Descartes created the coordinate system, Newton invented calculus, and Riemann's geometry laid the foundation for relativity—each advancement in mathematics has propelled science. Yet, when examining mathematics itself, we encounter paradoxes that force an appeal to an unexamined "objective" reality, begging the question: How is mathematics itself possible? This work returns to a single, indubitable philosophical principle: Being as Relating. We demonstrate that mathematics is not a pre-existing Platonic realm, but a consensual logical protocol that necessarily emerges in any cognitive system (...) to sustain coherent description. From this, we rigorously derive the mathematical world: Number arises from the act of relating; Geometry is a projection of relational structures; π is the factor converting infinite continuity into finite determination; the imaginary unit i (i² = -1) is the necessary form of "relating to any perspective." Herein, the Riemann Hypothesis is proven as meta-mathematical necessity: its non-trivial zeros must lie at Re(s)=1/2, not by function properties, but because it is a fundamental law for harmonizing all perspectives. Thus, Gödel's and Russell's paradoxes are resolved, revealed as violations of the principle of relational description. The universal necessity of mathematics is grounded not in a transcendent realm, but in this inescapable deep grammar of relation. (shrink)

Note: The philosophical ideas and arguments first presented in this work have now been fully integrated, significantly refined, and expanded within a unified theoretical framework. For the most current and comprehensive presentation of this research program, please refer to the new publication: The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes This new work serves as the definitive and complete expression of this philosophical system, incorporating and superseding the foundational concepts initially (...) explored here. (shrink)

This preliminary version has been superseded. Its foundational discussion has been extended and rigorously reconstructed in the paper Being as Relating Ⅰ: Reconstructing a Cosmos without "Objectivity", which offers a systematic analysis of time, space, and physical phenomena from the premise of ‘being’. The link now points to this definitive work.

The essay aims to transcend the deterministic interpretations often associated with traditional Chinese metaphysical systems, and to construct a meta-philosophical framework termed "Benchmark-Based Perspectivism" through phenomenological reduction and abstract conceptualization. As argued in this work, among the Five Elements, "Earth" should be understood not as a concrete entity but as a "benchmark unit"—a logical primitive that eludes direct description yet serves as the referential basis for all descriptions within the system. Relative to this benchmark, other units become describable by virtue (...) of maintaining determinate informational differences. Through two fundamental forms of relations among these units, the system attains informational transfer and dynamic stability. The essay further reevaluates classical Chinese conceptual maps as representations of the internal architecture and external dynamics of this five-term system, thereby clarifying the operational principles of the benchmark unit and relational operations. Within this framework, seminal concepts from the Classic of Changes—including the Supreme Polarity, the Two Modes, and the Four Images—receive a coherent ontological reinterpretation. Furthermore, the framework resolves the mind-matter dichotomy by advancing a model of "mutual ontological status," while also reinterpreting the distinction between the primordial and the manifested arrangements of the trigrams. In summary, "Benchmark-Based Perspectivism" offers a robust and universal metatheoretical viewpoint. It not only integrates many core notions from traditional Chinese thought within a unified explanatory system, but also supplies a novel philosophical instrument grounded in Chinese intellectual heritage to engage contemporary challenges in areas such as consciousness studies and fundamental physics. (shrink)

Euclid defined the straight line as infinitely extended, yet never explained why it must be so. Descartes discovered "I think, therefore I am," yet never examined how the "I" thinks. Kant asserted that objects conform to our concepts, but did not question why space and time must be a priori forms of intuition. Einstein uncovered the relativity of relations, yet never asked why constant and infinite speed must belong to light. Since Newton, science has sought to explore reality, yet has (...) never confronted the logical circularity in the idea of the objective investigating the objective. This paper begins from an indubitable singularity—I exist—and proceeds through logical deduction to systematically address the nature of thinking, the formation of space and time, the essence of motion, and the origin of consciousness. From this foundation, we propose and demonstrate the axiom of descriptive relativity: Any determinate description necessarily depends on a logically prior benchmark unit. It is rigorously derived that: So-called "three-dimensional" space is not substantive but a logical degree of freedom introduced so that innumerable two-dimensional benchmark perspectives can reach descriptive consensus. Time is not a background flow but a logical marker identifying the progression of "my process" and "our process." Motion is not the displacement of substance but a syntactic representation in the phenomenal realm of underlying relational dynamics. Consciousness is not a mysterious entity but a self-referential function emerging from the relational flow—the "dynamic interaction between two essential substances." The cosmos reconstructed under this framework reveals that the objective world we perceive is in fact a consensus-rendered interface achieved by all benchmark perspectives across a dynamic spiral network. Within this architecture, the classical Ptolemaic system's dilemmas—such as planetary retrograde motion—are thoroughly resolved; quantum phenomena such as wave-particle duality and entanglement find natural explanations; and Kepler's three laws, gravitational phenomena, and even the light-speed limit are revealed as necessary manifestations of descriptive relativity acting at different levels. The paper ultimately demonstrates that the static structure of existence and the dynamic process of generation are essentially unified under descriptive relativity. A testable necessary corollary is thus rigorously derived: In the static reference frame of any planet, a spatiotemporal relation D³ / ( T_P)² = K_P holds exactly, where K_P is a constant determined by the planet's own perspective. This not only provides an empirical interface for the theory but also fundamentally illuminates a decentralized cosmos woven together by the legislative power of descriptive consensus. (shrink)

This paper undertakes a philosophical demystification of the Zhou Yi (I Ching), challenging its traditional interpretation as a cosmic ontology. By introducing “Benchmark-Based Perspectivism” as a meta-theoretical framework, we reconfigure “Qian” as the freedom of benchmark selection and “Kun” as the necessity of benchmark anchoring. This reveals the Zhou Yi to be, in essence, a “cognitive calendar”—a dynamic system governing the fundamental operations of human cognition. The discourse itself serves as a methodological demonstration of this framework. Through the establishment of (...) a new cognitive benchmark, we re-examine the intellectual lineage from Wang Bi and Zhu Xi to YE Shi and Wang FUZHI. Our analysis contends that the former, in constructing an absolute noumenon, obscured cognitive freedom, while the latter, constrained by their theoretical tools, fell short of achieving a full epistemological turn. This comparative study underscores the instrumental nature of theoretical frameworks themselves. We ultimately argue that the value of the Zhou Yi lies not in furnishing ultimate truths about the world, but in providing a “mental operating system.” Guided by its core principle of “the concurrent establishment of Qian and KUN,” this system enables a dynamic balance between perspectival freedom and responsible engagement with reality. Thus, this work is simultaneously a reinterpretation of the Zhou Yi and a practical application of its cognitive methodology, offering a fresh philosophical framework for constructing meaning amidst the predicaments of modernity. (shrink)

For millennia, scholars have sought the ultimate meaning of freedom in the Zhuangzi by judging its ideas against fixed, absolute standards: Is it about greatness or smallness? A higher state or a lower one? Being or non-being? This quest has trapped interpretation in an endless debate about spiritual hierarchy, missing the text’s foundational insight. This essay argues that the core of the Zhuangzi is not a preference for one pole over another, but a revelation of the relational ground that makes (...) all such distinctions possible. Relationality here is not a comparison but the constitutive principle of reality—the “pivot of the Way” that allows the world to appear. Through this lens, the text’s most famous images are transfigured: the colossal Leviathan and Roc are no longer about size, but about the creative gap between name and reality; “I have lost myself” becomes not an ascetic negation, but the dynamic act by which a fluid self unravels a rigid ego. Most radically, the tale of Primordial Chaos is overturned: Chaos does not die, for the opposing forces that seem to destroy it are in fact its very essence—Chaos is undying. This “relational pivot” unlocks a coherent philosophy across the Zhuangzi: freedom is not unconditioned transcendence but a way of engaging dependency; wisdom is not seeing all things as the same, but seeing how difference itself is what connects them; virtue is not an inner stockpile but the outward expression of coherent relationship. The text systematically dissolves our fixations on greatness, utility, correctness, and perfection. The ultimate aim of the Zhuangzi, therefore, is not to reach a detached spiritual plateau. It is to realize the ontological fact that to exist is to relate. This realization is itself emancipation: it allows one to reign through self-illumination—to become the clear-sighted and sovereign author of one’s own experience. This is the philosophical power of the text, and its most potent form of practice. (shrink)

This paper aims to break through the mainstream paradigm of "brain-centrism" and provide a novel philosophical model for the heart-brain relationship. Utilizing "Benchmark-Based Perspectivism" as a meta-theoretical tool, the author critically deconstructs the symbolic system of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) while reconstructing its core concepts (such as Jing, Shen, Hun, Po) into a systematic functional language based on a "Five-Elements-Two-Relationships" framework. Building on this, the paper proposes a revolutionary hypothesis: the "Heart" is the operational core of consciousness and emotion (CPU), (...) while the "Brain" is the organ responsible for thinking, regulation (OS), and memory. This hypothesis is grounded in a reinterpretation of classical texts like the (《灵枢》, LS) and (《素问》, SW), and also exhibits structural similarities with recent discoveries in contemporary neuroscience (e.g., predictive coding, allostasis, heart rate variability), thereby arguing for its intrinsic plausibility. Ultimately, the paper constructs the analogous model of the "Heart as CPU, Brain as OS." This model not only provides a unified explanatory framework for understanding consciousness, emotion, and their pathologies but also serves as a testable philosophical framework, opening new paths for future interdisciplinary empirical research (e.g., psychosomatic medicine, cognitive science). The aim is to promote the creative integration of traditional wisdom and modern science. (shrink)

Mohist thought has long been marginalized and misunderstood due to its seemingly irreconcilable integration of rational logic, religious language, and utilitarian ethics. This paper is the first to systematically introduce and apply an original philosophical methodology—​Benchmark-Based Perspectivism to conduct a thorough re-evaluation and rehabilitation of Mohism. This theory proposes that the prerequisite for cognizing any system is to identify its intrinsic benchmark unit (an indescribable logical origin), quantitative differential (the impetus for systemic motion), and relations (the manner of unidirectional information (...) flow), and to observe how the system thereby maintains dynamic equilibrium​​. ​​This framework enables a groundbreaking reinterpretation of Mohist philosophy: "Tian Z (the Will of Heaven)" is interpreted not as a personal divine decree, but as the intrinsic regulatory law and ultimate benchmark of a cosmic system tending towards balance. "Jian Ai (Impartial Care)" and "Fei Gong (Non-Aggression)" are revealed to be the core relational laws for maintaining systemic equilibrium, which mandate the necessary circulation and prohibition of information (benefit/利). The implicit structure of Mohist theory is shown to constitute a minimal yet necessary model of dynamic balance, perfectly fulfilling the formal requirements of Benchmark-Based Perspectivism. Consequently,the Mohists'" sacrifice" is rehabilitated: it represents a highly rational act of system maintenance, wherein systemic agents implement negative feedback through self-sacrifice (local regulation) to ensure the stable perpetuation of the global system—a profound "benevolence of existence" (存在之仁). This study successfully resolves the internal tensions within Mohist thought ，reconstructing it from a collection of contradictions into a profound and coherent system of philosophy, thereby providing a powerful vindication of its status within both Chinese and global intellectual history. (shrink)

This text constitutes a radical rupture with the *Analects* and its millennial hermeneutic tradition. It asserts that the “Confucian Dao-Tong” (the orthodox transmission of the Way), constructed through layers of historical commentary, is a distortion of Confucius’s original intent—an ossified accumulation of intellectual “nightsoil.” The true Confucian path, it argues, resides not in textual authority but within the immanent praxis of life-as-existence; “the Dao is in the nightsoil,” flowing through the most visceral and immediate layers of lived experience. Proceeding from (...) the ground of lived existence, the essay rejects all exegetical mediation, returning directly to the life-contexts behind “The Master said.” It redefines learning as the intrinsic joy of the unity of knowing and acting, deconstructs humaneness as unconditional respect for radical difference, and reconceives teaching as mutual illumination among fellow travelers. Through critical analysis, it demonstrates that—with Yan Hui as the sole exception—each major disciple initiated a fundamental deviation: Zeng Shen (曾子) toward textual idolatry, Bu Shang (子夏) toward utilitarian scholarship, and Mencius toward a moral-metaphysical systematization of mind and nature. This, the essay contends, marks the pivotal mutation that gave rise to the rigid “orthodox transmission of the Way.” The philosophical critique culminates in a diagnosis of the present: an education system that eliminates doubt in pursuit of standardized answers, and an academic industry sustained by citation and conceptual patchwork, are identified as the living extensions of that same stagnant Dao-Tong logic. Offering no program for reform, the text commits itself instead to a decisive break—a burning of bridges. It is a manifesto announcing the end of the “Dao-Tong” and an invitation: to turn toward the generative source of “life-praxis,” and to embody, within the fertile decay of inherited thought, that wordless, ceaselessly unfolding vitality of existence itself. (shrink)

(Entry Update Notice) This document has been significantly revised and expanded, and has been submitted as a new, independent entry titled The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes. To facilitate reader access, this original entry will remain available. Please note that the new and old versions contain the same core work, and readers should avoid downloading duplicates. Appendix: Summary of the New Version's Content This update is based on a (...) more complete new version. The new work systematically reconstructs the foundations of mathematics from a first principle termed "Descriptive Relativity,"​ and claims to have achieved three fundamental breakthroughs: It clarifies the origin and nature of "number,"​ constructing this fundamental concept from its philosophical and logical roots. It proves the Riemann Hypothesis, establishing it as a meta-mathematical necessity. It provides comprehensive resolutions​ to a series of fundamental paradoxes in the foundations of mathematics. Therefore, the new version (The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes) is the authoritative text representing the final conclusions of this research**, and readers are advised to refer to it. (shrink)

This paper aims to reveal the limitations of the traditional logical cornerstone—the Law of Identity—which stem from elevating static presuppositions to an absolute status, thereby creating difficulties when dealing with a dynamic and relational world. To address this, we propose a "Benchmark-Based Perspectivism" framework based on the ontological principle that "To Be is to Be Relative," conceptualizing existence as a relational phenomenon and redefining objectivity as dynamic consensus. Within this framework, Hume's "Is-Ought" problem and the moral luck paradox can be (...) systematically resolved. Ultimately, this paper does not seek to negate the Law of Identity but to delineate its domain of validity, arguing that the future development of rational inquiry lies in the conscious division and integration of static analysis and dynamic consensus thinking. (shrink)

Philosophy has lost its way in a labyrinth of abstraction. Today, it is often seen as a detached academic discipline, its original essence — the loving pursuit (p-h-i-l-o-) of wisdom (s-o-p-h-i-a) — obscured. True philosophy should be a lived, embodied, and deeply human engagement, not a corpus of cold texts. Moving beyond the traditional scholarly paper, this work returns to the fabric of ordinary life. It chronicles a dialogue conducted over WeChat in which two middle-aged individuals confront, through the mundane (...) details of business and family, the perennial question: how should one live? Their conversation begins with practical concerns — the “fortune” and “misfortune” of the Book of Changes, gains and losses in trade, duties at home — and from there deconstructs the absoluteness of concepts like “high and low,” “balance,” and even “fate.” It reveals that the “practical wisdom” sought in contemporary thought is not about applying pre-existing norms. Rather, it emerges from making a clear-eyed choice and assuming full responsibility within each concrete “present moment”, under the recognition that “Being as Relating.” This leads to a fundamental reversal: responsibility transforms from a constraint into the very substance of freedom; balance ceases to be a distant ideal and becomes a verb — dynamically enacted in the very process of bearing responsibility. They arrive at a shared understanding: responsibility is not a burden but the source of inner freedom and joy. This constitutes both a modern reading of Confucian and Daoist thought and a tangible practice of unifying knowledge with action. Ultimately, this dialogue is an invitation: to witness how philosophy, by grounding itself in the warmth of lived experience, can find its way out of the labyrinth and again become a light for daily life. (shrink)

We live at a defining moment: technology is reshaping what it means to know, to think, to be. Artificial intelligence now speaks with fluency and predicts with precision—forcing upon us a radical question: If a machine can mirror the mind, what remains uniquely sacred about conscious life? This work offers a clarifying and uncompromising reply, rooted in the ontology of “Being as Relating.” Here, consciousness is not a thing possessed, but a primary act of distinction—the ongoing process that draws “I” (...) from “not-I.” What we call the objective world is not outside us; it is the living consensus interface dynamically negotiated among all perspectives under a system of necessary constraints. Thus, the essence of consciousness is verbal: a continuous, generative act of meaning-making and world-forming. By contrast, every current form of AI—large language models, embodied systems, recommendation engines—operates within the nominal. It excavates and calculates traces left by conscious acts, yet remains forever absent from the moment of meaning’s birth. This is not a gap in capability, but an ontological divide: between the flowing source and its shimmering reflection. In the end, this essay issues a call not for technological reform, but for cognitive uprising—a “Paradigm-Revolting.” We must wake from the curated certainty of algorithmic existence and reclaim our condition as relational beings: open, dynamic, and inherently undetermined. More than a thesis, this is a manifesto for consciousness in an age of code. (shrink)

Parmenides declared Being one — yet what is “the One”? Heraclitus denied we step twice into the same river — yet why not? Heidegger severed beings from Being — but how then can Dasein be-with? To these persistent aporias in Western thought, this paper answers from an unexpected source: the archaic Chinese H-e-t-u (River Diagram). Using a spare, self‑consistent symbolism (●, ○, ⊙, →, ∟, …), we construct a relational ontology that shifts from describing what appears to deriving how appearing (...) must occur — offering not another interpretation of reality, but the generative logic of its Descriptiveness. The system rests on one axiom: to be is to relate. Any determinate phenomenon (⊙X) demands dual grounding: a one‑dimensional “relative‑to” (→) and a two‑dimensional “relative‑through” (∟) relation. Recursively applied, this constraint necessarily produces a closed cycle of five primordial phenomena — from whose dual‑relational positions the decimal digits 0–9 emerge, not by convention but as the intrinsic naming‑scheme of relational difference. By then formalizing the indescribable background (○) as the imaginary unit i, we derive the defining relation i² = –1, thereby anchoring complex numbers in the very logic of appearance and explaining how multiple, Networked perspectives cohere within a single descriptive space. Thus mathematics reveals itself neither as a Platonic domain of objects nor as a formal game: it is existence’s own syntax for self‑description in pure relation. This work proposes a relational, endogenous, and non‑aprioristic foundation for mathematical ontology — and with it, a coherent meta‑framework for re‑thinking physics, consciousness, and the possibility of shared knowledge. (shrink)

This paper challenges a persistent assumption in mainstream philosophy: that the self must be conceived as a substantial entity or an ultimate metaphysical ground. To move beyond this impasse, it constructs a new model through a rigorous synthesis of three seminal Chinese concepts: Confucian relational actuality (you), Daoist generative negativity (Wu), and Buddhist empty openness (Kong). From this synthesis emerges a central thesis: the “I” is most fundamentally not a being but the active process of relating itself (“I” as Relating). (...) This redefinition triggers a metaphysical self-undoing, dissolving the quest for a foundational subject. The argument culminates not in abstraction, but in a decisive turn to immediate present-moment awareness—the very site where this non-substantial self enacts its freedom. The essay’s radical 300-word classical form performs its philosophy, embodying the disciplined, present-focused cognition it advocates. (shrink)

This is an article meant to vanish upon reading. To engage with it may leave you intellectually dizzy and unsettled, yet to pass it by might mean forgoing a crucial moment to awaken into your own sovereign thinking. It begins with the fundamental paradox of cognition, weaving through ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language and mind, philosophy of science, and even the metaphysics of divination—all threaded by a single, unifying ontological-epistemological concept: being as verb and the relativity of description. (...) From philosophy to commerce, from Socrates to まつした こうのすけ, from scientific revolution to fortune-telling, it appears to speak of everything, yet in the end articulates nothing definitive. It is, instead, a pure summons to spiritual independence. Therefore, its true reader is not the academic specialist, but every existing individual. As for why it was written, even the author does not know—yet written it was. (shrink)