Original Thinking?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Quoting famed intellectuals to further an agenda and the loss of free thinking (Orwell, 48)-The collector quoting philosophers and original thoughts: absence in the schoolroom 

The website titled The Collector publishes history, art and philosophy content. Yet concerning the latter, a bothersome realisation matches with the authors’ educational level. Masters and doctorate students write about philosopher’s interpretation of events. The website lacks original thinking. A problem so prevalent in the philosophical school. Where is the personal dedication? Where is the free thinking?

The website provides an array of immersive ideas. Everyday young intellectuals write about their study. Providing philosophy 101 to the average layman. Occupying a seminal space in the academic atmosphere. Inserting the philosopher and his idea. Summarising their content for formulation. Countless articles published daily. Yet the absence of original thinking is striking. Every article recalls a philosopher’s philosophy. There is little concern for producing subjective conclusions. While the aim of the website may be education so their articles are on point, it is a college course simplified. Explaining complex ideas to the commoner. A crash course in the history of ideas. It recalls the old and fails to honour the new. A teacher educating an eager audience with little personal ambition. Where is the original thinking? Where is the unique perspective? It is cliff notes instead of footnotes. Demonstrating a lacklustre realistic perspective to the audience. 

Citing one’s work is the definition of honest material. Demonstrating the breath of knowledge learned and verified. Yet at the same time the need to quote is predicated on an ethos of legitimacy instead of the quality of the knowledge. Instead, citations are supplied to overlay a superior position. While this isn’t wrong in of itself, it does marginalise original thinking. A student who quotes either is finding support for his theory from apparent experts or he using their ideas to create his own. In the former, the addition of citations only tries to see citations that fit with his theory or reject his theory for theirs. In the latter, the second possibility is replayed. Reading through this literature exposes the student to the ideas but it also puts them on a silver platter. The individual is not asked to think for himself but apply for himself. A lesson in research not a lesson in growing. He has amassed wider knowledge on other’s perspective and to choose which he believes is best. Yet he loses his own credibility. He cannot quote himself He can provide nuance but he has already sacrificed his personal view for that of peer reviewed content. It is in the hands of the experts. They know best. His opinion is irrelevant.   

Plagiarism is using without quoting. As long as the ideas is cited it can be used. The way around is to simply quote their idea. Failing to show respect is to receive a failed grade. A fair proposal for those who wish to take credit for other’s views. A demonic selfishness, too busy to think for themself. Had they simply added a footnote, it would’ve passed. Copying and pasting is part of the exercise. It is just preferred in smaller doses. Write in your own words does not mean the students original idea but what the author meant. Spending so much time arguing over what other people think but not what the student’s think. It is teaching the student to parody other’s ideas. It is alright as long as it is paraphrased or cited. A demonstration of a legitimate point is to refer to others. The school is promoting plagiarism. They're just providing a loophole to their own moral code. It is not so bad if different words are used then the author writes. Yet where is the student’s words if only to extend on that of the author. Compiling the responses and choosing is to be presented with selective options. What about thinking outside the box? What about the third option? Such an option is disallowed. It cannot be quoted.

Citing in school follows student’s through life. Quoting others ideas instead of forming their own. Student’s do learn to give due respect. Quoting an idea they received for inspiration or as simple as I heard this joke from so and so. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is malicious. Whether or not it is a big deal is critical on a principle level. A dose of elevating the other. Tipping the cap to those who deserve it. Yet the insistency of quoting in the classroom only further denies the student’s nuance. The student merely spits back the author’s words. The student writes the teacher’s words on the test. It is a myopic transition. Education is reflective. Here is some ideas now repeat them back to me. Do not think deeper nor add personal insights just write how the teacher said. Do not forget details nor emendations. A policy of decaying growth and delayed inspiration. Desiring to escape, to demonstrate that freedom so heavily preached in the university stratosphere. Yet it is only to the confines of the campus spatial area. Intellectually the mind may expand but outside the classroom. The classroom is the space of monistic rhetoric unable to break free.

Graduating from the classroom continues the echo-chamber intro the real world. The ideas spawned in the paper are those thrown into conversation. Debating with people instead of ideas. Leveraging names over numbers and status over statistics. Amplifying a voice for submission instead of a crafted deduction. Creativity is rare. Sophistry is pandered. Phrases relayed in a hypnotic surrealist shell. Pawning off other’s ideas as one’s own. Unable to differentiate and think for oneself. Personal life is a projection of another on the self. Desiring to be another. To uphold their thoughts as one’s own. Helpless to decode a divergent route. Caught up in the societal coercion. My intellectual can beat your intellectual. Repeating verbatim without actually delving into their content. Arguing on jargon instead of the details. Obeying the self appointed representatives as a loyal servant of their cause. Marring any investigation into the ideas that are followed. The self replaces the professor with the media. The media, the celebrity informs the average Joe of his life’s purpose. Anything otherwise is the tempting devil. 

Relying on others to cultivate destiny. Where is the pushback? Where is the scepticism? Parading ideas in the street. A desire for a coercive lifestyle. Following blindly. Existentialism has failed modern man. Instead of spending time reflecting he has preoccupied himself with finding a new master. His church, king, celebrity/media. He has found the populist who is like him but just beyond his reach. A fantasy of fortified connection. Modern man has failed to look inside and awed by his awesomeness. Unaware of his impressive faculties. He is questing for a guide. A external stimuli to show him the way. This is the advice of the sage whether that be an expert or a schemer. He seeks inspiration and validation. He fails to look inside for those possibilities. It is only as a lackey that he can be raised. The aspirations of the individual are mitigated by his own betrayal. He calls his being but then trots out to belonging. Fetishising connection to improve his mental state. Following their words to feel more deeply linked in a neurotic illusion. Swept up in the possibility of calming the loneliness he compromises for comfort. Serving a singularity that defeats his entire autonomic pursuit.

Fresh ideas are those who are outcasted and isolated. Those with no attachments or shame. It is easy to critique when the consequences are minimal. Cynicism runs rampant and the divisive conclusion is drawn. Nuance is a stream of uncorrected extension. Breaking away loosened and fragmented. Creativity is second guessing. Dissecting the accepted narrative. A new wave of possibility that pierces the glass.  

Dogmatic Dissonance

By: Jonathan Seidel

Robert Greene and the dark side: is the crucible to be voided

Star Wars famously presents the dark side as a danger to the world. It is something to stay away from. Remain pure away from the seduction of the dark side. Yet the dark side may be some thing to be harnessed. Jung’s shadow portrays an embrace of the dark magic for holistic completion.

Jung believed it necessary to fully embrace the true self. Man conceals his genuine identity, those aspects that embarrass him. He hides under blankets of shame. A teenager hiding a bottle of vodka in her closet hoping her parents won’t find it. The shadow is abrasive but it is avoided for mental health. For sanity and security. Man lives off soma. Optimistic in his attitude dispelling any myth of imperfection or weaknesses. He cannot cry in front of others or tell anyone he likes cartoons. He must show he is resilient as the standard suggests. He is pressured into this positivity of pure strength. Playing off a character in a play. The way we act and the way we speak follow an ironclad consistency relayed to perfection. Cultivating a persona wholly constructed by the self. Afraid what others would think of the truth. A way of fitting into the social enterprise. Whether that be a goodie two-shoes or a bad boy. The mask is artificial for external recognition. Acting for approval. Yet the true personality is repressed.

The shadow is the repressed personality. Identity is enshrined with the persona. The routine has incorporated the persona as the real deal. The game has gone on for so long the true self has been regulated to the shadows. The conscious mind protects from the deep-seated horror pushing forth. The hysterics remain in the recesses unwilling to lend them an inch. The soul is not aware of these conflicts. The delusion seems empirically genuine but it is a fabrication of approval. It is a legitimate aspect but parcels the holistic picture. The delusion is not obvious to the soul. The soul thus perceives the present traits as the culmination of the self. Yet there is more that is latent. Moments trigger and emotionally rile up. At times, there is seemingly no explanation nor rational basis but through proper introspection the truth can be unearthed. Speaking internally, is an honest acceptance of the limitations and accompanied shame. The shadow is the lurking branded do not enter signs. Stay safe and ignorant or pierce the discomfort. Confront the issues and overcome them. 

The shadow is the dark side. The side locked in the closet that cannot come out to play. Ashamed of its existence. Removing any association with it. Subconsciously locking it and throwing the key away. It is the Jedi perception of the dark side. The Jedi describe the dark side as an abhorrent evil. The Emperor is an evil man, Darth Vader is a famed villain but it is only with the prequels that philosophy of the force and theology of the Jedi becomes more broadened. The Force is a powerful tool in the originals. It is a part of the Jedi’s abilities. Obi Wan tricks the stormtroopers, Darth Vader can choke people, Luke directs the torpedoes into the exhaust port and Palpatine shoots lightning. Besides for the mideclorian confusion, the emphasis of force capability and its aptitude was extended as more investment in the cinematic universe. The force seemed more strategic in the originals. The force was a mysticism of connection not of tactical warfare. Mastery over the force to control is a prequel addition not the generated universe of energy to connect to of the originals. Though in both cases the Force is linked with emotion as the dark side of the force is the shadow realm. 

While the prequels used the force in conjunction with the acrobats and duelling, the agonising decline of Anakin does follow the emotional turmoil of Luke. The danger of Luke or Anakin giving in to their emotions is moving toward the dark side. Emotion is not absent from their films it is that emotions ought not to guide actions. To be stoic and harmonious. The extreme isolation of emotions is thus the kryptonite for the Jedi. To not engage emotionally is to then turn to overdrive in the simplest mishap. Anakin is trained in the art of the monk. Belittling his desires. When his emotions consume him, telling him to repress them fails to do justice. Trying to resolve cold turkey is not an answer. An alcoholic needs understanding not shame. The lacking emotion turned him evil because the good guys were pandering to their ancient arts. A better example would be a homosexual in a religious community. Telling him to suppress himself is not easy and doing so absent empathy will only turn him into an apostate. Though a different case, Spinoza’s exile was of dogmatic disagreement. The Jedi have cultivated a non-desired life through rigorous training and isolation but that doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Their dogma sidelined any sympathy and shoved their most cherished pupil to the enemy. 

Anakin was his own man and believed with his way the world could be changed but he wasn’t prepared and was manipulated. He had never seen the dark side. He assumed the assistance was gracious. He was blind to evils and then was too deep to escape. Luke nearly falls to the dark side afraid of the potential tragedy that may occur. If he acts like them he will become them. He had never tempted in the dark arts with the emotional sway thus placing him in the clutches of the enemy’s goal. The failure of the Jedi mindset is the extremist persona. If it doesn’t work then it could be a massive disaster. While Palpatine is in charge he is weaker than Vader. The ploy is for Luke to kill Vader or to merely fall to the dark side and be a team of three to rule the galaxy. To overpower the emotional hard drive that remained dormant. Ironically, it is not the stoic who wins but the emotional appeal to Vader. Refusing to fight his father and calling for him as he screams in agony is not the traditional Jedi way. Cold rationality would deduce that dad is bad so he must be had. In the Jedi world, evil must be vanquished no matter the consequences. Anakin’s visions were to come true and deal with Padme’s death to fend off the Sith. Passions are second to the facts of reality. Attachments just cause more chaos. 

Entertaining emotion is the final move of Luke. Vader is dumbfounded and Palpatine angrily shoots lightening. Palatine hoped for the angry emotion not the gentile one. It is Vader’s empathy at his son’s agony that he races to save him and kill the emperor. The last moments are touching between Vader and Luke and then Luke and Leia. The Sith wish for emotion but specific emotion. Dooku’s turn was sympathetic and calculated. His rage was absent. Yet he potentially fell victim to the Sith’s ideals. Qui-Gon also seems to fit an emotional side. Obi-Wan tries but buries it in hopes of keeping with tradition. He is a stoic to the core, reminiscent of Cato the Younger. To be emotional is to be human but to follow passions is to be a part of the dark side. Reason is the guiding light. A nice touch to the enlightenment thinkers who found quickly that cold rationality doesn’t always bring about the utopian aspiration. Romanticism was the emotional spring away from Cartesian rationalism. Romanticism was a time of renewed thinking through a divergent medium. The romantics were the emotional idealists over the intellectual idealists before them. The passions would hold everything together but this was soon ended with the realists. The end of the exotic spontaneity and the critical circuit. Realism was the synthesis of the rational and the emotional temporarily. It was the realistic display of life on a canvas. Both themes on stage.

Concerning the reversal of dialectics: an age of reason to an age of passion. The Jedi and Sith are the archetypes of their respective fields. One seeks liberation the other control. Beyond the good and evil manifestations, the Sith in the original trilogy have no care for destruction but sole control. They are bringing order to the galaxy. While this may be authoritarian it is peaceful. It follows the tyranny of the Roman Empire. Objectively problematic but economically sufficient. The prequels and subsequent media only provide more evidence. The Jedi are the wise sages to be consulted and protect the peace of the republic. Even in the grand scheme of the corruption, peace is the necessary measure. Failing to make changes or better the system. In the originals, they are loyal to bringing the republic back. The Jedi and ancient stoics ignored corruption which led to the Empire. The stoic mindset failed historically and fictionally. It is still an important anchor but its monkish dogma is dangerous. Away from the world the spiritual fellow uninvolved in politics or involved but to an unhelpful degree. Even after their failures in the originals, they hold to stoic form. Absent the chronology, Ben and Yoda hide away. Luke is the solution but they desire his victory under their ideals. He is the youth stronger in his stoicism. Yet such reckoning fails to acknowledge the original failure. 

Modern stoicism in its own right acts as a foil for passion. Epicurus was correct about passions but the hedonistic will took on a life of its own. Epicurus was decried for the hellenistic monism that prevailed. A philosophy he did not preach. Asceticism attempted to heal the wounds of the desire. Without desire peace is simple. Yet without desire so is passion and life force. Nietzsche overwhelmed by this blatant rejection. Virtue is the highest cause. Nietzsche's thought was blatantly off putting.  The empire as portrayed in the original and even the prequels isn’t as evil as the Jedi would hope. Nietzsche wished to affirm life that the stoics denied. Yet it seems Nietzsche has been outplayed by modern consumerism. Hedonistic materialism needs an extreme wing of conservative stoics to balance the medium. Nietzsche’s epicureanism was not what it was morphed into. To him, affirming accorded with freedom and agency. Freedom is a pleasure, an essential part of human reality. Humans have emotions and trying to undermine them is demoting dignity. It is curbing justice and integrity for purity. The Epicurean is not an excess desire but a modest exposure. Yet pleasure is fire. If left untamed it could spread wide. Passions are novel but are considerably powerful and must be consulted. 

The dark side is the acceptance of passions. The Sith is overwhelming passions. The belief that passions can guide order and stability. Exerting power is necessary to ensure harmony instead of allowing the earth to move on its own. To permit chaos to reign as long as the person themselves is in charge of their lives. In Wilbur’s quadrant it is Q1 versus Q3. The Jedi believe in human perfection. If people train they can perfect themselves to do good in the world. If desire is subdued then peace will come. The Sith are critical of the optimism. Humanity is imperfect and selfish. Doomed to failure, only an external force can ensure order. Desire cannot be subdued. Allow people to utilise their passions. The Sith will control the chaos with salient emotion. To some degree historically the Sith are correct. Democracies of and old and new have faltered. Transformed into empires or backslid to tyranny. The benevolent leaders were followed by devilish leaders. Corruption holding fast generationally. The ideals of the Jedi did not pan out. While not every moral enterprise was stoic, the same ethical ideals were boasted. Each framework failed. The stoics, hellenists, christians, democrats. Each promising a moral framework and failing miserably. Feeding the desires and falling into the abyss.

Luke represents entering into the shadow. Accepting the passions. Aware of the falterings of his projected ideology. Needing to compromise. Nietzsche sought this middle ground but his work was misinterpreted for the devil. The pure-pleasure dialectic is on moral, economic, and political levels. The conservative strand promises to uphold traditional pure values. Away from the dangers of passion. The liberal mind pushes the passions narrative. Engaging in the benefits of the world. There is no compromise. Each side vying for control. Jung’s explanation opens the possibility for a synthesis. Engage the shadow but do not let the shadow control you. Do not be overtaken by Mr. Hyde. Do not fall to the Sith. Such a fall enrages the passions to the negative. Engulfed in emotional volatile behaviour. Unable to logically differentiate between the good and the bad. Just bandwagoning to support with little common sense. On the other side is the logicians who just consider the logistical matters without accounting for the harm to people. The law needs allegory. Legal narrative is the presentation of emotional appeal to the rational rule. Working together humanity is able to embrace themselves and the world on equal footing. Aware of the drama and disdain but able to consolidate and analyse effectively. 

Jung’s shadow is not just a personal matter but a societal one. The grey area that emerges from the synthesis is not just a character shift personally but also socially. The Nietzschean hope is to embrace the passions but with common sense. To think of others and add in the possible consequences. Treating people with respect out of reason and emotion. The Jedi’s failure is failing to engage the shadow. It is dangerous and it is scary but it must be confronted. It must be battled like Jacob and the angel. One must become a warrior in a garden rather than a gardener at war. To be is to utilise strength but able to hold back. To feel empathy but not lost in revenge. A balanced middle is treaded carefully. Desire is not be voided but to be meditated upon. At peace with the self and with the world. 

Oppressive Victimhood

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Marxian oppression and unequal justice

A common theme pronounced throughout liberal ideology is the inequality pervasive between the various classes and ethnic groups. The majority stumps the minority. The minorities are the downtrodden defeated by the majority devil. History of majority discrimination proves this point. Since many groups have been afforded this discrimination they must unite against the oppressor. This is the height of intersectionality. Each newly oppressed group is added to the slogan. This includes women, blacks, homosexuals and muslims. Even if a group was not oppressed but is seemingly rejected by the mainstream patristical westernisation like non-binary and muslim then they included into this intersectional paradigm. It doesn't matter if one was an oppressor or oppressed elsewhere only if that specific society has harmed them in someway. It is a spider web of victimisation. The more groups one checks off the more they have been oppressed. A black lesbian is the height of victimhood even if she herself was never oppressed. The societal polemic is sufficient for the non-antagonised to feel oppressed. It is if the group they ascribe to has been in the past or present. 

This creates its own cognitive dilemma. An individual accepting victimhood without ever being attacked. Yet group identity permits extension of victimhood just as a heritage is passed so is victimisation. It is all about connecting the dots of the oppressed. It turns into a fictional creation whereby the oppressed is anyone in the vicinity of the oppressor. While this at times on social media is exaggerated, there is a seeming truth to the exacerbated narration. This victimhood in many minds is melded into those who were never oppressed to be labeled oppressed or for them to be labeled an oppressor without ever doing anything. A meta-thematic framework is constructed. In this regard, straight white men are the devil incarnate. They are the sole reason for destruction of the world. Even if that straight white man is from Irish peasants or a Jew from Nazi Germany. While this may be true of American history it is not of world history. Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of Scots, these are early modern female leaders. Quantity-wise it is minute but there are cases. The issue is that the ruling authority for generations was predominately men and thus oppressive. There were peasant revolts even slave revolts but never women revolts. Spartan women were glorified. African leaders were black, some tribes were matriarchal. On the western front, there is a consistent element for much but not all of its history.  

Selective history is parcel of the ideological motivation but even if they were correct that is not the case anymore, nor were all straight white men oppressors. Majority of people throughout human history were oppressed by classist order. Divine right ruled supreme. Even early America was regulated to those who owned land which was only a subset of the nation. It is only in the past two centuries that everyone has gained rights. The issue is this net pinning all of an ethnicity as perpetrators when most of them were themselves oppressed. The Irish were the first slaves in America. Slaves comes from the word slav for slavic. Many whites in the midwest are impoverished. It isn’t about race but recognition. There may be some systematic bias but this only furthers it. People growing more sceptical. There is prejudice but not everyone is. Blaming an ethnicity for the crimes or failures of those of the same colour is the same as a blaming a Jew for Israel or blaming a muslim for Iran. It is not equal. They are not one and the same. Just because someone is born into a group does not make them an accomplice. Yet this is what people do. It is original sin imprinted on the skin instead of the soul. They stereotype and then conclude that any black man walking in the street with a hoodie is a gang-banger. 

It is a matrix of dubious incarnation. A magical spell deriding all forms of nuance and individuality. It is as if the enlightenment taught nothing. It is as MLK’s speech was negligible. The foundation of a democracy where freedom is the bedrock becomes a war of tribalism. Where did the melting pot go? What tarnished the individualism? Judgements are made and equality flushed down the toilet. The greatest nation built on civil liberties still has a stench of animosity towards difference. A utopia gone awry. The intersectional identity doesn't fix because it only bashes further. It doesn’t solve, it excludes. Any formally oppressed who excels is sidelined. Asians, Arabs and Jews are spited. They constitute the absurd middle of improvement. They are financially secure. Jews are thus white and Asians and Arabs quasi-white. It paints the entire world as black and white. The oppressor is damned. They can never atone. They are the Jew who because of his ontology can never fully atone. It affirms his whiteness on the basis of identity he rejects Jesus and is damned to hell. Yet the white man who converts to intersectionality and pays homage is unredeemed. He is told he can atone but he is a crypto-Jew during the Inquisition. There is no escape no redemption. His blood is tainted, his skin framed. Harassed for who he is, well just take it since the victimised have been for centuries. 

To some degree this seems unfair. Why is it anyone’s fault for their fate. They were born into an ethnic group not of their volition and yet they are antagonised for it. They can’t change who they are, they can’t even take on other’s cultures. That is cultural appropriation. Transsexual is permissible but transcultural doesn’t seem to be too accepting, though that may be out of scepticism. In this climate, the white man must be white and suffer as a white man. There is no out, he is to burn at the stake. Even those who fight alongside the liberation army are placed on the frontlines to die in battle. A new world order of intersectional dominance. Quite graphic but model of new oppression. The marxian model inverted. It is time the oppressed become the oppressor. They must band together to overthrow. Using white men sympathy to defeat them. Kill them with fake kindness. The revolution isn’t about taking responsibility but having the oppressor pay heed to their cause. A child crying for a toy. They scream for revolution and then protest in the street for the white man to change for them. He is a puppet for their change. They shame all those who aren’t part of their intersectional family for not being victimised. 

How this plays out theoretically is itself debatable. The oppressor is permitted to stomp around and commit buffoonery because they are oppressed. They tamper and trample. In extending the oppressor not just a person or a race but to a system enables them to include the non-oppressed and the successful as accomplices to the oppression. It is not about whether one is white but they are classified as such. Success must be based colour than character. The variety of congressional ethnicity is not sufficient. A black president is insufficient. Women haven’t been elected nor has a homosexual. Yet people aren’t voting for such a candidate. Hillary lost to Trump. If all the women and all the liberal men worked together Hilary would’ve won. Haley would be in the running but she is not. There are three hundred million Americans and apparently it’s a a psychosis preventing feminine victory. Agencies may be to blame for lacklustre diversified achievements but then again there are diversified athletes who are millionaire and even billionaires but seemingly don’t raise their communities up. They do not attempt to change the globe. They hope that others will do it. Pander enough, complain enough and someone will relent. There is representation and it is growing but the changes aren’t happening. 

Thus the childish syndrome persists. The glaring dilemma is obvious in the ethical imbalance. Since it is a structural framework everyone who is part of the oppressive is more accountable than the victim. The victim is a child who doesn’t know better. Their sins are minute compared to others. The feudal system inverted. A peasant’s crime is more tolerable than a lord’s. If a lord hits a peasant he is punished but not vice versa. The hierarchy is inverted and the entire system an upside down pyramid. Only the oppressor can sin. A parent with responsibilities and a child with no accountability. Treating those downtrodden as idiots who couldn’t tell their left from right. Mockery is one sided. Those privileged folk have a higher moral ceiling. Privilege is parked with power. Ethics are tied with status. Discrimination is against those who have been historically marginalised. These marginalised communities are capable of committing evil to justify their past hardships. A bad deed for them is smaller than that of a privileged person. While advocates claim this is merely due to the imbalance of power, it is essentially a childish tactic. Getting away with crime because of identity and burdening others because of their identity. At the core power is just an excuse for immaturity. You were wronged in the past so now you can justify it to entire identity. You provided free passes by the fate of your existence. Yet how this dynamic is structured is subjective.

The ethical promise is only for certain minorities and not for others. Anti-semitism is permissible but not anti-black sentiments. Jews are white and thus can be racist against. They are capitalists and communists simultaneously. Asians are left out of the fold. They are discriminated against but it is all a joke. The funny faces and nerdy comments are just for kicks. Those who excel in a white world are part of the problem. It wasn’t perseverance or endurance but luck. They are part of the devil’s squad. Success is accosted. Blacks or gay conservatives are maligned. Brainwashed by Fox News. They are traitors and sellouts. All the while the advocates are tricked by grifters. They look to their race-bating intellectuals who have stolen their money to raise themselves but not those they promised. Where is the change? Where is the trajectory heading? The hierarchy is a reassumed befalling victimhood. Unwilling to parse with inequality. The white man runs the world and he must be punished. All white people for past sins, their Jewish and Asian collaborators must suffer as well. Sounds pretty christianesque. Only fortifying the socio-ontological dogmas of old. Furthering the necessity of a winner and a loser. The scale must be inverted to further the hate so now the oppressed can become the oppressor.

Over-visualised Content

By: Jonathan Seidel

Visual effects and bad writing: how to make bad movies (Adorno 94)

Films use visual effects to enhance the motion picture. They entice the viewer into an enjoyable outing. The view is pleasing and comfort sinks in. The preoccupation with the spectacle undercuts the prose, turning the plot into a mockery. 

CGI is at the centre of debate. Some people like it others hate it. Some wish to go back to old Star Wars others like the new models. It has its moments for better and for worse. Interstellar, Edge of Tomorrow and Wolf of Wall Street. Nolan’s use for Interstellar was marvellous. The Planet of the Apes remakes were well CGI-ed. There have been complete blunders as well. The 2003 Hulk comes to mind and Green Lantern oh and can’t forget the CGI Dwayne Johnson Scorpion King from the second Mummy movie. Yet neither of the latter moves were heavily regarded. On the other hand Interstellar was a masterpiece. Avatar is the highest grossing film ever (though The Force Awakens is number five and people cringed) and Toby Maguire Spiderman was well received. For all the antagonism it has done well in recent years to make amazing movies but also to wash over really horrendous movies.  

It can be used for good or for evil; used properly or improperly. With a bad director it will go horribly wrong and with a good director it will go over well. Nolan used it well not so much Ang Lee. It is in the utility. The visual is the core of film storytelling. Screenplay must engage the audience. The audience is not a reader but a viewer. An observer who sits back and relaxes. Allows the images to encounter him. Some theatres even have recliner seats. Heightening comfort for a dazzling narrative explored visually. There is a staunch difference between watching a play and watching a film. Sitting up at a play is partaking in the actor’s roles. There is a distance but it is not far. Reclining would sour the mood. The play is lively and conducive to the arena that engulfed both the actor and audience. An observer who like a sport fans is engaged in the prose while for a film the distance is awarded as the actors are behind a screen. A screen previously recorded with no relation to the audience. There is no need to engage but rest against the headrest and enjoy. 

This comforting passivity centres on the motion picture. How the narrative is strung like watching a recording playback. Does the sequence fit in the visual is a lot more alarming to one who isn’t focused on the present actors on stage. Perfection is expected having so much time to rehearse and to film. The screen possesses a charm for the surreal. Stage performance is human and imperfect but the screen turns actors into superheroes. The actor is foreign with no linkage to the audience. A metamorphosis that diminishes an equal footing. An encounter in bewilderment and suspense. The experiential point is breathtaking as it forces itself on the viewer. Its purity breeching through the screen. Enjoying the fluid transition from scene to scene. The observer is passive but he demands perfection. The superior actor must put on a good show. If the acting is off it will startle the mind’s focus. Disturbing his experience. The motion of the spectacle is arousing insofar as it engulfs the audience in the moment. Yet with distorted CGI the image is tainted and the experience ruined. 

Discrepancies piercing the beautiful sunset. A plane blocking the nostalgic view. An expectation muddled by overcompensation. Using the visualisation to hound the storyline. Bombs bursting explosions persisting. Enjoy the spectacle. Sucked into the visual theatre. By the end of the film restlessness creeps up. Unfulfilled from the visual prowess. A synoptic den of effects that distracted the plot. Discarding the prose for eyeball candy. The plot is only secondary to the lustful visual. The prostitution of explosions. It looks cool do it more. In the present it is enamouring but at the end it is lamenting. A desire that is haunted. Retroactive peril in the nonsense of anti-text mania. No jargon, no conversation just boom boom boom. The action orientation is hassled in the dear mantle of class. Just sword fight or shoot bullets the slow motion and acrobatic moves will follow. The clashing of blades and the passing of ammunition is of single intent. The livelihood of guts and glory is spindled in an array of hodgepodge murky misdirection. Clueless over the storyline just screaming for some blood. 

Fighting is necessary to enjoy the visual. No longer is meaning tied to the event. No longer does the adventure link. The fight is unique and independent. It requires its own plethora of effects. The second the battle starts all effects go into disarray. The prose has halted at a climax of sorts. A deepening articulation of disoriented prose. A whole lot of coordination dismembers the realistic portrayal. The actor is a shell of his superhuman capability. The movie is a hoax. The characters shoot into oblivion. A marshalling of firepower to the abyss. It is a matrix. The actors have wandered into a simulated space with creatures dressed in humanoid frenzy. The adventure is halted by such dubious extras fawning the symbolic. The viewer is turned off by the effect bombing production. Horrid to stare at. Harming the eyes and disgracing its integrity. A film void of meaning and storytelling. A bunch of witchcraft chanted into being. A con artist seducing the audience with overwhelming imagery yet denying the contextual prose to accompany the story. Muttered words inaudible and unfulfilling. 

Prose is a corollary for the blatant imagery. The in your face visualisation. Promising the audience a story but just playing pictures for them to grapple with. James’ fear came true on the big screen. Illustration has replaced the text. The novella and film are distinct categories: one solely text, one solely illustration. Yet unlike Dickens’ synthesis, film has eradicated the prose. The narration is obsolete. Words are uttered but without sequence and without fluidity. No syntax just sounds. The greatness of 12 Angry Men was the simplicity of the film. The dialogue led the entire movie. It was visual but it was aural as well. The strong conversational motor blessed the audience with a masterpiece. Kenobi’s fight with Darth Vader lacked the fast paced blade crashing of the eventual Kenobi-Skywalker duel in the third movie but it had meaning. The original duel wasn’t about strength and velocity but about respect and ingenuity. The Indiana Jones trilogy matched its unbelievable effects with storytelling while the fourth overcompensated for a worrisome plot. The enjoyable Ben-Hur chariot race was dismantled with advanced techniques in its rebooted take.

CGI distorts the image. Tron Legacy's Jeff Bridges is distasteful. Yet this reliance on CGI is only parcel of the issue. CGI is an acceptance of visual deformity over prose. The prose is lost in the visual arena. Kick-ass battles are predicated on the ball-busting jaw-dropping slow motion ninja manoeuvres. A spectacle that takes the place of the storyline. CGI in its own right has been quite the success. The issue is the intermingling of the two. Jurassic Park’s t-rex was cgi-ed and was a big hit. Davy Jones, Rocket and Caesar were CGI. Avatar the highest grossing film ever was CGI. There is a way to place CGI into live-action films. It has to be executed to perfection. A chemical compound that must interact smoothly with the ions of the live-action production. Films that are fully CGI like Toy Story are intended to be the case. The visual doesn’t bother the viewer because the entire corpus visually is CGI. The issue with films is not the use of CGI. Yes the Scorpion King manifestation was horrid but it is more the overt focus on special effects than storytelling. Toy Story is an incredible tale. There are CGI mistakes but the overloaded visualisation is to blame not the erroneous presentation. Wishing to present a seductive visual to engulf the audience in protracted hypnosis. 

Many movies have lost their edge. Grossing numbers will increase and the spectacle has been accepted. Some of the John Wick storytelling is mind numbing. Yet the interest is watching Keanu kick butt. The visual is astounding. It is engaging and enjoyable. As a niche market this is great. Movies can be rendered to the visual lust but for an entire industry to shift in this direction is to lose narration entirely. Special effects are to enhance the audience’s experience in the film. Jurassic Park is the perfect example of inviting the audience into the experience by terrifying them with a real life dinosaur. Executed to perfection the audience is more immersed feeling the terror of the dinosaur as it wreaks havoc. The illustration though ought not to steal the spotlight from dialogical transition. For the visual to carry the weight of enjoyable storytelling. Forrest Gump was an incredible story using special effects. The Matrix and Lord of the Rings were a corridor of visual effects with epic storytelling. Inception's special effects were engrossing yet its story so compelling. It is the director’s script that supports the visual application. Nolan’s slew of special effects has landed him some of the greatest films from Inception to Interstellar. A good director will successfully tell an engaging story alongside the visual adornment. 

Technological advancements have placed more intrigue in the visual department. At times preferring the visual blasphemy than the plot. Oppenheimer went over well because the story was well told. The special effects only enhanced the experience. Nolan is a wizard from the pulpit. Bay blowing up the entire screen to captivate audiences gets old quite quickly. The visual is gratifying but at the same time its preoccupation lends to irritable narration and dubious plot lines.

Selected Nationals

By: Jonathan Seidel

The reemergence of collectivism in nationalism (Fromm, 104)

Fromm discusses the lost art of community with the reformation and modernity. Philosophically, religiously and economically individualism was becoming more apparent. Until the democratic and industrial revolutions, collectivism was still quite present. The capitalist ideology expanded individuality but loosely and bordered. Quickly enough individuality was recounted with nationalism. Nationalism stood as a retreat to community but it did so at a terrifying cost. 

Revolutions against monarchical rule weighed heavy in the Americas and France. Nationalism was more associated with the patriotic push for a new avenue. For a separate identity to be cultivated in the aftermath of the revolt. Revolution sought to overturn the current regime and establish a new system. Not rebel and replace the leader but for the entire structure to be altered. The revolutionary paradigm was to desist from the prevailing sovereign for a new one. The colonists, Haitians and French were aspiring for a home of their own not a home away from home. The sovereign was not to hold sway over its own citizens. The citizenry were exhausted over intervening power. Instead, they were going to decide their fate. They were were going to chart their destiny. Isolating from the sovereign for a new shift, for independence. The revolutionary model presented the citizenry against the monarch. The new ideas against the old dogma. Modernity challenging the customs of a past time. 

Claiming independence was the downtrodden citizenry against the overwhelming sovereign. This was not a novel phenomenon. Lords clashed with monarchs in the Middle Ages. Yet lords rarely took over the throne. Lords remained under the monarch’s reign resisting their treaty. Renegotiating their deal for both parties. The rebels of Bar Kochba were intent on ridding the Romans from their homeland. The Great Revolt was to remove Roman sovereignty. To overthrow Hadrian’s reign in the region. A fight for independence that the Maccabees had battled the Syrian Greeks centuries prior. Like the colonists the Maccabees had hellenist loyalists but the Maccabees emerged victorious and reestablished an independent monarchy. The axial age found much rebellion amongst the presocratics, buddhists and taoists though more culturally than militarily. Each of these ideologies began to uproot the pervasive dogmatic ideology in the respective region. The Maccabees fit the colonists better acting though not identically given the lack of political independence before invasion. 

Cultural revolutions of the six century antiquity are indicative of the patterns formulating in the mid nineteenth century. There was a military variable to the sequence. German nationalism began after the defeat of Napoleon. The actions that followed were not revolutionary but receding. While the Americans created a democracy, Germans reverted back to their old ways. Napoleon emancipated Jews in France and Germany but after his defeat, German princes revoked the emancipated status for Jews. Their nationalism was premodern. They elevated German citizens but not Jews. They rescinded the tyrannical innovation while maintaining the hierarchal superiority of aryans over Jews. Jews did not receive emancipation until Bismarck’s unification in 1871. America had a similar hierarchy with landowners having more privileges than other immigrants. Politics and culture interconnected to limit the moral innovation necessary to raise everyone else up. The seeds of nationalism were sown but did not reach the level of their equal standard till the Industrial Revolution. With “primitive standards”, there was a hierarchy of values and ethics.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, slavery was present and discrimination was rampant. The modern age had gradually provided more privileges to certain groups. Following the Lutheran theme, it was of certain groups. Even if the church no longer had the hierarchy, the individuality of Luther was also a tribal construction of Protestants against Catholics as well as Jews. The protestant direction was not just a breakaway to recognise individuality but an ideological movement that sprouted monism in its selectivity. Those who did not adhere to the principles of protestantism were mistaken. The Thirty Years War was a religious war attempting to reclaim lost catholic land. France had become heavily protestant and marked its fate in the eyes of Spain. Protestantism spreading across the region solidified into an ideology. Luther’s anti-semitic comments in the latter days of his life only fuelled division and assaults on Jews by his followers. Protestantism added a new variable to offend within christian circles and further defiance against Jews. Individuality was far from apparent across societal imagination.

In democracies the virtues of the Declaration of Independence and rights in the Constitution were legal aspects. Interpreted narrowly to include white male landowners. Immigrants, women and slaves did not receive these privileges. The amazing revolution was in its moral-legal infancy. Restricting access for improvement for many due to old and contemporary customs. Independence did not necessarily mean legal equality. The president would replace the king. Congress would replace parliament. The wealthy would replace the British government. They were innovative but not revolutionary in the legal spheres. Alterations with the ability of visionary utopia. The Americans sculpted Moses in a different manner than the British but it was still Moses. Some more flare and additional definition but stood the same height with the same flavour. The virtues of the nation’s aspirations were restricted until the Industrial Revolution. Democracy may have been the ideal system to provide equal rights but that surely was not the case at its onset and not for a while. 

Luther’s reformation was at the behest of the technological advancements so was the end of slavery and modern nationalism. The Industrial Revolution prompted shifts in ethical thinking. It was the perfect scenario for abolitionists and activists to promote new agendas. To raise up the downtrodden into the collectivist order. Similar to the axial age, the nationalist movements were caused by trade and urbanisation. The global order was expanding and philosophies had travelled to inspire the downtrodden to demand equality. Yet this was at the expense of other countrymen. Instead of desisting from religiosity, it was funnelled in the native race. Everyone in the state was emancipated. So minorities like Jews and Gypsies could own land and work alongside their christian counterparts. This turning point enabled many minorities, especially Jews to catapult into economic success over night. The law offered them rights that were to be accepted by everyone but not everyone was happy about that. Nationalism brew hatred. The idea of a purebred became apparent with no social ties except obviously Jesus. The Jew was an outcast as the majority of his countrymen were stilling holding onto their own archaic heritages. 

Abolition of slavery in America had similar issues. Despite being free constitutionally, socially not everyone took too kindly to this. Such an example would be allowing blacks to work but preventing them from growing a business or opening a bank. Nationalism was to bring a cohesive network of social relationship. Bringing the country together. The backdrop of this was the webbed anxiety. The Industrial Revolution raised the the worker and the slave from the confines of oppression yet at the same time many were unprepared for the old ways to cease. The patriotic element for the state was on the way to bridge the liberal supremacy but muddled into xenophobic characterisations of foreigners. Yet it is not only those who live in other countries but fellow countrymen. Anyone who fails the subjective standards is a foreigner even if they are citizens. Xenophobia combined with restricted immigration followed Asian limitations in the late 1800s through the 1960s. Nationalism was unification at a cost. It did bring a humanist aspect to the labour movements and subsequent trade unionists but at the same time was weary of its own neighbours.

Nationalism in its collectivist pride helps a small sector while hurting those they promised to assist. The nationalistic personas of both world wars scarcely entertained the possibility of shifting paradigms back home. The warfront was an equal playing field but not streets. Women and blacks pent up with the inflated nationalistic cause returned from war and protested for the equality demanded in the constitution and demanded at war. Yet in both cases it was strictly gradual. Trade unions in their ethical visions first included all ethnic groups but from pressure excluded all non-whites. The humanistic romanticism flaunted a meta-framework to include all the ruralists making their way to the big cities. Urbanisation welcomed diversity yet the social ramifications were not always as delightful. Standardisation for diversity embellished the nationalistic standard for commonalities. Yet commonalities could not be drawn strictly. The humanism of the economic development heralded themes of growth and understanding. With the imperialist assault underway, natives wished for their homeland to recognise them. Yet in the same breath the imperialist atmosphere conjoined the subjugated foreigners and local plurality as a danger to the constructed standardisation. 

Collectivism at the end of the nineteenth century failed to do what it planned. It created a partial patriotism. Nationalism set up a paradigm of Frenchmen and Englishmen but for those who did meet the cut were disposed and ignored. The community of urbanised warfare quickly depleted into sectarianism. Each quadrant was for a different group. Seeking to juggle so many different identities at once someone will get lost in the mix. Someone will be excluded. The hope of the humanistic elements of nationalism was to raise the downtrodden. For the peasantry to be inducted into society freely. Liberal groups championed such feats. The end of solitude. The cotton worker nor the factory worker was alone. Everyone was part of a larger interconnected web. A society based on a heritage that bound man to his land. The state would protect as it did in the medieval era. The state would be the highest calling of connection. Nationalism was an integrated project under the master of the state apparatus. Unifying for ethnicities of the state to be united. Yet similar in the feudal era, the religious community was exclusive. Jews were massacred and even when they converted were scorned. The same thing happened with Jews in the modern era.

Nationalism was a way of rekindling the lost souls in the modern cog machinery. Man searching for purpose and aid found the state. His big brother employer was hurting him and mommy state saved him from his wrath. Nationalism came at the heels of economic motivation and social integration. People were flocking to the cities for the better jobs and the better pay. Growing by the masses and intoxicated with plurality. Nationalism synthesised the diversity for a unified framework. Yet this uniform model was inherently asymmetric and selective. It caused much discrimination at the expense of profound patriotism. Modernity was lonely but it gave many the opportunity to be free even if unprotected now everyone was accounted for but not defended.