In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

315 Conclusion Comparative Methodology I mentioned in the introduction that I would not treat methodology as a precondition of this comparative study, but as a conclusion of it. Now, at the end of this study, I still maintain the proposition, but something has changed. The becoming has reshaped the being. Comparing Is Contrasting, and Contrasting Is Comparing First, the method of comparing and contrasting is conditioned by two sets of texts. Hence it is not a “scientific” principle universally applicable to every situation. Instead of accepting methodology as another Platonic “one over many” structure that caps all intertraditional engagements, the act of comparing and contrasting is a “one under many” discourse. The “one” refers to open-ended discourse. The “many” designates the nature of pluralism in comparative studies. Although the exercise of comparing and contrasting works interchangeably throughout this book, the discourse of the comparative study has two phases. It begins with the phase of contrasting and arrives at a deep respect for the irreducible differences between traditions. Then it follows the phase of comparison that involves comparing the contrasts. Unlike the method frequently used in natural and social sciences, which first presents a hypothetical methodology and then either proves its validity or critically evaluates its weakness at the end of a study, the comparative method is a process. It was conceived at the time of topic selection, evolved from the primary core of the ontological interest, changed spontaneously through the translation and commentary studies, and was infused with critical insights and comparative synthesis. When the method was conceived, it was marked with two chief characteristics : comparative pluralism rather than universal principles and a process of evolution rather than a premise subject to evaluation. 316 conclusion The second main feature of the method is the unusual starting point. Comparison does not have to start from categorical similarities; knowing the contrary provides a beginning for comparison. We must not assume the existence of a metaphysical chair against which Platonic chairs and Daoist chairs can then be meaningfully compared. On the contrary, alchemy and geometry can be compared as long as they are understood within the contexts of Ge Hong’s cosmogony and Plato’s theogony. On the acceptance of difference, we can recognize the shared quest to name the origin of the world. In classical studies, it would be too arrogant to invent a methodology predefined by modern perception so that the past can be understood by the present. Any historical study must relearn the lesson of letting history speak to us. In searching for the ultimate concern—what the world consists of or derives from—history shaped two intellectual traditions; now with humility toward the ancient wisdom, a comparative thinker can bring the traditions together by reengaging the one and many discourse. The current study, therefore, is a continuation of this one and many debate. Comparing and contrasting are two forces, just like Yin and Yang, and together they shape the dialogical process. Since it is a discourse, strictly speaking the method is neither monism nor pluralism. Rather it is a process of both one and many. In this regard, the method embeds a critique of postmodernism. The god of modernism demands the universalism of “one over many,” and the goddesses of postmodernism celebrate the “many without one.” Certainly postmodernism has abandoned the assumption that all philosophies could converge on the same metaphysical mountaintop, an assumption that entails the universalism of reason underlying all activities in natural sciences and even liberal arts. Nevertheless, postmodernist pluralism is not a problem-free paradigm. The willing acceptance of “many without one” assumes that no unity is required in the pluralistic world. We should take a warning from Plato’s Parmenides that the denial of the one will lead to the denial of the many too. The many without the One is the primordial chaos. For Daoism, the world overall cannot be seen as a place of endless fragments. Endless pluralism is also relativism. Postmodernist pluralism recalls the ontological individualism argued by ancient atomists. Atomism rejects unity and endorses infinite plurality , thus leaving the relationship among the many entirely meaningless. However, the underlying assumption of such pluralism is that no dialogue should be necessary as long as individual traditions have their own right and space to evolve independently without any need to be interwoven into a living whole. The space between the many, just like the empty space between atoms, is ontologically meaningless. The ancient material plural- [18.117.182.179] Project MUSE (2024...

Share