"From the End of a Dream No One Knows" 5.The Place Still Shared by Science and the Religions
So far, I have been talking about comparisons and relations as a lost moment. I think those writings probably have some meaning philosophically. Finally, I will discuss two types of truth in this chapter. On the one hand, these are about academic and scientific truths, and on the other hand, the truths of a particular type of religion.
Some of the topics related to it have already been mentioned. For example, the Zen questions and answers discussed in the previous chapter dissipate the “things do not exist there” -- the objects of desire and sadness -- through “the aporia of questioning” and bring peace to the mind. Or, the awareness of the “impossibility of comparison” as an opportunity for maturity is also similar.
These are just saying the same thing, a certain kind of possibility and impossibility of intellect, from different angles. It is no wonder that philosophical debates can be traced back to the same issues and issues related to relations. Because the world seen through intellect is the “network of relations.''
Here I will show that debates about comparison and relations are not only debates about intellect itself, but also can shed light on the truths of certain religions from a new angle.
At ”5-1.The Truth of the Science, the Truth of the Relation,” I will explain what the truth of science is by contrasting it with the undecidability of solipsism. Simply put, it is a “system of relations,” the system that forms the network of selection in which the selection of starting information that is regarded as true or obvious determines other information (selections). In other words, this way of being is “knowledge itself that is true about reality” and can be called “the truth of relations.”
At “5-2.The Truth of the Religions, the Outside of Relation, the Truth of Existence,” I will describe the truth of religion from the perspective of comparison, and also discuss how similar patterns can be seen in some philosophers.
That had already been mentioned. When we perceive the world through comparison, we see “things can exist but not,” or “things exist but can be lost.” The former is the fundamental source of desire and sadness, the latter is the source of fear and anxiety, and comparison is the fundamental basis of such suffering. And, as we saw in the example of Zen questions and answers, certain religions demonstrate the impossibility of intellect, the impossibility of comparison. By that, it makes people closer to the “outside of relations,” or to the reality as it is, to the “truth of existence,” and brings about peace in mind.
Note that although I may speak of certain religious truths, I am a discoverer of them, but I am by no means a practitioner of them. I believe my discussion itself has significant meanings irrespective of me. But I, myself, am a no-hoper man.
At “5-3.The Place Still Shared by Science and the Religions,” I argue that the “outside of relations” is a place that science still shares with religion.
Briefly I explain, knowledge is the system of relations, but the new discovery of science is “new” because of the difference with the existing system of relations. Therefore, such discoveries always come from a place different from the existing system. In other words, new scientific discoveries always come from the same place as certain religious truths, the “outside of relations.” It is a place that lies nowhere that will continue to remain unless we are not omniscient.
The above is an overview of this chapter.
5-1.The Truth of Science, the Truth of the Relation
In chapter 2, I said that solipsism is undecidable. If this is correct, then in principle we cannot declare that the totality of our recognition is either reality or a dream. So, assuming we are in such a situation, what exactly is the truth of reality and the truth of science? The relationship between the undecidability of solipsism and the truth of science can be shown in the following model. I think this will help you understand what kind of truth is scientific truth.
First, suppose that there is a restricted area where only one person, A cannot enter, and he doesn’t know what’s inside. A cannot enter inside, but other people can enter. In order to obtain information there for A, he has to ask other people who can enter there, such as B. Suppose B tells A about the situation.
A can hear what’s going on inside from B. But what would happen if C, D, E, F… came here and each told A different details? In that case, A will try to recreate the internal state by reconciling and scrutinizing the information spoken by B, C, D, E, F…, resolving the mutual contradictions, and coming up with a coherent explanation.
So, if A were to mistrust all humans, B, C, D, E, F…, the certainty of the situation in the restricted area would be questioned, and nothing would be trusted. A cannot enter inside and cannot know the state of the inside at all. That suspicion cannot be dismissed by any of B, C, D, E, F…, because they are all the object of skepticism. This is the skeptical stance of solipsism. And this skepticism is only held by A, so the truth of it cannot be confirmed.
You would understand easily, in this analogy, A is one perceiving person, B, C, D, E, F … are all the information that one perceiving person has, and the restricted area is the world as “thing-in-itself.” The truth of science is the “truth” that is constructed by reconciling the stories of B, C, D, E, F… It can be expressed as “in-the-world = in-information truth.”
This way of thinking is analogous to Saussure’s value system which is explained by Keizaburo Maruyama. It’s the “system of relation” in which the selection of starting information determines other information (selections). In other words, it’s “knowledge itself that is true about reality.” Scientific truths can also be called “truth of relation” because the nature of the terms involved and their relationships with other terms are determined depending on selection.
5-2.The Truth of the Religions, the Outside of Relation, the Truth of Existence
5-2-1.The Fundamental Principle of the Truth of the Religions and their Examples
In contrast, what is the truth of religion? I believe that it will converge to the “outside of relations” and, in a more refined form, to what can be called “the truth of existence.”
As mentioned earlier, “comparison” is essential to human life, but when its power is overworked, it brings about various sufferings.
Comparison produces “things can exist but not.” That is, comparison is a fundamental mechanism which produces the “things do not exist there,” “things one does not possess” — but it is a thing “does not exist,” so it exists nowhere. Conversely, comparison often makes people recognize “the possibility that things that exist but can be lost” about “status” or ”wealth.” The former is the main source of desire and sadness, the latter is the source of “fear” and “anxiety.” Comparison produces “the possibility that can be there but not,” and shakes people’s hearts, takes away the reality as it is from us.
Therefore, “comparison” can be said to be the most basic and fundamental source of certain human sufferings. When those actions and principles are removed, people will definitely come closer to “the reality as it is” and will experience “peace in mind.” Since it is “outside of comparison,” it is the "outside of relations," and can be called the "truth of existence" in the sense that it approaches "reality as it is." When it is carried to the extreme, it will reach the point where cognition (information and comparison) is abandoned.
So, certain types of religion that I mention here are some kinds of “religions” that tell the limits of one’s knowledge and one’s own power, that the world human sees are not all of it, by letting go of ego and desires and coming to peace. There may be something like that in the words of lao-zi, Shinran（親鸞 Japanese Jodo‐shin sect Buddhist）,Jesus and Buddha. It may be something that leads to Socratic ignorance.
These religions make us realize the limits of human beings by pointing out the fundamental limits of “intellect (relations),” telling us to abandon comparison, and the impossibility of the ability of selection. For example, in “Buddha’s Teachings:Sutta-Nipāta,” there are the following words:
All growths of Ill from Consciousness arise; no Ills can grow, if Consciousness be stilled.
Māgandiya: Scouting concocted views, you speak of Inward Peace. How would that form of Weal by experts be described?
The Lord: Not 'views' or hearsay, lore or works, give Purity; —nor does the lack of them. Discard all this; win calm; be free; crave no rebirth.
'He's my inferior', 'my better' or 'as good', —such thoughts breed strife. No strife is his who knows no grades.
It is difficult to reach peace in mind outside of comparisons without “lore.” However, if we try to follow the “lore” too strictly, we will lose the peace in mind. This is because when we follow the “lore” with excessive awareness, we end up harshly “comparing” the inside and outside of the lore.
Some of Gandhi's words also point out such limitations.
I claim to be a man of faith and prayer, and even if I was cut to pieces, God would give me the strength not to deny Him and to assert that He is. The Muslim says He is and there is no one else. The Christian says the same thing and so the Hinds, and if I may say so, even the Buddhist says the same thing, if in different words. We may each of us be putting our own interpretation on the word God,―― God who embraces not only this tiny globe of ours, but millions and billions of such globes. How can we, little crawling creatures, so utterly helpless as He has made us, how could we possibly measure His greatness, His boundless love, His infinite compassion, such that He allows man insolently to deny Him, wrangle about Him, and cut the threat of his fellowman? How can we measure the greatness of God who is so forgiving, so divine? Thus though we may utter the same words they have not the same meaning for us all. And hence I say that we do not need to proselytise or do shuddhi or tabligh through our speech or writing. We can only do it really with our lives.
Here, Gandhi denies “measuring” “God’s love”. It means he refers to the outside of intellect, “the outside of relations.” This is because “to measure” is making a selection from a group of options, a measure. Conversely, “Immeasurable” means that we can’t select one. On the other hand, “relations” is “interlock of selection and selection.” In other words, when one part of them cannot be selected, it is positioned “the outside of relations.” Therefore, “the immeasurable love of God” is a reference to “the outside of relations.” And for this reason, Gandhi denies conversion or purification.
And as a reference to the “outside of relation,” I think I can show allegory of Adam and Eve. When Adam and Eve ate the “fruit of wisdom” and learned about “good and evil” and realized their own “nakedness,” values and culture were born, a “comparison measure,” a “question” and a “problem” was born. Culture is a collection of “comparison measures’’ and also a collection of “ways of questioning,” in which people belonging to that cultural area question the world.
Since the place where Adam and Eve were before they were expelled was called “Paradise,” — it is outside of comparison and selection, in other words, “outside of relations”— perhaps the writer of Genesis knew the happiness of that place. It is the happiness of “holy fools” who do not understand all cultural values.
Or Shinran*1, who discourages self-salvation, may also be referring to this kind of “outside of the relations.” Denial of self-salvation is a denial of one's ability to control the situation by one's own power, and can be said to be a denial of one's ability to select one's own state. By admonishing the limits of one's own power, it brings one into contact with the “outside of the relations” and gives salvation.
*1…Shinran taught people to give up salvation by one’s own strength such as Buddhist training, and to be aware of being a villain and just pray to Amida Buddha. He taught that people can remove worldly passions and Amida Buddha saves them by that. The reason why people should be aware of being a villain is that there might be no perfect innocent people, for example, in the faith of Buddhist, believing the circle of transmigration, the food people eat might be other people or their parents or children…etc so people can never live in perfect innocence. When people are aware of that, people also learn that such a villain never saves oneself, and there’s no right to desire something, then people leave their worldly passions, get peace of mind and are saved. This salvation is not brought about by one’s strength because the one just gives up saving oneself, so it’s brought about by Amida Buddha. I note that it's a brief explanation by reading a book, so it might not be perfectly correct.
Of course, religion is colored by various mythical stories, and I don’t argue that the principles I have talked about here are all of those religions. However, some religions clearly incorporate the pattern I spoke of, the "outside of the relations." This is probably because, in the past, when people came into contact with the ”outside of the relations,” they learned of the impossibility of “comparison” in principle, and were able to obtain a certain kind of peace in mind.
I think I can show the practice of Alcoholic Anonymous as an example that “outside the relations” has the clinical meaning. Alcoholic Anonymous helps alcoholics to realize their powerlessness against alcohol and recover from it. This self-awareness of powerlessness is a renunciation of salvation by one’s own strength, and I think it can be said that it is almost Shinran’s Tariki Hongwan(salvation by other’s power) itself. This has been described by Bateson as such phrases, “hitting the bottom” or “surrendering to something greater than oneself.”
Or, meditation, which focuses on the here and now, can be cited as a practice that approaches the “outside of relations” and the “truth of existence.” In this way, the “outside of relations” can also be thought to give people a certain kind of peace.
One can tell others “the existence of the place,” ”the outside of relations.” Though, we may not be able to force others to become aware of the limits of “one’s own power” and “self.” It’s probably a little closer to teaching “left and right.” Because for finite human existence in the world, each person’s own “total of relations” is the whole of the world for them, but “the total of relations’’ would be different for each human located in different places in the world. In fact, each of us has different relations to the world — although the world is just one, I think.
One person’s “total of relations” and another person’s “total of relations” are different. Thus, “the outside of relations” will differ from person to person, and the way they become aware it will also differ. From that, we can understand that there are various religions, but we can touch one same nature through them.
And, a person who is able to accurately recognize the “outside of relations” approaches “self-knowledge.” This is because “the limits of relations” are the limits of the relationships between oneself and the world, and thus are also the “self-limits.” Conversely, those who fail to recognize it pretend to be someone else, or make someone else themselves. Therefore, depending on the method of forcing others to reach “the outside of relations,” tragedy will be born.
5-2-2.”The Outside of Relation” and its Relevance to a Particular Type of Philosophy
Such a pattern of approaching the “outside of relations” and the “truth of existence” is not limited to religion.
For example, Kant's concept, “thing in itself,'' which is beyond the reach of cognition, can be said to simply point to the “truth of existence” that lies “outside relations.” In addition, Socrates' “dialogue” is an amazing improvising practice that allows living people to come into contact with the outside of the “system of intellect.” On the contrary, his “awareness of ignorance” also shows that the practice is also directed towards himself.
Or so is “Spinoza's God.” Because he describes the fulfilled world which never lacks anything, which exists through "self-causation" outside any “relations,” which is independent of anything, which is the whole world contains all space-time. And, Descartes' skepticism would also touch on “the outside of relations” because he reaches the negation of recognition.
Furthermore, as special examples, Nietzsche's “Superhuman Thought” and “Eternal Recurrence” also touch on problems related to the outside of relations.
Somewhere, I think Nietzsche wrote something like, “If you have affirmed something even once, it is the same as affirming everything in the world until now.”
When a person affirms “something” — a part of this world — it always means affirming no other than “everything in this world,” my memory of the above is vague, but I think that’s what Nietzsche thought.
Because our perception is limited, we often see “something” as “something in itself.” However, “something” has always existed in “relationships” with other things that exist in this world and with other things that have existed in the past. And since “this world” exists as “this world,” anyone can not separate any pieces from “this world.”
For example, a world in which “something” did not exist by cutting out from this world is a different world from “this world.” We can’t remove or erase “something” from this world. Therefore, if we think in this way — that is, if we take a perspective that considers all “relations” in the present and the past — when we affirm “something,” we are affirming “everything in the world.” This is because “something” appears in front of us as “something” due to its relationship with everything that exists in the “world.”
If we think about the world this way, we can understand one reason why “Yes” by superman reaches the affirmation and wish for “Eternal Recurrence.” “Yes” by superman takes account of all the relations like the above. Considering all “relations,” it is not possible to remove “something” from the world and “affirm” just that world. From this perspective, wishing for “this world” to repeat itself, wishing for “Eternal Recurrence” are even general consequences of “affirming” something.
Because if we consider all “relations,” and when we affirm “something,” the world must not lack any pieces that exist in it for that “something” are itself, and affirming that means wishing for the recurrence of the all process which once generated it, “the world which existed once.”
The biggest difference between this affirmation and the affirmation of “Spinoza’s God” is that “time” returns. This may also be the difference between Spinoza’s “world” and “God,” while Nietzsche’s “God is dead.”
And you will understand that the “eternal recurrence” seen in this way is a clear negation of “comparison.” As long as the world which one affirms is this world, as long as something one affirms is something, all things are inseparable, thinking in that way is negation of the act of cutting out something as the “object” from the flow of time in the world. Therefore, in this thought, all things are considered to be unique, and nothing in the world can be compared based on identity ( equal to the denial of difference). Thus, the affirmation of “eternal recurrence” is the denial of “comparison” because it is an absolute affirmation of this world, not desiring any other possible world.
But I don’t think Nietzsche thought that only “the affirmation of the world” was good in itself. I think there is a scene at the end of Zarathustra where he sees the people he has led affirming the world with “Yes,” and then he suddenly confronts them with “No.”
What I would like to think about is that when people affirm “everything in the world” as described above, they will become people who are satisfied with the status quo without thinking about changing the world. Perhaps, as a result, they may end up resembling the human behavior that Nietzsche did not like, such as being afraid of the future and assimilating with others.
Nietzsche may have placed great importance on “affirming everything in the world” and at the same time “saying no to it.” ”To confront the world with no” is an act of cutting off bad “relations” and trying to create a different “relation.” The story of “Zarathustra” contains both of these moments.
Thus, I believe that a “superman” is also a depiction of a free person who is not biased towards either “yes” or “no,” a person who does not have a fixed “form” — it's the appearance of a very common, normal human being who absolutely affirms “self and the world” in a world of flowing “relations,” lives vigorously through change by interweaving the denial and affirmation of the “forms” that both self and others take based on relationships with others.
I think Nietzsche had a certain sense of reverence for “a person of love” like Jesus, and while receiving something from him, but said goodbye to him, and created the concept of “superman.” I think it’s a message that, rather than affirming only the “strong people,” it’s the opposite: “Those who can affirm the world and themselves even in miserable situations are the true strong and vigorous person.”
This has nothing to do with “wealth or social power,” or rather, being able to affirm oneself and the world without such things is nothing other than “strongness,” and I think he was thinking about “weakness” which is opposite to “strongness” in the concept of “superman” more than what I write here.
5-3.The Place Still Shared by Science and the Religions
And I think that the “outside of the relations” that I have described above is still a place where science and religion cannot be separated. Although it is a rather simple story, it can be explained as follows.
First of all, science will advance by making new discoveries or by removing the delusions of existing knowledge. And known facts are the systems of existing knowledge, “systems of relations.” However, “new discoveries” and pointing out delusions always come from outside the existing knowledge, the “system of relations.”
Because a new discovery is “new” due to the difference from the existing knowledge system, and “pointing out delusions” requires the difference from existing delusion. Therefore, science cannot develop without “the outside of relations.” I say “the outside of relations,” but I note that it’s not just outside the whole “network”, the difference in how the nodes are connected is also that. When the way the nodes of the network are connected is rearranged, it becomes a different externality from the existing “system of relations.”
I lack knowledge of Islam and Hinduism and know nothing about them. However, there is a possibility that great religions will converge on what can be described as “the outside of relations.” It is a place where “science” cannot separate, and a certain type of “religion” is still sharing the inseparable place with “science.” The “outside of relations,” it is a place that lies nowhere that will continue to remain unless we are not omniscient.
Next Chapter 6.Closing—Beyond the End of Dream Will Be…
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？