Namely why does I differ others is the question not to solve, as it is eternal quest. Then trial to answer with one words is falsehood. It is like naming something world, naming action self is great detachment, we see so. And abandoning ability equal to saying ability to say I now abandon something belongs to only I. Therefore I paraphrase Descartes description as I abandon something, I am.
At the matter of fact not abandoning to quest something, but we decide a repetition to quest in knowing that we can’t answer eternal quest with one words. Its decision is one of believing.
Namely we compose any communication in abandoning an answer to any question why does I differ others to keep up with sympathizing others’ mind, realizing each other. At the moment to do so, I can’t know all in any situations, aspects, by myself, and I know I can’t realize mutual understanding’s effect, also I know I abandon any trials to accomplish mutual understanding with others as I only know. We can’t share this feeing each other.
But this incapability to share this feeling is devised in seeing that others but myself are the same to myself, and decide to believe so.
At the matter of fact deciding self is what we regard it as of truth, ideal. Of course we do so unconsciously. And then deciding so , namely decision self is devised in as it is, as we name something world as the same mechanism, and also the same of getting to be close. At the matter of fact it is absolutely as I abandon, as I am. And particular essence of abandoning self is incapable to explain. If we try to accomplish explaining it, as there’s no perfection without fault, it’s impossible. But we compromise anything with others we want to be close each other.
Then we can offer a diagram, deciding something=decision=believing=getting to be close each other=abandoning perfection as there’s no perfect world=naming( doing language action, participating in doing something)
Then at the matter of fact decision to do language action is Knowing language’s powerlessness, therefore it shows that we get to be aware of that we can’t express anything but words, language, it is equal to recognize mutual abandoning.
But we can see that it is equal to decide the fact we realize mutually, we can’t answer Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition. Namely as Descartes didn’t answer or solve his proposition doing only being ready for a starting point, also we can reach the solution as generalization to say as I abandon something, I am. However just because of it, we decide the fact that we accomplish mutually to realize we are in the same feeling, trying to believe we see each other.
But I think that only solution to Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition is believing, as equal to abandoning, decision mind. Because if it isn’t so, probably Professor Hitoshi Nagai knows that we can’t solve any proposition if it isn’t eternally. At the matter of fact this quest who is I is equal to quest to who are the others, we can give us the conclusion. It’s tautology at one meaning. That is like as truth and desire don’t separate each other, getting to be close each other is equal to keeping distance to any other persons except close companies.
2011年3月2日水曜日
Chapter28 Truth, Desire, Getting to be Close Part2
At the matter of fact, ideal, truth in question is one of value( for instance as the book with dialogue by Yoshimichi Nakajima and Rika Kayama, we only want to say so, we don’t know why it is, but we need a way to live, it’s also a good example, isn’t it?). And its value is also egoistic doxa. Then being to be interested in degree of its doxa is inner consciousness toward the existence of other persons itself.
For example doings of human-beings is never always right. But we believe in there’s rigidly the fittest judgment or action to do. Of course any examples are independent in any situations, as it is like the feeling that existence as I is completely different from it as other persons except me. It is mentioned by Hitoshi Nagai as his naming of only now theory, or independent now theory.
But even if we believe there’s a right, suitable speech and act, can we believe the one to do only suitable judgment? Rather positively we have a mind not to believe what ones do only right things does and its entity. It shows that we believe in ideal, truth, however otherwise it would be also not realistic, if its rightness would be come true, we would absolutely be smothered, we can know so intuitively. It shows that we at the bottom of our minds all of those ( ideal, truth) is only an illusion.
Namely we all know perfection or no doxa is itself an illusion at real revel. Being to be right at each different situations is not right totally, we know it( then because of it, ability to manage in politics toward any bureaucrats is heavy.)
Why myself exists, why any conditions’ raison d’etre ( reason to explain, value outside, public value) is given to us, all of those question is Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition of philosophy. All of questions’ solution would be the next.
If meaning entity or nothing, consciousness’s entity or zombie itself is an illusion, and we think we realize it as it is, experiencing one is me. But I think its capable one to be aware of its illusion isn’t only me. But knowing it is only me. Namely the fact that others but me is with its illusion would be also illusion. But on surface my close friend of mine sympathize my enigmatic feeling equal to feel that a category as world is itself illusion. Or rather even the feeling only I have in my existence can be told to him or her, I feel. But it is also an illusion by me that we each other sympathize. The possibility that anything is illusion can be left.
Then from a point we absolutely get to believe other persons’ understanding to my saying. At the matter of fact believing other’s (dialogue partner) saying that I can believe your saying is component of myself. ( Hitoshi Nagai rigidly would persist in that it’s not I, it’s public I. But at the matter of fact I itself is created in me believing other person, isn’t it?) Of course partner only says so in public manner. But if I doubt its honesty, it’s infinite repetition. We get to be aware of it too. Then at a moment we decide our minds. Let’s believe in other persons, partners all as entity. But it’s also even if it’s wrong idea, we must never be sorry. Namely it’s a judgment of value or decision it wasn’t wrong idea to believe other person at least for me, than just being sorry that if I didn’t believe him of her, now I could have been so
But its value judgment isn’t doing for anybody else but me. Just for me. Then it is not a thinking to believe just because of that partner convert his or her wrong idea. By and large it’s value judgment to truth making that believing so is the better doing. At its moment we know it is also a detachment ( it’s the same to that we hold faith to be the same between my seeing red and your seeing red) as solipsism, pure self ego theory. Then just because of it value itself is it for me, we can go back to chapter 6 proposition.
For example doings of human-beings is never always right. But we believe in there’s rigidly the fittest judgment or action to do. Of course any examples are independent in any situations, as it is like the feeling that existence as I is completely different from it as other persons except me. It is mentioned by Hitoshi Nagai as his naming of only now theory, or independent now theory.
But even if we believe there’s a right, suitable speech and act, can we believe the one to do only suitable judgment? Rather positively we have a mind not to believe what ones do only right things does and its entity. It shows that we believe in ideal, truth, however otherwise it would be also not realistic, if its rightness would be come true, we would absolutely be smothered, we can know so intuitively. It shows that we at the bottom of our minds all of those ( ideal, truth) is only an illusion.
Namely we all know perfection or no doxa is itself an illusion at real revel. Being to be right at each different situations is not right totally, we know it( then because of it, ability to manage in politics toward any bureaucrats is heavy.)
Why myself exists, why any conditions’ raison d’etre ( reason to explain, value outside, public value) is given to us, all of those question is Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition of philosophy. All of questions’ solution would be the next.
If meaning entity or nothing, consciousness’s entity or zombie itself is an illusion, and we think we realize it as it is, experiencing one is me. But I think its capable one to be aware of its illusion isn’t only me. But knowing it is only me. Namely the fact that others but me is with its illusion would be also illusion. But on surface my close friend of mine sympathize my enigmatic feeling equal to feel that a category as world is itself illusion. Or rather even the feeling only I have in my existence can be told to him or her, I feel. But it is also an illusion by me that we each other sympathize. The possibility that anything is illusion can be left.
Then from a point we absolutely get to believe other persons’ understanding to my saying. At the matter of fact believing other’s (dialogue partner) saying that I can believe your saying is component of myself. ( Hitoshi Nagai rigidly would persist in that it’s not I, it’s public I. But at the matter of fact I itself is created in me believing other person, isn’t it?) Of course partner only says so in public manner. But if I doubt its honesty, it’s infinite repetition. We get to be aware of it too. Then at a moment we decide our minds. Let’s believe in other persons, partners all as entity. But it’s also even if it’s wrong idea, we must never be sorry. Namely it’s a judgment of value or decision it wasn’t wrong idea to believe other person at least for me, than just being sorry that if I didn’t believe him of her, now I could have been so
But its value judgment isn’t doing for anybody else but me. Just for me. Then it is not a thinking to believe just because of that partner convert his or her wrong idea. By and large it’s value judgment to truth making that believing so is the better doing. At its moment we know it is also a detachment ( it’s the same to that we hold faith to be the same between my seeing red and your seeing red) as solipsism, pure self ego theory. Then just because of it value itself is it for me, we can go back to chapter 6 proposition.
登録:
コメント (Atom)
