Sunday, October 6, 2024

What’s the difference between modern and modan (a Japanese word)? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-6)

The difference between “modern” and “modan” lies in their cultural and linguistic contexts:

1. Modern (English): This term generally refers to anything related to the present or recent times, especially in contrast to the past. It is often used to describe advancements in technology, lifestyle, art, and ideas that align with contemporary trends.

2. Modan (モダン, Japanese): While derived from the English word “modern,” the Japanese term “modan” carries additional connotations specific to Japan. It is often associated with the Taishō and early Shōwa periods (1912–1945), when Western influences in fashion, architecture, and culture became popular in Japan. “Modan” evokes a sense of this blend of Western modernity with Japanese culture during this era. It can also refer to something retro or nostalgically modern, as perceived through a Japanese lens.

So, while “modern” in English strictly refers to contemporary aspects, “modan” in Japanese may evoke a specific historical period or style characterized by a fusion of Western and Japanese influences from the early 20th century.

10/6/24（星期日）

石碇，極熱，澆水，準確，燒開水，10/16 自關*，10/18 北監，10/19 息壤（7-3）*，10/23 自關*，10/26 團督，10/30 自督*，

10/6/24 （星期日）

Why Hybrid AI Is The Next Big Thing In Tech

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/10/02/why-hybrid-ai-is-the-next-big-thing-in-tech/

Saturday, October 5, 2024

Anton Corbijn (b 1955)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Corbijn#

注意他的攝影，取景，分鏡，

Martin Booth (1944-2004)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Booth#Career

The American (2010)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_(2010_film) (Amazon Prime Video)

10/5/24（星期六）

風雨過後，寧夏看海，10/16 10/23，自關上課，怎麼協助獨居老人安居，怎麼促成拒（懼）學孩子上學，史記等同舊新約聖經，寫的是上古的人，怎麼惡搞彼此，唯調性和方法學，明顯有異，物理優先于化學，比如說，通馬桶，

Friday, October 4, 2024

Is the cosmological view of I Ching compatible with contemporary cosmology? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-4)

The cosmological view of the I Ching, rooted in ancient Chinese philosophy, presents a worldview that is compatible with certain aspects of contemporary cosmology, though there are also significant differences. The I Ching offers a dynamic and relational understanding of the universe, emphasizing change, interconnectedness, and balance between opposites (like yin and yang). These ideas resonate with some contemporary cosmological concepts, particularly in areas like systems theory, quantum physics, and cosmological models that emphasize interdependence and relationality.

Points of Compatibility:

1. Dynamic and Interconnected Universe:

• The I Ching views the universe as a constantly evolving process, where everything is interconnected and in flux. This aligns with modern cosmology’s view of the universe as dynamic and ever-expanding, a concept supported by the Big Bang theory and observations of cosmic evolution.

• Similarly, quantum physics suggests that particles are interconnected in ways that defy classical expectations, reminiscent of the I Ching’s emphasis on relationality and interconnected patterns.

2. Cyclical Time and Patterns:

• In the I Ching, time is often understood in cycles and repeating patterns, reflecting the natural rhythms of the cosmos. This is somewhat compatible with contemporary cosmological ideas about cycles in the universe, such as theories of cosmic inflation, contraction, or oscillating universes.

• Some cosmologists are exploring cyclic models of the universe, where phases of expansion and contraction could occur over eons, echoing the I Ching’s cyclical patterns of change .

3. Duality and Complementarity:

• The I Ching emphasizes the balance of yin and yang, two forces that are not opposites but complementary. In contemporary physics, there is a concept of complementarity (as seen in wave-particle duality), where entities exhibit dual characteristics that are context-dependent. This parallel suggests a conceptual affinity between the ancient Chinese model of duality and the complementary aspects of quantum phenomena

Unlimited Access to Peer-Reviewed Journals.

Points of Difference:

1. Empirical and Mathematical Frameworks:

• Contemporary cosmology is deeply empirical and mathematical, relying on observational data and predictive models. The I Ching, however, is more symbolic and interpretive, focusing on metaphors and patterns rather than empirical analysis.

• The I Ching’s cosmology is also human-centered, aiming to offer wisdom about life and change rather than attempting to describe physical processes in a measurable way, which is the focus of modern science.

2. View on Causality:

• The I Ching emphasizes synchronicity (meaningful coincidence) rather than direct causality. In contrast, contemporary cosmology seeks to explain events through causal mechanisms, such as gravity or nuclear forces, which are quantifiable and predictable.

3. Scale of the Universe:

• The I Ching is primarily concerned with human existence and societal rhythms, viewing the cosmos through the lens of human experience and balance. In contrast, contemporary cosmology deals with scales vastly beyond human experience, studying phenomena from quantum particles to galaxies and beyond.

Conclusion:

While the cosmological views of the I Ching and contemporary science operate from different paradigms, they share some conceptual affinities, particularly in their understanding of change, interconnectedness, and complementarity. However, the I Ching’s symbolic, relational worldview differs from the empirical, mathematically driven approach of modern cosmology. These differences highlight the complementary roles of traditional cosmological wisdom and scientific cosmology, suggesting that the I Ching could offer a metaphorical or philosophical framework that complements scientific cosmological insights rather than providing a directly compatible theory .

How did Lik Kuen Tong use Whitehead in his field being philosophy? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-4)

Lik Kuen Tong, a scholar of Chinese philosophy, creatively applied Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy in comparative studies with Chinese thought, particularly through the lens of the I Ching (Book of Changes). Tong examined how Whitehead’s ideas, especially his concepts of time, creativity, and process, resonate with Chinese metaphysical frameworks.

Tong highlighted similarities between Whitehead’s view of reality as a process of becoming and the dynamic, relational worldview of the I Ching. He suggested that both systems regard reality as inherently active and interconnected, rather than static or merely mechanistic. This comparison helped Tong develop what he termed a “philosophy of field-being,” integrating Whitehead’s processual perspective with the Chinese emphasis on harmonizing polarities, such as yin and yang, to describe the fluid, interdependent nature of existence .

Moreover, Tong explored Whitehead’s concept of time, aligning it with the cyclical and situational understanding of time in the I Ching. By doing so, he argued that both traditions offer a richer, less linear approach to temporality that emphasizes the evolving and interconnected qualities of all entities. Through these comparisons, Tong contributed to intercultural philosophy, showing how Whitehead’s ideas could bridge Western and Eastern metaphysical systems and deepen cross-cultural philosophical understanding

Unlimited Access to Peer-Reviewed Journals .

Introduction to Field-Being Philosophy: An Anthology of Lik Kuen Tong's Thought (Therese Dykeman, Laura Weed, David White, 2022)

https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Therese-Dykeman/dp/1527578240/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2CW973GC49OG8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.g2iNnIl87HkNvhmvVbbUZjdsvru8Yyu4epjthWCaZsiALmostZiizQh47NfV9__9aWlinqubbrVuYCK2vrwQaNscsDNdD3T_OliGtjik7W7FRwM30MVxqFkhS0zMBnW_jfCG2OT4RlQZbr-mMr5FF6POtrxtMX2GKqldMi-KlO19gZ4Kz6rtKtSt2VSAQDvZEdTCHg_IhsaBLkk0wL5C_rCS13P28UaUz2dlgQLN1oI.r0coPcbrCVdM83bMrbT_4sAn0rt_BDzZXBGXM8H8hvY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Field+being+philosophy&qid=1728014079&s=books&sprefix=field+being+philosophy+%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C372&sr=1-2

How did Isabelle Stengers use Whitehead? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-4)

Isabelle Stengers, a Belgian philosopher of science, used Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy to critique and rethink modern science and its relationship with society. Drawing from Whitehead’s process philosophy, Stengers developed a critical perspective on science that challenges its presumed objectivity and separation from human values, ethics, and cultural contexts. Here’s how she applied Whitehead’s ideas:

1. Critique of Scientific Objectivity: Stengers uses Whitehead’s rejection of the “bifurcation of nature” (the split between objective reality and subjective experience) to critique the objectivity often claimed by modern science. For Whitehead, this bifurcation is a false divide; he saw all experiences as interconnected processes rather than separate domains of subject and object. Stengers builds on this to argue that science is not a neutral or purely objective activity but is embedded in a web of cultural, ethical, and political influences .

2. “Cosmopolitics”: Stengers coined the term cosmopolitics to propose a new way of engaging with scientific knowledge in a pluralistic, democratic context. Influenced by Whitehead’s relational ontology, she argues that all perspectives—human and nonhuman—should be considered in decisions about scientific and technological development. This idea seeks to democratize science by including diverse viewpoints and resisting the hegemony of purely scientific or technocratic perspectives.

3. Reclaiming Wonder and Experimentation: Stengers emphasizes Whitehead’s notion of adventure and wonder in scientific inquiry, advocating for a science that retains a sense of curiosity and openness to the unknown. This contrasts with the instrumental approach to science that views knowledge purely in terms of utility. In her book Thinking with Whitehead, she explores how Whitehead’s philosophy invites scientists to approach their work as a co-creative process that honors the unpredictable and mysterious qualities of the world .

4. Process and Change: Like Whitehead, Stengers sees reality as a process rather than a set of fixed entities. She argues that science should be understood as a dynamic, evolving practice that coexists with other forms of knowledge. This perspective encourages flexibility and adaptability within scientific inquiry, recognizing that scientific practices themselves are subject to change and development as they interact with social and environmental factors

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

Stengers uses Whitehead’s ideas to argue for a more inclusive, humble, and ethically aware scientific practice, where science is not isolated from other modes of human experience and knowledge but is one participant in a broader cosmopolitical conversation. Through Whitehead, she advocates for a science that respects the agency of all entities—human and nonhuman—and reclaims the imaginative, speculative, and adventurous aspects of scientific exploration.

Besides Isabelle Stengers, Matthew David Segall, are there other notable Whitehead scholars? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-4)

Yes, beyond Isabelle Stengers and Matthew David Segall, there are several other prominent scholars who have made significant contributions to the study of Alfred North Whitehead and his philosophy. Some of the most notable Whitehead scholars include:

1. David Ray Griffin: A central figure in process philosophy and theology, Griffin is known for his work on Whitehead’s influence in philosophy, ecology, and religion. His works, such as Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism and Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy, argue that Whitehead’s ideas offer an alternative to traditional metaphysics and provide a basis for ecological ethics and a non-reductionist worldview.

2. John B. Cobb Jr.: As a co-founder of process theology, Cobb has applied Whitehead’s philosophy to religious studies, environmental ethics, and social issues. His work, especially in texts like A Christian Natural Theology and Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (co-authored with David Ray Griffin), has brought Whiteheadian thought into dialogue with contemporary religious and ethical debates.

3. Steven Shaviro: Known for bridging Whiteheadian thought with aesthetics, film, and contemporary media studies, Shaviro’s book Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics examines Whitehead’s influence on aesthetics and his relevance for understanding contemporary culture. Shaviro integrates Whitehead’s process philosophy with the work of Deleuze, emphasizing Whitehead’s impact on theories of affect and creativity.

4. Roland Faber: Faber’s work combines Whitehead’s process philosophy with theological and mystical dimensions, exploring how Whitehead’s thought intersects with Buddhist and Christian mystical traditions. His works, such as The Divine Manifold, highlight Whitehead’s contributions to understanding spirituality, creativity, and the nature of divine presence in the world.

5. Judith A. Jones: Jones’s scholarship, particularly in Intensities and Lines of Flight: Deleuze, Guattari, and the Schizoanalysis of Whitehead, explores connections between Whitehead’s process metaphysics and poststructuralist thinkers like Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. She focuses on Whitehead’s ideas about subjectivity, becoming, and relationality.

6. Philip Clayton: Known for his work in science and religion, Clayton has engaged deeply with Whitehead’s ideas, particularly in relation to emergent complexity and metaphysics. His book Mind and Emergence brings Whiteheadian insights into dialogue with contemporary discussions in philosophy of mind and science, especially around topics of emergence and consciousness.

These scholars each bring unique perspectives to Whitehead’s work, demonstrating its wide-ranging influence across fields such as theology, ecology, aesthetics, metaphysics, and cultural studies. Collectively, they contribute to a dynamic and interdisciplinary tradition of Whitehead scholarship that keeps his ideas relevant in contemporary debates.

Léon Chertok （1911-1991）

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Chertok

He had contacts with Isabelle Stengers. Not sure what these contacts meant for both of them.

10/4/24 （星期五）

一覺起來，山陀兒「主體消失」殆盡，

Explain to me what’s new materialism, and what’s speculative materialism? And what’s their significance? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-4)

簡單講，不止眾生，物亦有情，王陽明就是，new materialist，speculative materialist，否則他不會遊南鎮，為巖中花樹所見，也不會說，草木瓦石，皆有良知，意思是說，我今天下午要去墾丁，為大海所見，烏蠅蜜蜂，山下那頭水牯牛，就是我隔世弟兄，

https://www.anhsiangchan1983.tw/%E5%B0%8E%E5%B8%AB%E8%AC%9B%E8%A9%9E/mobile/%E5%AE%89%E7%A5%A5%E7%A6%AA%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E9%9B%86/%E7%89%9B%E7%9A%84%E7%A6%AE%E8%AE%9A/%E7%89%9B%E8%88%87%E7%A6%AA%E5%AE%97.htm

New Materialism and Speculative Materialism are two contemporary philosophical movements that rethink traditional materialist approaches, moving beyond mechanistic and reductionist views of matter, while addressing questions of agency, ontology, and reality. Although related in their critique of older materialisms, they are distinct in their methods and areas of focus.

1. New Materialism:

New Materialism emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as a response to traditional materialist frameworks, which were often viewed as overly deterministic and reductionist. Traditional materialism generally views matter as inert and passive, governed by external forces. New Materialism seeks to challenge this by emphasizing the agency, dynamism, and complexity of matter itself.

Key Concepts:

• Matter as Active: New Materialists view matter as having agency and vitality. Instead of being passive or inert, matter is seen as dynamic, self-organizing, and capable of affecting change. This perspective is influenced by thinkers like Gilles Deleuze and Donna Haraway, who emphasize relational ontologies and complex systems.

• Posthumanism: New Materialism is often linked to posthumanist critiques of anthropocentrism. It moves beyond seeing humans as the central agents in the world and considers the entanglements between human and nonhuman actors—such as animals, ecosystems, and technology.

• Feminist Influences: Thinkers like Karen Barad and Rosi Braidotti have contributed significantly to New Materialism by integrating feminist theory with materialist philosophy. Barad’s agential realism emphasizes how matter and meaning are co-constituted, rejecting a simple distinction between objects and subjects.

Significance: New Materialism offers a way to rethink relationships between humans, the environment, and nonhuman entities in a way that reflects the interdependency and complexity of our world. It challenges the anthropocentric and mechanistic frameworks that have dominated Western thought, especially in areas like ecology, politics, and technology.

2. Speculative Materialism:

Speculative Materialism is closely tied to Speculative Realism, a philosophical movement that emerged in the early 21st century, led by philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, and Graham Harman. It challenges the post-Kantian tradition, which argues that humans cannot access the “real” world beyond our subjective experience. Speculative Materialists argue that reality exists independently of human thought and that philosophy must engage with this reality.

Key Concepts:

• Rejection of Correlationism: Meillassoux coined the term correlationism to describe the belief that we can only know the relationship between thought and the world, but not the world itself as it is “in itself.” Speculative Materialists reject this, asserting that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human perception.

• Necessity of Contingency: Meillassoux argues for the radical contingency of all things. Unlike traditional materialists who believe in fixed laws of nature, Meillassoux claims that everything could be otherwise, and that there are no necessary laws governing reality—only contingent ones that might change.

• Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO): Some philosophers within Speculative Realism, like Graham Harman, develop object-oriented ontology, which emphasizes that all objects (whether human, nonhuman, material, or immaterial) exist in their own right and have their own reality, independently of human thought or perception.

Significance: Speculative Materialism challenges the anthropocentric limits of modern philosophy and reopens metaphysical questions about the nature of reality. It has implications for science, ethics, and metaphysics by encouraging philosophers to think beyond the limits of human thought and to engage with a more radical, speculative understanding of the universe. By doing so, it seeks to escape the constraints of correlationism and to offer a new vision of materialism that embraces the unknowability and contingency of the world.

Key Differences:

• New Materialism focuses on matter’s agency and vitality, often with an emphasis on ecology, gender, and nonhuman actors, whereas Speculative Materialism focuses on the independence of reality from human perception, engaging more with metaphysical questions about the structure and nature of reality itself.

• New Materialism often overlaps with feminist and posthumanist concerns, while Speculative Materialism is more directly engaged with metaphysical and ontological questions stemming from critiques of Kantian philosophy.