Showing posts with label Rumi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rumi. Show all posts

2021/04/24

Schmoe, Floyd W. (1895-2001) - HistoryLink.org

Schmoe, Floyd W. (1895-2001) - HistoryLink.org
Schmoe, Floyd W. (1895-2001)
By Kit Oldham
Posted 2/25/2010
HistoryLink.org Essay 3876


Floyd Schmoe's life, which more than spanned the twentieth century, was shaped by his love of nature and by his equally passionate commitment to helping those afflicted by war and injustice. A child of the Kansas prairie, Schmoe fell in love with the high mountains and inland seas of the Pacific Northwest where he lived most of his long life. He studied forest and marine ecology, became the first park naturalist at Mount Rainier National Park, headed a science academy, and lectured and wrote on science and nature. A Quaker, Schmoe was a lifelong peace activist -- his FBI file labeled him a "rabid pacifist." He gave up teaching and research to work full time aiding Japanese Americans interned during World War II. As a conscientious objector in World War I he had built homes for war refugees in France and a generation later he built homes for survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his 90s, he traveled to Tashkent and poured concrete to help build a peace park there while leading the effort to create the Seattle Peace Park.

Prairie Home

Floyd Wilfred Schmoe was born in Johnson County, Kansas, on September 21, 1895, the second of Ernest and Minta Schmoe's five children. The family had a small farm about a mile from a rural crossroads in eastern Kansas called Prairie Center. They were members of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers, and the Quaker traditions of nonviolence, social justice, and service to others guided Schmoe throughout his long life. (Not all the family shared his pacifism: Floyd's younger brother Othel "didn't follow the family line, and he joined the Marines" [Elmer Good interview]; some of Floyd's nephews also served in the military.)

For Floyd, a commitment to nonviolence was deeply linked to his love of nature. Even as a child growing up on a farm where butchering livestock and hunting were commonplace, he abhorred the killing of animals. Floyd also preferred wandering the fields and creeks, collecting bugs, snakes, mushrooms, and rocks, to doing his farm chores, which led to tension with his father. Schmoe recalled that it was his mother who encouraged his interest in nature and with whom he shared a love of art and music.

As a young boy, Floyd was fascinated by the one tall tree nearby, a white pine planted in the farmyard by his pioneer grandfather a half century earlier. When he was 12 or so, a chance meeting with a Yale forestry student opened up the possibility of a career working with trees and forests as an alternative to life on the farm. The Yale student's description of Northwest forests, reinforced by his parents' account, a few years later, of the huge trees and high mountains they saw when they visited the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition in Seattle, inspired Floyd with the idea of someday living and working in the region.

When Floyd was in his teens, his parents sold the farm and moved the family first to the town of Miami in northeast Oklahoma and then to the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. Floyd attended two years of high school in Miami, staying in a rented room during the school year after the family moved on to Arkansas. He completed high school in Wichita, Kansas, living with an aunt and uncle there. In the high school library, he encountered the nature writing of John Burroughs (1837-1921), which reinforced his desire to pursue forestry as a career.

Seattle and World War

However, instead of doing so immediately, after graduating in 1916 he enrolled at Friends University, a Quaker college in Wichita. It did not offer courses in forestry, Schmoe wrote later in an unpublished biographical sketch (Schmoe Papers, 1/1), "but I stayed on there one year, taking a bit of art and science, in order to remain near a girl I had decided was of equal interest." That was Ruth Pickering. Like Floyd, she came from a Quaker farm family. Floyd and Ruth met in high school. By the end of his year at Friends they were engaged. In the fall of 1917, Floyd moved to Seattle to study forestry at the University of Washington, while Ruth, a talented pianist, remained at Friends University pursuing a degree in music.

Schmoe was captivated by his first glimpses of Puget Sound, from a Great Northern train on his way into Seattle, and of Mount Rainier, which loomed so large above downtown that he initially thought he could hike to it from Seattle in a day. But before he could explore the sound or mountain, America's entry into World War I intervened. Deeply committed to nonviolence, with his draft number coming up, Schmoe applied to work with the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which a group of Quakers had just organized to provide conscientious objectors an opportunity to do relief work in Europe as an alternative to military service.

In May 1918, Schmoe sailed to France with a large group of AFSC volunteers. Soon after arriving, he volunteered to assist a Red Cross ambulance unit and carried stretchers non-stop for 30 hours at the battle of Chateau de Thierry. Notwithstanding many accounts from later years (including an earlier version of this essay), Schmoe was not an ambulance driver and he spent only a few days with the ambulance unit. Most of his 14 months in Europe was devoted to work assisting war refugees. While the fighting continued, he traveled across France helping to build prefab homes and converting army barracks for refugee families to live in. After the Armistice he helped convoy a train carrying medical supplies and food to Poland.

With all the homeward-bound ships full of troops, there was no transportation for civilians and it was not until July 1919 that Schmoe was able to return home. Floyd and Ruth Schmoe were married the next month and immediately set out by train for Seattle and the University of Washington, where Floyd continued his forestry studies and Ruth, who had gotten her music degree, took liberal arts courses. Before the fall semester was over, they were out of money.

Living in Paradise

Schmoe remained fascinated by Mount Rainier, so when a fellow student reported making good money as a climbing guide on Rainier, he applied and was hired as a guide for the following summer. That interview also led to a more immediate, and unique, opportunity for both Floyd and Ruth: serving as winter caretakers for Paradise Inn high on the mountain. The job was not for everyone. The inn was buried under 30 feet of snow and the position was open because the previous two-man crew had abandoned the post after a drunken binge.

Nevertheless, after an arduous climb through the snow from Longmire, the couple spent six contented months alone together in the massive inn until the snow melted and the road reopened in July 1920. Floyd studied the natural surroundings, chopped wood, and made weekly trips to Longmire for supplies and mail, Ruth cooked and played the inn's piano, and together they explored the Paradise Valley on skis. In his memoir of their time on the mountain published 40 years later, Schmoe wrote, "Luckily Ruth and I found no difficulty in employing our time creatively, and the most creative thing we did that year, by all odds, was to start a family" (A Year in Paradise, 49). Their son Ken was born that September.

After working the summer of 1920 as a mountain guide, as he would the following summer, Schmoe continued his forestry classes at the University of Washington, but he was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their focus on timber as a commodity rather than the wilderness conservation and recreation that he was interested in. Another chance encounter led him to the New York State College of Forestry at Syracuse, which offered courses in ecology and recreational forestry. An automobile executive he guided at Mount Rainier told him about the program at Syracuse and helped pay his way there. Schmoe and his family spent a cold school year in Syracuse while he completed his degree. As soon as he graduated in 1922, they returned to Mount Rainier, where he was hired as a park ranger.

For the next six years the family lived in the park, at Paradise in the summer and at Longmire in the winter. Schmoe devoted a lot of his energies to the park naturalist program, preparing exhibits and giving natural history talks to park visitors. By 1924, he had been named Mount Rainier's first full time park naturalist. Even before that, in July 1923, he inaugurated Nature Notes, a newsletter describing the park's wildlife, trees and flowers, and current conditions, writing hundreds of articles over the next six years.

Natural History Educator

Before long, Schmoe expanded his natural history education work beyond the boundaries of the park. His alma mater invited him back to Syracuse to speak about the National Park Service and he was soon making regular cross country trips to lecture on wildlife and conservation. Over the years, he built up a regular series of lecture stops and his natural history writing appeared in a range of publications. In 1925 he published his first book, Our Greatest Mountain, an account of Mount Rainier that "served as an unofficial park handbook" (McIntyre).

Floyd loved the mountain and his job, but by 1928 he and Ruth decided that an isolated ranger's cabin was not the best place to raise their growing family, which now included Esther (born in 1924) and Bill (1927) in addition to Ken. (Their second child, Beth, died within days of her birth in January 1923 when deep snow prevented the doctor from reaching Longmire.) The opportunity to return permanently to Seattle, where they had already built a small house near Lake Washington and where they remained connected to the Quaker Meeting, came when Schmoe was asked to head the newly formed Puget Sound Academy of Science.

Henry Landes, Dean of the University of Washington College of Science, had long wanted to establish a scientific society on campus. In 1928 he asked Schmoe to serve as director of the new academy, which would offer a program of lectures and field trips and produce a monthly publication. The director's salary was not large, and even that minimal pay was dependent on Schmoe's success in signing up enough dues-paying members, which he achieved in large part through a popular children's program. To help make ends meet, Schmoe also worked part-time as an assistant in the forestry school. Despite then having only a bachelor's degree, he eventually became an Instructor of Forest Biology even as he pursued an advanced degree of his own in marine biology, studying at the university's Oceanographic Laboratories (later Friday Harbor Laboratories) in the San Juan Islands.

Island Ecology

While he did so, the family (which now numbered six with the birth of the Schmoes' youngest child, Ruthanna, in 1934) spent several idyllic summers living on a sailboat and a tiny islet. Soon after returning to Seattle, Schmoe had borrowed money to buy and restore an old cutter-rigged sloop, the Linda, that he found rotting in a Lake Union shipyard. He hoped to recoup the money by taking high school students on educational cruises to Alaska, but after one successful season the Depression ended the market for summer cruises. Instead, Schmoe's beloved boat became the family's summer home as he pursued his underwater research.

While cruising the archipelago, the family spotted and fell in love with tiny Flower Island, located just off Lopez Island's Spencer Spit and easily visible from passing ferries. They claimed "squatter's rights" on the island (which did not even appear on the tax rolls) and used it as a base for exploring the San Juan archipelago in the Linda. On the low reef extending from Flower Island Schmoe built an underwater observation post where he spent long hours observing, recording, and photographing the reef ecology. The observation post and his photographic methods became the subject of his 1937 master's thesis.

Not long after he completed his thesis, Schmoe's scientific endeavors took a back seat to his work opposing the outbreak of war and assisting those affected by it. Schmoe was one of several pacifists who gained some notoriety for organizing demonstrations on campus against American involvement in World War II and the lend lease program under which the U.S. provided military equipment to Britain, Russia, China and other countries. He, Ruth, and other area Quakers worked with the AFSC (as he had during the First World War) to collect food and clothing and help resettle Jewish refugees fleeing Europe through Asian ports.


Standing With Japanese Americans

Schmoe was particularly concerned that war with Japan would lead to harsh consequences for Japanese Americans who included, as he frequently pointed out, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and students. When the backlash against the Pearl Harbor attack confirmed his fears, he threw himself into efforts to oppose discriminatory measures and especially the calls to remove Japanese from the community. After Executive Order 9066 authorized the forced removal or internment of all Japanese, including American citizens, on the West Coast, he worked tirelessly to assist those affected by the order.

Schmoe was able to devote himself full time to that work because the Puget Sound Academy had folded and his teaching position in the College of Forestry ended. With enrollment dropping and Schmoe "getting considerable adverse publicity for protests and demonstrations etc. against the war," he told an interviewer years later, "I guess the Dean was quite willing to let me go" (Lewis, 37). By the spring of 1942, Schmoe was heading a new regional office of the AFSC that he and others helped organize in Seattle to assist Japanese facing removal.

One of Schmoe's first projects, working with several fellow Quakers on the faculty, was to help Japanese American students at the University of Washington transfer to schools where they could continue their education (those who moved outside the exclusion zone along the West Coast were not subject to internment). Until the exclusion order took effect in March 1942, several young Japanese Americans worked with Schmoe at the AFSC assisting Japanese families. Two of them, in addition to their own subsequent accomplishments, went on to play important roles in Schmoe's life. Aki Kato Kurose (1925-1998) became a revered Seattle public school teacher, a peace activist, and Schmoe's lifelong friend. Gordon K. Hirabayashi (1918-2012), who unsuccessfully fought the exclusion order all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won legal redress four decades later, married Esther Schmoe.

As Japanese families from Western Washington were moved into what Schmoe and many others called concentration camps, he and his remaining staff worked with a handful of other local church leaders to assist those in the camps and help look after the property they had been forced to leave behind. For the remainder of the war, Schmoe divided his time between the Seattle AFSC office and internment camps, especially Minidoka in Idaho where most Washington residents had been confined, along with Heart Mountain in Wyoming and Tule Lake in northern California. Ruth accompanied him on trips to the camps and, in Seattle, on visits to Japanese patients at Firland Sanatorium and other medical institutions, whose families were prohibited from visiting them. Schmoe's efforts earned him government surveillance and an FBI investigation, which ultimately concluded that, although he was a "rabid pacifist," visiting and photographing internment camps was not illegal (Schmoe, "From Relocation...").

When the war ended, Schmoe continued working with the AFSC to assist internees as they came home from the camps, sometimes in the face of considerable hostility from former neighbors. He organized work parties to help returning Japanese residents repair homes damaged by neglect or vandalism, replant gardens and farm fields, and replace stolen tools and furnishings. Even as he continued helping Japanese Americans, Schmoe increasingly focused on doing something for the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had been devastated by American atomic bombs.

Houses for Hiroshima

Schmoe abhorred all war, but he considered the bombings, which killed many thousands of civilians, "an atrocity, even in warfare" (Elmer Good interview). Having built houses for those made homeless by World War I and more recently, along with his family, done most of the work on their new house overlooking Lake Washington, he came to the conclusion that building homes for bomb survivors would be more meaningful than merely apologizing. After trying unsuccessfully to convince the national AFSC office to sponsor a home-building project in Hiroshima, Schmoe set out to organize the Hiroshima project on his own.

Finding it difficult to gain permission to work in Japan, he began by moving part way there when a friend offered him a position teaching at the University of Hawaii for the 1946-1947 year. In Hawaii, Schmoe also headed an AFSC program sending food and clothing to Japan. He got his first opportunity to go to Japan himself in 1948, when he brought 250 milk goats to supply milk for orphanages and hospitals as part of the Heifers for Relief project. He visited Hiroshima, viewing the devastation and making contacts that helped him set up a volunteer home-building work camp the following year.

To fund the project that he dubbed "Houses for Hiroshima," Floyd and Ruth mailed an appeal to their Christmas card list, raising several thousand dollars. In the summer of 1949, Schmoe and three other Americans sailed to Japan with building materials and food and medical supplies for the Hiroshima hospital. With the assistance of many Japanese volunteers, and some skilled craftsmen whom they paid, the group built two duplexes to house four homeless families. Hiroshima Mayor Hamai and other city officials actively supported the project, and the four homes were turned over to the city housing authority, which selected the occupants from the 3,800 families who applied.

For the next four summers, Schmoe returned to Japan to build homes for families who had lost theirs in the bombings. Working largely with local volunteers, the project constructed a total of about 20 houses in Hiroshima and another 12 in Nagasaki. Many of the buildings were multi-unit and several were community houses, so altogether Houses for Hiroshima helped to house close to 100 families.

Korea and Sinai

While Schmoe was helping to rebuild Japan, the Korean War was devastating that country. After the Korean Armistice ended the fighting in 1953, the United Nations Korean Relief Agency invited Schmoe to help war refugees there. He set up Houses for Korea, funded by the U.N. and private donations, and selected the Yongin Valley, where fighting in 1950 had destroyed 75 percent of the homes, as the area that the project would assist. From 1953 through 1956, Houses for Korea built homes, dug wells, repaired roads and irrigation systems, and set up a free clinic to provide medical care.

In 1956, Schmoe's attention was drawn to the victims of yet another conflict. When Britain and France bombed Egypt in 1956 following the nationalization of the Suez Canal, 4,000 families in Port Said were displaced. Egyptian President Gamel Nasser planned to resettle them in the Sinai Desert (in part to assert Egyptian control over the area, which Israel had invaded during the fighting). At the urging of Gordon and Esther Hirabayashi, who were working at American University in Cairo, Schmoe formed Wells for Egypt in 1957 to help develop the oasis of El Arish where some of the refugees were settled. He raised money to purchase a pump for the oasis well and nursery plants to start an orchard, and spent several weeks helping plant the orchard.


Writing and Travel

After working in the Sinai, Schmoe flew to Nairobi and traveled by boat back down the Nile to Cairo where Esther and her family were living. The Sinai project marked the end of 17 years of full time, though rarely fully paid, aid work. Schmoe "retired" in 1958 to devote himself to writing. He had already followed Our Greatest Mountain with several more books, including Japan Journey in 1950, describing his 1949 house-building trip. A Year in Paradise, one of his most enduring works, appeared in 1959. It recounts the time Floyd and Ruth spent at Paradise on Mount Rainier in 1920 and their trip around the mountain's Wonderland Trail a few years later when son Ken was a toddler.

Schmoe turned to another of his favorite places in For Love of Some Islands, published in 1964. It centers on a family reunion in 1961 when Floyd, Ruth, and their four children, now accompanied by four spouses and 12 children of their own, returned to their beloved San Juan Islands, interspersing Schmoe's descriptions of and ruminations on the islands' natural history with family adventures, beginning with his construction of a glass-bottomed houseboat from which he and his grandchildren could observe underwater life.

Ruth Schmoe, who had had heart trouble for some years, died in 1969. Despite the loss of the person he called "the greatest thing that ever happened to me" (Lewis, 60), Floyd kept up an active and productive life. Later in 1969, he and his son Ken traveled in Asia. The following year he traveled again, surprising friends when he returned home remarried. He and Tomiko Yamizaki, who had worked for AFSC in Tokyo and years earlier was one of the first Houses for Hiroshima volunteers, met and married in Paris, then traveled through Europe and Africa.

Schmoe continued to travel, write, and undertake new projects well into his 90s. As he did so, his age and accomplishments brought him a degree of celebrity. Responding to a frequently asked question about his longevity, he told one interviewer:


"First, be very careful in the choice of your ancestors. That's one reason I reached 90. And always have something important to do tomorrow" (Angelos).

Peace Parks

In 1987, assisted by other members of Seattle's University Friends Meeting, Schmoe began clearing brambles and trash from a vacant lot near University Bridge across the street from the meeting house to create the Seattle Peace Park. The following summer he traveled with other volunteers from King County to Tashkent (one of Seattle's many sister cities, then part of the Soviet Union, later the capital of Uzbekistan) and at age 92 poured concrete in 100-plus degree heat to help build a peace park there. Later in 1988 Schmoe went to Japan, where he became the second recipient of the Hiroshima Peace Center's Peace Award.

Schmoe used the money from his Peace Award to help fund completion of the Seattle Peace Park, which was dedicated on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. The small park contains a bronze statue of Sadako Sasaki (1943-1955) of Hiroshima, who died at age 12 of leukemia caused by the bomb, holding a paper crane. Before her death Sadako folded origami paper cranes, attempting to reach 1,000, which according to legend would grant her health. People have been folding cranes ever since as a sign of peace and the statue is often draped with them.

Schmoe's energy and health declined after his son Ken died in a freak accident in December 1996 when a snow-covered tree fell on him. But until the end of his life Schmoe retained his curiosity about the natural and human world and had "something important to do tomorrow" -- usually a long list. Even with all he had accomplished he felt he should do more, telling an interviewer a year before he died:


"Each day I pray ... and I beg forgiveness for my neglect of all those who I could not help" (Barber, "One of History's Voices…").

Floyd Schmoe was 105 when he died in Kenmore on April 20, 2001, leaving 54 living descendants (three surviving children, 15 grandchildren, 34 great-grandchildren, and two great-great-grandchildren) and a legacy of helping others that spanned four continents and more than eighty years.This essay made possible by:


4Culture King County Lodging Tax

Floyd Schmoe (1895-2001), building a house in Hiroshima, Japan, October 4, 1952

Courtesy Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

Floyd Schmoe on Hiroshima, interviewed by Elmer Good, Seattle, 1998

Courtesy Densho Digital Archive

Floyd Schmoe on mortality, interviewed by Elmer Good, Seattle, 1998

Courtesy Densho Digital Archive

Floyd Schmoe (1895-2001), Mount Rainier National Park naturalist, demonstrates "Nature Coasting," 1920s

Courtesy Mount Rainier National Park Archives

Floyd Schmoe (1895-2001), first full-time naturalist at Mount Rainier National Park, 1920s

Courtesy Mount Rainier National Park Archives

Paradise, Mount Rainier National Park, July 23, 2005

Photo by Colleen E. O'Connor

Flower Island with Spencer Spit and Lopez Island in background, June 2, 2003

HistoryLink.org Photo by Kit Oldham

Ruins of waiting room entrance station at Minidoka Relocation Center, Minidoka National Monument, Hunt, Idaho, 2004

Photo by Paula Becker

Floyd Schmoe (1895-2001)

Courtesy World Peace Project for Children

Sadako Sasaki Peace Child (Daryl Smith, 1990), Seattle Peace Park, February 28, 2010

HistoryLink.org Photo by Kit Oldham
Sources:

Floyd Schmoe, A Year In Paradise (Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1999); Schmoe, For Love of Some Islands (New York: Harper & Row, 1964); Schmoe, "Seattle's Peace Churches and Relocation" in Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress ed. by Roger Daniels et al. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, [1986], 1991), 117-22; Schmoe, "Construction of an Under-Seas Observation Post and a Method of Under-Water Photography" (master's thesis, University of Washington, 1937); Floyd Wilfred Schmoe Papers, Box 1, Folders 1-3, 33; Box 2, Folders 4-7; Box 8, Folders 23, 25; Box 12, Folders 1, 25-28; Box 13, Folders 9, 14, 17, Accession No. 496-8, Special Collections, University of Washington Libraries, Seattle; "Oral History Interview No. 21," American Friends Service Committee, transcript of Kitty Barragato interview of Floyd Schmoe on February 25, 1989, copy in possession of American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia; "Floyd Schmoe Interview I & II," Densho Digital Archive, transcripts of Elmer Good interviews of Floyd Schmoe on June 10 and June 22, 1998, copies in possession of Densho Digital Archive, Seattle (www.densho.org); Rose Lewis, "Floyd and Ruth Schmoe: Idealism, Service, Adventure and Commitment in Two Quaker Lives" unpublished typescript dated May 1998, copies in possession of Rose Lewis, Salem, Oregon, and of University Friends Meeting, Seattle; Lewis, notes of interviews with Bill and Lillian Schmoe (July 21-22, 1998) and Inez Schmoe Voorhees (May 19, 1998), copies in possession of Rose Lewis, Salem, OR, and of University Friends Meeting, Seattle; Lynn Thompson, "Vet's Dream: Military Museum," The Seattle Times, June 30, 2004 (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/web/); Ray Rivera, "Floyd Schmoe's Lifetime of the Heart Remembered," Ibid., April 30, 2001; Marc Ramirez, "A Prime Activist: Creator of Seattle Peace Park is Dead at 105," Ibid., April 24, 2001; Paula Bock, "Floyd Schmoe -- 101 Years Of Peace And Action," Ibid., September 14, 1997; Alex Tizon, "Sharing Hope for Peace," Ibid., March 30, 1997; Constantine Angelos, "At 94, He's Busy Building A Peace Park -- Many Join His Effort," Ibid., July 12, 1990; Mike Barber, "In the Midst of Wars, He Sought Peace and Justice," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 27, 2001 (http://www.seattlepi.com); Barber, "One of History's Voices for Peace and Justice," Ibid., January 1, 2000; Vanessa Ho, "He Lived in Peace, He Rests in Peace after Tree Falls," Ibid., December 31, 1996; Judi Hunt, "Floyd Schmoe Isn't Ready to Rest until There Is Peace," Ibid., March 18, 1995; Paul Swortz, "Park Emerges from Dump Site: Volunteers Plan Peace Tribute," Ibid., July 24, 1987; Bob McIntyre, Jr., "Floyd W. Schmoe," Mount Rainier National Park Nature Notes website accessed January 22, 2010 (www.nps.gov/archive/mora/notes/schmoe.htm); "Houses for Hiroshima," Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum website accessed January 22, 2010 (www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0708_e/exh070807_e.html); "About AFSC," American Friends Service Committee website accessed February 18, 2010 (http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/sp/i/267/pid/267); HistoryLink.org, The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, "Hirabayashi, Gordon K. (b. 1918)" (by David Takami) and "Seattle Tashkent Peace Park in Uzbekistan is dedicated in Tashkent and at Seattle Center on September 12, 1988" (by Priscilla Long) http://www.historylink.org (accessed February 17, 2010).
Note: This essay was revised and substantially expanded on February 25, 2010.

2021/03/03

Spinoza | The Existential Buddhist

Spinoza | The Existential Buddhist



TAG: SPINOZA

POSTED ONJULY 26, 2015
Dogen, Spinoza, and Whitehead
[Translate]


I can’t remember a time when I really believed in God. Maybe as a small child when I still pictured him as a bearded old man in the clouds. Even then, however, God was a stranger to me. My parents never talked about Him, my father was a closet atheist, and I was the kid in Hebrew school who asked questions about the things I couldn’t wrap my head around—issues like the problem of theodicy, or how God’s omniscience conflicted with human free will. As an adolescent, the hypothesis of God seemed increasingly unnecessary and lacking in credible supporting evidence. Scientists seemed to be doing just fine accounting for the universe without Him, and Occam’s razor rendered Him superfluous.

Even if I could convince myself that He existed, what was He like and what exactly did He want from me? Which religion got Him right? Was he a God of love, or a God of hell-fire? Did He want me to avoid shellfish, stone adulterers, and put homosexuals to death? To offer burnt sacrifices? To love my neighbor? To wage jihad? To fight for justice and equality? To ban abortions? To prevent climate change? Was there one God, or many? Was He everywhere, or did He exist in some extra-spatial realm? How could one even begin answering these questions?

One could depend on holy texts or religious authorities, but which ones? The Torah? The Koran? The Upanishads? The Book of Mormon? Why believe one over the other? One could rely on mystical experiences, but how could one tell if they were veridical or merely the result of brain chemistry gone awry? Science, at least, provided intelligible criteria for discerning truth. Science had discovered genetics, nuclear energy, black holes, chemotherapy, and computers. Science was transforming the world. Science was the place to go for answers. At the age of thirteen I gave up thoughts of becoming a rabbi and decided to become a scientist instead.

But science has its own limitations. For one thing, science is unable to tell a coherent story of how consciousness fits into the material world. Scientists tend to believe in physicalism, the belief that the world is only made of one thing — physical stuff. Where does consciousness come from? Consciousness is said to be the product of the integral activity of the brain. And how does consciousness arise from the brain? We have to wait for that answer. Science has only been studying the brain for a relatively short time, and the brain is very, very complex. But don’t worry. Science will provide a full account of consciousness once it better understands the brain. When that happens, consciousness will be revealed to be—tada!—an “emergent” process.



Emergence is the idea that as systems become more complex they display novel properties which couldn’t have been predicted from their simpler components. A typically given example is that oxygen and hydrogen atoms lack “wetness,” but when combined to form H2O, voilà! — wetness “emerges.” It’s always been unclear to me why this is considered to be a good metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. What does the fact that water, oxygen and hydrogen become liquid at different temperatures have to do with “emergence?” Wetness, on the other hand, as opposed to liquidity, is a phenomenological property, a quale, a conscious experience that derives from human-chemical interaction. It isn’t a property that inheres to H2O itself. I’m not sure what’s emergent about wetness, either.

A better example of “emergence” involves insect colonies. Individual insects go about their business without any intention of serving a “higher purpose” in the colony or comprehending their role within it, nevertheless, the aggregate sum of their individual actions creates an emergent hive society, much as human free market economies emerge under the aegis of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Similarly, simple electrical circuits, each of which are “dumb” in their own right, yield “smart” calculations when aggregated together in computers. Intelligent behavior arises from components which lack intelligence on their own. These are much better examples of “emergence,” but the premise that intelligence may be emergent is not the same thing as consciousness being emergent. Intelligence is an adaptive response to environmental circumstances, whereas consciousness is a felt experience. What the metaphor of emergence doesn’t do is offer any insight as to how non-conscious neurons, silicon chips, or any other non-conscious material, can produce the raw feel of consciousness. The experience of “redness” arises when humans interact with certain wavelengths of light, but there’s no raw feel of the quality of “redness” within the brain itself. When you look inside the brain, all you see are moving electrons and secreted neurotransmitters. Computers can calculate, but they aren’t conscious. Brains aren’t conscious either; we are. This explanatory gap between non-conscious brain processes and conscious human experience is what philosopher David Chalmers has anointed “the hard problem.” Now, there are some philosophers who don’t think this explanatory gap is as unbridgeable as I seem to think it is. They don’t see it as being “the hard problem.” Either there’s something they’re not getting that seems intuitively obvious to me, or there’s something I’m not grasping that seems obvious to them. Maybe the unbridgeable gap is not in the brain at all, but between us. In any case, I find “emergent” arguments for consciousness singularly unpersuasive. Emergence is a metaphor that gives the outward appearance of solving the problem of consciousness without really solving anything at all.

But there are more problems with the physicalist model than just the “the hard problem.” First, the standard neurological model also treats thoughts as the mere effluvia of neurological happenings, and since “mental” events can never have an impact on “physical” events, thoughts can never play a causal role in the physical brain. All the causal work is done by physical processes, not by thoughts. Thoughts, then, are something extra, like legs on a snake; they serve no identifiable purpose.

Second, the physicalist model is deterministic. Every brain event is determined by a prior chain of physical causes, so that the appearance of “making a choice” is illusory. Given a particular chain of circumstances, one can never behave any differently than one does. It’s meaningless, therefore, to assign credit for blame for behavior, or to ever employ the conditional tense.

Third, science holds that while things happen due to causes, they don’t happen for a reason. There is no meaning inherent in things, no ultimate grounding for human values, morals, or aesthetics other than in human preferences. While what you do may matter to you, it doesn’t matter to the indifferent universe. Today many people in advanced societies accept this notion that the universe is devoid of inherent meaning and that meaning is a human invention. Since Jean Paul Sartre, it’s been a basic existentialist premise — although Sartre, unlike physicalists, believed in the reality of human freedom and choice. But the reader should be aware that the meaninglessness of the universe is a metaphysical proposition, and that there’s no empirical evidence either for or against it.

Now, it’s all well and good to assert that consciousness is epiphenomenal and that choice is only apparent. These are defendable metaphysical propositions. Not provable, but defendable. The problem is, try living your life as if they’re really true. Try living your life as if you don’t have the power of choice, and that your thoughts have no causative power. Just try it. These propositions violate our deepest intuitions, and while it’s possible to verbally attest to them, it’s impossible to authentically live as if they were true. In addition, the scientific process itself requires scientists who are conscious and make decisions. Science presupposes consciousness and choice, then turns around and questions their existence. Can any determinist, epiphenomenalist philosophy truly be “adequate?” If the story the physicalist model tells us about the world isn’t adequate, what would be?

In the past six months I’ve been reading writers who tell a very different story about the universe: Eihei Dogen, the thirteenth century Japanese Zen monk, Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth century Dutch Jewish philosopher, and Alfred North Whitehead, the twentieth century British-born mathematician and philosopher. Each of these original thinkers challenges the standard physicalist account of reality in his own unique way. While there are profound differences between them, there are also threads of commonality. I intend to focus on those threads, but first I need to describe their individual metaphysics.

Eihei Dogen




Eihei Dogen (1200-1253) was not what we in the West would call a “philosopher.” He was a Buddhist monastic devoted to the training of Zen monks, and his interests were matters of practical soteriology. He wasn’t interested in creating a metaphysics, and he interpreted the philosophy he drew upon from its Chinese T’ien T’ai and Hua-yen sources in his own unique way. He was a conjurer of words, and his metaphysics has to be wrestled from his difficult, enigmatic, and densely poetic prose.

So what is Dogen’s metaphysics like? As I’ve described in a previous post, Dogen’s universe is one in which space and time is fully integrated, and where every point in space and every time is immediately and intimately connected with every other. It’s a chiliocosm — a multiverse of infinite Buddhas and infinite worlds, even within a single atom or blade of grass. It’s a universe that makes no distinction between animate and inanimate, where mountains “walk” and walls, fences, tiles, and pebbles endlessly teach the Dharma. It’s a universe where all things are in a constant process of change and derive their being from their interrelationship with everything else. It’s a universe where all things conspire to encourage us to wake up and recognize our true nature: our non-dual, compassionate relationship with all of reality. There’s no God in Dogen’s world, but there are an infinite number of Buddhas. His multiverse is co-extensive with Buddha Nature, all of reality the Buddha’s dharmakaya, or “truth body.” Dogen’s universe is an integrated, benevolent, purpose-laden home for human beings.

Baruch Spinoza



Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) lived in an entirely different culture than Eihei Dogen, and in an entirely different historical era with a different set of concerns. Spinoza was a Sephardic Jew who was born and lived in Protestant Amsterdam at the dawn of the modern scientific revolution. Although they neither met nor corresponded, Spinoza and Isaac Newton were contemporaries, and the nature of physical laws, cause-and-effect, and the relationship between mind and matter were topics of intense interest and debate.

Spinoza wrote his Ethics, in part, as a reaction against Rene Descartes’ claim that the world was divided into two substances, matter which has extension in space, and thought which has none. Spinoza thought there was only one substance in the universe, and that the one substance had both material and mental properties, which he called “attributes.” In Spinoza’a system, everything has both a material and mental side to it. You can describe events in physicalist language (e.g., as events occurring in the brain), or in mentalist language (e.g., as thoughts and experiences) but you have to stay consistent within whatever language frame you start in. Physicality and mentality are two poles of the same process described in different languages.

It’s “easy” to talk about the dual physical and mental properties of matter when we’re talking about the human brain, but what is the mental process of a rock like? We don’t know how it is to be a rock, but we can say that rocks, like living organisms, change in responsive ways to their environment. If we throw a rock, for example, its atoms and electromagnetic fields realign themselves to changes in gravitational force as the rock rotates through space, and its potential and kinetic energy undergo momentary changes throughout its arc of flight. There’s a lot going on. The rock isn’t inert. It responds in some genuine way to the world. It’s possible that these physical changes in relationship to changing external circumstances are in some way meaningfully analagous to whatever physical changes are occurring in our brains when we “have” experiences. Or maybe not. When we speculate that electrons, atoms, molecules, inanimate objects, and one-celled organisms have “experiences,” a question arises about whether we’re stretching the meaning of the word “experience” beyond recognition.

Spinoza’s universe was a true “uni”-verse. His “one substance” was identical to what he called Deus sive Natura, or “God or Nature.” Spinoza’s “God or Nature” was very different from the Abrahamic God. Spinoza’s “God or Nature” manifests everything imaginable out of His/Its infinite potential, the appearance of the many out of the one. “God or Nature” is infinitely creative. Everything that exists is perfect, since “God or Nature” is perfect, and He/It has no choice but to cause everything to be exactly as it is. Everything that is follows the laws of nature by inexorable cause and effect. God is as bound by the laws of causality as humans; neither have free will.

Spinoza’s “God or Nature” is not a supernatural Being. The natural universe in Spinoza’s system, depending on how you interpret his writings, is either coextensive with “God or Nature,” or resides within “God or Nature,” but “God or Nature” is immanent in the world, not transcendent to it. God is the logos, the underlying order of the universe, the generative force behind it. We are natural expressions of God’s infinite, endless creativity.

The reason why it’s uncertain whether Spinoza’s “God or Nature” is fully coextensive with the universe is because Spinoza defines “God or Nature” as having an infinite number of attributes, whereas Spinoza’s universe has only two: extension and thought. This leaves Spinoza’s system open to the possibility (although he does not say so) that our universe is one of an infinite number of possible universes, some of which might have more or different attributes, however unimaginable they might be. Spinoza’s universe, like Dogen’s chiliocosm, is friendly to speculative physics about the universe’s being a multiverse.

Spinoza’s “God or Nature” is not a God of love, however, and the universe wasn’t created with us in mind. God is indifferent to us, caring neither more nor less for us than for viruses or tornados. The universe wasn’t created for humankind’s benefit, but out of God’s infinite imagination. Nevertheless, Spinoza says that the person who is wise will love God and seek to gain adequate ideas about Him/It. Adequate ideas give us the power to overcome our passions, thereby increasing our ability to maintain and enhance our being. According to Spinoza, increasing one’s power to maintain and enhance one’s own existence is the prime directive of all being. Ethics flows from it as a consequence, since maintaining and enhancing our existence depends largely on optimizing our relationships with other people.

Alfred North Whitehead



Writing early in the 20th Century, at the dawn of the age of relativity and quantum mechanics, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) wanted to create a metaphysics that was compatible, not only with newly emergent scientific facts, but with the things human beings are most certain of: that we have conscious experiences, that these conscious experiences have causal efficacy, and that we make meaningful decisions in the world. Whitehead wanted a metaphysics that found a place for consciousness and choice within the very heart of reality.

Whitehead’s philosophy shares certain features with Spinoza’s. Like Spinoza, he believed that mentality inheres in matter, and in the necessity of a God whose creative force is immanent in the world. But there their similarities end. Spinoza’s world is a deterministic one running entirely on a chain of causation, whereas decision and choice are real for Whitehead.

Whitehead’s philosophy is often called “process-relational” because it holds that the world isn’t made of substances, but of processes and relationships. Everything interacts with everything else in a constant process of transformation, only the “things” that are interacting aren’t really “things” at all. “Things” are abstractions from temporal slices of ongoing process. The “thing” we happen to designate a “flower,” for example, is an abstraction from a process occurring over time: seed becoming seedling, seedling becoming flower, flower becoming compost, compost becoming soil, ad infinitum. This beginning-less, endless process occurs within a web of mutually unfolding relationships with other processes, solar, meteorological, geological, ecological, and atmospheric. The flower’s existence is unfolding process and relationship. The same is true of everything without exception, from the smallest elementary particle to God Himself.

Whitehead was also a pan-experientialist. Not only does process and relationship go all the way down and all the way up, but every event within a process is also a “drop of experience.” Even elementary particles have experiences of some kind, whatever they might be. The future, in Whitehead’s view, does not yet exist. Unlike deterministic philosophies that decree the future a forgone conclusion given the constellation of causes set in motion at the moment of original creation, Whitehead’s future remains unwritten. Processes draw on their past experiences and their experience of current influences, but use them to creatively generate the next moment.

Complex processes have more choices in generating the future than simple processes. Humans, for example, have considerable choice; elementary particles, only a little. The reason why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle accurately characterizes the quantum world, according to Whitehead, is that elementary particles, in some meaningful sense, “choose” their location within their probability matrices. In Whitehead’s language, all processes “prehend” their past and the ways the world impinges on them to create the future out of the array of relevant options. We, and everything else, are forever at that moment of creation when past manifests as present.

Whitehead saw the necessity of including God in his metaphysical system. Like Spinoza’s God or Nature, Whitehead’s God is neither supernatural nor anthropomorphic. For Whitehead, God is that which transforms creativity and infinite potential into something concrete and definite, giving value and organization to an otherwise inchoate set of indeterminate possibilities. He is a kind of anti-entropic force encouraging greater complexity, interrelationship, and creativity. He is a patient persuader, guiding us towards love and mutuality. Whitehead calls him “the poet of the world, with tender patience leading it by his vision of truth, beauty, and goodness.” He co-experiences the experiences of all processes, past and present, “the great companion; the fellow-sufferer who understands.” He provides the universe with an Aristotelian telos, a general direction for the course of its unfolding evolution, as He gently nudges it in the direction of greater freedom, complexity, creativity, and mutuality.

While Whitehead’s evolving universe bears some resemblance to the Jesuit theologian Teilhard de Chardin’s (1881-1955) evolving universe, de Chardin’s universe evolves toward a final, fixed end, whereas Whitehead’s universe evolves as an undetermined, open-ended process. Although Whitehead’s God co-experiences all the experiences of all processes past and present, he isn’t omniscient. He doesn’t know the future, which remains uncreated possibility. Since He dwells in time, His co-experience of all experiences past and present changes how He meets the future. In a universe that’s process-relational all the way up and all the way down, God changes us, and we change Him. God and the universe co-evolve together.

Threads of Commonality

There are four crucial ideas expressed in Dogen’s, Spinoza’s, and Whitehead’s writings that hold my interest. The first, found in both Spinoza and Whitehead, is that of panpsychism—the idea that experience and materiality are both attributes of the same substance or process. The second, found in both Whitehead and Dogen, is process-relationality—the idea that reality is woven out of processes and relationships rather than our of “substances” and “things.” The third, found in Whitehead and Dogen, is the idea that values are inherent in the universe and not merely projections of the human mind. The fourth, found in Spinoza and Whitehead, is the idea of the existence of something that may best be labeled “God.”

Panpsychism

I’m intrigued by descriptions of reality that find mental activity woven into the essential fabric of being and becoming. That’s not to say that Spinoza’s and Whitehead’s “panpsychist” or “pan-experientialist” views aren’t problematic. The strengths and weaknesses of these views are a matter of active debate by contemporary philosophers like Galen Strawson, David Chalmers, and their critics. Panpsychism’s first problem is the fundamental unknowability of what the experience of elementary particles, nonorganic processes, plants, and simple animals such as protozoa are like. Second, there are explanatory gaps in how one gets from the proto-experience of elementary particles to the consciousness of human beings, or how human beings develop a unified consciousness when all of their cells and elementary particles are busy having their own experiences. Despite these significant problems, there seems to be something intuitively appealing about rooting consciousness deeply into the warp and weft of the world. In a way, there shouldn’t be any mystery to consciousness. It’s what we know best about the world; we understand embodied consciousness from a more intimate perspective than we understand anything else. We know what’s it like to be conscious; it’s matter that’s opaque and mysterious.

As a lengthy aside, it’s unclear how Dogen would weigh in on this controversy. Buddhism’s metaphysical stance on the ontological status of mind and matter is both complex and confusing, tending to muddy the waters rather than resolve problems. While the particular rabbit hole Buddhism goes down is slightly different from Descartes’, it’s a rabbit hole nonetheless. Buddhism views consciousness and physical form, under “usual” circumstances, as two tightly interacting, mutually affecting streams of momentarily arising processes. There are times and instances, however, when these mental and material processes separate out, e.g., during the formless jhana meditative states, in the “formless realm” where subtle mental beings reside, in the “astral” travels of the “subtle body,” during the bardo states and process of rebirth, and through the mind’s ability to manifest simulacra of the body (manomayakaya) in space. Dogen inherited this tradition and did little to question or clarify it. While Dogen makes frequent use of the Japanese word shinjin (“body-mind”) which implies a body-mind unity, it’s unclear what the deep ontological underpinnings of that apparent unity are. The best one can say is that Western ontological categories are completely irrelevant to Dogen’s soteriological project.

Process-Relational Metaphysics

I’m strongly drawn to process-relational descriptions of reality that clarify our mutual interdependence with all things. The crises of our era are essentially crises of failures in relatedness, whether with our biosphere or with our neighbors as we tribally-oriented humans— in other words, all of us—are necessarily confronted with the difficulties of living cheek-to-jowl with strangers-turned-neighbors in the global village. Beyond that, process-relational thinking helps us to understand identity and personhood in ways that accord with fundamental Buddhist insights into the nature of selfhood. Whitehead’s process-relational thinking precisely mirrors Dogen’s metaphysics of impermanence and radical inter-relationship. In Mahayana Buddhism, all dharmas (phenomena) are not only anitya (impermanent) but also śunya (empty), meaning lacking in “inherent self-existence” and deriving their momentary being from an evolving flux of inter-relationships. This is what Mahayana Buddhists call “dependent origination.” This natural affinity between Whitehead’s philosophy and Sino-Japanese thought is one reason why there is a growing interest in Whitehead’s philosophy in contemporary China.

The Value Laden Universe

I’m charmed by descriptions of reality that have moral and aesthetic values baked in from the get-go, and that argue for a universe that’s not morally or aesthetically neutral, but naturally inclined in the direction of goodness and beauty. Whitehead believes God moves the universe towards greater beauty, while Dogen believes the fabric of reality encourages us to realize our Buddha nature and awaken together with all things. The idea that in maximizing the good, the true, and the beautiful we’re living more in accord with reality, helping things to flow in their intended direction, makes for a wonderful story. Much nicer than the story that it’s a dog-eat-dog world and that we’re either sharks or sardines. Much nicer, also, than the story that nothing matters, so we can do whatever pleases us. I’m not sure I buy these nicer stories; there are plenty of reasons not to. But I find myself increasingly willing to at least consider them.

Spinoza, on the other hand, isn’t a member of the Inherent Values Club. He’s the father of our modern hard-edged “realism.” He denies the universe is flowing towards greater perfection; it’s already perfect — meaning the only way it can be — as it is. “Good” and “bad” are just categories the human mind projects onto nature:


“After men persuaded themselves, that everything which is created is created for their sake, they were bound to consider as the chief quality in everything that which is most useful to themselves, and to account those things the best of all which have the most beneficial effect on mankind. Further, they were bound to form abstract notions for the explanation of the nature of things, such as goodness, badness, order, confusion, warmth, cold, beauty, deformity, and so on; and from the belief that they are free agents arose the further notions of praise and blame, sin and merit.

But:


….things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. To those who ask why God did not so create all men, that they should be governed only by reason, I give no answer but this: because matter was not lacking to him for the creation of every degree of perfection from highest to lowest; or, more strictly, because the laws of his nature are so vast, as to suffice for the production of everything conceivable by an infinite intelligence… — Spinoza, Ethics

God

Which brings us back to the start of this post — my inability to believe in God. I could never believe in a supernatural, anthropomorphic God, an omniscient autocrat standing outside of creation, judging it, and miraculously intervening in accordance with our prayers and petitions—in other worlds, the kind of God that Whitehead describes as having the attributes of “a Caesar.” “God talk” doesn’t interest me or turn me on. As I’ve mentioned in another post, when I hear “God” mentioned in a Dharma talk, my mind wanders off. But how different — really — are Spinoza’s and Whitehead’s naturalistic, creative, immanent Gods from Dogen’s understanding of the dharmakaya? How different is Whitehead’s God who experiences the experiences of the world and nudges us towards love and beauty from Dogen’s compassionate Avalokitesvara who hears the cries of the world and awakens us to wisdom beyond wisdom? Even if one dispenses with Gods and Buddhas, if mentality, morality and aesthetics can be features of reality right down to the bone, why can’t reality also include some non-supernatural “spiritual” dimension as well? Some beneficial principle that encourages us and the world towards greater love and compassion, beauty and understanding, and our own best selves? I’m not convinced, like Whitehead and Spinoza, that God is either necessary or tenable, but I’m more open to consider it than I once was. That’s why I’m an agnostic rather than an atheist; it’s what keeps me from joining the secularist camp.

Final Thoughts

Of course, metaphysical speculations like these lie well beyond the realm of proof or falsifiability. They’re not scientific questions. That’s why they’ve fallen out of favor in contemporary philosophy. But to say they’re unprovable is different from saying they’re meaningless or useless. They’re stories, narrative devices, that help us to organize our behavior and orient us towards the future. They have their own realms of utility.

For a moment, let’s look at this from the Jamesian pragmatic perspective: Which description, if tentatively adopted as-if-true, would most likely enhance human flourishing? Where does a deterministic, physicalist, purposeless universe take us, and where does a pan-experiential, process-relational, value-laden world take us? I invite you to take some time and try to imagine the moral and social consequences of each.

It’s possible that a physicalist framework might be more useful for the purposes of certain scientific investigations, but that a pan-experiential, process-relational, value-laden perspective might be more useful for rearing children and good citizens, organizing social, political and economic relations, preserving the planet, and cultivating the beautiful and the good. And it just might be — it’s possible— that there are even certain scientific questions — ones related to ecology or quantum events, for example — where a process-relational perspective might prove more fruitful.

It’s something worth thinking about.

Many thanks to cosmologist, cousin, and Whitehead scholar Matthew David Segall who kindly reviewed an earlier draft of the Whitehead segment of this post and helped me avoid some errors. Any new errors in interpreting Whitehead that crept into this essay during the revision process are solely my own. Thanks also to Bob Brantl who commented on an earlier draft and helped this to become a better essay than it otherwise would have been — although I suspect he will still not be happy with what he considers to be my caricature of theism in the opening paragraphs. Thanks also to Susan Mirialakis for her many helpful suggestions to improve the readability and flow of this dense essay.


SUBSCRIBE




RECENT POSTS
Book Review of Chenxing Han’s “Be the Refuge.”
Teisho for the Fourth Day of a Zoomed Virtual Sesshin
Book Review of Ira Helderman’s “Prescribing the Dharma: Psychotherapists, Buddhist Traditions, and Defining Religion”
Book Review of “China Root: Taoism, Ch’an, and Original Zen”
Book Review of Steven Heine’s “Readings of Dōgen’s Treasury of the True Dharma Eye”
Book Review of Dale Wright’s “What is Buddhist Enlightenment?”
Book Review: The Circle of the Way: A Concise History of Zen from the Buddha to the Modern World
Teisho for the Third Day of A Virtual Zoomed Sesshin
First Thoughts on the COVID-19 Pandemic
Towards A Buddhist-Aristotelian Synthesis
Book Review: Exploring Chán: An Introduction to the Religious and Mystical Tradition of Chinese Buddhism
Book Review: American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity
Dharma Talk for the Fifth Day of Sesshin
On Some Differences Between Insight Meditation and Zen
Values and Experience
CATEGORIES
Book Review (16)
Buddhist Art (1)
Buddhist Ethics (13)
Buddhist History (4)
Commentary (26)
Dharma (66)
Engaged Buddhism (14)
Meditation (16)
Personal (13)
Philosophy (2)
Psychology (11)
TAGSAdam Tebbe Aesthetics aging Ajahn Brahm Ajahn Chah akusala Alan Cole Alan Watts Alasdair McIntyre Amerian Dharma Amod Lele anatta Andrew Olendzki Angeles Arrien Angulimala Ann Gleig annica Anniversary Aristotle ascent aspiration authenticity authority awakening awareness Bankei Barbara O'Brien Barry Magid Beauty being Ben Howard Be the Refuge Bhikkhuni Ordination blogging blogosphere bodhicitta Bodhidharma Bodhisattva ideal Bodhisattva Vows bodymind brahmas Buddha‑nature Buddhist Economics Buddhist Ethics Buddhist modernism Buddhist Philosophy cancer Carl Jung causation chaplaincy Charles Tart Chenxing Han choice Chuan Zhi Clair Brown climate change clinging compassion courage COVID‑19 Daigu Sōchiku Dale Wright Damien Keown Daoism David Chapman David Hinton David Hume David Riggs death de Beauvoir decentration decontextualization Dependent Origination descent desire devas Dhammapada Diabetes Dogen Donald Trump Doug Adams dukkha Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche earthquake ecology Eightfold Noble Path Emotivism emptiness Engaged Buddhism enlightenment epistemology Ethics eudaemonia eudaimonia existentialism fear Fermi Paradox Four Noble Truths gassho generosity Gesshin Greenwood Glenn Wallis gratitude Great Filter habituation Hakuin Heart Sutra Hillel hindrances hope Hotei Huayan humility identification identity IMBT imperfection impermanence Indra's Net Insight Meditation integrity intention interdependence intimacy Ira Helderman Iraq Jan Willis Jataka Tales Joan Halifax John Dewey Jon Kabat‑Zinn Judaism Jukai Kabat‑Zinn Kalama Sutta karma Katagiri‑Roshi Kataññu Sutta Ken McLeod Kennedy Roshi Kierkegaard Kit Carson Kristeller Kurt Vonnegut kusala Larry Rosenberg letting go Libya Linji listening lovingkindness Madhyamaka Mara Meal Gatha meaning meditation Melian Dialogue menmitsu no‑kafu Menzan Zuihō meta‑ethics metta mindfulness Mirka Knaster misconduct mistakes Mumonkan Munindra Nagarjuna Naturalism neuroscience Niceness Nirvana Noble Eightfold Path nonduality not‑self Not Knowing Okumura opinions ordination Owen Flanagan pain pandemic panna paramita Patriarchs on Paper Paul Farmer Paul Schubert Peter Harvey Peter Haskel pleasure principle politics Polly Young‑Eisendrath practice precepts presence process proliferation psychology psychotherapy rakusu reactive patterns reality principle realpolitik relationship Religion respect Rick Fields Rumi Rutschman‑Byler Sacredness Sally Gross samadhi Sandōkai Secularism selfing sesshin Seung Sahn sexuality Shantideva Sharon Salzberg Shobogenzo Shohaku Okumura Shukke Tokudo sila skillful means skillfulness social activism Spinoza spiritual maturity Steven Heine sunyata Suzuki Roshi Suzuki Shōsan synchronicity tathagatagarbha The Brother's Karamazov theism Thich Nhat Hanh Thomas Nagel Tokugawa Shogunate Toni Packer Tozan transcendence Truth Tsunami Two Buddhisms Uchiyama Roshi unhappiness upaya Values vows Western Buddhism Whitehead William James William Penn wisdom Wolf Singer Yogacara zazen zazenkai Zen Zen priesthood Zhizang
RANDOM QUOTE


It is a bit embarassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than ‘try to be a little kinder.’
— Aldous Huxley
Next quote »
BLOGS
American Buddhist Perspective
Fake Buddha Quotes
Firefly Hall
Lion's Roar
Love of All Wisdom
Monkey Mind
No Zen in the West
Nyohō Zen
One Time, One Meeting
Tricycle Editors' Blog
Wild Fox Zen
BOOKS
Buddhism and Human Flourishing: A Modern Western Perspective
Encountering Buddhism: Western Psychology and Buddhist Teachings
Living Zen: A Practical Guide to a Balanced Existence
Seth Zuihō Segall, Ph.D.
BUDDHISM-SCIENCE DIALOGUE
American Mindfulness Research Association
Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education
IONS Searchable On-Line Meditation Research Bibliography
Mind and Life Institute
Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies
The Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Healthcare, and Society
BUDDHIST RESOURCES
Access to Insight
Barre Center for Buddhist Studies
Buddhanet
Journal of Buddhist Ethics
SuttaCentral
The Center for Buddhist Studies, Columbia University
The Zensite
ENGAGED BUDDHISM
Buddhist Global Relief
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Clear View Project
Zen Peacemakers
MEDITATION CENTERS
Insight Meditation Society
Springwater Center for Meditative Inquiry
SITTING GROUPS
Boundless Way Zen of Westchester
White Plains Zen



Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License

2021/02/20

無痛文明論: 現代社会批判, 資本主義, 条件付きの愛, 私の死, 欲望など

無痛文明論: 現代社会批判, 資本主義, 条件付きの愛, 私の死, 欲望など




森岡正博
『無痛文明論』
トランスビュー 2003年10月 全451頁 本体3800円






森岡思想の集大成であり、代表作。快楽を追い求める現代文明は、われわれから、深いよろこびを奪っていく。この悪魔のような文明と、どう戦うのか。

快を求め、苦しみを避ける方向へと突き進む現代文明。その流れのなかに、われわれはどうしようもなく飲み込まれ、快と引き替えに「生きる意味」を見失い、死につつ生きる化石の生を送るしかなくなるのではないだろうか・・・。現代文明と人間の欲望をとことんまで突き詰めて描いた超問題作が、2003年10月3日に、とうとうトランスビュー社より刊行されました。1998年より雑誌連載され、このHPでも全文掲載されて、センセーションを巻き起こした原稿を、原形をとどめないほど書き改めて、一冊の本にしました。特に、ラスト2章は、原稿用紙で300枚を超える新たな書き下ろしです。私がいままで書いた本のなかで、もっとも密度が濃く、もっとも賛否両論を呼ぶものとなることでしょう。

出版後、新聞書評などで大きな話題となり、ネットでも賛否両論の意見が続出しています(下記書評一覧参照)。なかでも宮崎哲弥による朝日新聞書評「これは異様な本である。正気と狂気の狭間を擦り抜けるような異様な書法による大冊だ」との評価は話題を呼びました。初版5千部。その後、ちびちびと増刷を続け、2005年秋で8刷り1万3千部。いままで書いた本の中で、最大の反響を呼んでいます。


English translation
 英訳はこちら

韓国語版はこちら 日本版出版社:トランスビュー Tel.03-3664-7333 Fax.03-3664-7335 
HP:http://www.transview.co.jp
メール:info@transview.co.jp 



特報!

「無痛文明論」韓国語版が2005年2月に刊行されました。
>> 韓国語版情報はこちらです



冒頭20頁分をネットで読んでみる


『無痛文明論』の本文サンプルを無料公開しています。

 >> サンプル(PDF) ぜひご覧ください。


ネットでこの本を注文する


Amazon.co.jpでこの本を購入する >> こちらからどうぞ 


書店でこの本を購入する


都市部の大書店に並んでいます。棚は、「話題書」「哲学・倫理学」「現代思想」などです。

 >> 書店目撃情報はこちら


以下は、『無痛文明論』の詳細情報です


以下のページの構成

1 『無痛文明論』目次と内容サンプル

2 「無痛文明論」関連論文

3 雑誌連載版について

4 読者からの質問に答える

5 書店配備状況

6 日誌

7 講演会情報

8 書評・批評など NEW


 


1 『無痛文明論』目次と内容サンプル

 はじめに  内容サンプル

 第1章 無痛文明とは何か

   内容サンプル(1)冒頭部分  内容サンプル(2)6節  内容サンプル(3)同じく6節

 第2章 無痛文明における愛の条件

   内容サンプル 4節

 第3章 無痛奔流

   内容サンプル 冒頭部分

 第4章 暗闇のなかでの自己解体

   内容サンプル 冒頭部分

 第5章 身体の欲望から生命の欲望へ

   内容サンプル(1) 冒頭部分  内容サンプル(2) 末尾部分

 第6章 自然化するテクノロジーの罠

   内容サンプル 冒頭部分

 第7章 「私の死」と無痛文明

   (註)本章は内容が過激なためウェブでは公開できません

 第8章 自己治癒する無痛文明

   内容サンプル 冒頭部分  内容サンプル(2) 第4節途中
   内容サンプル(3)  第8節

 あとがき


*「内容サンプル」は、本書のほんのさわりの部分です。「身体の欲望」「生命のよろこび」「生命の欲望」「暗闇の中の自己解体」「捕食の思想」「開花の学」「私の死と無痛文明」「自己治癒するシステムとの戦い」などの目玉部分は、ぜひ、刊行されてから書店で手にとってお確かめください。

 

2 「無痛文明論」関連論文

 生命学HPのエッセイ・論文コーナーに数本の関連エッセイがあります。エッセイ「無痛文明論の提唱」が早わかりかもしれない。

 

3 雑誌連載版について

 雑誌『仏教』に連載されていたバージョンを、研究用資料として、kinokopress.comの森岡全集から、刊行する予定です。詳細が決まり次第、ここでお知らせします。雑誌発表当時のリード文や、その当時の全文公開ページは、こちらをご覧ください。

 

4 読者からの質問に答える

 『無痛文明論』についての、みなさんからのご質問に、可能な限りここでお答えします。専用掲示板に質問を書いてくだされば、お答えをここにアップします。よろしく。

 質問1 ・・・「無痛文明」って、ほんとうなの? (Kさんからの質問)
 回答1 ・・・はい。ほんとうです。いまの日本や米国のような社会は、ほんとうに無痛文明のほうに向かって進んでいると思います。本文のサンプルを読んでいただけると分かると思いますが、モノは増えたけどこころが空虚、快感はあるけどよろこびはない、という状態に陥りそうになっている人たち、あるいはすでにそこに陥ったことのある人たちがたくさんいるのではないでしょうか? 私は違うと、自分に向かって断言できる人はどのくらいいますか? これは現代社会全体の問題なのです。じゃあ、そもそも、その「無痛文明」とは何なのか。それをこの本で詳しく書こうとしました。

 質問2 ・・・無痛文明論だから、やっぱり論文なんですか? (Tyuさんからの質問)
 回答2 ・・・うーん、いわゆる「論文」じゃないです。サンプルを見てもお分かりのように、けっこう平易な文章で書かれた哲学書ってところでしょうか。同時に、「文体の実験」もいろいろ行なってますので、途中で唖然とすることもあるかも。論文であって論文でない、文学であって文学でないという感じかもしれないですね。ジャンル分け不能です。

 質問3 ・・・(日本が)無痛文明化しないための社会的要因って言うのはあるんでしょうか? (Tfuさんからの質問)
 回答3 ・・・むずかしいご質問ですね。その要因をずばり言えてしまうと、無痛化と戦えなくなります。ここにひとつの逆説があるのですよ。これについては、出版後にぜひ本書の説明を読んでください。あと、「反無痛化装置」というアイデアも出してますが、これがどこまで力あるものなのか・・・。

 質問4 ・・・無痛文明論の問題意識は豊かな国に住む人固有のものでしかないのでは? (Izmさんからの質問)
 回答4 ・・・ご指摘のように、まず第一には、物質的に豊かな国にすむ人、あるいはそういう境遇にある人が対象となります。しかし、そういう境遇に置かれていない人にとっても、実は、無関係ではないのです。また、無痛化というのは、はるか昔から始まっていたとも考えられます。これらについては、改訂された第1章で詳しく述べましたので、ご覧ください。

 質問5 ・・・無痛文明論は昔に戻れっていう思想でしょうか? それとも先へ進めっていうポストモダンの思想でしょうか? (Totさんからの質問)
 回答5 ・・・無痛文明論は、未来に向かって進めという思想です。(それがポストモダンなのかどうかは議論の余地がありますが・・・)

 質問6 ・・・もしも無痛文明論にいたく共感する政治家がいたとします。その政治家は無痛文明論を活かすような政策を提言できますか? それとも、無痛文明論は政治的ではなくて哲学や宗教の分野だから政策にはなりえませんか? (Totさんからの質問)
 回答6 ・・・できないことはないと思います。「無痛化装置」(第8章)を解体するような政策は可能でしょう。ただし、その政策自体が新たな無痛化装置にならないような仕組みを考えねばなりません。第8章をぜひお読みください。

 質問7 ・・・性愛において、「性別」という条件をつけること(同性/異性しか愛せないということ)も 「条件つきの愛」ということになるのでしょうか?(Gidさんからの質問)
 回答7 ・・・これは難問です。相手の性が変わったときに、愛には変わりないけれど、愛し方が変わったとします。それを「条件付け」と考えるか否かによっても答えは変わってきますね。出版後の論点にしましょう。第2章の「条件付きの愛」の議論は、ずいぶん修正しましたので、出版後にご確認ください。

 質問8 ・・・私は大阪市内の某大学で社会福祉を中心に勉強していますが、well-beingを目指す福祉の思想・実践は、本質的に無痛化の装置となってしまうのでしょうか?もしくは、必ずしも無痛化に抗する営みと相反するものではないのでしょうか?(nabeさんからの質問)
 回答8 ・・・本質的なご質問、ありがとうございます。これは時間をかけて探求しなければならない問題だと思います。原理的に考えれば、その答えは「well-being」とはそもそも何かという点に関わってくるのではないでしょうか。もしそれが、基本的にプラン通りに進む安定したつらさのない状態を意味するのなら、それを目指す社会福祉は無痛化の装置とならざるをえないでしょう。もしそうでないとしたら、違った可能性が開けるかもしれません。

 質問9(Umeさんからの質問:全文はここ)と回答9 
(1)「装置」に気づいたときにその場その場で抗していくのか?・・・基本的にはその通りですが、もっと積極的なことを考えています(第8章参照)。ちなみに『マトリックス』は本文完成後に見ましたが、似たような世界把握がありますね、たしかに。
(2)ディープエコロジーは、無痛化装置を強化するのか?・・・ディープエコロジーの語られ方、流通の仕方によっては強化すると思われます。でも抵抗する可能性もあるはず。
(3)医療を否定することにならないか?・・・上と同じく、それぞれの文脈で、どのようなスタンスをとるのかによると思われます。出生前診断の例が第5章にあります。
(4)正常と異常の新たな線引きの可能性は?・・・これについては、多様性のできるかぎりの真の受容と開拓しかないでしょう。「中心軸」の発見とリンクすると思います。
(5)強い個人になるという宗教的な信仰を必要としないか?・・・「強い個人」とは何なのかを私は疑っています。それは蜃気楼では?また、宗教的ではあっても、信仰ではないというあり方はないのでしょうか?(以上、一般論でしか答えられてません。m(_ _)mなさけないなあ・・)

 

5 書店配備状況

 『無痛文明論』が、どの書店のどこに何冊配備されていた・・・というような情報を、りんごさんが書店配備情報ページで、まとめてくださっています。(なお、「森岡正博の本」コーナーも参照。)


>> 書店配備情報ページ 情報をりんごさんのページや、生命学HP書籍掲示板にお寄せください。匿名OK。

 

6 日誌

6月24日 本ページ公開。無痛文明論の原稿の推敲が終わって、一息状態。でもあとで、また、最初から読みなおそう。池袋の某書店からすでに出版社に問い合わせがあるそうな。編集者と、造本についての打ち合わせ日を決めた。

7月3日 昨日、府立大学の公開講座があった。そこで無痛文明の話題を問題提起。反響あり。そのあと、トランスビュー社長と瀬戸内料理を食べながら打ち合わせ。上下2冊本ではなく、分厚い1冊本にすることにした。値段は3800円くらいか。『生命学に何ができるか』と同じような値段設定になる。学生さんにとっては、高い本になるのが残念だが、仕方ないか。東京と大阪で、無痛文明論の講演会をすることになるかもしれない。そのときは、見に来てください。

7月11日 まだ推敲してます。ほんとうに、完全ということはあり得ないね。「はじめに」と「あとがき」を書き直した。「はじめに」の改訂版全文は上の目次から飛べます。来週に初校が出て、それを書き直したらもう終わりのはずなのだが。それと、誰からも質問がこないので若干さびしいかも(TT)。

7月13日 ようやく質問事項が届きはじめた。

7月26日 初校ゲラが出て、さっそく直しを入れた。編集者に手渡した。あとは再校を待つのみ。もうほとんど変えるところはないだろう。これで、いよいよ、装丁、製本、書店への告知と続いていく。装丁者の作業はすでにはじまっているらしい。どんな装丁になるのだろうか。編集者と一緒に、新宿紀伊国屋書店の営業の人に会ってきた。配備よろしくお願いします!

8月7日 「無痛文明論」を海外に売り込むためのレジュメが、編集者から送られてきた。A4一枚くらいなのだが、これを英語に翻訳しなくてはならない。この際、いろいろ楽しみながらやってみよう。とりあえず、フランス語と韓国語への翻訳を狙おうかと話している。どうなることやら・・・。

8月12日 上記のレジュメをいちおう英語に翻訳した。ついでに目次も翻訳。「無痛文明論」語が英語になるのを見るのは感慨深い。近々、英語ページにアップしよう。

8月23日 再校に手を入れて、さっそく都内で編集者に手渡した。これで完全に著者の手を離れた。あとは、装丁。9月終わりまでには見本刷りが出来上がる。書店に並ぶのは10月第1週だろう。東京での講演会などの打ち合わせもした。いよいよ、という感じだ。『Transview』誌に無痛文明論エッセイが出た。

8月27日 ネット書店bk1で、『無痛文明論』の予約が始まった。とうとう始動するのだなあという感慨がある。送料無料なのでお得です。ぜひご利用を。bk1は、非常に好意的のようだ。新しい企画も進んでいるので、またお知らせします。

9月2日 池袋での講演会の日程が決定した。リブロ池袋店の提供で、西武池袋コミュニティカレッジで開かれます(下記参照)。有料とのことなので、なにか余興を準備しますね(^^;)。出版と同時だし、華やかな一日になりそうです。リブロ池袋店では「無痛化する現代文明」というフェアを人文コーナーでやるみたいですよ(9/20-10/15)。

9月2日その2 bk1で、「無痛文明論」連続講義という連載が始まりました。9月から10月にかけて、定期的にアップしていきます。本文の一部もお見せする予定です。bk1さん、力を入れてくれてます。みなさんも予約して買ってあげよう。

9月5日 bk1に続いて、アマゾン書店でも先行予約が始まったようだ。ネット書店、がんばっているみたいですね。

9月13日 無痛文明論のチラシが書店に置かれはじめているようだ。いよいよ、書籍の見本が出来上がってくる。この緊迫感は、いいなあ。「無痛文明」という言葉は、けっこうキャッチーなようで、すでにあちこちで引用されたり、利用されたりしている。もし本書が話題になったら、「無痛化する若者たち」とか「無痛社会を生きる」とかいうタイトルの本が将来出てきたりするのかなと思ったりする。(「生命学」は、ここ10年のあいだに、本のタイトルや、大学の講座名にもなってるみたいですよ)。

9月17日 とうとう無痛文明論の見本が出来上がった。写真をアップしましたのでご覧ください。インパクトがあってとてもよい装丁だと思います。これが10月に店頭に並ぶんですね。うれしいなあ。表紙は、微妙に修正されたみたいですね。ずっしりと重いですよ。3800円はリーズナブルかも。気がついたら、bk1の無痛文明論講義・第2回がアップされてます。

9月22日 送られてきた「無痛文明論」見本を、何度もパラパラとめくってみたり、装丁を眺めたりしている。とうとう完成したなあという充実感と、終わっちゃったなあという空白感がともにある。これから、講演やインタビューやらが控えているから、もうひとふんばりしなくては。心はもう次回作に行っているんだが・・・。

9月24日 「無痛文明論」がいつどこの書店に並ぶのか、ネット書店からはいつ送られてくるのかというのは、なかなか予測するのがむずかしい問題らしい。私の新刊は、刊行後の数日間くらい、書店に出てはさっと売り切れてしまうこともあるから、大手書店に行けばかならずあるということにもならんのだ。(発売を首を長くして待っている濃いファンが多いということなので、うれしいことなのだが)。発売直後は、みなさんには、いらいらさせることになるとかもしれませんが、なにとぞ辛抱して探したり、待ったりしてくださいませm(_ _)m。それと、下記の9月27日の講演会は、まだ席がたっぷりあるそうなので(TT)、ぜひどうぞ。

9月30日 小手指の講演会は無事終了。たくさん集まってくださって、ありがとうございました。私としては話が大きくなりすぎたかなという反省がありますが、どうだったんでしょうか・・・。しかし、無痛文明論の話をするのは、精神的にかなり疲れる。池袋の講演会では、また違った話をしようと思ってます。それと池袋リブロ書店、ジュンク堂で先行発売が始まりました。こっそりと見に行ったら、リブロで私の目の前で購入してくださった人を発見。感謝感激です。

10月2日 とうとう書店配本が始まったようだ。大都市で10月3日という情報が入ってきた直後、京都のジュンク堂と丸善で平積みされているのが投稿者によって確認。これから各地の本屋さんに並んでいくのだと思います。みなさんおっしゃいますが、想像よりも、でかいですよこの本は。各地の目撃情報は、書籍掲示板までよろしく。あと、京都の講演会も決定したので、下を↓見てください。

10月9日 都市部の書店に平積みが始まりました。でもまだ並んでない大書店もあるようなので、配備情報をご確認のうえ、見に行ってみてください。ネット書店での購入もお手軽で好評ですよ。高い本なのに、目立つところに平積みしてくれてる本屋さんには、ほんと感謝したいです!

10月10日 朝日・読売は10月12日(日)読書面に広告、日経は10月19日(日)2面に広告、が決定したようです。毎日も来週末か再来週末。池田晶子さんの「14歳からの哲学」と一緒の広告とのことですが、さて、どんなものが出るのか、楽しみですね。

10月24日 発売後、約20日経過。そろそろ、買ってくれた方々も読み終える頃なのか?それとも(私も多くの場合そうであるように)あとでじっくり読もうと思っているのか? 反響もメールや掲示板でいろいろ帰ってくるようになった。ウェブでも、コメントなどが出始めている。いろんな反応があって、楽しい。これから12月にかけて徐々に新聞・雑誌などの書評が出てくることだろう。さて、どういうことになるのかな。もしどこかで書評などを見つけたら、掲示板で教えてください。よろしく。bk1アマゾンでは、書評をいつでも受け付けているようですよ。

11月9日 やっと昨日で一連の無痛文明論講演会シリーズが終わった。来てくださったみなさま、ありがとうございました。どの会も、違った内容でしゃべったから、なかなかしんどかったけど。所沢は全体像、リブロは朗読などもあり、京都はちょっと学術的といった感じ。さて、そろそろ新聞書評が出始めるころではないかと思います。みなさんも、雑誌などで目撃されたら、ぜひ教えてください。よろしく。

11月18日 11月9日、16日と、新聞書評がまとめて出始めました。手応えのある書評ばかりで、とてもうれしいです。これで、声を届けるべき人々に、この本の存在は認知されたのではないでしょうか。肩の荷が降りたような感じがします。書店も引き続き、平積みにしてくれているようで、これまたうれしい。本を出してよかったと思う。

11月26日 新聞書評のおかげもあって、重版が決まりました。刊行後2カ月目で重版なので、良いペースだと思います。12月1日には第2刷りが店頭に並びはじめます。重版が決まって、著者の責任も果たせ、ほっとしてます。雑誌インタビューなども来はじめました。掲載などが決定しましたら、またここや日記などでお知らせします。12月はじめに刊行されるのは、雑誌『人間会議』のエッセイ、『第3文明』のインタビュー、『中央公論』新年号での対談とかです。

12月15日 新聞広告がまた出たようです。上記3雑誌発売になってます。『中央公論』は超好意的、『人間会議』はハンス・ヨナス、リチャード・ローティーと並んで3人の哲学者として紹介されているのには驚き(聞いてなかった)。今後、『SAPIO』にインタビューが載る予定です。あと新聞にエッセイを書く予定なので正月前後に載るかも(これからあせって書きます)。あとNHKテレビ東海ローカルで1月27日・2月3日にちょこっと話す予定。

12月23日 「無痛文明論」の3刷りが書店に並ぶ頃です。3刷りは千部刷ったのですが、カバー下の厚紙の表紙の紙が品切れになっていて、3刷りだけ本体の表紙の色が微妙に違います。3刷りだけの処置らしいので、これは稀覯本になるかもしれませんよ。画像をアップしようと思ったが、スキャナーでは違いが読みとれない。NHKテレビ東海の収録をしてきました。放映は上記の11:05-12:00のあいだのどこかで8分間ずつです。放映地域は、愛知、岐阜、三重らしい。興味ある方は、その地域の知り合いに頼もう。

12月24日 1月に新聞にエッセイが載る予定です。『読売新聞』1月5日夕刊予定、『産経新聞』1月10日夕刊予定、『聖教新聞』1月1日予定。ずれる可能性もあり。

12月29日 「読売新聞」への広告が載るらしいです。名古屋以東は明日30日、 以西はあさって31日とのこと。ということで、みなさんよいお年を!

2月23日 そういえば、「ブッククラブ回」のニューズレターに、私へのインタビューが載りました。よくまとまっています。

 

7 講演会情報

9月27日(土)午後2:00~4:00 東京地方 終了

 森岡正博「無痛化する現代社会と若者たち」(県立所沢西高校PTA主催)

10月5日(日)午後4:00~5:30 東京地方 終了

 森岡正博「〈無痛文明〉を語る」 (リブロ)

11月8日(土)午後4:30~6:30 関西地方 終了

 森岡正博「<無痛文明>を語る・あるいは「無痛文明論」後を語る」(大垣書店)

3月13日(土)午後2:30~5:00 関西大学法学研究所 終了

 森岡正博「「無痛文明」の時代を考える」

講演会をレポートしてくれたページ

・所沢西高校の講演会:Masterみっしぇるさん(9月27日のところ)
・所沢西高校の講演会:本間篤さん(11月11日)
・池袋の講演会:Tatsumi Yusukeさん(10月4日のところ)
・池袋の講演会:天目太郎さん 10月5日
・神戸女学院での非常勤授業:学生相談室さん
・京都の講演会:佐伯良羽 & 石田智秀さん (11月8日のところ)

 

8 書評・批評など

<書評・批評・コメント>

*まったく不完全なリストです。ご存じの情報がありましたら、教えてください。

・ネット 正岡豊さん 2004年12月15日
・ネット おやじ亭さん 2004年10月20日
・ネット enteeさん 2004年9月29日
・ネット Palの独り言さん 2004年7月24日~
・ネット kuriyamakoujiさん 2004年7月19日
・ネット tehanuさん 2004年7月18日
・ネット さん 2004年7月15日
・ネット 若尾裕さん 2004年6月
・ネット 森池豊武さん(高塚門扉) 2004年春
・ネット Palさん 2004年5月4日
・『おおさかの住民と自治』305号 2004年5月
・ネット qssoさん 2004年4月29日
・ネット オカモトさん 2004年4月28日
・ネット 和合亮一さん 2004年4月
・ネット Jackalopeさん 2004年4月11日
・ネット Area46さん 2004年4月11日
・『神戸新聞』4月6日文化欄 2004年4月6日
・ネット おばさん大学院生さん 2004年4月5日・6日
・ネット トウヤさん 2004年3月29日
・ネット きいのさん 2004年3月13日
・ネット 片山恭一さん 2004年3月12日
・ネット 外務省文化交流部長さん 2004年3月9日
・ネット 書斎人ダビドフさん 2004年3月?
・ネット 横岩太平さん 2004年3月?
・ネット 桐田真輔さん 2004年3月6日
・ネット izumiさん 2004年3月3日
・ネット 読売入試必勝講座 2004年3月1日
・ネット 駄弁者さん 2004年2月
・ネット こたへあさん 2004年2月29日
・ネット anhedoniaさん 2004年2月28日
・ネット ??さん 2004年2月27日
・ネット neoappleteaさん 2004年2月26日
・ネット eireneさん 2004年2月25日
・ESBooks エイケイさん 2004年2月23日
・ネット 朝戸臣統さん 2004年2月22日
・ネット 古賀郁さん 2004年2月20日
・ネット Papa's blogさん 2004年2月19日
・ネット 佐々木さん 2004年2月18日
・ネット saroma-sanさん 2004年2月17日
・ネット chaichaiさん 2004年2月17日
・ネット Minさん 2004年2月11日
・ネット dokushaさん 2004年2月9日
・ネット eireneさん 2004年2月7日
・ネット 若林盛亮さん 2004年2月5日
・ネット 鉄朗21さん 2004年2月5日
・ネット ぶんまおさん 2004年2月1日
・ネット 中原紀生さん 2004年1月31日
・ネット Rossete Antiquesさん 2004年1月30日
・ネット 古屋範子さん 2004年1月29日
・ネット 書斎人ダビドフさん 2004年1月29日
・Amazon 匿名さん 2004年1月27日
・ネット 夢幻国住人さん 2004年1月26日
・『サングラハ』73号(p.36-47) 「現代文明の行方-無痛文明論に学ぶ」大野純一さん 2004年1月25日 
・ネット bearvalleyさん 2004年1月25日
・ネット 百合子さん 2004年1月25日
・ネット 松山龍彦さん 2004年1月24日
・ネット equalさん 2004年1月24日
・ネット リバイバル新聞さん 2004年1月18日
・ネット 晴美さん 2004年1月18日
・ネット BENさん 2004年1月17日
・ネット こくぶ育児ネットさん 2004年1月16日
・ネット ブックナビ さん 2004年1月14日
・『毎日新聞』1月12日朝刊 「発信箱」欄 高橋豊さん 2004年1月12日
・『図書新聞』1月17日号 林真理さん 2004年1月10日
・ネット 会田玲二さん 2004年1月9日
・ネット sign225@yahoo.co.jpさん 2004年1月9日
・『週刊読書人』1月16日号 金子務さん 2004年1月7日
・ネット LINAさん 2004年1月5日
・ネット ちろりんさん 2004年1月6日
・Amazon fujikofujioさん 2003年12月31日
・ネット 松山龍彦さん 2003年12月28日の項(1月5日の項も)
・『TOPPOINT』2004年1月号 p.3-6. 2003年12月27日
・『図書新聞』(03年下半期読書アンケート) 古賀徹さん 2003年12月24日
・『SAPIO』1月7日号 書想インタビュー 2003年12月24日
・ネット ほぼ日刊イトイニュースさん 2003年12月21日
・ネット マツモトミネラルさん 2003年12月16日
・『デザインニュース』No.264 祐成保志さん 2003年12月15日頃
・ネット 若田泰さん 2003年12月12日
・ネット McGrawさん 2003年12月6日
・ネット shanahanさん 2003年12月5日
・ネット すくすくママ 2003年12月頃
・『中央公論』1月号対談:無痛文明に負けるな!「身体の欲望」を「生命の欲望」に変えよ(聞き手:重松清さん)
・『第3文明』1月号「新しい自分の創造--「無痛文明」批判序説」 2003年12月
・『人間会議』冬号「無痛文明という悪夢」からの脱出 2003年12月
・ネット さいとうゆうさん 2003年12月5日
・ネット はまごろうさん 2003年12月4日
・ネット 野辺公一さん 2003年11月29日
・『聖教新聞』「生き方の見直し迫る現代文明批判」 硝さん 2003年11月26日
・『産経新聞』「苦痛を避ける文明の先行き」 宇野邦一さん 2003年11月24日
・ネット Maoさん 2003年11月24日
・ネット コマツバラオリカさん 2003年11月21日
・ネット HALさん 2003年11月19日
・Amazon rockrockさん 2003年11月17日
・ネット ホールアース自然学校さん 2003年11月17日(10月12日にも)
・『朝日新聞』「管理とせめぎあう生命の「よろこび」」宮崎哲弥さん 2003年11月16日
・ネット nostalgieさん 2003年11月15日
『Book Club Kai Newsletter』winter2003vol.54 2003年11月12日
・『日経新聞』「現代社会のユニークな解析」村上陽一郎さん 2003年11月9日
・『東京新聞』「〈自己家畜化〉からの脱却」山下悦子さん 2003年11月9日
・『高知新聞』など(共同通信配信)「悔いなく生き切るために」鬼頭秀一さん 2003年11月9日
・ネット 池和芳さん 2003年11月8日?頃
・ネット 芳野香さん 2003年10月27日
・bk1 ソネアキラさん 2003年10月27日
・Amazon エーコさん 2003年10月25日
・bk1 野崎泰伸さん 2003年10月23日
・bk1 おしょうさん 2003年10月22日
・bk1 栗山光司さん 2003年10月20日
・ネット AJI's roomさん 2003年10月16日頃
・bk1 ちゅう子さん 2003年10月15日
・ネット たーぼーさん 2003年10月14日頃
・ネット(言及) フォスカさん 2003年10月13日
・ネット 島田洋輔さん 2003年10月13日
・ネット 佐伯良羽 & 石田智秀さん 2003年10月5日(13日、14日にもあり)
・esbooks まこにゃん店長さん 2003年10月4日  
・ネット 島田裕巳さん 2003年10月1日


<森岡へのインタビュー記事>
Masterみっしぇるさん(10月18日)

情報をお寄せください!(メールor掲示板)


 



 

 



 

質問9の全文

1、最初サンプルを拝見した際に、映画の『マトリックス』が頭をよぎりました。いまや社会全体に網の目のように自己増殖化する資本主義に対して、その自己治癒し自己増殖する<装置>に対して、われわれが抗する手段は既に「仕組まれている」ものである可能性というのを最終章で森岡先生は暗に示しておられましたが、何か簡潔な<解決策>などは存在せず、地道に一つ一つ「脱構築」とでもいうべく(第4章で先生は「解体」とおっしゃっていましたが)、対処していく-その場その場でその<装置>に気がついた際に抗していくことが究極的な答えということでしょうか?
2、第六章の「自然」についてです。U.ベックは'Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk'Cambrifge:Polity Press,1995、において、われわれが「自然」について考える時に、その時点で既に世界には、われわれが想定するような「自然」などほとんど想定していない、ということを技術発展による自然の変容から説いています。そして同様に、森岡先生の著作の第六章における「人為により管理されている自然」というものを否定した際に、ディープエコロジーの思想そのものが根底から否定されるような感を受けましたが、無痛文明を突き動かす<装置>が姿をあらわさず、一方でディープエコロジーはその<装置>を強化しているのでしょうか?もしくは、環境倫理が、この無痛文明論に抗することへの可能性は残されているのでしょうか?
3、「無痛文明」を否定(?)することは、「医療」という発想・思想そのものを否定することになるでしょうか?
4、質問8とも重なる部分だと思いますが、また「無痛文明」が進行すれば、医療の現場に於いて、現在半ば「異常」とみなされているようなクィア(変態)やホモセクシャルなどの子供を産むことが、「事前に」抑圧されてしまうと思うのですが、そのような「正常」と「異常」の線引きを新たに提示する思想の契機などは現在あるのでしょうか?
5、「無痛文明」に対しての<解決策>として、森岡先生は「生命の欲望」への「転轍」という言葉を用いていますが、ニーチェの「超人」のようにわれわれ一人一人がその「身体の欲望」から逃れることが(というよりかも「方向を変えることが」)できるような「強い個人」になることには、ある種宗教的な「信仰」ともいうべきものが必要ではないかという疑問があるのですが、これを合理的に人々に説くことができるでしょうか?