In recent years, in the efforts to reconstruct Chinese literary discourse, the importance of ancient literary discourse has often been inappropriately emphasized; and the characteristics and subtleties of ancient literary discourse are often summarized one-sidedly. One of the typical examples is the theory that "the wonderfulness of ancient literary theories lies in their vagueness." Strangely, this theory has not been questioned academically yet. This article intends to briefly express its opinions on this, so as to be a correct Chinese literary theory researcher.
1. Ji Lao raised the "fuzzy" words
In order to avoid misinterpreting Mr. Ji's remarks as much as possible, I will quote Mr. Ji Xianlin's relevant discussions as follows:
On May 16, 1996, Wu Jianglan was commissioned by the editorial department of "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature" to interview Mr. Ji Xianlin, and asked Mr. Ji to talk about his views on the construction of literary and artistic theory disciplines. Mr. Ji specially prepared an outline for this. The interview content was later published in the second issue of "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature Theory" (October 1996). Mr. Ji believed: "Western thinking is divided into two, analytical, China is combined into one, comprehensive" (page 2); "Western thinking is characterized by a weak overall concept, anatomical"; "I think that if Chinese language is good, it is good for fuzzy" (page 3); "We cannot learn the West to define each concept. Defining it for each concept is Western thing", "What is 'style'? It is hard to explain it in any scientific term in the West" (page 4); "The fuzzy theory is popular in foreign countries now... and the theory of chaos is related to fuzzy" (page 6), "The rise of chaos theory, etc., I think it is a sign that Western thoughts are moving closer to the East" (page 7).
"Literary Review" published Ji Xianlin's article "Whispers on Chinese and Foreign Literatures outside the door" in the 6th issue of "Literary Review" in 1996, which further supplemented and developed the above arguments. He said: "The Western master analyzes that he wants to make everything in the world clear and clear. However, according to the experience of ordinary people, there is nothing that is absolutely clear and clear in the universe." "(Western vague thinking) coincides with the comprehensive way of thinking of the East" (page 128); "These Chinese discourses (referring to words such as "antelope hanging on the horn" - introduction) seem very general on the surface, but very inaccurate... I now think that wonderful is wonderful and blurred. Fuzzy can give people a holistic concept and overall impression. In this way, every reader has the complete freedom to exert their imagination and aesthetic ability" (page 129).
The above is Mr. Ji’s basic argument on the “ambiguity” of literary theory. In fact, it is not exclusive invention of Mr. Ji to distinguish between Chinese and Western cultures by "fuzzy" and "precision". Before this, Mr. Jin Kemu had a concise summary: "Foreigns are definite, while China values vagueness" [1]. It’s just that Mr. Ji has made full use of it. But no matter what, such propositions cannot but arouse serious academic thinking and doubts.
2. Chinese and Western thinking is not a simple binary opposition
Mr. Ji's dual opposition theory of "analysis" and "synthesis" between Chinese and Western thinking is the theoretical foundation of his theory of "fuzzy and good literary theory". Therefore, our analysis starts here.
The West does have a tradition of analyticality. But this tradition mainly developed in modern times. In ancient Greece, simple overall thinking still occupied a major position. Democritus's book "The Great System of Cosmology" focuses on the whole. He also put forward the assertion that "the whole is greater than the sum of the part" [2]. By Kant and Hegel, there has been an emphasis on overall thinking. By the mid-to-late 19th century, Marxist materialist dialectics that focused on the connection between things and the whole appeared. You can't say that it is an "analytical" thinking with "a weak overall view", right? In the 20th century when the great development of analytical philosophy, "system theory" was born again. The above are all well-known common sense of philosophy history. How can we say that the West is just a "analytical" thinking that "divides into two"?
China has an overall comprehensive tradition. "Five Elements", "Eight Trigrams" and traditional Chinese medicine are all manifestations of holistic thinking. But China also has a tradition of analyticality. The analysis of the two elements of "yin" and "yang" by ancient culture can be said to be at its peak. The so-called "things are born from two different things" ("Zuo Zhuan·Zhaogong 32nd Year"), the so-called "understanding the distinction between heaven and man" ("Xunzi·Chen Lun") are not all "analytical" thinking? And many important propositions of ancient culture, such as "one yin and one yang are called Tao" ("Zhou Yi·Xici Shang"), "the mutual generation of existence and non-is, the mutual completion of difficulty and ease" ("Laozi" Chapter 2), "When studying the world of heaven and earth, understanding the changes of ancient and modern times" (Sima Qian's "Book of Ren'an"), are not all the organic combination of "analysis" and "comprehensive"? In terms of literary theory, the "dividing distinction between the confinement" and "separating emotions and analyzing and picking" in "Wen Xin Diaolong" is analysis, and "breaking the muscles and dividing the principles, only to compromise" ("Xu Zhi") is the unity of analysis and synthesis. How can we say that Chinese thinking is just a "comprehensive" of "unification of two to one"?
The above historical facts fully prove Engels's following conclusion: Analysis and synthesis are "must be interconnected" [3]. No nation can be just a single analysis or synthesis. Our task may be to distinguish the nuances of Chinese and Western analysis, synthesis and combination of the two, as well as their respective pros and cons. However, this is beyond the scope of this article's argumentation.
In Ji Lao's eyes, "blurry" seems to be China's national treasure. But it is not. Wu Tieping, an expert on "fuzzy linguistics" who was cited by Mr. Ji, pointed out: "Ambiguousness in the scientific sense is the common feature of human thinking, not the characteristic that distinguishes Orientals and Westerners" [4]. This is like being directed at the two elders Jin and Ji. The intuitive and vague "fuzzy" thinking characteristics mentioned by Mr. Ji are by no means the only secret of China. As some have pointed out, as "the instant grip of the actual object of manifestation", "an accurate intuition" "understanding" has also existed in Western culture since ancient Greece [5].
Similarly, Chinese culture has also tended to pursue "precision" since ancient times, rather than blindly "vague", and the academic language is particularly prominent. At the end of the Han Dynasty, Liu Shao praised him for his "detailed steps" and "subtle fractional comparison" [6]. One of the inclusion criteria of the "Siku Quanshu" of the Chinese Cultural Ceremony is that "it is mainly based on the careful examination and clarification of the analysis and clarification" ("Fanjing"). Qianjia academics with great Chinese characteristics also pursue "all the correctness of the matter is accurate and unchangeable" [7], and also said, "If Sangmen regards "not establishing words" as the best, it is not the study of our Confucianism" [8]. All of them pursue precision and have no trace of "fuzzy". Even keen Western scholars can feel this. Joseph Needham, a famous British expert in science and technology history, once pointed out: "In the past spirit of the Chinese people, there is obviously nothing that can prevent people from discovering those knowledge of those that conform to the strictest research principles, accuracy and logical reasoning" [9]. How can we say that the Chinese language is "the wonderful thing is that it is blurred"?
In short, the difference between Chinese and Western thinking modes is simply attributed to the binary opposition between "analysis" and "synthesis", "precision" and "fuzzy", which does not conform to basic historical facts. In addition, "comprehensive" is relative to "analysis", while Mr. Ji called "fuzzy" relatively "precision", there is no internal connection between the two. Therefore, no matter what, the "comprehensive" theory cannot serve as the theoretical basis for the "fuzzy" theory.
3. This "fuzzy" is not that "fuzzy"
Ironically, Mr. Ji, who raised the "fuzzyness" of China, often seeks support from the West's "fuzzy theory" and "chaos theory". Of course, he called it "a sign of Western thought moving closer to the East." However, is this "fuzzy" "fuzzy"?
Perhaps it was because Mr. Ji hated "learning the West to define each concept", and he never made a clear logical definition of the word "fuzzy". We can only infer from its context. He sometimes understands it as less "clear, clear-cut", "not very precise", "not very clear", and sometimes understands it as "exploiting imagination". These are all daily meanings in Chinese, not specific subject meanings. But is the meaning of "fuzzy" in Western "fuzzy science" also? The answer is no.
Modern "fuzzy studies" are the product of Western culture. From an epistemological perspective, "ambiguity is the uncertainty about the boundaries and characteristics of the object in people's understanding" [10], rather than generally referring to the meaning of "unclearity". "Fuzzy" first emerged from precision science mathematics. The so-called "fuzzy mathematics" means "using precise mathematical methods to describe and process the fuzzy features of objects" [11], and "the truth value operation of fuzzy propositions is actually the operation of membership functions" [12]. Therefore, fuzzy mathematics is not "fuzzy" at all. And "For chaotic systems, the laws of dynamics must be expressed at the level of probability" [13]. Therefore, "chaotic science" is also a precision discipline and is not "unclear". As for the rising "fuzzy linguistics", it mainly studies the "fuzzyness" of the meaning of the word, that is, "the uncertainty of the boundaries of the extension of the meaning of the word" [14]. But the central part of the meaning of the word, that is, the connotation, is still certain. From the above we can see that the meaning of "fuzzy" in Western "fuzzy theory" and "chaotic theory" is actually very different from Mr. Ji's understanding.
Research on fuzzy linguistics points out that fuzzy language mainly exists in daily natural language, and mostly exists in words that represent the scope of time and space and the traits of things. Some people say: "The domain where the fuzzy set of the representation words is basically the quantitative scale" [15]. Therefore, "fuzzy restriction words can be used to test the ambiguity. Anything that can be combined with such restriction words is a fuzzy type", and "the modified word can be expressed by degree" [16], such as "big", "big", "extreme". Obviously, the "vague" words listed in Ji Lao's article do not belong to this category.
4. Literary language is not just "fuzzy"
Mr. Ji believes that the "wonderfulness of literary language lies in its vagueness." He used the poems such as "The sound of chickens and the moon in the hut, the frost of people on the bridge" and "The setting sun, the heartbroken man is at the end of the world" as examples to illustrate that "this vague language gives people absolute freedom of imagination, and everyone imagines it based on their own experience" [17]. Not to mention that the syntax of the previous sentence is rare in Chinese. Even if it is recognized as a Chinese characteristic, it is just a "subtle" technique and style. The meaning of these words themselves is not "fuzzy" at all, and what is "fuzzy" is just the meaning of it. Although it can give people the freedom of imagination, it is not "absolute". Because in addition to being restricted by the experience of the appraiser, it is also restricted by the background knowledge of the work you have. If it is too "fuzzy", it will form an appreciation barrier, such as Bai Juyi's poem "Flowers Not Flowers" and some contemporary misty poems. Therefore, the role of "fuzzy" discourse cannot be exaggerated.
It should also be seen that this "vague" (implicit) expression of literary language is desirable, and it should not be or cannot be the only best way of expression. As Liang Qichao said, "Those who have always written emotions mostly use the principle of implicitness and borrowing, like the implicit sound of playing the piano, like the sweet taste of eating olives, is the most enjoyable for us Chinese writers." But he then pointed out: "But there is a kind of emotion that suddenly rushes into the sky. We can name this kind of literature, called the 'The Expression Method of Running into the Sky'... In this case, implicit and implicit borrowing is useless." He also used works such as "Liao'er" and "Yellow Bird" in "The Book of Songs", "The Introduction to the Kumhou", "Longtou Song", and Du Fu's "When the Official Army Receives Henan and Hebei" as examples. Finally, he praised such works as "the saint of emotional texts" [18]. In addition, "Life and Love" by Pei Duofei and "The Eyebrow and Sword Unsheathed" in "* Poetry Copy" are also of this type of poetry. They also give people room for imagination. It can be seen from this that whether the literary language is "fuzzy" depends on the content, object, author's mood and aesthetic pursuit, and must not be generalized.
As mentioned above, the corresponding to the "fuzzy" meaning "subtle" is the "direct exposure" and "bluntness" of "superficiality", rather than the "precision" corresponding to "ambiguity". In any sense, "fuzzy" cannot be an essential feature of literary language. Because the essence and function of language is communicative, "language is a practical, realistic consciousness that exists for others and only for myself" [19]. Therefore, "the accuracy of the word meaning is the basic attribute of the word meaning" [20]. Even literary language cannot violate this attribute. Gorky once pointed out: "The true beauty of language comes from the accuracy, clarity and beautiful words" [21]. Therefore, it is impossible to simply and generally speak literary language "the wonderful thing lies in its vagueness."
5. It is better to have a literary discourse "precise"
If the requirement of accuracy of literary language also allows "fuzzy", then theoretical language, literary theoretical language, can only require accuracy, although it can also add a little literary talent. Larry Laudan said it well: "The function of theory is to eliminate ambiguous life, turn irregularities into regularity, and show that things are understandable and predictable." [22] However, Mr. Ji often mixes these two languages together and cooks them in one pot.
Below, let us make a specific analysis of the "fuzzy" language cited by Mr. Ji.
One category is highly generalized adjectives, such as "elegant and bold", "depressed and upset", "stern and sharp", "clear and clever", etc. The advantage of this type of words is that they are concise and conform to the principle of pragmatic economics. As for whether it can give people a "overall impression", it is still a question mark. Except for the common "elegant and bold" that is relatively common and has a roughly clear meaning, most of the other words are relatively vivid and vivid words refined by literati, which are indeed difficult for ordinary readers to understand. To grasp its basic meaning, we must trace the etymology, read the original work carefully, read and verify a large number of documents, and repeatedly ponder and ponder it. It can be said that "the sky is in poverty and the sky is falling down" and "it is haggard for her." Even so, it is difficult to understand, which will create resistance to communication. This not only violates the principle of economics, but also deviates from the essence of language - the principle of communication.
One type is a figurative metaphor, such as "anyol hanging on the horns", "the moon in the water", "the image in the mirror", etc. They were originally Zen chants, and were borrowed by Yan Yu's "Canglang Poetry Talks·Poetry Discussion" to explain the poem. If they are separated from a specific theoretical language environment, they can only lead people to the Zen realm, or nothing, and what else can they talk about "exercising imagination" and "overall impression"? The original text is as follows: "There are different materials on poetry, but not related to books; the different interests on poetry, but not related to principles. However, if you do not read more books and explore more principles, you cannot be extremely successful. The so-called "not involved in the path of reason and not falling into words" is the best. Poetry is the chanting of emotions. People in the prosperous Tang Dynasty are only interested in the antelope hanging on the horns, and there is no trace to find. Therefore, its wonderfulness is thorough and exquisite, and it cannot be put together, like the sound in the air, the color in the face, the moon in the water, the image in the mirror, the words are endless but the meaning is infinite." It is obvious that this paragraph of "literary eyes" is in non-metaphorical sentences such as "not involved in the path of reason and not falling into words", "people in the prosperous Tang Dynasty are only interested in interests", "speaking is endless but the meaning is infinite". Those metaphorical "fuzzy" words just add a little image, vividness and fun. They have no independent theoretical status or connotation, and there is no "overall impression" or "freedom of imagination". The above precise language has achieved "overall grasp". In short, the quotation of "vague" by Mr. Ji is not very "wonderful".
Looking at ancient Chinese literary theory, its main body and essence are by no means "fuzzy" discourse, but precise expression. Even in "Canglang Poetry Talk", the "mirror flower" and "water moon" style sentences are also added and embellished. Not to mention the "Wenxin Diaolong", which represents the level of ancient Chinese literary theory. It not only shows the conscious pursuit of accuracy, such as proposing and affirming "Fengying precision" ("On the Discussion", "thinking carefully with tightness" ("Zhixia"), "understanding words and reasoning" ("Fuhui"), etc.; it also truly realizes the pursuit of accuracy in writing practice unprecedentedly perfectly. Although "Wenxin Diaolong" is restricted by parallel prose style, most of the chapters still maintain the clear, meticulous and bright language. The best chapters such as "Divine Thoughts" and "Finding" are also the most simple and clear chapters in language. "Definition" is not just a "Western thing". "Wenxin Diaolong" also has many clear definitions. Therefore, later generations praised it as "exquisite discussion", "exploding the spirit and exaggerating the appearance", "big thoughts on the whole body", and "accurate and secret meaning" [23]. At that time, he was not influenced by Western "analytical" thinking at all, but he never praised "Wenxin Diaolong" for his "ambiguity". How can we say that "fuzzy" is the characteristic of Chinese literary discourse, and "the wonderful thing lies in the blur"? Mr. Ji said that he could not explain clearly in Western scientific terms "the character" in "Wenxin Diaolong". Haven’t Chinese terms been unable to be explained clearly? This is precisely due to the "fuzzy" (inaccurate) of the original work, which proves that the "fuzzy" is not "wonderful".
The only exception is perhaps the "Twenty-Four Poetry Collection" by "comparing objects to take images, witnessing the Tao" ("Poetry Collection" version of Xu Yinfang's "Twenty-Four Poetry Collection"). This work is indeed full of "fuzzy" in the sense of "subtle". But according to my academic standpoint, although there are many shining ideas, it is hard to say that they are the real theoretical form. Its theoretical nature and content are far less than that of Yuan Haowen, who is in the style of poetry. Rather than saying that it is a "poetry theory", it is better to say that it is a collection of poems based on appreciation and insight and depicting literary style. It is difficult for people to interpret it theoretically. Therefore, the ancients "during the connotation of the meaning and the purpose is difficult to understand", "I have been vague for more than 40 years, but I have not yet obtained the purpose"; they lamented that "it is difficult to understand, and it is difficult to describe it"; they may refer to "it is difficult to understand for a long time" and "it is difficult to convey it in words" [24]. This brings great obstacles to research and communication, and leads to numerous comments that build up houses and houses, which leads to a huge waste of intellectual resources and violates the principle of efficiency in modern society.
In short, from both positive and negative aspects, both literary discourse requires precision and rejects "fuzzy" (inaccuracy). Even as "subtle" "fuzzy", it can only be a supplement to precise discourse and should not be the dominant discourse.
6. Remaining
To promote national characteristics and carry forward national traditions, we should have a calm and peaceful mindset and a comprehensive perspective. We must not be simple, rash, or emotional. Otherwise, the "change of course" of Chinese literary and artistic theory may be on the wrong path.
Modern thinking requires a clear rationality, although it also requires a balance of emotion, understanding and spirituality. Overall, analytical and precise rational thinking has not been fully developed in China, and its grasp of the overall situation is mostly general and rough. The Chinese-style simple holistic thinking is difficult to spiral up into a modern system theory and holistic view without the dialectical overthrow of modern scientific analytical thinking. Is it an accidental exception for emerging comprehensive disciplines such as cybernetics, information theory, systems theory, chaos theory, and fuzzy science? What is the basis for calling it "facing to the east"?
As Mr. Tang Yi said: "The immaturity of rational thinking seriously hinders the efficiency, self-consciousness and scientificization of society" [25]. In China, theoretical thinking is often impacted and distorted by perceptual thinking, and it often presents "ambiguity" in language expression. The excessive subjectivity, emotionality and literary theory is one of the important reasons for its poor reputation. There is no distinction between appreciation and comment, and the confusion between literature and theory is common in literary and theoretical research. Perhaps, combining sharp insights, clear and concise expressions with both emotional and emotional clarity, clear and organized logic and system in Western style is the best way to rebuild and innovate Chinese literary theory?
Although modern and contemporary Chinese literary theory has absorbed more Western literary and artistic ideas and categories, it is still deeply rooted in traditional thinking and expression methods. This cannot but bring obstacles to international academic exchanges. Not to mention Western scholars, even Japanese scholars in the East are often troubled by the study of Chinese literature "too literary" and "too many emotional and emotional factors", and even "feeling not academic works, but a kind of 'literary creation'"; and called on Chinese and Japanese scholars to establish "the 'basis' of joint research", including "research methods, topics, ideas, language, etc." [26]. To participate in international academic exchanges, you should be familiar with and abide by the common rules of the game. Clear logic is the minimum. The theory of "the wonderful thing lies in the confusion" will inevitably be incompatible with this trend and go against this trend, unless you want to close yourself in international academic exchanges, the so-called "everyone says his own". But I believe that most people are unwilling to take this path.
Notes:
[1] Jin Kemu: "Talking about Ancient and Modern Times of Snail Horns", Liaoning Education Press, 1995 edition, page 168.
[2] Ma Qingjian: "System and Dialectics", Qiushi Press, November 1989 edition, page 5.
[3] Engels: "Natural Dialectics", "Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 2, Volume 2, People's Publishing House, May 1972 edition, page 548.
[4] Wu Tieping: Preface to "Fuzzy Linguistics", Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, November 1999 edition.
[5] Nikolai Buning and Yu Jiyuan edited: "Dictionary of Western English-Chinese Comparative Philosophy", People's Publishing House, February 2001 edition, page 166.
〔6〕〕 The Three Kingdoms: Biography of Liu Shao" quoted Xiahou Hui's comments.
[7] Qian Daxin: Volume 38 of "Chaoyantang Collection", "Biography of Mr. Yan Yan".
[8] Same as above, Volume 24, Preface to Zang Yulin's "Miscellaneous Consciousness of the Classics".
[9] Joseph Needham: Volume 1 of "History of Science and Technology", pages 312 and 313, quoted from Qi Yongxiang's "Research on Qianjia Texts and Research", China Social Sciences Press, December 1998 edition, pages 50 and 51.
[10] Li Xiaoming: "Funity: The Mystery of Human Knowledge", People's Publishing House, December 1985 edition, page 12.
[11] Same as above, page 31.
[12] Zhang Yue et al. edited by: "Fuzzy Mathematical Methods and Its Application", Coal Industry Press, April 1992 edition, page 35.
[13] Ilya Prigojin: "The End of Determinism", Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, December 1998, page 85.
[14] Zhang Qiao: "Fuzzy Semantics", China Social Sciences Press, February 1998 edition, page 21.
[15] Wu Wangming: Explanation on the writing of "Principles and Methods of Fuzzy Reasoning", Guizhou Science and Technology Press, January 1994 edition.
[16] Same as above, page 113.
[17] Wu Jianglan compiled: "The construction of literary and artistic theory needs to be changed - Interview with Professor Ji Xianlin", "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature Theory" Volume 2, 1996
October 2019, page 4.
[18] Liang Qichao: "Emotions expressed in Chinese rhymes", quoted from Zhou Zhenfu's "Examples of Poetry", China Youth Publishing House, May 1979, 2nd edition, pages 352 to 355.
[19] Marx and Engels: "Feuerbach", "Selected Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 1, Volume 1, People's Publishing House, May 1972 edition, No.
Page 35.
[20] Su Baorong: "Research on Dictionary and Interpretation of Dictionary", Commercial Press, October 2000 Edition, page 93.
[21] Gorky: "Thesis of Literature", Guangxi People's Publishing House, January 1980 edition, page 57.
[22] Larry Laudan: "Progress and Its Issues", Huaxia Publishing House, 1999 edition, page 15.
[23] Yang Mingzhao: "Wenxin Diaolong's Annotation and Collection of Relics", Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, December 1982 edition, pages 436, pages 438, pages 440, pages 441
Page.
[24] Preface and preface to "Poetry Compositions", "A Brief Explanation of Twenty-Four Poetry Compositions", written by Sun Liankui and Yang Tingzhi, edited by Sun Changxi and Liu Gan, "Two Explanations of Sikong Tu's "Poetry Compositions"", Qilu Bookstore, August 1980 edition, pages 3, pages 5, pages 125.
[25] Tang Yi: "Rong Mutan──Ideological Essays and Culture Interpretation", Commercial Press, January 2000 Edition, page 143.
[26] Bi Nakajima: "Letter to Chen Pingyuan", "Chinese Reading Newspaper", 17th edition, May 16, 2001.
1. Ji Lao raised the "fuzzy" words
In order to avoid misinterpreting Mr. Ji's remarks as much as possible, I will quote Mr. Ji Xianlin's relevant discussions as follows:
On May 16, 1996, Wu Jianglan was commissioned by the editorial department of "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature" to interview Mr. Ji Xianlin, and asked Mr. Ji to talk about his views on the construction of literary and artistic theory disciplines. Mr. Ji specially prepared an outline for this. The interview content was later published in the second issue of "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature Theory" (October 1996). Mr. Ji believed: "Western thinking is divided into two, analytical, China is combined into one, comprehensive" (page 2); "Western thinking is characterized by a weak overall concept, anatomical"; "I think that if Chinese language is good, it is good for fuzzy" (page 3); "We cannot learn the West to define each concept. Defining it for each concept is Western thing", "What is 'style'? It is hard to explain it in any scientific term in the West" (page 4); "The fuzzy theory is popular in foreign countries now... and the theory of chaos is related to fuzzy" (page 6), "The rise of chaos theory, etc., I think it is a sign that Western thoughts are moving closer to the East" (page 7).
"Literary Review" published Ji Xianlin's article "Whispers on Chinese and Foreign Literatures outside the door" in the 6th issue of "Literary Review" in 1996, which further supplemented and developed the above arguments. He said: "The Western master analyzes that he wants to make everything in the world clear and clear. However, according to the experience of ordinary people, there is nothing that is absolutely clear and clear in the universe." "(Western vague thinking) coincides with the comprehensive way of thinking of the East" (page 128); "These Chinese discourses (referring to words such as "antelope hanging on the horn" - introduction) seem very general on the surface, but very inaccurate... I now think that wonderful is wonderful and blurred. Fuzzy can give people a holistic concept and overall impression. In this way, every reader has the complete freedom to exert their imagination and aesthetic ability" (page 129).
The above is Mr. Ji’s basic argument on the “ambiguity” of literary theory. In fact, it is not exclusive invention of Mr. Ji to distinguish between Chinese and Western cultures by "fuzzy" and "precision". Before this, Mr. Jin Kemu had a concise summary: "Foreigns are definite, while China values vagueness" [1]. It’s just that Mr. Ji has made full use of it. But no matter what, such propositions cannot but arouse serious academic thinking and doubts.
2. Chinese and Western thinking is not a simple binary opposition
Mr. Ji's dual opposition theory of "analysis" and "synthesis" between Chinese and Western thinking is the theoretical foundation of his theory of "fuzzy and good literary theory". Therefore, our analysis starts here.
The West does have a tradition of analyticality. But this tradition mainly developed in modern times. In ancient Greece, simple overall thinking still occupied a major position. Democritus's book "The Great System of Cosmology" focuses on the whole. He also put forward the assertion that "the whole is greater than the sum of the part" [2]. By Kant and Hegel, there has been an emphasis on overall thinking. By the mid-to-late 19th century, Marxist materialist dialectics that focused on the connection between things and the whole appeared. You can't say that it is an "analytical" thinking with "a weak overall view", right? In the 20th century when the great development of analytical philosophy, "system theory" was born again. The above are all well-known common sense of philosophy history. How can we say that the West is just a "analytical" thinking that "divides into two"?
China has an overall comprehensive tradition. "Five Elements", "Eight Trigrams" and traditional Chinese medicine are all manifestations of holistic thinking. But China also has a tradition of analyticality. The analysis of the two elements of "yin" and "yang" by ancient culture can be said to be at its peak. The so-called "things are born from two different things" ("Zuo Zhuan·Zhaogong 32nd Year"), the so-called "understanding the distinction between heaven and man" ("Xunzi·Chen Lun") are not all "analytical" thinking? And many important propositions of ancient culture, such as "one yin and one yang are called Tao" ("Zhou Yi·Xici Shang"), "the mutual generation of existence and non-is, the mutual completion of difficulty and ease" ("Laozi" Chapter 2), "When studying the world of heaven and earth, understanding the changes of ancient and modern times" (Sima Qian's "Book of Ren'an"), are not all the organic combination of "analysis" and "comprehensive"? In terms of literary theory, the "dividing distinction between the confinement" and "separating emotions and analyzing and picking" in "Wen Xin Diaolong" is analysis, and "breaking the muscles and dividing the principles, only to compromise" ("Xu Zhi") is the unity of analysis and synthesis. How can we say that Chinese thinking is just a "comprehensive" of "unification of two to one"?
The above historical facts fully prove Engels's following conclusion: Analysis and synthesis are "must be interconnected" [3]. No nation can be just a single analysis or synthesis. Our task may be to distinguish the nuances of Chinese and Western analysis, synthesis and combination of the two, as well as their respective pros and cons. However, this is beyond the scope of this article's argumentation.
In Ji Lao's eyes, "blurry" seems to be China's national treasure. But it is not. Wu Tieping, an expert on "fuzzy linguistics" who was cited by Mr. Ji, pointed out: "Ambiguousness in the scientific sense is the common feature of human thinking, not the characteristic that distinguishes Orientals and Westerners" [4]. This is like being directed at the two elders Jin and Ji. The intuitive and vague "fuzzy" thinking characteristics mentioned by Mr. Ji are by no means the only secret of China. As some have pointed out, as "the instant grip of the actual object of manifestation", "an accurate intuition" "understanding" has also existed in Western culture since ancient Greece [5].
Similarly, Chinese culture has also tended to pursue "precision" since ancient times, rather than blindly "vague", and the academic language is particularly prominent. At the end of the Han Dynasty, Liu Shao praised him for his "detailed steps" and "subtle fractional comparison" [6]. One of the inclusion criteria of the "Siku Quanshu" of the Chinese Cultural Ceremony is that "it is mainly based on the careful examination and clarification of the analysis and clarification" ("Fanjing"). Qianjia academics with great Chinese characteristics also pursue "all the correctness of the matter is accurate and unchangeable" [7], and also said, "If Sangmen regards "not establishing words" as the best, it is not the study of our Confucianism" [8]. All of them pursue precision and have no trace of "fuzzy". Even keen Western scholars can feel this. Joseph Needham, a famous British expert in science and technology history, once pointed out: "In the past spirit of the Chinese people, there is obviously nothing that can prevent people from discovering those knowledge of those that conform to the strictest research principles, accuracy and logical reasoning" [9]. How can we say that the Chinese language is "the wonderful thing is that it is blurred"?
In short, the difference between Chinese and Western thinking modes is simply attributed to the binary opposition between "analysis" and "synthesis", "precision" and "fuzzy", which does not conform to basic historical facts. In addition, "comprehensive" is relative to "analysis", while Mr. Ji called "fuzzy" relatively "precision", there is no internal connection between the two. Therefore, no matter what, the "comprehensive" theory cannot serve as the theoretical basis for the "fuzzy" theory.
3. This "fuzzy" is not that "fuzzy"
Ironically, Mr. Ji, who raised the "fuzzyness" of China, often seeks support from the West's "fuzzy theory" and "chaos theory". Of course, he called it "a sign of Western thought moving closer to the East." However, is this "fuzzy" "fuzzy"?
Perhaps it was because Mr. Ji hated "learning the West to define each concept", and he never made a clear logical definition of the word "fuzzy". We can only infer from its context. He sometimes understands it as less "clear, clear-cut", "not very precise", "not very clear", and sometimes understands it as "exploiting imagination". These are all daily meanings in Chinese, not specific subject meanings. But is the meaning of "fuzzy" in Western "fuzzy science" also? The answer is no.
Modern "fuzzy studies" are the product of Western culture. From an epistemological perspective, "ambiguity is the uncertainty about the boundaries and characteristics of the object in people's understanding" [10], rather than generally referring to the meaning of "unclearity". "Fuzzy" first emerged from precision science mathematics. The so-called "fuzzy mathematics" means "using precise mathematical methods to describe and process the fuzzy features of objects" [11], and "the truth value operation of fuzzy propositions is actually the operation of membership functions" [12]. Therefore, fuzzy mathematics is not "fuzzy" at all. And "For chaotic systems, the laws of dynamics must be expressed at the level of probability" [13]. Therefore, "chaotic science" is also a precision discipline and is not "unclear". As for the rising "fuzzy linguistics", it mainly studies the "fuzzyness" of the meaning of the word, that is, "the uncertainty of the boundaries of the extension of the meaning of the word" [14]. But the central part of the meaning of the word, that is, the connotation, is still certain. From the above we can see that the meaning of "fuzzy" in Western "fuzzy theory" and "chaotic theory" is actually very different from Mr. Ji's understanding.
Research on fuzzy linguistics points out that fuzzy language mainly exists in daily natural language, and mostly exists in words that represent the scope of time and space and the traits of things. Some people say: "The domain where the fuzzy set of the representation words is basically the quantitative scale" [15]. Therefore, "fuzzy restriction words can be used to test the ambiguity. Anything that can be combined with such restriction words is a fuzzy type", and "the modified word can be expressed by degree" [16], such as "big", "big", "extreme". Obviously, the "vague" words listed in Ji Lao's article do not belong to this category.
4. Literary language is not just "fuzzy"
Mr. Ji believes that the "wonderfulness of literary language lies in its vagueness." He used the poems such as "The sound of chickens and the moon in the hut, the frost of people on the bridge" and "The setting sun, the heartbroken man is at the end of the world" as examples to illustrate that "this vague language gives people absolute freedom of imagination, and everyone imagines it based on their own experience" [17]. Not to mention that the syntax of the previous sentence is rare in Chinese. Even if it is recognized as a Chinese characteristic, it is just a "subtle" technique and style. The meaning of these words themselves is not "fuzzy" at all, and what is "fuzzy" is just the meaning of it. Although it can give people the freedom of imagination, it is not "absolute". Because in addition to being restricted by the experience of the appraiser, it is also restricted by the background knowledge of the work you have. If it is too "fuzzy", it will form an appreciation barrier, such as Bai Juyi's poem "Flowers Not Flowers" and some contemporary misty poems. Therefore, the role of "fuzzy" discourse cannot be exaggerated.
It should also be seen that this "vague" (implicit) expression of literary language is desirable, and it should not be or cannot be the only best way of expression. As Liang Qichao said, "Those who have always written emotions mostly use the principle of implicitness and borrowing, like the implicit sound of playing the piano, like the sweet taste of eating olives, is the most enjoyable for us Chinese writers." But he then pointed out: "But there is a kind of emotion that suddenly rushes into the sky. We can name this kind of literature, called the 'The Expression Method of Running into the Sky'... In this case, implicit and implicit borrowing is useless." He also used works such as "Liao'er" and "Yellow Bird" in "The Book of Songs", "The Introduction to the Kumhou", "Longtou Song", and Du Fu's "When the Official Army Receives Henan and Hebei" as examples. Finally, he praised such works as "the saint of emotional texts" [18]. In addition, "Life and Love" by Pei Duofei and "The Eyebrow and Sword Unsheathed" in "* Poetry Copy" are also of this type of poetry. They also give people room for imagination. It can be seen from this that whether the literary language is "fuzzy" depends on the content, object, author's mood and aesthetic pursuit, and must not be generalized.
As mentioned above, the corresponding to the "fuzzy" meaning "subtle" is the "direct exposure" and "bluntness" of "superficiality", rather than the "precision" corresponding to "ambiguity". In any sense, "fuzzy" cannot be an essential feature of literary language. Because the essence and function of language is communicative, "language is a practical, realistic consciousness that exists for others and only for myself" [19]. Therefore, "the accuracy of the word meaning is the basic attribute of the word meaning" [20]. Even literary language cannot violate this attribute. Gorky once pointed out: "The true beauty of language comes from the accuracy, clarity and beautiful words" [21]. Therefore, it is impossible to simply and generally speak literary language "the wonderful thing lies in its vagueness."
5. It is better to have a literary discourse "precise"
If the requirement of accuracy of literary language also allows "fuzzy", then theoretical language, literary theoretical language, can only require accuracy, although it can also add a little literary talent. Larry Laudan said it well: "The function of theory is to eliminate ambiguous life, turn irregularities into regularity, and show that things are understandable and predictable." [22] However, Mr. Ji often mixes these two languages together and cooks them in one pot.
Below, let us make a specific analysis of the "fuzzy" language cited by Mr. Ji.
One category is highly generalized adjectives, such as "elegant and bold", "depressed and upset", "stern and sharp", "clear and clever", etc. The advantage of this type of words is that they are concise and conform to the principle of pragmatic economics. As for whether it can give people a "overall impression", it is still a question mark. Except for the common "elegant and bold" that is relatively common and has a roughly clear meaning, most of the other words are relatively vivid and vivid words refined by literati, which are indeed difficult for ordinary readers to understand. To grasp its basic meaning, we must trace the etymology, read the original work carefully, read and verify a large number of documents, and repeatedly ponder and ponder it. It can be said that "the sky is in poverty and the sky is falling down" and "it is haggard for her." Even so, it is difficult to understand, which will create resistance to communication. This not only violates the principle of economics, but also deviates from the essence of language - the principle of communication.
One type is a figurative metaphor, such as "anyol hanging on the horns", "the moon in the water", "the image in the mirror", etc. They were originally Zen chants, and were borrowed by Yan Yu's "Canglang Poetry Talks·Poetry Discussion" to explain the poem. If they are separated from a specific theoretical language environment, they can only lead people to the Zen realm, or nothing, and what else can they talk about "exercising imagination" and "overall impression"? The original text is as follows: "There are different materials on poetry, but not related to books; the different interests on poetry, but not related to principles. However, if you do not read more books and explore more principles, you cannot be extremely successful. The so-called "not involved in the path of reason and not falling into words" is the best. Poetry is the chanting of emotions. People in the prosperous Tang Dynasty are only interested in the antelope hanging on the horns, and there is no trace to find. Therefore, its wonderfulness is thorough and exquisite, and it cannot be put together, like the sound in the air, the color in the face, the moon in the water, the image in the mirror, the words are endless but the meaning is infinite." It is obvious that this paragraph of "literary eyes" is in non-metaphorical sentences such as "not involved in the path of reason and not falling into words", "people in the prosperous Tang Dynasty are only interested in interests", "speaking is endless but the meaning is infinite". Those metaphorical "fuzzy" words just add a little image, vividness and fun. They have no independent theoretical status or connotation, and there is no "overall impression" or "freedom of imagination". The above precise language has achieved "overall grasp". In short, the quotation of "vague" by Mr. Ji is not very "wonderful".
Looking at ancient Chinese literary theory, its main body and essence are by no means "fuzzy" discourse, but precise expression. Even in "Canglang Poetry Talk", the "mirror flower" and "water moon" style sentences are also added and embellished. Not to mention the "Wenxin Diaolong", which represents the level of ancient Chinese literary theory. It not only shows the conscious pursuit of accuracy, such as proposing and affirming "Fengying precision" ("On the Discussion", "thinking carefully with tightness" ("Zhixia"), "understanding words and reasoning" ("Fuhui"), etc.; it also truly realizes the pursuit of accuracy in writing practice unprecedentedly perfectly. Although "Wenxin Diaolong" is restricted by parallel prose style, most of the chapters still maintain the clear, meticulous and bright language. The best chapters such as "Divine Thoughts" and "Finding" are also the most simple and clear chapters in language. "Definition" is not just a "Western thing". "Wenxin Diaolong" also has many clear definitions. Therefore, later generations praised it as "exquisite discussion", "exploding the spirit and exaggerating the appearance", "big thoughts on the whole body", and "accurate and secret meaning" [23]. At that time, he was not influenced by Western "analytical" thinking at all, but he never praised "Wenxin Diaolong" for his "ambiguity". How can we say that "fuzzy" is the characteristic of Chinese literary discourse, and "the wonderful thing lies in the blur"? Mr. Ji said that he could not explain clearly in Western scientific terms "the character" in "Wenxin Diaolong". Haven’t Chinese terms been unable to be explained clearly? This is precisely due to the "fuzzy" (inaccurate) of the original work, which proves that the "fuzzy" is not "wonderful".
The only exception is perhaps the "Twenty-Four Poetry Collection" by "comparing objects to take images, witnessing the Tao" ("Poetry Collection" version of Xu Yinfang's "Twenty-Four Poetry Collection"). This work is indeed full of "fuzzy" in the sense of "subtle". But according to my academic standpoint, although there are many shining ideas, it is hard to say that they are the real theoretical form. Its theoretical nature and content are far less than that of Yuan Haowen, who is in the style of poetry. Rather than saying that it is a "poetry theory", it is better to say that it is a collection of poems based on appreciation and insight and depicting literary style. It is difficult for people to interpret it theoretically. Therefore, the ancients "during the connotation of the meaning and the purpose is difficult to understand", "I have been vague for more than 40 years, but I have not yet obtained the purpose"; they lamented that "it is difficult to understand, and it is difficult to describe it"; they may refer to "it is difficult to understand for a long time" and "it is difficult to convey it in words" [24]. This brings great obstacles to research and communication, and leads to numerous comments that build up houses and houses, which leads to a huge waste of intellectual resources and violates the principle of efficiency in modern society.
In short, from both positive and negative aspects, both literary discourse requires precision and rejects "fuzzy" (inaccuracy). Even as "subtle" "fuzzy", it can only be a supplement to precise discourse and should not be the dominant discourse.
6. Remaining
To promote national characteristics and carry forward national traditions, we should have a calm and peaceful mindset and a comprehensive perspective. We must not be simple, rash, or emotional. Otherwise, the "change of course" of Chinese literary and artistic theory may be on the wrong path.
Modern thinking requires a clear rationality, although it also requires a balance of emotion, understanding and spirituality. Overall, analytical and precise rational thinking has not been fully developed in China, and its grasp of the overall situation is mostly general and rough. The Chinese-style simple holistic thinking is difficult to spiral up into a modern system theory and holistic view without the dialectical overthrow of modern scientific analytical thinking. Is it an accidental exception for emerging comprehensive disciplines such as cybernetics, information theory, systems theory, chaos theory, and fuzzy science? What is the basis for calling it "facing to the east"?
As Mr. Tang Yi said: "The immaturity of rational thinking seriously hinders the efficiency, self-consciousness and scientificization of society" [25]. In China, theoretical thinking is often impacted and distorted by perceptual thinking, and it often presents "ambiguity" in language expression. The excessive subjectivity, emotionality and literary theory is one of the important reasons for its poor reputation. There is no distinction between appreciation and comment, and the confusion between literature and theory is common in literary and theoretical research. Perhaps, combining sharp insights, clear and concise expressions with both emotional and emotional clarity, clear and organized logic and system in Western style is the best way to rebuild and innovate Chinese literary theory?
Although modern and contemporary Chinese literary theory has absorbed more Western literary and artistic ideas and categories, it is still deeply rooted in traditional thinking and expression methods. This cannot but bring obstacles to international academic exchanges. Not to mention Western scholars, even Japanese scholars in the East are often troubled by the study of Chinese literature "too literary" and "too many emotional and emotional factors", and even "feeling not academic works, but a kind of 'literary creation'"; and called on Chinese and Japanese scholars to establish "the 'basis' of joint research", including "research methods, topics, ideas, language, etc." [26]. To participate in international academic exchanges, you should be familiar with and abide by the common rules of the game. Clear logic is the minimum. The theory of "the wonderful thing lies in the confusion" will inevitably be incompatible with this trend and go against this trend, unless you want to close yourself in international academic exchanges, the so-called "everyone says his own". But I believe that most people are unwilling to take this path.
Notes:
[1] Jin Kemu: "Talking about Ancient and Modern Times of Snail Horns", Liaoning Education Press, 1995 edition, page 168.
[2] Ma Qingjian: "System and Dialectics", Qiushi Press, November 1989 edition, page 5.
[3] Engels: "Natural Dialectics", "Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 2, Volume 2, People's Publishing House, May 1972 edition, page 548.
[4] Wu Tieping: Preface to "Fuzzy Linguistics", Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, November 1999 edition.
[5] Nikolai Buning and Yu Jiyuan edited: "Dictionary of Western English-Chinese Comparative Philosophy", People's Publishing House, February 2001 edition, page 166.
〔6〕〕 The Three Kingdoms: Biography of Liu Shao" quoted Xiahou Hui's comments.
[7] Qian Daxin: Volume 38 of "Chaoyantang Collection", "Biography of Mr. Yan Yan".
[8] Same as above, Volume 24, Preface to Zang Yulin's "Miscellaneous Consciousness of the Classics".
[9] Joseph Needham: Volume 1 of "History of Science and Technology", pages 312 and 313, quoted from Qi Yongxiang's "Research on Qianjia Texts and Research", China Social Sciences Press, December 1998 edition, pages 50 and 51.
[10] Li Xiaoming: "Funity: The Mystery of Human Knowledge", People's Publishing House, December 1985 edition, page 12.
[11] Same as above, page 31.
[12] Zhang Yue et al. edited by: "Fuzzy Mathematical Methods and Its Application", Coal Industry Press, April 1992 edition, page 35.
[13] Ilya Prigojin: "The End of Determinism", Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, December 1998, page 85.
[14] Zhang Qiao: "Fuzzy Semantics", China Social Sciences Press, February 1998 edition, page 21.
[15] Wu Wangming: Explanation on the writing of "Principles and Methods of Fuzzy Reasoning", Guizhou Science and Technology Press, January 1994 edition.
[16] Same as above, page 113.
[17] Wu Jianglan compiled: "The construction of literary and artistic theory needs to be changed - Interview with Professor Ji Xianlin", "Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literature Theory" Volume 2, 1996
October 2019, page 4.
[18] Liang Qichao: "Emotions expressed in Chinese rhymes", quoted from Zhou Zhenfu's "Examples of Poetry", China Youth Publishing House, May 1979, 2nd edition, pages 352 to 355.
[19] Marx and Engels: "Feuerbach", "Selected Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 1, Volume 1, People's Publishing House, May 1972 edition, No.
Page 35.
[20] Su Baorong: "Research on Dictionary and Interpretation of Dictionary", Commercial Press, October 2000 Edition, page 93.
[21] Gorky: "Thesis of Literature", Guangxi People's Publishing House, January 1980 edition, page 57.
[22] Larry Laudan: "Progress and Its Issues", Huaxia Publishing House, 1999 edition, page 15.
[23] Yang Mingzhao: "Wenxin Diaolong's Annotation and Collection of Relics", Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, December 1982 edition, pages 436, pages 438, pages 440, pages 441
Page.
[24] Preface and preface to "Poetry Compositions", "A Brief Explanation of Twenty-Four Poetry Compositions", written by Sun Liankui and Yang Tingzhi, edited by Sun Changxi and Liu Gan, "Two Explanations of Sikong Tu's "Poetry Compositions"", Qilu Bookstore, August 1980 edition, pages 3, pages 5, pages 125.
[25] Tang Yi: "Rong Mutan──Ideological Essays and Culture Interpretation", Commercial Press, January 2000 Edition, page 143.
[26] Bi Nakajima: "Letter to Chen Pingyuan", "Chinese Reading Newspaper", 17th edition, May 16, 2001.