心靈並立抑或身體並立？

以梅洛龐蒂交互身體性重新設想勞思光的「眾多主體並立境域」

 張國賢老師——「梅洛龐蒂：交織與交錯」


2022 年 12 月 6 日

莊咏濤
勞思光先生是？

勞思光 (Lao Sze-Kwang ，本名：勞榮瑋， 1927-

2012) ，哲學家、公共知識人、歷任中文大學教授、
華梵大學講座教授、中研院院士。研究中心為哲學、
文化傳統的危機與出路問題，晚年重視跨文化溝通和
非絕對主義之理性基礎的重建。
重要著作：《康德知識論要義》、《歷史之懲罰》、
《自由、民主與文化創生》、《中國哲學史》、《思
辯錄：思光近作集》、《解咒與立法》、《中國文化
路向問題的新檢討》、《文化哲學講演錄》、〈論非
絕對主義的新基礎主義〉等等。

2
眾多主體並立境域的提出


勞氏早期提出「眾多主體並立境域」的概念，作為傳統中國文化要建立現代意義
的民主與科學所應當注意的活動領域

並且在簡介沙特理論的早期著作——《存在主義哲學》中提及「交互間的主體
性」以及「交互中的主體性」，雖然並未直接把「交互主體性」對應於「眾多主
體並立境域」問題，但可看作這兩概念相關連的背景。

早期文獻中使用眾多主體並立境域此概念，例如：《儒學精神與世界文化路向—
—思光少作集 ( 一 ) 》、《文化問題論集新編》、《自由、民主與文化創生》等
等。另參： Heinemann, Friedrich Heinrich. Existentialism and the Modern
Predicament, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953

3
眾多主體並立境域是？


原來是用以和「單一主體攝受境域」相對。

所謂「單一主體攝受境域」，指的是「自我」與「自我」間互相否定而言，例如
傳統儒家教化活動，以師長引導學子為模式，故彼此並不獨立而對等；

「眾多主體並立境域」，意思是「自我」與「自我」間互相肯定之活動境界。例
如：辯論之所以是眾多主體並立——因為我們先要肯定他人獨立之思考能力，彼
此進到一個共同的機制中平等的去說服對方。

以此處所說的「肯定」或「否定」，皆指對「主體性」之「肯定」或「否定」來
說《自由、民主與文化創生》

4
交互主體性與眾多主體並立境域作為對應的概念


但真正把「眾多主體並立境域」和「交互主體性」作為理論上對應的概念是晚期
於《文化哲學講演錄》 (110-112 頁 ) 中，詮解黑格爾論「客觀精神」時說的
文獻材料：

人實際上生活的時候是和其他人共同生活的，於是就有要了解「客觀精神」
(objective mind) 這觀念。（ ...... ）我們可以用一個比較現代的觀念來講，從主體
性 (subjectivity) 轉向交互主體性 (inter-subjectivity) 這顯然是另外一個領域。

但當我們說我這個意志面對你這個意志時，這就是屬於眾多心靈並立的領域。

5
交互主體性與眾多主體並立境域作為對應的概念


我們要把這個意思弄明白，最好的方法就是把它和東方的某些傳統思想相比。中
國如何講自我與自我的關係。譬如就儒家來講，它強調的是教化的觀念，就是一
個已經覺悟的人去指導那個未覺悟的人。它沒有一個平等的辯論的觀念。 ( 《文
化哲學講演錄》， 111 頁 )

我們通過這點來看「眾多心靈並列」的意思，這個「並列」的意思可分兩面講，
一面是「辯」的觀念，一面是「教」的觀念。 (......) 在這點上，我就覺得黑格爾
少了一個觀念，就是並列的觀念。事實上他講客觀精神時，並不是單單講眾多的
主體，而是要強調眾多主體的並列。 ( 同上 )

6
作重新設想的理由


這帶出第一個問題：心靈、意識主體即使互相肯定，也只能是抽象的、理論而非具體意義
下對等並立。那麼事實的、運作面向的並立如何可能呢？因為，民主、科學活動正正是在
生活、事實上運作
相關文獻：《思光人物論集》通過自述他與牟宗三對文化理論的取態差異帶出

真正差異在於我對「社會性實有」一領域，視為與「文化秩序」有不可分之關係，故而有
「發生歷程」 (genetic process) 與「內含品質」 (intrinsic properties) 之劃分，以避免誤作
「代換」；另一則有「雙層結構」之說，以分別安頓「觀念層」與「制度層」之領域。牟
氏對此領域之獨立性，全未留意。 ( 《思光人物論集》， 111 頁 )

實則具體成敗固非理境問題，然若理境本身有重大遺漏，不能籠罩生活世界，則不可看作
「理想」與「現實」之差異，而是理想本身之不足也。 ( 同上 )

7
作重新設想的理由


第二個問題：勞氏所運用的理論資源恐怕也不足以為交互主體性，或者眾多主體並立作理論奠基

因為依勞氏對主體的理解，還有以「教化」與對等「辯論」作為範例。但我們可以問：一個心靈主體
或以自覺心為主體如何從事教化或辯論呢？還是所謂的「主體」要有身軀去進行說話、聆聽活動？這
樣一來，勞氏已有的自我理論——認知我、情意我、德性我，而形軀我不屬自我 ( 沒有主體性 ) ，或
者他所依據康德、黑格爾式的思維主體，並不能提供具有肉身的主體，或他者的理論說明
相關文獻：

自覺心又稱主體，在勞氏的用法中指能夠自己作主宰的意思，比如某人有某種價值判斷而決定做某種
行動。參《文化問題論集新編》 (39, 121 頁 )

自我理論：《哲學問題源流論》、《新編中國哲學史》

8
援引梅洛龐蒂的交互身體性等概念


針對這種困難，我將借助梅洛龐蒂對於交互身體性 (intercorporeity) 的思考，嘗試
為「眾多主體並立境域」作重新設想。

問題的關鍵在：我們遭遇的眾多他者，甚至能夠彼此交流怎樣能夠成立？我們沒
法直接觸及他者身軀內的自覺心、心靈？那如何理解「他者」這與「我」同中有
異的存在？還有彼此之間交往運作呢？

既然，以純粹心靈主體互相肯定彼此地位，或者直接的主客二分此路不通。那
麼，就應該離開一種主、客截然對立，還有純粹心靈主體的處理進路，由身體與
身體的接觸來思考

9
主動、被動與開裂


這涉及與交互身體性相關的概念：首先，人與人的具體接觸不是單向度的，也不
是要麽完全是主體或完全是對象物的衝突。而是在接觸的處境中，主動與被動面
向是開裂並存的

開裂 (dehiscence) 為何？就是人（的肉身）兼具能觸、被觸這兩面。所以，
「我」之被他者觸及、把握到的這被動的身體，並不使「我」全然淪為一「對象
物」，反而是「我」能觸及他者、能探索世界的基礎所在。

同時，這種主動、被動的開裂，並沒有把「我」分割為二，而是一體兩面的關
係。但只有開裂並不足夠，因為不僅是要求個體自己，而是眾多身體能夠交流要
有跨越與侵入的要求

10
主動、被動與開裂

相關文獻： VI=The Visible and the Invisible (Eng. Trans.) 註：頁碼來自英譯本，粗體為筆者自己加上


(VI, 123) on the contrary, this occurs because a sort of dehiscence opens my body in two, and because between my
body looked at and my body looking, my body touched and my body touching, there is overlapping or
encroachment, so that we must say that the things pass into us as well as we into the things.

(VI, 146) Once again, the flesh we are speaking of is not matter. It is the coiling over of the visible upon the seeing
body, of the tangible upon the touching body, which is attested in particular when the body sees itself, touches
itself seeing and touching the things, such that, simultaneously, as tangible it descends among them, as
touching it dominates them all and draws this relationship and even this double relationship from itself, by
dehiscence or fission of its own mass

(VI, 153-4) as the flesh is, we said, the dehiscence of the seeing into the visible and of the visible into the seeing.
And just as my body sees only because it is a part of the visible in which it opens forth, the sense upon which the
arrangement of the sounds opens reflects back upon that arrangement

11
可逆性


重要的是：「我」的主動與被動這兩面有著一種可逆性 (reversibility) ，即通過視
覺或觸覺 ( 如：握手 ) ，創造了「我」與他者彼此身體互動的條件。

就是說，因為主動與被動是可逆轉的，「我」並不會因對方的主體性所觸及而只
能淪為對象

12
可逆性

相關文獻：

(VI, 142-3) What is open to us, therefore, with the reversibility of the visible and the tangible, is – if not yet the
incorporeal – at least an intercorporeal being, a presumptive domain of the visible and the tangible, which extends
further than things I touch and see at present

(VI, 144-5) Yet this flesh that one sees and touches is not all there is to flesh, nor this massive corporeity all there is
to the body. The reversibility that defines the flesh exists in other fields (…….) these are the facial movements,
many gestures, and especially those strange movements of the throat and mouth that form the cry and the voice.
(…….) I am a sonorous being. (…….) I almost witness, in him as in myself, the awesome birth of vociferation.
As there is a reflexivity of the touch, of sight, and of the touch-vision system

(VI, 145) ( 編者註 5) From the moment we said seeing, visible, and described the dehiscence of the sensible, we
were, if one likes, in the order of thought. (…….) Thus between sound and meaning, speech and what it means to
say, there is still the relation of reversibility

13
重合抑或交互侵入？


要注意的是，可逆性作為具體互動交流的基礎，並不會讓「我」與「他者」重
合。「可逆」指的是和自己，和他者身體的主動、被動面向可逆轉，還有在互動
中因相互侵入 (encroachment) 也可逆轉而不是重合。

因為，要是重合的話，我與他者就再非獨立的個體，也沒有眾多主體或交互身體
可言。

14
重合或交互侵入？

相關文獻：

(VI, 147) We must not think the flesh starting from substances, from body and spirit –
for then it would be the union of contradictories – but we must think it, as we said, as
an element, as the concrete emblem of a general manner of being. To begin with, we
spoke summarily of a reversibility of the seeing and the visible, of touching and the
touched. It is time to emphasize that it is a reversibility always imminent and never
realized in fact. My left hand is always on the verge of touching my right hand
touching the things, but I never reach coincidence

(VI, 135footnote) The visible is not a tangible zero, the tangible is not a zero of
visibility (relation of encroachment)

15
眾多主體並立境域的運作理論


至此，交互身體性有望為人與人的對等交流提供一個可運作的理論說明。以人們
握手作為例子，表明眾多主體能通過其身體交流達成並立

關鍵是：無需直接把握他者的心靈；也不是從反思的意識層面上作互相肯定；更
不必爭持於彼此主體性的主導權。而是在運作的普遍觸感中，達成個體與自己，
還有「我」與他者對等的交流互動，作為眾多主體並立境域的理論奠基

進一步的理論問題？

16
眾多主體並立境域的運作理論
相關文獻：

(VI, 141-2) This means that while each monocular vision, each touching with one sole hand has its own visible, its tactile, each is bound to every other vision,
to every other touch; it is bound in such a way as to make up with them the experience of one sole body before one sole world, through a possibility for
reversion, reconversion of its language into theirs, transfer, and reversal, according to which the little private world of each is not juxtaposed to the world of
all the others, but surrounded by it, levied off from it, and all together are a Sentient in general before a Sensible in general. Now why would this
generality, which constitutes the unity of my body, not open it to other bodies? The handshake too is reversible; I can feel myself touched as well and at
the same time as touching

(VI, 142) Their landscapes interweave, their actions and their passions fit together exactly: this is possible as soon as we no longer make belongingness to
one same “consciousness” the primordial definition of sensibility, and as soon as we rather understand it as the return of the visible upon itself, a carnal
adherence of the sentient to the sensed and of the sensed to the sentient

(VI, 142) Then, through the concordant operation of his body and my own, what I see passes into him, this individual green of the meadow under my
eyes invades his vision without quitting my own, I recognize in my green his green, as the customs officer recognizes suddenly in a traveler the man whose
description he had been given. There is here no problem of the alter ego because it is not I who sees, not he who sees, because an anonymous visibility
inhabits both of us, a vision in general, in virtue of that primordial property that belongs to the flesh, being here and now, of radiating everywhere and forever,
being an individual, of being also a dimension and a universal

(VI, 143) There is a circle of the touched and the touching, the touched takes hold of the touching; there is a circle of the visible and the seeing, the seeing is
not without visible existence(.....)and this by virtue of the fundamental fission or segregation of the sentient and the sensible which, laterally, makes the
organs of my body communicate and founds transitive from one body to another

17
 報告完畢，感謝各位。

18