Its after I started reading this book that I realized that its similar to this book, although I haven't read it yet, in a sense its about characterizing the society at the time. With that being said, and keeping in mind that the book was written in 1920s, it's interesting that the book describes what the basis use to be for people claiming their rights, which seems to differ from today's society of "singularity". むしろ現代(1920s)の特徴は、凡俗な魂が、自らを凡俗であると認めながらも、その凡俗であることの権利を大胆に主張し、それを相手かまわず押し付けることにある Note that I haven't read the book, so I might be totally wrong, let's see. But the book is still interesting itself finding out how the author lived in 1920s observed his society back then. Personally, I would rather once again take it as an ideal than taking it for granted ignorantly :) 普遍一般の人間個人の主権に関する理念や法的理想だったものが、いまや(1920s)...一つの心理状態へと移行したのだ And there is this moment that you discover what used to appear as 必然, in other words 心理状態, was one of mere possibility, reducing to a matter of choice, and everything starts to seem possible... - added as of 2025/06/19 いわゆる"近代文化"-が、自らを決定的であるとする思い込みこそ、視界に生じた信じがたい頑迷さと狭隘さではないのか、という漠然とした直感がその根底に見出される。そしてそのように感じる時、私たちは自分たちが狭く閉ざされた場所から逃れ出て、再び星空の下に立ち、最善のことも最悪のこともすべてが可能な、真正で深遠で、恐ろしく見通しのきかない底しれない世界に出たのだという、えも言われぬ印象を持つのである .. maybe because of the below reason. すなわち私たちの生とは、瞬間ごとに、そしてすべてに先立って、自分にとって可能なものについての意識であるということなのだ By the way, I can somewhat see myself in the song, don't know how I can fit in at this "party". Like nobody's lookin' me in my eyes and everyone's got so much to say. But I'm told that it's where I'm suppose to be. Makes me wonder if I could sneak out the back🎵.
This is a short note for myself, somewhat related to the reason why I want to read Society of Singularities. I haven't read the book yet, but I believe there is an attitude prevalent in such society, which attitude I am aware of my very self, something like below described in the book. "あれかこれか"の決断が迫られる状況は忌避される。さまざまな対立に主体的に関与するのというのではなく、多様性が強調される It could be about any kind of social matter, such as this against that. And I believe there needs at least some kind of attitude towards to make discussion meaningful. With that being said, I feel like its an responsibility of mine as one taking part in society to be aware of issues around the world and having my own attitude towards them. And the below quote from Wright Mills well states what I have in my mind in regards. 私は客観的で（objectvive）であろうと努めてきたが、コミットしてこなかった（detached）つもりはない By the way, I applied for the next year Masters tickets hoping as a gift for the coming father's day. Let's see if I can get one😉
As I think more and more, I occasionally get this depression having hard time seeing value or faith in those things that considered to be a priori in life, feels like nothing left to believe in to start with. Sometimes its hard to keep my heads up... Maybe I must have a faith and start thinking the kind of changes that I may be able make. --- wrote as of 5/25 --- Isn't this the very question that I am trying to ask myself, and the very reason that I am willing to learn, so that I can live with little bit of confidence ;)
Little note on my thoughts while I was reading this article. I noticed that people involved in the situation covered in the article fits into the picture discussed in this book. The book discusses how America has changed over time, which resulted in society getting more deterministic in terms of their course of life, given their social and economic backgrounds. Considering how such current situation has been shaped over time and the fact we are at least placed in one of such situation of our own, it makes me wonder how where in the society which I belong to has came to be created. By the way, I think its important that you put your feelings or those intangible idea into words at that very moment, it's hard to come back and put them back together once its lost.
Books occasionally provokes this sense of feeling that I'm more of a object(客体) of interest which needs to be studied within the context of the society(社会) and the history(時代) that I live in, leading me to lose the sense of subjectivity(主体). I think this sense of feeling is what keeps me thinking, questioning, and reading etc. I think below line from this book describes the idea. 自然のことものを対象とする物理学や化学のような学問とは異なり、学問の対象が同時にその主体であるために、厳密な科学性に到達することができないことにある I believe there is some idea shared among the above and below line from this book in terms of subjectivity. I also see something similar in the discussion of Wertfreiheit(没自由) by Max Weber. May be I'm wrong though. 人間には感情や自己の利益に左右されずに、合理的に判断を下すことのできるための能力がそなわっている...判断という活動そのものの力で独自の原則を作り出すことができる But at the end, if we were a product of the society and history we live in, isn't those society and history that we should be studying to understand ourselves? --- a little insight into what I wrote above as of 5/14 --- There must be a condition for such question to arise explaiend as below in the book . 近代の知の大きな特徴は、考古学的な変動によってこのまなざしと表の空間が崩壊し、そこに生身の人間が登場することである。人間は"知にとっての客体であるとともに認識する主体として、その両義的な立場において登場する"。 If the above can be said, there is where the question comes in. "純粋理性批判"においてカントは、批判哲学はコペルニクス的な転換を意味すると誇ったが、これは人間の知が人間の認識の有限性によって初めて根拠づけられるという確認であった...すなわち、人間の認識と知の真理の根拠は、人間が物自体ではなく、現象しか認識できないという認識能力の有限性そのもにあるとされたのだった。 --- another follow up as of 2025/05/19 --- I wondered if I should write this as a new post, but I'll write this as a follow up for this post. The line below is from the book. 真理とは、誰がそれを真理として信じるかによって、大きく意味を変えるものであり、思想を真理として信じる主体の分析なしには、真理そのものの概念を分析しても、意味がないことになる And it discusses about the nature of "the" truth as following. <本質>がどのように歴史的な経緯によって真理として形成されたのかを分析する...真理という概念は、この歴史性を隠蔽して、なにものかの"本質"であるかのように振る舞うものである And it describes "the" truth as following. 真理とは論駁されないという特徴をもつ誤謬にすぎず、歴史的な価値をもつものにすぎない And I agree with the above statement, as far as my understanding, which is for the reason described by the following statement from the book. 個々の主体から離れた真理というものはなく、真理はつねに一つの視点からみられなければならないこと示すものである But at the same time, if I were to place myself in a such mere existence relative to society and history, I get little discouraged that I feel there is no value in such notion of being "myself"😅. This book might be the one for me to take a look at next.
This is a short follow up to the last post. I occasionally use the term "better". I thought it might be a good idea to clarify what I mean by the term when I use in this blog as I believe it can deliver so many things when used depending on the context. Let me first state that, jumping to the conclusion, I try to keep the word "better" within the extent of technical sense. What I mean by that is that the word "better" I use is not based(to the extent that I'm aware of) on any kind of "argument" of mine. I think the below quote from this book gives the sense of idea which I have in my mind. 彼(ゴルトシャイト)からすれば、資本主義経済のネガティブな作用が顕在化する中で、より"人間的"な経済を主題化し、その方向で"進歩"を語ることは、混乱しているどころか、極めて筋の通った議論に思えたはずである。しかしウェーバーからすると、"人間的"というのはあまりにも多義的である。これについて一義的に進歩を論じることはできない。ゴルトシャイトにとっての"人間的"という評価は別の人にとってはそうではないかもしれない。別の人は別の基準で"人間的"を論じる可能性があるし、実際そうしているかもしれない。 But with the above said, there is this below quote that I found in this book. And if I were to make any kind of "argument" regarding "progress", it would be something similar to his. Maybe I will take a look at his book for the next. And yes, there also is this book that I bought quite a while ago that is still piled up in my room. Maybe now is a good time to revisit the book. 歴史の進歩とは、自らの責任を問われ必要のないことで負わされる"不条理な苦痛"を減らすことだ - 市井三郎 By the way, listening to this song while I play around with the DSLR from my college years make me feel things are still the same... Am I just being nostalgic or I actually haven't made any kind of progress ever since😅?
Listening to Tupac makes me feel I'm no longer young in a sense that I am responsible in one way or the other just by taking part in a society. I like the feeling that there actually is something, no matter how trivial that might be, that I can take part and be responsible. Let's see if I can figure this out😉.