A Dead Naked Body
While revising the world of The Alchemist, the following sentence impressed me: "When someone makes a decision, he is really diving into a strong current that will carry him to places he had never dreamed of when he first made the decision."
Reflecting on this sentence, I just wonder how many times I have ever decided in my life. Of course we can say that it is countless. Life is a collection of countless decisions from tiny ones to something really crucial determinations for your path. As for tiny ones, you have to make numerous decisions every morning when you wake up something like what kind of breakfast you should have; whether or not you should have breakfast; whether you should pay an electric bill today or tomorrow.
It seems that such tiny decision does not affect your life at all. But who knows? If you change the place (restaurant or cafeteria) for your breakfast, then you might meet someone who will be your life time partner. Or, the worst tragic case -- you might encounter the traffic accident (a car might hit you) only because you changed the place for breakfast. You might encounter someone special on the one hand; you might encounter a car that hits you on the other. In any case, we can say that this has happened because of your decision on your breakfast. And yet, we can also say that while your decision on your breakfast might be a part of sequences to reach such incident, who knows it was the crucial element for the incident? If you say that the incident (whether meeting someone loves you or being hit by a car) had been prepared for you, then which is what we call destiny, fate or (if it is tragic) curse.
If life is simple and primitive enough like an experimental condition of chemistry and physics, or like a conceptual rationality of mathematics, then we can use the logical sequences to explain what has been happened. "A" took place because of "B" and "C." Salt (Sodium Chloride) took place because of compounding Chlorine with Sodium in a specific condition. Although Stendhal used some chemical terms to explain how the passion of love occurred in On Love, this does not necessarily means that the "human compound" is as predictable as chemical compound.
Although there is still a vast room that shows us the mystery of the universe, which is unpredictable enough beyond any scientific approaches, the physical universe is still gentle enough to give us some scientific predictability. This is actually one of the great achievements of science – one of the positive fruits of modernism. When science was not the major way of our thinking or seeing the universe, everything around us were so unpredictable and uncontrollable. Logic was so primitive that it was almost the same as magic. Logic was magic and vice versa. That was why; people believed there was the alchemist who could change metals into gold.
In the age of enlightenment – the age of science, however, while it was still partial, the universe had begun to show us a little bit of her secrets by which we could predict a little bit about the universe. It was just a little bit, indeed. But then, once we have realized a bit of her secrets, then we have begun to have desire to know more and more about her – the desire to know the mechanism of the universe. Once we have such desire, what the universe showed us was no longer her secret — no longer a bit of her secrets, but the mechanism of the universe – the mechanism of her body.
She is no longer the sacred entity, but the physical body that gives us the desire to know more about her. From such eye of modernism, the universe is no longer someone mysterious, but something attractive. The universe is no longer the partner with whom we conduct dialogue (though it was so helpless because of her mystery), but the body that gives us a sort of anatomical interest. We have stopped conducting dialogue with her; instead, we have started treating her as a dead anatomical body. Suddenly a lot of material sides of the universe have been exposed in front of us – as if a dead naked body of woman was sampled on the table. And mistakenly, we have thought that we have known everything about her only because of our scrutinizing all the details of her body in an anatomical rigidity.
Can we really say that we know everything about her, the universe? Obviously we cannot.
She was so mysterious, unpredictable and uncountable when our eyes were so primitive and simple in the era of premodernity. Because of that, we used to confuse logic with magic. We used to encounter a lot of problems because of such mystery of the universe, but at that time even unconsciously we knew that the universe was alive and she talked to us in her own way, though her words were too enigmatic for our comprehension if not look too simple at a glance.
In the dawn of the modernism, however, it seemed she was no longer alive. Although because of her kindness she showed us a bit of her secrets, unfortunately when she did so we had grabbed her body and put her down on the ground. Or we have mistakenly thought we had done so. We have thought that she was a fish on the ground. Everything was exposed. But in truth, just we do not know anything about the fish when she was in the sea, we do not know anything about the universe when it was so mysterious.
It is true that modern people have gotten a lot of comforts, utility and prosperity. Probably these are her gifts that we could amplify out of a bit of her secrets that has been shown us. Because of a bit of her secrets, we could have tremendous materials and scientific knowledge about the universe. But, the problem was that we had thought that we could know everything about her, just like we mistakenly think that we could know everything about her when her dead naked body was just scrutinized on the table.
As you can see in this somewhat nasty analogy, the modern view inevitably contains one of the grave mistakes in knowing the universe. Just like anatomists are never interested in having conversation with dead bodies, modern people have lost their interests in having dialogue with the universe. Or rather, they can never imagine or thinking of talking with her. It seems to them that she is a naked dead body on the table.
Probably what post-modern people tried to do was to restore the dialogue with her to overcome the grave mistake of modern people. Post-modern people have realized that what she has given us was really a bit of her secrets and yet modern people had terribly treated her just as a dead body, or even if she was alive, what modern people saw was only her physical side in which no dialogue is needed (If she is alive with her physical side, there is a profound possibility of the physiological dialogue, but we do not discuss this topic here).
There, however, is also another grave mistake in the post-modern people. They thought that they were able to talk to her well and understand her personality well. Post-modern people thought that while modern people mistakenly considered her dead body or a bit of her secrets as "everything about her," they postmodern could finally understand a lot of her secrets including her personality. But obviously it is also a big misunderstanding. This is the same misunderstanding that premodern magical, superstitious people believed that they knew all the secrets about the universe.
Premodern sorcerers believed that they could know everything about her because of their "magic." But they could not, while at least they knew she was alive. Modern scientists believed that they could know everything about her because of their "science." But they could not, while at least they knew a bit of her secrets and yet treated her as a dead body. Post-modern activists, ecologists, New Agers and others believed that they could know everything about her because of their "spirituality." But they could not, while at least they knew the misunderstanding of both premodern and modern people, which has given the post-modern people self-deception and narcissism if not returning to magic. Their scientific view inherited from modern people has been unnecessarily colored by "spirituality." Thus, they try to understand "spirituality" in a dualistic, scientific way. This means that while they try to see her real entity, what they see is still a dead naked body on the table in believing that she is alive. We call it pseudo-spirituality.
Reflecting on this sentence, I just wonder how many times I have ever decided in my life. Of course we can say that it is countless. Life is a collection of countless decisions from tiny ones to something really crucial determinations for your path. As for tiny ones, you have to make numerous decisions every morning when you wake up something like what kind of breakfast you should have; whether or not you should have breakfast; whether you should pay an electric bill today or tomorrow.
It seems that such tiny decision does not affect your life at all. But who knows? If you change the place (restaurant or cafeteria) for your breakfast, then you might meet someone who will be your life time partner. Or, the worst tragic case -- you might encounter the traffic accident (a car might hit you) only because you changed the place for breakfast. You might encounter someone special on the one hand; you might encounter a car that hits you on the other. In any case, we can say that this has happened because of your decision on your breakfast. And yet, we can also say that while your decision on your breakfast might be a part of sequences to reach such incident, who knows it was the crucial element for the incident? If you say that the incident (whether meeting someone loves you or being hit by a car) had been prepared for you, then which is what we call destiny, fate or (if it is tragic) curse.
If life is simple and primitive enough like an experimental condition of chemistry and physics, or like a conceptual rationality of mathematics, then we can use the logical sequences to explain what has been happened. "A" took place because of "B" and "C." Salt (Sodium Chloride) took place because of compounding Chlorine with Sodium in a specific condition. Although Stendhal used some chemical terms to explain how the passion of love occurred in On Love, this does not necessarily means that the "human compound" is as predictable as chemical compound.
Although there is still a vast room that shows us the mystery of the universe, which is unpredictable enough beyond any scientific approaches, the physical universe is still gentle enough to give us some scientific predictability. This is actually one of the great achievements of science – one of the positive fruits of modernism. When science was not the major way of our thinking or seeing the universe, everything around us were so unpredictable and uncontrollable. Logic was so primitive that it was almost the same as magic. Logic was magic and vice versa. That was why; people believed there was the alchemist who could change metals into gold.
In the age of enlightenment – the age of science, however, while it was still partial, the universe had begun to show us a little bit of her secrets by which we could predict a little bit about the universe. It was just a little bit, indeed. But then, once we have realized a bit of her secrets, then we have begun to have desire to know more and more about her – the desire to know the mechanism of the universe. Once we have such desire, what the universe showed us was no longer her secret — no longer a bit of her secrets, but the mechanism of the universe – the mechanism of her body.
She is no longer the sacred entity, but the physical body that gives us the desire to know more about her. From such eye of modernism, the universe is no longer someone mysterious, but something attractive. The universe is no longer the partner with whom we conduct dialogue (though it was so helpless because of her mystery), but the body that gives us a sort of anatomical interest. We have stopped conducting dialogue with her; instead, we have started treating her as a dead anatomical body. Suddenly a lot of material sides of the universe have been exposed in front of us – as if a dead naked body of woman was sampled on the table. And mistakenly, we have thought that we have known everything about her only because of our scrutinizing all the details of her body in an anatomical rigidity.
Can we really say that we know everything about her, the universe? Obviously we cannot.
She was so mysterious, unpredictable and uncountable when our eyes were so primitive and simple in the era of premodernity. Because of that, we used to confuse logic with magic. We used to encounter a lot of problems because of such mystery of the universe, but at that time even unconsciously we knew that the universe was alive and she talked to us in her own way, though her words were too enigmatic for our comprehension if not look too simple at a glance.
In the dawn of the modernism, however, it seemed she was no longer alive. Although because of her kindness she showed us a bit of her secrets, unfortunately when she did so we had grabbed her body and put her down on the ground. Or we have mistakenly thought we had done so. We have thought that she was a fish on the ground. Everything was exposed. But in truth, just we do not know anything about the fish when she was in the sea, we do not know anything about the universe when it was so mysterious.
It is true that modern people have gotten a lot of comforts, utility and prosperity. Probably these are her gifts that we could amplify out of a bit of her secrets that has been shown us. Because of a bit of her secrets, we could have tremendous materials and scientific knowledge about the universe. But, the problem was that we had thought that we could know everything about her, just like we mistakenly think that we could know everything about her when her dead naked body was just scrutinized on the table.
As you can see in this somewhat nasty analogy, the modern view inevitably contains one of the grave mistakes in knowing the universe. Just like anatomists are never interested in having conversation with dead bodies, modern people have lost their interests in having dialogue with the universe. Or rather, they can never imagine or thinking of talking with her. It seems to them that she is a naked dead body on the table.
Probably what post-modern people tried to do was to restore the dialogue with her to overcome the grave mistake of modern people. Post-modern people have realized that what she has given us was really a bit of her secrets and yet modern people had terribly treated her just as a dead body, or even if she was alive, what modern people saw was only her physical side in which no dialogue is needed (If she is alive with her physical side, there is a profound possibility of the physiological dialogue, but we do not discuss this topic here).
There, however, is also another grave mistake in the post-modern people. They thought that they were able to talk to her well and understand her personality well. Post-modern people thought that while modern people mistakenly considered her dead body or a bit of her secrets as "everything about her," they postmodern could finally understand a lot of her secrets including her personality. But obviously it is also a big misunderstanding. This is the same misunderstanding that premodern magical, superstitious people believed that they knew all the secrets about the universe.
Premodern sorcerers believed that they could know everything about her because of their "magic." But they could not, while at least they knew she was alive. Modern scientists believed that they could know everything about her because of their "science." But they could not, while at least they knew a bit of her secrets and yet treated her as a dead body. Post-modern activists, ecologists, New Agers and others believed that they could know everything about her because of their "spirituality." But they could not, while at least they knew the misunderstanding of both premodern and modern people, which has given the post-modern people self-deception and narcissism if not returning to magic. Their scientific view inherited from modern people has been unnecessarily colored by "spirituality." Thus, they try to understand "spirituality" in a dualistic, scientific way. This means that while they try to see her real entity, what they see is still a dead naked body on the table in believing that she is alive. We call it pseudo-spirituality.
Comments