The second essay in this part, "Biological Challenges to Contemporary Paradigms ofPhysics and Mimetics" are aimed at two problems, first the role of physics in dealingwith the properties of living systems, and second, the role of mimetic approaches(prefixed by "artificial"). In this essay he tackles reduction of biology tophysics head on. Here he weaves in another thread, the ontology of the"something" that makes the whole more than the mere sum of its parts (and,generally, different from its parts). Here is n essence that has to be appreciatedif one is to appreciate Rosen at all. There is actually something here which getslost when the system is fragmented. It is non-fragmentable. How do we "see" suchthings? We observe what the system does. We see that disappear when the fragmentation isperformed. These things are defined by their context. They are contextdependent! This idea now takes on a life of its own feeding on the other threads in theweave much as what it is telling us about. He then contrasts this with the strong desireto obtain objectivity through context independence in physics. He weaves back inthe non-generic character of such things. He then shows the inability of mimesis to copewith these issues and weaves back in the thought that complex systems are not simulable.
Chapter 5, "Drawing the Boundary between Subject and Object: Comments on theMind-Brain problem", is a paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Medicine.This paper is an example of its own subject and therefore exemplary of the notion ofself-referential loops and impredicativities. This of course is a further exampleof the context dependence of complex systems in contrast to simple systems. In thischapter he reviews the use of mathematics in the study of mind and sets the recordstraight about the history of neural network theory that actually started with the earlywork of Rashevsky. This is his first explicit attempt to talk about the mind-brain problemand it immediately is related to the "measurement problem" in physics and thewhole basis for the concept of "objectivity". He says in the introduction tothis part of the book: "Hence, by extension, a reductionist excursion into themind-brain problem in the name of objectivity merely exposes the limitations of thereductionist approach itself."
Essays on Life Itself | temp
In this chapter, the essence of what is lacking in the traditional approach to scienceis summed up very nicely in the critique of the study of the mind: "On the otherhand, experience has shown that the resultant lists or algorithms either turn out to beinfinitely long, which is unacceptable, or else must turn back on themselves, which isalso unacceptable. The latter essentially constitutes impredicativity - BertrandRussell's viscous circle. Such impredicativities cause semantic referents within them, inthis case self-referents that depend entirely on the context created by the circle itself.Attempts to eliminate such circles by purely syntactic(context-independent) means, toexpress them as a finite list, even in a bigger syntactic system, simply destroy theseproperties."
The final part of the book, Part V, on biology and technology is a treat in its ownright. Once again if one wants ideas for future work, this is a rich source. The focus ison what biology has to teach us about other disciplines. Rosen believed that biology was ameans for learning to approach complex problems, especially those in human society. Thequickness with which complexity science has been applied to human organizations andinstitutions says that he was on the mark this time too. These matters were reluctantlyomitted from life itself for logistic reasons. He says: "The common relational modelsthat bridge biology and the technologies allow us, in principle, to separate the fruits ofselection without needing to emulate its methods. They provide a Rosetta stone that allowsus to utilize the billions of years of biological experience contained in Nature'sencyclopedia, and to realize them in our own ways, applied to our own problems." Whata challenge to those who are looking to the future and have realized the latent power ofbiotechnology!
Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.
Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. But if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? what would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.
It is just this characteristic way in which the brute gives itself up entirely to the present moment that contributes so much to the delight we take in our domestic pets. They are the present moment personified, and in some respects they make us feel the value of every hour that is free from trouble and annoyance, which we, with our thoughts and preoccupations, mostly disregard. But man, that selfish and heartless creature, misuses this quality of the brute to be more content than we are with mere existence, and often works it to such an extent that he allows the brute absolutely nothing more than mere, bare life. The bird which was made so that it might rove over half of the world, he shuts up into the space of a cubic foot, there to die a slow death in longing and crying for freedom; for in a cage it does not sing for the pleasure of it. And when I see how man misuses the dog, his best friend; how he ties up this intelligent animal with a chain, I feel the deepest sympathy with the brute and burning indignation against its master.
In general, however, it should be said that this view of life will enable us to contemplate the so-called imperfections of the great majority of men, their moral and intellectual deficiencies and the resulting base type of countenance, without any surprise, to say nothing of indignation; for we shall never cease to reflect where we are, and that the men about us are beings conceived and born in sin, and living to atone for it. That is what Christianity means in speaking of the sinful nature of man.
IF A TRUTH IS PROFOUND AND DEEPLY FELT, then it can be stated very simply. This fact has been understood by reformers and sages throughout the ages--from Shakyamuni Buddha to Martin Luther King. On the other hand, if a truth cannot be stated simply, if it has not been felt deeply and therefore not been truly understood, then there is every likelihood that it will also not be useful. And a truth that is not useful is not the truth at all.Using this criteria, it is hard to imagine a simpler, more profound or more useful truth than the one arrived at in March of 1944 by Josei Toda as he struggled with a passage from the Immeasurable Meanings portion of the Threefold Lotus Sutra. According to that passage, the body of the Buddha wasneither existing nor not existing,neither caused nor conditioned, neither self nor other,neither square nor round, neither short nor long,neither appearing nor disappearing, neither born nor extinguished...The passage went on to include eight more lines, offering a total of 34 negations in all. The Buddha's body was neither this nor that, the sutra explained. But it didn't say what it was.As many times as Josei Toda had read this passage from the sutra, he still could not understand it. And yet the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra served as a kind of "Introduction" to the Lotus Sutra. If Toda wanted to understand the Lotus Sutra, as he had vowed to do, it only stood to reason that he had to understand this part first. But no matter how he struggled, the body of the Buddha would not reveal itself to his mind.In truth, he was stuck. There seemed to be no way forward unless he could understand this one fundamental point. "In a sense, he burned the bridges behind him in the battle to understand the Lotus Sutra," writes current SGI President Daisaku Ikeda of the first great spiritual struggle of his mentor's life. In other words, Toda had reached the point where it was no longer possible to turn back.Although it is sad to contemplate the pain it caused Toda and his family, the world is probably fortunate that he was incarcerated by the Japanese government during World War II. Had he been allowed his freedom, there is no guarantee that he would have studied the sutra so fiercely. And even had he done so, with access to the countless commentaries and scholarly resources on the Lotus Sutra that would have been available to him as a free man, it is unlikely he would have felt so driven to forge his own understanding of what he read.As it was, Toda tried several times to send his copy of the Lotus Sutra home from prison to his family. But each time, mysteriously, it was returned to his cell. Finally, he understood that it was his destiny to study it, and so, beginning on January 1, 1944, he resolutely plunged ahead.Some time in March of that same year, after having read the complete sutra through three times, he began to ask himself what constituted the body of the Buddha. He reasoned that it was neither the physical body of Shakyamuni nor merely an abstract idea with no substance. In the first case, such a body was unattainable by the average human being. In the second, it was mere idealism and therefore of no practical value for ordinary life.According to The Human Revolution, finally, one day as he was chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo in his cell, he entered a state of deep meditation, "recalling each of the 34 negations one after the other--trying to imagine what it might be that could absolutely exist despite so many negational words." Eventually, he lost track of how long he had been chanting and finally even forgot where he was. It was then that a single word flashed suddenly through his mind: LIFE. There was nothing mystical or mysterious about it at all, he finally realized. The Buddha was life itself.It was a signal moment for Josei Toda, for the Soka Gakkai and for modern Buddhism as a whole. And what was the meaning of that moment? What did the identity of the Buddha and Life mean for modern human beings?In a word it meant freedom. It meant that modern Buddhists were free of the authoritarian interpretations of Buddhist texts which for hundreds of years had ruled Japanese people's lives. To put it in simple terms, it was the difference between a "philosophy of life" and a "life of philosophy." In the former case, philosophy and life were separate. There were certain philosophical or religious ideals which one applied to life, but those ideals were fundamentally separate from life itself. One might have recourse to a wise priest or teacher who demonstrated that the two could sometimes be brought together as one, but for the most part Buddhism was a kind of "professional sport." Only if you separated yourself from ordinary day-to-day existence--for instance, by living in a monastery or a temple--could you hope to make such lofty spiritual ideals a reality in your life. In other words, Buddhism was for the priest or monk. The rest of us simply got by the best we could.Josei Toda's great insight was to put life first, not philosophy, in effect inverting the traditional hierarchical structure of Buddhism, which placed spiritual authority in the hands of a religious or intellectual elite. That is why I believe it was inevitable from the beginning--and even necessary--that the Soka Gakkai would experience a break with its priestly parent organization, Nichiren Shoshu. To put life first, as Josei Toda did, meant that each member of the future Soka Gakkai would be connected directly to the Buddha without recourse to any "professional" authoritarian structure, or even any physical resources or relics that such a structure might hold in its possession--the Dai-Gohonzon, for instance.As wonderful as it might be for the Soka Gakkai to hold such a precious treasure in its possession, it is surely better off without it. Because now, for Soka Gakkai members throughout the world, the true Gohonzon is the one they chant to each morning and evening in their homes, the one that lies dead-center of the life they actually live. They need not visit the head temple in Japan to feel that they have worshipped the true Gohonzon. The true Gohonzon is life as they actually live it--in the place they actually are.This was the truth that Josei Toda discovered on that March day in Tokyo, when even the four walls of a cell could not contain him. He became free at that moment, not when he was released by the authorities more than a year later. He became free when he discovered that the Buddha is life itself, and modern Buddhism was born.CLARK STRAND is an author and lecturer on contemporary spiritual practice. A former Senior Editor of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, he has been an influential voice in America and abroad on the transmission of Buddhism to the West. Terms of Use 2ff7e9595c
Comments