The Moral Dimension of Qiyun Aesthetics and Some Resonances with Kant and Schiller

RESEARCH ARTICLE The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics and Some Resonances wi h Kan and Schille Xiaoyan Hu Sou heas Uni e si y, Nanjing, CN [email protected] In his pape , I sugges ha he no ion o qiyun ( qi : spi i ; yun : consonance) in he con ex o landscape pain ing in ol es a mo al dimension. The Con ucian doc ine o since i y in ol ed in b inging he landscapis ’s o audience’s mind in acco d wi h he Dao unde pins he mo al dimension o spi i ual communion be ween a is , objec , audience, and wo k. By p ojec ing Kan ’s and Schille ’s concep ions o aes- he ic au onomy and he mo al ele ance o a on o he qiyun - ocused con ex , we see ha he e lec ion on pa allels and di e ences be ween he wo cul u al adi ions helps o be e unde s and he mo al dimension o qiyun aes he ics. Keywo ds: qiyun ; shenhui (spi i ual communion); Con ucian doc ine o since i y; mo al ele ance o a ; Kan ; Schille I has been a gued ha he no ion o qiyun (spi i consonance) in Chinese pain ing is me ely an aes he ic c i e ion, no ele an o mo al enligh enmen , and ha aes he ic au onomy and mo al cul i a ion a e wo dispa a e ca ego ies.1 In his pape , I a gue ha his is a mis ake. I a emp o show why qiyun in he con ex o landscape pain ing should no be ega ded me ely as an aes he ic c i e ion, and ha i embodies a dimension o mo al cul i a- ion h ough spi i ual communion be ween a is , objec , audience, and wo k. In Sec ion I, I i s show ha he no ion o qiyun, as applied by he en h-cen u y landscap- is and heo is Jing Hao in landscape pain ing, and u he de eloped by he No he n Song a his o ian Guo Ruoxu (c. 1080) and he ea ly Yuan connoisseu Tang Hou (c. 1255 – c. 1317), in ol es a mo al dimension. Then, I mo e on o poin ou ha he mo al ele ance o qiyun- ocused landscape pain ing is e lec ed in hese wo aspec s: (i) he way landscap- is s and audiences con empla e he wo ld and seek spi i ual communion wi h i , and (ii) he expe ience o (Con ucian) since i y (cheng), which leads kind ed minds o achie e spi i ual 1 The no ion o qiyun, o iginally p oposed by Xie He (ac i e 500 – c. 535) in his six laws o Chinese pain ing, can be in e p e ed as ha ing ou dimensions: whe e he p ocess o c ea ion by pain e s is conce ned, qiyun e e s o he essen ial quali y o he objec depic ed; once he pain e eleases he b ush o comple e a wo k, qiyun becomes he exp essi e quali y o con en o he wo k; he abili y o c ea e a pain ing eple e wi h qiyun is ela ed o he a is ’s qiyun; and qiyun implies he spi i ual communion and sympa he ic esponse be ween a is , objec depic ed, wo k, and audience. Fo a de ailed analysis, see Xiaoyan Hu, ‘The No ion o “Qi Yun” (Spi i Consonance) in Chinese Pain ing’, P oceedings o he Eu opean Socie y o Aes he ics 8 (2016): 247–68. Hu, Xiaoyan. ‘The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics and Some Resonances wi h Kan and Schille .’ Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics LVIII/XIV, no. 2 (2021): pp.129–143. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/eeja.230 ESTETIKA THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics130 communion and esonance du ing a is ic p ac ice o app ecia ion. In Sec ion II, I examine he e icacy o p ojec ing Kan ’s and Schille ’s concep ions o aes he ic au onomy and he mo al ele ance o a on o a qiyun- ocused landscape pain ing con ex , and show ha he di e ences and pa allels be ween he wo cul u al adi ions help us be e unde s and he mo al dimension o qiyun aes he ics, assess p oblems wi h ea lie Chinese schola s’ adop ion o Kan ian ideas in hei w i ings on he Chinese aes he ic adi ion, and illumina e some limi a ions o Kan ian aes he ics. I. Qiyun , Spi i ual Kinship, and Since e Will In p oposing he no ion o qiyun in his six laws o pain ing in he con ex o igu e pain ing, Xie He does no gi e i a mo al dimension. Howe e , ha dimension o qiyun does ea u e in ex s w i en by Jing Hao, Guo Ruoxu, and Tang Hou. In Jing Hao’s No es on he A o B ush (Bi a Ji), he applica ion o qiyun in landscape pain ing in ol es a mo al dimension ela ing o he qiyun o depic ed na u al objec s.2 He belie es ha na u al objec s such as pine ees sha e congenial a ibu es wi h he i uous, a iew ha can be aced back o Con ucius, who says ha ‘ he Vi ue o a gen leman is like he wind, and he Vi ue o a pe y pe son is like he g ass – when he wind mo es o e he g ass, he g ass is su e o bend’.3 Jing Hao also sugges s ha cap u ing he objec ’s zhen (in e nal eali y), embodied h ough qi and yun, equi es and accompanies he mo al cul i a ion o he landscapis , and claims ha , since ‘limi less desi e is a h ea o li e’, by i ue o enjoying playing he qin lu e, callig aphy, and pain ing, wise people eplace wo hless desi es wi h he wo hy play o a .4 Be o e Jing Hao, he Tang a his o ian and c i ic Zhang Yanyuan (847) ollows Xie He’s six laws in his Reco d o he Famous Pain e s o Successi e Dynas ies (Lidai Minghua Ji). In his w i ing on he o igin o Chinese pain ing, he ci es he Han schola Lu Ji’s (261‒303) claim ha ‘ he ise o pain ings is like ha o sac i icial hymns and songs, o celeb a e g ea deeds’, since his o ical igu es and e en s we e popula subjec ma e a he ini ial s age o pain ing.5 Howe e , Zhang Yanyuan nei- he hinks ha he landscapes in he pain ings he has seen ha e qiyun, no does he di ec ly endow qiyun wi h a mo al dimension. Guo Ruoxu echoes Zhang Yanyuan in claiming ha pain ings depic ing sages and wo hies o eco ding mo al igu es’ his o ical s o ies di ec ly se e he mo al unc ion o ‘[app aising] c i ically hei wo h o olly o [shedding] ligh on hei s abili y o diso de ’ by eminding obse e s o he mo al impo ance o he models.6 Zhang Yanyuan’s classi ica ion o he wo kinds o people capable o mas e pieces (‘nobles wi h o icial posi ions’ and ‘ a e schola s and lo y-minded men’) appea s o ha e inspi ed Guo Ruoxu’s iew ha pain ings eple e wi h qiyun we e usually c ea ed by ‘ alen ed wo hies o high posi ion o supe io gen lemen in e i emen , who clea ed o lo ing-kindness and sough enjoymen in he a s’ and lodged lo y and e ined emo ions wi hin hei wo ks.7 Fo Guo Ruoxu, he las i e laws by Xie He a e ‘open o s udy’, while qiyun ‘necessa ily in ol es an inna e knowledge; i assu edly canno be secu ed h ough cle e ness o close applica ion, no will ime aid i s a ainmen . I is an unspoken acco d, a spi i ual communion [shenhui]; “some hing ha happens wi hou one’s 2 See Kiyohiko Munaka a, Ching Hao’s Pi- a-chi: A No e on he A o B ush (Ascona: A ibus Asiae, 1974), 13–14. 3 See Edwa d Slinge land, ans., Con ucius: The Essen ial Analec s; Selec ed Passages wi h T adi ional Commen a y (Indianapolis: Hacke , 2006), 36 (Analec s 12.19). 4 Susan Bush and Hsio-yen Shih, eds., Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Uni e si y P ess, 2012), 141, 146. 5 Chang Yen-yuan, ‘Reco d o Famous Pain ings o A. D. 841’, in The Chinese Theo y o A : T ansla ions om he Mas e s o Chinese A , ans. Lin Yu ang (London: Heinemann, 1967), 45. 6 Bush and Shih, Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing, 93. 7 Ibid., 86, 95–96. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics 131 knowing how”.’8 Unlike Jing Hao, who sugges s ha he mo al dimension o qiyun is in he na u al objec , Guo Ruoxu links he mo al dimension o qiyun o he inna e men al alen o he pain e , de e mining his compe ence o c ea e a pain ing eple e wi h qiyun. Tha is, o Guo Ruoxu, he mo al dimension o qiyun di ec ly ela es o he a is ’s cha ac e , a he han o he objec depic ed. Two cen u ies la e , Tang Hou does no claim ha qiyun- ocused a is ic c ea ion and app e- cia ion equi e mo al cul i a ion, as bo h Jing Hao and Guo Ruoxu sugges , ye one may see om his C i icism o Pain ing (Huajian) ha hese poin s a e no excluded om his ideas o qiyun as he i s c i e ion o pain ing connoisseu ship. He echoes Guo Ruoxu’s iew in his ecogni ion o pain ing as ‘playing wi h b ush and ink in which lo y-minded men and supe- io schola s ha e lodged hei exhila a ion and ske ched ideas’.9 In ligh o Jing Hao’s iew o he mo al dimension o he qiyun o na u al objec s and Guo Ruoxu’s sugges ion o he a is ’s mo al cul i a ion, p ac ised h ough shenhui (spi i ual communion) wi h he objec , one can unde s and mo e deeply why Tang Hou pe suades people bo n in o good amilies o lea n o app ecia e callig aphy and pain ing. In gene al, conside ing ha Jing Hao, Guo Ruoxu, and Tang Hou a e all amilia wi h he Con ucian ad ocacy o he (mo al) cul i a ion o mind as he basis o human social li e, one can easily de ec a ough con inui y be ween hem ega ding he mo al dimension o qiyun. One may wonde how mo al cul i a ion, as implied by Jing Hao, u he sugges ed by Guo Ruoxu and echoed by Tang Hou, is in olun a ily ealized in, o a leas accompanies, he p ac ice o c ea ing (and app ecia ing) a pain ing eple e wi h qiyun. As we ha e seen, Guo Ruoxu insis s ha c ea ing a pain ing eple e wi h qiyun equi es shenhui be ween a is and objec . Tha is, aluing qiyun abo e o mal esemblance equi es he a is o seek o expe ience he congenial- i y and esonance wi h he objec a he le el o spi i -ene gy.10 Fo ins ance, o pain ing bam- boo, spi i ual acco d and mo al kinship need o be cul i a ed be ween a is and objec , so as o cap u e i s in e nal ea u es o humili y, ec i ude, up igh ness, and chas i y. I should be no ed he e ha we canno simply ega d cap u ing he qiyun o he na u al objec as he imposi ion o p ojec ion o human cha ac e is ics on o na u e, as his would dis o ou unde s anding o he equal and ha monious ela ionship be ween a is and na u al objec (in bo h Con ucian hough and Daois philosophy). As Tu Wei-ming says abou ganying being analogous o shenhui, The unc ion o ‘a ec and esponse’ (ganying) cha ac e izes na u e as a g ea ha mony and so in o ms he mind. The mind o ms a union wi h na u e by ex ending i sel me onymically. I s aes he ic app ecia ion o na u e is nei he an app op ia ion o he objec by he subjec no an imposi ion o he subjec on he objec , bu he me ging o he sel in o an expanded eali y h ough ans o ma ion and pa icipa ion.11 The spi i ual communion may occu when he a is pain s a landscape in a spi i o e - e ence h ough an in o e i e con empla ion. As Guo Ruoxu’s con empo a y, landscap- is and heo is Guo Xi (1000–1090) sugges s, bo h a is and audience should look a landscape ‘wi h a hea [xin] in une wi h o es and s eam’ a he han ‘wi h he eyes o 8 Ibid., 95. 9 Ibid., 261. 10 James Cahill no es ha Mencius ega ds eading li e a y wo ks as a means o building he eelings o a ini y wi h he schola s o an iqui y, and his a ini y is based on wha la e people call ‘shenhui’; see his ‘Con ucian Elemen s in he Theo y o Pain ing’, in Con ucianism and Chinese Ci iliza ion, ed. A hu W igh (S an o d, CA: S an o d Uni e si y P ess, 1959), 87. 11 Tu Wei-ming, ‘The Con inui y o Being: Chinese Visions o Na u e’, in Chinese Aes he ics and Li e a u e: A Reade , ed. Co inne H. Dale (Albany: S a e Uni e si y o New Yo k P ess, 2004), 37. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics132 a ogance and ex a agance’.12 Ha ing hea -mind in une wi h o es and s eam means pu i ying and emancipa ing he mind as demanded by aes he ic au onomy. This men al pu i ica ion appea s o ha e mo al signi icance. Acco ding o Guo Xi, when looking a na u al objec s wi hou an app op ia e men al s a e, one will no disco e he alue o he landscape. Al hough he does no apply he e minology o qiyun, he implies ha mo al sel -cul i a ion is achie ed h ough in ui i e comp ehension and abso bed con empla ion in bo h a is ic c ea ion and app ecia ion. He echoes Guo Ruoxu’s iew ha he a is builds an e ec i e sympa he ic esonance wi h he objec h ough in ui i e engagemen , and he mo al cul i a ion o mind is conduc ed in olun a ily in he p ocess o c ea ing a wo k eple e wi h qiyun. In con empla ing a pain ing, audiences also echo he mood o he pain ing ini ially c ea ed by he pain e , as i loca ing hemsel es in moun ains and enjoying he pleasu e o a elling o es s and wa e s. As Guo Xi sugges s, ‘[looking] a a pa icula [landscape] pain ing [a ouses you ] co esponding [y, which may be ansla ed as ‘idea’]. You seem in ac o be in hose moun ains. This is he [yi] o a pain ing beyond i s me e scene y.’13 The imagina i e e oca- ion o pic o ial yi (analogous o Kan ’s aes he ic idea) plays a key ole in his con empla i e p ocess.14 No ma e how long ago he wo k was c ea ed, h ough con empla i e engagemen iewe s may achie e a congenial spi i ual acco d wi h he objec and eel a sense o a ini y o communion wi h an a is o like mind. Wha philosophical ideas unde pin he mo al ele ance o spi i ual kinship and eso- nance be ween a is , objec , audience, and wo k? Inspi ed by Cahill’s discussion o pain - ing as a e lec ion o neo-Con ucian cheng (since i y) in Song schola -a is s’ aes he ics, I sugges ha cheng, alued as a basic equi emen o schola s cul i a ing he mind in acco d wi h he Dao, may help us unde s and he mo al signi icance o he spi i ual a ini y be ween a is , objec , audience, and wo k unde he no ion o shenhui.15As Guo Ruoxu’s con empo a y, neo-Con ucian schola Zhou Dunyi (1017–73), claims, ‘sagehood is simply a ma e o since i y, […] since i y is he ounda ion o he i e i ues, and he sou ce o all i uous conduc ’.16 In he ligh o he Con ucian philosophy o since i y, a pain ing by a pu e and lo y mind is ‘a e lec ion o his since i y’.17 When o ming he men al image o he objec depic ed in his un ammelled imagina i e e oca ion and eleasing he pic o- ial yi (idea) o yixiang (idea-image) in o he inal images eple e wi h qiyun, he since e Con ucian a is achie es a men al ca ha sis and cul i a es his mo al sen imen s along wi h o ge ing he hind ances o all sensuous desi es. This men al s a e is wha Zhou Dunyi desc ibes in Tong Shu: Wuyu [no desi e] esul s in acui y when in quiescence, and s aigh o wa dness when in mo emen . Vacui y in quiescence leads o enligh enmen , and enligh enmen leads 12 Bush and Shih, Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing, 151. Xin is o en ansla ed as ‘mind’ o ‘hea -mind’. I li e ally e e s o he hea as a physical o gan, hough o schola s i is ela i ely uncon o e sial ha xin may also e e o no only he locus o emo ions, eeling, and desi es, bu also he cen e o pe cep ion, in ui ion, imagina ion, unde s anding, easoning, and cogni ion ypically associa ed wi h he English wo d ‘mind’; see Edwa d Sling- e land, ‘Body and Mind in Ea ly China: An In eg a ed Humani ies-Science App oach’, Jou nal o he Ame ican Academy o Religion 81 (2013): 8. 13 Bush and Shih, Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing, 151, 153–54, wi h modi ica ions. 14 Fo pa allels and di e ences be ween pic o ial yi and Kan ’s aes he ic idea, see Xiaoyan Hu, ‘Genius as an Inna e Men al Talen o Idea-Gi ing in Chinese Pain ing and Kan ’, Philosophy Eas and Wes 70 (2020): 354–73. 15 The No he n Song schola Wang Qinchen (ac i e in he ele en h cen u y) echoes his con empo a y Guo Ruoxu’s sugges ion o pain ing as mind-p in and u he sugges s ha he ideal men al s a e o a is le ing he mind be ‘in acco d wi h he Dao’; see Bush and Shih, Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing, 209. 16 Cahill, ‘Con ucian Elemen s in he Theo y o Pain ing’, 96. 17 Ibid. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics 133 o comp ehension. [Likewise] s aigh o wa dness in mo emen leads o impa iali y, and impa iali y leads o uni e sali y.18 He e, one may no e ha , al hough in he qiyun- ocused con ex he men al exe cise endo sed by he Con ucian doc ine o since i y does no ha e in insic mo al alue i sel , i may unsel - consciously enhance he agen ’s mo al sen imen s and cha ac e . Fou cen u ies la e , he Ming neo-Con ucian schola Wang Shou en (1472–1528) u he emphasizes he signi icance o since i y o he Doc ine o he Mean: ‘“Only hose o he u mos Since i y in he wo ld a e able o a hom hei na u es”, and he eby unde s and he ans o ma ions o Hea en and Ea h.’19 Fo him, since i y o hough is necessa ily in ol ed in he p ocess o in es iga ing hings and ex ending knowledge; when hough is o he u mos since i y, he mind is also ec i ied.20 Some migh ind i ha d o unde s and ha since i y is che ished as a basis o i ue in Eas Asia, whe e Con ucian mo al p inciples ha e in luenced people’s mo al judgemen s and conduc o mo e han 2,000 yea s. A. T. Nuyen’s compa ison be ween Kan ian good will and Con ucian since i y (since e will) may help Wes e n eade s unde s and he meaning, cen ali y, and signi icance o since i y o he Chinese (and o he na ionali ies p ac ising Con ucian e hics). As Nuyen a gues, Con ucian since i y o since e will ‘condi ions o he i ues h ough will’ and is ‘equi alen o’ Kan ’s good will, in e ms o ac ing as an essen ial condi ion o o he i ues.21 I ag ee wi h Nuyen ha conduc con o ming o he Con ucian i ues is ‘good only i [i is] exe cised by a pe son wi h since e will’.22 Fo ins ance, i a pe son does no since ely will bene olence bu shows bene olen conduc jus o he sake o epu a ion, gaining us , o any o he pu poses, he o she is no genuinely bene olen . The spi i ual kinship gua an eed by since e will in engaging in he imagina i e e oca ion o idea-images (yixiang) o he objec and he shenhui wi h he objec and he a is explains why he Sou he n Song neo-Con ucian schola Zhu Xi (1130–1200) hinks ha he No he n Song a is Su Shi (1037–1101) esembles hose ‘bamboo gen lemen’ and ‘ ock iends’ in his pain ing and a e ‘a hund ed gene a ions, when men look a his pain ing, hey will s ill be able o see him in hei mind’.23 The yixiang o he objec ini ially anima ed in he pain e ’s mind is e oked in he 18 Quo ed in Fung Yu-lan, A Sho His o y o Chinese Philosophy, ed. De k Bodde (New Yo k: F ee P ess, 1948), 271, wi h bo h my and Fung’s addi ions. He e, we can see ha he emphasis on impa iali y and uni e sali y eso- na es wi h Kan ’s e hics, al hough o Zhou Dunyi such no ions as impa iali y and uni e sali y e e o quali ies o mo al sen imen o cha ac e . 19 Jus in Tiwald and B yan W. Van No den, eds., Readings in La e Chinese Philosophy: Han Dynas y o he 20 h Cen- u y (Indianapolis: Hacke , 2014), 270. Fo he quo e wi hin he quo e and he Sou he n Song neo-Con ucian schola Zhu Xi’s commen a ies on i , see ibid., 229. 20 See Fung, Sho His o y o Chinese Philosophy, 314. 21 A. T. Nuyen, ‘The Kan ian Good Will and he Con ucian Since e Will’, Jou nal o Chinese Philosophy 38 (2011): 526–37. Fo Kan , he pe son o ‘good will’ is he pe son who ac s o he sake o du y – such a pe son’s mo i e o ac ion is de e mined by eason acco ding o he mo al law ha binds all a ional agen s uni e sally a he han by desi e o expec ed consequences o by emo ion, eeling, sen imen , o inclina ion. Kan makes du y ins ead o i ue he undamen al no ion: he good will de ined in e ms o du y is comple ely good in i sel wi hou quali ica ion o limi a ion, and i ue is ‘ he mo al s eng h o a human being’s will in ul illing his du y’. Immanuel Kan , ‘The Me aphysics o Mo als’, in P ac ical Philosophy, ans. Ma y J. G ego (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1996), AA 6:394, 405. One migh hink ha , con a y o Kan ’s du y-based e hics, Con ucian e hics is a i ue-based e hics, and ‘since i y’ signi ies he i ue o such disposi ions as elling he u h. Chung-ying Cheng a gues ha he Con ucian ul ima e p inciple o en (bene olence o humaneness) is ‘ he pe ec i ue o all i ues and also he du y o i ue o all du ies o i ues’; see his ‘Inco po a ing Kan ian Good Will: On Con ucian Ren as Pe ec Du y’, in Cul i a ing Pe sonhood: Kan and Asian Philosophy, ed. S ephen R. Palmquis (Be lin: de G uy e , 2010), 98. Following Chung-ying Cheng’s sugges ion o en as he du y o i ue, he since e will condi ioning en appea s equi alen o Kan ’s good will. 22 Nuyen, ‘Kan ian Good Will’, 532. 23 Bush and Shih, Ea ly Chinese Tex s on Pain ing, 202. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics134 imagina ion o he congenial and ‘since e’ iewe . The congenial and ‘since e’ iewe app ecia es he since i y o he a is con eying qiyun and his emo ions c ys alized in e e y s oke, h ough con empla ing he qiyun o he objec o wo k and ha ing a sympa he ic esonance wi h i . His o he poe ic e lec ion e oked by he qiyun o he wo k enables him o he o eel he sense o a ini y wi h he kind ed spi i (o he objec and o he a is ) con eyed h ough he pain ing. In sum, qiyun- ocused landscape a equi es he a is o ha e spi i ual esonance wi h he objec , and also enables congenial communion be ween a is and spec a o . Mo al cul i a- ion h ough qiyun- ocused landscape a is endo sed by he since i y (condi ioning i ues as explained in Con ucian e hics) in ol ed in he imagina i e e oca ion o idea-images o he na u al objec when he congenial a is is engaging in spi i ual communion wi h he objec , o he congenial audience is sha ing he sense o a ini y wi h he a is and he subjec ma - e o he wo k in aes he ic con empla ion. II. Reconciling Aes he ic Au onomy and Mo al Rele ance As seen abo e, he Con ucian since i y in ol ed in b inging he schola -a is ’s and audience’s mind in acco d wi h he Dao and engaging in shenhui wi h he objec o wo k gua an ees ha he spi i ual a ini y be ween a is , objec , audience, and wo k has a mo al dimension. In his sec ion, I poin ou ha , al hough classical ex s abou qiyun aes he ics w i en on a mo e p agma ic basis sugges ha he Chinese app oach emains ocused on he li ed expe ience and p ac ice o a is s and app ecia o s, and ha he ex s do no p o ide a sys ema ic analy- sis o hese issues, he pa allels and di e ences be ween he Chinese aes he ic adi ion and Kan ’s ideas ega ding he mo al ele ance o a may help us be e unde s and he mo al dimension o qiyun. Al hough by posi ing di e en g ounds o beau y and mo ali y Kan sugges s ha beau y is independen o mo ali y, his accoun s o aes he ic au onomy and he ela ionship be ween beau y and mo ali y do no ule ou he possibili y o mo al cul i a ion h ough a . He sug- ges s ha an in ellec ual in e es in he beau i ul does no con adic his insis ence on he disin e es edness o aes he ic judgemen . Jane Knelle ag ees wi h Ka l Ame iks ha he in ellec ual in e es in he beau i ul ha Kan also calls lo e is ‘a leas an a unemen a o a- ble o mo al eeling’ and sugges s ha , o Kan , ou in ellec ual in e es in he beau i ul (na u e and possibly a as well) is akin o ou mo al in e es in he good, e en hough he o me is ee, analogous o an in ellec ual lo e (which is nei he pa hological no p ac ical), whe eas he la e is based on he a ional law o ca ego ical impe a i e.24 Paul Guye a gues ha , o Kan , aes he ic expe ience has bo h mo al psychological and mo al epis emological ele ance, since aes he ic expe ience ‘se es he pu pose o mo ali y mos di ec ly by imp o - ing ou p opensi y o mo al eeling’, and ‘aes he ic phenomena can o e sensible ep esen- a ion o p ac ical eason, o speci ic mo al concep ions, and inally, o he gene al ela ion be ween mo al eason and mo al eelings’.25 I ag ee wi h Guye and Knelle ha Kan implies he possibili y o mo al cul i a ion h ough a . Since Kan de ines he aes he ic idea as he ep esen a ion o imagina ion, his no ion o beau y as an exp ession o he aes he ic idea may lea e space o mo al ele ance, al hough he aes he ic idea is no necessa ily a signi ie o mo ali y. Simila ly, i is no ewo hy ha , in Chinese landscape a , al hough landscape o some na u al plan s a e ead as ha ing i ues, he na u al objec i sel canno simply be unde s ood as he symbolic signi ie o human mo al a ibu es as men ioned abo e. In 24 Jane Knelle , Kan and he Powe o Imagina ion (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2007), 60‒71; Ka l Ame iks, ‘On Paul Guye ’s Kan and he Expe ience o F eedom’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Resea ch 60 (1995): 361‒67. 25 Paul Guye , Kan and he Expe ience o F eedom: Essays on Aes he ics and Mo ali y (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni- e si y P ess, 1993), 34, 36. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics 135 addi ion, he pic o ial yi (idea) as analogous o Kan ’s aes he ic idea is no necessa ily equi ed o e lec he mo al con en . E en i he aes he ic idea in an a wo k does no in ol e a sensible ep esen a ion o p ac i- cal eason and mo al con ic ion, bo h he a is and he audience may cul i a e hei mo al sense owing o an analogy be ween he o m o ou e lec ion on beau y and ha on mo al- i y, and hus mo al cul i a ion is a kind o indi ec du y o anyone encoun e ing o c ea ing beau y (in na u e o a ).26 We now need o see whe he u he aspec s o Kan ’s accoun o he analogy be ween he o m o ou e lec ion on beau y and ha on mo ali y may be p o- jec ed in o he qiyun- ocused a is ic con ex . Kan claims ha ‘beau y is he symbol o he mo ally good’.27 Fo Kan , beau y pleases (i) immedia ely (‘bu only in e lec ing in ui ion’ a he han in concep ), (ii) wi hou he in ol e- men o any in e es (sensuous, p ac ical, in ellec ual, o mo al sa is ac ion dependen on he conce n o he exis ence o he objec , concep , o ac ion), and (iii) as he e lec ion o esul o he eedom o he imagina ion ‘in acco d wi h he law ulness o he unde s anding’ in aes- he ic judgemen ; such (subjec i e) aes he ic pleasu e is (i ) uni e sally alid o e e yone (bu no by means o any uni e sal concep ).28 Acco ding o Kan , mo ali y ac s o he sake o du y, willed h ough p ac ical eason in con o mi y wi h he ca ego ical impe a i e, which equi es he maxims o mo al ac ion o be uni e salizable and ea humani y as an end in i sel a he han a me e means. The mo al good pleases (i) immedia ely in e lec ing on concep s a he han on in ui ion, (ii) independen ly o any an eceden in e es (bu ‘necessa ily connec ed wi h an in e es […] ha is he eby i s p oduced’), (iii) as he e lec ion o esul o he ee- dom o he will (ins ead o he imagina ion), ‘in acco dance wi h uni e sal laws o eason’, and (i ) wi h uni e sal alidi y o e e yone ‘by means o uni e sal concep ’.29 Thus, he symbolic ela ionship be ween beau y and mo ali y does no consis in o ela e o he con en o each. Ne e heless, he pa allel be ween he o m o ou e lec ion on beau y and ha on mo ali y lies in he analogy be ween he ou aspec s jus men ioned: immediacy, disin e es edness, eedom, and uni e sal alidi y in bo h aes he ic judgemen and mo al judgemen . Ha ing seen Kan ’s analogy, le us mo e o examine i s p ojec ion wi hin he qiyun- ocused con ex . The e a e wo aspec s o his. Fi s , one may see ha he immedia e and disin e es ed aes he ic eedom expe ienced by landscapis s and spec a o s o landscape pain ing is mo - ally signi ican , since i is ul illed h ough shenhui and endo sed by he Con ucian doc ine o since i y. We will see ha he e a e some issues wi h his p ojec ion and i also challenges he Kan ian dualism o sepa a ing aes he ic eedom and mo al eedom. The de ached men al eedom expe ienced by qiyun- ocused a is s in a is ic p ac ice appea s consis en wi h Kan ’s aes he ic eedom.30 Howe e , ega ding he ee play o he acul ies o he mind, Chinese ex s on pain ing do no gi e as sophis ica ed and sys ema ic 26 Weijia Wang, ‘Beau y as he Symbol o Mo ali y: A Two old Du y in Kan ’s Theo y o Tas e’, Dialogue 57 (2018): 853–75. 27 Immanuel Kan , C i ique o he Powe o Judgmen , ans. Paul Guye and E ic Ma hews (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2001), AA 5:353. 28 Ibid., AA 5:354. 29 Ibid. 30 See Xiaoyan Hu, ‘A Kan ian Reading o Aes he ic F eedom and Comple e Human Na u e Nou ished h ough A in a Classical Chinese A is ic Con ex ’, Asian Philosophy 29 (2019): 129–31. Elsewhe e, I a gue ha he o e com- ing o sel -consciousness in ol ed in genius’s a is ic spon anei y is ad oca ed by qiyun- ocused Chinese a is s and c i ics, while he ole o unsel consciousness implied in genius’s c ea ion may cons i u e a pa adox in Kan ’s aes he ic heo y, and i is di icul o see how he con adic ion be ween genius as chiasm o he unconscious and conscious and genius as he uni y o imagina ion and unde s anding can be o e come wi hin he s ic a ionalis con ine o Kan ’s philosophy; see Xiaoyan Hu, ‘The Dialec ic o Consciousness and Unconsciousness in Spon anei y o Genius: A Compa ison be ween Classical Chinese Aes he ics and Kan ian Ideas’, P oceedings o he Eu opean Socie y o Aes he ics 9 (2017): 246–74. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics136 an analysis as Kan does, and he e a e essen ial di e ences be ween hei philosophical occupa ions. Al hough he ca e ee shen (spi i ) o he a is appa en ly co esponds o Kan ’s no ion o spi i as he anima ing p inciple o genius ( he union o he imagina ion and unde s anding), he i s c i e ion o qiyun equi es he shen o he a is o espond o he shen o he objec depic ed.31 Ha mony (o he imagina ion and he unde s anding) in Kan is in a-subjec i e, since i is inside he mind o an indi idual, al hough i is uni e sally sha ed by all indi iduals in ol ed. Ch is ian Helmu Wenzel sugges s ha , seen om he ou side, he ha mony in Con ucian li ( i ual o p op ie y) migh co espond o a ha mony inside ( ha is, in e nal o he mind o he agen p ac ising he i ual), and may be ‘ he mi o image o he ha mony in he ee play o ou cogni i e acul ies, imagina ion and unde s anding’, de ined by Kan as he men al s a e o he agen engaging in aes he ic judgemen , al hough his ha mony is in e -subjec i e and also includes he ha mony o human beings wi h na u e.32 Simila ly o li ( i ual o p op ie y), he no ion o yun (consonance o ha mony o qi) is in e - subjec i e, and i also in ol es he ha monious sympa he ic esonance be ween subjec and objec , which is absen in Kan ’s philosophy. Nowhe e does he conside he subjec –objec ela ion in e ms o he ha monious esonance b ough abou by he usion o he spi i - ene gy o subjec and objec . On he o he hand, in he qiyun- ocused con ex , his aes he ic eedom has mo al sig- ni icance, since, as men ioned in he las sec ion, his au onomy is endo sed by o is a leas in ha mony wi h he Con ucian since e will, which condi ions i ues and is analogous o he Kan ian good will endo sing mo al eedom.33 Tha is, o a since e Chinese landscapis o a since e and congenial spec a o o landscape pain ing, he momen o enjoying his aes he ic eedom seems o be ha o simul aneously ealizing o cul i a ing he ‘enligh en- men ’, ‘comp ehension’, ‘impa iali y’, and ‘uni e sali y’ o his o he mo al sen imen s and ge ing id o mundane desi es. In he Chinese con ex , his mo al ele ance is no based on an analogy be ween he e lec ion on aes he ic eedom and ha on mo al eedom. As men ioned abo e, he Kan ian dualism be ween aes he ic eedom and mo al eedom can- no be ound in he Chinese con ex , whe e since e a is s and congenial audiences engage in a de ached men al s a e in acco d wi h he Dao, which pene a es e e y hing. This ma ks a signi ican di e ence be ween Kan ’s ideas and Chinese philosophy a he han ano he supe icial pa allel. Schille de ends he Kan ian iew o aes he ic au onomy and has mo e con idence in he mo al signi icance o a in e ms o habi ualizing mo ally signi ican inclina ions, so one migh ask whe he his modi ied Kan ian ideas ega ding he econcilia ion o aes he ic au onomy and mo al ele ance ha e g ea e simila i y o his econcilia ion in he qiyun- ocused con ex . Fo Schille , when a is s pu sue mo ali y, he mo al pu pose will des oy he au onomy o heau onomy o appea ance o he objec depic ed, and hus weaken o e en inhibi he beau y o he wo k, since ‘ he o m o he objec will be de e mined by he idea o 31 See Hu, ‘Genius as an Inna e Men al Talen ’, 361, 365–67. 32 See Ch is ian Helmu Wenzel, ‘Beau y in Kan and Con ucius: A Fi s S ep’, Jou nal o Chinese Philosophy 33 (2006): 100; ‘Aes he ics and Mo ali y in Kan and Con ucius: A Second S ep’, in Palmquis , Cul i a ing Pe son- hood, 329. Fo a discussion o he aes he ic dimension and mo al ele ance o (ideal) Con ucian li in compa ison wi h Kan ’s ideas, see also Ch is ian Helmu Wenzel, ‘Aes he ic Educa ion in Con ucius, Xunzi, and Kan ’, Yea - book o Eas e n and Wes e n Philosophy 3 (2018): 59‒71. 33 My poin he e is no ha he e is a monoli hic classical Chinese no ion o ‘mo al eedom’, o , i he e is, hen i is mo e Kan ian han, say, A is o elean. E en i one supposed i possible o abs ac a common classical Chinese no ion o mo al eedom, he e is li le eason o suppose i would i e y clea ly wi hin he con ex o qiyun aes he ics. My aim, a he , is o poin o ce ain esonances and di e ences be ween a no ion o mo ally signi i- can eedom a wo k speci ically in qiyun aes he ics and in he Kan ian posi ion. Hu: The Mo al Dimension o Qiyun Aes he ics 137 p ac ical eason, no by i sel , and will hus become he e onomous’.34 The e o e, he ad ises a is s ha a mo al end o con en is ‘bes hidden’ in he o m o a , and beau y should ‘appea o come om he na u e o he hing comple ely eely and wi hou o ce’.35 In addi- ion, Schille sugges s ha beau y (as li ing o m o appea ance o eedom) s imula es he play d i e o exclude any sensuous cons ain s o a ional bounds and hus he mos ib an physical powe o sensibili y (which supplies con en ) and he migh ies in ellec ual pow- e s o eason (which o e s o m) coope a e well wi h each o he .36 F ede ick Beise poin s ou ha , in his le e s o Kö ne , Schille ini ially uses he idea o heau onomy o de ine he beau y o he objec , bu applies i o human na u e in his Le e s on he Aes he ic Educa ion o Man.37 Fo Schille , aes he ic eedom, which u nishes aes he ic de e minabili y in aes he ic expe ience, e e s o he eedom o ee choice exe cised in aes he ic play when sensibil- i y and eason a e in ha monious coope a ion and ecip oci y, wi hou one o e coming he o he .38 Thus, aes he ic eedom is signi ican in guiding human beings o en e he a ional ealm, whe e hey pe o m du ies ou o (cul i a ed and in e nalized) joy ul inclina ion (in mos un agic si ua ions, and agains inclina ion me ely in a e agic si ua ions).39 The exe - cise o aes he ic au onomy can p omo e he es o a ion o a whole human na u e, and his whole na u e is also demanded in mo al judgemen , because ‘when a pe son does his du y om inclina ion he will be heau onomous, ac ing om he necessi y o his own na u e’.40 Al hough, as men ioned abo e, Guye and Knelle a gue ha Kan ’s aes he ics implies he possibili y o cul i a ing mo al sen imen s h ough aes he ic expe ience, Schille ’s modi ied Kan ian accoun emphasizes mo e explici ly ha mo ally signi ican inclina ion can be exe - cised h ough aes he ic expe ience. Schille ’s iew o in e nalized inclina ion as con o ming o mo al du y and cul i a ed and habi ualized h ough a appea s o pa allel he Chinese iew o mo al sen imen s o i ues condi ioned by since e will, which may be ul illed in ol- un a ily bu also ac ually willed olun a ily h ough a . Howe e , again, Schille ian uni y wi hin dualism canno be ound in he qiyun- ocused aes he ic con ex , whe e mo al sen i- men s a e exe cised in aes he ic con empla ion h ough sympa he ic esonance and spi i ual communion be ween he a is , objec , audience, and wo k, and endo sed by he since e will. E en so, he simila emphasis on he cul i a ion o habi ua ion o mo al sen imen s o incli- na ion h ough aes he ic expe ience also signi ies he mo al signi icance o a . The second aspec o he compa ison wi h Kan ’s iews on he analogy be ween beau y and mo ali y conce ns he p omo ion o mo al communi y h ough aes he ic communi y. He e, 34 F ied ich Schille , ‘Kallias, o : Conce ning Beau y; Le e s o Go ied Kö ne ’, ans. S e an Bi d-Pollan, in Classic and Roman ic Ge man Aes he ics, ed. J. M. Be ns ein (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2003), 156. Schille dis inguishes aes he ic au onomy/heau onomy and mo al au onomy; see Schille , ‘Kallias’, 148‒74, 177–83; see also F ede ick Beise , Schille as Philosophe : A Re-examina ion (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2005), 219–23. 35 Schille , ‘Kallias’, 156. 36 See F ied ich Schille , On he Aes he ic Educa ion o Man in a Se ies o Le e s, ans. M. Elizabe h Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1982), 100–109, 122–27; see also Schille , ‘Kallias’, 152, 163. 37 See Beise , Schille as Philosophe , 223. 38 See Schille , On he Aes he ic Educa ion, 144‒53, and Beise , Schille as Philosophe , 154‒56, 232‒34. I ha e a gued ha balanced human na u e nou ished h ough a can also be ound in he qiyun- ocused con ex , and also poin ed ou he issues o p ojec ing Schille ’s accoun ega ding he es o a ion o comple e human na u e h ough a in o his con ex ; see my ‘Kan ian Reading’, 134–41. 39 See Schille , ‘On G ace and Digni y’, ans. Jane V. Cu an, in Schille ’s ‘On G ace and Digni y’ in I s Cul u al Con- ex : Essays and a New T ansla ion, ed. Jane V. Cu an and Ch is ophe F icke (New Yo k: Camden House, 2005), 145, 154, 158; Beise , Schille as Philosophe , 144‒45, 211‒12. Beise poin s ou ha wha Schille means by inclina ion in his discussion o pe o ming du y om inclina ion is no na u al inclina ion bu he cul i a ed, habi ualized, in e nalized inclina ion gained h ough aes he ic educa ion; see Beise , Schille as Philosophe , 176‒79. 40 Beise , Schille as Philosophe , 223.