Let me get this straight. What I wanted to show in the “Meteoroscape Exhibition” was actually a certain concept (Conceptual Art). It was ‘to create One and Only by an Individual’. Since, it was believed that there was only one way to be the One and Only at the time.

That is, ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’. The King, which means the hierarchy, such as states and large corporations, decides the ‘Original’ One and Only and manages its reproduction. This is the foundation of our world and our lives.

Therefore, we have overlooked the another way of being that must be taken for granted.

In order to take this method from the metaphysical to the physical, I came up with the idea of ‘sharing transaction history on the Internet, where anyone can view it’. I thought that if I applied the Bitcoin system that was being touted at the time, not only to money, but to all things, it would be possible to realize the idea of ‘creating One and Only by an Individual’.

OK. If you are a “…I don’t know what you are talking about!” person, what I want to tell you first is why the hell we need this kind of thing.

To put it simply, it is to avoid a dystopian future.

Even now, most of our food, clothing, and shelter are reproduced stuffs. The replicable realm that the further evolution of computers, the Internet, and AI will bring about in the future may well be the human being itself.

If we had only the social model of ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’ when it becomes close to, if not perfect, then the ‘King’, the agent of human morality, will have no choice but to control the realm of reproducibility that leads to the human being itself.

This is because unbridled reproductions would damage the value of the Original.

2. ‘One and Only’ made by an Individual

Our world, the social model on which it is based, ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’. Is this not the cause of wealth, fame, power, and the coming dystopia? Gold Kujo, the “Pirate King,” foresaw the future of the world and harbored suspicion. His dying words drove the people of the world to the sea. “My treasure? If you want it, I’ll give it to you… find it! I left everything in the world there!” The men (and women) continue to pursue their dreams, aiming for the Grand Line.

The world is truly in the great NFT era—!

Itsuyuki: “What is it…can you please stop starting ‘We are!’ in the middle of a sentence?” … the chapter “There are as many ‘One and Only’ as there are lives.” begins from here.

So, the story goes that the Naval Headquarters, which is directly under the World Government, has recently been cracking down on the Four Bitcoin Emperors and NFT pirates in the name of absolute justice.

But why is this happening? Is it because Bitcoin and NFT are piracy and a crime? Is it because it is impossible for an individual to create a One and Only in the first place?

“It’s finished.”

But wait a minute. Speaking from the standpoint of the author of “Original and Reproduction”, isn’t it true that contrary to the aforementioned purposes, there are now a number of misunderstandings and confusions, and that is why the crackdown is being carried out? If it’s just one shot, it could be a misfire.

Let me explain again from the ‘King decides’ model. In this model, the King establishes a sacred and inviolable ‘Original’ at the beginning and then ‘Reproduce’ it. It is the reproduction that is transferred, and the king controls and manages it so that it is not reproduced again unchecked. You may have been tired of hearing this so many times.

In contrast, the ‘Individual creation’ model does not describe such content in the first place. In the initial stages, ‘Original and Reproduction’ are not segregated. Things to be transferred are neither sacred nor inviolable. It could be a duplicate, or an object that was brought from some other island without permission, or worse, it could be electronic garbage that is dumped in the ocean.

So, the NFT does not fall into your point of view that the transfer is digital data and can be reproduced as much as you want. This theory is invincible.

If you are a “What…invincible again? I don’t understand what you mean.” person, how about putting it this way?

In other words, you considered that what is transferred must be ‘Original’ thing, that is where the misunderstanding lies.

“What? If it is not ‘Original’, isn’t it still fraud?” You may think so, but think about it again. In the state of nature, is there such a thing as sacred and inviolable from the beginning? No, there is not. What swims in the sea is a live fish that (to the average person) cannot be sorted out one by one, and there is no such ridiculous thing as a swimming fillet that has been sorted out for each fishing ports or families.

And yet, fish with a price on it are sold in supermarkets every day, aren’t they? I think the reason for this is that the catch for the day is determined at the opening time of the market, various market forces are at work, and then the original value is set at a reasonable level.

These are the three assumptions I described above.

‘Emergent Properties’ refers to the phenomenon in which a collection of things that are originally nothing more than a collection of things somehow develop individuality and begin to move (*2). There are many wine farmers in France, but the wine produced in Bordeaux, especially red wine from Médoc, is said to be exceptionally tasty and becomes a brand name, right? Of course, types of grape is different, growing environment is different , and people who are responsible for the difference is different, but at any rate, the differences become recognizable.

If you think about it, isn’t this the very action of ‘Life’ or ‘Consciousness’, which somehow separates the outside and the inside of an undifferentiated thing by forming a membrane that separates the outside and the inside, and somehow begins to work with it?

I then summarized the similarities between the manifestation of life and the ‘Individual creation’ model, and discussed it in relation to the “Schrödinger’s cat” problem as an example. That was the “シュレーディンガーのパラソル展” (*3).

“Schrödinger’s cat” is not only a hot topic in quantum theory, but it is also an excellent examination of the ‘Individual creation’ model, and it was interesting because it gave me a view of the world.

Unfortunately, however, it also led to another misunderstanding.

This is, I think, because consciousness is not a matter that has been clarified by scientific experiments. The fact that a non-scientist proposed a hypothesis only increased the impression of dubiousness. I regret it a little…

However, I was able to point out, at a minimum, that there must be two dimensions in this world, one physical dimension that can be clarified by scientific experiments, and another dimension that is different from it, and that there must be multiple layers of action in each of these dimensions. I believe that I was able to explain, to some extent, why the model of ‘Individual creation’ requires preconditions.

Moreover, this can be easily proven by simply pointing out that mathematics is metaphysics. People are completely unaware of this fact, even though they use it constantly.

Therefore, my consciousness as n=1 is ‘One and Only’ and others as n+1, n+2, n+3, … must be like that as well = pan-oneness.

However, some people don’t seem to think so easily. Preach the denial of others. Their theory insists only you are conscious, the rest are illusions, philosophical zombies. Others, on the other hand, believe that we are not conscious in the first place and that our nerve cells simply reflect outside stimuli. They derive a self-denying theory that consciousness is a self-created illusions.

Itsuyuki: “…How much do these people love illusions! Do they see illusions every day? Is this a world of swords and sorcery? If that’s the case, then we must be friends already!”

So, it is the role of men to seriously worry about such things and say, “I think, therefore I am,” while women look at them coldly and say, “You should work if you have time to worry about such things!” Because women are the ones who are to have baby and take care of it, if possible. And don’t forget babies are to start speaking with different consciousness.

Anyway, even identical twins, who are said to have the same DNA, will never have the same consciousness even if they are raised in the same way, and since each has a different consciousness, it is not difficult to imagine that different effects are at work in the physical world. Or is it not?

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

“NFT is outrageous because data registered without the creator’s permission can be sold.” “It is money laundering because a thing like a digital data icon was priced a very expensively.” They must have regarded NFT as a fraud since they thought ‘worthless’ thing gets a worth a disproportionate amount because it is numerically shaped to be one.

But that is misunderstanding.

As you may have already understood, what the NFT system guarantees is only the ‘scarcity’ of the transferred. It is not the ‘value’.

To continue with the fisherman’s metaphor, even if two fishing boats catch the same school of fish, the ownership of the fish belongs to each of them, and even if the amount of fish caught is the same, the value attached to it may vary greatly depending on the onboard post-processing process, etc.

In addition, I would like to point out that this relationship between scarcity and value, although carefully concealed, is actually a separate issue, even in a ‘King decides’ social model.

For example, if you are thrown out in the middle of the desert, about to die, and suddenly a desert goddess appears and says, “Oh my…was it this gold diamond you dropped? Or this silver diamond? Either way, it comes with a ‘one-of-a-kind’ certificate from DeeeBeees, so I guarantee its quality!” I would answer immediately as I am an honest person.

“No, I dropped a bottle of shabby bottled mineral water…oh, but it was very chilled! And preferably soft water! Soft water, if possible!”

Even if I could have walked another 10 minutes and found an oasis, I would say that…

Am I sounding kind of preachy now? But these are the ridiculously superfluous measures that the Meteoroscape project does on its own and that the NFT does not implement. That is;

• “We give you a replacement guarantee, which may not be essential.”
• “Putting size restrictions until a specified number of sales are made.”
• “We declare the photos to be transferred may contain something you don’t like.”

The reason is that the photos we give away have no value, at least in the beginning.

Photos are taken all over the world and shared on the Internet every day. They are free to view. Actually, even if you say you don’t want them, they show you OMG quality photos and WTF quality videos because they are advertisements.

People may pay for the photographer’s labor, buy the photos because they are sold as interior decorations, buy photo books, or even buy calendars so the photos are a free gift, but if the photos themselves are sold in single slices, no one would normally buy them.

The same is probably true for the various digital data being exhibited at the NFT. No one would go as far as to buy them. Unless, of course, it is a work by an artist whose value has already been established, or you know someone who knows the value of the work. If so, it would be more likely there may be a case people would buy it, because digital data is not be in the way.

But that is why three arrows come to handy.

These three things are what we all do as a matter of course in our lives, yet they are a kind of so-called typical ‘heroic tale’.

For example, what about the illustration creation AI that is being the talk of the town in 2022?

The AI here is the so-called “Midjourney”. It can also be “Stable Diffusion”. It is a web service that automatically generates images based on specified keywords.

The illustrations generated by this AI are said to be good, fast, inexpensive, and perfect for the job. It is rumored that there will be no more jobs for illustrators, similar to the situation in the 19th century when photography was invented and portrait artists were said to be out of work.

Before we know it, we live in an age where such a thing was possible (*6).

However, what I am trying to say here is not that illustrators will lose their jobs. It is simply that illustrators may change their jobs to become AI operators because of the new duplication technology.

Rather, I’d tell you, it is happening at the same time: the concepts of AI ‘Deep Learning’ and ‘IDEA’ are very close that this is shown. It naturally leads us to expect the following situation;

For those who deal purely with ‘IDEA’ and design it for a living will have to be greatly affected in the future, since it could be reproduced.

As my opinion, I said Art is closely related to ‘work’ in the chapter, “There are 3 Units of Art”. (*7) And so, when it comes to the replication of ‘IDEA’, I believe that the impact on the work of artisans and designers in general is inevitable.

What will happen next? I think, this is an abstract expression, though, that the overall shift will be toward craftsmen, as they will be less inclined to Design Art. Design Art value will be relatively lost. And I think that craftspeople will become even more secretive and selective than they are now, so as not to be easily duplicated by AI.

8. Epilogue: Art, Transfer, and Sometimes Photography

That being said, I have seen a variety of misconceptions and confusion around the concept of ‘Individual creation’ I submitted five years ago. Perhaps there are many other misunderstandings.

But at this point, you’ve probably come to understand how arrogant and narrow-minded the “no value bitcoin or NFT” discourse is.

In the first place, I don’t have the authority to advise others either, but we should refrain from the act of disrespecting people’s feelings and telling them they are worthless in the first place. If a wife felt bad about her husband’s hobby of plastic modeling and abandoned it without his permission while he was at work, she would be on the verge of a divorce, wouldn’t she?

Of course, it’s a different story if the object of affection is a crime, a cult-like activity that is currently being talked about in Japan, or something that destroys the lives of those involved. You might say it’s not worth it.

But this social model ‘to create One and Only by Individual’ is not only even a crime, but an essential concept for the stable operation of the ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’ in the future. I think it is necessary to prevent that “Hell” from appearing on earth.

Because isn’t it so?

As I have already pointed out, without the existence of the ‘Individual creation’ model, people will be forced to give up their freedom and independence, and even the existence of the individual will be in jeopardy. I said that this is a dystopian future, but it seems to me that this is exactly what is happening now. Is it really a coincidence that it was only after the advent of Bitcoin that counters like “Me,too” and “BLM”, for example, became active…?

This concludes the story of the great misunderstanding and confusion that began with “Original and Reproduction”. Hopefully, the concept of “creating One and Only in the world by oneself” will continue to be a household words in the future.

OK. One last thing. I would like to clear up a misunderstanding about my photographic works.

When you visit this site, you will notice that I have divided my work into two categories: “Graphic Work,” which is Design Art that should be close to the ‘correct answer’ for ‘IDEA’, and “Photographic Work”, which is Contemporary Art that may be ‘incorrect’. If you are thinking of transferring the work to someone else, perhaps you would feel Graphic Work is the one that is least likely to cause resistance. On the other hand, a Photographic Work is a photograph of “reality” and would not be transferred unless there is a strong emotional attachment to it.

This difference is the same as the difference between the reduced image without visible blemishes and the large ‘Original’ that reveals it, told in the chapter “Art Embankment Plan” (※9), which also seemed to be resulted into a misleading metaphor.

However, this does not mean that I deny that the Graphic Work is made-up and can be reproduced, or that the Photographic Work is ‘correct’ because it has not been modified at all.

(And while I try not to correct photographs by erasing the subject, I sometimes do so anyway when it is absolutely necessary, and I sometimes correct noisy old photos by using AI to supplement the image to make it look better. I’ll let you know if you want to know such unpleasant ‘reality’…)