未分類

2026年1月7日

You Can Choose Secular Ideologies Freely, but There Is a Prerequisite: A “Conversation Foundation” or “Dialogue OS” to Avoid Denying Faith or Thought. Let’s Establish a Common Grammar Before Ideology. A Base Program for a Pluralistic Society. Techniques to Dismantle Fixed Ideas.

A. Conclusion

The world is too fragmented by ideologies. Before we can even ask which one is correct, conversation itself fails to occur. Therefore, I propose this: Not a unification of religious or political thought, but rather that we first adopt a “Common OS” that allows us to converse without needing to agree.

B. The Fact

There are moments when we use the same words but point to entirely different things. “Freedom,” “Justice,” “Nation,” “Tradition,” “Equality.” The more convenient the word, the more people see a concrete entity within it and come to blows. What is needed, before finding the correct answer, is a method to untangle the moment words harden.

C. Religious Consideration & Harmony

Let me state this first: I do not deny religion, nor do I take away the choice of political thought. However, regardless of one’s position, there is a common cause that collapses arguments: the reification of concepts and the opacity of inference. I want to propose a “minimal common grammar” to reduce only these elements.

“Share a deep Base OS (Emptiness, Structure, Logic), and upon that, political preferences are chosen individually.” This is designed to submerge religious wars and ideological battles one level deeper into a “layer of mutual understanding.”

1) Are Buddhism, Modern Philosophy, and Modern Mathematics less likely to fight with the Bible?

The spark of conflict is often not “does God exist,” but rather the “usage of language.” Buddhism (especially Emptiness/Ku) and Post-structuralism trend toward “not viewing things as substances,” “doubting fixed essences,” and “inspecting the function of words.” This is actually compatible with Negative Theology (Apophatic theology) within theology, and traditions that “do not fence God in with concepts.”

On the other hand, as you say, from a religious organization’s perspective, the fact that believers might read scripture relatively can be difficult to govern. This is the point of friction. It is not so much a denial of the content of faith, but rather that the dispersion of interpretative authority is disliked.

2) Introducing “Rigorous Symbolic Logic Thinking” to Japan is actually compatible with Buddhism

Intuitively, Zen and Emptiness are often misunderstood as “discarding logic,” but the reality is the opposite. To discern:

Where words arbitrarily reify (become substantialized)
Which inference is making a leap
Where binary oppositions are generated

Rigorous logical training becomes a weapon. In other words, the “opportunity to learn Western logic (not the colloquial kind)” that you mention does not contradict the implementation of Emptiness. Rather, it can serve as a “precision device for Emptiness.”

3) A Prescription for the Stifling Nature of “Polymathism”

This can be avoided by design. The point is not “study everything,” but to boil it down to a “minimal common grammar.” Not “learn all subjects,” but “let’s possess the minimum ‘literacy’ valid in conversations worldwide.” That literacy consists of what you call: “Emptiness,” “Structure,” and “Logic (Transparency of Inference).” This reduces the “macho” aspect of encyclopedic learning and makes it practical.

4) The Strength of the Model: “Base OS is Shared, Secular Ideologies are Chosen Individually”

This model does not “erase” political conflict but civilizes the way we conflict.

One can realize what they are reifying that causes the dispute.
One can grasp the opponent’s position not as “evil” but as a “structural preference.”
One can offer their own argument not as an absolute, but as a “provisional model.”

In short, the common foundation is not “agreement” but dialogue possibility.

5) Sartre’s Example is Quite Suggestive

The two-layer structure of “Metaphysically free, but preferring Communism in secular policy.” This “stratification” is crucial and isomorphic to your concept.

Upper Layer: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Linguistics (This is the Common OS)
Lower Layer: Policy, Institutions, Party Preference (Choose here)

For example, within this framework, a Communist and a Liberal can dispute each other not as “heretics,” but as proponents of different prescriptions.

If you say “Base it on Buddhism or Modern Philosophy,” it looks like an imposition of religion or ideology. So, changing the expression makes it stronger:

“Buddhism” → Emptiness = Training against reification
“Post-structuralism” → Inspection of the conditions of meaning generation
“Logic” → Audit of inference (Visualization of errors)

And think of the slogan as: “Before faith or ideology, let’s hold a Dialogue OS.”

On the premise of not denying any religion or political thought, let us simply share a “viewpoint that does not reify (Emptiness),” a “perspective on how meaning is born (Structure),” and a “manner of checking inferences (Logic)” before debating. Upon that, one may freely choose their secular ideology.

The world has too many religions and ideologies. Moreover, they all have their own logic, and they all save or hurt people. So, I want to propose this: This is not a talk about unifying faith or political thought, but rather the opposite—it is about holding a “Common OS” to talk while remaining in disagreement.

The core of that OS requires only three things. The first is an idea close to the Buddhist concept of “Emptiness” (Ku). It is to doubt the habit of assuming words and concepts are “substances.” Enemy/Friend, Justice/Evil, Nation, Tradition, Freedom, Equality. The more convenient the word, the more it rigidifies people. Emptiness is not “nothingness,” but the training of “not grasping things as fixed essences.” The second is the perspective of Structuralism or Post-structuralism. Meanings do not stand alone; they are born within relationships, differences, and systems. Do not dismiss things based solely on individual good or evil; look at the conditions of generation. The third is the precision of Symbolic Logic. Visualize leaps in inference and make arguments not about “spirit/guts” but subject to inspection.

If these three can be shared, you can choose your secular ideology freely. Liberalism, Social Democracy, Communism—adopt whatever suits your preference or the times. What is important is not to put ideology on a pedestal (god shelf), but to treat it as a tool. Faith is the same. Do not deny it. Just do not make the interpretation monolithic. If there is a Common OS, the world becomes much easier to talk in. Argument shifts from winning and losing to design and correction.

A Little More Detail

This text does not assert the superiority of any specific religion or political ideology, but proposes a minimal meta-framework to reduce “reification of concepts” and “opacity of inference,” which are the main causes of mutual misunderstanding and hostility. The framework here does not aim for the unification of worldviews, but is a “Dialogue OS” that enhances the possibility of dialogue while premising the plurality of values.

The proposed OS consists of three layers. First is the layer of “Emptiness.” Emptiness in Buddhist thought is not nihilism, but can be read as a vigilance against the tendency to grasp concepts as fixed substances. Many political conflicts become rigid when words like freedom, equality, nation, ethnicity, tradition, and justice are treated not as variable working hypotheses but as inviolable entities. This layer functions as an epistemological training to de-reify concepts and redeploy arguments as provisional models.

Second is the layer of “Structure.” Structuralist and post-structuralist perspectives emphasize that meaning and a subject’s self-understanding are generated by the arrangement of relationships, differences, institutions, and discourses. By establishing the conditions of generation as the object of analysis rather than reducing conflict to “individual morality” or “essential attributes,” criticism can more easily shift from character attacks to institutional design. This layer plays the role of avoiding single-cause theories and visualizing the conditions of conflict as multiple axes.

Third is the layer of “Logic.” Logic here is not the colloquial “correct argument,” but logic as an audit device for discussion: transparency of inference forms, organization of implications, and assurance of falsifiability. Even if Emptiness and Structure loosen the “grasping of concepts” and “simplification of causes,” consensus formation is difficult to operate if inferences are not inspectable. The logic layer connects discussion not to emotion or authority, but to the process of verification and correction.

The adoption of this three-layer OS does not necessarily conflict with religious faith. It does not deny faith, but makes inspectable the phases where expressions of faith are reclaimed by the reification of concepts. However, in religious communities, the concentration of interpretative rights may contribute to governance stability, so the spread of the OS may cause friction by promoting relativization. Therefore, this proposal should be presented not as conversion or unification, but as raising the baseline of dialogue capacity.

The scope of this OS lies in the point that it does not bind the choice of political thought. Liberalism, Social Democracy, Communism, etc., are options in the “secular layer” that each person can adopt as differences in value priorities and institutional designs. What is important is that the secular layer is not absolutized, but placed within a framework where mutual criticism and updating are possible via Emptiness, Structure, and Logic. In this case, conflict is treated not as a judgment of good and evil, but as a comparison and correction of systems. In conclusion, this OS is an attempt to commonize the procedures of dialogue while maintaining the plurality of worldviews, rather than unifying them.

Counter-Argument Q&A (Anticipated Questions)

Q1. Won’t “Relativism” lead to “Anything goes”? No, it won’t. The “Emptiness” mentioned here does not make arguments “meaningless,” but inspects the habit of reifying and absolutizing arguments. Rather, what prevents “anything goes” is the Layer of Logic (Audit of Inference) placed simultaneously. Untangle rigidity with Emptiness, and inspect with Logic. Therefore, the core becomes not “Relativism” but Modifiability (Updateability).

Q2. Isn’t this ultimately forcing us to “accept Buddhism as a premise”? It is not an imposition, but an adoption of function. Using the word “Emptiness” is for convenience; the goal is “training not to grasp concepts as fixed entities.” You may achieve the equivalent function using terms from other traditions (Negative Theology, Skepticism, Scientific Methodology). The function is the substance, not the label.

Q3. Aren’t Structuralism and Post-structuralism too difficult to generalize? We do not say “read everything,” but introduce only the minimal habits. For example, “Don’t dismiss it just by individual good/evil; look at the arrangement of institutions and relationships.” This single line is sufficiently structural. Specialized theory is for the advanced course; for the general public, it can be boiled down to thinking checklist items.

Q4. If we include Logic (Symbolic Logic), won’t we lose our humanity? Logic is a tool not to become cold, but to reduce misunderstandings and leaps. It does not exclude emotions or values, but makes transparent “where the facts end and value judgments begin” and “whether there are counter-examples.” To protect humanity, we rescue discussion from mere “spirit/guts.”

Q5. Will it still not conflict with religion (especially scripture-based religion)? Conflict is more likely to occur over interpretative rights than over the existence of God. The Common OS does not deny faith, but visualizes logical leaps and the reification of words when faith is absolutized. This can be inconvenient for religious governance. Therefore, this proposal is appropriate to present not as conversion, but as Dialogue Capacity in the Public Space.

Q6. If we have a Common OS, won’t political passion weaken and society stop changing? The aim is not to extinguish passion, but to transform destructive passion into designable passion. Anger can be fuel for institutional criticism. However, if there is reification of concepts and leaps in inference, anger tends to flow toward scapegoating. The OS redirects anger from “who to crush” to “what to change.“

Q7. Won’t “Emptiness” destroy morality? Good and evil seem to become ambiguous. The idea is not to erase good and evil, but to return good and evil to a form usable as tools. Absolutized good and evil easily turn into justifications for dehumanizing opponents. Emptiness is not “do not speak of good and evil,” but a brake saying “do not cause a runaway of concepts when speaking of good and evil.”

Q8. How is this different from “The Golden Mean” or “Peace-at-any-price”? It is not the Golden Mean. The OS is not about “listing both sides and ending it,” but a method to move forward in a modifiable form by inspecting:

Where concepts were reified (Emptiness)
What generating conditions were at work (Structure)
Whether the inference is valid (Logic) It is not a technique to postpone conclusions, but a technique for making conclusions.

Q9. Isn’t it idealistic for the whole world to share this? Of course, it is impossible to do all at once. That is why we make it a minimal set. Just like “Education, Medicine, Law,” there are things where minimal standards are shared even if they don’t match perfectly worldwide. The OS is the same; we nurture it first as a common grammar in the public sphere. It is not idealism, but an approach of Standardization.

Q10. So ultimately, does it mean any secular thought is fine? It is the stance of “leaving the freedom to choose,” rather than “anything is fine.” Liberalism, Social Democracy, Communism—all have strengths and weaknesses. The OS enables that comparative examination and ensures we “do not put ideology on a pedestal.” Ideology is not an object of faith, but a tool to apply to reality and modify.

Common Counter-Argument Q&A (Appendix)

The proposal here is not to “unify thought or religion,” but to share a “Dialogue OS” for talking without agreeing. The key points of the text are:

“Emptiness” = Untangle the reification of concepts (Removal of fixed ideas)
“Structure” = Look at the conditions generating meaning (Relationships, Differences, Institutions)
“Logic” = Make inference auditable (Inspection of leaps)

You Can Choose Secular Ideologies Freely, but There Is a Prerequisite: A “Conversation Foundation” or “Dialogue OS” to Avoid Denying Faith or Thought. Let’s Establish a Common Grammar Before Ideology. A Base Program for a Pluralistic Society. Techniques to Dismantle Fixed Ideas.

関連記事