[begin transmission]

But 2B, that 'shadow' personality stuff? Isn't it all pseudoscientific nonsense?
Psychoanalysis has been supplanted by behaviorism, which, in turn, has long-since been replaced by modern cognitive science/psychology.

Although there are several psychoanalytic concepts and theories that haven't aged very well at all, that isn't to say that the entire field is without merit. Several of it's tenets have actually proved valid through the century and evolved as science became more sophisticated. The Jungian shadow is one such example of a concept that has withstood both scientific scrutiny and the test of time.

In fact, it's alive and well to this very day and under intense investigation by personality psychologists. Just earlier this month an article was published by the American Psychological Association that explains it in modern terms, with a measure currently in development to quantify it:
http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Frev0000111

Looking back at the past, it's all too easy to focus only on the momentous scientific breakthroughs, thinking that one theory or discipline that rises instantly obsolesces that which precedes it. This isn't true; there's often the migration of central ideas. One could look at the historical example of Phlogiston theory -> caloric theory -> mechanical theory of heat in the context of thermodynamics to see that it certainly isn't the case. Scientists in all three theories knew that the phenomenon of heat involved the transfer and exchange of something, and that notion continued through each transition. Advancement is generated by working off of existing frameworks, imperfect as they might be, but being intellectually honest enough to entertain the possibility that existing theories aren't quite up to scratch, should contradictory data present itself through experimentation.

It speaks to the hubris of the modern hyper-rational mind, I think. To look at all that we've accomplished, reveling in the fruits of our sciences while simultaneously taking them for granted. We read about the theses of yesteryear and scoff at how primitive they are in comparison to our current understanding, failing to acknowledge that they are key, intermediate steps in a much grander, iterative process.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

------- The Jungian Shadow -------

Over the past few months I've become smitten by the idea of the shadow, a psychoanalytic concept credited to Carl Jung.
Those intense feelings of hatred you might feel. The lust for power that drives. Jealousy and greed felt under competition.
All of these unsavory qualities of human disposition that mother and father warned you against comprise the shadow.
Aptly named, since it embodies personality attributes society shies away from, nestled covertly behind the public persona.

And for good reason too.

Living in modern civilization, there lies the certain expectation that you conduct yourself accordingly.
One does not expect their roommate to kill them for taking their parking spot, for instance. That'd be insane.
But in pre-civilized times? Why, it was pure, unchecked competition. Fitness was the brutal master all beings answered to.
If someone wronged you, and you were sufficiently enraged, you had free license to exact your terrible revenge.

The shadow is a very deep, primordial aspect of our nature; back then it was just overtly 'us'.
It is only now hiding in obscurity because of the new rules we play by, as modern people living interdependently.
But that's just it; it's only hidden. It's still very much a part of all of us. Found within even the saintliest among us.
That's something that, I think, bears remembering. Especially those of us with a guilty mental constitution.


------- NieR: Gestalt Summary -------

And what better to serve as a reminder than a full play through of the prequel to NieR: Automata? NieR: Gestalt/Replicant.
Though they are, for the most part identical games, Gestalt features an older protagonist saving his daughter.
Whereas Replicant features your typical JRPG pretty boy protagonist, saving his sister.
For the sake of this elaboration, I'll be referencing Gestalt.

Right, so a quick summary: You play as Nier, a father to a young, sickly girl named Yonah suffering from the 'Black Scrawl'.
To find a cure you must navigate through a somber, doomed, medieval world in search of the 'Sealed Verses'.
Oh, and humanity has been driven to near-extinction thanks to beasts known as 'Shades'. More on that later.
Along the way Nier befriends some very curious characters known as Grimoire Weiss, Kainé, and Emil.

Eventually, Nier and co. collect all the Sealed Verses, but as fate would have it, the 'Shadowlord' (hah) kidnaps Yonah.
The second half of the game involves Nier collecting the keys to access the Shadowlord's castle and rescue her.
Once in the Shadowlord's castle, a number of revelations are had, putting forth some concerning implications.
Consider this a spoiler warning. But honestly, the game debuted in 2010 and you shouldn't be peevish about such things.

The largest revelation to be had in NieR: Gestalt/Replicant is the fact that the Shades are actually corrupted human souls.
It wasn't the Shades themselves that led humanity to the brink of extinction, but prior events far before their arrival.
Thanks to events elaborated in Ending E of Drakengard, 'White Chlorination Syndrome' was the true scourge of humanity.
In the face of this certain extinction, humanity developed technology that separated body from soul.

'Gestalts' are the souls; 'Replicants' are the bodies that the Gestalts are to inhabit after things blow over.
However, quite unexpectedly, Replicants began to exhibit consciousness, and Gestalts began to corrupt.
Corrupted Gestalts would exhibit bestial, unstable behavior. They became known as Shades.
Replicants began to exhibit personality, desire, and a will of their own. The player comes to take them for granted as human.

Replicants that had their corresponding Gestalt degrade would exhibit the Black Scrawl disease.
As hinted at in the opening game sequence, both Nier and Yonah underwent the separation process and became Gestalts.
Hence why, quite confusingly after the massive time skip, both Nier and Yonah are alive and well living in a medieval village.
The Nier and Yonah we've come to know throughout the game are Replicants. The original Nier is the Shadowlord.


------- Integration of the Shadow -------

At it's core, NieR: Gestalt is a game of competing wills and conflicts of interest.
For most of the game, you operate under the assumption that you're the person in the right. You're the noble hero.
Afterall, Shades are beastly creatures that kill and torment people. Also, you're striving to save your daughter.
How could one possibly question the virtuosity of rescuing one's kin while destroying evil in the process?

It isn't until late in the game (and your second play through) that complication and nuance are introduced.
And I really appreciate that about Yoko Taro writing this into the game; handling morality in a realistic fashion.
There truly are zero-sum games that occur in life and must be played. There must be a victor and the defeated.
Though this concept has been explored by other games in recent times, it hasn't been with nearly as much sophistication.

In the Forrest of Myth, Sleeping Beauty at one point asks Nier "What is the most important thing in the world?".
The player is then offered several variations of "Yonah" to choose from. This is no accident and shouldn't be overlooked.
Yonah is the only answer available at hand, and the only acceptable answer because, to Nier, she truly is most important.
To a caring father, this is only natural and it is expected. Taken for granted, even. But should it really be?

As we witness later, Nier goes on to slay the Shadowlord once and for all and recovers Yonah.
That's a happy ending for everyone involved, right? The good that was aimed for was achieved.
But it's revealed that the Shadowlord was essentially the lynchpin to Project Gestalt. If he dies, the project dies.
If the project dies, humanity as a whole is doomed. The remaining Gestalts will corrupt into Shades, Replicants will expire.

But to the father of a daughter, none of this matters. As Nier replied to Sleeping Beauty's query: "Yonah".
And that is to be taken as sincere and deeply as possible; not even mankind's fate trumps that of his daughter's.
You could object and say "There's no way Nier could've known that he would doom humanity in saving his daughter."
And that's certainly true. Had he known, perhaps he would've acted differently. But to that, I offer a counterpoint.

In their final visit to the Aerie, Nier and co. engage an enormous Shade known as Wendy.
The outcome of the battle sees Emil activating as the ultimate weapon and leveling the village. Inhabitants and all.
When Emil expresses grief over his actions, Nier hamfistedly offers words of comfort and cliche.
Something along the lines of, "Sucks to be them, but at least we're alive."

I have to admit, at first I laughed at the awkward callousness Nier exhibited. But there's more to the scene.
Nier, in the pursuit of rescuing his daughter, truly did not care about those people.
Maybe it's because the inhabitants of the Aerie were unlikable, xenophobic people to begin with? Who's to say.
But upon witnessing their wholesale destruction, it becomes starkly apparent that everything is truly subordinate to Yonah.

Again, his reply to Sleeping Beauty's question? Yonah. She really is the most important thing in the world.
This is particularly resonant because often times people claim the sentiment of 'I love you', but merely mouth the words.
They wouldn't be willing to put absolutely everything secondary to that one person in their life.
Yet they love to proclaim that they would, going so far as to say that they'd die for them.

No one cares about what you do with your limited, singular life in pursuit of who you value.
Of greater interest is what you would do with the lives of others. Would you kill for them?
Would you destroy an entire village, or humanity as a whole for them?
Would you actively interfere with the happiness and well-being of someone else, for them?

In this last question, I'm referring to the Shadowlord and Gestalt Yonah. One of several tragedies in the game.
As stated before, the Shadowlord is the real Nier. He is concerned with getting Gestalt Yonah into her Replicant.
It becomes strikingly apparent that both fathers are diametrically opposed to each other, in both objective and will.
The salvation of one would mean certain death for the other. There is no middle-ground. There is no compromise.

The beauty of it is that no one could say that the other is any less justified or wrong in their pursuits.
Both men care deeply for their daughters, and are acting out that sentiment to it's inevitable conclusion.
It's the classical tale of men against men, but without the philosophical dualistic framework to separate hero from villain.
Both are heroes with regard to intention and outcome. However, both are villains with respect to means.

And, just like in real life, the victor is simultaneously a hero and a villain.
The victor is the person who successfully integrates his shadow. His full capacity for wickedness.

The exact moment when Nier consciously integrates his shadow occurs after Gestalt Yonah leaves Replicant Yonah's body.
Gestalt Yonah, in her compassion towards Replicant Yonah and Nier, chooses to voluntarily accept death.
Witness to this, the Shadowlord falls to his knees and cries out in despair, as he loses his life's capital meaning.
However, there is little time to brood, as the Shadowlord and Nier engage in one final fight to the death.

It is during this time that Nier utters some remarks that are simply chilling:
"You want me to understand your sadness? You think I'm going to sympathize with you?"
"I swore to protect my daughter and my friends. If someone puts them in danger, they must stand aside or be cut down!"
Awful words to say to someone that had lost their daughter! More egregious coming from a man who should be sympathetic.

I'm reminded of a notion in the Buddhist doctrines that there is no good and that there is no evil.
Instead, it's wisdom versus ignorance. People commit atrocities out of ignorance, almost unconsciously.
This scene squares away that thesis real quick.
Nier is aware of the Shadowlord and his plight, but he's voluntarily choosing not to care.

Now, at this point it's all too tempting to try and characterize Nier as a villain, but remember, it's all for Yonah.
His own self-prescribed reason to live is to protect her. And in order to protect, you must be capable of doing harm.
Else, without a capacity to harm, what could you possibly hope to protect?
That's the proper response, coming with maturity and parenthood. The shrinking of compassion for favor of selectivity.

If there's anything that this scene does, is that it underscores the importance of that transformation.
To be able to temper your compassion. Paralyze the impulse for kindness. It is a necessity to be outright cruel.
In the pursuit of what you want, in the defense of those few you genuinely love, employing this quality is unavoidable.
The alternative? Of refusing to integrate your shadow? A life as a pathetic, ineffectual worm, subject to the will of others.

Christ. Leave it to a Replicant, a synthetic human, to show us just what it means to be the genuine article.


------- Kainé -------

Initially, my thoughts were only extended towards the titular character Nier.
But upon closer examination and further contemplation of the other characters, there are more threads to follow.
Kainé certainly continues this theme of the shadow and it's integration, but it's taken in a different direction.
Namely, it's taken as sort of what happens when you integrate it incorrectly.

But first things first: a brief summary of Kainé's backstory.
Kainé is an ill-tempered (understatement) orphaned girl that hails from the Aerie; the aforementioned xenophobic village.
Ostracized because of her intersex status, she goes to live outside the village with her grandmother.
The two women grow close and, predictably, tragedy strikes as one day grandmother is killed by a Shade known as Hook.

Mangled and left for dead from the encounter, Kainé vows to avenge her grandmother and kill Hook.
In this weakened state, she is opportunistically 'possessed' by another malevolent Shade known as Tyrann.
Detecting the hatred in her heart, he forms a pact with Kainé, allowing her to keep her body for the time being.
The caveat? She must continue to keep hating and keep killing. Thus a symbiosis of sorts is formed.

Immediately obvious from all the symbolism is that, yes, Kainé does in fact integrate her shadow successfully.
Tyrann, being an evil-hearted Shade and possessing Kainé following her grandmother's death is an artful metaphor.
A metaphor for how the lust for vengeance is seen as a possessing, seductively powerful force. One that overtakes you.
One that, once you lose that which is most precious to you, can serve as a powerful buttress that can sustain for a time.

Tyrann represents that empowering hatred and bitterness. That's the primordial shadow rallying against enemies.
As the story unfolds, Kainé eventually succeeds in exacting her revenge by killing Hook.
I really want to emphasize her success here, and the fact that she accomplished it with Tyrann's help.
It's important because it further reiterates the point that vileness does yield results. It can be used in service to the will.

Again, I appreciate Yoko Taro's writing, because it's honest. Sometimes, being a bad person does pay off.

However, where Kainé went wrong, and where Nier's integration went right, is determined by intention and implementation.
Kainé embraced her shadow to kill Hook, simply out of pure, unbridled hatred.
Contrast this to Nier, who murdered to protect and save his daughter. He employed evil as a means towards an end.
Not as an ends to itself. Grandmother died; there is no one to protect, and Kainé surely didn't kill Hook for the greater good.

Here lies the difference. It isn't so much that Kainé integrated her shadow, but her shadow outright swallowed her whole.
That was accomplished once she made that malignant pursuit of her life's singular purpose
It's evident in the aftermath following the battle with Hook; Kainé expresses little desire to live after her accomplishment.
With no will of her own; she had been rendered a tool that has out-lived it's own purpose, by her very own resentment.

I feel it necessary to closet here by mentioning that it isn't as if I don't condone the act of vengeance.
Personally, I do. Under certain circumstances I believe it can be warranted and the only just outcome.
But I will maintain that undertaking such an endeavor, one ought to be prepared to accept all consequences that may result.
Though, I'd highly advise against deriving all of life's meaning from it's pursuit, unless the intent is to become like Kainé.


------- Emil -------

Sweet, innocent, and pure Emil. Such an effective bishounen/shota-type character.
I'm particularly fond of the white blindfold he sports. Much more formal than your YoRHa-issued combat visors.
In all honesty, who doesn't adore Emil? Thankfully, this being a Yoko Taro game, not even the purest is above misery.
As even precious little Emil suffers a hapless fate with his shadow, at his very own hands no less.

So what is this darling young boy's story? Well, as it turns out, he's an experimental weapon.
Common trope in Japanese media, isn't it? Developing children into next-gen soldiers or weapons.
Anyway, none of this is known to Emil when you first meet him. It isn't revealed until the second half of the game.
Emil, along with his sister Halua, are magical weapons developed by the National Weapons Laboratory.

As such, Emil has the ability to petrify anyone he gazes upon to stone, hence the necessity of his blindfold.
It is revealed that Emil holds disdain for his eyes, harboring an immense guilt and shame for what he is capable of.
Not too difficult to see why; it's an intense burden to place on someone, to make their sole purpose in life to commit harm.
I'm certain there are negative traits about each and every one of us that are part of us, but we have a distaste for.

But, as Emil's tale demonstrates for us, we have to learn to accept and embrace that shadow of ours; it's part of us.
In the second half of the game, we revisit Emil's manor to find a cure for Kainé's petrification (long story).
The aforementioned cure is located in an underground laboratory underneath the mansion, à la Resident Evil.
In the terminal sector of the laboratory, Emil encounters the ultimate weapon, his sister, and recollects his terrible nature.

After a fierce battle, Halua is defeated, and Emil absorbs her power to use in service towards unpetrifying Kainé.
A clearly symbolic gesture of integrating the shadow, as Emil can protect those he loves with this devastating power.
Power which comes at a price. Emil is robbed of his pretty looks and is transformed into a monster.
This isn't something he takes lightly either; now, instead of hating only his eyes, he now has hatred for his total appearance.

The transformation is so much more than superficial; Emil is now a full-blown threat to be reckoned with.
His petrification ability that brought him so much grief before? Mere child's play.
Hence, there is more darkness to despise, to feel ashamed of, to deny as being part of one's self.
Nobody wants to believe that they are a monster capable of awful things. Certainly not gentle Emil.

But as we will see, failure to acknowledge and accept that beast doesn't come without consequence.
As alluded to before, Emil ends up leveling an entire village: the Aerie.
This was brought on by the stress of battle with the Shade, Wendy. Emil had to resort to his destructive capability.
Capability which, because he denied his terrible nature, he could not wield and control responsibly.

Unable to wield his power once unleashed, Emil overkills Wendy and dooms the Aerie to it's fate.

Pragmatically speaking, this all makes intuitive sense. You are unfamiliar with that which you choose to ignore.
I think most of us could think of some circumstances in which our worse nature got the best of us in a heated situation.
How many times have you blown up on someone because you never had the guts to tell them your true, horrible thoughts?
How many times have you been struck with jealousy because you lacked the ruthlessness to achieve as your neighbor?

By not being the monster, and in Emil's circumstance outright rejecting it all together, you invite catastrophe.
Because eventually the time will come when those shadow characteristics manifest themselves, and you will be unprepared.
Unable to skillfully harness that malignancy towards a greater, directed purpose, unforseen ruin is the inevitable conclusion.
That ruin isn't only limited to yourself either, but can also prove detrimental to those closest around you.

All this being said, I can understand why people would be reluctant to integrate their shadow.
It's worked out of us as children; common morality is taught nearly exclusively on the 'right' side of the dichotomy.
We're never encouraged to experiment from what's 'wrong'.
We're instructed and told, to spare us of the wisdom and pain of experience.

There's some good intention in that, but it's largely a cultural failing of overprotective post-modern times, I think.
The fear is something along the lines that a a few sins will corrupt absolutely, that there is a point of no return.
But, to truly understand morality, to become a 'good' person, you have to be well-acquainted with what's 'bad'.
Much like any other dichotomy, really. Knowledge of one side compliments the other, but is to never supplant it.

[end transmission]

Thus when the ambitious man whose slogan was 'Either Caesar or nothing' does not become Caesar, he is in despair over it. But this signifies something else, namely, that precisely because he did not become Caesar he now cannot bear to be himself. Consequently he is not in despair over the fact that he did not become Caesar, but he is in despair over himself for the fact that he did not become Caesar.

Søren Kierkegaard. The Sickness Unto Death. 1849.

[begin transmission]

Alice2,

We’re a tad over the two-month mark since I’ve last sent a substantive email to you. You haven’t sent me a reply in kind.
I’ve asked you for one before, to which you said you’ve formulated one and have long since sent it; I haven’t received it to this very day.
Per your recommendation I’ve checked my filters, sifted through my junk email, and even asked that you forward a copy to Nyan. Nothing but dust and echoes.
I’ll give you another chance to send it again. Though, past this, I’m starting to think that maybe you’d rather not continue our little discussion.

And it really is a shame, Alice2. I’m very fond of our long-form conversations. It lends further credence to my claim that these kinds of matters are fairly complicated.
They necessitate a kind of lengthy deliberation. How long has it been that we’ve been talking about this? Approaching ten months now, by my estimation.
Since then we’ve gotten to the nitty-gritty of it all; I’ve been convinced of a fair amount and had to change my presuppositions as a consequence.
I could only imagine what changes have occurred on your end. Though, I’d rather not imagine; I’d rather have you tell me.

But as far as I can tell, you’re reluctant to even talk to me at this point. Has this disagreement really soured our relationship? Has being in the wrong given you that much pause?
Our exchanges could be characterized as bitey at some points, but it’s nothing insurmountable. Surely not for you.
Perhaps some of my claims levied against you are weighty, but I’d never expect you to go perfectly silent. Defend yourself and make a counter-argument, by all means.
Contrary to what you may believe, I want to believe that you did not perpetrate such deplorable acts on purpose. I want you to show me that they were justified.

In truth, I’m not comfortable with getting in the last word. It isn’t my wish to assert moral superiority here, that’s not my business. I’m talking to you as one despicable person to another.
However, if you truly did make a mistake, I want to see you correct it. ‘Own it’, as you put it, do the right thing or justify your actions.
I realize this may have the implication that you have to answer to me, as if I’m the judge that dictates the standard to which you should carry yourself.
It’s not an entirely faulty conceptualization. I think you’d agree that there is some utility that lies in a challenge. Especially when that challenge is in the interest of others.

Be that as it may, the way I see it, failure to correct your behavior or at least justify it counts as a concrete transgression. A conscious refusal to do what we both know to be right.
I’d reckon that it’s your pride or dishonesty that prevents you from doing it. It isn’t anything new. Change is painful as we’re all too in love with the worst part of ourselves.
So I don’t expect it to come easily at all, and I expect you to fail. Absolutely everyone falls short of the ideal, that’s why it’s an ideal.
That being said, I hope you exercise a little more humility, moving forward. That this incident serves as a reminder that even you, Alice2, are no absolute authority on any matter.


-2B

[end transmission]