2. Universality as an idea・・・The idea of universality latent in the Japanese sense of order offers hints for world thought
For a long time, Japanese people have continued to have a view of life that could be described both as naturalism and as a naive outlook on nature. The Japanese do not see nature as being in a confrontational relationship with human beings. Despite the merciless disasters that nature inflicts on humanity, we tend to look for ways to harmonize with nature rather than considering it an adversary. People may die in natural disasters, but, well, that’s just the way it is. We try to find joy in the changing of the seasons and cherish a seasonal view of life because coexistence with nature is only natural.
Such views probably account for the fact that modern thought did not originate in Japan. In Western architecture, walls separate outside from inside and the window openings in those walls have a dramatic presence in the confrontational relationship that exists between outside and inside. In Japan there were no walls, and without walls there could be no windows either. In Japanese post-and-beam architecture, inside and outside were in a fluid and connected relationship rather than being set apart. Even the garden was created based on the same ideas as the interior (see Yatsu no Nihon no biishiki [Eight Japanese Aesthetic Sensibilities], published by Kodansha).
The traditional Japanese house did not have rooms. What it had instead was a kind of space called ma that was subtly partitioned with posts, sliding screens, and folding screens. The different spaces in a traditional Japanese house were given names that include the Chinese character for ma. The chanoma (ma of tea; “living room”), kyakuma (ma of guests; “parlor”), and nema (ma of sleeping; “bedroom”), for example, consisted of space (ma) that was vaguely connected rather than being clearly segregated from other spaces as is the case with rooms. Unlike “rooms” made by people, ma is natural space created by the presence that forms around posts, beams, pictures, and things.
Human relationships were similar to this ma. In relationships, people were connected by a concern for others. Social obligations and human feelings bridged the gap between people, and human connections were strengthened by a concern for not bringing shame upon oneself.
In such circumstances, the concept of the ego―and its emphasis on the separate existence of each individual―did not arise. The ego is an import that arrived in Japan in the modern era. Before that, a person’s existence was established through harmony with others, with that existence being dependent on others to such a degree that an “ego” was not necessary.
This same feeling existed between people and nature. One’s own presence is temporary. People found joy, not pain, in being swept up in the providence of a ceaselessly changing universe.
Human beings embedded in this sense of order did not need the concept of the ego. People found secure knowledge of themselves through their relationships with others, and they situated their own existence within a sense of unity with nature.
With this world view, the concept of individuality does not appear. Even if someone thought about living life “my way,” the resulting “my way” inevitably existed within an overarching harmony with nature. In a totally matter-of-fact way, the idea of universality continued to exist over time within the Japanese people. This universality existed as something gifted by the providence of nature. Prizing things “the way they are” and materials left unfinished, the Japanese idea of universality was absorbed as a kind of animal-like physical sense that was a direct dispensation of nature.
The absence of individuality meant that a theoretical conception of universality was not necessary. Problems with the ego and problems with individuality and universality are phenomenon of the modern era. Today, however, the traditional Japanese sense of order can offer “hints” for world thought.
