At the invitation of some of my Korean friends, I am here tracing one thread in my research and demonstrating it in my past and current publications. Beginning with an overview of some of my methodological efforts to "problematize" our assumptions and to seek clearer terms for analyzing historical sources, I discuss why the term "Neo-Confucianism" appears particularly problematic and inadequate to advance our understanding of Chinese thinking. I explore how such concerns led me to question mainstream or orthodox views of the development of Chinese thought. For instance, I discovered evidence of Daoxue 道學 (Learning of the Way Confucianism) in North China during the Jurchen Jin 女眞族金朝 period (1115-1234) even though mainstream traditional and modern scholars had denied any traces of the brothers Cheng Hao 程顥 (1032-1086) and Cheng Yi 程이 (1033-1107) or any impact of Zhu Xi朱熹 (1130-1200) under the Jin. My books on Zhu Xi have sought to distinguish between "Song learning" and "conventional Confucians" during the Song, as well as to show how Daoxue was related to, but distinct from, other branches of "Song learning" 宋學. In demonstrating how Daoxue changed over time from a broad and politically centered fellowship and then into a school of thought and eventually into state orthodoxy, I have also sought to show why it is crucial to research Zhu Xi``s contemporaries in order to understand the evolution of the group and even Zhu Xi``s own system of thought. My work on the Mongol Yuan 元 era (1234-1367) seeks to complete the story of the transformation of Daoxue and the evolution of a diverse or pluralistic intellectual group and political culture into a relatively more exclusive orthodoxy. The diversity of Song Confucianism was not totally eclipsed, however. Awareness of that diversity should help us to understand the contribution of Song Confucian thinking to the economic development of modern East Asia. For example, the principal ideas of Chen Huanzhang 陳煥章 (1881-1933) and Shibusawa Eiichi 삽澤榮一 (1840-1931) echoed Chen Liang``s 陳亮 (1143-1194) views, such as the compatibility of public and private interests, as well as interdependence of what is profitable and what is right. Since Zhu Xi condemned Chen Liang for expressing these ideas, we surely should not continue to credit Zhu Xi as being the main source of 宋-元 지성사의 탐구: 그 현대적 의의는 무엇인가? 567 traditional ideas contributing to the economic miracle in East Asia. In short, I hope to demonstrate how this thread of intellectual history might help us understand both the past and the present in East Asia.