#ultimately leads to a very myopic understanding of the world

[holdoncallfailed]

i think generally people in the united states culturally identify far more with their state than with the country writ large and this has been the case since the beginning of our flop nation so our educational systems all promote this ultra-atomized understanding of history while also feeding us extreme nationalistic propaganda that manages to be very unspecific at the same time. literally the only thing that unites this country in any coherent way is, like, epic tragedy. and even that's not enough anymore. probably the last time it happened (besides 9/11) was when JFK got popped...and then never again. well anyway. god bless these great united states. g'buh buh

[sokkastyles]

Another thing I've been seeing more and more of that just isn't supported by the actual show is the idea that Zuko needs to "realize" that Azula worked hard to get where she is, and not only is this victim blaming because it ignores how both Ozai and Azula treated Zuko as a scapegoat, it's also simply not true.

Zuko is the one in the text who believes in working hard, while Azula believes in superiority through inherent ability.

I often see people quoting Zuko's line about how everything came easy to Azula and their father said she was born lucky as evidence of Zuko's "jealousy" of Azula's hard work and skill, and how he needs to realize how much pressure she was under, but those people are forgetting what Zuko says right after that.

I don't need luck, though. I don't want it. I've always had to struggle and fight, and that's made me strong. That's made me who I am.

Zuko rejects the belief Ozai tried to enforce about being born lucky. He of course still struggles with it, because he's a kid and being told repeatedly by adults that you are inherently worthless is a hard thing to combat without internalizing. Zuko struggles with assuming that he can't generate lightning because it blows up in his face, "like everything always does." Throughout his journey, he learns to embrace working hard, learning and growing to overcome those mental blocks.

But to say that Azula, in comparison, has a better understanding of hard work is just wrong. What Zuko says about struggling and fighting actually is similar to what Azula says about Long Feng.

I can see your whole history in your eyes. You were born with nothing, so you've had to struggle, and connive, and claw your way to power. But true power, the divine right to rule, is something you're born with.

Azula ultimately disdains the idea of having to struggle to achieve things, and says that true power is something you are born with.

This isn't just an Azula vs Zuko thing, this is a major theme of the story and part of what leads to Azula's ultimate downfall. While Zuko works hard and grows not just in ability but his worldview, adapting and becoming a better person in the process, Azula's worldview narrows in her need to prove her own inherent perfection, which causes her to become more myopic and end up alone.

From the beginning of the story, we see Azula trying to get others to bend to her, even trying to argue against the very tides themselves because of her unwillingness to believe in anything less than her own inherent right. This is also similar to the way other Fire Nation characters show a myopic view of the world that leads them towards megalomania, like Zhao attempting to destroy the moon in pursuit of his own greatness. Both he and Azula think they can defy nature because of their own need to prove themselves powerful. Zuko tries this, too, in "The Storm," and learns one of many lessons about humility and working with others. Azula fails to learn these lessons.

So it's not Zuko who needs to learn this by the end of the series, and especially not from Azula.

I think it's also telling that these people never talk about how much pressure Zuko was under to try and prove he wasn't worthless, and I think that's because by the end, Zuko has realized his own worth, but Azula is still desperately trying to cling to the belief in her own superiority. She's the only one who can relieve that pressure she's putting on herself because she can't let go of the idea that she's not better than other people, and it is not on the people she hurt to try and make her feel better about herself, when she still thinks she's superior to them.

Moreover, I find it very hard to believe that post series Azula would even accept any offer of sympathy from Zuko. This is another example of something Zuko learned in the series that Azula did not, as Iroh says. Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. Azula's belief in her own superiority is, of course, a coping mechanism as a result of very low self-esteem, but she needs to figure out how to deal with that in a way that isn't hurting others. What she doesn't need is constant validation from people she victimized and reinforcement of the same toxic beliefs.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hey. I'm INFJ. I want to ask about relationship problems. The relationship in question is between my ESTJ mother and I. Generally, I would describe our relationship as close and loving, but there is a conflict, and that came from our opposite ideology and political beliefs.

I want to say before continuing that we are neither American or European, so our ideology and politics shouldn't be understood from the "western" side of things, though to simplify by comparison, my views could be described as leftist and my mother's as conservative. I should also add that I used to hold her worldview when I was younger, but changed once I was old enough to form an opinion of my own. This caused my mother to imply many times in our discussions that I am "brainwashed" and dismiss me as "too young" and "too ideological". I should add that the latter (ideological) is a valid criticism. Still working on that.

Otherwise, I often tried to persuade, then later find middle ground with her, to no avail. We ended up arguing many times, until we decided to not talk politics with each other anymore. So, what's the problem, you might ask.

Recently, the political climate in my country got intense. Heated, even. I won't go into details, but there are protests again the government by young liberals/leftists-equivalent of my country. Many of my good acquaintances joined the protest. The government used police force against them, and it got violent. There are young unarmed protestors who were teargassed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets and high velocity water jets. Some protestors were heavily injured. Some protestors were arrested and incarcerated in horrible conditions. My mother and I agreed to not speak about politics, so I said nothing.

Until my mother, right infront of me, with another family member, openly mocked the protestors, made judgments about them based on the goverment's propaganda, called them a nuisance, and implied that they "deserved it". It's not about her discussing it, but it's about how unempathetic she was when she said those things, towards those young people my age, with similar ideology to me, and how apathetic she was when she said that "nothing's going to change anyway". It was the first time that I saw my mother in that angle, the complete lack of humanity in her words. It still haunts me until now.

So my question to you is, how does one deal with that? I love my mother, I think I always will. I also know that she loves me, or at least the part of me that's still her child. But for a moment, I loved her less, and that frightened me. I began to wonder, what would happen one day if we have to actually take sides, because things are getting worse in my country, not better. This adds to other issues I have in my life and made me more depressed. A part of me tells me that I should tell her about how I feel, but how do you tell someone you love that they're one of the reasons for your sadness?

I'm sorry if this is stupid. I'm sure that this feeling I have is one-sided, and I wonder if I'm being selfish or ungrateful. Maybe it's because I'm too sensitive these days, so I thought if I have an outside neutral opinion, it will help illuminate my clouded mind. Thank you. I hope you had a good summer break!

------------------------

The sentence that sticks out at me the most is: "It was the first time that I saw my mother in that angle, the complete lack of humanity in her words." I would argue that the problem doesn't lie with her. In fact, nothing about your mother had changed. She was still the same woman as before she uttered those words. The issue arises from your perception of her and the standards by which you evaluate her.

I follow world affairs very closely, so I think I know which region you are speaking of. One of the biggest problems in the manner that people think and talk about politics is the tendency to stereotype. Stereotyping is basically a form of cognitive oversimplification. It makes your thinking ability fast but also very dull and blunt, unable to understand situations with the nuance and sophistication that is required for good judgment and decision making.

It doesn't matter which country/culture you are from, there is always some variation of "right versus left". Why? Because in every society, there will always exist an underlying tension between those who don't want change and those who do. You may label these two opposing forces as right vs left, conservative vs liberal, regressive vs progressive, etc, but the fact of the matter is that these labels are gross oversimplifications of people's political belief systems.

When you divide people along an oversimplified dichotomy, it's too easy to stereotype them, in terms of believing that all people on each "side" hold all the same beliefs and values. Stereotyping goes along with the natural tendency of humans to be tribal. You start to view those on your side as being intellectually and morally superior to those on the other side. This leads to dehumanization and even demonization of the other side. In essence, you lose the ability to empathize with people, as long as you believe that they aren't on your side or the "right" side.

It seems that your political thinking has become too stark due to how extreme the situation has become. You have the feeling of fighting for your life because of the way that the situation has been handled by authorities, as they are indeed putting people's lives in danger. Your feelings about the situation are completely valid. But you fail to recognize that your mom's feelings about the situation are also valid. Certainly, there are hard-core fundamentalists and extremists out there that you can never reach because their beliefs and values are not based in any form of reason. However, I don't think your mom fits into that category, does she?

Do you know what it means to have no humanity? You are accusing her of something like psychopathy. Is that really true of her? I don't think so. She said: "nothing's going to change anyway". I don't consider this an expression of "apathy", as you assume. This is an expression of hopelessness. In that sentence, there is a real possibility that your mom is sympathetic at heart, but she disagrees that the chaotic actions of the protestors (i.e. the method) will lead to any meaningful change... and she may be absolutely right about that.

You haven't grasped the nuances of your mom's beliefs and values because your mindset has been so hardened by the extreme nature of the political conflict. This means that, when you engage in political discussion with her, you are unable to: 1) acknowledge how she feels, 2) acknowledge that there is some reason/merit/validity behind her beliefs, and 3) be open-minded enough to meet her halfway.

Put another way: If you met someone who wouldn't acknowledge your feelings as valid, dismissed all of your beliefs and values as completely wrong without proper investigation, and only sought to "convert" you, would you want to communicate with them? Probably not. This is the unproductive attitude that you now both bring to the table. This is the divisive attitude that arises when a conflict becomes too polarized and everyone is forced to "choose a side".

Unless one of you learns to listen and communicate more effectively, what will change? You say that you have tried to find middle ground with her but always end up arguing. Not finding middle ground is one thing, but getting caught up in interpersonal drama is a whole other thing. The option to amicably agree to disagree is always available. If you genuinely respect someone and respect their freedom to form their own beliefs, it shouldn't be hard to agree to disagree. Why do you find it so difficult to let her be her? Ultimately, you're not really interested in "middle ground"? You just want her agreement? Getting caught up in arguments all the time, especially on a recurring basis, indicates poor communication skills that stem from a troubling lack of objectivity. The more you argue with the intent to shame/change the other person, the more you push them away from your side, and the more myopic you get in your own beliefs.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of categorizing her into the tribe that you view as the enemy of your tribe, namely, the authorities that are cracking down on you young protestors. You've started to view her as the enemy, now you can't empathize with her, and even accuse her of having no humanity. You now consider yourself morally superior to her. If there is any possibility that she could be your ally, you've slammed the door on it.

You describe a very dire and desperate political situation that affects everyone, BUT, it doesn't affect everyone the same way. Different people have very different ways of dealing with intense emotions like fear, insecurity, grief, despair, helplessness, etc. Due to inferior Fi, ESTJs have extremely low tolerance for intense and uncontrollable emotions. Remember that one's ability to utilize the inferior function is not much better than a young child. If ESTJs can't neutralize or deflect their sense of powerlessness quickly, the burden of the emotions will quickly destroy them. I don't think you've really understood the thought process behind your mom's words and what is really motivating her "apathy".

Just because someone doesn't agree with your methods, doesn't mean that they don't have anything in common with you. Politics isn't just about good vs evil, as in, if you don't stand up for good, then you are evil. Everyone has their own way of looking at the situation because everyone has their own interests to take care of first and foremost, and everyone has their own ideas about the best methods to pursue. This is true for both you and your mom. It is possible to agree on beliefs but disagree on methods. For example, I'm assuming that you care about this cause so deeply because you care about your future. Sure, your ideas about the future differ from hers. But, certainly, you are both interested in securing your future, aren't you?

History has shown us that young people are always more willing to fight for causes because: 1) they would suffer less immediate material loss than the elder generation, 2) they have fewer life responsibilities, obligations, and commitments to take into consideration, and 3) their lack of life experience sometimes makes their thinking too simplistic when visualizing future implications.

Your interests aren't fully aligned with your mom's in this situation, perhaps because you are from different generations. However, this doesn't mean that your interests don't align in other important ways. At the end of the day, your mom is probably deathly afraid of seeing YOU on the news being beaten to a pulp and disappeared by the police, right? And it may be the case that she's passing harsh judgment on the protestors because she's trying to discourage you from meeting their horrible fate? That's hardly lack of humanity.

To be a good critical thinker, you need to learn to be more objective. Objectivity means understanding all aspects of the situation, or as many as you can manage. Objectivity and empathy often go hand-in-hand. You won't be able to empathize well unless you acknowledge that there might be some aspects of the situation that you're not seeing or understanding. When you take more time to get to the bottom of someone's thought process and why they really feel the way they do, you will discover all sorts of openings to influence their political beliefs in a friendly way. But when you can't even acknowledge that the other side might have an important point to be made, because you are so hardened in your stance, you've created a dead end for yourself.

[1vintage]

Ocean Vuong on Metaphor

below is a transcript of an Instagram story from Ocean Vuong, available here in his story highlights under Metaphor.

Q: How do you make sure your metaphors have real depth?

metaphors should have two things: (1) sensory (visual, texture, sound, etc) connector between origin image and the transforming image as well as (2) a clear logical connector between both images. 

if you have only one of either, best to forgo the metaphor, otherwise it will seem forced or read like “writing” if that makes sense.

~

a lot of ya’ll asked for examples re:metaphor. I can explain better if I had 15 minutes of class time (apply to UMASS!). But essentially, metaphors that go awry can signal a hurried desire to be “literary” or “poetic” (ie “writing”), which can lose traction/trust with a reader. in other words, a metaphor is a detour—but that detour better lead to discoveries that alter/amplify the meaning of what is already there, so that a reader sees you as a servant of possibility rather than someone trying to prove that they are a “writer.” One is performative, the other exploratory. In this way, the metaphor acts as a virtual medium, ejecting the text’s optical realism into an “elsewhere”. But this elsewhere should inform the original upon our return. otherwise the journey would feel like an ejection from a crash rather than a curated journey toward more complex meaning.

example:

“The road curves like a cat’s tail.”

This is a weak metaphor because the transforming image (tail) does not amplify/alter the original. The transfer of meaning flattens and dies. Logic is weak or moot: A cat’s tail does not really change the nature of the road. You can certainly add to this with a few more expository sentences which might rescue the logic—but by then you’re just doing cpr on your metaphor.

Sensory, too, is weak: a cat’s tail has little optical resemblance to a road other than being curved (roads are not furry, for one.)

So this is 0 for 2 and should be scrapped. (Just my opinion though! Not a rule!)

okay so what about:

“The road runs between two groves of pine, like the first stroke of a buzzcut.”

this is better. the optical sensory of the transforming image (a clipper thru a head of hair) matches well with the original.

but the logic feels arbitrary. again it doesn’t substantially alter the original.

in the end this is just an “interesting image” but not strong enough to keep I’d say.

Now here’s one from Sharon Olds:

“The hair on my father’s arms like blades of molasses.”

Sensory connector: check. A man’s dark hair indeed can look like blades (also suggestive of grass) of molasses.

Logical connector: check. the father is both sharp and sweet. Something once soft and sticky about him (connotations of youth) sweets, has now hardened the confection no longer fresh etc.

It’s an ambitious metaphor that is packed with resonance. In other words, it does worlds of work and actually deepens the more you dit with it. A metaphor that actually invites you to put the book down, think on it, absorb it, before returning. a good metaphor uses detours to add power to the text. poor metaphors distract you from the text and leave you bereft, laid to the side.

lastly, the prior examples are technically “similes” but I believe similes reside under the umbrella of metaphor. although a simile is a demarcation, ie: this is “like” that. but this is “not”, ontologically, that.

however, I think something happens in the act of reading wherein we collapse the “bridge” and the mind automatically forges synergy between the two images, so that all similes, once read, “act” like metaphors in the mind.

but again this is all subjective. you might have a better way of going about it.

Another very ambitious metaphor is this one from Eduardo C. Corral:

“Moss intensifies up the tree, like applause.”

This is a masterful metaphor, risky and requires a lot of faith, restraint, and experience to pull it off.

Difficult mainly because we now see a surrealist “distortion” of the sensory realm: origin IMAGE (moss) is paired with transforming SOUND (applause).

There is now a leap in comparable elements. But the adherence to our two vital factors are still present.

Sensory: moss, though silent, grows slowly (the word “intensifies” does major work here becuz it foreshadows the transforming element). Applause, too, grows gradually, before dying down.

Logic: the growth of the moss suggests spring, lushness, life, resilience, and connotes anticipatory hope, much like applause. In turn, applause modifies the nature of moss and imbues, at least this moss, with a sense of accomplishment, closure, it’s refreshment a cause for celebration.

God I love words.

~

I’ve gotten so many responses from folks the past few days asking for a deeper dive into my personal theory on metaphor.

So I'm taking a moment here to do a more in-depth mini essay since my answer to the Q/A the other day was off the cuff (I was typing while walking to my haircut appointment).

What I’m proposing, of course, is merely a THEORY, not a gospel, so please take whatever is useful to you and ignore what isn’t.

This essay will be in 25 slides. I will save this in my IG highlights after 24 hrs.

Before I begin I want to encourage everyone to forge your own theories and praxi for your work, especially if you’re a BIPOC artist.

Often, we are perceived by established powers as merely “performers,” suitable for a (brief) stint on stage—but not thinkers and creators with our own autonomy, intelligence, and capacity to question the framework in our fields.

It is not lost on me, as a yellow body in America, with the false connotations therein, where I’m often seen as diminutive, quiet, accommodating, agreeable, submissive, that I am not expected to think against the grain, to have my own theories on how I practice my art and my life.

I became a writer knowing I am entering a field (fine arts) where there are few faces like my own (and with many missing), a field where we are expected to succeed only when we pick up a violin or a cello in order to serve Euro-Centric “masterpieces.”

For so long, to be an Asian American “prodigy” in art was to be a fine-tuned instrument for Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven.

It is no surprise, then, that if you, as a BIPOC artist, dare to come up with your own ideas, to say “no” to what they shove/have been shoving down your throat for so long, you will be infantilized, seen as foolish, moronic, stupid, disobedient, uneducated, and untamed.

Because it means the instrument that was once in the service of their “work” has now begun to speak, has decided, despite being inconceivable to them, to sing its own songs.

I want you, I need you, to sing with me. I want to hear what you sound like when it’s just us, and you sound so much like yourself that I recognize you even in the darkest rooms, even when I recognize nothing else. And I know your name is “little brother” or “big sister,” or “light bean,” or “my-echo-returned-to-me-intact.” And I smile.

In the dark I smile.

Art has no rules—yes—but it does have methods, which vary for each individual. The following are some of my own methods and how I came to them.

I’m very happy ya’ll are so into figurative language! It’s my favorite literary device because it reveals a second IDEA behind an object or abstraction via comparison.

When done well, it creates what I call the “DNA of seeing.” That is, a strong metaphor “Greek for “to carry over”) can enact the autobiography of sight. For example, what does it say about a person who sees the stars in the night sky—as exit wounds?

What does it say about their history, their worldview, their relationship to beauty and violence? All this can be garnered in the metaphor itself—without context—when the comparative elements have strong multifaceted bonds.

How we see the world reveals who we are. And metaphors explicate that sight.

My personal feeling is that the strongest metaphors do not require context for clarity. However, this does not mean that weaker metaphors that DO require context are useless or wrong.

Weak metaphors use context to achieve CLARITY.

Strong metaphors use context to SUPPORT what’s already clear.

BOTH are viable in ANY literary text.

But for the sake of this deeper exploration into metaphors and their gradients, I will attempt to identify the latter.

I feel it is important for a writer to understand the STRENGTHS of the devices they use, even when WEAKER versions of said devices can achieve the same goal via different means.

Sometimes we want a life raft, sometimes we want a steam boat—but we should know which is which (for us).

My focus then, will be specifically the ornamental or overt metaphor. That is, metaphors that occur inside the line—as opposed to conceptual, thematic, extended metaphors, or Homeric simile (which is a whole different animal).

My thinking here begins with the (debated) theory that similes reside under metaphors. That is, (non-Homeric) similes, behave cognitively, like metaphors.

This DOES NOT mean that similes do not matter (far from it), as we’ll see later on, but that the compared elements, once read, begin to merge in the mind, resulting in a metaphoric OCCURRENCE via a simileac vehicle.

This thinking is not entirely my own, but one informed by my interest in Phenomenology. Founded by Edmund Husserl in the early 20th century and later expanded by Heidegger, Phenomenology is, in short, interested in how objects or phenomena are perceived in the mind, which renewed interest in subjectivity across Europe, as opposed to the Enlightenment’s quest for ultimate, finite truths.

By the time Husserl “discovered” this, however, Tibetan Buddhists scholars have already been practicing Phenomenology as something called Lojong, or “mind training,” for over half a millennia.

Whereas Husserl believes, in part, that a finite truth does exist but that the myopic nature of human perception hinders us from seeing all of it, Tibetan Lojong purports that no finite “truth” exists at all.

In Lojong, the world and its objects are pure perception. That is, a fly looks at a tree and sees, due to its compound eyes, hundreds of trees, while we see only one. For Buddhists, neither fly nor human is “correct” because a fixed truth is not present. Reality is only real according to one’s bodily medium.

I’m keenly interested in Lojong’s approach because it inheritably advocates for an anti-colonial gaze of the world. If objects in the real are not tenable, there is no reason they should be captured, conquered or pillaged.

In other words, we are in a “simulation” and because there is no true gain in acquiring something that is only an illusion, it is better to observe and learn from phenomena as guests passing through this world with respect to things—rather than to possess them.

The reason I bring this up is because Buddhist philosophy is the main influence of 8th century Chinese and 15th-17th century Japanese poetics, which fundamentally inform my understanding of metaphor.

While I appreciate Aristotle’s take on metaphor and rhetoric in his Poetics, particularly his thesis that strong metaphors move from species to genus, it is not a robust influence on my thinking.

After all, like sex and water, metaphors have been enjoyed by humans across the world long before Aristotle-- and evidently long after. In fact, Buddhist teachings, which widely employ metaphor and analogy, predates Aristotle by roughly 150 years.

Now, to better see how Buddhist Phenomenology informs the transformation of images into metaphor, let’s look at this poem by Moritake.

“The fallen blossom flies back to its branch. No, a butterfly.”

When considering (western-dominated) discourse surrounding analogues using “like” or “is”, is this image a metaphor or a simile?

It is technically neither. The construction of this poem does not employ metaphor or simile.

And yet, to my eye, a metaphor, although not present, does indeed HAPPEN.

What’s more, the poem, which is essentially a single metaphor, is complete.

No further context is needed for its clarity. If context is needed for a metaphor, then the metaphor is (IMO) weak—but that doesn’t mean the writing, as a whole, is bad. Weak metaphors and good context bring us home safe and sound.

Okay, so what is happening here?

By the time I read “butterfly,” my mind corrects the blossom so that the latter image retroactively changes/informs the former. We see the blossom float up, then re-see it as a butterfly. The metaphoric figuration is complete with or without “like” or “is.”

Buddhism explains this by saying that, although a text IS thought, it does not THINK. We, the readers, must think upon it. The text, then, only curates thinking.

Words, in this way, begin on the page but LIVE in the mind which, due to limited and subjective scope of human perception, shift seemingly fixed elements into something entirely new.

The key here is proximity. Similes provide buffers to mediate impact between two elements, but they do not rule over how images coincide upon reading. One the page, text is fossil; in the mind, text is life.

Nearly 5000 years after Maritake, Ezra Pound, via Fenolosa, reads Maritake’s poem and writes what becomes the seminal poem on Imagism in 1912, which was subsequently highly influential to early Modernists:

“The apparition of these faces in the crowd: Petals on a wet, black bough.”

Like Maritake, Pound’s poem technically has no metaphor or simile. However, he adds the vital colon after “crowd,” which arguably works as an “equal sign”, thereby implying metaphor. But the reason why he did not use “are” or “is” is telling.

Pound understood, like Maritake, that the metaphor would occur in the mind, regardless of connecting verbiage due to the images’ close proximity. We would come to know this as “association.”

Even if the colon was replaced by the word “like,” the transformation, though a bit slower, would still occur.

In fact, when I first studied Pound years ago, I had trouble recalling whether this poem was fashioned as a simile or not—mainly because the faces change to fully into blossoms each time I try to recall the poem.

Now, let’s look at a simile that, to me, metaphorizes in the same way as the examples above, in the line we saw before from Eduardo C. Corral:

“Jade moss on the tree intensifies, like applause.”

The origin/tenor image (moss) is connected to the transforming element (applause). This metaphor suggests, not an optical relationship, but a BEHAVIORAL one.

Both moss and applause are MASSES that accumulate via singularities: grains of moss and pairs of hands clapping to form a larger whole.

By comparing these two, Corral successfully suggests that moss grows at the RATE of applause, creating a masterful time lapse effect. Applause speeds up the moss growth, connoting rejuvenation, joy and refreshment. That something as mundane as moss deserves, even earns, jubilance, also offers a potent statement of alterity, that the smallest flourishing deserves celebration, which in turn suggests a subtle yet powerful political critique of hegemony.

The poet, through the metaphor, has recalibrated the traditional modes of value placed on the object (moss).

And no other context is needed for that.

You might disagree, but when I read Corral’s line, I don’t SEE an audience clapping BESIDE the moss. I see moss growing quickly to the sound of clapping. Although the simile is employed, the fusion of both elements completes the action in my mind’s eye.

Like Maritake and Pound, metaphor has OCCURRED here—but without “metaphor”.

HOWEVER, the simile is still VITAL. Why?

Because the transforming element is abstract (applause) and looks nothing like moss. We don’t want moss to BE applause, we want the nature of applause to inform, imbue, moss.

The line, I feel, would be quite poor if it was formed sans simile:

“Jade moss is applause on the tree.”

The “is” forces transposition, which is here akin to slamming two things together without mediation. We also lose the comparison of behavior, and are asked to see that moss BECOME applause, which doesn’t have the same meaning as the original.

So, although the simile fuses into metaphor (via association) in the mind, such a metaphor would NOT have been possible without the simile.

Similes matter greatly—as tools towards metaphor. Why?

Because (thank god) our minds are free to roam.

To summarize, one of the central strategies (and, to an extent, purposes) of the Japanese Haiku is to juxtapose two elements to test their synergy. This impulse is grounded in Shinto and Buddhist concepts of impermanence and structural malleability. That is, all things, even ideas and images, are subject to constant change—and such change is the most pervasive nature of perception.

The Haiku then becomes the perfect medium to test such changes. This principle is of central importance to me because it is rooted in non-dualistic (or non-binary) thinking.

The poem becomes the theatre in which fixed elements can be transformed, their borders subject to being dissolved, shifting towards something entirely new—to “create”, which is the Greek root to the word “poet.” The metaphor, then, is more like a chemical, whose elements (like hydrogen and oxygen), placed side by side, becomes water.

In this way, Buddhism’s influence on my work and, specifically, my use and understanding of metaphor, is a foundational QUEER praxis for alterity.

The reason why I emphasize the malleability of simile’s impact is that, although syntax and diction can aide a metaphor towards its more luminous embodiment, the ultimate key to its success is you, the observer.

YOU have look deeply and find lasting relationships between things in a disparate world.

In this sense, the practice of metaphor is also, I believe, the practice of compassion. How do I study a thing so that I might add to its life by introducing it to something else?

At its best, the metaphor is what we, as a species, have always done, at OUR best: which is to point at something or someone so different from us, so far from our own origins and say, “Yes, there IS a bond between us. And if I work long enough, hard enough, I can prove it to you—with this thing called language, this thing that weighs nothing but means everything to me.”

In the end, it is less about how you set up your metaphors (you will eventually find a way that suits it and you) but more about how you recognize your world. THAT is not easy to teach—it comes with patient practice, with a committed wonder for a world that at times might be too painful to look at. But you must and you should.

Good metaphors, in the end, come from writers who are committed to looking beyond what is already there, towards another possibility.

This calls that you see your life and your work as inexhaustible sites of discovery, and that you tend to them with care.

That’s it. That’s the true secret to a strong metaphor: care.

Lastly, I want to recommend the work of BIPOC poet and theorist, Thylias Moss, who discovered the Limited Fork Theory, a theory which suggests that the mind engages with the world, and especially with ideas, including text and art, the way the tines of a fork engage with a plate of food.

That is, only so much can be held on the work/mind with each attempt to consume, and that no “work” can be possessed in its entirety, which I find happily congruent with Lojong.

What a wonderful anti-imperialist and forgiving way to engage with our planet and its phenomena. Thank you, Mrs. Moss!

And thank YOU for sticking around through my little seminar.

I hope this has been helpful. Again, this is just my 2(5) cents! Now I’m going to sleep for four days.

In the meantime, me-ta-phors be with you.

—O

[whiterosebrian]

Second Open Letter to MovieBob

MovieBob,

Over four years ago I wrote an open letter to you in hopes of reaching you. I don’t know if it ever did. I don’t know if this one will either. I still felt a need to try to reach you. You are an online personality with a substantial following. You influence a decent-sized number of people. Back then, I was Catholic. About two years later, I felt a need to abandon Catholicism after so many years of struggling with it as convert—it was a difficult decision. The Catholic Right made me question what “Authentic Catholicism” (in the words of so many self-styled Cristeros) looks like in the real world, as did uncensored history. It’s likely no accident that I stepped away from Catholicism during the Trump administration, which many Catholic hierarchs and apologists promoted, whether subtly or overtly, all the way to the brutal and ugly end. I’ll start talking about my new spiritual path soon enough.

Indeed, I share your anger towards the whole Christian Right which has long been the main driver in mainstreaming faith-based nationalist authoritarianism in the USA and, increasingly, elsewhere. As I’ve browsed your social-media postings, I’ve seen more justified lamentations over the damage that the Christian Right has caused. However, I also see bitterness towards ordinary people who shouldn’t all be dismissed as mindless fascist robots.

It’s true that wide support for Christian fascism needs to be opposed. At the same time, people are people. People are complicated. It’s true that, in many cases, labels are necessary descriptors. The problem is when people are reduced to simple labels. It’s true that plenty of people are hardened ideologues. I even accept that such people need to be somehow restrained for the good of the whole populace. It’s not always easy, though, to tell who is whom. People tend to do what they think is right or justifiable—that is, to use a slightly hackneyed idiom, Human Nature 101. People’s fears can be misdirected and, yes, their socially inherited prejudices can be inflamed. People can be horribly misled. When we oppose even the most hardened ideologues, though, we need to keep their humanity in mind.

There are no easy answers to the mainstreaming of neo-fascism among our neighbors. Nonetheless, our neighbors remain our neighbors. When you paint with broad good-or-bad, thinkers-or-believers, obsolete-or-advanced brushes, you risk contributing to polarization. Your approach is dangerously close to what the Catholic Right does—it brands everyone who diverges from their ideology as insane, selfish, God-hating, baby-killing, barely-human demons. One reason for writing this letter is to warn you again about becoming a mirror image of what you rightly oppose.

I myself sometimes feel my own resentment flare up and I need to resist the temptation. I’ve thought about setting up a new account on Twitter for the express purpose of trolling Catholic fundamentalists—but how effective would that be, given how they smugly proclaim themselves to be truth-telling martyrs? More importantly, how would that actually benefit vulnerable people?

Now it’s time to talk about my new spiritual path, as I telegraphed before. I started learning of alternate spiritualities after I left Catholicism, though I knew that I would essentially commit to one of them. For multiple reasons far outside this letter’s scope, I committed to Germanic neopaganism. Yes, the neopagan revival has issues from its very beginning.

Shortly before I started typing this letter, people on the internet voiced suspicions over a stage within a major right-wing conference, one seemingly designed in the shape of a specific variant—one associated with Himmler’s henchmen—of the Odal rune. You also might recall one thug within the attempted coup on Capitol Hill wearing Germanic pagan symbols as tattoos (along with a mock-Lakota headdress). Many of today’s neo-pagans are beginning to seriously grapple with those issues, primarily by forcefully distancing themselves from Folkism (which is basically a white-nationalist caricature of pre-Christian spirituality) and expressing solidarity with marginalized people. Many of today’s neo-pagans also place an emphasis on researching the histories associated with their faith and practices, searching for the highest quality scholarship and summaries thereof possible. One thing that the most thoughtful neo-pagans stress is animism.

You seem to do much research into all sorts of things, as you demonstrate in tweets and videos, so giving a definition of animism might simply waste your time. I still want to discuss it in some depth, as it leads into what I believe is my main justification for writing a second open letter to you. Animism isn’t just a belief in ghosts and goblins everywhere. It’s also a relationship with all things seen and unseen, including the natural world. You rightly speak of safeguarding the environment to keep it inhabitable for future generations, but therein lies the rub—it shouldn’t just be about what you have called the “Superior Future”.

Reactionary ideology is indeed foolish at best and dangerous at worst. I’ve become convinced, though, that there is a fundamental truth that fascists grotesquely distort. I’ve become convinced that the modern world is broken. There is a very serious disconnect with ancestors and with nature. Ancestors aren’t always right, but they have good ideas. Nature isn’t always directly beneficial humans, but it has many precious treasures.

I follow a number of Native American activists and spiritualists on Instagram. You should know that in colonizing various lands Christian Europeans decimated indigenous people and nearly annihilated their ancestral cultures. Many indigenous people are reclaiming their heritages. A major part of that is bonding with their lands and befriending the spirits whom they once freely befriended. I’ve seen you talk about “thunder-cowering sub-mentals” and “superstitious” people inventing gods and spirits to overcome their fears of death or feebly explain their world. I offer this rhetorical question: Do you dare to say such things to indigenous peoples trying to revive their cultures?

I’ve seen you talk about pop-culture heroes as some kind of substitute for gods in culture. You are entitled to your skepticism towards all things mystical, but I feel a need to point out something. Works of fiction—especially commercial entertainments promoted by corporations such as the increasingly notorious Disney—are very different from myths. Works of fiction may certainly have trappings of mythology which help them resonate with audiences. They may even tap directly into classical archetypes that have long influenced humanity. Mythology, however, is often linked to serious historical spiritual paths, even when retold and written by Christian antiquarians in Iceland or Ireland. Mythology also reaches even more deeply into the human spirit, arguably carrying mystical truths deep within. I won’t pretend to be a scholar, much less expert, on mythology—I simply want to point out the differences between fiction and mythology. They don’t serve the same functions. I do aspire to write works of serious fiction that explore philosophy, humanity, and spirituality, but even those are distinct from mythology that has been passed down over centuries in whatever forms.

A statistic spreading on the internet tells us that, if I recall correctly, indigenous peoples make up a very small percentage of the world’s population but safeguard the vast majority of the world’s biodiversity. What informs their protection of their lands? The cultures that they work to preserve are tied to their lands—not in the horrible “blood and soil” sense, but in the sense of being family with the animals, waters, plants, stones, and hills that surround them. Many of them explicitly see spiritual beings within the earth, ones who also want to dwell with us. In short, they point us to an entire web of life. They tell us that their ancestral wisdom is what will save the lands that they want to share peacefully with settlers and, ultimately, the whole world. I’m now convinced that they are right.

Such relationship with nature and spirit is also present in pre-Christian spiritualities and their revivals. At some point, an ideology of colonization and separation arose within the Christianized Europe. I leave discussions of its exact origins to philosophers, historians, and other scholars who are far more knowledgeable than I. I’ll still talk about the ideology of the conquest of nature, which led to environmental problems that we have now. Though you speak of necessary advances in technology to resolve climate change, those need to be approached thoughtfully so that people don’t become exploited for the privileged few. Furthermore, a focus on the “Superior Future” and fixation on genetic engineering, super-intelligent robotics, and ever-expanding mega-cities misses the point of fully human flourishing. Even as a pagan, I feel comfortable repeating my earlier paraphrasing of a line within the Gospels: Civilization was made for man, not man for civilization. The myopic focus on high-tech civilization has contributed to so many problems for people’s lives. A number of people are now coming to understand that there’s a limit to how much prosperity actually benefits people’s lives.

Many indigenous writers and activists are pointing to alternate ways of living, however vaguely or tentatively in terms of how exactly we would bring them into today’s world. They don’t talk about erasing electricity or medical science by any means! Rather, they ask us to reconsider where we focus our building up of human lifestyles and human society. Marching mindlessly into the “Superior Future” isn’t the way to bring happiness and peace to humanity. I’m convinced that the proper way to do so is learning from ancestors how to rebuild better bonds with each other, our nonhuman friends, and our souls—and then applying the best parts of timeless wisdom to our lives and our social projects.

Whenever I type articles such as this for my social media pages, I often ask for pardon if I’ve rambled. I trust that I genuinely try to genuinely say as much as possible. That is the reason for this letter being the way that it is. Again, you are entitled to your skepticism towards all things mystical, but I maintain that you’re not entitled to completely dismiss them as idiotic primitivism. I actually started feeling a need to sit down and type this letter while practicing mediation at my altar. Did the goddess Freya influence me to try again to reach you, or did a simple thought of mine simply become stronger? I can’t quite answer that—especially at this point, when I’m beginning to learn to connect with the other side, that the old gods speak to me so clearly.

The ultimate point is that I ask you to not only tread carefully when publicly opposing Christian fascism but also reconsider your “Superior Future”, evidently influenced by science fiction—which in turn is possibly influenced by the ideology of the conquest of nature. I can’t presume to know how convincing you will find my letter, but I still wanted make another attempt to speak to you—and to the many people whom you influence as an online personality. I simply want to be a part of building a genuinely better future for human beings and the entire web of life.

With the utmost sincerity,

Brian Solomon Whiterose

[canchewread]

Editor’s note: earlier this afternoon I managed to smash my foot into a coffee table and I’m increasingly starting to suspect that I broke at least one toe. As a result I haven’t had time to write a full edition of “The Skinny” today; in the meantime here’s a short essay on history, propaganda and the CIA.

In a recent essay about changing mainstream attitudes towards Edward Snowden and the national security state, I talked a little bit how the business of recording and analyzing history is riddled with class-based structural barriers that largely serve to protect and support establishment power and as such, elite capital. Obviously where I deal with this most in my writing is in the real-time record of history reported and analyzed by the media - after all, this type of orthodox, pro-establishment propagandizing happens every day on the evening news.

Today I'm going to switch gears and talk about books, specifically actual history books about war, foreign policy and espionage. After finishing Edward Snowden's new biography “Permanent Record” I went back to my shelf and pulled down Tim Weiner's 2007 book "Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA" - a volume I've reference many times in my writing but have never sat down to read from cover to cover until a couple of days ago.

While this isn't exactly a normal book review, I like to note up front that I’m not here to explicitly trash Legacy of Ashes - it's not like Weiner's tome is an objectively bad or horrifyingly inaccurate history book; it did after all win a Pulitzer Prize.

Based on hundreds of direct interviews and massive hordes of (then) recently declassified documents, Legacy of Ashes is mostly what it purports to be - a complete history of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency from its formation up until roughly 2006. Obviously different scholars have different primary sources but if you're in mainstream liberal media or military scholarship and you write about national security, this is a book you'll be expected by most informed observers to be familiar with; as I said, I've referenced it quite often in my work as well.

Of course, in light of the fact that the book was released right around the same time as the full exposure of CIA's staggering failure in the lead up to and aftermath of 9/11 and its complicity in Bush's secret prisons hiding America's torture program, the author understandably takes an overall "dim" view of the CIA. From cowboy covert operations in the fifties and sixties, up on through to the horrifying failures that lead to the invasion of Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction our government knew they couldn’t find (because they didn’t exist), Legacy of Ashes tells the tale of a wayward, out of control intelligence agency that has never been capable of its supposed primary function – keeping the President informed of what is happening beyond America’s borders.

In the general sense then, it’s fair to say that for the average reader the book almost certainly comes off as a shocking indictment of the Central Intelligence Agency and many of the men who have had leadership roles inside the agency - so what's the problem? It almost sounds like I'm recommending it - doesn’t it?

Unfortunately however Tim Weiner is an affluent former New York Times journalist with a Journalism degree from Colombia and a career's worth of contact with minions of the national security state; in other words Weiner is about as "establishment" as they come and the effect that has on both his overall worldview and his study of the CIA's history, screams off virtually every single page in Legacy of Ashes.

Like all too many national security "muckrakers" Weiner starts with the basic hypothesis that the CIA and U.S. intelligence agencies in general are good, justified and necessary for the defense of the country - the whole mom and apple pie American feel good story. The repeated abuses and failures of the agency, from the author’s perspective, are simply an obvious byproduct of the arrogance, incompetence and personal failings of individual leaders - failings that are often magnified by the byzantine bureaucratic structures inherent to a "free" and "open liberal democracy” like the United States.

In Weiner's account the CIA itself is not the problem, but rather the faulty individuals entrusted with its sacred task. Catastrophic failures in intelligence that have all too tragic consequences are a result of individual hubris, mission drift and plain old American cultural arrogance; the question of whether or not there should have even been a Cold War for example, simply doesn’t come up - even as the author openly admits that everything the CIA and the US government thought it knew about the Soviet Union turned out to be wrong and was based on lies produced to order by, yes the CIA. Leader after leader and planner after planner are revealed to be flawed human beings consumed by petty emotions or false assumptions and thus wholly unsuited for the job. Every U.S. president is a poor helpless dupe, grasping to extend his power to protect America from harm without realizing what he's now empowered the wayward CIA, lead by "the wrong men", to do next – even as those same men continually empower the CIA to do more and more damage in the “service” of protecting American interests abroad. In this worldview American “cloak and dagger” imperialism comes off as a sort of tragic accident; rather than a purposeful activity designed to bolster American power not just in a military sense, but in a global economic sense on behalf of American corporations as well.

In particular, Weiner's curious assessment of Allen Dulles as a bumbling incompetent obsessed with reckless covert military actions and derisive of the CIA's real work, gathering intelligence, paints a very different and somehow less harmful picture of the former CIA director than previously released accounts that delve deeper into the control Dulles exhibited over American media and the ruthlessness with which he marched men to their deaths in the dubious service of the Cold War on communism. While anyone who has read Dave Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard” will have no real problem accepting that Allen Dulles was an unhinged psychopath whose vision was clouded by myopic hatred of the Soviet Union (and anti-capitalism as a whole), Weiner’s portrait of a gout-ridden dilettante withdrawing into a world of public relations and spy-novel trickery doesn’t line up very well with Dulles’s staggering level of (malignant and xenophobic) influence over multiple U.S. presidents and American foreign policy. We are after all talking about a man who might have had a hand in assassinating an American head of state to not only save the CIA but also prolong the Cold War in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Another good example of how the author’s proximity to his subject influences the way he presents the history of the CIA can be found in the way Weiner's suggestive prose repeatedly implies, but does not directly state, that Fidel Castro killed John F Kennedy; an extremely unlikely if not almost impossible scenario in light of the secret peace talks the Kennedy administration has since been revealed to have been trying to conduct with both Castro and Nikita Khrushchev.

It would be one thing if Weiner were just repeating information from CIA interviewees who believed Castro had Kennedy assassinated, but the problem is that Weiner himself is clearly purposely leaving a trail of clues towards his own belief that Fidel Castro had John F. Kennedy killed in retaliation for the CIA's botched plots to assassinate Castro; clues that are scattered throughout the entire book - it comes up at least a dozen times in the first 250 pages for example.

Naturally this theory has the benefit of not only indirectly absolving the CIA itself (and shifting the blame to Robert Kennedy) but also supporting the author’s primary thesis – namely that the CIA is horribly run and has at times been completely out of control but ultimately the agency is worth salvaging; a position that undoubtedly makes Weiner’s ex-CIA friends and sources happy no matter how much they protest otherwise.

In the author’s worldview, even the existence of the CIA is an unfortunate compromise for the pure as snow “democratic” Pig Empire, a result of America’s desperate need to fight the more talented, sophisticated and ruthless Soviet intelligence machine - an admission of inferiority that may seem scandalous on its face, but likely serves the CIA and its efforts to obscure the real, decidedly imperialist purpose of the agency just fine on the whole. Weiner could have and quite probably should have named the book “Legacy of Ashes: Confessions of the real CIA” or something similar because this feels like a confessional, or perhaps national therapy more than it feels like excoriation and condemnation.

Legacy of Ashes uses the agency’s own records and officers to gleefully point out all of the CIA’s already admitted mistakes, but the larger questions of how and why the world’s only superpower keeps letting dangerous cowboy intelligence officials “lead it” by the nose into “accidental” atrocity after “accidental” atrocity is left wholly unasked and unanswered. In the end you’re left with a book that largely consists of a full and detailed chronicle of the CIA’s known public history from the perspective of an exasperated but ultimately sympathetic parent who just wishes the agency would stick with the important work of gathering intelligence. 

So that simply leaves one question; did Tim Weiner sit down to write a limited hangout for the CIA at the time of its greatest need? I can’t definitively answer that question but truthfully, I doubt it. The lens through which Legacy of Ashes views the CIA seems to me wholly a product of who the author is, or rather who he’d simply have to be to end up a world renowned national security reporter for the New York Times; an influential media figure with the resources, time and gravitas to speak to hundreds of former CIA employees.

Weiner comes from a lived experience and professional environment where American imperialism is a dirty foreign smear, the CIA’s purpose is purely defensive and questioning whether or not the problem is American global hegemony itself, as opposed to rogue cowboys running an unsupervised spy shop, is strictly verboten. If the author were the kind of guy who thought the CIA deserved to be shattered into a thousand pieces and American imperialism is a source of global suffering, not global stability - well I highly doubt you’d have ever heard of his book.

All of which isn’t to say that Legacy of Ashes is a worthless book; if like myself you’ve read dozens and dozens of other books on not only the CIA but also U.S. imperialism, it’s fairly easy to tease out the facts from Weiner’s strictly liberal orthodox opinions and desire to ultimately preserve the agency. Unfortunately however if you are not an accomplished history student or largely unfamiliar with the minutiae of CIA’s history as a whole, it’s safe to say that Legacy of Ashes is only going to tell you part of the story - the what, and not the why.

This is because if you ever did figure out the real reasons why, you’d see no justifiable reason for America to even have a CIA.

- nina illingworth

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog. Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook. Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord! 

[sagebodisattva]

Absurdism, Existentialism and Nihilism

Exploring the nuances of the similarities and differences between Absurdism, Nihilism, Existentialism, and Existential Nihilism. So let's back up a bit...

So, you've decided to reject theism. You've finally arrived at the point where you are done with the concept of a sky daddy. Congratulations. You've just graduated kindergarten in philosophy, and now you are, for all intents and purposes, an atheist; which just means you are standing at the starting point of an existential journey, poised at an intersection with your backpack and walking staff, deciding where you will go from here. Maybe you will decide not to go anywhere, which is the most popular decision. Indeed, the starting point is a crowded area, with many people who have taken up a permanent camp there, and they will not go anywhere from here for the duration of their lives. They have rejected theism, have become an atheist, and this is where their story ends. They don't question existence, don't grapple with the existential considerations into the implications of what the rejection of theism ultimately means, and don't bother with philosophical explorations into the absurdity of a meaningless universe. Instead, the atheist's meaning, which becomes his convenient means to circumvent the journey, becomes simply materialism. The meaning, value, purpose and narrative of the universe is simply taken at face value; naïve realism at it's finest, which is basically the mindset that the meaning of existence is simply the management of different arrangements of materials, of which, no deep thought is required.

Indeed, from this mindset, the existential agency is considered to be an inconsequential byproduct, an obstacle even; as we've often heard it referred to as "the hard problem of consciousness." This is where the existential agency is relegated to being a physical substance. That the measure of our existence can be reduced to a chemical, or to some other type of externalized material source.

Not many realize it, but this position is basically a crude form of pantheism, but atheist's don't consider it as such because their aversion to the word “god” helps them frame it differently in their minds. But really, is it any different? If one believes they are a product of some type of function of a universe, and that this universe is the source of all material manifestations, then this attributes some aspect of the universe as the producer of existence, and it matters not if it was a random event, not helmed by any mythological intelligent deity or any other kind of theological designer. This is still essentially pantheism; it's just not labeled as such, nor ever spoken about.

An atheist may counter these suggestions by thinking that they don't know anything for certain, and are perfectly ok with not knowing, and indeed ignorance can be bliss; if one is content to be a simpleton who neither finds any utility in probing into things beyond the surface, nor any engagement by exploring, questioning and observing reality beyond the shallows of superficial appearances. This is a very near-sighted myopic mode of being; not much different then animal consciousness, which often morphs into simple hedonism: eat, drink, shit, piss, fuck, and sleep, and that's it. Is this really the end result of where science leads? Is the aim of science to reduce everything to the most unremarkable mundane explanation possible so we can pursue bestial desires, and then call this uncertainty? To be confident in the fact that we are nothing more then material phenomena doesn't sound very uncertain to me; as if chalking off existence to something called "material phenomena", actually means anything, or provides a satisfying answer to philosophical inquiry. If you are really uncertain, then you cannot be confident in the substantiality of the assumed material phenomena, no matter how many times you can demonstrate something by experiment, test and retest.

What about when science implies that the senses do not convey the truest representation of what is appearing to be actually there? Uh oh. This might require some philosophy. Ah yes, but to the atheist, philosophy is not worth anything either, and is relegated to the same status as religion, for if philosophy is explored, then it means leaving the safety and security of the starting point, and to step into the unknown, which can be a terrifying prospect to those who are attached to being stagnant.

Now some might say, what's wrong with ignorance is bliss? If enlightenment involves a rediscovery of innocence, of sorts, then isn't the atheist's non-start achieving this end? No, because this position is still a false conditioned position, because it externalizes reality and casts responsibility elsewhere, onto illusory appearances, of which, doesn't necessitate exploring the source of attention, which means this position is still a delusion. Lucidity involves becoming aware of the source of projected reality, not relaxing into a deluded idea that the dream world exists at face value.

Now, if, on the other hand, the atheist takes a step forward and moves beyond the starting point, then he begins his existential journey and will soon find himself confronted by a universe without any objective meaning, value, purpose or narrative. This is where the atheist now becomes an absurdist; for the conflict and shock that arises when an existential agency, that naturally seeks to find a meaning to life, confronts a medium where there is none to be found externally, is indeed the epitome of absurd, which often makes a journeyman question the futility and silliness of leading a life of mundane routine. This is where the existential crisis begins, and anger, depression, anxiety, angst and despair can often set in. And this is understandable; for people are usually not ready for this confrontation, nor have any experience with navigating it's waters.

For those that stay in this position, what usually follows are various pessimistic, cynical, or misanthropic outlooks on life; for the devastation that can develop as a result of the initial impact of facing a meaningless universe can often be crippling. That, and the uncomfortable truth that nothingness isn't a good outlet for soothing a person's innate conditioning, which automatically seeks that which can be identified and associated; that, which is subject to familiarization, disambiguation, and the state of being able to be labeled accordingly.

Now people will often incorrectly refer to the conflict of this state as nihilism, but that's jumping the gun. This struggle is with absurdism, which could possibly lead to nihilism, but isn't actual nihilism proper. From the position of absurdism, if one is able to recover from it, climb out of the pit of despair and move forward, the continuing path will either lead to nihilism, or existentialism, or in some cases, existential nihilism; which is a more advanced sophisticated position that can develop further on down the road. Staying an absurdist is impractical and detrimental, and will very likely lead to deep depression, addiction or suicide. So once one becomes sick and tired of being sick and tired, and is ready to shake off their existential crises, they eventually face a choice: either to invent meaning, or to drop the value they have previously held for investing in meaning. There is no better choice, or right answer; for much of this will depend on the person's predilection.

So, what is entailed with inventing meaning? This is existentialism. Existentialism concerns itself purely with becoming fully absorbed into the experience of being a human as a consequence of the absurdity in confronting a universe without objective meaning, and as a result, the existentialist disregards the lack of meaning and loses himself in creating his own meaning. The existentialist lives in the moment, and becomes grounded and centered in this immediacy, and so becomes unconcerned about concepts of futility and the inevitability of death, for the investment of value goes into life as a existential journey, and not an investment into ideas about destinations, legacies or outcomes. This is a path that embraces the totality of experience, and understands that a man's sum will be the result of his engagement and commitment with reality; that, indeed, a man will become whatever he makes of himself, no more, no less. This is where a man overcomes absurdity, and replaces the angst associated with it, with values, meanings, purposes and narratives, of his own making, and then takes a run with it.

It's not about overcoming nihilism, as Nietzsche fancied himself wrestling with, and as others have similarly painted the struggle as; but about overcoming absurdity, which is the debilitating factor. The confusion stems from the absurdist's despondent view of nihilism from a distance, which seems to portend further anguish. An absurdist is still hung up on his attachment to meaning. So, when the absurdist stands at the crossroads of existentialism and nihilism, they see the nihilist path as a deeper descent into despair because they are not yet a nihilist, so still think of the idea of letting go of the attachment to meaning, and the prospect of negating meaning as a meaningful investment, as more depression and angst.

So this is why existentialism is the road more often traveled, for it still employs meaning as a utility, and provides insulation from the vulnerability of complete nakedness in meaninglessness without any safety net. And this is another reason many absurdists confuse nihilism with absurdism; for futility and a lack of meaning is the source of their depression, and nihilism doesn't hold the promise of filling this void. Very few have the stomach to endure the loss of attachments. But, for those that are less nostalgic, less romantic, and have a lot more steel in their balls, the path of nihilism is taken, which isn't a road for the squeamish or the faint of heart. The nihilist sees there is no objective meaning, and despite the absurdity of this, he makes an adjustment and guides his way through life without having the need to embrace a meaning, and this is perfectly okay with him, and not a source of angst.

Nihilism is the path for those that are seeking to know the raw truth of reality, and are not afraid of letting go, or of detachment. The nihilist is comfortable with uncertainty, futility and a lack of meaning, and isn't compelled to mitigate this state because it isn't a source of pain or suffering to begin with. Quite contrary, the nihilist finds peace and freedom in the absence of these heavy burdens that only previously served to weigh him down.

To the average person, nihilism does seem to be an undesirable state that one would loathe to be in; which is another contributor to nihilism's bad rap, but this is only because, much like the absurdist, the average person is also caught up in investments into meaning, and thinks them to be of crucial importance. But meaning isn't an integral ingredient to an existence; it is foreign installation, an optional attachment, that really only serves as a crutch.

Finally, sometimes an absurdist will take the middle path between nihilism and existentialism and become an existential nihilist. The existential nihilist is one who acknowledges the paradoxical absurdity of the lack of objective meaning, is ok without having to have a meaning, but nevertheless, finds some value in creating meaning; without losing sight of the fact that this meaning is merely a construct, and so he doesn't lose himself in it, yet he still is able to utilize it for his purposes. Of all the different styles of nihilism, existential nihilism is the most talked about, and most subscribed to by contemporary philosophers. And it's the position that most makes sense, and should be a fundamental principle of nihilism, because although the nihilist can adjust and find a way through life without investing into subjective applications, to do so to an extreme is a little stringent, and perhaps taking the implications of nihilism too far.

Even though we are engulfed in illusion, we should be mindful to awareness and, dare I say, express love. And when I say love, I don't mean attachment, or desperate dependency. That it desire, not real love. Love is real because it endures beyond attachment. Real love loves so much, it cannot grasp, restrict, nor transgress the freedom of awareness for the sake of selfish desire. Nihilism is a good tool for shattering false attachments that are bogging us down, but we don't need to be so heavy handed and take it so far that we are denying our own awareness and its utility as a wellspring for the outpouring of love that can heal all wounds. This is a silly use of skepticism. At the very least, you know you are aware, and you really can't say anymore then that. And it appears that there are other perspectives that are aware also, and although you can't be certain of that, you can't deny your own experience, and so knowing this, you should be loving and kind to yourself and others, because the experience of the existential agent is the only real thing that composes an existence. And you if you want to be stubborn and deny your own existence, then who may I ask is making this denial?

[mnhpcaylonfilmresearch]

I had a realization last night, about my work. It came from my brother and his absolute lack of fucks in a social situation, which although it can be awkward, I do admire him for.  

We were having a few drinks around a fire at Pendennis for a friend's birthday, and one guy was animatedly telling a small group of eager listers about this awesome and amazing show he was watching, and his words caught my ear, so I cheeped in asking what show he was talking about.  

He said “midnight gospel”, and launched in to a reiteration of how amazing it was, when to my surprise I heard the deep voice of my brother next to me, who doesn’t usually speak up too much in social situations when he disagrees, he tends to keep it to himself and just watch things unfold, but -  

“yeh, I watched that show and if I'm gonna be honest I thought it was total bullshit”  

I sprongled around a bit in the deathly silence that followed stuttering about how I had watched it a bit and to be fair didn’t think it was that great although it is Kinda cool in ways etc., until some defensive protests started to erupt from the group, questioning my brothers reasoning, what's wrong with it, etc.  

Because with a show like midnight gospel when you say you think its bullshit you're also essentially saying the person who likes it is stupid, because it's one of those pseudo intellectual shows that claims to be mega deep and fringe and psychedelic etc., pushing boundaries, edgy, whatever, and Theres a kind of gloaty sense of superior intelligence that’s associated with being really “into” the show like “yeah man, yeah, so deep, I get it, I totally get it”

And my brother finds it disgusting.  

I was interested at how visceral his reaction was, as he doesn’t really get fired up about much – he’s a very cool contained guy but something about this silly show and people's reactions to it really irked him something proper.  

He said yeah, yeah it makes me angry. His friends had all told him to watch it, he said, and he really tried, but it just irritated him and he couldn’t finish it – and its not because he disagrees with anything as per say in the show, just that it's all so... self-evident. Obvious. Typical. If there were layers of “deep” like a cake it would be the icing. Theres nothing novel or interesting about it really. And although I can see how he could be starting to sound a bit arrogant, bear with.

He said he just doesn’t understand, how the people presented in the sow, could be in any way legit, because if they are – for example this one guy was being interviewed who had taken loads of DMT over a few weeks or somehting, how could he then talk about it in this way, they way they do on the show?  

Sensationalised – and with this haughty air of superiority like ”

Yas I broke through the veil like 30 times and experienced total ego death like 40 times so, Umm, yah hear me out” etc.  

Like if you'd really been through that how could you be such a twat about it?

And the way people react, he said, is the worst part. As if they’ve never thought about things in this way, as if its new, and exciting.  

And I said yes Elmo but isn't the fact that their interested, and excited about it a good thing? And he said yeh its just so sad to see the state the world is in, its just upsetting that people are so disconnected from this kind of thinking, this kind of disposition

And I said yes, OK I agree but the filmmakers probably feel the same, that’s why their making this series – you see they are making it for an audience, for this audience, and so they have to package it in ways they understand, wrap it up in sensationalism and bright colors, pull at their heartstrings, stroke their egos by leading them through not very complex philosophical roadmaps by holding their hands every step of the way and makign them believe their special because they can understand.  

They hve to do this, I said, otherwise the people wouldn’t get it, and they wouldn’t get excited about it, and it wouldn’t be on Netflix – we should just be grateful that it is, because its better than nothing.  

I said Elmo you are not the audience... we are not the audience.  

And he said, yes, he does understand, but if I could just clarify  

That to be a film or media maker, if you want to talk about anything like this, essentially you always have to sacrifice a slice of your integrity, in order to make something that anyone will understand.  

And I said yes, basically.  

And then it clicked, that this is the crux of the problem that I have with my film, that Ive had since last hand in before Christmas. This is why I hated what I made so virulently, with such a sense of disgust. It’s the same disgust my brother feels to this show, its creators, and its reception.  

I couldn’t stand the way I had spoken about it – it was sensationalized, it was typical, it was myopic, it was embedded in familiar narrative tropes that just icked the whole thing out.  

Maybe to others it was bearable, even likeable, but would it be if they really understood what it was about, in the only way its possible to understand? And if they did, this film would not be for them, supposedly, as the audience has to be those who don’t already know... so, what does it matter?

A friend said, Caylon, you and your brother are a tiny minority, and you are not the audience, so what does it matter?  

WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

I do not create for the pleasure and entertainment of others, never have, never will. I do not attempt to educate, or teach, only to share what I am learning.  

When you make Art, you don’t have to warp it and convolute it and fold it into a little box of familiar narrative and easy to understand language, manipulating the audiences' emotions to illicit engagement in order to trojan horse in your message.  

No, you just fucking make it and people resonate or they don’t.  

But not with film.

So what do I do?

I want to tell a story, to have a narrative, it is something that feels natural and right to me.  

But I just cant be obsessing about the audience, or trying to make it fit into something which will ultimately make me hate myself.  

I have to find a middle ground.  

[phantom-le6]

The inherent flaw of February 14th (AKA Why I’m anti-Valentines)

As my Facebook friends will all attest, this year as in many recent years, my Facebook cover photo is a silhouette of a man with a shotgun, aiming said weapon at a silhouette of Cupid, and bearing the legend ‘Valentines? Bah, Humbug!’  This is because I am very much opposed to Valentine’s Day, and while some may assume this is just sour grapes on my part, that assumption would be entirely wrong.  Moreover, it smacks of the kind of egocentric thinking that all too frequently occurs in our society.  Just because someone doesn’t think as you do, it’s not always because they are bitter or jealous, and sometimes the proper response is to politely ask why and invite explanation and debate.

So, why do I oppose Valentine’s Day?  Well, as a lot of people who’ve known me for any length of time will be aware, when I got into secondary school, I got very heavily interested in girls and the idea of having a girlfriend, and I spent many years afterwards mishandling my pursuit of that goal.  Now part of this was due to my being autistic and not having much if any appropriate sources of guidance in this area, which is something I try to address in the factual autism book I’ve been working on for a few years now.

However, there is also the matter of how I was learning about relationships of a romantic nature, and that was primarily through pop culture that didn’t necessarily bear much relation to reality.  When you consider how romantic relationships are portrayed in family films, in some animated shows and in popular music, the portrayal is designed primarily to fit a particular creative vision, reflecting something of the reality but not showing that reality in a completely faithful way.

As a result of this lack of context, it can be easy for someone as literal-minded as me to leap to inaccurate conclusions about the nature of romance and how to attract someone.  It also doesn’t help that I am not someone to let go of a goal I wish to achieve very easily, often taking a longer period of time and more experiences than others to realise I might be going for something that is simply not for me.  Also, what successes I did have initially spurred me on as they were evidence that perhaps romantic relationships were something I could handle.

In sum total, I had only three relationships of a romantic nature during the time I was effectively ‘obsessed’ with having a girlfriend.  The first was when I was 13, going out for the better part of the autumn term with a girl of 11, who turned 12 a few weeks before we split up.  The second was not long after I’d started full-time employment, lasting just over a year.  The third, and final relationship, ran from August 2009 to February 2010, ending just a couple of months before I turned 25.  It was after that last relationship ended that I examined my previous relationships in the harshest possible light as I began to realise that I wasn’t enjoying the reality of relationships a lot of time.

A lot of this, I realised, was down to my need for time by myself.  Interacting with people is never easy for someone with autism; it takes a lot out of us even when it’s just the easier side of social interaction, like basic conversation with family or friends.  If, like me, you’re spending most of your weekday time in school as a kid then full-time employment as an adult, the free time you need to unwind after the high level of interaction you’ve just been through is, inevitably, very limited. Meeting up with friends can still be accomplished within that free time, but romantic relationships are another matter, or at least such is true of traditional monogamous romance.

Within monogamous romance, the level of social skills needed to make the relationship work and the amount of time that has to be put in are extensive, and for any autistic person, it would be extremely difficult to reach that social skills level, never mind put in the kind of time the relationship requires.  Not impossible, mind, as I am aware some people on the spectrum have managed long-term relationships and even gotten married, but it’s far from easy.  If like me the autistic person also works full-time, then the whole thing can get extremely stressful for us.  In my case, I’m also prone to a kind of excessive selflessness, putting others first even in situations where I’m actually in desperate need of some time to be selfish and look after myself.  As a result, I realised that getting into romantic relationships wasn’t for me just because it burned me out from a mental health perspective, and as a result I opted to swear off that kind of relationship in future.

However, I also realised that over the course of my girlfriend-obsessed years, I’d made a lot of mistakes that seemed out of proportion to just my difficulties with understanding social norms, and I realised that my autism was only part of the reason.  Another root cause was the way society, and the pop culture therein, has a tendency to overemphasise the importance of monogamous romantic relationships.  At times, this kind of overemphasis leads many to desperation, forcing them into unwise, even dangerous situations, because of pressure to find and form a relationship of this kind with anyone they can find.

This, then, is why I oppose Valentine’s Day, because it is a focusing point for such societal pressure, and it’s the only day that is dedicated solely to the kind of relationship people are generally pressured into by society.  Other occasions, such as New Year’s Eve in America where people are often expected to have someone to kiss the moment the new year starts, do not exclusively focus on the idea of encouraging romantic connections.  As such, their part in the process is inadvertent, and often specific to a given nation (we in the UK don’t seem to have the same New Year’s tradition the Americans do).

Now, I know some people will refute what I’ve just said. They’ll say Valentines is about celebrating all forms of love, that anyone can wish a ‘Happy Valentines’ to anyone else they care for, and it doesn’t have to be romantic.  To that, I would say ok, how come in sitcoms like Friends and Frasier, no Valentines cards are sent between parents and children, or between siblings?  If Valentines was about all forms of love, why did we never see Monica and Ross Gellar swapping Valentine’s Day greetings, or Rachel and Joey doing the same with their respective siblings?  Why didn’t Frasier and Niles swap Valentine’s Day cards?

The answer, of course, is that the notions of Valentine’s Day having a broader meaning is simply a modern myth, a flawed effort to expand the day’s appeal to try and be more inclusive, without recognising that this is only part of the problem.  The rest of the problem is that Valentines is too heavily rammed down our throats as a society, from too early an age and without proper context.  To work better, it needs to be amended, to be changed so that it has an ultimately more positive impact.

First, the occasion needs to be down-played more in society as a whole and in advertising in particular.  We all need to understand that the occasion is not for everyone, even if it is improved, and that it’s ok not to be in a romantic relationship with someone when they day rolls around.  In essence, we need to remove the pressure from people so they don’t end up with a Mr or Miss Right Now who then turns out to be Mr or Miss Wrong because the relationship was formed out of haste and desperation.

Second, the broadening of the meaning of Valentine’s Day has to be reflected in more than just a few industries; cards, soft toys and such like aimed at non-romantic forms of love are not sufficient to influence a change in society’s impression of the occasion.  TV, film and literature need to take a hand in this and change how they depict the occasion in future productions.  All too often, people are first introduced to new ideas and concepts through their depiction in modern culture, so if these forms of entertainment don’t back up other industries in broadening what Valentine’s Day can be, there will never be consensus on what the day actually is.

Third, Valentine’s also needs to broaden its scope in other areas.  Part of the problem is that it plays to societal defaults and focuses strictly on monogamous romance, but there are other types of adult relationship in the world, most of which are stuck on the fringes and difficult to access or understand as a result. Moreover, Valentine’s was originally a Roman festival of fertility, made ‘family friendly’ when co-opted by Christianity in order to help that religion supplant any pre-Christian religious practices. These two facts mean that Valentine’s Day could also cater to polyamorous relationships and to people in friends-with-benefit relationships, but so far as I know, this isn’t happening yet.

It is my belief that if all of the above were changed, February 14th would be a date worth noting on the calendar.  At present, it’s largely the myopic propagation of the myth that monogamous romance is somehow vital to the human experience, but as I’ve learned through my own experience, it is nothing of the kind. It’s a great thing to be able to experience, and to have if and when you’re able to have it for however long you can make it last, but it’s also perfectly ok not to have it.

Some people just aren’t suited for it; some have too much love for just one partner and need polyamory instead.  Some people will just prefer a friends-with-benefits relationship type, either for a time or for the rest of their lives, and some people might be ok just being by themselves and just experiencing love for family and friends rather romantic and/or sexual love.  The bottom line is that for Valentine’s Day to truly work as a celebration of love, every facet of it, every representation of it, has to include all of these people by default and without pushing any or all of it on people too hard.  When it can do that, when that day comes, I’ll be willing to wish people a Happy Valentine’s Day.  Until then, I am strictly anti-Valentines.

[alex--stephenson]

The Left Needs to Reclaim the Argument for Liberty

[This piece originally appeared in The Young European. You can find it here.]

During the 1970s an ideological shift took place in the West. The foundations were laid by the likes of Milton Friedman and Fredrich Hayek and then aggressively promulgated around the world, both by private organisations such as ‘The Adam Smith Institute’ and academic institutions, most notably the Chicago School of Economics. Neoliberalism, as it is now most widely known, was gratefully lapped up by Conservative politicians such as Thatcher and Reagan, restructuring the building blocks of society around the principle of competition, heralding a drastically different role for the state and seeing unprecedented redistributions of wealth – away from the bottom.

Yet lying trojan within this ideological coup was also an altered understanding of what ‘freedom’, or ‘liberty’, meant. Harking back to the classical liberalism of John Locke, freedom means a freedom from the state, an emphasis on the individual rights of man. This is not, however, all liberty within liberalism has always been understood to mean. John Rawls, the 20th century American philosopher, argued that in a liberal system state institutions should guarantee ‘those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system’. This was a far cry from the Lockean principle that the key role of the state is to protect individual property. Even John Stuart Mill, champion of personal freedoms, believed it was better for the state to provide for citizens than for them to go without.

Fast-forward 40 years and the neoliberal concept of liberty, a freedom that incentivises a race to the bottom through competition with your fellow beings, is hard-baked into our collective psyche. This has shamelessly been co-opted by the far-right, with the disingenuous assertion that they aim to open up debate, rally against ‘political correctness’ and, ultimately, act as the last stalwart defenders of freedom of speech, and liberty more generally. Today this myopic understanding of freedom through the lens of competition can only result in a win-lose outcome, whereby one’s freedom restricts another’s. This notion has gone unchallenged for far too long, and the Left need to make the argument for a freedom that benefits all, and not just those at the top.

As it stands, our societal focus is on freedom to, not freedom from. Yet in our hyper-partisan, deeply unequal society, freedom to is only freedom for a very select amount of people. The discourse around business and regulation exemplifies this. ‘Cut red tape!’ exclaimed Brexiteers during the 2016 EU referendum, arguing that leaving the EU would enable deregulation, prompting an explosion in economic growth. Minimising the role of the state undoubtedly constitutes ‘liberty’ under the neoliberal consensus and de facto is to be aspired for. Yet removing health restrictions surrounding food, safety restrictions within the workplace and environmental regulation is not liberty for the average citizen. Indeed, intervention and restriction from the state is essential in ensuring we are free to lead a healthy, happy life free from danger in the workplace, unsanitary food and a polluted environment. Removing regulation, paradoxically, will make us less free.

the Left need to make the argument for a freedom that benefits all.

Nor has the liberalisation of the housing market let to greater liberty. If deregulation, and a failure to build houses on the part of the state, means that a person living on the average salary can only afford to rent a two bedroom flat they have not been liberated. The inability to afford enough space to have a family is not liberating. The left should not be prepared to concede the basic right of housing to the principle of freedom through competition. Instead, we must restructure the notion of freedom around dignity, ensuring people are provided with the basic necessities to then be free to go on and succeed.

Further, the threat the digitalisation of politics poses to our liberty is becoming ever more pertinent, and undoubtedly is of paramount concern to the left. The revelations of the past months surrounding Vote Leave’s hyper-partisan, micro-targeted, online advertising, proves this. We cannot risk following the US in viewing political advertising as something the state should not monitor. Instead, it is imperative there is active monitoring, restricting the roles individuals can have to guarantee the liberty of the masses. We need the freedom to make informed, conscious decisions, guaranteed by regulations, not the freedom for figures like Aaron Banks to invest (dubiously acquired) millions in covertly subverting political debate.

Yet the Left need to clearly define where liberty on the internet needs to be more aggressively pursued; most notably with regards to the right to privacy. Both the US and the UK have seen extensive monitoring of communications between ordinary, private citizens, the extent of which we are still yet to fully discover but most publicly revealed in 2014 by the Edward Snowden files. State forces acting on intel obtained through online surveillance programmes, so vigorously pursued by Theresa May both as Home Secretary and continued as Prime Minister, need to be understood for what they are: tacit restrictions on the principle of freedom of speech. Moving forward, we must reclaim the debate around online security in order to guarantee the privacy of internet users whilst ensuring online radicalisation, both political and religious, is tackled through legitimate channels – seeking to ultimately target root causes.

Removing regulation, paradoxically, will make us less free.

Most crucially, the Left need to make their unwavering commitment to freedom of speech as a principle absolutely clear. However, a more nuanced debate around freedom of speech is necessary in order to ensure we protect the right to protest, boycott and criticise. Legitimate behaviours of consumers in a market society, such as the decision not to engage with businesses that don’t align to your values, as might be demonstrated by advertising next to articles declaring immigrants as ‘cockroaches’ or rejecting homosexuality, must be protected. It must be clearly and concisely argued this is not an attack of freedom of speech: newspapers still have the right to print such articles, and advertisers still have the right to advertise, the decision not to give them money does not constitute an attack on their right to do this.

The Left, however, must draw clear and defined battle lines, against the notion of censure – best understood as institutionalised restriction on freedom of speech. The far right, and all they stand for, cannot be allowed to be the protectorate of freedom of speech, given their ideology mandates the marginalisation and restriction of minorities. The Left must remain intolerant of intolerance, refusing to endorse far right and fascist thought by offering them uncritical places in political discourse with the aim of being unbiased. The balance is a delicate one: ensuring the championing of marginalised voices without legitimising incitements to violence or discrimination.

Redefining freedom as the right to live a dignified life, free from oppression, as opposed to the right to enter into competition, unhindered by the state, would be a radical step for the left. This would be herald in an entirely new kind of political discourse, a rejection both of the traditionalist notion of the nanny state and the survival of the fittest ideology that has enveloped housing, jobs, food and  aspects of education. It would allow the left to seriously make the argument for equality of opportunity.

[ageloire]

How Data Can Curse Brand Strategy: 3 Mistakes Marketers Must Avoid

It’s important to have a very clear appreciation of just how important data is when it comes to making marketing decisions. Understanding how your campaigns are performing, how different visitor segments are interacting with your site and which strategies and tactics are generating the greatest ROI isn’t just nice to know. It’s imperative to your brand and your marketing’s overall success.

There’s no doubt that all of this data can be a huge blessing. When it comes to your brand, it can also be a curse. Why? Because while data can tell you the aggregated story of the people who interact with your brand, it can also entice you to make myopic decisions based on numbers alone. And if you do that, you’re making a big mistake.

Here are three mistakes that you need to avoid when it comes to data and your brand strategy.

1. Forgetting that Data Is Made up of Emotion-Driven Human Beings

In today’s businesses, we’re driven to quantify any and everything that can be quantified, but don’t mistake correlation with causation. Your data can show you that your visitors chose logo A over logo B. It can also identify which image at the top of your landing page created the most conversions. But it can’t tell you why. And at the heart of it all, the why matters.

Before any of your customers are numbers in your marketing data, they’re human beings. They make emotionally-based decisions—and then perhaps try to justify them with logical, rational explanations. The numbers in your analytics program, no matter how nicely they’re displayed, can never tell your customer’s whole story.

For example, the reason why Susan completed the lead form on your landing page—the one with the image of the sailboat at the top, versus the skiff—is related to her positive childhood memories of sailing with her Dad as much as her interest in your webinar. However, David’s lifelong fear of water created a strong sense of unease for him as soon as he hit the landing page, causing him to bounce—neither image ultimately would have worked for him. Do either of these make sense? Not necessarily. Welcome to the world of human emotion.

For the best results, remember that data is just one tool in your marketing arsenal. Other activities, like focus groups, customer surveys and even talking to front-line personnel about their experiences can and should inform your brand development or brand refresh. Don’t get so focused on the data that you lose sight of the human beings that make up the numbers.

2. Ignoring Your Gut Feeling

Imagine this scenario: The data suggests that visitors would prefer choice A for your new website format, but instinct tells you that choice B will ultimately prove to better resonate. In this situation, don’t ignore your inner voice. Remember, your inner voice has been cultivated through years of experience in marketing. Don’t discount working day in and day out with your brand and customers. It too has gathered and analyzed data points and drawn conclusions.

I’m not surprised that full 41% of CEOs admit that they make decisions based on intuition even though they have access to reams of data. I always tell my team that if the data says one thing, but their gut doesn’t agree, take a closer look.

3. Following Data to a Benign Brand

Guess what happens when businesses let data drive all of the branding decisions? The silent majority starts calling the shots, and things can start looking (and even sounding) boringly similar to the competition. It’s the online version of design by committee, a phrase that strikes fear in the hearts of designers everywhere.

There is real value in adding personality to your brand’s design, capturing the essence of your brand visually. Whether it be an unusual font choice, the style of imagery you choose or even a unique background that evokes a very specific vibe, the design choices you make can create an evident “personality” for your brand. For example, if your site included only pen and ink illustrations—no stock photography—it would “feel” radically different than if it included only highly-saturated color photography. One has a different energy from the other.

Let your data lead to some basic design decisions, but not at the expense of letting your brand personality shine through. Ultimately, it’s these human-driven unique brand features that help make customers feel more connected, and ensure that your brand stands apart from your competition.

Augment Your Data with Your Human Talents

Data plays a huge role in today’s marketing and branding, but savvy marketers realize that data tells only part of the story. To achieve success, marketers must understand that analytics and data are just a tool in a much larger marketing arsenal. Ensure that you dig deeper to find out the why behind the what before making big brand decisions. Additionally, don’t devalue the power of your intuition. Make sure that your customers can ultimately see the human side of your brand. By augmenting your data with your very formidable human talents, you’ll be positioning your business and your brand for continued success.

The post How Data Can Curse Brand Strategy: 3 Mistakes Marketers Must Avoid appeared first on Marketo Marketing Blog - Best Practices and Thought Leadership.

from Marketo Marketing Blog https://blog.marketo.com/2018/09/how-data-can-curse-brand-strategy-3-mistakes-marketers-must-avoid.html

[inhumansforever]

Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur #17 Review

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers

The World’s Smartest storyline  comes to its climax as Moon G and Devil D calls on the many friends and allies she’s made over the adventure to triumph over an army of Doombots.  From the creative team of Amy Reeder, Brendan Montclare, Natacha Bustos and Tamra Bonvillain.  Full recap/review following the jump.

Amadeus Cho had used a universal metric to discover that Lunella Lafayette is the smartest being in the world.  At first this was a fun validation for her, but has ultimately proven far more trouble than its worth.  Doctor Doom, or rather a legion of automaton DoomBots who look and sound like Dr. Doom, has taken great exception to this proclamation of Lunella being the world’s smartest.  And these robots will stop at nothing until Lunella is thoroughly defeated thus proving that Doom is actually the smartest.  

The issue begins with Lunella reaching to the various friends (and some foes) she has made of late, asking that they all be ready when the time is right.  This includes Dr. Strange, The Thing, the Totally Awesome Hulk, Kid Kree, The X-Men, Ms. Marvel, Iron Heart, and even the Yancy Street Gang!

Some time later, sitting in class bored and isolated by the lack of scholastic challenge and intellectual peers, Lunella dwells over how she has come to feel overly self reliant.  Doing things on her own has often been the easier way to get things done.  Yet she is coming to realize that easier doesn’t always mean better.

Later, in her lab, Lunella listens to the disembodied DoomBot head prattle on.  She had kept the robotic head following her adventure with The X-Men, hoping too use it to foil the DoomBots’ schemes to vanquish her.   Although she is starting to imagine that it is not that great of an idea to have a device in her laboratory whose sole function is to hurl insults at her… adding that she already has the internet for that (an interesting meta-contextual nod that I’ll get to later).  Fortunately, Lunella has attached a restrainer device that prevents the head from signaling out to its fellow DoomBot brethren.  

Lunella feels suddenly faint and before she knows it her Inhuman power has activated and her consciousness is switched with that of Devil Dinosaur.  This ‘power’ has very often proven to be much more of an obstacle than anything else, always triggering at the most inopportune of times… finding Lunella’s mind trapped in a powerful but essentially useless dinosaur body while Devil D’s mind is sent to her body which usually entails his going on embarrassing rampages that Lunella has to try to explain later on.  

The hows and whys of this power has thus far seemed random, but perhaps this isn’t the case.  In Devil Dinosaur’s body, Lunella gazes up the full moon and realizes there may be a correlation.  It seems that their minds swap whenever there is a full moon; that somehow the lunar cycle must have an effect on her powers.  If this proves to be the case it will offer Lunella a new variable that may allow greater understanding and possibly even control over her powers.  

A quick interlude shows Lunella’s parents preparing Thanksgiving Dinner.  Lunella had promised to help her mom in the preparations and Mrs. Lafayette is rather disappointed that her daughter has once again failed to follow through.  Lunella’s mom and dad have not really been a strong presence in the series thus far, but perhaps that will change in subsequent issues.  The two seem to be rather exasperated by their daughter.  With all of Lunella’s intellect and her exploits as Moon Girl her mom and dad seem to feel somewhat left behind and unsure what to do about it.

Back at the lab, Devil D has occupied Lunella’s body and used the opportunity to wail on the disembodied DoomBot head.  With the body of a nine year old, Devil D isn’t able to do much in the way of damage to the robotic head, but he does however manage to break the inhibitor module preventing it from calling out to its fellow DoomBots.  

No sooner than Lunella returns then the two switch bodies again and return to their original forms.  And it is then that Lunella realizes that she is supposed to be home helping her mom.  She arrives home in a huff, but before she can do anything, an alert comes over the television announces that a legion of DoomBots have congregated on the Lower East Side. Donning her Moon Girl outfit, Lunella races back out and uses her Avengers communication device to issue an all points bulletin to her colleagues… this is it, codeword: ‘doomsday!’

Being self reliant and doing things on one’s own can sometimes be the easiest path, but not always the best one.  And this is quite evident in the following splash-page in which a variable army of Moon Girl’s allies converge together and make rather short work of the DoomBots.   The robots are routed, defeats and destroyed once and for all.  

Lunella had previously made the mistake assuming that being smart and being autonomous are one and the same.  With her preciousness, it has been difficult for her to make friends and she had grown accustomed to doing things on her own.  Throughout her trials fighting off these DoomBots, however, she has come to learn that she is not alone nor does she need to be.  And that there are many times where the smartest move is simply to ask for help.  

‘Two heads are better than one’ is the central proverb coursing through the issue.  It’s an old proverb with an unknown source but may be related to a passage from the book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible, which states, ‘therefore two are better then one, for they may well enjoy the profit of their labour.’    

The DoomBots make for an interesting foil for Lunella in this adventure.  Although they act in legion, the DoomBots share a singular mind and the narrowness of this groupthink causes the DoomBots to be overly myopic, ultimately leading to their defeat.  Lunella had to overcome her own tendency for myopathy in order to prevail; which she did, thanks in large part to her special bond with Devil Dinosaur.  Two heads are indeed better than one, and ten heads better than that, when it allows for a greater breath of ideas and feelings.  We are stronger together and overcoming a need for self-sufficiency is what ultimately allowed Moon Girl to win the day.  

A very fun story with an important and timely message at its core.  It doesn’t matter how intelligent or proficient someone is, there are always challenges that can only be overcome with the aide of others.  Needing help is not a weakness but rather a strength and a person’s reliance on mutuality can be just as important and necessary as their capacity for autonomy.  

There have been numerous psychological studies into what factors contribute to childhood resiliency (one’s ability to cope in the face of adverse circumstances).  Each of these studies have found that said resilience is a product of a keen interplay between internal disposition and external experiences.  Intellect can indeed be a major factor in bolstering an individual’s resilience, yet the most important variable by far appears to be the availability of one or more close interpersonal relationships.  In other words, true independence can only be born of a healthy sense of dependence…  we arrive at autonomy by way of mutuality.   This is the crux of what Lunella learned through this adventure and it’s a message I support 100%.

A couple of quick notes…  I’m curious to learn more about the relationship between Lunella’s Inhuman powers and the lunar cycle.  There have been several occasions where Moon Girl and Devil D have mind-swapped in the daytime so it wouldn’t make sense to liken the activation of her powers to that of say a werewolf.  Perhaps it is the moon’s relative proximity to earth that activates her powers… keep in mind that The Inhuman city of Attilan was located on the moon for several years.  Whatever the case, I’m looking forward to discovering more about this matter in future issue.  

Moon Girl’s being declared the world’s smartest caused a small uproar among the fan community on the internet.  There were numerous readers out there who voiced significant outrage that this relatively unknown brand new character could be just as smart if not smarter than longtime characters like Tony Stark, Hank Pam or Reed Richards.  The Marvel Universe is a make-believe world where there are magic hammers, where radioactive spider bites cause super powers rather than cancer, and natural human mutation leads to the ability to control the weather.  Surely a nine-year-old girl being smartest of the smart shouldn’t be all that difficult a concept to swallow.  Not all but some of this outrage smacked of the taint of sexism and racism, as though the idea that the world’s smartest could be a girl and could be Black.  The creative team behind the story offers a small degree of clap-back in the form of the disembodied DoomBot head and the torrent of insults it throws at Lunella.  

The situation between Lunella and her parents is left unresolved and I hope it gets addressed soon in future issues.  It cannot be easy raising a child like Lunella and I’m feeling rather sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Lafayette.  I imagine they may feel somewhat robbed of the opportunity to raise their daughter.  

Finally, a piece of bad news is revealed in the letters page of the issue.  Co-author, Amy Reeder has announced that she will be leaving the book to focus on creator-owned projects.  The rest of the creative team will stay on, with Natacha Bustos providing covers along with her stunning interior art.  Fellow co-author, Brendan Montclare, will take over as sole writer and I’m sure he will do a fine job, but this in nevertheless a huge loss.  I certainly understand Ms. Reeder’s wish to focus on creator-own works, indeed I would love to see Rocket Girl return to the shelves.  At the same time, the sense of synergy created by Reeder, Montclare, Bustos and Tamra Bonvillain has been truly exceptional, making Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur consistently one of the best books on the stands.  Reattaining such a synergy without Ms. Reeder is sure to be a difficult challenge.  I think the team is up to this challenge, but it’s a bummer nonetheless.  Ms. Reeder’s leaving the title is a huge loss for the Inhumans books as a whole.  

I wish her the best and will definitely look out for her future endeavors.  And I remain hopeful that Mr. Montclare and the rest of the team can maintain the magic that has made Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur such a wonderful book. Definitely recommended; Four out of Five Lockjaws.  

[anghraine]

This has been loitering about my drafts for weeks now, and ... isn’t going to improve any, so posting as is.

I definitely appreciate the warm responses to my position of Star Wars In General and Particularly Rogue One Is Not About Cinnamon Roll Characters, Thank You and Goodbye.

But I am a bit weirded out by the “it’s not about good people! they’re not good people! that’s the point!” I ... get it. But I find it very pat.

Different people have different, I think legitimate, takes on what Rogue One is “about.” You can say it’s a war movie (I thought the LOL IT’S CALLED STAR WARS responses to the Vox article were disingenuous juvenile bullshit). That’s fair. My best friend called it the coming-of-age story for the Rebellion itself, which I also think is fair. I’ve seen it described as about hope (yes), about resisting fascism (yes), about the large and small daily sacrifices of doing so (yes). It’s a messy, sprawling movie—that’s both its strength and weakness—and there’s a lot you can take from it. Reducing it down to any one topic/message is going to be an over-simplification.

But for me, personally, the main thing I get out of the movie is not a conclusion but a question. And a pretty simple one:

What does it mean to be a good person?

Specifically, what does it mean to be good in complex situations with unclear choices? 

For instance, we’ve got Mon Mothma, the gracious and dignified Reasonable Authority Figure of the Alliance. She’s the only one of the main three founders to make it out alive (with Padmé and Bail slated for death before we set eyes on them). And she’s pretty much framed as a beacon of light, serene, rational, a literal woman in white, untainted by the grim realities around her.

...Because people like General Draven deliberately hide them from her, so she doesn’t have to make those calls. Uh, okay.

More significantly, there’s Saw Gerrera, leader of an extremist anti-Imperial guerrilla group. He’s clearly framed as a sort of mirror counterpart to Vader—Chaotic Neutral to Vader’s Lawful Evil, say. Where Vader's ultimate goal is order and peace at any cost, Saw wreaks havoc to fight the Empire at any cost. For both, “any cost” includes the lives of innocent people. Lots of innocent people. Think of that moment when Jyn, as a girl essentially sacrificed for the resistance by Saw, rushes out to protect a child caught in the literal crossfire of the resistance. (Tangentially, we could also think of the fact that the little girl and Jyn ultimately die the same way.)

And like Vader, Saw has taken enormous physical and emotional damage, and lost or deliberately severed himself from the people he cares about. He’s paranoid to the point of delusion. He violently alienates those trying to help him. He’s even dredged up his own form of mind probe torture. Where there’s a will, there’s a way!

But. Saw is parallel to Vader, not equivalent. He is working against a genocidal fascist regime, not leading it. Hundreds if not thousands of people are dead because of Saw Gerrera. And trillions are alive because he delayed the acquisition of kyber for the Death Star while the Alliance dithered.

We have those dithering Alliance figures, none of whom are particularly sympathetic beyond doomed Bail Organa. But they’re not bad people. They’re a loose coalition of politicians concerned, rightly, with the erosion of liberty and norms in their government. The mere fact of working with the Rebellion is a dangerous and courageous choice (they’re imperial senators). And overriding concern with the desires and welfare of their respective constituencies is, uh, kind of why they exist. It’s entirely legitimate.

...And incredibly short-sighted. The Imperial Senate will get dissolved within the week. They can’t know that, but they had to know which direction things were going. If Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor had not independently scrounged up a strike team, that myopic political caution would have wiped out the Rebellion and allowed for the deaths of trillions more people through the Death Star.

Speaking of Jyn and Cassian ... okay, let’s talk about Jyn and Cassian.

It’s with them that we really see this quandary played out. And yes, of course, it’s with Jyn and Cassian that we see pretty much everything played out (that’ll be “what are main characters” for 100, Alex). But it is explicitly at the core of who they are as individuals, and how they relate to each other. The issue is primarily addressed through their characters and mediated through their relationship—it’s where we really get to that question of what good and right even mean in complex, messy circumstances.

Think about it. If someone asks “what does it take to be a good person?” many people would probably say something like—strength, courage, determination, grit. It’s respect for others and yourself, refusing to accept sophistry and excuses, to accept evil in the name of good. It’s daring and ferocity, when necessary. Loyalty to your family and friends, and a kind heart, always.

That’s Jyn. And not just who Jyn becomes; that’s who she is from the outset. She’s tough and resourceful and brave right then. She combines healthy self-interest (not to mention self-preservation) with an essentially warm nature. Her instinct is to throw herself into the fray to protect total strangers from their own side, more or less, and to defend people she doesn’t even like. She’s loyal to allies and holds to her love for a father she hasn’t seen since early childhood. 

And it’s not enough. Jyn could fall back on her fierce and essentially benign existence, live a life of bold risks and ruthless self-defense and personal kindnesses as she scrabbles to survive under the Empire. She has that right. It’s what her life has been. But.

But she’s closing her eyes to the horror of the Empire, closing her eyes when she could be doing something. Even if it’s a legitimate choice in theory, and she owes the Rebellion nothing, and in fact revolutionaries have personally screwed her over, and she’s appalled by the Rebellion’s dirtier tactics, and she’s got her own problems, and and and. It’s nice that her impulse is to save innocents at risk to herself. How much does it matter, though, when the Empire blows them to pieces fifteen minutes later? 

Is that really what it means to be a good person? Good in a narrow, self-centered way that achieves nothing beyond the immediate? Is it really anything but selfishness with a nice paint job?

Well, yes. Of course scruple and benevolence and bravery are more than selfishness. But that sort of goodness is limited by its essential egocentrism. 

So others might answer what is a good person? in another way. 

For them, goodness is about conscious ethics, a commitment to duty and ideals against all odds, in full understanding of what those odds are. It’s hope when hope is gone, not out of optimism but principle, a refusal to tolerate the intolerable. It’s opening your eyes to a world beyond your own concerns, striving for the greater good at no personal gain, and indeed at great personal sacrifice. It is discipline, responsibility, selflessness—selflessness not as instinct but choice.

That’s Cassian. He’s selfless when he claws up twelve stories with God knows what injuries, but as with Jyn, it’s nothing new. Cassian has consumed his life in service. He’s not with the Rebellion to be a hero, even as a side benefit; his work is anything but heroic and he loathes it. He’s not there for friends or family; he has no one, except a droid. He’s there because he believes in the cause. Some of us live it, Cassian says, and certainly he does—lives and breathes and dies for the Rebellion.

And, you know, assassinates people for it.

With him, we get the flipside: the anguished zealot to Jyn’s disaffected rogue. Where Jyn has withdrawn from action over the personal and immediate, Cassian is propelled to terrible action by the abstract and long-range. Their fight is less about the specifics of Galen’s death, and more a clash of ideologies that has been building since the moment they met.

And I think we’re confronted with two major problems.

By all normal standards, a petty criminal just trying to survive looks a lot better than a self-righteous murderer. Apart from Tumblr antis, who don’t appear to have the vaguest grasp on how fiction works, I do think that people find Jyn less ... tainted? Certainly the reviews gave the impression that the dynamic was a slightly rough around the edges gutsy heroine + Captain Moral Ambiguity. Of the two of them, Jyn has the more generous and scrupulous nature, is more respectful of others’ autonomy and her own, is a more independent moral agent, and certainly less blood-stained.

At the same time, Cassian’s ethos comes off a hell of a lot better. I think it’s particularly the case in their fight, where we can get the basis of Jyn’s accusations, but they’re just off. It’s not at all difficult to understand where no-better-than-a-stormtrooper comes from, but his clear-eyed purpose and stalwart opposition to tyranny are so profoundly unlike a stormtrooper that it falls flat. You’re not the only one who lost everything. Some of us just decided to do something about it is far more piercing. Cassian has done far worse things than Jyn, for vastly better motives.

It’s not dealing with new questions, at all, but ones that humans have always asked as we struggle with rightly judging and choosing in a messy world. How do we balance selflessness and autonomy? How do we choose between the demands of individual conscience and social good? Or, most simply: what are you in the dark?

To me, Jyn and Cassian seem very much embodiments of these archetypes of human goodness, expanded into actual people, and placed in circumstances that push and pull and twist the very qualities the archetypes are built on. But ultimately, I don’t think it’s about the tragedy of good people getting warped by war and suffering and sacrifice into something fundamentally not good. I think it’s much more a story about good people who get damaged and morally compromised under these terrible pressures, but whose inherent goodness is not broken. 

At the point of highest pressure, it’s damaged, compromised people who have what it takes to hold up under it, to make the right choice and to carry it through. They’re criminals, assassins, saboteurs, apostates, belated defectors: none of them clean-handed, none of them pure. And they’re good people.

[le-regard-au-caire-blog]

From Barthes, to Sontag, to Socrates, to Assange. Week 5 - Part 1.

Barthes’ investigation into the unyielding power of the photograph is as timely as ever. From my limited understanding, Barthes refers to the human/camera interplay as a photographic ritual.

Essentially, this ritual is the subject of the photograph recognizing the camera, and its innate power, and then posing for the photograph as a result. Ultimately, we live in a reality that is so heavily buttressed by images that the camera’s subject, sometimes wittingly and sometimes unwittingly, attempts to mimic those poses they have previously viewed in our reality’s pervasive imaginings.

This ritual, Barthes argues, is a way to maintain our individualized identities.

However, the reconciliation between our true inner ‘self’ and the ‘self’ we have deliberately positioned in a premeditated fashion to convey our ‘self’ within the frame of a photograph, is never quite complete. The true inner ‘self’ becomes frustrated because no matter how one attempts to position themselves perfectly to convey their true ‘self’ in a still image, it can never truly be embodied by the photographically captured ‘self’.

Thus, the true ‘self’ is left with a frustrated detachment from the photographed ‘self’.

There is no reconciliation, just a general and growing unease with the camera.

In other words, no matter how one may try, through physical expressions and positioning of their body, there is no way to prevent a photograph from resulting in a limited and static representation of a human form, which may exist in perpetuity.

Bottom line, it is impossible for a photograph to genuinely capture the human form, a complex electrical grid that is constantly evolving and, even while sleeping, whirring with biomechanical wonder. It will forever remain illusive; a two-dimensional image will never fully contain and convey the true ‘self’ of the photograph’s subject.

Accordingly, a moment/image does not a ‘self’ make. Correspondingly, a photo cannot genuinely capture or convey the true ‘self’.

Interestingly, this leads into Susan Sontag’s book, On Photography, which explores similar limiting aspects of photography, albeit from a different philosophical direction. Although her argument is different than Barthes, one contention clearly overlaps.

Specifically, “To photograph is to appropriate the thing that is photographed... Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire” (Sontag, On Photography, Pg. 4).

The intersection is interesting, because Sontag takes the above statement and then proceeds to illustrate how there is an innate drive within the human mind to apply meaning to photographs (or in Barthes’ terms, the signified). Ultimately, the viewer of the photograph is essentially framing the viewed image through their personal experiential understanding of the world, which is ultimately myopic and limiting. Ergo, the ‘true’ meaning will forever remain allusive.  

These overlapping ideas are extremely interesting and not necessarily novel.

Socrates long ago railed against the written word. His argument was steeped in a similar logic to Sontag and Barthes. Anything that we know about Socrates, his life, interactions, philosophy and beliefs, are only in humanity’s historical canon as a result of Plato, Socrates’ student, writing down these interactions.

Socrates never wrote anything during his lifetime because he strongly believed, and advocated, against using the written word. He contended that the written word was far too limiting for genuine understanding of the thoughts attempting to be conveyed.

In other words, it is only through a verbal exchange with another individual (or set of individuals) that can bring one into a sense of genuine understanding.

In other words (pun intended), written words could never become a complete representation of the knowledge that is attempting to be delivered. Much like the photograph will never be able to capture the true essence of those who reside (temporarily) within its frame. 

In Plato’s writing titled, Phaedrus, he retells the dialogue between Socrates and a man named Phaedrus. Interestingly, the culmination of his main argument begins with Socrates retelling of a fable set in the city of Naucratis, Egypt located on the western periphery of the Nile Delta.

“(Writing) will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”

In a similar sense, Socrates could have been conveying the same sentiments regarding photography.

Ultimately, Socrates advocates for the understanding that words are to knowledge, in a similar manner that both Barthes and Sontag propose, what photographs are to the subject. More specifically, both manners of conveyance – written words and photographs – are inherently and persistently limiting.

The revelations published by Wikileaks this past week, regarding the CIA’s ability to covertly spy on just about any device connected to the internet, makes these contentions more timely.

According to a 2010 interview with Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Alphabet/Google, user generated content on the Internet is expanding exponentially.

“Every two days now we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003.”

Keep in mind, Schmidt’s comments were delivered in 2010 and the amount of data that is created on a daily basis has grown tremendously with the proliferation of Internet connected devices. Further, this is expected to continually increase, especially as long as Moore’s law is upheld.

That being the case, the CIA will almost certainly attempt to one day make a case for being able to capture the essence of an individual by assembling all of the text and photos the individual in question, or their friends, has uploaded. 

This begs the question, could Barthes’/Sontag’s/Socrates’ contentions be overridden via a wide dragnet assemblage of text and photos, rather than a single example? Could this large aggregate of information in the form of text and images, which are uploaded by an individual or an individual’s friend, truly create an accurate representation of said individual?

Unlike a single picture or single set of text, the CIA would likely postulate, that a large amalgamation of said content could provide a more accurate understanding of said individual.

Given these tools of communication are flawed from the get-go, it seems a stretch.

Conversely – as Socrates, Sontag and Barthes argued within their individual spheres of expertise – will the combination of both limited sources of understanding (photos and text) combine to create an even more limited comprehension of the individual since those who aim to understand the individual will apply their own experiential frame to each set of photos/text in question? Photos and text that we can agree are limited in conveying information. 

In other words, will the CIA Agent’s experiential frame, through which they view this content, risk establishing a far more distorted understanding of the individual they are attempting to comprehend, than say an individual photo or individual set of text?

After all, we have to account for the viewer’s confirmation bias while chunking large volumes of information and trying to deduce broad conclusions. Further, as we have been privy to in the recent past (think: weapons of mass destruction) these agencies are not adverse to picking-and-choosing information that fits a pre-determined narrative.

Further, since the Panopticon is now a verified reality that seems to reside in the pocket of the majority of human begins, no longer just internally divined as a result of fear seeded within our individual minds, aren’t these assemblages of text and images quite possibly an even more muted version of said individual? After all, it has been proven that individuals, who reside under the constant threat of surveillance through Panopiticon, will adjust their behaviors accordingly.

Further compounding this issue with veracity is the fact that lying on social media is commonly accepted, thus a great deal of information that is posted about said person should be considered deceptive at best. 

As a result, I cannot help but wonder, in reference to the whole of humanity, if we are witnessing the mass degradation of our ability to convey information to one-another via non-verbal communication. Many agree these forms of communication, text and images, are limiting in their very nature. Thus, if we are further debasing the already limited ability of these tools to convey a particular message, then aren’t ultimately going to become as useful as a dull knife?

One could pursue this argument further while considering emojis, which are a more recent form of communication and quite possibly an outgrowth of the erosion of textual and visual communication. After all, why is humanity so quick to embrace and integrate this new, and very limiting, form of communication? It seems odd that we are moving from a forms of previously accepted communication, which was considered a technology (i.e., text and/or image) that humanity created in order to be more effective, efficient and above all accurate in its ability to convey information and understanding, toward a far more limited form of communication that is wildly open to interpretation by the individual (i.e., emojis).

Yet, emojis continue to be pervasive and proliferating at an exponential rate. 

[discountsaleggdb-blog]

Golden Goose Mid Star Sneakers How with Regard To Identify Good Mlm Leads

Every weekend company front-runners unintentionally control enthusiasm, ideas, and advantage. They eliminate resources while still pregnant with immediate ultimate results. They shut out dialogue and constrain open communication, while continues to be requesting straightforward feedback. These people pocket product options coupled with bonuses, the truth that reducing members salary and even benefits. Most people reward undesirable behaviors, while operating and myopic interests and growing bureaucracy. And as well then people wonder why those these products are aiming to interact are alienated, distrustful, as well as a fed-up. All Casino wars casino is always an for the casino and simply one along with the quite a few popular and moreover noted tiny gaming casino facilities. The house is expanding in addition , has purchaser support as part of several countries: US, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Italy and additionally Spain. In case you contain any queries, there could also game the wall timepiece customer system for you, both on the iphone 4 in which the listed countries around the world and in addition , via netmail. Winging this kind of - practically every proper estate education on you can find advises hopeful investors time for fake information Golden Goose Mid Star Sneakers echnology until shoppers make it and typically jump hooked on action that have no program at every. That's your big miscalculation that possibly will cost your livelihood, recognition and commercial bank account appearing in a hurry, depending attached to how wide your attach up might be. Take worries Golden Goose Mid Star Sneaker east every hour or alternatively two and therefore jot downwards what the place you crave to read happen (yes, I'm conversation about arranging realistic goal setting here) in addition , how you actually plan so that you make the concept happen. Lows line, software your show good results and show good results your regimen. Nothing happened, except internet business as common in Oregon. Social Assets was all the way through trouble subsequently as incredibly as they is now, it's recently the democrats don't become acquainted with economics in addition to they will not want that will give F.W. Bush background for almost anything. They maintain been a massive money from us, our own taxpayers to obtain years, profit that was probably supposed to be rat holed for our was completed in specific general monetary fund and spent, thus setting up the lack seem very much less than they actually came to be. Are most people with my family yet, or sometimes are a person will more bewildered than ever sold? The starting line could after electing up because everything of well a lot more a year, I recognize just in regards to everything just that is planning on plus who all the heavy players are, and can be good each unique, in addition to the what is truly the same thing old dribble everyone similar is stressing. I don't bother to mean protecting for some sort of rainy afternoon because obviously if you stress on bitter days, that's what yourself will have. I advise having one or two long length savings but nonetheless , rather than being a ggdb shoes that the majority of never gets to be spent, it all can are spent for the reason that and when the need arises. The is great to fully understand there really are funds Golden Goose Mid Star Sneakers vailable in the market should the particular car destroy down also known as your convert the washing machine spring a drip. So create aside an portion at your take-home pay for near future spending. We need to have to get going with resolving our setbacks at your own home first. Post am not necessarily quite against individualism, but a lot of people also possess a burden to each other. While i am offered up with the profit before travelers mentality of a some consumers in distinct nation. They rig my law to assist you benefit their business then attribute those they used the actual law up to leave beneath for their personal poverty.

[sualkmedeiors]

How Data Can Curse Brand Strategy: 3 Mistakes Marketers Must Avoid

It’s important to have a very clear appreciation of just how important data is when it comes to making marketing decisions. Understanding how your campaigns are performing, how different visitor segments are interacting with your site and which strategies and tactics are generating the greatest ROI isn’t just nice to know. It’s imperative to your brand and your marketing’s overall success.

There’s no doubt that all of this data can be a huge blessing. When it comes to your brand, it can also be a curse. Why? Because while data can tell you the aggregated story of the people who interact with your brand, it can also entice you to make myopic decisions based on numbers alone. And if you do that, you’re making a big mistake.

Here are three mistakes that you need to avoid when it comes to data and your brand strategy.

1. Forgetting that Data Is Made up of Emotion-Driven Human Beings

In today’s businesses, we’re driven to quantify any and everything that can be quantified, but don’t mistake correlation with causation. Your data can show you that your visitors chose logo A over logo B. It can also identify which image at the top of your landing page created the most conversions. But it can’t tell you why. And at the heart of it all, the why matters.

Before any of your customers are numbers in your marketing data, they’re human beings. They make emotionally-based decisions—and then perhaps try to justify them with logical, rational explanations. The numbers in your analytics program, no matter how nicely they’re displayed, can never tell your customer’s whole story.

For example, the reason why Susan completed the lead form on your landing page—the one with the image of the sailboat at the top, versus the skiff—is related to her positive childhood memories of sailing with her Dad as much as her interest in your webinar. However, David’s lifelong fear of water created a strong sense of unease for him as soon as he hit the landing page, causing him to bounce—neither image ultimately would have worked for him. Do either of these make sense? Not necessarily. Welcome to the world of human emotion.

For the best results, remember that data is just one tool in your marketing arsenal. Other activities, like focus groups, customer surveys and even talking to front-line personnel about their experiences can and should inform your brand development or brand refresh. Don’t get so focused on the data that you lose sight of the human beings that make up the numbers.

2. Ignoring Your Gut Feeling

Imagine this scenario: The data suggests that visitors would prefer choice A for your new website format, but instinct tells you that choice B will ultimately prove to better resonate. In this situation, don’t ignore your inner voice. Remember, your inner voice has been cultivated through years of experience in marketing. Don’t discount working day in and day out with your brand and customers. It too has gathered and analyzed data points and drawn conclusions.

I’m not surprised that full 41% of CEOs admit that they make decisions based on intuition even though they have access to reams of data. I always tell my team that if the data says one thing, but their gut doesn’t agree, take a closer look.

3. Following Data to a Benign Brand

Guess what happens when businesses let data drive all of the branding decisions? The silent majority starts calling the shots, and things can start looking (and even sounding) boringly similar to the competition. It’s the online version of design by committee, a phrase that strikes fear in the hearts of designers everywhere.

There is real value in adding personality to your brand’s design, capturing the essence of your brand visually. Whether it be an unusual font choice, the style of imagery you choose or even a unique background that evokes a very specific vibe, the design choices you make can create an evident “personality” for your brand. For example, if your site included only pen and ink illustrations—no stock photography—it would “feel” radically different than if it included only highly-saturated color photography. One has a different energy from the other.

Let your data lead to some basic design decisions, but not at the expense of letting your brand personality shine through. Ultimately, it’s these human-driven unique brand features that help make customers feel more connected, and ensure that your brand stands apart from your competition.

Augment Your Data with Your Human Talents

Data plays a huge role in today’s marketing and branding, but savvy marketers realize that data tells only part of the story. To achieve success, marketers must understand that analytics and data are just a tool in a much larger marketing arsenal. Ensure that you dig deeper to find out the why behind the what before making big brand decisions. Additionally, don’t devalue the power of your intuition. Make sure that your customers can ultimately see the human side of your brand. By augmenting your data with your very formidable human talents, you’ll be positioning your business and your brand for continued success.

The post How Data Can Curse Brand Strategy: 3 Mistakes Marketers Must Avoid appeared first on Marketo Marketing Blog - Best Practices and Thought Leadership.

from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/modernb2bmarketing/~3/bZIgfYwsN5I/how-data-can-curse-brand-strategy-3-mistakes-marketers-must-avoid.html