[D-G] The famous Japanese Philosopher Nishida pre-Deleuzien Rhizomatic
hwenk at web.de
Tue Jan 27 11:58:17 PST 2009
To show, that meditation enhances the intellectual
and literal abilities, I invoke the famous and
very influentual Japanese Philosopher Nishida (1870-1945).
He was in a zen monastry for some time, which he left
"quite advanced", as his master judged.
More interesting from a philosophical point is, that in the
german edition of one of his core essays, "Logik des Ortes"
(logic of place, Japanese edition 1926), the german editor Elbersfeld plainly claims a rhizomatic thinking of Nishida.
As in 1000 Plateaus the orient or east is said to be more
rhizomatic in culture, this is a very a striking prove.
Nishida was first strongly influenced by german philosophy, especially
the leading one at his time, neo Kantianism of the Rickert school
(Südwestdeutsche). He recipted Hegel and Ficht too, but was far more original than he thought to be. It may be of interest, that he plainly
confesses an intellectual followership to german philosophy as the
leading one at that time for Japan.
The main argument, to see the "conciousness" or "subjectivity" as a "place", is hidden neurolgical in the same line as I argued subjectivity being a strata
in the brain because of the electromagnetic dominated structure of the atoms and and the light, so that the percepting "place" (the strata) and the object percepted have something objective in common.
He speaks of a "field of conciousness" in similarity to the quantum or electromagnetic field (p.81).
He argues, in a way like Spinoza, that form and material is different and
their relation is variable. As he distincts subject-object from form-material
he has something like Hjemslevs double articulation grid and
a "stratification" of language.
He has a form generating instance, seperating the material of the form
from the actual fullifillg, therby giving the infinite form, which inherits no
number. (The properties of th notion "cup", the essence of a cup, is different from ascribing an object being a cup. The numbrer of
cups indefinit as in almost all notions, in theoretical settings it can be infinite. This is the same in D&G "What is philosophy")
Nishida has the argument of the conciousness as a mirror, which
occurs in D&G two times: in the "mirror stade" of the child and the
tendency of a cell to "mirrror", with light perception,
as soon as possible the outer world.
So, the line of interpretation as a pre Deleuzinan-Guattari thinker who
thought rhizomatic and uses partly the same arguments is in my eyes fully justified.
To take up a word of my Lacan Professors (Bormann): "If you think sober...."
.......you are ending at a D&G like, rhizomatic phlosophy.
I mean, the often tried to make ridicolous cite of Foucault:
"May be, one day the century will be Deleuzian" has thus more
philosophical impact, than our blocking academic philosophy
is willing to allow.
But, I repeat it, the actual invokement
of neurology in philosophy makes a further marginalization
of our most advanced natural-science and neurology including
philosophy of D&G more and more an open act of
science and ethico political suppression.
It's more scientfic and less "Doxa" character becomes more clear.
For short, Nishida sems o have been very informed about
quantum theory and neurology, using them in the
same "abstract" philosophical manner as Spinoza and Kant and other philosophers as necesary backgrond, recognizable for the informed but
hard to see or even to suspect for the uninformed novice.
This general tendency, hidden neurolgy, physical atomism up to
very actual details for phlosophical writings, is present inHusserl
and other philosophers too.
In my eyes, this is a very strong hindrance, as philosophy is highly controversal on the surface,
so that the common shared neurolgical and physical, some times psychological background is bound to make things
more science and less "doxa".
The conterversial "dixa" charcter is so some sort of "circus", veiling
the validity of the arguments and their reciprocal common acceptance.
Nive, he does not see some politics of academics or the possibilty for it
as strong movens.
As students of philosophy spent a lot of years with their study,
learning a "doxa" open to be at least ignored or even defeated
is a very poor state of affairs, due additional to the will to
keep science out of of real political, ethico moral
and econmical decions.
Not to speak of the padagogical
catasrophe, which has been effected in the heads of the
poor students of philosophy by this controvrsial, "tribe like" state
of philosophy .
Mostly, still the millstones go around in their heads,
as ever scince the times of the "notion-crippel" (Nietzsche)
This may be a motive for the strong emphasis of the
science like truth status of philosophy and "placing" the fight against
the doxa in the sheer heart of philosophy itself in "What is philosophy"
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari