"From the End of a Dream No One Knows" 6.Closing—Beyond the End of Dream Will Be…
This is all about the systematic description of the philosophy of relations and information at this point. This article was created by deleting unnecessary parts from the essay that had been published separately on note, adding parts that are important from a series of sentences written as a self-review of the essay, and adding a small amount by the author during editing. I note that not all of the contents of self-reviews and essays are written; on the contrary, some things that are not there are also added.
As a background to the philosophy described here, it is impossible not to mention “information-oriented society.” Most of the basic principles of this philosophy begin and end with the definition of "information." In that sense, you could say that I am transforming the world into information. However, I think there is a problem similar to that of “human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape.” Because the information-oriented society has progressed and more developed, and purified principles of knowledge have come to light, so I have been able to create explanations that avoid the obstacles to understanding the world consistently.
Although my argument includes some discussion within the humanities, it may not be completely a discussion of the humanities. Although I myself have studied outside near the boundaries of the humanities, it's hard to say this argument is based on a certain kind of humanities style, which criticizes and inherits the arguments of previous authors and expands upon them.
Most of the essential parts of my argument are an extension of Bateson's argument. To put it simply, in my argument, “2.Relation as Intellect” begins with a comparative study of Bateson's definition of information and Shannon's information theory, and is constructed based on theory of types, and Money of Intellect is the result of a comparative study between his discussion of “a balance” and Katsuhito Iwai's “Ontology of Money.” In addition, “3.The Form of the World, the Forms in the World, the Form ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Weave" is the result of an expansion that combines Bateson's learning theory which is based on theory of types with the ideas of game theory. Of course, “4.The Great Question-Answer Process” includes an expansion of Bateson’s discussion of frog eggs.
In this way, most of my arguments are the result of inheriting and extending Bateson's arguments while criticizing them. However, in the first place, Bateson himself is probably a marginal person in the humanities. As for whether he was building his own theory by inheriting the ideas of other authors, I don't think he didn’t inherit them at all, but I think a large part of his thought is not. Regarding me, as a result I inherit Bateson’s arguments alot, but there are many parts that I didn’t pay attention to Bateson's argument at first.
I have no intention of claiming that I am reading Bateson or any other thinker or philosopher correctly. Although I often quote them obsessively, I'm actually not so interested in the thinkers themselves. If there is a pattern that provides a clue, I will quote it, but my problem is whether it is right for the world rather than what is right for the thinker.
I refer to thinkers in order to improve a good but imperfect measuring instrument into a more accurate and perfect measuring instrument. I do this because there is no need to perceive the world according to something that is not perfect, and the problem is whether the improved results are correct for the world, and even if that is done, it may be still an imperfect measuring device. I think this kind of attitude is a little different from some types of humanities.
I have very little knowledge necessary for the kind of humanities acquired from historical classics. And while I always felt the need for such things when thinking about my own philosophy, I also had a strange feeling that I might have acquired the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to construct the theory. In fact, it was the words of physicist Carlo Rovelli that became the decisive factor in completing this theory. Though he has a lot of knowledge in the humanities.
I do not think that this philosophy should be forced to be placed within the humanities. In fact, I think I have returned to before that. To the place once upon a time scholarship was born, but now where no one exists, before the division between science which focuses on nature and the humanities.
As I have said many times, I do not uncritically praise what I have explained above, such as “comparison.” The naked violence of “comparison” should be avoided, and I think that its abuse would be seen in this world, for example, a bad political force that tries to impose rules on others that cannot follow.
Still, I think the world should be seen and understood from the view of relational theory. All things exist in relations, and everything should be judged by its relationships with other terms. Because this just tells a simple statement that “Apprehend the world with intellect.”
Although I am cautioning myself and saying this here and there, this discussion refers to a wide range of fields, but it does not allow us to simply understand the world. Generally speaking, the world is a complex thing that cannot be easily understood. However, this discussion provides a basis for explaining what it means to be “complex” in order to understand complex things. “Complex” means “a state in which many layers of relations are intertwined, and it is difficult to control and recognize these relationships, to make judgments related to them.”
One of the reasons why I pursued this philosophy of relations was my problematic about “states” and “good and bad.'' Very often, without realizing it, we simply accept “good things” as “existing.” However, we can never know the "good thing in itself.”
For example, it’s an impossible assumption, so it can’t be helped to think about it too much, but I can say the following. In a capitalist economy, the pursuit of profit is considered “good.” But suppose one succeeds in maximizing the highest and ultimate profit in a capitalist economy, collecting all the money. At that time, the “capitalist economy” collapsed. Because money is no longer in circulation.
Capitalism exists because others exist, and the extreme pursuit of “good” brings about “bad harm.” I do not intend to say that the pursuit of profit is per se evil, but rather merely that the pursuit of “good” can bring about “bad.”
It is self-evident, but the pursuit of “good” and profit by individual states may differ from the interests of the “aggregate of states” as a whole. “Part (“good”)” and “whole (“good”)” are different. Whether it is capitalism or the states, I think we need to make the pursuit of the “good” of the parts harmonized with the “goodness” of the whole in some way. Theory of types can briefly explain the above property of hierarchy.
We cannot know the “good thing in itself.” Socrates would have realized this. There’s following words in Xenophon's “The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates”:
“…if you ask me for a good thing that is good for nothing, I know no such thing, nor have anything to do with it.”
“Good thing” is always “good” for “something,” it means “Good thing” always has “end(purpose),” it means no other than “Good thing” has a “limit.” And Socrates said that he didn’t know anything that is not so, nor had anything to do with. Although I believe that there are often situations in everyday life where it is not appropriate to explicitly state that there is a limit to “good thing,” such as early childhood education, I cannot help but sympathize with Socrates’ statement.
In that sense, I believe that Plato's theory of ideas, which begins with “absolute being,” had an aspect undermining his master's intellect. Passion for such things is very meaningful when moving toward theoretical knowledge. However, humans' longing for something limitless can sometimes run out of control. I pray that people today will accurately recognize the limits of ourselves and the world, and will not seek something disproportionate better.
It is no exaggeration to say that most of the author's essential philosophical explorations have ended with “The Missing Link between ‘different’ and ‘same.’” My dream came to an end there. It was happiness that made me feel like I could end my life. This article is written from the end of that dream. From the place where there is no one else but me right now. I don't know what is waiting beyond this place, beyond this dream.
Thanks for reading!!
If you want to have some contacts with me, please send me a mail.
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？