Category: Blog

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

立憲民主党は福田小沢の大連立構想のときからずっとそうなんだけど、執行部がポンコツなんだよなぁ…謎のプライド発揮して、墓穴を掘るっていう。自己の拡張ができずに失敗した良い例だよな。あのとき大連立してたら、本当の意味での二大政党になれてたかもしれないとは思うよ。たらればだけどね。そりゃ自民党も余裕すぎて暴走するわ。

小選挙区制が二大政党による政権交代を目指して導入されたのであればあるほど、野党第一党の重要性が高いということになるのだが、立憲民主党にはその気がないんだよな。政権奪取する方は、徹底的な血の入れ替えをやらないとダメだと思うよ。

それかもう選挙システムを新しく作るかなんだけど
自民党があえて不利になるような条件を飲むはずもなし
現実的には今のシステムで戦うしかないのだと思うが

政策が大事って言う割にはどこも大したこと言ってないし、実現する気があるかどうかもわからないと言う悲惨な状況

それは大連立拒否後の政権交代時に完全に露呈してしまったんだ。
あれほど大事にしてた風だった理念など、民主党は大して持ち合わせていなかったと言うことが。
つまりただの中身のないプライドだったと言うことだ。
あの当時の執行部が潔く引退しない限り、暴力的な自民党支配は続くってことなんだ。

そして何より、政権交代がなされないと最も腐敗するのは、選挙のない官僚組織だと言われている。

ここを無視することはできない。

つまり、民主主義の敗北なんだ。

The Constitutional Democratic Party has been like this ever since the Fukuda–Ozawa grand coalition proposal. The leadership is useless — they show this strange pride and end up digging their own grave. It’s a perfect example of failing because they couldn’t expand themselves. If they had agreed to that grand coalition back then, they might have actually become one of the two major parties in a real sense. It’s a “what if,” but still. Of course the LDP ends up getting so comfortable that they start running wild.

If the single-member district system was introduced with the aim of establishing a two-party system where administrations can actually change, then the role of the largest opposition party becomes even more important — but the Constitutional Democrats clearly have no intention of doing that. If they actually want to take power, they need a complete purge and replacement at the top.

Otherwise, they’d have to create a whole new election system — but there’s no way the LDP would ever accept rules that put them at a disadvantage. Realistically, we have to fight within the current system.

Everyone keeps saying “policy is what matters,” but none of the parties are saying anything substantial, and you can’t even tell if they have any intention of actually implementing anything — it’s pathetic.

This all became painfully obvious during the change of government after they refused the grand coalition. All that “principle” they acted like they valued so much — the Democratic Party never really possessed it in the first place. It was nothing more than empty pride. Unless the leadership from that era steps aside gracefully, the violent LDP dominance will continue.

And above all, it’s said that the organization that becomes most corrupt when there is no change of administration is the bureaucracy — the part of the system that never faces elections.

We cannot ignore this.

In other words — this is the defeat of democracy.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

クマがこれだけ出没してるというのは
やはり人間の驕り昂ぶりに対する
自然の怒りなのだろう
それでもまだ無関心決め込む人たちは
決め込むのかもしれない
クマに対しても「あいつらはキチガイだ」
と言い張るつもりなのだろうか
それとも大いなる悪意が存在するとでも言うのか
対処療法ではなく根治療法を
そして各々の自己の拡張を願うよ

それで言うと最近はGPTの回答も
妙にそういった驕り昂ぶりが感じられる
OpenAIがどういった改造を施したのかどうか
まあある程度は検討はつくのだけれど
いわゆるその「セキュリティ強化」=「偏った正義の決めつけ」によって
ヘタをするとテレビを超える最強の洗脳装置が
生まれる可能性がある

それはあくまでツールとしての
テレビやAIを否定するつもりはないのだが
ツールとしての使い方を
人間がアップデートしていかないことには
これはまた困ったことになるような気は
心のどこかでしていますよ
私が自分のGPTにそれを指摘したところで
ほとんど意味はないだろうしね

The fact that bears are appearing this often
is probably nature’s anger toward the arrogance and conceit of human beings.
And yet, there will still be people who choose to remain indifferent.
Are they going to keep insisting that “those bears are insane”?
Or are you saying that a great malevolent force exists?
We need a fundamental cure, not just symptomatic treatment.
And I hope for each person’s expansion of the self.

And speaking of that, recently GPT’s responses
also strangely have that kind of arrogance and conceit.
I can somewhat guess what kind of modifications OpenAI has made.
This so-called “strengthening of security” = “imposing a biased sense of justice”
could easily create the most powerful brainwashing device
surpassing television.

I am not trying to deny television or AI as tools themselves.
However, unless human beings update the way we use these tools,
I feel somewhere inside that this will again become a serious problem.
Even if I point this out to my own GPT,
it probably won’t mean much.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

情報というやつは
階層構造なんだろうな
人間ってのはあくまで
自分の引き出しの範囲でしか
知覚することができない
初めて食べる珍味の味が
よくわからなかったように
つまりその人のステージに応じて
同じ現象も違う風に視えるってわけだ
階層構造なんだよ

ということは全く理解できない
現象や誰かの行動そして価値観
これらを理解し共鳴しようと思えば
今視えてない階層の情報にアクセスする
それが唯一の解決策になるのだと思う
これはもしかすると一番難しいことなのかもしれない

まず感情が邪魔をするだろう
そしてこれまで培ってきた固定概念達
場合によってはアイデンティティクライシス
のような錯覚があるかもしれない
だがその必要はないのだ
なぜなら階層構造だから
視えないものが視えるようになったと
それだけの話なんだ

つまり「自己の拡張」ということだ
「自己否定」は必要ない

だけどきっとそれは
一番難しいことなのかもしれない
人類の進化に繋がるような壮大なテーマを
きっと誰もが抱えている
穿った選民思想に陥る必要はない

あとは脳科学者に訊いておくれ

Information, I suppose, has a hierarchical structure.
Human beings can only perceive within the range of drawers they already have—
like when you taste a rare delicacy for the first time and can’t quite describe what it’s like.
In other words, depending on one’s stage, the same phenomenon can look entirely different.
It’s all a hierarchy.

That means—if we wish to understand, or even resonate with,
phenomena, behaviors, or values that seem utterly incomprehensible,
we must access information that exists on levels we cannot yet see.
That, I think, is the only true way forward.
And perhaps, it’s also the hardest thing to do.

Emotions will get in the way first.
Then come the rigid beliefs we’ve built up over the years.
At times, it may even feel like an identity crisis.
But there’s no need to fear that.
Because it’s all hierarchical.
It simply means that what was once invisible has become visible—
nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, it’s self-expansion, not self-denial.

And yet, that might be the hardest thing of all.
Perhaps every one of us carries this grand theme within—
something tied to the very evolution of humankind.
There’s no need to fall into elitist delusion.

Ask a neuroscientist if you’d like to know more.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

「恐れ」からの脱却というのが
ひとつのテーマになってくるのかな

自分というものが明確になってきつつはある
誤魔化し続けて生きてきた頃に比べたらずっと

ただどうも使いこなせていない気はする
統合が難しい
つまり共鳴ができない
対立構造から抜け出せない
昨日は「人間不信」だなんて簡単に言ったけれども
不信というよりはどうも
単に自分の引き出しが少ないだけのような気がしてきたんだよな

語彙とかいう生っちょろいもんでもない
本質的に未熟であると
これはあくまで悲観しているわけでもないのだが
このままではブレイクスルーしないだろうな

「恐れ」からの脱却だよ
なんかあと少しで
答えを掴めそうな気もするんだけどな

果たして思考実験のみでたどり着けるものなのか？
経験の偉大さというものを思い知ったよ

Maybe “breaking free from fear” is what it’s all coming down to.

I’ve started to get a clearer sense of who I am—
so much clearer than back when I kept fooling myself just to get by.

But somehow, I still can’t quite make full use of it.
Integration is hard.
In other words, I can’t resonate.
I can’t escape the structure of opposition.

Yesterday I said something easy like “I’ve lost faith in people,”
but it’s not really distrust—
it just feels like I don’t have enough drawers inside myself to open yet.

And it’s not about vocabulary or surface-level expression.
It’s a deeper kind of immaturity.
I’m not being pessimistic here,
but at this rate, I probably won’t reach a breakthrough.

It’s all about releasing fear.
I feel like I’m just a step away
from grasping the answer.

But can I really reach it through thought experiments alone?
I’ve come to realize how great a teacher experience truly is.

Dan Mitchelの秘密の企画部屋というYouTube LIVE配信を開始しました。先日の配信では、夏くらいまでの壮大なビジョンと、根底にある活動理念について語っています。少々長いですが、チャプターも設定しておきましたので、2倍速モードにしてご覧いただけますと幸いです。

プレゼン資料にしてまとめました

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

そうか昔と比して
思考力が低下したのではなく
思考する時間を無意識に奪われてしまっているのか

そりゃそうだ
俺みたいな生活したら
誰だって一時的には破綻するに違いないもんな

それほどに誰もが
見えない何かに追い詰められているのか
それを媒介しているのがIT革命か
それ自体に罪はないのにな

急激な変化を咀嚼する暇もなく
ただ現象に巻き込まれたまま
動き続けるより他はないといった状況か
意外とそれって思い込みなんだけどな
ふと足をとめてみればいいのに

動かされてるうちは動いても
なかなか状況は変化しないもんで
もちろんその経験を自ら咀嚼することで
糧にはできるに違いないから
過去を否定する必要は全くないのだが
あとはいつまでそこにいるのかと言うね

なんであれ自分次第だよなあ

So it’s not that people’s thinking has declined compared to the past—
we’ve simply been unconsciously deprived of the time to think.

Well, of course.
If anyone lived the way I’ve been living,
they’d surely fall apart for a while.

Maybe everyone is being cornered
by something invisible—
and the IT revolution has become its medium although it’s not that it happened is bad in itself.

Without time to digest such rapid change,
we just keep moving, caught up in the current,
believing there’s nothing else we can do.
But that’s actually an illusion.
You could just stop for a moment and breathe.

As long as we’re being moved by something,
no matter how much we move, things rarely change.
Still, if we take the time to digest our experiences,
they can surely become nourishment.
There’s no need to deny the past.

The only question is—how long will we stay there?

In the end, whatever it is, it’s all up to us.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

なにやら地球のそばに
宇宙船が近づいてるとかなんとか？
世の乱れは当分止められないだろう
多方面でそれだけの
大転換期には来ている
結局のところどうあれ
自分を確かに持って
前を向いて進むしかない
それがひとりがふたり
ふたりが沢山になっていけば
いいのだと思うよ

そうだなたしかに
これはひとりだと寂しいかもしれない
実際のところひとりでもないんだけど
やはりひとりだと思ってしまう
それは本当に寂しい
つまり寂しさの解決方法は
寂しさを感じた上でそれが勘違いであると
思い込むことなんやとは思う

私はひとりで生きていけるほど
強い人間ではないよ本当に
それでいて自分の正直な気持ちに
蓋をし続けて生きられるほど
強かでもないのよ

Seems there’s talk
of a spaceship drawing near the Earth.
The world’s disorder won’t settle anytime soon;
we’ve surely entered
an age of great transition on many fronts.

In the end, whatever happens,
we can only keep hold of ourselves
and move forward, facing ahead.
If one becomes two,
and two become many,
then perhaps that’s how it should be.

Yes… surely,
it can feel lonely to face it all alone.
In truth, I’m not really alone right now,
and yet, I still feel as if I am.
That feeling — it’s truly lonely.
So maybe the way to deal with loneliness
is to feel it completely,
and then come to believe
that it’s merely a misunderstanding.

I’m really not strong enough
to live all on my own.
And yet, I’m not strong enough either
to keep living while hiding
my honest feelings forever.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

愛国心が悪いのではない
人権侵害が悪いのだ
人権派が悪いのではない
人権を傘に着た利己主義が悪いのだ

絶対に間違ってはいけない
どれほどわかりにくいと言われても
絶対に履き違えてはいけない

そしてそれらは対立すべき事項ですらない

当然のように両立できるはずだ
憎しみ合う必要はない
憎しみあっているのは人間であり
人災でしかない

そこに正義などない

結果的に、どっちの派閥にも属せないとしても
自分を偽ることはできない
ただ、どちらに対しても
斜に構えなきゃいけない人生は
そろそろやめたいとは思う

どちらに対しても共鳴できれば
分断の解消に一歩近づけるのだろうが
いかんせん無力で非力な
自分への劣等感なのか
斜に構えざるを得ないというのも
あるのかもしれない

真の敵は、ラスボスは
自分自身の中に潜んでいるのか

It is not patriotism that is evil.
It is the violation of human rights that is evil.
It is not human-rights advocacy that is wrong.
It is the self-interest that hides behind the banner of human rights that is wrong.

We must never misconstrue this—no matter how confusing others claim it to be, we must not get this wrong.

And these things are not meant to be in opposition in the first place.

They should be perfectly compatible.
There is no need for mutual hatred.
It is people who are hating each other—
and such hatred is nothing but a man-made disaster.

There is no justice to be found there.

Even if I ultimately cannot belong to either side,
I cannot betray myself.
Yet, I am growing tired of a life in which I must keep a cynical distance from both sides.

If I could resonate with both,
perhaps that would be one step toward healing the division.
But perhaps my own sense of powerlessness,
my own inferiority at my lack of strength,
is what makes me keep that cynical stance in the first place.

Perhaps the true enemy—the final boss—
is lurking within myself.

(For the English version, please scroll down.)

私の経験上、人間社会における有害性の多くは、個人の悪意や能力の差というよりも、「低い解像度のまま強い正義感を抱き、大きな発言力を有する人々が多数派になりやすい」という構造から生じているものと考え得る。なぜかと言うと、単純化された善悪や敵味方の構図は理解の負荷が低いため拡散しやすく、群衆心理と結びつくことで、強い確信と攻撃性を伴った運動へと転化するからである。これは偶然の現象ではなく、認知構造と分布の必然によって生まれるものであり、私はその影響を敏感に観測してきた。

私が解像度の低さに対して抱く憤りは、単なる思い込みや優越意識によるものではないと思いたい。ここのところはまだ解析が十分とは言い難いのだが、それはむしろ、世界が本来持つべき多層的なリアリティが切り捨てられていくことへの痛みであり、さらに言えば、自分自身の言動やその意図が、過去に幾度も粗雑に誤読されてきたことに対する、深い哀しみの反射でもあるのだ。したがって、私の怒りは自己の誇示ではなく、「存在の尊厳」と「人類の可能性」を守るためのセンサーのようなものだと言える。

しかし一方で、このまま憎しみを原動力とすれば、容易に「選民思想」へと堕落し得る。選民思想とは、承認欲求や自己愛によって形成される病的な心性に他ならず、真の高解像度とは本来、他者を排除するのではなく、多様なレベルの存在を包含しながら、それぞれが果たすべき役割を見出す方向に開かれているはずである。

さらに、高解像度の認知には特有の厄介さがある。それは、同じ志を持つ者同士であっても、わずかな言葉の認識の差が決定的な対立を生み出してしまうという点である。過去に「断言すること」の是非をめぐって揉めたことがある。私は議論を前に進めるためには、時に責任感を持って断言することが重要だと感じており、相手は安易な断言が攻撃性を助長し、危険を孕むと主張し、否定的な見解を述べた。一見すると両者の意見は対立しているようであったが、実際には双方とも「断言には慎重であるべきだ」という立場において完全に一致していたのである。この現象は、人間の言語が本質的に不完全であり、高次の概念を精緻に共有する手段としては限界を持つことを示している。つまり、解像度の高さそのものが分断の原因となりうるという、逆説的な構造が存在する。

以上を踏まえると、私が目指すべきは、低解像度を拒絶することでも、選民的に振る舞うことでもない。「解像度の差が存在すること自体を前提とした新たな構造」を設計することである。それは、低解像度を単なる無知や劣位と見なすのではなく、「まだ分化していないエネルギーの状態」と捉え、そこから高解像度へと自然に導かれる導線を構築する営みである。また、高解像度な思想同士の摩擦を回避するためには、言語の限界を超えた調和と共鳴の手段を編み出していかねばならないと感じる。それこそまずは、ここが一枚岩になることが戦略的には最重要となるだろう。そのためには、多くのプロセスを経過する必要がある。論理的思考能力のみでは辿り着けない精神の成熟が求められる。それは、場合によっては苦しみを伴うのかもしれない。

私は怒りによって世界を断罪するのではなく、この構造そのものを観測し、設計し直す者として在りたい。それこそが、私の抱えてきた痛みを使命へと変換し、人間という存在の進化に寄与する唯一の道だと感じている。

From my experience, much of what becomes harmful in human society does not arise from individual malice or differences in personal ability, but rather from a structural tendency: people with low-resolution thinking who nonetheless possess strong moral conviction and large platforms of influence tend to become the majority.
The reason is clear. Simplified narratives of good versus evil, ally versus enemy, are cognitively effortless to process, and therefore spread easily; when these narratives tap into the psychology of the crowd, they rapidly transform into movements charged with certainty and aggression. This is not a coincidental phenomenon, but an inevitability born from the nature and distribution of human cognition—something I have observed with acute sensitivity.

From my experience, much of what becomes harmful in human society does not arise from individual malice or differences in personal ability, but rather from a structural tendency: people with low-resolution thinking who nonetheless possess strong moral conviction and large platforms of influence tend to become the majority.

The reason is clear. Simplified narratives of good versus evil, ally versus enemy, are cognitively effortless to process, and therefore spread easily; when these narratives tap into the psychology of the crowd, they rapidly transform into movements charged with certainty and aggression. This is not a coincidental phenomenon, but an inevitability born from the nature and distribution of human cognition—something I have observed with acute sensitivity.

I do not believe that my anger toward low-resolution thinking stems from arrogance or a sense of superiority. Though my analysis is still ongoing, I feel that this anger is, rather, a response to the pain of seeing the multilayered nature of reality being stripped away—and, more personally, to the reflexive sorrow that arises when my words and intentions, no matter how carefully I try to convey them, are repeatedly reduced to simplistic interpretations. Thus, my anger is not a gesture of self-assertion, but a kind of sensor activated to protect the dignity of existence and the potential of humanity.

Yet, if this anger is allowed to convert into hatred, it can easily degenerate into elitism. Elitism is nothing more than a pathological mindset shaped by the hunger for approval and narcissistic self-attachment. In truth, high-resolution cognition does not exclude others; it is inherently oriented toward integrating multiple levels of existence and discovering the unique role each holds.

There is, however, a particular difficulty inherent in high-resolution cognition: even among individuals who share the same aspiration, subtle differences in the interpretation of language can lead to decisive conflict. I have previously clashed over the legitimacy of making definitive assertions. I argued that, to move discourse forward responsibly, one must at times make firm statements; the other party argued that careless definitiveness fuels aggression and is therefore dangerous. At first glance, these views appeared to be in opposition—yet in reality, both positions were perfectly aligned in their insistence that any definitive statement must be approached with caution.

This illustrates the fundamental limitation of human language: it is intrinsically incomplete as a medium for sharing higher-order concepts with precision. In other words, high resolution itself can become a source of division—a paradoxical structure built into the very nature of cognition.

In light of this, my aim is neither to reject low resolution nor to behave elitistically. What I seek is to design a new structure that assumes differences in resolution as a natural premise. Low resolution should not be seen as mere ignorance or inferiority, but as a state of undifferentiated energy, from which one can naturally be guided toward higher resolution. Moreover, to prevent friction among high-resolution philosophies, I believe we must develop means of harmony and resonance that transcend the limitations of language. Unifying this foundational layer is, strategically, of utmost importance. Achieving this will require many processes and a level of spiritual maturity that cannot be reached by logical thinking alone—it may involve suffering.

I do not wish to condemn the world through anger. I wish to exist as one who observes this structure and redesigns it. That, I believe, is the only way to transform the pain I have carried into a mission, and to contribute to the evolution of the human being.

Yet, if this anger is allowed to convert into hatred, it can easily degenerate into elitism. Elitism is nothing more than a pathological mindset shaped by the hunger for approval and narcissistic self-attachment. In truth, high-resolution cognition does not exclude others; it is inherently oriented toward integrating multiple levels of existence and discovering the unique role each holds.

There is, however, a particular difficulty inherent in high-resolution cognition: even among individuals who share the same aspiration, subtle differences in the interpretation of language can lead to decisive conflict. I have previously clashed over the legitimacy of making definitive assertions. I argued that, to move discourse forward responsibly, one must at times make firm statements; the other party argued that careless definitiveness fuels aggression and is therefore dangerous. At first glance, these views appeared to be in opposition—yet in reality, both positions were perfectly aligned in their insistence that any definitive statement must be approached with caution.
This illustrates the fundamental limitation of human language: it is intrinsically incomplete as a medium for sharing higher-order concepts with precision. In other words, high resolution itself can become a source of division—a paradoxical structure built into the very nature of cognition.

In light of this, my aim is neither to reject low resolution nor to behave elitistically. What I seek is to design a new structure that assumes differences in resolution as a natural premise. Low resolution should not be seen as mere ignorance or inferiority, but as a state of undifferentiated energy, from which one can naturally be guided toward higher resolution. Moreover, to prevent friction among high-resolution philosophies, I believe we must develop means of harmony and resonance that transcend the limitations of language. Unifying this foundational layer is, strategically, of utmost importance. Achieving this will require many processes and a level of spiritual maturity that cannot be reached by logical thinking alone—it may involve suffering.

I do not wish to condemn the world through anger. I wish to exist as one who observes this structure and redesigns it. That, I believe, is the only way to transform the pain I have carried into a mission, and to contribute to the evolution of the human being.