导论：Economy的发生学与共生经济学的原点
导论：Economy的发生学与共生经济学的原点
Introduction: The Philogenesis of Economy and the Origin of Symbionomics
钱宏（Archer Hong Qian）
2025.9.24 · Ullapool, Scottish Highland
一、从“富”字说起
“富”字，本义并非抽象的金钱，而是“田”与“宀”的结合：拥有可供家庭一切人口耕种、经营的土地与家屋^1。所谓“富”，即一家之田宅足以维系生活、延续生息。这是财富最初的含义：可供家庭共生的生产生活资料。
由此出发，财富本就是“共生之富”，而非个人孤立的积累。个体离不开家庭，家庭必须嵌入社区，社区需要政府的协调，政府在不同共同体之间又构成大规模合作。经济问题的最初根源，正是生命如何在这些层级中获得秩序与保障。
二、Economy 的发生学
（一）希腊语：ο?κονομ?α（Oikonomia）
? oikos（家、田宅）+ nomos（管理、秩序） → “家屋治理”。亚里士多德在《政治学》中就曾将“家政术”（ο?κονομ?α）与“城邦政治”（πολιτικ?）加以区分[^2]。
? 所指：家庭生产与生活的维系。
? 能指：秩序、节制与调度。
? 层级映射：个体—家庭。
（二）拉丁语：Oeconomia
? 罗马与中世纪语境中，oeconomia 扩展为社会与神学治理。教父们常用该词指“神的救赎秩序”[^3]。
? 所指：社会与宗教生活。
? 能指：公共秩序、道德责任。
? 层级映射：家庭—社区—共同体。
（三）近代英语：Economy
? 16—17世纪英国的制度实验中，Economy 含义大幅转变：
? 普特尼辩论（Putney Debates, 1647）与《人民公约》：首次提出自由、平等、代议原则，使 Economy 与社会秩序、权利分配相关联[^4]；
? 配第（William Petty）：创立“政治算术”，将经济转化为人口、财富与国家实力的数量化研究[^5]；
? 洛克（John Locke）：提出自然权利与宽容，使经济与财产权、宗教自由紧密相连[^6]；
? 光荣革命（1688）：确立君主立宪，使 Economy 被制度化为国家治理与国民福祉的核心机制[^7]。
? 至亚当·斯密（1776），Economy 全面转化为“国民财富的性质和原因的研究”[^8]。
? 所指：国家财政、贸易与财富源头。
? 能指：理性治理、国民富裕。
? 层级映射：社区—政府。
（四）现代汉语：“原富”与“经济”
? 严复译《An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations》为《原富》，突出“财富的本源”[^9]；
? 日本译 Economy 为“经济”，源自“经世济民”，即“治理天下、救济百姓”[^10]。
? 所指：国家治理与百姓生计。
? 能指：治国理政与民生保障。
? 层级映射：政府—共同体。
（五）共生经济学：Symbionomics
? 全球化、生态危机与 AI 时代，Economy 必须突破国家重商主义框架，进入生命自组织连接的视野。
? 所指：人类共生体的秩序。
? 能指：交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosism）、生态循环、文明互嵌。
? 层级映射：不同共同体—共生体。
三、纵向贯通的六层结构
如果说 Economy 的语义史揭示了‘家—国—世’的逐层扩展，那么在社会组织的现实结构中，它则表现为以下六个互嵌层级。
纵观历史，Economy 的语义扩展始终伴随社会组织的递进：
1. 个体：创造力与需求；
2. 家庭：最小共生单位；
3. 社区：信任与自治的网络；
4. 政府：公共秩序与服务的机构化；
5. 不同共同体：跨文化、跨国界的合作格局；
6. 共生体：全球生命与文明的互嵌秩序。
这六个层级，不仅是经济学概念的发生链条，更是人类社会自组织的生命逻辑。
从个体到共生体的经济发生链。
从发生学角度看，Economy 的内涵始终贯穿“个体—家庭—社区—政府—共同体—共生体”的演化链条：
1. 个体（Individual）
经济最初发生于个体的生命需求：食物、住所、劳作与交换。个体并非孤立存在，而是以生命欲望与劳动能力为起点，进入关系网络。
2. 家庭（Household / Oikos）
家庭是最早的经济单位。希腊语 oikos 本身即“家”，而 oikonomia 就是“家之治理”。在这里，经济被理解为“如何让家庭所有成员共享生产与生活资源”，这正是“富”字的本义：田地之上，足以养活一切人口。
3. 社区（Community）
当家庭之间开始交换与协作，社区经济便诞生。集市（Agora）是古希腊文明的原型：人们通过互通有无，实现资源优化与社会联结。
4. 政府（Polity / State）
随着社区扩大，政治权力登场。政府的本源功能即是“维持交换秩序、保障资源公平”。在亚当·斯密那里，这体现为“公共工程、司法与国防”，即国家的最小必要职能。
5. 不同共同体（Nation / Civilization）
当政府与社会结构化为民族国家或文明体时，经济上升为“国民财富”的制度性治理。此时 Economy 不再仅是“家之治”，而是“国之治”，并通过贸易、市场与制度化合作，实现财富的社会化、文明化。
6. 共生体（Symbiotic Body）
进入全球化与AI时代，经济的发展已超越单一国家，逐渐显现为地球共生体尽善尽美的联结。能源、生态、气候、网络、科技、人文、教宗、哲学的共享，使经济不可再被理解为某一政体的财富增长游戏，而是全人类乃至全生态的共生机制。此时，Economy 与 Symbiosis 合流，成为“共生经济学”。
四、共生经济学的原点
当亚当·斯密在《原富》中提出“国民财富的性质和原因”时，他所面对的是18世纪英国的重商主义桎梏与经济动能不足。瓦特的蒸汽机在物理层面解决了生产力问题，而斯密则在伦理层面提出：财富源自个体自由的劳动分工与交换[^11]。
然而，今天我们必须从斯密的经济学原点再出发：
? 财富：不仅是“国之富”或“民之富”，更是“国与民的共生之富”；
? 经济：不仅是市场或官场秩序，更是“生活—生态—生命”的秩序；
? 富裕：不仅是物质积累，更是“个体—家庭—社区—政府—不同共同体—共生体”的协调繁荣。
这意味着，共生经济学并不是对传统经济学的否定，而是将其还原到生活—生态—生命三位一体的展开，从而揭示经济本为共生之道。因此，共生经济学（Symbionomics）所揭示的原点是：
财富本来自政治经济文化三位一体的共生人，经济即是共生人生命自组织连接平衡秩序的健康展开过程。
五、展望：从发生学到未来文明秩序
发生学的考察表明，Economy 从起点上就不是孤立的市场逻辑，而是个体—家庭—社区—政府—共同体—共生体的生命秩序。在其词源、制度与思想的演化中，始终存在一个核心关怀：如何让生命得以延续、如何让社会得以共存。
然而，进入全球化与 AI 时代，传统经济学所依托的“国民财富”范式已难以应对人类面临的结构性挑战。能源转型的压力、科技发展的失衡、意识形态的对立、地缘政治的冲突与种族族群的矛盾，本质上都可以归约为一个核心问题：人类能否尊重并激活不同生命自组织连接的交互主体共生。
这意味着，Economy 需要被重新理解为一个更深层的概念：它不仅是“财富之学”，更是“共生之道”。换言之，经济的未来走向不只是对财富的统计与分配，而是对文明秩序的再组织。
基于此，本书将从 Economy 的发生学出发，提出 共生经济学（Symbionomics） 的整体框架，试图揭示：
? 财富的真正来源 在于生命之间的共生创造，而非掠夺与零和竞争；
? 经济的核心逻辑 是“生活—生态—生命”的秩序化展开，而非单一的市场化指标；
? 人类文明的未来 将取决于能否实现 交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosism），在多元差异中建立新的生命秩序。
因此，从“原富”的语义根源与发生学考察出发，我们所面对的并非只是经济学范式的更新，而是 人类政治经济文明的转向。这一转向，将决定未来的文明能否在危机与冲突中找到共生的出路。
脚注
[^2]: Aristotle, Politics, Book I.
[^3]: Augustine, De Civitate Dei (《上帝之城》).
[^4]: The Putney Debates, 1647, in Puritanism and Liberty.
[^5]: William Petty, Political Arithmetick, 1690.
[^6]: John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1689.
[^7]: Steven Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution, Yale University Press, 2009.
[^8]: Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776.
[^9]: 严复，《原富》，1902年译本。
[^10]: 渡边洪基，《经济原论》，19世纪后期。
[^11]: Duncan Forbes, Adam Smith and the Liberal Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
参考书目
? 亚里士多德，《政治学》。
? 圣奥古斯丁，《上帝之城》。
? 洛克，《政府论（下篇）》。
? 威廉·配第，《政治算术》。
? 亚当·斯密，《原富》，严复《原富》译序。
? Pincus, Steven. 1688: The First Modern Revolution.
? Duncan Forbes. Adam Smith and the Liberal Tradition.
? Archer Hong Qian，《全球共生：化解冲突重建世界秩序的中国学派》。
Introduction: The Philogenesis of Economy and the Origin of Symbionomics
Archer Hong Qian
September 24, 2025 · Ullapool, Scottish Highlands
I. Beginning with the Character Fu (“Wealth”)
The Chinese character fu (富), wealth, does not originally denote abstract money. Its composition—“field” (田) and “household roof” (宀)—means possessing land and a dwelling sufficient to provide for the family’s livelihood and reproduction.^1 In essence, wealth signified having enough resources for the household to cultivate, manage, and sustain itself.
Thus, from the outset, wealth is “symbiotic wealth,” not an isolated individual accumulation. The individual cannot exist without the family; the family must embed itself in the community; the community requires governmental coordination; and governments in turn cooperate on a broader scale among communities. The root of economic questions lies in how life secures order and provision across these levels.
II. The Philogenesis of Economy
(1) Greek: ο?κονομ?α (Oikonomia)
oikos (house, estate) + nomos (management, order) → “household governance.” Aristotle, in Politics, distinguished “household management” (oikonomia) from “politics” (politikē).^2
Signified: the maintenance of family production and livelihood.
Connoted: order, moderation, allocation.
Structural mapping: individual → household.
(2) Latin: Oeconomia
In Roman and medieval contexts, oeconomia expanded to mean social and theological governance. The Church Fathers often used it to denote “the divine order of salvation.”^3
Signified: social and religious life.
Connoted: public order, moral responsibility.
Structural mapping: household → community → collective body.
(3) Early Modern English: Economy
In 16th–17th century England, amid institutional experimentation, the meaning of economy shifted dramatically:
The Putney Debates (1647) and Agreement of the People first articulated principles of freedom, equality, and representation, linking economy with social order and the distribution of rights;^4
William Petty created “Political Arithmetick,” transforming economy into a quantitative study of population, wealth, and national power;^5
John Locke advanced natural rights and toleration, binding economy to property rights and religious liberty;^6
The Glorious Revolution (1688) established constitutional monarchy, institutionalizing economy as central to governance and national welfare;^7
By Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), economy had fully become “the study of the nature and causes of national wealth.”^8
Signified: state finance, trade, and sources of wealth.
Connoted: rational governance, national prosperity.
Structural mapping: community → government.
(4) Modern Chinese: Yuanfu (原富) and Jingji (经济)
Yan Fu translated Smith’s Wealth of Nations as Yuanfu (“Origin of Wealth”), highlighting the “source of wealth.”^9
In Japan, economy was translated as “jingji” (経済), derived from “governing the world and relieving the people” (经世济民).^10
Signified: statecraft and the livelihood of the people.
Connoted: governance and welfare.
Structural mapping: government → collective body.
(5) Symbionomics
In the era of globalization, ecological crisis, and AI, economy must transcend the mercantilist framework of the nation-state and enter the horizon of life’s self-organizing interconnections.
Signified: the order of human symbiotic existence.
Connoted: Intersubjective Symbiosism, ecological circulation, and civilizational embedding.
Structural mapping: diverse communities → the symbiotic whole.
III. The Six Interwoven Levels
If the semantic history of economy reveals an expansion from “house” to “nation” to “world,” then its organizational reality is expressed through six nested levels:
Individual: creativity and need.
Household: the smallest symbiotic unit.
Community: networks of trust and self-governance.
Government: institutionalized public order and services.
Collective bodies: intercultural and international cooperation.
Symbiotic body: the global order of life and civilization.
These levels constitute not only the philogenetic chain of the economic concept but also the life-logic of human self-organization.
From the perspective of philogenesis, economy has always unfolded along the chain of “individual → household → community → government → collective bodies → symbiotic body.” Each level marks a stage in how life organizes, balances, and rebalances itself.
IV. The Origin of Symbionomics
When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he was responding to 18th-century Britain’s mercantilist constraints and economic stagnation. Watt’s steam engine solved the problem of productivity at the physical level, while Smith, at the ethical level, proposed that wealth derives from individual freedom in division of labor and exchange.^11
Today, however, we must return to Smith’s origin point with a broader horizon:
Wealth: not only “wealth of the nation” or “wealth of the people,” but “symbiotic wealth of both nation and people.”
Economy: not only market or bureaucratic order, but the order of “life–ecology–existence.”
Prosperity: not mere material accumulation, but the coordinated flourishing of individuals, households, communities, governments, collective bodies, and the symbiotic body.
Symbionomics is not a negation of traditional economics but its re-grounding in the trinity of life, ecology, and livelihood. Its origin point is this:
Wealth arises from the symbiotic human being, who embodies the political, economic, and cultural trinity; economy is the healthy unfolding of this symbiotic being’s self-organizing connections and balanced order.
V. Outlook: From Philogenesis to Future Civilizational Order
The philogenetic study of economy shows that from the very beginning it was never merely a market logic, but the order of life spanning individual, household, community, government, collective body, and symbiotic body. In its etymology, institutions, and thought, one central concern has persisted: how life may endure, and how society may coexist.
Yet in the era of globalization and AI, the paradigm of “national wealth” that underpinned classical economics can no longer address structural challenges: energy transition pressures, imbalances of technological development, ideological polarization, geopolitical conflicts, and ethnic tensions. At root, these converge on a single question: can humanity respect and activate intersubjective symbiosis across diverse forms of life’s self-organization?
This means economy must be reconceived not merely as the “science of wealth” but as the “way of symbiosis.” The future trajectory of economics will not rest solely on measuring and distributing wealth, but on reorganizing the civilizational order.
Based on this, the present work takes the philogenesis of economy as its point of departure to construct the framework of Symbionomics, aiming to reveal that:
The true source of wealth lies in symbiotic creation among lives, not plunder or zero-sum competition.
The core logic of economy is the ordered unfolding of “life–ecology–existence,” not singular market metrics.
The future of human civilization depends on realizing Intersubjective Symbiosism, establishing a new life order amid plural differences.
Thus, beginning from the semantic root and philogenesis of The Wealth of Nations, we face not merely an update of economic paradigms but a turning point in human political-economic civilization itself—a turn that will determine whether future civilization can find its path of symbiosis amid crisis and conflict.
Notes
References
Aristotle, Politics.
Augustine, The City of God.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government.
William Petty, Political Arithmetick.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations; Yan Fu’s translation Yuan Fu (1902).
Steven Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution.
Duncan Forbes, Adam Smith and the Liberal Tradition.
Archer Hong Qian, Global Symbiosis: A Chinese School for Resolving Conflicts and Rebuilding World Order.