I am now reading Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logio-Philosophicus." Of course it is hard to understand it and I have to read the same sentence again and again to understand what Wittgenstein meant, but I am really enjoying reading it. In the preface of this book, Wittgenstein wrote, "Perhaps this book be understood only by someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in it ― or at least similar thoughts." I have been thinking about the same problem, about which Wittgenstein wrote in "Tractatus Logio-Philosophicus," even though my thoughts are so shallow. My problem is how to write and how to make a presentation in business. I use Barbara Minto's "The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking, and Problem Solving" as a reference. One of good points of this book is that it deals with not just how to write but also how to think at the same time. I think that writing and thinking are indivisible, because if one thinks illogically, they cannot write logically. If people want to write or to make a presentation logically, they must think logically. In "Tractatus Logio-Philosophicus," Wittgenstein wrote about thinking logically and expressing it in a language. He thought about this problem radically and in principle, and Barbara Minto thought about it quite practically, but both of them dealt with the same problem in similar way. I think that Barbara Minto was apparently influenced by "Tractatus Logio-Philosophicus," because her "pyramid principle" was along the same line as writings in "Tractatus Logio-Philosophicus," which has the strict structure. In fact it is difficult to understand "Tractus Logio-Philosophicus," because Wittgenstein's thoughs are so deep, but the way of writing, itself, is quite simple to understand. In this sense, "Tractus Logio-Philosophicus" is a good example for us on how to think and to write logically. I am frequently told that I am argumentative and sophistic, and I answer back that I am just logical. Sometimes I make people angry because I make a quite logical assertion persistently. But Wittgenstein was far more logical and persistent than I. Wittgenstein's biography encourages me, and I have confidence that I should be more logical and persistent, whatever people tell me. Wittgenstein's life seems to have been eccentric and unhappy for people around him, but I guess that he might have been satisfied with his life, even if it could not be said that it was happy, because he lived his life in the way he believed. I also want to live my life in the way I believe.
I finished George Alec Effinger's novel "When Gravity Fails." This is one of my favorite entertainment novels, and I've read it in Japanese translation so many times, but it was first time reading it in English. When I was a university student, I was fascinated with William Gibson's novel "Neuromancer", and I was absorbed in the Sprawl trilogy. Looking back, it is hard to explain why I was fascinated with "Neuromancer" at that time, because the future, which is described in this novel, has already become a reality. "Neuromancer" was published in 1984. Do you remember how the world was at that time? Let's read the entry "I could survive in the Stone Age." There were no Internet and no cell phones! Please imagine how you will feel, when you read a science fiction novel about computer hackers in the cyberspace in the "Stone Age". Later on, I got crazy about "Cyberpunk novels." One of the good points of "Cyberpunk novels" is their vision of the future. But as I wrote, the future in "Cyberpunk novels" has become a reality, so if their vision of the future is their only good point, they have already lost their appeal. In fact, most "Cyberpunk novels" have lost their appeal, but I think that it is worth reading William Gibson's Sprawl trilogy and Alec Effinger's Budayeen trilogy nowadays, because they have the other good points. In the "Stone Age," I enjoyed reading not only science fiction novels but also hard-boiled novels, from Dashiell Hammett to Elmore Leonard. In hard-boiled novels, the central characters are usually "picaresques." I love "Picaresque novels," because everybody in the real world is more or less imperfect and "Picaresque novels" express the imperfection of human beings. One of the significant features of "Cyberpunk novels" is that they are also "Picaresque novels." In "When Gravity Fails," the central character, Marid Audran, wasn't a superman but just a thug living in Budayeen, which was a squalid city somewhere in Middle East. He was a Muslim, who wasn't so religious. Exoticism is one of the appeals of this novel. Like most hard-boiled novels, Marid got in trouble and got hurt physically and mentally, because he was an imperfect human being. At the end of this novel, one of his close friends, Chiri, says to him, "Don't nobody get nothing for free." That was the main theme of this novel. The author of this novel, George Alec Effinger, wrote two more novels about Marid and Budayeen, "A Fire in the Sun" and "The Exile Kiss," and he died in 2002 when he completed only the first two chapters of a fourth Budayeen novel, "Word of Night." He had been suffering from a variety of health problems. He was really good at describing pain. "Don't nobody get nothing for free." R.I.P. Alec.
Although I have only a vague memory of it, it might be first
time to see Clint Eastwood in the movie "For A Few Dollars More,"
when I was a small child. At that time cheap Spaghetti Western movies were
broadcasted on TV in Japan again and again, and I was crazy about Clint
Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef.
And then I've watched "Dirty Harry" so many times
on TV. The first his movie I watched in a theater was "Escape from
Alcatraz", when I went to Junior high school.
I have been a big fan of Clint Eastwood almost for forty
years. After "Dirty Harry", constantly he made good movies, for
example "The Gauntlet," "Pale Rider," and "Bird",
though, he was considered as a second grade action star.
After he won the Academy Award for "Unforgiven,"
suddenly he became considered as one of masters. Of course I was glad, but at
the same time I thought that he hadn't changed at all. I love his Western movie
"Pale Rider" much more than the Academy Award winning
"Unforgiven." Before "Unforgiven", he made many good
movies, and after it, he continued to make good movies.
His latest movie "J. Edgar" wasn't successful, but
I think that it is much better than most critics said it was.
GQ: Speaking of business, the movie kind: One thing you've
both seen grow is a public obsession with box office. By Sunday afternoon,
everybody knows how everything did. These days, when you have a flop, does it
hurt more to have it—
Clint Eastwood: —broadcast all over the place? You know,
it's really crappy. If it doesn't do well that first weekend, screw it. But you
make a film to make a really good film, and if people don't embrace it, there's
nothing you can do. You've always gotta remember that a lot of great movies
didn't do anything. Everybody would like to have the business that some of
these turkeys do, but would you be proud to have your name on them? Not
particularly. Would you love to have the bank account? Sure. I made a good
living. But that was just lucky. If I'd made a mediocre living, I would have
felt the same way.
As Clint Eastwood said, I guess that he "loves to have
the bank account" but he purely "makes a film to make a really good
film." I believe that "J. Edgar" will receive a higher
reputation than it receives now.
Edgar Hoover was a gay, so Clint Eastwood talked about gay
marriage in this interview. I completely agreed with what he said.
GQ: You've described yourself as a social libertarian. What
does that mean to you?
Clint Eastwood: I was an Eisenhower Republican when I
started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And
over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And
then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really
believe is, Let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These
people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about
who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out
of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.
Yes! Anybody should get married to anybody who they want to
get married to. That's it!
I, myself, am a libertarian. I learned
everything from his movies.
Shikao Suga is one of my favorite Japanese musicians and he is also the same age as me. I love his lyrics, because I can project my own
life onto them.
I'd like to talk about one of his hit songs, "Progress."
