Though applicable in many Western historical-cultural settings, the Aristotelian model of ethos is not universal. As early Chinese rhetoric shows in the example of cheng-yan or “ethos of sincereness,” inspiring trust does not necessarily involve a process of character-based self-projection. In the Aristotelian model, the rhetor stands as a signifier of ethos, with an ideology of individualism privileged, whereas Chinese rhetoric assumes a collectivist model in which ethos belongs, not to an individual or a text, but rather to culture and cultural tradition. This essay will be concentrating on the concept of Heaven, central to the cultural and institutional systems of early Chinese society, in an attempt to explore collective ethos as a function of cultural heritage. Heaven, it shall be argued, plays a key role in the creation of Chinese ethos. This essay will also contrast the logocentrism of Western rhetorical tradition with the ethnocentrism of Chinese tradition. The significance of Heaven in its role as a defining attribute of Chinese ethos is reflective of a unique cultural heritage shaped by a collective human desire in seeking a consciousness of unity with the universe. Just as there are historical, cultural, and philosophical reasons behind logocentrism in the West, so the ethnocentric turn of Chinese rhetoric should be appreciated in light of a cultural tradition that carries its own historical complexities and philosophical intricacies.

University of Texas (RGV), Texas, USA While over two thousand years apart, Western postmodernism and ancient Chinese philosophy share some extraordinary similarities, especially epistemology wise. For example, they both recognize the role of language in constructing, and limiting, knowledge and reality. This is because thinkers of different cultures and geographical regions, and of different historical periods, can possibly come up with similar philosophical conclusions when addressing what is commonly known as the "human condition". The paper will discuss, in general terms, some of the philosophical similarities between postmodernism and classical Chinese philosophy; it will also take a close look at three concepts in Chinese philosophy that register strong affinity with Western postmodernism: namely, change, dialectic, and relativism.

No abstract

Classical Chinese texts, written (mostly) on bamboo strips, have some features that are generally attributed to the uniqueness of modern electronic hypertext, such as non-linear, open-ended, multi-accentual, interactive, and networked, hence the term "bamboo hypertext". Underlying those textual features is the collective workmanship characteristic of text production in ancient China. For example, Laozi's Dao De Jing and Confucius' Lun Yu (Analects) are actually compilations of writings produced and reproduced by generations of disciples over a span of decades or even centuries. While the texts bore the name of Laozi or Confucius as its official author, the master himself may never have contributed a single written word to the collection. In short, individual authorship/ownership of the text is basically a non-issue when it comes to the notion of collective workmanship embodied in bamboo hypertext. Bamboo hypertext also fits into a rhetorical tradition that operates on a different philosophical basis. The fluidity of classical Chinese rhetoric is made possible by the fluidity of production and transformation of bamboo texts, as the latter imposes no physical limits on the motion of rhetoric. On the other hand, bamboo hypertext thrives also because of the open-ended, anti-logical nature of classical Chinese rhetoric, which, without suffering damages to textual "integrity", permits-and sustains-fragmentation, continual transformation of text, reader/writer interaction, disruption of textual sequence, etc., features typically associated with the modern-day hypertext.

The article explores some of the important features of pre-Qin Chinese rhetoric and challenges it poses to traditional Western rhetoric, with the former being seen as harmonic or self-effacing for its purpose and paradoxical for its epistemological underpinning. The author does not intend to suggest that the Chinese tradition is the right path to rhetoric, but at least it points to an alternative to approaching this language art as defined by Aristotle.