scientific field. This became all the more obvious since the
acceptance of the evolutionary nature of things. If elements
are then unfixed  or non-static  by nature, then a new world
of understanding had dawned.
   The paradoxical new situation however was that man's ideas
could not keep up with the world of changing tangible entities.
That is to say, because change is a more elusive and difficult
concept  to grasp  than  permanence, human  minds  began  to
concentrate  on the obvious tangible entities  which seem to
give the impression of durability  and stability.  Our minds
and perceptions could not simply get away from the precision
and power of mathematics as a model.  Somehow the intangible
nature  of ideas  got  lost  in the perceptual  shuffle  for
objective understanding.  The inclination  for the tangibles
and permanence  won out decisively.  This  has the story  of
materialism, East and West, where the false substitution  of
the stable for the instable  began to rise and dominate  the
very lives of men.
   If such  is the case, what  has man East or West done  to
alleviate the condition ?
 
　　　　　　　　　　  P.364
 
Not much, to be sure, but East  nor West could ill afford to
remain silent and passive for long.  The time to act is long
overdue.
   In  rapid  succession, starting  with the new Einsteinian
physics  through  indeterminancy   principles   and  quantum
physics and to present day sub-atomic  or particle  physics,
we have seen the rapid  deterioration  of substance-oriented
physics.  The irony of it all is that the non-physical world
has been awfully slow in keeping up with the discoveries  in
the physical world.  That is, there is an inherent inability
on the part  of human  beings  to fit in or adapt  to the on
going  changing  phenomenon  in  nature.   As  a  result,  a
tremendous  lag, a kind  of cultural  or ideological  lag of
monumental proportion has arisen.
   In a sense, this  lag  is a kind  of built-in  phenomenon
based  on biological  function.  That  is to say, where  the
sense faculties are able to distinguish  and report honestly
their  respective  perceptions  or  perceptual  data,  their
contents have been interpreted by the mind pretty much along
peripheral lines.  In consequence, the understanding we have
of  the  perceptual   data   have   been   superficial   and
fragmentary.  This kind of perceptual understanding has been
going  on for  quite  some  time  but  it was rendered  more
obvious  in the modern period  ever since the appearance  of
Cartesian dualism. Descartes' famous dictum, cogito ergo sum
(I think therefore  I exist) is the climax  of man's attempt
to crown human reason or mind over the total nature of human
perceptions. It was the triumph of mind over body but with a
vengeance unbeknownest  at the time.  For human beings still
belittle the value of their senses in comparison to the mind
in  understanding   anything.   The  widening   of  the  gap
accelerated  during  the rise  of the sciences  and is still
widening;  in the meantime  the  sciences  in general  go on
their  work with confidence  and aloofness.  Yet in the 20th
century  we have begun to see signs of displeasure  from the
sciences, especially  in particle physics and the behavioral
sciences, which found themselves hampered by limitations and
lacunae in obtaining  definite answers to the conditions  in
the nature of things.  The reason for this is that the realm
of the tangibles  alone does not inform all that there is in
nature.  Thus the so-called non-rational or irrational realm
which heretofore
 
　　　　　　　　　　  P.365
 
had not figured in human understanding  had to be taken into
consideration. Gradually, the subject or perceiver had to be
included  in  the  overall  structure  of perception.  It is
recalled  that  Sigmund  Freud,  one  of  the  great  modern