Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:05:53 +0300 (EET DST)
it is sad if I have managed to create image of culture impearialist!
Below my defense!
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Matti,
> I am at a hotel on Norikura Mountain and I will try more reply when I am
> back home, but for the time being...
> > --More--
> > On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > Dear Matti,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Matti,
> > > > >
> > > > > Matti, do you understand Japanese or/and Asian mind?
> > > >
> > > > Well, you could answer this question best!
> > >
> > > My question should not be treated lightly like this. It is related
> > > with the idea of my theory that you do not understand.
> > Sorry. My intention was not to abuse. It is quite possible that I do
> > not understand all ideas behind your theory. I however think I have
> > reasonable grasp about how you glue general relativity and
> > nonrelativistic QM. Also about the idea of LS. There are common elements
> > and also some crucial differences in the basic philosophy.
> > We simply have different belief systems! Having discussed in the net
> > for 4-5 years I have learned that every (am I exaggerating?) thinker, with
> > me included, is in the jail of his beliefs. The gist of the posting
> > which inspired your question was in fact a little self irony inspired by
> > this observation. The best we can do is to compare our thought constructs
> > as as art rather than claims for final truth. At least in my case,
> > the thought construct has changed so much during single year, that it
> > would be unrealistic to regard it as anything final.
> My recognition is that the western has not given any sufficient and
> necessary concerns to Asian thoughts in spite of our intensive effort to
> understand the western culture and mind for more than 130 years. My
> thought on the present is that the rationalism is ending and is going to
> be absorbed into a huge consecutive knowledge of experiences. Look at
> physics. It lacks a logical consistency at any age. It is nothing but a
> convenient system of knowledge that summarizes experiences so as to be
> made that the remindings of the experinces are easy. No ratios in it. As
> you say it is changing always even in a single mind. This means that
> the rationalism is no more than a dream of the Modern Age. It cannot be
I agree with what you say but believe in unified world picture: in fact,
western rationalism typically refuses to find any holistic world views:
postmodernism states that all great stories are dead!
Of course, holistic world picture is doomed to remain dream: the
development of this picture itself is development of consciousness
to higher levels and there is no final level.
My experience with Eastern thought comes mostly from reading
Krishnamurti's books: this when I tried
desperately to understand my great experience for 14 years ago or so,
which I would characterize as whole-body consciousness, very much Eastern
mode of consciousness.
As a hard boiled rationalist (;-) I am happy to tell that TGD inspired
theory of cs predicts to basic modes of self consciousness: whole body
consciousness, the state of oneness and thinking
mode in which self decomposes into subselves. I think that the dominance
of these two modes of consciousness is basic difference between Eastern
and Western. The failure of Western rationalism is to claim that
only the rational mode is real. The fact that I have tried seriously to
find explanations for 'altered states of consciousness'
has induced quite repellent reactions in many western colleagues for
my Eastern symphaties.
One could also see left-brain right brain dichotomy as a similar division.
Perhaps also man-woman dichotomy. Could one even consider the possibility
that sex is basically the attraction of these two types of self modes:
evolution certainly favours self decomposing to two subselves which are
rational and emotional and see world quite differently. Do strands of
DNA double, lipid layers of cell membrane and cell layers epithelial
sheets bounding all organs and brain nuclei form similar pairs of
emotional and rational selves?(;-)
> Our ancestors have recognized the limit of ratios several hundreds years
> ago. They built a system of diffrentiation-integration theory on the
> level of experienced calculus, and calculated a rather exact approximate
> value for \pi almost at the same age as Newton-Leibniz. I am sure that
> you do not know such history of our culture.
It would be sad if you would regard me as kind of culture imperialist.
I have gone quite dramatic personal re-evaluation of basic values
in past: this would not have happened without deep personal experience.
I respect Eastern culture in achievements related to understanding
of consciousness more than Chinese remainder theorem. For instance,
Krishnamurti's analysis about two basic modes of consciousness is
extremely beautiful and simple and will some day be taken as verbal
representation about basic features of conscious existence. Western
philosophy cannot represent anything comparable. I take quite
seriously the possibility that the law of Karma might be deep law about
consciousness, I regard also Zen buddhism and the related idea of many
valued logic as challenges for theories of consciousness.
> The westerners should know that science as a rationalism is ending. You
> might mean the same thing by your statement:
> > The best we can do is to compare our thought constructs
> > as as art rather than claims for final truth. At least in my
> > case, the thought construct has changed so much during single year,
> > that it would be unrealistic to regard it as anything final.
> If so, the westerners should start with declaring that their ancient
> dream of rationalism is ending.
As I said, I agree completely with what you say about dominance of
rationalism, or rather imperialism of rationalism. I believe that the
people of future civilization can learn to move smoothly between the two
modes of existence. This is probably much easier if science teaches that
both modes are possible. Generally accepted science at this moment
still tells that only the rational mode is the desired one.
> > With Best Regards,
> > Matti
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST