https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E4%B8%AD%E8%A7%80%E5%AD%B8%E6%B4%BE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
中觀派（梵語：माध्यमक, mādhyamaka），是印度大乘佛教教內的兩大主要學派之一，由龍樹、聖天（又稱提婆）所奠基[1][2]，又稱作空宗、性空宗[3]、破相宗、勝義皆空宗，與瑜伽行唯識派（有宗、法相宗）並列為「空、有二宗」，或「性、相二宗」[4][註 1]。
當年熊十力，由唯識 （有宗）入佛學，非由中觀 （空宗）入，這個選擇，說明了什麼？
這個決定，說明了，歷史變局中人，無法空盡，
意思是說，無法 negativity，
遂只能，翕闢成變，
意思是說，只能 vitality，只能 affirmation，
這是 D&G (1980) 的說法，意思是說，東方的樹，實為根莖，西方的樹，則以高聳，迫人取勝，東方的樹，比如說菩提樹，不是強勢的系統，是對待眾生溫柔，涵融生命，化育萬物，形成完整的生態系統的樹，比如說廟口的大榕樹，比如說陪伴 Walter Benjamin 長眠 Portbou 的那三棵橄欖樹，
這件事，等同場有理論的倫理學，意思是說，等同怎麼過完每一天的倫理學，與得道高僧的差別是，你我沒有辦法，這麼安心，這麼智慧，這麼慈悲，只能在愚蠢衝動，跌跌撞撞中，極其罕見，做對幾件事，更常見的是，過猶不及，悔過懊憾，
https://www.amazon.com/Deleuze-Buddhism-Tony-See/dp/1137567058
This book explores the resonances between Deleuze’s philosophy and a range of philosophical concepts in Buddhism. Focusing on this rarely examined relationship, this book gathers perspectives from scholars around the globe to explore the continuities and discontinuities between Deleuze’s and Buddhist thought. They examine immanence, intensity, assemblages and desire, and the concepts of ethics and meditation. This volume will prove to be an important resource for readers and scholars interested in philosophy, critical theory and comparative studies. They will find this an engaging and invaluable examination of two different yet similar modes of thought.
See also
你要理解，你要珍惜，人性黝暗的角落，不要自以為是的驚動它，你要讓它安靜的躺在那裡，不要以心理治療者自居，強作解人，也不要像共匪一樣，無死角全覆蓋，監控著它，你要理解，它是黑夜的罌粟花，意思是說，最黑暗的地方，才能長出最莊嚴的花，用德勒茲的話來說，就是你要尊敬症狀學，以上所說，不符合正常的心理治療思惟，也不符合極權專制管理畜牲的方法，意思是說，你不該信正常的心理治療，正如你不該信共匪，因為這兩者，都剝奪了你我的黑夜，
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%98%8A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
照見五蘊皆空
Skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi) means "heaps, aggregates, collections, groupings".[1] In Buddhism, it refers to the five aggregates of clinging(Pañcupādānakkhandhā), the five material and mental factors that take part in the rise of craving and clinging.
几个难题，一点思考：
1.如何在统一思想的情况下解放思想？
2.如何在不增加居民收入，提升整体福利的情况下促进消费和内需？
3.如何在房价下跌，地卖不出去的情况下保持地方财政平衡？
4.如何在保持当前外交路线的情况下促进外贸，防止资本外流？
5.如何在保持经济增速，稳定汇率的情况下稳定住地方债和城投债规模？
6.如何在政策多变的情况下提升企业家的信心？
7.如何在体制内降薪的同时保持基层公务员的积极性？
8.如何在高房价，高生活成本的情况下提升整体生育率？
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpola_Rahula_Thero
https://www.walpolarahula.institute/rahula-thero/
Bibliography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Westerhoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kalupahana
這是移動，不是流動，你要理解，流動不可奢求，意思是說，移動久了，某個「非刻意的」瞬間，你可能來到流動，但是，如果沒有發生，也沒有關係，移動是「有理由的」，通常是在兩個點之間往返，所以這不是漫遊 （flaneur），這是討生活，沒有那麼悠閒，意思是說，生活的本質，就是移動，
https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-indian-philosophies/1%20Bibliography/ (Vol 1-10)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy#References
CONTENTS:-
Vol.1: Bibliography (2 Parts).
Vol.2: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika before Gangesa.
Vol.3: Advaita Vedanta, Part I.
Vol.4: Samkhya Philosophy: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy.
Vol.5: The Philosophy of Grammarians.
Vol.6: Indian Philosophical Analysis Nyaya-Vaisesika from Gangesa to Raghunatha Siromani.
Vol.7: Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D.
Vol.8: Buddhist Philosophy from 100 to 350 A.D.
Vol.9: Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D.
Vol.10: Jain Philosophy (Part I).
Vol.11: Advaita Vedanta from 800 to 1200.
Vol.12: Yoga: India's Philosophy of Meditation.
Vol.13: Nyaya-Vaisesika Philosophy from 1515 to 1660.
Vol.14: Jain Philosophy (Part II).
Vol.15: Bhedabheda and Dvaitadvaita Systems.
Vol.16: Philosophy of Purva-Mimamsa.
Vol.17: Jain Philosophy (Part III).
Vol.18: Dvaita Vedanta Philosophy.
Vol.19: Acintyabhedhabheda Vaisnava Philosophy
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_M%C3%B6rchen
https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/19524
This dissertation explores Theodor Adorno’s career-long critique of Martin Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology toward understanding how the latter may be inherently supportive of a negative dialectical approach to social critique and change. Adorno’s negative dialectics is motivated by the assumption that ethical rationality is primordially rooted in non-identity thinking, and it proposes that three basic conditions must be met for non-identity thinking to be truly engaged: the subject must acknowledge that the object takes socio-epistemic priority in constructions of meaning; she must attend to the object’s particular qualities that resist circumscription by the totalizing concepts of modern autonomous reason; and she must resolve to relate to the object through a “mimetic” form of rationality, which is passively attuned to the playful and unfinished elements of experience as much as it is inclined to critically interpret the particular socio-material conditions that shape consciousness and its environments. Without meeting these conditions, rationality tacitly sanctions subjects to reify experience as it takes an idealist form. While emphasizing that the problem of reification is endemic to public life at large, Adorno foregrounds its correlation with the persistence of philosophical idealism within the academy, leading him to target the phenomenological and existential traditions in general, and Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology in particular, as inherently antagonistic to what he deems is philosophy’s central mission of normalizing non-identity thinking in both theory and praxis. Fundamental Ontology, he alleges, celebrates identity thinking, thus betraying its own endeavor to overturn traditional philosophical principles. Adorno locates the repercussions of this purported failure not only within theoretical understandings of how rationality and meaning are constituted, but within mundane forms of intersubjective relations that determine the ethics, discourse, and well-being of social collectives. He charges Fundamental Ontology with promoting an ethos in which subjects contribute to their own deprivations of the social conditions that, toward garnering robust understanding of how objectivity restrictively mediates subjectivity, would encourage recognition of new possibilities for subjectively mediating social conditions by amplifying individual and collective agency for de-normalizing identity thinking. This is largely because Adorno deems Heidegger’s concept of “authenticity” - an existential modality designated by recursive engagement in practices of disillusionment and self-actualization - to contradict itself by reaffirming atomization, alienation, and reification as social norms. Given that the majority of Adorno’s objections to Fundamental Ontology are briefed by his broader belief that it eschews non-identity thinking, the central task of this dissertation is to search for exceptions, that is, to ask after the plausibility of interpreting essential components of the Ontology so that non-identity not only “appears,” but assumes a critical position. This foremost involves examining the meaning of Being as a lived hermeneutic, the role of existential analysis for rediscovering what I call “authentic non-identity thinking” and its vitality to immanent social critique, and the possibility that a template for ethical relations inheres in or can be extrapolated from the Ontology. While the focus of the dissertation remains with Adorno and Heidegger, this is also to advance a more extensive understanding of the complex relationship between the First Generation Critical Theory and Existential Phenomenological traditions, including how they may be mutually supportive as they aim to negate ideology in both the academy and broader public life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
Johann Kaspar Schmidt (25 October 1806 – 26 June 1856), known professionally as Max Stirner, was a German post-Hegelian philosopher, dealing mainly with the Hegelian notion of social alienation and self-consciousness.[3] Stirner is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernismand individualist anarchism.[4][5]
In his book Specters of Marx, influential French poststructuralist thinker Jacques Derrida dealt with Stirner and his relationship with Marx while also analysing Stirner's concept of "specters" or "spooks".[73] Gilles Deleuze, another key thinker associated with post-structuralism, mentions Stirner briefly in his book The Logic of Sense.[74] Saul Newman calls Stirner a proto-poststructuralist who on the one hand had essentially anticipated modern post-structuralists such as Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze and Derrida, but on the other had already transcended them, thus providing what they were unable to—i.e. a ground for a non-essentialist critique of present liberal capitalist society. This is particularly evident in Stirner's identification of the self with a "creative nothing", a thing that cannot be bound by ideology, inaccessible to representation in language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel_bibliography
English translations of all three parts are available from Oxford University Press (Part One: Hegel's Logic, 1975; Part Two: Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, 2004; Part Three: Hegel's Philosophy of Mind, 1970), with each part bound as a separate book.
An English translation of the first part is also available from Cambridge University Press: Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline, Part I: Science of Logic, translated by Klaus Brinkmann, Daniel O. Dahlstrom (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
才是 affirmation ，意思是說，affirmation 是，歷經 negativity，仍願 vitality，意思是說，那個肯定，已經，途經否定的礫煉，
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus
https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail/10158383-202209-202209020007-202209020007-109-125
an innate inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself.
conatus 就是自我保存 （self preservation）；negativity 就是自我顛覆，自我否定，
Thus it seems that Hegel’s reading of Spinoza presents us with two emphatic alternatives: either Spinozism or loss of any philosophical standpoint worthy of this name—it is only through Spinozism that the substance and the absolute can be taken seriously; but then this leads to another emphatic choice: either the Spinozist substance that cannot embrace negativity, a substance that is not and cannot become a subject, or the proposition that “substance is subject.” Either conatus or self-othering.
Mladen Dolar (2017) Foreword: Hegel or Spinoza? Yes, Please! In HEGEL AND SPINOZA: Substance and Negativity, by Gregor Moder, Northwestern University Press, 2017, p. x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Mills_(psychologist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_psychology
https://youtu.be/JfYcI_sCOZM?si=dNpVFmJckLBM3flB
Psyche, Culture, World: Excursions in Existentialism and Psychoanalytic Philosophy (2023)
In his books, The Unconscious Abyss and Origins, Mills develops a psychoanalytic metaphysics called “dialectical psychoanalysis” or “process psychology” based on neo-Hegelian principles, which places the unconscious at the heart of all psychic activity.[11] He argues that the mind is ontologically constituted through unconscious genesis, and that subjectivity is conditioned a priori by unconscious agency, which is responsible for all forms of mental life to transpire,[22] including higher modes of consciousness, contrary to contemporary views in the philosophy of mind that place causal primacy on consciousness.[23] Rather than demote the mind to biological reductionism, unconscious processes are conceived as a series of psychic spacings that instantiate themselves through a multitude of schemata, which are the building blocks of psychic reality.[10] He makes the controversial claim that unconscious semiotics condition and underlie the structure and function of language, subjectivity, and social dynamics.[24]
https://www.shishengru.com/tip-tc/1389.html
意思是說，Julie Reshe (2023) 是斷滅空，所以那本書，缺最後ㄧ章，因為無法下筆，意思是說，生命是悲劇，這件事大家都知道，但是，喜劇比悲劇深刻，這件事很少人知道，意思是說，徒說否定 （negativity）者，不要忘了，調侃鏡中自己，過度嚴肅的表情，
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_positivity
https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/toxic-positivity/
當然，能夠保持正向很重要，但是當這個社會太強調「正向思考」時，反而讓許多人不敢表達內心的痛苦與掙扎──就像包子一樣，認為有負面情緒或想法很羞愧、很自責，這樣的正向思考就可能成為「毒性正能量」(Toxic Positivity)。
意思是說，「這邊風景獨好」，就是毒性正能量，
https://bibleplan.github.io/sharing/zhuolin/2018-11-16-sharing.html
work of faith，labor of love， endurance of hope （in Jesus）—— 因信心所做的工夫，因愛心所受的勞苦，因盼望（主耶穌）所存的忍耐。
其中，最有問題的是「望」，意思是說，hope 這個字，比如說，希望，期望，盼望，渴望，望著遠方，望著那棵樹，望著那面牆，望著那隻蟑螂，望著那隻烏蠅，望著趙家人脫褲，望著王毅王小洪說英文，望著包子說這邊風景獨好，你要理解，望是視覺經驗，眼耳鼻舌身意，望需要主詞，誰在望，望需要受詞，望什麼，望需要時間，望到什麼時候，望需要結果，最後望到什麼，偷窺偷拍是望，開門見山，望著藍天白雲，也是望，意思是說，當我說，我希望 （hope)，人類的覺悟和謙卑，還來得及，正確的說，應該是，我希望，我還可以，沒有失去希望，
This book is a negative alternative to the positive orientation of popular psychology and current therapeutic culture. Unlike them, it is not striving to save anyone or improve anything. It is aimed at those to whom the positive approach feels dishonest and irrelevant. It offers in three main chapters a ‘depressive realist’ perspective that explores the structural role of death, negativity, and tragedy in relation to the individual psyche, society, and nature. It explores the possibility of negative psychoanalysis, which would embrace the disaster of human existence instead of adopting positive escapist positions.
This book is not recommended to anyone who hasn’t lost hope.
意思是說，每個人，沒有例外 （意思是說，治療者亦然），跟其自己的症狀的關係，查明這件事的真相，就是心理治療，喜歡講的 will to truth，學習跟自己的症狀，一起倖存 （人在劍在，劍亡人亡），就是心理治療，喜歡講的 will to heal，硬要尋找，自己的症狀底下，隱藏的幽微訊息，就是心理治療，喜歡講的 will to meaning，如果不巧讀了尼采，就是尼采，喜歡講的 will to power，簡單講，症狀住在 （dwell) 你我的基因骨肉皮毛細胞臟腑神經迴路，你的症狀就是你，我的症狀就是我，去除症狀，你我就不存在，一般精神醫療，欲去症狀而后快，病人遂不得存在，喪屍遂橫行世間，德勒茲強調「症狀學的優先性」（priority of symptomatology)，意思是說，優先於病因學治療學，意思是說，九叔專治殭屍，德勒茲則是法式另類九叔，專治喪屍，你要理解，林鄭家超之前香港，有殭屍無喪屍，今則相反，有喪屍無殭屍，意思是說，心理治療治的是喪屍，義在把症狀，物歸原主，讓他重見天日，好好做人，九叔治的是殭屍，義在把那口憋了千百年的鳥氣，收進甕裡，入土為安，意思是說，德勒茲和心理治療，治的是行走當代喪屍，九叔治的是中國歷史殭屍，比如說，毛臘肉就是殭屍，
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonso_Lingis
https://web.archive.org/web/20110107040650/http://alphonsolingis.com/
Lingis is also known as a photographer,[1] and he complements the philosophical themes of many of his books with his own photography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Hannah_Arendt
正能量，其實非正能量，只是企圖遮掩負能量的真相的謊言，負能量，其實非負能量，只是企圖揭發正能量的謊言的憤慨，意思是說，負能量否定的，只是正能量宣稱的正，負能量本身，無法肯定 (affirm) 生命，依上述，正能量和負能量，與否定 (negation，negativity) 皆無關，後者無關的原因是，此負非主動 (active) 的負，只是被動(reactive) 的負，意思是說，否定必須是主動的，無待乎肯定，反之亦然，肯定必須是主動的，無待乎否定，意思是說，否定的否定，之所以可貴，就在于它「主動了兩次」，你要理解，主動何其困難，能夠困難兩次，自然非同小可，意思是說，「否定的否定」(negation of negation)，以至于，「肯定生命」 (affirmation of life)，「生大于死」 (vitality > negativity，after all)，就是天崩地裂，宇宙生成，大地回春，生機盎然，果真非同小可，意思是說，創世紀，起因是，天地「主動了兩次」，藝術創作，起因是，創作者「主動了兩次」，
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno_bibliography