#Subjectified

[deancasforcutie]

Testaments to Cas' Testament by its Heartfelt Architects

Jensen:

x x x x x x x x x x

Misha:

x x x x x x x x x x x x

(art by @sketching-fox and @masterofevilmonkeyness-moem)

Speight:

x x x x

Bobo:

x x x x

Misha: "I'd been working with the writer of that episode, who was a producer on the show as well, for a year on that scene. He did stick around. He was gonna leave the show for the final year but he was like 'if we can get this scene as the final scene for Castiel, then I'm gonna stick around for another year.' And I was like 'holy shit' because that's a really big devotion." (x)

[joelletwo]

:)

[apas-95]

masks that cover the face but leave the eyes visible give someone a deeply personal character - they present someone as a thinking, feeling person first and foremost, and anonymise them physically.

on the other hand, masks that cover the face but leave the mouth visible do the opposite - they present someone as a body, a visceral and physical being. where the eyes subjectify, the mouth objectifies them.

[archivizte]

while watching dunmeshi i did not register falin's boobs as particularly appealing or sexy because her chimera self just seemed to be depicted the way any untamed animal would be?? the scenes of her and marcille bathing together depicted comfort in non sexual physical intimacy very nicely i thought. but coming to the fandom, every second post abt falin is abt her boobage. all the chimera cosplays sexualise her greatly. in other news everyone on this site earnestly believes that boobs aren't inherently sexual

[theabigailthorn]

Do you think you’ll ever write a book, either philosophy related or maybe memoirs? I really love your content and your ideas and would love to know more about how you organize your worldview.

FUNNILY ENOUGH

I've been seriously considering writing a book about the way the NHS treats trans people, and more broadly about institutional pathologisation in the current global moment we're having. I've had meetings with some big publishers, even drafted an introduction and proposal, and gotten offers back!

BUT

I don't think I'm going to do it, for a few reasons. In no particular order:

Writing a book about that subject might raise the consciousness of a few folks, but does it help build material power for trans people against my country's healthcare system, and the other systems that subjectify trans people globally? Not really, no. In fact it would legitimise the elite media consensus that engaging with elite media is the path to achieving change. Books aren't just books, they're "media events," and accordingly they increase the power and prestige of the media they happen in. If I wrote this book, newspapers would review it, chart it, I'd be invited onto Radio 4 and shit to "debate" and "discuss" it... Does doing that actually help get medicine into trans people's hands? Not really! Writing books and "getting ideas out there" is pretty busted as a theory of change unless it builds power. The fantasy of writing a really good speech or article or book and suddenly the scales fall from cis people's eyes is just that - a fantasy. No minority group has ever gotten change or justice that way. All that would happen is I'd "enhance my brand" - which means that I, with my private education and privilege and opportunities, would make money and get clout whilst contributing to the elite capture of trans rights as a political struggle. I'd become "a leader in the community" and get invited to some dinners and media events and blah blah blah - meanwhile the violence continues. That media event would also enhance the brands of those cis-dominated media outlets and the "having conversations" industrial complex, who are part of the fucking problem! The struggle should be led by the poorest and most vulnerable among us and link up with other material struggles like resisting immigration raids, prison abolition, decriminalisation of drugs and sex work, etc. So I could likely do more good for my community by donating my time and money to good causes and also by some uhhhh... other stuff - let's call it 'direct assistance' - which I already do and find fulfilling.

The offers aren't that big! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Writing that book might do harm if it's co-opted into ongoing right wing attempts to dismantle the NHS and all trans care. It'd be intellectually satisfying but not creatively satisfying or fun. I'd have to immerse myself in a very bleak world for a long time: I would enjoy having done it but not the doing.

It'd ruin my career. Right now I actually fly pretty under the radar of a lot of my country's nastiest transphobes. That would end if I wrote a book about the NHS. Newspapers, editors, publishers, journalists, and probably some MPs and Lords would become very invested in tearing me down. I've seen it happen to queer writers and journalists before. Remember, Britain is a small country and our media is run out of one city by a very small group of people who all know each other and who also know all our politicians, in some cases because they're literally the same people! That book would be like kicking a hornets' nest. Maybe they'd come after me publicly, or maybe it would be more British: somebody would make a quiet phone call and I'd suddenly be radioactive. Bye-bye acting career, bye-bye any public career.

For related reasons, writing that book and doing the necessary media campaign would expose me to a WORLD of harassment and shit from some of the worst people in the universe, which I frankly don't want. That might include lawsuits.

My dream job is to play [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. Writing a book wouldn't take me closer to that. It would cement my brand as 'trans educational writer' instead of 'actress and writer,' which is what I am.

So yeah, all in all, I don't think I'm going to do it. Not right now anyway. I reserve the right to change my mind. Think I'll write a screenplay instead!

[talonabraxas]

“Turn your vision inward and the whole world will be full of supreme spirit.” — Ramana Maharshi

Eye of Eternity Talon Abraxas The Qabbalists conceive of the Supreme Deity as an Incomprehensible Principle to be discovered only through the process of eliminating, in order, all its cognizable attributes. That which remains--when every knowable thing has been removed--is AIN SOPH, the eternal state of Being. Although indefinable, the Absolute permeates all space. Abstract to the degree of inconceivability, AIN SOPH is the unconditioned state of all things. Substances, essences, and intelligences are manifested out of the inscrutability of AIN SOPH, but the Absolute itself is without substance, essence, or intelligence. AIN SOPH may be likened to a great field of rich earth out of which rises a myriad of plants, each different in color, formation, and fragrance, yet each with its roots in the same dark loam--which, however, is unlike any of the forms nurtured by it. The "plants" are universes, gods, and man, all nourished by AIN SOPH and all with their source in one definitionless essence; all with their spirits, souls, and bodies fashioned from this essence, and doomed, like the plant, to return to the black ground--AIN SOPH, the only Immortal--whence they came.

AIN SOPH was referred to by the Qabbalists as The Most Ancient of all the Ancients. It was always considered as sexless. Its symbol was a closed eye. While it may be truly said of AIN SOPH that to define It is to defile It, the Rabbis postulated certain theories regarding the manner in which AIN SOPH projected creations out of Itself, and they also assigned to this Absolute Not-Being certain symbols as being descriptive, in part at least, of Its powers. The nature of AIN SOPH they symbolize by a circle, itself emblematic of eternity. This hypothetical circle encloses a dimensionless area of incomprehensible life, and the circular boundary of this life is abstract and measureless infinity.

According to this concept, God is not only a Center but also Area. Centralization is the first step towards limitation. Therefore, centers which form in the substances of AIN SOPH are finite because they are predestined to dissolution back into the Cause of themselves, while AIN SOPH Itself is infinite because It is the ultimate condition of all things. The circular shape given to AIN SOPH signifies that space is hypothetically enclosed within a great crystal-like globe, outside of which there is nothing, not even a vacuum. Within this globe--symbolic of AIN SOPH--creation and dissolution take place. Every element and principle that will ever be used in the eternities of Kosmic birth, growth, and decay is within the transparent substances of this intangible sphere. It is the Kosmic Egg which is not broken till the great day "Be With Us," which is the end of the Cycle of Necessity, when all things return to their ultimate cause.

In the process of creation the diffused life of AIN SOPH retires from the circumference to the center of the circle and establishes a point, which is the first manifesting One--the primitive limitation of the all-pervading O. When the Divine Essence thus retires from the circular boundary to the center, It leaves behind the Abyss, or, as the Qabbalists term it, the Great Privation. Thus, in AIN SOPH is established a twofold condition where previously had existed but one. The first condition is the central point--the primitive objectified radiance of the eternal, subjectified life. About this radiance is darkness caused by the deprivation of the life which is drawn to the center to create the first point, or universal germ. The universal AIN SOPH, therefore, no longer shines through space, but rather upon space from an established first point. Isaac Myer describes this process as follows: "The Ain Soph at first was filling All and then made an absolute concentration into Itself which produced the Abyss, Deep, or Space, the Aveer Qadmon or Primitive Air, the Azoth; but this is not considered in the Qabbalah as a perfect void or vacuum, a perfectly empty Space, but is thought of as the Waters or Crystalline Chaotic Sea, in which was a certain degree of Light inferior to that by which all the created [worlds and hierarchies] were made."

In the secret teachings of the Qabbalah it is taught that man's body is enveloped in an ovoid of bubble-like iridescence, which is called the Auric Egg. This is the causal sphere of man. It bears the same relationship to man's physical body that the globe of AIN SOPH bears to Its created universes. In fact, this Auric Egg is the AIN SOPH sphere of the entity called man. In reality, therefore, the supreme consciousness of man is in this aura, which extends in all directions and completely encircles his lower bodies. As the consciousness in the Kosmic Egg is withdrawn into a central point, which is then called God--the Supreme One--so the consciousness in the Auric Egg of man is concentrated, thereby causing the establishment of a point of consciousness called the Ego. As the universes in Nature are formed from powers latent in the Kosmic Egg, so everything used by man in all his incarnations throughout the kingdoms of Nature is drawn from the latent powers within his Auric Egg. Man never passes from this egg; it remains even after death. His births, deaths, and rebirths all take place within it, and it cannot be broken until the lesser day "Be With Us," when mankind--like the universe--is liberated from the Wheel of Necessity.

[bettertwin1]

heheh... Bettertwink.. hehehh.....

Am i to be subjectified to the title of twink because of my slender build and beautiful face? Tch. Matter not, I will accept, I suppose. If i must.

[donttagmypostwithyourcharacter]

Don't subjectify me

[bleedingichorhearts]

𝐍𝐨𝐱 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐔𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞: 𝐋𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬, 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐤 & 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

“This au is still not ready. So, it won’t subjectify to only have it on May with all the Mer-stuff. This au will happen. It will be developed, but just not quickly as it’s been a solo writing and idea. I’ll add more to it when I can, and this is my first au, and I want to make it work and have others to make a stand in it too. I’m not willing to throw it away when an idea has been made for it already.” - Ichor

More Added: Information on Levels, Ranks & Reproduction.

So far, I’ve given information on three main levels: Primeval, Ancient and Primordial. Each of them pretty distinct against one another as Primeval only has a ranking system while the other two should be obvious of what they represent and shouldn’t need further explanation unless one is willing to get a pounding headache to try and figure out the mystery that should be left alone.

Anyways, to the Primeval Ranks: This system will signify how dangerous/catastrophic this certain creature can be, and it all depends on the size, power and intelligence of the creature. Though, don’t always be fooled by the intelligence aspect for that particular field can be classified as foolery to even include.

Failure, this is the highest, most dangerous rank. Specifically called “Failure” because of the un-succession to even site, or live for such creatures. One doesn’t get to see this creature and live. One doesn’t get far down enough in the sea, or even be quick enough to appreciate these creatures. Your boat, town or yourself can be gone in a blink. However, they are on the more non-existent side, a added myth. This rank specifically belongs to the Adeptus Custodes, Gray Knights and anything that is on the same power level.

Ruin, second to highest. This rank is for, well… the destructive. Creatures big enough to level a land scape and cause a hurricane or a tsunami themselves. It’s honestly such a rarity to see such rank as it’s not often there are creatures that second the Failure rank. 0.10% for it to be a normal Marine. 1% for it to be a Primaris Marine. These are such low percentages is because not many can grow as big as they can. They can’t eat what they can, and reproduction is low if not existent.{Spartak & Zadkiel}

Savage, a rank that’s in its name. Anything more dangerous than intelligence is the pure animalistic nature within. That instinct that pulls, herds you, and tells you what to do. Never thinking too much of the consequences. {Blasius}

Truculent, this is a much more tamer rank. They are still animalistic, but they show a bit more sentience on what they are doing. Their instincts pull, but they have a bit of control over it. {Ruslan & Amadeus}

Apathetic, ultimately passive but still an aggressive rank. This is the safest the rank you can get, but still just as equally dangerous. It’s possible to get close, but not too close. They will snap a shattering warning at you that feels like a current. {Dorvenos, Rasul & Zazir}

These, of course, can very well vary. One moment they are of an Apathetic rank, and the next? They are in the Savage rank. So, some are assigned more than just one rank. The max going up to 2 ranks. Psyker’s have a personal ranking called “Bloom” May not sound threatening, but they are despite the limited uses of such practices. However, don’t get that bloom mixed up with the Death Guards Bloom.

Do note these are not in-story notes. No one in the Au knows about the creatures as they are treated like criptids.

𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:

This is a rather “easy” category to discuss as Primordial is a considered a god-like entity. You can’t see them, but the belief is around you, and well… you can’t mate with a being that isn’t there. Ancient, it’s been a rumor they have taken mates before, way back, but it’s never been confirmed if they have mated and created life before… (The legions do not count.) Primeval, these one can take mates and have been heard of creation. However, the process is… different than of humans.

Primeval ranks have their different ways of courting, but they all-er most have the same mating style. They wrap around their counterpart and lay eggs within them or in their pouches, if they have one. For most, if not all of these creatures are male. 99% are not Hermaphroditism or more specifically Simultaneous Hermaphroditism. They cannot undergo a sex change. That 1%? Belongs to the Emperor Children. “Cursed” or “Un-Cursed.” It doesn’t matter.

This, however, still has its complications. Some may try to mate with that 1%, but that’s honestly extremely rare and difficult. For most of the creatures like being within their own pod and like to have trust than mindless mating. They mate for life, even for polygamy or monogamous relations. They protect and provide for each other. The only reason they would want mate with the 1% is if they are the last of the kind. The difficult part? Is that 1% can from 100 to 0 real quick, and fight to the death with them. Most do not win. Most of the time it can be a deathly tie. (No dolphin horror here.)

Back to oviposition or laying eggs. These creatures need a host, a counterpart, a mate. They can rely on other males to put eggs into their pouches (if they have a pouch) but since they are such aggressive, battle front creatures? It’s very highly they loose the eggs in many different ways. Sure, they can nest them but they would not gather the incubation they need like they would in a host or in a pouch. The deep is incredibly cold for such little eggs to try and live through. That, is where the Salamanders come in handy for their dominion is anywhere with lava lakes around, and usually that dominion is the nesting area. The Salamanders become secondary brood mothers and protectors when the time comes for that.

When they do lay eggs in the nests. All of them will be “blank eggs.” They are just a very fragile, translucent, squishy-like eggs with nothing but a yolk inside of them. There is no skeleton, no fertilization. That only comes around when one is willing enough to stick around and care for the eggs, but again. With them being aggressive, hardened creatures? Not most know they have to stick around. Instead, their instincts tell them to defend, protect, provide food. Care in different ways than with an egg. It’s why it’s more recommended to lay them with someone else to incubate rather than putting them plainly within a nest. For their instincts care for another, but not an egg.

The reproduction rate is not a high one for them. It’s deadly low because of how the eggs are treated, environment and the little creatures they don’t notice that love to feast upon them, but once they catch wind of such creature that dares to feast upon their hatchlings/unfertilized eggs? They are 100% tearing them apart, and leaving the body in the water/land. Not even feasting upon such foulness as they take their kin rather seriously for all of their numbers a low.

“@egrets-not-regrets” - Tagged (Anyone else can also be tagged for this au if you like)

[elisaenglish]

The Kiln and the Quantum of Relationships

Anything you give your time to and polish with attention will become a lens on your search for meaning, will lavish you with metaphors that become backdoors into the locked room of your most urgent reckonings.

This, of course, is what happens in our most intimate relationships, themselves the product of chemistry and chance. Under the extreme pressures of expectation and the high heat of need, something reacts with something, impurities are exposed and bubbles burst, each person activating dormant potencies in the other, so that a distinct third entity comes alive—the dynamic reality of the relationship—incinerating the notion of the individual self as a set of inherent properties, hinting at the relational nature of reality itself. 

A century after the Indian poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore observed that  “relationship is the fundamental truth of this world of appearance,” physicist Carlo Rovelli traces the scientific path to that same truth in his excellent quantum primer Helgoland (public library), titled after the windswept North Sea island on which the twenty-three-year-old Werner Heisenberg arrived at the idea that became the mathematical blueprint for the staggering cathedral of quantum field theory: that revolutionary description of how one aspect of reality—one object, one entity, one part of nature—manifests itself to any other. Because every description of a thing is a claim about its nature, at the heart of the theory is the claim that interaction is the fundamental reality of the universe, that there are no entities as such—only dynamic manifestations of which we catch an evanescent glimpse and call that flashing image entity. 

Rovelli writes:

“The world that we know, that relates to us, that interests us, what we call “reality,” is the vast web of interacting entities, of which we are a part, that manifest themselves by interacting with each other. […] The properties of an object are the way in which it acts upon other objects; reality is this web of interactions.”

This is why objectifying—the impulse to reduce something or someone to a set of properties—always misses the point of the objectified, and why we always draw closer to reality when we instead “subjectify” the universe, as Ursula K. Le Guin put it in her magnificent meditation on the interplay of poetry and science. The intersubjective—the dynamic reality that arises from the interactions between objects with seemingly fixed properties—is the essence of the quantum world, and it is also the essence of human relationships. Who you become in a particular relationship is not any more you or less you than who you are in your deepest solitude, because there is no you—the self is not the container of your interactions with the rest of the world but the contents. 

Observing that the “phantasmal world of quanta is our world,” Rovelli writes:

“The world fractures into a play of points of view that do not admit of a univocal, global vision. It is a world of perspectives, of manifestations, not of entities with definite properties or unique facts. Properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects. Objects are such only with respect to other objects, they are nodes where bridges meet. The world is a perspectival game, a play of mirrors that exist only as reflections of and in each other.”

With an eye to quantum entanglement, he articulates what I learned at the kiln:

“Even if we know all that can be predicted about one object and another object, we still cannot predict everything about the two objects together. The relationship between two objects is not something contained in one or the other of them: it is something more besides.”

The great paradox of this subject-object approach to modelling reality is that all of our descriptive models are inherently claims of an outside perspective on it, and yet they all arise from our mental activity, which is inherently interior. In a passage that calls to mind quantum pioneer Erwin Schrödinger’s koan-like insistence that “this life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is in a certain sense the whole,” Rovelli writes:

“If the world consists of relations, then no description is from outside it. The descriptions of the world are, in the ultimate analysis, all from inside. They are all in the first person. Our perspective on the world, our point of view, being situated inside the world… is not special: it rests on the same logic on which quantum physics, hence all of physics, is based. If we imagine the totality of things, we are imagining being outside the universe, looking at it from out there. But there is no “outside” to the totality of things. The external point of view is a point of view that does not exist. Every description of the world is from inside it. The externally observed world does not exist; what exists are only internal perspectives on the world which are partial and reflect one another. The world is this reciprocal reflection of perspectives.”

This fundamental axiom of being is, to me, the first and final proof that the measure of our lives is the light between us.

Source: Maria Popova, themarginalian.org (20th April 2025)

[an-irrelevant-truth]

if you want to be objectified it might be useful to subjectify one or more of your partners

[assaultmystic]

but not all boys have a sanctioned path in, if you let every boy into masculinity, ie;?if boyhood is an acceptable form of masculinity, sometimes things that boys turn into that aren’t . men get in too.

im having a little trouble working out what youre driving at here anon. but ive no investment in trying to characterise boyhood as a monolith, i completely agree that not everyone subjectified by boyhood has a viable accession to manhood. i dont see that as at odds with my point, yknow?

[mountain-sage]

The scriptures speak of three Holy rivers within.

These are Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss.

Being beyond thought or effort they cannot be objectified or subjectified.

They are so dear, so near, behind the retina and before the breath.

You need not see This, you are It.

Papaji

[heraverick]

would you weawwy subjectify me? 🥺🥺🥺

[freakoutgirl]

In the mood to be subjectified

[beingharsh]

oh your pronouns are simply the reflect of whoever is speaking of/to you? that's cool. not as cool as me though. i tell people to call me by their name as to avoid subjectifying myself