#Transcendental logic

[geopolicraticus]

The Dimensions of Transcendental Logic

The Problem of Formalization.—The bulk of the problem of logic is not the process of deduction, but the formalization of the problem that precedes deduction. It is how the problem is set up for deduction rather than the deduction itself in which the art of logic lies. And here we must take the “art” of logic seriously, for that part of logic not yet reduced to mechanical derivation remains an art and not a science and cannot be mechanized in the manner of fully formalized proof procedures. How exactly we shoehorn ordinary thought into the strictures of logic so that anything at all can be derived is the real problem of logic, and this is the problem of formalization. This problem of formalization has many dimensions, all of which bear upon the result, but each of which can be taken up separately. How we break down the problem of formalization into discrete parts is itself a part of logic, or, rather, transcendental logic. Ancient axiomatics distinguished between axioms and postulates: axioms are common to all the sciences, while postulates were specific to a particular body of knowledge. We could still break down formalization in this way, but the distinction between axioms and postulates is now regarded as archaic. While the distinction remains valid, it passes over in silence specifying the choice of logic employed in derivation, unless we consider this a tacit function of the axioms. Twentieth century axiomatics distinguished between formation rules and transformation rules: formation rules govern what can be a well-formed formula (WFF), while transformation rules govern transforming one WFF into another WFF. This conceptualization has the virtue of making reasoning (transformation) explicit, but it does not explicitly thematize the elements that may be employed in a WFF (what we could call the ontology of a calculus), which is taken for granted, as the ancient conception took the univocity of reasoning for granted.   

[blueheartbooks]

Delving into Kantian Philosophy: A Review of "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" stands as one of the most influential and enduring works in the history of philosophy, reshaping the landscape of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. Published in 1781, this monumental treatise seeks to provide a comprehensive account of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge, offering profound insights into the nature of reality, the structure of the mind, and the conditions of possibility for knowledge.

At the heart of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's revolutionary concept of transcendental idealism, which posits that the mind plays an active role in shaping our experience of the world. Kant argues that the mind imposes certain fundamental concepts and categories—such as space, time, and causality—on our sensory perceptions, organizing them into a coherent and intelligible framework. Through his rigorous analysis, Kant seeks to uncover the a priori conditions that make experience possible, shedding light on the fundamental structures of human cognition.

One of the key themes of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. Kant argues that while we can only know phenomena as they appear to us through the filter of our cognitive faculties, there exists a realm of noumena that lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This distinction has profound implications for Kant's philosophy, shaping his views on the limits of human understanding and the nature of metaphysical inquiry.

Moreover, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is notable for its meticulous analysis of the nature of space, time, and causality, which Kant identifies as the fundamental categories of human thought. Kant argues that these categories are not derived from experience, but rather constitute the necessary framework through which we interpret our sensory perceptions. By elucidating the synthetic a priori nature of these categories, Kant lays the groundwork for his transcendental idealism and challenges traditional empiricist and rationalist accounts of knowledge.

In addition to its groundbreaking philosophical insights, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is also celebrated for its rigorous methodology and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry. Kant's meticulous argumentation, intricate terminology, and careful exposition of concepts make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a challenging but rewarding read for scholars and philosophers alike. Kant's influence extends far beyond the boundaries of philosophy, shaping the development of disciplines such as psychology, physics, and linguistics, and leaving an indelible mark on the intellectual landscape of the modern world.

In conclusion, "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant is a towering achievement in the history of philosophy, offering profound insights into the nature of human knowledge, the structure of the mind, and the limits of metaphysical inquiry. Kant's rigorous analysis, groundbreaking concepts, and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a timeless classic that continues to inspire and challenge readers with its depth, complexity, and intellectual rigor.

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" is available in Amazon in paperback 24.99$ and hardcover 31.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 516

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[blueheartbookclub]

Delving into Kantian Philosophy: A Review of "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" stands as one of the most influential and enduring works in the history of philosophy, reshaping the landscape of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. Published in 1781, this monumental treatise seeks to provide a comprehensive account of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge, offering profound insights into the nature of reality, the structure of the mind, and the conditions of possibility for knowledge.

At the heart of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's revolutionary concept of transcendental idealism, which posits that the mind plays an active role in shaping our experience of the world. Kant argues that the mind imposes certain fundamental concepts and categories—such as space, time, and causality—on our sensory perceptions, organizing them into a coherent and intelligible framework. Through his rigorous analysis, Kant seeks to uncover the a priori conditions that make experience possible, shedding light on the fundamental structures of human cognition.

One of the key themes of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. Kant argues that while we can only know phenomena as they appear to us through the filter of our cognitive faculties, there exists a realm of noumena that lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This distinction has profound implications for Kant's philosophy, shaping his views on the limits of human understanding and the nature of metaphysical inquiry.

Moreover, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is notable for its meticulous analysis of the nature of space, time, and causality, which Kant identifies as the fundamental categories of human thought. Kant argues that these categories are not derived from experience, but rather constitute the necessary framework through which we interpret our sensory perceptions. By elucidating the synthetic a priori nature of these categories, Kant lays the groundwork for his transcendental idealism and challenges traditional empiricist and rationalist accounts of knowledge.

In addition to its groundbreaking philosophical insights, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is also celebrated for its rigorous methodology and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry. Kant's meticulous argumentation, intricate terminology, and careful exposition of concepts make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a challenging but rewarding read for scholars and philosophers alike. Kant's influence extends far beyond the boundaries of philosophy, shaping the development of disciplines such as psychology, physics, and linguistics, and leaving an indelible mark on the intellectual landscape of the modern world.

In conclusion, "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant is a towering achievement in the history of philosophy, offering profound insights into the nature of human knowledge, the structure of the mind, and the limits of metaphysical inquiry. Kant's rigorous analysis, groundbreaking concepts, and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a timeless classic that continues to inspire and challenge readers with its depth, complexity, and intellectual rigor.

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" is available in Amazon in paperback 24.99$ and hardcover 31.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 516

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[warriorprincesstramp]

love philosophy when it's just shooting the shit about some random crap nobody cares about. when it borders on the scientific? the mathematic? let's all kill ourselves.

[wizlizbelle3]

Some logical things about the void state, brainwaves, etc

This isn't going to be formatted as well. I'm just throwing out information I keep getting asked about.

First of all, the void state is not a deep meditative state. You can use meditation to enter the void but it's not a meditative state because you're not aware of the 3d at all.

The void created your reality whether you like it or not but everything that happens to YOU was created by the pure consciousness. The reason your life was horrible is because you didn't know you could control it.

When you manifest with the void or in general, you have a few options. You can manifest literally anything and everything in THIS REALITY THAT IS YOUR CURRENT ORIGINAL REALITY, or you can shift. You get everything you want in this reality if that's what you want. If you wanna shift, you shift. You can script that nobody finds you weird but be careful and make sure you don't run into any trouble (you could just erase it even if you do so don't worry). You don't have to go anywhere. Nothing is impossible. Kind of the whole point of the void.

Alpha state is a state where you are still conscious but relaxed and not stressed out (unlike the beta state where you are stressed). Your thoughts flow freely in the alpha state and there is no restrictions caused by stress. You should always begin your meditation by getting into alpha state first because it makes going deeper in your mind even easier. It's also when you are focused on something for an extended period of time.

Theta state is a level deeper and it consists of reduced consciousness, lucid dreaming, REM sleep, etc. This is when we are about to go to sleep or wake up in our minds during dreams (lucid dreaming).

Now DELTA state is what babies and infants stay in when they're in the womb. It's a state where you lose bodily awareness and have access to your conscious mind. This is why so many get into the void with delta waves.

Alpha: So to induce each of these states, you have to meditate. But the levels of meditation are different. For Alpha State, you can use the distraction technique by @luckykiwiii101, follow the Nordic Witch meditation on youtube, or do the Silva method.

The silva Method is basically lying down and taking 3 deep breaths. On the first deep breath, imagine the number 3 and say it in your mind three times. Do the same for 2 and 1, breathing deeply each time. Afterwards, you count from 100 to 0. If you're not used to meditation, 100 to 0 should do it. But if you meditate constantly, you might need to do 100 to 0, then 50 to 0, then 25 to 0 to reach deeper levels of consciousness.

Theta: Theta waves is fairly easy. You need to stay still and allow your body to fall asleep. Take deep breaths and visualize a candle or an object in your mind (anything works great). Keep your focus on either your breathing or the object.

Delta: Delta waves can be induced by yoga nidra or transcendental meditation

Transcendental Meditation: Transcendental meditation is a type of meditation that involves repeating a mantra. This type of meditation is effective in reducing stress and anxiety levels.

Does that sound familiar? Yep, SATS requires a mantra or a looped visualization as well. Yoga Nidra also gets you into delta state. That's why it works. You visualize and hold this visualization as the last thing in your mind before you lose consciousness (waking consciousness that is).

So the point of all of this is that if you have not been able to induce pure consciousness despite trying the methods, it means your mind is overactive. I don't care if you fell asleep during a method. That just means your mind went from active (beta) or overactive (gamma) to Delta directly (because delta is induced when you sleep naturally).

Let's come back to the void. Like we discussed earlier, the void is not a meditative state. So why do meditative states lead you to the void? It's because meditation allows you to disconnect from your physical body and go deeper within your mind. The void is the purest state of consciousness. Each brainwave is a state of consciousness.

So the way to actually induce the void (a foolproof technique) is to not expect when you're doing the methods. Let me explain:

When you do any method, during it and after you're done and if you have not fallen asleep, you look for symptoms or signs. This brings your mind back to beta because you're questioning, searching etc.

When you stop expecting, you're letting your ego be put to rest. So the next time you do a method, if you feel that you're not stressed, move forward with any method and don't look for symptoms. But if you've been stressing out all day, do an alpha meditation first and then do anything else. The distraction technique is still technically SATS. You use the alpha state meditation to relax and then you visualize which puts you into theta, and eventually delta, then finally pure consciousness.

That's all I have right now.

[opbackgrounds]

The Romanticism of One Piece III: Emotionality and the Absurd

AO3 Part I Part II Part IV

“Do you think I am an automaton? — a machine without feelings?” —Charlotte Brontë

After opening with Roger’s death in chapter one, the perspective of the manga immediately switches to focus on our main protagonist, whose first action we see is of him stabbing himself in the face in order to look cool. The introductory panel of Luffy is one of childish, absurd determination. His mouth alone takes up over half his face. It looks a bit silly, and after patching him up, Shanks just…laughs. 

The Romantics, on the whole, were not silly people, but they were bursting at the seams with emotion. If you read a Romantic novel expect the characters to spend a great deal of time soliloquizing about their feelings. If you look at a Romantic painting expect bold colors and dynamism composition. If you listen to a Romantic musician expect songs that are passionate and full of energy, unrestrained from traditional forms. In a word, these people were extra. Specifically, the Romantics embraced the full spectrum of human emotion, from the depths of despair in a work like the Sorrows of Young Werther to the heights depicted within the essays of the American transcendentalism movement. 

This heightened emotionalism of the Romantics always trumped over what was realistic or scientific. For example, look at a work like Jane Eyre. While melodramatic, it’s a work that ostensibly takes place in the real world. Yet the most emotionally-charged moments introduce supernatural elements, including reuniting the main couple at the end when Jane randomly hears Mr. Rochester speak her name on the wind from halfway across the country. 

And by random, I truly do mean random. It’s difficult to put into words how out of left field this is for the reader. There are only a few pages left in the book, and by this time the main couple has spent more time apart than together and had no reason to believe they’d ever be reunited. But their love becomes a literal supernatural force strong enough for Jane to rush after him without hesitation, and they live happily ever after. 

(Please, I beg of you to watch the last 10 minutes of this movie. It was one of the most unintentionally hilarious experiences of my life).

It’s an extreme and slightly goofy example, but what is One Piece if not extreme and slightly goofy? It’s a story that, at its most fundamental level, makes you feel. We all know the pain of crying over a boat, and what makes the death of the Merry, along with any other number of things that should be stupid but aren’t, is Oda’s commitment to sincerity. Emotional truth trumps logic, always. It’s why we celebrate characters like Bellmere who can’t not call herself a mother, even if it costs her her life. The bond of found family is more powerful than the logical choice of denouncing Nami and Nojiko. Oda had other characters try to inject logic into Bellmere’s decision after the fact, but there’s no evidence from Bellemere herself that she was behaving logically, and we love her for it.

The artstyle itself emphasizes emotional truth over realism. Oda is more than capable of drawing in a more realistic or traditionally “cool” style if he wanted to, but it would be to the detriment of the story he’s trying to tell. Every smile takes up half a character’s face. People who are crying are portrayed as sniveling wrecks. Their fury becomes palpable, their hopelessness gut-wrenching, their joy contagious. Oda chose very early on not to give Luffy thought bubbles, and in the absence of knowing what he’s thinking, it was absolutely imperative that the audience knew what he’s feeling. The few times his expression becomes ambiguous immediately stand out and lend a scene a sense of weight that borders on unease.

This expressiveness doesn’t stop with the character designs. Oda will tweak perspective to make important people or places seem even larger than they really are. Buildings will follow Loony Toons logic if a gag calls for it. Locations and ships, particularly once the crew reaches the Grand Line, become absurd and impossible. 

(Remember, Hancock and Mihawk are both only a little over six foot tall)

But for One Piece, it’s in this absurdity that the impossible becomes possible, through sheer force of will. Luffy is on every level ridiculous, but it’s because he’s ridiculous that he chooses at every turn to keep fighting against forces that by all rights should be impossible to defeat. Many of Luffy’s most despicable enemies are the ones who in some way or another have taken away other people’s ability to feel as they wish. Arlong took away Nami’s happiness and made her cry. Crocodile stole Vivi’s ability to smile. The zombies of Thriller Bark are reduced to mindless slaves while the toys under Doflamingo’s rule are physically unable to emote. And perhaps most powerfully of all, the people of Wano and the slaves of the Celestial Dragons are both forced to smile despite their horrific circumstances, a bastardization of the joy Luffy brings no matter where he goes. 

In his prelude to the Lyrical Ballads, William Wordsworth wrote that, ��All good poetry is the overflow of powerful emotion”. He linked emotion to motion, or action, with the catalist between the two being the creative power of imagination. While many of Luffy’s fights are ultimately won because he’s able to punch another person real good, the seemingly limited ability of the gum-gum fruit forces him to come up with increasingly-creative ways in which one can stretch, until he’s able to stretch the fabric of reality itself to bend to his whims. It is said, in all the world, that there is no power more ridiculous.

At the end of chapter 218 a galleon falls from the sky, and Oda quotes fictional physicist Willy Karen, stating, “Anything man can imagine is a possibility in reality.” It is through the power of imagination and absurdity that Luffy fights against the forces of oppression. There is nothing more dangerous to an institution than losing its credibility, and nothing so dangerous to one’s credibility than the power of mockery. If one can face the darkest, most difficult times and still laugh then, well, they become a little less dark and difficult. By laughing, and helping others to do the same, it becomes easier to make it through another day. It’s important, I think, that Oda has emphasized the act of laughing so much, drawing attention to it by virtue of giving out unique laughs all throughout the series.

One Piece has the reputation of being "the silly pirate manga". This isn’t untrue, but it does a disservice to the breadth of feeling the series inspires. As I said, we’ve all cried over a boat. Slavery, oppression, and every sort of hardship exist within the One Piece world just as much as it does our own. 

Oda’s answer is to combat these things with the silly and the absurd, by being creative and imaginative while pursuing one’s passions with one’s whole heart, no matter where those passions may lead. He tells the reader you have the right to feel as you wish and pursue joy wherever you may. And when you run up against resistance, you fight like hell for what you believe in. 

And as it turns out, that’s a Romantic virtue, too.

[143folium]

Random Thoughts About Debilitated Planets in Vedic Astrology (Pt. 2)

So to continue my series, I'll reiterate the possible good sides of your debilitated planets (in case you have them). I would probably cover the bad sides of exalted placements next after I go through all the planets.

Again, 4th house is comfort and "debilitation" is often taken under the context that it's a planet's uncomfortable condition. Debilitation is also seen as a loss of dignity and strength, losses are part of the 12th house's domain. And since debilitation is outside or away of the planet's comfort, this would also fit the significance of foreign lands of the 12th house. So let's begin!

Debilitated Mercury (in Pisces)

In my opinion, this is the most undebilitated among the debilitated placements. I would say it gives off the same vibe as Vipreet Raj Yoga. Some may argue that Mercury is a highly logical planet, a businessman, a socialite, and being in Pisces makes it boundless and unrealistic. I can agree to that, Mercury in Pisces is almost always a fever dream, but this can also manifest as some sort of genius. Remember, Pisces is otherworldy. It is a highly transcendental sign. Since it's water and dual, it can morph its transcendence in any context. A Mercury in Pisces can make one a wildcard, where in the world of business, you could be as competent as a Libra Mercury. In the world of technology, you could be as groundbreaking as an Aquarius Mercury. Lastly, this can make one an artistic/creative powerhouse.

It can also be taken as venturing on business pursuits, pursuing intellectual growth, better motivation towards multilingualism, and heightened activity as one steps into foreign lands.

Debilitated Venus (in Virgo)

One thing about this, is it's actually a pretty sweet placement for Venus. Virgo is details, yeah, nitpicky yeah. But on the good side, this is the pinnacle of genuine constructive criticism out of love. Also if you are the type to be attracted to the smarts, then this can reassure you with an intellectual partnership. Virgo is also a sign associated with healing, care, service. While yes, Venus in Vedic astrology is not the same in Western in a way that Venus is self indulgent and materialistic, if you think about it, Virgo is almost always in tangent with comforts. How can you perform your best if you aren't at your best health? How can you enjoy your stay in a hotel that is not clean? Venus likes to enjoy, and Virgo has any means to make this Venus self sufficient to make its enjoyment and own self indulgences. Virgo enables Venus in general. There cannot be tender love without meticulous and routinely approach to care and service.

This can also be seen as finding love, having boosted creativity, luxury, more enjoyment in foreign lands.

That's it for now, I'll follow up with our last two planets Jupiter and Saturn. I hope you enjoyed!

[finisnihil]

I'm thinking about Sunday again and how we're shown that Robin is his weak spot over and over and really he probably wouldn't have slipped up if not for the people trying to exploit her death.

In 2.0 we see them hanging out together and the like but we don't see them interact much, Robin very obviously cares for Sunday but Sunday maintains a quiet atmosphere and professional facade and as such one could wonder how much he actually cares about her as his sister.

But then at the end of the quest we see the cracks start to show a bit. Sparkle pretends to be Robin and Sunday becomes enraged. Until then he's pretty subdued in his behavior in the aftermath, but the mockery of his sister's death is too great a slight and when Sparkle offers to pretend to be Robin so nobody gets suspicious, Sunday tells her to stuff it and go away which she does. It's a really telling scene that when Robin is involved his careful mask cracks down the middle and he begins to not think clearly or strategically because later in 2.1 it's noted he went back to accept the offer.

Aventurine notes that Robin's death is an entry point for the IPC to exploit but not for the overall Family, just for Sunday. Sunday is reeling to find control with the other heads pressuring him and the IPC closing in like a pack of hungry vultures. Sunday was always alone except for Robin and they're both pretty aware of the corruption as Sunday is desperately trying to root out the traitor while Robin left and is helping him research Death. Aventurine knows this and he knows Sunday is off balance and prone to overlooking things in his rage and grief that's potent in everything he does after 2.0's quest. Sunday went to Ratio for informatiom because he understands Aventurine's a threat needing to be taken seriously and he needs to handle him quickly and efficiently and that makes him sloppy enough to get duped by the Jade cornerstone.

When Welt and Acheron investigate his office they find all the letters and lists and investigations into the problem but they also find a beloved lightcone of a young Sunday watching his sister preform on a toy stage. Robin is noted as finding this preformance her favorite and most cherished one. Is Sunday clapping to applaud her or is he keeping time for her? Sunday keeps things running himself so she can free to persue her dreams. He does care about Robin, they really only have each other.

Finally... Gallagher. You really see the persona Sunday puts on finally shatter all at once. This is the man who murdered his sister and who's caused him so much trouble and stress. Nobody's around to fool, nobody's around to witness, and you finally see all his pent up rage and grief spill out. That's his mistake, he's so distracted letting out his bottled up feelings Gallagher's able to get him before he can even react.

Small side analysis, Robin's name and signature song come from the Emily Dickinson poem of the same name. She's an American Poet who mostly wrote works of Romanticism and Transcendentalism. We haven't see much of Robin but she seems to match Romantacism, a literary movement that focused on emotion and individualism with no regard for logic. Sunday seems to match Transcendentalism, a literary movement that focused on the relationship between humanity, the divine, and nature with little regard for science. The three aspects of Transcendentalism also match Xipe's motif of threes, like their three heads.

[talonabraxas]

“Like all magical mysteries, the secrets of the Great Work have a triple meaning: they are religious, philosophical and natural. Philosophical gold in religion is the Absolute and Supreme Reason; in philosophy, it is truth; in visible nature, it is the sun: in the subterranean and mineral world, it is the purest and most perfect gold. Hence the search after the Great Work is called the Search for the Absolute, and this work itself is termed the operation of the sun.” ― Éliphas Lévi, Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual

Eye in the Triangle Dale Keogh

Eliphas Levi: The Triangle of Solomon

The perfect word is the triad, because it supposes an intelligent principle, a speaking principle and a principle spoken. The Absolute, revealed by speech, endows this speech with a sense equivalent to itself, and in the understanding thereof creates its third self. So also the sun manifests by its light and proves or makes his manifestation efficacious by heat.

The triad is delineated in space by the heavenly zenith, the infinite height, connected with East and West by two straight diverging lines. With this visible triangle reason compares another which is invisible, but is assumed to be equal in dimension; the abyss is its apex and its reversed base is parallel to the horizontal line stretching from East to West. These two triangles, combined in a single figure, which is the six-pointed star, form the sacred symbol of Solomon’s Seal, the resplendent Star of the Macrocosm. The notion of the Infinite and the Absolute is expressed by this sign, which is the grand pantacle – that is to say, the most simple and complete abridgement of the science of all things.

Grammar itself attributes three persons to the verb. The first is that which speaks, the second that which is spoken to, and the third the object. In creating, the Infinite Prince speaks to Himself of Himself. Such is the explanation of the triad and the origin of the dogma of Trinity. The magical dogma is also one in three and three in one. That which is above is like or equal to that which is below. Thus, two things which resemble one another and the word which signifies their resemblance make three. The triad is the universal dogma. In Magic – principle, realization, adaptation; in Alchemy – azoth, incorporation, transmutation; in theology – God, incarnation, redemption; in the human soul – thought, love and action.

There are three intelligible worlds which correspond one with another by hierarchic analogy; the natural or physical, the spiritual or metaphysical, and the divine or religious worlds. From this principle follows the hierarchy of spirits, divided into three orders, and again subdivided by the triad in each of these.

All these revelations are logical deductions from the first mathematical notions of being and number. Unity must multiply itself in order to become active. An indivisible, motionless and sterile principle would be unity dead and incomprehensible. Were God only one He would never be Creator or Father. Were He two there would be antagonism or division in the infinite, which would mean the division also or death of all possible things. He is therefore three for the creation by Himself and in His image of the infinite multitude of beings and numbers. So is He truly one in Himself and triple in our conception, which also leads us to behold Him as triple in Himself and one in our intelligence. This is a mystery for the faithful and a logical necessity for the initiate into absolute and real sciences.

The Word manifested by life is realization or incarnation. The life of the Word accomplishing its cyclic movement is adaptation, or redemption. This triple dogma was known in all sanctuaries illuminated by the tradition of the Sages.

The primeval Sages, when seeking the First of Causes, behold good and evil in the world. They considered shadow and light; they compared winter with spring, age with youth, life with death, and their conclusion was this: The First Cause is beneficent and severe; It gives and takes away life. Then are there two contrary principles, the one good and the other evil, exclaimed the disciples of Manes. No, the two principles of universal equilibrium are not contrary, although contrasted in appearance, for a singular wisdom opposes one to another. Good is on the right, evil on the left; but the supreme excellence is above both, applying evil to the victory of good and good to the amendment of evil.

The principle of harmony is in unity, and it is this which imparts such power to the uneven number in Magic. Now, the most perfect of the odd numbers is three, because it is the trilogy of unity. In the trigrams of Fohi, the superior triad is composed of three YANG, or masculine figures, because nothing passive can be admitted into the idea of God, considered as the principle of production in the three worlds. For the same reason, the Christian Trinity by no means permits the personification of the mother, who is shown forth implicitly in that of the Son. Hence, in the trigrams of Fohi, the three inferior YIN correspond to the three superior YANG, for these trigrams constitute a pantacle like that of the two triangles of Solomon, but with a triadic interpretation of the six points of the blazing star.

Dogma is only divine inasmuch as it is truly human – that is to say, in so far as it sums up the highest reason of humanity. So also the Master, Whom we term the Man-God, called Himself the Son of Man. Revelation is the expression of belief accepted and formulated by universal reason in the human word, on which account it is said that the divinity is human and the humanity divine in the Man-God. Paracelsus and Agrippa did not set up altar against altar but bowed to the ruling religion of their time: to the elect of science, the things of science; to the faithful, the things of faith.

In his hymn to the royal Sun, the Emperor Julian gives a theory of the triad which is almost identical with that of the illuminated Swedenborg. The sun of the divine world is the infinite, spiritual and uncreated light, which is verbalized, so to speak, in the philosophical world, and becomes the fountain of souls and of truth: then it incorporates and becomes visible light in the sun of the third world, the central sun of our suns, of which the fixed stars are the ever-living sparks. The Kabalists compare the spirit to a substance which remains fluid in the divine medium and under the influence of the essential light, its exterior, however, becoming solidified, like wax when exposed to air, in the colder realm of reasoning or of visible forms. These shells, envelopes petrified or carnified, were such an expression possible, and the source of errors or of evil, which connects with the heaviness and hardness of animal envelopes. In the book Zohar, and in that of the Revolution of Souls, perverse spirits or evil demons are never called otherwise than shells – cortices. The cortices of the world or spirits are transparent, while those of the material world are opaque. Bodies are only temporary shells, whence souls have to be liberated; but those who in this life obey the flesh build up an interior body or fluidic shell, which, after death, becomes their prison-house and torment, until the time arrives when they succeed in dissolving it in the warmth of the divine light, towards which, however, the burden of their grossness hinders them from ascending. Indeed, they can do so only after infinite struggles, and by the mediation of the just, who stretch forth their hands towards them. During the whole period of the process they are devoured by the interior activity of the captive spirit, as in a burning furnace. Those who attain the pyre of expiation burn themselves thereon, like Hercules upon Mount Oetna, and so are delivered from their sufferings; but the courage of the majority fails before this ordeal, which seems to them a second death more appalling than the first, and so they remain in hell, which is rightly and actually eternal; but souls are never precipitated, nor even retained despite themselves therein.

The three worlds correspond together by means of the thirty-two paths of light, which are as steps of a sacred ladder. Every true thought corresponds to a Divine Grace in heaven and a good work on earth; every Grace of God manifests a truth, and produces one or many acts; reciprocally, every act affects a truth of falsehood in the heavens, a grace or a punishment. When a man pronounces the Tetragram – say the Kabalists – the nine celestial realms sustain a shock, and then all spirits cry out one upon another: ‘Who is it thus disturbing the kingdom of heaven?’ Then does the earth communicate unto the first sphere the sins of that rash being who takes the Eternal Name in vain, and the accusing word is transmitted from circle to circle, from star to star, and from hierarchy to hierarchy.

Every utterance possesses three senses, every act has a triple range, every form a triple idea, for the Absolute corresponds from world to world by its forms. Every determination of human will modifies Nature, concerns philosophy and is written in heaven. There are consequently two fatalities, one resulting from the Uncreated Will in harmony with its proper wisdom, the other from created wills in accordance with the necessity of secondary causes in their correspondence with the First Cause. There is hence nothing indifferent in life, and our seeming most simple resolutions do often determine an incalculable series of benefits or evils, above all in the affinities of our DIAPHANE with the Great Magical Agent, as we shall explain elsewhere.

The triad, being the fundamental principle of the whole Kabalah, or Sacred Tradition of our fathers, was necessarily the fundamental dogma of Christianity, the apparent dualism of which it explains by the intervention of a harmonious and all-powerful unity. So is the Apocalypse the book of the Gnosis or Secret Doctrine of the first Christians.

‘The sacred word MALKUTH substituted for KETHER, which is its kabalistic correspondent, and the equipoise of GEBURAH and CHESED, repeating itself in the circles of heavens called eons by the Gnostics, provided the keystone of the whole Christian Temple in the occult versicle.

MALKUTH, based upon GEBURAH and CHESED, is the Temple of Solomon having JAKIN and BOAZ for its Pillars; it is Adamite dogma, founded, for the one part on the resignation of Abel and, for the other, on the labours and self reproach of Cain; it is the equilibrium of being established on necessity and liberty, stability and motion; it is the demonstration of the universal lever sought in vain by Archimedes. A scholar whose talents were employed in the culture of obscurity, who died without seeking to be understood, resolved this supreme equation, discovered by him in the Kabalah, and was in dread of its source transpiring if he expressed himself more clearly. We have seen one of his disciples and admirers most indignant, perhaps in good faith, at the suggestion that his master was a Kabalist; but we can state notwithstanding, to the glory of the same learned man, that his researches have shortened appreciably our work on the occult sciences, and that the key of the transcendent Kabalah above all, indicated in the arcane versicle cited above, has been applied skillfully to an absolute reform of all sciences in the books of Hoene Wronski.

The secret virtue of the gospels is therefore contained in three words, and these three words have established three dogmas and three hierarchies. All science reposes upon three principles, as the syllogism upon three terms. There are also three distinct classes, or three original and natural ranks, among men, who are called to advance from the lower to the higher. The Jews term these three series or degrees in the progress of spirits, ASSIAH, YETZIRAH and BRIAH. The Gnostics, who were Christian Kabalists, called them HYLE, PSYCHE and GNOSIS; by the Jews the supreme circle was named ATZILUTH, and by the Gnostics PLEROMA. In the Tetragram, the triad, taken at the beginning of the word, expresses the divine copulation; taken at the end, it expressed the female and maternity.

Tetractys. The Tetractys (also known as the Decad) is an equilateral Triangle formed from the sequence of the first ten numbers aligned in four rows. It is both a Mathematical idea and a Metaphysical Symbol that embraces within itself - in Seedlike form - the Principles of the Natural World, the Harmony of the Cosmos, the Ascent to the Divine, and the Mysteries of the Divine Realm. So revered was this Ancient Symbol that it inspired Ancient Philosophers to swear by the name of the one who brought this gift to Humanity --Pythagoras.

[curiouspupsicle]

I’m working on my first long Good Omens inspired fan fic (Human AU).  Crowley and Aziraphale are both long distance sailors getting ready to compete in a singlehanded, round the world race.  In an effort to keep going and be accountable, I’ve posted a proposed snippet--unedited, first draft. Let me know in the comments if it makes you want to see more. Tagging a few writers whose works have inspired me to do something so stupid brave. (@holycatsandrabbits, @pookasluagh, @klikandtuna, @missunderstoodlyrics, @bellisima-writes, @waitingtobebroken, @itsscottiesstark, @dragonfire42, @lavendermoonlitskies, @di-42) Still handling smoothly, the car gave no hint of strain as the speedometer hit 160 kph—why can’t Americans join the rest of the world? I mean it’s not like there’s any logic to it. They fuck off because they can’t stand British rule just to hang onto this archaic system of measurement, I mean…  Crowley took a deep breath and banished his brain imps before he couldn’t find his way back. Because he had been thinking something. Now what was it?  Oh. Yeah. He was boooooooooored. Transcendentally bored. If he could set his alarm and not wake up until Beaufort…  Well, technically, he could have flown.   But it wasn’t just about speed, was it? It was about reading the conditions, outwitting nature, and controlling—well, something.   Crowley was too smart to think he was in control of anything. Not really. But even smart people paddle that river in Egypt.   Nope. Driving, even at these speeds, offered none of the thrills of helming a sailboat on the open ocean with spray pouring over the bow. Shouting to your crew over the roar of the sea. Or outwitting your competition when you sensed a shift in the wind before anyone else.  He’d rather be rail meat for some twatwaffle captain in a bumfuck village regatta in the South Downs than be reduced to only driving a car the rest of his life. Not that it would ever happen. He was the best in the world—or at least, that’s what he intended to prove. But if you’re going to go, might as well do it with style. He patted the steering wheel of the sports car affectionately before slowing slightly to take his exit—Beaufort.  He loved a thrill. He wasn’t crazy.  ****************** Yanking the line from the clutch, the man rushed to the bow, avoiding the flogging mainsail. He dropped the anchor and waited for it to stop the boat's motion as it grabbed the muddy bottom.  In what seemed like only moments later, the anchor had set and the fair-haired figure congratulated himself on a job well done. He could have used the diesel engine to anchor. But there’s a satisfaction that comes with doing things the way sailors have done them for centuries. And one must not let one’s skills decline.  Why call yourself a sailor if you rely on an engine for every tricky maneuver? And, after all, Aziraphale had standards. It just wouldn’t do for him to do what most sailors would do.  He was the best in the world—or at least, that’s what he intended to prove. Again.

[transmutationisms]

i saw ur response to the unconscious/conscious as supposedly “divided spectrums” and it got me rotating ol homoerotic duo deleuze-guattari's great anti-oedipus (and mil platôs too, for one). i tried searching up if u had written on it but couldn't find anything at all – wld love to hear some thoughts. any of your thoughts about it akshually. peace

hah anti-oedipus was my first foray into psych-critical scholarship way back in the day :')

my position on psychoanalysis has evolved a lot since then and i think most noticeably in the sense that i've become a lot more interested in historicising it and less interested in haggling over its scientificity or whatever---ie, the question to me isn't so much "is mommy-daddy-me an intrinsically organising principle of human psychology" (obviously not) but more "what are the conditions that allow the claim to be credibly made that it is?" which is i guess to say that, like, in some ways the less insightful part of a text like anti-oedipus is always going to be the assertion that the current ruling ontology isn't a transcendentally necessary one---like, of course it isn't, lol, and the analysis here would be so productively served if deleuze and guattari had a serious engagement with historical thinking; deleuze at his best is on par with like foucault as far as historicity goes.

i think the model that anti-oedipus proffers of a broadly schizophrenic operating logic of capital has some explanatory utility but i don't think that's equivalent to forming a foundation for liberatory political action. i find deleuze generally at his most interesting where he takes up the claim that the desire for one's own oppression is not just a matter of a kind of socratic lack of (self-)knowledge and is instead a genuine expression of desire under capitalism and its familialism. but for as much as this part of the argument wants to build off reich, it's also a place where the text is noticeably not building off a historical-material analysis and instead has a really unhelpful unproductive tendency to tell a psychological myth of desire as an intrinsically revolutionary force and capitalism as motivated by the need to constrain it. so again this is, at best, just not a foundation for liberatory action because it's not historically or materially grounded.

i really adored deleuze and guattari when i first read them and i would still say that anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus changed a lot about how i thought and read. but also these days i would honestly throw in for reich or like any other frankfurt freudo-marxist over most deleuze, lol

[katyspersonal]

Somehow I will discover super elusive and obscure connections in the lore, and then will misinterpret something as simple and plain as Goldmask's ending kghygcnh

The notions that it does make everyone equal before it and that it is opposite of Ranni's ending ARE still true! But for some reason, for the longest time, I've been reading it as giving everyone the opportunity to interpret it and gain from it in their own way! Ranni yeets the Elden Ring, and by effect the GO "infinitely far away" for the next thousand of years, so everyone is free to forge their own fate! So I thought Goldmask did the same, but minus the "remove all golden things that stemmed from GW" part. Think like, removing the preachy guy from religion that tells HOW to read the holy book, but keep the book 🤔

I did think of it from a slightly wrong angle, and it IS simpler! GO is bad because it is effected by human logic. Their biases, their subjective vision, conveniences of the timeframe, their whims and ambitions maybe.. all the things that guarantee it won't and CAN'T please everyone and be fair to everyone! The darn thing can't even be consistently unfair, ffs! Crucible having been divine before but becoming condemned later comes to mind.

The "problem" is that the principles come from an imperfect, human in all but status mind, and there is no individuality that could fit everyone. Human mind just can't think of a one shoe fits all solution, and human mind in power will always have to hurt someone or favour someone. Goldmask ending makes the thing objective for everyone, as someone's individual mind, with all their biases, flaws and treachery is removed from the picture. In Goldmask ending, GO becomes something that cannot be debated, cannot be misconstructed, cannot be doubled or challenged! It is simply how things are, without any "interpretation"!

In a way, it is more liberating than Ranni's ending! People might be freed from the influence of GW that dwelled in Elden Ring and Marika/Radagon, but they are not freed from being people. Flawed, chaotic beings, that won't know what to DO with their freedom besides inventing new ways to cripple it by themselves. Making new oppression for self and others. Perfect Order deals with the problem of people having "will weak and minds young", having the rules and principles come from a much more transcendental and objective source instead. No guarantee that truth without any interpretation is always pleasant, of course. Who can tell if "objective reality" is FAIR to everyone? Except this time, if someone gets a shorter end of the stick, it can't be blamed on corrupt person in power... This is horrifying to think about.

At the same time, it is also better world than what Miquella wanted in the end! He was opposite to Ranni in the way of striping people of their freedom "for their own sake", but Perfect Order is not forced by anyone. It is just creation of "objective reality" that can't be debated, in can be both a blessing or a curse. People have freedom, but they also have answers, so they can "calm down" if that makes sense...? There is harmony to be found, for sure. Though both Ranni and Miquella suggest that any world can only be "a thousand years voyage", so for sure EVENTUALLY someone would just become Marika/Radagon 2 🤔 Perfect Order is just a long rest before another inevitable turn of the vicious cycle of existence, but honestly, it is the best option

[zalrb]

Would it be fair to say that Stefan had some kind of a Madonna whore complex with Katherine/Elena. (Not a Stelena anti, just wanted to hear your thoughts on this)

The stark differences in Stefan's relationships with Katherine and Elena suggest that he does exhibit signs of the Madonna-Whore complex. hear me out for a second..

As you're probably aware, Madonna whore complex describes the idea of feeling less sexual arousal and more lovey duvey feelings for a woman perceived as pure, and intense sexual arousal for a woman perceived as fallen or debased.

Katherine embodies the archetypal 'Whore' in Stefan's eyes. She is portrayed as sexually liberated, manipulative, and morally ambiguous. Stefan's intense sexual attraction to Katherine is evident, but it is coupled with disdain and mistrust. He acknowledges her prowess in bed and is undeniably drawn to her sexually, but this is paired with a persistent inner voice that views her as untrustworthy and immoral.

A pivotal moment that showcases this dynamic is in Season 2, when Stefan and Katherine are trapped in the caves. The tension between them is palpable, and Stefan’s struggle is evident—while he is drawn to Katherine's seductive nature and provocative demeanor, he simultaneously resents her manipulative and deceitful behavior. Every time I watched their dynamic unfold I used to get this vibe of Stefan thinking "I'm attracted to her but she sure is poison for me." Almost like he felt he was is just too moral to love someone that duplicitous and manipulative.He initially "loved" her because he thought she was an "angel", he loved the sweet/innocent/perfect image she portrayed. once she showed anything else, he couldn’t accept it. She became a monster to him.

And the reason he fell in love with Elena was because she was "the opposite of everything Katherine ever was." He fell for the sweet/innocent/perfect image once again (the ‘exact opposite’ of katherine). That’s definitely enforced by the fact that elena was human, which automatically made her pure and perfect in stefan’s eyes. since elena was ‘the opposite’ of katherine, and human (which is automatically ‘good’ according to stefan logic), she could do no wrong.For better or for worse, Stefan places a lot of value on character.

Beyond their sexual encounters, Stefan’s treatment of Katherine on a non-sexual level is filled with scorn and a lack of genuine respect. He sees her as a fallen woman, whose value is diminished by her moral failings, reinforcing the idea that he views her through the 'Whore' lens of the complex.

Elena Gilbert - The 'Madonna'

In contrast, Elena is the epitome of the 'Madonna' in Stefan's life. She is perceived as pure, virtuous, and deserving of his love and respect. Stefan's relationship with Elena is characterized by deep emotional intimacy and a protective, almost reverential attitude.Stefan is about what will bring Elena peace of mind, what is important to Elena, what would Elena want, what would Elena need, what would Elena’s life be like, what is the aftermath of a decision.

Sexual Dynamic: While Stefan does feel sexual attraction towards Elena, the nature of their sexual relationship is different. It almost felt like his respect and admiration for her purity and goodness temper his sexual desire, often resulting in a less primal and more tender expression of their intimacy. Stefan views Elena as pure, virtuous, and inherently good. His love for her is deep, respectful. This is further supported by their gentle, coming together, transcendental, connective, we-are-one, let me discover every inch of you, be with you, be inside you, soulful lovemaking sex.

The difference in Stefan’s sexual dynamics with Elena and Katherine can be illustrated by comparing intimate scenes with both women. With Elena, the moments are tender and filled with love, whereas with Katherine, the encounters are charged with raw sexual energy but underscored by a lack of deeper emotional connection.

Internal Struggle: Stefan's interactions with Katherine reveal a struggle between his lustful desires and his moral repulsion. This internal conflict is a hallmark of the Madonna-Whore complex.

I ask this because I've heard irl personal experiences. (I would love to hear your thoughts)

*Deep sigh* OK. So, if you spent a little time on my blog, like ten minutes even, you had to know I would disagree with this reading. The primary problem with the Katherine aspect of this ask is the complete disregard for the fact that she ruined his human life

once she showed anything else, he couldn’t accept it. She became a monster to him.

Is that what happened? Or did she bite him

compel his obedience

compel him to drink her blood

compel him to keep it a secret from Damon

and start a war in his town in which he died?

You make it seem as if Stefan simply looks at her as the "whore" because he finds her desirable but immoral for "reasons":

he acknowledges her prowess in bed and is undeniably drawn to her sexually, but this is paired with a persistent inner voice that views her as untrustworthy and immoral [...] Every time I watched their dynamic unfold I used to get this vibe of Stefan thinking "I'm attracted to her but she sure is poison for me." Almost like he felt he was is just too moral to love someone that duplicitous and manipulative.

when he doesn't see her as a "whore" but his anger and disdain is because he experienced severe trauma because of her -- trauma that she continues to inflict in the present

[...] she hijacks Elena’s body in season 5 and attempts to seduce him even though that is unbelievably fucked up, she doesn’t think about the consequences that would cause for Stefan and how that would mess with his head.

It’s why in season 2 she threatens to kill Elena while he watches if he doesn’t break up with her.

which keeps him from fully trusting her because of course it would. She has manipulated or attempted to manipulate key aspects of his life and when that doesn't work, she physically harms him

A pivotal moment that showcases this dynamic is in Season 2, when Stefan and Katherine are trapped in the caves. The tension between them is palpable, and Stefan’s struggle is evident—while he is drawn to Katherine's seductive nature and provocative demeanor, he simultaneously resents her manipulative and deceitful behavior.

Is this actually true, though? Or are you referring to the part of 2x11 that Katherine puts in his head in an attempt to seduce him? Because this

is all a part of the sex scene, which is a part of Katherine's mind games

Because outside of that sequence, whatever tension there is -- and I actually don't think there is any narratively, Dobsley chemistry is a different story -- comes about because he is playing her for information.

He initially "loved" her because he thought she was an "angel", he loved the sweet/innocent/perfect image she portrayed.

Again, is that true? Before they get together physically, before she bites him, before she compels him, she makes a mockery of rules

she's heavy with the innuendo

He was was always attracted to how free-spirited and impulsive and fun she was, that's clear. Understandably, his feelings changed after she did what she did to him. It's not a loss of innocence, rather a betrayal of trust.

Yet, as season 5 indicates, Stefan still views her as someone worthy of compassion and sympathy and grace

So, no. I don't take the argument. I don’t think he has a “whore” complex with her, I think he sees her as a person who has caused him serious harm.

I definitely don't take the "Madonna" argument for Elena.

He fell for the sweet/innocent/perfect image once again (the ‘exact opposite’ of katherine).

Again, is this true? Or did he fall in love with a person who wouldn't do something like compel the person she supposedly loved to be with her, to die for her (that's what her compelling Stefan to drink her blood implies, that she was going to turn him into a vampire without his actual consent) because while Elena is flawed, she isn't meant to be an inherently selfish character? Did he fall in love with someone who, like him, places value in friends and family and who will do what she can to protect them instead of abandoning them?

Unlike Katherine

Could it be that that's what he meant when he said "you are the opposite of everything she was" and not oh my god she's so pure and innocent and sweet?

For better or for worse, Stefan places a lot of value on character.

Character. Not idealizations.

Sexual Dynamic: While Stefan does feel sexual attraction towards Elena, the nature of their sexual relationship is different. It almost felt like his respect and admiration for her purity and goodness temper his sexual desire, often resulting in a less primal and more tender expression of their intimacy.

Honestly, speak for yourself? We could talk about the fact that when she is a vampire and can physically handle the extent of Stefan's primal nature, they go for it

and he gets off on her primal nature

but the show deliberately made them not have sex as vampires so she could have that experience with Damon.

But really, my thing is wanting to fuck in her parents bedroom

Being so loud that Jenna can hear even though they're supposed to be broken up

Having sex and not caring that Damon can hear -- which was her idea and which turns him on, which is why he laughs before they go under the covers --

speaks to something primal to me. Buuuuuuut that's just me, I guess.

And I already did a post on the evolution of "assertive Stefan"

Idk, I find too many holes in this argument personally.

Perhaps an argument could be made that the show frames them as the Madonna/Whore dichotomy from how they dress, to how they use or don’t use their sexuality, to their dialogue, to their morals, but that’s the show and how the showrunners/writers/creators develop the characters and not Stefan and how he views them. And I don't necessarily agree with that argument either but that's less of a stretch for me.

[ghelgheli]

In the logic of martyrdom, a new semiosis of killing emerges. It is not necessarily based on a relationship between form and matter. As I have already indicated, the body here becomes the very uniform of the martyr. But the body as such is not only an object to protect against danger and death. The body in itself has neither power nor value. The power and value of the body result from a process of abstraction based on the desire for eternity. In that sense, the martyr, having established a moment of supremacy in which the subject overcomes his own mortality, can be seen as laboring under the sign of the future. In other words, in death the future is collapsed into the present. In its desire for eternity, the besieged body passes through two stages. First, it is transformed into a mere thing, malleable matter. Second, the manner in which it is put to death—suicide—affords it its ultimate signification. The matter of the body, or again the matter which is the body, is invested with properties that cannot be deduced from its character as a thing, but from a transcendental nomos outside it. The besieged body becomes a piece of metal whose function is, through sacrifice, to bring eternal life into being.

Achille Mbembe, Necropolitics

[dk-thrive]

Good poetry feels like truth, true poetry sounds beautiful, beautiful poetry “tastes” good

Good poetry feels like truth, true poetry sounds beautiful, beautiful poetry “tastes” good, and all decent poetry is perfumed by the scent of wonder and awe, making us see things anew. Poetry makes tangible and existentially realizable the union of the transcendentals of truth, beauty, and goodness; poetry allows us to experience the harmony of the very qualities of Being (and even sense the ineffable quality of no-qualities of Beyond Being) in ourselves and in every being. As Wallace Stevens concludes the “The Snow Man”: 

For the listener, who listens in the snow,  And, nothing himself, beholds  Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

— Oludamini Ogunnaike, from "The Logic of Birds" (Renovatio, May 6, 2022) (via The Hammock Papers)

[clownprince]

Look. Don't get me wrong. I love the batjokes fandom literally everyone I've interacted with has been SO nice for such an insane ship it's a surprisingly chill fandom.

That being said... sometimes I feel Weird because a lot of the community (not all! but a large part) is like haha yeah my favorite fucked up toxic problematic ship love how twisted it is >:) batman wants to fuck that clown even though he literally killed his whole ass son it's so fucked I love it.

And that's fine! No problem with that. Power to you.

But I'm just over here like... what if they both got better together and processed their trauma and Joker made amends with everyone and everyone was happy and content as a family.

Like, the most compelling thing for ME in Batjokes is easily Bruce's refusal to view Joker the way most other people do. Even in arcs where he does dehumanize Joker, he at the very least makes an attempt to understand him. Everyone else is just like yeah, he's evil, he's just doing this shit because he enjoys it because he's a monster. But even when their relationship is at its worst, like in Joker War, Batman tries to understand where Joker is coming from. He doesn't just assume oh yeah Joker is just doing this because he's evil there's no logic behind his crimes he just enjoys it.

Bruce actually understands that Joker is trying to show him something, i.e., that he isn't being Batman right (in Joker's opinion). And even after Joker literally tears down his life, fucking reanimates his dead father figure to torment him and re-enacts his childhood trauma on the city, Bruce STILL ends up agreeing that he had a point!

Like to ME... Batjokes is about loving someone so transcendentally that you devote your entire existence to helping them. It's about having compassion for someone even after they commit horrific atrocities. It's about loving someone who everyone else hates and views as a monster. It's about someone loving the parts of someone that they consider terrible and unlovable. It's about being misunderstood your entire life and finally finding someone who gets it. It's about love for one person motivating you to stay alive in a world that's been nothing but cruel to you. It's about finding someone who makes everything awful that's ever happened to you seem worth it. But most importantly it's about the refusal to give up on someone who everyone else has long since declared a lost cause.