One-Dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied

SpringerBriefs in Philosophy For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/10082 Peter Kien-hong YU One-dot Th...

24 downloads 514 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SpringerBriefs in Philosophy

For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/10082

Peter Kien-hong YU

One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied

Peter Kien-hong YU National Quemoy University Marine Affairs Institute No.1, Dàxué Road 0823732 Taiwan 89250 Republic of China [email protected]

ISSN 2211-4548 e-ISSN 2211-4556 ISBN 978-1-4614-2166-5 e-ISBN 978-1-4614-2167-2 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2011943623 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

To all those people whom I Qian/owe in this life and the previous life.

Preface

The idea of retiring flashed in my mind in March 2010, when I encountered another blow in my career. Around that period of time, I began to feel more deeply that there is a supernatural power at work. This power will strike a balance on your life. Oh, yes, a human being is so insignificant in the hands of that power or the universe or multiverse. No wonder most of us sometimes feel hopeless and can easily lose direction. When wondering what will happen next, one may resort to fortune telling. To be sure, several decades ago, my father spent some money to ask a fortune-teller in Hong Kong to figure out my life. What the person augured may not be entirely correct. A sentence he wrote in Chinese did startle me: At the age of 57, I will have another DaJi (in Mandarin Chinese)/blow. Indeed, someone in March 2010 said to me that I should go to another university. In November 2011, my application to be a TeBie Pin Ren (Distinguished Visiting) professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University was luckily approved by the university authorities. The next round is the interview. I am really glad that some academics to put scholarship (Xue Shu) in the first place. It is about time for me to highlight what I have done in the last few decades of my academic career. I feel that I have made a little contribution, or I have thought I have made contributions on eight major topics that interest me. I began to write on the triangular relationship between Beijing, Washington, and Moscow. After that, I collected some 30 models and theories on such relationships. I also constructed at least two new models on triangular and triadic relationships. It is not easy, if one realizes how difficult it is to simplify or compress (or even rationalize) complex and complicated reality into a model or theory, dialectically and/or non-“dialectically.” Later, for the sake of promotion from being the associate professor to full professor, my interest gradually shifted to the study of the South China Sea (SCS). I was emboldened when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in fall 1988 nominated me to testify at the Malaysian court on one case related to fishing boats which were caught by the Malaysian navy in August 1988. [As a result of this court case, the Overseas Fisheries Development Council of the ROC (OFDCROC) was created in November 1989. I also testified at two other court cases involving fishing boats from the ROC in the Federation of Malaysia vii

viii

Preface

(FOM).] Based on my experience and the knowledge I acquired, the study covering, for example, legal matters was approved by various committees at the National Sun Yat-sen University and the Ministry of Education (MOE) in the ROC. One academic in the West cited my work which was published by Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs (USA) in 1993, if I recall correctly, more than ten times in his book on the SCS. I felt a strong sense of achievement. In October 2011, I drafted the following paper. The chinese u-shaped line: Dialectially presented, applying my one-dot theory. At the age of 35, I finally understood the major distinction between a model and theory. In September 2004, I became confident on qualitative research methods. In that month, I built my first model. It was from that time that I began to write faster. Before that, I struggled to organize my thoughts logically, systematically, and coherently. Often, I did not know how to dissolve contradictions. (To this day, many, if not most, administrators cannot dissolve the contradiction between “yes” and “no” when they are talking about the same issue.) Needless to say, it took me some 15 years to build the crab and frog motion model. In July 2011, I finally grasped the complete picture of the relationship between BaGua or BaGuaTu (a set of eight ancient China symbolic notations/gossip) (BG) and the four smaller diagrams as applied in this book. Earlier in October 2007, I dared to put forward the one-dot theory, which is, ironically as I later realized, but a version of Yin and Yang diagram or a tiny part of the grand diagram as shown in this study. In February 2010, at an international conference held in Chennai City, Republic of India (ROI), I, as an invited speaker, pointed out that the best seller, Blue Ocean Strategy, very much resembles the Yin and Yang diagram at the macro level. I am the first one in the world to point this out. I am proud to reiterate the following statement, after applying the one-dot theory which is accompanied by the crab and frog motion model and testing some 100 different, big and small case studies: A dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-“dialectical”/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet halfway. In December 2010, I began to use the one-dot theory and the model to make a critique of the grounded theory, subscribers of which have chosen the applied way (as opposed to the classical way). In November 2009, at a research method workshop did I hear about this theory. To be sure, students of international relations would not or they are not able to apply this theory. In April 2010, I came to know about the applied way in conducting research and writing on business and management. At the National Sun Yat-sen University, I also began to study the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), at the invitation of Professor Richard H. Yang. The project was financed by the Ministry of National Defense (MOND) of the ROC. I think I have made some contributions. It is worthwhile noting that my 1996 edited book The Chinese PLA’s Perception of an Invasion of Taiwan was cited twice in Modernizing China’s Military (2003) and in a well-known international weekly. And the first part of my January 2005 book should be very close to the words and deeds of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s armed forces. In other words, I think I have decoded the complex and complicated as well as dialectical relationship between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese PLA.

Preface

ix

In each topic, I tried to write something that nobody has done before. On September 1, 2011, I have tentatively defined the word dot as a simplified or compressed being or entity, in which its origin is traceable or can be the being. Thus, I have also studied topics related to LiangAnZhongGuo/Bicoastal China. I think I have decoded the Chinese Communist dialectical strategy toward the Taiwan area since late 1949. If you are interested in seeing the chart, please refer to my 2005 book, the summer 2008 article published in Asian Affairs (USA), or the Appendix I in this book. In this chart, one can clearly see why the national title for both sides of the Taiwan Strait since September 1997 or the CPC’s 15th party congress should ironically be the ROC, which is created by Dr. SUN Yat-sen, not the PRC. Beijing leaders on purpose are dialectically silent on this issue. Alternatively, they would add quotation marks on the proper noun ROC to read “ROC.” It wants Taipei to accept the proper noun, China, at the international level. In November 2010, my paper, Conceptualizing Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. as One Dot: Contrasting and Testing Three One-dot Theories, was presented at a Harvard University conference. It seems that one-dot theory has become more important than ever. Before the May Expo 2010 Shanghai China, Beijing in May 2009 publicized the following statement regarding the Taiwan Pavilion site, which is an extension of the “One China, Respective Interpretation”: “The location of the Taiwan Pavilion is a dot in Zone A, which hosts the China Pavilion and national pavilions for Asian countries except Southeast Asian ones. The China Pavilion is also a dot in Zone A.” Deciphered, China is a dot in itself. However, in the context of the zone, it is a partial dot. The same thing can be said of the Taiwan Pavilion. It is a dot but a partial dot in the context of China. In October 2011, I came across the following terms, namely, “dotting the dot in PIP” and “zone of coalescing dots”. At the suggestion of my mentor and friend, James C. Hsiung, at New York University (NYU), I embarked on the study of international regimes in March 1999. It took me almost 10 years to understand the very abstract term 99%. I dare not to say 100% because there could be something that I still ignored or neglected to understand. For the first time, I defined the term international regimes in the following words: A set (or sets) of at least 15 criteria/core elements/features (including those four as mentioned by Steven D. Krasner) in the contexts of (fragmented) issue-area, (fragmented) issue-areas, and issue-regimes. On this definition, one well-known scholar, Yale H. Ferguson, in August 2009 said: “Best wishes with this!” I am grateful to his encouragement. In February 2011, I emailed Hsiung, thanking him for urging me to study international regimes. It so happened that I also translated the term from English into Chinese: [國際(泛)領域暨議題 + 至少15個核心元素]. Translation is supposed to be short and ChuanShen/vivid. The problem with this one is that it is simply too long. This is certainly a minus. However, it is very close to what academics in the West have in mind when they mention the term. When I was teaching at Swinburne University of Technology (Australia, Sarawak Campus) at the managerial level from June 2009 to June 2011, I coined a new term, international (corporate) governance, which was integrated from the following terms: international governance, international corporate governance, and corporate governance. In April 2011, the book was published. I also applied the international

x

Preface

regimes theory to study various topics, which were never written by others before: Marketing X as a University of Governance; Can We Apply the International (Corporate) Governance Theory to Study the Coca-Cola Company?; Redefining Global Business as International Regimes-related Trade and Commerce: Navigating Through an Ocean Without Confusion by Applying the One-dot Theory; Redefining Company as an International Regimes and/or Non-International Regimes-related Artificial Person: A One-dot Theory Interpretation; Making Sense of the Regimes Dimension of Investment: A One-dot Theory Interpretation; Having the Same Themed Business in the Same Street: Can the One-dot Theory be Applied?; and The Regimes and Non-Regimes Dimensions of Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Many academics did not realize that when we study international/global governance or international (corporate) governance, we have to understand international regimes, which are the indispensable and best governance tool. Otherwise, we will not have a fuller or complete picture. At this juncture, I must ask myself one tough question: Do I know enough about social science? The answer is obviously not. I still have to learn about quantitative method. This definitely will only happen in my next life, if there is reincarnation, because I can retire or slow down my research and writing. There is another issue that bothers me, if not others as well, that is, how many academics in the world put scholarship in the first place? To me, the criteria for scholarship in the order of importance are logic, contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc. I thought our role as academics is to write critically and offer our advice, so as to improve upon our world. Yet, many academics have violated this basic and sacred principle. Sad to say, many decisions are made by a few (non-“experts”), and many academics bring petty politics to office or meeting, pulling each others’ legs. After being in the trade for almost 30 years, I am quite disappointed. Last but not least, I would like to thank the New York–based Nova Business and Management Publications for reprinting Chapter 3, Management Diagrams, of my 2011 edited book, International (Corporate) Governance, in this book. In the last few years, Taipei-based book companies like Win Join Book Company, Ltd. and Ta Tong Book Company have partially supported my One-dot Theory Center, which was first created in April 2007. I am grateful to them. National Quemoy University, Jinmen County, Taiwan, Republic of China

Peter Kien-hong YU/俞劍鴻, early 2012

Contents

1

Introduction ..............................................................................................

1

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales? .................................. Religion (Divinity) as One Dot .................................................................. Philosophy (Dialectical and Non-“dialectical”) as One Dot...................... Science (Natural and Social) as One Dot ................................................... Paradigms as One Dot ................................................................................ Schools of Thought as One Dot ................................................................. Theories as One Dot................................................................................... Concepts as One Dot..................................................................................

9 10 19 20 21 23 25 25

3

Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories and Models or Studies as One Dot.......................................... First Case Study as One Dot: Conceptualizing Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Etc., as One Dot: Contrasting and Testing Three One-Dot Theories ............................................................................ Elaborating on the Three One-Dot Theories on China .............................. A Critique................................................................................................... Concluding Remarks.................................................................................. Second Case Study as One Dot: Management Diagrams: Consistently Converting Them in Terms of a Series of Yin and Yang Diagrams .................................................................................... Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams ................................ I. ............................................................................................................. II. ............................................................................................................ III............................................................................................................ IV. ........................................................................................................... V. ............................................................................................................ VI. ..........................................................................................................

27

29 30 36 40

40 41 45 45 46 47 48 49

xi

xii

Contents

VII. ......................................................................................................... VIII......................................................................................................... IX. .......................................................................................................... X............................................................................................................. Findings...................................................................................................... Concluding Remarks.................................................................................. Third Case Study as One Dot: Converting the Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives ................................... Findings...................................................................................................... Concluding Remarks.................................................................................. Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot ............................................................................. Findings...................................................................................................... Concluding Remarks.................................................................................. Fifth Case Study as One Dot: Converting and Reinventing Some Good Theories and Models in the West and the East ...................... Findings...................................................................................................... Concluding Remarks..................................................................................

50 51 52 53 53 57

4

Findings from Each Chapter .................................................................. From the First Chapter or Introduction ...................................................... From the Second Chapter........................................................................... From the Third Chapter .............................................................................

91 91 97 100

5

Conclusion ................................................................................................

107

Appendix I...........................................................................................................

111

Appendix II .....................................................................................................

113

58 64 67 68 78 80 81 87 88

Appendix I

The Beijing versus Taipei chart, updated and without virtuous rule/DeZhi which should be put further on the left extreme since September 1997

Rule of Law Politics/ Government by Law

1

Rule by Law Politics/ Legal System

2

3

Rule of Dialectical Politics

4

5

Men Politics

A

B

C

D

E C O M

October 1949

S O C

M E

C A P

12345ABCD E

P R C

R Three links and four exchanges

O C

12345ABCD E One Country, One System One Country, Multi-Systems One Country, Two Systems One Country, Three Systems 12345ABCDE

Time/ space sequence (n)

One-party

Multi-party

dictatorship

system 12345ABCD E

The gun

The Party commands the gun

commands 12345ABCD E

the Party

COM = Communism; SOC = Socialism; M.E. = Market Economy, Socialist Style; CAP = Capitalism

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

111

Appendix II

Methodology, dated Spring 2008 and updated in July 2010 • • • • • • • •

Religion (Divinity) Philosophy (dialectical and non-dialectical) Science (natural and social) Paradigms Schools of Thought Theories Models/patterns/modes Concepts (for description, explanation, and inference)

Can you simplify or compress complex and complicated reality, which is contradictory? Can you simplify or compress Yes and No? Scholarship (xueshu)= logic + contribution + consistency + preciseness + closeness to reality, etc. A dialectical/Crab and Frog Motion remark is just the opposite of a non-dialectical/ Crab and Frog Motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet half-way.

113

114

Appendix II

.

Ontology and Epistemology

dialectical .

Approaches Non-dialectical

normative Inductive (from specific to general ) dialectical

+ empirical

qualitative + quantitative

normative

qualitative + quantitative

+ Deductive (from general to specific)

qualitative + quantitative

+ empirical

. Methods

qualitative + quantitative qualitative

normative Inductive empirical

quantitative qualitative quantitative

Non-dialectical normative Deductive empirical

qualitative quantitative qualitative quantitative

Chapter 1

Introduction

For the sake of reminding us researchers to be humble and modest at all times, the study of one-dot theory should begin with a discussion of Monkey, which is one of the four great Buddhist-/Daoist-inspired Chinese folk novels, published in the 1590s.1 As I recall, before the age of 12, I must have read it several dozen times, thoroughly enjoying it each time, and mesmerized by each character, good and bad, in each episode. One of the main characters in the publication is the Monkey, who was nourished by the five elements. He thinks that being a master of 72 methods of polymorphic transformations, such as the method of conducting a “cloud somersault,” thereby enabling him to travel vast distances in a single leap, he can do anything, only to acknowledge his limitations, especially after losing his primary weapon, JinGangBang/will-following golden-banded staff,2 and, in turn, to belittle himself without any choice at the end. My experience in the world of generating theories and models throughout my career is similar to the Monkey’s. Translated from Mandarin Chinese to English, there is one vivid phrase— TuoTaoBuChuRuLaiFoDeShouZhang—or should I say lesson in the novel, which is hard to forget: No matter what the Monkey does or what you do, both the former and the latter, trapped, can never be able to escape from the palm of the Buddha. The Buddha can be infinitely big and small, depending on the time/space sequence or the specific situation. In September 1994, I dared to construct my crab and frog motion model, after some 15 years of rationalizing its logic(s) (as opposed to logic), starting from the application in my non-“dialectical” doctoral dissertation of a board game, namely, Chinese Checkers/TiaoQi, to study the interactions between Beijing, Washington, and Moscow from a Chinese perspective, which can be dialectically interpreted.

1 Another popular translation is Journey to the West. It differs from Stephen King’s November 1980 horror short story, The Monkey. 2 In July 2011, LI Ao said his situation is like the Monkey, and therefore, he has to be humble. See http://www.chinareviewnews.com, dated 2011-07-23 20:29:36, accessed on July 24, 2011.

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2_1, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

1

2

1

Introduction

Fig. 1.1 The five interrelated diagrams

At that time, I thought I have made significant contribution to the study of theories and models because nobody has done that before. Not so. After years of testing by applying my model over some 100 different case studies, big and small, and realizing that the model must be associated with four other related diagrams in order to have a fuller or complete picture, it turns out that what I have done over the last few decades were merely within the Buddha’s palm. That is to say, I am a second trapped Monkey, so to speak. What I am trying to remind readers here is that we the academics should be humble or modest, even if your theory and model received a Nobel Memorial Prize or were being applied by a number of other academics and experts. This is because your theory and model or studies can be easily converted and reinvented by the five interrelated diagrams that you will see in Chapter 3. In July 2011, with the help of a graphic/communication designer who happens to be my daughter, Jessica Meiling YU, the following grand diagram was finally, professionally conceived, created, and drawn. It is an original piece of work (Fig. 1.1). There are five diagrams. The largest one is what I called the grand diagram, which is “surrounded” by four other smaller diagrams. Most people in the West have not seen the grand one or being aware of it. It is a composite of four other basic, smaller ones.

1

Introduction

3

By just looking at the grand diagram, one can be easily lost and may not be able to comprehend what it is all about. If we break down the grand one into four other smaller ones, one can grasp everything much faster, especially their interrelationship, and they can enable us to apply them at each time/space sequence to describe, explain, and infer social science or even natural science phenomena. As a reminder, the biggest framework is shown in Appendix I, and I have applied the following specially arranged terms, which should be understood in terms of a scale, to study the dialectical games between Beijing and Taipei, especially after December 1949, when contemporary China became politically divided: Rule of Law Politics/Government by Law/YiFaZhiGuo; Rule by Law Politics/Legal System/FaLuZhiDu or FaZhi for short; Dialectical Politics; and Rule of Men Politics/RenZhi. Many dialectical games are being played by the Chinese Communists under dialectical politics, and I will elaborate on them later on in the section related to my crab and frog motion model. To the Chinese Communists, sometimes they use the adjective scientific to mean dialectical because, in the contemporary world, more people prefer to use the term science, implying that something could still go wrong, even after making calculated moves. The grand diagram, in the shape of a square in the middle, is certainly a dot, the largest one among the five dots. Each one of the four dots is but a partial dot of or its equivalent to the grand one. Thus, the smaller circle diagram on the upper left depicted is equivalent to the grand one. (The grand one’s shape comes in terms of a square so as to show that it is different from the Yin and Yang diagram/symbol circle, which is on the upper right.) A circle means infinity and a dot, something solid, according to the master of one of my graduate students, who looks at the world in terms of a dot. If the grand diagram in the middle is regarded as having the highest level (or scale in terms of my crab and frog motion model) of importance at a specific time/space sequence, the circle diagram on the upper left is at the second level (or scale in my model). The same thing speaks for the Yin and Yang diagram on the upper right, which is but a part of the circle and, therefore, placed at the third level (or scale in my model). By the same token, the ZHU Huici/Judith JOO diagram on the lower right is also a version of the Yin and Yang diagram. In passing, it should be noted that ZHU is a living Buddha,3 whom I met in April 2008. Last but not least, my crab and frog motion diagram in the lower left is but a version of the ZHU diagram. My model is most concrete, whereas the circle diagram, with nothing inside, in the upper left is most abstract. It should be noted that before constructing my crab and frog motion model, I have seen the grand diagram and the Yin and Yang diagram, when I was small. However, at that time, I was not able to relate the two. I did not even realize that the Yin and Yang diagram is part of the grand diagram. As such, I did not bother to apply the grand one until I began to write the draft of this book in July 2011.

3 There are more than 300 living Buddhas in Xizang/Tibet. See See Hua Daily News (hereinafter SHDN), May 28, 2011, p. 15.

4

1

Introduction

Let me begin with the pure circle on the upper left with nothing inside. This circle can also come in the shape of a square, as shown in the grand diagram. There is not much difference between the two types of diagrams, one in circle and the other in square. Each one is but a dot, when looking at it, respectively, especially from a distance. This circle (or square) serves a function; that is to say, it represents the beginning of something, be it religious, semireligious, or non-“religious.” Without this circle, square, or dot, we cannot proceed to apply the Yin and Yang diagram. We need to have a more complete or whole picture at the outset. In passing, it should be noted that in terms of my crab and frog motion model, the adjective religious could be put at 1; semireligious, 3; and non-“religious,” 5. It is also possible to make the following arrangement: religious at 1; semireligious, 5; and non-“religious,” E. The Yin and Yang diagram, which constitutes another dot, sets in, when the circle diagram can no longer enable us to describe, explain, and infer that something, because something else has appeared, from the concept level (or scale in terms of my model) at the bottom to the religion level (or scale in my model), which is the highest, as we shall see in the next chapter. Here, we are talking about at least two things. Yin represents the circle, while Yang refers to non-“circle.” Just as the circle represents something, non-“circle” represents things that are not circle, which could be God, chemical, air, stone, human beings, etc. God is not a circle. If it is, we do not need to coin the new word God. The same logic(s) apply to other words. A word must be added, regarding the small dot in Yin and the small dot in Yang. Yin and Yang are related to each other, but it is the opposite of each other. If the former presents old, the small dot in Yin must be new. If the latter presents new, the small dot in Yang must be old. The purpose of having a small dot is to make sure that the relationship remains dialectical. We can move from Yin to Yang and vice versa. Some people adopt a linear thinking, that is, a rose is a rose is a rose. Those people also emphasize cause and effect. That is to say, if you have this, then you will have that. You can trace back everything in this way. Cause and effect is another form of linear thinking. In other words, those people will not be convinced if you cannot demonstrate the cause, which is the beginning of something. However, the same people would sometimes say both old and new or new and old. If so, they are actually talking about a mixture or hybrid of both old and new or new and old. The curvy line or S-line in the Yin and Yang diagram actually reflects that phenomenon. In the Yin and Yang parlance, it is what we called the middle way/golden mean/road/ path/line/track, which is a mixture of both extremes, one being old and the other being new. Here, a caveat must be added. That is to say, those people with linear thinking are relying on what I called inner dialectics. By doing so, they are no longer adopting a 100% linear thinking. Some of them have failed to notice or even acknowledge that. They had, in effect, surrendered to partial dialectics. This is the crux of the linear thinking problem because old is old is old, and it cannot be old is old, and suddenly, it became both old and new or even new. By the same token, new is new is new, and it cannot be new is new, and suddenly, it became both new and old or even old. In short, whereas the Yin and Yang diagram can help us to rationalize

1

Introduction

5

everything, the non-“Yin and Yang” thinking, such as the linear thinking, can easily get stuck, unable to move forward. The logic (as opposed to logics) simply cannot flow, non-“dialectically” speaking. The ZHU diagram, which looks like a toy racing car track or 8 lying down, actually is a version of the Yin and Yang diagram and constitutes another dot. In the Daoist parlance, it is called WuJiZhenYuan/Limitless Really/True Yuan.4 If you hold on to the third one with both hands and twist it, you will have a bow-tie shape, which looks like the fourth one and which has two emphases. First, the size of the diagram can be reduced, enlarged, or remain the same. This allows flexibility. Second, there is a dot in the diagram, representing the ZhongYongZiDao/middle way or the curvy line. Again, the middle way is a new option for those who are caught in a dilemma under a certain circumstance or situation. In other words, he or she would not choose one extreme or the other extreme, but by staying in the middle or 5 in the safe zone or A in the danger zone of my model. If one looks at both 5 and A in-depth, it is still possible to have a middle way. The fifth one, again another dot, is a version of the fourth one. If you flip the fourth ZHU diagram by looking at its cross-section, you see a line, as opposed to an imaginary line. A (imaginary) line is still a dot, when we look at it at least from a distance. However, this crab and frog motion model can be elaborated, as follows, and it is related to BaGua or BaGuaTu (a set of eight ancient China symbolic notations/gossip). The model in the fifth diagram could be two half dots (1 2 3 4 5 as the first half dot and A B C D E as the second half dot) or simply one dot if we look at its entirety5: 1 means 100% of a concept or whatever. 3 means 50% of a concept or whatever. 5 means 1% of a concept or whatever. E means 100% of a concept or whatever. C means 50% of the concept or whatever. A means 1% of the concept or whatever. The 1 2 3 4 5 spectrum is equivalent to what the author calls the safe zone, and the A B C D E spectrum, the danger zone. To repeat, 5 is the middle way in the safe zone, and A, the middle way in the danger zone. When one makes a move at any time/space sequence, he or she is thinking of only one most important Number or Letter, and therefore, there will be no contradiction whatsoever. In the course of making moves, the dialectician is performing a crab or sideways motion. For example, he or she began at 5. In the next time/space sequence,

4 http://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/dictionary?p=%E7%84%A1%E6%A5%B5%E7%9C%9F% E5%85%83, accessed on July 19, 2011. 5 Zheng, fan, shun,ni, zhen, and wei. There are many dots in the world. For example, each of a polka dot means “each of a number of round dots evenly spaced to form a pattern on fabric.” See Oxford Student’s Dictionary, p. 792.

6

1

Introduction

he or she may go to A. At the third time/space sequence, the same dialectician may move back to the safe zone and stay at 1. In this connection, the phenomena of the negation of negation, the affirmation of negation, the affirmation of affirmation, and the negation of affirmation will appear before time/space sequence (n) is reached. This process is known as the subdialectical game. It should be pointed out that there are three basic stages [or (nodal) points] of development: nascent, ascendant, and mature for the Numbers and mature, descendant, and moribund for the Letters. In other words, 5 is nascent; 3, ascendant; and 1, mature. On the other hand, E is mature; C, descendant; and A, moribund. Last but not least, a series of other, relevant dialectical, theoretical models must be applied, in order to amply describe, explain, and infer (or predict) more phenomena. When a dialectician no longer applies the first crab and frog motion model constructed by him or her, he or she is said to have leaped or jumped from the first crab and frog motion model to second or another crab and frog motion model. At this juncture, a caveat should be added, that is, whenever we use the word versus, it means that dialectics is involved and that the concept or whatever on the left extreme, say Yes or 1, will eventually defeat, co-opt, absorb, etc., the concept or whatever on the right extreme, say No or E, at time/space sequence (n). However, in the process, the following arrangement may be necessary, such as flexibly positioning Yes at 1 and No at 5. In other words, a contradictory or even adversary relationship between Yes and No at the beginning has been transformed into a non-“contradictory,” non-“adversarial” relationship later on, meaning that whoever chose Yes or whoever opted No should learn to tolerate the existence of each other because they are both in the safe zone spectrum. Several models or a series of them may be necessary for the sake of description, explanation, and inference. When we see more than one model at work, it means that one model may be again at odds with another existing model. The struggle between them will eventually end up with a synthesis. In sum, a crab and frog motion player performs two roles when playing games, that of a crab by moving sideways6 and a frog by leaping or jumping from one model to another model as he or she sees fit. Such is the magic beauty of dialectics. Where do I put the following terms in the crab and frog motion model: Rule of Law Politics/Government by Law; Rule by Law Politics/Legal System; Dialectical Politics; and Rule of Men Politics? This is what I would do (see Appendix I): Rule of Law Politics/Government by Law at 1; Rule by Law Politics/Legal System placed at 3; Dialectical Politics positioned at 5; and Rule of Men Politics at E. That is to say, Rule of Law Politics is at one extreme and Rule of Men Politics at the other extreme, while Dialectical Politics is the middle way. Depending on the context, Rule by Law Politics can also be the middle way of 1. 6 Crabs can also have XiaoShuiBu (quick short steps). In other words, they can move straightforward. See United Daily News (UDN) (Taipei), February 12, 2007, p. A10. In Yilang County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China (ROC), there is a crab museum. Not all crabs can be eaten, because some of them are poisonous. Poison could be dangerous. See Formosa Television (Taiwan, ROC), dated February 7, 2008.

1

Introduction

7

As another example, we can convert the following linear thinking sentence to be dialectical—A rose is a rose is a rose: A versus non-“A”; rose versus non-“rose”; is versus non-“is”; A rose versus non-“A rose”; A rose is versus non-“A rose is”; A rose is a versus non-“A rose is a”; etc. To sum up, from the grand diagram to the crab and frog motion model, each one is a dot. This means that, when we conduct research and writing, a series of interrelated models are needed at each time/space sequence. Often we have to jump or leap from one model to another one. Otherwise, we cannot maintain our logic(s) flow.

Chapter 2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

The answer to this question has to be positive. If it is negative, my one-dot theory, which is accompanied by the crab and frog motion model, cannot be said as being rigorous. It cannot withstand tests one after another at each scale, and it cannot be a “law,” let alone a (timeless) law as in natural science. However, my theory is very close to be a law as in natural science, because so long as there is one person in the world, who is applying or at least understand the one-dot theory, the unfalsifiable theory is a law, because it can help us to directly or indirectly rationalize everything at all the scales. Needless to say, the one-dot theory can be falsified, when human beings perished, as the book, The World Without Us, suggests.1 There are at least eight levels (or scales in my crab and frog motion model) for us to understand the world, broadly defined. They are in the order of importance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Religion (divinity) Philosophy (dialectical and non-“dialectical”) Science (natural and social) Paradigms Schools of thought Theories Models/patterns/modes Concepts (for description, explanation, and inference)

Applying my model by first expanding the spectrum from having five numbers to eight numbers, religion (divinity) would be at 1, philosophy (dialectical and non“dialectical”) at 2, and so on and so forth. In other words, religion (divinity) carries the most weight in the scale (as opposed to, before the conversion, level) and concepts (for description, explanation, and inference), the least weight in the same spectrum. In other words, we can visualize religion (divinity) as having the biggest dot, whereas concepts, the smallest dot.

1

Alan Weisman, The World Without Us (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007).

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2_2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

9

10

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

As social scientists, we have to face reality, and our task is to verbally and in writing describe, explain, and infer (if not predict) our world’s past, present, and future. Historians are not really social scientists, because they only need to dig the past. To social scientists, describing, explaining, and inferring the future are daunting tasks. We would rely on the scales from 3 to 8 in my model. If that cannot help ourselves, we would go to the second scale. Thus, we have social scientists of almost all disciplines teaching a course or writing about it, the philosophy of science. However, as human beings, many, if not most, of us have religion. For example, many business people go to church, temple, or mosque to pray. Some of them would credit God, Buddha, or Allah for being able to make money or avoid (bigger) loss. As such, we, the social scientists, may also have to sometimes rely on religion or be at the religious scale to describe, explain, and infer certain phenomena. In this chapter, I will discuss each scale. My purpose is to treat each scale as a dot by citing some examples related to this dot. If it is possible, it will have to mean that my one-dot theory can be applied at that particular scale. I will expand the seventh scale as a chapter. Therefore, I will not write something by conceptualizing it as one dot in this chapter.

Religion (Divinity) as One Dot For the sake of simplicity, I will only discuss God, Buddha, and Allah here. Catholics and Christians worship God. The latter focus on Jesus Christ, while the former, on the Holy Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims have faith on Allah. Allah can be translated as God. However, some Muslims, especially in Peninsula Malaysia (or Malaya before independence after World War II), have reservations. Their reasoning is as follows: “This is because ‘God’ in other religions is translated as ‘Tuhan’2 in Bahasa Malaysia or Arabic, not ‘Allah.’ ‘Allah’ specifically refers to God in Islam. If they understand that, they would use the word ‘Tuhan’ instead.” Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa (in Mandarin Chinese, QuanNengDeShangDi) could also be used.3 Allah is supposed to be apolitical. Yet, Allah became a hot, political issue, because, in December 2007, the Malaysian government banned the Christian weekly magazine, Herald, to use the word Allah in Semenanjung (Peninsular Malaysia).4 In February 2009, the magazine legally challenged that ban. In December 2010, a Malaysian judge, Datuk LAU Bee Lan, ruled that it is all right for Herald to constitutionally use the term Allah in its publications.

2

In Mandarin Chinese, it is translated as ShangCang. See Hua Daily News (hereinafter SHDN) (Sarawak, Malaysia), January 12, 2010, p. 3. 4 Malaysia has also banned books that mentioned words like Baitullah (an Arabic phrase meaning House of God), Solat (prayer), and Kaaba (a cube-shaped building in Mecca, Saudi Arabia) and books that were not allowed to be imported to the country. See SHDN, March 6, 2010, p. 1. 3

Religion (Divinity) as One Dot

11

Some believers of Islam in Malaysia are worried that, if Allah can be translated as God, some Muslims could be converted into Catholics or Christians. Ten percent has been mentioned.5 Some religious fundamentals would also point out that Allah does not have a son. As such, Jesus Christ is merely a human being, not God. So, Allah is not equivalent to the supernatural force as understood by, for example, the Christians. Other Muslims perceive that one day, the word Allah may appear on a cross, if Catholics and Christians are allowed to use the term Allah.6 Buddha also differs from God or Allah. Usually, people in the East believe in Buddhism. Karma and reincarnation are popular beliefs associated with this religion. A devoted Christian told me that Buddha is merely a philosopher, not a supernatural force. Yet, sometimes, the Christian would utter Buddhist terms, such as SanShengYouXin, to be the most supreme stroke of luck7 in the past, present, and future. Four issues stand out. First, is God a dot? By the same token, is Buddha a dot or a second dot? And, is Allah a dot or a first, second, or even third dot? Second, can a person both believe in God and Buddha, only to switch to worshipping Allah? Third, which came first, God, Buddha, or Allah? I will discuss each issue in turn. Fourth, do we have only one life or do we have to live several lives? There is no question that Buddha can be regarded as a dot. This is because worshippers enshrine and consecrate Buddha in the form of a statue. A living Buddha whom I spoke to in April 2008 agrees. A former colleague of mine was very happy, when I said a Buddha is a dot. A statue is a dot, for sure. If one argues that a statue looks more like a line, therefore, how can we say that a line is a dot? This is a non“issue” because, first, if we look at a line from a distance, it is a dot and, second, we can also look from the angle of the top of the Buddha head, and there is no question that it is a dot when we look at it from a close range or from a distance. Now comes the tough part. Is God a dot, and for that matter, is Allah a dot? There are religious fundamentalists in the world. Would they find my question strident? In December 2004, I informally proposed the one-dot theory. In April 2007, I set up the One-dot Theory Center. In early October 2007, I dared to formally associate one dot with that of God and presented it to my undergraduate students and graduate students in the same month. In late October 2008, I keyed in “one dot” and “God” in the Google system. There, I found Theresa J. Thurmond Morris’ writing, Dot Theory of Everything, dated July 27, 2008, mentioning “[i]n the beginning there was a dot, God, the word,” though with no elaboration, methodology, etc., I e-mailed her, but there was not reply. Some of my students can also accept my suggestion to begin a paradigm shift in our mind, that is, to conceptualize God as a dot. Later, two non-“Chinese” pastors and one Chinese reverend read my short piece, which is entitled Is the God Particle Part of a Larger, Fuller Dot, God? Let me first

5

SHDN, January 12, 2010, p. 3. GuoJiShiBao (hereinafter GJSB) (Sarawak, Malaysia), January 14, 2010, p. B3. 7 http://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/dictionary?p=%E4%B8%89%E7%94%9F%E6%9C%89%E5% B9%B8, accessed on July 25, 2011. 6

12

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

share with you what I wrote, my attempt of which was trying to conceptualize all the tangible and intangible things in terms of a common denominator, dot, and to pose the ultimate question—is God a (partial) dot?8 The word dot can be traced to Middle English and dated back to 1674.9 About 3,100 years ago, the Yin and Yang plus the five elements began to influence the Chinese mind and thinking. Come to think of it, they are collectively or individually but one dot. Perhaps the term, “zone of coalescing dots,” can be used here. One Monday before July 1964, Peter W. Higgs declared to his colleagues that he had just experienced his one big idea, that is, how matter in the universe got its mass.10 In October 1964, his milestone article, “Broken Symmetries, Massless Particles and Gauge Fields,” was published. He was talking about an extra dimension or an illusive massive scalar elementary particle later predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. In December 2011, the excited scientists finally spotted the Higgs Boson particle. For decades, scientists yearn for an experimental observation of the Higgs boson or what is commonly called the God particle, which would help us to describe and explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass.11 On September 10, 2008, (to some, mad) scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was created in September 1954, have successfully switched on the historic biggest physics device, the Large Hadron12 Collider (LHC),13 to search for the God particle, which was coined by Leon M. Lederman in early 1993. In layman’s terms, the LHC is an enormous refrigerator, because the steering magnets in it can be chilled to as low as −271°C (or −456.25°F), which is close to absolute zero and colder than the deep outer space.14 If the particle can be found, they can, as a next step, gradually unlock the secrets and mysteries of our universe, which is made up of more than 96% of the invisible extra dimensions, namely, the Higgs boson, “dark matter,” and “dark energy.”15 In the words of National Geographic, the simple and ambitious purpose is to get to the very bottom

8

See my book, God is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift (Boca Raton, Florida: UniversalPublishers, 2010), pp. 185–192. The article has been slightly expanded and revised on July 22, 2011. 9 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dot. This implies that I am the first one in the world to conceptualize God in terms of a dot. 10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/poo4y2b7 and http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/peter-higgs/history. shtml, accessed on July 27, 2011. 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson. 12 Protons and neutrons. 13 A black hole could develop as the outcome of this test. On September 19, 2008, the world’s largest collider, due to an electrical fault or quench which is related to a helium leak, was forced to stop. It will take several months to repair. See China Post (hereinafter CP) (Taipei), September 28, 2008, p. 5. The first problem occurred 36 h after the September 10, 2008 launching. See Taipei Times (hereinafter TT) (Taipei), September 21, 2008, p. 6. In December 2008, we learned that the repair can be done in late June 2009. 14 CP, September 20, 2008, p. 8. 15 Ibid., September 9, 2008, p. 1.

Religion (Divinity) as One Dot

13

of things or as what George F. Smoot, a 2006 Nobel laureate physicist, perceived: “… every day I go to work I’m making a bet that the universe is simple, symmetric, and aesthetically pleasing – a universe that we humans, with our limited perspective, will someday understand.”16 If we want to get to the bottom of all things, to simplify or compress all phenomena, or to find out what should be the common denominator for all those tangible or intangible things or phenomena, we just have to call the God particle a dot.17 At this juncture, this author argues that 99.99% of tangible or intangible things and phenomena can be easily conceptualized as a dot. If there are no other things and phenomena, which are smaller than an archaeon, archaeon is the smallest dot in the world. Individual archaea range from 0.1 mm to over 15 mm in diameter, and some form aggregates or filaments up to 200 mm in length. In other words, four million of archaea equal to a period, a full stop, or a dot at the end of a sentence. The human being is a dot.18 Looking at a person from the angle of the head or a foot or both feet, he or she is a dot. One may ask what about if a person is standing or crawling? He or she is still a dot, just as an online dictionary mentioned the following sentence under the entry of dot: “She watched the train [or the Great Wall of China from outer space] until it was only a dot in the distance (emphasis in original).” Our earth is a dot. Before human beings realize that our earth is round, a flat earth is still a dot. It has the same logic as the logic of looking at a train from a distance. In July 1965, after an 8-month voyage, Mariner 4 flew past Mars, collecting for the first time close-up photographs of the red planet. In November 2008, first fuzzy photographs of four gaseous planets outside of our solar system or exoplanets were published in online edition of Science. None of the planets are remotely habitable or remotely like Earth. One Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) astronomer said it is only a matter of time before “we get a dot that’s blue and Earth-like [italics mine].”19

16

Joel Achenbach, “At the Heart of All Matter: The Hunt for the God Particle,” National Geographic. See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text. 17 There are many synonyms, shapes which look like a dot, etc., for the word dot in alphabetical order: ball, (black) hole; (concentric) circle; cradle; decimal, epicenter; mark; period; (a centered) point; polka dot; ring; roll; round base, sentences like “she watched the train until it was a dot in the distance” or “the lake was dotted with boats or boats dotting the lake,” the whole picture, each one of the latter could also be another dot; speck; sphere; spot; Venn diagram, and so on and so forth. The shape of the superior, original dot in our study could also be spherical, rod shape, spiral, circular, lobed, rectangular, or both flat and square. 18 In the January 2011 issue of Meteoritics and Planetary Science, we were told that “[a] wide range of asteroids were capable of creating the kind of amino acids used by life on Earth,” according to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s research. In June 2008, we learned for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment in Australia are truly extraterrestrial. See CP, June 15, 2008, p. 5. 19 CP, November 15, 2008, p. 8. In the past 13 years, scientists have discovered more than 300 exoplanets.

14

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

Our universe is also a dot. Anthony Garrett Lisi, who is an American theoretical physicist, in November 2007, said: “I think our universe is this beautiful shape.” The diagram he drew shapes like our earth. To be sure, my one-dot theory was generated before his. In November 2009, Axel Mellinger of Central Michigan University (CMU) showed us a panorama of our Milky Way, which comes in an oval-shape. Our solar system, according to National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) is egg-shaped, another dot. The Bible said it was God (or Allah) who spoke, and our universe [as opposed to multiple universes (multiverse)]20 was created. In the universe, we see stars, gas, and dust, and each one of them is a dot. One galaxy may collide with another galaxy, including ours, the Milky Way, and it could result a merge or break up into numerous new (partial) dots. In the August 2011 issue of scientific journal, Nature, a new theory was advanced, saying, more than four billion years ago, our young earth had a big moon and a smaller or companion moon, and the latter very slowly merged with the former, creating the new one that lights up our night sky.21 The ultimate question is: Surrounded by an infinite number of dots, good or bad, is God also a (partial) dot? The term partial dot refers to, for example, a human being as a dot that is still part of God. The same logic(s) apply to archaeon, the Earth, our universe, etc. But, can God be a partial dot? This possibility cannot be ruled out. This is because, if God is everywhere, He can be in a bottle. In other words, a bottled God is a partial dot, logically speaking. God has most often been conceived of as the creator and overseer of our universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence (perfect goodness).22 Is this not like what Smoot said—aesthetically pleasing? To be sure, many, if not most, Catholics, Christians, and Muslims were taught that God comes in the form of a spirit. Therefore, it is not a dot. Many of them questioned or even feel offended23: How could there be a boundary? If God is not a dot, how come there are seven different world views regarding it? A pastor, who happens to be my relative, furnished me with the following views of God: 1. Theism 2. Deism 3. Panentheism

20 My student, Teran Jesus Francisco VALENCIA, believes in God. He said the multiple universes are in the universe created by God, dated September 18, 2008. 21 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/earth-moons-merged-theory/story?id=14233752 http:// and xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/news-science/news-science-20110803-US.SCI.Two.Moons/, http://news.chinatimes.com/world/110504/112011080500176.html, accessed on August 5, 2011. 22 http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/God. 23 Valencia, Dumezweni Themba, Dlamini, and Mervin Acosta Magbuhat, who also believe in God said they are not offended, dated September 18, 2008.

Religion (Divinity) as One Dot

4. 5. 6. 7.

15

Pantheism Polytheism Naturalism Pluralism

1. Theism: Theistic worldview that believes that an eternal God freely created all of existence (time, space, matter, celestial realms, and bodies) out of nothing (ex nihilo) and that He continues to act within the creation in varying degrees. 2. Deism: Deism first diverges from Christian theism in its conception of God. While God is still powerful and transcendent, He lacks personality. Human knowledge of God is extremely limited and essentially unimportant. He created the world, but is now absent from human affairs. 3. Panentheism: “All-in-God” is a belief system which posits that the one God interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God.24 4. Pantheism: The view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. God is simply the sum total of the world, and the world is God. He is the trees, the mountains, the ocean, and even the storms. God is nature, and since man is part of nature, we are gods.25 5. Polytheism: Polytheism is the belief in and worship of many gods. Typically, these gods are distinguished by particular functions and often take on human characteristics. 6. Naturalism: As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is “the hypothesis that the physical world is a ‘closed system’ in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it.” More simply, nature is all there is, with no supernatural powers or beings.26 7. Pluralism: Religious pluralism may describe the worldview that one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions. A devoted Christian said I belong to the third world view, and my relative pastor said my world view is a hybrid of the third and fourth ones, each of which can be related to a dot. Richard Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, pointed out that some theologians say that their God is not complex but simple.27 If it is simple, God can be simplified or compressed as a (partial) dot. Dawkins also pointed out that others go to the opposite extreme, admitting that their God is always complex.

24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4434. 26 http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/naturalism.html. 27 CP, April 23, 2008, p. 4. 25

16

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

If God is complex, inside this (partial) dot, we do see complexity and complication, especially after the Big Bang: A myriad of things were created and evolved. If God is, indeed, a (partial) dot, then the one-dot theory becomes the one-dot law (as in natural science). However, I can only infer that God is one (partial) dot, because there is no direct proof. I also cannot conduct laboratory test, unlike the CERN scientists on the Higgs boson. There is another problem. Those who believe in God will either go to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. It is a one-way street. In other words, they cannot return to our world to tell us whether God is one (partial) dot. As to the Buddhists, Buddha is definitely a dot. It was confirmed in April 2008 when I spoke to a living Buddha in Taipei.28 Buddha can come in the form of a statue. A statue is a dot. Here, we must bring in the concept, reincarnation. After ten times of coming back to our world, one could become a Buddha by saying good things and doing good things. However, thus far, none of us can tell whether Buddha or a living Buddha has met God in person. The Bible states: “Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will know that God wants you to do.” This author calls for a paradigm shift in our mind. To me, God or, for that matter, Buddha, is the superior, original dot of all dots.29 It is the original, biggest dot, or the superior and supernatural forces and elements. The Higgs boson is just part of this unique dot. Human beings like to play a role of God by creating new creatures. In July 2007, J. Craig Venter announced that his team of 17 researchers has passed an important milestone in their efforts to create a bacterial cell whose genome is entirely synthetic, which will be housed within an existing bacterial cell—constructed chemically from the building blocks of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), to wit, adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thiamine (T), which are not easy chemicals to artificially synthesize into chromosomes.30 In January 2008, the team achieved the technical feat by creating the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0. Spore, developed by Will Wright and on sale in September 2008, is an

28

“Buddha Boy,” Ram Bahadur Bomjam, who is 18, rose to fame in May 2005 after supporters in the kingdom of Nepal said he could meditate motionless for months without water, food, or sleep. However, he has been spotted nibbling on fruit and catching a nap. Mahiswor Raj Bajracharya, president of the Nepal Buddhist Council (NBC), said, “He may have achieved great heights in meditation, but that alone does not make him a Buddha. A Buddha needs life experience….” See Taipei Times (hereinafter TT) (Taipei), November 23, 2008, p. 5 and http://www.buddhistchannel. tv/index.php?id=39,3877,0,0,1,0, dated March 27, 2007. 29 My former colleague, Shawn S. F. Kao, said: “GOD is ONE for ALL, and ALL for ONE. Moreover, ONE can be EMPTINESS and COMPLETION as well. That is the ALL MIGTHY who created the universe—a DOT.” E-mail from him, dated September 13, 2008. The other former colleague of mine, Emily W. Chow, added the following words: “And what ‘emptiness’ is? It is not the antonym of ‘full.’ It is the freedom of mind. An attitude of our minds to enjoy the dot, dot or no dot.” E-mail from her, dated the same day. 30 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/venter-institut.html.

Religion (Divinity) as One Dot

17

electronic creature creator game,31 allowing a person to create and evolve his or her creature in our universe. In the same month, the CERN scientists are also playing a role of God by switching on the collider. Last but not least, if our universe, before the Big Bang, began in the shape of a marble or even the tip of a needle, we can say that the God dot can be expanded, reduced, or remain the same, depending on the time/space sequence. When a Catholic, Christian, or Muslim prays, God must be in their heart and/or mind. In this connection, if God interacts with His creations, since words like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence apply to Him or Jesus Christ, who is part of the Holy Trinity and, in turn, a dot, the latter is a partial dot. If there is a partial dot, by inference, there must be a fuller or more complete dot—God. Please bear in mind that the Bible said that we are part of God and God is part of us, since we have been done according to the image of God.32 It is also said that God is the trunk and we all are the branches (again, image of a tree with trunk and branches). So, we totally link to the supernatural force, be it God, Buddha, or Allah, and without Him, there is no life. After reading the piece, my relative pastor mentioned panentheism and pantheism. The other curious pastor wanted to take me to lunch, so as to learn more about the one-dot theory. In June 2011, I attended a church service performed by the reverend. At the end of the service, he, at the door side, said, I am welcomed back again to listen to his preaching of sermons next time. Needless to say, there are Catholics and Christians who do not agree with me in equating God as a dot. Their concern could be related to blasphemy. In any case, my argument is simple and straightforward. Our universe, after the Big Bang, can be called a natural science dot.33 If our universe is a dot, in the context of God, it is a partial dot. If the partial dot exists and, indeed, it has been in existence for a long period of time, there must be a larger, fuller dot, namely, God, unless God comes after the birth of our universe. In short, I can safely infer that God is one (partial) dot, to wit, the superior, original dot of all dots. As to the second issue, it is possible for a person to change his or her religious belief. I know one Catholic who later became a Christian. I also heard from a living Buddha that one Christian would visit her house of worship and listen to her teachings. I happen to hear that there is one religion, which embraces all kinds of religions in Kuching, Sarawak, Federation of Malaysia (FOM). How do we build a model to describe, explain, and infer seemingly contradictory phenomena as one dot? It is not impossible, if we apply my crab and frog motion model, each one of which is but a dot. For example, from a Christianity perspective, Christian would be placed at 1 and Catholic at 5. At time/space sequence (1), the person as a baby, for example, is in the danger zone, because he or she is not yet religious. Later at time/ 31

In September 2008, it began on sale. E-mail from SAWADOGO Wilfried Relwende, who is my student and who is very religious, dated November 18, 2008. 33 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml, accessed on November 14, 2007. 32

18

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

space sequence (10), say 5 years old, he or she went to a Catholic church. Then, at times/space sequence (100), the person chooses to be a Christian. Needless to say, before becoming a Christian, the person had to travel to 3, which is a mixture of Christian and Catholic, because he or she may have to overcome the inner struggle of eventually accepting Christianity. The same logic(s) apply, when we arrange a religion, which embraces all kinds of religions. Here, at least two models are needed: first, the said religion versus the non-“the said religion.” The non-“the said religion” could refer to each religion by itself or each religion, which does not mix with other religions. Second, if there are one million religions in the world since ancient times, we cannot use the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 spectrum. We need to construct a new spectrum, accommodating the first religion to the one millionth religion. Before making the arrangement, one has to determine and decide which religion carries more weight than the other. If Buddhism comes first, then Buddhism will be positioned at 1. The one millionth number would stand for that religion, which is the least important in the eyes of the believers of the said religion. Regarding the third issue, which came first, God, Buddha, or Allah? The question is important and ought to be posed, because if we can show that each one of them can be regarded as a dot, which one came first would make a big difference. Thus, if God came first, Buddha by itself is still a dot. However, it is a partial dot of God. The same logic(s) apply to Buddha. This is because, to the Buddhists, it is Buddha, who created everything first. As to both God and Allah, a special arrangement should be made. From a Catholic point of view, for example, the model as one dot would be God at 1 and Allah at E. However, the Catholic should navigate to 5, which presents a mixture of God and Allah. And, from a Muslim perspective, the following model as one dot should be created: Allah at 1 and God, at E. Again, the Muslim should go to 5, which is, again, a hybrid of 1 and E. As to the last issue, the question is: Do we have only one life or do we have to live several lives? Here, it is a question of whether or not one believes in reincarnation. On the one hand, Buddhists certainly do. In passing, let me say something about those people who believe in Hinduism. I was invited to present an invited talk at Women’s Christian College in Chennai City, Tamil Nadu State, Republic of India (ROI) in February 2010. During lunch time, a chairperson of an Economics Department told me what is going on in the rural area of that populated country. The main reason that two persons got married is because they owe each other. An Indian husband would often scold and beat up his wife. The latter would simply accept it, because if she fights back in this life, she still has to pay back in her next life with the same husband. The opposite is true, if she does nothing bad in this life to her husband, meaning that she can be released from the vicious cycle. Such is the logic(s), regarding reincarnation. On the other hand, some non-“Buddhists” are confused. One female Christian, talking to a male, said what he did suggest that his previous life is a female. I thought there is only one-way street, that is to say, after death, we go to somewhere and will not come back to earth. Another Christian showed me a video, captioned A

Philosophy (Dialectical and Non-“dialectical”) as One Dot

19

Sister Went to Hell Saw Pope John Paul II and Michael Jackson in Hell.34 What the title suggests is that one can travel from earth to either Heaven or Hell and come back alive to tell the story. How to conceptualize this paragraph and the one before this paragraph as one dot? Again, several crab and frog motion models or a series of them are necessary: one life at 1 versus several lives at E, several lives at 1 versus one life at E, one life at 1 and several lives at 5 versus non-“one life at 1 and several lives at 5,” several lives at 1 and one life at 5 versus non-“several lives at 1 and one life at 5,” Heaven at 1 and Purgatory at 5 versus Hell at E, etc. As a reminder, when we see more than one model at work, it means that one model may be again at odds with another existing model. In short, once applying my model or a series of my models, one dot or the concept of more than one dot should surface in our mind. To sum up, the second diagram is related to God, Buddha, or Allah. Right after the Big Bang, the Yin and Yang diagram must be applied. Yin may stand for God, while Yang, non-“God.” The fourth diagram simply shows that God can be expanded, reduced, or remain the same. With the existence of Buddha and Allah, there could be confusion, even among the minds of religious people. As such, the fifth diagram must be employed. As a rule of thumb, when there is confusion, one should move to 5, which stands for the middle way, after putting, for example, God at 1; Buddha, 3; and Allah, 5, until confusion disappears one day, which could be when human beings ceased to exist, because when nobody can think, there would be no more confusion.

Philosophy (Dialectical and Non-“dialectical”) as One Dot We often hear some philosophers and non-“philosophers” say “My philosophy is…”. Or an elder person, who is experienced in life, will tell you to be philosophical, when you cannot get what you wanted to have at a point in time or when you are facing many setbacks and do not know how to handle them. And, one of my students, who has a keen interest in philosophy said, among the philosophers, they still quarrel with each other. After writing those three different contradictory points, the beginner of philosophy may already be confused. However, by conceptualizing them in terms of my one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model, confusion should be reduced, if not cleared away. It is doubtful that non-“dialectical philosophy” can accomplish the same job, for the simple and straightforward reason that, facing

34

The Lord said the Pope “… would never speak the truth as it is. He never said the truth and they know the truth and although he knew the truth, he preferred money over preaching about salvation….” As to Jackson, he had satanic covenants with the devil in order to achieve fame and attract many fans. Those steps that he performed are the way demons walk, while tormenting people in hell. There is one step that the demons dance, sliding back and not moving forward. No date, accessed on July 22, 2011.

20

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

a myriad of contradictions, a non-“dialectical approach” cannot help us to come out of a turbid and perilous ocean of myriad contradictions. The very first model to be applied is rule of law politics/government by law at 1, rule of law politics/legal system at 3, rule of dialectical politics at 5, and rule of men politics at E. It is philosophical, because all the phenomena can be stretched from time/space sequence (1) to time/space sequence (n), which can stand for ten million years from now. Certainly, we will see a myriad of models at work under 5. One of them is Philosophy versus non-“Philosophy.” So, the person who ever uttered “My philosophy is…” is in the safe zone spectrum. Some of them may not understand what philosophy is or have studied it in-depth and, yet, talk about it. When you are being philosophical, you are in the safe zone. When you are not, you are in the danger zone, feeling agonized, confused, depressed, etc. And, being a philosopher, you may still argue with other philosophers, even though what they talk about are usually very broad things. Precisely because those things are broad, they are at the same time abstract. Abstract things are usually difficult to grasp. To accept or not to accept the other philosophers’ views already poses a big headache. To accept, it means that you have at least partially surrendered to those philosophers. So, subscribers to (neo)liberalism are Marxian, because they believe that it is good for us human beings to have wealth, although individually. If you do not accept other philosophers’ views, they may equally challenge yours; the end result could be disastrous for both sides. The safest thing to do perhaps is to arrange all the philosophers and their teachings in the safe zone spectrum, because, by doing so, all the philosophers have to learn to tolerate each other’s views. To sum up, we can regard philosophy as a pure dot. Whoever is the first philosopher in the world since ancient times enjoy this status. However, as soon as the second philosopher was born, we have to apply the Yin and Yang diagram. Again, the first philosopher may be Yin and the second, Yang, if their philosophies are opposite of each other. If not, both philosophers could be placed in the safe zone spectrum. When the number of philosophers in the world grows by leaps and bounds, the ZHU diagram will have to be used. Because many of us do not understand which philosophy is closer to reality, we may have to stick to the curvy line in the Yin and Yang diagram or 5 in my crab and frog motion model.

Science (Natural and Social) as One Dot Earlier, we mentioned the God particle. A particle is a dot. So, natural science can be easily regarded as a dot. What about social science? The adjective social should be discussed first. It was coined in the early sixteenth century,35 involving at least two persons. If Adam were the first human being,36 he can

35 36

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social, accessed on July 24, 2011. See footnote 18 of Chap. 2.

Paradigms as One Dot

21

be regarded as a dot. What about both Adam and Eve? We can look at each of them as a dot. But, socially, they are two halves. To be sure, two halves are still one dot. In October 1999, the world population reached six billion, according to the United Nations (UN) Population Division (UNPD). In fall 2011, we have seven billion people in the world, a new record. We can still conceptualize them as a dot under the concept, human beings. In short, social science less Adam can be regarded as a dot. From Adam’s perspective, does social science come before natural science or just the opposite? This may well be a philosophical question, just like the riddle between the chicken and the egg—which dot came first? A literal historic account of the Bible’s Genesis 1 would place the chicken before the egg.37 Ancient philosophers’ writings indicate that the proposed problem was perplexing to them. For example, Aristotle concluded that both the bird and egg must have always existed: “If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother—which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg.”38 And, in July 2010, British scientists claim to have finally come up with the definitive answer: the chicken.39 The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, which can only exist, if it has been created inside a chicken. To be sure, the protein speeds up the development of the hard shell, which is essential in protecting the delicate yolk and fluids, while the chick grows inside the egg. The scientists said: “It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first.” To sum up, both natural and social science can each be regarded as a dot. However, under science, each one of them is a half dot. So, science is equivalent to the pure circle. The Yin and Yang diagram sets in, when we discuss both natural and social sciences. Since a lot of energy, effort, time, budget, etc., have been used on natural and social sciences, the ZHU diagram has to be expanded. If both natural and social sciences help each other out, the safe zone spectrum in my model can be employed. If not, one of them will be positioned at one extreme and the other, the other extreme.

Paradigms as One Dot I will first only discuss two sentences in natural science. First, the earth is flat. And second, the earth is round. Why do we say each sentence is a paradigm? This is because we are talking about so many people holding the same view, understanding, etc., of something.

37

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg, accessed on July 24, 2011. Ibid. 39 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-camefirst-chicken-or-egg/, accessed on July 24, 2011. 38

22

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

Before human beings can fly, they would regard earth as flat because that is what they see. A flat earth is still a dot, because it looks like a line, and a line is a dot. When human beings realized that our earth is round, it is still a dot. However, can a round earth become a flat earth again? This possibility cannot be ruled out, because what if an asteroid struck our planet again or what if our galaxy collides and merges with another galaxy, resulting a change in the shape of our earth? In social science, some social scientists also use the term paradigm. Carl J. Joachim and Z. K. Brzezinski created a new version of totalitarianism, treating it as a paradigm to describe and explain the former Soviet Union in the late 1940s up to the mid-1950s.40 By the 1970s, many Communist countries have gradually changed by becoming authoritarian, and therefore, a paradigm shift had taken place. Just as the Republic of Singapore (ROS) had been regarded as a (red) dot, the former totalitarian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was also a dot. Referring to the December 25, 2009 plot to blow up an airliner with nearly 300 passengers on board, American President Barack H. Obama, II uttered the following words in January 2010: Antiterrorist agents “had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot… But our intelligence community failed to connect those dots.”41 Steve Jobs, who has a knack for taking complicated ideas and making them easy to understand, in August 2011 resigned as the chief executive officer (CEO) of Apple, the company he founded and turned into the largest technology company in the world. A news report cited one of his remarks on design in February 1996: “… A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.”42 In passing, it should be noted that, as an extension of the “One China, Respective Interpretation,” Beijing made a remark regarding the location of the Taiwan Pavilion in the Expo 2010 Shanghai China site: “The location of the Taiwan Pavilion is a dot in Zone A, which hosts the China Pavilion and national pavilions for Asian countries except Southeast Asian ones. The China Pavilion is also a dot in Zone A.” In October 2011, Taiwan Pavilion also for the first time participated in the 8th China-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Expo, which was held in the Chinese Nanning City of Guangxi Province and which featured commodity trading, investment cooperation, and service trading. Here, we have to construct a series of models: China, which is equivalent to the pure circle or dot; since China does not exist by itself, the Yin and Yang diagrams should be applied, to read China and non-“China;” Zone A versus non-“Zone A;” Zone A or the safe zone spectrum, which is equivalent to Taiwan, for example, at 1 + other Chinese provincial pavilions, for example, at 2 + national pavilions for Asian countries except Southeast Asian ones, for example, at 4, etc.

40

See their book, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York: Praeger, 1956). Cited in God is… (note 14), p. 116. 42 Jennifer Valentino-DeVries on Twitter @jenvalentino, accessed on August 25, 2011 from Mike Wong’s e-mail dated August 25, 2011. 41

Schools of Thought as One Dot

23

In any case, when there is a change in our mind, a paradigm shift takes place from one dot to another dot. This is possible in both natural science and social science. To sum up, each paradigm is equivalent to a pure circle. When there are more than two paradigms, the Yin and Yang diagram must be applied. The ZHU diagram becomes applicable, when we have more than one paradigm. To arrange them logically, systematically, and coherently, my model sets in. It is still a dot.

Schools of Thought as One Dot There are four mainstream schools of thought after the end of World War II, namely, realism and neorealism, liberalism and neoliberalism, constructivism, and (neo) Marxism. The fifth one is emerging, to wit, international and global governance. Indeed, time has changed.43 The realists or, for that matter, the neorealists cannot just focus on, for example, a central government’s external behavior when they study, for example, international relations. It is state centric, emphasizing power, assuming that each state only wants to be more powerful, tangibly and intangibly. So, many countries perceive that, by being economically robust, mainland China will become militarily powerful as well, given time; hence, the term China threat since the early 1990s. With economic development in general and the rise of civil society at both national and international levels in particular, international and global governance should be closer to reality, because we have to look at both the state and non-“state-sponsored” dimensions. For governance, we have to first mention state, to be followed by non-“state,” and for economy or business, it is the reverse, that is, non-“state” and state-sponsored. To be sure, there are a zillion words, terms, etc., which belong to the non-“state” category, such as economy, business, class, or private think tank or foundation. After having identified the state and non-“state,” one can proceed to study, for example, political economy, which is very complicated and complex, because many issues are involved in a given area. (Neo)liberalism basically focuses on market and contract, and it demands less government involvement. Getting rid of or reducing tariff is one big concern of the (neo)liberalists. When people buy and sell something, they are in a market. If the volume is big, the buyer and seller have to sign a contract for mutual protection. Before goods and services can be delivered, banks, insurance companies, etc., are involved. Politics could follow that, hence the term (international) political economy. In other words, to the (neo)liberalists, politics is the superstructure of economics. In a sense, they subscribe to the (neo)Marxian school of thought. However, the

43 Updated from the preface of Peter Kien-hong YU, et al., International Governance, Regimes, and Globalization: Case Studies from Beijing and Taipei (Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books, 2010).

24

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

study of international and global governance embraces the non-“state”-sponsored dimension. Hence, it is broader than that of the (neo)liberalism school of thought. Constructivism became popular since the early 1990s. It has pooled many theorists to the school. According to James C. Hsiung, my mentor and friend, two major concepts are often being mentioned: idea and ideal. The sentence which ought to be remembered is: It is all in your mind. Thus, Alexander Wendt said anarchy is what states make of it. In this connection, if we were in a political science class, whether or not the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan is a country is of secondary importance. This is because, being a citizen or non-“citizen” of the ROC, it does not matter, so long as we can discuss or debate on it logically. However, if a ROC student or a ROC politician wants to visit a foreign country and he or she cannot get a visa (on time), then the question of whether the ROC is a country becomes a (big) concern. In August 2009, former ROC President, CHEN Shui-bian, made a bizarre move, suing Obama and US Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, for failing to place Taiwan under their military occupation, which CHEN claims has continued since October 25, 1945. To be sure, the study of international and global governance also incorporates the study of idea, ideal, etc. For example, the UN model for good governance mentions the following concepts: accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, consensus-oriented, participatory, follows the rule of law, and effective and efficient. Some concepts are ideas and others, ideals. For instance, “follows the rule of law” is an ideal, because if we put it in context, can a grade or junior school student follow the rule of law, when he or she has a vague idea of what the law is? In short, constructivism can be a part of international and global governance, broadly defined. One of (neo)Marxism’s main concepts is class struggle. The poor people versus the rich people or “rich people become richer and poor people become poorer” has often been mentioned. In the eyes of Karl H. Marx, class comes before nation, country, or state or it is more important than other things. One class will inevitably replace the other, and this is the history of human development, ending with Communism or Utopia. In September 2008, we witnessed a global economic crisis. Many state practices became socialist, including Obama’s America. However, the study of international and global governance can also embrace class study, by virtue of the term, non-“state.” In sum, international and global governance can forcefully challenge those old schools of thought and even replace them as the mainstream school of thought, given time. Needless to say, after an extended period of time, international and global governance school of thought will be replaced by a more cutting-edge school of thought. To sum up, each school of thought can be regarded as a dot. We can also arrange them in terms of my model. Since the international and global governance may well be the next mainstream school of thought, we can put it at 1 or 2, if we perceive that someday the international and global school of thought will be replaced by another new school of thought. As to others, we can first discuss with other schools of thought subscribers, so as to arrive at a closer to reality arrangement.

Concepts as One Dot

25

Theories as One Dot Theories44 and models are related. Therefore, I do not have to elaborate here. There is no question that each theory can be regarded as a dot. Game theory, for example, has only two words, and the emphasis is on game. Game is a dot, for sure, so is systems in systems theory, which is a transdisciplinary study. It is appropriate for David Easton to apply the theory to the study of political science.45 Inputs are part of the systems theory, just as feedback and others. However, there could be no relationship between, for example, the inputs and outputs, at certain time/space sequence. To sum up, each theory is a dot. Therefore, each theory can be a pure circle. However, since there are many theories in the world, the Yin and Yang diagram will have to be applied right away. The ZHU diagram is certainly relevant to theories. The same thing speaks for my model. This means that the safe zone spectrum needs to be expanded, so as to embrace all the theories in the world.

Concepts as One Dot A concept is a dot by itself. The same logic applies to other levels from the first to the seventh. Since religion carries the most weight, it will be positioned at 1 and concept, 8. There are an infinite number of concepts in the world. The term globalization became an entry in a dictionary in 1961. As such, our model will have to embrace them, from 1 to that infinite number. At time/space sequence (1), one may choose 5; at time/space sequence (1,000), one may select one millionth, etc. To sum up, the circle diagram is equivalent to concept. The Yin and Yang diagram has to be applied, when we begin to mention the second concept. Thus, the model could be the first concept versus non-“the first concept.” The ZHU diagram is needed, so as to emphasize whether or not there are only two concepts or an infinite number of concepts, in addition to remind us about the middle way. And, to arrange the concepts logically, systematically, and coherently, my crab and frog motion model must be applied. In sum, if we conceptualize all the things in the world, including the possibility of God, as dots, is it not our world inundated with dots? The answer is “yes,” but the world seems to be less colorful. However, we can still have different ways of

44

To James C. Hsiung, “theory… is an explanatory device, something that will explain a given phenomenon or puzzle. In terms of its origin, it is a generalization of findings from earlier studies. Hence, it can explain, or anticipate the outcome of, a similar set of variables in another setting, ceteris paribus (all things being equal).” E-mail from him, dated November 27, 2010. 45 See his book, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965).

26

2

Can the Diagrams Be Applied to All the Scales?

looking at each dot. First, we have to figure out, depending on the time/space sequence, what is the subject (ZhuTi) and what is the object (KeTi) or the mainstream and the non-“mainstream.” If possible, taking a public opinion poll is a desideratum, so as to figure out the subject and object at a specific time/space sequence. However, not many of us can conduct surveys, due to lack of budget and funding. Second, we can arrange all the dots, big and small, in the safe zone. This is not impossible. Look at the computer binary, which is but a version of Yin and Yang, and there are an infinite number of possibilities. There is no need to show all the dots, because we can figure out what is the subject and what is the object. This means that the following model must be applied: to simplify reality versus non-“to simplify reality.” At most, we need only to figure out the three forces, the subject, the object, and somewhere in between the subject and the object. Besides, it is not possible for us human beings to remember all the things in the world, even if you have a photographic memory. Sooner or later, we will forget something or unable to (clearly) think of something.

Chapter 3

Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories and Models or Studies as One Dot

In the last chapter, I did not say much about theories. I also skipped the intellectual exercise of conceptualizing models/patterns/modes as one dot. Theories and models are related. The application of them is to dissolve a turbid and perilous ocean of myriad contradictions. Many academics and experts plus administrators to this day do not know how to dissolve the simple contradiction between saying yes to an issue this morning and saying no to the issue in the afternoon. Sad to say, it is usually power prevails, and the academic who is in charge of the administrative just cheat himself or herself, for unable to convince others, including the students. Having a model is more important than having a name for the theory, because, in the former, we can rely on the framework to elaborate on our thoughts or to write logically, systematically, and coherently by showing that this concept is related to this section or that concept is related to another section. Yet, many social scientists can remember the name of a particular theory but not necessarily the name of the model. I will carry out this task in this chapter. In passing, it should be noted that pattern has to do with behavior; and mode, artificial, perceptual, or feeling-related things like the mode of time, development, and growth. The main purpose of conversion is to make sure that everything will become more logical, systematic, and coherent, suitable for a (larger) group of academics and experts. The main purpose of reinventing something should be with a positive outcome in mind, as suggested by the following two headlines in a newspaper: “SNAP need to re-invent itself to become relevant again” and “Reinvent and be different, political observer advises SUPP.”1 For example, SUPP’s full name is Sarawak United People’s Party. It was founded as an opposition party in June 1959. In July 1970, it joined a coalition to be part of the ruling party in the Sarawak State of FOM. However, in the last several years, it suffered again by not being able to capture many local and national seats. Thus, some politicians and political observers

1

Borneo Post (hereinafter BP) (Sarawak, Malaysia), May 13, 2011, p. 6 and ibid., May 29, 2011, p. 4.

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2_3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

27

28

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

have urged the SUPP to be reinvented, so as to be able to have a new lease in life. In a word, what I am going to do is not to reinvent the proverbial wheel, because I am not duplicating something that has already previously been created or optimized by other academics and experts. Once converted and/or invented, each non-“dialectical” theory and model will be one dot, because I am using my one-dot theory, which is accompanied by the crab and frog motion model. There are many western-derived theories and models, and many of them cannot be applied to describe, explain, and infer the Chinese (communist) politics.2 The major distinction between a theory and a model is that the latter is a simplification or compression of complex and complicated reality and the former is again a simplification and compression of the latter. Thus, there must be at least two words in a model. As to a theory, there must be at least one word, the more simple the more attractive. So, game is a theory, just as systems can also be called a theory. Another major distinction is that a theory must be accompanied by a model, preferable drawn in terms of a diagram, whereas a model can stand by itself. To be sure, being called a theorist is better or sounded more sophisticated than being labeled as a model builder, because theory carries more weight than a model. On surface, every one of them is non-“dialectical,” because the theorist or the model builder will not admit it as such or realize it as such. Thus, one of my mentors said the 十 model or what one academic called a quadrangular analysis qua model3 that he applied is not dialectical, because it is not teleological. In other words, those theories and models maintain a linear reasoning, like a train of thought, having one coach after another coach. However, on a second look, first, they cannot do without dialectics. This means that it is easier to totally convert them dialectically. Once done, the theories and models are said to be reinvented, that is, replaced with entirely a new version.4 Second, Tony Fang in his Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture did apply the 十 model to map the terrain of culture research in business and management.5 So, the 十 model can be dialectical. In this chapter, I will basically rely on my model to conceptualize certain phenomena as a dot or dots or to describe, explain, and infer some non-“dialectical” theories and models. The theory remains the same. It is still one dot. The structure of each model in the senes is the same. However, we will attach a label to each number or letter in the model, to a concept, model, theory, etc.

2 See, for example, James C. Hsiung, China into its Second Rise: Myths, Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Challenge to Theory (Singapore: World Scientific, 2012). 3 See Gordon C. K. Cheung, “New Approaches to Cross-Strait Integration and Its Impacts on Taiwan’s Domestic Economy: An Emerging “Chaiwan”? Journal of Current Chinese Affairs (Hamburg, Germany), Vol. 39, No. 1 (2010), pp. 11–36. 4 http://www.nciku.com.tw/search/en/detail/reinvent/63314, access on July 19, 2011. 5 See Fig. 1 on page 8 in his paper, Management and Organization Review, pp. 1–26, forthcoming.

First Case Study as One Dot…

29

First Case Study as One Dot: Conceptualizing Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Etc., as One Dot: Contrasting and Testing Three One-Dot Theories There are three one-dot theories that this author can think of right away. The first one is called the Yin and Yang diagram or Taijitu in Mandarin Chinese, which can be dated back to at least 3,100 years. It looks like a dot. A model can be applied alone, but a theory must be accompanied by a model. Such is the basic distinction between the two. My crab and frog motion model, 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E, is also a one-dot theory, as we shall see later. The second one also looks like a dot, and it is called, for lack of a better term, the egg schematic theory.6 And the third one was first published in the first issue of an academic journal in the Chinese mainland (Neidi) (as opposed to mainland China) in 19997 and refined in November 2009 at a historic academic conference held in Taipei, which for the first time touched upon sensitive issues related to military affairs. It is called the QiuTiGuoJiaLiLun/spheroid nation8 theory or China in the shape of a globular body. How do we apply those three theories to study the seemingly complex and complicated entities called Taiwan Province, Xizang/Tibet Autonomous Region (Xizang AR), and Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Xinjiang AR), as well as others, such as Outer Mongolia (OM),9 within the Chinese territory, at least for a period of time? More importantly, are they really applicable or can they not be easily abandoned? Out of those entities, Taiwan is the thorniest issue to deal with. The ROC was once a founding member of the UN, and, to 23 countries in the world as of today, it is a country. More importantly, it has armed forces, which can deter an armed attack by the Chinese mainland. However, before March 2010, its air power is better than the air power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In an effort to purchase F-16 C/Ds from the United States, the ROC’s unclassified, January 2010 military report, which was leaked to the press 2 months later, admitted that, of the three types of fighter jets, only its F-16A/Bs have a slight edge over the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), whereas its Indigenous Defensive Fighters (IDF) and French-made Mirage 2000-5 s were both inferior to the Federation of Russia (FR)’s Su-30s.10 In August 2011, ROC Vice Defense Minister Andrew N. D. Yang urged

6 See my article, “YiGeZhongGuoLeiShiHenDuoJiDanZhongDeYiGe?” Lianhezaobao (hereinafter LHZB) (Singapore), February 16, 2010, op-ed. 7 Liu GuoShen, “LiangAnZhengZhiJiangJuDeGaiNianXingJieXi,” TaiWanYanJiuJiKan, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1–7. His November 2009 research paper is entitled ShiLunHePingFaZhanBeijingXia DeLiangAnGongTongZhiLi, email from Liu him, dated March 10, 2010. 8 Liu originally used the term, spheroid states theory. He accepted my translation, email from him dated March 11, 2010. 9 For its status, see my book, The Second Long March (New York: Continuum, 2009). 10 Borneo Post (hereinafter BP) (Sarawak, Malaysia), March 9, 2010, p. A2 and May 14, 2010, p. A1.

30

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Washington to sell the F-16 C/Ds. For the record, in January 2011, Beijing tested its new J-20 stealth fighter. In August 2011, Beijing held an inaugural sea trial of its first aircraft carrier. Xinjiang is a less headache region, abutting Central Asia, for the Chinese Communist leaders. However, with a documented history of at least 2,500 years, Xinjiang, ruled by different peoples and empires, has been and continues to be a focal point of ethnic tensions well into the first decade of the twenty-first century,11 notably the July 2009 riots in Urumqi. In May 2010, Hu Jintao, president of the PRC, for the first time seriously outlined a blueprint for Xinjiang’s economic development until 2020. Unfortunately, an explosion, at a crossroad in the suburbs of Aksu bordering the Republic of Kyrgyzstan (RK), killed seven, and most of the victims were Uyghurs, including the injured suspect who is also a member of the Xinjiang minority.12 Tibet is also under Beijing’s governance, except that the Chinese Communist leaders do not know how to handle the 14th Dalai Lama, who is very popular in the West, except to wait for his death. (In April 2011, Dalai Lama’s political successor was elected.) Thus, Padma Choling, the PRC’s newly appointed Tibet governor, said: “Let [the] Dalai Lama say whatever he wants. We will just carry on what we do.”13 For the record, in October 2007 when answering a news reporter’s question, Dalai Lama for the first time said he is a Chinese. And, on numerous occasions, he denied the Chinese Communist accusations that he is a separatist, adding he seeks only meaningful autonomy for the region, not de jure independence. Yet, as recent as March 2010, he was accused by the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) for his words and deeds being not in line with the PRC.14 A year later in the same month, Dalai Lama formally submitted his resignation as political leader to the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile in Dharamsala City, northern India. In this section, I will first elaborate on each one-dot theory. Then, I will contrast them. After that, I will pit them against some concepts, terms, etc., to see which one can be rigorously tested over a long period of time, say 5,000- or 10,000-year history of China.

Elaborating on the Three One-Dot Theories on China For beginners, they should begin with an understanding of the whole, which is couched in terms of a pure dot or circle with nothing inside, representing China, however defined, since ancient times. Otherwise, they will be confused, if and when they only look at the Yin and Yang diagram. 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang, accessed on March 11, 2010. BP, August 20, 2010, p. A1. 13 Quoted in BP, March 12, 2010, p. A3. 14 http://www.chinareviewnews.com, dated 2010-03-11at 20:25:19 and accessed on March 12, 2010. 12

Elaborating on the Three One-Dot Theories on China

31

Obviously, China is not the only entity in the world or even the (center of) universe/multiverse. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the Yin and Yang diagram, as a next step. Once we do that, we are talking about China (or, e.g., Yin) and nonChina (or, e.g., Yang). By the latter, it could mean a zillion phenomena, tangible and intangible, such as the United States, Moon, air, the famous oracle octopus which successfully predicted eight times as to which one of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) teams will win the cup in July 2010, etc. Needless to say, we have to bear in mind that China is literally a dot. The same thing can speak for non-China in another context, which I will elaborate later on. Almost every Chinese can understand the following diagram right away: . Since childhood, they would learn some Chinese idioms, which are structured in terms of dialectics and which must be understood in terms of dialectics, in order to appreciate its logic(s) and beauty for the construction of the four and only four Chinese characters. Many people in the West are also familiar with the diagram. It is called the Yin and Yang, which fit together as two parts of a greater or mutual whole. Can we apply the Yin and Yang diagram, which can be regarded as a model to describe and explain, if not infer or predict the relationship between the ROC and the PRC? Yes, we can, if we know how. In January 1912, the ROC was officially established. As mentioned earlier, the diagram does not really apply, if we are talking about only one political entity, ROC. What we can do in that context is to regard the ROC in terms of a pure dot or circle, with nothing inside. However, this circle began to crumble, when MAO Zedong proclaimed his Chinese Soviet Republic (CSR) in November 1931.15 It was from this “small, unrecognized state within a state” experience that he eventually forced his archrival, CHIANG Kai-shek, to retreat to the Taiwan area from Chongqing, the then war-capital of the ROC, in December 1949. From November 1948 to May 1949, the elder CHIANG instructed his subordinates to (air) transport gold from the mainland to Taiwan island. Can we say that the ROC is equivalent to either the white portion or the black portion of the diagram? The answer is no, unless we treat the ROC as either the white portion which includes the black dot or the black portion which includes the white dot. If the ROC is equivalent to the white portion which includes the black dot, then the black portion which includes the white dot stands for non-“ROC.” So, when we apply the Yin and Yang diagram, we are actually talking about the ROC versus non“ROC” model or structure. Needless to say, the black portion which includes the white dot could also stand for another concept, term, phrase, theories, etc., such as the Qing Dynasty or tsunami (tidal wave). If it is tsunami, then we are actually talking about the ROC versus tsunami model, or ROC versus (Mother) Nature. Another way of referring to the ROC is the word, new (or another adjective, depending on the context). In other words, the white portion of the Yin and Yang

15

MAO Zedong’s republic was dissolved in September 1937, when the Communist Party of China (CPC) decided to fight against Imperial Japan with Chiang Kai-shek.

32

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

diagram is new. Indeed, the ROC is the first republic in Chinese history, though it may not be the first republic in Asia as some textbooks in the ROC had erroneously stated so.16 When the ROC was founded, many of the Chinese people were reluctant to right away support the ROC, and therefore, they still sided with the Qing Dynasty, which is the black portion (or old) with the white dot, which represents those revolutionaries like Dr. SUN Yat-sen who opted for the creation of a new, republican form of government. In late 1948, the Chinese Communists perceived that they can militarily defeat the Chinese Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek. The last commerical ship sailed from the Shanghai port to Jilong port in January 1949.17 In August 1949, the last China Merchants Steam Navigation Company (CMSNC) ship sailed from the Guangzhou port to Jilong, and the captain was ordered not to return to the mainland.18 In October 1949, the PRC was created. It was not until June 1950, when the Korean War broke out, that we can be sure that China became merely politically (as opposed to legally) divided. Even though the PRC began to establish diplomatic relations with other countries, does that mean we have to treat the ROC as the white portion which includes the black dot or the black portion which includes the white dot? In other words, can we say that the other part of the greater or mutual whole refers to the PRC? The answer is no, and we can continue to apply the ROC versus non-“ROC” model. That is to say, the ROC is still the white portion which includes the black dot, and the PRC is the curvy line in the Yin and Yang diagram. This is still logical, because up to October 1971, the ROC was in the UN Security Council and maintained more diplomatic relations with other countries than the PRC, and therefore, it carried more weight in the international arena, whereas the PRC was struggling to be admitted into, for example, the UN. It goes without saying that, after withdrawing from the UN in fall 1971, the ROC’s weight in the international arena was dropped by leaps and bounds. The main reason was due to the fact that Richard M. Nixon after becoming the US president in January 1969 wanted to seek détente with the PRC for the sake of deterring a potential Soviet nuclear attack of the US homeland. In order to describe and explain, if not infer or predict, more clearly of what I said in the last three paragraphs, I must introduce two other related diagrams. The first one is an abstract version of the Yin and Yang diagram: . It was drawn by ZHU, a living Buddha, as mentioned earlier. The diagram looks like 8, which resembles a toy racing track. In the Chinese Daoist language, it is called WuJiZhenYuan. There is an important yet crucial dot at the middle, representing balance. In the Yin and Yang diagram, it is equivalent to the curvy line. If we view the cross section of the ovalshaped drawing, my crab and frog motion/dialectical model very much resembles it.

16

The first one may well be June 1897, Republika ng Biak-na-Bato. In the eighteenth century, some Chinese people created a republic in Borneo, Southeast Asia. Most likely, it was not recognized by any country in the world. 17 Henry C. LEE’s father was perished in that ship. 18 One of the crew members was Edward Chen-kia YU, my father.

Elaborating on the Three One-Dot Theories on China

33

How do we slot Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao into my model? It is not difficult. First of all, we have to expand the model to become 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F, because six political entities have been mentioned in this paragraph. To me, the Chinese mainland carries the most weight, at least since late 1971. Therefore, it is equivalent to 1 in the crab and frog motion model. We can place Taiwan at 2. Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macao can be positioned 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. In a word, all the six entities constitute a spectrum in the safe zone. Another way of referring to this safe zone spectrum is ROC or simply China.19 If we were to add OM, we can first expand the model from 1 to 7 for the safe zone. If one challenges this newest model, we can still say that (1) the ROC Constitution still mentioned the crucial term GuYouJiangYu (inherent territory of China), and (2) we can mention OM, but the dialectician or the crab and frog motion player would not navigate to 7, until time becomes ripe, such as when the majority of Outer Mongolians voluntarily want to rejoin the Chinese nation. This is not impossible, when we review the Yuan Dynasty’s history. Needless to say, a dialectician needs a series of dialectical models to help him or her to describe, explain, if not infer or predict, from time/space sequence (1). The crab and frog motion player must also learn to link the first model with the second model and so on and so forth by constructing new models. Otherwise, the logic(s) cannot flow smoothly. One of the models is To link versus non-“To Link” or not to link. In short, it was after close to 20 years of applying my model to study some 100 different case studies did I realize for the first time that my model, suitable for application by social scientists, is merely a less abstract version of ZHU’s model, and her model is also a version of Yin and Yang. If one sides with Beijing, one can reverse the position of both the ROC and the PRC by saying that the latter is the white portion which includes the black dot and the former, the black portion which includes the white dot. When we see two versions at work, it means that there is struggle or dialectics is still at work, until time/ space sequence (n). However, at least from Taipei’s perspective, we can treat the ROC as the curvy line in the Yin and Yang diagram, especially after September 1997 when the Chinese Communists held their 15th National Party (Representative) Congress,20 due to two major reasons. First, the ROC Constitution still clearly states that mainland China is part of the ROC territory. Second, HU, for example, in March 2008, held a telephone talk with the then US President, George W. Bush, in which the former qua GeneralSecretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC), for the first time speaking to a foreigner, used the term “November 1992 Consensus” or the “One China, Respective Interpretations/YiZhongGeBiao” consensus which states that both sides of the Taiwan

19

To some government officials, Outer Mongolia is included as part of China. It is from this congress that Chinese Communists have to officially learn to at least tolerate the existence of the Republic of China (ROC), because the superstructure of the market economy is the ROC. 20

34

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Strait recognize that “there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definition.”21 To the MA Ying-jeou administration, it is GeBiaoYiZhong. In passing, it should be noted that, on the subject of “One-China Principle,” which was first coined by the Chinese Communists and which can be dated back to several months before the signing of the December 1954 mutual defense treaty between Taipei and Washington, both sides of the Taiwan Strait recognize that there is only one China, that is, both Taiwan and mainland China belong to the same China. In a word, Beijing will not eliminate Taipei by politico-military means, if the latter still regards mainland China as part of the ROC, at least for a period of time since September 1997. How do we slot in both the PRC and the ROC in my model’s safe zone? We can position the former at 1 and the latter, 5, implying that each party must learn to tolerate the existence of one another. In other words, Beijing is the white portion which includes the black dot and Taipei, the black dot. A question ought to be posed at this juncture: When would a pure dot or circle, with nothing inside, reappear? The answer is simple and straightforward: When both sides agree to be reunified as one country. This would be a new scenario. However, I doubted that the Chinese reunification can be brought about within a decade. The mainland is still authoritarian and very corrupt. A person can be easily sent to jail for political reasons. It is doubtful that the ruling party on the mainland can receive more than 50% of the votes, if a national election to choose their president were held today or even 5 years from now. In sum, the Yin and Yang diagram is a good model for social scientists to apply, when they study the complex and complicated relationship between Taipei and Beijing since China became politically divided. What about the next one-dot model? We can first ask the following question: Can Taipei’s relationship with Beijing and vice versa be likened to that of an egg schematic? The answer is yes. In February 2010, a UK newspaper carried this interesting piece of news.22 An old British woman got her eggs from a friend who has chickens on an allotment. She fancied a fried egg sandwich. So, she broke the egg into the frying pan and, sizzling away, there were four golden yellow yolks—all from a single shell. According to a poultry expert from the British Egg Information Service (BEIS), finding two yolks in one egg is rare enough because “[t]he chances of an egg coming out with a double yolk are 0.1 per cent.” He also said that the chances of finding a quadruple yolker are said to be 11 billion to one and the record number of yolks in one egg was nine.23 Later in the same month, former ROC president, CHEN Shui-bian, who was interviewed by Taipei-based Yushan Weekly at the Taipei Detention Center (TDC), said the November 1992 Consensus between Taipei and Beijing is “the biggest scam in human history.”24

21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao, accessed on March 5, 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248235/Egg-stra-value-Pensioner-cracks-open-eggyolks.html?printingPage=true, dated February 4, 2010 and accessed on February 28, 2010. 23 Ibid. 24 http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/94/1/1/1422091/1.html, accessed on February 8, 2010. 22

Elaborating on the Three One-Dot Theories on China

35

Since the change of the ROC presidency from CHEN to MA in May 2008, the late 1992 consensus has still been the policy of both governments of the ROC and the PRC. To say the least, what CHEN said was misleading, because we can easily use the egg schematic, which is consisted of 14 elements, incorporating eggshell, outer membrane, inner membrane, chalaza, exterior albumen, middle albumen, vitelline membrane, nucleus of pander, germinal disc (nucleus), yellow yolk, white yolk, internal albumen, air cell, and cuticula25 to falsify his scam theory. The double yolker can be used as an analogy to describe and explain the relationship between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland since December 1949, when the ROC provisional capital was moved to Taipei from Chongqing. If we want to include Hong Kong and Macao since July 1997 and December 1999, respectively, we can use the quadruple yolker to describe and explain their relationship. The yellow yolk can be regarded as the territory/land, people, and government. The white yolk can be other things under the Chinese (Communist) jurisdiction and/ or administration: 12-nautical mile (n.m.) territorial sea, 200-nm exclusive economic zone, 350-nm continental shelf, seabed, airspace, electron, and places in outer space where taikongnauts reside, such as the International Space Station (ISS) or Beijing’s Tian Gong (Heavenly Peace) space station by the year 2020, or walk, such as the very first spacewalk by a taikongnaut in September 2008. Our analogy does not stop here, because it does not matter whether we are talking about a spheroid- or ovoid-shaped ostrich egg, chicken egg, or quail egg, an egg within another bigger egg, which is evolved from a double yolk, because it does exist in real life.26 The big eggshell can be simply labeled as China, because the short form for both the ROC and the PRC can be China. If one supports the ROC, the smaller egg inside the bigger egg is the PRC. This is logical and makes sense, because the ROC was established in January 1912, whereas the PRC was founded in October 1949. If one still sides with the very corrupt PRC, the smaller egg would be the ROC. This also makes sense, because Taipei faced numerous setbacks in the international arena, especially in the 1970s. The third one-dot has to do with the spheroid nation’s theory, which was first advanced by a Chinese mainland academic at Xiamen University (XU), LIU Guoshen, in the late twentieth century. The theory can be used to describe and explain contemporary China, Korea, and other divided countries in the world. If we only talk about China, the spheroid nation (as opposed to nations) theory should be used. He again proposed his analogy at a historic academic symposium, Bicoastal China27: A Cycle of 60 Years, which was held in Taipei in November 2009 and which touched upon sensitive matters for the first time, such as military affairs—by treating both Beijing and Taipei, in the context of cogovernance or shared governance, as a spheroid nation.

25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(food), accessed on March 12, 2010. Guojishibao (hereinafter GJSB) (Sarawak, Malaysia), July 20, 2009, p. A7. 27 This is my translation. 26

36

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

The XU academic pointed out that China, as a modern international galaxy, is an important spheroid, which is made up of the PRC and the ROC, the latter of which has been added with a quotation mark throughout his paper, sitting back to back, or “two competing compositions of the same ZhengQuan/regime,” with the “ROC” occasionally exercising on behalf of the whole of China.28 Having said thus far, it is about time to contrast the three one-dot theories by way of conducting a critique. It is not necessary to compare them, because all of them belong to the same category—one dot. In other words, we are not comparing an apple with an orange or, for that matter, a chicken and an egg, unless we want to, for example, tackle the scientific, philosophical mystery, which was purportedly unraveled by researchers at Sheffield and Warwick universities, who came up with the definitive, chicken answer in July 2010, as mentioned earlier: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?29

A Critique Out of the three theories, it is doubtful that the Yin and Yang diagram can be easily falsified. This is because dialectics can help us to rationalize everything. Yes, everything, if one has firmly grasped its logic(s), especially when we test several concepts, terms, phrases, theories, etc., later on in this section. The egg schematic theory comes second. If there are still criticisms, it can be likened to the following expression in English—nitpick or look for a bone in an egg. As a reminder, some supermarkets do sell antibiotic free eggs, and my analogy has already received its antibiotic treatment. What about LIU’s theory? For more than 10 years, LIU did not realize that when he put forward a theory, he should show us the model, preferably in a diagram, so as to enable us to closely follow and figure out his unique logic. What he did was only presenting a verbal model, mentioning, for example, the back-to-back sitting arrangement in the spheroid. Such a model should be able to slot in, for example, the positive and negative interaction between Taipei and Beijing. However, can it include OM, if not Xinjiang and Tibet as well? 28 http://translate.google.com.my/translate?hl = en&sl = zh-CN&u = http://210.34.17.178/index. php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D825%26Itemid%3D84&e i = jsmJS4eFHZCTkAWf1P00&sa = X&oi = translate&ct = result&resnum = 10&ved = 0CC4Q7gE wCTgU&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E5%2585%25A9%25E5%25B2%25B8%25E9%2597%25 9C%25E4%25BF%2582%25E4%25B8%2580%25E7%2594%25B2%25E5%25 AD%2590%25 E7%25A0%2594%25E8%25A8%258E%25E6%259 C%2583%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%2 6client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds, accessed on February 28, 2010. 29 The British scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg. So, the egg can only exist if it has been created inside a chicken. See http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/, accessed on July 15, 2010.

A Critique

37

LIU’s analogy is quite dangerous: Arguably, the egg analogy is much better than the spheroid nation analogy. This is because, depending on the angle, a third party, like the Republic of Haiti (ROH), which still maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC since April 1956 but which has welcomed the UN-sponsored Chinese PLA to perform its peacekeeping duties since October 2004 within that Caribbean country, may sometimes see “Two Chinas” or even “One China, One Taiwan,” whereas my egg analogy would not create such an illusion. When there is no illusion, there will be peace and stability on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. In addition, LIU’s one-dot theory is silent on the status of OM. To him, OM does not belong to the PRC. Indeed, my analogy can withstand logical attacks from all quarters. To see which one-dot theory is closer to reality, we can test several concepts, terms, phrases, theories, etc., such as past, present, and future; multisystem nations; market economy as the mainstream economic line in the Chinese mainland since September 1997; and the following description, regarding the location of the Taiwan Pavilion in the Expo2010 Shanghai China site, as mentioned earlier: “The location of the Taiwan Pavilion is a dot in Zone A, which hosts the China Pavilion and national pavilions for Asian countries except Southeast Asian ones. The China Pavilion is also a dot in Zone A;” and international regimes. Past: As mentioned earlier, China has a 5,000- or even 10,000-year history. The first and second theories can be applied to the past. LIU’s can also be used to describe and explain the period from the date when the CPC announced in January 1979 that it would conduct three links and four exchanges with the Taiwan area up to now. However, his theory cannot be applied to days before the signing of the Westphalian Treaty in October 1648, because, at that time, not a single nation-state existed, whereas the first theory and the second theory still can, because an egg can still be likened to a Chinese dynasty, kingdom, or an empire. Present: There is no question that the three theories can be used in describing, explaining, and inferring or predicting the ROC and the PRC today. However, if one of them disappeared, LIU’s theory can be said as being falsified. Future: Should the ROC and/or PRC disappear, all the three one-dot model and theories can be said as being falsified. Both Taipei and Beijing (as opposed to) China could be hit by an asteroid. It is confirmed in March 2010 that the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs was due to the fact that they were wiped out by an asteroid, which hit the United Mexican States (UMS)’s Yucatan Peninsula.30 What about the LHC, which began its operation for the first time in September 2008 and which has sparked fears among the public,31 in light of accidents and delays, that the LHC particle collisions might produce doomsday, black-hole phenomena, sucking all things, tangible and intangible? Would China be a victim? And, alternatively, would China become globalized into a global village? If so, the sovereignty-at-bay

30

See Hua Daily News (hereinafter SHDN), March 7, 2010, p. 16. A German woman, fearful that our earth would be sucked into oblivion in a black hole, failed to at the Berlin court prove the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) atom-smasher will end our world. See BP, March 10, 2010, p. 1.

31

38

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

theory or no-more-countries theory can be said as having negated the egg schematic theory and LIU’s theory, because each of them shows a national boundary, unless we, for example, crush the eggshell and mix it up with other crushed eggshells. In passing, it should be noted that this case study was written in the past as well as updated and revised at the present. However, there was a new development, which has to do with the future. In April 2011, Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), FOM, claimed that chemically induced or “fake eggs,” which come in many sizes, colors, and shapes and which are bigger in size, odorless, and shiny, were found to be sold in Pulau Tikus market, George Town, Penang State.32 The eggshell is made of synthetic paraffin wax, gypsum, and calcium carbonate powder, and the yolk and white consist of natrium alginate, alum, gelatine, benzoic acid, calcium chloride, water, and food coloring. When I read this piece of news, I felt that building a model of China versus non-“China” or, for that matter, Genuine/normal Egg versus non“Genuine/normal Egg,” is most appropriate and, therefore, necessary, because we can have a fuller, if not a whole, picture, anticipating the future ironic development, for example, the egg is genuine; no, the egg is not genuine; and, later, it turns out that all the eggs under discussion are genuine. Most people would not think of fake eggs, until reading reports. Yet, they do exist, at least a few years ago elsewhere. Or do they, because the Penang eggs after laboratory tests were found to be genuine33? A synonym for non-“China” is fake or not genuine China. So, in future, can we have a fake China or even be able to sell it? This possibility cannot be ruled out, dialectically speaking. However, can the other two one-dot theories offer a fuller, if not a whole, picture? It is doubtful. Multisystem nations: In the mid-1970s, WEI Yung coined this term, which can be applied to study “divided” China, Vietnam, and Germany, emphasizing that “relations between different parts of a divided nation are not between different states but different political systems” and proposing that “to preserve the idea of ‘one nation,’ but face the reality of the coexistence of two or more mutually separated political systems within that nation,” adding “[t]he logical derivation from this concept would be: ‘one nation, two systems’; ‘one sovereignty, two [de facto] jurisdictions’; and ‘one country, two international personalities.’”34 To be sure, WEI’s theory is close to LIU’s spheroid nation’s theory, and it also cannot be applied to ancient China, because he touched upon, for example, the issue of sovereignty. To the Chinese, until the mid-nineteenth century, they have no idea about international law, sovereignty, the need of having, for example, international

32 BP, April 8, 2011, p. 22 and April 9, 2011, p. 24 and SHDN, April 7, 2011, p. 9. An egg distributor said the egg could be an old chicken’s. See SHDN, April 9, 2011, p. 2. 33 SHDN, April 10, 2011, p. 1and BP, April 11, 2011, p. 22. 34 Wei Yung, “From ‘Multi-system Nations’ to ‘Linkage Communities,’” Issues & Studies (Taipei), Vol. 33, No. 10 (October 1997), pp. 1–19, especially p. 3, p. 16, and p. 18 as well as id., “The Unification and Division of Multi-system Nations” in Hungdah CHIU and Robert Downen, eds., “Multi-system Nations and International Law”, Occasional Papers/Reprints in Contemporary Asian Studies, No. 8 (Baltimore, MD.: School of Law, University of Maryland, 1981), 187 pages.

A Critique

39

organizations as urged by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, for the sake of preserving perpetual peace, etc., because China is not a nation but culture, as Lucian W. Pye, an American political scientist, correctly understood. Therefore, there is no need to have them, until the May Fourth Movement, when Chinese intellectuals began to understand the importance of having them. Neidi’s market economy since the 15th National Party (Representative) Congress of the CPC.35 The Chinese Communists are dialecticians. To this day, they are still subscribing to (neo)Marxism, which embraces MAO Zedong Thought, DENG Xiaoping Theory, JIANG Zemin Important Theory, HU Socialist System with Chinese characteristics, etc. In September 1997, they officially chose the market economy line, which can be unofficially traced back to January 1992, when Deng conducted a historic southern inspection. To be sure, the superstructure of this economic line is the ROC, not the PRC, Taiwan, Xinjiang, or Tibet. In other words, LIU’s theory cannot withstand this ultimate, crucial test, because he has mentioned both Beijing and Taipei.36 As to the Yin and Yang diagram, it also cannot be used after September 1997 to describe and explain the existence of both the ROC and the PRC.37 However, if we adopt a superior version or move one step up the ladder, so to speak, we will be talking about a pure dot or circle, and this dot can only refer to the ROC, up to December 1949, when China became politically divided. What about the egg schematic model? Yes, we can refer to the eggshell itself as the ROC. One yolk can be the short-lived CSR, as mentioned in the first section of this case study. Taiwan Pavilion as a dot: Zone A is a dot, the largest dot. Within this dot, we have the Taiwan Pavilion and the China Pavilion, each one of which is a dot but a partial dot of Zone A. The first theory can describe and explain the Taiwan Pavilion. It could be either the Yin or the Yang. It can also be interpreted as a dot in either Yin or Yang. In this context, either Yin or Yang represents the China Pavilion. The same logic(s) apply to the egg schematic theory and the third theory. International regimes: There are many definitions for this very abstract term. My December 2008 definition is as follows: a set (or sets) of at least 15 norms/criteria/core elements/features (including those four as mentioned by Steven D. Krasner) in the contexts of (fragmented) issue-area, (fragmented) issue-areas, and issue-regimes.38 Just as China is an area, a small university with many no smoking signs in Taipei is also an area. It goes without saying that they face many international regimesrelated issues, such as transboundary air pollution and the threat of nuclear war.

35 See my book, Hu Jintao and the Ascendancy of China: A Dialectical Study (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International Academic Publishing, 2005) and Peter Kien-hong YU and W. Emily Chow, “The Emergence of the Fifth Generation of Beijing’s Leadership,” Asian Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer 2008), pp. 95–116. 36 The academic can chose the DENGist framework, that is, Socialism versus Capitalism, with Market Economy in the middle. However, this is playing trick. 37 Unless we use the following model: Yin and Yang versus non–Yin and Yang. 38 See my book, International Governance and Regimes: A Chinese Perspective (London: Routledge, 2012). International regime is a set of norms. In other words, a set of norms has been added for the first time in July 2011.

40

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Such issues must be solved and resolved or else the consequence would negatively affect all the countries, political/economic entities, and individuals like you and me sooner or later. Each regime, therefore, can make a national boundary or a line drawn between two local districts of a county irrelevant. It is this regimes theory, perhaps accompanied sometimes by the swarm theory, which can falsify the second and third one-dot theory, because it can set aside culture, national boundaries, democracy, etc., especially under urgency, and because all the affected human and non-human entities must make community-centered arrangements to resolve the clear and present dangerous issue. It should be noted that, in June 2010, one of the hens had laid the largest egg in the world, measuring an astonishing 9.1 in. in diameter, beating the previous world record holder, which had a double yolk and double shell, weighing 16 ounces.39 There is one thing in common regarding the three theories, that is, they all can be enlarged.

Concluding Remarks A few decades ago, Lowell Dittmer said many models and theories had to be abandoned, because they cannot really describe and explain Chinese (Communist) politics. What about the three one-dot theories? Arguably, only the first theory can withstand many challenges since its inception a few thousand years ago, unless we see the extinction of human beings, because, if and when there are no more human beings, we can only hope the extraterrestrial creatures to apply it.

Second Case Study as One Dot: Management Diagrams: Consistently Converting Them in Terms of a Series of Yin and Yang Diagrams40 From June 2009 to June 2011, the author was briefly in the world of business and management study, with trepidation, although fully aware that it is but part of social science.41 In April 2010, the author was reminded by his colleague that the unit of

39 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285579/Harriet-hen-lays-worlds-largest-egg.html, accessed on June 17, 2010. 40 This section was originally written by the author. However, he invited two of his former colleagues to be the coauthors. In this section, I will try to modify each sentence again. 41 It should be noted that international relations/international affairs overlap with international business at least 80%.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

41

analysis for business and management is usually the company, whereas the unit of analysis for international relations/politics/affairs is usually the country.42 At the same time, the author, for the first time, heard from the same colleague the term applied43 way (of conducting research and writing on business), which can enable us to create/bring forth/generate/make that which does not exist (as opposed to the classical way, which is a representation of—not for—something). Later in the same month, the author was again told by the same colleague, who is fond of transdisciplinarity (TD), which recognizes “the existence of different levels of reality governed by different types of logic,”44 that we have to apply logics (as opposed to logic), when we conduct business and management studies. It was not until early June 2010 that the author realized that the statement that we have to preferably adopt the applied way and to preferably apply logics, when we conduct research and writing on business and management, can be easily challenged, if readers realized that it is possible to convert all the selected ten management diagrams in terms of the one-dot theory and a series of crab and frog motion models. In other words, each non-“dialectical” diagram can be regarded as a dot, and the author will construct a series of models, which are necessary, in order to comprehend the original diagram, which could be adapted from or be a version of other diagram(s). Later, I will point out some findings, to be followed by remarks regarding the academic study of business and management.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams In this section, it is appropriate to apply the Yin and Yang diagram, which is related to the author’s theory and model, to study the term management and other related diagrams. This is because, throughout the chosen book, Fundamentals of Management,45 dialectical terms can be easily detected. Although Samson and Daft may not be aware that what they have done by, at least, adopting inner dialectics, they are supposed to be dialectically consistent throughout their book from writing the first word to the last word. Examples are many, with a brief explanation. 1. One dot.46

42 One academic journal stated the following: “The journal addresses the burning questions of management at all levels, namely, international organizations and communities, state, region, and company,” access on July 30, 2010. 43 Or performative way. What is needed is a model for creating that which does not exist. 44 See its November 1994 charter. 45 Danny A. Samson and Richard L. Daft, Fundamentals of Management, third Asia Pacific ed. (Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia, 2009). 46 Ibid., p. 92. The general environment is the outer layer of the environment. There are other dots. See, for example, ibid., p. 104, p. 140, p. 185, p. 233, p. 254, p. 300, p. 402, and p. 571. However, the structures inside are all different. From SAMSON, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

42

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

This is a good example.47 However, by just looking at the diagram, can one tell which dimension in the general environment carries more weight than other dimensions? It is difficult, because even the two coauthors said “the dimensions that influence the organization over time but often are not involved in day-to-day transactions with it.”48 Yet, we see in the book that the international dimension was discussed first and legal/political, last, implying that the former is more important than the latter. In the crab and frog motion model, we have a scale mechanism, reminding readers that 1 is more important than 5, at least normatively. 2. Mechanistic versus organic organizations.49

47 John J. Wild et al. also presented their study of international business in terms of a dot. See their book, John J. Wild, Kenneth L. Wild, and Jerry C. Y. HAN, International Business: The Challenges of Globalisation, 5th ed. (New Jersey: Pearson and Prentice Hall, 2010). 48 Samson and Daft, pp. 92–98. 49 Ibid., p. 357 and p. 359 as well as the PowerPoint.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

3.

4.

5.

6.

43

The word, versus, is dialectical. Many academics and experts, who have a linear-thinking or are used to the cause and effect study, failed to recognize this. In other words, by applying, at least, inner dialectics, they should not feel uncomfortable with dialectics, some of whom mistakenly think that dialectics is associated with (neo)Marxism. As a reminder, the Yin and Yang diagram appeared before (neo)Marxism. 1 = not well at all; 2 = not very well; 3 = moderately well; 4 = very well; 5 = extremely well. This is similar to a five-point Likert scale (1 = lowest importance and 5, highest importance). “Not well at all” represents one extreme and “extremely well,” another extreme. The spectrum can be expanded or reduced. For example, a manager may have ten roles to play in a company, that is, under the category of informational: monitor, disseminator, and spokesperson; under the category of interpersonal: figurehead, leader, and liaison; and under the category of decisional: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator.50 In this context, what one should do is to construct the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 spectrum or the A B C D E F G H I J spectrum. For example, 1 refers to monitor; 5, leader; and 8, disturbance handler. Making the leap: becoming a new manager.51 In the crab and frog motion model, one has to often leap or jump from one model to another model, though all the structures remain the same. This is necessary, because, sometimes, we cannot use the first model to describe and explain, if not to infer or predict, certain new phenomena. As a next step, we have to build a new model or a series of other crab and frog motion models, so as to rationalize everything. Adversarial orientation and partnership orientation.52 A dialectical relationship has at least a (partial) adversary, due to the existence of the safe zone (or partnership orientation) and danger zone (or adversarial orientation) structure, if we look at the whole model. At time/space sequence (n), we will be able to see the end result of the game. Paradox.53 In December 2004, I put down the following sentence, after lengthy observation: A dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non“dialectical”/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet halfway.

Because some readers may still be confused, we will first apply the Yin and Yang diagram to describe and explain, if not infer or predict, the term management, which is again but a dot. First, we must conceive management as a pure dot, with nothing inside. It comes in the shape of a circle, which means 360 degrees, embracing all

50

Ibid., p. 31. Ibid., p. 26. 52 Ibid., p. 108. 53 Ibid., p. 317. 51

44

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

types of management from A to Z, such as Theory Z or what I called JapanAm Theory (Japan + America), if we refer to the 1986 Gung Ho movie, which means a management perspective that incorporates techniques from both Japanese and Western management practices. However, it does not represent everything, because there are other things in the world, both tangible and intangible. Here, the Yin and Yang diagram sets in. In other words, there is management and non-“management.” Management could be represented by the white portion in the diagram and non-“management,” the black portion. By the latter, it could refer to a company car, CEO, etc., that is, tangible and intangible things related to management. Couched in terms of the crab and frog motion model, management is 1 2 3 4 5 and non-“management,” A B C D E. Another way of saying the same thing is management versus non-“management.” In real life, we may well sometimes have to position management at 1 and non“management,” 5. In that context, what does A B C D E stand for in terms of the whole model? It is “management”-and-non-“management,” or something totally not related to management and the company, such as asteroid, universe, skill, etc. Here, we must insert another model, that is, management and non-“management” related to the company versus (as opposed to and) non-“management” not related to the company. We must also have the following structure in mind: one Yin and Yang diagram on the left versus the other Yin and Yang diagram on the right. Another way of saying the same thing is the left Yin and Yang diagram versus the right Yin and Yang diagram. The right Yin and Yang diagram in this context could be asteroid versus non-“asteroid” (which could be, e.g., universe). What does the small black dot in the white portion and, for that matter, the small white dot in the black portion represent? To be sure, the small black dot in the white portion could refer to something in the black portion and vice versa. In other words, they coexist. In passing, it should be noted that, just as the small black dot or the small white dot, respectively, can be expanded, it can be reduced, too, respectively. What about the curvy line in the middle of the diagram? It represents the middle way or both 5 in the safe zone or A in the danger zone, depending on the time/space sequence. To be sure, both 5 and A can constitute another dialectical model. At this juncture, we will select ten diagrams from the Samson and Daft book. Readers can compare and contrast them, only to find that the two coauthors ignored, neglected, or had failed to integrate all the diagrams in the book into one grand diagram at the very beginning of the book. What they did had confused readers, young and old alike. To be sure, books like Blue Ocean Strategy and International Business: The Challenges of Globalisation have the same shortcomings. The authors cannot be adopting TD and Yin and Yang diagram at the same time, unless they are conducting a comparative study. However, we will show how they can be converted in terms of a series of the crab and frog motion model.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

45

I.54

At least five major crab and frog motion models with the same structure are needed: (1) Mechanistic Organizations versus Organic Organizations; (2) Organic Organizations versus Mechanistic Organizations; (3) In Stable Environments versus In Dynamic Environments; (4) In Dynamic Environments versus In Stable Environments; and (5) Rigid hierarchical relationships at 1; Fixed duties at 2; High formalization at 3; Formalized communication channels at 4; and Centralized decision authority at 5; which is another way of representing Mechanistic Organizations, as well as Collaboration (both vertical and horizontal) at E, Adaptable duties at D; Low formalization at C; Informal communication at B; and Decentralized decision authority at A, which is another way of representing Organic Organizations. If we want to go in-depth, we can construct a series of other models, for example, Rigid hierarchical relationships versus non-“Rigid hierarchical relationships.” By the latter, it can be Fixed duties, High formalization, etc.

II. In Chap. 9 on page 359, we see the following rating/grading: disagree strongly, represented by 1 2 3 4 5 and agree strongly, represented by 1 2 3 4 5. In Chapter 10 on page 392, we see the following rating: 1 = not well at all; 2 = not very well; 3 = moderately well; 4 = very well; 5 = extremely well. In Chapter 13 on page 508, we see the following rating: very important ← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 → very unimportant. The above-mentioned ratings are very confusing. How do we convert different ratings logically, systematically, and coherently? First, we must first identify three major

54 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

46

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

models, namely, Disagree Strongly versus Agree Strongly; “not well at all” versus “extremely well;” and “very important” versus “very unimportant.” Second, Disagree Strongly should be 1 2 3 4 5, and Agree Strongly, A B C D E. The same logic(s) apply to the second rating, namely, the “not well at all” spectrum is 1 2 3 4 5 and the “extremely well,” A B C D E. As to the last example, the model should be restructured as follows: “Very important” is equivalent to 1 2 3 4 5 and “very unimportant,” A B C D E.

III.55

A series of models are needed to describe and explain the diagram. If presented well, the models can help us to infer or predict future, even to time/space sequence (n). We can name some of them: Needs of the Environment versus non-“Needs of the Environment;” Strategic Focus versus non-“Strategic Focus;” Achievement Culture at 1, Consistency Culture at 2, Involvement Culture at 4, and Adaptability Culture at 5; External at 1 and Internal at 5; and Flexibility at 1 and Stability at 5. Since this diagram is derived from several sources, we also need to have the following model: All the authors to be put in the safe zone spectrum. In other words, we have to tolerate all of their contributions, however, contradictory they are. The crab and frog motion player has to decide where to place the first author, second author, and so on and so forth, accordingly in 1 2 3 4 5. 55

From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

47

IV.56

This is a pyramid-shaped diagram. As such, it simply means that “Mission statement” should be positioned at 1, because 1 carries the most weight. “Strategic goals/ plans…” should be placed at 2. “Tactical goals/plans…” should be put at 4. And the last level should be 5. “External Message” and “Internal Message” should also be constructed and be put at 1 and 5, respectively.

56 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

48

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

V.57

Abraham H. Maslow’s hierarchy or theory of human needs was originally presented in a pyramid-shaped diagram. Another model saying the same thing is as follows: Self-actualization needs at 1; Esteem needs at 2; Belongingness needs at 3; Safety needs at 4; and Physiological needs at 5. In this model, we start from 5 at time/space sequence (1). Like a crab, we gradually move from 5 to 1. Since the coauthors of the 2009 book expanded upon the original pyramid, we have to build other related models, such as “Fulfillment on the job” at 1 and “Fulfillment off the job” at 5.

57

From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

49

VI.58

This is a complex and complicated diagram. Depending on each leader of the company, any arrangement is possible. For example, we can put “Club style management” at 1, while “Team management” could be placed at 3. To simplify everything, we can use Foxconn Technology Group (FTG), as an example. It is a multinational business group anchored by the Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. in Taiwan, ROC, which makes products for Apple, Nokia, Dell, Sony, and Panasonic and which employs an estimated 420,000 people in the Chinese mainland (Neidi), including 300,000 in Shenzhen, a city of subprovincial administrative status in Guangdong Province. From January to June 2010, 10 out of its 12 Shenzhen plant employees leapt to their deaths from their apartments, to be followed by other incidents in July 2010 or even November 2011. Some protesters say that the company was

58 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

50

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

making money by exploiting workers. In other words, the founder of Foxconn, Terry T. GOU, was more concerned about production than people. In June 2010, GOU, under pressure, shifted to “middle-of-the-road” style from “Authority-compliance” style by rising 30% of his employees’ wages, if one qualifies after assessment, which could spell a historic end to cheap labor in the mainland.59 Needless to say, the crab and motion player has to decide by himself or herself where to position, for example, middle-of-the-road management style.

VII.60

Paul Hersey and K. H. Blanchard’s situational leadership model “is a contingency approach to leadership that links the leader’s behavioural style with the task readiness of employees.”61 Their point is simple and straightforward: People low in task

59

BP, June 10, 2010, p. B10. A study was made released in late November 2011, pointing out the major reasons. 60 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. 61 Samson and Daft, p. 454.

Consistently Converting the Management Diagrams

51

readiness, due to little ability, training, or insecurity, need a different leadership style from those who are high in readiness to lead them.62 So, for leader behavior, we can position relationship behavior at 1 and task behavior, 5. In another model, “telling” could be at 1; “selling,” 2; “practicing,” 4; and “delegating,” 5. What does 3 stand for? It stands for a mixture of 1 and 2 as well as 4 and 5. As for follower readiness, we need at least two models: high at 1; moderate at 3; and low at 5, plus putting R4 at 1; R3 and R2 are equivalent to 3; as well as R1 equal to 5. Needless to say, what we have written down only shows a partial picture. We need more crab and frog motion models, if we want to see a more complete or fuller picture.

VIII.63

It is not difficult to construct a series of models for this diagram. Corporate-level strategy should be placed at 1; business-level strategy, 3; and functional-level strategy, 5. Since corporation does not equal to textiles unit, chemical unit, and auto parts unit, we need the following model: Corporation versus non-“Corporation.” However, another way of saying corporation is, for example, textiles unit, to be positioned at 1; chemical unit or 3; and auto parts unit or 5. And, for the function-level strategy, we can put Finance at 1; R & D, 2; Manufacturing, 3; and Marketing, 5.

62

Ibid. From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. 63

52

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

IX.64

The diagram is obviously non-“dialectically” built. However, inner dialectics exists, such as assertive versus unassertive as well as cooperative versus uncooperative. Managing team conflict can be done dialectically, that is, by applying the crab and frog motion model. Depending on the manager, the assertiveness style could be 1 and the cooperativeness style, E. A manager may also have to accommodate both styles, by positioning the first style at 5 and the second style, 1. In other words, 3 would be a mixture of both 1 and 5. At certain time/space sequence, both 1 and 5 are needed, certainly. In the diagram, we also see the term compromising in the middle of the square or box. This is like 5 in the safe zone of the crab and frog motion model and A in the danger zone.

64 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

Findings

53

X.65

A few models are needed in the seemingly contradictory paragraph. “To be a Failure” should be put at 1, because, normatively speaking, at time/space sequence (n), the man wants to reach there. The second model is “To Reach My Goal” (or 1) versus non-“To Reach My Goal” (or 5). Before reaching the goal, the man has to rely on the third model: Success (or 1) versus Failure (or 5). Since the man mentioned success twice in the second sentence in the cartoon, he was at 1, standing for success, twice or at time/space sequence (1) and time/space sequence (2). In sum, a seemingly contradictory paragraph can be and has been dissolved.

Findings Many findings are in order. Here, we are talking about findings versus non-“findings.” There are more than ten findings. We can arrange them in terms of the safe zone spectrum. First, all the chosen (or non-“chosen”) diagrams in the 2009 book are in a mess. They come in different internal structures, shapes, sizes, etc. There is no logic(s), system, or coherence, if we lump and look at them together. Intuitively, had we chosen other diagrams, the result is the same—confusion begets confusion. There could be logic(s), if we look at each one of them, respectively. However, this

65 From Samson, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.

54

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

may not be 100% true, because some diagrams were adapted, and therefore, the two coauthors of the book may have distorted the research method(s) of those original diagrams. In short, an undergraduate student can be easily confused, to say the least. Second, in this intellectual exercise, we have consistently tried to convert all the non-“dialectical” diagrams into the dialectical ones. By doing so, the author had, for the first time in July 2010, revised the order of what scholarship means to him in the following original order of importance: logic(s), contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc. Third, the author’s one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model or the crab and frog motion model and/or theory can be applied when a researcher or practitioner is facing a question of what way to choose: classical way and/or applied way. This is because everything can be interpreted as a dot. Needless to say, a dot could be a partial dot of a larger dot. As a step further, the 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E framework can be applied to describe, explain, and infer, if not predict, certain phenomena. Fourth, to apply logic(s), one must be dialectical. Yet, by applying the author’s model, one should realize that it can embrace all the logics in the world by virtue of the safe zone spectrum, which can be expanded. Thus, the inductive method could be placed at 5; deductive, at 1; and a mixture of them, at 3. In passing, it should be pointed out that logic(s) cannot be non-“dialectical.” For example, at point 1 in time, one applied the inductive method; at point 2 in time, one switched to the deductive method; at point 10 in time, one adopted the inductive method again. This is like saying one wants to travel from Kuching, Sarawak, FOM to Shanghai, the Chinese mainland. In the first leg of the trip, one tried to swim from Kuching to Xiamen City, Fujian Province. In the second leg, one rode on a bicycle. In the third leg, one spent 10 h walking along the provincial road. And, in the last leg, one drove a car to reach the direct-controlled municipality. In short, although the traveler reached the destiny, he or she did not choose a consistent way. Fifth, we do need to apply logic(s) to study management and, for that matter, business. As shown, we have throughout the sections applied at least two types of logic(s) to describe and explain all the ten selected diagrams. However, there is consistency. Can the same model and theory be applied to study other diagrams in the same book or other books? The answer is clear: Yes, it can be easily done. Sixth, because the author’s theory and model can accommodate both classical and applied ways, the end result of our study or analysis should be closer to reality. The only problem is that we have to rely on a series of crab and frog motion models to represent each diagram, which is cumbersome to many, if not most, academics and experts. However, since each model’s structure is the same, there should not be too much of headache for readers to comprehend or grasp everything in a short period of time. Meetings can be shortened, if the participants use and share the same logic(s). Seventh, what needs to be done is to integrate all the small and big crab and frog motion models into one biggest model and to present them at the outset, which should be applicable to all situations and phenomena. Eighth, by applying the author’s theory and model, the study can be considered philosophical. “My philosophy is…” This sentence was uttered by the wife of the author’s brother, when he was staying at their house in late 2001. The philosophy of

Findings

55

the father of scientific management, Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915), is “In the past the man has been first. In the future, the system must be first.”66 Non“dialectically,” whoever made that kind of statement—my philosophy is…—should not change a bit throughout his or her life. Is this possible? The answer is clear: No. Thus, Taylor switched the word from man to system. Man is not equal to system. To be sure, we cannot rule out the possibility that man can be put in the first place again in the future. It is always possible that, after another asteroid strikes our planet, we the human beings have to go back to the Stone Age. Nonetheless, dialectically, one can, depending on each time/space sequence, because one can comply with 1%, 50%, or even 100% of his or her philosophy in the philosophy versus non-“philosophy” framework. Thus, “man must be first” can be placed at 5, while “system must be first” can be positioned at 1, whereas 3 can be a hybrid of both 1 and 5, due to the fact that some criticisms of the scientific management have been leveled at Taylor, such as “did not appreciate the social context of work and higher needs of workers; did not acknowledge variance among individuals; [and] tended to regard workers as uninformed, and ignored their ideas and suggestions.”67 Ninth, the early study of management, as we know it today, emerged during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries or what some academics called the classical perspective.68 At that time, not many academics and experts would think of first using the term governance. Joan E. Spero and Jeffrey A. Hart, in their 7th edition book, The Politics of International Economic Relations, have urged us to move from the perspective of management to (international) governance. Morten Ougaard and Anna Leander, in their 2009 book, pointed out that, over the past two decades, the role of business in global governance has become increasingly topical. Our sincere plea is to venture into the study of international (corporate) governance,69 which is an integrated term of international governance, international corporate governance, and corporate governance. If we were to add another term, business, the complete picture, non-“dialectically,” and half-picture, dialectically, would be more complex and complicated, as we often mention both business and management together. The ultimate question is: Can you put the three terms together in our model or in any one of the non-“dialectical” diagrams mentioned above? Yes, it can be easily done, if one applied the crab and frog motion model. We can put governance at 1; business, 3; and management, 5. At time/space sequence (1), people concerned with business were at 3. Since the nineteenth century, people began to attach great importance on management. And, in recent decades, the emphasis has been first shifted to governance and then management, because the latter is but a part of the former.

66

Ibid., p. 62. Ibid., p. 63. 68 Ibid., p. 61. 69 See my edited book, International (Corporate) Governance: A One-dot Theory Interpretation (New York: Nova Business and Management Publications, 2011). 67

56

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Tenth, when the Dutch East Indies Company (DEIC) (or Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie in Dutch), as a first artificial person in the world of business, was created in March 1602,70 there was no technology. Can we apply the following model: man at 1, science at 3, and technology at 5? The answer is yes. Human beings existed first at time/space sequence (1). Science followed, say, at time/space sequence (1,000). Then, we have technology. In other words, when we have all three, we simply look at man, science, and technology together at the specific time/ space sequence, when technology emerged. What this means is that the crab and frog motion model covers the past, present, and the future. In other words, building a right model can enable us to predict future. Non-“dialectically,” it cannot be done, because man is man is man, unless inner dialectics has been applied later on, using such inner dialectical phrases as “on the one hand” and “on the other hand.” Eleventh, often we hear both experts and laymen, saying that their attempt in conducting research and writing is to bridge the gap between research and practice or to put theory into practice. Once having understood the author’s theory and model, one should realize that reality can easily be slotted into the one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model. Twelfth, if one does not apply a model or theory, he or she can be easily labeled as a pseudoscientist. However, when one does apply a model or theory, he or she may be criticized as being tautological, because the theoretical model is the answer. However, to a practitioner, such may not be the case, because he or she is making initiatives, and such a criticism cannot be leveled against him or her. Thirteenth, if scholarship means the following in the order of importance, we have fulfilled at least the first four criteria: logic(s), contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc. There is logic(s) in the paper. We have made contribution to at least tell the two coauthors that they should be consistent in using or showing management diagrams. Indeed, there is consistency. The author’s model and theory are precise, by virtue of the spectrums and time/space sequence components, because, for example, each time/space sequence may refer to a half-a-split second. And, because the dialectical model is both normative and empirical, the study should be closer to reality. Fourteenth, in the West, many subscribe to linear thinking or cause-effect. A cause produces a result, and an effect is a result of a cause. A cause may have at least three effects: effect 1, effect 2, and effect 3. An effect may also have at least three causes: cause 1, cause 2, and cause 3. “If the writer’s objective is to show why something exists or occurs, then effects-to-causes is the better choice. If the writer’s goal is to show consequences, then the cause-to-effects is more appropriate.”71 However, they are not aware that they have to adopt inner dialectics, in order to continue their description, explanation, and inference, if not prediction. A dual-track approach/ strategy is one finest example. In June 2010, the UN slapped the fourth comprehensive package of (tighter, crippling, or paralyzing) sanctions on the Islamic Republic

70 71

It became defunct or bankrupted in March 1798. http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/KSD/KR/WRITE/GEN/coherence.html, accessed on July 28, 2011.

Concluding Remarks

57

of Iran (RIOI). The first round was made in December 2006. Before making the punishments, dialogue and negotiations as well as the threat of sanctions took place. In a word, the dual-track approach is precisely dialectical.

Concluding Remarks Since ancient China, the Chinese scholars tried to correlate almost everything in terms of Yin and Yang. We are continuing that tradition or carrying on the baton in the relay, so to speak, so as to enable us to rationalize everything logically, systematically, and coherently. The author emphasizes the word, everything, because it can be easily done. We were told that there are seven (deadly) sins in corporate mismanagement or misgovernance, to wit, gluttony, lechery or the best, the loafer, the cheat, avarice, envy, as well as pride and ambition or the sun king. Arguably, the problem or what the author called the 8th sin with social science is that, often, when we study a topic, we did not put logic(s) in the first place. This applies to business and management, politics, etc. What the non-“dialecticians” have done is actually distorting reality, even if one attempts to apply the grounded theory, trying not to have preconceived ideas.72 To be sure, managers or, for that matter, CEOs, cannot put logic(s) in the first place. They must put profit in the first place. Without profit, their company cannot survive. If their company cannot survive, logic(s) do not mean a thing, unless logic(s) can generate profit or revenue. However, a well-established company may have to be concerned with logic(s), for example, when they place an advertisement in the mass media, trying to convince prospective buyers. Even so, some advertisement statements may not be logical, because they do not fit into all consumers’ needs.73 Thus, the following model is needed: profit at 1 and logic(s), 5. It remains to be seen whether or not other academics and experts who apply game theory, systems theory,74 rational choice theory, etc., can be equally successful in converting information, data, and analysis into their choice of model and/or theory. Intuitively, it is doubtful, because both game theory and rational choice theory, which does not accompany with at least one model, presume that all the human beings are rational at all times, which is not so. Thus, we see the 9/11 tragedy. Besides, the structure of their models could, most likely, differ. In this connection, the shortcoming of the systems theory is precisely that black-box or what Samson and Daft called Transformation process (or management/production technology), in which we do not know what is 100% really going on.

72 If a person is not religious, he or she should go back to the split second just before the Big Bang. If the person is religious, he or she should go back to the moment before the existence of God, Buddha, etc., because God is a Being, something which can influence our mind and heart. 73 Conversation with Vie Ming Tan, dated June 10, 2010. 74 Samson and Daft, pp. 72–73.

58

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

In sum, it is not difficult to convert information, data, and analysis into the author’s model and theory, which can, needless to say, still be falsified, when all the human beings become extinct, meaning that nobody can apply the crab and frog motion model and the one-dot theory and, therefore, what the author has done since September 1994 by constructing the dialectical model would be in vain.

Third Case Study as One Dot: Converting the Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives Two biologists edited Monitoring Ecosystems,75 which is supposed to be used for the twenty-first century, groundbreaking resource management. They advocated interdisciplinary approaches. Yet, a reviewer in the book blurb mentioned the term interdisciplinary systems approach.76 This may have already confused some readers. One is in plural and the other, singular. However, by applying my one-dot theory, which is shored up by the crab and frog motion model, I can instantly dissolve the confusion. We can, for example, put the two editors’ term at 1, because they brought together leading environmental scientists and researchers to offer lessons learned about ecological monitoring, which are followed by three other stages, namely, evaluation, planning, and implementation, in major ecoregional initiatives around America. I would put the other term at 5, meaning that both terms can be accepted throughout the publication. However, once doing that, readers should realize that the approach would be dialectical. Yet, not all chapter writers have noticed that. Some of them did mention in their respective chapters some dialectical terms. And, one author, citing C. S. Holling’s writing, non-“dialectically” and, therefore, confusingly wrote: “… [i]nterpretation of the significance of changes in the value of an indicator [or bioindicator] is also complicated by possible nonlinear, [known, incomplete, less-thanperfect, or suspected] cause-effect relationship between the indicators and its stressor [italics and emphases mine,]”77 which means threats in general or natural, unnatural, or human-induced agents of change or “[a] physical, chemical, or biological entity or process that induces on individuals, populations, communities, or ecosystems” in particular.78 (Environmental) indicators or indicator species, however, criticized by scientists due to the fact that all possible attributes of an ecological system cannot feasibly (precisely or accurately) be measured, can somewhat help us to have (reliable) measures telling us the degree to which management practices can help to sustain ecological systems.79 At least three barriers in conducting

75

See David E. Busch and Joel C. Trexler, eds., Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives (Washington: Island Press, 2003). 76 See the back cover blurb. The term, modern systems theory, was mentioned on page 196. 77 See Busch and Trexler, p. 29. 78 See ibid., p. 35 and p. 428. 79 Ibid., p. 51.

Third Case Study as One Dot…

59

research and writing can be noted.80 The first barrier is vaguely defined objectives. The second one to designing a monitoring program that has all the desirable attributes at the outset is non-existent, inconsistent, or changing methods. And the third barrier in monitoring program design is a lack of information needed to estimate the variability of environmental features and measurement error over the relevant temporal and spatial scales. According to D. B. Lindenmayer et al., the initial decision that has to be made regarding indicator selection is choosing between the following: function-based, structure-based, and species-based, and each of them will be elaborated later on. Let me first selectively point out some dialectical terms: +/−81; antithesis82; “bottom-up” and “top-down”83; combination of stressors/processes, linking specific structural and compositional elements assessed at multiple spatial scales84; continuum85; contradiction86; hybrid87; extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of change88; nonlinear89; nonquantitative models90; reconcile91; synthesis92; “the model used could be just a mental one, it could be a very detailed computer simulation, or it could be something in between;”93 etc. Justification has been established to apply my theory and model to convert the chapters logically, systematically, and coherently. Three coauthors of one chapter did write the following words: “[f]or managers and the public, the models serve to demystify the science, provide a means for converting broad policy-level goals into specific, measurable objectives…” and “[t]hese … models are an effective means for converting broadly stated restoration goals into more specific measures of restoration success.”94 The very first cogent model to be applied should be the Confucian model, which provides a largest, holistic picture since time immemorial, because it has juxtaposed Tian/(Mother) Nature95 (which could refer to Heaven or the supernatural force(s)/ power(s); the environment; ecology, which has to do with patterns of relations between organisms and their environment; ecosystem, which is essentially a biotic

80

Ibid., pp. 83–84. See ibid., p. 7. 82 See ibid., p. xii. 83 See ibid., p. 103 and p. 407. 84 See ibid., p. 49. 85 See ibid., p. 4 and p. 47. 86 See ibid., p. 412. 87 See ibid., p. 35. 88 See ibid., p. 29. 89 See ibid., p. 29, p. 406, and p. 442. 90 See ibid., p. 144i. 91 See ibid., p. 91. 92 See ibid., p. ix, p. 21, p. 114, and p. 268. 93 See ibid., p. 169. 94 See ibid., p. 144. 95 See ibid., p. xii. 81

60

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

and abiotic community in interaction with its physical environment; universe; or even multiverse) and Ren/man in one framework. In the edited book, lacking a dialectical model, both nature or natural disturbances and human dimensions, humaninduced, human impacts,96 however, has been mentioned. In my model, nature is put at 1, while man, 5. In between those two extremes, we would have the following four Chinese characters, TianRenHeYi/harmony between man and nature or that man is an integral part of nature or 3. If we were talking about 10,000 years ago, we the human beings were still at the mercy of Heaven or nature. Now, we are in a better position, because, sometimes, we can use scientific instruments and devices to cope with nature’s onslaught, such as flooding and earthquake. Of course, there is a long way to go to overcome, for example, global warming or to find renewable energy resources, in view of the rapid depletion of petroleum. At 3, we see balance in the safe zone spectrum, which could bring about harmony, because we the human beings know that it is not possible for us to be greater than Heaven or conquer nature. Our Milky Way could be merged with another galaxy. If Tian is at 1 and Ren at E, then human beings will be defeated by Tian at time/space sequence (n). Where to place TianRenHeYi? 5 perhaps is the place in this Tian versus Ren model. However, in so doing, we are still at the mercy of Tian, because we cannot forget the last move by Tian at time/space sequence (n), which strongly suggests the end of humankind (luckily, it is not as depicted in a recent Mayan, doomsday movie, 2012). Or you can put Ren at 1 and Tian at E. Then, one is saying that Ren will defeat Tian at time/space sequence (n). However, intuitively, this is more difficult, if not impossible at time/space sequence (n). We can only occasionally say that or apply the model. Needless to say, there is no difficulty in linking the three different kinds of frameworks. We just have to create other frameworks between, for example, the first framework and the third framework, when we make a jump, such as To leap versus non-“To leap.” To be sure, the logic(s) still flow. Second, many approaches were given names, such as interdisciplinary approach; interdisciplinary, systems approach; three-phased approach utilizing implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring or environmental surveillance to evaluate ecoregional initiatives; a “balanced” approach to the monitoring of causes and effects show how efficiency can be heightened and information yield enhanced in implementing ecoregional monitoring programs; hybrid approach, emphasizing simultaneous indicator and stressor measurement; fine-scale approach, stressing the structural and compositional aspects of ecological systems focusing on individual species and their dynamics within specific ecosystems, hence, the title of one writing in another book—the devil is in the dynamic; coarse-scale approach, focusing on macroscale processes, that is, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, hydrological regimes, and pays considerable less attention to the structure and composition of the systems from which these processes emerge; hierarchical approach, monitoring four scales of ecological organization, namely, landscape, community-ecosystem,

96

See ibid., p. 2 and p. 39.

Third Case Study as One Dot…

61

population-species, and genetic, and three primary attributes of biological diversity, namely, function, structure, and composition97; frequentist approach, providing an estimate of the true value of the indicator for the population, for example, the number of hectares of old-growth forest or proportion of federal land suitable as owl habitat, and a confidence interval for the estimate; etc. The same thing speaks for models, such as conceptual model(s), demonstrating the linkages between anticipated environmental stressors, system components and resources, and expected ecological consequences, which are necessary to guide the selection of environmental indicators,98 an example of which is a conceptual model of the river ecosystem, combining submodels of flow, sediment transport, habitat, food resources, and population dynamics of selected species99; heuristic model, suggesting logical links between process, structure, and composition; predictive model, requiring specification of uncertainty in terms of input parameters as well as monitoring information100; bioenergetics model, relating fish growth to intake or prey biomass101; etc. This is how I would arrange them. It is very simple and straightforward. First, I will generate the models of Approaches versus non-“approaches” and Models versus non-“models,” or Theories versus non-“Theories.” Then, for those approaches, I will figure out which one is the most important and the least important. The same logic(s) apply to models. By so doing, readers will not be confused at each time/space sequence. And, for each section, I can discuss the selected approach or model. There is one model, which should not be neglected or ignored, to wit, Monitored at 1; Monitoring, 3; and Grounded or from the Scratch, 5. Each ecosystem could be unique. The data collected for one place, most likely, cannot be duplicated at another place. So, we have to look at each place open-minded, while employing certain methods, techniques, etc., from other places. This means that historical data gathered from elsewhere are of no use at another place. Needless to say, it should be pointed out that, even generating a model for biological indicators, such as wading birds, which are bioindicators of environmental conditions102 and which are strongly social and often breed and feed in highly aggregated groups plus generally large, highly mobile, top-level consumers in the aquatic food web, and have high energetic needs,103 can we the human beings really communicate with the birds one day? Here, I would like to contrast what I saw in Animal Planet, a television program on August 5, 2011 at 4 p.m. The narrator tried to interpret what the king lion did to its two young lions, which lacked hunting experience. As a non-“expert”, I felt what the narrator said was very close to reality. The former

97

See ibid., p. 47. See ibid., p. 46. 99 See ibid., p. 114. 100 See ibid., p. 62. 101 See ibid., p. 174. 102 Ibid., p. 321. 103 See ibid., p. 323. 98

62

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

did not want the inexperienced latter to continue eating what has been already hunted. So, the king whisked away the twins from continuing eating the meat. Eventually, the timid young lions learned to become predators. Third, the following terms were mentioned here and there throughout the edited book. I will discuss them first and I will discuss others: 1. Function-based indicator, structure-based indicator, and species-based indicator. According to Lindenmayer et al., function-based indicators include direct measures of processes and their rates. Examples are primary productivity, rates of nutrient cycling, and water flows. Structure-based indicators, which are measured at local and landscape scales, include elements such as vegetation structural complexity, among-patch vegetation heterogeneity, landscape connectivity, and landscape pattern (i.e., the distinction and abundance of different patch types). In addition, there are composition-based indicators that include the direct measurement of some aspects of a species’ life history, demography, or behavior.104 However, I can arrange them logically, systematically, and coherently in the following models: If species-based indicators are being emphasized, we can put it at 1. Function-based indicators perhaps can be positioned at 3, and structure-based, 5. To be sure, on page 52 in the paragraph, function-based indicators were first mentioned, to be followed by structure-based indicators, and species-based indicators. In other words, there is confusion created by Lindenmayer et al. However, my models are flexible enough to accommodate all the possible arrangements. 2. Monitoring elements were mentioned on page 15: aquatic and riparian ecosystems, forest biodiversity, and social and economic effects. Again, we can put the last element at 1, if they are most important or carry most weight. Needless to say, depending on the context, forest biodiversity may be the most important. Therefore, this element can be placed at 1. 3. An ecological system can compose of integrated biological components, that is, individual organisms, populations, species, and communities, which are connected by exchanges of matter and energy.105 To Barry R. Noon, this is a model, representing the traditional notion of an ecological hierarchy, and it is a familiar starting point for most ecologists. Since the term hierarchy has been mentioned, it means that the first component, individual organisms, come first. As such, it can be put at 1 in my crab and frog motion model. However, since Noon mentioned most ecologists, exceptions could also take place, and therefore, another component could be placed at 1, showing flexibility in the application of my models. 4. Concrete examples of stressors have been mentioned, and they are wind, fire, exotic species, pathogens and disease, growth and succession, and human land uses and their possible synergisms with natural disturbance events.106 Again,

104

Ibid., p. 52. Ibid., p. 38. 106 Ibid., p. 49. 105

Third Case Study as One Dot…

63

depending on the perspective, a series of models can be created, showing which stressor carries more weight than others. 5. Eight elements are required to monitor the progress of adaptive management of Colorado River ecosystem in the United States: (1) definition of goals and objectives; (2) synthesis of existing information; (3) competitive, peer-reviewed monitoring and research projects; (4) rigorously peer-reviewed protocols; (5) independent review of project and program approaches and results; (6) information management and archival; (7) education of stakeholders, the scientific community, and the public; and (8) feedback of information into the adaptive ecosystem management.107 Since eight are mentioned, we can arrange them accordingly to the numbers in my crab and frog motion model. However, this is suitable for the Colorado River, and it may not 100% fit, for example, the greater Everglades landscape, which are subtropical wetlands in the southern portion of the US state of Florida and which had, before human impacts, freshwater marshes, tree island hammocks, cypress swamps, pinelands, mangrove swamps, lakes and streams, as well as broad estuarine lagoons.108 As such, other models may have to be built, taking other factors into consideration, such as strong or weak seasonal and annual variation in rainfall and desirable water quality and water quantity patterns (depth, distribution, and flow) in the freshwater wetlands and desirable salinity regimes in the estuaries.109 6. Conceptual models for implementing an ecosystem management process have been proposed by academics and experts. The process is conceived to be both continuous and adaptive, including the following four stages, to wit: monitoring, evaluation, planning, and implementation. At least the following models must be built: first, adaptive at 1 and continuous, 5; second, continuous at 1 and adaptive, 5; third, monitoring at 4; planning, 3; evaluation, 2; and implementation, 1. In other words, there are only four numbers in the spectrum. This shows again the flexibility of my crab and frog motion model. 7. D. E. Wilson et al. identified attributes of biodiversity.110 At the landscape level, attributes that could be monitored include the identity, distribution, and proportions of each type of habitat, and the distribution of species within those habitats. At the ecosystem level, richness, evenness, and diversity of species, guilds, and communities are important. At the species level, we have to know abundance, density, and biomass of each population. And, at the genetic level, genetic diversity of individual organisms within a population may be of interest. Three other academics and experts proposed a three-phase approach to monitoring biodiversity: identifying monitoring questions, identifying monitoring methods, and analyzing and interpreting information for integration into management strategies.111

107

Ibid., p. 126. Ibid., p. 137. 109 Ibid., p. 138. 110 Ibid., p. 378. 111 Ibid., pp. 378–379. 108

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

64

Again, a series of models must be built. The very first one must be able to integrate the two groups’ way of conducting research and writing. Otherwise, confusion could lead to confusion. Perhaps the following model can be built: three-phase approach at 1 and Wilson et al.’s at 5 or vice versa. Needless to say, since other approaches have been mentioned in the same publication, one has to integrate all of them in the safe zone spectrum.

Findings Here, we are talking about findings versus non-“findings”. There are several findings. We can arrange them in terms of the safe zone spectrum. First, terms like “new water management regime,”112 hydrological regime(s),113 and desirable salinity regimes in the estuaries,114 mechanism(s),115 and measure(s)116 have been mentioned in the publication. We can put the three regimes under international regimes, because they could be applied here and there in the world. However, we have not seen three terms being mentioned at the same time in a page. This is important, because, if mentioned together preferably in the introduction, readers can understand more fully about management regimes, mechanisms, and measures for ecosystem. In passing, it should be noted that each international regime has a positive connotation. Therefore, when we talk about mechanism(s) and measure(s), they should also be positive. However, the following contradiction must be dissolved, when we see the term a negative feedback mechanism.117 In other words, the editors must dissolve the logic(s) problem with the two authors of Chapter 12. Second, the editors should in the first chapter tell readers the major differences between approaches and models (both conceptual and quantitative) and, for that matter, the major differences between models and theories, as ecological theory and biodiversity hierarchy theory were mentioned in Chaps. 2 and 14, respectively, which suggest that “what happens at the higher levels of ecological organization, such as the landscape or ecosystem level, influences the lower levels, such as the species or genetic level.”118 In other words, which one should come first? In this connection, what about modeling? According to six coauthors in the chapter discussing use of models for a multiscaled ecological monitoring system, there are

112 See Busch and Trexler, p. xvii. Disturbance, referring to intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of change, regimes on page 380 was mentioned. Not all disturbances are not desirable. See ibid., p. 29. 113 See ibid., p. 37. 114 Ibid., p. 138. 115 See, for example, p. 331, p. 412, and p. 334. 116 See, for example, ibid., p. 143 and p. 416. 117 Ibid., p. 334. 118 See ibid., p. 33 and p. 377.

Findings

65

three major functions of modeling, such as aiding us in the understanding of the relationships between various casual factors in the environment and population changes, thereby making us easier to interpret monitoring observations.119 In this connection, when facing so many approaches and models, how to apply them or not to apply them? It was correct for six coauthors of Chapter 6 on the use of models for a multiscaled ecological monitoring system to say the following words: “[m]odels are often employed before any management changes are put into operation to attempt to predict how well the planned change will work, or to predict the relative effectiveness of several different alternatives…,”120 while reminding us that “[t]here should be no illusion that modeling is a panacea in monitoring programs,”121 which could be spatially expansive, temporally intense, long-lived, and multidisciplinary. Third, the editors should alert readers that both classical science strategy and applied science strategy122 exist. One must not do without the other, since the term big picture123 was mentioned. Fourth, on page 370, we read the following words: “Philosophers of science point out that uncertainty cannot be eliminated, and recommend that managers include it explicitly in the decision process…” Indeed, it was wise for Confucius to show his philosophy on nature and man in terms of a spectrum, that is to say, changes take place all the time from time/space sequence (1) to the last one. It so happens that on the same page, the following words were written: “Ecological systems are not static.” Our concern is: Would human beings be able to survive, if not prevail? Fifth, speaking to a living Buddha in April 2008, I was shock to learn that plants should equally be regarded as having live, because they can grow. Before that, I thought if we refrain from eating animals, we can have a better next life. Not so, if you also eat plants that are growing. So, what can we the human beings eat? Well, according to one of my former graduate students, who happens to be a Buddhist, she said, if you eat a fruit that has already fallen to the ground, it is all right. What about animals? How do they know that they cannot eat other animals, as we read on page 358 that fishes, crayfish, frogs, and apple snails are major diet items of alligators in the Everglades.124 In other words, do animals remain as animals in their next live, because they cannot tell what is right and what is wrong? What I really want to say in this point is that, when we discuss ecosystem, we should also include the study of plants, not merely nature and man. Fortunately, in the edited book, I did find at two places the term plant(s) that are autogamous (selffertilizing) or agamospermic (seed production without fertilization).125

119

Ibid., p. 185. See ibid., p. 172. 121 See ibid., p. 186. 122 See ibid., p. 141. 123 See ibid., p. 114. 124 Ibid., p. 358. 125 See ibid., p. 386 and p. 392. 120

66

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Now, we are facing a daunting task, to wit, how to generate a model, which can embrace nature, man, and plant, since the Chinese sage only simplified complex and complicated reality into nature and man? To be sure, the editors in their writings throughout the book did not mention plant(s). One way of dissolving the contradiction is to place nature at 1; man, 5; and plant(s), 3, because we need each other and because a scale exists, still regarding nature as the most important and plant(s), the least important. Besides, my model is flexible enough to allow us to only look at nature and man at a specific time/space sequence. However, some readers may figure out better models, such as for model 1—nature at 1 and man, 5; and, for model 2—man at 1 and plant(s), 5. In other words, we treat three things using different models, since we can jump from one model to the other model, as we see fit. A hybrid of man and plant(s) or 3 could mean that we, especially the vegetarians, are eating certain types of plants but not all of them can be eaten. Sixth, the editors acknowledge that sometimes sound conceptual models are absent or that the task of detecting and recognizing meaningful change is difficult, because natural systems are complex, inherently dynamic, and spatially heterogeneous.126 Therefore, some scientists would use applied models at multiple scales in the Everglades monitoring program, describing a sophisticated modeling system designed to link monitored physical and habitat parameters with fish and wildlife population responses.127 An interesting (mental, mathematical, or computer simulation) model can be noted. A natural scientist monitoring a bird population might walk through the woods or fields, listening for singing birds and counting the distinct individuals heard. His or her model must at least incorporate factors such as: “How far can a singing bird be heard; How frequently in average does an individual sing, given the time of day, weather, and other environmental factors, such that it might be heard? What members of the population are likely to be singing? How is that number likely to be related to the density of the whole population?”128 Needless to say, the authors in the same publication are also using classical models, such as setting a paradigm for regional ecosystem monitoring.129 And we see a presidential message at the macrolevel: “… protect the long-term health of our forests, our wildlife, and our waterways…”130 In any case, both sides must closely cooperate and coordinate with each other, so as to be closer to reality. Seventh, it is said that it is not possible to have a perfect model regarding ecosystem.131 However, this is possible, if one adopts the Confucian model, as mentioned earlier, because it has already lasted some 25 centuries. Alternatively, one can link all the models related to ecosystem. However, this may take a long period of time.

126

Ibid., p. 16 and p. 28. Ibid., p. 19. 128 Ibid., p. 169. 129 Ibid., pp. 9–10 and p. 101. 130 Cited in ibid., p. 76. 131 Ibid., p. 55. 127

Concluding Remarks

67

Concluding Remarks The second case study was dealing with human beings, not so much on the environment in general and ecosystem in particular. In this case study, biotic features of the environment, such as human beings, animals, and plant(s) as well as abiotic features, such as nature have been dealt with. However, biotic or abiotic, they would not be able to escape from the Confucian, middle way model of TianRenHeYi. Three coauthors of Chapter 5 wrote the following words: “Regional ecosystem restoration programs require a high level of scientific on support if the policy and management decisions that are crucial to the long-term success of such programs are to be effectively ‘science-based…’ For “science” to have a strong, guiding role in restoration processes such as that of the Everglades, it must answer a number of questions that are essential to the successful design and implementation of a system wide restoration program.”132 Some questions are: How are broadly stated restoration goals and objectives converted into specific, measurable targets? What constitute success? How do we minimize the uncertainties that are inherent in all natural and human systems? The coauthors sounded dialectical, because dialecticians, especially those in the Chinese mainland, like to use the term science. To them, science is another way of saying dialectics. I do hope more and more academics and experts would employ dialectics of one version or another, so as to be closer to reality. Last but not least, several things must be done, if the editors want to have a second edition. First, they must first integrate all the models, maps, tables, frequency distribution of indicator values, graphs, boxes, time series data, diagrams, such as in the shape of a pyramid or rectangle, etc., as one theory and model. Second, related to the first, this may well be translated as budget, because to develop useful theories and models requires money besides time. One has to decide whether a monitoring program should be a (smaller) project-, species-, or habitat-specific. Third, the editors may have to find another publisher, if the first edition did not reach more audience as anticipated. Some book companies are good at promoting publications. Fourth, if a chapter has more than one author, the coauthors must first decide who will write the first draft. If not, logic(s) cannot possibly flow. This is because coauthor one may rely on the inductive method, coauthor two may prefer the deductive method, and coauthor three may find a hybrid of the inductive and deductive methods more appealing. Anyway, it is strongly advised that there should be only one academic or expert who would work on the first draft. It is a mistake for the first coauthor to be in charge of the first section, the second coauthor the next few sections, etc.

132

See ibid., pp. 135–136.

68

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot Come to think of it, there are many philosophical and non-“philosophical” dots in the world. The central one-dot theme remains the same, despite kaleidoscopic changes or in spite of all apparent changes. We should proceed from one dot to conduct our analysis. An article in Going Places (FOM) mentioned that, despite its hold on the past, Japan’s cities are dotted with skyscrapers. In October 1949, the Chinese PLA attempted to land at YiDianHong (One Red Dot/LongKou)133 in Jinmen County, Fujian Province. On August 4, 1998, the Asian Wall Street Journal quoted a remark, which was made by an Indonesian leader, who referred to the ROS as a red dot. In recent years, the ROS leaders often remind its citizens that their citystate is a red dot. In this case study, I would treat the Jinmen County Government, which administers 12 jurisdictional islands as a dot. Certainly, Jinmen can be put at 1 of the safe zone spectrum. The county is part of PRC’s Fujian Province since October 1949 but under the ROC administration since December 1949, when China became politically divided. As such, it is a unique partial dot of both PRC’s Fujian Province and the ROC, respectively. The purpose of this study is to describe, explain, and infer the international regimes dimension of the county government. A whole picture, constituting a dot, would be the international regimes and non-“international regimes” dimensions. My focus is on the former. It should be noted that there are two categories of regime, which can be arranged dialectically: Imperium group of international regimes, which is related to sovereign rights and the concept, state-organized: the diplomatic regime; the national security regime; the (human) security regime; the antiwar regime; the arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation regime; the antiterrorism/counterterrorism regime; the human rights regime; the international protection regime; the foreign aid regime; the global refugee regime; and the environmental regime. Depending on the context, we can arrange them dialectically by first sorting out which one is the most important one, thereby enabling us to position it at 1 of the safe zone spectrum. Dominium group of international regimes, which is related to property rights and the concept, institution-organized: the global ocean regime; the deep seabed regime; the outer space regime; the counterpiracy regime; the international business policy regime; the barrier-reduction trade and commerce regime; the import/export regime; free and fair international trade of carbon storage services regime; the foreign investment regime; the foreign exchange/flexible exchange rate regime; the anti-money launderers regime; the intellectual property regime; the international

133

Now, it is called DongYiDianHong.

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot

69

telecommunications regime; and the whaling/panda protection regime.134 Again, depending on the context, we can arrange them dialectically by first sorting out which one is the most important one, thereby enabling us to position it at 1 of the safe zone spectrum. My definition for the term international regimes is as follows: a set (or sets) of at least 15 core elements/criteria/features (including those four as mentioned by Steven D. Krasner) in the contexts of (fragmented) issue-area, (fragmented) issue-areas, and issue-regimes. Regimes can be regarded as a partial dot, while non-“regimes,” another partial dot. Applying my crab and frog motion model, regimes would be put at 1 and non-“regimes,” 5. Needless to say, it is possible to have other arrangements, such as regimes at 1 and non-“regimes,” E and vice versa, depending on the time/ space sequence. I will only discuss the regimes dimension, which can be further understood in terms of issue(s), area(s), the specific regime, mechanism(s), measure(s), and the 15 core elements. Needless to say, the 15 core elements to be discussed below can be arranged dialectically, depending on the context, by first sorting out which one of them is the most important one, thereby enabling us to position it at 1 of the safe zone spectrum. Issue I. Environment is an issue. It involves both the public and private sectors. Area(s): Basically, we are talking about Jinmen County. However, the county government sometimes by itself cannot stop air pollutants of one kind or another emitted from other places. In March 2011, Japan had a nuclear disaster, and places like East China Sea135 and even California were affected. The specific regime: The name for it is the environmental regime. It should be noted that when we discuss a regime, we should not mix it with other international regimes, because sometimes some regimes would be at odds. Mechanism(s): The county government relies on devices and equipments to cope with, for example, air pollution. It has set up a hotline, for reporting cases: 0800056-580. One can also petition to the director of the Bureau: [email protected]. It also maintains an external unit related to the environment, namely, Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB), which was officially founded in March 2000. However, it is supervised by the national-level Environmental Protection

134

According to James C. Hsiung, “‘[w]haling regime’ is so-called because it governs the catching of whales (note the gerund, or verbal noun, ‘whaling,’ which comes from the verb ‘to whale’). Whaling regime deals with the setting of limits on the number of catches in whale-hunting, etc. But, unless you are dealing with a regime that is meant to govern the catching of pandas, you cannot say “pandaing” regime. I assume you are talking about the preservation and protection of pandas, a near-extinct species whose numbers are much less than whales, and whose survivalability is much less than that of whales. The intent of such regime is to prevent and ban the hunting of pandas, not to set the limit of the number of pandas that one can catch, as in the whaling regime. Hence, it should be something like ‘panda-preserving regime,’ or ‘panda-saving regime.’ Email from him, dated August 18, 2009. 135 http://realtime.zaobao.com/2011/08/110815_20.shtml, accessed on August 15, 2011.

70

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

Administration (EPA) of the Executive Yuan (branch) in Taipei Municipal City. The EPA does maintain an environmental law library, and it posts (new) laws and regulations. The Bureau does have a bilingual glossary. In the February 1992 Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act, we see the following words: Each special municipality, county, or city government shall establish a public nuisance dispute mediation committee (herein referred to as mediation committee) to settle public nuisance disputes. Scholars, experts, and impartial citizens shall make up no less than two thirds of the total mediation committee membership, consisting of nine to 21 members. Non-profit corporations, referring to those bodies that have as their goal the engagement in environmentally related work, are also involved in tackling the environment issue. One of the requirements states that each corporation’s property shall be worth at least NT$5 million, after December 31, 1991. Measure(s): After numerous meetings, the county government, for example, decided to provide the following services136: to enhance air quality and tighten pollution controls; to deal with the control on aviation noise; to promote environmental education and advocate environmental protection concepts; to handle petitions against environmental pollution and public nuisance; to monitor drinking water137 and prevent water pollution; to deal with prevention and treatment of sea pollution, soil and underground water pollution; to tighten maintenance and administration of environmental cleanness; to push forward prevention of insects and mice and disinfection work to safeguard the health of local residents; to control the poisonous chemicals and environmental agents; to promote green procurement in government agencies; to promote rubbish reduction and resource recycling; and to strengthen clearing of the waste and supervise the landfilling works. The county government does publicize environmental laws and regulations. However, it is linked to the EPA website. Testing the 15 core elements, which are arranged in terms of the safe zone spectrum: 1. Positive nature: There were no exceptions to the contrary, unless we try to maintain and/or sustain this regime along with another regime, which could be at odds with the regime under discussion in this section. 2. Principles: There are many principles. For example, in the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act, we see three general principles: Article 1: this Act is enacted to fairly, promptly, and effectively handle public nuisance disputes, to safeguard the rights and interests of the people, and to improve social harmony; Article 2: the term “public nuisance” referred to in this Act means human activities which destroy the living environment and damage and endanger public health. Such activities include water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, noxious odors, waste, toxic substance pollution, land subsidence, radioactive pollution, and other activities designated and officially announced as

136 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/AllInOne_en_Show.aspx?path = 6637&guid = 93d900b8-b7d8-4559-84ef-d5decdb83727&lang = en-us, accessed on August 13, 2011. 137 See Kinmen Daily News (here in after KDN), November 14, 2011, P. 7.

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot

71

public nuisances by the central competent authority. Article 3: pursuant to this Act, parties to public nuisance disputes may apply for mediation or arbitration. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Jinmen has an airport. Would the departure and landing of airplanes cause unbearable noise? If so, what can be done? 3. Norms: One example is that garbage collectors would on time get rubbish in every street. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Jinmen streets are clean most of time. Residents are reminded to comply with the regulation on categorized recycling and clearing of general waste.138 However, sometimes, we do see littering by the people. It is not clear whether the residents know the existence of the regulation on rewards for report of violations of the Waste Disposal Act. 4. Rules: There are three sections/Ke in the Bureau, and each section is responsible for certain duties. For example, the first section is in charge of the following: to prevent air pollution, control, investigate, and evaluate noise and vibration, educate and promote, handle public nuisance disputes and documents, and manage the seals, research and performance assessment, legal affairs, information, procurement, property, and other affairs not in charge of other sections. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Depending on the budget, sometimes, due to lack of manpower and expertise, some duties will not be given priority. 5. Decision-making procedures/practices: Environmental protection is not a oneman job. Therefore, numerous meetings have to be conducted. In September 2010, the incumbent county magistrate, LI Wo-shih, chaired the first meeting between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland officials on how to coordinate with each other under a contingency response plan related to oil pollution/YouWuRa nJinJiYingBianXieZuo.139 And one of the important decisions was that the county government would publicize news related to environment protection. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. The environment issue should be apolitical. Yet, when CHEN Shui-bian was the ROC president, he in February 2004 played games by forcing Jinmen county government to amend the Organizational Autonomy Ordinance for the Kinmen County Government by deleting Fujian Province from the original name, to wit, Fujian Province Jinmen County EPB. To an outsider who is not familiar with the fierce struggles between the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp in the Taiwan area, especially after the death of the ROC president CHIANG Ching-kuo, they will think that this change is not a big deal. However, it does send a message to politicians that Jinmen is no longer part of the Chinese mainland. Over time, common people’s perception can also be changed.

138

http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/Bilingual_List.aspx?path = 7194&DepartmentID = 3 3&LanguageType = 2. 139 In November 2009, a conference between both sides was first held at the National Quemoy University.

72

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

6. Pan: Pollution, for example, cannot have a fixed address, as one academic pointed out a long time ago. So, it is here and there. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. A regime is usually fragile, because it is in our mind and it is related to our feelings. Sometimes, people may think that what is going on at another place would not locally affect them. 7. We are all on the same side: As early as the early 1990s, the United States agreed to let the ROC to import technologies for evaluating and monitoring the environment. In August 2011, both Taipei and Washington said they will tackle the following issues: enhancing air quality at harbors, strengthening plans to reduce greenhouse gases, handling electronic waste, and enforcing environmental protection regulations.140 There is no doubt that all the Jinmen residents prefer carbon dioxide emission reduction and support building of more wind energy power plants, relying on breeze and gale to generate electricity, and solar power plants. As of today, each kilowatt produced by the conventional power plant, the Taiwan Power Company (TPC), would be NT$6 in red.141 Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. So long as there is one resident who failed to maintain and sustain the environmental regime, “we are all on the same side” would be under challenge. 8. One for all, all for one (in the Daoist sense?) as opposed to collective security’s one for all and all for one: Non-profit corporations are welcomed to engage in environmental protection. However, in case a corporation is engaging things not in the interest of public good, permission shall be denied as pursuant to Article 59 of the Civil Code. In case permission has already been given, it shall be revoked pursuant to Article 34 of the Civil Code. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. When Japan had a nuclear disaster in March 2011, how many Jinmen residents made donations in cash and in kind to the Japanese victims? Although donations from the Taiwan area ranked first in the world, it is not clear how many donors are from Jinmen. As another example, on a wall in Jinhu Township, nearby the Kinmen Hospital, Department of Health (KHDH), promoting environmental protection, it was written JinhuShiWoJia/Jinhu is my home. This is a mistake, because each Jinhu resident should think of others in other areas, not just their township. 9. Community-centered arrangement(s): Not just the residents, school children are also taught to protect the environment. Academics and experts have also been invited to help Jinmen to resolve certain environmental problems, so as to reduce pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission from the Kinmen TaShan Powerplant.142

140 http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem = 174049&ctNode = 454&mp = 9, accessed on August 16, 2011. 141 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID = 80928&frame = 77&LanguageType = 1, accessed on August 13, 2011. 142 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/News_NewsList.aspx?path = 4614&DepID = 13&L anguageType = 1&CategoryID = 9&DepartmentID = 13&Page = 12, accessed on August 14, 2011.

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot

10.

11.

12.

13.

73

Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Until we see ample budget and manpower, it will take time to have 100% community-centered arrangements. Cooperation: Environment affects us all. It does not matter what your race or nationality is. Thus, it is understood that the county government, the Jinmen residents, visitors from Taiwan Province, abroad, and the Chinese mainland must cooperate. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. If our unit of analysis is each individual, it is very easy to see that some of us can easily litter the environment by just throwing a piece of paper onto the street or we failed to categorize household garbage into three types, as required by the county government from January 1, 2006. Coordination: The logic here is the same as cooperation. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. It is sometimes not possible for us to coordinate closely with each other. Avoidance of mutually damaging outcomes: It is doubtful that people want to see garbage thrown in their backyard. LI in August 2010 mentioned a measure to transport garbage from Jinmen County to Taiwan Province, adding, if this can be done, can Jinmen also transport garbage to Xiamen City?143 Needless to say, it takes time, as a long-term plan must be mapped out,144 so as to avoid mutual damaging outcomes. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. It is almost certain that some people will violate the rule of not throwing garbage here and there. No power struggle: In April 2011, LI and other officials and politicians visited Southern Taiwan Science Park (STSP) in Taiwan Province, trying to learn from some science and technology companies in promoting Jinmen as a Carbon Island/DiTanDao.145 Interestingly, in August 2011, more than 50 officials of EPB from Taoyuan County, Taiwan Province came to Jinmen for the purpose of learning from the Jinmen experience. For example, they visited the ChiShan Sanitary Landfill Site in Jincheng Township.146 Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Conceivably, there should be fights over budget allocation. How much can the EPB get this year and the next? Can it bargain with the EPA?

143 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID = 73749&path = 4614&LanguageType = 1, accessed on August 14, 2011. 144 Ibid. 145 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID = 82032&frame = 77&LanguageType = 1, accessed on August 13, 2011. 146 http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID = 85764&frame = 77&DepartmentID = 33&LanguageType = 1, accessed on August 13, 2011.

74

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

14. Transparency:. The Chinese are well known for hiding negative news. However, the Kinmen Daily News (KDN) reported on the complaint by an ROC ambassador about bad odor at his residential area located at Houyuan, Jinhu Township.147 In this connection, Li personally inspected the problem with other officials. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. The county government maintains an English website. It tries to provide as much information as possible in English. On the issue of environment, however, the EPB lacks manpower, budget, etc., to translate all the information from Chinese into English. In a sense, the EPB has not been able to be transparent enough, because what if there is a foreigner who wants to study Jinmen’s environment but who does not understand Chinese? We often see “No Data Found.” In one of the webpages, we see an ROC flag shown along with other countries’ flags. Efforts must be made to link Jinmen with other parts of the world. 15. Mitigation of anarchy, tension (scientific), uncertainty, and mistrust: Maintaining and sustaining the environment protection regime can reduce anarchy, because almost everyone is involved, who will be more aware of the rules, norms, procedures, etc. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Many areas are involved when it comes to issues related to regimes. Sometimes, we do see some areas being ignored and neglected. For example, can Wuqiu, which is an island on the Fujian coast under the ROC administration, receive adequate scientific devices and equipments to clean up air pollution? The EPB does conduct a survey from February 1, 2011 to February 1, 2021, asking 11 questions, such as: Are you satisfied with our service? As of August 16, 2011, there were only two respondents, and one of them was the author. Issue II. Can Jinmen be benefited, under the regime of islands, as mentioned in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)? Area(s): 12 jurisdictional islands including Jinmen, Lieyu, Dadan, Erdan, Dongding, Beiding, and the like. The specific regime: Regime of islands. Mechanism(s): Undersea communications cables began to function in the early 1990s; UN; Taipei-based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF); Beijing-based Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS); Kinmen County Fisheries Research Institute (KCFRI); Battlefield Administration Affairs (BAA), etc. Measure(s): Jinmen can have a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles (n.m.), contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). As to continental shelf, we still need to verify it, because it is not clear, for example, can a county have its own continental shelf, which could be belong to the state. Liaoluo port, Jinmen Shuitou commerce port, and Jiugong port provide tourists with ferry service and cargo transportation. 147

http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/Layout/sub_D/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID = 85576&frame = 77&LanguageType = 1, accessed on August 13, 2011.

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot

75

Testing the 15 core elements, which are arranged in terms of the safe zone spectrum: 1. Positive nature: There were no exceptions to the contrary, unless we try to maintain and/or sustain this regime along with another regime, which is at odds with the regime under discussion in this section. 2. Principles: Follow the UN rules and regulations, as stated in Part VIII, Article 121. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Regime of islands could be fragile, because whether or not both sides of the Taiwan adopt the “One-China Principle” or its variations such as the late 1992 consensus between Taipei and Beijing could make a difference as to whether Jinmen belongs to either the ROC or the PRC. 3. Norms: Follow the UN rules and regulations. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Regime of islands could be fragile, and therefore, norms could be easily violated. For example, does Jinmen enjoy a 12 n.m. of territorial sea? Or does it have to observe the middle (as opposed to median) line between, for example, Jinmen and Xiamen? 4. Rules: Albert F. del Rosario, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Philippines (ROP), advocates a rule-based regime in the SCS, pointing out that “the rule of law is the bedrock of peace, order and fairness in modern societies,” adding a rule-based international system bestows clarity, definitiveness, and legitimacy to territorial claims.148 According to the UNCLOS, it is also possible for Jinmen County Government to administer the 12 islands. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. During the March 1996 tension, rumors existed, for example, regarding whether or not the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would land on one of the 12 islands under the Jinmen County Government administration. 5. Decision-making procedures/practices: Meetings have to held, so as to formulate measures to maintain and sustain the regime of islands. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Sometimes, the Jinmen military and county government police may not agree as to which one of them should guard, for example, a few remote islands, to be designated as a tourist spot. 6. Pan: Regimes of islands are supposed to be applied to all the 12 islands. So long as each island has inhabitants, each island can have, for example, 12 n.m. of territorial sea. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Due to lack of budget, manpower, etc., one island may not receive priority. Wuqiu usually has been neglected, if not sacrificed.

148

http://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/news/2011/06/a-rules-based-regime-in-the-south-chinasea-by-albert-f-del-rosario-secretary-of-foreign-affairs/, accessed on August 22, 2011.

76

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

7. We are all on the same side: In January 2001, after decades of prohibited direct contact between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, the “mini-three links” was inaugurated. The first ferry service took place between Liaoluo port and Heping Harbor of Xiamen City, Fujian Province, and it sailed in the territorial waters of the ROC. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Not until December 2008 did we see direct three links between both sides of the Taiwan Strait being fully materialized. Beijing proposed the links as early as January 1979. 8. One for all, all for one (in the Daoist sense?) as opposed to collective security’s one for all and all for one: Beijing respects Taipei’s administration of Jinmen. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. In July 2011, Taiwan area’s outlying islands of Jinmen, Mazu, and Penghu began to welcome individual or solo mainland Chinese tourists, under an agreement reached by SEF and ARATS. However, mainland Chinese visiting the islands are not permitted to enter Taiwan proper, according to the SEF officials, so that economic benefits can be maximized for those three islands’ economies. 9. Community-centered arrangement(s): After launching the mini-three links, arrangements have to be made, because Jinmen and Xiamen waters become one entity. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Sometimes, the Chinese mainland side would harass Dongsha/Pratas,149 thereby creating anxiety on the part of the Jinmen side. 10. Cooperation: This core element is definitely needed, so as to maintain and sustain the regime. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. If the unit of analysis is each individual, 100% cooperation may not be able to be achieved. 11. Coordination: Same logic as cooperation. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. If the unit of analysis is each individual, 100% coordination may not be able to be achieved. 12. Avoidance of mutually damaging outcomes: After January 2001, the relationship between Jinmen and Xiamen became much closer. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. There are still restrictions on importing agricultural products from Xiamen to Jinmen. In August 2011, the ROC’s Vice Minister (Policy), Ministry of National Defense, Andrew N. D. Yang, at the US-based Brookings Institution, said “[i]n tandem with the Second Artillery and air-sea war-fighting capabilities, mainland China has the potential to occupy the ROC’s outlying islands and even to invade Taiwan island.”150

149

http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Nordhaug.pdf, accessed on August 21, 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/08_chinas_military_development_yang.aspx, accessed on August 22, 2011.

150

Fourth Case Study as One Dot: Jinmen/Quemoy County Government as One Dot

77

13. No power struggle: Some countries have coasts and some do not. Usually, a coastal country has at least one island. If so, this country can have additional territorial sea, EEZ, etc. What about those landlocked and even double landlocked countries? They can also enjoy those same rights and privileges, if they purchase a foreign island. This is not impossible, because some countries with many islands could be in deep trouble financially, and therefore, selling some of its islands could be an alternative. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. I will give one example. Some countries are at odds regarding some islands. This means that international regimes are not working well. In March 2009, the ROP passed a new law that defines its national maritime boundaries to include the longdisputed and potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands in the SCS.151 The Philippines contends the Kalayaan islands, a subset of the wider Spratlys, was res nullius, which literally means property without an owner. It has argued there was no effective sovereignty over the islands until the early 1930s, when France took possession of the islands, after which Japan invaded and took control of Taiping Island/Itu Aba Island, for example, during World War II. Manila has claimed [sic] the islands lie within its “archipelagic baseline,” the only claimant who can make such a geological claim, and Kalayaan was even officially incorporated into Palawan Province in April 1972. The then Philippine press secretary Cerge M. Remonde said that mainland China and other claimants should not be worried as the new baseline law excludes the Kalayaan islands and nearby Scarborough Shoal from its national territory, but rather treats them as a “regime of islands.”152 Technically, this means that the Philippines will continue to exercise sovereignty over the disputed territory while also recognizing the existence of other countries’ claims.153 To Manila, “Recto (Reed) Bank is part of the continental shelf of the western coast of Palawan Province in the Philippines. It is about 85 nautical miles from the nearest coast of Palawan and therefore well within the 200 nautical miles continental shelf of the Philippine archipelago under UNCLOS. In contrast, it is roughly 595 nautical miles from the nearest coast of China. This means that the Philippines has unequivocal sovereign rights over Recto…”154 To be sure, there is a Sampaguita Gas Field nearby the Recto.155 Can Manila really apply the regime of islands in this context? The answer will be elaborated in the “Findings” section of this case study.

151

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KC27Ae02.html, accessed on August 21, 2011. Ibid. 153 Ibid. 154 http://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/news/2011/06/a-rules-based-regime-in-the-south-chinasea-by-albert-f-del-rosario-secretary-of-foreign-affairs/, accessed on August 22, 2011. 155 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Reed_Bank_oil_field.jpg, accessed on September 28, 2011. 152

78

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

14. Transparency: The term regime can also be associated with other terms, such as archipelagic sea lanes passage, continental shelf, contiguous zone, EEZ, exploration and exploitation, high seas, innocent passage, internal waters, legal status, straits, and transit passage.156 Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. At disputed area(s), transparency cannot work well. 15. Mitigation of anarchy, tension (scientific), uncertainty, and mistrust: If all the countries in the world can put regime of islands into practice, respecting each other, there will be more order, less tension, greater certainty, and more trust. Needless to say, there were exceptions to the contrary. Again, to those countries at odds over certain islands, anarchy, tension, uncertainty, and mistrust prevail. For example, sometimes Jinmen and Xiamen may not agree to maintain the middle line (as opposed to the median line) between the two sides. In this connection, if the middle line does exist in the Taiwan Strait, can Jinmen and Xiamen still maintain their middle line? Thus far, it is not possible for both sides of the Taiwan Strait to legally recognize, for example, each other’s baseline. In this connection, it should be noted that the December “1982 Constitution does not specify the treatment of international law in relation to the laws of the PRC. However, in practice, the legislative approach has been to automatically incorporate international law as part of PRC law. If, however, the PRC has made a reservation to a provision of a treaty, this aspect or provision of the treaty is not implemented in the law.”157

Findings Here, we are talking about findings versus non-“findings”. There are six findings. We can arrange them in terms of the safe zone spectrum. First, it is possible to divide French the Jinmen County Government as regimes and non-“regimes.” This can facilitate LI, to first think of, if not rely on, regimes as a tool to handle some issues. If the county residents also fully understand the very abstract term as being positive, LI will be accepted by more residents. In passing, enlightened by my mentor, it should be noted that “‘regime of islands’ has nothing to do with international regimes. The word ‘regime’ as in ‘regime of islands’ is often used by the French to mean the ‘totality of’ plus the implications. In the ‘regime of islands,’ the word ‘regime’ denotes that these islands, however small, should not be treated like individual specks of land in the ocean, but they should be treated together in their ‘totality,’ to

156

Lawrence Kuen-chen Fu, ed., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with all Annexes, Related Conventions with a Chinese-English Index, second ed. (Taipei: XieRongGuoJiGuWenYou XianGongSi, August 2001), pp. 198, 204, and 217. 157 http://www.lawinfochina.com/Legal/index.shtm, accessed on August 22, 2011.

Findings

79

which (more or less) the same rules or implications apply as they do to any bigger island or group of bigger islands. In other words, the implication is that the whole is bigger than the parts.”158 A day later, I emailed him again, saying the UN translator(s) translated the term regime of islands as DaoYuZhiDu. I told my mentor that even UN translator do not really fully understand the term. To this remark, my mentor replied in the following words: “It depends on the context in which the term ‘regime of islands’ is used. What I said is the usual situation when the term is used without regard to the Law of the Sea. But, if it is used in discussions of modern international maritime law, the term may invoke a different image or connotation. For example, the author/speaker may think of whether the group of islands in question is entitled to a territorial sea or continental shelf, even an EEZ, of its own, etc., provided they are inhabitable islands. Related issues may include whether foreign vessels have the right of innocent passage through these islands, etc. Hence, in Article 121 of [UNCLOS], ‘regime of islands’ is translated into DaoYuZhiDu. I don’t like the translation. Remember Article 121 is in Part VII of [UNCLOS], relating to the ‘High Seas.’ Hence, the context here is the norms pertaining to the islands, as distinguished from what applies to land territory. Although it is hard to translate ‘regime,’ I think in this context, even a loose translation like ‘YouGuanDaoYuDeGuiDing/有關島嶼的規定’ would be better, definitely more idiomatic Chinese. I don’t think ZhiDu says the same thing as ‘regime’.”159 Second, in July 2011, Jinmen has a population exceeding 100,000 for the first time, making it the first offshore island of ROC (Taiwan) to surpass the 100,000 population mark. If our unit of analysis happens to be each individual, would each regime be able to be maintained and sustained? This requires an in-depth study. Third, only two issues related to regimes were discussed in this study. As can be seen, it is difficult to 100% maintain and sustain each regime. Perhaps a better job can be done, if there are enough manpower, budget, etc. Fourth, the lexicon in the R.O.C. (Taiwan) Environmental Law Library does not have entries on regime, international regimes, or even environmental regime. This suggests that the officials do not have a complete or whole picture regarding international regimes. The same thing speaks for the term mechanism(s). What you see are the following words: Nothing found. Please try another query. On the term measure(s), it has eight entries. Fifth, regime is not equivalent to system. A regime can benefit all the parties involved, while, in a system, we can see certain things at odds. It is well known that Jinmen offers welfare benefits to its registered residents. The county government said the upward swing in population is largely a reflection of local social welfare policies.160 The number, which stood at 43,442 after the military administration was

158

Email from James C. Hsiung, dated September 26, 2011. Email from him, dated September 27, 2011. 160 http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem = 173496&ctNode = 454&mp = 9, accessed on August 14, 2011. 159

80

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

abolished in November 1992, increased to 56,958 in December 2001, when direct links were established between Jinmen and the Chinese mainland. The county government pointed out that its wide-ranging social welfare policies include providing financial assistance to women who give birth, stipends for full-time mothers, free bus and ferry rides161 as well as free lunches for elementary and junior high school students. Meanwhile, the elderly are given dentures free of charge, while meals-on-wheels services are provided to solitary elderly residents, physically handicapped persons, and senior citizens suffering from dementia. In addition, all of the county’s registered residents since June 2011 are eligible for 30% discounts on airfare when they take flights to Taiwan Province. An added plus is that Kinmen Kaoliang Liquor Inc. gives all of the county’s residents gifts of liquor at the three major holidays each year, such as Chinese Lunar New Year, and the residents are allowed to resell the commemorative items for profit. However, liquor is definitely not good for all the people, especially those who have hypertension. Therefore, we can only use the term welfare benefits not regime. Sixth, some Jinmen residents have spouses from other countries and the Chinese mainland. I was planning to conduct a survey of their human rights, under the human rights regime. I wanted to find out, for example, whether they enjoy basic human rights, while living in the county. On August 16, 2011, I first emailed the Jincheng Township Office, so as to enable me to get those people’s mailing address. However, on August 18, 2011, I was told that it does maintain such records. In other words, I should approach the ROC’s Ministry of Interior (MOI). Then, on August 23, 2011, I received a reply from the MOI, saying the mailing addresses are privileged information under the August 1995 Personal Information Protection Act/GeRenZiLiaoBaoHuFa (PIPA). In short, I was caught in a Catch-22 situation, and I could not go anywhere.

Concluding Remarks This study may well be the first one treating Jinmen County Government as a dot. This may also the first one to partially regard the county government as a series of regimes. Because we have only discussed two issues, a lot of study must be carried out in the future, such as on arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. To be sure, Jinmen was very famous during the Cold War in general and the 1950s in particular. If it can become a global center for studying the issues of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation, it can share its findings with other areas of the world. The county government should seriously think about allocating some budget to build a cutting-edge think tank, in which it can house many, if not most, publications on war and peace.

161

The passenger has to pay insurance fee when riding the ferry.

Fifth Case Study as One Dot…

81

Fifth Case Study as One Dot: Converting and Reinventing Some Good Theories and Models in the West and the East There are some good theories and models generated by academics and experts in the United States, UK, etc. I can right away name five of them: game theory, balance of power theory, systems theory,162 rational choice theory, and a model depicting a ten, as in the Chinese character: 十 or what I called the 十 model, for the lack of a better term. In 2009, Min Gyo KOO’s Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia was published, offering a new conceptual and theoretical framework.163 In this case study, I will do the following. First, I will cite the synopsis, as written by KOO. I will then highlight the main points of Chapter 2, which are related to the conceptual and theoretical framework. Second, I will try to justify whether all the theories and the 十 model can also be applied for the same chapter, by citing terms in Chapter 2, which are relevant to that specific theory and/or model, implying that we can (partially) slot in the same information, data, and analysis from Chapter 2 into each one of the theories and the 十 model. Third, I will try to slot in the same thing taken from Chapter 2 in my one-dot theory. Fourth, I will discuss some findings. KOO’s synopsis is as follows: “This book explores the three most prominent island disputes in East Asia: the Dokdo/Takeshima, the Senkaku/Diaoyu, and the Paracel and Spratly disputes. These island disputes clearly illustrate the puzzling pattern of continuity and mutual restraint in East Asia’s territorial conflicts. In dealing with sovereignty issues, East Asian countries have engaged in varied patterns of diplomatic and military behaviors. In some cases, one can find examples of the aggressive use of military force and intransigent bargaining strategies, while in others military inaction and accommodative diplomacy are equally evident. When and why do disputants pursue conflictual policies? Conversely, why do they at other times seek the containment, if not the resolution, of territorial disputes by shelving thorny sovereignty issues? This book uses a territorial bargaining game framework to analyze various stages of dispute initiation, escalation, and de-escalation in a consistent and systematic manner. It starts from an assumption that territory involves mixed motive games, which can be characterized as having elements of partnership, competition, and conflict. Consistent with conventional wisdom, this book finds that the combination of resource competition, fluid geopolitics, and unstable domestic power dynamics has regularly brought about the initiation and escalation of the three island disputes. More importantly, this book discovers that the pacific influence of economic interdependence has repeatedly prevented the sovereignty disputes from escalating into a full-scale diplomatic and/or military crisis.”

162

National University of Singapore (NUS) has an Institute of Systems Science (ISS). M. G. Koo, Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2009). 163

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

82

Initial Impetus

Post-colonial independence Oil shocks UNCLOS

Value of Territory and Territorial Nationalism Tangible and intangible values of goods (public, CPRs, club, and private) and perceptions of rivalry

Cold War Elections Ultranationalist activities

Territorial nationalism: resource nationalism and irredentism

Factors in Response

Economic interdependence Geopolitics (security alliance and balance of power) Domestic power dynamics (e.g. democratic peace)

International law and IGOs

Fig. 3.1 Territorial bargaining game process: initiation stage

Chapter 2 of KOO’s book has to do with his conceptual and theoretical framework.164 Some crucial questions, such as “[w]hat sort of regional mechanism can be devised to manage and regulate the maritime boundaries and maritime zones, as well as the living and nonliving resources therein?” prompted him to build his theory and qualitatively and quantitatively test the empirical data.165 KOO used a territorial bargaining game framework to analyze the various stages of initiation, challenge the status quo, military escalation, and de-escalation of each dispute, under the assumption that territory involves mixed motive games, which embraces elements of partnership, competition, and conflict. At the microlevel, a player feels uncomfortable when other people are in his/her personal space. Human territoriality, or personal space, makes states highly sensitive to any threat to their physical and/or symbolic space, thereby giving rise to conflict over the control of territory, big or small.166 In passing, it should be noted that, later, I will only convert the following three figures into my crab and frog motion model, which were emailed by KOO to me in August 2011, at my request, while alerting me that “they may look slightly different from those shown in the book.”167 The first two figures are taken from Chapter 2, while the third one, Chapter 8 (Figs. 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).

164 M. G. Koo, Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2009). 165 Ibid., p. 189. 166 Ibid., pp. 190–191. 167 Email from him, dated August 4, 2011.

Fifth Case Study as One Dot…

83 Militarized Conflict Military Escalate Target

Status Quo Not Challenge Press

Not Military Escalate

Challenger

Challenger

Challenge

Resist

Stalemate or Settlement

Not Press

Target

Stalemate or Settlement

Not Resist Stalemate or Settlement

Fig. 3.2 Territorial bargaining game process: challenge the status quo stage and beyond

Initial Impetuses San Francisco Peace Treaty UNCLOS

Value of Territory and Individual Bargaining Situations Goods: availability and provision of tangible and intangible goods

Cold War Elections Ultranationalist activities

CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO STAGE

MILITARY ESCALATION STAGE

Initiation

Decisive victory?

Escalation Individual Bargaining Situations: economic interdependence; geopolitics; domestic power dynamics; IGOs

NEGOTIATIONS De-escalation Mutually agreeable concession?

Y SETTLEMENT STAGE

STALEMATE STAGE

Fig. 3.3 A bargaining game approach to territorial disputes

No

84

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

On surface, it is appropriate to apply the game theory, because on page 24, for example, the n-person prisoners’ dilemma and zero-sum game were mentioned. For the record, it became a unique field for the first time in the late 1920s. There are countless applications, since then. During World War II (1939–1945), military strategists drew on game theory, when the British Naval Forces playing cat and mouse with Nazi German submarines, and another example had to do with the significant defeat of the Imperial Japanese troops in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea off New Guinea.168 Simply put, game theory “is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the agents. The meaning of this statement will not be clear to the non-“expert” until each of the italicized words and phrases has been explained and featured in some examples [italics in original].”169 On page 190 of KOO’s book, the term mixed motive games was mentioned. In game theory, a lot of bargaining takes place, and KOO coined the term territorial bargaining game. However, there are barriers in applying the game theory to slot in the information, data, and analysis of, say, the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures. Can the term living and non-“living” resources fit in the game theory? The answer is no, because the former cannot negotiate nor bargain with human beings and the latter cannot play games. Aside from the ROC and the PRC, we have four claimants in the South China Sea (SCS). Can we assume that each one of the claimants is rational at all times? In March 1988, for example, navies of the PRC and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) clashed against each other, resulting in heavy casualties. If not, the game theory can be said as being falsified. On surface, it is appropriate to apply the balance of power theory, because the author devoted one section in Chapter 2 discussing the concept. The balance of power is one of the most fundamental concepts behind international politics (as opposed to international relations and international affairs). Although the concept is surrounded by controversy, simply put, it has to do with the “distribution of power in which no single nation is able to dominate or interfere with others.”170 In the last chapter, KOO noted that “the balance-of-power politics involving the USA and the Soviet Union from the Cold War era fluctuated widely over time, thereby exacerbating local conflicts occasionally” and that “[t]he emerging perception of a China threat makes Japan as well as the US scramble to balance against the possible dangers.”171 However, there are barriers in applying the balance of power theory to slot in the information, data, and analysis of, say, the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures. KOO mentioned maritime regime. Under an international regime, no

168 http://www.crnabiz.com/site/content/game-theory-crnas-and-health-care-reform-part-i; http:// www.writework.com/essay/game-theory-introduction; and http://www.managers-net.com/gametheory.html, accessed on July 20, 2011. 169 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/, accessed on August 6, 2011. 170 http://www.answers.com/topic/balance-of-power, accessed on August 6, 2011. 171 Koo, p. 195.

Fifth Case Study as One Dot…

85

nation needs to play balance of power games, especially under urgency. For example, a tanker spilled oil in the East China Sea (ECS). The issue of environment is at stake. Immediately, in that part of the world, the PRC, Japan, and the ROK will have to make arrangements to cooperate and coordinate to clean up the mess. And, under balance of power, does it really matter whether a country is democratic or authoritarian? KOO’s study focuses on the three island disputes in East Asia and observed that “[t]here is no prominent dispute over islands between South Korea and China.”172 Does that imply that Seoul can invite Beijing to counter Tokyo on the issue of Dokdo/ Takeshima? Would mainland China really help South Korea, when Suyan Rock/ Leodo/Socotra is still under dispute between both parties? For the record, this rock is under the administration of the latter, since the early 1950s. On surface, it is appropriate to apply the systems theory, because the author used the term system while referring to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) on page 37. Simply put, “[s] ystems theory usually is the interdisciplinary study of complex structures that may occur in nature, society, or science. Examples of complex structures can vary widely, entailing everything from ant colonies to political parties to languages. Systems theorists may analyze how such systems are formed, how they function, or what is the intended goal of a system.”173 They have in mind the following concepts: inputs, black-box, outputs, and feedback. Since system has been mentioned, there could be more than one system in KOO’s mind. To be sure, the SCS can be regarded as one system, and the ECS as another system. However, there are barriers in applying the systems theory to slot in the information, data, and analysis of, say, the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures. The black-box always poses a problem, because there could be invisible hands at work. Unlike computer, the term garbage in and garbage out cannot be applied to international relations. Living resources have been mentioned. Can fish know the national boundary, choosing sides, unless they continue to swim in that black-box? On surface, it is appropriate to apply the rational choice theory, because it “[a]ttempts to explain all (conforming and deviant) social phenomenon in terms of how self-interested individuals make choices under the influence of their preferences. It treats social exchange as similar to economic exchange where all parties try to maximize their advantage or gain, and to minimize their disadvantage or loss. [The theory]’s basic premises are that (1) human beings base their behavior on rational calculations, (2) they act with rationality when making choices, and (3) their choices are aimed at optimization of their pleasure or profit. This concept has applications in economics and marketing, and in criminology and international relations.”174 In the book, we get the impression that, if an actor cannot get private goods, inclusive

172

Ibid., p. 182. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-systems-theory.htm, accessed on August 6, 2011. 174 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rational-choice-theory-RCT.html, accessed on August 6, 2011. 173

86

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

club goods, and common pool resources, it would make sure that it can get public goods. In short, what one play does is always rational. However, there are barriers in applying the rational choice theory to slot in the information, data, and analysis of, say, the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures. Like game theory, we cannot say that whatever you do and say is always rational. At the domestic power politics level,175 it is rational. However, at the international or supranational level, it may not be. There is another more serious problem, that is, where is the model? If for each situation, you generate a specific model, would the logic(s) flow, without being contradictory?176 Intuitively, the answer is no. On surface, it is appropriate to apply the 十 model, because terms like (transitional) democracies and non-“democracies” or authoritarian were mentioned. Thus, we can put the term democracies at the western pole and non-“democracies,” eastern pole. We can, at the same time, place term stable177 at the north pole and non“stable,” southern pole. Then, we can plot those East Asian countries which have moved from authoritarianism toward greater political pluralism in the cell or quadrant of the western pole and northern pole. Needless to say, a series of such models are necessary, in order to describe, explain, and infer more phenomena. However, there are barriers in applying the 十 model to slot in the information, data, and analysis of, say, the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures. Can the model really simplify the puzzling pattern of continuity and mutual restraint in East Asia’s territorial conflicts? It certainly cannot compress them into a theory. Thus far, I have not seen a theory name given to the 十 model. In sum, intuitively, it is possible to convert and reinvent KOO’s conceptual and theoretical framework by applying all the above-mentioned theories and the 十 model. However, time, energy, etc., are certainly needed. One may become easily frustrated in the process. Is it also appropriate to apply my one-dot theory, which is shored up by the model? I have noticed many dialectical terms in Chapter 2: two extremes, that is, neither reaching peaceful resolutions nor escalating into full-scale militarized conflicts; not challenge and challenge; resist and not resist; press and not press; the core, the semiperiphery, and the periphery; positive and negative; democracies and non-democracies; as well as bilateral, multilateral, and minilateral. As to Chapter 8, I see the following: his/her; quantitative and qualitative; positive and negative; dual nature or aspect of continuity and mutual restraint; contradictory; formal and informal; and bilateral and multilateral. Let me first comment on KOO’s figures. It is possible to convert them into my one-dot theory. However, again, a series of models are needed. First, Rule of Law Politics/Goverment by Law at 1; Rule by Law Politics/Legal System at 3; Dialectical Politics at 5; and Rule of Men Politics, E. The models which will be mentioned will

175

Koo, pp. 34–36. This adjective was mentioned on page 199. 177 This adjective was mentioned on page 35. 176

Findings

87

be put under Dialectical Politics. Second, Factors in Responses at 1, Value of Territory and Territorial Nationalism at 3, and Initial Impetus at 5. When discussing Factors in Responses, the analyst can elaborate on it to discuss those things in that rectangle box, such as geopolitics (security alliance and balance of power). Third, there is no question that Fig. 3.2 has been dialectically presented, because we see two forces at work, each shown by an arrow. Fourth, inner dialectics can also be seen in Fig. 8.1. An example would be Yes and No. It is not difficult to convert the paragraph immediately followed by the three figures into my one-dot theory. Suffice to say, I only need to demonstrate one of the sentences: “KOO used a territorial bargaining game framework to analyze the various stages of initiation, challenge the status quo, military escalation, and de-escalation of each dispute. “Again, a series of models must be built. First, Rule of Law Politics/Goverment by Law at 1; Rule by Law Politics/Legal System at 3; Dialectical Politics at 5; and Rule of Men Politics, E. The models which will be mentioned will be put under Dialectical Politics. Second, Use of a framework versus non-“Use of a framework.” Third, To analyze versus non-“To analyze.” Fourth, Stages versus non-“Stages.” Fifth, initiation at 4, challenge the status quo at 3, military escalation at 2, and de-escalation at 1. Needless to say, a player may jump from 4 to 2 and then navigate to 1.

Findings Here, we are talking about findings versus non-“findings”. There are seven findings. We can arrange them in terms of the safe zone spectrum. First, throughout a publication, one can only apply one theory and model to conduct research and writing. Otherwise, the logic(s) flow problem will inevitably surface, unless we are conducting a comparative study. If we treat international governance as a theory, can we still treat one dot as another theory? If they overlap 100%, there would be no logic(s) flow problem. However, it is very doubtful. So, in the fifth case study, are we applying the international governance theory or the one-dot theory? On August 6, 2011 at around 4 p.m., I found the justification answer. We can first mention the international governance theory. However, after converting it into the one-dot theory, the one-dot theory becomes the only theory and model that I am applying throughout the publication, and there would be no logic(s) flow problem whatsoever. In other words, the international governance theory is merely a subtheory of the one-dot theory. Under international governance theory, international regimes, for example, are just a tool. Second, international regimes in general and maritime regimes transcend national boundaries. Therefore, realists and neorealists would not need to struggle for power under international regimes. They do not need to negotiate nor bargain. They will cooperate with their rivals, under the shadow of future, hence the term adversary regime.178

178 See my article, “Setting Up International (Adversary) Regimes in the South China Sea: Analyzing the Obstacles from a Chinese Perspective,” Ocean Development & International Law (Canada), Vol. 38, No. 1–2, 2007, p. 147–156.

3 Converting and/or Reinventing Some Non-“dialectical” Theories…

88

Third, KOO wrote the following words: “National territory as a private good is the primary concern of scholars in the realist tradition.”179 If we subscribe to the emerging mainstream school of thought, namely, international governance, we must talk about international regimes. As such, national territory belongs to the type of public goods, because what is good for the ROK should also be good for at least the regional neighbors. Fourth, the term international regimes was not mentioned in the index. The same thing speaks for the term global regimes. To be sure, international regimes are not equivalent to global regimes, and therefore, they cannot be used interchangeably. Fifth, the term maritime regime building was an entry in the index. In Chapter 2, I see terms like fixed exchange-rate regime and floating exchange-rate regime. In Chapter 7, I also see the terms, legal regimes of maritime jurisdiction, legal regime of maritime zones, and the old maritime and fishing regime. How are fixed or floating exchange-rate regime related to the (regional) (bilateral) (multilateral) maritime regime? May be not directly, because as KOO wrote, citing the works of others: “Realist concerns about dependence and relative gains are not limited to international trade. International financial and monetary relations may also increase uncertainty about policy acts, thereby promoting disputes.”180 In other words, if landlocked countries like Laos People’s Democratic Republic (LPDR) do not have trade with double landlocked countries like the Republic of Uzbekistan (ROU), we do not have to talk about maritime regime and, for that matter, the other two regimes, unless citizens of those two countries are exchanging their currencies. Sixth, no definition of either global regimes or (regional) (effective) maritime regime at least in Chapter 7 was given. Different definitions may yield different interpretations. Seventh, I did see the terms, a host of measures or safety measures and institutional mechanism, in Chapter 7, being mentioned in that order. It is important to mention maritime regime, mechanism(s), and measure(s) together, because to settle the disputes in East Asia, devices and equipments are definitely needed, not just (regional) institutions. Besides, the author of that book should first mention mechanism, not measures, so as to demonstrate the order of importance.

Concluding Remarks Five case studies were conducted. The fifth one is very abstract, dealing with theories and models. The least abstract is the study on Jinmen as one dot. A lot of uncertainties are involved in ecological studies. So, this case study is tilting toward abstractness. The one on mainland China, Taiwan, etc., is also quite abstract, because

179 180

Koo, p. 25. Ibid., p. 31.

Concluding Remarks

89

of the following sentence: FenJiuBiHeHeJiuBiFen/empires wax and wane as well as states cleave asunder. Besides, China is not a country but culture, if one really understands Chinese history. The intellectual exercise on converting various management diagrams is also quite abstract, until we have slotted in the information, data, and analysis. What I did was halfway, although very important in terms of consistency under scholarship. Here, a model has to be constructed. Otherwise, some readers will be lost. The models can be: first, non-“abstract” versus abstract. Second, put Jinmen County at 1, the ecological studies at 2, China as one dot at 3, management diagrams at perhaps A, and conversion of some non-“dialectical” theories and models at E. Why two case studies in the danger zone? This is because many, if not most, people have a hard time in grasping abstract things.

Chapter 4

Findings from Each Chapter

As I write the previous chapters, I feel that some important and worthwhile points should be mentioned. In this chapter, I will point them out and elaborate on them, if and when necessary. Here, we are talking about findings versus non-“findings”. There are many findings for each chapter. We can arrange them in terms of the safe zone spectrum. So, a minimum of three models are needed.

From the First Chapter or Introduction First, my understanding of Yin and Yang was partial and incomplete, until the writing of this book, because I failed to realize that the four smaller diagrams constitute the grand diagram. Second, the Yin and Yang diagram was drawn some 3,100 years ago. The Chinese literati since ancient times are fond of, if not obsessed with (as opposed to indulging in), correlating almost everything, from A to Z. I am merely relaying the baton. However, I have been trying to be creative. Third, one of my former colleagues alerted me, saying, in the West, there are people talking about things related to Yin and Yang. My two former Indian academics also said that, some 5,000 years ago, Hinduism already had similar concepts—Purusha/male and Prakriti/female—and one of them added that the problem is that the Indians did not market it.1 To be sure, the Yin and Yang diagram is uniquely Chinese. Are the Chinese in ancient times good at promoting it? An in-depth study must be conducted because if the term marketing is used, we must point out that, in ancient China, the business people are put at the lowest level of the social strata, because the prevailing thinking was that business people exploit others, and therefore, they are not worthy to be respected. As such, how did the Yin and Yang diagram be so popularly accepted by the common people? Another in-depth study must be conducted.

1

Conversation with him, dated April 16, 2010.

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2_4, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

91

92

4

Findings from Each Chapter

Fourth, the Chinese, indeed, differs from other races. For the Chinese, they would first think of or face a concept, which could be the detail from the very beginning. Let us say, it is X. Then, they will think of its opposite, which is non-“X.” When they do so, they will have a complete picture in their mind, namely, X versus non“X,” which is already embracing the detail. As to the people in the Middle East, they are obsessed with first figuring out what is the boundary? The Chinese U-shaped line in the SCS is one example. The Israeli naval blockade zone off the Gaza Strip,2 which was imposed in June 2006 following the abduction of an Israeli soldier, is another example. The line constitutes the boundary in those two examples. After knowing the boundary, the Middle East people will proceed to look into the details. In other words, they will feel more comfortable this way. What about the majority people in the West? They maintain a linear thinking or cause and effect. To them, this (detail) will happen, because of the previous detail or development. However, they must rely on inner dialectics to continue their research for truth. Fifth, scholarship (XueShu) embraces the following criteria to me: logic(s), contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc. In this study, five diagrams were shown. My crab and frog motion model is the last one. To have a whole understanding of complex and complicated reality, my logical model is indispensable. As a result, I have made a little bit of contribution to the literature. Sixth, logics as opposed to logic must be applied in social science. If a researcher only relies on either inductive (from specific to general) or deductive (from general to specific) method, he or she will never be able to convince himself and herself. This is because a linear thinking or the cause and effect sequence can easily come to a halt, unable to move forward. If one has realized, inner dialectics has been frequently used by those researchers who conduct either inductive or deductive research and writing. For example, a social scientist would often say “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” in the same paragraph. This is precisely dialectical. Seventh, some academics and experts accept TD, which recognizes “the existence of different levels of reality governed by different types of logic” or logics. That is to say, TD is against using a single logic to describe, explain, and infer phenomena. The grand diagram is definitely at a higher level than TD. In other words, one can apply the BaGua from the first word of the publication title to the last word in the same publication. To be sure, TD subscribers need to link all the theories and models in their publications, whereas the structure of my one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model is always the same. What the TD theorists are doing is like the following scenario: They want to go to Beijing from Taipei. In the first leg, they swam to the Jinmen/Quemoy County’s shore. In the second leg, they rode a small boat from Jinmen to Xiamen City. In the third leg, they walked from Xiamen to Shanghai Municipality. In the fourth leg, they took the Beijing–Shanghai HighSpeed Railway, which is a passenger-dedicated trunk line opened in June 2011. As one can see, there is a lack of consistency. This should be avoided in scholarship.

2

See BP, May 29, 2011, p. A6.

From the First Chapter or Introduction

93

Eighth, in this study, five diagrams were shown together and described, explained, and inferred. Do they constitute the final whole? In other words, would I be able to discover another diagram which can again embrace the five diagrams? Intuitively, I would say there should be no sixth diagram because I have not seen a diagram, which differs from the grand diagram as shown in the first chapter. To be sure, in the late 1970s, I started to gradually realize that the board game of Chinese checkers can be likened to that of the Yin and Yang diagram. In September 1994, I built the crab and frog motion model. Over the years, it has been revised several times here and there, culminating in the latest version as shown in my April 2011 edited book, International (Corporate) Governance: A One-dot Interpretation, with an arrow drawn for the first time. In September 2010, I realized that ZHU’s WuJiZhenYuan is but a version of the Yin and Yang diagram at a lower level of importance. And, finally in July 2011, I integrated the four diagrams with the grand diagram, making the complete picture more logical, systematic, and coherent. As can be seen, it has taken me close to 30 years to be able to figure out the whole picture if it is, indeed, the final whole. Ninth, the grand diagram contains eight smaller signs or symbols. A Chinese fortune-teller, for example, usually relies on the eight smaller signs or symbols to divine/BuGua. In ancient China, emperors have to learn The Book of Change/YiJing, which is a collection of divination texts and its commentaries from the Western ZHOU periods (eleventh century to 770 BC). If not, they would not be able to communicate with their ministers/DaChen in the court, who are well versed in the grand diagram.3 In short, the emperor and his ministers use the same tool. By the same token, members of the political bureau in the CPC likewise employ the same tool, that is, dialectics. It goes without saying that meetings can be carried out more smoothly, if the participants use the same tool. What this implies is that to persuade the Chinese, the non-“Chinese” should first try to apply dialectics. The former, couched in the dialectical comfort zone, can be more receptive to the latter’s suggestions, proposals, etc. Tenth, Karl Popper is well known for his insight that everything in social science can be falsified. Yes, social science is not natural science. In the former, we can never have a law, unless we add quotation marks over the word, law, to read “law,” whereas, in the latter, it is possible, although a lot of things in natural science are still uncertain, such as how many universes are there in the world. By law, I mean things do not change, and they should not from its very first existence. For example, if you mix two chemicals, the result would be the same if I perform the same steps. At this juncture, the following tough question ought to be asked: Can the grand diagram be falsified? The answer is simple and straightforward: It can be, when there were no human beings. What about after the creation of the grand diagram some 3,100 years ago? The answer again is simple and straightforward: It cannot be 100% falsified, so long as there is at least one human being who

3

NianDaiXinWen television talk show, aired on September 23, 2011 at 8 p.m.

94

4

Findings from Each Chapter

understands and applies it, because the grand diagram can help you to rationalize everything logically, systematically, and coherently, from A to Z, if you are well versed in applying the grand diagram. Thus, what a politician had done illogically, a dialectician can rationalize everything logically, at least 50% from the very beginning. Such is the beauty of dialectics. What does this mean? It implies that it is futile to apply other non-“dialectical” theories and models, because the researcher will be easily stuck, if he or she applies a theory or model generated, especially in the West. Related to the above is if the application of dialectics is magical because it can enable us to rationalize everything, can it be debunked, as some treacherous magicians had attempted to do in some entertainment programs? It is well known that magicians will not outright regard their trade as cheating or hoax. They would rather use other terms, such as illusion, hiding something, “here is the secret,” “we can clearly see the shadow of the magician,” what the magician did can illuminate your imagination, etc., to refer to the same thing. In any case, the answer again is that, so long as there is at least one dialectician, the five diagrams cannot be debunked. Whoever looked at the diagrams or read my model are locked into the model. Eleventh, some non-“dialecticians” would use the term, out-of-the-box. They have not realized that it is equivalent to A B C D E in my crab and frog motion model. When I say, for example, non-“God,” I am urging readers to think of things, tangible and intangible, which are not God. As another example, in August 2011, we were told that there could be two moons about four billion years ago. If so, this new theory has falsified the only moon that we see. What models should be generated to embrace the new inference? One of them could be placing one moon at 1 and two moons at 5. So, at time/space sequence (1), we are at 5 and, perhaps since August 2011, we are at 1. To those skeptics, wavering between one and two moons, they could be at 3 of the safe zone spectrum. Twelfth, another Chinese obsession is to apply the 2,000-year-old board game, WeiQi (Go in Japanese and also known as Baduk in Korean) or encirclement game or the game of “surrounding,” to interpret the Chinese way of war and diplomacy. MAO Zedong, a strategist, likes to play the game. Henry A. Kissinger, who is another strategist, became a convert to the WeiQi thinking, and he used the board game to interpret the Chinese Communist diplomacy.4 MAO certainly applies a version of the grand diagram. In his late 40s, he became well versed in dialectics. Should Kissinger apply the grand diagram instead? The answer is yes because the less complex and complicated WeiQi logic is rooted in the diagram. Thirteenth, on the one hand, one can be easily labeled a pseudoscientist, if he or she does not apply a theory and model to the study of a social phenomenon. On the

4

See Henry A. Kissinger, On China (New York: Penguin Press, 2011). See also http://sn116w. snt116.mail.live.com/default.aspx?rru=inbox, accessed on June 14, 2011 and David LAI, “Learning from the Stones: A Go Approach to Mastering China’s Strategic Concept, Shi,” May 2004, 34 pages. Shi could mean the alignment of forces, the propensity of things, or the potential born of disposition. See http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/lai.pdf, accessed on July 19, 2011.

From the First Chapter or Introduction

95

other hand, one can be easily accused of being tautological, if the researcher does apply a theory and model. This would include the game theorists, close to ten of them became Nobel laureates, receiving Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. I would not be regarded as a pseudoscientist, because I do have a model first, to be followed by my one-dot theory, which was informally generated in December 2004 and formally in October 2007. However, am I being tautological? The answer is both yes and no. When I make this statement, it means 3 in my crab and frog motion model, which represents a mixture of 1 and 5. 1 stands for yes and 5, no. This is because I am a researcher basically. I usually write something after something has happened. This is after the fact, and this makes me tautological most of the time. Why most of the time? This is because we cannot rule out the possibility that not all information, data, and analysis can be slotted in the chosen theory and model. That is to say, when a researcher found out that a certain theory and model is not applicable or appropriate, the issue of tautology can be set aside. In passing, it should be noted that I have shown a series of dialectical models to my graduate and undergraduate students that it is not possible for us human beings to be able to become one family again, and the term, globalization, can be best characterized as a slogan of business people worldwide. In April 2007, I publicized the following words, emphasizing that if a model has been correctly constructed, it will have its inference or predictive power: The [model] below is a simplification of human development before and after the birth of (scientific) Adam and Eve, if we can consider them as the first humans. The model is definitely related to international governance and globalization. The [model] itself can be regarded as a dot. Other dialectical models may have to be applied in order to describe and explain, if not to infer or predict certain phenomena, such as the non-“extinction of human beings” versus extinction of human beings model and the mainstream of human development versus non-“mainstream of human development.”

12345ABCDE time/space sequence (1) time/space sequence (2) ……………………….. time/space sequence (n)

1 (or 100% of the concept) stands for human beings in a globalized world. 3 (or 50% of the concept) stands for human beings in a globalizing world. 5 (or 1% of the concept) stands for human beings in a localized world. E (or 100% of the concept) stands for non-“12345”/non-“human beings in a globalized world (or 1),” human beings in a globalizing world (or 3), and human beings in a localized world (or 5). A (or 1% of the concept) could be human beings in the space shuttle or International Space Station (ISS).

96

4

Findings from Each Chapter

B (or 25%) could be human beings on the moon or the exoplanets.5 C (or 50% of the concept) could be human beings on Mars or the exoplanets. The 1 2 3 4 5 spectrum is equivalent to what I call the safe zone, and the A B C D E spectrum, the danger zone. 5 is the middle way… in the safe zone, and A, the middle way… in the danger zone. So, if some human beings choose to go to Mars, they would be in the danger zone, unless they can sustain their life on that red planet by themselves. By generating the above-mentioned model, I am not being tautological because I am initiating something for others to follow. Indeed, many of my students subscribed to my inference or prediction of the future trend. It is not something, which is already there for the researcher to choose from, such as one of the four matrixes in game theory. Yes, it is possible for a statesman or a politician to apply my one-dot theory and my crab and frog motion model to make the first move and the subsequent moves, however contradictory it may seem. By doing so, the said statesman or politician or even a researcher playing a role of statesman or politician cannot be said as being tautological. Fourteenth, when applying my crab and frog motion model, what one said constitutes only partial truth, even if a lawyer, uttering the following words: The fact before us represents the truth and nothing but truth. This is because truth by itself is the truth. However, there are also non-“truth” in the world. Therefore, in the context of both truth (or 1 2 3 4 5 in my model) and non-“truth (or A B C D E in my model),” truth is partial, and the same thing speaks for non-“truth,” partial still. Fifteenth, the one-dot theory is easy to remember. When we finish reading a publication, we may have an impression of what the author(s) have attempted to write. Because we cannot remember everything and because even the author(s) may not be able to do the same after a (short or lengthy) period of time, it is only wise to give an attractive name to a theory and model, so that the publication would not be written in vain. Sixteenth, people in the West do say “put it on the line” or mention “the red line.” The latter could refer to the danger zone. Alternatively, it could mean the middle way in between 5 and A in my crab and frog motion model. The former idiom means “to risk failure,” such as the lawyer put his reputation on the line when he agreed to defend this man.6 Applying my model, the lawyer could be in between 5 and A, especially when the man is guilty like hell. Seventeenth, come to think if it, it is possible to convert and reinvent each theory and model generated by Western academics and experts. However, would be it possible, for example, for the game theorists to convert and reinvent the one-dot theory

5 In December 2006, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced its plan to construct a solar-powered outpost at one of the moon’s poles by 2020. The polar moon camp is expected to be permanently staffed by 2024. However, during the Barack H. Obama II’s early administration, he did not favor it. 6 http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+it+on+the+line, accessed on July 26, 2011.

From the Second Chapter

97

and the accompanied model? It is very doubtful because game theories assume that we are, locked into those four matrixes, all rational to begin with. No, sometimes, we human beings are irrational, for example, in casting a vote or buying and selling certain stocks. Eighteenth, the chart in the Appendix shows a series of games played by the Chinese Communists against the ROC on Taiwan since China became politically divided in December 1949. In passing, it should be pointed out that at the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which was held in September 1997, both Rule of Law Politics/Government by Law and Virtuous Rule/DeZhi were for the first time equally emphasized,7 symbolizing the CPC’s enrichment of (neo)Marxism. However, to work well, each of the games must be shored up by the centralism (at 1) versus democracy (at E) model. In Chapter 3, international regimes were discussed. By the same token, for each regime, it must be shored up by the sanctions regime for it to work well. However, the striking distinction between the two is that international regimes that work well can benefit all the countries, political and/or economic entities, and individuals like you and me, whereas only the Chinese Communists can be benefited when they play those dialectical games well, because, at the end, we will see the demise of the ROC.

From the Second Chapter First, the five diagrams can be applied to describe, explain, and infer each level. As such, I can confidently say that the one-dot theory can be called the one-dot “law,” with quotation marks. That is to say, I can infer the following: The universe is a dot. In the context of God, it is a partial dot. If a partial dot exists, there must be a fuller dot. In that case, God, by inference, must also be a dot. It follows that, if we human beings can return to Earth (or even moon or Mars in the future) from Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, saying they have, indeed, met God or Buddha, my one-dot theory can be elevated to the one-dot law, as in natural science. Second, ontology, which has to do with the metaphysical study of Being, and epistemology, which has to do with the study of Being’s validity and the limitation thereof, if Being has been excluded in our study, must be discussed, and they do yield different research outcomes. In other words, a researcher wants to find out whether our study would enable us to be closer to reality. You as a reader of this book exist and I exist. There is no quarrel, if we can see each other. However, questions like the following have been asked: Did Adolf Hitler really kill himself in April 1945? Or was he hiding somewhere in the world? Also, does God, for example, exist? From a scientific point of view, having faith on the existence of God is not enough. This is because we can easily challenge the

7

See NA Chi and LU Huaiyu, Philosophy Field of Vision: A New Theory on the Government by Law and Virtuous Rule (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, January 2006).

98

4

Findings from Each Chapter

religious believers, saying why would a church, temple, or mosque be struck by lightning or even demolished by fire? Isn’t such a house of worship should be protected by God? If not, can we have confidence in God? A person having a linear thinking may say international business is international business and is international business. Yet, students of international business will find that even textbooks on international business cover the study of religion.8 The following question ought to be asked: What does religion have to do with international business? The answer may well be that sometimes it does affect international business, at least psychologically. Third, if, for example, Christianity can be put in the safe zone of my model, what about those cults? Depending on the time/space sequence, cults would be in the danger zone. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that Christianity be put at 1 and a certain cult, 5. For example, YiGuanDao, integrating several religions including Christianity, had to go underground in the ROC on Taiwan after December 1949. It also received a bad name, as a duck egg cult, because vegetarian believers can consume duck egg, as opposed to chicken egg.9 It was not until February 1987 that it became an official religion in the Taiwan area. How do we present Christianity and YiGuanDao/YiGuanTianDao in terms of my crab and frog motion model? At least four models are needed. First, Christianity versus YiGuanDao from the former perspective. Second, YiGuanDao versus Christianity from the YiGuanDao perspective. Third, YiGuanDao (at 1) and Christianity (at 5) versus non-“YiGuanDao (at 1) and Christianity (at 5)” from the YiGuanDao perspective. Fourth, Christianity (at 1) and YiGuanDao (at 5) versus “non-‘Christianity’ (at 1) and YiGuanDao (at 5)” from the Christianity perspective. Fourth, groupthink is a theory coined by Irving L. Janis, who is a social psychologist. It occurs when a group makes faulty decisions in foreign affairs because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.”10 He has documented eight symptoms, and I will comment on each from the five diagrams’ perspective: 1. Illusion of invulnerability—Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks: A Leninist, dialectical model corresponds to this point, to wit, Centralism at 1 versus Democracy at E. If, for example, members of a political party adopt the model, indeed, they will look like a juggernaut, creating excessive optimism. However, since early existence, the CPC does conduct public opinion polls to find out the truth. Thus, the worry of taking extreme risks can be reduced.

8

See, for example, John J. Wild and Kenneth L. Wild, International Business: The Challenges of Globalization, 6th edition (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011). 9 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%80%E8%B2%AB%E9%81%93, accessed on July 21, 2011. 10 See his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy on page 9, which is published by Houghton Mifflin Company in Boston.

From the Second Chapter

99

2. Collective rationalization—Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions: This is a problem but not a major concern because the following model can always remind the members that, in a group, there are always three subgroups, namely, the majority, the minority, and the neutral. 3. Belief in inherent morality—Members believe in the rightness of their cause and, therefore, ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions: Engaged in politics, it is doubtful that politicians or (neo)Realists would put ethics and morality in the first place. 4. Stereotyped views of out-groups—Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary: This would not be much of a problem to dialecticians, because they are always aware of the struggle between thesis and the antithesis, which would bring about a higher level of synthesis. Besides, a series of (contending) models are at work. 5. Direct pressure on dissenters—Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views: If Centralism versus Democracy is well practiced, each member will be invited to say positive and negative things. Once a decision has been made, every member will stick to the final decision. In a word, one can dissent or play a role of a devil’s advocate before time/space sequence (n), which is the last move. 6. Self-censorship—Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed: This does not really apply to the crab and frog motion model, because each dialectician will be aware of the following model: consensus versus non-“consensus.” So, those members who doubt and deviate from the perceived group consensus are put in the danger zone. 7. Illusion of unanimity—The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous: Unless the Centralism versus Democracy model has been shelved or scrapped, the unanimous illusion will not occur. 8. Self-appointed “mind guards”—Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the groups’ cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions: This phenomenon can also be found among the dialecticians. However, they know that it is not normal. In sum, the application of the five diagrams cannot be equated as groupthink for the most part. Fifth, most academics take for granted that, when formulating a policy or law, they do not have to apply a theory and model. This is certainly a mistake, because the application of a good theory and model can enable us to take into consideration the past, present, and the future. What I said is similar to what Hsiung said: “Theory, to me, is an explanatory device, something that will explain a given phenomenon or puzzle. In terms of its origin, it is a generalization of findings from earlier studies. Hence, it can explain, or anticipate the outcome of, a similar set of variables in another setting, ceteris paribus (all things being equal). Theory is not ideology, nor a proposition, much less an editorial opinion. Government officials do not like theories, I think, for another reason. They are not smart enough to know their importance,

100

4

Findings from Each Chapter

or how to apply them.”11 In passing, it should be noted that what makes a theorist or a model builder different from a historian is that the former has to infer or predict the future, whereas the latter needs only to concentrate on or dig the past.

From the Third Chapter First, most textbooks are published in the West, and most academic journals have editors trained in the West. As such, many, if not most, students of social science in the East are led to believe that the theories and models generated in the West are universal, applicable to the East. Even if some of them feel uncomfortable about certain theories and models, they do not know how to make a rebuttal nor challenge the Western theorists and model builders by finding faults in their logic(s). Second, WANG Gungwu’s Divided China: Preparing for Reunification 883–947 should be noted. From the abstract, we see the following fascinating words: “The oneness of China is the norm. Periods of divisions are aberrations. This is how Chinese thinkers, leaders and ultimately the majority of Chinese people have regarded Chinese politics and history for more than 2,000 years. The oneness was never perfect. As long as certain minimal conditions were met and the polity which proclaimed that oneness was widely acknowledged, that was enough. Chinese ruling elites adopted this pragmatic approach so they could ensure that the ideal could always approximate China’s reality. This is a revised edition of a study undertaken to explain what happened during one of the worst periods of division in Chinese history. What were the key factors that helped the centripetal forces to get back to the imperial norm? It begins with the final stage of decline of the Tang dynasty (618–907) and ends 50 years later when it became clear that the foundations for a last push toward unification were in place.”12 A word can be said. Why would the Chinese ruling elites since ancient times accept that the oneness does not have to be perfect? This is because the dialecticians often say ChaBuDuo, which can be translated as “about the same,” “similar,” “six of one and half a dozen of the other,” etc.13 For example, there is not much difference between 1 and 2 in the spectrum, 2 and 3 in the same spectrum, and so on and so forth. In other words, if the emperor is given MianZi/face, he will tolerate the existence of small, not yet defeated kingdoms. On the whole, the relationship between Beijing and Taipei has been similar since December 1949. Third, it seems that some Australians want to be different from the British and, for that matter, the Americans, in higher education. For example, the Australians would use the term, unit of study, which is equivalent to the British’s subject or the

11

E-mail from his, dated November 27, 2010. http://www.worldscibooks.com/eastasianstudies/6419.html, accessed on August 16, 2011. 13 http://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/dictionary?p=%E5%B7%AE%E4%B8%8D%E5%A4%9A, accessed on August 16, 2011. 12

From the Third Chapter

101

Americans’ course. The subtitle of the Social Research Methods book further proofs that: An Australian Perspective.14 The authors tried to introduce Australian-focused writings on social research methods plus providing the unique value and limitations of each method. To me, this is odd because when we apply a research method, we want to be able to describe, explain, and infer, if not predict, as many phenomena as possible. The adjective, Australian, simply restricts. It narrows our mind, and therefore, it is not pluralist. In this connection, can the one-dot theory and its crab and frog motion model be Australian-focused? Certainly, it can be done. However, by doing so, again, each author’s scope of inquiry would be narrowed down because, to be accepted by a majority of academics, the theory must not just be Australianfocused. It should be internationally and/or globally focused, even intercelestial when human beings are able to live on the moon or Mars. More than 400 human beings have volunteered to go to the red planet in 2030, even if they know that they cannot come back to our planet.15 Fourth, is it possible for a theory or model to have many words? This is possible. However, it will not sound attractive to many theorists and model builders. After all, a theory or model is a simplification or compression of complex and complicated reality. Fifth, when we reinvent something that already exists, such as shown in the phrase, reinvent the wheel, could the effort be wasted?16 Not so, because the intellectual exercise can shed new light on which approach is better or optimal, dialectical or non-“dialectical.” One of my former colleagues wrote the following words, after reading my draft paper on investment: “Hi, Professor. I really enjoyed reading your manuscript, you can explained such a dull topic ([m]y personal view only) into something interesting with one-dot theory.”17 More importantly, this book challenges other theorists and model builders, on whether a reverse can be done. Sixth, one of my former colleagues wrote me, saying “[t]he classical scientific ideal of verisimilitude (i.e., models representing reality as closely as possible) is not the most significant ideal to guide research in these applied/performative fields. These fields are more focused on creating/bringing forth/generating/making that which does not exist. What they need is ‘models for’ doing that, not the classical scientific ‘models of’ what exists already. In order to appreciate and guide research in the applied/performative fields, it is important to engage with this matter [bold in original].”18 “Models of” can represent something. To be sure, the five diagrams are both of and for. As a researcher, it is usually of, whereas, for a practitioner, such as a business person, it is usually for. By applying

14 Maggie Walter, ed., Social Research Methods: An Australian Perspective (Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2006). 15 ShiHuaRiBao (hereinafter SHRB) (Sarawak, Malaysia), January 13, 2011, p. 17. 16 http://www.nciku.com.tw/search/en/detail/reinvent/63314, access on July 19, 2011. 17 E-mail from him, dated August 8, 2011. 18 E-mail from him, dated April 13, 2010.

102

4

Findings from Each Chapter

the following model, Of at 1 and For at 5, the seemingly contradiction between Of and For can be dissolved because a researcher would stick to 1 and a practitioner, 5. Here, I would like to add an applied (as opposed to classical) remark made by Mike Wong, while referring to Jobs’ mentioning of dots in February 1996: “That is what I told you my understanding of the DOT [sic] is to link one event or contact or things to another to get the whole picture. This applies in business. You need the link or to connect the DOT [sic].”19 Seventh, in June 2011, a professor of business and management from South Asia presented at my former university a lecture, which is entitled Models in Research: Abstract, Theoretical, Conceptual, and Empirical. When it comes to the question and answer session, I told him that, due to time constraint, I will only focus on the very first slide, adding that tons of questions can be posed. He, thinking that is the first slide, scrolled back to that slide. But I told him that the first slide has to do with the title of his presentation. Then, I made the following remarks. First, in his presentation, he mentioned the term theory. As such, the title of the presentation should be Theories and Models in Research. This is because they are closely related to each other. Second, I asked him what is his approach—dialectical or non-“dialectical?” His answer was vague. I told him and the audience that a non-“dialectical” approach to the study of business would never succeed, because doing business is not linear. A business person will face (sharp) twists and turns, zigs and zags, and ups and downs. A few academics in the audience concurred. To be sure, throughout his presentation, he mentioned some dialectical terms, such as to an extreme or on the one hand and on the other hand. Third, I mentioned those adjectives in the subtitle. I asked him which one would he weigh the most and the least? He replied, saying theoretical and conceptual. Then, I suggested him from his perspective to first mention theoretical in the subtitle, to be followed by conceptual, and so on and so forth. This is because some researchers may be more interested in the empirical dimension of a theory and model. Eighth, when we talk about policy analysis and paradigms, regimes could be associated.20 In August 2011, I came across the following words: “Both paradigms and discourses are a type of inter-subjective understanding that condition individual action, and social outcomes, in the international system no less than elsewhere. They have no formal existence resembling that of organizations, constitutions, laws, and treaties. Yet they can be none the less effective in coordinating the behavior of large numbers of actors, and this is especially true in a political system as de-centralized as the international one, where formal sources of order are weak”21 and “[d]iscourses can provide the ‘software’ that makes international regimes work, while more formal organizations and rules provide the ‘hardware.’”22 The striking difference between international regimes and paradigms and discourses is that the former is

19

His e-mail dated August 25, 2011. Daneil Bodansky et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 47. 21 Ibid., p. 45. 22 Ibid., p. 60. 20

From the Third Chapter

103

beneficial to all actors, whereas paradigms and discourses could still be divided and disruptive.23 Ninth, I have tried to convert and reinvent five different case studies. A few are related to human behavior. One has to do with both nature and man. By touching upon nature, we are also talking about science. Anyway, my study has been quite comprehensive. Tenth, some studies resemble the five diagrams as shown in this book. A German Sinophile mathematician, Gottfried W. Leibnitz, was greatly inspired from the BaGua in the fall of 1701.24 He “was perhaps the first major European intellect to take a close interest in Chinese civilization, which he knew by corresponding with, and reading other works by, European Christian missionaries posted in China. He concluded that Europeans could learn much from the Confucian ethical tradition. He mulled over the possibility that the Chinese characters were an unwitting form of his universal characteristic. He noted with fascination how the I Ching hexagrams correspond to the binary numbers from 0 to 111111, and concluded that this mapping was evidence of major Chinese accomplishments in the sort of philosophical mathematics he admired.”25 A nineteenth-century physicist Niels Bohr in the West applied the portion of it in his attempt to describe and explain the complementarity of science/scientific attitude and religion/religious attitude.26 However, for what reason I do not exactly know, I am aware of two authors, who would not mention so. I can only infer that, to be able to reach more readers in the West, one should not confuse or scare away people in the West or potential, worldwide buyers. There could be another possibility. Many years ago, when I was with the National University of Singapore (NUS), a visitor said, since many people in the West shun from dialectics, you might as well not mention such a word in your writing but still applying it. Indeed, this is a way out. Please do not forget that there are many academics and experts who are hostile to dialectics. Actually, I have in mind a February 2005 best seller, Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS). Arguably, the two authors were, while choosing both the classical and applied ways, subconsciously adopted the Yin and Yang diagram plus the Five Elements. “Seeing is believing” had been mentioned by W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne,27 and, throughout their book, I have detected many crab and frog

23

Ibid., p. 46. http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E5%85%AB%E5%8D%A6, accessed on August 25, 2011. 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz, accessed on August 25, 2011. 26 See Frederick Grinnell, Everyday Practice of Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 181. 27 I have heard of this book a few years ago and included their recent publications in my proposed unit of study. However, I only began reading their book in November 2009. See W. Chan KIM and Renée Mauborgne, “Blue Ocean Strategy” Harvard Business Review, October 2004, pp. 76–85; id., Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant (Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press, 2005) and id. (September 2009), “How Strategy Shapes Structure,” Harvard Business Review, 13 pages. On November 11, 2009, I e-mailed the two authors, saying that their strategy is but a version of Yin and Yang plus Five Elements. The quotation can be found in p. 152. 24

104

4

Findings from Each Chapter

motion, dialectical, or scientific terms: a market universe composed of two sorts of oceans: (bloody) red (which is fraught with competition) and blue (of new market place) (p. 4) (which is just the opposite of red ocean); red ocean(s)/red waters (p. 5 and p. 23) and blue ocean(s)/blue waters (p. 5 and p. 23); contradictions (p. 42); explicit or implicit strategy (p. 42); customers and non-customers (p. 102); hot spots and cold spots (p. 157 and p. 158); industries never stand still and continuously evolve28; leapfrog29 (which is “a game in which one player bends down and is vaulted over by another player”30) (p. 31); the market universe never been constant31; carrots and sticks32; balance the scales33; etc. In short, justification has been established for us to discuss the book dialectically. Kim and Mauborgne’s blue ocean is actually equivalent to the pure circle, with nothing chaotic inside. In real life, is it possible to have blue ocean market all the time? In March 1602, the first company was created. However, competition ensued when the second one was established, to be followed by the third, fourth, and so on and so forth. Because of this fact, the two authors had to coin another term, market universe34 (as opposed to market cosmos, which reflects order or harmony), which is actually a combination of both order and chaos or a version of the Yin and Yang diagram. Indeed, in real life, both blue ocean and red ocean could coexist. It is not just blue ocean versus non-“blue ocean” or vice versa. That is to say, we can put the blue ocean at 1 and the red, 5. When we see coexistence, as compelled by objective circumstances, we could be at 3 in the safe zone spectrum. This corresponds to what I watched on November 13, 2009, that is, in a video clip, Kim, in an interview, said the following phrase: blue ocean created in the middle of the red ocean.35 It is important to discuss the dot in Yin and the dot in Yang. We can actually label the blue ocean Yin as new and the red ocean Yang, old. This is logical, as shown in the successful example of Canada-based Cirque du Soleil (Circus of the Sun). This is a new circus. However, it retained something old. So, the Canadian circus can be labeled Yang to begin with. However, the dot reflects new. Kim and his student said we should swim from the red waters to the blue waters. Having done so, the new circus actually became Yin, and that dot in Yin reflects old. Again, this reflects closer reality because the Sun Circus is retaining something old, such as the acrobatic acts and other thrilling performances.

28

The words can be found in, for example, ibid., p. 6. This word can be found in, for example, ibid., p. 31. 30 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leap-frog, accessed on November 10, 2009. 31 Ibid. 32 The words can be found in, for example, ibid., p. 184. 33 The words can be found in, for example, ibid., p. 190. 34 There is a distinction between the words, cosmos and universe. 35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv_RsRATivo&feature=related, accessed on November 13, 2009. 29

From the Third Chapter

105

If the circus is expanding, the ZHU diagram must be employed. Or if Le Cirque has to be closed down, the same diagram should also be applied. Needless to say, my crab and frog motion model can be useful to describe, explain, and infer the following example. On page 42, the BOS authors mentioned the term, an incoherent strategy, with a question mark at the end.36 This section was followed by another section called Strategic Contradictions. They wrote the following words on the same page: “When a company’s value curve looks like a bowl of spaghetti – a zigzag with no rhyme or reason, where the offering can be described as ‘low-high-low-low-high-low-high’ – it signals that the company doesn’t have a coherent strategy. Its strategy is likely based on independent substrategies. These may individually make sense and keep the business running and everyone busy, but collectively they do little to distinguish the company from the best competitor or to provide a clear strategic vision.” The two authors suffer from the same problem. Obviously, “low-high-low-low-highlow-high” does not match the non-“dialectical” inductive or deductive reasoning. One’s logic can easily get stuck, not being able to flow smoothly. There is a lack of a train of thought. However, “low-high-low-low-high-low-high” can be dialectically expressed by applying the crab and frog motion model, as shown below, although we need a series of them, which could be, to some people, cumbersome: First possible model: Put high at 1 and low at 5; Second possible model: Put low at 1 and high at 5; Third possible model: Put high at 1 and low at E; Fourth possible model: Put low at 1 and high at E; etc. In short, at each time/space sequence, one looks at only a Number or a Letter, and there will be no contradictions strategically or tactically, unlike what Kim and Mauborgne said, and this dialectical movement is certainly closer to reality, because a company cannot be successful all the time. To repeat, a dialectical/scientific/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-“dialectical”/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet halfway. Such is the paradox,37 to a non-“dialectician.” However, to a dialectician, it is magic because the crab and frog motion model enables himself or herself to rationalize everything, from A to Z. To be sure, non-“dialectically,” either inductive or deductive, one cannot swim38 from red waters to blue waters, because they are at odds. Dialectically, blue ocean could be in the red ocean or coexist with red ocean. Such is the crucial difference.

36 This slightly revised section is taken from my edited book, International (Corporate) Governance: A One-dot Theory Interpretation (New York: Nova Business and Management Publications, 2011), Chapter 5. 37 This word can be found in, for example, KIM and Mauborgne (2005), p. 64. 38 The translator of the Republic of China (ROC) version of the 2005 book used the Chinese character of you/swim. See http://happycwhite.googlepages.com/itcs.b5, accessed on November 6, 2009. KIM and his student also used the word, swim.

106

4

Findings from Each Chapter

Eleventh, one day, I received the following battle of wits between a professor at a state university in the USA and four sophomores taking chemistry, and all of them had an “A” so far. Only dialectically rational can the students outsmart the professor. These four friends were so confident that, the weekend before finals, they decided to visit some friends and have a big party. They had a great time but, after all the hearty partying, slept all day Sunday and did not make it back to the university until early Monday morning. Rather than taking the final then, they decided that they would explain to their professor why they missed it. They said that they visited friends, but on the way back, they had a flat tire. As a result, they missed the final. The professor agreed they could make up the final the next day. The guys were excited and relieved. They studied that night for the exam. The next day, the professor placed them in separate rooms and gave them a test booklet. They quickly answered the first problem worth 5 points/marks. Cool, they thought! Each one in separate rooms, thinking this was going to be easy. Then, they turned the page. On the second page, it was written as follows: For 95 points: Which tire? The dialectical answer if the four students are rational: 1 in the safe zone of my crab and frog motion model. First, build the model: 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E. Need to build another model: rational (or the 1 2 3 4 5 safe zone) versus irrational (or the A B C D E danger zone). The students certainly want to be rational, so as to receive the 95 points. Another model is needed: The first tire (placed at E of my model, carrying the least weight) The second tire (at D) The third tire (at B) The fourth tire (at A) Any one of them: the first tire, second, third, or fourth (at 1, carrying the most weight) To be rational, choose “Any one of them.” The students did not lie, and they have answered the question, if not outsmarted the poor professor.

Chapter 5

Conclusion

On June 30, 2011, I asked Hsiung, who is well versed in both Chinese and English, on how is his 20th book, China into its Second Rise, coming along? He replied on the next day, saying he is completing the final eighth chapter. He said the purpose of the last chapter is “to both tie up all the loose ends in a retroactive view and, more important, ‘predict’ what a Pax Sinica might look like upon China’s reaching the zenith of its power.”1 In writing this book draft’s last chapter, I do not feel the same thing because I have a one-dot theory to be accompanied by the crab and frog motion model, to be applied from the very beginning, if one understands that a good theory and model should have its inferring or predictive power. By beginning, I mean the first word in the book title and subtitle. That is to say, each word from the first one to the last one in my book can be slotted into the model. This has been neglected or even ignored by many, if not most, academics in social science, resulting in inconsistency and unfairness, to say the least. By inconsistency, I mean that the reviewer or reader did not realize that, lacking a theory and model, logic(s) cannot possibly flow in the publication. This means that the author did not convince himself or herself in the first place, most likely. In passing, it should be noted that two of my former colleagues and one of them was the then president of an institution of higher education urged his colleagues to collaborate in the writing of a topic. That is to say, you would write the first section, I will be assigned to work on the second section, and a third coauthor would finish the last section. Can logic(s) really flow? It is very doubtful because you have your logic(s), and I have mine. The third coauthor’s logic(s) may also differ from yours and mine. A follow-up question is as follows: How can the author convince others? Yet, the manuscript could pass the test of one or more reviewers, due to negligence and/or ignorance on their part, resulting in what I called unfairness in approving the publication of the manuscript.

1

E-mail from him, dated July 1, 2011.

P.K.-h. YU, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, Justified, and Applied, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2167-2_5, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

107

108

5 Conclusion

However, I do have my two major concerns. First, has my research and writing being following my scholarship/XueShu criteria, which were first put forward in spring 2008 and slightly revised in July 2010? Second, how many academics and experts would apply my one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model? In other words, is my one-dot theory heterodox,2 which is considered outside of the mainstream? Let me say a few words. Methodology incorporates approaches and methods (see Appendix II)3. My latest scholarship criteria are as follows: logic(s), contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc., and I have faithfully followed them. First, I have relied on both inductive and deductive methods. This is unique to the dialectical approach. The inductive method is normative, while the deductive method, empirical. Maintaining a train of thought, having linear thinking, or insisting that only cause and effect analysis is persuasive is still possible, if one knows how to build as many crab and frog motion models as possible, linking one another, from the first word to the last word in the publication. Because I have a theory and a model, everything has been logically, systematically, and coherently presented. Second, from June 2009 to June 2011, I was teaching at an Australian university. One day in the second year, one of my colleagues came to my office, saying he noticed that I am the only academic who is working on the one-dot theory. Probably, he surfed on the Internet, and he found no one else has elaborated on the one-dot theory. When he made that remark, I felt good because this can only mean that I am a pioneer when it comes to the study of one dot and, therefore, I have definitely made a modicum of contribution in the literature of one-dot study. Third, I have noticed many, if not most, publications in the West and East lack consistency in applying theories and models in the same publication. In this study, I have consistently applied my one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model. I have also compared and contrasted them with other theories and models generated in the West. How many academics and experts are convinced by my attempt to simplify or compress complex and complicated reality is another issue, which I will elaborate on later on. Fourth, my crab and frog motion model can help me to be precise, if not accurate, when I describe, explain, and infer certain phenomena. This is due to the component of time/space sequence, which could refer to a split second or even less. Fifth, closeness to reality is debatable. Hence, before we conduct research and writing, we have to decide what approach to take, that is, dialectical or non“dialectical.” Once decided, we can proceed to conduct research and writing. It would be the best, if we can adopt both approaches. If so, we can compare and contrast the findings. A well-known expert on psychology, C. G. Jung, in the foreword of Richard Wilhelm’s translation of The YiJing or The Book of Changes (1951) wrote the 2

Others include institutional, post-Keynesian, socialist, Marxian, feminist, Austrian, ecological, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics, accessed on July 20, 2011. 3 See my edited book, International (corporate) governance: A one-dot Theory Interpretation (New York: Nova Business and Management publicaions, 2011), Ch. 1.

5 Conclusion

109

following words, showing his appreciation of the Yin and Yang diagram: “Just as causality describes the sequence of events, so synchronicity to the Chinese mind deals with the coincidence of events. The casual point of view tells us a dramatic story about how D came into existence, it took its origin from C, which existed before D, and C in its turn had a father, B, etc. The synchronicity view on the other hand tries to produce an equally meaningful picture of coincidence. How does it happen that A¢, B¢, C¢, D¢, etc., appear all in the same moment and in the same place? It happens in the first place because the physical events A¢ and B¢ are of the same quality as the psychic events C¢ and D¢, and further because all are the exponents of one and the same momentary situation. The situation is assumed to represent a legible or understandable picture.”4 In my academic career, the biggest finding of all findings since December 2004 is a dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-“dialectical”/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or at best, they must meet halfway. However, time, energy, etc., usually do not permit us to do that. Needless to say, by being able to be closer to reality is desirable. Sometimes, even those person(s) involved in a case may be confused as to what constitute the reality or even truth. Others may on purpose reject a certain (mainstream) theory and model, due to jealousy, because you have something and I do not or the desideratum for maintaining power. In this connection, many, if not most, academics would criticize this and that, as if he or she is the real expert, only to find out that this academic does not have many publications to begin with and has never written on the same topic before. At this juncture, it seems appropriate to say something about my second concern, that is, how many academics and experts can accept, subscribe, and promote (by applying) my one-dot theory and the crab and frog motion model? As I told my other colleagues at that university and the ones before that, saying, because we are Chinese (or Japanese and Korean), we can readily accept the Yin and Yang diagram or even the one-dot theory paradigm, due to the fact that we are exposed to it when we were small. Chinese idioms are usually structured dialectically. As to those academics and experts in the West, they would either neglect it or ignore it. However, each reader should ask one crucial question, that is, can a specific theory and model describe, explain, and infer more phenomena? If theory A can describe, explain, and infer 10 phenomena and theory B, 1,000, which one is better? Intuitively, it is B, not A. To be honest, just like my crab and frog motion model, game theory in the context of BaGua or the grand diagram is superficial and shallow. There could be a third possibility, to wit, they have their own agenda and, therefore, they will only concentrate their energy, time, budget, etc., on developing indepth the theories and models they have generated. The finest example is that of game theory.

4

Cited from my book, The Crab and Frog Motion Paradigm Shift: Decoding and Deciphering Taipei and Beijing’s Dialectical Politics (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 2002), p. ix.

110

5 Conclusion

And to Hsiung, “[t]heory is not ideology, nor a proposition, much less an editorial opinion. Government officials do not like theories, I think, for another reason. They are not smart enough to know their importance, or how to apply them.”5 As pointed out by him, the fourth possibility has to do with ideology. It is that “[t]wo factors equally determine the salience and popularity of a particular approach/theory: (a) its perceived explanatory power, and (b) how powerful its ‘proselytizers’ (promoters) are. Both game theory and dialectics (of both the Yin-Yang and Hegelian-Marxian variations) have rich explanatory power. The rest depends on people’s perception and the power of their respective champions. By comparison, game theory enjoys better perception, hence wider acceptance; and it is more readily comprehensible than dialectics. More important [sic], game theory’s champions are more powerful as its patron saints. Furthermore, dialectics has suffered from its readily perceived (assumed) linkage with Marxism. You notice I used ‘Marxian,’ not ‘Marxist’ in referring to the dialectics associated with Karl Marx. But, most people don’t know the difference. Game theory has no such extraneous ideological problem. In fact, Marxian dialectics was derived from Hegelian dialectics, which in turn had been inspired by the Chinese Yin-Yang dialectics. But, interestingly enough, Marxian dialectics bears more resemblance to the Yin-Yang dialectics than does the Hegelian version.”6 A business and management professor has this to say: “… in the history of Western philosophy dialectical thinking with paradox and change as its central concepts permeated the writings of a number of thinkers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and [Marx]. Unfortunately, this dialectical movement in the West was later overshadowed somehow by logical positivism in the name of modern science… The recent advance in psychology on dialectical thinking in Chinese culture… and on dialectical thinking in ancient Greece… implies the potential of incorporating dialectical thinking in cross-cultural research… I distinguish between Yin Yang (Chinese duality thinking) and Western dialectical thinking so as to emphasize the need to adopt the former as the philosophical foundation for this study of a new conceptualization of culture that is more embracive and holistic in nature than the current cultural models.”7

5

E-mail from him, dated November 27, 2010. E-mail from him, dated November 6, 2005. 7 See footnote 56, FANG, p. 2–3. 6