Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:28:08 +0900
Dear Matti,
I understand that you have made considerable efforts to understand
Asian mind. Now my question is...
----- Original Message -----
From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>
To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
Cc: <time@kitada.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 1:05 AM
Subject: [time 562] Re: [time 537] Theory of cs should predict its
own discovery
>
>
> Dear Hitoshi,
>
> 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
> > realized.
>
>
> 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.
Have you ever considered the reason why "only the rational mode is"
thought as "the desired one" yet?
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST