警視庁ひきこもり係　2021日　樹下直美演出

A gorgeous member. That's fine, but I feel like I'm in a hurry to finish the script, the production, the expenses, and so on.

Because the video processing technology is advanced, it may be possible to do something about it, but even in this drama, there is a sense of discomfort in simple CG composition. I want you to cherish it because it is a key part of the drama.

This time too, the theme was siblings from orphanages. Recently, I'm very interested (I won't write in detail).

Is the correct sentence such as "I die because I am a human", "I fly in the sky because I am a bird", and "I am black because I am a crow"? There is no basis for saying "because I have a criminal record" or "because I am from a facility". It should not be the basis for reasoning. "Because I'm a woman" "Because I'm Chinese" ... It's the cause and result of discrimination. Even if I say "because I'm a man" or "because I'm Japanese", the structure doesn't change.

This structure doesn't collapse easily. "Human", "Bird", "Crow", "Die", "Fly", "Black", "Japanese", "Man", etc. are to generalize a concrete individual and distinguish it from others (segmentation). The word "crow" can be distinguished from other birds as a "black" bird (the gene is never visible and it does not recognize it as a crow because it has the crow gene).

Nouns originally contain properties that are different from those of "others" than abstraction / generalization. And the noun becomes more and more distant from the concrete one, and various meanings are added. It's similar to a story with a tail fin and spreading.

"Because" is similar to "generic sentence". The generic sentence is a sentence such as "The crow is black". ("Japanese and Logic" by Takashi Iida). Even if there is a non-black crow, this sentence cannot be said to be wrong. However, the problem is that the statement "mosquitoes carry dengue fever" cannot be said to be wrong, no matter how few mosquitoes carry dengue fever.

"Birds fly in the sky" and "Because they are birds, they fly in the sky" are similar and different. "Birds fly in the sky" represents "facts", but "because they are birds fly in the sky" represents a "causal relationship" between cause and effect.

As far as I know, thinking about causality has always been in every culture. It is the same thought as "I touched the wrath of God because I prayed badly." If there is a difference, it would be "farming culture". Sowing seeds in the spring without eating the harvest, and not throwing it away when it becomes surplus, can only be done in anticipation of the autumn harvest. Isn't it only agricultural culture that has a causal relationship between current actions and future harvests? There is a similar idea in hunting culture, but even if you pray to God or treat your prey carefully, there is no guarantee that you will catch it. So, while the causal relationship to the past that the prey was caught "as a result" is clear, the causal relationship to the future is not.

The livestock culture also predicts the breeding of livestock in the future. However, just because you do your best in livestock farming does not mean that livestock will give birth to children quickly or many. It is not human effort but "God's will" that governs it.

Because the future is promised, I can do my best (or can put up with it) now (because I can't promise the past, the "promise" itself is the future).

I think that the subtle difference between the causal relationship of "because" is the causal relationship to the "past" and the causal relationship to the "future".

The difference appears as "(self) identity", but that is another article.