Overthrowing Eastern and Western Economics: Chan Economics (Serialization Part 9)

2006/8/1 20:30:57

Human existence and discrimination are the theoretical and real foundation of all theories that can be theorized by humans and all realities that can be made real by humans. Then, is "human" necessary? For example, can we consider the existence and discrimination of gods, or of animals? But such consideration is necessarily grounded in human existence and discrimination, and is necessarily only an isomorphic, fantasy-derived extrapolation of human existence and discrimination. That is, all of this is merely an isomorphic mapping under the logical relations grounded in human existence and discrimination. From the perspective of isomorphism, there is no distinction whatsoever.

Any non-human foundation must ultimately be an isomorphic mapping of the foundational logic of human existence and discrimination. Even if humans fantasize a non-human foundation, it is merely an isomorphic mapping of the human fantasy foundation. A simple corollary follows: any fantasy about God or gods is necessarily human. Even things like mystical sensory experiences — as long as they can be sensed by humans, even if only by a particular individual — must be grounded in human existence and discrimination. God and gods are nothing but human fantasies.

Similarly, on the foundational logic of human existence and discrimination, any essential distinction between humans and animals is also merely human fantasy. Those who use rationality to distinguish humans from animals have simply been too deeply poisoned by the fantasy of so-called human rationality. Let me ask: what is rationality? Being able to respond appropriately to different situations within one's own environment — is that not rationality? Must one follow the law of excluded middle and the law of identity to be rational? Must one satisfy the fantasy paradigm of theory and practice to be rational? Must one express things in human language to be rational? Human language is nothing but a worm boring through wood that happens to form patterns — text produced by pure accident.

If any essential distinction between humans and animals exists, it can only appear at the categorical level grounded in human existence and discrimination. Any individual-level distinction between humans and animals is non-essential. Things like labor, language, upright walking, and so forth — if viewed purely at the individual level — are insufficient to distinguish humans from animals. The fundamental distinction between humans and animals lies in the new logical relations that emerge when individuals constitute a categorical set. Humans have human logical relations; animals have animal logical relations. In reality, there is no hierarchy — it is merely the transformation of different logical relations.

There is fundamentally no need to invoke the logic of the six realms of samsara here. Of course, if one accepts the logic of the six realms of samsara, then the essential non-distinction between humans and animals becomes even easier to understand. But even without the logic of the six realms of samsara, this kind of distinction can only be differentiated at the level of categorical set relations. As for how substantially essential this distinction is — that is itself a logical relation. Even if there is essentiality, it is merely essentiality from the standpoint of a certain logical relation. Therefore, it is possible for humans and animals to have essential distinctions under certain logic, but the logic that produces this distinction between humans and animals is itself non-essential — it is merely a kind of human fantasy. The essential distinction between humans and animals can only be a fantasy within this fantasy.

(To be continued)