双重分类学随想：本体论演进与生成的形态学 / Thought of Dual Taxonomy： Ontological Evolution and the Morphology of Genesis
引言 / Introduction
本文是对人类精神史的一次随想式思考，试图建立一个双重分类学框架。这一框架不仅描述了”是什么”(本体论层次)，更揭示了”如何生成”(生成性形态学层次)。通过这两个相互交织的维度，我们尝试理解从古代到现代，再到我们正在进入的新阶段的思想演进。这不是严格的学术研究，而是一次概念性的探索。
This essay is a casual reflection on the history of human spirit, attempting to establish a dual taxonomic framework. This framework not only describes “what is” (the ontological level), but also reveals “how it comes to be” (the morphology of genesis). Through these two interwoven dimensions, we attempt to understand the evolution of thought from antiquity to modernity, and into the new stage we are now entering. This is not rigorous academic research, but a conceptual exploration.
一、第一分类学：本体论层次 / I. First Taxonomy: The Ontological Level
“神性”在此不仅指宗教意义上的神圣，更指涉占据支配地位的终极权威与意义来源。我们用”神性”这一术语的统一性，是因为它本身已经蕴含了”主要性”，即在特定历史阶段中居于支配地位的东西。
“Divinity” here refers not only to the religious sense of the sacred, but more broadly to the ultimate authority and source of meaning that occupies a dominant position. We use the unified term “divinity” because it already embodies “primacy,” that which holds the dominant position in a particular historical stage.
第一阶段是超越性神性。在人类精神史的这一阶段，意义与秩序的源泉位于超越于人类经验之外的力量。无论是古代的诸神、自然的伟力，还是一神教的至高存在，权威都来自”彼岸”。人的存在是被动的、接受的，在一个预先给定的宇宙秩序中寻找自己的位置。这一阶段的特征是垂直性：真理从上而下降临，人只能仰望、敬畏、服从。
The first stage is transcendent divinity. At this stage of human spiritual history, the source of meaning and order lies in powers transcending human experience. Whether ancient deities, natural forces, or the supreme being of monotheism, authority comes from “beyond.” Human existence is passive and receptive, seeking its place within a pre-given cosmic order. This stage is characterized by verticality: truth descends from above, and humanity can only look up, revere, and obey.
第二阶段是符号性神性。启蒙运动标志着一个根本性的转折。神性的位置被符号系统、理性结构所占据。笛卡尔的”我思故我在”不仅是一个哲学命题，更是一场权威转移的宣言：人通过理性、逻辑、科学来把握世界，符号系统成为新的”神”。这里的”神性”是功能性的，理性占据了曾经属于神的位置：它是最高权威，是意义的源泉，是我们不可质疑的基础。这一阶段建立在主客二分之上，人作为理性主体试图通过符号化、形式化来控制客体世界。
The second stage is symbolic divinity. The Enlightenment marks a fundamental turning point. The position of divinity is occupied by symbolic systems and rational structures. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is not merely a philosophical proposition, but a declaration of authority transfer: humanity grasps the world through reason, logic, and science, with the symbolic system becoming the new “god.” Here “divinity” is functional, reason occupies the position once held by God: it is the highest authority, the source of meaning, the unquestionable foundation. This stage is built upon subject-object dualism, with humanity as rational subject attempting to control the objective world through symbolization and formalization.
第三阶段是关系性神性。当符号理性走到极致，我们发现了它的局限：主客二分造成异化，工具理性导致意义丧失，个体主义带来孤立。第三阶段是对前两个阶段的扬弃，神性不再外在于我们，也不仅在抽象的符号中，而是内在于关系网络本身。这可以理解为一种内在神论：神圣性在关系的展开中生成，在互动中涌现。权威不再是垂直降临的，也不是由主体单方面建构的，而是在网络、在生态、在”之间”中不断生成的。
The third stage is relational divinity. When symbolic reason reaches its extreme, we discover its limitations: subject-object dualism causes alienation, instrumental reason leads to loss of meaning, individualism brings isolation. The third stage is a sublation of the previous two, divinity is no longer external to us, nor merely in abstract symbols, but immanent within relational networks themselves. This can be understood as a form of immanent theology: the sacred is generated in the unfolding of relations, emerging in interaction. Authority is no longer vertically descending, nor unilaterally constructed by subjects, but continuously generated in networks, in ecology, in the “between.”
二、第二分类学：生成性的形态学 / II. Second Taxonomy: The Morphology of Genesis
如果第一分类学回答”什么占据主导地位”，第二分类学则回答”事物如何生成、如何展开”。”生生之谓易”，在中国哲学传统中，生成、创生被视为理解世界的一种核心视角。但生成的形态在不同的本体论基础上可能截然不同。我们这里讨论的是生成性的形态学：生成性在不同框架下的表现方式。
If the first taxonomy answers “what holds dominance,” the second taxonomy answers “how things come to be, how they unfold.” “Ceaseless generation is called Change,” in the Chinese philosophical tradition, genesis and creation are regarded as a core perspective for understanding the world. But the forms of genesis may differ radically on different ontological foundations. What we discuss here is the morphology of genesis: the manifestations of generativity under different frameworks.
第一种形态是超越中介的生成。在超越性神性的框架下，生成通过不可知的超越力量来中介。我们无法把握其机制，无法用符号系统来完全捕捉它。它既非结构，又非非结构，这是一种认识论上的谦逊：我们只能命名为”超越性的”，因为它超出我们的理解范畴。生成在此是神秘的、预定的。时间的展开只是永恒秩序在现象界的投影。
The first form is transcendently mediated genesis. Under the framework of transcendent divinity, genesis is mediated through unknowable transcendent forces. We cannot grasp its mechanism, cannot fully capture it with symbolic systems. It is neither structure nor non-structure, this is an epistemological humility: we can only name it “transcendent” because it exceeds our categories of understanding. Genesis here is mysterious, predetermined. The unfolding of time is merely the projection of eternal order into the phenomenal realm.
第二种形态是符号中介的生成。在符号性神性的框架下，生成通过符号系统来中介，表现为结构性。这意味着生成遵循明确的规则、形式、逻辑；生成是可预测的、可控制的；生成通过形式系统的运作而实现。科学定律、数学推演、语言语法，这些都是符号中介的生成的典范。人通过建构符号结构来生成意义、生产知识。
The second form is symbolically mediated genesis. Under the framework of symbolic divinity, genesis is mediated through symbolic systems, manifesting as structurality. This means genesis follows explicit rules, forms, and logic; genesis is predictable and controllable; genesis is realized through the operation of formal systems. Scientific laws, mathematical deduction, linguistic grammar, these are all exemplars of symbolically mediated genesis. Humanity generates meaning and produces knowledge through constructing symbolic structures.
第三种形态是关系中介的生成。在关系性神性的框架下，生成通过关系网络来中介。这是最复合、最微妙的形态。其第一层是不可符号化的实在。关系的本体是流动的、多维的，无法被完全符号化，存在着符号无法穷尽的”剩余”。其第二层是符号结构的调节。符号并未消失，它作为调节机制依然在起作用，但它不再是生成的唯一或主导力量。其第三层是生成性的涌现。从关系互动中不断涌现新质，生成是开放的、不可完全预测的，但也不是完全混沌的，因为有符号结构的调节。这种调节性是关键：关系本体可以表现为结构性的，也可以是非结构性的，更多时候是非结构受到结构调节的复合状态。
The third form is relationally mediated genesis. Under the framework of relational divinity, genesis is mediated through relational networks. This is the most complex and subtle form. Its first layer is the unsymbolizable real. The relational ontology is fluid and multidimensional, cannot be fully symbolized, there exists a “remainder” that symbols cannot exhaust. Its second layer is the regulation of symbolic structures. Symbols have not disappeared, they continue to function as regulatory mechanisms, but are no longer the sole or dominant force of genesis. Its third layer is generative emergence. New qualities continually emerge from relational interactions, genesis is open and not fully predictable, yet not completely chaotic, because of the regulation of symbolic structures. This regulatedness is key: relational ontology can manifest as structural, or as non-structural, but more often as a complex state where the non-structural is regulated by structure.
三、双重分类学的意义 / III. The Significance of Dual Taxonomy
这两个分类学不是平行的，而是相互构成的。本体论层次规定了什么占据”神性”的位置，生成性形态学揭示了在该本体基础上，事物如何展开、如何存在。它们共同构成了一个立体的理解框架。
These two taxonomies are not parallel but mutually constitutive. The ontological level prescribes what occupies the position of “divinity,” while the morphology of genesis reveals how things unfold and exist on that ontological foundation. Together they constitute a three-dimensional framework of understanding.
从超越性到符号性再到关系性的演进，或许并非偶然，而是蕴含着某种内在逻辑。当代场论(field theory)等理论为我们提供了一种关于关系性的模型，为理解世界的生成性提供了新的方案。超越性神性的危机出现在启蒙理性质疑外在权威之时。符号性神性的危机则呈现出另一种面貌：符号系统的运作创造了一个想象的主体，而这个符号化的主体与实在的、具身的主体之间产生了根本性的异化。现代社会，尤其是科技的发展，加速并放大了符号的生产与再生产，从而加剧了这种实在与想象之间的异化。关系性神性的召唤正是在这样的生态危机、意义危机之中浮现的，它试图提供一种新的可能性，尽管这种可能性的具体形态仍在探索之中。
The progression from transcendent to symbolic to relational perhaps is not accidental, but contains a certain internal logic. Contemporary theories such as field theory provide us with models of relationality, offering new frameworks for understanding the generativity of the world. The crisis of transcendent divinity appeared when Enlightenment reason questioned external authority. The crisis of symbolic divinity presents another aspect: the operation of symbolic systems creates an imagined subject, and between this symbolized subject and the real, embodied subject arises a fundamental alienation. In modern society, especially with technological development, the acceleration and amplification of symbolic production and reproduction has intensified this alienation between the real and the imagined. The call for relational divinity emerges precisely amid such ecological and meaning crises, attempting to offer a new possibility, though the concrete form of this possibility remains under exploration.
我们或许正处于从符号性向关系性过渡的历史时刻。这不仅是哲学思辨，可能还关涉认识论转向，从主客二分到互为主体；关涉伦理学重建，从个体主义到关系责任；关涉生态实践，从征服自然到与之共生；关涉社会组织，从层级结构到网络协同。
在理论层面，关系性范式呈现出多元的现象学特征。它可能表现为共情与共在，相互承认的辩证运动，脆弱性与依存的接纳，回应性与照护的实践，身体间性的体验，对话性的交往，以及时间性的关系结构。这些现象学维度共同指向一种不同于主客二分的存在方式。
与此相应，关系性存在的研究也发展出独特的方法论路径。对话性探究强调在对话中生成知识，参与式与共创方法让研究对象成为知识的共同生产者，现象学方法关注生活世界的直接经验，关怀伦理与立场认识论重新审视知识与权力的关系。跨学科的努力，如艺术为本研究、具身性研究、关系性精神分析等，都在各自领域探索着关系性的可能性。
关系性神性并非要否定符号和结构，而是尝试将它们重新定位：符号作为调节机制，结构作为涌现的模式，但它们不再是唯一的、支配性的力量。当然，这种转向是否真的在发生，以及它将以何种形式展开，依然是开放的问题。
We are perhaps at a historical moment of transition from the symbolic to the relational. This is not merely philosophical speculation, but may concern epistemological transformation, from subject-object dualism to intersubjectivity; may concern ethical reconstruction, from individualism to relational responsibility; may concern ecological practice, from conquering nature to symbiosis; may concern social organization, from hierarchical structures to network coordination.
At the theoretical level, the relational paradigm presents diverse phenomenological characteristics. It may manifest as empathy and co-presence, the dialectical movement of mutual recognition, acceptance of vulnerability and dependence, practices of responsiveness and care, experiences of intercorporeality, dialogical communication, and temporal relational structures. These phenomenological dimensions together point toward a mode of being different from subject-object dualism.
Correspondingly, research on relational being has developed distinctive methodological approaches. Dialogical inquiry emphasizes knowledge generation through dialogue, participatory and co-creative methods make research subjects co-producers of knowledge, phenomenological methods attend to direct experience of the lifeworld, and care ethics and standpoint epistemology re-examine the relationship between knowledge and power. Interdisciplinary efforts such as arts-based research, embodied research, and relational psychoanalysis are all exploring the possibilities of relationality in their respective fields.
Relational divinity does not seek to negate symbols and structures, but attempts to reposition them: symbols as regulatory mechanisms, structures as patterns of emergence, but they are no longer the sole or dominant forces. Of course, whether this turn is truly occurring, and in what form it will unfold, remains an open question.
四、未尽的思考 / IV. Unfinished Reflections
这个双重分类学框架依然是开放的、待完善的。三个阶段的边界是否如此清晰？是否存在过渡形态？符号的地位在关系性范式中如何更精确地定位？
在理论层面，关系性范式呼唤着新的理论框架。这样的框架可能需要超越单一学科的限制，整合哲学、社会学、生态学、认知科学等多个领域的洞见。当代场论的发展或许能为这种跨领域的理论建构提供启发，它揭示了实体与关系、结构与过程之间的动态张力。然而，如何建立一个既具有理论严谨性，又能容纳关系性复杂性的概念体系，依然是一个开放的挑战。
在实践层面，同样存在诸多待解的问题。关系性神性的具体实践如何展开？在个人修养、社会组织、政治结构中如何体现？共情、共在、相互承认等概念如何避免陷入浪漫化或理想化？脆弱性与依存是否会消解个体的能动性？对话性探究、参与式方法等研究路径如何在学术规范与关系性原则之间寻求平衡？跨学科的整合在实际操作中是否会导致概念的模糊，还是能够产生新的实践智慧？
东西方传统在这个框架中如何对话？道家的”道”如何在关系性存在的视野下为我们提供启发？佛教的”缘起”思想与关系性本体论有何异同？儒家的”仁”作为关系性伦理核心，如何启发当代的关系性实践？这些古老智慧是否已经蕴含了我们正在探索的关系性转向，还是它们在本质上有所不同？
这些问题都有待继续探讨。
This dual taxonomic framework remains open and to be perfected. Are the boundaries of the three stages so clear? Do transitional forms exist? How can the status of symbols be more precisely positioned within the relational paradigm?
At the theoretical level, the relational paradigm calls for new theoretical frameworks. Such frameworks may need to transcend the limits of single disciplines, integrating insights from philosophy, sociology, ecology, cognitive science, and other fields. The development of contemporary field theory may offer inspiration for this kind of cross-disciplinary theoretical construction, revealing the dynamic tensions between entity and relation, structure and process. However, how to establish a conceptual system that possesses both theoretical rigor and can accommodate relational complexity remains an open challenge.
At the practical level, many unresolved questions also exist. How does the concrete practice of relational divinity unfold? How is it embodied in personal cultivation, social organization, political structures? How can concepts such as empathy, co-presence, and mutual recognition avoid falling into romanticization or idealization? Does vulnerability and dependence dissolve individual agency? How can research approaches such as dialogical inquiry and participatory methods seek balance between academic norms and relational principles? Does interdisciplinary integration in actual operation lead to conceptual ambiguity, or can it generate new practical wisdom?
How do Eastern and Western traditions dialogue within this framework? How might the Daoist “Dao” offer inspiration from the perspective of relational being? What are the similarities and differences between Buddhist “dependent origination” and relational ontology? How does Confucian “Ren” as the core of relational ethics inspire contemporary relational practice? Do these ancient wisdoms already contain the relational turn we are exploring, or are they fundamentally different?
These questions await continued exploration.
结语 / Conclusion
从超越性到符号性再到关系性，从超越中介到符号中介再到关系中介，人类精神史或许可以被理解为一个辩证发展的过程。我们并非简单地抛弃过去，而是在某种意义上尝试更高层次的综合：超越性的敬畏与谦逊，符号性的清晰与批判，关系性的开放与生成。这三者的综合，可能是我们这个时代需要探索的思想方向之一。
From transcendent to symbolic to relational, from transcendently mediated to symbolically mediated to relationally mediated, the history of human spirit may perhaps be understood as a dialectical process of development. We do not simply abandon the past, but in some sense attempt a synthesis at a higher level: the reverence and humility of the transcendent, the clarity and critique of the symbolic, the openness and generation of the relational. The synthesis of these three may be one of the intellectual directions our time needs to explore.
“生生之谓易”。生成永不停息，我们的理解也在生成之中。
“Ceaseless generation is called Change.” Genesis never ceases, and our understanding is itself in genesis.