Charles X. Yang

Confucianism, as a core component of Eastern traditional civilization, has exerted profound influence on social order, education, and governance. However, it contains significant internal contradictions, practical paradoxes, and sectarian divergences. The root of these contradictions lies in its heavy reliance on human-made norms (Ren, Yi, Li, Zhi, Xin, and ritual systems) rather than natural laws. This paper systematically analyzes the manifestations, types, and historical evolution of Confucian internal contradictions and philosophically proposes the proposition that “human-made is false.” By contrasting these human-made norms with natural laws and systemic principles, the study further explores the implications of Confucian experience for modern social governance, educational systems, and civilization development. Drawing on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology’s concept of “Dao follows Nature,” the paper suggests that modern civilization should prioritize holistic, scientific, and feedback-based approaches to achieve theoretical consistency and practical stability. This research provides a novel perspective integrating philosophy and science for understanding the limitations of traditional ethics and constructing sustainable civilization.

Based on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, this paper systematically explores the scientific and philosophical foundations of natural civilization as the ultimate form of human civilization. The study highlights that the stability and sustainability of human civilization are rooted in natural control systems, whose core characteristics include eternity, universality, and negative-feedback self-regulation. From both philosophical and scientific perspectives, this article analyzes the manifestations of natural civilization across the cosmic hierarchy, ecosystems, social institutions, and technological civilization, and compares them with Confucian and Western civilizational systems, revealing their limitations: Confucianism emphasizes human ethics and ritual systems, which are constrained by history and culture and prone to internal contradictions; Western civilization relies on rationality, science, and institutional frameworks, yet still shows deficiencies in addressing systemic risks and ecological constraints. Furthermore, this paper discusses the application of natural civilization principles in modern governance, ecological management, industrial civilization, and artificial intelligence systems, proposing a systematic governance and ecological intelligence design paradigm centered on negative feedback and self-organization. This provides actionable scientific-philosophical guidance for social institutions, resource management, and technological civilization. The paper concludes by suggesting future research directions, including multi-galaxy and cosmic-hierarchy negative feedback simulations, co-evolution models of artificial intelligence and ecological civilization, and interdisciplinary integration of philosophy, science, and social governance. The study demonstrates that natural civilization not only offers ultimate principles for the long-term stability and sustainability of human civilization, but also provides a scientific-philosophical foundation for cross-cultural, cross-temporal, and cross-institutional civilizational practices, carrying profound philosophical, scientific, and social application value.

引言：谁在替天行道？——伪道的建构 “替天行道”，本应是顺应天地自然之理，以无为之治引领社会和谐。然而，在中国古代思想史中，这句话却逐渐被篡改为一种政治合法性的工具，一种儒家话语系统下的人造秩序。那些自称“行道”的圣贤、帝王与士大夫，真的是在奉天之命，还是在“代天造神”？谁在真正代表“天道”？谁又在用“天道”伪装人意？ 本文以“儒学七伪”为主题，系统揭露儒家思想从孔子到张载的发展过程中，如何逐步构建出一套脱离自然之道、扭曲天地本源的意识形态。孔子的“敬鬼神而远之”，表面看是理性之言，实则掩盖了对天地神明的真实遮蔽；孟子的“性善”，将人之自然演化的复杂性简化为教化基础；荀子的“礼治”更以人为设制硬化自然法则；董仲舒更大胆地伪造“天人感应”，使皇权披上神圣外衣。至宋明理学，程朱理气之说、张载气本论，已经将“道”的自然性完全转化为伦理性、社会性和政治性的说教系统。 这是一条“伪道之路”——表面上冠以“天理”“仁义”“忠孝”，实则是在“天命”之名下行人治之实，是用人造的“神圣”结构压制天地的真实，是以文明之名遮蔽自然的流动之道。 在这一背景下，“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”为我们提供了一个返本开新的视角：以“道”为宇宙本体，以自然神为存在之根，拒绝以人类中心建构的神圣，回归“道法自然”的宇宙秩序。唯有看清“伪”的面具，方能迈向“真”的觉醒；唯有瓦解虚伪的文化枷锁，方能重启通向自然之道的哲学之门。 Introduction: Who Carries Out the Will of Heaven?— The Construction of Pseudo-Dao “To act on behalf of Heaven” was originally meant to follow the natural principles of Heaven and Earth, guiding society through non-interventionist governance toward harmony. However, in the history of Chinese thought, this phrase gradually morphed into a tool for political legitimacy—a human-constructed order under the Confucian discourse system. Were those self-proclaimed sages, emperors, and officials truly obeying Heaven’s command, or were they creating gods in Heaven’s name? Who truly represents the “Heavenly Dao”? And who merely disguises human intentions as Heaven’s will? This paper, themed “The Seven Falsehoods of Confucianism,” systematically reveals how Confucian thought—evolving from Confucius to Zhang Zai—gradually constructed an ideology divorced from the natural Dao and distorted the cosmic origin. Confucius’s “respecting spirits and keeping a distance” seems rational but actually conceals a disconnection from true reverence for divine nature. Mencius’s “innate goodness” simplifies the complexity of natural human evolution into a moralist foundation. Xunzi’s “ritual governance” hardens natural laws into human-imposed structures. Dong Zhongshu went further, fabricating “resonance between Heaven and man” to sanctify imperial authority. By the time of Neo-Confucianism, Cheng-Zhu’s “principle and qi” theory and Zhang Zai’s materialistic “qi cosmology” had completely transformed the Dao’s natural essence into an ethical, social, and political dogma. This is the path of “pseudo-Dao”: on the surface cloaked in “Heavenly Principle,” “benevolence and righteousness,” and “loyalty and filial piety,” but in essence, it executes human rule in the name of “Mandate of Heaven”—suppressing the truth of Heaven and Earth with artificial sacred structures and obscuring the flowing Dao of nature under the guise of civilization. In contrast, the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology offers a fresh perspective to return to the roots: it sees the Dao as the ontological basis of the cosmos and the natural god as the foundation of existence, rejecting anthropocentric sanctification and restoring the cosmic order of “Dao follows nature.” Only by recognizing the mask of falsehood can we awaken to the truth. Only by dismantling the chains of cultural hypocrisy can we reopen the philosophical gateway to the Dao of nature.

“Tianrenheyi” (Unity of Heaven and Humanity) is a core proposition in the Chinese intellectual tradition. However, within the Confucian system it has often been moralized and interpreted under the assumption that humanity occupies the center of the cosmos. This has led, in civilizational practice, to ecological imbalance, technological risk, and systemic crises. From the perspective of scientific-philosophical inquiry, this paper critically examines the philosophical foundations and methodological deficiencies of Confucian Tianrenheyi, identifying its a priori assumptions, moralization, and anthropocentric bias as harmful to modern civilizational governance. The study further proposes the Lao-Yang Tianrenheyi model based on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, transforming Tianrenheyi from a purely philosophical ideal into a scientific, systemic, and operational civilizational model. Its core lies in the cosmogenic chain of Dao-sheng-wanwu (Dao generates all things) and Dao-fa-ziran (Dao follows natural law): Galaxy → Sun → Earth → Moon → Life → Civilization. Humanity functions as a node within the system, and civilizational development must follow natural constraints and hierarchical adaptation. Employing textual analysis, philosophical critique, cosmological evolution theory, complex systems theory, and natural cybernetics, this paper systematically analyzes the historical development, philosophical deficiencies, and modern dilemmas of Confucian Tianrenheyi. By contrasting it with the Lao-Yang model, it offers scientific-philosophical insights. The findings demonstrate that Lao-Yang Tianrenheyi is decentralized, non-moralized, and verifiable, providing scientific foundations for ecological governance, technological system control, and risk management in modern civilization. The paper further proposes future research directions, including modeling the cosmogenic chain, civilizational simulation, interdisciplinary applications, and long-term strategies for synchronizing civilization with cosmic law. This study demonstrates a possible path for integrating classical philosophy with modern scientific methodology, offering a theoretical and practical framework for the sustainable development of global civilization.

The concept of “unity of heaven and humanity” (tian-ren he-yi) is a central proposition in Chinese intellectual tradition. However, within the classical Confucian framework, it is often ethicalized and anthropocentric, placing humans at the center of the cosmos. This has contributed to ecological imbalances, technological risks, and systemic crises in civilization. Based on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, this paper proposes a Lao-Yang model of unity of heaven and humanity, transforming the concept from a philosophical ideal into a scientific, systematic, and operational framework for civilization. Its core lies in the cosmological generative chain of “Dao generates all things, Dao follows nature”: galaxy → sun → Earth → moon → life → civilization, where humans and all other beings function as nodes within a system, and the development of civilization follows natural constraints and hierarchical adaptation. Through literature analysis, cosmological evolution theory, complex systems, and cybernetics, this study systematically elaborates the philosophical foundations, cosmic system structure, principles of natural civilization, technological adaptation, and applied value of Lao-Yang’s unity of heaven and humanity. Results indicate that the Lao-Yang framework is theoretically decentralized, non-ethicalized, and empirically verifiable, providing a scientific basis for ecological governance, technological system control, and risk management in modern civilization. Future research directions include modeling the cosmological generative chain, simulating civilizations, interdisciplinary applications, and long-term strategies for aligning civilization with cosmic laws. This study demonstrates a pathway to integrate classical philosophical ideas with modern scientific methodology, offering a theoretical and practical framework for sustainable global civilization.

The central proposition of Tu Weiming’s Confucian system is that “the mind is ontology,” asserting that the human mind possesses ultimate significance, that ren constitutes a cosmic value, that the unity of Heaven and humanity embodies ethical transcendence, and that Confucianism should be elevated to a “humanistic religion.” Taking the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology as the philosophical and scientific measure, this paper employs rigorous scientific-philosophical and ontological analysis to conduct a systematic and incisive critique of Tu Weiming’s Confucianism. This paper argues: 1. Mind-nature is a terminal product of the cosmic evolutionary chain and cannot serve as the generative source; 2. Extending ren into a cosmic law is an inflation of the civilizational level and an expression of anthropocentrism; 3. If the unity of Heaven and humanity depends on mind-based interpretation, it subverts the independence of natural laws; 4. If religious Confucianism takes the mind as its foundation, its transcendence becomes hollow and dependent on subjective experience; 5. The inversion of epistemology and generative order wrongly elevates the terminal stage of civilization into the ontological source. Ultimately, this paper delivers a final judgment: cosmic ontology exists uniquely; mind-nature is dependent upon natural structure; if Confucianism insists on mind-as-ontology, it will forever remain within the internal ethical level of civilization. From the three dimensions of ontology, epistemology, and scientific philosophy, this paper reveals the logical paradox of mind-ontology and provides a profound reflection on the relationship between Confucianism and modern philosophy of science.

This paper conducts a systematic and thorough critique of the core proposition of Tu Weiming and Wang Yangming’s School of Mind—“the mind is principle”—from the perspectives of philosophy of science, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, and logical philosophy. The paper argues that Tu Weiming attaches “principle” (li) to “mind” (xin), placing the human mind at the center of cosmic order and value. His theory contains fatal defects at the levels of ontology, cosmology, ethics, and civilizational risk. Scientific–philosophical analysis makes clear: the physical universe predates the emergence of consciousness; mind is a product of evolution; cosmic order and meaning are independent of human consciousness. The so-called “ethical and historical value” cannot conceal the logical and scientific errors of the theory itself, and its potential harm may threaten the systemic stability of civilization. This paper ultimately forms a comprehensive scientific–philosophical civilizational critique framework, providing a manifesto-style warning for modern civilizational understanding.

From the perspective of natural civilization and cybernetic control theory, this paper systematically analyzes the profound threats that dictatorial regimes pose to civilizational systems. Natural civilization emphasizes that societies must obey natural laws, maintain system feedback, and uphold ecological balance, while the cybernetic perspective treats civilization as a complex adaptive system reliant on constraints, feedback loops, and self-regulation. This study introduces the concept of “civilization-level madness,” referring to the systemic collapse arising from the interaction of ideological expansion, absolute power, and institutional failure. Through historical case studies, it examines how the totalitarian practices of Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin violated natural laws, disrupted ecological and social feedback, concentrated power, and weakened institutional oversight, resulting in large-scale famine, war, and cultural ruptures. Using a cybernetic model of civilization, this paper explains how totalitarian actions amplify local errors into global systemic crises and reveal the fragility of civilizational continuity. Finally, principles for preventing dictatorship and protecting civilizational systems are proposed, including rational constraints, institutional checks and balances, education and philosophical warnings, ecological civilization, and risk management in technology, energy, and artificial intelligence. The study emphasizes that dictatorship is not merely a political problem but the most direct and profound lethal threat to natural civilization. The paper aims to provide modern civilization with scientifically, philosophically, and systemically grounded warnings and protection strategies.

在人类思想史上，伟大的哲学家不计其数，但若论谁最能洞悉宇宙本源、生命法则、社会治理之道，并以最简练而深远的语言揭示世界的终极智慧，老子无疑是其中的巅峰。他的思想不仅影响了整个东方文明，也在世界范围内引起了持续的哲学探讨和实践。 为什么说老子是人类最智慧的哲学家？这不仅关乎他对“道”的深刻理解，更涉及他如何超越人类有限的经验，直指宇宙本质，为世人提供了一种永恒适用的智慧。 In the history of human thought, there are countless great philosophers, but when it comes to the one who most profoundly understands the fundamental principles of the universe, the laws of life, and the ways to govern society, Laozi undoubtedly stands at the peak. His philosophy has not only influenced Eastern civilization but also sparked ongoing philosophical discussion and practice worldwide. Why is Laozi considered the most wise philosopher of humanity? This is not just about his deep understanding of the “Dao,” but also about how he transcended human limitations to directly point to the essence of the universe, offering humanity an eternal and applicable wisdom.

本文从科学哲思视角论证老子在中国思想史中的核心地位。通过比较春秋战国诸子百家的宇宙观、伦理与政治哲学，结合现代科学与宇宙学，本文提出：老子创造了“宇宙—自然法则—治理—心性”贯通体系，其宇宙生成论、无为哲学及生态智慧体现古代最高智慧。采用文献学、思想史、科学哲学与宇宙学综合方法，本文揭示老子思想对中国乃至世界文明的深远意义。 From the perspective of scientific philosophy, this paper argues for the central position of Laozi in the history of Chinese thought. By comparing the cosmology, ethics, and political philosophy of the various schools of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and by integrating insights from modern science and cosmology, this study proposes that Laozi created a unified system connecting cosmos–natural law–governance–mind. His theory of cosmic generation, his philosophy of non-action, and his ecological wisdom constitute the highest intellectual achievement of ancient China. Employing methods from philology, intellectual history, philosophy of science, and cosmology, this paper reveals the profound significance of Laozi’s thought for both Chinese and world civilization.

人类自诩伟大—— 在钢铁与玻璃中筑造高塔。 Humanity calls itself great— raising towers of steel and glass. 然而在辉煌之下， 潜伏着脆弱的阴影。 Yet beneath the glittering heights, lurks the trembling shadow of fragility. 我们说：我们是文明之主； 我们说：我们是万物之灵。 We declare: we are masters of civilization. We proclaim: we are spirits of all beings. 但河流在哭泣， 森林在燃烧， 海洋在无声地上升。 But the rivers weep, the forests burn, and the oceans rise in silence. 这不是辉煌， 只是幻影。 This is no glory, but a mirage. 虚妄的繁荣， 辉煌的骗局—— 人类悲哀的序曲。 A false prosperity, a glittering deception— the prelude to our sorrow.

在远古的晨曦， 当河流轻吟，山川低语， 人类初生，心灵澄澈， 眼中有光，耳中有声， 世界仍是宽阔的舞台。 In the ancient dawn, when rivers murmured and mountains whispered, humankind was born, their hearts clear, their eyes held light, their ears heard, the world a vast stage of possibility. 智慧如星辰，散落在大地， 最初的智者聆听宇宙的呼吸， 与自然共舞，感知时间的纹理与生命的律动。 Wisdom shone like scattered stars upon the earth, the first sages listened to the breath of the cosmos, dancing with nature, perceiving the weave of time and the rhythm of life. 然而，岁月如潮，洪流汹涌， 人类的心，被欲望和虚荣淹没， 他们追逐财富，争夺权力， 却遗忘了倾听自然、倾听内心。 Yet time surged like a flood, relentless, human hearts drowned in desire and vanity, they chased wealth, they battled for power, forgetting to listen to nature, to listen to themselves.

本文旨在对当代华人思想史学者余英时与许倬云的学术体系进行批判性分析。二人作为国际知名的中国思想史家，代表了20世纪下半叶以来海外汉学界和中国学术界对“儒家传统”的重估。然而，其思想史构建存在三个致命盲点：其一，过度儒家中心化，将中国思想史简化为儒学史；其二，忽视或误读老子及道家思想，未能把握其宇宙论和自然哲学维度；其三，缺乏科学基础，未能与现代科学的宇宙学、生态学和系统论相结合，思想史停留在文化怀旧与道德史的层面。本文提出一个替代性方案——以“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”为基础，重建中国思想史的整体视野：将“道”作为宇宙本源与自然法则，将老子思想与现代科学结合，从而实现从文化史向宇宙观史学的根本转型。 This paper offers a critical analysis of the intellectual-historical frameworks of Yu Yingshi and Xu Zhuoyun, two of the most prominent contemporary Chinese intellectual historians. They represent the late 20th-century reevaluation of the Confucian tradition within both overseas Sinology and Chinese academia. Yet their constructions of Chinese intellectual history contain three fatal blind spots: excessive Confucian-centrism, neglect of Laozi and Daoist thought, and lack of a scientific foundation. This paper proposes an alternative—the “Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology”—to reconstruct the overall horizon of Chinese intellectual history, integrating Dao as the cosmic origin and natural law with Laozi’s philosophy and modern science, achieving a transformation from cultural history to cosmological intellectual history.

本文旨在对当代华人思想史学者余英时与许倬云的学术体系进行批判性分析。二人作为国际知名的中国思想史家，代表了20世纪下半叶以来海外汉学界和中国学术界对“儒家传统”的重估。然而，其思想史构建存在三个致命盲点：其一，过度儒家中心化，将中国思想史简化为儒学史；其二，忽视或误读老子及道家思想，未能把握其宇宙论和自然哲学维度；其三，缺乏科学基础，未能与现代科学的宇宙学、生态学和系统论相结合，思想史停留在文化怀旧与道德史的层面。本文提出一个替代性方案——以“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”为基础，重建中国思想史的整体视野：将“道”作为宇宙本源与自然法则，将老子思想与现代科学结合，从而实现从文化史向宇宙观史学的根本转型。 This paper offers a critical analysis of the intellectual-historical frameworks of Yu Yingshi and Xu Zhuoyun, two of the most prominent contemporary Chinese intellectual historians. They represent the late 20th-century reevaluation of the Confucian tradition within both overseas Sinology and Chinese academia. Yet their constructions of Chinese intellectual history contain three fatal blind spots: excessive Confucian-centrism, neglect of Laozi and Daoist thought, and lack of a scientific foundation. This paper proposes an alternative—the “Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology”—to reconstruct the overall horizon of Chinese intellectual history, integrating Dao as the cosmic origin and natural law with Laozi’s philosophy and modern science, achieving a transformation from cultural history to cosmological intellectual history.

在当代中国知识分子中，傅佩荣是一位颇具代表性的哲学讲者。他在学术与公众讲座中，既推崇孔子的礼治思想，也赞美庄子的逍遥智慧。然而，若从思想逻辑与哲学立场的严谨性审视，这种“孔庄兼爱”的态度实际上是一种根本性的矛盾。更深层次地，它折射出中国知识分子在传统与现代价值、社会规范与心性自由之间的心理妥协与虚伪人性。本文从哲学本体、思想史、文化心理与人性批判四个维度进行分析。 Among contemporary Chinese intellectuals, Fu Peirong is a highly representative philosophical lecturer. In his academic works and public lectures, he both praises Confucius’ philosophy of ritual governance and admires Zhuangzi’s teachings on freedom and spontaneity. However, from the standpoint of logical consistency and philosophical rigor, this “dual admiration” is fundamentally contradictory. On a deeper level, it reflects the psychological compromise and hypocritical tendencies of Chinese intellectuals caught between traditional and modern values, societal norms, and personal freedom. This paper analyzes the phenomenon from four dimensions: philosophical ontology, intellectual history, cultural psychology, and human nature critique.

Professor Fu Peirong’s philosophical system represents a profound attempt in contemporary Chinese thought: to find a middle way between Confucian human rationality and Daoist cosmic spirituality. Yet this “path of accommodation” is not a balance but a continuous tension—a tug-of-war between “moral order” and “natural spontaneity.” This paper examines Fu’s thought across three dimensions: metaphysics, ontology, and civilizational critique, revealing his inner contradictions. While he seeks to reconstruct human order through Confucian ethics, he is simultaneously drawn to the transcendent freedom of Lao-Zhuang’s Dao follows Nature. He advocates rational ethical living, yet longs for spiritual liberation. This tension highlights a fundamental problem in modern Chinese philosophy: when human reason loses its cosmic foundation, morality becomes an institutional illusion; only a return to the natural Dao can restore the integrated order of Heaven and Humanity. 傅佩荣教授的思想体系代表了当代华语哲学的一种深刻尝试：在儒家的人文理性与道家的宇宙灵性之间寻找一条中道。然而，这种“兼容之道”并非平衡的终点，而是一场持续的张力——一场在“道德秩序”与“自然自化”之间的拉扯。本文从形上学、存在论与文明批判三个维度，揭示傅氏思想的内在矛盾：他既想以儒家重建人文秩序，又被老庄“道法自然”的超越精神所吸引；他倡导理性的伦理生活，却又渴望灵性的自由超越。本文指出，这种张力折射出现代中国哲学的根本问题——当人类理性失去宇宙根基，道德就沦为制度的幻象；唯有回归自然之道，方能恢复天人合一的整体秩序。