外内不相及与内外相冥

称郭象把庄子的“外内不相及”改造成“内外相冥”是对庄子思想的重大修正，是不成立的。外内指方外方内，方内是礼法的世界，方外是不由礼教束缚的大方世界。庄子批判礼法，方内与方外本来就无法统一，也没必要统一。郭象据以发挥的游外冥内是另一种意义上的统一，而这本来就是庄子已有的思想框架。庄子与郭象都反对刻意伏于山林，都主张游外冥内，但所要与之冥合的“内”在庄子是民间，在郭象是庙堂，指的都不是礼法。所以，我们可以说郭象改造了庄子的游外冥内，但不能说他把“外内不相及”改造成了内外相冥．否则就是混同了两种不同意义上的外内。

"WAI AND NEI ARE INCOMPATIBLE" AND "WAI AND NEI ARE INTEGRATED"

Most scholars argue that Guo Xiang replaces Zhuangzi＇s proposition ＂Wai and Nei are incompatible＂ with another proposition ＂Wai and Nei axe integrated,＂ and this is a radical revision to Zhuangzi＇s philosophy. However, from my point of view, this assertion cannot sustain. ＂Nei＂ is a world of Li, while ＂Wai＂ is a world where people can escape the bondage of such burdens. The two worlds cannot be integrated at all. With regard to Guo Xiang＇s notion of staying in the world of ＂Nei＂ and simultaneously cherishing the intention of transcending the world, it is another kind of unification. In fact, this notion has already existed in Zhuangzi＇s philosophy. Both Zhuangzi and Guo Xiang opposed to intentionally stay away from society. They both upheld to stay in the world of ＂Nei＂ and transcending. However, for Zhuangzi, ＂Nei＂ refers to the folk world, while for Guo Xiang it refers to government. Neither of them refers to Li. Therefore, we can say that Guo Xiang modifies Zhuangzi＇s concept of staying in the folk world. Nonetheless, we cannot say that Guo Xiang has replaced the proposition mentioned above. Otherwise, we will confuse two different kinds of ＂Wai＂ and ＂Nei＂.