【作者】 徐伟；

【导师】 高力克；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 政治学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 广义的“神秘主义”最核心的两重意蕴就是“超越性”与“救赎性”,在这样的界定中,“神秘主义”并不与科学、人文、理性等相对立,甚至内在地包含着这些概念。这个意义上的神秘主义亦可谓一种广义的人文主义,对未知的终极存在的探索、追问和思索,其实是为了让人类在秩序与意义双重架构的世界中更好的生存。神秘主义自身分化出“王权秩序”、“教权秩序”和“心灵秩序”三个相互联系而又相互矛盾的传统,不断形成自我否定和扬弃以实现自我推进的力量,以保持制度更新的活力。如果将神秘主义视作一个运动的理念,世间的三种秩序体系都可以成为其具体的表现形式。王权作为世俗秩序的权威,教权作为抗衡和制约王权的组织化力量,而个体心灵秩序又对两种组织化权威可能出现的僵化和异化进行消解。正因为神秘主义是与“神”相联结,超越人有限的认知和行动能力,并对人的渺小和可堕失性有着深刻的体验和焦虑,所以神秘主义自身具备着一种流动性,有着反对僵化和独断的功能。西方的神秘主义在三种力量上发展都比较充分,形成保持自我更新活力的二元政治传统；而中国的神秘主义在后两者上发展不足,形成了王权相对强大而僵化的一元政治传统。由于在古代中国过早地出现了工具理性化与世俗人文化的特征,神秘主义还没有经历自我的发展和完善,其进程就被打断。在天—德—道—圣的路径中,圣未成为制衡王的力量,而最终为王所占有。在周代末期到汉代所形成的思想格局中,外在超越不存在,内在超越的路径不仅没能提升心灵,反而泯灭了个体性,救赎性气质被所谓的“向善”追求所淡化。这几重因素使得神秘主义单单沿着巩固王权的一个方向行进,而儒家以及佛教、道教的思想在几千年的发展历史中也都未能有助于教权秩序和心灵秩序的形成。发生在近代中国的东西方思想的冲突、碰撞和融合中,神秘主义提供了可以使两者通约的丰厚思想资源。近代所有深受中国传统文化熏陶、又努力学习和了解西方思想的著名知识分子,及当时流行的各种政治思潮,都与东西方神秘主义资源有着潜在且深入的关联。虽然自由主义、无政府主义等政治和社会思潮是近代理性化以后的产物,但其在中国的坎坷遭遇,正是东西方神秘主义秩序的差异所导致。王权秩序的强大以及教权秩序和心灵秩序的缺乏,使得自由主义的一些主要主张如重视个人权利、视国家为工具、强烈地不信任政府等观念在中国得不到接受和支持,也使得无政府主义的一些主要思想演化为深刻的悖论,如普世主义的乌托邦理想会自相矛盾地阶段性地演化成国家主义或威权主义。马克思主义思想在梳理西方传统的基础上恰恰又契合了东方传统,如其理论的整全性以及对现世乌托邦的追求,超越性气质与救赎性气质都满足了当时中国的需要,这是其在中国得以成功的重要原因之一,但两种传统深刻而巨大的思想根源上的差异又导致其中国化过程中产生的变异。以康有为、刘师培为个例的思想分析也有助于理解中国近代知识分子们在思想的冲突、碰撞和融合中所产生的焦虑,及其在路径选择上的艰辛探索。更多还原

【Abstract】 The dual core concepts of generalized mysticism are transcendence and salvation. Mysticism in this definition does not conflict with science, humanities nor reason, but embodies these concepts. The mysticism in this sense could be interpreted as a kind of generalized humanism, speculating on and questing for the ultimate unknown existence, in order to help human beings better survive in the dual framed world of orders and significance.The mysticism itself, splitting into three traditions of the kingship order, magisterium order and spirit order, interrelated with as well as contradicted to each other, continuously engenders self-negation and sublation to realize the power of self improvement, maintaining the vigor of system renovation. If the mysticism being considered as a moving concept, then the three traditional order systems could be interpreted as its materialized expressions. Kingship order is the authority of mundane order. Magisterim is the organized power to counter balance and restrict the kingship order. And the individual spirit order could digest the rigidity and alienation of these two organized authorities. Connecting with the God, the mysticism transcends human’s limited (limitation of) cognition and capacity to act, and contains the profound experience and anxiety of the insignificance and the possible corruptibility; thus the mysticism itself has mobility, a function against rigidity and dogmatism.The mysticism in the western culture has developed adequately in these three powers, forming the dual political tradition with self renovation vigor. While in China, the mysticism was developed insufficiently in the latter two powers, forming the extremely powerful but rigid kingship as a centralized politics. Because the characteristics of equipment rationalization and secularity humanization were generated too early in the ancient China, the mysticism has not gone through the steps of self-development and maturity; i.e. the progress is interrupted. In the path of heaven-Tao-virtue-sagehood, sage did not become a kind of counterbalance against kingship, but indeed was taken advantage of by the kingship. In the ideology structure forming from the end of Zhou dynasty to Han dynasty, the external transcendence did not exist, while the internal transcendence killed the personality instead of exalting spirits, and the salvage temperament was diluted by the namely pursuing-goodness. These factors co-acted and made the mysticism developed only alone the kingship direction. Meanwhile none of the Confucianism, the Taoism, and Buddhism has helped the magisterium order and the spirit order form in the thousands of years’ history.During the conflict, collision and syncretism of eastern and western ideologies in the modern China, the mysticism ontributed plenty ideology resources to help these two cultures to communicate. Almost the whole intelligentsia that were deeply influenced by the Chinese traditional cultures and endeavoring to absorb western thoughts, as well as the various popular politic thoughts, are in some kind of underlying and embedded connection with these mysticism resources. Although the political and social thoughts such as liberalism and anarchism are the products of modern rationalism, their tough survival in China indeed is the result of difference between eastern and western mysticism orders. The strong power of regalia together with the absence of magisterium order and spirit order makes some main contestations of liberalism lose comprehension and support in China, main contestations such as emphasizing personal rights, regime facility trend, and no trust in government, and also makes some main contestations of anarchism tend to be profound paradox. The utopianism of universalism gradually developed into self-contradictory nationalism and authoritarianism, which is one of the paradox examples. The Marxism assembles the western traditional thoughts and agrees with eastern traditions at the same time. The integrality of this theory, the pursuit of temporal Utopia, the temperament of transcendence and salvation, all these fulfilled the needs of China at that time and greatly helped Marxism succeed in China. But the profound and huge differences between the eastern and western traditions lead to the variation of Marxism in its progress of localization. The analysis of the thoughts of Kang Youwei and Liu Shipei in someway is also helpful in understanding Chinese modern intellectual’s anxiety, original from the conflict, collision and syncretism of thoughts, and their tough exploring in political choosing.更多还原