In his Mandala model of the self, Taiwanese scholar Kwang-Kuo Hwang sees each human being as a combination or intersection of private individual and social person, and also of knowledge and action. To further elaborate the model-with a particular emphasis on teaching/learning, the development of the ideal self and spiritual transcendence-this article will explore the psychological process of self-cultivation in the light of traditional Confucian thinking, which means keeping a balance between inner/outer and self/other. The Neo-Confucian thinker Zhongsha Mou's theories of "the awareness of unexpected developments" and his meditation/cognitive thinking opposition will also be discussed. The analyzed sources will include the traditional Confucian classics (the Four Books and Liji, or Classic of Rites) and especially the "Lessons for Learning (Xue-Ji)" in the Classic of Rites (Liji), along with the relevant textual research. Based upon a cultural-semantic analysis of these classics as well as of Hwang's central ideas, the author attempts to further conceptualize the process of cultivating the ideal self in Confucian education.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,146,124
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,771
of 30,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,286
of 419,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
