Paradigm City...Hegelian Utopia or Existentialist Nightmare

Understand, Roger, this city was built to be a stage with no memories prior to 40 years ago. It's nonsense to ask if memories exist. I'd thought you should know. By the way, aren't you supposed to be the knight in shining armor and rescue the maiden? - from Act 26 "The Show Must Go On"

I've been pondering this comment by Big Ear ever since I've first seen it because although it seemed to have revealed alot about what Paradigm City meant...I felt something was missing. There was something about this statement by Big Ear that was telling me there's even more to it.

So instead of replaying the episode in linear fashion inside my head...I decided to let the events play out in a non linear fashion to see if there were any clues. And there was...especially at the end of the episode when the Reset was happening...Big Venus and Big O walked into each other. At first I couldn't comprehend why it was necessary for them to do this. But then...I returned to Big Ear's comment at the beginning...and thought a moment on one word..."Understand". And then it hit me like a bolt of lightning from the blue sky. Oh my God. I can't believe it. It's been sitting right under my nose and I've failed to see it. And now it's time to reveal the true secret of Paradigm City...it's Hegelian philosophy writ large.

Hegelianism postulates the theory that in order to understand reality...one has to combine two premises to create a bridge to allow for the combining of both subject and object. In the case of Paradigm City...we have the combining of illusion and memory to create reality.

Notice that Roger is the Negotiator...and think about this...Roger "negotiates" the reality of Paradigm City for it's people to allow for it's continual existence. Roger Smith does this by combining his own reality with the memories of its citizens..thereby allowing Paradigm City to maintain its own existence. And the best example of Hegelian philosophy is in the character of Dorothy.

She represents the unity of android existence with human memories to postulate the concept of consciousness. This is why Dorothy's memory core being stolen by Alex Rosewater couldn't affect her purpose in Paradigm...it's because Dorothy was able to cross the bridge of illusion and memory to realize her own consciousness in itself. Therefore even though her "mind" was elsewhere...her reality couldn't be separated.

However, Hegelianism has come under attack in various circles for not recognizing the importance of individuality and self consciousness. And the first crack of dissent is seen in Season One's episode "Enemy is Another Big" when we see Schwarzwald unveil Big Duo. In fact Schwarzwald himself states "Look at what I've found". This statement by the Dominus of Big Duo meant that it was possible to confront the illusions of Paradigm City to create one's own reality. This represented the beginnings of Paradigm City's descent into the nightmare of Existentialism.

Existentialism postulates one cannot forgo one's personal reality in favor of an overarching attempt to unify subject with object. In this case, Schwarzwald refuses to allow his own identity to be swallowed up by the "illusion" of Paradigm City. He attempts to show Roger Smith the falsity of Hegelianistic philosophy by promising to destroy Paradigm City. Of course Roger Smith couldn't allow this as it would destroy the whole purpose of Paradigm City.

But then Roger Smith faces the most virulent form of Existentialist philosophy in the opponent of Alex Rosewater...who made the statement "This world has a new God"...and this identifies him as defending the theories of Nietzsche. This version of Existentialist philosophy postulated the importance of creating a new world order to sweep away "weaknesses". The morality of helping others understand and cope with their weaknesses couldn't be tolerated. They impeded the "new world order" and had to be eliminated. Hegelian philosophy as defended by Roger and Dorothy couldn't allow this to prevail.

But this leaves us with the impasse of Hegelianism against Existentialism in Paradigm City for the unforseeable future. And perhaps that's why Season 2 ended on the phrase "we have come to terms"...recognizing the importance of a continued dialogue between these two schools of thought that allow Paradigm City to grow and prosper.

I am as sceptical of the idea that the writers of Big O are deep thinkers in the field of theology as I am of the idea that they are deep thinkers in the field of theology.

The folks at Big O have a trick. It's a good trick, and I love it dearly. They make it so that what people say and what we see are constantly at odds. Usually, what we see is true and what people say is nonsense, but once in a while it's the other way around.

Because of this, the show may accidentally favor the visual thinkers among its audience. If someone says that androids don't have emotions, I know he's full of it, because I've seen Dorothy behave emotionally. If someone says that there arent' memories from 40 years ago (or, more properly, there aren't any memories except the ones starting 40 years ago), but we've seen outside memories zillions of times.

From the visuals, I gather that Paradigm has been restarted a number of times. There's a discontinuity across each restart, but the world is not invented from scratch, but is an edited version of a previous run.

For example, the Paradigm of today has the same damaged buildings of Roger's dreams. This damage was caused by a Megadeus battle, but when people woke up 40 years ago, they didn't find smoking wrecked Megadeuses on their doorsteps.

For the sake of simplicity, I like to believe that the Paradigm of 40 years ago was much like it was in ROGER THE WANDERER. This would be consistent with many of the memory flashbacks we see. But dreams and visions aren't as reliable as what we see from a waking viewpoint, so I don't insist on it.

But, from the point of view of philosophy, the problem with Paradigm is that it doesn't fit any of the normal viewpoints. Big Venus seems to be a machine that can alter reality under the control of an operator. If the world is less real when Big Venus is messing with it, it must be more real when she isn't. The idea that reality is objective if you're inside Big Venus' cockpit, subjective everywhere else, and set by a dial under the control of a human operator all the time -- this doesn't fit any school of philosophy I know of.

As Stephen Jay Gould points out in "The Panda's Thumb," it's not the strengths but the weaknesses of a system that give the strongest clues to its origin or operation. In Paradigm, I think the amnesia is a smoking gun. Why would you give people amnesia if you can mess with their minds and give them exactly the right memories? I think the answer is that the ability to give people exactly the right memories doesn't exist. Instead, you have to use amnesia to cover up the fact that people woke up to a huge discontinuity in reality 40 years ago. They woke up without their memories, and simply assumed that, the night before, they had gone to sleep in the same bed they woke up in.

Even the amnesia doesn't work all that well.

We only see one case of implanted memories -- the childhood memories Angel implants in herself.

The implication, to me, is that, while Paradigm's reality is screwed up, it's screwed up according to a pattern. People in the know have some means of controlling this reality, but their power and their level of understanding are both limited. Also, it seems likely that Paradigm is more real at some times than others. I think it's like an hourglass; it runs out of reality from time to time and needs to be flipped over.

I don't think this mechanism can be attached to any school of philosophy, since our world doesn't work that way.

Wow. Like A Clockwork Tomato said, I don't believe that the writers and developers of the show were THAT deep. I've never really taken a seriousness to the concept of realities and theoretics in the show. The show is just awesome.

You guys made some great points though about the Big Venus thing and memories of 40 years ago. Also the resets and whatnot.

I'll make Big Money let me borrow the DVD's so I can watch it all the way through, so I can have a deeper insight. Plus i'll use big words. That'll make me sound and FEEL important.

I don't totally agree with DorothyFan1's reading of The Big O as a Hegelian philosphy -- for one thing, Hegel puts forth a vicious philosophy of history that won't allow any place for amnesia. For him only "primitive countries" don't have memories of history, but that's a very arrogant and prompous notion that we won't accept nowadays.

BUT I cannot welcome more DorothyFan1's great effort to read The Big O in a different intellectual light. It's too arbitrary to say The Big O is not deep or philosophical. Anyone who knows something about studies in philosophy and literature going on right at this moment will linstantly recongize where the topics of memory, amnesia, paradigm, metatheater come from. I have cited an irrefutable piece of evidence that proves the creators of The Big O has literally quoted the theory of scientic paradigm shift. Click the following link:
Wait...If the true meaning of Paradigm is.... (see inside)

It's okay to think The Big O is awesome, but please don't just stop there. Do rethink again WHY it's awesome. We don't need to cover The Big O with one single grand theory or philosophical explanation, but at least we have to learn what various kinds of intellectual resources the show has drawn upon to enrich itself.

Well, big-o is awesome because of what we are doing now. No other show on AS for that matter (that I know of) has forums that are this deep (member-wise). Alot of the people on these boards are really smart. (i.e. you guys) and go all up into the deeper meaning of the show.

Not many other shows are this thinkity. When anyone can discuss the philosophics and logistics behind a show (besides a kid hating his father or something), then you know that said show is a cult and mainstream classic. I believe that is what makes this show stand out from the rest of the pack. Characters, with so many theoretic references and levels of complication, further increase the incredibility of the show.

Upon rethinking the whole reset bit, I thought, " Hey, what if the real world is like that and we are going through another version of memories and events that needed to be fixed or reset for the better purpose of mankind." As awesome a show as Champloo is, it can't top that type of "question THIS" plot and way of thinking.

Indeed it's great to show your smarter college-level side of thinking as often as necessary, and most people don't, but it's great as well to slow down your think pattern and play GTA: San Andreas.

100th Post Kids!

Hmm... a long, verbose post that is often muddled and unclear... Hegel would be proud, DorothyFan1

To be honest, I've never had much taste for Hegel. I can never tell what he's talking about, and nobody who can seems to agree on what exactly he means. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you're talking about. (I tend to view Hegel in the same manner Arthur Schopenhaeur did.)

I personally can't see how existentialism and Hegelian philosophy are at an impasse though. Existentialism, expounded in its most popular form by Sartre, holds that their is no outside control or guiding principle, which is disproved by Big Venus et. al.

For the most part, I'll defer to ACT. He puts my thoughts pretty eloquently, and it's too late to really add anything.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato But, from the point of view of philosophy, the problem with Paradigm is that it doesn't fit any of the normal viewpoints. Big Venus seems to be a machine that can alter reality under the control of an operator. If the world is less real when Big Venus is messing with it, it must be more real when she isn't. The idea that reality is objective if you're inside Big Venus' cockpit, subjective everywhere else, and set by a dial under the control of a human operator all the time -- this doesn't fit any school of philosophy I know of.

Quite to the contrary, ACT's paraphrase of The Big O seems to me fitting every well with philosophical skepticism, which argues that, for instance, only one's mind is reliable while the external world is or can be an illusion and therefore less reliable. That's the main theme of Descartes' Meditations. In fact nowadays philosophers of mind have developed a notion of "Cartesian theater," which regards the working of human mind as a spetator watching a performance (onstage or on the screen). So contradicting ACT's intention to put aside philosophy, his description of the last scenes of The Big O invites us to some of the most important points of modern philosophy.

So it's too quick, too soon, too early to say it's too late to add anything.

quote:

Originally posted by lhlam quote: Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato But, from the point of view of philosophy, the problem with Paradigm is that it doesn't fit any of the normal viewpoints. Big Venus seems to be a machine that can alter reality under the control of an operator. If the world is less real when Big Venus is messing with it, it must be more real when she isn't. The idea that reality is objective if you're inside Big Venus' cockpit, subjective everywhere else, and set by a dial under the control of a human operator all the time -- this doesn't fit any school of philosophy I know of. Quite to the contrary, ACT's paraphrase of The Big O seems to me fitting every well with philosophical skepticism, which argues that, for instance, only one's mind is reliable while the external world is or can be an illusion and therefore less reliable. That's the main theme of Descartes' Meditations. In fact nowadays philosophers of mind have developed a notion of "Cartesian theater," which regards the working of human mind as a spetator watching a performance (onstage or on the screen). So contradicting ACT's intention to put aside philosophy, his description of the last scenes of The Big O invites us to some of the most important points of modern philosophy.

Which is not what I said at all. Anyway, take any system of philosophy where the philosopher isn't sure that anything exists outside his head. This means that Descartes didn't believe in me, so I'm sure as hell not going to believe in him!

That's the problem with philosophers. They have no grasp of the obvious at all. Everything confuses them. Take any of the famous paradoxes. They all have obvious solutions. But if you're trained in philosophy, you can't seem 'em.

"A town has only one barber. The barber shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who saves the barber?" He does. Duh!

Anyway, I was talking about a situation where the WORLD has a different level of reality in different PLACES. This is completely inconsistent with all schools of philosophy that waffle on the existence of reality outside the mind, since it's defined in terms of places outside the mind.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato quote: Originally posted by lhlam quote: Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato But, from the point of view of philosophy, the problem with Paradigm is that it doesn't fit any of the normal viewpoints. Big Venus seems to be a machine that can alter reality under the control of an operator. If the world is less real when Big Venus is messing with it, it must be more real when she isn't. The idea that reality is objective if you're inside Big Venus' cockpit, subjective everywhere else, and set by a dial under the control of a human operator all the time -- this doesn't fit any school of philosophy I know of. Quite to the contrary, ACT's paraphrase of The Big O seems to me fitting every well with philosophical skepticism, which argues that, for instance, only one's mind is reliable while the external world is or can be an illusion and therefore less reliable. That's the main theme of Descartes' Meditations. In fact nowadays philosophers of mind have developed a notion of "Cartesian theater," which regards the working of human mind as a spetator watching a performance (onstage or on the screen). So contradicting ACT's intention to put aside philosophy, his description of the last scenes of The Big O invites us to some of the most important points of modern philosophy. Which is not what I said at all. Anyway, take any system of philosophy where the philosopher isn't sure that anything exists outside his head. This means that Descartes didn't believe in me, so I'm sure as hell not going to believe in him! That's the problem with philosophers. They have no grasp of the obvious at all. Everything confuses them. Take any of the famous paradoxes. They all have obvious solutions. But if you're trained in philosophy, you can't seem 'em. "A town has only one barber. The barber shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who saves the barber?" He does. Duh! Anyway, I was talking about a situation where the WORLD has a different level of reality in different PLACES. This is completely inconsistent with all schools of philosophy that waffle on the existence of reality outside the mind, since it's defined in terms of places outside the mind.

I was stuck by the arrogance and overconfidence with which ACT can claim The Big O is "completely inconsistent with all schools of philosophy" AS IF HE HAS READ AND KNOWN ALL SCHOOLS OF PHILOSPHY. I think even those who teach philosophy in colleges won't have the courage to say such things. But what seems apparent to me is ACT doesn't really read Descartes, let alone the recent studies in Cartesian philosophy. For one thing, Descartes never denies the existence of reality. He actually, as ACT says of the Big O, recontructs "a world with different level of reality in diferent places." To distinguish what we can be certain for the first place from what we can't be certain, and then reestablish our confidence (though qualified) in those things we can't be certain is the mission Descartes sets out for himself. Once again, I don't see why ACT can't be more humble to listen to what philosophy has told us. Descartes doesn't really deny YOUR existence, it's only YOU, ACT, who have your eyes closed to what he has really written.

Ok... ok... uh...


Ok... I got it! So, because Descartes said "I think not" ... then he is contradicting "I think, therefore I am."

...


I don't get the infinite room business.



...

BOT o_O, reading the first post... I... can't help but think you're looking too much into Big O. A lot of what happens in the show seems to me to be artificially cryptic... but thats just me...

Again, ACT, I can see how much you enjoy writing and reading yourself, and shut your door to any conversation. So what you post has nothing to do with Descartes or any school of philosophy, but only with your partial opinion of what you think phiosophy is. In this light, the Descartes who refuses to think ("I think not") and shuts the door to Aristotole is not the philosopher Descartes we know from the history of philosophy, but ACT yourself. How sad...

Okay... I have one small request... can we all stop talking about "philosophy" as if it's some monolithic block?

ACT, you seem to be conflating solipsism with skepticism. And Ihlam, I think you take things a bit too personally.

I think that the problem is not that Big O fits no philosophical school, but that it could possibly fit into more than one. Big O is like a carnival mirror: what you see depends on where you're looking from. That's the problem.

BTW -- are you a philosophy major, Ihlam?