Talk:A Manifesto for a Re-appraisal of Sinology and Reconstruction of Chinese Culture

world approach, lessons for the west

What are some other positions regarding lessons for the west? Are there any responses from the West, like defending the absence of spirituality? Liang Shuming articulates similar feelings. Also, could you elaborate on the last sentence: "The signers of the manifesto asserted that by accepting New Confucianism in accordance with aspects of Western culture, the future of mankind can transform to be a more open, inclusive and creative culture." It seems counterintuitive that westernization leads to a more open culture, rather than a singular, western culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njosephs (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to the question about the last line of the post: "The singers of the manifesto asserted that by accepting New Confucianism in accordance with aspects of Western culture, the future of mankind can transform to be a more open, inclusive and creative culture." While the manifesto does at times overly flatter the West and Western culture, I believe this last line is a much more optimistic idea of a world culture instead of a Western culture. The signers of the manifesto state that the West does have some sort of responsibility as a cultural leader, but the entire basis of the Manifesto is assert Chinese culture into that sphere of influence. The synthesis of the two cultures would lead not to a Western dominance culture scheme, but a new, and creative world culture that relies on transparent respect and communication. They agree that the West does certain things better (technology, democracy, etc.) but at the same time understand that Chinese culture has benefits as well, and while this world culture may not necessitate a unified culture for everyone it makes progress in "reverence and sympathy" of other cultures. Npetrillo (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)