About the author
I met the author around the time this book was published. As someone who knows a little about the author's situation at that time, I read this book with a feeling that the content of this book intersects with the author's life, making it hard to believe that it was someone else's business.
After that, all you have to do is exchange New Year's cards. I want to see you again.
I apologize to the author, but I got this as a used book at the time. There are a few markers from the previous owner. There are some lines that I drew, so I think I read it right after I bought it.
Romance Drama (Movie)
There are an almost infinite number of books that deal with love. Romance novels, erotic novels, romance manga (manga for adults and doujinshi), ``love how-to books'' such as books on how to ``become popular with the opposite sex,'' ``technique books'' on how to please the opposite sex with sex, so-called ``erotic books.'' ・Erotic magazines.
Recently, I've been seeing more and more boring movies, but I still watch a lot of dramas (I haven't been to the movie theater for years). There are so many love stories. For some time now, the number of works that deal with LGBT people and people with mental and physical disabilities has been increasing.
Where do children learn about "love" these days? You probably find out about it from TV dramas rather than from your parents or neighbors. And CM. Things like, “Is there love there?” It's already over, but Aimyon sings the theme song for ``Ranman'' and shouts ``love'' over and over again.
Love (I think that "love" that is not romance is rarely depicted.Aside from the love between parents and children, especially a mother's love for her child) is a "wonderful" and "precious" thing. It is described as something that is "necessary" and something that "must be done."
That's why young people search hard for romantic partners. SNS and "dating sites" are all the rage. There, some girls engage in ``daddy activities'' (prostitution), and sometimes they are deceived or involved in crimes. Still, they believe that not having a ``lover'' is ``lonely'' and ``poor.'' If you say that you don't need a lover, you will be seen as a ``recovered person'', ``give up'', a ``lonely person'', or even a ``weird person'' in some cases. They believe that falling in love is normal and that their inability to love others is ``abnormal.'' There was a time when I too worried that I had never truly loved someone. (One of the books I want right now is "Even if you realize that you have never truly loved someone)
The biggest interest in life
Even in this day and age, it is natural to fall in love or fall in love with someone during your student days. Chizuko Ueno says:
Actually, the media is a learning device for love. Whether it's sex or love, we can give names to experiences precisely because we have learned what they are through the media. (Omitted) When you later experience the corresponding emotion, you realize, ``Ah, this is what love is (as I knew it from that story).'' This is called ``definition of experience.'' Without prior knowledge of concepts, it is not possible to give a name to an experience. (Chizuko Ueno, Ryomi Suzuki, Reciprocal letter< /a>'' P.76)
Perhaps, many people think that ``love'' exists as a ``concept'' that expresses ``the phenomenon of love.'' I believe that when you reach a certain age, it will come out of your heart or your body. In other words, it disappears as we get older). It is inevitable like natural science, and it is a ``natural'' thing for humans. That's why we lament the fact that we don't have a lover, that we can't fall in love, and that we can't love others.
Love has become the most important thing in life, and people are looking for love as something they ``must do.'' I don't think that's a "good thing". It feels very unnatural to be interested in love, or even to think of it as a goal in life. Having received a post-war democratic education, I have always thought that freedom and equality are good things, unconditionally (and baselessly). That's what I've been looking for, and in some ways I still do. I thought that ``arranged marriage'' was a remnant of the feudal system (something bad, backward, inferior), and ``free love'' (you get the idea) was ``a democratic and good thing.'' I believed that people fall in love and get married.
My father also fell in love and got married (apparently), and I also got married after we met. The "Meddlesome Aunt" is gone, and being introduced to my boss at work was "unthinkable" (I think "Meddlesome Aunt" has just changed to "dating app"). I've never thought that marriage and sex are the same thing, but I have a strong sexual desire (or so I think), so I ended up getting married just as it happened.
My children are now working adults, but they have no intention of getting married. It seems like he doesn't have a girlfriend either (I don't know). Do you have a weak sex drive unlike me?
Some people may say that sexual desire and love have nothing to do with each other. Maybe so. Maybe not. It's different for each person. I'm sure there are people who have a strong sexual desire and people who have a weak sexual desire, and there are people who have a ``love predisposition'' and people who are not interested in the ``heterosexual (or same-sex) person.''
However, for the time being, we are assuming the ``(possibly scientific) standard'' that ``human beings fall in love'' and ``love arises from sexual desire'', which is considered normal in today's society. Let's say.
What it means to own someone you love
First, about the title. It's not "What is love?" or "Why do people love others?" Similarly, it is not "What is ownership?" or "Why do people want to own it?" It's not about love, it's not about possession. However, if you want to write about ``possessing someone you love,'' in order to do so, there needs to be some level of agreement between the author and the reader, or rather, a common understanding, about ``what is love'' and ``what is ownership?'' is. Only then can we discuss ``owning a loved one.''
Books written about love have probably been around since the beginning of books. It seems that the writing that remains is from around 3200 BC (Toshiko Kobayashi's Sumer - the oldest human civilization< /a>' (I don't know if there was such a thing as 'literature' at that time). Hesiod's Theogony was written about 2,700 years ago, and it describes the love and jealousy of the gods. ``Kojiki'' was written about 1,300 years ago, and ``The Tale of Genji'' was written about 1,000 years ago. There seem to be countless books written about ownership. It is also mentioned in the works of Plato and Aristotle, so it must have been about 2400 years ago.
Even if a book is written about love, that love does not necessarily mean "love between a man and a woman," nor does it necessarily mean that it is the same as the love we have today. The "love" we find there may just be the kind of love that modern people are projecting (analogizing from their own love).
As for ownership, the ``ownership'' that cultural anthropologists found in the ``savage'' world is probably an analogy to our own society. The West was surprised because it was so ``foreign'' from their own society. I think that even ancient possessions often reflect our modern ownership concepts.
In any case, the premise of this book is love and possession in Japan at the time (20 years ago), and this book is about the relationship between love and possession. I thought it was written about.
There was no "love" in Japan
The reason why I say "at that time (20 years ago)" is that there was originally a time when Japan was (around the Meiji Restoration). This is because there was no such thing as "love".
In the past, the word society was a very difficult word to translate. Firstly, this is because there is no word equivalent to "society" in Japanese. The fact that there was no equivalent word means that there was no reality in Japan that corresponded to society. (written by Akira Yanagi, Circumstances of the establishment of translated words'' Iwanami Shinsho, P.3)
The kanji for ``sardine'' does not exist in China. The reason is simple: there are no sardines in China (the Yellow River basin where Kanji was born). Naturally, there was no concept (definition) of sardines.
Society, individuals, and love must have existed in every country and in every era. However, there were no words, concepts, or realities in Japan that corresponded to the words "society," "individual," and "love."
Love In China, it can already be seen in Lobscheid's "English and Chinese Dictionary" (1866-69), but in Japan, in the Meiji era. From the first year (1866) onwards, it was used as a translation of the English word love, along with ``ai koi'' and ``koi ni'', and eventually ``roi'' became predominant from the 1890s. (Selected Japanese Dictionary)
There was "Mederu", but it is different from "Ai". There may have been "love," but it would be different. Because in love, you "fall" (I don't say "fall in love"). There is such a thing as “I love you.”
First of all, ``Sukida'' is a ``state'' of ``I like you.'' ``To love'' is an active ``act'' (or ``to be loved'' is passive). In that sense, ``Do you have love?'' means ``Does something called love exist?'', so I don't know if it's a Japanese sentence that is a little different from ``action.''
When we talk about love, we need to keep in mind the cultural (linguistic) divisions of active/passive, action/state, or things will become confusing. The difference is whether or not ``subjectivity/ego'' is placed at the center. In other words, the meaning of loving someone differs depending on the cultural background. There may be some similarities between the ``love'' of Western Europeans and the ``love'' of Japanese people, but I believe that these differences are the deciding factor in ``what is love?'' ``Romeo and Juliet'' (although I have never read it) depicts how the ego acts on its own initiative when it is attacked by love that it cannot control, and the struggle between the self and love, and between the self and others. Well, I don't think The Tale of Genji (although I haven't read it) is trying to fight love. In The Tale of Genji, love is just something that exists.
Next, "I like you" is a "state", so it is not an objectively existing "thing" in itself. “I like you” is a change of state.
Today, when I went to my child's apartment, I saw the following message: ="">I fell in love with science, so I tried to prove it. There was a manga called `` '' (written by Alfred Yamamoto). It's a story about two people who fall in love in a science class and try to prove logically (theoretically) whether it's really love. They try to prove love objectively by conducting various experiments, measuring pulse rates and body temperature. I don't think "love" is purely "subjective," but does it exist objectively, completely apart from subjectivity?
making the self an object, making the self passiveIt is quite another thing tobepassively.'' (P. 88, quote from Beauvoir's The Second Sex) p>
The sadness of modern Westerners, who can only be seen as active and passive, is evident.
There was no "freedom" in Japan
The word "freedom" has a good meaning if understood correctly, but if understood incorrectly, it has a meaning. We tend to vaguely think that it means something bad, but I don't think that is the case. The problem is not in the way we understand it. Words that have deep roots in the mother tongue and carry history cannot be mistaken.
The misunderstood word ``freedom'' is the translated word ``freedom.''
The word "freedom" that we use in modern times has two meanings: the English translation of Western words such as "freedom" and "liberty," and the traditional Chinese character for "freedom." The meanings are mixed. To put it simply, ``freedom'' as a translated word from Western Europe has a good meaning, and ``freedom'' in its traditional form has a bad meaning. (Previously cited, “Circumstances of Translated Words,” p. 177)
The Mayor of Shibuya Ward calls on the Foreign Correspondents Association this year, “Do not come to Shibuya for Halloween.” It became a hot topic.
Shibuya Ward, Mayor Ken Hasebe
We want to clearly convey to the world that Shibuya is not a venue for Halloween events ("YAHOO! News)
Itaewon, South Korea They say they are concerned about the same type of crowd accidents.It seems that drinking on the street has also become a problem.It's tempting to say, "That's our freedom. It's not like we're breaking the law."
``Freedom'' was originally defined as ``(1) the state of being able to act according to one's heart; the state of being able to act as one wishes, without any constraints or obstacles; .Selfish and selfish. ②Desire to need something. ③Demand. Toilet. Bath. Chozuba." ("Selected Japanese Dictionary). Added to this is the translated word ``freedom''.
④ (Translation of liberty, freedom) Political freedom and mental freedom. In general, liberty refers to political freedom, and freedom mainly refers to mental freedom, but the latter can also refer to political freedom. [English-Japanese Bilingual Dictionary (1862)] ⑤ The range within which a person can perform an act. A voluntary act within the limits of the law. This means that they have full rights and obligations. (Selected Japanese Dictionary)
``Liberty, freedom'' is a word rooted in the history of Western Europe. Westerners must feel it with their "skin." Japan has a Japanese history, but it is different from the history of Western Europe.
In general, it is not easy to answer the question of what translation words are chosen and which ones remain. However, it can be said that, considering the meaning of the letters, the most appropriate words remain.
One thing that can be said is that words that look like translated words will become established. A translated word is a word with a foreign surname and a foreign meaning that has entered the context of the native language. There is always something about foreign words that I don't understand. The wording is off somehow. On the contrary, it is better for such words to remain unknown and misplaced. If you blend into your native language, you may end up having trouble using it.
In the Japanese language, words in kanji that are read aloud were originally words of foreign surnames. The Japanese language has mixed this foreign language with the Yamato language, while preserving its original surname. The reason why there are many kanji and two-character phonetic words in translated words since modern times naturally follows this principle of tradition. Even among two-letter phonetic words, it is better to have a word that feels strange in some way than a word that fits well into the native language. People don't consciously choose to do this, but the language structure of the Japanese language naturally works that way. A translated word is a word that is distinct from the original native language. They are words that have some kind of distinction that people can intuitively sense. (Previously mentioned, ``Circumstances of Translated Words'', P.186-187)
If I don't write it down, I'll forget it (sorry)
I'd like to take a short detour. I think. However, I don't think anyone is reading this blog, so it doesn't matter. I would like to send this page to the author. I think he'll read it.
I quickly forget things I've thought about recently (though I've always had them, but occasionally). I could just take notes, but I don't have that habit, and it's a pain to even bother to turn on my computer. By the time you start up your old computer, you may forget what you were thinking. I'm thinking about making voice memos on my smartphone, but if I was muttering to myself in the middle of the night, people would think, ``I've finally lost my mind'' (lol).
Pronouns
In Japanese, there are various ways to express yourself.
Me (boku, me) - myself - self - ego, etc.
There are several expressions in English, but the basic one is "I" and variations include "me". Of course, you may also use your own name.
Japanese language expresses relationships, not existence, so we say to our children, ``This is what your father thinks.'' The child says, ``Dad is wrong.'' "Dad" in this case is not a first person singular pronoun. It's not even the subject. I'm just showing you who the topic is. So when you know who is talking about it and there is no need to emphasize it, there is no need to express it. It's okay to just say, ``That's what I think'' or ``That's wrong,'' or rather, it's normal.
"I like you." is not an abbreviation of "I like you." It's a sentence, and it doesn't contain any emotion. How about "I love you." Hmm, people may feel it differently depending on their age, but for me, I think for a moment, "Who? What?" Maybe he wasn't talking about me, but about another person or thing. Maybe it's because of the strong influence of dramas. I'm looking forward to the plot twist (?). I guess that's because the word "love" hasn't really settled in my mind yet. The reason why many people, including myself, feel that I can't love someone may be because the words ``love'' and ``romance'' have not yet become firmly established in Japanese (``I can't love people''). If that's the case, then I've fallen in love with many people).
"I love you" is a "translated sentence". It's a literal translation of "I love you."
If "Jibutsu" is used to mean "liberty" or "freedom," it did not exist in Japan. To think that this is Japan's backwardness or something to be ashamed of is nothing more than a sense of inferiority towards modern Western culture. The fact that it wasn't there means that Japan didn't need it.
Taught language
Ilyich distinguishes between "vernacular spoken language" and "taught mother tongue." I can't explain this. Japanese has many different words, including dialects, the Japanese taught at school, common language (standard language), written language, and words used in TV dramas, movies, and plays. For now, I will define ``vernacular spoken words'' as ``words you memorize and use for the first time.'' Sometimes I learn this from my mother, and sometimes I learn it from TV. Most people use it before their schooling begins. And the ``taught mother tongue'' is the language taught at school. The foundation of this is ``school grammar,'' in which students are taught that ``a correct sentence is one that has a subject and a predicate,'' and ``If it doesn't, it's been omitted.'' English education will firmly establish this.
Japan since the Meiji era has been a translation culture. Most of the important foreign literature has Japanese translations. The result is a translated text. It started as "literary language" and changed to "colloquial language".
When many ordinary people, who are readers, look at a text, they immediately sense the presence of foreign words that are unfamiliar to them. In terms of individual words, these include hard-to-understand kanji written in the native language and foreign words written in katakana. In fact, rather than being difficult or difficult to understand, they are different. It is a foreigner's word for ordinary Japanese. Also, in terms of syntax, this is the case with sentences that feel stiff and stilted. (Omitted) Despite feeling uncomfortable, people accept it anyway. This kind of tolerance among readers in general has also contributed to today's culture of mass translation. (Akira Yanagichi “5 Translation Problems” “Iwanami Lecture”
Japanese” separate volume, P.142-143)
Recently, many official government documents and statements made by bureaucrats use Katakana. Also alphabetical abbreviations. I sometimes wonder if bureaucrats themselves know how to use it, but I'm sure most people use it without realizing it (``gender'' is a good example). I guess they think it's something new and will appeal to young people. It hasn't changed since the Meiji era.
And,
The reason is that today, when we say we think differently, we think in terms of the Japanese translation. (Ibid., p. 143)
I can't write the sentences I write without using translated words, and I try to follow school grammar. I try not to use dialects as much as possible, but even if I did, I wouldn't even notice (lol).
The changes and development of the meaning of the word ``he'' in the modern era are primarily due to it being used as a translated word, and then using the translated sentence as a model. This is because the sentence changed and it became used in the new sentence. (Previously mentioned, “Circumstances of Translation,” p. 199)
“Is that your boyfriend? He’s a bad guy.”
What a drama! used in I don't think it's used much in actual daily conversation. However, young people may use it. Dialects seem to be lost within a few generations (Yoneichi Ono, “6 Migration and Language Change,” supra, “Iwanami Lectures.”
Japanese, separate volume). The reason I try to follow school grammar is because I think more people will understand it (though it doesn't really matter since no one actually reads it).
Dialects
Dialects are being lost (I wonder if collection efforts are progressing), but when I hear Kawachi dialect or Hiroshima dialect, for example, I feel a little confused. It feels scary. Maybe it's the influence of movies. By using a dialect, you can get a feel for the culture behind it. It probably has a broader meaning than just the literal meaning.
Every language has the same background (code) as long as it is valid. ``Suitoruken'' ``I
love you" "je t'aime" "ti
The reason why the word "amo" is understood in each region is because they have a common code somewhere. This does not mean that "I love you," "Amour," and "Amore" "have the same meaning." I think they are different, just like "plate" and "dish" are different. I think that if you convert it into letters or a common language, it may get lost. I think this is because the analytical nature and partial nature of letters and common words cause a loss of wholeness.
Assuming there are certain thoughts and feelings (though they may not be), Japanese people can still feel what has been lost due to print and digitalization. This is because the culture of "calligraphy" is still loved by many people. There is "calligraphy" in Europe and America, but I don't think it is as widespread as calligraphy. What has been lost to print or digitalization cannot be restored. ``Reductionism'', which says that you can understand the original thing by analyzing it (dividing it into elements) and studying it, does not hold true.
Translation/digitization
Voice out what you feel and think in words, convert that voice into text, and digitize (quantify) it. It is impossible to recover what is lost during each process of converting data into "data." Those who know the difficulties of recording and transcribing conversations will understand. Facial expressions and gestures when speaking, the environment when you are separated, brightness, temperature and humidity, noise... all of these are "wholeness". Only those who were present at the venue can understand the uniqueness of the theatrical space and the difference between a live performance and a record/DVD.
The characteristic of writing (recording) is that you cannot know what happened at that particular moment. This means that emotions and ideas can be conveyed across space and time. The legend that Mesopotamian writing began as a letter, and the legend that Cangzhou came up with the idea of kanji after seeing the footprints of a bird, truly demonstrate the nature of writing that transcends time and space.
If you want to add to the legend or folklore, the person who received it or saw it must be able to read it. In other words, there must be a common understanding between the writer and the reader. Language is basically something that is used within a community. For those who understand the Tsugaru dialect, it is said that by listening to the Tsugaru dialect, you can tell which village (community) the person was born in (written by Toshiharu Matsumoto, Autism doesn't let go of Tsugaru dialect''). That's how vernacular the language is. Does language need to transcend community? If there is, it may be due to a "feeling of lack" or "scarcity." And I feel like this is the same as the emergence of the ``other,'' and is synonymous with the necessity of ``love.'' What I envision is a caravan that goes beyond farming and herding and crosses the desert. They bring scarcity to love.
The need for the Other, who lacks a common code, may have led to the creation of laws and the emergence of democracy (David Graeber, About the non-Western origins of democracy)
Possession (absent topic)
When I first met the author, the theory of ``ownership'' was popular. ``Das Kapital'' describes various types of ownership. I have already forgotten, but there are private ownership, individual ownership, possession, public ownership, community ownership, common ownership, etc. There were various theories regarding ownership. It is an economic concept, a political (legal) concept, and a philosophical concept.
The question of what ownership is has been considered since ancient Greece. But I couldn't understand. ``Why do humans have a desire to possess?'' That was "normal". Do other people have a desire to possess, or do people in ancient Greece have a similar desire to possess? This was before "logic" (theory). Because I myself am a very possessive person. Since I have a desire to possess, I think people from other cultures and ancient times also have it. Of course, I saw that some people around me probably didn't have the desire to possess as much as I did, but for me, possessiveness is an ``instinct'' and I suppressed it. It was culture and ethics (morality) to do so. And I hated it (ethics and morals). This was because they were seen as nothing more than vestiges of the ``feudal era'' and ``prewar militarism (totalitarianism).''
For the loved one, the love of possession is nothing but a kind of invasion that threatens to trample on the free and unique existence of the loved one. People must treat each other as problems. As long as people cannot escape from loving others and at the same time seek freedom. (P.10)
The author's ``ownership'' means ``exclusive possession,'' which is unique to the modern West. Modern law defines various ownership concepts. Not only objects but also rights such as copyrights are ``exclusive possession.'' However, these rights are derived from the ownership of things and are projections (mimetics, metaphors, metaphors) of that ownership. They transform objective "things (real things)" into "(pseudo) objects" and own them.
Me and you
Based on this is the idea that those things and rights "exist as objects (objectively)." (as if it were considered to be inherent in the product). They are not ``existence in general,'' ``universal existence,'' or ``existence itself.'' In Heidegger's words, it is a ``being Seiende.'' It is humans (subjects), ``present existence Da-sein'', that make existences into beings, that is, it is humans (subjects) that produce ``objects (objective things)''. And this is not "human beings in general" either. I believe that this is nothing but the "(modern) ego."
The "subjective/objective" relationship manifests as the "heart/body" relationship in love. The ``mind/body, mind/body dichotomy'' (p. 29) must find its basis in the ``separation of subject and object'' and ``separation of self and other people.'' That's obvious. Without ``I and you,'' ``I and Thou,'' and ``Self and Other,'' ownership cannot exist. The same goes for parent and child, even if it's not about love. The same applies not only to human relationships (e.g., capitalists and workers), but also to ``subject and object,'' ``humans and animals and plants (nature),'' ``people and things,'' and so on. If you think about it that way, I think the theory of reification (the relationship between people becomes a relationship between things) becomes clear.
Speaking in terms of the history of Western thought, where does this sense of superiority of the mind over the body come from? Since it exists in our society almost independently of Christian tradition, it is impossible to explain its origins from the context of the history of thought. It is a lie to promote the traditions of ``Japanese culture'' such as chastity and modesty, since a completely different reality has persisted. (P.25-26)
It is difficult to understand what kind of influence Hebraism (Christianity) had on Hellenism (classical Greece). It is hard to imagine the fate of humans who are driven out of paradise and become wandering people, who are tested (abandoned?) by God, who are in conflict with nature, but what if it were hard to live in itself? I have personally experienced what it feels like to commit (or want to) commit suicide. You can only rely on yourself, and your existence starts to feel boring. At that time, all you are thinking about is yourself, whether you are ``conscious'' or not. All I can think about is wanting to escape from this pain. At that time, what is important is not your body, but your ``spirit (consciousness)''. If such a thing exists in Judaism and Christianity, it seems likely that the superiority of the spirit (consciousness) will emerge, even if it has nothing to do with Christian tradition.
In this way, those who support an order that places the spiritual above the physical, while leaving the reality of their own urges out of consideration, place the spiritual above the physical. It seems that there is nothing other than the subjective opinion that evaluates it as vulgar, vulgar, and worthless. (P.29)
In order to clarify that it is an ideology, first of all, before the value order of the superiority of the mind, we must first consider the mind, body, and spirit. / I cannot help but emphasize that the dichotomy of the body itself is fundamentally questionable. (Same)
Heart and Body
In sexual love, the mind and body are intertwined and permeate each other. If this is the case, spiritual love cannot be secured as separate from carnal communion. (P.31)
"Spiritual love" and "physical communion". There seems to be a "spiritual communion". Is there no such thing as "physical love"?
The conflict between the mind and the body is the same as the mind viewing the body as an object. It is how I see the Other, and it is the relationship between subject and object. This ``subject-object structure'' will not be resolved. The subject (heart) considers itself, or even the heart (consciousness), as an object of thought. In doing so, the subject becomes an object, and a new subject is established that does (sees) that objectification. ``I'm thinking about this,'' ``I'm thinking,'' ``I'm thinking,'' ``I'm thinking.'' It continues (regresses) until you get tired or your mind exceeds its limit. Therefore, it is ``logically'' impossible to overcome the subject-object structure once it has occurred.
Perhaps it occurred when Adam and Eve realized that each other was naked. And I think this is still repeated even now when children are old enough to remember. It's time to start thinking about yourself separately from your environment (nature and family). I don't think plants, dogs or cats have it, and similarly, it's not something that humans necessarily have. I believe that it is a ``special'' thing that only exists in certain cultures. At least, I think it is clearly manifested (in its current form) in the modern West. Isn't that what "ideology" is all about? The ``mind/body dichotomy'' itself is an ideology.
So, first of all, there is not a basically complete ego. The ``beginning'' of the problem scene of love is the interaction with others that makes it impossible to secure one's unity. Interaction with others as this ``root'' causes people to adopt a reaction mechanism that supports their conscious unity. In order to set limits, meaning, and order in interactions with others that lead to endless chaos, people sometimes adopt the idea of mental self-restraint, which limits interactions to specific personalities. And only when the strategy of existence based on this idea is successfully carried out can an ego that maintains a conscious unity be able to exist. The name given to this existence's strategy is none other than love. (P.44)
As long as the ego is something that cannot help but target itself, the ego will never be complete (“I know everything about myself”). Some people may say that it is.) If a complete self can be achieved, it is only by ``forgetting'' the existence of ``others'' (including the environment and body). The ego is always subject to invasion by others. ``Feeling'' is a typical example. If the ego does not "feel" one state and another, it cannot do anything, and it cannot exist in the first place. You can also call it ``difference'' (however, you only notice the difference ``after'' sensing it, and you can also call it ``difference''). Kitaro Nishida would call this "self-identity of absolute contradiction." Shinichi Fukuoka says “Dynamic equilibrium "Is not it.
“Dizziness” (vertigo)
However, now that we have grasped the reality of the communion of carnal desires, the ego is no longer fixated on the active/passive dichotomy. A background becomes visible. This is the ego's inclination to avoid the subject-object relationship causing a landslide and melting down due to the mixing of the active and the passive.
I can secure the position of subject over object insofar as I grasp the existence of my surroundings through my own cognitive actions, operate on them, and use them for my own existence. be. Subjectivity is impossible without the activeness of cognition and action. ” (P.92)
Don't worry about your ego, such as ``I might be hated,'' ``I have to please the other person,'' and ``People might think I'm having sex selfishly.'' The ego cannot get into sex because it wants to protect itself. Even if you seek ``euphoria'' or ``dizziness'', you should not lose your sense of self. Even if that is what the ego desires from its own nature. That's why the "ego (desire for unity)" is so powerful.
Caillois classified ``play'' as ``competition (Agōn), chance (Alea), imitation (Mimicry), and dizziness (Ilinx).''
Typical examples of ``vertigo'' include children's games like spinning around with arms outstretched or roller coasters. The ``shaking of the mind (impression)'' that occurs when looking at certain types of paintings (such as abstract paintings) is also a type of ``vertigo.''
And "coincidence". Actually, I like gambling. Of course, the goal is to win, but whether you win or lose is a matter of luck (if you always win, it's a job, not a gamble). I can't help but feel like I'm about to pee, thinking that I might not even have enough money to pay for the return bus (sweat). Coincidence has not been ``disappeared'' due to ``probability theory (and the law of large numbers)''. Rather, it is simply an effort to continue to look away from it and gain ``ego security.''
These two actions are acts that shake the ego (consciousness), which (even if it were) ``exists'' (a unified whole). The reason why flower children (so-called hippies) in the 1960s and 70s used drugs such as cannabis and at the same time became interested in meditation such as yoga and Japanese Zen was to achieve a state of vertigo and ``ego''. . Ego is exactly ``forgetting (losing) oneself (ego)''. It seems to be more difficult for Westerners to ``forget themselves'' than it is for Japanese people. For Westerners, ``having an established sense of self (identity)'' means a long traditional ``history of selfhood,'' even more so than the Japanese people's sense of self that was cultivated after the Meiji Restoration or through postwar democratic education. Because there is. I think the ``identity crisis'' experienced by Western Europeans is not comparable to that experienced in Japan.
Children
``Children'' have been ``discovered'' in the modern West. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that it was "invented." Children as ``non-objects'' of love. Children are not allowed to fall in love, and children should not be the object of love, as they are human beings who have not yet had a romantic relationship (without a sense of self). Regarding Johnny Kitagawa's ``sexual crime,'' Noriyuki Higashiyama declared it ``the work of a brute'' and ``the worst crime in human history.'' I don't think that's the case though.
People played with children, just as they played with animals, as if they were little lewd monkeys. When a child dies, as often happened, some people were grieved, but generally the child was not given much protection and another child was soon born to take its place. It was accepted as such. The child never escaped a kind of anonymity. (Omitted) But (and this is an important point) feelings between husband and wife, between parents and children, were not considered necessary for family life or for its balance. (Philippe Ariès, The Birth of a Child, Misuzu Shobo, p.2)
This is a depiction of Europe in the Middle Ages. In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about the human rights of children (the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 and ratified by Japan in 1994). Even in the Japanese media, when it comes to victims of accidents (incidents) and wars, they are often reported as ``✗✗ people, including 〇〇 children. (There were reports that people were).
Recognizing children as ``human beings'' and recognizing their ``human rights'' means recognizing children as ``one self.'' This is similar to recognizing the human rights of black and yellow people and integrating them into the global economic system (third world/developing countries), and recognizing the human rights of women and using them as a labor force. I am concerned that it will be incorporated into the political system. I feel like the same thing will happen to children in Japan when the age of adulthood was lowered to 18 and 18- and 19-year-olds were recognized as "human beings." In the name of liberalism, protections for workers are disappearing. With the equality of men and women (for some reason it's now called ``gender equality''), women's human rights are recognized, and protection for women ends. Could something similar happen to children?
"Animal welfare" has become popular in Europe, where people have historically eaten pigs and cows (depending on the region). I don't know much about it, but it's not a movement to encourage people to become vegetarians. There's nothing wrong with killing and eating humans, but how about being happy (comfortably) while they're alive? It seems like we should let them live. Does this mean that animals should be granted something like human rights? George Orwell's "Animal Farm' I can't help but imagine humans being kept in captivity and being exploited.
I won't write anything more here. The important thing is that ``human rights'' or ``the scope of what it means to be human'' change depending on the times and cultures. Recognizing the personality (human rights) of others means recognizing the ``self'' in others, which means that the ``self'' that modern Western society has created can be applied to women, children, animals, and even computers. It also means projecting. This is Yukito Karatani's ``solipsism''.
Karatani forbids himself from actively talking about what the ``other'' is. This is because as soon as something is described as a positive reality, one is sent back to the horizon of solipsistic subjectivity that presupposes a homogeneous language game. It can only be shown negatively as ``non-existence,'' that is, as something that philosophy and thought cannot communicate based on its rules. (Katsuhiko Asami, Eros of Criticism ”Seikyusha, P.109)
The reason why “other” is “non-existence” is that “self” is the only “reality-existence” However, the flip side of the ego's "non-existence" is perhaps the "real-existence" nature of the child's ("other") ego.
To truly play, one must become a child again. (Huizinga, Homo Ludens] Chuko Bunko, P.402)
Humans may be "homo ludens" (players), but modern Western Europeans are "ego ludens" (players) ” I think it is.
Object love
There is an assumption that those who love choose the person they love based on the type of person they like. And if you look at it from another perspective, it means that the person who loves looks for the cause and rationale for his or her love in the type characteristics of the person he loves. (P.100)
Behind the causal theory that the nature of the object produces the consciousness of love is the ego's desire to protect and stably maintain the existence of its own subjectivity. be. (P.105)
However, in reality, object love is loving the object because it has certain qualities that one desires. There, the object is loved by its parts. (Same)
Loving someone you like, such as an idol, means loving the ``parts'' of that person, such as ``cute,'' ``handsome,'' and ``good at singing.'' .
I think the reason why we feel envious of popular people is because they often have an easy-to-understand charm that makes them liked by many people. Easy-to-understand attractiveness is something that is created by ``good things that can be understood without thinking deeply,'' such as having a good appearance, or having a hairstyle or clothes that are attractive to the opposite sex. Being liked by many people often includes many people who "like you without thinking about it". (Written by Makoto Toda “Your loneliness is beautiful” Takeshobo, P.91)
“Easy to understand charm” means showing only the parts (making them look). What can be shown on TV or in magazines is not the whole person. That person is born at a certain time, grows up, eventually becomes an old man, and then dies. A moment in time (usually when they were young) is taken, and then the person is dressed in trendy make-up and clothing, and the moment when the person is smiling and looking straight ahead is "cut out." My recommendation is to see a common "code" there. No matter how much ``media'' such as books and television are digitized, high-quality images, high-quality sounds, or 4D (VR), they are still ``parts'' of existence, not the ``whole'' (the same goes for language). .
If you are used to looking at others analytically, you will not be able to see the ``whole''. However, the ego that seeks to be more than just a "part" also seeks the "whole" in others. “Oshi” “speaks” according to the request (Suzuki Suzuki “Sociology of "AV actresses" Why do they talk about themselves so eloquently'' (Seidosha). ``Objectification'' itself means separation from the ``whole,'' so perhaps that can't be helped.
The attitude of object love overlooks the fact that one's own sense of love depends on the circumstances of each other's existence and the context of the situation. The nature of the other person, discovered based on the ``becoming'' of such ``between'', is not something that is highlighted by the structural context, but is something that the other person has, that is, inherent in the other person's existence. Consider it as a thing. (P.106)
A "structure" does not exist. After we find it, we find the structure. To put it in easy-to-understand terms for structuralists, the structure changes when it is discovered. The same goes for pet dogs and products. We believe that differences exist in objects. Finally, unless the ego considers its parts as a whole, it will face a crisis in its own recognition. But what does it mean to "love the whole"? Is it possible to love the wholeness of another person when even one's own ego does not have that wholeness? Probably not possible. Although ``I'' are only the ``parts'' that I am currently aware of, by not looking at anything other than that part (the remainder), I am only forming a tentative whole (unity). Whether it's consciously or not.
It is the act of possessing, shaping, and controlling the existence of others as bearers of the qualities that one desires, or in other words, as a means of satisfying one's own desires and pleasures. It is the love of (P.108)
The problem is not the fact that animals' behavioral ranges are restricted. Rather, it is because people who love animals reduce the existence of animals to the partial quality of petty or loveliness, and try to limit or strip away other qualities. (P.118)
What pet owners truly value is not the existence of the animal, but their own existence. Love for a pet, at least objectively, has the potential to be love for oneself. (P.119)
The fact that object love has the “moment of love for oneself” means that it has the “moment of self-possession.” about it.
This tendency can be called the pursuit of the sameness of existence in that it seeks unity as the same thing, and it also seeks to organize one's own way of being as one's own. Then, it can also be called the uniqueness of existence, or the pursuit of unique existence. And insofar as this sameness and uniqueness require an attitude of trying to secure within oneself the basis for one's own way of being, it can be said that the self-existence of the ego is required. If this is the case, the ego has no choice but to turn toward possessive love. (P.149)
When we take out a part from the whole, that is, when we look at a "concrete thing," it has the character (universal) of the whole, but is "unique." ”, that is, it has special characteristics. My pet ``Pochi'' is not just any dog, but an ``irreplaceable Pochi''. And, the person I love that Pochi is not the first person singular ``I'', but the ``irreplaceable me''.
Rarity
``Irreplaceable me'', ``irreplaceable water'', ``irreplaceable earth'', ``irreplaceable me''... This goes against comprehensive thinking such as ``human beings in general'' and ``human beings as a concept,'' but in order to understand the whole, we must first analyze and understand the parts or individuals. What I can see and touch is not ``dogs in general,'' but only the ``Pochi'' in front of me. ``The World of Japan'' Chuokeizaisha, reference).
There are beautiful "flowers", but there is nothing like the beauty of "flowers". The modern aestheticians who are troubled by the ambiguity of his concept of ``flower'' are simply being made fun of. (Hideo Kobayashi “Touma” Chikuma Shobo Complete Works of Japanese Literature 42 “Hideo Kobayashi Collection” 1970/11/01 P.366)
The one flower in front of you is , unlike other flowers, it is "one of a kind". This is true of all concrete beings. So if you lose it, you can never get it or see it again. In the words of Ivan Ilyich, "this irreplaceability" is "rarity."
Water, like air, is "ubiquitous." Of course, humans live where there is water and air. They are things that "always/already" exist. Therefore, it is not a "product". There's no need to pay money to buy it. But in the desert (which is where Judaism and Christianity were born), every drop of water is priceless. Because it's rare, you have to pay money to buy it.
If education and medical care were available everywhere, there would be no need to pay for them, and they would not become a commodity. When something like a beautiful flower or the object of love appears as an irreplaceable rarity, or when we think of it as an irreplaceable rarity, ``possessiveness'' occurs. And the ultimate ``irreplaceable thing'' is the ``self'' (ego).
Don't touch my woman, she's mine
There are men and women everywhere (mostly). Even without schools, we can still teach and learn. But when you think that you can't learn without school, education becomes a scarcity. When you think that if you lose this person, there is no one else to replace him, you will want to own (possession/exclusively own) that person.
"Possession" is everywhere. However, ownership that arises from scarcity is completely different from ownership that does not. Similarly, love with ego (love) and love without ego (love) are completely different. In a society where love has become a rarity, love has become a commodity. Same as "parasol".
A woman's face
When a woman is intoxicated with passion, she strangely takes on a girlish face. Of course, that passion could just as easily be a passion for parasols. (Ryuunosuke Akutagawa, “Words of Confucianism”, Iwanami Shoten, Complete Works, Volume 7, 1978/02/22, P.449) is. My wife can't seem to understand a man who pursues hobbies (antiques, model trains, whatever). However, unlike men, women seem to be forgiving. It looks like such a man's indulgence will soon no longer be tolerated.
I feel like the feeling of "I love you" is everywhere. Even if it is influenced by culture (fashion) or not. As long as you have individuality, you will like many different things. And the target is increasingly becoming a product. Plants, insects, and riverbed stones. You have to buy something that has become a product. In other words, you must legally own the object you fell in love with.
Therefore, in a society where there are products, love becomes possessive. It is in a culture where the idea of scarcity is dominant that the ``subject-object structure'' becomes exclusive possession. In such a situation, people become desperate to find a lover, find a romantic partner, and have sexual intercourse with that partner, and they remain fixated on the lover they have once ``obtained.'' In that society, we may be "forced to be sexual" (Foucault) and "sentenced to freedom" (Sartre).
Kohei Saito explains it with the keyword "loss of commons" ("'Capital' in the Anthropocene' (Shueisha Shinsho). I agree with that too. However, I don't really understand why the "commons" is destroyed or why "scarcity" and "scarcity" occur. Even if the desires of individuals (specific or general) are destroying the , ``regeneration of the '' or ``communism (communism)'' should be considered as ``ethics,'' ``morality,'' ``self-control,'' and ``endurance.'' It is impossible to ask for "things" (not that Kohei Saito is saying that). Actually, I hate it. This is because I believe that seeking ``nearby and convenient'' and ``a rich life'' and seeking ``freedom and equality'' and ``democracy'' are ``the same way of thinking.'' And perhaps they share the same aversion to ethics, morality, and self-control.
I can't stop reading and writing, so I went to a Lawson store that had just opened in my neighborhood and got some dish detergent as a souvenir. I wanted to leave without buying anything, but his wife said she was sorry, so I bought him a coffee. Her wife made a purchase worth more than 1000 yen. She definitely thinks she's more expensive than detergent.