This paper explores a doubling problematic, that is, on the one hand, the epistemolgical dominance of subject over object as embedded in the Orientalist representation of the Orient," was reproduced in Japan and China in a form of cultural imperialism; on the other hand, as a student of Chinese history in order to critique and correct such phenomenon, is it sufficiently adequate to write a China's Orient as same as Stefan Tanaka's Japan's Orient by appropriating Edward Said's decolonizing decolonizing approach to Eurocentrism in the institution of Orientalism ? Facing such multi-layered and polyphonic historical experiences, a comparative approach is a feasible form of historical writing to encapsulate fluid interactionof plural consciousnesses which none of them will be fully reduced as a mere object. In order to accomplish this feasibility, we have to reconceptualize comparativism as it was employed by Said and other comparative literature scholars. Starting Edward T.Chien's critique of comparative rhetoric" in the West and its discursive connection to Orientalist Eurocentrism, I locate the aforementioned doubling problematic, and the necessity of transcending ex-paradigmatic comparativism. Furthermore, I evoke Chien's multi-centered world of inter-subjectivity" for an alternative methodology. As Chien's long-standing efforts and scholarship of "cross-cultural studies" exemplified in his deconstructionist critique of bilateral Eurocentrism and Sino-centrism and his search for creating new language from traditional cultural resources, one can incorporate them as a theoretical basis of ethics for a formation of post-modern critical syncretism to escape the predicament of the colonizer/colonized dichotomy.