Cobb: Well, I think there are bases within the scripture itself to make that kind of statement. 嗯，我认为内在于《圣经》本身，就有做出这种表述的基础。Tu: You have that basis. 您有这个基础。Cobb: Oh, I think so, because the creature cannot have any absoluteness.哦，我认为是的，因为《圣经》不可能占据任何绝对性。Tu: That’s one way of looking at it. I think that’s very powerful. That is, to me, a resource, a very critical resource that seems to be absent or weak in Chinese political culture. That’s why you have this danger of the absolutization of the relative. On the other hand, the question I have is that, if you just compare Christianity and Buddhism, in the symbolic system of Christianity the number of received and accepted views or ideas, even dogmas...some people may not accept the trinity. 这是一种看待方式。我认为是种非常有力的方式。这在我看来，是中国政治文化中似乎缺乏或很薄弱的一种极具批判性的资源。这就是为何会有那种将相对的东西绝对化的危险。另一方面，我有个问题，如果只比较基督教和佛教，在基督教的符号体系中，在普遍接受的大量观点、观念，甚至教条中……有些人可能不接受“三位一体”。Cobb: I don’t. I accept the trinity, but not the doctrine of the trinity. [laughs]. 我就不。我接受“三位一体”，但不接受“三位一体”教义。［笑］Tu: Not the doctrine, or the virgin birth, or the resurrection. A number of things normally people try to identify with Christians. For the Buddhists, there are the ideas of transmigration, the idea of emptiness, the idea of Nirvana, the idea of Dharma. In a Christian and Buddhist dialogue, they are not incommensurable, but they’re so radically different that there’s no way to appreciate, to understand, to involve in a mutual elucidation without collapsing them. That’s why I’m both fascinated by and also intrigued, because I have some knowledge about the comparative study of religion. “三位一体”教义，童贞女生子，或耶稣复活——人们通常试图把这许多东西等同于基督徒的信仰。对佛教徒来说，则有轮回、空、涅槃、达摩等观念。在基督教和佛教的对话中，它们并非不可公度，但它们又截然不同，以至于没有折中就无法彼此欣赏、彼此理解或参与相互阐释。这就是我为什么既着迷又好奇的原因。我对宗教比较研究有所了解。For the Confucians, there is almost nothing like that, because the idea of learning to be human. The assumption is you have to be a human before you choose to be affiliated with a political system, or to go through an educational process. Or to become a religious person. You choose to become Christian. You choose to become Buddhist, but you don’t choose to be human. This would be a Confucian point of view. 对于儒家信徒来说，就几乎与此毫不相像，因为儒家持“学以成人”的观念。这里的假定是：在选择加入某种政治体系、选择接受某种教育，或选择信奉某种宗教之前，必须先成为一个人。您可以选择成为基督徒，您可以选择成为佛教徒，但成为人并不是种选择。这是儒家的观点。At the first Christian-Confucian dialogue many, many years ago in Hong Kong—I was not first aware of it because it didn’t really come to my mind—on the fourth day of the one week conversation, I realized that out of the 13 representing Confucians, six or seven of them were Christians. Bob Neville was one of them, along with John Berthrong, Ted de Bary, Julia Ching, and Peter Lee. Actually, I was overjoyed. I’m not a Christian, but I am a beneficiary of Christian theology. At the time I didn’t quite understand it. Realistically, it was a Christian-Christian dialogue, as well. I asked the question, “What is the difference from the Christian who’s sympathetic to or even influenced by Confucianism, and the Christian who has never heard of it?” The more I try to think about it, the more I think about the term “social gospel” you use. From the minimum condition of being a Confucian, especially now we talk about it so an intellectual as a Confucian, the person has to be politically concerned. They don’t have to join the government, but they need to be socially engaged and culturally sensitive. 许多年前在香港，在首次儒—耶对话中——彼时我还没察觉到上述要点——在为期一周的对话的第四天，我意识到代表儒家的十三人中，有六七个是基督徒。南乐山（Bob Neville）就是其中之一，还有白诗朗（John Berthrong）、狄百瑞（Ted de Bary）、秦家懿（Julia Ching）、李景雄（Peter Lee）等。其实我大喜过望。我不是基督徒，但我是基督教神学的受益者。当时我还不是特别明白这一点。现实些说，那也是一场耶—耶对话。我问了一个问题：“同情儒家甚至受之影响的基督徒，与从未听说过儒家的基督徒之间，有什么区别？”我越是尝试对之加以思考，就越是想起您所使用的“社会福音”（social gospel）一词。从成为儒家的最低条件来看，尤其是就现在而言，我们如何谈起一位知识 分子是个儒家呢——此人必须有政治关怀。他们不必加入政府，但需要入世（socially engaged），需要敏于文化。For Buddhism, it’s very clear. You don’t have to be involved in politics at all. You’re not socially concerned, though maybe in an implicit way.对于佛教来说，这非常清楚。完全不必参与政治，可以没有社会关切，尽管可能不是直接遁世。Cobb: Well, some Buddhists have developed the social concern, but it’s certainly not...好吧，一些佛教徒其实发展出了社会关切，但肯定不是……
Tu: Yeah, but that’s engaged Buddhism. But you can be a Buddhist who is in the monastery and totally committed to the monastic way of life. That’s also true with Christianity. Being Christian and being Buddhist in a way is much broader and involves more options than being a Confucian, because this worldliness is tied to this world. That’s one of the reasons why people may have difficulty—I know you totally accept it—to say “I’m a Christian-Buddhist or a Buddhist-Christian,” but to say, “I am a Confucian-Christian” for Bob Neville or even Ted de Barry that’s natural. 对，但那是“入世佛教”（engaged Buddhism，人间佛教）。尽管如此，一个人仍然可以成为出世的佛教徒，在隐修院里完全信守于隐遁持戒的生活方式。基督教也是如此。以某种方式做个基督徒或做个佛教徒，要比做个儒家更宽泛，选择更多，因为儒家的现世性与这个世界不可分离。这也是为什么——我知道您完全同意如下观点——人们可能很难说自己是个耶—佛教徒或佛—耶教徒，但却不难说自己是个儒—耶教徒。对南乐山来说，甚至对狄百瑞来说，这都很自然。Now the question is, can you be a Confucian-Buddhist? The curious thing is now most of the Buddhist masters in Taiwan and similar places consider themselves Confucian-Buddhists. They say, “We are humanist Buddhists. We are engaged Buddhists.” The difference is between those who believe in the Kingdom of God Yet to Come, in the Pure Land, or in the Other Shore. Your primary commitment is to that, rather than the world here and now. Yet, for the first time our generation managed, helped by the astronauts, to see with our naked eye the Earth, the blue planet, holistically. We now know how vulnerable it is, as we are confronted with the ecological challenge. 现在的问题是，你可以成为儒—释教徒吗？奇特的是，现在中国台湾地区和类似地方的大多数佛教大师都认为自己是儒—释教徒。他们称自己为人文主义佛教徒，或入世佛教（又称“人间佛教”）的信徒。他们有别于那些相信尚未降临的上帝之国、相信“净土”或相信“彼岸” 的信仰者——后者的主要承诺并不在于此时此地的世界。不过，在宇航员的帮助下，我们这代人能够首次以肉眼完整看见地球，完整看见 这颗蓝色星球。我们现在正面临生态挑战，也就明白它有多脆弱。Right now, my son works actually for NASA. They’re trying hard to find a comparable, even remotely comparable planet and so far we have billions of possibilities. This must be something unique. Of course, some people say, “Maybe intelligence design. Maybe other...” 我儿子其实在美国国家航空航天局（NASA）工作。他们正在努 力寻找一个遥远的与地球类似的星球，目前为止有数十亿种可能性。这个世界一定是独特的。当然有人会说，也许是智能设计（intelligent design），也许是其他……But from the Confucian point of view, the Earth, the body, your mind, your heart, these are integral parts of your being human. You just cannot afford to undermine any of them. This is what I think about the modern transformation of great Axial Age civilizations. Virtually all major religious traditions now consider caring for the earth as not only positive, but a necessary and highly desirable way of being Christian or being Buddhist. You cannot imagine a Buddhist master saying, “This is the red dust. Let’s focus our attention on the Pure Land.” 但是从儒家角度看，地球、身体、人的思想、人的心灵等，这些都是人之为人不可或缺的部分。破坏了其中任何一个，人都将无法承受后果。这就是我如何思考各个伟大轴心文明的现代转型。现在，所有主要宗教传统实质上都认为，关爱地球，不仅是做个基督徒或者做个佛教徒的积极方式，而且是其必要的且非常可欲的方式。您已无法想象一位佛教大师会说：这里是红尘，我们还是把注意力集中在净土吧。In Taiwan now, there’s Pure Land on this earth, in the form of engaged Buddhism. Some, maybe radical, Christians on the right and would say, “Even if there’s a nuclear confrontation, we Christians will be protected.” [laughs] 现在在台湾地区，有以入世佛教（人间佛教）的形式存在的“人间净土”主张。不过，一些激进的右翼基督徒却会说：即使发生核对抗， 我们基督徒也会受到保护。［笑］Cobb: This will be the end of things and we’ll be snatched up into Heaven. 事情到此结束，而我们将被带入天堂。Tu: [laughs] Right, right. ［笑］对，对。Cobb: There is a lot of superstitious supernaturalism in Christianity, which is observed by Confucianists and Buddhists and is one of the reasons they reject it. But, of course as you were saying, Christianity has so many potentials because it all depends on which of its many themes one singles out and accepts. Let me ask one more question. If, insofar as Confucianism recovers an important role within China, how will it be related to the scientific, technological culture of the universities? Is it just there alongside or can there be a more integral relationship? 儒教徒（Confucianists）和佛教徒们在基督教中观察到大量迷信的超自然主义，这是他们拒斥基督教的原因之一。但是，当然，正如您所说，基督教具有很多潜在可能的形式，完全取决于一个人在多样的主题中选出哪一个，接受哪一个。请让我再问个问题：就儒学在中国之内重新扮演的重要角色来说，它将与大学的科技文化发生何种关系？只是与之并列，还是可以有更有机互补的关系？Tu: I think for quite a while scholars, especially those who work on the origins of Confucianism as part of the Axial Age, have tended to underscore Confucian rationalism. Because in the Axial Age civilizations, now we know that the emergence of the transcendent, what they call the transcendental breakthrough, is very important. The Confucian tradition seems not to have made that breakthrough that clearly. There was nothing like Yahweh or God or Allah. 我认为对很多学者来说，尤其是对那些把儒家的起源作为轴心时代的一部分加以研究的学者来说，已经倾向于强调一种儒家式理性主义（Confucian rationalism）。因为在轴心时代的文明中，现在我们知道“超验者”（the transcendent）的出现非常重要，相关学者称之为 “超验突破”（transcendental breakthrough）。儒家传统似乎并没有明确地完成这一突破，没有耶和华、上帝或真主这样的超验者。Cobb: Not in that way. 并非以那种方式突破。Tu: Not in that way. 并非以那种方式。Cobb: But I think Confucianism is regarded as one of the axial developments, so it’s not a...但我认为儒家毕竟被视作轴心式发展的一支，所以它并非…Tu: Another way of looking at it is not simply as a transcendental breakthrough, but as second order reflection. Thinking about thinking. Certainly, the Confucian project’s focus on human self-cultivation is almost like thinking about the human. Now we have this rethinking humanity. That’s the core of its concern. Therefore, it is rationalist and some people say, that’s the reason why it’s very compatible with enlightenment. One thing we know for sure—there’s a lot of research now done—is that at the time of Matteo Ricci, in the 17th century, the Confucian classics translated into Latin were widely circulated among some of the most important enlightenment thinkers in that period and quite a number of people were totally overwhelmed by this Confucian mode of thinking. Voltaire is a good example. There’s Leibniz, and the Physiocrat Quesnay. Montaigne was aware of it. There’s Diderot. There’s Wolff. The issue for them was why a civilization, obviously quite sophisticated, in some ways even superior to their own, didn’t have the idea of God. Is it possible to have such a very ordered society? I think Joseph Needham said “An ordered society, but without an ordainer?” Or a functionally organic society? I use the term “the continuity of Being.” 另一种看待方式并非简单视作超验突破，而是视作二阶反思（second-order reflection）——对思考的思考。当然，儒家式谋划聚焦于人的自我教化，即“修身”（self-cultivation），近乎于思考人本身。现在，我们对人性有了重新思考。这是儒家的关切的核心。因此，儒家 是理性主义的，有人说这就是它何以与启蒙颇为相容。现在已有大量研究，有一件事我们所知甚确：在利玛窦时代，也就是在 17 世纪，儒家经典著作的拉丁语译本在那个时期一些最重要的启蒙思想家之间广为流传，相当多的人完全被儒家思维方式所征服。伏尔泰就是个很好的例子。还有莱布尼茨，以及重农主义者魁奈。蒙田对儒家有所关注， 还有狄德罗。还有沃尔夫。他们面对的问题是：为什么一个文明，显 然相当复杂精密，在某些方面甚至比西方自己的文明更为优越，却并 无上帝观念？这样一个良序社会是可能的吗？我记得李约瑟（Joseph Needham）有过“没有主宰却和谐有序的世界”或曰“功能上有机的社会”这类描述。我则使用“存有之连续性”（the continuity of Being）这样的字眼。
There’s no real rupture, and yet the continuity of Being is not given. There’s not only unfolding, but there’s all kinds of potential for transformation. The Confucian tradition in fact can be considered as a very important input into enlightenment thought. Some people even go so far as to say Kant was so affected. Nietzsche or someone characterized Kant as “that great Chinese from Königsberg.” 没有真正的断裂，不过这种存有之连续性也并非既定（not given）。不仅有展开的过程，而且有关于转化的一切类型的潜在可能性。实则， 可以认为儒家传统为启蒙思想注入了重要内容。有人甚至走得更远， 说康德亦受到儒家影响。尼采或别的什么人将康德形容为“来自哥尼斯堡的伟大中国人”。
Tu: I don’t know what is the locus classicus is for that. Now, if that’s the case, then what happened in the 19th century was that China became cut off from the West precisely because of the whole argument about the Great Rites. The Jesuits had allowed Chinese Catholics to venerate their ancestors, as they did not consider such activities idolatry. However, the Franciscans and the Dominicans objected to this practice, and Vatican eventually forbade it. As a result, the Chinese emperor stopped communication with the West for a hundred years. 我不确定引经据典（locus classicus）对这些来说意味着什么。不过现在看来，如果启蒙运动时情势如此，那么 19 世纪发生的事则是， 正因关于“大礼”（the Great Rites）的辩论的展开，中国开始对西方闭关锁国。耶稣会士允许中国天主教徒敬拜其祖先，并不将之视作偶像崇拜。然而，方济各会和道明会教派反对这类做法，梵蒂冈最终予以 禁止。结果，中国皇帝停止了与西方之间的交流，长达百年之久。Cobb: Very understandable, yeah. 很可理解，是呢。Tu: That hundred years turned out to be the period of industrialization, scientific discovery, not to mention the development of technology and so forth. When the West showed up as a powerful force fighting against China in the mid 19th century, China was not prepared. It’s really quite interesting to observe that on the eve of the Opium War, the Chinese economy was like the American economy, maybe even stronger. The two way trade between China and England was totally in China’s favor, because England wanted tea, silk, china, handicrafts, and even some agricultural products. 历史证明，那一百年正是工业化和科学发现的发展时期，更不必说技术发展等等了。当西方在 19 世纪中叶成为对抗中国的强大力量时，中国尚未做好准备。鸦片战争前夕，中国经济与美国经济不相上下，甚至可能更强大，这样观察起来真的很有趣。中英之间的双向贸易完全对中国有利，因为英国想要茶、丝绸、瓷器、手工艺品甚至一些农产品。
Cobb: That’s why the English had to push opium on China, so they’d have something to sell them. 这就是为什么英国人不得不将鸦片推向中国，以便能卖出些东西。Tu: That’s right. So the leader in China at the time really had this moral sense of superiority. He even sent a letter to the British king, and argued very forcefully. But the military might was such. I think what happened to the Manchu court was a result of ignorance and arrogance. Ignorant because they didn’t know what had happened in the West, and arrogance because they really felt they were still the center of the universe. In one or two generations, China degenerated from the Middle Kingdom to what some Japanese called the “sick man of East Asia.” In this context, the resurfacing of China’s modern patriotism was very much guided by this notion about democracy and science. 对的。因此当时的中国领导者就真的有道德上的优越感。他甚至给英国国王写了一封信，进行了非常有力的辩护。但是军队的力量又是另一回事。我认为满清宫廷所遭遇的事是无知和傲慢的结果。他们之所以无知，是因为他们不知道西方世界发生了什么；他们之所以傲慢，则是因为他们真的感到自己仍然是宇宙中心。一两代人之后， 中国从中央王朝沦落为日本人所称的“东亚病夫”。在这种语境中，中国的现代爱国主义的重新浮现，很大程度上是由民主和科学的观念所引导。Cobb: OK, I’ll try to make my questions sharper. The question of what gave rise to science, to the emergence of modern science, is itself, of course, a historically debated topic. 好的，我会尽量简化我的问题。当然，是什么引发了科学， 引发了现代科学的出现，这个问题本身是历史上已经争论过的话题。Cobb: OK, I will simply indicate my view of two things. One is that you have to have a highly developed mathematics, and the other is that you have to assume that there is a deeper order than is apparent on the surface. Those two elements were available in the late medieval period. It didn’t all come from the Bible. 好的，我只想简单说明两点。一是必须有高度发达的数学， 二是必须假定在表面现象之外还有更深层的秩序。这两个要素在中世纪后期已经具备。并非全然源于《圣经》。Cobb: You understand, it required the...您懂的，这需要……Tu: From the Greek. 诉诸希腊文明。
Cobb: ...Great influence of Plato, and the Muslims had developed some of this, and all that. 柏拉图的重大影响，以及穆斯林发展了其中的部分资源，所有因素协力。
Cobb: I’m not trying to claim that Christianity by itself producing this. 我并不是要说基督教自身造就了这些。Cobb: But it contributed probably to the sense of the deeper order. Even today with the supposed war between religion and science, which is grossly exaggerated because the church has never been that hostile to science, my personal view is that those two are necessary. We need, therefore, to have a mode of thought that gives place to them, if it is to be inclusive. You understand? 但基督教可能有助于深层秩序感。即使今天，人们想当然认定宗教与科学之间是战争状态的情况下，二者的对立也被严重夸大了，因为教会从未对科学怀有敌意。我的个人观点是，宗教与科学两者都是必要的。因此，如果要包容各方，我们就需要有一种兼纳双方的思维方式。您理解吧？Cobb: You can’t just divide it up into the moral, historical, human, and cultural aspects, or the scientific and technical aspects to be dealt with separately. I’m saying all this because I’ve asked does Whitehead have a contribution to make in the Chinese scene? The contribution I have thought was that he has a way of seeing the world that can undergird the further development...可以将其分为道德的、历史的、人类的及文化的等等方面， 以及科学方面和技术方面，分别进行处理。我之所以这么说是因为， 如果我要问，怀特海在中国场景中会有贡献吗，我想到的贡献就是，他持有一种看待可以确保某种进一步发展的世界的方式。Tu: Of science. 是说科学的进一步发展。Cobb: ...Of science, and also is very congenial to so much of what you have been saying about Confucianism. So, whether you, coming from the Confucian side, see a need for that thing or not is really my question. ……是说科学，这与您一直所谈论的儒家的许多观点非常相近。所以说，从儒家立场出发，能否看到我所说的那种需要，才真正是我的问题。Tu: Yes. I understand Joseph Needham has done this huge study Science and Civilization in China. One of the volumes is about math and he notes that geometry, as an important feature of the Greek tradition, is absent in China, but algebra is not. Also, China was advanced in terms of calculation. Of course, astronomy is very well-developed in many ancient civilizations. It is used in applied science not just for irrigation, but also maritime exploration. In 1403 to 1433, during the Ming Dynasty, there were seven major voyages of Zheng He that turned out to be very elaborate. Of course, there was no mechanization of agriculture, but all kinds of well-developed ways of understanding that agricultural world existed. 是的。我了解李约瑟完成了鸿篇巨制《中国科学技术史》（Science and Civilization in China，书名直译为“中国的科学与文明”），其中一卷内容是数学。其中指出，几何学是希腊传统的重要特征，在中国却 阙如，而代数则不然。此外，中国在计算方面也很先进。当然，在许多古代文明中，天文学已经非常发达，它在应用科学中不仅运用于灌溉， 而且运用于海上勘探。在 1403 年至 1433 年间的明朝时期，郑和七下西洋，航海技术非常精湛。当然，传统中国尚无农业机械化，但已有了各种各样理解既有农业生活的发达方式。Cobb: I have no doubt about that. 我对此毫不怀疑。
Tu: The other one is biology, which is related to medicine and so forth. One thing, I think, for sure is that deductive logic is lacking. The Book of Change might help to think that way, but I doubt it. The other thing lacking is the Baconian idea of empirical science. However, the idea of looking at the deeper structure of the world is quite compatible with the idea of the “principle” li 理. In other words, what appears in terms of phenomena has to be understood in terms of a more enduring and eternal pattern. So there is this notion about pattern. 另一方面的成就是生物学，与医学之类相关。我可以肯定的一个问题是演绎逻辑的缺乏。《易经》可能有助于演绎思考，但我对此表示怀疑。所缺的另一件事是培根式的经验科学观。但无论如何，研究世界更深层结构的想法与“理”之观念完全相容。换言之，必须根据更持久、更永恒的思路来理解现象之显象。因此儒家有将“理”视作模式（pattern）的观念。But looking at Confucianism not only in the Chinese culture context, but also in the Japanese and Korean ones. Especially in the Korean context, there’s a very strong sense that the pattern is not static, that the ultimate basis for physics and so forth is not static because the Chinese idea of the vital energy, the qi 氣. So those basic—elements may not even be the right terms—those basic kinds of stuff of the universe turns out to be dynamic. 但是，如果不仅在中国文化语境下看待儒家，而也将之置于日本 和韩国的文化语境下，会发现尤其在韩国文化语境下，有一种非常强 烈的观点：由于中国式的“气”观念，作为模式的“理”并非静态不变， 物理学等领域的终极基础并非静态不变。因此，那些基本要素的表述甚至可能并非正确名称——宇宙中这些基本种类的东西最终都是动 态的。With a view toward the future, one scholar who is a very prominent scholar in the modern transformation of Confucian humanism and deeply involved in the study of Western philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant, tried hard to discuss this whole question about the development of some not just scientific consciousness, but also scientific method from Confucian humanism. 带着一种未来视角，有位学者在论述儒家人文主义的现代转型方面非常杰出，他还深入潜心于对西方哲学，尤其对康德的研究，努力探讨了科学意识的发展以及儒家人文主义科学方法的发展。Cobb: Yeah, well this is what I’m asking about. 是，这就是我要问的内容。Tu: But I think his project probably failed. 但我认为他的谋划可能失败了。Cobb: But that doesn’t mean it will always have to fail. 但这并不意味着它总会必然失败。Tu: Right. I think part of the reason is this very strong late 19th century idea about science as a positivistic science. That science deals with something that is tangible, quantifiable, and also this notion about science is diametrically opposed to lived situations, even to ethics and morality. 对。我认为部分原因是那种非常强的 19 世纪晚期科学观，认定科学即是实证科学，科学处理的是有形、可量化的事物，而且科学与现实生活情境，甚至与伦理道德截然相反。Tu: Another thing is that science is based upon clarity and analytical thinking. The only science that he’s aware of is from the West, the Enlightenment idea of science. The assumption there is that there is a gap for Confucianism between the moral consciousness and the empirical one. How could you be able to derive a very sophisticated understanding of science from this overwhelming attention to moral self-cultivation? 另一关键是科学基于明晰性，基于分析式思维（analytical thinking）。那位学者只注意到一种科学，就是来自西方的那种启蒙观之下的科学。这里的假设前提是：对儒家来说，道德意识和经验主义意识之间有一鸿沟。从对道德“修身”的压倒性关注中，如何能够获得对科学的足够复杂精密的理解？Cobb: Why that’s why I think Whitehead may help. I don’t mean that he has given the attention to the moral self-cultivation, but his system clearly provides a conceptual structure that can justify and support it. Of course, he is critical a great deal of modern science. I think Confucian folks have legitimate criticisms, but how can you make that effective within a university context? You have to be able to present an alternative way of thinking that takes account of all the enormous amount of information that has been developed and nevertheless interpret it in a different way. I think you understand that we haven’t succeeded in getting very many scientists in the West to pay attention to this. [laughs] I don’t mean there’s been great success. I have a hope that the Chinese who have been socialized into identifying science with the mechanistic, deterministic, reductionistic, science of the West... 这就是我为何认为怀特海可能有所助益。我并不是说他已经关注到道德修身问题，但他的体系显然提供了可以证成并支持其合理性的概念结构。当然，他对大量现代科学提出了批评。我认为儒家人士有正当的批评，但是如何才能令这些批评在一种大学环境中有效呢？必须能够提出一种替代性的思维方式，该方式能够考虑到所有发展出的大量信息，并以不同方式对其进行阐释。我想您知道，我们怀特海主义者并未成功吸引多少西方科学家的关注。［笑］我并不是要说已经取得巨大成功。而是寄希望于事实上已经社会化地适应了将科学等同于机械论的、决定论的、还原论的西方科学的中国人……...might not be as wed to the metaphysics of the 17th century as Western scientists have been, and could therefore really make some very significant breakthroughs in science. If I may make a still stronger statement, I think what’s understood as a scientific worldview is in the process of collapsing in the West. We need to do science in a different way, and if the Chinese could give us leadership...希望今天的中国人仍可以不致像西方科学家那样密切依系于 17 世纪的形而上学，从而确实可以在科学上取得一些非常重大的突破。如果可以提出一个更强的表述的话，我认为在西方，被解读为 “科学世界观”（scientific worldview）的那种东西正在崩溃的过程中。我们需要以不同的方式去做科学，如果中国人能够领导我们……Tu: [laughs] I don’t know about that at all, but the attempt...We talk about the revival of Confucianism has gone through at least three generations, or even four. For the first couple of generations, because of the incredible power of Western science and technology they focused on adaptation. Science is given. That’s the truth. Almost like modernity is given. ［笑］我丝毫不知道，但是这种尝试……我们所谈论的儒学复兴至少经历了三代甚至四代。在前几代中，由于西方科学技术的强大力量，他们主要是去适应。科学是既定的，是真理，几乎就像现代性是既定的一样。Cobb: Yes, I understand. 是的，我懂。Tu: Now, I think I’ve gradually come to agree with you. I don’t know whether I would say “collapse” or not, but… Anyway, many of the scientists, especially philosophers and historians, have become quite defensive if they simply follow the old line of thinking. Steve Weinberg. He said the more he is involved in doing science the more he realizes it’s totally meaningless. Yet, he’s worried. The worry may be religiously significant. Anyway, the notion that you can find the smallest just through all kinds of advanced methods of smashing atoms is undermined because the more you do it, the more you are worried about complexity. It’s never like Leibniz’s idea of the Monad. The notion that you can build the universe from the very basic which is simple, that ambition is no longer that easy to maintain. Then you have this uncertainty, complexity, or even fuzzy logic. 现在，我想我越来越同意您的看法。我不知道我是否要用“崩溃”一词，但是……不管怎么说，许多科学家，以及哲学家和历史学家， 已经变得偏于守势；他们只是遵循旧思路。斯蒂温·温伯格（Steven Weinberg）曾言，他越是潜心于科学，就越是意识到这完全没有意义。是的，他很担忧。这种担忧可能在宗教意义上是重大的。无论如何， 仅仅通过各种先进的原子粉碎方法就能找到最小微粒的想法被破坏 了，因为人做得越多，就越担心复杂性。这丝毫不像莱布尼茨的“单 子”观——认为人可以从简单的基本单位出发建立宇宙，这种雄心不再那么容易维持了。现在有了不确定性、复杂性，甚至模糊逻辑（fuzzy logic）。
I think there may be a different way of looking at science, not just with Chinese philosophy but with the humanities method in general and people like Ricoeur, Hadot and so forth. In other words, there are a number of assumptions. The clear distinction between what we are as subjects and our object of study is never established. We identify with what we study. 我认为可以有某种不同的看待科学的方式，不仅有中国哲学视角， 还有一般的人文学科方法以及像利科（Ricoeur）、波兰尼（Polanyi）之类的人。换言之，尚有许多不同假设。我们作为主体的存在和我们的研究对象之间的清晰区分从未完全确立。我们认同于（identify with） 我们所研究的东西。I think, in religion people say, “Well, the difference between religion and, say, physics is that a physicist never identifies himself with particles and so forth. But the student of Christianity may identify.” I think this is something very common right now in the scientific community. What is an object? 我认为在宗教中人们会说：“好吧，宗教与科学，例如物理学之间的区别是，物理学家永远不会用微粒之类来表明自己的身份，而基督教学者可能会用基督教来表明自己的身份。”我认为现在这在科学共同体中很普遍。什么是客体（object）？Tu: What is a fact? What is something that is out there? I think realism, no matter how you try to define it, even “realism with a human face” or “qualified realism,” is very difficult. So hermeneutics becomes important. My sense is that may be where the Confucian tradition, together with many spiritual traditions, might probably be able to offer a way out or at least an alternative vision. One thing I am particularly interested in now is that if all spiritual traditions have to change in order to face up to ecological questions, then the philosophy that eventually wanted to be the basis or to clarify the scientific language has to go through a major transformation itself. 什么是事实？已知世界的边界之外有什么？我认为无论人们试图如何界定实在论（realism），哪怕是“带有人类面孔的实在论”或“有限定的实在论”（qualified realism），仍有很大困难。因此，诠释学变得重要。我的感受是，儒家传统与多样的精神性（spiritual）传统一 道，或许可以提供出路，或者至少提供某种替代性视角。我现在尤其 感兴趣的一件事是，如果必须改造所有精神性传统以面对生态问题， 那么，那种最终想要成为基础或者想要澄清科学语言的哲学，其自身 也必须经历一次重大变革。I may be too optimistic, but I use the term a spiritual turn in philosophy. We did have the epistemological turn and the linguistic turn. I see many signs that mainline philosophers, especially in the analytical tradition, have come to take religion absolutely seriously. Habermas is the most recent example. I’m told in the last 10 years he has been deeply involved with the study of religion, especially the Axial Age civilizations.我可能太乐观了，使用了哲学中的“精神转向”一词。我们在哲学史上已有的是认识论转向和语言转向。我注意到许多迹象表明：主流哲学家，特别是分析哲学传统中的主流哲学家，已经开始绝对严肃地看待宗教。哈贝马斯是最为晚近的例子。我听说，过去十年来他一直深入潜心于宗教研究，尤其轴心时代的文明。Tu: Even Derrida towards the end of life talked about pardon or pardon. It’s very deeply Jewish. Charles Taylor is always Catholic. I don’t know whether you sense that’s a way out or not. 而德里达，甚至直至走向生命尽头时，也仍在讨论“宽恕”（pardon）。这是极深的犹太人特征。查尔斯·泰勒一直是天主教徒。不知您是否觉得这是一种出路。
Cobb: I think these are interesting trends, but of course my own view is that Whitehead has provided us with a way of understanding the world that could liberate science to make real advances and also can bring an end to the sharp separation of science from humanities. That seems to be something that China might be able to give leadership in. 我认为这是些有趣的趋势，但我的个人观点是，怀特海为我们提供了一种理解世界的方式，可以解放科学以取得真正的进步，并终结科学与人文之间的急剧分离。这似乎是中国或许能够发挥领导作用的地方。Tu: My question is how is that linked to the ethical religious problems in terms of Whiteheadian vision? 我的问题是，就怀特海式视角而言，这如何关联于伦理—宗教问题呢？Cobb: OK, you see, the metaphysics that underlies science is really from the 17th century. It’s the matter side of Descartes. The notion that pervades so much of science is that the world consists of matter and motion. This way of thinking simply cannot account for a lot of the evidence. But they cling to it because it’s the only thing they have been socialized to think of. Of course, matter is totally value free. It’s completely passive. The understanding of human beings and everything else is shaped, and I would say misshaped, by the application of that metaphysics. Now in the origins of science there were other proposals. I won’t go back into that history, but that is not the only way to understand the physical world. First of all, if we shift, and there’s much in science that encourages the shift, from the notion of matter to the notion of event, then if we ask... 行。您看，构成科学基础的形而上学实则来自 17 世纪。这是笛卡尔的物质一面。广泛流行的科学观念是，世界由物质和运动构成。这种思维方式根本无法对很多证据做出解释，但他们仍然持守， 因为这是他们社会化过程中形成的唯一思路。当然，物质是全然价值无涉的，它完全被动。通过运用这种形而上学，形成了对人类以及对 其他一切事物的理解，而我会说这种形成是一种畸形形塑（misshape）。现在关于科学的起源中还有其他描述方式。我不会去回溯科学史，但想说这不是理解物理世界的唯一方法。首先，如果我们转变思路，科 学上的很多方面其实也在促进这种转变，从看待世界的物质观念转变 为“事件”观念（notion of event），那么，如果我们的提问方式……Tu: Event is always the dynamic transformative one. “事件”始终是动态转化的思路。Cobb: That’s right and that that’s all there is. There’s no such thing as matter. 没错，这就是关键。就没有物质这种东西了。Tu: But, how is, if they say qi often is understood as vital force or energy. 但如何做到？“气”的概念常被理解为生命力或能量……Cobb: Yes, that would come much closer. 对，这个概念更接近。Tu: To event. 更接近于“事件”观念？Cobb: Yes. Actually, I was going to say. You see, even within contemporary physics, Einstein said E=mc2. Well, if you’re looking in physics for matter, mass is the closest you can come. Energy and mass are correlative with each other. But there are particles that have no mass. That, to me, says energy is more fundamental than mass. If scientists were really willing to reformulate what they have to say, in terms of what I can call energy events. I don’t want to push that term, but an event is the locus of energy and energy always occurs in events. It doesn’t occur in matter in any philosophical understanding of matter. I think that that should not be so difficult for people from a Confucian tradition to think. 对。实际上，我要说的是，即使在当代物理学中，爱因斯坦也说E=mc2。那么，如果你正在物理学中寻求对物质的描述，那么质量是最接近的概念。质能方程中，能量和质量相互关联，但是存在着没有质量的粒子。在我看来，这意味着能量比质量更为根本。如果科学家们真的愿意用我称作“能量事件”（energy events）的术语模式来重新公式化他们要描述的东西……我并不想强推这个术语，不过“事件”确实是能量的处所（locus），能量始终发生在“事件”之中。在关于物质的任何哲学理解中，能量都并不发生在物质之中。我认为对于来自儒家传统的人们，这个问题应该不那么难以设想。Cobb: Now, the other side, the reason I was asking about mathematics is that if you pick up a book of physics, it’s mostly mathematics. I’m not any good at this, so it’s not that I’m pushing anything I can do. But I’m guessing that the limitation of traditional Chinese thought in its ability to incorporate within it scientific thought is not...I think the notion of qiprobably could be developed to be a very good ontological idea to replace the notion of matter and so forth. I can’t say that it would work, but I just think there’s an excellent chance that it would be an improvement. Still, I’m thinking that Confucianism would probably have to be rather radically expanded into reflections about the mathematical world, if you want to call it that, the world of forms, of abstractions, and so forth. This has been developed, of course, in the platonic context in the West. Since Whitehead was a mathematician, he offers that. It was already integrated with... 现在，另一方面，我之前问起数学，原因是如果拿起一本物理书读，那主要就是数学。我对此并不擅长，所以我这也不算以己度人，强人所难。但我猜，中国传统思想并未能够将科学思想纳入自身之中， 其能力上的局限并不是（数学）……我认为“气”这一概念很可能会发展成为一种很好的本体论思想，以取代“物质”之类观念。我不能说这一定行得通，我只是认为这极有可能是个改善良机。不过，我也仍然 认为，儒家可能必须从根本上扩展到对数学世界（mathematical world） 的反思中，如果将之称作形式世界（world of forms）或抽象世界之类也行。当然，这在西方是在柏拉图式语境下发展起来的。由于怀特海是位数学家，他也作出了这类贡献。数学工作已经整合进了……Tu: His own metaphysics, yeah. 整合进了他自己的形而上学，是。Cobb: But integrated with the metaphysics that both deals with the whole realm of the natural world, and provides a different fundamental understanding of it that is value-laden. You see, these energy events have value. For Whitehead, and I think this would not be a problem for Chinese thought, every event in its occurrence is a subject. As soon as it’s happened then it’s an object for other events. 不过整合形成的是一种不同的形而上学：它既处理自然世界的整个领域，又对自然世界整个领域提供了有价值承载的（value- laden）不同根本理解。您看，我此前所说的“能量事件”不是价值无涉的。对于怀特海来说——我认为这对中国思想来说不成问题——每个“事件”在其发生（occurrence）之中都是一个主体（subject）。一经发生过后，它就又成为其他事件的客体（object）。Cobb: You can distinguish subject and object, but that’s just a distinction between present and past. It’s not another metaphysical dualism. Whereas subjects have been in subjects and subjects always have value, to be a subject is to be of value of some kind, this is the topic of physics. If everything that happens have value, but of course, there were more complex events like human experiences that have more value than photonic events, we no longer have this fact-value split. Science is constantly dealing with values and to not to pay attention to the values is already a limitation of science. OK. Those are very quick indications of what I think Whitehead might contribute to a renewal of Confucianism in China. 仍可区分出主体和客体，但这只是在现在式与过去式之间 的区别。这不是另一种形而上学二元论。主体总是具有价值；成为一个主体，即是承载某种价值：这是物理学的主题。如果所有发生的事 情都具有价值——当然，像人类体验这样的更复杂的事件比光量子事件具有更多价值——我们就再也不会面对事实—价值之间的割裂了。科学一直在处理价值问题，对价值的无视已经成为科学的局限。好了。这也是些粗略的初步表征，涉及我认为怀特海可能会对促进儒家在中国的复兴有哪些贡献。Tu: Absolutely. But if we use Christianity as a reference... 当然。但如果我们以基督教为参照……Cobb: I was not doing that. 我并不是在做这个。Tu: Yeah, but let’s say hypothetically…是呢，但让我们假设说……Tu: …there must be an attempt and, I think, a very successful attempt to develop Christian theology, which is not only compatible with, but has...一定有某种尝试，而且我认为，一定有某种成功的尝试，去发展一种基督教神学，令其不仅与之兼容，而且有……Cobb: Well, we’ve already been developing Christian theology in Whiteheadian terms. 其实，我们已经在发展一种怀特海意义上的基督教神学了。Tu: Right. That is something that can serve as a very important source of inspiration. 对。这可以作为非常重要的灵感来源。Cobb: It would be different to develop Confucianism in Whiteheadian terms and to develop Christianity in Whiteheadian terms. We have a book [Religions in the Making] that will come out from Wipf & Stock eventually, I hope in not too long, in which we have a Jewish chapter on the way Jews can appropriate Whitehead’s thought. 用怀特海主义的方式发展儒家和用怀特海主义的方式发展基督教，是不同的。我们有一本书（题为 Religions in the Making）终于要由 Wipf ＆ Stock 出版社推出了，我希望不会等太久，其中会有犹太教的一章，论述犹太人可以如何适用怀特海思想。Cobb: We have a chapter on how Roman Catholics can do so, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Chinese. Meijun Fan 樊美筠 and Zhihe Wang 王治河have written the Chinese one. It’s not specifically Confucian. What I am now talking about is not exactly what any of them talk about. 还有一章论述罗马天主教徒如何适用怀特海，以及聚焦于新教徒、穆斯林、印度教徒、佛教徒以及中国人的各章。樊美筠和王治河撰写了关于中国人的章节，不过并不特指儒家。我现在所谈论的并不完全是其中任何一章讨论的东西。Tu: Sure, sure. I think this has to be developed. 确实，确实。我想这还有待展开。
Cobb: They’re talking about for example what Jews and Christians have in common is an understanding of God that creates a certain difficulty in understanding the vast amount of evil in the world. Whitehead is very helpful because obviously the problem is extremely acute when one thinks in terms of divine omnipotence, but if you think in terms of God’s work in the world, more the way you talk about the role of Heaven in the world—I don’t mean that Whitehead’s God is identical, but it’s more like that—then evil can be understood much more readily without blaming it on Heaven or God or that kind of thing. Many people in the Abrahamic traditions have liked that contribution of process thought. Since the Bible is closer to the process view of God than it is to the omnipotent Deity, it’s not a rejection of our basic sources, but they have certainly been interpreted in another way. 例如说，他们论及犹太人和基督徒的共同点：对上帝的某种理解，给理解现世中大量的恶带来了一定困难。怀特海对此非常有帮助，因为显然，当人们以神之全能（divine omnipotence）来进行思考时，这个问题极其尖锐，但如果以上帝在这个世界上的作为（work）来进行思考，更接近于你们儒家讨论“天”在现世中的作用——我的意思不是说怀特海的上帝观与此完全相同，而是说它更像是这样——这就能够更加欣然无碍地理解恶的问题，而不必将之归咎于“天”或上帝，或其他类似的存在。亚伯拉罕传统中的许多人，都喜欢过程思想（process thought）的这种贡献。既然圣经本身也更接近关于上帝的过程观（process view），而不那么接近全能神性观，那么圣经也不构成对我们的基本思想资源的拒斥；不过，它们当然是在以另一种方式得以阐释。Anyway, under the leadership of Zhihe and Meijun, we are working in China and have some ability to contribute. We don’t see what we are doing is in anyway counter to the renewal of Confucianism. 无论如何，在治河与美筠的带领下，我们在中国展开工作（建立了过程研究中心中国部），并有实力作些贡献。我们正在做的，看不出与儒学复兴有任何冲突。Tu: Not at all, no. 完全不，不冲突。Tu: No. That’s very encouraging. 不冲突。这是很大的鼓舞激励。Cobb: But we hope we have a distinctive contribution to make, also. There are more than 20 universities that have established centers... [crosstalk] 但我们希望我们能作出独特贡献。我们在二十余所大学合作建立了中心……［谈话交叠］Tu: For Whiteheadians? 怀特海学派中心？Cobb: ...for process thought. ……过程思想中心。Cobb: No, not in the United States. 不是在美国。Tu: Yeah, but in China? 对，是在中国？Cobb: In China, more than 20. 在中国，超过二十所。Tu: Oh, more than 20. 噢，超过二十所。Cobb: Yeah. At least half a dozen of them are at universities of science and technology. 是呢。其中至少六所是建立在理工类大学。Cobb: I hope someday they’ll be interested in really influencing the scientific formulation, but that has not really happened yet. 我希望有一天，这些理工科大学会对真正去影响科学建构（scientific formulation）产生兴趣，但这还没有真正发生。Tu: Yeah, that I think would be most exciting to me. 是呢，我认为这对我来说最感兴奋。Cobb: That would be most exciting. 那会是最令人兴奋的。Cobb: But it’s mainly that so many people in these universities in China are troubled that the science and technology they’re teaching leaves out the whole issue of values. 但主要是，中国这些大学中的太多人对此感到困扰：他们所教授的科学技术，完全脱离了整个价值问题。Cobb: They think that process thought can help them to reintroduce values, but to really do that is going to require a change in fundamental scientific thinking as well. 他们认为过程思想可以帮助他们重新引入价值，但要真正做到这一点，还需要改变根基性的科学思维。Tu: I think you’re absolutely right. 我认为您说得太对了。Cobb: We can only move one little step at a time. 我们只能每次迈出一小步。Tu: Well, that’s a very, very fundamental and really a substantial contribution. 嗯，这是非常非常根基性的——真正实质性的——贡献。Cobb: But, if those who are reviving Confucianism would express the need to really rethink science itself in terms that are more congenial to Confucianism, that could prod. I’m very sensitive to the question of what Chinese do and what we do from outside. 但是，如果那些正在复兴儒学的人表示有必要以更贴近于儒学的术语来真正地重新思考科学本身，那可能会产生促动。我对于中国人做什么，我们从外部做什么这样的问题非常敏感。Cobb: We respond to requests. We don’t tell them what to do. 我们是对要求进行回应。我们不是去告诉他们该做什么。Tu: But I think what you were suggesting as a line of inquiry is particularly pertinent to the kind of outmoded scientism…但我认为，您正在提出的一种明辨路线，对那种过时的科学主义来说尤其中肯。Cobb: Yes, exactly.是的，正是如此。Tu: …which is still so pervasive and powerful in China. 那种科学主义在中国仍然如此无处不在，如此强大。Cobb: Pervasive and powerful. If you just go to these departments at secular universities or even church universities and trying to find out how they think, it’s still...无处不在且强大。如果去世俗大学甚至教会大学的那些院系，并尝试了解他们如何思维，那仍然是……Tu: We call it the tyranny of the engineer. 我们称此为工程师暴政（tyranny of the engineer）。Tu: Not just people involved in basic science, they’re all very instrumental. 不只是那些从事基础科学的人，他们都是很工具性的。Cobb: People involved in basic science do tend to be more open, but they still encounter extreme difficulties in really rethinking things. The area in this country in which Whitehead’s thought is being most seriously considered is quantum theory. That’s terribly basic for physics. 从事基础科学的人确实往往更加开放，但他们在重新思考事物时仍然遇到极大的困难。在这个国家，最重视怀特海思想的领域是量子理论。这对于物理学来说极为基础。Cobb: It’s terribly obvious that the matter in motion image simply doesn’t apply. 极其明显的是，物质观在运动图景中根本不适用。Tu: Doesn’t work...Right. 没用……对。Cobb: See, both the notion of matter and the notion of wave come out of a materialist understanding of the natural world. To really get scientists to think in terms of events instead of thinking in terms of matter and motion, it’s hard. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened. There are a number of people who are really trying, but I think it’s harder for Westerners than it should be for Chinese. They have not been socialized into this mode of thought as deeply. I may be wrong about that, you understand, but it’s my hope. 看吧，物质观念和波的观念都来自对自然世界的一种物质主义（materialist）理解。要真正让科学家从事件的角度思考，而不是从物质和运动的角度思考，这很困难。我并不是说这没发生过。有很多人确实是在尝试，但我认为这对西方人来说要比对中国人来说要难。西方人还没有同样深入地融入这种思维方式。我可能对此有误解，您懂的，但这是我的希望。Tu: Yeah, but sometimes these Chinese intellectuals are even more seasoned in the enlightenment mentality than...没错，因为他们有意识地采纳了它。Cobb: That’s right, because they consciously adopted it. 是呢，但有时候，中国知识分子甚至更浸淫于（seasoned in）启蒙心态（Enlightenment mentality），比起……Tu: Right, sometimes... 对的，有时候……Cobb: Whereas, the Americans, they just feel “Well, that’s the only way to think.” It wasn’t a conscious choice, it was just they were socialized into it.Tu: Right. I think one thing I’m trying to do, which is certainly relevant, is the possibility of a Confucian reflection on the enlightenment mentality of the modern West. 对。我想我正在尝试去做的一件事，一件显然与之相关的事， 就是关于儒家对现代西方启蒙心态进行反思的可能性。Cobb: Good, that’s really what I would like to encourage. 很好，这真的是我要支持促进的。Tu: It’s both a sympathetic understanding and a critical reflection. 既是同情的理解，又是批判的反思。Tu: I’m trying to divide it into three parts. The first one is simply to study the 17th century that we call the Ming-Qing Transition, and which is that period when some of the great Western thinkers became fascinated by Confucianism. Instead of arguing what influence we’re talking about, because there are so many studies, we simply look at the world of ideas in China. What are the questions they were dealing with? There were not only Christian thinkers, but there were Islamic thinkers. 我想将其分为三个部分。第一部分是单纯研究 17 世纪，我们称之为明清之际（Ming-Qing Transition），也就是在那个时期，一些西方伟大思想家开始对儒家着迷。不必辩称我们在谈论何种影响力—— 因为相关研究已经很多——我们只看处于中国的思想世界：他们那时正在处理的是什么问题？其中不仅有基督教思想家，还有伊斯兰思想家。Cobb: Oh, the Christian thinkers were very dependent upon what Islam had accomplished during a time when they were not doing much. 噢，基督教思想家非常依赖伊斯兰世界，依赖后者在他们自己没什么作为的时期所取得的成就。Tu: That is in the West. But in the 17th century there were not only Matteo Ricci and his followers and some of the Chinese converts, but there were also original Muslim thinkers. 那是在西方。而在 17 世纪，不仅有利玛窦和他的追随者以及一些中国皈依人士，而且也有原创性的穆斯林思想家。Cobb: Oh, I see, you mean they were doing thinking at that same time. 噢，了解了，您是指他们在那同一时期所从事的思考。Tu: At the same time. Many of the Muslims were actually raised in China. They were Persians..在同一时期。实际上，许多穆斯林是在中国长大。他们是波斯人。Tu: Their first language was Persian. It’s an internal dialogue going on. There were also literary thinkers, artists, so the world was very rich. That’s the first part of it. For the second part, I would like to look at how this enlightenment mentality is being critiqued and studied by contemporary Western thinkers. The third one will be a study of how, I call it outmoded, the old enlightenment model became so seasoned in China for the last 100 years or so. That’s the background study with a view toward the future and what the shape of Confucian humanism in reference to this idea will look like. 他们的母语是波斯语。这是一次持续性的内部对话。也有文学思想家和艺术家，因此这个（思想）世界非常丰富多彩。这是第一部分。在第二部分，我想看看当代西方思想家如何批判和研究这种启蒙心态。第三部分将会研究旧的启蒙运动模式——我称之为过时的（outmoded）模式——何以近百年来在中国变得如此强化。这是个带有未来视角的背景性研究，在此背景下讨论参照了启蒙观的儒家人文主义的建构（shape）将是何种模样。
