Disqualified from Entry

I have tried entering note contests three times. However, regarding the post contest themed '{#ThingsImGladIChooseMyself' hosted by Lifenet Insurance, note, and Voicy, I cannot for the life of me believe that I meet the eligibility requirements.

The contest organizers ask, 'Do you ever find yourself struggling with choices in your daily life?' but I am an extremely optimistic person who doesn't think deeply about things, so I have never struggled with a choice. In fact, I often decide intuitively the moment options appear. Therefore, the 'emotional fluctuations' and 'conflicts' often seen in contest entries are things I have almost no connection to.

In fact, I once went on a two-week sightseeing trip to California on a whim, found it troublesome to return home, and ended up living in the United States for eighteen years. After returning to Japan, people assumed I was good at working abroad, so I ended up taking on jobs in China and Vietnam. Normally, one should hesitate here and wonder, 'Is it really okay to choose this job?', but in my case, I have stuck to a style of 'choosing without hesitation'.

As a result, I have continued to work all over the world—in ASEAN countries, India, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa—and have never once struggled with a choice. For me, living outside of Japan is a daily occurrence, and I feel no particular discomfort in places like Algeria or Mozambique, where I currently work. However, it would be very difficult for most people living in Japan to empathize with this feeling.

To win this contest, it is important to have a narrative development that draws in the reader, going beyond a mere personal experience. A dramatic structure of conflict, choice, and the resulting outcome is required, but my way of life has almost none of those elements. In fact, as someone who dislikes artificially crafting drama, I feel a strong sense of discomfort with this type of storytelling.

That is precisely why I am the most unsuitable applicant for this contest, and I chose the title 'Disqualified from Entry' as a parody of Osamu Dazai's 'No Longer Human'. However, this time, for the first time, I faced a conflict that I assume is shared by the majority of people writing articles on note: 'I have no interest in the grand prize, but I want the 100,000 yen gift card.' For someone who has never struggled with a choice, this conflict is fresh.

Moreover, that conflict arose on the very day of the manuscript deadline. At this timing, if I were to write about the hesitation of 'whether or not to enter the contest' and the reason I ultimately chose to enter as the theme 'Things I'm glad I chose myself,' there might be a possibility of winning. However, there is a paradox here. The moment I entered, I didn't yet know if that choice was good, and there is also the fact that at the time of writing this article, I haven't submitted it yet.

Even so, for me, 'choice' is always just the result of following my intuition. Therefore, regarding this entry into the contest, rather than thinking deeply about whether it will lead to a good result, I am enjoying the fact that I 'ended up choosing' it.

And if such a haphazard approach pays off, that might just be the proof of 'things I'm glad I chose myself.' Regardless of the result, this unusual choice is a symbol of my identity, and that is the way of life I have chosen.

Rintaro Takechi

[Self-Commentary]

Schrödinger's Disqualified Entry

The thought experiment 'Schrödinger's Disqualified Entry' expresses an ambiguous state where the success or failure of an entry exists simultaneously. This experiment unfolds in the form of me personally commenting on the essay 'Disqualified from Entry' that I wrote.

Background of the thought experiment
Rintaro Takechi's essay 'Disqualified from Entry' depicts the process of an author who feels no hesitation in making choices, yet decides to enter despite thinking it doesn't fit the theme. The point to note here is the paradox that whether entering was a good choice can only be determined after entering. This situation is similar to the 'Schrödinger's cat' paradox in quantum mechanics.

Comparison with Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat is a quantum mechanics paradox showing a state where life and death overlap until observed. Similarly, whether an entry is 'selected' or 'rejected' can be considered to be in both states simultaneously until the result is revealed. This state of entry holds the ambiguity of 'it is certain that I entered, but it is unknown whether I was selected'.

State where the success or failure of the entry is undecided
In 'Schrödinger's Disqualified Entry,' the following states hold true.

The moment of entry:It is unknown whether the entry is selected or rejected. Until the results are announced, both states exist in an ambiguous, overlapping state.

Observation after entry:Only when the contest results are announced is it determined whether the entry was selected or rejected. Until this observation is made, both results continue to exist as possibilities.

The philosophy of choice in the depths
In the essay, the author sticks to a style of making choices intuitively and not thinking deeply about the results. However, this time, he experienced a moment of 'conflict,' and the choice to enter has become a new experience for him. This moment is the key to creating 'Schrödinger's Disqualified Entry.' Because the essence of choice depends on intuition, an uncertainty arises where the goodness or badness of the choice is determined only by the result.

Conclusion
'Schrödinger's Disqualified Entry' is a unique thought experiment that expresses a state where the entry itself contains both selection and rejection. This paradoxical situation vividly highlights the contradiction between the philosophical aspects of choice and decision-making based on daily intuition. For the author, entering is an act of 'enjoying it regardless of the result,' and this playfulness leads to a stance of positively embracing the ambiguity of choice.

Rintaro Takechi