Oral Fears

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Epic abstractions and literacy absurdity: the loss art of oral campfire (Bakhtin, 10)

Everyone enjoys a nice campfire song. A deep story full of unrealistic fiction. Captivating and experiential. The literary imagination fails the oral sequence. 

There are two parts to fiction: realism and direction. The first points to the narrational prose and the latter to the imaginative faculty. Fiction is a novella of possibilities. There is a fantasy genre but that is unique. More often than not, authors are not world builders. Even fantasy writers draw from past documents and lore. Authors who do not build off their own creation, facilitate a realistic persona. The point of fiction is that it can be relatable. Stories that exist within the reader’s stratosphere. The reader knows the story is fake but it could happen. The protagonist is a teenage girl or teenage brothers. The reader identifies with the character not only from his/her values but their human connection. It is a direct line of comprehension. The reader imagines the characters in their own life. In their own universe. What is engaging is the plausibility. The brain recreates the normative town with the normative character. It is a plausible occurrence to the reader or his friends. 

Even stories that are impossible. Stories that are futuristic or alien, fulfil the same role. It is the person, the protagonist that can be resembled. Frodo and Harry are not typical humans but they look like them. They act like them. The personification of characters eases the understanding but it also makes the reader find identification with them. The reader adds the mythical features but understands the character to be of a similar genre. While the cinematic creation provides the humane visual, the book does too with less accuracy. The ability to paint non-humans as humans is by and large a personality thing rather than an appearance thing. Persons of all types can interact and communicate. The reader adheres to the rules of human communication. This is a quasi-human and not a monster. The ability to relate is but a facet of human application. The non-human is but a human at heart and in the reader’s mind. The character is anthropomorphic and thus resembles the human fitting and sublayer.

Fiction is written by the standard of the human conception. The human imagination can only propel the characters in the most humane way. This is even true of epic stories. The characters are humanised but unlike, epics, fiction is written to a targeted audience. The goal is to implore the setting with contemporary affairs. The might of the human condition revels in simplistic formulation. It isn’t so much the content of the story but the storyteller. How is the story told and where it is told. Epics also have personified features. Myths anthropomorphise even in their grand scale. Pulling the classical themes of the hero’s journey from elves to people. What differs is the offer of stimulation. The leisure of fiction is a tale of enjoyable engagement. The reader is an actor of the story. He doesn’t sit wide-eyed but rather as a participant in the story. As if he were observing the moments. The author conveys the setting and the reader reciprocates. The disconnect between author and reader is rebounded by distanced reading. 

Campfire stories do not compare with the ancient epics. Lord of the Rings has more in common than scary stories and old wives’ tales. The cumbersome connection is far and out of reach. The indirect relation between the author and the reader, forces the reader to accept the setting. To accept the extraneous variables that are absent on a sheet of paper. The emotion from the text is only subsumed by the reader’s imagination. His fears come to life from his own interpretation. Unlike the cinematic visual it is reflected not forced upon. The visual adds somber music and quirky sounds to ready the reader for the incoming problem. The campfire scary story has both elements. Combining the imagination of the reader and the variables of the viewer. The story is direct and compounded with a heavier voice that beats any punctuation marks. It isn’t a reader inferring the method of speech but rather receiving it from the the storyteller. The storyteller immerses emotion and exaggerated pitch to deepen the impact on the listener. The ears receive and internalise the message to be fictionalised in the mind. Highlighting a single word repeating the scary beast twice to emphasise the fear.

The campfire is a murky location for a scary story. Yet it is also a place to tell funny stories as well. The goal isn’t fear but experience. The direct assault. The direct dialogue is more than conversation. It is an experiential lecture under the stars. Amidst engagement and reciprocated fascination. Stories more often than not are simplistic and farcical. The stories of myths whether of cosmology or legends imbibe fear into the possible. It is the experience of the maybe boogeyman who though knowing it is fake still feels it to be real. The passion and integrity in the speaker’s voice persuades the audience to accept the fiction. The fiction is farcical in its head. Non-scientific or far back historical, yet its impact sticks. The listener imagines this scary or powerful character that proves compatible in its own irrationality. The more positive stories are still relayed in small breaths. Harping on each word and concentrating on the emotional impulse. It is the plausible belief in the irrationality. When sitting in an emotionally heavy circuit the story impacts deeper. It isn’t only about the words but the setting and the experience of the direct confrontation. 

Immersed in the presence of nature, the story gravitates to the illusionary in a curious land. The camper has never experienced it. He is out of place and the story frightens him. Maybe the story is true and the boogeyman will come out of the forest to snatch the young camper. To frighten kids is for them to experience the story. For them to be impacted by fiction narrated. The setting is clear and the defences down. There are many stories based on folklore and mythology. Not every story is a lesson nor an inspiration. The goal is to experience whether fear or joy. The speaker hits right to the core of the young or old. It is the implausible rectified as plausible. This is being told not written. This is not a fictional tale by a memory or historical episode. Fight and fear are normal responses of the human condition. It means the self is operating. To be scared is to care even if it is not real. On the off chance it is real, the terrifying consequences lurk in the listener’s mind. Unlike cinema, the frightening image is a mirror of that sickening image seen that day but the listener cultivates his own theory. He has his version of these events. In his own mind they are worse than told. The imagination surrounded by these variables stimulates a fearful devil that haunts him. The experience overwhelms and shakes him. 

Campfire stories are not the epics of old but they do provide some similarities in their impact. They inspire experience and engulf the listener in a rabid fascination with the phobic illustration. It is the imagination directly implored. An avid participant engrossed in the plot. 

The Price of Safety

By: Jonatahn Seidel

Law on the books but never enforced: jaywalking (Agamben, 53)

Jaywalking is one of the most exaggerated laws. A law instituted for protection is rarely ever enforced. If the law is never followed what is its purpose and ought it remain?

When jaywalking is followed, fines are handed out. Yet many a time it goes unnoticed. There is no copper no problem. No cars just cross. Why wait? No one’s gonna get hurt. Yet it is precisely the mindset of this doesn’t matter now that is the hardline of contemporary thinking. This law matters in this context. Jaywalking makes sense in the daytime or in an urban atmosphere but not with little regulation. Seatbelts and helmets weren’t enforced and at times still not enforced. Why do so? Why not give a ticket? Why conform? It many regards safety is at stake even if not in the moment. Is there a harm in crossing the street at midnight or bike riding around the culdesac? No danger yes problem. The possibility of danger puts the law on the books. The liability is on the law breaker. The entire premise of safety is ensuring protection of the civilian but if that civilian puts themselves in danger the blame shifts to them. Instead of debating who is at fault, if safety measures are taken into account injuries will be lower and blame will be less. 

The law is there as a hazard against potential injury. Yet is rarely followed. The law isn’t reinterpreted, it is flat out ignored. It sounds like a stupid law. Don’t cross when there are cars. Why not cross when there aren’t cars. This logic subverts the law for the progress. This light is taking too long therefore crossing abruptly when no cars are in sight is approved. Yet officers can still issue tickets for doing so. The law may not be followed but disobedience does not render the law moot. The law remains afloat and affirmable. It can be costly if people aren’t careful bad things can happen. It is a lack of concern for one’s own merit that can lead to one’s demise. The officer is necessary to teach a lesson. Do not cross lest a bad thing happen. Deterrence for safety. The law remains necessary insofar as people are wilfully crossing the street. People are placing themselves in harms way. Even if a car isn’t coming at that moment, maybe out of nowhere a car will speed up or maybe the civilian will trip and fall. The law to promote safety and scare crossing the street. Do not do so because you may be fined. The punishment is hefty though more than that is the habituation to wait for the light to change. 

Jaywalking is crossing aimlessly at an unspecified location. The state places crosswalks at intersections. At areas that notify the the driver of pedestrian crossing. The crosswalk is an illustrated pathway that guides the pedestrian to the other side of the street. Anyone can run across a street but that is dangerous. The point of the crosswalk is to illuminate to the driver to be aware. Most places assume that as long as the pedestrian yields to the driver and it is safe then can cross. People have pretty much abandoned the law altogether with officers failing to really cite anyone. Yet the underlying theme must not be ignored. The crosswalk at an intersection is a detailed marker of pedestrian crossing. Of the pedestrian right of way except at a traffic light where the light assumes control of whose turn it is. The fact the law remains is on the one hand from tradition but also from safety. It exists on a metaphorical level in many regards. 

If a law has lost its practicality ought it be stripped from the record? Not necessarily. The value of jaywalking is the value of safety. Whether or not it is enforced does not take away from its overall meaning and necessity. People need to be aware of upcoming traffic. There is a seminal responsibility on the pedestrian. The motorist is travelling quickly so while he must be aware of the crosser, the pedestrian must not also surprise him out of the blue. It gives ample resource for the pedestrian to cross but overall it is the motorist’s right of way unless specified otherwise. Jaywalking is way of imposing safety and accountability on the pedestrian. They must be protected from their own insolence. If the law didn’t exist people may just cross whenever. They may not care for it. There seems to be some truth to this in the UK. In the US cars are far more common and driving fast on a local road may lead to an unfortunate accident. Its premise metaphorically still matters. 

Yet in this regard, its legal value also remains affixed. People may not be cited for overriding but it does hold people back. People are willing to wait for the light and not hurry across the street. The law highlights the possibility of a car harming the pedestrian. The pedestrian may not be quick enough, the car may come out of nowhere. Who knows. Yet the law acts as a deterrent even if not a strong deterrent. Go at your own risk but such insolence can cost you your life if you are not careful. Such is the promise of a law on the books but not in practice. The law administers order. So many people dissent but it doesn’t lose its anchor until officers stop enforcing and yet it still impacts. The persistent disobedience has not spread everywhere. People still wait since on principle the law matters or because safety take precedence. The high probability of jaywalking will be fine. Yet there is a chance that such a risk when not specified to cross may lead to injury. In the city so many people are crossing that cars always need to be attentive. Yet in the suburban areas there is more flexibility to be driver faster.    

The law ought to exist as wisdom. A law for safety. Even if it isn’t enforced it ought to make people second guess. Okay maybe just walk to the end of the road and cross at the intersection. Take a minute to wait for the light to change. There is always panic since a car can come at any time, a risk not needed. It is a value of protection and comfort for the pedestrian and the motorist. 

Get Out of Jail Free Card

By: Jonathan Seidel

Meaningless law and elite immunity (Agamben, 50-51)

The power of the law is that it is beholden onto all but what if there are those who refuse to follow it? Well they go to prison. But what if they do not? What if they are able to resist prison? This is the reality of elites. Imprisonment is rare but if confirmed is a short sentence at most. 

Law means nothing if those who legislate do not uphold the law. How many elected officials legislated draconian covid laws and then didn’t follow them. Fined and imprisoned people for not following the rules but for them it was a public apology. A lapse of judgement excused. No further ramifications. A dubious attempt for accountability. This is only the most recent abuse of the law. Politicians rarely follow the rules nor ever follow the rules they endorse. It is purely an area of the people. Yet this places the law in hot water theoretically. The law still matters because there is enforcement. The enforcement comes from people officers. People entrusted to enforce the law. tIf police officers look the other way for politicians then politicians can never be tried. If the judicial system never convicts them they can never be held accountable. There is a systemic problem in the states but it is one of the politically elected aristocracy. With a few connections here and there, one can avoid any jail time. Things can be covered up and no legal consequences will ever stick.

It is for this reason the law remains in practice. Like its medieval counterpart, certain laws applied to different groups. Yet those laws were on the books. Everybody knew the law for each. Everybody knew the law was asymmetric and unequal. Yet today it is supposed to be symmetrical and equal. There is no law that frees an elected official from a crime and yet it happens far too often. While liberals scream for Trump, they ought to also scream for Biden, Obama, Pelosi and others. People who subverted the law for their own gain. There are documented examples and not even a case has been brought. Hearings of some sort have been managed quite inefficiently and no one ever received a slap on the wrist. Supreme Court justices have documented biases, bribes and paid vacations and yet nothing has been said of removing them. The people have accepted it. They know the system is corrupt but yet still fight their opponents rather than fighting the true enemy. This is not democracy but an elusive liar. A deceptive demon hiding the truth in plain sight. It can’t be that obvious, no it actually can. It actually can be that awful. Open your eyes stop being in denial and do something about it.   

The law matters insofar as it is enforced by authorities. If authorities chosen to defend the people only defend those in power there is a greater problem in the democratic system. A NBC CEO decried guns but this CEO has an armed group protecting him. He can hire protection but the citizenry can’t protect themselves. Rules for thee not for me is a slogan but only is relevant when the judicial system follows the slogan. When the judicial system insists it can only prosecute the people. When it differentiates between classes and colour. Such a system is demoralising. The answer to this is not revolution but accountability. The answer is not for a new type of people to enter the governmental status. Crimes have been committed by all types from women to blacks to gays. It is not a matter of colour that determines political grace but character. MLK Jr.’s statement rings true. Power corrupts but unfettered power always corrupts. Checks and balances from other elected officials makes the system ever more problematic. Just as a jury of peers decides the defendant’s fate so too the jury of peers ought to decide the incrimination of elected officials. Journalists of the people for the people expose lies and the people take the elected to task. 

The current state of affairs defends the elites. Whoever can gain the most protection. It is a bubble of elitist beliefs. The rule of law is something to be played with. Most legislations have little to do with the actual merit and impose ridiculous personal desires. It is a spectacle. The bill says for the commoner’s aspiration but within the text it is a bunch of baloney. Their goal is to stay in power. They take so much vacation and do very little. It is a facade attempting to parlay as an actual job. They have immense power and wield it like a tyrant. Their only hope is to help enough that when election time rolls around the people revote them in. It is a game of power and malicious authority. If they are to be entrusted with the security of the country they should be held responsible for all their actions but they are not. They rarely are exposed and when they are it is rushed under the rug. Some of this is on the people who ignore the ramifications in the intense culture war. Bad politicians are bad no matter which side. Yet until politicians are scrutinised collectively nothing will change. The people will continue to live in a two-tiered system. 

Law is meaningless if only one side follows it. A basketball game where one side continues travelling is not basketball. Yet if the referee only penalises one side then the rules do matter only to that team. The rules do matter to the referee but to only a single side. In Remember the Titans, the Titans are continuously penalised while their opponents are not. The referee’s bias expels one side while allowing the other to continue doing so. The other team can exploit the referee’s bias. Until the assistant coach blackmails the referee, there is not much they can do. They can quit the game but then they lose. In order to win a rigged game, the referee needs to be threatened. He needs to remove his bias. Yet such a threat doesn’t work with police officers. The judicial system doesn’t have the incentive lest they are exposed and imprisoned. If the people could leverage the system then more accountability would take place. For now it is an uneven game of red light green light. The elites break the rules but they are given more chances and their breech ignored. The subjective consequence gives the people no leeway.

The law is important but if all follow it. The power of the ancient prophet was to challenge the leadership. To ensure the monarchy was in line. The prophet was the pure divine agent sent to expel the sinful king. A curse would be brought if he didn’t change his ways. The story of Naboth best illustrates the leverage. King Ahab illegally took Naboth’s vineyard. Doing so, his life was fated to be killed thereafter. He was cursed for abusing his authority to hurt the people. Pharaoh was also tortured for harming the Israelites. The bible specifically points to his genocidal actions and backbreaking efforts. More than just slavery was the attitude and execution of it. Ahab was an idolator but he is reproached most for this. His devilish action to another Jew. The law is necessary but abusing for one’s own rights is a horrid event. Elijah holds Ahab accountable and his demise soon comes with his dynasty wiped out. There are no prophets today. Most so-called prophets are false ones. They protect the elitist system. When push came to shove during corona they defended the draconian efforts. They placed the illegal needs of the elite ignoring their wrongful efforts before the people they swore to protect. 

The people are entrenched in a system with no assistance. No matter who they elect will be irresponsible. There is little that can be done. It may be why people saw much in Trump. He was the anti-establishment. He went abasing conventional ways and went after the establishment. The entire Russiagate scandal was an effort of the establishment to deflect their own issues that Trump was ready to expose. The people believed the media who continued to propagate the fabrication. Trump has his own problems but the elite circle do not like him. He is not part of the establishment. He is not a member of the elite anymore. Though he is afforded some niceties nonetheless. It is not about money but status. The Romanian government can arrest Andrew Tate despite his hundreds of millions. The US government can try to imprison Assange for leaking their atrocities. Yet the US is not prosecuting anyone for their role nor is the Pentagon being investigated for its failure to complete an audit. It really depends on where you stand in the circle. How much protection is afforded. This isn’t a cabal but an interconnected atmosphere that protects its own. A sense of authority that brews looking the other way. Authority that breeds irresponsibility. 

The law is effectively meaningless in the sense that it does not apply to everyone. Democracy is a farce. Only some are actually beholden to the law. Some more than others. The judicial system continues to operate but in a biased manner. Only certain groups are prosecuted while others remain free. There is a system for aristocrats and a system for commoners. For the establishment and for the people. The law is meaningless when unequal but is still practical. Without authenticity but with veracity. As long as there is law enforcement and law enforcement does its job. As long as the judicial system incriminates and judges the law even if only directed to one side of the aisle. 

Similar or Congruent?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Children and clones: satisfaction and difference (Baudrillard, 96-97)

Cloning has become a hot button topic. Beyond the phobic sci-fi fears, the reflection of clones may undermine the power of parenting. 

Whether it be human nature or generational lore, there is a deep interest in parenting. People like having children. It may be subconscious or externally imposed but the freedom of enjoyment upon many is to procreate. People take great joy in raising their children. While there are insufferable years and regret along the way, there is a deep linkage to providing for offspring. Procreation is a creature thing. Birds, fish and cows all procreate. There is a part of darwinism that ensures the species lives on. Yet with great intellect, the human mind unique in its unnaturalised creation differs heavily. Its evolutionary superiority questions the very basis of nature. It no longer wishes to live amongst the animals. Deserting to its own area defending against wild beasts. It classifies itself in its own world. Along the way in its bubble it cultivates its own culture and theories. These theories eventually become human centric They question the very essence of being. The very essence of nature. Inspiring a breech from the normative. 

The anti-natalist program desists in this regard. It provided an eerie perspective of reality. Life is suffering. Being born against one’s wishes is awful. Pain is horrible. The human mind collects pain like no creature in the world. No other animal processes pain like the human mind does. More than physical pain is emotional pain. Animals feel pain but it is less graphic than the human trepidation. The human is bred for an isolated box. It cannot revel in the simplicity of the natural world. It has exceeded the nature of humanity. No wonder the philosophers reigned supreme. They were the pinnacle of knowledge. In the modern age of information, it is the geeks who are singled out for high paying jobs. Revenge of the Nerds is corporate America. The smartest people are the richest people. This intelligence has created so much. Brought incredible technology and flourishing to human life but at the same time made man more complex. The more complex the more thought. The more thought the more pondering. The more pondering the more questioning. The more questioning the more second guessing. The more second guessing the more anxiety. The more anxiety the more depression. The human mind is a roll coaster to the abyss of pain. 

For all the greatness of the modern age it has also made people emotionally dependable. It is not about the IQ points but comprehension skills. People are more emotionally intelligent than ever. People are more in touch with their emotions. This is lauded as a good thing. People ought to be smarter and they ought to be more sensitive. For all this progress it also derails people. Stubbornness and desensitised feelings keep the mind in place. To us it comes off as cold hearted and devilish. How could a parent never say “I love you” to his child? How could he never hug him? To some degree there is a positive behind this. Being in touch with your emotions just means that one is open to feeling them not confronting them. To open the floodgates of the emotional hazard is to place oil next to a flammable object. To juggle electric rods in a pool. Ideally, the hope is to be balanced but that is not simple. People are overly induced by their emotions. Allowing their emotions to guide them through their journey. Their intelligence while profound is coloured by mental suggestions. To think is to care and to care is to feel. Such active intellectual engagement hurries the neurosis front and centre.   

People obviously felt in the past. They weren’t CIPA patients. They worked real hard and died often from illnesses. We today are fortunate that medicine has come so far only possible with the intellectual drive. It has been a double edged sword. Providing physical relief but not mental relief. Anguish is prominently of the emotional hard drive rather than physical exhaustion. Past people were depressed frequently due to the same horrifying situations that many today find themselves in. Yet despite the great ease of life and the wealth people are depressed. Unlike their ancestors they aren’t working for a king nor are they working in a factory. Their lives are easier but not always simpler. While some may characterise the simplicity as going to school going to work and so forth it isn’t that simple. That was the way of old. You followed a more or less fated regimen. The possibility of pluralism off endless opportunity strikes the young as confusing and difficult. It may sound odd to older folk but their hard line of projected life was seamless. It was direct and narrow. No deviation no questions. Mustering through pain and guilt but no more. Now it is all to be heard and all to be analysed. 

For Benatar to write about anti-natalism is to be a saint today but a fool decades ago. There is an element of religious dissuasion but there is also a go big go home archetype. One lives by the wits pulling themselves up from the bootstraps. To live was to struggle. While not necessarily promoted it was inferred that life was a challenge. An obstacle but one worthwhile to live through. The existentialist program decided to reevaluate the model of old. In hindsight of losing religious momentum, existentialists prioritised the self. The cynicism of Schopenhauer and the aspiration of Kierkegaard. The nihilism of Nietzsche and the absurdism of Camus. Sartre’s interpretation of existence precedes essence captured this feeling so well. The person himself needed reevaluation. Existence saw its own reflection with immense analysis. The person was to be deduced in light of the individualistic persona. A mirror of the individual’s own life impacted his own perspective and pathology. With human existence on the drawing board the perils of existence came to the forefront. 

Benatar’s argumentation comes on the heals of pessimists. While some of the existentialists sought clarity and peace in the troubling life. Acknowledging the difficulty yet seeking to overcome the challenge. To either exist within the troublesome atmosphere or somehow overpower its will. Others took pessimism to a different degree. Schopenhauer found the will—will of life—as a self preservation instinct for unsatisfiable satisfaction. Cioran aligned with the former’s asceticism though potentially even more extreme. Cioran challenged his own life whether it was worthwhile in the first place. Much satire and immense torment is complacent in his aphorisms. Pessimism slowly gained traction as existence gained more concentration. The more existence was refracted under the microscope the more scrutiny it would demand. Suffering has become a mainstay and mental health is shooting through the roof. Intellectual interpretations of suffering led to realising it beyond the self among animals and nature. Yet it also bounced back on the human experience. 

Human torment has devoted its time to unravelling the model of serenity. Pessimists have squarely projected a horrid picture. In keeping with moral initiative suffering was no longer a given. Less religious influence allowed taboos to become more earnest. While pro-choice advocates focus on bodily autonomy, Benatar focuses on pain. Advocates could argue against taking to term due to pain but their overarching argument is the supremacy of the pregnant body over the fetes’ viability. Benatar takes a step further and redirects the pain to the foetus who will be forced to live insufferably for the rest of his life. The decision to cause pain to others is sanctimonious and undesirable. Religion may obligate or promote procreation but parenting is not a right. Since such a right would supersede causing lifelong  damnation. Wish to have pleasure enjoy sex but don’t raise children for your own selfish goals. Do not burden a child with the horrors of the world. It would be interesting if we were only a few hundred strong but since we are seven billion, the moral side can win out in the technologically advanced world. Humanity today will live with such unfavourable odds but that doesn’t given permission to do that onto others knowing the consequences. 

Not too shockingly, Benatar also opposes cloning. Cloning is self indulgence and narcissistic. Yet this case of altruism seems to miss the point brought against tormenting the next generation. The clone if human will experience the same or somewhat of a similar experience of torment. If the clone has his own autonomy and intellect, he will endeavour to suffer through the trials and tribulations of the world. Just because he is a carbon copy does not make his existence in any way inferior to one’s own. If he is independent of the original and can experience freely he will suffer immensely. The argument against children is also against clones. Clones are by virtue either slaves to the self or subjugated to the whims of the desperate reality. Torment works on both sides of the aisle. To care for the moral potential other is for children who didn’t ask to be born and for clones who didn’t ask to be made. For Benatar if life is hell than any intellectual being is forbidden. Benatar is thus uniquely pro death instead of pro-choice as he favours not bodily autonomy but existential torture. He cares more for the foetus to not live for its own sake than for a woman to rid for her sake. 

Benatar does draw a parallel between the two. Neither is worse than the other, though it can argued a clone is better since your mental torment is subdued by experience over a non-living unknown. Though on the other hand giving a clone the mental torture you suffer from is deeply evil. It is knowingly giving another a disease whether selflessly or selfishly. If the time were to come whether to procreate or clone, the unknown may be a better moral option than giving the disadvantage to a reflection. The net-harm is worse to a mirrored ghost, knowing the outcome than to the unknown who may live better. The claim existence is a net-harm is not an objective truth but an opinion. Existence can be insufferable to everyone and yet be tolerated differently by each. It is more a spectrum. Those suffering find existence gnawing at their core while others shake it off quite easily. If a child may live better weather from adaptability, new life or a new environment it may be a better option than the clone who will reflect the tiresome reality of old. The stubbornness and neglect. Though the opposite can be true if the cloner is cheerful. Still as a rule the unknown and its jolly youth may have a higher probability. 

Fighting Benatar’s asymmetry argument the jolly youthful wonder will find more pleasure than a rusty old clone. The clone may be new model and independent but he shares DNA and personality for the most part. The child contains only half the DNA and the splurge of a young visionary to take the world before the horror sets in. For many children at least in today’s day, pleasure is the most common feat of adolescence. It is only when growing up does pain enter the fray rather harshly and quickly. It is not always true but adolescent brains are underdeveloped and do not process the mental torture in the same way adults do. It is Neverland until responsibility tackles the aspiring youth. Pleasure is always sought in different forms by all even chronic sufferers. For many the pleasure many fail in comparison to the pain which leads to suicide but there is nearly always some pleasure. Suffering lends to depressive thoughts that cloud pleasurable judgement. Tolerance assists in balancing the pleasure-pain scale. If the pessimist is that pain ought not to exist then there also no point to pleasure. Nature is pain but everyone does it. Whether humans or animals. 

It will be interesting to see how the pro-choice group answers the pro-death group if the latter’s numbers grow. The latter group cares little for bodily autonomy. One’s desire to be a mother means little if the pain outweighs the desire. If one wishes to get the new iPhone but in order to get the last one he needs to push through everyone, he may not do it because the harm and jail time would not be worthwhile. The dominance of the self in the way of modernity has been questioned by the existentialists. The individual is not only to answer for himself but for others. It is not about what is good for me but what I do to others. The return of communitarian aspects whether in the social or religious fields warrants response to these individualistic claims. Currently there is a lot of individuals moving freely in an acceptable bubble but that bubble will be popped if the harm to others is significant. Many libertarians are happy for people to do as they wish as long as they do not impose on others. Benatar seems to insist that procreation while not imposing on the rest of the nation is imposing on a defenceless child. 

Bodily autonomy retorts fall in line with the contemporary solutions. Yet how that fits with the efficacy of one’s own lineage is a different question. Is a child separate from one’s own? Would a clone be separate? The confines of one’s house does not discriminate. In a sense, beating a child is active harm while procreation is equal and at worst passive harm. Yet it may be the motherhood answer that takes the cake in pleasurable possibilities. A clone is the replica and needs no instruction maybe not even education. They are ready for the world and will suffer. Yet the child is protected provided care and pleasure. The natural order promotes procreation. It is the enlightenment that causes friction and self reflection to question its efficacy. It is an ability unabashed and undeniable. It is embedded in the human creation. The world is scary and difficult but the child prepared by parents devoted to the cause salvages the painful years. Nature endorses procreation not cloning. It is the readiness for solace. Tolerating the bad and internalising the good. Life is difficult but that doesn’t upend having children. The difference of child and clone is the difference between a maybe tortured life and tortured life. The clone has so much more to deal with existentially than the normal child.     

Bringing a clone is an existential horror show. If independent they will try to begin their own lives. Yet their lives are a reflection of the cloner. They are but a replica and second rate fake. It only causes the clone more apprehension and stress. He is a fraud, recognised as a double but never amounting to the original. The child is a product. A unique gem in the universe. There may be some expectation but it isn’t at the core of their being. It is their own identity that flourishes past their parents’ successes and failures. It is working on those pitfalls that gives the child the best option. He learns from his parental team. What did they do correctly and what did they do incorrectly. As he grows older he facilitates that education to his child. The child has his share of troubles which he learns from and is stronger from. The pain he learns in his youth is firepower for his life. Pain in the next sequence won’t be too bad given this or because pleasure has been this great. Education is gradual and generational. The clone doesn’t have that ordeal, it doesn’t have that novelty nor agenda. It remains a stranger in an identity based world. 

While selfish to some regard, the adult also needs some pleasure. Beyond self pleasure from exercise and sex, there is giving to others. Nothing more pleasurable than raising a child. Difficult but the mission and value in imparting wisdom to the next age. Responsible and entitled to do so. It is hard but in a world of pain it can be a place of pleasure. In the moment tiresome but reflecting how amazing. Some years will be extra tough but more often than night happy to enjoy the children’s presence. Watching them grow and develop. The child also enjoys his childhood and parental gifts. At times annoyed at their rules and his errors but overall happy with who he is. There is bullying and other ramifications but having friends playing in the backyard is a pleasurable thing that if he wasn’t alive he wouldn’t get. Non-existence to the ill may be a fair option. An understandable position. They have lived and enjoyed the pleasure but now it is too much and they’d rather be somewhere else. Anyone can take themselves offline. While it is greatly discouraged maybe that may be an option. If you wish to die that is your decision but at least have the enjoyment of the world. Bad things will happen but compared to the good it may be worthwhile until a point. 

The pro-death option while morally sound faces many criticisms. Procreation and parenting is natural. Nature may not be the nicest of friends but it is the reality of this world. Children not clones are given the chance to do so. If such anti-natalist would modify their opinion offer tablets that instantly kill painlessly and decide who can’t parent then maybe procreation isn’t so bad. For now these options don’t exist and maybe they never should. Overall the nature of existence while brute and unyielding has its gems. It isn’t all bad neither is it all good. Sometimes fate deals you a bad hand. Pain is everywhere and so is pleasure. It is a mindset insofar as experience doesn’t trample. To reckon with the pleasure of assisting another and seeing the plausible good is a risk but an educated risk that acknowledges the horror in store. 

Visual Faith

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wax museums and rural life: surrealism and sensationalism (Eco, 12)

The visual may seem more realistic but it cannot replace the event. Yet many times it does. The participation in such glorious recreation is itself a hodgepodge attempt. It is a false hope to reconstruct that which can never be mimicked. The tradeoff is dramatic flare.

Documentaries try to tell the full truth or at least we would hope they are honest. Unlike book adaptations the documentary is accepted as canon. Documentaries are truth tellers. Yet this trust from the narrational voice educating the viewer comes off as authentic. They are teaching, how could they lie? Why would they lie? The power of a documentary is not only in the visual but in the realistic persona. Yet just as a bookie will criticise the cinematic changes so too the knowledgeable can poke holes in the documentary. Documentaries are trusted for their tedious educational nature but such education is not always the whole truth and biases seep through the cracks to promote an agenda.

Documentaries do add the dramatic flare for entertainment. The information must be taken with a grain of salt. The interesting part is that the cinematic ought to be second to the textbook. A book is more honest since it just accumulates data. Yet a visual is by and large false because it requires realistic promotion. A historical figure has more to question as there is no visual footage. At least contemporary problems may have more of a visual exponent that can be easily analysed. A documentary on monkeys and the Roman Empire provide various components. The former can provide real life footage while the latter cannot. The latter is a recreation with actors. The latter is a ploy while the former is genuine photography. The documentary on monkeys may have its agenda and problems. It may promote one sided issues but it is proscribing photography in the moment. One ought to enter the documentary with a secondary source or check other sources after.

Today there is less interest in reading about problems. People would rather view the problem on a big screen. Learning from television rather than from books. The truth of television especially of documentaries becomes the truth of the issue. This is but a falsehood. The directing cast is promising a problem. There may be some unbiased programs but those confronting terrible issues are enlightening through a point. Again whether their agenda is correct or not it is still an agenda. The rate of unbiased material is quite mute. A documentary on factory farming has a goal even if it is correct. A documentary on monkeys may be to educate to fix a problem. Why make a documentary unless there is something underlying the goal. It isn’t about nefarious deception or underhanded means but rather a goal-centred choice. Education is but an agenda driven ideal. The power therefore of the visual is the realistic picture. This is how it is. Subsumed by the photographical portrayal. This image is the problem. The power of the imagery facilitates growth and change.

There is a documentary about the meat industry. People have said that it rationed them to eat. Was this because they saw the horrors or maybe it was the criticism. An array of psychological impressionism that tortured the meat eater. Here is what happens when you eat meat. It is not only the point of view imposed upon the viewer but more so the extra components that seek to “educate” the public. Showing them gruesome images and overpacking with dramatic association. The goal of documentary is not to educate but to overwhelm. They are like a news outlet who provide the unbiased news with images and storylines. Here too the narration is prodded by photos and lecturing. The documentary is but a series of news centric points but at the heart are advocates on social media. The documentary can provide so much but its textbook like narration ought not to be taken seriously. Though even a textbook is biased in many ways. Concerning the revolutionary war an American and British textbook may give different details and omit crucial information. A documentary may be a viewer friendly set but it doesn’t exempt bias.

An interesting trend of documentary-like shows have surged on Netflix from Vikings, Marco Polo and Barbarians. These provide some truth, some source material but many a time insinuate falsities about the culture. These aren’t necessarily intended to take seriously but they embed truth in these shows. So Ragnar wasn’t real but other stuff about the culture is. The deception is that the plot may be wrong but the setting is correct. Whether or not Ragnar successfully raided west and became king of the Danes is debatable even outright wrong (though the real life inspriation may have) nevertheless the viewer rejects the storyline but accepts the surrounding bits. Ragnar may not be real but the viking culture is. They did sacrifice people and they did pillage. They were savages not the Christians. The issue with the visual is its prowess over the setting. The truths relayed to the public take in much of the surroundings even if part of it is questioned. It’s a reaction. A mock up of the past yet has some truth to it. This is the agenda driven farce. Employing a singular narrative veiled behind the plot line. The setting isn’t all true but is fluidly incorporated. 

The viewer knows this cinematic flavour is a recreation. There are no photographs nor videos of the event. They can only be transcribed from historians. From embellished historical facts. Nevertheless, it is a recreation. Yet such history is taken as a fact. When a group of men recreate the civil war for a YouTube video it is clumsy and ignored but when done in front of an audience it is taken seriously. This is what the battle looked like. This community in Jamestown is exactly how it looked nearly half a millennium ago. There is much truth but it can only be ascertained from notes or maybe even oral transmission. Yet the inability to fully see into the past disables the possibility of actualising the truth. What is presented is an aspiring equivalent. It may be the closest we have but it doesn’t make it the correct version. It makes it an admirable imitation. The visual in Jamestown may have its drama though the cinematic creation is evidently in the business of profit rather than non profit education. There is a difference between a historical society and a movie but then again non profits are not always as honest as they ought to be. The goal is to educate a goal a certain way. So again everything is to be taken a grain of salt. 

All is to be cross examined. Still this doesn’t take away from the visual power on the audience. How seeing becomes believing. How could it be wrong. Yet it is really the opposite. Reading is believing. Reading different versions helps document the whole truth. Where one stands on the legitimacy it is for sure at most eighty percent. The visual is an important piece of the puzzle. The visual compels adherence. It compels authentication. Yet this is far from the truth. Do not always trust what you see. Someone is always selling you something that is the name of the game.