Virtual Growth

By: Jonathan Seidel

NPCs the Truman show and broken dotted line belonging (biblical wives versus concubines)

RPG’s are an immense joy to play. A fictional world is created and the protagonist follows the hero’s journey. Whether it be to catch every Pokemon or save the world there are important characters that assist along the way. Without them, the protagonist cannot pass to the next stage and the player cannot defeat the game. They are integral to his success

The old Pokemon games come to mind. The big block shaped versions. You start out and need to speak to Professor Oak to get a Pokemon and then pass through different gym leaders to move on to the ensuing stages. There is the whole Team Rocket narrative running alongside. Battling trainers on the side of the road to develop Pokemon to defeat upcoming adversaries. Some of the characters say nothing of importance while others provide gifts and critical information. For much of the game, trainers hog the outskirts of the screen forcing the protagonist into battle over and over again. Yet there are cases where the protagonist needs to approach people whether it be Bill or the captain of the ship. Much of this requires engagement in order to reach the next level. The NPCs are instrumental of moving to the next stage. Talk to Bill to pass through the robbed house to then get to the third gym. Reach the captain to receive cut for the ship to leave and then battle the gym leader. Yet other gifts are unnecessary. The bike guy is a choice to speak to, so is the fisherman who gives you the super rod or the psychic guy. Pokemon does give some latitude to travel and fight but there is an order.  

The NPCs in Pokemon are divided between those who are coherent and those incoherent. While the world is filled with NPCs most don’t do anything. If you walk into a random house they may something bizarre or irregular. They fill up the screen but many are placed for quantity over quality. It is a word of inhabitants, it needs to have people. Especially to realistically portray a scene, there needs to be non-trainers. Yet this obvious failure ignores half the NPCs in the game. Though one is never certain who has something to give and who doesn’t. Sometimes a random NPC will wish to trade a Pokemon that cannot be caught in the game. It is worthwhile to search every house but it is also tiresome especially when their answers are irrelevant. They are a part of the world but not the protagonist’s journey. With exception of the gym leaders who do very little Blue is the only reoccurring character and Giovanni have merit. Giovanni has his journey and Blue is the rival that keeps the protagonist on his toes. Always with the advantage but an obstacle to repeatedly overcome. To win the game he needs to be defeated for the final time. He is a formidable foe and it is his periodic pop-ups that catch the protagonist off guard with only one way forward to win. 

While there are NPCs who roam the world of the game there are also cases of NPCs in one’s party that cannot be used. NPCs who accompany the protagonist throughout the journey. The old man in the original Legend of Zelda comes as a guide through the limitless hairsplitting voyage to defeat Ganon. He is the sole character other than the protagonist. He provides gifts and insight. Such a help in a lonely game. Though in the follow up A Link from the Past NPCs roam and Zelda is far more relevant. The difference in style follows style of gaming whether there are other figures in the universe. For most games, the protagonist is the centre of attention yet other characters are created to assist along the way. It is an homage to the classic tales of the past. Even Link needs the old man. NPCs can be quite annoying if they block your path or offer no assistance. They are coordinated by the developers. They have a code. A function in the game as it reflects the protagonists’s journey. The NPC is a byproduct of the hero’s journey but it is always comedic to find the lost souls in the game. Bringing back Pokemon for hot sec, the trainers that stand stoically ready to catch you as you pass by are integral to making you stronger and giving you money while the random citizens roaming around the city will mutter some nonchalant sentence about the beautiful city they reside in. Those that do not matter have little to say to the protagonist. 

Earthbound’s NPCs were quite enjoyable. Instead of allotting half to do something and the other half to mumble nonsense, the irregular figures recited comedic remarks. Passing from town to town found some enjoyable comments to reflect upon. The developers went all out to value the NPCs. Earthbound is a highly personal adventure. Forcing the protagonist to wander to learn more and advance to the next stage. Instead of boring the protagonist with nonsense jargon, they gave the NPCs a voice. The NPCs are fun to talk to. They’ll teach the protagonist something or they’ll make the player smile. The NPCs were cultivated with purpose despite their numerous quantity. Each house is a gem to enter and each passerby is a worthwhile lad. They have a Mr. T NPC as well as the Blues Bothers. Eager to talk to every NPC to see what witty comment they may have. A world of interest with cute puns and quick laughs. What makes Earthbound so enjoyable is its comedic fluidity. The goal to save the world is so bland and copy written. Cool sounds like fun. Meeting people and learning new things as the game goes along only furthers the joy. World building is difficult but the creators did an incredible job of providing meaning to each figure to relate and crack a smile. Isn’t that what gaming is about?           

Fun NPCs are not the same as complex NPCs. Final Fantasy enjoyed portraying these characters with personality and history. They weren’t just players to provide information or gifts but had backstories and lessons. Just like in Earthbound they could teach but they were also able to engage the emotional part of the player. Earthbound is a comedic run while Final Fantasy has some dire moments that can hurl the player into brief duress. The depth of these characters offers new perspectives and new engagement. They are players to assist and follow. They rely on the protagonist to emerge victorious and continue forward. It is no longer solely the protagonist’s journey but there are NPCs who are relying on him. They are still on the sidelines but they are cheering. They are not vending machines or information booths. They are figures with genuine struggles. New games have furthered the emotional link with more realistic portrayals of these characters. Instead of the pixel layered illustration the technology used now overlays fictional but yet relatable characters. While still stuck in the early 2000s of gaming, there is much to glean from commercials and friends. 

NPCs do not really see the light of day or gain independence or become real in their own right (again may not have played enough games stuck to the Super Nintendo). Though it is possible with the newer games NPCs play a bigger and a more realistic role. With advanced technology namely AI, NPC development can become more transparent and realistic. With Al controlling NPCs the standard fossilisation deteriorates. NPCs react to the protagonist. As the protagonist has become more entrenched in the screen with more latitude so has AI. The realism meets not so much in the appearance but in the responsiveness. The NPCs seem normal as they reflect the actions of the protagonist. It is all relative to the subjective player. The adaptation not the AI is unique to each player.  The game can be realistic but the virtual will continue to be superficial as long as the world is systematically uniform. The perfected NPC that acts according to the player’s answers and direction. No longer are NPCs objects but subjects in the game. The AI revolution doesn’t just mimic personality it adds life-force. Past NPCs with depth are a part of the genome. Each player interacts with them in the same way. Depending on the answer there may be a few options but it is uniform. The code is an objectifier. With AI the protagonist is the same for each player but the player is different. His style and personality are encoded in the game. The AI picks up on each tell and formulates responses respectively.

The AI NPC is a digital friend. A person on the other end. While AI is in its infancy sounding robotic at times it is developing further. The aspiration of AI is to resemble human behaviour. Yet a monotone response would derail the connection. The monotone response solidifies the break between the real and virtual world. Then again the fact that one is holding a controller on a game console may also reflect that. When gaming uses headsets or body suits to place the individual in the game or at least feel more involved there will always be that disconnect. Still, there are seemingly virtual elements in texting and chat boxes for multiplayer games. The player knows that other players are real and knows the text recipient is real but there is no speech just a robotic message lacking facial expression, lacking emotion. Irrespective of the realism in games, the virtual remains separate. It may only be a matter of time before VR becomes normative and the advanced sensory perceptions are aligned with human reality. It may take some time but AI’s NPC model is a first step in relating on an individual level to the player. The protagonist is locked into a unique journey that depends on the player. The player has become the object of the game as the AI scans his depth. The roles have been reversed and the player is the object of concentration. The player enjoys his journey unaware that each move is calculated and responded to according to his needs.

Humanising NPCs is a step into bringing players into the virtual world. Investing not just as a player but as a person. There are multiplayer games to play with other players but this is the code following single player runs. Instead of playing Super Smash Bros with friends you are playing a solo campaign with the AI following your every move. It is as if you are playing with someone else. Someone else is lurking in the shadows but cannot be seen. Walking through a haunted house and see toys lying on the shelves only for them to come to life and engage (for good or for bad). The player assumes NPCs are gift-givers but they then ask philosophical questions. Are discussing their extension crisis. As if Andy entered his room and Woody walked up to him and began lecturing him. Andy treats his toys as toys. They are objects to enjoy. He is the subject and they the object. He chooses what they do and how they move. He puppeteers them and they do not fret. They speak highly of their position in Andy’s kingdom but also enjoy their own freedom when he is away. When Andy leaves they regain their autonomy and do what they like. They speak of Andy as an object of their joy. There is never an interaction between Andy and Woody. Andy never learns that Woody speaks. It would freak him out but Woody is content with the secret and praise. The AI operates similarly as the object of the player but really the NPC is the autonomic being with the player entering their narrative. 

Free Guy plays on the AI chain. Guy breaks free of his programming and becomes an in game character who exists according to the player. If he dies then he is revived in the last location. He can gain the ability to be a real player. He is an NPC because he is independent of the player controller but he is a protagonist able to get coins and prizes when he wears the goggles taken from the bank robbers. Since it isn’t virtual reality, it is assumed that protagonists wear special goggles for the code to distinguish PCs from NPCs. What is interesting is how Guy becomes sentient. Millie’s avatar sings a song that messes with his programming. His breaching from the matrix to ponder the existential questions of the universe is a song. The song doesn’t transform but gets his gears turning. The AI development is a process. Guy must think for himself and decide his own path. It is later revealed that Guy’s code is unique as Keys specifically wrote it for her. It is then the special programming that awakes his consciousness from the slumber of a matrix riddled determination. Since Keys and Millie’s goal was AI observational development self-awareness was a goal from the get-go. Guy’s sentience raises questions about the ethics in AI. If they erased Guy at the end would that be murder? He is a program but a living program. Watching Guy grow embraces the audience’s sympathies for his survival. The audience screams no to his erasure. He may be a program but he seems to be alive. 

The more realistic AI becomes the more connective NPCs become. Guy is not Truman. Guy cannot serve beyond the server. He is entrenched in the video game. As long as the video game is running he can live but beyond he is lost. The server must continue. While man can only breathe with oxygen he is not in a glass seal unable to survive outside. The apocalyptic age is not upon us—yet. Guy is forever trapped to the server as fish are to the sea. Yet the sea won’t die like the server. Guy is a sentient NPC. He has little fortitude beyond the game realm. He was alive within the new observational hold. A breeding game for AI sentience. It is still lacking in character. He can experience anything in the game as long as it is encoded. He can learn all that resides within the features. He is limited but he is aware of the limitation. He recognises the futility of his life but cannot imagine the “real world”. The sublime other that is only pondered. Guy may be respected but he still perceived as a kid or a pet. He is sentient but he needs guidance from others to ensure his survival. The entire server depends on the players access and engagement. Within the game Guy can learn more, he resides beyond the scope. Guy differs from evolutionary AI which relates to the players. Guy is independent on his own path while the other NPCs rich in their knowledge are dependable on the protagonist playing. Guy becomes a protagonist while other AI may adduce otherness and complexity but remain committed to their craft. 

Unravelling AI in the gaming sphere is dependent or independent of the player. Guy lives under the first model. Yet much is in favour of the latter. Players wish to be in control and do not need NPCs messing with their plans. NPCs are there for assistance and for depth not to become protagonists themselves. The goal of objectifying the player may mess with the player’s primary goals but it is also an engaging format where the protagonist is still the main story. Guy defies and attempts to turn the game on its head. AI brings more depth but it also breaks the routine of NPC purpose. They are virtual they may as well stay that way. The game is a game not to replace real life. The virtual world is a hobby to follow the hero’s journey. To have little connections and move on. Abed’s comfort in the video game marshals a simple understanding of code that relates to the players. Take the simple code and add more reflection. It isn’t about self-awareness but relatability. AI won’t replace the real with the virtual but it does mitigate the gaming goal. 

Triangular Nipples

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Free the nipple: prideful shirtless men and shameful half naked women 

A decade ago, a movement began for women to embrace freely topless in public. It hasn’t caught on globally with many conservative respondents feeling a bit inappropriate. What is the difference?

Anyone who tells you that wearing a bra is a part of the patriarchy is either delusional or speaking of a specific religious society. Ask a man on the streets if woman should walk topless and he’d happily welcome it. Apparently seventy years ago men weren’t able to be topless. Men fought and were provided the access. There was a certain religious asceticism that has barred skin. Reminding of the classic epidermis tease. Skin is apparently a nose bleed away from fainting. Arousal at the expense of freedom. Norms stapled into the psyche. Liberation is the cause for oppressive cover up. Pigs do roam the streets delighted to see a nudist colony surrounding them. Oh the freedom they’ll say. Eyes bloodshot boners stiffly erected. Nipples hardened and vulva irrigated. Quite the imagery. Horniness amidst a mood swing. Even with clothes on, men get erections, all the more so naked. Libido won’t miraculously vanish. While it may become more normal to see boobs it doesn’t take away from the desire. Will everyone be walking around with a boner? Potentially. In the span of a few years will it prevail normally, maybe. Though the accursed reaction to a boner is quite negative, so maybe it’s good to get it out in the open instead of hiding it behind some garment. 

Wearing clothes seems to originate as a function of safety. Wearing clothes to prevent disease or death. Fur coverings would protect from the cold. Ironically in the same breath moving to warmer climates humanity began shedding its hair to a halt. Then during the dispersion to colder climates they had to adapt with animal fur for survival. In the evolutionary regard, we are the naked of the animals. Our clothing covers our bare exposed skin. Sunburns and tans alter the skin tone either to a darker shade or a red stain. Yet humans are not the only hairless mammals, elephants and rhinos also fit this display. The same evolutionary argument can be made between mammoths and their elephant descendants. Whether Africa was cold before the ice age or the only habitable place during the ice age, humans in Africa didn’t need their fur no longer. Romans really held to the hairless phenomenon. While clothed, they saw contrary to the germanic barbarians poise and posture to be manly. A demonstration of human excellence. With less hair and sweat glans the brain enlarged. Oh for the evolved beast to demonstrate his distinction with dress. He is no longer a beast but a man. 

Recent studies believe clothes began before migration. A way of modesty in the hairless adaption of the mind may have proposed a need for covering up. Self reflection and social interactions necessitated a charming veil. Fitting beautifully with Adam and Eve. Mythologically displaying the human attainment of knowledge. While hairlessness depicted Adam’s intuitive division of animals, only after eating from the tree does he recognise his nakedness. His mind enlarged and interacting naked erotic. Banished from Eden he must migrate fulfilling the command of conquering and settling the land. Forced to fend for themselves amidst the droughts and impending starvation. Dress symbolised higher knowledge, distinct from animals. A mode of higher being. Cain’s wandering may also resemble the migration until he settles and builds a city. Whether the biblical stories align with historical lineage is debatable but the mythos is clearly teaching a shared memory of humanity’s early development. Clothes mark a new force of human experience. A way of survival in the colder areas but even prior in the hot African sun, found intelligence to reconcile nakedness as immodest and needing concealment. 

Unlike the greek myth nudity wasn’t as common as it is was prior to the invention of clothing. Humans were hairless for a time prior to their boosted intelligence sparking a veiling revolution. Whatever the reason, social or hunting, clothing became a necessary barometer of success. For sexual mating or for body armour. Both may be the cause but clothing across the board measured the success of human proliferation. While clothing was necessary for hunting and protection, in warm climates, the frequency seems to side on the social enterprise. For status or for seduction. Materials means wealth which means production and superiority. Clothing symbolising status eases interest for seduction and procreation. To what degree people cover up is debated. Meaning wearing a gold chain and gold watch in a birthday suit may only cover the neck but it does demonstrate one’s wealth. Though the principled manner in which one carries themselves is more than just gold. Dressed up portrays an enlightened individual. Man has evolved from a beast. He no longer looks or hunts like a beast. He dresses to differentiate and place himself above. 

Seeing a well dressed man is synonymous with solicited looks. For females, a man well dressed placates his own arrogance. In the human evolution, the more dress the more financed the more capable. As humans drifted to colder areas, clothes were even higher demand. Only those with the means could afford to keep themselves warm. In hotter climates, clothes still remained particularly necessary. Just because clothes weren’t necessary, did not mean that they were worthless. Societally, the presence of clothes showed that even in this warm climate, it is still well regarded. Today, suits are worn in nice areas despite the sweat that accompanies the wealthy wearer. Slaves wore nothing, though out of modesty they may have had a tunic but usually was ragged. As clothes became more common, the design became a model of status. Only those with the unique brands. Wearing a tattered shirt meant poverty. Ironically, girls who wear ripped jeans are a style that is more expensive than whole jeans. A girl who rips her jeans is poor, a girl who buys pre-ripped jeans is rich. It is just how society operates. It is not necessarily about how much something covers insofar as it is socially incumbent. Wearing a wig or a hat is out of style but fifty years ago it was appalling to not wear one in public. 

Ancient Greece for all its nudity was selective about its use. In gymnasiums during sport but not along the road. Even if it was for men, it sure wasn’t for women. Greeks took dress seriously. Shaving themselves to the ideal physique. While greek art may present nudity in all forms of activity, it doesn’t necessarily translate to actual everyday life. It may have appealed as an ideal to the artists. Greek soldiers probably fought with armour instead of naked bodies as depicted in art. Realistically, nakedness is dangerous and armour protects those areas. Craftsmen weren’t stupid enough to handle dangerous conditions naked. Smartly enough covering themselves to prevent injury. Summarised that Athens was not a nudist colony, quite the contrary. Nudity in sports as well as rituals either idealised the archetypical expression or exposed the bare to the easiest form. In rituals its purity and in sport its mobility. Both examples demonstrate nude behaviour but for specific situations. Next exercise workout solely in underwear the freedom is massive compared to the extra layers worn. The gym demands a dress code but at home in the confines of the home, bare is the best to strengthen. The hedonistic side has its context modified and mitigated in the grande scheme.  

Greek cults did perform sexual rituals. Some ended with child burnings and others with priestly castration. The hellenisation of Rome added some nuance to these rituals. While in public nudity was rare, private occult groups found their calling in violent practices in the nude. Emperors and wealthy royals held sexual parties. The sexual promiscuity did meet on more lively matters with wine and music but was relished for the moneymakers. For those with status to cleave onto their desires. With mysticism stretching its yoke in antinomian terms. Shed the yoke of the legal chains that bound the peasant. Stand up against the oppressors. Their roles are drowning your freedom. Sabbateanism had a sexually deviant side and strong celibate side. Taking the mysticism of Kabbalah to an unhealthy promiscuous level. Modern cults who hail magical elements involve in orgies. Each of these while breaking the norms of religious fraternising are secretly executed. A deified brothel in the religious circle. Finding liberation and at times crewed manipulation to exploit sexual infidelity and restrictions.     

Naturism otherwise known as nudism began in the late ninetieth century. With the enlightenment in full swing and religious norms cracking, German scholars promoted the first journey of nudism in 1902 with a club opening in Hamburg the following year. By the end of WWI it was quite frequent in Western Europe even becoming an international federation in 1951. Due to pressure of rouges undressing in the street, clubs were appointed post WWII for designation. Undressing was allowed just in certain areas. Apparently some people couldn’t let go of religious dogma. Though ironically membership has dropped. Seeing naked old people is not a fine sight for many youngsters. Scandinavia is a sight for nudity in saunas and beaches but publicly its not so different from other European countries. In the past thirty years public nudity has become more legal but not necessarily acceptable. There seems to be a stronger liberal chain to permit than the general public actually wishes. While art has always canvased erotica citizens themselves held themselves to a formal dress code. 

Though the naturism is a step ahead of the free the nipple ideals. Bare-breasted is only half nude. Certain native societies were bare chested while others exposed boobs. To some extent, there is a utilitarian motive. Potentially covering boobs was to prevent chaffing when strapping a baby on the back. To preserve the function to nurse her babies. Convenience may have gradually determined dogma. The bra was invented by a woman for her own comfort. A combination of possibilities demonstrates the variables that led to dressed women. Men wandering shirtless wasn’t too fond in western culture until recently. Certain climates were better for toplessness. Cold climates would wish to cover up the easily prone boobs. It is not clear that is specific religious dogma or mythological poems that orchestrated coercive concealment. It may have bolstered or elongated dress but not the root of covering up. Hair covering may have originally been about placing hair together to keep it out of the eyes, placing it in a ponytail so you can do the dishes easier. Covering up was practical that over time added a spiritual layer and later a legal dogmatic part. Given the lack of pictures and seemingly playing to art which at times was idealised even Egyptian culture was debatably nude. Then again Egypt was warm and Greece could get cold in the winter. 

Toplessness in western culture elevate the libido. In topless cultures they are used to it. The erotica is from the fancy added whether that be jewellery or makeup. In this regard, nudity and sexuality are not always mirrored. The complacency with the naked female body finds erotica with added layers. With varied positioning. For westerners who have clothed themselves publicly see nudity in its erotica. The difference in erotic art today than medieval is striking. It is the consistency that prevails. Consistency lowers erotic dimension. It is the constant coverup that leads to bikinis being a sore sight for horn dogs. The simple unveiling of an ankle to a kneecap only frightens the erotica more. This happens on both sides. Dress is conduct but it also hides the sexual feelings. There is a certain stare for the revealing of inch by inch. It is the lack of realism or more fantastical idealism. The objectification happens on both sides of the aisle. There are fetishistic and voyeuristic attempts to undermine the promiscuity of nudity. The taboo only exists insofar as it is covered. Once unveiled, once normalised it is no longer erotic. It is no longer objectified in the same way. To some extent it is chilling. There is a sanctity and intimate linkage to the body. Covering is not so much status insofar as it has developed its spiritual prowess.

Nudist colonies are able to manoeuvre without boned arousal. There is a freedom to sexual impunity but it is also the desacralisation of sexuality. The nudist areas are desensitised to sexual appearance. It isn’t perfect of course but in time seeing the body up close and personal doesn’t arouse the same emotions. Guys will get erections but it needlessly is a part of their biology. Covering up is a quick way to void the embarrassment. The erection indicates that you have yet to overcome the objectification and arousal period. Just some more time. Patience is key and respecting time is the nudist way. Using a towel though ousts the personal perpetrator is consoled in his own journey from failure to success. A lacking sexual interpersonal relation is bolstered. No longer is objectification the mainstay of human activity. Conversations see beyond the peril eyesores A traumatic concern with the nude is a portrayal of insolence and insecurity. A subconscious interpretation of bodily expression. One that is sensitised to sacred purity. Naturism is an acceptance of the social product. A gradual transition to “subjectification”. Focusing more on the encounter than the person’s ability.

The one reservation is if the relational attitude becomes more surfaced. If right now we focus on face. Now we can do so by all deciding which figures look the best plain. Then again, desensitised to the beauty is a method of overcoming the     dogmatic barrier so inherent in the physicalisation of others. Those dimensions are not aspired. The naked is only desired with clothes covered. Libido may be present, emotions will swirl but the attraction will extend beyond traditional norms. Beauty becomes less tangible. The anthropological aspect of sexualisation is the desire. It is that which is not seen. That which is made taboo concealed behind a veil. Once that veil is released emotions mobilise. The striptease is the quintessential depiction of this event. Undressing in motion is more sexual than the nude. The performance of reducing clothing is gradually accepting the taboo. Just as a story slowly brings the plot to the climax for the awe sensation, so does the movement of undress. It is not to appear naked but to reach the finality of nude. To some degree it isn’t even the nude but realising the nakedness unveiling in plain sight. A more solicited yet stingy sensation in the hormonal magnification. 

Does this mean that content beats colour or that internal beats external? Will people finally see what is inside over what is outside? At first for sure not. People will be overwhelmed with the bodily imagery. Whose dick is bigger, whose boobs are nicer. The objectification is the first realisation but in plain sight the pornographic visual will be diluted with speculative nonsense. Real life boobs beat videotaped boobs. It is then the urge to stare without touching. To enjoy the sight without copping a feel. The stimulation is flaunted in normative routine. Boobs will be awesome and will always be awesome but they won’t be as centred after some time. Seeing boobs all day will minimise their importance. Going about everyday in the nude in passing glancing at the female bosom. People will still judge the appearance. This is not a solution to personality over looks. Attraction still matters but it may matter a little less. Though it will also open those to strive to look better or for those not to care. In whatever direction society shifts. It would seem that if the visual nude is projected consistently its urgency will fade. It is only due to the secret, the taboo and the potential that musters so much mystery and desire. 

Clothing has its necessity. Protection status and honour. In a way, naturism removes those status symbols. Equality is truly impending. Without all the designer dress and coverup insecurities is the bare minimum human creation. Was Adam’s sin ingratitude? Was Eve’s sin insecurity? Their nakedness an embarrassment from of their ineptitude. It the realisation of their sin, profound knowledge and thus shame from nakedness. Was there need to be ashamed? Did Adam and Eve invent shamed nudity? To some degree the more figurative explanation of caught redhanded is a far superior model. Attempting to cover up their sin with garments. Changing who they to desist from the sin but no matter how they dress, they can’t outrun the sin. The original Hebrew uses the word “arum” as cunning and naked. The cunning desire that was compelled now became part of nature. The shame came from the unsolicited desire. Knowledge does not mean purely intellectual understanding but the negative desire for urgency. The shame encountered required covering to delineate the objectification that was pronounced with the new intellect feeling superior with status. The skin garments were better than the loincloth since the skin would protect them in their migrations. Life outside needed innovative clothing. Covering nether regions needed more nuance and more emphasis. There is a mystical reading that seeks to return to this edenic paradise. To be nude vegetarians is the highest goal of man. Reversing Adam’s sin and becoming pre-sin Adam. 

Modesty even in the biblical books is about actions than dress. It is only in the hellenistic ruin that modified dress becomes a pillar of necessity. Customs emerge demanding the sexes cover certain parts of their body. Body parts become unclean to see by the naked eye. A strong mystical front seeks to purify by abstaining in hyper-dressy nature. Modesty becomes intertwined with dress. Through the Middle Ages such debates and dilemmas have questioned the nature of modesty. Dress has become a cardinal element of presentation. A status symbol as well as an identification symbol. Though ironically, while Jews were forced to wear yellow stars even nude they would be singled out. The abrahamic circumcision indefinitely will guide the familial element. Even in the nudist world there can be factions. Sexualisation may be down a peg but that does not delete colour or culture. A liberating feeling but not one that necessarily breeches the barriers of hate. Though a start would refocus modest on character than clothing. Every era presupposes its clothing norms. How to dress and where to dress. Revoke the institutional claims for the nudist foundation. Not entirely a blank slate given the physicalisation. Even in Rick and Morty nipple shapes determined groups so too cup size may. 

Free the nipple is a motion of relaxation. It has its perks but does it solve everything no. Is that the point? No. Clothing is overrated but we are ashamed of nudity. We wish to hide our figure. Maintaining a distance and mystery concerning it. Birthday suits are honest reflections of he self. It is not bold it is straightforward. More boobs in sight will discount the sexualised features but it also may divide into big boobs and small boobs. Growers and showers. Hypothetical but reasonable. While nudity feels free in the moment of excess from constant wear does a constructive nudity, a generational nudity feel the same way. Liberation only feels truly liberating when shackled to a norm for so long. Breaking free of the curse is a victory but growing up with the new norm has no liberating cause and sees the nude as a model of life. Little objectification but much bullying on behalf of grandiose figures.  

Ideological Idiots

By: Jonathan Seidel

Chomsky’s critique of Lacan’s ideology: covid brings truth to character (big think)

Chomsky called Lacan a charlatan. Claiming his psychoanalytic synthesis undermines proper inquiry. Yet Chomsky’s recent covid stunt and Epstein correspondence question his own integrity. Maybe Lacan has a point. Beyond the psychoanalytic element, the symbolic theory itself holds weight to the traditional mantra.   

Ideology is generally defined as a belief held tight by a group or individual (all the  isms). Yet Marx interprets ideology differently by adding an agenda to propagandise the public. Divine right is an example of such false ideas overwhelming the public into submission. A set of ideas but those that bind obedience and derail change. On the heels of Marx, Zizek further argues the subconscious helps shape the world. An ideology is a perceptual conclusion of reality. Based in our subconscious and linguistic elements do the bidding for us. We may think we are clear of the ideological halt but are at the same time upholding the dogmatic strings. Democracy liberated from feudalism and religious institutionalism. It is the break from ideology. It is the freedom to speak one’s mind. Yet at the same time is an ideology in of itself. Not only as a set of beliefs but in contrast to other political formations. McCarthyism and the Cold War only cement this point. Democracy is good communism bad. The quick to reject communism in the states, the absolute terror in the mind of Americans is tribute to the propaganda against communism. Democracy is good do not rebel into a communist state. For better or worse that is the situation. 

Ironically, contrary to Marx, it finds similarities with Foucauldian force relations. For Marx, Power is binary with one side oppressing the other. Foucault saw interactions as power. It wasn’t so much one overpowering the other but influencing the other. The same goes for Lacan and Zizek. Ideology is not necessarily a hierarchical exploitation but merely a relational influence. In a way, Foucault and Zizek synthesise in power contributing to ideological formations. It is the relational continuity that breeds institutions. Almost everyone has someone to answer to whether that be a parent or a boss. While Marx is correct that these situations are imbalanced, it isn’t necessarily oppressive. Unless by default it is oppressive but humanity tolerates certain forms of oppression. Still, this is quite the definition for a parental or teacher-student relationship. Yet it is not incorrect to recognise the power imbalance. Foucault’s force relations is not equal transmission. Parents have greater influence on their children as a teacher over her students. It is this influence that beholds the ideological streams of thought. Teenagers may not realise it but much of their thinking is based off of adolescent education. The terror of communism is educated from youth consistently which is why the exposure to marxist professors in universities is a shock and rebellious inclination. Power meets influence in educating others.

The various strands of political thinking are vast amongst different people. Many follow their parents or their communities. Others do the exact opposite of their loved ones. Some people want more government others want less government. It all boils down into an ideology but why the difference? It comes down to the reflective axis. The influence of various events only further entrenches the belief. Democrats elected a black president so they are pro-black, will vote for them. Republicans are lowering taxes so they are pro-middle class, will vote for them. Yet some black people may say just because Obama was a democrat doesn’t mean everyone needs to be a democrat. Though Biden said it best that if you don’t for him you ain’t black. Voting republican is somehow unforgivable or even impossible. On the other side, republicans are doing away with social security for the middle class pension. The clear theory though is both sides have a certain dogma. To be part of the party one must fit criteria. Much of the Latino community voted for Trump. Though a minority, they were concerned more with the economy than social issues. They also happen to be more socially conservative to begin with. Still, many of these rising conservatives are seen as sellouts. There is such a method of uniform voting that stepping out of line is an offence. Where is all the free thinking and open-mindedness.

Polarising effects have only overshadowed the capability to fluidly transfer. The idea that there is only two parties to vote for. Anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 allowing Trump to win is a terrible person. Many of these liberal voices condemn those who dislike the two party system. Demanding that they not vote for a third party. There is two parties and vote for Hillary. Again this upcoming election they fear Cornel West will take away from Biden ultimately leading to Trump’s reelection. Frankly, they are only speaking out because Stein and now West fanbases are liberal. If either was conservative they would be silent though conservative voices may speak up against such a candidate. The freedoms employed in the constitution are nice ideas but when push comes to shove egoism takes the front seat. Daring to vote for a third candidate is honouring a personal belief. An ideology that said candidate is the best. This isn’t a novelty. Lincoln ran against three other candidates. It is just against their own team so they call those brave souls sellouts. There is a split ideology. Some wish for a third party or specific candidate who matches their ideals over the Democratic Party desiring all liberal thinkers to align with them. Power seeps through when the voters here have the say. Any candidate can run and any voter can decide who they wish to run the country. In a marxian way, the people are oppressing the conglomerate party by refusing to join their nonsense. 

Political beliefs are the heart of ideological prose but ideology melts into everyday life. Which way one likes their coffee or who is the basketball GOAT. The manner in which two sides strongly debate their side with little relenting is a clear objection to the other’s ideology. The encounter fuels a dichotomy. Two sugars or one sugar, LeBron or Jordan. Each is entitled to their opinion but the dogmatic certainty elevates it to ideological promiscuity. While the latter debate can get out of hand ending in yelling and name calling, the former may just be a pleasant disagreement. Ideology doesn’t mean all out war. It doesn’t mean teasing or even bullying. It could simply be preference. Black coffee doesn’t do it, need some sugar and milk. Some people think beer tastes like piss others hate vodka. It is perfectly normal for individuals to have their differences. It comes down to what is the consequence of that disagreement. It is inevitable to find someone who will disagree. Some may politely explain their disagreement calmly, others’ emotions flare up shouting their enraged opposition. Upholding one’s view in protest is a clear sign of an air tight alibi that needs some convincing to alter their view. Even after explaining may not switch sides. Entrenched beliefs are difficult to sway yet they are everyday enjoyments.

There is almost no position that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even science is boiled up into theories. The claim that something is objective is merely a subjective statement. While there is experimentation, it is the human experience of that experiment that concludes the truth of reality. While a majority of people may agree to something suggesting its objectivity, it is also possible everyone is hallucinating. Does communal agreement make it fact subjectively yes but objectively no. Mathematics is argued to objectively true. The numbers are socially constructed but the speed of light is the speed of light. Yet this is based in the idea that it is testable and can only be withdrawn if falsifiable though never proven. There may be speed of light out there but that is based on testing, that testing may be wrong. So far science has concluded that the sun is the centre of the universe after the inverse being the case for so many years. Again, this is based on subjective experimentation. Many theories were adopted and then rejected. Galileo “proved” heliocentricity through a telescope visually but that is a subjective usage. Even if millions others have accepted his view, it could be wrong, maybe the telescopes are skewed or the sun is really travelling around the earth, Anaximander seems to think so.  

Even if there is an objective world out there, it does not mean that humanity accepts the objectivity. Since theories are readily discarded for new ones. Categorically there may be some sway but details-wise the picture is distorted. Given the lack of closure on countless issues, it is the subjectivity that reigns supreme. Much of this knowledge is passed on to the next generation in textbooks. Old textbooks read will have rejected science while the newer ones for the future generations will be wrong. The reason for mass acceptance of certain science is allegiance to authority. Most people have not looked to see the sun as the centre of the universe but merely accept the textbook and teacher’s perspective. Young minds, innocent yet so vulnerable. While the classic polemic is against religious institutions who either forgo scientific teachings or teach flat earth bogus, the scientific textbooks also have an agenda. Their science is correct. They may argue that this is current theory but they also deceive students into believing this is the end all be all truth. We’ve done studies trust us. That is what many scientists have said prior and were overturned. It is not necessarily nefarious but it is arrogant. The search for truth cannot be tied up in "well everyone knows this". They know it because it has been force-fed to people for centuries, similar to what religious institutions did in the medieval era. It is the same process with different variables.

Two quick examples to highlight the misuse of science was global warming and coronavirus. Hundreds of scientists signed a document that global warming was impending. Shutting out all the dissenters. Those dissenters are heretics. So many scientists affirmed so they must be correct. Others took an anti-global warming position. Both extremes had obvious political goals. Just because someone says something does not make it true. It seems that retroactively, it is somewhere in the middle. The alarmists were beyond the pale but there is truth to the globe warming. The question is the cause and the consequence. Then again, politicians complaining about average usage and then heading on their private jets which pollutes ten times the amount is quite hypocritical (yes John Kerry). Even if there is a global issue, the solutions may not the right ones. War against fossil fuels may be erroneous. Yet the media frenzies the alarmists campaign hyping young activists to take up the cause blinded into a dubious game. The covid pandemic was ushered in with masking and lockdowns which were unhelpful force vaccines with side effects. While data has come to upend Fauci’s claims he still appears on media calling these studies frauds. His involvement in illegal gain of function research potentially causing the pandemic and dispelling the authentic lab leak hypothesis only demonstrates the authoritarianism of science. People were silenced, censored for arguing otherwise. No ramifications for the devils nor retribution for the wronged. People still either hold Fauci a good guy or a bad guy defending him or hating him.

Thus left at the famous Cartesian claim: cogito ergo sum. The only thing that I know to be true is that I exist. If empiricism cannot be trusted then can I ever trust my own perception of myself? The only thing we can truly ever know is that we exist. We know we’re alive because we sense it. It may be an illusion but it is the truest feeling. Insidiously subjective but deeply introspective. Though concerning everything beyond us is dually unknown. There is a subjective empirical sensation but that does not make it real nor genuine. Even the self reflection is an ideological phenomenon. The superior self in the superego is incentive of an imbalanced conception. Even at the core of human existence there is a relational enterprise. The vector internally comprises a fundamental element that seeks to radicalise the self’s endowment. The subjectivity of the self’s existence is itself the most valid of claims and yet ultimately opinionated. Still, the internal empirical mechanism facilitates a model of I am true but others may not be. The meta theme of the concept itself is tied to a binary that treads alongside monism. Individually sucked into a void would still eventually lead to a dogmatic belief that there is no other but him in the void. The void is his haven.

Ideology is reflective in the presence of otherness. Whether that be a person, place, or thing. Humanity is under the guise of a particular thought process with others around. Either in agreement or disagreement the possibility of ideological shift is present. Mutuality affirms the I-thou and I-it. The encounter with otherness presumes a side of the conflict expecting another side to rise to compare. Otherness produces a nuanced link that stitches beliefs into an intricate web. It is the relational connection that assumes an attitude toward the object. It transforms the other into an idolised construction. Whether that be a place or even a person. Any configuration of a noun fits the category. Reverting back to the LeBron-MJ debate contorts these athletes into idolised objects to discuss fervently. Turning one’s gladiator into a hero to support. It is not so much praise insofar as such praise leads to strong held beliefs about the person. No longer is the question of MJ’s heroics about his skill but about his success over another. His statistics over his play style. The conversation muddles the enjoyment of the sport and the player’s skill but about dubious arguments on the media platform. Who can beat who when such a possibility is an abstract impossibility. It is only when two people possess diverging positions that ideology is imprinted on their forehead. A nonchalant statement is reacted with stubborn rebuttal. Emotions enter the fray and it’s an all out brawl.

Emotions contribute to the objectification and undermining of these beautiful systems. Any sense of comprise is ignored in the face of one extreme over another. Backed into a corner only has a single response, do not let up, keep flailing punches forward. This objectification determines the bordered parameters of the belief. It becomes closed off, dogmatic, in its incarcerated line. A yellow painted do not cross sign boldly dismisses any progress froward. A strong sense of submission to this belief and to defend with bolstered defences. Yet this not only concerning people. A person alone on an island has an ideology. His belief in his island being the best. Even if he was last person on earth would still be ideological. The defining aspect is that it the choice of one thing at the expense of others, excluding all other possibilities. Even in a void, looking internally is objectifying the self and turning that ideologically. Cogito is a form of ideology. On a meta level there is a self appointed simplicity and yet dogmatic salvation. Tension is the kicker to imploring the ideological contingency. The self application is never quite void of emotional connection. An instinctive urgency to a belief model is mental isolation of otherness. As long as a person conscious differentiates between two modes, there is a possibility of objectifying and thus ideologically mustering a submissive aura.

Bringing in Chomsky, only builds the irony. Labelling Lacan a charlatan. While the psychoanalytic aspects may be foreign, the poststructuralist expansion/watered down version is completely justifiable. Chomsky’s decision to continue to deal business with Epstein is horrifying. Knowing about his defiant scandals and yet turning a blind eye. Even if Haberman is correct that it was for university grants, it does not dispel their apparent collusion with this terrible man. It is not so much whether he participated. The biggest issue is his hypocrisy over associating with such a nefarious character. All his lectures about ethics and human freedom yet he was essentially voiding a grave threat to morality. An ideology he seems to purport and yet not necessarily follow. It is relational. Only when it suits did he follow through. Even worse was concerning the pandemic. Follow the science and governmental misuse of power. Sam Harris did the same. Pushing a monolithic ideology of correctness berating dissenters. In the end, he was wrong. Overreach and deception were headed by the experts. He submitted to the ideology and then forced it on others. Quite the irony. He was a charlatan. Pushing ideas and lecturing all on the importance of liberty and ethics. Then when it came down to the moment he eroded all his teaching. He undermined all his efforts with his actions, truly dishonourable and distasteful. 

Similar to Foucault, Ideology becomes more of a pervasive connective dilemma than a hierarchal situation. While taking Marx into account, it is less about structural imbalances and more about individualistic preferences. It is these preferences that are emboldened into systematic structures. Simplistic statements welded tight. Surrounded by hoards of knights and castle walls. Individuals cultivate their beliefs either alone or with others. Yet many of these ideologies combine with others mutating into a more powerful foe. Variance polarised will merge to binary bosses but the diversity is solely a marker of human expression. Holding fast to identity ensures grounded ideology, ready to protect beliefs at all cost. The more threatened the more defended. While ideology itself is not an issue, it is the fear of compromise. The ability to submit an aspect of the ideology that transforms it into a canonised dogma. Instead beliefs should be fluid thoughts that can travel malleably. Through conversation and experience they can adapt. The system is never truly erected. It is an ever developing process. Unfortunately emotion and friction destabilise this aspired possibility.