A Sartrean Response to “Being Human”: Chapter I. (Another Letter to Grevillea Grimoire.)

I want to say that, without any irony, this Grimmi stream remains one of my favourites to date, no pun intended, and I aim to buy *Super Seducer* and to play it to completion, while before I only had the worst impression of it, given secondhand by someone whose opinion I have no cause to trust. I honestly believe that Richard is intelligent, a decent and inspired human being with a loving wife and plenty of experience in fields I've always wanted to explore but struggled to make sense of. While I feel a pang of sympathy for Grimmi's idealistic worldview, I am much too weary of the world to place much faith in such a rosy point of view, though I can only hope it works for her.

There is, however, one thing I have left to say: it's time that we stop saying "talk to them like they are humans." We are living in the year of 2023. There is no "human nature". There is no "authentic self", no "higher self", and very little "inner beauty". To demand that someone "be sincere" or "genuine", outside of legal contexts, institutions, jobs, and other social structures, **is to utterly objectify that person.** It is time to stop pretending that we're so much "more" than bodies that we have this "inner being" that's defined by preferential likes and "interests". If there's a Soul, it doesn't get "offended" by the body nor its beauty. (#thicc-ladies-for-grimmi-sfw #smash-or-pass-ancient-fellas-submissions ) That is not "objectifying"; that's *objective*. It's far worse to put restrictions on the human *mind* and say, "That's not the *real* you; that is not the *real* me. That is a neurosis; that's delusional. You're crazy. You need therapy," etc. I do it, too, of course, but only as aggression.

You should never simply "be a human", much less tell ***another*** to "be human". That is always a projection and a project that's *ongoing* in a state of freedom. Sartre wrote that someone who's "sincere" is lying to oneself, denying one's own freedom to identify with a conception of the self that's set in stone within one's mind and in the minds of others. Is this not, though, truly, an objectifying tendency? At least the *body* is an *imminent reality*, and that is why the act of touching someone else's body can be visceral and frightening. I'd rather be appraised for something which is *real* than forced to "be" a mere abstraction.

Regarding human nature: just consider these two phrases:


"Treat them like they're human beings!! We are all just *people*!!"


"How do people like this man *exist*?"

You see the contradiction, don't you?


All in all, *Super Seducer* seems to take a route that's relatively tame and fair, respectful and not unrealistic or neurotic, even funny, subtle, and enticing. There are far more scummy games out there. At any rate, I had a good time watching Grimmi play it and perceive the various perspectives. Sorry that I spoiled *Breaking Bad*.

[*This post was since removed by Moderators, and a shorter version was then posted by the author in another channel of that Server*.]


**[({R.G.)}]**


**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more