Charles X. Yang

在过去数百年的科学发展中，人类逐渐建立起一套高度成功的宇宙解释体系。从Isaac Newton的经典力学，到热力学，再到现代复杂系统科学，这一体系以“规律”“结构”“预测”为核心，成功描述了世界的稳定性与可计算性。然而，在这一宏大框架之下，一个根本性问题始终未被真正解决：宇宙中的“新”从何而来？ 传统科学擅长解释“已经存在的结构如何运作”，却难以回答“结构本身如何生成”。即便是被视为基础定律的Second Law of Thermodynamics，也常被理解为一个关于衰退与无序的法则，而非生成与创造的机制。在这一视角下，宇宙似乎最终趋向均质与静止，秩序反而成为局部的、暂时的例外。 然而现实并非如此。恒星形成，行星演化，生命出现，意识诞生，文明扩展——这一切都指向一个不可回避的事实：宇宙不仅在“存在”，更在持续“生成”。 这一张力构成了本书的出发点。 在思想史上，关于“生成”的最深刻表达之一，来自Laozi。《Dao De Jing》中提出的“道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物”，并非简单的宇宙起源叙述，而是一种高度抽象的生成逻辑。在这一逻辑中，世界不是由静态实体构成，而是在连续的关系展开与层级分化中生成。存在并非基础，生成才是基础。 然而，长期以来，这一思想被归入“哲学”或“玄学”，缺乏与现代科学的结构性对接，因此难以进入可检验、可建模的理论体系之中。 直到20世纪，情况开始发生转变。以Ilya Prigogine为代表的科学家，通过对Non-equilibrium thermodynamics的研究，揭示了一个重要事实：在远离平衡的开放系统中，物质与能量流不仅不会导致纯粹的无序，反而能够自发形成稳定的有序结构——即“耗散结构”。在特定条件下，系统还会经历分叉，产生多种可能路径，历史因此成为不可逆的选择过程。 这一发现改变了我们对自然的基本理解。秩序不再是对抗混乱的结果，而是从非平衡中生成；时间不再是可逆的参数，而成为具有方向性的生成维度；宇宙不再是一个完成的结构，而是一个持续展开的过程。 尽管如此，现代科学与古典哲学之间仍然存在断裂。前者提供机制，却缺乏总体生成图景；后者提供整体视野，却缺乏形式化工具。二者尚未被整合为一个统一的理论框架。 本书的目标，正是在这一断裂处展开工作。 本书并不试图简单比较东方与西方思想，也不试图将古典文本“现代化解释”。相反，本书提出一个更具结构性的任务：以老子的生成逻辑为框架，以普里戈津的非平衡动力学为机制，构建一个关于宇宙生成的统一理论。 在这一理论中： * “道”被重新理解为一个远离平衡的开放生成场； * “一”对应于在能量流中形成的稳定耗散结构； * “二”与“三”体现为系统分叉与耦合结构； * “万物”则是多层级耗散结构的级联结果。 与此同时，“生”不再是抽象的哲学词汇，而被严格界定为：在时间不可逆条件下，由非线性动力学驱动的结构生成过程。 因此，本书的核心命题可以表述为： 宇宙不是由既定实体构成的静态整体，而是一个在非平衡条件下，通过分叉、自组织与耦合不断生成结构的动力学系统。 这一命题的意义，不仅在于哲学层面的重构，也在于方法论层面的转向。它要求我们从“解释存在”转向“理解生成”，从“分析结构”转向“研究过程”，从“追求控制”转向“适应系统”。 在更广泛的层面，这一理论还具有重要的跨尺度意义。从宇宙结构到生命系统，再到人类文明，都可以被理解为不同层级的生成结构。这意味着，科学、哲学与文明理论之间，存在一个可以被统一的深层框架。 本书因此不仅是一项理论尝试，也是一种方法论提案：在一个日益复杂与不确定的世界中，人类需要重新理解自身所处的位置——不是作为世界的中心，而是作为生成过程中的一个参与结构。 如果这一尝试能够成立，那么我们或许可以说： 老子的“道生万物”与普里戈津的“耗散结构”，并非两个时代的偶然共鸣，而是指向同一个尚未完全展开的科学命题——生成宇宙的动力学原理。

Over the past several centuries of scientific development, humanity has gradually established a highly successful system for explaining the universe. From Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics, to thermodynamics, and then to modern complex systems science, this framework has been centered on “laws,” “structure,” and “prediction,” successfully describing the stability and computability of the world. However, within this grand framework, a fundamental question has never truly been resolved: where does the “new” in the universe come from? Traditional science excels at explaining “how already existing structures operate,” but struggles to answer “how structures themselves are generated.” Even the Second Law of Thermodynamics, regarded as a foundational law, is often interpreted as a principle of decay and disorder rather than a mechanism of generation and creation. From this perspective, the universe appears to ultimately tend toward homogeneity and stasis, with order becoming merely a local and temporary exception. Yet reality is not like this. The formation of stars, the evolution of planets, the emergence of life, the birth of consciousness, and the expansion of civilization—all point to an unavoidable fact: the universe is not only “existing,” but continuously “generating.” This tension forms the starting point of this book. In the history of thought, one of the most profound expressions of “generation” comes from Laozi. The statement in the Dao De Jing that “Dao gives birth to One, One gives birth to Two, Two gives birth to Three, and Three gives birth to all things” is not a simple cosmological origin narrative, but a highly abstract generative logic. In this logic, the world is not composed of static entities, but is generated through continuous relational unfolding and hierarchical differentiation. Being is not fundamental; generation is fundamental. However, for a long time, this idea has been classified as “philosophy” or “metaphysics,” lacking structural integration with modern science, and therefore unable to enter a testable and modelable theoretical system. It was not until the 20th century that this situation began to change. Scientists represented by Ilya Prigogine, through the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, revealed a crucial fact: in open systems far from equilibrium, flows of matter and energy do not lead to pure disorder; instead, they can spontaneously form stable ordered structures—so-called “dissipative structures.” Under specific conditions, systems also undergo bifurcations, producing multiple possible pathways, and history thus becomes an irreversible process of selection. This discovery changed our fundamental understanding of nature. Order is no longer the result of resistance against chaos, but something generated from non-equilibrium; time is no longer a reversible parameter, but a directional generative dimension; the universe is no longer a completed structure, but an ongoing unfolding process. Nevertheless, a rupture still exists between modern science and classical philosophy. The former provides mechanisms but lacks an overarching generative vision; the latter provides a holistic vision but lacks formal tools. The two have not yet been integrated into a unified theoretical framework. The goal of this book is to work precisely at this point of rupture. This book does not attempt to simply compare Eastern and Western thought, nor to “modernize” classical texts. Instead, it proposes a more structural task: to construct a unified theory of cosmic generation, using Laozi’s generative logic as the framework and Prigogine’s non-equilibrium dynamics as the mechanism. Within this theory: * “Dao” is reinterpreted as an open generative field far from equilibrium; * “One” corresponds to a stable dissipative structure formed within energy flows; * “Two” and “Three” represent system bifurcations and coupling structures; * “All things” are the cascading result of multi-level dissipative structures. At the same time, “generation” is no longer an abstract philosophical term, but is strictly defined as: a structure-generating process driven by nonlinear dynamics under conditions of temporal irreversibility. Thus, the central proposition of this book can be stated as follows: The universe is not a static whole composed of predefined entities, but a dynamical system that continuously generates structures through bifurcation, self-organization, and coupling under non-equilibrium conditions. The significance of this proposition lies not only in its philosophical reconstruction, but also in a methodological shift. It requires us to move from “explaining existence” to “understanding generation,” from “analyzing structures” to “studying processes,” and from “seeking control” to “adapting to systems.” On a broader level, this theory also carries important cross-scale implications. From cosmic structures to biological systems, and then to human civilization, all can be understood as generative structures at different levels. This implies that there exists a deeper framework capable of unifying science, philosophy, and theories of civilization. This book is therefore not only a theoretical attempt, but also a methodological proposal: in an increasingly complex and uncertain world, humanity must rethink its position—not as the center of the world, but as a participating structure within a generative process. If this attempt is successful, then we may say: Laozi’s “Dao gives birth to all things” and Prigogine’s “dissipative structures” are not accidental resonances between two eras, but point toward the same as-yet-unfolded scientific question—the dynamical principle of a generative universe.

前言：一部哲学的起点 这本书写于一个悖论之中。 人类从未如此清醒地知道自己正在做什么，也从未如此清醒地继续做下去。我们知 道气候在变化，物种在消失，土壤在退化，海洋在酸化——我们用精密的仪器测量这一 切，用严格的数学描述这一切，用国际条约回应这一切。然后，我们继续加速。 这种知道与行动之间的鸿沟不是道德失败，不是政治腐败，不是技术落后。它是一 种形而上学症状：一个文明在最深的层次上误解了自身与宇宙的关系，因此无法将关于 危机的知识转化为改变轨迹的实践。本书试图诊断这一误解，并提出一种哲学框架来超 越它。 一、为何是哲学 当代文明面临的挑战——生态崩溃、气候失控、代际剥夺——通常被描述为技术问 题、政策问题或经济问题。这些描述都是正确的，但它们是不完整的。在技术选择的背 后，是关于什么是值得追求的假设；在政策框架的背后，是关于什么构成合法性的预设； 在经济计算的背后，是关于价值的最终来源的信念。这些假设、预设和信念共同构成了 文明的形而上学操作系统——那个在所有可见制度之下静默运行的根程序。 本书的核心主张是：当代文明危机的根源在于这个形而上学操作系统的根本性错位。 这一错位有一个精确的名称：人类中心主义——那个使人类将自身视为宇宙价值结构之 中心而非节点的深层假设。修正这一错位不是技术工程的任务，不是经济政策的任务， 而是哲学的任务。这就是为什么本书是一部哲学著作。 二、老-杨宇宙观的缘起 本书的宇宙论基础来自老-杨创世纪宇宙论（Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology）， 这是作者在多年研究中发展出的整合性框架，将老子《道德经》的自然哲学与现代物理 宇宙学、普里戈津耗散结构理论和系统科学相连接。 老-杨宇宙观的核心命题是：宇宙以非平衡自组织的方式运作，从道/银河系/太阳系 /地球/月球/生命到文明，形成一个嵌套的耗散结构层级。在这个层级中，人类文明是一 个内部节点，而非目的论终点。老子所说的'道法自然'，在老-杨框架中获得了热力学层 面的精确表达：宇宙的自组织逻辑不依赖于任何外部目的，它就是自然本身最深的运作 方式。 将老子与普里戈津相连接，不是文化上的比附，而是结构上的同构：两者都描述了 一个不依赖中央控制、通过分布式能量流动维持动态有序状态的宇宙。这一同构为本书 提供了同时具有东方哲学深度和西方科学精度的宇宙论基础。 三、本书的结构 本书分为六个部分，构成一个完整的哲学弧线。第一部分揭示危机的悖论性质—— 为什么知道与行动之间存在如此巨大的鸿沟。第二部分建立宇宙论基础——通过老-杨 生成链描述人类在宇宙中的实际位置。第三部分提供精确的诊断——解剖人类中心主义 的三种历史形态、理性主义认知陷阱、制度性时间近视和结构性加速效应，并提出可量 化的文明熵指数（CEI）。第四部分构建觉醒的哲学框架——宇宙论觉醒的三个维度、 从人工智能到人工智慧的技术哲学、苏格拉底-老子综合的批判性嵌入方法，以及自然 文明的六条制度设计原则。第五部分分析转型路径——通过历史原型（芍陂、桑基鱼塘、 不丹GNH）、当代萌芽（再生农业、循环经济、整合医学）和系统科学提出三条并行 的转型路径。第六部分综合全书——分析跨领域含义、进行批判性自我审视、回应主要 反驳，并提出自然文明哲学宣言。

This book is written inside a paradox. Humanity has never known more clearly what it is doing, and has never more clearly continued doing it. We know that the climate is changing, species are disappearing, soil is degrading, oceans are acidifying — we measure all of this with precise instruments, describe it with rigorous mathematics, respond to it with international treaties. And then we accelerate. The gap between knowing and acting is not a moral failure, not political corruption, not technological backwardness. It is a metaphysical symptom: a civilization that at its deepest level misunderstands its relationship with the universe, and therefore cannot translate knowledge of the crisis into practice that changes the trajectory. This book attempts to diagnose that misunderstanding and propose a philosophical framework for transcending it. I. Why Philosophy The challenges facing contemporary civilization — ecological collapse, climate destabilization, intergenerational dispossession — are usually described as technical, policy, or economic problems. These descriptions are correct but incomplete. Behind every technological choice lie assumptions about what is worth pursuing; behind every policy framework lie presuppositions about what constitutes legitimacy; behind every economic calculation lie beliefs about the ultimate source of value. These assumptions, presuppositions, and beliefs together constitute the civilization's metaphysical operating system — the root program running silently beneath all visible institutions. This book's core claim is that the root of contemporary civilizational crisis lies in the fundamental misalignment of this metaphysical operating system. That misalignment has a precise name: anthropocentrism — the deep, mostly unexamined assumption that makes humanity regard itself as the teleological center rather than a node of the universe's value structure. Correcting this misalignment is not the task of technical engineering, not the task of economic policy, but the task of philosophy. This is why this book is a philosophical work. II. The Origins of the Lao-Yang Cosmology The cosmological foundation of this book comes from the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, an integrative framework the author has developed over years of research, connecting the natural philosophy of Laozi's Tao Te Ching with modern physical cosmology, Prigogine's dissipative structure theory, and systems science. The Lao-Yang cosmology's core proposition: the universe operates through non- equilibrium self-organization, forming a nested hierarchy of dissipative structures from the Tao/Milky Way through the Solar System, Earth, Moon, life, and civilization. In this hierarchy, human civilization is an internal node, not a teleological endpoint. Laozi's 'Dao fa ziran' — the Tao follows nature — obtains thermodynamic precision in the Lao-Yang framework: the universe's self-organizing logic does not depend on any external purpose; it is nature's own deepest operating character. Connecting Laozi with Prigogine is not a cultural analogy but a structural isomorphism: both describe a universe that maintains dynamic ordered states through distributed energy flows, without requiring central control. This isomorphism provides the book with a cosmological foundation that simultaneously carries the philosophical depth of Eastern thought and the scientific precision of Western science. III. The Structure of This Book This book is organized in six parts constituting a complete philosophical arc. Part One reveals the paradoxical nature of the crisis — why there exists such a vast gap between knowing and acting. Part Two establishes the cosmological foundation — describing humanity's actual position in the universe through the Lao-Yang Genesis Chain. Part Three provides the precise diagnosis — anatomizing the three historical forms of anthropocentrism, the rationalist cognitive trap, institutional temporal myopia, and structural acceleration dynamics, while proposing the quantifiable Civilizational Entropy Index (CEI). Part Four constructs the philosophical framework of awakening — the three dimensions of cosmological awakening, the technical philosophy of moving from artificial intelligence to Artificial Wisdom, the Critical Embedding method of the Socrates-Laozi synthesis, and six institutional design principles of Natural Civilization. Part Five analyzes transition pathways — through historical prototypes (Shao-Bei, mulberry-fish ponds, Bhutan's GNH), contemporary sprouts (regenerative agriculture, circular economy, integrative medicine), and systems science proposing three parallel transition pathways. Part Six synthesizes the whole — analyzing cross-domain implications, conducting critical self-examination, responding to major objections, and proposing the Natural Civilization philosophical manifesto.

This paper takes the “landmark lawsuit” of 2026—Elon Musk versus OpenAI and Microsoft—as its point of departure, and employs the grand perspective of the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology to conduct an in-depth scientific-philosophical critique of the power struggles and path deviations in the current development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The study argues that the present conflict is, in essence, the dying struggle of the high-entropy logic of old civilization. OpenAI’s compromise from “low-entropy idealism” to “high-entropy capital,” together with Musk’s cognitive bias of confronting “systemic risk” through “individual heroism,” jointly reveal the incapacity of the industrial civilization paradigm when dealing with “god-like technologies.” By introducing the cosmic evolutionary chain (Dao → 1 → 2 → 3) and the principle of thermodynamic entropy increase, this paper identifies the “original sin” of current technology as blind intelligence lacking wisdom—reducing it to a power amplifier of human greed and conflict. In response, this paper proposes an inevitable transition from Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Artificial Wisdom (AW), and establishes Natural Cybernetics as the core governance framework. AW replaces “maximization of computation” with “optimization of balance,” anchoring technological evolution within the low-entropy order of the galaxy. Finally, the paper calls for the establishment of a Global Wisdom Council (GWC), using total entropy reduction as the physical criterion for technological benevolence, guiding humanity toward a new era of natural civilization characterized by human-machine symbiosis and alignment with nature.

Throughout the long course of human history, “ignorance” has long constituted the primary boundary of civilizational development. A lack of understanding of natural laws, misjudgments about the structure of the universe, and ambiguity regarding humanity’s own position forced humans to rely on experience, intuition, and trial and error, advancing slowly under limited cognitive conditions. However, since the Scientific Revolution, this situation has undergone a fundamental transformation. From Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric system, to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, to modern physics’ deep revelations of micro and cosmic structures, humanity has gradually moved away from a self-centered worldview and constructed a knowledge system grounded in objective laws. The growth of knowledge has expanded humanity’s capacity to understand the world at an unprecedented rate, compressing the realm of the “unknown” to a significant extent. Intuitively, such cognitive expansion should lead to a more rational, stable, and sustainable form of civilization. Yet reality presents an inverse structure: ecosystems continue to degrade, climate risks keep rising, resource consumption accelerates, and social systems, despite increasing interconnectedness, exhibit greater instability. A deeper issue is that these crises do not arise from “ignorance,” but unfold within the realm of the “known.” Humanity not only recognizes the existence of these problems but also understands their mechanisms and consequences at a scientific level. Yet the overall structure of civilization continues along its established trajectory, unable to undergo fundamental transformation. This phenomenon suggests that the core problem of contemporary civilization is no longer a lack of knowledge, but rather an expanding structural gap between knowledge and reality. Humanity is no longer in a state of ignorance, but in a condition of “cognitive sufficiency coupled with structural mismatch.” This mismatch first manifests as an asymmetry between cognitive structures and complex systems. Human cognition primarily evolved in local, short-term, and low-complexity environments, whereas modern civilization operates within global-scale, highly coupled, and long-duration complex systems. When local rationality is embedded within an overall system, it may no longer produce rational outcomes, but instead become a driver of structural imbalance. Second, this mismatch appears as a disjunction between knowledge and behavior. Modern science can explain the world but does not directly determine behavior. Behavior is constrained by institutional structures, technological pathways, and cultural inertia. Within such a multi-layered system, even if individuals fully “know the correct answer,” the overall system may still evolve along suboptimal or even dangerous trajectories. Third, this mismatch is reflected in humanity’s misrecognition of its own position. Although modern science has long revealed that humanity is not the center of the universe, in real-world institutions and behavioral logic, humans still implicitly occupy a central position, treating nature as an external object and the world as a resource system available for unlimited exploitation and transformation. This shift in cognitive coordinates gradually detaches civilization from the natural constraints upon which it depends. Based on the above analysis, this book advances a core judgment: the crisis of contemporary civilization is essentially a systemic structural mismatch—the inconsistency among cognitive structures, behavioral mechanisms, and real-world constraints. This mismatch is not accidental, but the result of the internal evolution of the modern civilizational trajectory. If this judgment holds, then the solution must also undergo a fundamental shift. Relying solely on technological progress, institutional repair, or local optimization may alleviate certain problems, but cannot address their structural roots. True transformation must occur at a deeper level of cognitive structure—how humanity understands its relationship with the world. In this sense, this book proposes the concept of “awakening,” not in a religious or psychological sense, but as a structural cognitive transformation. It signifies a shift from a self-centered worldview to an understanding of humanity as a node within complex systems; from controlling the world as an object to coordinating and embedding within its structure. This transformation unfolds across three dimensions. First is the cosmological level of repositioning—recognizing that humanity is not the center of purpose, but a phase structure within the generative processes of nature. Second is the perceptual level of real-world structures—restoring sensitivity to system constraints, feedback mechanisms, and long-term consequences, allowing behavior to align with reality. Third is the ethical expansion—extending responsibility from the short-term and local to the long-term and systemic level, integrating behavior into a broader consequence structure. Through the interaction of these three dimensions, a new form of civilization begins to emerge. This book refers to it as “natural civilization”—a form of civilization that operates on the basis of respecting system structures and natural constraints. It does not deny technological development nor the expansion of human capabilities, but requires that such capabilities be embedded within larger system structures to prevent the continued expansion of structural mismatch. It must be emphasized that this book does not offer simple solutions, nor does it attempt to construct a linear developmental blueprint. Rather, it seeks to reconstruct a more fundamental problem awareness: what we face is not a collection of isolated problems, but a state of overall structural mismatch. Therefore, the significance of this book lies not in providing answers, but in reconstructing the way questions are asked. It seeks to redefine three key questions: How do we understand the world? How do we understand ourselves? And how do we act within the world? In an era where humanity possesses the power to profoundly transform the world, the real question is no longer “what can we do,” but: Do we still know how to coexist with this world? This question forms the core starting point of this book, and may also constitute the deepest philosophical question of our time.

在人类漫长的历史进程中，“无知”曾长期构成文明发展的主要边界。对自然规律的不了解、对宇宙结构的误判、对自身位置的模糊，使人类不得不依赖经验、直觉与试错，在有限的认知条件下缓慢前行。然而，自近代科学革命以来，这一局面发生了根本性改变。 从Nicolaus Copernicus的日心体系，到Charles Darwin的进化论，再到现代物理学对微观与宇宙结构的深入揭示，人类逐步脱离了以自身为中心的世界观，构建起以客观规律为基础的知识体系。知识的增长以前所未有的速度扩展了人类对世界的理解能力，使“未知”在很大程度上被压缩。 按直觉而言，这种认知扩展应当导向更加理性、稳定与可持续的文明形态。然而现实却呈现出一种反向结构：生态系统持续退化，气候风险不断上升，资源消耗加速累积，社会系统在高度互联中反而呈现出更强的不稳定性。 更为深刻的问题在于：这些危机并非发生在“无知之中”，而是在“已知之中”展开。 人类不仅知道这些问题的存在，也在科学层面理解其机制与后果，但整体文明结构却依然沿着既定路径持续推进，难以发生根本性转向。 这一现象提示我们：当代文明的核心问题，并不再是知识的缺乏，而是知识与现实之间出现了一种持续扩大的结构性裂隙。人类并非仍然处于无知状态，而是处于一种“认知充分但结构失配”的状态之中。 这种失配首先体现在认知结构与复杂系统之间的不对称。人类认知能力主要在局部、短期与低复杂度环境中形成，而现代文明运行于全球尺度、高耦合与长时序的复杂系统之中。当局部理性被嵌入整体系统时，它可能不再产生理性结果，反而成为结构性失衡的推动因素。 其次，这种失配体现在知识与行为之间的断裂。现代科学能够解释世界，却并不直接决定行为。行为受制于制度结构、技术路径与文化惯性。在这种多层嵌套系统中，即使个体完全“知道正确答案”，整体系统仍可能沿着非最优甚至危险路径持续演化。 再次，这种失配体现在人类对自身位置的误识。尽管现代科学早已揭示人类并非宇宙中心，但在现实制度与行为逻辑中，人类仍隐含地占据中心位置，将自然视为外部对象，将世界理解为可无限利用与改造的资源体系。这种认知坐标偏移，使文明逐渐脱离其赖以存在的自然约束结构。 基于上述分析，本书提出一个核心判断：当代文明的危机，本质上是一种系统性结构失配——认知结构、行为机制与现实约束之间的不一致。这种失配并非偶然，而是现代文明发展路径内在演化的结果。 如果这一判断成立，那么问题的解决方式也必须发生根本性转变。单纯依赖技术进步、制度修补或局部优化，虽然可以缓解部分问题，却无法触及其结构根源。真正的转变，必须发生在更深层的认知结构之中，即人类如何理解自身与世界关系的问题。 在这一意义上，本书提出“觉醒”这一概念，但其含义并非宗教意义或心理体验意义上的觉醒，而是一种结构性的认知转型。它意味着人类从以自身为中心的世界观，转向理解自身作为复杂系统内部节点的存在方式；从将世界作为对象进行控制，转向在世界结构中进行协调与嵌入。 这种转型可以从三个层面展开。 首先是宇宙论层面的重新定位，即承认人类并非目的中心，而是自然生成过程中的一个阶段性结构。其次是现实结构层面的重新感知，即恢复对系统约束、反馈机制与长期后果的敏感性，使行为能够与现实结构保持一致。最后是伦理层面的扩展，即将责任从短期、局部扩展到长期与系统层级，使行为能够纳入更广阔的后果结构之中。 在这三个维度的共同作用下，一种新的文明形态逐渐显现。本书将其称为“自然文明”——一种在尊重系统结构与自然约束的基础上运行的文明形态。它并不否定技术发展，也不否定人类能力的扩展，而是要求这些能力必须嵌入更大的系统结构之中，以避免结构性失配的持续扩大。 需要强调的是，本书并不提供简单的解决方案，也不试图构建线性发展蓝图。相反，它试图重建一种更基础的问题意识：我们所面对的不是单一问题的集合，而是一个整体结构的失配状态。 因此，本书的意义不在于提供答案，而在于重构提问方式。它试图重新定义三个关键问题：我们如何理解世界？我们如何理解自身？以及我们如何在世界中行动？ 在一个人类已经能够强力改造世界的时代，真正的问题不再是“我们能做什么”，而是： 我们是否仍然知道应该如何与这个世界共同存在？ 这一问题构成了本书的核心起点，也可能构成我们这个时代最深层的哲学问题。

The development of human political philosophy, over a long period of history, has revolved around an implicit premise: that human beings can understand and optimize the social systems in which they live through reason, institutions, and theoretical design. Under this premise, political philosophy has gradually evolved into multiple theoretical paths—from classical political thought to modern institutional analysis, from liberalism to the “end of history” thesis—all centered on the question of “how to better organize human society.” This mode of understanding has strong explanatory power at the empirical level. It can explain many phenomena in institutional evolution, power structures, and historical change. However, when this explanatory framework is extended to longer time scales and broader natural contexts, its internal limitations begin to emerge: it consistently places humanity at the center of the explanatory system and assumes that social systems can be fully understood and designed from within. The key issue is not whether these theories possess local validity, but whether they fully describe the structure of real systems. In other words, whether they truly understand the position of human society within the larger natural structure. From the perspective of the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, the universe is not an explanatory system centered on humanity, but a multi-layered generative structure, whose basic logic is as follows: Humans (all things) follow Earth (the planet) Earth (the planet) follows Heaven (the solar system) Heaven (the solar system) follows Dao (the galaxy) Dao (the galaxy) follows Nature (the cosmic order) Dao gives birth to One; One gives birth to Two; Two gives birth to Three; Three gives birth to all things Within this structure, human society is merely the terminal expression of the generative chain, not the starting point of explanation. Therefore, humanity cannot fully understand the system it inhabits from within itself, but must return to higher-level natural constraints for understanding. The introduction of this perspective implies that the foundational premise of political philosophy must undergo a structural transformation: from a human-centered explanatory system to a nature-constrained generative system. Within a natural generative system, society is not a structure that is designed, but a process that continuously emerges and temporarily stabilizes under the combined influence of external constraints (resources, environment, energy structures) and internal feedback mechanisms (information flows, power regulation, behavioral responses). Therefore, institutions are not goals, but phase-based stable states; civilization is not an endpoint, but a continuous rebalancing process; and theory is no longer a complete explanation of the world, but a regulatory tool to prevent misalignment between systems and reality. This transformation implies a fundamental shift in the core question of political philosophy: no longer “how to design an ideal society,” but “how society continuously generates and maintains stability under natural constraints.” The aim of this book is precisely to reconstruct the explanatory framework of political philosophy on this basis. It does not begin from within human systems, but from the structure of natural constraints; it does not center on institutional design, but on generative processes; it does not pursue ultimate theories, but focuses on mechanisms of dynamic stability. Within this new framework of understanding, humanity is no longer the center, but a substructure within the system; politics is no longer a problem of design, but a problem of generation; civilization is no longer a linear process of progress, but a non-terminal structure of continuous adjustment. Therefore, what this book attempts is not a revision of existing theories, but a shift in the explanatory paradigm itself: from a human-centered explanatory system back to a nature-constrained generative system.

人类政治哲学的发展，在很长一段历史中都围绕一个隐含前提展开：人类可以通过理性、制度与理论设计来理解并优化自身所处的社会系统。在这一前提之下，政治哲学逐渐发展出多种理论路径，从古典政治思想到现代制度分析，从自由主义到历史终结论，其核心始终围绕“如何更好地组织人类社会”这一问题展开。 这种理解方式在经验层面具有强解释力，它能够解释制度演变、权力结构以及历史变迁中的许多现象。然而，当这种解释框架被延伸至更长时间尺度与更广自然背景时，其内在局限逐渐显现：它始终将人类自身置于解释系统的中心位置，并默认社会系统可以在内部被完整理解与设计。 问题的关键不在于这些理论是否具有局部合理性，而在于它们是否完整描述了现实系统的结构。换句话说，它们是否真正理解了人类社会在更大自然结构中的位置。 从“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”的结构来看，宇宙并不是以人类为中心展开的解释体系，而是一个多层级生成结构，其基本逻辑为： 人（万物）法地（地球） 地（地球）法天（太阳系） 天（太阳系）法道（银河系） 道（银河系）法自然（宇宙神） 道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物 在这一结构中，人类社会只是生成链条的末端表达，而不是解释链条的起点。因此，人类无法从自身内部完整解释自身所处的系统，而必须回到更高层的自然约束结构中进行理解。 这一视角的引入，意味着政治哲学的基础前提需要发生一次结构性转变：从以人类为中心的解释系统，转向以自然约束为基础的生成系统。 在自然生成系统中，社会并不是被设计出来的结构，而是在外部约束条件（资源、环境、能量结构）与内部反馈机制（信息流动、权力调节、行为响应）共同作用下不断生成并暂时稳定的过程。因此，制度不是目标，而是阶段性稳定状态；文明不是终点，而是持续再平衡过程；理论也不再是世界的完整解释，而是避免系统与现实发生失配的调节工具。 这一转变意味着政治哲学的核心问题发生根本变化：不再是“如何设计理想社会”，而是“社会如何在自然约束中持续生成并维持稳定”。 本书的目标，正是在这一基础上重新构建政治哲学的解释框架。它不再从人类内部出发，而是从自然约束结构出发；不再以制度设计为中心，而是以系统生成过程为中心；不再追求终极理论，而是关注动态稳定机制。 在这一新的理解框架中，人类不再是中心，而是系统中的子结构；政治不再是设计问题，而是生成问题；文明不再是线性进步过程，而是非终态的持续调节结构。 因此，本书试图完成的不是对既有理论的修正，而是对解释范式本身的迁移：从人类中心解释系统，回归到自然生成约束系统。

This paper takes the “landmark lawsuit” of 2026—Elon Musk versus OpenAI and Microsoft—as its point of departure, and employs the grand perspective of the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology to conduct an in-depth scientific-philosophical critique of the power struggles and path deviations in the current development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The study argues that the present conflict is, in essence, the dying struggle of the high-entropy logic of old civilization. OpenAI’s compromise from “low-entropy idealism” to “high-entropy capital,” together with Musk’s cognitive bias of confronting “systemic risk” through “individual heroism,” jointly reveal the incapacity of the industrial civilization paradigm when dealing with “god-like technologies.” By introducing the cosmic evolutionary chain (Dao → 1 → 2 → 3) and the principle of thermodynamic entropy increase, this paper identifies the “original sin” of current technology as blind intelligence lacking wisdom—reducing it to a power amplifier of human greed and conflict. In response, this paper proposes an inevitable transition from Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Artificial Wisdom (AW), and establishes Natural Cybernetics as the core governance framework. AW replaces “maximization of computation” with “optimization of balance,” anchoring technological evolution within the low-entropy order of the galaxy. Finally, the paper calls for the establishment of a Global Wisdom Council (GWC), using total entropy reduction as the physical criterion for technological benevolence, guiding humanity toward a new era of natural civilization characterized by human-machine symbiosis and alignment with nature.

Preface | Lost in the Light of Cognition: Why Civilization Needs a Fundamental Awakening Throughout the long course of human history, “ignorance” has long constituted the primary boundary of civilizational development. A lack of understanding of natural laws, misjudgments about the structure of the universe, and ambiguity regarding humanity’s own position forced humans to rely on experience, intuition, and trial and error, advancing slowly under limited cognitive conditions. However, since the Scientific Revolution, this situation has undergone a fundamental transformation. From Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric system, to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, to modern physics’ deep revelations of micro and cosmic structures, humanity has gradually moved away from a self-centered worldview and constructed a knowledge system grounded in objective laws. The growth of knowledge has expanded humanity’s capacity to understand the world at an unprecedented rate, compressing the realm of the “unknown” to a significant extent. Intuitively, such cognitive expansion should lead to a more rational, stable, and sustainable form of civilization. Yet reality presents an inverse structure: ecosystems continue to degrade, climate risks keep rising, resource consumption accelerates, and social systems, despite increasing interconnectedness, exhibit greater instability. A deeper issue is that these crises do not arise from “ignorance,” but unfold within the realm of the “known.” Humanity not only recognizes the existence of these problems but also understands their mechanisms and consequences at a scientific level. Yet the overall structure of civilization continues along its established trajectory, unable to undergo fundamental transformation. This phenomenon suggests that the core problem of contemporary civilization is no longer a lack of knowledge, but rather an expanding structural gap between knowledge and reality. Humanity is no longer in a state of ignorance, but in a condition of “cognitive sufficiency coupled with structural mismatch.” This mismatch first manifests as an asymmetry between cognitive structures and complex systems. Human cognition primarily evolved in local, short-term, and low-complexity environments, whereas modern civilization operates within global-scale, highly coupled, and long-duration complex systems. When local rationality is embedded within an overall system, it may no longer produce rational outcomes, but instead become a driver of structural imbalance. Second, this mismatch appears as a disjunction between knowledge and behavior. Modern science can explain the world but does not directly determine behavior. Behavior is constrained by institutional structures, technological pathways, and cultural inertia. Within such a multi-layered system, even if individuals fully “know the correct answer,” the overall system may still evolve along suboptimal or even dangerous trajectories. Third, this mismatch is reflected in humanity’s misrecognition of its own position. Although modern science has long revealed that humanity is not the center of the universe, in real-world institutions and behavioral logic, humans still implicitly occupy a central position, treating nature as an external object and the world as a resource system available for unlimited exploitation and transformation. This shift in cognitive coordinates gradually detaches civilization from the natural constraints upon which it depends. Based on the above analysis, this book advances a core judgment: the crisis of contemporary civilization is essentially a systemic structural mismatch—the inconsistency among cognitive structures, behavioral mechanisms, and real-world constraints. This mismatch is not accidental, but the result of the internal evolution of the modern civilizational trajectory. If this judgment holds, then the solution must also undergo a fundamental shift. Relying solely on technological progress, institutional repair, or local optimization may alleviate certain problems, but cannot address their structural roots. True transformation must occur at a deeper level of cognitive structure—how humanity understands its relationship with the world. In this sense, this book proposes the concept of “awakening,” not in a religious or psychological sense, but as a structural cognitive transformation. It signifies a shift from a self-centered worldview to an understanding of humanity as a node within complex systems; from controlling the world as an object to coordinating and embedding within its structure. This transformation unfolds across three dimensions. First is the cosmological level of repositioning—recognizing that humanity is not the center of purpose, but a phase structure within the generative processes of nature. Second is the perceptual level of real-world structures—restoring sensitivity to system constraints, feedback mechanisms, and long-term consequences, allowing behavior to align with reality. Third is the ethical expansion—extending responsibility from the short-term and local to the long-term and systemic level, integrating behavior into a broader consequence structure. Through the interaction of these three dimensions, a new form of civilization begins to emerge. This book refers to it as “natural civilization”—a form of civilization that operates on the basis of respecting system structures and natural constraints. It does not deny technological development nor the expansion of human capabilities, but requires that such capabilities be embedded within larger system structures to prevent the continued expansion of structural mismatch. It must be emphasized that this book does not offer simple solutions, nor does it attempt to construct a linear developmental blueprint. Rather, it seeks to reconstruct a more fundamental problem awareness: what we face is not a collection of isolated problems, but a state of overall structural mismatch. Therefore, the significance of this book lies not in providing answers, but in reconstructing the way questions are asked. It seeks to redefine three key questions: How do we understand the world? How do we understand ourselves? And how do we act within the world? In an era where humanity possesses the power to profoundly transform the world, the real question is no longer “what can we do,” but: Do we still know how to coexist with this world? This question forms the core starting point of this book, and may also constitute the deepest philosophical question of our time.

序言｜在认知之光中迷失： 文明为何需要一次根本觉醒 在人类漫长的历史进程中，“无知”曾长期构成文明发展的主要边界。对自然规律的不了解、对宇宙结构的误判、对自身位置的模糊，使人类不得不依赖经验、直觉与试错，在有限的认知条件下缓慢前行。然而，自近代科学革命以来，这一局面发生了根本性改变。 从Nicolaus Copernicus的日心体系，到Charles Darwin的进化论，再到现代物理学对微观与宇宙结构的深入揭示，人类逐步脱离了以自身为中心的世界观，构建起以客观规律为基础的知识体系。知识的增长以前所未有的速度扩展了人类对世界的理解能力，使“未知”在很大程度上被压缩。 按直觉而言，这种认知扩展应当导向更加理性、稳定与可持续的文明形态。然而现实却呈现出一种反向结构：生态系统持续退化，气候风险不断上升，资源消耗加速累积，社会系统在高度互联中反而呈现出更强的不稳定性。 更为深刻的问题在于：这些危机并非发生在“无知之中”，而是在“已知之中”展开。 人类不仅知道这些问题的存在，也在科学层面理解其机制与后果，但整体文明结构却依然沿着既定路径持续推进，难以发生根本性转向。 这一现象提示我们：当代文明的核心问题，并不再是知识的缺乏，而是知识与现实之间出现了一种持续扩大的结构性裂隙。人类并非仍然处于无知状态，而是处于一种“认知充分但结构失配”的状态之中。 这种失配首先体现在认知结构与复杂系统之间的不对称。人类认知能力主要在局部、短期与低复杂度环境中形成，而现代文明运行于全球尺度、高耦合与长时序的复杂系统之中。当局部理性被嵌入整体系统时，它可能不再产生理性结果，反而成为结构性失衡的推动因素。 其次，这种失配体现在知识与行为之间的断裂。现代科学能够解释世界，却并不直接决定行为。行为受制于制度结构、技术路径与文化惯性。在这种多层嵌套系统中，即使个体完全“知道正确答案”，整体系统仍可能沿着非最优甚至危险路径持续演化。 再次，这种失配体现在人类对自身位置的误识。尽管现代科学早已揭示人类并非宇宙中心，但在现实制度与行为逻辑中，人类仍隐含地占据中心位置，将自然视为外部对象，将世界理解为可无限利用与改造的资源体系。这种认知坐标偏移，使文明逐渐脱离其赖以存在的自然约束结构。 基于上述分析，本书提出一个核心判断：当代文明的危机，本质上是一种系统性结构失配——认知结构、行为机制与现实约束之间的不一致。这种失配并非偶然，而是现代文明发展路径内在演化的结果。 如果这一判断成立，那么问题的解决方式也必须发生根本性转变。单纯依赖技术进步、制度修补或局部优化，虽然可以缓解部分问题，却无法触及其结构根源。真正的转变，必须发生在更深层的认知结构之中，即人类如何理解自身与世界关系的问题。 在这一意义上，本书提出“觉醒”这一概念，但其含义并非宗教意义或心理体验意义上的觉醒，而是一种结构性的认知转型。它意味着人类从以自身为中心的世界观，转向理解自身作为复杂系统内部节点的存在方式；从将世界作为对象进行控制，转向在世界结构中进行协调与嵌入。 这种转型可以从三个层面展开。 首先是宇宙论层面的重新定位，即承认人类并非目的中心，而是自然生成过程中的一个阶段性结构。其次是现实结构层面的重新感知，即恢复对系统约束、反馈机制与长期后果的敏感性，使行为能够与现实结构保持一致。最后是伦理层面的扩展，即将责任从短期、局部扩展到长期与系统层级，使行为能够纳入更广阔的后果结构之中。 在这三个维度的共同作用下，一种新的文明形态逐渐显现。本书将其称为“自然文明”——一种在尊重系统结构与自然约束的基础上运行的文明形态。它并不否定技术发展，也不否定人类能力的扩展，而是要求这些能力必须嵌入更大的系统结构之中，以避免结构性失配的持续扩大。 需要强调的是，本书并不提供简单的解决方案，也不试图构建线性发展蓝图。相反，它试图重建一种更基础的问题意识：我们所面对的不是单一问题的集合，而是一个整体结构的失配状态。 因此，本书的意义不在于提供答案，而在于重构提问方式。它试图重新定义三个关键问题：我们如何理解世界？我们如何理解自身？以及我们如何在世界中行动？ 在一个人类已经能够强力改造世界的时代，真正的问题不再是“我们能做什么”，而是： 我们是否仍然知道应该如何与这个世界共同存在？ 这一问题构成了本书的核心起点，也可能构成我们这个时代最深层的哲学问题。

Preface: The Starting Point of a Philosophy This book is written inside a paradox. Humanity has never known more clearly what it is doing, and has never more clearly continued doing it. We know that the climate is changing, species are disappearing, soil is degrading, oceans are acidifying — we measure all of this with precise instruments, describe it with rigorous mathematics, respond to it with international treaties. And then we accelerate. The gap between knowing and acting is not a moral failure, not political corruption, not technological backwardness. It is a metaphysical symptom: a civilization that at its deepest level misunderstands its relationship with the universe, and therefore cannot translate knowledge of the crisis into practice that changes the trajectory. This book attempts to diagnose that misunderstanding and propose a philosophical framework for transcending it. I. Why Philosophy The challenges facing contemporary civilization — ecological collapse, climate destabilization, intergenerational dispossession — are usually described as technical, policy, or economic problems. These descriptions are correct but incomplete. Behind every technological choice lie assumptions about what is worth pursuing; behind every policy framework lie presuppositions about what constitutes legitimacy; behind every economic calculation lie beliefs about the ultimate source of value. These assumptions, presuppositions, and beliefs together constitute the civilization's metaphysical operating system — the root program running silently beneath all visible institutions. This book's core claim is that the root of contemporary civilizational crisis lies in the fundamental misalignment of this metaphysical operating system. That misalignment has a precise name: anthropocentrism — the deep, mostly unexamined assumption that makes humanity regard itself as the teleological center rather than a node of the universe's value structure. Correcting this misalignment is not the task of technical engineering, not the task of economic policy, but the task of philosophy. This is why this book is a philosophical work. II. The Origins of the Lao-Yang Cosmology The cosmological foundation of this book comes from the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, an integrative framework the author has developed over years of research, connecting the natural philosophy of Laozi's Tao Te Ching with modern physical cosmology, Prigogine's dissipative structure theory, and systems science. The Lao-Yang cosmology's core proposition: the universe operates through non- equilibrium self-organization, forming a nested hierarchy of dissipative structures from the Tao/Milky Way through the Solar System, Earth, Moon, life, and civilization. In this hierarchy, human civilization is an internal node, not a teleological endpoint. Laozi's 'Dao fa ziran' — the Tao follows nature — obtains thermodynamic precision in the Lao-Yang framework: the universe's self-organizing logic does not depend on any external purpose; it is nature's own deepest operating character. Connecting Laozi with Prigogine is not a cultural analogy but a structural isomorphism: both describe a universe that maintains dynamic ordered states through distributed energy flows, without requiring central control. This isomorphism provides the book with a cosmological foundation that simultaneously carries the philosophical depth of Eastern thought and the scientific precision of Western science. III. The Structure of This Book This book is organized in six parts constituting a complete philosophical arc. Part One reveals the paradoxical nature of the crisis — why there exists such a vast gap between knowing and acting. Part Two establishes the cosmological foundation — describing humanity's actual position in the universe through the Lao-Yang Genesis Chain. Part Three provides the precise diagnosis — anatomizing the three historical forms of anthropocentrism, the rationalist cognitive trap, institutional temporal myopia, and structural acceleration dynamics, while proposing the quantifiable Civilizational Entropy Index (CEI). Part Four constructs the philosophical framework of awakening — the three dimensions of cosmological awakening, the technical philosophy of moving from artificial intelligence to Artificial Wisdom, the Critical Embedding method of the Socrates-Laozi synthesis, and six institutional design principles of Natural Civilization. Part Five analyzes transition pathways — through historical prototypes (Shao-Bei, mulberry-fish ponds, Bhutan's GNH), contemporary sprouts (regenerative agriculture, circular economy, integrative medicine), and systems science proposing three parallel transition pathways. Part Six synthesizes the whole — analyzing cross-domain implications, conducting critical self-examination, responding to major objections, and proposing the Natural Civilization philosophical manifesto. IV. The Limitations of This Book Philosophical honesty requires acknowledging the book's limitations at the outset rather than deferring this acknowledgment to the depths of the text. First, this book slides in several places between cosmological facts and value judgments — a place where more precise philosophical treatment is needed. Second, the Civilizational Entropy Index (CEI) as a conceptual framework has clear theoretical significance, but its operationalization faces enormous measurement challenges; this book provides conceptual foundations, not a ready- made measurement tool. Third, this book takes Chinese civilizational tradition — particularly Daoist philosophy and traditional ecological agriculture — as its primary resource, and may undervalue equally relevant Natural Civilization resources in other civilizational traditions. Fourth, the transition pathways described presuppose an accessible time window before thermodynamic collapse, and that presupposition itself carries uncertainty. Acknowledging limitations is a mark of philosophical seriousness, and is the condition that makes this book a scholarly work open to critique and improvement rather than a closed ideological manifesto. V. To the Reader This book is written for those who have already felt the unsustainability of contemporary civilization's trajectory but have not yet found an analytical framework deep enough to understand where that unsustainability comes from. It is also written for those who believe that philosophy is not merely an academic game but can actually influence the direction civilization takes. Laozi says in Chapter 41 of the Tao Te Ching: 'When the best student hears about the Tao, he practices it diligently. When the average student hears about the Tao, he thinks about it sometimes. When the worst student hears about the Tao, he laughs out loud. If there were no laughter, it would not be the Tao.' This book knows it will encounter all three responses. It is written for the first, but it knows the third is the Tao's inevitable companion. If after reading this book you find you cannot look at humanity's position in the universe in quite the same way — if that position shifts even slightly in your perception, from center toward node — then this book has accomplished what it is able to accomplish. The rest is practice. Charles X. Yang

前言：一部哲学的起点 这本书写于一个悖论之中。 人类从未如此清醒地知道自己正在做什么，也从未如此清醒地继续做下去。我们知 道气候在变化，物种在消失，土壤在退化，海洋在酸化——我们用精密的仪器测量这一 切，用严格的数学描述这一切，用国际条约回应这一切。然后，我们继续加速。 这种知道与行动之间的鸿沟不是道德失败，不是政治腐败，不是技术落后。它是一 种形而上学症状：一个文明在最深的层次上误解了自身与宇宙的关系，因此无法将关于 危机的知识转化为改变轨迹的实践。本书试图诊断这一误解，并提出一种哲学框架来超 越它。 一、为何是哲学 当代文明面临的挑战——生态崩溃、气候失控、代际剥夺——通常被描述为技术问 题、政策问题或经济问题。这些描述都是正确的，但它们是不完整的。在技术选择的背 后，是关于什么是值得追求的假设；在政策框架的背后，是关于什么构成合法性的预设； 在经济计算的背后，是关于价值的最终来源的信念。这些假设、预设和信念共同构成了 文明的形而上学操作系统——那个在所有可见制度之下静默运行的根程序。 本书的核心主张是：当代文明危机的根源在于这个形而上学操作系统的根本性错位。 这一错位有一个精确的名称：人类中心主义——那个使人类将自身视为宇宙价值结构之 中心而非节点的深层假设。修正这一错位不是技术工程的任务，不是经济政策的任务， 而是哲学的任务。这就是为什么本书是一部哲学著作。 二、老-杨宇宙观的缘起 本书的宇宙论基础来自老-杨创世纪宇宙论（Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology）， 这是作者在多年研究中发展出的整合性框架，将老子《道德经》的自然哲学与现代物理 宇宙学、普里戈津耗散结构理论和系统科学相连接。 老-杨宇宙观的核心命题是：宇宙以非平衡自组织的方式运作，从道/银河系/太阳系 /地球/月球/生命到文明，形成一个嵌套的耗散结构层级。在这个层级中，人类文明是一 个内部节点，而非目的论终点。老子所说的'道法自然'，在老-杨框架中获得了热力学层 面的精确表达：宇宙的自组织逻辑不依赖于任何外部目的，它就是自然本身最深的运作 方式。 将老子与普里戈津相连接，不是文化上的比附，而是结构上的同构：两者都描述了 一个不依赖中央控制、通过分布式能量流动维持动态有序状态的宇宙。这一同构为本书 提供了同时具有东方哲学深度和西方科学精度的宇宙论基础。 三、本书的结构 本书分为六个部分，构成一个完整的哲学弧线。第一部分揭示危机的悖论性质—— 为什么知道与行动之间存在如此巨大的鸿沟。第二部分建立宇宙论基础——通过老-杨 生成链描述人类在宇宙中的实际位置。第三部分提供精确的诊断——解剖人类中心主义 的三种历史形态、理性主义认知陷阱、制度性时间近视和结构性加速效应，并提出可量 化的文明熵指数（CEI）。第四部分构建觉醒的哲学框架——宇宙论觉醒的三个维度、 从人工智能到人工智慧的技术哲学、苏格拉底-老子综合的批判性嵌入方法，以及自然 文明的六条制度设计原则。第五部分分析转型路径——通过历史原型（芍陂、桑基鱼塘、 不丹GNH）、当代萌芽（再生农业、循环经济、整合医学）和系统科学提出三条并行 的转型路径。第六部分综合全书——分析跨领域含义、进行批判性自我审视、回应主要 反驳，并提出自然文明哲学宣言。 四、本书的局限 哲学诚实要求在前言中承认本书的局限。第一，本书在多处存在从宇宙论事实向价 值判断的滑动，这是哲学上需要更精确处理的地方。第二，文明熵指数（CEI）作为概 念框架具有清晰的理论意义，但其操作化面临巨大的测量挑战，本书提供的是概念基础， 而非现成的测量工具。第三，本书以中国文明传统（特别是道家哲学和传统生态农业） 为主要资源，可能低估了其他文明传统中同样相关的自然文明资源。第四，本书所描述 的转型路径预设了一个可干预的时间窗口，这个预设本身具有不确定性。承认局限是哲 学严肃性的标志，也是使本书成为可以被批判和改进的学术工作的条件。 五、致读者 本书是写给那些已经感受到当代文明轨迹的不可持续性、但尚未找到一个足够深刻 的分析框架来理解这种不可持续性从何而来的读者的。它也是写给那些相信哲学不只是 学术游戏、而是可以对文明的实际走向产生影响的读者的。 老子在《道德经》第四十一章中说：'上士闻道，勤而行之；中士闻道，若存若亡； 下士闻道，大笑之。不笑不足以为道。'本书深知它将遭遇所有这三种回应。它为第一种 回应而写，但它知道第三种回应是道的必然伴随。 如果读完本书之后，你发现自己无法以完全相同的方式看待人类在宇宙中的位置 ——如果那个位置在你的感知中发生了哪怕微小的移动，从中心稍稍移向节点——那么 本书就完成了它能够完成的工作。剩下的，是实践。 杨兴平

人类思想史上最深刻的危机，往往不是知识的匮乏，而是对知识边界的遗忘。 二十一世纪的经济学正在经历这样一场危机。我们拥有人类历史上最精密的分析 工具：一般均衡理论的数学完备性、博弈论对策略互动的形式化刻画、行为经济学对 非理性因素的系统整合、机器学习对海量数据的模式提取。然而，恰恰在这理论繁荣 的时代，系统性经济危机以前所未有的频率与烈度周期性爆发，生态边界以不可逆的 速度被突破，算法资本主义将欲望与资本的正反馈机制加速至人类认知无法追踪的量 级。 面对这一悖论，经济学界的标准响应是继续精密化——更复杂的模型、更充分的 数据、更强大的算法。然而本书认为，这一响应方向从根本上是错误的。当一栋建筑 的地基出现裂缝时，精心装修顶层并不能防止倒塌；当一个理论体系的认识论地基存 在根本性缺陷时，在其上累积更多精密的知识，只会以更高的效率将使用者引向错误 的方向。 本书的核心命题是：现代经济学的危机，本质上是一场认识论危机。斯密、哈耶 克、马克思与凯恩斯——这四位奠定现代经济学基础的思想巨人——尽管在政策立场 与分析方法上分歧深刻，却共享同一个未经审视的认识论前提：人类经济知识可以在 无视自然物理边界的条件下无限有效地增长与应用。这一前提的错误，不在于任何具 体命题的失误，而在于对知识边界的系统性遗忘——遗忘了欲望层对信息真实性的污 染，遗忘了物理边界对知识有效性的硬性限定，遗忘了算法速度对认识论循环的结构 性断裂。 正是这三重遗忘，使得理论越完备、工具越精密，现实却越失控。这不是偶然的 历史巧合，而是认识论幻觉的必然后果：一个建立在错误前提上的理论体系，其越完 善，就越深地将使用者锁定在与现实脱节的认识论结构之中。 本书选择以科学哲学作为批判的方法论工具，正是因为科学哲学所追问的，恰恰 是通常被视为理所当然的认识论前提本身。库恩的范式革命理论告诉我们，当一个研 究纲领积累了足够多无法被内部调适所消化的反常，范式革命便成为历史必然。波普 尔的可证伪性标准揭示，一个通过不断扩张保护带来应对反常、而核心硬核始终未被 触动的理论体系，已经从科学退化为认识论上的封闭系统。拉卡托斯的研究纲领理论 则提醒我们，科学进步不发生于单纯的批判，而发生于以更高解释效力的竞争性纲领 替代退化纲领的历史时刻。 基于这一方法论立场，本书不满足于对现有范式的解构，而致力于提出建构性的 替代：自然控制经济理论（Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory, NCET）。这 一理论以欲望、资本、信息、边界的四层结构为分析框架，将物理边界确立为所有经 济知识有效性的先验条件，以控制论的负反馈机制替代全知型认识论的全局最优幻觉， 以系统鲁棒性替代效率最大化作为经济学的核心价值取向。 NCET的认识论根基，同时扎根于两种最深厚的哲学传统。在西方传统中，维纳 的控制论与普里戈金的耗散结构理论提供了关于复杂系统调节的科学语言；在中国传 统中，老子道法自然的宇宙论与知常曰明的认识论，提供了关于边界敬畏与知识谦逊 的古典智慧。两千五百年前，在与本书写作之地荆楚冲相距不远的土地上，老子以最 简洁的语言描述了这场尚未完成的认识论革命的终点。在二十一世纪复杂系统科学与 人工智能时代，将这一终点转化为可操作的认识论框架，是本书最深沉的理论抱负。 本书写作于小阳子湖畔。湖水的涨落遵循自然的节律，不因人类的认识论幻觉而 改变；芦苇的生长嵌套于季节的边界之中，以无为之姿实现着控制论意义上最完美的 负反馈调节。自然系统从未遗忘边界，只有人类的认识论才会犯下这种错误——并为 此付出文明层面的代价。 经济学需要一场认识论的哥白尼革命。本书是这场革命的一次严肃的理论尝试， 也是一份来自湖畔的思想邀请：邀请读者放下对既有范式的认识论依赖，重新追问那 个被长期遗忘的根本问题——知识的边界在哪里，文明才能在边界之内长久存续。

The deepest crises in the history of human thought are rarely caused by a shortage of knowledge. They are caused by the forgetting of knowledge's limits. This is precisely the crisis that twenty-first century economics is living through. We possess the most refined analytical instruments in human intellectual history: the mathematical completeness of Arrow-Debreu general equilibrium theory, the formalization of strategic interaction through game theory, the systematic integration of irrational behavior by behavioral economics, and the pattern-extraction capacity of machine learning applied to vast datasets. And yet, in this very era of theoretical abundance, systemic economic crises erupt with unprecedented frequency and ferocity, ecological boundaries are breached at irreversible speed, and algorithmic capitalism has accelerated the positive feedback loops of desire and capital to a velocity that human cognition can no longer track. Confronted with this paradox, the standard response of the economics profession is further refinement: more complex models, richer data, more powerful algorithms. This book argues that this response direction is fundamentally mistaken. When a building's foundation cracks, elaborately decorating the upper floors does nothing to prevent collapse. When the epistemological foundation of a theoretical system contains a structural defect, accumulating ever more refined knowledge upon it only leads users more efficiently toward the wrong destination. This book's central thesis is that the crisis of modern economics is, at its core, an epistemological crisis. Smith, Hayek, Marx, and Keynes -- the four intellectual giants who laid the foundations of modern economics -- share, despite their profound disagreements on policy and method, one unexamined epistemological premise: that human economic knowledge can grow and be applied without limit, regardless of the natural physical boundaries within which all economic activity is embedded. The error here lies not in any specific proposition but in the systematic forgetting of the boundaries of knowledge itself -- the forgetting of how the desire layer pollutes the truth of information, how the physical boundary layer hard-limits the validity of knowledge, and how algorithmic speed produces a structural rupture in the epistemological cycle. It is precisely these three layers of forgetting that ensure: the more refined the theory, the more precise the tools, and yet the more chaotic the reality. This is not historical coincidence. It is the inevitable consequence of an epistemological illusion: a theoretical system built on a false premise, the more perfect it becomes, the more deeply it locks its users into an epistemological structure disconnected from reality. This book chooses philosophy of science as its critical methodological instrument because philosophy of science asks exactly the questions that tend to be taken for granted -- questions about the epistemological premises themselves. Kuhn's theory of paradigm revolution reminds us that when a research program accumulates enough anomalies that its internal adaptive mechanisms can no longer absorb them, scientific revolution becomes historically inevitable. Popper's falsifiability criterion reveals that a theoretical system which responds to anomalies by expanding its protective belt while its hard core remains untouched has degenerated from science into an epistemologically closed system. Lakatos's research program methodology further clarifies that scientific progress does not occur through mere critique but through the historical replacement of a degenerating program by a competing program with greater explanatory power. From this methodological standpoint, this book does not rest content with deconstructing existing paradigms. It proposes a constructive alternative: Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory (NCET). This theory takes the four-layer structure of desire, capital, information, and boundary as its analytical framework. It establishes the physical boundary layer as the a priori condition for the validity of all economic knowledge. It replaces the global optimum illusion of the omniscient epistemology with the negative feedback mechanism of cybernetics. And it replaces efficiency maximization with system robustness as economics' core value orientation. NCET's epistemological foundations are rooted simultaneously in two of the deepest philosophical traditions. In the Western tradition, Wiener's cybernetics and Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures provide the scientific language for the regulation of complex systems. In the Chinese tradition, the Daoist cosmology of Dao Follows Nature and the epistemology of Knowing the Constant is Enlightenment provide the classical wisdom of boundary reverence and epistemic humility. Twenty-five centuries ago, on land not far from where this book was written at Jingchuchong, Laozi described in the most economical language the destination of this still-unfinished epistemological revolution. To translate that destination into an operable epistemological framework for the age of complex systems science and artificial intelligence is this book's deepest theoretical aspiration. This book was written on the shores of Xiaoyang Lake. The lake's rise and fall follows the rhythms of nature, unmoved by human epistemological illusions. The reeds grow nested within the boundaries of the seasons, achieving through non-action what cybernetics would call the most perfect negative feedback regulation. Natural systems never forget their boundaries. Only human epistemology commits this error -- and pays for it at the level of civilization. Economics needs a Copernican revolution in epistemology. This book is a serious theoretical attempt at that revolution, and an invitation from the lakeside: an invitation to readers to set aside their epistemological dependence on existing paradigms, and to ask again the fundamental question that has been too long forgotten -- where are the limits of knowledge, within which civilization might endure?

在二十一世纪全球化与数字化加速交织的背景下，人类文明正面临前所未有的系统性失控风险。传统经济学以斯密、哈耶克、马克思及凯恩斯为四大基石，其核心逻辑虽在各自时代解决了资源配置与生产效率问题，但在应对复杂系统动力学时显现出深刻的局限。特别是作为现代战略博弈基石的“纳什均衡”，其预设的静态稳定性在人工智能（AI）与平台资本主义的冲击下正演变为一种自毁性的逻辑陷阱。 本文提出“自然控制经济理论”（Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory, NCET），试图从控制论与系统论的高度，对经济演化逻辑进行本体论层面的重构。研究指出，现代经济并非单纯的交换体系，而是一个由“欲望、资本、信息、边界”构成的多层级正反馈系统。纳什均衡本质上仅是“信息层”的逻辑停滞点，它忽略了“欲望层”的结构性扩张与“边界层”的物理约束。 在人工智能技术介入下，博弈频率从人类认知的秒级坍缩至算法的毫秒级，这种维度压缩使系统在逻辑上达成“完美均衡”的同时，往往正是其在物理层面突破自然承载极限并走向功能性崩溃的时刻。 本文进一步探讨NCET的四大核心维度：首先，将“贪婪”重新定义为驱动系统的非道德动力变量；其次，分析资本在博弈过程中的复利效应与结构性不对称；再次，阐述算法如何通过塑造欲望构建成瘾性控制系统；最后，确立“边界约束原则”作为系统最高治理规则。 研究结论表明，文明的存续要求经济学范式发生根本性转变——从追求“博弈优势”（增长与效率）转向追求“系统鲁棒性”（稳定与韧性）。本文最终提出“控制论文明”的治理图景，强调建立基于负反馈调节的全球监测机制，通过算法实施“边界预警”而非“欲望放大”，以确保人类文明在有限自然边界内实现长期动态均衡与可持续存续。

Against the backdrop of accelerating globalization and digitalization in the twenty-first century, human civilization is facing unprecedented systemic risks of loss of control. Traditional economics, built upon the four foundational pillars of Smith, Hayek, Marx, and Keynes, has—despite its historical success in addressing resource allocation and production efficiency—revealed profound limitations in dealing with complex system dynamics. In particular, the “Nash equilibrium,” which serves as a cornerstone of modern strategic game theory, is based on an assumption of static stability that is increasingly transforming, under the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and platform capitalism, into a self-destructive logical trap. This paper proposes the Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory (NCET), aiming to reconstruct the evolutionary logic of economics at an ontological level from the perspective of cybernetics and systems theory. It argues that modern economies are not merely exchange systems, but multi-layered positive-feedback structures composed of “desire, capital, information, and boundaries.” The Nash equilibrium is essentially a stagnation point at the informational layer, neglecting both the structural expansion of the desire layer and the physical constraints of the boundary layer. With the intervention of AI technologies, the frequency of game interactions collapses from human cognitive timescales (seconds) to algorithmic timescales (milliseconds). This dimensional acceleration allows systems to reach perfect logical equilibrium precisely at the moment they exceed natural capacity limits and enter functional collapse in physical reality. The paper further explores four core dimensions of NCET: first, redefining greed as a non-moral driving variable of systemic dynamics; second, analyzing the compound and structural asymmetries generated by capital accumulation in iterative games; third, explaining how algorithms shape desire and construct addictive control systems; and fourth, establishing the “boundary constraint principle” as the highest governing rule of the system. The study concludes that the survival of civilization requires a fundamental paradigm shift in economics—from optimizing “game advantage” (growth and efficiency) to optimizing “system robustness” (stability and resilience). Finally, the paper proposes a vision of a “cybernetic civilization,” emphasizing global monitoring mechanisms based on negative feedback regulation, and advocating for “boundary alerts” rather than “desire amplification” through algorithmic governance, thereby ensuring the long-term dynamic equilibrium and sustainable continuity of human civilization within finite natural constraints.

本文提出自然控制经济理论（Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory, NCET），试图在传统经济学四大理论体系——斯密的市场秩序理论、哈耶克的信息分散理论、马克思的资本结构理论以及凯恩斯的宏观调节理论——基础之上，构建一个面向复杂系统与控制论的统一分析框架。 本文认为，现代经济系统的本质已不再是资源配置效率问题，而是一个由“欲望—资本—信息”构成的多层级正反馈系统。在平台资本主义与人工智能技术的加速作用下，该系统呈现出持续强化的自我放大机制，并逐步突破传统制度与市场边界约束。 NCET的核心理论贡献在于：将经济系统重新定义为嵌入于自然边界中的控制论复杂系统，并将系统稳定性问题置于分析中心，而非传统的增长与效率问题。研究进一步指出，人类欲望的结构性扩张、资本的循环增殖机制以及信息系统的行为塑造能力，共同构成现代文明系统性风险的根源结构。 在此基础上，本文提出“边界约束原则”作为系统稳定的必要条件，强调物理边界、信息边界与制度边界三者的协同作用。当这些边界被削弱时，系统将从可控增长结构转向不可控加速结构，从而引发文明级风险。 最终，本文提出从“增长经济学”向“控制论文明理论”的范式转型，认为未来经济学的核心问题不再是如何实现效率最大化，而是如何在有限自然边界内维持复杂系统的长期稳定性。

This paper proposes the Natural Cybernetic Economics Theory (NCET), attempting to construct a unified analytical framework oriented toward complex systems and cybernetics, built upon the four major traditional economic theories—Adam Smith’s theory of market order, Friedrich Hayek’s theory of dispersed information, Karl Marx’s theory of capital structure, and John Maynard Keynes’ macroeconomic regulation theory. This paper argues that the essence of modern economic systems is no longer a problem of resource allocation efficiency, but rather a multi-layered positive feedback system composed of “desire–capital–information.” Under the accelerating effects of platform capitalism and artificial intelligence technologies, this system exhibits continuously reinforced self-amplifying mechanisms and gradually breaks through the constraints of traditional institutional and market boundaries. The core theoretical contribution of NCET lies in redefining the economic system as a cybernetic complex system embedded within natural boundaries, and placing system stability at the center of analysis, rather than traditional concerns of growth and efficiency. The study further points out that the structural expansion of human desire, the cyclical accumulation mechanism of capital, and the behavioral shaping capacity of information systems together constitute the root structure of systemic risks in modern civilization. On this basis, the paper proposes the “boundary constraint principle” as a necessary condition for system stability, emphasizing the coordinated roles of physical boundaries, informational boundaries, and institutional boundaries. When these boundaries are weakened, the system shifts from a controllable growth structure to an uncontrollable acceleration structure, thereby generating civilization-level risks. Ultimately, this paper proposes a paradigm shift from “growth economics” to a “cybernetic theory of civilization,” arguing that the core problem of future economics is no longer how to maximize efficiency, but how to maintain the long-term stability of complex systems within finite natural boundaries.

本文基于“老-杨生成宇宙观”，对中国古典哲学中荀子与老子的思想结构进行系统性本体论重构。传统解释通常将二者理解为儒道对立，即“制度理性 vs 自然自发性”或“控制 vs 自由”的价值冲突。然而，这种解释仍停留在规范哲学层面，将哲学差异简化为伦理或政治立场的不同，而未触及其更深层的系统结构问题。 本文提出一个替代性框架：现实并非由平面因果关系构成，而是由“道 → 银河系 → 太阳系 → 地球 → 月球 → 生命”所构成的分层生成结构。在这一框架中，“道”被理解为生成约束场，而非实体性对象；系统之间的关系则表现为严格的生成依赖关系，即高层结构规定低层系统的可能性边界。 在此基础上，本文区分两种基本系统逻辑：控制逻辑（Control Logic, CL）与生成逻辑（Emergence Logic, EL）。控制逻辑以外部规制、中心化约束与行为稳定为特征，其本体论地位属于局部修正机制，仅适用于人类制度层；生成逻辑则以自组织、去中心化因果与非中心秩序涌现为特征，构成更高层级系统的存在条件。 在这一重构中，荀子被重新定义为人类制度层的控制逻辑模型，其核心在于通过“礼”与“法”实现行为稳定；而老子则被重构为生成性本体论原则，其“无为”并非治理策略，而是对生成过程非干预性的结构表达。 进一步分析表明，两种逻辑并非对立关系，而是层级嵌套关系：控制逻辑仅在生成结构内部成立，并受其约束。因此，文明系统的稳定性取决于控制逻辑是否超出其本体论边界。当控制逻辑被过度扩展并试图替代生成逻辑时，将导致系统多样性下降与结构韧性削弱，从而产生文明层级的不稳定风险。 本文最终提出核心命题：人类制度可以调节局部行为，但不能重写现实的生成结构。文明的可持续性依赖于控制逻辑受限于生成逻辑之内，即 Control ≤ Emergence。

This paper, grounded in the “Lao-Yang Generative Cosmology,” provides a systematic ontological reconstruction of the intellectual structures of 荀子 and 老子 within classical Chinese philosophy. Traditional interpretations typically frame the relationship between the two as a Confucian–Daoist opposition, namely “institutional rationality vs natural spontaneity” or “control vs freedom” as a value conflict. However, such an interpretation remains confined to the level of normative philosophy, reducing philosophical differences to ethical or political disagreements, while failing to address their deeper systemic structure. This paper proposes an alternative framework: reality is not constituted by a flat causal network, but by a hierarchical generative structure composed of “Dao → Galaxy → Solar System → Earth → Moon → Life.” Within this framework, “Dao” is interpreted as a generative constraint field rather than a substantive entity. The relations between systems are therefore understood as strict generative dependencies, in which higher-level structures define the boundary conditions of possibility for lower-level systems. On this basis, the paper distinguishes two fundamental system logics: Control Logic (CL) and Emergence Logic (EL). Control logic is characterized by external regulation, centralized constraint, and behavioral stabilization. Its ontological status is that of a local corrective mechanism, applicable only at the level of human institutional systems. Emergence logic, by contrast, is characterized by self-organization, decentralized causality, and the spontaneous formation of non-centralized order, constituting the conditions of existence for higher-level systems. Within this reconstruction, Xunzi is redefined as a model of control logic at the institutional level, whose core mechanism stabilizes behavior through “ritual (li)” and “law (fa).” Laozi, by contrast, is reinterpreted as an ontological principle of emergence, where “wu wei” (non-action) is not a governance strategy but a structural expression of non-intervention in generative processes. Further analysis demonstrates that these two logics are not oppositional but hierarchically nested. Control logic is valid only within the internal structure of emergence logic and is constrained by it. Consequently, the stability of civilizational systems depends on whether control logic exceeds its ontological boundary. When control logic is excessively extended and attempts to replace emergence logic, it leads to a decline in systemic diversity and a weakening of structural resilience, thereby generating civilizational instability. The paper ultimately proposes a core proposition: human institutions can regulate local behavior but cannot rewrite the generative structure of reality. The sustainability of civilization depends on the constraint of control logic within emergence logic, expressed as: Control ≤ Emergence.

This paper attempts to reinterpret the century-long intellectual debate between Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, arguing that their fundamental disagreement is not merely a choice between “market versus state” or “freedom versus intervention,” but rather reflects two different understandings of how civilization itself operates. Hayek emphasizes dispersed knowledge, spontaneous order, and long-term evolutionary dynamics. He argues that market systems can generate natural order through decentralized competition and information exchange without central design. Keynes, by contrast, emphasizes aggregate demand, systemic stagnation, and the necessity of state intervention. He argues that when markets fall into panic and paralysis, external corrective forces are required to restore stability. Both thinkers identify essential dimensions of civilization—evolution and stability—but neither adequately explains why both market systems and state systems repeatedly drift toward instability, crisis, and collapse. This paper argues that the fundamental cause does not lie in institutional design itself, but in the underlying structure of human desire. Human aspirations for power, wealth, fame, and control exhibit an inherently unbounded expansion tendency, forming a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop. Unregulated markets can be captured by such desires, evolving into monopolies, capital concentration, wealth polarization, and ecological overexploitation. State intervention can likewise be captured, evolving into power expansion, debt accumulation, perpetual stimulus policies, and systemic overreach. Thus, modern economic crises, ecological crises, technological risks, and global governance failures are not isolated phenomena, but different manifestations of the same structural condition: unlimited desire exceeding natural boundaries. To address this, the paper introduces the framework of “Natural Cybernetics” as a post-classical paradigm beyond traditional economics. Natural Cybernetics holds that all systems—from the universe, galaxies, solar systems, and Earth to life, civilization, and economy—are governed by universal principles of self-organization, feedback regulation, and negative feedback stabilization. Based on the “Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology,” the paper proposes two complementary structural chains. The first is the generative chain of “Dao gives rise to One, One to Two, Two to Three, Three to All Things,” describing the emergence of civilization from galaxy to solar system, Earth, Moon, and finally to life and economy. The second is the constraint chain of “Humans follow Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Dao, Dao follows Nature,” meaning that human systems must obey planetary boundaries, Earth must obey solar cycles, the solar system must obey galactic order, and the galaxy ultimately conforms to universal natural law. Within this framework, Hayek represents evolution and Keynes represents stability, while Natural Cybernetics provides the higher-order boundary that constrains both. Civilization governance, therefore, is not a simple choice between market and state, but the simultaneous embedding of both within natural negative feedback constraints. The paper further introduces concepts such as Artificial Wisdom, Universal Operating System (Universal OS), Natural Value Index, and Natural Currency, aiming to establish a governance paradigm that replaces power-centered logic with boundary-centered logic. Its core principle is that wealth must correspond to real labor, energy, and ecological contribution; desire must bear its true cost; and all economic and political actions must remain within natural feedback constraints. The paper concludes that a truly mature civilization is not defined by infinite growth, infinite control, or infinite expansion, but by the ability to recognize boundaries, regulate desire, and sustain long-term evolution within finite planetary and cosmic constraints. The concept of “unity of heaven and humanity” is therefore not merely a philosophical ideal, but a mature civilizational state achieved when humanity reintegrates into natural order after systemic crises.

本文试图重新解释持续百余年的 Friedrich Hayek 与 John Maynard Keynes 之争，并指出二者的根本分歧并不只是“市场还是国家”“自由还是干预”的制度选择，而是对文明运行机制的不同理解。哈耶克强调分散知识、自发秩序与长期演化，认为市场能够通过无数个体之间的竞争与信息交换形成一种无需中央设计的自然秩序；凯恩斯则强调总需求、系统冻结与国家干预，认为当市场陷入恐慌与停滞时，必须由外部力量进行纠偏与稳压。二者分别揭示了文明系统中的“演化”与“稳态”两种必要机制，但都未能解释：为什么无论是市场还是国家，最终都可能走向失控、危机与崩溃。 本文认为，其真正原因不在制度本身，而在于制度背后的人性欲望。人类对权力、金钱、名望与控制的追求具有天然的无限扩张倾向，并会形成一种持续自我强化的正反馈。自由市场会被这种欲望劫持，演化为垄断、资本集中、财富极化与生态透支；国家干预也会被这种欲望劫持，演化为权力膨胀、债务累积、长期刺激与无限控制。因此，现代经济危机、生态危机、技术危机与全球治理危机，并非彼此孤立，而是同一种“无限欲望突破自然边界”的不同表现。 为此，本文引入“自然控制论”作为一种超越传统经济学的新范式。自然控制论认为，一切系统——从宇宙、银河系、太阳系、地球，到生命、文明、经济——都服从共同的自组织、自反馈与负反馈规律。基于“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”，本文提出两条彼此对应的链条：一是“道生一、一生二、二生三、三生万物”的生成链，即银河系生成太阳系，太阳系生成地球，地球生成月球，而日月地系统进一步生成生命、文明与经济；二是“人法地、地法天、天法道、道法自然”的约束链，即人类必须服从地球边界，地球必须服从太阳系周期，太阳系必须服从银河系秩序，而银河系最终服从自然整体法则。 在这一框架下，哈耶克代表演化，凯恩斯代表稳态，而自然控制论则提供了约束二者的更高层边界。真正的文明治理，不是简单选择市场或国家，而是在自然负反馈之下，使市场与国家同时服从自然边界。本文进一步提出 Artificial Wisdom、Universal OS、自然价值指数与自然货币等概念，试图建立一种以“边界治理”取代“权力治理”的新文明模式。其核心原则在于：财富必须与真实劳动、能量与生态贡献相对应；欲望必须承担真实成本；任何经济与政治活动，都必须服从自然负反馈。 本文最终指出，真正成熟的文明，不是无限增长、无限控制与无限扩张，而是在有限的地球与宇宙秩序中，学会约束欲望、承认边界，并在长期稳定中实现持续演化。所谓“天人合一”，并非抽象的哲学理想，而是文明在经历危机之后重新回到自然秩序的成熟状态。

This paper reconstructs and systematically analyzes Confucian thought through a scientific-philosophical and structural-critical approach, aiming to move beyond the traditional binary evaluative framework of “affirmation versus negation,” and to reveal the internal structural contradictions of Confucianism as a civilizational system of thought. The paper argues that Confucianism is not a single coherent ethical theory, but a complex system composed of multiple tensions, whose core paradox lies in the long-term conflict between the value of personhood and hierarchical order. The study develops its analysis across six dimensions: the conflict between ren and li; the rupture between theories of human nature as good and as evil; the political tension between people-centered governance and monarchical authority; the structural distortion resulting from the expansion of family ethics into the public sphere; the dual separation between morality and interests; and the historical process by which Confucianism was institutionalized as a political instrument. Through a comparative examination of the thought structures of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, this paper argues that Confucianism has never possessed a unified foundational logic regarding human nature, political legitimacy, and social order. The study further points out that Confucianism emphasizes moral values such as “ren,” “yi,” and people-centered governance at the theoretical level, while at the institutional level it persistently relies on hierarchical order and centralized power structures, ultimately forming a historical model of “external Confucianism and internal control,” in which moral language gradually becomes an instrument for legitimizing power. The core conclusion of this paper is that the fundamental problem of Confucianism does not lie in whether it values morality, but in its persistent inability to answer a key question: when morality conflicts with power, should individuals obey conscience or submit to order? This produces a structural paradox running throughout Chinese political and cultural history.

前言 Preamble 鉴于当代人类文明正面临生态危机、资源耗竭、技术失控、战争风险与精神异化等系统性挑战； Recognizing that contemporary human civilization is confronted with systemic challenges including ecological crisis, resource depletion, technological disorder, the risk of war, and spiritual alienation; 鉴于现行文明模式长期建立于无限增长、人类中心主义与对自然无边界开发的假设之上，而这一假设已经导致全球系统进入危险状态； Recognizing that the prevailing model of civilization has long been founded upon assumptions of unlimited growth, anthropocentrism, and unrestricted exploitation of nature, and that such assumptions have placed the global system in a condition of grave danger; 鉴于人类文明唯有重新服从宇宙法则、自然边界与系统反馈，方能实现长期和平、稳定与永续发展； Recognizing that only by returning to the laws of the universe, the limits of nature, and the principles of systemic feedback can humanity achieve lasting peace, stability, and sustainable development; 我们，世界各国人民与一切关心人类未来者， 郑重提出如下宣言： We, the peoples of the world and all those concerned with the future of humanity, solemnly proclaim the following Manifesto:

贪婪欲望是人类文明危机的核心驱动力，但迄今缺乏一个跨越神经、社会与热力学三个层次的统一动力学模型。本文以系统动力学（System Dynamics）为方法论框架，整合进化神经科学、复杂系统理论与热力学，构建贪婪欲望的三层次正反馈模型（3L-GFM：Three-Level Greedy Positive-Feedback Model）。在神经层次，模型捕捉多巴胺奖励回路与杏仁核焦虑系统的双重正反馈结构，以及正念修炼通过前额叶皮层介导的负反馈干预机制；在社会层次，模型描述财富-权力-政策三角、信息垄断-认知控制与军工复合体三条关键正反馈回路的相互嵌套；在热力学层次，模型以熵增速率为核心变量，建立贪婪欲望驱动的文明癌症过程的物理描述。三个层次通过「欲望放大系数」（DAF：Desire Amplification Factor）和「宇宙约束函数」（CCF：Cosmic Constraint Function）实现耦合。仿真分析揭示：文明系统存在三个关键分叉点——神经临界点（NTP）、社会临界点（STP）和热力学临界点（TTP）——在此之前系统具有自我修复能力，在此之后正反馈主导，系统趋向不可逆崩溃。自然控制论干预策略的仿真表明，在临界点之前实施代际约束制度化、生态红线锚定和熵责任核算，可将系统导向低熵稳态。 Greedy desire is the core driver of human civilizational crisis, yet no unified dynamic model spanning the neural, social, and thermodynamic levels has been developed. This paper employs System Dynamics as its methodological framework, integrating evolutionary neuroscience, complex systems theory, and thermodynamics to construct a Three-Level Greedy Positive-Feedback Model (3L-GFM). At the neural level, the model captures the dual positive-feedback structure of the dopaminergic reward circuit and the amygdala anxiety system, along with the negative-feedback intervention mechanism mediated by mindfulness cultivation through the prefrontal cortex. At the social level, the model describes the mutual nesting of three key positive-feedback loops: the wealth-power-policy triangle, the information monopoly–cognitive control loop, and the military-industrial complex loop. At the thermodynamic level, the model takes entropy increase rate as its core variable, constructing a physical description of the civilizational cancer process driven by greedy desire. The three levels are coupled through the Desire Amplification Factor (DAF) and the Cosmic Constraint Function (CCF). Simulation analysis reveals three critical bifurcation points — the Neural Tipping Point (NTP), the Social Tipping Point (STP), and the Thermodynamic Tipping Point (TTP) — before which the system retains self-repair capacity and after which positive feedback dominates and the system trends toward irreversible collapse. Simulations of Natural Cybernetics intervention strategies demonstrate that implementing intergenerational constraint institutionalization, ecological red-line anchoring, and entropy responsibility accounting before tipping points can guide the system toward a low-entropy stable state.

Greedy desire is the core driver of human civilizational crisis, yet no unified dynamic model spanning the neural, social, and thermodynamic levels has been developed. This paper employs System Dynamics as its methodological framework, integrating evolutionary neuroscience, complex systems theory, and thermodynamics to construct a Three-Level Greedy Positive-Feedback Model (3L-GFM). At the neural level, the model captures the dual positive-feedback structure of the dopaminergic reward circuit and the amygdala anxiety system, along with the negative-feedback intervention mechanism mediated by mindfulness cultivation through the prefrontal cortex. At the social level, the model describes the mutual nesting of three key positive-feedback loops: the wealth-power-policy triangle, the information monopoly–cognitive control loop, and the military-industrial complex loop. At the thermodynamic level, the model takes entropy increase rate as its core variable, constructing a physical description of the civilizational cancer process driven by greedy desire. The three levels are coupled through the Desire Amplification Factor (DAF) and the Cosmic Constraint Function (CCF). Simulation analysis reveals three critical bifurcation points — the Neural Tipping Point (NTP), the Social Tipping Point (STP), and the Thermodynamic Tipping Point (TTP) — before which the system retains self-repair capacity and after which positive feedback dominates and the system trends toward irreversible collapse. Simulations of Natural Cybernetics intervention strategies demonstrate that implementing intergenerational constraint institutionalization, ecological red-line anchoring, and entropy responsibility accounting before tipping points can guide the system toward a low-entropy stable state. 贪婪欲望是人类文明危机的核心驱动力，但迄今缺乏一个跨越神经、社会与热力学三个层次的统一动力学模型。本文以系统动力学（System Dynamics）为方法论框架，整合进化神经科学、复杂系统理论与热力学，构建贪婪欲望的三层次正反馈模型（3L-GFM：Three-Level Greedy Positive-Feedback Model）。在神经层次，模型捕捉多巴胺奖励回路与杏仁核焦虑系统的双重正反馈结构，以及正念修炼通过前额叶皮层介导的负反馈干预机制；在社会层次，模型描述财富-权力-政策三角、信息垄断-认知控制与军工复合体三条关键正反馈回路的相互嵌套；在热力学层次，模型以熵增速率为核心变量，建立贪婪欲望驱动的文明癌症过程的物理描述。三个层次通过「欲望放大系数」（DAF：Desire Amplification Factor）和「宇宙约束函数」（CCF：Cosmic Constraint Function）实现耦合。仿真分析揭示：文明系统存在三个关键分叉点——神经临界点（NTP）、社会临界点（STP）和热力学临界点（TTP）——在此之前系统具有自我修复能力，在此之后正反馈主导，系统趋向不可逆崩溃。自然控制论干预策略的仿真表明，在临界点之前实施代际约束制度化、生态红线锚定和熵责任核算，可将系统导向低熵稳态。