華人文化曠野的微光－－華人文化主體性如何重建與美感經驗如何省思

面對21世紀的中國古代文學與美學研究，假如肯認「華人文化主體性」是必要的前提性基礎；那麼，我們就必須針對流行於前一歷史時期的「知識型」進行反思、批判，尋求學術轉型、典範遷移之可能性與切當性的取向。「文化主體性」不是人性論上，抽象概念的先驗主體；而是在世存有的人們，置身於現實世界的存在情境中，經由自覺以及實踐經驗，而逐漸習成的「歷史性主體」。它必須經由孔子所謂「學而時習之」的動態性實踐歷程，才能逐漸形塑、養成。 三○到八○年代的「五四知識型」，臺灣「美感經驗」論述，可以高友工、王夢鷗為代表，完全缺乏民族的文化性與區域的社會性。如今，「後五四」已數十年，面對21世紀的華人文化主體性或古代文學、美學的研究，是否應該另尋詮釋視域的轉向，終致典範遷移？ 當代中國人文學術如何從「五四」知識型轉向？基本原則是「內造建構」，我們不能繼續盲目的消費西方理論，套用不相應的美學理論以詮釋「華人文化主體」的審美實踐感受經驗。因此，必須「回歸」華人文化傳統的內部，進行「內造建構」的工程，生產自家的美學詮釋典範，轉而應用於「華人文化主體」之審美實踐感受經驗的詮釋。 For the research on Chinese classical literature and aesthetics in the 21st Century, if we recognize “subjectivity in Chinese culture” as the necessary premise, then we should reflect on and take a critical look at the “episteme” popularized during the previous historical period. The purpose of which is to pursue the possibility and examine the appropriateness of academic transformation and paradigm shift. “Cultural subjectivity” is not about the abstract concept of transcendental subjects in the theories about human nature, but about real people existing in the real world. Real people, through conscious efforts and practical experience, gradually form the “historical subjects.” “Cultural subjectivity” can only be fostered and formed through the dynamic process of practicing the Confucian precept, “to study and at due times practice what one has studied.” The discourse on “aesthetic experience” became established during the “May Fourth Episteme” era from the 1930’s to the 1980’s, with Kao Yu-kung and Wang Meng-ou as representatives in Taiwan. It failed to reflect the characteristics of the local culture and the society. After decades of “post-May Fourth,” in the face of Chinese cultural subjectivity or classical literary or aesthetic research in the 21st century, should we not assign the “May Fourth Episteme” to its appropriate place in history, and look for alternative interpretive models, which will lead to the eventual paradigm shift? How do we shift away from the “May Fourth Episteme” in modern humanities research? The fundamental principle I propose is to establish the “inherent structure.” We should stop following the western theories blindly, or applying inappropriate aesthetic theories mechanically to interpret “subjectivity in Chinese culture.” Instead, we should “revert” to what is inherent in the traditional Chinese culture, to establish the “inherent structure,” create our own interpretive models for aesthetics and use the models to interpret the aesthetic experience of “Chinese cultural subjectivity.”