Individual

それは「世界にひとつ」を探す旅…?

■ Who is ‘Itsuki Kujo’ ? or a refutation of Heideggerian ontology


Hello to those of you who think that you have nothing but true yourself and creating another character is like lying. Hi, to those of you who feel the Internet will die unless we are anonymous, and avatars are absolutely necessary, otherwise you will die. Thank you for your continued support. This is Itsuki Kujo!

This time, I would like to thoroughly examine the issue of “Who is Itsuki Kujo?”.

But I will not start from the top, asking “Who is he/she? “. I shall not continue the conversation like; “He/she is this kind of person!”, “What? Fxxk you!”, and so on. In fact, only former President Obama or Banksy could do such a thing, and it would be embarrassing for ‘Itsuki Kujo’ to do so.

What I want to make clear here is that, simply put, ‘Itsuki Kujo’ is a ‘Character’.

You could say that it is an ‘Identity’. To tell the truth, ‘Itsuki Kujo’ is, as already spoiled, a trade name. It is just like the name of a company. It’s no different from the name of Micky from Disney, or Kitty from Sanrio.

However, this explanation does not convey what I intend at all, so as usual, I would like to go a little detour.

What does the “Itsuki Kujo is a Character” really mean?

1. What is the ‘Character’?

First of all, let’s just look back at the conclusion of the previous discussion, “The Problem of ‘Schrödinger’s Cat’ and Its Answer.” I divided the composition of this world into three parts.

First, the physical dimension in which we live. Second, the metaphysical dimension that we cannot touch, and the third dimension that selective decisions are made even on the microscopic scale. I hypothesized that this is the origin of the existence of matter, the birth of living beings from matter, and the origin of biological consciousness.

Although I feel that such a hypothesis is not a good idea for a layman, I believe that in the history of philosophy, such ideas and concepts were already examined about 200 years ago (*1).

For example, Kant thought about the separation of the metaphysical and the physical, and Husserl, Heidegger, and other phenomenologists considered the dimension of consciousness in detail.

However, I am not an expert in phenomenology, philosophy, or science. So, from here on, I will be using “An Introduction to Phenomenology” (*2) as a reference book, and also glancing at Youtube videos teaching Philosophy, which are friendly to us as laymen.

Accuracy is not guaranteed at all. I hope you will understand this but continue reading.

To begin with, we can think because we are conscious. We can observe things in outside world because we are conscious. It is a matter of course. So, in the previous discussion, I started from the physical dimension for the sake of the story, but really, it makes sense to think from one’s own consciousness first, doesn’t it?

Consciousness is like this, so the external world must be like this.

It is said Greek philosopher was those who insisted this theory. Plato came back to himself after Socrates, who discovered his ignorance after the time when former philosopher were guessing that the world is made of water or fire. Please remind the man who was a topic on the section “There are three units of Art.”; IDEA-man. I talked about creating sculptures based on the IDEA of beauty.

Where is this IDEA thing, then? I would like to say, “Oh, it’s in your heart…”, but as long as there are people who agree with you, it is not only in your mind, but in everyone’s mind.

In other words, it’s not inside, it’s outside.

What really ‘exists’ is the transcendent IDEA outside, and the world we are in is a mapping, a replica of it. This world is created as such a “world of images”.

This is the Plato’s philosophy that even an idiot can understand (according to a Youtube video explanation).

But then, does this world really exist? I doubted it seriously. Perhaps, the world is like the one in the movie “The Matrix”, we are being tricked into a CG world. Or worse, maybe we are being tricked into a “butterfly dream” where only brains are floating in what looks like a bio tank. Why don’t you just sleep for the rest of your life without trying any more?

However, it was Plato’s disciple Aristotle who was in direct opposition to this idea.

2. Master and Disciple, Supreme and Ultimate tend to confront each other

If we glance at wikipedia to take the first step toward understanding Aristotle, we will find that he is even more fantastical and magical than Plato. I’m not sure how to seriously examine that, to be honest, but it’s a specification that suddenly frustrates me. What the heck, I want to sleep for the rest of my life. Is the website being tampered with? I don’t know.

However, this is also a takeaway from the Youtube video, but it is said what is important in Aristotle’s philosophy is that he focused on the facts of the external world.

Instead of struggling to know the transcendental IDEA, we must first look more at reality. “Your hairline is already here!” This is empiricism.

According to Aristotle, what “is” first is the physical entity. Metaphysical laws (this is where the word “metaphysical” comes in) can be logically reduced from there.

“Alas! This head shape… you’re going bald in the future!” “No, I’m not bald yet.” “Your family is bald, isn’t it? I can tell you from my experience. You will be bald in the future! You will go to hell!” “I told you, I’m not bald yet!”

I’m just saying, after all, it’s a rule of thumb. They did metaphysics, for example, astrology, which seems quite outlandish from today’s point of view.

I wonder why they did that, but it became the basis of modern science. I think it is a very good practice to make a hypothesis anyway, even if it is wrong.

Anyway, this is the Aristotelian philosophy that even a gorilla can understand. I would like to put it that way. This is not the main line of the story, so it doesn’t matter if it is approximately correct.

What I want to say is that Kant is the one who merged these two separate schools of philosophy, which were passed down through the history of Western philosophy and developed into “Continental Rationalism” and “British Empiricism” in the early modern period, into one (also from the Youtube commentary video).

There is no end at all to the story if we do not start from there.

— The main topic starts here —

Now, Kant proposed that there are two axes of perception.

One is the acceptance of physical sense data. The other is the enlightenment (understanding) that orders the physical sense data. And that innate enlightenment “has some basic concepts that are exceptionally necessary for actively structuring mental content” (*3). This is the so-called concept = IDEA.

It’s simple, but becoming clearer. You can also see how the two earlier schools merge.

In addition, Kant argues that fundamental concepts have underlying categories such as time, space, negation, existence, and substance, which are ‘a priori’ = prior to experience.

However, he does not say …so that IDEA is an external entity. I think it is why he is a modern man. Instead, he holds them to be internal to self-consciousness. He says that concept creation is a function of cognitive activity based on the three-stage synthesis of grasping, reproduction, and reaffirmation.

This is because, by this time, we already know that ‘concepts’ are not absolute (*4). I suggested that in the section “There are three units of art.” in which the IDEA of ‘beauty’ became relative. No amount of defamation of me will shake that fact. Still, the earth is turning.

In other words, what really “is” is the unified sense or self-consciousness of “I”. Descartes also said, “I think, therefore I am”. It is not only the outer IDEA that “is”.

Self-consciousness is aware of something external and enduring as it orders physical sense data.

Thinking in this way allows for the coexistence of the experiential physical and the persistent being = metaphysical things, with self-consciousness at the center.

And this inner coexistence, in turn, has clearly separated the physical from the metaphysical in the perception of the outer world.

Taking sculpture as an example, there had been just unanswerable questions, which were a mixture of the physical and the metaphysical; is ‘beauty’ the reason for the creation of sculpture or is it possible to find ‘beauty’ in a variety of sculptures?

However, based on the recognition that what ‘exists’ is ‘your mind’, you are now able to recognize this concept; various objects considered works of Art are stored physically, but metaphysically, only the fact that a certain people at a certain time considered these objects as works of Art is set forth.

I believe that Kant’s philosophy has such an intelligent, yet kind of wary perception.

3. Understanding, Decomposing, and Reconstructing to become a National Alchemist

By the way, what is ‘Philosophy’?

For example, if you were to ask university students, I imagine that the survey showed about 60% of the respondents would be of the moderate “it is not useful but important” group, 20% would be of the indifferent “it is an old study” group, and the rest would be of the defensive “it is the best study” group and the radical “I don’t need it, I don’t need liberal arts in the first place” group. The radicals may be a bit more powerful now (*5).

So why is this happening now? I have to wonder if this is also Kant’s work.

Since Kant’s philosophy has completed the confrontation between the ultimate and the supreme in ‘philosophy’, and then he removed his own theory of synthesis or self-consciousness from the highest modern discipline of ‘Science’.

But he was not saying this in a mean-spirited way to monopolize the academic field. It is only natural to think that the structure of human consciousness, into which metaphysics is supposed to be introduced, cannot be the object of study by ‘Science’, which is concerned with the physical.

In short, Kant’s philosophy separated ‘Science’ and ‘Philosophy’, which had been an integral part of each other until then, and divided them into ‘Science’ of physics, which can be tested and verified, and ‘Thought’, which targets consciousness, which is vaguely understood. This could be said the clear separation of the physical and metaphysical in the perception of the external world that I mentioned earlier.

That is why some says it is ‘Science’ that is useful, and the humanities are lame, and our era is for Star Trek, after all. Anyway thanks to it, civilization has progressed.

— Christopher Pike and U.S.S. Enterprise lived happily ever after… —

The story does not end here, though. Because there are still people who try to ‘Science’ human consciousness by applying empirical rules to it.

I believe that this is what psychology and phenomenology, which branched off from philosophy and leaned more toward ‘Thought’ are all about.

Speaking of psychology, I know only the names of psychologists such as Freud and Jung, or otherwise psychoanalysis that includes the occult, such as “the realm of the unconscious” and “new types are no joke”. The giant humanoid decisive battle weapon that can be boarded by those suffering from psychosis such as the Festum Factor or adult children, and so on…

However, the original ‘experimental psychology’ proposed by Wilhelm Wundt, known as the ‘founding father of psychology’ was a bit more ‘Scientific’ than these.

He started with the smallest difference in stimulus intensity, which is probably the atom in the study of human consciousness. From a physical point of view, this can be equated with the action potentials of nerve cells (*6).

According to Wundt, ‘conscious experience’ means that our sensory organs receive external stimuli, from which ideas arise inside us and feelings arise as a complement. Since they have an objective identity, he said, we can ‘Science’ consciousness.

It may seem like the story has suddenly become difficult, but it is, for example, the story of the boiled frog.

If you put water and a frog in a pot and gradually heat it up, at the next point when it becomes hot, he feels a stimulus and jumps and runs away. If the frog could talk, he would say, “It’s hot! You’re killing me! I’m suing you!” and he would be angry and curl his cap up.

Then if the frog in a baseball stadium were to be hit in the face with a hot sausage accidentally, he might feel another stimulus. But the same thing could be happen. He might jump, run away, say “It’s hot! You’re killing me! I’m suing you!”, be angry, and curl his cap up.

Incidentally, I know someone who proposed the same thing in the field of literature. His name is Soseki Natsume. I can refer you to his work entitled “Literary Theory”. In other words, he discussed the similarity between the conscious experience of the real world and the stimuli provided by textual information.

Psychology, however, seems to have gone through a series of busy transformations: it has shifted toward ‘Thought’, claiming that it is mechanical, and has turned to psychoanalysis like Freud and others, or it has returned to ‘Science’, saying that it should study only behavior, and has become behaviorist psychology.

In “Introduction to Phenomenology,” which I use as a reference book, Wundt points out that it was Gestalt psychology that updated Wundt’s experimental psychology.

4. The fashionable relationship between ‘Character’ and ‘Gestalt’

Speaking of Gestalt, I must remind ‘Gestalt collapse’ or ‘Gestaltzerfall’. This is a word that Japanese are familiar with only because it is an excellent amusing joke, even though we don’t really understand its meaning.

According to wikipedia, ‘Gestaltzerfall‘ is “a phenomenon in which a coherent structure (Gestalt, form) loses its wholeness, and is rerecognized in its individual constituent parts”. It often appears in a story, where the same word is repeated so often that one loses track of what it was originally.

In short, a ‘Gestalt’ is a coherent structure with wholeness. We usually perceive that coherence as an idea. It is said that Gestalt psychology asserted this.

One easy example is melody. Even if “Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto in D major, Op.35” is played on a Stradivarius, there is no difference as a melody from that played on a cheap 50,000 yen violin. If you listen to it blindfolded, you might be rather impressed by the 50,000 yen one.

On the other hand, if you count the number of Do’s in the score and play the sum of the numbers in a row, and then count the number of Re’s to play the sum of it in a row… and then look smug when you are done, that is not Tchaikovsky. It is just very loud and annoying.

From its findings, Gestalt psychology has revised the earlier experimental psychology’s equation of neuronal action potentials with conscious experience. It simply cannot be said that physical external stimuli create ideas in a one-to-one correspondence.

Alternatively, the sum of the electrical stimuli does not result in the conception.

Then it is still impossible to ‘Science’ consciousness from the physical aspect, and we are back to Kantian philosophy? However, the Gestalt psychologist Wertheimer proposes that there is a law of ‘coherence’ or the composition of forms.

The law is, for example, the phi phenomenon in which two consecutive blinking points appear to be a single moving light sphere

[● ○]→[○ ●]→[● ○]→[○ ●]→[● ○]

Law of proximity that brings together elements into a whole according to their positions

bca efd hig klj nom qrp tus (← recognize as a mass of bca, a mass of efd, etc.)

If you think about it, these are the principles of television and the so-called “Laws of Design” (*7), which have become familiar in our daily lives. We cannot ‘Science’ why Gestalts become ideas, but we are currently using and applying them as laws.

This is also true of cartoon manga and animation, which I have talked about a lot. Movement is expressed through a series of stop-motion pictures, and effects are created by editing moving images.

Of course, the same is true for the ‘Characters’ that play an active role in these works.

Black suits, mysterious charm, powerful, mask that hide his eyes during battle, etc. These elements could create the Gestalt of Venom, but when you put them all together with his ears, you get the Gestalt of Batman correctly.

5. Even if you don’t understand the phenomenon, it doesn’t matter as long as you can make use of it

By the way, just to be clear, “An Introduction to Phenomenology,” which I am using as my reference book, is not a work that empirically explains character creation (*8).

It is about how the philosophy of Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, is developing into ecopsychology and somatic cognitive science through Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, James J. Gibson, and others. Translated, the story is that the “phenomenology” we are talking about now is connected to the study of trendy artificial intelligence – AI.

However, artificial intelligence is not a story about creating a ‘Character’, like Doraemon. We are talking about creating robots that are useful to humans, such as iRobot’s Roomba cleaning robot.

This is an important distinction, and by going through the outline of “Introduction to Phenomenology,” I intend to give clues as to what the ‘Character’ ‘Itsuki Kujo’ is.

So even if you don’t understand it now, I think you will be convinced by the end. So rest assured to continue the story by picking out the main idea of Husserl, and please bear with me for a while longer.

— Super Cool Time —

Now, let’s see… Hussar, Hussar…probably a person with long hair, right? He must have naturally permed hair.

The most systematically described original work of his is said to be “Ideen— Various Ideas for Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy,” published in 1913. If you go to a larger bookstore, you can find the above work for sale. However, as expected of a natural perm philosopher, everything is so long. The title is long, but the volume is even longer than that.

It is such a blockbuster work, but to summarize it in one line, he says that it is about examining human consciousness through the ‘phenomenological method’. Moreover, there are two kinds of ‘phenomenological method’, he says, namely, form reduction and transcendental reduction.

“I don’t know what this all means…” but I think that form = eidos is Aristotelian philosophy, and transcendence is IDEA derived from Plato.

So it seems to me that the ‘phenomenological method’ is to take Kant’s philosophy as it is and study empirical perception and ‘a priori’ concept creation separately and in more detail. It should not be that difficult.

The difference with Kantian philosophy is that it no longer takes concepts as fixed ‘IDEA’s. Unlike fixed concept, ‘IDEA’, concepts can shift over time. This part is easy to understand if you have seen the photo exhibition “兆し、或いは魔の山にて“.

Husserl calls it ‘NOEMA’ instead of ‘IDEA’ and analyzes the structure of consciousness as follows;

  1. a ‘noema’ as a hypothesis emerges in consciousness. For example, when we see a backpack in Call of Duty, we think that it looks like a backpack.
  2. Next, we ‘enrich’ the meaning that the appearance of the sense data is oriented toward. In other words, from the clues obtained by observation of each part, we gradually reconfirm that this is a backpack.

It is like turning a spotlight on an object that has appeared as a shadowgraph, one light at a time, and finally finding the correct answer. It is explained as ‘adumbration’ of partial perspectives.

  1. and if, in the course of spotlighting, you decide that it is not the one from the hypothesis, for example, you realize that what you thought was a backpack is the color of the setting sun, the “noema” of the backpack explodes and it is rewritten as the “noema” of the color of the setting sun.

In fact, there is a theory that Husserl did not have a natural permed hair style either…

6. The photo exhibition was a foreshadowing

Husserl’s structural model of consciousness is not a ‘Science’ but a ’Thought’. Whether you believe it or not is up to you! But I find it interesting from two perspectives.

The first aspect is that it could be a measure of whether an experience is real or virtual.

For example, if the average ‘richness’ of an actual experience is 85%, the average ‘richness’ of indirect experiences such as photos and videos is about 40%, right? (*9)

Of course, if you live a normal life, you may be fooled 2 or 3 times by a magic trick, get entangled with a futurist, or be targeted by the Great Demon King. But reality, which contains all kinds of possibilities, and dreams, in which anything is possible, still cannot be completely confused.

Husserl himself has stated that ‘noema’ can never be fully ‘fulfilled’. In Soseki’s “Theory of Literature,” he discussed the possibility of a literary experience being as good as or better than an actual experience. As for me, I believe that there should be one truth about 90% rate.

So this perspective raises questions about the structure of ‘existence’, right?

The second perspective is that it takes time for the meaning to be ‘fulfilled’ after the hypothesis is formed.

For example, the more time passes, the more clues to the ‘noema’ we get, so if we had an infinite amount of time, would we be able to ‘fulfill’ the complete ‘noema’? Or would an overabundance of clues result in a Gestaltzerfall by generating new ‘noema’ one after another?

From this perspective, it seems to me that the direct problem is not ‘time’, but the amount of information available through time, doesn’t it?

It is the same as the Music intro quiz questions, where the scale data is only available for a moment, but if you know the preferences of the producer for the TV program, you can predict the correct song to some extent.

By the way, this talk of creating concepts based on the amount of information reminds me of artificial intelligence (AI) that can learn from big data.

The latest Photoshop is amazing, and with the 2021 version, it is said that it is able to separate objects from a single landscape photo and carefully crop them one by one at the touch of a button. In other words, AI is becoming able to recognize and focus on objects.

I believe that the reason behind such magical things becoming possible is the large amount of video data.

A simple example is the ‘eye focus’ function of digital camera. The camera detects characteristic movements of two black/blue/brown dots in a row, recognizes it as an eye, and moves the lens to focus on it. It may be more accurate to say that there are three dots, together with the mouth, since not being recognized by wearing mask (*10).

That is possible because the scenery in front of the lens is captured as a movie at the time of shooting, and temporary data is stored. If there were only still image data, even if there were a line of dots, the machine would not be able to detect them or would focus on an outrageous place.

7. Being and Time? I think I heard it somewhere…

So, today we have AI, which has become intuitively quite intelligent as a result of the wide range of applied cognition made possible by memorizing and learning big data, but this may be the result of experimentation and testing of the structural model of consciousness proposed by phenomenology.

In contrast, early artificial intelligence researchers shouted, “No results!!!”, “We didn’t get it!!!”, because they were trying to reproduce consciousness in a manner similar to behaviorist psychology, “Introduction to Phenomenology” claims so.

The behaviorist psychology is psychology that was rather “Science”. It focuses on physical behavior, not the mind, in studying consciousness.

In studying consciousness, behaviorist psychology focuses on physical, not mental, behavior.

Specifically, it “opposes explaining behavior in terms of unobservable mental causes, such as beliefs and thoughts” (*11). Then ‘Science’ becomes possible. It may be that if we architect the environment carefully, the known laws will naturally determine Neo’s behavior.

Alan Turing, the founder of artificial intelligence, invented the famous Turing Test just as a part. He said if a human mistakenly believes that the one he is interacting with is a human being rather than an artificial intelligence, we should assume that what is running behind the scenes is a conscious intelligence. He seems to me a PC gamer who put emphasis on skin option.

Personally, though, I honestly don’t agree with this test. Because if an old man played a role of a beautiful girl VTuber, you may get mistakes for a moment, but that must be only 3% of the ‘fulfillment’ level (although I don’t deny that it can be 97% for some people). That’s why people want to know who’s inside.

Regardless of such resentment, the Turing computer, which could not produce results as an artificial intelligence as it is, has been developed to higher performance. It also gave birth to a new psychology, cognitivist psychology.

Which means, a psychology that considers the brain as hardware and the mind as software that uses its innate hardware to compute external stimuli (*12).

This software is the so-called ‘psyche’. Everyone loves psychosis, which became the subject of research (*13). Nowadays, this cognitivist psychology is the mainstream today.

Indeed, when we think of artificial intelligence today, we have an image of a perfect replication of the human psyche by precisely assembling this software.

However, then, there is software artificial intelligence. At least as of 2021, many of them cannot be called intelligent.

They advertise that it has defeated Chess grandmaster, Go master, or Shogi professionalist, but the point is that it is a high-speed search of a large database, isn’t it?

If this is the case that it devised its own countermeasure against a professional player who exploited a program bug during the game and changed its move, it would be a great intelligence. After its victory, if it is willing to give a wrestler kind of performance with microphone in an interview, I think I can say it is The Destroyer of complete intelligence. But for now, the manager-like person beside it 🙄 is supposed to answer instead.

In other words, at a minimum the intellect/consciousness must have the ability to respond to the external environment.

In “Introduction to Phenomenology,” it is argued that this is Heideggerian artificial intelligence. Now, this time, we have a robot that is truly useful to people.

8. The one responds to the external environment, that is Intelligence.

What we have here, however, is not the friend robot of our dreams.

What appeared was servants returning after military action on Battle fields. Boston Dynamics’ Robodog, iRobot’s Roomba, and the U.S. Air Force autonomous drone Skyborg. And the master of them all, Mr. Heidegger, was coming towards us as Ogre the strongest!

…Bailout ooooh!!!!

No, it is indeed amazing. They say that drones have already really gained combat experience (*14). But why did this happen? I wonder…can you stop starting “Terminator”?

— Super Cool Time —

There is no time before we are attacked. So, if I were to put Heideggerian ontology in a nutshell, I would say that it is a ‘Philosophy for Success’.

Heidegger is rumored to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, and his book “Being and Time” is said to be one of the most difficult philosophy books to read. Therefore, it seems for a moment to be an ivory tower existence that has no impact on reality. But when you think about it, there are so many robots working in reality based on that philosophy. Even though the genre is ‘philosophy’, the actual content should be practical, like a business book.

So, at first, its contents are digested as an ‘ism’ among the high class, and then it gradually reaches lower class of us. That is like the trickle down of a champagne tower.

If you look at the explanatory manual with this assumption in mind, you will probably be able to understand it somewhat. This is because the diluted contents has already been propagated among us.

However, please note that the content from here on is quite dense. Okay? Then, let’s go, shall we?

For Heidegger, the Philosopher for Success, all the external environment is ‘stuff’.

OMG, this just gives you the feeling of being anxiety, doesn’t it? Can’t you taste it? If you can’t, please go back to the very first discussion, “There are three sorts of photography.

Please remember I divided the subjects into three categories: Character, Product, and Scenery. In other words, I thought there were three kinds of external environment.

But Heidegger thinks that is not the case. Zeug in German, stuff in English, and Mono in Japanese, that’s all there is.

‘Zeug’ includes everything that is actually used as a tool and everything that could be used as a tool in the future, so there are no blind spots. He is invincible.

That is, Heidegger is an invincible photographer.

“…and divides the ‘Zeug’ into two types. The state in which the user is immersed in using it is ’Tool existence’ and the state in which he comes back to himself and looks at it objectively and consciously is ‘Thing existence’.”

I said, Heidegger is an invincible Photographer who says, “I shoot Product everyday… but sometimes Landscape”.

This is absurd…

But when you rethink about it, it is indeed surprisingly difficult to separate people and objects in a coherent manner.

Take, for example, model photography for cosmetics advertisements. The subject is certainly a person, but as a photographer, his job is to photograph the skin beautifully. Despite the model is a subject, he sees it as an object. On the other hand, there are cases in which a toy models are photographed as if they were living, moving characters, such as “Gundam” – the animation character’s plastic model.

Heidegger, however, said “Let’s bet my soul to the uniformity of the external environment with stuff!”.

Because it has more possibilities that way.

For Heidegger, the external environment, ‘the world’ is disclosed as usable objects. The external environment is either a ‘world’ that the user actively engages in and uses, or, conversely, a state of passive engagement and affective use induced by the ‘world’.

And for Heidegger, the most real ‘being’ or ‘actual being’ is a stuff that is “precognitive, skillful, familiar, affective, and constituted by purposeful care” (*15). It could be rephrased that is O-MO-TE-NA-SHI in Japanese.

Heidegger’s philosophy is bloodier and more human than Kant’s. Perhaps there is an influence of psychology.

9. When you see a man, think of him as a tool! Money is heavier than life・・・・・!

“Is this the greatest philosopher of the 20th century? What a rant…!”

But wait a minute, please stop going over the steel and start a communist revolution. I think there is a kind of truth in this.

There is a historical fact that Heidegger learned directly from Husserl, his mentor, and there is a phenomenological aspect to his philosophy. He actually made a profound deliberation about the structure of consciousness. This is not just an idea of a sadist.

So, returning again to the dimension of consciousness, do you remember Husserl’s assertion that 1. a precognitive ‘noema’ appears first as the structure of consciousness?

Then, where does this hypothetical ‘noema’ arise from? From knowledge, from experience, or from memory?

Heidegger suggested that it originates from ‘usability’.

I think this is what he means by ‘Zeug’. When we recognize something, if we do not understand that it is ‘usable’ beforehand, we cannot recognize it in the first place. Such structure of consciousness is what Heidegger’s philosophy is based on.

This is something we can experiment with as adults, without having to observe infants.

For example, if I were sitting in the cockpit of an airplane, I would see an array of gauges and switches. But I don’t know what they do.

I can feel that the airplane is losing altitude. I know the steering wheel, so I grab it. I try to move it to see what I can do. Then I hit the ground! OMG! In fact, the button for the emergency escape device was right in front of me.

— CONTINUE ? —

But what if you could make the most of the ‘usability’ that is already there, without dying like I did? What if we could increase the amount of information we acquire by thinking of everything as a tool, and outperform others at the point of cognition?

…That is what we call the ‘Philosophy for Success’, isn’t it?

This philosophy seems particularly compatible with capitalism, since capitalist society views people as a single function that can be used, and the roles are shared.

Based on such Heideggerian ontology, Merleau-Ponty further considers that ‘usability’ originates from the body, and proceeds to examine, for example, the inducibility of the steering wheel to the hand. This leads to what James J. Gibson calls affordance.

The results of this research led to Skynet, which is composed of Heideggerian artificial intelligence.

“Is this the choice of Destiny Stone Door, Steinsgate——— !?”

“Then we still need the communist revolution!” “U-S-S-R! U-S-S-R!” “No, wait a minute. We haven’t solved all the mysteries yet. We haven’t got the answer what kind of existence ‘Character’ can be in this world!” “Human…the last standing…”

10. ‘Itsuki Kujo’ is not usable.

Unfortunately, however, there is no hope for ‘Character’ that is not so much mentioned in Heidegger’s philosophy. This is because they are ‘existences’ that fall outside the category of ‘usability’ and they must be ‘existences’ filled with ‘unusability’. It is not at all surprising that Heidegger does not emphasize them.

The label of ‘Character’ is applied only to things that cannot be controlled by others. That is the world of prehistoric animism.

Even today, typhoons, for example, are a case in point. We give numbers and names to storm phenomena. But if people could adjust the wind and rain at will, all they would have to do is change it so that it rains in just the right amount before causing unnecessary damage. If that were the case, we would not bother to name such a phenomenon.

“In short, something like ‘Itsuki Kujo’ would be the same as a typhoon, which is outrageous!”

End of explanation.

…So we have seen how solid Heideggerian ontology is for the structure of human consciousness.

Now that Heidegger’s philosophy is trickling down, it’s past time for a social model that divides the left wing into those who favor individuality and freedom, and the right wing into those who favor the state and cooperativeness.

At present, ‘character’, as an entity of unusability, is the enemy of Neo-liberalism and is excluded from the national economy, which subscribes to a Heideggerian ontology. This is the course directed. We could say that, couldn’t we?

And since that is the structure of human consciousness, it seems that the orientation toward the elimination of ‘Character’ will not change in the end, whether it is capitalism or communism.

But of course, I do not intend to follow that here. I think that the breakdown of its Heideggerian ontology is so obvious that it is not worth pointing out every single time, isn’t it?

Because the ‘Philosophy for Success’ is self-destructive. And the key to disable that self-destructive switch lies in the ‘usability’ of the thing itself.

As a concrete example, I would like to show the self-contradiction and self-destruction of ‘Feminism Phenomenology’ the domain of Heideggerian ontology.

— Shall we move on ? —

‘Feminism Phenomenology’, a term you may not have heard before. It is said it was established in 1980, thanks to Iris Marion Young’s paper titled “Throwing Like a Girl,” submitted in 1980.

In my opinion, this is a bit different from the movement to eliminate discrimination against women. But rather I insist this is the recent ‘feminism’ and ‘ideology’ behind it that has been the topic in the twitter world. The debate is convoluted.

Since it’s “Throwing Like a Girl”, remember, for example, a girl does ceremonial first pitch in a baseball stadium, whose form is often different from that of a man. It is so-called women’s throw.

According to Young, the cause of this phenomenon is ‘the male gaze’.

In other words, men perceive their own bodies as ‘usable’ and naturally become the subject of the act. Women, on the other hand, are the subjects of their actions, but at the same time they have an object in their self-consciousness, “experiencing themselves as a person to be watched”. Therefore, “women experience a discontinuous unity in their bodies” (*16). Young claimed this is the true nature of the inefficient female throwing motion.

To sum up, women are inhibited by men from the ‘usability’ of their own bodies. It seems to contain an aspect of truth.

But what is to be done to eliminate this ‘inequality’? It seems a rather sterile question. If it is only ball-throwing, it is enough to correct it through practice. But what if it escalates, as it has in recent years?

In the end, we will have no choice but to eradicate men or deny women themselves, deny the ‘unusability’ of their bodies, which do not move according to their own will.

The same can be said for all minorities, and conversely for the majors, such as nations and giant global corporations, as the elimination of one’s ‘unusability’ will eventually lead to self-destruction.

This is because what the Philosopher for Success call ‘usability’ depends on the ‘One and Only’ value of self-consciousness as an organism.

…What am I saying?

11. What is the character, ‘Itsuki Kujo’?

In the last issue of “Schrödinger’s Cat and its answer;“, I came to the very ordinary conclusion that the value of ‘One and Only’ is ‘Llife’! I am sure you remember that I was no longer taken seriously by anyone as a result of coming to the extremely banal conclusion.

But again, I would like to reiterate that all values are ordered from the ‘One and Only’ value, ‘Life’.

And ‘usability’ = ‘function’ is not value itself. Since it is only an institution that amplifies value, we can say that every ‘function’ depends on the ‘One and Only’ value of self-consciousness as an organism.

In phenomenological terms, Husserl’s ‘noema’ is not created only from the world disclosed in ‘usability’. I’d say it is also created from the self-consciousness of ‘unusability’ at the same time.

And these are the source of the value and the functionality of ‘noema’ that makes the most of it. I think we can say it like that.

In layman’s terms, “Only with life can you do anything”.

Feminism is a result of women, and corporate activities are a result of people. This is very natural, but when we are immersed in what Heidegger calls ‘Tool existence’ we forget this. That is why such a thing may happen.

— Epilogue —

Then finally We have returned to the question; “What is the character, ‘Itsuki Kujo’?”

As Heidegger pointed out, ‘Character’, including self-consciousness, is essentially full of ‘unusability’.

However, it is precisely because of this ‘unusability’ that the exchange of value and functionality is possible. And it is only when the ‘One and Only’ value derived from the preservation of self-consciousness is projected onto the other, a concept that cannot be completely ‘fulfilled’, that the exchange of value and functionality becomes possible.

…That is what I am trying to say.

The previous conclusion, that the value of ‘One and Only’ is ‘Life’, does not clarify why ‘transfer’ is necessary. I was not clear on this point. I think I have now done my homework.

So, I hope you can understand ‘Itsuki Kujo’ as such a Personality/Character. Thank you very much.

I wonder you can’t understand this unless you see through the next story…?

Note.)

  1. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was published in 1781 (first edition). The second edition, which was greatly modified, was published in 1787.
  2. “Introduction to Phenomenology: For a New Science and Philosophy of Mind” by Stefan Coiffer and Antony Chemero, Keiso Shobo, 2018.
  3. from “Introduction to Phenomenology”
  4. In “Introduction to Phenomenology,” Kant points out that he is discussing incongruent objects (two mirror images that are conceptually identical but do not agree with each other). However, this argument is somewhat inaccurate because of its emphasis on momentum.
  5. “The Current Situation Surrounding the National University Corporation Operating Grants” – According to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) website (2020), the main focus of budget allocation is the promotion of scientific and technological innovation on a results-based system.
  6. “Action potential” is a transient change in membrane potential that occurs in response to some stimulus.
  7. According to “Non-Designer’s Design Book” [4th edition] by Robin Williams (Mynavi Publishing, 2020), there are four basic principles of design (contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity).
  8. If you are interested in character making, I personally recommend you to search for “Hideshi Otsuka”.
  9. There might not be unit of “fullness” in Husserl’s philosophy. It is a coined word of mine.
  10. The “simulacra phenomenon,” in which the brain functions to see a figure consisting of three dots as a human face, is well-known.
  11. from “Introduction to Phenomenology”.
  12. See “Cognitive Psychology”.
  13. I think it is the negative legacy of “Evangelion” which is the animation series aired on TV that psychosis has become a civil right in Japan, and I really think that laypeople should not easily brandish the name of psychosis.
  14. “First human attack in Libya with Turkish-made autonomous attack drone: UN reports” – Yahoo News (2021/06/07)
    Source: “MILITARY DRONES MAY HAVE ATTACKED HUMANS FOR FIRST TIME WITHOUT BEING INSTRUCTED TO, UN REPORT SAYS” – THE INDEPENDENT (05/31/2021)
  15. from “Introduction to Phenomenology”.
  16. from “Introduction to Phenomenology” again.

PREVIOUS:Conceptual Works

ページ: 1 2