form and formless: a discussion with the authors of anticipating china

Front. Philos. China 2011, 6(4): 585–608 DOI 10.1007/s11466-011-0157-z

Received August 1, 2010 ZHANG Gang ( ) Kaiser-Friedrich-Strasse 7/3, A-3500 Krems, Austria E-mail: [email protected]

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ZHANG Gang

Form and Formless: A Discussion with the Authors of Anticipating China

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract Chinese culture is neither the first problematic thinking (analogy) claimed by the authors of Anticipating China, nor the second one (logical inference). On the one hand, analogies are one of the most remarkable aspects of Chinese thinking, while on the other hand, Yin-Yang, Dao and Fo are all universal codes that could neither be reached by analogy nor by logical inference. In fact, both the first and second problematic thinking share the same world view, taking the world as a composite, and the difference lies merely in whether the components are irreplaceable particulars or substitutable elements. Both build their knowledge on the components and how they combine. In the terms of this paper, both systems are constructed with spatially definable forms, real or nominal. The highest codes in Chinese culture are not built upon the physical properties of an object, and could never be found by analysing the object, physically or logically. Yin-Yang, Dao and Fo are names without form, and thus are thinking modes that cannot be described by a spatial concept. They are non-structural systems and a way of formless thinking. Keywords form, formless, name-differentiation, thinking in form, formless thinking

1

In the comparative study of Chinese and Western cultures, the book Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture has considerable influence. There are many incisive insights in this book, like pearls strewn here and there. However, the basic views presented in the book are wrong, and the elements of Chinese culture, such as analogy and symbolism, taken by

ZHANG Gang 586

the authors of Anticipating China as essential properties, are only superficial phenomena. Unfortunately, those pearls cannot be strung into an appropriate necklace without a proper string. According to David Hall and Roger Ames, the authors of the book, there are two main ways of thinking in Western culture, first and second problematic. Let us accept this view for the moment. With regard to the distinction between these two ways of thinking, the authors state: “First problematic thinking is neither strictly cosmogonical nor cosmological in the sense that is the presumption neither of a beginning nor of the existence of a single-ordered world. This model of thinking accepts the priority of change or process over rest and permanence, presumes no ultimate agency responsible for the general order of things, and seeks to account for state of affairs by appeal to correlative procedures rather than by determining agencies and principles” (Hall and Ames 1995, pp. xvii–xviii). In short, the first problematic thinking is to apply analogy to evoke understanding, and the second problematic thinking resorts to cause and effect.

On the surface, Hall and Ames are right, but they have missed essential aspects of Chinese and Western cultures.

Traditional Chinese culture consists, roughly speaking, of four main aspects, Confucianism, Daoism, Chan Buddhism and Shamanism. Since the last one has very few philosophical factors, it will not be addressed in this paper. In the other three schools, there are many discourses regarding the origin and order of the universe.

As known to all, Lao Zi stated: “There is something indivisible and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still and alone it is, standing on its own, undergoing no change, moving around without exhaustion. It may be regarded as the mother of the universe” (Daodejing, Para. 25). Unequivocally, there is a beginning and an ultimate agency of the world.

Perhaps the text from Lao Zi did not clearly show whether the world is single-ordered or not. However, such an idea was clearly presented in Lie Zi 列子. In the second paragraph of the Chapter “Tianrui” 天瑞 (“Omen of Heaven”), on how the universe comes into being, Lie Zi prescribed a procedure as follows: “That which is with form is generated by that which is without form, so then, from where do heaven and earth come into being? Thus, there is Tai-Yi 太易, then Tai-Chu 太初, then Tai-Shi 太始 and then Tai-Su 太素. Tai-Yi is that Qi 气 has not yet come into being. Tai-Chu is that Qi begins to come into being; Tai-Shi is that forms begin to come into being; Tai-Su is that substances begin to come into being. In the beginning, Qi, form and substance have not yet been separated, and therefore, that is named as an amalgam. The amalgam is that myriad of things are blended together and not yet divided. It cannot be seen, heard or felt, and therefore, it is named as Yi 易. Yi is that which is without form and limit. Yi


587

transforms itself into one, one into seven, seven into nine.”1 Such a single-ordered procedure is, in effect, one of the main principles in

Confucian doctrine. Yijing 易经 (The Book of Changes) consists of 64 hexagrams, and in Chinese

philosophy, everything in the universe is contained in them. All these hexagrams are composed of 8 trigrams, and all trigrams of a short string “—” 乾爻 and a broken string “- -” 坤爻. In sequence, the broken string comes after the short string. According to the sequencing and configuration, the broken string is generated by the short string. In “Xici,” the short line is conceived as Yang, and the broken one as Yin. Confucius summarised The Book of Change with one very famous sentence, “Therefore, in the Yi 易 there is Taiji 太极 (the Ultimate), which generates the two, Yin and Yang. Those two generate the four images, which generate the eight Trigrams.”

Since the Han dynasty, Confucian thought has been enriched, and at the same time, systematized. Zhou Dunyi 周敦颐 , the alleged progenitor of Neo- Confucianism, in his “Taiji Tushuo” 太极图说 (“Graphing the Ultimate”), transformed Confucius’s doctrine into a diagram and interpreted it as follows: “Following state of that without an ultimate, the ultimate comes into being. The movement of the ultimate generates Yang; following the zenith of the movement, comes the stasis, and then, Yin is generated. … That Yang changes and Yin harmonises generates water, fire, wood, metal and earth. … The interaction of Yin and Yang generates all the things.”

Such a sequenced genesis of the universe has been presented by almost all the classic literatures in Chinese philosophy. Incontestably, those discourses demonstrated a beginning and single-ordered procedure, and also an ultimate agency of the universe. The texts quoted above are not just ideas; they are significant to Daoism and especially to Confucianism. In such a procedure, the paramount position of Yang over Yin was established and played a key role in Chinese metaphysics, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and the social order.

However, after the universe came into being, or after all things were created, a different order came into the world. Along with sequencing, a kind of cause-effect chain of interaction took the stage and played a significant role.

Right after the text we quoted above from “Omen of Heaven,” Lie Zi said: “Nine is the exhaustion phase of the transformation, and thus, it is transformed again into one. One is the beginning of the transformation of a thing that has form.” Therefore, the sequenced genesis does not take part in such a circulation any more. Regarding how the transformation from one to nine functions, there is 1 In Chinese, this nine often means myriad of things, or the universe.

ZHANG Gang 588

no enlightened discourse in Daoism. However, the so-called transformation of one, seven, nine from Lie Zi, and one, two, three from Lao Zi, is not the creation of Daoism, but is from the Book of Changes.

The short string “—” symbolizes one, and the broken string “- -” two, altogether those two symbols make three. Furthermore, the 8 trigrams consist of three strings, broken or not. Finally, two overlapping trigrams create the 64 hexagrams which make up the world. Obviously, it is the process of one which generates two, two which generates three, and three which generates the myriad of things. Therefore, Lao Zi stated “The Dao generates one, one generates two, two generates three, and three generates all things” (Daodejing, Para. 42). One, seven, nine from Lie Zi, are all the numbers of Yang, or heaven, and one is the starting phase of Yang, nine is the exhaustion phase, seven is something fancy, so in this regard, there is nothing really new from Daoism.

In this process, the interaction between Yin and Yang is key. Taking a general survey of The Book of Changes, the alternative arrangement of short and broken strings plays a central role. The aphorism from Confucius, “Yin and Yang are called the course (of things)” (“Xici,” Part 1, Para. 5), is the most precise annotation, capturing the very essence of the Book of Changes. When the completion phase of one hexagram arrived, changes in the next hexagram begin, until the 64th hexagram, whereupon the whole procedure starts over again. Obviously, this is a cyclical movement. Strictly speaking, there is no starting point and no end. Within the cycle, the changes are generated by the interaction between Yin and Yang. In this connection, the single-ordered world, from a beginning to an end, from a generator to a generated, has almost receded from the stage. According to Anticipating China, the acosmological and acosmogon- ical way of thinking stands alone.

As we have seen, clearly, there are two aspects to traditional Chinese culture. They are not compatible in a Western system. The question is how the Chinese way of thinking can combine these incompatible aspects into one system without pressure from factual and logical concerns, whereas the Western system has suffered from ancient Greek thought to the present day. Resolving this riddle will demonstrate the essential nature of Chinese thinking, which we will deal with shortly. At this moment, we would like to take a look at the claim in Anticipating China that Chinese culture is an analogical way of thinking.

2

Let us begin our argument again with a quotation from Anticipating China. “The second type of ordering, the ‘aesthetic,’ is acosmological in the sense that the


589

particularities defining the order are unique and irreplaceable items whose nonsubstitutability is essential to the order. No final unity is possible on this view since, were this so, the order of the whole would dominate the order of the parts, cancelling the uniqueness of its constituent particulars” (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 116). This text, applied to Western culture, is quite keen and correct. But when it is applied to Chinese culture, it is not only incorrect, but totally misses the essence of this culture.

Superficially, it is correct that metaphor is the most remarkable character of Chinese culture. All Chinese scholars have used particulars to symbolise or narrate their views without logical arguments, from ancient masters to present-day scholars, in China and also in the West (Sinologists). These fundamental codes of Chinese philosophy, such as Dao, Yin-Yang, could only be interpreted with particulars and symbols to evoke an understanding, or in terms of Chinese philosophy, to sudden enlightenment. However, on the other hand, none of those codes can really be interpreted, whether with language or with image.

It may help to quote some of the best known aphorisms in Chinese epistemology. To clarify the goal and theme from the very beginning, in Daodejing Lao Zi stated: “The Dao that is voiced is not the eternal Dao. The name that is named is not the eternal name.”

This very same thought was visualised by Zhuang Zi, and was reiterated often by many others: “A fishing rod is used to catch fish; when the fish is caught, the rod should be forgotten. A snare is used to catch a hare, when the hare is caught, the snare should be forgotten. Words are used to convey an idea; when the idea is comprehended, the words should be forgotten” (“Waiwu” in Zhuang Zi).2 The same view was also articulated by Chan Buddhism and is key to comprehending Fo 佛. The central idea of Buddhism is the Void. This Void is, of course, neither “existence,” nor “non-existence,” for when “non-existence” is voiced, it implies there is “non-existence.” Furthermore, Fo is definitely not non- existence. Hui Neng 惠能, the progenitor of the Chinese school of Buddhism, unambiguously declared that Fo should not be mentioned, whether it be by words, analogue, image or anything else, since if Fo is mentioned, it would fall into the trap of “existence.” Even the very word Fo is intended to guide a layman to suddenly realise the road to reach Fo. In the words of Hui Neng, “Talking of Fo is just for the ordinary people, not for those who have already realised what Fo is” (“Jiyuan Pin” in Tan Jing) Later on, in the same Chapter, Hui Neng said, “Void and formless as it is, how can it have an image?” (Ibid.) That is to say, even though the paramount code of Dao and Fo could be 2 English translation based on chinese.dsturgeon.net.

ZHANG Gang 590

expressed, there is no way for them to be completely presented, whether it be by words, analogue or image. Daoism and Chan Buddhism may be equivocal as they are, but at this very point, both have made it clear and unequivocal. We see that in this point the fundamental sense of Chinese culture consists. Unlike Daoism and Buddhism, which retreat into temples, Confucianism applies to the real world, the ordering of society and the practice of traditional Chinese medicine. Had Yin-Yang, the highest code of Confucianism, been a non-entity, the whole school would have collapsed. In “Xici,” which is allegedly written by Confucius, “The Master said: ‘The written characters could not completely express the speech, and the speech not the idea’, then, the idea cannot be realised? The Master said: ‘The sage created images to make their ideas fully expressed; set up hexagrams to make the essence and appearance fully cleared; appended their explanations to make their words fully understood; and varied images to adjust to changing circumstances and to keep things going to obtain full the benefit of their creation.” In this regard, Hall and Ames are right in saying: “Yin and Yang always describe the relationship of unique particulars” (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 261). But according to the way of Yin-Yang thinking, everything can be differentiated into Yin and Yang, and the function of a thing is the interacting, inter-depending and inter-constraining between Yin and Yang. Consequently, everything is a Yin-Yang being, and in other words, everything can be interpreted with the way of Yin-Yang thinking, and the code of Yin-Yang can be applied to the whole world. Thus, Yin-Yang possesses the status of an universal law. So, how could such a way of thinking be, as Hall and Ames claim, that of first problematic? In a narrow sense, analogy is a way of inference or an argument from one particular to another. As a matter of fact, empirical and logical, there is no way to conceive of a law of myriad things by analogy. The question is, are Yin and Yang two unique particulars? If yes, how could these two contain all the things of the world? If not, Chinese thinking is not an analogy between particulars. The same goes for Dao of Daoism and Fo of Buddhism. Obviously, Confucius realised this very point. After the doctrine quoted above, the master said: “Therefore, that which is called course (of the things) is that which is without form. And that which is called thing is that which is with form” (“Xici”). We would have to come back again to this aphorism. At the moment, we point out that Yin and Yang are substantially different from anything with form, thus cannot be completely presented by any image or particular. In The Great Learning, Confucius introduced the doctrine, “studying things to obtain knowledge.” Zhu Xi, one of the masters of Neo-Confucianism, developed


591

this idea as follows: There is Li in everything, and everything has its own Li; if there is one thing that has not been studied, one Li will be neglected, therefore all the things should be studied, one by one. However, he emphasized over and over again: “the highest principle is to illuminate the illuminated goodness” (Li 1986). “If only vainly attempting to search for the Li in things, I am afraid that such an approach will lead a man to wandering too far away so that he will be lost on a path of no return” (Ibid.). Even so, Wang Yangming, the founder of the School of Mind, did not like to acknowledge Neo-Confucianism, and denounced and sneered at it with every possible opportunity, saying it “lost in the end in fumbling about with things” (“Chuanxi Lu,” Para. 135). To clarify this point, a quotation from Wang Bi’s Zhouyi Lueli 周易略例 (Exemplifying The Book of Changes), quoted in Anticipating China at length, is quite useful. “Image is the fishing-rod to obtain meaning; … Image arises from meaning, meaning inhabits in image, thus, the inhabitant is not the image; … obtaining meaning lies in forgetting the image” (“Mingxiang”). The three schools of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism rejected the idea that the high principle could be reached through studying the particulars. However, Fo, Dao, Yin-Yang are understandable and reachable; what is needed is sudden comprehension. Thus, they substantially differ from the “thing in itself.” Western dualism, such as essence and phenomenon, part and whole, first and second problematic, and so on, cannot not find a place in Chinese culture, as it does not fit into the Chinese way of thinking. From the discourse above, the conclusion should obviously be: The Chinese way of thinking is, using the terms from Anticipating China, both first and second problematic thinking, or more precisely, neither first nor second one. Now several questions emerge: how does the highest law come into being in Chinese culture, how is it reached, and what kind of relationship exists between the law and the particulars that symbolise the law? Just using “vagueness,” “meaning cluster” or “cluster concept” cannot answer these questions; neither can it grasp the essential difference between Chinese and Western culture. It only reinforces the on-going image of Chinese culture, namely, paradoxical. To answer these questions, it may be necessary to look at what first and second problematic thinking have in common. Then, the obstacle to understanding Chinese culture will be cleared away.

Let us begin our discussion once again with words from Anticipating China. Regarding differences between first and second problematic thinking, Hall and Ames have stated: “Rational order instantiates a pre-existent or presupposed structure or pattern. This sort of order is broadly quantitative or mathematical in the sense that the elements signalling the order are replaceable and substitutable. Aesthetic order is comprised by irreplaceable elements. Unlike the physical

ZHANG Gang 592

elements which may configure geometrical lines, planes, and solids, the elements of given order are more than mere place-holders. Aesthetic ordering, at its extreme, is a consequence of certain specific particulars and no others” (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 116). With regard to the differences, the statement above is pretty incisive. However, what is in common? If we read the text carefully, it is not that difficult to discern that both ways of thinking take the world as a composite and conceive of it through its components; the difference lies merely in whether the components are substitutable elements or irreplaceable particulars. A mathematical or logical formula consists of a string of substitutable symbols, and thus universal law can be applied. In a physical system, elements are somehow also replaceable; for example, a water molecule is still a water molecule if one of the oxygen atoms is substituted by another one. In terms of logic, that which is substituted and that which substitutes are equivalent. But in the case of a family, its members are not replaceable; if the husband is replaced by another, the family is no longer the original family, but another one. However, a thoughtful reader will immediately claim that the same goes for mathematical formulae. This is quite right. Fundamentally, the so-called first and second problematic thinking is not that much different, with respect to world view and way of thinking. In either first or second problematic thinking, the element or particular is at first an independent being, in the sense that it is logically definable. Thus, the element or particular is, in terms of this paper, a kind of structural being that is either a component of other things, or is composed of other things, and the way of thinking is analysing the structure of an object. A structural being exists spatially, and even a logical term is spatially, or geometrically, accommodated in a formula. So then, in terms of this paper, such a being is a thing with form, and the way of thinking is the way with form. However, decomposing an object needs technique, physical or logical, which needs time to be developed; and furthermore, not everything can be decomposed and interpreted by decomposing it. In such a case, analogy needs to be put to use. It was said that Alcmaeon, one of the most eminent medical theorists of antiquity, claimed that the ear hears because of an empty space in it that resounds with the presence of air. Obviously, he has compared the ear with the wind in a cave. After understanding the anatomy of the ear, such an analogy was no longer necessary. However, for whatever anatomy, or molecular cell biology, that cannot be interpreted, analogies are still useful. The same goes for chemistry and physics. The planet model of the atom is a well-known example. Even in a formal system, many axioms have foundations in empirical facts.


593

Thus, contrary to Hall and Ames, I think the second way of problematic thinking is a necessary outcome of Western culture. In contrast, logical thinking is will not be developed from the Chinese way of analogy. The reason for this is that Chinese culture has had a universal code since ancient times, and this code is not in particulars or elements. In other words, the unity in Chinese thinking is substantially different from that of Western thinking. With regard to the theme of unity, the view presented in Anticipating China is not quite appropriate. The second way of problematic thinking, in the strict sense, is only completely practicable in two academic disciplines, namely, logic and mathematics. However, it is not possible for these two to construct a system that contains everything (unity). Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and Russell’s set theoretical paradox have denied such a possibility. Furthermore, in fact, the axioms are a pile of independent individuals, with the purpose of constructing a consistent system holding them together, in no way a unity. As for physics, the final unity, which has been studied for millenniums, has been out of reach up until now. The reason is quite simple: Has the system been constructed by decomposing the object, the decomposed object is no longer what it was, but a pile of parts, and the sum of the parts could never be equal to the non- decomposed object, no matter how the parts are reconstructed and put together. Therefore, the whole, the unity, is in effect incompatible with a structural system. The singularity is meaningless to cosmo-physics. If it is a real oneness, inside of it motion is impossible, so the big bang could never happen; if it is deconstruct- able decomposable, it is not a singularity, but a composite. In this regard, Kant is right, namely, the thing in itself is unknowable. On the other hand, Hall and Ames are also right. The first way of problematic thinking can never reach the unity since all those particulars are not substitutable. Thus the whole world is just a pile of independent individuals, without a general law to govern. It follows that maybe a particular or two could be interpreted, but not others. So then, the world is a chaos, in every respect. However, human nature is such that we always look for certainty; thus the second way of problematic thinking comes to the rescue. Contrary to the West, for all schools of Chinese philosophy, there is a universal law that governs the myriad of things. To Chan Buddhism, the paramount law is Fo. How can Fo be reached? By denying the existence of the whole world. Everything that can be sensed, talked, or imaged, even a non-existence, is an illusion. As an old Buddhist monk said: In comprehending mind, the earth lost every bit of its soil. Yes, it is quite perplexing. One of the Buddhist verses may bring us to sudden comprehension: “Moon is mirrored in myriad of waters.” That is to say, there is a moon in the sky and a moon in every pool. Obviously, the moon in a pool is not a part of the moon in

ZHANG Gang 594

the sky, and the moon in the sky is not composed of those moons in the pools. However, everyone has a Fo in his mind, because of the Fo of everyone. According to the doctrine of Chan Buddhism, through sudden comprehension, everyone could reach Fo immediately. As for Daoism, Dao is not only the creator of the universe, but also the highest principle that everything must follow. “Holding high the paramount image, the whole world will resort to it, and he who resorts to it receives no harm, but rest, peace and ease” (Daodejing, Para. 35). However, Dao is a nonentity, a kind of non-thing. How does a thing come from a non-thing? Following the way of Lao Zi’s inference, the reason a glass comes into being is because it holds water, but, water is held in the void of the glass, so that the void makes the glass come into being. Therefore, Lao Zi said: “All things in the world are generated by form, and form is generated by the formless” (Ibid., Para. 40). As for the road to reach Dao, Zhuang Zi has initiated zuowang 坐忘 (sitting and forgetting), “in dissolving body and limbers, abrogating intelligence and understanding, abandoning form and knowledge, man comes to being in agreement with the paramount omnipresence” (“Dazongshi” in Zhuang Zi, Para. 9). Somehow, there is not much difference between the roads of reaching Fo and Dao. Why such a road? For through decomposing things, Fo and Dao could never be found; neither are components of anything, and are neither inside nor outside of the things. These spatial concepts are in no condition to describe them. Pre-Socratic philosophers have also talked about the void. “Anaxagoras says all is mixed in all, and Democritus too; for he says the void and the full exist alike in every part, and yet one of these is being, and the other non-being” (Aristotle 2007c, Part 5). As metaphysical concepts, water, earth, fire and air are not material things; they are non-things. However, the way these principles generate things is physical, so these principles are taken as components and parts of things—even the void is a spatially definable being, therefore it is a part of things and is inside of things. To Plato and Aristotle, things come into being by combining and moving existing things, so the world needs a primordial model or mover. Plato and Aristotle called this idea god. Thus, the way ideas and god function is quite physical, or in terms of this paper, structural. If a table comes into the world by imitating the idea of a table to combine existing things, then the idea must be a being with form. To Plato, the world of ideas should be a-spatial, but in fact, it is located spatially, namely, a “place beyond heaven.” Paradox? Yes. In fact, a structural system can not escape from falling into the paradox trap. It is a remarkable characteristic of Western culture, not of Chinese culture.


595

In Confucianism, Yin and Yang hold almost a holy status. “Yin and Yang are the course of the heaven and earth, the law of all things, the progenitor of transformations, and the primordial ruler” (“Yin-Yang Yingxiang Dalun” in Huangdi Neijing). The Confucian way of reaching the paramount law is much different from Buddhism and Daoism. There are two main pillars in Confucian philosophy: One is the Yin-Yang theory and the other the Five Elements. Without understanding these two theories, one cannot understand traditional Chinese culture. Without these two theories, TCM would collapse and the whole Chinese social order would plunge into chaos. Once the essence of the two theories is understood, all Western philosophical concepts, such as first and second problematic thinking, particular and correlation, and so on, would be cleared away. Taking the Yin-Yang theory as “no more than a convenient way of organizing ‘thises’ and ‘thats’” (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 140) is an amazing mistake. Both pre-Socratic Greek and classical Chinese philosophers have taken some natural phenomena as principles that created the world. For the ancient Greeks, these are water, fire, earth and air; for the Chinese, they are wood, fire, earth, metal and water, the so-called Five Elements. Yes, on the surface, they are quite similar. According to Aristotle, the four principles of pre-Socratic Greek philosophers are material elements, “But each of the other thinkers agrees that the element of corporeal things is of this sort” (Aristotle 2007a, Part 8). Aristotle called them “material causes” (Ibid., Part 3). Those principles are, in effect, components of things, or in other words, parts of a whole. As Anaxagoras said: “almost all the things that are made of parts like themselves, in the manner of water or fire, are generated and destroyed in this way, only by aggregation and segregation, and are not in any other sense generated or destroyed, but remain eternally” (Ibid.). The material appearance of the Five Elements is not that of things, and more importantly, they are not elements that compose the things. Shangshu 尚书 (The Paramount Book) is the first, according to extant documentations, that mentions the Five Elements. In Chapter “Dayu Mo,” the text articulated as follows: “The virtue (of the ruler) is seen in (his) good government, and the virtue of the government is seen in the nourishing of the people. There are water, fire, metal, wood, the earth, and grain—these must be duly regulated.3 They may look like materials, but there is not any trace of components of the things, but only six main administration businesses. At present, in China and in the West, many scholars take the Five Elements as the components of the myriad of things. The sentence in Guoyu 国语 (Quotati- 3 English translation from chinese.dsturgeon.net.

ZHANG Gang 596

ons of Statesmen) is the often quoted classic text used as evidence. The historiographer Shibo 史伯 said: “The ancestral emperor blended earth with metal, wood, water and fire together, to make the myriad of things.” However, the historiographer did not mean to search how the myriad of things are composed of the Five Elements, but to teach the king of Zheng not only to find like-minded persons, but also to accept dissidents, not to harmonise the government with the sameness, but with diversity. Following these words, the historiographer continued: “There- upon, the ancestral emperor took imperial concubines from different families, sought out and placed virtuous men in government, selected an official to look for advisers with different opinions on diverse issues, and strove to harmonise with diversity.” To make the theme clearer, let us compare discussions on the principles between pro-Socratic philosophers and traditional Chinese culture. In Hongfan 洪范 (Great Imperative), the Five Elements were described in detail. Here I only quote the text on water, “Firstly, of the five elements. The first is water. … (The nature of) water is moistening and descending.”4 It means that water nourishes the myriad of things to grow; contextualising the text with the preceding one about Gun 鲧 who failed to regulate a flood by stemming water, water here also represents the law of flood control. From that time on, in classic Chinese culture, the discourse on the Five Elements has never gone beyond this framework. As is well known, Thales was the first philosopher who took water as the principle in regard to the first cause. Anaximander, a student of Thales, has detailed how the world comes into being from water: “the earth was surrounded by moisture. Then the sun began to dry it up, part of it evaporated and is the cause of winds and the turnings back of the sun and the moon, while the remainder forms the sea. So the sea is being dried up and is growing less, and will end by being some day entirely dried up” (Aristotle 2007b, Part 1). Bertrand Russell has commented: “This theory has the merit of making all the differences between different substances quantitative, depending entirely upon the degree of condensation” (Russell 2002). He is right. It shows that quantitative thinking is also presented in the first problematic thinking. The differences between such principles and the Five Elements are so remarkable that nobody could turn a blind eye to them. In short, the principles of pre-Socratic philosophers are material causes and components of the physical world, while the Five Elements have nothing to do with composing material things. So then, what is the Five Elements, and how does it function? During the Warring Sates Period, the theory of the Five Elements developed 4 Ibid.


597

and showed to be a kind of universal law that comprises almost everything in the world. For example, water makes up the following: north, winter, coldness, storage, kidney, bladder, ear, bone, fear, blackness, salty flavour, and moan. The core principles of the Five Elements are two: The first, the change of the world is a sequential circle from wood to fire, fire to earth, earth to metal, metal to water, and then water to wood, with the whole procedure going over and over again, with no beginning or end; the second, between the Five Elements, describes two kinds of relationship, one is inter-antagonistic and the other one is inter-strengthening. That is to say, all the things of the world are classified as one of the Five Elements. What about the seasons, since there are only four of them? To accommodate this, one more season, a long summer, was created. This shows one of the very important characteristics of Chinese philosophy. The system, its formation and function, do not depend on the real properties of the object; on the contrary, the object is transformed in order to fit into the system. This characteristic is shown in the theory of TCM much more clearly. In TCM, the Five Elements correspond to five organs, for example, earth to the spleen. The functions of the spleen are, according to the theory of TCM, to extract vital substances from food and distribute them to the whole body, symbolizing the earth that nourishes life. In this regard, it is the way of the analogical inference. However, the real function of the spleen has nothing to do with digestion, and through anatomy, there is no way to verify the idea that the spleen is composed of earth. In other words, there is no similarity between earth and the spleen. As a matter of fact, the function of spleen in TCM is invented according to the Five Elements theory. The analogy between spleen and earth is only to evoke a comprehension, in other words, an auxiliary. Such cases in TCM theory and in Chinese culture are too numerous to mention one by one. So, what kind of analogy is it? It is definitely not an analogy in the sense of the first problematic thinking. And the miracle is that the Five Elements Theory has functioned for thousands of years in TCM. Physically, these Five Elements could not possess myriad properties symbolising or being symbolised by all the things in the world, or in the words of Anticipating China, correlating with all the particulars. They simply do not work that way. To understand how the theory of the Five Elements works, its status as a universal law has to be acknowledged. The way the Five Elements applies to things is to make up the world from top to bottom. If there is anything that cannot fit into the theory, then something new can be invented in order to complete the working system. The case of seasons is not unusual in Chinese culture. How could the Five Elements theory survive factual incomp-atibility,

ZHANG Gang 598

and still operate, especially in TCM? The answer is that the formation and function of the Five Elements theory does not necessarily depend on the real properties of the object under consideration. In fact, the Five Elements theory does not describe the physical properties of the object. And the classification of the things in the Five Elements is not really a kind of correlation or analogy. Otherwise, nobody would understand how water and the kidneys could be correlated. Some words concerning the correlation should be articulated here. The correlation discussed in Anticipating China is different from an analogy. Howe- ver, there are two possible ways of correlating things. One is connecting the object through their structure, a typical second problematic thinking, and the other is with the metaphorical method. Since the authors take Chinese culture as the first problematic thinking, correlative thinking is in fact the same as analogy. In their own words, “Our argument will be that we shall be able to employ the term ‘correlative thinking’ as a synonym for the analogical procedures associated with first problematic thought without losing any of the relevant meanings that have come to be associated with the term when applied to the interpretation of Chinese culture” (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 113). This argument brings Hall and Ames into a considerable problem. In principle, correlation works horizontally. Correlated things all stand at the same level, while the Five Elements and Yin-Yang theory function from top to bottom to make up all things. However, the Five Elements has also a considerable problem, for it possesses too many material appearances and classifies things into fixed categories. On this account, it would appear farfetched and irrelevant in many cases, such as blackness and saltiness classified with water. Even in TCM diagnostics, a black complexion is not necessarily black, and the herbs dedicated to the kidney are classified as a salty flavour, but they may not be physically salty. By contrast, the theory of Yin-Yang is much more “convenient.” The basic laws of Yin-Yang theory consists of only two aspects: Firstly, everything is a Yin-Yang being, i.e., everything can be differentiated into two sides: Yin and Yang; secondly, Yin and Yang are inter-dependant and -constraining each other, thereby keeping things in balance. Any disorder or disease is caused by imbalance between Yin and Yang. Furthermore, in contrast to the Five Elements, nothing is fixedly classified as Yin or Yang. For example, the chest, when it is related to the abdomen, belongs to Yang, but when it is related to the back, it belongs to Yin. When it is related to diverse circumstances, anything may switch its Yin-Yang status. In other words, Yin and Yang are not necessarily related to a fixed object. Moreover, the Yin- Yang relation is not a logical connective, an independent term connecting other terms; Yin and Yang are two nominal sides of one object.


599

Here, one crucial point must be pointed out: A thing can change from Yin to Yang, or vice versa, but Yin and Yang only change the status of being dominant and being recessive. One often made mistake, as is found in Anticipating China, is to believe that Yin and Yang transform themselves into each other (Hall and Ames 1995, p. 261).5 Let us take an example. Daytime changing to night indicates the dominance of Yang to that of Yin, but not Yang to Yin. Daytime as a particular thing is not Yang, because there is also Yin in it. Even at midday, when it is the zenith of Yang, is when Yin begins to become dominant. In Yin-Yang theory, nothing is Yin or Yang, but a Yin-Yang being. The aphorism “In Yin there is Yang, in Yang there is Yin” is to apply to things, not to Yin and Yang. Nominally, Yang is Yang, Yin is Yin. If Yin and Yang could transform themselves into each other, the whole order of Chinese society would be turned upside down.

Following the argument of Wang Bi, the image itself is not the meaning, so then, the thing itself is not Yin or Yang.

3

However, what is the significance of Yin-Yang theory? Is Chinese culture really built on it? The answer is yes. In medicine, without the Yin-Yang theory, TCM would never come into the world. Let us look at how TCM makes a diagnosis, or in other words, the inference of Yin-Yang theory and how it is used in TCM. This is a real case practised by the author of this paper. The following paragraphs are marked numerically. (1) An old woman, aged about 90 years, had been grinding her teeth, day and night, for more than three years. Consequently, she suffered from headaches and insomnia. Before she came to me, she had visited many physicians, but nobody knew what the cause was. Well, it is an orphan disease. But, in TCM, it was easy to diagnose that this was the symptom of excessive Yang, for Yang is in charge of motion and non-stop teeth grinding obviously indicates over activity. It was that simple. Consequently, the principle treatment was to sedate the excessive Yang. However, the question is, which organ had excessive Yang? Note: Yin-Yang theory determines the nature of the disease and the principle treatment. (2) By experience, I could immediately tell that Yang was excessive in the liver. According to the Five Elements theory, the liver is classified as wood, one of the five elements. One of the main functions of the liver is to regulate moods; on the other hand, the liver is affected by moods. In other words, the liver and 5 Yin is a becoming-Yang, Yang is a becoming-Yin.

ZHANG Gang 600

moods have an interactive relationship. That is to say, a peevish temper could cause Yang in the liver to be excessive. Through questioning the old woman’s daughter, she confirmed my hypothesis—her mother was always irritable. Checking her pulse and tongue verified my diagnosis. Note: The theory of the Five Elements came into play. (3) However, the story is not over. Based on the Five Elements and Zangxiang Xue 藏象学 (Organ-External Theories), the liver is not directly responsible for teeth grinding; what is responsible is the spleen, classified as earth and responsible for the function of muscles and the mouth. Reasonably, grinding teeth is a movement of muscles and the mouth. In the Five Elements relationship, wood and earth are in an antagonistic position, which means that if Yang in the liver is excessive, Yang in the stomach, an organ paired with the spleen, will be assaulted and excessively heated, or in the words of TCM, the earth is scorched. As a result, excessive Yang in the liver and stomach is the cause of teeth grinding. Note: in (3), the interaction between the five elements plays the main role, but the interaction is between Yin and Yang in the five elements, not directly between the five elements. Thus, the Five Elements theory functions within the framework of the Yin-Yang theory. (4) Furthermore, normally, if Yang is excessive in the liver, Yang in the heart will be the same. In the sequence of the Five Elements, the heart follows the liver, which means that a disorder in the liver could pass to the heart. Heat is classified as Yang, and excessive Yang also means over-heating. An over-heated piece of wood will catch on fire, and the heart is classified as fire. Fire fires up fire, consequently, Yang in the heart is also excessive. Thus, the cause of the teeth grinding is excessive Yang in the liver, heart and stomach. Note: The interaction between the five elements shows multi-orderings and each ordering has a different characteristic. (5) As stated above, Yin and Yang restrain one another. It follows that an excessive Yang is often related to weak Yin that is not in a position to restrain Yang. Thus, to sedate Yang in the liver, one must increase Yin in the kidney, classified as water and the mother of wood (liver), symbolising a mother correcting her son’s behaviour and water containing fire. Note: (5) shows again that the direct interaction is between Yin and Yang. (6) Based on the above diagnosis, or rather, the above inference, the principle treatment shall be sedating Yang in the liver, heart and stomach, while tonifying Yin in the kidney. In the end, the patient was cured. Note: in this case, the liver, heart and stomach have the same operative meaning, excessive Yang, or in analogy, over-heating, and all should be sedated. Let us extract some conclusions from this story.


601

Firstly, there are two basic diagnostic principles in TCM. One is differentiating between Yin and Yang, i.e., taking the disease as an interaction between Yin and Yang, and determining which one is excessive or weak in order to decide the therapy, namely, tonifying or sedating. Another is discerning the Five Elements, i.e., determining in which organ Yin or Yang is in disorder in order to decide target of treatment. Without these two theories, there is no way to practise TCM clinically when faced with a kaleidoscope of symptoms. Secondly, the interaction is between Yin and Yang, and since Yin and Yang are inter-dependent, it follows that there is no independent organ. On the other hand, the interaction takes place between Yin and Yang in different organs, and since every organ possesses its own properties, the interaction is mingled with different characters. In other words, an organ as an individual does not disappear in Yin-Yang theory. The relationship between Yin-Yang and the Five Elements is quite complicated and sophisticated; it should be discussed at length in another paper. In TCM there is no independent physiological and pathological element, and the treatment seems to apply to a single target, but actually it applies to one side that is inseparable from another side. Thus, although diverse differentiations are conducted in TCM, the body is not divided, but is kept as a whole. In my opinion, that is the very reason TCM has been practiced for over a thousand years. Thirdly, the way of inference is both an analogical and a cause-effect way of thinking, but not in the sense of Western culture, for it is neither carried out by analogy, nor by the physical and structural relationship between cause and effect. Obviously, the dysfunction of an organ could not be due to its being over-heated physically, let alone on fire, and the interaction between Yin and Yang is not due to structural combinations or decompositions. To Western medical science, life is a bio-chemical system, which combines and decomposes bio-molecules. In physics, sub-atoms exchange particles, and in a formal system, the relationship between the premise and conclusion is containing and being contained. In fact, even though Yin and Yang are two sides of the body, they neither physically form the body as Plato’s idea, nor balance the body like Aristotle’s mover, both of which act outside of things. As a matter of fact, Yin and Yang could not be found inside the body, but they are also not outside of the body. For Yin and Yang is the interaction of two sides inside of the body. Only by viewing Yin and Yang as formless beings will this paradox, which has been perplexing Western thinkers from ancient Greek times until the present time, be resolved. In TCM, the Five Elements function as a central circle, and through Organ-External and Meridian theories and others, the whole body is completely covered. But, physically there is no such a circle. Moreover, even though five organs are classified and function as the Five Elements, physiologically, there are

ZHANG Gang 602

no such organs at all. In this sense, just like Yin and Yang, the Five Element Organs are neither inside nor outside of the human body. It is time to come back to the aphorism, “That which is called course (of the things) is that which is without form. And that which is called a thing is that which is with form.” This sentence is the key to understanding the essence of Chinese philosophy. If you miss this, you miss the whole. Literally it should be translated as, “That is called course is that which is above form.” But, “above” is a spatial concept, as we have seen, so it is irrelevant to Yin and Yang, for there is no way to locate Yin and Yang spatially, real or nominally. According to the argument above, Yin and Yang do not exist spatially, which means that physically and structurally, there are no such two beings. On the other hand, Yin and Yang do not define a real property of an object, but only differentiate an object into two sides. What Yin and Yang are could only be instantiated with paired opposite adjectives, for example, upward and downward, kinetic and resting, hot and cold, and so on. Please note that these adjectives are not necessarily related to certain things, but they could be applied to the myriad of things. As a law, Yin-Yang is also a description of how things function, but in contrast to Western culture, the way it is described is by differentiating things into two nominal6 sides, Yin and Yang. For there is no way to locate these two sides spatially, Yin and Yang are, in term of this paper, a Name-differentiation, and the Yin-Yang theory is a way of formless thinking. Yin-Yang is simply a model of thinking not built upon the properties of things; it comprises things from top to bottom. Exactly in this sense, Yin-Yang is presented in everything, but not physically or structurally. A particular can never express or symbolise Yin and Yang completely. The same goes for the Five Elements, Dao and Fo. Consequently, the way Yin-Yang relates to a thing is substantially different from that of the concept and of law in Western culture. A concept defines certain properties of a set of objects, and all the objects within the extension belong to the concept. Thus, concept and object are spatially related. A law in Western culture is a description of how an object functions, and the description is based on structure and the interaction of the components inside of the object. In a broader sense, the law is inside of the object. Since every structural being has a limited extension, a structural concept or law could never make up the whole universe, as a matter of fact. The Western system is built on particulars, elements or basic assumptions, such as axioms, all of which are kinds of empirical facts. This way of constructing a system is, in a word, bottom-top. Thus, the theories have to keep 6 A logical term is also a nominal being, but, it is a unit of a formula. On this account, it is a structural being.


603

changing from time to time, forced by newly discovered facts, whether in first or in second problematic thinking. On the contrary, in the Chinese system, a paramount law appears first. Since the law is formless, all the things in the universe could be in the system without the problem of logical paradox. A logical paradox is, in fact, a structural inconsistency. Likewise, the law of the excluded middle is based on the extensions of two concepts that do not overlap. In regard to the Yin-Yang theory, since Yin and Yang are Name-differentiation, all things could be divided into two sides, without resorting to analytical technique, physical or logical. In fact, to Chinese philosophy, analogy is employed to evoke understanding, not to build the system. Not like a concept which extracts as few basic properties as possible from an object in order to cover an extension as large as possible, every individual object is, without any pre-definition, comprised in Yin-Yang theory. In different contexts, an individual will show different characters. In this way, together with the non-definability of Yin and Yang, Chinese culture has this remarkable property, the so-called vagueness, or in fact, multi-meaningfulness. On the other hand, in Yin-Yang relation, every individual must follow the course of Yin-Yang interaction, and lose its independent status. In terms of Chinese philosophy, everything is a particular Yin-Yang being, but taking the whole universe into Yin-Yang relation would mean that there is just one Yin-Yang being. The theme, many and one, or part and whole, have never existed in the history of Chinese philosophy. Somehow, it is not studying things, in the sense of Western epistemology, but putting things into a pre-existing model. Do you still remember the aphorism from Zhu Xi? “The highest principle is to illuminate the illuminated goodness.” Hall and Armes are quite right in saying, “Chinese thinking does not presup- pose the unity of Being behind beings, a One behind many.” But they are totally wrong in saying, “All you have in the Chinese world view is ‘the ten thousand things’ as an ad hoc summing up of beings and events. Correlations among these ‘ten thousand things’ are non-foundational since they are only a matter of empirical experience and conventional interpretation” (Hall and Ames 1995, pp. 140–141). As a matter of fact, the Chinese way of thinking has created a universal code. Unlike the Western system, which sums up these “ten thousand things” into a composite, Chinese philosophy makes all them as one “oneness.” In fact, all the discourses on the part-whole relationship in Western philosophy since ancient Greek times have spoken of the part-part relationship. The argument is quite simple. When taking a part from a whole to place these two at the opposite end of a relationship, the whole is no more a whole, but also a part. Consequently, there are incomputable parts in the Western world, and no wholeness at all.

ZHANG Gang 604

Now it is time to provide a summary on the key to understanding Chinese culture. In negative terms, forget the structural concepts. In positive terms, use the way of formless thinking. To make the key more practicable, it may help to make a brief discussion of the temporal-spatial concept of Chinese philosophy. In the sequence of Chinese cosmogenesis, Yang comes into being before Yin. But in the Yin-Yang theory, Yin and Yang are interdependent; that is to say, without one, the other one cannot exist. It follows that Yin and Yang must come into being at the same time. Moreover, when Yin and Yang meet each other, at the same time, things which are with form come into being. It follows that there is no before-after-sequence in the genesis of Yin, Yang and physical things. Is that a Paradox? No! However, the question is how to resolve the riddle of the Sphinx? Easy, use the key! As the arguments above show, Yin and Yang are not physical beings, but sheer Name-Differentiations. Obviously, generating a non-physical being and non-physical beings generating physical beings are not a physical process. A physical process takes place in a physical time-space. On the contrary, a non-physical process does not take place in the physical time-space, but in the formless time-space. Consequently, in Chinese philosophy, temporal-spatial terms such as “before” and “after,” “top” and “bottom,” “left” and “right,” are not physical temporal-spatial concepts, but could apply to these concepts, just as Yin and Yang are formless, but they are the course of the things which are with form. Since there is no corresponding term in Western culture, it is better to use Chinese words Yi Li 义理, in contrast to the code which is with form. That Yang before Yin comes into being and Yin is generated by Yang mean merely that Yang possesses the paramount position over Yin, and the positioning, as we have mentioned above, plays an essential role in Chinese culture, in all respects. Consequently, the term “single-ordered” in the formless system means something different from that of the system functioning within form. On the account above, the interaction between Yin and Yang is also not a physical process. A physical interaction between physical objects is a structural transformation; at the chemical level, it is about breaking or combining molecules through losing, gaining or sharing atoms; at the subatomic level, it is about exchanging particles. In contrast, the interaction between Yin and Yang is so that, on the one hand, Yang is above Yin and is pulled down by Yin below Yang, and on the other hand, Yin is pulled up by Yang, so that Yin and Yang meet each other in the middle (balanced position), and thus, both come into being at the same point as oneness with two sides. Obviously, such an interaction in no way means that Yin and Yang are in opposite directions at the geometrical middle point. It follows that the “double-ordered” interaction of Yin and Yang is taking place in the formless time-space. The same goes for the circulation of the things,


605

termed as the circle of rise and fall between Yin and Yang, and among the Five Elements.

In this sense, Chinese culture is both kinds of the single-ordered and multi-ordered world, but also not the kinds really. The structural paradox makes no sense in a formless system. Much more important is that these different orders do not work against each other, but enhance each other, especially in TCM, as we presented above. Holding the key formless in hand, the seemingly paradoxical riddles strewn all over Chinese philosophy will be smoothly resolved.

4

Furthermore, based on this formless ordering, the genesis of Yin and Yang extends into social discipline and becomes zunbei zhixu 尊卑秩序 (the reverence-deference ordering), the most remarkable characteristic of Chinese ethics. In contrast, a physical sequence has nothing to do with ethical order. With respect to social ordering, the fundamental ethics of Confucianism are built upon Yin-Yang and the Five Element Theories. For lack of space, this theme will be discussed briefly. The father-son relationship is the core behaviour code of Confucianism in society and the government, extending over five generations and five federal provinces in the Zhou dynasty, and passed on to all relationships in society. The basic ordering is high-and-low position, with that in the high-position classified as Yang, and that in the low-position as Yin, with Yang directing Yin and Yin following Yang. This is in agreement with the Yin-Yang theory as presented above, since Yin is generated and moved by Yang. The relationship between Yin and Yang will never change; what changes is an individual’s Yin-Yang status in relation to different people. A person could be a father and also a son for instance. But were the Father, a general status classified as Yang, to become the son, Chinese society would plunge into chaos. Being in this relationship, an individual loses his own individuality and becomes just an ethic appellation, Father or Son, which defines his role and duty in society, or even the meaning of his life. In this sense, just as in the case of TCM, there is no independent being in Chinese society. For example, Mr. Li is the father of his son, the son of his father, but not Mr. Li. Related to the emperor, the paramount father of the nation, every person is a zimin 子民 (son-person). His social status and behavioural code are basically just of two models, son or father, in other words, Yin or Yang. The so-called “focal self,” “relationship between ‘self’ and ‘other,’” “each defining itself and its own particular field” (Hall and Ames 1995, pp. 276–279) as termed in Anticipating China are not only wrong theoretically, but also absolutely in disagreement with China’s social

ZHANG Gang 606

reality. Indeed, in Confucian doctrine, there is an aphorism tuiji jiren 推己及人 (from

self extending to other), or in Confucius’ words, jisuobuyu, wushiyuren 己所不

欲，勿施于人 (Not to do to others as you would not wish done to yourself) (“Yanyuan” in The Analects). However, the way of “from self to other” has to follow the code of ethics, and the “self” must be of course “The man of virtue, wishing to establish himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to enrich himself, seeks also to enrich others. By judging himself to judge others may be called the art of virtue” (Ibid., “Yongye”). Putting this indoctrination into the context of Chinese culture, it means that a man of virtue should at first be a model for others. Otherwise, there is no way to keep society in order. And the model is nothing but the Confucian code of behaviour. In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus, the paramount god, does what he wishes, tippling and seducing, not behaving himself at all. In contrast, Nü Wa 女娲, Fu Xi 伏羲, Shen Nong 神农, and other gods and primordial ancestors of China are heroes and models for their posterity. Behaving oneself according to the ethical code is one of the central social ideologies of Chinese culture. Traditional Chinese society has been functioning in this way without the real governance of an emperor for more than two thousand years. Otherwise, in ancient China, such a huge territory would not have been governable. Generally speaking, traditional Chinese society has functioned as an interaction between social members in high and low positions based on the model of Yin and Yang. Since Yin is generated and moved by Yang, in social circumstance, the power is held by Yang, i.e., the father-side, and the son-side must obey the father-side. Thus, on the one hand, there is a necessary power, in every relationship and at very level, to keep the social ordering, from top to bottom; on the other hand, the person in the high position cannot be efficiently checked by those in the low position. In this regard, the Yin-Yang doctrine demonstrates one of the grave deficiencies in Chinese ethics.

5

To end this paper, a few words about logical thinking in China may be articulated. Mingxue 名学 (The School of Names) has touched on some logical factors, but it is still far from a structured, analytical way of thinking. “The white horse is not a horse” is logically correct, because of the species concept, the white horse, is contained by the genus horse, thus is only a member of horse, but not a horse. In terms of modern logic, the white horse is a subclass of the class horse. But the argument by Gong Sun-Long differentiated between hard and white strayed far


607

from the structural course. As to the theme mingshi lun 名实论 (name and named), the difference between the name (definition) and the named (object) has been discerned, but structural analysis of the definition is totally lacking, so that the discovery of Zeno’s paradox will never happen. And as it is well known to all, this paradox and the problem of the irreducible number led the ancient Greek thinkers to construct an axiomatic system. In effect, Mo Zi’s 墨子 treatise on logic is much closer to Western logical thought. Gu 故, as he discussed, is exactly the same as the logical premise. Mo Zi said if a premise was set up, one would come to a conclusion. Furthermore, he has drawn a clear distinction between universal and particular premises, as well as between affirmative and negative ones (“Jingshuo” in Mo Zi). What Mo Zi has missed is the same as the School of Names. In contrast to Aristotle, Mo Zi fell short of analysing the structural relationship between universal, particular, affirmative and negative premises in order to reveal why the conclusion will necessarily follow. As to Mo Zi’s classification, it has inflames the differences between the things by a direct view, but not nominally and structurally. Whether logic could develop from the School of Names without being oppressed by Confucianism may be a non-verifiable conjecture. The further development of Chinese arithmetic and astronomy has also stopped since the Han dynasty, and this may demonstrate that without the discovery of the universal law in the structure of things, there is no way to turn knowledge into science. Another strong example is that TCM can never be transformed into a life science. If this is the case, TCM would lose its unique advantage and disappear forever. On the statement concerning Chinese arithmetic and astronomy, it may need more words to dismiss some possible protests.

Since the Han dynasty, the development of arithmetic and astronomy in China has not broken through the previously established framework. With arithmetic, one only needs to look at the textbooks written by authors in different centuries. Jiuzhang Suanshu 九章算术 (The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art) was edited in the first century B. C. and was taken as the establishment of the Chinese arithmetical system. There are nine Chapters in the book and every Chapter is devoted to the calculation technique of a particular theme, but there is no search for the deep underlying structure to these digits. Since then, almost all arithmetical books have been written according to the same frame until the Qin dynasty, when Western mathematical books poured into China. Consequently, the development of arithmetic has been confined to this framework, and what has developed is the calculation of particular themes. As for astronomy, the situation

ZHANG Gang 608

is the same. What changed is the improvement of forecasting the position of celestial bodies, especially the sun, and better calendars. Due to this fact, the Liao dynasty historian dropped the tradition of Sima Qian 司马迁 of putting the chronicle of astronomy in the main chronicle and claimed, “The celestial bodies hang shiningly in the sky, keeping as the same for thousands of years. Since the solar eclipse and the movement of the celestial bodies had been written down in the chronicle by the predecessors, it is of no necessity to edit chronicle of astronomy any more” (“Tianwen” in Ming Shi). As a matter of fact, Chinese arithmetic and astronomy have been replaced by the West and have no chance to return to the stage again.

In this regard, the so-called Needham’s puzzle is a false proposition, because science cannot be developed from a non-scientific, or in a positive term, formless thinking system. To understand Chinese culture properly, the way of thinking in form should be forgotten. The way of formless thinking is perplexing to the modern mind, but the Buddhist verse mentioned above does show us a way to sudden comprehension, the “Moon is mirrored in myriad waters.”

References

Aristotle (2007a). Metaphysics, Book I, translated by W. D. Ross, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu. au/a/aristotle/metaphysics/

Aristotle (2007b). Meteorology, Book 2, translated by E. W. Webster, http://ebooks.adelaide. edu.au/a/aristotle/meteorology/

Aristotle (2007c). Metaphysics, Book 4, translated by W. D. Ross, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu. au/a/aristotle/metaphysics/

Hall, D. L. and Ames, R. T. (1995). Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture. New York: State University of New York Press

Li Jingde (1986). Zhuzi Yulei 朱子语类 (Quotations of Zhu Xi). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju Russell, B. (2002). History of Western Philosophy. New York: Routledge

form and formless: a discussion with the authors of anticipating china

Documents