XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2016 3:59 AM, noname wrote:   
      
   > I hope you have made your chapters standalone instead of threading them all   
   > together so it becomes necessary to rewrite everything for each little   
   > insight.  I'm no historian but the layman's view gives the "history of all   
   > philosophy everywhere" a rather large canvas to cover, so keep backups of   
   > that hard-drive and make plans for a larger one.    
   >   
   > But who knows, often it seems that our real purposes are shielded from the   
   > knowledge of our outer/societal selves, and you might simply be writing a   
   > very long prelude to a very short book, should you stumble upon the   
   > awakening all those philosophers have been seeking forever and find a way   
   > to transmit it without the need for your physical presence.   
      
   The main problem with publishing my manuscript (my thought)   
   in chapters or installments is that it is revolutionary, and it must   
   be delivered all at once, in one fell swoop, or it makes no sense   
   at all, since its power of conviction derives from it being of one   
   piece and would be counter-productive (counter-intuitive) if   
   frittered away piece by piece. That pretty much defines a   
   system (something standing together, or something the parts of   
   which stand together), in contrast to an assemblage of   
   disparate pieces stitched together (or slapped together)   
   artificially, haphazardly, without organic relations.   
      
   What brings all the pieces together into a single whole is a   
   vision, an intuition (not a concept, or a bunch of concepts   
   slapped together), and this vision or intuition is the form or   
   structure which constitutes the underlying logic of the system   
   (sorry for the circular definition), apart from the content which it   
   applies itself to. This abstract nature of the form or structure   
   makes it possible for it to govern any number of different   
   contents, theoretically an infinite number of diverse contents.   
   IOW the form or structure is content-free and because of that   
   can apply to as many contents as it can find to apply itself to   
   (again, sorry for the tautology). Therefore, once the overarching   
   universal can be found to explain numerous diverse contents,   
   the particulars that it can explain become fungible, even as the   
   overarching universal (the form or structure) replicates itself   
   unchanged and intact. Essentially, such dualism constitutes   
   the scheme of an explaining factor and the multitude of its   
   applications. Laws of physics are famous for this distinction, in   
   that they are small in number but explain any number of physical   
   phenomena, so long as the former can apply to the latter,   
   otherwise the former are not laws for the latter.   
      
   Therefore, if you take various philosophies as content (e. g.,   
   those of the East and those of the West, those of antiquity and   
   those of modernity), your job is to find the overarching universal   
   which can explain those diverse contents, across the board, but   
   this task is feasible only if such contents share the same form or   
   structure, which at minimum requires them firstly to have a form   
   or structure, secondly to share such form or structure, and those   
   conditions are satisfied only if they are a priori, meaning that they   
   are thought out ahead of time in an abstract mould, namely in the   
   form or structure which is sought (again, sorry for the tautology).   
   Mould is defined as a hollow form or matrix for giving a particular   
   shape to something in a molten or plastic state (dictionary.com).   
      
   This bringing together of various philosophies has never been   
   accomplished, even as it has been reverently declared to be an   
   urgent requirement for the understanding of philosophy, as form   
   or structure has been formally given as what forms matter since   
   Plato and Aristotle. Not just the run-of-the-mill lackeys in the   
   philosophy departments, but luminaries like Kant, Hegel, Husserl   
   and Heidegger have unanimously wished for it, or even claimed   
   to have done it, though almost wholly in vain. Not a single such   
   account has been offered, or, in the case where it is offered,   
   none has earned its keep. And since this discipline is a specialty   
   of white scholars in the humanities, I assign the (collective and   
   institutional) failure to whites. The non-white scholars, including   
   those living in the West, are still struggling to learn critical   
   methodology (including theories of theories, which are what we   
   are concerned with here), and therefore are not even worthy of   
   blame, since they don't even know how to fail.   
      
   In summary, my manuscript (my thought) has to be delivered in   
   a whole, and not in standalone chapters, and must thread them   
   all together so that it becomes necessary to rewrite everything   
   for each little insight. That is why it is a long-term project, which   
   cannot be accomplished in a quick, dirty manner, though a   
   synopsis can indeed be so done. However, even a synopsis   
   suffers from the same fate, for it still gives an overarching   
   universal which can explain those diverse contents, across the   
   board, and has to be rewritten for each little insight (thank you   
   for your felicitous wording). And I cannot be thankful enough for   
   each little insight that comes my way.   
      
   One major difficulty is the massive pervasion of European by   
   Stoicism, as this last is very difficult to understand (as I keep   
   saying, not a single white scholar can adequately understand it,   
   so far), and as I understand more of it, my entire understanding   
   of European philosophy changes, sometimes drastically. This   
   understanding, namely of Stoicism, which is hardly taken   
   seriously by white scholars, regarding European philosophy,   
   has been an unsurpassable obstacle to the understanding of   
   European philosophy, therefore also to any adequate   
   comparison of Eastern and Western philosophy. (It is incredibly   
   painful to me to read books on comparative philosophy, by   
   single authors or multiple ones). In order to compare A and B,   
   you have to know A, you have to know B, and you have to know   
   the methods to compare them. To compare them at the level of   
   content (which is what has been done, so far) is almost a waste.   
   Since nobody know how to abstract form from content, even for   
   European philosophy alone, except at low levels of abstraction,   
   no adequate understanding of philosophy has been possible, so   
   far.   
      
   I crave to be refuted, but have not found anything that remotely   
   qualifies. As I said, it is still a virgin forest, to be explored.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)