Correspondence for the Night of Amateur Philosophy: Sixth Letter, Abe to Kakiuchi

Dear Mr. Kakiuchi,

Now that the event has concluded safely, how have you been? I have been spending my days in a slump, taking advantage of the fact that the semester is over, and I am currently in Ariake to watch a Fishmans concert.

But really, the event was a great success with a large turnout, wasn't it? I am deeply grateful to everyone who attended, including my friends, listeners of Poietique RADIO, and students from the classes I am involved with. The content was wide-ranging and the meeting was very fulfilling. I think the audience members were each able to take something away from it.

I would like to wrap things up safely like that, but that would be too conventional, so I will write as I please from here on out.

First, I wrote "large," "great success," "wide-ranging," and "something" above. These words quantify the number of guests, the degree of success, the topics of discussion, and what the guests thought based on some standard. It seems that the previous event focused primarily on this point, namely, the logic of "quantity." The point is that these quantities were things that did not necessarily need to be measured, or were inherently immeasurable. For example, the success of an event depends on the feelings of the event organizers and the guests, so it is essentially impossible to know if it was a "great" success. However, in the text above, I reduced "success" to the number of guests. You could say I created an unproven equation: "Success = X number of guests."

Amateurs often encounter norms that say "you should do this" based on such (vague) quantitative standards. Conversely, when they do not do these things, they are considered "immature." At this point, the feelings of "fun" or "like" that were initially present are abstracted away, and a sense of "I must do this" is born. Originally, if it was fun or if you liked it, that should have been enough, but it is cleverly quantified by expert standards, and gradually one's actions are framed. You could say that quantity emerges as a form of power. We discussed this area using your reading of Marx in "Philosophy of the Salaryman" as a clue.

I think such framing can be observed in various events as well. We started the other day's event with this topic. For example, "speeches" disguised as questions from the audience (self-talk that has little to do with the event content) are avoided. This is because it is an act that deviates from the framework of the event. However, this is only perceived as a deviation because the quantitative logic of the event organizer or the shop is being applied unconsciously, and from the guest's perspective, one could say that is none of their business.

However, I am thinking about how to prevent it from becoming a free-for-all now that the event is over. Actually, when you expressed that you like such speeches at the event, I was a little hesitant in my reaction. I might have mentioned it at the event, but I am not very good with those kinds of comments myself. To be more precise, I am not good with comments that are not oriented toward the event space. If there is no intention to participate in the events of that space, I feel that such comments are a kind of imposition by the audience, reversing the "Listen to me!" of the event organizer.

Of course, I think I understand your intention, and there are comments that break the normativity of the space, aren't there? I understand that very well, and in fact, I think that is perfectly fine. In other words, I also have comments that are "acceptable" and comments that are "not acceptable," and I am struggling to think about what that standard is. In the first place, you, who are thinking about such realistic resistance strategies for salarymen in "Philosophy of the Salaryman," would not simply affirm resistance on the amateur side, and I understand the "like" statement above as irony through the discussion of Shigesato Itoi-esque "(resistance as) lack of reflection" in the latter half. Personally, that discussion of Itoi was very refreshing.

Also, as mentioned at the event, the logic of quantity is not just imposed by experts or professionals. Amateurs themselves sometimes impose quantitative standards on other amateurs. We discussed this as the so-called "high amateur" problem. Amateurs who have approached the level of experts, or rather, such high amateurs, frame the direction in which things should go.

I think the problem I have been writing about so far is how we deal with the logic of quantity. I wanted to use the expression "deal with" because I intend not to simply deny the logic of quantity, but to ride it well.

Should quantity be denied that much? Of course, quantification is a kind of logic of reification. However, things that have been reified in this way can sometimes provide fun to amateurs as a kind of game. For insect collecting, it might be how many you caught or how big the insects were. I do not think that amateurs should absolutely participate in these games. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine these as amateur pleasures.

What is important is that the parties involved should be aware of what the pleasure they are currently involved in is framed by. Of course, one should resist any kind of imposition. On the other hand, if it is a game you can agree with, it is fine to enter it. You might even find it attractive beyond your agreement. We cannot escape the game. If so, I want to be conscious of what kind of game I am participating in. I think that if we can be aware of this, we can also realize the possibility that different games exist.

Of course, the problem of free will is involved there. In other words, there is a possibility that what you thought you decided for yourself is defined by some framework, and you are not able to recognize the frame. However, for me, even if it is a subjectivity in parentheses, I want to bet on it.

The following is a quote attributed to Foucault, spoken to a student, as recorded in James Miller's biographical work on Foucault, "The Passion of Michel Foucault."

Itoi-esque "(resistance as) lack of reflection" and awareness of the game both ultimately operate within the framework of power through quantification. However, we can know the fact that we are "playing the game" itself. Foucault is saying that freedom exists in that recognizability. The ethics of amateur practice lies not in the content itself, but in its recognizability as a game. That is why I think we should talk more about amateurs, as we did in this event. The most important insight I gained from this event was exactly that.

Despite this being the last reply, I have written at length again. But how would you react if I posed such a discussion? I am looking forward to hearing your reply. Let's definitely hold another event. I wrote that this was the last, but maybe we can continue the correspondence in a small way. If there is anything you would like to ask, I will write to you again. Mr. Kakiuchi, if you would like, please send me anything that comes to mind. I apologize for the rambling reply, but I will put down my pen here.