King Solomon's Ring (1949) (Er redete mit dem Vieh, den Vögeln und den Fischen, 1949)
Translated the title of the original German book online, "He is a cow, a bird, I talked to the fish. " "Vieh" means not only cattle but also "livestock". The translator translates it as "He, beasts and birds, talking with fish" (P.230). "He" is probably "Solomon". In the myth "The Covenant of Solomon", there is a story that King Solomon began to talk with animals with a ring given by the archangel Michael. The English title is more catchy.
Uncle Lorenz makes me think that it would be a nuisance if such a person lived nearby. Flying around the house, or building a aviary on the veranda on the second floor. Then, in a strange fashion (so that the bird doesn't know it's Lorenz), he walks in the garden, waving a flag on the roof, and imitating the song of a bird. I'm changing the house for animals.
It's not just birds. It seems that there were many animals in the house, such as dogs and butterflies.
Rather than raising animals, living with them, observing them with love. I wanted to read "Fable Insects" and "Seaton Animals". I haven't read either. I've read several books about "Mr. Dolittle".
Insect specimens
I used to collect insects when I was little. Insects are commonly found, such as butterflies and dragonflies. It's not unusual. I also sampled spiders and frogs (sweat). She still often tells me that when she opened my desk, she found a number of dry frogs stuck to her board (laughs).
Until a few years ago, I thought that the specimen was real. I thought that Miyama Akane was Miyama Akane, whether it was flying or becoming a specimen. But I think it's different now. The flying (living) Miyama Akane is "Miyama Akane", but I think that the specimen Miyama Akane is just the same "thing" as the "stone". A mass of protein and a mass of silicon (?).
Western science makes "stopping things" the subject of observation (research). The subject must be stationary while the human recognizes the subject. The basis of Western science is to find "things that are stationary" and "things that do not change."
The fundamental strategy of science when analyzing various phenomena is to first look for something that does not change. All physical laws-as well as all mathematical developments-clearly state universal relationships. The most basic proposition of science is the standard of universal preservation. No matter what example you choose, it is not really possible to analyze a phenomenon unless it is represented by something immutable that is preserved there. (" coincidence and inevitability " by J. Mono Watanabe, Translated by Mitsuhiko Murakami, Misuzu Shobo P.116)
According to this operational image, the entity itself is partially lost, but it is purely abstract, perhaps just a "promise". } Isn't it possible to accept the logic based on the principle of identity? Anyway, it seems that human reason cannot be achieved without such a promise. (Same P.117)
"Anyway, there is a Platon philosophical element in science, which will remain in the future. If we try to remove this from science, it will be science itself. It will be ruined. Science can only search for immutable things in the infinite variety of individual phenomena. "(P.118)
In other words, there is "Miyama Akane's" Idea "", and it is Western science to find it. Flying Miyama Akane must first be caught. Then fix it on the specimen table and examine it with a magnifying glass. In addition, the wings are stripped and decomposed, and cells are taken to examine the DNA sequence.
In that way, I try to "confirm" "Miyama Akane's" Idea "". But is the DNA sequence and protein arrangement "Miyama Akane"? Scientists will say "yes".
I want to ask. "Then, make DNA from protein, make wings and body, and make" Miyama Akane "." I'm sure scientists will say, "I can't do it technically right now, but I'll be able to do it someday."
Frankenstein
No, it doesn't have to be possible. The basis of Western logic is that the whole is a set (collection) of parts. If you know the part, then you know the whole thing. Of course, in Western science, not only parts but also "relationships between parts" are tried to be elucidated as part of "idea". There are various names such as "structure" and "gestart". Isn't "a collection of parts + a relationship" the same as "a collection of organs + a soul"? It is the world of "Frankenstein" and "Metropolis".
Western culture values "parts" and "individuals". Everything starts with "individual" and "atom (τὸ ἄτομον, ἡ ἄτομος, indivisual, indivisible)". "Individual, indivisual" is just "individual". It is the "subject" and the "ego". Observe the "object" whose "subject" is the "object". Western science requires the "self-identity" of the object in order to establish the "self-identity" of the subject "I (I, ego)". For the changing reality, the existence that transcends that change is "idea". As Monor says, "If you try to remove this from science, it will ruin the science itself," but it is "Western science" that will ruin it. And that is the ruin of the "Western" ego ".
I want to read "Insects" or "Animal"
The author's eyes on animals are different. Ko Tateno's picture book " Tsuchihanmyo (Kaiseisha, April 13, 2016), I wanted to read "Fable Insects" asexually. No matter how much you dissect Tsuchihanmyo, you will not know the strange ecology of Tsuchihanmyo. No matter how much you look at Tsuchihanmyo as an "individual (body)", you can't understand it. You can't tell by looking at the relationship with other individuals (his brother is eaten by him). Is the species alive? Sure, the species survives, but its ecology is closely related to other species. Come to think of it, even humans cannot survive without other species (cattle, fish and various plants). The existence of other individuals is indispensable. However, no matter how much I dissect my corpse, I don't know the relationship with "others", fish and vegetables. If you don't see me "living", you won't know "I".
I still stick to . Perhaps when I entered elementary school or before, I was told to "live like myself," "have myself," "do what I want to do," and so on. Following those words are "because I am free now, unlike before the war" and "because I have become a democratic society". My parents seemed to have a lot of trouble during and after the war in the "society without food" and "society without food". But I didn't talk much about that time. So the situation at that time is rather the knowledge gained from dramas, movies and books.
But I think most people still can't find what they want to do (work, play, etc.). Many people wonder "what is right for me" or "what am I?". They do not "spring from the inside". This is because humans are born with "blank paper". There are various professions, various games, and even "words" are shown from the outside. I had the ability to speak words and become a salaryman. Some were congenital and some were acquired. However, "what am I?" I don't remember being taught, nor is it possible to teach.
Only close (or mean) friends may tell you. I feel that teachers often "decide" whether such friends are decreasing now. That decision comes with a great deal of "responsibility."
Maybe you don't know that. Fixing and enumerating the identity of (male, Japanese, pensioners, etc.) is the same as sampling and analyzing insects. Neither "soul" nor "me" can be found there.
It seems that there is a part in "Fable Insects" that denies Darwin's theory of evolution. As mentioned above, I haven't read it, but I may have had doubts about the ideas of Western Europe such as "analysis / synthesis", "performance / deduction", and "individuals and species". This is because Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the idea that if an individual changes, the species changes.
Keeping animals
Nobel Prize winners will teach you how to choose a pet. It's very luxurious.
What animals are suitable for pets? What are the animals that are worth taking care of? Very few people know. (Omitted) What do you want to keep an animal? -For this question, first and foremost, you have to clarify yourself. The desire to keep an animal has been hidden in the human heart since ancient times. (P.145)
Regulations on pet shops and breeders have become a hot topic all over the world in recent years. I didn't know that from this year, in Japan, pet dogs and cats will be embedded with something that shows the "ID" (" Animal Protection Management Law "). This is to keep it under human (or national) control.
I feel that the day to embed barcodes and GPS in humans is approaching, and my spine is horrifying. I think it's more important news than the killing of former Prime Minister Abe, but was there any media that was taken up during the deliberation of the bill? I'm afraid of accelerating the movement to put on GPS (as well as labels and minor cards).
It's a lost human being who has a culture It's a longing for paradise. All animals are part of nature. But not all animals are suitable for living in the house as representatives of nature. If you buy not animals can be divided into two large groups, one is you and Animals that can't be done together, the other is animals that you can't do with that animal. (...) Most of the animals we can buy at pet animal stores belong to either of these two groups. Others aren't very nervous and don't irritate their owners so much, but they're mostly uninteresting and boring animals, so it's not worth the effort to buy and raise them. (...) What kind of animal you should buy depends on several different factors. First of all, what do you want and expect from an animal, how much effort you can make every day to grow it, how sensitive your nerves are to noise, When and how many hours are you away from home every day? (P.145-146)
It is very troublesome to keep a creature. Even if I keep a goldfish, I eat it every day, change the water in the tank once in a while, and wash the tank. Still, watching the swimming goldfish is soothing. I want to touch it, but I can't touch the goldfish. I can't even talk. For a while, software for keeping tropical fish on the display of a personal computer became popular. The movement of the goldfish is programmed, but it is not interesting with ordinary movements, so I probably use "random numbers" to make "random movements". But it doesn't do every move. "Flying in the sky" is not expected and is restricted. But I woke up several times in the morning and saw "goldfish outside the goldfish bowl".
What can be said about pets can be said about child-rearing (though I may not be able to say that I left child-rearing to his wife). I give milk and rice, change diapers, have limited time to sleep at night, and cry at night. I'm very happy to be able to walk, but this time I'm going everywhere (sometimes I think I've warped). When I speak "words" for the first time, I feel like climbing to heaven, but ...
It's just for those who paid for it, such as maids, nurses, female tutors, and live-in tutors, just as you were a rich gentleman or lady. It is the same as if you leave your child to care for you, the child will not really become your child. (P.148)
People who find caring for their children "painful" should not have children and should not have pets. The author lists various episodes of raising animals (living with animals). Or rather, this episode is made up of that episode. When I read that episode, I sometimes think "it's hard", "I see", and sometimes I laugh unintentionally. But the author doesn't seem to think it's "painful". Warming eggs, feeding them, building aviaries, destroying them by wild animals and repairing them, making the room full of feathers and dust, annoying the neighborhood, I think that what seems to be a weirdo was probably "happy" for the author.
It may be simply "love for living things", but I think it cannot be expressed in words.
Cage (Ori)
I remember crying in front of the bear cage at the zoo I went to in class when I was in high school. There, a big bear, who had the character of "King of the Forest" in a narrow and dirty cage, looked at me with mercy. We did not have a "conversation". But I felt something.
No matter what happens, they will not change the way they continue to live. So, if you suddenly release an animal that has been kept in a cage for a long time, be sure to find a way home . Come back to the original cage. Most of the little birds are so stupid that they just can't find their way home. (Omitted) Therefore, the myth that even mangooses, foxes, and monkeys will return to "shining freedom" once they are released means false anthropomorphism. The animals don't want to run away, they just want them out of the basket. (P.164)
Are humans (people) trying to escape from the "ori" of the nation and society? Those who think that "animals will run away somewhere when they get out of the cage" are probably projecting their desires on the animals.
Just at my fingertips is a wonderful chimpanzee book written by Robert Yarkies, who knows chimpanzees best. Reading this book reveals that mental health is at least as important as physical hygiene in maintaining the health of these animals, which are the closest to humans of all animals. As seen at Schoengrug's zoo, keeping only one ape in a small cage is a cruel act that should be prohibited by law.
At the large Yarkies Apes Institute in Orange Park, Florida, a group of chimpanzees has been bred and bred for decades. There the monkeys live as happy as the Konodojiro Musikui in my flying cage, and much happier than the readers and me. (P.175)
Are we "happiness"?
Morals and Weapons
All known attitudes and attitudes of social animal obedience are based on the same principles. The compassionate individual always points out to the attacker the weakest part of his body, or more accurately, the part he always aims at when the enemy tries to kill him. (P.222)
As I said before, he obviously wants to bite, but he can't. It doesn't matter for the moment whether this suppression is due to blind reflexes. (P.224)
Comparative behavior scholars are extremely cautious when assessing animal behavior. Nevertheless, I want to make a sensuous value judgment here. I find it touching and wonderful that the wolf doesn't bite. But it's even better that the other person trusts it. (Omitted) The reason for sticking out the opposite cheek to the enemy is not to make them hit more. Do it because you can't hit it!
Suppose that a kind of animal has developed enough weapons to kill allies with a single blow during its evolution. When that happened, the animal had to develop in parallel with the evolution of the weapon social restraints that could prevent the use of the weapon, which could threaten the survival of the species. Only a few carnivorous beasts live a completely non-social life, so they are almost free of such restraints. (P.226)
Animals rarely kill each other. Because it has a mechanism that cannot kill the loser. How about humans compared to that?
There is only one animal with a weapon that has developed independently of its own body. Therefore, the species-specific behavior that this animal is born with does not know how to use this weapon. There is no strong restraint for weapons. This animal is human. The power of his weapons grows endlessly. In less than a decade, its power will multiply. But it takes as long as an organ develops for innate impulses and restraints to occur. (Omitted) We must also create this restraint by ourselves. Because we can hardly trust our instinct. (P.227)
We have no means of escaping nuclear weapons, nor can we completely curb their use (hence "deterrence"). Is used). They can be killed with homemade guns like the former Prime Minister.
It cannot be suppressed by "biological instinct", and the author says that the development of weapons is much faster than it can be suppressed.
Humans are creatures that "act with will." "Acting according to your will" is called "freedom". "Freedom" in Japanese has nuances such as "Sukikatte no selfishness", but it seems to be different from "freedom" and "liberty". In fact, the "individual (ego) as the subject of the act" was imported after the Meiji era, so the word "freedom" that had existed in Japan until then was "freedom" or "liberty". The meaning has been added (" Translated word establishment circumstances ”by Akira Yanagi, Shinsho Iwanami, see). At the same time, "reason" and "logic" were also imported. Is it possible to "suppress" with that "reason" and "logic"? The author asks that.