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.

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/

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，

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