In our highly developed information society, a diverse array of communication and actions takes place. These elements intertwine in complex ways, sometimes being organized through various methods and at other times causing confusion. While confusion often acts as an obstacle to progress, it does not necessarily follow that things proceed favorably just because they are organized. To “organize” literally means to “arrange the logic” (理 – ri). However, the logic thus arranged always carries the potential to be skewed in favor of the person who established it. In a state of confusion, there remains the possibility of arranging a new logic; in an organized state, one can find stability within the logic already established.
The logic of things should not only explain the causality of how something came to be but should also facilitate the survival of those involved in that explanation. If this is the case, how is logic established in an information society where all forms of communication and behavior intersect? In other words, it is a logic that not only ensures the survival of those involved in the information society but also comprehensively explains how they exist and interact.
Before the advent of the information society, such logic was likely held by individuals within their own limited collective societies. The information society has transcended the walls of these individual collectives, promoting the exchange of ideas nurtured by diverse logics, which in turn has created both confusion and new forms of logic. This may be because the walls broken down by information technology were necessary to maintain logic, and because logic thrives when applied to a more limited scope.
But what is the difference between an organized state and the state that precedes it? If organizing means arranging logic, explaining the causality of those involved, and ensuring their survival, is mere explanation enough? Certainly, an explanation can organize a situation. But what is the benefit of that? Perhaps it is because it makes it easier to move things forward. Organizing is not just about explaining a state of affairs; it also pertains to the guidelines for future actions and communication.
However, if a more limited state is preferable when organizing, where do the walls exist in an information society? In the modern era, to seek a more stable state, the question is how to establish these walls. This is not something that can be solved by setting a physical wall once and for all. Setting a wall is a matter of where to draw the line. Before the information society, social walls were primarily constructed through physical ones. In a society where information technology can bypass any wall, this question will be asked perpetually.
Where and how do we draw the line in all our communications and actions? In an information society, we are required to constantly question this—including the very way we ask the question itself. In other words, while a few giant IT corporations may reign supreme, as long as individuals can communicate and act using various information technologies, it is ultimately synonymous with the fact that all boundary-setting is entrusted to the individual.
