• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "original content". Back to normal view
    1. Monocausality bias, essentialism, modernist grand narratives, and the awesomeness of statistical uncertainty

      #This is a "shower thought" more than a properly empirically researched idea, so it is presented without any citations. This lack of resources is also a reference to many modernist philosophers,...

      #This is a "shower thought" more than a properly empirically researched idea, so it is presented without any citations. This lack of resources is also a reference to many modernist philosophers, whom I dearly appreciate.

      Modernist theories famously tried to get at "the truth behind eveything". For example, majority of both pro- and anti-capitalists thought that history was progressing in a linear tract, and that there was such a thing as end of history. So, they tried to find the drive of history. Famously, Marx claimed to have found it in historical materialism. Similarly, many pro-capitalists have declared The End of History when USSR fell.

      Both of these claims were made on the idea that a single mechanism was behind the progress of history, therefore almost everything.

      It is my thesis that this was and is an extension of essentialist thinking. Such a way of thinking looked for "the essence" of the object of study, because it assumed an (singular) essence drove the object to behave the way it did. There were no multiple causes, only a single cause—if you could find it, you could explain the object in its entirety.

      Modernist philosophers updated this idea a bit. They didn't look for a Platonic idea, for example, but they looked for "the drive behind the object". While they were more materialist, it was also a quasi-metaphysical endeavor.

      I'm going to quote Marx's historical materialism again, because it's one modernist narrative I'm familiar with—simply put, it was such an attempt. While the historical materialist narrative touched on many great things about humanity (e.g. the plasticity of "human nature", the dependence of culture on material conditions), it overreached and overreduced history to a single mechanism. It seemingly recognized the role of other mechanisms, but decidedly explained away their importance in contrast to what Marx saw as "productive forces".

      This was an extension of Hegelian dialectics, but reversed. Hegel assumed thought drove materialist changes. Marx flipped this over. However, both of these were still highly metaphysical, highly essentialist.

      Essentialism's mistake, in this context, is not only that it is metaphysical, it's also that it reduces the object of study to a monocausal explanation. It looks for only one cause. However, as the advance of scientific and most specifically statistical knowledge shows, there are always multiple causes to complex phenomena.

      This revolution in thinking was a great attack on modernist and all the preceding grand narratives. Statistics especially was important in this. The more an explanation -any explanation- was tested in scientific contexts the more it was apparent that no single cause was able to explain everything. Nevermind that, as both natural and social scientists became aware, most of the time a single cause wasn't able to explain most (>50%) of the variation seen in a study.

      Another result of statistical thinking, if one is willing to consider all its implications, is that uncertainty is an inherent part of everything we do and explain. There is no epistemic certainty, nothing we can know for certain. So, everything is always, at some level, a working hypothesis. This doesn't mean that everything is equally plausible, but that we can never be 100% certain about our explanations, neither in science nor in anything.

      Why is this so? Because inferential statistics is structured to give an idea about the uncertainty of the inference we are doing, based on our observations. In short, it always assumes there are "error bars" or something of equivalent function.

      This is the second implication of this revolution—we should be aware of uncertainty and embrace it.

      In summary, there were two important results of this revolution in thinking.

      1. Monocausality bias hinders thinking. In complex phenomena, natural or social, there are most likely multiple important drives (causes).
      2. Rejecting the inherent epistemic uncertainty of our explanations and embracing the psychological certainty of monocausal explanations would be a folly.

      Again, and I cannot stress this enough, this doesn't mean everything is equally plausible (doing so is also counter to statistical thinking!). But realizing the value in this approach provides a great deal of flexibility of the mind, and it makes it much less likely that a person would seek comfort in psychologically certain, essentialist or quasi-essentialist narratives. It makes it less likely so that you fall victim to overly reductive but confident-sounding explanations.

      It also allows one to critically examine modernist and previous explanations, both in positive and negative ways. Grand narratives, I think, touch on many great topics and have insight, but they fall victim to overreductive monocausality bias. If you can separate them from that, then you find a source of rich thinking styles. It seems that sociology does this with thinkers such as Marx, Weber, and more.

      This, I think, is one of the greater revolutions in the "post-modern" era. Post-modern thinking is often associated with extreme skepticism, to the point of declaring everything unknowable, however, this would be reductive. In the way I described, being skeptical of such grand explanations and embracing multicausality and uncertainty is an extremely productive approach.

      This, however, does not mean essentialist, monocausal, modernist, etc. thinking is defeated and gone. "Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard."

      Of course, despite the quote, there is nothing sure about the eventual victory of this better way of thinking. However, even in the case that it could become the dominant mode of thought, it will take a great deal of time and active struggle against the old ideas and powers-that-be.

      17 votes
    2. Operating on good faith in a bad faith environment—the implications

      I've been reconsidering things about honesty in the wider context of politics. I think honesty is at the heart of a good faith approach. You have to be both honest about the limitations of your...

      I've been reconsidering things about honesty in the wider context of politics. I think honesty is at the heart of a good faith approach. You have to be both honest about the limitations of your own thoughts, you have to seriously consider the opinion of the person you're talking to, and you shouldn't attack their person in any way.

      It's assumed in ethically liberal communities that honest and constructive conversations are the way to go to get political power, in the positive sense. "They go low, we go high." This is, of course, true in some contexts. An entirely bad faith approach to people would result in alienating potential allies. Having a good faith approaches also gives you some sort of moral argument, which you can leverage.

      With this being said, this claim, that it is the only way, is extremely insufficient in several dimensions.

      First of all, there are a lot of situations where bad faith approach, where you ridicule and attack your opponent, mock them, or even lie about them, etc. work. A recent example is the Couch Fucker bit about J.D. Vance. It's obviously not true, but it was a very useful piece of propaganda. It just caught on, because he really did seem like the kind of guy to do that. A similar example was misinterpreting a certain search, and saying he was searching dolphin porn. Again, he looks like the type to do that. A third example is the AI-generated images about the MAGA crowd bringing fake semen cups to support J.D. Vance. It's not real but it caught on, because the MAGA crowd contains a lot of people that seem that self-unaware and cultish.

      Second, the "good faith first" approach ignores a key dimension of politics—the conflict. "Ideal citizens" in liberal democracies, or people looking up to liberal democracies and their ideals, like to imagine that a properly ethical, positive, constructive dialogue-based approach will triumph over bad actors. Gestures widely at the world This is simply not true. There are a lot of situations where such people fail.

      The reason for this is that conflict is not "clean". It is conflict. It can be hard or soft in a wide spectrum, but one would have to ignore pretty much reality itself to claim there are only soft conflicts in the world. The good faith approach, which I outlined above, assumes that you can still overcome the hard conflicts with their "clean" approach (unless it's open war).

      This is not true either. There are a lot of, and increasingly, bad faith actors in democracies or semi-democracies that are undermining them in every way they can. They want to take people's rights away, make them poorer, conserve or institute hiearchies, and a lot of them also want to kill you. A major chunk of the far right population would be delighted to genocide the people you love and yourself. And a bigger chunk of the right-wingers are sympathetic to them.

      This is not a war in the conventional sense, but it's a serious hard conflict. So, the stakes are not just losing an election and then putting up with some leaders with "differences of opinion". Stakes are much higher. If or when they succeed, a lot of people will suffer at the hands of these weirdos. Some of them will even directly or indirectly get killed.

      In light of this context, approaching bad faith actors in bad faith is within reasonable ethical limits, and it's the strategically sound option. This is, again, not a black-or-white thing. Not every situation requires the same strength or variety of bad faith response, neither ethically nor strategically. A context-sensitive approach is required.

      This context-sensitivity, in other words flexibility of mind, is at the core of what I'm trying to illustrate here. Black-or-white thinking about having to choose between good faith and bad faith leads to ruin. It's a spectrum. A person ought to assess the situation at hand, and respond properly.

      For example, on Tildes I try my best to approach topics from a place of good faith. I think this approach on Tildes mostly works, because a) people here in general try to operate on good faith b) people here seem to try to distance themselves from populist and rash arguments c) it's left-leaning to an extent, and definitely very anti-far right, so less insane opinions.

      I neither would want to be bad faith here nor would see any point in it. However, on places like big social media sites (Reddit, Twitter, etc.) I don't really see the point. They are rife with fascists and fascist sympathizers. I saw plenty of naive people -I've been those people- try to explain things earnestly to them, assuming that their opinion is simply based on ignorance and misunderstanding, and not on active ill-will and a conscious choice to hurt people.

      Before any objections, I will say that I am aware of the nuances. Not every right-winger is the same (and I have not made that claim), and even among far-right people there are ones who can be persuaded, because they simply are ignorant. But in vast majority of the time, these actors are operating on bad faith. They are not interested in constructive arguments, they are interested in spreading their filth in order to hurt people.

      Keeping this in mind, it can be seen that a better counter to their claims is some variety of bad faith. In other words, more ostracization by labeling them things like weirdos and incels. More couch fucking, more dolpin porn, more cups of cum.

      33 votes
    3. The mask of humanity fall from capital

      snuffed out like meaningless leaves and ashes one fell moment and it's all gone only the suffering remains and you see, you see it at that moment all that talk about prosperity, humanity, kindness...

      snuffed out
      like meaningless leaves and ashes
      one fell moment and it's all gone
      only the suffering remains
      and you see, you see it at that moment
      all that talk about prosperity, humanity, kindness
      it was all a ruse
      the only truth was capital and power
      the only things that mattered to them

      the statesmen and the masters
      they had convened together
      built the looming and dark tombs of delusion
      and they did not give a damn about to-be-corpses
      they still do not

      over fifty thousand
      they were killed, butchered, murdered
      they are still unmourned to this day
      they are still forgotten
      many of them are still lost in the rubbles
      millions more made to wander
      suffering at the mercy of the monster

      do they not deserve avenging
      shouldn't their pain be inflicted thousandfold on the usurpers
      the throne makers and takers of the rich and the corrupt
      their blood does not belong to them
      not anymore

      gods of the new world
      here's a declaration
      you are not infallible
      but our hatred is everlasting
      as long as you exist
      the spectre will never vanish
      even if it takes millenia
      we are going to make people forget you were ever human
      you shall not be any more than ancient evils of dust
      your memory shall be one of a joke, a bygone idiocy
      and whatever you built, it will come falling down
      much harder than the tombs you raised
      the blood you spilt will haunt you down to nothing
      and in that moment
      when the last memory of you is forgotten
      when everything you created is ashes
      the void shall truly embrace you
      remember this promise for the rest of your life
      in your most intimate, safest moments
      feel this cold breath of the cosmos on your neck
      it is ours, for we are the harbingers

      14 votes
    4. A cooperative biological perspective on competition and reproductive success in humans

      Hi, there is a common trend among people in both physical and online circles: the idea that not reproducing means less reproductive success, so it means less "evolutionary success" for the...

      Hi, there is a common trend among people in both physical and online circles: the idea that not reproducing means less reproductive success, so it means less "evolutionary success" for the individual. On an isolated level, the first part is true. However, a lot of people attach value-judgements to this, and wonder whether they are betraying the species by choosing not to reproduce. A lot of intellectual people even consider if they're "dumbing down" the species. And a lot of people think this must constitute some kind of paradox: more intelligence means less reproduction.

      There's a lot to be said about this. First is the good ol' (and kind of boring) idea that evolution is not going toward "higher" beings, but simply a change in inherited traits in a population among generations. However, this is not my point in this post.

      What I want people to consider is how much variety there is between individuals: only 0.1% of DNA differ between two individuals from the species Homo sapiens. This means the other 99.9% is the same. Despite however much media, intellectuals, and individuals might focus on differences between people, the genome is 99.9% the same.

      But what if the 0.1% is so vital that it exerts an outsized influence on the rest of the genome? Well, first of all, at some level it doesn't matter. There is a reason the phrase "evolution by natural selection" is often used, instead of just using the term natural selection. It's because evolution and natural selection are not interchangeable. As stated before, evolution is a change in inherited traits in the population between generations. This includes four forces: selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

      Selection, as is known, tends to preserve traits that are more adapted to their environment. Mutation is the spontaneous origination of a new variation in the genome. Migration is individuals migrating to or out of a population. And genetic drift is random variation that happens between generations due to chance.

      These mechanisms, taken together, determine the change of inherited traits between generations. However vital, natural selection is by far not the only means.

      But-wait?! You were talking about populations, and not individuals. Why?

      Well, it's because evolution makes the most sense at population level. You can't really examine the change of traits on an individual level. It's micro of the micro of the microevolution. Furthermore, at macro level (species to species evolution; speciation) it's populations that evolve, not individuals.

      This is another key takeaway: in evolution, populations matter the most, not individuals.

      Other than the 99.9% sameness in DNA, you can also see this in the genome structure. For the most part, we share the same number of chromosomes, structured in the same way, with genes interspersed at places that are mostly at the same part.

      Supporting this, here are the current known numbers of genes in the genome, according to different sources. There is no evidence that the number of these genes differ significantly between individuals. Sure, the variations (alleles) of the exact content change very often. But not the existence of the genes themselves.

      So, we not only share vast majority of the same DNA, but the way DNA and genes are structured is also almost exactly the same.

      Let's summarize what I've said so far.

      • Population level evolution matters the most in evolution.
      • We share 99.9% of our DNA.
      • We have almost the exact same genome structure.
      • We have virtually the same genes (but not alleles).

      Why have I said all this? Created this topic?

      It's to counter the perspective that is so pervasive in culture, including intellectual spaces. The idea that not reproducing somehow makes you "unnatural", or "against laws of nature". There is, of course, already the ethical rebuttal against these claims: that natural doesn't mean good. However, what I've laid out here is also a different side of nature that is rarely talked about: in evolutionary terms, we are almost the same.

      Following this logic, it can be seen that, even if you don't personally reproduce, contributing to the well-being of the population or the species means you are contributing to the inheritence of 99.9% of your DNA, its overall structure, and its gene structure. After all, your contributions make it so that other people can reproduce, and pass on these commonalities they share with you. You are not, in normative terms, "an evolutionary failure". It can even be argued that, at the current connected level of internationality where populations are quite dependent on each other, and exchange DNA with each other frequently, a global cooperative approach can even be considered the most succesful strategy.

      As with most things in culture, when interpreting biology, the role of competition and dissimilarity is overemphasized, and the role of cooperation and similarity is overlooked, even when it runs counter to a lot of scientific findings. Funnily enough, Peter Kropotkin, who lived most of his life in the second part of the 19th century, realized this. Of course, he didn't have even remotely enough scientific evidence. But looking at nature, he had realized how much the role of cooperation was ignored, due to a fixation on competition. So, this is not a new problem, and my reasoning is not entirely new.

      Further reading on this topic could be made by searching for "evolution cooperation" on the search engine of your choice, and on Google Scholar.

      4 votes
    5. Ode to the cute boy I met from Surrey

      Pork bun; pot belly; spare me the tears; I'm getting on; you're getting old; you're getting off here. I can't quite tell; it's hard to see; you're somewhere in my mind; Or is it me? It's hard to...

      Pork bun; pot belly; spare me the tears;
      I'm getting on; you're getting old; you're getting off here.
      I can't quite tell; it's hard to see; you're somewhere in my mind;
      Or is it me? It's hard to see; you're losing—

      I think I'll try. No, no, I won't.
      This happens sometimes. All the time.
      I think. Do I forget?
      A half forgotten memory. Still vaguely tinged with some regret

      31 votes
    6. Ideology of news-selling and its critique

      I've been mulling over this for some time. I'm what you'd call a politically or ideologically motivated person, as it contains topics close to my heart and I'm trying to do my best about them....

      I've been mulling over this for some time. I'm what you'd call a politically or ideologically motivated person, as it contains topics close to my heart and I'm trying to do my best about them. However, I mostly don't personally follow "the news". I still hear or read things due to my friends and family, or because of places I browse like Tildes. But even here, I filter out most news topics.

      Part of this is due to the health problems I have, as they leave little mental energy to spend on stuff, and I'd much rather spend that energy to build something rather than get demoralized. So, what I do instead is to check out specific topics I care more about, and possibly academic articles.

      With this being said, I've been observing people around me and how they interact with the news. I'm trying to assess how much following the news regularly impact their political activity. I mean contributing to some sort of political goal. Based on my observations, I'm not convinced that regular consumption of news, in the form of visiting a news website (or several), is what is presented to be.

      So, I decided to flex my ideological analysis muscles a little. Here's a rough sketch of my thoughts on the ideology of being a news outlet, whether it's a giant corporation or a single person.

      I think there are two levels to the ideology of being a news outlet.

      1) The News System

      A) How to Market Yourself

      1. You are the most important source of knowledge about the topic you choose. This most often includes a city, country, continent, a political concept like "the west", or the world in general.
      2. You are the objective source of knowledge on this topic.
      3. Consuming news regularly is the responsibility of every citizen. Thus, they should buy your products or visit your website. Doing otherwise is shirking one's duty, and it's morally reprehensible. It's equal to being ignorant.

      With this level, you establish yourself as the epistemological source of news about the topic, and you attach moral feelings of duty, guilt, shame, etc. to consuming your product. However, it's also a wider ideology. You don't only sell your news, you sell the news. That means you're also marketing the idea of news to people. This is how you establish the moral case, that is vital to selling your product. It's also important for prestige, which shouldn't be underestimated. There is not only an economic motivation but also a social motivation to selling the idea of news, presenting yourself as a bringer of truths.

      B) How to Keep Them in the Loop

      1. Humans are problem-fixers, because ignoring problems would mean they or their loved ones could suffer from them in the future. So, they are emotionally motivated to seek and try to fix problems. So, if you present them a problem, they will pay attention to it.
      2. Cities, countries, continents, etc. are vast. There are always problems, no matter how big or small. You can always report on them.
      3. If you face with the criticism of getting too small on scale, you can say you are just putting a human face on a widespread problem.

      By utilizing the points above, you can ensure that you are always selling your product. You also ensure that you are feeling like you are contributing to the world, by "bringing the news to people". This way, you ensure both your financial success and your moral standing, your sense of meaning.

      2) The Problems

      The problem with the system created by the approach above is several-fold, and it doesn't depend on the factuality of the news being reported.

      1. This system ensures there is always bad-news to be reported every single day, possibly even every single waking hour.
      2. The constant source of bad-news demoralizes people, and quite possibly affects their mental health. A cursory look at Google Scholar with the keywords "doomscrolling mental health" is enough to show that this is suspected by the psychological literature too.
      3. This stream of bad-news alters a person's perception of city, country, world.

      For example, if you look at the subreddit for a city, quite often you'll see it filled with news of crimes and such, with people in the comments lamenting or raging about it. But the daily life in such cities is very rarely one of being riddled with crime.

      Another example is USA citizens' perception of crime. "The violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)." However, more and more people in USA think crime is getting worse. I suspect the news-cycle bears a big portion of the blame.

      To drive the point home, I suspect this constant stream of bad-news might be feeding into conservatism, as "a meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat."

      So, there is enough reason to suspect that constant stream of bad-news, which should elevate people's feelings of uncertainty and threat, should be feeding into conservatism.

      3) Solution?

      This is an open-ended topic, and I'm not claiming to have solved a very complex topic in a few hundred words. However, one thing that I found to work is limiting and choosing what I consume. By the ways I mentioned, I limit what I see and I try to focus more on topics I care more about.

      There is support from the literature too, that suggests partial news avoidance can benefit mental health and well-being (more on the topic can be found on Google Scholar with "news avoidance mental health").

      Obviously, following news isn't a black or white situation, and for moderation there is no single size that fits all. But I think it would be better to keep in mind that news outlets benefit both financially and socially from establishing their regular consumption as a moral principle. Honestly, I think constructing a good understanding of ideology and history is more important than that, as it provides a more solid base to judge things from, but that's another day's topic.

      12 votes
    7. Mythos

      Mythos A tree unwatched does soundless fall Without an eye its crash to mark And starborn light in vain does call While hearts incline instead to dark So natural course unseen dictates The wave of...

      Mythos

      A tree unwatched does soundless fall

      Without an eye its crash to mark

      And starborn light in vain does call

      While hearts incline instead to dark

      So natural course unseen dictates

      The wave of time as life begins

      Nor, in our barques asea in fate

      Ken we the source of distant winds

      Now blown to gale, now to 'phoon —

      We strike our sail, but none can dock

      Our crafts beset do founder soon

      For to the hours we're firmly nocked

      In time's swift drifts all 'twined we are

      Yet each must pass the stellar door

      Through deep'ning age pass on afar

      And thus return to astral moor

      12 votes
    8. gaze of the sun

      burn away the rot burn away the festering burn away the power that grip your heart burn ’em all the gaze of your sun shall make you invincible they shall fear your conviction for they are the...

      burn away the rot
      burn away the festering
      burn away the power
      that grip your heart
      burn ’em all

      the gaze of your sun
      shall make you invincible
      they shall fear your conviction
      for they are the immovable object
      you become the unstoppable force
      and you are one of many

      you refuse the dying of the dream
      and that shall become your sun

      8 votes
    9. The Free World's Choice

      Free Peoples of the World have suffered enough at the hands of forces of oppression and domination. The strength gathered and cruelly used by the East, without even a care for the lives of their...

      Free Peoples of the World have suffered enough at the hands of forces of oppression and domination. The strength gathered and cruelly used by the East, without even a care for the lives of their own men, clearly demonstrates their unrelenting desire to destroy the freedom of what folks they can't reach. They're encroaching on the west day by day, a great shadow spanning the horizon.

      They and their allies are at the moment engaging with the brave free folks at the borderlands. By their courage and sacrifice are we living in peace, but this shall not stand for long unless we move.

      The leader of these forces sits alone in his Dark Tower, casting his burning gaze with envy and thirst on our lands, searching for the one thing that will grant him the power of the past. The time to act has come! Not only to deny him and his ilk their craving, but to create a free world for all!

      Folks of freedom, I do believe this is the most existential, consequential and important election of our lifetimes. Vote Denethor.

      9 votes
    10. A long-ish essay about Elden Ring

      This one's a long one folks. I like to compose my thoughts on stuff now and then, and ya'll have shown a willingness to engage, so I wanted to share one of those with you. I guess I could do a...

      This one's a long one folks.

      I like to compose my thoughts on stuff now and then, and ya'll have shown a willingness to engage, so I wanted to share one of those with you. I guess I could do a video essay, but that would take me a while to accomplish and I like this niche of the internet a lot. I'm also not very good at video editing. So it's for you first, so to speak. Let's drop a bunch of what we're concerned with/worried about and go hard on something cool and fun on a lazy Sunday, is what I'd say to you if we were in person. I think I could expand some parts, but I like discussion so I've saved some for that. I do lay out a bit some boundaries of the discussion I'd like to have, but it's meant more to constrain the experience of reading it than it is to delimit the discussion itself.

      Elden Ring: A Masterpiece - Introduction

      In this piece I would like to express why I think Elden Ring is a masterpiece, a kind of great work. In doing that I intend not to merely express opinion, but to analyze and understand. To deliver an advanced opinion, if you will. That, for no other reason than to simply commit the words to the page, for the hell of it. It's not an attempt to unload feelings, to rationalize or reframe things outside the game, nor an attempt to obtain agreement/consensus or some form of emotional catharsis. It's a statement, an argument meant to be taken in, considered, and discussed if folks want to do that (I would!). It's in the discussion we can go through the details of things like the feelings, how it can operate as a vehicle, where it could be improved, etc. No work is perfect, but some get closer than others, and I think this one bears some witnessing by more than just forefathers one and all.

      Before I begin, I would like to set the stage. This is not a review in the traditional sense. It's not about just the game, but how it came to be and why that can matter. The piece assumes some things. That you know this game exists, that its DLC exists, that there is a complete work out there called "Elden Ring" which includes "Shadow of the Erdtree". That's about it! You don't need to have played the game at all, and in fact I'd be interested in perspectives of folk who consider other forms of art as deeply as I'm attempting to do with this here. My statement is that this game deserves a place. It earns a spot alongside other works we consider "great" regardless whether we have ourselves accessed them. In different language, my attempt is to justify the statement, "Elden Ring is a masterpiece", to as wide an audience as possible.

      The piece is constrained to analysis in a really broad way. I'm not really trying to talk about what I like in particular, what works and what doesn't, what's good and what's bad or how I feel. That is all for the discussion, it's not the point of this piece of writing to engage in that way with it. Trying to tailor my words to thoughts/feelings I don't yet know, is just not something I'm very good at doing. I hope to foster a fruitful discussion, not have an argument, nor persuade folks to go buy something.

      I want to be considerate of my audience, too. We are reading, here. You don't get to have things like body language, tone, and reflection of feelings to take in and supplement your understanding while you read it. No combination of words, however flowery and well structured, can deliver what those things do. That circumstance operates in the reverse: I can't see your face, hear your tone, watch you and know whether what I've said is making any sense to you. So, in constructing this piece as well as in you considering it, these facts must be kept top of mind to get to the sort of discussion I'd hope to foster. If you read something and think to yourself, that you're being accused, that something you enjoy is being attacked, that something you experienced is invalid, understand that you are misapprehending what I am intending to communicate. I won't engage on that level with it, because text can't do what talking to you myself can do. I have to render my thoughts with tools that can only do so much.

      As well, this piece is not a research paper. I'm not attempting to provide sources for everything, because what I'm more interested in is delivering the broad point. That said, I have investigated what material exists - interviews, articles, statements and history. It's not my intention to display to you, how much of these things or how many of them I know. I leave it to you, the reader and discussion partner, to assert when something I've written doesn't align with what exists, when a piece of the history doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

      Ok, stage set, let's go.

      Elden Ring is a masterpiece. What does this mean, coming from me? What does it mean to use that word, in a world where words have fluid meaning? What distinguishes a work such that I can use that word, and you, regardless of your history and experience, can accept it?

      I can only offer what I have, so here goes. Elden Ring is a work which has a goal, an intended form, and it is my statement that it not only achieves that form, but that it does so, so completely and so well that it deserves recognition outside of its medium. That for something to be a "masterpiece", it must be understood as having been so successful that those who do not directly access it, can understand and accept such a status. To what end ultimately isn't really my point; you decide on that. It makes no difference to me, because at the end of the day I can just go play the game and enjoy it regardless what anyone thinks/believes about it (here's my ng+ build if you wanna see).

      That's a different statement from simply saying the game is good, that it is fun to play, that it does specific things well, that it avoids certain problems and/or that it sold well. None of those things are really part of the analysis here, because my goal in writing this is to deliver justification for calling this game a kind of "great work". A work which can stand alongside other works, other things recognized outside their medium for being exceptionally well crafted and capable of delivering exactly what they intended to deliver. It's this quality, these aspects, which make for a masterpiece, is the underlying assumption of my piece here.

      So, to be more practical, what does this game do, that other popular and successful games do not? What about Elden Ring merits such an elevated status? This is what I hope to deliver here. To do that, I think an analysis needs to tackle not just the qualities of the game itself, but the medium it belongs to, and the relationship between that medium and broader ideas of what constitutes art.

      I: Art and a Video Game

      Going back as far as I can remember, there have been debates on the artistic merits of video games. Though games began as a sort of commercial plaything, a toy, it was clear as more people made them that potential existed for something more. That, with enough effort, enough detail, enough attention and success, a video game could be something similar to other forms of art, like books, movies, paintings, music, and so on. It is because of its history as a commercial product that this discussion often gets very muddy. For the sake of keeping this piece on track, we're going to define how we're looking at it.

      Video games can be art. They have the necessary ingredients. Though they exist as combinations of other forms, various media, and though they exist as works which demand multiple individuals contribute (in most instances, at least), they possess the qualities that make artistic works what they are. I mean this in the broadest way. Art, broadly, is expression, it's a thing a person made. We can very quickly end up in very different discussions if we get more precise than that, and again I'd like to keep my piece on track here. If a person makes a thing, that thing can be art. It depends on some further details, whether it counts, but this is the foundation. Video games have that foundation.

      Not only do they have that foundation, but because of how a video game is constructed, it has the potential to exist as both, a singular work of art and as a multitude, simultaneously. The music of a game can stand on its own, as its own artistic expression, its own work. So too, can visual elements, voice work/acting, modeling and animation, so on and so forth. Where video games become a unique medium, in my view, is when all of these pieces are working in tandem: They each stand on their own, like columns which support a structure, and inside that structure is where the Art of the Game lives. With other media, it is as though they are houses unto themselves. The video game has the potential to be to the house, a neighborhood - an array of houses, each beautiful and luxurious, which come together into a neighborhood that is unto itself a beautiful thing.

      It's the beauty we're after, in my opinion. Look for the beauty and we find the meaning, and Elden Ring is a beautiful work. Because this particular work is a video game, it means this is a double edged sword - we can miss a forest for the trees, and we can get stuck on the beauty of one aspect not realizing how it contributes to a larger, more complex beauty.

      II: What is beauty, and what makes a video game beautiful?

      What makes something beautiful, from this viewpoint? What does it mean to say, "this is beautiful", and further what does it mean to call a video game "beautiful"? Why is beauty being used as a measure, and not something else?

      Let's see.

      "Beauty", for the sake of this piece, is the extent to which something exists as the object of intention. It is not appeal, on its own. What makes something "beautiful", is how close it comes to being what was envisioned by the creator, how successfully it exists in the minds of others as the thing the artist meant for them to have, as best as can be understood. What defines a "masterpiece", in this view, is when the alignment is so strong, that even when individuals cannot access the work directly, they still receive some of what was intended. The work "stands alone", in that one can experience it, know nothing more about it, and come out of that experience with an understanding that aligns with what the artist intended to convey.

      Video games, as a medium, make this type of analysis both easy and difficult. Video games are meant to be played, they are experiences. So, it's easier to see when an experience is what was intended - you press the button, it does what it's supposed to do, gun goes boom, there's a speck of beauty in that. Where it gets more fraught, is in trying to consider the extent - did the gun go boom the way the guy who made the model thought it should? Was my time pressing the button understood as more than simply pressing a button, as more than "gun went boom"? So on and so forth. We'll come back to this with Elden Ring, but for now just sit with that.

      Why measure in this way? Let's return to the metaphor, of a neighborhood. The neighborhood is a distinct idea, something independent of the individual houses of which it is composed. In order to evaluate the neighborhood, we need something more than what we use to evaluate the houses. The attempt in this piece, is to establish such a tool, a form of analysis which allows us to consider the whole alongside its constituent parts, because we are dealing with a medium with many interconnected, constituent parts. We need a means to understand and evaluate the whole, and I've chosen the word "beauty" to represent this, defined it as I have so that the fullness of my statement, "Elden Ring is a masterpiece", can be understood.

      I chose "beauty", because so much of the discussion of the medium gets lost in those constituent parts, and in defining aspects in which those constituent parts intersect with preference. I wanted a more positive word, one which predisposes toward seeing things for what they do, not what they aren't. The point here, my point, is to render an image of the whole so that you can decide too, whether it earns the place I think it does. Perhaps too, along with that, it will mean understanding other works a bit differently - I am a philosophical guy, after all, I gotta try to bend and contort some concepts now and then to stay on top of it, keep my knives sharp. And for those of you who already hold this game in high regard, perhaps with this you can bring that feeling of awe and wonder to its maximum, because hey that's a pretty cool experience to have, yeah? Take what you can get.

      III: Why Elden Ring?

      So after saying all of this about what a game is, what art can be, what beauty is and how it applies to a game, how does all of this come together in Elden Ring? What about Elden Ring merits such a detailed and strong set of statements?

      There are multiple factors I think are worthy of consideration.

      First, that the game exists as the end of an iterative process. Unlike some other forms of media, in video games we bear witness often to "rough drafts" and "second attempts" directly, the parts of the creation of art which usually go unseen. It is partly because of this aspect we see franchises change and become different; their rough draft merited a response, and so the next iteration is made to accommodate that response. It matters, crucially so, how this happens, and Fromsoft created conditions which meant they could take a singular vision to the point of becoming a masterpiece.

      Elden Ring did not begin when Fromsoft decided to make it. It began when Hidetaka Miyazaki lucked himself into a project that was on its last legs, and just made the thing he wanted to play. That project, whatever it was called then, got infused with a vision, a distinct desire, and so took on an aspect inherent to any great work: Vision. It became the object of a single person's mind, the clay they molded rather than that which comes together as the result of a mix of various incentives and pressures. It became "Demons Souls". Those incentives and pressures always exist, but what makes Elden Ring distinct and what elevates it to the level of becoming a "masterpiece", is the existence of that singular vision within that mix. What that means of the man, I am not here to say, but I will share briefly this one time - damn, dude, wow.

      Second, along with this vision, there was a structure which allowed this iterative process to happen relatively undisturbed. Fromsoft is not like every other company. They have kept their people, their teams, and allowed them the time and space to take their ideas further. This quality is important to the iterative process - it means teams can do what an individual does on their own. They can fail and try again, putting into the next iteration the knowledge and experience of the first. Video games are often not the product of a single individual, and even when a singular vision exists, the near infinite variation inherent to having teams of people means, if you don't keep teams together, the games will change, the works will take on new characteristics. There's a whole world of reasons why these conditions don't come about in the first place, which Fromsoft successfully avoided.

      Fromsoft created the conditions for a singular vision to take root and for teams of people to continuously attempt to cultivate and realize it. They had done it before, with Armored Core and Kings Field, so not only did the conditions happen, the company had experience with it, understood the process. So when Miyazaki made his play and was allowed to express his singular vision, there was a structure in waiting, a group ready to carry it as far as it could go. That was the history. From Demons Souls, came Dark Souls, which became three games. From these came Bloodborne, and Sekiro, iterations in new directions which allowed for more attempts at understanding and changing every aspect to better align with the singular vision as well as integrate aspects of others' visions. At the same time, they grew, added on, took on more talent and allowed their talent to be transferred, for more to understand and work together.

      Third, they succeeded. Each game sold better than the last, which meant the next iteration could be more, could grow in complexity and detail, until eventually we get to Elden Ring, where it all culminated.

      Taken together, these conditions mean a kind of situation that cannot be easily emulated. Try as they might, there is no "soulslike" which benefits from these conditions, from the history in the way Elden Ring did. Part of what defines the masterpiece is that it is unique; this is how that happened, part of why Elden Ring does that. One can hope others in the world see and understand, follow a similar path, but there will never be another "Fromsoft of the 2010's" plugging away at their idea of an action roleplaying game. There will never be another Elden Ring, which is part of what makes it the masterpiece.

      IV: What even *is* Elden Ring?

      Now that we've got our analytical tools in our belt, and understand how we got here, let's look at the thing and understand it.

      There's of course a shallow way of answering the question. Elden Ring is a fantasy action roleplaying game. That's the genre it fits into. But I'm intending to say quite a lot more, so we need to offer up a better description than that, something which communicates the idea that there is more in this than what the genre description implies. It won't be something you can slap on the back of a box, and we're not trying to persuade for sales, so we need a description that tries to get at what makes this game unique and important.

      Elden Ring, as a complete package, the game + DLC, is a project that took almost 20 years to happen. It is an artisanal video game, a professional video game, a video game in its fullest and most complete sense. It is the product of a history, of a time and place, of people and a company. These are true of every game superficially, but hopefully what I've done has been to lay out why this one is different.

      Ok, sure, but what is it? I've said a lot about things being what folks intended, about why matching intent with production matters, but I haven't yet laid out what Elden Ring is trying to do.

      We have the benefit of knowing. Miyazaki has been open and upfront about what it was he was trying to make, so we can take that material and use it to evaluate. Elden Ring is supposed to be akin to his own experiences, of engaging with Western fantasy as a younger Japanese person who did not completely understand the language of the books he was engaging with. We are meant to press a lot of buttons, and come out of that feeling like we were that person, exploring a strange place and overcoming the hurdles inherent to obtaining that understanding.

      So let's see how we get to this experience from pressing a lot of buttons:

      We are given a wide variety of tools, a set of mechanics which allow us to shape our character into whatever works best for us. We are given a gigantic, detailed world in which we can find those tools and a whole lot else, things we never expected, so that we can also have experiences within the experience - learning and using tools, achieving an unexpected result, having to run and go hide so we can step away and take care of something Out There in the Real World. We can come across Weird Shit and figure out what it is, usually by way of having to engage it in combat. We are given challenges and obstacles, so we can have the experience of overcoming, of discovery and achievement. Importantly, we aren't being asked to pay for any of those experiences, so we can just keep going, thing to thing, all along the way without interruption or psychological prodding.

      We are given a world in which complex characters express themselves and work toward their own ends, a sense of a place which is governed by its own laws and contains its own stories. A sense of scale and grandeur, so that within our exploration we can experience The Sublime, as one does when they travel to a fantastical place. This is exposed to us in pieces, things we must gather and assemble, as we do in our real world with real things. In doing so we come to find a world guided by the very human feelings and motivations of those complex characters, and have the opportunity to fully understand, the why of it, if we want to. We see multiple stories unfold, progress and conclude, of things like "when friends become enemies", "when abandonment consumes someone", "when someone stands up for themselves". We get to see how others experience the world alongside us, driving home that much more that sense we are exploring a different, fantastical place.

      These things are rendered for us in multiple forms: As visual elements, as animations, as music, descriptive text, and so on. We are given guides for what events mean and how they inform who we encounter, how characters' feelings mix among the others, through the interplay of these various elements, with the gameplay serving as the glue which holds it all together. That gameplay is consistent and predictable, allowing for us to have the experience of practicing and improving. And then, the game delivers challenge after challenge after challenge, so that you have the final and ultimate experience, of facing what seems impossible and doing it anyway. Like reading a book in a language you aren't sure about, it seems flat out unworkable, until you get to it and before you know it, you're done. And now we're back to beauty - it is what it was meant to be.

      In so many other words, we are transported to this other place, where things are different, and by simply engaging with it, we can become part of it. We can know it, feel for it, understand it, as we do the world in which we actually live. What makes Elden Ring the masterpiece, is that it achieves this for so very many people, all together. The extent of its beauty is such that millions of people played it, that thousands compiled its lore, that dozens got so damn good they can no-hit every boss in the game. It spawned legends, like Let Me Solo Her. It created careers, in the case of endeavors like Bonfireside Chat and VaatiVidya. With its DLC, it provided the tools to prolong the experience well past its end, created even for people well familiar with it a second shot at that first time experience, which several million more people got to do recently.

      When we consider this alongside all else, the history and development, it is a work of beauty, as laid out prior. It is exactly what it means to be, and did that so well it created new things in its wake. Just like Lord of the Rings, Three Kingdoms, The Illiad, and so on, did. It delivered both an experience unto itself and a cultural moment that I think means it stands just as tall as those other works. That it is a video game, just means that looks different. It is of its medium, just as those works were.

      Conclusion

      We will see countless imitations, derivatives and evolutions, and there will inevitably come another such work with such a wide impact and depth to itself. But for now, at the moment, I think we can look at Elden Ring and appreciate it for being one of those great things, standing alone. It will be a game which we'll see again much later in time - there's a whole generation of people who are currently experiencing the beginnings of what will one day be "I wanted to make something as great as Elden Ring". It won't just be soulslikes, action RPGs, or even just fantasy works as a broad category. People who experience something like this go in all kinds of directions with it, and I for one am beyond excited to see what comes from that. It will deliver for years to come, which is the final part of what makes it the masterpiece.

      One final note, just a thing I'd like to bring attention to, is that all along the way, Fromsoft games have been delivering on a level I have not seen much with video games at large. They're like the opposite of the industry in this respect - instead of being a skinner box/gambling machine, these deliver a "good enough" experience of overcoming adversity that they've been the catalyst for positive transformations in people. I love those stories, there's zero shame in it by my measure. Along with everything I've written, the fact that happens with consistency is something really very special that deserves cultivating, in my opinion, and further emphasizes just how much has been given to us. There is so much that can be done with that if folks can bring things together in the right ways, deliver on the right kinds of experiences.

      I hope that was enjoyable. I appreciate you reading it. As I wrote at the top, the piece is focused but the discussion doesn't need to be so constrained. I'm primarily interested in craft and experiences, what folks think about the points or if they have something similar to say about something else. Criticism is welcome, as always. If you have the co-op mod you've just met a prospective party member, too. I'm pretty good at it. Happy Sunday!

      30 votes
    11. Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans

      The recent reaction to the Rings of Power trailer and a thought-provoking video about ragebait from the Youtuber Arbitor Ian made me think about this topic. Fan as Identity and Fandom as Tribe We...

      The recent reaction to the Rings of Power trailer and a thought-provoking video about ragebait from the Youtuber Arbitor Ian made me think about this topic.

      Fan as Identity and Fandom as Tribe

      We all know that guy who is an extreme purist about a beloved franchise. As they love to talk about it, they love the source material, or they love the originals. Any adaptation of or addition to these is seen as deviating from these "sacred texts". Especially if the more recent material produced significantly differs from these sacred texts, it has to be bad. So, you should watch or create hours-long videos nitpicking them.

      This type of person accepts as a given that the original material they are talking about is sacred. Therefore, any change to it is bad. They are often known as a purist, however, I think the better term for it is conservative.

      There is research that posits that fandom is basically a postmodern tribe and fan a postmodern identity (1, 2). The idea is not entirely new. Sports fandoms and fans have been noted for these qualities before (3, 4).

      I think this makes intuitive sense to people who read both humanities and participate in a fandom. Fans take their fictional worlds to heart, and they strongly identify with the characters, the universe, the stories, the games, etc. Combined with the weakening of more traditional identities, and the rise of internet that has created the conditions to connect with people worldwide, it's not surprising that such postmodern identities and tribes would be born.

      The Conservative Fan

      I talk about conservatism here in the broad sense, meaning being biased toward conserving what traditionally exists, a standpoint that values tradition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry about this is well-researched.

      "Conservatism in a broad sense, as a social attitude, has always existed. It expresses the instinctive human fear of sudden change, and tendency to habitual action."

      I think the "purist fan" fits this definition perfectly. Combining this with the idea that a fan is a type postmodern identity, we can assert that this type of fan is a type of postmodern conservative. Therefore, fandom purism is a type of postmodern conservatism.

      The Reactionary Fan and Outrage Culture

      There are a lot of descriptions of what a reactionary is, and there is no agreed upon definition. I'm going to use a definition that makes sense to me as a broader definition.

      For me, a reactionary, in its broadest sense, is someone who doesn't analyze things much and instead opts to act on impulsive emotion, which is very often anger, resentment, hatred. They approach topics from a very bad faith position. They make short, quippy, and wrong statements.

      Reactionaries often, but not necessarily, defend conservative or conservative-adjacent views, because conservatism is biased toward reacting to changes and seeing them as negative. This aligns with the reactionary mindset that is built upon heavily reacting to things. Since change is inevitable and will always create reactions, conservatism -which is about resisting change- is a perfect fit for reactionarism.

      A relevant extension of this reactionarism is the outrage culture. A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!

      Ragebait being amplified by social media algorithms also strengthens this. However, pointing to it as the sole reason would be a mistake.

      The Synthesis and Some More Considerations

      The purist fan is a postmodern conservative. They attach their identity very strongly to some sacred texts (book, comics, movie, etc.), and they don't want them to change. Therefore, there is a heavy bias involved in discussing developments around these texts.

      The conservative fan can also be a reactionary fan, but doesn't have to be. They don't have to go out there and yell at people, or condescendingly talk to their social circle, like a reactionary fan does. However, they often do.

      It shouldn't be hard to see why conservatism and reactionarism, in the context of fandom, would be related to their corresponding ideologies in the classical sense of the words. While decompartmentalization exists, and people don't necessarily act the same way in different areas of their lives, it makes sense that a general attitude about change would affect one's approach to both fandom and regular politics.

      I think this is a major reason why we see so many loud "purists" about fandom topics follow reactionary politics in regular politics. It also explains why the regular reactionaries can so easily convince fandom reactionaries to adapt their arguments. They come from the same attitude toward change and same attachment to conservative identity politics.

      So, this is my analysis of this topic. Before closing, I want to raise a question that's been on my mind. The quote I shared at the start of the post, the fear of change, I suspect this might be one of the key underlying characteristics of these people, both in regular and fandom politics. People who get attached to certain periods of time in the past so strongly that they dislike any change, or even react violently—they are at the heart of this.

      There is a related, very famous meta-analysis studying 22,818 cases (88 samples) across 12 countries. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. According to the study, conservatism is negatively correlated with openness to experience (-.32) and positively correlated with dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34).

      Returning to fandom context, what I'm trying to get at is that maybe holding so dearly to experiences we've had as kids or teenagers is maybe not that good. Sure, there is nothing wrong with nostalgia, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying things we did as kids or teens. But I suspect this overemphasis on being forever teens is turning people into dogmatic, reactionary people. Maybe it's time to grow up and accept change, even find ways to cherish it.

      Very Important Note

      This is not an endorsement of any change to stories and franchises. Obviously, some can be bad. In fact, many adaptations of source material lose some things, partially because of differences in medium and partially because of financial interests involved in movie and show production. RoP is a good example of mediocritization due to financial concerns.

      As you can guess, I did not even like Rings of Power. But even though I've been a Legendarium fan since I was a kid, it wasn't because they changed the source material. It's because I think RoP was, to use a more modern term, mid. However, this did not cause me to go on a rant about how they are ruining the Legendarium. This is a key difference, in my opinion, between simply disliking and being a reactionary.

      16 votes
    12. antediluvian

      gusts of wind pick up in pace and oaken leaves they make to shake. chirps and flaps as birds make haste and hooves all trample in escape. above, the clouds, they morph and move bearing an ocean in...

      gusts of wind pick up in pace
      and oaken leaves they make to shake.
      chirps and flaps as birds make haste
      and hooves all trample in escape.

      above, the clouds, they morph and move
      bearing an ocean in their womb.
      forest florals stare in rue;
      effulgence dims as darkness blooms.

      the rumbling clouds envelope all.
      a drip, a drop. and the rain falls.
      and though the canopy may stall,
      a dribble starts and rends the wall.

      a torrent soars towards the floor.
      the land, to sea, returns once more.
      in time, the green but will restore.
      in time, the clouds but will reform.


      i wrote this at a creative writing workshop with the following three randomly generated words as the prompt: frequency, dribble, oak.

      9 votes