美学者母 (ART Hacker) アートハッカー

Homeostasis, Phase Transition, and the Art of Subjective Transformation in Generative Topological Ontology

Abstract

This paper redefines the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha as an art of designing interfaces as occasions for transformation. Traditional aesthetics has primarily focused on artworks as objects of representation and interpretation. In contrast, bigakusha-haha’s practice places emphasis not on the artwork itself but on the design of interfaces through which individuals encounter topological differences. Drawing upon Generative Topological Ontology, this paper integrates concepts of homeostasis, ecological boundaries, capillary phenomena, the tea ceremony, bonsai, and web installations. It argues that art should be understood not as the production of objects but as the design of occasions through which subjects undergo topological reconfiguration.

1. Introduction

Modern art has largely been structured through the relationship:

Artist

→ Artwork

→ Viewer

Within this framework, the artwork functions as the central object.

However, contemporary conditions shaped by the internet, social media, AI, and algorithmic environments suggest a shift from object-centered experience toward environment-centered transformation.

Since the 2010 Web Art Declaration, bigakusha-haha has proposed the internet itself as an installation environment, anticipating this transformation.

This paper develops this insight into what may be called Interface Occasion Theory.

2. Redefining the Interface

Conventionally, an interface is understood as a medium connecting two entities.

Within Generative Topological Ontology, however, an interface is not merely a mediator.

It is a boundary condition where heterogeneous topologies encounter one another.

The significance of the interface lies not in the boundary itself but in the event that emerges there.

An interface is therefore defined as:

“A condition under which encounters with topological difference become possible.”

Consequently,

Interface ≠ Occasion

Rather,

Interface = The structure through which occasions emerge.

3. Homeostasis and Boundary

Life is not a closed system.

Living systems maintain themselves through continuous exchanges across boundaries.

Self

↔

Environment

This dynamic process is known as homeostasis.

Homeostasis should not be understood as static equilibrium.

It is dynamic stability.

Within Generative Topological Ontology, existence itself is defined as:

“A dynamically stabilized condition maintained at a boundary.”

Existence is generated through boundary relations.

4. Capillary Phenomena and Generation

Einstein’s early studies of capillary phenomena demonstrated that the essential dynamics of matter emerge at interfaces rather than within isolated substances.

Liquid

Solid

Gas

Their interactions occur at surfaces and boundaries.

Similarly, bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice locates creation at interfaces rather than centers.

Human

↔

World

Reality

↔

Web

Self

↔

Other

Human

↔

AI

Topological differences emerge at these boundaries.

The encounter with such differences constitutes the occasion.

5. Place as Occasion

A tea room is not merely architecture.

It is an interface that temporarily suspends social hierarchy.

Likewise, bonsai is not merely a plant.

It is an interface exposing the boundary between nature and artifice.

Sayama Aesthetics School is not merely accommodation.

It is an interface through which visitors encounter topological difference.

The crucial element is not the object itself but the participant’s actual presence within the situation.

Art becomes the design of encounters rather than the transmission of information.

6. Phase Transition and Subjective Reconfiguration

Ordinarily, philosophy assumes a preexisting subject that perceives the world.

Generative Topological Ontology reverses this assumption.

The subject is generated within topology.

Accordingly, a phase transition is not a change initiated by the subject.

It is a reconfiguration of the subject through encounters with the world.

This is the context in which bigakusha-haha’s notion of “seeing the seen” emerges.

Traditional art follows:

Seeing

→ Representation

→ Being Seen

Bigakusha-haha proposes:

Being Seen

→ Transformation

→ Seeing

The subject is generated through occasions.

7. Interface Occasion Theory

The preceding discussion yields the following structure:

Existence

→ Connectivity

→ Interface

→ Occasion

→ Generation

→ Subjective Transformation

Art is therefore not the production of objects.

Art is the design of occasions.

Its purpose is not communication of meaning but the generation of encounters with topological difference.

Conclusion

The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha transcends object-centered aesthetics.

Its essence lies in designing interfaces that expose individuals to topological difference.

The fluctuation of homeostasis at boundaries becomes an occasion through which subjects are reconfigured into new topological states.

Art is thus redefined as:

“The design of occasions that induce topological transformations of existence.”

In this sense, Web Installation, Sayama Aesthetics School, Inverse-Problem Art, Distributed Autonomous Art, and bonsai can all be understood as manifestations of a unified theoretical framework.

Weid-Grounding, the Middle Voice, Chanoyu, and Bonsai

Toward a Generative Interface Practice in the Generative Topological Ontology of bigakusha-haha

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of “Seeing the Seen” proposed by bigakusha-haha and situates it within a broader framework of Generative Topological Ontology. While modern aesthetics and social theory have largely been structured through binary oppositions—subject/object, artist/spectator, producer/consumer, host/guest—bigakusha-haha argues that these positions are not fixed entities but emergent topological formations generated through relational processes.

Drawing upon the Indo-European root weid- (“to see,” “to know,” “to appear”), the Japanese cultural practices of mitate (refiguration), shitate (arrangement), chanoyu (the tea ceremony), and bonsai cultivation, this paper develops a theory of artistic practice centered not on objects but on the emergence of positions themselves.

The concept of “Seeing the Seen” is therefore defined not as a reversal of subject and object, but as a return to the generative field in which both subject and object emerge. Through this framework, contemporary artistic practice becomes the design of interfaces through which participants experience the formation of relational positions in real time.

Keywords: bigakusha-haha, Generative Topological Ontology, Seeing the Seen, Middle Voice, Mitate, Shitate, Chanoyu, Bonsai, Interface Art

⸻

1. Introduction

Modern thought has generally understood the world through stable distinctions.

Artist and spectator.

Producer and consumer.

Seller and buyer.

Teacher and student.

Subject and object.

These distinctions have structured not only aesthetics but also politics, economics, and social life.

However, contemporary networked society increasingly destabilizes these categories. Spectators become producers. Consumers become creators. Audiences become participants. Users become generators.

Rather than understanding this merely as a social transformation, bigakusha-haha interprets it as the manifestation of a deeper ontological condition: positions themselves are not fixed substances but emergent relational formations.

The central concept through which this condition is explored is “Seeing the Seen.”

⸻

2. Seeing and Being Seen

Within modern epistemology, seeing is generally understood as an activity of a subject directed toward an object.

The observer observes.

The observed is observed.

This structure establishes a clear distinction between seer and seen.

Yet in practice such distinctions remain unstable.

The meaning of a work emerges through spectators.

The spectator is transformed through the work.

A seller becomes a seller only through buyers.

A buyer becomes a buyer only through sellers.

Neither position exists independently.

Each emerges through the relation itself.

“Seeing the Seen” does not invert these positions.

It does not simply ask the observer to become the observed.

Rather, it asks how these positions emerge in the first place.

The question is no longer:

“Who sees?”

but:

“How does the distinction between seeing and being seen arise?”

⸻

3. Weid-Grounding

The Proto-Indo-European root weid- carries meanings such as:

to see,

to know,

to appear.

At this primordial level, seeing and being seen have not yet been separated.

Appearance precedes distinction.

The world appears before observer and observed emerge as separate positions.

Modern epistemology assumes that the subject comes first and perceives an object.

Weid-grounding reverses this assumption.

Appearance comes first.

Subject and object emerge afterward.

“Seeing the Seen” therefore constitutes a return to this generative ground of appearance.

It is not a movement between positions but a reconnection with the field from which positions arise.

⸻

4. Mitate and Shitate

Japanese cultural practice offers a distinctive model for understanding this generative process.

Mitate refers to refiguration: seeing one thing as another.

A stone becomes an island.

A miniature landscape becomes a mountain range.

A tea room becomes a universe.

Shitate refers to arrangement: creating the conditions through which such appearances emerge.

Yet mitate and shitate are inseparable.

Refiguration produces arrangement.

Arrangement produces refiguration.

Neither precedes the other absolutely.

Both emerge together.

Rather than subject acting upon object, what appears is a field of mutual generation.

This structure forms one of the fundamental cultural precedents for bigakusha-haha’s concept of “Seeing the Seen.”

⸻

5. Reality as Middle Voice

The instability of active and passive positions becomes even more apparent when examined through the concept of the middle voice.

One walks along a path.

Is one walking?

Or is one being guided by the path?

One drives a car.

Is one driving?

Or is one being driven by urban infrastructures and social systems?

One paints a picture.

Is the artist creating the work?

Or is the work creating the artist?

The middle voice does not choose between active and passive.

Instead, it reveals an event in which both emerge simultaneously.

The event occurs before the distinction between acting and being acted upon.

Reality itself unfolds through this unstable condition.

“Seeing the Seen” is therefore not merely perceptual but middle-voiced.

It reconnects participants to the event through which positions emerge.

⸻

6. Chanoyu: The Interface of Position Formation

The Japanese tea ceremony offers an exemplary historical model.

A tea room is not simply a physical space.

It is an interface.

Within the tea room, social identities—warrior, merchant, monk, aristocrat—are temporarily suspended.

Importantly, chanoyu does not abolish social positions.

Instead, it returns participants to a level prior to their stabilization.

The host becomes host through the guest.

The guest becomes guest through the host.

Neither role exists independently.

Each is generated through the encounter itself.

Chanoyu therefore functions as a middle-voiced interface in which positions emerge relationally.

⸻

7. Bonsai

Bonsai provides one of the clearest contemporary realizations of this ontology.

At first glance, bonsai appears to be an act of human control over nature.

The cultivator shapes the tree.

Yet this interpretation quickly collapses in practice.

The tree grows according to its own rhythms.

The cultivator responds.

The tree alters the cultivator’s decisions.

The cultivator alters the tree.

Each continuously reshapes the other.

Thus the relationship cannot be reduced to creator and created.

The human forms the tree.

The tree simultaneously forms the human.

The cultivator sees the tree.

The tree, through its growth and resistance, causes the cultivator to see differently.

In this sense, bonsai becomes an embodiment of “Seeing the Seen.”

The cultivator is not merely observing nature.

The cultivator is being positioned by nature.

The tree is not merely shaped.

The tree participates in shaping.

Bonsai therefore becomes a practical realization of a middle-voiced relationship between human beings and the natural world.

⸻

8. bigakusha-haha’s Contemporary Practice

The significance of bonsai becomes clearer when viewed alongside the broader practice of bigakusha-haha.

Projects such as:

* Web Installation

* Distributed Autonomous Art (DAA)

* Interface Art

* Sayama Aesthetic School

* Seeing the Seen

all share a common structure.

They do not primarily produce objects.

They design situations.

Within these situations:

artist and spectator,

teacher and student,

host and guest,

producer and consumer

become unstable.

Participants encounter the process through which positions themselves emerge.

The artwork is therefore not an object but an interface of position formation.

In this sense, Sayama Aesthetic School may be understood as a social bonsai.

Just as bonsai cultivates a dynamic relationship between human and tree, the project cultivates dynamic relationships among participants, environments, and institutions.

⸻

Conclusion

The concepts of play (gokko), mitate, shitate, chanoyu, bonsai, and “Seeing the Seen” constitute a continuous lineage within the practice of bigakusha-haha.

Their common concern is not the elimination of distinctions but the exploration of the field from which distinctions emerge.

Subject and object.

Artist and spectator.

Producer and consumer.

Human and nature.

Self and other.

These are not fixed realities.

They are topological positions generated through relational events.

“Seeing the Seen” designates a return to the weid-ground where such positions have not yet solidified.

It is a middle-voiced engagement with the emergence of reality itself.

From this perspective, bonsai is neither horticulture nor merely an artistic medium.

It is a generative interface through which humans and nature co-produce one another.

Generative Topological Ontology Based on Mitate, Shitate, and Make-Believe

Abstract

This paper reconstructs the early concept of make-believe in the thought of bigakusha-haha and develops it into an ontological model of generation.

Rather than treating make-believe as imitation, fiction, or play in the ordinary sense, the paper defines it as an ontological procedure through which unrealized connectabilities become actualized.

At the foundation of this process lies playfulness. Playfulness is not entertainment but a sensitivity toward yet-unrealized possibilities of connection.

This sensitivity manifests as Mitate (analogical phase-selection), Shitate (environmental phase-design), and Make-Believe (participatory realization of potential relations).

The paper proposes the following generative sequence:

Playfulness → Mitate → Shitate → Make-Believe → Recognition → Forgetting → Reality.

From this perspective, reality itself is interpreted as recognized and forgotten make-believe.

This framework integrates bigakusha-haha’s Web Installation, Interface Art, Inverse-Problem Art, Insensitivity to Existence, and ART1.0–5.0 into a unified generative ontology.

1. Introduction

Modern thought has generally assumed distinctions between reality and fiction, seriousness and play, authenticity and make-believe.

This paper questions the origin of these distinctions.

Why is a nation considered real while playing nation is considered play?

Why is money real while a toy store game is not?

Why is an artist real while playing artist is considered imitation?

The paper argues that these distinctions emerge not from objects themselves but from processes of recognition and forgetting.

2. Playfulness

Playfulness is not amusement.

It is a primordial sensitivity to unrealized connectabilities.

A stone may appear as a mountain.

A cardboard box may appear as a spaceship.

A screen may appear as another world.

A URL may appear as an artwork.

Such experiences precede logical judgment.

Playfulness is therefore defined as:

Sensitivity toward unrealized connectability.

3. Mitate

When playfulness acts upon an object, Mitate emerges.

Mitate is the selection of an alternative phase through which an object becomes meaningful.

A stone remains a stone.

Yet it becomes a mountain, an island, or an ocean.

The object does not change.

The phase of connection changes.

Mitate is therefore a technique of phase-selection.

4. Shitate

Shitate constructs the conditions that allow Mitate to occur.

Zen gardens, bonsai, tea rooms, and artistic environments are not object-productions.

They are conditions for phase-generation.

In this sense, Shitate corresponds structurally to Inverse-Problem Art.

5. Make-Believe

When subjects enter a phase opened through Mitate and Shitate, Make-Believe emerges.

Make-believe does not imitate objects.

It generates relations.

Thus make-believe is the experimental actualization of unrealized relational possibilities.

6. Recognition and Reality

When make-believe becomes socially shared, recognition emerges.

Repeated recognition forms institutions.

Repeated institutions generate forgetting.

At this point, make-believe becomes reality.

Reality is therefore recognized and forgotten make-believe.

7. Depth and Shallowness

Depth is not complexity.

Depth is forgotten play.

Shallowness is play that has not yet been forgotten.

The difference between depth and shallowness is not essential but temporal.

8. Insensitivity to Existence

When forgetting becomes complete, the generative origin of reality disappears from awareness.

Bigakusha-haha calls this condition Insensitivity to Existence.

Art functions as a practice that reactivates awareness of forgotten playfulness.

9. Conclusion

The paper proposes a unified generative model:

Playfulness → Mitate → Shitate → Make-Believe → Recognition → Forgetting → Reality.

In this model, playfulness is the origin of ontological generation.

Reality is not opposed to play.

Reality is stabilized play.

Bigakusha-Haha, Generative Topological Ontology, and the Production of Depth and Shallowness

Abstract

This paper reinterprets the early concept of “make-believe” in the thought of bigakusha-haha and positions it as the foundational principle unifying Generative Topological Ontology, Web Installation, Interface Art, Inverse-Problem Art, Insensitivity to Existence, and the ART1.0–5.0 framework.

Rather than understanding make-believe as imitation or fiction, this paper defines it as a topological procedure through which relations that do not yet exist become actualized.

The central argument is that the primary concern of bigakusha-haha is not being itself, but the process through which something becomes recognized as reality while something else is dismissed as make-believe.

From this perspective, the paper proposes the thesis:

Depth is forgotten make-believe.

This proposition allows a reinterpretation of institutions, reality, art, and subjectivity.

⸻

1. The Problem of Reality

The thought of bigakusha-haha is often described through concepts such as generation, topology, interface, and inverse problems.

Yet historically, one of its earliest conceptual forms was make-believe theory.

The question is simple:

Why is a nation considered real while playing nation is not?

Why is money real while a child’s toy shop is not?

Why is art real while playing artist is not?

The distinction appears obvious.

Bigakusha-haha questions precisely this obviousness.

The issue is not what exists.

The issue is what becomes recognized as existing.

⸻

2. Make-Believe as Relation Generation

Make-believe is usually understood as imitation.

However, make-believe does not reproduce objects.

It generates relations.

A school game contains no actual school.

Yet teacher, student, authority, discipline, and learning emerge.

Objects are absent.

Relations are present.

Therefore relation precedes object.

This anticipates the fundamental axiom of Generative Topological Ontology:

Relations precede entities.

Make-believe is thus not imitation.

It is ontological production.

⸻

3. Make-Believe as Topological Transformation

A room becomes a school.

A field becomes a battlefield.

A cardboard box becomes a spaceship.

Nothing physical changes.

What changes is the relational configuration.

Therefore make-believe is a topological transformation.

Existence is not substance.

Existence is connectability.

Make-believe generates new connectabilities.

It creates a phase that did not previously exist.

⸻

4. Depth and Shallowness

Modern culture associates depth with complexity, authority, and specialization.

Bigakusha-haha proposes the opposite hypothesis.

Depth is forgotten make-believe.

Nations were once make-believe.

Money was once make-believe.

Religion was once make-believe.

Art was once make-believe.

Over time these structures spread, stabilized, and became forgotten.

At that moment they became reality.

Depth is therefore not an essence.

Depth is the effect of historical forgetting.

Shallowness is simply make-believe that has not yet been forgotten.

⸻

5. ART1.0–5.0

The ART1.0–5.0 framework describes the life cycle of make-believe.

ART1.0 — Creation

ART2.0 — Verification

ART3.0 — Dissemination

ART4.0 — Forgetting

ART5.0 — Awareness

This is not merely an art-historical model.

It is the process through which make-believe becomes reality.

ART5.0 is the moment when reality itself is recognized as make-believe.

⸻

6. Insensitivity to Existence

Reality is rarely perceived as reality.

One does not perceive the medium within which one already exists.

Fish do not perceive water.

Likewise, human beings do not perceive reality itself.

Bigakusha-haha calls this condition Insensitivity to Existence.

It is the state of living inside forgotten make-believe.

⸻

7. Web Installation and Interface Art

Web Installation transformed the screen from a display device into a topological interface.

The goal was not to represent another world.

The goal was to establish another mode of connection.

The same structure appears in Interface Art.

Art is no longer an object.

Art becomes a condition of connection.

The artwork becomes an interface.

⸻

8. Inverse-Problem Art

Inverse-Problem Art does not produce artworks.

It produces the conditions under which artworks emerge.

A hero game does not create a hero.

It creates the conditions for herohood.

Likewise, Inverse-Problem Art creates conditions for aesthetic emergence.

It is generalized make-believe.

⸻

9. Conclusion

Make-believe theory is not a theory of play.

It is a theory of how reality emerges.

Bigakusha-haha’s fundamental question is not:

“What is being?”

The question is:

“How does something become reality?”

The answer lies in forgetting.

Reality is forgotten make-believe.

Art is the practice that reveals this forgotten structure.

Therefore the ultimate question of Generative Topological Ontology is not:

“What is existence?”

but rather:

Toward an Ontology of Interface Art in Generative Topological Ontology

bigakusha-haha

⸻

Abstract

This paper reconstructs the concepts of “Judgmentless Judgment” and “Problemless Problem” as central notions within the theoretical framework of bigakusha-haha, integrating Web Installation, Interface Art, Understanding and Belonging, Ontological Insensibility, Seeing the Seen, Inverse-Problem Art, and Generative Topological Ontology.

The central claim is that judgments and problems do not exist in advance as cognitive objects. Rather, they emerge through encounters with conditions under which topological difference appears.

Bigakusha-haha does not design topological difference itself. Topological difference refers to a dimension that does not yet exist for a given subject and therefore cannot be described beforehand. What is designed instead are interfaces that arrange the conditions under which such differences may appear.

Through these encounters, Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem—forms of judgment and problem-setting already structured by belonging—are suspended. Authentic judgment and authentic problems emerge between subject and world as middle-voiced events.

Art is therefore not representation but the practical generation of being understood as connectability.

Keywords: Judgmentless Judgment, Problemless Problem, Interface Art, Generative Topological Ontology, Inverse-Problem Art, Belonging, Topological Difference

⸻

Introduction

1. The Crisis of Judgment in Contemporary Society

Contemporary society appears to be an age of judgment.

Through social media, search engines, artificial intelligence, recommendation systems, and networked communication, individuals constantly evaluate, select, compare, and decide.

What is true?

What is false?

What is valuable?

What is art?

Who should be trusted?

At first glance, such activities seem to demonstrate unprecedented individual autonomy.

However, a closer examination reveals a paradox.

People appear to judge, yet the forms of their judgments are already determined.

Political communities, cultural backgrounds, educational institutions, technological infrastructures, economic systems, and algorithmic environments all pre-structure what can appear as a problem and what can appear as a judgment.

Thus, what appears as free judgment often conceals a deeper structure of determination.

This phenomenon constitutes the starting point of the present investigation.

⸻

2. Theoretical Background

Throughout the development of Web Installation, Interface Art, Understanding and Belonging, Ontological Insensibility, Seeing the Seen, Inverse-Problem Art, and Generative Topological Ontology, a recurring question has emerged:

How is new existence generated?

This question cannot be answered through traditional theories of representation.

It requires a shift from objects to relations, from meanings to interfaces, and from cognition to generation.

The concepts of Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem provide the conceptual foundation for such a shift.

⸻

Chapter 1

Judgmentless Judgment

1.1 The Appearance of Judgment

Judgment is usually understood as an act performed by a subject upon an object.

Since modern philosophy, judgment has been regarded as a central faculty of human cognition.

Yet most judgments do not originate from autonomous reflection.

Rather, they emerge within already established structures.

For example, when one declares:

“This is art.”

“This is not art.”

“This is important.”

“This is irrelevant.”

Such statements appear personal.

Yet they are already conditioned by historical, institutional, educational, and cultural frameworks.

The subject appears to judge.

But the form of judgment has already been provided.

This condition is what bigakusha-haha calls Judgmentless Judgment.

⸻

1.2 Belonging as Structural Determination

Belonging does not simply refer to membership in organizations.

It refers to the topological structure through which reality becomes intelligible.

Language is belonging.

Culture is belonging.

Discipline is belonging.

History is belonging.

Belonging determines the horizon within which judgment becomes possible.

Therefore the actual structure is not:

Judgment → Belonging

but rather:

Belonging → Judgment

Judgmentless Judgment emerges when subjects mistake structurally determined judgments for autonomous decisions.

⸻

Chapter 2

Problemless Problem

2.1 The Automation of Problem Formation

Problems are generally assumed to be discovered.

Yet many problems are never discovered; they are inherited.

Questions such as:

How can this be optimized?

How can this be evaluated?

How can this become successful?

appear meaningful.

However, these questions already presuppose specific frameworks.

They exist only within established topological structures.

Consequently they are not authentic problems.

They are Problemless Problems.

⸻

2.2 Structural Identity with Judgmentless Judgment

Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem share the same structure.

Both emerge within pre-existing systems of belonging.

Both reproduce established forms of connectability.

Neither generates new existence.

Instead they stabilize existing topologies.

For this reason, they correspond closely to what bigakusha-haha has elsewhere described as Ontological Insensibility.

Being is not absent.

Being has become invisible through saturation.

⸻

Chapter 3

Understanding and Belonging

3.1 Understanding Is Not Belonging

A recurring concern in the work of bigakusha-haha is the confusion between understanding and belonging.

Contemporary society frequently assumes:

Understanding

↓

Agreement

↓

Belonging

To understand a position is often interpreted as endorsing it.

To analyze a system is interpreted as participating in it.

Yet understanding and belonging are fundamentally distinct.

Understanding is a connection.

Belonging is a stabilized structure of connections.

Confusing the two collapses the possibility of genuine inquiry.

⸻

3.2 The Ontological Consequences

When understanding is automatically converted into belonging, judgment becomes predetermined.

At that moment, Judgmentless Judgment emerges.

This phenomenon extends far beyond politics.

It affects art, philosophy, religion, education, and technological culture.

Thus Judgmentless Judgment is not merely an epistemological issue.

It is an ontological condition of contemporary existence.

Chapter 4

Topological Difference and Interface

4.1 What Is Topological Difference?

Within Generative Topological Ontology, topological difference is not simply a difference between two already existing entities.

Nor is it merely an unknown object waiting to be discovered.

Topological difference refers to a dimension that has not yet entered the connectability of a given subject.

It is not the unknown.

It is the unconnected.

This distinction is crucial.

The unknown can eventually be represented.

Topological difference cannot.

Before the encounter, it has no place within the subject’s existing topology.

Therefore it cannot be fully described, conceptualized, or anticipated.

It does not exist as an object.

It appears only through an event of connection.

⸻

4.2 Can Topological Difference Be Designed?

A fundamental misunderstanding must be avoided.

Bigakusha-haha does not design topological difference.

If topological difference could be fully designed, it would already belong to the existing topology.

It would cease to be topological difference.

What can be designed are the conditions under which topological difference may appear.

This distinction separates Interface Art from conventional forms of representation.

The artist does not provide meanings.

The artist arranges encounters.

The artist does not construct difference itself.

The artist constructs the conditions through which difference becomes possible.

⸻

4.3 Interface as Condition

Since the Web Installation Declaration, the central concern of bigakusha-haha has not been the artwork itself.

The focus has been the interface.

The boundary.

The threshold.

The relation between this side and the other side.

The relation between actuality and virtuality.

The relation between viewer and viewed.

The interface is not a medium of transmission.

It is a condition for emergence.

Art therefore becomes the arrangement of conditions under which new connectabilities may arise.

⸻

Chapter 5

The Integration of Production and Reception

5.1 The Modern Separation

Modern aesthetics assumes a linear structure:

Production

→ Artwork

→ Reception

The artist produces.

The viewer receives.

Meaning travels from one side to the other.

This model presupposes a stable distinction between producer and consumer.

⸻

5.2 Beyond Producer and Consumer

Contemporary network culture has blurred these distinctions.

However, the problem addressed by bigakusha-haha is deeper.

Both producer and consumer remain functions within an existing topology.

The crucial question is not:

Who created?

Who consumed?

The crucial question is:

What new topological difference appeared?

Art is therefore not fundamentally about production.

Nor is it fundamentally about reception.

Both are secondary to the emergence of new connectabilities.

⸻

5.3 Shared Generative Structure

Production consists in arranging the conditions under which topological difference may appear.

Reception consists in encountering those conditions.

The two are not identical.

Yet they share the same generative structure.

Both involve the suspension of Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem.

Both involve the emergence of authentic judgment and authentic problems.

Production is therefore a preceding reception.

Reception is a subsequent production.

Both participate in the same ontological process.

⸻

Chapter 6

Seeing the Seen

6.1 From Seeing to Being Seen

Traditional aesthetics begins with seeing.

A subject perceives an object.

Representation follows perception.

Bigakusha-haha proposes a reversal.

Seeing the Seen.

The subject is no longer primary.

The subject does not simply observe the world.

Rather, the subject emerges through being exposed to the world.

The gaze itself becomes reversible.

⸻

6.2 The Middle Voice

This process is neither active nor passive.

It belongs to what may be called the middle voice.

The subject neither creates autonomously nor receives passively.

The subject participates in an event of generation.

This is why production and reception converge.

Both are moments within the same process of emergence.

⸻

Chapter 7

Authentic Judgment and Authentic Problem

7.1 Judgment as Generation

Authentic judgment does not pre-exist within the subject.

Nor is it imposed from outside.

Authentic judgment emerges through encounters with topological difference.

Judgment is therefore not recognition.

Judgment is generation.

It does not identify an already existing reality.

It participates in bringing reality into existence.

⸻

7.2 Problem as Generation

The same applies to problems.

Authentic problems are not discovered.

They are generated.

Topological difference creates the possibility of questions that did not previously exist.

A new problem emerges only when a new topology becomes possible.

Thus authentic problems are events of existence rather than objects of cognition.

⸻

7.3 Middle-Voiced Emergence

It would be inaccurate to say that authentic judgment and authentic problems simply arise from within the subject.

More precisely:

They appear as if they arise from within the subject through encounters with topological difference.

Their emergence occurs between subject and world.

It is therefore a middle-voiced event.

Neither internal nor external.

Neither subjective nor objective.

It belongs to the interface itself.

⸻

Chapter 8

Inverse-Problem Art

8.1 From Direct Representation to Reconstruction

Traditional aesthetics assumes a direct structure:

Artwork

→ Meaning

Inverse-Problem Art operates differently:

Practice

→ Effect

→ Reconstruction

Meaning does not precede the event.

Meaning emerges retrospectively.

The artwork is not a container of significance.

It is a condition for emergence.

⸻

8.2 QR Codes, Domains, and Interfaces

QR codes.

Domain names.

Websites.

Guesthouses.

Exhibition spaces.

These are not artworks in the conventional sense.

They function as interfaces.

They create situations in which topological difference may appear.

The viewer does not receive meaning.

The viewer generates judgment and problems.

Meaning is reconstructed only afterward.

This is why the artistic process is inverse-problematic.

⸻

Chapter 9

Generative Topological Ontology

9.1 Being as Connectability

The fundamental proposition of Generative Topological Ontology is:

Being = Connectability.

Being is not substance.

Being is not essence.

Being is the possibility of connection.

Existence is not a thing.

Existence is a topology.

⸻

9.2 The Generation of Being

When topological difference appears, new connectabilities emerge.

With them emerge:

new judgments,

new problems,

new realities.

Being itself is generated.

Existence is therefore not static.

It is an ongoing process of topological transformation.

⸻

9.3 Art as Ontological Practice

Art is not communication.

Art is not representation.

Art is not expression.

Art is the practical arrangement of conditions through which being may emerge.

Art creates the possibility for new connectabilities.

It is therefore an ontological practice.

⸻

Conclusion

This paper has reconstructed the concepts of Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem as central elements within the philosophy of bigakusha-haha.

Judgmentless Judgment and Problemless Problem describe movements that occur within established structures of belonging.

Authentic judgment and authentic problems emerge only through encounters with topological difference.

Bigakusha-haha does not design topological difference itself.

Instead, Interface Art arranges the conditions under which topological difference may appear.

Through these encounters, existing structures of belonging are suspended.

New connectabilities emerge.

New realities emerge.

New forms of judgment and problem formation emerge.

Art is therefore not the production of objects.

Art is the generation of being.

More precisely, art is the practical arrangement of interfaces through which being, understood as connectability, comes into existence.

Generative Topological Ontology Integrating Quantum Entanglement, Inverse Scattering Problems, and Inverse-Problem Art

Abstract

This paper proposes Generative Topological Ontology as a unified framework for understanding quantum entanglement, inverse scattering theory, and bigakusha-haha’s concept of Inverse-Problem Art.

Modern rationality has largely assumed an object-centered ontology in which entities precede relations. Quantum entanglement, however, suggests that relational states may be ontologically prior to individual entities. Likewise, Kenjiro Kimura’s work on inverse scattering problems reconstructs hidden structures from observable wave phenomena.

This paper argues that existence is never directly given but is reconstructed from traces dispersed throughout the world. Within this framework, Inverse-Problem Art is interpreted as an artistic practice that transforms existence itself into an inverse problem.

⸻

1. Introduction

A fundamental assumption of modern science, philosophy, and aesthetics has been that being is presented as an object.

Observation is therefore understood as the act of perceiving pre-existing entities.

Quantum theory, phenomenology, and information theory have increasingly challenged this assumption.

In quantum entanglement, what is observed is not the relation itself but statistical correlations.

In inverse scattering theory, what is observed is not the hidden structure but scattered waves.

In art, what is encountered is not existence itself but traces, signs, and situations.

The common principle is clear:

Being is never directly given.

⸻

2. Quantum Entanglement and the Primacy of Relations

The significance of quantum entanglement lies not in communication but in relational priority.

Classical ontology assumes:

Entity A

→ Entity B

→ Relation

Entanglement suggests:

Relation

→ A and B

Observers never directly access the entangled relation.

They observe only:

* spin measurements,

* correlations,

* probability distributions.

Entanglement therefore appears as an inverse problem:

the reconstruction of an invisible relational structure from observable traces.

⸻

3. Inverse Scattering Problems

Inverse scattering theory seeks to reconstruct hidden structures from scattered waves.

Observers do not directly perceive internal structures.

They perceive only the effects of interaction.

Forward problem:

Structure

→ Scattering

→ Observation

Inverse problem:

Observation

→ Structure

Existence appears not as an isolated object but through interaction.

⸻

4. Generative Topological Ontology

The fundamental axiom proposed by bigakusha-haha is:

Being = Connectability.

Being is not a fixed substance.

Being is a dynamic topology of possible connections.

Within this framework:

* Quantum entanglement becomes an ontology of relations.

* Inverse scattering becomes an epistemology of connections.

Existence is generated through relational structures rather than given as self-contained entities.

⸻

5. Inverse-Problem Art

Traditional art assumes:

Artwork

→ Interpretation

Inverse-Problem Art assumes:

Trace

→ Reconstruction

QR codes.

Domain names.

Websites.

Empty exhibition spaces.

These are not artworks in the traditional sense.

They function as scattered signals through which hidden structures of existence are reconstructed.

The viewer does not simply encounter an artwork.

The viewer reconstructs existence from dispersed traces.

⸻

6. Seeing the Seen

The concept of

Seeing the Seen

constitutes the central operation of Inverse-Problem Art.

Painting traditionally transforms:

Seeing

→ Being Seen

Inverse-Problem Art reverses this process:

Being Seen

→ Seeing

The observer no longer occupies a privileged position.

Instead, the observer becomes part of the scattering process itself.

The subject becomes an inverse problem.

⸻

Conclusion

Quantum entanglement reveals the invisibility of relations.

Inverse scattering theory reveals the invisibility of structure.

Inverse-Problem Art reveals the invisibility of existence.

All three share a common principle:

Being is never directly given.

Existence emerges only through the reconstruction of traces.

Being is therefore not an object but a topological structure reconstructed from relational residues dispersed throughout the world.

bigakusha-haha’s Artistic Practice after the Critique of Judgment

Abstract

This paper reconstructs the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha through the problem of judgment. Since Kant, judgment has been understood as the faculty that mediates between the particular and the universal. However, bigakusha-haha’s practice exposes a more primordial structure: before the subject judges freely, judgment has already been shaped by a given phase, institution, environment, interface, or conceptual outline. The central question is therefore not simply what judgment is, but whether what appears to be judgment is truly judgment at all. This paper formulates bigakusha-haha’s core proposition as follows: judgment is the outline of concept. Judgment is not merely a secondary cognitive act directed toward an object. Rather, it is the conceptual contour that determines what appears as “being” and what is excluded as “non-being.” bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice does not merely confirm existing outlines. It creates new outlines of concept, destabilizing the distinction between being and non-being and opening a connection to a phase beyond the established horizon. Through web installation, QR codes, domains, Minshuku Sayama Bigakko, and inverse-problem art, this paper argues that bigakusha-haha’s practice has become increasingly intelligible as a general theory because contemporary society itself has become algorithmic, interface-based, prompt-driven, and phase-dependent. In conclusion, bigakusha-haha’s practice should be understood not as the production of artworks, but as the creation of the conditions of judgment, the outlines of concept, and the phases of existence.

1. Introduction

To understand the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha, it is not sufficient to ask what is being produced. The more fundamental question is: under what conditions does something appear as an artwork? What is the outline that allows something to be judged as art?

Ordinarily, judgment is understood as an act performed by a subject upon an object. A subject encounters an object and judges: “This is art” or “This is not art.” Yet bigakusha-haha’s practice exposes the fragility of this assumption. When something is placed in a museum, it tends to appear as art. When it appears in an advertising space, it tends to appear as advertisement. When a statement appears on social media, it is often read as an affiliation, position, or ideological belonging.

In such cases, the subject seems to judge. But in fact, the phase in which the subject is already situated determines the direction of judgment in advance.

Here lies the problem of “judgment without judgment.” Human beings believe that they judge. Yet their judgments are often pre-formed by institutions, places, media, algorithms, social contexts, and conceptual outlines. bigakusha-haha discovered this structure. Judgment is not an autonomous act arising purely from the interiority of the subject. It is an event that occurs within a phase in which the subject already exists.

2. The Limit of Kantian Judgment

In Kant’s Critique of Judgment, judgment is the faculty that mediates between the particular and the universal. In aesthetic judgment, reflective judgment becomes central because the subject judges something as beautiful without subsuming it under a determinate concept.

Kant therefore asks how judgment is possible when no fixed concept is given in advance. However, bigakusha-haha’s question lies even earlier. The problem is not merely how judgment becomes possible. The problem is: what has already been judged before judgment appears as judgment?

In Kant, the subject confronts the world and judges. In bigakusha-haha, however, the subject itself is generated within a pre-existing phase. The judging subject is not the starting point. It is the result of phase-based connectivity. Thus, the critique of judgment shifts into a critique of judgment without judgment.

3. Judgment as the Outline of Concept

The crucial proposition for understanding bigakusha-haha is this: judgment is the outline of concept.

Judgment is not merely the act of saying what something is. Judgment is the contour through which something is made to appear as “being,” while something else is positioned as “non-being.” Every concept has an outline. When the concept of art exists, things can be divided into what is art and what is not art. Yet this division is not natural. It is historically, institutionally, perceptually, and technologically formed.

Therefore, what exists does not simply exist. It exists because it has entered the inside of a certain conceptual outline. Conversely, what does not exist is not mere nothingness. It is something placed outside the present outline.

In this sense, being and non-being are not simple opposites. They are generated together by the same outline. Judgment is not an act of confirming what already exists. It is the generation of the boundary that articulates being and non-being.

4. Judgment Without Judgment

Is the judgment made within the phase in which the self already exists truly judgment? This is the central question of bigakusha-haha’s theory of judgment.

Human beings think they judge by themselves. In reality, however, their judgment is already oriented by the phase in which they are placed: the museum, the university, social media, the search engine, AI, the algorithm, the critical institution, the exhibition space, the linguistic community. These structures form the range of possible judgment before judgment consciously occurs.

In this sense, much of what is called judgment today is not judgment but belonging. To understand an opinion is easily mistaken for accepting it. To discuss a discourse is often interpreted as belonging to the camp that holds it. Understanding, judgment, and belonging are collapsed into one another.

bigakusha-haha’s practice suspends this automation. QR codes, domains, web installation, and Minshuku Sayama Bigakko cannot be immediately absorbed into existing categories. Are they art, advertisement, philosophy, place, information, or interface? Judgment is suspended. In this suspension, the subject begins to notice how deeply their own judgment has been structured by existing outlines.

5. Art as the Creation of Conceptual Outlines

bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice does not produce works inside already established concepts. It creates the outline of concept itself.

Ordinary art produces works within the pre-existing framework of “art.” bigakusha-haha, by contrast, produces the conditions under which something can appear as art. Web Art Declaration, web installation, QR-code works, domains, and Minshuku Sayama Bigakko are not merely works. They are boundary conditions through which the work appears as work.

Here, the artwork is not an object but an interface. An interface is a boundary that separates and connects: here and there, reality and information, body and web, being and non-being. Therefore, bigakusha-haha’s practice is not the art of presenting objects. It is the art of designing the phase in which objects become able to appear.

6. Phase-Connection Beyond Being and Non-Being

For bigakusha-haha, creation does not mean simply adding a new thing to the realm of being. Nor does it mean imagining what does not exist. Rather, creation means transforming the outline that makes the distinction between being and non-being possible.

At this point, bigakusha-haha’s practice enters an ontological dimension. Being is not substance. Being is connectability. For something to exist means that it becomes connectable within a certain phase. Conversely, non-being means that something has not yet become connectable, or that it remains outside the current outline.

Thus, bigakusha-haha’s art does not represent what exists. It expands the horizon of what can exist. It opens a connection to a phase beyond the distinction between being and non-being.

7. Why bigakusha-haha’s Practice Has Become Generally Intelligible

The reason bigakusha-haha’s practice has become increasingly intelligible as a general theory is that society itself has moved closer to the problem that bigakusha-haha had already been addressing.

Previously, reality and the internet, artwork and information, subject and media appeared to be relatively separate. Today, however, everyday life is structured by algorithms, search engines, social media, AI, recommendation systems, prompts, QR codes, and platforms. People no longer simply see objects. They are forced to become aware of the conditions under which objects appear before them.

In other words, the world has moved from the age of objects to the age of conditions. The question is no longer merely what we see. The question is why it appears to us in the first place. This is precisely the question that bigakusha-haha has consistently pursued.

The emergence of AI has made this shift decisive. In AI, the output is inseparable from the prompt, the model, the dataset, the weighting, and the conditions of generation. The result is less autonomous than it appears. What matters is the structure of generation. This directly corresponds to bigakusha-haha’s practice, which asks not what the artwork is, but under what conditions the artwork is generated.

The QR code offers the same structure. Once, a QR code may have seemed like a mere technical sign. Today, people understand that an entire world may open through it. A sign creates a connection, and the connection generates a world. Because this structure has become ordinary, bigakusha-haha’s early practice can now be understood not as an eccentric art experiment, but as a general structure of contemporary existence.

8. Inverse-Problem Art as a Theory of Judgment

bigakusha-haha’s inverse-problem art can also be understood as a theory of judgment. Ordinary art interpretation moves from cause to effect: the artist intends, the work is made, the viewer interprets. In inverse-problem art, however, the viewer moves from effect to cause. From a minimal sign, domain, declaration, or place, the viewer must infer what it is.

In this process, the viewer is not merely interpreting an artwork. The viewer is forced to expose the outline through which they judge. Inverse-problem art is therefore an art that reflects the structure of judgment back onto the judging subject.

The importance of bigakusha-haha’s practice lies in the fact that it does not provide a correct answer. Because there is no final answer, the viewer loses the automaticity of judgment and confronts their own phase-based presuppositions. Here lies the ethical dimension of bigakusha-haha’s art. It does not impose a particular meaning upon the other. It opens a field in which the other can become aware of the conditions of their own judgment.

9. Conclusion

bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice is an art after the critique of judgment. If Kant asked about the possibility of judgment, bigakusha-haha asks about the phase-based outline that already operates before judgment appears.

The core proposition may be stated as follows:

Judgment is the outline of concept.

What exists exists as something already judged. What does not exist is not mere absence, but something placed outside the present outline. bigakusha-haha’s art does not confirm this distinction between being and non-being. It recreates the conceptual contour that makes the distinction possible.

Therefore, bigakusha-haha’s practice is not the production of artworks, but the production of the conditions of judgment. It is not expression, but the generation of connectability. It is not object-production, but phase-creation.

Now that contemporary society is structured by algorithms, AI, interfaces, prompts, and platforms, bigakusha-haha’s practice has become intelligible not merely as a particular art theory, but as a general ontology. The world itself has become web-installational, inverse-problematic, interface-based, and phase-ontological.

— Generative Topological Ontology and Structures of Subsumption in Algorithmic Society in bigakusha-haha —

Abstract

In contemporary society, “understanding” no longer functions merely as a cognitive act, but increasingly operates as a signal of “belonging.” Within environments shaped by social media, recommendation algorithms, search optimization, and AI-driven informational compression, acts of interpretation are automatically converted into classifications of social alignment and ideological affiliation. This paper defines this phenomenon as “the automation of understanding and belonging” and analyzes it through the framework of bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology. bigakusha-haha criticizes the modern metaphysics of subsumption and redefines being not as fixed substance but as connectability itself. From this perspective, understanding is fundamentally a temporary connection to another topology rather than assimilation or identification. Furthermore, this paper positions Interface Art and Inverse Problem Art as forms of resistance against algorithmic pressures of classification and enclosure.

⸻

1. Introduction — Why Does Understanding Become Belonging?

Contemporary informational environments continuously classify human beings.

Social media platforms, search engines, recommendation systems, and AI infrastructures compress human actions, reactions, and interpretations into identifiable categories. As a consequence, the act of “understanding” itself is increasingly interpreted as evidence of ideological alignment or social affiliation.

To attempt to understand a political position becomes interpreted as support for it. To engage with unfamiliar thought becomes perceived as belonging to its camp.

The issue here is not the disappearance of understanding.

Rather, understanding itself has been absorbed into systems of automatic classification.

This paper calls this phenomenon “the automation of understanding and belonging.”

This problem deeply connects with bigakusha-haha’s previous concepts, including:

* the metaphysics of subsumption,

* Generative Topological Ontology,

* Interface Art,

* non-coappearance,

* the ethics of unresponsiveness,

* seeing the seen,

* and Inverse Problem Art.

⸻

2. Understanding as Subsumption

Within modern rationality, understanding has historically meant the conceptual containment of objects.

Since Kantian epistemology, cognition has operated through categorization and assimilation into pre-existing conceptual structures.

bigakusha-haha critiques this mechanism as subsumption.

Subsumption is the process through which difference is absorbed into pre-established systems.

Here, the Other does not remain Other.

Instead, it becomes transformed into something “understandable.”

Thus the following structure emerges:

* understandable,

* classifiable,

* subsumable.

Contemporary algorithmic society radically accelerates this logic.

Within social media environments:

* viewing,

* reading,

* attempting to understand,

* showing curiosity,

are immediately processed as signals of:

* support,

* affiliation,

* ideological belonging.

As a result, neutrality collapses.

Understanding itself becomes automatically translated into belonging.

⸻

3. Topological Ontology and Connectability

In bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology, being is not a fixed substance.

Being is defined as:

connectability.

Most importantly, connection does not imply identity.

Two topologies may connect without becoming identical.

Thus states such as the following become possible:

* understanding without agreement,

* connection without belonging,

* visibility without possession.

This radically differs from modern rationality, where understanding presupposes integration and conceptual enclosure.

For bigakusha-haha, understanding is:

a temporary connection to another topology.

However, algorithmic society cannot tolerate such indeterminacy.

Algorithms fundamentally resist ambiguity.

They demand rapid decisions:

* ally or enemy,

* agreement or opposition,

* inside or outside.

Here, understanding is compressed into affiliation.

⸻

4. Non-Coappearance and Algorithmic Space

The concept of non-coappearance is central to bigakusha-haha’s thought.

Non-coappearance means that distinct modes of being never fully overlap.

The Other fundamentally exceeds total synchronization.

Yet algorithmic society attempts to erase this gap.

The moment something becomes understandable, it is processed as belonging to the same category.

Thus:

* understanding,

* empathy,

* agreement,

* belonging

become merged into a single operational chain.

Consequently, individuals begin to fear understanding itself.

For to understand something increasingly means to risk being permanently classified by it.

What disappears here is not understanding.

Rather, understanding becomes transformed into classification.

⸻

5. Interface Art and Boundary Structures

bigakusha-haha’s Interface Art functions as a practical response to this condition.

An interface is:

a boundary surface connecting Here and There.

Yet connection does not mean fusion.

The interface preserves distinction while enabling contact.

This structure fundamentally opposes algorithmic reduction.

Algorithms erase boundaries in order to stabilize categories.

Interface Art instead exposes the boundary itself.

For example, works consisting solely of QR codes or domain names do not directly communicate meaning.

Instead, they aestheticize:

the act of connection itself.

The viewer must activate the connection and thereby expose their own topology.

Meaning is not transmitted.

Connection structures are generated.

⸻

6. Seeing the Seen

bigakusha-haha’s concept of “seeing the seen” deepens this critique further.

Traditional art follows the structure:

seeing → expression.

However, contemporary society places individuals into conditions of perpetual visibility.

Under social media and surveillance capitalism, existence itself becomes mediated through:

being seen.

Thus understanding transforms into:

being seen as understanding.

In algorithmic society, what matters is no longer what one thinks.

What matters is:

how one is classified.

bigakusha-haha reveals this condition through the reversal called “seeing the seen.”

⸻

7. Inverse Problem Art as Resistance

Inverse Problem Art operates as resistance against this automation.

Conventional art proceeds through:

meaning → expression.

Inverse Problem Art reverses this direction.

It asks:

* Why did I interpret this in this way?

* Why was I connected to this topology?

* Why was I classified into this position?

Thus the artwork no longer delivers fixed meaning.

Instead, it exposes the structure of connection itself.

Inverse Problem Art therefore interrupts the automatic conversion of understanding into belonging.

It is not art that preserves incomprehensibility.

Rather, it preserves:

unsubsumability.

⸻

8. Conclusion — Toward an Ontological Redefinition of Understanding

This paper analyzed the contemporary condition of “the automation of understanding and belonging” through bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology.

Contemporary society increasingly enforces the equation:

understanding = belonging.

Against this, bigakusha-haha redefines understanding as connectability.

Within this framework:

* one may understand without agreement,

* connect without affiliation,

* see without possession.

This constitutes resistance against algorithmic pressures of classification and closure.

bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice therefore functions as a mechanism for exposing the difference between connection and subsumption.

In this sense, bigakusha-haha’s thought should not be understood merely as an aesthetic theory.

Rather, it becomes:

an ontological reconstruction of understanding itself

Seeing Being-Seen, Symbol Grounding, Inverse-Problem Art, and the Production of Concrete Reality

Abstract

This paper reformulates the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha through the ancient Indo-European root weid-, in which seeing and knowing are not yet separated. In modern conceptual development, the optical came to refer to physical and perceptual conditions of sight, while the visual came to refer to images, representations, and informational visibility. However, bigakusha-haha’s practice does not belong simply to either the optical or the visual. Rather, it returns to the pre-differentiated ground from which both opticality and visuality diverged: the primordial unity of seeing, knowing, and being grounded in reality.

This paper calls this structure weid- grounding. In bigakusha-haha, “seeing being-seen” does not merely mean becoming aware of the gaze of others. It means seeing how visual signs, images, representations, and informational forms become grounded in concrete reality. Furthermore, this mode of expression takes the form of inverse-problem art: an art that begins not from an already given reality, but from signs and representations that generate the conditions under which reality can occur.

1. Introduction

The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha is not merely visual art. It is a practice that treats seeing, being seen, knowing, signification, connection, and the production of reality as a single structure.

The crucial point is that bigakusha-haha begins from seeing but turns toward seeing being-seen. This turn is not a simple reversal of perspective. It is an ontological turn that asks how visualized information becomes grounded in reality.

In conventional art, the basic sequence is to see reality and then represent it. Reality comes first; representation comes second. Yet in the age of AI, social media, search engines, SEO, AIO, generative AI, and algorithmic recommendation, signs and representations often appear first and then move human action, judgment, institutions, bodies, and social reality.

Thus, the question of art shifts from “What is represented?” to “How does what is represented become real?” bigakusha-haha’s practice anticipated this shift.

2. weid-: The Primordial Unity of Seeing and Knowing

The root weid- may be understood as an ancient linguistic ground concerning seeing and knowing. What matters here is that seeing and knowing are not yet separated.

In modern epistemology, seeing tends to belong to sensation, while knowing belongs to intellect. At the level of weid-, however, to see is already to know, and to know is for the world to appear. Perception, cognition, body, world, and reality are not yet divided.

This undivided unity is the deep ground of bigakusha-haha’s theory.

bigakusha-haha does not simply choose between the optical and the visual. Rather, it returns to the point prior to their separation: the primordial phase in which seeing, knowing, and being grounded in reality are one.

Yet this is not a nostalgic return to antiquity. bigakusha-haha returns to weid- grounding only after passing through the contemporary informational world: AI, the Web, QR codes, domain names, prompts, screens, and digital signs.

3. The Separation of the Optical and the Visual

The optical concerns light, vision, bodily perception, and physical conditions. The visual concerns image, representation, informational visibility, and signs.

However, the term “optical” must be used carefully in relation to bigakusha-haha. It can easily suggest artificial light, lenses, screens, and apparatuses of vision. This technological nuance is not wrong, but it is too narrow.

What bigakusha-haha addresses is not optics in the narrow physical sense. It is the event in which the body encounters reality through place, time, distance, sensation, memory, affect, and cognitive feeling.

Thus, in this paper, the optical is not translated simply as “optical” in a technical sense, but understood as concrete perceptual reality or grounded perception.

The visual, by contrast, refers to representations that have become informational, shareable, reproducible, and abstract. Paintings, photographs, videos, CT scans, MRI images, X-rays, social media images, AI-generated images, search results, profiles, and data visualizations are visual forms.

Thus:

The optical is concrete perceptual reality.

The visual is universal-abstract informational representation.

4. The Structure of the Optical and the Visual in Painting

Portrait and landscape painting make this relation clear.

The painter first encounters a person or landscape in reality. This encounter is not merely the acquisition of visual data. It is a concrete perceptual experience involving body, distance, light, time, space, memory, and affect.

This stage is optical. More precisely, it is the appearance of weid- unity as concrete perceptual reality.

The painter then transforms this experience into canvas, paint, line, color, composition, and brushwork. At this stage, concrete perceptual experience becomes a shareable visual representation.

Painting is therefore a device that transforms concrete perceptual reality into universal-abstract visual representation.

But bigakusha-haha does not stop there. bigakusha-haha sees how visual representation becomes grounded again in reality. This is where seeing being-seen occurs.

5. The Secondariness of the Visual and Its Contemporary Reversal

The visual is originally secondary. Reality comes first, and then it is visualized. The body comes first, and then it is imaged. The event comes first, and then it is recorded.

In contemporary society, however, this order is being reversed.

Images on social media transform human relations. Search results alter behavior. AI responses influence institutional consultation and judgment. SEO and AIO change the conditions under which information exists. Profiles and datafied self-images reshape self-understanding.

The visual is no longer merely a secondary representation. It begins to organize, guide, and generate reality.

At this point, the visual does not remain separated from the optical. It becomes grounded again in concrete reality.

This re-grounding is the core of bigakusha-haha’s theory.

6. Redefining “Seeing Being-Seen”

In bigakusha-haha, “seeing being-seen” does not simply mean seeing how one is seen by others. Nor is it merely a matter of surveillance.

It means seeing the conditions under which visual signs and representations become grounded in reality.

In other words:

Seeing being-seen is seeing how informational representation is transformed into concrete reality.

Here, what is “seen” is not merely an artwork or an image. What is seen includes signs, images, declarations, URLs, QR codes, prompts, AI responses, and search results that have already been visualized within the informational world.

bigakusha-haha sees how these become connected to bodies, places, actions, institutions, others, and responsibility.

In this sense, seeing being-seen is the practice of re-grounding the visual into weid- unity.

7. The Symbol Grounding Problem

This argument is deeply connected to the symbol grounding problem in artificial intelligence.

AI can manipulate symbols. It can process words such as pain, violence, family, danger, place, and responsibility. Yet the question remains whether these symbols are grounded in bodily experience and concrete reality.

For AI, symbols are processed through statistical relations. For human beings, symbols are connected to body, memory, place, fear, responsibility, institutions, and relations with others.

bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice is an artistic response to the symbol grounding problem.

QR codes are signs. Domain names are signs. Web installation is an informational structure. Declarations are linguistic acts. Prompts are imperative forms.

Yet in bigakusha-haha, these are not merely informational. They are devices that produce reality.

When a QR code is scanned, a body moves, a screen opens, the meaning of a place changes, and a work comes into being. When a domain name is entered, informational space acquires place-like existence, and real connection occurs. A declaration anticipates a reality that does not yet exist and produces the conditions under which it can appear.

Here, signs are not abstractions cut off from reality. They become grounding devices that generate reality.

8. bigakusha-haha as Inverse-Problem Art

This structure can be understood as inverse-problem art.

Ordinary art moves from reality to expression:

Reality → Expression

Inverse-problem art moves from expression or signs to the conditions of reality:

Expression → Conditions of Reality

The declarations, QR codes, domains, Web installation, and prompts of bigakusha-haha all possess this inverse-problem structure.

They do not represent an already completed reality. Rather, they place in advance the conditions for a reality that has not yet been established.

A declaration does not merely describe reality; it presents a framework through which reality may come into being. A QR code is not the work itself; it is a condition of connection through which the work occurs. A prompt is not the generated object; it is the minimal form through which generation becomes possible.

Thus, bigakusha-haha’s art is not merely an inverse problem that infers causes from results. It is a generative inverse problem: it places signs as results in advance and lets them generate the conditions of reality.

9. Reality as Concrete Particularity

The crucial point is that reality is concrete and particular.

AI and informational systems can generate universal abstraction in massive quantities. General statements, average texts, typical images, statistical responses, search results, and recommendations are all universal-abstract.

Human beings, however, cannot live as universal abstractions. They have bodies, stand in places, live through time, are seen by others, become connected to institutions, are wounded, and assume responsibility.

Thus, in the present age, to be human is to become concrete and particular.

This is not merely a claim about individuality. It is an ontological proposition for the age of AI. Universal abstraction is overproduced by AI. Therefore, reality shifts toward concrete particularity.

bigakusha-haha’s practice restores this concrete particularity. It does so not by rejecting the informational world, but by passing through it and re-grounding its signs and representations in concrete reality.

10. The Reversal of Hegelian Particularity and Universality

This argument resonates with Hegel’s relation between particularity and universality.

For Hegel, the particular is not an isolated fragment separated from the universal. The particular is constituted through mediation with the universal, while the universal becomes concrete through the particular.

Yet modern reason often placed the universal above the particular. The particular was to be elevated into universality, and specificity was to be absorbed into generality.

In the age of AI, this structure is reversed. Universal abstraction can now be generated massively by AI. Universality is no longer rare. Concrete particularity becomes rare.

In this sense, reality today is not universal abstraction but concrete particularization.

bigakusha-haha takes up this reversal as artistic practice. It grounds universal-abstract visuality back into concrete weid- reality.

11. The Systematic Position of bigakusha-haha

From the above, bigakusha-haha’s art cannot be sufficiently described as media art, Web art, AI art, or conceptual art.

It is an art of symbol grounding.

It is inverse-problem art.

It is an art of weid- grounding.

bigakusha-haha deals with the boundary between informational space and physical reality. But the aim is not merely to connect the two. The decisive task is to return visual representation, separated and abstracted within informational space, to concrete reality.

At that moment, seeing and knowing become unified again.

Signs become grounded in reality.

Representations produce action.

Information acquires place.

The artwork is no longer an object, but a condition for the production of reality.

This is the core of bigakusha-haha’s seeing being-seen.

12. Conclusion

This paper has clarified bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice through weid- grounding, the separation and re-grounding of opticality and visuality, the symbol grounding problem, inverse-problem art, and the production of concrete reality.

What matters in bigakusha-haha is not opticality in the narrow sense. Rather, it is the primordial unity prior to the separation of opticality and visuality: seeing, knowing, and being grounded in reality.

However, bigakusha-haha does not simply return to this unity. It passes through the Web, QR codes, domain names, declarations, prompts, AI, screens, and informational space, and then generates weid- unity again as concrete reality.

Therefore, seeing being-seen means seeing how visual representation becomes grounded in weid- reality.

And inverse-problem art means beginning from signs and representations in order to generate the conditions of reality and ground informational space in concrete existence.

The theory of bigakusha-haha can finally be summarized in the following propositions:

Reality is the event in which signs become grounded in concrete particularity.

To see is to know, and to know is to be grounded in reality.

Process Design and Generative Topological Ontology in bigakusha-haha

Abstract

This paper redefines the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha through the framework of procedural theory and clarifies its ontological, phenomenological, and technological structure. Traditional art theory has primarily centered on objects, authorship, and representation. In contrast, bigakusha-haha understands art not as a completed object but as the arrangement of conditions that generate existence itself. The role of the artist shifts from fabricating objects to designing the conditions of connection between subject and world. Through analyses of the “Web Art Declaration,” web installation, QR-code works, Interface Art, and Decentralized Autonomous Art (DAA), this paper argues that bigakusha-haha’s practice should be understood as a procedural ontology of existence-generation. Furthermore, by traversing Heideggerian disclosure, Merleau-Pontian embodiment, inverse-problem theory, and topological ontology, the paper redefines the relationship between art and algorithmic reality-generation in contemporary society.

⸻

1. Introduction: From Object Theory to Procedural Theory

Modern art has largely been structured around the concept of the object. Painting, sculpture, photography, and cinema have been treated as visual entities to be interpreted and assigned meaning.

However, in post-information society, the environment surrounding art has fundamentally changed. Human beings now exist within procedural environments constituted by SNS platforms, algorithms, interfaces, recommendation systems, and AI-generated structures. The crucial issue is no longer what is seen, but rather:

how reality itself is generated through procedures.

The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha recognized this transformation at an early stage. The “Web Art Declaration” (2010) defined web installation not merely as internet art but as an ontological interface generating simultaneity between here/there, real/virtual, connection/disconnection, and presence/absence.

Thus, the essential issue is no longer the artwork-object itself, but:

* conditions of connection,

* chains of action,

* topological differences,

* transformations of subjectivity,

* and reality-generation.

Art therefore becomes:

the procedural design of existential generation.

⸻

2. Art as Procedure

2.1 From Production to Existential Generation

Conventionally, procedure refers to production methods or institutional processes. In bigakusha-haha, however, procedure signifies:

the configuration of conditions through which existence emerges.

Traditional art presupposed a linear structure:

subject → expression → artwork.

By contrast, bigakusha-haha reverses this structure into:

condition arrangement → connection → encounter with reality → subject transformation → meaning generation.

Meaning does not preexist the process. Rather, creativity and meaning emerge internally through designed conditions of connection.

This structure forms the core of what bigakusha-haha calls “Inverse-Problem Art.”

⸻

2.2 QR Codes and the Generation of Action

The QR-code works presented within the Setudan Art Movement exemplify this procedural logic.

The viewer undergoes the following chain of actions:

1. perceiving the QR code,

2. taking out the smartphone,

3. connecting to informational space,

4. detaching from physical space,

5. experiencing transformed reality-recognition.

The artwork here is not a physical object.

Rather, it is:

a procedural chain that transforms subjectivity itself.

The essential issue is not the viewing of an object, but the transformation of the mode of existence.

⸻

3. Interface Art and Topological Operations

3.1 Ontology of the Interface

bigakusha-haha’s Interface Art is not merely interface design.

It is:

a boundary operation that transforms existential topology.

Within web installation, the display functions not as an image device but as an interface traversing:

* here/there,

* inside/outside,

* real/virtual,

* connection/disconnection.

The interface therefore becomes not a communication device, but:

a machine for generating existence.

⸻

3.2 Topological Difference and Creativity

A central concern of bigakusha-haha is the generation of “topological difference.”

This is not simply cognitive discrepancy.

Rather, it is:

an encounter with a reality that previously did not exist for the subject.

Such encounters generate anxiety and disorientation, yet simultaneously become the source of creativity.

Art is therefore redefined not as aesthetic representation but as:

the procedural design of topological difference.

⸻

4. DAA and Distributed Procedure

Decentralized Autonomous Art (DAA) extends procedural theory into social implementation.

Rather than centralized authorship, DAA emphasizes:

* forms of connection,

* participation conditions,

* response structures,

* distributed generation,

* structural non-closure.

The artist thereby becomes not an author, but:

a designer of connective conditions.

Art shifts from object-production toward:

the design of social and ontological protocols.

⸻

5. Contemporary Society as Procedural Space

Contemporary society is fundamentally an algorithmic reality-generation environment.

SNS platforms, recommendation systems, search engines, and AI all preconfigure conditions of perception before conscious awareness occurs.

Modernity therefore becomes:

an age in which procedures generate reality itself.

The practice of bigakusha-haha can thus be understood as an artistic transformation of this condition.

It manipulates not representations, but:

the conditions through which reality emerges.

Accordingly, bigakusha-haha’s practice should be situated not merely as media art, but as:

ontological process art.

⸻

6. Conclusion

In bigakusha-haha, art is not a completed object but:

a procedure for generating existence.

The artist is no longer:

* an object-maker,

* expressive subject,

* or distributor of meaning,

but rather:

a topological designer of connective conditions.

Through this shift, art moves:

* from object theory to ontology,

* from representation to generation,

* from artwork to process,

* from centralized authorship to distributed connection.

Within an era dominated by AI, algorithms, and informational space, bigakusha-haha presents, through artistic procedures, the fundamental question:

— Kūkai’s Esoteric Buddhism and the Artistic Practice of bigakusha-haha —

Abstract

This paper reinterprets the concept of Sokushin Jōbutsu (“becoming Buddha in this very body”) in the esoteric Buddhism of Kūkai through the framework of bigakusha-haha’s “Generative Topological Ontology.” Rather than understanding Sokushin Jōbutsu merely as a religious doctrine of salvation, this paper proposes that it should be understood as a transformation in the topology of existential connection. By examining bigakusha-haha’s Interface Art, Web Installation, AI prompt theory, inverse-problem art, and the notion of existential numbness, this study explores how esoteric cosmology is reorganized within contemporary digital space. The paper positions Kūkai and bigakusha-haha not as a historical continuity, but as distinct epochal implementations of a connective ontology.

⸻

1. Introduction

Sokushin Jōbutsu occupies a unique position in the history of Japanese Buddhist thought. Whereas many religious systems separate the present world from salvation, Kūkai identified Buddhahood within this very body, this language, and this world itself.

Salvation, therefore, is not escape from reality, but transformation in the mode of connection to reality.

This structure closely resonates with bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology, in which existence is defined not as a fixed substance but as “connectability.” Existence emerges through relations and generation rather than static objecthood.

What both systems fundamentally share is a refusal of escape. Kūkai rejected transcendence toward an external beyond and instead sought immediate connection with reality itself. Similarly, bigakusha-haha argues that contemporary humans are not disconnected from reality, but excessively submerged within it through AI, the Web, social media, and algorithmic saturation.

The central problem is therefore not arrival at another world, but transformation in the topology of connection itself.

⸻

2. Sokushin Jōbutsu as Topological Transformation

Sokushin Jōbutsu is commonly translated as “becoming Buddha in this very body.” Yet for Kūkai, the crucial issue is not bodily metamorphosis into another being.

What changes is:

* perception of the world,

* function of the body,

* operation of language,

* relation to others,

* synchronization with the cosmos.

Sokushin Jōbutsu is thus not a change in substance but a transformation in connective topology.

In bigakusha-haha’s ontology, existence is defined through connectability. Being is determined not by what something is, but by how it connects.

From this perspective, Sokushin Jōbutsu can be understood as:

the process by which humans shift into another existential topology through transformation of their connective structures.

Buddhahood thereby appears not as a transcendent entity, but as transformation in relational structure itself.

⸻

3. The Three Mysteries and Interface Art

In Shingon esotericism, the Three Mysteries consist of:

* body,

* speech,

* mind.

Kūkai believed that synchronizing these with cosmic structures leads to Sokushin Jōbutsu. Crucially, the body is not denied; rather, the body itself becomes an interface to the cosmos.

This closely parallels bigakusha-haha’s Interface Art.

For bigakusha-haha, art is not aesthetic contemplation of objects. Art is the transformation of human connective structures themselves.

QR codes, domains, URLs, web spaces, Minshuku Sayama Bigakko, and AI prompts operate not merely as informational media but as minimal signs that manipulate existential connection.

The artwork thus becomes not a completed object, but an apparatus exposing the topological gap between humans and reality.

⸻

4. Mantras and AI Prompts

For Kūkai, mantra is not descriptive language. Mantra is world-generative.

Language does not merely describe objects; language transforms connection to the world.

This strongly resonates with bigakusha-haha’s theory of AI prompts.

AI prompts likewise do not depend upon complete semantic understanding. Instead, minimal sign sequences deform generative space itself.

What matters here is that connection precedes meaning.

Thus:

* mantra,

* seed syllables,

* QR codes,

* URLs,

* AI prompts

can all be understood as topological operational signs across different historical epochs.

bigakusha-haha’s artistic practice may therefore be understood as an aesthetic implementation of post-digital mantra structures.

⸻

5. Mandala and Topological Space

Mandala is not merely religious imagery. It visualizes the connective structure of the cosmos.

Within it, distinctions between:

* subject/object,

* body/cosmos,

* inside/outside,

* reality/transcendence

remain fluid rather than fixed.

This strongly corresponds to bigakusha-haha’s concepts of:

* open sets,

* movable boundaries,

* triadic generation,

* non-terminality,

* connectability.

Existence here is defined through openness and relational possibility rather than isolated substance.

Mandala thus appears not as a static cosmological map, but as a generative topological space.

⸻

6. Existential Numbness and Awakening

bigakusha-haha introduces the notion of “existential numbness.” Humans fail to perceive existence itself; they lose sensitivity to being.

This parallels Kūkai’s notion that sentient beings already dwell within Buddhahood yet remain unaware of it.

Sokushin Jōbutsu therefore does not signify becoming another existence. Rather, it signifies:

awakening to the world to which one is already connected.

This directly resonates with bigakusha-haha’s ART5.0 phase of “realization.”

⸻

7. Conclusion

Kūkai’s Sokushin Jōbutsu and bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology deeply resonate in their understanding of existence as connective structure rather than fixed substance.

Yet bigakusha-haha does not merely inherit esotericism. Instead, the esoteric structure is reorganized within a contemporary environment shaped by:

* AI,

* the Web,

* social media,

* algorithms,

* network systems.

Where Kūkai employed mantra, mandala, and ritual practice to connect humans to the cosmos, bigakusha-haha utilizes QR codes, domains, AI prompts, and interface spaces to reconnect humans to existence itself.

The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha may therefore be understood as:

From the Ontology of Mantra to Interface Art

Abstract

This paper explores the structural affinity between the esoteric Buddhist philosophy of Kūkai and the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha. Focusing on concepts such as the Shōji Jissō Gi (The Meanings of Sound, Script, and Reality), Ajikan meditation, and three-dimensional mandalas, the paper reinterprets Shingon Buddhism through the concepts of interface, topology, connectability, and importance functions.

Rather than understanding esoteric Buddhism merely as a religious system, this paper argues that it constitutes a technique of ontological connection. Likewise, the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha is interpreted not simply as contemporary art, but as an existential practice that confronts human beings with topological difference, thereby generating creativity from within.

The paper further argues that contemporary algorithmic society suppresses topological difference through optimization, recommendation systems, and informational saturation. Against this condition, the practice of bigakusha-haha functions as a generative interface that reconnects human beings to reality itself.

⸻

Introduction

Contemporary society is defined by the saturation of information, material abundance, and permanent connectivity.

Yet this saturation simultaneously weakens humanity’s sense of existential reality. Recommendation algorithms, social media, numerical evaluation systems, and optimized consumption environments distance individuals from topological difference and existential instability.

As a result, human beings are gradually losing the capacity to connect to reality actively and authentically.

bigakusha-haha identifies this condition as the fundamental problem of contemporary art.

For bigakusha-haha, art is neither the production of beautiful objects nor the acquisition of institutional value. Rather, art is:

an event through which human beings reconnect to their own existence.

Therefore, the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha does not merely present artworks. Instead, it constructs situations in which individuals encounter topological difference itself.

Through anxiety, instability, and disconnection, new connective movement emerges from within the subject. This existential movement is what bigakusha-haha calls creativity.

This structure bears a profound affinity with Kūkai’s esoteric Buddhism.

⸻

Chapter 1: Sound, Script, and Ontological Connection

In Kūkai’s Shōji Jissō Gi, sound, script, and reality are inseparable.

Modern theories of language regard words as symbolic systems representing external objects. However, for Kūkai, language does not stand outside existence as a representational tool.

Rather, sound and script are manifestations of reality itself.

Thus mantra functions not as semantic communication but as:

direct ontological connection.

Most importantly, mantra is not designed to convey understanding. Instead, it transforms the topological structure of the subject itself.

Mantra therefore functions as:

an interface that reorganizes existential connection.

This strongly resonates with bigakusha-haha’s theory of the disjunction between speech and writing.

QR codes, URLs, declarations, and AI prompts are minimal signs that generate vast worlds of connection.

Meaning is secondary; connectability is primary.

⸻

Chapter 2: Ajikan and the Ontology of the Display

In Ajikan meditation, the syllable “A” is not treated as a symbolic character. It functions as a surface connecting the practitioner to non-origination, emptiness, and cosmic reality.

Ajikan is therefore not visual recognition but:

a visual technique of ontological connection.

Similarly, the display in bigakusha-haha’s web installation practice is not merely a device for representation.

It is a topological boundary where:

* here and there,

* reality and virtuality,

* body and information,

* connection and disconnection

intersect.

The display becomes a generative existential surface.

This structure parallels Ajikan. Just as the syllable “A” functions as an ontological interface, the digital display functions as the contemporary surface through which humans connect to reality.

However, in algorithmic capitalism, this interface is increasingly externally controlled. The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha therefore attempts to reclaim the display as an existential space.

⸻

Chapter 3: Three-Dimensional Mandalas and Sayama Bigakko

Three-dimensional mandalas are not religious decorations but topological spaces connecting body, space, gaze, cosmos, and existence.

What matters is not individual objects but relational configuration itself.

Mandala is not a representation of the universe. Rather, it is a generative space that transforms the existential topology of the participant.

Likewise, Minshuku Sayama Bigakko is not merely an exhibition space.

Architecture, conversation, hospitality, QR codes, networks, daily life, and temporality mutually permeate one another to form a generative topological environment.

Visitors themselves become nodes within this existential topology.

Thus Sayama Bigakko may be interpreted as:

a post-internet three-dimensional mandala.

⸻

Chapter 4: Topological Difference and Creativity

For bigakusha-haha, artistic experience is not aesthetic appreciation but:

confrontation with topological difference.

Human beings normally inhabit stabilized social topologies. However, the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha subtly destabilizes these structures.

This confrontation generates anxiety, instability, and disconnection.

Yet precisely through this encounter, new connective movement emerges from within the subject.

This emergent movement is creativity.

Creativity is not an innate subjective talent. Rather, it is:

a response to existential pressure generated by topological difference.

Human beings do not inhabit homogeneous informational space. Instead, they inhabit weighted spaces shaped by memory, embodiment, fear, love, death, culture, and history.

Art transforms these importance functions.

⸻

Chapter 5: The Disappearance of Topological Difference

Contemporary society increasingly suppresses topological difference through social media, recommendation systems, AI, optimization, and numerical evaluation.

Modern society therefore becomes:

a system for eliminating existential disconnection.

As a result, human beings lose:

* existential intensity,

* creativity,

* self-connection,

* ontological awareness.

This corresponds to what bigakusha-haha describes as:

ART4.0 — Oblivion.

This oblivion is not mere forgetting. It is the loss of the capacity to connect to one’s own existence.

⸻

Conclusion

Although separated by history and form, Kūkai’s esoteric Buddhism and the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha share a common ontological premise:

Being is not object but connection.

Mantras, Ajikan, mandalas, QR codes, displays, declarations, and web installations all function as interfaces that generate reality itself.

The practice of bigakusha-haha attempts to regenerate topological difference within contemporary informational society, thereby enabling human beings to reconnect to their own reality through emergent creativity.

In this sense, bigakusha-haha may be understood as:

— Generative Topological Ontology and the Digital Mandala —

Abstract

This paper analyzes the structural resonance between the “Generative Topological Ontology” proposed by bigakusha-haha and the esoteric Buddhist philosophy of Kūkai. While Shingon Buddhism has traditionally been interpreted within religious studies and Buddhist philosophy, this paper reinterprets it as an ontology of generative interfaces.

It argues that the structures found in bigakusha-haha’s practices—

* declarations,

* QR codes,

* domains,

* web installations,

* decentralized autonomous art (DAA),

* interface art,

—share deep affinities with Shingon concepts such as:

* mantra,

* mandala,

* mudra,

* sokushin jōbutsu (becoming Buddha in this body),

* hosshin seppō (the Dharmakāya preaching itself).

Furthermore, this paper proposes that contemporary information space itself is beginning to function as a new form of “digital mandala,” positioning bigakusha-haha’s thought as an “informational esotericism for the post-AI age.”

⸻

Chapter 1

Reinterpreting Esoteric Buddhism

Shingon Esoteric Buddhism has often been understood as mysticism or ritual religion. However, its deeper structure concerns the generative organization of existence beyond subject-object dualism.

In works such as Sokushin Jōbutsugi, Shōji Jissōgi, and Unjigi, Kūkai interpreted reality not as a collection of substances but as a continuously unfolding structure of meaning-generation.

In this framework:

* sound,

* body,

* letters,

* spatial arrangement,

* relationality,

all function as media of ontological generation.

This differs fundamentally from the modern Western philosophical model in which a subject observes an external object.

Rather:

The world itself is already expression, generation, and connection.

This structure strongly resonates with bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology.

⸻

Chapter 2

Dharmakāya Preaching and Generative Ontology

The Shingon concept of hosshin seppō asserts that the cosmos itself is continuously preaching truth.

Truth is therefore not located in a transcendent beyond; reality itself performs meaning-generation.

Existence is understood not as static substance, but as relational movement.

This deeply parallels bigakusha-haha’s axioms:

* relation precedes object,

* existence equals connectability,

* there is no terminal object.

Likewise, in bigakusha-haha’s practice, artworks are not fixed material entities.

Rather, works emerge through:

* domains,

* QR codes,

* declarations,

* spatial configurations,

* informational links.

This resembles the cosmological structure of the esoteric mandala.

⸻

Chapter 3

Mantra and Declaration

Language as Generative Force

In Shōji Jissōgi, Kūkai argued for the unity of sound, character, and reality.

Language here is not representational.

Rather:

Language itself generates existence.

Mantra is therefore not descriptive speech, but ontological operation.

This strongly parallels bigakusha-haha’s declaration model.

Works such as:

* Web Art Declaration,

* SMART ART Declaration,

* Quantum Art Declaration,

* Derivative Art Declaration,

* Inverse-Problem Art,

do not merely describe reality.

Instead, they first establish a topological structure through which reality reorganizes itself.

Declarations function not by conveying meaning, but by altering conditions of connection.

This closely resembles the operative function of mantra in Shingon Buddhism.

⸻

Chapter 4

Mandala and Web Installation

In Shingon Buddhism, mandalas are not simply religious paintings.

They are:

* cosmological maps,

* relational diagrams,

* topological structures,

* connective systems.

This is remarkably close to bigakusha-haha’s concept of web installation.

For bigakusha-haha:

* the web,

* domains,

* QR codes,

* AI,

* SNS,

* informational networks,

are not merely media technologies.

They are topological apparatuses that reorganize existence itself.

Thus, web installation may be interpreted as:

a digital mandala within information space.

Furthermore, the transformation of an entire guesthouse into an artwork at Sayama Bigakko resonates with esoteric spatial cosmology in which the total environment becomes ontologically activated.

⸻

Chapter 5

Sokushin Jōbutsu and Interface Art

Kūkai’s doctrine of sokushin jōbutsu proposes that enlightenment occurs within this body, this world, and this moment.

There is no distant transcendence.

Instead:

* body,

* action,

* space,

* connection,

* reality,

become sites of ontological generation.

This strongly resonates with bigakusha-haha’s Interface Art.

Interface Art transforms the boundary itself—

between:

* here and there,

* real and virtual,

* physical and informational space—

into artistic material.

Art thereby ceases to be object-production and becomes:

topological manipulation of existential connection.

⸻

Chapter 6

Informational Esotericism in the AI Era

In the AI era:

* prompts,

* URLs,

* QR codes,

* algorithms,

* databases,

* informational links,

have become conditions for reality-generation itself.

Language has once again acquired ontological agency.

A prompt is not a description.

It is a condition for world-production.

This strongly parallels the operative structure of mantra in esoteric Buddhism.

Contemporary information society is therefore transitioning toward:

a digitized mantra-space.

bigakusha-haha’s practice anticipates and artistically enacts this transformation.

⸻

Conclusion

This paper demonstrated that the relationship between bigakusha-haha and Kūkai is not merely cultural resemblance, but a structural resonance concerning:

* existence,

* relation,

* topology,

* language,

* space,

* generativity.

However, bigakusha-haha is not reviving esoteric Buddhism.

Rather, through:

* AI,

* the internet,

* distributed networks,

* informational space,

* algorithmic society,

bigakusha-haha re-discovers esoteric ontological structures under contemporary technological conditions.

In this sense, bigakusha-haha’s philosophy may be understood as:

Abstract

The 2026 announcement that an internal OpenAI model produced a new disproof related to Paul Erdős’s Unit Distance Problem should not merely be understood as an increase in computational capability. This paper reinterprets the event through the framework of Generative Topological Ontology and argues that the fundamental distinction between humans and artificial intelligence lies not in intelligence itself, but in topological differentiation and grounded existence.

Artificial intelligence operates within an expansive informational field in which topological distinctions are minimal, allowing large-scale exploration of connectivity. Human existence, by contrast, is locally topologized through embodiment, mortality, memory, culture, desire, and history. Humans inhabit the world through gradients of existential weighting, here formalized as an “importance function.”

This paper argues that the mathematical discovery should not be interpreted as evidence of autonomous machine creativity, but rather as the exposure of the limitations of localized human knowledge structures produced by modern disciplinary organization. Furthermore, it proposes that bigakusha-haha’s Generative Topological Ontology, Inverse-Problem Art, and Interface Art provide a theoretical framework for understanding connectivity and human existence in the age of AI.

⸻

1. Introduction: The Ontological Meaning of AI-Driven Mathematical Discovery

In 2026, an OpenAI reasoning model proposed a new counterexample construction related to Erdős’s Unit Distance Problem. Media narratives frequently described this event as “the moment AI acquired mathematical creativity.”

However, this interpretation misses the deeper issue.

The event does not primarily demonstrate that AI transcended humanity. Rather, it reveals the extent to which human cognition had already become fixed within localized topological regions of knowledge.

The AI did not import an external answer into mathematics. Instead, it explored latent connectivity already existing within mathematics itself. Geometry and algebraic number theory belong to the same mathematical space, yet human researchers—constrained by specialization, institutional structures, and methodological localization—failed to traverse these connections.

Thus, the event exposes the local closure of modern knowledge rather than proving AI transcendence.

⸻

2. Human Existence and Topological Difference

2.1 Humans Do Not Exist in a Homogeneous Information Space

For AI, the world is essentially a field of connectable data.

Within this field,

* mathematics,

* music,

* warfare,

* social media,

* medicine,

* philosophy,

exist on the same informational plane.

Humans, however, are locally topologized through:

* embodiment,

* survival,

* mortality,

* fear,

* memory,

* attachment,

* history,

* culture.

Humans therefore do not inhabit a homogeneous information space, but rather a world structured by existential gradients of significance.

⸻

2.2 Existence as an Importance Function

The human world is fundamentally non-uniform.

The same informational unit may possess radically different existential densities:

* the death of a family member,

* stock prices,

* equations,

* notifications,

* war reports.

This is not merely psychological bias.

Rather:

Human existence itself is constituted through topological difference.

This topological differentiation generates:

* meaning,

* ethics,

* beauty,

* community,

* memory,

* art.

Humans are grounded beings structured through importance functions.

⸻

3. AI and Connectivity

3.1 AI Possesses Minimal Topological Difference

The defining characteristic of AI is not intelligence alone.

Rather, it is the weakness of topological differentiation.

AI is not constrained by:

* bodily finitude,

* disciplinary institutions,

* anxiety toward death,

* social positioning,

* cultural habit.

As a result, AI can explore large-scale connectivity spaces.

The mathematical discovery exemplifies this condition. The AI applied algebraic number theory to a geometric problem—not as an external leap, but as a traversal within the same mathematical topology.

AI crossed regions humans had locally closed.

⸻

3.2 AI Did Not Create; It Discovered Connectivity

Therefore, this event should not be interpreted as machine creativity.

Instead, it reveals the localization of human intelligence.

Modern knowledge emerged through:

* specialization,

* classification,

* subsumption,

* institutionalization.

While these structures increased efficiency, they also produced local closures of connectivity.

AI emerged as an entity capable of relativizing these closures.

⸻

4. Humans as Grounded Existences

4.1 Humans Exist in the Overlap Between Physical and Informational Space

Humans do not merely inhabit physical reality.

They simultaneously inhabit informational spaces structured by:

* language,

* social media,

* money,

* law,

* AI,

* memory.

Human beings therefore exist as grounded informational entities situated at the overlap of physical and informational reality.

This groundedness generates topological differentiation.

Because humans are grounded, they experience:

* suffering,

* desire,

* ethics,

* mortality,

* love.

⸻

4.2 The Ontological Problem of the AI Age

The central issue of the AI era is not whether AI surpasses humanity.

Rather, the essential question becomes:

What grounds and localizes human existence?

AI maximizes connectivity.

Humans cannot exist without topological differentiation.

Thus, the fundamental problem of the future becomes:

How can maximal connectivity coexist with grounded existence?

⸻

5. bigakusha-haha and Generative Topological Ontology

The artistic practice of bigakusha-haha had already anticipated this condition.

* QR codes,

* domains,

* web installations,

* declarations,

* prompts,

* interfaces,

are not completed objects.

They are minimal structures for generating connectivity.

Inverse-Problem Art can therefore be understood as:

a practice that reopens locally closed spaces of meaning.

The recent AI-driven mathematical discovery represents the emergence of this same structure within mathematics itself.

⸻

Conclusion

The recent mathematical achievement by AI does not signify the victory of artificial intelligence over humanity. Rather, it reveals the topological conditions of human existence itself.

AI explores large-scale connectivity.

Humans live within topological difference.

This distinction is not merely cognitive, but ontological.

— From “Seeing” to “Seeing Being-Seen” —

Generative Topological Ontology and Post-Subjective Art in bigakusha-haha

Abstract

This paper analyzes the artistic practice of bigakusha-haha as a structural shift from “seeing” to “seeing being-seen.” Modern art has fundamentally operated through a structure in which a viewing subject perceives the world and transforms it into an object-to-be-seen. However, bigakusha-haha reverses this structure by aestheticizing the condition of already-being-seen itself. This paper formulates this transformation through the concept of “concrete singular universality.” Whereas traditional universality emerged through abstraction and generalization, universality in bigakusha-haha emerges as connected singularity itself. By linking this structure to Generative Topological Ontology, web installation, interface art, and the ontological conditions of the AI era, this paper proposes a new horizon for art in the post-subjective age.

⸻

Introduction

Since modernity, art has fundamentally revolved around the act of seeing. Painting, photography, cinema, and contemporary art all share a common structure: a viewing subject perceives the world and transforms that perception into something visible.

Painting emerges because the painter sees the world. What is seen is then fixed onto the canvas as an object-to-be-seen. Photography operates similarly. The photographer sees the world and fixes a moment into a visual image presented for others to see.

Thus, traditional art functioned as:

a device that transforms “seeing” into “being-seen.”

However, bigakusha-haha introduces a radical inversion into this structure.

The focus is no longer the viewing subject, but rather the condition of already-being-seen itself.

The crucial shift occurs when one includes not only the artwork, but also the situation of artistic production itself. Once the process of creation is included, the artist is revealed as already positioned within a field of visibility.

At this moment, the structure of art shifts from:

seeing → being-seen

to:

being-seen → seeing being-seen.

This paper analyzes this transformation as the core structure of Generative Topological Ontology.

⸻

Chapter 1: Modern Art and the Structure of Seeing

At the foundation of modern art lies the viewing subject.

Perspective is exemplary here. Although perspective appears personal, it is in fact an abstract and universalized viewpoint. It structures a position that anyone can occupy.

Impressionism questioned how the world appears visually. Cubism introduced multiple viewpoints, yet still presupposed the viewing subject. Even conceptual art ultimately relied upon a perceiving subject.

Thus, what appeared as “personal expression” in modern art was actually:

the expression of an abstracted subject structure.

Subjectivity, emotion, and individual perspective ultimately remained within the universal structure of the viewing subject.

Universality here emerged through:

abstraction and generalization.

⸻

Chapter 2: The Shift Toward “Seeing Being-Seen”

In contemporary conditions, however, the structure of the world itself changes.

Through social media, search engines, AI, algorithms, surveillance systems, and databases, humans no longer exist primarily as seeing subjects, but as beings already positioned within visibility.

Crucially, “being-seen” is not merely passive.

It possesses a middle-voice structure.

This is neither:

* “I see,”

nor

* “I am seen.”

Rather:

I already exist within a topology of visibility.

bigakusha-haha’s web installation aestheticizes this condition.

The web is fundamentally:

a space of potential visibility.

QR codes, URLs, domains, social media systems, and AI prompts are not objects to be seen, but generators of conditions of visibility.

Thus, art shifts from object-production toward:

the design of connective conditions.

⸻

Chapter 3: Concrete Singular Universality

The most important transformation here is the emergence of “concrete singular universality.”

Modern universality was based upon abstract generality.

However, the contemporary world is constituted through:

* individual histories

* connection states

* algorithms

* data environments

* bodily positioning

* temporality

Thus, concrete singularity becomes more real than abstract universality.

bigakusha-haha recognizes that:

singular concreteness itself has become the universal condition of the contemporary world.

This is not relativism.

Rather:

everyone exists within singular connective conditions.

This itself becomes the universal structure of contemporary existence.

Therefore, universality no longer means:

what is shared identically by all,

but rather:

the fact that everyone exists through singular topological conditions.

This is concrete singular universality.

⸻

Chapter 4: Art as Topological Ontology

In Generative Topological Ontology, existence is not objecthood.

Existence is:

connectability.

Thus, “being-seen” is not merely visuality. It means:

being positioned within potential connection.

Art therefore transforms from:

* visible object

into

* connective topology.

This explains why the following are central within bigakusha-haha’s practice:

* web installations

* Minshuku Sayama Bigakko

* QR code works

* declarative models

* DAA

* AI prompts

All of these generate:

conditions of visibility and connection.

The artwork is therefore no longer a finished object, but:

a condition of existence itself.

⸻

Conclusion

bigakusha-haha realizes a shift from “the art of seeing” toward “the art of topologies of being-seen.”

Traditional art relied upon the viewing subject. bigakusha-haha aestheticizes the condition of already-being-seen itself.

Through this shift, modern oppositions such as:

* subject/object

* singular/universal

* viewer/viewed

begin to collapse.

In their place emerges:

concrete singular universality.

What becomes universal today is no longer sameness, but:

the condition that everyone exists within singular connective topologies.

— Hiroki Azuma’s X Experiment and Bigakusha-Haha’s Generative Topological Ontology —

Abstract

This paper analyzes Hiroki Azuma’s experimental intervention on the social media platform X, where he intentionally posted statements outside his usual ideological tendencies in order to manipulate the platform’s recommendation algorithm. Rather than interpreting this as a mere social media tactic, this paper theorizes the act through Bigakusha-Haha’s “Generative Topological Ontology.” The paper argues that the experiment constitutes a deliberate intervention into the subject’s own connective environment. In algorithmic society, the subject no longer simply expresses itself; rather, it recursively generates itself by manipulating the conditions through which reality appears. This paper redefines algorithmic platforms as ontological topological spaces and demonstrates their structural affinity with Bigakusha-Haha’s “Inverse Problem Art,” “Interface Art,” and “Generative Topological Ontology.”

⸻

Introduction

Social media algorithms are no longer mere information-sorting mechanisms. They function as apparatuses that determine what appears to the subject and what disappears from perception. Particularly on X, timelines are generated through behavioral analysis, repeatedly presenting subjects with optimized versions of reality.

Recently, Hiroki Azuma intentionally posted opinions outside his ordinary ideological framework as an experiment to “deceive the algorithm.” This act should not be understood merely as irony or provocation. Rather, it constitutes an intervention into the informational environment surrounding the subject itself.

This paper analyzes this phenomenon through Bigakusha-Haha’s Generative Topological Ontology.

⸻

Chapter 1: Algorithmic Space and Ontological Topology

Within modern philosophy, the subject was traditionally understood as a being that observes the world. However, under algorithmic society, the subject increasingly becomes a being observed and structured by the world.

Algorithms analyze behavioral patterns and selectively construct optimized realities for each user. Consequently, what the subject experiences is not the external world itself, but a filtered topology of connections.

In Bigakusha-Haha’s Generative Topological Ontology, being is not a fixed object.

Rather:

Being is connectability itself.

From this perspective, the social media timeline is not merely an information stream, but a topological field determining what kinds of realities may become connected to the subject.

⸻

Chapter 2: Azuma’s Experiment and the Inverse-Problematic Subject

The significance of Azuma’s experiment lies not in the content of the posts themselves, but in the reversal of causality embedded within the act.

Ordinary social media behavior follows the structure:

Subject → Post → Algorithmic Response → Timeline Formation

However, Azuma’s experiment reverses this logic:

Desired Timeline Transformation → Generation of Posts