What is a reverse response?
One of the important concepts that Geitaro Nishida arrived at in his later years was “inverse correspondence.
Usually, when we think of the relationship between A and B, we assume a one-way correspondence, where A corresponds to B. However, Nishida also considered a reverse correspondence, where A and B are inverted and interchangeable. However, Nishida also considered a reverse correspondence, in which A and B are inverted and mutually interchangeable.
For example, in the subject-object relationship, instead of the subject encompassing the object, the object conversely encompasses the subject, and so on. Nishida called such a situation “inverse correspondence,” in which matters that are generally considered “binary oppositions,” such as active and passive, inside and outside, and so on, are exactly reversed and overlap.
In other words, A and B are two sides of the same coin, meaning that one is A and the other B, and one is B and the other A. This is the simultaneous establishment of both poles. It is a paradoxical concept that is difficult to understand with everyday logic, like a Zen question and answer.
In short, “inverse correspondence” means that opposites meet in an absolute sense and stand in a relationship of “compatibility and inseparability. It is positioned as an important concept along with “self-contradictory identity” as the ultimate speculation of Nishida’s philosophy.
What is absolute contradictory self-identification?
Absolute contradictory self-identity” is another important concept from Kitaro Nishida’s later years.
There are aspects of things that contradict and conflict with each other. For example, life and death, good and evil, existence and nothingness, etc. Usually these contradictions do not exist in the same thing, but are separated as different things.
However, Nishida believed that in the absolute dimension, such contradictions and opposites are identical as they are contradictions. In other words, a paradoxical situation in which contradictions exist as contradictions, and yet they are identical.
For example, in the place of absolute nothingness, existence and nothingness are completely inseparable, being both existence and nothingness, being both nothingness and existence, and so on. The individual and the general, the subject and the object, etc., are also identified as one without contradiction in the dimension of the absolute.
This is the extreme north of Oriental Zen (Buddhism) thought, which goes far beyond the logic of everyday life. It is also distinct from Western philosophy, which preaches the unity of contradictions in a dialectics way.
In other words, “absolute contradictory self-identity” means that conflicting things are absolutely one, while remaining in conflict. Like the Zen koan, this concept refers to the ultimate situation that cannot be explained by logic. Together with “reverse correspondence,” it is the essence of Nishida’s philosophy.
What is your relationship to Deconstruction of Derrida?
Regarding the relationship between Kitaro Nishida’s philosophy and the postmodern deconstruction (as in the term coined by Jacques Derrida) thought represented by Jacques Derrida, some similarities and differences can be noted.
The first point in common is that they both criticize and attempt to overcome the dichotomous thinking style of Western metaphysics. They share the same attitude of dismantling such opposites as subject/object, existence/non-existence, and good/evil, and attempting to find the non-dual situation behind them.
Nishida’s idea of “absolute contradictory self-identification” has something in common with Derrida’s concept of “différance” (difference). [In a sense, the movement of deconstruction, which “postpones the determination of meaning indefinitely” and “keeps shifting the boundary of opposition,” has an affinity with Nishida’s philosophy of “identification of contradiction.
However, differences cannot be overlooked. While Derrida’s deconstruction is a thoroughgoing linguistic movement, Nishida’s philosophy has a metaphysical and absolute orientation. Their positions differ greatly in that Nishida ultimately develops his thought from the standpoint of Zen, whereas Derrida seeks to dismantle all metaphysics.
There is also a difference in that while Nishida is based on the Eastern idea of “nothingness,” Derrida is carrying out his deconstruction within the Western philosophical tradition.
Therefore, while Nishida’s philosophy and deconstructionism have something in common in terms of deconstructing dualism, they are very different in terms of ideological foundation and orientation. However, through the tension between the two, we may be able to find clues to open up new ideological possibilities. By rethinking deconstruction from a perspective such as Nishida’s, we may be able to find clues to rethink the future of postmodernism.
Seems related to Yoichi Ochiai’s idea of “deconstruction not nature”.
There are interesting similarities between Yoichi Ochiai’s idea of “nature, not deconstruction” and Kitaro Nishida’s philosophy.
What Nishida expressed in his concepts of “absolute contradictory self-identification” and “inverse correspondence” was a fundamental situation in the natural world itself that occurs in a dimension beyond human intellectual activity. [The paradoxical phenomenon of overcoming the “subject-object conflict” and “identification with the contradiction within” suggests the essential nature of “nature beyond human activity.
On the other hand, Ochiai’s idea of “nature, not deconstruction” also argues that deconstruction is not limited to human activities, but is a principle inherent in the natural world itself. [This idea has something in common with Nishida’s philosophy in that it attempts to dismantle the duality of man and nature and the duality of language and the world, and to find a more fundamental unity.
What they have in common is an attitude that seeks to break free from an anthropocentric viewpoint and approach the truth of nature and the world itself. While Nishida pursues this from the standpoint of Zen (Buddhism) and Eastern thought, Ochiai speaks of it in the context of modern technology.
It may be pointed out, however, that while Nishida’s philosophy was a speculative and metaphysical pursuit, Ochiai’s perspective is more concrete and practical in nature. However, beyond these differences, we can find a meaningful resonance between the two philosophies in their attempt to open up new horizons of thought from the perspective of “nature.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/逆対応 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.