Wang Jun

12 The Openness of Life-world

and the Intercultural Polylogue
Abstract: The phenomenological conception of “life-world” lays the theoretical
foundation for the openness of the world. The founding relationship between the
individual and the world, the interactive relationship among different cultural
worlds on the intersubjective level, the free nature of truth and its presence in the
open world, the “ek-sistent” characteristics of the human-being, the structural
constitution of the life-world – all these topics demonstrate the open nature of the
world in a phenomenological way. Based on these ideas, “reflective judgment” as
“phronesis” and “fear” as ethic sentiment based on family experience become the
practical stance, which is consistent with the “life-world” conception of phenom-
enology; the characteristics of publicness and intersubjectivity of the open world
are thus maintained. In the face of the multicultural world, this attitude presents
as a brand-new practice of intercultural philosophy, which is different from the
centralism found under the framework of monism and the comparative philoso-
phy under the framework of dualism. Such a practice of intercultural philosophy
is “polylog”, i.e. based on the principles of difference and equality and searching
for the “overlapping consensus” in full multi-participatory discussion. Through
polylog, a harmonious life of human community is constructed. This paper at-
tempts to derive a set of practical principles for maintaining the openness of the
world and intercultural polylog in the era of globalization from the theoretical
view of the phenomenological life-world.

With the rapid development of technology in the era of globalization, capitalist

industrial civilization has led to the continual convergence and compilation of
the exterior life mode of people in the global village. Such convergences have
led to substantial connection between individuals. At the same time, however,
deeper values and conflicts of interests between discrepant cultures and people
are intensified. In the face of such a situation the question is how to conceive
an approach for structuring a human community that can effectively deal with
this complex global trend of both convergence and alienation, and how, within
such a tendency, to achieve a consensus in the deeper sense so as to achieve a
stage where people share both wealth and deprivation in their planning for a

Wang Jun, Hangzhou, China

https://doi.org/10.1515/yewph-2020-0013
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 151

common planet. A further issue is then how to maintain the diversity within
world culture based on an open world, while avoiding mutual exclusion and
conflict among cultures. These problems are becoming a core concern to to-
day’s ideological circles.
As the most dynamic trend of the twentieth century, phenomenology has
provided contemporary human intellectual history with a rich scope of topics
and material, (e.g. consciousness, existence, body, emotion, others, and subjec-
tivity). The concept of “life-world” as a way for humanism to understand the
world provides an open world and a meaningful perspective on the ideal world
and the practice of human culture. The connotation of the world’s openness
embodied in the “life-world” of phenomenological discourse has laid a solid
theoretical foundation for intercultural polylog in the era of globalization and
provides a possibility of translating it into practice. Hence, a retrospective and
clarification of this idea may provide a possible answer for the questions above.

1 The Openness of the World

in the Phenomenology of “Life-world”
“Life-world” (Lebenswelt) is one of the core concepts of Husserl’s phenome-
nology; it refers to the “surrounding world” that encompasses everything in
the natural world, as well as history, culture and their interrelationships with
the human being and his society. Husserl emphasizes the “life” characteristics
of the world in order to distinguish it from the world of natural science in a
conscious way, thereby raising issues of philosophy and science, the crisis of
Western civilization, the history of human culture, intercultural phenomena
and other topics of cultural philosophy. Consistent with Avennarius and
Mach, Husserl defines “life-world” as a world of experience given in advance,
“pre-scientific”, “intuitively”, “always existing” “familiar”, providing a back-
ground and horizon for all the intentions of self and others; it is the founda-
tion of the meaning of all special worlds (the scientific world, the religious
world, etc.) as well as the foundation of all practice. Examining such a life-
world reveals issues of history, traditions and the cultures in which we live. It
is a horizon for all means of constructions and practices that arise to confront the
alienation of world and ourselves from an objective perspective. Heidegger em-
phasizes the “In-the-world being” (In-der-Welt-Sein), the “Being-with”(Mitsein),
the open state of the world (Weltoffenheit) and reveals the ahistoricity of the the-
orization of science, which is in fact the continuation and deepening of Husserl’s
“life-world”. As Eugen Fink puts it, it is fundamentally the phenomenological
152 Wang Jun

world concept that builds the bridge from Husserl to Heidegger. Husserl’s “life-
world” was put forward as an effective treatment for the European scientific
and cultural crisis caused by the scientific ideology of naturalism. As a life-
world extracted from direct experience and one containing every possibility of the
world of life, it aims at overcoming the objectivism and one-dimensional abstrac-
tion of reductionism, and the resulting “sense emptying” (Sinnentleerung) and
loss of “meaningfulness of life” (Lebensbedeutsamkeit). In this sense, life-world is
based on a holistic and open-minded approach to the roots of the world. It is to
this holism and openness that Husserl’s phenomenological approach leads.
Viewing life-world as key, one can interpret Husserl’s phenomenological approach
in the following ways: as cutting into subject by describing psychology and inten-
tional analysis and grasping the association of intentions between subject and ob-
ject; examining the relationship that occurs between the object and the horizon
through the introspection of structuring an intentional object; and then restoring
a life-world of integrity and openness, overcoming the naturalism of objectivity
and other drawbacks. Here, “horizon” (Horizont) acts as a link between phenome-
nology and life-world. “Horizon” as the basis of a “pre-fact” or subject-orientation
first means an “uncertainty” that leads to an infinite open-minded possibility of
power functions (Vermöglichkeit) as well as the ability to unify all the specific ob-
jects and materials in form. Every constructive process takes place within the “ho-
rizon” and the horizon is equivalent to the special world around every substantial
being. In “horizon”, the subjective relevance is expressed as a future-oriented pos-
sibility of power functions and openness, while the unity of all horizons or special
worlds, i.e. the unity of all possibilities of power functions, is life-world.
“Life-world” is accessible to all human practice including its historical
achievements. In this sense, the connotations of the life-world are the specific
lifestyles and cultural traditions that entail historical continuity. These become
an existence that generations of a society must hand down and follow in the
form of “habitus” or “ethos”. In Greek, ethos has the meaning of residence, and
in German the word “habit” (Gewohnheit) also comes from the verb “living”
(wohnen). Such connections in the literal sense indicate that it is ethical tradi-
tion and the living habits of human community that make the common living
place called “home”, and it is such a “home” that embodies its cultural particu-
larity. On the other hand, today, with the rapid development of technology, the
past and present of human life intertwine closely with each other in the same
area and era, making the global village our common life-world. The unity of life
beyond our own special cultural traditions is being incontrovertibly being real-
ized in historically different ways. Lifeworld based on domestic experience has
become open and its border has undergone ablation. The open characteristics of
life-world continue to be highlighted. The concept of “life-world” today contains
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 153

not only the particularity of cultural tradition passed down through history, but
also the openness of the greatest extent of human life. The inclusiveness and
openness of the “world of life” is highly consistent with the ideological principles
of phenomenology “returning to the truth” itself. Phenomenological spirit itself
demonstrate the integrity and openness of the life-world when it embodies the
theme of cultural philosophy. As such the multicultural appearance and its his-
tory can be completely presented (i.e. the open stage of life-world offers space for
all cultural specialities to maintain themselves), rather than using a framework
to limit the pluralistic development of culture and the world’s cross-cultural land-
scape. In Husserl and Heidegger’s writings, the openness of the world and the
cross-cultural characteristics of human life are more or less involved as subjects.
Husserl (1935) in the speech “Crisis” in Vienna said:

To an investigation of this type mankind manifests itself as a single life of men and of peo-
ples, bound together by spiritual relationships alone, filled with all types of human beings
and of cultures, but constantly flowing each into the other. It is like a sea in which human
beings, peoples, are the waves constantly forming, changing, and disappearing, some more
richly, more complexly involved, others more simply.

According to the basic idea of Husserl’s phenomenology, every achievement of

human consciousness is based on a common life-world in history, so this rational
“human life” is “the only one” that reflects unity. However, at the same time he
also noted that the life of an “only person” possesses “rich type in human and
culture”. In this regard, it is difficult to categorize Husserl in the traditional sense
of self-styled cultural monism or European central theory. Phenomenological life
world vision is highly open and able to accommodate other and unfamiliar tradi-
tions. “At the same time, it opens up access to different cultural differences.” As
the life-world of the horizon and a special cultural world community, the possi-
bilities and accomplishments of all cultural construction are contained in itself,
with its openness and integrity contributing to one another.
Husserl pointed out that the identification by the phenomenological “life-
world” of the infinite possibilities of the main body of human life and the hori-
zon as a playground of experiential possibility of power functions can never be
achieved, let alone exhausted, through objectification. It is the possibility of
subject and the horizon that constitute the most essential and decisive part of
human existence and human nature. The possibility of subject means freedom
and openness. From the perspective of human community, the life-world as a
connection to the very basis of human life ensures the beginning of a globally
common life of human members, as well as the connection between people and
any region of the earth. Thus the foundation is laid for an open relationship
between human members.
154 Wang Jun

2 The Practical Attitude According

to the Conception of the Life-world
The world vision of phenomenology provides a foundation and potential for
the openness of the world in the cross-cultural context. Only when based on
the recognition of the common life-world can the barriers among many special
horizons and worlds open, bringing possibilities of mutual integration. Of course,
the openness of the world does not guarantee that the cross-cultural culture and
political debate at the practical level will reach a final consensus. Therefore, it is
necessary to derive a principle for the practice and requirements that can protect
the openness of the world from the global openness theory. In an intercultural
situation this would be the key steps to promoting the construction of an open
human community effectively and to converting the phenomenological world vi-
sion into a practical gesture.
Heidegger emphasizes that the essence of truth lies in freedom and openness,
i.e. the “blooming” nature of existence. In his theory, the truth is not the truth of
the episteme, but the “practical wisdom” gained in public life (Phronesis). The for-
mer is only the scientific truth, which excludes all other opinions (Doxa), while the
latter depends on the diversity of opinions and the collective presence of multiple
natural views. The uniqueness and accessibility of scientific truths determine that
the goal of scientific debate should be an undisputed ideal situation, and the end
of this argument must be an objective criterion of truth, rather than the credibility
of a particular opinion among the participants or a majority opinion or method of
arguing. In the intercultural practice closely related to the life of the human being,
each participant in the debate is deeply rooted in his own home world, which is a
major subject of phenomenological expression. It is just such a relationship of root-
ing which determines that “practical wisdom” in human public life is not equiva-
lent to the cognitive activity aimed at the one and only truth in a scientific sense. A
successful “practical wisdom” and the presence of truth in this sense protect the
openness of the world through its own diversity of special cultural worlds.
Therefore, the idea of a life-world could distinguish intercultural contro-
versy from scientific debate. The former is rooted in the life-world throughout
its formation, in which each participant expresses their own interests based on
their own private horizon and specific life-world, so there is no criteria to mea-
sure or judge their expressions with a scientific standard – there is no evident
right or wrong. The scientific method, however, is to eliminate as much connec-
tion as possible between each individual and his life-world, as well as the spe-
cial world he belongs to, in order to achieve the objectivity and universality of
knowledge. Finally Husserl’s theory of life-world and scientific criticism reveals
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 155

that all human cognitive and survival practices, including scientific cognition,
are inevitably rooted in their connected worlds, since everyone, including the
scientists, lives in their special life-world, making a reasonable argument to
judge by virtue of their exposure to the special horizon and cultural traditions.
Husserl has pointed out that life-world “acts as a unified, universal structure of
the sense of the ‘world horizon’, in which substance turns up as ‘something’ in
the sense of horizon”. Therefore, the intention of the association that phenome-
nology reveals is to highlight the process of a particular understanding or behav-
iour developing from the horizon of the life-world. The world has established a
constructive relationship with the survival of humanity by contextual guidance,
opening itself up to the survival of humanity. Each object that our subject-
orientation highlights generates from the specific context in which we live.
Therefore, the background in which the object is embedded also becomes the
stage in which it manifests, which contains infinite potential and openness for
survival. According to the phenomenological view, it is the potential and openness
of this world that defines humans, as well as all their specific practical behaviours
and views.
So, at a practical level, how can the members of the community manage to
maintain such openness in a rational manner? The first is a so-called “practical
wisdom” based on the full understanding of the conception of the phenomeno-
logical life-world. Kant provided a more detailed description of the require-
ments of “practical wisdom” through the concept of “the reflective judgment”
(“die reflektierende Urteilskraft”) in his writing Kritik der Urteilskraft. “The re-
flective judgement” refers to the judgement of extracting a common substance
out of a specific one, which Kant calls “sensus communis” (i.e. the sensibility
“in the reflection of itself” (congenial) to take into account the expression of
another thinking person so as to achieve a judgment by virtue of human ratio-
nality.). It is to “leave the limits of those associated with our own judgments by
chance, and stand in the position of others.” Therefore, reflective judgment is
an “open way of thinking” examining how the subject judges and thus elimi-
nating the subjective and private judgments under the framework of the dual-
ism of subject and object, which brings us back to a general position that is
undoubtedly a phenomenological retrospective way of thinking in line with the
concept of life-world. A person with reflective judgement will not tackle the ob-
ject of a specific opinion, but think rather about how the opinion itself came
about. Thus, they can find a common standpoint from which to view all other
judgments and reflect on their own opinion according to the possible judgment
of others. Such understanding gained through reflective judgment will expand
its own special horizons, incorporate the horizons of others into a universal hori-
zon of the open world, abolish the boundaries between home and an unfamiliar
156 Wang Jun

world and expand one’s own specific horizon. Only equipped with such a practi-
cal attitude and looking carefully before leaping can people consider others in a
cross-view, cross-cultural debate, that maintains the openness of the Polylogue
and encompasses all the participants of the community.
Everyone as “Being-in-the-world” lives in the horizon that they are familiar
with and trust, and everyone lives in their own life-world, so they first rely on
their own special life-world when judging and expressing their opinions. The
“reflective judgment”, however, provides one with the potential to transcend
one’s own horizons by examining the formation of ones own views, to travel
between one’s own world and the world of others based on a common position.
Of course, such transcendence does not mean that we can cut off the relation-
ship between our own horizons and ourselves (as the starting point of judge-
ment), but the expansion of our horizon is a result of fully reflecting and
examining the specific horizon of ourselves as individuals and the limitations
of the specific world. Thus, we can be open to the unfamiliar world posture, as
well as to the horizon of others. Different reflections of horizons based on this
phenomenological reflection are ultimately inherent to a life-world of a human
community.

3 The Intercultural Polylogue in the Open World

The intercultural nature of the world is a topic that “life-world” cannot avoid. In
the trend of globalization, cultural diversity has become an inevitable picture of
modernity; correspondingly, a more open, non-default intercultural Polylogue
has become an irresistible trend.
The “Polylogue” conception proposed by Franz Martin Wimmer overcame
the “Monolog” of cultural independence and the binary “Dialogue” based on
comparative philosophy. The latter emphasizes the “differences between two”
(Dia), whose main limit is that it is mainly based on a binary framework in which
differences in philosophy and cultural traditions are studied. Moreover, it empha-
sizes the difference between two heterogeneous cultures. As a basis, it ultimately
leads to cultural specialism and separatism. Such a binary setting actually pre-
supposes the binary division of the real situation and it is through this presuppo-
sition that the differences between the two sides solidified and reinforced. The
East and the West, Asia and Europe, black and white, all of the philosophical
topics are set under the framework of binary comparison. For example, under the
framework of the comparison between China and the West, “Western thought”,
such as history of essentialism, scientism is emphasized. By contrast, “the East”
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 157

is flexible, non-essential, and humanistic. Such presupposition deriving from the

preconceived framework may be misleading on specific problems of research. In
the shackles of the binary framework of “China-and-the-West”, any concrete
philosophical research will be labelled as “oriental” or “western”, and in the con-
text of globalization postcolonial ideas and national emotions based on local
consciousness are inevitably carried into specific philosophical discourse.
The purpose of the “dualistic dialogue” under the comparative philosophy
framework is to demonstrate and emphasize the position of the dialogue leader
itself and to strengthen the differences. This model, however, can only describe
the differences and interplay between cultures. It does not guide an intercul-
tural philosophy that goes beyond every form of culture in line with global
openness. Therefore, although “comparative philosophy” overcomes the cen-
tralism of a single culture to some extent, it is trapped in the binary framework
of cultural differences, culturalism and separatism. Thus, it cannot achieve real
multi-cultural openness. Wimmer believes that if philosophy wants to express
the openness of multiculturalism systematically, “it must raise a third approach
apart from the centrism theory of universalism (always traditional) and separat-
ism or relativism of national philosophy”. For this approach he coins the ex-
pression “Polylogue”. “It is not just a simple comparison, nor is it a binary
dialogue (dia-logisch), but a philosophical experience of multi-pole polylog
(Poly-logisch).” Polylogía, the Greek word is “talk with different opinions” or
“chatter”, and Wimmer expands its original meaning in intercultural philosophy
giving it an implication of “multilateral talks on the same object”. Concerning
the same object or topic, everyone speaks out their own ideas and programs, but
this is not to demonstrate or strengthen the differences, but rather to allow as
many opinions as possible to participate in the dialogue to achieve a more com-
prehensive understanding of a certain object.
The conception of “Polylogue” is similar to Rawls’ “overlapping consen-
sus”; both are based on the recognition of multivariant rationality and seek a
balance between doctrines. As a framework that systematically shapes the mul-
ticulturalism as a whole, it follows the principle of publicity and neutrality. It
also seeks a basic framework of harmonious coexistence between cultures by
rejecting the centralism of any particular culture or any specific essentialism, in
order to achieve an “overlapping consensus” in the intercultural world. Such
practices do not depend on any complete, self-perceived universal metaphysi-
cal setting or any so-called “supreme” rationality, but on a “public rationality”
in which every participant regards his own position as a special and limited
one. Wimmer also believes that for an ideal “intercultural philosophy”, “the
first thing to develop is a new perspective on the history of philosophy, and dif-
ferent traditions between those arguments must be carried out in specific
158 Wang Jun

issues”. Such opinion is based on the following simple situation: in any one of
the cultural traditions, there has never been, and will never be, a language con-
cept, an expression or a philosophical approach applicable at all times. Thus,
intercultural, multipolar Polylogue requires avoiding a hasty universalism or a
relativistic sectionalism, so a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite is to lis-
ten to the voices of others. How are they expressed in their time? We should not
only ask what they say and why they say so, but also for what kind of reasons
there are for a particular belief.
Wimmer points out that intercultural philosophy is primarily a matter of
practice. It does not lead to a unification of truth of negating every view, nor is
it a central perspective on the history of human thought. It is an attempt to
make participants recognize the relativity of each perspective including their
own through the Polylogue. Thus, he sets a “minimum principle” for intercul-
tural philosophy, which can be expressed in two ways. The first one is ex nega-
tivo: “not [to] fully demonstrate any philosophical proposition raised by people
of a single cultural tradition”. At the same time, its affirmative form could be
“always endeavouring to find the ‘transcultural’ overlaps in philosophical con-
cepts, because a fully proved proposition is more likely to be developed in a
variety of cultural traditions than in a single one.”
This minimum principle of intercultural philosophy is embodied in the prac-
tice of “Polylogue”, which presents a basic spirit of tolerance and openness. The
observance of this principle will change the practice of science, communication
and demonstration. In an intercultural Polylogue, what matters is not insisting
on or demonstrating a particular point of view, but expanding a route including
a wide range of positions as a whole, on which all participants gather through an
open gesture to allow position changes among themselves and others. With com-
mon interests and common end goals, they shelve antagonism, seeking an over-
lap in the many positions; they aim to gain an understanding and tolerance of
other participants, in an effort to achieve a common harmony. Thus, the ultimate
goal of “Polylogue” is not to defend the superiority of a particular culture or a
specific horizon, but to build a harmonious community, i.e. the open world as a
whole. In daily politics, “Polylogue” entails a mode of practice different from the
political franchise in Western democracy. It is a political strategy focusing on the
participation of diverse parties rather than simply persuading others with the
goal of attracting voters. An African form of traditional political community,
Mbongi, an approach with a long tried and tested history, demonstrates this par-
ticipation. It reaches consensus through Polylogue and negotiation between
members of the community, rather than voting for decisions on the basis of a sim-
ple number. Likewise, in concrete political strategies, Polylogue also has the abil-
ity to provide a global civilized governance program with respect for differences.
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 159

In the construction of the open human community, it is important to participate

and conduct a Polylogue, since the Polylogue in an open world leads to an
“agreement” (Konventionalität) of openness and tolerance, rather than a vote for
a small number of truths.
Thus, the “Polylogue” as a intercultural philosophical practice is mani-
fested in reality as a framework that fits into an open world in which a variety
of cultures and specific horizons affect one another on the basis of mutual
equality and respect, which also entails abandoning defence of all the basic
views to maintain instead a sceptical gesture. It is a form of practice of self-
correction. Following the road of Polylogue, the stance and point of view of par-
ticipants is constantly changing, never coming to an end. It is an attempt to
find a relatively stable and universal philosophical discourse in different cul-
tural traditions in the era of globalization. On the one hand, it is necessary to
maintain the differences of the parties involved in the Polylogue; on the other
hand, we should never neglect the equality of the parties involved when it
comes to the forms of Polylogue.
Taking the concept of “human rights” as an example, although the recogni-
tion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948
was first identified in the Western spiritual and discourse systems, the concept of
individual personality was mainly originated from Christian tradition. However,
the concept of “human rights” itself is not a unique invention of the West; its
rich connotation shows up with different degrees of performance in different cul-
tural traditions. For example, in the Ashoka era of India, in early Islam, toler-
ance, especially religious tolerance, is a basic idea. In Chinese Confucianism,
especially Mencius, there are also concepts of human rights in political and na-
tional governance dimensions. Wimmer believes that if there were a full intercul-
tural Polylogue on the concept of human rights around the world, the formation
of a consensus accepted by different traditions would be easier.
The descriptions of “existence” (ontology) also vary in different cultural
traditions. If the “existence” in traditional European philosophy describes the
entity of reality and its order, then in the philosophy of East Asia, the equiva-
lent of existence would be the metaphysical “Tao”, and in the Bantu philoso-
phy of Africa, it would be “force”, in which the most fundamental existence of
force is the dynamic process. In the topic of “existence”, each philosophical tra-
dition gives a different description. When we carry out ontological research, if
we are fully concerned with the understanding of “existence” in different cul-
tures under the framework of Polylogue, then the content of the “existence”
concept will be perfect.
The world’s openness based on the vision of the world of life dictates that
every single cultural world is an integral part of the human community; the
160 Wang Jun

intercultural nature of the life-world is not an oriental-western binary entity

model, but a “multipolar” one, so the Polylogue should also be carried out in
a multilateral way. With no preconditions and full openness, the world could
in term gain an open unity. This is also consistent with Habermas’s interactive
subjectivity paradigm, in which the original subjective position is digested
through interaction among subjects, reaching a relative consensus through
interrelations.
The open intercultural Polylogue required by the open life-world is just a
gesture that has long been neglected by Chinese culture in self-understanding
and positioning. Since the nineteenth century, during which time Chinese cul-
ture was passively involved in the general trend of globalization, we have got
used to understanding and recognizing our own cultural traditions against the
only opposite of “western” civilization. Such binary framework then became a
hidden horizon of Chinese culture. Therefore, a series of “black or white” binary
opposition have formed: The West is dynamic, while the East is static, the West
is potent in the field of politics, economic and military, while the East is weak,
the West is scientific, the East is humanistic, etc. This kind of horizon under a
rigid binary framework puts a label on all intercultural topics, causing preprog-
ramed misunderstanding and opposition, which jars with the openness of life-
world and today’s global trend. In the case of philosophical research, for Chinese
philosophers, the philosophical problem of “intercultural/cross-cultural” is self-
evidently the comparative philosophy of East and West, which is based on the
comparative study of the cultural differences between China and the West. In the
context of being habitually regarded as the “underdog” in dualistic opposition,
we have presupposed a research goal of demonstrating the superiority of our
own culture under the guidance of the post-colonial national sentiment. In this
process, we consciously accepted and strengthened the concept of cultural differ-
ences between the East and the West, thus forming a research potential: The ulti-
mate and constant goal of comparative philosophy is to strengthen the argument
of our own traditions relative to the rationality and superiority of “the West”.
However, study presupposing such a binary framework deviates not only
from the status of global multiculturalism, but also from the open philosophical
structure of life-world. As Husserl puts it, nations and cultures are always in
dynamic interdependence and mutual infiltration, and are historically formed,
changed, and disappear. Therefore, the static binary framework as a preconcep-
tion cannot fully describe the diversity and nature of world culture. With the
advance of globalization, today’s oriental world is not a single underdog rela-
tive to the West. Now the complex and varied world cultural pattern is no lon-
ger capriciously switching between only two subjects. Now, it is an intertwined
multi-polar network, in which we have to integrate to form our self-awareness
 12 The Openness of Life-world and the Intercultural Polylogue 161

and positioning. In the framework of the open world, all self-positioning of cul-
tural traditions and specific horizon are formed historically relative to multiple
others. As the cultural core is relatively stable, the border is constantly blurred,
open and integrated. Chinese culture has experienced such openness and inte-
gration faced with heterogeneous cultures. Nowadays, as Chinese culture is in
the process of understanding and positioning itself, our vision should not only
cover the West, but also East Asia, Near East Islamic regions, South Asia, Latin
America and Africa; as well as being our interlocutors, each civilization is our
reference system all being in a position to interact with Chinese culture. In this
multicultural world, there is no single specific standard (economic, political,
scientific, etc.) to measure different cultures. Therefore, only in such a fully
open model of intercultural Polylogue can we truly understand and position
ourselves in today’s globalized world. In such modus we can contribute to the
openness and harmonious coexistence among human communities of the
world, such being the exact requirements from Chinese culture and from any
other cultural tradition in the era of globalization and intercultural Polylogue.
The route of intercultural Polylogue in a state of openness is always aiming
at a unified goal and never ends. This unattainable goal is the universal life-
world. The “life-world” as a philosophical conception is a pole that guides the
opening of the Polylogue. Historically this has never been possible to achieve.
In specific philosophical issues, there are some significant problems without a
consistent solution, such as human rights issues and value theory. Human
beings have a general interest in such problems; they are discussed. Then here,
following the principle of intercultural philosophy, we could ensure that there
is a process of reaching a unanimous goal among different positions. Such una-
nimity is not reflected in the realization of only one truth, but in the process of
opening and listening to each other. An open intercultural Polylogue leads to a
wider range of universal recognition and a more complete understanding,
which is open to different cultural positions, containing different cultural tradi-
tions rather than a closed system of truth. Intercultural philosophy pursues the
openness on a practical level, not to identify the only real truth we could grasp
in many cultures, nor to emphasize the superiority of their own position in a set
framework, but to move forward along the route of polylogue. What is impor-
tant is not the final destination, but the process of opening up to achieve a
good understanding of each other and the occurrence of adjustments to keep
up with each other, of maintaining “harmony with difference”, of conducting a
polylogue in which all participants show tolerance towards each other. In the
words of Heidegger, intercultural polylogue is “a way, but not a (completed)
work”.
162 Wang Jun

Different cultural and philosophical traditions. Here, following the princi-

ple of intercultural philosophy, we could ensure that there is a process of reach-
ing a unanimous goal among different positions. Such unanimity is not
reflected in the realization of any single truth goal, but in the process of open-
ing and listening to each other. An open intercultural polylog leads to a wider
range of universal recognition and a more complete understanding, which is
open to different cultural positions, containing different cultural traditions
rather than a closed truth system. Intercultural philosophy pursues the open-
ness at a practical level, not by identifying the only real truth as found in many
cultures, nor by emphasizing the superiority of one’s own position in a set
framework, but by moving forward along the route of polylog. What is impor-
tant is not the final destination, but the process of opening up to achieve a
good understanding of each other and a adjustment to keep up with each
other, of maintaining “harmony with difference”, of conducting a polylog in
which all participants show tolerance towards each other. In the words of
Heidegger, intercultural polylog is “a way, but not a (completed) work”.