Mark,
First learn about Japanese Culture.
Perhaps that would have been better rather than showing off to the world just how ignorant you are about it!
Your statement:
"...image says, "We're going to Mother you even if we have to envelop the whole world in our soft--yet inexorable--embrace."
is one of the most uncharitable I've seen yet!
I would've expected better -- especially from a Catholic Apologist!
I'm not permitted an aesthetic reaction to a piece of government art?
Mark,
You are, but you stated as if this was what the image actually said.
It reminds me of how some Anti-Catholic Protestants say that the IHS on the Host stands for "In Hoc Signo" as some sort of tribute to Constantine.
This logo is creepy.
That Homeland Security logo has to be a joke, right?
Huh:
I'm conveying an aesthetic, not a doctrinal, impression.
Mark, I think you should defend yourslf against Huh by cocooning him or her in soft plastic!
Oh, and Jon, it is as real as your nose. It was pulled when folks started making fun of it.
I know a tiny bit about Japanese culture. I'm not sure how it makes that art any less creepy. In fact, I can think of a few ways in which it actually makes it creepier.
In fact, I can think of a few ways in which it actually makes it creepier.
Me too after reading Dogs and Demons: Tales from the Dark Side of Modern Japan
For an idea of Japanese planning, Imagine the NY government tearing down Radio City Music Hall and putting in its place The Radio City Music Hall Museum and Cultural Experience Hall.
This logo is hilarious! Makes me think someone created it as a satire and it somehow came to the attention of people who thought it was perfect for their purposes. In other words, the sort of people that inspired the satire in the first place.
I know a tiny bit about Japanese culture. I'm not sure how it makes that art any less creepy. In fact, I can think of a few ways in which it actually makes it creepier.
Bredon,
Point is that Mark shouldn't have presented it in such a dark context in the first place. The context in which he presented it was just uncharitable in this respect.
To illustrate, would you find it also acceptable if somebody similarly done the same with emblems of the Catholic Church and sinisterly demonized its symbols in a parallel fashion?
Wow, Huh, I think you're overreacting.
All Mark did was to say, in effect, it looks awful.
Are you honestly comparing this government agency logo with the emblems of the Catholic church?
Sorry you think -- or seem to think -- that Mark was somehow slamming Japanese culture.
To illustrate, would you find it also acceptable if somebody similarly done the same with emblems of the Catholic Church and sinisterly demonized its symbols in a parallel fashion?
I'm afraid that I find this analogy to be lacking, though it may just be me. I tend to find ingrained mistrust and hostility to religion pitiable, if not contemptible. I tend to find ingrained mistrust and hostility to the governments of modern nation states prudent, if not commendable.
Huh:
If somebody says, in the context of an aesthetic judgment that, say, an image of St. Lucy with her eyes on a plate or some gory painting of a martyrdom gives them the willies, I would have no problem with that at all. We react to art how we react and it is legitimate to say so. What it is *not* legitimate to do is say, "I don't like this art. Therefore the art means that the government or religion it represents is evil." I found the art offputting. I was careful to say that I do not therefore conclude the Japanese are accurately represented by the bad art.
Both those logos scare me on a deep, visceral level. But seriously, should we really expect great aesthetics from people who have made a career of blowing things up?
Judith, does people who have made a career of blowing things up refer to the Japanese, the Dept of Homeland Security, or the commercial art firms who designed these?
The Ministry of Defense wasn't even a ministry until this year. The Japanese have some issues about how their military presents itself to the public and the world. Something about a little unpleasantness associated with their army and navy back around 1931-1945. For years, they could barely manage to justify having a "Self Defense Force" (rather than an army), which wore "uniforms" that looked more like those of municipal maintenance workers than of an armed force. So I'm not surprised they have a logo that makes them look like they're pretending to be a social service agency.
(Of course, the cammie fatigues you see U.S. Army people wearing around Washington these days look more like pajamas than a military uniform, so maybe spiffy is no longer the norm for uniforms.)
"Both those logos scare me on a deep, visceral level. But seriously, should we really expect great aesthetics from people who have made a career of blowing things up?"
Actually, with regards to the Japanese Ministry of Defense logo, I'd say it is the work of the culture that brought you Hello Kitty.
Not to mention the logo initially trotted out for the Total Information Awareness project... something which looked like it waws straight out THE PRISONER, with the all-seeing-eye and the "Knowledge is Power" motto. What do they want? INFORMATION!
Mark Shea,
I appreciate your attempts at clarification. I just felt that the opinion could've been presented in a less pejorative context. It's just that I know that you're better than that.
G.K. Chesterton (I can't believe I'm actually talking to you),
Are you honestly comparing this government agency logo with the emblems of the Catholic church?
Well, that's just it; you and Mark as well as the referenced blogger seem to take a more favorable opinion of emblems that have issued from Western culture -- which is understandable given the background you guys are coming from.
However, Japan is a quite different culture.
Emblems like these may seem foreign to folks such as yourselves (which is perhaps the reason for the 'creepy' feel since many times, we fear what we don't understand), but that doesn't justify placing it in such a dark context.
It's got nothing to do with East v. West. I also linked an exceedingly creepy product of Western culture in the entry. And, indeed, I think the Japanese art is very western looking. I like the western military art because it's military, not because it's western. I've no doubt there is appropriately martial art in the Japanese tradition.
Here's a collection of Japanese post cards with the theme of the Russo-Japanese war.
I'm left wondering about the Seven Gods and Fortune. Also the rising sun with an eagle seem popular.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/s...29&
coll_start=1
Emily
Right, I fear this Japanese logo because it's foreign and I don't understand it.
Sheesh.
Gary Keith Chesterton:
Right, I fear this Japanese logo because it's foreign and I don't understand it.
Oh, so you understand it?
Then, by all means, please proceed in enlightening me about it and explain precisely what these symbols stand for?
Your responses so far have been a grave insult to the alias you've been assuming.
Notice the manner in which Mr. Shea has been responding in contrast to your sacrastic dismissals. Although I may disagree with him, I respect his responses.
You should either try, at the very least, to live up to the name of your alias or cease committing such dishonor to the name of GK Chesterton.
I lived in Japan for two years while I was in the Navy. We share a base there with the JSDF-- several, but I only worked on one. I'm heading back to meet with my fiancé in a few weeks.
Newsflash: LOTS of Japanese art *is* creepily cute/soft/stylized. Second news flash: Lots of Catholic art has gore in it. Inside of their respective cultures, these mean specific things, but outside of the culture, they're going to have different reactions. My educated guess would be that the JSDF icon is trying to be very modern to keep folks from associating it with the Japanese Navy.
Japan has a deep theme about small and/or cute mixed with evil-- please notice the main villain of The Ring (based off of 'drowned girl child' type ghosts), the many, many stories about evil cats, (if they have long tails, split tails or have been kept too long, they may kill the lady of the house and shape-change to take her place) and even the villains in the Saiyuki have an adorable little girl... who kills frequently and cheerfully.
Now, it *is* kind of creepy to have a military-equivalent who has an icon that looks like a new age hospital's, and it does look like something that Hollywood would make for a One World Dictatorship. That is interpreting another culture's symbol through our culture *for humor reasons.* This is backed up by him then following with an icon from our own culture which can be humorously interpreted. To quote: "Humor. It is a difficult concept."
Huh?, you're over-reacting. Have some charity, why don't you?
Inside of their respective cultures, these mean specific things, but outside of the culture, they're going to have different reactions.
I believe that was the point behind my previous comment as regards the difference in cultures.
Have some charity, why don't you?
That's all I wanted in the first place; that is, we can certainly voice our opinions about such things outside our culture, but out of decency and, of course, charity, that we at least observe a certain level of respect for that culture, no matter how weird or creepy we might find things that turn up as a result of it such as the subject emblem.
Huh?, Mark's position really should have been obvious to you given this statement:
No. I don't think Japan is on the brink of world domination. I just think the art is creepy.
And I quite agree with his sentiment, while at the same time being aware that the logo was no doubt simply trying to express the idea of a non-threatening Benevolent Protector.
I don't see anything in this that should cause alarm for even an apparent Nipponophile as yourself.
Varenius:
And I quite agree with his sentiment, while at the same time being aware that the logo was no doubt simply trying to express the idea of a non-threatening Benevolent Protector.
That's not at all what the logo was attempting to express. Again, this is the result of not being intimately acquainted with Japanese culture.
In that respect, Foxfire is more on point in what she said:
"Inside of their respective cultures, these mean specific things, but outside of the culture, they're going to have different reactions."
This is what I was attempting to relay all along while at the same time requesting that a little more delicacy is practiced in terms of voicing such opinions about those things which eminate from such cultures.
Well, Huh, if you are such a great expert-- what *were* they trying to express?
Please, be sure to give your credentials, and preferably an official statement from those who designed the logo. In English and Japanese.
The MinDef logo is very Japanese.
The IA logo is reasonable if kinda feeb, I think, but then I liked the mushroom cloud on the old logo of Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Pacific.
I can't believe we're having this discussion.
I am living up to my alias.
No one would ever mistake me for G(ilbert) K. Chesterton. Not in a million years. So we're safe there.
I am sorry I wasn't sufficiently "delicate" in expressing myself.
I don't understand the logo, certainly not in the sense that I think you mean. But I don't "fear" it either. I agree with Mark that it's slightly creepy. And I repeat: you, my friend, are taking offense where none was offered.
But in the interest of mutual clarity, I will say that I do in fact understand how different cultures -- particularly when they are divided between East and West -- can mis-read each other's cultural vocabulary of signs, frequently with humorous results.
But please, continue to chide us for laughing at something that looks funny. To us, that is. 
GKC-- reminds me of a great conversation I had with a fellow geek... turns out that, in games where there are Japanese folks on (like final fantasy online) one should not use "heh" as a laugh. It translates as an evil sort of laugh--think Witch of the West kind of evil.
"Inside of their respective cultures, these mean specific things, but outside of the culture, they're going to have different reactions."
Like, or example, the swastika (traditional Asian good luck symbol) that appeared on some Pokemon cards that were marketed in Japan only (because Nintendo isn't stupid enough to sell them in Europe or America, where the symbol has, let us say, different connotations). (The ADL or some such organization got their knickers in a twist anyway and yelled that the swastika couldn't be used anywhere by anybody, and that if it didn't have sinister connotations in Japan, it damn well ought to.)
Please, be sure to give your credentials, and preferably an official statement from those who designed the logo. In English and Japanese.
Oh, I guess it's not enough that I actually have Japanese heritage then that I can actually relate to such symbols and their possible meanings.
My bad for feeling insulted then, foxfire.
Must be due to my ancestors having been bushi and pagan.
So no one is going to enlighten us on what the logo means then? 'Cause if not, I'll have a go.
The logo tells us that Japan's Ministry of Defense is the only thing that can protect us when one of Saturn's moons undergoes enough orbital decay to cause it to crash into the planet it orbits. "Are you prepared for the Saturnian apocalypse? 10 easy steps to surviving the fall of Titan. A helpful pamphlet provided by your Ministry of Defense."
Huh?:
Oh, I guess it's not enough that I actually have Japanese heritage then that I can actually relate to such symbols and their possible meanings.
Well then, why are you waiting? Tell us what you think it means, and how we are wrong! If it's not meant to express benevolent protection, what *is* it meant to express?
Again, I think you're overreacting. Mark clearly meant no disrespect to the Japanese people. And despite what you say, I do not think we are as ignorant as you seem to think. But then how can I be sure, since you won't even explain how we are wrong?
Non, Huh, it is *not* enough to claim that your ancestors were from Japan. It's called the genetic falacy-- classic example being "oh, my dad's a doctor, I can do a heart operation!" Or the movie cleche that all Asians know martial arts.
Also, this is the internet. I can claim to *be* Japanese, and without outside verification of what I say, it still doesn't matter for anything.
Also, stop taking offense on behalf of a GOVERNMENT and grow a sense of humor-- MODERN Japanese have one.
"oh, my dad's a doctor, I can do a heart operation!"
That's a fallacy!
How can one be born and automatically become engrained with the knowledge of his father's profession?
That's totally and insanely ridiculous!
Whereas in our family, a clan passes down to future generations their tradition and things that are of their ancestors.
We grow up knowing of our past, its traditions and that is what instills in us this knowledge.
Thus, various Japanese symbols become familiar to us as even symbols common in the Western world are familiar to those who come from such background.
This is how we are able to relate to such things and why they do not appear foreign or intimidating to us as various ideograms/kanji have meaning.
Please notice, there is STILL no actual explanation, just more hand waving.....
Fox, we'll never get one. Any real explanation is going to show that Huh overreacted, which he/she seems unwilling to admit. That's too bad, since there's little shame in overreacting in defense of something you admire/love so long as you are willing to admit it and apologize. All Huh has managed to do by stretching this out is irritate several readers.
Foxfire,
No explanation?
What are you talking about?
Didn't you yourself say that:
"Inside of their respective cultures, these mean specific things, but outside of the culture, they're going to have different reactions."
This actually proves my initial post that claims that perhaps if people were more intimately acquainted with Japanese culture, they may not find such symbols (that are products of the culture) disconcerting.
Even Varenius offered the example:
"...the swastika (traditional Asian good luck symbol) that appeared on some Pokemon cards"
Though the so-called 'swastika' here isn't really a 'swastika' as infamously known in Western culture.
Huh, I'll try this one more time.
You still don't seem to understand our point here. We are not contesting the fact that symbols can have different meanings to different cultures. We are instead asking you to explain WHAT THE SYMBOL EXPRESSES TO THE JAPANESE if we are indeed misinterpreting it. I suggested that the idea was that of a Benevolent Protector; you said I was wrong, yet you have never explained what the correct interpretation is.
Please do explain it -- if you have a different understanding of the symbol, I am genuinely interested to find out what it is! But if my interpretation is not wrong, please be honorable and admit you were mistaken.
Huh, I highly doubt that you are what you claim to be, because if you had actually been brought up in an honorable house hold you would have said "oh, this symbol means X, Y and Z" rather than going on in a most dishonorable manner about "offensiveness."
Well said, Fox.
Not very samurai to wave your hands around like an overgrown child, Huh.
If the interpretations here are so wrong, what is the right one?
Since folks like Foxfire and JohnathanR. have been incapable of following the argument, allow me to simplify it.
Essentially, this is what I had claimed all along:
"...if people were more intimately acquainted with Japanese culture, they may not find such symbols (that are products of the culture) disconcerting."
To make the point, allow me to take up Seamus' example (apologies, Seamus -- I thought it was Varenius who offered the example, but it was you all along -- thanks):
"Like, for example, the swastika (traditional Asian good luck symbol) that appeared on some Pokemon cards that were marketed in Japan only (because Nintendo isn't stupid enough to sell them in Europe or America, where the symbol has, let us say, different connotations)."
Let's say that the folks who make the Pokemon cards actually did go ahead to market the product in the United States and in Europe with that symbol.
Certainly, those who are unfamiliar with Japanese Culture would mistake the symbol here as a swastika rather than the traditional symbol for good luck.
Knowing Japanese culture and being familiar with various symbols that have come out of the culture, I can relate to such symbols whereas folks who aren't would find many of them either foreign or even intimidating.
Simply put, being intimately familiar with the Culture and things that are of that culture enables one to more easily relate to such things.
My argument all along has had more to do about being able to easily relate to such things and not at all knowing precisely their actual meanings.
That is, because I'm familiar with other symbols that come from Japanese culture, ones that are of the sort that is of this logo, I can more easily relate to it and do not find it the least bit intimidating.
I don't know how else to make the explanation much more simple than that.
Now, if you folks, along with JonathanR., would like to continue with the mob mentality of bashing me just because you want to gang up on me for what I believe in, then, by all means, go ahead.
But, keep in mind that I was only requesting that things that are of other cultures be treated with a certain level of respect.
I do not mind that we voice our opinions about them (even critical ones that may be negative) -- just so long as they're treated with some delicacy and respect.
Not only is our one simple question *still* left unanswered, but now you're playing the victim. Classy. And here I thought you might eventually have something interesting to say if I persisted...
Though the so-called 'swastika' here isn't really a 'swastika' as infamously known in Western culture.
No, it's just another symbol that looks exactly the same as the swastika.
Varenius, I think he's doing that because he can't think of an explanation for the symbol-- or he suspects that one of us has the official press release explaining it, ready to pull out if he ever actually goes back to the topic.
Hey, Huh, news flash: there wasn't an argument, there was just YOU getting pissy about a portion of a joke, then trying to act like you have superior knowledge. Think you can follow the conversation that's going on here, rather than the one in your head?
I don't care where the logo came from - it's stupid looking and creepy.
It looks like somebody who just ate a really big meal and is holding his tummy because it aches.
Either that or it's Saturn and one of its moons.
Am I being insensitive?
Foxfire,
You still don't get it --
It's not really about knowing what the logo actually means but rather more about being familiar with Japanese culture to the extent that you're also familiar with products of that culture, such as its various symbols and logos (i.e., ideograms, kanji) which spring from it.
For example, there are actually logos/symbols that I am familiar with which actually are reminiscient of this logo.
Because of that, I do not find this logo the least bit intimidating.
Now, that doesn't mean that what those familiar symbols represent is actually indicative of what this logo here stands for.
Only that familiarity with the "type" (e.g., the appearance of a symbol) leads to familiarity with things that may be of that "type" (i.e., having similar appearance) and, therefore, results in one not actually being so initimidated by them.
But, in order to be familiar with them in the first place, one has to actually know of the Japanese culture in this regard.
Now, the symbols I'm referring to (which reminds me of this logo) are ones that have more to do with the chakra circulatory system.
This (defense) logo itself may or may not have anything to do with those symbols I'm familiar with, but that does not erase the fact that their being similar in appearance to one another enables me to relate to them and, therefore, because I am able to relate to them in this manner (and, thus, they are familiar to me), I do not find them the least bit inimidating.
Now do you understand?
And, days later, still no actual explanation.
An allusion to an Indian theory of body-energy-- the version Japan is familiar with is chi, the Chinese theory. Are you perhaps referring to a form of Reiki?-- anyway, you still haven't explained what you believe it means.
So far, Huh, you seem to be all bluster and a great desire to be offended.
Huh, have you actually read any of the responses to you posted here over the past week? Or do you just enjoy arguing against points that no participant is making?
I keep coming back here to see which happens first: this entry scrolls off the main page, or you finally answer our question. If you want it to be the latter, here it is yet again:
We are not contesting the fact that symbols can have different meanings to different cultures. We are instead asking you to explain WHAT THE SYMBOL EXPRESSES TO THE JAPANESE if we are indeed misinterpreting it. I suggested that the idea was that of a Benevolent Protector; you said I was wrong, yet you have never explained what the correct interpretation is.
We understand and concede the point you have been making over and over and over again; now it's time to move on and answer our question.
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
Let's see what tomorrow brings... but I will bet anyone here 500 quatloos that it's deja vu all over again. 
Foxfire & Veranius:
Funny that you should be the one accusing me of not having read your previous posts when in fact you still haven't paid any attention to one word that I've been saying -- at all!
Here, let me make it even more simple for you to follow:
1. The logo reminds me of one of the symbols for one of the gates for Chakra
2. I only know that due to my intimate familiarity with Japanese culture and products of that culture
3. Whether or not it actually is a logo representative of the symbol for one of the gates for Chakra is irrelevant; it is familiarity with the "Type" (e.g., the appearance of the symbol, the style of the symbol) that is of capital here
4. Because of this familiarity, I am not the least bit intimidated by it
5. Therefore, my point at the very beginning
Comprende?
Also, Foxfire, you're not that intimiately familiar with Japanese culture as you claim based on your oversimplification.
Huh, the issue here has never been how you personally feel about the symbol, so don't start pretending it is. We have conceded here repeatedly that other, more positive interpretations are possible, and that Japanese people may well respond very differently to it than the commenters here. I can keep repeating this point if necessary, but considering that you have apparently ignored it every single time I've said it, I doubt it will do any good.
Mark never once said that his negative impression of the symbol is what its creators intended it to express, and neither has anyone else. For example, I don't care for the symbol either, but I suggested that it was an attempt to express the idea of a non-threatening Benevolent Protector. You said my interpretation was wrong, yet you have never explained why. So I ask you once again:
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
Note that I'm not asking what your own personal reaction to it is, or what other East Asian symbols it perhaps resembles, or to simply repeat the point you have been making over and over and over again. I'm asking you to give your best guess as to what the designers were intending to express in the symbol. In other words:
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
By the way, I raise my bet to 10,000 quatloos. Any takers?
Oh, and in case you missed it, Huh:
What does the symbol express to the Japanese?
...Wow, this guy is REALLY faking it.
Chakra is a *Sanskrit* word, by the way, Huh; it's been borrowed for Japanese pop culture, but....
Its primary association with Japan is via Naruto (Cool Anime, BTW. I'm a sucker for anything with kitsune.) although it's also in some permutations of feng shui and some martial art schools in the US use it in training. (Reiki probably would bring in the wrong attention from adults, as it is associated with a kind of faith healing.)
http://www.leafninja.com/chakra.php
Var, I'm pretty sure by this point that we've got some kid of unknown age who watched Adult Swim, saw the show and has a big case of yellow fever. Unfortunately, unlike my husband, his case isn't even a little charming.
Var
Huh, the issue here has never been how you personally feel about the symbol, so don't start pretending it is. We have conceded here repeatedly that other, more positive interpretations are possible
What I've claimed from the very beginning is NOT about my interpretation or your interpretation.
What I have claimed for the nth time is that if one was intimately FAMILIAR with Japanese Culture and the products of that culture, one would NOT find things of the latter the least bit intimidating.
People have found this logo creepy due to their ignorance of such things.
Actually, what you've been saying from the start is that you're offended, and that you feel that's justification to be rude and totally ignore the topic at hand to flog your personal offense.
Honestly, I find it rather offensive that you think MOTHERING is an uncharitable thing, when there's an image of someone hugging the world. Would you tell your own mother that? Are you intimidated by hugging?
Oh, and people have found it creepy because the worst villains are the ones who do it for your own good, and a world-spanning mothering would be very, very powerful.
And how do you know exactly that this logo is in fact symbolizing "MOTHERING"?
You, just like Varenius, is merely ASSUMING just that due to ignorance.
It's just like the cliche -- people fear what they don't understand.
Again, that goes back to what I've been arguing all along.
Hey, dummy, YOU are the one who took offense at the IDEA that it looked motherly.
Try to keep up when you're on your high horse, eh?
What?????
Are you even following the discussion????
It seems you haven't even read my comments.
People said that this logo looked creepy.
I argued that that was due to ignorance.
Now, not only are you being deliberately offensive by calling me a 'dummy', but you're purposely putting up a strawman.
By the way, if you were actually familiar with Japanese symbols, you wouldn't jump so quickly at the meaning of the logo since it could very well be more abstract than what you or even Varenius have been assuming.
Again -- IGNORANCE!
Huh, the only one jumping here is you.
You ignore repeated requests for actual meaning, insult and assume wrong-doing in a most uncharitable manner, whine in a most dishonorable manner, then get upset when folks call you a dummy for acting like a dummy.
I don't know what discussion you're reading, but the one here is still waiting for actual information from you.
Fox, don't let Huh get you riled up. Disbelieving laughter is the most appropriate reaction.
My next exercise in masochism with Huh will be posted soon.
*grin* Oh, if I was _upset_ I wouldn't post.
It's rather hard to tell a difference between me being upset on-line and me being bored on-line.
I just don't like some brat giving a pretty good culture a bad name just so he can be rude.
Amazing -- simply amazing!
You two just don't get it -- regardless of the repeated simple answers I've been providing the both of you.
Why don't you ask yourselves this -- why are people finding this logo creepy?
Perhaps then you might be able to follow what I've been saying all along.
Then ask yourselves -- why doesn't Huh think it's creepy?
Maybe then you can add 1 + 1 together unless you two are really that clueless!
And still, nothing but bluster from Huh! As if you've been patiently providing answers to our questions all along! hilarious!
Well, if I have time to waste later today I'll make one last attempt.
Varenius,
Here, let me help you since both you and Foxfire can't help but merely resort to ad hominem attacks and nothing else.
1. Why are people finding this logo creepy?
Because, most likely, they're not familiar with this type of logo and perhaps this is the first time they have encountered it.
2. Why doesn't Huh think it's creepy?
Because I have seen symbols/logos of this type before (e.g., the mentioned gate symbol) that carry a similar appearance, style, color scheme, etc.
That all comes as a result of my being intimately familiar with the culture and products of that culture.
It is due to these very things that I do not find the logo intimidating.
Now do you get it???
It was NEVER about what it actually meant, but being familiar with the Culture enough that one has seen other symbols/logos of this type in the past and, thus, being able to relate to them.
This may or may not be like the gate symbol I mentioned, but, regardless, it "looks" like it given its appearance and style.
Though, to me, it would make sense if it was since, after all, it is the logo for "defense"!
Huh, I've understood all of that all along, as you would have realized had you read my comments more carefully and fairly. My complaint has been that in addition to your argument outlined above, you are 1) accusing people of ignorance and 2) saying that the various explanations are wrong, yet offer no evidence to support either claim. Simply answering The Question could go far in supporting them, but you have repeatedly ignored it. If that's how you want to debate, fine, but don't expect us to take you seriously if after a week and a half you continue to be evasive.
Varenius,
Though I disagree with even your latest comments, I appreciate the charity that appears to be evident in it.
Obviously, this topic has been run to the ground and any further attempts at my trying to demonstrate to you the points that I've been re-iterating time and again will prove futile even if I were to draw on more specifics other than the gate symbol I cited.
Again, I may suspect that this logo has something in common with the gate symbol due to its style and appearance and the theme being 'defense', but I could be wrong in the end.
However, that does not take away from the fact that it is a style of logo I am familiar with due to my being intimately acquainted with the culture from which it issued from and others that are "like" it; hence, I do not find the logo in any way intimidating or even creepy.
Also, there is a distinct difference between how I have interpreted it and how you have.
Like Mark, you have claimed without any hesitation whatsoever:
"...the logo was no doubt simply trying to express the idea of a non-threatening Benevolent Protector."
How can you make such an absolute claim like this?
Do you now see the difference?
...any further attempts at my trying to demonstrate to you the points that I've been re-iterating time and again will prove futile even if I were to draw on more specifics other than the gate symbol I cited.
"Specifics" are exactly what I've been trying to drag out of you for the past week! Had you given us specifics regarding possible interpretations from the beginning, you would have eliminated most of the criticism. Instead, you've simply said, "All of your interpretations are wrong, and it's because you're ignorant of Japanese culture." OK, correct or not, that's at least a start, but unless you then give supporting evidence for that, it's just bluster.
Also, there is a distinct difference between how I have interpreted it and how you have....
...How can you make such an absolute claim like this?
Do you now see the difference?
The difference is actually that between my comments and those from other commenters who see it similarly, we have provided evidence in favor of our interpretation. (E.g., the comments about Japanese ambivalence toward the Self-Defense Forces.) You, however, have provided little more than hollow assurances of your "intimate" knowledge of Japanese culture, and some hand-waving about chakras late in the game.
Why don't you ask yourselves this -- why are people finding this logo creepy?
I don't need to because it's fairly obvious to me why. It's actually the same answer as to why this image is funny: incongruency between cuteness/softness and military violence. The SDF logo isn't exactly equivalent to Hello Kitty, but a similar incongruency exists there. The symbol is reminiscent of trendy corporate logos, and also suggestive of a human figure embracing something. That these traits are brought together for a military symbol seems ill-fitting, and "creepyness" is one possible reaction to this incongruency.
I don't personally find it "creepy" because the suggested embrace could also be protective, which could be a reasonable element for a military logo in a nation where people are ambivalent toward having armed forces.
I do find it a poor choice from an aesthetic standpoint, however.
Then ask yourselves -- why doesn't Huh think it's creepy?
I don't know -- that people have different aesthetic responses to things is answer enough for me. You keep claiming it's because you are "intimately familiar" with Japanese culture, but you have yet to back up that claim with evidence, and in fact cast doubt on it since despite this supposed familiarity you seem hard-pressed to come up with a plausible interpretation of the symbol.
"Specifics" are exactly what I've been trying to drag out of you for the past week! Had you given us specifics regarding possible interpretations from the beginning
The gate symbol was a specific.
If you wanted me to elaborate further on the meaning of the gate symbol and how it is reminescient of the logo here, it would take up more time than I am willing to devote.
That is, it would be like elaborating on the filioque since discussion of the gate symbol I cited requires that I explain certain other elements in that regard, such as those found in Suzuki.
That is why I found it, in my opinion, more sufficient (not to mention, efficient) to my case if I merely tried to expound on the more salient points in the terms I have introduced the entire matter above (e.g., the style, appearance, etc.).
At any rate, I cannot "download" to you my entire knowledge regarding the gate symbol and its similarities to this logo here since that would be time-consuming to the both of us and would require us to engage in a more in-depth discussion than what we're actually willing to do here.
Anyway, though I do not appreciate how you had responded subsequently, I do appreciate the respectful manner that was first evident in your initial comments to me at the start of our discussion here as well as (though it seems as if it were only a trace of that) same respect at the end.
God bless you.
The gate symbol was a specific. If you wanted me to elaborate further on the meaning of the gate symbol and how it is reminescient of the logo here, it would take up more time than I am willing to devote.
But it was a lone specific given very late, after many exasperated requests for a more-likely-to-be-correct interpretation. Further, none of your comments have suggested that you think the gate symbol is the *meaning* of the logo, simply that it reminds you a bit of it.
In other words, when you get down to it, you have provided no support for the claim that our interpretations are wrong other than "I vaguely feel it is so." That's the primary reason for so many irritated reactions to your comments: You call others ignorant and mistaken, yet provide virtually nothing substantive to back up those labels. It's trollish behavior, which is why the response has been heated.
It's too bad, because I really would have enjoyed hearing a thoughtful and plausible alternative interpretation truly informed by knowledge of Japanese culture. If you did have it to give, I would have much preferred you to spend time relating it instead of scolding us for supposed ignorance.
Varenius,
I engaged in generalities due to the fact that for me to go into the actual specifics of the mentioned gate symbol, this would require going into what maybe an exposition on Suzuki and the like, which neither of us would really want to spend much time on since it practically goes beyond the subject discussion.
For my purpose, I wanted to drill down to simply what was more relevant for the sake of a terse discussion.
I suspect that this logo may have something to do with actual aspects relating to the gate symbol based on accumulated knowledge of the culture and other things reminiscient of it; however, I may be wrong.
Yet, my point was (the reason for my initial remarks -- as this is the more pivotal, more salient point) that had one been immersed in such things that are of the Japanese culture, one would not actually find such things as "creepy".
Do you deny that those who actually found the logo creepy was perhaps due to this certain ignorance?
Also, for folks to say that the logo "was no doubt simply trying to express the idea of a non-threatening Benevolent Protector." is itself presumptuous and, furthermore, interpret it accordingly in such a dark and twisted context I found unacceptable as well as disrespectful of the culture.
Commenting by HaloScan
