PRC大陆与ROC台湾关系全新思路

Beyond Unification and Independence: A New Symbiotic Framework for Relations Between the PRC Mainland and ROC Taiwan

钱 宏（Archer Hong Qian）

【题记】

我请台大吴展良教授寄来《李登辉的信仰告白》，封面赫然印着我喜欢的“我是不是我的我”，还有一行小字：“从唯心、唯物到信仰的历程”，这里的“信仰”对我来说，就是基于生命自组织连接动态平衡的“交互主体共生”（Intersubjective Symbiosis）思想。

李登辉先生，一个农业政策专家教授，在“催台青”中被拣选，授命于危难，从经国先生的面授机宜中，很快习得了对复杂而残酷环境的斗争策略，因真理，得自由，以服务，审时度势，理性务实，了生死，知进退，且始终葆有一颗高贵的灵魂，赋有愛之智慧（Amorsophia），成为华人世界150年来最伟大的“无中生有”造就政治奇迹的历史人物！

如今，历史又走到这样一个关键时刻：无论是PRC大陆，还是ROC台湾，抑或美国、日本及国际社会，都要尽快改变思维方式和价值取向，而且，谁率先改变，谁获得战略主动！ Whether it is the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of China, or the United States, Japan, and the international community, all must change their ways of thinking and value orientations as soon as possible. Moreover, whoever takes the lead in changing will gain the strategic initiative!

怎么办？进一步，海阔天空！http://symbiosism.com.cn/12099.html

导论：走出“官府独白”与“客体化”囚徒困境

PRC大陆与ROC台湾，两岸关系历经七十余年风雨，至今仍被两岸乃至国际社会普遍界定为主权争议、内战延续或地缘政治冲突。

传统的“统一或独立”叙事，建立在一种强烈的“排他性主权绝对主义”之上，不仅将主权视为你死我活、神圣不可分割的绝对实体，更在方法论上犯了致命的“客体化（Objectification）”错误：他们将复杂的两岸共生体系，粗暴地退化为中华人民共和国（PRC）政权与中华民国（ROC）政权这两个“官府机构”之间的零和权力博弈，而将主权在民的大陆与台湾人民、社会自组织、以及作为人类文明高阶成果的产业生态，贬低为被动承受统治、被支配、被操纵、被代表的“客体（Object）”。

当现实结构实况已经发生根本性变化，这些陈旧的解释和“官府独白”正在逐渐失去其解决问题的能力。随着全球化演进与科技生态的高度一体化，两岸关系已不再是一场单纯的“主权谁属”内政争端，而必须被置于全球化3.0时代的现代国际秩序下，进行一场关于“主权、承认与责权结构”的共生重构。

唯有确立这一底线认知，并引入“交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosis）”的哲学与行动范式，我们才能真正走向问题的务实解决：两岸的共生绝对不能沦为“你（PRC官）中有我（ROC官），我只要你（领土与主权）”的占有欲魔咒。它必须是一场由你（PRC大陆政权）、我（ROC台湾政权）、他（主权在民的大陆与台湾人民及其自组织）互为依凭、相互成就的三元立体共生。

三元交互主体共生结构表

一、 历史事实：台湾单方面法理让步的责权逻辑与破局遗产

要务实地探讨两岸关系的解路，首先必须还原一个被长期掩盖或误读的历史法理事实：今天两岸能够实现制度化交往（1992-1998年史称的“汪辜会谈”），其根源绝非两岸官方在排他性主权上达成了某种政治分赃，而是得益于台湾在20世纪90年代初期所做出的、具有划时代意义的单方面法理让步与责权结构调整。

1. 1990-1991：终止内战法统的“政权虚己”

1990年10月7日，李登辉创设国家统一委员会，率先承认“台海两岸分处不同地缘的政府，是两个不同的政治实体”。这一务实清醒的判断，直接推动了1991年5月台湾正式终止《动员戡乱时期临时条款》。

这一宪政级别的修正，在法理层面上完成了深刻的“政权虚己（Kenosis）”，即使是今天，国际社会也不能不承认其两大历史进步意义：

一是放弃零和博弈：台北正式停止将中国共产党视为“叛乱团体”，完全放弃了“反攻大陆”、“汉贼不两立”与“三不政策”的意识形态躁动。

二是承认PRC的管辖地位：台湾通过制定《宪法增修条文》，将自身治权范围严格限缩于台澎金马“自由地区”，从而在法理和法律上承认了自1949年以来，PRC武装夺取并有效管辖中国大陆部分的法理正当性。

要理解这两大历史意义，就要理解李登辉这个人精神境界。虽然在其大半生政治生涯中，李登辉深受西田几多郎京都学派哲学的熏陶，但在其90岁的灵性信仰告白中，他明确阐述其政治实践中的“自我否定”与“超越性舍弃”，最终的恩赐与精神源头完全出自《圣经》（Holy Bible）。那是一种“现在活着的不再是我，乃生基督在我里面活着”（加拉太书 2:20）的虚己心性。正是这种基于信仰的超越性力量，促使台湾官方斩断了虚妄的“大中国法统旧我”，让出了历史空间，使政治权力回归“主权在民”的现代政治文明常态。

2. “汪辜会谈”的交互主体共生萌芽与系统失衡

我们不能不承认，正是有了台湾单方面承认大陆治权的历史事实，海基会与海协会才可能跨越主权鸿沟，利用法律拟制（Legal Fiction）互认民商事文书与司法管辖权。这实际上是在两岸官府尚未对等承认之前，率先通过民间社会与企业（他）的实质接触开启了共生的实验。

然而，承认必须基于互惠（Reciprocity）。台湾通过宪政虚己退出了内战，本期许换取北京对其对等治理实体的法理承认。但在国际外交现实中，北京的新天下主义或威权权力惯性，导致其不仅未能在法理上匹配以同等的对等承认，反而加速推进“一个中国原则”，试图全面抹杀ROC的国际法人人格。

这种“单向压迫”，最终导致了两岸分治系统的严重失衡。1999年李登辉不得不抛出“特殊的国与国关系”论，以至于下野后的李登辉，在2003年8月23日又以“台湾正名运动总召集人”的身份公开宣称“中华民国不存在”。他是这样说的：“中华民国只是国号，不是国家，我当了十二年的总统，最了解台湾困境就是来自中华民国为个名字，过去的历史‘被欺负就被欺负了’，我们无法改变，但未来国家名字必须由这块土地人民自己选择。……‘正名运动’的推动者，必盐与光的特征和影响”。

从解决问题的逻辑演进来看，2003年的“不存在”论，绝非偶然的政治挑衅，而是1991年单方面让步，由于缺乏北京后续的对等回馈而撞上“单一主权壁垒”后的必然反弹。李登辉在向世界和大陆指出：当“中华民国”的外壳无法保护台湾人民（他）的基本生存与国际人格、反而沦为北京在国际上将两岸问题“内政化”的法律绳索时，这个符号外壳在客观现实中，就已经丧失了合理的存在价值。

不过在我看来，为台湾正名当然有正当性，虽然1991年单方面承认PRC大陆政权，就等于自认ROC管辖权限于台澎金马，而且与“蒋介石集团”早已没有关系，但“中华民国”至今依然是一块金字招牌。

二、逻辑可能：从多元主体间性到“交互主体共生”的理论突围

在探讨两岸对等法理承认的可能性时，有必要明确引入“交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosis）”的全新哲学思维。

这是因为，我们太熟悉轴心时代以来成型的“二元对立统一”的思维方式。而且，即便19世纪中叶以来，从海克尔的生态学，到胡塞尔、梅洛-庞蒂的现象学，再到哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）的交往行为理论，乃至莱维纳斯（Emmanuel Levinas）的他者伦理，已经发展出了精妙的“主体间性（Intersubjectivity）”与“他者（Other）”思想。但身处21世纪的我们，依然不难发现，单是“主体间性思想”在实际生活中，表现得像多元主义（Pluralism）、生态主义一样，缺乏理论的彻底性。特别是在面对文明、族裔交错的冷战残余地缘博弈时，“政治正确”的歧视和逆向歧视，乃至多元冲突、生态战争，依然频频发生（如俄乌、以哈、以伊、印巴、柬泰等），因为主体间性或多元、多样、生态的Intersubjectivity思想，未能提出具备刚性约束力的交互共生（Symbiosis）规范，往往流于包容发展、平行孤立、冷漠并存、互不干涉的“冷战式隔离”说教或话术。

所以，第一必须避免回到二元对立统一思维残留的“你中有我，我只要你”“求同存异”的支配、操纵、掠夺动能：强大的主体不能把弱小的主体当作自己身体的衍生或待吞并的客体。

第二，必须确立“你中有我、我中有他、他中有你”的三元立体结构：在这个结构中，确保你（PRC大陆政权）、我（ROC台湾政权）、他（主权在民的大陆与台湾人民及其企业、政党、社区、公益自组织）都不是，不会沦为被支配、被操纵、被代表的Object（客体）——你、我、他（她它祂）是互为因果、相互成就、命运同构而天赋独立精神的行为主体。

于是，在人类思想史上，我们第一次明确拥有并能系统阐述“交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosis）”的哲学新思维。

 “交互主体共生”打破了西方主客二分的残余，并为两岸的法理对等承认，梳理出了一个由浅入深、层层递进的逻辑发展链条（如下表所示）：

第一层底线：承认“你、我、他”三元主体性的客观存在

两岸关系的破局，首要在于破除“你是我的一部分，我是你的一部分”的内战话术。在这套旧官府独白中，主权在民的大陆与台湾人民、社会自组织、企业界（他）被完全忽略和屏蔽。共生哲学的首要规范在于：必须承认“你（PRC官）”、“我（ROC官）”、“他（个人、家庭、社区、社会自组织）”三元主体性的同时存在。如果连这个基础存在都不敢承认，各方只能在虚幻的宏大叙事中自说自话，主体的共生便无从谈起。

第二层跃迁：承认彼此是独立主体（两德与朝韩模式的路径借鉴）

在承认存在的前提下，如果双方由于制度鸿沟巨大而暂时无法进行良性高阶融合，那么走向“承认你我是独立主体，但彼此保持隔离”的特殊状态，是极具理性务实意义的第二阶段。这就是两德模式与朝韩最新模式（金正恩2024-2026年修宪定义韩国为接壤外国）带给两岸的宝贵路径借鉴，它们绝非“反面教材”：

德意志模式的借鉴：1972年《基础条约》虽然未能消融两德在冷战中的意识形态对立，但它通过“互不为外国”的特殊安排，承认了彼此的主体存在。

朝韩新模式的借鉴：金正恩近年推动宪法修正案，彻底删除了宪法中关于“统一”和“同胞”的所有表述，明确界定其领土“南边与大韩民国（ROK）接壤”。这在哲学上是一种不说瞎话的、实事求是的理性务实。它通过法理确界，肯定了对方的主体地位。这种“承认存在但保持安全边界”的状态，已经彻底超越了“独统”的政治旧诉求，相比于不承认对方主体存在、天天扬言消灭或吞并对方的野蛮状态，已经有了巨大的文明进步。

第三层最高形态：引入“主权在民”实现三元交互主体共生

然而，仅仅停留在官府与官府之间冷漠对峙的“对等”，依然是不彻底的。要开启两岸对等法理承认的全新思路，必须迈入第三层：引入“主权在民”而非仅仅是“主权在官”的现代政治文明基础思维。只有将“他（企业、政党、社区、公益等生命自组织）”作为核心驱动力引入你我之间，才能打破“你中有我，我只要你”的掠夺魔咒，演进为“你中有我、我中有他、他中有你”的立体交互。

【西方传统主体间性】：官府（你）◄── 平行容忍 / 缺乏规范 ──► 官府（我）[社会（他）被客体化忽略]

【交互主体共生】：官府（你）◄── 制度保护 ──►社会/企业（他）◄── 民主授权──►官府（我）

最后，通过全方位的生命同构与对等承认，实现美美与共的华夏共生体。

三、实证展开：企业自组织作为共生主体的硅盾法理与生命托底

“三元交互主体共生”在现实的两岸以及全球责权结构中，早已拥有了最强韧的物质实证——这就是以全球半导体供应链（硅盾）、跨境台商网络以及大陆民营科技生态为核心的商业与社会自组织（他）。

1. 供应链生命同构：正在运转的“你中有我、我中有他、他中有你”

以台积电（TSMC）为代表的台湾高科技自组织，通过三十年的进化，已经与大陆高度市场化的民营组装生态、应用创新体系，编织成了一张全球化3.0时代人类最高密度的知识与产业生命网。台湾的先进制程晶圆离不开大陆全球顶尖的产业链配套与应用场景；而大陆民营经济的现代化与科技创新主体性（尽管其全权责主体地位有待大陆官方的意识形态与法理确认），也时刻需要台湾高科技的精准赋能。在这一由无数科学家、企业家、工程师（他）自发织就的网络中，两岸在产业生命、责权结构上早已达成了无缝的“深度同构（Structural Coupling）”。

2. 反对政权对产业自组织的“客体化”操纵与摧毁

当下的两岸僵局中，最大的危机在于“官府（你与我）”正在试图以狭隘的地缘政治理性，去霸凌、操纵、甚至客体化这一高阶的共生生命体：北京的某些原教旨叙事，将台湾的企业客体化为战利品；西方与台湾本土的某些极端政客甚至冷酷地抛出“不惜在战时炸毁台积电”的焦土预案。

交互主体共生哲学，在这里划出了一条不容践踏的价值底线：企业与民间自组织作为拥有独立演进权、主权在民的最高社会主体（他），拥有不可予夺的尊严，绝非两个政权用于进行内战延续或地缘博弈的工具。正是这些跨海共生的商业与社会组织，在事实上构成了维系海峡两岸没有滑向深渊的最强韧和平底盘。对等法理承认的唯一务实目的，就是为了给这些共生主体（他）颁布一份免于恐惧、跨越海峡的安全与法律保护契约。

四、全新思路：基于三元主体法理承认与责权共生的三条通道

基于三元交互主体共生的哲学视域，要务实解决两岸对等法理承认的问题，必须将原本扁平、冰冷的“官府博弈”进行彻底的共生升华。以下将三条跨越历史、通往未来的全新思路模型路径汇总并详述如下：

路径一：矩阵模型下的“社会与产业共生域开启”（现象学悬置路径）

理论内核与共生重构： 该路径的核心在于将无法达成共识、带有内战排他性的宏大“唯一中国主权”偏见进行现象学悬置（Epoché），放入永久法律冷冻库。两岸不再去争夺那个抽象、神圣、非此即彼的“形而上学主权”，而是转而肯定彼此治权的对等。

官府在主权争端上的“退位”与“悬置”：旨在释放出巨大的制度真空，其根本目的是让人民、企业与社会自组织（他）正在真实经历的“生活世界”（Living World）先行交融。PRC（你）承认ROC（我）在台澎金马的最高管辖权，ROC亦同等承认PRC对大陆的管辖，双方互认司法终审权与文书。这种承认，不仅是官府之间的妥协，更是为了确保跨海峡的高科技供应链、民营企业和民间公益组织在无摩擦、完全法治化的环境中自由呼吸、共同进化。通过社会与产业“你中有我、我中有他、他中有你”的物理不可分割性，以实事求是的底层共生事实，倒逼两岸政治体制最终走向理性的相互接纳。

路径二：特殊两国论下的“互不异化法理契约”（德意志/朝韩确界模式的共生升华）

理论内核与共生重构：该路径直接借鉴并升华了两德与朝韩模式。台湾全面修正《两岸人民关系条例》中不合时宜的冷战法条，北京同步修改《反分裂国家法》，双方在法理上不说瞎话，实事求是地相互承认海峡两岸存在着“两个互不隶属、各自独立行使最高宪政管辖权的主权国家（中华人民共和国与中华民国/台湾）”，并在联合国实现双重入席。

官府（你与我）双重法理承认：这一主权国家的双重承认，绝非朝韩式彼此视对方为彻底外国敌国的冷漠原子化隔离，而是钱宏式的“互为主体、相互成就”。双方在承认条约中明确嵌入特殊共生条款，声明两岸关系属于“华夏文明内部互不为外国的特殊责权安排”。这一法理承认的根本初衷，是为了彻底解除两岸政权由于缺乏法理身份而产生的生存焦虑，从而为台积电等高科技供应链、跨境台商及大陆民营科技生态（他），提供一份跨国、跨海峡的“最高安全硅盾”。官府（你与我）通过双重法理承认达成了“不说瞎话”的底线，而这一底线国家法律，将成为保护跨海民间社会与全球产业链（他）免受地缘政治强权异化、操纵和摧毁的刚性制度保障。

路径三：大中华邦联下的“华夏共同体构建”（全球化3.0重构路径）

理论内核与共生重构：该路径是“三元交互主体共生”思维的最高制度化体现。它彻底跳出了大一统帝国逻辑对两岸关系的伤害，借鉴全球化3.0时代多边治理逻辑，由中华人民共和国（PRC）与中华民国/台湾（ROC）在完全平等、尊严绝对对等的前提下，作为共同的创始成员国（Member States），发起成立一个全新、中性、非集权化的跨海峡上位法体——“华夏共同体”（Cathay/Chinese Commonwealth）。

共生体（Symbiont）生态优势：在这一全新思路下，传统的排他性主权不再是一块零和博弈的领土肥肉，而是转化为流动的、两岸人民共享的全球责权结构。共同体总部不设在北京也不设在台北，其最高权力不属于北京的官府，也不属于台北的官府，而是属于两岸人民与产业生态通过自组织网络共同构筑的“生活世界联盟”。在这里，“你”政权、“我”政权主动克制自身的集权欲望，退回服务社会、保护市场的工具本分；而“他（企业、民间组织、公民社群）”则获得全方位的解放，跨海配置资源，共同参与生态治理、技术创新与文化繁荣。两岸的制度差异不再是冲突的导火索，反而成了共生体物种多样性的生态优势，真正抵达我们向往的“各美其美，美人之美，美美与共，共生吉祥”的终极文明范式。

结论：自我否定执念，方得共生自由

   “交互主体共生”哲学思维，为历尽冷战幽灵劫数、陷入内战残余法统死结的海峡两岸关系，指出了一条既具形而上学灵性高度、又具全球产业地缘地基的解决问题之道。

历史清晰地证明，李登辉在1990至1991年宪改中所启动的两岸分治逻辑，其精神核心正是在神恩照拂下、对大中国威权旧我的勇敢“自我否定”与“虚己”。台湾社会借此完成了民主化转生，解脱了社会与企业主体（他）的活力。而过去三十年两岸关系的深层悲剧，就在于北京的权力集团依然深陷于“我是绝对之我、他者必须臣服”的传统执念中，试图将两岸高度自组织、深度同构的高科技产业生态与民主生活世界，重新退化为被官府任意摆布与恐吓的客体（Object）。

两德与朝韩模式是一面镜子：它告诉我们，不说瞎话、实事求是地承认彼此独立主权的存在，是迈向现代政治文明不可逾越的底线。然而，仅仅停留在官府对立的平面是远远不够的。

两岸关系的最终救赎，不在于哪一个政权吞并了哪一个政权，而在于两岸能否共同确立 “交互主体共生”的认知（思维）与参与（价值）底线。无论是PRC的大陆政权（你）、ROC的台湾政权（我），还是海峡两岸的每一个企业、每一个社区、每一个鲜活的个体（他），都是这场伟大共生史诗中不可剥夺的“主体（Subject）”。如题记中所言，无论是大陆、台湾、还是国际社会，谁率先改变思维方式和价值取向，谁就将获得战略主动（請参看《从“台湾问题”到全球化3.0：主权、承认与责权结构的共生重构》"From the 'Taiwan Issue' to Globalization 3.0: The Symbiotic Reconstruction of Sovereignty, Recognition, and Rights-Responsibility Structures."，http://symbiosism.com.cn/11941.html Or https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NTQ3MDkw）！

唯有告别操纵，在“你中有我、我中有他、他中有你”的生命网络中真诚对白，引入主权在民的现代政治基础，进一步，海阔天空！两岸才能跨越冷战的废墟，共同走向全球化3.0时代人类共生崛起的自由彼岸。

Beyond Unification and Independence: A New Symbiotic Framework for Relations Between the PRC Mainland and ROC Taiwan

Archer Hong Qian

Epigraph

Professor Wu Chan-liang of National Taiwan University kindly sent me a copy of Lee Teng-hui’s Confession of Faith. Printed prominently on its cover is a phrase that has long resonated with me:

“Am I My Own Self?”

Beneath it appears a subtitle:

“A Journey from Idealism and Materialism to Faith.”

For me, this “faith” refers to the philosophy of Intersubjective Symbiosis, grounded in the dynamic equilibrium generated through the self-organizing interconnectedness of life.

Mr. Lee Teng-hui, an agricultural economist and scholar, was unexpectedly called from academia into politics during a critical moment in Taiwan’s history. Under the guidance of President Chiang Ching-kuo, he rapidly mastered the art of navigating complex and often harsh political realities. Guided by truth, he attained freedom; through service, he learned prudence; by understanding life and death, he learned both courage and restraint. Throughout his journey, he preserved a noble spirit and embodied what I call Amorsophia—the Wisdom of Love.

In my view, he became one of the most remarkable figures in modern Chinese history, creating a political transformation that many once considered impossible.

Today, history once again stands at a pivotal crossroads. Whether it is the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), the United States, Japan, or the broader international community, all must change their ways of thinking and their value orientations. Moreover, whoever takes the lead in changing will gain the strategic initiative.

Introduction:

Escaping the Prisoner's Dilemma of Governmental Monologue and Objectification

For more than seventy years, relations between the PRC Mainland and ROC Taiwan have generally been framed by both sides of the Strait and by the international community as a question of disputed sovereignty, an unfinished civil war, or a geopolitical confrontation.

Traditional narratives of either “unification” or “independence” are rooted in a form of exclusive sovereignty absolutism. Sovereignty is treated as an indivisible and sacred entity for which only one side can prevail. More importantly, such narratives commit a profound methodological error: objectification.

They reduce the highly complex cross-Strait system to a zero-sum struggle between two governmental authorities—the government of the People's Republic of China and the government of the Republic of China. In doing so, they demote the people of both sides of the Strait, their self-organizing social structures, and the sophisticated industrial ecosystems they have created into passive objects to be ruled, manipulated, represented, or controlled.

Yet reality has fundamentally changed.

As globalization advances and technological ecosystems become increasingly integrated, cross-Strait relations can no longer be understood merely as a domestic dispute over “who owns sovereignty.” Instead, they must be reexamined within the framework of modern international order in the era of Globalization 3.0, as a question concerning sovereignty, recognition, and rights-responsibility structures.

Only by recognizing this fundamental reality and introducing the philosophical and practical framework of Intersubjective Symbiosis can we begin moving toward a realistic solution.

Cross-Strait symbiosis must never be reduced to the possessive obsession of:

“You are part of me, and therefore I must possess you.”

Instead, it must become a three-dimensional structure of mutual dependence and mutual fulfillment among:

• You — the governing authority of the PRC Mainland;

• I — the governing authority of ROC Taiwan;

• He/They — the people of both sides of the Strait, together with their enterprises, communities, civic organizations, and other forms of social self-organization grounded in the principle that sovereignty resides in the people.

Only through such a triadic framework can a genuinely symbiotic future emerge.

I. Historical Reality:

Taiwan’s Unilateral Legal Concession and Its Legacy of Rights–Responsibility Transformation

Any serious discussion of a future framework for cross-Strait relations must begin by restoring a historical and legal fact that has often been obscured or misunderstood.

The institutionalized exchanges that became possible across the Taiwan Strait during the 1990s—including the historic Koo–Wang Talks—did not emerge because the two sides reached a political bargain over exclusive sovereignty.

Rather, they became possible because Taiwan undertook a profound and unprecedented unilateral legal adjustment during the early 1990s, fundamentally restructuring its rights–responsibility framework.

1. 1990–1991:

Kenosis of Political Authority and the End of the Civil-War Constitutional Order

On October 7, 1990, President Lee Teng-hui established the National Unification Council.

In doing so, he openly acknowledged that:

“The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are governed by different governments occupying different geopolitical territories and constitute two distinct political entities.”

This practical and realistic assessment directly contributed to Taiwan’s constitutional reforms and the formal termination of the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion in May 1991.

At the constitutional level, this represented a profound act of political Kenosis—a voluntary emptying of inherited claims.

Even today, the international community cannot deny the significance of two major historical achievements resulting from this transformation.

First:

The Abandonment of Zero-Sum Confrontation

Taipei formally ceased to regard the Chinese Communist Party as a rebel organization and abandoned the ideological ambitions of “retaking the mainland,” the doctrine that “Han and Communist cannot coexist,” and the so-called “Three Noes” mentality rooted in civil-war politics.

Second:

Recognition of the PRC’s Effective Jurisdiction

Through constitutional amendments and related legislation, Taiwan limited the scope of its effective governance to the “Free Area” of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.

In doing so, it legally and constitutionally acknowledged the reality that since 1949, the PRC had exercised effective governance over mainland China.

To fully understand the significance of these two developments, one must understand Lee Teng-hui himself.

Although much of his intellectual life was influenced by the Kyoto School and the philosophy of Nishida Kitarō, Lee’s later spiritual reflections reveal that the deeper source of his political practice lay in the Holy Bible.

The spirit underlying his political transformation was one of self-denial and transcendence.

It reflected the biblical conviction expressed in Galatians 2:20:

“It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.”

This spiritual disposition enabled Taiwan’s leadership to relinquish the authoritarian legacy of a Greater China constitutional orthodoxy and to create political space for a modern order rooted in the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people.

2. The Koo–Wang Talks: The First Experiment in Intersubjective Symbiosis and the Emergence of Structural Imbalance

It must be acknowledged that the historic fact of Taiwan's unilateral recognition of the PRC's effective jurisdiction made possible the institutional exchanges represented by the Koo–Wang Talks.

Only because Taiwan had withdrawn from the civil-war constitutional framework was it possible for the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) to bridge the sovereignty divide through legal fictions, mutually recognizing civil and commercial documents as well as certain forms of jurisdiction.

In essence, before the two governments had formally recognized each other, the people, enterprises, and social organizations on both sides of the Strait had already begun a practical experiment in symbiosis.

Yet recognition must be based upon reciprocity.

Taiwan's constitutional self-limitation was undertaken with the expectation that Beijing would eventually respond with corresponding legal recognition of Taiwan as a governing entity of equal dignity.

However, subsequent developments unfolded differently.

Driven by a combination of traditional imperial political culture and modern authoritarian centralization, Beijing did not move toward reciprocal recognition. Instead, it increasingly advanced the "One China Principle" as an exclusive legal doctrine and sought to eliminate the international legal personality of the ROC altogether.

This asymmetry created a profound structural imbalance.

By 1999, Lee Teng-hui felt compelled to advance the concept of a "special state-to-state relationship."

After leaving office, he went even further.

On August 23, 2003, as chief convener of the Taiwan Rectification Campaign, Lee publicly declared:

"The Republic of China does not exist."

This statement should not be interpreted merely as a political provocation.

Rather, it represented the logical consequence of Taiwan's unilateral legal concession in 1991 colliding with the absence of reciprocal recognition from Beijing.

Lee was effectively warning both Taiwan and the international community that if the institutional shell of the Republic of China could no longer protect the security, dignity, and international personality of the people of Taiwan, then that shell would gradually lose its practical legitimacy.

Nevertheless, from my perspective, while Taiwan's search for a clearer political identity is understandable, the Republic of China remains a valuable constitutional and historical asset whose significance should not be casually dismissed.

II. From Intersubjectivity to Intersubjective Symbiosis:

A Theoretical Breakthrough Beyond Binary Thinking

To explore the possibility of mutual legal recognition across the Taiwan Strait, we must introduce a new philosophical framework:

Intersubjective Symbiosis.

For centuries, human political thought has largely been dominated by binary modes of reasoning.

Even though modern philosophy has developed increasingly sophisticated theories of intersubjectivity—from Edmund Husserl's phenomenology and Maurice Merleau-Ponty's embodied consciousness to Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action and Emmanuel Levinas's ethics of the Other—these approaches often remain incomplete when confronted with contemporary geopolitical conflicts.

Pluralism, multiculturalism, and ecological thinking have undoubtedly expanded human understanding.

Yet they frequently stop at tolerance, coexistence, and mutual non-interference.

As a result, humanity continues to witness recurring conflicts among civilizations, nations, ethnic groups, and ideological systems.

The wars in Ukraine, Gaza, the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere remind us that recognition alone is insufficient.

What remains absent is a normative framework capable of transforming coexistence into genuine mutual flourishing.

This is where Intersubjective Symbiosis departs from conventional intersubjectivity.

The first principle is straightforward:

A stronger political entity must never regard a weaker one as an extension of itself, an object to be controlled, or a possession to be absorbed.

The second principle is more profound:

Human relationships must evolve beyond the binary structure of "you and me" toward a triadic structure of:

You within Me, Me within Him, and Him within You.

Within the cross-Strait context:

• You represent the governing authority of the PRC.

• I represent the governing authority of the ROC.

• He/They represent the people, enterprises, communities, political organizations, and civic associations on both sides of the Strait.

None of these actors should ever become objects.

Each possesses independent subjectivity, intrinsic dignity, and an irreplaceable role within a larger symbiotic system.

For the first time in intellectual history, we can therefore articulate a coherent philosophical paradigm of Intersubjective Symbiosis.

This paradigm transcends both traditional sovereignty absolutism and the limitations of passive pluralism.

It offers a pathway toward a deeper reconstruction of recognition, responsibility, and coexistence.

Three Stages of Political Cognition and Recognition

Stage One: The Zero-Sum Myth

The parties refuse to acknowledge each other's legitimate existence.

Politics becomes dominated by propaganda, sovereignty claims, and efforts to delegitimize the other side.

Society itself becomes objectified.

People are reduced to instruments of state narratives.

This is the lingering logic of civil war.

Stage Two: Recognition Through Separation

The parties recognize each other's existence while maintaining clear boundaries and limited interaction.

Historical examples include:

• The 1972 Basic Treaty between East and West Germany.

• The evolving constitutional framework between North and South Korea.

This stage represents a major civilizational advance because it abandons fantasies of total victory and begins to respect the subjectivity of the other side.

Stage Three: Intersubjective Symbiosis

The highest stage introduces the principle that sovereignty resides in the people.

Governments no longer monopolize political legitimacy.

Instead, people, enterprises, communities, and social organizations become active participants in shaping the future.

Recognition evolves into mutual empowerment.

Coexistence evolves into symbiosis.

III. Empirical Foundations:

The Silicon Shield and the Symbiotic Reality of Cross-Strait Society

The strongest evidence supporting a symbiotic framework already exists.

It is neither theoretical nor hypothetical.

It is the deeply integrated network of enterprises, supply chains, technological innovation, and social interaction that has emerged across the Taiwan Strait.

1. Structural Coupling in the Semiconductor Ecosystem

Taiwan's semiconductor industry, represented most prominently by TSMC, has become one of humanity's most sophisticated technological ecosystems.

At the same time, the Mainland's private-sector manufacturing base, application markets, engineering talent, and entrepreneurial networks have evolved into indispensable partners within the broader system.

Neither side can be fully understood in isolation.

Taiwan's advanced semiconductor production relies upon extensive industrial collaboration and market integration.

Likewise, Mainland China's technological modernization has benefited enormously from Taiwan's technological expertise and investment.

Together they have created one of the world's most densely interconnected industrial ecosystems.

This is not merely economic interdependence.

It is structural coupling.

It is a living example of:

You within Me, Me within Him, and Him within You.

2. Opposing the Objectification of Social and Industrial Self-Organization

The greatest danger facing cross-Strait relations today is that governments increasingly seek to instrumentalize, manipulate, or even destroy these highly evolved networks.

Certain nationalist narratives on the Mainland treat Taiwan's technological achievements as future spoils of political reunification.

Meanwhile, some extreme voices in the West and Taiwan have openly proposed the destruction of Taiwan's semiconductor infrastructure in the event of war.

Both positions violate the fundamental principles of Intersubjective Symbiosis.

Enterprises, communities, and social organizations possess independent evolutionary rights.

They are not military assets.

They are not bargaining chips.

They are not objects.

Rather, they constitute the strongest foundation for peace across the Taiwan Strait.

The purpose of mutual legal recognition should therefore be to create a cross-Strait covenant of security and protection for these symbiotic actors.

Only by safeguarding them can a peaceful future remain possible.

IV. Three New Pathways Toward Cross-Strait Reconstruction

From the perspective of Intersubjective Symbiosis, three potential pathways emerge.

Each seeks to move beyond the traditional binary of unification versus independence.

Each seeks to transform governmental rivalry into a higher form of symbiotic coexistence.

Pathway One:

The Matrix Model — Phenomenological Suspension

The first approach permanently suspends the unresolved dispute over ultimate sovereignty.

Rather than attempting to resolve metaphysical claims of exclusive ownership, both sides would focus on recognizing each other's effective jurisdiction and administrative authority.

The objective is not governmental compromise for its own sake.

The objective is to create institutional space in which society, markets, enterprises, and communities may interact freely.

Over time, the reality of symbiosis would become stronger than political hostility.

Political convergence, if it occurs at all, would emerge organically rather than through coercion.

Pathway Two:

A Special Framework of Mutual State Recognition

The second approach draws inspiration from both the German experience and the evolving Korean model.

The PRC and ROC would mutually recognize each other as sovereign governing entities while establishing a unique legal arrangement acknowledging their shared civilizational heritage.

This would not be a relationship between hostile foreign states.

Rather, it would constitute a special form of mutual recognition within a broader Chinese cultural sphere.

Such an arrangement could dramatically reduce existential insecurity on both sides while providing robust legal protection for cross-Strait economic, technological, and social cooperation.

The ultimate purpose would not be separation.

The ultimate purpose would be security, dignity, and coexistence.

Pathway Three:

The Cathay Commonwealth

The third and most ambitious pathway represents the highest institutional expression of Intersubjective Symbiosis.

Under this model, the PRC and ROC would jointly establish a new, non-centralized supranational framework:

The Cathay Commonwealth.

Within this arrangement, neither Beijing nor Taipei would occupy a superior position.

Both would participate as founding member states of equal dignity.

The Commonwealth would not seek to abolish sovereignty.

Instead, sovereignty would be transformed from a zero-sum territorial claim into a shared structure of rights and responsibilities.

Governments would return to their proper role:

serving society rather than dominating it.

Meanwhile, citizens, enterprises, communities, and civic organizations would become the primary engines of innovation, ecological stewardship, cultural development, and economic cooperation.

Institutional diversity would cease to be a source of conflict.

It would become a source of resilience.

In this way, cross-Strait relations could eventually realize the ideal expressed in Chinese civilization:

Appreciating one's own beauty, appreciating the beauty of others, and together creating a harmonious symbiotic civilization.

Conclusion:

Only Through Self-Transcendence Can Freedom Through Symbiosis Be Achieved

The philosophy of Intersubjective Symbiosis offers a pathway beyond the lingering shadows of civil war and Cold War confrontation.

History demonstrates that Taiwan's constitutional transformation during 1990–1991 embodied a profound act of political self-transcendence.

It liberated the creative energies of society and allowed democratic institutions to flourish.

The deeper tragedy of subsequent decades lies in the fact that many political actors have remained trapped within the older logic of absolute selfhood:

I am absolute, therefore the Other must submit.

Yet the experiences of Germany and Korea demonstrate that mutual recognition is not weakness.

It is the indispensable foundation of modern political civilization.

Still, recognition alone is not enough.

The ultimate future of cross-Strait relations will not be determined by which government prevails over another.

Rather, it will depend upon whether all parties can embrace the principles of Intersubjective Symbiosis.

The government of the PRC.

The government of the ROC.

Every enterprise.

Every community.

Every citizen.

All are irreplaceable subjects within a larger human story.

Whoever first changes their way of thinking and their value orientation will gain the strategic initiative.

Only by abandoning manipulation, embracing genuine dialogue, and reaffirming the modern principle that sovereignty resides in the people can both sides move beyond the ruins of Cold War thinking.

Only then can they enter the open horizon of Globalization 3.0 and journey together toward a freer and more symbiotic future.