Ah—“為岩中花樹所見” (“to be seen by the flowering trees in the rocks”)—a phrase of deep poetic and metaphysical resonance. It evokes the reversal of subject and object, a shift where the world perceives us, rather than we it. This is the territory of animism, Zen phenomenology, Levinasian ethics, or Basho’s gaze—but perhaps not quite Bollas, at least not directly.
1. Did Bollas speak of “being seen by the object”?
Not explicitly. Bollas’ theory of the evocative object is still grounded in a psychoanalytic subject engaging with an object that awakens the self. The object has mystery, vitality, and transformational potential, but it does not see us in the literal or metaphysical sense.
Bollas’ object evokes; it animates the self; it becomes part of the idiom of being.
But it is still largely a medium of inner unfolding, not a sovereign gaze in its own right.
2. “為岩中花樹所見” belongs to another kind of epistemology
It is the logic of:
• Zen poetry and aesthetics: where the world is not a backdrop, but a participant.
• Levinasian ethics: where the Other sees us, before we can reduce them to comprehension.
• Heidegger’s “letting beings be”: where things reveal themselves, not as objects, but as presences.
• Merleau-Ponty’s chiasm: where I see, and am seen, in a fleshly entanglement with the world.
In this world, the flowering tree in the rock is not just an evocative presence—it is a being that beholds, a mute Other whose silence is ethical, not just aesthetic.
3. So where is the difference?
|
Bollas |
“為岩中花樹所見” |
|
The object evokes unconscious aspects of the self |
The object gazes back, reversing subject-object relation |
|
Rooted in object relations and internalization |
Rooted in relational metaphysics or poetic animism |
|
The focus is on the self’s transformation through the object |
The focus is on de-centering the self, being claimed by the world |
|
Psychoanalytic interiority |
Ethical or mystical exteriority |
4. A Bridge?
There is a possible bridge, though subtle:
Bollas does speak of the “unthought known”—those early impressions, affects, and atmospheres formed in the presence of others (including objects), which live on without ever becoming conscious knowledge.
In that sense, we are “seen” and shaped by objects, even if we don’t know it.
So perhaps Bollas doesn’t say “the flowering tree sees you”,
but he might say,
“you were formed by its presence—long before you knew how to speak of it.”
Final Thought:
Bollas gives us the language of internal resonance.
The flowering tree gives us the possibility of external recognition.
One is psychoanalytic, the other is ethical-poetic.
And between them flows the mystery of being.
Would you like to explore how this poetic vision aligns with Levinas, Bashō, or the ethics of van life?
