La nature pense-t-elle ?
Does Nature Think ?
ƓŌ.ƎA-
2019 June 6th, 7th & 8th
UNESCO (June 6th, 7th)
Maison de la Culture du Japon à Parisǰ ] i Ě Ĥ ė ¦ ǧ Ǳ (June 8th)
Unesco : 125 Av. Suffren 75007, Subway Ségur ; MCJP : 101 bis, quai Branly, 75015, Subway Bir
HakeimDirected by
Frédéric JOULIAN (EHESS, Centre Norbert Elias)
Yoann MOREAU (Mines ParisTech, Crisis and Risk Research Center)
UEHARA Mayuko (Kyoto University, Graduate School of Letters)

Register now for free access tothe UNESCO. Please send your name alongside yourprimary affiliation or occupation to the address below.
nature.paris.2019@gmail.com
Register now for free access to the MCJP. Please contact the address below.
https://www.mcjp.fr/


CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
Globally, our environment is no longer in a state about which we can be optimistic.
Anthropocene compels us to fundamentally reconsider the modern conception of nature asa mere object. Augustin Berque, a French advocate of mesology (Uexkül's Umweltlehre,
Watsuji's fūogaku, i.e. the study of milieu) suggested the strange question “does nature
think?” as the theme of this international conference. The aim of the conference is to reexamine the modern view of nature, whereby human beings are seen as holding atranscendental position. We will invite 25 to 30 researchers from different fields(anthropology, geography, philosophy, Buddhism, human environmental studies,
primatology, agricultural science, oceanography, law, history of Western art, etc. ), as well aspractitioners who directly face and work within nature, to discuss together, in anintercultural and interdisciplinary approach, a series of questions centering on the problemof what may or may not distinguish human thinking from the diverse types of selfawareness and communication, discovered by ethology and biosemiotics, to exist among
other living beings.
|ǕE'@6ŔÎ.ÊŒƢĵš*:.;ĲƦƣ&AŐĊ*.)Ō'-´ęEĪĤš*ơŤ4Ğ*%          
'

ÖÙ)Á

 

|Ǖ.Ɠ

A_hmS-ǦÈÝƏ      Ɠ Ō . Ǝ  A -  ǯEQmbRKd-Woc'%şīQmbRKd.|Ǖ    * Ż # Ɵ Ŀ - ǃ  š ) Ɠ Ō Ʀ E  į Ʃ  A  ' E ţ š '  A  ǲ  ¶ ƴ  Ǒ - Ŭ Ź Ə | ǥ Ý  Ǧ È Ý  ¿ Ý   ĕ Ý  | Ǖ Ŕ Î Ý  Ǟ ǔ ǥ Ý  ǂ Ý 
ł Ŀ Ý  ļ Ý  Ƌ Ɯ ³ Ý Ž   > 1 Ɠ Ō * æ ǟ  Ɠ Ō '  ¢  A à ƿ ã  Ǜ|Ǖ'ƓŌŕŎĮŎB?-ǖĄŕ¼ŔÎ'%pǆ-Áǣ*#Ǖė¦šÝǙš*ƶƳA

Organized by

Research Institute for Humanity and Natureǰ Ɔ ´ Ê Œ Ŕ Î Ý Ŭ Ź Č Ǳ ,Kyoto Universityǰ { Ǎ Ó Ý Ǳ ,École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, École des Hautes Études en Sciences
Sociales,
UNESCO and Maison de la Culture du Japon à Paris
Sponsored byExpo '90 Foundationǰ Ç Ǚ Ɩ ' Ƈ - « ƥ ƪ Ă © Ǳ



ACT I
June 6th, UNESCO Room IX

MILIEU (FUDO) AND ENVIRONNEMENTET
ǦÈ'ŔÎ
9 : 00 Doors Open
9:30ǭ9:40

Opening address: Frédéric JOULIAN (EHESS)

9:40ǭ10:40 Keynote address: Augustin BERQUE (EHESS, Mesology)
Does nature think evolution? Ɠ Ō . Ǉ ¦ E Ǝ  %A-ǯLa nature pense-t-elle l’évolution ?
While, on account of the number of possible protein combinations, Neo-Darwinism is
athematically unable to explain evolution through the sole mechanicist alternative ofrandomness (mutation) and necessity (natural selection and statistical laws), Imanishi
Kinji’s antidarwinism is equally unable to explain evolution, if not by invoking a mysterious“course” followed by the species as such. One relates these two antithetic theories to,respectively, the Aristotelian logic of the identity of the subject and the Nishidian logic of
the identity of the predicate, and, through a sublation of these two logics into /trajective
chains/, proposes a mesological hypothesis for interpreting the problem of evolution,
implying a certain subjecthood of nature itself.
Augustin BERQUE, b. 1942, a French geographer and orientalist, is a retired director ofstudies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris, where he teached mesology(Umweltlehre, fûdoron). International Cosmos Prize-winner 2018, he was in 2009 the first
Westerner to receive the Fukuoka Grand Prize for Asian cultures. Among his books :Poétique de la Terre. Histoire naturelle et histoire humaine, essai de mésologie, Belin, 2014
(Poetics of the Earth, Routledge, 2019). Among his translations : IMANISHI Kinji's v
Ą-Ǉ¦Ƴ(La Liberté dans l'évolution. Le vivant comme sujet, Wildproject, 2017).


Chair : Frédéric JOULIAN (EHESS, Anthropologie, Primatologie)[10 min. break]
10:50ǭ11:30 Yoann MOREAU (Mines ParisTech/Crisis and Risk Research Center,
Anthropologie)
A Thought for nature?      
Une pensée pour la nature?
Contemporary anthropology strongly recalls that the distinction between nature andculture is not a reality of the experienced world but one of the many philosophical fictions
allowing to study it (Latour 1991). Dualism is only one of the great anthropologicaloptions for understanding and give meaning to what surrounds us (Descola 2005). Equallyconsistent perspectives are possible, which allow to shift human cognition upon otheraspects, to generate other values and to form new technics and languages (Moreau andKaufmann 2018). By remodeling the theoretical landscape of living things, mesology alsooffers a way out of modern cosmophagy (Neyrat 2016). To operate this paradigmatic
bifurcation, mesology pays deep attention to a rhythmic and bijective process that organizes
and structures the coexistence of a being and its surroundings. Augustin Berque has usedvarious words and expressions to describe this living quality of coupling between the pastand the future. These notions (structural moment, trajection, existential pulsation,
mediance) give the structural beat of the historical constitution of milieu. They point to aveiled faculty of organization that seems homologous to what we call thinking.

Yoann Moreau est anthropologue au Centre de Recherche sur les Risques et les Crises(Mines Paristech), Visiting Scholar au RIHN (Kyoto) et chercheur associé au Iiac (EHESS).
Ses travaux portent sur les catastrophes, l’ingénierie en situation extrême, les modesd’existence insoutenables et les processus de destruction des milieux. Depuis janvier 2016
Yoann Moreau vit au Japon où il développe un programme de recherche sur les territoires
abandonnés et les conséquences de Fukushima. Dramaturge pour la Cie Jours tranquilles(Lausanne), il a mis en scène une dizaine de spectacles sur les catastrophes qu’il qualifie de« spectRaculaires », c'est-à-dire ne répondant pas (ou plus) aux canons de la médiatisation,


et de la dramaturgie dominante (disons « hollywoodienne ») : contamination nucléaire,
explosion démographique des personnes en surpoids, dépression, perception du climatiqueà l’échelle domestique, et tueries de masse aux USA. Il a récemment publié Vivre avec les
catastrophes (Paris : Puf, 2017), Hantologie de Fukushima (avec Yuji Nishiyama, Terrain
n°69, mai 2018), Habiter terrestre, hospitalité terrienne. Faire mondes avec les fictions, les nonhumains et les non-modernes (avec Alain Kaufmann dans « La Mésologie, un autre
paradigme pour l'anthropocène ? » M. Augendre et al. (dir.), Paris : Hermann, 2018).
11:30ǭ12:10 MURASE Masatoshi (Kyoto University/ Yukawa Institute for Theoretical
Physics, Advanced Future Studies) & TOMITA Naohide (Kyoto University/Graduate
School of Engineering, Medical Engineering) ĥŅǚ{ǍÓÝÌŮŎœÝŬŹČģĦ¢ċÝäŘŤŲ{ǍÓÝïÝŬŹŴĶĬœïÝçĔ§ŞïÝ

How Does Nature Think? Beyond A Dichotomy Towards A New Synthesis
MURASE: How Does Nature Think? Beyond A Dichotomy Towards A New Synthesis
What is living nature? Despite the advanced studies of Western science and the progress ofmodern technology, we have not yet answered this problem satisfactorily. What is worse, it
is a double problem that we cannot realize how we are deeply influenced by the traditional
way of Western thinking in attacking the above problem. Owing to the dichotomy ofsubject (or self) and object (or nonself), together with its corresponding reductionism, we
have specified more and more the detailed components of a living system and have also
required the reproducibility principle that the living system shows the same responses to thesame stimuli under the same conditions. A dichotomy perspective of this kind, which has
been central to modern science, stands on the assumption that opposites are mutually
exclusive and even contradictory.
Contrary to this dichotomy perspective, there is an alternative complementarity perspective
typical of Eastern philosophy, which is surprisingly similar to Niels Bohr’s complementarity
principle in modern physics. It actually suggests that opposites are not mutually exclusive,
but merely complementary to one another, because opposites are thought to be only
different aspects of the same wholeness. This means that there is no clear distinction
between subject (or self) and object (or nonself). As there is no definitely isolated object,
the reproducibility principle is mostly violated. We must therefore pay much attention to
the transientsǭor processesǭduring the past history of living nature. On the basis of thiscomplementarity idea, we are encouraged to have a holistic view by integrating fragments ofknowledge at various component levels and time scales when investigating the history ofliving nature. In this sense, we need a new synthesis of Western science and Eastern
philosophy, instead of considering either of them separately. Only then, it is possible toattack the long-standing question: what is living nature? Along these lines, in the present
paper, a process of self-nonself circulation is introduced as an essential paradigm of living
nature. As a living organism is engaged in challenges from both its internal and external
environments, it contains unlimited conflicts and oppositions, which in turn must be thedriving force for its evolution and development. It is such reconstructive dynamics that cangive rise to an identity of the living organism. The resultant identity of living nature isrepresented by the Eastern image of the Mandala as an emergent symbol generated by theprocess of self-nonself circulation.

Masatoshi Murase is Associate Professor of Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at
Kyoto University. He is also Director of Research Promotion Strategy Office at The
International Research Unit of Advanced Future Studies of Kyoto University. His research
topics are life theories, theoretical biology, constructive recognition, semantics theories,
environmental biology, theories of aging, emergent diseases, origin and evolution of Life.
He holds PhD in pharmacology from Tokyo University. Publications : Life as History: The
Construction of Self-Nonself Circulation Theory, Kyoto University Press, 2000 (in Japanese),“A Self-Similar Dynamic Systems Perspective of “Living” Natureǭ The Self-nonself
Circulation Principle Beyond Complexity” In: The Kyoto Manifesto for Global Economics
The Platform of Community, Humanity, and Spirituality (Eds: Stomu Yamash’ta, Tadashi
Yagi, Stephen Hill), Springer, 2018.
TOMITA: Natural Procedure for Art-Technology Collaboration
We have tried several art-technology collaborations in which art students and students fromengineering, medical school, and other fields collaborated to develop products and systems
for hospitals. The picture-story was produced and played before their field evaluation. By
not starting from written or measured needs or specification, they found hidden needs andcreated new technologies and meanings. Examples of picture-story presentations are drawn
in a practice. For example, the engineering students wanted to clarify and write down theobjectives before their field evaluation. In contrast, when the art students participated, they
did not write down the objectives unless they felt what they want at the site. They wereseeking relationships and their "true motivation” in their field evaluation. In other words,
the engineers start from structure, but the artists want to start from system where each "I" isexist.
Degeneracy is a biological term that different structures have similar meaning, for example
a certain bio-function is fulfilled by several gene expressions, protein expressions and sugar
expressions. The degeneracy is an important expression improving diversity and evolutions.
Environment is discontinuous and if one structure become insufficient, then the otherstructure can improve the function. Similarly if the structure "eye" is damaged, then thesystem of "seeing" can be improved by touch, hearing and so on. Natural procedure isdifferent from that of engineering, where not the structure but the system is in the firstplace, and new structures are discovered in the degeneracy network.
Art-technology collaborations are required for the human-related developments including
medical care and service-system fields. We propose the "SUKI-ru" concept, defined as asincere commitment to seek irreplaceable relationships. The concept is based on the ideathat meaning is not an intrinsic attribute of an object but created from the discovery in thenatural system. We insist that human-related development may become truly helpful
simply by asking "is it what we truly want?"

Prof. Naohide Tomita is an orthopedic surgeon as well as engineer, and has been developing
medical devices based on the so-called bio-environment designing concept. He insists thathuman-related development may become truly helpful by not start from structure, but startfrom system where each "I" is exist (SUKI-ru system). Référence : Poetic Space : thecoordinate to design qualities using successive-dialectic, Journal of Integrated Creative
Studies. No. 2016-023-aǬNov. 2016 (In Japanese).
12:10ǭ13:40 Lunch
13:40ǭ14:10 SHIGETA Masayoshi (Kyoto University/Center for African Area Studies,
Ethnology) ǐŘŦƌ{ǍÓÝH_iMÊËŬŹƹĘTmUoǂÝnė¦|ǥÝ
Yes, Plants Think: Some Evolutionary thoughts about the diversity and recognition
Person-plant relationships are tentatively categorized into four aspects. These are men's
cognition of plants, men's utilization of plants, plants' cognition of men and plants'utilization of men, respectively. The first aspect has been mainly dealt with in the study offolk taxonomy and the second in the classical ethnobotany and economic botany. Last two
viewpoints of anti-anthropo-centric nature may be difficult to understand for human being.
Cultivated plants, however, can be a good example to explain. For instance, non-dehiscent
wheat should recognize as well as utilize men as a sole agent of seed dispersal, and such
recognition is directly concerned with the reproductive success of wheat. Mutually
beneficial relationships which can be found typically between agriculturist and cultivatedplants, are called person-plant symbiotic relationships, and domestication is defined as theirdiachronic process. I would like to pursue this discussion while leaving the difficult issue ofintention aside. In fact, in my opinion, it is possible that this kind of mutually dependent
relationship (symbiotic relationship) between livings things of different species exists
regardless of the intention of those involved. Mutually beneficial relationships between
humans and plants, most typically shown between cultivated species and farming people,
are called “person-plant symbiotic relationships.” The process whereby this kind of
relationship progresses between humans and plants is called domestication (Odum 1971;
Rindos 1984). What is more, in the relationship between humans and plants at least,
domestication is a process not an event (Anderson 1960).

Masayoshi SHIGETA is a Professor of African Area Studies at The Center for African Area
Studies, Kyoto University. His main research interests extend from agricultural science,ethnobiology, and crop evolution to African area studies, anthropology, studies on sleep andsociety, and studies on development issues. His recent works include ZAIRAICHI (Local
Knowledge) as the Manners of Co-existence: Encounters between the Aari Farmers inSouthwestern Ethiopia and the ‘Other’, 2017, and Relationships between Conservation vs.
Utilization: Contribution; Area-studies Approaches to the Maintenance of Indigenous Plant
Resources in Africa, 2018.
14:10ǭ14:50 MORIOKA Masahiro (Waseda University, Philosophy of Technology andNatural Philosophy)ĭêķ«ěŷŘÓÝčƜ'ƓŌ-¿ÝThe Dialectic of Human Technology and Naturalness | Ǖ - W O \ l R o ' Ɠ Ō Ą-øƬļIt seems to be impossible for nature to think, however, I believe that nature, beingcombined with human technology, can behave as if it were thinking in a very special way. I
have called it a “double-controlled structure.” It is one of the key features of “painless
civilization,” which has become salient and apparent in contemporary society heavily
influenced by scientific technology and industrialization. The topic of my presentation is
the philosophical analysis of the dialectic of human technology and naturalness.
ƓŌƎA-.s±ƒ&A'ăDBA|Ǖ-WO\lRo'´ƓŌ:Ǝ%

Aŏĸ)@ę&ų.Aų.BEwǐžœĳǅ-vƠ)Ąƻ-0'#&őů

A>*2A6'.&A''»F&B.ŋŝėĜ@ŴÝčƜ'Ŗİ¦*>"%ÓûǠE¯&ǤƘ&ĜŠ*)"%:-&-WO\lRo'ƓŌĄ-øƬļ*#Aų-şƝ-Y^VO.|Ǖ% ¿ Ý š  Ĩ E ƛ)   ' &A

Masahiro MORIOKA teaches philosophy and ethics at Waseda University. He has
published a number of books on bioethics, philosophy of life, and gender issues, mainly inJapanese, which include Painless Civilization and Confessions of a Frigid Man: A Philosopher’s
Journey into the Hidden Layers of Men’s Sexuality (English translation available). He chairs
the 2nd International Conference on Philosophy and Meaning in Life at Waseda
University, october 2019.
[10 min. break]
15:00ǭ15:40 Élise DEMEULENAERE (CNRS, Anthropology / Ecology)
Semences paysannes, communautés microbiennes... De la critique de la modernisation
agricole à l'instauration de nouvelles ontologies biologiques en agriculture.
Farmers' seeds, microbial communities.... From the critique of agriculturalmodernization to the introduction of new biological ontologies in agriculture.
Division fordiste du travail, artificialisation des conditions de culture, standardisation desproduits : la modernisation agricole qui s’est déployée dans les pays européens après ladeuxième guerre mondiale a reposé sur un idéal industriel de la production agricole portant
sur le vivant un regard réducteur. Des voix critiques de ce modèle se sont fait entendre
rapidement, renforcées par les multiples crises (sanitaire, environnementale, économique)que connaît le monde agricole depuis les années 1980.
Dans les années 2000, un réseau issu du syndicalisme agricole défendant l’agriculture
paysanne (la Confédération paysanne) et des milieux de l’agriculture biologique etbiodynamique s’est structuré pour revendiquer une réappropriation paysanne des semences.
Dans son sillage, des collectifs d’agriculteurs se sont constitués, pour remettre en culture desvariétés locales et anciennes (libres de droit, et non standardisées), et pour refaire dessélections à la ferme. Leur engagement pratique et perceptuel avec ces plantes, leurséchanges réguliers avec des généticiens des populations, les ont conduit à éprouver etconceptualiser les qualités de ces « semences paysannes » : diverses et évolutives. Ce faisant,ils ont contribué à remettre en question les fondements ontologiques de la réglementation
semencière basée sur des variétés idéalement « Distinctes, Homogènes et Stables ».
Parallèlement, dans le secteur de la fabrication fromagère, les producteurs attachés à latypicité des produits de terroir remettent en question l’usage massif de fermentssélectionnés, et tentent de réhabiliter le pilotage à distance du microbisme de la ferme que
pratiquaient les générations antérieures de fromagers. Leur savoir est conforté par lestravaux scientifiques les plus récents de l’écologie microbienne, qui construisent une visioncomplexe du fonctionnement des communautés microbiennes. Ces alliances entre
agriculteurs et écologues contribuent à instaurer dans le monde agricole de nouvelles
ontologies du vivant, alternatives à celles – réductrices et statiques – de la modernité
agricole.

Elise Demeulenaere est chargée de recherche au CNRS, au Centre Alexandre Koyré.
Formée à l'origine à l'écologie, elle consacre depuis 20 ans ses recherches à l'étude desrelations des sociétés à leur environnement, à partir de terrains lointains (Ethiopie) ou
proches (France). Depuis 2005 elle s'intéresse plus particulièrement aux mutations
contemporaines des rapports au vivant dans le monde agricole, à travers les mouvements
pour la réappropriation paysanne des semences, et plus récemment, les coalitions d'acteurs
pour la défense du fromage au lait cru. Elle a co-édité l'ouvrage Humanités
environnementales. Enquêtes et contre-enquêtes (Editions de la Sorbonne, 2017, avec G. Blanc
et W. Feuerhahn), dans lequel elle est l'auteure d'un chapitre consacré à l'histoire del'anthropologie de l'environnement. Elle est membre nommée dans la section
Anthropologie au Comité national du CNRS et membre élue de la Commissioninterdisciplinaire Environnement Sociétés.


15:40ǭ16:20 Sarah VANUXEM (Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Droit del’environnement)
Des droits reconnus aux choses de la nature. Le cas des servitudes prédiales.
Rights to the things of nature. The case of predial easements.
Sur le terrain du droit, nous assistons aujourd'hui à un mouvement de personnification dela nature et de ses éléments, qui autorise certains humains (ou groupements d'êtres
humains) à parler en leur nom et à porter leurs revendications. Le procédé repose
toutefois sur la technique, moderne, de la représentation, quand notre tradition civiliste
pourrait offrir une autre voie : celle des servitudes et, notamment, des servitudes prédiales,soit des relations juridiques existant entre des fonds de terre. Les droits et obligations deschoses entre elles peuvent, alors, découler de la situation des lieux, mais aussi disparaître
avant, éventuellement, de renaître au gré des changements dans la configuration des lieux.
À telle enseigne que le droit pourrait ici accorder, sinon à la nature, du moins aux
lieux, comme un droit de penser, et mieux, de légiférer.

Draille en hiverMaîtresse de conférences à la faculté de droit de l'Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis,
Sarah Vanuxem mène des recherches en droit de l'environnement. Sont récemment parus
La propriété de la terre (Wildproject, 2018, Marseille), "Les sections de commune pour laprotection des paysages ? Le cas du Goudoulet, section du plateau ardéchois"(Les carnets dupaysage, Communs, n°32, Actes Sud - ENS du Paysage, 2018), "Des communautésd'habitants pour la transition écologique et solidaire (in Le droit des biens au service dela transition écologique, B. Grimonprez (dir.), Dalloz 2018), "La compensation écologiquecomme mécanisme de droit analogiste" (Revue Juridique de l'environnement, 2019/1 (44).
16:20ǭ17:00 Pierre-Olivier DITTMAR (EHESS, Anthropo-history of living things)
Quelle était l’ontologie de la nature de l’Occident pré-moderne ? Regard del’anthropologie historique contemporaine.
What was the ontology of the nature of the pre-modern West? Contemporary historicalanthropology perspective.
En reprenant les catégories de Philippe Descola, l’Occident chrétien médiéval apparait dans
une tension entre deux ontologies, relavant à la fois de l’analogisme et du naturalisme. Ils’agit dès lors de penser la séquence IVe-XVIIIe siècle comme un espace de travail danslequel l’idée même de Nature connait de fortes évolutions. Nous analyserons ici l’évolution
des représentations de la Nature et conjointement de l’animal pendant cette longue périodeen prônant une re-ouverture de la documentation, tant vers des corpus cantonné aux études
folkloriques, que vers les images, pour proposer une étude des milieux permettant demieux restituer les cosmologies locales produites pendant cette longue période.

Maître de conférences à l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), sestravaux portent sur les interfaces entre les humains et les autres formes de vie au cours d’unlong Moyen Age, qu’il s’agisse des animaux, des invisibles ou des artefacts. Il a notammentco-écrit et co-dirigé : Image et transgression au Moyen Age (PUF, 2008) et Le monde romanpar delà le bien et le mal (2012), Les images dans l’occident médiéval (Brepols, 2015) et Images
de soi dans l’univers domestique (PUR, 2018).
17:00ǭ18:00 Commentaires et discussion générale avec Daniel NILES (Research Institutefor HumanityǰƆ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹČǱ), les intervenants et le public.
Daniel Niles is a human-environmental geographer at the Research Institute for Humanity
and Nature (Kyoto, Japan). His research examines how different forms of environmental
knowledge are embedded in and conveyed through agricultural practices, material culture,and landscapes. Using agricultural heritage zones—places of special cultural and ecologicalvalue—as field sites, he is interested especially in how the environmental knowledge on
which they depend remains sensible through time, and the relevance of these longstanding
fields of experience to the contemporary challenges of the Anthropocene. He has served as
Visiting Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Visiting Researcher
at the Department of Anthropology and Center for Japanese Studies at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, and as International Consultant in Agricultural Heritage for the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand, and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Recent publications include “Science and theexperience of nature” (with N. Tachimoto, in Nature Sustainability, 2018), “Agricultural
Heritage and Conservation Beyond the Anthropocene” in the Oxford Handbook of Heritage
Studies (Oxford University Press, 2018), “Conservation of traditional agriculture as living
knowledge systems, not cultural relics” (with R. Roth, Journal of Resources andEcology, 2016), and “The charcoal forest: ecology, aesthetics and the Anthropocene”
in Forms to Live the Environment (Cambridge Scholars Press, forthcoming).



ACT II
June 7th, UNESCO Room IX

REPRESENTATIONS OF NATURE, SPOKESPERSONS FOR
NATUREƓŌEƝƸAƮA
9 : 00 Doors Open
9:30ǭ9:40 Opening address: YASUNARI Tetsuzō (Directeur General, ResearchInstitute for Humanity and Nature, Monsoon Meteorology/Climate Dynamics) & ABE
Kenichi ((Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Human Environmental Studies) Þċ¿q (Ɔ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹČ Čǔ ÊŒŔÎÝǗǌpƆ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹ
ČƆemSomĻÝĻÐ¥

9:40ǭ10:40 Keynote address: John C. MARALDO (University of North Florida,
Japanese Philosophy)
Is nature outside us or within us? Some philosophical reflections.
Taking “nature” tentatively to mean the non-human natural world, and “us” to refer tohuman beings, I raise the question in the title of my talk to examine some unnoticed
assumptions in accounts of the “Anthropocene era”––the historical era in which there is nolonger a nature that exists apart from human beings. I suggest that this concept, as analternative to previous representations of nature, is nevertheless captive to certain
anthropocentrisms and Eurocentrisms. Like previous, no-longer tenable representations,this alternative too can be considered a myth in the sense of a cultural narrative that guides
human attitudes and actions. Another set of myths worthy of consideration, rooted in
Native American and East Asian cultures, tells us that humans were never apart fromnature. Those representations imply that the “Anthropocene” is not a wise or ethical myth
to resolve ecological crises. They imply not that humans always or originally lived inharmony with nature, but rather that, from the beginning, it is a practical mistake toseparate humans from nature, precisely as demonstrated by evidence of natural devastation
throughout history and throughout the world. But such myths of perpetual humannonhuman inter-being also are of limited scope: they leave aside the phenomenon of
consciousness that underlies the thematic question of this conference: “does nature think?”
Revisioning the place of consciousness and self-awareness in nature is crucial to forming
more practical representations of “nature” and more ethical responses to its (and our) wellbeing. The question whether nature is outside us and separate from us humans can bereframed as the question whether consciousness is solely within each of us. I turn to thevision of David Abram and the viewpoints of the medieval Zen philosopher Dōgen and the20th-century philosopher Nishida Kitarō to suggest an answer to that question, and to thequestions whether nature thinks and who represents or speaks for nature.

Calligraphy by MJ Maraldo

John C. Maraldo (Dr. phil., University of Munich, 1974) is Professor Emeritus ofPhilosophy at the University of North Florida. He was a guest professor at the Universityof Kyoto and the Catholic University in Leuven, and in 2008-09 held the Roche Chair inInterreligious Research at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan. His works include Derhermeneutische Zirkel : Untersuchungen zu Schleiermacher, Dilthey und Heidegger ; The Pietyof Thinking (with J. G. Hart) ; Buddhism in the Modern World (co-edited with H.
Dumoulin); Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, & the Question of Nationalism (coedited with James Heisig : Japanese Philosophy : A Sourcebook (coedited with Heisig andKasulis) ; and Japanese Philosophy in the Making 1: Crossing Paths with Nishida.
Chair : UEHARA Mayuko (Kyoto University)[10 min Break]
10:50ǭ11:30 UEHARA Mayuko (Kyoto University/Graduate School of Letters, JapanesePhilosophy) r¬ǩġÚ{ǍÓÝėÝŬŹŴĚĤ¿ÝThe Idea of the “Knowledge of Nature” as Detectable within Modern JapanesePhilosophyǃ-ĚĤ¿Ý*ơBAƓŌū'Ǝę

A number of modern Japanese philosophers including Nishida Kitarō, Miki Kiyoshi andNakai Masakazu, have advanced a philosophy of technique. They explain that the humanbody is conceived by a ‘natural technique’ (or ‘technique of nature’) and that the thingmaking-body is technical. Their philosophy of technique, characterized by creativity, isbased on the logic of the mutuality of the subject and object. They wish to overcome adualism which posits the human being as the active subject, verses a passive, objective
physical environment, instead arguing for the possibility of things and the environment

taking on an active agency in the creation of the human. In this talk, I would like toconsider the relation between technique, the knowledge of nature and art from theviewpoint of this philosophy of technique.
ǃĚĤ-¿ÝƏƟŘöÒǋqĢńuyķp.čƜ-¿ÝEÀ
ü?.|Ǖ-ǁ.ƓŌ-čƜŕ7:-&.čƜš&A ' Ư   ¢ ǅ Ą E ŏ Ā '  A ü ? - č Ɯ ¿ Ý .  | ǕǮ v  Ŏ Ŕ Î Ǯ á  'A'@6ŎEAǁ Æ ß   ǖ  E ƽ   Ŏ Ŕ Î : v  ' ) @ | Ǖ E ú ċ zxšvá-Ƴœ*ĎAĤşƝ&.-čƜ¿Ý-Ʀň?čƜ'ƓŌū%ƗƜ-ǖ*#%Ǝ%7





Passageway of Nishida Kitarō’s house in Kyoto

Uehara Mayuko has been professor of Japanese philosophy at Kyoto University since 2013,prior to which she held the post of Associate Professor at Meisei University in Tokyo for six
years. She obtained her PhD from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in
Paris. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Japanese Philosophy (SunyPress). Her recent writings include Philosopher la traduction-Philosophizing Translation (dir.
Uehara, 2017), Name and Existence ―A Reflection on the Philosophy of Kuki Shūzō (2017),
The Nishida Philosophy and the Conceptualization of the First Person (2016), A
Reinterpretation of Nishida’s Philosophy: Facial Expression Considered from The Viewpoint ofIntuition-Action (2015).
11:30ǭ12:10 ABE Kenichi (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature) ǗǌpƆ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹČƆ
ƓŌ.|ǖDA'*>"%Ʒ*)AĚĤ|.ƓŌE(Ǝ%)?)A-ĚĤ|-ƓŌƦEƎA'*āB%.

-.|ǖDA'*>"%ƓŌ.Ʒ*)A'ĚĤ-ƓŌ.:':'Ʒ):-&ƎAƇ.Ʒ&ÅÜ-ŵ@ÐD@:AĚĤ|.-Ʒ)ƓŌ?ŕŁ-ſEþ%ƓŌ.ĉĹ->*pęĚĤë.tś&:ĺ4>:)AÕôĿņéò*5(ƓŌŇâ-Ò

'C&@ņé-ÄņÊǝ%ŀĽ?*.²ǦǡƉ*ƞë&AƓŌ.­ō->*ìŊ&:AĚĤ|.-ıż)Ɠ

Ō-)&ŕ%ĚĤ-ű.|'ƓŌEŻ!A:-&
7::?%põ*ĈƵAæƸ&:>*ŰAæƸ&:Aą@põǕŇâƼ?)A->)ƓŌ-u&Ġ?%ű)?+ĚĤ|ƓŌ'Ťđ·´"%'*(->*Ǝ-4%Eű*<,,A-&.)
ű-Ż!)*Ɠ!'ƓŌ-ǖEƎA'"-'ĚĤ|.Ɠ!ƓŌ-pǌ&

A':Ɠ!

ƓŌEēǎnČġA:-':ăD)"ƓŌ.|ǖDA'*>"%Ʒ*)A'Ǝ9&'

A  | ' Ɠ Ō  ǖ D A  ' &  ( ! ? : Ʒ  * ) A  '  &  A  Ǐ éşĆ;ĚĤ-ǂİ-ĪĤ*Ǝ-Ƒğ*)ƎEǀƞ%Ò

8CF|ƓŌ*ǖDA-.|Ʒ*)A

AƎ&

AƎ&

A

@?*Ƨ/ǦÈő-ĚĤů

'ĩ%->

A-(ǂİ-őŐE'"%:ŜÁ*ă' Ĥ ş Ɲ & .  ǂ İ - Ò ǟ š Ķ ƒǦÈ*Ď}ý-*ũţtśǂİǉŖ-Ł¥EƂ~@4ǂİ-É@ęEĐ"%7

Ken-ichi ABE is Professor in Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. His research
topics are Ecology, Eco Humanity and meaning of Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems. He holds master degree in Agriculture from Kyoto University. His areasof specialization are Asia Area Study and Environmental Anthropology. Based on repeatedfieldworks, he has written and edited a number of books, including Extreme Conflicts andTropical Forests (Springer 2007), GOOD EARTHS: Regional and Historical Insights into
China’ s Environment (Kyoto University Press, 2009).
12:10ǭ13:40 Lunch
13:40ǭ14:20 YAMAKOSHI Gen (Kyoto University/Graduate School of Asian and
African Area Studies, Primatology) éƾƧ{ǍÓÝǞǔǥÝ
Conservation of the Bush of Ghosts: Dual Nature in West African Anthropogenic
LandscapeAfrican conflicts in wildlife conservation are, in reality, not the ones between human andnature, but rather the ones between different human actors. Ever since colonialism brought
and established protected areas in Africa in early 20th century, the authorities have tried
rigorously to distinguish nature from any human “disturbance” with aggressive coercion. To
overcome this nature-culture dichotomy and intertwined conflict over wildlife
conservation, I hereby try to introduce some concepts looking at the African wildlife
conservation reality more positively and to propose more practical approach focusing on thepotential of African anthropogenic landscape. At Bossou village, the forested region of theRepublic of Guinea, the Manon people have conserved around the village a patch of small
sacred forest where a well-known population of wild chimpanzees inhabits. The outlook of
the sacred Gban hill, the core area of the chimpanzee habitat, seems quite “natural” today,
but detailed descriptions of the topology of forest cover in the hill imply various types of“designs” by the local people. The forest is a package of smaller groves with different
functions such as ceremonial sites for major clans, places for initiation rituals, sites wheresome forest spirits are enshrined, burial sites and so on. The “bush of ghost” has recently
become a target of intensive scientific research on the chimpanzees and also a tourist
attraction, providing the village pride over their tradition and small incomes, and new seedsof conflicts. Without appreciating the local concepts and autonomy, any intervention fromoutside would be unfruitful regardless of objectives of rural development or natural resource
conservation. This type of approach, not to distinguish nature reserve and people’s
livelihood, can be a model for convivial African wildlife conservation.

Professor at Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University. Gen
Yamakoshi is a primatologist/environmental sociologist, doing his field-work in West
Africa. His recent publications are: “A history of the distance between humans andwildlife” In: Others: The Evolution of Human Sociality (K. Kawai ed.) Kyoto University
Press 2019, “The origin of tool-using behavior and human evolution” In: An Anthropologyof Things (I. Tokoro, K. Kawai, eds.). Kyoto University Press 2018.
14:20ǭ15:00 SHIMADA Nahoko (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature,
Architecture, Ecological Thought) íŘ×ŸÚƆ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹČăĆŕĊÝThe life of land È Ê - ¼
Kanichi Nomoto, a folklorist in Japan, describes about the custom when people rebuilds
the house in the local area in Japan, "Restoration of the spirit of the earth". People have toreturn the premises to nature once before building new house. They sow a turnip and soba
(buckwheat) in the ruins of the house. And bud begin to open in three days. When buds
appeared, people could see that the premises would return to nature. Nomoto says that thisis the etiquette for the spirit of the earth. I also came to think about “life of the land” in a
Shinto shrine study. "Why a Shinto shrine is there". 15 years ago, I had this question and I
began to study to read the function and the meaning of the land of Shinto shrine. Because Iwant to know the reason that Japanese have been protecting the land as a Shinto shrine fora long time. In my field work, I pray first, sketch the shape of the precincts and observe theland use around the shrine. And I consider the characteristics of the location (I visited morethan 800 shrines). Through this research, I watched the birth, transformation (changing thecharacter and the role), and death (returning to nature at last) of the land of shrines. And I
understood that Japanese people see the life and will of the land. Does nature think? I haveno good answer but I think they have will. I will describe this point with some caseexamples.
Memorial marker of vanished shrine with the last villager
Nahoko SHIMADA is Researcher in Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Her
research topics are Architecture, Imaginal Ecology, meaning of sacred place. She holds
master degree in Human Culture from University of Shiga Prefecture.
[10 min. break]
15ǭ15:40
HIRAKAWA Kayo (Kyoto University/Graduate School of Letters, Western
Art History) ôît{ǍÓÝėÝŬŹŴƟĿƋƜ³ÝNature and Meditation: Landscape Painting in Early Modern EuropeƓ Ō ' Ū Ć ǃ t g o l V ] - Ǧ ğ Ś 

The modern landscape painting—based on real scenery without narrative connotations—
was established as one of the painting genres in the protestant Republic of the Seven United
Netherlands in the seventeenth century. In the sixteenth century, however, painters createdvarious kinds of landscape paintings, which modern thought on this genre cannot
comprehend. In these pre-modern artworks, nature is not an object just to be observed,
depicted, or appreciated passively; instead, nature is approached as an active force that canlead its viewers into meditation on human life and the power of God. This paper
reconsiders the relationship between nature and man by analyzing European landscapepainting in the pre-modern era.
àğ*Ì$ŎƮƠƁE¹6)D<Aǃš)ǦğŚ`lWSUmYÇã[oXjhmYǆǊ½Ç*.   t ƀ %ƄŚRfmj'%ċ Ż       )  ?   t ƀ * .  ǃ  š ) Ǧ ğ Ś Ʀ & . ' ?   Ĵ)Ŷǥ-ǦğŚ¡B%

-&Aǃt-ƗƜ¾*

%ƓŌ.ª*¯¥š*ƦåBĒBǓƺBAæƸ&.)&.)%ƓŌǓƺƏ*ƒ¥š*|-ŕ;ű-ÿİ*#%-ŪĆ3'ƭ-&AĤşƝ&.ǃtgolV]-ǦğŚEĨA

'*>@ƓŌ'|Ǖ-ǖ*#%ƎA

Jan Brueghel the Elder, Landscape with St. Fulgentius, ©KHM-Museumsverband.
Hirakawa Kayo is Professor of Art History at the Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto
University. She has published her dissertation, The Pictorialization of Dürer’s Drawings inNorthern Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Peter Lang, 2009). She isalso editor of Kyoto Studies in Art History, vol. 1 “Sacred and Profane in Early Modern
Art” (Kyoto University, 2016). Her research on the diversity of pictorial forms in Northern
Europe in the sixteenth century now continues.
15:40ǭ16:20 YORIZUMI Mitsuko (The University of Tokyo, Buddhist Studies, Dgen)
ǢÚħ{ÓÝ ĕÝǈ

Dogen’s View of Nature ǈ  - Ɠ Ō Ʀ
The purpose of my presentation is to examine the thought of the Shōbō genzō, the main
work of Dōgen, who has been described as the greatest philosopher in the history ofJapanese thought, and to elucidate Dogen’s view of nature. I would like to emphasize inparticular regarding the contemporary significance of Dogen’s view of nature that it can
provide the philosophical foundations for realizing in a true sense “coexistence,” which istoday a matter of pressing urgency. Especially important in this regard is the Buddhist wayof thinking encapsulated in the terms “emptiness” and “dependent co-arising.” “Emptiness”
means that things are not fixed entities and possess no intrinsic essence, while “dependent
co-arising” means that things exist in spite of having no essence because they manifest thus
in relationship to others at a particular time and in a particular place, a mode of being that
may be described as “relational existence.” That is to say, one becomes oneself only in
relationship to all other entities apart from oneself, and the fact of one’s own existence
simultaneously signifies the existence of others. In this sense, oneself and others mutuallybring about the existence of one another, and self and other may be said to be as one. In
Buddhist terminology this is referred to as “oneness of self and others” or“interdependence.” When one takes this into account, “coexistence” does not mean, forinstance, that entities existing as discrete individual units help one another out. According
to Dogen‘s view, to act on the basis of “oneness of self and others” and with an awareness of
this oneness represents the realization of “coexistence.”
-şƝ-ţš.ĚĤăĆ³r:"':Ó)¿ÝƏ'ƧDBAǈ-vƘ
&

A

ķļŨƙ

E¸ºǈ-ƓŌƦEĜŭ*A'&

ƓŌƦ-őšćƌ'%ų.BőÉ-Âƅ-Ʊǣ&ŧ-ćº&àőA9-ăĆšÌŢ*)A'*ŏ*ǐƠ)-ĕ-źƈƼ

'

Ǝę&

-Í&ċŻ%-A''

9%Ɠñ')"%

Eċ@Ż´"%A-&'&A-'Eĕ-ƜƮ&! * =   ť     
ŕ

'

-Ǚ

A  ź'.'&@  ƈ Ƽ

A-.BA-&@ƓñċŻ

A-ćº&Ɠñ'Ə'@Ɠñ'Ə'.p&'*)A-'Eǀ6%ƎA'

::ƓpØ# ƛ ŉ  A  '   ŕA ) ? /  Ɠ  p Ø  '.-/?/?)ƠƁ'%-:-(¤´')'&.)?

A ǖ  š ċ Ż  # 6 @  Ɠ ñ . Ɠ ñ  Ñ

A'.µĞ*ƏċŻA'&:xE

-u&->):-'%-Ğ'&?<A:-'-ǖ-u&.x'*:D?ÛÉċ@Ż"%-66):-'-ǖD@´Aŕ'EùƲ<A:-Æßš)à&)6ĤƻEď)'.ĤƻEď)

Aǈ-

-àő&

&

>

AÌŢ-r&BEƓƤ#A'ǈ.ƎA-&A

Yorizumi Mitsuko is a professor of Japanese ethical and religious thoughts in the Universityof Tokyo, Japan. She has written and edited some books, including A Study of Dogen’s
Thought –The Essence of Mahayana Buddhism 2011), An Introduction to Japanese Buddhist
Thoughts (2010), Enlightenment and Japanese (2017) and Rethinking Japanese Buddhism(2018).
16:20ǭ17:00 ONO Tadashi (Ecole Nationale Supérieure de la Photographie Arles,
Artiste-Photographe) èǑƢǪHjjÇŻǨŽŧÝǘŧãǫComment représenter le paysage du Japon après le désastre du 11 mars 2011 ?
How to represent the landscape of Japan after the disaster of March 11, 2011?
Le triple désastre de la région côtière de Tohoku en mars 2011 — le tremblement de terre,le tsunami, et l’explosion de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima-Daiichi — semble avoir
transformé drastiquement non seulement le paysage réel mais aussi le rapport des japonais
avec la nature, notamment celui avec l’océan.
A travers deux fieldworks, le premier de novembre 2011 à février 2012 et le deuxième dejuillet à septembre 2017, j’ai tenté de photographier ces transformations en vu de créer les
documents visuels artistiques de références sur le paysage littoral du Japon en ce début du21ème siècle. Deux séries de photographies, “FROM THE 247th TO THE 341st DAY,TOHOKU” (2011-2012) et “COASTAL MOTIFS” (2017-2018), seront introduites lorsde la conférence. Elles représentent les résultats temporaires des interactions entre l’homme
et la nature : l’une, l’état après le tsunami qui a balayé l’exploitation côtière d’après-guerre,
et l’autre, la construction en cours des digues anti-tsunami (hauteur 10-14m, sur une
longueur totale de 400 km) et qui nous font nous interroger sur les conséquencesécologiques, économiques, mais aussi civilisationnelles de l'évènement.

Né à Tokyo, après des études d’écologie et de botanique à la Shinshu University au Japon,
Tadashi Ono est diplômé de l'Ecole Nationale Supérieure de la Photographie d’Arles, où il
enseigne depuis 2017. Son travail photographique se veut un questionnement sur lacivilisation moderne à travers l’observation attentive de l’environnement urbain et de son
histoire. Il travaille depuis 2011 sur la transformation du paysage de Tohoku, la région
Nord-Est du Japon, dévastée par tsunami, ainsi que sur les représentations sociales
advenues dans l’espace public après l’évènement politique en 2013 au Gezi Park à
Istanbul. Ses photographies sont exposées en différents lieux, notamment à la Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, au National Museum of Modern Art à Tokyo ou aux Rencontres
Internationales de la Photographie d’Arles.
17:00ǭ18:00
Commentaires et discussion générale avec YASUNARI Tetsuzō Þċ¿q (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature ǰƆ´ÊŒŔÎÝŬŹČǱ, lesintervenants et le public.

Professor Tetsuzo Yasunari is General Director of the Research Institute for Humanity andNature, Human Environmental Studies. He received Ph.D from Kyoto University in1980.
His main fields of study are monsoon meteorology, climate dynamics and global
environmental change including human impacts on the earth system. He served as
professors of University of Tsukuba (1990-2002) and Nagoya University (2002-2012). He
was a member of Joint Scientific Committee of World Climate Research Programme(WCRP). He was also a reviewer editor of IPCC-AR5. Since April 2013 he is Director
General of Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN). He is Chairman of the
Future Earth National Committee under Science Council of Japan, and member of theInternational Science Committee for Future Earth.



ACT III
June 8th, Maison de la Culture du Japon à ParisSENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THE LIVING
ŕŎ-ĈĄšū
13:30ǭ13:35 Mot d'ouverture : YAMAGIWA Juichi (President at Kyoto University)
13:35ǭ14:35 Keynote address: YAMAGIWA Juichi (President at Kyoto University,
Primatology) éıÏp{ǍÓÝƆǔ|ǥÝǞǔǥÝJapanese Concepts on the World Living Things
Both Kitaro Nishida and Kinji Imanishi stated that the essence of living things ischaracterized by synchronization of time and space, structure and function, subjectivity andobjectivity, which we can feel physically and mentally but not logically. To live is to respondproactively to environments which afford the sense of living things. However, science basedon logos and language percept the world spatially with linear time and enable us tounderstand the nature only partially. Modern science has led us to objectivity so as tocontrol our environments, and rapid development of technology leads us to fatal
destruction of natural environments beyond the planetary boundaries. Since humans
differentiated from the common ancestor with the great apes, we have expanded
community networks with creating fictions. Language contributed to expansion of culture,
and we are now living in the fictions relying heavily on the virtual world. However, culture
and nature should not be separated but be integrated into ‘Milieu’ (FUDO), as Augustin
Berque pointed out. Imanishi proposed Natural Study with holistic approach, instead of
Natural Science with reductionism. Japanese culture produced the concept of ‘Aida’ which
belongs both side. For example ‘Satoyama’ is located between forest (mountain) and village(plain), and it belongs both. It tolerates both humans and wild animals and excludes
neither. Reincarnation connects the world of living and after death, and river or bridge
usually constitute ‘Aida’. Humans and animals are regarded as transformable with similarsoul. These traditional ways of thinking has cultivated emotion unique to Japanese people,
and has led us to coexistence with nature, rather than management of nature. We should
now reconsider on such intuitive conception with tetra lemma in order to keep harmonious
relationships with nature on the earth.

©Ryoma OTSUKA

Juichi Yamagiwa is the 26th President of Kyoto University. He is a world-renowned
researcher and expert in the study of primatology and human evolution. He was awarded
Doctor of Science from Kyoto University in 1987. After holding positions at the Karisoke
Research Center, Japan Monkey Center, and Primate Research Institute Kyoto University,
he has been Professor of Graduate School of Science at Kyoto University since 2002. He
was Dean of Graduate School and Faculty of Science from 2011 to 2013 and has been amember of the Administrative Council of the University from 2012 to 2013. Dr.
Yamagiwa has also served as President of International Primatological Society from 2008 to
2012, and as the Editor in Chief of Primates, a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal ofprimatology published by Springer Science+Business Media from 2010 to 2014. Recently
he edited two major books on interspecific comparison between primates and cetaceans
Primates and cetaceans (Springer 2014) and on primate social strategies Dispersing Primate
Females (Springer 2015). In Japan, he serves as the president of the Japan Association of
National Universities, the member of Science Council of Japan, and the member ofEnvironmental Policy Committee of Ministry of Environment.
Chair : Yoann MOREAU (Mines ParisTech/Crisis and Risk Research Center
[10 min break]
14:45ǭ15:25 Frédéric JOULIAN (EHESS, Anthropology)
Intelligence avec l'ennemi ? Uu comment redistribuer l'intelligence entre les vivants ?
How is intelligence distributed among beings?
If the introductory argument encourages us to move away from the dominant reflexivity
and the few elected animals who seem to have it, and pushes us to question other sensitive
intelligences in the animal or plant world, I will opt here for a more limited set of actors
and actants precisely defined by these reflexive capacities, such as great apes, cetaceans,birds or hominines. The idea is of course to shift the anthropological point of view to thebenefit, not of the animal side (because it is not more exact or more legitimate), but of an
inclusive approach which analyse "what is happening" between beings with reflexive
capacity - but deprivated of language-, and self concious and linguistic human beings, or
prehumans (but still in genesis on these two characteristics). To illustrate these overly
general remarks, I will describe the different forms of intelligence (rational, practical,
sensitive, emotional) and how they are distributed among different species, and affectevolutionary history from an interspecific point of view. I would enroll, hairy quadrumanes,
milieu, artifacts, interspecific interactions, eating modes, and of course, stupidity, an
intellectually beneficial counterpoint, to contemporary animalist demagogies.

Frédéric Joulian est anthropologue. Maître de conférences à l’École des hautes études ensciences sociales, il a été directeur adjoint du laboratoire d’Anthropologie sociale au Collège
de France et responsable du programme interdisciplinaire Évolution, natures et cultures del’EHESS jusqu’en 2011. Il a dirigé la revue interdisciplinaire Techniques&culture de 2006 à
2016. Ses recherches portent sur les processus d’évolution et sur les significations desphénomènes techniques et culturels dans le temps long et sur les interactions hommesanimaux en Afrique et en Europe. Parmi ses principales publications : La Nature est-elle
culturelle ? Éditions Errance (1998), Les Natures de l’Homme, avec S. de Cheveigné (2007),
Dire le Savoir-Faire avec S. d’Onofrio (2008), Anthologie raisonnée de Techniques&culture
avec G. Bartholeyns et N. Govoroff (2010), Geste et Matière (2011). Il a coordonné avec Y.P. Tastevin et le MuCEM l’édition d’un ouvrage collectif sur la question du reste et desdéchets, intitulé « Réparer le Monde, excès, reste et innovation » (2016) et « Le corps
instrument » avec G. Bartholeyns en 2017. Il se consacre désormais à un ouvrage personnel
retraçant l’ensemble de ses travaux en Afrique : « Des origines de la culture : des hommes etdes chimpanzés en perspective » et à un projet éditorial Anthropographiques associant SHS etBande-Dessinée.
15:25ǭ16:05 UCHINO Kanako (Polynesian Voyaging Society, Oceanography/Natural
Education) Ǒ£×Úbi[QHƔł© łĿÝƓŌĕƐAn art of wayfinding, a traditional navigation method by interpreting elements ofnature.
K L J _ G J m X I m P - č ð  Ɠ Ō - Ơ Ɓ E ƍ ƫ  A  ƃ Ɣ ł Ɯ * #% The ancient Polynesian explored and settled on the islands of the Pacific, navigating acrossthousands of kilometers of open water. Using stars as a compass, and carefully observing thepatterns of ocean swells, wind, clouds, weather and wildlife, they could navigate their path
without using any instruments. In 1975, a voyaging canoe Hokule’a was built to revive this
art of ancient wayfinding. In this presentation, the traditional navigation method andexperience from the actual voyages of Hokule’a will be introduced.

°bi[QH-|.Ė¨Nl-łEƔłÕôĿ-ëEơß%"ü?.ĝEƊǒŢ'ł-,@-]Uom;ǦǜÔ-Ð¦Ǒŕ¥Ŏ)(EľćŃƦåA'&p-ƨÃEŗA' )   Ñ Ŀ E Ɠ ř * ƛ  Ħ  A  '  &     õ      °  Ɣ ł čðEő*ƚ?A4aOkH'»/BApƕ-ƔłMZo÷ǅB
AĤşƝ&.aOkH-ƔłEǄ)?ó*Ð¦AƓŌEư7®@Ɠ?-Ǉ8ǈEơƃƔł-àǙEƂ~A

16:05ǭ16:45 Jacques TASSIN (CIRAD, Plant ecology)
L’Arbre ou la vie sensible -The Tree, or the sensitive life
Un anthropomorphisme irrépressible voudrait que les arbres nous ressemblent, et qu’ils
partagent avec nous ce dont nous sommes le plus fiers : notre intelligence. Outre l’impasseque cette posture présente quand il s’agit d’investiguer l’image même de l’altérité, voici qui
revient, une fois encore, à nier la primauté du sensible dans les rapports du vivant avec son
milieu. Or, la plante en général, l’arbre en particulier, nous révèlent que ces rapports, sauf à
tordre le sens des mots, s’affranchissent de la voie de l’intelligence. L’arbre lui-même, grande
figure du vivant, révèle en effet combien, mieux que l’intelligence qui impose de se
distancier du monde, le sensible garantit une présence intime au monde. Il semblerait bienque les dispositions sensibles constitutives du vivant, qui trouvent en l’arbre une sorte decouronnement évolutif, permettent d’investir les réalités les plus authentiques du monde.

Jacques Tassin est chercheur en écologie végétale au Centre de coopération internationale
en recherche agronomique pour le développement. Après avoir mené des recherches
académiques, notamment sur les mouvements des plantes via leurs semences et s'être
beaucoup intéressé au regard porté sur les plantes invasives, il se penche sur la manière dont
nous considérons le végétal. Il est l'auteur, à ce titre, de La grande invasion : qui a peur desespèces invasives ? 2014, A quoi pensent les plantes ? 2016 et Penser comme un arbre. 2018,
ouvrages publiés aux éditions Odile Jacob. Il s'attache au renouvellement de la penséécologique et prépare un ouvrage sur "l'écologie du sensible". Parallèlement, il s'intéresse àl'écopoétique et prépare également une biographie de Maurice Genevoix pour les éditions
Flammarion, en co-rédaction avec l'historienne Aurélie Luneau.
[10 min Break]
16:55ǭ17:35 Perig PITROU (CNRS-EHESS, Anthropologie)
Compter avec la nature, trouver le sens de la mesure. Interactions rituelles avec les nonhumains dans le monde amérindien.
Taking Nature into account and finding principles of measure. Ritual interactions with
the non-humans in the Amerindian world.
Bien que la mathématisation de la nature ait sans conteste facilité une exploitation
démesurée, le fait de compter ne conduit pas nécessairement aux conséquences désastreuses
observées dans le monde industriel contemporain. Les peuples amérindiens attribuent ainsi
à des entités de la nature (Montagne, Terre, Pluie, Soleil, Donneur de vie, Maître desanimaux) la capacité de réaliser des opérations de comptabilisation qui participent aumaintien des équilibres écologiques. Les interactions rituelles avec ces entités indiquent
qu’elles sont réputées fixer une limite à l’exploitation des ressources – par exemple enpunissant les chasseurs qui tuent trop de gibier – ou connaître les quantités adéquates depluie et de soleil nécessaires à la croissance des récoltes. Dans ce contexte, les offrandes et
les sacrifices visent à établir des accords avec des non-humains traités comme des partenaires
à respecter. L’enjeu n’est pas alors pas seulement d’expliquer comment la nature – et lesagents qui la peuplent – pense en termes comptables : il est de sonder les autres formes depensées (émotions, sens de la justice) qui lui sont associées. En apprenant à « compter avec


la nature » – au lieu de la traiter comme un objet matériel mathématisable –, il existe sans
doute une voie à suivre pour que les humains établissent des relations plus équilibrées avec
leur environnement.
Ancien membre de la Casa de Velázquez, Perig Pitrou est chargé de recherche au CNRS, au
sein du Laboratoire d’anthropologie sociale du Collège de France, où il a créé l’équipe« Anthropologie de la vie » (avec Dimitri Karadimas). L’enquête ethnographique de longue
durée qu’il mène parmi les populations amérindiennes de Oaxaca (Mexique) vise à mettreen évidence les théories de la vie qui prévalent dans cette région du monde. Les résultats dece travail sont présentés dans Le chemin et le champ et dans les ouvrages collectifs La
noción de vida en Mesoamérica et Montrer/Occulter. Dans le cadre des programmes qu’il adirigés – « Des êtres vivants et des artefacts » (Fondation Fyssen), la pépinière CNRS-PSL, «Domestication et fabrication du vivant » et « La vie à l’œuvre » (PSL) –, il a publié plusieurs
dizaines d’articles et du numéro spéciaux sur les biotechnologies. En 2016, il a reçu lamédaille de bronze du CNRS pour ses recherches dans le domaine de l’anthropologie de lavie.
17:35ǭ
ǭ 18:20 Commentaires et discussion générale avec Sander Van der LEEUW (ArizonaState University), les intervenants et le public.
Archeologist and historian, Prof. Sander van der Leeuw has been specializing in the longterm interactions between humans and their environments. He is a pioneer in theapplication of the Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) approach to socio-environmental
challenges, technology and innovation. As coordinator of the ARCHAEOMEDESinterdisciplinary research program (1991-2000) using the CAS perspective on socio-naturalinteractions and environmental problems in S. Europe – the first of its kind worldwide.
Co-director of the ISCOM project on invention and innovation from a CAS perspective(2003-2007). In both projects modeling played an important role, despite the limited
technical means available at the time. Since 2013 he is co-chair of the AIMES program,developing integrated socio-environmental modeling approaches. After teaching positionsin Amsterdam, Leyden, Cambridge and Paris (Sorbonne), he became founding director of
Arizona State University’s School of Human Evolution and Social Change (2003-2011) and
Dean of its School of Sustainability (2010-2013). Currently he is co-director of the ASUSFI Center for Biosocial Complex Systems. External Professor of the Santa Fe Institute(since 2001) and Corresponding Member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Arts andSciences (since 1995) he held a Chair at the Institut Universitaire de France (2003-2008).
In 2012, he was awarded the title "Champion of the Earth for Science and Innovation" by
UNEP.