eSOM
The Road to D, or the Story of Singularity High School (SHS) and Cowa
2025.07.24
eSOM (37) Rhizome (Complex Systems), Desire (flow), and the Greatness of Hiroki Azuma (3)
１
In “eSOM” (36), we saw that Plurality is a technē ≈ algorithm for D=DD=SS=EMECS, similar to Hajime Tanabe’s “Logic of the Species.”
This third installment of “Rhizome (Complex Systems), Desire (flow), and the Greatness of Hiroki Azuma” will finally discuss the “subtle differences” between the “Logic of the Species” and Plurality.
That is, the “subtle differences” between GEACS (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere = Fascism) and EMECS (D=DD=SS), and furthermore, between Dialectics and Rhizome.
In discussing this, the “greatness of Hiroki Azuma” will undoubtedly come to light.
Last time, we saw that both Tanabe and Audrey are the same in that they utilize the species or rhizome through technē ≈ algorithm (“Logic of the Species” or Plurality) towards achieving a goal (absolute good=DD=D=SS=EMECS).
They were also the same in that they placed themselves in the position of absolute nothingness = eSOM (e.g., Audrey’s mountain hut), received the ultimate goal = absolute good = light (genus or D=DD=SS) and the technē necessary for its generation from that position, and made a “leap of faith” (Karatani) towards the ultimate goal.
If GEACS and EMECS are so similar, where do they diverge?
To put Azuma’s argument in extremely simple terms, a regional economic and cultural sphere becomes either GEACS or EMECS depending on whether the content of the absolute good (DD=D=SS=EMECS) is given as a “single voice” by a single special being (the singular, the king, God).
What’s important here is that people aren’t reluctantly obeying that “voice,” but rather desiring to obey that “single voice” themselves.
In other words, obeying the “single voice” is the object of their desire (flow).
Many people willingly killed enemies (those designated by the “single voice” as obstructing its construction) to build GEACS, and indeed, many died for its construction themselves.
Of course, many people also raised objections.
However, in the democracy of the time, it was assumed that more people desired to obey the “single voice,” and domestic and international slaughter was justified “democratically.”
(Therefore, not just any democracy is good; the question is what system (technē) is used to implement democracy.)
2
So why was the “Emperor’s voice” the object of flow (desire) for so many people?
Needless to say, this was due to the technē that utilized flow (desire) to construct GEACS.
The main thrust of my final thesis, “A Secret History,” and other academic papers (all in English) was that the most prominent of these was the “National History (=Fascist Ideology)” as “Japanese Ideology (=Fascist Ideology),” spread through education, media (radio, newspapers), and entertainment (popular novels, films).
And the medium that was most effective in delivering the National History (=Fascist Ideology) to the people was Eiji Yoshikawa’s Miyamoto Musashi, which is considered the original work for Vagabond, the bible of Singularity High School (SHS).
Here, those who know the content of Miyamoto Musashi will probably be puzzled.
“Did the Emperor or Japan appear in that novel?” they might ask.
The most important thing in National History = Fascist Ideology as a technē for constructing the state (B) by utilizing people’s desire (flow) is to have “negative theology” as the plot of the story, which I touched upon briefly in the last seminar.
Negative theology as a plot of a story ( = a history of nation= voice) tells those who are (subjectively or objectively) oppressed within the existing society (= species) the following “myth”: “Once upon a time, this country was a paradise (= genus) where no such problems existed as there are today. I will bring it forth and lead you, the oppressed people, there.”
It was Eiji Yoshikawa’s Miyamoto Musashi that delivered this plot of National History in the most appealing way to the most oppressed people in Japanese society at the time, the rural youth, and contributed to their spontaneous departure to the battlefield and their participation in slaughter.
Given this, the question of how Miyamoto Musashi functioned as a technē for GEACS and for prosecuting the war is certainly something I’d like to make an assignment for a Japanese language class someday.
What’s important here is that entertainment works, which were not created by the state in the first place and seemingly unrelated to politics, functioned as the “Emperor’s voice” and produced people’s flow (desire).
Currently, with Japanese entertainment gaining global popularity, political and business circles (B, C) are focusing on the entertainment industry (content industry) as one of Japan’s few growth industries.
In other words, just like in the last war, they are trying to capture the content industry (entertainment industry) which is, in essence, a war machine existing outside the state’s entity. (In the last war, in particular, the Japanese Fascist state focused on developing the film industry in Manchuria, which was then beginning to penetrate the masses.)
It goes without saying that the NHK Historic Saga currently airing, “べらぼう (berabo, The Rascal),” is a technē for this purpose.
Q. Coro, please explain the concept of Deleuze & Guattari’s “war machine,” along with the meanings of “capture” and “deterritorialization,” relating it to the “rhizome.”
Q. Coro, according to your explanation above of the relationship between the war machine and the rhizome, the war machine is a form of rhizome, and therefore, the war machine is also a type of desiring-machine, isn’t it?
Q. Coro, is it fair to say that a war machine captured by the state becomes a state apparatus? For example, can the fact that popular literature, exemplified by Miyamoto Musashi (a work of popular fiction often overlooked by those in power), became recognized by the state for its utility in mobilizing farmers as soldiers for war be called the state ideological apparatusization of the war machine?
Q. Coro, please thoroughly discuss the points of contact between Deleuze & Guattari’s “deterritorialization” and Derrida’s “deconstruction,” based on Hiroki Azuma’s “postal deconstruction” and “malfunction (mis-delivered) system.”
From these considerations, I believe that Azuma has made discussing subculture one of the central focuses of his work.
I understand Azuma’s practical activity to be the deterritorialization (≈ postal deconstruction by means of a malfunction system) of desiring-machines/rhizomes (e.g., war machines) that are being captured by the state and are undergoing state ideological apparatusization.
With Azuma’s discourse as a “guiding thread,” SHS and its sister organization, eSOM Co., Ltd. (read as Isome), also aim to develop programs to nurture individuals who contribute to the growth of the content industry that promotes the production of EMECS=D=DD=SS.
3
Exploring the question of the postal deconstruction (≈ deterritorialization) of the “Emperor’s voice (monolithic voice)” using Miyamoto Musashi and Vagabond as examples would be most suitable for us SHS, who regard Vagabond as our bible.
I believe that Takehiko Inoue, who is the same age as me and dropped out of the Philosophy Department at Kumamoto University, is deterritorializing (≈ deconstructing) Miyamoto Musashi, which was the most effective (captured) war machine.
Can it be said that Eiji Yoshikawa’s Miyamoto Musashi, a “war machine” (= state ideological apparatus) captured by the state and transformed into a state ideological apparatus, after more than half a century, reaches Inoue and SHS, and through us, connects with new desire (flow), thereby being reconstructed (generated and transformed) as something new (a bible for EMECS construction), is precisely what constitutes malfunction (postal deconstruction) and also deterritorialization?
Needless to say, this (postral) deconstruction of the novel, Miyamoto Musashi, is linked to the fact that EMECS itself is GEACS itself that has been malfunctioned (mis-delivered) to us, its postal deconstruction.
In that case, Vagabond must be an expression of the deconstruction of the “National History = Fascist Ideology = Japanese Ideology” issued by the Emperor (and his metaphor) as expressed in Yoshikawa’s Miyamoto Musashi, to technē (Plurality) as “diverse voices.”
So, where in Vagabond can we read it as a malfunction (postal deconstruction) of Miyamoto Musashi?
-
The archenemy, Kojiro, a metaphor for the technologically advanced enemy nation, the United States, is depicted as a minority (deaf), and as Musashi (Vagabond)’s only close friend with whom he shares a connection, and as a role model (teacher).
-
The “Heaven” as absolute good is not sought vertically (upward) in a dialectical (hierarchical) manner, but rather in the productive activity itself, where Musashi (Vagabond) as desiring-machines are connected with villagers as desiring-machines, then, they all together as desiring-machines are connected with the earth/planet (desiring-machines), and finally connect with rice (desiring-machines), the sustenance of life. (The optimal expression for understanding that all existences are desiring-machines as the connection and disconnection of various desires (= productive activity) could be the ceaseless flow of green glowing symbols (= all existences such as agents and apartment hallways) reflected in the eyes of the protagonist (Keanu Reeves) in the ending of the first Matrix film, who awakens from Mr. Anderson to Neo.)
Q. Coro, from a Deleuze & Guattari perspective, does it mean that all existences, whether organic or not, are made of desire?
The second malfunction (=postral deconstruction) mentioned above, related to agriculture, is particularly important for us.
First, there is an artwork that best expresses major concepts of Deleuze & Guattari such as desiring-machine, body without organs, and rhizome as well as their connections.
It is Ring of Fire – Yang’s Sun & Weerasethakul’s Moon exhibited at Benesse Art Site Naoshima:
Q. Coro, please provide a detailed explanation of how Deleuze & Guattari’s major concepts of the “Body without Organs,” “desiring-machines,” and the “rhizome” are related, after strictly defining each concept.
While a thorough critique of this art work will be done in due course, here, in relation to measures against the Nankai Trough Earthquake, which should be prioritized in EMECS production (from now on, I will use “production” instead of “construction”), in the next installment of eSOM (38), I would like to deepen our understanding of Deleuze & Guattari’s philosophical theories through earthquakes and create programs for EMECS production based on them.
(To be continued)
