The Definition of 'Matomo' (Sane/Decent)

Not just normal, but the power to return

What is 'matomo'?

When asked that, we feel like we could answer quite easily.

A decent person, a sound idea, a normal society, a reasonable judgment.
In our daily lives, we use this word casually.

However, when we think about it again, this word is quite strange.

This is because 'matomo' is not just a compliment.
At times, it also becomes a boundary line that divides people into the inside and the outside.

'A decent person wouldn't do that'
'A sane adult would think this way'
'Not sane'
'In a normal society, this wouldn't happen'

When told this, many people find it hard to argue back.

This is because the word 'matomo' has a power that somehow omits explanation.
Even without giving a specific reason, it sounds somewhat correct.
It sounds somewhat common-sensical.
It somehow makes the opposing side look wrong.

But is that really the case?

Is being 'matomo' the same as being normal?
Is it being the same as the majority?
Is it following common sense?
Is it not standing out in society?

As I think about it, it seems that 'normal' and 'matomo' are not the same.

Normal is, in many cases, determined by the distance from the majority.
It is what many people do, what many people believe, and what many people accept within that era, that region, and that group.

In other words, normal is a state close to the social average.

However, 'matomo' is a little different from that.

There are people who are not normal but are 'matomo' (decent/sane).
There are people who look normal but are not 'matomo'.

Being normal might mean not standing out in a group.
However, being 'matomo' is not just about not standing out.

Rather, there are people who, even if they don't fit the same mold as everyone else, do not lose their connection to reality or others, and can return when they make a mistake.
Conversely, there are people who look very normal, whose words and attitudes are polished, yet they refuse to see their own contradictions and end up twisting others or reality itself.

So, what is 'matomo'?

What became clear during this reflection was this.

Being sane is not about having no contradictions, but about the power to keep processing them.

It is not about being a person who does not contradict themselves, but about being a person who can find their way back.

Humans are contradictory.

This is likely unavoidable.

Ideals and reality diverge, emotions and logic clash, and what we say and what we do do not perfectly align.
Our own happiness and the happiness of others, as well as what is beneficial in the short term and what is important in the long term, do not always line up neatly.

For example, we want to cherish the environment, yet on busy days, we rely on disposable items.
We want to be kind to people, yet when we lack the capacity, we treat someone coldly.
We know that health is important, yet on a tired night, we choose things that are bad for our bodies.
We want to cherish our family, yet we are chased by work and life, and we end up putting those closest to us last.

Such contradictions exist within everyone.

Therefore, the fact that humans have contradictions is not unusual.
The problem lies in what you do when you see those contradictions: do you reject yourself entirely, pretend you didn't see them, or try to adjust them little by little?

If you were to call the mere existence of contradictions 'insane,' then almost no human being would be sane.

What is truly important is not whether or not there are contradictions.

What do you do when you notice a contradiction?

Do you learn?
Do you correct it?
Do you hold it in reserve?
Do you apologize?
Do you rethink it?

Or do you pretend you didn't see it?
Do you attack the other person?
Do you twist reality itself?
Do you cover it up with a story that is convenient for you?

This is where a person's 'sanity' appears.

A sane person is not someone who never makes mistakes.
They are not someone who never contradicts themselves.
They are not someone who is always right.

A sane person is someone who, when they make a mistake, can still find their way back.

However, 'finding their way back' here does not mean returning to who they were in the past.
It does not mean returning to the majority, nor does it mean erasing oneself to fit the situation.

Rather than returning to being 'right,' it is returning to a connection with reality.
Returning to the table of dialogue.
Returning to a place where you can see the existence of others once again.
Returning to the space where you can think that perhaps you were wrong.

People make mistakes.
People become biased.
People are swallowed by emotions.
People sometimes see the world in a way that is convenient for themselves.

Even so, the point is not to close yourself off completely at that moment.

Instead of destroying reality or others just to protect one's own sense of being right, it is the ability to return once more to a place where facts, dialogue, and the possibility of correction exist.

I would like to call that power "decency" here.

Someone who, when they notice a contradiction within themselves, at least tries to process it, even if they cannot eliminate it entirely.
Someone who does not destroy reality just for their own convenience.
Someone who does not try to erase others to protect their own sense of being right.
Someone who does not completely sever their connection to the world.

Thinking of it this way, decency is not a fixed personality trait, but something quite dynamic.

It is not something that is finished once you have acquired it.
It is something that grows, wavers, collapses, and is rebuilt throughout one's life.

I believe decency is an acquired ability to process contradictions that grows through friction with the world.

Decency is not innate; it is something that grows.

Humans are not decent from the moment they are born.

Babies do not know the rules.
They do not know language.
They do not know right from wrong.
They do not know responsibility.
They do not know promises.
They do not know how society works.

In the first place, they do not even know that there are rules to follow.

From there, humans gradually learn about the world.

Being scolded.
Being praised.
Getting hurt.
Hurting someone.
Failing.
Being forgiven.
Not being forgiven.
Telling a lie.
Being trusted.
Being betrayed.
Learning something.
Losing something.

Through the accumulation of such experiences, humans gradually acquire ways to process the discrepancies that exist between themselves, others, society, and reality.

Therefore, decency is closer to an adjustment ability accumulated throughout life than an innate quality.

Perception grows.
Knowledge increases.
Experiences pile up.
Knowing the pain of others.
Knowing one's own limits.
Knowing that the world does not move according to one's own wishes.

Even so, one tries to connect with the outside, rather than closing oneself off within.

That accumulation is what fosters decency.

However, that is precisely why it is also dangerous.

If it is something that grows after birth, it can also be nurtured.
It can be broken.
It can be distorted.
It can be enclosed.

Here, the problem of "decency-stripping" emerges.

What is 'de-sanitizing'?

Human contradictions are things that should naturally be processed little by little.

Noticing, thinking, failing, correcting, and interacting with others again.
Through that repetition, people gradually regain their connection to reality.

However, those contradictions are not just processed.
They are also exploited.

To those with anxiety, you can sell reassurance.
To those with anger, you can provide an enemy.
To those with loneliness, you can provide a closed sense of camaraderie.
To those with guilt, you can provide a reason to obey.

Here, the problem of 'de-sanitizing' emerges.

The 'de-sanitizing' referred to here is not simply making someone strange.

It is narrowing the path for a person to notice their own contradictions, rethink them, and return.
Or, it is breaking, biasing, or steering their ability to process contradictions in a convenient direction.

That is what is meant by de-sanitizing here.

However, this is not simply about 'making someone believe a lie'.

This is important.

De-sanitizing is not done solely through lies.

Rather, truths are also frequently used.

Facts, correctness, good intentions, hope, a sense of responsibility, a sense of justice, affection, trust, and human kindness.
Because these 'genuine' things are used, de-sanitizing is difficult to detect.

If it were a complete lie, one could still doubt it.
But when the truth is mixed in, people cannot easily doubt it.

For example, suppose a person gets angry.
That is a fact.

Suppose a person utters abusive language.
That may also be a fact.

Suppose a person disrupts the situation.
That, too, might be true if you only look at the result.

However, what happened before that?

What kind of pressure was there?
What kind of provocation was there?
What kind of isolation was there?
Was an escape route left for the other person?
Was a situation where that person would break created in advance?

If you only look at the results, it looks like the truth.
However, when you look at the path that led to that truth, it can have a completely different meaning.

In other words, truth does not reside only in the results.

The relationships, pressures, silences, manipulations, arrangements, and contexts that lead up to it.
Unless you look at all of those, you cannot get close to the truth in the real sense.

What is more troublesome than a lie is a truth that was conveniently created.

Truth, too, is used.

Truth is not necessarily something that is just found.
Depending on how the situation is set up, it can appear in a biased form.

Creating a situation where a person looks bad
Creating a situation where a person gets angry
Creating an arrangement where a person is likely to fail
Creating an atmosphere where a person cannot refuse
Creating a relationship where a person cannot escape

And finally, showing only the results.

"That person got angry"
"That person failed"
"That person lacks cooperation"
"That person is dangerous"
"That person is not sane"

At this point, the facts presented may be genuine.

However, if you hide how those facts were created, the truth becomes a tool to corner people rather than to illuminate them.

In this sense, for sanity, the power to see through lies is not enough.

Even when the truth is being told, you need the power to see how that truth was created, how it was cropped, and in what direction it is being used.

Sanity is the power to see facts, but at the same time, it is the power to see the process of how those facts were generated.

Logic can be both ethics and control

What I want to think about further here is the relationship between logic and ethics.

Logic, in itself, is not ethics.

Logic is a path to proceed from a certain premise to a certain conclusion.
However, what you use that path for is not determined by logic alone.

It can be used to help people
It can be used to persuade people
It can be used to deceive people
It can be used to trap people
It can be used to set people free

In short, logic is a tool.

Will you connect that logic to ethics, or to domination?
Will you connect it to protection, or to exploitation?
Will you connect it to education, or to manipulation?

It changes depending on the purpose, position, interests, imagination, and the depth of connection to others of the person handling it.

Here, "decency" becomes more than just logical ability.

No matter how logical it may be, if that logic destroys connections to people, reality, or the future, it is hard to call it decent.

Something can be a sound argument, yet not be decent.
Something can be logical, yet destroy people.
Something can be efficient, yet slowly rot society.

Therefore, decency is not just about logic.

Decency is the ability to use logic without breaking the connection to reality, others, and the future.

Natural resources within human beings

What is important here is not to view the subversion of decency simply as a story of "bad people deceiving others."

Of course, there are people who use it intentionally.
However, if we explain it only that way, we overlook the breadth of the structure.

There are things in humans that are inherently easy to exploit.

When anxious, one seeks security.
When lonely, one seeks belonging.
When angry, one wants to find the cause.
When hopeful, one wants to move toward that hope.
When there is something one wants to believe in, one wants to protect it.

These are human weaknesses, but at the same time, they are also what makes us human.

That is precisely why they can also become resources.

Here, a metaphor emerges.

It is easier to think of the subversion of decency as something like oil, rather than confining it to a conspiracy theory where "someone is controlling everything."

Oil is something that arose in nature.

It is not inherently good or evil.
It is not an emotion created by humans, nor a desire invented by someone.

Humans dig up, refine, distribute, and use high-density resources that existed in nature for various purposes.

It becomes fuel.
It becomes material.
It becomes medicine.
It becomes roads.
It is involved in weaponry.
It leads to environmental pollution.

Oil itself does not determine good or evil.
The issue lies in how it is used.

Within human beings, there are natural resources similar to this.

Fear, hope, anger, anxiety, the desire for approval, the desire to belong, a sense of justice, loneliness, inferiority, superiority, love, guilt, dreams, stories, trust, and a sense of responsibility.

These are not inherently bad things.

Rather, they are essential materials that make humans human.

People can live because they have hope.
People can work hard because they want to be recognized by someone.
People can get angry at injustice because they have a sense of justice.
People try to protect others because they have love.
People try to keep their promises because they have a sense of responsibility.

However, they are also usable resources at the same time.

Hope can be used to help people stand up, or it can be used to trap them.
A sense of justice can be used to protect the weak, or it can be used to create enemies and make people attack others.
A sense of responsibility can be used to foster trust, or it can be used to corner those who cannot say no.
Love can be used to heal people, or it can be used to bind them.

Therefore, the problem does not lie in emotions, logic, or hope themselves.

How they are mined, how they are refined, how they are distributed, and what they are used for.
That is where the problem lies.

Viewing the 'decent' deviation through the oil model

If we view the deviation from decency through the oil model, it looks like this.

First, we mine human anxiety and desire.
Next, we refine them into stories, systems, products, and ideologies.
Next, we distribute them through media, organizations, education, communities, social media, work, and family.
Finally, we have them consumed as human behavior, purchases, votes, silence, anger, loyalty, and dependency.

So, who is mining and refining them?

It is not necessarily just one specific person.

Advertising can unearth anxiety.
Social media mechanisms can amplify anger and the desire for approval.
Political language can give shape to fear and hostility.
Company evaluation systems can exploit a sense of responsibility or anxiety.
The atmosphere in schools and homes can strengthen the feeling that 'one must be the same as everyone else'.

And we ourselves also sometimes contribute to this unconsciously.

Using someone's anxiety to persuade them.
Taking advantage of someone's kindness to create an atmosphere where they cannot say no.
Conveniently using someone's anger to reinforce one's own righteousness.
Picking out only someone's failures to make one's own side look correct.

In other words, the side that mines and the side that is mined are not completely separate.
We are sometimes the ones being used, and sometimes the ones doing the using.

What becomes important here is concentration, depth, and frequency.

Increase the concentration of anxiety
Adjust the depth of hope
Increase the frequency of anger
Drip-feed the supply of approval
Repeatedly instill guilt
Deepen the fear of the outside
Deepen the dependence on the inside
Make them think they chose it themselves, while actually narrowing their options

When this happens, people appear to be acting of their own free will, but they are actually moving within a highly engineered flow.

Of course, not everyone who uses this is a bad person.

Education uses human psychology
Medicine uses it too
Advertising uses it too
Politics uses it too
Religion uses it too
Families use it too
Companies use it too
Art uses it too
Stories use it too

The problem is not the use itself.

Does that use move toward fostering a human's ability to process contradictions?
Or does it move toward stripping away, narrowing, and confining a human's ability to process contradictions?

This is where the turning point lies.

Several types of being 'off-normal'

To think about being 'off-normal,' it is better to first look at the fact that there are different kinds of 'non-normal' states.

One is being off-normal due to a lack of awareness or knowledge.

This does not necessarily mean the person has strong malicious intent.
They don't know, they don't see it, they lack experience, they lack the necessary premises, or they lack the information to make a judgment.

In this case, there is a possibility of returning by learning.

Next, there is being off-normal where one hasn't even reached the stage of realizing they are contradictory.

This is a bit difficult.

They do not doubt their own thoughts
They do not re-examine their premises
They do not feel any sense of discomfort
They do not accept input from others
Their world is complete within themselves

Often, the person genuinely believes that they are the one who is normal.

Furthermore, there is being off-normal where one notices but does not process it.

They know deep down that something is wrong
However, if they correct it, they will suffer a loss
They will lose their position
They will lose their income
They will lose their supporters

Therefore, they pretend not to notice.
Or, they justify the contradiction.

This is, so to speak, a profit-driven type of being off-normal.

And even more dangerous is the manipulative type of deviation from normal.

This person does not just deviate from normal themselves.
They also cause others to deviate from their own sense of normalcy.

Stoking anxiety
Stoking anger
Creating enemies
Spreading only convenient information
Preventing people from noticing contradictions
Isolating those who do notice
Hijacking the very standard of normalcy by saying, 'Any normal person would think this way'

From this point on, we are moving away from the topic of individual personality and closer to the design of society and the information environment.

The lower a group's ability to process contradictions, the easier it is to manipulate.
Therefore, deviating from normal can also become a technique for manipulating people.

Moving people
Moving groups
Moving organizations
Moving society
Moving countries
Moving the economy
Moving politics
Moving history

At this stage, a state of not being normal can no longer be dismissed as mere individual immaturity.

Visible control and invisible enclosure

In the past, control was easy to see because it was inscribed on the body or social status.

Of course, that in itself remains extremely cruel.
But at the very least, the state of being 'controlled' was easy to see from the outside.

On the other hand, modern enclosure can take much less visible forms.

Not chains, but debt
Not brands, but titles
Not prisons, but contracts
Not whips, but evaluations
Not guards, but systems
Not orders, but self-responsibility
Not coercion, but a structure that makes you think you chose it yourself

In this case, the person may not even realize they are being bound.

What is scary here is that a 'frog in a well' can be created technologically.

A frog in a well is not just someone with a narrow perspective.
It is a state where, as a result of being placed in an environment where the outside cannot be seen for a long time, one comes to believe that the well is the entire world.

Limiting information
Reducing contact with the outside
Teaching that the outside is dangerous
Repeating only internal values
Making those who have doubts into traitors
Giving small rewards
Showing hope occasionally
Making people think that escaping involves a great loss
Making it harder to leave the more one adapts to the status quo

When this happens, a person becomes 'normal' inside the well.

However, that is not true normalcy.

It is a normalcy that only applies within a closed domain.

Closed-domain normalcy.

Correct within a certain group
Normal within a certain industry
Common sense within a certain organization
Taken for granted within a certain ideological sphere
Rational within a certain economic zone

However, from the outside, it looks strange.
It hurts people
It is contradictory
Ethics have collapsed
It is disconnected from reality

For example, in some workplaces, people who leave on time may be seen as 'lacking motivation'.
In some groups, being able to use jargon that outsiders don't understand can become a sign of belonging.
In some families, one person constantly enduring things may be called 'for the sake of the family'.
In some industries, manners or customs that seem excessive from the outside are dismissed with 'that's just how it is'.

As long as you are on the inside, it seems natural.

But when you look at it from a little further out, there is something forced about it.
Sometimes that 'normality' is maintained by someone's silence, someone's endurance, or someone's invisible burden.

This is the terror of 'normality' within a closed system.

It is not a complete lie.
On the inside, it certainly seems to make sense.

However, the moment that logic connects with external reality or the pain of others, it begins to quietly collapse.

Even so, the people on the inside believe that they are the ones who are normal.

This is the strength of manipulative abnormality.

It does not take away normality.
It provides a different kind of normality.

And within that closed normality, people begin to think that the outside world is wrong.

Even hope is used for confinement

At this point, even hope is utilized.

People do not move on despair alone.
If they are completely broken, they will either rebel, become unable to move, or lose the very will to live.

Therefore, enclosure uses not just despair, but hope.

If you work hard, you will be rewarded
If you are chosen, you can move up
It is painful now, but there is a future
If you go outside, you will fail
If you stay here, you will be recognized someday
You are special
You haven't lost yet
You just need to endure a little longer

Hope itself is inherently very important.

However, when hope is used for confinement rather than escape, it does not open up the future, but binds you to the present.

The terror of removing normality lies precisely here.

It is possible to trap a person by using the very things that are important to them.

Even the desire to be decent is used against you.

What makes it even more troublesome is that the very desire to be decent is itself exploited.

People want to be right if possible,
want to be trusted,
do not want to be a burden,
want to fulfill their responsibilities,
do not want to betray others,
and want to be a proper person.

This sense is inherently very important.

However, even this is exploited.

“A decent person would endure this, right?”
“A responsible person wouldn't refuse, right?”
“If you were really a friend, you wouldn't doubt me, right?”
“An adult would just accept it silently, right?”
“You understand, don't you?”

In this way, the desire to be decent becomes the very chain that binds that person.

In other words, a sophisticated form of stripping away decency does not attack decency itself.

It uses the desire to be decent to force someone away from decency.

This is extremely troublesome.

This is because the person does not realize they are being broken.
Rather, they think they are acting properly, enduring, fulfilling their responsibilities, and behaving like an adult.

While thinking this, they gradually lose their ability to judge for themselves.

A trustworthy person is not someone who never makes mistakes.

So, what is trust?

Thinking this through, we realize that a trustworthy person is not someone who never makes mistakes.

There is almost no one who never makes mistakes.

A trustworthy person is someone who, when they make a mistake, does not break reality.
They are someone who, when they notice their own contradictions, does not attack others to cover them up.
They are someone who can admit when they do not know something.
They are someone who can handle information that is unfavorable to themselves.
They are someone who does not immediately label the other person an enemy when pointed out.
They are someone who does not conveniently erase inconvenient facts.

Conversely, what is dangerous is not someone who has contradictions.

It is someone who, when they notice a contradiction, does not correct themselves, but instead tries to bend reality or others to fit.

This applies not only to individuals but also to organizations.

A decent organization is not one that never fails.
It is an organization that can detect failure.
It is an organization that can make corrections.
It is an organization that does not crush criticism from within.
It is an organization where inconvenient information reaches the top.
It is an organization that chooses to handle problems rather than pretending they do not exist.

A decent society is not a society without problems.
It is a society where problems are visible.
It is a society where dissenting opinions can be expressed.
It is a society that can make corrections.
It is a society that does not completely silence the voices of minorities.
It is a society that can be at least a little wary of structures that exploit anger and anxiety.

Decent politics is not politics that never makes mistakes.
It is politics that can admit mistakes.
It is politics that can re-examine data.
It is politics that does not hide failures.
It is politics that does not overly manipulate people's perceptions.
It is politics that does not sacrifice reality for the sake of its own legitimacy.

To avoid ending with a witch hunt

What is important here is not to turn this discussion into a simple witch hunt.

Of course, there are people and organizations that intentionally manipulate, exploit, and corral others.
That should be guarded against.

However, falling out of decency does not necessarily happen solely due to the malice of one person.

Profit structures, the prevailing atmosphere, peer pressure, lack of education, isolation, anxiety, the desire for approval, economic pressure, the information environment, competition, a sense of justice, and good intentions.

When these things combine, a structure that traps people can emerge as a result, even if no one designed it that way.What is even scarier is that society as a whole unconsciously reproduces that structure.

Rather, what is scary is that society as a whole unconsciously reproduces that structure.

The home becomes a closed well.
School becomes a place that crushes questions.
The company becomes an inescapable enclosure.
The media supplies anger and anxiety.
Politics creates enemies.
The economy monetizes anxiety.
The community fosters fear of the outside.

When that happens, society becomes not a place that raises people to be decent, but a device that maintains and exploits a state of being outside of decency.

This is where the real danger lies.

However, talking about this danger is not just for the purpose of judging someone.
It is not to label someone outside of yourself as 'indecent'.

Rather, it is a perspective for thinking that I, too, might one day end up inside a closed form of decency.
I might silence someone's voice to protect my own sense of being right.
I might gather only the truths that are convenient for me and feel reassured.

It is also a perspective for thinking about that.

Decency might be a light to check one's own way back, rather than a ruler to measure others.

Even so, decency can be cultivated again.

However, that does not mean there is any need to despair.

If being sane is something that is cultivated after birth, it can not only be broken, but also re-cultivated.

Knowing
Thinking
Questioning
Not discarding a sense of discomfort
Incorporating the perspectives of others
Not absolutizing one's own righteousness
Looking at not just the facts, but the context
Looking at not just the results, but the process of creation
Looking at not just the anger, but the situation where the anger was born
Looking at not just the other person's failure, but the structure that made it easy to fail

The accumulation of these things cultivates sanity.

Being sane does not mean becoming a perfect person.
Nor does it mean becoming a person without contradictions.

Knowing that there are contradictions within oneself, yet still trying not to lose the connection to reality and others.
Leaving a path to return to when you have made a mistake.
Not breaking the world for the sake of your own righteousness.

I think that is what it means to be sane.

The definition of being sane

Finally, I would like to leave this definition here.

Being normal means being close to the majority.

Being sane is the power to continue processing contradictions.

Trust is not breaking others or reality when processing contradictions.

And,

Removing sanity is a technique that treats the emotions, logic, hopes, fears, and relationships that naturally occur in humans as resources, and manipulates the individual's ability to process contradictions and their possibility of escape by adjusting their concentration, depth, and frequency.

To put it more briefly,

Removing sanity is a technique that uses human natural resources for restraint rather than for the human's own freedom.

That is why being sane does not simply mean 'being proper'.

It is the power to reconnect with the world
It is the margin to correct oneself
It is the power to see reality without erasing others
It is the power to try to see where the truth comes from and where it is being used, even when the truth is being spoken.

Being sane does not mean being right from the start.

Being able to return even while making mistakes
Not completely breaking the bridge to the world even while swaying
Trying to connect contradictions to correction and understanding, rather than to the destruction of others or reality, even while carrying them.

Humans are imperfect.

That is precisely why decency is necessary.

An acquired ability to adjust, allowing imperfect humans to live together in an imperfect world without destroying one another.

Perhaps that is the "decency" we truly need to protect.