In my previous articles, here and here, I have considered George Berkeley’s idealist philosophy and formulated a position I called “Berkeleian realism”, which oscillates between Berkeleian idealism and naive realism. I have also considered Marx’s concept of the value form, and, through it, the mutually exclusive positions of workers and capitalists, as well as the role of money in the organization of capitalist society. With Motoori Norinaga, I have also considered his view of the history of Japan, where interactions between Japan and China played an important role in shaping Japanese culture and consciousness. This article brings all three together, in an increasingly eccentric oscillation between the three.
The split subject
The Berkeleian realist subject is split into a naive realist half and a Berkeleian idealist half. The proletarian subject is split into the wage laborer and the consumer. The bourgeois subject is split into the buyer of labor power and the seller of commodities produced, under pay, by the proletariat. In each of these subjects, the two halves it is split into are two mutually exclusive positions, from which issue two mutually exclusive experiences of the world and the objects in it.
The Berkeleian “unconscious”
The Berkeleian unconscious is an unconscious established by an oscillation between the naive realist half of the Berkeleian realist subject, and its Berkeleian idealist half. From this oscillation it is found what is omitted, unnoticed, and forgotten in one position and experience of the world, which is present in the other position and experience of the world. This is the unconscious, or, more precisely, the unconscious of the present position. This unconscious cannot be brought to mind without an immediate displacement, away from the present position, into the other position where that which is omitted, unnoticed, and forgotten in the present position is present.
The other (person)
In commodity exchange, every person confronts the other, with whom they stand in exchange, as nothing short of the other. Standing in one’s position and exchanging one’s commodity for the other’s, one expresses the value of one’s commodity in the commodity of the other. The other, exchanging their commodity for one’s own, does the same. In commodity exchange, then, there are two persons standing in two positions which occur at the same time. These two positions, from which the other’s commodity is experienced as the equivalent where the value of one’s commodity is expressed, and one’s own commodity is experienced as the commodity whose value is expressed in the other’s, occurring simultaneously, are also mutually exclusive with one another. In commodity exchange, the other, with whom one stands in exchange, is nothing short of the other.
The voter and the representative
In voting, it seems to me, two mutually exclusive positions occur at the same time as well. The voter, voting into power a representative whose policies, proposed and/or pre-existent, best protect and promote their interests, stands, through the vote, in a relation to their representative. The representative, however, does not stand in a relation, or relations, to the many voters who have voted them in power. Rather, they stand in a relation to a “majority” of a “public”, a “people”, and so forth. This is so because the vote is anonymous, and the representative, therefore, without cheating, has no way of knowing who voted for them, and who wished to see protected and promoted what interest by voting them into power. The representative does not, and cannot, have in view many individual voters, with their many individual interests, but, nevertheless, someone, who may as well as be a something, did vote for them. This someone is the “majority” of a “public”, “people”, and so forth, who, with their votes, endorsed their policies, proposed and/or pre-existent. What the representative has in view and stands in a relation to, in other words, are individuals without individuality, a people without diversity.
Money and capital
Money is a commodity which stands, for the acquirers of money, in the position of the general equivalent. It rises to this position when the possessor of the commodity, which is to become money—the money-commodity—exchanges this commodity with many others, for many other commodities, such that, for these others, the money-commodity is the equivalent where the values of these others’ commodities are expressed. We may also note that, for the possessor of the money-commodity, money is an almighty One, with which they can buy every other commodity on the market, from every other participant in the market. Money is the center of the capitalist universe, and its possessor also. Every other converges around money and its possessor, offering their commodities to be exchanged for money.
Money, in a capitalist universe, is capable, also, of a transformation. Or, rather, it is always caught in a transformation. This transformation is the transformation of money into capital. It occurs when the possessor of money “buy[s] in order to sell dearer”1placeholder, that is to say, when the possessor of money buys commodities (e.g. the labor power of the proletariat) in order to sell them, or commodities produced with them (e.g. commodities produced by wage laborers), at a higher rate, such that “[t]he value originally advanced…not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself”2placeholder. In Marx’s treatment of capital in Capital, “[i]t is this movement that converts [money] into capital”3placeholder.
Capitalist society
In a capitalist society, the proletariat stands in commodity exchange with the bourgeoise. The bourgeoise buys the labor power of the proletariat to have the proletariat produce commodities which will, then, be sold to the proletariat and other consumers, in order to make a profit, or the famous “surplus value”. From this process, which is a movement from one position to another mutually exclusive with the first position, i.e. a movement from the position of the buyer of labor power to the position of the seller of commodities, the two halves of the bourgeois subject, money becomes capital. The bourgeois subject, which constantly traverses the split within it, oscillating from the position of the buyer of labor power to the position of the seller of commodities, and back, is synonymous with the becoming-capital of money (the bourgeois subject’s money).
The proletariat, in turn, sells their labor power to the bourgeoisie, and buys back, after, with their wages, the commodities they produced under the bourgeoisie. In their sales of their labor power to the bourgeoisie, they stand in a relation to, not only the bourgeoisie buying their labor power, but also to other members of the proletariat. In their collective labor under pay of the bourgeoisie, making use of the instruments owned by the bourgeoisie, they cooperate with one another. They do not, however, cooperate of their own accord. Rather, “the connexion existing between their various labours appears to them, ideally, in the shape of a preconceived plan of the capitalist, and practically in the shape of the authority of the same capitalist, in the shape of the powerful will of another, who subjects their activity to his aims”.4placeholder In other words, they cooperate under the will of the bourgeoisie. At the end of their working days, the proletariat move, away from the position of the wage laborer, to the position of the consumer, where they hold power—buying power—and they purchase various commodities with their wages. This transition to a position of power, however, we must note, is, ultimately, to the profit of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat’s purchases of commodities, produced by the proletariat, generate profit, or surplus value. They transform, or, rather, complete the transformation of money into capital. In a word, during their working days, the proletariat unite, but under the will of the bourgeoisie, and, at the end of their working days, the proletariat are empowered, but only to generate profit, or surplus value, for the bourgeoisie, transforming the bourgeoisie’s money into capital.
The other
The Berkeleian “unconscious” can, perhaps, be expressed, more generally, that is, without the label “Berkeleian” and as a general method of approaching two or more distinct positions and experiences, as the other. The other is the other position and experience of the world, other than the present position and experience I stand in. It may be the position of the other person, or the other position “within” me, which is mutually exclusive with my present position. It is the other position and experience, which is omitted, unnoticed, and forgotten in my present position and experience, and it cannot be brought to mind without an immediate displacement, from my present position and experience, into the other position and experience. In this way, it is the site of a leap into the other position, a void within the present position which cannot be filled without departing completely from the present position (and, therefore, in fact, cannot be filled).
The ruler and the ruled in Motoori Norinaga
In Norinaga’s history of Japan, ancient Japan, or, more precisely, Japan prior to the introduction of Chinese writings and thought into the nation, was a nation at peace. The Emperors of Japan reigned over Japan by decree of Amaterasu Ōmikami and took as their own wills the will of the heavenly kami. The subjects of the Emperors took as their own wills the wills of their Emperors. An imperial social order prevailed across Japan. This would change, however, when Chinese writings were introduced into Japan and Chinese thought permeated into every facet of Japanese life. The Japanese consciousness was Sinicized, and the subjects of the Emperors of Japan no longer took as their own wills the wills of their Emperors, but dared to think for themselves, leading to opposition and, even, subversion of the authority of the imperial court. The Hōjō and Ashikaga clans were especially outrageous in this regard, betraying the Emperors they originally served and taking power for themselves.5placeholder In general, the opposition and subversion of imperial authority led to the adoption of a more Chinese mode of governance, since “it became impossible to govern Japan without using the strict methods of China”.6placeholder In more general terms, the ruled, whose consciousness has been transformed by foreign objects and thought introduced into their midst, opposed and subverted the authority of their rulers. Their opposition and subversion of the authority of their rulers compelled their rulers to transform the apparati by which the ruled are ruled.
We may also note, more theologically, that Norinaga attributed all the evils7placeholder of the world, including the social and political “evils” which were the Sinicization of the Japanese mind, and the opposition and subversion of imperial authority, to the kami named Yasomagatsubi no Kami (八十禍津日神).8placeholder This kami, he also held, was the “rough spirit” (荒魂) of Amaterasu Ōmikami,9placeholder and, as the “rough spirit” of Amaterasu Ōmikami, Yasomagatsubi no Kami was not held to be a distinct kami from Amaterasu Ōmikami.10placeholder Rather, they were held to be the one and the same kami. In other words, the very kami whose decree set in place the imperial social order of Japan was also the kami who brought about the disruptions of this order.
Norinagist Shintoist “solarpunk”
Norinagist Shintoist “solarpunk” takes as its center the divine center of Norinaga’s political theology, Amaterasu Ōmikami, the sun kami, or the sun herself. It does not take as its center, however, as Norinaga did, solely the Emperors of Japan and the imperial court, but also the subjects of the Emperors, themselves inseparable from others in other nations,11placeholder with whom these subjects stand in exchange. It takes as its center the antagonisms between the Emperors of Japan and their subjects, the latter’s opposition and subversion of the authority of the former, and the former’s transformation of the apparati by which the latter is governed, with respect to the latter’s opposition and subversion of their authority. These antagonisms are simultaneous with the phases of the sun, which, flaring, qua-Yasomagatsubi no Kami, scorches the earth and the imperial social order enacted upon it, and, waning, sees the transformation of the imperial social order and peace, temporarily, prevail across the earth.
Norinagist Shintoist “solarpunk” is an imperialism: it explicitly endorses the central myth of the imperial cult of Japan, establishing between the Emperors of Japan and Amaterasu Ōmikami a divine connection.12placeholder Norinagist Shintoist “solarpunk” is not an imperialism: it endorses the central myth of the imperial cult of Japan in order to shatter it. It renders the protagonists of this myth, not only the Emperors of Japan, but also their subjects who, standing in exchange with foreign others and having their consciousness molded by these exchanges, oppose and subvert the authority of the Emperors. It establishes between these disloyal subjects and Amaterasu Ōmikami, as the original myth did, between the Emperors of Japan and the kami, a divine connection. It, also, holds that Amaterasu Ōmikami, or the sun, is split within herself. As Yasomagatsubi no Kami, she labors behind the opposition and subversion of imperial authority by the subjects of the Emperors of Japan. As Amaterasu Ōmikami, she was the kami who set forth the imperial social order she, as Yasomagatsubi no Kami, brings about opposition and subversion of.
Class struggle
The struggle against the bourgeoisie today, it seems to me, opens on the “desire to not go to work”, which results in “involuntary” and spontaneous withdrawal from wage labor and consumption (as well as episodes of impulsive consumption), “involuntary” and spontaneous strikes and boycotts, on the part of the proletariat. From this “involuntary” and spontaneous position, the proletariat may, then, move to a more “voluntary” and deliberated position. Strikes and boycotts, undertaken “voluntarily” and deliberately, are, of course, well-established modes of resistance. They compel the bourgeoisie to adjust the terms of their exchanges with the proletariat (wages, employment health benefits, prices, etc.), and transform the capitalist market. At the same time, to provide a safety net for strikers and boycotters, and, in general, to make possible a life outside of the capitalist market (because the question of the day is, of course, how life could be possible outside of capitalism, which does not devolve into fascism, or “communism”, which, more often than not, is used as a synonym of fascism), the proletariat may also unite to form non-capitalist networks of exchanges, outside of the capitalist market. As these networks thrive, the position of the bourgeoisie, and, with it, the capitalist market, whose pulse is the becoming-capital of the money of the bourgeoisie, weaken, having lost precious “manpower”—the labor power commodity, sold by the proletariat—and made increasingly fewer gains—surplus value—in money.
Concerning these networks, two issues, I think, must be noted. First, that, if these networks are networks of, primarily, commodity exchanges, then money, and the centralization which comes with money, are almost unavoidable occurrences. This is so because money is, simply, a commodity which has been exchanged widely, by its possessor, for many other commodities, from many other participants in the same network of commodity exchanges. As this commodity is widely exchanged, it stands, for every other who has exchanged their commodity for it, in the position of the equivalent. It is, for the other participants of the network of commodity exchanges, the general equivalent, or proto-money. The possessor of this general equivalent, or proto-money, stands as the center of the network of commodity exchanges, who holds the privileged commodity with which every other commodity can be exchanged—bought—and around whom every other participant of the network converges, exchanging—selling—their commodity for the general equivalent, or proto-money.
Second, that, when money and centralization under money occur, it is imperative that money is not allowed to transform into capital, and the possessor of this money is not allowed to transform into a capitalist. A non-capitalist network of commodity exchanges, if it produces, among its participants, a bourgeoisie, is, of course, a failed network. This failure is, however, also, potentially, not only the failure of one network, but of many. The capitalism we are well-acquainted with today is, after all, a capitalism which occurs between many networks of commodity exchanges, e.g. between developing nations and developed nations, each having its own network of commodity exchanges. It thrives on the differences of prices—values—of commodities between these many networks of commodity exchanges, e.g. buying cheap labor in developing nations to produce commodities which are, then, sold steeply in developed nations. Measures must, then, it seems to me, be put in place to ensure that, in and across non-capitalist networks of commodity exchanges, the commodity which becomes money does not, also, become capital, and its possessor, or possessors, capitalists. In other words, the ones who become the center of their network must not be allowed to prevail as the center, of their network as well as other networks. To this end, more concretely, Karatani Kōjin, whose reading of Marx, I will freely admit, has inspired me tremendously, and which I have, in many places, appropriated for my own context,13placeholder suggested the use of LETS, or local exchange trading system, which “offers each participant the right to issue his or her own currency”,14placeholder and “is…organized that the sum total of the gains and losses of everyone [conducting exchanges within this system] is zero”.15placeholder With LETS, what Karatani called the “fetishism of money”, which occurs in the miser and the “rational miser”, i.e. the capitalist,16placeholder who “[t]reat[s] money not as a medium [to purchases commodities in order to satisfy material needs] but as an end in itself”, and is motivated, not by material needs, but an endless “drive to accumulate wealth”,17placeholder distinct from material needs, does not occur.18placeholder In my own, more rudimentary, context, certainly, a network where every participant is allowed to issue their own currency is a network which, having a center, or, rather, centers, also, only has fleeting centers. Each center, i.e. the currency of the day and its possessor, is invalidated upon the ascension of another center. What occurs, in this network, is reminiscent of what Norinaga has, disparagingly, said of China, where, in lieu of a predetermined ruler, unlike Japan, whose Emperors ruled by divine decree, the ruled and the ruler are locked in a constant power struggle, with the former conspiring to usurp the latter and establish their own reign, and the latter conspiring to prevent their usurpation by the former and preserve their reign.19placeholder In any case, the right to issue one’s own currency, offered equally to all participants of a network of commodity exchanges, seems to be one of the possible measures by which the becoming-capital of money and becoming-capitalist of its possessors may be prevented.
The others of the proletariat
The other of the proletariat is, first and foremost, the bourgeoisie, with whom they stand in exchange, and whose positions and experiences, occurring at the same time with the positions and experiences of the proletariat, are also mutually exclusive with the positions and experiences of the proletariat. Within the proletariat, in the life of each individual worker, are also two mutually exclusive positions and experiences. The individual worker is wage laborer and consumer, or, more precisely, wage laborer/consumer. Standing in the position of the wage laborer, selling their labor power to the bourgeoisie, the individual worker is confronted with an other, which is the position and experience of themselves as the consumer. Standing in the position of the consumer, the individual worker is confronted with an other, which is the position and experience of themselves as the wage laborer.
Now, these others are not just other positions and experiences which are mutually exclusive with the individual worker’s present positions and experiences. They are, also, invitations into these other positions and experiences. As the Berkeleian realist subject, recognizing in its naive realist experience of the world an unconscious, or mental activities of its, which it is unconscious of, strives to bring to mind these activities, and, therefore, passes from the naive realist position into the Berkeleian idealist position, so, too, does the individual worker, confronting the other of their present position, as wage laborer or consumer, passes on to the other position. The others of the individual worker are means, or, more linguistically, because human beings are nothing if not linguistic, signs by which the individual worker traverses the split within their being and mind, passing from one half of their being and mind to the other.
More concretely and practically, when the individual worker, standing in the position of the consumer and riding high on their empowerment as the possessor of money, has no eye for their, and other workers’, past and future submission to the bourgeoisie (e.g. their own work the next day, and the exploitation of sweatshop workers in developing nations), and the bourgeoisie’s position from which the empowered worker is seen as one of many buyers who would generate the surplus value they so desire and complete the transformation of their money into capital, the others of this individual worker, as consumer, are signs whose signifieds must never be worked out, lest the worker be torn from their happiness in their present position and experience. In simultaneity, they are also the signs whose signifieds must be worked out, for the worker to become, at all, revolutionary. In the same way, when the individual worker, standing in the position of the wage laborer and utterly miserable from their present submission to the bourgeoisie, sees consumerism as nothing more than the bread and circuses of an exploitative system, and fails to see the need to coordinate strikes with boycotts, the others of this individual worker, as wage laborer, are, likewise, the signs whose signifieds must never be worked out and, remaining a mystery to the individual worker, sustain the worker’s present position and experience. They are also the signs whose signifieds, upon being worked out, displace the worker from their present position and experience, entering them with the other positions and experiences. Oscillating from one position and experience to the other, they may, finally, formulate, for themselves, and other members of the proletariat, a fuller, less one-sided strategy of opposing capitalism.
The subject and its others
The oscillating subject, split within itself and involved with many others whose positions and experiences are mutually exclusive with its own, has many others. Other than the positions and experiences I have considered so far, i.e. the naive realist and Berkeleian idealist positions and experiences, and the positions and experiences of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, there are also other others: religious others (e.g. Berkeley’s God which causes most, if not all, of the ideas the mind perceives20placeholder and, also, watches the mind at all times,21placeholder Norinaga’s kami who bring about all things in the world, and whose positions and experiences are incomprehensible for the finite human intellect22placeholder), cultural others, political others (e.g. non-Marxist, progressive movements and other Marxist factions), and so forth. The subject’s involvements with others may also become mediated by something like money, or vote, and, with respect to the subject’s possession, or lack, of this something, it becomes either the center, of its world with others, around whom others converge, or one of the many converging around an other who has become the center. In such instances, it is, it seems to me, important to recognize that the one who becomes the center and the many converging around this center hold mutually exclusive positions, from which they have mutually exclusive views of money, vote, and, in general, the thing which mediates their involvements with others. This disjunction of views translates, in the life of the subject, into an inescapable one-sidedness in every moment of its life. It does not, and cannot, know what others think of it as they involve themselves with it. It does not, and cannot, know that it is being seen, and treated, as nothing more than a money tree to be shaken, a featureless individual whose sole distinguishing feature is its possession of a vote, and so forth. This one-sidedness can only be “transcended” by way of oscillation. The others, as signs whose signifieds, upon being worked out, displace the subject into other positions and experiences, are signs facilitating the subject’s oscillations, and “transcendence” of its one-sidedness.
Works Cited
Berkeley, George. “A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge”. In The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne Volume 2,1-115. Edited by A.A. Luce and T.E. Jessop. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1948-1957.
Higashi, Yoriko. Norinaga shingaku no kakōsareta kamiyo no kōzō. Tokyo: Perikansha, 1999.
Karatani, Kojin. Transcritique on Kant and Marx. Translated by Sabu Kohso. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003.
Kasulis, Thomas, Shinto: The Way Home. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004.
Marx, Karl, “Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital”. In Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm.
— . “Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation”. In Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm.
Motoori, Norinaga. Kokun Kojiki-den 1. Nihon meicho kankō-kai, 1930.
— . Kokun Kojiki-den 2. Nihon meicho kankō-kai, 1930.
— . “The Way of the Gods. Motoori Noriaga’s Naobi No Mitama”. Monumenta Nipponica 46, no. 1 (1991): 21–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2385145.
Ueda, Kenji. “Magatsubi no Kami and Motoori Norinaga’s Theology”. Contemporary Papers on Japanese Religion 4 (1998). https://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/cpjr/kami/ueda.html.
Karl Marx, “Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital” in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm.
Karl Marx, “Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital” in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm.
Karl Marx, “Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital” in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm.
Karl Marx, “Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation” in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm.
Hōjō Yoshitoki, who led the Kamakura shogunate, and his son, Hōjō Yasutoki, went to war against the Emperor of their time, Emperor Go-Toba, after the Emperor declared them rebels against the throne, attacking Kyoto and, upon triumphing against the Emperor’s forces, exiled the Emperor and his sons. Ashikaga Takauji aided Emperor Go-Daigo in overthrowing the Kamakura shogunate, but, afterwards, sided with Emperor Kōmyō of the Northern Court, rival to the Southern Court of Emperor Go-Daigo, and founded the Ashikaga shogunate.
Motoori Norinaga, “The Way of the Gods. Motoori Noriaga’s Naobi no Mitama” (hereafter “NB”), Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 46, no. 1 (Spring 1991), 31, and 60.
“Evil”, I think, is not an unreasonable but also, deeply, inadequate translation of multiple terms Norinaga used, but, primarily, kitanashi (穢し) and maga (麻賀、禍、…). Norinaga, in Motoori Norinaga, Kokun Kojiki-den 1 (hereafter KJK1), (Nihon meicho kankō-kai, 1930), 320, has argued that, in ancient Japan, all that was bad was referred to as kitanashi and maga (古には、萬の凶悪ことを、凡て、穢しとも麻賀とも云り). By “bad” (ashiki 凶悪) Norinaga was referring, not only to the morally bad, but the bad in general, including personal misfortunes and political chaos. Norinaga also held, in ibid. 341-343, with respect to a succession of myths from the birth of various kami from the union of Izanagi and Izanami no Mikoto to the becoming of Amaterasu Ōmikami and her siblings from the purification of Izanagi no Mikoto, that badness could bring about goodness (凶悪より吉善を生し) and goodness badness (吉善より凶悪を生し). Indeed, the world, for Norinaga, was constantly caught in these movements, of badness bringing about goodness and goodness badness (吉善事凶悪事、つぎつぎに移りもてゆく).
In the opening essay to his Kojiki-den, Naobi no Mitama, Norinaga attributed events which “violate logical principles”, the usurpations of imperial authority by the Hōjō and Ashikaga clans, and the fascination of the Japanese intelligentsia with Chinese writings and thought to Magatsubi no Kami. More directly, in his discussion of the passages in the Kojiki, where Yasomagatsubi no Kami made its appearance, he attributed all “evils” in the world to the spirit of the kami (此間にあらゆる凶悪事、邪曲事などは、みな、元は此禍津日神の御靈より起るなり). Motoori “NB”, 33, 34, 36, and KJK1, 62, 63, 65, 316.
Motoori, KJK1, 315-316. Norinaga made this claim with reference to Yamatohime no mikoto seiki (倭姫命世記), a text which he himself noted was apocryphal. He also held, with reference to the same text, that Yasomagatsubi no Kami was the same kami as Seoritsuhime (瀬織津比咩、瀬織津姫), a kami invoked in Oharae no kotoba (大祓詞), a prayer which is read in one of the most important purification rituals in Shinto, as a kami of purification. Higashi Yoriko, in Higashi Yoriko, Norinaga shingaku no kakōsareta kamiyo no kōzō (Tokyo: Perikansha, 1999), 178-179, with reference to Norinaga’s own interpretation of Oharae no kotoba, has argued that, for Norinaga, Yasomagatsubi no Kami was a kami of dual character, who both brought about “evils” in the world and returned these evils to the land of Yomi, when these “evils” have been cleansed.
Ueda Kenji argued so in Ueda Kenji, “Magatsubi no Kami and Motoori Norinaga’s Theology”, Contemporary Papers on Japanese Religion 4 (1998), https://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/cpjr/kami/ueda.html, with respect to Norinaga’s later consideration of the concepts of “gentle spirit” (nigimitama 和御魂) and “rough spirit”, in his discussion of the myth of Ōkuninushi no Kami’s creation and solidification of Japan, that “[t]he ‘rough spirit’ of Amaterasu represents only the active working of Amaterasu’s spirit, and it cannot be another, separate kami”.
With regard to the peoples of other nations, in Norinaga’s Shinto theology and cosmology, they have the misfortune of being born and living in nations created and solidified by Sukunabikona no Kami, whose evil nature meant that bad events occur frequently in these nations. This, we see in Norinaga’s discussions of Chinese history, however, is, potentially, a cause for intellectual development. Norinaga associated the development of the Confucian way of the sages in China with the efforts of the mythical sage-kings (聖人) to justify their usurpation of the previous rulers and preserve their new reigns from being usurped by others. From their efforts, a wealth of concepts and practices (e.g. the precepts of benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, humility, filial piety, brotherhood, loyalty, and trust, and Yijing divination) sprang, which were used to govern China, but these concepts and practices did not form a state ideology which was separate from the lives of the ruled, but also propagated widely among the ruled. In general, the ruled acted in the likeness of the sage-kings, deliberating on and debating all things intellectually, and the customs of China developed in a way which privileged intellectual activities. For Norinaga, this was the cause for, only, more political chaos, and, as a rule, he was opposed to the use of human intellect to fathom the truth of the world, since the human intellect, he held, was too finite to comprehend the acts of the kami, which underpinned all things in the world. Motoori, KJK1, 57, 58, 60, and Kokun Kojiki-den 2, (Nihon meicho kankō-kai, 1930), 620.
Norinaga’s worship of the Emperors of Japan should, I think, be discerned, carefully, from the worship of the Emperors in the state ideology of wartime Japan. That there is a connection between the two, in the genealogy of Japanese thought, no one can deny, but, as Thomas Kasulis argued in Thomas Kasulis, Shinto: The Way Home (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004), 117, “Norinaga’s understanding of Japan’s special place in world history was not an agenda of either revolution or world dominance”, but was “more romantic” and “pictured a world in which people would live together harmoniously with each other and with nature” (The “people”, here, are, of course, not just any people, but the Japanese people.). In general, we may say that Norinaga was interested in intra-national affairs.
I have refrained from referencing Karatani due to my unfamiliarity with the other thinker Karatani engaged with, extensively, Kant. Nevertheless, two key components of his thought have been appropriated by me, I suspect, crudely, for my own context. The first is Karatani’s argument that capitalism must be opposed both within and without: that, within capitalism, capitalism is to be opposed by the workers’ refusal to work, that is, to sell their labor power, and their refusal to consume, that is, to buy capitalist commodities, and, without capitalism, a “safety net” is to be established, “whereupon [workers who refuse to work and consume in a capitalist market] can still work and buy to live”. The second is the basis for this argument, which is Karatani’s reading of Marx’s Capital, under which capital is held to “confront two critical moments” in the buying of labor power from workers, and the selling of commodities produced by workers back to workers. “Failure in either moment disables capital from achieving surplus value”, and it is “in these moments workers can counter capital”, by refusing to work for capitalists and buy capitalist commodities. Karatani Kojin, Transcritique on Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003), 24-25.
Karatani Kojin, Transcritique on Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003), 24.
Karatani Kojin, Transcritique on Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003), 23.
Karl Marx, “Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital” in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm.
Karatani Kojin, Transcritique on Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003), 209.
Karatani Kojin, Transcritique on Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003), 23.
Motoori, KJK1, 57. This political chaos, or, more precisely, the efforts of the ruled and the ruler to, respectively, usurp their ruler and preserve their reign, for Norinaga, fostered the intellectual development of the Chinese people. As I have mentioned already, too, in note 11, Norinaga disparaged this kind of development.
George Berkeley, “A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge” in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne Volume 2, ed. A.A. Luce and T.E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1948-1957), 54-55 (Part 1, Sections 29-30).
George Berkeley, “A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge” in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne Volume 2, ed. A.A. Luce and T.E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1948-1957), 113-114 (Part 1, Section 155).
Motoori, KJK1, 58.