经验判断之实与理论支持之虚（修订稿） （2015岁末展望人类人文科学未来） & 符号学附文：2014索菲亚大会讲演（载本期《国际符号学会刊》） “General Semiotics” as the all-round interdisciplinary organizer ― General Semiotics(GS) vs. Philosophical Fundamentalism
李幼蒸
【古人语录】 *“问：知以明之，仁以守之，勇以行之，其要在致知。知之明，非仁以守之，则不可；以仁守之，非勇而行之，亦不可。三者不可阙一，而知为先。曰：此说甚善，正吾人所当自力也。” （《朱子文集-答石子重》）
*“大抵好高之人，往往穷极于天地古今之远，而失之于人情物理之近，自以为明，其暗已甚。不知明者是非邪正不惑而已”。（陆隴其《松阳讲义》） ************** 符号学思维的一个重要方面是重新审视古今中外学术思想中“分类学方式”的合理性问题。人文学术与自然科学的不同，首先就表现在前者之思维过程及其文本产物中的分类学组织思想的方式之混乱，此混乱性既相关于所用字词也相关于运用的叙事与理论二者之间的合理关联性。今日西方符号学学者们中间，其实也并未都清晰地识认或践行符号学分析之真实旨意。所谓do semiotics 不是指转抄或复述以往名家的符号学作品或仅据某种任意选择的理论方法对作品文本进行的所谓形式分析。如同本人近年来多次所言，“理论符号学分析”已应转化为泛文化制度性分析。本文不是关于符号学理论问题的专论，而是按其观点对今日国内外人文思想理论界的话语组织方式的合理性进行检讨，以提醒论者对所论主题之事实部分和理论部分间欠缺合理关联性事实的关注。
在现代西方文教事业全面职业制度化的今日，所谓“文教产品生产机制”的思想产物（学术思想作品）之标准，可谓是按照职业制度内部既定规范和程序来规定的，此文教生产机制的产物（人和作品）之品质鉴定问题，今已相当地脱离了科学义理本身的标准而基本上决定于制度内人为先定的准市场化判准和导师个人的偏好了。此种“本身既是标准、又是裁判、又是球员”的文教思想生产垄断机制，已将人文学术变成为自成一体的固定性职业化操作领域，形成了此一学科内部“内亲繁殖制度与策略程序”，其目的是：可因而确保人文学术的“产物”有效行之于既定制度性专科领域之内。一个历史上空前的人文思想生产方式的大变革表现在：其最终标准不须相关于社会现实判断和客观真理分析，而只须相关于职场制度内之人为程序化规定和学术市场的价值波动态势。如今，正是这种制度化机制的“产品品质的必然有效性（=被既定权威的认可性）”，导致人文学术理论之“生产”已然历史上空前地被异化了：即在原则上大幅度地失去了其传统上的以学求实、以学求真目标。此一理论思维方向之“异化”虽然有其外部社会文化巨变的原因，理论化实践与事实性观察之间传统上的长期非逻辑性存在的事实，则为其内在的原因。这也是我们本文要谈及的主题：事实经验与理论论证之间的关联极为灵活和松散，这导致人们可以随意选择理论话语以对其事实性判断进行“伪理论性的支持”；也就是，在人文学术话语的制作中，其理论性部分往往徒具装饰性而已，并进而被有心人利用此人文话语“自由化”特点来“耍弄理论”，以增加其论说的可信度。今日随着人文世界处处可见的“名实不符”、“滥用名实”的功利主义趋向，此种以“行”（制度内的“行得通”）代（科学检验之）“真”的“后现代主义”风气，正在扼杀着全球人文科学理论的创新生命力。而职业性的成功运行却可全面遮掩此一人类文明历史上空前严重的精神性向异变：人文思考中传统求真的大方向正在让位于现代化的求利大方向。
我们是否注意到，今日以西方高校人文学科为代表的人文科学学位制度的程序僵固化发展，已使得洋学位培养机制，在功能上类似于中国古代一向受有识者诟病的科举制了？一方面，科举制的确在培养文化官吏的目的上行之有效，此因古代社会政治生态简单，学用不一致的“古典学术实践机制”并不造成多大的政务弊端。固然，历代批评科举制及其准程序化的私塾阶段备学者的理由，主要涉及到学用不一的问题，而其主要的批评意见却是思想性方面的：科举制度（含其学，考，仕三阶段）产生的学者功名思想和学习材料的古今如一，损害了读书人的向真之心和思考能力。宋明书院现象的初衷本来是为了以非制度化的书院“自由主义”克服儒教科举的“公务员主义”。人所皆知，其结果并非尽如理想，原因是多方面的，而官私之学所学之内容大体同一的事实和儒学本身的乏科学性，以及书院最终仍须与官方主宰的“就业”结合，导致了书院制度的宗旨难以贯彻。但是，书院现象的历史意义并不在此；它体现了古代读书人对制度化的治学和从仕方式的（潜在的）不满，以及对积极有用思考能力养成之“期盼”。即其持久性“意义”在于其所表达的对于理想治学境界和自由思考的愿望本身。古代书院精神的价值是一种伦理理想主义的自动萌发，哪里像浸透功名主义的今儒那样只不过想借用书院名号邀名取利罢了（有如今日大陆处处改造古镇利用其文史名号以推行反文史精神的求利目标？此一“古镇新用”的纯粹商业化的文化现象，足可象征今日学界文化界到处弥漫的“用古之形违古之义”的“耍弄祖先”的奸商心态）对于作为现代“新科举——学位培养制度”的批评，本人已经言之再三。其实几十年来本人在国际符号学论坛上不断提出若干并非不含西学界“政治正确”惯习中敏感性的制度性批评语气【我的前述曾被列日大学符号学中心拒刊的受约文章，曾托请纽约大学历史系一位著名教授推荐另行发表，该人阅后告因“话题敏感”不好推荐！什么话题敏感？不过是关于大学文科制度中人文理论方向问题的讨论。直到后来《国际符号学会刊》加以发表无碍，才知道所谓“敏感”不过是反映了：今日学术刊物大多已成为控导刊物的学派山头势力进行党同伐异的工具而已（类似于“公司竞争主义文化”中的品牌市场争夺基地）。因此“非我族类”者概不发表，以免乱我法家治学战术的阵脚。正如我的批评《论语》研究的文章为邀讲方学报以及其他若干学报以“主题不便”理由拒刊而后终于为其他学刊发表后，才知道刊物主事者的“谨小慎微”度，是与他们自我设定的高度自我安保系数相关的。也许还须指出最近本人遭遇到的另外一起西学权威刊物的无耻作为。但多少顾忌于“政治正确”就不具体谈述了。所幸，本人间接受邀之文为其审阅毕再次拒刊后，竟然又近乎“奇迹般地”为另一刊物采纳。此一再次于国外投文受挫事故，却也“塞翁失马焉知非福”：因我通过此一彼此来回交流过程又具体体察到西方人文理论刊物可谓严重丧失了集思广益、以学求真的科学目的，而是成为了“学术思想商品”生产的“厂房”。我于是严厉回敬该刊：“本人终于认识到，贵刊不仅是学术思想交流上在‘党同伐异’，而且更是‘理论观点固陋’，即不仅是不通中学，而且也不通西方理论。至少，贵刊编辑根本不懂什么是真正的符号学、解释学和现象学。”这并非是个人在发泄情绪，而是“客观总结式地”表达出个人对于今日世界人文学界商业化垄断机制真相的彻底识悟。我由此独特体察到的个人再次发表受挫经验所提升的“真相认知”，岂非成为本人极大的治学求真过程中的积极收益？须知，“識真”就是“达成”！别信什么仅以“造成影响力”为“达成”，如无关于真伪目的而只想着“社会性成功”，岂非只有趋炎附势一途？】。尽管杯水车薪，无济于事，而除了言所当言，我辈还能有什么其他作为吗？当国外“世界百名思想家”评定完全基于“能够造成某种现实影响者”时【而不问此“影响”所关为何物；这是一种人们越来越加以效法的“实效主义”标准：社会影响力大小成为了唯一价值学标准，而此影响力今已与人文思想理论不再发生任何关系了，除非此人文思想被科技工商大佬通过金钱加以特意抬举的话。今日各种人文类奖项完全由各类金主加以控导，这样的评定还有任何学术思想价值吗？而那些以获此奖为荣的文士们又会是那类人呢？】。当此类影响力的构成完全由世界科技工商权势网络主导之时，人文科学理论家们的地位今又何在？同理，今日港台美华最不受重视的就是被科技工商大亨们已将其挤出社会传媒舞台的人文思想家或理论家了。此一历史性的人类文化巨变，已使今日文坛的构成、性质和效果，大异于民清前后中国的思想舞台。今日在世界各处我们都再也看不到如梁启超、胡适、鲁迅这类能够产生社会及历史思想影响力的文史哲思想家了。如今数风流人物者已变为科技工商界大佬，而他们众口一声地都是引导人类朝向物质谋利方向发展的新型人生观导师。
然而，本人从符号学角度对今日世界人文科学现状进行的批评与当前西方大量存在的、来自文史哲领域思想家的同类批评，可以说并不相同（或者说“根本不同”）。例如，对于大家今日耳熟能详的西方著名人文学者对于资本主义文化进行批评的方式和观点，“其本身”本人也认为应纳入被批评之列。因为这类文化批评大多治标非治本，特别是善于批评的、任教于英语文学系的教授们。我从他们的各种观点的批评中发现，其立论根据多是仅止于进行现状指摘，而且往往仅就人文教育事业之衰败性事实本身“实用主义地”立论，不过是抱怨着受到了不公待遇（机构，人员，经费，地位等等方面的每况愈下）。却很少有人反省一下自身的学术结构、方式、效能是否在与时俱进地有效发展和提升着？人文事业衰败由于人们易于看到的多方面的外部原因，此为一事；而人文学者本身的知识是否“合格”则为另一事。本人与西方符号学家交往数十年中不时发现这类现象：符号学因其现实学术理论成效不彰而处处不受重视，但他们却从不检讨自身学养之失，而是想方设法拉帮结派、制造团体声势，以迎合资本主义学界内“以势取人”（知名度大小）的惯习。我特别发现一些最爱发牢骚者恰恰也是理论修养欠佳者，还不要说关于什么是可取的“理论修养”本身究竟为何这样的的问题今已很难在西方学界获得共识了。然而，这些人却没有意识到，自身倒也正是此同一外部客观环境的“受益”（即可维持其生存）者：“符号学学科”的职业制度性存在也保护了他们的生存和集体自慰的条件。今日人文学科的职业性分划不仅是业界形成党同伐异、合作造势的运营地，而且也是相互交流、彼此取暖的互励场。这种局面却也有助于得过且过的人文学界不必再面对自身学术严重缺失的问题。
人文学术作为“自由学艺”，其“自由性”真是一币之两面：既可以指较不受学界制度化的机械性限制来组织自身学术思考的可能性，又可指因无既定规则和明确对象的思考自由性而可较任意地构造其理论话语形式的随意性。大致来说，此自由思想者之“自由”自然并非真地可随意畅想，其“真实自信”主要根据两种“客观性”来源：自身现实经验和古今理论权威。一般来说，前者为其判断之直接根据，后者为其判断之理论推演或升华之依据。结果，前者往往言之有据（因其所持根据为人人可见之事实），而使其言论具有“理论性身份”之后者，则具有其将自身理论的不适当性可不易被读者察觉的极大伪饰性。这种在人文学界进行讨论的学风多含有此双面性：经验现实（实证观察）一面和理论增附（装饰修辞）一面。有趣的是我们发现，大家易于认可的前者，实为其人评论言谈获得成功的真实原因，而其附加的理论性说明不过是一种修辞学式的、装饰性的“补力”而已。同理，此一通常倾向也反映了一个我们以前多次提到的现象：经验现实作为课题及判断根据，正是与今日社会文化大众共同的习惯和要求一致。因为：现实为人人所知亦为人人关切之所在，故易于成为关注对象；由共知现实提供的“证明”也往往是大家已知之事，况且还可为不难继续加以验证之事。结果这类现实课题的“呈现、判断、证明”三者全存在于大家所共知的集体经验中。读者、听众接受此“三段论话语”之事，往往相当于接受由他人口中所重复的自身之已知者，即只不过是由（有客观上便于发言条件的）论说者加以再整理或重述的自身已知经验而已：于是，人们喜闻乐见的话语，并非真是什么新知新学，而是在媒体上的共识之集体性重复。这样，读者读到一篇一篇佳文时，往往不过是对自身已知事实的“重复性经验”所带来的“熟悉感效果”（“我正是如此认知的=我认同此议论=因此此议论被判定为佳作”）。结果这样的读解经验并未在科学性意义上增加读者的认知（关于事务复杂因果关系网络的认知），不过是（至多）增加了“重复体验”之欣快感（这样的“伪认知方式”却产生了大家以为真正认识了事件因果关系的效果，从而阻碍了读者寻求深入认知事务的愿望）。读这类现实课题的文章也就相当于主客双方共同经历了一次“集体经验间之相互震荡”。但是论者和受者往往以为前者在提供新知、后者在接受新知，殊不知彼此的相关认知都未必获得了增加。这就是现实经验性主题往往可产生的“伪获知性效果”（=情绪性发泄需要的满足）。至于论者的第二阶段的理论化加工部分，在此，论说与读解的循环中，理论性部分也往往不过是起着装饰性作用而已。一来，其现实经验的论述与其自行选择的理论性支持之间未必真正存在着逻辑性关联，二来急于在阅读现实主题时轻易获得“共鸣快感”的读者，很少有兴趣认真进入其“理论性”提升部分，特别是当后者的内容不是一般读者的知识背景所可能了解之时。然而，注意，重要的是，前后段之间（现实经验与理论装饰之间）存在有一个“潜台词”：该关乎现实的言论已增附了理论性支持（证明）。实际的读解过程是：读者事实上是根据共同的现实经验直观地“接受”（“信从感”相等于“获证感”）了该论断的，但在看到该论说附有理论性说明部分后，会下意识地增加对该论说正确性的信任感，虽然很少有读者会进一步了解和判断该理论部分究竟为何。此种信任感会导致我们认为论者对于现实问题具有着真知灼见，虽然该见解正是大家均耳熟能详的。如是，我们所增加的现实认知何在呢？结果，往往是在社会人文经验讨论的领域内我们的认知并未超出自身已有的直观经验层次，而附加的未必相关或有效的理论性说明往往起着一种另类诱导性作用：期待读者因此而以为从阅读该论说中获得了理论性认知的提升。（此种附加的信任感往往还是来自与论者的理论本身推理逻辑关联性的论者之资格、地位、成就、知名度等“特权因素”的）
以上谈及的现象正是我们今日在海内外各式媒体中日日所接触者。我发现，不论何地，只要论者谈论的是自身熟悉的经验主题时都会头头是道，两岸四地均如此。扩大言之，媒体讨论中的重要部分其实主要指读者或许尚未知、或许尚未清晰意识到的事实部分，而并非关于该事实的充分因果关系之分析。经验现实的论述所涉及的因果分析往往限于表层因果关系，而任何重要的现实相关的因果关系整体实应为一“立体性因果网”。要想扩大或充分掌握相关因果网络全体，就必须依赖各种较专门的社会科学和人文科学知识以及对它们进行的合理综合运用，绝非仅具直观现实经验即可对其加以把握者。如果现实论述的理论性部分指这类社会人文科学知识，自然最为理想，而这正是论者和读者均欠缺者。其原因是：论者的单学科本位的（如作为某人文社会科学专科的博士）或自由学艺式通识型的（文学或媒体型）知识背景，未必能够充分提供这样的相应科学性分析。这就是我们前面提到的西方文学批评类学者的所谓资本主义文化批评之不足的原因所在。或者，某些人意图用某主义进行社会文化理论批评；或者某些人仅据人文理论通识进行价值学批评；或者干脆根据宗教信仰作为进行批评的最后标准；以及至今仍然具有严重误导作用的是：根据某哲学大师理论进行的分析。
我常常对海外媒体上的两岸论者之思考言谈方式进行比较。的确，凡是谈及自身所熟悉的地区现象时均头头是道，而一旦欲给予其更深或更高理论性解释时，其原先根据熟悉的现实材料进行的流畅论述突然转为空泛无力了。这种情况的普遍性使我判断，不论这些论者曾经具有何种学位资格，其经验判断与理论说明之间多存在着逻辑性隔阂。如果此逻辑性隔阂不为论者本身及读者所察觉，乃因所援引的理论根据为学界与社会具有影响力者：如对方援引了宗教性根据，对方依赖于哲学教条，对方援引历史故事作为佐证，对方诉诸于意识形态教条，等等。这些理论根据的不足性之所以不易被察觉，当然是源于其各自的“单线逻辑本位思维”，即未能根据多学科知识以及其有效综合运用来说明自身的经验性论述。此一原因主要在于其修学期间的专业教育本身的单科本位限制，而具有其职业声誉者多坚守此专科本位的荣誉感和自信心，不会接受任何其他学科的批评（最大的自欺欺人的口实就是人们习见的所谓“受过西方专业训练”的理由。因专业何止万千，论述对象更何止千万，如何能仅因一科之专长而可随意泛论古今？况且当该专科上论者是否已真地达至“专长”程度还不好说时？）。此一两岸普遍倾向也间接反映了以下事实：长期疏于现代人文社会科学理论实践的两岸学人，自80年代初起几乎同时开始参与现代化理论研习的时间都还甚短，难以达到今日急需的跨学科综合思考方式的层级。而大家对于现实类主题的偏好却使其偏于现世经验的论述的成功效果，掩蔽了其所根据的相应综合理论学养之未足。此一泛理论观的缺失例子，更有趣的反映在海外的大陆人文学者和思想家中间：显然由于他们长期以来欠缺现代理论知识和思考习惯，以及长期隔离于各种超越性信仰体系，以至于到了海外反而相当普遍地、极为轻易地，在外界环境影响下，纷纷转化为“信仰者”了。特别包括一些本来属于科学哲学类的学者、学生们，也竟然觉得自己只有在超越性信仰体系中才最终找到了“最后真理”，获得了精神安顿【不过，不必讥笑原为学科学哲学者会轻易转为非科学的信仰者一事，一些海外自认为在古人“性理大全”中最终获得了“安身立命”的天人合一真理者，他们是在说真话，还是在瞎忽悠呢？但是我则敢断言一事为真：家岳亟赞的文理兼全的俞大维先生熟读中西哲学，晚年入佛，曾日日抄写阿弥陀佛条幅赠人以积功德。爱思为一事，能思为另一事。岂可不信哉！宗教与哲学本是“天敌”，因一者主信，一者主疑，而读理论书人，最终可由疑入信、由学入教，二者之间竟然仅只一步之遥！世人往往称赞善疑者最终可“离误反真”，“终于”成为“有信者”，而在“读论语与祭孔数十年后”竟然不知：按中华仁学理性主义，如该人可安于“信而存疑”离世方可称之为真勇者！】。本人对此现象的判断，乃源于对他们的原先精神状态的直接了解，故绝不将其视为其人思想认知过程中的真实逻辑性发展之结果，而只能将此怪异现象溯之于彼等原初文化经历：青少年时期经受过的全面限学环境。彼等的“思想自信”主要来自当前和历史的现实经验，而他们的后来习得的理论性知识多相当于“以译代研”类的初步读解而已。对于80年代开始才有机会读现代理论翻译作品的大多数青年，此前真是什么都不知道，进入新时期不久突然见到几十本国外理论翻译书，匆匆读后就以为自己“懂得”新理论了，却根本不知道这些国外理论和自己的现实经验有何适切关系，结果不过是在经验现实和理论分析之间任意搭配比附而已。这样我们就看到了今日所谓的自由派、极左派、女权主义派、后殖民主义派、后现代主义派、解构派、现象学派、科学哲学派等等，不过是根据一时的个人兴趣或选取“公认有势力的洋学”以支持自身论述的可信度而已。正因为长期疏略于理论学术熏陶而仅于新时期以来通过急就章方式熟悉了这些新名词、新名家，遂自以为已经在知识储备上跟上了时代。实际上彼等虽然熟悉了名词，却并未真正掌握其所表达的实理。“十年树木百年树人”之历代经验指出：一人之人文思想与知识的养成还不仅是指其从书本中直接获得的资讯为何（此与获得自然科学知识的情况完全不同，所以可有十几岁的神童即成为大数学家者），而该阅读效果也是直接与其青少年期间的整个社会文化环境的（来自家族、学校、社会与文化整体环境的）潜移默化作用相关的（而当那时此“四者”均遭系统有意瓦解之时，你已根本失去了“文明环境”。如今大有人怀念该“反人类文明时期”之辉煌的，岂非可证：环境的影响力可以下传多少代？人们真地是在在怀念那个“满大街都是手持武装带青少年游街的时期”吗？）。
正是因为这些国外理论新书读了而未能真实“进入”（不论是真正接受还是正确批评），所以即使同样是通过急就章方式获得了学位名号，其自身的真实“理论信仰”可能仍付阙如。等到到了西方大学图书馆的汪洋大海里，就如同堕入五里雾中，先是失去了自信，接着也就失去了先前原本虚而未实的理论认知。【有些汉学家们说，当走过那些一层层、一排排西学书架时，“作为受封的‘大师’，想要骄傲也骄傲不起来”。但几十年来他们并不因欠缺对那些一排排书架上的理论书籍的知识而自馁，反而转身又自信满满地意识到自己已有“五千年”祖先留下的“精神靠山”，因此何逊之有！但是那“五千年”是属于你个人的吗？另一方面，今日在国外动辄听到华裔谈起“我真以我们五千年为骄傲”时，真不知道这些全天候学西学、全力以赴希冀混入“主流”的炎黄子孙们，其精神骄傲竟然是仅只建立在血缘关系上的！这就叫“东西逢源”吗？物质上，我“向西”趋炎附势，精神上，我“向东”寻求自慰（“我”怎么就这么本能地懂得到处唯利是图，并亦知图利各有其术呢？这就是一种不学而能的普遍国民性的智慧学吗？否则，怎么凡是在东方走得顺的到了西方也是走得顺的？二者岂非正是同一类人？这就是出于一种民族性的“素质”吗！）。还有另一类自然科学出身的虔诚者们，一方面对图书馆那几十万册西学书的理论压力熟视无睹，另一方面是这样达到自我精神自慰的，即他内心念念有词的是：“宇宙间就只有一本大书才是真的”！学习自然科学某专业有成者却可以在万千其他领域采取非科学的思考方式，而其为自己的非科学结论辩护时所援引的理由竟然又是其本人的科学专业学历：他振振有词地用其科学知识背景来为其非科学性信念进行证明！正如，那些动辄东方“五千年”者其真实自信根据乃其在西方获得的资历一样！】其后，既源于其几十年来理论知识的不足，又源于时代造成的集体意志力软弱（严格说来，此人文学者集体性意志薄弱事实实应溯源于百年来科技现代化历程），遂在彷徨不定的新环境里纷纷趋附新的“信仰大流”，以获得“精神归宿”！为什么他们急于寻求精神归宿？因为他们未能真正深入人类当前理论资源去寻求理性的“安身立命”之法，而在异域倍感精神苦闷之时（因为他们身为华人却不信从中华孔子的“君子无入而不自得”之故训），就这样轻易地自行归入了环境潮流。我从这类群体行为现象中看到的则是一个时代知识分子的性格软弱：他们或者是没有意志力在新环境里强学补课，设法建立自身的理论性认知基础，或者是只能够按部就班取得学位纳入新的职业制度环境以自安。不管如何，每当涉及到理论性问题时，就会出现前述那类自我认知偏颇。而其中最莫名其妙的就算是那类本来研究所谓科学哲学方向者也最终“找到了”（其急于“依附”某信仰大流一事，只不过暴露了其原有的理论思维之不实、其内心精神之空虚、其心理素质之脆弱）非科学的“信仰归宿”。这是源于其自我认知的理论化提升吗？不，这是时代性的普遍理论思维幼稚病。不要忘了，“十年浩劫”期间曾经存在有任何有意义的理论知识资源吗？生存于那个时期的青少年日后能够在进入现代社会人文学界后就可突然从无到有、一蹴而就吗？本文论及此类事端是要从此奇特现象中瞥见后文革知识青年之“人到中年”后的集体理性虚弱化暴露。这个时代现象直接相关于我们对于新时期人文知识分子、特别是其理论家的期待和寄望的问题。
那么两岸的另一岸呢？他们只关心眼前具体的事端是非之辨析（今日我们连一丁点都看不出他们与大陆民国时代学术思想环境和思维方式具有什么衔接性了），我们不熟悉当地情况者自然可从他们的讨论中获得不少有趣的关于当地情况的认知。但是我的感觉竟然是同样的：一谈到较广的、较高的理论性问题，他们原有的流利辩才就会戛然而止。欧美文科博士教育的平均水平和新儒家前辈带来的旧式思维方式，竟使他们不善于进行现代人文理论抽象思维！（我是由此才联想到未来大陆文科理论留学生的可能发展前景问题的）大陆新时期以来，也是台湾学界全面融入西方学术环境的时期，不仅相当多学者受过西方“正规理论训练”，而且其今日文教生态完全在向西方看齐。其理论思维上的偏失也同样源于其专科学位训练带来的“制度化教条性”。没有什么比今日高校学界强调人文理论“合乎国际规范”的貌似科学性要求更带有结构性的教条主义副作用的了。所谓严格的论文学术规范（参考书目，引用条文，权威鉴定，国际认可等）只能导致台湾人文学界只能对西学界亦步亦趋，哪里还有大陆民国时期学者思想家那种人文创发力和理论思考力呢？今日学界多的是无穷无尽的引录、引述国外名家话语的能力（既然人人都被训练得掌握了外语工具），缺乏的正是针对现实经验进行的创造性的独立理论观察和辨析能力。“理论思维”不是指“引用国外理论话语”多少的能力，而是指创造性地、适切性地融会贯通现代理论并对现实课题进行充分科学因果解释的能力。一个民族的思想能力不是指其能够复述背诵多少古今中外大师的话语，而是根据“现实经验”进行深入理论分析与综合的能力。一句话：一个民族的精神软实力是指其国民理论人文思想能力（科技工商类思想能力则属于技术类软实力），不是指其背诵文史资料和复述他人成果的能力。所谓“著作”如果是指大部头地堆积文献并附加千百种参考书目的话，我们今日电脑时代在技术上对此还有什么困难吗？是的，两岸人文知识分子谈起现实问题来都是可成一家之言，我们就是这么习惯于“就事论事”地进行思考的。至于科学理论层次上的思考，如果只能采取变相的各种拿来主义，这是未来中华民族思想世界应有的世界风度吗？【世界将怎样看你？如果世界认识了你中华文明今日就只会赚钱和置产，然后就是文化上通过“五千年”标榜没有任何“打击力”的软实力，他们就会把你顿时看贬。因为他们会非常安心地得出结论说：不足畏也！该庞然东方大物只会学我们西方人做生意，却完全抛弃了其五千年的真正“软实力”！】
再回过来谈前面国外文学评论家的文化批评和人文学术全球化衰败的问题。但这根本不是一个职业性关怀的实用主义问题，而是一个深层思想理论性问题。我已多次说过，今日西方人文理论家中很少有自我深层反省习惯，而是都将批评的矛头指向科技工商支配一切的“经济全球化”之后果【所关心者也仍然是物质性方面的环境破坏问题和分配不公问题等。此类“反全球化运动”根本没有多大效果，因为他们没意识到：热衷于唯物质主义建设开发的世潮的确是符合绝大多数的纯物质享受需要的。绝大多数人就是只有这种需要。这就是人类文明今日面临的“内在矛盾”。今日世界上的生存意识形态完全一致：朝向于不间断的物质生产和追求无止境的满足。今日世界各国煞有介事地讨论环保、减碳、气候、能源、分配不公等种种危机，似乎意在进行集体性的人类文明大革新。然而事实上，大家根本“不敢”针对与这些危机相关的最根本的问题讨论：为什么人类要把财富生产和刺激人民不断消费当做人类主要生存方式？】按此唯物质主义文化观，人文学术自然越来越没有“生路”，除了作为科技工商的附庸外。但这是两个问题，而不是一个问题。职业化生存的问题是一回事，人文学术自身的科学化改进是另一回事。对此，我可以说，西方的文学批评家类型的理论家们对此问题的思考基本失焦（注意现代西人的毛病：绝不自我批评，绝不承认错误。即使知道错了，也是自家偷着改正而绝不能示人以短！他们压根就不懂得孔学伟大的“诤友”之义）。而后者的解决不仅相关于前者的解决，而且相关于一个远为重大的时代性问题：人类文化，在科技工商必然永远主导文明的时代，是不是只有按照物质消费主义和娱乐主义方向发展下去呢？人类有没有一个在现世精神文化领域内努力于普遍提升的任务，还是像目前资本主义文化那样将此精神任务都拖延至人人死后来加以想象的升华呢？而在现世生存中我们全人类就只有一个使命吗？即：有朝一日使得人人成为越来越精致的经济物种吗？马克思生前是这样想象人类未来的吗？提出“学”与“文”至上人生观的孔子，当初是这样憧憬人类未来的吗？
不过，本文的任务也并非在于阐述此一人类文明的大课题，不过是借此再谈一下我们人文学术界的普遍缺失所在。而此根本性“缺失”却也正是学者本身意识不到者。因为学界人士判断自身及他人的学术思想得失都是基于共同参与的学科制度性规范与规程以及观点共识的。后二者已经预先限定了论者的立场、范围、方法和目标。而后四者都是几十年来耳濡目染根植于共同的文教和职场系统内被视为当然和自然的。这种自然感和当然感，正是我们学术自信、观点自信、方法自信的心理基础。学者个人如此，其所依附的学界集体亦如此。前一心理性保障和后一社会性保障，遂双料地形成了学术实践倾向和方式之固化。此一情况可谓遍布国内外人文学术各界，尤其是其各自的理论性部分。这样的思维方式和治学方式的固化、僵化、共识化之所以难于改变，除上述原因外，还由于诸多学术活动不仅都紧密地联接于学人的职业生存利益，而且还联接于学术集体所形成和依赖的学术势力。学术话语实已成为了公私功利主义目标之手段和渠道。现行有效的学术方式和公私利益机制之间的联接，遂成为比上述纯粹学术生态内部的固化机制更强而有力的社会性基础。人文学术一旦成为了有赖社会保障的“寄生者”现象，哪里还谈得到什么纯粹学术思想上的创造呢。见不及此，而热衷于学术思想“讨论”的理想主义，自然难免表现为言而无当、言而无效。那么，几千年的人文思想事业就这样完结了吗？就只能靠技术大军的施舍来苟延残喘了吗？当然不是！不过，如果人文学术自身不思自强之策而徒徒抱怨连连，问题就在于自己了：本质上是人文理论家自己在自暴自弃。
今日人文思想之大局应在于同时认识学术危机的两个侧面：客观世界环境对人文思想的压力和人文思想本身的无效。前者的存在应该明确认知，却因其已成为人类文明追求唯物质主义的稳定性现实和前景，无法改变；我们的任务在于后者，这个“我们”不是单指我们这一代人，而是指自今以后的数代人，而总归应该是21世纪内的人。我们现在的所作所为，其实只是在为以后几代人文学者提出问题，提供经验，为其做出认知性准备而已。正如孔门于两千多年前为历代后人指出了问题、准备了伦理态度学的基础、而在各相关学理本身上仅只开放了（而不是封闭了）精神视域一样，两千年后，我们如今则可进而在学术理论更新的方式上展现出全球化时代人文思想方式的新视界：人类的人文学术知识在自然、社会、人文各类学科纵向专深发展的一两百年后，也到了必须横向有机汇通的时代。尽管学界职业制度化的现实妨碍着充分自由而适切的横向沟通，欠缺此沟通所带来的困境将越来越明显。试看：
——哲学：早已失去其古典时代独优地位却依赖着职业化的保护主义而妄以高人一等的姿态残存着，其中各种原教旨主义遂反而成为人类朝向理论汇通努力的主要障碍之一；由于既脱离历史现实又脱离人文社会科学全局，哲学家们徒徒生存于其“推理文本的逻辑美”之内，以其逻辑性“严密性”和“精美性”自娱，根本忘却了哲学作为人类爱智和怀疑冲动，本来应该全面相关于社会现实和思想现实之系统深入解释的。本人对此时代性缺失的一个直观印象是：怎么正是职业哲学家们反最欠缺适切的社会评论和文化评论的真实能力呢？他们以为只要援引了职场公认的古今大师之言就算是言之有据了。另一方面，当然，在专业上，我们必须承认其技术性专长并应使其继续为我所知所用，但在思维的大方向上绝对不能跟着“哲学匠人式的”教条主义走。我们干脆不能被“哲学”这个传统名号“忽悠住”，以为谁一迈进这一领域其思想就自动提升一阶似的。前年在雅典看到上届世界哲学大会文摘汇编后我更坚信人文科学的理论化必须首先排除哲学中心主义。 ——史学：史学的痼疾正表现于其徒徒熟悉既有历史文献之资料，本其史家博闻强记之能，在谈及具体性问题时往往引经据典，言之有据。而一旦进入高层认知概扩和全面分析时，史学家即难免捉襟见肘，相形见拙，故其“理论性话语”与其经验性分析之间难以搭配；至于打算根据百年前的前科学时代的三千年历史经验来解释今日一日千里发展中的人类全新历史，这会是多么迂腐的思考方式？传统社会是静态的，其经验是少变动的，而现代和未来的科技工商推动前进的社会是高度变动中的，如果再要盲目按照古代历史经验思考和以之规划人类未来，其幼稚性岂非一目了然？另一方面所谓历史哲学家或历史理论家，其理论作品与具体史学论述的关系，岂非类似于本文所说的“经验研究和理论解释”之间的“理论装饰性关系”？正是发现史学家们不善理论思维，所以战后那么多后现代主义理论家们纷纷踏入史学领域。固然，一方面，重视经验性史学学科的理论化是正确方向，但另一方面不适当的理论化玄学风格则只会延缓我们的历史科学系统的科学化重建事业。 ——文学：现代文学创作（小说诗歌）无关于理论思想问题，可以不论。西方的英语系和中国的中文系都是两个地区最富于思想性兴趣的领域，而且的确均为强调并实行综合与横跨的思想方式者，惜乎其“横跨式思维”欠缺章法，因不仅欠缺基础理论训练而且欠缺在不同理论间进行有效综合思考的能力。国内中文系之失在于其根据现代文学史与社会史进行纯粹经验性概况，将文学理论反省的视野局限于本来即全面落后于世界文学理论的民国时代，难免陷于经验主义【然而又是这种根据经验性资料进行的思考使得他们对于自身理论反省方式如此自信，以至于不意识到三十年代西学风气初开时期，攻防各方的现代化知识尚何等幼稚；不是根据新知新学新理客观批评当时各种思潮之浮薄，而是因其文学史上人为树立的名势而引为新时期、新世纪文化思想论辩之根据？况且还不要谈那时所有的现代化西学知识还都是来自日本学者整理和绍介的二手资料！原来早自上世纪初我们就习惯于各种“拿来主义”，却妄称之为自家的“发明”】；国外英语系之失在于其随意援引当代流行文史哲理论话语的习惯，而其对社会文化现实的理论说明多流于肤浅。此外，在当代西方人文学界作为理论思想前锋的文学理论家们，其现实判断反最为失当，其理论解释往往天马行空，标新立异，实乃我们最需对其保持警惕者。但其活跃于校园内，从文本到文本，颇以谈空名世，其“清谈风格”有似中国“六朝风度”，因而最具有青年感染力，不过是制造着下一代的以空名世者【但别以为他们真地只是六朝谈玄者一类。他们也都是深识商业化时代何谓名声炒作的世故之辈。只要在校园内通过理论修辞术制造出“知名度”，就可获得思想产品的市场化价值。所以今日之“名士派”多半是假的，其目的不过是通过标新立异话语以谋取文化市场之名利而已】。人类的社会文化前途问题是决不能由可谓“游谈无根”的英语系“理论家们”来主导的，而如今批评资本主义文化现状的恰恰仍是以他们为主力。我们自然应该关注他们由于天资敏锐所呈现出来的当代西方社会文化中偏失现象，将其视为自身重要的科学研究对象，却不必盲目接受其思考观点和分析结果。 ——艺术：今日艺术世界成为科技工商大亨们通过所驾驭的媒体网络支配其风格与风向的生活点缀。其阳春白雪派的形式主义，使其日益脱离现实却因其无实在对峙性而可于安然自适之余，为“有钱”后希望“增贵”的科技大亨们提供可炫示品味高雅的表现场合；其通俗消遣类，则成为可供广大技术人和准技术人（人类中的百分之90）所需的业余娱乐之具，却占据着“文化”与“文艺”的主流交椅，成为维持观众感官性愉悦方式的近乎唯一可行渠道，卒至可使人们不思不想，惟知逗乐取笑，而将通俗文艺视为紧张劳作之后的放松工具【今日电影学家再也不需要像六十年代的欧洲人文电影书呆子那样去讨论究竟应该为观众提供什么样的“精神食粮”了。今日广大青年走进影院就是图个娱乐而已！他们是电影娱乐商品的消费者，电影家就自然成为生产电影娱乐商品的商人了。今日“严肃思想”已被彻底排除于电影世界。而另一方面，那些仍有意于拍思想类电影者，其思想之深度，又使人不敢恭维，反而暴露出上述早年文化沙漠时期经历过的同样的问题：掌握感官美学及进行技术操作短期可成，而欲进入严肃思想世界时，其早先“十年”间的乏学经历就暴露出来。其原因与文学界一样。但也同样与上述海外现象相同，大家都可以因受到客观之“限”而人为增值的“现实经验主题”所被强化的观众之“现实关切好奇心”，来取代“思想理论探讨的求知欲”。】现代化的娱乐性文艺产生于港台（如同现代化的“武侠小说”也产生于港台。港台武侠小说就是商人消遣文学），而今渐以大陆后来者居上。在古代，文艺是思想世界的主角之一，在现代，它早已退出了思想世界而没入了娱乐世界（六七十年代欧洲电影理论的兴起原因之一在于：好莱坞娱乐主义的侵袭导致欧洲思想类电影影响力式微，文艺理论家们希图通过科学的理论分析以掌握文艺的深层肌理。而今他们再也不必为此操心了。因为今日影视文化的商品娱乐化已成世界独霸形式，以至于今日连严肃电影理论本身也在消失之中。此一文艺理论受到根本颠覆的趋向，实乃全球商业化时代文化被科技工商压向纯粹娱乐化大趋势的组成部分）。文化的娱乐主义大方向完全缘于人类全面技术化演变的结果：社会主流不再需要精神上的阳春白雪了。 ——西方马克思主义：这仍然是今日批评资本主义文化的主力之一，但其仍然未能在以下主要的认识论-实践论方面与时俱进：马克思思想与黑格尔主义的密切关系带来的正反效果问题；马克思的社会乌托邦理想和其根据十九世纪欧洲现状提出的实现该理想的方法之间的关系问题；其经济决定论和人类精神世界的关系问题；马克思本人前后思想差异以及其与日后五花八门马克思主义之间的多种多样异同性问题（根本不存在唯一的“马克思主义”；况且马克思生前亟言：他自己就不是“马克思主义者”）；其学术理论形态和以其名目进行的各种现实活动的关系问题；以及最重要的：其相关名词在世界各地区、各时期所引生的名实方面的高度歧义性问题。此即：大家使用着相同的名词，却意指着根本不同的东西？还不要说其与现代西方一切理论思潮间的紧密全面互动关系了。当代西方马克思主义问题是一个关系到当代世界方方面面的知识性问题，是一个十足的跨学科问题。这样我们如何能够在单一专业里进行辨析呢？ ——符号学：符号学作为跨学科、跨文化的学术革新运动，却因为学界职业化功利主义的发展，已将其早先的积极理论革新精神丧失殆尽，今日世界符号学理论家们反而蜕变为最欠缺理论思维能力而徒知模仿他学的三不管学域。今日该界流行的哲学本体论皈依与科学论靠拢趋势，足以暴露其二流模仿者身份。同样的，职业化分工保护着业者的集体生存，而往昔真正的创学先驱只不过成为今人借用的理论性装饰。导致今日符号学理论变形的直接原因，正是他们普遍采取的学术功利主义：急于通过表面上的标新立异以维持个人学术独创性外表，并借以因此获取职场成功和声誉。
以上略举几类主要是西方人文文化领域之现状特点，显示其中经验性论述与理论性支持间的“衔接方式”之随意性，借以指出当代人文理论自身未臻科学之境的事实，以及其未来朝向科学理性化发展之必要。本人在此再次强调一个至关重要的人文学术方向问题：如何在百年来全面崇洋媚外的大环境下（遗憾，所谓现代“国学”也依然是朝向于西学中心的，虽然是之作为西学中的偏流汉学）鼓励中华学界士君子勇于在把握世界学术全局的前提下坚持独立自主治学的立场。现代西方人文科学本身之失为一问题，中国学界的唯洋是从所导致的永久次于西学的地位是另一问题。我们应该从这两个角度反省百年来中华人文学术现代化之失。这个民族性的学术反省，如先所述，当然首先需要恢复中华传统的自誠明心志，而不能盲目沿袭来自西方的职业化功利主义的自我保护主义。
现再略举几个问题以显示中西学理互动中的相关因素。 ——为什么胡塞尔要从心理学和逻辑学而不是从哲学开始其对传统哲学（主要是黑格尔哲学方向）进行系统的检讨和改造？自然是发现黑格尔理论性推理方式的不当。那么他本人理论性推理的方式其得失又何在呢？为什么越来越多的西方胡塞尔专家们对此不闻不问呢？此外，他们有充分适当的学术能力问吗？胡塞尔学的问题能够仅只在其本人的文本系列中获得适当答案吗？ ——为什么法国年鉴派要从社会学和人类学进入史学，以期对传统叙事史学进行改造？因为单纯根据有限留存的史事记录既不足以提供有关历史变迁的归纳推理，又不能据以进行历史整体发展的规律概括。那么社会学派方向的“科学史学”为什么也行不通呢？我们不是正是可从其实证科学派历史探讨得失中看到：自成一体的中华史学资料在获得现代化理论工具后具有可参与人类历史科学重建的伟大机会吗？ ——为什么罗兰-巴尔特不能赋诗又不能说故事却被公认为最重要的战后文学理论家？而他在宣称战后“小说已死”之后【他当然不会把美式畅销书式的大量小说作品当做是真正意义上的“文学”。如今大陆外语天资较好的青年作家们纷纷以能够用流畅英文创作国外畅销书为荣一事，真地是什么值得追求之事吗？这些有才智的文学青年不是关注于新时代真实高端精神探讨问题而一味以取得这类“国际认可”为生存目标，这是一种什么现象？】却又于晚年突然幻想要完成一件自身不能胜任的任务——写一部小说呢？小说今日还能够成为一种深刻的思想表达的形式吗？（为什么今日“成功的”大陆小说家都是不需要高级知识而善于迎合市场需要的群体呢？） ——为什么六七十年代西方空前绝后地出现了一次结构主义方向的电影理论思潮，以期通过纯粹理论分析发现叙事艺术承载严肃思想的可能性，以从拜金主义文化冲击中“拯救”电影艺术，而二十年后竟全军覆没于高科技主导的“技术化-娱乐化”双元文化的新时期？今日的娱乐文艺就是古代的民间文艺，今日的“技术人群”就是古代的“庶民”，民主时代的今日，其教育学养被完全技术化了的广大技术人员，他们只能具有的纯粹感官娱乐类型的文艺商品需要，但正是他们决定着人类文艺主流形态。我们由此文化实践的闭路循环中可以瞥见：技术化、商业化、娱乐文艺化是三位一体的。 ——为什么经由明治维新启蒙接触了现代西方思潮的民清理论思想家们自以为足够开通，却可以如此落伍地回归两千年前汉儒制造的什么“张三世”乌托邦，并率尔将最高中华智慧寄托于“近西玄学”的信仰之上？广义的清末洋务派思想家们只能够思考如何在物质上富国强兵的问题，从严复到胡适他们还注意不到新康德主义时代的“精神科学”本身提出的有关人类精神事业的重要性问题【人类精神事业是与自然科学的进步关系甚微的，所以世纪初欧洲思想家们被自然科学进步激发而集中于思想精神前途问题。而那个时期的中国学术界还只能思考自然科学与富国强兵的关系问题。连胡适都曾经后悔自己没学自然科学。我因此而深识其人不可能深入中国的精神事业问题】。而正是这个部分直接关联于三千年中华文化的人文思想文化的结构和功能问题。【那些直到今日海外华裔汉学家意图从清代所谓具有科学性精神的考据学出发来重建中华国学的人士，正是欠缺现代人文社会科学整体认知的一代。胡适、傅斯年等“国故学家”不是积极关注提高对当时西方人文社会科学的研习而是转而关注什么乾嘉考据学的科学性资源。遂成为“我中华古已有之”的变体。难怪他们俩后来会与顾颉刚分道扬镳。而今日崇洋媚外的大陆学界却冷落顾颉刚而将重点退回至胡、傅型态。殊不知此二人之学术不如顾颉刚正因其留洋背景？他们靠着家学渊源具有的国学底子和后来国外镀金获得的所谓西学理论常识，二者之间的“伪关联性”事实，正好成为本文主题的一个鲜明注脚！这就证明了为什么他二人走上了复古非科学的史学路线而不留洋的顾颉刚反可一直走在科学的史学路线上】此外，这也是为什么在欧美受过一般文科理论博士教育的港台美华一代，于80年代初还难以清晰把握何为六十年代发生的“人文科学运动”的精神所在？（那时美国学界尚无“人文科学”一词的流行）中华文化的二十世纪子孙们一直过于关注物质性建设问题（狭义社会科学也是直接相关于物质性建设的），而忽略了极其重大的现代人文科学建设的问题。因为正是后者才直接相关于中华文明漫长历史文化的现代化发展的。（而至今为止我们采行的现代化发展都是按照西方文明的大方向进行的。独特的中华精神文明传统也最终需要纳入前者的唯物质主义大方向来定位吗？）
百年之后的今日，我们可明智地将以上的问题无限列举下去。但岂止在百年前的中土，岂止是在新时期三四十年后的今日？哪怕是在人文社会科学繁兴了两百年后的当代西方学界，我们也越来越清晰地看到人类关于人文社会现象的思考中，其实证性的经验描述和判断，与其提出的各种理论性话语支持物之间，还存在着极其普遍的“欠缺理性联接”的特点【本文的本修订版上段随意想到的顾、胡、傅的学术关系，真地是非常现成的本文主题的一个例证】。而人群和业界中的习常“共识”与职业化运作需要，却导致我们对此视而不见。“理论话语”遂成为装饰性的操作需要，其可行性原来基于其所给予理论性支持的经验性判断之直观清晰性，后者我们可以泛泛称之为实用主义思考方式。所以，人类已经发展了两百年的现代人文科学还远未趋于成熟。两百年后新世纪今日，中华文化传统的人文中心主义精神开始走上了世界舞台。其三千年来“好仁者”间的“自誠明”心理传统，不会长期满足于对西方理论传统仅只亦步亦趋，而是要创造性地发挥其地球村上的主人公一份子的作用。【尽管今日前赴后继的有势不可挡的“小留潮流”正在反其道而行之。而我辈对应之策只能是：“与世潮划清界限”！本人提出的新仁学的精神方向即是在此逆向历史进程中形成的】
让我们寄望于未来世代中国学界的有识者们能够在中土重新建立跨学科、跨文化、综合理论化方向的世界人文科学改造新基地。为此，作为学术统合工具的“理论符号学”绝不能蜕化为仅只是任何借他科理论进行装饰的代用品。本人以下所附一篇英文近文，为2014年在索菲亚告别国际符号学学会的大会上向欧美学者提出的一份“理论挑战”。虽然它必定引发西方同行的不悦，却幸而又被国际学会会刊迅速刊载，“德不孤必有邻”，岂可不信哉！（本文所附者仅为原初讲演稿，正式英文文本见该刊本期纸文版和电子版）自从1994年参加国际符号学大会起，不，实际上自1989年参加麦茨国际电影理论研讨会起（如果不说从1982年首次出国起的话），对西方理论家的所谓“理论挑战”差不多就陆续开始了。【其实，从1977年起，我的全面朝向当代西欧人文理论引介的工作就是与其后大陆新时期全面引进的英美人文思想学派的潮流逆反而行的】其实我所做的不过是“以子之矛攻子之盾”。为了参加麦茨研讨会，我在柏林工大预先“做了功课”：“德鲁兹的电影哲学vs麦茨的电影符号学”。从那时开始我就展开了对现代西方哲学理论既研习又检讨的探索历程，因为我已经感觉到哲学的理论性解释的偏颇性。然而我却没有马上意识到西方理论家们是生存于职场制度性控制场内的。先定的制度与社会的潮流影响着他们的理论方向和趣味的变迁。而我的心理意识则是完全存在于该制度和潮流之外的（幸运的是，八九十年代十多年的“客卿生涯”使我得以生存于其资源与场地内，却不必受其任何制度性约制）。而二十多年来眼见西方人文理论的“没落”，深感惊异，因为我从六十年代的结构主义运动开始，受到的最大鼓舞就是人文科学的科学化改造事业已然从此开始的显著事实。等到在德完成了儒学解释学研究的写作计划，不仅对汉学系统的非学术性方向的印象日益加深，而且对于文化学术的前全球化时期（即不包含非西方传统的）的西方人文科学为什么趋于偏差的现象增加了理论性感悟。以后的二十年就是眼见世界学界在高科技的泰山压顶式的膨胀下人文理论世界变得“软弱无力、逐年后退”的趋向，而我对此的反应又与西方同行的反应不同。他们无不持功利主义的主观态度单纯抱怨自身“不受重视”，我则首先看到是“我们自身”的不足和缺失。不管是国外还是国内，根本的根本问题，竟然最终发现是：在全球科技工商功利主义席卷一切的时代，人文学者主观世界本身的瓦解。真理欲求无法抵御功利欲求的事实，责任在谁呢？怪外界还是怪自己呢？后来进一步发现，原来这个冲突关系以一种较简单的方式早就发生于、存在于中国传统学术思想世界了。我们最终发现了“病因”，却无法进行“治疗”。因为，问题不仅相关于现代环境，还相关于历史环境，一句话，人文理论思想的内在“痼疾”已数千年矣！如今在与西学碰撞后，此民族学术性痼疾才增附了其世界性意义：即，今日人文科学的科学化改进问题是一个全球化问题，既相关于中西也相关于古今。自然，我们也只能采取只问其义不问其功的仁者态度应对之。只能希望至少可真实地呈现问题之所在。这总是一己之力可以办到的吧？这就是：不跟着潮流走！你爱求己利，我偏求“公义”；你爱讲假话，我偏爱讲真话！你爱趋炎附势，我偏爱惟义是从！你只爱关心当下物利，我偏爱展望精神未来！问题已经不再是一国一地的学术前途问题了，在互联网时代和中国已历史上空前地成为世界第一留学西方大国的时代（在提出严防西方意识形态侵袭的政策下所采行的实践辩证法），在中西人文学术越来越混成一体的时代，我们中华文化学术事业中的有识者们（不满足于“以学求职取利”人生观者），应该“解释学地”理解：古代之“天下观”已成为今日的“全球观”了【开明的国学家们，你们的“走向国际”不应是指走向西方土地和西方人物，而应是指在知识理论上走向现代西方人文社会科学】；古代一国之“士”，今日已须为天下之“士”。人文理论问题也应全然如是！不过，西方学人因为没有这个仁者人生观所以他们只想着个人扬名立万，我们读中华古书者，读的是什么？不是消极采信那些过时的封建主义时代的思考方式，不是要重新成为一名“现代腐儒”，而是要曲折感悟其士君子在艰困环境下的独立求真意志本身。要学会透过那些儒家套语“读出”流淌在字里行间的那种自我不断精神升华的愿望。古代士君子们怀着那种高尚情操（我们今人所欠缺者）走进独立的书院，意图在功名利禄渠道之外获得伦理性目标的启迪。但他们失败了。他们没有获得成功的客观的知识论和社会性条件，但他们在字里行间留下了真挚的情怀和内心的渴望。我们今日读懂了他们不可能表达清晰的意愿，识别出了那种意愿含蕴的精神方向！这就是我从蛰居四明山20年后出山的宗羲史学中读解出的仁学精神密码。请想象一下这是何等的伟大坚韧意志力！应该继承的正是这种西人所不具备的传统伦理意志力。我将其视为未来几代人在中华故土承担人类人文科学革新发展事业的最关键原动力！反过来说，如果没有这种学者主体坚定的意志力，什么新知新学新理拿来都不过是供作职业学匠追名逐利的材料而已。而这个治学意志力之贯彻，就表现在学者首先能够克制名利欲求，真正爱学强学，不求闻达于市，如同数学物理学家小众群体那样，可毕生安于其小众深广之学【难道春秋战国孔孟之徒不是当时人众中间的“一小撮”吗？在中华文明历史上产生巨大精神创发成果的何时不是“一小撮”？只有今时蜕变为商人化学人者始以“人多势众”为目的。非同道也！不可相谋也！】，以期几代之后革新的人文科学理论可有助于促进人类精神生命之提升。（如果没有这样的精神奋斗意志及其传继呢？那就只能听任唯商业化技术化时代大潮，通过机器人和人造人的一批批大量生产，将人类文明世界最终变成一个准经济动物乐园。如果到那时地球有幸尚未被氢弹完全毁灭了的话！）
李幼蒸 写于2015年岁末旧金山圣诞夜 [附文]
“General Semiotics” as the all-round interdisciplinary organizer ― General Semiotics(GS) vs. Philosophical Fundamentalism （“一般符号学”作为全面跨学科实践的组织者：一般符号学vs哲学原教旨主义）
（the draft of the article published in Semiotica, Nr. 206, 2015/2016）
Youzheng Li
Abstract
This paper presents a crucial problem about identity and function of general semiotics. The latter is not only defined in terms of interdisciplinary-directed theoretical practice in comparison to the philosophic-fundamental-directed one, but also further redefined as an operative-functional organizer that does not necessarily imply an fixed theoretical doctrines. General semiotics (GS) is described as a functional strategy for organizing all-round interdisciplinary-directed theoretical construction. In addition, the paper emphasizes that the interdisciplinary essence of semiotic theory is contrary to any philosophical fundamentalism and applied semiotics does not need any philosophical foundation either.
Key words: general semiotics; functional organizer; philosophical fundamentalism; interdisciplinary strategy;
1. What is the main challenge for the contemporary semiotics?
Immediately before the Sofia Congress the author received a questionnaire from the Sofia Congress Committee as What is the main challenge for the contemporary semiotics? (2014-9-2) The author responded to it with 4 sentences that are included here with added short notes. The questions and answers given in the following can help explain the critical background of the thought presented in this paper. a. Commercialized utilitarian academic systems leads “professional success”, rather than “scientific truth”, to be the genuine final aim of scholar’s practice. (Accordingly scholars tend to follow the established rules of doing scholarship that are determined by multiple external factors including the more powerful non-academic forces) b. Nihilist ontological rhetoric is used to weaken the interdisciplinary human-scientific tendency of semiotics. (Accordingly scholars tend to search for any subjectively-invented rhetoric rather than objective validity as long as the former effectively works in academic market) c. In global academic context on one hand western scholarship is far from being familiar with non-western traditional scholarship and thinking and on the other contemporary non-western scholarship about their own traditional studies is far from being familiar with contemporary western human-scientific theories as well. (Accordingly the truly global semiotic mission can hardly be attained. d. Commercialized cultural and academic circumstances lead to a general vulgarization of content, direction, practicing style of semiotic activities with a result that the term “semiotics” could be frequently misused as a “pop-cultural brand” to search for increasing any kind of propaganda, advertising effect and factional influence through manipulating internet media in academic-educational marketing. (Accordingly the term “semiotics” could be more arbitrarily used by a variety of applied semiotics just for competitive profitability with a result that semiotic practices are further disconnected from the general trends of theoretical advances in various main disciplines in the humanities)
2. The basic points in connection with the above judgments involved
In light of the above basic judgments we further concisely derive the following proposals
3. A necessity of general semiotics as an interdisciplinary-scientific organizer
Modern semiotic movement has entered its stage of the so-called global semiotics in the new century yet. The global movement of semiotics is mainly characterized by its three emerging consequences: the global expansion of horizon of geographic-historic-cultural territory, the comprehensive widening of scholarly-theoretical perspective from different semiotic traditions, and the deeper reexamination of the all-round relationship among society, culture, knowledge in the real world. And all three tendencies can be relatively reflected on the relationship between modern semiotics and traditional philosophy; or, exactly, in the epistemological confrontation between something named as general semiotics and any type of philosophical fundamentalism. The fact is that a theoretically more productive conception of general semiotics urgently requested by human sciences in general and theoretical semiotics in particular has not yet been accepted widely today. This is especially due to the prevailing professional protectionism and scholarly conservatism based on academic compartmentalization and competitive individualism. On the other hand, the academic-institutionally strengthened mechanism supported by the commercial-technological Establishment is embodied in its solid control of humanity-scientifically institutionalized system and therefore in encouraging educationally rigidified ways of doing scholarship of the humanities fixed in different segregated disciplines. While the desirable approaches to modernization of human sciences in the new era, by contraries, should lie in organizing horizontally comparative and extensively cross-disciplinary researches through breaking-through the academic boundaries. Accordingly there emerges a necessity of certain strategic goal to be guided by “general semiotics” taken as a functional-operative organizer with respect to promotion of interdisciplinary interaction not only between different departmental semiotic practices but also between various social-human sciences.
4. Philosophy and human knowledge
As generally known, philosophy was the very source of all kinds of human knowledge in intellectual history. On the other hand, the existence of both developed mathematics/natural sciences and social sciences is the consequences of their respective independent developments because of gradual segregations from their philosophical origins in history. This dialectic evolution finally brings about a clear differentiation between philosophy and sciences in general. Eventually the nature of science of all kinds is even characterized by excluding all philosophical elements from its constitution. The same tendency has been just emerging in the humanities today as well although the latter as an academic field still naturally includes philosophical parts as its constitutive contents. Logic, the very core of philosophy, has already become an independent discipline closely combined with mathematics; aesthetics, as the important branch in classical philosophy, have been also widely and effectively replaced by the newly shaped independent disciplinary theories in connection with literature and arts. It’s well known that the latter two have already turned to be the most important parts of contemporary departmental semiotics. Even one of central parts of philosophy—ethics or moral philosophy, as I myself particularly stress before, is better to be disconnected from its philosophical frameworks and even should be further closely tied with semiotic sciences in our new era. Finally, philosophy of history, another important part of modern philosophy, must be separated from any metaphysical-ontological doctrines as well from a scientific point of view and should be further included into the contemporary new discipline “historical theory” which could be closely linked with a recently emerging new discipline “historical semiotics”. Differently from the cases of natural and social sciences, however, the last three independent disciplines of the humanities present themselves as a scholarly-disciplinary mixture containing the social/humanity-scientific and the remaining philosophical elements alike. On the other hand, philosophy, especially European-continental philosophy, as a current discipline also contains a lot of interdisciplinary-scientific elements, almost becoming a scholarly combination of traditional philosophical and modern scientific parts. We may ask why human knowledge presents this changeable way of developing in history? Simply, it’s due to a natural demand for gradual deepening of human rational practices in historical evolution. Therefore the constitutively self-splitting change of the composition of philosophy as an entire discipline in history is a natural and necessary historical process. We can regard this scientific-oriented process as progressive and constructive in nature. The process actually brings about multiply advanced quality of reasoning expressed in man’s capability of doing observation, description, analysis, generalization and even predication in understanding human affairs. Thus, eventually we see the new term “human sciences” has been reasonably created after the Second World War. This completely new intellectual phenomenon indicates a more obvious scientific-directed and de-philosophical-centralist tendency in our times. It’s just in this general context that current semiotics has become more and more a methodological and epistemological guide in reconstructing contemporary human sciences. The fact has become further concretized and multiplied when the interdisciplinary nature of semiotics has grown up to impact the field concerning modernizing enterprise of the non-western traditional humanities. The recent development of the latter for the past decades further proves that a de-philosophical-centrist position for advancing the theoretical humanities becomes even a necessity today if the modernization of non-western traditional heritages would be really scientifically conducted and be accordingly reformulated for carrying out true international academic-dialogue concerning theoretical humanity.
5. Philosophy discipline as a modern professional depositary of certain knowledge and philosophy as a fundamentalism with its historically transmitted ideological implication
In spite of its philosophical and linguistic origins modern semiotic movement has been synthetically realized in different scholarly fields and disciplines, including both their traditional and the modern fields. The remarkable involvement of semiotic practices in human sciences is just due to the steadily strengthening of interdisciplinary or horizontal interaction between different scholarly disciplines. And this general academic development has been obviously caused by the general progress of respective scientific-theoretical practices in various academic branches. No doubt, this semiotic turn in the humanities also represents a scientific turn in modernization of the humanities. In addition, this semiotic-scientific turn exactly amounts to a de-philosophical-central turn. Yes, a lot of traditional philosophical content has been already conversed into modern scientific ones, as we mentioned above. But there is indeed an essential basis of traditional philosophy that we may call generally metaphysics which keeps its historically unchanged fundamentalist-theoretical dogmas. Philosophy as a modern discipline has a right to keep any kind of constitutive contents in its discipline as long as the traditional topics are still interesting to academia. However, besides being an academic unit as an accumulating site of historical thoughts, philosophy has also implicitly reserved a historically unique privilege for organizing theoretical activities in the both historically and contemporarily institutionalized humanities. This academic-typed institutional-ideological power itself silently possessed by the fundamentalist philosophy today is still quite influential at different aspects of theoretical constitution of the humanities. Owing to the traditional academic-institutional background, which is even basically encouraged by the contemporary technology-oriented social-cultural mechanism, this philosophical-fundamentalist-typed ideological power would continue exercising its dogmatic epistemological domination over the theoretical direction and practical ways in the entire humanities, even giving a hint that theoretical elaboration of the humanities still needs such a fundamentalist leadership as the “first philosophy”. This tendency, no doubt, is also directly impacting the ways of theoretical reconstruction in our semiotic world, including its departmental and general parts alike. Naturally, if semiotics, as an innovative or revolutionary tool in stimulating theoretical modernization of the humanities, accepts, implicitly or explicitly, this theoretical position of philosophical fundamentalism, a cognitional self-contradiction will occur within semiotics like this: general semiotics based on any philosophical-central theoretical framework becomes immediately contrary to the interdisciplinary essence of semiotic science as such. Therefore any philosophical-central reductionism of semiotic theories could indicate a regressive movement against modern semiotic spirit. This philosophy-central preference for theoretical construction of general semiotics is mainly caused by the exacerbating tendency of the present-day system of institutionalized professional competition in current social-human scientific academia, which presses scholars to more profitably calculate the cost of their research investment and the competitive-tactic advantage during the process of searching for their profit-seeking-directed professional aims. (Refer to Li, 2013) If so, a more convenient and profitable way for them is to appeal to this traditional privileged potential or an implicit theoretical-domineering power of certain dogmatic-philosophical fundamentalism in order to save or put aside some more painstaking and more complicated efforts for learning from various specialized theoretical experiences of other related disciplines. On the other hand, we should here immediately distinguish between two different relations between semiotics and philosophy. The one is that exists between interdisciplinary-directed semiotics and philosophy also as a discipline containing its various valuable materials. In this case semiotic theory always needs to learn from philosophy and to pertinently absorb as more as possible the related philosophical-theoretical elements into semiotic-theoretical constructions, just as all other disciplines of humanities should do the same in their inter-actional relationship with philosophy. While the reversal process presents the same desirability: philosophical thinking should also pay more and more attentions to the theoretical fruits of other humanities in order to enrich or reform its own structure with respect to the theoretical perspective of the entire humanities in which philosophy has been always engaged in history. For example, we see the book Main Trends in Philosophy edited by Paul Ricouer (Ricoeur 1977) and the French Philosophy Encyclopedia edited by A. Jacob (Jacob 1989-2000) indeed present a really interdisciplinary horizon and perspectives. The other is the relationship between semiotics and philosophy that is taken as an exclusively self-enclosed speculative corps guided by philosophical centralism or fundamentalism that is also implicitly supported by the academic-institutional Establishment with its historical-conservative ideology. This historically unchanged philosophical fundamentalism is mainly displayed in its abstrusely elaborated metaphysics and metaphysical ontology insisting in its ever-lasting fixed system of absolute values and logical-central dogmas embodied in various “first principles” which can be originally traced back to philosophical sources in remote ancient times. We certainly recognize that fundamentalist philosophy as such is very important in human intellectual history just like religion and should keep their independent academic existence in our intellectual world. On the other hand, nevertheless, we also maintain that there is no scientific reason for theoretical semiotics to accept its habitually taken-for-granted authoritative intervention in theoretical constructions of other empirical-scientific scholarship related to the empirical historical world. Just think: Just because of this kind of irrelevant engagement in causational thinking and ethical judging about historical-empirical human affairs, so many contemporary fundamentalist-typed philosophers, both western and eastern, have brought about how much seriously misleading interpretations and wrong conclusions in contemporary political history. The main reason for this sad development really lies in the fact that there exist no reasonable links between metaphysical-ontological way of thinking and all other empirical-scientific ways of thinking in social and human sciences. The ambiguous idea about the two ways of conducting theorization is in fact caused by a epistemological misunderstanding in human history. Accordingly abstruse philosophical fundamentalism plays a special negative influence on the empirical-scientific scholarship in connection with history, society, morality and politics in our actual anthropological world. Nowadays we attempt to state that the fundamentalist philosophy plays, in some sense, a speculative-imaginative role like poetry, if not really like religion. The both imaginative-spiritual kinds of activity are of course justified in their preferred ways of organizing their thinking but shouldn’t be allowed to improperly apply their speculative or imaginary rhetoric into theoretical practices requesting genuinely empirical-scientific reasoning. Even “science” as a modern term should be separated from its less strictly defined acceptation formed in remote antiquity, however the same term is still used in various modern fundamentalist philosophies.
6. General semiotics as a strategic designing for reorganizing interdisciplinary-directed theoretical progress of human sciences
It is evident that the humanities or even human-social sciences, rather than the entire human knowledge, should be completely readjusted or reorganized in our new century. But the point is that the theoretically readjusting process within a semiotic framework shouldn’t be organized at a substantial level; instead it should be designed and performed at multiply structural-functional-relational level. Traditional systematical-philosophy, some modern philosophy attempting to reconstruct unified sciences, modern all-embracing theoretical sociology, contemporary universal historiography and philosophy of history, all of them have tried to provide such a synthetically processing ground for reorganizing and recombining the entire human knowledge at a substantial level. As generally known, all such efforts in modern and contemporary history, despite their respective theoretical achievements involved, can hardly attain their goals. One of the reasons for the consequence is just caused by their commonly shared simplistic strategy designed for reaching respective discipline-centralist unifications. In fact, however, the truly reasonable theorizing mode for integrating and harmonizing human and social sciences cannot be understood as carrying out any disciplinary-central reductionism or as realizing a new expanded syncretism of human knowledge. The acceptable conception of the unification of contemporary human sciences can only reasonably refer to the advancing and widening of coordinating and coherent relationship among empirical-positively confirmable fruits of different disciplines each of which must also firstly carry out their respective interdisciplinary-directed empirical-scientific practices separately. This principle is just what general semiotics attempts to follow. For the past decades, besides adopting some quasi-philosophical modes of general theorization the idea of general semiotics was also considered as a new type of encyclopedia about entire interconnected knowledge of mankind. The editing guidance of different projects in the field indeed reflects a comprehensive point of view of semiotic science taken as something including and integrating human knowledge as extensively as possible. Nevertheless all these efforts to systematically collect together entire scholarly-informational materials merely amount to presenting certain co-exhibitions of different collections of more or less sign-related knowledge of the existing disciplines while theoretical interconnections among them remain less or even not studies. In other words, this kind of projects only completes the jobs of presenting huge collections of knowledge without really attempting to further organize interdisciplinary-theoretical studies among them. (Refer to Posner, Roberring, Sebeok, 1998) It’s obvious that remarkable achievements of current semiotics are mostly realized and displayed in a variety of departmental or applied semiotics with respective to their interdisciplinary practices performed at the epistemological-methodological level. Furthermore, we also have to note that the actual creative vigor of semiotics lies only in various disciplinary and interdisciplinary practices of the entire humanities. Therefore far from being a mere single discipline, semiotics must keep its progressive steps synchronistic with those of human sciences. At present we are indeed faced with a serious challenge regarding how to relevantly and effectively develop the interdisciplinary strategies in the entire field of human sciences. Concretely, the current theoretical retardation disclosed in both general semiotic practices and entire human sciences could be mainly due to the fact that the modernization of the humanities with their richly accumulated traditional heritages, positive and negative, western and eastern, requests first of all a deeper and wider interdisciplinary-directed epistemological breaking-through? Or, exactly, what we request especially at present is something related to the general interdisciplinary strategy overarching all disciplines of human sciences. In terms of this interpretation we could reach a more suitable conception of general semiotics which, far from being a semiotic type of philosophy, should be involved in creating such a theoretically more suitable functional-operative organizer. What I presented about the concept “institutional semiotics” before (Li, 2014), for example, is a related attempt that is made by dint of exercising such an all-round analytic-synthetic scientific anatomy of the profession and scholarship of semiotics. Let’s call this type of general semiotics as GS that can be taken as a universal semantic-anatomical organizer at academic-strategic level with respect to entire human sciences in general and semiotics in particular. Furthermore, differently from the idea of a semiotic philosophy, GS does not need to be a fixed system of theoretical propositions representing an alternative new type of theoretical foundation, intending to methodologically unify various concrete practices performed in different disciplines; instead most semiotic practices should be firstly implemented in the existing individual disciplines by means of their various interdisciplinary tactics. What GS is and does lie in analyzing, synthesizing, readjusting and reorganizing the results of theoretical interactions among all related disciplines. Rather than being a solidified system of theories, we prefer to say, GS can be regarded first of all as a set of epistemological direction, methodological procedures, scholarly-ethical attitude and a scientific-intellectual consciousness. And the concrete methodological-operative tools used by GS come from scientific experiences of various departmental semiotics. The main purpose of GS is to promote or restructure the interdisciplinary interaction in the world of human sciences so as to more closely strengthen scientific-practical ties between semiotics and human sciences. Or, more precisely, GS deals with the relational issues of both departmental and general interdisciplinary practices, regarding the interdisciplinary-theoretical relationship as the operative center for promoting the progress of human sciences in general and semiotics in particular in order to realize an important task about the systematic anatomy of the humanities in the new century. Besides, differently from the deductive-logical-theoretical type of rationality used by philosophical fundamentalism, GS adopts an empirical-inductive-practical type of rationality. The scientific orientation of semiotics should be settled in reference to historical, social, cultural and academic real experiences in this anthropological world.
7. GS-modeland modernization of the non-western traditional humanities
Let’s turn to a more complicated challenge concerning cross-cultural semiotics and humanities in the current global cultural context. As I explained many times before, with the sharp constitutional divergence between the western and non-western historical-cultural-intellectual-academic traditions, the much more elaborated western metaphysics cannot be suitably employed for interpreting or helping modernize the latter at a theoretical level. (Refer to Li, 2008, 2011) As regards this problem western semiotic theories have been experienced to be the much more relevant and desirable alternatives. In essence the so-called cross-cultural semiotics is only a special type of interdisciplinary semiotics that requests scholars to obtain knowledge of both western theory and non-western history at the same time. The problems of theoretical modernization of non-western traditional humanities is not only related to advancement of the scientific level of the latter but also to a more realistic intellectual challenge that the non-scientific-characterized non-western traditional humanities, including their quasi-counterparts in the west (namely, western studies of non-western cultural traditions such as Sinology), under the contemporary situation of universal weakening of the educational conditions of the humanities, could much easily be manipulated to continue playing its less-scientific/more-ideological roles within their respective circumstances with a result to seriously lead to the stagnation of scientific development of the non-western humanities in general. On the other hand, all non-western scholarly traditions, especially those with rich historical records, provide highly valuable collections of historical material and experiences that are terribly useful for promoting cross-cultural development of global human sciences. Based on this understanding the global expansion of semiotic movement can be understood by us to be extremely significant for our global semiotic mission, that also requests us to courageously make double efforts for carrying-out the semiotic-interdisciplinary boundary-breaking.
8. GS-model as an interdisciplinary organizer for synthetically anatomizing philosophy as an institutionalized discipline with any logical-centralist dogmatism
General speaking, there exists still a pressing task for us to promote an active, creative interaction between semiotic theory and philosophy. Let’s be clear that philosophy remains to be the number one important theoretical source for the scientific-theorization of the humanities even from a point-view of interdisciplinary semiotics. (Refer to Li, 2013, 32) Semiotics at its general and individual levels always needs to intensify its theoretical strength through learning from philosophy. For the sake of advancing quality of theoretical studies in human sciences, first of all, we need an especially desirable preparative project of institutional-semiotic anatomy of philosophy as a traditional discipline. A very significant task in present-day semiotic-theoretical practice is to more scientifically penetrate into the mechanism and functions of this historically shaped and continuously transmitted philosophical discipline. This project is especially referred to ontology, metaphysics, and some other related rhetorically sophisticated ways of thinking (even including derived or related nihilism and extreme relativism). In a word, this GS project will make philosophy itself an object of a theoretical semiotic analysis. In handling this project GS model as a total synthetic strategic guidance will make use of all related human knowledge, social-cultural conditions and even historical experiences as its methodological weapon and epistemological references. Based on the remarkable progress of human knowledge in the 20th century, all scientific capability available could be hopefully converged on anatomizing this most powerful, taken-for-granted theoretical mechanism in intellectual history. Nevertheless, this challenging mission will play two-way roles in practices. Therefore we may conclusively say that this project taken by GS will be a double-directed theoretical interaction between philosophy as a big single-discipline and semiotics as interdisciplinary-directed scholarly assemblage functioning at operative level. The latter always needs to enrich its theoretical potential through learning from the former. In return the former as a theoretical-institutionalized system should be also the analyzed object of scholarly practices based on GS model, together with different theoretical achievements of various departmental semiotics. And consequences of this two-way scholarly interaction would wishfully push forward the unifying progress of human sciences at a multi-rationally operative level.
In my last paper published in Semiotica (Li, 2014) I treated general semiotics as a tool for institutional analysis with a focus on the internal and external institutionalized objects and contexts; in this paper I treat general semiotics as a all-round functional organizer by emphasizing a focus on epistemological-methodological relationship between semiotic approaches and reorganized humanity knowledge. The both aspects of identity and function of general semiotics exclude any theoretical involvement of philosophical fundamentalism that is traditionally taken as some absolute or authoritative theoretical foundation. Such a historically and habitually accepted relationship between philosophy and knowledge has no longer be valid; and fundamentalist philosophy as a conception of “first theory” should disappear forever in our new century. Conversely, philosophy as a professional discipline should become the object and material of theoretical-semiotic analysis based on GS-model. From this point of view we can understand either GS-model or institutional semiotics implies an extremely profound significance for effectively advancing theoretical level of human sciences.
References
Jacob, André (ed. 1989-2000). Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France Li, Youzheng, (2008). “Semiotics and Ancient History”. Semiotica. 172-1/4, 339-360 Li, Youzheng, (2011). “Nonwestern semiotics and its possible impact on the composition of semiotic theory in the future”. Semiotics. 187, 229-237 Li, Youzheng, (2013). “Ren-Humanist Ethics and Semiotics in the future”. Chinese Semiotic Studies, V. 9, 29-36 Li, Youzheng, (2014). “On the institutional aspect of institutionalized and institutionalizing semiotics”. Semiotics, 202, 81-107 Posner, Roland, Roberring, Klaus, Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed. 1998).A handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, Berlin-New York, Walter de Gruyter Ricoeur, Paul (ed. 1979). Main Trends in Philosophy, New York, Holmes & Meier Publishers (责任编辑：李幼蒸) |