At the first lecture of the Third Century of Amphibiology, I discussed the experience in which various binocular visions associated with various moving have become an effective method of world recognition through pointing out various dichotomies on mobility and immobility. At the second lecture, through the forked point of “to move or not to move” we discovered that the two postures of “moving” and “freedom” are similar, if not saying synonymous. Yet we have found that, although each of two oriented the same idea, in the case of “moving” it focused upon choice and in the case of “freedom” it focused upon the conceptual choice.
In this lecture I will attempt to cope with a notion; why don’t you apply the moving to the “undoubtedness” of the mover’s mind per se by making the mind-set itself an object.
Such an attempt, however, leads to change or neglect, at least in part, the ego or self-consciousness of the observer. In other words, once you do it completely, observation itself may no longer be executed by blanking of the ego and loss of the existence of observer. So, it becomes necessary to mix the fixed portion and the moving portion to the extent that the collapse does not occur.
In other words, this attempt is, as it were, a work which makes a change onto ego structure (or recognition structure). In this sense, this attempt might be said such a work which tries a psychopathological change, at least partially.
Therefore, I want to practice the attempt in a manner which superimposes myself on the ego of someone else. Particularly I want to practice it by reading some works of a particular author.
Fundamentally, the ultimate purpose of reading must be an experience to move or superpose one’s ego to someone’s.
Whereas there are a variety of motives when writers push themselves towards creation, one which I in particular want to focus upon is that footprints of the attempt those writers did, as limited existence of real men in order to challenge the walls through writing.
From that sort of point of view, I have read a various works of Haruki Murakami. But, it is not far enough to cover the entire works of this prolific writer. From the debut novel; Hear the Wind Sing to recent 1Q84, I have only read his main works like leaping stepping stones.
To mention why it was Haruki Murakami, in terms of the reason of encounter he is not only a writer but also a runner. Also, in terms of the reason of interest he is the same generation in a broad sense with me according to his profile, although he is slightly younger than me, rather than my interest itself to his works.
However, even if he is considered as the same generation, he was born in 1949 and younger by three years than me. At now when we turned to sixties, the gap of three years is only negligible and almost a difference between individuals. However, in the time of puberty or before it when one’s personality is developing, the difference of three years must be a significant enough.
While moving myself towards the place of “the same and not the same” where is the world with subtle uneven of the same generation, and applying the binocular vision which is the principle method of amphibiology, I want to find a psychopathological stereo field, which was born from it.
In other words, the necessity “to mix the fixed portion and the moving portion” mentioned above is the reason why I chose Haruki Murakami as the appropriate target. So an expected combination of degree of the mix would be 70% for fixed degree, and 30% for mobility degree.
Let me mention first the conclusion that, as far as by the time this lecture, the Haruki Murakami experience is an encounter with the world of “floating and scrupulous”.
Yet, the world of “floating” has been expressed in his novels and the world of “scrupulous” done in his essays respectively, as if they must be handled separately.
Further, to say on the Haruki Murakami experience so far, his “floating” corresponds to my “to move” and “scrupulous” does to my “not to move”.
In addition, I have a question why he can be a so popular writer.
In this connection, the first impression for many readers, who tried to read his works and resulted their feeling being dragged among those scenes of strange characters and endless change of story setting, can be a world of different dimension which is significantly distant from their normal reality. However, many readers may have partial empathy after deeper reading, in particular rich descriptions on music seen in any his work can be a firm clue for it. The ultimate goal where they may reach is the return or the longing to the world of affection between man and woman which is surprisingly simple compared with such a complicated story development. In this sense, any conclusion of his works is an unexpectedly ordinal world in spite of aroused anxiety and strangeness. I therefore see that this is the key secret of the popularity. In other words, I can observe that the return to such relief which is lead from the confusion and mobility to the ordinariness and calmness.
(T0 be continued)