甲篇：為了讓本源的美感思域保持其本身如此的方式呈現，而不是被框入、套入這一個得勢的、特別禮遇的文化的傳釋習慣和文學機制裏面而受到歪曲破壞，我們應該打開一個完全開放的論述空間，通過交相反思的對話，通過雙重／多重的感知投向--也就是從兩三種文化立場界域並排時提出來兩組或三組美感文化的反應之間必有的空隙或斷裂，開出交相感知的可能，讓我們有機會用一種文化系統的符碼法規的活動標出（而不是改變或隱蔽）另一個文化系統不同的符碼法規，這樣我們才能夠更充分地瞭解美學與權力論述以及層級的構成與拆解。在這個空隙裏，不同的批評與美學的立場就可以坦誠相見，互相認識到可能的匯通與分歧的潛在領域，同時瞭解到各自作為與孤立系統的理論潛能及限制，以及作為文化系統合作後互相擴展的潛能與限制。要創立一個真的開放的對話，我們必須保存文化差異間的張力。文化互流的真義是，必須是，互相擴展，互相調整，互相容納的一種活動，而這活動是在高度張力與對峙中進行推向更大圓周的瞭解。是這種文化與文化之間交相互照互識互認的開放的對話才能幫我們更完全地揭露文化與文化間爭戰共生的跡線。臺灣文學的研究也不例外。 乙篇：臺灣作為東亞的一員，作為以中文為主要表達的文學，以上揭櫫的問題自然都要考慮。但臺灣文學有其構成的獨特的歷史的線索和與中國不同的問題。首先，臺灣文化是一個多傳統的文化：原住民／文學，福佬文化／文學和客家文化／文學（發展了與中國文言詩既同且異的漢詩傳統），皇民化時期的文化／文學，光復後到蔣政權冷戰時期文化／文學，解嚴後文化／文學（臺灣主體意識文學）等等。每一種都經過異質爭戰的對話，在臺灣獨特的歷史下，也就是長期在殖民的情況下受到權力宰制牽制的辯證，有些音啞影滅，有些另闢途徑，其表現策略和發音方式的蛻變糾纏複雜，每每要重建當時特有的變動中而非靜態中的政治／社會心理歷史始可以透視其間爭戰共生的跡線。正因為臺灣文化／文學是多重傳統的爭戰互動對話，往往不斷受制於得勢話語的議程所左右，我們以為上面展出的種種問題裏，最重要的是保持甲篇提出的，從「空隙或斷裂」透視「眾異」交相互照互識開出來空而滿、兼收並蓄的超視覺。

Part A: In order to allow the indigenous aesthetic horizon of each culture to represent itself as it is, and not as it is framed within the hermeneutical habits and the poetic economy of one privileged, dominant culture, we must maintain an open forum for dialogue through interreflection and “double/triple perception”--that is, a gap or rift created by the copresence of two or three sets of provisional responses to two or three cultural “worlds”. This gap or double/triple perception allows us to mark the coding activities of one system by those of the others so as to understand more fully the making and unmaking of discourses and hierarchies of aesthetics and power. Different critical and aesthetic positions will have a chance to look at each other frankly, to recognize among themselves potential areas of convergence and divergence as well as their possibilities and limitations both as isolated theories and as cooperative projects to extend one another. To create a truly open dialogue, we must preserve the tension between cultural differences. The true meaning of the interflow of cultures is, and must be, a mutually expanding, mutually adjusting, and mutually containing activity in the midst of high tension and confrontation toward a wider circumference of understanding. It is this interreflective, inter-examining open dialogue between and among cultures that will perhaps help us disclose more fully the complex hidden treacheries and dangers in the grand euphoric rhetoric of globalization. The same is true of the studies of Taiwanese literature. Part B: Taiwanese culture has its unique historical trajectories, being itself constituted of multiple traditions. These include, for example, the oral traditions of the original settlers with linguistic and artistic expressions vastly different from their colonizers: Han Chinese and Japanese; the poetry written in classical Chinese by the Han settlers which carries both the literary stamps of the classical Chinese of the Mainland traditions and its localized relevance, the poetry and fiction written in Japanese under the years of Japanese occupation which are full of ambivalences, both of their expressions and of their indebtedness to the literary productions of their colonizer; the poetry and fiction (with language strategies such as reative ambiguity? learnt and modified from Western modernism) produced during the cold war atmosphere under the oppressive rule of the Kuomintang and the reinscription of? subjectivity? of the Taiwanese voices marginalized by the hegemonic discourse of previous period. Each of these traditions was developed from specific and extremely complex historical conditions, many as a result of rich and sometimes ambivalent antagonistic symbioses from battles and negotiations with intruding ideologies. As such, it is particularly important that we maintain the ap or rift created by the copresence of two or three sets of provisional responses to two or three cultural orlds? as explained in Part A so as to achieve a perspectivism that allow us to see each in its own light instead of being tainted or even eclipsed by the agenda of one dominant ideology.