Abstract

As argued above, if we examine each "form of knowledge" within a modern historical context, it seems that we can see a sequentially transformational and coincident historical line that links the material, then the institutional, and then the cultural, while maintaining the sequential development of the linked trends from beginning to end. Even a summary of Lin Yusheng's hypothesis is a continuation of the "mind's" function orientation. This framework, however, must still answer the following question: In the process whereby "forms of knowledge" become intimately connected with transformational events or time sequencing, do they appear in the form of a totalitarian theoretical model, or do they exert their influence in the form of the dispersed role of a discourse? More concretely, in the case of China: When the traditional "forms of knowledge" of modern Chinese intellectuals—for example, the methodology and behavior within the "thought discourses" of the Confucian School—faced the challenge of the West, did they use "a comprehensive theory" to undertake self-adjustment? Michel Foucault raised a query about the role of totalitarian discourse in saying: "At the beginning of any research I expressed a query about these long-established ‘unified’ models. Traditionally, according to these ‘unified’ models we differentiate infinite, repetitive and fecund territories within the discourse. Must we necessarily, on these ‘unities’ which actually are not unities, pile up yet another even more obscure and even more controversial ‘unitary’ model?"