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?

Index

1. What is the ‘Character’?
2. Master and Disciple, Supreme and Ultimate tend to confront each other
3. Understanding, Decomposing, and Reconstructing to become a National Alchemist
4. The fashionable relationship between ‘Character’ and ‘Gestalt’
5. Even if you don’t understand the phenomenon, it doesn’t matter as long as you can make use of it
6. The photo exhibition was a foreshadowing
7. Being and Time? I think I heard it somewhere…
8. The one responds to the external environment, that is Intelligence.
9. When you see a man, think of him as a tool! Money is heavier than life・・・・・!
10. ‘Itsuki Kujo’ is not usable.
11. What is the character, ‘Itsuki Kujo’?

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

［● ○］→［○ ●］→［● ○］→［○ ●］→［● ○］

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 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.

3. 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.

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.

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!

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…

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.

“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.

‘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.

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…?