Following von
Weizsäcker’s view, Kimura finds the ground condition of subjectivity in the
activities of living organisms in its relation with the environment; He sees
the origin of the mind in life. But this notion of subjectivity does not
necessarily presuppose the “self” or “self-consciousness”. How does the biological
subjectivity bring forth the “self”? He explains,
The notion of “self” comes into existence
only when the noetic subject distinguishes itself from the
“other”-as-“non-self” in the noematic aspect of consciousness and establishes
its self-belongingness.
[Kimura, B. (2005). Aida.
Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, p.108 (translation by ST)]
To prevent a possible
misunderstanding, it is better to add that the “self” which Kimura explains in
this passage is the explicit
self-consciousness. When a living organism keeps its subjectivity being related
with surrounding environment, the implicit
self or pre-reflective self already
exists there (just consider a case when we are walking without any
deliberation). Kimura himself does not distinguish the implicit self from the
explicit one, therefore he writes as if we could equate Weizsäcker’s notion of
subjectivity with the state of “no-self”.
In any case, from the perspective of “aida”,
the place between the environment and the living organism is what makes
possible the subjectivity (implicit self) of every living organism. And both the
“self” (explicit self) and the “other” simultaneously come into existence when occurs
the difference between the self and the other subject.
So, there are two types of aida. The first one is a gap that is opened up in the nature between each living organism and the surrounding environment. And the second one is a gap between the self and the other, which has a social meaning. As I chose the word “gap”, Kimura stresses the difference between the self and the other, rather than the similarity or familiarity.
