Hormonal China: On "Love" and "Doing"
2006/9/18 15:49:42
The hormonal atmosphere of contemporary China is so thick that even cats in the most remote mountain hollows have gotten with the times, "calling" incessantly regardless of season. Since "calling" need not observe any season, it naturally need not observe any location either. And so, whether on Simmons mattresses or in sorghum fields, in offices or in chat rooms, with PhDs or on blogs, "calling" has become everything.
But "calling" is ultimately not everything — at the very least, "calling" is merely a part of "doing." Of course, the relationship between "calling" and "doing" is not something that garbage dialectics can dialecticize. Even cats know that "calling" doesn't necessarily lead to "doing," and "doing" doesn't necessarily involve "calling." Sometimes "calling" comes before "doing," sometimes "calling" happens alongside "doing," and sometimes while "calling" and "doing," the relationship between them mutates into something with the character of a random walk. The mathematical model typically used to describe such relationships is mathematically informed to be nonlinear.
However, even if a mathematical model could perfectly simulate every real-world relationship between "calling" and "doing," the moment "calling" becomes "love," all mathematical models collapse. "Love" and "doing" — ever since the first pair of creatures gendered by gender experienced their first short-circuit of bioelectric signals — this perpetually muddled account has been expanding in its short-circuited way, extending from every tremor of bioelectric current toward the deepest recesses of the universe.
"No doing, no love" / "No love, no doing" — these tedious arguments that attempt, from an ontological angle, to draw some a priori relationship between "doing" and "love" — that's just too un-hormonal. Hormones require only practice, and practice presupposes "doing," which of course includes "calling." Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. By the same logic, "doing" is the sole criterion for testing "love." Tossing aside all ontological nonsense, standing on the pragmatic viewpoint of "doing" and "love," hormonal China crossed the river by feeling the stones.
Of course, based on the relationship between "love" and "doing," all hormone-affected organisms can be classified accordingly. For instance, all organisms, using "can and cannot" to partition the relationship between "love" and "doing," fall into four categories: can "love" and can "do"; cannot "love" and cannot "do"; can "love" but cannot "do"; can "do" but cannot "love." Standing on the pragmatic foundation that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth, or that "doing" is the sole criterion for testing "love," whether one can "love" or cannot "love" must be tested through the practice of whether one can "do" or cannot "do."
And the development of society is ultimately about turning what cannot be "done" into what can be "done." Everything that cannot be "done" will eventually be "done" into something that can be "done." In such a brave new world, there would be nothing that cannot be "loved." Because "love" is also "done" into existence. Even if "love" was once something that could not be "done," it can ultimately be "done" into something that can be "done" — this is called the developmental viewpoint. If current "love" still cannot be "done," then just "do" more. Things develop. There was never any "love" in the world to begin with — "do" enough, and naturally "love" appears. "Do" everything, and naturally everything is "loved" — this is called "universal love."
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán 2006/10/7 17:34:03
[Anonymous] 渭城秦人
2006-10-06 00:58:21
==================
There is nothing that is inherently "should" or "shouldn't." Take a piece of wood in a rushing current — should it go left or right?