Back
to Vietnamese Missionaries in Taiwan Home PageThe paper of Dr. Luong kim Dinh is concerned about "a Tao-Field for Asia". In a manner analogous to the European Common Market. Dr. Luong Kim Dinh proposes to form a Common Tao-Field for East-Asia. The aim of such a union would be to perserve the Eastern identify of a number of countries and contribute to world unity. Which countries does he have in mind? He names China in the first order, then Japan, Korea, Singapore and Vietnam. He also includes Kampuchea, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and other Pacific islands nations. Dr. Luong Kim Dinh deserves lasting credit for his effort to apply the concept of the original Tao in the modern world, a world in which varied cultures are in deeper communication with another. He says it is of great importance to demonstrate not only the learning of Tao but also its function in a social context. If we only see the list of countries cited above, it is not easy to be convinced, that is the Tao which units such different countries. How can Dr. Luong Kim Dinh prove it? In order to clarify Dr. Dinh's ideas, I would like to place it in the modern context, and see how the reality of such a Tao-Field might be demonstrated. Finally, I would like to reflect on the possible contribution this may have for the work of Vietnamese Scholars.
Although the division of the world into the first, second, and third worlds has its problems, it can at least help us to picture the world in relationship. Indeed, scholars in the free world rarely mention the second world, paying more attention to relationships between the first and the third world. There are two important theories in this respect, the Development Theory and Dependence Theory. The Development Theory was propounded by the U.S. President H. Truman in the Brandung Conference and donated in the fifties. The Dependence Theory flourished in the late sixties and still dominates in Latin-America and some other third world countries. I would like to draw special attention to this latter theory. "Dependence" is understood as a "relationship of subordination and domination". Such a relationship exists between the rich and powerful, and the poor. Dependence Theory contributes to the development of "Theory of Exploitation". According to the Dependence Theory, a relationship of dependence and exploitation is the cause of undevelopment and results in the rich (countries or persons) becoming richer and the poor getting poorer. Although development is the first in economic and social terms, its application has since been broadented to include otherfields like culture and anthropology. In order to resolve this problem, the Dependence Theorists advocate a "Break". On one hand, they recommend that underdeveloped countries "delink" from the world market, dominating foreign cultural influences etc. On the other hand, they push their own country towards revolution. Dependence Theory can help to give voice to the plight of poor but is helpless in resolving the basic problem of underdevelopment. Scholars have already pointed out the shortcomings of the dependence theory. Although it aims to allow countries to escape the evil circle of cause and effect, its way of proceeding is unsound. Isolation instead of cooperation, hatred confrontation instead self-correction are not effective long term policy options. Scholars such as Ulrich Menzel, Dieter Senghaas, Hermann Sauter, etc. reflecting on the sucess of several countries in their movement towards economic development, are convinced that there are other ways to overcome the gap between develop and the underdeveloped nations. They cite the experienc of Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea as strong evidence against the Dependence Theory. The studies of those countries help them to realativize the Dependence Theory. "This stems from the observation that, on the other hand, development process such as those demanded by the Dependence Theory are possible under conditions of association with the world market, while on the other hand, dissociation as a deliberate decisive policy can aggrave underdevelopment, even in cases where this dissociation is tied to policies of internal reconstruction".
How have Taiwan, Singapore and Korea been able to move from a stage of undevelopment to development? There are many economic, social and historical factors which need to be considered in addressing such a question. Such factors are, however, only part of the answer. A deeper, underlying common ground contributing to understand the success of these countries must also identified. Scholars, such as H. Sautter suggest that such a common ground might be found in the influence of the Confucian philosophy. Dr. Luong Kim Dinh does not satisfy with this suggestion, he looks for a deeper dimension: a cultural unification. The Ju Tao (Nho Dao) should be the common basis for the unification of East-Asia. Its two fundamental factors, freedom and egalitarianism, speak strong against the Dependence Theory and the Development Theory. How could we explore this cultural basis? He says, that is a work of demography. We should return backwards to the time before Confucius, for Confucius according to Dr. Kim Dinh is the last representive of the original Ju Tao. He quotes the Confucius' words: "I transmit but do not create. I believe in and love the ancients. I venture to compare myself to our old Peng". How should we understand it? It is a modestly statement? Dr. Kim Dinh recommends us not to think so! In the other place Confucius said, however, "A man who reviews the old so as to find out the new is qualified to teach others". In this sense Cofucius went over the old so as to find out the new. How much newness did Confucius find out? If it were true that Confucius only "transmited" the old Ju-Tao, then we should seek it, according to Dr Kim Dinh, Tao from the ancient teachings, goes backs to Yao, Shun and even behind them back to Fu-Hsi, Nu-Wa, and Shen-Nung. Dr. Kim Dinh notes: it does go beyond the historical facts. For: "They are only archetypal images of an embryonic culture" i.e. they are cultural herods! Is that a great insight or phantastic dream of a losed paradise? Where is the limit between them? Iam very grateful, when Dr. Kim Dinh can give us some criterien which may help us to advoid petitio principii and eccleticism. Besides, supposed that we could find out the Ju Tao in its original manifestation, we still need to transform it in the modern world, so that it should unit the East-Asia. How would be this transformation? In any case, Dr. Luong Kim Dinh's thesis gives us a fresh air among the tired atmosphere of repeating study. We need more such creative philosophy.
Back
to Vietnamese Missionaries in Taiwan Home Page