明哲匯第三期陳明哲老師提出「融是面對競爭最好的解方」，他提出「競融」的觀點。
所謂的競融，「競爭者原本處於競爭行為，透過彼此互相認同為一體，基於自願及互利而融合成一體。競爭的彼此，因認同而消融。」
但文華並不建議用「融」字，建議改用「容」字。畢竟從人類的歷史上，從未出現「天下大同」，大多是透過武力強迫的「融合」，競爭結果很多是表象的融合，其背後都埋著衝突的火藥只是等待時間的引爆。畢竟天下萬物皆有本體，相互競爭是動物的本性，萬物能不能融為一體，要看誰是領導者，資源分配是否公平，每個人是否都有安全感。
老子有一句話：「知常容，容乃公，公乃全，全乃天，天乃道，道乃久，沒身不殆」。萬物皆有靈性也有意志，但地位財富有限，萬物萬人都想提升地位及搶得資源，要維繫彼此和平共存，需要的是認同與信任，也要互相包容。
在競爭前要避免競爭須要包容；在競爭中要化解競爭須要寬容；在競爭後失敗的一方只有只有容忍，也只能期待勝利的一方展現寬容。
陳老師給我一封信，他相信我說的「容」有它的道理，但「容」比較被動，他期待人們要有「更進一步」的願望，所有人類能以「融為一體」互助互愛的「大同理想」，應該是我們一起追求的目標。
我回覆陳老師我「知止」不再爭辯，因為我認為我的論述並未紮實，當然會受到不同程度的批判，至於老師的論述也不紥實，但他有世界管理大師的地位，這是一個不對等的地位關係，爭辯並不適合。
我反思「更進一步」的願景是什麼？我想到真的是融嗎？
我原本要接受「融為一體」的美好夢想，但就在思考中，讀到孫子兵法的用間篇，我突然頓悟，很多的融合是假的，融為一體可能是假議題，於是先寫出這篇假融合的情境。
偽融合的幾種情境
1. 越王勾踐對吳王夫差的偽臣服
在春秋戰國時期，越王勾踐在吳越之戰敗給吳王夫差後，選擇臣服於吳國，以奴僕之姿侍奉夫差。然而，這並非真正的臣服，而是忍辱負重、伺機反擊的策略。夫差認為自己寬容地接納了勾踐，使其成為忠誠的附庸，但實際上，勾踐只是容忍了屈辱的現狀，暗中積蓄力量，最終發動復仇戰爭，滅亡吳國。
＞ 吳王的寬容（Tolerance）是錯誤的，因為他誤以為真正融合了勾踐，而勾踐的容忍（Forbearance）則是戰略性的，最終導致了吳國的滅亡。
2. 烏克蘭在二戰後被納入蘇聯
在第二次世界大戰後，烏克蘭被納入蘇聯的一部分，這並非自願的融合，而是出於蘇聯強權政治的壓力。烏克蘭人民對蘇聯的統治並未真正認同，而是迫於武力選擇容忍（Forbearance），以換取暫時的穩定。然而，這種表面的融合並未消除烏克蘭民族意識，最終在1991年蘇聯解體後，烏克蘭選擇獨立，並與俄羅斯逐漸走向對立。
＞蘇聯強行融合烏克蘭只是表象，實際上烏克蘭的民族意識始終未被真正同化，僅是戰略性容忍。
3. 美國的「文化大熔爐」與華人群體
美國自詡為「文化大熔爐」，強調不同族裔的融合，但這種融合對於華人社群來說，並不完全成立。許多華裔雖然持有美國國籍，甚至在政治、經濟等領域融入美國社會，但文化上仍然深受中華文化影響，保留傳統價值觀、語言與家庭結構。美國政府容許（Acceptance）華裔保持自身文化，但這並不代表華人完全接受了美國文化的「同化」。
＞ 美國政府的「容許」並不等於真正的融合，華人社群仍然堅持文化認同，這是一種互不干涉的共存，而非真正的文化統一。
4. 中華文化的歷史發展與少數民族的被動接受
中華文化的形成歷經數千年發展，主要以漢文化為主體，並在歷史上不斷擴展至新疆、西藏、川滇等少數民族地區。然而，許多少數民族並未真正與漢文化完全融合，而只是迫於政治與現實選擇接受（Acceptance）或容忍（Forbearance），以維持生存與穩定。
＞ 這種融合非文化上的自願接受。少數民族更多是容忍而融入。
5. 間諜與潛伏者的「偽忠誠」
在許多警匪或諜戰電影中，領導者往往自豪地認為自己已經成功收服了關鍵人物，例如最信任的左右手或伴侶，然而，這些人可能其實是敵方派來的臥底。大領導以為自己「包容」（Inclusion）了這些人成為心腹，但實際上，他們只是戰略性地隱忍（Forbearance），伺機而動，最終往往造成領導者的滅亡或政權的顛覆。
＞ 這是一種典型的「偽融合」，領導者誤以為自己掌控全局，但其實對方只是在等待時機反擊。
結論與啟示
1. 許多所謂的「融合」，其實是虛假的，或者只是暫時的偽裝。
• 無論是政治、文化還是個人關係，許多看似和諧的狀態，實際上可能暗藏矛盾與敵意。表面的融合不代表真正的認同，歷史上許多案例都顯示，一方可能只是暫時容忍，等待時機改變局勢。
2. 「容忍」（Forbearance）往往比「融合」（Integration）更真實且可行。
• 不同文化、民族或政治實體之間，強求真正的融合往往難以實現，最現實的方式反而是容忍彼此的不同，找到共存的平衡點。
3. 在虛偽的融合背後，往往潛藏著反叛的風險。
• 當一方強勢推動融合，而另一方只是表面接受但內心未真正認同時，最終可能導致劇烈的反彈，甚至爆發衝突。例如，蘇聯強制烏克蘭成為加盟共和國，結果導致後來的獨立與對立。
4. 在人類歷史的現實中，政治與文化的融合往往是「大融小」，很少有真正的「雙融」。
• 歷史上，通常是強勢的文明或政權吸納較弱者，鮮少出現平等的雙向融合。強者往往要求寬容（Tolerance），而弱者則需容忍（Forbearance）。在政治與文化現實中，平等融合的理想幾乎不存在。
這些案例與結論說明，所謂的「融合」往往只是表象，實際上，容忍與權力平衡才是更接近現實的狀態。在任何文化、政治、國際關係或個人層面，理解「容忍」與「偽融合」的區別，才能更有效地應對衝突與變局。
Scenarios of False Integration
1. King Goujian’s False Submission to King Fuchai of Wu
During the Spring and Autumn period, after King Goujian of Yue was defeated by King Fuchai of Wu, he chose to submit to Wu and serve as a subordinate. However, this was not genuine submission but a strategic endurance, waiting for an opportunity to strike back. King Fuchai believed he had shown tolerance (Tolerance) by accepting Goujian as a loyal subject, but in reality, Goujian was merely exercising forbearance (Forbearance) to endure humiliation while secretly building his strength. Eventually, he launched a revenge campaign and destroyed Wu.
➡ Fuchai’s tolerance was misplaced because he mistook false integration for genuine loyalty, whereas Goujian’s forbearance was strategic, leading to Wu’s downfall.
2. Ukraine’s Forced Integration into the Soviet Union After WWII
After World War II, Ukraine became part of the Soviet Union not by choice but due to Soviet military power. The Ukrainian people did not fully identify with Soviet rule but tolerated (Forbearance) the situation to ensure survival and stability. However, this so-called integration was never complete, and Ukraine’s national identity remained strong. Ultimately, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine declared independence, showing that forced integration was unsustainable.
➡ The Soviet Union’s forced integration of Ukraine was merely an illusion, as Ukraine never truly assimilated and instead exercised temporary forbearance until it could break free.
3. America’s “Melting Pot” and the Chinese Diaspora
The United States prides itself on being a “cultural melting pot,” where different ethnic groups integrate into American society. However, for the Chinese diaspora, this integration is not absolute. Many Chinese Americans hold U.S. citizenship and engage in political and economic activities, yet they retain strong ties to Chinese culture, traditions, and values. The U.S. government allows (Acceptance) this cultural plurality, but it does not mean that the Chinese community has fully assimilated.
➡ The U.S. government’s acceptance of cultural diversity does not equate to true integration, as Chinese Americans continue to maintain their cultural identity. This is more of a coexistence than an actual fusion.
4. Chinese Culture and the Passive Acceptance of Minority Groups
Chinese culture has evolved over thousands of years, primarily centered around Han culture while incorporating various influences from regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet, and Yunnan. However, many ethnic minorities in these areas have not fully integrated into mainstream Han culture; instead, they have passively accepted (Acceptance) or tolerated (Forbearance) it due to political and economic realities. For example, Tibetan and Uighur cultures maintain their distinct traditions despite historical influence from the central government.
➡ This form of integration is more of a political imposition rather than a voluntary cultural assimilation. Many ethnic minorities tolerate rather than actively embrace Han culture.
5. False Loyalty in Spy and Undercover Films
In many crime or espionage movies, powerful leaders often believe they have successfully won over key subordinates or even their romantic partners. However, these trusted individuals may turn out to be undercover agents from the enemy side. The leader assumes that they have achieved integration by showing inclusion (Inclusion), but in reality, the undercover agents are only exercising forbearance (Forbearance), waiting for the right moment to strike.
➡ This is a classic case of false integration—leaders mistakenly believe they have secured loyalty, while in reality, the other party is biding their time for betrayal.
Conclusions and Insights
1. Many so-called “integrations” are illusions or strategic disguises.
• Whether in politics, culture, or personal relationships, what appears to be harmonious integration may actually conceal deep-seated conflicts and hidden agendas. Temporary acceptance does not mean true assimilation.
2. Forbearance (Forbearance) is often more realistic and sustainable than integration (Integration).
• Between different cultures, nations, or political entities, true fusion is often difficult to achieve. The more practical approach is mutual forbearance, where different groups tolerate each other’s existence while maintaining distinct identities.
3. Behind false integration, there is always a risk of rebellion.
• When one side forces integration while the other only superficially complies, resentment builds up over time, eventually leading to resistance or conflict. The Soviet Union’s forced integration of Ukraine is a prime example of this dynamic.
4. In historical and political reality, integration is usually one-sided—there is no true “mutual integration.”
• Throughout history, stronger civilizations or political entities have assimilated weaker ones, but rarely has integration been equal. The dominant power demands tolerance (Tolerance), while the weaker party is expected to endure (Forbearance). True mutual fusion is nearly nonexistent in political and cultural history.
These scenarios and conclusions illustrate that so-called “integration” is often superficial, while forbearance and power balance are more accurate reflections of reality. Whether in culture, politics, international relations, or personal interactions, understanding the difference between forbearance and false integration is crucial for effectively managing conflicts and long-term stability.
