〈雙重尋道論〉：「主客對立」與「天人合一」之對立與合一

The Dual Tao-Searching Theory: The Unification and Opposition of ＂Unity of Humans and the Universe＂ and ＂Separation of Subject and Object＂

10.6254/IPRCS.202012_(54).0004

李仁豪(Jen-Hao Li)

天人合一 ； 主客對立 ； 如何路徑 ； 何物路徑 ； 黃光國難題 ； Chinese indigenous psychology ； Chinese philosophy ； Mandala Model of Self ； metaphysics ； neuroscience

本土心理學研究

54期（2020 / 12 / 01）

177 - 237

繁體中文

人活在世間，總是在追尋某種人生終極價值或生命境界，而東、西方文化場域各自提供兩條道路：西方是藉由「何物道路」通往客觀真理和自我實現，東方則是依循「何去何從道路」走向天人合一和無我境界。本研究遵循「一種心智，多重心態；普世主義，考量分疏」（Shweder et al., 1998）的研究原則，另以陰陽論和佛家依存主義作為本體論預設，再以黃光國（2011）的先驗形式結構〈自我曼陀羅模型〉作為研究框架，並以Goodale與Milner（1992）「大腦雙重路徑假說」作為立論基礎，建構〈雙重尋道論〉，試圖說明原屬同一個心智的生物性「個體」，如何展現不同心態而形成「現實我」，再進而向上提升至「理想我」，並且分析東、西方文化所持的形上預設為何，以及各自所追尋的人生終極價值和生命境界為何。本研究聯繫本土心理學和神經科學，希望能對本土心理學乃至整個本土社會科學所面臨的黃光國難題，提供另一種解套思維。

The meaning of human life is about the pursuit of ultimate value and attainment of the highest state of being. Eastern and Western philosophies each provide a method of reaching these goals based on their particular metaphysics. Western cultures utilize the way to what-Tao to achieve objective truth and self-realization. Eastern cultures utilize the way to how-Tao to achieve unity between humans and the universe (天人合一) and anatman (無我; selflessness or nonself). Tao means the way, the road, the truth or ultimate value. I propose the dual Tao-searching theory to depict this phenomenon and elucidate the nature and neural basis of these two approaches. Buddhism and ying-yang ontology provide the ontological basis for my arguments. I apply K. K. Hwang's Mandala Model of Self as described in the transcendental formal structure as a general research framework. To construct the dual Tao-searching theory, I used Goodale and Milner's two-streams hypothesis, which attempts to explain how an individual with one mind can have two mentalities that become the actual self, and then this actual self can be sublimated into the ideal self. I also analyze the metaphysical presuppositions of Eastern and Western cultural views and how they shape the relationship of human beings with the divine, Nature, and the secular world. In addition to constructing a theory, I also propose several feasible investigative research programs. The core concept of the dual Tao-searching theory is that the ultimate values implied by Eastern and Western metaphysical presuppositions correspond to the neural basis of the how pathway and the what pathway, respectively, as described by Goodale and Milner's two-streams hypothesis. Eastern cultures emphasize the way to how-Tao, the neural basis of which is the how pathway involved in the dorsal stream. Western culture emphasizes the way to what-Tao, the neural basis of which is the what pathway involved in the ventral stream. The Eastern way to how-Tao metaphysically focuses on unity between humans and the universe, the interdependence of all things, holism, a dynamic viewpoint, naturalism, and internal control or self-modification. Of these, the most important is unity between humans and objects, which is the essence of the dorsal stream how pathway. The Western way to what-Tao metaphysically focuses on separation between subject and object (主客對立), the self as an independent being, objects as independent entities, atomism, reductionism, a static viewpoint, anthropocentrism, and external control or dominance. Of these, the most important is separation between subject and object, which is the essence of the ventral stream what pathway. As such, I suggest that Goodale and Milner's two streams hypothesis can provide the research foundation in terms of research methods and procedures for the dual Tao-searching theory. Whereas Goodale and Milner's two-streams hypothesis portrays neuroanatomy and physiology, the dual Tao-searching theory emphasizes psychological and cultural aspects of being. Neuroscience is the current trend. Researchers in almost every discipline relate their work to neuroscience, sometimes even creating a new field (e.g., neuroesthetics, neuroeconomics, social neuroscience, or cultural neuroscience). However, indigenous psychologies seldom address the field of neuroscience. If psychologists are to follow the research principle of ＂one mind, many mentalities; universalism without uniformity＂ proposed by Richard Shweder, they need to consider biological aspects when discussing the one mind. This concept is the same as that described by Hwang's Mandala Model of Self in relation to the concept of individual. I connect indigenous psychologies with the study of neuroscience with the hope of creating a new frontier in Chinese indigenous psychology, and to provide a tentative resolution to K. K. Hwang's grand question of how to integrate the seemingly conflicting metaphysical perspectives of unity between humans and the universe (Eastern cultures) and separation between subject and object (Western cultures).

1. 李仁豪(2019)。佛家依存主義。本土心理學研究，52，115-172。
   連結：
2. 李美枝(2011)。評論黃光國的「含攝文化的心理學」：好像不是心理學？。本土心理學研究，36，111-125。
   連結：
3. 李維倫(2017)。華人本土心理學的文化主體策略。本土心理學研究，47，3-79。
   連結：
4. 徐進,林俊德,張靈聰,夏允中(2019)。建構以《易經》為基礎的內在朝向式多層立體自我曼陀羅模型：「天人合一我」理論。本土心理學研究，51，277-314。
   連結：
5. 高旭繁,楊國樞(2011)。華人心理傳統性與心理現代性之回顧與前瞻。彰化師大教育學報，19，1-11。
   連結：
6. 張思嘉,郭士賢(2011)。台灣華人婚姻中的控制觀。中華心理衛生學刊，24(4)，583-610。
   連結：
7. 張蘭石(2017)。源自死亡焦慮的宗教委身機制：分析與模型建構。本土心理學研究，48，231-277。
   連結：
8. 陳復(2018)。儒家心理學：黃光國難題正面臨的迷陣與突破。本土心理學研究，49，3-36。
   連結：
9. 陳復(2016)。黃光國難題：如何替中華文化解開戈迪安繩結。本土心理學研究，46，73-110。
   連結：
10. 葉光輝(2011)。談如何建構一個好的本土心理學理論。本土心理學研究，36，139-153。
    連結：
11. Armstrong, K.(1999).A history of God.New York:Vintage.
12. Aspect, A.,Dalibard, J.,Roger, G.(1982).Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers.Physical Review Letters,49,1804-1807.
13. Baltes, P. B.(Ed.),Staudinger, U. M.(Ed.)(1996).Interacting minds in a lifespan perspective: A cultural/ historical approach to culture and cognitive development.New York:Cambridge University Press.
14. Brenner, E.,Smeets, J. B. J.(1996).Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object.Experimental Brain Research,111,473-476.
15. Capra, F.(1983).The Tao of physics.Boulder, CO:Shambhala.
16. Colby, C. L.(1998).Action-oriented spatial reference frames in cortex.Neuron,20,15-24.
17. Damon, W.(Ed.),Lerner, R. M.(Ed.)(1998).Handbook of child psychology Theoretical models of human development.New York:Wiley.
18. Davies, P.(Ed.),Brown, J.(Ed.)(1993).The ghost in the atom.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
19. Dawkins, R.(1986).The blind watchmaker.London:Longman.
20. de Waal, F. B. M.(2011).The age of empathy: Nature’s lessons for a kinder society.London:Souvenir Press.
21. de Waal, F. B. M. (Ed.)(2001).Tree of origin: What primate behavior can tell us about human social evolution.Cambridge, UK:Harvard University Press.
22. Dupre, L. K.(1979).The other dimension: A search for the meaning of religious attitudes.New York:Seabury Press.
23. Durham, W.(1992).Coevolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity.Redwood, CA:Stanford University Press.
24. Falk, D.(2004).Universe on a T-Shirt: The quest for the theory of everything.New York:Arcade Publishing.
25. Farah, M. J.(2004).Visual agnosia.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
26. Felleman, D. J.,Van Essen, D. C.(1991).Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex.Cerebral Cortex,1,1-47.
27. Franz, V.,Gegenfurtner, K.(2008).Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation.Cognitive Neuropsychology,25(7),920-950.
28. Fromm, E.(Ed.),Suzuki, D. T.(Ed.),Martino, R.(Ed.)(1960).Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis.New York:Harper & Brothers.
29. Gentilucci, M.,Chieffi, S.,Daprati, E.,Saetti, M. C.,Toni, I.(1996).Visual illusion and action.Neuropsychologia,34(5),369-376.
30. Gergen, K.(2009).Relational being: Beyond self and community.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
31. Gethin, R.(1998).The foundations of Buddhism.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
32. Goldstein, E. B.(2013).Sensation & perception.Boston, MA:Cengage Learning.
33. Goodale, M. A.,Meenan, J. P.,Bülthoff, H. H.,Nicolle, D. A.,Murphy, K. J.,Racicot, C. I.(1994).Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension.Current Biology,4,604-610.
34. Goodale, M. A.,Milner, A. D.(1992).Separate visual pathways for perception and action.Trends in Neurosciences,15(1),20-25.
35. Goodale, M. A.,Milner, A. D.(2013).Sight unseen: An exploration of conscious and unconscious vision.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
36. Goodale, M. A.,Milner, A. D.,Jakobson, L. S.,Carey, D. P.(1991).A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them.Nature,349,154-156.
37. Goodall, J.(1971).In the shadow of man.Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
38. Gregory, R. L.(1997).Eye and brain: The psychology of seeing.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
39. Haffendon, A. M.,Goodale, M. A.(1998).The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10(1),122-136.
40. Han, S.,Northoff, G.,Vogeley, K.,Wexler, B. E.,Kitayama, S.,Varnum, M. E. W.(2013).A cultural neuroscience approach to the biosocial nature of the human brain.Annual Review of Psychology,64,335-359.
41. Harmon-Jones, E.(Ed.),Winkielman, P.(Ed.)(2007).Social neuroscience: Integrating biological and psychological explanations of social behavior.New York:Guilford Press.
42. Harris, G. G.(1989).Concepts of individual, self, and person in description and analysis.American Anthropologist,91,599-612.
43. Heisenberg, W.(1958).Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science.New York:Harper & Row.
44. Herbert, N.(1985).Quantum reality: Beyond the new physics.New York:Anchor Books.
45. Ho, D. Y.(1998).Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationism.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1(1),1-16.
46. Hu, Y.,Goodale, M. A.(2000).Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12,856-868.
47. Hwang、 K. K.(2011).The Mandala Model of Self.Psychological Studies,56(4),329-334.
48. Hwang、 K. K.(2018).A psychodynamic model of Self-nature.Counselling Psychology Quarterly.
49. Hwang、 K. K.(1987).Face and favor: The Chinese power game.American Journal of Sociology,92(4),945-974.
50. Ingle, D. J.(Ed.),Goodale, M. A.(Ed.),Mansfield, R. J. W.(Ed.)(1982).Analysis of visual behavior.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
51. Kaas, J. H.,Hackett, T. A.(1999).What’ and ‘where’ processing in auditory cortex.Nature Neuroscience,2,1045-1047.
52. Kitayama, S.(Ed.),Cohen, D.(Ed.)(2007).Handbook of cultural psychology.New York:Guilford Press.
53. Kroliczak, G.,Heard, P.,Goodale, M. A.,Gregoy, R. L.(2006).Dissociation of perception and action unmasked by the hollow-face illusion.Brain Research,1080(1),9-16.
54. Kumar, M.(2009).Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the nature of reality.Cambridge, UK:Icon Books.
55. Lamme, V. A. F.,Super, H.,Spekreijse, H.(1998).Feedforward, horizontal, and feedback processing in the visual cortex.Current Opinion in Neurobiology,8(4),529-535.
56. Laudan, L.(1981).Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology.Dordrect, Holland:D. Reidel.
57. Leach, E.(1976).Culture and communication: The logic by which symbols are connected.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
58. Leach, E.(1970).Lévi-Strauss.London, UK:Fontana/Collins.
59. Lévi-Strauss C.,Layton, M.(Trans.)(1976).Structural anthropology.New York:Basic Books.
60. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
61. Milner, A. D.,Goodale, M. A.(2008).Two visual systems re-viewed.Neuropsychologia,46(3),774-785.
62. Milner, A. D.,Goodale, M. A.(2006).The visual brain in action.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
63. Milner, A. D.,Perrett, D. I.,Johnston, R. S.,Benson, P. J.,Jordan, T. R.,Heeley, D. W.,Bettucci, D.,Mortara, F.,Mutani, R.,Terazzi, E.,Davidson, D. L. W.(1991).Perception and action in “visual form agnosia.Brain,114,405-428.
64. Milner, D.,Dyde, R.(2003).Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don’t?.TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences,7(1),10-11.
65. Nisbett, R. E.(2003).The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently.New York:Free Press.
66. Pais, A.(1988).Inward bound: Of matter and forces in the physical world.Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.
67. Piaget, J.(1977).The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures.New York:Viking Press.
68. Reed, C. L.,Klatzky, R. L.,Halgren, E.(2005).What vs. where in touch: An fMRI study.Neuroimage,25(3),718-726.
69. Rizzolatti, G.,Matelli, M.(2003).Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions.Experimental Brain Research,153,146-157.
70. Rizzolatti, G.,Sinigaglia, C.(2007).Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions and emotions.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
71. Rock, I.(1984).Perception.New York:W. H. Freeman.
72. Rotter, J.(1966).Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,80(1),1-28.
73. Schenk, T.(2012).No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn.Journal of Neuroscience,32(6),2013-2017.
74. Shiah、 Y. J.(2016).From self to nonself: The nonself theory.Frontiers in Psychology,7,1-12.
75. Shiah、 Y. J.,Hwang, K. K.(2019).Socialized reflexivity and self-exertion: Mandala Model of Self and its role in mental health.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,22(1),47-58.
76. Sillito, A. M.,Cudeiro, J.,Jones, H. E.(2006).Always returning: Feedback and sensory processing in visual cortex and thalamus.Trends in Neurosciences,29(6),307-316.
77. Snowden, R.,Thompson, P.(2012).Basic vision: An introduction to visual perception.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
78. Sperber, D.(1975).Rethinking symbolism.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
79. Stapp, H. P.(1972).The Copenhagen interpretation.American Journal of Physics,40,1098-1116.
80. Stapp, H. P.(2011).Mindful universe: Quantum mechanics and the participating observer.New York:Springer.
81. Styles, E.(2006).The psychology of attention.New York:Routledge.
82. Todorov, A.(Ed.) ,Fiske, S. T.(Ed.) ,Prentice, D. A.(Ed.)(2014).Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
83. van Polanen, V.,Davare, M.(2015).Interactions between dorsal and ventral streams for controlling skilled grasp.Neuropsychologia,79(B),186-191.
84. Vishton, P. M.,Rea, J. G.,Cutting, J. E.,Nuñez, L. N.(1999).Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative versus absolute, not perception versus action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,25(6),1659-1672.
85. Weisz, J. R.,Rothbaum, F. M.,Blackburn, T. C.(1984).Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan.American Psychologist,39(9),955-969.
86. Yantis, S.,Abrams, R. A.(2016).Sensation & perception.New York:Worth Publisher.
87. Zeki, S.(2008).Splendors and miseries of the brain: Love, creativity and the quest for human happiness.NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.
88. 王元化（編）(1999)。「天下」、「中國」與「四夷」。學術集林卷十六，上海:
89. 牟宗三(2003).中國哲學的特質.台北:聯經出版公司.
90. 李日章(1998).佛學與當代自然觀.台北:東大圖書公司.
91. 李維倫(2016)。從實證心理學到實踐心理學：現象學心理學的本土化知識之道。台灣心理諮商季刊，8(2)，1-15。
92. 孟祥森（譯）,Fromm, E.,Suzuki, D. T.,Martino, R.(1989).禪與心理分析.台北:志文出版社.
93. 林耀盛(2015)。「榮進」之後：黃光國難題，我們的難題。心理學第三波：黃光國教授『榮進』學術研討會，台北:
94. 金白鉉(1986).莊子哲學中「天人之際」研究.台北:文史哲出版社.
95. 俞懿嫻(2000).懷海德自然哲學：機體哲學初探.台北:正中書局.
96. 香光書鄉翻譯組（譯）,中村元(2003).從比較觀點看佛教.嘉義:香光書鄉出版社.
97. 張亨(1997).思文之際論集：儒道思想的現代詮釋.台北:允晨文化.
98. 陳弱水（編）(2012)。天人之際─中國古代思想的起源試探。中國史新論：思想史分冊，台北:
99. 陳復（編）,黃光國（編）(2019).破解黃光國難題的知識論策略.新北:心理出版社.
100. 陳鼓應(2000).老子今註今譯.台北:臺灣商務印書館.
101. 黃光國(2018).內聖與外王：儒家思想的完成與開展.新北:心理出版社.
102. 黃光國(2011).心理學的科學革命方案.台北:心理出版社.
103. 黃光國(2009).儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究.台北:心理出版社.
104. 楊國樞(1993)。我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學。本土心理學研究，1，6-88。
105. 楊國樞（編）,文崇一（編）(1982).社會及行為科學研究的中國化.台北:中央研究院民族學研究所.
106. 楊國樞（編）,陸洛（編）(2008)。當代華人的傳統與現代雙文化自我：其現身、組成與變遷。中國人的自我：心理學的分析，台北:
107. 楊慧傑(1989).天人關係論.台北:水牛出版社.
108. 葉光輝（編）(2013).華人的心理與行為：全球化脈絡下的研究反思.台北:中央研究院.
109. 釋印順(1987).佛法概論.台北:正聞出版社.
110. 釋見憨（譯）,陳信憲（譯）,中村元（著）(1995).原始佛教：其思想與生活.嘉義:香光書鄉出版社.