Gadamer’s linguistic turn has been criticized for eclipsing ontological grounds for truth by conflating the meaning of existence with history. Chung-ying Cheng’s recognizes the nihilistic implications of a ceaseless quest for meaning that cannot but perpetually slip away and in response, discloses the cosmo-ontological grounds that Gadamer’s interpretive acts presuppose. In so doing, Cheng initiates a theoretical appropriation and integration between Western philosophy and the Yijing tradition. However, Cheng also interprets Gadamer from a Heideggerian perspective without due regard to Plato. When Gadamer’s turn to language is understood in terms of his claim that Socrates removes the contradiction between the Pythagorean One and the many by studying the forms in language, then there is room in the said turn for temporalizing the meaning of Being in the dialogue form. It is through the dialectical interplay between the auditory and visual dispositions underlying orality and literacy, the two mediums in which human understanding is entangled for Gadamer, that the “creative” emerges in his thought from within and out of a prior historically effected consciousness that in the final analysis attests to the universality of Cheng’s onto-generative hermeneutics.

伽达默尔的语言转向被批评为通过将存在的意义与历史混为一谈而使真理的本体论基础黯然失色。Chung-ying Cheng 认识到对意义的无休止追求的虚无主义含义，这种追求只能永远溜走，并作为回应，揭示了伽达默尔的解释行为预设的宇宙存在论基础。通过这样做，程开始了西方哲学与易经之间的理论借鉴和融合。传统。然而，程也从海德格尔的角度解释伽达默尔，没有适当考虑柏拉图。当伽达默尔转向语言被理解为他声称苏格拉底通过研究语言形式来消除毕达哥拉斯一与众之间的矛盾时，那么在上述转向中就有空间将存在的意义暂时化为对话形式。正是通过口述和读写这两种人类理解与伽达默尔纠缠在一起的听觉和视觉倾向之间的辩证相互作用，“创造性”在他的思想中出现在他的思想中，来自先前的历史影响的意识，在最后的分析证明了程的本体生成诠释学的普遍性。