Answer the question of "truth" and "heart"

The following is the question@HsuKeFeng in my " Ah then Le " article:

If you get your love or not, there is no benefit or loss. Once it takes shape, it will never die. ⟨Zhuangzi. The Theory of Equality⟩

I want to share with you this idea that has supported my heart for a long time, and also want to ask questions. That is, the ancients (theory of traditional Chinese medicine) believed that the mind controls thoughts, but the brain does not function because of cognition. With this argument, I can convince myself that every time I think, I don't have to calculate too much or ask for a one-to-one comparison, or to separate it from emotion... The unity of knowledge and action, it's good to be worthy of conscience, science and mathematics can only be Selectively ignore, anyway, do not understand. This must be your specialty. Does your heart function in thinking and judgment...? Is its response a corresponding command from the central nervous system? I don't know how to look at it in medicine today.

The intricate relationship between "body" and "mind" has never been answered from ancient times to modern times. I can only tell you my current thinking.

I think at least "heart" will not refer to the organ of the heart. It will be described in this way. It should be that for ancient people, the pulsation of the heart is easy to feel, and the operation of the brain is quiet. When a person is thinking and emotionally fluctuating, the beating of the heart will change, and it is easier to think that the "heart" is the source of these. Such "misrecognition" is actually very "Lacan"! Much like what he said: the misidentification of the subject in the process of "imagination" and "symbolism". (I think so many heart-changing people should be able to prove this, and you are not necessarily confused by this level of problems).

Next is whether the operation of the "brain" is equivalent to the "heart" in the language sense? Judging from the current medical evidence, the operation of the "heart" should be inseparable from the "brain". However, considering the complex "heart" as the connection of a large number of neural networks, it is difficult for many people to accept "emotionally"; when the "heart" is lowered to the level of "material", in terms of human thinking, always resisted. But I don't want to just equate "heart" with "brain", because there are still many unclear connections between them at this stage.

At the moment I might say: "Heart" is on the "Chain of Meaning" (ha! It's totally Lacan poisoning). The meaning chain has inherited the results and traces of the operation of the "mind" in history, and it is constantly changing; if we explore further, we will reach the level of Lacan's "reality". I am still thinking about this part, just extending it. Go to your discussion of the word "true" below.

There is also the real dismantling, explaining the text, and the ancient characters can be dismantled into: dagger eyes and no, dagger (human shape, or human) eyes (eyes) and (hidden meaning) not ( base, base). I persuaded myself that when the ancients said truth, it showed that people were blinded by their eyes, and I felt much more at ease.

I couldn't help laughing when I saw this passage. My opinion is still very Lacan (this shows that the influence of the "big Other" is really terrible). I would imagine it as: "people" trying to "see through" the "real world" hidden in the "pedestal". Naturally, now I will first correspond to Lacan's "real world" in the "authentic" in the Chinese tradition, but it is not a very rigorous inference.

Of course, there are other methods of dismantling ancient Chinese characters, such as dagger ㄦ one, dagger and mortar, etc. I won't go into details because it's a bit literal. It is about: people want to transcend as ㄦ (ㄦ son, the meaning of human beings), similar to the Taoist saying, so later there is a Taoism derivative of immortals and real people. The philosophical implication I think is similar to Nietzsche's Superman, of course not one by one. The other one is more boring. Jiu means hands on hips, mostly adults. In short: what a person wants to do, adults say what they say, if it is true, it is true!

It is definitely not a serious textual research, there is this interpretation, there is this statement. It's just that these statements may have been traces of people seeking truth, and I don't know the conclusion. It is only a reference to contemporary and Western systems of epistemology, methodology, and theology.

"Someone once thought that" is what reassures me the most. Although there will be traces of integration and erasure, the same text is true, and the true is simplified into reality. Going straight to Eight will lose interest. In today's Chinese context, truth does not carry the meaning of Taoism on the surface, and there are many elements of logic truth.

There's nothing wrong with it, the discussion doesn't end. The heart and the brain part are asking for answers, sorry for your inconvenience.

Writing here, I found that many of the things you mentioned may have been originally written in the next article (in fact, this article has already mentioned quite a lot, XD), let me take a little more time to sort it out.