先日、奇妙な話を伺いました。
私はあまり世の中の事を深く知らないので、例えば、デカいグループ企業の一軍の部所での派閥争いのABCの初歩テクニックなどは、さっぱり見当がつきません。
そういう意味で世の中の事は知りません。
これはタダの噂話なので、元となる話をフェイクをかけて書きますが。
或るプロライターの所に同業者から仕事の話が来た。
その内容は、プロライター業界とプロジャーナリズム業界では絶対タブーの要素が含まれていた。
仕事として動かしてはいけない状態だったので、仕事として渡して良い情報を貸してくれないか？ という話を持ちかけられたので、或るプロライターは断った。
だが古い顔見知りの同業者は、別の著名人物の名前を挙げ、大丈夫だから、と或るプロライターから許可を得ようとした。
或るプロライターと古くからの知己である同業者は大喧嘩をした。
という話で、そもそもその或るプロライターは余り情報を外に出さないタイプだったので、面白おかしくその話をしようと思えば可能なので、その話は異様にデカい話になり、冗談混じりに、そんな話を自分に持ち掛けるなんて！ と、或るプロライターが同業のプロライターの事務所に行き、さらに大喧嘩の後、そのプロライターの事務所を壊滅させた。
という話になっていました。
たまたまある夜、私は適当な話のついでに、その話を思い出し、「大体その同業のプロライターもオカシイよね。根性無いよね。
私の頭の中に住むプロライターだったら、気絶させられた後←？ 、意識を取り戻した途端ガバッと跳ね起き、スーパーかキオスクにインスタントカメラを買いに走り、走って戻りながらフィルムをセットし、壊滅した事務所の残骸写真を撮り、その後、病院に行き、診断書や薬袋まで写真に治めてから、それをネタにマスコミ上で書くモノじゃないの？」
とブツブツ言っていました。
すると「そうですね、痛みは分け合わないといけませんからね」と本職らしい方がおっしゃったんです。
私は知らなかったんですが、
少し前にインターネットで、昔自分が起こしたネガティブな事をプロデビューする前に書かなければならない。みたいな「さすがプロ！」という伝統があり、
一時期、自分もその伝統に賛成します。と多くのブロガーさん達が、そんな事言わなくてもいいよ。ていうか、実名でプロデビューするのに、書いちゃって普段の社会生活大丈夫？ という事をなさっていたそうです。
その時もプロのライターさん達は絶対にしないといけない訳じゃ無いんですが・・・。という雰囲気だったそうです。
ライターという職業はとても若く、私が子供の時、ライターという職業があると知ったばかりの頃は、記者には出来ない事をどんどんやる！というワイルドなお仕事だと考えられていました。
その時もプロのライターさん達は絶対にしないといけない訳じゃ無いんですが・・・。という雰囲気だったそうです。
ライターという職業はとても若く、私が子供の時、ライターという職業があると知ったばかりの頃は、記者には出来ない事をどんどんやる！というワイルドなお仕事だと考えられていました。
なので、記者よりもより頭が切れ、要領が良く、危ない事も上手く渡ってみせる、そういう度量が必要なイメージがありました。
まさに何でもやる。というお仕事だったようです。
これは差別用語なので、決して使わないで頂きたいんですが。
「ネジ者（もの）」という言葉が昔の日本にはありました。
これは私が住んでいた社会では、現在の知的障害者の事では決して無く、もっと廃人に近い所で暮らしている、余り一般的じゃない人々の事です。
その人達はやはりどこか脳機能や元々の本能の判断力の所で、どうしてかは分からないけれど、何故か直線を引いているつもりでも波線を書き続けてしまうような所があり、犯罪に巻き込まれて死ぬか、犯罪を犯してすぐ捕まってしまうか、よく分からない普通なら決して起こらない、奇妙な単純事故の中に自ら参加して、生涯を絶ってしまう所があったと記憶しています。
その言葉が特に差別の意図無く使われてた時代に「バカになる」という言葉があります。
ネジで留めた金具と板がある場合、その金具か板、どちらか片方を物凄い力でガチャガチャと躊躇せずに揺らし続け、ネジの留まり具合を壊す事を指します。
これを「ネジをバカにする」と言うんですが。
確認を取った訳では無いんですけれど、ライターの職業が始まったばかりの頃、端正な職業を続けていく基礎訓練事項に「自分の痛み（被害）は世に放て」という教えがあったのでは無いでしょうか？
ライターという職業は出来た当時、所属が不可能なので、当然社会的にあまり守られていません。
一人一人がライターとして書く物、相手と対峙する時に、やはり危険に晒される事も多かった為、もし被害を受けたらそれを世の中に向けて書け。という自分達を守る手段として、後続の人々に伝えていたのでは無いんでしょうか？
これが前述した様に、やがてライターとして立つなら立て無くなる様な過去をまず書け、というバグ部分のみを後続に伝え、最初の教えがすり替わり、その端正さがカケラも残っていいないことになっています。
私はこの起点「被害を受けたら世に放て」（痛みは分け合わないといけない）と現在確認できるバグだけの形になってしまっている、社会的に不利にしかならないことを自分のプロライターデビューの祝辞として自ら明かす。というその後、才能が無ければ一般社会に戻れず転落するしか無い、チキンレースの勝者のみプロになれる。という気味の悪い物に変えられている二点を、少し離れた所から見ると、
まるで「ネジ留めされていた端正なものを、乱暴と狂気じみた躊躇の無い不必要なまでの馬鹿力を加え続けて壊し、「身を守る教え全体をバカにしてしまった。」と感じました。
ネジ物というのは、本寸法の狂いの無い、正確を言い表す言葉だったように記憶しています。
良い仕事、誠実な職人、両方への賛辞です。
この言葉も意味から形容対象まで何から何まで「バカにされてしまっている」と考えています。
こういうのを国語学、言語学と言うのだそうです。
一箇所をガーッと乱暴にめちゃくちゃに動かしまくって壊し、その一箇所が含まれる全体を全部、ダメにしてしまう。
まさに何でもやる。というお仕事だったようです。
これは差別用語なので、決して使わないで頂きたいんですが。
「ネジ者（もの）」という言葉が昔の日本にはありました。
これは私が住んでいた社会では、現在の知的障害者の事では決して無く、もっと廃人に近い所で暮らしている、余り一般的じゃない人々の事です。
その人達はやはりどこか脳機能や元々の本能の判断力の所で、どうしてかは分からないけれど、何故か直線を引いているつもりでも波線を書き続けてしまうような所があり、犯罪に巻き込まれて死ぬか、犯罪を犯してすぐ捕まってしまうか、よく分からない普通なら決して起こらない、奇妙な単純事故の中に自ら参加して、生涯を絶ってしまう所があったと記憶しています。
その言葉が特に差別の意図無く使われてた時代に「バカになる」という言葉があります。
ネジで留めた金具と板がある場合、その金具か板、どちらか片方を物凄い力でガチャガチャと躊躇せずに揺らし続け、ネジの留まり具合を壊す事を指します。
これを「ネジをバカにする」と言うんですが。
確認を取った訳では無いんですけれど、ライターの職業が始まったばかりの頃、端正な職業を続けていく基礎訓練事項に「自分の痛み（被害）は世に放て」という教えがあったのでは無いでしょうか？
ライターという職業は出来た当時、所属が不可能なので、当然社会的にあまり守られていません。
一人一人がライターとして書く物、相手と対峙する時に、やはり危険に晒される事も多かった為、もし被害を受けたらそれを世の中に向けて書け。という自分達を守る手段として、後続の人々に伝えていたのでは無いんでしょうか？
これが前述した様に、やがてライターとして立つなら立て無くなる様な過去をまず書け、というバグ部分のみを後続に伝え、最初の教えがすり替わり、その端正さがカケラも残っていいないことになっています。
私はこの起点「被害を受けたら世に放て」（痛みは分け合わないといけない）と現在確認できるバグだけの形になってしまっている、社会的に不利にしかならないことを自分のプロライターデビューの祝辞として自ら明かす。というその後、才能が無ければ一般社会に戻れず転落するしか無い、チキンレースの勝者のみプロになれる。という気味の悪い物に変えられている二点を、少し離れた所から見ると、
まるで「ネジ留めされていた端正なものを、乱暴と狂気じみた躊躇の無い不必要なまでの馬鹿力を加え続けて壊し、「身を守る教え全体をバカにしてしまった。」と感じました。
ネジ物というのは、本寸法の狂いの無い、正確を言い表す言葉だったように記憶しています。
良い仕事、誠実な職人、両方への賛辞です。
この言葉も意味から形容対象まで何から何まで「バカにされてしまっている」と考えています。
こういうのを国語学、言語学と言うのだそうです。
一箇所をガーッと乱暴にめちゃくちゃに動かしまくって壊し、その一箇所が含まれる全体を全部、ダメにしてしまう。
何だか、自分が思考能力を疑う言い合いを吹っ掛けて来ておいて、すぐ言い返せなくなり、急に掴みかかって来る人達を思い出します。
そういう時ってその人達、顔つきが変なんですよね。
獣（けもの）みたいな猪豚（いのぶた）みたいに顔が薄ら赤黒くなって、変にデカ過ぎる声で、訳の分からない事を喚いていたのを記憶しています。
これはカウンター・カルチャーでは断じて無い、端正で秀れている存在を破壊し、数十年かけて行った全体をターゲットにした壊滅結果が、言葉に残っていますよね。
暗い者の意思に沿うと気分が悪くなるだけなので、即座に対処に入った方が良いです。
暗い者の価値観で物を見てあげることこそ暗い者達を喜ばせるだけなので、何故そんなに暗い者達なのか、と考える状況に入ってはいけません。
好きでやっているんです。
暗い者になりたくてなっていて、好きで暗い事をやってるので、その人達の好きにさせておいてあげれば良いだけです。
対処としては、先入観を疑い続ける事です。
自分の先入観、言葉に勝手にパッケージされている物、に対し、
「それは先入観では無いんでしょうか？ 実の無いイメージだけで勝手に結論付けられている事を、無理やり私も同じ様に持つよう強制されているだけでは無いでしょうか？」
と疑うと、大声を張り上げて打ち消そうとする人達が今でもいます。
そんなにまでして都合の悪いらしい発言を打ち消そうとしていることを、あなたが無駄に張り上げている大声が皆に知らせていますよ？
大丈夫ですか？ あなた、さらに自滅しようとしていますよ？
と伝えたかったので、今書いておきます。
相手の先入観、自分の先入観を常に疑い、先入観以外の原因で立ちすくんでしまう反応が自分から出てしまうのなら、それを反省せず、もっと穏やかに時間の中で生きる自分を許すのが1番、微笑む人が多い、対処からの結論のように思います。
皆さん、実は、経験をそんなに積まなくても、ひっそり暮らしていたら40歳位から、ゾーンと呼ばれる、世界がとても美しく見え、分からなかったことが急に、数十年にわたる線と線が繋がり、分かる様になるってご存知でした？
皆さん、実は、経験をそんなに積まなくても、ひっそり暮らしていたら40歳位から、ゾーンと呼ばれる、世界がとても美しく見え、分からなかったことが急に、数十年にわたる線と線が繋がり、分かる様になるってご存知でした？
20261108 17:48 文章を直しました。
20261108 18:32 文章を直しました。
20261108 19:25 文章を直しました。
20261109 10:12 音楽を追加しました。
・
・
・
The other day, I heard a strange story.
I don’t know much about the ways of the world, so I have absolutely no idea about, say, the basic tactics involved in factional struggles within a top-tier division of a major corporate group.
In that sense, I’m out of the loop.
Since this is just a rumor, I’ll write it up with some fictional embellishments.
A professional writer received a job offer from a colleague in the same field.
The proposal contained elements that are absolute taboos in both the professional writing and professional journalism industries.
Since the information was in a state where it couldn’t be used for work, the colleague asked, “Could you lend me some information that I could pass on as part of a job?” The professional writer declined.
However, the colleague—an old acquaintance—brought up the name of another prominent figure and tried to get permission from the professional writer, insisting, “It’ll be fine.”
The professional writer and his longtime acquaintance got into a huge fight.
The story goes that, since this particular professional writer was the type who rarely shared information with the outside world, it was possible to spin the story into something entertaining. Consequently, the story blew up into an unusually huge scandal. Half-jokingly, the professional writer went to the other writer’s office, exclaiming, “How dare you bring something like that to me!” After another massive fight, he completely wrecked the other writer’s office.
That’s how the story went.
One night, by chance, while making small talk, I remembered that story and said, “Actually, that fellow professional writer is pretty weird, too. He’s got no guts.
If it were the professional writer living in my head, after being knocked unconscious ←?, the moment he regained consciousness, he’d jump right up, run to a supermarket or newsstand to buy an instant camera, load the film while running back, take photos of the wreckage of the office, then go to the hospital, snap pictures of the medical report and even the medicine bags—and wouldn’t he use all that as material to write about in the media?”
I was muttering to myself like that.
Then someone who seemed like a real pro said, “That’s right—we have to share the pain.”
I didn’t know this, but
a little while ago, there was a tradition on the internet that said you had to write about negative things you’d done in the past before making your professional debut—something along the lines of “That’s what pros do!”
I don’t know much about the ways of the world, so I have absolutely no idea about, say, the basic tactics involved in factional struggles within a top-tier division of a major corporate group.
In that sense, I’m out of the loop.
Since this is just a rumor, I’ll write it up with some fictional embellishments.
A professional writer received a job offer from a colleague in the same field.
The proposal contained elements that are absolute taboos in both the professional writing and professional journalism industries.
Since the information was in a state where it couldn’t be used for work, the colleague asked, “Could you lend me some information that I could pass on as part of a job?” The professional writer declined.
However, the colleague—an old acquaintance—brought up the name of another prominent figure and tried to get permission from the professional writer, insisting, “It’ll be fine.”
The professional writer and his longtime acquaintance got into a huge fight.
The story goes that, since this particular professional writer was the type who rarely shared information with the outside world, it was possible to spin the story into something entertaining. Consequently, the story blew up into an unusually huge scandal. Half-jokingly, the professional writer went to the other writer’s office, exclaiming, “How dare you bring something like that to me!” After another massive fight, he completely wrecked the other writer’s office.
That’s how the story went.
One night, by chance, while making small talk, I remembered that story and said, “Actually, that fellow professional writer is pretty weird, too. He’s got no guts.
If it were the professional writer living in my head, after being knocked unconscious ←?, the moment he regained consciousness, he’d jump right up, run to a supermarket or newsstand to buy an instant camera, load the film while running back, take photos of the wreckage of the office, then go to the hospital, snap pictures of the medical report and even the medicine bags—and wouldn’t he use all that as material to write about in the media?”
I was muttering to myself like that.
Then someone who seemed like a real pro said, “That’s right—we have to share the pain.”
I didn’t know this, but
a little while ago, there was a tradition on the internet that said you had to write about negative things you’d done in the past before making your professional debut—something along the lines of “That’s what pros do!”
For a while, many bloggers were saying things like, “I agree with that tradition,” but others were saying, “You don’t have to say that.” Or rather, they were asking, “If you’re making your professional debut under your real name, are you sure it’s okay to write about that stuff? Won’t it affect your everyday social life?”
Even back then, the vibe among professional writers was that “it’s not something you absolutely have to do…”
The profession of “writer” is very young. When I was a child and had just learned that such a job existed, it was considered a wild profession where you did all sorts of things that reporters couldn’t do!
So, there was this image that you needed to be sharper and more resourceful than a reporter, and able to skillfully navigate even dangerous situations—that kind of mettle was required.
It seems it was truly a job where you’d do just about anything.
This is a discriminatory term, so please don’t use it under any circumstances.
There used to be a word in Japan called “neji-mono.”
In the society I lived in, this definitely didn’t refer to people with intellectual disabilities as we understand them today, but rather to people who lived on the fringes of society—people who weren’t quite “normal.”
I recall that those people—perhaps due to some issue with their brain function or their innate instinctive judgment, though I don’t know exactly why—had a tendency to keep drawing wavy lines even when they intended to draw straight ones. They would either die after getting caught up in a crime, commit a crime and get arrested immediately, or find themselves involved in strange, simple accidents that would never normally happen, ending their lives in ways that were hard to fathom.
Back in an era when the phrase “becoming a fool” was used without any particular intent to discriminate, there was a saying.
It refers to a situation where, given a metal fitting and a board secured by a screw, one would shake either the fitting or the board—without hesitation and with tremendous force—until the screw’s grip is broken.
This is called “making a fool of the screw.”
I haven’t verified this, but when the profession of writing first began, wasn’t there a fundamental training principle for maintaining a respectable career that taught, “Cast your own pain (or suffering) out into the world”?
When the profession of writing first emerged, since it was impossible to belong to any organization, writers were naturally not very well protected by society.
Because each individual writer was often exposed to danger when writing or facing their subjects, wasn’t this teaching—to write about any harm suffered and share it with the world—passed down to future generations as a means of self-protection?
As mentioned earlier, this led to only the flawed part of that teaching—the idea that “if you’re going to stand as a writer, you must first write about a past that would otherwise prevent you from doing so”—being passed down to future generations. As a result, the original teaching was distorted, and not a single shred of its original integrity remains.
I’m revealing this myself—as part of my congratulatory speech for my debut as a professional writer—that this original principle, “If you’re harmed, release it to the world” (meaning we must share our pain), has been reduced to nothing more than the “bug” we can observe today, a concept that only leads to social disadvantage.
Back in an era when the phrase “becoming a fool” was used without any particular intent to discriminate, there was a saying.
It refers to a situation where, given a metal fitting and a board secured by a screw, one would shake either the fitting or the board—without hesitation and with tremendous force—until the screw’s grip is broken.
This is called “making a fool of the screw.”
I haven’t verified this, but when the profession of writing first began, wasn’t there a fundamental training principle for maintaining a respectable career that taught, “Cast your own pain (or suffering) out into the world”?
When the profession of writing first emerged, since it was impossible to belong to any organization, writers were naturally not very well protected by society.
Because each individual writer was often exposed to danger when writing or facing their subjects, wasn’t this teaching—to write about any harm suffered and share it with the world—passed down to future generations as a means of self-protection?
As mentioned earlier, this led to only the flawed part of that teaching—the idea that “if you’re going to stand as a writer, you must first write about a past that would otherwise prevent you from doing so”—being passed down to future generations. As a result, the original teaching was distorted, and not a single shred of its original integrity remains.
I’m revealing this myself—as part of my congratulatory speech for my debut as a professional writer—that this original principle, “If you’re harmed, release it to the world” (meaning we must share our pain), has been reduced to nothing more than the “bug” we can observe today, a concept that only leads to social disadvantage.
Looking at these two points—that without talent, one cannot return to mainstream society and has no choice but to fall, and that only the winners of a “chicken race” can become professionals—from a slight distance,
it felt as though “something once meticulously secured had been continuously shattered by the application of brutal, madness-like, unhesitating, and unnecessarily excessive brute force, thereby making a mockery of the entire teaching meant to protect oneself.”
I recall that the term “neji-mono” was once used to describe something precise, with no deviation from its exact dimensions.
It was a tribute to both fine craftsmanship and sincere artisans.
I believe this term, too—from its meaning to the very objects it describes—has been “ridiculed” in every single aspect.
I’m told this is what’s known as linguistics.
By violently and recklessly jamming and moving one part until it breaks, you end up ruining the entire whole that includes that single part.
Somehow, it reminds me of people who start an argument that makes you doubt your own ability to think, then—when they can’t come up with a quick retort—suddenly lunge at you.
At times like that, their facial expressions look strange, don’t they?
I remember their faces turning a faint reddish-black, like wild boars or pigs, as they bellowed incomprehensible nonsense in voices that were strangely too loud.
it felt as though “something once meticulously secured had been continuously shattered by the application of brutal, madness-like, unhesitating, and unnecessarily excessive brute force, thereby making a mockery of the entire teaching meant to protect oneself.”
I recall that the term “neji-mono” was once used to describe something precise, with no deviation from its exact dimensions.
It was a tribute to both fine craftsmanship and sincere artisans.
I believe this term, too—from its meaning to the very objects it describes—has been “ridiculed” in every single aspect.
I’m told this is what’s known as linguistics.
By violently and recklessly jamming and moving one part until it breaks, you end up ruining the entire whole that includes that single part.
Somehow, it reminds me of people who start an argument that makes you doubt your own ability to think, then—when they can’t come up with a quick retort—suddenly lunge at you.
At times like that, their facial expressions look strange, don’t they?
I remember their faces turning a faint reddish-black, like wild boars or pigs, as they bellowed incomprehensible nonsense in voices that were strangely too loud.
This is by no means counterculture; the words themselves bear the traces of the devastation—the destruction of a refined and outstanding entity, and the total annihilation of a whole that took decades to build.
Going along with what negative people want will only make you feel bad, so it’s best to deal with the situation immediately.
Viewing things through the lens of negative people’s values only serves to please them, so you mustn’t let yourself get caught up in wondering why they’re so negative.
Viewing things through the lens of negative people’s values only serves to please them, so you mustn’t let yourself get caught up in wondering why they’re so negative.
They’re doing it because they want to.
They’ve chosen to be negative and enjoy doing negative things, so you should just let them do as they please.
The best way to handle this is to constantly question your preconceptions.
When it comes to your own preconceptions—the ideas that have been arbitrarily packaged into your words—
if you question them by asking, “Isn’t that just a preconception? Aren’t you just forcing me to adopt the same conclusions based on baseless imagery?”
there are still people today who will raise their voices to try to refute you.
The fact that you’re raising your voice so pointlessly to refute remarks that seem inconvenient to them is actually telling everyone exactly that, isn’t it?
Are you okay? You’re trying to destroy yourself even further, aren’t you?
I wanted to convey this, so I’m writing it down now.
Constantly question both others’ and your own preconceptions. If you find yourself freezing up due to reasons other than preconceptions, rather than reflecting on it, the best approach—as many who smile seem to conclude from their experiences—is to allow yourself to live more peacefully with the passage of time.
Did you know, everyone, that even without accumulating a lot of experience, if you just live quietly, around the age of 40 you’ll enter what’s called “the zone”—a state where the world looks incredibly beautiful, and things you didn’t understand suddenly click as the dots from decades of your life connect, and you suddenly understand everything?
20261108 18:32 Revised the text.
20261108 19:25 Revised the text.
20261109 10:12 Added Music.
