If we analyze relationship between Shi Wu and Dao Li by the base and the use, they should be said to be base and use of each other. We must first observe concrete things, and then abstract the Dao Li from them. Therefore, Shi Wu are bases, the Dao Li are uses. Then we use Dao Li to carry out logical thinking and reasoning, predict concrete things in the future. At this time, Dao Li are base and Shi Wu are use.

Dao Li in the objective world may be real and can dominate the movement of the world, but they are not sources of knowledge, nor are they standards for testing truth, and we cannot know their exact content. We can only get experience from concrete things, can not directly perceive the abstract Dao Li in objective world. Objective Idealists said that people can perceive the Dao Li of the objective world through rational intuition, that is completely nonsense. The only thing people can see intuitively is their own fancies or scientific innovations. The difference between fancy and scientific innovation is not whether they are objective, but whether they are valuable.

The Dao Li of the subjective world is man's knowledge, which is often wrong. Consciousness has limitation. The Dao Li of the objective world is out of human consciousness, and will not be wrong because of the limitations of consciousness. Neither the truth of science nor philosophy is the absolute truth and may be overturned in the future. Therefore, neither the Dao Li of science nor philosophy is the Dao Li of the objective world.

Laozi said: "Dao can be described, but it is not Constant Dao." He believed that Dao was different from Constant Dao. Constant Dao is the abstract Dao Li in the objective world, while Dao is people's understanding of Constant Dao in the subjective world. Then Laozi said: "Heaven learns from Dao, Dao learns from nature." Was the Dao here the Constant Dao in the objective world or the Dao in the subjective world? It is impossible for heaven to learn from man, so the Dao in the "heaven learns from Dao" must be the Constant Dao, not the Dao in the subjective world. The Constant Dao of the objective world is the cause and dominant force of the concrete things in nature. The Constant Dao can only dominate nature, but does not need to learn from nature. Therefore, Dao in "Dao learns from nature" can only be the Dao in the subjective world, not the Constant Dao. It can be seen that Laozi confused Dao with Constant Dao.

3.2 The Onion of R.Barthes

Structuralism postulates that there is a transcendental underlying structure that determines the meaning of a sign or becomes the meaning basis and center of a sign system. This is the common belief of structuralism since Saussure, and it is also the goal of all Structuralists including Barthes. But Barthes later fiercely opposed this Structuralist postulate. Barthes said, Literary work is like an onion, is composed of many layers. In the end, there is no heart, no core, no secret, no irreducible origin, some just layers of envelope.[2]

Barthes was both right and wrong. The underlying structure of Structuralism refers to the abstract Dao Li and concrete things that cannot be observed directly in the objective world. These things maybe exist. Barthes said there's no such abstract Dao Li, so the argument of Barthes was Anti-essentialism, he was arguing against the dogmatism of Objective Idealism. This Anti-essentialist view was worthy of affirmation, because the abstract Dao Li in objective world is not the source of knowledge, nor the standard and basis for testing truth, and has no value. But there can be valuable underlying structure in the subjective world, and that structure can determine the meaning of signs. If the underlying structure that Structuralism referred to was the structure in subjective world, then Structuralism can be on the right track.