I noticed something interesting recently. In English, you say "I" and "you" a lot when you make a sentence. For example, the "you" in the previous sentence refers to a generalized individual, and not the specific reader. This happens when talking about many abstract subjects, and it's not confusing for native English speakers. But, it sounds very very strange to use "あなた" or other personal pronouns in every sentence when you speak Japanese.
その点で私は異質な日本人だよ。私の話し方は、ネイティブで”too aggressive” に聞こえる。でも英語ではそれほどではない。
In this way I'm not a typical Japanese person. My speaking style sounds too aggressive for a native speaker, but in English, it's not really so rough at all.
Right, I understand this! I'm similar, but in the opposite way; for an English speaker, I can be too "indirect" or contextual when asking for things; it's hard to speak directly at times.
In this regard, I see the Japanese language as picking up on the environment, whereas English seems more based upon animacy. Both give me the sense of a focal point being moved around – in Japanese, this "focus" would be the idea of 気 (ki/chi), or knowing when to use は and が. The "focus" is different for each language, and because I'm a native speaker, I don't notice many aspects of English.... there may be other English "focal points" that I don't see as easily.
You can see this contrast mirrored in religion as well - Western gods (such as those in Abrahamic religions, or in Greek mythology) directly "create", whereas Japanese gods seem to develop their animacy more as a by-product. i.e paper lantern ghost/提灯お化け, kitsune.
I also see this as an interesting contrast between you and I; your characters have a strong "western god" sense to me.
My worldview has drawn a lot of influence from monotheism. So within the framework of Japan's native, polytheistic religion, substance itself is difficult to grasp, so I've used a lot of rules found within monotheistic philosophy.
Within this, the conflict between the West and the East worldview and the conflict between monotheism and polytheism overlap – but that doesn't mean that the conflict between the West vs. the East is strictly one of monotheistism vs. polytheistism. Buddhism is a monotheistic religion, after all.
back to mother of the earth
Even though Buddhism has a "body base", there exists the concept of a father figure filled by light. Furthermore, movement is towards salvation. Within the framework of Christianity, however, which fears extinction, the idea of moksha (release) is difficult to accept, as its eternal darkness looks no different from the void of external annihilation.
Both Buddhism and Christianity, as monotheistic religions, consider polytheistic as belonging to the world of nature, and thus evil. Christianity, with its Western mind base, attempts to completely deny that the body is part of the natural world (and thus evil) through reason, and the suppression of desires. Buddhism, however, does not deny the existence of our carnal nature. Furthermore, it seeks salvation towards animals, demons, and polytheistic deities (such as India's indigenous gods).
Mind baseの多神教とbody baseの多神教は、まだ比較するほど知識がない。ヨーロッパの妖精とアジアの妖怪、西欧のハーブ医療と魔女学、そして東洋医療には驚くほど類似性がある。
As for how the differences between the mind and body base play out in polytheistic religions, I don't have enough understanding to speak about just yet. But there is a surprising degree of similarity between European faeries and witchcraft or herbal medicine, and Asian youkai or traditional medicine.
すべての多神教はbody baseから出発するが、私たちはbody baseのままで父神を発展させてしまったかもしれない。儒教とかさ。
All polytheistic religions develop out of the body base, but we may have developed the concept of a paternal God figure on top of the existing base – for example, Confucianism and its ancestor worship.
An ancestral belief in veneration of the dead, and of the ancestors of various non-humans is also seen in American Indians and Himiko-era Japan – but, even though a polytheistic religion should be based around a Mother Goddess, Confucianism is a patrilineal religion. Spirits were viewed as being carried through the father's bloodline – this might be called an "incomplete monotheism". It's similar to the racehorse pedigree system.
Females carry the XX gene, and males carry the XY gene. Only a man inherits his father's unique gene completely, and continues the XY chain – it can't be known what parts of the XX chain are left over.
It's amazing to see the similarity between this and the ancient Chinese and Japanese emperor systems, which existed before genes were even discovered.
I think this goes back to "structure" and "reflection", and how people, plants, water, tends to follow a "natural path" – it's another example of the kind of "picture in picture"/Droste repetition that comes up a lot.
That sort of "picture in picture" structure is similar to a return to the "mother base". As genome analysis progresses, we don't need to be so attached to patrilineality. In ancient times, that might have been the only way to physically prove divinity.
What would happen if you removed the monotheistic component of the West but retained its emphasis upon the mind, and allowed it to return to the "mother base"? Right now, I can't imagine that.
I feel like your view of the world is much more structured, even though we're seeing the same systems. You've put much more direct thought into things with research and specific choices, whereas I've felt very reactive – it feels as though much of my understanding was 'impressed' upon me by very intense experiences, or has emerged subconsciously, and my role has been to respond/react/make sense of what details are immediately in focus, whereas you seem to have a good picture of the whole frame at any given point.
It might be because your internal variables are constantly changing. Because of the continuous changes in perceptions caused by your brain malformation or through chemically altered states, you can contrast overlapping thought trials to one another, and infer the structure's consistency.
As for me, such "intense" or "surreal" events do not occur spontaneously. Because the internal structure (maybe I should call this the "metamaterial"?) is always perceived as extremely stable, and treated as-is, it is only through outside interaction that the number of thought trials can be increased and compared with one another. In the case of art, this means that it is difficult to spontaneously create something from nothing. When it's put into the system of words, though, you can see that it is pretty structured.
I used to view myself as a chaotic creator, but now I've realized that it's because my work reflects the chaos of the process and materials. By itself, the concepts aren't something that people can understand, and they can't be seen without putting into some kind of outside form. But I don't have much interest in art in and of itself.
One commonality is that they're both worlds made up of fragments.
: because your fragments are due to the constant changes within the brain itself, it doesn't conform to match an outside structure.
My internal perception of the metaphysical world, however, is handled consistently throughout, but becomes fragmented and loses a part of itself in the process of creation.
In that regard, I can't say I know for sure what I'm looking at, either.
I see this is why the unicorn character would be appealing as a 'protector figure' - like walls that keep the wind from knocking over a tower of cards.
そうだね 形而上と形而下の次元摩擦から感覚と作品を守らないといけない。これは静止した平面上ではただしく伝わらない と、いうような感じ
That's right. I have to protect this senses and my work from being ground down by the friction of the upper and lower dimensions. It feels like they can't be communicated across a still, flat plane...or something like that.
I also feel your structure is more "light" and mine is more "dark" - though beyond this, I'm not sure.
For sure. I think most of the people who make art belong to the dark side.
I only think about white creatures, which means that I don't find many people with qualities like mine in either the Japanese or English internet art communities. There are a couple, but that's not very many at all. There's probably a lot more people who don't even read novels, let alone make art. Art is pretty physical, after all.
So, it's also antisocial, right?