You have the fortune of being able to read that last romantic, RMR: “Er, der vergißt was wir erfahren
und der erfährt was uns verweist.”
Thank you for this post, I could spend three days in a row talking about this subject. ANW thought that an organism is the realization of “a definite shape of value”, and that is essentially what the eye is. On the one hand is the result of some material adaptation, and on the other is material adaptation realizing itself, recognizing in itself as that which has value (delight you might call it), that is not the result of any process, the latter is not contained in the former. And this is the same for any living thing, and for every single act of becoming. If there is at least one scientist in the world that can still not see this in this day and age, then there is no hope.
Our senses, and by extension any form of organic life, are not products but the origin of so called “evolution”. Instead of reflecting the world like a mirror they act on it, they cannot but act. This activity is the activity of a world that discovers itself within itself. Why? Because what we term matter, in this sense, is created by the eye in the process of identifying that which has value (see for example Bergson, “Life as Creative Change”). For a pure eye, life would have no value whatsoever, because it cannot be seen in the material world. Value is creation. “The eye cannot see the eye” assured the Eastern tradition, “fire cannot burn fire” said Nishitani, and they were both entirely right (even though they meant something completely different in that case, which we don’t need to go into here).
Is it worth spending more time arguing about scientism these days? That magnificent quotation from Sri Aurobindo should do for an answer I believe, so let’s move on. Everything that was worth mentioning, and there were so many important things worth mentioning, has been already said in the last 300 years since Kant, and it has gone round the globe a few times already, it got naked to the bare bones, the results are unique, uncontroversial an clear. There is nothing left in it, there “can” be nothing left in it. Kyoto starts in the outskirts of Königsberg.
Having said that, there is one important point worth remembering. Nishitani didn’t see the world of science and religion opposing each other indefinitely, which is the common antagonistic view of popular scientific writers, with the notable exception perhaps of Wilson’s “non overlapping magisteria”. Instead, he thought of the plane of religion to open up through science or, to be more precise, through the field of nihility opened up by science itself. That is a fundamental point, probably the most fundamental point today. Science “is” part of religion, it does not stand outside of it, neither there is an approach to religion that does not go through the standpoint of scientific thought. “Solo quando va oltre il mondo e così anche oltre se stessa, la posizione scientifica puó raggiungere la propria essenza, che non è qualcosa di scientifico.” (Nishitani, “Scienza e Zen”, p.121).
When he mentioned that “religion is the self-realization of reality” he implicitly included science in it (see for example “The Conflict of Science and Religion in Dynamic Sūnyatā”, CJ Eaton Robinson). This, amongst other reasons (his incisive treatment of mechanized humanity vs nature for example), is why IMHO “Religion and Nothingness” is the most important plularistic treatise of the twentieth century. It’s is certainly the most important book I’ve read in my life, and will ever read in my life. What that man left behind is extraordinary. Whether we call Substance “Emptiness”, or Emptiness “Substance”, I wouldn’t care less. They are both the same as you know well, “emptiness is things“ (138).
Beauty is the appearance of eternity in time said Nishida.
Thank you for a beautiful essay. I agree almost entirely. Beauty is a uniquely human spiritual quality that totally eludes science and scientism, and points to a higher spiritual reality.
You have the fortune of being able to read that last romantic, RMR: “Er, der vergißt was wir erfahren
und der erfährt was uns verweist.”
Thank you for this post, I could spend three days in a row talking about this subject. ANW thought that an organism is the realization of “a definite shape of value”, and that is essentially what the eye is. On the one hand is the result of some material adaptation, and on the other is material adaptation realizing itself, recognizing in itself as that which has value (delight you might call it), that is not the result of any process, the latter is not contained in the former. And this is the same for any living thing, and for every single act of becoming. If there is at least one scientist in the world that can still not see this in this day and age, then there is no hope.
Our senses, and by extension any form of organic life, are not products but the origin of so called “evolution”. Instead of reflecting the world like a mirror they act on it, they cannot but act. This activity is the activity of a world that discovers itself within itself. Why? Because what we term matter, in this sense, is created by the eye in the process of identifying that which has value (see for example Bergson, “Life as Creative Change”). For a pure eye, life would have no value whatsoever, because it cannot be seen in the material world. Value is creation. “The eye cannot see the eye” assured the Eastern tradition, “fire cannot burn fire” said Nishitani, and they were both entirely right (even though they meant something completely different in that case, which we don’t need to go into here).
Is it worth spending more time arguing about scientism these days? That magnificent quotation from Sri Aurobindo should do for an answer I believe, so let’s move on. Everything that was worth mentioning, and there were so many important things worth mentioning, has been already said in the last 300 years since Kant, and it has gone round the globe a few times already, it got naked to the bare bones, the results are unique, uncontroversial an clear. There is nothing left in it, there “can” be nothing left in it. Kyoto starts in the outskirts of Königsberg.
Having said that, there is one important point worth remembering. Nishitani didn’t see the world of science and religion opposing each other indefinitely, which is the common antagonistic view of popular scientific writers, with the notable exception perhaps of Wilson’s “non overlapping magisteria”. Instead, he thought of the plane of religion to open up through science or, to be more precise, through the field of nihility opened up by science itself. That is a fundamental point, probably the most fundamental point today. Science “is” part of religion, it does not stand outside of it, neither there is an approach to religion that does not go through the standpoint of scientific thought. “Solo quando va oltre il mondo e così anche oltre se stessa, la posizione scientifica puó raggiungere la propria essenza, che non è qualcosa di scientifico.” (Nishitani, “Scienza e Zen”, p.121).
When he mentioned that “religion is the self-realization of reality” he implicitly included science in it (see for example “The Conflict of Science and Religion in Dynamic Sūnyatā”, CJ Eaton Robinson). This, amongst other reasons (his incisive treatment of mechanized humanity vs nature for example), is why IMHO “Religion and Nothingness” is the most important plularistic treatise of the twentieth century. It’s is certainly the most important book I’ve read in my life, and will ever read in my life. What that man left behind is extraordinary. Whether we call Substance “Emptiness”, or Emptiness “Substance”, I wouldn’t care less. They are both the same as you know well, “emptiness is things“ (138).
Beauty is the appearance of eternity in time said Nishida.
Thank you for a beautiful essay. I agree almost entirely. Beauty is a uniquely human spiritual quality that totally eludes science and scientism, and points to a higher spiritual reality.
‘A physicist’, said Neils Bohr, ‘is only an atom’s way of looking at itself.’ Took a lot of looking, but we’re getting there.