研究者從文獻回顧批判落入主客二元對立主流心理學框架的邏輯實證取向中醫心理學，與神形一元的中醫文化本質相違，反使中醫心理學遠離文化主體；研究者從自身的學術脈絡反思，倡議站上中醫文化本質的主體位置發展「主體性的中醫心理學」才能將心理學帶入主客一元的知識系統。藉由討論台灣地區三十餘年間的六類心理學研究路徑，研究者勾勒出「主體性心理學」的三個充要條件： 1.研究者要置身文化 /社會 /歷史處境作出投身的承諾； 2.要從本體論、認識論與方法論建構知識發展的哲學位置； 3.知識能具解放性，支持主體性的伸張。研究者據此檢視中醫心理學的知識屬性與生產方式，並拉高到本體論、知識論與方法論的哲學高度，辨識「主體性的中醫心理學」在本體論上是心物合一，在知識論的探究關係上是在相對脈絡中主客交流辯證共同建構的一元論，其知識來自實踐，在方法論上則屬批判實踐取向。最後，研究者再從行動研究方法的「內隱式行動中認識」、「行動中反思」與「對行動反思」論述主體性的中醫與中醫心理學理當是一門行動科學。

By reviewing the literature of logical positivism in the psychology of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), the author posits that current thinking remains limited within the framework of subject-object dualism common in mainstream psychology, a framework that strongly contradicts the essence of TCM. As such, the psychology of TCM has deviated from cultural subjectivity. Based on personal reflections of her own academic profile and contexts, the author argues that only by developing the psychology of TCM within cultural subjectivity can psychology develop toward a knowledge system that transcends this limiting framework. By reviewing six psychology research paths as they have developed in Taiwan over the past three decades, the author outlines three sufficient and necessary conditions for “Subjectivity Psychology”: 1. researchers should be situated within contexts of culture/society/history and commit themselves to the situation; 2. knowledge systems should be based on ontology, epistemology and methodology; 3. knowledge should be emancipative to support and promote subjectivity. Based on these conditions, the present essay reconsiders the properties and production of knowledge within the psychology of TCM, identifying a “Subjective Psychology of TCM” that is grounded firmly in philosophical traditions of ontology, epistemology and methodology. Namely, the present essay argues for a “Subjective Psychology of TCM” that is, ontologically speaking, a strong, updated version of psychophysical parallelism; a psychology that is epistemologically grounded in intersubjectivity and praxis-oriented approaches, wherein knowledge is produced through practice, and one in which the methodology is fundamentally action research and critical praxis. As such, this essay posits that a truly subjective TCM and Psychology of TCM must utilize the tacit knowledge-in-action, reflection in action, and reflection on action approaches of action research, and should therefore regarded as a branch of Action Science.