Thursday, September 5, 2024

Monism (一元論)

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



Monism and dualism contain each other





Which is more primary, monism or dualism? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-5)

The question of whether monism or dualism is more primary has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries, and the answer depends on the perspective and framework one adopts.

### **Monism:**
Monism is the view that reality is fundamentally one, either in substance or principle. In metaphysics, it is often associated with the idea that all things can be reduced to a single underlying reality or substance. Spinoza's pantheism and certain interpretations of Eastern philosophies, such as Advaita Vedanta, are examples of monism. In such frameworks, diversity and multiplicity are seen as illusory or as manifestations of a singular, unified source.

From the monist perspective, dualism could be considered a secondary or derivative way of understanding the world because the appearance of dualities (e.g., mind and body, subject and object) arises from a fundamental unity. In this view, dualism represents a limited or incomplete understanding of reality, which can only be fully grasped when one recognizes the underlying oneness.

### **Dualism:**
Dualism, on the other hand, holds that there are two distinct and irreducible principles or substances, such as mind and matter, or good and evil. Descartes' mind-body dualism is a well-known example, where the mental and the physical are fundamentally different types of substances.

A dualist might argue that dualism is more primary because it reflects the fundamental structures of human experience. We experience the world through contrast—subject vs. object, self vs. other, and so on. Dualism, in this sense, reflects the way we naturally divide and categorize reality. For a dualist, monism might seem overly reductive, ignoring the fundamental divisions that structure experience and understanding.

### **Primacy and Context:**
The question of primacy can also depend on the context in which one is asking it:
- **Ontological Primacy**: If one is asking about the nature of ultimate reality, monism might be more primary, as it seeks to explain diversity and duality as expressions of a deeper unity.
- **Epistemological or Experiential Primacy**: If the question is about how humans first experience or understand reality, dualism might seem more primary, as our consciousness often operates through distinctions.

### **Synthesis:**
Some thinkers, such as Hegel, propose that the dualistic oppositions in reality are reconciled through a dialectical process, leading to a higher unity. This would suggest that both monism and dualism are essential to the unfolding of reality, where dualism may be a necessary stage in the realization of a monistic unity.

Ultimately, neither monism nor dualism may be considered "more primary" in an absolute sense. Each framework offers a different lens through which to understand reality, and the question of primacy might depend on one's philosophical assumptions or goals.


Can we say that Daoism is primarily monism? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-5)


Yes, Daoism can be considered primarily monistic, though it presents a unique kind of monism that embraces the dynamic interplay of opposites rather than reducing everything to a single static principle.

### **The Dao as Monistic:**
In Daoism, the fundamental principle is the Dao (Tao), often translated as "The Way." The Dao is understood as the underlying source and force that pervades all things in the universe. It is the origin of all phenomena, the unity behind the multiplicity of forms and forces we observe. The Dao is not a distinct, separate entity but a holistic process or flow that transcends specific categorizations like "one" or "many." 

Laozi in the *Tao Te Ching* famously expresses this idea when he says:
> "The Dao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

This suggests that the Dao is beyond distinctions and dualities, embodying a form of monism where all things arise from and return to the same fundamental source.

### **Yin-Yang and the Unity of Opposites:**
While Daoism emphasizes the Dao as the underlying unity, it also recognizes the interplay of opposites, most famously represented by the concept of **Yin and Yang**. Yin and Yang are complementary forces that interact within the Dao, giving rise to the diversity and dynamism of the universe. Although these forces appear to be dualistic, they are not separate or in conflict in a strict sense; rather, they are aspects of a larger, unified process. 

Thus, Daoism embraces a **dynamic monism**, where opposites are interdependent and form a harmonious whole. The diversity and change we observe in the world, including dualities like light and dark, are seen as expressions of the Dao’s underlying unity.

### **Monism with a Fluid Unity:**
In contrast to a more static or absolute form of monism, Daoism’s view is fluid and process-oriented. The Dao is not a fixed substance but an ever-changing, self-generating principle. This view emphasizes the **oneness of process**, where the world is not divided into fundamentally separate entities but understood as interrelated, evolving aspects of the same underlying reality.

### **Comparison with Other Forms of Monism:**
- **Spinoza's monism**, for instance, sees the universe as a single substance with infinite attributes, of which we perceive mind and body. Similarly, the Dao can be seen as the single source of all attributes, but unlike Spinoza's rational and somewhat static monism, Daoism emphasizes continual change and transformation.
- **Advaita Vedanta**'s monism in Indian philosophy posits Brahman as the one reality behind the illusion of multiplicity (maya). Daoism also sees unity beneath apparent dualities but differs by emphasizing that the world of dualities and change is not an illusion but an essential expression of the Dao.

### **Conclusion:**
Yes, Daoism can be described as primarily monistic, but it is a **dynamic and relational monism**, where the play of opposites (Yin and Yang) is central to the process of the Dao. The multiplicity of forms and experiences in the world is not separate from the Dao but expressions of its unity, making Daoism a unique form of monism that emphasizes harmony and balance within the whole.

Throughout the history of philosophy, which philosophers were advocates of monism? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-6)

Throughout the history of philosophy, several significant thinkers have advocated for **monism**, the view that reality is fundamentally one. Here’s an overview of key philosophers associated with monism:

### 1. **Parmenides (c. 515 – c. 450 BCE)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Parmenides, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is often considered one of the earliest advocates of monism. In his poem *On Nature*, he argues that reality is unchanging, singular, and indivisible. He famously rejected the existence of change, multiplicity, and becoming as illusions of perception.
   - **Monistic View:** Parmenides believed that all of reality is a single, unchanging entity, which he called "the One." This being is eternal, unchanging, and complete, and anything that seems to change or differ is an illusion of human perception.

### 2. **Spinoza (1632 – 1677)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher, is one of the most well-known proponents of metaphysical monism. In his work *Ethics*, Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which he identifies as both God and Nature (Deus sive Natura).
   - **Monistic View:** Spinoza’s monism posits that everything that exists is a mode or attribute of a single substance. This substance is self-caused, infinite, and identical with the universe. He rejected Cartesian dualism, asserting that mind and body are two attributes of the same substance rather than two separate entities.

### 3. **Plotinus (204/5 – 270 CE)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, developed a metaphysical system that is often described as monistic. In his work *The Enneads*, he presents the concept of "the One" or "the Good" as the source of all reality.
   - **Monistic View:** For Plotinus, everything emanates from the One, and although we experience multiplicity and diversity in the world, this multiplicity is derived from the unity of the One. The One itself is beyond all categories and distinctions, and the apparent diversity of existence is a reflection of this unified source.

### 4. **Giordano Bruno (1548 – 1600)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Bruno was an Italian philosopher who advocated for a pantheistic form of monism. His view of the universe was deeply influenced by Neoplatonism and Spinozistic ideas, although he predated Spinoza.
   - **Monistic View:** Bruno argued that the universe is infinite and composed of a single substance, which is both God and Nature. In his cosmology, everything is connected, and the divine is immanent in all things, rather than transcendent.

### 5. **G.W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Hegel is often associated with a form of **dialectical monism**. In his works, such as *The Phenomenology of Spirit* and *The Science of Logic*, Hegel presents a system in which all oppositions and contradictions (such as subject and object, mind and matter) are ultimately reconciled in a higher unity, the Absolute.
   - **Monistic View:** Hegel’s monism is not static but dynamic. He argues that the Absolute, or ultimate reality, is a process of unfolding through dialectical movement. The contradictions and dualities we perceive are moments in the self-development of Spirit, which ultimately realizes itself as a unified whole.

### 6. **Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Schopenhauer, influenced by both Eastern philosophy and Kantian metaphysics, developed a form of **will-based monism**. In his major work *The World as Will and Representation*, he argues that the essence of reality is a single, blind, irrational force he calls "the Will."
   - **Monistic View:** Schopenhauer’s monism posits that the underlying reality of everything is the Will, which manifests itself in the physical world as objects and individuals. The multiplicity we experience is simply the manifestation of the Will through the framework of space, time, and causality.

### 7. **Henri Bergson (1859 – 1941)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Bergson, a French philosopher, developed a metaphysical system that emphasized **creative evolution** and **duration** as the fundamental aspects of reality. In works like *Creative Evolution* and *Matter and Memory*, Bergson proposes a type of **process monism**.
   - **Monistic View:** Bergson’s monism is centered on the idea that reality is a continuous flow or process of becoming. He distinguishes between two types of reality: the static, spatial world of objects (which he associates with matter) and the dynamic, temporal world of change and creativity (which he associates with life or "élan vital"). The latter, which represents the true nature of existence, is unified and indivisible.

### 8. **Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BCE)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Anaximander, another pre-Socratic philosopher, is often regarded as one of the first thinkers to propose a form of monism. He posited that the universe originated from an indefinite, boundless principle called the **Apeiron**.
   - **Monistic View:** Anaximander’s monism revolves around the concept of the Apeiron, a formless, infinite substance from which all things emerge and to which they eventually return. It is the ultimate source and unity behind the diversity of the natural world.

### 9. **Advaita Vedanta (Shankara, c. 700 CE)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Shankara, an Indian philosopher and the foremost exponent of **Advaita Vedanta**, proposed a non-dualistic (monistic) interpretation of the Upanishads. His philosophy remains one of the most influential forms of monism in Indian thought.
   - **Monistic View:** Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta asserts that the ultimate reality is **Brahman**, a singular, infinite, and unchanging reality. The apparent multiplicity of the world and the individual self (Atman) are seen as illusions (Maya). Ultimately, Brahman and Atman are identical, and realizing this unity is the goal of spiritual practice.

### 10. **Whitehead (1861 – 1947)**
   - **Philosophical Contribution:** Alfred North Whitehead developed a process-oriented metaphysics, known as **process philosophy**, which presents a version of **process monism**.
   - **Monistic View:** Whitehead’s philosophy holds that reality consists of a process of becoming rather than a static substance. The universe is one interconnected flow of events and experiences, which he termed "actual occasions." While he acknowledges the multiplicity of processes, they are unified within the larger context of reality as a whole.

### **Conclusion:**
Monism has been a recurring theme in the history of philosophy, taking various forms, from Parmenides' conception of the unchanging One to Spinoza’s pantheistic substance and Shankara’s identification of Brahman with ultimate reality. While each philosopher offers a different interpretation of what constitutes the "one" underlying reality, they all share a commitment to the idea that, despite the diversity we perceive, there is a deeper unity at the heart of existence.

What about Deleuze, is he one of the advocates of monism? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-6)

Yes, **Gilles Deleuze** is considered an advocate of a unique form of **monism**, though his approach is quite distinct from traditional monist views like those of Spinoza or Parmenides. Deleuze’s monism is rooted in **immanence**, **difference**, and **becoming**, and it is dynamic rather than static.

### **Deleuze’s Monism of Immanence:**
Deleuze's philosophical project emphasizes the **plane of immanence**, which he develops in works like *Difference and Repetition* and *A Thousand Plateaus* (co-authored with Félix Guattari). The plane of immanence is a field of pure potentiality and becoming, where everything exists within the same immanent plane of existence, without a transcendent realm or overarching organizing principle. This concept makes his philosophy fundamentally monistic in the sense that everything that exists does so within this singular, dynamic field.

- **Immanence vs. Transcendence:** Traditional monisms often suggest a unified, transcendent principle behind the multiplicity of the world, such as God, the One, or a foundational substance. Deleuze rejects this transcendent view in favor of a radically immanent reality. For him, there is no higher or separate reality—everything is immanent within the same field of becoming, and all multiplicities, differences, and singularities arise within this one immanent plane.

### **Difference and Multiplicity:**
Deleuze’s monism is centered around **difference** and **multiplicity**, rather than sameness or unity. He critiques classical metaphysics (which often treats difference as secondary to identity or unity) and proposes that difference is primary. The world is not composed of identical substances that appear different; instead, difference is the very essence of reality. 

- **Becoming and Change:** For Deleuze, reality is not a fixed or stable unity but a constant process of **becoming** and **flux**. His monism is dynamic, emphasizing the unfolding of differences, transformations, and creative processes. This view aligns him with **process philosophy** and offers a contrast to more static forms of monism that focus on a singular, unchanging substance.

### **Spinoza’s Influence:**
Deleuze is heavily influenced by **Spinoza**, whose monism posits that everything is a mode of one substance, which is both God and Nature. Deleuze admired Spinoza’s rejection of Cartesian dualism and his focus on immanence. In *Spinoza: Practical Philosophy*, Deleuze draws on Spinoza’s idea that everything is an expression of a single substance, yet Deleuze radicalizes this idea by emphasizing the importance of difference and transformation within the immanent field.

- **Multiplicity within Unity:** While Spinoza’s monism is sometimes interpreted as a unity that underlies multiplicity, Deleuze takes it further by suggesting that **multiplicity** itself is the primary reality. For Deleuze, there is no singular essence or unified identity behind things; instead, everything exists as part of a network of differences and relations within a singular plane of immanence.

### **Rhizomatic Monism:**
In *A Thousand Plateaus*, Deleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of the **rhizome** to describe their view of reality. The rhizome is a metaphor for a non-hierarchical, interconnected network without a central point or origin. Unlike a tree, which has a singular root (symbolizing hierarchical structure), a rhizome spreads in all directions, creating a decentralized multiplicity.

- **Non-hierarchical Monism:** Deleuze’s rhizomatic view represents a monism that is not about unity in the traditional sense but about a multiplicity that unfolds within the same immanent plane. Everything is interconnected in a horizontal network of becoming, where differences proliferate without any single, overarching principle organizing them.

### **Conclusion:**
Gilles Deleuze can certainly be considered an advocate of **monism**, but his monism is quite distinct from classical versions. It is a **monism of immanence**, where everything exists within the same dynamic field of becoming, difference, and multiplicity. Rather than seeing reality as unified in the sense of an unchanging substance or singular entity, Deleuze’s monism emphasizes that the **unfolding of differences and transformations** happens within a singular, interconnected plane. This makes his monism far more fluid and dynamic, grounded in process and creativity rather than static unity.



Duns Scotus (c. 1265/66 – 1308)

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

one of the four most important Christian philosopher-theologians of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages, together with Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and William of Ockham.[10]

The High Middle Ages, or High Medieval Period, was the period of European historythat lasted from AD 1000 to 1300. The High Middle Ageswere preceded by the Early Middle Ages and were followed by the Late Middle Ages, which ended around AD 1500 (by historiographicalconvention).[1]


An important question since the 1960s has revolved over whether Scotus's thought heralded a change in thinking on the nature of 'being,' a change which marked a shift from Aquinas and other previous thinkers; this question has been particularly significant in recent years because it has come to be seen as a debate over the origins of 'modernity.' This line of argument first emerged in the 1960s among popular French philosophers who, in passing, singled out Duns Scotus as the figure whose theory of univocal being changed an earlier approach which Aquinas had shared with his predecessors.[54] Then, in 1990, the historian of philosophy Jean-Francois Courtine argued that, between the time of Aquinas in the mid-thirteenth century and Francisco Suárez at the turn of the seventeenth, a fundamentally new approach to being was developed, with Scotus taking a major part in its development.[55] During the 1990s, various scholars extended this argument to locate Scotus as the first thinker who succumbed to what Heidegger termed 'onto-theology'.

福德身心診所

寄二信,往返于二點,守護于一點,既無所求,何來惶惶,中壢人睡眠,普遍還好,二十至四十,外遇不少見,職場壓力(包括霸凌)不少見,ACE 常見,常見一時之症,偶見慢性之疾,換句話說,平常百姓之浮世繪,意思是說,在此久矣,主客皆泯,遂入其繪,同浮于世,

Wednesday, September 4, 2024

The Routledge Wilfred R. Bion Studies Book Series (16 books)

https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Wilfred-R-Bion-Studies-Book-Series/book-series/RWBSBS?srsltid=AfmBOorSUApaG5U2J-n65X5at9GtmTneXZkUrrLb1rPkj3lvUtRP4Up0

柯文哲打台灣民主自由司法耳光

https://youtu.be/NnLdEMUTyLg?si=y0RR34hEOIi7Rh90



柯文哲知道很多事,他不知道的是,醫生無法讓人感動,詩人才能讓人感動,另,豬哥亮說過,青島小三,體格很好,甚至太好,意思是說,小三不宜青島,另,詩人惜墨如金,平均一生,傳世五字,比如說,朔風動秋草,你要理解,詩非完整的句子,意思是說,用不完整的句子,居然捕捉到,形下的猥瑣時空的某個不可置信的形上的可能性,你要理解,真正的存有哲學,就發生在那個倏忽即逝的瞬間,我先前反覆說過,那個瞬間,只可能是無意的無意,意思是說,一旦有意,不管是有意的有意,有意的無意,還是無意的有意,都只能墮回造作,日落高院裁示,發回地院重審,郭正亮蔡正元一口咬定,金流查不到,圖利太籠統,所以柯文哲可以回家數鈔票,不會有事,聽到這兩個如此精湛的見解,不正常的台灣人十分興奮鼓舞,大家決定,今天開始,圖利收賄,回家數鈔票, 意思是說,反正你查不到,

9/4/24 (星期三)

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Bion in the Consulting Room: An Implicit Method of Clinical Inquiry (2024)

https://www.karnacbooks.com/product/bion-in-the-consulting-room-an-implicit-method-of-clinical-inquiry/97513/

9/3/24(星期二)

還時空一個純粹空曠,應曉薇養了一匹千里馬,柯文哲說他(除了錢藏在哪裡)什麼都不 (想)知道,今日八月初一,三分髮,人文學存在的理由,是為了不辜負那個經驗,

Monday, September 2, 2024

9/2/24(星期一)

炎熱,起因永遠是,人的現象和經驗,「那個人,碰到了,發生了,做了,被做了,什麼事」,

Jonathan Haidt (b 1963)

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

Books

Negativity vs Vitality (1130831) (1130921) (123-12)

生命哲學的命題

圖示,

1. Five ages of the cosmos 

2. MCB

3. Evidence of first life in earth

4. 足跡

5. 蹲在河邊的人

6. 船子和尚

7. Warrior Bass

Sudhir Kakar (1938-2024)

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

The Indian Jungle: Psychoanalysis and Non-Western Civilizations (2024-9-24) (accessible via Everand)


The Analyst and the Mystic: Psychoaonalyitc Reflections on Religion and Mysticism (2007) (accessible via Internet Archive, 


Sunday, September 1, 2024

自由 (2025)

(一)

自由,是 2025 的題目,順 metaphysics / ethics / morality / aesthetics of van life 而言,

(二)

自由之例,船子和尚 (註一),


註一:德誠禪師參藥山禪師時,藥山禪師問:「汝名什麼?」德誠禪師答:「德誠。」藥山禪師再問:「德誠,又成得什麼?」德誠禪師言:「家園喪盡渾無路。」藥山禪師便喚:「德誠!」德誠禪師正擬開口,藥山禪師便以手掩其口。德誠禪師當下有省,便出聲回應。藥山禪師問:「子作什麼?」德誠禪師言:「陋質不堪紅粉施。」藥山禪師讚許云:「子以後上無片瓦,下無錐地,大闡吾宗。」

  此後,德誠禪師韜光養晦,隨侍藥山禪師經三十年,與道吾宗智禪師、雲巖曇晟禪師共契藥山禪師心印。藥山禪師圓寂後,三人共同商議,隱居於絕人煙處,避世養道。道吾禪師問:「適來所議,甚愜鄙懷,莫辜負先師否?」德誠禪師聽了,便向道吾、雲巖禪師說:「二位上座應各自弘化一方,建立藥山宗旨。我秉性放曠,喜好山水,暢情自得。日後若遇根器靈利之上座大德,堪雕琢者,可指引至我所居止之處,將傳授平生所得,以報先師之恩。」之後便到秀州華亭,泛舟擺渡,隨緣度日。

https://www.ctworld.org.tw/monthly/267/k01.htm

(三)

精神分析,結構主義,皆視自由,為不可能,

(四)

黑格爾說,中國四千年歷史,唯皇帝一人自由,餘皆奴隸,皆不自由,

(五)

台灣,一九八七,迄今卅七年,誰都有不鳥誰的自由,「但」誰都有捍衛,誰都可以不鳥誰的權利的責任;簡單講,我不鳥你,「但」你有責任捍衛,我有不鳥你的權利;你不鳥我,「但」我有責任捍衛,你有不鳥我的權利;

這就是自由的三「但」論,

(六)

自由的相對是,失去自由,

失去自由,方法有二,一是違反律法,二是背離天地,

前者屬法治秩序,後者屬良心道德,

前者交給傅柯阿圖塞處理,後者交給你我處理,

Power,Discipline and Punishment,ISA,Interpellation,講的是前者,

Crime and Punishment,講的是前者,也是後者,

海德格四界,天地人(眾生)神,講的是後者,

舉頭三尺有神明,人在作,天在看,因果報應,疏而不漏,講的是後者,

意思是說,論自由,需及政治體制,司法運作,亦需及哲學 (倫理學,道德哲學)神學,宗教信仰,

然後,在你我,平凡瑣碎,一生行徑,見証之,

(七)

至此,你可以理解,關于自由,問題性甚多,

(八)

合情合理合法,方謂自由,

意思是說,自由非和尚打傘,無法無天,非肆意橫行,為所欲為,

自由有其界線,

這個界線,說明自由,是有限的,

就像 van life,off grid,是有限的,

(九)

你要理解,佛陀說過,修行須在離村落,不遠不近處,意思是說,太遠無法化緣,太近聽到呻吟,

意思是說,修行者的自由,就在聽不清楚,又可依稀聽見,的宜修行區,

而且你要知道,戒律不只,為了定慧,戒律最基本的作用是,維護僧團,團體生活,不致捲堂大散,

(十)

意思是說,論自由,須處理系統與人的關係,

生逢惡世,必須反抗 (rebel),卡繆說過,反抗非革命 (revolution),革命只可能,製造新階級,取代舊階級,背叛革命初衷,

Guattari 講的分子革命,是否能逃此宿命,很有疑問,

真正的革命,是所作已辦為而不有的那種,但是人類邪惡愚蠢歷史迄今,尚未發生過如此美妙的革命,

(十一)

剛從大江回來,至此,你可以理解,我對自由,看法十分幼稚,

論自由,須論慾望 (desire),拉岡說,你要對自己的慾望誠實,拉岡沒有說,你對自己的慾望誠實的後果,誰來承擔,

(十二)

論自由,須論何以,人甘願失去自由,甘願為奴,然後掰一堆說詞 (比如說,活著,活下去,退一步海闊天空,忍一時風平浪靜,獨裁者不是故意殘暴,只是被他周圍的小人蒙蔽),自欺欺人,

意思是說,論自由,須為人的奴性辯解,

(十三)

5:51 AM,9/2/24,一般說法,苦集滅道,苦集不自由,滅道自由,但是這種自由,太置身事外了,有沒有可能,苦集是必然,滅道只是回應這個必然的可能性之一,意思是說,我沒有聽說,薛西弗斯(在靜坐中)涅槃,但是我聽說,薛西弗斯(在汗水中)自由,

所以,尼采講的,命運之愛,就是愛你的苦集,尼采講的,永恆回歸,就是在擁抱苦集中,終致自由,

(十四)

以前我說,處理好關係,煩惱就會少很多,

但是我可沒說,處理好關係,你就自由,

意思是說,自由顯然與煩不煩腦無關,

當然,煩惱的時候,你渾身不舒服,談不上自由,

但是,不煩腦的時候,你遲早會無聊 (癢)到,自尋煩惱,來證明自己還活著,

意思是說,論自由,須處理無聊 (boredom),

不自由,兀寧死,

但是若無聊,則兀寧失去自由,

意思是說,無聊比不自由,更難忍受,

這是為什麼,娛樂(entertainment) 這麼重要,

娛樂,就是讓你寧可不自由,也要逃避無聊,

所以,論自由,必須處理成癮(addiction),

意思是說,人無症狀不立,我尊重你的癮,但你要知道,你的癮讓你不自由,讓你寧可不自由,也要癮到燈枯油盡,

(十五)

自由就是,沒有密密麻麻的行程,佔滿時間,沒有非必要的雜物,佔滿空間,

自由就是,空,時間的空,空間的空,

自由就是簡單 (simplicity),

自由就是極簡,

自由就是寡欲,多巴胺系統沒有被(慾望)劫持,

自由就是,無欲則剛,

自由就是,移動的自由,遷徙的自由,言論的自由,掛壁躺平的自由,不願被迫指鹿為馬的自由,

自由就是,被決定,但是沒有完全被決定,

自由跟幸福 (happiness) 一樣,求之不得,不可強求,

自由是一個意外,狹縫中的意外,

意思是說,生命會找到它的出路,這就是自由,

(十六)

Freedom means to be free of … 貧窮匱乏 (財務上的自由),壓迫迫害,生活重擔,欺騙(國家機器製造謊言,自欺欺人)造假(假消息,假信仰,假造神),受限于人為造作的系統,受限于歷史地理的時空,受限于個人有限的視野見識,

(十七)

Free will vs Determinism: determined by genetic determinism, psychic determinism, insatiable desire, 三毒, 七罪, signifying chains, totalitarian power, technological will to will, 

(十八)

神秘主義者在找的,就是自由,大隱于市,真正的神秘主義者,不在山林,就住在鬧市,

(十九)

據說失去自由,可以換來,安全安定,意思是說,歸屬感和自由之間,相濡以沫和相忘于江湖之間,有一個存在的抉擇的兩難,

(二十)

Since Gelassenheit means to be free of will, can we say that the essence of freedom is Gelassenheit? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-5)


Gelassenheit, a term from German philosophy, particularly associated with Martin Heidegger, refers to a state of "releasement" or letting-be, where one surrenders the will and allows things to unfold without attempting to control or impose. This notion contrasts with the common understanding of freedom as the ability to assert one's will or to make choices without external constraints.


To say that the essence of freedom is Gelassenheit would depend on how we define freedom. If we understand freedom primarily in terms of non-interference and autonomy, then Gelassenheit may seem antithetical to freedom. However, if we see freedom as a deeper state of being that transcends the mere exercise of will and control, then Gelassenheit could represent a kind of ultimate freedom—a freedom from the ego-driven need to dominate or manipulate reality.


In this sense, Gelassenheit points to an inner freedom, where one is not bound by desires or the need to impose one's will on the world. Instead, it suggests a harmonious relationship with existence, allowing one to move with the flow of life rather than struggling against it. Thus, from a Heideggerian or mystical perspective, the essence of true freedom might indeed be found in Gelassenheit, as it embodies freedom from the compulsions and constraints of the ego.


(二十一)



 





20 Generative AI Tools For Creating Synthetic Data

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/08/29/20-generative-ai-tools-for-creating-synthetic-data/

How To Tell Reality From Fiction Amid The AI-Driven Truth Crisis

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/08/28/the-ai-driven-truth-crisis/

Creating The Universal AI Employee Of The Future

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/08/30/creating-the-universal-ai-employee-of-the-future/

How the Self Controls Its Brain (John Eccles, 1994) (存在治療)(1130803)

https://archive.org/details/howselfcontrolsi0000eccl

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

https://dlz1.fcdn.sk/books-files/_collection/userbooks/a31a15319b1b7b05aaa6513944c05b1dcc163171dd66f51ccb42d4b655eef738/redirection?filename=Eccles%20Model%20of%20the%20Self%20Controlling%20Its%20Brain%20The%20Irrelevance%20of%20Dualist-Interactionism%20%28Unknown%29%20%28Z-Library%29.pdf&md5=OtbGC9S1FeSF3QpAHBd3Mg&expires=1725164997

Negativity vs Vitality (113-8-31) (113-9-21) (113-12)

昨日初講,只做到兩件事,一為釋辭,二為說明何以 V > N,

另,為說明惡,尤其惡的從眾性,昨反覆提到,The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip Zimbardo, Random House, 2007,

此書為惡的社會心理學證據,

請問,惡的歷史證據,精神分析證據,哲學神學證據,何在,

另,昨天最讓我高興的是,找到那條魚,就像七等生,找到那支黑管,

另,「N vs V:自體的心理學的最後一章」,意思是說,自體的心理學,的自體,救贖在于,脫落殆盡,你要理解,要脫的不止是褲子,而是末那識,而是認同,而是主詞,而是名字,而是我執,而是自戀,意思是說,脫了褲子,其他那些玩意,就自然掉落,意思是說,天底下,沒有龜毛兔角,沒有無血債又不貪污的趙家人,沒有赤身露鳥的自戀者,這是邏輯的謬誤,


9/1/24(星期日)

秋日赴虎頭山,公園野餐,K 何以曲從,S 之要求,S 是否從匪處,得 K 之小辮子,K 因此不得不從,且你要理解,慾望一旦開口,潰堤不可回頭,意思是說,受賄一次,等同受賄無限,以上說明,台灣式受賄的知識論,抵擋不住中國式行賄的形上學,意思是說,形上學才是基礎哲學,有志氣的哲學家,唯有走形上一途,匪別的不會,行賄受賄,套路一流,另,關于睡臥馬路,2004 倒扁,我曾睡臥南二門,夏夜拂曉前凍醒,今日小 GG 亦臥北檢,為的卻是,護 K 之暗夜行路,意思是說,不值一臥,另,HSS 角色為何,耐人尋味,HKC 則是小丑,可以不計,首先你要理解,周夢蝶七等生,屬形上學,尤其形上學的實踐,這是為什麼,我將此二君,置于福德診間的原因,意思是說,唯有形上學,方足以為,形下世界的依據,另,你要理解,錢夠用就好,不要像 K 貪多,另,我本不知,ATM 可以「真的」存錢,當亡母手尾錢都派上用場,你就開始落淚,當亡母變成亡父,你就開始沈思,S 跟共匪,到底是什麼關係,你要理解,CJU 說,K 當時接受藍白媾合交尾,當副總統,今天就沒有人敢動他,可見 K 惹惱共匪,你要理解,中國權貴 (趙家人)貪污,萬億美元起跳,台灣權貴撈錢貪污,區區數十億台幣,只相當于,其牙縫肉屑,這就是蘇察哈爾燦,與其父廣東大將軍,被辱吃狗飯,分食肉屑說,這碗飯太好吃了,要留起來當宵夜,未赴虎頭山,因為跳蚤多,豬哥亮說,GJ 體格很好,腦筋不好,HKC 長相清秀,楚楚可人,中文不好,小 GG 呼喚國際聲援 K,意思是說,圖利受賄,無傷大雅,

自由 (存在治療)(1130803)(2025)

清晨,突然知道,存在治療 (後結構主義的心理治療,如分裂分析,亦然),意義在于,讓人自由,第一個曾經驗自由者,理應是治療者,意思是說,存在治療,讓一般心理治療者自由,沒有自由的治療者,就不可能有自由的來訪者,意思是說,一般治療者,模型堆裡,操作已久,一日醒來,發現模型不見了,頓時驚嚇,背脊發涼,另需說明,上述自由,是薛西弗斯的自由,意思是說,另種自由,與存在治療無關,

The Significance of Heidegger's Analysis of Death in His Advancement of Husserl's Idea of Phenomenology towards the Question of the Meaning of Being in 'Being and Time' (2012)

https://www.academia.edu/26698957/The_Significance_of_Heideggers_Analysis_of_Death_in_His_Advancement_of_Husserls_Idea_of_Phenomenology_towards_the_Question_of_the_Meaning_of_Being_in_Being_and_Time?email_work_card=title

Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to-make-art?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_083124&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=5e1b55bc576f2c5df1220065&cndid=59646955&hasha=55cfbc3c817bcf26b54c8d19b8fe535a&hashb=2f53836f758ec35266827c1a73652d20b8cf5159&hashc=bfe0b2e9bf93f6b293aad4baaf1694d4ef3d86677736166ccb6e8563430c861d&esrc=bounceX&mbid=CRMNYR012019