Thursday, March 28, 2024

Matter vs Object (negativity vs vitality)

Matter,就是「物」(新物質主義 (new materialism) 的物質,就是物),

Object,精神分析譯為「客體」,

Graham Harman 的 OOO (Object-Oriented Ontology) 的 object,則指的是「器物」,比如說錘子 (hammer) (尼采「作」哲學,就是用錘子),

物,相對于心 (mind);

客體 (通俗用詞是「他者」(the other) ),相對于自體 (self);

器物,相對于(發明器物,使用器物的)「人」,

量子力學,處理的是,次原子如何構建成物;

客體關係理論,處理的是,一個人的內在世界,如何經由和他者的關係,構建起來;

器物的誕生,和科技發展有關,使用器物的人,往往不自覺中,自己已成為器物的一部分,或器物已成為自己的一部分,換句話說,人和器物,界線已不清楚,比如說,洗碗工日久,已成為碗,碗則已成為洗碗工,

上述,物心之間,物何以生心,是宇宙的謎;

自體客體之間,則不應把客體只侷限于另一個人,意思是說,巖中花樹,草木瓦石,烏蠅蜜蜂,亦為他者,亦為客體 (意思是說,大自然就是眾生的原鄉);

人和器物之間,人不應沾沾自喜,以為藉著耍弄器物,自己就可以膨風成鋼鐵超人 (transhumanism),意思是說,離開槍桿子刀把子,包子只不過是,那個窩囊的包子,



Existential Migration (Greg Madison, 2006) (1130330) (1130803) (存在治療)

https://www.gregmadison.net/documents/MigrationEA.pdf

https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/14787/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_migration

https://www.academia.edu/7968181/At-Home_in_the_Elsewhere_Saybrook_Institute_Blog_New_Existentialists_http_www.saybrook.edu_newexistentialists_posts_08-12-14

See also 

四句教 (negativity vs vitality)

無善無惡心之體,有善有惡意之動,知善知惡是良知,為善去惡是格物,一般爭議在第一句,其實最有問題的是第四句,意思是說,善惡屬價值理性,與格物沒有半毛錢關係,意思是說,格物是工具理性,朱熹沒有,王陽明也沒有,

3/28/24 (星期四)

印度哲學,傳說中有六支,其中以吠檀多最為有趣,其與佛學交涉亦最深,Adi Shankara 八世紀,集吠檀多不二論之大成,爾後雖復衍伸數說,無礙不二已為不二,意思是說,號不二,不二齋,等等,為何印度哲學,調性如是,是否地理決定所致,你要理解,印度北有,高聳入雲,山脈阻隔,恆河蜿蜒,次大陸地處,亞熱以至熱帶,成一獨立生態系統,生命遂得,蓬勃繁衍,比如說,奧蘭加巴德 (Aurangabad) 之凱拉薩神廟(Kailasa temple),什麼動物都有,意思是說,印度教,分明禮讚生命,另,梵文巴利文,屬印歐語系,字母拼音,印度哲學,與中亞乃至古希臘哲學,是否有涉,起碼比起中哲,與之更為親近,你要理解,中哲源自農業文明,看天吃飯,中文是象形文字,不擅亦不喜邏輯,腦筋漿糊,遂以儒家,為其主調,這分明是,牢牢抓住生命,並非酣暢人生,禮讚生命,意思是說,生生不息 (my ass),說說而已,就像英九,跪舔皇上,蒙主恩賜,風調雨順,今年莊稼,長得很好,意思是說,武藏說的沒錯,儒家實在無趣,意思是說,古中國人,唯一有趣,是雲遊僧人,和風塵走唱,二弦歌者,你要理解,宋明理學家,從頭到尾,並未離家,只是賭氣,拒絕聯考,意思是說,九成九九,九九九九,之中國人,又跪又舔,膝蓋舌頭,功夫了得,五千年來,勉強嶺南,出個葉問,耍耍詠春,已是武學極致,

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

CCP Biopolitics (negativity vs vitality)

https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~smgreenh/bio/Greenhalgh-biopolitical.pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1215/18752160-1407767

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110799361-010/html

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/biopolitical-practices-in-beijing/7E2D23D2DCB7D318B232F2A8CAB8DB97

https://madeinchinajournal.com/2022/07/29/the-shanghai-lockdown-as-a-chronotope-the-biopolitics-of-zero-covid-auto-immunisation-and-the-security-discourse/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17544750.2023.2242976


Paolo Virno (b 1952) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Virno

Paolo Virno (/ˈvɜːrnoʊ/; Italian: [ˈvirno]; born May 14, 1952) is an Italian philosopher, semiologist and a figurehead for the Italian Marxist movement. Implicated in belonging to illegal social movements during the 1960s and 1970s, Virno was arrested and jailed in 1979, accused of belonging to the Red Brigades. He spent several years in prison before finally being acquitted, after which he organized the publication Luogo Comune(Italian for "commonplace") in order to vocalize the political ideas he developed during his imprisonment. Virno currently teaches philosophy at the University of Rome.

Publications in English:

  • A Grammar of the Multitude. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ISBN 9781584350217
  • Multitude: Between Innovation and Negation. New York: Semiotext(e), 2008. ISBN 1584350504
  • When the Word Becomes Flesh. New York: Semiotext(e), 2015. ISBN 1584350946
  • Déjà Vu and the End of History. New York: Verso Books, 2015. ISBN 1781686114
  • Essay on Negation: For a Linguistic Anthropology. London/Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2018. ISBN 0857424386
  • Convention and Materialism: Uniqueness without Aura. Translated by Lorenzo Chiesa. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2021. ISBN 026204580X
  • The Idea of World: Public Intellect and Use of Life. London/Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2022. ISBN 0857429892

Biopolitics, Thanatopolitics and the Right to Life (2017) (negativity vs vitality)

https://philpapers.org/archive/NASBTA.pdf

See also 

https://modernrhetoric.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/thanatopolitics-bloomsbury-handbook.pdf

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/thanatopolitics-on-the-politics-of-death/

https://www.academia.edu/186168/Thanatopolitics_On_the_Use_of_Death_for_Mobilizing_Political_Life

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233441188_Thanatopolitics_Reading_in_Agamben_a_Rejoinder_to_Biopolitical_Life

And what about Deleuze and Guattari, in terms of philosophical posthumanism? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

Deleuze and Guattari's philosophical framework, particularly as articulated in their collaborative works such as "Anti-Oedipus" and "A Thousand Plateaus," offers valuable insights for philosophical posthumanism. Their ideas intersect with posthumanist concerns in several significant ways:

  1. Rhizomatic Thinking: Deleuze and Guattari propose the concept of the "rhizome" as an alternative to hierarchical and tree-like structures of thought. The rhizome represents a non-linear, interconnected network of multiplicities without a central organizing principle. This notion challenges traditional dualisms and hierarchical structures, opening up space for more decentralized and pluralistic understandings of identity, agency, and relationships. In the context of posthumanism, the rhizomatic model provides a framework for recognizing the multiplicity and interconnectedness of beings, human and non-human alike.

  2. Becoming and Multiplicity: Deleuze and Guattari emphasize the idea of "becoming" as a process of continual transformation and emergence. They reject fixed identities and instead focus on the dynamic interplay of forces and intensities that shape existence. This perspective resonates with posthumanist concerns about transcending rigid categories and recognizing the fluidity and complexity of identity. By emphasizing the multiplicity of becoming, Deleuze and Guattari offer a framework for understanding the diverse ways in which beings relate to each other and the world.

  3. Desire and Assemblages: Deleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of "desiring-production" and "assemblages" to describe the complex interplay of forces and relations that shape existence. Assemblages are dynamic arrangements of bodies, affects, and intensities that come together to form temporary and contingent configurations. This perspective challenges fixed notions of individuality and subjectivity, suggesting that identity is always relational and contingent upon the assemblages in which beings are embedded. In the context of posthumanism, this view of identity opens up new possibilities for understanding the interdependence and mutual constitution of human and non-human entities.

  4. Ethico-aesthetics: Deleuze and Guattari propose an "ethico-aesthetics" that emphasizes the immanent and creative potential of existence. They argue for an ethics that is not based on transcendent principles or moral imperatives but emerges from the productive forces of desire and becoming. This approach to ethics resonates with posthumanist concerns about fostering more inclusive and sustainable ways of living in relation to other beings and the environment. By emphasizing the importance of experimentation, creativity, and openness to difference, Deleuze and Guattari offer a vision of posthumanist ethics that embraces the complexity and diversity of existence.

Overall, Deleuze and Guattari's philosophical framework provides valuable resources for philosophical posthumanism, offering insights into the multiplicity, becoming, and ethical implications of our relationships with other beings and the world.

Would Whitehead’s process philosophy be of help in elucidating philosophical posthumanism? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

Absolutely, Whitehead's process philosophy offers a rich framework that can contribute significantly to elucidating philosophical posthumanism. Whitehead's philosophy, often referred to as "process philosophy" or "process metaphysics," emphasizes the dynamic and interconnected nature of reality, which aligns closely with the aims and perspectives of philosophical posthumanism.

Here are several ways in which Whitehead's process philosophy can inform and enrich philosophical posthumanism:

  1. Holistic Understanding: Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and events in the universe. This holistic perspective resonates with posthumanist approaches, which seek to transcend anthropocentrism and recognize the agency and value of non-human entities. By emphasizing the relational nature of existence, Whitehead's process philosophy provides a framework for understanding human beings as deeply embedded within larger networks of relationships with other beings, both human and non-human.

  2. Agency and Becoming: Whitehead's notion of "becoming" highlights the dynamic and creative nature of reality. According to Whitehead, all entities are in a process of continual becoming, undergoing change and transformation over time. This perspective challenges static and dualistic views of identity and agency, suggesting that entities are not fixed entities but rather processes of ongoing activity and self-creation. In the context of posthumanism, this view of agency can help to decenter the human subject and recognize the agency and creativity of non-human entities, such as animals, ecosystems, and technological systems.

  3. Panexperientialism: Whitehead's concept of "panexperientialism" suggests that all entities, not just humans, possess some level of experience or subjectivity. This view challenges anthropocentric notions of consciousness and agency, suggesting that consciousness and subjectivity are not unique to humans but are distributed throughout the universe. In the context of posthumanism, this perspective opens up new possibilities for understanding the experiences and perspectives of non-human beings, and for acknowledging their intrinsic value and significance.

  4. Ethical Implications: Whitehead's process philosophy has important ethical implications, emphasizing the importance of promoting harmony and creativity within the universe. This ethical perspective aligns closely with the goals of philosophical posthumanism, which seeks to foster more inclusive and sustainable ways of living in relation to other beings and the environment. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of mutual flourishing, Whitehead's philosophy provides a foundation for ethical approaches to posthumanism that prioritize the well-being of all beings.

Overall, Whitehead's process philosophy offers a rich and nuanced framework that can help to elucidate and enrich the perspectives of philosophical posthumanism, providing insights into the interconnected nature of reality and the ethical implications of our relationships with other beings.

Would Derrida’s deconstructionism be of help in terms of post-dualism? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

Yes, Derrida's deconstructionist philosophy can indeed be helpful in the context of post-dualism within philosophical posthumanism. Derrida's approach to deconstruction involves closely examining and critiquing binary oppositions and hierarchical structures that underpin dualistic thinking.

Deconstruction challenges the stability and hierarchy of dualistic categories by revealing the inherent instability and interdependence within them. Derrida argues that language and concepts are always in flux, and meanings are never fixed or absolute. Therefore, attempts to rigidly separate entities into opposing categories inevitably lead to oversimplification and exclusion.

In the context of post-dualism, deconstruction can help dismantle dualistic frameworks by exposing the fluidity and ambiguity inherent in the boundaries between concepts such as human/animal, mind/body, or nature/culture. By deconstructing these dualisms, Derrida's approach opens up space for more nuanced understandings of identity, agency, and relationship, which align with the aims of post-dualism in philosophical posthumanism.

Furthermore, Derrida's emphasis on the "trace" or the presence of absence underscores the interconnectedness and mutual constitution of seemingly separate entities. This resonates with the post-dualistic notion of recognizing the entanglement and interdependence of all beings, human and non-human alike.

In summary, Derrida's deconstructionist philosophy offers valuable insights and tools for challenging dualistic thinking and promoting post-dualistic perspectives within philosophical posthumanism.

Francesca Ferrando said that philosophical posthumanism include post-humanism, post-anthropocentrism, and post-dualism, what does post-dualism imply, in terms of philosophical posthumanism? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

In the context of philosophical posthumanism, post-dualism refers to the rejection or transcendence of traditional dualistic frameworks that separate entities into opposing categories such as mind/body, human/animal, or nature/culture.

Dualism has been a prominent feature of Western philosophical thought, particularly in the Cartesian dualism proposed by René Descartes, which posits a strict division between the immaterial mind (res cogitans) and the material body (res extensa). Similarly, dualisms such as human/animal and nature/culture have historically reinforced hierarchies and power dynamics, often privileging one side over the other.

Post-dualism, on the other hand, challenges these dualistic distinctions by advocating for a more holistic and interconnected view of existence. It seeks to blur or dissolve boundaries between traditionally opposing categories, recognizing the complex and intertwined nature of reality. In the context of posthumanism, post-dualism suggests a move beyond anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) and acknowledges the agency and value of non-human entities, including animals, ecosystems, and even technological systems.

By embracing post-dualism, philosophical posthumanism encourages a more inclusive and pluralistic worldview that acknowledges the interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings, thereby challenging traditional hierarchies and promoting ethical considerations beyond human interests.

3/27/24 (星期三)

今阿公矣,廟公之公,非公公之公,Shankara 卅二卒,留一半偈,梵文簡約,由此可見,既然惡如包丁,無時無刻,在下一盤造惡大棋,善自亦須,無時無刻,下一盤滅惡大棋,方堪為善,蘇小和說,包子熱愛中國功夫,廢英文課,已把肉蒲團九陰真經日本 AV,列為中國小中大碩博,唯一 (ONLY one) 必修,https://youtu.be/eU3VcqIUdnI?si=o2I7ytadQPkEXpIX,小和說得知此事,笑得屌都掉下來,意思是說,滿地找屌,

二元論 vs 不二論 (negativity vs vitality)

二元論,以為這個世界,一開始就是二,不二論,以為這個世界,一開始只是一 (一就是,所謂不二),一和二的差別是,二回不到零 (距離太遠),一則在零的隔壁,過去串門子,是常有的事,方便許多,意思是說,不二論可以處理零,二元論做不到,你要理解,孟母三遷,為的是,幫孟子找到好鄰居,意思是說,孟母就是二元論,就是一,就是零的鄰居,意思是說,我們要住在一,住在零的隔壁,聽到零深夜叫床 (你要理解,叫床是人類之所以有語言的起因,我卅年前說過,當一個地區的人,可以用七種語言叫床,和寫小說,你就知道,那是一個現代性已經發達的地方),才能一窺宇宙的起源,

Adi Shankara was born in a Brahmin family, and proposed Advaita Vedanta, what did he think about the caste system? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

Adi Shankara, the renowned Indian philosopher and theologian who propagated Advaita Vedanta, did not explicitly reject the caste system in his writings. However, his teachings emphasized the concept of the ultimate reality (Brahman) being beyond caste, creed, or social status.

Shankara emphasized the idea of spiritual liberation (moksha) as the ultimate goal of human life, and he taught that this liberation was accessible to all individuals regardless of their caste or social background. His philosophy emphasized the unity of all existence and the idea that the true nature of the self (Atman) is identical to the ultimate reality (Brahman), transcending any distinctions based on caste or social status.

While Shankara himself did not openly challenge the caste system, his teachings of Advaita Vedanta have been interpreted by some scholars and followers as implicitly critiquing the caste system by emphasizing the fundamental equality of all beings in the eyes of Brahman. Additionally, Shankara's emphasis on spiritual realization as the highest goal may have indirectly undermined the hierarchical social structures inherent in the caste system. However, it's essential to note that interpretations of Shankara's views on the caste system may vary among scholars and followers of Advaita Vedanta.

Was Buddha born in a Brahmin family? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-27) (negativity vs vitality)

No, Buddha (also known as Siddhartha Gautama) was not born into a Brahmin family. He was born into the Shakya clan, which was part of the Kshatriya (warrior) caste in ancient India. His father, King Suddhodana, was the ruler of the Shakya clan, and his mother was Queen Mahamaya. However, it's important to note that Buddha later renounced his royal status and pursued a life of asceticism before eventually attaining enlightenment and founding Buddhism.

意思是說,我很高興,他不是出身婆羅門 (有趣的是,Adi Shankara 出身婆羅門,Q: 不二論對于種姓制度,持何觀點?),意思是說,你要注意,這些印度大哲,出身于哪一個種姓階層,比如說,包子出身紅二代,比照小李「他媽媽媽的」飛刀,決定了他只可能是個「他媽媽媽的」混蛋,

Stuart Elden

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/elden/

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Stuart-Elden/author/B001IU2SPQ?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The Art of Being Posthuman: Who Are We in the 21st Century? (Francesca Ferrando, 2024) (negativity vs vitality)

Now,這本書,書名應為,The Art of Revolting To Be Posthuman: Who Are We in the 21st Century?

作者說,Philosophical Posthumanism,涵三面向,Post-Humanism,Post-Anthropocentrism,Post-Dualism,我想知道,她怎麼處理 Post-Dualism,

Therefore, can we imagine that, Deleuze would appreciate the non-dualistic thinking of Advaita Vedanta? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-26) (negativity vs vitality)

It's plausible that Gilles Deleuze might find resonance with certain aspects of non-dualistic thinking found in Advaita Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy. Deleuze's philosophical project often involves challenging traditional dualistic frameworks and exploring alternative modes of thought that emphasize immanence, multiplicity, and interconnectedness.

Advaita Vedanta posits the idea of non-duality, asserting that there is ultimately no fundamental distinction between the self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). This perspective contrasts with dualistic views that posit a separation between subject and object, self and other, or various binary oppositions.

Deleuze's concept of the rhizome, which emphasizes connectivity, multiplicity, and the rejection of hierarchical structures, shares some similarities with the non-dualistic perspective of Advaita Vedanta. Both frameworks challenge the notion of fixed identities and boundaries, instead emphasizing the fluidity and interdependence of phenomena.

However, it's important to note that Deleuze's philosophy is deeply rooted in Western philosophical traditions, particularly post-structuralism and continental philosophy. While he might find affinity with certain aspects of non-dualistic thinking in Advaita Vedanta, he would likely engage with it critically and creatively within the context of his own philosophical framework.

Can we say that, the rhizome, proposed by Deleuze and Guattari, is their line of escape from the dualism? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-26) (negativity vs vitality)

Yes, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, in their philosophical work, particularly in "A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia," introduce the concept of the rhizome as a way to challenge traditional hierarchical and dualistic modes of thinking.

In their philosophy, the rhizome is contrasted with the arborescent structure, which represents hierarchical and centralized systems of organization. The rhizome, on the other hand, is a decentralized and non-hierarchical model, characterized by its multiplicity, connectivity, and lack of a singular point of origin or conclusion.

The concept of the rhizome serves as a metaphor for various aspects of reality that resist binary oppositions and linear categorizations. It emphasizes interconnectedness, fluidity, and the idea that meaning and organization emerge through networks of relationships rather than through fixed structures.

So, yes, it can be argued that the rhizome represents a line of escape from dualistic thinking by offering an alternative way of conceptualizing reality that is more fluid, complex, and open-ended.

Monday, March 25, 2024

六七識 (negativity vs vitality)

六識,意識也,七識,末那識也,六識起于前五識,感官接收,大量混雜訊息,久矣,亟須統整,以收攝之,遂成立新部門六識 (a la 東廠六扇門),謂之意識,意思是說,意識的誕生,來自「自由」接收,沒有揀擇過濾封鎖屏蔽的海量信息,以此而論,共匪搭建防火牆,欺瞞誤導洗腦,愚弄人民,中國人遂無「意識」可言,至於七識,來自六識發達,運作無礙後,在在須往上匯報,此新部門之領導 (a la 錦衣衛公公們),遂名為七識,末那識,亦稱作我,以此而論,既無六識,何來七識,中國人遂無「我」可言,

郭嵩燾(1818-1891)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E9%83%AD%E5%B5%A9%E7%84%98

https://youtu.be/eZdKlELsAfY?si=Od8mz5KDRAjwrhQF

郭嵩燾抵達英國倫敦後不久,於1877年10月16日應英國工廠主的邀請,訪問了在倫敦附近的電氣廠。在參觀過程中,英國工廠主特意請郭嵩燾參觀剛剛發明不久的電話。這是他首次,也是中國人第一次接觸到電話。電話安裝在相隔數十丈的上下樓內,郭嵩燾讓隨從張德彝到樓下去接聽,自己在樓上與其通話。郭問『聽聞乎?』張答到『聽聞。』郭又問『你知覺乎?』張應曰『知覺。』郭又說『請數數目字。』張依言而數曰『一、二、三、四、五、六、七。』郭又問『包子死乎?』張應曰『天快亮乎。』郭嵩燾在日記中寫道:「其語言多者亦多不能明,惟乎乎分明。」由此可見,這次通話的效果並不盡如人意。

Anand C. Paranjpe (negativity vs vitality)

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AAnand+C.+Paranjpe&s=relevancerank&language=zh_TW&text=Anand+C.+Paranjpe&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1


Anand C. Paranjpe obtained his PhD at Pune University and conducted post-doctoral research at Harvard University under a Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grant. In 1967 he started teaching at Simon Fraser University in Canada, where he is currently Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Humanities. He is Fellow of Canadian Psychological Association and of the National Academy of Psychology (India).

His major publications include Theoretical psychology: The meeting of East and West (1984) and Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought (Plenum, 1998). He co-edited with Professors K.R. Rao and Ajit Dalal the Handbook of Indian Psychology (2008). His more recent publication is a book titled Psychology in the Indian tradition (2016; 2017) which he co-authored with Prof. K. Ramkrishna Rao as its first author. He was invited by the Indian Council of Philosophical Research as National Visiting Professor in 2010-2011 and was recognized as Distinguished Psychologist by the National Academy of Psychology (India) in 2021.


Yoga and Psychoanalysis: Perspectives on the Psychology of Regression (2022)


Patanjali


may have lived between the 2nd century BCE and the 4th century CE
He is believed to be an author and compiler of a number of Sanskrit works.[1] The greatest of these are the Yoga Sutras, a classical yoga text

Yoga, as Patanjali famously defines it, is the “restriction of the fluctuations of consciousness.” The practice begins by sitting and calming the fluctuations of the body, breath, and senses, and then the more elusive whirlings of consciousness

Koneru Ramakrishna Rao (1932-2021) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koneru_Ramakrishna_Rao

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-09634-013



Bhagavad Gita (薄伽梵歌)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%96%84%E4%BC%BD%E6%A2%B5%E6%AD%8C

被視為奧義書之一,七百句,十八章。

薄伽梵歌描述了阿周那與黑天之間在俱盧之野戰爭前,在戰場上的對話。當時的阿周那看見許多親戚朋友都在敵對陣營,感到難過而困惑,因此向正在充當他馬車夫的黑天尋求指導。黑天對阿周那的勸導,採用了許多印度教基本的宗教信念與概念,而且他也向阿周那展現他與宇宙為一體的神身,最終成功說服阿周那參戰。

章節概述

《薄伽梵歌》總共由18章組成:

  1. 阿周那要求黑天將戰車停在兩軍之間。當阿周那看到親友在敵軍中,便失去了勇氣而決定不再戰鬥。
  2. 黑天告訴阿周那,唯有肉體才會死亡,永恆的自身則是不朽;身為一個戰士,應依法擔起戰爭應負的責任。
  3. 阿周那問,既然知識比行動來得重要,那為何他要參與戰鬥。黑天強調依法執行責任的重要性;但是不可執著於其結果,才是正確的行動準則。
  4. 黑天向阿周那揭示,祂已經活了好幾世,一直教授著瑜伽,保護虔誠的人,懲罰為惡之人;提示行動或不行動的準則,並告訴阿周那追隨靈性導師教導的必要性。
  5. 阿周那問,到底是行動好還是不行動好。黑天回答,棄絕行動和以奉獻精神行動一樣能得到解脫,但後者會更容易達到解脫的目的。所謂以奉獻精神行動,即是不執著於行動的結果,不為感官與外物接觸的快樂或悲傷所惑,譬如蓮花之出污泥而不染,只為求自身的清淨而行動。
  6. 黑天描述冥想的正確姿勢以及達到三摩地(禪定)的過程。
  7. 黑天教授知識的道路。
  8. 黑天定義梵(Brahman)、最高靈性(adhyātma)、業(karma)、梵我(ātma)、最高存在(adhibhūta)和最高神靈(adhidaiva)等術語的涵義,並且解釋如何在死亡時憶念祂以獲得進入永恆無上的住所的資格。
  9. 黑天解釋何謂萬有內在神論(Panentheism),「一切皆在我之中」,以此方式在任何情況下都憶念著祂。
  10. 黑天描述何以祂是一切物質及精神世界的源頭。阿周那接受黑天是至高無上的存在,因為過去的聖者亦曾如是說過。
  11. 在阿周那的要求下,黑天向阿周那展現了宇宙的形體--一個「神的示現」,面對各個方向,放射光芒如千萬個太陽,並包含了各種生物及物質。
  12. 黑天描述奉愛瑜伽(Path of Devotion/Bhakti Yoga)之途。
  13. 黑天描述自性、神我和意識。
  14. 黑天描述自然物質的三屬性:憂、暗和善。
  15. 黑天描述一棵象徵性的樹木,根在上葉在下,代表物質的存在。此樹必須以利斧砍斷,如此對於感官的繫著才能切斷,而達到無上的住所。
  16. 黑天說明神聖及邪惡兩本性;要達到最高的目的,吾人必須放棄「慾望」、「嫉憤」及「貪婪」。藉由覺悟及經典的訓示來辨別正確和錯誤的行動並奉行不悖。
  17. 黑天說明無論人的信仰、思想、行為,甚至吃東西的習性等等,都與物質三屬性相關。
  18. 最後,黑天要求阿周那放棄其他的信仰,只皈依黑天,他形容這是人生最究竟的完美。


Does Advaita Vedanta have anything to do with Quantum Physics? (ChatGPT, 2024-3-25) (negativity vs vitality)

Advaita Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy, and quantum physics, a branch of modern physics, are two distinct fields of study. While they both explore fundamental aspects of reality, they do so from different perspectives and methodologies.

Advaita Vedanta focuses on the nature of reality, consciousness, and the self. It posits that ultimate reality is non-dual (advaita), meaning there is only one ultimate reality, often referred to as Brahman, and individual identities are illusory. This philosophy is deeply rooted in ancient Indian texts such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

Quantum physics, on the other hand, is a scientific discipline that studies the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales, such as atoms and subatomic particles. It deals with phenomena like wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement.

While there have been attempts by some individuals to draw connections between Advaita Vedanta and certain interpretations of quantum physics, such as the idea that consciousness plays a fundamental role in reality or the notion of interconnectedness, these connections are often speculative and controversial within both the philosophical and scientific communities.

It's important to recognize that Advaita Vedanta and quantum physics operate within different frameworks and methodologies. While they may offer insights into fundamental aspects of reality, they are distinct fields that should be approached and understood on their own terms.

Ramesh S. Balsekar (1917-2009) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balsekar

disciple and principle translator of Nisargadatta Maharaj

Sunday, March 24, 2024

Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj

1130330 (存在治療)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jPW553CoGZch3XbMNePpva0kM6ExaVVS?usp=sharing

我今天下午要去高雄 (存在治療) (1130330)(1130803)

我曾說過,當一個人,能夠說出,我今天下午要去高雄,他就可以,離開治療室了,

意思是說,原本他,說不出,這個完整的,有主詞動詞受詞時間的,句子,

Now,有趣的是,其實我們不知道,他也未必知道,他今天下午,為什麼要去高雄,

他要怎麼去,他的行程如何,他會回來嗎,他回得來嗎,他不回來,或回不來的話,他會住在高雄嗎,還是會去別的地方,比如說,阿根廷,

以上說明,心理治療,非究竟,也不應究竟,意思是說,治療者不應知道這麼多,也不應管這麼多,別人怎麼過,屬於他自己的人生,

Now,我們終於理解,這句話,我今天下午要去高雄,只是一齣戲的開場白,

這齣戲,如果是存在治療,

存有分析會說,我今天下午要去高雄,這件事掀開了,我的存有的遮掩,

意義治療會說,我今天下午要去高雄,這件事對于我,生死存亡攸關,有生命不可承受之輕的莫大(于此)的形上學的意義,

英國存在治療學派會說, 我今天下午要去高雄,對這個旅途,前前後後,作細密濃厚的現象學的考察,

美國人本經驗學派會說,我今天下午要去高雄,這件事是我的自我實現,

(南京直面學派會說,「我今天下午要去北京」,因為共匪暴政,「忍無可忍,兀須再忍」,我要傚四通橋彭立發,揭竿吶喊,起義滅共),

台灣直面學派會說,1979年12月10日,那 152 人說,「我今天下午要去高雄」,因為國民黨白色恐佈,「忍無可忍,兀須再忍」,

至此,你終於理解,意義學派,直面學派,沒有打算,從高雄活著回來,

意思是說,這兩者,是流血的,是要命的,

意思是說,這兩者,方足以回到歷史,與批判的心理治療,與後結構主義的心理治療,遂為精神上的好兄弟,

Cf. 

1月8日,施明德於台北市落網。隔天,警備總部公佈「美麗島事件」涉案人數共計152人。

警總嚴刑逼供

肉體虐待

下列為美麗島事件的被告在台北地方法院公開調查庭上說出被刑求的經過,綜合當年報章記載,如下:

  • 紀萬生:疲勞審訊、拳打腳踢、香菸燒臉、鼻孔灌辣椒水、嘴塞桌球、被猛擊腹部導致腎臟和脊椎受傷、以東西砸之,導致左耳被打聾。[11]
  • 周平德:大力掌嘴、毆打胸部與頭部逾19小時、罰跪、剝奪睡眠五天沒有睡覺。
  • 邱茂男:十幾天疲勞審訊、剝奪睡眠,五天沒睡,以後常三、四天沒睡。
  • 范政祐:剝奪睡眠、毆打、罰跪、拔鬍子。
  • 王拓:剝奪睡眠,七天只睡一小時、時常被打耳光。
  • 吳振明:被打到口吐鮮血、下體受傷,以原子筆試圖自殺而未遂。
  • 吳文賢:戴腳鐐、吃鹽水飯一星期。
  • 許天賢:戴腳鐐、吃鹽水飯。
  • 戴振耀:戴腳鐐、吃鹽水飯、被施打自來水針。
  • 蔡有全:被毆打至呼吸困難、下腹受傷、拉頭撞牆、半蹲。
  • 余阿興:吃鹽水飯、半夜只穿內褲受凍偵訊。
  • 許淇潭:雙手擧起罰站、毆打、腳踢。
  • 蔡精文:用皮鞭抽打、被威脅要被吊起打聾、吃鹽水飯二十天。
  • 邱垂貞:椅子上連續坐十天、剝奪睡眠四天、遭拳打腳踢至胃出血。
  • 蘇振祥:毆打、以香菸燻眼、強迫做俯臥撐。
  • 陳福來:遭六、七人毒打、被電棍毒打。
  • 劉華明:吃鹽水飯、踢打成傷。[9][12]

語言威脅

下列是警總人員曾對被告人講過的威脅話語:

  • 「在這裏邊,要鬥智、鬥力,你都不行!」
  • 「如果你不說,拿出證據來,每一樣都讓幾個人把你痛打幾頓,打死了,就說你是畏罪自殺!」
  • 「不說,就把你的牙齒都拔掉!」
  • 「如果不合作,就把你打成共產黨!」
  • 「人總是人;識時務者爲俊傑,你的身體受不了那些的!」[12]

心理戰術

  • 警總常常會先對被告人下死刑,接著又稱只要願意合作,坦白犯罪動機和證據,就不會讓被告死掉。被告人爲了保住生機,通常都會妥協,是爲「置之死地而後生」戰術。
  • 對被告人挑撥離間:警總先從一個被告人「甲」搜集證據、線索,接著對另一個被告人「乙」聲稱「甲」已將「乙」出賣。當「乙」因被出賣而感到絕望時,便會大膽講出更多證據予警總人員。如此往復,全部的被告人都會在「出賣」與「被出賣」之間將證據全部供出,離間計謀即告得逞。
  • 以其他被告人作威脅:例如,紀萬生指警總欺騙其稱其妻子被捕,女兒失蹤;只要願意「合作」,就會釋放其妻,尋回其女。此外,又如邱垂貞指警總曾告訴他呂秀蓮已被判處死刑,多說些呂的壞話不會對她有任何影響。翌日早上,邱聽見槍聲,使邱更加確信呂已被處死。[12]