Wednesday 13 July 2016

Serving the Enlightenment

“We work in the dark to serve the light. We are Assassins”
When I first encountered the above phrase in Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, during the Assassin initiation ceremony, I took it at face value.  “We work in secret to do good.”  Then I noticed throughout the game the number of people who perceived the Assassins as the bad guys.  After all, you the player know that you are killing bad guys, but to the NPC townsfolk, these are the pillars of society.  At one point Ezio says to the jeering crowd something like, “you speak of things you know nothing about”.   This got me thinking that the Assassins may serve the light, but they are perceived as being dark.  Recently, I began to see this phrase in a new way.  I remembered that light can mean both goodness and enlightenment.  What if serving the light is the serve enlightenment?  What if it’s about serving The Enlightment?

WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT?
Five hundred years ago, Western Civilization was pretty rubbish.  Compared with the Chinese and Islam, Europeans were definitely in last place.  Then something changed.  Economic historian Professor Niall Ferguson set-out to discover how and why the West came to dominate the world in such a short span of time.  He concluded that a combination of six key factors tipped the scales for the West: competition, science, property rights, modern medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic.  All but one of these were born of the Scientific Revolution and The Enlightenment, the exception being competition which was endemic to a continent born of warring tribes.

The Scientific Revolution, from roughly 1543 to 1687, established in the common mind that the universe operated according to fixed principles rather than the whims of the gods.  Upon this foundation was built The Enlightenment which sought to apply reason and the scientific method to society and politics.  The result were concepts like human rights, the freedom to think, act, and believe as we choose, and the right to own property.  The ultimate expression of Enlightenment values is the United States Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

Today, we take these concepts for granted, however when we look at the big picture of the human experience across the globe for the past 50,000 years we find only an insignificant percentage of the human who have ever existed could even conceive of these notions.  Nonetheless, we want to see these values expressed in the historical fiction we produce.   The Assassin’s Creed series is no exception.  Here we have a secret society fighting to promote Enlightenment values millennia before the everyday person could accept them as being normal.  However, there is an ancient source for these particular values and it is possible to draw a straight line from it to the fictional Assassins.

MAN VS SOCIETY
Humans are small group animals.  This is an inescapable fact of nature and far too often ignored.  According to the Monkeysphere theory, our brains are only capable of recognising from 100-150 people as being unique people.  Everyone else is just “them”, NPCs, moving scenery who we de-humanise with labels and stereotypes.  If someone says that they are concerned about the poor, they are really saying that they are concerned about the poor as a general concept and may not really know any actual impoverished people as unique individuals.  This is not to criticise.  It’s just important to understand how things are.

This basic tribal mentality hardwired into our brains is further reinforced by 50,000 year of tribalism.  Even today, our caveman brains seek to fit in, be part of the crowd, identify with our idea of us as a people, race, or nation.  This is manifested in the current trend of identity politics, not to mention the multi-billion dollar industries built around the basic impulse to be fashionable among our peers in our tastes in entertainment and appearance.

The tribe can be a good place to be.  It provides security, safety, identity, purpose, and emotional support.  The ideal tribe is like the ideal family where the wise and caring father takes care of everyone.  For millennia, this ideal image has been translated from father, to chief, to king, to president.  We want a government of wise and caring leaders who will take care of us, the people.

Being part of a tribe requires each individual to put their selfish desires aside and to put the needs of the tribe first.  You need to join the group if you want the benefits.  As a result, tribal societies have no concept of individual identity to the same high degree that we in the modern West possess.  Considering this in the context of the 50,000-year history of human consciousness, our modern notions are a blip on the radar – a freakish abnormality.

The Templars in Assassin’s Creed recognise this fact.  They understand that humankind is hardwired to submit to the will of the tribe, to society, and that the ideal situation is for wise leaders to take control of society and shepherd it into a better world. The Templars see themselves as the wise leaders who will lead a populace yearning to be led. But it’s not that simple.  Humans are small group animals, but every person is possessed of a unique consciousness.  We are all individuals.  This is where the Assassins come into the story.

The Assassins ascribe the ideas of the Enlightenment.  That each person is an individual with his own mind with which to think and to make the life choices that he thinks will benefit himself.  With this choice comes the responsibility of consequence, be the results beneficial or negative.  “Nothing is true” reminds us to be critical thinkers and to challenge the accepted “truths” enforced by the tribal authorities of state, religion, and society.  “Everything is permitted” is both a liberation and a warning.  We are free to act, but our actions, and the actions of others, may or may not lead to a positive outcome – life has no safety rails.

Human are small groups animals with individual consciousness.  At one extreme, the individual receives all the benefits of being in the tribe, but at the cost of freedom.  At the other extreme, the individual is free, but alone and responsible.  The struggle is to maintain the balance of the two, but this is not possible when the degree of social participation ceases to be voluntary but is forced upon us.  The ideal society for the Assassins is one where the power of tribal authorities is held in check to allow people to have that balance.

FINDING THE SOURCE
In the real world, the Assassins were a Muslim sect operating in Iran and Syria during the Crusades.  The leap of faith from the games comes from stories where Hassan i Sabbah, the founder and leader of the order, would command followers to leap to their deaths to demonstrate their unquestioned obedience.  That sounds nothing like the anti-authoritarian Assassins from the game the series.  The fictional Assassins have a more fanciful origin story dating back to the dawn of time and the actual historical Assassins were re-interpreted to fit this fictional narrative.  It is true that the Assassin’s Creed is historically attributed to Hassan i Sabbah, but it does not seem consistent with the beliefs of a devout Muslim.  So what is the origin of the Creed, or at least the philosophy behind it?

In Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, the Assassin Mary Read asserts
Cultures and religions and languages keep folks divided, but there's something in the Assassins Creed that crosses all boundaries.  A fondness for life and liberty.                          
This reflects the Enlightenment idea that the values of the Enlightenment are based on rational principles and are therefore universal.  As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”.  Any rational being can discover these ideas if they choose.  Yet, in the course of human history they are rare finds with most folk falling back on the default tribal model.  However, there is a historic precedent dating back 3500 years which provides an interesting alternative theory for the origins of the Assassin’s enlightenment ideology.

This story begins with a man named Zarathustra.  No one really knows when Zarathustra lived, but the best guess in around 1000 BC, give or take a few centuries.  This is roughly the same period given for the Biblical kings, Saul, David, and Solomon.  No one really knows where he was from either.  Modern scholars tentatively place him in eastern Iran.  What is important is the influence he had on human history.

Zarathustra is more commonly known by the Greek version of his name Zoroaster and the religion he founded, Zoroastrianism.   To put the religion into context, it is basically the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the first monotheistic religion.  Concepts like the war between good and evil, the existence of angels, demons, and Satan himself, a day of judgement, and heaven and hell all come from Zoroastrianism.

Zarathustra taught that human consciousness was a unique gift from the one god, Ahura Mazda, the “wise lord”.  With this gift comes the individual responsibility to choose between good or evil.  This consciousness was bestowed upon all humans, regardless of race or gender.  In a time when women were property and marriage was a financial arrangement, Zoroastrians saw women as equals to men with equal responsibility to choose good. The Zoroastrian Creed is “Good thoughts, Good words, and Good deeds” implying that we must constantly be exercising our free will to choose good. 

Professor Kaikhosrov D. Irani, a retired Professor Emeritus of Philosophy from City College of New York, explains it like this:
"In the Zoroastrian doctrine, there are no specific prescriptions which state, "do this" or "don't do that." The individual is left to think it through.  The responsibility for what should be done rests with each individual.  The acceptance of this responsibility becomes a way of life.  The world is a moral reality and your way of life is good thoughts, good words, and good deeds."
This passage reminded me of Mary Read’s interpretation of the Creed in Black Flag, “it does not command us to act or submit - only to be wise.”

It is incredibly difficult for the modern mind to comprehend how revolutionary Zarathustra’s teachings were in 1000 BC.  It is like finding an iPhone buried under the pyramids.  Up until this point you were the tribe.  There was no I.  Now here comes a religion that places free will in the centre of its belief system.

Zoroastrianism would go on to become the dominate religion in Persia for the next 1700 years until the conquering armies of Islam gave their usual convert or die option.  Well, there was a third option.  Those refusing to convert could pay a special tax and be allowed to live without converting to Islam.  Over time the number of Zoroastrians dwindled and today only an estimated 200,000 remain.  Possibly the most famous modern Zoroastrian was Freddy Mercury, the lead singer of the band Queen.  For the Christians, the Persian word for a follower of Zarathustra was Magi.  The three wise men from the East who brought gifts to the baby Jesus were Zoroastrians, so thank Zarathustra for your Christmas presents.  And if you drive a Mazda, your car was named after Ahura Mazda.

Possibly the most important historical Zoroastrian was the Persian king Cyrus the Great (576 – 530 BC).  Cyrus has always been held in high regard throughout history.  In the Bible, he was the Persian king who allowed the captive Jews to return to Palestine and paid to have their temple rebuilt after the Babylonian captivity.  His cupbearer had been the Jewish scribe Ezra, who many scholars believe to have been the chief editor of what we have today as the Old Testament of the Bible.  The prophet Isaiah referred to Cyrus as “the anointed one”, or as the phrase is more commonly known, the messiah. 

The Greek historian Xenophon is most famous for his book, Cyropaedia, a mixture of fact and political theory centred around the life of Cyrus and a key resource for the American Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson who owned many copies in several languages.

Today, Cyrus is most regarded for the Cyrus Cylinder.   After Cyrus conquered the Babylonian Empire he issued a decree to his newly conquered subjects in which he guarantees their right to worship as they please.  Among human right advocates, this is widely viewed as being the first great human rights documents.

Professor Irani refers to this period of Persian history as, “The First Enlightenment” with Zoroastrian philosophy as the centrepiece.  Both this First Enlightenment and The Enlightenment as we know it were based on the same principles.  As beings of individual consciousness we must be free to exercise and cultivate that consciousness regardless of social authorities.  This is the battle line between the Assassins and Templars, the individual and the tribe, Man and Society, and Classical Liberalism and Authoritarianism.

The role of Zoroastrianism in the ancient world is comparable to that of Christianity in 19th century Britain or 20th century United States as the primary religion of the greatest power of the day. With the coming of Islam, we see the enlightenment-oriented culture that the Zoroastrians had cultivated in Persia continue under the new religion to create the so-called Golden Age of Islam in science and learning. This would eventually spread through the Moors in Spain and Venetian traders returning from Istanbul to spark the Renaissance in Europe, followed by the Scientific Revolution, and then The Enlightenment.  These are the dots connecting the first and second Enlightenment.

However, there is a fundamental difference.  Although both Enlightenments reached the same destination, they did so from different routes.  For the Zoroastrians, the path was a religious one using reason, yes, but within the context of the supernatural.  This first form of enlightenment worked, but not as efficiently as version 2.0 which arrived through reason with any irrational justification. 

So there is an actual ancient precedent for the Enlightenment values expressed by the Assassins of the game.  Making the connection requires a bit of conjecture, as the game series never mentions Zarathustra, but there are some interesting parallels.  Whether by accident or design much of the symbolism of Assassin’s Creed reflects this First Enlightenment.  The following is not intended to be anything more than observations of interesting parallels between Zoroastrianism and the fictional Assassins found in the Ubisoft game series.

The Persian Connection
Zoroastrianism was founded in Persia where it was practiced as the primary religion for over a millennium until the Islamic conquest of Iran, but even then it took centuries for the full Islamification of Iran.  In 1056, four hundred years after the Muslim invasion, Hassan-i Sabbah was born in the scholarly Persian city of Qom.  He would go on to inhabit the mountain fortress of Alamut in Iran as the founder of the historic Assassins.

Meanwhile back in the 21st Century, the games company Ubisoft was running their successful game series, The Prince of Persia.  They had intended to feature the Assassins in a sequel to Prince of Persia – The Sands of Time, however during development the Assassins took on a life of their own and it was decided to launch a new game completely separate from the Prince of Persia series.

The original Assassin’s Creed game was inspired by the book, Alamut by Vladimir Bartol.  He was a self-proclaimed Existentialist and may have been inspired by Friederich Nietzsche who made mention of the Assassin’s Creed in his book, On the Genealogy of Morals, and was himself a student of Persian history and culture.  Among Nietzsche’s most important works is Thus Spoke Zarathustra in which he creates a second Zarathustra who brings atheism where the real Zarathustra brought monotheism.

Within the Assassin’s Creed Universe, there once existed a highly advanced species called the Isu who genetically designed humans to serve as ignorant slaves.  Due to interbreeding with the Isu, some humans were born with individual consciousness.  These special humans led a revolt against their creators and were the first Assassins.  The centre of the conflict was the city of Eden, the source of our Garden of Eden myth.  In the garden, humanity achieves individual consciousness by rebelling against God by eating the forbidden fruit.  There are of course those who believe the Eden story was real, and one of the prime contenders for the location of Eden is an area outside the city of Tabriz in Iran. 

I find it interesting that ideologically through Zoroastrianism, historically through Hassan i Sabbah, and fictionally through the game development, it’s literary inspiration, and in the story itself, we can trace the Assassin’s origin to Persia.

Why White?
The original model designs for the Assassins depicted them wearing all white and concealing themselves with a hood.  Why white?  It’s not the best colour choice for sneaking about in dark or concealing blood spatter.  This white design remained with various characters in the series until Arno Dorian in AC Unity in 1789 and the Frye twins also abandoned the white garb in 1868.  This change may have more to do with decisions at Ubisoft since characters created earlier but inhabiting a later period in history, such as Nikolai Orelov in 1918, are still wearing white.

Many religions feature white clothes for special occasions or rituals, but not necessarily as standard dress.  Two religions stand-out.  The religious leaders of the Zoroastrians wear all white and in Islam men are encouraged to wear white regularly as their principle colour choice.  In both instances, white is symbolic of purity.

In the game series, the use of white may be intended to harken back to the historical Islamic inspiration for the game Assassins.  However, the first Assassins Creed game depicts the Assassins as being apart from the Islamic sects of the time which is contrary to the true history.  One might argue that the decision was to dress the Assassins so that they might disappear in a crowd of Muslims clothed in white, but why continue the convention into the 20th century?  Perhaps the designers felt that they had established a theme in the first game and wanted to continue.  Who knows?  Personally, I like the Zoroastrian theory.  Here’s why.

The Fire of Enlightenment
Back in September 2013, I received a comment on one of my posts stating that the Assassin’s Creed symbol is derived from an earthen lamp called a diya.  I found it interesting and asked for evidence but received no reply.  I looked into it a bit deeper.  The diya is used in the festival of Diwali, the most important festival in the Hindu calendar.  I discovered that these earthen lamps are also used in the practice of Zoroastrianism, particularly among the Parsis of India.

Fire and light play a very important role in the practice of Zoroastrianism to such a degree that those ignorant of the religion assume them to be fire worshipers.  Without going into too much detail, suffice to say that the fire represents the force of creation, science, and wisdom.  In short, it means enlightenment.  Their places of worship are referred to as fire temples with prayers, hymns, and meditations being directed towards the flame.  The same is done in home worship through the use of oil lamps such as the diya.

The commenter directed me to a link illustrating the diya drawn from the front where a protruding lip is evident.  The oil fills the basin and a large wick rests on the lip.  Whether this theory is true or not, the resemblance is uncanny as illustrated below and seems to explain the separated lower portion of the symbol as the rim and lip of the lamp.


As I have written before, the word creed means both a belief and the symbolic representation of the belief.  So when asked, “what does that symbol you wear mean?” I can answer that it means “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.”  However, more and more I am content to say that it means enlightenment, particularly the Enlightenment values of wisdom and freedom demonstrated by the Assassins.

The Autodidact
It has been said that the only people who know the meaning of the word autodidact are autodidacts.  The word simply means self-taught and is used to describe people who became experts in a subject or field through their own pursuit of knowledge rather than through a formal education system.  As Mark Twain famously said “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

This relates to the first half of the Creed as an invitation to critical thinking.  Nothing is true, so don’t believe everything you are told.  Think and discover for yourself.  This principle is behind calling the leaders of the Assassins “mentor”.  The role of the mentor is to aid in discovery and not to impose answers.  Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each individual to choose wisdom.  The Zoroastrians also employ the concept of “the mentor”.  Among the many titles given to Zarathustra, one is interpreted as “thought provoker” or mentor.  This has carried on into the modern day where the various degrees of religious leaders among the Zoroastrians act more as mentors rather than authoritarian priests or ministers.

Every person is a potential autodidact by virtue of having a mind.  Whether they choose to be one or merely accept the “truths” that they are given is also their choice.  The role of the mentor is to provoke thinking, to guide but not control the process, to inspire but not to impose.

The Paradox of Tolerance
The Assassins differ from the Zoroastrians in their chosen battlefield against the forces of evil.  Zarathustra taught that the two opposing forces of Asha (truth, order, justice) and Druj (falsehood, deceit) exist within each person and each person has a responsibility to choose truth over lies. In a larger sense, it is the choice between wisdom and enlightenment over ignorance and darkness.  For the Zoroastrians, there is no external evil to be fought but an internal conflict that all people must wage on a personal level.  This is very different from those religions that seek to fight and punish others whom they perceive as being evil. 

An Assassin would not deny this internal field of battle, but they go further by taking a proactive approach against those conditions that promote or encourage ignorance, such as slavery and bigotry. Their justification is expressed in a concept laid out by the philosopher Karl Popper called the Paradox of Tolerance.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." 

Many of the Templars are portrayed negatively in the game series, but there are a few good ones through whom we are shown the ideal Templar society.  Their ultimate goal is a collectivist system were wise paternal rulers control the thoughts and actions of the people so that each person can live peaceful and prosperous lives in blissful ignorance.  The Assassins see this as reducing people to the role of slaves or cattle.  Goodness must be chosen freely and not imposed on people with laws backed by force.

Like all do-gooders throughout history, the Templars have a plan for society and any opposition to that plan will not be tolerated.  For the Assassin’s, the only sin is a lack of tolerance for the rights of others to think and act as they choose.  So they will oppose any attempt to infringe on these rights regardless of the alleged morality of “the plan”.  They will not tolerate intolerance. 

In this context, intolerance is a denial of the rights of others to think and act as they please provided they cause no real and direct intentional harm.  The word tolerance means to endure something.  I am disgusted by the guy picking his nose in public, but I endure it because it’s a free country.  I am deeply offended by a comment on the internet, I may challenge him using reason, but I will fight for his right to be a dick.  That’s tolerance.

While both the Assassins and the Zoroastrians recognise the sanctity of individual consciousness and respect it, the Assassins take a proactive stance to actively protect and defend the conditions that allow for the expression of that consciousness against those who seek to manipulate and control it.

FAN FICTION
According to the game series, the Assassins have existed for millennia, since the time of the precursor city of Eden and the historical Assassins of Hassan i Sabbah were just one faction of the larger Assassin Order.  I would propose an addition which is basically just a bit of fan fiction.

I would suggest that the precursor city of Eden is in fact in Iran as some people claim, that Zarathustra was of a remnant from that city, and that the Assassins emerged as a break-away sect of Zoroastrians who sought to take a more proactive approach by protecting the Enlightenment values and using violent means if necessary.  Over time they dropped the religious aspects and became a wholly secular philosophical organisation, but retained some of the religious trappings.  It’s just a theory and a bit of fun.  I would love for Ubisoft to use this, but judging from the forthcoming Empire story, it looks as if they will take an Egyptian rather than a Persian route for an origin story.

In a sense, this entire article can be called a piece of fan non-fiction.  I was inspired to write it because it seems as though the Enlightenment values that we take for granted are gradually disappearing in a world where people give and take offense so easily with no respect for the minds of others; where people trust their feelings over reason and call anyone who disagrees with them stupid; where we seem to be allowing ourselves to be manipulated by elites burying us in propaganda that gets repeated by our friends as truth.  In the face of all this, I could think of only one response:
Where other men blindly follow the truth, remember,
Nothing is True.
Where other men are limited by morality or law, remember,
Everything is Permitted.
We work in the dark to serve the light.
We are Assassins. 

Friday 3 June 2016

Ethan Frye's Legacy: Exploring Assassin’s Creed Syndicate

It may come as a surprise to players of the game Assassin Creed Syndicate to know that the most pivotal character in the game does not actually appear in the game.  In fact, he is scarcely mentioned by name.  I refer of course to Ethan Frye, the father of the game’s protagonists, the twins Evie and Jacob Frye.

Our story begins in February 1868 with the inaugural mission of the twins.  They are filled with the hope of youth, having just turned twenty the previous November, and as their minds imagine the future possibilities there is a shadow.  Their father died of pleurisy less than a month earlier and his death is still fresh in their hearts as evidenced by their repeatedly references to him over the course of the game. What would father say?  What would father do?  It is what father would have wanted.  You sound just like father.  The ghost of Ethan Frye lingers throughout AC Syndicate.

The word syndicate means a joint collaboration, but also has certain criminal implications, such as the mob or a gang.  On the surface, the game invokes the underworld meaning, however the central theme and messages in the game indicate the former.  The collaboration is the union of Evie and Jacob as the two halves of Ethan Frye.  Each twin has a particular aspect their father.  Ethan was studious like Evie and impetuous and daring like Jacob.  In this singular person it worked, but in two different people we see division and hostility until the end when the two come together and vanquish the villain as one.  The name Syndicate works, but it could just as easily have been called Synthesis.  The story is about the reunion of Ethan Frye through his children.

THE FAMILY FRYE

One of the hallmarks of the Assassin’s Creed series is the use of names as Easter Eggs. For example, the names Altair and Ezio both refer to eagles. Edward Keyway’s pirate ship and Jacob Frye’s street gang are both named for members of the crow family, the Jackdaw and the Rooks.  In AC Syndicate, the name Frye comes from the Old English meaning free, as in free-born.  This is in keeping with the recurring theme of freedom throughout the series.

Evie’s name is of course a diminutive of the name Eve, from the Hebrew meaning life or to live, so Evie Frye literally means live free.  The name Eve appears also in the AC storyline pertaining to the human uprising against "The Ones Who Came Before” where Eve leads the rebellion with the implication that she was the basis for the Biblical Eve and the beginning of the Assassin lineage.  Whether the naming of the character Evie is intended to be a direct reference to the ancestral Eve is unclear, however I like to believe that Ethan knew the history and named his daughter after her.

Among of the most popular names in Western Culture are variations of James.  Jesus had a disciple and a brother both called James.  The name comes from the Hebrew name Jacob.  The original Jacob in the Bible was the son of Abraham’s son Isaac.  Like Jacob Frye, the Biblical Jacob was a second-born twin, literally grasping the heel of his brother Esau at birth.  The name Jacob means supplanter, someone who wrongfully takes the place of another.  Jacob was born clutching the heel of his brother, as if he was attempting to pull him aside to pass him in the birth canal to achieve first-born status.  As an adult, Jacob had a name change.  The story goes that he had a night long wrestling match with a mysterious stranger who renames him Israel, meaning “he who wrestles with God.” 

The names Jacob and Israel share a common theme.  Both infer a refusal to accept fate or one’s lot in life.  In this sense, the name reflects the second half of the Creed.  Everything is permitted.  We see this repeatedly in Jacob Frye as he is constantly pushing possibilities regardless of how impossible or crazy they seem to others.

Another recurring feature in the Assassin’s Creed series is this tendency to include ethnic or national heritage in their character creation.  Three of the Assassins featured in the games are of mixed race, Altair, Conor Kenway, and Aveline, while Arno is described as being half Austrian and half French.  We know that Edward Kenway is specifically Welsh but grew-up in England and of course Ezio Auditore is Italian.  Strangely, the ethnic or national heritage of the Fryes is completely missing. 

In examining these names, I discovered that the names Ethan, Evie, and Jacob are all of Hebrew origin.  Not to mention the choice to use the name Jacob rather than the more common James or Jim.  There is a Jewish name Frye, but that comes into Yiddish through Russian and refers to a sucker or a mark and does not fit the characters as well as the English origin of the name does.  However, it is interesting to speculate the possibility that Ethan’s wife Cecily was English and that Ethan was Jewish.  The twins would not technically be considered Jewish since their mother was not, but this would be in keeping with the mixed-race themes in the series and give us our first half-Jewish Assassins.  It would also highlight the important roles played by Jews in Victorian society, for example Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish, and hints at the rise of anti-Semitism that would come to London in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

Finally, we see in Evie and Jacob (and Henry Green) the first legacy Assassins in the series since Altair.  I coined the term legacy Assassins to describe Assassins who were born and raised within the context of the order by one or both parents and have full knowledge of the Assassins.  Ezio was raised by Assassin parents, but not within the context of the Order or with full knowledge.  Connor and Aveline came to the Assassins as children, but were not born into it or guided by their parents.  Edward Kenway, Adewale, and Arno Dorian all came to the Assassins as adults.  As for Haytham Kenway, his father Edward took a similar approach to child rearing as Ezio’s father, Giovanni.  The children were taught skills and concepts, but without full disclosure as to why they had sword training when other children did not.

This gives us an interesting picture of the Fryes as a family of Assassins.  Ethan was likely a legacy Assassin judging by how young he was on his first mission.  His wife, Cecily, was an Assassin, though she was not born into it.  The twins were raised as Assassins, and so was Jacob's son and his grand-daughter, Lydia.  There is no telling if the legacy continues after Lydia, but there is a passing reference to an Emmett Frye in the modern day. So there is the possibility that the Frye Assassins cover over two-hundred years of history.

Legacy Assassins pose an ethical dilemma concerning how we raise children.  For the Assassins, freedom is the highest value, and yet they raise their children in a way that removes their freedom.   As Altair points out, he never had a choice in becoming an Assassin.  It was all that he ever knew so he could not can compare other options.  Ethan describes it this way in the novel Underworld.

What we are doing is right. My doubt, lies in the application of that ideology, and this doubt is what keeps me awake at night, wondering if we fail our children by moulding them into our image, when in fact we should be teaching them to follow a path of their own.

Every parent wants to impart to their children the right way to live.  For a Christian parent, this means raising your child to be a Christian.  I never gave much credence to the let the children decide approach.  Without teaching religion at a formative age, the child would not have the capacity for faith later in life.  Second, if a parent truly believed, then choice is not an option.  If you believe a stove is hot, then you will teach your child to avoid hot stoves. If a parent believes in eternal hellfire, then they would raise their children to avoid it.  Giovanni Auditore and Edward Kenway chose to teach around the Assassin training without directly training their children.  This approach left both children vulnerable.  It worked for Ezio, but Haytham was much younger and fell into Templar hands to be raised.  In the end. Ethan raised his children to be Assassins, and this worked best for them because they were part of a community.

THE DIVISION OF LABOUR

Assassin’s Creed Syndicate is touted as the first game set in the Modern Era.  For the majority of human existence not much had changed.  The big shift happened with the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent birth of the Modern.  The world changed dramatically.  One of the principle features of the Modern is the division of labour and this is a key theme in Assassin’s Creed Syndicate.  Remember, a syndicate is a joint collaboration.  This is many parts working together, like cogs in a machine, to accomplish a shared goal.

Underworld gives important backstory to the events of the game.  Henry Green, the leader of the London Assassins, was born Jayadeep Mir, the son of Arbaaz Mir, the protagonist in the Indian chapter of the Assassin's Creed Chronicles game and originally featured in the comic book Assassin’s Creed Brahman

Needless to say, Arbaaz was proud of his son who proved to be a natural Assassin in terms of skill and technique, however Ethan Frye, Jayadeep’s teacher, saw something dangerous in the boy.  He lacked the killer instinct.  Unfortunately, his warnings went unheeded and Jayadeep went on his inaugural mission only to fail to make the kill.  To the Assassins, an Assassin who could not kill was of no use.  Worse than that, it meant death for poor Jayadeep.  Fortunately, Ethan intervened.

Ethan had a unique perspective.  He stood at the crossroads of the Pre-modern and the Modern.  The Assassins could be described as philosopher-warriors, but first and foremost, they killed Templars.  For the Indian Brotherhood, you could not be an Assassin and not be a killer.  However, the modern world would be characterised by the division of labour.  People of different skills working where their skills were of the most use for the benefit of the whole organisation.  Ethan saw that one need not be a killer to be an Assassin and recognised that Jayadeep’s skills lie in networking.  He may not be a killer, but he would be an excellent spy.

We see this division of labour in Ethan’s children.  Evie is the scholar and Jacob is the warrior.  Technically, Evie is the better fighter, but since this was a natural gift she never regarded it much.  She preferred learning.  Her fighting style is direct, calculated, and technical.  Jacob is less technical and more brute force.  His concern is getting the job done.

Evie represents the past.  She knows the history and folklore of the Assassins and can be both a philosopher and a warrior.  Jacob is the future.  His concern is with the now and accomplishing the mission at hand regardless of consequences. Evie is too enamoured with the past and Jacob is too concerned with the moment regardless of past examples or future consequences.  It is interesting to note that Evie believes in ghosts, remnants of the past, while Jacob does not.

Here is where the division of labour falls apart.  It is important for each part to value the other parts.  The spy, the philosopher, and the warrior all have value to the whole and none is more important than the others.  This mutual respect for the talents of others on your team is necessary for the division of labour to work.  Eventually, the twins learn to work together through mutual respect for each other’s unique perspectives and talents.


 THE DIVIDED CREED

Another division in the twins is the Creed itself.  Evie has set herself on a critical pursuit of the Truth, as dictated by the first part of the Creed, “Nothing is True”.  Jacob is a man of action representing “Everything is Permitted”.  During the course of the story both characters conflict with their evil counterparts who represent these areas of focus taken to extremes.  Evie has Lucy Thorne and for Jacob its Maxwell Roth.

For Evie, the purpose of knowledge is enlightenment, but for Lucy knowledge is power to be utilised for her ends.  Instead of being a light to share, it is a light to be kept and exploited.  In Aristotelian ethics, vices are the extremes of virtues.  Courage is a virtue but in its two extremes we find the vices of cowardice and rashness.  The pursuit of wisdom could be called a virtue.  Evie often mocks Jacob, first in jest and then seriously, for what she perceives as foolishness.  That is one of the extremes and the one most are familiar with daily, but what would the other extreme look like?  Is it possible to be too wise?

Wisdom is not possible without the capacity for abstract thought.  People who use too little abstract thought only see the concrete in front of them at the moment.  They do not consider things like underlying principles, potential consequences, or implications.  These people are commonly deemed fools.  Those at the opposite end are the “intellectual morons”.  The have too much abstract thought.  These are the people with all brains and no sense.  They only see the concepts in their minds and miss the concrete right in front of them.  We also see this with people with book knowledge but no experiential knowledge.  Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a handy word for this vice.  There is foolishness at one end of the spectrum, but nothing for the opposite end.  I have chosen to call this fancifulness. 

Granted, the word fanciful has a light air about it and hardly seems appropriate to describe a villain like Lucy Thorne.  She is cold, arrogant, and cruel.  These attitudes are symptomatic of a defensive posture.  It is not difficult for people with a large capacity for abstract thought to view others as stupid and to feel outnumbered by them.  There is a tendency to become impatient with fools and to develop an arrogant stance towards them.  For those who take abstract thinking to the extreme, people, things, and events are all secondary to the person’s idea of them which can lead to the objectification and exploitation of others.  An example that comes to mind is the way wealthy politicians, who have no direct experience of poverty or the poor, will exploit the idea of the poor to justify policies that will ultimately benefit themselves.

Lucy is quick to tell a henchman that a chest containing research documents is of more value than his life and the life of his family.  Once Evie obtains the chest, she is forced to abandon it to save herself and Jacob from their pursuers.  Jacob sees the adventure as a bit of fun, but for Evie this is the beginning of the wedge that will separate them because she blames Jacob for the loss.  So were the contents of the chest more valuable to Evie than her relationship with her brother, or did it simply confirm her perception of him as a meddling idiot?  Later, Evie bemoans the loss of artifacts in Edward Kenway’s mansion.  Here, Henry Green provides balance by reminding her that they could come back for it or perhaps find something better. 

Several times Evie repeats the mantra, “Do not allow personal feelings to compromise the mission”.   She learned this from her father.  It is only later that she discovers that Ethan adopted this stance as a response to grief following the death of his wife Cecile in child birth.

I love the character of Evie Frye.  She is filled with delight at learning something new possessed of a childlike enthusiasm.  Yet, as the game proceeds we see her become colder and colder as if she is on the path to becoming her shadow, Lucy Thorn.  Fortunately, Evie learns that her brother is not a fool.  He just has a different perspective and sometimes he is right.  Sometimes you have to act on the fly and there is no time to plan.

“Nothing is True” should serve as a warning to Evie against fancifulness and intellectual arrogance.  No matter how knowledgeable or enlightened we think we are, there is always the possibility that we will be proven wrong.  Also, no matter how much we know, someone with less knowledge may know things that we do not.  Ignoring the Creed in this instance would lead Evie to disaster, but in the end it saved her.

Critics have described AC Syndicate as Victorian Arkham City.  I don’t see that as a negative.  If this is true, then Maxwell Roth is the Joker.  He takes the literal interpretation of “Everything is Permitted” to its extreme and forces Jacob to face it.

At first, there was a certain comradery between Jacob and Roth.  Jacob had not long been in London before he began recounting his dream of becoming a “firm but fair” gang leader, and now he was in the presence of the actual leader of the London gangs.  Roth was equally impressed with Jacob’s accomplishments, despite these being at the expense of his own self-interests.  This mutual respect came to a sudden end when Jacob realised that for Roth everything being permitted included killing children as collateral damage.  Soon after, Roth set a trap for Jacob where he happily set fire to his own theatre.  In the wake of the chaos, as Roth lay dying from Jacob’s blade, the Assassin asks him, “Why did you do it?  All of it?”  Roth answers with a crazed smile, “For the same reason I do anything.  Why not?”

For those encountering the Creed for the first time, their immediate fear is that “Everything is Permitted” is a licence to anarchy and hedonism.  Throughout the game series, we see that this is not the meaning.  However, only now do we have a character who lives by the literal interpretation.  Roth is a monster.  The word monster is from the Latin meaning, “a warning” and serves as a moral example in narrative fiction.  Frankenstein’s Monster is a warning against meddling with powers beyond your control.  Maxwell Roth is a warning about literally interpreting the Creed.

As with Evie’s encounter with her shadow, Jacob’s youthful devil-may-care attitude could easily have evolved into Roth’s dark take on the Creed.  Jacob had the potential to become Roth.  Fortunately, Jacob recognised the warning.  He learned that everything is not permitted and came to realise what he already knew and what Evie tried to remind him.  That actions have consequences and to deny this will lead to madness.

FORMING A SYNDICATE

How does it feel to be wrong?  It feels exactly like being right.  People do not go through life thinking that they are wrong.  They may well be wrong, but they don’t know that.  So how do we get better at being right?

One of the problems faced today is what can best be called a lack of diversity.  True diversity is a variety of points of view, not a variety of skin-colours and gender representations.  Through the internet we are able to surround ourselves with people and information confirming what we already believe to be true and protecting our sensibilities against disagreement.   As a result, we are never challenged with new and different ways of seeing the world.  We are never placed into a position where we realise that we are wrong.

It is said that friends are God’s apology for family.  The difference is that we can chose our friends as people that we perceive to be like us.  They confirm our biases whereas family is more inclined to call us out.  They have nothing to lose because they are family and will always be family.  It is this familial bond that forces Evie and Jacob together even when they want to go their separate ways.  They are united as the children of Ethan Frye.

Diversity is not as advertised with people of all races, genders, social classes, and creeds sitting around in a grand love fest.  True diversity is about conflict and power.   Prior to the Eighteenth Century, the word diversity meant to be contrary to what is agreeable or right, often interpreted as wickedness.  A society had to work together to survive and diversity was contrary to that necessary unity.  With the advent of Classical Liberalism, the word took a positive turn.  Concentrated power was seen as a negative and the will of the social whole as expressed through democracy as being mob rule, therefore a danger to individual liberty.  Diversity became a sort of balance of power within society itself.  If no one group held absolute power, then liberty could be protected.  Diversity was seen as a safeguard against group-think and the herd mentality.  Ideally, it is through the conflict born of diversity that the stronger ideas rose to the top.

Imagine if the friendship between Jacob and Maxwell Roth had blossomed.  After all, they had much in common.  Evie and Lucy Thorne got off on the wrong foot, but they also had similar interests.  Relationships with these people would have been terrible for the twins.  Instead, they had each other to force themselves through conflict into the realisation that they were wrong.  Well, not wrong per se, rather to see the value of another person’s mode of action.

Just as diversity was seen originally a balance of power, so too are our beneficial relationships those that balance us out to make us better people.  Jacob helps Evie to let go and live a little, while Evie teaches Jacob the importance of taking responsibility for the consequences one’s action.  Through their syndicate, they let go of their pride and their prejudices to become more complete people.


In this sense, the idea of Ethan Frye becomes a goal symbolising balance and completion.  The last mention of Ethan Frye is in the very last scene where Evie turns to Jacob to say, “Father would be proud of you.”  In the context of the story, this is the highest compliment she could pay her brother.  He responds by saying, “Race you to the train” and she answers, “You’re on.”  They dash off leaving a bewildered Henry Green.  In the face of their great achievement, the twins are still challenging each other through competition to achieve more together despite their differences.  

If we see the twins as an example to follow, then we should not be afraid to have diversity in our lives and to form syndicates with those people.  There may not be agreement, but that is okay.  Nor do we have to compromise ourselves.  What we do need to do is to have mutual respect for each other despite our differences and hopefully learn to become better people through the experience.

Sunday 20 March 2016

The Stoic Assassin

This is the third and final instalment of a series looking at the three key philosophies in Assassin’s Creed.  You can read part one on Existentialism and part two on the Romantic at the links.

When you look over the philosophical landscape you will notice certain key features occupying a particular space.  I call these Philosophical Cohorts.  These are distinct philosophical ideas that have more commonality than differences and can actual work together without too much contradiction.  If there is contradiction, it can prove beneficial as some of the philosophical extremes temper each other.

In the space occupied by Assassin’s Creed we find philosophies like Existentialism, the Romantic, Stoicism, political libertarianism, and Objectivism to name a few.  The spotlight here shines on Stoicism.

Stoicism is unique among philosophies in that it is one of the few used in everyday language to describe a particular attitude or personality type.   Altair and Connor Kenway are both described as stoic by critics and fans.  This is due to the emphasis Stoicism places on cultivating a particular attitude.

It is this focus on proactive character shaping and building that has brought about resurgent interest in Stoicism in recent years as people use it as a sort of self-help path, which it is.  If you check for meet-up groups on-line, it is far easier to find Stoic groups than Existentialists ones.  It was when I when looking for an Existentialist group, and finding none, that I made-up a joke. “I was going to form an Existentialist club, but then I thought, ‘What’s the point?’”

So why is Stoicism making a comeback?  It’s been said that the study of philosophy began when someone asked a wise man, “What must I do to be happy?”  The five branches of philosophy are arguably built around this premise, making philosophy self-help, however this objective was lost along the way.  For example, happiness depends on context, so to establish this we have Metaphysics answering the question, “What is reality (context)?”, but so many philosophers get side tracked on this point and never get back to the happiness part.   Existentialism tends to do this.  Stoicism on the other hand retains the focus on happiness and this gives the philosophy something the people want.  Stoicism not only describes reality it also proscribes beneficial thoughts, attitudes, and actions. 

I believe that the Creed perfectly summarizes Existentialism.  Nothing is True; Everything is Permitted.  Likewise, the Romantic can be summarized by its values of Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Love.  For Stoicism, the Serenity Prayer serves as a basic summary:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Stoicism does not go as far as Existentialism in saying that “Nothing is True”, but it does tell us not to concern ourselves with things over which we have no control, such as things that are not true.  Take the past for example.  The past is an imagined construct.  The only reality of it lies in what it leaves behind.  These are the affects and effects of the past.  Your past experiences have affected your psyche making you who you are now and the effects of the past are the consequences present in your immediate now. 

Suppose you were in a fire as a child and now you fear fire.  That event is in the past.  It’s not real, however the psychological affect remains and that is what you have to deal with regarding fire today.  I am writing this on my computer.  The computer exists in the now as a consequence of me purchasing it.  Should something happen to my computer and it’s gone, then for all intents and purposes it no longer exists in my reality. Beyond affect and effect, the past is not real.  It’s just an idea.  So don’t worry yourself over it.  Stoicism encourages not wasting emotional energy on things that do not exist for us or that you cannot control.  The same hold true of the future.

There is a scene in AC Liberation where Aveline has just figured-out that her step-mother is her mysterious nemesis known only as "the company man".  This causes a bit of an existential crisis for her.  Aveline knows what she must do as an Assassin but has her doubts.  She turns to her fellow Assassin Connor Kenway for help. She asks, “Connor, are you always certain in the means and ways of the brotherhood?” He replies in his usual stoic brevity, "I trust my own hands".

What the hell, Connor? Aveline’s reality just came crashing down and she’s faced with a difficult decision and the best you can come-up with is some cryptic response.  Allow me the conceit of rewriting Connor’s reply.

Aveline, you say that you are having doubts about how we Assassins do things, and it’s good to question, but I don’t think that is the real issue here.  You are worrying about the future, about consequences that may or may not occur.  The future you imagine is not real and is beyond your control. What you can control is what is at hand right now and you can only trust yourself to do what you can with the information you have in the moment.

Aveline responds saying "Of course" as if Connor is simply reminded her of something already covered in her philosophy class at Assassin school.  We see this kind of behaviour quite a bit from the Assassins – this attitude of acceptance.

One of my favourite lines in AC Black Flag is something Edward Kenway says to Thatch. “I'm not of the same mind, mate. But I won't begrudge you the state of yours.”  The acceptance that other people should not be expected to think as we do.  When you read through internet comments it is as though people are in a constant state of outrage because others have a different point of view or have one that they find offensive.  Stoicism teaches that we must expect that people will be people.

One Stoic technique is to tell yourself at the start of the day that you will meet stupid, rude, annoying, and cruel people throughout your day.  By preparing yourself in advance you have no reason to be shocked when you do meet one.  It is about managing your expectations.  If you believe that you are destined to meet your soul mate and will live in perpetual bliss for the rest of your life, then chances are that life will disappoint.  Instead cultivate realistic expectations and accept life as it is and not as you wish it was.

One of the big issues that Stoicism has to contend with in regards to public perception is the idea of the stoic personality as someone cold, emotionless, and tacit. The prime Assassins for this are Altair and Connor.  The philosophy behind this is the recognition that we cannot control the actions of others, but we can control how we choose to respond.

Ten years ago my “soul mate” left me.  I was emotionally and psychologically devastated.  My life went from being a social man about town before the relationship to being a virtual hermit ever since.  It would be easy for me to scream, “She ruined my life!”, but that would be wrong.  Leaving me was her right as a human being.  What caused this damage was not her leaving but the way I chose to respond to it.  I spent months replaying events in my mind feeling constant pain and loss that took nearly a year to ease.  My brooding only aggravated the problem, prolonged the grieving process, and caused the damage.  I did this to myself.

Stoicism teaches that we are responsible for our own emotional responses and works on the premise that no one can make us feel something that we do not choose to feel.  In an age when emotions are encouraged and allowed to run wild and undisciplined, this choice may not seem apparent.  However, we know from examples among our fellow humans that emotional self-control is not only possible but also common in various cultures and zeitgeists.  The ancient Greek Stoics called the state resulting from emotional self-discipline apatheia, from which we get the modern word apathy, but the proper translation of apatheia is tranquillity.  This pursuit of tranquillity is just one of many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism. 

It is the emphasis on cultivating emotional self-control that has led to apparently emotionless people to be called stoic.  The truth is we can also choose to be happy and that is the point that is missed by non-Stoics.  It is not about feeling nothing.  It is about taking responsibility for our feelings.

Another important Stoic concept is un-attachment and this figures into an interpretation of the Creed.  To recognise that Nothing is True is to see the impermanence of things.  Mary Read alludes to this in Black Flag when she describes the Creed as, “the world’s only certainty” possibly in reference to the expression, “the only constant is change”.  Things, people, and situations do not last.  They may be true today and right now, but they are not True in the sense of constancy.

A key Stoic philosopher was the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius.   Every now and then he would sleep on the floor to remind himself that his comforts are impermanent. This type of self-denial serves to help us to not take our comforts for granted but also to remind us that we can exist without these comforts and conveniences.  One of the problems of wealth is that it protects the rich from the real world.  The trivial is given too much value and the demands of reality like food, shelter, and clothing are taken for granted as simply always existing.   In short, it’s what we call First World Problems.  Stoic practices show us that we can survive happily without our mobile phones, internet, or any number of luxuries that we have come to see as necessities.  Another common technique among Stoics when faced with challenges is to ask, "What's the worst that can happen and can I live with that?"

The second part of the Creed also has Stoic implications.  When we recognise that everything is permitted, remember that this applies to others as much as it does ourselves.  We cannot control or necessarily predict the actions of others because everything is permitted.  You must then decide how you choose to respond to how others use their freedom.


THE THREE PHILOSOSOPHIES OF ASSASSIN’S CREED

Throughout the Assassin’s Creed series there are constant references to a philosophical core belief system that is never revealed in full.  After all, this is a video game series and not some philosophical treaties.  What we do have is the Creed.

As mentioned in a previous essay, the phrase “Nothing is True, Everything is permitted” is most likely of ancient origin, at least Friedrich Nietzsche seem to think so in 1887.  It had been erroneously attributed to the Medieval Assassins of Iran and Syria, but it was not until the game series that it became known as The Assassin’s Creed.   I believe that within this simple phrase we have allusions to Existentialism, the Romantic, and to Stoicism and that all three of these philosophies can be found expressed in the game series. 

The Assassins of the game are wholly fictional works created by a committee of writers overseen by corporate interests.  However, the three philosophies behind the Creed are very real and accessible.  We may not know the philosophical core beliefs of the fictional Assassins, but chances are that a follower of a synthesis of these three philosophies would fit right in within the Assassin Order.

Since Assassin’s Creed is a modern work of fiction, it’s good to provide examples of the Assassin’s principles outside of the game context.  With this is mind, I have posted below a video of Dennis Hopper reciting the poem If by Rudyard Kipling.  Within its verses you will find this synthesized philosophy of Existentialism, the Romantic, and Stoicism that I believe represents the Assassin Philosophy.