龔鵬程對話海外學者第一百零二期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術統(tǒng)治的人類社會，只有強化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個人都應實踐的活動。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學研究中心”。我們會陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對話海外學者”系列文章，請他對話一些學界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學，會涉及多種學科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

德克·邁耶教授（Professor Dirk Meyer）

牛津大學中國哲學研究教授，牛津大學手稿和文本文化中心主任。

龔鵬程教授：您好。在文本生產的物質方面，牛津大學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，感謝您的問題。我們中心的關注點是將不同的前現(xiàn)代手稿文化帶入彼此的對話中，并就我們所面臨的問題在各學科間形成一種共同的學術語言。我們的學科經常受到狹隘方法的影響，造成了小小的學術孤島，而不是相互學習。我們中心試圖解決這個問題。

在西方學術界，中國領域在關注相鄰學科以及我們可以從他們那里學到什么方面做得不錯。但經過幾十年對古代手稿的研究，我們的領域現(xiàn)在已經獲得了專業(yè)知識，我認為值得與他人分享。

這樣一來，中心也是一個平臺，它把中國的經驗帶到關于古代思想生產的全球討論中。西方學術界喜歡把古典地中海的經驗看作是一種默認。我們以跨學科的重點，打斷了這種霸權主義的話語。

在我關于中國哲學的工作中，我探討了中國早期思想生產中的論證策略以及社會物質條件和思想的相互作用。我研究了文本的物質條件與它們被生產、傳播和（轉化）形成的物理媒介之間的關系，我將產生意義的策略概念化，這些策略超越了符號的詞匯層面，被編碼在結構、布局和功能中。通過研究媒體變化對思維系統(tǒng)化的影響，我進一步參與了哲學話語、手稿和文本文化以及哲學過渡時期的體裁和論證構建。

正是在這樣的背景下，為了擴展我在中國哲學方面的研究，探索不同時間和空間的哲學事業(yè)的相似之處和差異，我建立了“跨學科的手稿和文本文化中心”并擔任該中心的主任。該中心由亞洲和中東研究、古典學、中世紀文化、英語、哲學和互聯(lián)網研究的同事組成，以跨學科的方式推進對知識的物質條件的研究。

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：物質條件和思想的相互作用，中國早期竹簡、木牘、絹帛，印度貝葉方面有什么例子？

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

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

首先，在戰(zhàn)國時期，社會面臨著一種生存上的不安，這使得東周天下體系內的某些子群體對社會秩序提出質疑。這促使他們擴大自己的行動范圍。通過對這種挑戰(zhàn)的回應，他們在哲學上和政治上都成為了行動者。

同時，這些新的行動者在一個新的文本環(huán)境中工作，因為社會看到書面文本在實際流通中的空前增加。在這種更好的信息流通環(huán)境中，有關群體越來越能夠看到文本，比較文本，并融合文本，以進行新的闡述和發(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合在一起，以至于它們呈現(xiàn)出一個斷裂期，新的東西就會出現(xiàn)。

但是，公元前一千年的后半段，特別是戰(zhàn)國時期，在中國哲學思想形成的歷史上并不是一個獨立的時刻。盡管如此，可以說它預示著后來思想系統(tǒng)化的發(fā)展，它將以不同程度的強度重復戰(zhàn)國時期相關社區(qū)的經驗。

在社會物質變革的推動下，帶來了新的社會政治和哲學挑戰(zhàn)以及答案，其他"斷裂期 "包括我們可以稱之為 "文書時代"（約公元400-800年）的機械復制文本的生產線；"黎明的現(xiàn)代"（約公元1200-1800年）的印刷機和大目錄；或者 "數字時代"，在互聯(lián)網的背景下重新解釋文本。

顯然，這樣的斷裂期并非中國所特有，而是發(fā)生在不同社會的不同時期，在全球文學社會中產生了共鳴，無論是中國、歐洲還是其他地方。因此，中國只是一個案例研究，以實現(xiàn)跨學科的對話，在文本形勢增厚的社會物質背景下討論多種哲學。

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、等關系，也有矛盾和沖突，例如您研究的《尚書》，就有口傳本和文字本之爭；也形成“今文”“古文”之爭和真?zhèn)沃疇?，吵了兩千年。您們對這樣的問題，有什么看法？

德克·邁耶教授：我們這個領域的口述與寫作的辯論，有時可能相當尖銳，問題在于它傾向于用二元對立的方式工作。而古代的思想生產肯定遵循一種混合模式：寫作參與口述模式，反之亦然。

說到《詩經》，音模承載著詩歌的歌詞。音模從語音上定義了《詩經》的詩歌。但正如"模子 "一詞所暗示的那樣，在戰(zhàn)國時期，它們也可以作為容器，在一定程度上填充相關社區(qū)認為合適的、具有語義可塑性的內容。如果所選字形的聲音不違反它被放入的規(guī)定模具，作家或評論家就可以在一定程度上自由地應用一個群體對詩歌的理解。

最后，回到《尚書》傳統(tǒng)和您關于的"真實性 "問題，體裁的模式也使我能夠克服這個分歧。今天，《尚書》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，我建議談論漢代《尚書》（針對現(xiàn)代文字文本）和公元四世紀早期的 《偽古文尚書》。

然而，無論我們認為是古文字還是現(xiàn)代文字，這兩種文本都在不斷地被改造和改寫?！秱喂盼纳袝肺谋究赡苁菣n案工作的結果，現(xiàn)代文字的漢代《尚書》則是體裁劃分下的產物。這些類型中的每一種對我們來說都有巨大的信息量。

作為思想史家，它們告訴我們有關群體如何與古代材料互動并從中產生新的論點。但它們都沒有給我們提供一個“準確”的畫面，比如說，周公做了什么或沒有做什么。

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 ‘authenticity’, 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 ‘accurate’ picture of what the Duke of Zhōu, for instance, did or did not do.

龔鵬程教授：您們對近代新發(fā)現(xiàn)文書手稿的研究情況，尚祈見告。

德克·邁耶教授：多年來，我一直在探討：在中國的話語中，什么東西確切地構成了哲學論證，以及它是如何運作的問題。

我從不同的角度、帶著不同的關注點來做這件事，而每一個項目都會加深我對什么是好的論證的理解。

我深信論證的問題必須參照意義的物質性來解決，這個概念有兩層含義：一層是指一個社會的社會智力動態(tài)，另一層是指文本在加厚的手稿文化中的實際可用性。

在我的第一本書《竹上哲學》中，我試圖從概念上理解什么是中國早期的書面哲學論證，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，所以是在任何帝國干預發(fā)生之前。

這是必要的，因為我想在對古代的任何重新概念化發(fā)生之前獲得戰(zhàn)國思想活動的情況，就像在早期帝國時期一樣，所以選在中國的書面遺產被改寫之前。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。

以論證為基礎的文本，以一種連續(xù)的方式發(fā)展一個點，這樣的討論通過在一個更大的意義網絡中把它們連接起來而超越了單個的構件。

與此相反，在依賴語境的文本中，各個構件各自呈現(xiàn)出一個"更 "孤立的問題。不同的構件通常不會以一種連續(xù)的方式相互連接。在依賴語境的文本中，這對構件的信息內容沒有影響。

但在以論證為基礎的文本中則不同，在不同的文本配置中，文本單元的信息內容會發(fā)生相應的變化。因此，這種微觀層面的觀察對我們如何理解文本的宏觀結論有影響。

對于我們的思想評價來說，《老子》中哪些單元在前，哪些在后并不重要。每個單元都提出了一個相當"孤立 "的關注，因此可以被視為相對獨立的文本。在方法論上，我們甚至可以選擇隨機分析不同的單元。但對于以論證為基礎的文本來說，情況就不同了。以基于論證的文本 "忠信之道"為例。這個文本的宏觀結構反映了它的微觀結構，因此決定了我們必須如何理解文本中使用的各種術語，包括忠實和可信：對于文本的思想交流來說，哪個構件被放在哪里是非常重要的。

在下一個更高的層次上，在構件之上，我們經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立流通。這些集群可以被識別為更廣泛的文集中的章節(jié)，也可以被識別為單個文本中的段落。

作為意義單位，它們提供的信息因其直接的語境而不同?！对娊洝分械?康王之誥"文本就是一個例子。它只有兩個構件長度。在公元四世紀的《偽古文尚書》中，它與 "顧命"連讀，成為后者的一個組成部分。在漢代現(xiàn)代字體的《尚書》中，它被視為一個獨立的文本，與 "顧命"分開。如果 "康王之誥"作為一個獨立的實體單獨閱讀，或者與前面的文本（"顧命"）合并閱讀，其意義就不同了。

因此，無論是傳播的還是挖掘，基于論據與上下文的概念對于獲得一個文本的細微閱讀是必要的。

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年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學博士，當代著名學者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展。現(xiàn)為中國孔子博物館名譽館長、臺灣國立東華大學終身榮譽教授、美國龔鵬程基金會主席。