39. While focusing on the controversial figure of Li Zhi, Handler-Spitz examines how the counterfeiting of language and arguments that afflicted both Chinese and European societies at the turn of the seventeenth century can be seen as a cultural manifestation of early modernity (Symptoms of an Unruly Age, 18, 44–68, 127–152). She argues that this phenomenon helped develop critical judgment among readers who thereby started to question the passive acceptance of doctrinal precepts based on mere authority. Several studies on Li Zhi, such as by K.C. Hsiao (“Li Chih”), have also underlined his “intellectual independence.”

40. “人之是非，初無定質。人之是非人也，亦無定論。無定質，則此是彼非並育而不相害。無定論，則是此非彼亦並行而不相悖矣。然則今日之是非謂予李卓吾一人之是非。可也。為謂千萬世大賢大人公是非。亦可也。謂予願倒千萬世之是非，而復非是予之所非是焉。亦可也。則予之是非，信乎其可矣。前三代吾無論矣。後三代，漢唐宋是也，中間千百餘年，而獨無是非者。豈其人無是非哉？咸以孔子之是非為是非。故未嘗有是非耳。然則予之是非人也，又安能已？夫是非之爭也，如歲時然，畫夜更送，不相一也。昨日是而今日非矣。今日非而後日又是矣。雖使孔夫子復生于今，又不知作如何非是也。而可遽以定本行罰賞哉？[...]” Li Zhi, Cangshu, Shiji Liezhuan Zongmu Qianlun 世紀列傳總目前論, 1: l. See also Franke “Historical Writing During the Ming,” 732, and Pauline Lee’s translation in Handler, Lee, and Saussy, Li Zhi, 317–319.

41. This position is not exclusive to Li Zhi’s thought, as there is a long tradition in the philosophy of change (Yixue 易學) and yin-yang. On the contextual and situational importance of moral judgment, see Heisook Kim, “The Ethics of Contingecy,” 167–172.

42. Li Zhi, Fenshu, Siwu Shuo 四勿說, 3: 101. On the “four interdictions,” see Lunyu, Yanyuan, 1. See Li Zhi, Mingdengdao Gulu 明燈道古錄, part two, Li Shi Wenji 李氏文集, juan 19, cited in Wang Zhongjiang, “Ming-Qing zhi Ji Si Guannian de Xingqi.”

43. Li Zhi, Shu Jueyi Lun Qian 書決疑論前 [Before writing on solving doubts], in Fenshu, 4: 134, translated and quoted by Sieber, “Getting at It in a Single Genuine Invocation,” 46n69.

44. For practical purposes, I provide only the most common meaning of these terms without entering into complex semantic details. On these polarities, see the next section.

45. Bauer, China and the Search for Happiness, 140–152.

46. Yu, “Individualism and the Neo-Daoist Movement in Wei-Jin China,” 135–140.