Chapter32 Identity of Shame, Implicit Rule to be Close

All of judgment of us what is abnormal, what is normal is left to any individual persons, general theorem doesn’t exist. Namely factor to decide a properness to an action is reliable to a situation, its character of situation is assorted in any individual persons’ subject.
But at a part, we can’t judge it’s truth but it’s like truth that in the meaning we jump into the pool, at judging a goodness of an action, obviously we need a closeness to close friends each other can permit the same action, in the process to be close each other, any actions or sayings mustn’t be apparent, paraphrasing it, judgment to what timing to confess any shameful things to close friend or a mind concept not to need to confess or judgment if we confess shameful matter to him or her, he or she is so close friend then it’s not so trouble or not is reliable to each individual characters. Namely there’s difference in shameful object self or contents’ difference.
In companies to hold the same taste in sex, each other can’t be so shy in the point of sexual taste. But it can be so after getting to be close each other. Of course it can be applied to any other matters but sex. General morals, political opinions, vision of human relation, or judgment to individual character too.
Namely in matters about anything, we are apt not to tell true mind if we can’t get the true mind of communication partners in thinking, what part is near, what part is apart. Then if we individually have abnormal taste in sex, having an idea not to tell anyone is dependent to another idea that we want to be seen by other people as normal not abnormal.
But that kind of anxiety can be applied in anything but sex. For example contents to get study proposition, ability, faculty is the things to do any students a peer pressure, with anxious idea that I have a delay or gap among any other students. They are set toward other persons.
But if getting to be close each other is getting rid of those anxiety, individual cognition in judgment to hold ruler measuring what domain of contents or timing to confess shameful matters to friends makes a intentional posture toward any other persons except myself at each moments to face.
And I infer that we almost judge the best way to keep company with somebody not to confess everything rapidly each other. Why do we do so?
The reason to do so is that we have shame in evading rapid confession to get a gradation to reach the goal to know each other different things to be interested in.
Namely not to hasten to do so is the consensus to acknowledge each different hobby or interest. At the matter of fact we each hold different standard what to confess from the first time to meet, or to ask. Then to ask each other what each ones have each different standard to ask is the care to each other not to make unpleasant other one.
Then we can say that we shouldn’t say “let’s drink together”, or” are you interested in pornography”, or but at a special case we should do so frankly with a brave as its way has merit.
The possession of the care to know the communication partner can be close to each other is equal to admit each other a shameful existence. Or we have the different standard to think what question is the thing to be frowned at asking by each other probably according to the different process to be raised. Namely what thing is shameful or not can’t be generalized among any persons.
Then inversely it’s individually different to judge ~is what, to be ~is necessary, to be ~ is common sense, its judgment can’t be generalized, its truth’s rampancy in a good meaning in society is my ideal state in society as my view to judge individual value vision in a partner to converse with, despite of knowing completely different value vision in its person, as the person to understand mutually. Then I get happiness when I discover the same vision in a conversation partners.
It’s a little bit different from compatible live and let live strategy in a theory that human-beings are the evil entity. It’s simply a mutual verification or confirmation not to intervene mutual things to do individually.
Compatible strategy in to live and let live is business intention, and not a different revel judgment to have individual intimacy.
But it’s so general to say that we can be harmed when we have a posture to evade any mentions to the person we face or meet about something we feel danger as the subject in conversation. And its content to evade or refrain from talking is unexpectedly often the matter we should talk, more than the matter we shouldn’t talk in distorted, biased posture we make. But for avoiding its demerit, we might talk mutually what we shouldn’t talk so deeper or what we should talk frankly more than we’ve done. It’s only way to take advantage of our conversation to know the stance or vision each other.
Paraphrasing it, with a way to quest core problem daring to be in early time after meeting someone with a trust to the conversation partner, verifying each other mutual stance to mention frankly or not to mention so frankly refraining from talking too much about some problems is the best way to escaping from mutual misunderstandings or unneeded friction. Namely if we get to know mutual common field we each hold in mind as the own position, we can at least elude unexpected disillusion or dissatisfaction, discontent. Namely in a vision that we can see that rapid confirmation to each other of fundamental stance in mind can joint together a not meaningless sending of messages, seeking after is the sole effect for us in conversation, it’s only the best care for each other in communication, we can say.
Therefore identity of shame isn’t what to be confessed, with an action to verify mutual individual strategy in mind as we can get to know we hold in mind mutually, reversely we can say that what we can be close together is equal to verify objects to feel shame or contents to be with shame in deep mind as we have secretly. Namely intimacy can be composed in judgment to what to be seen or what to be unseen by a conversation partner for each other.
Then seeing in early time after meeting together that we should see both what to be seen and what to be unseen to each differently in mind can be said an implicit rule for each other.

Chapter31 Shame about sex and Value

There’re so assorted of thinkers, and there’re many ones who admit its assorted thoughts and also many ones who can’t admit assortment in society.
Namely there’re ones who think self thinking relative and can say so, otherwise there’re ones who can’t admit former thinking, don’t think it is steady belief, then if someone has a steady thought or idea, it must be absolute, nothing is right but self opinion and it should be..
But it can be said that those of ideas always can be distributed according to outside situation or demand from society at any moments from the world.
Paraphrasing it, there’s a moment to think that despite of the belief that self opinion is right, righter or not wrong opinion but self it must exist, or at the same time of it, reversely there’s the moment to think that it mustn’t be so, self opinion is the best not permitting any other opinions. Latter is in the cases that we perform particular things by ourselves or act by ourselves refraining from any relative judgments.
But if we try to say something of orthodox view, any individuals hold each different it,and also we needn’t confess anything to anyone as private ideas or tendency or taste individuals each hold which are the parts we feel shame, then debating it isn’t just logical but also so troublesome, it’s so difficult.
One of so hard things is sexual problem. For instance gay or lesbian is not wrong at least for me. At the matter of fact it’s not the thing we must judge that if someone realizes nothing of it, absolutely we deny as the matter we must appraise, at the same time of it isn’t the thing we must deny if we witness some case in question according to the Bible instruction as the biggest moralistic evil, I think so.
To me shame bares an idea that the Bible or explanation to it, ethnic unity, nation’s order is the most important thing more than any individual happiness as they are noble or sublime but homosexual, lesbianism, gay or anything like those is dirty. Shame is always hidden in claim of justice.
To be related with me, homosexual is only an experience that I sometimes hold adoration to ideal same sex persons for example young days of the Beatles or anything like that as the entity of idol in my close friendship. Thereby I hold no experience to contact in physical relationship in sex to same sex persons and hold no experience to hope it in mind. But I have an opinion that holding love emotion to same sex persons is wrong, and I haven’t an idea that it’s good to hold it in mind but really experiencing physical sex intercourse is wrong. Much less I haven’t an idea hold adoration to real sex experience to same sex persons is sinful.
Namely I have an idea that any favoritism in sex taste are permitted in any individual persons freely in any hope to any actions or minds. Then it’s only clear thing to say,
I don’t think they’re dirtier things more than ethnic unity or nation’s order. Of course ethnic unity or nation’s order are also the things not to be treated easily, but at the same time of it I don’t think that only those are the sublime or noble things. Therefore I have a antipathy to actions to suppress or discriminate any those ideas, I don’t think those action is right. Even if I recognize the existence as a person who has no experience in life, as far as concerned as not believing it’s noble, it’s also a free choice in anyone, at the same time of it an idea which can’t believe a person who does so is wrong to me.
Namely I think we should respect any choice of sex life, I have a strong concern to sex matters, but its concern isn’t beyond any other concerns to me, but at the same time of it it’s important things as curiosity or concern to me. Even any sexual phantasm is also permitted as far as concerned not to disturb any other persons.
And I hate the person who regard anyone deviating sexual common sense as deviate as outcast in society and regard anyone doing more sublime things but former them, I think that the persons who think that applause the winning of war obeying the order of nation and discriminate the persons who deviate self common sense (What is the common sense?) is heavily mental diseased.
Nymphomaniac or satyriasis are the existence with little sin as harm to the society as long as not driving their lives into the ruin.
Surely pursue of extremely high revel pleasuring of sex in social life isn’t the things not to say it’s risky. But as long as not driving our lives into pain in the neck in social life all of those can be allowed, I think so. And also tasteful person of sex can be allowed even in their much desire to do sex as long as not regretting themselves, all of those judgment should be trust to any individuality. Namely if an individual judge that all of extraordinary sex pursue should be refrain from doing, he or she should do so, but its belief shouldn’t be applied to any other persons in force and he or she also shouldn’t be forced so. It’s right opinion, I believe.
I at the matter of fact imagine any abnormal matters of sex but at the same time of it I cannot realize every imagination, but if there’s someone to realize any imagination about sex, as long as not to be regret or get to be unhappy for realizing anything he or she want, its stance also can be permitted, I think.
I hold an opinion that sexual phantasm can bear even fecund imagination.
Ten thousands and a thousand’s whip by Guillaume Apollinaire is excellent novel which is pornographic content. A world drawn in it is subtle content as it can be or it cannot be. Or the reason that I feel so may be caused from that my taste of sex isn’t the type to pursue high revel sensuality as pleasure.
Or Hitoshi Nagai says in Manga < cartoon> does philosophy, it’s mysterious that sexual intercourse is the thing is shameful action to be seen by some other persons but eating isn’t so, Yoshimichi Nakajima said in an article, it’s mysterious that in the case to be asked what is the thing you want now, we can’t say “ I want to have a sexual intercourse now, it’s natural question we are apt to hold usually in daily life 　as honest emotion.
Namely I have a steady opinion that it’s okay to hold each different opinion which is related to sex thing as far as concerned to be interested in or not. It belongs to individual shame, even if someone feel no shame, it’s individual problem not to be careful.
We often judge that married persons don’t want to tell anything of sexual matters but even if there’s someone as married but at the same time of it, despite of it more strong desire or concern to sexual matters is owned by him or her, it can be allowed as innocent I think. Namely as long as not to be regret in the case of its situation nor to force anyone as he or she want to do, crave isn’t sinful, even concern to abnormal sexual things isn’t sinful, I think. Namely it must be in category of shame is also a stereotype we’re apt to hold in mind, I think.
Then not to cork any emotion to want to do abnormal sex and perform it, if each partner has a consensus to it, it’s okay I think. No one can force anyone who has different value vision with rigid stoic law. It’s the same sin that persons with no interest to sexual thing force persons with strong interest not to do so and inversely persons with strong interest of sex force persons with no interest of it to do so, we can say.

Chapter30 Wall of Nothing

We set aims, clarify our will, for justifying a decision makings we refer data so much. At those moments, toward clear truth we set it as a value. And we can’t set off those easily because we’ve already set before as a value. Then therefore we call it a value. But at one meaning value is the thing which we get to think that anything are fit for values and try to seek after actions, thoughts, sayings, decisions which can contact with values and solidify our way to live or attitude fit for any values we’ve found out. Namely a narration saying that being anything is valuable for you, then it’s important to hold its stance to realize its ideal is welcome for us trying to do something. But we are apt to be bound only to words like that. Namely principle with words can control our will. At this moment we can be out from freedom in our destiny. It’s very troublesome. Because we can say that it’s a truth of us usually deciding anything with words in so many cases. Then if we express decision without words, it would be valued as instinctive judgment by anyone. But we know that we set so heavy value to words or language actions as humanity, study for human in foundation and regard it as extremely heavy. Namely we forget an angle that language itself is also a animalistic action. Namely if we think it with an angle as communication desire, nothing is instinctive but language. But despite of that, because it’s so bigger instinctive thing, then we must justify it as sophisticated matter, we transform it as supreme intelligence or reason as beautifying, it’s essence of philosophical history at a part.
Namely what desire is so bigger and attitudes fit for ourselves for each ones to live as inner instruction for ourselves are nothing we’ve set for obeying our inner desire at present juncture reality. And also standards selves motivated from subjective inner desire get to be one of strong bind for actions toward our future.
It’s truth that we are annoyed in wall of nothing itself every single days of our lives.
Dr. Takeshi Yoro called it wall of fool. Or Max Weber called it type of ideology. Then inversely we should abandon any trials to break down its wall and should take advantage it. Namely we should plan to make wall itself rescue us. In another words toward standard itself as wall of nothing we call it saying I cannot do anything now, then please observe our sequel from now on as we face the God.
Then we shouldn’t deny its attitudes fit for anything we set as aim, and ways to live for ourselves, and take advantage it to know powerlessness not to reach the aim point. And we should revise and reset a standard fit for real present juncture lower than ideally set standard.
To welcome wall of nothing existing anywhere around us, we shouldn’t find out a method to tide over a wall and just cling to it and walk eternally to anywhere in our idea. If we do so, it’s possible to find out a juncture to proceed to wall of nothing. It’s a set value to find out another value for the time being. Namely define wall of nothing like next. Wall of nothing is expedience to make our consciousness to evade wall and make its direction to another angle.

Chapter29 Value named the God Part2

Namely for escaping the cool and unkind real which can only be explained so, but at least we can help each self only with logical escape, then we can see that the god as concept exists as value. Then it’s almost like a realistic existent concept but really value concept, namely only knowing that anybody else in the world cannot be myself, essentially anybody else can help me is real solitude, and for breaking through its solitude, we pursuing logically and despite of it but with that we’re apt to imagine that anybody else can understand self distress or make myself tide over its trouble, the concept the God has raison d’etre, after all it’s merely value concept not realistic, existent concept.
At he matter of fact except Hitoshi Nagai, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger also said in My world vision (chapter 5).
But this question by Schrödinger or Hitoshi Nagai produces anther it.It’s cognitive closure theory by Colin McGinn. Namely the God created space itself, time itself, anything in the world. But He ( or she) cannot be each minds space and time hold. It shows in that I draw pictures but I cannot be mind of each master pieces as logical neccesaty. But its logic has a jump. It’s a quest of the possibility to exist of soul separating the body and possibility to exist of soul of material.
Buddhism or any religions have quested the state of soul after death, of course we coudn’t prove it even with any religions. But its impossibility to spin a clear answer shows that we cannot conclude the world after death mustn’t exist,
as David Chalmers said, question whether thermstat also has a mind or not also cannot be proved, its question can be spun. It makes us revise McGinn’s question that science couldn’t have proved anything about character of space or nothing.
Surely if the God created any created matters or things as Picasso created any masterpieces as several thousands numbers in the state of radiation from one point, even the God cannot be each minds of any created. Then numberless deities in Japan would have a persuasion. Namely it’s with Chalmers’ question that any materials exist in the world may have a mind. Then its idea produces the possibility that even after disappearing of body, soul may have been eternal.
But it’s so interesting that the God has a double meaning for us in difference of our emotions for example the state difference of what the God should be in time we’re disappointed in losing of self confidence as object to cling to and in the time we have steady self confidence but not forgetting self control not to be arrogant as object to intentionally prevent or reasonable adoring symbol. Namely the God to cling to is thankful and respectful even if it holds tiny power. But at the time of being self confident thanks to the divine gift is inversely the matter to evoke that even the God is weak and not omniscient, not absolute as detachment, it’s a kindness to the God, and awareness to the crevasse exists in completeness, it is equal to the sympathy to the God self. At this moment we hold in out minds arrogance in respect or kindness to other persons which we’re not apt to be aware as type of unconsciousness
Namely if its thankful emotion is in mentality children have, it’s okay, but if it is in a respectful emotion which adult persons usually have, rather the Aporia we’re apt to make it being hidden deep in mind
Namely the God isn’t realistic existent concept, but really value concept, namely it’s a barometer toward our humility in mind to self, we can say so.

Chapter29 Value named the God Part1

Philosopher, Hitoshi Nagai thinks that if the God creates everything, it cannot be a mind of created things. But originally somebody in human-beings in maze of distress said the God, after all he or she was aware of that anybody else cannot delete his or her it, or cannot live in him or her, and in front of the severe real, imagine its entity and create it catching a straw. Then probably the detachment that we hold nothing to break through a distress created the God as concept, we can be aware that it couldn’t have been.
But even it cannot lead an answer that Hitoshi Nagai holds, at least toward the question that why is it me as living in particular age, area, if the God creates everything as the trigger to be understood, it cannot be a mind as each every created, if it’s right, the definition of omniscience claims the contradiction, after all the God is illusion we concocted with, for knowing it, I know a reason to be as me writing this as fifty years old at 7th January, 2009. Namely coz the impossibility not to tell why anyone but me cannot me in logical standard inversely created the God catching a straw, we couldn’t be rescued by it as no entity in real. Then necessarily catching a straw as the God as no entity in real is also free in mind, if it is contradictory mind intention, but if we reduce an anxiety with its illusion, it would be absolutely free( I’m not that type), at the matter of fact any pains, emotions, distresses aren’t rescued, in its real solitude, for knowing that rescuing power is only self responsibility( a mind state of self), the God doesn’t exist, if it exists, even it cannot be in mind of created, for knowing only it, in world me is only self living in particular this age accidentally given by the God, I cannot help but thinking so. Of course it gets to be a tautological quest, originally the God doesn’t exist. Then for only knowing the cool real, the God in world creates a real that me living in particular age, area in particular body, it would be truth, after all infinite recession of quests appears in front of me. It should be Nature, not the God. Despite of the good idea, I cannot be persuaded completely. Namely world itself is only me as the entity to tell world is world. Just because of it, it gets to be reason as particular me is only self. Namely for knowing only that it’s nothing but me as the entity can be self, probably we can be aware that it’s nothing in the world but me as body, consciousness (I is only self) which makes us know( for not inviting the infinite recession of quest, it’s not the God’s will).

Chapter28 Truth, Desire, Getting to be close part3

Namely why does I differ others is the question not to solve, as it is eternal quest. Then trial to answer with one words is falsehood. It is like naming something world, naming action self is great detachment, we see so. And abandoning ability equal to saying ability to say I now abandon something belongs to only I. Therefore I paraphrase Descartes description as I abandon something, I am.
At the matter of fact not abandoning to quest something, but we decide a repetition to quest in knowing that we can’t answer eternal quest with one words. Its decision is one of believing.
Namely we compose any communication in abandoning an answer to any question why does I differ others to keep up with sympathizing others’ mind, realizing each other. At the moment to do so, I can’t know all in any situations, aspects, by myself, and I know I can’t realize mutual understanding’s effect, also I know I abandon any trials to accomplish mutual understanding with others as I only know. We can’t share this feeing each other.
But this incapability to share this feeling is devised in seeing that others but myself are the same to myself, and decide to believe so.
At the matter of fact deciding self is what we regard it as of truth, ideal. Of course we do so unconsciously. And then deciding so , namely decision self is devised in as it is, as we name something world as the same mechanism, and also the same of getting to be close. At the matter of fact it is absolutely as I abandon, as I am. And particular essence of abandoning self is incapable to explain. If we try to accomplish explaining it, as there’s no perfection without fault, it’s impossible. But we compromise anything with others we want to be close each other.
Then we can offer a diagram, deciding something=decision=believing=getting to be close each other=abandoning perfection as there’s no perfect world=naming( doing language action, participating in doing something)
Then at the matter of fact decision to do language action is Knowing language’s powerlessness, therefore it shows that we get to be aware of that we can’t express anything but words, language, it is equal to recognize mutual abandoning.
But we can see that it is equal to decide the fact we realize mutually, we can’t answer Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition. Namely as Descartes didn’t answer or solve his proposition doing only being ready for a starting point, also we can reach the solution as generalization to say as I abandon something, I am. However just because of it, we decide the fact that we accomplish mutually to realize we are in the same feeling, trying to believe we see each other.
But I think that only solution to Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition is believing, as equal to abandoning, decision mind. Because if it isn’t so, probably Professor Hitoshi Nagai knows that we can’t solve any proposition if it isn’t eternally. At the matter of fact this quest who is I is equal to quest to who are the others, we can give us the conclusion. It’s tautology at one meaning. That is like as truth and desire don’t separate each other, getting to be close each other is equal to keeping distance to any other persons except close companies.

Chapter28 Truth, Desire, Getting to be Close Part2

At the matter of fact, ideal, truth in question is one of value( for instance as the book with dialogue by Yoshimichi Nakajima and Rika Kayama, we only want to say so, we don’t know why it is, but we need a way to live, it’s also a good example, isn’t it?). And its value is also egoistic doxa. Then being to be interested in degree of its doxa is inner consciousness toward the existence of other persons itself.
For example doings of human-beings is never always right. But we believe in there’s rigidly the fittest judgment or action to do. Of course any examples are independent in any situations, as it is like the feeling that existence as I is completely different from it as other persons except me. It is mentioned by Hitoshi Nagai as his naming of only now theory, or independent now theory.
But even if we believe there’s a right, suitable speech and act, can we believe the one to do only suitable judgment? Rather positively we have a mind not to believe what ones do only right things does and its entity. It shows that we believe in ideal, truth, however otherwise it would be also not realistic, if its rightness would be come true, we would absolutely be smothered, we can know so intuitively. It shows that we at the bottom of our minds all of those ( ideal, truth) is only an illusion.
Namely we all know perfection or no doxa is itself an illusion at real revel. Being to be right at each different situations is not right totally, we know it( then because of it, ability to manage in politics toward any bureaucrats is heavy.)
Why myself exists, why any conditions’ raison d’etre ( reason to explain, value outside, public value) is given to us, all of those question is Hitoshi Nagai’s proposition of philosophy. All of questions’ solution would be the next.
If meaning entity or nothing, consciousness’s entity or zombie itself is an illusion, and we think we realize it as it is, experiencing one is me. But I think its capable one to be aware of its illusion isn’t only me. But knowing it is only me. Namely the fact that others but me is with its illusion would be also illusion. But on surface my close friend of mine sympathize my enigmatic feeling equal to feel that a category as world is itself illusion. Or rather even the feeling only I have in my existence can be told to him or her, I feel. But it is also an illusion by me that we each other sympathize. The possibility that anything is illusion can be left.
Then from a point we absolutely get to believe other persons’ understanding to my saying. At the matter of fact believing other’s (dialogue partner) saying that I can believe your saying is component of myself. ( Hitoshi Nagai rigidly would persist in that it’s not I, it’s public I. But at the matter of fact I itself is created in me believing other person, isn’t it?) Of course partner only says so in public manner. But if I doubt its honesty, it’s infinite repetition. We get to be aware of it too. Then at a moment we decide our minds. Let’s believe in other persons, partners all as entity. But it’s also even if it’s wrong idea, we must never be sorry. Namely it’s a judgment of value or decision it wasn’t wrong idea to believe other person at least for me, than just being sorry that if I didn’t believe him of her, now I could have been so
But its value judgment isn’t doing for anybody else but me. Just for me. Then it is not a thinking to believe just because of that partner convert his or her wrong idea. By and large it’s value judgment to truth making that believing so is the better doing. At its moment we know it is also a detachment ( it’s the same to that we hold faith to be the same between my seeing red and your seeing red) as solipsism, pure self ego theory. Then just because of it value itself is it for me, we can go back to chapter 6 proposition.

Chapter28 Truth, Desire, Getting to be Close Part1

If we think of why human-beings get to be closed together, unexpectedly even if we learned language, using it, thinking all things, but there’s a moment to feel language isn’t panacea, and we sympathize its opinion together, we want to have a closed friend. Because our language is setting a word “world”, but we can’t prove there’s so called world, we’ve named it world and to any individual things, to any phenomena, we name them all each moment and mean them. Namely positioning all things as to be in category or paradigm is language power. Then we point out anything with words’ power before knowing world aspect. Namely we try to understand world as one character or traits. In this step we try to know anything in signified and meant order already. However we are aware of all those aren’t out of fitting to real matter ( we suppose if there’s so existing there) intuitively. For instance to be enchanted by different sex person is at one meaning egoistic doxa to her or him, at the matter of fact misunderstanding. But sometime he or she protrudes the attitude we’ve never anticipated as talking or anything action betraying our discretionarily set ideal. At that moment we get to be sure that our naming and meaning self is broken. Namely shared setback experience facts we hold to others is sympathetic action trigger, it’s to be closed together. At the meaning that love affair losers get to be close each other, friends understand each other, its phenomenon can be positioned. At this point in philosophy truth is universal, in comparison to it, desire is unstable, changeable,
we try to deal with truth as ideal, on the contrary desire can be dealt with so cheap matter, we can say. But after consideration we can conclude that just because of the fact that we’ve toyed by changeable reality, we’ve needed truth. Then for us truth is what to need. Namely truth is one of the desire, it cased from desire, we could say so. Adding also even if there aren’t desire as real entity in mind, we set truth as it exists. Namely truth and desire is familiar with each other, we can see.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part3

Behind it we can be in a mind of others easily but otherwise at the matter pf fact if we are asked what self-identity is, we absolutely have a trouble to answer. It is shown in next Sydney Shoemaker’s description ( Self-knowledge and self-identity).
　
( abbreviated in fore part) Suppose that I have an uninterrupted memory of the interval between a certain time yesterday and the present moment. Suppose that now I remember a certain “idea,” say an image, that occured yesterday, remember also the substance or subject that had that idea, and can therefore be sure that nothing has been substituted for it, and that it is identical with substance that perceives my present ideas. If I could remember this then surely I could remember that at some point another substance was substituted for it, and know that it was not the same as the substance was substituted for it, and know that it was not the same as the substance that perceives my present ideas. Given that I can perceive a thing of a certain sort, if my memory of what observed ( perceived, was aware of, was conscious of) between yesterday and the present could inform me that a thing of that sort I observe now it the same as one that I remember existing yesterday, then it could inform me that a thing of that sort that I observe now is not the same as one that I remember existing yesterday. As I said in Chapter Two, by appealing to the fact that
we consistently “lose sight” od our past selves as grounds for doubt as to whether we always remain the same substance, Locke implies that one substance could be replaced by another, and that if our consciousness were not interrupted we would detect such changes were they to occur. For it is only because our consciousness is interrupted that he thinks that such substitution, surely it is conceivable that someday we might detect one. Suppose, however, that were to remember that the substance which had the idea (saw the image) yesterday had been replaced by another substance and was not the same as the substance that has my present ideas. If the identity of a person consists in, or essentially involves, the identity of a substance, then in this case I would have to say that the remembered idea belonged to someone other than myself. And this, as Locke saw, is absurd; if I remember the image the it must have been I say that the identity of a person does not involve the identity of a substance( a view that I have argued to be unintelligible one can observe, and remember, that a material object, or another person, has or has not remained the same( has or has not been replaced by something else) during a certain interval of time, one cannot observe or remember that a mental substance, or oneself, has or has not remained the same. ( Four Self-identity and the Contents of Memory, p.146～p.147)

What we read from its Shoemaker’s description, it’s the truth that we don’t remember our actions observing them as the method. Then because of it the method of proof that a thing seen yesterday and it seen now is the same doesn’t be judged as identity of personality, its axiom in mind is talked here. Its self identity isn’t identity that we know with observation to others as objective standard( it caused only a assessment that we can know that apple you see is it I see as the same) ,namely it’s exceptional specific, transcendental, sole thing. This idea can be thought being based on Descartes.(Locke took it over), but Russell also took it over, Shoemaker identified it.
And one who took over Shoemaker’s idea is Hitoshi Nagai.
Then just because of all of it, value originally in judgment purely is individual property, in the truth nobody can trust any other persons except myself to judge value itself, we can close up others’ entity. It’s double characterized meaning only philosophy holds.
Namely the idea that others’ judgment shouldn’t applied to pierce value as claim of individual responsibility truly works as we need solidified value necessarily in self mind disliking unstableness of it. Solidification which works in our self mind aquires the character of us that we can show our value vision to others as we like. It is caused from that we’ve already been aware of value solidification’s sharing in anybody. A awareness of it in individuals just makes anxiety too. Because of it we jump at the gun to authorize value in deleting anxiety. We are apt to have an illusion that any values which include law are apriori outside exisitence. Then we misjudge the thing as we can observe like a question apple you see is it I see or not and the thing as value itself combining together. A description by Shoemaker can lead us to be aware of our doxa.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part2

What we have anxiety in raison d’etre of value as just or not relies on at one meaning that we have judged anything by each selves, but also we want to know others’ judgment as discretion’s agreement or consensus
as our capability in our minds. Then what Kant showed in Criticism of Practical reason or Criticism of Judgment was entity of others. Namely of maxim, judgment to beauty, others are concerned necessarily.
Anxiety doesn’t stop in problem of judgment to justice as value. Namely
Because value itself can be set as shared concern area or domain as public thing, when we talk of value, we can forget each members of world would die someday. Namely unconscious mind care to each fear of absolute solitude is the reason of in-depth mentality in setting performance of public as shared concern or interest area or domain. Then it’s reason to rise kindness (Just because of it, kindness is apt to be changed often indulgence).Namely setting shared concern area or domain has fundamentally getting to be closed. Its work of mind has destined absolute solitude of each person’s death. In what we can reduce any anxiety only when we concentrate on shared concern area or domain, we have a custom or habit to take care of other ones we can be closed.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part1

We try to solidify value because we feel idly resetting and reconsidering our self set value. Or to say, we try to select only matter we can think it is able to solidify. But its fact means that we hold always anxiety we wonder if we evading misjudge our self set value. Personality is typical thing in its anxiety. Namely one other person’s personality as the most important one as roll model, we need it, as that we need to solidify our self personality. But we are always with distress, necessarily we hold also skepticism to our self set value, and its emotion never disappears.
At the matter of fact we are the existence to make both ambivalent feelings co-exist. Actions caused from value solidification is description, our language action needs value solidification at each utterance and description. Thought and idea selves are always trial and error. Then we can think with a vision as necessity to overcome our anxiety. But thought and idea are ready for solidifying anything as been thought.
At a part loving emotion at the first time and love affair is like its solidification. Ideal partner or ideal lover, sweetheart is the thing for us to need for another revel of vale to daily comfort. Then necessarily marriage partner is just daylily comfortable partner for our choice to propose, namely it’s rigorously different from ideal notional value. Namely that we can discriminate both different type of intention but can also make them co-exist as love affair partner and marriage partner shows our diversity toward value. Then we experience that more ideal partner evokes our anxiety, diversely even the partner we trust evokes
it. Or a case that ideal itself is so rigorously solidified and unchangeable and another case that ideal is set in unstable position as unreality we can help but gazing at, both cases as value judgment co-exist. Or we have a reason to think smartly stable and solid friend, marriage partner of mine is the best, but at the same time of it another reason to think mind change to it is the best choice as the turning point of life equally a vision to see changing and switching set vale self valuable momentarily. Both of them stand at the point as idea that value itself should be solidified but because of it as being solidified, we should be careful to set value, and both ambivalent feelings as anxiety touch each other and separate in deep in our mind, its state is our mentality or spirit.
Namely value is at a revel so stable then we know the moment to decide so big change as turning point to reset value as finger, at the same time of it value choice itself is always with anxiety of us, and we also don’t admit anything without any anxiety as valuable matter, its standpoint is our solid shared notion.