论反合及其语言踪迹

On the Opposite-accord and Its Linguistic Traces

本文的第一个部分工作在于,面对同样一个对象——思维或事物的变化和运动规律,以往的哲人与思想家各有术语或表达式加以概括,其中五种是:老子之道用"冲气以为和"概之,黑格尔以"辩证法"("正-反-合题")括之,辩证唯物主义("事物发展三原理")示之,冯友兰用"仇必和(而解)"晓之,钱钟书示以"违者谐而反者合"。由此,本文将尝试增加一个新的术语来概括,即"反合"(the opposite-accord)。本文讨论之后指出,上述六者在实质内容上有重要的相通之处,但不能认定它们是同一的!反合论尝试回答的问题是:老子"正反合"①逻辑辩证如何相通于佛家与恩格斯自然辩证法?新增术语"反合"与其他五者如何联通?方法论上,语言哲学之为语言哲学,为何特别注视词语的处理?"反合"这一术语有什么方便之处?"术语索引之力"(本文提出)为何是一个术语或表达式是否胜任概括某个范畴(或概念或思想)的重要检测标准?"反合"这一术语有什么独特的涵义(sense)?就本文的第二个工作,反合论果然索引出自然语言中几个反合式语迹,回答了如下几个问题:(1)作为自然语言中一个根本的反合现象,拼音为何是现在这个方式?(2)怎样重新解释奇怪的汉语两端字和外语两端词?(3)有趣的反合式字组与词组为何是那样构造的?(4)怎么会出现(汉)两个并列的半句(这样的表达式)?本文的结论之一,"反合"这个新增的术语,与其他五个术语和表达式一样,能概括与说明思维与事物的一体两面的既相反、相克而又相合、相谐的变化和运动规律。它与其他五者联通,相互补充与映照。它具有一些方便之处,具有术语索引之力,但它有独特的涵义,故不可被其他五个术语或表达式取代。其涵义是:(1)思维与事物的一体两面的相反相成;(2)一个思维过程、一物、一事件的内部矛盾与对立着两面的转换;(3)突出反也守住了合,即"相反状的合",合字是核心词。反与合,缺一不可。另外,"反"与"合"的生成是自然的,起之于思维与事物变化和运动自身,不是人为从外部强加的。缺了"合"的反,肯定不是事物自身的变化和运动,是没完没了的乱,是持续的无序;缺了"反"的合,就不是思维与事物的自身的变化和运动。反合才是稳妥的合。"反合"这一术语是讨论哲学问题的一个方便的语言框架。一次成功(如果成功)的新的术语的产生,不啻为一次新的思想洗礼。即使"反合"这个术语不能被立即接受,本文的论证过程本身也是一次思想的洗礼与碰撞,因为论证本身有助于理解语言哲学何以是语言哲学,体现"哲学从谈论对象到谈论词语的转变",因而本文特别重视处理词语、理清意义及梳理概念。总之,在思维训练上与方法论上,本文具有一定的意义。结论之二包括三个方面:(1)从实践上验证"反合",它果然具有术语索引之力,能够索引出几个自然语言的"反合式语迹":音声相和、汉语两端字与外语两端词、反合式字组与词组(即[汉]反正结合字组-反正柔和字组以及[外]反正结合词组),最后,(汉)两个并列的半句。(2)而且,所发现的反合式语迹可以解释人的存在方式、思维与世界。首先,在一个思维过程、一物与一事件中普遍存在的反合现象,在语言上也有生动的观照。其次,几个反合式语迹的构造方式,恰好就是我们人类自己存在的方式的某些方面。最后,词语本身就是关系,而这种关系总是(在词语中)保持着物。(3)就算反合论新的概括不能立即被人接受,用它指导发现了几个反合式语迹,这对自然语言的认识又加深了一步。

In Part One , the author proposes a newly-proposed term , i.e.the opposite-accord ( the OA , hence ), so as to reflect and to explain the laws of change and motion in thoughts and things , with the new term being in parallel with other 5terms or expressions or propositions —'冲气以为和'( Their harmony depends on the blending of the breaths ) by Lao Tzu ( 1998 : 91 ),' Dialectic ' by Hegel ,' dialectical materialism ', '仇必和(而解)'(' Necessarily , enmity becomes reconciled ') by Feng Youlan , and '违者谐而反者合' (' The discordant tends to be harmonious , while the contrary , agreeable. ') by Qian Zhongshu. What significance is the OA of ? The new one can be considered as a ' most convenient ‘ linguistic framework ’' and has what the author calls ' an indexing force of terms ' .The OA has , however , a unique sense , therefore , the author claims that the OA cannot be substituted by any of other 5terms or expressions or propositions. In Part Two , as a result , the theory of the OA is really capable of indexing ① ( or making researches after ) some OA-type linguistic traces by means of which we are capable of answering such questions as : ( 1 ) Why is the phonetic combination ( of vowels and consonants into one syllable ) such as it is ?( The phonetic combination can be regarded as a basic OA phenomenon in language. ) ( 2 ) How do we account for somewhat strange both-ends-characters (两端字) in Chinese and both- ends-words in other languages ? ( 3 ) How have interesting OA-type characters-groups (反合式字组) in Chinese and OA-type phrases (反合式词组) in other languages all been structured such as they are ? ( 4 ) Why do two juxtaposed half-clauses (对联), e.g. , antithetical couplets , appear in Chinese ? Conclusions : As the first conclusion of this paper , the newly-structured term , i.e.the opposite-accord ( the OA ), is capable of reflecting and explaining the laws of change and motion in thoughts and things , with the new term being in parallel with other 5terms or expressions or propositions.Thus , the author claims that the six terms cannot substitute one another , although they are complementary to one another.Also , the author claims that the OA can be considered as convenient and has the indexing force to a great extent. The term , the OA , has a unique sense as listed in 1.5. However , the both-opposite-and-according state arrives naturally from the very change and motion of a thought and thing ; it has not been imposed artificially.The author would like to assume that all and only opposite accord is the most stable accord.The first theoretical aim we are trying to arrive at is that we will be theoretically baptized , once a new term is produced successfully.Even if the term ( the OA ) is not accepted now , we have had a further understanding of the mode in which analytic philosophy of language was as it was , and of the reason why Quine ( 1960 : 271 ) pointed out that ‘ a shift from talk of objects to talk of words. ’ In one word , the present work is of some significance in terms of methodology. The second conclusion includes the following three aspects : ( 1 ) We have found the OA-type linguistic traces. ( 2 ) The OA-type linguistic traces can explain the mode in which human beings exist , in which the process of thought develops and in which the world is.Truly ,‘[ T ] he word itself is the relation which in each instance retains the thing within itself in such a manner that it ' is ' a thing. ’( Heidegger 1982 : 66 ) ( 3 ) The term , the OA , has indeed the indexing force.