abstract
This paper aims to conduct a structural examination of an environmental ethics and practical path called "boundary symbiosis" using the thought of presence as an analytical framework. This path attempts to seek a dynamic balance between ecological protection and human development. The core concepts of "directionality","boundary" and "return" of presence thought provide powerful tools for clarifying the internal logic of "boundary symbiosis". This paper believes that the essence of "boundary symbiosis" is not to propose an ultimate harmonious picture of the relationship between man and nature, but to build a set of practical structures aimed at maintaining the directional self-reliance of human actions in the ecological dimension. This structure establishes insurmountable directional boundaries through a "bottom line list", handles specific content conflicts through a "negotiation process", and achieves periodic returns and calibrations through a "review iteration" mechanism. This article will systematically explain the structural principles, operating mechanisms and moral foundation of this practical framework from the perspective of presence thought.
text
Section 1: Proposing the problem-transcending the structural dilemma of binary opposition
Contemporary ecological crises have forced mankind to re-examine its relationship with nature. Mainstream thought often falls into the dual framework of "anthropocentrism" and "ecocentrism": the former regards nature as an infinitely accessible resource, while the latter may regard human activities themselves as original sin. These two paths hold each other in philosophy, but in practice they may lead to the dilemma of ecological collapse or development stagnation. Theories such as deep ecology and the Gaia hypothesis provide a holistic perspective, but when transformed into specific decisions, they often face operational difficulties because they are too abstract or have strong revolutionary demands for cultural paradigms.
In this context, an idea called "border symbiosis" was proposed. It does not seek to make an either-or choice between "conquest" and "return", but attempts to establish an actionable practical framework. From the perspective of presence thinking, the core value of this attempt is that it shifts the issue from the debate of "what position (content) is correct" to "how to keep yourself from getting lost in either extreme (maintaining direction) in action."Structural exploration。This paper aims to use the idea of presence to structurally restate the framework of "boundary symbiosis" and illustrate how it uses a clear set of procedures to help collective human actions maintain a prudent and responsible sense of direction in complex eco-social systems.
Section 2: The core lens of presence thought: direction, boundary and return
Thoughts present pay attention to directional self-restraint in actions. Its key concepts provide a meta-structural language for analyzing ecological practices:
Directionality and basal presence: In the ecological context, we can combine aFundamental and sustainable symbiotic relationshipsIdentified as the key to human civilizationbasal direction。This is not a specific blueprint (content), but a way of "not destroying the foundation of one's own survival"fundamental direction。Ecological crisis is essentially a collective loss of direction.
Content and concealment: Specific development projects, protection policies, economic interest claims, and even abstract discussions of "natural rights" or "human interests" are allcontent。When any single element (such as short-term GDP growth) completely dominates decision-making, it obscures awareness of the underlying direction (long-term symbiosis).
borders asself-sustainingconditions: Boundaries are structural conditions that prevent them from being scattered by infinite content and thus losing direction. In ecological practice, boundaries are reflected in clear restrictions on the scope of action, that is, the bottom line of "not doing something".
Identification and Return:"Identification" is the ability to distinguish direction and content and see clearly the occluded state;"Return" is the core action of recalibrating direction after deviation. Effective ecological governance requires an institutionalized return mechanism.
The "boundary symbiosis" framework can be regarded as an institutionalized and procedural "identity-establishment-return" system.
Section 3: Structural restatement of the "Border Symbiosis" framework
Based on the idea of presence, we can restate the core component of "boundary symbiosis" as a dynamic structure that maintains ecological directionality:
1. Establishing directional boundaries: The manifestation of the bottom-line list as the "root"
structural function: The "bottom line list" transforms abstract ecological ethics (directions) into concrete, spatial onesprohibitive boundary。It divides the area into "restricted areas","negotiable areas" and "free areas". This is not a simple zoning management, but rather a response to actions.directional constrainthierarchical manifestation.
restricted area: Represents the ecological dimensionabsolute boundary, is the "root" of directional self-reliance. Any activity that leads to the extinction of species and the collapse of key ecosystems is prohibited here. This implements the principle of "establishing oneself and guarding boundaries" and is the most rigid protection of the foundation.
Negotiable area: Recognize existence on the premise of keeping the "roots"content-based negotiationspace. The direction here is to "seek dynamic balance under constraints", and the boundaries are elastic and to be defined.
free zone: The constraints are weakest in the ecological direction, but still within broader social and legal boundaries.
Moral foundation of mind: This division relies on "sincerity"(truthful evaluation of ecological facts),"truth"(respect for scientific laws),"awe"(recognition of limited knowledge) and the awareness of "boundaries" itself. Without these background colors, the delineation of the list will become a bargaining chip for the game of interests rather than a signpost for direction.
2. Dealing with content conflicts: The negotiation process serves as a "response" area
structural function: When an action enters the "negotiable zone", the direction (sustainable symbiosis) is clear, but there is a conflict in the specific path (content). The negotiation process (factual confirmation, interest clarification, plan co-creation, weighted consensus, trial review) provides a structuredContent game andintegrated field。
key lies in“identify”: The process requires all parties to first "confirm facts", that is, jointly identify objective ecological data to avoid being completely obscured by their respective subjective narratives (content). This reflects the background of "truth".
“feeling of fellow friends”and dynamic balance: Treating all parties as equal consultation subjects ("fellow friends") and seeking solutions through "weighted consensus" rather than "one-vote veto" reflects "balancing positive and negative" and "flexible adjustment", which is based on direction constraints.contentThe flexible accommodation and integration of "adapting" is a reflection of the wisdom of "adapting".
3. Implementing return calibration: bottom-line review and iteration as a "return" mechanism
structural function: This is the most critical "return" design in the framework. Any decision (even the result of consultation) must pass the three review processes of "species extinction","key ecological functions", and "intergenerational equity" before being implemented. This is not an ordinary compliance check, but an institutionalized onedirectional reviewEnsure that specific plans (content) do not overstep or obscure the fundamental direction (bottom line).
Long and short closed-loop and dynamic iteration: The framework emphasizes "trial and review" and achieves continuous iteration through "short and short closed-loop" of monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. This is essentially a "return" actionPeriodicalization and institutionalization。It recognizes that there may be deviations in any decision, so a process must be established to regularly return to the origin (ecological bottom line and symbiotic direction) for recalibration. This perfectly reflects the continuity and openness of "adapting" in "guarding the roots and adapting".
Section 4: Enlightenment, Boundary and Mind Foundation of the Framework
The inspiration of the "boundary symbiosis" framework is that it transforms a profound ecological ethics into a set of learnable and implementableStructural practice。It does not answer the metaphysical question of "What is the intrinsic value of nature", but rather the urgent practical question of "How can we avoid destroying the foundation on which we live?"
Its effectiveness depends on two levels:
external structure: It is a repeatable institutional process composed of three sets of tools: boundary list, negotiation process, and review iteration.
Inner foundation of mind: That is, the background of "sincerity, truth, nature, boundaries, awe, compassion" that participants need to have. Without "sincerity" and "truth", scientific data will be distorted; without "awe" and "mercy", the consultation meeting will be reduced to cold power calculations; without a sense of "boundaries", the bottom line will be in name only. These mental backgrounds ensure that structural tools are not alienated into technocratic empty procedures, but are full of a sense of direction and responsibility.practical wisdom。
At the same time, it must be pointed out that the frameworkself-limiting：
Not applicable to all situations: It presupposes basic social governance capabilities (rule of law, data transparency, a culture of consultation) that may fail in extreme situations such as war or acute disasters.
Does not provide the ultimate answer: It provides a "journey" map that continuously adjusts in tension, rather than depicting a static and harmonious "destination" picture. This is consistent with the thought present's opposition to providing ultimate answers.
Relying on the mind to cultivate: The effectiveness of its tools is highly dependent on the mental qualities of the participants, otherwise "negotiation" may turn into "wrangling" and "review" may become a formality.
Section 5: Conclusion
Through the review of presence thoughts, the "boundary symbiosis" framework reveals its deep structural wisdom: it does not take a static midpoint between two opposing contents (development and protection), but builds a system thatThe ecological bottom line is the directional foundation, toNegotiation procedures are contentintegrated field, toReview iteration for return calibration mechanismdynamic practice system. It reminds us that the relationship between man and nature is ultimately not a theoretical problem that needs to be "solved" once, but a problem that needs to be established and maintained across generations and in countless specific situations.direction-boundary-return structurePractical issues to continue to deal with.
This framework has spiritual dialogue with the emphasis on endless life emphasized by Confucian "benevolence", the awareness of limits contained in the Taoist concept of "nature", and even the concept of "community members" advocated by land ethics. Its contribution lies in transforming this spirit into a set of policies that can be embedded in modern governance systems and emphasize "keeping the roots" and "adapting".Structural practice, provides an enlightening "practical wisdom" paradigm for mankind to find a prudent way out in the era of ecological crisis.
references[1]Fourteen systems. Keep the roots, adapt and six background colors. 2026. [2] Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac.1949. [3] Naess, A. The Deep Ecological Movement.1973. [4] Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. 1979. [5] Latour, B. Facing Gaia. 2015. [6] Norton, B. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists. 1991. [7]Rolston. Environmental Ethics. 1988. [8]Chen Lai. Ontology of Benevolence. 2014. [9]World Conservation Union. Classification Guide for Protected Area Management. 2013.