"From the End of a Dream No One Knows" 3.The Form of the World, the Forms in the World, the Form “Good” and “Bad” Weave

In the previous chapter, I defined “information” as selection in the beginning and said that  we can think of “comparison” as a state of waiting for what is selected from possible values, and “relation” as interlocking selections (information) ,that is “knowledge.” In this chapter, I'll explain that we can think of the form of information as a form of acts and effects in reality, not only limited in the realm of “intellect.” And I also argue that the “good and bad ” of a certain subject regulates these acts and effects, and by that, the shape of the subject, the society and the ecosystem in which it is included are formed.

In the sense of recognizing the world of information and the world of physics in the same form, my way of thinking is to integrate the dichotomy between mind-body dualism by taking a step back approach from the dichotomy, rather than separating the two in advance and then bringing them closer together. The following is the overview of this chapter.

At first, I argue that “selection from a set of options” can be considered as the general form of acts and effects and communities and organizations of subjects are formed by standards of “good and bad” at “3-1.The Reason Why We Need to Judge Good and Bad.”

People and animals always exercise their freedom and select actions from among a “set of possible actions,” and all things which interact with each other are determined to be a certain state from among “possible states.” For this reason, we can consider that the form of “comparison” and “relation” is common to “act” and “effect.” From this perspective, the judgment of “good/bad” can be considered to function as a governor that realizes the desired state of a subject by regulating “acts” and “effects.”

For example, suppose a society completely abandons all judgments of good and bad. If that happens, that society will become anarchy and collapse because it has given up its judgment to judge criminals. Or, if humans gave up their judgment of good and bad about food, they would end up eating poison, medicine, and any other things, and their bodies would quickly develop abnormalities. Comparing cases where “good/bad”  exists and not, we can see that it is something that brings order to the realization of a certain purpose and forms a subject as a subject.

In addition, unless it is a whim, such "judgments" of good and bad are created between the ternary relationship of "criteria of judgment," "subject of judgment," and "object of judgment," and do not go beyond that.  “Good and bad” are relative. I do not think that this is relativism, but rather that it is a condition of “judgment” in general. This is because in order to deny this relativity, it is necessary to show that “judgment” is possible without the above ternary relationship.

At “3-2.Logical Types of Good and Bad and Freedom,” I argue that the standards of “good/bad” as described above have a hierarchical structure, and as a set of these standards, social and ecological order exists.

For example, when two or more subjects or actors exist in a space within the range of their mutual influence and each subject takes one option in pursuit of their own interests, their interests can conflict. This means that each good and bad collide. In the case of humans, it may be resolved by restricting each subject’s freedom through discussion before the conflict occurs.

If that happens, the system of the range of their mutual influence will change to a desirable state that is distinguished from others in the limited situation, and stability and cooperation will be born. At that time, the criteria and “preference”, “tendency of selection,” and “good/bad” for the system to be the desirable state will be born. If it is born from negotiation, it will be called a rule or a law. For example, if something that makes this state stronger appears, it will be called “good” for the system, and what will destroy it will be called “bad.” In this way, a new hierarchy of good and bad is born, not for individual subjects, but for the entire state of affairs, including each individual subject.

And a class of ”good/bad” is also a class of “freedom,” a set of possible options for subjects and actors. Although it is self-evident, for example, what a person can do and what two people can do with, those options available are completely different. If two subjects or actors exist and they act together, the freedom they have when they are alone must be restricted or controlled.

For example, when people work together, they would have to use rules-based means of communication, they would have to coordinate the order and time of certain tasks with each other, they would need to be considerate of each other, and of course they should not harm others. The “desired state” of the system determines their goal of the work, and the “good/bad” born from the goal controls their work.

And as one, two, three people gather, the freedom inherent in each relationship and sociality is born, and as people increase, the differences cannot be discerned unless measured with a certain number of people together. Those differences in the way of inherent “freedom” would be called a different name, such as a capitalist society or a socialist society.

I note this is not a debate about genesis, I don’t know whether we should consider society from a single subject or actor, or from the whole. I don’t know which is more primal. Perhaps it is a kind of circulating problem.

At “3-3.The Balloon-Filled Box Called the World,” I show a bird's-eye view of the state of society and ecosystems as described in 3-2 by modeling the state in which they compete to occupy a finite space. Currently, various nations in the world, each with their own norms, are crowded together on the finite earth. Also, each living thing occupies a finite space in an ecosystem. These can be compared with Keizaburo Maruyama's analogy of Saussure's linguistics to a box of balloons.

Keisaburo Maruyama compared the value of words in Saussurean linguistics to a box filled with balloons. When one balloon (word) disappears in the value system of language, another balloon inflates to take its place. This situation also applies to the system of national balance. For example, if one nation on earth loses its power and a power vacuum is created, other nations will take advantage of it, and if a nation expands, related surrounding nations will be put under pressure, and influence other nations.

In such a model, “good and bad” are considered to be resistance and governors who try to realize their own form into an arbitrary state, working both inside and outside the balloon. When it harmonizes with the movement of other balloons outside, order is sustained; when it does not, it becomes a factor that increases tension, and in the worst case, it will bring about destruction.

The relationships described above are also common to organisms in ecosystems, market shares, and the spread of ideas and theories. Since this aspect is similar to the comparison act described in Chapter 2, this world can be called the “great comparing process.”

Finally, at “3-4.What Remains in the World where Good and Bad Jumble,” I will offer my personal opinion on what we should aim for in the world described above. Based on the discussion up to that point, I think you can clearly understand that there may be situations in which “good and bad” fall into a trade-off relationship with “peace.” In this context, I believe that the ideal we should aim for is ”mutual approval of freedom.”

Just to be clear, I am not an advocate who views "good and bad" as enemies and argues that they are unnecessary. From the premise of this argument, such an idea is equivalent to an argument that actively affirms the collapse of the body and society. I simply want to consider whether there is a possibility of harmonizing the “good and evil” that jumble in this world.

It’s the overview of Chapter 3.

3-1.The Reason Why We Need to Judge Good and Bad

3-1-1.The Form of Acts and Effects

Though I repeat it, in the previous chapter, I defined “information” as selection in the beginning and said that  we can think of “comparison” as a state of waiting for what is selected from possible values, and “relation” as interlocking selections (information) ,“knowledge.” This form is not limited to the realm of “intellect,” but can be considered as a form of actual acts and effects.

People and animals always exercise their freedom and select actions from among a “set of possible actions,” and all things which interact with each other are determined to be a certain state from among “possible states.” For this reason, we can consider that the form of “comparison” and “relation” is common to “act” and “effect.” In other words, The terms “act” and “effect” simply mean that the former refers to a “relation” that is related to the intention or behavior of a certain subject, and the latter refers to a “relation” that physically causes differences to another. It is simply a difference in how things are called.

People and animals always exercise their freedom and select actions from among a “set of possible actions,” and all things which interact with each other are determined to be a certain state from among “possible states.” For this reason, we can consider that the form of “comparison” and “relation” is common to “act” and “effect.” In other words, The terms “act” and “effect” simply mean that the former refers to a “relation” that is related to the intention or behavior of a certain subject, and the latter refers to a “relation” that physically causes differences to another. It is simply a difference in how things are called.

Here, the options that a subject or actor can create from the current situation inherited from a previous time are called "freedom," and the "exercise of freedom" is defined as choosing one action from among them and creating the future. Thinking of freedom in this way, it has a formal identity with the forms of comparison, information, and relation, and with the idea of player moves in game theory. This could perhaps formalize the actions of any subject or actor.

I note that, generally I do followings throughout this paper, I do not argue that the ideas which I describe here “exist in itself in the world.” This is simply a technical way of perceiving and measuring the world, I do not believe that such a comparison measure should be used all the time.

3-1-2.”Good” and “Bad” Make “Forms”

Now, if we recognize the judgment criteria of “good/bad” from the above-mentioned form, you will understand it creates a subject with a certain organizational nature and the form of a higher-level organization that includes it. In order to explain this, I would like to consider why we make judgments of "good/bad" and value judgments. In that case, we should consider what happens if we don't judge "good/bad"? This comparison will shed light on the function of judgments of “good/bad.”

For example, consider judgments about food. If we abandon those kinds of judgments about foods, we will take all, poisons, medicines, and any other things into the body, and the body will probably fall ill or become abnormal immediately. The same is true for immunity. If the immune system goes out of control and loses distinction between pathogens and our own cells, the system of the body will collapse.

How about a different example from the body? For example, if a nation does not arrest those who commit crimes, social order will collapse. A nation mentioned here is only an example of “judgment,” so you easily understand even if we assume some other community instead of a nation, if they stop judging “good/bad,” that society and relationships will collapse, too.

Or if a profit-oriented company, a subject or an actor who takes some action, stops making “good/bad” judgments, of course they will not be able to take a good option, so they will not be able to achieve their goals.

In light of the above examples, if we consider how “good/bad” functions, it is a part of “the function of a certain organized subject or actor to create a desired state that is distinguishable from others,” and it is considered to be the “criteria for making judgments about the options to take to create the desired state.”

In the above example, it is a function to take in necessary nutrients, to eliminate only pathogens, to crack down only on criminals, or select the necessary actions to achieve the purpose.

Such a way of existence of “good/bad” will show that it always has the relativity to the subject or actor who makes the judgment, the relativity to its criteria and the desired state. Of course, such criteria may vary depending on the subject’s relationship to other related terms, and often are loose without a firm purpose.

For example, food is good for human health on an empty stomach, but eating more food than needed is detrimental to human health. Or though people avoid foods that clearly cannot be eaten unless they are infants, there are many cases where their criteria of what to eat are not clearly defined. For other example, if a nation generates a hard surveillance society radically pursuing a virtue, we cannot call it good.

You might think that the opinion that “good/bad” exists to create a “desired state” contradicts, for example, that “morality” or “justice” often limits human desires. I will talk about this later.

3-1-3.The Relativity of ”Good” and “Bad”

So what is going on when we make moral judgments or value judgments such as “good/evil” or “good/bad”? First of all, there must be a subject or actor who makes the judgment. And there must be an object on which the subject makes judgments. Finally, if it is not whimsical, there must be a criterion for why one judges, a measure of comparison. Although it is self-evident, in the background of good and bad, there must always be a ternary relation between the subject who judges, the object of judgment, and the criteria of judgment, and “good/bad” is the result born from the act of the subject.

However, if the reason for determination, the comparison measure, the criteria for determination can be verbalized, the determiner can be abstracted because anyone can make the same determination. In a nutshell, as “good/bad” is born when the object of judgment is compared with the criteria of judgment, so we can regard it as the third term born from a binary relationship. In addition, there are cases where the object of judgment is the self, but in that case the self should be seen objectively on the medium of recognition by the subject making the judgment, so this relationship is still constant in such cases.

This ternary relation would imply that “good/bad” does not transcend a binary relation between the object and the criterion. It is self-evident that what is “good/bad” will change if the judgment criteria change. I believe that this is not an ideology such as relativism, but a universal condition for the mechanism of “making decisions.” If you want to call this relativity “relativism,” and suggest another viewpoint, I guess you need to indicate that we can make “good/bad” judgments without the ternary relations, without “judgment object,” “criteria,” and “subject of judgment.” I think it is impossible.

And, conversely, as long as accurately the same criteria are used, the way of judgment is constant, so it generates absolute “good/bad” and “correctness” within that criterion.Good and bad and truth are relative depending on what are compared, but I don’t deny the absoluteness of good and bad and truth when the object of comparison and the comparison measure are completely fixed.

In addition, judgments of “good/evil” or “good/bad” will always involve comparison with the “other possibilities” of the object of judgment. For most of the time, “good/bad” will explicitly or implicitly put possibilities into one or more ranks in which it seems desirable. Except for judgments such as “everything is good/bad” or “good/bad as itself.” In most cases, saying something is “good/bad” means saying “good/bad” rather than “something else.”

In our daily life, we don’t count all the possible states of the object of judgment, and we may not always be conscious of them, but if we think strictly, it must be so. This may be understood by recalling the “shadow society” in game theory.

And, although it is self-evident, as it is a judgment, judging “good/bad” is accompanied by the exclusion of other possibilities besides the judgment result. If it is determined as “good”, the possibility of “bad” is eliminated, and if it is determined as “bad”, the possibility of “good” is eliminated.

Therefore, this is also self-evident, if the criteria of selections by two people is different, the judgment result seen by the two people can fall into a state where good and good, bad and bad are contradictory. From this, it can be said that “universal good (bad) from all standpoints” is a contradiction in meaning. At the level of judgment results, even if we say “all are good,” it excludes other options such as “all are bad,” “some are good,” “some are bad”, etc., so judgment still has the form of selection as well.

After all, if we interpret the concepts of “justice, goodness, evil, virtue, better, more valuable…” from the standpoint of comparison and selection, they are seen as a peculiar and relative “comparison act” which belongs to the situation where the subject or criteria of judgment lies. And it can also be seen as the act of selection by a subject or actor based on some criteria, its “tendency of selection,” and when it is repeated, it can be seen as “preference.”

This can be conceived from the conditions in which a certain subject or actor is placed, such as that we are making a judgment = selection = exclusion of other possibilities with a certain criterion in the flow of time that does not repeat itself.

Or, in other words, it can be said that justice and virtue are always competing with other justice and virtue for the moment-to-moment criteria to judge actions taken by one person. One of the essential functions of “good/bad” is to exclude other “good/bad” criteria.

Otherwise, we may not have to discipline small children, or we may not be at a loss whether or not to commit crimes in a hard situation, or as we may not want to create a different justice from justice of state as I do, so the conflict between “good” for oneself and “good” for society becomes impossible.

If the above is correct, “justice, goodness, evil, value…” are not global in nature, it is the criteria for creating desired state according to the rules and purposes of the self, its purpose, or the community to which it belongs.

Although it is self-evident, it is some kind of deception to state “what is good/bad,” “what is justice,” “what is good to do,” and “what is good/evil” without sharing the subject of judge, the object of judgment, or the criteria of judgment, without specifying the ternary relationship. This is something that I myself tend to break easily, but at least “absolute justice,” which does not specify a binary relationship between the criteria and the object, can be accurately transmitted in a special situation where rules are clearly shared.

3-2.Logical Types of Good and Bad and Freedom

Then, what does it bring about, the viewpoint regarding “good/bad” as the criteria for creating a desirable state, “tendency of selection” and “preference?” It would make it possible to construct a kind of theory of types about “good/bad” and “freedom.”

The relative viewpoint makes it possible to assume that — whatever the name of the criteria is— countless “good/evil” or “good/bad” potentially or positively exists, as much as the number of the living beings, the organs they possess, and the system or communities woven by them. And it makes it possible to assume that this world is established by their colliding and cooperating.

For example, when two or more subjects or actors exist in a space within the range of their mutual influence and each subject takes one option — exercising freedom — in pursuit of their own interests, their interests can conflict. This means that each virtue, each justice, each good and bad collide. In the case of animals, the conflict may be balanced by adjustment through natural selection, and in the case of humans, it may be resolved by restricting each subject’s freedom through discussion before the conflict occurs.

If that happens, the system of the range of their mutual influence will change to a desirable state that is distinguished from others in the limited situation, and stability and cooperation will be born. It is important to note that this “desirable state” does not exist for each subject or actor individually, but for the totality of the relationships between those terms, the system of their range of their mutual influence.

At that time, the criteria and “preference”, “tendency of selection,” and “good/bad” for the system to be the desirable state will be born. If it is born from negotiation, it will be called a rule or a law. For example, if something that makes this state stronger appears, it will be called “good” for the system, and what will destroy it will be called “bad.”

Of course, it can not necessarily coincide with the “good/bad” of each subject or actor in the system. Seen in this way, you can understand that various subjects and actors, as well as the system that a certain system contains below, their “good/bad” potentially or positively jumble, and various classes of “good/bad” are generated.

In other words, what we call “morality” and “justice” are the manifestations that are recognized and discussed out of potentially countless standards of “good/bad.” And it weaves the form of a certain subject or society.

Now, it can be explained from this that “morality,” which is supposed to limit desires, is intended to create a “desired state” that is distinguished from others. For example, “morality” may function to maintain an orderly state which is “desired” for a community, and may control desires at lower levels within it.

However, morality cannot change “the state that is established as a result of keeping it,” that is, it cannot change the desire that is superior to desire, the “desired state” that is the goal of morality itself. This is because it is “a state established by morality’s own effect.”

Then, if the community receives the results and internally generates feedback, examines theirselves, questions themselves, and transforms themselves, a different morality and a transformed system will appear there. And when the feedback system will be influenced by the external other systems, then a superior system will be born, which will govern each internal moralities by “good/bad” born from relations between a cluster of systems.

Therefore, the reason that “questioning” is “justice,” is because it creates a new superior “justice” which involves existing “justice” and new participants that older “justice” did not expect. And even so, the relationship of “good/evil” for those which doesn’t involve it has not been established yet, so if harmony is to be sought, “questioning” should always be continued.

And a class of ”good/bad” is also a class of “freedom,” a set of possible options for subjects and actors. Although it is self-evident, for example, what a person can do and what two people can do with, those options available are completely different. If two subjects or actors exist and they act together, the freedom they have when they are alone must be restricted or controlled.

For example, when people work together, they would have to use rules-based means of communication, they would have to coordinate the order and time of certain tasks with each other, they would need to be considerate of each other, and of course they should not harm or kill others. The “desired state” of the system determines their goal of the work, and the “good/bad” born from the goal controls their work. “Good/bad” can be seen as a governor that controls the lower freedom and realizes the higher freedom.

And then, it cannot necessarily be said that being together is more free for each person than being alone. This is because, for example, if one person has an overwhelming difference in power between two people, and their relationship falls into domination and subordination, the freedom of the other will be expanded, but the freedom of another will be restricted. However, it also must be called the “freedom” inherent in the system or their community. Because in that case, without dependence on slaves, the ruling side also cannot realize their options, “freedom.”

When people are alone and when people are with two people, they have qualitatively different “goodness” and “freedom,” which cannot necessarily be reduced to quantitative issues. And as one, two, three… people gather, the freedom inherent in each relationship and sociality is born, and as people increase, the differences cannot be discerned unless measured with a certain number of people together. Those differences in the way of inherent “freedom” would be called a different name, such as a capitalist society or a socialist society, and they must also be considered in relation to the time axis.

Seeking freedom in the present is quite different from securing it in the future. It is possible to exhaust resources in pursuit of the maximum freedom of the present, or to produce something that is too adapted to the current specifications and put pressure on the future. In converse, it is possible that technological development will be delayed and the freedom in the future will be limited because of depressing the present freedom. We have to consider that there will be the classes of freedom that have a multitude of different possibilities on the time axis as well.

When we see a society in reality to analyze, it appears as the totality of the interactions between people and organizations in the history of this world, the totality of the interaction of the exercised freedoms. In other hands, when we see a society to construct, it shows the aspect of a mechanism that qualitatively determines the freedom that can be obtained in it and distributes the freedom toward the present and the future. The same applies to ecosystems in that they are the totality of relationships. However, there is a difference in the method of distribution of freedom because society uses the exchange of language and the power of civilization.

This is not a debate about genesis, I don’t know whether we should consider society from a single subject or actor, or from the whole. I don’t know which is more primal. Perhaps it is a kind of circulating problem.

However, I believe that good and bad and freedom for each subject or actor that does not consider the whole should also be recognized, and that the freedom realized by the whole must be seen in relation to the totality of the whole. Because that recognition would bring more desirable freedom to each subject and each actor, and more harmonious freedom to the whole.

This is based on Bateson’s learning theory, which applied Russell’s theory of logical types to reality. It seems possible that some kind of paradox will occur as we pursue it, but I think that in cases where it does not occur, it will have some availability as a comparison measure.

3-3.The Balloon-Filled Box Called the World

And when we consider the way of being of such communities and subjects, which have been considered individually until now, as being crowded together in a finite place, I can show a model similar to the “The Balloon-Filled Box” that Keizaburo Maruyama(圭三郎 丸山)*1 used as a metaphor when explaining Saussurean linguistics.

*1…Keizaburo Maruyama is a Japanese linguist. He studied the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure.

Such a model would allow us to recognize the groups of states that exist on Earth with a high degree of accuracy. Not only that, but it will also be possible to explain ecosystems, market shares, and the spread of ideas and theories in a unitary way. Keizaburo Maruyama's metaphor is as follows.

Language can be likened to a net spread out over the sands of the sea. If the mesh is dense, it will cast finely divided shadows on the sand, and if it is sparse, it will cast sparsely divided shadows. And if the net is removed, the sand will return to its original one-sided continuum. Depending on the web of language, various patterns are drawn on the sand.

As I briefly touched on in Chapter 2 , Section 4, “Language Structure,” Saussure’s concept of “system” is fundamentally different from the system used up to that point. A conventional system is a table showing how existing things are arranged and related, but in the case of Saussure, there is no objective entity called the unit (unité), which is a truly strange system. Within that system, we could say that the size and value (valeur) of individual units are defined only negatively.

As an analogy, imagine a box filled with steamed buns and a box of the same size filled with balloons.

Assume that the balloon is filled with compressed air, not just a balloon. Now, in the case of steamed buns, even if one is taken out of the box and placed outside the box, there will naturally be a gap left behind, and the relationship between the other steamed buns in the box will not change. Also, the steamed buns that were taken out of the box did not change in its own size and substance.

However, setting aside the question of whether it is technically possible or not, notice the fact that in the case of a balloon filled with compressed air, the size of the balloon is only inside the box. If you take one of the balloons out of it, it will of course explode and cease to exist. Also, the space occupied by the balloons in the box cannot become a void and all the remaining balloons in the crowd will inflate and fill the gaps in no time.

This is the system of values that Saussure meant, and that there was originally no such thing as the size of individual terms. What exists is only the size that arises from only two relations, the other adjacent terms and the whole. Negative means that it is not an object that can only be defined as “is not,” an object that can be said to be “is.” This fact is found not only for language, but also for the value of culture in general. We can say this is the essence of the structure of culture, a world where relationships themselves create “meaning,” which is fundamentally different from the structure that has existed in nature from the beginning, and is, so to speak, a structure that emerges through exposure.

丸山, 圭三郎 Maruyama, Keizaburo. 10 言葉の意味と価値 The Meaning and Value of Words, II 言葉とは何か What are Words? “言葉とは何か(What are Words?)” ちくま学芸文庫 ChikumaGakugeiBunko 2008 pp.133–134 Translated by Haruka Matsukasa

Keizaburo Maruyama, who explains Saussurean linguistics, uses this as an analogy for how certain terms in language are defined negatively rather than substantively, so it is not possible to completely equate everything. However, I think we can see a similar relationship with states. In other words, the current world is a box filled with balloons called states. This is because states also exist in relation to other states.

For example, if one state shrinks and a power vacuum is created, other states will take advantage of it, and if a state swells, related states will be put under pressure, which will further affect those states. Although it is not necessarily as tightly packed as the image of a balloon, we must consider how much tension is applied depending on individual cases, the socio-economic condition of the balloon and the propensities and perceptions of the subject who directs it, and the relationship between other balloons.

And since states sometimes cooperate with other states, balloons do not always exactly match the size of one state, and states themselves are collections of balloons within their own state, so there can be internal collapse or it can change the pressure on other balloons.

In addition, there will be considerable improvement compared to the early modern and modern times, but in the case of a state, it is not possible to see all balloons from a bird’s-eye view, and it is difficult to see the inside of one balloon from the inside of another balloon excepting in special cases where information gathering is thorough. No one can even know everything in their own state perfectly. Therefore, it is possible that the policy is wrong. Moreover, self information often gets meaning only when compared with information of other states.

The collection of balloons in such a system of balance is not fully understood in ante-facto what it looks like. It is something that can be understood post-facto, when looking back at history. Or even that may not be fully comprehensible, considering the controversy of historiography. In addition to the difficulty of obtaining information and grasping the current situation, the subject coordinating balloons is also one balloon that influences each other, so difficult coordination will be necessary to maintain the balance of power.

In order to know how each state’s balloon reacted to what kind of movement, we need various information about layers of balloons, at least, information (perception of the international situation), ideology, and values that each states possesses , civilizations, cultures, emotional strata, strata of political and economic interests, strata of military power, strata of socio-economic physical interactions and exchanges, and so on. It is necessary to grasp how layers will influence or have influenced each other(although I tentatively call them layers, they do not have a clear hierarchical relationship).

In that respect, “bancor” proposed by Keynes may have been an epoch-making system for coordinating the balloons of states in the economic layer. It may be possible to automatically adjust the balance of economic balloons between states, regardless of their principles and ideologies.

In such a model, “good” and “bad” which I have explained are resistances and governors against inside and outside the balloon of a certain layer that try to realize their own forms into arbitrary states. When it harmonizes with the movement of other balloons outside, it maintains order, and when it discord, it becomes a source of tension and, at worst, destruction. In other words, an ethic that fails to consider relationships with other terms, whether temporary or not, leads to discord.

So, regardless of what is desirable, I think we should be careful about bringing “good/bad” out of the balloon. Changing a part can cause the whole to shake and break. That said, I don’t deny that there are situations where speed is necessary and some kind of chaos is inevitable. Sometimes we need rough options.

This model has wide applicability. Because this analogy is that if there is a “collection of rising and falling subjects and terms competing for the same finite resources and place,” it will be similar to the image of the balloon-filled box. Of course, if a new area is discovered, the field will expand and change.

Such a situation is not limited to the system of balance of the states, but it widely can be seen as the transition of state in many fields, for example, in the nature of organisms as elucidated by Darwin, the share of the market, the value and meaning of language as elucidated by Saussure, the concept, the system of cultural values, theories in the unresolved problems, the thought, ideology, and lifestyle prevailing in a certain society.

I think that Koichiro Kokubun’s(國分 功一郎*2) work in “The World of Mediopassive voice(中動態の世界)” incorporates this way of thinking into practice very well. And I name it “the occupancy state of the finite field,” and name the process of its change “the occupancy transition of the finite field.” You might think that this kind of relationship is so commonplace that it doesn’t even need to be pointed out.

*2 Koichiro Kokubun(國分 功一郎)…Japanese philosopher. Specializes in 17th-century philosophy and contemporary French philosophy. He also analyzes modern society, such as considering the sense of blockage in the times. In “The World of Mediopassive voice(中動態の世界),” he discuss mediopassive voice that lost in present.

That is certainly true, but the most important thing about this is not so much who is occupying what position now, but rather that when we look at the individual balloons that have already been established, they look like they “exist in themselves,” but the fact is that such a viewpoint overlooks the relationship between the present and the past other terms(“The World of Mediopassive voice” is a good example of this).

A balloon changes its shape under the influence of other terms, or even if a balloon does not change as “itself,” its function inside the box changes if other terms change. This is also the case in the market, where it is clear that “occupation of a finite field” is occurring. This is because when a company misunderstands what kind of the relationship in which its products are in demand, it begins to lose. Individual balloons have always existed in relationships, and will continue to change towards the future.

Perhaps this transition is the path through which a certain type of “set rationality” is born. This is because “centralization” means that one privileged term occupies the “finite field,” that is  the processing method of elements. At the same time, however, it is also a rising of a “new place” as a different layer occupied by a variety of subjects, elements other than the “center.”

All of these “occupancy states of the finite field” have a similar relationship to “comparison and selection” defined in Chapter 2. This means that the process of choosing what remains out of countless possible states is still at work. The world, including ourselves, our societies, and ecosystems, is the “great comparing process” in which we examine each other.

3-4.What Remains in the World where Good and Bad Jumble

Now that I have explained the above, I think you understand that if "good and bad" are too strict and hard, it can bring about discord in the world. Or, for example, I think that today's world is one in which everyone regards self as justice and fights.

Based on this premise, assuming that we cannot rely on good and bad, I would like to offer my personal opinion on what we should aim for. The discussion in this section is different from previous philosophical discussions, as it is about my own ideals, thoughts rather than aiming to create a theory that is universally applicable to everyone.

I think the ideals which we aim for would be “to aim to achieve the freedom that all living beings in the world desire beyond time from various possible freedoms.” It means that we must respect our own freedom as well as the freedom of all others in the present and the future.

One might think that an ideology that aims at “freedom” defined in this way would lead to a state of anarchy itself. Actually, I don't understand what it would be like for such an idea to be realized. Rather, it is not something that can be known in advance. Because “freedom” is something whose content cannot be defined.

However, as far as I can think of, I think that ideas that aim for “freedom” in this way avoids various difficulties so far.

For example, one might argue that if people are allowed freedom, they can do whatever they want, so they can no longer impose an obligation to “learn” and have the freedom to spread falsehoods.

However, the freedom defined here has the form of “selecting an action among possible options.” To do this, humans first need the ability to create possible options. In order to create options that humans can actually take, we need wisdom and imagination to create ways to change reality using a variety of knowledge about this world and the powers that exist in reality. In other words, without “learning,” humans have no “freedom.”

In addition, since human freedom is largely obtained through acquired education, this ideology requires that people acquire correct knowledge about reality through education. And false education about reality to restrict freedom is illegal. Here, the duty for researching and sharing the truth and freedom in reality will arise.

It is not the case that people have more freedom if they have more choices, but information disparities must be minimized as much as possible. Since information truly functions when we know what we don't know, it is a prerequisite for ideology to continue resisting ignorance.

Furthermore, this idea also tells us that we should not harm others, but we should not only blindly follow others, and recognize the right to self-defense. This is because hurting "others" means depriving them of their “freedom,” and recognizing one's own "freedom" means possessing the "freedom" not to obey and not to be forced by others.

So, what does this idea think about the issue of "equality"? We cannot yet achieve complete equality, and perhaps neither should we, in the sense of having to live exactly the same lives.

In this respect, this ideology realistically creates opportunities for “equality” in that it grants “freedom” to oneself and others. It is not possible to define the detailed content of “freedom” based on this idea. However, in terms of mutual recognition of “freedom,” “freedom” is given to both oneself and others, and in that respect there is an opportunity to realize “equality.”

I cannot shake the feeling that “mutual approval of freedom” is the highest ideal that human beings can have. In some respects, having “freedom” is similar to humans' use of “money” and “language.”

So, at present, non-human animals rarely adapt beyond their own ecosystems, and if they adapt and reproduce, they often end up destroying the environment as an alien species. However, humans have traveled to various places on the earth, passing through different cultures and environments, and in modern times are trying to adapt outside of the earth. What makes this possible is the power of “freedom” that comes with superior knowledge. In that sense, “freedom” is, so to speak, “money” for a variety of actions and behaviors. Of course, it is true that we are using that power to destroy culture and the environment.

No matter how much “freedom” humans develop with ”language” and “money,” we will never become “omnipotent.” However, I believe that "freedom" is a powerful force that allows humans to survive in diverse cultures and environments while changing the forms of ourselves and others.

Next Chapter : 4.The Great Question-Answer Process