I think whether it is a large planet or a small ant, as long as the relationship between two different things is as follows:
1. There is no connection between two things, just like two separate circles. I don't know what are the similarities or differences between these two things, because without contact, there will be no comparison between them. For example, at the beginning of human history, there was no connection between the Chinese primitive human society in the Yellow River Basin and the primitive human society on the African continent, but they could exist independently. The earth has never established a connection with other planets (except the moon). Even if I have been to the moon, there is no biological existence, so there is no cultural connection.
2. Two things have homogenous parts, but also heterogeneous parts, like two intersecting circles. Under such circumstances, there are often two relationships, one is conflict, and the other is integration.
Take the story in Brave New World to illustrate: In the years before the discovery of the New World, European civilization and Indian civilization had nothing to do with each other, and existed independently, just like the first relationship mentioned above. After Columbus discovered the New World, European colonies began to come to the American continent one after another, looking for wealth, which also began the conflict between civilizations. Just as the actor in the movie lived in an Indian tribe, in his inner monologue, he felt a purely equal and friendly human emotion most cherished. He even thought that perhaps Indian talents have a kind of true integration with nature. The ability of a real person is the original state of being a person. As a British explorer and colonial pioneer, he himself is full of ambition, desire and aggression, which is a temperament of conquering nature and others. He didn't even want to return to his original world. Therefore, the civilizations here cannot be judged by their pros and cons, because each has the eternal and immortal essence of its own civilization.
But when advanced civilization and backward civilization (this judgment is only based on the perspective of technology/combat power) collide, they are curious and tentatively contacting each other at first. It was like the so-called "madman" among the Indians excitedly touching the European cannon.
Then there was a European war against the Indians, setting fire to their homes, and many young and powerful Indians were killed. This is also similar to the general ending in history, always advanced civilization conquering backward civilization. Human history has always staged such a history of conquering and being conquered one after another. All the wars of mankind can also be clarified roughly. Mankind’s reasons for launching war are often under the guise of a stronger civilization, to “popularize” one’s own civilization to others to initiate war. I think during World War II, Hitler must have considered himself the smartest, and he must have firmly believed that fascism was the most advanced thought. In fact, the Yuan Dynasty in China was also the history of the Mongols conquering the Hans? Why didn't the Mongols think that their civilization was more advanced?
The fusion of civilizations is another subtle change that takes place after two civilizations come into contact with each other, and a convincing "evolution" that takes place. I think the heroine completed her entire process of being "fused" by another civilization throughout the film, because at the end of the film she also understood the meaning of "marriage" and "husband" in European civilization. This is obviously the result of her active involvement in contacting another civilization, actively learning the other’s language and customs, and joining the other’s group.
The integration of civilizations can be seen everywhere in Chinese history. From the Xianbei people's initiative to put on Hanfu, the Khitan and Jurchen people were gradually Sinicized, and Buddhism culture entered the Central Plains and other phenomena, all proved that the integration of civilizations is indeed a great force. This is far stronger than conquering by force. The process of fusion of civilizations contains a kind of consciousness and autonomy, which is a driving force for consciously absorbing the power and change of advanced culture. This is also a harmonious process.
Taking the relationship between two people as an example, I also roughly divide the relationship between the two into three types: one is no relationship or the relationship between them can be ignored, and the other is conflict. (It may not be a total conflict, but there are conflicts and contradictions in general), and the third is integration (this does not mean that there are no contradictions, but that the two sides use the power of tolerance and understanding to gradually resolve the contradictions between the two sides.)
And I think the best relationship between two people is fusion. But when two strangers meet, they are first curious because of the distance, so they are attracted, from nothing to establishing a relationship. However, due to differences in their own experience, class, gender, and education level, two relationships often appear. Either conflict, and one party tries to conquer the other (or one party completely occupies the right to speak), which is equivalent to one-way communication [One-way here just means that one party transmits more content to the other party, which has a greater impact. Just like the cultural hegemony that is feared in international communication. ]; Either it is equal integration, that is, the relationship between the two parties reaches equality and tolerance, and mutual influence, which is equivalent to two-way communication. Of course, I prefer the latter relationship. Regardless of whether it is young or old, I think it needs a kind of equality and tolerance, not a kind of self-righteousness, let alone a one-way indoctrination.
3. Two things overlap. It can be that the former embraces the latter, or the latter embraces the former, just like the relationship between the inner circle and the circle. But the two are not exactly the same, because there is nothing purely homogeneous in this world. The ancient philosopher Leibniz said long ago: "There are no two identical leaves in the world." This situation is often the result of one party conquering or completely fusing the other party. Such a relationship is also a harmonious relationship.
So, is the history of mankind a history of merging little by little? Is mankind really gradually moving towards great harmony?
I feel that even if the Indian princess accepts European civilization, she still maintains her own unique culture, and still maintains the Indian culture of communicating with the gods in her heart and with nature.
Take two inner circles as an example. Even if the small circle is in the big circle, it is still a complete small circle. It will not lose its uniqueness because of the inclusion of the big circle.
Therefore, even if mankind does move towards a world of great harmony someday, it is certain that this "culture of great harmony" is not a homogeneous monolithic culture, but a super-inclusive culture that will share the common characteristics of human culture. They are combined together, and through this context (which I personally think may be a kind of common humanity), all human beings can communicate equally and normally without hindrance, and the common part of interconnectedness is found. The heterogeneous content still exists, but it is no longer in a state of mutual hostility and conflict as before, but an attitude of mutual tolerance and mutual understanding. Perhaps at that time, we have really found our ideal "Utopia". The dream of a harmonious world is probably like this. Harmony is a beautiful wish and a beautiful ideal. So, why not try to pursue it for the sake of beauty?
2009-3-10
View more about The New World reviews
