Decolonizing Psychoanalytic Technique: Putting Freud on Fanon's Couch (Daniel José Gaztambide, 2024) (CP)

https://www.amazon.com/Decolonizing-Psychoanalytic-Technique-Putting-Fanons/dp/3031484754 (accessible via Scribd)

At the time I lacked a framework for understanding what I was doing

and why. This book attempts to articulate such a framework to facilitate

a nuanced, theoretically rich, and pragmatic way of attending to both the

relational and sociocultural in the consulting room, and of thinking holisti-

cally about human suffering—we not only need to find meaning, relatedness,

and purpose in our lives, we also need social, political, and economic condi-

tions that make flourishing possible. My primary goal is to equip beginning

and seasoned clinicians with theoretical and pragmatic tools for helping the

patient in front of us, while imagining how to intervene in the world outside

the clinical encounter. This framework is not original to me, though it has

been hiding in plain sight since the beginnings of our field—the very under-

side of psychoanalysis. This missing link, this “broken circuit,” is a decolonial

psychoanalysis. (ibid, p. 2)

車行形上學

剛剛突然知道，形上學來自文字，非來自數字，

意思是說，柯文哲的問題出在，沒有文字素養，只有數字列表，

匪諜的問題出在，只有被玩弄的文字，和被收買的數字，

文字何以撐持(sustain)形上，

這件事你要去問，周夢蝶和七等生，

Reacher 片尾，踽踽獨行，難以置信，

意思是說，自由之為自由，有其難以道盡的前世今生的，偶然大于必然的詐（乍）現性，

意思是說，自由生于狹縫，自由必為瞬間，

所謂白駒過隙，日月如梭，

自由就是飛過去的，那隻鴨子，

所謂煮熟的鴨子，

意思是說，自由不可強求，不可執著，不可戀棧，不可成形，

意思是說，自由就是流動，

我先前說過，流動只能，發生在移動的疲憊和絕望中，

以上說明，電影電視裡，Reacher 並不自由，小說裡，他才自由，

意思是說，自由之路，就是走進小說，或把日子，活成小說，

意思是說，菊次郎十六式，就是短至中，中篇小說，

意思是說，長篇小說，勢必拖泥帶水，不得自由，

簡單講，反抗方見自由，

短篇小說早洩，不及反抗，

長篇小說不射，反抗太久，

中篇小說，一二炷香，兼顧反抗自由，

體例上，分 Book 1,2,3,4 etc，

形同將長篇小說，拆解為數中篇小說，

有點像，以百里為單位，

將漫長行程，拆解為，一段一段，

你要理解，Jack Reacher 的身體，不是健身的結果，而是自然，風雨造成，

意思是說，

Alan Ritchson，明顯健身，

而且少了，那些疤痕，

包括，貝魯特的，那個下巴，

所以不是真的，

法國人對于死亡，有一種自然，而非科技的態度，

比如說，Reacher 的母親，

我先前說過，AI 合成美女，比例極其誇張，

這件事說明，AI 沒有美學，

蘇小和說，包子打算，發起核大戰，犧牲西安以東，

老蠻說，中國糧食短缺，將餓死八億人，

蘇小和說，洛陽薛某入京屠包，慫包急匿香山，

形上誠然可貴，唯須輔以形下，

意思是說，形下漫漫長夜，形上乍現曙光，

未幾光烈奪目，你復無法直視，

自由亦然，

揭共匪活摘器官邪惡血腥之紀錄片「國有器官」在台上映 發行商及影城陸續收到恐嚇信

https://news.pts.org.tw/article/718709

https://www.storm.mg/lifestyle/5251074

https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=213760

傅崐萁說「大清是中華民國的祖國」

習近平說，這件事告訴我們，小學畢業很重要，

股市神棍上海爷叔预言 (共匪) A (韭菜) 股上 1460000000 点，结果被打进医院了

https://m.163.com/dy/article/JE4QMNQ905568YAF.html

https://youtu.be/jIVnSIYn13I?si=JOkJrxaWEjUntup6

翟山鷹的英文字幕，寫的是耶穌，結果中國找不到「耶穌」，找到的是「爺叔」，

Edgar Wright (b 1974)

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

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

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

車行形上學

車行就是，隨遇而安，你要特別參「遇」「安」二字，你要理解，遇指的是倒霉事，安則像 Jack Reacher 說的，Shit happens，Life goes on，你要理解，Reacher 沒有手錶，他的腦袋裡，有一個宇宙時鐘，沒有人見過他，用牙膏刷牙，你要理解，牙刷是物理學，牙膏是化學，物理學優先于化學，近日為衫林溪三字所蠱，遂真以為花仙子，用的是扁柏萃取的芬多精，而不是實驗室量產的地溝油，你要理解，10/16 10/23，多此一舉，遂不打算，浪費今日，等待周末，草草再說，物盡其用，的物，是日用消耗，比如說，衛生紙吸水紙，菊次郎十六式，如昆德拉創作小說，一般構思發生，還在猶豫，是否卡式爐，起因是不喜瓦斯罐，還在猶豫，是否全聯入會，起因是買一送一，閻連科聊齋本紀，以包子帝舔陰戶，女人嬌喘作終，聽說橘子家世驚人，免不了是明治天皇加上慈禧太后，很奇怪，Reacher 沒有去檢查冷氣的包裝箱子，也沒有去找 Paul Hubble，

10/10/24（星期四）

韓國瑜傅崐萁，率八千萬國軍，反攻大陸，殺光八千萬共匪，於凌晨4時50分前往天安門廣場對學生發表了談話^[144]：

“

我給同學們講幾句話。我們來得太晚了。對不起，同學們。你們不管怎麼樣說我們、批評我們，都是應該的。我這次來也不是請你們來原諒我們的，不是的。只是說，現在同學們的身體，到了現在，已經是非常地虛弱了。你們都是絕食到第六天……第七天了，不能再這樣下去了。絕食時間長的話，這對身體會造成將來難以補償的損傷。這個對生命有危險，大家都知道。 我說我覺得我們現在一定要、最重要的就是趕快結束這個絕食。趕快結束絕食。同學們，我也知道，你們這個絕食，是要達到你們……政府、黨對你們所提的問題（給以）最滿意的答覆，但是我覺得，要滿意的答覆，我們這個對話的渠道還是暢通的。有一些問題，它還是需要一個過程才能解決。有一些譬如你們所提的性質、責任的問題，我覺得，終究可以解決，終究我們可以取得一致的看法。但是什麼事情你們也知道，情況都是很複雜的，需要有一個過程。你們不能夠在已經絕食六天到七天，現在還是要堅持這一條「一定達到滿意了才停止絕食」，但是那個時候就晚了。沒法補償了。你們還年輕啊，同學們。還年輕，來日方長。你們應該健康地活著，看到我們中國實現「四化」的那一天。你們不像我們，我們都已經老了，無所謂。國家和你們的父母把你們培養撫育上大學不容易啊，現在十九歲、十八歲、二十幾歲，就這樣子……就這樣子把生命犧牲掉啊？稍微理智地想一想啊！我今天不是來跟你們對話的，今天就是說，同學們能不能理智一些，想一想現在已經到了一個什麼嚴重的情況。你們都知道，現在黨和國家非常著急，整個社會可以說憂心如焚，整個北京都在議論你們這個事情！另外你們也知道，北京的情況也不能再繼續下去了。這麼大的城市，又是首都，各方面的嚴重的情況一天一天在增加。同志們都是好意，為了我們國家好，但是這個事情發展下去啊，不能夠控制。造成各方面影響，你看，交通、運輸、工作、看病等等。 總之就是這麼一個心意。你們停止絕食，中國政府決不會就這樣子，就把對話的門關起來了。決不會。你們所提的一些問題，我們黨會繼續討論。事實上不管怎麼樣，這樣慢是慢了一些，事實上現在一些問題還在逐步地解決嘛。還在逐步地解決嘛。我今天就說這一些，主要是看望一下同志們，另外說一說我的心情。希望同志們冷靜地想一想這個問題。冷靜地想一想。還有組織這個絕食的同志們，你們也冷靜地想一想。這件事情可不是……在不理智的情況下，很難想清楚這個事。大家都這麼一股勁的，年輕人啊，我們都從年輕人過來過，我們也游過行，我們也臥過軌，我也知道當時那種情況。沒有想後果怎麼樣。但事後一想啊……首先你們要冷靜地想想今後的事。現在有六天了、七天了，真的要過八天、九天、十天嗎？我說，有很多事情都是可以解決的。你們就是為了要等這一天，等……回答令你們滿意這一天，你們也該早結束。謝謝同學們，就是看望大家。

”

趙紫陽講話結束後，廣場上的學生紛紛請趙紫陽簽字。這是趙紫陽離開政壇前的最後一次向公眾亮相。19日晚李鵬宣布了可以實施武力清場的戒嚴令。

車行形上學

你要理解，車行者，就是行者，就是菊次郎，就是自體的心理學的最後一章，的那個人，你告訴我，那個人，面對的是什麼樣的世界，你再告訴我，那個人困惑了什麼，怯懦了什麼，窩囊了什麼，愚蠢了什麼，決定了什麼，發生了什麼，被事件事件了什麼，意思是說，我看著那個人，就像昆德拉，看著他的 Jaromil，良久，

You see, I don't show you what happens inside Jaromil's head; rather, I show what happens inside my own: I observe my Jaromil for a long while, and I try, step by step, to get to the heart of his attitude, in order to understand it, name it, grasp it. (The Art of the Novel, Milan Kundera, 1988, Chapter 2)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/18Ej1XltTlygPOSKf-aVr0GmXomzQjliZ/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=mspresentation

第五個騎士 （車行形上學）

剛剛夢中演講，主題似乎是，關于台灣的地質源起，是與大陸無關的另一個系統，後來提到末日四騎士，白紅黑青，饑荒瘟疫戰爭死亡，席下三個大陸人，面不耐煩，起身欲離去，我說結語是，有沒有可能，有第五個騎士，醒來，突然知道，那第五個騎士，就是車行者，

https://kellychang2713.blogspot.com/2024/05/negativity-vs-vitality_25.html

https://kellychang2713.blogspot.com/2024/09/so-schellings-3-ages-of-world-were-like.html

Self vs Subject (車行形上學）

Self，是形下的人，Subject，是形上的人，

車行者，van lifer，是形下的人，

所以，車行者，van lifer，屬 Self，

車行形上學，metaphysics of van life，所為何來，

就是為了尋找，這個形下的移動的人，的形上的可能性，

比如說，為 Jack Reacher，尋找其形上的可能性，

這件事，Jack Reacher，一定覺得好笑 (amused)，

所謂，amused to death （Roger Waters, 1992)，

Robert Beshara

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Robert-Beshara/author/B07ZXN25BT?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Robert K. Beshara is the author of Decolonial Psychoanalysis: Towards Critical Islamophobia Studies (2019), Freud and Said: Contrapuntal Psychoanalysis as Liberation Praxis (2021), A Psychoanalytic Biography of Ye: The Legacy of Unconditional Love (2023), and Transmodern Cinema and Decolonial Film Theory: A Study of Youssef Chahine's al-Masir (2024). He is also the editor of A Critical Introduction to Psychology (2019) and Critical Psychology Praxis: Psychosocial Non-Alignment to Modernity/Coloniality (2021). Furthermore, he is the translator of Mourad Wahba's Fundamentalism and Secularization (2022). Finally, he is the founder of CriticalPsychologyDOTorg. For more information, please visit robertbesharaDOTcom.

柯文哲賺（洗）錢好辛苦

https://youtu.be/X3K40I3cMC8?si=KY5efvk1ZDw7juOw

橘子潛逃中國

https://youtu.be/Q5bJY0YMf-k?si=7UkimcacgK_0yy7a

10/9/24 （星期三）

10/11，取掛號信（2），寄掛號信 （1），取 HP black ink 67 (4)，

Pioneers of mRNA COVID vaccines win medicine Nobel

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03046-x?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=60cf79e7f7-briefing-dy-20231002&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-60cf79e7f7-44968593

Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded for Breakthroughs in Machine Learning

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nobel-prize-in-physics-awarded-for-breakthroughs-in-machine-learning/

10/8/24 (星期二)

東北季風，寒露濕冷，周四 10/10，處理 10/16 ppt，

冷錢包找到了

https://youtu.be/vMtYIiyizPA?si=f4SU60b0Yx638rpk

如水

https://www.facebook.com/flowhkmagazine/?locale=zh_TW

特殊甜點

https://youtu.be/lr20k5NIJ4A?si=0sryDQ1w6TeF_k_D

功能性的存在及其不滿 （車行形上學）

功能性的存在的意思是說，把存在視為功能，僅止功能，這是藍領的誠實的命運，也是白領的不誠實的命運，意思是說，不管誠不誠實，你我都只不過，扮演某種功能，扮演得好，你就成功，扮演得不好，你就失敗，

功能性的存在，何以不滿，這個不滿，會用什麼方式表現，

前者答案是，（被）功能（相互）對待久矣，人物不分，所謂物化 （Reification)，人即是物，物即是人，人性等于物性，堪用之物（人），用之不惜，不堪用之物（人），棄之亦不惜，

後者答案是，遂只可能，用功能性的方式表現，

以上在在發生于，婚姻家庭學校工作，好用耐操為上，了無形上可言，我們的生活人生，遂在形下世界周行，直至被丟進垃圾堆或葬儀社，

Can we say that elan vital is biophilia itself and will triumph over human destructiveness? (Negativity vs Vitality) (ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

意思是說，死不足畏，「生大于死」的「生」（vitality)，仍有待于，人的形上學的一廂情願 （意思是說，elan vital 既然是形上的力量，當然需要形上學的願力，方足以與之相應），這是為什麼，我們需要車行形上學的原因，

It’s tempting to equate élan vital with biophilia, the love of life and living things, but they are not entirely the same concept. However, élan vital can be seen as having qualities of biophilia in that it emphasizes a life-affirming, creative force that drives the evolution of living beings. The idea that it will triumph over human destructiveness depends on how we interpret both concepts in relation to human agency and the unfolding of life.

1. Élan Vital and Biophilia:

While élan vital refers to the life force that propels growth and creativity, biophilia, as described by psychologist Erich Fromm and biologist E.O. Wilson, is a psychological tendency or innate affinity humans have for life and living organisms. In this sense, biophilia is more about human attitudes and emotions toward life, while élan vital is a metaphysical force inherent in all living organisms. They overlap in their affirmation of life, but élan vital is broader, encompassing not only human love for life but the very essence that drives life to evolve and thrive.

2. Triumph over Destructiveness?

If we view élan vital as an unstoppable, creative force inherent to life, then yes, we could argue that it will ultimately prevail over human destructiveness. Life, in its essence, is creative and forward-moving. Even in the face of destruction—be it war, environmental devastation, or technological damage—life continues to find ways to evolve, adapt, and persist. Human destructiveness may cause setbacks or create challenges, but the life force, in Bergson’s view, is not easily extinguished.

That said, the triumph of élan vital is not inevitable in a simple sense. Bergson’s philosophy doesn’t suggest that élan vital operates with a moral agenda or that it guarantees the survival of human civilization or individual species. Instead, it implies that life as a whole will continue to unfold and create, but the direction of that unfolding depends on how humans engage with this creative energy.

3. Human Role in This Process:

If we believe in the concept of biophilia—the intrinsic love and respect for life—then humanity has the potential to align itself with élan vital, using its creative energy in life-affirming ways. In this sense, biophilia can serve as the conscious, emotional expression of élan vital, urging humans to protect and enhance life rather than destroy it.

However, whether élan vital will triumph depends on human choices. If we cultivate biophilia and make decisions that reflect a reverence for life, then we actively participate in the life force’s triumph over destructiveness. If not, we might cause severe disruptions, though life itself may still persist in some form, even if humanity does not.

Conclusion:

While we can view élan vital as a force that has the potential to overcome human destructiveness due to its inherent creativity, the triumph of this life force in relation to human actions is not guaranteed. However, if humans nurture biophilia—an active love and respect for life—it increases the likelihood that élan vital will manifest in constructive, life-affirming ways, potentially leading to the triumph of creativity and growth over destruction.

How does elan vital reconcile with the human destructiveness? (Negativity vs Vitality) (ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

Reconciling élan vital with human destructiveness can be complex, as Bergson’s concept primarily emphasizes life as a creative and evolving force. However, we can approach the reconciliation in a few ways by considering how creativity and destruction are often intertwined in both philosophy and life.

1. Creativity as a Dual Force: Élan vital drives not only growth and innovation but also transformation. In life, creative processes often involve destruction or dismantling of the old to make way for the new. Destructive human behaviors, from this perspective, might not entirely contradict élan vital but could be seen as part of a larger, transformative cycle. For example, revolutions, wars, or crises often lead to significant social, cultural, or technological shifts, embodying destruction as a prelude to new creation.

2. Human Freedom and Choice: Bergson placed great importance on human freedom and creativity. Human beings, in his view, are capable of channeling the élan vital in many directions, including both constructive and destructive paths. The force itself may not dictate the moral quality of its expression—it is neutral in this regard. It’s human agency that determines whether the creative impulse is used for life-affirming or destructive purposes. Thus, human destructiveness reflects a misuse of the élan vital rather than an inherent contradiction within the force itself.

3. Tension Between Instinct and Intellect: Bergson also argued that human life is caught between instinct and intellect. Instinct is closer to the vital force, while intellect is what often leads to technological advancement, rationality, and, paradoxically, tools of destruction. Human destructiveness may arise from an over-reliance on intellect, divorced from the life-affirming, instinctual energy of élan vital. In this sense, human destructiveness could represent a divergence from the true creative potential of life, where intellect subverts rather than complements the creative energy.

4. Philosophical Affirmation of Life: Philosophers who affirm life, like Nietzsche or Rollo May (whom you’re interested in), often argue that destruction can be part of a larger process of overcoming and becoming. Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power, for example, involves destruction as a necessary phase in personal and cultural growth. In a similar way, élan vital could be interpreted as acknowledging that creation often requires destruction, not in a nihilistic sense, but as part of life’s dynamic and creative process.

Thus, élan vital and human destructiveness can be reconciled by understanding destruction not as a contradiction to life, but as an aspect of life’s broader creative and evolutionary process. It’s the human responsibility to direct this force toward constructive rather than destructive ends.

Please explain to me what’s elan vital? (Negativity vs Vitality) (ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

Élan vital is a concept introduced by the French philosopher Henri Bergson in his work Creative Evolution (1907). It refers to a vital force or creative life energy that Bergson believed drives the evolution of living organisms. According to Bergson, this force propels life toward growth, development, and innovation, distinguishing living beings from mere mechanical processes or physical objects.

Unlike traditional evolutionary theories that emphasize random mutation and natural selection, élan vital suggests that life is not merely mechanistic or deterministic but also contains a creative and dynamic element. It reflects a kind of vitalism, a philosophical perspective that life cannot be fully explained by physical or chemical processes alone.

Bergson used élan vital to challenge the mechanistic view of biology and to propose that life evolves in unpredictable, creative ways, continually pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Although the concept has been largely set aside in modern biology, it remains significant in the history of philosophy for its exploration of life as an active, creative force.

What does Bergson mean by duration? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

In Henri Bergson’s philosophy, duration (durée) is a key concept that refers to the qualitative, lived experience of time, as opposed to the quantitative, measurable time of clocks and science. For Bergson, duration captures the fluid, continuous flow of time as we actually experience it, which cannot be reduced to discrete, countable moments.

Here’s what Bergson means by duration in more detail:

1. Qualitative, Not Quantitative: Bergson argues that time is often treated in a spatialized, quantitative way—divided into equal, measurable units, like seconds or minutes, which he believes is an abstraction imposed by human thought. Duration, however, refers to time as it is lived, where each moment is interconnected with the next in a continuous flow. Unlike clock time, which breaks time into segments, duration is indivisible and qualitative.

2. Experience of Time as Continuous Flow: According to Bergson, when we reflect on our experience, time doesn’t feel like a series of distinct moments but rather a flow or a seamless progression. For instance, our perception of time while engaged in deep thought or emotion doesn’t follow the regular ticking of a clock. Instead, moments blend into one another in a way that defies strict measurement. Duration is this internal, subjective time of consciousness, always evolving and moving forward.

3. Elan Vital and Creative Evolution: Duration plays a crucial role in Bergson’s broader metaphysical ideas, particularly in his concept of élan vital (vital impulse) and creative evolution. He believes that life itself is driven by a creative, dynamic force that unfolds over time, and this unfolding is best understood through duration. Evolution and consciousness, in Bergson’s view, are not mechanical processes reducible to spatialized time but are dynamic, emergent, and creative processes that occur through duration.

4. Memory and Time: Bergson also ties duration closely to memory. In his work Matter and Memory, he distinguishes between two kinds of memory: one that involves habit and repetition, and another that preserves past events as part of an ever-evolving present. Duration involves this second type of memory, where the past continuously intermingles with the present, influencing our experience without being detached from it.

5. Opposition to Mechanistic Views of Time: Bergson developed the concept of duration in opposition to mechanistic and deterministic views of time, such as those presented by Newtonian physics, which treat time as an objective dimension that can be mathematically divided. He argues that such a view reduces time to something external and detached from human experience, missing the essence of what time truly is. For Bergson, real time is dynamic, fluid, and inseparable from the lived experience of beings.

In summary, Bergson’s concept of duration refers to the non-measurable, continuous flow of time as experienced from within, where past, present, and future are intertwined in a living continuity. It’s a rejection of the static, fragmented view of time imposed by science and a celebration of the dynamic, evolving nature of life and consciousness.

The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time (Jimena Canales, 2015)

The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleise, Evan Thompson, 2024)

https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Adam-Frank-ebook/dp/B0C76Z6SNM/ref=sr_1_3?crid=FSBJRNYO8KT7&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.VKlYM6iNf6jhDCgzUaB3aqvdmPjmKzeFY7GfSEBtSdAw2A4PmTPRtK1GWjYwDT6qSYVlnFt0DwPfV8yB08L9MhTuq50KFiUBjJBvRLmb5ulluzWWasbWbyfqAKm-OX_qp79dlkRNQacQrHcvAGMaoHwLwD3BFYAfuojpK516lKaReLpk-U5JNoMpEg1KZVZbY0U8TUmoG7cp68YOUeXrUsevvQoa5A2dFMUORKZSrfQ.v2ZcO9th9_fhRBvssFApM-iPaiEloUdjYP_xKk3Xck8&dib_tag=se&keywords=Evan+Thompson&qid=1728271041&s=books&sprefix=evan+thompson+%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C615&sr=1-3

車行形上學 （metaphysics of van life)（自由） （2025）

生命就是詐 （乍）現，苦，就是留下詐（乍）現的刻痕 （曾經存在的証據），定，就是（以為能夠）拒絕詐（乍）現，自由就是（流動中）接受詐（乍）現，陌生人的善意，就是一個詐（乍）現，對于另一個詐（乍）現的善意，唯一曾經自由者，是禪宗和尚，「尤其雲遊那種」，宋明理家，雖棄科舉，殊為難得，但為生計，往往仍守，一畝三分，混口飯吃，實不得已，但也說明，其畢竟未，自由透徹，意思是說，我希望理家，可以從事商賈，「尤其雲遊那種」，雲遊就是車行 （van life)，

Why Evan Thompson argued against the Buddhist exceptionalism? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

Evan Thompson argues against Buddhist exceptionalism because he believes that presenting Buddhism as uniquely superior to other philosophical or spiritual traditions, especially when engaging with science, is both inaccurate and misleading. In his view, this kind of exceptionalism tends to distort both Buddhism and science, often by selectively emphasizing aspects of Buddhism that seem to align with modern scientific findings while downplaying or ignoring other aspects that do not fit this narrative.

Here are some of the main points behind his critique:

1. Overemphasis on Harmony with Science: Buddhist exceptionalism often highlights perceived parallels between Buddhist teachings and modern scientific ideas, particularly in fields like neuroscience, cognitive science, and quantum physics. Thompson argues that while there are some interesting overlaps (e.g., meditation practices and their effects on the brain), this focus risks oversimplifying or misrepresenting both Buddhism and science by creating an artificial alignment. He cautions against the selective cherry-picking of Buddhist teachings that seem to support scientific ideas while ignoring other metaphysical or cultural aspects that don’t fit the narrative.

2. Ignoring the Diversity of Buddhism: Thompson critiques the tendency to treat Buddhism as a monolithic tradition, which can obscure the diversity of thought within it. Buddhist exceptionalism often draws selectively from specific schools, such as Tibetan or Zen Buddhism, presenting these as representative of the entire tradition. Thompson emphasizes that Buddhism is a complex and varied tradition, with many different philosophical systems, practices, and metaphysical claims, not all of which align with modern scientific thinking.

3. Romanticizing or Misinterpreting Buddhist Concepts: Thompson believes that Buddhist exceptionalism can romanticize certain Buddhist concepts, such as non-self (anattā) or emptiness (śūnyatā), by interpreting them through a modern, often Western, lens. For example, the Buddhist concept of “non-self” is sometimes equated with ideas from cognitive science about the illusory nature of a permanent, unchanging self. However, Thompson argues that this interpretation can distort the original philosophical and cultural context of the Buddhist idea, which is much more nuanced and tied to ethical and soteriological goals.

4. Philosophical and Ethical Oversights: By focusing too heavily on Buddhist meditation and its scientific benefits (e.g., mindfulness), the ethical, metaphysical, and soteriological (concerning liberation) aspects of Buddhism are sometimes downplayed. For Thompson, this presents a shallow view of Buddhism, reducing it to a set of techniques rather than a deeply rooted philosophical and spiritual tradition with complex moral and existential dimensions.

5. Dialogue, Not Superiority: Thompson advocates for a genuine dialogue between Buddhism and science, where both are seen as distinct but mutually enriching traditions. He warns against a hierarchical view where one tradition is seen as superior to the other. Instead, he suggests that Buddhism and science can learn from each other, but this requires acknowledging the differences as well as the similarities between them.

In summary, Thompson argues against Buddhist exceptionalism because it tends to oversimplify both Buddhism and science, undermining a more nuanced understanding of the two. His approach advocates for a respectful and critical dialogue between Buddhism and modern thought, rather than positioning Buddhism as uniquely aligned with or superior to science.

Evan Thompson (b 1962)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Thompson#Works

Works

• Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, 1991.
• Colour Vision: A Study in Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of PerceptionRoutledge Press, 1995
• Between Ourselves: Second Person Issues in the Study of Consciousness. Imprint Academic, 2001. Published also as a special triple issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies
• Alva Noe and Evan Thompson, eds., Vision and Mind: Selected Readings in the Philosophy of Perception. MIT Press, 2002.
• The Problem of Consciousness: New Essays in Phenomenological Philosophy of Mind. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 29: 2003. University of Alberta Press
• Giovanna Colombetti and Evan Thompson, eds., Emotion Experience. Imprint Academic, 2005. Published also as a special triple issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies
• The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Edited by Philip David Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch, Evan Thompson, May 2007 Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology series, ISBN 978-0-521-67412-6
• Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0-674-05751-7
• Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. Columbia University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-0-231-13709-6
• Why I am Not a Buddhist. Yale University Press, 2020 ISBN 978-0-300-22655-3
• The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience, MIT Press, 2024, ISBN 978-0-262-04880-4

What’s the non-substantialistic turn? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-7)

The “non-substantialistic turn” refers to a philosophical movement away from understanding reality and entities in terms of static, unchanging substances or essences (substantialism), toward a view that emphasizes process, relation, and becoming. This shift can be seen across various fields, including metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and social theory.

Here are key aspects of the non-substantialistic turn:

1. Process Over Substance: Instead of focusing on objects as fixed, self-contained substances with intrinsic properties, this approach sees reality as constituted by dynamic processes and relationships. Philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead and Gilles Deleuze emphasize that entities are not independent “things” but are continually forming and changing through interactions.

2. Relational Ontology: The non-substantialistic perspective holds that the nature of an entity is defined by its relationships to other entities and processes. In this sense, identity and being are not fixed but are co-constructed through interactions. This is evident in relational philosophies such as those of Martin Buber or the process philosophy of Whitehead.

3. Critique of Essentialism: Substantialistic views often assume that objects or beings have fixed essences. The non-substantialistic turn rejects this idea, suggesting that essences are not pre-existing qualities but emerge from dynamic systems or networks of relations.

4. Influence in Social Theory and Philosophy of Mind: In social theory, this turn manifests in perspectives like actor-network theory (Bruno Latour) and poststructuralism, where the focus is on how social realities are constituted by networks and relations rather than by fixed social structures. In philosophy of mind, thinkers like Evan Thompson emphasize the mind’s emergent and processual nature, rather than seeing it as a static “thing.”

Philosophically, this shift is closely related to existentialism, phenomenology, and process philosophy, and can be seen as a reaction to metaphysical traditions influenced by substantialism, such as those of Aristotle or Descartes, where the emphasis was on fixed, enduring essences.