Poor imagination →ニッポン賛歌♪

I suspect that my compatriots are poor in imaginative capacities. They just do not know how to imagine.

Imagination actually requires both aesthetic intuitive insights and logical scientific analytical capabilities.

My compatriots are culturally good at imagining how others are likely to see them. This is one of important qualities to go through everyday life establishing reasonably predictable ways of thinking and acting. Since it is not possible for anyone to be sure completely of what will happen in the future, we need to have relatively reliable ways of acting. Otherwise, we should more often than not be faced with problems, such as unintended conflicts with others and anxieties caused by uncertainty about what to do, when, where, how and to and with whom.

On the other hand, they are poor at making logical scientific analyses on a variety of encounters.

This is just a matter of preferences and concerns.

Because they value highly how to read others' interests and concerns, what is more important is how they behave than what to do on what grounds.

Why is it so?

Such should necessarily happen when people are interested too much in responses from others.

Imagine how we assume others' possible conducts in response to our actions.

Assuming about others' responses does not necessarily require precise understandings of what to present to others.

What is important is rather ways of expressing than logical coherence of what to be presented.

Why?

Let's think this way.

You just wish to walk through a street along which a relatively large group of people who look like savages is dully wandering. For the sake of your safety, what is important is not what your occupation is, what competencies you have, for what purposes you need to walk through the street, and how justifiable reasons you have to do so, but how safely you can pass through the street.

Unless you get too nervous to think properly, you would not think of first and foremost showing off your justifiable reasons walking there, or how vigorous you look hoping that none of the savages feels like offending you. The most reasonable judgment will be not to catch attention of them. Then, you are most like to be concerned with how you may appear to them while passing through the street, rather than your identities, moral reasons or rationally justifiable purposes.

In short, assumptions about particular ways of behaving and others' responses to them have almost nothing to do with how precisely you can communicate what you are feeling, what you believe to be right, or who you are.

On the other hand, you sometimes need to communicate as precisely as possible how you feel, what you are thinking about a certain topic, or for what reasons you are doing or did something.

Of course, it depends on situations. It depends on with whom you are or against whom your actions are directed. Nonetheless, there is no definitively correct strategy going through everyday encounters.

It is said that conspiracy theory sometimes correctly describes reality. But, if people get too much affected by conspiracy theory, society will become more and more hard to be lived through. This is because conspiracy theory induces doubt about value of sincerity or honesty. Insofar as there are groups of people who try to manipulate things for the sake of their respective groups, being honest seems to be the least profitable strategy. People always wait for others' taking certain actions and try to manipulate them for their own sake rather than present their sincere wishes which are likely to be manipulated by others. Alas! Then, people will come to act out trying to project false images toward others. In consequence, they will become unable to trust effects of communicating as precisely as possible their intentions, interests, values or simple objective material facts that can potentially command fatal material consequences. 

Being doubtful is not something that can be avoided only by disciplinary creeds. However, by being doubtful, people are fated to lose precious opportunities to run their society in a constructive and productive manner. Rather than being faithful to one's belief, people choose to wait for somebody's mistakes or misbehavior. 

We need actually to be serious about the effects of telling lies. As a Japanese proverb says, telling lies is sometimes necessary with appropriate rhetoric thus depending on contexts. It is actually contextually viable. Hence, if people misunderstand contexts, lies do more harm than good. The most serious negative effect is that lying to one's own sincere wishes shall seriously damage relatively predictable ways of acting which are critical to just go through everyday life. Consider the fact that no one can live without taking any action. Regardless of whether one wishes to act or not, s/he is mobile as far as s/he is alive. It is almost impossible to remain still forever until s/he dies. Acting without thinking is a critical and necessary condition on which human beings who have innately inherent predispositions of feeling and thinking live through their lives minimizing possibilities of serious disruptions.

We need to get back and appreciate the value of being honest and faithful to our own real concerns.

腐っても腐らなくてもニッポン♪

しかし腐りきっとるな。。。

それでもニッポン！

とことんがんばらないくにニッポン！

お遊びでいいのよ人生なんて。ニッポン！

だって所詮人生たったの80年でしょ？ニッポン♪

それが何世代続いたところで一人が生きてられるのは80年そこそこ。ニッポン！

真面目に生きる？？何ですか～？ニッポン

真面目に生きたって生きなくたって何も変わらんでしょ？ニッポン！

幼稚な正義のくにニッポン。

間違ったやつは周り確認のうえ「ふむふむ。ね。やっぱこいつだめでしょ。」ってわかったら徹底的にたたくニッポン！

何がダメで、何がよくて、何が許せて、何が許されないか、いちいちケースバイケースで考えるのは無駄なくにニッポン！

ケースバイケースでいちいち考えとかないとある日突然自分が袋叩きに遭うかもしれないのに、「絶対そんなへまするわけない」って豪語するひとだらけのくにニッポン！

内面なんてどうせわかんないんだし、外面あわせてりゃいいのよニッポン！

外面あわせるのだってけっこ大変なんだし～ニッポン！

あー幼稚くせー

酸素吸って二酸化炭素排出して、エネルギー消費して、ごみ捨てて、うんこして、、

むっちゃ無駄なんですけど。。。止めてもらえます？？生きるのがそんなにおもんないんやったら。。。

論理が。。。

論理になってないくにニッポン↓

なんでそんなすぐ感情的になる必要があるのかな？？ニッポン。。情緒のくにだから？？いやぁ～ちがうと思うけどな～。。

なんかさ。情緒の文化は維持しつつ、科学的思考のダメなところを気づかないで、でも科学的イメージの方が便利、強そう、なんか文句言われなさそう、、みたいな雰囲気だけで、かなり堂々と乱用している感じ。。ニッポン。。

科学的思考のダメなところ？？

両面共存は原則表現できないというところさ。

それを克服するにはとりあえず二つのことを別々に表現するしかないんだけど、それをすると、複数視点を表現した、という事実にこれまた「正しさ」が乗っかってしまうので、余計に、「なんでその二つがどのように大事だと思いますか？」って問いから離れてしまうのよね。。。要するに言いっぱなしが許されるのが科学的思考なの。だってきちんとした手続きで立証するわけだからね。「ほれ。証拠はこれよ。なんなら調べてちょ♪」って言っていいの。分かるかな～？？

結果。。どんどんどんどん無責任体質が強化されるのよ。。。

相対性理論ってあるでしょ？

これ比喩的に日々の生活、行動様式、思考過程とかにも使えるんだけど。。。

どうやって使えると思います？？

責任の取り方。

いろんな価値が併存するってことじゃないのよね。。念のため。

いろんなものが併存するというのが事実としても、今現に通過中の現実があなたの現実。

ほかの人にももちろんその人が通過中の現実はある。

でもそれを知ったからといって、今現にあなたが通過中の現実からは逃れることはできないの。

要するに受け入れねばならないのよ。

ほかの人はあんなに楽してるやん～。ほぼおんなじように生きてきてるはず。いや自分のほうがもっといろいろ工夫したり我慢したり、他人思いに生きているのに～。。

って言ってみても何も変わらないのよ。

相対性理論って科学の世界の内輪だけでも相当貢献しているけど、実は人々の生き方にどう活かすか？という視点でもかなり有力な理論なんだよ～。

科学の世界でね、宇宙は一つではない、とか、無数の可能性があって、実現したものというか、測定してみてそこにあることが確認されたとしても、それ以外の存在の仕方をしている宇宙が別にあるとかね。。

それが物理や数学で証明されたってことはさ、科学者だって薄々「げげげ。言いっぱなしはできないんだ。。。」と気づくわけさ。人間である以上はね。

ある意味神様がやっとこ戻ってくる道筋が示されたってところかな？

神様が戻ってくる道筋って？

言いっぱなしなんてのは神様にしかゆるされない特権。究極の想像上の（人間にとっては）架空事実なのよ。（でもたぶん世界はただそこにあるがままにある、という状態で存在していると思う。あくまでも人間の意思、思惟ではそれは架空のイメージでしかない、ということで、それが現実にはない、ということではありません。）

人間はその思惟でもって、「たのんます。これほんま大事なんで、、、。神様このようなイメージの世界。なるべく多くのひとの現実となるようにお導きくださいませ。」ってね。お祈りするわけ。人事は尽くすのよ。だから。必ず。祈ったよ。ほい。で？？なぁんや。。全然ちゃうやん。現実。。なんて文句いっても、そんなの聞いてくれるもんじゃないからね。。神様って。。もっともっと崇高で人間には手の届かない神聖なものなのよ♪

だから神様なんだけどね♪

さあて。

よって。

人事なんて面白おかしく尽くさなきゃやってらんないわけ。だってどうなるかわかんないんだもの。どんなに緻密に真面目に計算したり工夫しようとしたりしてみたって。

それはふざけているとかあきらめているのではないのよ。

祈り。

断じて祈りなの。

世界平和を祈ってみんなを笑かすのだ。

そのほうが楽しいと思うんだけどな～。。。

だめかね？？？

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Politics of Disorder

After reading a blog article about a study on reality of one of public sector organizations in Zimbabwe which are often described to be in a state of corruption, I wonder if it could be a good start to elaborate detailed micro-politics being practiced by many of public servants in relatively disadvantaged countries. It seems to me too obvious that people have a variety of reasons for being engaged in certain corrupted practices while quite a few of them remain committed to their formal duties, publicly desired norms and obligations. Thus, describing reality in detail is indeed necessary not to attribute underdevelopment simply to corrupted behavior. Nonetheless, I feel uneasy to see people from developed countries revealing reality in developing countries in part because they appear as if they stopped short of finding out just ordinary people doing ordinary things. Despite the variety of reasons of corrupted activities, at least partially the global political system must affect the situations negatively. Hence, it gives me an impression that people from developed countries which can exert significant influences are complacent unless analyses include practices on the side of those who have more power. The study mentioned in the article is critical of simplistic views on corruption in Zimbabwe. But, what we need to be critical of must be not only how to frame events and phenomena occurring there but also why and how the situation in which relatively simplistic views proliferate has been brought about and sustained. Obviously, those from developed countries take part in the processes. Their moral obligations cannot be fulfilled simply by revealing reality but they need to ask if they have legitimate right to do so.

Ethics

I'm concerned with how people's conception about being good can be diversified. Although some might have already heard that each one of us lives through once occurring unique life, we have not seen many to be appreciating such precious uniqueness. Rather, it appears that people's values are too easily converging on several dominant ones, such as wealthier than poorer, material reality than conceptual ideal, brighter than darker, and clearer than obscure. Since the Enlightenment, or probably even before ancient Greece, those who are better endowed with intellectual abilities have bothered themselves telling people that we can be better than what we are now. What irritates me most is their ignorance of power on which they bestow. Regardless of their virtuous intentions, it is their inherent abilities that enable them to speak to people. Insofar as they continue ignoring this fact, their virtuous words would never do justice to the virtue inscribed in their words. This is because being ignorant of their innate gift, they could never think of on what grounds they are qualified to speak to people; to what degrees they can tolerate their disadvantages for others' benefits. Without understanding when and how one's survival can be threatened to terminate, their virtuous words to propagate happier lives than those of now forsake their pursuit of virtue. How come can those who have no idea about their own survival talk about others' well-being? If you wish to take care of others, you need to know to what extent you may be allowed to spend your own resources for the sake of others. Offering care without establishing practical estimation about how much will soon turn out to do more harm to others than good because no one knows nay pursue optimal degree and manner of re-distribution of resources. Class struggles or even warfare between nation states persists.