Say who everyone is as you go along - Faculty of Philosophy ...
Say who everyone is as you go along - Faculty of Philosophy ...
Say who everyone is as you go along - Faculty of Philosophy ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
16<br />
Nietzsche also thinks our concept <strong>of</strong> death thoroughly informs our attitude to<br />
life and makes a difference to <strong>who</strong> we are:<br />
'The <strong>who</strong>le way in which a man thinks <strong>of</strong> death in the prime <strong>of</strong> h<strong>is</strong> life and strength <strong>is</strong><br />
very expressive and significant for what we call h<strong>is</strong> character' (HATH 46)<br />
Were I to be correctly identified with my body or my soul then there would be<br />
genuine grounds for my fear <strong>of</strong> my own destruction. God could perhaps destroy my<br />
soul, and my body will in any c<strong>as</strong>e be d<strong>is</strong>solved in natural, biological death. If I am<br />
my soul, and my soul <strong>is</strong> destroyed, then I am destroyed. If I am my body, and my<br />
body <strong>is</strong> destroyed, then I am destroyed.<br />
In Zen the self <strong>is</strong> 'reduced' to what we would normally think <strong>of</strong> <strong>as</strong> the psychophysical<br />
stream <strong>of</strong> events constituting a person's life (or, in Nietzsche and Buddh<strong>is</strong>m,<br />
lives). There are different kinds <strong>of</strong> reduction. If the self <strong>is</strong> reduced to a set <strong>of</strong> events<br />
then it <strong>is</strong> nothing 'over and above' them, that <strong>is</strong>, the self <strong>is</strong> identical with those events<br />
and so nothing more than or nothing other than those events. That the self <strong>is</strong><br />
reducible to a set <strong>of</strong> psycho-physical events might mean that 'self' and 'set <strong>of</strong> psychophysical<br />
events' have the same reference even though they differ in sense. In what<br />
sense <strong>is</strong> the self 'reduced' to a set <strong>of</strong> psycho-physical life processes in Zen? Roshi<br />
Y<strong>as</strong>utani gives th<strong>is</strong> example <strong>of</strong> the absence <strong>of</strong> the fear <strong>of</strong> death:<br />
'Even though heaven and earth were turned upside down, <strong>you</strong> would have no fear.<br />
And if an atomic or hydrogen bomb were exploded, <strong>you</strong> would not quake in terror'<br />
(WD 8)<br />
and provides th<strong>is</strong> explanation <strong>of</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong> overcoming that fear:<br />
'So long <strong>as</strong> <strong>you</strong> became one with the bomb what would there be to fear?<br />
"Impossible!" <strong>you</strong> say. But whether <strong>you</strong> wanted to or not <strong>you</strong> would perforce become<br />
one with it, would <strong>you</strong> not?' (WD 8)<br />
What <strong>is</strong> it to become 'one with the bomb'? By 'the bomb' <strong>is</strong> meant the explosion <strong>of</strong><br />
the bomb. It at le<strong>as</strong>t follows from th<strong>is</strong> identification that it <strong>is</strong> false that there are two<br />
things: myself and the explosion <strong>of</strong> the bomb. Rather, the explosion <strong>of</strong> the bomb <strong>is</strong><br />
part <strong>of</strong> the same psycho-physical life process in which the sensation <strong>of</strong> self also<br />
intermittently appears. At the moment <strong>of</strong> the explosion <strong>of</strong> the bomb there <strong>is</strong> only theexperience-<strong>of</strong>-the-exploding-<strong>of</strong>-the-bomb.<br />
(Following the German and French<br />
ex<strong>is</strong>tential<strong>is</strong>ts) I hyphenate th<strong>is</strong> expression to signify that the items it refers to are not<br />
separable in reality (only in thought, or conceptually, or in language). The event <strong>is</strong><br />
one, prec<strong>is</strong>ely not the tripartite structure I, experience and explosion. In particular;<br />
there <strong>is</strong> no sensation <strong>of</strong> 'self' or 'me' <strong>as</strong> the victim <strong>of</strong> that explosion. Th<strong>is</strong> concept <strong>of</strong><br />
death in an atomic explosion <strong>is</strong> very different from the idea <strong>of</strong> a human being caught<br />
in its bl<strong>as</strong>t. Clearly Y<strong>as</strong>utani does not deny that, on one level, that <strong>is</strong> exactly what