The Wang–Buwang Sequence and Positive Forgetting in Early Confucian Texts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file for details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answers to 1^st rev.

1. For the paragraph starting with “However”…

I think my discussion in Section 2 is detailed about the instances of forgetting and the negated form across the various texts. Regarding the contrast between the Confucian and Zhuangzian instances see note 13 and also at the very end of Section 5.

1. For the paragraph starting with “In other words”…

Another major change in the revised version: the discussion of the spiritual dimension now features at the end of Section 5 (third point there).

1. For the paragraph starting with “Moreover”…

May I clarify that the new version supplements the beginning of the introduction with 3 new paragraphs. The first presents the “problem consciousness” introducing the specific subject of this study and its importance. The next two paragraphs introduce a literature review. Hopefully, these much-needed additions help readers to follow my arguments.

1. See point “a” above. May I add, as is now hopefully much better explained at the beginning of the introduction, that this study concentrates on the Confucian texts.
2. The important questions raised by this reviewer are discussed at the end of the paper. See point “b” above. Eventually, I assigned a limited space to the spirituality questions, but I still hope that I propose a fair beginning.
3. Like the earlier comments, very helpful. I accept the criticism and modified my discussion of Xunzi XX.7. I think the essential observation there is the differentiation between the strong and the weak sense of forgetting.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates how wang (forgetting) and buwang (not forgetting) are related in three key Confucian works, using the framework of yin-yang. The author advocates that forgetting does not mean removing something from our minds altogether, but describes wang as a process that manages thinking and conduct by marginalizing secondary contents. This, in contrast, means being constantly focused on the main ethical and social imperatives.

The study introduces an “axis and margins” paradigm to show the ways in which wang and buwang are connected. Wang enables mental and spiritual renewal, while buwang upholds steadfast moral principles. It shows how the brain switches between moments of rest and moments of thought, aiming to maintain both concentration and sound judgments. Drawing on key passages in the Analects, Mengzi, and Xunzi, the author argue that Confucian forgetting is a constructive, spiritually resonant component of what might be called the tradition’s mnemic architecture.

The paper shows that the relationship between forgetting and non-forgetting lies at the heart of a complex model for memory and moral formation. For early Confucian thinkers, wang and buwang worked together to help someone craft a mind not easily agitated, yet balanced and capable of learning about right and wrong.

This topic and viewpoint offer a fresh perspective. The study draws on psychology, philosophy, and the history of Confucian thought, adding new and valuable insights to the area of study.

However, there is still room for improvement in this paper. Here are a few points that might serve as a reference:

It seems that the study considers early Confucianism as something that did not change on the issue of wang and buwang. Is there any difference between the Analects, Mengzi and Xunzi? For instance, due to different philosophical approaches, Xunzi may be different from Confucius and Mengzi in some respects (as we know, Xunzi’s thinking is sometimes viewed as a legalist variant and Mengzi’s as idealist). By mixing various historical timeframes, it obscures the reasons behind wang’s diverse approach to ethics. Therefore, the paper may discuss in certain ways about how wang’s ethics shifted with different times.

Closely related to this is the comparison in another dimension. Although the paper mentioned Mozi and Zhuangzi in one or two places, it lacks detailed comparative analysis between early Confucianism and other major schools of thought on the very topic of wang and buwang. Since not including a substantial comparison with other schools like Daoism, Mohism, and Legalism. the paper does not fully highlight how Confucian ideas about memory stand out or are challenged in pre-Qin period. As an example, Zhuangzi’s idea of radical forgetting (zuowang) challenges the paper’s claim that wang is always constructive. This omission weakens the contextualization of wang within broader Warring States debates, leaving the Confucian model’s distinctiveness underdeveloped

Furthermore, even though the paper cites Casey (2022) and uses some ideas from neuroscience, it doesn’t really bring in those ideas to help explain why people forget some things and not others. The paper could have benefited more from using both science and everyday experience to give a fuller account of selective forgetting. Thus, it may contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue. It can engage more with interdisciplinary memory theories (e.g., collective memory, trauma studies). Besides, if the study pursues the approach of comparative philosophy, it can even have a deep look at how Confucian mnemic processes contrast with Western models (e.g., Platonic anamnesis and Aristotle’s Theory of Memory).

Finally, the following are a few minor problematic details in the paper:

p.3 (Durrant et al. 2016) cannot be found in the Reference.

p.3 The character "誌" is a later-developed form; during the pre-Qin period, the character "志" used to express the meaning of "remembering" is understood as being phonetically loaned for "識（识）" according to the study of Chinese philology.

p.3 The character "藏" has two phonetic realizations: when denoting the action of "hiding/concealing," it is pronounced cáng (e.g., 隐藏 yǐncáng)

p. 4 The author mentions“Another term, cheng 稱—discussed above—introduces the notion of measurement, suggesting a mnemic quality of accord or mirroring.” However, etymologically speaking, the character "稱" (chēng) derives its semantic core from the conceptual domain of lifting upwards or raising, as demonstrated in early etimographic sources like Shuowen Jiezi (e.g., "爯，并舉也"), with its fundamental upward motion semantics later extending to abstract senses like "weighing" (稱量 chēngliáng) and "praising" (稱讚 chēngzàn).
p. 4 It appears to overlook other pre-Qin Chinese terms related to memory, such as 思 (si), 惟 (wei), 想 (xiang), and 怀 (huai), which carry semantic connections to recollection and remembrance.
p. 6 The Weizi zhi Ming (微子之命) belongs to the Old Text version of the Book of Documents (尚書), which is widely regarded by modern scholarship as a Jin dynasty forgery. As such, it should not be cited as evidentiary material without critical qualification; if cited at all, its disputed authenticity and late provenance should be explain in footnote.
p. 18 The Reference cites “Isay, Gad C., Non-forgetfulness and forgetfulness 忘 (wang) in ancient Chinese philosophical texts.” But there are more studies, both English and Chinese, on Zhuangzi’s wang, see Lam, Hk. The State of the Field Report IX*: Contemporary Chinese Studies of Zhuangzian Wang (Forgetting). Dao 22, 297–317 (2023).

 

Author Response

my answers are prefixed with *

the reviewer wrote: However, there is still room for improvement in this paper. Here are a few points that might serve as a reference:

It seems that the study considers early Confucianism as something that did not change on the issue of wang and buwang. Is there any difference between the Analects, Mengzi and Xunzi? For instance, due to different philosophical approaches, Xunzi may be different from Confucius and Mengzi in some respects (as we know, Xunzi’s thinking is sometimes viewed as a legalist variant and Mengzi’s as idealist). By mixing various historical timeframes, it obscures the reasons behind wang’s diverse approach to ethics. Therefore, the paper may discuss in certain ways about how wang’s ethics shifted with different times.

*My discussion starts with the Bronze Inscriptions and continues with the Odes, the Xicizhuan, and then, Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. I think my discussion mentions some differences between these sources and these are further discussed in the conclusion. However, this is not my major concern here. For a broader study, your comment would be a natural requirement, but in the present study, my aim is to indicate the “sequence” and its consistent presence in the sources discussed, as the ground for demonstrating the positive role of forgetting in these sources.

Closely related to this is the comparison in another dimension. Although the paper mentioned Mozi and Zhuangzi in one or two places, it lacks detailed comparative analysis between early Confucianism and other major schools of thought on the very topic of wang and buwang. Since not including a substantial comparison with other schools like Daoism, Mohism, and Legalism. the paper does not fully highlight how Confucian ideas about memory stand out or are challenged in pre-Qin period. As an example, Zhuangzi’s idea of radical forgetting (zuowang) challenges the paper’s claim that wang is always constructive. This omission weakens the contextualization of wang within broader Warring States debates, leaving the Confucian model’s distinctiveness underdeveloped

*My present study was initiated in the first place as a study of positive forgetting in Confucian sources. The above suggestions would require more space. Nonetheless, my revised version is more informative about the contrast with the Zhuangzi, possibly the most contrasting and intriguing source for the relevant concern. I added comments in the text, see also note 13, and at the very end of the third point in section 5.

Furthermore, even though the paper cites Casey (2022) and uses some ideas from neuroscience, it doesn’t really bring in those ideas to help explain why people forget some things and not others. The paper could have benefited more from using both science and everyday experience to give a fuller account of selective forgetting. Thus, it may contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue. It can engage more with interdisciplinary memory theories (e.g., collective memory, trauma studies). Besides, if the study pursues the approach of comparative philosophy, it can even have a deep look at how Confucian mnemic processes contrast with Western models (e.g., Platonic anamnesis and Aristotle’s Theory of Memory).

*My study focuses on the positive effect of forgetting. I argue that forgetfulness mostly occurs because of non-controlled reasons. I do not want to mention in this study the subconsciousness, a definite Western term. In any case, the questions of selective forgetting, collective memory, trauma, comparative philosophy, and so on, are indeed welcome suggestions for further studies. Some of these are mentioned in Isay 2022. Regardless, I think it is not easy to be qualified for everything.

Finally, the following are a few minor problematic details in the paper:

p.3 (Durrant et al. 2016) cannot be found in the Reference.

*Thank you, added.

p.3 The character "誌" is a later-developed form; during the pre-Qin period, the character "志" used to express the meaning of "remembering" is understood as being phonetically loaned for "識（识）" according to the study of Chinese philology.

*Thank you. I slightly moved the note (no. 5) to earlier in the text. Please note that I mention Hutton’s remark about memory. In his “Early Confucian Moral Psychology” Kwong-loi Shun renders this term as “directions of the heart/mind.” Moreover, in the texts I read, I did not find another case where 志 clearly means memory or remembering, so in the meantime, I leave it as it is. I am open to making the change should you propose this again.

p.3 The character "藏" has two phonetic realizations: when denoting the action of "hiding/concealing," it is pronounced cáng (e.g., 隐藏 yǐncáng)

*Correction is generally accepted. In most cases I changed to cang/zang respectively for verb and noun.

1. 4 The author mentions “Another term, cheng 稱—discussed above—introduces the notion of measurement, suggesting a mnemic quality of accord or mirroring.” However, etymologically speaking, the character "稱" (chēng) derives its semantic core from the conceptual domain of lifting upwards or raising, as demonstrated in early etimographic sources like Shuowen Jiezi (e.g., "爯，并舉也"), with its fundamental upward motion semantics later extending to abstract senses like "weighing" (稱量 chēngliáng) and "praising" (稱讚 chēngzàn).
   p. 4 It appears to overlook other pre-Qin Chinese terms related to memory, such as 思 (si), 惟 (wei), 想 (xiang), and 怀 (huai), which carry semantic connections to recollection and remembrance.

*Thank you. Greatly benefited from this correction. My understanding of cheng is based on interpretations to the Lunyu, but I accept your interpretation and accordingly added a few words on this in note 10. Also added the 3 terms, though without comments as there are other terms still not mentioned. This part of my study is still in the beginning, I mentioned a few terms for the benefit of readers. My list, as I acknowledge in my study, is by no means complete.

1. 6 The Weizi zhi Ming (微子之命) belongs to the Old Text version of the Book of Documents (尚書), which is widely regarded by modern scholarship as a Jin dynasty forgery. As such, it should not be cited as evidentiary material without critical qualification; if cited at all, its disputed authenticity and late provenance should be explain in footnote.

*The comment about the Weizi is valuable to me. I accordingly modified my text. I opt not to omit this part because of the consistency of this third quote from the Documents with the former two and with other sources consulted.

1. 18 The Reference cites “Isay, Gad C., Non-forgetfulness and forgetfulness 忘 (wang) in ancient Chinese philosophical texts.” But there are more studies, both English and Chinese, on Zhuangzi’s wang, see Lam, Hk. The State of the Field Report IX*: Contemporary Chinese Studies of Zhuangzian Wang (Forgetting). Dao 22, 297–317 (2023).

*Thank you. “…there are more studies…” on Zhuangzi (emphasis). The focus of my study, however, is set on the Confucian sources. Please see my brief review, newly added at the beginning of my introduction. Eventually, I added Lam, whom I enjoyed reading when published.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is quite well-written and organized. The sequence of the argument is easy to follow and the selection of texts and examples is also quite appropriate. I believe it is publishable "as is" without any need for further editing.

Author Response

I thank this reviewer for their kind evaluation. Regardless, I still considerably revised my study and I hope it now better meets your expectations. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This reviewer's comments have been invaluable to me. I have attached the paragraph I added at the beginning of my introduction. Additionally, I re-read the paper several times and revised it in some places. I add the "track changes" version to make it easier to follow these changes. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx