To tolerate this complication,
to live again

Keiko Nakamura(Biohistory researcher)

It seems to me that life is a question for “life itself” and “what a human being is,” and I think it meaningful to pursue the question further. Now, Chekhov’s plays, such as “The Seagull”, were written at the end of the 19th century. The following century―the 20th―could be called “the century of science on technology.” People have believed everything that occurred in the universe could be explained as a process of “cause and effect” and every mechanism could be analyzed. The more respected the seeking of results, the less the important the “pursuit of questions” has become.
To be honest, I don’t believe that I am up to this theme of ethics and my appreciation of “The Seagull” may be insufficient, though I choose to develop my opinions on the ground that the question of ethics is one of life and humanity itself.
I have called the 20th century “the century of technology on science.” It was an epoch based on a mechanical paradigm, in which everything was reduced to the simple process of cause and effect and disposed of by determinism; efficiency was admired and societies came to demand only economic success. As for such social problems, I suppose many people would be concerned about them, especially artistic people. I won’t address these now. I am concerned about the number of people who confuse science and technology, on account of the fact that technology is founded on science. Then as the introduction to our discussion, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding and speak on my ideas about humans and life as a scientist.
　As regards 20th-century science, in brief, it began with the quantum theory and the theory of relativity. They raised a question: “What is life?” This question was inherited by 21st-century science. As concerns the quantum theory, many might not be totally familiar with it. But the play “Copenhagen” is famous, Michael Frayn’s drama of two physicists, Bohr and Heisenberg. The work of Heisenberg is especially significant. I will not talk about the matter of physics now. I would say only that Heisenberg offered the uncertainty principle. In addition, Einstein created the theory of relativity. He introduced into his theory the concept of time, which had been disregarded in the field of science until then. “Uncertainness” and “time” feature in the paradigm of contemporary science. It is different from modern technology, which is based on determinism and tends to ignore time. Therefore, science still can create an interesting and formidable world.
I explore such a scientific world through observation of creatures―of course, including human beings. I will speak of how I observe creatures and what I have come to see through my work in “biohistory.”
A creature is not a machine. Nobody can make it. It creates itself, and moreover, it renews itself. Self-creation and renewal, both form foundation of life. What life creates and renews is “form.” Three billion eight hundred million years ago, in the seas of this planet the form of primeval life created itself. It is called a “cell” in biology. It has been transmitted to also us human beings. The memories for nearly four billion years are recorded in the style of the genome (DNA) in the cell. The number of species of creatures is in the tens of millions, and each of them has records for this span of time in the body and has decoded them in order to live. And also we human beings live the same way as every other creature. Now it interests me that every creature can be called a “perfect being,” because it actually lives well, and, at the same time, an “imperfect being,” because it is always evolving. Its evolution does not head in the direction of the human being. Then, it isn’t always true that humans are more perfect beings than other creatures. Besides, it is impossible to foresee what each creature will evolve into. But its form seems be permanent. Though no one can foresee the future, creatures would keep their “form” and weave their lifetime into the form like they have done for 3,800,000,000 years. I think such a perspective can be applied to an angle, in order to imagine a new paradigm.
I propose a concept: “Biohistory”―reading the history of life, or what I think “life” is.
Now allow me to mention “The Seagull”. I would refer to a part about Treplieff in the first act. As I think of life through the prism of 20th-century science, the particular part seems to me to be more than a mere play within a play. I stand even in awe of Chekhov’s vision of more than 100 years ago, including the line of Treplieff’s mother as an actress, “What decadent rubbish is this?” And I construct my ethic along these lines: “In me, the consciousness of man has joined hands with the instinct of the animal; I understand all, all, all, and each life lives again in me.”
In the last scene, Nina recalls the play within the play and says, ”It is not the honor and glory of which I have dreamt that is important for our work, it is the strength to tolerate.” Tolerance is not to endure a burden in life or mental pain, but to accept this uncertain, unforeseeable and complicated world, as I described it here. In other words, the tolerance of complication is important, because until we are intolerant of it, we can’t know the wonder of the world. Elements of the complicated world, especially creatures, even spiders or starfish, represent something and send messages. I think it is important for creative workers to watch and listen to such messages and know how wonderful they are.

(translated by Syo Iriichi, and supervised by Roger Pulvers)