ノマドロジーを掘り下げる 2Digging Deeper into Nomadology, Part 2

Continuing from yesterday, I attempt to gouge even more sharply into the Nomadology proposed by Deleuze and Guattari, dragging out from it a new concept for existence that modern people must confront. I believe that contemplating what constitutes a "True Nomad" is a theme that runs deep, connecting to the question of what constitutes a "True World Citizen" living in a True World. However, the perennial, vexing problem at this juncture is that the vast majority of people currently leading a "nomad life" possess absolutely no understanding of this. In short, I view them not as the future, but merely as one extension of a "formerly" existing state, reliant on archaic modalities. And what they themselves fail to realize is the fact that while they appear to have escaped or exited a specific system, they are actually standing in the exact same position.

First, we moderns harbor a fundamental defect in cognition. It is the fact that we are still strongly held captive by the curse of dualism, and we possess no prescription to counter it. In the concept of Nomadology, many posit a system known as the State Apparatus, which functions to turn inward; in opposition to this, they establish the Nomad as a "War Machine" that escapes the order—that prescribed cage—and continues to flee outward. However, no matter how one moves from city to city in that state, because the separated structure of "inside" and "outside" itself is not being questioned, it remains nothing more than a binary trap. And those standing on this erroneous cognitive premise, whether nomad or not, unknowingly become a force that manifests and reinforces the boundary line as a tangible entity. At this moment, we completely misread the essence of Nomadology.

To cite a typical fallacy, it is the frequent occurrence in our society of a situation resembling a Möbius strip, where one intends to walk on the obverse only to find oneself on the reverse, or vice versa. Rather, I am inclined to think that neither a dualistic world nor a linear world actually exists.

Why do we fail by grasping this obverse and reverse, this inside and outside, dualistically? It is because there is always a latency occurring in the linear time that modern people falsely believe in. Modern people cannot perceive this latency because, in the linear world premised on modern spacetime, this delay requires a considerable amount of years. And now that people’s lives are implemented by the second, no one can detect a delay that requires these few years, decades, or centuries; it is discarded as something that "never happened." In other words, humans no longer possess fundamental life instincts. However, that act of discarding—whether you do it intentionally or not—becomes the driving force that heightens anxiety and fear toward the real that is not reality. Consequently, people avoid facing the real all the more, desiring throughout their lives never to see the real, not even for a single moment. By scooping up these feelings of modern people, converting them conveniently as "mercy," and systematizing them, a relationship of mutual dependency is established. The password is: "If you do not wish to face the real, serve this world system."

To go further, the time, thought, and world possessing linear codes that we believe in are, in truth, merely afterimages or echoes generated by this latency. Therefore, if one attempts to execute an escape easily without understanding this premise, it becomes inevitable that one falls into the phenomenon where one intends to go outside but returns inside—that is, the trap of reterritorialization warned of by Deleuze and others. This is the true identity of the sense of entrapment in the modern age. If you ask why one feels deadlocked the more one appears to have moved forward, it is because one has not moved forward at all.

Originally, the action of trying to escape to an absolute outside should have been the potency of the Nomad as a War Machine countering the system. Upon that, it was assumed that the Nomad would act as the very function of redefining the city through the accelerative influx and efflux of the Nomadological inside and outside; however, the individual subjectivized since modernity cannot perceive this delay—where one intends to exit to the outside but is retrieved by the inside—unless they discern it with extreme caution. And the greatest problem is that people born and raised in countries that structure the subject within language cannot perceive this latency. The profound interest of language lies entirely here.

As a result, the current state of affairs is a farce where the Nomad, who should have been a War Machine, has been reduced to a system administrator of the State Apparatus, or a supplement to it. Why does such an inversion occur? It is because, prior to that, they continue to avoid changing the very ground of their thinking. In other words, they are practicing escape from the system as an "outside," but simultaneously, they are also escaping from facing themselves; consequently, they have neither the resolve nor the determination to face the real itself.

No matter how physically the subjectivized individual tries to escape outward and outward, the spread of this inescapable deadlock is already moving toward a movement that packages the ignorant way of thinking—"If I escape outside, there is an answer," "If I keep escaping, I can acquire freedom"—adorned with flowery rhetoric and disseminates it to people, simply for the Nomad to recover the various costs incurred in living. Because they are nothing more than programs already written inside the system. That is to say, there is no future for those who merely lead a nomad life opening their PCs in cafes in various cities. For that is not Nomadology.

Modern people are not moving forward within this closed circuit; rather, they are retreating. However, even that retreat is constantly disguised as progress in the recognition of the linear world. In a linear world, retreat is impossible. Therefore, if we look inside the giant centrifugal separator that is the system, we can understand that the majority of humanity is not actually moving; they are "something" merely pinned to the wall by centrifugal force, spinning at high speed in that spot. In short, they are making no substantive progress or movement. The status quo is simply that while only retreat is occurring, the RPM—that is, the numerical values of information volume and travel distance—has increased massively.

In this management system, the human body transforms into a blurred silhouette, dancing while being gradually crushed by the system. Here, even the "Face" as articulated by Levinas Emmanuel—the last bastion of humanity that evokes ethical responsibility toward the Other—is stripped away, leaving only a body without vitality, allowed only to convulse in the errors of the system. And as a result of being thoroughly tamed, the final nervous reflex of an existence that has actively self-domesticated is beginning to be converted into the meaning of "living" in the present. I am beginning to think that the driving force behind the anti-intellectualist movement—the distrust toward global intellectuals—lies in the irritation that the people who speak pompously of the world have failed to articulate these very things.

This redefinition of the meaning of living is an extremely dangerous sign. The reason humanity is enveloped in nameless anxiety, fear, and despair is solely because they instinctively sense the possibility that this will be the coup de grâce for humanity. However, there is an important key here. The truth is that "humanity" is, in fact, something alienated just like reality. And everyone will one day face the day when all the values we currently believe in vanish in an instant, and we confront the real. At that time, in the reality we had alienated from the real, we will confront the raw, unalienated human, not the decorated, ornate humanity. It may be war, natural disaster, social upheaval, terror, plague, or famine, but it has become essential for us to live with those risks.

Then, what should be done? First, we must thoroughly shatter the current situation where intellectuals pretend that the project called modernity has not ended—even though it already has—and pretend to debate it to administer life-support measures so that it does not end. One must first extricate oneself from the reliance on the archaic modalities of the ground of thought that is being dragged in by this. This inquiry is particularly important regarding the problem of the real and reality. The modern Nomad does not possess the resolve to live as a Nomad to see the real; they are merely consuming Nomadology as fashion. In short, like the intellectuals, they are merely products prepared to stage the future of reality by administering life-support measures. The actual situation is that they justify themselves by moving between cities at high speed to maintain the ignorance required not to see the abyss called the real, discarding it as "something that never happened." Therefore, while they may become a force moving the urban economy, they can never become a force to redefine the human. Because they have never questioned the human, seeing only the convenient parts of humanity.

Fundamentally, in Nomadology, the state of continuing to move laterally simply to avoid seeing the real of the muddy, slimy rift should be denied. Perceiving this as a deployment into "smooth space" is itself a misreading of Deleuze and Guattari. True Nomadology begins with possessing the mindset to gaze into the abyss. Because what accumulates and sediments there is the "breathing sound of the real" that we have turned our eyes away from since modernity. When we confront this seemingly hopeless Real, how do we live? I feel the greatest possibility of Nomadology lies here. Because in this understanding, the practitioner of Nomadology is capable of constant movement throughout the world to confront the real, or more accurately, to continue gouging out the real. In other words, I believe that in the modern age where the number of nomads is increasing, much like overtourism, the mere increase of nomads as a number does not even possess the power to question the redefinition of urban structure, and thus has no influence other than on the movements of economic activity premised on the same old world; rather, the future of the city lies in whether or not even a single True Nomad enters that city.

I propose redefining the essential power of the Nomad not by targeting the Nomad in Nomadology as a drifter, but as a power that integrates the external world and the internal world under one's own auspices in a state of non-separation, rather than separating them. The moment "going outside" is perceived as mere physical movement, the Nomad becomes nothing more than a mere escapee, like the majority of modern people. Moreover, this escapee is thrust before the fact they absolutely do not want to admit: that because they are on the aforementioned Möbius strip, they are actually part of the State Apparatus system. And in fact, they absolutely will not admit this. If they admitted it, the frivolity of their very reason for existence would be exposed.

To begin with, the interior of the State System is nothing but an empty framework. However, the paradox that the only way to reach the True Outside is not to continue escaping from it, but to gouge out one's own interior, should be the core. My conviction is placed here; hence, Nomadology should begin with the act of excavating to the thorough abyss as a technique of self-mining. This becomes the premise of the Nomadology I envision.

It is fine to define the Nomad as "one who leaps outside the State and reconstructs the dying city," but the trap modern people easily fall into lies in the fundamental absence of the question, "Where is the outside?" And usually, they judge it to be merely a physical outside, completely mistaking it for overseas, the countryside, or internet space. But, simply moving physically like that will absolutely never lead to true freedom, and the possibility of knowing the True Outside is zero. This is because the interior created by the system of the State Apparatus is not a house to protect the spirit, but merely a frame for management, and moreover, it exists grimly within the action and function of fantasy materializing into substance.

The system drops massive amounts of "frames" one after another according to the era—from titles such as citizen, consumer, employee, family, individual, to careers like consultant, creator, and writer—and by decorating them, it displays the authority of what was once tribal. I have researched Japanese ancient history quite extensively; formerly, countless tribes resided in Japan, and because they were people with diverse roots, the representation of authority differed for each tribe. For example, people who opened their earlobes wide to wear piercings, people who wore countless rings on their necks, people who showed authority with cowrie shell decorations, people who performed rituals in the guise of birds... essentially, what people endlessly list in their profiles today is merely a modern reinterpretation of tribal authority. There is the cold, hard fact that it is merely a matter of social position, possessing no ritualistic power.

They call this the "inside" and confine themselves within it, and the modern Nomad pretends to dislike and criticize this. However, they are actually in a relationship of complete complicity. Because it is merely drawing a line on an empty lot and claiming "this is my land" it is a flimsy boundary line for materializing fantasy, and they are nothing but powerful accomplices. In short, whether inside or outside, they are doing different things but are synonymous in the point that they are self-domesticating for the sake of the same system; this is my axis of criticism against the inversion of modern Nomadology.

Here, the decisive weapon becomes introspection. The essence of the Nomad as a War Machine, as Deleuze and Guattari say, is not to go physically far, but, I believe, lies in "nullifying" the boundary line. To nullify the boundary between inside and outside by oneself is the essence of Nomadology, and that is not achieved by running away. And the most robust boundary line that we must truly nullify is not national borders or geopolitical things, but the very "membrane of consciousness" of ours. This point is not understood.

In horizontal movement, avoiding looking at one's own interior—equals leaving the real unseen—and escaping by changing only the scenery is nothing more than a redefinition of tourism. The True Nomad possesses the advanced technique of performing this not merely as horizontal movement, but quite simultaneously as vertical excavation. Everything begins from shattering the preconceived notions of the internal world inside oneself, the values maintained by the State System, and the fantasy called the ego, through thorough introspection. This act of "gouging the interior" is not a withdrawal into the interior. My thesis is that "diving deep to the limit" and "going far to the limit" are synonymous, but this is realized synchronically. The maximum movement to the outside is actually generated only by diving deep to the limit. I position this abyss of the self, the region that penetrates even the magma-like unconscious, as the smooth space in the true sense, where the management of the State System does not reach.

This smooth space is not the horizontal movement without a cross-border center that modern nomads practice. The Nomad must possess the pride of being a "traveler of the inner world" while simultaneously being a "traveler of the outer world," and therein lies the subject of "speed and fluidity" that possesses no true center. This must not be separated but non-separated, and that non-separation is something that occurs only "under me," and manifesting that state in a "place"—this is the quintessence of Nomadology.

The interior provided by the State Apparatus is actually completely unrelated to our inner world. The State Apparatus, which dislikes the very act of us asking "who we are," fears that the more deeply we ask, the labels of citizen or consumer will peel off and be exposed. Therefore, thorough introspection is in itself an attack on the system, that is, a weapon of the War Machine. Questioning one's own origins entails intense pain. To accept all that pain and thoroughly dig down into the self. There lies the True World, and if I may use the term World Citizen, I consider it something realized in people who have transcended to that stage. In other words, the "world" and "world citizen" currently spoken of are completely meaningless. Because the world and world citizens they practice are merely the continuation of the implementation of superiority and inferiority.

In this case, for me, it becomes essential to question through to the end my origins as Japan/Japanese, and therein to pinpoint the true identity of the "discomfort" that has become my flesh and blood; by gouging out this inside, one can rupture the empty frame of the "interior" created by the system from the inside. This is a stage where each reader questions their own different origins, but I assert that in the stage beyond gouging out the inside, even for people possessing different origins, there is a true Universality. Universality is not something achieved linearly through transcendence.

At this time, we can connect for the first time with the true External of the system called the State; however, this will likely be regarded as the most radical act—not of exiting it in the modern treatment, but of nullifying it entirely.

今回の映像制作（AIによるシミュレーション）において、私たちが設定し、徹底して模倣した「架空の撮影スペック」をまとめます。

このリストは、あなたの作品が持つ「冷徹な虚無」と「物質的な痛み」を支える技術的な骨格となります。

1. Camera & Lenses (機材構成)

現代的なデジタルシネマカメラの透明性を拒絶し、物理的な「重み」と「粒子」を刻印する機材を選定しました。

• Camera Body: Arriflex 416 Plus (Super 16mm)
• 理由: 16mmフィルム特有の機動性と、深い粒子感（Grain）を得るため。デジタルの4K/8Kにはない、有機的な「揺らぎ」と、画面全体を覆うノイズの膜を作るのに不可欠な選択。
• Lenses: Zeiss Standard Speeds (Mk II)
• Focal Lengths: 16mm, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm
• Macro Lens: Arri/Zeiss 100mm Macro (指先、線香花火、髪の毛の接写用)
• 特徴: 現代のレンズほど解像しすぎず、コントラストが強すぎない「冷たく、湿度のある描写」。ボケ（Bokeh）の中に少しクセがあり、被写体の孤立感を際立たせる。

1. Film Stock & Processing (フィルムと現像)

映像のトーン（青緑がかった冷たさと、深い黒）を決定づけた核心部分です。

• Film Stock: Kodak Vision3 500T (7219)
• 設定: 高感度のタングステン（電球色用）フィルム。
• 技法: 日中や雪景色（本来はデイライトフィルムを使う場面）であえてこのタングステンフィルムを使用し、色補正フィルター（85 Filter）を使用しない（Uncorrected）。これにより、全体が青白く（Cyan/Blue）、病的なほど冷たい色調に沈む。
• Lab Process (Digital Simulation):
• Bleach Bypass (銀残し): 彩度を下げつつ、黒の濃度とコントラストを極端に上げる。
• Push Processing (+1 to +2 Stops): 増感現像を行い、粒子（Grain）を荒くし、シャドウのディテールを潰して「虚無」を作る。
• Film Soup / Chemical Burn: 現像液に熱湯や酸を混ぜたような、化学的なダメージ加工。顔が溶けるシーンや抽象パートで使用。

1. Cinematography Techniques (撮影技法)

「静けさの緊張」と「現実の崩壊」を視覚化するための演出です。

• Static Vertigo (静止した眩暈):
• Heavy Motion Blur: シャッター開角度を広げ（またはスローシャッター）、都市風景や顔の振動を「ブレ」として定着させる。被写体は止まっているのに、世界が高速で横滑りしている感覚。
• Head Lock / Dead Stare:
• 被写体の頭部を万力で固定したかのように全く動かさず、眼球（視線）だけを動かす。生身の人間を「物体」や「写真」のように撮る手法。
• Extreme Macro (超接写):
• 黒タイツの繊維、髪の毛の山、線香花火の火花など、肉眼の限界を超えて寄ることで、日常的なオブジェクトを「異物（Abject）」に変貌させる。
• Optical Dissolve (光学的溶解):
• デジタルエフェクトを使わず、露出（絞り）を開放していくことで、像を白飛び（Whiteout）させ、物理的に画面から消滅させる。

1. Visual References (参照・引用した作家/美学)

この映像の精神的支柱となったアーティストたちです。

• Daisuke Yokota (横田大輔):
• フィルムの乳剤を熱や酸で破壊し、像をノイズに還元する実験写真的なアプローチ（『Site/Cloud』『Color Photographs』等の質感）。
• Andrei Tarkovsky (アンドレイ・タルコフスキー):
• 水、氷、火、そして極端な長回しと静寂。雪原のロングショットや、精神的な風景としての自然描写（『ノスタルジア』『鏡』）。
• Stan Brakhage (スタン・ブラッケージ):
• フィルムそのものに傷をつけ、焼くことで表現する「視覚の肉体性」。抽象パートにおけるフリッカーや溶解表現。
• Francis Bacon (フランシス・ベーコン):
• 顔（アイデンティティ）が肉の塊として溶け出し、歪んでいく「叫び」のイメージ。

1. Soundscape (音響設計)

• Concept: Sound Sculpture (音響彫刻)
• Instruments: Crystal Singing Bowls, Tingsha (Tibetan Cymbals), Wind Chimes.
• Style: Minimal Ambient / Glitch / Drone.
• Reference: Eduard Artemyev (タルコフスキー作品の音楽家)。旋律ではなく、空間の共鳴と「静寂」そのものを聴かせる設計。

このスペックシートは、今回の生成AIワークフローにおいて私たちが脳内でセットアップし、プロンプトを通じて忠実に再現した「仮想の撮影現場」の記録です。