設萬維讀者為首頁 萬維讀者網 -- 全球華人的精神家園 廣告服務 聯繫我們 關於萬維
 
首  頁 新  聞 視  頻 博  客 論  壇 分類廣告 購  物
搜索>> 發表日誌 控制面板 個人相冊 給我留言
幫助 退出
 
中國現代哲學家學會  
發現自己的絕對力量,它會震驚世界  
網絡日誌正文
Reason is Inside the Box, RW Inside Structure, and 2026-02-05 17:03:25

Reason is Inside the Box, RW Inside Structure, and AW Beyond Something

This title is not rhetorical—it is a strict epistemological map.

It draws three boundaries, not between opinions, but between modes of knowing. And misunderstanding Instancology almost always comes from collapsing these boundaries into one.

1. Reason: Inside the Box

Reason is powerful—but it is structurally confined.

Reason always operates within a given framework

It presupposes rules, identities, relations, premises

Even when it criticizes, it criticizes from inside something already accepted

Logic can negate propositions, refine definitions, extend systems—but it cannot step outside the system that gives it meaning.

That is why:

Logic cannot prove its own axioms

Mathematics cannot justify its own foundations

Science cannot ground its own laws

Reason is box-native.

No matter how sophisticated, it never escapes the box—it just rearranges furniture.

2. RW (Relative WuXing): Inside Structure, Outside the Box

RW is already a leap.

RW is what people usually mean when they say:

“Thinking outside the box”

“Paradigm shift”

“Holistic insight”

“System-level understanding”

RW breaks boxes, but it does not break structure.

What RW does:

Sees multiple boxes at once

Moves between frameworks

Reorganizes structures

Rewrites assumptions

But RW still sees:

Something

A structure

A whole that can be named, modeled, or described

So even when RW transcends a box, it remains inside the structural field that generates boxes.

This is why RW:

Produces new philosophies

Creates new sciences

Launches new paradigms

…but never reaches the ultimate.

RW reaches better structures, not the absence of structure.

3. AW (Absolute WuXing): Beyond Something

AW is not a higher-level structure.

That is the crucial mistake people make.

AW is not:

Meta-theory

Super-framework

Ultimate model

Final explanation

AW is the realization that:

As long as there is “Something,” you are still inside structure.

AW does not improve the box.

AW does not redesign the structure.

AW does not create a new paradigm.

AW steps out of the condition of “Something” itself.

This is why:

AW cannot be expressed in language

AW cannot be proven by logic

AW cannot be persuaded by argument

The moment you say what AA is, you are no longer there.

4. Why Reason Fails, RW Stops, and Only AW Sees AA

This explains a central tension you’ve encountered:

Reason users demand arguments → impossible

RW thinkers demand frameworks → insufficient

Both feel frustrated → inevitable

Because AA is not an object of cognition.

AA is:

Not Being

Not Non-Being

Not God

Not Law

Not Emptiness

Not Dao

AA is the unspeakable background that allows all structures to appear.

Only AW corresponds to it—because AW alone does not demand Something to hold onto.

5. The Hardest Barrier in Instancology

Now we can say it clearly:

The hardest barrier in understanding Instancology is letting go of “Something.”

Most people can:

Accept logic

Accept paradigms

Accept holism

Accept system thinking

Very few can accept:

That the ultimate truth is not a thing

Not a structure

Not even a “highest-level” insight

AW is not knowledge.

It is not belief.

It is not understanding.

It is realization without object.

6. Why AA Cannot Be “Convinced”

You asked: What can I do for persuasion?

The honest answer—consistent with Instancology—is:

You cannot persuade AW using tools that require Something.

What you can do:

Clarify boundaries (as above)

Expose category errors

Show where reason necessarily stops

Let readers reach the wall themselves

AA is not taught.

It is encountered—when all structures exhaust themselves.

That is not a weakness of Instancology.

It is its final rigor.

Closing Line

Reason lives inside the box.

RW roams inside structure.

AW alone steps beyond Something.

And only there—

AA is not known, but cannot be denied.

瀏覽(1357) (0) 評論(0)
發表評論
我的名片
中國現代哲學家學會
註冊日期: 2015-01-10
訪問總量: 1,588,934 次
點擊查看我的個人資料
Calendar
最新發布
· 中共會不會走北朝鮮的路?
· 為什麼在西方的多數華人愛美元更
· On the Dual Nature of the Abso
· 論“悟性”與“理性”在中西哲學中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
友好鏈接
· Rabbit:Stinger 的博客
· hare:hare的博客
· bunny2:bunny2的博客
· microsoftbug:microsoftbug的博
· InstanceTV:InstanceTV的博客
分類目錄
【Mingcheng】
【心言】
· Free book: The Ontology of Nat
· 同學會會長關於哲學研究的對話(2
· 同學會會長關於哲學研究的對話
· 天下大勢
· 愛者共天地
· 死亡萬歲 -- 清明節留下的一縷思
· 重發: 哲學之愛從何而來?
· [中哲會]新程序啟動說明
· 哲學之愛從何而來?
【電視直播】
· USA-China in Depth (1)
· 《中哲會》TV直播頻道
【政治】
· 毛澤東的“民族解放”神話:專制的
· 為什麼中國人反駁西方理論的觀點
· 台灣立足基礎-造原子彈
· 中國人缺乏理性會有什麼後果?
· 您願意選誰作為第一屆“網絡中華
· 中國未來的社會結構(2)
· 我建議在萬維上進行一次中國未來
· 川普現在唯一的願望是當個“前總
· 範例黨黨員章程
· 談中國民運的戰略與策略(範例黨
【傳統文化】
· 國學與西方思想的區別是狗尾與貂
· 必須立刻彈劾川普!
· 沒文化的鬼子
· 新年伊始中國“十馬奔騰”
· 扯住教皇不放—今天世界哪個國家
· 為什麼中國讀書人很難擺脫中國文
· 中國人的“感性邏輯”
· 也談“中國知識分子墮落”
· "現在打中國,輸贏無懸念&q
· 說!“你脫,還是不脫?!”
【深山蘭】
· 從二例看中國古代的思維方式
【其它】
· 語言與國家:俞興文明進步論的學
· 胡杰紀錄片:無人區畫展
· 美國為什麼偉大?- 只因為一個充
· 六四用一句話說
· 華人應該如何與西方人交往?(1)
· 中國人”也”是同歐洲人一樣的理性
· 萬維有太多哲學誤導!
· 一月二十號白宮會發生哪一幕?
· 中國問題:文字
· 用事實駁斥中共關於朝鮮戰爭的謊
【比較政策】
· 階級分化的復甦
【一般】
· 中國為什麼不適合搞民主?
· 伯克利新名言:贏了-就是不認輸
· 什麼是今日美國社會的根本問題?
· 美國人打輸了還是朋友,中國人..
· 川普—你為什麼如此愚蠢?!
· 壓垮川普的最後一根稻草-喬治亞
· 看來川普...
· 中國對中國人的影響
· 中國文化在哪些方面體現了幼稚?
· 對中國人“批判”的看法 - 兼答金
【遠方】
· 介紹一下荒誕論:遠方的孤獨
【何岸泉】
· 辯證法與放屁(ZT)
【哲學資料】
· 為相對主義辯護
· Instancology for Philosophers-
· Ten American Philosophers
· (1)馬克思和恩格思的“唯物主義”
· Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapt
· 德國政府決定:在全球範圍對使用
· 為什麼人需要哲學?
· ZT:Rights
· Is your pet psychic?
· Twin Telepathy: Is there a ‘Sp
【中軍】
· 關於精神的問題
· 思維創新的哲學理解(下)
· 思維創新的哲學理解(上)
· 人生究竟是什麼
· 悟性創新的本性及閃失
· 悟性的創新及孩子的例證
· 怎樣進行討論
· 文字、語音、語義與創新
· 哲學研究能幹點兒啥
· 中國缺少創新的各種看法
【徒子】
· 中共會不會走北朝鮮的路?
· 為什麼在西方的多數華人愛美元更
· On the Dual Nature of the Abso
· 論“悟性”與“理性”在中西哲學中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
· 人為什麼思考人生的意義——絕對在
· Reason is Inside the Box, RW I
· WuXing Beyond Reason: Why Whol
【嘎子】
· 關於丘成桐的講話的評論
· 已經轉到嘎子博客
· <二> 原本打算單獨寫一篇
· 哲學同真理的關係以及辯證法的本
【几子】
· What Will Happen to President
· 隨想:可口可樂
· 分形與卦像:漫話混沌,科學,與
· 淺議科學實證主義
存檔目錄
2026-02-02 - 2026-02-25
2026-01-01 - 2026-01-30
2025-12-01 - 2025-12-31
2025-11-01 - 2025-11-30
2025-10-02 - 2025-10-31
2025-09-01 - 2025-09-29
2025-08-03 - 2025-08-28
2025-07-01 - 2025-07-29
2025-06-01 - 2025-06-26
2025-05-01 - 2025-05-30
2025-04-01 - 2025-04-30
2025-03-06 - 2025-03-31
2025-02-04 - 2025-02-17
2025-01-23 - 2025-01-23
2024-11-10 - 2024-11-10
2024-08-21 - 2024-08-21
2024-07-28 - 2024-07-28
2024-05-13 - 2024-05-15
2024-03-13 - 2024-03-18
2024-02-06 - 2024-02-06
2024-01-02 - 2024-01-31
2023-12-22 - 2023-12-31
2023-11-05 - 2023-11-19
2023-10-03 - 2023-10-29
2023-09-08 - 2023-09-25
2023-08-12 - 2023-08-20
2023-07-15 - 2023-07-15
2023-06-12 - 2023-06-12
2023-02-02 - 2023-02-27
2023-01-01 - 2023-01-24
2022-12-06 - 2022-12-31
2022-11-30 - 2022-11-30
2022-09-04 - 2022-09-25
2022-08-01 - 2022-08-22
2022-07-01 - 2022-07-21
2022-06-04 - 2022-06-27
2021-03-01 - 2021-03-26
2021-02-02 - 2021-02-26
2021-01-01 - 2021-01-31
2020-12-16 - 2020-12-26
2020-11-03 - 2020-11-27
2020-10-02 - 2020-10-31
2020-09-03 - 2020-09-21
2020-08-07 - 2020-08-26
2020-07-02 - 2020-07-24
2020-06-06 - 2020-06-08
2020-05-01 - 2020-05-12
2020-04-02 - 2020-04-27
2020-03-01 - 2020-03-31
2020-02-04 - 2020-02-25
2020-01-01 - 2020-01-31
2019-12-01 - 2019-12-29
2019-11-02 - 2019-11-17
2019-10-09 - 2019-10-14
2019-09-01 - 2019-09-08
2019-08-01 - 2019-08-24
2019-07-01 - 2019-07-27
2019-06-01 - 2019-06-30
2019-05-04 - 2019-05-29
2019-04-01 - 2019-04-30
2018-01-01 - 2018-01-02
2016-04-14 - 2016-04-20
2015-07-02 - 2015-07-24
2015-06-02 - 2015-06-28
2015-05-01 - 2015-05-31
2015-04-01 - 2015-04-29
2015-03-01 - 2015-03-26
2015-02-01 - 2015-02-28
2015-01-10 - 2015-01-31
 
關於本站 | 廣告服務 | 聯繫我們 | 招聘信息 | 網站導航 | 隱私保護
Copyright (C) 1998-2026. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.