East Asian scholars have been quick in adopting western models of science. For me, rather too ceremonially. From primary, secondary, or university education in East Asia, you would find curriculum very similar to the west. This is good, for instance, to prepare these graduates in serving U.S., English, or other western corporations. They are familiar with the western division of knowledge - maths, chemistry, physics, politics, sociology, psychology, business, and finance. However, why do we study psychology as a discipline that is differentiated from business? If you would examine the Sun Tzu art of war, you would encounter a lot of writings about human psychology. That is, war is not much detached from psychology. Why don't we study business activity as a unification of business reality and psychology?

I believed that westernization in East Asia began with Japan, beginning with the Meiji Era. Then, it was a strange encounter of east meeting west. Contrary to popular beliefs, particularly in China, that all things east are outdated and old fashion, the Japanese think through more than that. In fact, Japan, perhaps due to its volunteery modernisation, compared to China being forced into opening it doors and subsequently civil wars, Japan went through a period of self-reflection. The east talking to the west, and reinventing itself.

The result of this was the emergent of a detailed analysis of the Eastern thought, based on Zen Buddhism and Confucianism, of what subsequently known as the Kyoto School of Philosophy. The founder, Nishida Kitaro, first wrote a book - A Study of Good, in 1911. It was a premier book and one which every Japanese philosophy study has to read.

Nishida Kitaro borrowed his thinking not so much from Japan, but rather, of a thought system emerged out of China. Nishida was never quite a Japan Nationalist. Quite like any great person, he felt human, and unable to find consolation with western philosophy, decided to critique and develop a philosophy for East Asian societies. Quoting Shimomura's commentary on Nishida's thoughts:

"From this time [of Nishida's writings] on Japanese thinkers first began to know of "philosophy" and "science" in the Western sense. And yet Japan had had from very ancient times many outstanding Buddhist, Confucian, and later Shinto, thinkers. Their thought was philosophical in a high degree, and in the sense that it did not possess magic and superstitious elements was even scientific, although both Buddhism and Conficianism in themselves are neither philosophy nor science.

This short passage noted an important point of departure of eastern thoughts from western ones. East Asian societies did not develop a science separated from religion. To say that Buddhism and Confucianism are religions is a mistake. These two are system of thinking, and in a very sense, very different from thinking emerges out of the west - in logical sequences and debates. Contrary to religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and even Taoism have not "god almighty." Every dieties in these systems of thinking is fallible. As a result, these systems emphasized solving problems by our own will 心. D.S. Clarke, Jr described Nishida's thought system:

It is 'intuitive and practical,' with its emphasis on religious aspects of experience not lending themselves readily to theoretical description. True wisdom is to be distinguished from intellectual understanding of the kind appropriate to the sciences. The 'appropriation' of Nishida's thought,...'embraces difficulties entirely different from those of intellectual understanding'...and those who 'pretend to understand much but do not really understand, no matter how much they intellectually understand' are the object of his scorn.

Human experience, according to Nishida, is beyond words. Every system of measurement or models are false representations of that experience. The emphasis of actual, wordless experience, what Nishida called "pure experience," appeared to be a central premise of East Asian thought. The Chinese respect pure experience and used many common terms to describe them: real strength 真实力，real world experienced 有实战经验， having good "ingredients" 有料， not empty words 不是说说而已. The Chinese also scorn people who can say but unable to get things done: is only able to say 只会说，empty words 空谈. By the number of words that Chinese used to describe the presence or absence of pure experience, we can deduce that the concept has infused deeply into the language. Even without a system of education to pass down the idea, the idea still lies deeply within the society.

Perhaps because of the system of thought being deeply ingrained within East Asian culture, and Japanese went further by declaring these ideals in academic concepts, the Japanese tend to manage their society and businesses different from the western counterparts. For instance, Japanese management focused more on actual hands-on experience rather than mathematical indicators of business health (Nonaka). I am still looking deeper into this area. This brought me some zests in the possibilities of examining Japan society today versus other East Asian societies such as China.