Chen Yun (Guide) | Department of Philosophy, East China Normal University
Moganan (with the interviewer) | Department of Chinese, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
Lai Xisan (moderator) | Department of Chinese, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
【Introduction】11 years ago, the magazine "Culture Vertical and Horizontal" published a long article by Teacher Wang Hui " Asking "What is Equal" Again?" 》。 Starting from the various contradictions in reality, combined with the continuous exploration of the theory of "equality", the article explores the possibility of a new equality politics through the in-depth exploration and creative transformation of Zhang Taiyan's concept of "equality of all things". Ten years later, such thinking is even more urgent. In 2021, several scholars from both sides of the Taiwan Strait conducted in-depth analysis and discussion on the issue of "equality of all things" proposed by Professor Wang Hui. Although the relevant discussion involves the complex process of conceptual speculation, the awareness of the problem it carries is highly realistic, "The whole pattern of China and the United States has changed, and in such a US-centered system, the tragic stories of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya and many other Asian, African and Latin American tragedies can no longer touch our heartstrings, and it is difficult for us to put ourselves in the position of empathy and understand the divisions, dilemmas and fates of different people within society. And the tremendous effort they've put into finding solutions. Against this backdrop, an important question resurfaces: we need to penetrate the ideological stereotypes that constrain our ability to sympathize with and understand each other, to truly think in terms of the actual fate of humanity, and to discuss whether a new politics of equality is possible. So, "As theorists, as philosophers, what kind of ideological resources do we need to provide for the new egalitarian politics?" ”
This article was originally published in the Journal of Shangqiu Normal University, No. 4, 2022, originally titled "Wang Hui's World Imagination of Equality and Cross-system Society", thanks to the author's authorization of the network to be published, only represents the author's views, for the reference of the monarchs.
Wang Hui "Equality and Cross-System Society"
Imagine the world
Lai Xisan: Let's start today's discussion. Before today's discussion, I think many of the online friends present here should be old friends who have participated in the previous six or seven meetings. In principle, wait a little time, also invite online friends to participate in the dialogue, before Teacher Chen Yun conducts his guide or comments, please mute your microphone, there will be no noise interference. The way we proceed will give Teacher Chen more time, because Wang Hui's view of the world and the ideological system are very large, and I hope to give Teacher Chen a more complete description as much as possible and his comments on Wang Hui. Then I will ask Mr. Mo to conduct the first wave of dialogue and questions, and I will ask a little bit of partial questions, so I will ask Mr. Mo to do a fuller discussion, and then ask Mr. Chen Yun chen to respond, and we will finally have a common online discussion. Some friends can also write down your questions. I know that in today's session, some young friends on the Internet have some research on Wang Hui and Zhang Taiyan, and Ishii Gang also discussed Zhang Taiyan, welcome your questions.
Before Teacher Chen Yun's introduction, I would only make a simple explanation. Teacher Chen Yun is doing intellectual history research in the Philosophy Department of East China Normal University, and the middle-aged friends who do philosophical research should have read Teacher Chen Yun's articles, and he has many very solid articles. In the past five or six years, I have read a lot of zhuangzi articles, which are very in-depth, and I have more and more dialogues with my friends in Taiwan's academic circles, and there are very high degrees of affinity with each other, and there are also some subtle differences. Today I would like to invite him to comment on Wang Hui's imagination of the world. As we all know, the concept of tianxia has a long history, and since the pre-Qin Dynasty, it has been an important and even very fundamental concept of political science, and it is also a very rooted cultural concept. After Chinese philosophy or China entered modern times, this concept seems to have receded, but at present, the academic circles on the mainland seem to be facing the current concept of the nation-state, the concept of nation state has begun to have many new criticisms and responses, and the concept of tianxia seems to have become a cultural and political concept that is both classical and has contemporary potential. In this respect, Wang Hui's writings are of course very representative, he is probably the most representative figure of the New Left, and his works have also been translated into English, Japanese and other languages of other countries, and the discussion is very heated. Teacher Mo Jianan is the English version, as far as I know, it is one of the translators of the third volume, especially the part of Song Ming Science was translated by Teacher Mo. Teacher Mo's research, in fact, whether he is ge Zhaoguang's view of the world or Ji Lin's view of the world, has some considerable attention. So I think that with Teacher Mo today as the core interlocutor of Teacher Chen Yun, I believe there will be a lot of interesting places. The discussion of Wang Hui's view of the world may also be quite related to his view of absorbing the "Theory of Qi Things" from Zhang Taiyan's side. I didn't say much as a layman, and gave the time to Teacher Chen.
Chen Yun: Thank you very much to Teacher Xisan and teacher Mo. Discussing Mr. Wang Hui was a very difficult task for me, because my field was mainly in classical Chinese thought. The focus of Wang Hui's research is on modern China, so we may have a difference in field.
As Xi San just said, As a representative thinker and scholar, Professor Wang Hui is committed to the activation of China's socialist practice and revolutionary heritage, which is his concern.
After the publication of "The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought", the first part of the 20th century trilogy "The Birth of the Century" was published this year, and what he had to face was the legacy of China's socialist revolution and construction, and these aspects were the shortcomings of my knowledge structure, cross-system society, in fact, it was also his work after "The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought".
Here I first render his imagination of the world of equality and cross-system society, and I mainly want to cut in from the following five aspects. First, how to interpret China and its modernity? It is mainly to discuss Wang Hui's problem awareness. Second, the narrative structure of the empire-nation-state from the West, the limitations of China's understanding. The third is the inadequacy of The Kyoto School's Chinese interpretation and its Theory of the Modern Era in the East. We then explore the cross-system social model he constructed, and the idea of "equality of all things" on this basis.
▍ How to Interpret China and Its Modernity: Wang Hui's Problem Consciousness
First of all, how to understand China's modernity, this is Mr. Wang Hui's consistent awareness of the problem. From his writing about Lu Xun, about Zhang Taiyan, and modern thought and modern revolution, it is such a problem consciousness that runs through the whole process. When it comes to understanding China and its modernity, we often encounter two relatively large dilemmas, mainly because of the intervention of the West that has brought about a huge change in the understanding of China. Here I have sorted out two dimensions related to our discussion, one is the dualization of the ocean and the inland, which is the new framework that Wang Hui presented after writing Modern Thought; and the other is the dualism of empire and state, which is the narrative structure of the West that he examined when he wrote about the rise of modern thought. First, let's look at the first question, since 1582, when Matteo Ricci came to China, and the gregorian calendar that is used all over the world today, the more than four hundred years have been the moment of Westernization of world history. Western civilization entered the Atlantic era from the Mediterranean era and then into the Pacific era, forming a global "space revolution", and the space revolution was manifested as the arrival of an ocean age. In Wang Hui's view, the British East India Company established in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company established in 1602 are important symbols of the arrival of the era of sea power. The arrival of maritime power implies a struggle between two spatial orders, inland and maritime, two companies in northwestern Europe, both of which in a sense have the characteristics of several states, whose birth, development and turning points, as well as their purposes, are related to the form of modern sovereignty. Wang Hui quoted Latimer as saying that Britain actually began a space revolution from land to sea, which is also a planetary space revolution.
We know that in the classical Chinese tianxia and Chinese narratives, there is often a narrative of "within the four seas" and "beyond the four seas", and the four seas are a kind of boundary of the world as the "land of kings", while in the West, such as pseudo-Aristotle's "Cosmology", the so-called "human habitat", that is, the so-called universal order, is bounded by the ocean. So the world inhabited by humans is divided into islands and continents, but they are all surrounded by oceans, which is similar to the boundaries of the Chinese also imagining order with the four seas. The four seas are in fact the horizon, and within this horizon is the experience of the earth, the experience of the land, which stands out from the water, and the experience of the sea means the experience of a boundary, even the experience of what Voegelin calls the impenetrable divine boundary. But the advent of the ocean age made the ocean an inland sea, and its divine mystery boundary meaning was enchanted, which made the whole world pattern undergo a change, great navigation and geographical discovery, so that the ocean became an inland sea, thus beginning an era of global law. The political and economic rules of European capitalism are the inland seas of the ocean, which dissolves the boundaries of the oceans and applies and imposes a unified system of rules on the world in a rationally constructed manner. The ocean age means that the ocean is the center, and the inland has become a margin, which is in stark contrast to the previous framework of self-understanding of "China's center - the edge of the ocean".
The second is the dualism of empire and state. In Wang Hui's view, the space revolution has completely reconstructed the entire earth order, and the marine era has accompanied the strength of the nation-state and the power of the machinery industry, which has led to the reorganization of urban and rural relations and the changes in the national situation. If one of the most important themes to be identified for nineteenth-century world history is the nation-state. In Wang Hui's view, the nation-state actually constitutes a huge difference between the narrative of world history from the nineteenth century onwards and the world history before it, and the subjects before it were often empires, and then the nation-state.
Wang argues that the nation-state is seen as a modern factor, and empire is reduced to a factor of the past, tradition. Almost all of the history of the twentieth century, considered pre-modern, is traced in different ways to the connection of the modern world to empire. That is to say, pre-modern things are all connected to the empire, and modern times are all explained by the framework of national and state categories, which makes it difficult to understand China. If China is an empire, or if China is not a country, then the former is equivalent to saying that China has no modernity, and the latter is equivalent to saying that China has no history and cannot become a historical subject with modernity in the true sense. But such a historyless China and even a stagnant civilization is the core of the image of China in the narrative of European world history in the nineteenth century.
Located in the structure of human consciousness in the twentieth century is a confrontation between the universal and the special, and the two share a set of beliefs and preconditions of human evolution based on the nation-state, which is the so-called global law, which is regarded as special or exceptional if it does not conform to the law. For many Western scholars, China's multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-civilization cross-system society constitutes a counter-opposition to the modern nation-state system. Wang Hui once said that there is a Western history textbook that regards China as an empire disguised as a modern state, and the expression "empire" means that it is pre-modern, it is an empire disguised as a nation-state. Since its essence is an empire and it exists in modern times, its unity is not intrinsic, but is maintained by the amount of centralized power, so it is illegitimate, because China is beyond the consistency of the European version of ethnic and political principles. Even Lucian Pye asserts that China is not a normal nation-state. Wang Hui quotes Wang Guobin of the California School as follows: "Confucianism is the fusion of cultural boundaries and political boundaries in a single and complex synthesis", and this fusion is actually an independent feature of modern nationalism or the nation-state, in this respect it seems that China is very modern, but there are precisely a variety of nationalities, religions and civilizations in China, so it is more traditional.
Once this is taken into account, we are faced with the dilemma of viewing the political construction strategy of the Chinese Empire as a modern one. It seems that classical China is also a modern nation-state, but on the other hand it is not a modern state, so if Christianity defines cultural Europe, but cannot form a cultural and political unity, then in the era of nationalism, cultural boundaries and political boundaries are integrated under the framework of the nation-state, and China becomes an exception. China seems to have once again become what the EU wants to achieve – to transcend the boundaries of the nation-state and to reunite civilizations and political borders, but for the EU, if you want to unify, it is an almost impossible thing: West Germany and East Germany cannot be unified, southern Italy and northern Italy cannot be unified, how can the EU be unified? So a very strange phenomenon is why China can unite such a diverse society of multi-ethnicity, multi-religion, and multi-civilization under the framework of a modern state.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Westerners often asked the question of why China became the only modern state in the world to maintain the size of an empire after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and what made it maintain a unified country of geography, population, multi-ethnicity, multi-culture, and multi-religion, as if embedding a pre-modern empire in a modern state, which is difficult for the West to understand. The response to this constitutes an aspect of Wang Hui's awareness of the problem.
In fact, within China, the discussion of the so-called China has appeared continuously over the years, such as archaeologist Xu Hong's "Why China", the intellectual historian Ge Zhaoguang's "Zhaozi China", the philosopher Zhao Tingyang's "Hui this China", etc., all of which are asking what is China? This question is largely related to the confusion that the West faces about explaining China. It is impossible for the West to understand modern China, much less its rise, especially in the context of their emphasis on China's collapse theory for several years, making China's rise more difficult to explain.
In Wang Hui's view, this actually challenges the existing knowledge structure of the West, but also a challenge to Chinese scholars, whether china can be expressed and understood in a modern academic way, it is an important world history issue, not just China's self-understanding.
▍ Narrative structure of Western empires and nation-states
In the era of globalization, China and Asia are no longer self-concepts. The Japanese scholar Takeuchi Yoshinori has already said that "understanding the Orient, what enables the Toyo to realize is the European element that exists in Europe." The Orient is the Orient, and it is the vein of Europe." Whether it is Fukuzawa Yukichi's "Theory of Detachment from Asia", or the Modern Theory of the East, the exposition of Asia, etc., in Wang Hui's view, in fact, it is permeated with the projection of modern European historical consciousness.
The Enlightenment and colonial expansion of the 18th and 19th centuries established the European Asian imagination through various disciplines, which is the prehistory of Europe with universal historical significance, such as the simultaneous Asia being placed before the diachronic Europe. In contrast to the modern European states or monarchies is the multi-ethnic empire, the opposition to the modern Legal and political system of Europe is political absolutism, and the city-states and trade life in Europe are completely different from the nomadic and agricultural production methods, etc. The chinese and Asian narrative thus constituted is based on the nation-state and the capitalist market system of Europe as the destination, and Europe is thus regarded as a criterion or principle, as an advanced stage and purpose of world history, so that China, Asia and its above-mentioned "characteristics" Relegated to a lower stage of world history.
In this context, Asia is not only a geographical category, but also a form of civilization, which represents a political form in opposition to the European nation-states, a social form in opposition to European capitalism, a transitional form from a state of no history to a state of history. So for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Asian discourse embedded the universalist narrative of European modernity and provided a similar narrative framework for colonists and revolutionaries to develop their diametrically opposed historical blueprints. Both anti-Western and near-Western have followed this universal narrative framework, with three central themes and key concepts: empire, the nation-state, capitalism, and so on. The understanding of Asia and China is placed within such a framework.
In fact, we can think of Hegel as the beginning of world history, And Schelling regarded China as an exception to world history, and from Montesquieu onwards, China became a stagnant nation without a sense of history, a civilization that had no world historical significance and only belonged to the "past" of human history. For example, modern Voegelin, Ploem and others still believe that the real historical significance is a specialty of the West, China and India cannot reach the historical consciousness of criticism, and even the understanding of people, and the following views can be seen in Husserl, whether it is China or India, it can not reach the transcendental or metaphysical dimension, can only stay at the level of empirical anthropology, and is not worthy of the symbol of man. This is typical Eurocentrism, which does not appear in the marginal scholars of the West, but in the central, mainstream scholars, such as Husserl, Hegel, Voeglin and other scholars. Wang Hui analyzed this, Asia as the starting point of world history, as the starting point of the West has two conditions: First, "Asia and Europe are organic parts of the same interconnected historical process", the key here is the same history, otherwise there is no so-called starting point and end point, so there is a thing of identity here. Second, Asia and Europe are in a very different stage of this historical development, and the basis for judging this stage is mainly "countries", that is, Asia is in the starting point or lack of history because it is not yet a state and has not yet constituted the main body of history. In this sense, when the Asian region is transformed from a traditional empire into a state, from agriculture or nomadism to industry or commerce, from village organization to a city and its civil society, Asia will no longer be Asia", Asia will become part of the West, so the future history will not have Asia, Asia and China will not have the meaning of world history, will not have the meaning of the future, only have the meaning of the past, and take the past as the concept of a stage that history has abandoned, the "past" of history in this sense. The birth of Montesquieu is actually fully expressed in Montesquieu, and the contrast between the four stages of Hegel's so-called "East, Greece, Rome, and Germania" and adam Smith's human social stage formed between "hunting, nomadism, farming, and commerce" is actually a kind of "historical etirology" that takes the present in Europe as the starting point and goes back to the "past" of world history, or "historical creationism", which has a thousand-year form, Voegelin in his book "Memory". In the fourth volume of his Order and History, "The Age of Heaven", the theme of "Historical Creationism" is given, and any kind of historical creationist narrative is actually a statement for the legitimacy of the present. So at the heart of such a European-centered narrative of world history is a defense of the legitimacy of European expansion, colonization, and hegemony.
Jaspers, in The Origin and Purpose of History, denies this narrative, limiting the validity of Hegel's so-called historical axis around Jesus Christ, which he believes applies only to Christendom and not to others, but at the same time argues that because Europe brought human history to a common platform of world history of coexistence and symbiosis, the historical center of Europe has its basis for reality.
Wang Hui gave an analysis of the pattern of market movement provided by Adam Smith. The discovery of its core is to incorporate synchronic, contemporaneous time into a diachronic time series. For example, China was incorporated into the ancients, while commercial societies were incorporated into the modern era, and such a narrative is related to the teleological historical narrative of the entire modern Era in the West. Wang Hui noted that Perry Anderson once said that the observation of the structure of the Asian state in modern Europe arose from the long-term conflict between European countries and Turkish forces, which actually regarded the Ottoman state as the antithesis of the European monarchies, the Turkish monarchical bureaucracy as a system that parted ways with all European countries, and projected the things of the Turkish Ottoman Empire to Asia and China, and then the political narrative of Eastern absolutism was generated, forming a confrontation between authoritarian Asia and democratic Europe. Asia, the course of world history, is reduced to pre-modernity, deprived of its present and future significance. All in all, the Asian stuff was placed in ancient cultures, while the European stuff was placed in the modern era, from Hegel to Marx. Weber still understands the political culture of China's "family world" under the pre-modern "monarchical patriarchy", but this is far from being able to truly present the face of China as a cross-system society.
Therefore, in Wang Hui's exposition, it is necessary to re-understand China, especially China's modernity, because even if classical China is meaningful, what constitutes the soil for our Chinese survival today and the important changing force of today's world can only be modern China, and classical thought can only play its world history significance through modern China. As the only other that the West considers, or the only other among the many others in the West that may offer alternative possibilities outside the West, China's understanding of it is itself a link in the unfolding of the world historical order due to its scale, structure, and path. Under the current structure of the West, it is difficult for China to understand, and as the West has done, it can only be a rhetoric of understanding, such as the West's forceful insertion into the narrative of empire, traditional domination, and a state without history.
On the other hand, China is precisely the region where it is possible to change the modern world order of the West, and the construction of an equal order between any kind of country will be a challenge to the vested interests of the hegemon, which determines the contextual complexity of the Chinese narrative itself. This means that the Chinese narrative is politically relevant and demands a political context, not a depoliticized context. This is my second question.
▍ The Kyoto School's Interpretation of China and Its Critique of Oriental ModernIsm
The third question, we have an understanding of the above, we look at Wang Hui's criticism of the Kyoto School's Interpretation of China and its Theory of the Modern Era. A very famous view of the Kyoto School, especially Naito Hunan and Miyazaki Ichiding, in Chinese discourse is the Theory of the Modern Era of the East, which begins with the theory of change in the Tang and Song Dynasties, and it is also at the time of the Tang and Song Dynasties that they are looking at the great turning point in Chinese history, or the beginning of the Modern Era of the East. The Tang Dynasty was mainly aristocratic, and the prime ministers of the Tang Dynasty all had a door, except for a few people such as Zhang Jiuling. But after the Song Dynasty, the entire imperial examination system and the civil official system were more formalized, the main officials were all examined, and an era of commoners appeared, with Mr. Qian Mu's observation, "a king is isolated from the top, and the people are scattered below" The pattern appeared, and the scholar became an important intermediary force between the one king and the people, which made rigaku the main basis for a new political identity, a quasi-nationalist ideology, which is already a little close to the nation-state. And the nation-state is a sign of European modernity. In addition, there were many dynasties of different sizes around the Song Dynasty, and the competition and covenants between each other promoted the exchanges formed between the nations through trade and war, and foreign trade also began to use silver, with hard currency, as if an international market exchange system appeared, and the maritime trade in the Southern Song Dynasty also developed. The Theory of Transformation of the Tang and Song Dynasties has become a fundamental proposition that can hardly be bypassed in the study of Chinese history, and it has become a very core thing in the American academic circles, and many things of the California School are also related to it. One of its basic ideas is that the transition from the Tang to the Song actually began an era centered on canals. Because the Northern Song Dynasty moved its capital from Luoyang to Kaifeng, it was a transition for the country's development from the center of the Yellow River to the center of the canal, and the canal then led to the coast, inland and coastal trade, which promoted the division of labor in the inland and formed the copper money economy of the Song Dynasty. The transformation of the Tang and Song dynasties was the disintegration of the aristocratic system in terms of institutional system, and the regional transformation was the political and economic center of China, from the inland Yellow River to the canal and then to the coast. Therefore, the rise of Jiangnan in the Ming and Qing dynasties was linked to the transformation of the Tang and Song dynasties, and the history before the Tang Dynasty was regarded as the history centered on Chang'an, and the history after the Song Dynasty became the history centered on the canal.
Wang Hui keenly saw that the purpose of the Kyoto School was not to explain China, but to place China in the category of the East. Because in the traditional era, Japan has always been on the fringes of the Chinese dynasty, it is now looking for its place again, reversing the traditional narrative of "the center of China - the edge of Japan". These historians still have traces of imperialists ideologically, and their observations are very insightful and enlightening, raising the question of the modern world of the East, but in fact they want to establish a different Oriental modernity in East Asia that is opposed to Western modernity. Of course, in the end it also fell into the trap of Western imperialism. In fact, from the Meiji Restoration to the early twentieth century, Japan was competing with the West, competing in military industry and historical views, with great emphasis on pluralistic and parallel modern processes. How was the modern process established in Japan? Japan alone can not be described, had to start from China, China has an early modern beginning - the Song Dynasty, the modern era of the East began in the tenth century of the Northern Song Dynasty, to the fourteenth century, Lee Joseon also entered the process of early modernity, and finally this center shifted to Tokugawa Japan, the eleventh century into the maritime age. In the sense of the space revolution, the modern era of the East is such a historical process from China to the Korean Peninsula and then to Japan. So it is at least a world history narrative centered on Oriental history, against the European world history narrative, and it establishes an East Asian community centered on Japan, which is actually an argument for the successive shifts in the center of power of East Asian civilization. In this narrative, Wang points out that few people are aware of the projection permeated with the ideology of the Japanese Empire in the field of historiography, although its political implications have disappeared today and become a purely academic point of view. In fact, Miyazaki Ichijō also said very clearly, because the first stage of Chinese history was the era of the center of the Yellow River, a civilization starting from Chang'an and the Yellow River, when the Loess Plateau and the inland Central Plains were the center of China, but in the tenth century, from the Song Dynasty onwards, the canal coast and the interior were connected by canals, so after the era of the sea, Japan naturally became the center of gravity of the East. In this teleological historical narrative, from Chang'an in China to Kaifeng, Luoyang around the Korean Peninsula, and finally to Tokyo, the Tokugawa period is an Asian version of the ocean age corresponding to the Columbus era in Europe. This ocean age built a civilization of the "Confucian civilization circle", and the "Confucian civilization circle" is also different from Wang Hui's cross-system society, because for Wang Hui, even a region of China is difficult to describe with the "Confucian civilization circle".
In Wang Hui's view, although the Japanese Kyoto School reversed the "center-periphery" relationship between China and Japan in Asian history, it also shared the structure of the edge and center of the world historical order with the Western view of history. Without breaking through the Structure of the West, it cannot carry out a fundamental revolution in the existing European-centric or Western-centered world historical order. So in the end, its fate is in a sense integrated into the West, but from the Perspective of the West, Japan is an independent civilization, and both Tonbee and Kojève regard Japan as a civilization different from the West.
But for Wang Hui, Japan has not broken through the historical narrative structure of the Western ocean age. Its portrayal of Oriental history and Oriental modernity echoes the spatial revolution narrative of rivers, inland seas, and oceans narrated by European comparative geography, and its conclusion can only be to Saygawa Japan, which emerged as a modern state; the Kyoto School regards the Song Dynasty as the beginning of modern times, as a quasi-nation state, and as the beginning of nationalism or modern thought, but it cannot understand the role of scripture and historiography in the Qing Dynasty, and its relationship with the political legitimacy of the Qing Dynasty, as if the Qing Dynasty has retreated again, as if history has made another retrogression. How to understand? The Kyoto School is difficult to explain itself.
Wang Hui believes that the Kyoto School still contains the dualism of empire and state inherent in the European Asian discourse, and it does not go out of the imperial logic of colonization and hegemony. Behind Japan's theory of detachment from Asia and the theory of invasion of Asia are the logic of European colonialism and capitalism, so Japan's modernization finally joined the Circle of Western Civilization, invading civilizations that were considered backward in the form of a hierarchy of civilizations. Therefore, the change of Bunno proposed by Zhang Taiyan actually meant a deconstruction of the civilization theory that prevailed in Europe at that time, including the civilization theory of Fukuzawa Yukichi, which was prevalent in Japan. The Western ocean-China narrative is still used in the Kyoto School as a deep reference context, and it is still inseparable from ocean-centricism, which is the key to its inability to truly break through the European-centered narrative of the world order. It elevates the status of the ocean and devalues the status of the inland, so that the marginality of the inland is in fact the result of a historical narrative dominated by the view of maritime history. For the Chinese sense, such an interpretation exacerbates the tension within the Chinese state, the sea and the inland, so its negative significance is not less than the positive significance.
Wang Hui also saw Takeshi Hamashita's rethinking of the tributary system, and its new Asian discourse, although it sought to break through the Western Eurocentrism, still relied on trade linked by the sea, still built on the premise of the ocean age, and paid no attention to wars, revolutions, and other events. This is the part that Wang Hui questioned and criticized as a left-wing scholar, that is, the Chinese revolution and the Asian revolution have not been presented with their world historical significance. Takeshi Hamashita is basically in the economic trading system, not in a cultural, political, revolutionary, war, larger context to deconstruct Western-centrism. In response to the Kyoto School and the Western Maritime Age, Wang Hui reinterpreted the "Belt and Road" initiative, which actually inherits Kojève and Schmidt's discussion of the end of the Maritime Age. Today, the relationship between the sea and the land has been completely reversed, that is to say, the distinction between the sea and the land is no longer of so great significance, especially in the Internet age and the information age, the boundary between the sea and the land is disappearing, and the "Belt and Road" as a Chinese initiative is actually to rethink the significance of the inland. Wang Hui has many discussions on this point, which involves asia as an important entry point for understanding world history, and involves a substantial breakthrough in the modern maritime order.
Wang Hui returns to Takeuchi's idea of "Asia as a Method", "Asia as a Method" in Takeuchi Hao, in fact, "China as a Method", this "China" is not an essentialist China, but a China that resists the modern narrative of the West. Takeuchi Yoshiharu uses the narrative at the end of Lu Xun's "Hometown" to emphasize that China has not chosen the ready-made path of the West, so it has a new path of its own, but Japan finally took the Western road, and in the end it may have no way to go. This path is, of course, linked to world history, and Japan's choice has diminished its significance in world history. In the final analysis, Takeuchi's approach to Asia is, in the final analysis, the spirit of resistance that China has shown in the face of internal and external oppression, which can stimulate popularity and popularity, arouse and generate the subject, and thus generate resistance to the unequal order of imperialism and colonialism and the will and action of revolution. The revolution that Wang Hui spoke of in the atmosphere of the post-revolutionary era, as I understand it, to a large extent lies in the fact that the revolution of the world order, especially the unequal hegemonic world order, is still the reality we face today. For him, the revolution was actually incomplete, so he should disagree with Li Zehou's "farewell to the revolution" argument.
Asia as a method is not a static way of distinguishing the West from China, Europe from Asia, and it is still inseparable from china in the Western image and the Orientalism of the West. Wang Hui stressed that the method is the process of the formation of the subject, the Chinese revolution in a broad sense is the process of the formation of the subject, Takeuchi found that Japan seriously lacks subjectivity, although it is also very modern, but it does not have its own subject position, its subject is only a "passive" subject formed under the gaze of the West without its own subjectivity. Therefore, Takeuchi saw from Mao Zedong, Lu Xun, and Zhao Shuli that the method of generating the subject was not to return to Orientalism, not to return to the division of Asia-Europe dualism, nor to return to traditional Sinocentrism, but to re-use the process of struggle and resistance of the Chinese of that era, that is, the political and economic culture and daily life process formed by the Chinese subjects, as a method of understanding history and itself. Each forming a regional subject in its own way within the Asian region is what It means to be Asia as a method.
For China, what is important is to get rid of the one-sided self-perception that has been formed through The Chinese-Western dualism. For example, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, etc., are all regions that have bred rich civilizations and have deep ties with China, and without this vision, our understanding will inevitably be monolithic. The Oriental narrative does not realize these, and more importantly, along with the growth of China's economy and the Americanization of mass ideology, we lack empathy for the struggles, sacrifices, and historical destinies of people in these regions, but stand at the periphery of the American Empire with peace of mind, which is a fate faced by almost all modern countries, and now many people are standing in their central areas to see China, and the path of many third world countries, and can neither understand the great significance of these processes. It is also difficult to gain a deep understanding of the tragedy of this process.
Wang Hui wrote the article "Equality of All Things" when it was still in the pre-Trump era. Today, the whole pattern of China and the United States has changed, and in such a US-centered system, the tragic stories of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya, and many Asian, African, and Latin American stories can no longer touch our heartstrings, and it is difficult for us to empathize with the divisions, dilemmas, and fates of different people within society, as well as their great efforts to find solutions. In Wang Hui's view, this is a very dangerous thing, because we are highly ideologicalized today, and the logic of non-value shaped by ideology dominates us, so that we lose our sensitivity to the struggles of flesh and blood, struggles, tears, etc., and become insensitive to empathy. In some developed countries, ideology, as a matter of political correctness, has entered the social field from the political field, and the sympathy and empathy for specific lives has been greatly weakened. Wang Hui could not but sigh at this.
The ideology that has been formed and strengthened since the eighteenth century has been upgraded and strengthened in the most central area of world capitalism, and the reason why Takeuchi's concept of resistance and the concept of subject is still abstract is that it is difficult to avoid abstraction because of the depth and breadth of its ideology, he lacks a clear distinction between war and revolution, geopolitical competition and national liberation, and he uses the category of aggression and resistance to separate the Great East Asian War and the Pacific War. The failure to place Japan's foreign wars and expansions within the path of modernization for a comprehensive political and economic explanation, so the depoliticization of resistance led to the devaluation of resistance itself. This is precisely Wang Hui's criticism of Takeuchi's goodness, and the key here is the formation of the subject that Takeuchi is talking about, the normative subject is not the subject, it is only a category, and there is no real political legitimacy. There is a social and political split in the discourse between Asia and China, which is either dominated by elites or initiated by the nation-state without the participation of mass movements. It is no wonder that the subjectivity that Takeuchi speaks of is easily illusory into postmodern subjectivity, especially in the context of the post-revolution and does not have methodological significance. China, on the other hand, is undergoing a revolution in the world order, and it needs to construct new subjects. And Asia can not establish an EU-style superpower like the EU, because Asia does not share a common culture-civilization, diversity not only points to culture, but also has another aspect, in Wang Hui's view, only from the perspective of cross-social system and cross-system society can we truly understand the basis of diversity in Asia.
In this context, Wang Hui talked about the "Belt and Road" initiative, in fact, the purpose is not to establish military alliances, establish superpowers, and establish empires; nor should it be just a link of capital, economy, interests, production, and consumption, otherwise it is difficult to surpass Western modernity; what China provides through the "Belt and Road" is the concept of "road (Silk Road), belt (Maritime Silk Road), corridor (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor), bridge (Eurasian land bridge)", which is a connection, but also a concept of interactivity, interconnection, Mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win results, rather than domination and domination, is not a single individual subject and power as the center of the establishment of a "center-periphery" relationship, but a symbiotic and interlocking philosophy, which is the concept of the "Belt and Road".
Therefore, the launch of the "Belt and Road" itself requires political form and cultural participation, not just a question of economic capacity, otherwise it will become an activity within the capitalist system. Only in the sense of cross-regional efforts to change the global geopolitics and hegemonic structure can the Belt and Road be justified and be the link in the revolution of the modern world historical order. In Wang Hui's view, the "Belt and Road" can form a multi-subject, diversified world relationship, it is connected, communicative, interpenetrative, you have me, I have you such a cross-social system. So we enter the following content of Wang Hui: cross-system society and cross-social system. This is both a way to understand China, and a way to understand the world and reimagine the "world".
▍Cross-system society and cross-social system
Cross-system society was originally used to describe China's regional society and the state and its relationship, it means that it is centered on a series of cultural, customary, political, and ceremonial forces, that is, to cross these things, economic relations are only one of the interpersonal activities embedded in these complex social relations, if the cross-state, cross-ethnic, and cross-regional activities of modern capitalism are an activity that integrates various cultural and political elements into the economy and capital, then the cross-system society is precisely to highlight culture, ethnic groups, Regional differences, active interaction spreads symbiotic social and cultural forms.
The concept of Wang Hui was inspired by Marcel Mauss's supra-societal system, which can be language, religion, ethnicity, or even civilization, such as Islamic civilization, and Wang Hui also calls cross-system society "cross-civilization", because "tianxia" is not a civilization, but a multi-civilization civilization. Even our general understanding of civilization is a multicultural, multi-way of life, multi-belief, multi-political multi-variant, and if we add a cross-civilization civilization, its diversity will be more prominent. The reason why it is used to describe Chinese society, because the uniqueness of Chinese civilization is precisely that it contains different cultures and civilizations, is an internal inclusion, not an external synthesis, and does not rely on an external structure to impose together, but various civilizations, cultures, and various elements penetrate through exchanges to form a composite existence that maintains its own uniqueness in exchanges.
In Wang Hui's view, cross-system society can even be said to be a village and a family, and even in everyone, it can be cross-systemic. Wang Hui once went to Tibet, Xinjiang, Yunnan and other places to investigate, in those places, a family is cross-system, because the family formed by intermarriage between different ethnic groups is a case. The cross-system society is completely different from the politics of identity, identity emphasizes identity, while cross-system emphasizes uniqueness and diversity, and a good society does not force the unity of diverse identities, but contains diversity to the greatest extent. The heterogeneity and diversity of cross-system society does not negate commonality, it is a unity of dynamic change. Wang Hui distinguishes between commonality and unity, and what he rejects is precisely the very core view and imagination of the European nation-state: a nation can only be a sovereign state, and an ethnic group is a country. For example, the Western Tibetan narrative has not been placed in the Chinese narrative, but has been incorporated into a separate Tibetology, and it is not handled within the Chinese language, which is determined by the western understanding of ethnic and political units. Such an understanding structure cannot touch China's reality. For example, the kashgar region provided by Wang Hui, which has not only the system of Han culture, but also the system of Uyghur culture, and many other cultural systems, which are intertwined, it has inherent diversity, not to develop in a single direction, and this diversity is harmonious and different.
This is why the structural logic of the nation-state cannot understand China and even the specific society. Wang Hui uses "cross-system society" to oppose identity society, focusing on creating a new subjectivity based on diversity. If the cross-system society emphasizes the factors of diversity and uniqueness within a society, then Wang Hui's emphasis on the "cross-social system" is this kind of complex relationship between many societies, that is, the complex logic of different societies that are intertwined and intertwined, they have shared with each other, there are different things, there are also conflicting and contradictory things, but these things do not prevent them from existing in parallel.
These two concepts seem to form a complex society, a narrative of the nation-state. But for Wang Hui, cross-system society is not only a characteristic of Chinese society, but a common feature of all societies. The so-called nation-state narrative is only a distortion of social diversity that is simplified, deleted, exaggerated, and exaggerated. This distortion, deletion, and exaggeration plays a role in political mobilization, just as Zhang Taiyan said that through a set of national and national orders, a mobilization system is established, and the mobilization system can mobilize greater power of the organization in the international pattern of mutual competition, and "identity" is actually in this way to mobilize the forces that can be used, but these identities will actually distort and simplify the "cross-system society" or "cross-social system".
Wang Hui put forward several very specific examples, Goguryeo, Yuan Dynasty, Qing Dynasty are typical cases of cross-system society, its important core is the interlacing, interpenetration, and intermediation of the internal system of society, and at the same time, the cross-social system emphasizes the interlude of different societies, you have me, I have you, so this is based on difference and diversity of multi-system and multi-society interweaving and polymorphism. In this way, referring to China's subjects as "Confucian civilization" and "Sinicization" is no longer accurate. The multiple times of diverse verticals are brought into horizontal time, which is the core of cross-social systems and cross-system societies. The essence of The writing of European world history is to weave horizontal simultaneity into vertical time, to become the past, present and future in history.
Wang Hui's cross-social system, cross-system society, to implement a kind of reversal of the concept of time, that is, all vertical time flows into horizontal time at some different rate, becoming a unique factor of the same society or the same world. In this way, the parallel juxtaposition of overlap, ambiguity, and fluidity can be placed at the core of historical thinking. Such a horizontal point in time, beyond the antithesis of unity and difference in the structure of time, is a concept of time that can coexist with regional overlap, fluidity, and stability, and has nothing to do with all theological time from a single narrative perspective.
In Wang Hui's view, this kind of horizontal time is close to the ancient Chinese concept of tense, because the time process naturally forms a certain trend and kinetic energy, it will act on our present, so all our past is in the way of acting on the present, into the horizontal time. Wang Hui also made an analogy, as if Taylor's secular age in "Secular Age" had disintegrated the higher time, the divine time, the worldly time after it, and this time incorporated all the past time, or different times, into the present time. In fact, the horizontal time that Wang Hui talked about is roughly equivalent to the "contemporaneousness of different eras" (Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen) that Reinhart Koselleck talked about, which is a kind of fusion of diachronic and consensus, the past can flow into the present in different ways, and the future also flows into the complex time structure of the present, which is a synthesis of irreproducibility and repeatability in history. And people live in this state of multi-level "geological time" coexistence, in this complex system and social intertwined configuration. Such a social difference is no longer a marginal thing, but a central thing, which is transformed into a diffuse relationship. What is formed here is not a group of juxtaposed and isolated subjects, but on the contrary, the emphasis is on multi-ethnicity, diffuseness, and the mixture and overlap of relations. Therefore, such a social base cannot be constructed by an identity framework, nor can it be excluded or obscured by a particular form of nominal identity. Horizontal time does not actually cancel the vertical historical connection, but it is regarded as a differentiating factor on the horizontal timeline, rather than as an independent self-existing entity and subject history. This is the kind of cross-system society and cross-social system that Wang Hui talked about.
▍"Equality of All Things" as the Philosophical Basis of Symbiosis
The last question is the equality of qi and things, and the equality of qi is the ontological basis of Wang Hui's symbiotic philosophy of cross-system society and cross-social system, or the philosophical basis of cross-system, in short, this involves the question of philosophical foundation. Regarding the "equality of Qi things", Wang Hui is with the help of Zhang Taiyan's "Qi Wu Theory" style of equality, and has made a certain sense of transformation, Wang Hui's early understanding and later understanding seem to have slight differences, the key to the equality of Qi things is a kind of equality beyond the level of cosmological order beyond the political and social order, which is different from pluralistic equality. Because pluralistic equality (walzer called "compound equality") expands the field of distributive equality, but its focus is on the diversity of distribution systems and ideologies resulting from the diversity of distribution content. More importantly, the discourse on compound equality and its diversity of objects is based on a framework of anthropocentrism, so that things can only be defined in the sense of utility. Such a thing is actually an object, and itself is not a capable subject. In this way, in the process of different people's use of things, the hierarchy between things and things will also cause a hierarchy between people and people. And through the use of things by man, the hierarchicalization of man and man is ultimately the root of all inequality, because the relationship between the subject and the object of man to the object is finally projected onto the relationship between the subject and the subject, and it also becomes the relationship between the subject and the object.
Therefore, Wang Hui wants to reverse the basis of equality, equality is only from the framework of political society, can not be fully understood, the reality of inequality can not be truly substantively resolved. The emphasis on the uniqueness of each thing occurs at a non-human-centric level. For man, what is required is not to look at things from people, but to look at things from things, to be able to observe things as they are, to negate and suspend the subjectivity in the sense of people's setting objects, and to highlight the dynamic subjectivity of things. In this way, the understanding of political society is explained in the natural category. After all, so far, the equality of opportunity, equality of ability, equality of distribution, equality of diversity, which we have discussed so far, are all within a society and based on the separation of nature and social states. But in the end of the discussion, the equal subject itself is likely to degenerate into an objectified object as an object. Wang Hui quotes Zhang Taiyan as a metaphor for the three kinds of "equality of things and things" of "speech, name, and heart", because these three constitute a social and political reproduction system, which constructs a set of artificial orders different from nature through a set of nominal orders. This artificial order tends to legitimize inequality in the name of equality. This inequality means that all things are born different, born different, but he wants to talk about an abstract equality, so in the end this equality can only return to the form, the name, and can not return to a uniqueness of the individual, or even a negation of the uniqueness of the individual.
Zhang Taiyan believes that in the worldly law, there is only the word equality. Zhuangzi called qi wu. But equality as Zhuangzi understood was not equality in the sense of human equality, equality of all beings, or natural human rights, but equality in the philosophical ontological sense. Equality is a state of truth, a natural and equal under the cosmological order, but in the value system of political society, due to the requirements of social organization and national mobilization, it is often covered up by names. Therefore, Zhang Taiyan's most famous sentence is: "The body is not a form instrument, so it is free and there is no right; the reason is absolutely famous, so it is equal and salty, not alone, it depends on the sentient beings, there are no advantages or disadvantages, and it is separated from the speech and the centrifugal phase, after all, equality is the meaning of "QiWu"." In the "Introduction to Guoxue", Zhang Taiyan explained his meaning more clearly, why should he propose absolute equality? Why wait and see? Because the so-called freedom and equality of the neighbors all occur in the relationship between man and man, I do not infringe on man's freedom, and man should not infringe on my freedom. However, according to the "Theory of Qi Things", Zhang Taiyan believes that this is not true freedom: "The so-called equality of people today refers to the equality of people and people, and there is still inequality between people and animals, animals, plants and trees. The so-called equality in Buddhism has made man and beast equal. Zhuangzi went further and became equal to everything. It is only equality, he still thinks that it is not enough, he thinks that "the heart of right and wrong exists, but it is still unequal" that it is necessary to go to the heart of right and wrong is equal. When Zhuangzi was dying, he had the phrase "if he is not even, his peace is not even," which is a footnote to his equality." This is Zhang Taiyan's understanding of the limitation of equality only between people, and it is precisely this restriction that he wants to break through. Because this limitation is precisely the basis of the modern representative state, the basis on which he calls the "four confusions" (axioms, evolution, only things, and nature) and the "five nothings" (government, settlement, human beings, sentient beings, and the world) lies in the name, and this relationship itself is precisely deconstructing the uniqueness of things. Therefore, Zhang Taiyan believes that the freedom and equality mentioned in "Qi Wu" and "Qi Wu" are actually talking about equality in the absolute sense, while legal equality, freedom within the government, and so on, are not the ultimate freedom and equality. For such an absolute freedom, "the most fearsome thing is not in the phase, but only in the name", so to break the famous saying, right and wrong can not be established, the name will be formed without division, with the shape, the interaction between form and name will have a distinction and hierarchy, but the "body is not a form" so it refuses to understand the "body" as all the beings in the universe, that is, the materialized ontology. Refusing to understand the body under the treatment framework, the body non-form means that there is no top and no bottom, no big and no small, no inside and no outside, no good and no evil, no love, no hatred, no you and no self, this is the absolute equality of freedom and no right. To reason with a famous statement constitutes a rejection of any rule that arises in the name of axiom. Therefore, under the condition of equality of all things, there is no reason for the good to transform the bad to return to the good. Implicit here is a certain transcendental perspective that Wang Hui talked about in the book "Modern", which is a certain view of mind and a certain Taoist view, but in "The Birth of the Century", he qualifies this, believing that Zhang Taiyan's statement is essentially an "ontology without ontology".
"Ontology without ontology" is similar to the phenomenologist Husserl's "God without God" and Ronald Myles Dworkin's "religion without God" and "religion without god", and similar scholars include Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Jean-LucMarion, among others, who in nietzsche's "age of nothingness" (which Peter Watson's book is named for) in the 1880s, sought a transcendence without a transcendent, maintaining a transcendent perspective but avoiding transcendent materialization. Ontology without ontology can be understood from this perspective. In this way, absolute freedom and equality constitute opposites to all free systems, and all institutionalized systems, all bureaucratic systems, and institutionalized establishments are under Zhang Taiyan's criticism, that is to say, they all have a solidified, ready-made meaning, and only have a temporary meaning in this ever-changing mobile world, so this requires a philosophy of change. In "Zhuangzi", the universe is "impermanent", man is "transformed into man", and man and the universe are in the flow of change. But it is possible that Wang Hui and Zhang Taiyan did not emphasize the primacy of this change, but he emphasized the function of absolute freedom and equal liberation, that is, the possibility of liberation from nominal appearances and their institutionalized forms, because only in this way can diversity, ambiguity, pluralism, and confluence be respected. The ultimate implementation of freedom and equality is no longer a group, a collective, no longer some kind of institutional system, but an individual level. For Zhang Taiyan, all socialized and politicized orders and institutional orders are illegal if they cannot be implemented on individuals. This may also be a big difference between classical thought and left-wing movements, which emphasize social, national, political, and cultural order; but for classical thought, such as Zhang Taiyan, Zhuangzi also associates order with a person's livelihood. The revolution of unequal freedom has its meaning only in the end in the enrichment and practice of individual uniqueness.
Of course, to talk about the equality of things and things, to bring people and all things equal or to include people in the category of things, is not to cancel the differences between people and things, but to regard differences as the premise of equality. Because for Wang Hui, the inequality between people and things is the reflection of the unequal relationship between people, such people and things are stable in a hierarchical correlation structure, which means that the relationship between people and people is controlled in the corresponding unequal structure.
The second is that the unequal relationship in the social field is composed of speech, naming and mental relations, once this relationship is essentialized, it is equivalent to extracting the object from its uniqueness, and treating its function as the essence of the thing, that is, forming a functionalist, utilitarian understanding of things, and this understanding of things is implemented on people, and it will also make people useful and efficient, so that people themselves become an asset and resource, become the object of use and the object of exploitation, or become the activity of exploitation itself. All lead to the practice of self-alienation of man. Therefore, as long as it is based on the anthropocentric view of utility, people and things are constructed in the subject and the object, and the object is woven in the chain of usefulness, forming a value and objective inequality, which will inevitably be related to the inequality between people.
Therefore, one of the possible premises of the interconstruction of the logic of usefulness and the logic of relationality lies in the order of nominality, so Zhang Taiyan requires "reasoning out the famous words", and then he can re-provide the appearance of things themselves, and can provide a new vision for changing the unequal world. This goes beyond a logic of purposefulness and usefulness. Man cannot establish himself merely as a producer, a laborer, and a consumer. "Equality of things" is not a hypothetical ideal state and a process of reasoning, but a political process that requires a change in the way of looking at things, removing the imposition of value on things by the viewer in a subjective posture, and the result of value imposed is the same as the emergence of substantive inequality.
The racism, statism, party politics, nation-state, and historical laws associated with names, the logic of generating all ideologies such as recognition, universality, and particularity, and the elimination of the universe of nouns or ideological remnants, are the uniqueness of the infinite richness of all things in the world. Therefore, the emphasis on the equality of all things is related to the generalization of ideology since the eighteenth century. Because ideology refuses to ask questions and refuses to be educated, it constitutes a powerful force of mobilization that involves everyone in some kind of systematic structure. As Arnold Joseph Toynbee says, all ideologies have nothing to do with ultimate care, it cannot settle the individual's body and mind. Samuel Phillips Huntington has an observation that all ideologies come from the West, and all great religions do not come from the West; Eric Voegelin believes that the West since the eighteenth century is an era of ideological rise and shape of the spiritual pathology of modern people, and until modern times it still faces ideological challenges, as long as ideology is still omnipresent in a dominant way, then culture, spirit, Civilization in the true sense of the word will be challenged. From this point of view, the artificially set values provided by ideology are exactly what Zhang Taiyan deconstructs in the nominality, which can also be related to Carl Schmitt's "the usurpation of values" and Yungel's "truth of value gaps". These finally lead to the deconstruction of political and social overmobilization, an omnipresent mobilization that even adopts the involution mechanism of "unmobilized mobilization" to constitute the basic situation of the organized society in which we are placed, the mobilization of the society in which we are located, which ostensibly emphasizes the individual, but in fact atomizes the individual, and evacuates the individual to become a member of society. In the end, we find that the modern society that ostensibly emphasizes difference and emphasizes the individual creates homogeneous, homogenized, and averaged atomic individuals, which is actually a kind of nominalized individual. In the politics of identity and recognition, uniqueness can only be constructed and ignored as the opposite of difference and identity, so that in the end, there is no way to get rid of the danger of homogenization and homogenization. For example, the psychoanalyst Jung once said that our entire modern society cannot resist the danger of individualization as an average person, as a unit of society and the state. This danger stems from the modern system of conscription through the establishment of a nominal order.
The introduction of "equality of things" into nature is a field that cannot be penetrated by names, so through the introduction of nature, we can overcome the tendency of anthropocentrism in the connotation of equality, overcome the tendency of artificial value in the connotation of equality, no longer limit equality to the political society, but provide a reflective perspective on the equality of man in a materialistic way, and rebuild the relationship between man and nature, not falling into the trap of "unity and disunity", but taking "unevenness as a unity", that is, taking difference as the premise and basis of equality. This kind of equality returns to the thing itself, and all kinds of equality based on nominal appearances can only return to the conceptualized and nominal person, who cannot be thought of by the individual, but only recruited from the individual. The application of the diversity and equality of Yu Qiwu at the level of ecological diversity and cultural diversity is to respect things, including the diversity and uniqueness of people and communities as equal content, and at the same time, any political process related to "groups" can only be justified in the affirmation of different "independence", the so-called "great independence must be group", "group must be unique", "small group, thief of large group; big independence, mother of large groups", which is just like Guo Xiang's independent and mutual existence, life, all things are independent, but all things are related to each other There are no fixed boundaries, and all fixed boundaries come from the consciousness's attachment to the form, the fixation of the name to the form.
For the meaning of equality of all things, Wang Hui mainly talked about two points, which I think were ignored first due to the relationship of time. The best example of a cross-system society from the perspective of equality is regional ethnic autonomy, which is China's system of treating ethnic minorities. In a large sense, this system is inherited from the Qing Dynasty's handling of the Xinjiang issue and the Tibet issue, and has historical continuity. In short, in Wang Hui's view, the problem of equality in cross-system society can only be solved by using difference equality and equality of things in the same place. Then there is the question of cross-border equality, which is the problem of cross-social systems, because all of our current discussions of equality are confined to the nation-state, which leads to the problem that democracy in the nation-state has never prevented Western democracies from colonial aggression and hegemony over other nations and states, so democracy is inextricably linked to the mobilization mechanism of colonization and invasion. Under the conditions of globalization, the cyclical logic of democracy, equality and the nation-state is often premised on the deprivation of resources and labor power of other countries, so the publicness within such a democratic country has become what Liang Shuming called "wide-ranging selfishness", which is superficially a kind of publicness, but in fact it is a kind of selfishness.
In addition, Wang Hui mentioned the failure of cultural pluralism in the West under the wave of large-scale immigration. Wang Hui seems to suggest that it can be solved in the way of "equality of all things".
To a large extent, what I have said above lies in presenting Wang Hui's narrative, and I want to present its main points, which is also a learning process for me, and there may be some digestion of me in the middle, and the author should be responsible for the errors; as for the source of the quotations of Wang Hui's thought mentioned above, I will not indicate it. I also thank Teacher Lai and Teacher Mo for giving me a chance to re-learn Wang Hui.
Lai Xisan: Dear friends, I am very grateful to Teacher Chen Yun, because from his report today, you know that he has undertaken very hard work. I have always felt that Taiwan is now in a very special historical stage, cross-strait relations, US-China relations, Taiwan in understanding China or China as a way of thinking, I think in my observation, in the past ten years, there are relatively few complete hearings like Chinese intellectuals, there are intellectuals, so controversial Wang Hui, but from the report of Teacher Chen just now, it can also be seen that the complexity of their thinking, this for Taiwan to think about their own destiny and thinking about the symbiosis between the two sides of the strait, the symbiosis between the United States and China, I think it is definitely not just a discussion of academic discourse, it actually profoundly affects the understanding of oneself and the thinking about where it goes, a cultural issue, a historical issue, a geopolitical issue, etc., which is an intertwined co-construction.
From the description of Teacher Chen Yun just now, you do not see that Wang Hui actually has a very close relationship with the "Theory of Qi" in fact, his entire philosophical framework of thinking about the symbiosis of human beings in cross-system society is very closely related to the "Theory of Qi Things", if you invite Teacher Chen Yun to report on the one hand, Teacher Chen Yun's research on the pre-Qin view of the world, as well as his research on the "Theory of Qi Things", because of today's time relationship, he has no way to further respond to Wang Hui in some more details of his own. But you can see that he has combined Wang Hui's extremely complex thinking with a strong history, geography, and politics, and social analysis, including the analysis of ethnic minorities, very closely. Of course, there are also a lot of modern discussion questions, I will first give the time to Canaan, ask him to respond, Cangnan you can feel free to ask questions and dialogue with Teacher Chen Yun.
Mo Jianan (Assistant Professor, Department of Chinese, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan): Thank you very much to Mr. Lai, and thank you very much to Mr. Chen for such a complete report today, let us understand the complexity of Professor Wang Hui's thinking today. In fact, I think that the five points that Teacher Chen talked about today, each point can be discussed in a class, because each point is very complicated, and the part I will mainly respond to is the part of "Equality of Qi Wu", which is the article published by Wang Hui in 2011.
Friends, the five points that Teacher Chen Yun talked about today are really very complicated, so it is a pity that we do not have time to talk about them one by one. Wang Hui's article "Equality of Things and Cross-System Society", I think we should first pay a little attention to it, published in The 6th issue of Culture in May 2011, why 2011 is very important, why should we pay special attention to the published diary. We all know that in 2008 and 2009 there were some very complex ethnic or ethnic conflicts in Tibet, and we can see how to understand it in this article, and Professor Wang Hui is going to respond to what happened in 2008 and 2009. Today, Teacher Chen did not have time to talk about the autonomous region, but in this article, Wang Hui spent a lot of time discussing the concept of "equality of qi and things", how can we think about the concept of ethnic minorities in China or the concept of china's autonomous region, so my first point is to say that the context of his publication and publication is very important. If we read the problem awareness of this article, in fact, Teacher Wang Hui has been concerned about very complex problems in China and abroad. This article will touch on two main issues: the first can be said to be a challenge outside China, a challenge abroad, a challenge overseas. What kind of challenges? This challenge is that political democratization is entangled with the total negation of socialist history, with the result that the forms of equality, including those formed during the socialist period, and in particular the basic values that promote the practice of equality, are also denied.
Under this condition, political democratization becomes a process of unequal distribution and the legitimization of new forms of monopoly. What does that mean? In fact, it is a very obvious problem in Taiwan, after the end of the Cold War, whether it is Taiwan or Canada or the United States, they are very proud, as if the democratic democracy system has won a big victory, the best. Then one of the problems is that you have a formal democracy, but if you look at your society from an economic point of view, there are many forms of monopoly, irrational forms, the gap between the rich and the poor, and the problem of unequal distribution that have not really been solved. So our online friends from Taiwan, you can think about it, from 1987 onwards, Taiwan has indeed become a very democratic society, but we have not become a fair society, a society without the gap between the rich and the poor.
In other words, the logic of capitalism, the gap between the rich and the poor brought about by it is not so easy to solve the formal democracy, so this is a challenge outside of China mentioned by Wang Hui, that is, you have been denying socialism, you have been constantly in favor of democracy, but the process of favoring democracy is actually legitimizing many economically irrational phenomena. A domestic challenge, Wang Huihui wrote: "In China, which still maintains the socialist system, there have been no fundamental changes in the state political system and its form, but its social connotation has undergone profound changes." What does that mean? In fact, China's state system of state government has not collapsed like the Collapse of the Soviet Union, it is still a state system dominated by the Communist Party, but its social connotation has undergone very great changes. Since the reform and opening up, the biggest and most profound change is marketization. Therefore, Wang Hui will discuss the problem of China facing a political form and the form of society, our political form is mainly based on the Communist Party, to move toward communism, socialism, we are a country with a history of socialist values, but in society and daily life, we have seen the problem of the gap between the rich and the poor since the 90s, and it has obviously become serious.
In the past, we have seen all kinds of developments, economic development, market-oriented development brought about by the damage to the environment, etc., so our national system has not changed, but the connotation of society has changed, and this is a very critical issue for Wang Hui, because if your political form is disconnected from the nature of society, you will have a crisis of legitimacy. So you could say that this article is a central question mentioned by Professor Wang Hui, who asked, "What forces can promote the formation of a culture that can provide an ideological basis and moral norm for a new egalitarian politics?" So he faced the very complex problems of Tibet in 2011 and the gap between rich and poor brought about by China's marketization. Wang Hui's biggest concern is whether a new politics of equality is possible. And as theoreticians, as philosophers, we need to provide what kind of ideological resources for the new politics of equality.
So in this article, Professor Wang Hui analyzed three theories about equality, first to third, you can say that there is some kind of discourse on equality in Western freedom, including equality of opportunity, equality of redistribution, equality of ability, this is a very classic liberal discourse, about Johnroars and so on. Because of the relationship of time, we will not talk about every one of them, but Wang Hui, as a Marxist, still has a little skepticism about these liberal expositions on equality, and wants to criticize them a little, so how can he criticize them? He went to challenge Zhang Taiyan's interpretation of the Qiwu Theory to find a kind of Marxism, a space for Zhuangzi to talk to the Taoist Qiwu. Friends want to understand Wang Hui's thought, in fact, Teacher Chen has already said today, Wang Hui has "China as a method", or "Asia as a method", for Wang Hui, "China as a method" means, in fact, Teacher Chen has said, this is we have to understand and understand the experience of the Chinese revolution, and the subjectivity created by this revolution, this subjectivity is not like the Kyoto school to see the East and the West as a duality, or a new Orientalism, this is not an essential subjectivity, This subjectivity is a kind of standing on the stand of the proletariat and the Chinese peasant workers, through the process of their long-term struggle and sacrifice for more than a hundred years, slowly seeing the subjectivity of a socialist country as such a socialist, so it has a material basis, it is not an idealism, it is a materialistic subjectivity, so Wang Hui will write: "I think That China is exploring the reform of political forms at the same time, It is necessary to reconstruct under new conditions the egalitarian legacy formed in the history of the Chinese revolution and socialism." For Teacher Wang Hui, the history of The Chinese revolution is a heritage, our heritage, and this heritage has a very rich connotation of equality. After the end of the Cold War, the whole world seems to have accepted a capitalist logic, as if we are too quick to deny or ignore the legacy of the revolution, but for Wang Hui, the legacy of the revolution is really important. If we want to solve the crisis and discuss the disconnect between political form and social form, so friends, especially classmates and teachers in Taiwan, because Taiwan has not undergone a socialist revolution, we have not participated in the revolution on the other side, so it is difficult to really imagine what wang Hui said is the legacy of equality, because every time there is an opportunity to participate in the revolution in Taiwan, whether it is Xie Xuehong, the Communist Party of Taiwan in the 30s, or the communist movement on the island of Taiwan after 228, they are all obliterated. It's all stopped, we've been through the white terror for so long, any leftist thinking has been banned, and by the '80s we can really have a pluralistic academic environment, we're already completely overwhelmed by capitalist logic, so the '80s are a bit too late to participate in the revolution, right? So it is difficult for us in Taiwan to imagine the equal heritage that Teacher Wang said about the history of the Chinese revolution, so I feel very happy to have the opportunity to discuss this issue today.
If you want to understand the equal heritage of the Chinese revolution, Professor Wang Hui will say that the concept of "unit" is the most critical, because the core structure of the equal heritage of the Chinese revolution is "unit". In the same way, we basically see the laborer in Taiwan as a political, cultural, and social integrity, not a single laborer, not an abstract worker, and we basically have very little such an experience in the understanding of such a unit, so friends, this unit is also an important concept.
If we look at how Wang Hui understands Zhang Taiyan's interpretation of the "Theory of Qi Things," Wang Hui will say that this is the presentation of "Qi Things" and "Equality," which depends on an epistemological revolution." In fact, Teacher Chen Yun has already discussed this sentence today. Zhang Taiyan said: "Those who are all things, talk about equality, detail the meaning, not only regard sentient beings, have no advantages or disadvantages, cover the phase of words, away from the name phase, centrifugal phase, after all, equality, is the meaning of the unity of things." Teacher Wang Hui's analysis of this sentence and Zhang Taiyan's analysis of this sentence are written like this: "'Detached from the speech phase, away from the name phase, centrifugal phase' is a method of understanding everything in the universe and its uniqueness, but this method can only be achieved through the process of negation. Because the uniqueness of the object is shrouded in a system of reproduction, the uniqueness of the object is restored, which is first manifested as the cognitive practice of expelling this reproduction system. This practice requires not only the equality of human beings ("equal to sentient beings"), but also the complete abandonment of the unequal relations between human beings through "speech", "name", and "mental relations". So for any one, it can be said that the value norm, or the hegemonic structure, whether it is economic hegemony, or what role capitalism will force us to play, or the state, the national state as a "name", a kind of identity set on us. Whether it is the structure of democracy or the structure of capital, Zhang Taiyan feels that the most fundamental meaning of "The Theory of QiWu" is to deny that all reproduction systems have a control over the uniqueness, creativity, and richness of things, so this is a very important breakthrough point that Teacher Wang Hui feels that Zhang Taiyan has.
Continuing to look at Wang Hui's analysis of "Qiwu" or Wang Hui's analysis of Zhang Taiyan's "Qiwu", Wang Hui wrote: "'Qiwu' is not a confirmation of a given thing and its order, but a negation of the "thing" woven in the order of names, and the re-presentation of the thing itself, thus providing a vision for changing the unequal world." So the meaning of Qiwu is not that we are in favor of the pluralism of the existing order, no! It is a negative logic, he wants to deny the hegemony of all reproduction systems, so he is negative, and because it has this negative logic, it can be used as a vision, a premise, for thinking about equality.
In the second paragraph, we will look at why Wang Hui is not very acceptable, liberal discourse on equality, redistribution, equal opportunity, etc., because they do not grasp the core of the logic of violence and hegemony. Let's see him say, "If we discuss the equality of man only in the sense of the distribution of goods, even in the sense of the distribution of diversity, we cannot explain the form of appropriation of things, which is the root cause of control and inequality." If we really want to explain, if we really want to criticize the root cause of violence, control, inequality, we have to understand where its root is, which is a form of appropriation of things, a logic of possession of things. For Wang Hui, the most obvious example of the logic of the possession of things is capitalism, so Wang Hui will say: "Equality on the basis of commodity exchange is to express the relationship between people with things and things, and once the "things" are liberated from the logic of exchange relations, the relationship between things and things, things and people, and people is no longer simply subordinate to the logic of commodities", so this is a dialogue between Taoist thought, Zhuangzi and Marxism that I think Wang Hui is very unique. The analysis finds a liberation from commodities, from the commodity logic of capitalism, from the logic of exchange relations, from commodities, so this is very interesting.
And to emphasize the meaning of this emancipation, it is not to say that we should approve of any essence, because the root of essentialism is the same logic of the form of appropriation of things, so Wang Hui will write that "the 'thing' of 'equality of things' is premised on the uniqueness or fighting spirit of things, and this uniqueness is a dynamic and creative uniqueness, not a kind of essentialist uniqueness." Essentialism is constructed in the name of things, based on the function or use value of things and the value of exchange", whether it is a democratic country or a capitalist economic system, they all have an essential definition of things. For example: you are my worker in this factory, you are my assistant at this university, you are my assistant professor at this university, what are you going to do? How you have to work, I just help you to be single, I help you to put this name on you, you will essentialize yourself, but we all know that in addition to factories, in addition to schools, our personality, personality and life are actually richer and more unique, so any essentialist thinking, Teacher Wang Hui believes that it is the form of appropriation of things or the logic of capitalism, exchange relations caused, I think this is a very interesting breakthrough point.
But I want to discuss with Teacher Chen Yun a little today, I still have some questions about Teacher Wang Hui's breakthrough point, if you read This article by Teacher Wang Hui, he did not put Zhang Taiyan's 1908 "Explanation of QiWu" under Zhang Taiyan's own ideological context, or Zhang Taiyan's own life context, it can be said that Wang Hui directly quoted Zhang Taiyan's Qiwu theory, and did not really think about the significance of "Qiwu theory" for Zhang Taiyan's ideological system, of course, not to criticize Wang Hui, Teacher Wang. Because he was not going to write Zhang Taiyan, he just wanted to quote Zhang Taiyan's article to discuss the concept of equality.
But I think we can think a little bit about Zhang Taiyan's own contradictions, because we can say that Zhang Taiyan is a very complex thinker, and he does have a very anti-nominal side, very much against essentialism, very much against value norms, very much against the value norms that we have been discussing since the first session. It can be said that Zhang Taiyan, who opposed the order of people's livelihood, mainly came from his imprisonment from 1903 to 1906, when he was imprisoned for three years, then he specialized in Buddhist studies, and later continued to study Zhuangzi. In 1908 he published his "Explanation of QiWu", but in addition to the zhang taiyan who opposed essentialism, we have another kind of zhang taiyan, and it is a very single, very obvious, very essential zhang taiyan. So friends I don't know if you have found, in fact, most of the thinkers of the late Qing Dynasty and early Ming Dynasty, whether it is Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei, Hu Shi, etc., have many overseas sinologists like it and have written a lot of books about them, but there are fewer sermons, why? Because most overseas scholars look at his ideas of being full, that is, he opposes the ideas of the Manchus, he has Han nationalism, and there is a cold, a kind of disgust, thinking that he is so extremely full, there is a kind of nationalism that can be said to be very essential, Han Chinese, for overseas scholars, they may not see Zhang Taiyan who advocates the "Theory of Qi", they will only put their spirit on the more conservative Zhang Taiyan.
Friends, if you are interested in Zhang Taiyan, I suggest that you can read Professor Wang Fensen's "The Thoughts of Zhang Taiyan", which is a very short book, Professor Wang Fensen is an academician of the Academia Sinica, is a very famous scholar of Chinese thought in Taiwan, Teacher Wang Fansen will describe Zhang Taiyan's position in this way, he said: "In fact, Zhang's racial thinking is very different from the traditional, the traditional racial thinking allows Yidi to enter China, then China", this is a great understanding of Chinese civilization, Chinese culture is an extremely important sentence. That is to say, when Yidi enters China, you can be a Chinese, you can be part of Chinese civilization, you can understand etiquette well, you can understand the order of Chinese culture, there is no problem, because you have different ethnic backgrounds and so on, this is not a problem, the focus is on culture, not racial blood relations, but Zhang Shi can't agree with this at all. He emphasized the "unity" and "historical origin" of race, arguing that the differences between different peoples, like the differences of animal species, can never be reconciled." So it is a very essentialistic Zhang Taiyan.
Zhang Taiyan's famous work "Book of Kui", he often writes, for example, "There are fleas late and tribal specials, sex has a literary and a special rong xiashu", that is, the nature of some nationalities is very rough, very barbaric, very rugged, and some are very literary, some people because he is influenced by the theory of evolution, some nationalities develop very quickly, some are very backward, and so on, or he says, "Those who contain life and the like, those who are not minions and can speak, the ancients have Rong Di, no more than people, and they are close to it." You can't compare "Rong" and "Di" with people. And what does it mean to be "close to the truth"? We knew early on that Rong Di was not a Chinese person, but we later became controlled and ruled by the Manchus, so we could not say so. Zhang Taiyan has a lot of more essential speeches.
Then we can see how Zhang Taiyan emphasizes the national essence, emphasizing that if a nation does not have a national essence, what is the national essence? That is, you have to know the past, you have to understand your own history, you have to internalize the history of the nation, and so on, and if you don't have the essence of the country, it is "man-made alien servants", that is, you will be controlled and invaded by outsiders.
On the next page, we will see that Zhang Taiyan's definition of revolution and restoration is very simple, "The restoration of China's race, the restoration of China's Zhou County, and the restoration of China's regime." So in fact, his relationship with Sun Yat-sen's revolutionaries is relatively tense, and his relationship with the constitutionalists has always been very tense, because he has an extreme and absolute meaning of restoration, that is, the Qing Dynasty must be regulated by this, and we need to do such a racial restoration, which is a little different from the ideas of the constitutionalists and revolutionaries on pluralism.
Finally we can see the ideas of Zhang's new jurists, because in addition to the problem of racism, Zhang's legal, because what is the name? It is the law, it is the norm, how you want to live, what kind of regulations you have to accept for your behavior. Zhang Shi he attaches great importance to the idea of the Fa, he basically agreed, all the Fa family, think that human nature is pitiful, difficult and good, non-system with courtesy, wei to punish, not to suppress", so it is said that human nature is inherently unkind, etiquette and punishment is a more complete legal system of law, if you do not control it with courtesy and punishment, you have no way to control people well, so he agrees with The Weiwu Emperor Cao Cao's position on human nature, he is different from the theory of sexual goodness mentioned by Kong Rong and Du Shu, believing that people are originally good. So he already has a definition of human nature, which is indeed very single, very essential, has determined that people are bad, so we need a very strict system of nominality, a system of laws to control them.
And who can enforce this legal system. Zhang Taiyan is actually suspicious of the representative politics of Taiwan's legislature, and he feels that democracy is too easy to be controlled by the rich, or that it is easy to mess up when you give the people the right to vote, so he is actually more inclined to not be democratic, not a kind of liberalism, but more inclined to the ideas of the legalists. He felt that judges were officials, to be the embodiment of justice, to be the enforcers of the law, so where did these officials come from? Our judges should not be controlled by the court or the government, they should be completely independent, so the government cannot promote them, cannot let them step down, cannot dispose of them. In the same way, they should not be elected through democratic elections. Their legitimacy does not come from the government, nor from elections, they should be the people who know the law better, decide for themselves who is qualified to be judges, and implement the law well, so this is an absolute independence.
These points are that I think we have two different kinds of Zhang Taiyan, one Zhang Taiyan of the "Theory of QiWu" and one of the legalists, the nationalist Zhang Taiyan. I think that the contradiction in Zhang Taiyan's thought is not so much a special case of the history of modern Chinese thought as a microcosm of modern thought, so this contradiction is not only Zhang Taiyan's own contradiction, but also our contradiction. What does that mean? We can come up with a non-normative, non-central, non-essential logic of "homogeneousness" in philosophical discourse, but in historical time, we have no way to achieve a non-normative, non-central, non-essential society, and we are often entangled in names. Therefore, Teacher Wang Hui will say that "aligning with disunity" is to provide a vision, but in reality, in reality, how do we implement such a vision, is a very complex problem.
I think there are at least two levels of this contradiction, the first of which I have already said, we already lie in a social form of speech, name, and heart, so we have been controlled by the norms of various systems, so this is a political problem. But back to the philosophical question, I think, and this may be a problem to discuss with Teacher Lai and Teacher Chen, in philosophical discourse, although the Taoist self is a post-structural, non-essential, can be reviewed, deconstructed (Deconstruction) "good/bad" opposites of a kind of self, can be transformed into each other, in this course we have always emphasized such a self, but deconstruction, review, transformation seems to need some kind of mechanism, you have to ask yourself how to deconstruct? Why do you want to review? In what direction are you moving?
Therefore, Wang Hui, or we, have not yet completely liberated from a logic of "speech and name", and have not yet been completely liberated from the norm of value. So Teacher Chen mentioned today that "ontology without ontology", which I think is a very interesting statement, because we really want to deconstruct, but every time we want to deconstruct, we still go back to moral problems, distribution problems, political problems, and so on. So you still need some kind of ontology, and you need some kind of definition or hope for morality, for the individual, for society.
Finally, my problem is that a philosophy of symbiosis may require "aligning with the uneven" as the coordinates of thinking, which is our horizon of thought, and the rebellion against material injustice as the axis of practice, maintaining deconstruction/structure in a dialectical relationship. I think the questions we can think about include Taoist ideas, such as the oppression of labor, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, what kind of ideological resources can be provided to us, because in fact, Teacher Wang Fansen has a very interesting sentence, he said that Zhang Taiyan's Qiwu theory of his uniqueness, his breakthrough point is to let us respect pluralism, but its shortcomings are, in the words of Teacher Wang Fansen: "His shortcomings are that he provides a reason for all the requirements of the conservative status quo", because you respect pluralism. Conservative people are people with relatively closed minds, people who discriminate against gay friends, people who discriminate against different nationalities, and they can say that this is my diversity, and you can't say that I can't say that. In the United States now vaccination, many people do not want to get vaccinated, it is the complete opposite of Taiwan, they have any vaccine, but there are many people who do not want to fight; we do not have any vaccine, we all want to fight, these people, you can say that this is my freedom. If you put all the spirit in the question of pluralism, the question is how do you object to it, how do you face a conservative argument? How does Taoist thought allow us to challenge all the problems of violence and oppression of the weak? How can we continue to engage in dialogue between Marxism, postcolonial theory, and Taoist thought? I think Wang Hui's article is a very good example, and I hope to ask Teacher Lai and Teacher Chen how they can deepen such a dialogue. The second question is actually almost the same, that is, does Taoist thought have a resistance or redistribution of material inequality? The same is to have a dialogue with the history of the tradition of the Chinese revolution and the equal heritage of Teacher Wang Hui, and these are my two questions. Thank you very much To Teacher Lai and Teacher Chen for giving me this opportunity, I am sorry to talk about it for so long.
Lai: Friends, because Kana's response has brought in the next session of the discussion of Tsuyoshi Ishii of the University of Tokyo. In addition to Wang Hui's influence on Zhang Taiyan and zhang Taiyan's profound influence on the interpretation of the Qiwu Theory, he further examines the complexity of Zhang Taiyan. Next week, Ishii is an expert on Zhang Taiyan, and I think this question will become a very important topic of discussion again in the next meeting.
Due to the relationship of time, I would like to abandon my own questions and responses, because on the one hand, I greatly appreciate Wang Hui's discussion, on the other hand, of course, there are places where I feel that I can put forward residual strength, and his interpretation of the "Theory of Qi" has quite echoes as a long-term study of Taoism, but there are also places that want to put forward reminders. Due to the relationship of time, I first gave up my personal opinion, then invited a few friends to come in for discussion, and then let Teacher Chen Yun respond at the same time, including the response to Teacher Mo, especially Teacher Mo's two big questions, I think it is necessary to open a special topic to discuss. Because I see that the friends here, several of them may have some research on Wang Hui's related discussions, and I don't know if you have any questions like Cai Yuezhang or Li Zhihuan that you can ask and put forward your questions or conversations more delicately.
Li Zhihuan (Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Chinese, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan): My question is to say that we should not think of the problem as big as Wang Hui, and when I read Wang Hui to discuss this kind of specific equality, of course, I appreciated that he discussed the issue so grandly, but I wanted to be more specific, for example, if we put it within Taiwan society or within Chinese mainland society, how to implement this specific equality? Is it the driving force or starting point of the final implementation that will return to the cultivation of the individual? Because in all thinking or in Wang Hui's expression, there is always a normative re-examination, but the problem is not to think about a final normativity once and for all. So so the normative question, the problem of reconstruction, in the end I always feel that this specific equality seems to return to the individual's self-cultivation to think, can I think about this problem in this way?
Then there is Zhang Taiyan's expression always talks about "nominal phases" and "reproduction systems", but now in Taoist discussions, we all know "nominal phases" or reproduction systems, in fact, it is about norms, this thing cannot be taken away, that is, the language expression and boundaries involved in the names, the re-reflection of norms, but also involves resetting the self. I mean to say that "norms" can never be taken off, and the name can never be taken off, this can also be thrown out, I hope to hear everyone's ideas, thank you.
Lai Xisan: The question of Zhihuan, probably the previous question has already encountered the conclusion of Teacher Chen Yun, said that although Wang Hui applied the "Qiwu Theory" philosophy of change to become a critical kinetic energy, and even a revolutionary kinetic energy, but in this question of Zhuangzi, it also involves a kind of self-transformation of cultivation, and even the theory of cultivation, this place is not only leading to a social dynamic, fair, dialectical pursuit of a constant critical struggle, there is also a cultivation theory. An inner problem of settling down, Teacher Chen Yun probably did not cause it, so this problem was encountered again. Do other friends have any questions they would like to ask?
Cai Yuezhang (Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Philosophy, Tsinghua University, Taiwan): Hello teacher, I would like to mention a feeling and a response. Teacher Gang MoGanan mentioned that through Mr. Wang Fansen, he pointed out Zhang Taiyan's requirements and understanding of the essence of race. But there is a document, in fact, after the success of the Xinhai Revolution, when Zhang Taiyan was lecturing in Japan, at that time, in fact, his full attitude can be seen, and immediately changed 180 degrees. When Zhang Taiyan was lecturing in Japan and suddenly received a successful report on the success of the revolutionary movement in China, he immediately told the students sent to Japan by Manchuria, stressing that the democratic revolution was intended to be sovereignty, not to slaughter foreign nationalities and ignore differences. If he said otherwise, what was the difference between rebuilding the old courtyard like the Former Qing Dynasty's tyranny of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, "Ten Days in Yangzhou, Three Massacres in Jiading"? He stressed that under the framework of a common Chinese a new republican state, the people's occupation, suffrage, ethnic groups, etc., he immediately stressed that there was no such difference between classes, and that although there was a class difference, there was no such difference. From this point of view, if I were to emphasize zhang Taiyan's power struggle and political confrontation through radical or substantial nationalism alone, such an assertion would seem dubious. Perhaps the whole change in attitude before and after it is full can be considered comprehensively.
Another response is that I don't know if the traumatic experience of 1840 or 1895 may have made Chinese intellectuals reluctant to accept Western liberal democracy, but the theoretical system that Wang Hui talked about is very rich and very challenging to the West. I think that Taiwan, just like Teacher Mo Jianan just said, Taiwan should also find a reasonable way to treat the CCP, and should also consider that the CCP's anti-imperialism has even continued to the present, and the anti-Western anti-imperialist tradition actually has the theoretical significance and historical or contemporary value of its controversy.
In fact, Taiwan also has its own anti-imperialist experience, such as explaining that Zheng went to repel the Dutch and the Spaniards, you can see that Taiwan in the recent history of anti-imperialism, in fact, has also played a very strong rebuttal, he may also be the first time that China let imperialism in China, that is, in the Ming Zheng era, that is, in the relationship between Taiwan and China, that is, he was frustrated in China, how to understand Taiwan's revolution in modern China or in the historical process of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Taiwan's historical role in responding strongly, I think it may be able to have a very important empirical historical position and its contemporary value in the future when we think about the ideas of the early modern Chinese revolution. Above all, thank you.
Lai Xisan: Thank you Yue Zhang's very good question, especially the first one talked about Zhang Taiyan, in addition to the complexity of Zhang Taiyan mentioned by Teacher Mo and the complexity of understanding Zhang Taiyan, it is impossible to understand the complexity of Zhang Taiyan in a more complex way, especially if he carries that kind of fullness on the one hand, but will it be a strategic essentialism, in the special stage of history, when it forms a community that a certain strategic country needs, in fact, he does not temporarily use a strategic name. To form a strategic essence of resistance to foreign insults, but it is ultimately necessary to establish a temporary state polity, so I think this issue will continue to be discussed this week and next week.
The second question I would like to wait for Teacher Chen Yun can answer at the same time. In the description just made by Teacher Chen Yun, we can see that Wang Hui deconstructs the opposition between the so-called nation-state and the empire in order to exclude the narrative mode of Eurocentrism and Western-centrism, but in the description of the nation-state state, it seems that the description of the nation-state is completely inclined to the question of the negative, if you compare the New Tianxia Doctrine proposed by Xu Jilin, on the one hand, he can feel sympathetic to understand Wang Hui's argument that excludes Western-centrism, but he has also repeatedly reminded. Whether it is cultural conservatism or these expositions of the New Left, will it not fall into a binary thinking about the positive value and significance of the state system emphasized behind Western liberalism, especially the current nation-state system. I would like to wait a moment and ask Chen Yun to respond together, especially Xu Jilin and him are colleagues of East China Normal University. Is there still a problem in the end? I asked one more question and asked Teacher Chen to make a general response together.
Yiwei Lai (Master's Student, Department of Chinese, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan): What I was more curious about was to ask the teacher, recently we can know that there is a term that has been appearing in this one word about contemporary Chinese discourse, called "Community of Human Destiny". In this discussion, it actually mentions that the community of shared future for mankind is actually the future and destiny of every nation and every country are closely linked. This seems to be the same as the "Belt and Road" mentioned by Wang Hui at the beginning, which seems to be an advocacy of cosmopolitanism and an equal discussion of the global village, but when we discuss China at the same time, whether it comes from China or when we ask what Exactly is China, there is often a Chinese characteristic or an ideological initiative of The Chinese discourse, in fact, what we are often advocating is a Chinese particularity, or its difference. While I was advocating for this difference, could I possibly encounter what Zhang Taiyan called a more racist or nationalist point of view? Would such a statement be a little contradictory? Can Wang Hui's cross-social system help us solve such problems? If so, going back to the "Theory of Things", if the cross-social system still emphasizes particularity, is it possible to be equal? Or back to the symbiotic dialogue platform, how do we overcome this problem, or under what conditions can we achieve symbiosis? Thank you teacher.
Lai Xisan: Teacher Chen Yun, your time has come, and whether the reinterpretation of Wang Hui's "Belt and Road" or his expectations that you just described is not really implemented, or does it just provide a rationalization of the chinese communist party's economic and political rise again. Of course, there are some friends who will have reservations or worries. Leave the time to you.
Chen Yun: Thank you very much to Teacher Mo for his more specific interpretation of Wang Hui's 2011 article, and also thank Teacher Xi San and Li Zhihuan, Cai Yuezhang and other colleagues, as well as other friends for their questions. Zhang Taiyan itself has complexity, which is embodied in the following tension in Zhang Taiyan's thought taught by Teacher Mo, on the one hand, the racist and essentialist Zhang Taiyan, one establishing Taiwan, and on the other hand, Zhang Taiyan, who negates both the state and the nation. But it doesn't seem contradictory in my opinion. Because the concepts of the state and the nation, as the nominal aspects of Zhang Taiyan, have a temporary significance, but they cannot be solidified. What do you mean? Wang Hui has a saying that in Zhang Taiyan's thought, the individual is a temporary concept. In fact, for Zhang Taiyan, the nation and the state are more of a temporary concept, its function is only external, just like two people, when I understand myself as a subject of legal power, I adopt the claim of the subject of legal power to others, but for myself, there is no such a demand for a subject of legal power, so the claims or demands of Taiwan and sovereign states are actually related to the social environment and the problems of the times at that time. We all know that in Zhang Taiyan's time, Liang Qichao said that we know that we are not patriotic, we do not know patriotism, and we do not know that it is an obligation in China under the heavens. Therefore, for thousands of years, it seems that he has regarded himself as the world and has no country. Like Chen Duxiu, a little later, Chen Duxiu was in high school, he did not know that he was in China, did not know that China was a country in the world. After the first afternoon, the West entered China in an overwhelming way in an all-round way, and all the conflicts, competitions, and struggles in China were related to the strong intervention of the West (including Westernized Japan), and then the sovereign nation-state was a reasonable demand, which was to maintain that unique individual, and finally became a unique individual as the basic condition for survival. In this sense, the rationality of the name itself is highlighted, but the rationality is temporary in Zhang Taiyan after all, it acquires rationality in the dynamic process, and once we use the rationality of the sovereign state and the transgression, it loses its effective basis, for example, we use it to mobilize the people, to attack other countries, to invade other countries. In this way, the sovereign state actually loses its morality.
At that time, Liang Qichao also said that "for the body to know the state, to the imperial court to know the country, to the foreign nation and to know the country, to the world and to know the country", the most important thing in this paragraph is for the foreign nation, for the world and know that there is a country, this is also the fundamental reason for Zhang Taiyan to adopt relativity rather than absoluteness to the country. Therefore, Zhang Taiyan deconstructs the absolutist state and supports the temporary nation and state, which leads to the de-self-sexualization and temporary sexualization of the concept of the state. This is just as Zhang Taiyan, on the one hand, said that people and things should be equal, and on the other hand, he said that the evolution of nature is not enough to support moral principles, and moral principles cannot be based on natural evolution. Because nature is nature, and man has the uniqueness of man, the nature has the uniqueness of the natural world, the uniqueness of man is not the same as the uniqueness of nature, and the principle of evolution drawn by nature cannot be used as the moral root of mankind. For the contradiction we are talking about today is precisely that we are on a nominal level, or put it on the same level, but in fact it is a different level of structure. If we misplace it, we will see its contradictions.
Regarding the two questions raised by Teacher Mo, I think it is very challenging, one is what resources can Taoist thought provide for the oppression of labor, ethnicity, gender, etc.? Where is the possibility of dialogue with Marx and postcolonialism? I think this is also an untapped potential of Zhuangzi, like Wang Hui, who developed the process of zhuangzi's communication with Marxism. Wang Hui particularly emphasized that Zhang Taiyan's Zhuangzi is a negative Zhuangzi, a deconstructed Zhuangzi, which is not to establish a certain essentialist entity and subject, but to deny what is solid. Even if there is a nominal order, it is only a temporary, a link in the order of liquidity within a reasonable range. Therefore, in this regard, Zhang Taiyan's Zhuangzi, including Zhuangzi's Zhuangzi, did not completely abolish the order of appearances in the end, for example, Zhuangzi said in the "Heavenly Dao" that "those who are ancient and bright, first tomorrow and morality are secondary, morality is clear and benevolence is secondary, benevolence and righteousness are clear and divided into second, and those who are already clear and form are subordinate" Zhuangzi obviously does not abolish the name, but only places it in a relatively reasonable position. In the "Fortune of Heaven", it is said that "the Tao is passed, the morality is in accordance with morality, the benevolence and righteousness are withdrawn, and the guests are happy." Instead of abolishing all these things, such as benevolence, righteousness, and the number of degrees before the end, he placed morality in a more fundamental position, and on the whole, he wanted to achieve a political and cultural system that was several degrees at the end of the world, small, big, and coarse, and everything was more three-dimensional and more hierarchical. This is different from postcolonialism and Marxism, which basically do not involve the ultimate care of the individual; postcolonial involves resistance to colonization and the reverse penetration of colonial logic in the process of resisting colonization. These may in some way be able to create a resonance relationship for Zhang Taiyan's Zhuangzi or Zhuangzi itself. But in classical thought, its three-dimensional connotation cannot be completely reduced to a deconstructive, negative thing, there is something positive in it, just as we talk about Hayek's liberalism, in which everything has no nature, only a spontaneous order, which only emphasizes the spontaneity of order, but spontaneity deconstructs the greek concept of natural nature. So on this basis it is different from Zhuangzi, whose "each has its own rules of etiquette, called nature", which enables us to go up to morality, to benevolence and righteousness, and to liturgy. This may be the difference between classical thought and modern thought, because modern people are in an organized society, and different societies form a tension relationship between society, and any society needs to mobilize more structure, organization, and mobilization functions, and integrate individuals into the group will and its system. This has resulted in the following survival situation faced by modern people, in the "Leviathan" of the modern bureaucratic system, humanization is made into a component or link of the system. So like Marx, like postcoloniality to target such a large institutionalized system, but for Zhuangzi, the institutionalized system at that time was not so large and strong, at that time it was basically in the order of human morality, and there was no institutionalized form of intermediary between people and people, but today there is an institutionalized intermediary between people and people. This is the difference between ancient and modern contexts, and the focus of thought is therefore different.
With regard to the second question, the inequality of material distribution, the division between rich and poor in assets and capitalism, did the Taoists offer a kind of resistance or a redistributive conception? I think the problem is very complex, and if we dig out the hidden possibilities of Taoism, we will find that Taoist thought is not just a utopian vision, or something that cannot be implemented. On the contrary, it has to resist the dominance of an artificial, formal order, such as the problems of our huge bureaucratic system today, the huge Leviathan-centered system, the pressure of which is entirely borne by the limited and fragile individual, which was once regarded by Marcuse as the social root of the pathology of modern individual neurosis. In Zhuangzi's time, there was a tendency to resist the Confucian order of famous religions to some extent, but this was far from enough to cope with the modern situation. In modern society, the "Leviathan", which is both divine and demonic, extends the capillaries of power to every corner of the entire living world, even every pore of man, the unconscious depth of every consciousness, and the mobilization of human beings by organized society is maximized, which creates a social scene in which biopolitics unfolds, and almost all the composition of life is included in the agenda of politics and governance, and there is no escape between heaven and earth. The potential of Zhuangzi's thought is to lead us to think about another possibility, that kind of non-social morality, the morality associated with the tao of heaven, such a survivalist mechanism of man and nature, is the only possibility to liberate the world and the depths of individuality. I think that if it is not implemented at this level, all institutional emancipation, all liberation from the system, can only create conditions of freedom and equality, not freedom and equality itself.
This brings us to the next question, which is the problem of Zhi Huan, does the process of liberation require the participation of self-cultivation? Without the participation of self-cultivation, politics is not a politics open to everyone, and what we have created and obtained is only a free and equal social condition, not the use of a sense of freedom and equality itself. What are the problems we face today? On the one hand, our form of liberal (associated with the famous order) politics can be said to be an unprecedented deepening, but on the other hand it is a great atrophy of the sense of freedom in the depths of each individual's life. The deep rupture between democracy in the form of society and democracy in the political system, which Wang Hui talked about, is also related to this situation; the inequality and unfreedom in real life and the intensification of equal freedom in the form of politics constitute a sharp contrast. Why is there this comparison? It is precisely because today's political subject, the cultural subject, it is already de-educated, and what it needs is a mobilized person, an organized person, an individual who is used as a constituent element of society and mechanisms, as a unit of the mechanism of the huge Leviathan system, not an individual who opens up his own potential. So this kind of invented individual is essentially a ready-made, egalitarian man, which is produced and consumed by social and political systems, who is enthusiastic about the form of liberal democracy in a very popular radical way, but does not know the content of liberal democracy. The individual in this sense is mutually constructed with mechanisms, institutions, and systems, and they all point to the nominal and superficial layers of freedom and equality, rather than to the inner part of freedom and equality. Zhang Taiyan lived in prison for a while before writing the Commentary on the Theory of QiWu, and he said that in fact, I was the freest in prison and felt the most equal. This freedom and equality is an equality in the sense of existence, not an equality in the sense of existence, and equality in the sense of existence is the deep background and conditions for the establishment of equality in existence. If we do not have equality in the sense of existence, then no matter how many political and cultural conditions of freedom and equality we have, we cannot expand or deepen our inner sense of freedom and equality. This is the experience that Zhang Taiyan himself gained in reading and learning in prison. It is precisely this experience that can answer why it is necessary to penetrate the nominal appearance, why it is necessary to transcend the socio-political level, so that freedom and equality can really occur, that is, to mobilize the participation of everyone, freedom and equality are in our own self-sufficiency, because of our own situation, so it has different contents, it can not be fixed and single form solidified, penetrated. Teacher Wang Hui's exposition emphasizes social criticism, emphasizes the legacy of the Chinese revolution, and emphasizes the process of socialization. This is also related to Marx's understanding of man: in its reality, man is the sum of a social relationship. This is also the level that Wang Hui highlights. But after all, from the solidified value of society and the state and its deconstruction, it is not enough to rise to the self-settlement and self-composition of the individual, which leads to the fact that freedom and equality can only exist as a condition, as a political and cultural boundary, as a condition for the possibility of a person's cultivation, but it must be through the self-cultivation practice of each person, otherwise it cannot happen.
Of course, the normative order cannot be taken away, and of course, What Zhihuan said is right. But the problem is that today we have a lot of normative order, and you say democracies, for example, the US war against Iraq is supported by normative democratic processes. Moreover, because the spread of American ideology requires recognition of the existence of an evil state in the world like Iraq, war on it is a just demand. Yet this evil itself is an ideology that cuts out every specific individual in Iraq and turns it into a collective noun. But this does not hide that the attack on Iraq injured every specific individual and family. Looking back, how did the United States justify its war? This is the simplification and deletion of specific individuals and their existence by means of nominal and normative orders, and Japan's war of aggression against China also has a high-sounding legitimate reason, otherwise it cannot mobilize the participation of the people, but this mobilization is a normative order achieved by using nominal appearances at the expense of the individual. So the rationality of the normative order is limited. Therefore, I very much agree with the problem of self-transformation and self-composition that Teacher Lai just mentioned, which is the problem of Zhuangzi's "externalization and internalization", which is a theme that Wang Hui has not developed, and it is not a theme that can be developed in an agenda focusing on social criticism and political criticism. But in the classical tradition, this theme cannot be avoided.
As for what Professor Ji Lin is talking about, it is actually to save China with universality, and universality is precisely the order of the name, and finally it is implemented in the politics of identity and recognition. Within the universality of the void, in fact, it is essentially a deeply pervasive atmosphere of nihilism, and all attachments and obsessions with human values cannot be separated from this breath. Contrary to Wang Hui's vision, China's experience has been omitted, so what is this universality? In fact, in the end, it is integration, integration into a world system dominated by the West, and in the bones it is still what the West is, not what the West is. In this logic of universality, it is impossible to exploit the individual whose pre-name phase and post-name phase are phased, which begin with the concept and eventually belong to the concept, and as for the rich and complex experience that cannot be reduced and reduced, it is the object of its deletion and reduction. So the opposition between universality and particularity is actually the greatest problem in our understanding of the modern order, the most untenable but in fact unavoidable problem because it becomes a living situation. Liberals, like all other ideologies, cannot produce individuals like Zhuangzi, and the freedom it offers, which is called "ism," is precisely the subversion of what Zhang Taiyan calls absolute freedom. If the situation between people is stripped away, if the legal claims are stripped away, the freedom of liberalism will no longer exist, but the freedom of Zhuangzi and Zhang Taiyan has just begun. The "independence" that Zhuangzi and Zhang Taiyan are concerned about is the connection between man and the Heavenly Dao, the connection between man's active dimension and his deep self that he is given, but in the liberals, man is only a social person, not a heaven and earth person, so what Zhuangzi and Zhang Taiyan say does not even have legitimacy. This means that liberal freedom itself contains a demand that is both rights and power, and it does not recognize or ignore what Zhuangzi and Zhang Taiyan express in "Standing on Independence" and "Great Independence", but only because it reduces itself to "isms", and all "isms" are things that can be penetrated by the mechanism of nominal appearances. On the issue of the Belt and Road Initiative, I think Wang Hui is speaking in a guiding sense, not in the sense of identity, and as a scholar, his responsibility is to lead the cross-social system in the sense of economy, production capacity, and geopolitics to the diversity of cultures and civilizations.
This is the agenda of the Belt and Road Initiative, which is not yet fully developed. In turn, even in the case of capital and geopolitical integration, the diversity of culture and civilization, the cohabitation of different people will certainly be brought out, but the biggest obstacle it encounters is not from the right people, but from the "Belt and Road" challenge from the hegemony centered on the "global empire", so Wang Hui emphasizes the revolutionary legacy, which means that the revolution of the world order is still not completed, and it is related to the possibility of transforming the existing hegemonic world order in the contemporary context. We cannot look at Wang Hui's discussion of the Belt and Road Initiative in terms of political legitimacy arguments and policy defenses, which, like his Tibet discourse, carries the theoretical momentum of transforming reality.
Lai Xisan: I invited Teacher Chen today to give a lecture and guide, and I really feel very impressed in my heart, except that he helped us understand and show wang Hui's complexity. You can see that he is facing this issue, and frankly speaking, he is now discussing this issue so complexly in Taiwan, and he is willing to calm down and discuss this issue, I think he is becoming more and more marginalized. So I think that at this moment, Taiwan needs to face all kinds of complexities on both sides of the strait, think very calmly about this issue, and how to understand from these first-class intellectuals in China how they view the history of the whole world and the future of the world. I think it is very urgent, very urgent, very urgent for Taiwan to understand itself and to think about the pattern of cross-strait and U.S.-China, to find the location of its own destiny and a soft response.
Teacher Chen, in fact, as a scholar, he is really very frank and frank about this issue, it can be said that in addition to solid education, he painstakingly exposed these problems one by one, in fact, it also opened up a good dialogue platform. I feel extremely precious at this moment, so I feel very deeply at this point.
At the same time, it has also been observed that from this week, from Mr. Chen to Tsuyoshi Ishii, and next week's interview with Takahiro Nakajima of the University of Tokyo, it may be that East Asia proposed "symbiotic philosophy" very early, and now it is moving towards this development of "world philosophy". As you can see, our discussion has a very important context of the "Theory of QiWu" and "Zhuangzi Taoists, which have long been depoliticized, and put it into another very promising response to politics."
Second, Teacher Chen's response in the second half greatly complements the part of Zhuangzi that he did not fully respond to in his first report, due to the time relationship, and the Zhuangzi described by Teacher Chen is basically imprinted on me, and we probably have a lot of consensus in this place, that is, Zhuangzi is not just a pure "broken", not just a pure deconstruction, a pure criticism, he is treating and updating at the same time, I am afraid that he will move towards a very dynamic positive intention that constantly activates the structure in the structure and constantly activates the famous words in the famous sayings. So on this point, I think Teacher Chen has made a very important addition, and can also be connected with the discussion of Ren Boke in this course and our discussion with Lao Tzu.
Mo Jianan: To add, thank you very much for Teacher Chen's complete report, response and supplement today, really want to thank Teacher Chen again, really very enlightening, I believe that the five points of your report today, in fact, we can discuss each point well, we may open another class next semester, you can continue to discuss, because really today's harvest is a lot, so I want to thank Teacher Chen again for the complete response and guide, thank you.
Chen Yun: Let me interject, just now about the "Belt and Road", in fact, Wang Hui did not talk about a key point. That is, the "Belt and Road" is precisely the revolutionary idea of ending the hegemony of the ocean age and rethinking the relationship between the ocean and the land, which in Wang Hui's view contains this possibility. In addition, I am very grateful to Mr. Xisan for inviting me to review the relevant works of Mr. Wang Hui, and I am also very grateful to Mr. Canaan for his comments, the inspiration brought to me by his questions, and thank you for the questions and participation of your online friends.
Lai Xisan: I think intellectuals on both sides of the strait should do more of this kind of deep, in-depth, frank, very comfortable and calm dialogue, and I think the significance of this platform is also here, and I look forward to Wang Hui's ideal interpretation of the "Belt and Road", such an expectation, the Communist Party can listen to it and put it into practice. The significance of a civilized power to the whole world is shown, and not only in the confrontation between the strong country and the strong country, it is extremely critical and important for the future of the world, Chinese philosophy here has many important assets that can be reactivated and reapplied, thank you, thank you Teacher Chen, thank you Canaan, thank you for the participation of friends.
This article was originally published in the Journal of Shangqiu Normal University, No. 4, 2022, originally titled "Wang Hui's Imagination of the World of Equality and Cross-System Society". Welcome to share personally, media reprint please contact the copyright owner.
