What do you think of the "blue ramen" brought by Rinrin on delivery in the drama "Nemesis" (2021, starring Hirose Suzu)? It's a real ramen, but I don't think it's delicious. A big blue macaroon also comes out, but it feels more strange than that. This is because the image of ramen noodles is yellow (or cream), udon is white, and buckwheat is brown (or gray). It's a feeling based on the experience of eating ramen, udon and soba. It is a certain color, a color that "should" be, as a criterion for eating delicious noodles.
When I see a blue apple or a blue mandarin orange, I intuitively think that it is "colored" or "painted".
We think apples are red (or yellow or green), but most people have never seen "actual apples growing in apple fields". Is it not? What are the criteria for buying apples in supermarkets?
Organic oil
Today, I was talking about "organic oil" on TV. It's not that old that the word "organic" was commonly used in Japan. I don't think I was a kid.
Due to pollution problems, public opposition to food additives has emerged, and there has been a backlash against chemical fertilizers (chemical pesticides). It has also become an organic vegetable boom, but I don't think it is very popular. Organic farming may have had the image of a traditional farming method using "human manure." Human feces have an image of odor as a medium such as gourd. Everyone is dripping almost every day.
Therefore, "organic" was paraphrased as "organic". Organic is the same origin as the instrument "organ". I'm not sure about this. Scientifically, it is an "organic compound", that is, a compound containing carbon. When organics came out in high school chemistry, unlike the previous inorganic substances such as H 2 O, it became complicated and I hated chemistry. The bitter memories are even allergic. I think that complexity is what the organ really is. It's complicated, but it's something that is intertwined with certain rules and constitutes the whole as something that achieves some purpose , isn't it? Therefore, it is used in various meanings such as organs, music (instruments), and living things (the element "carbon" was defined at the end of the 18th century).
Isn't it difficult to become Japanese? Perhaps Japan didn't have such a concept. The idea that something is for something and something is for something is different from "causal law". For example, the idea that horses are for carrying humans and apples are for being eaten by humans is human-centered, and I think it is a very modern idea.
Organic farming was once called "natural farming". The word "natural" seems to have been used for a long time in Japan, but it was used as a pair of "artificial" after the Meiji era. It is a translation of "nature" and "art" (indian and European languages such as).
"Natural" color of food
Coloring of food has been around for a long time since ancient Egyptian times throughout human history. (P.ⅶ)
In the culture of cooking (processing) food, it may have been colored for a long time. Food changes color when cooked or processed. It can be a good indicator of whether cooking and processing (boil, bake, ferment, etc.) is complete, but coloring is done at certain places (eg royal palace) and at certain times (eg festivals and ceremonies). Isn't it?
The recent health boom, natural food boom, chemical pollution, "sustainable society", and other "natural colors" and "natural food" orientations are coming in waves. ..
When we say "natural" color here, it means the "should" color of the food that people imagine, and in this book it is almost synonymous with the "natural" color. It is used for. Therefore, it does not mean a color that appears naturally (without artificial manipulation). It should be noted here that this concept of natural color and ideal color is the color that people have come to think of as natural and should be in a certain time and place. (P.ⅵ)
The surrounding environment felt through the five senses-for example, sounds and odors-has changed, and how to recognize and understand that environment has changed with the times. (P.ⅸ)
In other words, "nature / should be" means that it changes with the times (history) and culture. It is often said that the criteria for "beauty" differ between the Heian period and the Edo period. It should be different in Meiji, Showa and Heisei (Reiwa). That is why it is called "Showa Kao". The standards of beauty will be different in Japan and Italy.
However, in Western Europe, it has been said that "external things", beauty, colors, and odors exist "objectively". On the other hand, the existence of "subjectivity" is also a premise of Western thinking. I think Western philosophy has been around the "existence" of that "subjective and objective". Recognizing an objective existence is subjective. At that time, it can be roughly divided into the idea that "only the recognizing subject" or "there is no existence other than recognition" and the idea that "the object exists regardless of how the subject recognizes". .. The former can be called the theory of philanthropy, and the latter can be called the theory of philanthropy.
Modern visual culture
Since modern times, it has been a monolithic culture. But the theory of materiality is not that strong. Simply put, the objective reality around you is "closed" and invisible. How different is "existing even if you can't see" from "existing though you can't see gods and ghosts"? Recognizing (feeling) is subjective. When asked, "Isn't it your belief because it's an objective existence?" "Isn't it just believing that it exists?", I don't know if the "questioning person" itself exists. How can I say that you and I see the same thing and feel the same?
New color measurement methods and instruments such as spectrophotometers are more objective and reliable in machines than in the human body (modern). It can be said that it is a typical example that embodies a modernity-like idea. (P.21)
"It's not how you feel (think, think). The machine says this. This is proof. This is "It's right." It doesn't matter what you think or what others think, "a non-human machine is right."
But this is a contradiction. There is nothing right or wrong with the machine. "Correct" and "wrong" are human problems. It is said that computers will soon exceed human capabilities. Some people say, "The computer is correct." You can program. If you run a program that says, "If it exceeds 10, it will be displayed as correct, and if it is less than 10, it will be displayed as incorrect." But that's not what the computer thinks, and it's not the right decision. Instead of "correct, wrong", you can display "happy, unhappy" or "dog, cat". Originally, this "what is the ability" must be asked.
Criteria
In response to this, even in the Colorant Amendment Law, the harmful and harmless delineation of additives is whether or not there is a health hazard in animal experiments. Regardless, it was decided by whether or not the amount normally ingested by a person is harmful to the human body. (P.51)
This is because the safety standards for foods and additives used differ from country to country, and the "safety" of food is socially and politically. It can be said that it was constructed. (P.54)
The contaminated water from the nuclear power plant (called "treated water") is about to be dumped into the ocean (called "release"). "Before release, dilute with seawater to reduce the tritium concentration to 1/40 or less of the national emission standard." Don't you think it's funny? "Diluting with sea water and flushing into the sea" does not mean diluting. In that case, it will be the same even if you let it flow without diluting it. Is it easy to understand if "sea" is changed to "bath"?
The more problematic thing is the "criteria". Standards for radioactivity are changing all the time. Especially after 3.11, it has been changed (relaxed) steadily. If it is so "safe", the nuclear power plant should be built in the Imperial Palace. Contaminated water should be drunk by those who think it is "safe". "Dilute".
A culture of visual dominance
Of particular note is that people have come to choose by appearance rather than by the smell or taste of food. In the United States at the end of the 1920s, self-service supermarkets were becoming more and more widespread. With the change in food retailing methods, eating processed foods in cans and bottles in advance has become commonplace, which has greatly changed not only what people eat but also what and how they choose. be. (P.133-134)
In Japan, the culture of "listening to the voice of insects" and the culture of "listening to incense" remain. Since sight and hearing are one of the five senses, there will be no culture without hearing and hearing. However, I think it depends on the culture (depending on the times) which sense to focus on. Visuality predominates in modern culture. However, in Western Europe, I think that the emphasis has been relatively on vision for a long time.
The big difference between "seeing" and "listening" is how to place the subject. Seeing is more active than listening. Seeing is self-centered. You can't see it if you close your eyes, but the sound is "hearing".
Isn't this related to the "subject predicate structure" of the Indo-European language? This is because it is a language that always gives the "subject" as the subject of the act. Is the subject of "It's raining" "rain"? Or is it "It"? I don't think it's "rain". It seems that many people say that Japanese has no subject or that it is a subject presentation, but why is it necessary to apply Japanese to the grammar of Indo-European languages? I feel that the "main-customer structural thinking" that is the basis of language is thin in Japanese culture. There is no "subject of action" in the phenomenon of "raining". You don't even need a "predicate" for anything. "Spring is Akebono" and "the sound of frogs jumping into the water" are all right. How to interpret it is "culture". If you can't understand it without adding "it's funny" to it, it means that Japan is such a culture now.
"Existence" in Western Europe is "the subject" (the first entity of Aristotelis). On the other hand, the property (form, second entity, for example, beautiful) expresses the "property of the subject", but it also becomes the subject by making it the main character (nounization) ("beauty" or "good"). And). As soon as it becomes the subject, it becomes the subject of the act. This is a natural process due to the nature of the language.
He didn't realize that Aristotelis's primary entity was "I" rather than "Socrates". Heidegar named it "Da Zein".
A culture of visual dominance also visualizes (visualizes) voice (sound). In other words, it is a "character". By making it into letters, various things are transformed into "existence". It is difficult for people who speak Indian and European languages to notice that "I am because I think" is not "to say" but "to make it into letters".
Collapse of visual dominance?
As we have seen in this book, the "should" and "natural" colors of food have been created over the long history. It is because people have internalized such colors and have a certain degree of common understanding that the pictures of online supermarkets are possible. That is, in many foods, their colors, tastes and shapes have been standardized, and many have come to think of standardized colors as "natural" or "ordinary." , Net super can work. (P.186)
I lost what the five senses left behind in the past were in the multifaceted exploration of a person's fundamental physical experience and cognition of sensations and emotions. I think there is a hint to think about what it means. (P.204)
After reading this book, when I looked at the cash register and the inside of the store from the stairs of the supermarket, the meaning of the scenery changed. I hope the author will continue to deepen this awareness. And please tell me various things with an exciting book.
I would like you to clarify the distinction when thinking. Both the Internet and TV are visual cultures. And I learned it from Walter J. Ong and call it "letter culture". The feelings and experiences that have been externalized as characters are accumulated. It is not "remembered" but "recorded". The "voice" disappears quickly, but the "character" is "not consumed even if used". That creates "history".
Because the future is born from the accumulation of the past. (P.204)
Characters are accumulated. However, the knowledge gained from it is not an "experience." This is because it does not involve "five senses".
It also meant that the idea of the five senses, which was previously thought to be subjective, physical and inoperable, has changed radically. (P.198)
In the future, we may be able to make a TV with "smell" and "skin sensation". It does not have to be a physical "smell" or "tactile". You will be able to create "experience-like things" by injecting hormones or electrically stimulating the brain. Science breaks things (events) into elements (parts). It is assumed that each sensation can be obtained by decomposing into the part of the brain that feels the smell, the part of the brain that feels the pain, etc. and stimulating them. But is that so? I don't think the whole thing is a collection of parts. Even if you add "partial relationships" or "structure" (or "gestart") to it, I don't think it will be the whole.
Conversely, it is "impossible to divide into parts". In the above example, it is "separation of subject and object". There can be no object without an object or an object without an object. I think that is the fundamental problem of Western philosophy.
Nature and Artificial
Finally, I will write what I am thinking about "natural" and "artificial".
The word "nature" has been around for a long time. "Jinen" is a Buddhist term. Various problems arose when it became the translation of "nature". "Art, artificial" is paired with "nature". When "human hand" and "human intention" are added to "nature", it becomes "art". This involves the "main-customer relationship" of "human (self)" and "object (object)".
In Japan, there are still many biases (?) To cosmetic shaping. Some say, "That nose (chest) is a fake." This "art" is "art". In Japan it is (incompatible) with "nature", but in Western Europe it is not a conflict but a complement. Poetry and architecture are "art". Therefore, it is sometimes translated as "technology". Like fruits, vegetables and meat, there must be a "house to live in". Therefore, "nature" and "art" complement each other.
It is the same not only in Western Europe but also in Japan (anywhere in the world). However, the situation is different when the "subject" comes in there. It is possible to think objectively that "apples are for to be eaten by me (humans)." It becomes possible to think that "others exist for you" and "your body is for you". If so, beauty shaping and tattoos will be as "nature" as apples and buildings.
If everything, including your own body, becomes "Nature", the existence of "art" for it becomes "Geist".
Kant's words, "treat others as a purpose, not as a means," seem to be understandable but not well understood. Perhaps this is a word that comes from thinking about the subject and the object, the spirit and nature, based on Western tradition. Considering that both and apples exist for their own lives, "existence" is the means for the purpose of "living." It is a "self" centricity (never animals or plants live). I think Kant was thinking of getting out of it, but he can't get away from it as long as he uses the concepts of "means" and "purpose."
Food additives, coloring agents, and "gene manipulation" are also "science" and "technology". It is "art". It is neither "anti-natural" nor "super-natural". It is a "supplement to nature," or more specifically, a "part of nature."
I find cosmetic shaping to be "unnatural". I would like to eat "natural food". I feel that blue ramen and blue macaroons are "unnatural". I don't know if it comes from "ancient Japanese culture", postwar democratic education, anti-pollution movements, anti-capitalist struggles, or "health supremacy".
When I was young, I didn't have blue ramen. However, the red rice was colored bright red. Nowadays, such red rice would be unpleasant. I don't know what kind of color "natural red from red beans" is because I have never made red rice myself. If blue ramen can be eaten anywhere and there are menus such as "miso", "shoyu", "shio" and "ao", blue ramen will become "the natural and delicious color of ramen". Let's do it.
And that is connected to "new liberalism" and "new capitalism", "visual superiority" and "selfishness", my "difficulty in living" Being connected to ...
It was a "good book" that made me think about such things.
『Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat』(ハーバード大学出版局、2019) • ハグリープライズ受賞(Business History Conference, 2020) • 清水博賞受賞(日本アメリカ学会, 2020)