可疑
正如當年國安局長蔡朝明在立法院質詢時曾爆出，SARS病毒是中國的生化武器，《路德社》認為，武漢肺炎病毒是來自於解放軍刻意改良的舟山蝙蝠病毒，也準備當作生化武器。
武漢肺炎黑幕水真深 中共高層和一線研究員較量 港專家估計5月「見頂」 靠譜嗎？
https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202001270109.aspx
https://tw.aboluowang.com/2020/0128/1402076.html
https://tw.aboluowang.com/2020/0128/1402076.html
王篤然指出，梁卓偉的預計的關鍵在於傳染力為2.13，但如果不少2.13，他的推斷就不成立。2.13是中共的數據，與實際數據肯定相差很大。
那國際上的數據是多少？
英國倫敦皇家學院的最新版的第三份研究報告說，武漢病毒的傳染力估算是2.6，而美國哈佛大學流行病學者丁博士(Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding)的研究是，武漢新型病毒的傳染力是3.8，是核武級別的瘟疫。
王篤然的計算結果是，梁卓偉說的傳染力數據比英國低近2成，比美國低4成多。
王篤然分析，梁卓偉是香港高官，曾是香港特首曾蔭權的行政長官辦公室主任，也就是特首的大秘。在他這個位置，他最起碼是非常受中共信任的人，更有可是中共地下黨，像世衛前總幹事陳馮富珍一樣。
王篤然的結論是，梁卓偉的數據是不可信的，比實際情況好很多。
王篤然表示，就武漢肺炎的研究，不僅梁卓偉的預計不成立，跡象顯示，中共官方高層與一線研究人員之間，圍繞疫源地的問題正在進行一場較量。
Max Scheler (1874-1928)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Scheler
Scheler was the only scholar of rank of the then German intelligentsia who gave warning in public speeches delivered as early as 1927 of the dangers of the growing National Socialist movement and Marxism.
Five years after his death, the Nazi dictatorship (1933–1945) suppressed Scheler's work.
In his analyses of capitalism Scheler argued that capitalism was a calculating, globally growing 'mind-set', rather than an economic system. While economic capitalism may have had some roots in ascetic Calvinism (cf. Max Weber), its very mind-set, however, is argued by Scheler to have had its origin in modern, subconscious angst as expressed in increasing needs for financial and other securities, for protection and personal safeguards as well as for rational manageability of all entities. However, the subordination of the value of the individual person to this mind-set was sufficient reason for Max Scheler to denounce it.
Scheler never agreed with Husserl that phenomenology is a method in the strict sense, but rather "an attitude of spiritual seeing...something which otherwise remains hidden...."
Calling phenomenology a method fails to take seriously the phenomenological domain of original experience: the givenness of phenomenological facts (essences or values as a priori) "before they have been fixed by logic,"[6] and prior to assuming a set of criteria or symbols, as is the case in the empirical and human sciences as well as other (modern) philosophies which tailor their methods to those of the sciences.
Rather, that which is given in phenomenology "is given only in the seeing and experiencing act itself." The essences are never given to an 'outside' observer with no direct contact with the thing itself. Phenomenology is an engagement of phenomena, while simultaneously a waiting for its self-givenness; it is not a methodical procedure of observation as if its object is stationary. Thus, the particular attitude (Geisteshaltung, lit. "disposition of the spirit" or "spiritual posture") of the philosopher is crucial for the disclosure, or seeing, of phenomenological facts. This attitude is fundamentally a moral one, where the strength of philosophical inquiry rests upon the basis of love. Scheler describes the essence of philosophical thinking as "a love-determined movement of the inmost personal self of a finite being toward participation in the essential reality of all possibles."
Scheler 相信先驗 這說明了 為什麼 天主教會喜歡他 Frankl也喜歡他 所以Frankl講的意義是一個先驗的存在 或正確的說 是一個我們已經失去的先驗的存在 這可以說明 will to meaning的will 是一個多麼徒勞的意志 以上 可以說明 我是多麼沒有庇蔭的活著 這件事 對我很重要 我是說 沒有庇蔭
Scheler's appropriation of a value-based metaphysics renders his phenomenology quite different from the phenomenology of consciousness (Husserl, Sartre) or the existential analysis of the being-in-the-world of Dasein (Heidegger). Scheler's concept of the "lived body" was appropriated in the early work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
Scheler planned to publish his major work in Anthropology in 1929, but the completion of such a project was curtailed by his premature death in 1928. Some fragments of such work have been published in Nachlass.
Six volumes of his posthumous works (Nachlass), so far not translated from German, make up volumes 10-15 of the 15 volume Collected Works (Gesammelte Werke) edited by Maria Scheler and Manfred S. Frings as listed in http://www.maxscheler.com/scheler4.shtml#4-CollectedWorks
Scheler was the only scholar of rank of the then German intelligentsia who gave warning in public speeches delivered as early as 1927 of the dangers of the growing National Socialist movement and Marxism.
Five years after his death, the Nazi dictatorship (1933–1945) suppressed Scheler's work.
In his analyses of capitalism Scheler argued that capitalism was a calculating, globally growing 'mind-set', rather than an economic system. While economic capitalism may have had some roots in ascetic Calvinism (cf. Max Weber), its very mind-set, however, is argued by Scheler to have had its origin in modern, subconscious angst as expressed in increasing needs for financial and other securities, for protection and personal safeguards as well as for rational manageability of all entities. However, the subordination of the value of the individual person to this mind-set was sufficient reason for Max Scheler to denounce it.
Scheler never agreed with Husserl that phenomenology is a method in the strict sense, but rather "an attitude of spiritual seeing...something which otherwise remains hidden...."
Rather, that which is given in phenomenology "is given only in the seeing and experiencing act itself." The essences are never given to an 'outside' observer with no direct contact with the thing itself. Phenomenology is an engagement of phenomena, while simultaneously a waiting for its self-givenness; it is not a methodical procedure of observation as if its object is stationary. Thus, the particular attitude (Geisteshaltung, lit. "disposition of the spirit" or "spiritual posture") of the philosopher is crucial for the disclosure, or seeing, of phenomenological facts. This attitude is fundamentally a moral one, where the strength of philosophical inquiry rests upon the basis of love. Scheler describes the essence of philosophical thinking as "a love-determined movement of the inmost personal self of a finite being toward participation in the essential reality of all possibles."
Scheler 相信先驗 這說明了 為什麼 天主教會喜歡他 Frankl也喜歡他 所以Frankl講的意義是一個先驗的存在 或正確的說 是一個我們已經失去的先驗的存在 這可以說明 will to meaning的will 是一個多麼徒勞的意志 以上 可以說明 我是多麼沒有庇蔭的活著 這件事 對我很重要 我是說 沒有庇蔭
Scheler's appropriation of a value-based metaphysics renders his phenomenology quite different from the phenomenology of consciousness (Husserl, Sartre) or the existential analysis of the being-in-the-world of Dasein (Heidegger). Scheler's concept of the "lived body" was appropriated in the early work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
Scheler planned to publish his major work in Anthropology in 1929, but the completion of such a project was curtailed by his premature death in 1928. Some fragments of such work have been published in Nachlass.
Six volumes of his posthumous works (Nachlass), so far not translated from German, make up volumes 10-15 of the 15 volume Collected Works (Gesammelte Werke) edited by Maria Scheler and Manfred S. Frings as listed in http://www.maxscheler.com/scheler4.shtml#4-CollectedWorks
【实录】央视董倩采访武汉市长周先旺 (2020-1-27)
http://finance.eastmoney.com/a/202001271368110820.html
主持人：首先我在武汉直播间演播室要向大家先解释一下，也许会问：“为什么你在前方、在疫区不戴口罩”。首先我们在这个湖北电视台的演播室是经过严格的消毒，另外我也请教了专家，说在这样一个经过严格消毒的空间内，而且我确认我周围的这些同事最近都没有去过像医院还有一些危险的地方，他们都戴着口罩，因此我现在因为在直播的过程中我就不戴口罩。但是大家可以看到，坐在我身边的周市长，他是戴着口罩的。(15:10)
周先旺：因为新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎现在已经确认病情已经大面积发生人传人，我作为市长，我要把防控工作做好，我首先要带头按照专家的要求来进行必要的这种防控。包括个人的卫生习惯，个人出门要戴口罩进入公共场所要戴口罩，这是我们防控工作启动以后的一个基本要求。(15:13)
主持人：另外离汉通道关闭以来到现在已经几天的时间过去了，效果呈现出来是什么样的？(15:16)
周先旺：因为武汉市病毒性肺炎的疫源区，那么把疫源区管控好，我们就可以阻断它的继续传播。传染病的控制首先是控制传染源，武汉人少出去，在这个时候，就是对全国的贡献，就是对人类的贡献。所以我们按有关程序，做出了关闭离汉通道的决定，从目前看关闭以后，得到了武汉市民的理解，更产生了很好的效果，就是武汉人外出的大幅度下降，没有通道了，这是强制性的。那么在阻断传染源上，这个效果是非常明显的。(15:18)
主持人：我之所以问这个问题是因为当我们看到数字的时候，来自武汉、来被湖北的病例确诊人数仍然在递增，包括疑似包括医学观察的数字仍然在增长，我们怎么理解这样一个增长？(15:29)
你说的增长和我们关闭离汉通道之间，它们之间是什么关系，我跟你一下理不清楚。我们关闭离汉通道是减少武汉有可能被感染的人到外面去传染，那么对于我这个区域内已经被感染的，已经发病的，它这个存量是不会因为我的通道关闭而减少的。从流行病学发病的规律来看，我们12月27日发现首例，在溯源，到12月12日第一个病人住院，按照这个周期看现在进入高发期，所以在这个时候病人量增加。这是符合这个规律的。(15:31)
主持人：周市长，昨天我在采访一些医护人员的时候，因为机动车限行了，所以对于医护人员来讲有一个非常现实的问题，我上下班怎么办，有些医护人员可能要步行一两个小时甚至更长时间，是往返家和医院之间，有没有考虑到他们现实的出行问题？怎么解决，怎么保障他们？(15:32)
周先旺：机动车限行的目的也就是要阻断传染病，让人减少流动。因为我们要求居家观察，没有特殊情况的不要出去，没有特殊情况的也不能离开武汉，外地的人没有特殊情况也不要到武汉，就是要大家都居家观察。那么这种传染病科学家早就发现，最好的办法就是隔离，那么我们把机动车限行就是要让你不出去。(15:34)
周先旺：我们有通勤车，我们将公交车停用以后的310台大公交车分到相应的街道来管理，可以充当运输车。另外我们跟每个社区配备了3到5辆出租车，它的第一个作用就是承担你这个社区内医护人员的接送。(15:35)
主持人：他们是优先的。(15:47)
周先旺：是优先，第二就是对不方便的这些居家观察的人免费送菜、送餐，送他就医。当然了这种方式有些在对接上，在磨合上并没有达到理想状态。(15:47)
主持人：怎么讲？(15:48)
周先旺：比如我在这个社区配了三到五辆车，司机有的认为我可以帮你送菜送饭，但是发烧病人我不能运送。还有的司机因为缺少一些必要的卫生知识，要接送医生，我心中很爱他，但是我也很怕他，那我也不能送，所以这些衔接上就造成我们还有些医护人员不方便，我们目前正在对这个措施进行完善，在我们的医院的附近征用一些酒店，让这些医护人员从疲劳之中不要有到家的旅程。(15:49)
主持人：从安全角度是不是也应当这么做？(15:49)
周先旺：这样做应该是很安全的。(15:49)
主持人：就是不让这些医护人员每天通行医院和家之间，而是让他们再一个地方居住，从更安全的角度考虑是不是这样的？(15:49)
周先旺：应该是这样。(15:50)
周先旺：这些问题是逐步暴露的，暴露以后它的应对措施肯定比问题的出现要慢一些，所以这段时间我们的医护人员确实很不容易。(15:51)
主持人：这是医护人员，另外一个从广大市民的角度来说，防治疫情的扩散是重中之重，紧要的紧要，但是一些居民的客观存在的也是急迫的一种正常就医的需求，这怎么保证？(15:51)
周先旺：从出行这个角度，我们要把他正常的需求尽可能在社区能够得到满足。(15:51)
主持人：不让动尽量不让动。(15:51)
周先旺：对，刚才克强总理也跟我们强调这一点，居家观察。必要的生活用品要能得到满足，否则他就居不了，居不了就要出来，出来就会要么被感染，要么被传染。(15:52)
主持人：您说的是有发热的情况，但是还没有到那个标准，所以自己先居家观察。(15:52)
周先旺：它是这样的，这里面还没有完全说清楚，居家有发热现象的，经过发热门诊以后，发热门诊治疗还不算发热病人，只是一般的头痛发烧、一般的伤风感冒，就在家里观察观察。如果是不继续发展，按照常规的感冒的疗法好了，那就不需要去，就居家观察。还有一种就是我什么病都没有，但是整个在这里有疾病传染的危险，我就在家里哪里也不出去，在家里休息，一旦出去就有被感染的可能。所以这样我们机动车的禁行主要是起到这个作用。(15:52)
主持人：假如妇女生孩子或者老人突发的心脏的疾病，咱们怎么保证他们正常的就医需求？(15:52)
周先旺：我们社区配的这些车辆就是来解决这些的，另外我们还在补充志愿者，社区有些有私家车的把志愿者组织一个队来解决这些突发的问题。另外我们的120这些机制还是健全的，只是说现在很紧张而已。(15:54)
主持人：因为从23日到现在关闭离汉通道以后，这个决定实在是对我们外界的人来说，觉得突然，对你们身处其中的人来说，这是不是也是一个非常突然的决定？(15:55)
周先旺：是非常艰难的决定。它的突然在于这个疫情来得太突然。(15:55)
周先旺：疫情是突如其来的，洪水还有天气预报，其他的火警还有很多隐患，你们知道，我标准不到位，整改不到位，那么病毒性的这种疾病是没有预警的，没有预警突然来了，如果不采取果断措施，将不可想象，在人类史上大的传染病，黑死病、鼠疫、天花曾经对人类的威胁，使人类造成的死亡是不可想象的。那么我们今天，我们这个新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎会不会这样呢？谁也说不清楚。在这个时候只有果断的关门，关掉城门，让有可能感染的这些人封闭在这个圈里，不要再出去传染别人。封闭在这个圈里居在自己的家里，在这个城里我也不能传染别人，所以这就是封城的作用。(15:55)
主持人：其实把这个不动对于一个疾病的传染阻断来说是最好的，但对于一个特大型的城市，九省通衢的武汉来说，尤其是叠加了春运这样一个社会背景来说，对你们来说这个压力有多大？(15:56)
周先旺：我们的书记马国强同志，他是企业家出身，考虑问题比我周全，但是面对这种也可以说叫大是大非问题的时候当仁不让。一个超千万人口的城市，采取封城，他们有的说在人类史上没有，在人类的城市发展史上也没有，但是面对今天疫情的威胁，我们把这个门关了，有可能把疾病阻断了，但是在历史上我们都会留下骂名。但是我们认为只要有利于疾病的控制，只要有利于人类生命安全，马国强说我们承担什么责任都可以，因为关门人民群众对我们有意见，我们革职以谢天下，只要把疫情控制好我们都愿意。(16:14)
主持人：摆在面前的困难是什么？(16:15)
周先旺：控制思想，因为病毒性疾病病毒的威胁，按照传染病的管理不是每个人都知道的，包括我们的班子成员，也不是人人都知道，他当书记我们当市长，那么相关的我们知道，在这个时候怕造成恐慌，要把事先事情做好。(16:16)
主持人：恐慌有没有平息掉，还是多多稍稍有一定的存在，据您了解？(16:17)
周先旺：因为现在疫情都亮开了，表现的都是不变的，治病不便，出行不便，恐慌是我们不知道、无形的压力，现在大家看得清楚，感染那是个什么状况，感染目前是一种什么样的外部威胁，我觉得现在的问题不是恐惧了，因为明了了，如果说不有效面对，不斩断传染源、不控制传播途径，你就要被传染，大家清楚以后就不是恐惧了，而是怎么把这种工作做好了责任和压力了。(16:19)
主持人：如果从市民的角度，您觉得还是否存在一些对未来不确定性的心态？(16:20)
周先旺：市民总的来说很配合，因为我们关门以后，没有人说来上访，没有人说找市政府、市委要个说法，没有，很理性，很配合。但是还是有很多市民很侥幸，说这么大一个城，就传到我头上吗？所以你看上街的也还不少，在社区里面活动的也不少，不戴口罩的也不少，那么现在就是要把通过我们的宣传、通过我们的动员，让每一个市民都要知道防治这个新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎的这些措施，知道他应该怎么防的这些办法，人人参与，个个配合，那么我们这个封城才有作用。你封住了出去的，你没有管住里面的，那里面不断传播，问题也是很大的。(16:21)
主持人：我不知道您留意了没有，武汉有了疫情之后，包括关闭离汉通道，其实有一些其他的地方的人们，对于武汉出去的，或者说甚至湖北出去的，都有一些多多少少的戒备，您怎么看待这种戒备的心理？(16:22)
周先旺：这很正常，人们都追求自身的安全，一旦听说武汉这个地方有疫情，他不知道这个疫情多重，传播得有多么猛烈，他对你从这个地方来的人，他不愿意跟你接触，我认为他不仅是对武汉人，他是从武汉来的人，经过了武汉的人，他怕你带病毒。就像当年2003年北京广州非典以后全国各地也一样，我觉得这是一种正常的反应。(16:23)
主持人：您最近是一个什么样的工作状态？(16:24)
周先旺：疫情发生以后，因为疫情在不断地发展，从最初的判断，就是一般的病毒毒性不强，传播力不强，到后来第二轮说人与人之间有限性的传播，到后来是人与人之间的快速传播。所以我们的工作就不断地升级，应该说至少近十来天吧，我们都是，我们所谓的工作班子、市委、政府、包括我们各个区县相关的部门，这些同志都是连轴转。(16:24)
主持人：应当说这次突发性的公共卫生的危机，包括政府的治理各方面运行都是一个很大的考验，怎么去面对这种巨大的考验？(16:25)
周先旺：严峻的考验，我们武汉战胜过很多这样的考验，比如1954年的大洪水，1998年的大洪水，2003年的非典，2016年大洪水，其实我们有战胜困难的勇气，也有战胜困难的干部队伍，但是对战胜这种病毒性的困难，大家有一个认识过程。那么这次武汉的这种病毒性肺炎的威胁，它很像2003年北京加广州的压力。2003年非典疫源在广州，重灾区在北京，今年疫源在武汉重灾区在武汉，所以面对这种突如其来的大家压力都很大。特别是医疗资源，武汉市也是全国特别重要的医学中心，在这方面能力好于很多城市，但是面对一下突如其来的这么大的传染病的资源的需求，就捉襟见肘了，所以各方面的矛盾就充分暴露了。那么在这个时候，市委政府的班子大家毫无疑问都背负着巨大的压力，所以这种连轴转，而且还转得不好，这些问题就出现了。(16:26)
主持人：您为什么刚才讲连轴转还转得不好？(16:27)
周先旺：我感觉我们应对危机的能力，我们的这些公共卫生事件应对的这些办法还需要很好的完善。这就正如习总书记提出的要实现我们治理能力和治理体系的现代化，治理能力的现代化很重要一块就是我们的危机层面的管理，对突发事件的管理，我们这方面能力还需要提高。(16:27)
主持人：周市长非常感谢您的坦诚。刚才您说到，武汉即便具备了跟其他城市相比相对富余的这么一种资源，但是面对这么巨大的危机的时候，还是捉襟见肘，这个时候您觉得各方面的来的物资够不够，您觉得还需要什么？(16:28)
周先旺：它是肯定不够的，如果一个城市的常态能够应付这么大的疫情，那你这个城市新增的这些财富就不能用于发展和改善民生，你不可能按照这么大的疫情来配备公共资源，这是不可能的，我想在任何一个城市、任何一个国家，包括发达国家，它也是不可能的。(16:28)
主持人：您说的是自身面对是不够的，但是这个时候四面八方的人和物资来了，来支援来了，截止到目前为止，来的这些医生护士其他支援够不够？(16:29)
周先旺：在这一点上确实作为一个中国人，作为中国共产党领导下的一个中国公民，确实感觉幸福，我们灾情一发生，党中央、国务院、中央军委高度重视，习总书记第一时间做出批示，全国各地的资源向武汉集中，所以我们紧缺的防护衣、N95的口罩和护目镜以及其他的一些耗材，从全国各地就运来了。如果不是这些支援，我们可能很多病人就得不到及时救治，就不是在院治疗了，有可能永远的就告别这个世界了。(16:30)
主持人：周市长，其实全国人民都希望你们，刚才您也说了，做出一个在治理能力方面做出一个很好的应对，另外一个在不断地学习中能够不断提升。但是大家也很期待，你们怎么能够得到既及时又准确的信息？能够让你们做出一个正确的判断？(16:31)
周先旺：这次我们的疫情其实各方面对我们信息的披露是不满意的，我们既有披露不及时的一面，也有我们利用很多有效信息来完善我们的工作不到位的一面。前面这个披露的不及时，这一点大家要理解，因为它是传染病，传染病有传染病防治法，它必须依法披露，作为地方政府，我获得这个信息以后，授权以后，我才能披露，所以这一点在当时很多不理解。后来特别是元月20日，国务院召开常务会议，确定了这个病作为乙类传染病，并进行甲类传染病的管理，而且要求属地负责，从这之后，我们认为我们的工作就主动多了。而且在很多方面的一些强硬的措施上，不是慢半拍，那是可以说是硬了一拍，比如说关闭离汉通道的问题，暂停我们的城市的地铁、公交、轮渡，包括武汉出去的长途公交车，这是很果断的。(16:32)
周先旺：但是把这些措施采取以后，你整个城市功能就发生了变化，人们的衣食住行、这种服务都发生了改变，这就很多就跟不上来了。(16:32)
主持人：明白，非常感谢周市长，因为我知道您近期的工作节奏一定系是非常快的，听您的声音已经感到嘶哑了，希望您保住身体，以力再战。希望武汉不仅仅各个方面的医护人员的支持，其实还需要各方来的心理方面的安慰，要知道我们要阻断的是病毒，但是要阻断的不是人与人之间的亲情。(16:33)
主持人：您对于武汉市民的表现怎么样？(16:34)
周先旺：我觉得武汉人非常棒，武汉人担当识大局，封闭一座城为全国人民的健康和全国人民的生命安全奉献，这是一种大爱、大义、大气。(16:34)
（文章来源：央视新闻）
basic reproduction number (R₀, r nought) (基本傳染數)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E4%BC%A0%E6%9F%93%E6%95%B0
the number of cases one case generates on average over the course of its infectious period, in an otherwise uninfected population
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E4%BC%A0%E6%9F%93%E6%95%B0
the number of cases one case generates on average over the course of its infectious period, in an otherwise uninfected population
Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally (Science, 2020-1-26)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally
As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis.
As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis.
The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University.
Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019—and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January.
Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.
The Lancet paper’s data also raise questions about the accuracy of the initial information China provided, Lucey says. At the beginning of the outbreak, the main official source of public information were notices from the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. Its notices on 11 January started to refer to the 41 patients as the only confirmed cases and the count remained the same until 18 January. The notices did not state that the seafood market was the source, but they repeatedly noted that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission and that most cases linked to the market. Because the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission noted that diagnostic tests had confirmed these 41 cases by 10 January and officials presumably knew the case histories of each patient, “China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market,” Lucey tells ScienceInsider. (Lucey also spoke about his concerns in an interview published online yesterday by Science Speaks, a project of the Infectious Disease Society of America.)
Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.
Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.
Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor”—meaning a common source—as early as 1 October 2019.
Bin Cao of Capital Medical University, the corresponding author of The Lancet article and a pulmonary specialist, wrote in an email to ScienceInsider that he and his co-authors “appreciate the criticism” from Lucey.
“Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus,” he wrote. “But to be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from now.”
Lucey notes that the discovery of the coronavirus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome, a sometimes fatal disease that occurs sporadically, came from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June 2012, although later studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April 2012. Stored samples from two people who died in Jordan confirmed they had been infected with the virus. Retrospective analyses of blood samples in China from people and animals—including vendors from other animal markets—may reveal a clear picture of where the 2019-nCoV originated, he suggests. “There might be a clear signal among the noise,” he says.
Bin Cao of Capital Medical University, the corresponding author of The Lancet article and a pulmonary specialist, wrote in an email to ScienceInsider that he and his co-authors “appreciate the criticism” from Lucey.
“Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus,” he wrote. “But to be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from now.”
Lucey notes that the discovery of the coronavirus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome, a sometimes fatal disease that occurs sporadically, came from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June 2012, although later studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April 2012. Stored samples from two people who died in Jordan confirmed they had been infected with the virus. Retrospective analyses of blood samples in China from people and animals—including vendors from other animal markets—may reveal a clear picture of where the 2019-nCoV originated, he suggests. “There might be a clear signal among the noise,” he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)