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.
Hi Adrian: because, hopefully, I am not the only one reading your comments, you might want to expand initials like RMR (Rainer Maria Rilke) or ANW (Alfred North Whitehead). In response to Nishida’s definition of beauty I offer this by Sri Aurobindo:
Beauty is his footprint showing us where he has passed,
Love is his heart-beats’ rhythm in mortal breasts,
Happiness the smile on his adorable face.
A slight correction: the two non-overlapping magisteria were Stephen Jay Gould’ idea, not Wilson’s. And yes, science is part of religion given the right conceptions of science and religion. It may however be better to conceive of a third term that integrates them both. Consider the three Angels in Sri Aurobindo’s poem “A Vision of Science” written in Baroda (ca. 1900–1906):
I dreamed that in myself the world I saw,
Wherein three Angels strove for mastery. Law
Was one, clear vision and denial cold,
Yet in her limits strong, presumptuous, bold;
The second with enthusiasm bright,
Flame in her heart but round her brows the night,
Faded as this advanced. She could not bear
That searching gaze, nor the strong chilling air
These thoughts created, nourishing our parts
Of mind, but petrifying human hearts.
Science was one, the other gave her name,
Religion. But a third behind them came,
Veiled, vague, remote, and had as yet no right
Upon the world, but lived in her own light.
Wide were the victories of the Angel proud
Who conquered now and in her praise were loud
The nations. Few even yet to the other clove,—
And some were souls of night and some were souls of love.
But this was confident and throned. Her heralds ranged
Claiming that night was dead and all things changed;
For all things opened, all seemed clear, seemed bright—
Save the vast ranges that they left in night.
However, the light they shed upon the earth
Was great indeed, a firm and mighty birth.
...
Doubt seemed to end and wonder’s reign was closed.
...
So moved that spirit trampling; then it laid
Its hand at last upon itself, how this was made
Wondering, and sought to class and sought to trace
Mind by its forms, the wearer by the dress.
Then the other arose and met that spirit robust,
Who laboured; she now grew a shade who must
Fade wholly away, yet to her fellow cried,
“I pass, for thou hast laboured well and wide.
Thou thinkest term and end for thee are not;
But though thy pride is great, thou hast forgot
The Sphinx that waits for man beside the way.
All questions thou mayst answer, but one day
Her question shall await thee. That reply,
As all we must; for they who cannot, die.
She slays them and their mangled bodies lie
Upon the highways of eternity.
Therefore, if thou wouldst live, know first this thing,
Who thou art in this dungeon labouring.”
And Science confidently, “Nothing am I but earth,
Tissue and nerve and from the seed a birth,
A mould, a plasm, a gas, a little that is much.
In these grey cells that quiver to each touch
The secret lies of man; they are the thing called I.
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.
Hi Adrian: because, hopefully, I am not the only one reading your comments, you might want to expand initials like RMR (Rainer Maria Rilke) or ANW (Alfred North Whitehead). In response to Nishida’s definition of beauty I offer this by Sri Aurobindo:
Beauty is his footprint showing us where he has passed,
Love is his heart-beats’ rhythm in mortal breasts,
Happiness the smile on his adorable face.
A slight correction: the two non-overlapping magisteria were Stephen Jay Gould’ idea, not Wilson’s. And yes, science is part of religion given the right conceptions of science and religion. It may however be better to conceive of a third term that integrates them both. Consider the three Angels in Sri Aurobindo’s poem “A Vision of Science” written in Baroda (ca. 1900–1906):
I dreamed that in myself the world I saw,
Wherein three Angels strove for mastery. Law
Was one, clear vision and denial cold,
Yet in her limits strong, presumptuous, bold;
The second with enthusiasm bright,
Flame in her heart but round her brows the night,
Faded as this advanced. She could not bear
That searching gaze, nor the strong chilling air
These thoughts created, nourishing our parts
Of mind, but petrifying human hearts.
Science was one, the other gave her name,
Religion. But a third behind them came,
Veiled, vague, remote, and had as yet no right
Upon the world, but lived in her own light.
Wide were the victories of the Angel proud
Who conquered now and in her praise were loud
The nations. Few even yet to the other clove,—
And some were souls of night and some were souls of love.
But this was confident and throned. Her heralds ranged
Claiming that night was dead and all things changed;
For all things opened, all seemed clear, seemed bright—
Save the vast ranges that they left in night.
However, the light they shed upon the earth
Was great indeed, a firm and mighty birth.
...
Doubt seemed to end and wonder’s reign was closed.
...
So moved that spirit trampling; then it laid
Its hand at last upon itself, how this was made
Wondering, and sought to class and sought to trace
Mind by its forms, the wearer by the dress.
Then the other arose and met that spirit robust,
Who laboured; she now grew a shade who must
Fade wholly away, yet to her fellow cried,
“I pass, for thou hast laboured well and wide.
Thou thinkest term and end for thee are not;
But though thy pride is great, thou hast forgot
The Sphinx that waits for man beside the way.
All questions thou mayst answer, but one day
Her question shall await thee. That reply,
As all we must; for they who cannot, die.
She slays them and their mangled bodies lie
Upon the highways of eternity.
Therefore, if thou wouldst live, know first this thing,
Who thou art in this dungeon labouring.”
And Science confidently, “Nothing am I but earth,
Tissue and nerve and from the seed a birth,
A mould, a plasm, a gas, a little that is much.
In these grey cells that quiver to each touch
The secret lies of man; they are the thing called I.
...
I heard and marvelled in myself to see
The infinite deny infinity.
Yet the weird paradox seemed justified;
Even mysticism shrank out-mystified.
But the third Angel came and touched my eyes;
I saw the mornings of the future rise,
I heard the voices of an age unborn
That comes behind us and our pallid morn,
And from the heart of an approaching light
One said to man, “Know thyself infinite,
Who shalt do mightier miracles than these,
Infinite, moving mid infinities.”
Then from our hills the ancient answer pealed,
“For Thou, O Splendour, art myself concealed,
And the grey cell contains me not, the star
I outmeasure and am older than the elements are.
Whether on earth or far beyond the sun,
I, stumbling, clouded, am the Eternal One.”
Thank you both for that poem, a beautiful vision of universal self-awareness.
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.
Attribution? I have found again and again that what is quoted on the internet (and requoted ad nauseam) has little or no grounding in fact.
It is widely quoted without attribution, including by other physicists. The nearest I could find to an attribution is a page on the Neils Bohr Institute https://www.nbi.dk/~petersen/Quotes/Physics/physics.html
That page is maintained by Troels Petersen. I sent him an email and here is his reply:
HI Ulrich
Thanks for your mail - I tried looking it up myself, but didn’t find any references to sources, and I don’t know where I found it originally. Sorry.
Cheers, Troels
Well, that's a pity. Always liked that quote. I took it to be a light-hearted remark but nevertheless with a profound meaning.