龔鵬程對(duì)話(huà)海外學(xué)者第一百零二期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類(lèi)社會(huì)，只有強(qiáng)化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰(shuí)的理論，而是每個(gè)人都應(yīng)實(shí)踐的活動(dòng)。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過(guò)“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會(huì)陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對(duì)話(huà)海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請(qǐng)他對(duì)話(huà)一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會(huì)涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長(zhǎng)谷之水，四面而出。

德克·邁耶教授（Professor Dirk Meyer）

牛津大學(xué)中國(guó)哲學(xué)研究教授，牛津大學(xué)手稿和文本文化中心主任。

龔鵬程教授：您好。在文本生產(chǎn)的物質(zhì)方面，牛津大學(xué)手稿和文本文化中心主要研究成果，可介紹一下嗎？

德克·邁耶教授：龔教授，感謝您的問(wèn)題。我們中心的關(guān)注點(diǎn)是將不同的前現(xiàn)代手稿文化帶入彼此的對(duì)話(huà)中，并就我們所面臨的問(wèn)題在各學(xué)科間形成一種共同的學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)言。我們的學(xué)科經(jīng)常受到狹隘方法的影響，造成了小小的學(xué)術(shù)孤島，而不是相互學(xué)習(xí)。我們中心試圖解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題。

在西方學(xué)術(shù)界，中國(guó)領(lǐng)域在關(guān)注相鄰學(xué)科以及我們可以從他們那里學(xué)到什么方面做得不錯(cuò)。但經(jīng)過(guò)幾十年對(duì)古代手稿的研究，我們的領(lǐng)域現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)獲得了專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)，我認(rèn)為值得與他人分享。

這樣一來(lái)，中心也是一個(gè)平臺(tái)，它把中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)帶到關(guān)于古代思想生產(chǎn)的全球討論中。西方學(xué)術(shù)界喜歡把古典地中海的經(jīng)驗(yàn)看作是一種默認(rèn)。我們以跨學(xué)科的重點(diǎn)，打斷了這種霸權(quán)主義的話(huà)語(yǔ)。

在我關(guān)于中國(guó)哲學(xué)的工作中，我探討了中國(guó)早期思想生產(chǎn)中的論證策略以及社會(huì)物質(zhì)條件和思想的相互作用。我研究了文本的物質(zhì)條件與它們被生產(chǎn)、傳播和（轉(zhuǎn)化）形成的物理媒介之間的關(guān)系，我將產(chǎn)生意義的策略概念化，這些策略超越了符號(hào)的詞匯層面，被編碼在結(jié)構(gòu)、布局和功能中。通過(guò)研究媒體變化對(duì)思維系統(tǒng)化的影響，我進(jìn)一步參與了哲學(xué)話(huà)語(yǔ)、手稿和文本文化以及哲學(xué)過(guò)渡時(shí)期的體裁和論證構(gòu)建。

正是在這樣的背景下，為了擴(kuò)展我在中國(guó)哲學(xué)方面的研究，探索不同時(shí)間和空間的哲學(xué)事業(yè)的相似之處和差異，我建立了“跨學(xué)科的手稿和文本文化中心”并擔(dān)任該中心的主任。該中心由亞洲和中東研究、古典學(xué)、中世紀(jì)文化、英語(yǔ)、哲學(xué)和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)研究的同事組成，以跨學(xué)科的方式推進(jìn)對(duì)知識(shí)的物質(zhì)條件的研究。

Thank you for your question. The concern of the Centre is to bring different pre-modern manuscript cultures into a conversation with one another and to develop a common academic language across the disciplines about the issues we are facing. Our disciplines often suffer from a parochial approach which creates little academic silos rather than learning from one another. The Centre seeks to address this.

Within the academic West, the Chinese field is doing alright in terms of looking at neighbouring disciplines and what we can learn from them. But after decades of working with ancient manuscripts, our field has now gained expertise which I believe is worth sharing with others. In this way, the Centre is also a platform which brings the Chinese experience to a global discussion on thought production in antiquity. The academic West likes to see the classical Mediterranean experience as a default. With its interdisciplinary focus, the Centre interrupts such a hegemonic discourse.

In my work on Chinese philosophy, I explore argumentative strategies in early Chinese thought production and the interplay of socio-material conditions and ideas. I examine the material conditions of texts in relation to the physical media through which they are produced, transmitted, and (trans-)formed, and I conceptualise strategies which produce meaning beyond the lexical level of signification as encoded in structure, layout, and function. By studying the impact of media change on the systematisation of thinking, I further engage with genre and argument construction in philosophical discourse, manuscript and text cultures, and transition periods in philosophy.

It is in this context—to extend my research in Chinese Philosophy and explore parallels, and differences, in philosophical enterprise across time and space—that I established the interdisciplinary Centre for Manuscript and Text Cultures, for which I also serve as Director. The Centre comprises colleagues in Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Classics, Medieval Cultures, English, Philosophy, and Internet Studies to further research on the material conditions of knowledge in cross-disciplinary ways.

龔鵬程教授：物質(zhì)條件和思想的相互作用，中國(guó)早期竹簡(jiǎn)、木牘、絹帛，印度貝葉方面有什么例子？

德克·邁耶教授：在中國(guó)，公元前一千年的后半段，文本和思想的數(shù)量空前增加。由于成熟的手稿文化中的文字在直接的權(quán)力中心之外變得越來(lái)越普遍，它使更廣泛意義上的社區(qū)中對(duì)比鮮明的子群體能夠?qū)⒄翁魬?zhàn)轉(zhuǎn)化為社會(huì)政治和哲學(xué)思想的新表述。置身于一個(gè)不同行為者都能獲得書(shū)面記錄的環(huán)境中，使他們有能力闡明立場(chǎng)并重新闡述傳統(tǒng)，因此，最終產(chǎn)生了具有新意義的論點(diǎn)。

有兩個(gè)發(fā)展很突出。它們不是孤立的，而是辯證地聯(lián)系在一起的，一個(gè)影響著另一個(gè)。

首先，在戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期，社會(huì)面臨著一種生存上的不安，這使得東周天下體系內(nèi)的某些子群體對(duì)社會(huì)秩序提出質(zhì)疑。這促使他們擴(kuò)大自己的行動(dòng)范圍。通過(guò)對(duì)這種挑戰(zhàn)的回應(yīng)，他們?cè)谡軐W(xué)上和政治上都成為了行動(dòng)者。

同時(shí)，這些新的行動(dòng)者在一個(gè)新的文本環(huán)境中工作，因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)看到書(shū)面文本在實(shí)際流通中的空前增加。在這種更好的信息流通環(huán)境中，有關(guān)群體越來(lái)越能夠看到文本，比較文本，并融合文本，以進(jìn)行新的闡述和發(fā)展不同的思想。

在這種雞生蛋、蛋生雞的情況下，兩種條件富有成效地結(jié)合在一起，以至于它們呈現(xiàn)出一個(gè)斷裂期，新的東西就會(huì)出現(xiàn)。

但是，公元前一千年的后半段，特別是戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期，在中國(guó)哲學(xué)思想形成的歷史上并不是一個(gè)獨(dú)立的時(shí)刻。盡管如此，可以說(shuō)它預(yù)示著后來(lái)思想系統(tǒng)化的發(fā)展，它將以不同程度的強(qiáng)度重復(fù)戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期相關(guān)社區(qū)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

在社會(huì)物質(zhì)變革的推動(dòng)下，帶來(lái)了新的社會(huì)政治和哲學(xué)挑戰(zhàn)以及答案，其他"斷裂期 "包括我們可以稱(chēng)之為 "文書(shū)時(shí)代"（約公元400-800年）的機(jī)械復(fù)制文本的生產(chǎn)線(xiàn)；"黎明的現(xiàn)代"（約公元1200-1800年）的印刷機(jī)和大目錄；或者 "數(shù)字時(shí)代"，在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的背景下重新解釋文本。

顯然，這樣的斷裂期并非中國(guó)所特有，而是發(fā)生在不同社會(huì)的不同時(shí)期，在全球文學(xué)社會(huì)中產(chǎn)生了共鳴，無(wú)論是中國(guó)、歐洲還是其他地方。因此，中國(guó)只是一個(gè)案例研究，以實(shí)現(xiàn)跨學(xué)科的對(duì)話(huà)，在文本形勢(shì)增厚的社會(huì)物質(zhì)背景下討論多種哲學(xué)。

In China, the second half of the first millennium BC saw an unprecedented increase of texts and ideas. As writing in maturing manuscript cultures was becoming more common beyond the immediate centres of power, it enabled contrasting sub-groups of a wider meaning community to translate political challenge into new articulations of sociopolitical and philosophical thinking. Being placed in a milieu in which the different actors had access to written records empowered them to articulate positions and rearticulate traditions, and so, ultimate, to produce arguments of new significance. Two developments stand out. They are not isolated but related dialectically such that one conditions the other. Firstly, at the time of the Warring States period, society faced an existential unsettling that made certain sub-groups of the meaning community of the Eastern Zhōu oecumene question the order of society. This propelled them to expand their scope of action. Through their response to such challenges, they became actors, philosophically and politically. At the same time, these new actors worked within a novel text environment, as society saw the unprecedented increase of written texts in physical circulation. Within this setting of better flows of information, the groups in question were increasingly able to see texts, compare texts, and fuse texts to make new articulations and develop different ideas. In this chicken-or-egg scenario where the two conditions come together productively, such that they present a period of rupture, something new comes to the fore.

But the second half of the first millennium BC, in particular the Warring States period, is not a stand-alone moment in the history of the formation of philosophical ideas in China. Nonetheless, it is fair to say it anticipated later developments in the systematisation of ideas that would repeat, with different degrees of intensity, the experience of the relevant communities of the Warring States. Facilitated by socio-material change that brings about new socio-political and philosophical challenges, and answers, other ‘rupture periods’ include what we might want to call the ‘Clerical Period’ (c. AD 400–800) with its production lines of mechanical copying of texts; the ‘Dawning Modernities’ (c. AD 1200–1800) with the printing presses and the great catalogues; or the ‘Digital Era’, which reinterpreted text in the context of the internet. Obviously, such periods of rupture are not specific to China but occurred at different times in different societies, resonating across global literary societies, whether in China, Europe, or elsewhere. China is therefore only a case study to enable cross-disciplinary dialogue for discussions of multiple philosophies in the context of the socio-material setting of a thickening text situation.

龔鵬程教授：手稿、口傳之間，既有交叉、傳承、互補(bǔ)、等關(guān)系，也有矛盾和沖突，例如您研究的《尚書(shū)》，就有口傳本和文字本之爭(zhēng)；也形成“今文”“古文”之爭(zhēng)和真?zhèn)沃疇?zhēng)，吵了兩千年。您們對(duì)這樣的問(wèn)題，有什么看法？

德克·邁耶教授：我們這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的口述與寫(xiě)作的辯論，有時(shí)可能相當(dāng)尖銳，問(wèn)題在于它傾向于用二元對(duì)立的方式工作。而古代的思想生產(chǎn)肯定遵循一種混合模式：寫(xiě)作參與口述模式，反之亦然。

說(shuō)到《詩(shī)經(jīng)》，音模承載著詩(shī)歌的歌詞。音模從語(yǔ)音上定義了《詩(shī)經(jīng)》的詩(shī)歌。但正如"模子 "一詞所暗示的那樣，在戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期，它們也可以作為容器，在一定程度上填充相關(guān)社區(qū)認(rèn)為合適的、具有語(yǔ)義可塑性的內(nèi)容。如果所選字形的聲音不違反它被放入的規(guī)定模具，作家或評(píng)論家就可以在一定程度上自由地應(yīng)用一個(gè)群體對(duì)詩(shī)歌的理解。

最后，回到《尚書(shū)》傳統(tǒng)和您關(guān)于的"真實(shí)性 "問(wèn)題，體裁的模式也使我能夠克服這個(gè)分歧。今天，《尚書(shū)》中只存在現(xiàn)代文字章節(jié)的舊文字版本，因此，與Michael Nylan一樣，我建議談?wù)摑h代《尚書(shū)》（針對(duì)現(xiàn)代文字文本）和公元四世紀(jì)早期的 《偽古文尚書(shū)》。

然而，無(wú)論我們認(rèn)為是古文字還是現(xiàn)代文字，這兩種文本都在不斷地被改造和改寫(xiě)。《偽古文尚書(shū)》文本可能是檔案工作的結(jié)果，現(xiàn)代文字的漢代《尚書(shū)》則是體裁劃分下的產(chǎn)物。這些類(lèi)型中的每一種對(duì)我們來(lái)說(shuō)都有巨大的信息量。

作為思想史家，它們告訴我們有關(guān)群體如何與古代材料互動(dòng)并從中產(chǎn)生新的論點(diǎn)。但它們都沒(méi)有給我們提供一個(gè)“準(zhǔn)確”的畫(huà)面，比如說(shuō)，周公做了什么或沒(méi)有做什么。

The problem with the orality-literacy debate of our field, which can be quite shrill at times, is that it tends to work with binary pairs while thought production in antiquity quite certainly followed a mixed mode: writing engaged modes of orality, and vice versa.

Speaking of the Shī, sound moulds carry a song’s words. The sounds moulds define the individual songs of the Shī phonetically. But as the term ‘mould’ suggests, during the Warring States period they also served as containers that could be filled, to an extent, with semantically malleable content as deemed appropriate by the community in question. If the sound of the chosen graph did not violate the prescriptive mould into which it was placed, the writer or commentator was at some liberty to apply a group’s reading of the song.

Finally, coming back to the Shū traditions and your question of ‘a(chǎn)uthenticity’, the model of the genre also enables me to overcome this divide. Today there only exist old script versions of modern script chapters in the Shàngshū, and so, with Michael Nylan, I suggest speaking of ‘Hàn-era’ Shū (for the modern script texts) and ‘pseudo-Kǒng’ Shū of the early fourth century AD. However, whether we think of the old- or modern script texts, both types were continuously remodelled and rewritten. The pseudo-Kǒng texts of the old tradition are probably the result of archival work, the modern script Hàn-era texts were the products of genre expectations. Each of these types are hugely informative to us. As historians of thought, they teach us how the communities in question engaged with ancient material and produced from this a new argument. But neither of them gives us an ‘a(chǎn)ccurate’ picture of what the Duke of Zhōu, for instance, did or did not do.

龔鵬程教授：您們對(duì)近代新發(fā)現(xiàn)文書(shū)手稿的研究情況，尚祈見(jiàn)告。

德克·邁耶教授：多年來(lái)，我一直在探討：在中國(guó)的話(huà)語(yǔ)中，什么東西確切地構(gòu)成了哲學(xué)論證，以及它是如何運(yùn)作的問(wèn)題。

我從不同的角度、帶著不同的關(guān)注點(diǎn)來(lái)做這件事，而每一個(gè)項(xiàng)目都會(huì)加深我對(duì)什么是好的論證的理解。

我深信論證的問(wèn)題必須參照意義的物質(zhì)性來(lái)解決，這個(gè)概念有兩層含義：一層是指一個(gè)社會(huì)的社會(huì)智力動(dòng)態(tài)，另一層是指文本在加厚的手稿文化中的實(shí)際可用性。

在我的第一本書(shū)《竹上哲學(xué)》中，我試圖從概念上理解什么是中國(guó)早期的書(shū)面哲學(xué)論證，以及它如何在交流環(huán)境中發(fā)揮作用。為此，我選擇了公元前300年左右的手稿文本，所以是在任何帝國(guó)干預(yù)發(fā)生之前。

這是必要的，因?yàn)槲蚁朐趯?duì)古代的任何重新概念化發(fā)生之前獲得戰(zhàn)國(guó)思想活動(dòng)的情況，就像在早期帝國(guó)時(shí)期一樣，所以選在中國(guó)的書(shū)面遺產(chǎn)被改寫(xiě)之前。一旦我們看清了手稿文本中的情況，我們就可以更有信心地重新審視已接受的典籍。

以論證為基礎(chǔ)的文本，以一種連續(xù)的方式發(fā)展一個(gè)點(diǎn)，這樣的討論通過(guò)在一個(gè)更大的意義網(wǎng)絡(luò)中把它們連接起來(lái)而超越了單個(gè)的構(gòu)件。

與此相反，在依賴(lài)語(yǔ)境的文本中，各個(gè)構(gòu)件各自呈現(xiàn)出一個(gè)"更 "孤立的問(wèn)題。不同的構(gòu)件通常不會(huì)以一種連續(xù)的方式相互連接。在依賴(lài)語(yǔ)境的文本中，這對(duì)構(gòu)件的信息內(nèi)容沒(méi)有影響。

但在以論證為基礎(chǔ)的文本中則不同，在不同的文本配置中，文本單元的信息內(nèi)容會(huì)發(fā)生相應(yīng)的變化。因此，這種微觀層面的觀察對(duì)我們?nèi)绾卫斫馕谋镜暮暧^結(jié)論有影響。

對(duì)于我們的思想評(píng)價(jià)來(lái)說(shuō)，《老子》中哪些單元在前，哪些在后并不重要。每個(gè)單元都提出了一個(gè)相當(dāng)"孤立 "的關(guān)注，因此可以被視為相對(duì)獨(dú)立的文本。在方法論上，我們甚至可以選擇隨機(jī)分析不同的單元。但對(duì)于以論證為基礎(chǔ)的文本來(lái)說(shuō)，情況就不同了。以基于論證的文本 "忠信之道"為例。這個(gè)文本的宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)反映了它的微觀結(jié)構(gòu)，因此決定了我們必須如何理解文本中使用的各種術(shù)語(yǔ)，包括忠實(shí)和可信：對(duì)于文本的思想交流來(lái)說(shuō)，哪個(gè)構(gòu)件被放在哪里是非常重要的。

在下一個(gè)更高的層次上，在構(gòu)件之上，我們經(jīng)常看到更大的文本集群，在文本傳播的早期階段可以作為文本獨(dú)立流通。這些集群可以被識(shí)別為更廣泛的文集中的章節(jié)，也可以被識(shí)別為單個(gè)文本中的段落。

作為意義單位，它們提供的信息因其直接的語(yǔ)境而不同�！对�(shī)經(jīng)》中的"康王之誥"文本就是一個(gè)例子。它只有兩個(gè)構(gòu)件長(zhǎng)度。在公元四世紀(jì)的《偽古文尚書(shū)》中，它與 "顧命"連讀，成為后者的一個(gè)組成部分。在漢代現(xiàn)代字體的《尚書(shū)》中，它被視為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的文本，與 "顧命"分開(kāi)。如果 "康王之誥"作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的實(shí)體單獨(dú)閱讀，或者與前面的文本（"顧命"）合并閱讀，其意義就不同了。

因此，無(wú)論是傳播的還是挖掘，基于論據(jù)與上下文的概念對(duì)于獲得一個(gè)文本的細(xì)微閱讀是必要的。

Over the years I approached the question of what precisely constitutes a philosophical argument in Chinese discourse, and how it works. I did this from a variety of angles and with a variety of concerns in mind, and with each project I would deepen my understanding of what constitutes a good argument. I am convinced the question of an argument must be addressed with reference to the materiality of meaning, a concept which has two layers: one refers to the socio-intellectual dynamics of a society, the other to the physical availability of texts in thickening manuscript cultures. In my first book, Philosophy on Bamboo, I sought to conceptualise what constitutes a written philosophical argument in early China and how it works in a communicative setting. For this I chose manuscript texts interred around 300 BC, and so before any imperial intervention took place. This was necessary because I wanted to gain a picture of Warring States thought activities before any reconceptualisation of antiquity happened, as it did during the early empires, and so before China’s written heritage was rewritten. Once we see what is going on in the manuscript texts can we revisit the received canon with greater confidence.

Argument-based texts develop a point in a continuous way, such that the discussion extends beyond the individual building blocks by connecting them in a larger web of meaning. In contrast, in context-dependent texts the individual building blocks each present a ‘more’ isolated concern. The different building blocks are typically not connected to one another in a continuous way. In context-dependent texts this has no bearing on the information content of the building blocks. But this is different in argument-based texts, where in differently arranged text-configurations the information-content of the text unit changes accordingly. This micro-level observation therefore has implication on the macro-level conclusions of how we understand the text.

It does not matter for our evaluation of thought which units come first or last in the Lǎozǐ. Each unit presents a rather‘isolated’ concern and may therefore be considered as relatively independent texts. Methodologically we may even choose to analyse the different units at random. But for argument-based texts this is different. Take for instance the argument-based text “Zhōng xìn zhī dào”. The text’s macro-structure mirrors its micro-structure and thus determines how we must understand the various terms used in the text, including zhōng (fidelity) and xìn (trustworthiness): it matters a great deal which building block is placed where for the communication of the ideas of the text.

At the next higher level, above the building block, we often see larger text clusters that can circulate independently as texts at earlier stages of text transmission. These clusters may be identified as chapters in broader collections or as sections in an individual text. As units of meaning, the information they provide differs according to their immediate contexts. The text “Kāng Wáng zhī gào” (Proclamation of King Kang) of the Shàngshū is a case in point. It is just two building blocks long. In the pseudo-Kǒng old script recension of the Shàngshū (Venerated documents) of the fourth century AD, it was read conjointly with “Gù mìng” (Testamentary charge), thus forming an organic subsection of the latter. In the Hàn-era modern script recension of the Shàngshū it was taken as an independent text and separate from “Gù mìng”. The meaning of “Kāng Wáng zhī gào” differs if it was read as a separate entity on its own or merged and read conjointly with the preceding text (“Gù mìng”).

The concept of argument-based versus context-dependent is therefore necessary to obtain a nuanced reading of a text, transmitted or excavated.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺(tái)北，臺(tái)灣師范大學(xué)博士，當(dāng)代著名學(xué)者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學(xué)、出版社、雜志社、書(shū)院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設(shè)、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學(xué)于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺(tái)北、巴黎、日本、澳門(mén)等地舉辦過(guò)書(shū)法展。現(xiàn)為中國(guó)孔子博物館名譽(yù)館長(zhǎng)、臺(tái)灣國(guó)立東華大學(xué)終身榮譽(yù)教授、美國(guó)龔鵬程基金會(huì)主席。