Supplement of the Progress of Theoretical Physics, No.
50, 1971 27
Dialectics of Nature*l
--On quantum mechanics--
Mi tuo T AKETANI
(January 31, 1936)
On mathematization
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
In the present day, cries of crisis have risen in every field, whether it is
social or cultural. The snake should grow out of its aged skin. We must
understand Goethe's Stirb und Werde-the negation of the negation. Even
in mathematics and physics, that were considered to be strictly confined into
formal thought, there have arisen, since the end of the last century, such
contradictions that could never be veiled. What is known as the formale
Verstandesdenken has turned out in a determined way not to be able to go
abreast with mathematics and physics. These have learned such various facts
from Nature that could be hardly veiled by the formal thought. Physics
has developed so much that the formal thought could never understand it.
There has arisen in consequence the so-called mathematization which insists
that "equation is everything". It has been promoted by general social unrest
to become a subject of empiricism, Machism, scepticism, symbolism, ag-
nosticism, and so on. Hitherto, it has been emphasized that the method of
physics should be that of formal logic or analytical logic. This is nothing
but an abstract understanding of physics. Even mathematics is a rich re-
flection of dialectics of Nature. It can, therefore, penetrate well into inner
structure of Nature, which is out of consideration in the Verstandesdenken.
The things reflected by mathematical method thus have realistic meaning.
It never hold that "equation is everything". It is merely the failure on the
part of those philosophies to understand the meaning of equation, that produces
their interpretation of equation as symbol. Physics is frequently looked upon
as mere treatment of functional relations, and we know that cursory imitative
attempts have been stimulated in the fields of biology and economics by the out-
standing results achieved in mathematical natural science. All these things rest
*J Contributed to the March issue of the journal Sekai-Bunka (World Culture) in 1936,
under the pen name of Kazuo Tani.**l
**J Editor's note: This pen name was forced to be used in order to avoid pursuits of the Police
of Japanese Militarism. He was also forced to be restricted in his way of describing the matter
concerned here because of "the political reasons in the oppressive epoch". In spite of such caution,
he was arrested for the first time by the Police of Japanese Militarism on September 13, 1938, on
account of this article and of the following article, "A New Stage in the Development of Modem
Physics", and was restrained until April 22, 1939.
28 M. Taketani
on the basis of superficial understanding of physics. It is in deeper dialectical
comprehension of essence and phenomenon that every achievement of physics
exists. Before formulating equations, it is required to know the substantial
structure of object, in the sense that what things there are and under what
kinds of interaction they are, i.e., the model of object. *l Physics is not a
mere phenomenology. This holds true with classical mechanics as well as
quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, the image given by the model
has its meaning as such. In quantum mechanics, however, the mechanical
image given by the model alone does not suffice, but is considered in the
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
sense of the moment. And so, from the model we construct the Hamiltonian,
with which the equation is derived at last. This is one of the meanings
that Bohr's correspondence principle implies.
The interconnection between essence and phenomenon leads us directly
to the comprehension of that between observation and recognition. Das Wesen
erscheint, und die Erscheinung ist wesentlich. Without observation, recognition
cannot be obtained. But, observation itself is not recognition. From the
identification of these two facts, there arise confusions. Heisenberg's principle
of uncertainty indicates the limit in each observation, but never the limit of
recognition. Recognition is the copying of Nature. It is however not a
dead static reflection like an image in a mirror. On the contrary, our
recognition penetrates deep into, and still deeper into, the essence of Nature.
And, from the historical point of view, it is the process of bringing the copy
into agreement with the object, too. It is by no means arbitrary "production"
of the subject.
Dialectics in the foundation of mathematics
Mathematics is, at every point, accomplished by dialectics. This fact is
nothing but what has been concealed by formal thought. I would like to
show this fact by taking an example from Engels' Anti-Duhring, which
gave birth to various oppositions and also is one of the hottest topics of
discussion in our country,**l while at the same time giving my solution that
seems appropriate. According to Engels,***l "Let us take any algebraical
magnitude whatever: for example, a. If this is negated, we get -a (minus
a). If we negate that negation, by multiplying -a by -a, we get a 2 , i.e.,
the original positive magnitude, but at a higher degree, raised to its second
*l Author's note in compilation (1946) : Similar thing was pointed out by Schrodinger at the
same time as this article was written. He used the word model in nearly the same meaning, but
his theory ended in a version of ordinary empiricism on account of his failure to understand di-
alectics. (E. Schrodinger, Naturwissenschaften 48 (1935), 807, 823 and 844.)
**' Author's note in compilation (1946): I meant principally those in the journal Yuicutsuron
Kenkyu (Studies in Materialism).
***' Translator's note: This English version is quoated from F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (Foreign
Languagm Publishing House, Moscow, 1947).
Dialectics of Nature 29
power. In this case also it makes no difference that we can reach the same
a 2 by multiplying the positive a by itself, thus also getting a 2• For the
negated negation is so securely entrenched in a 2 that the latter always has
two square roots, namely a and -a." It seems fairly difficult and somewhat
unnatural to consider this example as one of the negation of the negation,
so that we could develope arguments in the sense of the Verstand either for
or against it. For instance, such an objection that the negation of a is -x
due to the freedom of the negation,*' is a formal negative judgement, which
asserts non A as a formal negation of A. As was already criticized by
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
Hegel, this is irrelevant. The negation of A should be, in a concrete dialectic,
what represents the real contradiction as the moment of development of A.
Even without the procedure of negating twice, a 2 could be obtained by a
single affirmation or negation (multiplying by a); Whether would the nega-
tion mean a multiplication by negative number, or a mere multiplication?;
"Positive number X negative number=negative number, negative number X nega-
tive number=positive number"-this rule written down in verse would be
nothing but the example of a 2 in Anti-DDiihring; This would not be the
case because for a<O, a_,.-a_,.a 2, a 2>0, so that it would be reduced to
the rule "negative number X negative number= positive number, postive num-
ber X positive number= positive number", not giving in any way the return-
to-itsef; Which would it then be, verse or prose?; and so on-From such
refutations, one can hardly conclude at once that there is no dialectic in
elementary mathematics, or no dialectic in equations while there are in mathe-
matics, if one should not be hasty and idle. On .the other hand, no step
could be advanced if one would advocate and force parteilich dialectics on
others, without lending his ear to those refutations of the sense of the
Verstand.
However, the main point of dialectics is "the unification of antagonism",
and the other laws are nothing but its manifestations. From this, considering
more fundamentally, we see that a is dialectically in antagonism to -a, and
the existence of a is the condition for that of -a. By being squared, they
are unified to a 2• In other words, a 2 is a X a as well as (-a) X (-a).
These two things contradicting each other are unified to a 2 • Therefore, the
law of identity that asserts "A is A but is not non-A" in formal logic does
not hold in this case. That is, we have a 2 =aXa= (-a) X (-a). The
sign of equalty in mathematics has nothing to do with the law of identity
in formal logic, but reflects the dialectic of difference and identity. It is
generally said that formal logic is abstract. This is so, because, speaking
more strictly, formal logic holds only for a set of such elements that could
be considered, in contrast to any case with concrete things, separately from
*' Author's note in compilation (1946): Prof. Hajime Tanabe's**' viewpoint.
**' Editor's note: A leading philosopher of the academism in Japan at that time.
30 M. Taketani
each other. Once they are taken in relation with each other, it does not
hold any more. It does not hold for groups, field, rings, and so on. Suppose,
for example, BA=C and DA=E in a group. We have then A=B-1 C as
well as A=D- 1E. The sign of equalty in mathematics never indicates the
law of identity in formal logic, and rather represents a transformation. It is
the interconnection, and reflects a good lot of dialectics of one thing into
another, transition or flow into other, one and many, and so on. In this way,
transformation is fundamental in mathematics. The more physics reflects
Nature concretely, the more use is made of transformation extensively in
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
physics. This is to reflect Nature in its interconnection, in its flow. It is
in this meaning that use is made of tensors in the theory of relativity, and
of matrices and operators in quantum mechanics. By their introduction,
various physical quantities have now received deep significance. In classical
mechanics, a physical quantity has its meaning at its value, and a physical
law has its meaning as a relation between values. Quantum mechanics has
overthrown classical mechanics fundamentally. However, the laws thus obtained
are provided with the same forms as those in classical mechanics. The laws
in quantum mechanics turn out, however, to be the relations among physical
quantities themselves, rather than those among their values. That is, in
classical mechanical laws, emphasis is laid more. or less on the side of quan-
tative relation, whereas in the quantum mechanical ones, it is laid on the
side of qualitative relation. This is also one of the excellent proofs of the
dialectic of development. On the contrary, mathematization or formalization
of physics with tensor, matrix, etc., being put opposite to differentiation, in
the so-called logic of higher dimensional directional quantities,*l is an abstract
viewpoint of seeing the outside rather than the contents. Differentiation is
also one kind of transformation. It transforms a vector f(x) in an infinite
dimensional space into f'(x), where f'(x) =PJ(x) with P=d/dx. Upon
being so renewedly seen, differentiation obtains significant meaning in quantum
mechanics.
In such a way, groups, etc., reflect dialectics. They could not, however,
substitute dialectics. In recent times, there are some minor philosophers**l
who introduce groups, etc., together with the supposition that logic is ex-
hausted by them, in order to cover their repudiation of dialectics even under
the requirement of introducing some kind of dialectics. Physics rather reflects
dialectics far richly than groups, etc., than the mathematics used in it. The
supposition, done by minor philosophers on being dazzled by the word
"operator", of the operating subject under whose operation every thing is
considered, is just as absurd as the supposition of the negating subject from
the word "negation" in dialectics.
*l Author's note in compilation (1946): Viewpoint of the Tanabe's school.
**l Author's note in compilation (1946): View of the Tanabe's school.
Dialectics of Nature 31
In the theory of set, each element is treated rather unconnectedly with
others. That is, in the theory of set, formal thought plays an important
role, whose contradiction is exposed at infinity. As has been pointed out by
Mr. Yuichi Seta*> in his article**> (Yuibutsuron Kenkyu ((Studies of materi-
alism)), March, 1935) which is the first valuable one in this field of research,
it is obvious that such contradiction is in the form of the schlechte Unendlich-
keit as well as of the moment.
Quantum mechanics and dialectics
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
In quantum mechanics, the two contradicting phenomenal forms of wave
and particle-the two images that are excluded from each another in the
Verstand which is historically as old as the study itself, is grasped through
their unification into the essential concept of state. For a physical system
to be limited spacially, it is required to produce a wave-packet by superposing
a number of waves with different wave-length. This is "the principle of
superposition" that is fundamental in quantum mechanics. The system limited
in space thus contains in itself a contradiction which gives rise to its self-
movement-the spreading-out of the wave-packet. In other words, the
momentum of the system becomes uncertain within the limit that states with
different wave-length, i.e., with different momentum, are superposed in limiting
the system spacially. This is the so-called principle of uncertainty due to
Heisenberg. When a state is formed from a number of states · by super-
position, Unbestimmtheit prevails among the respective states so superposed.
In observation, there arises the reduction of state through which the Bestim-
mtheit becomes prevailing for the first time. To which state it is reduced
through the reduction can be predicted in this case, however, only in the
sense of probability. That is, there are uncontrollable interactions acting in
the observation. This probability is of a character quite different from that
of classical one. Classical probability implies bestimmt und unbekannt, while
in this case, what is unbestimmt in its nature becomes to be bestimmt by
observation. In classical probability, everything is bestimmt, and what is
unbekannt becomes bekannt by observation.***> Suppose, for example, an
electron or a photon passing through a screen with two slits on it. According
to classical theory, so long as it is a particle, it passes through either one
or the other of these two slits. Although without observation it is unbekannt
*> Translator's note: Yuichi Seta is the pen name of Hiroo Mita that he was forced to use in
order to avoid pursuits of the Police of Japanese Militarism.
**> Author's note in compilation (1946) : In this article of the history of mathematics, Mr. Mita
has shown splendidly that the above mentioned example given by Engels is just for "the negation
of the negation" by analyzing historically the origin of negative numbers.
***> Author's note in compilation (1946): According to the terminology of Pauli, Handbuch der
Physik, Vol. 24 (Springer, Berlin, 1933).
32 M. Taketani
which slit it passes through, it is bestimmt that the particle passes through
either one of them. Whereas, in quantum mechanics, one particle as itself
should pass through both of the two slits at the same time, because of the
interference which takes place after its passing through the screen. The
interference does not occur if it is determined by observation: which slit the
particle is passing through. Which slit the particle has passed through, is,
therefore, unbestimmt in its nature, in order to give rise to the interference.
Like this, the superposition of states is fundamentally different from that of
probabilities.*> In other words, wave function 'IJI" that represents state has a
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
meaning more profound than probability. Wave function is essential. That
is, laws in quantum mechanics .are not statistical ones. Probability comes
out in observation. It is a phenomenal form. Since only by the abstract
process of 'IJI"~ I 'IJI" 1 2 , the wave function is bestowed a meaning in the sense
of probability, statistical laws are nothing but the phenomenological descrip-
tions of observation. In doing so, abstraction is made of the phase factor
which plays a role in interference.-This means the fact that interference
would not occur if we observe through which slit the particle passes.
For a closed system, the motion of a state obeys the causality in the
strict sense. But in an observation, it behaves unpredictablly on account of
uncontrollable interactions, so that the results of the observation can be pre-
dicted only statistically in the sense of probability. This allows the cry that
"The causality is denied". In the kinetic theory of gas, motion of each
molecule is unbekannt but is bestimmt, and obeys the causality. Thermal
phenomena in a mass of molecules are however statistical. In this case,
coordinates indicating position and momentum of each molecules are known
as hidden parameters. On the analogy of this, there are risen the following
two kinds of opinion that "In quantum mechanics, too, there should exist
such parameters hidden behind its probability, and then,
( 1) since these parameters are not to be known by us, they would be the
wills of electrons, or would be in the region of god, or
(2) quantum mechanics is incomplete, so that these parameter should be
found and introduced, to make it a complete theory".
The former ·is a sort of agnosticism, while the latter is a thinking of finding
no rest without the mechanical causality. Although we cannot say that it
will still be utterly impossible to introduce something corresponding to such
parameters into quantum mechanics, even if quantum mechanics changes
completely in its feature in the future development of physics, it is quite
meaningless, and is impossible on account of the structure of quantum
*> Author's note in compilation (1946) : This point was misunderstood by Prof. Tanabe.
Dialectics of Nature 33
mechanics,*' to introduce such parameters into it. Quantum mechanical
physicists will perhap!' repeat the following words of Laplace that "His
majesty, I do not need such a hypothesis". In classical mechanics, the
absolute motion in reference to ether was a kind of hidden parameter. Every
effort was made in search of it, but ended in failure. It was at this moment
that the theory of relativity came out to discard this objectively meaningless
parameter, thus representing the world as the one in which only the relative
motion is meaningful. This was the first time that the time, space, matter
and motion were grasped in close dialectical interconnections. We can hold
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
the prospect that any effort in the future will not find the absolute motion.
Quantum mechanics is full of contradictions which should be aufgehoben in
future. In quantum mechanics, there is however no such contradiction seen
at present that would lead to its development in the direction of hidden
parameters. We have no need to expect and require such parameters.
Quantum theory sets forth itself as the one that can be complete without
these parameters. As will be shown in the following analyses, the lack of
such parameters by itself signifies its dialectical interconnection. To require
such parameters is nothing but to deteriorate the necessity to the contingency.
In quantum mechanics, when one system is composed out of two systems,
there appears in the whole what is more than the mere sum of respective
components. This is the relation between the part and whole, which cannot
be understood with the formal logic. In the whole thus composed, each
component is completely different from what it is when put independently.
This does not consist in a mere mechanical interaction, but does in the
interpenetration of the space itself. It is a close dialectical connection in the
composition of the whole out of its parts. (It should be particularly noted
that in a composition out of two identical systems, two electrons for example,
each one loses its individuality completely.) And, the whole system as a
*' Author's note in compilation (1946): This was proved by Neumann; J. v. Neumann,
Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, (Springer, Berlin, 1932). Neumann's book
proved that there is no contradiction included in quantum mechanics. I owe much to: Neumann's
book in my analysis given here. However, Neumann's theory does not imply any concrete obser·
vation, I think. Schrodinger's articles which I quoated in my note on page 28 are also concerned
with this point. Bohr's reply in Bohr-Einstein's dispute could be said to be based on a viewpoint
more advanced than previous ones in this regard. Opinions in Pauli's book could also be said not
to be satisfactory in this connection.
On this point, I made my opinion public at Gakujutsu Kenkyu Kaigi (Council for Scientific
Research) in October, 1942.**' In it, I pointed out that the cut between observer and object in
actual observation is, in contrast to Neumann's thought, determined objectively, and lies at the
place where microscopic phenomena is transmitted into macroscopic phenomena, that is, in the obser·
vational instrument, being irrelevant to the human subject. Otherwise, we would fall into the
difficulty pointed out by Schrodinger. I shall publish on another occasion a more detailed account
of this point.
**' Editor's note: cf. the following article, "Observation Problem of Quantum Mechanics", by
Taketani.
34 M. Taketani
closed system obeys strictly the causality. The observation is to construct
a composite system out of the observer (not the subject) and the object.
The composite system as a whole is causal in its strict meaning. However,
the observation is not concerned with this composition only. To be content
only with it*J is a kind of mechanism, or an abstract viewpoint not seeing
things concretely. The observation is to extract, from the whole, the object,
that is, one part, with the setting up of a cut. In this case, the laws of
identity and of sufficient reason do not hold for the part, since it is ex-
tracted from the whole which is more than the mere sum of the parts. As
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
a result, there takes place the reduction of state. That is, one and the same
state erscheint differently in the observation, and the laws of identity and of
sufficient reason do not hold because the Erscheinung can be predicted only
for its probability.-This is the true content of the so-called denial of the
causality.-It is the process of the self-realization in which the essence
erscheint in its whole interconnection. The conjugation of necessity and
contingency erscheint as the probability. The uniform equality, dependent
only on the spacial extent of the state to be reduced into, of pure contin-
gency, i.e., of the probability, is conversely assumed as a necessity, and has
its base on the law of the composition. Then, should we despair of getting
any image of the existence on account of the limit in observation, or other
reasons ? No, certainly not! A single observation is contingent, but obser-
vations in total can reflect it as completely as possible (by making a large
number of observations).-By completely it is meant without omission but
not correctly. The correctness involves historical restrictions.-A sum of
observations in the sense of collecting up simply, constitutes statistical as
well as phenomenological laws of describing phenomena, but human thought
penetrates deeper into phenomena, thus arriving at !essential as well as
necessitarian laws. Schrodinger's equation, for example, has such a meaning.
It does not mean the denial of the existential significance of the concept of
state, that this concept cannot be bestowed with any image. This is the
very evidence that we have learned the law, and learned the logic, from
the external world. Every time we penetrate deeper into Nature, we en-
counter with something fremd to our previous images. The repetition o£
practice is called for, before we feel them as our own belongings. The
essential concept thus obtained by thought is shown to be a correct reflection
of the object by means of practices. The state, which is essential and re-
presented by a wave function, ersheint in the forms of wave (interference),
particle and probability. The so-called non-causal reduction of state in obser-
vation represents neither "the action on the part of the subject" nor "the
denial of the causality", but is based upon the dialectic of the law of matter,
i.e., of the law of composition in quantum mechanics. There is not any
*l Author's note in compilation (1946): View of the Tanabe's school.
Dialectics of Nature 35
ground for supporting such a view as to ascribe the principle of uncertainty
to the operations on the part of the subject.*l Why is there an action beyond
our control, when the subject is in operation ? Such an abstract view also
does not provide any basis for any concrete feature of the principle of un-
certainty. It ignores the existence of observation in which the reduction of
state does not take place. Subjectivity is not such a mystical thing, but is
a practice based upon an objective necessity. The fact that actions in obser-
vation are based upon the law of matter is best understood from the fact
that one and the same result is obtained irrespective of the location of the
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
cut between the observer and the object.**l This is not the identification
of the subject and the object, as is clear from the discussion given above.**l
The relation between the causality and statistical laws in quantum mechanics
is very much analogous to that in the kinetic theory of gas. In the kinetic
theory of gas, the law of the phenomenon as a whole is statistical, being
founded by the hidden parameters of each particle that obeys the causality
in the strict sense. Quantum mechanics is statistical in the part, that is, in
the phenomenon, being founded by the state of the system as a whole that
obeys the causality in the strict sense. The statistical laws of the phenom-
enon in both these cases are founded by the necessitarian causal laws,
though their directions are opposite each other.
As is given above, in quantum mechanics the dialectics of the unification
of antagonism, the essence and phenomenon, the part and whole, as well as
the necessity and contingency, are closely interconnected to each other.
Quantum mechanics is showing remarkable difficulties and contradictions in
the new fields of atomic nuclei, high energy phenomena, negative energy
states, and particularly in quantum electrodynamics. Those which will rescue
them, are only dialectical analyses as well as dialectical experiments.
We have to distinguish the dialectic that is grasped concretely as the
aufgehobt contradiction, with the contradiction that is caught in the sense
of the moment as the abstract reflection. The former takes the form of the
wahre Unendlichkeit. For example, the light velocity in the theory of rela-
tivity, Planck's constant, and the principle of uncertainty, are of the form of
the wahre Unendlichkeit, as a kind of atomism opposing to the partition of
phase-space in the sense of the schlechte Unendlichkeit. In his recent paper,
Born has introduced such atomism as the principle of finiteness. On the
other hand, the latter is the contradiction in the sense of the moment as
well as the schlechte Unendlichkeit. For example, the zero-radius of electron,
the infinite self-energy, the infinite density of Dirac's negative energy states,
*l Author's note in compilation (1946): View of the Tanabe's school.
**l Author's note in compilation (1946) : See my note on page 33.
36 M. Taketani
and so on, are central difficulties in modern quantum mechanics,*l and are
clearly in certain interconnections each other. It is the task of natural
science to make what is momentlich und wahre unendlich to proceed to what
is concrete, so as to grasp it. Must be pointed out by dialectical analyses the
correct direction, along which contradictions caught as moment should be
aufgehoben, so as to find out interconnections among various forms. Natural
science is thus to reflect dialectics of Nature concretely in the extent that
they stand, and is never non-dialectification**l of dialectics. Dialectics can-
not be represented by anything other than dialectics. One who supposes that
Downloaded from http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on April 11, 2015
it is nothing but dialectic to see contradictions in the form of the Moment
und Unendlichkeit, could not get rid of the criticism of being engaged in
fantastic dialectic, too. From such a viewpoint, one is at once led to the
conclusion that in actual practice-in technics-there is, no dialectic, but
there is non-dialectical and analytical logical method only. Dialectic is not
to mystificate antagonism under the pretense of getting its solution, giving
for it the exclamation "How it is dialectical!" remote from it, but is to
grasp antagonism in its unification concretely and definitely. One misunder-
stands non-dialectical analytical logic for dialectic involved in actual analysis,
in saying that "Reflecting dialectics at its foundation, physics should at the
same time be concerned with the formation of an analytical theory, with
the help of experiments and mathematics of its own. Being seen from this
side, physics is still analytical logical rather than dialectical. - Just as
mathematics is to be said as the product of technical thought which non-
dialectificates the dialectical, so physics should have the side of non-dialecti-
ficating dialectical existence".**l Recognition is never gained with analyses
of such kind. Such dialectic that is separated from and is ptit in the sense
of opposing actual sciences is fantastic dialectic. Such philosophy of Nature
thus goes back to classical Greece-without understanding the historical
negation, rushing back into classical Greece, into its natural philosophy, as
if giving no ear to Dante's sorrowful cry: "Non vi si pensa quanta sangue
costa." ***l ("No one thinks about how much blood it has cost.")****l
*'Author's note in compilation (1946): According to developments in the meson theory, it
turns out more and more clear that these points are great central problems to be solved for the
forthcoming new theory.
**' Author's note in compilation (1946): View of the Tanabe's school.
***' Translator's note: Dante, "Divina Comedia", Paradiso, Canto XXIX, Linea 91.
****' Editor's note: This Taketani's article was once published in Englsh, on being translated by
Osamu Kuno and Arata Ishimoto, in the journal, The Science of Thought No. 2 (1956), p. 40.
