.


P.255


    Steve  Odin, Associate  Professor  of Philosophy  at  the
University  of  Hawaii,  has  written  a  brilliant  work  of
scholarship   that  lifts   the  discipline   of  comparative
philosophy  to a entirely  new level.  The Social Self in Zen
and American  Pragmatism  creatively  structures  a rich  and
powerful  synthesis  of the insights of Japanese Zen Buddhism
and classic  American  Pragmatism  insofar  as each tradition
develops  a theory  of  the  self  as an outgrowth  of social
interaction.
     There is a double level of analysis going on throughout
this  work: The  first  and  primary  level  deals  with  the
articulation  of an interactionist  model of the human  self;
the second  level  hints at a renewal  of metaphysics  as the
primary philosophical  task of the present age.  I begin with
the first  level.  The book has three  parts.  Part One deals
with "The Social  Self in Modern  Japanese  Philosophy," Part
Two  with   'The  Social  Self  in  G.H.  Mead  and  American
Philosophy" and Part Three with "The Social Self ill Japanese
and American Philosophy." Each part has an intricate argument
woven through its successive chapters.  I shall, there- fore,
deal with each Part seriatim.
      Part One examines the thought of  Watsuji  Tetsuro,
Nishida  Kitaro  and  Doi  Takeo.  From  Watsuji  we  gain  a
Zen/Confucian   model   of  the  self  that   anchors   human
development in the ritual social actions of li. This presents
an  ethical  view  of  the  person  (ningen) as  a center  of
concerns derivative from one's place in a community.  What is
provided  in this  analysis  is a strong  alternative  to the
Western notion of an atomistic  individual  free to enjoy his
loneliness.  The locus  of the self  is the betweenness  (ma)
that binds humans  together  in a normative  community.  Odin
does not confine himself to Watsuji's  work but amplifies  it
through a painstaking analysis of more recent developments in
the writings of


p.256

thinkers like Kimura Bin, Hamaguchi  Eshun and Kumon Shumpei.
The inbetween of self and community becomes a religiously and
aesthetically  charged  region  wherein  transformation   and
goodness emerge.
    Similarly, Nishida  and in fact the entire  Kyoto  School
inspired  by him develop  a Zen concept  of the self  as pure
experience  out of which  derives  the secondary  ontological
levels of the subjective and the objective. As articulated in
Nishida's  personalism  and doctrine  of the social  self, an
I-Thou   dialectic   rises  out  of  the  place  of  absolute
Nothingness  and thereby  unifies  self, other and world in a
normative  circle of pure suchness/emptiness. Nishida thereby
makes  good  Dogen's  maxim  that: 'To  study  the way of the
Buddha  is to study  the self, and  to study  the self  is to
forget the self;  and to forget the self is to be enlightened
by others"  (6) He completes  his doctrine  of the socialized
self  by  seeing  it  as  a foreshadowing  of an even  deeper
emptying process - the Sunyata Kenosis Ideal of Personhood as
Self-Emptying  Love.  Odin includes  in this chapter  careful
studies of the contributions  of Abe Masao, Nishitani  Keiji,
Tanabe  Hajime  and Muto Kazuo.  Part Three concludes  with a
detailed portrait of the psychology  of Doi Takeo wherein the
dependency  principle  (amae) is  seen  not  to be a neurotic
fixation  on the other  but an intricate  entwined  dialectic
between the public realm (tatemae) and the private domain
(honne)  The  result  of  this  forceful  analysis  of  modem
Japanese  philosophy  is the banishing  of any  notion  of an
isolated, skin-encapsulated, private  self  as  the  ultimate
foundation of personal existence.
    In Part Two, Odin turns to the thought of the American
pragmatists in general and the social psychology of G.H. Mead
in particular to find developmental  analogs for the Japanese
notion  of the self.  There he finds a far more sophisticated
concept  of the rise  and flowering  of the human  self  as a
social  organism.  Through  the dialectic  of 1/Me, Mead lets
both the past  and the present, the conditional and the free,
the settled and the creative  emerge as a unifying force that
binds  a healthy  human  self  together.  Mead's  concept  of
symbolic  interactionism  as the lifestream  of social growth
and personal  development  culminates  in the doctrine of the
"Generalized  Other"  as the  universal  ground  of normative
social being.

p.257

These   doctrines   are  then  seen  in  the  light   of  the
metaphysical  and semiotic  speculations  of the other  great
American pragmatists, James, Peirce, Dewey and Whitehead. The
service rendered  Japanese thought by American philosophy  is
the laying  bare of a much richer  experiential  ground  than
that  bequeathed  by  the  Husserlian/Heideggerean  brand  of
phenomenological  analysis  that  came to dominate  the Kyoto
School.  American pragmatism  not only provides a theoretical
base  for  the social  self  articulated  in modern  Japanese
philosophy, it also hints at a much deeper  metaphysics  than
the "Sein Frage" of Heidegger or the "Epoche" of Husserl.
    Part Three attempts to cash in the hard scholarly work of
the earlier  sections  by dealing  in turn  with: Comparative
analysis of Mead and Confucianism, Zen, Watsuji, Nishida, Doi
as  well  as  highly  original   studies   of  the  Body-Mind
Interaction, the Human-Nature Interaction and the Social Turn
in Philosophical  Anthropology.  Of these  topics  I want  to
concentrate   on   the   impetus   given   to   philosophical
anthropology  by this comparative study of the social self in
Zen and American Pragmatism. The question, 'What does it mean
to be human?" has haunted the 20th century.  Now at its close
we face the excesses and failures of Scientific  Materialism,
Positivism,   Existentialism,   Marxism,  Phenomenology   and
varieties  of Deconstructive  Postmodernism.  It is therefore
altogether  a significant  philsophical  event  that Odin can
offer  at the close  of this  century  such  a promising  and
vigorous  answer  to  this  question.  He uses  Buber's  rich
recovery of the tradition  of philosophical  anthropology  as
developed  in Between Man and Man, where Buber traces out the
discipline's  history from Kant to Heidegger.  It was Buber's
contention  that German  Idealism  began in the right place -
seeking to respond to the Delphic injunction, "know
theyself."   But  its  preoccupation   with   epistemological
concerns  lead it away from a more direct confrontation  with
the primary meaning of the gnothi sauton.  It therefore  lost
the  opportunity   to  ground  the  meaning  and  existential
contours  of the  human  self  in a wider  and richer  social
metier.This  is  what  prompts  Buber's  introduction  of the
dialogical  medium of language  into his discourse  about the
self.

p.258

"I and Thou" are linguistic  moments  of decidedly  different
character; yet insofar as they remain in fruitful dialectical
tension  the rich social  dimension  of the human  self comes
into view.
    Buber's   masterpiece,  I  and  Thou,  is  in  essence  a
philosophical  prose  poem to the trajectory  of the paradigm
shift  towards  the  social  domain  as the  self's  defining
quality.  Odin shows how this powerful  insight  is developed
and shaped  by such thinkers  as John  Macmurray, H.  Richard
Niebuhr and Ernst Cassirer. Once again, the evolution of this
doctrine is studied in tandem with Mead's theory of the self,
placing  important  emphasis  on the  semiotic  dimension  of
social existence.  The resultant combination demonstrates  in
the most direct manner why Odin's book is this century's best
and most positive response  to the Delphic injunction.  Along
the way Odin also offers  a powerful  indictment  (again  via
Buber) of Heidegger's  elitist  and  amoral  concept  of  the
selbst of dasein.
    So much then for the content  of this massively  detailed
yet  elegantly  written  work  of scholarship.  In the  space
remaining  I want  to set  this  groundbreaking  work  in the
context of the end of our century. I shall do so in two ways:
First, in what way does Odin provide an answer to the problem
of  global   nihilism   at  the  end  of  the  20th  century?
Second,what work remains  to be done to secure  the ground he
has so decidedly  won in the crafting of this masterpiece  of
original  philosophical  scholarship? It was  Nietzsche  who,
dying in 1900, called us to accept our destiny. Our amor fati
was to challenge  the oncoming  of nihilism  as the spirit of
the  20th   century.   That   nihilism   is  rooted   in  the
reductionistic  triumph of scientific materialism as the only
acceptable  way of talking  about truth As a result, anything
that  cannot  be caught  in the methodology  of the  physical
sciences is condemned to remain unspoken. What falls away are
all  modes  of  discourse  not  grounded  in the  empirically
correct form of quantitative analysis. Whole domains of human
experience  are lost in an instant: The ethical  becomes  the
emotive;  the political, the economic; the psychological, the
subjective;   and   the  linguistic,  the  structural.   This
reductionistic   nothing  of  nihilism  grows  until  it  has
swallowed  up all that concerns the human.  What is left over
is handed to the poets, priests or

p.259


taste makers.
    Has  nihilism  triumphed  in  our  time? Odin's  eloquent
answer  is "almost  but  not  quite."  His  response  to this
question rewards patient listening:

          In  the  final  analysis  all  of the  Eastern  and
      Western   frameworks   considered   here  establish   a
      philosophical anthropology directed toward the ultimate
      goal of becoming  fully a person or social self through
      communication  with others in a normgoverned community.
      Furthermore, all of these frameworks  have shifted from
      a monological  concept  of self  as  a solitary  I to a
      fully dialogical concept of self located in the between
      of  "I and  Thou."  Again, all  these  frameworks  have
      shifted  from  a subjectivist  model  of  self  wherein
      individuation  precedes sociation  an intersubjectivist
      model  of  self  as an interplay  of individuation  and
      sociation.  It can thus be said  that  in the twentieth
      century, both  in the East  and in the West, there  has
      been a paradigm shift to a new ideal of personhood as a
      bipolar   social  self  arising  through  communicative
      interaction   between   the   individual   and  society
      (453-454).

    It is therefore  beyond doubt that this century has given
birth to a very powerful antidote  to the poison of nihilism.
The self  is a real  entity  because  it exists  in, with and
through others.  Its interactive  existence is determined  by
how  creatively  it appropriates  the  values  upheld  by its
cultural context.  This act of endorsement  is no mere rubber
stamp;   instead,   it   involves   testing,   shaping,   and
reformulating social norms through the dialogical presence of
a "generalized  other." This other and the nascent  self that
interacts with it are in the grip of a creative advance whose
destiny is the achievement of value in the temporal world. It
is these events of value -- symbolic and ethical - that gives
the lie to the pretenses of scientific  materialism.  We take
up Nietzsche's  challenge  by growing  into democratic  union
with our fellow humans. Our amor fati


p.260

is to craft that ideal self that lies within  the interstices
of the social order as its measure and its mirror.
    All this  brings  us to my final  question, what  further
work needs to be done to cultivatc  this new garden  cleared,
fertilized  and seeded  by Odin.  In one word, the answer  is
"Metaphysics."  Throughout  Odin's  work there  lies a hidden
question,''What  is the really  real  of our experience?" The
hints  he gives, suggest  an answer: The really  real is "the
directly felt aesthetic quality of value in its unanalyzed
wholeness"  (142).  What  the  universe  is all about  is the
creation  and maintenance  of enduring  nests  of value in an
ever-changing cosmic realm.  The human duty in this adventure
is to shore up our values against a predatory  future even as
we cooperate  in the  birthing  of  new  forms  of value.  In
short,what is needed is a metaphysics  grounded  in normative
thinking.  To speak of something  truly is to articulate  its
carryover of value from the past into thc present and towards
an unknown future.  To be real is to be a value.  Metaphysics
returns to its Platonic heritage  by bringing together at the
end  of the  20th  century  the  insights  of all  the  great
metaphysical thinkers from Lao through Spinoza and Leibniz to
Hegel and Whitehead.  All social value is the outcome  of our
finite efforts to bc good with one another  for the sake of a
greater  good.  So, the task  of the next  century  is set by
Odin's masterly  recuperation  of The Social  Self in Zen ond
American Pragmatism:What is the quality  of reality such that
it can bc said to be good for itself, for others, and for the
whole Odin has already established  the general  outlines  of
such  a metaphysics.  It will be nonfoundational  because  it
will be rooted in absolute  nothingness.  It will also be not
rooted  in Western  logocentrirm, for the modes of access  to
this  dimension  of  quality  will  be  both  aesthetic   and
religious.   Finally,  this  metaphysics   to  come  will  be
nonhierarchical, because  the  shifting  interactions  of the
I/Me dialectic provide no privileged  place to stand.  Rather
it will be the process  of quality itself that will delermine
this future  metaphysics  of the 21st century.  Nihilism  has
finally met a worthy challenger.