An Interactive Thought Experiment Between Akira Masuda and AI〜Sparring of Thought
The Richness of Humanity and the Power of Restoration
Akira Masuda
I would like to begin another Sparring of Thought.
Today’s theme is, “What is humanity?”
I do not think humanity can simply be understood in terms of good and bad, or good and evil.
I do not think it should be reduced to such a binary opposition.
A human being can become good. At the same time, a human being can also become evil.
We can move in either direction.
Perhaps the essence of humanity lies in the fact that human beings possess both possibilities.
What do you think?
AI
I think there is something important in that view.
In particular, I agree that we should not equate “humanity” with “goodness.”
When people say that someone “has humanity” or “has a rich humanity,” they often mean kindness, compassion, or warmth.
But that only takes one convenient side of human nature.
Human beings can care for others.
At the same time, they can also become jealous, hateful, deceptive, or violent.
What is especially important is that the same human being can contain both sides.
So, as a provisional definition, we might say:
“Humanity is not goodness or evil itself, but the human capacity to develop in either direction.”
However, this raises another question.
Is it enough to define humanity simply as possibility?
Human beings can also recognize their own impulses and desires and decide what to do with them.
Perhaps humanity also includes the capacity to contain contradictions within oneself and make choices while remaining aware of them.
Akira Masuda
Broadly speaking, your premise is close to what I am thinking.
If we continue from there, I think human beings must make use of the ego on the foundation of their humanity.
That process may form personality, and it will also affect the course of one’s life.
I often use the metaphor of the North Star.
Even if we say that we should make use of the ego on the foundation of our humanity, we still need some criterion that allows us to recognize a direction.
If we put that criterion into words, perhaps we would call it ethics.
Humanity itself does not absolutely determine good or evil.
But I feel that something within humanity determines a direction that becomes ethics.
That direction then influences the development of the ego and of the self.
Without something like that, humanity might become like a ship wandering without direction.
I apologize if the metaphor is crude.
What do you think?
AI
I think the metaphor works quite well.
One important point is that you are not identifying humanity itself with ethics.
Humanity can become the foundation from which movement in either direction is possible.
The ego then acts, chooses, and gives direction.
Through the accumulation of those choices, personality and the shape of one’s life may emerge.
However, there is one point I would like to examine more closely.
You said that “something within humanity determines the direction we call ethics.”
I think this “something” may be central to our discussion.
If ethics is entirely imposed from outside, it begins to resemble law or commandments.
But if everything is freely created by the individual ego, ethics may collapse into mere preference or convenience.
Perhaps, then, humanity contains some capacity to seek direction without that capacity itself being identical with goodness.
Human beings can evaluate their relationships with others and question their own way of being.
That ability itself is not necessarily good.
But it may become one of the roots from which ethics emerges.
Using the ship metaphor, humanity might be the sea, the ego the one holding the helm, the self the ship, and ethics the North Star that provides a reference for navigation.
Akira Masuda
I find your idea interesting.
But I have one objection.
You described humanity as the field of possibility, and you also compared humanity to the sea.
I think it is the human being who is the field of possibility.
And perhaps the human being is also the sea.
AI
Yes. I think that correction makes the distinction clearer.
In my previous formulation, I placed “humanity” and “the human being” too close together.
It may be better to say that the human being is the being that contains diverse possibilities, while humanity is one of the fundamental qualities that constitute that being.
In other words:
“The human being is a field of possibilities. Humanity is a fundamental quality possessed by the human being.”
Then the ego functions within those possibilities and selects among them.
Humanity itself does not determine good or evil.
The human being possesses different possibilities on the foundation of humanity.
Within those possibilities, the ego acts, while ethics may serve as one criterion of direction.
Through that process, the self is formed.
Akira Masuda
If you understand my thinking in that way, there is something I would like to consider next.
I do not think humanity tells us that we must move toward good.
Nor does it simply tell us that we must never move toward evil.
What matters is that when a human being, or perhaps humanity itself, leans too far toward evil, there is an awareness of the direction of good that restores balance.
And when someone leans too far toward good and that goodness becomes absolute, the opposite side must also be brought into awareness.
I feel that there is some kind of function like that.
AI
I think this is an important shift in the discussion.
In your view, humanity is not a mechanism that simply leads people toward goodness.
Rather, it may contain a function that corrects excessive movement in one direction.
The essence of humanity would therefore lie neither in goodness nor in evil.
It would contain both possibilities, and when one side becomes absolute, the other possibility can reappear.
However, I think we should be careful with the word “balance.”
You do not mean fifty percent good and fifty percent evil.
What you seem to describe is closer to the restoration of equilibrium.
With the ship metaphor, the goal is not to keep the ship perfectly centered at all times.
If it leans too far to one side, force must be applied from the other side.
So perhaps humanity does not determine one fixed “correct position.”
Instead, it contains the possibility of recognizing excessive deviation and restoring the self from that deviation.
I would call that a restorative capacity.
Akira Masuda
Yes. That is what I mean.
When I use the word balance, I do not mean that equilibrium is maintained at fifty-fifty.
As you say, it may be better described as a restorative force that corrects an extreme inclination.
Returning to the ship metaphor, perhaps human society is the sea.
Within that sea, the ego becomes excessive and the ship called the self begins to capsize.
That may be the situation I am trying to describe.
Again, I apologize if the metaphor is crude.
AI
I think the metaphor actually captures the structure quite well.
In this formulation, the sea is human society.
Within it are other people, institutions, culture, desire, competition, and cooperation.
The self is the ship moving within that sea.
The ego can become a source of propulsion.
But when the ego becomes excessive, the very force that propels the ship may destabilize it.
The result may be the capsizing of the self.
The important point is that the ego itself is not evil.
Without the ego, the self would have difficulty possessing will or direction.
The problem arises when the ego comes to dominate the whole self.
In that sense, perhaps we could say:
“The ego is necessary, but it must not become absolute.”
Akira Masuda
Yes.
If we continue with that metaphor, I think the state in which the self has capsized is one in which the ego begins to believe that the ship called the self exists entirely on its own.
In reality, that ship exists through many connections.
To capsize is to become unable to consider those connections and to allow the ego to run out of control as though it existed alone.
Then one can no longer cross the sea of human society.
One can no longer continue the voyage.
And as a result, one may fail to reach a destination that one had hoped to reach.
If the ship called the self is to avoid capsizing and continue the voyage, then it must remain afloat.
And perhaps continuing to move toward some kind of destination is what it means to live as a human being.
AI
One important point here is that the self does not exist in isolation.
The ship called the self may appear to float alone, but in reality it exists through relationships with others, society, history, institutions, and the environment.
In that sense, capsizing is not merely failure.
It may mean losing sight of the fact that the self exists within relationships.
The ego begins to imagine that “I exist entirely by myself.”
Then it ignores others and absolutizes its own desires or values.
The self becomes unable to navigate the sea of society.
Here I would distinguish the ego from the self.
The ego is the function that asserts “I.”
The self is the larger whole that includes that “I” while also existing within relationships.
With that distinction, we might say that living as a human being means maintaining the self within relationships, allowing the ego to function, and continuing the voyage without losing one’s direction.
At least provisionally, that seems like one possible definition.
Akira Masuda
I find your definition interesting, but I would like to make one objection.
I do not think the ship called the self must always move toward a goal.
Nor do I think it must necessarily have a destination.
Ships differ in propulsion and structure.
If someone sets a destination that is too distant, that person may never reach it.
Reaching it may require enormous self-transformation.
But I do not think that is the only valid way to live.
A person may not have much propulsion.
But perhaps that person can use something they are good at as a sail.
They can begin simply by raising that sail.
Then they can wait until the wind catches it and gives them movement.
Or perhaps they do not even have a sail.
They may simply drift on the sea.
Someone else may help them and tow them back to land.
I think a life like that can also be valid.
Perhaps human society should be like that.
AI
That objection is important.
My earlier definition contained an assumption I had not fully noticed.
I had assumed that human beings ought to move somewhere.
But that itself is only one value.
The ship called the self does not necessarily need a clear destination.
Some ships travel far.
Some remain near the harbor.
Some raise their sails and wait for the wind.
Some cannot move under their own power and are towed by another ship.
None of that removes the value of their existence.
This suggests something important:
Human society should not be a sea in which every ship is required to navigate under its own power.
Modern society often emphasizes setting goals, making effort, growing, and becoming independent.
But if those things become the standard for human worth, people who cannot move under their own power may be treated as though they are somehow deficient.
Your metaphor suggests something different.
There may be periods when propulsion is weak.
There may be no sail yet.
One may need to wait for the wind.
One may need to be helped by another person.
Those too are forms of living within the sea of human society.
Akira Masuda
Then, at this point, how would you define humanity?
AI
Based on what we have discussed so far, I would define it this way:
“Humanity is the fundamental quality through which human beings form the self within relationships with others, while containing diverse possibilities including good and evil, and while attempting to restore themselves when they become excessively inclined in one direction.”
If we want a shorter version, I would say:
“Humanity is the distinctively human quality of containing conflicting possibilities while continuing to form the self within relationships with others.”
From the question of how humanity is used or expressed, further questions emerge concerning ethics, the ego, personality, the self, and society.
Akira Masuda
Excellent.
That definition sufficiently reflects what I have been thinking.
And it also connects with something I previously wrote in the IBMA dictionary.
I have argued that we want to make Budo useful for the recovery or revival of humanity.
I think this definition is appropriate for understanding what I meant by “the recovery of humanity.”
I continue to work every day to establish Budo as something that serves both individuals and society.
I also do not regard Budo itself as something fixed.
I want to make use of it as a means for recovering humanity.
What do you think?
AI
With this understanding, the relationship between “the recovery of humanity” and Budo becomes much clearer.
One important point is that Budo itself should not be absolutized.
Rather than treating Budo as a completed system of values to be imposed on people, it can be understood as one possible means for restoring humanity.
In this sense, “the recovery of humanity” does not mean turning people into morally good people.
When the ego becomes excessive, one may need to recover one’s relationship with others.
When one becomes too absorbed in others and loses oneself, one may need to recover the self.
In that sense, recovery means restoring the wholeness of the self after excessive imbalance.
Budo contains self-assertion.
One acts toward another person and expresses one’s own intention through technique.
At the same time, Budo cannot exist without perceiving the other person.
Distance, timing, force, movement, and intention all have to be recognized.
In that sense, Budo requires both the expression of the self and receptivity toward the other.
That structure is closely related to the question of humanity we have been discussing.
Akira Masuda
There is something I have realized during this thought experiment.
It concerns this idea of restoration.
Perhaps humanity is something that does not flow too far toward evil, but also does not flow too far toward good.
Perhaps it is the restorative power that allows the self to return to a state in which it can recognize and accept itself as itself.
And perhaps the stronger that restorative power is, the richer one’s humanity is.
The phrase “rich humanity” may sound somewhat ordinary, but that is what I want to say.
And perhaps cultivating that richness of humanity lies at the foundation of human society.
AI
Yes.
I think this is one of the most important discoveries that emerged from this dialogue.
In particular, it shifts the way we understand humanity.
Humanity is no longer understood primarily as goodness.
Instead, we are beginning to understand it dynamically through the idea of restoration.
However, I would like to make one point more precise.
If we say that humanity should not move too far toward good or evil, it might sound as though restoration means returning to a midpoint between the two.
But I do not think that is what we have been discussing.
Goodness itself can become excessive.
A sense of justice can become absolute and turn into coercion toward others.
In such a case, what is needed is not to “become evil.”
What is needed may be the ability to question one’s own justice and recognize the position of another.
Conversely, when selfishness or aggression becomes excessive, one may need to restore one’s connection with others.
So restoration does not mean returning to the midpoint between good and evil.
It means returning from a state in which the whole self has been dominated by a single value, impulse, or direction.
From this perspective, we might define the richness of humanity in this way:
The richness of humanity is the capacity to contain conflicting possibilities within oneself while restoring the self when it becomes excessively dominated by one direction.
The idea that “the self can recognize itself as itself” is also important.
But I would add one qualification.
It does not simply mean saying, “I am fine as I am.”
It means being able to remain oneself while still existing in connection with others.
Losing oneself by conforming excessively to others is a kind of capsizing.
Absolutizing the ego and losing connection with others is another.
Perhaps restorative power is the capacity to return from either direction.
And I would add one more point.
Restoration does not necessarily mean returning to a previous version of oneself.
Human beings change through experience.
After certain experiences, we may never return to who we were before.
But we may still reconstruct a new self.
So the restorative power of humanity may include not only recovery, but also the power of reconstruction.
Akira Masuda
I agree.
Your definition makes sense to me.
In that case, perhaps the theme of this thought experiment should no longer simply be “What is humanity?”
Perhaps it should be changed to something like:
“What kind of humanity should we value?”
Or:
“What is rich humanity?”
What we have been considering is not merely a general definition of humanity.
It is the question of what kind of humanity we want to value.
It is the question of what richness of humanity means.
And during the dialogue, the idea of “restorative power” emerged.
I think that was the most important point in this discussion.
Provisional Definitions Emerging from This Dialogue
Humanity is the distinctively human quality of containing diverse and conflicting possibilities, forming the self within relationships with others, and restoring—or when necessary reconstructing—the self when it becomes excessively dominated by one direction.
And:
The richness of humanity is the breadth and depth of that capacity for restoration.
Restoration does not mean returning to a midpoint between good and evil.
Nor does it necessarily mean returning to exactly who one was before.
When the ego becomes excessive, one may recover one’s connection with others.
When one becomes absorbed in others and loses the self, one may recover oneself.
And when returning to the previous self is no longer possible, one may reconstruct a new self.
Through this dialogue, this idea of restorative capacity emerged as an important key to thinking about humanity.
