A Logical Analysis of Nagomi Saijo's Words, 22/7 (Nananiji) Thought [Logic]

Introduction

This time, I will be conducting a logical examination of Nagomi Saijo from 22/7 (Nananiji). Please take a casual look.
I am logically examining Nagomi Saijo's words from the perspectives of predicate logic, biology, psychology, ontology, religious studies (Christian), and philosophical semantics.

22/7 Nagomi Saijo: "Neither dying nor living"

As one of the founding members of the digital voice actor idol group 22/7 (Nananiji), produced by Yasushi Akimoto, I wrote an article about how Nagomi Saijo once expressed a sentiment titled “neither dying nor living” on the 22/7 variety show "Keisanchu." Here it is.

Nagomi Saijo's phrase "neither dying nor living" is a mysterious one. It is a statement that seems impossible to hold true. Therefore, I have analyzed it logically from various perspectives to see how it might be interpreted.

In conclusion, Nagomi Saijo's phrase "neither dying nor living" is a proposition that is valid in terms of predicate logic, but does not hold true in a realistic or biological sense. However, by interpreting the proposition from a spiritual perspective, Nagomi Saijo's words can be considered valid. Yet, the meaning of the phrase changes depending on one's standpoint.

1. 🧩 Analysis of Natural Language Meaning

Intuitively, "neither dying nor living" in Japanese means the following:

• “If you do not die, you cannot live.”

• “To live, one must die.”

• Conversely: “Those who are not dead are not alive.”

In other words, this becomes a **conditional statement (if...then)**.

🔤 Predicate Definition

I define the predicates as follows:

• S(x): “x is dead (or dies)”

• L(x): “x is alive”

📘 Expression as a Proposition

Proposition (natural language):

In other words:

🔢 Logical Formula (using predicate logic)

This proposition can be written as follows:

∀x(¬S(x)→¬L(x))

Or, taking the contrapositive:

∀x(L(x)→S(x))

🔁 What is a contrapositive?

"A → B" is logically equivalent to "¬B → ¬A".
Therefore, both have the same truth value.

✅ Does it hold? (Validity as a logical formula)

Formally, it is a valid proposition in predicate logic.
In other words, it accurately represents the conditional statement "For all x, if x does not die, then x does not live."

However, whether this proposition is true depends on the **world (model) being considered**.

• For example, in the real world where "humans who are alive but have not yet died" exist,

  • there exists an x that satisfies ¬S(x)∧L(x)

  • therefore, the logical formula becomesfalse

Therefore:

• This logical formula issyntactically valid

• However,it is not necessarily true in a realistic model

I do not think Nagomi Saijo's note necessarily expresses a universal truth or a biological rule. It is more natural to consider it as words born from her contemplative thoughts. Therefore, this note might be an expression of dying and not living through psychological reflection. Considering that point, an analysis from both biological and psychological perspectives yields the following.

2. 🧬 Analysis from a biological perspective

❖ Proposition: "Not dying and not living"

Meaning: If you do not die, you cannot live.

In biology, "life" and "death" are defined by the presence or absence of physical life activities.

• Alive: Cellular metabolism, respiration, growth, reaction, and self-maintenance exist

• Dead: A state where all of the above have ceased

❖ Logical Formulation (Predicate Logic)

Let the domain be all living organisms x, and

• L(x): x is alive

• S(x): x is dead

The proposition "If not dead, then not alive" =

∀x(¬S(x)→¬L(x))

This is, by contraposition:

∀x(L(x)→S(x))

❖ Does this hold?

Biologically, a living being already being dead is a contradiction.

In other words:

• L(x) and S(x) are mutually exclusive (law of excluded middle)

• Therefore, ∀x(L(x)→S(x)) is false

Thus, this proposition does not hold biologically.

3. 🧠 Analysis from a Psychological Perspective

In psychology, "living" and "dying" are not mere biological activities but rather:

• Living (L(x)): A state of subjectively possessing meaning, value, and hope, and existing emotionally.

• Dying (S(x)): The loss of emotion, value, and hope; a state of being psychologically "dead".

❖ Logical Formulas and the Meaning of Propositions

Again:

∀x(¬S(x) → ¬L(x)) ⇔ ∀x(L(x) → S(x))

Psychologically, this means:

❖ Does it hold true?

Does this proposition apply to everyone?

→ No.
Among those who are psychologically fulfilled, there are people who live richly without ever experiencing the abyss of death.

Therefore:

• The proposition ∀x(L(x)→S(x)) is false

• However, it is possible that it is true for specific individuals (∃x)

This is the result. So, if the proposition "one cannot live without dying" does not hold, how should we interpret this proposition? A glimpse of the third option that Nagomi Saijo was seeking begins to emerge through the following reinterpretation.

4. 🧠💬 Reinterpretation when the proposition does not hold

❖ "One cannot live without dying" is a metaphorical expression

While logically considered false, what this phrase signifies contains a poetic and philosophical truth.

✴ Reinterpretation of meaning:

• "Only after experiencing a kind of mental 'death' can onetruly live"

• "Merely existing is different from 'being alive'"

• "True life lies beyond the 'death' of loss, frustration, and despair"

✴ Structurally:

∃x(S(x)∧L(x))

→ Some people experience (psychological) "death" and live deeply.

Or:

∀x(TrueLife(x)→S(x))

Perhaps the idea that "those who are truly alive have experienced psychological death once" was Nagomi Saijo's perspective. What kind of true life exists after experiencing that death? Was Nagomi Saijo expressing a desire to find the path to that answer? Examining this from ontological, religious (Christian), and philosophical semantic perspectives might reveal a glimpse of Nagomi Saijo's thought.

5. 🧱 Ontological Perspective (Ontology)

❖ Background:

In ontology, the questions are "what is existence" and "what does it mean to be." Both "living" and "dying" are considered modes of existence.
Living: Relating to oneself as Dasein (Heidegger).

• Living: Relating to oneself as Dasein (Heidegger)

• Dying: "Non-existence" as the limit of one's own possibilities

❖ Redefinition (Proposition):

❖ Predicate Definition:

• E(x): x exists existentially (authentic existence)

• D(x): x grasps death as their own possibility (= is facing death)

❖ Logical Formula:

∀x(E(x)→D(x))

This is the ontological form of 'not living without dying'.

❖ Does it hold?

• In Heideggerian existentialism, it holds: Being-towards-death discloses one's authentic way of being

• Therefore, this logical formula is valid

6. ✝️ Religious Perspective (Especially Christian Structure)

❖ Background:

In religion, 'death' and 'life' are often spiritual and symbolic, linked to concepts like 'rebirth' and 'salvation'.

Example:

• Christianity: 'Die to the old self and be born again'

• Buddhism: 'Only by casting off worldly desires and reaching non-self can one achieve true liberation = life'

❖ Redefinition (Proposition):

❖ Predicate Definition:

• R(x): x is living spiritually (salvific life)

• S(x): x is dead to their old life (self-denial/repentance/rupture)

❖ Logical Formula:

∀x(R(x)→S(x))

Or contrapositive:

∀x(¬S(x)→¬R(x))

❖ Does it hold?

• From a Christian perspective, a fundamental proposition of faith and conversion

• Therefore, a logical formula that holds in a spiritual context

7. 📚 The Meaning of Philosophical Existence (Ontology of Meaning)

❖ Background:

"What does it mean to live?" "Where does that meaning lie?"

• Viktor Frankl: Meaning is found in suffering and death

• Sartre: Freedom and anxiety are supported by the possibility of death

❖ Redefinition (Proposition):

❖ Predicate definition:

• M(x): x is aware of the meaning of life

• A(x): x accepts death as their own limit/nothingness

❖ Logical formula:

∀x(M(x)→A(x))

Or its contrapositive:

∀x(¬A(x)→¬M(x))

❖ Does it hold true?

• It holds true from the perspectives of Frankl, Jaspers, and Camus

• Therefore, it is valid in the context of philosophical meaning

Nagomi Saijo's statement "I will not live without dying," which seemed invalid in predicate logic, becomes a statement (proposition) that holds true when viewed from a psychological perspective. What kind of third option was Nagomi Saijo searching for?
I have not yet confirmed anything Nagomi Saijo has said regarding that.

8. Conclusion

Conclusion based on predicate logic

Conclusion based on biological and psychological perspectives

Conclusion based on ontology, religious (Christian), and philosophical semantics

Conclusion

Nagomi Saijo's words "I will not live without dying" have led to the conclusions above. Many of the lyrics in 22/7 also contain numerous contradictions when examined through the lens of logic.
Could 22/7 (Nananiji) be one of the few idol groups that brilliantly showcases the stories and messages hidden deep within their lyrics?

Postscript

I am not a logician. If there are any errors, please point them out in the comments.