時(shí)空對(duì)望三千里

朱鳳娟

浙黔兩地的文化擁抱

黔、浙兩地，從古至今，往來不斷，其歷史文化淵源如長(zhǎng)江之水，浩蕩綿延。著名哲學(xué)家王陽明出生于浙江、悟道于貴州，成為聯(lián)系兩地文化、學(xué)術(shù)的重要紐帶。上世紀(jì)40年代，抗日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間的浙大西遷，又一次帶來兩地的文化擁抱。

一個(gè)是原生態(tài)文化鏡像燦爛多彩，一個(gè)是人文氣象繁盛歷史積淀深厚。兩個(gè)特色鮮明的地域文化的每一次相遇攜手，都開出異常鮮艷的文化之花。尤其是近年來，浙江省和貴州省打破空間距離，在經(jīng)濟(jì)、教育、衛(wèi)生、科技、旅游等方面展開了充分合作，雙方正攜手并肩織出一方璀璨錦繡。

兩地的交往脈絡(luò)，在浙江省文史研究館館員、浙江省儒學(xué)會(huì)執(zhí)行會(huì)長(zhǎng)吳光看來，其實(shí)就是一種財(cái)富。2006年秋，他隨團(tuán)赴黔采風(fēng)，與貴州省文史研究館同仁進(jìn)行深度交流，兩地合作的種子悄然萌芽。

2013年5月，吳光應(yīng)邀到貴州講學(xué)，了解到貴州省和貴陽市對(duì)王陽明和陽明學(xué)非常重視，遂在5個(gè)月后再次去游學(xué)，更真切地感受到貴州省對(duì)于弘揚(yáng)中華優(yōu)秀傳統(tǒng)文化特別是陽明學(xué)的重視與熱誠。當(dāng)了解到王陽明學(xué)說中的“知行合一”和“親民”思想在貴陽深入人心，并已成為貴陽的城市精神，他深為感慨。在與貴州同仁的座談中，他提出兩館合作創(chuàng)辦兩省文化論壇的設(shè)想。吳光的想法是：“論壇將以‘知行合一、精誠合作、弘道興文、開創(chuàng)新局為指導(dǎo)思想，依托地方歷史文化資源，通過黔、浙兩地歷史文化的學(xué)術(shù)交流合作，助推兩省文化建設(shè)，促進(jìn)中華優(yōu)秀傳統(tǒng)文化的傳承與傳播。”

貴州省文史研究館館長(zhǎng)顧久說，從歷史來看，黔、浙兩省有著很深的歷史和文化淵源。特別是王明陽和陽明學(xué)，是兩省共同的文化資源和永恒話題。文史館為傳承民族記憶，深感責(zé)任重大。

為建立兩省長(zhǎng)期的文化交流合作機(jī)制，“浙黔文化合作論壇”應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。由浙江、貴州兩省文史館共同主辦、兩省儒學(xué)研究機(jī)構(gòu)協(xié)辦，社會(huì)各界參與的省際文化合作交流平臺(tái)，在“時(shí)空對(duì)望三千里”的浙江和貴州，輪流舉行。

此前，“浙黔文化合作論壇”已在貴州貴陽舉辦兩屆。第一屆主題是“文化中國(guó)：時(shí)代的使命與學(xué)者的承擔(dān)”，第二屆主題是“陽明學(xué)的當(dāng)代價(jià)值與傳承創(chuàng)新”。

研討新的傳承和弘揚(yáng)

2016年10月27日，第三屆“浙黔文化合作論壇”在杭州開幕。本屆論壇圍繞“新農(nóng)村文化建設(shè)探討”和“陽明學(xué)的理論與實(shí)踐研討”兩個(gè)主題展開交流研討，邀請(qǐng)了國(guó)內(nèi)農(nóng)村文化建設(shè)領(lǐng)域和陽明學(xué)研究領(lǐng)域的20余位專家、學(xué)者參加，旨在為探索城鄉(xiāng)一體化進(jìn)程中新農(nóng)村文化發(fā)展趨勢(shì)和弘揚(yáng)“知行合一”人文精神提供有價(jià)值的思考和建議。

在“新農(nóng)村文化建設(shè)探討”上，與會(huì)專家學(xué)者運(yùn)用“知行合一”理論，傳承“知行合一”思想，強(qiáng)調(diào)“經(jīng)世致用”，從多方面多角度分析、討論了當(dāng)前農(nóng)村文化發(fā)展的現(xiàn)狀、問題和趨勢(shì)，探索新農(nóng)村文化建設(shè)的路徑。

浙江省文史館館員邵鴻烈對(duì)以前的貴州之行依舊印象深刻，他認(rèn)為，在新農(nóng)村建設(shè)方面浙江和貴州正好是“發(fā)展的兩極”，如何推動(dòng)新農(nóng)村建設(shè)，把“美麗資源”轉(zhuǎn)換為“美麗經(jīng)濟(jì)”，貴州可以從浙江得到啟示；而如何在社會(huì)流動(dòng)變化中守護(hù)傳統(tǒng)鄉(xiāng)土文化，浙江需要向貴州尋找經(jīng)驗(yàn)。浙江省委黨校副教授董敬畏則認(rèn)為，從浙江和貴州兩省的交流中，我們需要更多關(guān)注城鎮(zhèn)化背景下鄉(xiāng)村文化的凋敝、鄉(xiāng)民生活的困頓、鄉(xiāng)民對(duì)于鄉(xiāng)村及生活意義的認(rèn)同，關(guān)注鄉(xiāng)民的生活自覺而非單純的經(jīng)濟(jì)理性。

在“陽明學(xué)的理論與實(shí)踐”研討中，與會(huì)專家一致認(rèn)為，傳承與弘揚(yáng)陽明學(xué)，必須與新的社會(huì)歷史發(fā)展條件相結(jié)合。當(dāng)前，以社會(huì)主義核心價(jià)值觀為引領(lǐng)，傳承與弘揚(yáng)中華民族優(yōu)秀傳統(tǒng)文化，實(shí)現(xiàn)中華民族偉大復(fù)興，必須堅(jiān)定文化自信。王陽明及其創(chuàng)立的心學(xué)在中國(guó)思想史上占有重要地位，是中華民族優(yōu)秀的精神財(cái)富，值得不斷發(fā)掘，特別是其“知行觀”所蘊(yùn)含的道德追求和實(shí)踐品格，激勵(lì)我們結(jié)合新的時(shí)代條件去傳承和弘揚(yáng)優(yōu)秀的傳統(tǒng)文化及價(jià)值理念。

一種觀點(diǎn)或思想，其根本、永恒的價(jià)值，在于走進(jìn)百姓生活并存留其間，進(jìn)而影響大眾、服務(wù)社會(huì)。傳播國(guó)學(xué)精粹，編織觀點(diǎn)碰撞、和聲四起的文化新景觀，與正在開展的兩省經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)、生態(tài)文化活動(dòng)形成呼應(yīng)之態(tài)，“時(shí)空對(duì)望三千里”的文化鏡像，折射出東、西部對(duì)文化的共同渴望和對(duì)開放合作的同樣期許。

（本文照片由作者提供）

Zhejiang in the east and Guizhou in the southwest have been engaged in cultural exchanges since ancient times even though the two provinces are 1，500 kilometers away from each other. Wang Yangming， a native of Zhejiang， figured out his philosophy at Guizhou and from there he found his way into the history of Chinese philosophy. He is a strong academic and cultural tie between the two provinces. In the 1940s， Guizhou served as the wartime haven for the Zhejiang University in exile. The two provinces embraced each other and enriched each other through this contact.

In recent years， the two provinces have intensified efforts to strengthen cooperation in economy， education， public health， science， technology， and tourism.

Wu Guang， a researcher with Zhejiang Research Institute of Culture and History and executive director of Zhejiang Confucianism Association， has been personally engaged in cultural exchanges and cooperation with Guizhou for a long time. In his eye， the ties between the two provinces constitute a cultural wealth. In the autumn of 2006， he visited Guizhou and conducted in-depth academic exchanges with his colleagues at Guizhou Research Institute of History and Culture.

In May 2013， he was invited to give lectures in Guizhou. During that stay， he became aware that Guizhou Province and Guiyang City gave top priorities to Wang Yangming and the studies of his philosophy. Five months later， he arrived in Guizhou again to give more lectures. In a workshop with his colleagues in Guizhou， he proposed that the two institutes work together and found a joint cultural forum.

His colleagues in Guizhou agreed with Wu on the importance of Wang Yangming and of the studies of Wangs philosophy. The forum came into being to promote academic and cultural ties between the two provinces. The forum has been held in Guizhou twice. The theme featured at the first forum was “Chinas Culture： Scholars Mission and Responsibility”. The second forum explored as its theme “the Contemporary Value of Wang Yangmings Philosophy and Innovation in Carrying it Forward”.

October 27， 2016 witness the curtains raising on the Third Zhejiang-Guizhou Cultural Forum in Hangzhou. Experts from the two provinces focused on two subjects. One was about rural cultural reconstruction and the other was about the theory and practice of Wang Yangmings philosophy. Over more than 20 experts from across the country were also invited to attend the forum too.

Shao Honglie， a member of Zhejiang Research Institute of History and Culture， was deeply impressed by his previous visits to Guizhou. In his opinion， Zhejiang and Guizhou saw different growth situations in rural reconstruction. Guizhou could learn something from Zhejiang in making best economic use of the resources of natural beauty whereas Zhejiang could tap into the experience of its counterpart in protecting the native and rural culture.

Dong Jingwei， an associate professor with Zhejiang Party School， believed that the focus of the cultural cooperation and exchanges between the two provinces should be on urgent rural issues such as the decline of rural culture in the trend of urbanization， rural residents identification with rural home and life， and the economic rationality and life consciousness of rural residents.

In discussion of the theory and practice of Wang Yangmings philosophy， participants agreed that studies and social undertakings that put study results to action must be considered and handled in the perspective on social and historical realities.