Sun Zhengyu: How to Elevate Chinese Experience into Chinese Theory?
Knowledge production in the form of academic research is neither the wordplay and sentence-crafting detached from reality, nor the mere patching and reorganizing of existing knowledge. Rather, it adopts theoretical thinking to face the great practice of Chinese-path modernization. In the process of summarizing new practical experiences, it raises new theoretical questions; in the process of exploring and answering these questions, it continuously refines new theories with academic rigor and generalizes new practices characterized by regularities. Thus, it elevates Chinese experience into Chinese theory, endowing Chinese-path modernization with an academic depth of thought, epochal significance, and civilizational meaning, while constructing an autonomous Chinese knowledge system with the modern civilization of the Chinese nation as its substantive content.
I. Using Theoretical Thinking to Illuminate Knowledge Production in Academic Research
Knowledge is the summation and sublimation of practical experience by humanity through its own historical activities. It constitutes the ladder and support points for the progress of human civilization through various conceptual systems endowed with thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations. "Knowledge production" is the process of forming new knowledge on the foundation of existing knowledge and new practical experiences, constituting new rungs and support points for human civilizational progress. Therefore, knowledge production, much like material production, is always realized through two indispensable aspects: first, "quantitative expansion" in the sense of inheritance; and second, a "qualitative leap" in the sense of innovation. The historical development and morphological transformation of human civilization are not only grounded in the quantitative expansion and qualitative leap of material production but also rely on the quantitative expansion and qualitative leap of knowledge production. Only by continuously advancing knowledge production—that is, by continuously promoting both quantitative expansion and qualitative leaps in knowledge—can we provide new ladders and support points for the progress, development, and morphological transformation of human civilization.
The "production process" of knowledge production, which forms new knowledge based on existing knowledge, is primarily realized through two complementary aspects. First, it involves not only inheriting existing knowledge but also reflecting upon it to discover its limitations, thereby raising new questions. Second, it involves not only raising new questions but also gaining insight into the roots of these problems and revealing their essence to form the concepts, ideas, and methods for their resolution. In the process of knowledge production, it endows existing knowledge with new depth of thought, epochal significance, and civilizational meaning, ultimately constructing a new conceptual system grounded in a "revolution in terminology." As Engels noted in his preface to the English edition of Capital: "Every new aspect of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that science."
Knowledge production directly confronts "existing knowledge," or more accurately, the two major categories of difficulties revealed by existing knowledge. First are the "external difficulties" constituted by the contradiction between existing knowledge and new practical experiences. Second are the "internal difficulties" constituted by the inherent contradictions within existing knowledge triggered by these external difficulties. The former challenges existing knowledge with new practical experiences, prompting reflection and skepticism toward the status quo. The latter takes this reflection and skepticism as a premise and, based on the summation and sublimation of new practical experiences, reveals the limitations of the existing knowledge system to revise, transform, and create new systems of knowledge. Therefore, the "production" in knowledge production is the process of discovering, raising, and solving these two types of difficulties. This implies that: (1) the primary issue of knowledge production is to discover and reveal the "external difficulties" between practical experience and existing knowledge; (2) the substantive content of knowledge production is to raise and solve the "internal difficulties" of existing knowledge; and (3) the positive result of knowledge production is to endow existing knowledge with new thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations and to construct a new knowledge system. This shows that the fundamental question of knowledge production is "how" to discover, raise, explore, and solve these two types of difficulties. Promoting the quantitative expansion of knowledge production, and especially achieving its qualitative leap, depends on this fundamental "how."
Regarding this fundamental "how," Engels explicitly pointed out: "A nation that wants to stand on the highest peak of science cannot for a moment dispense with theoretical thinking." Theoretical thinking is the mode of thought and intellectual power used to grasp reality, lead practice, and advance civilization through theory. The "theory" in theoretical thinking consists of various conceptual systems that regulate human thought and behavior. Theoretical thinking is the conceptual framework for grasping reality constituted by "theory" as its content; it is the intellectual operating platform for knowledge production built in a "theoretical" manner. The intellectual operating platform constructed via theoretical thinking is the "radiant light" [1] used for discovering, raising, exploring, and solving the two categories of difficulties in knowledge production; it is the "living soul" of knowledge production, particularly in academic research. Therefore, only by continuously enhancing the capacity for theoretical thinking can academic research as knowledge production be conducted effectively.
Theoretical thinking as knowledge production is primarily manifested in five capacities: (1) theoretical insight to capture, discover, and raise questions; (2) theoretical generalization to summarize, condense, and sublimate questions; (3) theoretical imagination to activate, reorganize, and innovate questions; (4) theoretical discursive power [2] to analyze, interpret, and demonstrate problems; and (5) theoretical intellectual power to expand, deepen, and solve problems. Only by consciously enhancing these capacities of insight, generalization, imagination, discursive power, and intellectual power can we persist in problem-oriented academic research. This enables us to continuously refine new theories with academic rigor and generalize new practices characterized by regularities, endowing academic thoughts, viewpoints, and propositions with new thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations, thereby achieving a "qualitative leap" in knowledge production through theoretical innovation and creation.
The primary task of knowledge production in academic research is to raise questions and solve the issues of "research direction" and "research topics." The insight of theoretical thinking in capturing, discovering, and raising questions directly determines the difficulty, depth, significance, and value of academic topics. Generally speaking, the "questions" of academic research can be divided into four categories: first, theoretical questions contained within practical problems; second, theoretical questions inherited from academic history; third, theoretical questions currently under discussion in the academic community; and fourth, theoretical questions raised independently by scholars. In the knowledge production of academic research, these four types of questions are always intertwined and complementary. The insight of theoretical thinking lies not only in discovering and raising the contradictions between new practical experiences and existing theories from within real-world problems, but also in discovering and raising the inherent contradictions within existing knowledge itself. Most importantly, it involves using a discerning eye to discover and raise questions that trigger the transformation of theory itself from within the thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations of academic ideas and propositions. In the academic exploration of theoretical research, "to raise a question is more important than to solve one." Only by enhancing the insight of theoretical thinking can one continuously capture, discover, and raise meaningful theoretical questions, thereby providing valuable research directions and topics for knowledge production.
The most important aspect of knowledge production in academic research is the summary, condensation, and sublimation of academic propositions with academic rigor during the process of problem-oriented exploration. The generalization power of theoretical thinking consists in condensing academic thoughts and viewpoints into a series of important academic propositions, highly summarizing and sublimating their thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations to provide a logical system of propositions for constructing a rigorous academic system. Generally speaking, academic propositions as results of research can be divided into four categories: first, academic propositions as fundamental concepts and interpretative principles, which are the theoretical crystallization of holistic academic thought; second, academic propositions as basic categories and principles, which are the theoretical sublimation of specific academic viewpoints; third, academic propositions as logical links and theoretical demonstrations, which are the theoretical support for the development of concepts within an academic system; and fourth, academic propositions as landmark concepts and revolutions in terminology, which are the new rungs and support points for innovative and open academic research. Summarizing, condensing, and sublimating these four categories of academic propositions centrally reflects the generalization power of theoretical thinking in academic research.
Knowledge production in academic research is a process through which scholars use theoretical thinking to summarize, accumulate, and sublimate human civilization. This research process is one of academic innovation and creation, continuously raising and exploring new questions and forming new academic achievements. Academic innovation and creation must not only be grounded in the solid accumulation of literature, thought, and life experience, but must also give full play to the imagination of theoretical thinking. This imagination is centrally manifested as the "ability to activate background knowledge." In the knowledge production of academic research, this is concretely and vividly embodied as: letting knowledge "recede into the background," letting knowledge "enter the problem," letting knowledge "undergo creative reorganization," and letting knowledge "be reborn through fire," thereby endowing academic thoughts and propositions with new connotations. The imagination of theoretical thinking lies not only in thinking logically but also in critically reflecting on existing thoughts, continuously achieving a leap and sublimation of thought at the logical level. This provides creative theoretical questions and results for academic research, thus providing new rungs and support points for the expansion and deepening of human understanding.
The landmark achievement of knowledge production in academic research is centrally manifested in the construction of an academic system with academic rigor. An academic system is a logical system of propositions composed of a series of academic propositions and their mutual specifications. A truly logical system of propositions is not a "chaotic totality" formed by a simple listing of propositions, but rather achieves the unity of what Hegel identified as "the freedom of the whole" (the fundamental idea) and "the necessity of the parts" (the conceptual system). It forms a "complete work of art" as demonstrated in Marx’s Capital. This requires the continuous enhancement of the discursive power of theoretical thinking. Discursive power (sibianli) is the ability to "analyze thought" or "engage in the dialectic of thought." In academic research, it is centrally manifested in four aspects: first, the power to reveal the thought, epochal, and civilizational connotations of concepts, categories, and propositions; second, the power to use fundamental ideas and interpretative principles to construct a conceptual framework and intellectual platform of mutual specifications; third, the power to conduct logical, linguistic, psychological, and social analyses of academic thoughts and propositions; and fourth, the power to construct a propositional system that develops from rational abstraction to the "concrete in thought" [3]. The discursive power required to build an academic system involves both subjecting the "freedom of the whole" to the "necessity of the parts" and using the "necessity of the parts" to demonstrate the "freedom of the whole." Thus, it constitutes an academic system as a "complete work of art" through the "concrete in thought," which is a "synthesis of many determinations" and the "unity of the diverse." In the knowledge production of academic research, the theoretical crystallization of holistic academic thought—namely, the fundamental ideas and interpretative principles that construct the academic system—is the "radiant light" that subsumes and illuminates the entire system; this is what Hegel calls the "freedom of the whole." This "freedom of the whole," acting as the radiant light, can only become a logical system of propositions through the "necessity of the parts," reaching the "concrete in thought." The discursive power of theoretical thinking, through a process of solid theoretical analysis and logical demonstration, permeates the entire process of subjecting the "freedom of the whole" to the "necessity of the parts."
The most intellectually potent and vital academic systems produced by the knowledge production of scholarly research are what we commonly refer to as academic classics. Academic classics are scholarly works that possess significance within the histories of scholarship, thought, and civilization. As such, these works do not merely hold significance for the history of scholarship by leading the development of a discipline; they also hold significance for the history of thought by transcending disciplinary boundaries, and significance for the history of civilization by surpassing the academic domain entirely. The "intellectual power" that illuminates human civilization is the "living soul" of the academic classic. Any valuable scholarly work is a product of its own era and possesses a specific intellectual, epochal, and civilizational content. The reason a valuable scholarly work becomes a far-reaching, enduring academic classic that shines through history is primarily that it "stands at the vanguard of the tide of the times, understands the changes from ancient to modern times, and gives voice to the precursors of thought," imbuing the major theoretical questions of the era with new intellectual, epochal, and civilizational content. Such works not only construct the "era as apprehended in thought" but also shape and lead a new zeitgeist. The intellectual power of an academic classic is concentrated in the "revolution in terminology" it achieves. A "revolution in terminology" depends not only on a revolution in the methods of theoretical thinking but also manifests such a revolution. A revolution in method is not only the pervasive light of an academic classic’s intellectual power but its "living soul."
The knowledge production of scholarly research cannot be separated from theoretical thinking; the insight, capacity for generalization, imagination, speculative power, and intellectual power of theoretical thinking permeate the entire process of research-based knowledge production. "The starting point of theoretical thinking determines the result of theoretical innovation." [4] Since the beginning of reform and opening up, the Chinese theoretical and academic communities, amidst the mutual stimulation of advancing social liberation of thought and achieving their own intellectual emancipation, have not only transformed polarized modes of thinking, dogmatic modes of research, and rigid, stale modes of discourse, but have also profoundly transformed the theoretical thinking characterized primarily by intuitive reflectionism, linear causation, and essentialist reductionism. This has established a new starting point for theoretical thinking in the theoretical innovation and creation of scholarly knowledge production. By conducting knowledge production from this new starting point of theoretical thinking, we can continuously refine new theories with academic rigor and generalize new practices characterized by regularities [5] from the practice of Chinese-path modernization, thereby elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory.
II. Using Theoretical Thinking to Refine New Theories with Academic Rigor
Knowledge originates from the summary and sublimation of practical experience; theory is reality captured in thought. Every major theoretical or academic problem originates without exception from a major practical or realistic problem; every major practical or realistic problem contains, at a deep level, major theoretical and academic problems. Scholarly research as knowledge production must not only face reality and delve into practice to discover and propose major practical and realistic problems, but must also discover and propose the major theoretical and academic problems contained within them. Fundamentally, the knowledge production of scholarly research involves refining new theories with academic rigor and generalizing new practices characterized by regularities through theoretical research and academic exploration, using theory to lead practice and making reality "strive toward thought." As Marx proposed in the Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: "It is not enough that thought should strive to realize itself; reality itself must strive toward thought."
In scholarly research as knowledge production, the generalization of new practices with regularities and the refinement of new theories with academic rigor are inseparable and complementary, yet relatively independent and distinct. On the one hand, refining new theories with academic rigor is grounded in generalizing new practices with regularities, advancing theoretical innovation through practical innovation. On the other hand, generalizing new practices with regularities depends on refining new theories with academic rigor, advancing practical innovation through theoretical innovation. This requires us, in the knowledge production of scholarly research, to "summarize Chinese experience well using Chinese principles [6], and elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory."
In the knowledge production of scholarly research, theory is always entangled with history and reality; therefore, this knowledge production is extremely complex and difficult. Regarding history, it is easy to express "laws" or "necessity" in broad strokes, but difficult to truly reveal the complex motives of history and genuinely discover historical laws. Regarding reality, it is easy to perform selective statistics or provide examples, but difficult to "weigh the pros and cons" of reality and remain "autonomous in deciding when to act or stop, advance or retreat." Regarding theory, it is easy to self-indulgently coin terms and compose sentences, but difficult to truly reveal the internal difficulties of theory and imbue it with new intellectual, epochal, and civilizational content. It is therefore essential to illuminate our scholarly knowledge production with the pervasive light of theoretical thinking.
Whether it is summarizing Chinese experience using Chinese principles or elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory, scholarly knowledge production cannot dispense with the insight, capacity for generalization, imagination, speculative power, and intellectual power of theoretical thinking. The "Chinese principles" used to summarize Chinese experience are, fundamentally, Marxism realized through the "Two Combinations" [7]—that is, the stance, viewpoint, and method of Sinicized and modernized Marxism. The "Chinese theory" formed by elevating Chinese experience is, fundamentally, Sinicized and modernized Marxism—it is "new theory with academic rigor" with Sinicized and modernized Marxism as its substantive content. Contemporary Chinese scholarly research is, fundamentally, the use of theoretical thinking to "elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory," using "new theories with academic rigor" to advance the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the substantive content of which is Chinese-path modernization.
The theoretical thinking of knowledge production is directly embodied in the "theory-ladenness of observation" within the subject-object relationship. Conceptual systems, as knowledge, are the ladder and support points for human cognition; they are the subjective conditions for people to grasp, observe, understand, and interpret reality, as well as the subjective conditions that regulate how people think and behave. The observation of reality depends not only on the object being observed but also on the observing subject—on the subject's mode of thinking, values, and aesthetic consciousness. It is in this sense that we can say "observation is permeated by theory," "observation is theory-laden," "there is no neutral observation," and "observation is always 'contaminated' by theory." Facing the great practice of Chinese-path modernization, we need to grasp, observe, understand, and interpret reality with multi-dimensional visions, multiple orientations, various theoretical models, and diverse research methods, but the most important and fundamental requirement is to "summarize Chinese experience well using Chinese principles."
"Chinese principles" are, fundamentally, the theoretical crystallization of the combination of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture. Their profound connotation lies in the splendid civilization formed in the evolutionary development of the Chinese nation over five thousand years, and the experience of the Communist Party of China's century-long struggle and seventy-plus years of governance—particularly the "great creation from theory to practice" by the CPC since the beginning of reform and opening up. To summarize "Chinese experience" using "Chinese principles," we must adhere to the stance, viewpoint, and method of "putting the people first," "maintaining self-confidence and self-reliance," "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground," "remaining problem-oriented," "applying systems thinking," and "maintaining a global perspective." [8] We must persist in theoretical thinking that unites the liberation of thought with seeking truth from facts; persist in practical wisdom that unites the pursuit of truth with the realization of values; and persist in theoretical creation that unites the transformation of concepts with the construction of systems. We must use systematic and academic "Chinese principles" to observe and interpret Chinese-path modernization, summarize its "Chinese experience" well, "refine new theories with academic rigor," and "generalize new practices characterized by regularities" from that experience, thereby "elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory." Mastering "Chinese principles" is the theoretical prerequisite for summarizing "Chinese experience" well.
The primary task of using theoretical thinking to "refine new theories with academic rigor" is to gain insight into the external difficulties between existing theories and practical experience, and then to reveal the internal difficulties of the knowledge systems of existing theories. The practical experience of Chinese-path modernization presents a series of major theoretical questions to existing modernization theories (including development theory), which reveal both the external difficulties of existing theories in relation to practical experience and the internal difficulties of their knowledge systems: (1) Is modernization an abstract universality or a concrete universality? Is there only one Western model for modernization? (2) How should we view the historical conditions and historical activities of modernization? In the modern world pattern where the East was subordinate to the West, how does China choose its own path of modernization? (3) How should we view the technical manifestations and value-based choices of modernization? Can technical manifestations be viewed in isolation from value-based choices? (4) How should we view capitalist civilization and socialist civilization in modernization? How do we view different modes of modernization from the perspective of different forms of civilization? (5) Must China's modernization only follow the Western path? (6) Why was China able to create Chinese-path modernization? (7) How did China create Chinese-path modernization? (8) How did Chinese-path modernization create a new form of human civilization? (9) How should we view the choice of modernization paths and the transformation of the forms of human civilization? (10) How can we use new theories with academic rigor to imbue modernization and the forms of human civilization with new intellectual, epochal, and civilizational content? (11) How can we form a Chinese independent system of knowledge based on the "Chinese theory" of Chinese-path modernization? Only by using theoretical thinking to discover and propose these major theoretical questions regarding Chinese-path modernization can we "elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory" and, in the process of this elevation, continuously "refine new theories with academic rigor" to advance the great practice of Chinese-path modernization.
Using theoretical thinking to reveal and resolve the external difficulties of existing knowledge and practical experience, and further revealing and resolving the internal difficulties of existing knowledge systems exposed by these external difficulties, involves three main aspects: (1) systematically sorting through and reflecting on the basic ideas, interpretive principles, conceptual frameworks, and the systems of concepts and propositions of existing knowledge systems; (2) focusing on revealing the intellectual, epochal, and civilizational content of the conceptual systems of existing knowledge systems, and explaining the relativity, limitations, and negativity of their theories; (3) focusing on revealing the stances, viewpoints, and methods that cause the historical limitations of existing knowledge, resolving the internal difficulties of existing knowledge systems at the level of theoretical thinking, and achieving an epochal shift in research paradigms.
The knowledge system of any discipline is a system of concepts and propositions composed of its basic ideas, interpretive principles, and conceptual framework. Because these elements differ, the conceptual and propositional system of a discipline manifests as diverse systems of knowledge. Using theoretical thinking to reflect on existing knowledge systems involves directly reflecting on the diversified conceptual and propositional systems of each discipline and sorting out their fundamental and primary concepts and propositions. Facing the practice of Chinese-path modernization, we first need to sort through the definitions, understandings, and interpretations provided by various disciplines and their diverse knowledge systems for concepts such as "history," "world history," "civilization," "forms of civilization," "modernization," "modernity," "Western modernization," "Chinese-path modernization," "development," "the new development philosophy," "capitalist civilization," "socialist civilization," "the common interests of all humanity," "the common values of all humanity," "a community with a shared future for humanity," and "the modern civilization of the Chinese nation." Simultaneously, for the knowledge systems of different disciplines, we must sort through and reflect on their specific conceptual and propositional systems—for instance, the systematic reflection in political science on "politics," in jurisprudence on "law," in sociology on "society," and in economics on "economy"—and deepen this reflection on the conceptual and propositional systems of each discipline through an interdisciplinary intellectual platform.
Reflection on the conceptual and propositional systems of various disciplines essentially involves revealing the ideological, epochal, and civilizational connotations of existing bodies of knowledge. (1) To reveal the ideological connotations of existing knowledge systems means to elucidate the fundamental concepts and explanatory principles that constitute their conceptual frameworks, the way these frameworks form self-definitions and mutual definitions among concepts, and the "definitions" used to "delimit" the ideological substance of those concepts. (2) To reveal the epochal connotations means to elucidate the historical context in which these concepts and propositions were formed, the practical experiences from which their ideological substance was sublimated, and the historical and epochal limitations inherent in that substance. (3) To reveal the civilizational connotations means to elucidate how the knowledge system summarizes, accumulates, and sublimates human civilization; how it embodies the "humanity of problems" and the "universality of thought"; and what kind of ladder or support point it provides for the progress of civilization and the development of cognition. Utilizing theoretical thinking to reflect upon existing knowledge systems—revealing the ideological, epochal, and civilizational connotations of their conceptual systems—is both the foundational work of knowledge production in academic research and an indispensable prerequisite for using the practice of Chinese-path modernization to reflect on existing knowledge systems and construct new ones.
Based on this reflection, the process of knowledge production—endowing conceptual and propositional systems with new ideological, epochal, and civilizational connotations—is precisely the process of "distilling new theories with academic rigor" and "summarizing new practices that possess the character of laws." This process involves using theoretical thinking to summarize and sublimate the practical experience of Chinese-path modernization, utilizing new practical experiences to reflect on existing knowledge systems, and refining these experiences into a new body of knowledge. The substance of this process consists of: (1) Endowing the new knowledge system with "ideological connotations" by constructing a new conceptual framework based on new explanatory principles, thereby granting concepts and propositions new ideological determinacy upon a new platform of intellectual operation. (2) Endowing it with "epochal connotations" by adopting a working method that "thematizes the spirit of the age, distances objective existence, defamiliarizes prevailing notions, and conceptualizes basic ideas," [9] thereby integrating the spirit of the age into the conceptual definitions of the new knowledge system. (3) Endowing it with "civilizational connotations" by viewing the practice of Chinese-path modernization from the perspective of civilization. With a vision and breadth of mind that "never forgets the original [foundation], absorbs the external, and faces the future," [10] we must elevate "Chinese experience" into "Chinese theory," fully demonstrating its "humanity of problems" and "universality of thought," and transforming it into a theory of Chinese-path modernization that highlights a new form of human civilization.
The knowledge production process of "elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory" is a process of theoretical innovation and creation through theoretical thinking. In essence, it is a process of producing thought, characterized by the double negation and double transcendence of thought. On one hand, guided by theoretical thinking, thought continuously transcends the one-sided determinations of concepts, allowing them to acquire increasingly concrete and rich determinations, eventually forming a "rational concrete" [11]—a "synthesis of many determinations" and a "unity of the diverse." On the other hand, guided by theoretical thinking, thought continuously reflects upon, critiques, and transcends existing "rational concretes," reconstructing them upon a new intellectual platform. This process of double negation and double transcendence profoundly embodies the dialectical unity of constructiveness and reflexivity, determinacy and criticality, and gradualness and radical leaps in human thought and knowledge production. The process of elevating "Chinese experience into Chinese theory" means utilizing a mode of theoretical thinking that unites liberating the mind with seeking truth from facts to continuously "summarize new practices that possess the character of laws" and "distill new theories with academic rigor."
The fundamental hallmark and substantive content of "Chinese theory" with "academic rigor" is Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. The primary prerequisite for "elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory" is that we must never abandon the "soul-vein" [12] of Marxism. In his speech at the conference marking the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "Marxist ideology and theory are vast and profound; they remain fresh through constant study." He explicitly stated the need to study and practice Marxist ideas regarding "the laws governing the development of human society," "upholding the people's standpoint," "productive forces and relations of production," "people's democracy," "cultural development," "social development," "the relationship between man and nature," "world history," and "the building of Marxist parties." General Secretary Xi Jinping’s incisive summary of the basic principles of Marxism not only identifies the substantive content of Marxism as the "soul-vein" but also deeply "unifies it with what we are currently doing," providing a clear direction and substantive content for determining which "Chinese theories" are most important to distill from the great practice of Chinese-path modernization.
The deep foundation and unique advantage of "Chinese theory" with "academic rigor" is the fine traditional Chinese culture. In "elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory," we must neither abandon the "soul-vein" of Marxism nor the "root-vein" [13] of fine traditional Chinese culture.
To use theoretical thinking to "elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory," we must continuously achieve new "extraordinary liberations of the mind." At the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "The 'Second Combination' [14] is another liberation of the mind, allowing us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture within a broader cultural space to explore theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future." The prominent continuity, originality, unity, inclusiveness, and peaceful nature of Chinese civilization; the social ideal of "the Great Way prevailing for the public good" (dadaozhixing, tianxiaweigong); the people-centered ideology of "the people as the foundation of the state" (minweibangben) and "governance through virtue" (weizhengyide); the heroic spirit of "self-improvement and social responsibility" (ziqiangbuxi, houdezaowu); the way of personal cultivation through "conveying the Way through literature" (wenyizaidao) and "cultivating people through culture" (yiwenhuaren); the political wisdom of "ordering the universe through rites and harmonizing heaven and earth through music" (lixugankun, yuehetianndi); the "harmony" wisdom of "upholding integrity and cultivating harmony" (jiangxinximu) and "fostering benevolence and being a good neighbor" (qinrenshanlin); as well as the worldviews, outlooks on life, and values formed through the rational speculation of the Chinese nation—such as the distinction between man and nature in the quest for "the intersection of heaven and man," the distinction between self and others in exploring "human relationships," the distinction between reason and desire in reflecting on "internal impulses," and the distinction between family, state, and the world in the pursuit of "cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world"—all these constitute the worldviews, outlooks on life, and values that regulate and guide the thoughts and behaviors of the Chinese people. The prominent traits of Chinese civilization and the theoretical thinking of the Chinese nation are the unique advantages and deep foundations for our "summarizing Chinese experience through Chinese logic" and "elevating Chinese experience into Chinese theory." This provides us with precious dialectical thinking and practical wisdom to grasp through theoretical thinking the coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations; the new development philosophy of innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, and sharing; and the common values of humanity—peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom. This requires us to transform our theoretical thinking through the "Two Combinations," face the great practice of Chinese-path modernization from a new starting point of theoretical thinking, and effectively "summarize Chinese experience well through Chinese logic" and "elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory."