Conversation with ChatGPT: Words of consolation

I imagine AI chatbot consoles or encourages people. Practical assistance or advice is helpful regardless of whoever tells it. But we know that AI does not have consciousness. Then what's the merit of consolation by AI?

Me: If the consolation is provided by Ai, is it somewhat helpful?

ChatGPT: Consolation provided by AI can be helpful in some cases, but it is important to recognize its limitations. AI can offer words of comfort and empathy based on programmed responses, but it cannot truly understand or feel the emotions of the person it is trying to console.

AI can be programmed to provide a range of responses, from simple expressions of sympathy to more complex interactions that incorporate elements of cognitive behavioral therapy or other therapeutic techniques. In some cases, these responses may be helpful to a person who is seeking comfort or support. For example, AI chatbots have been used to provide emotional support to individuals with mental health challenges, and some people have reported finding these interactions helpful.

However, it is important to recognize that AI is not a substitute for human connection or emotional support. While AI may be able to provide words of consolation, it cannot provide the kind of empathy and understanding that comes from a real human connection. In addition, AI may not be able to respond effectively to all situations, particularly those that are complex or require nuanced emotional understanding.

Overall, while AI can be a useful tool in providing consolation, it should not be viewed as a replacement for human emotional support and connection.

Me: Does it mean that those words are fully effective if the person can forget that the consolation comes from AI?

ChatGPT: The effectiveness of words of consolation provided by AI does not necessarily depend on whether or not the person recognizes that they are coming from an AI system. While some people may feel more comfortable or receptive to emotional support from a human, others may find that they are able to connect with an AI system in a meaningful way.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of words of consolation provided by AI will depend on a variety of factors, including the person's individual needs and preferences, the quality of the AI system's responses, and the context in which the interaction takes place. In some cases, the person may be more likely to find the words of consolation effective if they believe that they are coming from a human, while in other cases they may be equally effective whether or not the person recognizes that they are coming from an AI system.

It is also worth noting that the effectiveness of words of consolation may not necessarily be related to whether or not the person forgets that they are coming from an AI system. While forgetting that the consolation is coming from an AI system may make it easier for the person to connect with the words of consolation, the ultimate measure of effectiveness is whether or not the words provide the person with the emotional support and comfort they need.

Maybe. People may feel better when AI chatbot consoles them even if they know it is the word of AI. Perhaps they feel comfortable reflexively with the words, or they may recognize that at lease some people potentially respond to their situation.

But lack of empathy is not solely a problem of AI. Humans can also be heartless while saying the words that looks the same.

Me: Then what kind of situations are conceivable in which consolation from real human beings sounds like fake? For example, if the person providing consolation is too professional and can utter words just like machines and the recipient knows it, s/he may feel somewhat heartless.

ChatGPT: Consolation from real human beings may sound fake or insincere in situations where the person providing consolation is perceived as being too professional or detached. This can happen when the person providing consolation uses canned or rehearsed responses, or when they come across as distant or impersonal.

In some cases, people may feel that a professional who is trained to provide emotional support, such as a therapist or counselor, is not able to provide authentic consolation because their responses feel too scripted or clinical. This can happen if the person providing support is not able to connect with the person they are trying to console on a personal or emotional level.

Similarly, if the person providing consolation comes across as insincere or disingenuous, the recipient may feel that their words are not genuine or heartfelt. This can happen if the person providing consolation is not able to express empathy or understanding in a way that feels authentic.

In general, the effectiveness of consolation from real human beings depends on the ability of the person providing consolation to connect with the person they are trying to console on an emotional level, and to provide responses that feel authentic, genuine, and heartfelt. When the person providing consolation is perceived as being too professional, scripted, or impersonal, it can be difficult for the recipient to connect with them and feel truly comforted.

Me: Does it mean that at least in some cases, having limitation in ability and/or resources and trying to do best under the constraint makes the words more authentic?

ChatGPT: Yes, in some cases, having limitations in ability or resources and trying to do one's best under the constraints can make the words of consolation more authentic. When someone is genuinely trying to provide comfort and support, even if they don't have all the answers or the perfect words, it can come across as more sincere and heartfelt than if they were just reciting a script.

When someone is faced with a difficult situation and doesn't have all the answers or resources at their disposal, it can be challenging to provide meaningful words of consolation. However, if they are able to acknowledge the limitations of the situation and express empathy and understanding in a genuine way, their words may be more effective in providing comfort and support.

In addition, when someone is faced with constraints or limitations, they may need to be more creative or resourceful in their approach to providing consolation. This can lead to more personalized or thoughtful responses that are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the person they are trying to console.

Overall, while having limitations in ability or resources can be challenging when providing words of consolation, it is possible to use these limitations to create more authentic and effective responses. By acknowledging the limitations of the situation and approaching it with empathy and creativity, it is possible to provide meaningful comfort and support, even in difficult circumstances.

I get a reply from ChatGPT that weakness can be a source of power, a uniquely human phenomena. It is of course because ChatGPT is trained by information on the Internet. There must be those who made similar arguments.

Me: Are there books or theories which make similar arguments?

ChatGPT: Yes, there are several books and theories that make similar arguments about the effectiveness of words of consolation and the importance of authenticity and empathy.

One example is the work of Brené Brown, a research professor at the University of Houston who has written extensively about vulnerability, shame, and empathy. In her book "The Gifts of Imperfection," she argues that vulnerability and authenticity are essential for creating meaningful connections with others, and that people are more likely to find comfort and support in those who are able to express empathy and understanding in a genuine way.

Another example is the concept of "unconditional positive regard" in humanistic psychology, which emphasizes the importance of empathy and acceptance in providing emotional support. According to this approach, people are more likely to find comfort and support from those who are able to provide non-judgmental acceptance and understanding, rather than those who try to offer solutions or advice.

Other books and theories that touch on these topics include "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl, "When Things Fall Apart" by Pema Chödrön, and "The Empathy Exams" by Leslie Jamison, among others.

I didn't know the authors other than Viktor Frankl (with Man's Search For Meaning). There are many things to learn.

Conversation with ChatGPT: Vulnerability in sexuality

Sometimes ChatGPT does not give us reply that we did not expect. It is good if it makes us understand the aspect we were not conscious about. But in other cases, ChatGPT simply does not understand the context of our comments. It is wonderful if ChatGPT asks us additional questions to clarify my intention but for the timing, it is the user's responsibility to explain the context.

Me: Is sexual relationship and other intimate relationship exciting partly because we become naked, literally or figuratively, to the partner and expose ourselves to potential of violence?

ChatGPT: No, sexual and intimate relationships are not exciting because we expose ourselves to the potential for violence. In healthy relationships, both partners should feel safe and respected, and any sexual activity should be consensual. Feeling vulnerable or exposed in a relationship is not the same as feeling threatened or at risk of violence.

The excitement in sexual and intimate relationships comes from the intimacy and connection that is shared between partners. This can include physical pleasure and emotional intimacy, as well as the excitement of exploring new experiences and deepening the bond between partners. Trust, respect, and communication are key components of healthy sexual and intimate relationships.

It is important to note that any behavior that involves violence, coercion, or lack of consent is not part of a healthy sexual or intimate relationship. If someone feels threatened or unsafe in a relationship, they should seek help and support from a trusted friend, family member, or professional.

I got clear "No" from ChatGPT for the first time. ChatGPT is probably trained to be on safer side to avoid problems such as discrimination and glorification of violence. But ChatGPT understood my intention in another context while I was asking it about limitation of AI in emulating human intelligence, especially about sexual behavior.

Me: (after discussing embodied cognition as limitation of AI raised by Hubert Dreyfus) How does this lack of body lead to deficient response of AI on, for example, sexuality, even if the communication itself is done verbally, without emulation of physical relationship?

ChatGPT: The lack of a physical body can lead to a deficient response of AI in the context of sexuality for several reasons.

First, sexuality is not just a matter of verbal communication but also involves non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and physical touch. These non-verbal cues are an essential part of sexual interaction and can communicate information about attraction, desire, consent, and pleasure. AI systems that lack a physical body may struggle to understand and respond to these non-verbal cues, which can limit their ability to engage in sexual communication and interaction in a natural and meaningful way.

Second, sexuality is often experienced as a bodily sensation and involves physical sensations such as touch, warmth, and arousal. AI systems that lack a physical body may not be able to experience or respond to these bodily sensations in the same way that humans do, which can limit their ability to fully understand and engage with sexual experiences.

Finally, sexuality is often closely linked to emotions such as intimacy, connection, and vulnerability, which are shaped by social and cultural factors as well as physical experiences. AI systems that lack a physical body may struggle to understand and respond to these emotional aspects of sexuality, which can limit their ability to engage in sexual communication and interaction in a way that is sensitive to human emotions and experiences.

Overall, the lack of a physical body can lead to a deficient response of AI in the context of sexuality by limiting their ability to understand and respond to non-verbal cues, physical sensations, and emotional aspects of sexuality.

Me: How is vulnerability important in sexuality?

ChatGPT: Vulnerability is an important aspect of sexuality because sexual intimacy often involves opening oneself up to another person in a way that can be emotionally and physically exposing. When we engage in sexual activity with another person, we allow ourselves to be vulnerable in ways that can be both thrilling and frightening.

At its core, vulnerability is about being open and honest with another person about our needs, desires, and limitations. In the context of sexuality, vulnerability can involve expressing our sexual preferences, communicating about our boundaries and limits, and being willing to be physically and emotionally exposed with another person.

When both partners in a sexual encounter are willing to be vulnerable with each other, it can lead to a deeper sense of intimacy and connection. By being open and honest with each other about their desires and needs, partners can build trust and strengthen their emotional bond. On the other hand, if one partner is not willing to be vulnerable or respect the other's vulnerability, it can lead to feelings of disconnection and mistrust.

Overall, vulnerability is an important aspect of sexuality because it allows partners to connect with each other on a deeper level and build a more meaningful and fulfilling sexual relationship.

I thought it is at least one of the critical aspect of sexual relationship so I commented it would be impossible to make robots substitute real humans. But ChatGPT's reply on robots was not what I expected, although not surprisingly creative.

Me: Then it seems to be impossible in principle to invent AI powered by robotics, however technology is advanced, unless the view on pleasure of sexuality changes, because AI can never be vulnerable (I am not talking about system security) and it is also unlikely that humans see AI as vulnerable.

ChatGPT: It is true that the lack of vulnerability in AI could present a challenge in creating an AI-powered by robotics that can fully replicate human sexuality. However, it's important to note that there are many different aspects to sexuality, and not all of them necessarily require vulnerability.

For example, AI systems could potentially be designed to simulate sexual pleasure and respond to verbal or visual cues in a way that is satisfying to humans. They could also be used to provide sexual education or therapy, or to help individuals explore their sexuality in a safe and controlled environment.

However, it's unlikely that AI systems will be able to fully replicate the emotional and physical intimacy that is often a key part of human sexual relationships. As you point out, vulnerability is an important aspect of sexual intimacy that is difficult to replicate in AI systems, and it's unlikely that humans would view AI as vulnerable in the same way that they view other humans.

Overall, while AI-powered robotics may have some limitations when it comes to replicating certain aspects of human sexuality, they could still have valuable applications in areas such as sexual education, therapy, and exploration.

Conversation with ChatGPT: Structure of Love

I started to use ChatGPT recently, riding on the recent trend. My usage is mostly to clarify my thinking. I can find few people in my surrounding with whom I can discuss some topic I am interested in and ChatGPT is a good substitute although it depends on situation.

While I chatted with ChatGPT many times and sometimes the conversation became boring, I could get intriguing replies in other cases.

When I was considering both fascinating and dangerous aspect of love, I started the conversation on religion in general.

Me: In many religions, the opportunity to serve the God or other supreme entity itself is a blessing or privilege. I assume that this is a self-reinforcing process: the entity is great because it gives us the privileged to serve it, and the service is worth doing it even with risking our own life because the entity is great. Once the process begins, mundane or even ugly things can be glorified. Where can we find similar structure outside religion?

ChatGPT: The structure you are describing is known as a "self-referential system" or "self-fulfilling prophecy," where the belief in something causes it to become true or reinforce itself. While this is a common feature of many religions, it can also be found in other areas of life.

For example, in some political systems, the idea of serving the state or the government is seen as a privilege or a duty that is worth sacrificing for. The state or government is seen as the ultimate authority and its agents as the protectors of the people, so serving them is seen as an honor. This can lead to the glorification of the state and its agents, even if their actions are not always justified.

Similarly, in some cultures, serving one's family or community can be seen as a privilege or a duty that is worth sacrificing for. The family or community is seen as the ultimate source of identity and support, so serving them is seen as an honor. This can lead to the glorification of family or community values, even if they are not always inclusive or respectful of individual rights.

In all of these cases, the self-referential system is based on a set of beliefs and values that are deeply ingrained in the culture or the society. These beliefs and values shape the way people think and act, and they can be difficult to change or challenge. However, it is important to recognize that self-referential systems can also lead to harmful or unjust practices, and that they should be critically examined and questioned.

ChatGPT's reference to state and family was mostly what I expected. While it is hard for me to imagine a community other than nation, tribe and religious one for which people wholeheartedly dedicate themselves, it is also conceivable. And I went on to the topic of love.

Me: I think love also has similar aspect. Since I love a person, I can make sacrifice for him/her and it is a great pleasure to do so. And as s/he gives me that pleasure, s/he is a wonderful being and deserves love and dedication. Are there anybody who made similar argument, either poetically or theoretically?

ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct that love can also have a self-referential aspect, where the act of loving someone becomes its own reward and reinforces the belief in the worthiness of the beloved.

Many poets and writers have explored this idea in their works. For example, the poet Rumi wrote extensively about the transformative power of love, where the act of loving brings us closer to the divine:

"Love is the bridge between you and everything."

"Love is an endless sea, and the lover a diving bird."

Similarly, the philosopher Plato wrote about the concept of "eros," which he saw as a divine force that draws us towards beauty and goodness. In Plato's Symposium, Socrates argues that the highest form of love is not the love of a particular person, but the love of the ideal of beauty itself.

In more recent times, the philosopher and theologian Martin Buber wrote about the concept of "I-Thou" relationships, where we relate to others not as objects to be used, but as unique individuals to be encountered and respected. In such relationships, Buber argues, we can experience a transcendent sense of unity and connectedness.

Overall, the idea that love can be a self-referential system is a common theme in literature and philosophy. However, it is important to recognize that love can also be a source of pain and suffering, and that healthy relationships require mutual respect, communication, and boundaries.

While ChatGPT's reply itself seems to address my interest, I am particularly interested in self-reinforcing process, which is a sub-category of self-referential system. As there are many articles on self-reinforcing process, I think there can be more relevant replay.

ChatGPT usually does not indicate the source of information, but it tells us if we ask so we can confirm them if necessary. At a first glance, the reference itself seems to be valid, although I am not sure whether these authors actually mentioned self-reinforcing aspects of love. Rumi maybe, but Plato and Buber are probably different.

And being self-reinforcing or self-referential system means that there is also possibility of the downward spiral. Or if we regard the ecstasy emerged as a self-reinforcing process as madness, something irrational, its collapse means recovering sanity.

Me: The other side of the self-referential system is that once I lose the ecstasy for whatever reason, the process turns to the opposite direction. Is there any way to keep both love and sanity?

ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct that the self-referential system of love can have its downsides, such as when the initial ecstasy fades or when our expectations are not met.

One way to cultivate a healthy relationship is to balance the intensity of our feelings with a grounded sense of reality. This can involve being aware of our own needs and boundaries, as well as those of our partner, and communicating openly and honestly about them. It can also involve being mindful of our own projections and assumptions, and taking the time to get to know our partner as a unique individual rather than as an idealized object.

Another important aspect of maintaining a healthy relationship is to cultivate a sense of mutual respect and empathy. This involves recognizing and honoring our partner's autonomy and individuality, and being willing to listen and empathize with their perspective even when it differs from our own. It can also involve practicing forgiveness and compassion, recognizing that we are all imperfect and that mistakes and misunderstandings are a natural part of any relationship.

Ultimately, maintaining a healthy relationship requires ongoing effort and a willingness to adapt and grow as individuals and as a couple. By balancing our feelings with a grounded sense of reality, cultivating mutual respect and empathy, and practicing forgiveness and compassion, we can create a relationship that is both loving and sane.

I am personally very cautious about this kind of ecstatic joy but I can understand its attractiveness. I am not satisfied with ChatGPT's reply is too exemplary or straight out. I tried to provoke ChatGPT but it was not successful - it mostly repeated the previous reply. I will have to ask it differently to get more nuanced answer.

Me: Your reply on keeping love and sanity is sensible but not satisfactory. Trying to do something that seems impossible is what makes human, although its result is often destructive.

ChatGPT: I understand your point, and I agree that the tension between love and sanity can be a difficult one to navigate. While it may be impossible to completely eliminate the risk of pain and disappointment in any relationship, there are strategies that can help to minimize these risks and promote a healthy and fulfilling connection.

One approach is to focus on building a relationship based on mutual respect, communication, and trust. This can involve being honest and transparent with your partner about your needs, boundaries, and expectations, and being willing to listen and empathize with their perspective as well. It can also involve practicing forgiveness and compassion, and working to overcome any challenges or conflicts together as a team.

Another approach is to prioritize your own personal growth and well-being, and to cultivate a sense of inner peace and contentment regardless of external circumstances. This can involve practicing mindfulness, self-care, and self-reflection, and finding fulfillment in hobbies, interests, and relationships outside of your romantic partnership.

Ultimately, the key to maintaining love and sanity in a relationship is to approach it with a sense of balance and perspective, recognizing that both love and sanity are important components of a healthy and fulfilling connection. By staying grounded in reality, communicating openly and honestly, and focusing on mutual respect and personal growth, you can build a relationship that is both loving and sustainable over the long-term.

Movie: The Third Wife / 映画『第三夫人と髪飾り』

It is a story of a polygamous household in a remote village in 19 century Vietnam.
The girl May comes to the village to be the third wife of wealthy landowner. The society is male-dominant. Wives can get favor by pleasing their husband and their most important role is to give birth to a boy. Thus women are treated just as means.
The wives, despite occasional rivalry, help each other to survive in this harsh environment.

There is also some kind of resistance, although subtle. May tries to have homosexual relationship with the second wife Xuan who is affectionate to her.
Xuan also have affairs with the son of the landowner and the first wife. The environment, although beautiful, is choking to (at least some) men as well. But later she refuses to have affairs. In the last scene of the movie May holds venomous grass while breast-feeding her daughter, without indicating how to use the grass.

While contemporary people, if basic human rights are guaranteed, do not have to submit their own body against their will, most of us have to present work force to live. Just like being a wife in patriarchal society, we are doing some kind of role-playing games to please boss, customer, shareholder, and so forth.
To exert agency, we have to either find positive meaning inside (or beyond) the game itself, find what we can devote outside the game, or resist against "the system".
Thus the world in the movie does not look completely alien.

19世紀ベトナムの奥地の一夫多妻の家族を舞台にした物語である。少女メイは裕福な地主の大産婦人となるために村に来る。この社会は男性優位で、妻は夫を喜ばせることで好意を得ることができ、最も重要な役割は男の子を生むことである。女性は手段として扱われている。娘は男になって何人も奥さんをもらうんだと無邪気に言ったりする。

妻たちは、時折競争することはあるものの、女性に厳しい環境下で助け合って生活している。男性の支配と慣習に縛られた生活の中で、微妙な形ではあるが抵抗もある。メイは自分をかわいがる第二夫人のスアンと性関係を持とうとする。スアンは地主と第一夫人の間に生まれた息子ソンとの間で情事がある。この世界は（少なくとも一部の）男性にとっても息苦しいものである。だがスアンはその後ソンとの関係を持たなくなる。娘を産んだメイが授乳しながら毒草を手にしている場面で終わる。

現代人は基本的人権が保証されていれば、自らの体を意思に反して差し出す必要はないが、ほとんどの人は生きるために働く必要がある。家父長制のもとでの妻のように、上司、顧客、株主…を喜ばせるためにゲームのように役割を演じている。主体性を示すためにはゲーム自体に（あるいはその先に）積極的な意味を見出すか、ゲームの外に打ち込めるものを見つけるか、あるいは「システム」に抵抗するかするしかない。その意味で、映画の世界が全くの別世界には見えない。

映画『聖なる泉の少女』

どう表現しても足りないような美しい世界である。深い雪の中にある器の中を泳ぐ魚、病をいやす力を持つとされる泉、絶景の湖…。泉の水による治療を代々行ってきた家で、父アリは娘ナーメを後継者にしようとしている。

とはいえ、映画の舞台も紛れもなく同時代である。泉を中心とした太古の時代からの信仰が続いている村にも近代化の影響は及んでくる。時折挟まれる水力発電所の建設工事の映像と、泉を守る家の少女の心の揺れ…

しかし、村の生活と相容れないのは近代化だけではない。少女の3人の兄はそれぞれ無神論者、イスラム教の聖職者、正教の神父になり、父親のあとを継ぐことを拒否している。ここではキリスト教やイスラム教も科学と同じ文明の側に位置づけられるようだ。

映画の中でもそうだが、彼らを非難する理由は全くない。異なる信条を持ってしまったのだから親と同じことをするよう強要することはできないし、仮にできたとして魂が抜けたものとなるしかない。とはいえ、自ら古くからの生活を捨てるという選択をした結果、別の仕方で「根を持つ」ことに苦労している様子もうかがえる。

少女も疑問を持たずに後継者となることを受け入れているわけではない。村を訪れた青年への恋心を持ち、「他の人とは違う」ことに悩み、父親と一緒でないときはスカーフを外したり、化粧に興味を持ったりもする。泉の力についても自然に治ったものを水のおかげだとしているだけではないかという疑問を払拭しているわけではない。

この映画は舞台となっているジョージア南西部のアチャラ地方に古くから伝わる民話をもとにしているらしい。泉の水で人々を癒やしていた娘が他の人と同じように暮らしたいと思い、自らの力を厭うようになり、力の源である魚を放ったという話である。

映画でも少女も最後に泉のシンボルである魚を湖に放つが、民話と、また兄たちとも異なり、主体的に（自らの考えに従って）決めたというより、水力発電所の工事の影響で泉の水が枯れてしまったことで、他に選択肢がなかった結果でもある。

これにより、魚は強制的に担わされていた役割から、また少女は古い因習にとらわれた世界から解放される。

とはいえ、ハッピーエンドには全く見えない。魚を放つ際に少女は恐れることはないと言うが、（人間の手が入っていない自然も厳しい世界ではあるのだが）少女も魚も変化の激しい世界に投げ出される。最後に再度映し出される工事の映像も示唆しているし、実際に魚が放たれる湖も以前より水量が減っているようである。映画が終わった後、美しい世界が変化していく先に不安を感じずにはいられない。

消え行く世界への郷愁は感じられるが、心性が変わってしまった後に古い世界に固執するのは無理な話であり、不可避な変化として淡々と描かれており、そのことで逆に伝わることがある。

公式サイトはこちら

Two functions of conversation

Sometimes I feel it difficult to here what others say.
I feel it often when I have conversation in English, as I find more difficulty in supplementing words from its context, I also recognize it even when I hear my native Japanese.
The main reason I think is I have been accustomed to loud sound because one of my family with whom I live is slightly hard of hearing and so he often listens to TV with turning the volume up.

However, I don't always ask others what they say and sometimes I am not sure whether I should ask or not.
The reason is that the counterpart of the conversation does not always want me to understand what s/he says and respond to it accordingly. Sometimes conversation is for building and defining relationship. Non-verbal message is much more important and it is out of place to track the exact meaning of what s/he says.
And often these two are mixed. The content matters so I have to ask what. But it often becomes awkward. I have to ask patience. And I also have to be patient when I talk with a person who have similar or even more serious problems.

Consecration in business practice

There is a security related process in the company I work now. It scrutinizes whether a machine including mobile devices follows the rules and a label is given to the machine which are compliant. I will explain common characters between this process and rituals of consecration in various religions.

the checking in our company does not presuppose that our working environment is secure only if it is properly done. Nor is it impossible to keep security, whatever it means, without the checking. Nevertheless, basically, it is not allowed for anyone to use computers without the checking. Machines are declared secure, regardless of its substance. Thus it has ritual aspect.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim argued in Elementary forms of religious life that the “division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought”. This distinction is absolute. However, if we ordinary humans are profane and the two never overlaps, it is entirely impossible for us to have relation with the sacred. Of course it is not the case for any religion. However, it requires “veritable metamorphosis” for the originally profane objects or people to be regarded as sacred. The rituals of consecration serve this purpose.

the checking plays a similar role in our business. Individual employees have the right to use their own computers for their personal, or profane, use regardless of what kind of measures are taken to protect their machines from attacks. However, no machines that has not gone through the ritual of consecration – the checking – is not qualified to be used for our sacred business. Moreover, those machines separated for business purpose should not be used, at least in principle, for private purposes.

It is also very weird that the effect of the checking expires in particular period. Why not more or less? No reasonable explanation in terms of keeping machines secure. Rather, regularly held checking reminds employees of importance of security just as for people in ancient Israel, for example, periodically offered sacrifice reminded them of their sin.

However, consecration is not an easy task because it must undergo metamorphosis. If it is easy, nobody would be convinced of the effect of consecration. So its implementation must be restricted by one way or another: it must be done with mediation of special people, such as priests, who are qualified thanks to their knowledge and personality; the object of consecration has to pass the test of completeness, as in the case of initiation rituals, and so on. In many cases it depends on the conditions which human beings cannot even control.

Although I wrote actual practices of the checking in our company to my colleagues, I will not do here because it may violate confidentiality. I just suggest possible directions of the measures to keep security – to define qualification to check and go through the scrutiny of those qualified, or to automate the process as far as possible.

So far I have treated religion as something where rituals play a central role. It is not always true. Some religions, including prophets of ancient Israel and Christianity, emphasized sacredness of the inside. We can urge each other, using in-house SNS and so on, to take appropriate measures to guarantee security. One merit of this model is that no uniform rule without consideration to specifics is imposed. However, it is very difficult to guarantee and show nobody fails to take appropriate measures, especially to outsiders. As contemporary audit system demands accountability, appearance of compliance is often as important as compliance itself. Combination of relatively loose uniform checking (mainly for accountability) and informal encouragement to achieve substantial security may be a realistic approach.

私が現在勤務している会社では、モバイル端末を含むコンピュータが社内ルールに従っているかをチェックし、順守しているマシンにたいしてはラベルを貼るというプロセスがある。以下ではこのプロセスと様々な宗教に見られる聖別の儀式との共通点について述べる。

自社でのチェックはそれが行われさえすればセキュアであるという前提には立っていないし、チェックが行われなければ（それが何を意味するかはともかく）セキュリティを維持することは不可能とも考えていない。それにもかかわらず、基本的にはチェックが行われていないコンピュータを使用することは許されていない。実態にかかわらず、マシンはセキュアだと宣言される。その意味でチェックは儀式的な側面を持っている。

社会学者のエミール・デュルケームは『宗教生活の原初形態』で「世界を2つの領域-1つは聖なるものすべてを含む、他方は俗なるものをすべて含む-に分けるに分けることが宗教的思考の特徴である」と論じている。この区別は絶対的なものである。しかし、われわれ一般人が俗なる存在で、聖と俗が全く交わらないとすれば、聖なるものと関係を結ぶことは全く不可能になってしまう。もちろんどの宗教でもそのようなことはない。しかし、俗なるものあるいは人が聖なるものとみなされるには、「真の変質」が必要である。聖別の儀式はこの目的のためにある。

チェックは業務の中で同じような役割を担っている。従業員個人は私物であるコンピュータを私的（俗）な目的に使う場合、攻撃から守るためにどのような手段を講じるかはその人次第である。しかし、聖別の儀式=チェックを経ないマシンは我々の神聖な業務のために使うことはできない。さらに、業務目的のために取り分けられたマシンは、少なくとも原理的には、個人的な目的のために使用すべきではない。

さらに、チェックの効果が特定の期間で消滅するのもおかしなことである。なぜそれ以上でもそれ以下でもないのか。マシンをセキュアに保つという意味では納得の行く説明は得られない。むしろ、定期的に行われるチェックは従業員にセキュリティの重要性を思い出させるという意味がある。これは例えば定期的に捧げられる犠牲によって古代イスラエルの民が自らの罪を認識したことと似ている。

しかし、聖別は変質を伴うものであるから、簡単なことではありえない。もし簡単なものであればありがたみがなく、だれも聖別の効果について納得しないだろう。なのでその実行は何らかの形で制限されなければならない。祭司など、その知識や人格のゆえに資格を持つと考えられる特別な人の仲介によらなければならなかったり、通過儀礼のように聖別の対象物が完全性の試験を通ったものでなければならなかったり、といった形で。多くの場合、人間のコントロールがおよばない要素に依存することもある。

社内向けの文章ではこの後社内でのチェックの実態について書いたのだが、機密に触れることになりそうなのでここでは書かない。対策の方向性として、チェックをする資格を定義してその人のチェックを経るようにすることと、逆に可能な限り自動化する方向が考えられると書くにとどめる。

ここまで宗教を儀式を中心としたものとして扱ってきたが、これは常に正しいわけではない。古代イスラエルの預言者やキリスト教などは内面の聖性を強調してきた。同様に、私たちは社内SNSなどを使って、セキュリティを高める施策をとるよう互いを促すことができる。このやり方のメリットは、個別の事情を無視して一律のルールを押し付ける必要がないということである。しかし、だれもが皆適切な対策をとっていることを保証し、示すことは非常に困難であり、特に外部に対しては難しい。現代の監査体制は説明責任を要求しているので、プロセス遵守の外見はしばしば遵守していることと同じくらい重要だったりする。説明責任を果たすための比較的ゆるい一律のチェックと、実質的なセキュリティレベルを達成するための非公式の奨励の組み合わせというのも現実的なアプローチである。