English (Google-translated) version below.
对自我的理解和探索构成了任何认知展开的基础。当我们考虑应当用哪一种新的体制去和已有的、理性的、普遍接受的体制进行“比较”的时候，不妨设想“哪类自我“能够在当前体制内持续的展开富有深度和多样性的对话。这样，依据“这一类自我”所呈现出的特定认知模式，我们就能为其设计和构建更为匹配的体制（institutions）。
“比较”这一概念，实质上可以看作是一种二元形式的认知对话，它的结构很像日常生活中“我”与“你”之间的互动。每一次在比较过程中对既有的内容进行挑战或否认，都意味着我们正在尝试接纳一个新的视角或理解方式。这不仅丰富了对话的内容，增强了其多样性和延续性，而且在这一过程中，与对话相关的双方也会形成更为鲜明的个性或“特征”。我们可以根据这些“特征”，去探索可能塑造它们的合适体制。
在当前全球化与技术高度发展的背景下，我们正在经历一个充满变革和挑战的时代。探索新的社会、政治和经济体制，也意味着我们必须重新审视和理解在这些体制下产生的新的自我动态以及身份结构。这些动态和结构能够扩大现有自我体验的范围，它不仅应当包括传统的人文、艺术、宗教体验，也应当包含了数字以及人工智能和超现实技术的思维模式和技术。在数字时代，我们可以观察到各种不同的自我呈现：社交平台上塑造的虚拟身份，电子游戏中的角色设定，日常生活中的实际自我，以及沉思冥想中的内心自我。这些不同的自我表达方式，都可能反映了我们真实身份的某一部分，但同时，每一个也只能部分地呈现出真实的自我，而非全貌。这些“复数的我”的并存使得我们的自我认知更加复杂化。因此，我们需要一个多元化的认知框架来理解这种“新的自我”。在“新的认知”框架下，身份不再是一个固定的、可以被完全定义和“管理”的概念。相反，它变得更为流动和开放，正如某些虚拟或潜在的身份表现形式在特定情境中可能无法被明确观察一样。
这种新的认知在“复数自我”中是与我们的感知、知识、符号及其背后隐含的意义紧密相连。它并非是一个简单的、静态的观念，而是一个动态的、无限反映和回应的镜像过程。这个过程就像是一个无尽的回声，每一个回声都对前一个进行了反馈和补充。当然，为了确保这种新的认知方式在日常生活中的实用性，它必须至少在某种程度上理解和接受传统的或基于理性的认知。因为在没有共同的理解基础上，任何形式的对话和交流都无法进行。但与此同时，它也应当与传统或理性认知保持一定的距离和分歧，持续地对某些观点或理解进行质疑和否定。只有这样，对话才能始终保持活力，不断地引入新的主题和角度，进一步丰富和深化我们的认知。
我们可以这样假设。如果理性的体制倾向于创造和维护一个精简、易控且有限的身份体系，那么相对的，我们需要探索如何产生一个更为多样、复杂且持续分裂的身份体系。在这样的体系下，每个个体都有更大的自由度和空间来发展和表达自己，从而实现更为全面和深入的自我实现。如果理性体制的核心是基于效率和稳定性的需求，我们则需要考虑一种更为松散、灵活且变幻无常的结构和组织方式。但是，尽管我们在尝试超越或者挑战传统的理性体制，这并不意味着排斥或忽视理性认知。理性认知依旧应当被包含其中，因为它提供了一种稳固、有逻辑且系统的方式来理解、分析和解决问题。
基于上述考虑，我尝试建立一套基于公理（Axiom）的认知体系。这套认知体系可为所需要的个体提供一个看待和理解世界的框架。具体来说，这套体系可以提供如何理解和解释事物和现象的指导，它可以进一步被用于推导和建立更具体的理论和模型；比如，告诉个体如何收集和解释信息、如何做决策、以及如何看待事物的发展等；再进一步，基于它，我们可以构建一种维护其认知模式的体制。这种体制包含但是不完全肯定已有的理性体制。而公理作为这个体系的基石，是为了确保上述所有进一步的推导都是建立在与现有的公理一致的基础上。
公理1 —— 无论是物理、抽象、概念性的实体，或是未知与不可知的现象，它们都存在某种普遍的联系，这些联系在特定条件下可能被观察到。
公理1涉及到了事物的存在方式及其相互关系，还涉及到观察与知识的关系。可以把它视为一种本体论（ontology）和认知论（epistemology）相结合的变体。其目的是确保我们对任何对象或相互关系的结论不仅仅是基于局部现象；同时它强调了观察的局限性，从而承认了那些（限于当前的技术和理论框架）无法被观察到的物体和关系的存在。这种看待世界的角度可以鼓励公理的接受者更加开放和综合地思考；比如，考虑到可能存在的、但当前尚未被发现或理解的因素和联系。
公理2 —— 在前述的各种对象关系中，有的发生在以相互关联的因果属性的稳定集群，而有的则发生在与因果属性无关、但涉及推论、期望和复杂想法的集群。
公理2为公理1中所描述的“联系”提供了进一步的解释和分类。它不仅揭示了联系可能基于可以被明确观测和验证的因果关系，而且还强调了存在于因果框架之外的更为隐晦、抽象的，甚至超出直观逻辑范畴的其他复杂关系。其中“推论、期望和复杂想法”是在缺乏直接的因果联系时，个体自发所形成的一种认知或解释行为。公理2允许对于一些目前无法直接验证的因果关系现象，通过其他的方式进行理解和解释。比如，一位艺术家可能因为某个生活体验或观念启示，创作出一幅画作。在这个过程中，那个具体的体验或观念与最终的画作之间，虽然不一定有直接、清晰的因果关系，但二者之间确实存在某种深层的、难以言传的联系。这种联系可能基于艺术家的个人情感、期望或者他的一系列复杂的思考。因此，公理2为那些无法完全纳入传统理性框架的关系，包括在在艺术、宗教或其他非科学领域的经验关系，提供了一个理论空间。
公理1涵盖了从具体的物理实体到抽象的概念，以及到未知和不可知的现象。这提供了一个非常广泛的认知范围，它尝试囊括所有可能的认知对象。公理2强调了对象关系的多样性，同时刻画了一个更现实的，而非完全理性的认知结构。一方面承认基于因果的稳定关系，另一方面则考虑与因果无关但涉及到的复杂心智过程的的情境。这个目的是为了让认知结构更符合日常，而非用于科学研究。因为科学方法是基于严格的、经过验证的因果关系，而日常认知往往涉及更多的直觉、预期和社会情境。比如，情感和传统经常是基于我们的背景，所处的情境或长时间内形成的习惯或信仰，使我们能够迅速作出决策，而不需要进行深入的思考或分析。它们很少基于明确的因果关系，但经常涉及预期、推论和复杂的思维模式。
为了展示公理1和2的实际应用，我们以社交媒体为例。社交媒体上的内容、用户、平台算法等都是具体的实体，而它们都存在于普遍的相互联系之中。这些联系在某些条件下是可观察的，如数据分析和用户行为研究。 用户互动、内容分享以及平台推荐算法所构成的因果链是信息传播的核心。但除此之外，用户的情感、文化背景等因素，虽不直接与因果关系相连，却在信息传播中起到关键作用。例如，用户分享信息的决策可能基于情感共鸣、社交需求或特定话题的兴趣，而非纯粹的逻辑判断。上述例子说明了互联网现象完全适用于公理体系。
这里需要注意，当我们依赖于非因果关系时，预测的稳定性和可靠性可能会受到挑战。因果关系通过其内在的因-果逻辑为我们提供了清晰的结构，使我们能够根据已知的原因预测可能的结果。然而，非因果关系如模式识别、直觉和情感，虽然可能有其在特定情境中的价值，但它们的预测能力通常不如基于严谨逻辑和证据的因果分析那么强大。
因此，要在更复杂的、具有时间维度的关系中找到某种规律，我们需要引入另一条与时间、变化和发展相关的公理。我们可以依据这条公理赋予与时间某种超越的原则，使它能同时结合对进化论的科学理解和某种精神或形而上学的视角。
在探讨时间、物理世界和意识的关系时，我们发现物理世界的复杂度不断增长，与之相伴的是，本体意识—那种关于整体存在的意识，也在持续地进化。这种并行发展提出了一个引人入胜的问题：这两者——即物理实体的增长复杂性和意识的深化——是否会在某一关键时刻显示为一个连续过程的两个独特方面？从这个角度出发，随着每一个生物体的进化，它们的意识可能会开始反映某种更宏大、更普遍的演变模式。
为了更具体地理解这一点，我们可以考虑如下例子：在这文明的演变中，意识（或其能力去感知、理解和反应于其环境）的进化不仅仅反映其生存需求，还开始反映对于改造其生存环境的要求。这样，当这一生存环境中的整体认知达到某一临界点时，它可能导致一个集体“事件”，如部落，国家或政府的出现。
这种观点引导我们思考，当物理和意识的复杂性在某一时刻到达顶峰时，是否会产生一个表现出这两个领域相互联系的“事件”。这个“事件”不仅仅是物理变化的结果，还是意识进化的产物。因此，公理3就是在此背景下产生的，旨在描述这种物理和精神世界的复杂性在某一关键阶段的统一性。
公理3 —— 事物和现象在时间的推移下，有趋向于发展出更丰富和更复杂的相互联系的潜力。 这些潜力，在某些情况下，可能会汇聚形成一个整体现象或模式，从而促进或影响整体状态的变化。
这条公理试图捕捉事物和现象随时间演进的动态性和复杂性。它供了一个框架，以理解和预测事物和现象随如何随时间所演进。第一部分关注的是（个体）随时间发展的复杂性，而第二部分关注的是这种复杂性如何能影响整体状态的变化，包括超越性（transcendental）的改变。
为了更好地理解公理3如何运作，我们不妨再次参考社之前的例子。在社交媒体上，随着时间的推移，用户互动的模式、内容的传播趋势和平台算法的调整都是动态发展的。信息传播和流行趋势具有日益复杂的相互联系的潜力。例如，一条初次被少数人分享的消息可能因为某种共鸣或平台算法的推荐而迅速走红。这些复杂的相互联系可能在某一时刻汇聚成一个明显的流行趋势，影响整个社交媒体平台的信息氛围。因此，公理3提供了一个更加全面和灵活的解释框架。
理性的认知体系的优势是效率、精确性和可验证性。 在明确的因果关系中，人们可以迅速地进行预测和推导。而且推断的结论具有确定性，提供了明确的答案。这样，很容易使用实验证据来验证或否定一个特定的命题。按照公理1—3所构建的认知体系则更全面和具有包容性，它能够处理那些理性体系可能忽略或无法处理的复杂、多变或不确定的现象；不仅仅关注因果关系，还考虑其他可能的连接和因素。由于其开放性和探索性，公理认知体系可能激发新的思考方式和观点。
最后，或许你会问，如果我们的目标不仅仅是强调理性认知，为何还要用理性的公理作为构建这个体系的基石？我尝试用以下三个方面来回答这个问题。
- 为了确保非理性元素被有效地融入我们的思考和决策过程中，需要一个结构化的、理性的框架来帮助我们对这些元素进行解析和评估。一个基于公理的体系也为我们提供了一种方式，使我们能够清晰、系统地描述和交流这些非理性的元素和它们如何影响我们的认知。
- 公理体系的一个核心特点是它可以用于推导和证明，这为我们提供了一种方法，使我们能够深入探索和拓展认知范围。这种延展性意味着，即使我们的起点是固定的，但通过这一体系，我们仍有无限的可能性去拓展和创新，进一步系统地探索更复杂的主题。
- 任何认知体系都应具备某种程度的可验证性。在公理体系中，每一个结论都是基于已有的公理和前提假设，这意味着我们可以对它们进行验证或反驳。这种可检验性不仅增强了体系的可靠性，还鼓励了持续的批判性思考，确保我们不会被固定的观念或过时的信息束缚。
此外，当个体尝试探索和建构新的身份时，这一基于公理的体系也能够助其理解与更广泛的生物、技术和社会环境之间的联系，以及可能伴随这些新身份出现的各种挑战。
“注：指的注意的是，我提出这套体系并不是为了全面解释人类认知的发展过程。尽管它在某种程度上可以与已有的诸如讯息处理理论（information processing theory）或双重历程理论（dual process theory）等模型进行比较；但其真正的目的是为那些在身份上感到迷茫的个体提供一个更为包容的认知框架，以及在这个框架下构建所能包容新身份的体制。所以，它具有某种前瞻性和创新性，而不该与侧重于研究人类在特定历史、社会和身体环境下认知形成的理论，如文化历史理论（Cultural-historical theory）或认知发展论（cognitive-development theory），相比较。”
An Axiomatic Meta-rational System based on axioms
Understanding and exploring the self forms the basis of any cognitive unfolding. When we consider which new system should be used to “compare” with the existing, rational, and generally accepted system, we might as well imagine “what kind of self” can continue to develop in-depth and diversity within the current system. sexual conversations. In this way, based on the specific cognitive model presented by “this type of self”, we can design and build a more matching system for it.
The concept of “comparison” can essentially be regarded as a binary form of cognitive dialogue, and its structure is very similar to the interaction between “I” and “you” in daily life. Every time an existing content is challenged or denied in the process of comparison, it means that we are trying to accept a new perspective or way of understanding. This not only enriches the content of the dialogue and enhances its diversity and continuity, but in the process, the two parties involved in the dialogue will also develop a more distinctive personality or “characteristic”. We can use these “characteristics” to explore the appropriate institutions that might shape them.
In the current context of globalization and rapid technological development, we are experiencing an era full of changes and challenges. Exploring new social, political and economic systems also means that we must re-examine and understand the new self-dynamics and identity structures that arise under these systems. These dynamics and structures can expand the scope of existing self-experience, which should not only include traditional humanistic, artistic, and religious experiences, but also digital, artificial intelligence, and hyperreality technology thinking patterns and technologies. In the digital age, we can observe a variety of different self-presentations: the virtual identity created on social platforms, the character setting in video games, the actual self in daily life, and the inner self in meditation. Each of these different ways of expressing ourselves may reflect some part of our true identity, but at the same time, each can only present a portion of our true self, not the whole picture. The coexistence of these “plural selves” complicates our self-perception. Therefore, we need a pluralistic cognitive framework to understand this “new self.” Under the “new cognitive” framework, identity is no longer a fixed concept that can be fully defined and “managed.” Rather, it becomes more fluid and open, just as some virtual or latent manifestations of identity may not be explicitly observed in a given situation.
This new cognition in the “plural self” is closely connected with our perception, knowledge, symbols and the hidden meanings behind them. It is not a simple, static concept, but a dynamic, infinite mirroring process of reflection and response. This process is like an endless echo, each echo feeding back and complementing the previous one. Of course, in order to ensure the usefulness of this new way of cognition in daily life, it must understand and accept traditional or reason-based cognition at least to some extent. Because without a common understanding, any form of dialogue and communication cannot take place. But at the same time, it should also maintain a certain distance and disagreement with traditional or rational cognition, and continue to question and deny certain views or understandings. Only in this way can the conversation remain dynamic, constantly introducing new topics and perspectives that further enrich and deepen our understanding.
We can assume so. If rational institutions tend to create and maintain a streamlined, manageable, and limited identity system, then we need to explore how to produce a more diverse, complex, and continuously fragmented identity system. Under such a system, each individual has greater freedom and space to develop and express himself, thereby achieving more comprehensive and in-depth self-realization. If the core of a rational system is based on the need for efficiency and stability, we need to consider a more loose, flexible and capricious structure and organization. However, although we are trying to transcend or challenge the traditional rational system, this does not mean that we exclude or ignore rational cognition. Rational cognition should still be included as it provides a solid, logical and systematic way to understand, analyze and solve problems.
Based on the above considerations, I tried to establish a cognitive system based on axioms. This cognitive system can provide the individual with a framework for viewing and understanding the world. Specifically, this system can provide guidance on how to understand and explain things and phenomena, and it can be further used to derive and establish more specific theories and models; for example, telling individuals how to collect and interpret information, how to make decisions, and How to view the development of things, etc. Furthermore, based on it, we can build a system to maintain its cognitive model. This system includes but does not completely affirm the existing rational system. The axioms serve as the cornerstone of this system to ensure that all further derivation above is based on consistency with the existing axioms.
Axiom 1 - Whether they are physical, abstract, conceptual entities, or unknown and unknowable phenomena, they all have some universal connections that may be observed under specific conditions.
Axiom 1 involves the way things exist and their relationships with each other, as well as the relationship between observation and knowledge. It can be seen as a variant that combines ontology and epistemology. Its purpose is to ensure that our conclusions about any object or relationship are not based solely on local phenomena; at the same time, it emphasizes the limitations of observation, thereby acknowledging those objects and relationships that cannot be observed (limited by current technology and theoretical frameworks) The presence. This perspective on the world can encourage recipients of axioms to think more openly and comprehensively; for example, to consider factors and connections that may exist but are not currently discovered or understood.
Axiom 2 - Among the various object relationships mentioned above, some occur in stable clusters with interconnected causal properties, while others occur in clusters that are not related to causal properties but involve inferences, expectations, and complex ideas.
Axiom 2 provides further explanation and classification of the “connections” described in Axiom 1. It not only reveals that connections may be based on causal relationships that can be clearly observed and verified, but also emphasizes other complex relationships that exist outside the causal framework that are more obscure, abstract, and even beyond the scope of intuitive logic. Among them, “inferences, expectations and complex ideas” are cognitive or interpretive behaviors formed spontaneously by individuals when there is no direct causal connection. Axiom 2 allows some causal phenomena that currently cannot be directly verified to be understood and explained in other ways. For example, an artist may create a painting based on a certain life experience or conceptual inspiration. In this process, although there may not necessarily be a direct and clear cause-and-effect relationship between the specific experience or concept and the final painting, there does exist some deep and indescribable connection between the two. This connection may be based on the artist’s personal emotions, expectations, or a complex set of thoughts on his part. Therefore, Axiom 2 provides a theoretical space for those relationships that cannot be fully integrated into the traditional rational framework, including empirical relationships in art, religion, or other non-scientific fields.
Axiom 1 covers everything from concrete physical entities to abstract concepts, and to unknown and unknowable phenomena. This provides a very broad cognitive scope that attempts to include all possible cognitive objects. Axiom 2 emphasizes the diversity of object relationships and depicts a more realistic, rather than completely rational, cognitive structure. On the one hand, it recognizes stable relationships based on cause and effect; on the other hand, it considers situations that have nothing to do with cause and effect but involve complex mental processes. This purpose is to make the cognitive structure more suitable for daily life, rather than for scientific research. Because the scientific method is based on rigorous, proven cause-and-effect relationships, everyday cognition often involves more intuition, expectations, and social situations. For example, emotions and traditions are often based on our background, situations, or habits or beliefs developed over time, allowing us to make decisions quickly without the need for deep thought or analysis. They are rarely based on clear cause-and-effect relationships, but often involve expectations, inferences, and complex thought patterns.
To show axioms 1 and 2 in action, let’s take social media as an example. Content, users, platform algorithms, etc. on social media are all concrete entities, and they all exist in universal interconnections. These connections are observable under certain conditions, such as data analysis and user behavior research. The causal chain composed of user interaction, content sharing and platform recommendation algorithms is the core of information dissemination. But in addition, factors such as users’ emotions and cultural background, although not directly connected to cause and effect, play a key role in information dissemination. For example, a user’s decision to share information may be based on emotional resonance, social needs, or interest in a specific topic rather than purely logical judgment. The above examples illustrate that the Internet phenomenon is fully suitable for axiomatic systems.
It is important to note here that when we rely on acausal relationships, the stability and reliability of predictions may be challenged. Causality provides us with a clear structure through its inherent cause-and-effect logic, allowing us to predict possible outcomes based on known causes. However, non-causal relationships such as pattern recognition, intuition, and emotion, while they may have their value in specific situations, are generally not as powerful in their predictive power as causal analysis based on rigorous logic and evidence.
Therefore, to find some kind of regularity in more complex relationships with a time dimension, we need to introduce another axiom related to time, change and development. We can use this axiom to attribute some kind of transcendent principle to time, which can combine both a scientific understanding of evolution and some spiritual or metaphysical perspective.
When exploring the relationship between time, the physical world and consciousness, we find that the complexity of the physical world continues to grow, and along with it, ontological consciousness - the awareness of the overall existence - also continues to evolve. This parallel development raises a fascinating question: Might these two—namely, the growing complexity of physical entities and the deepening of consciousness—appear at some critical moment to be two distinct aspects of a continuous process? From this perspective, as each organism evolves, its consciousness may begin to reflect some larger, more universal pattern of evolution.
To understand this more concretely, we can consider the following example: In the evolution of this civilization, consciousness (or its ability to perceive, understand and react to its environment) evolved not only to reflect its need for survival, but also began to reflect the need for transformation the requirements of its living environment. In this way, when the overall cognition in this living environment reaches a certain critical point, it may lead to the emergence of a collective “event” such as a tribe, nation or government.
This perspective leads us to consider whether, when the complexity of physics and consciousness reaches its peak at a certain moment, an “event” will occur that shows the interconnection of these two fields. This “event” is not just the result of physical changes, but also the product of the evolution of consciousness. Therefore, Axiom 3 was produced in this context, aiming to describe the unity of the complexity of this physical and spiritual world at a certain critical stage.
Axiom 3 - Things and phenomena have the potential to develop richer and more complex interconnections over time. These potentials may, in some cases, converge to form an overall phenomenon or pattern that promotes or affects changes in the overall state.
This axiom attempts to capture the dynamics and complexity of things and phenomena as they evolve over time. It provides a framework for understanding and predicting how things and phenomena evolve over time. The first part is concerned with the complexity of (individual) development over time, while the second part is concerned with how this complexity can affect changes in the overall state, including transcendental changes.
To better understand how Axiom 3 works, we might as well refer again to our previous example. On social media, user interaction patterns, content dissemination trends, and platform algorithm adjustments all develop dynamically over time. Information dissemination and fashion trends have the potential for increasingly complex interconnections. For example, a message shared by a few people for the first time may go viral because of some resonance or recommendation from the platform algorithm. These complex interconnections may, at some point, converge into a clear popular trend that affects the information climate of the entire social media platform. Therefore, Axiom 3 provides a more comprehensive and flexible explanatory framework.
The advantages of a rational cognitive system are efficiency, accuracy and verifiability. In clear cause-and-effect relationships, people can quickly make predictions and deductions. And the inferred conclusions are deterministic and provide clear answers. In this way, it is easy to use experimental evidence to verify or disprove a particular proposition. The cognitive system constructed according to Axioms 1-3 is more comprehensive and inclusive. It can handle complex, changeable or uncertain phenomena that the rational system may ignore or cannot handle; it not only focuses on causality, but also considers other Possible connections and factors. Due to its openness and exploratory nature, axiomatic cognitive systems may inspire new ways of thinking and perspectives.
Finally, you may ask, if our goal is not just to emphasize rational cognition, why should we use rational axioms as the cornerstone of this system? I try to answer this question in the following three aspects.
To ensure that irrational elements are effectively integrated into our thinking and decision-making processes, a structured, rational framework is needed to help us parse and evaluate these elements. An axiom-based system also provides us with a way to clearly and systematically describe and communicate these irrational elements and how they affect our cognition. A core feature of an axiomatic system is that it can be used for derivation and proof, which provides us with a method that allows us to explore deeply and expand our cognitive scope. This malleability means that even if our starting point is fixed, through this system we still have unlimited possibilities to expand and innovate, and to further systematically explore more complex topics. Any cognitive system should have some degree of verifiability. In an axiomatic system, each conclusion is based on existing axioms and premises, which means that we can verify or refute them. This testability not only enhances the reliability of the system, but also encourages ongoing critical thinking and ensures that we are not locked into fixed ideas or outdated information. In addition, as individuals attempt to explore and construct new identities, this axiom-based system can also help them understand the connections to the broader biological, technological and social environment and the challenges that may accompany these new identities.