The albino axolotl is an axolotl that exhibits albinism. This albino axolotl is quite timid and a bit drowsy, so it’s hard for them to speak up.
The albino axolotl was one of the first 5 axolotl avatars used on stream. All it did was jump when I talked.
Author’s Note: This post began as a series of comments a while back. Seeing as the Rhea-Edelgard comparison has proven a central issue of discussion for the past weeks, I figured it was worth cleaning up this comment and making a full post out of it.
Rhea is an awful tyrant by the year 1180, but there are some important considerations to make regarding that. When I wrote about empathy and orchid children with regard to Edelgard, there is a very real possibility that the same once applied to Rhea. This post is an application of many of those same principles. I believe Rhea is very much the sort of person that Edelgard would have become had her circumstances been different. They begin in similar circumstances, of course, both being sole survivors of massacres, producing survivor’s guilt, PTSD, and all that. However, there are some significant differences that complicate our comparisons between the two. These differences may well suffice to explain the difference between Rhea and El’s outcomes:
In particular, Rhea, even in 1180 I believe, could set things right, but the conditions that induced her tyranny remain unchanged [Note 3]. Perhaps Seteth and Flayn could have moderated her, given more time, but things were already at a boiling point on the human side and, unfortunately, they both lack the force of character to undo a millennium of dysfunction.
We really do not know what Rhea was like in her youth. She may have been an orchid child, but she may well have not; her circumstances are sufficient to break many a psyche. She does not seem to be an empath now, but she could have been one once. She has had a lot of time to change and, given a millennium, I doubt any part of her personality would be immune to change.
Because we don’t know her starting point, we do not know whether her contemporary tyranny is more a consequence of suffering or an expression of choice. Or rather, how much each factor is responsible, because they both are. We do not know who Edelgard would be if her experience were closer to Rhea’s.
I did not write this to say that Rhea and Edelgard have no comparison. Rather, I want to delimit exactly what the issues with comparison are. Rhea and Edelgard share a lot and I believe that must be appreciated. But these confounding factors also must limit any conclusion we make regarding their relationship. I’ve focused largely on the ethical implications of these factors, but I don’t doubt that other significant implications exist.
Further, I do not write this to justify who Rhea has become, but because she represents a threat we each face: given the right circumstances, the necessary duress, I doubt any of us would not become monsters. I contemplate how gangs take kidnapped youths and subject them to mixes of drugs and torture, then force the victim themselves to torture or murder in order to break the spirit. How child soldiers are often forced to kill their own families. And the El and Rhea comparison reminds me of how perilous the escape from torture and trauma is. I want Rhea to be happy, but without some gratuitous time travel, it’s pretty hard to reach her. And that’s not necessarily her fault. And, given a thousand years, it’s hard to say Edelgard wouldn’t have ended up similarly miserable, similarly cruel. Not that Rhea’s cruelty should be viewed as a sole consequence of her circumstances. Rather, we need someone outside of ourselves to ground us, to support us, to raise us up, to keep us true to ourselves. Because, of ourselves, I doubt any of us have the strength to truly endure the hurricane of time forever.
Notes
[Note 1] I received some light pushback on the claim that the Zanado massacre was race-driven. Before getting into the justification, I would like to note that I am worried by some comments I’ve seen suggesting that the Agarthan’s actions here are reasonable, or that Nemesis was genuinely heroic. For the reasons that follow, it was racial. But even if it was political, the slaughter of children is unforgivable. Beyond that, the very precept is wrong. The Agarthan justification, mirrored in comments, is disturbingly similar to the anti-Semitic conspiracy, which I refuse to describe on account of its odious nature (and, if my memory does not fail me, one commenter even invoked this similarity while justifying Nemesis’ actions). I do not mean to characterize anyone as an anti-Semite, but the nature itself of this argument has left me unsettled. Yes, Nabateans had a great deal of power over human society. Yes, benevolence does not justify a program of racial supremacy. But we do not know that such a program existed, let alone that Nabateans were active participants in human society. Fidel Castro would blame imperialism for literally anything and, while the US truly has a disturbing role in Cuban history, he would use the same scapegoat to cover his own failures and evils. (Without diving too much into the political, I would point to the widespread scapegoating of immigrants and refugees as a modern and historic example, a practice which I am avidly opposed to and disgusted by.) The point is, cultural, political, and racial scapegoating is a common political ploy, regardless of whether there is any factual basis. And even where culpability does exist, it is exaggerated. And even then, it does not ever justify genocide. Nemesis and TWSITD display the tyrannical dispositions of strongmen. I believe we are wiser to assume they used the tactics of strongmen than give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Now, to the facts.
It is a racial dispute because the Nabateans were slaughtered as a race. There was no consideration of innocence, no sparing of children, no ideology that would make Zanado anything but race-based killing. The Agarthans hate dragons regardless of whether the dragon is personally responsible for the conditions they complained of. The process of slaughter was extreme and disgusting, demonstrated by a quote from the Dream Interview:
They granted humans the technology to make powerful weapons from the corpses of the citizens of Nabatea, or so was their plan that they enacted, to which they went forward with this plan using the human, Nemesis. As a result, what would happen to humans who gained power… they would want even more power, and find a dragon much stronger to beat in order to collect materials forcefully, in order to make even more powerful weapons… and so that was the cycle that was born. And that was the birth of Fodlan’s Ten Elites.
The slaughter specifically moved from the weak to the strong, for the sake of technology, not any political reason.
And regardless of whether anti-Nabatean sentiment was fair based on political circumstances of which we know little, and that from deeply biased individuals, that’s not going to mean very much to a firsthand witness of the slaughter of her entire race and civilization, innocent and guilty alike. Whenever genocide occurs, whatever political considerations may exist simultaneously are barely relevant in defining the quality of genocide. And, for all Rhea did, she never attempted to eradicate humans like the Agarthans tried to do to her.
[Note 2] We know that Rhea conferred the Crest of Seiros to Wilhelm for some reason. They had a wide-ranging alliance. While this gift may be nothing but the sort of thing that happened with Jeralt, it is a remarkable and rare event. Alas, we are left with pure speculation as to the true nature of Wilhelm and Rhea’s relationship.
[Note 3] I love stories about people realizing how awful they’ve become and fighting themselves and the world to atone so Rhea facing humans as equals and telling the public the truth because she chose to, not because she needed to, is my dream story. This would, I believe, have been the key to a golden route. I don’t think a golden route has to be a perfect, everyone-is-maximally-happy ending. We could have made meaningful choices about what the world should look like in the end, who we trusted to rule Fodlan more, or how specific issues should be handled. Heck, we coulda just had to sacrifice one of the lords if we wanna do it the easy way. But yeah, it could have been beautiful… q-q
[Final Note] I am posting at 4:10 am my time, so I apologize for any mistakes I make and will attempt to address them after some proper sleep. My hope is that such errors are minimal since around 80% of this is copypasted. I hope this reading has been worthwhile for you and may you have a wonderful, blessed day.
[Originally for r/edelgard]
Bernadetta is a sweetheart, but there is something special between her and Edelgard. This post is mostly observational, rather than analytical, but I want to draw attention to these two good children.
Two components of that special relationship. 1. Crimson Flower is the only route where Bernadetta leaves her room on the regular during war phase. 2. She is one of two female Black Eagles with a shared ending with Edelgard (alongside Dorothea).
Observations on 1) The most significant implication of this is that Byleth is not the person who helps Bernadetta flower during the war phase. This stands in stark contrast to most students; Byleth is an effective, nurturing authority figure that allows many students to grow. But Byleth alone doesn’t do it for Bernie. It takes Edelgard and Byleth for Bernadetta to develop the ability to safely leave her room. (I would postulate that it is Edelgard alone or that Byleth is, at most, a catalyst while Edelgard is the main reactant. This is pretty speculative, but I note that Byleth is actually less supportive of Bernadetta than most others: other writers have observed how Byleth is the only character to willfully make light of Bernie’s suffering, in their A-support of all places.)
Observations on 2) Bernadetta sticks out among the women who have endings with Edelgard. Dorothea and Manuela are connected with El through the Opera, their political interests, and personalities. Lysithea and El share a drive and twin crests. The lovely and genius lady of Nuvelle are both meritocratic, ambitious, and driven. Bernadetta lacks each and every one of these qualities.
3) As a final note, Bernadetta and Edelgard are victims of similar abuses: grooming. Their grooming runs in opposite directions. Those Who Slither needed Edelgard to be a powerful, efficacious leader and warrior. Count Varley sought to make Bernadetta a doll. But both Edelgard and Bernadetta were intended to be puppets under the control of men. Additionally, both had absent but benevolent mothers (Patricia’s case being well-known, while Bernadetta’s mother was apparently employed in Enbarr, away from home).
Unpacking all this:
Bernadetta and Edelgard engage in a peculiar, mutually beneficial relationship. From their C-support, Bernadetta reveals she looks to Edelgard as a model of fearlessness. Edelgard also displays unusual openness with Bernie (confessing her fear of the sea). In B-support, Edelgard proves very understanding of Bernadetta’s condition, helping her feel more grounded and being patient with Bernadetta’s rapid regresses to panic (I love the lines: Bernie: Then, may I please scream now? Edie: By all means. But please try to make it a fairly quiet one). By A-support, Edelgard is able to calmly navigate Bernadetta’s distress episodes and soothe her.
Edelgard understands (at least in abstract) the difficulty Bernadetta faces. Before Edelgard understands how to handle the conversations, she focuses on understanding exactly what Bernadetta is trying to communicate and reinforce what she herself intends to communicate. Edelgard addresses the barrier in communication directly and seeks to understand the barrier itself, rather than focusing on the outbursts or confusion the barrier produces. By taking Bernadetta as she is and working through their communication problems, Edelgard shows implicit respect and value for Bernadetta that other characters do not. Bernadetta values authority figures that make her feel safe, as evidenced by her relationships with Seteth, Alois, and her deceased uncle. Edelgard comfortably acts as an authority figure that Bernadetta naturally cares for and respects, even trusts (to the degree that she can with her persecution complex; she may still panic, but she trusts Edelgard more than her fears when Edelgard asks her to reevaluate things).
Conversely, Bernadetta is able to teach Edelgard a lot in terms of down-to-earth emotion. I’ve written before about how Edelgard is an empath, but it must be understood that being an empath does not mean you actually understand others’ emotions. An empath mirrors the emotions they believe the other is experiencing, not what the other is experiencing in truth. The empath may rely on assumptions about and exaggerations of others’ feelings. Bernadetta forces Edelgard to slow down her emotional processing and rely on communication more than practice. Edelgard specifically mentions that her experience with Bernie has helped her manage her anger in their A-support. But their shared ending suggests that this goes deeper:
“[Edelgard] demanded that Bernadetta counsel her in governing Fódlan. It is said that the emperor made this choice to keep herself from being too detached, and that Bernadetta was all too happy to provide a more emotional perspective now and again. “
Edelgard grounds Bernadetta during attacks from her mental illness, but Bernadetta also grounds Edelgard in terms of emotions. Bernadetta is very caring, something Count Varley didn’t snuff out of her. Bernadetta’s graveside manner exemplifies this. Pre-timeskip, Bernadetta leaves her room precisely once: to comfort Byleth after Jeralt’s death. She also invites Alois to visit her uncle’s grave, because Alois reminds her of him and to show Alois her trust and affection. This interaction also shows how Bernadetta has completed her mourning process for her uncle and has a healthy understanding of the loss. Contrast with Edelgard’s difficulty handling mourning with Byleth at Jeralt’s death (we’ve discussed on this sub how Edelgard’s handling of Byleth’s grief is not cruel, but they are indubitably hard to understand). Edelgard doesn’t address the past very much and, for her, mourning will not end until her fight is done. That perspective is important, but not infallible. It chills her emotions, even as it propels her fight. Bernadetta is perhaps the only person besides Byleth that directly counteracts the chilling effect of Edelgard’s trauma on her emotions. Byleth, like Bernadetta, has communication issues and emotional difficulty, but is caring and genuinely wants to help others. Bernadetta does for Edelgard in a subordinate position what Byleth does for Edelgard in a superior position. This is something of incredible value for Edelgard. Edelgard understands a lot about Bernadetta, but Bernadetta also understands Edelgard.
Bernadetta is, in short, a complement to Edelgard. Their grooming allows them to cover each other’s weaknesses but also appreciate how the other struggles with their weaknesses. I would describe them as symmetric: symmetric halves are different from each other in all the ways that matter and, at the same time, they are the same in all the ways that matter. Their A-support ends with them both contemplating a flower soon-to-bloom, waiting for that moment when its true colors show. In truth, Edelgard is not the only crimson flower, chasing the sun no matter where it goes.
[Originally for r/edelgard]
I see people wonder why the Church of Seiros would tolerate Abyss, especially the presence of criminals and religious dissidents. The answer to this one is relatively simple: Abyss is what is called a State of Exception.
A state of exception exists when a government deliberately creates an area of lawlessness, or more exactly, a place where the law is not applied in the same way as it has been historically/elsewhere. The people living within a state of exception live within exceptions to the law. Governments may have any number of motives to establish a state of exception. Bad motives include how a state of exception allows the government to violate its own laws/use more violence than normal. Lawlessness can also be useful if members of the government have black market or other unethical interests (one of Aelfric’s motivations). Better reasons for a state of exception may be to respond to a crisis (states of emergency are sometimes states of exception) or to establish a refuge for people who cannot exist in normal society (Aelfric’s initial motivation and a reason to allow Abyss to survive post-Aelfric).
The theory of states of exception is largely developed by Giorgio Agamben. He points to Nazi Germany and Guantanamo Bay as real-life examples. I was exposed to the concept by Jason de León’s book The Land of Open Graves, where he argues that the US-Mexico border is a state of exception.
The key to a state of exception is that the condition of lawlessness is a deliberate creation of the state itself. This makes it different from a region where the law is absent or has lost control (as often occurs in border regions, colonies, and the like). Looking at Abyss, the specific principles in suspense are: the supremacy of the aristocracy, the supremacy of the church, and general penal law. The aristocracy and church do not assert their power over the Abyssians (the aristocracy cannot assert its power, while the church can assert its power if it so desires, but generally does not).
Other examples in Fire Emblem include the various nations seized by cults (Nohr under Iago, Plegia, Rigel under the Duma cult). Nonexamples include western and southwestern Zofia (overrun by pirates and bandits, not government-created), the Ylisse side of the Ylisse-Plegia border before the Shepherds stabilize the region (the instability is created by an enemy state, not the state itself), and Ylisse in Lucina’s timeline (assuming Grima did not somehow become the head of state and legally enforce his destruction). Valla strikes me more as a failed state rather than a state of exception (it definitely has some state of exception kind of stuff going on, but we don’t really see if Vallan law has survived in any way past whatever Anankos orders in the moment).
[Originally for r/fireemblem]
As things stand, Fire Emblem Fates (FEF hereafter, because saying FEF aloud is cute) is the ugly duckling of modern Fire Emblem. In the wake of Three Houses, it is easy to see it as an aberration whose main value is making FETH possible (and I would definitely say we should appreciate how FETH would not be near so beautiful if not for FEF). It is true that FEF is, in many ways, incomplete and the writing… we can still mourn those poor souls who chose Corrin X Azura before Revelations revelated certain revelations. But, as Borges observed, even though every writer judges each other for what is accomplished, every writer wishes to be judged according to what they hinted at (Como todo escritor, medía las virtudes de los otros por lo ejecutado por ellos y pedía que los otros lo midieran por lo que vislumbraba. – The Secret Miracle). FEF is deeply flawed, yes, but you can really get a sense of some brilliant ideas that the writers did not have the chance to explain or develop, whether or not they intended to do so.
I submit that FEF puts forward themes largely absent in its counterparts. FEF depicts meaningful ethnic conflict and ideological schisms as they are experienced by the participants. By contrast, Fodlán’s diversity exists mostly by implication. FETH’s cast is a cross-section of the elite, who are nearly ethnically homogenous, with token representation of the different minorities. The key countries all share their history. The wars within Fodlán are not particularly ethnic, besides the Agarthan perspective. Awakening’s cast draws from 2 continents and many ethnicities, but Awakening generally does not focus on characters’ or regions’ pasts. Shadows of Valentia has a similar setup to FEF, but is all-around simpler.
Ethnicity is a conjunction of history, nationality, race, religion, ideology, and culture. Ethnicities form however people choose to group themselves together. FEF is focused on two ethnicities: Nohrians and Hoshidans. These ethnicities are historically, politically, culturally, religiously, and ideologically in conflict (race, sadly, is underexplored, although there is racial differentiation between the two parties). Hoshidans see themselves as productive, successful beneficiaries of bountiful land, with a hospitable culture and benevolent approach to foreigners. Nohrian self-image is less pleasant; their identity is permeated with desperation for resources and the closeness to conflict and death that comes from living in an infertile, hostile environment. Nohrians experience more violence and poverty than Hoshidans, but they are also quicker to help and forgive people on the wrong side of life (evidenced by how Hoshidan retainers are largely hereditary, while the Nohrian retainers are often people rescued from desperate circumstances or pardoned and converted to productive activity). These two groups are merely centralizers in a broader swirl of interacting races and ethnicities, fighting to maintain their identities against the influence of their neighbors. These smaller groups take positions of neutrality, appeasement, revolt, and alliance to survive, with varying success.
The different histories, identities, and values of FEF’s nameless continent are in a constant clash. Consider how the members of the different tribes (Rinkah, Felicia, Flora <3, Hayato) present themselves while living in Hoshido or Nohr. They tend to affix themselves to their cultures’ values, more so than they would if they were among their own people, perhaps. When members of an ethnicity are isolated, they often seek to represent their peoples and values well. This can make them play into stereotypes and is especially difficult when they try to follow cultural norms that weren’t designed for life among foreigners (e.g., Rinkah and the law of isolation).
Speaking broadly, both Hoshidan and Nohrian perspectives have their merits. Hoshidans are conflict-averse and do well in those circumstances. However, much of their value system survives only in fair weather. In battle, they struggle to empathize with the enemy or behave magnanimously (worst exemplified when Ryoma denies safe passage to the Nohrians for a medical mission to save Elise. It is true he had no duty to aid the enemy, but being a good person in wartime is not a question of one’s duty). Hoshidans do not take the needs of Nohrians seriously. Even in peacetime, Hoshidans are content to ignore international conditions as they prosper. In contrast, Nohrian culture isn’t very aspirational, in good times or in bad. They are good at coexisting with people of different beliefs and behaviors, but they are too cautious in rebuking and combating corruption (this reaching a boiling point at the time of Fates).
Nohr’s internal ethnic struggle merits extra study. Nohr’s historical religion reveres the Dusk Dragon, but Nohr’s current crisis is based in a radical new religion taking root. The religious component is underplayed in the game, but the brilliant manga Nibelung’s Crown emphasizes this point (https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/86wgz0/fe14_fire_emblem_fates_nibelungs_crown_volume_i/?ref=share&ref_source=link). It’s important to remember that the primary method to effect change in monarchies is violence, to force a regime change, or control the monarch. Iago, the ideological leader and prime beneficiary of the Anankos Cult’s rise, provokes a violent, internal struggle for the religious and political control of the kingdom. (Radicalization could have been a sufficient explanation for Garon’s change in behavior from negligent but benign to corrupt and exploitative. Alas, Revelations decided to make him secretly an undead puppet instead.) A heretic, in medieval society, is a social contagion and unredeemable. They were considered to be a form of terrorist who brought destruction through ideas, rather than violence. This is the circumstances Nohrian society faces: the acceptable social behaviors become narrower and narrower and tolerance for disagreement disappears as a new, radical orthodoxy replaces the old semiliberal order.
Throughout all these conflicts, Fates does something interesting: we almost never take a step back. The characters are active participants, without the benefits of hindsight. They are too proximate to the issues to analyze themselves in an archaeological sense. They have to make decisions and justify their decisions in the moment. They do not understand what is happening as it happens. Objectively, many of the heroes are bigots, rash, cruel, intolerant. Subjectively, there’s almost nothing that would make them realize that. And so, they continue in their errors. And while games like FETH, where the characters understand better what they are doing, are brilliant, there is value and shades of reality in how FEF’s cast is so much more caught up in the moment, in their histories, identities, and ethnicities.
This is about all I have to say on the subject for now, but I wrote this because I want to talk about Fates in a positive light. Even if the games are imperfect, they are hated more than they deserve. The story, for all its faults, does things that the other modern FE games do not. And, on account of the hate, there’s beautiful analysis that remains undone. Fates is not just a steppingstone towards better, later games. When it comes to FEF, there’s a lot to love.
[Originally for r/fireemblem]
I want to emphasize one of Edelgard’s motivations. The discussion often arises as to why she started a war instead of opting for a slower approach towards reform, like Claude (although him starting a war later certainly was a possibility). Edelgard’s urgency is often attributed to her shortened lifespan. After all, Lysithea specifically cites her shortened lifespan as a huge driver. While that is important, she is also powerfully and explicitly motivated by empathy: the desire that no one should suffer as she has.
Edelgard is an empath, someone who instinctively feels through empathy (rather than empathy being a chosen or deliberate mode of feeling). Empathy allows her to reciprocate kindness, softness, and intimacy easily. Unlike many depictions of empathy, however, we also get the other side. Empathy, exposed to trauma and suffering, produces rage and profound pain. Edelgard has suffered a great deal on her own account, but she also carries the suffering of those around her. Even as her own torture fades into the past, she is constantly exposed to new sources of pain. Conversely, no one, except CF Byleth, connects her with benign sources of empathetic emotion.
For some elaboration, human development studies identify a class of child like Edelgard, sometimes called “orchid children.” Most children can do ok in a wide variety of circumstances. They may not thrive without special nurture, but they will be ok. Orchid children are defined by the fact that they are highly sensitive. This elevated sensitivity gives them orchid-like characteristics. If they are nurtured carefully, they are able to become brilliant, kind, and genuinely unusual. However, if they are not deliberately nurtured, they wither. Sensitive children, often empaths, hurt much more from the absence of nurture. They have incredible difficulty becoming well-adjusted or overcoming trauma. It goes without saying that Edelgard has not been well-nurtured and we see that. Until she receives nurture, she is almost unable to express her true emotions and intentions, ask for help or support, or trust others.
Edelgard is proximate to the suffering that the Church, aristocracy, and TWS cause, having lost much of herself and her loved ones to them. Proximity is an important concept in all humanitarian efforts, but it impacts empaths more extremely. Edelgard knows that the longer she waits, the longer these organizations continue to victimize innocents and the further away her wish to end such things moves. The longer she waits, the more tempting her own privilege to ignore continued oppression becomes. (Quoting Edge of Dawn: “As I live out / Each peaceful day / Deep in my soul / Oh, I know I can’t stay” and “Open the door / And walk away / Never give in / To the call of yesterday”). Even if human suffering weren’t reinforced by her direct experiences, she would know empathetically know that the form of suffering she endured continues.
In particular, we have Edelgard, Lysithea, Annette, Dedue, Monika, and Tomas as direct victims of TWS, Ashe’s family and Hapi as direct victims of the Church, and Felix, Ingrid, Dorothea, Miklan, Mercedes, Jeritza, and Raphael as direct victims of the aristocracy. That so many people from the Officers Academy are victims speaks volumes about how much oppression must necessarily affect the poor classes. We see only a sliver, but we know that the body count is increasingly rapidly.
Every year Edelgard delays, she knows there are more children whose hair is bleached white. More families are broken. Edelgard is an empathetic character: she absorbs the suffering of those around her. It can make her soft and kind, if she has the right support, but to experience so much pain, to be conscious of ongoing evil, also makes one hard. Empathy, without positive contributions, in a world full of cruelty and suffering, is genuine torture. It has been observed in sociology that intense empathy can produce decision paralysis in some cases or, in others, such intense emotional identification with one party that the empath stops sensing the emotion of another group, usually due to rage.
I have focused on empathy as it works on her decision to declare war, but it operates throughout her character. Before I sign off, consider how she insists on equality in the house, how she mothers her peers, her emotional struggles in routes besides CF, why her relationship with Hubert doesn’t stabilize her, and, of course, her whole relationship with Byleth.
[Originally written 14 Feb 2020 for r/Edelgard]
Bogota is a roaming spirit. She has acquired some fame after her spiritual core was identified as a very specific idea: democracy as understood by the people born in 1922-1831 in la Gran Colombia. This concept of democracy includes the views of Colombians across class, religion, and race on the matter. While her spirit is composed of more ideas, this core idea alone is responsible for much of her personal complexity. This writer does not know enough of the people of la Gran Colombia himself, nor of Bogota personally, to write to much about how this idea manifests, but does know that Bogota is someone genuinely concerned with liberty and equality. Her understanding of democracy is incredibly nuanced, such as can only be had by experiencing every role within a nascent, struggling democracy (see also the Veil of Ignorance).
The process of identifying the connection involved a number of miracles, almost-divine beings, eccentric cosmoi, and otherwise improbable occurrence. The process cannot be captured adequately in anything short of a novel, but the reader may trust that the process was infallible. Bogota is the only such spirit to be perfectly identified, though other spirits have been imperfectly identified.
Bogota has never been to Earth. She has lived in Dreamscape for several hundred years. She has requested a number of books about la Gran Colombia, Simón Bolívar, and other related topics. She does not intend to visit, because it is bafflingly far away and the relevant period is already well in the past. La Gran Colombia no longer exists and she suffered an intense depression after learning about the region’s condition in 2019.
It should be noted that her name differs from the city that was the capitol of la Gran Colombia. Bogotá, the city, is pronounced with the emphasis on the last syllable. Bogota is also pronounced in the Spanish style, but with the emphasis on the second o. She chose the name herself as an infant spirit.
Mr. North uses the term singularity within the context of dynamical systems. A mathematical field, a singularity is a point that determines the behavior of the points around it. (Within the field and related areas, singularities may be called attractors, nodes, fixed/periodic points, sinks/sources/saddle points/centers.) Since Mr. North is a systems analyst who uses predictive models, it is all too natural for him to use the term singularity. When creating a prediction based on a system model, only two things matter: the singularities of the system and where we start. Singularities completely control the outcomes of their systems. We only care about the starting point because it determines which singularity we will be governed by.
When two singularities compete for a single space, different areas of space will fall into one or the other singularity’s influence. On the boundary, there may be rather erratic and unpredictable behavior. In this case, mission completion and the fate of individual pilots, Oured, etc. are near the boundary. Since we can’t be totally sure which side of the boundary each item will actually fall, we cannot predict their ultimate fate. Mission success means enough key points fall into Trigger’s region, while failure is the same but with Torres.
If Trigger is the only singularity, Osean victory is guaranteed. If Torres is the only singularity, he will win. The difficulty is in their interaction and, since Alex didn’t have much data to study how the two singularities would interact while in the same space, it’s only natural for the AI to deny the request.
Now, through most of DLC missions 1-3, the term could be replaced with any phrase meaning [something influential]. However, Alex’s justification for keeping Trigger alive points directly to Trigger’s effect on battlefields, which are dreadfully complicated systems (and, if Trigger weren’t a supernatural pilot with even more supernatural weapons carrying capacity, filled with countless and unknown singularities). Despite all the competing influences in Trigger’s battles, he always increases survival rate. Nothing short of a singularity is that consistent. Beyond Alex, at the very end of mission 3, Mr. North speaks in strongly dynamical terms: Torres brought those in his orbit to destruction, while Trigger brings those around him into security (which Alex emphasizes: Stick with trigger, and you’ll make it). Singularities don’t just influence those around them, singularities determine their fate.
Some interesting references:
Depiction of how changing a single parameter in a system can cause the number of singularities to go from 1 to infinity: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128158388000091-f09-14-9780128158388.jpg?_
Relevant wikipedia article. I’d point you to the image that provides a nice rundown of singularity classifications in 2 dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_theory
Chaos (in the mathematical sense) is a result of an infinite number of singularities operating over a space. Weather prediction happens to be a chaotic system, which is why weather estimates only go out 10 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system
When chaos exists, if our initial measurements/evaluation of the situation is not perfectly correct, then our predictions will be wrong no matter how small the error, as demonstrated in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xu-9D4ahVU
[Originally for r/acecombat]
An umwelt (plural: umwelten) is a given creature’s world. The creature creates their own umwelt as they learn about the outside world through their perception. The outside world is, for its part, called the umgebung.
A creature cannot learn about the umgebung without its senses. We have no other way to gain knowledge. This forces us to consider the strengths of and weaknesses of our ability to perceive. Everything we consider true about the world is dependent on the accuracy of our observations. Look around you. Your mental concept of walls and floors is probably smooth, by convenience. But walls usually aren’t that smooth at all, even though they’re more or less flat. Your umwelt does not contain the texture of the floor until you specifically observe it and incorporate it into your worldview. When you walk past a brick building, is every single brick part of your umwelt? No, you have not observed the bricks individually, but only as a whole.
These examples are usually inconsequential, but contemplate how varied human perception is. Every person represents a unique idea, an emotional framework built on experiences filtered through perception. Physical disabilities all immediately impact umwelten, but so does a kind upbringing or a cruel mentorship. Mental illness, physical illness, trauma, kindness, changes in how big or small the world seems, pure knowledge: they all can and will change a person’s umwelt forever.
You have your own umwelt. For myself, I believe most, maybe all, people should be treated with kindness and that kindness exists on some level in all people, if they should choose to access it. I want to believe that one can generally trust another. What would it take for a child soldier to believe the same things? If they had seen their kind (or cruel) parents killed, if they had been tortured until they became willing to kill, and the very act of survival turned them into the things they hated most? When that same child miraculously survives and grows up, only to become a war criminal because they could not escape that lifestyle or adapted to it too successfully? Or a young person from a rural family, promised work in a safer, more stable place, who arrive in a strange land only to be kidnapped by those who were supposed to be their provider? When they are drugged, never hearing any speech in a language they understand, beaten and abused as chattel? If we do not contemplate the natural beliefs of people in such dire circumstances, we cannot hope to understand our fellow people.
In corollary, there are also the umwelten of people like Nadia Murad, humans rights activists who are themselves victims, or Maria Gaetana Agnesi, a Catholic polymath raised in an unusually liberal climate who ignored her appointment by the Pope as the second female university professor ever to teach children and take care of the sick.
Moving past the individual, umwelten also form across species. Jakob von Uexküll, the creator of the umwelt concept, was fascinated with the umwelten of creatures like ticks and jellyfish, both of which are blind. Consider how the world you believe in would be different, had you been 1. born blind, 2. became blind after learning to see, and 3. the whole human race was blind and had never learned of such a thing as seeing. Variances in the individual umwelten are only further complicated because these variances are determined within the boundaries determined by the circumstances of our birth: species, upbringing, civilization, culture, nationality, technology, race, gender. Our experiences infuse meaning into our world that we will never be able to communicate to someone without the same experiences.
Before we even arrive at questions of language, word choice, and empathy, perfect communication is already impossible, because we cannot perceive the experiences that give meaning to words. Even when we are coparticipants or observers of a relevant experience, we have not perceived the experience as the umwelt creator did. We cannot know what they focus on, what memories they use to infuse meaning into their current experience. This means that concepts like consent and agreement, so essential for our coexistence, are only ever partial. Why do lawyers draft hundred-page contracts? Because the contracting parties have no way of knowing how much their umwelten have in common. They only have belief: beliefs about the deal they believe they are making and beliefs about what the deal they think the other party thinks they are making. When two umwelten interact, we have a semiosphere, whether we are contracting, reading this essay, or trying to be understand someone else.
Many social problems begin with the problems of forming a good semiosphere. These problems, however, are all external. A similar, but possibly greater problem, is that of the innenwelt. The innenwelt is the you that you create within your umwelt. You cannot learn anything about yourself, save what you perceive. However, there is no bound on the number of filters between the you who puts information out and the you who perceives that information. When you contemplate your own mind, you create separate selves to act and perceive. You do not perceive yourself as part of the umgebung, as you may a brick or insect. You only perceive what you yourself present. When you present information to another, if you try to learn about yourself through that information, you must wait until it passes through the other person’s umwelt and then comes back however they present it. Many of the difficulties of life amount to difficulties in forming an innenwelt. Endless stories have been written for characters who fail to form their innenwelt. Are Borges’ stories anything but his characters’ innenwelten falling apart or manifesting, in turn representing Borges’ pursuit of his own innenwelt? Even the sciences, contemplation of the umgebung, stem from the pursuit of the innenwelt: creating the self by recreating the universe (of which the self is part) within the mind.
Lest this be mistaken for idle philosophy, I would like to say a few things. As you become more aware of your own umwelt and the umwelten of all other life, you necessarily learn things that should change who you are. You must be conscious of your own fragility, as a weak body of flesh vulnerable to all manner of disease and injury, but also as a mind. It is a fact that a sizable percentage of what you believe is false. However, you will never know how much is false or in which way you’re wrong. You cannot know, in truth and in spirit, whether your errors are fundamental or nuanced. You do not know whether another person knows a thing, you may only believe. No matter how objectively wrong someone may be within the umgebung, they may be speak pure truth within their umwelt.
First, be understanding. It doesn’t matter if it’s a disagreement, a misunderstanding, an argument, or whatever. You do not know the condition of another’s umwelt and innenwelt (or even, really, the condition of your own). What they believe may not be True, but it is true enough for them, as they currently are.
Second, be gentle. That truth, no matter how robust or weak, is the sum of a life of learning through pain and hope, curiosity, success and disappointment. Do not force another person’s umwelt to become yours. Let them form it themselves, while providing compelling evidence that they are loved.
Third, be kind. The more I contemplate the umwelten, the more I am terrified. People hurt a lot under all circumstances. Do not add to their suffering. It may be incredibly difficult for you to beautify or love your own umwelt, but you can make things better through goodness to others.
In particular, encourage the kind, the gentle, the pure, the childlike, whose umwelten are precious and beautiful above all others. Such are often discouraged as naive, immature, or idealistic. The answer is to help them to become harmless as doves, cunning as serpents, not to turn their kindness against them. Contemplating the umwelten of such people is a pure blessing, So, I repeat what I said and end: encourage the kind, the gentle, the pure, the childlike, whose umwelten are precious and beautiful above all others.
Flip Flappers, reading about this anime introduced me to the umwelt concept.
Sonder, an exercise or experience in which you contemplate the umwelten of those around you. Bringing people into your umwelt as individuals, instead of as components of a collective image.
Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas, an article by Quanta Magazine featuring Integrated Information Theory, a related theory of conscious I find very exciting.
The Guilty, a film that implements this concept well without invoking it. An excellent example of sympathetic storytelling.
Barrel! たる
Picture from Atelier Rorona: The Alchemist of Arland
