The philosopher Robert Solomon wrote a book called The Great Question, which is a popular introduction to philosophy, and the title of the book, "The Great Problem", not only shows the "fundamentality" of these philosophical propositions, but also implies that these problems are not confined to the philosophical profession, but are problems that all those who care about the intellectual life of man cannot avoid. However, in today's increasingly meticulous division of discipline specialization, "small and fine" expert research is favored, and the discussion of "big problems" often needs to bear questions from many parties. This is not difficult to see in the reader's evaluation of "big history" authors such as David Christian and Yuval Harari.
In Chinese intellectual circles, Jin Guantao's concerns are often such "big issues." From his attempts to introduce the scientific method into social science research in the 1970s to the study of the history of ideas using databases in the 1990s, he not only wrote a wealth of works, but also his vision often penetrated the ancient and modern, integrating the arts and sciences, aiming at fundamental issues, and completely opposing the division of disciplines and professions. Today, in his old age, he has focused his thinking on philosophy. This year, Jin Guantao's new book, The Vanishing Truth: The Ideological Dilemma of Modern Society, was published, in which he proposed a "philosophy of authenticity."
This is an upward spiral up the abstract ladder of thought, but at the same time in response to the most concrete concerns of reality. In 2020, the outbreak of the new crown virus caused the world to enter a "great lockdown". This is not only a public health crisis, but also exposes many deep-seated political and social problems. Nationalism and anti-globalization are becoming unstoppable, and "post-truth" is increasingly becoming an alternative "consensus". As Jin Guantao says at the beginning of the book, "many people's mentality has returned to the 19th century."
However, in his view, this spiritual regression is not all due to a virus, but has a deep ideological origin. Of particular note is the linguistic shift that took place in philosophical thought in the 20th century, a shift that distinguishes symbols from experience, destroys the grand narrative of human culture, leads to the disintegration of the "real mind," and raises a familiar set of questions about the conquest of humanism by scientific utopias and the loss of ultimate care. And in order to better face these fundamental human dilemmas, it is necessary to reconstruct a philosophy that retrieves the true mind. The following is an excerpt from the introductory part of "The Vanishing Truth" with the permission of the publisher, with deletions.
The Vanishing Reality: The Ideological Dilemma of Modern Society, by Jin Guantao, CITIC Publishing Group, March 2022
scientific utopia,
The decline of the humanistic spirit and the disintegration of the "true mind"
What the hell is wrong with the world? To answer this question, we need to look back at two other major events of the 20th century: the scientific revolution of the 20th century, especially the emergence of relativity and quantum mechanics; and the decline of the humanistic spirit. Over the centuries, people have witnessed a series of subversive scientific revolutions, from Copernicus's "heliocentric theory" and Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics, and radical changes in theory seem to have become the norm of scientific development. Everyone was optimistic that there would be a new scientific revolution in the 21st century, but in fact there was none. In other words, scientific theories, while still making progress, have bid farewell to revolution. Why did the scientific revolution occur in the 20th century? With relativity and quantum mechanics becoming the cornerstones of modern science, why are there no longer "paradigm shifts" in scientific theories? Philosophers know very little about this. The philosophers of science of the 20th century—from Rudolf Karnap to Carl Popper to Thomas Kuhn—have all turned out to be problematic in their explanations of the scientific revolution, and their philosophical quest for what is modern science has failed. That is to say, although human beings have made great progress in scientific knowledge and mastered more and more developed technologies, they have encountered great difficulties in understanding modern science as a whole. People don't realize that this failure and the setback to the value base of the second round of globalization are twins.
Another major event occurred in the 20th century in the field of human thought, that is, the decline of the humanistic spirit. Ever since Nietzsche declared that "God is dead," Christianity has withdrawn from public life in the West day by day. Behind the pluralism of values is the degeneration of the humanistic spirit. Since the origin of modern society in the soil of Catholic civilization in the 17th century, humanistic values, including religious beliefs, have always existed side by side with science. The humanistic spirit and science and technology together maintain the basic structure of modern society, but the humanistic spirit of the 20th century faced the bombardment of totalitarian ideologies again and again. Even after totalitarianism has subsided, the humanistic spirit has been constantly affected by the wave of nihilism. With the rise of postmodernism in the 1960s and 1970s, the critical humanistic spirit once again tried to regain its strength, but failed to regain its vitality. After the ebb and flow of postmodernism, the humanistic spirit finally died with the end of the 20th century.
A scientific world without a humanistic spirit must be deformed, and the consequence of this is the rise of scientific utopias, which, in addition to justifying new forms of totalitarianism in the 21st century, means that technology overwhelms science and becomes a new religion. When people do not know what science is, but only specific scientific and technological knowledge, the proliferation of scientific utopias is unstoppable. What is a scientific utopia? We can use the life sciences as an example. Today, new advances in genetic engineering and synthetic biology have led to unprecedented changes in human life, yet man's macroscopic understanding of life is far from keeping up with the knowledge and manipulation of biological details. As a result, technology dominates science, and humans begin to be blindly confident that they can play the role of creator. Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil even predicted that humanity will achieve immortality in 2045. Scientific utopia refers to this blind superstition of science and technology.
Behind the disappearance of the public nature of social facts, people's inability to understand the scientific and technological revolution of the 20th century, and the decline of the humanistic spirit, there is a common core, that is, in today's rapid development of high technology and the rapid growth of productive forces, people's judgment of authenticity is becoming more and more narrow and vague. The so-called "narrowness" of the judgment of authenticity refers to the fact that only specific science and technology have unquestionable authenticity at present, and most people lose the ability to judge the publicity of social facts and the overall problem of "what is science". The so-called "vagueness" of authentic judgment refers to the loss of the ability to reflect on authenticity. Why does the humanistic spirit decline? The reason is that many people think that past beliefs and morals are false. So why did people see it as true in the past? Most people don't think about it or don't have the ability to think about it. In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary declared "post-truth" the word of the year. Since then, more and more people have begun to think that human society is entering a "post-truth era". The so-called post-truth era stems from the fact that people have lost their full and overall authentic judgment. We call the comprehensive and holistic judgment of truth the true mind, so that the ideological roots of the above phenomena can be collectively called the disintegration of the true mind.
Jin Guantao, born in 1947 in Yiwu, Zhejiang, graduated from the Department of Chemistry of Peking University in 1970. He was a Chair Professor at the Institute of Chinese Culture at the University of Chinese, Hong Kong, and the Director of the Center for Contemporary Chinese Culture Studies. He is currently a chair professor at National Chengchi University in Taiwan and a Nanshan Chair Professor at the China Academy of Art. He is the author of "The Disappearing Reality", "Axial Civilization and Modern Society", "Systematic Philosophy", "Ten Lectures on the History of Chinese Thought (Volume I)", "Principles of Systematic Medicine" (co-authored), "Prosperity and Crisis: On the Super-Stable Structure of Chinese Society" (co-authored with Liu Qingfeng), "Change in Openness: Re-discussion of the Super-stable Structure of Chinese Society" (co-authored with Liu Qingfeng), etc.
Halfway through the epistemological revolution
Ironically, man's loss of comprehensive and holistic judgment of authenticity is related to the philosophical revolution of the 20th century. Humans have a well-known grasp of the world through language, that is, a symbol system, but we have never known what symbols are. Why can people use symbols? This is equivalent to the fish not knowing that they live in the water, and it is impossible to recognize what restrictions the water imposes on it. Because of this, we can describe the linguistic turn of 20th-century philosophy with the following metaphor: just as a fish can leap out of the water to see the world in which it lives, philosophers discover that the world and language are isomorphic, recognizing that metaphysics is an illusion brought about by the misuse of language.
In this sense, the linguistic turn of philosophy is a great emancipation of the human mind, an epistemological revolution of equal importance as the scientific revolution of the 20th century. Unlike the establishment of quantum mechanics and relativity, this is a revolution that imprisons people's minds. Behind Wittgenstein, a recognized genius as the representative of the philosophical revolution, philosophy is castrated and its creativity is confined to a cage. We can illustrate this with the rise of logical empiricism and analytic philosophy, which, as Carnap argues, becomes linguistic analysis, on the one hand, the sorting out of meaningless metaphysical sentences, and on the other hand, the remaining meaningful sentences are divided into two categories: sentences that can be determined by logic and grammar as true or false, and sentences with empirical significance that describe the world, the former to mathematicians, logicians, and linguists for analysis, and the latter to scientists. In this way, it seems that human beings can figure out how language grasps objects, thus outlining the large structure of the operation of thought. This is indeed a wonderful philosophical imagination, but the result is that philosophy can no longer take on the task of rebuilding the humanistic spirit, and the "capitalized man" shrinks. Man's ideals also became objects of ridicule with the death of philosophy.
One might argue that both the decline of the humanistic spirit and the inability of human beings to understand modern science correspond to some changes in the human spiritual world and epistemological dilemmas of the 20th century, while the linguistic turn means that philosophy finally realizes what it is, thus removing the burden it carries, so we cannot link them. This plausible view ignores the enormous impact of the philosophical revolution on the criterion of authenticity. Since the linguistic turn, philosophers have clearly recognized that the relationship between symbols and objects is a convention, and that string of symbols expresses the structure of objects with their own structure. Since the symbolic string itself has no authenticity, it can only obtain authenticity from experience, so that only science and logic are true. The humanistic spirit has lost its true foundation and is therefore bound to decline. In other words, a scientific statement is true because it is empirically proven and logical. The discovery of symbols not only narrows authenticity to scientific facts, but also cancels out the significance of the study of the authenticity of symbols and any whole. Isn't this just proof that the people's judgments about the reality of the world as presented above are becoming increasingly narrow and vague?
I would like to emphasize that it is no coincidence that reflections on modernity, nationalism, and the philosophy of science have arisen at the same time and fail at the same time! Ostensibly, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a retreat to the state of mind of the 19th century, bringing nationalism and totalitarianism back. In fact, the deeper reason is that the beliefs that are the basis of the values of the second globalization are vulnerable, as if they were built on the beach. This is so because the basic idea of the second globalization does not have the same basis of authenticity as modern thought in the 17th century. The two world wars of the 20th century and the rise of totalitarianism prompted liberal thinkers to reflect on the basis of modern values, but the object of this reflection was too narrow, limited to the social system, political philosophy, and corresponding value levels. Hayek's theory, for example, merely defends modern society with the market economy; neither Ronald Dworkin's philosophy of law nor John Rawls's theory of justice can justify modern society in the field of legal and political philosophy. Once social problems transcend the professional sphere, these liberal theories are bound to be helpless.
Why is the new system of ideas in favor of a second globalization so narrow? The reason is that the philosophical revolution destroyed the authenticity of all grand narratives. After the philosophical revolution, the line between theory and metaphysics prevailing in the humanities remained blurred. In the eyes of many, a theory as broad and grandiose as that of early liberalism is academically meaningless. Therefore, we must improve the value base of modern society and raise human awareness of modernity, science and the meaning of life to a new level. One of the most important reasons for the failure of this effort is that philosophy is trapped in the cage of linguistic analysis. In fact, the philosophical revolution not only did not use the new concept of symbolic reality to establish a more solid value foundation for modern society, but denied the authenticity of the symbolic system itself, thus exacerbating the trend of disintegration of the real mind.
Axial Civilization and Modern Society: Exploring the Structure of Big History, by Jin Guantao, Edition: Oriental Publishing House, June 2021
Now we can sum up the crisis of social thought and the linguistic turn of philosophy in the 20th century. Since the birth of modern society, human beings' overall judgment ability of authenticity has been constantly narrowed and blurred in science and technology and economic development. The philosophical revolution destroyed the basis for the authenticity of the symbol system itself. Thus, any theory that justifies modern values must be based on science, which in turn cannot be realized. Thus, apart from specific science and technology, religion, morality, and universal humanistic theories have no authenticity. The true mind that is the foundation of modern society has completely disintegrated.
Modernity and the true mind
Is all this inevitable? In order to dissect the historical process of the true mind towards disintegration, authenticity must first be strictly defined. In the 21st century, human knowledge is exploding, and things are accurately defined in all kinds of details. There is only one thing outside of specialized study, and that is authenticity itself. I believe that authenticity is one of the most basic feelings and judgments of the subject on the object, which stipulates whether the subject ignores or pays attention to the object. This most basic feeling and judgment is the premise for further evaluating the object and defining the relationship between oneself and the object. It is the condition of human existence and the epistemological cornerstone of the exploration of science, politics, society, and philosophy.
The formation of the true mind can be traced back to the origins of the Axis civilization. The German philosopher Carl Jaspers was the first to notice that during the centuries B.C., immortal cultures emerged that were very different from the ancient civilizations that had disappeared, such as ancient Egypt and the civilizations of the Two Rivers Valley. Since then, Western academia has used the concept of "transcendent breakthrough" to deepen this discovery. I further developed the above research in Axial Civilization and Modern Society. I think the essence of "transcendent breakthrough" is that people come out of society and look for the ultimate meaning of life that is not dependent on society. A non-social subjectivity thus originates. I call civilizations that have undergone "transcendent breakthroughs" "axial civilizations." Because man is a being who faces death, in order to overcome death, he must seek meaning that transcends death, the "ultimate concern." I proved in Axial Civilization and Modern Society that there are only 4 different types of transcendental breakthroughs. I call these four transcendental horizons: (1) the Hebrew religion of salvation; (2) the Indian religion of liberation; (3) the cognitive rationality of ancient Greece and Rome; and (4) the traditional Chinese civilization with morality as the ultimate concern. Any kind of transcendent vision encompasses the corresponding ultimate care and its prescribed values and experiences, which answer the question of life and death and give the organizational blueprint of the "society as it should be." Since then, immortal civilizations and socially independent subjects have emerged, and they have always been the foundation of modern society. Among them, cognitive reason (discovering the laws of nature), because of its inability to provide meaning beyond life and death, eventually merged with the Hebrew religion of salvation to form Western Catholic civilization.
Since the Age of Axials, man has been the carrier of the three truths. First, everyone is always facing the external world, can distinguish whether the object is real and judges and reacts to it, which I call experience (including through generalized technology) of reality; second, the subject faces himself every day, the self as a carrier of action and value, there is a sense of reality of action meaning and value, which I call the truth of value; third, man is facing the existence of death, and when he realizes that death is inevitable, the subject will answer the torture of the ultimate meaning of life. And with corresponding thoughts and actions, I call the authenticity of ultimate care.
In each axis civilization, these three truths are integrated with each other. They constitute the true human heart, which is the cornerstone of traditional culture. Modernity originated from the coexistence of the separation of Hebrew religion and cognitive reason, and in the process cognitive reason further evolved into modern science. I will discuss this process in detail in Part I. From then on, the three truths that are integrated with each other begin to separate and move toward an understanding of themselves in their own unfolding. This is the great liberation of authenticity, but it is not known that these three truths are originally interdependent; once divided, each authenticity changes with the development of society (the unfolding of modernity) and the epistemological logic on which they are based. Only in the early days of modern society did the three separate truths remain, i.e., man also had a true mind. With the disappearance of the mechanism of mutual maintenance of the three truths, the long-term consequence can only be that the three truths are based on different epistemology. These three epistemology cannot establish a mechanism of mutual maintenance due to the lack of high-level reflection, and each tends to deform or even disappear in development, and the result is the disintegration of the true mind. That is to say, the disintegration of the true mind is an inevitable consequence of the development of modern society.
Carl Jaspers. German philosopher and psychiatrist, representative of Christian existentialism. In his Origins and Goals of History, he put forward the famous "Axial Age" view.
The first thing that shakes is the foundation of authenticity of ultimate care. It is well known that in traditional societies, individual rights are not justified because they contradict the mechanisms by which the three truths are interdependent. Individual rights derive from natural law, which is the result of the separation of faith in God and cognitive reason in Catholic civilization. The birth of modern society is the transformation of natural law into individual rights. Individual rights have become the most basic values of modern society, which means that people can come out of a certain ultimate care and even freely choose the ultimate care. At this point, the basis for the stability of ultimate care no longer exists, and the loss of its authenticity is sooner or later.
Once belief in God and cognitive reason are separated, the ever-expanding cognitive reason will sooner or later recognize that empirical facts are objective and values are subjective, and the result is the rise of subjective axiology. Coupled with the fact that people are free to choose ultimate care, the connection between value and ultimate care has since been broken, and the consequence is that both lose their authenticity. This disintegration of the true mind is most evident in the process of the spread of modernity, and it is even more magnificent. Modernity originated in Calvinist societies, and the U.S. Constitution was originally based on the Covenant, the oath of man before God, which is directly related to faith in God (ultimate concern). Other civilizations could not learn from modernity and build modern societies, and it was impossible to base themselves on the covenant, so nationalism arose as a prerequisite for the integration of modern values. However, nationalism cannot be the ultimate concern of the independent individual, and the consequence must be the ultimate concern and the loss of the authenticity of values. Indeed, as the idea of national supremacy led to world wars and people began to reflect on the ideological catastrophe of nationalism, they once again pinned the hopes of modern society on Anglo-American society as the origin of modernity. However, these societies can only use the utilitarian subjective axiology as the basis of modern values, and the disappearance of the publicity of values must lead to the disintegration of the real mind.
This shows how important the philosophical revolution of the 20th century was, examining authenticity from a new perspective on the relationship between symbols and objects, and implying the great liberation of the human view of reality, which should have been a prerequisite for the reconstruction of the modern true mind. The new philosophy should once again argue for the meaning of the ultimate concern and the human world, pointing out that its authenticity cannot be replaced by scientific truth, but that far from doing so, it abolishes the function of philosophy. Therefore, after the destruction of the true mind formed since the Axial Age, it is impossible to rebuild.
When ultimate care and value authenticity do not exist, the continuous development of science and technology and economy becomes the only goal of mankind, but can the authenticity on which science and technology depend always exist? Since the Enlightenment, empirical authenticity has further degenerated into an objective truth that has nothing to do with the subject. In the 21st century, the advent of the Internet era and the expansion of virtual reality have led to the disintegration of objective reality. On the one hand, the development of Internet technology provides us with a convenient access to information; on the other hand, social networks are full of all kinds of false information. The boundaries of true and false information are increasingly blurred, and a world that does not distinguish between true and false is bound to be chaotic and turbulent.
The dilemma of the loss of the true mind
Let me give two examples to illustrate the confusion in the judgment of authenticity in today's world. One example is the confusion between symbolic truth and empirical reality in the field of science. In April 2019, a number of scientists around the world simultaneously published photos of black holes. The image, which was "captured" by more than 200 researchers over a decade from eight observation points on four continents, confirms general relativity's prediction of the existence of black holes.
Discovering black holes is undoubtedly a remarkable step forward. Here, I'm not going to analyze the veracity of this finding, but what a picture of a black hole actually means. Based on past experience, everything photographed in the photo is empirical reality. This photograph is undoubtedly the scientific community showing the public evidence of the existence of black holes, but I have to ask: Does this photo really prove the existence of unknown objects as usual photos do? Is it true? In fact, black holes are space-time singularities, which are mathematical symbols true rather than scientific empirical reality. The so-called black hole photo "captures" only the halo on the edge of the black hole. In understanding the meaning of this photograph, we confuse the truth of mathematical symbols with the reality of scientific experience. Perhaps scientists knew this when they took out the photos. The crux of the matter is that the public has no sense of this confusion.
The Post-Truth Era: How We Should See, Hear, and Think When Truth Is Manipulated and Exploited, by Hector Macdonald, Edition: Post-Wave Democracy and Construction Press
July 2019
According to the 20th-century philosophy of language, the authenticity of symbols must come from experience, or they are meaningless. This awareness has penetrated into the human, social and religious spheres. Mathematics is a symbology, natural language is another symbology, and if we replace the example of a black hole with the example of natural language, it is easy to realize that it is inappropriate to confuse symbols and experience. According to the Bible, God exists. For many philosophers, God is just a symbol of natural language. When reading natural language texts, a strict distinction must be made between pure symbols and symbols that represent objects of experience. The former is not true, the latter is true. I would like to ask: Why, in the field of science, we agree that pure symbolic truth and empirical reality can be confused, and take out pictures of black holes, while in the field of human society, when expressing objects in natural language, pure symbols and symbols representing empirical reality are distinguished? Black holes are real as mathematical symbols, so why doesn't God, who is also a symbol, not exist? I do not intend to address the question of religion here, but I would like to use this example to illustrate that the misunderstanding brought about by the linguistic turn of 20th-century philosophy is the intrinsic source of various ideological dilemmas.
Humanity is mired in severe schizophrenia. Some have an extreme admiration for science, seeing mathematical symbols as the new gods, believing that humanity is highly likely to live in a virtual world created by a higher civilization. In the minds of others, religious belief is undoubtedly real, not only unconstrained by reason, but rather anti-rational, and extremist ideas arise under the domination of this idea. How should we recognize the relationship between symbols and experiences today? Under what circumstances can symbols be embedded in the empirical world? Under what circumstances can't? No philosopher can answer.
Another example is the so-called "speaking with numbers". People have drawn an almost equal mark between big data and truth in recent years, but can big data really give us deeper insight into the world? In the COVID-19 outbreak in late 2019, big data played a strange role. Sometimes, the real-time updated, precise numbers do point to the situation of the epidemic in different societies, but in many cases, it makes people lose sight of the truth. A professor in the department of mathematics at Temple University in the United States pointed out that the seemingly precise epidemic data actually contains a lot of uncertainty. First, the uncertainty of basic data, such as mortality and infection rates, how many people died due to the epidemic? Given the large number of people receiving treatment without testing, and the presence of asymptomatic infected people, how can the actual number of infections be confirmed? The second is the distortion that medical institutions and media reports on these data may bring, such as the number of new cases in a certain place on a certain day and overnight increased by 10 times, which may be simply because the previous epidemic was under-detected, and once the scope of virus testing is expanded, it will naturally bring about a double increase in the number of cases. What these statistics ultimately bring is growing social rift and fear. What's more, there is no self-consistency between different big data. All this shows that behind different big data are hidden different interaction patterns of infectious diseases under different cultures and systems. The real impact of COVID-19 on human society is not only the loss of human life, but also a catalyst for dramatic changes in different social perceptions. This is something that is difficult to see in all big data analytics today.
The above examples abound in everyday life. When the line between "true" and "false", experience and symbols, is increasingly blurred, can we still tell what is wrong with the theory? Can we still make reasonable corrections to plans and ideas that are constantly alienating and unexpected? If there is no truth in humanity and history, what is the significance of the lessons of history? In the 20th century, people once believed that history was regular, which resulted in the denial of man's free will, leading to the rise of totalitarianism. In the 21st century, people have denied the laws of history, but strangely find that history is repeating.
The study of the philosophy of authenticity
Today, we have a prosperous material civilization, but the human heart has never been more fragile, afraid of death, cowardly and cowardly to resist than it is today. Humanity's contemporary technology is enough to sustain us to live on Mars – if we have the courage. But do we have the courage to do that? Do we have a mind that contains such technology? No! I believe that without such a mind, not only will the bitter lessons of history be ignored, but the repeated disasters in history will be repeated, and our scientific and technological achievements will be forgotten more than 100 years later. So what the humanities scholars have to do today is to reconstruct the real and grand mind of human beings, which can match our science and technology, and this will definitely not arise from the technology itself or from the study of the science profession.
Today we often hear the question: How can we build a society in which people have dignity? Only when there is a dignified life, there will be a society in which a person has dignity. Only when a person has a true heart can he obtain a dignified life. Therefore, the core of cultural and social reconstruction is the reconstruction of the true mind of modern society. However, we must be soberly aware that the true mind of traditional societies cannot be restored. In modern society, how to restore the authenticity of the ultimate concern, and to make it interconnected with the authenticity of values and experiences, so that man once again becomes the carrier of the three kinds of authenticity, is a question that the times have asked the philosophers, which I call the exploration of the philosophy of authenticity.
The term "philosophy of authenticity" was coined by me. The reason why I compare authenticity with philosophical research is to grasp the direction of today's philosophical research from a higher level. In fact, as long as we come out of the history of Western philosophy and analyze the problems of the value systems of various axis civilizations, philosophy will come out of the "love of wisdom" that originated in ancient Greek civilization and turn to the exploration of its hidden essence, that is, its authenticity. Different axis civilizations have different transcendent visions, and each transcendent vision has its own ultimate care and value, as well as the experience of integration by ultimate care and value. That is to say, the real minds of different Axis civilizations are not the same, and the ancient Greek civilization's "love of wisdom" pursuit of reason and truth is only one of the true minds of the Axis civilization. That is why the cultural study of today's Axis civilization and its modern transformation should be framed by the philosophy of authenticity. The corresponding research question is the structure of the true mind in traditional society, and how the unfolding of modernity leads to the disintegration of the true mind in traditional society. On this basis, we can further study whether the real mind must contradict modernity, and how to establish the modern real mind.
Excerpts, introductions | Liu Yaguang
Editor| Zhang Ting
Introduction Proofreading | Li Lijun