2022, Vol.53, No.

Narratives of Artificial Intelligence, the Religions of Modernity, & the Future of Human-computer Interaction

Robert Geraci | 2022, 53 | pp.7~36 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

As the progress and development of hi-tech technologies and sciences such as artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and so on, has been so rapid and revolutionary, our civilizational discourse on the future has unfold only on the basis of scientific discourses. Althougdlldlmany are worried about the future of religions in this context, this article argues that the development of artificial intelligence is not purely scientific and materialistic, disconnected from humanistic discourses, but that it rather has been inextricably entangled with humanist ideas. Keeping in mind D. Chakravarty’s idea of privincializing Europe, this article elucidates that the Western discourse of artificial intelligence has been heavily dependent upon that of apocalypse and that the development of the transhumanist discourse especially has been orbited around this Western feature of apocalypse. However, the development of science these days is not confined to the Western world, and thus Indian scientists program the progress of artificial intelligence on the basis of their own Indian culture. For example, Indian scientists can understand Artificial Intelligence as Kalki, the avatar of Vishnu, which will return to the Earth to start the whole process over again. While, Japanese scientist can understand A.I. as part of kami, which is the sacred existing in all forms of beings living and nonliving. In this way, scientist in Asia can more easily understand the symbiosis of human and machine, of human and artificial intelligence, than the Western. Asian cultures have developed deep thoughts on swaraj (self-mastery or self-rule) or compassion based upon their idea of non-self. Thus, if one can refer to diverse cultural ideas and discourses including Asian insights in the development of artificial intelligence, instead of exclusively relying upon the Western confrontational/conflictual model of apocalypse, one can orient the future development of sciences and technologies including artificial intelligence in a better way.

Tonghak Thoughts of Chŏn Pongchun

Park, Maeng-Soo , Jo Sunghwan | 2022, 53 | pp.37~57 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

A Study on The Process of Buddhistization of Won-Buddhism

Namjin Heo | 2022, 53 | pp.58~81 | number of Cited : 0

This study looks at the process of Buddhistization of Won-Buddhism, focusing on the early period of Won Buddhism– that is, from Sotaesan’s Enlightenment to the ‘Declaration of Buddha Dharma’ in 1919. In other words, by looking at the history of the early religious belief of Won-Buddhism, this study tried to read ideological exchanges from a broader perspective, away from the history of thought exchanges centered on Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The ‘Declaration of Dharma’ is the first Dharma Talk of Sotaesan that formed a Buddhist identity, and signifies the beginning of the Buddhistization process of Won-Buddhism. Until the ‘Declaration of Buddha Dharma’ in 1919, it was conceptualized as a way for edification, but the early Won-Buddhism was formed through diverse ideological exchanges. Looking at the history of the early Won-Buddhism, the three years from Sotaesan’s Enlightenment to the Declaration of Buddha Dharma was a period that included important events such as between Enlightenment and rites, the firstly the Organization of the Ten-Person Unit, the Dialect (坊堰) work and prayers for Dharma authentication (法認祈禱). As such, it is also a period of complex religious identity. Therefore, to examine the process of Buddhistization of Won-Buddhism, it is necessary to classify the history of Won-Buddhism in greater detail. In the early days of Won-Buddhism, the faith was formed through the relationship with the Jeungsan religions and ritual rather than the relationship with Buddhism. Afterwards, through the process of Declaration of Buddha Dharma, the doctrine of Won Buddhism was systematized with a focus on Buddha Dharma. Sotaesan was very wary of Shintong (神通). For Sotaesan, the early disciples at the time were obsessed with Shintong (神通), while Sotaesan wanted to suggest a new direction for them; namely, Dharma Assembly.

Comparative Study on the Discussions of Mind and Nature of Dasan Jeong Yak-yong and Sotaesan Park Joong-bin

Heo Seok | 2022, 53 | pp.82~108 | number of Cited : 0

This study aims to compare the discussions on the mind and nature of Dasan Jeong Yak-yong and Sotaesan Park Joong-bin, two figures who can be considered as representative in the history of Korean thought. First, I would like to discuss the importance of the practice of the mind as the driving force behind Dasan and Sotaesan to transform society, and the fact that they have a solid theoretical foundation for mind and nature. Second, despite these commonalities between the two men, I would like to clarify that there are significant differences in the content of the mind, nature, and methods of practice. Finally, I would like to assess the limitations of existing studies on Dasan and Sotaesan, and reevaluate the modern meaning of the ideas of the two men. The discussion of Dasan and Sotaesan's mind and nature is based on a critical spirit of social reality of the time and the love of the people. The discussion of the minds and natures of these two thinkers confirms that they both aim for strong participation and practice in reality, not speculative theory. This originated from their intent to overcome the social problems they faced and help the lives of the people. Dasan emphasized the study of mind as the basis for managing the country properly from a practical point of view, while Sotaesan emphasized the study of mind that is Wholeness of Both Spirit and Flesh. They criticized introspective and static practice and pursued a practice-oriented study of the mind in social relationships. To this end, Dasan and Sotaesan critically accepted the discussion of the existing mind and nature, forming their own unique system of thought. However, there is a big difference in the approach to understanding the mind and the view on nature while emphasizing the practice of the human subject. The ideological similarities and differences between the two men can be considered an important asset in the history of Korean thought. In particular, I would like to break away from a previous research perspective that evaluates the ideas of the two men in terms of modern orientation or modern achievement, and raise the need for a new perspective to examine the modern significance their discussions contains.

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Religions of Korea 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.52

2022, Vol.53, No.