"You were laughing hysterically in your room around three o'clock this morning. So I woke up. What were you watching?" My wife asked me.

I was watching the movie "Yukio Mishima vs. the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto: 50 Years of Truth" on Amazon Prime.

Well, it was really fun.

-----

This movie was released in April last year, but due to the declaration of a state of emergency against the new corona infection, all the movie theaters in the Tokyo metropolitan area stopped showing it.

I was wondering if I go to see a movie theater in a rural area, but I understood that "Tokyo residents" were "uninvited guests" in Japan at that time.

This time, it was available on Amazon Prime, and I jumped right on it.

----

Well, it was one of the most exciting documentary films I've seen in a long time.

I found Yukio Mishima to be a very fascinating person, and I liked his humor and witty way of telling stories very much.

I was also impressed by the logical and calm response of the representative of the Zenkyouto of University of Tokyo (well, there was also someone who didn't).

Also, the comments from the people and experts involved at the time, inserted in the middle of the video of the discussion, were a great help in understanding the content of the discussion.

----

So, my impression was,

I think I understood most of what Yukio Mishima was arguing, but I could only understand about half of what the representative of the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto was saying.

The terms used were "difficult". Rather, I couldn't understand them.

The biggest problem was that we could not objectify (what they call "things") what the representatives of the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto were saying.

-----

I listened to both of their arguments while creating a UML (Unified Modeling Language) class diagram in my mind.

Yukio Mishima's talk was based on the natural state of the world -- there are objects, objects (things) have names, names describe the function of objects, objects have a duration -- in object-oriented programming, based on real-world objects.

In contrast, the representative of the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto seemed to argue that it is negative (counter-revolutionary?) to give a name to a changing tangible object (thing) and limit its function. It seemed to me that they were arguing that such a stance is negative (counter-revolutionary?), and that it even hampers the approach to finding a new meaning for open zones.

# I think I'm probably right in my understanding of the above, but I wonder if I'm wrong?

As it turns out, according to a representative of the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto, I thought,

"I (Ebata) don't think I can program the open area of the University of Tokyo campus with an object model"

This means that (at least for me) "I cannot design an open zone" according to the specifications required by the University of Tokyo Zenkyoto.

On the other hand, I thought that Yukio Mishima's world view could be programmed using the object model.

Perhaps the Zenkyoto people at the time might ask me to criticize myself, saying, "Approaching a revolutionary worldview from an engineering perspective is itself a counterrevolution!"

------

And so, if you are a publisher who would like to write a book whose title is

"Yukio Mishima vs Todai Zenkyoto with Object-Oriented Programming"

Please contact me.

Well, I think it's definitely "no".