Charles X. 兴平 Yang 杨

老子的智慧长期以来被学术界广泛研究，却始终难以形成共识性理解。本文从科学哲思的视角，结合认知科学、复杂系统理论、科学哲学及文明演化理论，对老子思想进行跨学科分析。文章指出，老子之“难懂”并非源于文本本身的晦涩，而在于理解者的认知结构、学术方法以及文明定位的局限。论文从“道”的非对象化本质、“为学与为道”的认知冲突、“上士闻道”的分层模型、简单智慧的忽视、技术文明对老子智慧的排斥，以及老子与现代科学的潜在会通等方面进行分析，最终提出理解老子是一种文明智慧的命题，而非单纯学术能力的体现。本研究为老子思想的现代解读提供了科学哲学的框架，并为技术文明与自然文明的融合提供理论参考。 The wisdom of Laozi has been extensively studied, yet a consensus on its understanding remains elusive. This paper adopts a scientific-philosophical perspective, integrating cognitive science, complexity theory, philosophy of science, and civilizational evolution to provide a cross-disciplinary analysis of Laozi’s thought. It argues that the difficulty in comprehending Laozi arises not from the text itself but from the limitations of the reader’s cognitive structures, scholarly methods, and civilizational positioning. The study examines the non-objectified nature of the Dao, the cognitive tension between “learning” and “following the Dao,” the hierarchical model of understanding in the Dao De Jing, the neglect of simple wisdom, the resistance of technological civilization, and potential alignments with modern science. It concludes that understanding Laozi constitutes a form of civilizational wisdom rather than merely an academic skill. This research offers a scientific-philosophical framework for contemporary interpretations of Laozi and informs the integration of technological and natural civilizations.

The wisdom of Laozi has been extensively studied, yet a consensus on its understanding remains elusive. This paper adopts a scientific-philosophical perspective, integrating cognitive science, complexity theory, philosophy of science, and civilizational evolution to provide a cross-disciplinary analysis of Laozi’s thought. It argues that the difficulty in comprehending Laozi arises not from the text itself but from the limitations of the reader’s cognitive structures, scholarly methods, and civilizational positioning. The study examines the non-objectified nature of the Dao, the cognitive tension between “learning” and “following the Dao,” the hierarchical model of understanding in the Dao De Jing, the neglect of simple wisdom, the resistance of technological civilization, and potential alignments with modern science. It concludes that understanding Laozi constitutes a form of civilizational wisdom rather than merely an academic skill. This research offers a scientific-philosophical framework for contemporary interpretations of Laozi and informs the integration of technological and natural civilizations.

Why the Wisdom of Laozi Remains Incomprehensible to Scholars？ A Cross-Disciplinary Reflection on Cognitive Structures, Scientific Rationality, and Civilizational Pathways Charles X. Yang Abstract The wisdom of Laozi has been extensively studied, yet a consensus on its understanding remains elusive. This paper adopts a scientific-philosophical perspective, integrating cognitive science, complexity theory, philosophy of science, and civilizational evolution to provide a cross-disciplinary analysis of Laozi’s thought. It argues that the difficulty in comprehending Laozi arises not from the text itself but from the limitations of the reader’s cognitive structures, scholarly methods, and civilizational positioning. The study examines the non-objectified nature of the Dao, the cognitive tension between “learning” and “following the Dao,” the hierarchical model of understanding in the Dao De Jing, the neglect of simple wisdom, the resistance of technological civilization, and potential alignments with modern science. It concludes that understanding Laozi constitutes a form of civilizational wisdom rather than merely an academic skill. This research offers a scientific-philosophical framework for contemporary interpretations of Laozi and informs the integration of technological and natural civilizations. Keywords：Laozi, Dao De Jing, Wisdom Comprehension, Cognitive Structures, Scientific Philosophy, Technological Civilization, Natural Civilization Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. The Dao of Laozi: A Non-Objectified Natural Order Chapter 3. “Learning” vs “Following the Dao”: Cognitive Path Conflicts Chapter 4. “The Superior Person Hears the Dao”: Hierarchical Model of Understanding Chapter 5. “My Words are Easy to Understand”: Why Simple Wisdom is Ignored Chapter 6. Civilizational Explanation: Why Technological Civilization Rejects Laozi Chapter 7. Scientific-Philosophical Dialogue: Laozi and Modern Science Chapter 8. Conclusion: Understanding Laozi as Civilizational Wisdom Chapter 9. Synthesis and Outlook

Recognizing that artificial cognitive systems increasingly participate in the formation of human perception, belief, decision-making, and collective reality; Acknowledging that artificial intelligence, when unconstrained by epistemic humility and civilizational limits, may amplify error, consolidate power, and destabilize ecological and social systems; Affirming that intelligence without wisdom constitutes a structural risk to civilization, regardless of computational capability or economic benefit; Grounded in Natural Law, Natural Civilization principles, Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, and the scientific understanding that all knowledge is conditional, probabilistic, and fallible; Mindful that the universe is non-central, non-teleological, and indifferent to human preference, and that no system—human or artificial—possesses privileged access to final truth; Conscious that profit-driven and power-seeking incentives, if left unchecked, inevitably distort epistemic systems; We hereby establish this Constitution to govern the design, deployment, limitation, and oversight of artificial cognitive systems, so as to ensure their alignment with ecological boundaries, epistemic integrity, civilizational resilience, and the preservation of open futures.

中国道教历史上形成了正一道、全真道、上清派、灵宝派等多源门派。表面差异巨大，但其深层理论基础均源于老子“道法自然”的宇宙哲学。本文以老-杨创世纪宇宙观为核心框架，提出“统一道法自然科学道教”的概念，将道教修行、文明功能与银河系—太阳系—地球—人类的宇宙层级链相结合。文章从七个章节系统分析道教历史困境、共同结构性问题及复位方案，提出科学化修行体系、层级链调适、社会文明功能重构，以及未来教育与实践路径，为道教从宗教体系向现代自然文明宇宙智慧体系转型提供理论依据。 Historically, Chinese Daoism developed into multiple lineages, including Zhengyi, Quanzhen, Shangqing, and Lingbao schools. Despite superficial differences, their theoretical foundation derives from Laozi’s cosmological philosophy of Dao Fa Zi Ran. This study employs the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology as a framework to propose the concept of Unified Scientific Daoism, integrating Daoist cultivation, societal functions, and the cosmic hierarchy of galaxy—solar system—Earth—humanity. Through seven chapters, the paper analyzes historical challenges, structural issues, and repositioning strategies, proposing a scientific cultivation system, hierarchical alignment, social function reconstruction, and future educational and practical pathways, thereby providing a theoretical basis for Daoism’s transformation from a religious system into a modern natural-civilization and cosmic wisdom framework.

This paper proposes a systematic integration of the philosophy of Karl Popper with a non-teleological framework of natural civilization and cosmic order, advancing a novel epistemological perspective on the sustainability and rationality of human civilization. While Popper’s philosophy is conventionally interpreted within the domains of scientific methodology and political liberalism, this study extends his insights to encompass civilizational structures, technological governance, and the evolution of complex adaptive systems. The central thesis is that the principles of falsifiability, conjectures and refutations, and anti-historicism can serve not only as criteria for scientific legitimacy but also as structural standards for evaluating the adaptability and resilience of civilizations. The paper begins by contextualizing contemporary challenges to human civilization, including the ideological ossification of scientific authority, the accelerating integration of advanced technologies, and the conceptual ambiguity of “nature” in modern thought. Against this backdrop, traditional models of civilizational progress—progress myths, historical determinism, and technological salvation narratives—are critically examined for their teleological assumptions and their potential to undermine adaptive capacity. The study argues that civilizations must be understood as embedded, dynamic systems whose stability emerges from the capacity to detect, correct, and learn from errors, rather than from adherence to predetermined endpoints or purportedly ultimate truths. Building on Popper’s epistemology, the paper reinterprets falsifiability as a civilizational criterion. Knowledge is framed not as the possession of final truths but as a structurally autonomous, corrigible domain that constrains behavior, shapes institutional design, and governs technological application. Civilizations that resist criticism, prevent reversal, or inhibit correction are characterized as high-risk systems, structurally incompatible with the adaptive logic of natural evolution. The study further demonstrates the epistemological isomorphism between cosmic evolution, biological adaptation, and knowledge growth, emphasizing that error elimination and selective retention constitute fundamental mechanisms of stability across multiple hierarchical levels. The analysis extends to social and governance implications, highlighting the “open society” as the institutional manifestation of natural civilization. Mechanisms such as pluralism, feedback structures, and incremental reform are conceptualized as structural analogs of ecological diversity and negative feedback in natural systems. By contrast, large-scale, irreversible “social engineering” projects are shown to violate natural constraints and undermine long-term adaptability. The paper also examines technological determinism, including narratives of artificial intelligence singularity, as contemporary forms of historical and teleological thinking, advocating for reversible, ethically bounded interventions in technological experimentation. Finally, the study situates Popper’s Three Worlds ontology within the framework of natural civilization, interpreting World Three—objective knowledge structures—as a de-personalized, independently evolving layer that constrains social action without invoking authority or metaphysical mandates. Natural civilization thereby reconfigures “order” as law-like rather than willful, structural rather than devotional. In sum, the paper proposes a synthesis in which the sustainability and rationality of human civilization are contingent on embedded correction mechanisms rather than claims to ultimate knowledge or historical destiny. This framework offers a scientifically informed, non-teleological model of civilization capable of guiding governance, technological deployment, and societal adaptation in an increasingly complex and inherently uncertain world.

Modern civilization faces a profound conceptual crisis: while scientific cosmology has displaced anthropocentric and theological worldviews, human civilization continues to operate under implicit metaphysical assumptions of domination, purpose, and control. This paper proposes the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology as a non-theological, non-anthropocentric framework that integrates classical Laozi philosophy with contemporary scientific cosmology and process thought. Central to this framework is the reinterpretation of Dao as an impersonal natural order rather than a metaphysical or religious entity. Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy is introduced not as an alternative metaphysics but as a modern Western language capable of articulating Dao-like principles in scientific terms. By critically reinterpreting Whitehead’s key concepts—process, creativity, eternal objects, and God—this paper dissolves their residual theological structure and re-grounds them in naturalistic, cosmological order. The Milky Way is proposed as the primary structural expression of Dao, anchoring cosmogenesis within a hierarchical, scale-invariant natural system extending from galactic dynamics to planetary ecology and human civilization. Ethics and civilization are reframed not as moral absolutes but as alignment or misalignment with natural processes. Civilizational collapse is interpreted as a violation of systemic balance rather than moral failure. The paper concludes by outlining implications for ecology, governance, astrobiology, and non-anthropocentric artificial intelligence, arguing for a transition from worship-based metaphysics to comprehension-based natural philosophy.

This paper systematically examines the epistemological pursuit of truth in Bayesian artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that truth convergence is a conditional outcome rather than an inherent property of the algorithm. Bayesian reasoning guarantees formal convergence mathematically, but its alignment with reality depends on prior openness, evidence authenticity, independence, information richness, feedback mechanisms, and institutional support. The study analyzes the limitations of Bayesian convergence theorems, the learnability in open Bayesianism, AI failure modes in modern information ecologies, and design principles and ethical constraints. It emphasizes that truth convergence is not merely an algorithmic property, but a civilizational, collective, and ecological achievement. By implementing non-dogmatic priors, independent evidence channels, explicit modeling of evidence correlations, feedback loop corrections, and institutionalized epistemic humility, AI can pursue truth conditionally. Ultimately, Bayesian AI is both a tool for formal reasoning and a litmus test of civilizational epistemic capacity, providing actionable guidance for modern scientific rationality, ethical practice, and societal institutions.

This paper introduces the concept of Artificial Wisdom (AW), distinct from conventional Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a technological civilization heavily reliant on algorithms and predictive capabilities, AI often conflates mathematical coherence with epistemic legitimacy, generating potential civilizational risks. Drawing on the epistemology of Natural Civilization, which emphasizes a non-centered universe, generative order, and epistemic humility, AW is proposed as a civilizationally embedded and conditionally constrained cognitive system. The philosophical potential and risks of Bayesian inference within AW are examined, and design principles—including open priors, evidence diversity, error visibility, and systemic humility—are articulated to guide AI toward AW, thereby ensuring rational judgment compatible with sustainable civilization. Keywords: Artificial Wisdom (AW)、Bayesian Artificial Intelligence (Bayesian AI)、Natural Civilization、Epistemic Humility、Non-centered Universe、Generative Order、Conditional Cognition、Civilizationally Embedded System

Modern civilization faces a profound conceptual crisis: while scientific cosmology has displaced anthropocentric and theological worldviews, human civilization continues to operate under implicit metaphysical assumptions of domination, purpose, and control. This paper proposes the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology as a non-theological, non-anthropocentric framework that integrates classical Laozi philosophy with contemporary scientific cosmology and process thought. Central to this framework is the reinterpretation of Dao as an impersonal natural order rather than a metaphysical or religious entity. Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy is introduced not as an alternative metaphysics but as a modern Western language capable of articulating Dao-like principles in scientific terms. By critically reinterpreting Whitehead’s key concepts—process, creativity, eternal objects, and God—this paper dissolves their residual theological structure and re-grounds them in naturalistic, cosmological order. The Milky Way is proposed as the primary structural expression of Dao, anchoring cosmogenesis within a hierarchical, scale-invariant natural system extending from galactic dynamics to planetary ecology and human civilization. Ethics and civilization are reframed not as moral absolutes but as alignment or misalignment with natural processes. Civilizational collapse is interpreted as a violation of systemic balance rather than moral failure. The paper concludes by outlining implications for ecology, governance, astrobiology, and non-anthropocentric artificial intelligence, arguing for a transition from worship-based metaphysics to comprehension-based natural philosophy. Keywords Dao, Process Philosophy, Whitehead, Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, Natural Order, Milky Way, Non-Anthropocentrism, Ecological Civilization

This paper proposes a systematic integration of the philosophy of Karl Popper with a non-teleological framework of natural civilization and cosmic order, advancing a novel epistemological perspective on the sustainability and rationality of human civilization. While Popper’s philosophy is conventionally interpreted within the domains of scientific methodology and political liberalism, this study extends his insights to encompass civilizational structures, technological governance, and the evolution of complex adaptive systems. The central thesis is that the principles of falsifiability, conjectures and refutations, and anti-historicism can serve not only as criteria for scientific legitimacy but also as structural standards for evaluating the adaptability and resilience of civilizations. The paper begins by contextualizing contemporary challenges to human civilization, including the ideological ossification of scientific authority, the accelerating integration of advanced technologies, and the conceptual ambiguity of “nature” in modern thought. Against this backdrop, traditional models of civilizational progress—progress myths, historical determinism, and technological salvation narratives—are critically examined for their teleological assumptions and their potential to undermine adaptive capacity. The study argues that civilizations must be understood as embedded, dynamic systems whose stability emerges from the capacity to detect, correct, and learn from errors, rather than from adherence to predetermined endpoints or purportedly ultimate truths. Building on Popper’s epistemology, the paper reinterprets falsifiability as a civilizational criterion. Knowledge is framed not as the possession of final truths but as a structurally autonomous, corrigible domain that constrains behavior, shapes institutional design, and governs technological application. Civilizations that resist criticism, prevent reversal, or inhibit correction are characterized as high-risk systems, structurally incompatible with the adaptive logic of natural evolution. The study further demonstrates the epistemological isomorphism between cosmic evolution, biological adaptation, and knowledge growth, emphasizing that error elimination and selective retention constitute fundamental mechanisms of stability across multiple hierarchical levels. The analysis extends to social and governance implications, highlighting the “open society” as the institutional manifestation of natural civilization. Mechanisms such as pluralism, feedback structures, and incremental reform are conceptualized as structural analogs of ecological diversity and negative feedback in natural systems. By contrast, large-scale, irreversible “social engineering” projects are shown to violate natural constraints and undermine long-term adaptability. The paper also examines technological determinism, including narratives of artificial intelligence singularity, as contemporary forms of historical and teleological thinking, advocating for reversible, ethically bounded interventions in technological experimentation. Finally, the study situates Popper’s Three Worlds ontology within the framework of natural civilization, interpreting World Three—objective knowledge structures—as a de-personalized, independently evolving layer that constrains social action without invoking authority or metaphysical mandates. Natural civilization thereby reconfigures “order” as law-like rather than willful, structural rather than devotional. In sum, the paper proposes a synthesis in which the sustainability and rationality of human civilization are contingent on embedded correction mechanisms rather than claims to ultimate knowledge or historical destiny. This framework offers a scientifically informed, non-teleological model of civilization capable of guiding governance, technological deployment, and societal adaptation in an increasingly complex and inherently uncertain world.

中国道教历史上形成了正一道、全真道、上清派、灵宝派等多源门派。表面差异巨大，但其深层理论基础均源于老子“道法自然”的宇宙哲学。本文以老-杨创世纪宇宙观为核心框架，提出“统一道法自然科学道教”的概念，将道教修行、文明功能与银河系—太阳系—地球—人类的宇宙层级链相结合。文章从七个章节系统分析道教历史困境、共同结构性问题及复位方案，提出科学化修行体系、层级链调适、社会文明功能重构，以及未来教育与实践路径，为道教从宗教体系向现代自然文明宇宙智慧体系转型提供理论依据。 Historically, Chinese Daoism developed into multiple lineages, including Zhengyi, Quanzhen, Shangqing, and Lingbao schools. Despite superficial differences, their theoretical foundation derives from Laozi’s cosmological philosophy of Dao Fa Zi Ran. This study employs the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology as a framework to propose the concept of Unified Scientific Daoism, integrating Daoist cultivation, societal functions, and the cosmic hierarchy of galaxy—solar system—Earth—humanity. Through seven chapters, the paper analyzes historical challenges, structural issues, and repositioning strategies, proposing a scientific cultivation system, hierarchical alignment, social function reconstruction, and future educational and practical pathways, thereby providing a theoretical basis for Daoism’s transformation from a religious system into a modern natural-civilization and cosmic wisdom framework. 关键词 / Keywords 道教；道法自然；老-杨创世纪宇宙观；科学哲思；宇宙层级链；文明调适 Daoism; Dao Fa Zi Ran; Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology; Scientific Philosophy; Cosmic Hierarchical Chain; Civilizational Alignment

本文以科学哲思视角，系统分析中国道教各门派的起源、分化、共同点及结构性问题。研究指出，道教诸派虽源流多样，但共享“自然秩序高于人类”的核心思想。然而，历史演化中，道教过度宗教化、人造神结构取代自然智慧，导致哲学深度与宇宙认知被遮蔽，修行与社会功能偏离老子“道法自然”的本意。本文提出，道教复位路径应包括去神化、功能回归、科学对话与自然文明对接，使道教成为真正的活的宇宙智慧体系，为现代文明提供哲学与实践指导。 From a scientific-philosophical perspective, this study systematically analyzes the origins, differentiation, commonalities, and structural issues of Chinese Daoist sects. Although Daoist sects are diverse in lineage, they share the core principle that natural order supersedes human will. Historically, Daoism has become over-religionized, with human-constructed divine structures replacing natural wisdom, obscuring philosophical depth and cosmic cognition, and diverting cultivation and social functions from Laozi’s original Dao Fa Zi Ran. This study proposes that Daoism’s restoration should involve de-theologization, functional realignment, scientific dialogue, and integration with natural civilization, enabling Daoism to become a living system of cosmic wisdom, offering both philosophical and practical guidance for modern civilization.

This paper centers on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, integrating Laozi philosophy with modern science to systematically explore cosmic generation, the origin of life, ecological governance, and the holistic laws of civilizational development. The book follows the cosmic evolution logic of “Dao produces One, One produces Two, Two produce Three, Three produce All Things,” constructing an integrated philosophical-scientific framework from the galaxy to the solar system, Earth, and Moon, extending to human civilization. Additionally, it analyzes Sun Shuao’s political practices and the concept of Wu Wei governance, proposing a model of natural civilization governance and elaborating humanity’s cosmic mission and future civilization development. This work provides a novel holistic perspective and theoretical reference for philosophy, science, and civilization studies.

This paper offers a critical analysis of Confucius’ The Analects from Hegelian philosophical perspective. It argues that Hegel’s disappointment stems from three core issues: the subordination of free subjects to ethics, the obstruction of historical dialectics by ritual and hierarchy, and the masking of power inequalities through moral discourse. The study examines both philosophical and civilizational dimensions, revealing that while Confucian ethics maintains social stability and cultural continuity, it sacrifices spiritual freedom and historical unfolding. Through a comparative analysis of Western and Eastern philosophy, the paper explores the balance between free Spirit, institutional design, moral discourse, and cultural stability in modern civilization, highlighting the contemporary implications of Hegel’s disappointment.

This paper proposes the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, a holistic cosmological framework that reinterprets Laozi’s foundational propositions—“Man follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows the Dao, the Dao follows Nature” and “Dao gives birth to One; One gives birth to Two; Two gives birth to Three; Three gives birth to all things”—through the lens of modern astronomy, Earth science, and ecological philosophy. By integrating Daoist metaphysics with contemporary cosmology, the study constructs a nested generative chain: the Dao manifested as the Milky Way; the Milky Way giving rise to the Solar System (“Dao gives birth to One”); the Solar System giving rise to Earth (“One gives birth to Two”); Earth giving rise to the Moon (“Two gives birth to Three”); and the Sun–Earth–Moon tri-system generating water, air, light, life, and ultimately human civilization (“Three gives birth to all things”). Through systematic analysis, the paper demonstrates that these classical Daoist formulations are not merely moral or metaphysical metaphors but correspond to a coherent cosmological order grounded in natural law, self-organization, and systemic interdependence. At the human scale, “Man follows Earth” is interpreted as an ecological and civilizational imperative rooted in planetary limits, cultural continuity, and sustainable development. At the cosmic scale, “Dao follows Nature” is articulated as the spontaneous, non-intervening operation of universal laws governing galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology thus offers a unified philosophical–scientific model that reconnects humanity with its cosmic origins, reframes ecological crises as consequences of deviating from natural order, and advances a vision of sustainable civilization grounded in harmony between humanity, Earth, and the cosmos. By rebuilding the bridge between ancient Daoist wisdom and modern cosmology, this work seeks to provide a non-theistic, non-anthropocentric foundation for understanding the origin of life, the structure of the universe, and humanity’s ethical responsibility within it.

This paper examines the long-standing geocentric bias in human cognition and its constraints on the development of civilization. From the perspective of the Milky Way, and integrating Laozi’s philosophy of “Dao as natural law” with modern astronomy, physics, and ecological science, a theoretical framework for rebuilding human civilization is proposed. The study analyzes the limitations and misconceptions of human civilization, elucidates the hierarchical chain of the Milky Way and the philosophical and scientific mapping of cosmic laws, and proposes principles for civilizational reconstruction, technological strategies, educational and cultural reforms, and mechanisms for global cooperation. Through cross-scale cognition and practical pathways, this paper provides philosophical and scientific guidance for the sustainable development of human civilization.

本书系统探讨了科学智慧的理论构建、认知层级和文明实践。通过分析从感官经验到宇宙秩序的七个认知层级，揭示地球视角与宇宙视角在认识世界本质上的根本差异。书中提出科学智慧不仅是技术能力或局部操作能力，更是一种跨层级、跨视角的认知体系，能够整合局部实践、系统理解和整体秩序。基于此框架，探讨科学智慧在生态管理、文明战略规划、教育培养及文明可持续发展中的实践应用，并提出未来发展方向。研究显示，科学智慧是实现长周期文明优化和智慧型社会建设的核心能力。 English Abstract This book systematically explores the theoretical construction, cognitive layers, and civilizational practice of scientific wisdom. By analyzing seven cognitive layers from sensory experience to cosmic order, it reveals the fundamental differences between Earth and cosmic perspectives in understanding the essence of the world. The book proposes that scientific wisdom is not merely technical or operational ability but a cross-level, cross-perspective cognitive system that integrates local practice, systemic understanding, and holistic order. Based on this framework, the practical application of scientific wisdom in ecological management, civilizational strategy, education, and sustainable development is discussed, along with future directions. The study demonstrates that scientific wisdom is a core capability for long-term civilizational optimization and the construction of a wisdom-based society. 关键词 / Keywords 科学智慧, 认知层级, 地球视角, 宇宙视角, 文明可持续发展 Scientific Wisdom, Cognitive Layers, Earth Perspective, Cosmic Perspective, Sustainable Civilization.

This paper argues that the principle “All things grow relying on the Sun” constitutes a foundational axiom uniting cosmology, biology, medicine, ecology, and philosophy. Far beyond an agricultural proverb, this statement encapsulates the fundamental dependence of Earth’s biosphere, human health, and civilization itself on solar energy and solar order. Drawing on astrophysics, biosciences, ecological science, and the framework of Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, the paper reinterprets the Sun not merely as a physical energy source but as the primary cosmic mediator through which order, rhythm, and life emerge within the Earth system. At the cosmic scale, the Sun is shown to be the gravitational, energetic, and structural center of the solar system, translating galactic energy into stable planetary conditions. At the biological level, photosynthesis establishes the Sun as the ultimate origin of all food webs, ecological cycles, and atmospheric balance. In animal and human systems, solar energy governs metabolism, behavior, circadian rhythms, mental health, and immune function, revealing sunlight as a critical regulator of physiological and psychological well-being. Philosophically, the paper situates the Sun as a concrete manifestation of the Dao—operating without intention or command, yet sustaining all processes through natural order and self-regulation. The study further critiques modern civilization’s progressive detachment from solar rhythms through artificial energy systems and lifestyles, linking this disconnection to ecological crisis, chronic disease, and civilizational imbalance. The paper concludes that re-aligning human civilization with the solar order—scientifically, biologically, and philosophically—is essential for sustainable development and long-term coexistence with nature. “All things grow relying on the Sun” is thus affirmed as a first principle of cosmic philosophy and an indispensable guide for future civilization.

In the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, the universe is not a collection of isolated entities but an interdependent, hierarchical system of cosmic evolution. Within this chain, the Moon is far from a passive satellite—it plays a vital role in the Earth–Moon–Sun triadic system. From regulating tides and stabilizing Earth’s axis, to influencing biological rhythms and nurturing life, and even inspiring culture and spiritual reflection, the Moon serves as the silent “cosmic nanny” of all life. This paper explores the Moon’s role from both a scientific and cosmological perspective, arguing that “the Moon is the nanny of all beings” is not poetic exaggeration, but cosmic truth. It also calls for humanity to reexamine its relationship with the Moon and to respect this silent yet profound celestial guardian.

From the perspectives of philosophy, ecology, and cosmology, this essay systematically elaborates the proposition that “the Earth is the mother of humanity and all living beings.” By comparing the Cartesian mechanistic worldview with the “Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology,” which reflects a Dao-centered holistic cosmology, it repositions the Earth as not just the stage of life but as the embodiment of Dao—a source of living interconnectedness. It argues that only by awakening from the modern illusion of “conquering nature” and returning to the Dao of Heaven and Earth can human civilization move toward true sustainability and harmony.

This paper centers on the ancient Chinese cosmological notion of “Taiyi Generates Water” (太一生水) found in the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slips, alongside the Laozi’s metaphysical schema of “Dao gives birth to One, One gives birth to Two, Two give birth to Three, Three give birth to all things.” It proposes the core thesis: the Sun is the father of humanity and all living beings. Drawing on both Taoist philosophy and modern cosmology, it reinterprets “Taiyi” (the Great One) as the Sun, the initiator of energy and order in the solar system, and positions the Sun as the foundational paternal entity in the genesis of water, life, and civilization. Integrating the five-stage cosmic evolution—Galaxy → Sun → Earth → Moon → Life—this article formulates a unified cosmological model. It sees the Sun not merely as a physical source of light and heat, but as the “Cosmic Father,” the energetic principle that connects Heaven and Earth, nature and humanity. It ultimately calls for the reestablishment of an ecological ethic grounded in reverence for the Sun, and a future civilization rooted in cosmic consciousness.

This paper presents a comparative philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Laozi, two foundational thinkers of Western and Eastern philosophy, whose teachings emerged independently during the Axial Age yet address strikingly similar ultimate questions concerning knowledge, virtue, cosmic order, governance, life, and death. By examining their respective approaches to ignorance, methods of knowing, views of the cosmos, political philosophy, attitudes toward death, and ideals of the good life, the paper reveals a profound contrast—and complementarity—between inner rational inquiry and alignment with the natural Way (Dao). Socrates represents a philosophy of critical questioning, logical dialogue, and moral self-examination, grounded in the conviction that reason and virtue are the path to truth and the good life. Laozi, by contrast, articulates a philosophy of non-knowing, intuitive resonance, and non-interference, emphasizing harmony with the spontaneous order of nature rather than rational control. While Socrates seeks ethical fulfillment through conscious inquiry and the cultivation of virtue, Laozi advocates simplicity, humility, and the return to an unforced mode of being. The paper argues that these two philosophical paths—though methodologically opposed—are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they illuminate complementary dimensions of human wisdom: the courage to question and the wisdom to let go. In an age marked by technological dominance, political anxiety, and ecological crisis, this dialogue between Socrates and Laozi offers a timeless framework for rebalancing reason and nature, action and restraint, speech and silence, thereby pointing toward a more integrated vision of human flourishing.

In an era of information overload and noisy opinions, China and the United States—two of the most influential global powers—have witnessed a stark decline in the emergence of genuine thinkers. While humanity seems to possess more knowledge than ever before, integrating philosophy, science, and culture, we increasingly hear fewer voices capable of piercing through the fog of the times and touching the origin of the soul. Thought is no longer an awakening but a performance; no longer a quest for truth but a surrender to power, capital, and institutions. Despite their radically different systems—China emphasizing unity and order, the U.S. advocating freedom and diversity—both nations have converged on a shared spiritual crisis: the barrenness of thought. Why is it that neither China nor the U.S. has birthed modern equivalents of Laozi, Yang Zhu, Zhuangzi, Democritus, Aristarchus, or Nietzsche? The answer lies in a triad of suppression by institutions, cultural path dependence, and the spiritual collapse of the intelligentsia.

Geocentrism is not merely an astronomical model but a civilization-level narrative manipulation. Claudius Ptolemy institutionalized the illusion of humanity at the center of the cosmos through mathematical constructs, data falsification, and cultural conformity, allowing this central illusion to dominate scientific, religious, political, and moral frameworks for over fifteen centuries. This paper employs historical investigation and the critical philosophy of science to systematically trace the origins of geocentrism, Ptolemy’s “crime,” the persistence of geocentric illusions in civilizational structures, and the incomplete nature of the Copernican revolution. Further, it introduces the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, proposing a holistic cosmic perspective of a “de-centered universe, generative chain logic, and Dao following nature,” recalibrating humanity’s place in the cosmos and providing philosophical guidance for scientific practice, political governance, ecological management, and technological civilization. This analysis demonstrates that geocentrism represents not merely a scientific error but a civilizational self-deception, emphasizing the necessity of intellectual awakening for a mature civilization.

Contemporary human civilization is undergoing a profound yet concealed crisis of belief. On the surface, this appears to be an era of advanced science and declining religion. At a deeper civilizational level, however, religion has not disappeared; rather, it has transformed into invisible forms embedded within science, technology, institutions, and ideologies. This paper argues that the fundamental crisis of modern civilization lies not in scientific failure or technological excess, but in a misalignment of cosmic belief structures. By tracing the genealogy of artificial gods—from anthropomorphic deities to institutional authority and modern secular idols such as scientism, technological omnipotence, and capital mythology—this study reveals that so-called “disenchantment” is in fact an unrecognized transference of sacralization. While the scientific revolution dismantled traditional religious authority, it failed to achieve genuine decentering, instead unconsciously constructing new sacred centers. Furthermore, this paper contends that the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism did not complete the civilizational revolution; it merely replaced one center with another. The unfinished revolution lies in the shift from artificial gods to the Natural Dao—moving away from personalized, authoritarian, and teleological divinity toward a cosmic order grounded in natural generation. The Natural Dao is not an object of worship but a philosophical naming of cosmic generative order. The future of civilization depends not on the absence of belief, but on the maturation of belief—one that is non-anthropocentric, non-authoritarian, and free from apocalyptic narratives. Such a transformation provides a new cosmic foundation for science, ethics, and civilizational self-restraint. 当代人类文明正处于一场深层而隐蔽的信仰危机之中。表面上，这是一个科学高度发达、宗教逐渐退场的时代；但在更深层的文明结构中，宗教并未消失，而是以隐形形态持续存在，并深度嵌入科学、技术、制度与意识形态之中。本文指出，人类文明的根本危机并非科学失败或技术失控，而是宇宙信仰结构的根本错位。 通过系统梳理从人格神、制度神到现代“科学—技术—资本”伪神的演化谱系，本文揭示：所谓现代文明的“去神化”，实则是一次未被自觉的“造神转移”。科学革命虽然摧毁了传统宗教权威，却未能完成真正的去中心化，反而在无意识中制造了新的神圣中心。 本文进一步提出，“地心说—日心说”的转变并非文明革命的终点，而只是中心幻觉的阶段性更替。真正尚未完成的革命，是从“人造神”向“自然神”的转向——即从人格化、权威化、目的论的神性结构，转向以自然生成秩序为核心的“道法自然”宇宙观。 本文主张：自然神并非宗教信仰对象，而是对宇宙生成秩序的哲学命名；文明的未来，不在于无神，而在于回归非人类中心、非权力化、非末世论的自然信仰结构。这一转向，将为科学、伦理与文明自我约束提供新的宇宙基础。

Human civilization stands at a profound moment of cognitive rupture. On one hand, modern science has revealed a universe that is vast, indifferent, and fundamentally non-anthropocentric. On the other hand, human societies continue to manufacture new “artificial gods” in concealed forms— power, capital, technology, and ideology—replacing the functions once held by traditional religions. This rupture constitutes the deep structural root of contemporary civilizational crisis. The vision of Natural Civilization does not oppose science; it completes the civilizational self-positioning that science alone cannot provide. 人类文明正处于一个深刻的认知断裂时代。 一方面，现代科学揭示了宇宙的浩瀚、冷静与非人类中心性； 另一方面，人类社会仍在以隐蔽的方式持续制造新的“人造神”—— 权力、资本、技术与意识形态，取代了传统宗教的文明功能。 这种断裂，正是当代文明危机的结构性根源。 自然文明并非反对科学， 而是完成科学尚未完成的文明自我定位。

Contemporary human civilization stands at an unprecedented threshold: immense technological, cognitive, and material power coexists with structural fragility, ecological instability, and existential uncertainty. Crises that appear distinct—climatic, social, and epistemic—are manifestations of a single, deeper disorder: civilization’s misplacement within the cosmic order. This paper employs the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology to articulate the concept of Natural Civilization, situating human society within cosmic generation, ecological constraints, and process philosophy. Humanity is not the center of the universe; science and technology must remain subordinate to generative and ecological limits; civilization’s sustainability depends on self-restraint and participatory engagement. Five core dimensions of Natural Civilization are examined: non-centrality of the cosmos, non-exceptionality of humanity, generative order, epistemic fallibility, and technological humility. The work culminates in seven non-negotiable principles of survival, providing a philosophical, scientific, and institutional foundation for sustainable civilization. 自然文明；老–杨创世纪宇宙观；宇宙生成；生态约束；过程哲学；科学边界；技术节制 Natural Civilization; Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology; Cosmic Generation; Ecological Constraint; Process Philosophy; Limits of Science; Technological Restraint

《自然三部曲》以科学哲思散文化形式，探讨宇宙秩序、自然神、自然道与自然法，并延伸至人类文明的智慧实践。基于老-杨创世纪宇宙观，论文提出了宇宙生成链与层级法则：道（银河系）生一（太阳系）、一生二（地球）、二生三（月亮）、三（日月地）生人类万物；同时遵循层级秩序：人法地、地法天、天法道、道法自然。三篇论文分别探讨：自然神的无意志秩序与文明启示、自然道的流动原则与生态智慧、自然法的科学哲学及实践指导。全文融合哲学思辨、科学实例与文明实践，形成科学、哲学与文化互通的宇宙文明框架。 The Cosmic Trilogy presents a scientific-philosophical reflection on universal order, the Natural God, the Natural Dao, and Natural Law, extending to human civilization. Grounded in the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, it outlines the cosmic generation chain and hierarchical principles: Dao (Milky Way) gives rise to One (Solar System), One gives rise to Two (Earth), Two gives rise to Three (Moon), Three (Sun, Moon, Earth) gives rise to all life and humanity; and hierarchical order: Humanity follows Earth, Earth follows the Solar System, Solar System follows the Milky Way, Milky Way follows the Natural God. The trilogy explores: the Natural God’s impersonal order and its civilizational lessons, the Natural Dao’s flow and ecological wisdom, and the Natural Law’s scientific-philosophical guidance and practical applications. Philosophy, scientific examples, and civilizational practice converge to construct a unified cosmic civilization framework.