Recycled Books from the Library
Recently, I read a lot of old books. I don't have money, but I think I'll read a book that I haven't read as a shukatsu. (Sweat)
I've heard the phrase "Forest Thinking/Desert Thinking" several times. Did this idea come from the author? I can't remember very well. The author does not derive the ideas (thinking methods) of people living in the region from the current deserts and forests. Based on geological and meteorological data, we will explore the origin of the idea.
Since the author has written a summary of the whole in the "Afterword", I will quote it first, even though it is a bit long.
Let me summarize the above. Human thinking can be divided into two types: forest thinking and desert thinking. He stated that he could only divide into two because he was rooted in dividing into one. Specifically, forest-like means that the viewpoint is in one corner of the ground, and the attitude is to look upwards "from below", while desert-like means to have the eyes of a bird looking down "from above". It is also a contrast between "bad vision" and "good vision." It is also a contrast between "careful" and "decisive." It is also a description of "professional attitude" and "comprehensive attitude".
These forest-like and desert-like thoughts are not necessarily divided according to whether one lives in the forest or in the desert, but have they been nurtured in forest-like thoughts—specifically, Buddhism? , because he grew up in a desert-like ideology--specifically, for example, Christianity--and the preferred scheme, nature -> productive relations -> human beings, that is, nature mediates the intermediate terms of productive relations. If we follow the scheme of working on humans as a , we can say that humans are related to nature by inheriting the way of thinking that was born from nature, that is, nature -> mode of thinking -> human. Moreover, since thoughts are driven by the power of their own logic, forest-like thinking and desert-like thinking do not necessarily exist in correspondence with the current natural environment. Rather, its origins lie 5,000 years ago when monotheism was established by aridification. (P.215-216)
Refutation and counterargument
There is room for refutation of the "relationship claims" shown in the data. is closed.
In other words, the claim of relationship presented by the coincidence on the scatterplot is open to rebuttal. You can argue, but you can't refute. If so, what does the word “relationship” that I have used to the right mean? Since the distributions are consistent, correlation can be recognized, but causality may not be recognized. A discussion of the relationship between causality and correlation is made in the same book, but the conclusion is that causality exists, but cannot be proven. I think we can only know the correlation. Whether or not the presentation of correlations allows for the existence of causation is a matter of individual decision. (P.194-195)
As long as you believe the data, of course.
The author says that "correlation" can be "knowed", but "causation" cannot be "proven". That "knowing", or, although the author doesn't say it explicitly, "proving" is also "logical".
With the development of human logic that one is superior to the other, humans have developed the concept from polytheism to the chief god, and from the chief god to the only god. , with the growing recognition that the One God moves all things and therefore transcends all things, man, one of all things, cannot directly understand the transcendent. The theory will work even more. (P.80)
Since monotheism is more logical than polytheism, the establishment of monotheism in Israel had to shock polytheism in India. (P.106)
The author doesn't say clearly what is logic. My guess is that for the author, "logic" is almost as self-evident as "human thought."
Logical (reasonable)
And that logic seems to "develop". In other words, time (history) flows in one direction.
I don't think many Japanese think that people today are "developed more logically" than they were 50 or 100 years ago. And at the same time, I think that "technology is developing". Inconsistent.
It is an example of contradiction to accept the idea of "progress" and not to accept "the creation of the world", but it is not possible to have both a viewpoint from above and a viewpoint from below. not a contradiction. (P.216)
Even if it's not a contradiction, it's "ambivalent".
I think that "logic" (logic, logos) is "words". In classical Greece, "logos" had the meaning of "logic," "truth," and "word," but apart from that, there was "psyche." Psyche means 'breath', which means 'life' or 'soul', and was thought to be different from 'Logos'. The idea of the Hebrew (desert) flowed into Greece, and the two came to the Latin word "ego." In that sense, the soul is the self, which manifests itself in words with the breath. Therefore, the self is the truth. It has been passed down to modern times. When the idea of "I" (atman, also derived from "breath") emerged in ancient India, it may have already been influenced by "desert thinking," as the author says. But I don't know that it took on the meaning of "word" or "truth." I think that "I" is connected with "soul", but I don't think it is "ego". Also, since there is a word "kotodama", words and souls may have been linked. But I don't think the words were identified with the truth, or the self and the truth were not connected. Rather, as the author says,
It is said that Shingon Esoteric Buddhism was overwhelmingly dominant among Japanese religions. Shingon is the spoken words of the Buddha, and Esoteric Buddhism is the secret teaching. Secrets are not actions or thoughts based on everyday promises, but are directly invoked from the world of transcendental values. By living in the behavior that is done, it is hidden to those who do not live in that world. (P.108)
The secret here is the secret in Japan when it is said that ``If you hide it, it will be a flower'' (Zeami's "Fushi Kaden" 14th century). is. I don't speak. I cannot speak. How much he says when he is told that Hebrew cannot be illustrated. Because "there was a word (logos) in the beginning." Nowadays, even in Japan, there are places where “hidden matters” are regarded as “bad things”, but even if there is “truth”, even if there is “I (ego)”, it cannot be said, and in a sense it cannot be said. I think it's Japanese to not have anything, to keep it a secret.
Whether it is a Noh dance or a bicycle ride, despite the fact that words cannot express it, it is the desert that makes me feel like I understand it. I think it's the thought of.
Truth
This concept, born on the fringes of the desert, is, of course, the belief that all things were created by God, but the scientist himself is an extremely small part of all things in the universe, so I think it is impossible to have a perfect understanding of the God who created it. I can only say, "We see things." That's why we can develop bold, grand hypotheses and grand theories without any hesitation, and some of them will become great discoveries when they are in good agreement with the facts. (P.26)
As will be discussed later, for the people of the forest, the ego is the center and essence of the universe, and Buddhism was formed on the development of that thought. Therefore, it is natural for a scientist in that philosophical climate to think of truth as something that can be grasped and explored. (P.27)
Socrates also said, "You cannot know the thoughts of God." I don't quite understand what you mean by "we" here, but I think there is a clear "ego" when you say, "I look like this, I think like this." "I don't know or can't know the truth, but it looks like this" is the "counterargument / refutation" I wrote at the beginning.
Because they are the center of the universe, the people of the forest think that it is essentially possible to explain and prove things, and they steadily accumulate facts, but one by one. The people of the desert think that they cannot prove the existence of even one person, they just believe in the existence of that person, and they cannot sit still and wait for the facts to become clear by accumulation. , Judging the whole from only a small amount of given data and moving to action. (P.92-93)
The author is very "logical". He presents facts (which are irrefutable) and makes logical inferences from them (which are refutable). Instead of saying, "This is the truth," you can say, "From the facts, I think so."
However, I think that "logic itself" is very desert. Logic is the word (logos). That is, "Indo-European". That's why it got different characters in Hebrew and India. I think there was an influence of the "desert/forest" climate there. But I think it's completely different from speaking "non-Indo-European " words.
Desertification and Literacy
I find it hard to believe that forest thinking is analytical. Considering the parts, for example, by examining the "dog's legs", "dog's neck", "dog's tail", etc., I feel that a "dog" is unrelated to pre-modern Japanese. increase. Analytical thinking has subdivided modern learning (knowledge) in the West. Individual individuals (scholars) become more and more “parts”. Even if learning (knowledge or science) becomes “rich,” individuals become smaller and smaller. The individual who is the mustard seed is getting smaller and smaller. When it exceeds a certain level, no individual can grasp the whole. As a society, it may become a whole, but what is important here is the individual (self), which is the Western ego.
The diminished "ego" always feels inadequate (dissatisfied) with itself. That is why we must continue to "assert (talk)" that "it looks like this", and continue to think "I want to know more" and "I need to know more". We go on seeking perfection, thinking that we cannot have "perfect awareness." Does the author say that modern Western science does not seek the "ultimate truth"?
To "analyze" yourself and the objects around you, that is, to divide and classify them, turns the "whole" into a "set of parts". For example, "Humans are a collection of cells" and "Desks are a collection of wood". However, "a collection of cells is (is) a human" and "a collection of wood is (is) a desk". Therefore, I have no choice but to think about "what makes a set of wood a desk". That is the "design drawing", the "gestalt", the "form" and the "idea". "What makes a collection of cells human" is the "soul".
This is something that inevitably arises when we think of things that exist ("beings" in Heidegger's term) as objects, that is, as something separate from ourselves (subjects). . This is "analytical thinking". Set the subject of analysis and the target of analysis.
As you break it down and classify it (that is "knowledge"), the number of objects will increase. It quickly exceeds the capacity of "memory". What makes this possible is ``establishing existence outside of memory,'' or ``externalization'' (in Sartre's words, ``projection''). To put it concretely, it is to make memories into things that can be seen and touched, that is, to be written down as characters (data). If the culture of memory is "oral culture", the culture of writing down corresponds to "literary culture".
Unlike memory, the "intelligence" left behind in letters can increase steadily. That knowledge continues to increase in search of objects (beings), but it is getting further and further away from the existence itself (the whole) (this is where ``resenchiman'' and ``nihilism'' are born). The more one knows about the object (object, other, thou), the more the self (I), the subject, becomes farther away from it and becomes smaller and smaller like a mustard seed.
Record
Now, "World Table Tennis" and "World Volleyball" are being held. I'm not very good at sports, so I have little interest in sports, but I watch women's table tennis, women's volleyball, and women's soccer if they are broadcast on TV. And I watch boys in short-distance track and field. Table tennis and volleyball are games. I prefer watching good plays rather than winning or losing. But it's more fun to support one than to just watch. I'm watching it thinking that I'll do my best to the one with the lowest score. However, I tend to end up rooting for Japanese players. It's strange to announce something like "Japan's first feat in 40 years." 40 years ago, the players of today did not win.
Athletics is watching to see if there will be a new world record. Even though this is "a new record for the first time in 20 years," it is clear that the player did not set the record 20 years ago, so I can forgive him.
There is no doubt that this record is the gift of the above-mentioned "character". And that will be the same as "superiority". It is because each is independent as an individual that it is superior or inferior. But that independence is because if there is a whole called 'human', that part. Considering the parts allows comparisons to be made. Comparing dogs and elephants doesn't make much sense. Comparing a dog with a cucumber also makes no sense. If it makes sense, it is when we consider dogs and elephants as part of "animals" and dogs and cucumbers as part of "living things."
In a simpler example, "delicious apples" and "sour apples" can be compared as part of "apples". The same goes for "beautiful" or "smart". There is no "comparison" or "better or worse" in the idea of looking at it as a whole. "Equality" and "human rights" also exist by seeing individuals as parts rather than as a whole. The idea of “individual” and “individual” itself arises from seeing people and things as parts.
The same goes for "part" and "whole". If everything is a whole, then there are no parts (nor the whole). In other words, when trying to explain "existence", the wholeness is lost when we think of "non-existence" as its opposite.
Parmenides said, "Yes and no no ἔστιν τε καὶ οὐκ ἔστι μὴῖεἰναι" (Fragment B2). However, Western philosophy, which accepted Aristotle, regarded “existence” as “substance and nature” and “degraded” to Heidegger’s “philosophy of existence” (Yoshinobu Kusakabe, “Series Lectures on Greek Philosophy”). I feel an influx of "desert thinking" here.
New Ice Age
The idea of ``desert thinking/forest thinking'' is very useful for understanding world history and the differences between Western and non-Western ways of thinking. valid. Also, I think it is very effective to use numbers or distribution maps to make statements that "cannot be disproved."
It is effective to use Western logic to ``refute'' the West, and I find it difficult to think of any other method. I also write sentences (in letters) like this. This is also because we cannot escape from Western "logic".
However, as I mentioned earlier, I think there is an increasing number of ideas in the West that question Western logic, including Heidegger. In Japan, Kitaro Nishida has written his own ideas that are not based on Western logic, and there are people like Kinji Imanishi who have ideas that transcend "the part and the whole." I think the author also realizes that "Western logic" is very strong. It even creates nuclear weapons.
A North Korean missile passed over Japan today (probably). It seems that the internet is already overflowing with opinions about Japan's "defense". This is exactly what the "Desert Philosophy" envisions. The tacit understanding of the discussion is Japan's "country (state)." It's only been about 200 years since we became a modern nation. The author wrote
Then, from chapter 5 onwards, as a material on how much time scale humans can change, the current Japanese were 3,500 years ago in the late Jomon period. , or that the influence of forests in the early Yayoi period 2,200 years ago has not yet escaped. (P.216) It's called
.
Two hundred years may not be a long time. But when I think about the difference in thinking between my parents and my generation, and how the world has changed over the past ten or twenty years, the change may be even faster.
There is a lot of talk about global warming. I think that the recent abnormal weather is a media propaganda, but the "SDGs" are nothing more than capital investment targets. “Carbon Footprint” is a commodity. If you think like the author in units of 1,000 to 2,000 years, or 10,000 to 100,000 years instead of 100 to 200 years, is global warming an indicator of global desertification? I have also heard that we are entering the next ice age. Unless there is a new hot period, or a new ice age, will this supposedly strong Western logic overwhelm the world?
Thinking in the frame of the individual (I, ego), in the frame of the nation, or in the frame of the human being is the thinking of "the whole and the part." I thought that it was necessary to think about whether it should be positioned as a desert thinking or a forest thinking, considering the balance between the position of words and characters.