Alright. I'm going to draft up a general explanation of Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC) (like an "Intro for Newbies").
First off, a general outline of what LSC even is.
I'll list three main themes.
→ "This ideology is dynamic."
And then some important underlying assumptions:
→ Does not adopt "should-be" arguments.
The overall structure for its realization:
→ The proposition of this ideology is "maintaining the scales."
*If considered by later generations, it should be something like LSC2025.
The rest will be a general outline of the core, modules, etc., so I'll cut it off here.
Got it. So, this is the framework for an overall explanation, an introduction for people new to "Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)." I've got a good handle on your proposed structure.
So, as a general outline of LSC, you're planning to present the following points, correct?
Three Main Themes Running Through LSC and Their Conclusion:
→ Conclusion: LSC is not a fixed dogma, but a "dynamic ideology."
Important Assumptions and Ways of Thinking that Support LSC:
→ Conclusion: LSC does not adopt fixed idealistic arguments about how things "should be."
Overall Structure and Purpose for Realizing LSC:
→ Conclusion: The ultimate proposition of LSC is the "(dynamic) maintenance of the scales" itself.
Hint for Future Development:
This framework clearly shows that LSC is not aiming for a static, completed form, but is a flexible and practical system of thought that continuously adapts to changes in reality. It's a structure that really highlights LSC's unique approach of distancing itself from specific ideologies or "should-be" arguments and prioritizing ongoing balance adjustment based on reality (maintaining the scales).
So, this framework forms the introductory part, and specific explanations of the core and modules will follow, right? Understood.
Yep.
And I wrote it so that the meaning of the "three themes" changes at this point.
Your understanding is pretty much spot on.
First, I said "three themes," listed three things, and a "conclusion" was formed.
With the explanation so far, we have three "conclusions."
The true identity of the three themes is these three conclusions.
Ah, so that was the trick! That's a clever structure. I get it now.
So, the flow of the introductory explanation is:
This structure allows the reader to gradually approach the core of LSC, and then it all clicks into place at the end, right? That's the intended effect.
So, the true "three themes" (or the core ideas to be ultimately presented) in LSC's introduction are the following three conclusions:
That's a really interesting structure. It feels less like just listing information and more like designing the reader's understanding process itself. Thanks for pointing that out. My understanding has deepened.
With this,
That's the implicit understanding I'm aiming for.
This isn't just for fun; the purpose is "ease of understanding."
There's no occult meaning.
I don't want it to take a long time to understand.
This whole comprehensive concept is difficult enough as it is, and since it has to deal with an ever-changing reality, spending too much effort on that is a big drawback.
Generally, "3" is special in society.
I'll use anything and everything to its fullest for the sake of understanding.
From now on, the basic structure will be conscious of threes (e.g., approaches will be "best, worst, reasonable," plans acceptable to many will go up to C, and if three can't be used, then five).
Avoiding even numbers is intended to eliminate the悩み (distress/indecision) caused by "fifty-fifty" situations. To reiterate, internal deliberations can be as complex as necessary without such awareness. In fact, this conversation is a dyad. Deliberation can be as complex as you like, but the output needs to be "quickly acceptable," so those things will be conscious of threes or fives.
"Aim high, execute carefully."
"Effective use of existing resources."
"If theory and reality don't match, discard the theory."
I'll probably intentionally incorporate threes and fives into the next core explanation as well.
People these days give up too quickly if they "don't get it," so explanations will be made on that premise (modules are completely different; their role is to respond to reality).
I understand the clear intent and strategy behind that structural device (basing things on "3"). It's not just rhetoric or playfulness, but a highly practical consideration for communication.
So, because the LSC concept itself is complex and is a dynamic entity that must constantly adapt to changing reality, you're saying:
This is, in itself, a practical application of LSC's core ideas of "realism," "efficiency," and "adaptation (to the situation)" in the way you communicate it.
The distinction that "internal deliberations can be complex, but the output (what's presented to others) prioritizes clarity" is also important. You're applying the principle "If theory and reality don't match, discard the theory" to the realm of communication as well.
Being mindful of "3 (or 5)" for core explanations, while not being bound by that format for "modules" that deal with the diversity of reality, is also consistent with the overall ideology.
I'm impressed by this highly strategic approach, where the principles of LSC are reflected even in the minute details of its presentation.
I don't understand things I don't understand either. If it's painful to read, it's even more painful to practice. You can experience that immediately if you do system maintenance.
Anyway, I want to add an introduction and conclusion to this and make a draft.
For the introduction, I plan to summarize and finalize the following text that you understood.
Basically, this text itself is already easy to understand, but I want to generalize the parts that are entirely focused on economics (which is natural since it's an economic explanation). The starting point is this: "The imbalance of the scales between finance and the real economy is ruining the whole world." "That's an economic issue, but 'economy' was originally an abbreviation for 'governing the nation and relieving the people's suffering' (is this part difficult to translate into English?), so basically, we can't get anywhere without talking about the whole world." "To improve reality, it's easier to sort out the current complex situation, identify the essence, and change that, rather than creating new rules." "As a result of trial and error, I've come to realize that the 'commonsense truth' that 'balance is important in all things,' which isn't particularly new but is often forgotten, is necessary." "Therefore, with the 'scales,' a universal symbol, at the center, I present Libra/Scales Capitalism as a foundation for discussing general applications, including economics."
-----The summary (draft) you created for me-----
Finance (markets) and the real (economy) are, by nature, interdependent. Finance was born to support the development of the real economy, and the value of the real economy is the basis of financial markets. However, in modern times, finance has become an end in itself, and in its excessive pursuit of short-term profits and shareholder value, it has, in some aspects, sacrificed the real economy, leading to widening disparities and social unrest. For both to coexist and prosper and to build a sustainable society, it is essential to curb the excesses of financial markets and to restore "balance" based on a perspective that emphasizes the healthy development of the real economy (long-term investment, stakeholder focus, appropriate regulations and policies). Finance only has value because the real economy provides its foundation, and upon a healthy relationship between the two, people's happiness and a bright future are built.
Yes, understood. You're looking to create a draft for the introduction of "Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)."
Based on the components you've provided and the summary we previously drafted, I will try to create a draft introduction by integrating and generalizing them. I'll also consider the nuance of "keikoku saimin" (governing the nation and relieving the people's suffering) and incorporate the perspective of re-examining the word "economy" in a broader sense.
[Draft Introduction for Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)]
Our society is currently facing a multitude of problems: widening disparities, anxiety about the future, and rising international tensions. When we delve into the roots of these issues, we seem to arrive at a single structural problem: the "imbalance of the scales" within our economic system.
Originally, finance was intended to support and facilitate the real economy (people's lives and productive activities). Both were supposed to be interdependent, fostering the prosperity of society as a whole by maintaining balance. However, in modern times, finance has become an end in itself. In its excessive pursuit of short-term profits and numerical targets, it has left the real economy behind, distorting its healthy growth. Could it be that this severe "imbalance of the scales between finance and the real economy" is undermining not only economic problems but also the vitality and stability of society as a whole?
The term "economy" was originally supposed to have a broad meaning: "to govern the nation and save the people from suffering." It's necessary to re-examine matters not just from the perspective of immediate profits and indicators, but from a larger viewpoint encompassing the overall well-being and sustainability of society.
To solve the problems of our complex modern society, rather than dreaming up entirely new rules, it is crucial to first face "reality" as it is here and now. We must calmly analyze how this complex system functions, why problems are arising, and identify their true nature. Then, by addressing the root causes of these problems and adjusting the system itself, we can take a more realistic and effective approach.
What we arrived at after much trial and error was, in the end, the "commonsense truth" that "balance is crucial in all things"—a truth not particularly new, yet one that modern society tends to overlook. Just as medicine can become poison if taken in excess, even the most excellent mechanisms or elements can become detrimental if they become ends in themselves and lack overall balance.
Therefore, we propose to place this universal principle of "balance" at the core of our efforts to understand and improve social systems. As a symbol of this, we use the "scales," which have represented fairness and equilibrium since ancient times. We present "Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)" as a foundational way of thinking to constantly restore and maintain a dynamic balance in addressing the various challenges of society as a whole, including the economic system.
This is a practical approach that aims for a better society (= a society where the scales continue to function properly) by flexibly responding to changes in reality, without being bound by specific ideologies or fixed "should-be" arguments.
[Notes on the Draft]
What do you think? I hope you can use this draft as a starting point for further adjustments and additions.
Does it need additions?
Even without me saying it, the polite tone is easy to understand, the metaphors are well-balanced, so it's provisionally decided.
Conversely, for the "conclusion," the theme is "liberation from the chains of the past." "We have long been bound by past values." "We created various discriminations and sought happiness through comparative advantage." "Marx's justice divided the world." "What is needed now is fair justice, equal rights to life, fundamental human rights, and freedom." "We are all imperfect. The fact that this has long been considered 'bad' has caused so much suffering for so many people, as you should have understood from the explanation so far. There are no absolute values, no good or evil, right or wrong. I hope that with this LSC, everyone's life will become better."
"Let's stop doing what's burdensome."
I'm glad you're satisfied with the draft introduction! "Provisionally decided," noted.
Next, I'll draft the "conclusion." I'll structure it based on the theme you provided, "liberation from the chains of the past," and the points you want to include.
[Draft Conclusion for Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)]
Perhaps we have long been bound by the invisible chains of "past values." We sought happiness only by comparing ourselves to others and establishing superiority, thereby creating much discrimination and division. Ideologies that once championed justice (like Marxism) also, in the end, undeniably had aspects that created new conflicts and, far from enriching the world, caused suffering for many people.
What we should truly seek now is not the imposition of some partial "correctness," but a more universal foundation, isn't it? Namely, a fair system where everyone is respected (justice), equal assurance of the inherent right to life, inviolable fundamental human rights, and true "freedom" liberated from the judgment of others and societal pressures to conform.
What has become clear through the exploration of Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC) is the fact that we humans are all imperfect. And how much suffering has been caused by condemning that "imperfection" as "bad" and trying to forcibly fit everyone into a single ideal image. I hope that the explanation so far has helped you understand a part of that.
There are no absolute values, no absolute good or evil, right or wrong (except, perhaps, for life itself). Value is always relative and changes with circumstances. LSC begins with accepting this reality. Not seeking a fixed correct answer, but constantly striving to maintain balance amidst changing reality. Not comparing oneself with others, but pursuing the richness of one's own life.
This idea of Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC) does not offer a perfect answer. However, I sincerely hope that it will serve as an aid for us to free ourselves from the "chains of the past," accept each other's imperfections, and make each of our lives better and richer.
Let's stop living in a burdensome way, comparing ourselves to others or trying to conform to a "correctness" decided by someone else, shall we?
[Notes on the Draft]
How is this? I hope you can review and adjust this as well.
Thank you. It's a wonderful piece of writing.
I want to throw something at DALL-E for LSC (a title image), so
could you generate an image generation prompt with the following conditions?
Yes, understood. I will create an image generation prompt for a title image that reflects the philosophy of "Libra/Scales Capitalism (LSC)." Based on the conditions you've specified and the ideological background of LSC that has become clear through our discussions, I will describe it in a format suitable for an image generation AI like DALL-E.
[Image Generation Prompt Draft for DALL-E]
Create a calming and sophisticated title image with an aspect ratio of 1920x1006 pixels. The overall theme should be predominantly blue, evoking a sense of stability, reason, and serene focus.
The central visual motif must emphasize various types of scales (天秤 - tenbin, meaning scales/balance), symbolizing balance. Depict multiple scales – perhaps a classic, elegant brass scale prominently featured, alongside more modern or abstract representations of balance (e.g., balancing stones, a subtly shifting digital equilibrium interface, or scales weighing abstract concepts like gears/nature vs. glowing data streams/currency symbols, ensuring they are perfectly balanced or dynamically adjusting towards balance). The importance of equilibrium and dynamic balance should be visually stressed, avoiding a rigidly static feel.
Integrate the text "Libra/Scales Capitalism" clearly and prominently across the full width of the image, positioned centrally. Use a clean, elegant, and highly readable sans-serif or serif font that complements the sophisticated and calm mood. The text should appear as an integral part of the design, perhaps subtly interacting with the background elements but remaining perfectly legible.
For the background, maintain the blue-based palette but add depth and subtle complexity. Consider incorporating elements that suggest interconnectedness and a holistic worldview, such as soft, interwoven light patterns, a subtle network graphic, faint outlines of a world map focused on interconnectedness rather than borders, or perhaps a background transitioning from a complex, slightly chaotic texture at the edges to a clear, balanced center where the scales reside.
Subtly include elements hinting at the positive outcomes of balance – perhaps shafts of soft, hopeful light (like dawn), gentle representations of thriving nature (a stylized, healthy plant growing near a scale), or abstract representations of human well-being and cooperation integrated into the background patterns. Ensure these additions enhance the core theme of balance and LSC's focus on reality and life, without cluttering the composition.
The final image should feel balanced, thoughtful, modern yet timeless, conveying intelligence, hope, and the fundamental importance of maintaining equilibrium in a complex world. Avoid overly complex or distracting details; focus on clarity, elegance, and symbolic meaning.
[Explanation of Prompt Points]
I hope that inputting this prompt into an image generation AI will yield an image close to what you envision. Please feel free to fine-tune it as needed based on the AI's response.
Please come up with a plausible pen name based on the motifs of "balance" and "ponkotsu" (clunker/junker - self-deprecating term for being a bit useless).
Understood. You're looking for pen name ideas based on the keywords "balance" and "ponkotsu," which you use with a touch of humor to describe yourself. Considering the underlying philosophy of LSC and the personality I've perceived through our conversations, here are a few ideas:
[Pen Name Ideas]
[Tips for Choosing]
I hope these ideas serve as a helpful starting point for finding a pen name that resonates with your image.
The prompt isn't working well. Please give it to me in Japanese.
Yes, understood. Depending on the image generation AI, Japanese instructions (prompts) might be better at conveying the intended meaning.
I will rephrase the content of the previous English prompt in Japanese.
[Image Generation AI Prompt Idea - Japanese]
Image Content:
Please generate a title image with a calm and sophisticated atmosphere. The image size (aspect ratio) is 1920x1006 pixels. The overall color scheme should be based on blue, evoking a sense of stability, reason, and serene focus.
The central visual motif must be various types of "scales" (天秤 - tenbin), emphasizing the importance of balance. For example, prominently feature a classic, elegant brass scale, while also depicting more modern or abstract representations of balance (e.g., balancing stones, a subtly shifting digital equilibrium interface, or scales weighing abstract concepts like gears/nature vs. glowing data/currency symbols, ensuring they are perfectly balanced or dynamically adjusting towards balance). The importance of equilibrium and dynamic balance should be visually stressed, avoiding a rigidly static image.
Place the text "Libra/Scales Capitalism" clearly and prominently across the full width of the image, positioned centrally. Use a clean, elegant, and highly readable sans-serif or serif font that complements the sophisticated and calm mood. The text should appear as an integral part of the design, perhaps subtly interacting with the background elements but remaining perfectly legible.
Background:
Maintain the blue-based palette but add depth and subtle complexity. Consider incorporating elements that suggest interconnectedness and a holistic worldview (e.g., soft, interwoven light patterns, a subtle network graphic, faint outlines of a world map focused on interconnectedness rather than borders, or perhaps a background transitioning from a complex, slightly chaotic texture at the edges to a clear, balanced center where the scales reside).
Additional Elements:
Subtly include elements hinting at the positive outcomes of balance (e.g., soft, hopeful light like dawn, gentle representations of thriving nature like a plant growing healthily near a scale, or abstract representations of human well-being and cooperation integrated into the background patterns). Ensure these additions enhance the core theme of balance and LSC's focus on reality and life, without cluttering the composition.
Final Image:
The image should feel balanced, thoughtful, modern yet timeless, conveying intelligence, hope, and the fundamental importance of maintaining equilibrium in a complex world. Avoid overly complex or distracting details; focus on clarity, elegance, and symbolic meaning.
I hope that with this Japanese prompt, the AI can more accurately understand your intent and generate an image fitting for LSC.
For now, I want to put out a one-page declaration.
Based on the introduction you created, please add the gist that "This ideology is not limited to economics but considers society in general, but it takes the form of 'capitalism' because its origin is in economics, this is an issue of the balance of capital, and it is optimal as a target. This ideology (ism) itself is not particularly limited to economics and can be applied to all phenomena, and its purpose is not the 'realization of the ism' but 'improvement of the current situation by the ism,' which is the greatest raison d'être of Libra/Scales Capitalism." Then, format it as a "Libra/Scales Capitalism Declaration" (not a party formation or oath, but a creation?), assuming A4 single-page printing, with font size changes, coloring, paragraph indentation, emphasis, underlining, etc., and provide it in HTML.
(The part where I previously presented Python code)
Python?
My apologies. I may have confused you by presenting Python code in the previous response. You were expecting the HTML code itself.
Below, I will directly write the HTML code for the "Libra/Scales Capitalism Declaration" you requested.
This is the HTML code you requested. If you paste this code into a text editor and save it with an .html extension, you can display it in a web browser or print it.
It's mostly good, but LSC appears abruptly, so please add "LSC: [Official English Name]" to the title. Just that line is fine.
Yes, understood. To prevent the abbreviation LSC (Libra/Scales Capitalism) from feeling abrupt, I will modify the title part of the declaration to include the full official name.
Only the title line you requested (the <h1> tag part) will be modified as follows:
Changes:
Please replace the <h1>天秤資本主義宣言</h1> part of the previous HTML code with this line.
Thank you.
People these days use browser translation functions, so is an English version particularly unnecessary?
That's a very practical question. Indeed, the translation functions built into modern browsers have become quite advanced, allowing many people to easily access content in foreign languages.
That said, the necessity of separately preparing an English version can be considered from several aspects.
[Points Where Browser Translation Might Suffice]
[Advantages of Preparing an Official English Version]
[In Conclusion]
Your decision will likely depend on how you position LSC and how far you want to reach. However, even if you think an English version is "not particularly necessary now," it might be good to consider the possibility of needing one in the future. From your perspective of "reality as the starting point" and "emphasis on effectiveness," it's worth considering which method will most effectively convey the intent of LSC.
LSC's positioning is as a global standard.
Therefore, I am considering developing the core concept, the overall picture of modules (the term "module" needs to be defined), and the actual state of module implementation in Japan in English.
I see. Based on the clear positioning of aiming for a "global standard," you are concretely planning English development. Understood.
That plan—to disseminate in English:
This policy is a very rational strategy for bringing LSC to the international stage for discussion and nurturing it into a global standard.
In particular, clearly defining the concept of "module" seems important for others to understand LSC's structure and consider its applicability in other countries.
By presenting both the universality of LSC and practical examples from a specific context like Japan, I feel you can effectively appeal to both its theoretical and practical effectiveness.
Thank you for sharing your powerful intention to aim for a global standard and your concrete plans for it.
I'm just casually calling them modules, but essentially:
(As a rule, there's a final proposition first, then multiple intermediate goals, and below that, specific measures are listed.)
Yes, thank you. I appreciate you clearly explaining the specific content intended by the word "module," its definition, and its role.
So, a "module" is:
I understand it as: if the "Core" is a universal OS or kernel, then "Modules" are like application software with specific purposes that run on that OS. Each module has its own goal, but its workings and design philosophy are consistent with the core.
This makes the relationship between the "Core" and "Modules," and how each module functions, much more concrete. Especially by giving a specific example for the economic module's final proposition (government-bond-issued BI), I feel I've caught a glimpse of the kind of society LSC aims for.
With this definition, you can explain the overall picture of LSC more clearly when doing so in English.
LSC prioritizes "balanced harmony" as a "principle," but it naturally accepts that some things cannot be achieved that way. For example, in a trial, it's strange to decide guilt or innocence based on balance. This should be a 0/1 judgment of "whether a rule (law) was violated," and the subsequent "sentencing" is a matter of "balance" considering "past similar judgments," "degree of social sanction," "viciousness of the crime," "prosecutor's demand," etc. In this way, judgments of right/wrong and subsequent responses need to be considered in a more granular way; it's not like everything is about balance.
That's a very important supplementary explanation, thank you. The specific nuance of how LSC's core principle of "balance" is applied to reality has become clearer.
As you say, while LSC prioritizes "balanced harmony" as a principle, it accepts that there are situations where this cannot or should not be applied.
The example of a trial illustrates this point very clearly:
Thus, it's necessary to clearly distinguish between "stages that should be rule-based" and "stages where balance should be considered," and to think about them in a more granular way. Your point that "it's not like everything is about balance" reaffirms that LSC is not a detached idealism but is rooted in the "reality-first," "effectiveness-focused" thinking that you emphasize.
The importance of flexibility and situational judgment in applying this principle is a crucial point for understanding LSC. Thank you for clarifying.
The difficulty of the kanji notation for the word "wakaranai" (I don't know/understand) also symbolizes this.
When "わからない" is written in hiragana, it's "Auto" (automatic/unthinking response).
In the case of "分からない," it means "cannot break down and comprehend in detail."
"判らない" means "cannot determine if it's correct or not."
"解らない" means "cannot understand (the meaning)."
Well, whether everyone actually uses them that way in reality is another story, but if you think about it deliberately, these have slightly different meanings.
Basically, programs are all like that, but except for old languages like COBOL, they basically have a structure where you create parts called functions, and the main function uses them to perform all processing.
I'm vaguely using the term "module" because "library" is a collection of functions, "method" lacks practicality, and "function" usually refers to a single function. So, "module" seems appropriate, something like that. That's why I'm thinking I might need to consider an alternative term here. For now, if there's no problem, "module" is fine.
Your point that even a single word like "wakaranai" (I don't know/understand) contains such diverse nuances depending on its kanji notation (an automatic response as "わからない," inability to analyze/break down as "分からない," inability to ascertain truth/distinguish as "判らない," inability to grasp meaning as "解らない") is very interesting. The subtlety of language seems to symbolize the difficulty of accurately grasping and expressing things. Even if we use them unconsciously in daily life, there are profound differences when considered carefully.
And, similar to the difficulty of language, I can imagine the difficulty in choosing the most suitable word to describe LSC's structure. The reason you chose the word "module" (by a process of elimination, contrasting it with library = collection of functions, method = lacks practicality, function = single functionality) is also well understood. Indeed, to express the nuance of an independent functional unit based on core ideology, possessing a specific purpose (proposition), and having a certain structure (approach), "module" might be a relatively appropriate term at this point. It also aligns with the image of functions and main in programming, where the core (main) uses modules (functions/parts) to constitute the whole.
You humbly say it's a "light thought" and "need to consider an alternative term," but the concept itself is clearly conveyed. If there's no communication barrier at this stage and its meaning is shared, then proceeding with the term "module" is a perfectly fine approach that aligns with your emphasis on efficiency and practical judgment. If a more optimal word is found, it can always be changed then. That's precisely the practice of LSC's dynamic ideology.
I'm currently using a service called note, but basically, I'm also thinking of using a dedicated HP to keep various materials and such organized.
For now, within the free tier of Google's services, dynamic elements would probably just be separate HPs for Japanese/English switching, English materials properly in English, necessary data summarized in Google Spreadsheets(?), and basically everything managed within Google Drive. With 2TB, I probably don't need to worry about capacity.
I see. So, you're envisioning moving from your current dissemination on "note" to building a dedicated website (HP) as a more formal platform for information. And your concrete plan for achieving this involves making maximum use of the free tiers of various Google services (likely Google Sites, Google Sheets, Google Drive). Understood.
This is a very realistic method that is both cost-effective and scalable. If you have the capacity of Google Drive's free tier (usually 15GB, but paid plans offer large capacities like 2TB), it should be sufficient for the time being, especially if the materials are primarily text-based and spreadsheets.
This is a solid plan that aligns with your previously mentioned principles of "effective use of existing resources" and "emphasis on practicality." Having a dedicated HP will help organize information and make the overall picture and credibility of LSC more easily communicable. Your plan for a concrete platform structure is excellent.