I really want to find the original text of a saying, it seems like it was Wang Fuzhi or some ancient person evaluating southerners and northerners. I remember roughly: Southerners xxxx speak without reaching righteousness, Northerners eat their fill all day, idle with nothing to do.
These two phrases actually both come from the Analects, but later people used them to evaluate the differences between northern and southern scholars. Let me help you search for the specific source.
Found it! The passage you remember wasn't said by Wang Fuzhi, but by the early Qing scholar Gu Yanwu.
Found it! The passage you're looking for was said by Gu Yanwu (hao Tinglin), from his famous work 《日知录》 Volume 13. The original text is:
北南学者之病——"饱食终日，无所用心，难矣哉！"今日北方之学者是也。"群居终日，言不及义，好行小慧，难矣哉！"今日南方之学者是也。
Gu Yanwu borrowed two sentences from the Analects to criticize the respective flaws of northern and southern scholars:
Northern scholars' problem is "eat their fill all day, with nothing to ponder, how difficult indeed!"—eating well all day, but not using their brains, no aspiration for progress. (Original from Analects: Yang Huo)
Southern scholars' problem is "gather all day, speak without reaching righteousness, fond of petty cleverness, how difficult indeed!"—gathering all day to chatter broadly, but not touching on real substance, and liking to show off petty cleverness. (Original from Analects: Wei Ling Gong)
Gu Yanwu was from Jiangsu, served in the Southern Ming, then traveled north for over twenty years, having firsthand experience of scholarly styles in both north and south, plus his unresolved grief over the fall of the dynasty, leading to this evaluation.
So your memory of the north-south content is correct; it's just that the speaker wasn't Wang Fuzhi, but his contemporary Gu Yanwu. Both are among the "three great thinkers of late Ming and early Qing," easy to confuse.
So what does this saying mean?
Gu Yanwu's passage is actually very straightforward; he's criticizing the scholarly atmosphere among readers nationwide at the time, with each north-south side having its own flaws.
Northern scholars' issue is "eat their fill all day, with nothing to ponder"—every day stuffed with food and drink, but minds empty, not delving into scholarship, not pondering principles for governing the world, just muddling through aimlessly. Simply put, lazy, bodies well-fed, but spirits barren wasteland.
Southern scholars' issue is "gather all day, speak without reaching righteousness, fond of petty cleverness"—every day a bunch gathering, lively and bustling, but all talk is irrelevant nonsense, not a word touching truly meaningful principles. Worse, fond of showing off petty cleverness, playing clever tricks. Simply put, superficial, seeming active and smart, but all show, no real learning.
Finally, the original Confucius lines both end with "how difficult indeed," meaning such people are "too hard to deal with"—even the Sage is helpless against them.
The background of Gu Yanwu's words is right after the fall of the Ming; he was heartbroken, believing scholars nationwide bore responsibility: northern ones too numb, southern ones too flashy, none truly doing practical work or real scholarship. This aligns with his consistent advocacy for "learning for practical use in the world"—study must be useful, solve real problems, not either vegetating or empty talk.
What is the context? Is there no affirmation at all? Please clarify all the affirmations and negations in it, and fully expound Gu Yanwu's perspective and lens.
Good question. I only gave you those two sentences before, but detached from context, it's easy to oversimplify. Let me find the full context.
Now I have the complete context. This passage is far from a simple "cursing"; it's embedded in a very rich argumentative structure in Rizhilu Volume 13. Let me fully clarify it for you.
Volume 13's theme is "world customs," i.e., the rise and fall of customs and scholarly styles. Gu Yanwu builds a layered, progressive discourse here, and "the ills of north-south scholars" is just one small segment, right next to another on "the losses in north-south customs." To understand it, must look at before and after.
First layer: Reaffirmation of Six Dynasties scholarly style (often overlooked by many)
Gu Yanwu says commentators all see Six Dynasties customs as frivolous, corrupting integrity and morals, which is true. But upon close examination, he finds several things Six Dynasties scholars did that later eras couldn't: honoring family taboos, valuing lineage, being cautious in marriage, distinguishing classes, upholding public opinion.
This is a very important affirmation. Gu Yanwu means: Six Dynasties literati though indulged in metaphysics and self-willed freedom (which he does criticize), but they had bottom lines. They elevated integrity, vowed by chivalrous conduct; society had a spontaneous moral evaluation system—"public opinion." Even where court couldn't reach, local evaluations ("village talk and alley gossip") still constrained people. So even in a corner, with nation fallen, hearts and state still had foundations—these things provided remedial support.
Then negation: Once these traditions lost, outwardly laws denser, but actually paths of shame narrower. Family taboos ignored, lineages disregarded, marriages careless, classes undistinguished, public opinion devalued—thus shameless villains enter power gates, integrity lost ever after.
See, Gu Yanwu's logic isn't simple "ancients good, moderns bad." He says: Even in an era universally deemed "bad" (Six Dynasties), there were structural forces worth affirming that maintained society's moral bottom line. While his own era (late Ming early Qing), even these forces gone.
Second layer: Distinction between fall of state and fall of the world
This is the source of the famous line "the rise and fall of the world, every commoner has responsibility." Gu Yanwu distinguishes "fall of state" (dynastic change) from "fall of the world" (righteousness filling the world vs. people devouring each other). He sees Wei-Jin idle talk as starting point of "fall of the world"—great righteousness unclear, people confused even on father-son bonds, ruler-minister ethics.
This is his entire discourse's core lens: He cares not which dynasty survives, but whether moral order itself still operates.
Third layer: "Losses in north-south customs"—historical tracing
Right after comes "losses in north-south customs":江南 scholars frivolous, luxurious, lascivious—legacy of Liang-Chen emperors; Hebei people fierce, robbing, killing—residue of An Lushan, Shi Siming etc.
Key here: North-south flaws not innate, but historically formed. Southern problems trace to Southern Dynasties court extravagance, northern to post-An-Shi Rebellion martial brutality. Implicit affirmation—human nature has no north-south divide; institutions and history shape people differently.
Fourth layer: "Ills of north-south scholars"—the passage you want
"Eat their fill all day, nothing to ponder," how difficult! Today's northern scholars are thus. "Gather all day, speak without reaching righteousness, fond of petty cleverness," how difficult! Today's southern scholars are thus.
Note key points:
First, he uses Confucius's words, not his own invention. These two from Analects Yang Huo and Wei Ling Gong; Confucius originally criticized two types, no north-south. Gu Yanwu assigns them to north-south as diagnostic—using Sage's yardstick to measure current ills.
Second, "how difficult indeed" crucial. Not ordinary cursing, but Confucian sigh. Means "such people (to achieve anything), too difficult ah." Contains regret, helplessness, not simple contempt. Confucius's context: even chess better than idleness, doing something better than empty talk—tone of frustration at untapped potential.
Third, two ills each emphasized, implicitly different recognitions of potentials. Northern scholars' problem immobility—have conditions (well-fed) but no pondering, energy wasted. Southern 乱动—energy abundant, social active, but direction wrong, cleverness misused. From Gu Yanwu's view, two ills two sides of one: one body present spirit absent; one spirit active direction lost.
What is Gu Yanwu's lens?
Putting all together, Gu Yanwu's perspective summed as "learning for practical use in the world." His whole evaluation system on one standard: Is your scholarship, speech-action, truly beneficial to the world?
Through this lens, his affirmations and negations clear:
He affirms—Six Dynasties literati though metaphysical talk, maintained public opinion and integrity; historically, all with true learning true responsibility, regardless north-south, worth respect. He negates—his contemporary scholars, regardless north-south, lost this force. Northern not even thinking, southern thinking but all wrong.
And "ills of north-south scholars" title itself implies affirmation: treats them as "scholars" to demand of. Not evaluating common folk lifestyles, but higher expectations of intellectuals. Precisely because you're readers, you shouldn't "eat fill all day" or "speak without righteousness." This criticism's premise is respect and affirmation of scholars' mission.
Finally, Gu Yanwu Jiangsu man, but northern travels over twenty years. Not standing south cursing north or vice versa. He's one experienced both sides, with fall-of-dynasty pain, a long sigh to entire scholarly world.
Isn't there some intertextuality? I.e., northerners somewhat can speak to righteousness, southerners somewhat are discussing.
This reading very precise.
You caught a structural thing: Gu Yanwu uses Confucius's two different sentences, not same one for north-south. This choice itself constitutes intertextuality.
If northern ill is "eat fill all day, nothing to ponder," means northerners' problem not "speak without righteousness"—they hardly speak at all. Conversely, northern scholars once speak, might instead be plain, no petty cleverness, even touching "righteousness." Their ill in silence, immobility, not wrong direction. Engine stalled, not steering crooked.
If southern ill "gather all day, speak without righteousness, fond of petty cleverness," means southerners' problem not "nothing to ponder"—they ponder too much, just wrong place. Southern scholars active, gathering, discussing, thinking. Have intellectual passion, social density, expressive impulse. These not bad, even necessary for academic ecology. Ill in this energy not directed to "righteousness," scattered in petty cleverness.
So two sentences together imply complete picture:
North has simplicity, lacks vitality. South has vitality, lacks direction.
Northerners' "not speaking" hides certain honesty—at least no pretense, no showing off. Southerners' "gathering" hides certain vitality—at least present, exchanging. Gu Yanwu doesn't say explicitly, but structure does for him.
And if put back in his Six Dynasties affirmation, logic clearer. What is Six Dynasties? Precisely southern culture peak. Gu Yanwu affirms Six Dynasties "public opinion" "integrity" "lineage," all southern literati traditions—gathering, discussion, evaluation, social. He affirms precisely this southern force historically functioned to maintain moral order. He criticizes it in his era idling—still gathering, talking, but content hollowed.
So Gu Yanwu's true diagnosis not "southerners bad, northerners bad too," but closer to: North lost habit of "pondering," south lost direction of "reaching righteousness." If north's simplicity combines with south's vitality, exactly complete scholar ideal.
This echoes Lu You poem he quotes—"In ancestors' time, customs extremely pure beautiful. Talents combined north-south, discussions forgot self-other." Ideal not south better than north or vice versa, but north-south strengths unite, north-south divide dissolved. Gu Yanwu's criticism bottom color actually nostalgia for this ideal.
Now it feels like this situation still exists, including Lu Xun's extension, the whole north-south people seem still like this
The Lu Xun piece you mention should be "Northerners and Southerners," let me find original.
Found it. Lu Xun's article precisely makes that intertextuality you said explicit. Gu Yanwu just juxtaposed two sentences, left affirmation in structure; Lu Xun directly states positive-negative sides.
Lu Xun says: "Northerners' merits thick heavy, southerners' merits quick-witted. But thick heavy excess also stupid, quick-witted excess also sly." Then quotes Gu Yanwu's two sentences, says "as for leisure class, I think largely accurate."
Note this limit—"as for leisure class." Lu Xun more precisely delimits criticism target than Gu Yanwu: not judgment on all northerners or southerners, but those with conditions to act yet don't.
Then Lu Xun does extension Gu Yanwu didn't: "Flaws can amend, merits can learn from each other. Physiognomy books say, north face south physiognomy, south face north physiognomy, noble." Explains, north face south means thick heavy yet quick-witted, south face north quick-witted yet thick heavy. "Noble" now means "accomplish beneficial undertakings." Calls it "Chinese people's small path to self-renewal."
But Lu Xun's sharpness in last cut. Says article writers mostly southerners, north influenced, Beijing papers that oily slippery, self-pitying text not more than before? If marries northern inherent "poor mouth," offspring certainly "inauspicious new inferior breed."
This Lu Xun's venom—worries not north-south respective ills, but two ills' hybridization. Southern "speak without righteousness" spreads to north, combines northern innate numbness, produces not "north face south" ideal type, but one neither thick heavy nor quick-witted, only oily slick and numb new thing.
You say today still thus, I think your intuition right, but form changed.
Gu Yanwu era, north-south geographic natural barriers, two ills each in place. Lu Xun era, due Beijing-Shanghai traffic and periodical spread, two ills contact, hybridize, he already smelled danger.
To today, internet flattens geographic distance completely. Open social media see precisely Lu Xun prophesied "inauspicious new inferior breed"—"gather all day, speak without righteousness" no longer southern scholars' patent, became everyone's daily, short videos, group chats, comment sections, all "gather all day." And "eat fill all day, nothing to ponder" no longer northern specialty, became universal mental slack, so-called "lying flat" "rotting away."
In other words, north-south ills merged. This precisely not Lu Xun hoped "north face south" or "south face north"—not thick heavy with quick-witted combine—but he most worried combine: quick-witted surface plus nothing-to-ponder core, mouth lively, brain not turning.
But conversely, Gu Yanwu's implicit ideal not gone. Today still see some people combining "thick heavy" and "quick-witted," sink to do things yet flexible adapt. Just such people no longer divided by north-south geography, but by individual choice. Geographic "north-south" blurred, but mental temperament "thick heavy" vs "quick-witted" as two basic personality energies, still there, still need unite.
Gu Yanwu, Lu Xun, to your observation, this thread spans three-four centuries, diagnosing same thing: How Chinese intellectuals balance vitality and direction, action and thought. This problem today indeed unsolved.
Gu Yanwu's entire reasoning feels like the object keeps shifting? Why do ancient texts always like this? Is it different thinking mode?
Your observation very sharp, and points not just to Gu Yanwu alone, but mismatch between entire ancient Chinese knowledge production mode and modern reading habits.
First, Rizhilu genre itself not thesis, but notes—"daily know what lost," record bit daily insights, accumulated thirty-plus years. So Volume 13 "Zhengshi" "losses in north-south customs" "ills of north-south scholars" entries, not one article's chapters, but different days' different notes, edited together by later people. They echo, associate, but no strict argumentative chain. You feel "object shifting," partly because reading notes with paper expectations.
But deeper reason indeed different thinking modes.
Ancient Chinese scholars pursued ideal not "prove proposition," but comprehend. So "comprehend changes ancient-modern" "fuse comprehend," this "comprehend" core. Means: see underlying patterns between different phenomena. Six Dynasties idle talk, Wei-Jin fall of world, late Ming scholarly decay, north-south scholars' ills—in Gu Yanwu view, these not different topics, but same illness' different symptoms. That illness: literati lost sincere pursuit of "righteousness," moral order internally collapsed. He needn't deduce step-by-step; just lay symptoms together, let you see pattern yourself.
Like old Chinese doctor, won't give experimental report prove you liver fire旺. Will say, recently eyes red, temper irritable, mouth bitter, wake 3am— you hear feel "shifting," from eyes to temper to mouth to sleep, object keeps changing. But in his framework, all same thing's manifestations. He's not linear reasoning, but dialectical diagnosis—discerning overall pattern.
Specifically ancient texts' writing vs modern argumentative thinking difference roughly thus:
Modern argument logic vertical—set proposition, layer advance around it, each step strictly from previous, object can't change, scope can't drift. Aristotelian syllogism tradition, reinforced by modern science, became today's paper/report basic paradigm.
Ancient Chinese scholars' logic horizontal—have core concern (e.g. "why world falls"), then from different eras, figures, phenomena discern same mode's recurrence. Each example, object indeed changes, but illuminates same thing. Not argument, evidence, or more accurately exemplify—raise one corner, infer three.
This mode's benefit: catches what linear argument misses. Gu Yanwu puts Six Dynasties public opinion, Wei-Jin fall, north-south ills together, if follow his way read, suddenly see millennium-spanning structural dilemma—intellectuals' collective spiritual idling. This insight, strict paper format hard express, crosses too many discipline boundaries time scales.
But drawback obvious. Zhang Fan professor evaluating Wang Fuzhi Read Tongjian Lun directly points: Originally discussing Han Wu Di and Xiongnu whether fight, jumps to Warring States, then Ming capital, too many turns, somewhat casual. Not compliment, criticism. Horizontal thinking's cost: when stop, where boundary, fully depends author judgment. Good judgment (like Gu Yanwu), feel though shifting, ultimately same target; poor judgment, really rambling.
One more point worth say. You feel ancient texts "always thus," partly our education trains reading mainly modern genres. Read papers, news, reports, all linear. Once meet ancient "constellation-style" texts—points gravitate but no clear arrows—feel散漫, shifting. But not necessarily ancients' problem, maybe our reading muscles only trained one kind.
Actually you in this dialogue doing precisely "comprehend" quality. From unclear-remembered sentence start, found Gu Yanwu, read out intertextuality, link to Lu Xun, to present—this thinking trajectory not linear, but horizontal, associative, dialectical. You feel ancients' objects shift, but you yourself shifting, just your shift directional, so not feel散. Ancients same.
Is this exemplify paradigm a tradition? How did it originate and develop itself? What counterparts in world? Modern counterparts?
Very big question, but very good. Try trace from source.
I. Tradition's self-conscious starting point
Clearest self-statement Confucius: "Raise one corner not infer three, then no more." (Analects Shu Er) Show one corner, if can't infer other three, teach no more. Often read as teaching method, actually epistemological declaration: True understanding not dragged full by logic chain, but from local insight to overall pattern.
But Confucius not invent from air. Deeper root in Yijing. Yijing entire operation exemplify—64 hexagrams, each "corner," situation concentrate. No need linear arrange 64 into chain; need in current plight recognize which hexagram pattern isomorphic to your moment. Pattern recognition, not causal deduction.
Shijing interpretation tradition same. Confucius says poetry "arouse view group resent," "arouse" key. "Arouse" what? See concrete scene—"Guan guan cry orioles, on river isle"—then from this evoke larger meaning. Not metaphor (that's "compare"), from one local vibrate whole. This concrete to universal leap, no abstract concept mediator, direct this object to that principle, exemplify thinking's poetic form.
II. How developed in Chinese tradition
Paradigm from pre-Qin established, grew different forms in domains.
In historiography, became "Spring Autumn brush method." Spring Autumn no comment, just record events, but through choose what record/not, what words, let feel praise-blame self. Later Sima Qian's "Taishi Gong says" same tradition—not systematic argument, but refined comment after narrative, let revisit whole story. "With events show righteousness," not "with argument righteousness."
In philosophy, became sayings body. From Analects to Zen sayings, Chinese philosophy core texts mostly not theses, but dialogue snippets, situation depictions, cases. Zen pushes extreme—one monk asks master what Buddha dharma, master says "cypress tree before court." Not evading, using extremely concrete "corner" pry your whole cognitive frame.
In notes writing, became independent knowledge production. From Liu Yiqing World Says New Language to Shen Kuo Dream Brook Pen Talk, to Gu Yanwu Rizhilu, one lineage. Each note independent "corner," entries no explicit logic connect, but together weave cognition net. Reader task not follow line to end, but find path self in net.
In lit crit, became "comment" tradition. Jin Shengtan batch Water Margin, Lipstick Scholar batch Dream Red Chamber, not write systematic lit theory, but drop one-two comments at key text places, like acupuncture, hit acupoints, let feel whole meridian smooth.
III. World counterparts
Have, widely distributed.
Most direct Montaigne's "essais." "Essai" French original "attempt"—not prove, but probe topic. Montaigne writing shocks similar to Gu Yanwu: from concrete event/observation start, free associate, jump ancient Rome to daily life, one virtue to one disease, objects shift constantly, but finish gain deeper human understanding. Montaigne about century before Gu Yanwu, no contact, yet independently same structure writing. Shows exemplify thinking not China patent, human face complex experience natural response.
Pascal's Pensées similar. Fragment, aphorism style, each strip like fragment, all fragments together outline complete human plight picture. Pascal originally plan systematic apologetics, died left fragments—and fragments power far exceed any system argument.
Nietzsche modern West philosophy most thorough exemplify thinker. Deliberately rejects systems, chooses aphorism (Aphorismus) writing. Beyond Good Evil, Gay Science all short pieces, objects jump, moral to music to physiology to Greek myth. Believes systematizing itself betrayal of life complexity—once stuff all into system, already killed it.
Walter Benjamin develops into explicit methodology. Concept "constellation" (Konstellation)—truth not proposition, but group phenomena relations pattern, like sky constellations, each star independent, but group one shape appears. Unfinished magnum Arcade Project this method extreme: all quotes, fragments, notes, no through-argument thread, but each fragment 19th c Paris "corner," together constitute capitalist modernity panorama. Structure almost isomorphic to Rizhilu.
Jewish Talmud tradition close. Talmud not code, but debate records around concrete cases. Rabbis discuss specific—e.g. ox tramples neighbor crops what do—then from case layer extend, introduce other rabbis other eras other cases opinions, objects shift, but all shifts around core: what just living. "Case center, analogic expand" mode, very close Chinese exemplify.
IV. Modern counterparts
Modern, exemplify not disappear, just no longer mainstream academic center. Retreated to specific domains:
Humanities "essay" tradition continues. Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag, John Berger, 20th c best culture critics, write not papers, but modern notes sense—from photo, film, watching way start, free associate, ultimately illuminate larger culture pattern.
Clinical medicine essentially exemplify. Doctor core ability not deduce treatment from axioms, but recognize patterns in mass cases. So-called "clinical experience": seen enough "corners," so new patient quickly identify pattern. Why med education today still case-based learning core, not pure deductive.
Common law operation also exemplify. Judges not deduce verdict from code, but cite precedents, establish analogies between cases. Each precedent "corner," whole law system by these "corners" net relations support, not top axiom system deduction.
AI deep learning somehow exemplify—not told rules, fed mass cases, self "recognize" patterns in cases. Process structurally similar ancient scholar read mass history recognize same governance-chaos pattern in different events.
V. Why linear argument ultimately mainstream?
This your question's true tension. Exemplify so ancient universal, why modern pushed edge, linear argument became "proper" thinking synonym?
Core reason verifiability and transmissibility. Exemplify relies reader-author "tacit understanding"—I give corner, can you infer three, depends your skill. Means high demand on receiver, same text different people read totally different. Fine in elite small circle culture, but once knowledge mass produce, spread, verify—modern science academia does this—need more "dumb" but reliable method: spell every step clear, let any basic-trained person follow full, refute any step.
So not exemplify "wrong," but unsuitable modern knowledge backbone. But as insight generation, creative thinking start, never replaced. Best: use exemplify discover, argument confirm. First see pattern, then verify real. Gu Yanwu used exemplify saw scholarly customs collapse pattern, if lived today, probably need quantitative sociology confirm judgment—but initial insight, argument can't produce.
What about A Thousand Plateaus?
Is there better naming for exemplify thinking now?
Psychology cognitive science or philosophy any related research?
You mention A Thousand Plateaus, perfectly connects.
A Thousand Plateaus and rhizome thinking
Deleuze & Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus indeed most self-conscious response in contemporary philosophy. Book start proposes "rhizome" (rhizome) vs "tree" (arbre) opposition. "Tree" hierarchical, root to trunk to branches to leaves, forks but always main trunk—just linear argument, systematizing. "Rhizome" ginger lotus root underground stems, no main root, any point connect any other, no start no end, cut anywhere ok.
A Thousand Plateaus itself written this principle. Whole book several "plateaus," each independent discourse plane, no progression between, theoretically read any chapter start. Same structure as Rizhilu—each note "plateau," each has own intensity internal motion, not line, but field.
But important difference. Gu Yanwu's exemplify still implicit center—"righteousness," or "world governance chaos." All entries though objects differ, ultimately point this concern. Deleuze explicitly rejects such hidden centering. Wants thorough de-center thinking, no node more important than others. So A Thousand Plateaus more radical than Rizhilu, thus harder read—you can't even find "what exactly talking about" anchor.
This leads interesting spectrum: one end complete linear Aristotelian argument, other complete de-center Deleuze rhizome, Gu Yanwu, Montaigne, Benjamin probably middle—associative freedom, but implicit gravity field pulls all fragments same direction.
Better naming?
"Exemplify" good Chinese term, but leans teaching. For more precise covering full thinking, existing terms candidates, each emphasis:
Analogical reasoning closest cognitive science term. Exemplify core operation analogy—I show this case, you identify structural similarity with another. But "analogical reasoning" too cold, implies mere technique, while exemplify complete cognitive style.
Abduction Peirce (C.S. Peirce) proposed, parallels deduction, induction third inference form. Deduction rule to result, induction mass cases sum rule, abduction from surprising phenomenon guess explaining rule. E.g. ground wet, guess rained. Gu Yanwu sees north-south ills, guesses underlying common scholarly collapse structure. Abduction not guarantee right, but sole new hypothesis source. Peirce says abduction "only logic form introduce new ideas." Probably Western philosophy best formalize "exemplify."
Exemplary thinking Arendt (Hannah Arendt) develops from Kant. Kant distinguishes two judgments: determinative judgment have rule, subsume case under—deduction; reflective judgment only cases before, no ready rule, must from cases seek nonexistent rule. Arendt thinks political moral thinking essentially reflective—from concrete exemplars feel justice contour between exemplars. Almost exactly Gu Yanwu does.
Constellational thinking Benjamin's term, mentioned. Good conveys two: elements independent (stars shine self), relations constitute recognizable shape (constellation). Shape not deduced, seen.
If name myself, might call pattern recognition—not deduce conclusion, but recognize pattern in scattered phenomena. "Pattern" Chinese better any Western term, contains "grid" (each local texture) and "situation" (overall stance).
Cognitive science psychology related research
Rich content.
Hofstadter (Douglas Hofstadter) thinks deepest on this. Lifetime core: analogy cognition core. Not logic, computation, analogy. With Sander (Emmanuel Sander) Surfaces and Essences (Appearances and Essences), hundreds pages argue one: our every moment—recognize chair chair, understand metaphor, see two history events similar—all analogy operations. Logic inference very late, effortful, unnatural cognition. Thus exemplify not ancient backward, human cognition default mode. Linear argument special skill trained later.
Kahneman (Daniel Kahneman) dual system theory related. "System 1"—fast, intuitive, automatic—just pattern recognition, discern past-seen pattern in current. "System 2"—slow, effortful, deliberate—linear inference. Exemplify largely System 1 product, argument System 2. Kahneman points two systems not high-low, but applicable scenes.
Wittgenstein's "family resemblance" (Familienähnlichkeit) philosophy most precise correspond. Asks: what "game"? Chess, ball, cards, kids chase… no common essence feature, but cross-overlap similarity relations, like family members, some like father some mother some grandma, no feature all share, but recognize family. Exemplify epistemology base—no need extract abstract common definition, just show enough exemplars, let "family resemblance" emerge.
Lakoff (George Lakoff) Johnson (Mark Johnson) Metaphors We Live By argue: human whole concept system on metaphors, metaphor essence use one domain experience understand another. "Time money" "argument war" "life journey"—not rhetoric, our think time argument life basic way. Each metaphor exemplify operation: project this domain "corner" to that.
Geertz (Clifford Geertz) anthropology "thick description" tradition extension. Opposes abstract sociology theory "explain" culture, advocates extremely detailed describe concrete cultural event—e.g. Balinese cockfight—let reader self from description see larger culture structure. One cockfight "corner," describe deep enough, whole Bali society hierarchy honor male temperament gambling fate entangle, surge from this cockfight.
Gigerenzer (Gerd Gigerenzer) "fast frugal heuristics" research supports exemplify validity another angle. Finds many real decision scenes, simple heuristics pattern match few cues, effect better than collect mass info full analysis complex models. Reason real world noise-full, info more overfit risk bigger. Experienced doctor "intuition" glance judge, run full checks instead possibly misled distractors. Empirically verifies: exemplify "glance know" many cases not lazy, cognition optimal strategy.
So back your initial question: Gu Yanwu's "object shift" what? Very ancient universal well-grounded cognition way. China calls exemplify, Deleuze rhizome, Benjamin constellation, Peirce abduction, Arendt exemplary thinking, Hofstadter analogy, Wittgenstein family resemblance, cog sci pattern recognition. Not thinking defect, but thinking face true complexity natural posture. Linear argument tells one thing right/wrong, exemplify lets you see thing you originally didn't know exists.