Tags
binary world, Descartes, Dream, Ginko, Imeno no awai, Kant, Mushishi, objective, Plato, reality, subjective
All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream. – Edgar Allan Poe
It’s arguable that mankind would never invent the dichotomous division of reality/illusion and body/soul if it’s not because of dreams. It’s hard to believe in dreams because they disprove the existence of the body. Say for instance, we know that our being is composed of our body and soul (thought) by which the sensing belongs to the nature of the flesh.
On the contrary, we know that we’re dreaming if we know that we can hear, see, and feel through our thoughts; hence we can say that the things that we’re experiencing must be false since we leave behind our bodies whenever we go to the dreamland. But at the same time, the physical (real) world creates doubt because it’s hard to deny that dreams exist since these make us to think, doubt, and feel.
Since I’m always amazed by the mystifying nature of the binary worlds, I find the idea of Imeno no awai in Mushi-shi so fascinating. These mysterious bird-like mushi contaminate the dreams and infect the reality of the host. In order to locate these creatures, the physical object which they inhibit must be tracked down. But, if the parasite’s nest is destroyed, both the parasite and the host die. Upon watching this episode, I felt compelled to rethink if dreams truly leak on reality—what if Imeno no awai do really exist?
I’m not going to be surprised, if one fires back to me and say it’s a no brainer that Imeno no awai is just fictional. However, just by implicating this, aren’t we putting ourselves in the world of dreams? And, how can we disprove the existence of something we know?
Well, there are a couple of issues here. First, there’s no doubt that Imeno no awais are subjectively real—we can imagine what they are after watching the show. And second, these creatures seem to be objectively real in the sense that they produced actual effects on the other parts of reality. What I’m trying to say here is, even though there’s no such thing as Imeno no awai in the physical world, it is mindboggling how the “source” of these parasitic dream creatures managed to describe them so well—size, appearance, sound, and nature—that we can actually “sense” how they look like.
In short, although there seemed to be no way in which you can interact with Imeno no awai, we cannot fully deny its existence because we can say that something really exists if it can produce an effect—of any kind—on another member of some class of existence. However, this is not to say that just because we have indirect knowledge about Imeno no awai or other external reality, we should conclude that mind alone exists and the physical world is nothing but a false impression.
As shown in Mushi-shi, creatures of dreamland and real world co-exist. However, due to the representational nature of our mental world and how it turns sensing as faculty of the thoughts and not of the body, dream becomes an illusion. To make it simpler, we can metaphorically put into perspective that dreams are televised events which project pictures having the semblance of reality—whether or not the events we perceive on TV have any connection with actual events is another matter.
For instance, when we saw Jin got into the world of where the Imeno no awai, his wife and his daughter exist, he knew in his mind that it’s not the real world. However, when he saw his sleeping body, he knew right away that he’s back to reality. In both occasions, he felt both worlds but he’s still certain which is real from not. So likewise with us viewers, if we think differently from what Jin is thinking it would feel so wrong—watching like being in somebody else’s dream.
So having said all of these, it’s also possible to say that life is a dream. After all, it’s hard to prove whether we’re truly awake or asleep. A lot of times we’re convinced that we’re fully awake in our dreams but only ended up waking up again. Same thing right now, it seems I’m fully awake while finishing this post, but it makes me wonder what’s there to assure me that once I hit the publish button, I’m not going to wake up in another reality? Or as for you dear reader, what guarantees you that you’re not going to find yourself in a different world after reading this post?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Wonderful Reads on Mushishi:
- AJTheFourth wrote about Episode 8: All’s Fair in Love and Selfishness Where Sea Meets Man
- Ephemeral Dreamer blogged about Episode 3: The Sound of Life in Mushishi
Lemmas and Submodalities 
I still remember that episode- it was pure horror… When those two dimensions get infused, horror ensues. It’s wonderful that you picked up Mushishi to analyse this topic. I’d guess that you would rather use one of Satoshi’s Kon works, since they are exactly about tha infusion. But Mushishi always deserves the spotlight and tends to be forgotten unfortunately.
“To make it simpler, we can metaphorically put into perspective that dreams are televised events which project pictures having the semblance of reality—whether or not the events we perceive on TV have any connection with actual events is another matter.”
Nice comparison!
“A lot of times we’re convinced that we’re fully awake in our dreams but only ended up waking up again.”
Strangely, when I dream, most of the times, I’m aware that I’m dreaming even to the point of considering options of escape or ‘alternative realities’, but I’m unable to do anything to wake up. Sometimes I really need to watch the end and perhaps that’s why I can’t wake up, lol.
“it’s also possible to say that life is a dream. After all, it’s hard to prove whether we’re truly awake or asleep”
there are times that I can’t recall, if sth really happened or if it is a recollection of a ‘dream’ I made in my mind- anyways, since I usually suffer from nightmares, I think that I can assure you, when I’m awake :P
“Strangely, when I dream, most of the times, I’m aware that I’m dreaming even to the point of considering options of escape or ‘alternative realities’, but I’m unable to do anything to wake up.”
I find it interesting feel whenever I dream but I didn’t know that I’m dreaming, but of course eventually somewhere in the middle I’m finding out that I was just in a dream. It’s kind of really surreal.
Thanks for you dropping by and sharing your thoughts.
Are you familiar with Plato’s allegory of the cave? People are strapped to a chair for their entire lives, and their only view of reality is seeing shadows move across the wall of a cave.
You might also be interested in reading CS Lewis’ “Till We Have Faces,” and Neal Stephenson’s “Anathem” (which will satisfy your inner math nerd). This is a pretty fascinating topic.
Isn’t Plato’s cave is a reference to the inability for people to see the ultimate reality?i.e. the ultimate truth metaphysically and epistemologically, wherein even when we start getting to the truth (by being free of the cave) we often come back to it and choose ignorance or others are hard pressed to even acknolwedge the idea of an ultimate reality. I don’t think he oft commented on dream paradoxes seeing as the ancient Greeks were raging anti-solipsists lol
Yeah, he wasn’t talking about dreams specifically, but it came to mind because he address a similar question of what the ultimate reality is (and whether such a thing exists).
Although in the context of the rest of his theory of forms, I don’t think the problem is entirely that we actively choose ignorance, but also that the ultimate reality (the ideal forms) are impossible to know given what we can observe.
I don’t think Plato ever addressed the question of whether an ultimate reality exists, as much as he invariably stipulated that one did, which as you mentioned was his theory of forms. As much as I like the idea of perfect chocolate and perfect anime and perfect tables, I don’t buy it.
Hmm, Plato made it clear he thought we could and in fact, should, seek the ultimate reality. What we observe may be the shadows but that is only because people are focused or content with shadows. As an arguable early rationalist, he believed it was the great thinkers (i.e. himself) that could and did have access to the world of perfect forms and perfect knowledge. All this made obvious by virtue of his clear reasoning, wherever that was aha
@draggle Yes, I’m familiar with Plato’s allegory of the cave, that’s an example of why Plato doesn’t fully trust his senses and dreams because these are ever changing.
Btw, thanks for the suggestions. I have read neither of the two. The only C.S. Lewis book that I read are the Chronicles of Narnia. You may want to read Sophie’s World if you haven’t read it if you’re into Philosophy. It’s one of my favourite books of all time.
@Ælysium I believe so too. Basically it’s about how people are afraid or threatened if their reality and order are being challenged by another ideology. I remember those people killed the philosopher when he tried to tell them that those shadows are really “not true” that’ there’s a way much better world out there.
I’ve heard great things about Sophie’s World from other people as well, I really should read it. But the thing is, I actually don’t like philosophy. :) I’m only interested in where it happens to intersect religion. Philosophies tend to believe that the universe is fundamentally logical and rational. That’s boring.
And hey, that philosopher deserved it for strapping them to a chair their entire life!
Philosophies tend to believe that the universe is fundamentally logical and rational. That’s boring.
That’s only one subject of philosophy. Usually, these are in the ancient times. Try looking for the “post” philosophies, like post-modern and post-structuralist. They question some of these beliefs.
Interesting post. From what I have read, the only measure of what is maybe or maybe not a dream, is the intuitive measure of realisation. I.e. thinking. Although much of his philosophy is quite suspect, Descartés cogito is often seen as a good defence against the perpetual dream argument – or if you rather, one could see it as an apathetic response to dreaming – assuming everything functions as it would and should, the reality of whether we are dreaming or not, is unimportant; seeing as there is no way to know and no way of measuring what might or otherwise should be, the question is often trivialised.
My post is highly influenced by Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum and his Meditations on First Philosophy. From what I understand, he only trusts his thoughts and doubt everything else–his senses and reality. He asserted that “sensing” is a faculty of thought. Thus, sense experiences are untrue. “I now see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat.These things are false, since I am asleep”
However, I cannot fully agree with this because I believe that the materiality isn’t just some illusion created by the mind. For instance we see somebody dies if the body is being killed. So I tend to believe that we shouldn’t doubt our senses, just like Kant, at the end of the day body and mind coexist. Although, I don’t disagree the fact that there’s a division between these two.
Btw, thanks for the read and interesting comment.
“I believe so too. Basically it’s about how people are afraid or threatened if their reality and order are being challenged by another ideology. I remember those people killed the philosopher when he tried to tell them that those shadows are really “not true” that’ there’s a way much better world out there.”
Yea. Plato has a way with allegories and words, a shame it didn’t quite extend to his reasoning.
” My post is highly influenced by Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum and his Meditations on First Philosophy. From what I understand, he only trusts his thoughts and doubt everything else–his senses and reality. He asserted that “sensing” is a faculty of thought. Thus, sense experiences are untrue. “I now see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat.These things are false, since I am asleep” ”
Hmm from what I garnered of the Meditations, Descartes believed the contrary – that sensing was a faculty completely detached and unnecessary for thought. When he stipulated that his senses were untrue, he talks about the ever-changing-yet-ever-same wax and the deficiency of perception with the example of the building. Its not that sensing is a faculty of thought, but an arises of the body. Hence his infamous Cartesian Dualism. When he refers to senses in his dream being false, I think its more about the fact that nothing is being sensed (due to it being a dream) as opposed to senses themselves being completely incorporeal functions.
“However, I cannot fully agree with this because I believe that the materiality isn’t just some illusion created by the mind. For instance we see somebody dies if the body is being killed. So I tend to believe that we shouldn’t doubt our senses, just like Kant, at the end of the day body and mind coexist. Although, I don’t disagree the fact that there’s a division between these two.”
Descartes doesn’t say we shouldn’t rely on the senses, he admits they are one of the best features we have and are invaluably useful. Keeping in mind though that Descartes goal in the meditations is to construct un-doubt-able epistemologic foundations, he considers the senses incapable of such a feat. Hence he turns to the mind – hence why he is the father of modern rationalism. I think he even reinforces that senses are real as he describes humans living in duality. So I wouldn’t say he doesn’t think they coexist, just that to find true knowledge, the senses fail where the mind can succeed. And in chapter 6 of the meditations, using God, he “proves” that material things do exist via a rather magnificent feat of circular reasoning. But, the main point I guess is that I would say that Descatés never said material things are illusory, quite the contrary, he believed they were as real as mind.
No problem. Its always interesting to read your posts and I can’t resist a good discussion topic. So thanks for writing.
“When he refers to senses in his dream being false, I think its more about the fact that nothing is being sensed (due to it being a dream) as opposed to senses themselves being completely incorporeal functions.”
Senses are false in dreams because, in real world, mind is for thought and body is for sense. This condition is true because this is what the real world tells us. However, in dream world, mind is for thought and mind is also for sense–because the dreamer knows that he left behind his body in the real world. So since the mind becomes the function for both thought and sense in the dream world, this contradicts what the real world suggests, hence what we perceived in the dream world becomes false.
“Descartes doesn’t say we shouldn’t rely on the senses, he admits they are one of the best features we have and are invaluably useful… I think he even reinforces that senses are real as he describes humans living in duality. So I wouldn’t say he doesn’t think they coexist…”
In dream land he actually implied that we should doubt our senses. Descartes argued “I now see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat. These things are false, since I am asleep”. Hence, sense and mind don’t co-exist in the dream world. Descartes trusts his mind and his thoughts but questions his dreams and the rest of the world.
using God, he “proves” that material things do exist via a rather magnificent feat of circular reasoning.
Yes, he proved that there’s a “God” and materiality exists in real world but not in the dream world because dream world is nothing but a product of our minds. And this argument is also what he used to disprove our sensing ability in the dream world–because everything is just mental when we’re dreaming.
Btw, this is not to say that what you said is untrue, but I believe your argument applies to Descartes’ real world. Also, the part where I said body and mind co-exist, I’m thinking of more of a unified and equal co-existence–more of a Kantian belief–I don’t fully agree with how Descartes treats rationality more important than sensing.
Also, I’m not an expert in Philosophy. In case I’m wrong, please correct me. ^^
I find waking up into a dream the most confusing, because in-dream it feels as though I’ve woken, things appear familiar but it’s not consistent, and usually blue. I would say there’s intuition, something we don’t think about, that let’s us know. Of course, some minds do have strong conditions which prevent them from distinguishing dreams from reality (see the film Science of Sleep), but I never looked into the theories about that.
But, intuition.
Blue dreams? Interesting, that’s something for me to nerd about because I don’t really know the psychology behind dreaming. The idea of intuition is interesting, we don’t have a basis for it but we believe that it’s true–unproven irrational truth from what I understand. But sometimes, these too are the ones causing the doubt, not necessarily to the person who contains it but his/her environment per se.
I remember this episode being one of the more memorable ones for me (alongside the empty cocoon and the the heat-eaters)
My brother once told me about how dreams are a possible interpretation of either our greatest desires, or our worst fears. Through that, I guess reality weaves into our subconscious in a way we can’t really control. So in a sense, a dream can have some semblance of reality and likewise, reality can appear to be a dream.
As for a way to find out if everything is just a dream, I’d think that seeing your corporeal body snoozing off would do the trick, but an out-of-body experience is in itself a rarity, so I guess there’s really no concrete way except for really waking up (lol, if I can count the times I thought I was already awake)
I haven’t been as far as the empty cocoon but that sounds interesting.
My brother once told me about how dreams are a possible interpretation of either our greatest desires, or our worst fears. Through that, I guess reality weaves into our subconscious in a way we can’t really control.
I think so too. If there’s no source of idea, then there’s nothing to put into our minds. Which kind of contradicts the notion of “intuition”. But this is not to say that I’m contradicting intuition because for instance, a baby cries by him/herself without anyone teaching him/her.
The dream within a dream or everything is just a dream is really interesting for me because it’s possible that one dream is just a subset of another dream, and another… like it’s possible to see our bodies repeatedly… We can also test whether we are dreaming in our dreams, so this for me is really an amazing riddle wherein the only way to solve is to accept or settle which is truly your reality.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts.
It says quite a bit about Mushishi that any episode from it could be made into a blog post like this.
Reality is something that is hard to define, but so long as something has an effect on reality, it’s hard to deny that there is some part of it that is in some way real.
I really enjoy Mushishi because there’s a lot interesting things to think about. I’m thinking of picking up the manga just to see if I’m something missing out.
Yup, you should. Mushishi series stops after volume 5. And there are 10 volumes all in all. The animated ones are very precisely adapted so you don’t need to revise them, but after those, there are more wonderful stories :) I loved it to bits. I wished the last 5 ones were animated, too, though. The anime has a magic created by music and colors the manga doesn’t deliver.
Thank you for letting me know, you just saved me some disk space. ^^
@ SnippetTee, I thought I’d reply here as the comment branch was getting a bit thin.
“mind is for thought and body is for sense. This condition is true because this is what the real world tells us. ”
Hmm I don’t know about this. Dualism is a very weak and difficult position to hold – I’d be more inclined to say both mind and sense are just mental states in the complex functionalism of the brain. I disagreed with Descartés’ Dualism.
“So since the mind becomes the function for both thought and sense in the dream world, this contradicts what the real world suggests, hence what we perceived in the dream world becomes false.”
In a dream, the mind is not the derivation for sense data. When thinking about Descartés I think one need to be careful in their definitions. When he refers to sense, he is talking about empiricism – the 5 senses. In a dream, whilst senses are not directly involved, the mind doesn’t produce sense data either. Brains only process data, they do not create it or take it in. The senses do this. Imagine you were a brain in a vat. Would you still have senses? No sight, vision, smell etc. The brain cannot process that which it doesn’t have access to. Mind has no sense reception. Much like a computer only processes what comes in, as opposed to generating its own data. No input, no output. So even in dream states, mind isn’t sensing anything. Memory is responsible for any data held in the mind – memory however is not sense. Hence why the Cartesian dualism – and this is why I had said he never claims senses are active in dreams. That said, Descartes never actually gets rid of the dream problem until the very end of his book where after God is proven, he then says that God (being benevolent and moral) wouldn’t leave him in a perpetual dream state. Thus he is not dreaming. As flawed a logic as it is, that is his answer.
““I now see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat. These things are false, since I am asleep”. Hence, sense and mind don’t co-exist in the dream world.”
I saw that quote as in reference to the fact that since he is asleep, he is thinking as opposed to sensing. The things he sees are semantic content as opposed to sense content. There is no heat, no noise, no actual light. They are just figments. Ergo, false. In the dreamland, it isn’t that we should doubt senses, just that they don’t exist. According to Descartés anyway.
“And this argument is also what he used to disprove our sensing ability in the dream world”
I think we agree more so than our discussion implies :p Hmm, I don’t know that he ever disproved it in that instance. As I recalled, he couldn’t disprove anything in dream since he was unable to verify when and if he was dreaming. The proof I thought came at the end with God. Clear and distinct thought –> clone argument –> God –> clear and distinct –> Physical objects exist –> I am not being deceived i.e. no dream. Since the first 3 chapters only pile on more doubt, I never gleaned any proofs. Not to say there weren’t though.
“Btw, this is not to say that what you said is untrue, but I believe your argument applies to Descartes’ real world. Also, the part where I said body and mind co-exist, I’m thinking of more of a unified and equal co-existence–more of a Kantian belief–I don’t fully agree with how Descartes treats rationality more important than sensing.”
Hmm I’m not sure I fully follow you. From what I studied of the text, Descartes dream paradox is merely fuel to power his radical, methodological doubt. He never talks in length about it. If anything, he takes it to the next level with the demon. However, all this is blown away with his later arguments. So when you say “Descartés’ real world” I’m not sure what you mean. Its probably me just not following your point very well though.
I agree about a more unified state of mind, as I specified earlier in this reply, I think dualism is a very weak position. I would say that I agree with you about Kantian epistemology, as rationalism and empiricism have their strengths and weaknesses, Kant provides a good base for grounding both.
I’m by far no expert, just an enthusiast but I’m no stranger to having studied philosophy. It is however, a discourse, so disagree with me as much as you want ^^
In a dream, whilst senses are not directly involved, the mind doesn’t produce sense data either.
This is where we disagree. From what I understand, Descartes doubted dreaming because for him everything is just a product of the mind, meaning his dualism doesn’t apply. Dreaming as an out of body experience, “hearing, seeing, and feeling” are just all product of the mind.
he couldn’t disprove anything in dream since he was unable to verify when and if he was dreaming.
My apologies, “disprove” is not the right word. I should’ve said “doubt.”
Hmm I’m not sure I fully follow you. From what I studied of the text, Descartes dream paradox is merely fuel to power his radical, methodological doubt. He never talks in length about it…”
Unfortunately, I didn’t read the whole book. What I’m trying to convey with my argument is I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ dualism. When I discussed this on my article I’m generalizing the notion of dualism—both in real world and dreamland. Some of us might think that “brain is over body,” (just like how Descartes perceived rationality) but I believed that these two should be treated equally, pretty much just like your metaphorical used of computer.
I’m sorry for the confusion, when I said about the “real” world, I’m pertaining to the non-dream state wherein we are awake and both our minds and senses function accordingly. Dualism for me is a very interesting topic and I don’t see it weak but certainly it has loopholes. Aside from Kant, Spinoza offered some nice explanation on how he unified body and mind, but I have yet to fully explore that. We might have a few misunderstandings, but I guess for most part we are on the same page.
I deliberately refrained referencing philosophers on my article because I mixed up and created my own version. Although I’m not going to deny that I took ideas largely from Descartes’ dualism and flicked it based on my beliefs.
Btw, it’s a pleasure agreeing/disagreeing with a fellow enthusiast. ^^
“Dreaming as an out of body experience, “hearing, seeing, and feeling” are just all product of the mind.”
This is correct and I agree. The distinction I’m making however, is that these aren’t actually sense data. As I said before, memory isn’t sense data. Remembering the smell of a rose isn’t actually to smell a rose and to see in a dream is not to actually see anything. You could loose all your senses but as long as you have some memory of what it was like, or the qualia of the issue, then you will be able to recollect. However, obviously a person completely devoid of senses cannot perceive sense data. This is what I meant by the mind not producing sense data. Sense data is just that, from the senses. Memory is not sense data and in a dream, we are not sensing. Of course senses do affect our dreams but in the hypothetical Descartes presents, we are discussing a situation in which no external sense stimuli come in. I probably didn’t explain this as clearly before.
“Some of us might think that “brain is over body,” (just like how Descartes perceived rationality)”
This isn’t really a disagreement, just thought I’d point this out as it lends to one of many reasons I (as well as most of the philosophy of mind community) believe Dualism is a weak, if not incoherent, position. Descartés doesn’t actually say brain over body. He says mind over body. Brain =/= Mind. Mind being a substance completely incorporeal and lacking any kind of physical extension.I.e. metaphysical. The brain is physical, the mind is not. This throws up a lot of problems, the main and almost completely damaging one being, the problem of interaction. Which Descartés gives a non-answer to. Spinoza and Leibniz try to overcome it by dumping Cartesian Dualism in favour for their own re-imagining of Dualism in the form of Interactionism and Parallelism respectively. They all fall to the same issues though, if not open up a whole ‘nother can of worms. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ProForDua
“Aside from Kant, Spinoza offered some nice explanation on how he unified body and mind, but I have yet to fully explore that.”
I would be careful to compare Kant and Spinoza, if we could get a post-humous commentary from them on this discussion, I think Kant would be raging lol :p
“I don’t see it weak but certainly it has loopholes.”
Hmmm, logically Dualism is pretty much a non-sequitor. The Cartesian kind anyway, and since we are referring to the Meditations, I assume that is what you mean. Dubbed substance dualism, it is the separation of mind as a non-physical entity interacting with body a physical substance via some queer distortion of logic. There are dualist alternatives which do think that there is a body and a person. In these though, the latter is not necessarily non-physical (unlike Descartés mind). This I could accept as more likely.
Its always nice to meet a fellow philosophy nerd ^^
Yes, I agree with this. Now I understand, what you mean. This is also what I’m trying to tell you when I said sensing ability is not true in the dream world
Brain =/= Mind.
Metaphorically, brain can be equated into mind, but I’m not going to argue anymore, I understand what you’re trying to convey (brain is the material and mind is the substance) and since Descartes always referred to it as mind.
I would be careful to compare Kant and Spinoza, if we could get a post-humous commentary from them on this discussion, I think Kant would be raging lol :p
Yeah, I’m aware of that, but an exploration wouldn’t hurt. The worse thing that can happen is somebody telling me that I’m wrong in which I would gladly accept the criticism if that’s the case. ^^
Hmmm, logically Dualism is pretty much a non-sequitor. The Cartesian kind anyway, and since we are referring to the Meditations, I assume that is what you mean.
To simplify Descartes’ Dualism, he’s always separating the substance from the material—by which the mind is more important of the two that’s why he’s a rationalist. Indeed, there must be tons of definitions of dualism, but bottom line, it tells us that there is a concrete division or dichotomy between different figures.
But again, I’m not a Philosophy expert and I’m really fortunate to learn these new things from you. Thank you. ^^
Pingback: Spirituality in the Anime Blogosphere: CCM Artist (and Close Anime Geek) Cait Plage, Angel Beats Heaven, and Haruhi’s Five Proofs «
The whole idea of how we can be certain we are not in a dream right now can open up a whole huge philosophical mess. How do we know our reality and our whole life are not actually part of a dream? One way to determine that would be to interpret reality as the part of our experiences that’s the most consistent and logical. But in the end, this may all just be a labeling issue.
A similar related philosophical debate surrounding reality concerns more with perception versus existence… But I feel like I may be digressing a bit too much now from Mushishi.
Yeah, it’s really hard to determine whether we’re in dreamland or reality, because it’s also possible to have a dream that feels like a continuation of our daily lives. And I think it’s also possible to be forever trapped in our dreams, for instance people in comatose (I’m not sure, I’m just thinking…) So, I guess it’s up to us to choose which platform is our reality and how objective we can be with our subjective choices.
A similar related philosophical debate surrounding reality concerns more with perception versus existence…
Interesting. I think something must exist first before we can perceived something. It’s just like saying that the most original writers borrowed from one another–something must have influenced you to perceived something, so from void to real kind of thing…
And, please don’t worry if you’re deviating away from Mushishi. For some reason, that happens regularly with my posts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
So I rewatched episode 4 of Mushi-shi after I came across this impressive post and discussion. Mushi-shi really is a league for itself every single episode giving so much food for thought and interpretation plus gorgeous backgrounds.
At first I thought that the episode does clearly distinguish between “dream” and “reality” (for the argument’s sake I’m ignoring the additional layer between the episode and me, the viewer, for now). Jin in my understanding was not the “source” of the Imeno no awai but only their host. This class of Mushi existed in other places, as well. In particular, they were known to Ginko who did even read about them in his book. I agree that within the episode the Imeno no awai were subjectively (to Jin and also to Ginko!) real. Also, in my understanding the Imeno no awai actually created that aquifer or the decay of Jin’s village. Maybe they enhance intuition like some drugs are said to do. This could explain the aquifer find at least. The green mold disease, though, is so bizarre that I can only imagine that the village never recovered from the tsunami and Jin got out of touch with reality after the loss of his daughter.
For me the whole Mushi-shi world itself is really hard to grasp. Most people Ginko encounters live in isolated, rural places where he randomly appears. Mushi-shi’s setting itself seems to me pretty much dreamlike even more so as the unlikeliest of happenings are rationalized by the existence of Mushi who can transcend time and space (like we rationalize things in our dreams (at least I do ;-)). The closest thing it reminds me of are the tales of those ancient Daoist philosophers who travelled through China and had all sorts of bizarre encounters. Like Daoism seemingly (inferred from what little I heard of it) Mushi-shi does not impose any morale on us. Instead it teaches us how small we are against the great order of things.
in my understanding the Imeno no awai actually created that aquifer or the decay of Jin’s village.
Indeed, Imeno no Awai are subjectively real. However, they are slowly becoming objectively real because they want to manifest into their host’s world, that’s why Jin’s dreams are becoming true.
For me the whole Mushi-shi world itself is really hard to grasp.
I really find Mushi-shi interesting. There’s a lot philosophical things to discuss. In my understanding Mushi world is what we call the third dimension and those ones who can see the Mushis have the third eye.
I particularly like this episode because I’m always fascinated by the discussion of dreams and reality or the binary world. For some reason, I fascinated to think how we can be on different places all at the same time just through the power of thinking. Overall, I really enjoyed Mushishi because as you said, this show is about knowing the order of things. Aside from that, I guess it’s also telling us to simply respect the nature.
Pingback: Spirituality in the Anime Blogosphere: CCM Artist (and Close Anime Geek) Cait Plage, Angel Beats Heaven, and Haruhi’s Five Proofs | Beneath the Tangles