"From the End of a Dream No One Knows" 4.The Great Question-Answer Process
In this chapter, I will focus on the relationship between the previous discussion and “questioning.” From the perspective of theory of relation and comparison, “questioning” or “answering” is the essential state of beings in this world, and we can call this world the “great question-and-answer process.”
At “4-1.The Question about Questioning What Does Not Exist There,” as an introduction of this chapter, I’ll talk about a “question” which I had when I’m a university student, 8~9 years ago. A brief explanation is as follows.
Chiaki Ishihara, a researcher of Soseki Natsume*1, gave a report assignment at a lecture. At that time, he was surprised to find a student. He presented the question, “Why didn't the main character of the novel use the map when he visited the woman's house?,” and revealed the peculiarity of the main character's bodily sensations from that question. The reason Chiaki Ishihara was surprised is because it was a very noble question asking “something that isn't there.”
*1…Soseki Natsume(漱石 夏目) is a famous Japanese novelist.
But isn't this strange when you think about it? Why can we ask about something that isn't there? What is to question something that doesn't exist? I, a no-hoper student, had such questions. In this chapter, I will discuss what “questioning” in general means, and through this, will clarify the mystery of “questioning what does not exist there.”
At “4-2.The Form of Questioning,” using the discussion of the "structure of question" that Heidegger raises at the beginning of "Being and Time" as a clue, I will discuss how "questioning" can be described in the theory of relation and comparison that has been described so far. The outline is as follows.
Heidegger said “question(inquiry)” has three components. They are “that which is asked about [sein Gefragtes],” “that which is interrogated[Anfragen bei …],” and “that which is to be found out by the asking [das Erfragte].” In “Being and Time,” Heidegger asks “Being” as “that which is asked about” toward “that which is interrogated” as “Dasein”, and he found “that which is to be found out by the asking”, the meaning of Being as “time.”
I apply it to a familiar example. For example, “How much is an apple?” in the case where an apple is one dollar. In this case, the “apple” is “that which is asked about,” and “that which is interrogated” is “how much = the price expressed in money (the price that the seller delivers to the buyer),” and we can get “that which is to be found out by the asking” of “one dollar” as the solution.
Expressing this in terms of theory of relations, a "questioning" and its answer are applying a certain “comparison measure(set of elements which can be the answer)” or “comparator” to the "object of the question (what is asked about)," selecting one element and outputting the result.
So, in the simplest expression, a “question” is a trial applying a “comparison measure” to the “object of the question,” and selecting one element which is matched to the “object of the question” from a “set of elements which can be the answer.” From theory of relation and comparison, we can express it in this way.
In the next section “4-3.The Beings as Question/Answer,” I will compare and examine Bateson's discussion of frog eggs, Takeshi Yoro's*2 discussion, and the discussion of “question” we have seen above. As a result of examination, I conclude both, all beings in this world are in a state of "questioning," waiting for relations with others, and conversely, all beings in this world are “answers” which have been selected through many "questions."
*2…Takeshi Yoro(孟司 養老) is a famous Japanese anatomist, essayist.
At “4-4.’Questioning What Does Not Exist There’ and ‘Zen Questions and Answers,’” based on the discussions in 4-2 and 4-3, I answer the question posed in 4-1, “What is to question something that doesn't exist?” and further explore the relationship between “questioning something that doesn't exist” and Zen questions and answers.
Finally, in “4-5.The Questions towards Transcendence,”I will close this chapter by asking questions about this world that I currently have.
This is the summary of Chapter 4.
4-1.The Question about Questioning What Does Not Exist There
When I was a no-hoper university student, the words of a book impressed me and made me come up with a question. These are the following words written in the book “Paper Writing Method for University Students” by Chiaki Ishihara, a researcher of Soseki Natsume.
…One year, when I took up Junichiro Tanizaki’s(潤一郎 谷崎) “Secret”(秘密 Himitsu) in a first-year class, I was surprised that one student questioned “Why didn’t the protagonist use a map to find the woman’s house?” and thoroughly studied the latest cartographic theory at the time, such as “The Imagination of a Map” by Mikio Wakabayashi (“地図の想像力” Tizu no Souzouryoku 幹夫 若林) and “Maps and Politics” by Jeremy Black(“地図の政治学”), revealed the peculiarities of the protagonist’s physical senses.
Actually, this report has a foreshadowing that I handed out a copy of a map from the Meiji era(“明治時代” Meiji Jidai : October 23, 1868 to July 30, 1912) in the first class, but I didn’t think it would be received in this way. The setting itself of the question “Why didn’t he do it?” is extremely high-class.
When I read that, “The high-class question that questions what does not exist there,” I thought “I want to be able to do that, too.” But at the sametime I had questions “Why can we ask what does not exist there?”, “What is questioning what does not exist there?” And I couldn’t find any answers at that time.
Today that I’ve become a company employee, I am still no-hoper, but now I think I can find that answer. For that, here I will clarify what “questioning” is in the first place, based on Heidegger's argument. And I will answer to the past myself who had the question “what is questioning what does not exist there?” 8 or 9 years ago.
4-2.The Form of Questioning
At the beginning of “Being and Time,” Heidegger talks about the “formal structure of question.” Here, I will take up his discussion to argue about “questioning.” Because I think it's an excellent argument that found out the basic structure of the question.
The question of the meaning of Being must be formulated. If it is a fundamental question, or indeed the fundamental question, it must be made transparent, and in an appropriate way. We must therefore explain briefly what belongs to any question whatsoever, so that from this standpoint the question of Being can be made visible as a very special one with its own distinctive character.
Every inquiry is a seeking[Suchen]. Every seeking gets guided beforehand by what is sought. Inquiry is a cognizant seeking for an entity both with regard to the fact that it is and with regard to its Being as it is. This cognizant seeking can take the form of ‘investigating’[“Untersuchen”], in which one lays bare that which the question is about and ascertains its character. Any inquiry, as an inquiry about something, has that which is asked about [sein Gefragtes]. But all inquiry about something is somehow a questioning of something[Anfragen bei …]. So in addition to what is asked about, an inquiry has that which is interrogated[ein Befragtes]. In investigative questions — that is, in questions which are specifically theoretical– what is asked about is determined and conceptualized. Furthermore, in what it asked about there lies also that which is to be found out by the asking [das Erfragte]; this is what is really intended: with this the inquiry reaches its goal. Inquiry itself is the behaviour of a questioner, and therefore of an entity, and as such has its own character of Being. When one makes an inquiry one may do so ‘just casually’ or one may formulate the question explicitly. The latter case is peculiar in that the inquiry does not become transparent to itself until all these constitutive factors of the question have themselves become transparent.
According to “Being and Time” by Heidegger, “question(inquiry)” has three components. They are “that which is asked about [sein Gefragtes],” “that which is interrogated[Anfragen bei …],” and “that which is to be found out by the asking [das Erfragte].”
In “Being and Time,” as a result of examination, Heidegger asks “Being” as “that which is asked about” toward “that which is interrogated” as “Dasein”, and he found “that which is to be found out by the asking”, the meaning of Being as “time.”
Then, I would like to set up a “question” in line with the analysis of Heidegger’s “structure of question.” As an example, let’s look at the question, “How much is an apple?” in the case where an apple is one dollar. In this case, the “apple” is “that which is asked about,” and “that which is interrogated” is “how much = the price expressed in money (the price that the seller delivers to the buyer),” and we can get “that which is to be found out by the asking” of “one dollar” as the solution.
In other words, by applying a comparison measure of “how much = the price expressed in money” to “apple”, one selected solution can be obtained from the set of possible values “…0.98 dollars, 0.99 dollars, 1 dollar, 1.01 dollars, 1.02 dollars…” If this is a barter, the measure that can be applied may be “…50g of wheat, 50g of wheat and 1 fish, 50g of wheat and 1 obsidian…cannot be exchanged”, etc. It will be displayed in a measure which is not centralized socially.
Or, let’s change the “question” and think about “What order of plant is an apple?” In this case, for “apple” as “that which is asked about’’, an answer is selected from the comparison measure, the set of “…Fagales, Rosales, Geraniales…” as “that which is interrogated.”
If we consider Heidegger’s analysis in combination with my discussion in theory of relations, we find the “question” is applying the “measure,” the “set of possible answers” to “the object of the question(that which is asked about)”and one answer is selected, or applying the comparator and outputting an answer.
Although I call money a comparison measure, money is actually a huge and dynamic comparator in the human world. This is because, for example, a piece of 1 dollar is not physically money in itself. It is 1 dollar because of its exchangeability with all other 1 dollar commodities and all other forms of 1 dollar money, and its value fluctuates from moment to moment in the market according to supply and demand throughout the circulation range of money.
Also, the situation is similar, if not dynamic, for example, with a ruler. Since one 1 cm has the same identity defined by the speed of light and is equivalent to all other 1 cm, casually used rulers are a much larger device than their physical existence. Considering the theory of relativity, things would change, but a correctly measured 1 cm would have almost the same identity as every 1 cm on Earth. This hugeness is proportional to how widely the comparator is used.
I think most of all comparators you see are probably terrifyingly large. For it is the network of identity of the functions of all other comparators that makes them an exact comparator. Although there are problems with qualia, it can be considered that both sensory organs and language have similar mechanisms. As a classification of comparators, various mappings are possible, for example, static and centralized comparators such as “length” and dynamic and distributed comparators such as “language” and “money.”
If you think about how ancient weights and measures are determined, you will immediately understand that this is the case, but comparison measures are inherently social, and as long as they are physically shared, they are communicative.
Putting aside how simple or complicated the procedure involved, answering a “question” can be compared to performing the procedure of a “function” that leads to a solution. Regardless of how simple or complex it is, whether it is through language or through numbers, I call the things that process the procedure as “comparators,” and we can call that process “act of comparison.”
The outline of the act of comparison is to apply a comparator to the “object of question” and extract one or more elements from the comparison measure as a set of possible solutions. If the processing in the comparator is familiar and simple for one person, I think it would be fine to use the expression of applying a comparison measure idiomatically.
Based on the above discussion, “questioning” can be thought of as applying a comparator, or in a simplistic way, applying a comparison measure to the “object of question.” In other words, for the correct “question,” it is necessary to apply a comparator that can bring an appropriate set of solutions, a comparison measure to the next comparator, the next next comparator, the next next… to the “object of the question.” Because the ability to use it in the next comparators and functions determines “correctness” and “appropriateness”.
And, as a typical example of various question patterns, the 5W1H question can be interpreted as applying a comparison measure to the target of the question as follows.
What…In general, the measure of sets of things is applied to the object of the question.
Where… Applying the measure of place to the object of the question.
When…Applying the measure of time to the subject of the question.
Who…Applying the measure, a set of people to the subject of the question.
Why… In the case of a causal relationship, at two or more different points in time which a certain person selects, questioning which event, and not others, causes the event at a later point in time (selecting the cause from a set of possible matters) . In other cases, it might be the ‘motives’ and ‘behaviors’ of a subject.
How… Questioning what state the subject of the question takes each time within the range of time in question, and the transition (how to continuously select from a set of possible states). Or, it may be to apply a measure of what kind of properties the subject of the question has in a state regarded as in general.
It can be said that by using these “ways of question,” people appropriately limit the answers to the “questions.” In other words, we choose what kind of comparison measure by “ways to question.”
However, the above discussion does not cover all “ways to question,” it is not so comprehensive. But, I think I have shown the characteristics of the form of the “question” in the simplest case.
Suppose we have a general explanation of “questioning.” From now on, I would like to see how Bateson argues about “questioning.” According to his explanation, you can understand that the world is full of “questions,” or that “question” is the essential way of beings of the world seen from one side.
4-3.The Beings as Question/Answer
4-3-1.The Beings as Question
One characteristic of Bateson’s thinking is that he finds the abstract concept of logic in the behavior of nature and physical reality. And he also tries to find ”questions” in nature.
…I have for a long time felt an uneasiness about what is meant by the concept of “a question,” about whether it was possible for something like a question to be embodied in the prelinguistic biological world.
Let me be clear that I don’t now mean a question that a perceiving organism might put to an environment. We might say that the rat exploring in a box is in some sense asking if that box is safe or dangerous, but that is not what concerns us here.
Instead, I am asking whether, at a deeper level, there can be something like a question expressed in the language of the injunctions, etc., that are at the base of genetics, morphogenesis, adaptation, and the like. What would the word “question” mean at this deep biological level?
The paradigm I have been carrying in my mind for some time to represent what I mean by a “question” at the morphogenetic level is the sequence of events that follows fertilization of the vertebrate egg, as demonstrated with the eggs of the frog. The unfertilized frog egg, as is well known, is a radially symmetrical system in which the two poles (the upper or “animal” and the lower or “vegetal”) are differentiated in that the animal pole has more protoplasm and indeed is the region of the nucleus, while the vegetal pole is more heavily endowed with yolk. But the egg is, it seems, similar all around its equator. There is no differentiation of the plane that will be the future plane of bilateral symmetry of the tadpole. This plane is then determined by the entry of a spermatozoon, usually somewhat below the equator, so that a line drawn through the point of entry and connecting the two poles defines the future midventral line of bilateral symmetry. The environment thus provides the answer to the question: Where? which seems to be latent all around the unfertilized egg.
In other words, the egg does not contain the needed information, and neither is this information embodied in any complex way in the DNA of the spermatozoon. Indeed, with a frog’s egg, a spermatozoon is not even necessary. The effect can be achieved by pricking the egg with the fiber of a camel’s-hair brush. Such an unfertilized egg will then develop into a fully grown frog, albeit haploid (having only a half number of chromosomes).
It was this figure that I carried in mind as a paradigm for thinking about the nature of a question. It seemed to me that we might think of the state of the egg immediately before fertilization as a state of question, a state of readiness to receive a certain piece of information, information that is then provided by the entry of the spermatozoon.
The question Bateson finds in frog’s eggs — which is a state waiting for selection of “where?” — is an accurate reflection of the above abstract argument to reality, which combines Heidegger’s argument and the concept of the comparison measure.
Bateson’s example is a single organism, frog’s eggs. But in the argument of chapter 2, it makes no sense to question what is the comparison measure awaiting selection and what is not. We who perceive through a comparator, a measure of comparison, when perceiving something, we implicitly see other possibilities, and we cannot do otherwise. From the epistemological point of view, or considering our physical sense organs or the level of language, we are living comparators awaiting relationships with others which are always in a state of “questioning.”
And perhaps I guess it can be said that throughout the history of the universe there has never been a substance that has no other possible state. I think that all things have undergone changes due to some kind of interaction, whether it is a chemical change or a change in position. If this is correct, all things have actually changed from “other possibilities” through interaction, and they change to some things that are selected from the next “other possibilities,” and are considered to be waiting for the next selection.
I saw this world as a process of comparison. However, when we review Bateson’s discussion of “questions” from the perspective of comparison measure, we can discover another figure of this world. The figure of all beings in this world constantly waiting for relationships with other beings, asking questions, selecting a certain answer, and communicating. No matter how “tragic /comical” it looks.
4-3-2.The Beings as Answer
However, above Bateson’s point of view is only one aspect of the world. Takeshi Yoro also mentions the egg of chickens in “The Wall between Humans” and says as follows.
The world of living things is the conclusion that “it has become it as it naturally should be” as a result of evolution. If I compare it to mathematics, it is a collection of answers. Modern living things have encountered and survived even extreme conditions, such as meteor strikes and ice balls. The world of living things that we actually see is therefore the answers given by living things, and in that sense it is a collection of answers. We live in a collection of biological answers.
You can see this clearly when you look at how the leaves of broadleaf trees grow in summer. The way the leaves and branches grow is the answer given by nature. Aren’t they spreading their branches and leaves to get light? Not a problem set. Since only the collection of answers is given, the problem is “What was the problem?” We know the answers, but we don’t know the problems.
When you are educated at school, problems are given first and students give the answers. It is taken for granted. But the biological world is the opposite. Since living things have solved the problems, living things now are the answers. So what were the problems for them? Teachers and students probably wouldn’t even think about it.
Those who already exist in this world now are in the form of “questions” themselves, but they are also “answers” created from the totality of relationships between other beings that existed in the world in previous. If my extension on Bateson’s argument is applied to Takeshi Yoro’s argument, it can be said that substances other than currently existing living things also exist as a result of some kind of relationship.
The world in the present is — no matter what it is–the “answer” which is woven by questioning the situation born from the result that various “answers” interact each other, in which once someone chose an action with some intention, and succeeded or failed, or the definition of “success/failure” itself changed, or something unintentionally had relations.
Whether it is a “question” or an “answer” can be said to be a distinction seen from the “ante fact/post fact” perspective. When looking at an undecided future from the perspective of “ante fact” at the present, beings appear as “questions” to the future that hide their “answers,” and when looking at the present as something that has already happened, as “post fact,” beings appear as an “answer” that hides from what kind of “question” they were chosen.
Nature, society, human beings, we ourselves are intricately intertwined “questions” and “answers” at the same time, a part of the great question-answer process. This essence may be unchanged if it’s an organism, a society, or an idea.
4-4.“Questioning What Does Not Exist There” and “Zen Questions and Answers”
4-4-1.The Question Always Questions “What Does Not Exist There”
Now, I would like to discuss what exactly it means to question “what does not exist there.” Let’s consider several “questions,” including the “question” cited at the beginning of the discussion. What happens when we “question” something?
Why didn’t the protagonist use a map to find the woman’s house?
How much is one apple?
How does a ball roll when impacted from the side on a flat surface with no obstacles?
What kind of trajectory did the ball, which is now rolling straight on a flat surface without obstacles, undergo?
For question 1, the student revealed the peculiarities of the protagonist by comparing the case where the “map” was used and the case where it was not used. In other words, the “use of the map” is taken up here as a “comparison measure” linked to the next “comparison measure” of the protagonist’s physical sensations, and applied to his action.
At this point, the “map” — although it is strange to say so to a novel — does not physically exist anywhere. If it exists, it only exists in the gaze of the viewer who applies the comparison measure which tells “it can exist, but not.”
And it is the same with questions 2, 3, and 4 , to a greater or lesser degree. For example, the question “How much is one apple?” In this case, the comparison measure of money, the set of possible values which is applied to the “object of question,” does not physically exist. The value becomes just a social reality, by selecting and measuring from the measure internalized and shared in the gazes of the viewers.
Regarding the “question” of a rolling ball on a flat surface, the possibility of the ball other than the point at which the “question” was cast, the trajectory of the future and the past, and the set of possibilities of the position of the ball “still” or “already” do not exist physically.
Though I repeat, as a simple metaphor, “questioning” is likened to applying a comparison measure, which is applying a set of “what exists/what does not exist,” or more precisely, “the correct answer/others” to“the object of question.”
It is self-evident that the “question” includes things that do not yet exist “here and now.” This is because there is no need to “question” what is clearly “existing” “here and now” and what is clearly “correct.” Of course, in order to jointly confirm these things with others, it is possible to “question” the obvious things together, but what is being questioned at that time is one level above, “the fact of having confirmed jointly with others.”
So, “question” is always to question “what doesn’t exist,” whether it is more or less. This is because “questioning” itself is to apply a comparison measure (a set of correct answers and other possibilities), which always includes “what doesn’t exist.” Questioning “what doesn’t exist there” is not a special thing, but rather a part of the essence of “questioning.”
This is the answer to the past myself, who had “the question about questioning what does not exist there” at the age of a no-hoper university student, from me, who is still no-hoper even 8~9 years after.
And why was the report by the student who Chiaki Ishihara met, and I admired, excellent? Regarding this, the following can be said. “Existing/not existing” can be divided into four quadrants. It is a classification method that leverages the difference between “thing-in-itself” and “recognition.” That is, the division is as follows.
”Existing’’ on the level of recognition and on the level of thing-in-itself.
”Not existing’’ on the level of recognition and on the level of thing-in-itself.
”Existing’’ on the level of recognition, but “not existing” on the level of thing-in-itself.
”Not existing’’ on the level of recognition, but “existing” on the level of thing-in-itself.
This classification pattern is similar to Rumsfeld’s theory of knowledge.We can use these four quadrants as a measure which measures an excellent argument. So, what is already “existing” on both levels of the recognition and “thing-in-itself” is a tautology that is already shared, and if we say what “does not exist” on the level of thing-in-itself “exist” on the level of recognition, we fall into falsehood.
An excellent argument basically happens in place of 4 or points to 3. And what I want to say here again and again is that the “existence” of something can only be revealed by applying some comparison measures.
People often inevitably start talking by looking at the “something exists,” which is clearly recognizable, looking at the realm of 1. But the student who appeared in front of Chiaki Ishihara used the comparison measure that brought out the realm of 4, and even that comparison measure itself — which precisely reveals unseen qualities, but no one knew it could be used — is brought from the realm of 4, so it was a excellent argument.
Therefore, the most excellent argument brings a comparison measure from the realm of 4, reveals the facts in the realm of 4, and furthermore, rearranges the interlocking of the conventional system of comparison measure and changes the meaning of “being” itself. It would have been called <The Other> in humanistic discourse.
4-4-2.The Aporia of Zen Question and Answer
My above answer seems to be a very simple and self-evident statement, but I think it is related to a fairly important philosophical discussion.
In this regard, for example, Zen questions and answers can be thought of as questioning the most mundane and profound karma of human life. Zen questions have questions that cannot be answered, such as “What kind of sound do you make when you clap with one hand?”
“Questioning,” applying a “comparison measure,” and cognizing are, in other words, “waiting for selection lining up possibilities,” and “something is selected.” It means we necessarily find out “something is not there” or “lack” by cognizing something or “questioning” something.
However, since the “lack” found in the world by that way is itself physically “lack,” that “lack” does not exist in the world in the first place. It is created by the “viewer” comparing something with the possibility of “it can exist, but not”, or perhaps by directing a gaze that includes desire. The world itself is always “fulfilled” as Spinoza’s god is.
“Being fulfilled” and “lack” are incompatible. In order to be “fulfilled,” the “lack” must be filled. But humans are also a living comparison process. As long as we are alive, as long as we are cognizing something, we cannot stop “questioning” and the “lack” is never completely fulfilled. However, that “lack” does not actually “exist,” and the world is always “fulfilled.”
The “question”’ without the answer in Zen questions and answer is also the act of making people aware of the unresolvable aporia that “we have no choice but to keep questioning, but the lack caused by the question does not exist anywhere’’ through questioning and answering ,and it is considered to be something that dissipates human worldly desires and distractions. And the success of it will undoubtedly be a way to peace. Because if the perception of “lack” is actually understood as delusion, then it is confirmed that the world is “fulfilled.”
It may also be an act of becoming aware of the relationship between the smallness of oneself who is tormented by “lack” and “question” and the “world” in which oneself is certainly included is “being fulfilled.” And it can be said that the self-awareness of “smallness of self” is a transformation of the “lack” in the system of recognition by understanding the “fulfilled” world, and it may not bring any particular misfortune. I think we can see something like the concept by Ango Sakaguchi, “the birthplace of literature”*3 here. In other words, it is not a “work of adult people” to continue to stay in “birthplace” where there is no room for “hope” for there is no “lack,” “awareness of being part of a fulfilled world,” but a sophisticated society knows that.
*3…the birthplace of literature(文学のふるさと Bungaku no Furusato) is a notion suggested by Japanese novelist, essayist Ango Sakaguchi(”安吾 坂口”). If I briefly explain it, it’s a kind of immoral externality to stable cultural customs. I can’t find an English translation.
In addition, I think that this kind of thing can explain why the act of sharpening the mind, which is seen in some philosophy, returns to the “here and now” and the body. Focusing on sharpened “here and now” is less delusional than thinking about the uncertain future and past. In fact, the memory of the “past” may be uncertain, and no matter how much you think about it, we will not be able to recover it, and in the “future,” as time goes, the number of related matters to events increases and possibilities that are not realized increase. I do not deny the significance of these thoughts, but the resolution is inevitably lower than the “present.” By not thinking about them, thought will be freed from uncertain “possibilities,” delusions and “fulfilled.”
However, according to the previous discussion, “here and now” has less uncertain possibilities, but it is not completely “fulfilled.” Humans are a living comparison process as long as life keeps going. Even if we enter a soundproof room, close our eyes, and put oneself in “silence” and “darkness,” we will not be able to stop comparing. This is because we recognize “stillness” in its difference from “noise,” we recognize “darkness” in difference from “light,” and we recognize “nothingness” in difference from “existence.” It also means that we can’t stop “selecting.”
I am not denying the significance of concentrating on the sharpened “here and now,” nor do I think the above is all about it. In fact it will reduce uncertain possibilities in thought and make some influence and psychological effect on the human psyche that cannot be reduced to a description from the view of comparison. I just describe what it means and what limitations it has, from the view of comparison.
So focusing on “here and now” is not always a good thing. It should be judged by the relationship with the surroundings. And I think modern society should remember dreams for the far future rather than the present. Or maybe we should concentrate on the sharpened “here and now” and after that look at the “future.”
4-5.The Questions towards Transcendence
Heidegger thought by what “Being” should be understood, and found it in “time.” In retrospect, I think that in my question “Being” for Heidegger is replaced with “relation,” “time” with “comparison measure.” I use the concept of “relations” instead of the concept of “Being,” but in fact, I think it is fair to say that Heidegger’s “Being” mostly refers to a kind of “relations.” For example the following words:
3. Thirdly, it is held that ‘Being’ is of all concepts the one that is self-evident. Whenever one cognizes anything or makes an assertion, whenever one comports oneself towards entities, even towards oneself, some use is made of ‘Being’; and this expression is held to be intelligible ‘without further ado’, just as everyone understands ‘The sky is blue’, ‘I am merry’, and the like. But here we have an average kind of intelligibility, which merely demonstrates that this is unintelligible. It makes manifest that in any way of comporting oneself towards entities as entities — even in any Being towards entities as entities — there lies a priori an enigma. The very fact that we already live in an understanding of Being and that the meaning of Being is still veiled in darkness proves that it is necessary in principle to raise this question again.
Heidegger’s elucidation of “Being” is a discussion limited to “relationship” as phenomenological “appearance” centering on “Dasein.” I thought what I found was that “relations” must be understood by “comparison measures” as a more universally extended repetition of “the meaning of Being is time.”
Finally,I would like to conclude this essay by posing one question that I have — because this is the problem which I, who don’t understand physics with mathematical formulas, cannot solve.
Considering the structure of cognition that recognizes by comparison, “can we find the real end of the world?” So, even if we can identify the true origin of the world by science, we would go beyond it to ask “What was there before that?” or even if we find the edge of the world, we would see the question to the next possibility, we ask “What exists beyond that?”… such questions that whether we can cognize “true end” of the world or not.
I think that “the end of the world” is not only in the direction of the maximum distance and origin to end of time, but also in the direction of the minimum distance. I think that the explanation of how substance changes in physics will develop into a more universal explanation by explaining large-scale changes with a group of smaller unit changes. However, I also have a simple question that even if we find a change in the smallest unit, — an absurd unit change, which even if we try to explain the world with a change in a smaller unit than that, but we can’t and can only say “It is so” — will we “explore” beyond that?
Sorry if it’s a stupid question. It seems to me that my argument is consistent with Carlo Rovelli's description of the world. However, since I can't understand the mathematical formula, I can't tell whether it's really related to physics or purely epistemological. As a matter of fact, I have no intention of denying the possibility that I am a charlatan with grandiose dreams.
Next Chapter : 5.The Place Still Shared by Science and the Religions
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？