The Ideational Thread and Two-Way Interpretation of the "Ancient-Modern, Chinese-Western Debate"

Since Liang Qichao's "On the Narrative of Chinese History" referred to the "modern age" of "contention and competition with Westerners," the problematic of the "distinction between China and the West" has interwoven with the humanistic tradition of "consulting the ancients and examining the present." Reconstructing the academic path at the confluence of ancient-modern and Chinese-Western thought is also a matter of rediscovering the logic of history amid the changes unseen in a century worldwide. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, "We are better positioned than any previous era to resolve the 'ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate,' and we are also in more urgent need than any previous era of a batch of cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and the modern and connect China and the West." [1] In this regard, the texts of today's world should be "intertexts," and the discourse unfolded from them should be dialogue. Dialogic research can both restate the unique texture of Chinese civilization through comparison and be directed against a narrative model of monolithic discourse; it can both inspire opportunities to revisit tradition and provide possibilities for "entering" Western knowledge systems. This should be the basic path for resolving the "ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate."

自梁启超《中国史叙论》“与西人交涉竞争”的“近世”以来，“中西之辨”的问题意识与“参之于古，考之于今”的人文传统互为经纬。而在古今中西的思想交汇处重构学术的进路，也是在世界百年未有之大变局中重寻历史的逻辑。习近平总书记指出，“我们比以往任何一个时代都更有条件破解‘古今中西之争’，也比以往任何一个时代都更迫切需要一批熔铸古今、汇通中西的文化成果”。就此而言，当今世界的文本应是“互文本”，由此展开的言说应是对话。对话式的研究既可以在比较中重述中华文明的独特肌理，也可能是针对单一话语的叙述模式；既可以启发重访传统的机缘，也为“进入”西方的知识系统提供可能。这应该是破解“古今中西之争”的基本路径。

Chinese Resources in the Reflection on Western Metaphysics

西方形而上学反思中的中国资源

Since the mid-20th century, reflection on traditional metaphysics has been the mainstream discourse in Western academia. When metaphysics became a problem to be overcome, China's ideological tradition, cultural experience, and mode of language precisely revealed new logic and possible spaces.

20世纪中叶以来，对传统形而上学的反思始终是西方学界的主流话语，而当形而上学成为一个需要克服的问题时，中国的思想传统、文化经验、语言方式恰恰展示了全新的逻辑和可能的空间。

To put it simply, in the "subject-predicate syntax" of Indo-European languages, Being as the subject is mutually defined with its predicate (verb to be), as summarized by the German philosopher Ernst Tugendhat: "Being is what it is thanks to 'is,' because these two concepts are interwoven and form a relationship between them that makes the predicate and the subject refer to each other." In other words, "Being" is explained in the "repetition" of Being by the predicate "is" (by duplicating Being); only in this sense can the philosophical problems left to the West by language be expressed.

简单说，在印欧语系的“主谓句法”中，作为主词的Being是与其谓词（verb to be）相互说明，亦如德国哲学家图根特哈特的归纳：“存在（Being）之所以成其于‘是’（is），是由于这两个概念交织在一起，并在彼此之间构成一种关系，使谓语和主语相互指涉。”换言之，“存在”是在谓语“是”对主语“存在”的“重复”中（by duplicating Being）得以说明；也只有在这样的意义上，语言留给西方的哲学问题才得以表达。

However, in ancient Chinese, "shi" (是) originally had no usage as a "predicate," let alone "predicate and subject referring to each other." Therefore, the British sinologist A.C. Graham, taking the examples of Chinese educator Lan Gongwu's translation of Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason* and Chinese philosopher He Lin's translation of Hegel's *Science of Logic*, found that "the small word 'is'" is crucial for Western philosophy but meaningless for Chinese. Graham did not consider this a defect of Chinese; on the contrary, the different linguistic tools made Chinese thought naturally avoid the metaphysical problems that the West strives to solve: "The Chinese translator is trying to reproduce the errors of the West in a language which, whatever its defects, will never allow him to commit these particular ones."

但是上古汉语的“是”本来并无“谓词”的用法，更谈不上“谓语和主语相互指涉”，因此英国汉学家葛瑞汉曾以中国教育家蓝公武翻译康德《纯粹理性批判》和中国哲学家贺麟翻译黑格尔《小逻辑》为例，发现“小写的‘是’”（the small word ‘is’）对于西方哲学至关重要，对于汉语却毫无意义。葛瑞汉并不认为这是汉语的缺陷，相反，语言工具的不同使中国思想天然地避免了西方力图解决的形而上学问题：“中国翻译家力图用一种语言再生西方的谬误，而这种语言无论有什么缺点，也绝不允许他们犯这些特别的错误。”

Correspondingly, the "relationship" in Chinese is not established between "Being" and "is," between subject and predicate, but relies on the "two poles" of "one yin and one yang are called the Dao." [2] As it is said, "Being and non-being give rise to each other, difficult and easy complete each other, long and short shape each other, high and low incline towards each other, sound and voice harmonize with each other, before and after follow each other." [3] The negative expression of this kind of "relationship" can be seen in the Buddhist "Eight Negations of the Middle Way": [4] "No production and no extinction, no permanence and no annihilation, no unity and no diversity, no coming and no going." If the mutual reference of subject and predicate still lands on Being, then the "mutual generation of yin and yang" intends "things are opposite but cannot dispense with each other." In short, the "subject-predicate relationship" of Western metaphysics is replaced by the "two-pole relationship." In the words of the French philosopher Julia Kristeva, this is "the yin-yang dialogue... replacing God."

与之相应，汉语的“关系”并非建立在“存在”与“是”、主语和谓语之间，而是依托着“一阴一阳之谓道”的“两极”。正所谓“有无相生，难易相成，长短相形，高下相倾，音声相和，前后相随”。此种“关系”的否定式表达则如佛家“八不中道”：“不生不灭，不常不断，不一不异，不来不出。”如果说主谓互指的落点仍然是Being，那么“阴阳相生”则意在“东西相反而不可以相无”。总之，西方形而上学的“主谓关系”被“两极关系”所取代。用法国哲学家克里斯蒂娃的话说，这是“阴—阳对话……取代了上帝”。

Thus, from a Chinese perspective looking back at the West, a chain of thought becomes faintly visible. For example, the "relationship" (Beziehung) that the Austrian philosopher Martin Buber called "I become in relation to You" (Ich werde am Du), the "very relation as a relation" that the German philosopher Martin Heidegger painstakingly excavated, the "correlation" (la corrélation) that the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas placed before the "ontological," the "merely relational mediation" used to summarize the view of the French philosopher Alain Badiou, and Kristeva's "coexistence" or "ambivalence."

缘此，从中国的角度反观西方，一个思想的链条依稀可见。比如被奥地利哲学家马丁∙布伯称作“与你相关而成为我”（Ich werde am Du）的“关系”（beziehung），被德国哲学家海德格尔着力发掘的“作为关系的关系本身”（the very relation as a relation），被法国哲学家列维纳斯置于“本体”之前的“关联”（la corrélation），被用来归纳法国哲学家巴丢观点的“纯粹关系性的中介”（the merely relational mediation）以及克里斯蒂娃的“共在”（coexistence）或者“相待而成”（ambivalence）。

Within the West's own intellectual tradition, the basic concept of "correlation" also leaves important clues. For example, the "correlation" that the American theologian Paul Tillich regarded as a "method," the "correlation between tradition and the present" of the Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, the "correlation between faith and situation" of the Swiss theologian Hans Küng, the "correlation between plural groups and revelation" of the American theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether; and the "mutually critical correlation" of the American theologian David Tracy, has further become "a communicative activity open to conversation and dialogue," not premised on any singular rationality or prior culture.

在西方自身的思想传统中，“相关性”（correlation）的基本概念也留有重要线索。比如美国神学家蒂利希视为“方法”的“相关”，荷兰神学家谢利贝克斯“传统与当下的相关”，瑞士神学家孔汉思“信仰与处境的相关”，美国神学家鲁塞尔“多元群体与启示的相关”；美国神学家特雷西“互为批判的相关”（mutually critical correlation），更是成为“向交谈与对话敞开的交往活动”，而不能以任何独一的理性或者优先的文化为前提。

According to the investigation of the Western historian of religion Mircea Eliade, "the waxing and waning and mutual generation of yin and yang" contains "the originality of Chinese thought." And Western scholars such as the French sinologist Marcel Granet, the British scholar Joseph Needham, the American sinologist Frederick W. Mote, the American sinologist Benjamin I. Schwartz, and A.C. Graham have also deeply expounded the ancient Chinese theory of "yin and yang" and its "correlative cosmology" and "correlative thinking." This should be an important thread connecting ancient and modern, China and the West.

按照西方宗教史家伊利亚德的考察，“阴阳消长和相生相成”包含着“中国思想的原创性”。而法国汉学家葛兰言、英国学者李约瑟、美国汉学家牟复礼、美国汉学家史华慈以及葛瑞汉等西方学者，也深入阐发了中国古代的“阴阳”学说及其“相关性宇宙论”（correlative cosmology）和“相关性思维”（correlative thinking），这应该是勾连古今中西的重要线索。

The Dialogic Tradition of Modern Chinese Scholarship

中国现代学术的对话传统

Modern Chinese scholarship has always been distinctly dialogic—dialoguing with ancient sages and also with the eastward transmission of Western learning. Dialogue certainly does not have to promise a common conclusion, as Lü Simian said: "So-called similarities are all due to careless examination, mistaking different things for the same." However, what he then emphasized was the "common principle" [5] contained in "different things," hence "to understand Chinese history... one must also be versed in foreign history."

中国现代学术始终带有鲜明的对话性，与古代贤哲对话，也与西学东渐对话。对话当然不必应许共同的结论，有如吕思勉所言：“所谓相同，都是察之不精，误以不同之事为同罢了。”然而他接下来强调的则是“不同之事”所存的“共同原理”，因此“欲了解中国史……非兼通外国史不行”。

By the same token, Qian Mu sorted out national heritage but by no means clung to tradition; he paid special attention to "recent scholars turning to study Western philosophy, and in turn using it to verify ancient texts, whereby the study of the Masters [of pre-Qin philosophy] became clear." For example, "Zhang Binglin of Yuhang [6] expounded the various schools using Buddhist principles and Western theories... Hu Shi of Jixi and Liang Qichao of Xinhui followed, and the study of the Masters spread throughout the world." When Kwang-chih Chang "discussed the origins of civilization and the state from Shang and Zhou bronzes," it was precisely in contrast to the Western "breakthrough" [7] process of civilization that he proposed that Chinese civilization represents the law of change in a "cultural continuum."

与之同理，钱穆整理国故却绝非固守传统，并特别留意“最近学者转治西人哲学，反以证说古籍，而子学遂大白”，比如“余杭章炳麟，以佛理及西说阐发诸子……绩溪胡适、新会梁启超继之，而子学遂风靡一世”。张光直“从商周青铜器谈文明与国家的起源”，也正是相对于西方“突破性的”文明进程，才提出中国文明代表了“文化连续体”的变化法则。

Early works on the distinction between China and the West may be traced back to Liang Shuming's *Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies*; Feng Youlan's *A Short History of Chinese Philosophy*, published in English after completing his "Six Books from the Period of Pillar and Foundation" [8], is considered "the first English work to systematically introduce Chinese thought to the West." Perhaps it can be said that the basic consciousness of placing China in a world context indeed represents the spiritual self-awareness of that generation of intellectuals. Hence in Feng Youlan's view, "the revival of Chinese philosophy" was actually "a symbol of the national revival."

关于中西之辨的早期著作，或可追溯到梁漱溟《东西文化及其哲学》；冯友兰在完成“贞元六书”之后用英文出版的《中国哲学简史》，则被认为是“第一部全面系统地介绍中国思想的英文著作”。也许可以说，将中国置于世界背景的基本意识，确实代表了那一代知识分子的精神自觉。因此在冯友兰看来，“中国哲学的复兴”其实是“民族复兴的象征”。

Also noteworthy are several papers written by Zhang Dongsun from the 1930s to the 1940s. Their most distinctive feature is the analysis of the foundations of Chinese and Western thought through differences in linguistic structure. For instance, "Thought, Language, and Culture" was first published in *Sociological World*, Volume 10, 1938; in June of the same year, the English edition of *The Yenching Journal of Social Studies* was inaugurated, and its then editor-in-chief Li Anzhai translated Zhang Dongsun's article into English, published in its first issue in 1939. After all, English-language periodicals published domestically had limited reach; in 1956, an American journal published an introductory article by scholar Haridas T. Muzumdar, "A Chinese Philosopher's Theory of Knowledge."

值得留意的还有张东荪在20世纪30年代到40年代写下的几篇论文。其中最为独特之处，当是通过语言结构的差异解析中西思想的根基。比如《思想、言语与文化》最初发表在《社会学界》1938年第十卷；同年6月英文版《燕京社会学界》（The Yenching Journal of Social Studies）创刊，时任主编李安宅将张东荪的文章译为英文，载于1939年第一期。国内出版的英文刊物毕竟有所局限，1956年美国刊物又发表学者穆祖姆达的介绍性文章《一位中国哲学家的知识论》。

In Zhang Dongsun's own writings, examples of "correlation logic" and "analogical definition" abound: "Chinese always pair big and small, up and down, good and evil, being and non-being, and consider them interdependent." Muzumdar's article almost verbatim reproduced these core assertions: Western "identity logic" corresponds to the "subject-predicate proposition" and the concomitant notion of "substance," while Chinese "correlation logic" responds to the mode of thinking of "mutual implication of opposites"; in contrast, "identity" gives rise to "inference," while "correlation" appeals to "analogy."

在张东荪本人的文字中，“相关性逻辑”和“类比式定义”的例子随手拈来：“中国人总是大小对称、上下对称、善恶对称、有无对称，并且把它们认为是相倚靠的。”穆祖姆达的文章几乎原样转述了这些核心论说：西方的“同一律名学”（identity logic）对应于“主谓式句辞”（subject-predicate proposition）以及随之而来的“本体”观念（substance），中国的“相关律名学”（correlation logic）却应和着“正反相涵”的思维方式；两相对照，“同一”衍生出“推论”，“相关”诉之于“类比”（analogy）。

Perhaps because Zhang Dongsun's theoretical tools for distinguishing China from the West came mainly from the West, Muzumdar's certain "translations" of Zhang Dongsun appear clearer. For example, the characteristics of Chinese wisdom different from Western philosophy are summarized as three: correlation logic, non-exclusive classification, and analogical definition—their meaning becomes easier to grasp precisely in English expression. In contrast to this kind of "explaining China through the West" dialogue, modern Chinese scholarship is not lacking attempts at "explaining the West through China," such as Zhou Zuoren's *A History of European Literature*.

或许由于张东荪中西之辨的理论工具主要来自西方，穆祖姆达对张东荪的某些“译述”倒是显得更为清晰。比如中国智慧不同于西方哲学的特征被概括为三：相关性逻辑（correlation logic）、非排他性的分类（non-exclusive classification）和类比式定义（analogical definition）——其含义在英文表述中反而容易得到确切的理解。与这类“以西释中”的对话相反，中国现代学术也并不缺少“以中释西”的尝试，比如周作人的《欧洲文学史》。

*A History of European Literature* was originally a hastily written lecture manuscript by Zhou Zuoren, but its effort to "reconcile ancient and modern" and "explain the West through China" is beyond doubt. For example, his explanation of Greek tragedy: "In ancient Greece, every April a three-day spring ritual was held... Primitive peoples, their most urgent need for self-preservation was food, so they viewed the changing of seasons with a mixture of fear and hope. Fearing the permanence of winter and worrying that spring might not return, they performed rituals to send off winter and summon spring. With expectations in their hearts, they moved into action—what is called 'emotion stirred within takes shape in words; words being insufficient, we sigh; sighing being insufficient, we sing; singing being insufficient, unconsciously our hands dance and our feet move.'" [9] Being able to reach from the "Mao Preface to the Book of Songs" [10] directly to the ancient Greek sacrificial activities where "song, dance, and music were united" likely predates many later comparative efforts.

《欧洲文学史》本属周作人仓促写就的讲义，但“调和古今”“以中释西”的努力是毋庸置疑的。比如他对希腊悲剧的解说：“希腊古时每年四月例行春祭三日……元始民族，自保之具莫急于食，故对四时之运行，疑惧与喜望交并。既惧冬之常住，复恐春之不再，乃有送冬与唤春诸仪式。心有所期，行于动作，所谓情动于中而形于言，言之不足故嗟叹之，嗟叹之不足故咏歌之，咏歌之不足不知手之舞之、足之蹈之也。”能从《毛诗序》直达古希腊的“歌、舞、乐合一”的祭祀活动，恐大大早于日后生发的种种比较。

That the West became the problematic background of Chinese academic discourse should be a natural result of "contention and competition with Westerners." According to Feng Youlan, any tradition "contains both 'permanent' ideas and 'changeable' and 'common' factors," hence not only can comparisons be made between differences, but also transformation can be carried out "in terms of the other" (in terms of the other). Although true mastery of "the other's terms" can only be seen in the "longue durée" of academic history, the dialogue and "mutual learning" between Chinese and Western thought has long reached the consensus that "he who knows one, knows none." [11]

西方成为中国学术话语的问题背景，应该是“与西人交涉竞争”的自然结果。依冯友兰之说，任何传统“都包含着‘恒久的’（permanent）的观念，也包含着‘可变的’（changeable）和‘共同的’（in common）因素”，因不仅从差异之间可以比较，而且可以“用彼方的概念（in terms of the other）”予以转换。尽管“彼方概念”的真正贯通只能见诸“长时段”的学术史，中西思想的对话和“互鉴”却早已达成“只知其一，其实是一无所知”的共识（He, who knows one, knows none）。

The "Mutual Reference" and "Mutual Interpretation" between China and the West

中西之间的“互参”与“互释”

In response to the dominance of a single discourse or the misalignment of talking past each other, "mutual reference" and "mutual interpretation" between China and the West must achieve mutual fulfillment through difference. Correspondingly, the most powerful conceptual tools between China and the West are not "descriptive" but "productive." That is, they are not merely nouns referring to certain ideas but necessarily point to the deep logic of the "why" of those ideas. By threading together the most relevant ideational threads along these lines and analyzing the most targeted core issues, it becomes possible through the "mutual reference" of dialogic tools and the "mutual interpretation" of dialogic samples to pry open conceptual solidification and understanding inertia, and thereby reset, restate, and reconstruct effective dialogue.

针对单一话语的主导或者自说自话的错位，中西之间的“互参”和“互释”必是在差异中相互成全。与之相应，中西之间最具解释力的概念工具并非“描述性的”（descriptive），而是“生成性的”（productive）。也就是说，并不仅仅是指称某些理念的名词，而必然指向这些理念之“所以然”的深层逻辑。就此贯串最具相关性的思想线索，透析最具针对性的核心问题，才有可能通过对话工具的“互参”和对话样本的“互释”，撬动概念的固化和理解的惯性，进而重置、重述和重构有效的对话。

Still taking Zhang Dongsun's article and Muzumdar's "translation" as an example: the 18-year gap between the two texts seems to have gradually made the Chinese and English concepts at the core transparent. However, it was not until Kristeva discovered from this "the dialogic nature of ancient Chinese thought contrary to the Aristotelian tradition" and extended the idea of "analogy" replacing "identity" and "relation" replacing "substance" that this "Chinese philosopher's theory of knowledge" truly entered the core domain of Western thought. Thus it can be said that moving from "mutual reference" to "mutual interpretation" is not only a matter of reactivating the intellectual resources of both sides in dialogue but also of achieving new self-understanding while understanding others.

仍以张东荪文章与穆祖姆达的“译述”为例：两个文本的18年间隔，似乎使结穴其间的中英文概念逐渐通透，然而直到克里斯蒂娃由此发现“古代中国思想与亚里士多德传统相反的对话性质”，并引申出“类比”（analogy）取代“同一”（identity）、“关系”（relation）取代“本体”（substance）的思路，这一“中国哲学家的知识论”才真正进入西方思想的核心论域。因此可以说，经由“互参”进而“互释”，不仅是重新激活对话双方的思想资源，也是在理解他人的同时达成新的自我理解。

If we trace the above ideational connections over a longer period, then echoing the meaning archetype of the mutual generation of "yin and yang," the West also has what is called "two natures in one person" or "hypostatic union." In the Western interpretive tradition, this can naturally be understood as "mutual indwelling" between God and humanity. But along the continuously extending ideational chain between China and the West, the West's own "apophatic accounts" and "apophatic understanding" almost inevitably direct "two natures in one person" toward the Chinese expression of "things are opposite but cannot dispense with each other." As the American theologian Kathryn Tanner says, "All creatures are formed in relation to what they are not." Hence, this is radically different from the thought-grammar of Indo-European languages that confirms the subject through "subject-predicate mutual reference"; those subjects "inadequately described by concepts" become merely "pure indicators" that are "not what they refer to." Facing such arguments as "civilizational superiority," "clash of civilizations," and "civilizational estrangement," this kind of deep dialogue tracing historical origins and cultural foundations is precisely a sharp weapon to break down prejudice and obsession.

如果将上述的思想关联追索到更长时段，那么与“阴—阳”互生的意义原型遥相呼应，西方亦有所谓的“二性一位”（two natures in one person）或者“位格合一”（hypostatic union）。就西方的阐释传统而言，这自然可以理解为神与人之间的“彼此寓居”（mutual indwelling），但是沿着中西之间不断延展的思想链条，西方自身的“否定式描述”（apophatic accounts）和“否定式理解”（apophatic understanding），几乎注定会使“二性一位”指向“东西相反而不可以相无”的中国式表达。即如美国神学家凯瑟琳·坦纳所说：“一切都是在与‘非己’结成的关系中成为自己”（All creatures are formed in relation to what they are not）。于是这与印欧语系以“主谓互指”确认主词的思想语法迥异，那些“概念不足以描述的”主词仅仅成为一种“并非其所指”的“纯粹标识”。面对“文明优越”“文明冲突”“文明隔阂”等论调，这种回溯历史源头和文化根基的深层对话正是破除偏见和执念的利器。

Xu Guangqi once proposed, "If one seeks to surpass, one must first master and integrate; before mastering and integrating, one must first translate." [12] However, to achieve "mastery and integration" and "surpassing" through translation, one must also "smelt the materials of the other party into the mold of the Great Tradition." [13] In today's terms, translation and the understanding and interpretation it contains are equally two-way. The evolution of modern Chinese vocabulary can often be traced back to the translation of Buddhist scriptures in the Han and Tang dynasties, the "Europeanization" of Chinese during the eastward transmission of Western learning, etc. These preserve mutual inspiration and leave imprints of intellectual collision.

徐光启曾提出“欲求超胜，必须会通，会通之前，先须翻译”，然而要从翻译寻求“会通”和“超胜”，还必须“镕彼方之材质，入大统之型模”。用今天的话说，翻译以及翻译所含的理解和阐释同样是双向的。现代汉语词汇的嬗变，多可追溯汉唐时代的佛经翻译、西学东渐的汉语“欧化”等，其中既保存了相互的启发，也为思想的碰撞留下了印痕。

For example, Heidegger claims "there is a sentence that guides his meditation": *Es gibt Sein, Es gibt Zeit*. The English version translates it "according to its literal meaning" as "It gives Being, it gives time." For Western readers, "present" is both "now" and "gift," and the relationship between "gift" and "giving" is always "passive," thus "time" is also "given." In Chinese, the active and passive aspects of grammar can sometimes be combined in one word: it can be the active "bind" in "bind them and then follow them," or the passive "bound" in "King Wen was bound and then expounded the *Zhou Changes*." [14] However, concepts related to "gift" such as *zeng* (赠), *kui* (馈), *yi* (贻), etc., have no meaning of "being given." The everyday Chinese meaning of "gift" does not need to deduce the inner "ritual" and its passive structure from the external "thing." But with the continuous introduction of continental European thought, the originally roughly corresponding semantics increasingly show differences, and "literal" translation can hardly convey its "essential meaning."

比如海德格尔声称“有一个句子指引他沉思”：Es gibt Sein, Es gibt Zeit，英文本“按照其字面的意义”翻译为It gives Being，it gives time。对于西方读者，present既是“现在”也是“礼物”，而“礼物”与“赠予”的关系总是“受动”的，因此“时间”也是“被给出”。汉语语态的主动与受动本来亦有兼于一词者，既可以是“拘系之乃从维之”的主动之“拘”、也可以有“文王拘而演周易”的“被拘”；但是“赠”“馈”“贻”等等与“礼物”相关的概念，并无“被赠”之义。汉语日常意义的“礼物”不必从外在之“物”反推内在之“礼”及其受动结构，但是随着欧陆思想的不断引介，原本大致相应的语义日益显示出差异，“字面”的翻译已很难传达其“精义”。

This may be just like A.C. Graham's attention to "the small word 'is'"; the Chinese-Western distinction left to us by language is particularly worth pondering, and it reminds us again: the essence of "mutual reference" and "mutual interpretation" lies in "being together and moving toward each other," not in tacitly accepting established conceptual tools and discourse systems, not in "seeking commonality" based on any single logic.

这可能正像葛瑞汉留意于“小写的‘是’”，语言留给我们的中西之辨特别值得玩味，同时也再次提醒我们：“互参”和“互释”的实质在于“相与而共”“相向而行”，却不是默认既定的概念工具和话语系统，不是依据任何单一的逻辑而“求同”。

The French philosopher Jacques Derrida's book *Donner la mort* [*Given Time*] can provide further illustration. The French title *Donner la mort* exploits the double meaning of the word *Donner*—the everyday sense of "giving" and the idiomatic sense of "putting to death" or "suicide"; that is, the word *Donner* itself means not only "giving" but also contains "death." This is completely foreign not only to Chinese readers but also requires explanation in English. The conversion between them, though not covered by any single language, allows the intellectual genealogies of both China and the West to be clarified in such analysis, thus moving from "difference" to "relatedness," from "opposition" to "complementarity" (from contradiction to contrariety).

法国哲学家德里达《赠予死亡》一书或可提供进一步的说明。该书的法文题目Donner la mort本来是利用Donner一词的双关，即日常意义的“给予”和习语意义的“处死”或“自杀”；也就是说，Donner一词本身不仅是“给予”，也包含了“死亡”。这不仅对于汉语读者是完全陌生的，在英语中也同样需要解释。其间的转换虽非单一的语言所能涵盖，但是中西双方的思想谱系就是在这样的辨析中得以厘清，于是从“相异”而“相关”，由“相反”而“相成”（from contradiction to contrariety）。

The potential connection between Western thought and Chinese tradition contains particularly rich resources for dialogue. The ideational thread and two-way interpretation of the "ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate" must point toward "surpassing civilizational estrangement with civilizational exchange, surpassing civilizational clash with civilizational mutual learning, and surpassing civilizational superiority with civilizational inclusivity." [15] And returning in dialogic research to trace and restore the theoretical tools and problem sources of both sides may be the basic task for resolving the "ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate."

西方思想与中国传统之间的潜在关联，包含着尤为丰富的对话资源。“古今中西之争”的思想线索和双向阐释，必然指向“以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明包容超越文明优越”，而在对话式的研究中回溯并还原双方的理论工具和问题来源，可能是破解“古今中西之争”的基础性课题。

(The author: Yang Huilin, Chief Expert of the National Social Science Fund Major Project "Conceptual Tools, Ideational Threads, and Two-Way Interpretation in the Dialogue between Chinese and Western Civilizations", Professor at Renmin University of China)

（作者：杨慧林，系国家社科基金重大项目“中西文明对话的概念工具、思想线索和双向阐释”首席专家、中国人民大学教授）

Online Editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧