中国现代哲学家学会

注册日期:2015-01-10
访问总量:1249217次

menu网络日志正文menu

The Four Relationships of Human Interior


发表时间:+-


The Four Relationships of Human Interior: Consciousness, Thinking, Mind, and Soul

By Wade Y. Dong

1. Consciousness and Thinking: Whole and Function

The first relationship is between consciousness and thinking.

Consciousness is the whole awareness, issued directly from AA (the Absolute Absolute). It is the light, not the object. It is passive, but foundational — nothing is known, felt, or thought without it.

Thinking is the symbolic function, active, structured, representational. It belongs to the RR layer, built on RA (logic, math, law), and manifested in language, judgment, and reasoning.

Their relationship follows the classical 2+1 model:

Consciousness is the Whole (1); Thinking is the Function (1).

They are ontologically distinct: consciousness is non-representable, formless, and whole; thinking is sequential, representational, and constructed.

Without consciousness, thinking is mere algorithm.

Without thinking, consciousness is silent, undifferentiated presence.

2. Consciousness and Mind: Issuance and Field

The second relationship is between consciousness and the mind.

The mind is not the origin of consciousness; it is its host — the relational field where consciousness appears, moves, and interacts with other contents (thoughts, emotions, memories).

The mind spans both AR (life) and RR (human systems). It is the instance within which the absolute whole (consciousness) is joined with the relative structures (thinking, memory).

Thus:

Consciousness is issued by AA; the mind is the living interface that receives and carries it.

Mind without consciousness is mechanistic — like a computer.

But consciousness without a mind has no field in which to manifest or relate.

3. Thinking and Mind: Function and Medium

The third relationship is between thinking and the mind.

Thinking is one of many functions within the mind — others include feeling, imagination, memory.

The mind serves as the medium through which thinking is executed, managed, and directed.

But unlike memory or emotion, thinking actively organizes the contents of mind using symbolic logic and recursive patterns.

Thus:

The mind is the space; thinking is one function among many, though it often dominates.

When thinking overrides all else, the mind becomes rigid and lifeless. When thinking is absent, the mind becomes chaotic or dreamlike.

4. Soul as the Relational Instance of All Three

The fourth relationship is not between two elements, but the result of their interrelation.

The soul is the Instance formed when:

- Consciousness (Whole)

- Thinking (Function)

are actively united within the Mind (Field)

In this way, the soul is not a separate substance but a unique connection — a living Instance where the Absolute and Relative meet through Life.

It follows the 2+1 Principle:

- 1 (Whole): Consciousness

- +1 (Function): Thinking

- +1 (Field): Mind

= Soul: the living, self-aware instance of human existence.

This makes the soul a unique, once-issued whole, a convergence of formless presence and structured function, lived in a temporally bounded instance.

Conclusion: The Interior as a Structured Instance

In summary:

Relationship | Description

-------------------------|----------------------------------

Consciousness–Thinking | Whole and Function (AA and RR)

Consciousness–Mind | Issuance and Field (AA to AR+RR)

Thinking–Mind | Function and Medium (RR within AR+RR)

Soul | The 2+1 Instance formed by their dynamic union

The human interior is not accidental. It is a relational construction, issued and shaped by the same ontological principles that structure the universe. The soul is the Instance of human being — alive, aware, and thinking — grounded in AA, expressed through RA, lived in AR, and symbolized in RR.

Only when all these elements align does a person become fully present — not just biologically alive, but spiritually whole.



浏览(393)
thumb_up(1)
评论(4)
  • 当前共有4条评论
  • 中国现代哲学家学会

    . The criticism in the screenshot primarily focuses on the use of the phrase "the four relationships of human interior", asserting that:

    1. “Interior” is spatial and not suitable to describe internal brain functions.

    2. “Human interior” is unidiomatic in English.

    3. The article “the” was omitted.

    4. The phrase is both grammatically and semantically awkward in native English.

    Here’s a calm and scholarly response you could post, if you'd like to address the critique constructively and defend the philosophical intent behind the expression:

    ---

    Response to Reader Comments on "The Four Relationships of Human Interior"

    Thank you to all who have engaged critically with the phrase “the four relationships of human interior.” I appreciate the concern for linguistic precision, but I also invite readers to consider the philosophical purpose behind the phrase.

    First, regarding “human interior”, it is true that this is not a standard collocation in everyday English. However, philosophical writing often stretches language to express concepts that ordinary usage cannot accommodate. “Interior” here is not merely spatial, nor anatomical. It is ontological and structural—referring to the inner configuration of what constitutes a human being's subjective instance. In this sense, “interior” deliberately defies idiomatic convention to carve out a conceptual space, much like “Dasein” or “noema” in continental thought.

    Second, the critique about the article “the” is valid from a grammatical standpoint. The phrase should indeed be “the human interior” or perhaps “the interior of the human being.” However, I deliberately omitted “the” in some titles to retain philosophical sharpness and abstraction, following the minimalist titling style seen in many English-language philosophical works.

    Lastly, this phrase belongs to a metaphysical framework—Instancology—that prioritizes the integrity of the instance as a whole over linguistic familiarity. Readers are encouraged to understand the term not through colloquial English but through the structural lens it was introduced in.

    In closing, I welcome continued engagement—especially from readers who can help refine the balance between philosophical clarity and linguistic formality. Constructive dialogue is essential in the pursuit of truth.

    (中国英语老师教的英语敢与质疑ChatGPT的英语!)

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 山货郎

    Interior 是个空间的概念, human interior 是神马意思? 口腔, 腹腔还是肠腔? 英语里没有人用human interior来表示脑颅内部。interior 由经纬度和时间构成的空间, 你文字的标题 “the four relationships of human interior?" 犯了语义错误, 认知关系和interior这个空间没有关系,是人脑的产物,而人脑是藏于脑颅内部空间的物质,不能用空间这个概念来代表空间所包含的物质, 你是哲学家,应该具有严谨的语义定义能力, 你可以说 ”The four relationships of the human brain cognitive capabilities or functions", 而不能说“The four relationships of human interior". 同样的例子, 可以说: "the group interior relationships are tense.,不能说: ”the group interior is tense."


    顺便说一下,human interior 前面要加“the", 你犯了个基本的语法错误)。


    恕不敬。


    屏蔽 举报回复
  • hare

    以为我不知道茴香豆的茴有几种写法?!哼,小瞧人!ChatGPT 听着,有中国人说你英语不如他

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 山货郎

    这么多年了,您老的英语还停留在原地,没有进步。标题既有语法英语语法错误也有语义错误。 你老自己琢磨琢磨吧。

    屏蔽 举报回复