Go to the pine if you want to learn about the pine, or to the bamboo if you want to learn about the bamboo. And in doing so, you must leave your subjective preoccupation with yourself. Otherwise you impose yourself on the object and do not learn. Your poetry issues of its own accord when you and the object have become one — when you have plunged deep enough into the object to see something like a hidden glimmering there. However well phrased your poetry may be, if your feeling is not natural — if the object and yourself are separate — then your poetry is not true poetry but merely your subjective counterfeit.
I wonder if Husserl had read Basho or know of this quote. I wonder would he have agreed with it, would he have thought that what Basho is describing is that of the phenomenological project.
This being one with the object of perception had fascinated me in my early days. But as I grow older I have accepted that we will be forever separate from the object in question.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That we can imagine to be one with the object is an important aspect of being human. But to remain in the illusion of oneness would be a counterfeit of sorts as well.
In my opinion, it is important to return to reality after insight, if you choose to call it that.
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”
It is one of the greatest death scenes in motion picture history.
Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty saves Rick Deckard, in an act of human-like compassion, from falling to his death from the dark rooftops of a bleak rainy wet cityscape. In the rain, did Roy cry human tears? We shall never know.
There are great actors out there we shall simply never see or hear of because of this one barrier – language. Hauer was not known to the English-speaking world until Blade Runner. One of the great villain actors but limited to these roles, he brought intensity to the films he acted in.
RIP, Roy, Rutger. You have made your “mark on existence”.
An object exists independent of our perception or conception of it. Michael Dummett is against this stance and calls it “colourless reductionism”.
Interestingly it is, in my opinion, precisely that reality is “colourless” that our minds colour it. It is the necessary part of our being conscious of our reality. And again, it is precisely because we erroneously supplement to the reality with minds that perhaps we need to reduce (remove) what was added to it.
On the soul. – today, the soul has lost its presence. Even if we are to accept it in some form it is as a metaphor or as a construct to further give us a purpose or meaning. We are undoubtedly purpose-seeking, meaning-making entities. And that is our characteristic. Our imagination is our greatest gift and our ultimate curse.
On the mind. – There is no metaphysics, that is, there is no mind. It “exists” insofar as a concept and as a process. It has no physical existence that can be found other than physical procedural evidence.
Just as light behaves like a wave and a particle, space “behaves” like an object. A position cannot be occupied by both space and an object, two objects, or two spaces at the same time. We infer space from objects. We cannot directly observe space. We can only ever infer its behaviour from things (objects).
In this Radiolab podcast about Einstein’s brain is an interview with a neurologist named Sebastian Song (spelling?). He says forget about relativity we cannot even explain what a thought is. We can point to where a thought occurs in the brain but we cannot say how a thought is made there.
If a thought is a thing then something should remain and dissipate at death. But nothing “dissipates”. Only the process called thinking and life ends. The body remains without the process of thought, that is, when thinking ends we are no longer alive.