Regarding ultimate existence, from origin to category, we used to refer to it as ontological thinking. However, in modern times, especially starting from Kant's philosophy, philosophy has undergone an epistemological shift, where discussions of ultimate existence are not considered from the perspective of existence, but from the perspective of subject and object.

To understand the world, you first need to understand yourself. You need to study what you see, think, hear, and even think. First, you need to understand what you can think, think, hear, and hear. In the language of Yogacara, you need to study your point of view, you need to study your point of view, you need to study your point of view, you need to study the seeds in your Alaya consciousness, which leads to a shift in epistemology.

So, ultimate existence is not about searching everywhere, but about finding the reality of things and souls between our subject and object. The result of our encounter is only phenomena, and everyone realizes that we can only understand phenomena, which is called the turn of epistemology. Kant said, this is the thing in itself, unknowable. Absolute self or free will is also a hypothesis. God exists with an immortal soul, and free will is a hypothesis. So what is it?

The task of philosophy is not to place absolute things in themselves and absolute subjects, but to place them in between. We have conducted research on the cognitive schema of this concept, and we can clarify it. Therefore, Kantian philosophy studies how a priori judgment is possible, investigates innate concepts, innate schemas, and even priori synesthesia.

But is that what I said about Xiong Shili's ontology today?

Not really, if that's the case, it's not Xiong Shili anymore. Sometimes we feel that Kant's shift towards subjectivity seems different from the old metaphysics, but in fact, it is just packaged in one place. In fact, it is still in the same lineage. In the past, it constructed a metaphysics on the surface of the phenomenal world, but now it has transformed it into subject and object, both of which are unknowable. It is possible to recognize this phenomenon, but the phenomenon is constantly changing. What remains unchanged within the phenomenon are the conceptual patterns of the subject's understanding of the phenomenon, which he calls objective subjectivity. Very interesting, actually it's about packaging the entire traditional metaphysics and putting it in that place, which is not the issue that Xiong Shili is concerned about.

So, what is the real issue that Xiong Shili is concerned about?

I am the last one, called Transcendence. To explore the essence of the phenomenal world, the inferences, mechanisms, laws, and driving forces of experience, it is basically within the scope of causal thinking, which belongs to the object of science and concrete learning and cannot withstand the eternal questioning of philosophy.

So, the category is similar to the previous four categories, but it constructs a metaphysical system in human philosophy, which is a dilemma in Chinese philosophy. Our traditional philosophy talks about having habits, sincerity, or initiative, both of which are related to this thing. What is the essence of Chinese philosophy?

What is the ontology of philosophy, as discussed by Xiong Shili? It is not the fundamental mechanism and laws, but the driving force is all the principles found from phenomena and things. Because this is still causal thinking, not subject object epistemology or the absolute subject itself of subjectivity, not the cognitive schema cognitive category in the process of absolute subject manifestation. What he is looking for is precisely this kind of cognitive turning, which means that he is looking for the absolute subject and absolute object to be called ontology.

If we use traditional words, the cause of all phenomena is not in the causal chain, nor is it in this metaphysical entanglement. The higher existence above this is called Tai Chi, infinite and Tai Chi. I borrowed the term Xiong Shili, not Zhou Dunyi. The ontology discussed in traditional philosophy is neither the phenomenon nor the underlying mechanisms, laws, and dynamics derived from cause and effect, nor the logical categories constructed by this person's thinking. This logic cannot grasp reality.

For example, you have said that it is impossible to grasp the concepts of "going to the many, similarities and differences, and the characters of heaven and earth" in Chinese philosophy, and of course, Western philosophy also holds the same view. I often give an example. In Feng Youlan's introduction to the new history of Chinese philosophy, he made a joke about using this concept to grasp reality. He said it was an endless game and asked a classmate to buy bread. You immediately ran out when you heard this, but you were a very serious person. After a while, you came back and said, 'What kind of bread do you buy? Is it long or short?' I said buy a long bread, but you ran out again, but because you were too serious, you came back, white or yellow. Then I told you to buy a long white bread, and you went out again. You have to come back later. You can play this game forever.

Some people say that this simple list will be completed in a while. For example, if I joke to you, you will ask me which year and region the bread noodles are from. Anyway, I will add infinite attributions, and this story will never be finished. Westerners have come up with good ideas. Originally, Plato used fixed ideas, but later he talked about the theory of seeds and wanted to combine these concepts. Hegel wanted to make these concepts flow and form a new conceptual space, as if these concepts were alive on their own. This is called dialectics, and authentic dialectics is the combination of the flow of concepts.

But this also cannot be grasped as a thought. Ideas are always ideas, just like Kant once said, money in your pocket is always two different things from the hundred dollars you imagine. So, what exactly are the traditional Chinese philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism?

He is the principle of all existence, but he cannot explain it with phenomenological causality, nor can he prove it with logical reasoning. It can only rely on our experience of life and direct understanding of the absolute. In Xiong Shili's theory of measurement, the concept of sexual intelligence is discussed, which is called "infinite and Tai Chi". This infinite and Tai Chi used to be taught by Tai Xue, which pushed him out, but in fact he is not outside, he is inside. ?

If we use this subject to object transformation, Kant said that the subject and object cannot be cognized. Your Chinese philosophy, Xiong Shili, is talking about the need to cognize it. What kind of cognition does it rely on?

Of course, it cannot be obtained through this subject object dichotomy or objectification thinking, only through conscious self-awareness of sexual intelligence.

Westerners believe that the mind can only understand objectified things. How can the mind understand itself? When it understands itself, it is not objectified epistemology, and it seems that it cannot be discussed in the context of quantity theory. Chinese philosophy precisely states that that thing can be understood, and the object itself can also be understood, but it is not through dialectics to approach it infinitely, but to understand ourselves, to understand ourselves, and ourselves are the object itself.

Is there anything bigger, more fundamental, and more tangible than ourselves, but what does it take to know ourselves?

Objectified thinking is not feasible. We need to rely on the traditional Chinese philosophy of the Three Teachings, which emphasizes the concept of 'wisdom and prajnaparamita', or the Confucian approach of 'investigating things to achieve knowledge and conscience'. This is the philosophy of Xiong Shili. If we look at it from the perspective of exploring ontology in traditional philosophy, it is neither experiential thinking nor logical thinking, nor the Kantian style of epistemological thinking. Instead, it is a grasp of absolute existence, which is called ontology in Chinese philosophy.

So, we often encounter a problem now, which is that many people who are engaged in Western philosophy believe that there is no ontology in Chinese philosophy. Xiong Shili is wrong in saying that it is best to write a history of Chinese philosophy in the future without any ontology of Chinese philosophy or the ontology of Confucius and Zhuangzi. These are all mistakes, and we have used the wrong word to say that the ontology we are talking about has a special meaning, which is what it means.

Or if this level of Kantian philosophy is called ontology, and you are discussing the Eastern mysticism of worldview, origin, and transcendence, how can it be called ontology?

I will briefly list for you these three times. In the past, many people have defined ontology in a narrow sense, which is the eternal principle system composed of logical deduction in the world of consciousness.

From this perspective, traditional Chinese philosophy is rare, and most of them reject this approach. The sincerity and initiative that Zhuangzi talked about earlier, as well as those of us Confucians, such as those who talk about the nature of heaven and earth, the nature of temperament, and the practice of mind, can all be seen.

I sometimes think that the symbol system of the Book of Changes is more similar to it, which talks about the constant changes in the upper and lower six lines. After reading it every day, you can have a bit of flavor. Of course, it does not follow formal logic. It talks about the subjective elements in the changes of yin and yang lines, and the hermeneutics is in it, but there is a bit of flavor. Of course, what I mean is that by discussing the issue of ontology, we know what he ultimately explores, and what he ultimately explores is the grasp of that absolute existence.

So, in the history of Western philosophy, it is the same. The tradition that began with Socrates and Plato in the West is very valuable and may be useful for the development of rationality in scientific thinking. However, you cannot say that this is the only way to explore the root of philosophy. It should be that our Eastern philosophy is also a kind of exploration of ultimate existence. You can call it ontology, because we have this term in classical times, starting with Xunzi and extensively using the term ontology in Buddhist studies during the Sui and Tang dynasties, and it is precisely used at the level of real ultimate existence.

So, some people say that if you don't like us to use ontology, you might as well change the Western philosophy's word for ontology to "is theory". Westerners discuss philosophical issues through the expression of linking verbs, and they say that the subject can be changed before and after (I am, You are, He is), but the middle one remains unchanged. Let Westerners see through their language that there is a kind of learning that discusses the problem of unchanging existence, and you can use this word.