درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Objective: To investigate how contemplative pedagogy—rooted in contemplative consciousness—can reframe educational paradigms by leveraging a neurophenomenological understanding of consciousness as an irreducible, embodied, and emergent phenomenon. Method: This study adopts a neurophenomenological methodology, integrating first-person experiential insights with third-person perspectives on neural, bodily, and environmental dynamics. The framework is applied to pedagogical strategies that foster contemplative modes of consciousness across four interrelated dimensions: internal awareness, embodied action, intersubjective empathy, and contextual systems. Result: Contemplative pedagogy manifests across four interconnected domains: 1) Internal dimension: Self-exploration and identification through “innernet” consciousness techniques. 2) External dimension: Enacted embodiment via processes of autopoiesis, emergence, and enaction. 3) Intersubjective dimension: Cultivation of empathy, compassion, and contemplative states such as emptiness and groundlessness. 4) Interobjective dimension: Engagement with social structures, extended systems, institutional contexts, and their influence on consciousness. These domains reveal how contemplative pedagogy intentionally cultivates consciousness in holistic and transformative ways. Conclusion: Framed through a neurophenomenological lens, contemplative pedagogy offers a rich, multidimensional educational paradigm that bridges consciousness theory and pedagogical practice. It underscores the potential for education to cultivate deeply embodied and relational forms of understanding, thus reframing learning as a transformative process rooted in contemplative consciousness.

Gottfried Ploucquet, a teacher at the Tubingen seminary when Hegel was a student there, had been one of the few philosophers to take up Leibniz’s mathematized logic, including his project of reducing logic, and thought itself, to computational processes. In his Science of Logic, Hegel briefly discusses this project when expanding on his own “subjective” logic. The general tenor of the response is predictable. Computational logic seeks to mechanize conceptual processes, but conceptuality itself distinguishes free spiritual beings from machines. Beneath the surface, however, Hegel’s attitude to the relation of computation to conceptual reasoning is more complex. Here I argue that in Book I of his Logic, Hegel, following the approach of Plato in his late dialogues, treats a certain mathematical conception of number, the Neopythagorean triadic monad, as a model for the concept itself. In the section Quantity, Hegel focuses on the incommensurability between discrete and continuous quantities, the numbers of arithmetic and the lines, areas and volumes of geometry. This incommensurability had been discovered by the Pythagoreans and in his later writings, Plato had adopted a proposal for mediating it, attempting to generalize it to a solution of the conceptual incommensurability between the eternal realm of being and the transient realm of becoming. In line with Plato’s attempt, Hegel presents an account of the development of mathematical practices in which the concept of number from mere counting unit to a triadic form mediating numbers and geometric continua. This structure will in turn provide a model for his own later syllogism. This role for mathematics for Hegel is to be understood as in line with Plato’s later attempts to mediate being and becoming in ways in which eternal Ideas can be approximated in the form of worldly surrogates manifesting this triune structure. Conceptuality cannot be reduced to computation, but relations among computational processes nevertheless reveal much about the nature of conceptuality.

The break that Hegel introduces into the history of philosophy stems from the way that he transforms the basis for philosophical work from argument to drama. For this project, he takes Shakespeare as a paradigmatic figure and models his works on the structure of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Rather than asserting and defending concepts, Hegel places them in a drama. Whereas Shakespeare’s characters undergo a tragic denouement, Hegel’s concepts reveal their own inadequacy when Hegel reveals how they play out in the course of the Phenomenology of Spirit and the Science of Logic. By examining Hegel’s philosophy through the lens of Shakespeare’s plays, we can discover the nature of the epochal change that Hegel presents and what makes him such a divisive figure in the history of philosophy.