#and determining its morality without awareness of cultural reasoning

[a-knight-in-shining-rainbows]

preparing for ethics class like a man going off to war

[dreamsinmytotebag]

Separating the art from the artist

The question between an artist and his work has long been a matter of discussion and most especially in literature. Can we appreciate a book or poem without regard to the personal views, ethics, or actions of its author? This question becomes real when the artist's life or beliefs counter modern values or your personal morals. "Separating the art from the artist" is a complex process rather than an easy decision and is indeed transcended by individual interpretation, historical context, and significance for the cultural work. For Separation First of all, one reason to separate the art from the artist is that literature exists as some kind of independent entity once published and stands apart from its creator.

A book becomes a shared experience, which is determined both by the meaning created by the reader and within the cultural atmosphere. For example, The Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger is this deep expression to readers, regardless of the tight-lipped and sometimes controversial personality of its creator. In such a case, such an emotional or intellectual value of work may go beyond any personal judgment about the creator. Another reason for this argument is the recognition that human beings are imperfect and flawed. If one rejects every literary work based on the imperfection of the author, then one would be eliminating some of the most profound works of art from access. Writers like Ezra Pound, whose contribution to modernist poetry is priceless, also held some of the most troubling political sentiments. Rejection of their entire body of work can qualify literary history and its progress. The Case Against Separation

Conversely, one can state that a particular artist's beliefs are not possible to separate from his work should those beliefs manifest during the act of writing itself. For instance, despite the fact that H.P. Lovecraft's fiction is noted for its imaginative cosmic horror, his overtly racist worldview, again so clearly embedded in his writing, makes it sometimes impossible for readers to enjoy his work without feeling complicit in the furtherance of harmful ideologies.

At the same time, reading through the literature can feel like supporting the artist's cause, not to mention, when such a cause hurts the vulnerable. Separatists often urge that artists be tried and their work used as an arena for conflict with and criticism of the social reality reflected in it. A Middle Ground Maybe the most constructive place is the middle road.

Engagement with a text as critical consists of both aesthetic value and the ethical consideration of its production.

This approach gives readers an opportunity to admire the work in its context and personal history by the artist. For example, when reading Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, perhaps readers will marvel at the narrative innovations while still discussing its colonialist overtones and the worldview of its author. Separating the art from the artist in literature requires a balance between appreciation and critical awareness. It thus throws an invitation to the readers to engage thoughtfully with works that neither blindly reject nor accept uncritically. Literature, like any other art, shows the world as complex in humanity, consisting of its heights and its failings. By negotiating this tension, we do our best to honor the power of transformative literature while not losing sight of its ethical dimension.

[wianes]

Why am I here, and what am I intending to do?

I created this space because I have written various things in the past that I have only shared with my friends. Therefore, I have decided to make my thoughts more transparent and intend to continue this practice. I will post a wide array of content from various dimensions, but my focus will be on the Berserk series. With this in mind, it will predominantly function as a sideblog about the character Griffith, whom I consider exceptionally brilliant and unique. Additionally, I will share materials that have captured my attention.

Regarding my metas, as I have already mentioned, I used to enjoy writing analyses for myself. I do not want them to be considered gospel or revealed truth; rather, I see them as lighthearted commentaries that may occasionally pique someone’s curiosity or spark an interesting notion. Naturally, I’m aware that I might be going in the wrong direction, but I believe it's okay to sometimes take the wrong path. As a primary reference, I consider the content of the manga series as canon and anything else—including interviews with Miura and Mori—as supplemental. I will also relate to many of the narrative and visual symbols and allegories that the author alluded to. This means that I will not always consider something as canon or include it in my research if the manga series does not specifically address it. On rare occasions, I refer to supplemental information, especially regarding translation-related concerns.

To clarify this point, I will elaborate on how I interact with and engage with the source material:

-I do not experience first-person narratives or the psychological viewpoints of characters as if they were my own.

-I do not internalize their experiences as though they had happened to me.

-My knowledge of characters does not resemble the process of accessing autobiographical information.

- I avoid projecting my personal history or lived experiences onto fictional characters.

- I do not use information about fictional characters as if they represent my own self or self-knowledge.

Fictional characters are neither characterized by self-reflection nor by being actual individuals with agency—this is my perspective. They serve the narrative purposes of the story. Their actions have specific intentions and are entirely determined by the plot's logic, which has no basis in reality.

When it comes to Berserk, I choose not to impose modern morals and standards on a dark fantasy fiction that is rooted in a distant culture, especially considering its setting and themes—apostles are ex-humans who have been shattered by devastating life events, demons who are simultaneously called to be angels. The universe operates within a feudal framework, and given that the action takes place in the Middle Ages, where humanity’s collective unconscious wishes shape the world and so forth. This perspective stems from my personal interest in enjoying fiction for what it is, without feeling the need to act as a moral arbiter.

In light of this, the author himself has outlined the ideas he wished to explore in the remainder of the manga, which seem to be unrelated to concepts from the Abrahamic religions. Given these points, my approach to fiction allows me to find anything either appealing or repulsive. Something may seem pleasant or unpleasant to me, yet my preferences do not define what is "good" or "evil." I find it a reasonable way to engage with the narrative.

My overall message is:

I refuse to impose contemporary morals and standards on fiction.

I feel inclined to explore fiction without personal engagement as a moral enforcer.

I have my heart set on staying true to my personal philosophical interests.

I aim to respect the creator's original vision.

I align with the idea that fiction often explores themes beyond binary notions.

Interpretations, including my own, are always subjective and relative. Many people, often within the extensive English-speaking community of Berserk fans, seek explanations that seem to resonate with them now. I understand this desire for a satisfying interpretation that aligns with one's unconscious, instinctive substratum. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that I will not engage with individuals who intrude upon me to make me feel offended or outraged over events that have never occurred. If they choose to feel this way, it is their own concern. Nevertheless, I strive to keep my interpretations personal and as refined as possible.

I hope that your stay here will be enjoyable and satisfying. I want everyone who is polite and not intrusive to feel welcome and thoroughly enjoy their time here.

[extravalgant]

the seven main schools (+ astral & shadow) as flowers

NOTE: i did not dive too deep into researching for this and most of the information i got for this post i got from this site . please dont come after me if i get a meaning wrong IM TRYING MY BEST!!! moving on

this is going to be a LONG POST so sit tight

myth - clematis (also known as traveller’s joy, old man’s beard)

i chose clematis mainly for its meaning: representing artifice, ingenuity and mental beauty. i think part of being a conjurer means that the world is only as big as you make it, and part of it is utilizing your imagination to its fullest extent. mental beauty and ingenuity go hand in hand with being creative, but artifice, in this flower symbolism, means to be cunning or be deceitful. i also think this comes from cyrus drake also being your teacher, which means he would teach in a style that would want you to exploit the weaknesses of the creatures that you summon (that being, calling their true name) in order for them to do your bidding. 

“Myth dwells between Fire and Ice, for that is where the shadows lie, and Myths are the shadowy forms of thought made real.”

storm - gladiolus (also known as a sword lily)

urgh.... storm was such a hard school to choose a flower for @_@ according to the wizard101 site storm is also based on creativity, but since we already had that sort of meaning attached to myth, i decided to go with the next best thing which is that gladiolus represents strength, strong character, honor and moral integrity. i feel like it’s pretty well known fact that storm is a hitting school, and a pretty well known one at that - their reputation as a power school is pervasive through all wizarding circles. i feel like this is also where a diviner’s sense of pride comes from - being able to one-hit ko enemies and brandish your power proudly. 

amazingly enough, the wizard101 site also addresses this, saying that, “the Storm School will train its student wizards to do a lot of damage. Storm Wizards have the ability to unleash high amounts of damage from an early level, which is good, but they place too much emphasis on power, and therefore suffer in terms of accuracy.”

placing too much emphasis on power... very interesting indeed

death - papaver (poppy)

death was ALSO a super hard school to pick a flower for. i debated between the dracula, the poppy, and the spider lily before deciding to settle with the poppy. I chose poppies in particular because “Poppies have long been used as a symbol of sleep, peace, and death: Sleep because the opium extracted from them is a sedative, and death because of the common blood-red color of the red poppy in particular.” source 

I FEEL AS IF THE SPIDER LILY WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO EASY OF A CHOICE but i wanted to encompass all the meanings that death has and has been associated with. some people associate death with peace (at being in a “”better place””), and some people sometimes to describe it as “sleeping” to a younger audience with no death awareness. also heres a nice little excerpt from the w101 site: “Death is about ending and closure. All things pass eventually, and time cannot be held back forever. Wizards devoted to Death Magic, known as Necromancers, understand this fact about everything around them and strive to face it without fear.”

ice - magnolia 

as soon as i saw this flower and its description it was PERFECT for ice. magnolias represent longevity and perseverance, due to the fact that magnolias are believed to have existed even at the beginning of time. the ice schools main theme is about persistance - which is to say, that if you’re patient and determined, you will collect the fruits of your labor in the end. 

the school page even says this, noting that “The Ice School will train its student wizards to take high amounts of damage and survive.” To thaumaturges, it is simply about surviving to see the end of the battle, and that’s what their play style involves. both magnolias and thaumaturges have that in common : persist and survive.

fire - ixora (also known as jungle flame, flame of the woods)

it was also hard choosing a plant for fire, seeing as so many plants can be described as “passionate” in a symbolic sense. it was between this and orange tulips, but i felt that both the names “jungle flame” and “flame of the woods” both fit fire’s theme. that being said, ixora’s represent passion - the core of fire’s development and description. it is the “bright, burning flame of raw emotion sweeping over everything.” (w101)

fire wizards mainly utilize damage over time spells, which reminds me that a frog boiling in a pot will leap immediately out of the water if its too hot, but will stay until it dies if the water’s temperature reaches steadily. while fire’s general message are that it may consume everything it touches, and how pyromancers are quick to anger and tempestuous, fire plays the longer game by slow roasting their enemies until it is too late for them.

balance - cosmos

when i saw this flower and its meanings there was literally no chance any other flower could compare omg

balance is described as finding the equality of everything and harmony. they are described as broad-minded, taught to be considerate of all things, as well as their own place in the world they live in. cosmos, in this case, represent order, peace, modesty and harmony -- all things which are important to a balance wizard. balance thrives in the company of others, simply because it was made in mind to help others in the heat of battle. “The Balance School will train its student wizards to be effective in group play.” (w101)

however as a result, they may appear as stand-offish and impassive, unable to choose a side or make a choice. such is life when you’re raised to consider all factors of every choice you make - every decision feels heavy.

life - achillea (also known as yarrow)

named after the greek hero achilles, legends would say that his soldiers would treat their wounds with this. source 

i chose achillea for life simply for the fact that it represents healing and protection, as well as it being used it being a versatile plant used to treat a variety of maladies or sicknesses - it’s been used as a medicinal plant for a long time across the world. 

life embodies “the spirit, the force of awareness and existence. It is about constant growth and movement.” (w101). theurgists are described as having simple pleasures in life, in revelling in the idea of the living, breathing, planet around you. it utilizes the song of creation, using it to weave life where there was none previously. it definitely has powerful roots in the canon storyline - i just wish it was utilized more through its play style. 

(astral) star - aster (also known as starwort, frost flower)

ok i dont have a deep meaning for this im sorry . i mainly chose aster simply because “aster” is derived from the Greek word “astron”, which means “star”, and because of the shape of its flowers. pretty simple reason but ill try my best to do it justice

however, aster is represented by patience and elegance -- star magic may be a lesser form of sun magic, simply because it is meant to power yourself rather than your spells. i think theres something inherently elegant about an aura wrapping itself around your figure, bending to the whim of your spells, as it both enhances your health or your spells. 

(astral) sun - datura (also known as devil’s trumpet)

Datura symbolizes power and caution. It is a powerful and deadly plant, but also a major religious and cultural symbol.

i chose datura’s for sun because sun is all about power -- datura is highly poisonous and very dangerous to be around. the main deal of the sun school is that they use spells to make their own stronger - it has the “power to endure, power to persevere, and power to change”. we don’t get much of a canon explanation for how sun magic works outside of battles, but i imagine that you have to be careful with sun magic, because as we know - absolute power corrupts absolutely. aint that neat

(astral) moon - protea

protea’s represent ingenuity, diversity, transformation and courage. a big part of moon magic is that it is all about change. changing your spells, your body, your thoughts -- it is symbolized by the moon because it goes through many changes (the tides, the phases of the moon, etc).

i feel as if moon magic might be one of the harder magics to master out of all the astral schools - the transformation into something else may not come as easy as star auras, or that it simply may be too hard on the caster in question, having to change their physical appearances and battle tactics to fit into a new one.

shadow - rhododendron

rhododendron’s represent temptation, caution and danger. 

despite how pretty it looks, the stems, leaves, and flowers can be poisonous to humans and pets if ingested. i feel as if that describes shadow perfectly -- the pleasant sight of these pretty flowers is enough to entice a person (wizard) forward, but you must be careful with how you handle this plant, or else you will end up facing dire consequences. (backlash)

shadow magic as a whole can be very tempting to those who seek it -- offering power that scales above others. but it is an advanced magic, and those who seek to play with it often end up paying the price with their lives (in this case, morganthe was crushed underneath the weight of power that shadow gave her). shadow can give you an upper hand, however, if used right -- and the wizard, for the most part, is using it right. 

shadow is mainly a cautionary tale of not playing with higher, advanced, magics with the wrong intentions.

[astrologichole]

the signs and their best qualities

Aries: selfless, adventurous, the hardest workers ever, cares a lot, extremely helpful, their wisdom is so unexpected but valuable, will go to great lengths to protect the people they love, charming, magnetic, will prove you wrong so don’t even try arguing with them, relentless and driven, will stop at nothing to achieve their goals even if their goals seem impossible, very sure of themselves, would probably actually kill for you

Taurus: smart as hell, really relaxed but never boring, unexpectedly creative, surprising, can be very romantic when they’re in love, always willing to try new things, funny as hell, the most sarcastic and snarky people, generally cool people with a diverse perspective, music taste is impeccable, don’t even bother trying to argue with them because their logic and debate skills are unnaturally advanced, up front and genuine, doesn’t like to bullshit people, go to them for honesty and good advice

Gemini: will give those they love everything they need, observant, not afraid to stand up for themselves, go getters in general, really silly (sometimes morbid) humor and generally fun to be around, strong, compelling, really interesting people with lots of “useless” knowledge and fun facts, knows more than they show, they’re often the most victimized sign but in reality they’re just really misunderstood because they themselves don’t understand who they are but that’s part of their charm

Cancer: the absolute most selfless, always figures out a solution even when it doesn’t seem possible, can win over anyone, timeless, they’re probably the most magnetic sign because of how fucking great their personalities are, well-rounded, wouldn’t kill for you, but would emotionally torment someone for you, knows how you feel before you even know how you feel, dreamy, honestly just lovely people, their endurance for people’s bullshit is above and beyond, even though they’re emotionally sensitive, they connect on a very deep and empathetic level and may appear disheveled but are actually pretty aware of what they feel

Leo: their minds.....ugh, one of the most underestimated signs in terms of their creativity and emotional toll, committed until the very end, when they’re in love they’re actually pretty big babies and will 100% surprise you with their sensitive nature, natural leaders but even if they’re more on the subdued side, leos still have a natural knack for understanding people on a level that enables them to move through (especially) their careers, relationships and so forth, self-aware and unafraid of judgment as judgment only adds to their constant inner quest for self understanding, stereotypical leos are known as being out there and brave, but often times leo’s want to be acknowledged for their ability to withhold themselves and be more in control than they let off

Virgo: they remember everything...everything, they’re really the baddest bitches out there, incredibly smart and determined, gives the best advice, will tell it like it is and doesn’t care to hold back what they see as true, their actions are their love language and those actions are priceless, they honestly live thirty years in the future and are really prepared even if they don’t know what they’re prepared for, while they can sometimes come off as grounded and engrained in the more serious aspects of life, virgos are actually incredibly sensitive and imaginative and are never given enough credit for their visions and virtues, able to navigate tricky situations, fearless

Libra: babies, extremely lovable, quietly powerful, not just smart but incredibly wise, gentle and caring, living, breathing fairytale people, extremely giving and gracious, even though they’re indecisive, they’ll alway try their best to make the most well intentioned decisions, they just kind of get it, can analyze you in 2 seconds and suddenly know everything about your deep rooted childhood traumas (I don’t understand how but they just do), they’re people pleasers so they’re very social, but their truest selves come out most when they can connect to someone who genuinely understands them and vice versa, they’re very tired so expect lots of naps and quality relaxation time with them, peaceful angels

Scorpio: the absolute most stubborn and unrelenting sign and while that could be a negative quality, its positive attributes are that they will not stop until they’re understood and will be wildly loyal to their morals and standards even if those moral and standards are a bit unaligned with everyone else’s, highly individualistic but can blend in easily if they want to, passionate, when they’re in love they’re in love for good (the perfect soulmates), critical for the best reasons, they don’t like to sugar coat and want to give the best advice possible while still keeping things very real, adaptable, their mind is everywhere and with that they are an endless landscape of imagination, visions, and characters all weaved within this one beautiful mind

Sagittarius: they’re just here to have a good time, would 10000% kill for you, steal for you, probably commit treason for you but they’re chillin, will go to great lengths to understand others and the world around them, cultural and diverse, very social but they also know when to pull back and seek comfort from themselves, they know how important self-awareness is and constantly seek out who they are and what they aim to be, refuses to be tied down to any one thing (not to suggest they’re incapable of finding a solid relationship, rather, they need someone who can match their unrelenting speed and drive for life), truly goes with the flow and lets life lead them rather than lead their own life

Capricorn: doesn’t seem like they’re psycho analyzing you, but they're 100% psycho analyzing you, scary smart, the hardest working sign, they’re often considered as a bit stiff and lacking vulnerability, but on the inside, capricorns are complex and other worldly and really want to be understood, they can endure and manage just about anything, is unexpectedly very artistic and deeply understanding of the emotions their art depicts, committed and responsible, incredibly reliable, they don’t like to cancel plans or ghost people, but sometimes they need time to themselves and can be susceptible to those things which is perfectly fine because capricorns deserve a bit of a departure from their usual selves, the type of person you think about even if you don’t talk to them for a long time

Aquarius: cares a lot about social issues and pressing matters, optimistic, efficient with time, not afraid to try new things, a people person (pretty popular), very free spirited, very in tune with their morals and virtues, easy to relate to when they’re vulnerable with those they’re close with, mysterious and adaptable, truly the chameleon of the zodiac signs, great listeners and even better speakers, can dictate a conversation even through silence (it’s never awkward), sometimes has a hard time loving others deeply but has an everlasting love for life so it’s cool

Pisces: also babies, empathetic and kind, dreamy, intuitive and observant, goes out of their way for the people they love (or strangers, they just like making sure everyone is comfortable), good listeners, will make you fall in love with them without them even knowing it, sensitive to other’s feelings and morals, socially aware, overall very sweet but also very encyclopedic and aware of social and political matters (can debate you under the table), will 100% take you away from reality

[pip-n-flinx]

Castlevania Spoilers Ahead

its tagged, its below a cut, don’t say I didn’t warn you!

So I may be one of 3 people in the whole world who hates the final season of netflix’s Castlevania adaptation. I know I know, you’re going to have a pogrom. I heard about it in the market square this morning. But see, here’s the thing. What makes me angry is that there is so much to love about this show and I really don’t feel like it stuck the landing.

I’ll probably make a series of these posts, but I wanted to address the narrative things that were set up beautifully, only to stumble and fall on their faces in the finale.

Today, we’re talking about Hector, Lenore, and briefly about the rest of Styria’s council.

Hector and Lenore are by far the most interesting characters to me in the whole series. Let’s start with how Hector is written in S2 and S3 of the show, because it provides a ton of context for where I really want to take this conversation. Hector is a brilliant man, whose views are all about natural structure and conservation. Think of him as the shows Department of Natural Resources. He likens vampires first to wolves, then to cats. He seems to see humanity as an ecological problem, believing they need to be culled. He dehumanizes everyone, human and vampire alike, throughout the course of S2. You could argue this makes him naive or ignorant, but there are plenty of brilliant people out there who see the world through lenses far more baffling than Hector. He doesn’t believe he was treated as a human, believing himself (probably rightly) an outcast. He hasn’t had much time to observe a functioning society, but he has had plenty of time to study the natural world that borders human civilization. It seems entirely in keeping with his characterization to frame people as animals in his quest to understand them.’

Cut to S3 and suddenly the tables have been turned. Lenore’s use of ‘good boy’ and ‘walkies’ can be seen as overtly sexual but its also very obviously Hector’s comeuppance. After a season of likening the Vampires to animals, he himself is characterized as a puppy. Lenore also introduces him to vampire philosophy and more broadly speaking culture. She may be treating him like a dog, but its one of the first times adult Hector gets to observe a society, not just a foodchain. Despite being a well learned magician, he has much to learn about diplomacy and etiquette.

And this is the meat of it. Hector and Lenore are the perfect inversion of Lisa and Dracula. This is why they are the most interesting people in the series. Lisa searches for Vlad Tepes in the hopes he might teach her. Hector is dragged to Lenore’s castle and kept in chains. Vlad greets Lisa with suspicion, but is won over by her bravery and determination. Lenore, on the other hand, greets Hector with gifts before beating him - cowing him for his bravado. Vlad teaches a human woman how to heal humans, Lenore teaches Hector about the sciences, but mostly about how commerce and luxury items are traded. Lenore takes Hector as a boy-toy, a dalliance, or gigolo. Vlad takes Lisa as his wife, and fathers a child by her. Lenore keeps Hector caged, while Lisa insists Dracula travel the world. Lisa dies a horrible death at the hands of the Church, where Isaac spares Lenore at Hector’s insistence. Dracula schemes to kill all the humans, while Styria’s scheme is to bleed the humans as livestock. And at the end, Vlad and Lisa return from the grave and inexplicably decide not to tell Alucard. Lenore walks into the sunlight, into a new dawn and dies leaving me heartbroken beyond repair. The perfect inversion of story-line/arc. But it didn’t have to end this way!

So here’s the crux of what bothers me about Lenore/Hector vs Lisa/Dracula. Setting aside the mechanism behind Lisa and Vlad returning (hooo-boy that will be the next post I think....) you wouldn’t need to kill Lenore at the end if you didn’t inexplicably bring Lisa and Drac back to life! But why shouldn’t we kill Lenore? Surely the writers didn’t just bring Dracula back on a whim, so to complete the inversion Lenore was always intended to die, no? This is what I have a problem with. You take one of the strong female characters, one who critiqued two of the big-bad-villains of the series in a meaningful way. She articulates for the audience why Dracula’s plan was evil. Then explains for us why Carmilla has gone too far. This is the womanyou kill off? You kill off a character with wit, with self-awareness. You kill off a character who for all her flaws is known for showing kindness, whose very introduction involves making a splint for a spider! An act so ludicrous and caring that her friends ridicule her for it. You take this woman, whose goal is to secure a future for herself and the women she has come to cherish. You write this brilliant character, a hypocrite just human enough to be our lens into the show and who despite her own machinations has one of the clearest concepts of morality in the whole show, and you kill her off because Dracula must live? This is Castlevania for godssake, isn’t the whole point that Dracula dies? She could have been the greatest anti-villain I’ve ever seen, and she chooses suicide before her lover’s eyes? I’ll give you its a gut punch, but it’s one I could definitely have done without.

Because Lenore condemns thirst that harms the greater community. She understands the value of diplomacy, of stability, of peace. She’s hedonistic, but less hedonistic than Carmilla. She shows a great deal of strength in S3, but she shows a strength of character in S4. And then she dies, because Dracula must live. Honestly, she is my Alucard/Anti-Dracula for the series. Adrian Tepes be damned. Lenore had no humanity left in the most literal sense, but she is the narrative foil to Dracula in a way the real Alucard could never be. She even had a reason not to turn her lover, which Dracula cannot say.

So I am salty. And perhaps more than any other reason, I am salty because at the very last moment, they chose to save Dracula over Lenore.

[vanquishedvaliant]

The sidedish is scrolling your blog and not finding you talking about new anime

I must not be hip enough to recognize precisely what you’re getting at by ‘sidedish’, but I just don’t usually post it much on tumblr unprompted anymore because writeups are a pain, they don’t usually get much traction, and I’m more than satisfied talking about it in discord with people that are actually going to listen and respond.

I DO have thoughts on new anime I can serve if it’s that in demand, though. 

Here’s what I’m watching this season with some initial reaction ratings based on the first couple episodes

New this season;

Wonder Egg Priority 10/10

UraSekai Picnic 10/10

Kumo desu ga, nani ka 8/10

Kemono Jihen 9/10

Hortensia Saga 7/10

Soukou Musume Senki 7/10

Gekidol 6/10

Sequels;

Cells at Work 9/10

Cells at Work: Black! 9/10

Uma Musume Pretty Derby 10/10

Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken 8/10

Log Horizon 8/10

Dr Stone 10/10

Continuing from last season;

Higurashi ... Gou 10/10

Hanyou no Yashahime 6/10

Jujutsu Kaisen 10/10

I’m also watching the original Higurashi in between off days to catch up to where Gou is, since I’d never seen it before and it’s clear I’m not getting the full story in Gou anymore without it.

Deeper thoughts under the cut.

Wonder Egg Priority and Urasekai Picnic are the clear AOTS contenders. Both are at once extremely superficially similar but very different in practice, and both bring something unique and charming to the table.

Urasekai is extremely notable at being a well executed supernatural adventure anime that is also a yuri; as much as I love pure romances like Bloom into You or Adachi and Shimamura, it’s very rare that we get anime with lesbian main characters or WLW romance where the romance itself isn’t the focus, that includes a serious, intriguing plot alongside the elements of romance. You know, like straight people get without a question every single story ever.

It’s got this very classic cryptid / SCP / otherworld adventure feel and has the right comedic and tension beats to be quite good, though its long term impact will be determined by what kind of further message it has.

Wonder Egg Priority immediately comes off with extremely powerful vibes in the vein of things like Flip Flappers, which I mean in the highest compliment. A surreal, metaphor-filled story of dreams and desires and well laid subtext, with colourful, exotic action and a snappy pace. This one’s extremely interesting to me, and its first episode was masterfully efficient in setting up its premise both aesthetically and thematically.

The real test for Wonder Egg will come with time; this is a story that trades heavily in meaning; so it’ll have to run longer and come to a conclusion to really test what kind of impact it’ll have. For now, I’m VERY interested and cautiously optimistic.

Spider Isekai is a charming twist on the typical flood of fantasy game / isekai stories placing our protagonist at the extreme low end of the power curve, and quite UNLIKE Slime Isekai or most others on the market like last season’s Kuma Bear, this one seems intent on keeping her there rather than immediately granting her insane godlike powers and thrusting her back above the curve.

The parts of the show that focus on the spider herself are lovely; there’s a real tension and sense of stakes in her struggle to adapt, slowly getting used to her new body and gaining levels and abilities, making even simple conflicts against frogs or lizards seem life threatening and serious, giving us a real reason to root for her.

On the other hand, the show frequently switches focus to... the entire other classroom of isekai’d children which is by far less interesting. There’s potential in there somewhere for a story about mass isekai’d kids adapting, but other than some details like one girl being gender swapped, and another being the class pet, there’s just really not much interesting about them at the moment and these sections just feel like a waste of time while waiting for the Spider to come back.

I don’t doubt that they’ll eventually meet up and have their stories intertwine... but at the moment, I don’t think I actually want that to happen. We’ll see where this one goes.

Kemono Jihen took me by surprise, and I wasn’t planning to watch this one unti l saw some screencaps. But the first two episodes have been outstanding, giving us a fantastic supernatural mystery detective agency plot and characters with real emotions, eye catching action scenes, and a compelling mystery.

Definitely looking forward to more of this one.

Hortensia Saga seems like a fairly typical fantasy war chronicle RPG story. It feels very in the vein of early to mid era fire emblems, and I happen to like anime like this that are solidly executed, like Grancrest Senki a while back. It’s doing a good enough job so far to keep my interest. Nothing game changing here, but a decent offering.

Soukou Musume Senki; this one also comes across in the standard seasonal fare of superpowered teenagers fighting aliens, this time with power armor and mild isekai elements. The monster designs are good this time, and the second episode brought us some nice moral / political dialogue showcasing some level of self awareness and depth. It’s fun so far.

Gekidol this show wants really badly to be compared favourably to Shoujo Kageki Starlight Revue. They’re hamming up the theatre tropes, putting out specials, sliding in secret background lore. First episode was fairly interesting, but the second seriously dropped the ball with its half assed Idol episode, and incredibly tone deaf play at a heartwarming moment.

I’m gonna keep watching this one for now, but it really needs to prove to me it has some meat and isn’t going to just keep borrowing tropes from other shows to lend it superficial “deep” merits.

For sequels,

Cells at Work is as cute, wholesome, and info-taining as ever. I think the OP this time is missing a little oomph, but the show itself is still going strong.

Cells at Work: Black! is offering a new take on it with a slightly darker and mature setting with a stressed out alcholic smoker at risk of contracting STDS, with a little bleaker tone and harsher stakes. It relies on the background of the original Cells at Work to work both tonally and narratively, but with that support it provides something quite interesting and unique.

The usual Cells at Work metaphors and humanization of bodily processes are just as excellent as always, and I’m giving special credit to the sketch about alcholic liver damage being compared to drunken abuse of host club employees, displaying a perhaps obvious if natural juxtaposition of the physical and emotional damage the substance abuse is causing to both the body itself and others around them.

Uma Musume; Horse girls! Racing! Just as surprisingly excellent as last season, giving us a fantastic sports story anime with charming characters and balanced stakes, with a good helping of humour. Easy recommend.

Slime Isekai: This one’s still going strong but has diverged from it’s original premise quite seriously. There’s nothing intriguing about this being an isekai  about being reincarnated as a slime anymore; and he’s way too overpowered for any of the combat to have any stakes. What it DOES have however is a fascinating look at the birth of a fantasy nation of monsters, politics, science, and social development of a varied and multicultural monster nation. And THAT I’m still in for.

I will seriously never forgive them for making Bobcut Lizardgirl into a regular ass human though. It has a serious problem with de-monsterizing its character designs and seriously reducing their appeal.

Log Horizon the true king of MMO isekai is back after 7 long, long years, and it’s jumping STRAIGHT into the depth of its political intrigue and deep understanding and development of the socio political issues inherent to its setting. Somewhat dry as ever, but truly fascinating for those looking at a more serious exploration of what the concept of living in a game actually means.

Dr Stone: I don’t have to hype this up, do I? Mad science speedrunning the development of human culture from the stone age up! This time they’re going to war! They made cell phones and cup ramen out of rocks! It’s heartwarming, emotionally rich, entertaining and informative, and funny as all hell. A classic for sure.

Higurashi. Everyone knows higurashi. Thing is, I just never watched it. We thought Gou was going to be a remake, but then it ended up being Rebuild of Evangelion, so I stopped at episode 12 or so and went back to watch the original. Classic horror mystery.

Yashahime. Yikes. This one’s... well. I don’t have any especial nostalgia or affection for Inuyasha like many people, but Yashahime is clearly a very middling approximation of it. There’s things to like here, the main trio of characters are all great designs, Moroha standing even head and shoulders above them as a truly endearing goblin child, and it really does feel in ways like 90s toonami fare. But there’s some lack of depth going on here, and I just don’t even know what to say about the Sesshoumaru pedophilia thing. Extremely questionable plotting.

[studiopeachz]

Women Empowerment Research

What is women empowerment?

“Women's empowerment is the process of empowering women. It may be defined in several ways, including accepting women's viewpoints or making an effort to seek them, raising the status of women through education, awareness, literacy, and training” Empowering women is a part of a person’s well being to enable them to feel ‘powerful’ in their own way. Being powerful can mean a lot of things and can come from philosophy, wisdom, talents, work ethic, and so much more that helps build a person’s character.  

What is the history of Feminism and Women Empowerment in New Zealand?

https://theconversation.com/why-new-zealand-was-the-first-country-where-women-won-the-right-to-vote-103219 

125 years ago today Aotearoa New Zealand became the first country in the world to grant all women the right to vote. The event was part of an ongoing international movement for women to exit from an inferior position in society and to enjoy equal rights with men. Many supported universal male suffrage and a less rigid class structure, enlightened race relations and humanitarianism that also extended to improving women’s lives. These liberal aspirations towards societal equality contributed to the 1893 women’s suffrage victory.

At the end of the 19th century, feminists in New Zealand had a long list of demands. It included equal pay, prevention of violence against women, economic independence for women, old age pensions and reform of marriage, divorce, health and education – and peace and justice for all.

During the 1880s, depression and its accompanying poverty, sexual licence and drunken disorder further enhanced women’s value as settling maternal figures.

New Zealand gained much strength from an international feminist movement. Women were riding a first feminist wave that, most often grounded in their biological difference as life givers and carers, cast them as moral citizens. With hindsight, the feminist movement can be implicated as an agent of colonisation, but it did support votes for Māori women. Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia presented a motion to the newly formed Māori parliament to allow women to vote and sit in it.

What does women empowerment mean to Gen Z?

https://www.thinkhousehq.com/insights/bodies-blood-brilliance-gen-z-feminism 

“Everyone should be feminist, because it’s about equality. It’s not about telling women what they should or shouldn’t do, if someone wants to wear make up then they can, and if they don’t want to wear make up then they don’t have to. But there is an issue with many self-proclaimed feminist being gatekeepers. My friends and I think that TERFs, particularly, are a major issue. Feminism is also about helping men, helping them express their emotions and not have to be the breadwinners of a family and destroying toxic masculinity.” - Grace, 18

From actresses to survivors, artists to poets, and models to musicians, what Gen Z feminist icons all have in common is that they channel their creativity expertly to tell their stories, while adopting an unapologetic activist approach to opening conversation and fighting for justice, change and equality.

Representation in popular feminism today takes many forms. It’s about equal representation in society, with regard to industry, politics and policy making and equal representation in culture. Initiatives like Her Story aim to raise the profile of women’s stories, as a way to combat the global phenomenon of amnesia of women’s stories in history and more contemporary times.

Gen Z are talking more openly about vaginas, periods, miscarriages, body hair, the lot. This celebration is not only about the differences between women’s personal experiences, but also of the distinctive traits all women hold. The representation particular feminine traits and the unique brilliance of women comes to the fore in conversation here: 

“While equality is important, to me it’s more about valuing the traits that a woman has. Creating more feminine, comfortable environments could bring about a positive change in different ways.”- Alwyn, 25.

Ultimately, what these trends tell us about feminism today, is that young women today are radical about owning who they are and being recognized accurately by wider society. They are unashamedly channeling their intelligence, digital currency, agency and creative skill, with purpose, to shout louder and more powerfully as a group than ever before.

https://musebycl.io/7-ways-empowering-gen-z-girls-change-world 

These girls—especially those born from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s—have the ambition, confidence and desire to make a difference in the world. So much so that they've inspired me to take the leap from communicating to women to making a real cultural change.

Having other strong, supportive women to look up to will be a motivator to these girls when they enter the workforce. With initiatives like the #SeeHer movement, the advertising industry is already making an effort to accurately portray women in media, and hopefully strong women will continue to take the spotlight.

Individuality is important to Gen Z, so encouraging them to pursue their passions is vital. Recognizing that their lives are multifaceted and giving them the tools to explore and grow will help inspire them both at work and beyond.

https://psmag.com/ideas/why-generation-z-is-embracing-feminism 

In many cultural contexts, Generation Z appears to be embracing feminism as a positive thing, demonstrating confidence in the power of activism, particularly via social media.

Malala Yousafzai, or 18-year-old Emma González, who's at the heart of the #NeverAgain movement protesting gun violence in the U.S.,

Online feminist campaigns such as #everydaysexism, #MeToo, and #TimesUp all draw energy from the new consciousness among this generation.

How is women empowerment done/displayed in a Gen Z way? - consider what inspired you to do a women empowerment campaign.

“HOT GIRL SUMMER”

https://time.com/5632924/hot-girl-summer-meme-explained/ 

If you’ve logged onto Twitter or swiped through your Instagram at any point this summer, you’ve definitely seen a post declaring it’s a hot girl summer. The now-ubiquitous phrase, a call to live your most confident and unapologetic life, was coined in the early months of the season by Houston rapper Megan Thee Stallion, whose colorful monikers for herself also include “the H-Town Hottie” and “Hot Girl Meg.”

Contrary to what one might assume when hearing “hot girl,” the lifestyle is not focused on aspiring towards conventional beauty or influencer clout. Instead, it’s an embrace of confidence at its most essential: loving who you are and doing what you want, without caring what others think.

hot girl summer is for “women — and men — having a good-a– time, hyping up your friends, doing you and not giving a damn what anybody has to say about it.”

(the hashtag #hotgirlsummer has been used over 170k times on Instagram, while the hot girl summer has been used on Twitter a whopping 2 million times over the past month) distills an affinity, exhibited by many women in 2019, towards body positivity and self-affirmation. Hot girl summer, a hip-hop feminist manifesto, taps into these movements from many angles, championing confidence, sensuality and fun.

Tacho explained why she embraced hot girl summer to TIME thusly: “It’s a positive movement! Having a Hot Girl Summer is all about being the best version of yourself and doing what you want to do. It’s all about having fun.”

And as with most things on the Internet, it’s attracted its fair share of controversy. Although Megan clearly stated that hot girl summer is gender neutral, some trolls on the Internet were determined to make hot girl summer a battle of the sexes, pitting it against a “hot boy summer��� or a “city boy summer,” the latter being a play on the rap group the City Girls (the duo is known for their fierce, take-no-prisoners approach to love and sex in their music).

“I CAN’T TALK RIGHT NOW, I’M DOING HOT GIRL SH*T”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andriamoore/doing-hot-girl-sht-tiktok-trend 

Megan Thee Stallion gifted us the slogan of a lifetime when she broke onto the music scene and coined the phrase, "real hot girl sh*t."

If you don't know, the phrase has basically become a battle cry for female empowerment.

But the latest TikTok trend is putting a hilarious twist on that sense of empowerment. People are uploading videos of themselves doing... well, things that aren't typically in the realm of "hot girl sh*t"— like shaving your stomach.

If anything, this trend has only further increased the purpose of the hot girl anthem: feeling proud and confident with who you are already.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3v873/hot-girl-shit-meme-megan-thee-stallion-tiktok 

Over the past couple of months, “hot girl shit” has swept through social media like a heat wave. These videos feature people, mostly those who identify as women, embracing their most everyday, banal moments—shaving their upper lips, putting on face packs, savouring the last few puffs of a joint, involved in an intense gaming sesh or simply taking their 23rd nap in the day—under the guise of doing something that could be considered hot, a term that generally refers to the sexual attractiveness of a person.

But what they may lack in logical reasoning, they make up for in deeper meaning: letting the world know that being “hot” isn’t just equated to someone’s physical appearance anymore. That being hot is a mentality, a mindset that involves extra dollops of extreme self-confidence, and something to be found inherently within us rather than something you’re blessed at birth with or what your cosmetic surgeon helped you achieve.

TikToking and Reels-ing our way to chipping away centuries of female objectification and sexism, prompted by the male-dominated industry ideal of how women should look and behave to “qualify” as hot.

“This trend proves that ‘hot girl shit’ lies on a spectrum, and is ultimately just about feeling confident,” Uchenna, the first known creator of this meme format, who goes by her screen moniker @makeupbychelseax, told VICE. The young creator sees the trend as a way to reclaim the identity of what a “hot” girl should be, after centuries of the concept hanging on the hinges of the male gaze.

Mulvey theorises that essentially the male gaze hypersexualises women, reducing them to objects of attraction for the male lead. The male gaze, which has been dominant throughout the history of pop culture, ultimately drives the perception of what the ideal woman should look like.

Over decades of women being seen through a stereotypical lens in pop culture and art, mostly crafted by heterosexual men, the male gaze has also conditioned many young women who consume this content to strive to achieve the same standards of the perfect on-screen female lead.

“The stereotypical idea of the ‘hot girl’ would be a tall, skinny, fair girl with big boobs,” Shreemi Verma, a film critic and marketing professional told VICE.

“hot” girl is a socially conditioned prototype, a fantasy fuelled by the lack of female filmmakers and critics in the mainstream industry. so many of us connected with this meme trend is because of how real it was.

Verma stressed that by showing the raw reality behind what can be considered hot, this trend became a relatable way for women to challenge the on-screen stereotype. the idea of “hot” continues to evolve into a more empathetic, all-encompassing ideal. Supriya Banerjee, a 24-year-old social researcher based in the Netherlands, told VICE. It normalizes simple things like art, dance or cooking meals for children as things a hot girl does.” For Banerjee, the trend has a simple underlying message: that everything women do can be considered hot girl shit.

What does Gen Z women empowerment suggest?

Feminism and female empowerment within Generation Z shares the idea of positive cultural change in female stereotypes through technology and social media which can be easily flowed into the mainstream of society and news. Gen Z is all about individuality, authenticity, and diversity and is always up to challenge  stereotypes and break the norms unapologetically in order to be truly happy because Gen Z is passionate about wellbeing and mental health. Gen Z sets out trends on social media to spread messages and ideas that influence other social media users. Overall, Gen Z’s way of breaking female stereotypes is through trends, social media, music, and many more types of media just to get the word out.

[meta-squash]

[Old Manics meta repost, originally written in 2015 or 2016. I was definitely in a....place....when I wrote this.]

Cue yet another long convoluted rambling strange post about Richey Edwards and Theodor Adorno. For some reason this has been rolling around in my head as half-formed thoughts for a while. They’re definitely still half-formed, but I wanted to get them out of my head and into something slightly more sentence-like.

[Uhh, TW for weird logic, ED-style thinking, and convoluted ill-formed ideas.]

In one of Richey’s manifestos to a zine in December 1992, he writes “THE GODS THOUGHT THERE IS NO MORE DREADFUL PUNISHMENT THAN FUTILE AND HOPELESS LABOUR. GROW UP, GET FUCKED, WITHER. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY KNOW HUNGER, TRUE HUNGER LIKE SOMALIA. EVERYONE HAS CLOTHES, FOOD, A DRINK. EVERYONE IS LAST, PATHETIC WRETCHED. THE ONLY FREEDOM LEFT IS THE FREEDOM TO STARVE. FILL YOUR HOME WITH ANYTHING YOU LIKE BUT YOU CAN’T INVENT ANOTHER COLOUR…” The “freedom to starve” quote keeps being attributed to him on the internet, or to Tom Morello, lead singer of Rage Against The Machine, who has a different but similar quote about capitalism and labor exploitation that includes the phrase. (It also appears in the comic V For Vendetta, apparently.) But the phrase didn’t originate with them. I keep seeing repeated uses of it when reading essays by Theodor Adorno from the 60s, and I’m sure the phrase is probably older than that. Morello’s quote containing the phrase is essentially summarizing one of Adorno’s ideas.

So far I’ve come across the phrase in two of Theodor Adorno’s essays. One is in “Freedom In Unfreedom”. In essence, it discusses the paradox of the idea of freedom in our current society. He essentially says that people no longer have a specific concept in mind when they invoke the word “freedom,” and that the nature of present society means that whatever concept of freedom we come up with is not possible because it contradicts current circumstances. He gives the example of early Nazi Germany, when an social-democratic organization took up “Freedom” as its slogan, but the concept and the term had lost its power entirely because employment was incredibly low, and people were struggling, so upholding freedom as a conceptual principle which implies self-determination looked foolish because in practice no one is free and everyone is unemployed and starving and unable to access food/wellbeing and therefore unable to practice self-determination. He says “In other words, freedom was exposed as the freedom to starve; people had direct experience of their dependence on society, a dependence that made a mockery of a freedom that was defined in purely formal terms.”

The other Adorno essay that uses the phrase is “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Basically, in the section that uses the phrase he discusses the way that the culture industry (or mass culture) exploits and uses artists by homogenizing them. He says “anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in.” Freedom is supposedly given to each individual (in society, in art, in expression, in culture, in the workplace) but if a person doesn’t inherit the ability or resources to succeed in life, then this freedom becomes the “freedom of the stupid to starve”. People who aren’t able to adapt to society’s expectations/who question or refuse to conform are neglected and made to starve, literally or metaphorically. The blame is placed on them for their inability/unwillingness to adapt or conform, because they were “given” the opportunity to succeed (despite that opportunity requiring conformity, or changing their nature, or giving up morals, etc). So a person who is unable or refuses to conform to society and culture and the working class, who goes hungry or cold (literally or metaphorically), is an labelled outsider. They retain their integrity, or their morals, or their original artistic vision, but they suffer through loss of wealth, or faith, or by being rejected and called an outsider and being mocked or no longer listened to. They are free, but at a price.

Applying this to Richey, I thought it was interesting that he seemed to be taking freedom to starve both literally and figuratively. “Freedom to starve” becomes a refusal to consume in certain ways, ascetism, essentially. It becomes a literal or physical manifestation of the neglect that occurs when a person refuses to conform to society’s expectations. It becomes Richey refusing to conform to society’s expectations of food consumption while also refusing to conform to musical and artistic standards by creating The Holy Bible and specifically pointing out the wrongs of society. The band having complete control over the album, hiding in their studio and working together without any outside influence pushes against the expectation of producers/managers/sound engineers/labels/etc having partial influence or control over the sound of a band’s music. Richey’s inability to adapt mentally to fame, to touring, to the stress of schedule, etc etc also is a sort of manifestation of that “freedom of the stupid to starve”, in that he was unable to properly adapt to what was expected of him in terms of fame and touring, and he was blamed for it and seen as strange for disliking aspects of fame.

This is where I get into some interesting, if problematic, ideas. Richey seemed to kind of take the idea to another level through his eating disorder. Freedom to starve/freedom of restriction essentially becomes true freedom because it takes back control of body mind and spirit. Richey sort of talked about this in an interview with Simon Price in 94 in France. He mentioned that people can’t hold you down and force you to eat/watch you all the time, and that your body is your own and you should have a right to do with it what you want. Essentially, self mutilation/self harm/restriction becomes a mode of self-control, a reclamation of the body from expectations of society. Society expects excess and encourages/wants consumption. In creating consumption, the culture industry takes control of the mind and the body by telling consumers what they want even if they didn’t originally desire it, saying it over and over and continually producing under consumers are convinced that they do want whatever they are being given. Self-mutilation, restriction and ascetism removes that and reclaims the body as owned by itself and its mind. It puts control back into the awareness of the self and the body and the mind, which forces the self to be aware of the influence of culture industry. This awareness allows the self to refuse that influence, the refusal of which includes those actions or decisions that go against the expectations or desires or encouragements of society. It also confronts the fact that society sees certain types of expressions of emotion/mental state as “wrong” or maladaptive and those who express themselves a certain way are marked as outsiders. Repression and restriction and stoicism becomes revenge for society marking you as outsider for expressing rage at unfreedom/expressing emotions that are seen as maladaptive. Self-harm or starvation becomes a reclamation of the mind and the emotions, and increasing of that maladaptive expression in order to basically reject society’s expectations altogether. Richey essentially says that when talking about his time in hospital; self-harm or self-restriction takes back control of body and mind from expectations of doctors and society – they can’t hold you down and force food down your throat, someone can’t be with you 24 hours a day, it’s my body I do what I want with it.

The height of this could be disappearance/death: refusal to participate “correctly” in society, refusal to “be” in society in the expected way. A rejection of literally all things. James Bradfield notes that a major theme in Journal For Plague Lovers is a rejection of experience, a rejection of expected lyrical formats, and a rejection of some sort of answer or truth. A realization that nothing seems to be working. A refusal to continue to consume or participate correctly or to express consumption or participation correctly, especially in that the meanings or messages of most of the songs are completely obscured through unconnected phrases or disparate references that take research to decipher. The idea is sort of expressed in individual songs from the album as well. All Is Vanity  asks questions of vanity extremes vs personal neglect – which one is refusal to participate correctly? Are they both refusal? Are they the same? Inability to adapt correctly compared to what is expected/right vs what you are doing and how your actions are called into question as incorrect. Discipline is respected, but certain types of discipline are seen as different/maladapted compared to the expectations of society or the culture industry, which allows for the question of which type of discipline is “wrong” or “right” and does it depend on perspective? Excesses are lauded in the culture industry, consumption is encouraged, as is vanity and obsession with the self, and ascetism or restriction and neglect of the self is seen as wrong. But extreme excess of consumption is also frowned upon or mocked. Society encourages a certain amount of excess and consumption in order to control and delude. In encourages and creates consumption so that the consumer doesn’t stop and thinking about how they are being made to overwork and overconsume in ways they probably didn’t originally want to be doing but have been convinced into by society. Refusal of consumption/vocal awareness of participation in consumption becomes maladaptive because it’s not what society wants, which is exactly the kinds of words and things the band was expressing.

And the idea of disappearance or death takes all of this to the highest level, in that disappearance rejects society’s expectations entirely, refusing to participate in society in a “correct” way. It is also expressing whatever sort of emotions or thoughts a person might have in a way that creates an absence (metaphorical and literally) rather than yet another thing to be consumed. Disappearance when a person is still living is a complete reclamation of the body and self because the person essentially is able to drop out of society as themselves, and even if they assume a different identity, they are still inherently refusing to participate in an expected way, still creating an absence of a person and an absence of an identity, and in using a false identity that refusal becomes even more complex. Death, too, and specifically suicide, is a refusal to participate in society, but in a much more final way. Suicide is yet another reclamation of the body, since it is by one’s own hand and willpower that one’s life is taken, not through illness or another person or old age. It creates a different kind of absence, since often a suicide, since there is a body and often a note, gives answers or at least there is a physical proof of refusal and a physical proof of that person’s death. A suicide creates a narrative with finality, with refusal as the finality and therefore certain aspects of absence are filled in with the assumptions that come with suicide and death in general. A disappearance has a narrative with an ellipses rather than a full stop, and because it is left open, the absence and refusal are left with unanswered questions, reasons, and unspoken ideas, specifically because it is a kind of refusal to participate that is completely unexpected and cannot be explained with a body or a note.

I don’t really have a conclusion to these thoughts or any sort of cumulative idea or whatever. I just was thinking about the phrase “the only freedom left is the freedom to starve” and what it meant in relation to Richey when Adorno is applied.

[back-and-totheleft]

An epic memoir for an epic life

In a 1992 interview with Arthur Miller, Charlie Rose asked him what quality the great playwrights have shared in common, distinguishing them from the not so great ones in any given age?

After a pause to gather his thoughts, Miller replied that the “big ones share a fierce moral sensibility” and that “they are all burning with some anger at the way the world is.” “The littler ones,” Miller continues, “have made their peace with it. The bigger ones can’t make any peace.”

Oliver Stone is an artist whose work (his early work especially) is, as with Miller’s and all the “bigger ones”, suffused with the passion and fire of a man who refused to make peace with the world he both experienced and observed around him after serving two tours in Vietnam as an infantryman, prior to emerging determined to live life on his own terms or not at all.

The period covered in Chasing the Light runs from Stone’s his childhood and formative years all the way to the mountaintop that is Oscar night in 1987, when he picks up the Oscar for best director for Platoon, which also wins the award for best picture, editing, and score. In between we are taken on a journey of Sisyphean magnitude as he battles to overcome personal demons as a result of fraught-ridden teenage years in the midst of his parents’ divorce, which shatters any semblance of security and certainty he’d enjoyed as a child of relative privilege and affluence. Those demons were key in his decision to volunteer for Vietnam, which he does bent on either death or spiritual rebirth in this hell of his own choosing.

Greek mythology is a key theme in the book and in his life during this seminal period — in particular the epic character Odysseus (Ulysses in Latin), hero of Homer’s epic poem, the Odyssey, and also a key character in its prequel, the Iliad. Stone uses Odysseus as his inspiration in choosing to forego the safe and steady path of convention and instead embrace the wisdom enshrined in Nietzsche: “The secret of realizing the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously!”

Stone’s struggle to mount the ramparts of the fortress that is Hollywood would have broken the spirit of all but those in possession of the kind of adamantine tenacity and perseverance that takes you to the edge of madness. Reading of his struggles, his years of rejection, of climbing the ladder of hope only to be kicked off it again, you are reminded of the agony of Vincent Van Gogh, expressed in his letters to his brother Theo, or of Knut Hamsun in his classic semi-autobiographical novel Hunger, chronicling his early failed attempts to establish himself as a writer.

To wit: Hamsun: “I was conscious all the time that I was following mad whims without being able to do anything about it … . Despite my alienation from myself at that moment, and even though I was nothing but a battleground for invisible forces, I was aware of every detail of what was going on around me.”

Stone: “I drew hurt and perverse pride in being able to take rejection. Yet my wounded ego interfered with my ability to understand the reasons for these rejections….Beyond the paper world of rejection, there was also the in-person wound of being told no in face-to-face meetings — when they could be had — the hard-to-come-by lunches, the unreturned phone calls.”

In one the most powerful passages in the book, Stone garners renewed strength from visiting his beloved grandmother in Paris on her deathbed. Amid the flux and tumult of his parents’ split during his adolescent years, she had been both sanctuary and emotional anchor.

But then: Meme [grandmother] wanted me to go — quickly, before it was too late. I couldn’t hear but it was clear what the shades were saying: We, the dead, are telling you — your lifespan is short. Make of it everything you can. Before you’re one of us.

After many fits and starts, Stone’s breakthrough comes through his writing — first with Midnight Express, for which he wins the Oscar for best adapted screenplay in 1979, and then Scarface in 1983, a cult classic to this day. The writing in both movies crackles with a rare kinetic energy, jolting you out of your comfort zone with the unvarnished truth of the human condition in situations of extremis. If the famed and controversial Method system of acting has its parallel in screenwriting, Oliver Stone was perhaps its first and still most notable exemplar.

But despite his success as a writer, Stone’s calling is as a writer/director, with his fierce sense of how his words and vision should be captured on screen driving him on through setback after setback, until in 1985 with Salvador (released in 1986) his moment of truth arrives. The drama involved in getting it over the line more than parallels the drama captured onscreen.

At the time, Salvador’s impact on the conscience and consciousness of America when it came to the disjuncture that exists between the mythical depiction its role in the world as a force for good, and the grim truth of its litany of crimes in places that most Americans, trapped in a bubble of celebrity culture and a news information ghetto, don’t even know exist, can’t be underestimated. Salvador was crucial moment in my own political awareness, as someone who grew up in Scotland on a diet of American pop culture and Hollywood movies, becoming imbued in the process with the idea of America as the place to be, the place where you had to be if you wanted a shot at an exciting, meaningful and fulfilling existence.

When it comes to Platoon, there really is nothing more to say or write that hasn't already. It remains the Paths of Glory of our time, a withering riposte to the flag-waving, chest-beating, unthinking patriotism on the part of those whose belief in the myths of Americana personified by John Wayne and the heroes of Iwo Jima has trapped them in a prison of false consciousness. Platoon — not only a masterful movie in its own right in terms of its writing, acting, cinematography and brute authenticity — exploded in the midst of Reagan’s America as a subversive and delicious j’accuse, levelled at a status quo which two decades on from the social upheaval of the sixties, had sought to repackage and resell Vietnam to the American people as a noble if failed attempt to thwart a Communist drive for world domination in service to the God of democracy.

The movie’s depiction of the internecine struggle that rages within a combat platoon polarised along racial, class and cultural lines mirrored and still mirror the faultlines which continue to polarise American society today. In this respect, Platoon is as much social commentary as it is a dramatic piece, retaining its force and relevance thereby.

Throughout the book Stone writes with commendable candour about his fears and insecurities, his relationships, and also his lapse into Hollywood hedonism and drug use, which all serves to make him three dimensional and relatable in equal part.

Ultimately, in reading Chasing the Light, you are reminded of Theodor Adorno’s admonition that “Behind every work of art lies an uncommitted crime.” If Stone had not succeeded as an artist and his creative powers applied constructively, you come away from his story convinced that those powers would have found destructive expression, given what he experienced in Vietnam and his struggle to readjust thereafter. Given his remarkable body of work, we can only be thankful that the former rather than the latter prevailed.

-Jon Wight’s review of Chasing the Light, Medium, Aug 31 2020 [x]

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 175

Are Genes the Source of Behavioral Disorders?

We learn about a new gene everyday that is specifically associated with a certain human behavior or that causes a certain physical situation. One gene is responsible for crime, whereas another gene is the cause for baldness. This leads us to blame nature and physiology for these faults. Some recent findings, however, have proven that, contrary to popular perception, genetic expression is also regulated by a person's physical environment and its socio-cultural influences, thus human behavior is not just dictated by genetics. Genes, gene-dependent synthesized hormones, and culture are involved in the shaping of human nature. Behaviors appear in a set of motifs generated by both genetics and culture.

If we consider human nature as a book, the encoded information contained within, together with all the elements of inner and outer environments (bio-psycho-socio-cultural), becomes meaningful and functional. This is because each book has a visible structure composed of letters (semiotic DNA sequence) and a manifested meaning (semantic web) in a particular environment. From this point of view, genes should not be seen as mandatory codes, but should be considered as similar to the art of marbling (or ebru, which is the making of different patterns on a fluid by small vibrations of the ink droplets), for they are created by the united effect of various dynamic forces, and can only be understood accordingly. Human willpower and responsibility will also gain meaning and value when they are analyzed within the framework of the reaction intervals presented within the motifs of human nature which are shaped by the mutual effects genes and cultural factors have on each other. In this sense, human nature and culture should be evaluated together. We can organize the factors that determine human behavior and manners under three main titles - genetic, physicochemical environment, and psycho-socio-cultural factors. We can only speculate statistically as to how large or small a role each factor plays in development.

Behaviors like an inclination to crime, having intimate feelings for same sex individuals, cognitive and sensory sharpness, a desire for excitement and risk, or an inclination to addiction cannot be described by one or two genes. For instance, there are many factors (environment, genes) involved in acts of violence. However, one missing and insufficient factor can trigger violence. For instance, the Monoamine oxidase A enzyme is encoded by the MAO-A gene; this enzyme is in charge of degrading neurotransmitter molecules such as dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine (these enable signaling between nerve cells). Depending on the mutations or polymorphisms of this gene, if the enzyme cannot function sufficiently, these individuals display an inclination towards violence and aggressive behavior. But if the person is aware of the situation and gets educational support from others, this behavior can be controlled.

Similarly, every person has a variable degree of genes that put them at risk for cancer. If these genes are activated via environmental factors - such as smoking, poor nutrition, mutagens, carcinogens - cancer may develop. On the other hand, if a person is lacking the cancer-causing genes or has low inclination towards cancer, such a person may not get cancer, even if he or she is a smoker. Similar statements can be made for genes associated with addictions, sexual perversions, and violent tendencies. More significantly, we can produce more value and meaning out of behavior-related genes when we evaluate them according to their context, position, and other factors, along with their relations to other genes. That is to say, there is a complicated network of factors that shape behavior. That’s why a DNA sequence alone cannot determine, all by itself, the development of emotions and manners, skills, and personality. In other words, phenotype can never be predicted 100% just by the interpretation of genetic information.

Brain and personality development is a multi-faceted, exposome mystery. From the start of pregnancy, especially throughout the preschool era, everything one is exposed to, and the way those events shape one’s nature, is called exposome. This can include subconscious events, for all sorts of personal history plays a role in such development. The connections of 1011 neuron cells that exist in an average human brain are not only determined by genes. Human DNA contains 6.2 x 109 nucleotide (letter), or information. Reading and using this raw information depends on many factors. Neurons can establish new connections via internal and external stimuli, while on the other hand, the number of neuron cells and connection networks can be changed by the neurochemical substances and hormones that they synthesize. All of the information required to define fine details in the motifs and connections of brain cells is not present in the genome. Mere environmental factors are not enough to complement this missing information.

Aside from these, many factors play a role in brain development and function. When the ends of axons and dendrites extend, they do so by recognizing nanomolecules that guide them all the way to the target organ or region. They happen to make minor changes and deviations during this extension. These changes are extreme enough that this extension is part deterministic and part trial and error. They reach the target through a statistically systemic algorithm but with a certainty less than 100%. Axons that are extended from eyes to the brain have a 1% possibility of taking a wrong turn at optic chiasm, and therefore not reaching the brain or arriving at the wrong region of it. However, there are also signalization systems built in our brains that recognize and correct these errors. If axons cannot receive the correct signals from target neurons, they get degraded. And sometimes a neuron of the axon terminates itself. These observations clearly show that brain development does not take place by a molecular program that is predetermined down to the minutest details but rather through a flexible program open to changes and errors.

This flexible program is explained by materialistic philosophy as “chance,” which basically means being in the right place at the right time to encounter the right factors. The same program, in religious literature, is explained by factors known as fate, kismet, destiny, divine blessing, and grant. Aside from that, there are also certain uncontrollable activations and a genetic background in the brain that are involved before we start a conscious action. From this perspective, motifs generated by biological and genetic inclinations set the infrastructure for the freedom of decision making and self-determination. Since our thoughts, emotions, and acts are formed within the neurogenetic and neurochemical construct of the brain, the motif that is created by the background here generates inclinations for specific acts and behaviors. In other words, events that take place in our brain chemistry during the fetal period and early childhood years are significant determinants of human development. The human brain can function in a state with willpower and consciousness, but can also function automatically, without consciousness. Briefly, it is through our genes that the framework of what we can achieve, our reaction intervals and threshold values are determined, and the possibility of an act is indicated. But the boundaries of the final decision are determined via statistical possibilities as a result of a person’s interaction with their environment. Therefore the boundary is not determined in a mandatory fashion, but via external dynamics (like manners, beliefs, or moral nourishment).

Human willpower is our capacity and strength to make free decisions and selections under the effects of spiritual, genetic, and environmental frameworks (endophenotype). The decisions and selections cannot take place independently from the sources nourishing one’s metaphysical world, cultural circles, or from the impact of neurochemicals in the brain and our hormones. “God burdens no soul except within its capacity” (2:286) is a sign of mercy and compassion from the Qur’an, indicating that the field of action and boundaries of the human willpower are determined based on multiple factors and wise causes. Producing customized religious rulings according to one’s natural strengths and weaknesses is also a very meaningful legal action in Islamic law. It is, in a sense, an acknowledgement that everyone has trials and experiences that are different than others’.

Humans have responsibilities within defined, limited conditions, and they can only make decisions within those permissible intervals of conditions and the constraints of their natural dispositions. If we can analyze human actions in a model that looks into their dispositions, cultural environments, genetic inclinations, and spiritual and moral nourishment, then we can attain better results in the education and character development of human beings.

Each factor mentioned above affects the child’s sexual separation and differentiation to various degrees. Misbehaviors during sexual development may emerge as a result of a complex mosaic of biological, psychological, sociocultural factors. There is not a complete consensus around the main reasons for this, yet each researcher favors one factor in the light of their expertise and ideological choices. However, objective observations and research point out that the quality of relationship between the parents and children is very influential in this matter. The display of unhealthy sexual inclinations stems from a negative background where there is not enough parent-child relationships to help the child develop. In families of children with strange sexual behaviors, a suppressive, excessively controlling model of mother and a distant, aggressive model of a father who resorts to violence are often found to exist. That is why many problems with intimacy and sex that occur later in life can be viewed as a developmental ailment and a problem of insufficient parental communication rather than a mandatory genetic phenomenon.

Various problems can arise when healthy differentiation and separation do not take place during a child’s development. A child, in the beginning, is like a part of the mother. If differentiated by detachment from the mother, and from her compassion and care, a child struggles to develop a healthy sense of ego. Such a child becomes inclined to develop a personality that is dependent, passive, and lacking sufficient confidence.

Research clearly states that each child is born with different inclinations and threshold values that are determined genetically and hormonally for each of his or her possible characters and behaviors. These potential inclinations and threshold values can surface depending on internal and external stimuli and educational styles. Even though both genders carry hormones belonging to each other naturally, during development one steps forward upon expression of encoded gender genes. When it comes to displaying sexual abnormalities, everybody is, genetically speaking, a dry log or a wet log. A dry log can easily catch fire, a wet one does not. However, it is the responsibility of society and parents to provide a spark-free environment for the dry log. Spiritual and biological nourishment during the developmental process are found to be significantly influential in diseases and aging, in disorders of character development, and in anomalies in sexual behaviors. When proper measures are taken timely, via suitable environments and educational modes, the possible surfacing of behavioral pathologies may be prevented or reduced for children potentially at risk. Through correct guidance and education, the expression and regulation of genes can be altered and managed, controlling these naturally present inclinations.

[blackfreethinkers]

Is a color-blind political system possible under our Constitution? If it is, the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 did little to help matters. While black people in America today are not experiencing 1950s levels of voter suppression, efforts to keep them and other citizens from participating in elections began within 24 hours of the Shelby County v. Holder ruling and have only increased since then.

In Shelby County’s oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cautioned, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get them out through the normal political processes.” Ironically enough, there is some truth to an otherwise frighteningly numb claim. American elections have an acute history of racial entitlements—only they don’t privilege black Americans.

For centuries, white votes have gotten undue weight, as a result of innovations such as poll taxes and voter-ID laws and outright violence to discourage racial minorities from voting. (The point was obvious to anyone paying attention: As William F. Buckley argued in his essay “Why the South Must Prevail,” white Americans are “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,” anywhere they are outnumbered because they are part of “the advanced race.”) But America’s institutions boosted white political power in less obvious ways, too, and the nation’s oldest structural racial entitlement program is one of its most consequential: the Electoral College.

Commentators today tend to downplay the extent to which race and slavery contributed to the Framers’ creation of the Electoral College, in effect whitewashing history: Of the considerations that factored into the Framers’ calculus, race and slavery were perhaps the foremost.

Of course, the Framers had a number of other reasons to engineer the Electoral College. Fearful that the president might fall victim to a host of civic vices—that he could become susceptible to corruption or cronyism, sow disunity, or exercise overreach—the men sought to constrain executive power consistent with constitutional principles such as federalism and checks and balances. The delegates to the Philadelphia convention had scant conception of the American presidency—the duties, powers, and limits of the office. But they did have a handful of ideas about the method for selecting the chief executive. When the idea of a popular vote was raised, they griped openly that it could result in too much democracy. With few objections, they quickly dispensed with the notion that the people might choose their leader.

But delegates from the slaveholding South had another rationale for opposing the direct election method, and they had no qualms about articulating it: Doing so would be to their disadvantage. Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that “the people at large was in his opinion the fittest” to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most “diplomatic” terms:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

Right from the get-go, the Electoral College has produced no shortage of lessons about the impact of racial entitlement in selecting the president. History buffs and Hamilton fans are aware that in its first major failure, the Electoral College produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his putative running mate, Aaron Burr. What’s less known about the election of 1800 is the way the Electoral College succeeded, which is to say that it operated as one might have expected, based on its embrace of the three-fifths compromise. The South’s baked-in advantages—the bonus electoral votes it received for maintaining slaves, all while not allowing those slaves to vote—made the difference in the election outcome. It gave the slaveholder Jefferson an edge over his opponent, the incumbent president and abolitionist John Adams. To quote Yale Law’s Akhil Reed Amar, the third president “metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.” That election continued an almost uninterrupted trend of southern slaveholders and their doughfaced sympathizers winning the White House that lasted until Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860.

In 1803, the Twelfth Amendment modified the Electoral College to prevent another Jefferson-Burr–type debacle. Six decades later, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, thus ridding the South of its windfall electors. Nevertheless, the shoddy system continued to cleave the American democratic ideal along racial lines. In the 1876 presidential election, the Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but some electoral votes were in dispute, including those in—wait for it—Florida. An ad hoc commission of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices was empaneled to resolve the matter. Ultimately, they awarded the contested electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had lost the popular vote. As a part of the agreement, known as the Compromise of 1877, the federal government removed the troops that were stationed in the South after the Civil War to maintain order and protect black voters.

The deal at once marked the end of the brief Reconstruction era, the redemption of the old South, and the birth of the Jim Crow regime. The decision to remove soldiers from the South led to the restoration of white supremacy in voting through the systematic disenfranchisement of black people, virtually accomplishing over the next eight decades what slavery had accomplished in the country’s first eight decades. And so the Electoral College’s misfire in 1876 helped ensure that Reconstruction would not remove the original stain of slavery so much as smear it onto the other parts of the Constitution’s fabric, and countenance the racialized patchwork democracy that endured until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

What’s clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It’s the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It’s precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

Among the Electoral College’s supporters, the favorite rationalization is that without the advantage, politicians might disregard a large swath of the country’s voters, particularly those in small or geographically inconvenient states. Even if the claim were true, it’s hardly conceivable that switching to a popular-vote system would lead candidates to ignore more voters than they do under the current one. Three-quarters of Americans live in states where most of the major parties’ presidential candidates do not campaign.

More important, this “voters will be ignored” rationale is morally indefensible. Awarding a numerical few voting “enhancements” to decide for the many amounts to a tyranny of the minority. Under any other circumstances, we would call an electoral system that weights some votes more than others a farce—which the Supreme Court, more or less, did in a series of landmark cases. Can you imagine a world in which the votes of black people were weighted more heavily because presidential candidates would otherwise ignore them, or, for that matter, any other reason? No. That would be a racial entitlement. What’s easier to imagine is the racial burdens the Electoral College continues to wreak on them.

Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.

The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.

[alistairlane]

On Civil War

          Throughout all of history, people have been made subject to ruling orders by that they have deployed what, in martial terms, is called the “divide and conquer” strategy.  The tactic seeks to create internal schisms within a community in order to atomize its members. Once people have become isolated from each other, they can be integrated into a political body that has rendered their natural antagonism inoperative and can actually enforce the very repression that the ruling order that they necessarily did not want to become subject to sought to carry out.  That sovereignty had been constituted by a process that induced social disintegration had resulted in the absurdity of that the potential crisis of civil war had more or less become a normalized state of affairs within most nation-states. Contrary to popular belief, civil war has not been regarded as a crisis that poses an existential threat to whatever powers there are that may be; it has, rather, provided the various regimes who have sought to deploy the divide and conquer strategy in the formal constitution of a state with the semblance of legitimacy in that their rule of law has appeared to have been justified by that they have actually needed to respond to the very crisis that their attempts to secure power by such measures has inevitably created.  The threat of civil war provides a nation-state with the justification for the suspension of the rule of law and the deployment of the extra-juridical forms of repression that have come to be called “emergency powers”.  Because no person can agree to become subject to a state that seeks to divide and conquer its populace, and, because most nation-states have historically deployed such strategies in their establishment, what we have come to understand as the “rule of law” has not generally been legitimated by the faith that a populace has in a state’s constitution as according to what Jean Jacques Rousseau theorized as the “Social Contract”; it has, rather, been established by what nation-states have enacted during states of emergency. The exception to the rule of law has become the law itself.  In order to prevent the more nefarious parties engaged in the already dubious battle for global dominance from securing power in the absolute, we need to actively disengage from all that is unduly divisive within our respective communities, refuse to be integrated within any social order that seeks to subjugate its prospective constituents by exploiting social disintegration, and present a legal challenge to the dictates that have been enacted by suspending the rule of law during states of emergency.

               All of this is, of course, easier said than done. When a nation-state is no longer capable of maintaining the semblance of legitimacy, which, in most cases, is to say, that when its ruling order is no longer capable of deceiving its populace, those who seek to restore decorum will, in desperation, resort to overtly violent tactics, such as the carrying out of political assassinations or the deployment of the military, or attempt to introduce the threat of violence within communities that they believe have lost their faith in their authority.  As people are naturally inclined to create and participate in communities that are freely associated, the threat of violence undermines their original basis.  Free association is defined by Google Dictionary as “the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization without any constraint or external restriction”.  As a theoretical concept, it has been explored by both Marxists and Anarchists.  I interpret “free association” as signifying the ideal circumstances of any given social relationship wherein all parties are free from coercion.  I see it as not only being the precept upon which human relations are naturally established and the common inspiration for the participation in what we have come to call “politics”, but, also, the revelatory principle that can make civilization consummate.  To substantiate free association is to take part in a political project that furthers the total liberation of all of humanity.  Because I hold these truths to be self-evident, I have been called an “idealist”.  To this, I respond with that there is no reason to situate social relationships upon anything but ideal grounds.  As no person can agree to become subjugated through coercion, that they are free from it is always necessarily demanded in any given situation.  The freedom from coercion is a natural right that determines the conditions of the democratic project as a whole.  That people should be freely associated is not a mere utopian reverie; it is the requisite condition for democracy to occur.

               As the principle which I have invoked is just simply cogent, it ought to be easy to affirm.  Because most ruling orders have had years to experiment with just how to enact the variegated set of procedures that effectuate subjugation, however, to refuse to participate within a society that renders solidarity inoperative now means to forgo one’s right to exist.  Life must be qualified by its civic merits in order for most ruling orders in most nation-states to consider for it to be of value.  To refuse to become subject to the unsanctioned dominion of the nation-state has become a peril wherein a living person’s status as such is let to be called into question.  To relinquish one’s status as a person who is regarded as a “citizen” now means to let oneself be considered as an “enemy combatant”.  While most nation-states do not have the legal jurisdiction to either deprive political radicals of their citizenship or to banish them from the political sphere, their isolation is still culturally enforced.  Those who are aware of our political situation and willing to change it have become outcasts.  As much as I suspect for moralizing to risk engendering a cult of martyrdom, I must, here, insist that we are compelled to refuse to engage in or sanction either the violence or dissension imposed by most nation-states by both that our freedom is defined by the status of the natural rights of others and that we ought to attempt to create the best of all possible worlds while we are here on Earth.  To express solidarity means to be willing to be regarded as an outcast and to defend the unjustly marginalized.  It is only through its ecstatic disclosure that we will see a world that could, at all, be considered to be utopian.

          In spite of that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the 10th of December in 1948, the attempts to effectively utilize human rights legislation, international law, or to repeal the wanton abuses of jurisprudence that comprise the extra-juridical protocols which apparently legitimate the excessive use of force by most nation-states have done little to either significantly invoke human rights or restrain most nation states from actualizing what are often violent campaigns more or less without the consent of their respective populaces.  The legal theory behind what, in The State of Exception, Italian philosopher, Giorgio Agamben, called the “state of exception” is also fairly obscure. Political theologist and “crown jurist of the Third Reich”, Carl Schmitt, delineated his defense of sovereignty in his seminal thesis on dictatorship, Dictatorship.  While his theory may be difficult to understand because he was a jurist who specialized in legal theory, I would allege that, because almost no person would be likely to agree with him, his work has been intentionally obfuscated. In spite of that I do think that the political works of Giorgio Agamben are a proper antithesis to what Carl Schmitt has postulated, his political philosophy is unfortunately no less arcane. We are in dire need of a practical theory of Law that can substantially situate its constituents within a paradigm that posits both natural and human rights conclusively.  By this, I do not merely mean to suggest that either natural or human rights ought to exist; I am stating that they do in order to make it emphatically evident that they necessarily demarcate just what laws are passed and how.  Human rights transcend the nation-state just as any good ideas ought to transcend any form of botched compliance.  Natural rights exist by that they are always necessarily demanded in every given situation. Liberation is inexpropriable. That we should seek to interpret the Law in our favor is not just radical zeal; it is an honest assessment of our current political situation.

          So, what, then, remains to be said for “civil war”?  While it is clearly the case that attempts at subjugation will necessitate some form of revolt, I do not think that we should agree to their terms. Because, in most nation-states, we have the legal precedents to lay claim to either free association or the freedom from coercion, the attempt to reduce the status of political dissidents to one where their right to life can be called into question, or, to include them in the civic sphere by their very exclusion as what has come to be called “bare life”, can be effectively countered by an appeal to all that is veritable of the democratic project as a whole.  While such a strategy may occasionally have to rely upon the invocation of the rights of citizens, I think that human rights legislation ought to transcend the confines of the nation-state.  While, in order to put such a plan of action into operation, we may have to rely upon the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, I do not think that international law should ideally be conceptualized as it has been enacted by the United Nations.  To state my position as an Anarcho-Pacifist in favor of nonviolent revolution does indicate that I am willing to engage in civil war. It does not, however, as per the terms which have been offered, mean that I am willing forfeit my “unalienable” natural rights.  As the threat of civil war serves as the pretext for martial law, the hysteria which it inspires needs to be allayed.  Because most ruling orders have secured power through their response to the very crises that their projected reign has necessarily incited, almost all of the radical transformation of the nation-state from a sovereignty to a democratic entity has been inspired by some form of civil disobedience or another. Nearly all of the lofty ideals of the Liberal democratic project have been antithetical to the structure of the nation-states in which they were born.  The demand for free association does not produce a political crisis in that it presents the nation-state with a social configuration that can rival that of the established ruling order; it, rather, resolves the political crisis that has been imposed upon the populace by that, in most cases, the ruling order has been established through subjugation.  The substantiation of the freedom from coercion, free association, solidarity, and nonviolent revolution does not imperil negating the democratic process; it can, rather, bring it to its apotheosis.  I do not seek to destroy civilization by participating in a vaguely eschatological project that foretells a common war of all against all; I merely intend to reify what has become sanctimonious of it.  Liberation, the realization of egalitarianism, and world peace are not just possible; they are the only ends that any person who is sincerely engaged in politics should seek to actualize.                      

[awkward-marinette]

I’m coming with this drawing 100 years later, after the beginning of season 3. I was originally planning to finish it much, much earlier but life got in the way and I really need to stop making promises to myself to finish drawings on time because it never happens. 

I know it’s late and ML salt had enough time to evaporate and given the fact that Tumblr Purge happened on 17th December, there’s a possibility that not so many people humour the idea of akumatized Marinette anymore. I get that, I’m probably the only person in the world who wants to see her getting akumatized and “Chameleon” trailer and the episode itself gave me so many ideas how it could go down. So despite all of that, I was determined to finish this piece and I’m happy that I finally had the time to do it. 

Anyway, here’s my design for akumatized!Marinette - when I was trying to figure out all elements of her appearance, I couldn’t decide on her name. Eventually, I came up with totally unoriginal one - Dishonest. 

I love the fact that Marinette has Chinese roots and it’s a real shame that the show never focused on that more than was shown in “Kung Food”. That’s why I decided to use Chinese symbols and culture in her akumatized design - it’s a part of her character that we technically never see. 

Marinette in “Chameleon” was seeking mostly justice, firstly because of seating arragements made by her classmates without her knowledge, secondly because Lila was lying to everyone and getting away with it. That’s the reason I did some research on Chinese symbol of justice, truth and honesty. There are many of them but one caught my attention - Xie Zhi. In short, it’s a name of mystical creature that, according to some legends, was judging human souls by looking at them with merciless eyes that seemed to know everything. And Xie Zhi has also very interesting design - dragon head (with angry eyes), rhino horn at the top of the head, tiger legs, fur of the bear and scales. And I thought that it’s the perfect source of inspiration for my akumatized!Marinette design. Her crown is as high as the horn, the tunic underneath has a texture similar to scales, she has gloves with claws and lower parts of the costume are printed in tiger marks. 

I know that this costume is a little bit over the top given all details and there’s no way it could pass to be used in the show. But that’s the beauty of fan creativity, right? And imo, it suits my other ideas for Marinette in akumatized form. I imagine that rather being agressive and dynamically moving akuma, she would have smooth movements, calm attitude and prefer to be static which would be more menacing and unnerving for others. But she still would be a force to reckon with in the fight since her long experience as Ladybug (unknown to others). If she sense the threat, she won’t hesitate to attack. 

As for the weapons of choice, I went with fans since she would be more static akuma. But they would have a real purpose instead of being a simple decoration - she can use longer sticks as pins that she throws at someone who tries to escape her, escape the judgement, and freeze that person in place until she gets closer. Now’s the moment to ask - why does she have red eyes? Well, since Xie Zhi makes a judgement by using only its eyes, I figured that Marinette could force the ‘poor’ soul to reveal all of her/his lies and truths just by looking at them with fierce intensity. She can do that because her eyes are the same shade of red as the biggest jewel in the crown - that plus her eyes create a deadly combo that forces anyone to involuntary confess if she/he’s looking at it at the same time. It may seem not that bad unless you consider how harsh words and opinions can be heard from person that fell into Dishonest trap and how they can affect people around that person. 

I also have few headcannons regarding Dishonest: 

- Marinette’s transformation would be a long one because she would try to slow the process down, hoping that she would calm down before it could be completed. She would even have the time to run from school in the seek of a hideout. 

- Hawkmoth would be impressed because no one delayed the transformation for so long and they would get into a really important discussion through their link. 

- Tikki would disappear physically at the start of the transformation - I didn’t decide if akuma would go for Marinette’s earrings but I think that this whole mess would trap Tikki in Marinette’s mind. 

- Marinette of course would target Lila first and she would have some heavy evidence against her, so it wouldn’t be considered a normal revenge - that would include Lila’s revealation in the bathroom but I don’t know how Marinette would have it recorded. then she would go for her dear classmates, except Adrien. 

- at the mention of Ladybug, she would claim that LB won’t come this time to save the day and, to everyone’s surprise, she would pull out the Miraculous box containing earrings - but in reality, it would be an illusion to lower people morals that beloved heroine was defeated and it would instill a fear in their hearts. 

- Marinette would hide from Hawkmoth the fact that she’s Ladybug and despite fighting Chat and taunting him about Ladybug’s absence, she still wouldn’t be 100% on HM side. 

- Marinette would be strong enough to release herself from akuma’s influence, since there won’t be Ladybug to do it - which would create another problem since Hawkmoth would be definitely more interested in her and keeping an eye on her from now on. 

I’m painfully aware that my art skills aren’t anywhere near perfection as some amazing artists here and I’m still learning digital drawing, that’s why I didn’t include all my ideas for this design. Maybe someday I’ll redraw it and actually include some quality lightning and textures of animals that Xie Zhi is made of. But I had to put watermarks on it, juuust to be sure it won’t be reposted anywhere. 

[jonathandelacruzsblog-blog]

Social System

It is Talcott Parsons who has given the concept of ‘system’ current in modern sociology. Social system refers to’ an orderly arrangement, an inter relationships of parts. In the arrangement, every part has a fixed place and definite role to play. The parts are bound by interaction. System signifies, thus, patterned relationship among constituent parts of a structure which is based on functional relations and which makes these parts active and binds them into reality.

Society is a system of usages, authority and mutuality based on “We” felling and likeness. Differences within the society are not excluded. These are, however, subordinated to likeness. Inter-dependence and cooperation are its basis. It is bound by reciprocal awareness. It is essentially a pattern for imparting the social behaviour.

It consists in mutual inter action and interrelation of individuals and of the structure formed by their relations. It is not time bound. It is different from an aggregate of people and community. According to Lapiere, “The term society refers not to group of people, but to the complex pattern of the norms of inter action that arises among and between them.”

Applying these conclusions to society, social system may be described as an arrangement of social interactions based on shared norms and values. Individuals constitute it, and each has place and function to perform within it. In the process, one influences the other; groups are formed and they gain influence, numerous subgroup come into existence.

But all of these are coherent. They function as a whole. Neither individual, nor the group can function in isolation. They are bound in oneness, by norms and values, culture and shared behaviour. The pattern that thus comes into existence becomes the social system.

A social system may be defined, after Parsons, a plurality of social actors who are engaged in more or less stable interaction “according to shared cultural norms and meanings” Individuals constitute the basic interaction units. But the interacting units may be groups or organisation of individuals within the system.

The social system, according to Charles P. Loomis, is composed of the patterned interaction of visual actors whose’ relation to each other are mutually oriented through the definition of the mediation of pattern of structured and shared symbols and expectations.

All social organisations are, therefore, ‘social system’, since they consist of interacting individuals. In the social system each of the interacting individual has function or role to perform in terms of the status he occupies in the system. For example, in the family parents, sons and daughters are required to perform certain socially recognised functions or roles.

Similarly, social organisations function within the frame work of a normative pattern. Thus, a social system presupposes a social structure consisting of different parts which are interrelated in such a way as to perform its functions.

Social system is a comprehensive arrangement. It takes its orbit all the diverse subsystems such as the economic, political, religious and others and their interrelation too. Social systems are bound by environment such as geography. And this differentiates one system from another.

There are 8 Elements of Social System:

The elements of social system are described as under:

1. Faiths and Knowledge:

The faiths and knowledge brings about the uniformity in the behaviour. They act as controlling agency of different types of human societies. The faiths or the faith is the result of the prevalent customs and beliefs. They enjoy the force of the individual are guided towards a particular direction.

2. Sentiment:

Man does not live by reason alone. Sentiments – filial, social, notional etc. have played immense role in investing society with continuity. It is directly linked with the culture of the people.

3. End Goal or object:

Man is born social and dependent. He has to meet his requirements and fulfill his obligations. Man and society exist between needs and satisfactions, end and goal. These determine the nature of social system. They provided the pathway of progress, and the receding horizons.

4. Ideals and Norms:

The society lays down certain norms and ideals for keeping the social system intact and for determining the various functions of different units. These norms prescribe the rules and regulations on the basis of which individuals or persons may acquire their cultural goals and aims.

In other words ideals and norms are responsible for an ideal structure or system of the society. Due to them the human behaviour does not become deviant and they act according to the norms of the society. This leads to organization and stability. These norms and ideals include folkways, customs, traditions, fashions, morality, religion, etc.

5. Status-Role:

Every individual in society is functional. He goes by status-role relation. It may come to the individual by virtue of his birth, sex, caste, or age. One may achieve it on the basis of service rendered.

6. Role:

Like the status, society has prescribed different roles to different individuals. Sometimes we find that there is a role attached to every status. Role is the external expression of the status. While discharging certain jobs or doing certain things, every individual keeps in his mind his status. This thing leads to social integration, organization and unity in the social system. In fact statuses and roles go together. It is not possible to separate them completely from one another.

7. Power:

Conflict is a part of social system, and order is its aim. It is implicit, therefore, that some should be invested with the power to punish the guilty and reward those who set an example. The authority exercising power will differ from group to group; while the authority of father may be supreme in the family, in the state it is that of the ruler.

8. Sanction:

It implies confirmation by the superior in authority, of the acts done be the subordinate or the imposition of penalty for the infringement of the command. The acts done or not done according to norms may bring reward and punishment.

Also there are 9 Characteristics of Social System:

Social system has certain characteristics. These characteristics are as follows:

1. System is connected with the plurality of Individual actors:

It means that a system or social system cannot be borne as a result of the activity of one individual. It is the result of the activities of various individuals. For system, or social system, interaction of several individuals has to be there.

2. Aim and Object:

Human interactions or activities of the individual actors should not be aimless or without object. These activities have to be according to certain aims and objects. The expression of different social relations borne as a result of human interaction.

3. Order and Pattern amongst various Constituent Units:

Mere coming together of various constituent units that from social system does not necessarily create a social system. It has to be according to a pattern, arrangement and order. The underlined unity amongst various constituent units brings about ‘social system’.

4. Functional Relationship is the Basis of Unity:

We have already seen different constituent units have a unity in order to form a system. This unity is based on functional relations. As a result of functional relationships between different constituent units an integrated whole is created and this is known as social system.

5. Physical or Environmental Aspect of Social System:

It means that every social system is connected with a definite geographical area or place, time, society etc. In other words it means that social system is not the same at different times, at different place and under different circumstances. This characteristic of the social system again point out towards its dynamic or changeable nature.

6. Linked with Cultural System:

Social system is also linked with cultural system. It means that cultural system bring about unity amongst different members of the society on the basis of cultures, traditions, religions etc.

7. Expressed and implied Aims and Objects:

Social system is also linked with expressed and implied aims. In other words, it means that social system is the coming together of different individual actors who are motivated by their aims and objectives and their needs.

8. Characteristics of Adjustment:

Social system has the characteristic of adjustment. It is a dynamic phenomenon which is influenced by the changes caused in the social form. We have also seen that the social system is influenced by the aims, objects and the needs of the society. It means that the social system shall be relevant only if it changes itself according to the changed objects and needs. It has been seen that change takes place in the social system due to human needs, environment and historical conditions and phenomena.

9. Order, Pattern and Balance:

Social system has the characteristics of pattern, order and balance. Social system is not an integrated whole but putting together of different units. This coming together does not take place in a random and haphazard manner. There is an order am’ balance.

It is so because different units of the society do not work as independent units but they do not exist in a vacuum but in a socio-cultural pattern. In the pattern different units have different functions and roles. It means that there is a pattern and order in the social system.

4 Types of Social System:

Parsons presents a classification of four major types in terms of pattern variable. These are as follows:

1. The Particularistic Ascriptive Type:

According to Parsons, this type of social system tends to be organized around kinship and sociality. The normative patterns of such a system are traditional and thoroughly dominated by the elements of ascription. This type of system is mostly represented by preliterate societies in which needs are limited to biological survival.

2. The Particularistic Achievement Type:

There is a significant role of religious ideas as differentiating element in social life. When these religious ideas are rationally systematized that possibility of new religious concepts emerge. As a result of this nature of prophecy and secondly it may depend on non-empirical realm to which the porphyry is connected.

3. The Universalistic Achievement Type:

When ethical prophecy and non-empirical conceptions are combined, a new set of ethical norms arise. It is because the traditional order is challenged by the ethical prophet in the name of supernatural. Such norms are derived from the existing relations of social member; therefore they are universalistic in nature. Besides, they are related with empirical or non-empirical goals, therefore they are achievement oriented.

4. The Universalistic Ascription Type:

Under this social type, elements of value orientation are dominated by the elements of ascription. Therefore emphasis is placed on status of the actor, rather than his performance. In such a system, actor’s achievements are almost values to a collective goal. Therefore such a system becomes politicized and aggressive. An authoritarian State example of this types.

Maintenance of Social System:

A social system is maintained by the various mechanisms of social control. These mechanisms maintain the equilibrium between the various processes of social interaction.

In brief, these mechanisms may be classified in the following categories:

1. Socialization.

2. Social control.

(1) Socialization:

It is process by which an individual is adjusted with the conventional pattern of social behaviour. A child by birth is neither social nor unsocial. But the process of socialization develops him into a functioning member of society. He adjusts himself with the social situations conforming with social norms, values and standards.

(2) Social Control:

Like socialisation, social control is also a system of measures by which society moulds its members to conform with the approved pattern of social behaviour. According to Parsons, there are two types of elements which exist in every system. These are integrative and disintegrative and create obstacles in the advancement of integration.

Functions of Social System:

Social system is a functional arrangement. It would not exist if it were not so. Its functional character ensures social stability and continuity. The functional character of society, Parsons has discussed in depth. Other sociologists such as Robert F. Bales too have discussed it.

It is generally agreed that the social system has four primary functional problems to attend. These are:

1. Adaptation,

2. Goal attainment,

3. Integration,

4. Latent Pattern-Maintenance.

1. Adaptation:

Adaptability of social system to the changing environment is essential. No doubt, a social system is the result of geographical environment and a long drawn historical process which by necessity gives it permanence and rigidity. Yet, that should not make it wooden and inelastic. It need be a flexible and functional phenomenon.

Economy for its maintenance, division of labour for better production of goods and effective services, and role differentiation for job opportunity is essential. Durkheim in Division of Labour in society has given great attention to the role of division of labour and role differentiation as these make possible a higher average degree of skill than would otherwise be possible.

Lack of adaptability, very often has caused the social system to be challenged. It has caused revolution resulting in the overhauling of the system. The British system, in the nineteenth century, when the continent was in the inferno of revolution, showed remarkable adaptability. It responded well to the mounting demands of change. Over the time our system has demonstrated the excellent sense of adaptability.

2. Goal Attainment:

Goal attainment and adaptability are deeply interconnected. Both contribute to the maintenance of social order.

Every social system has one or more goals to be attained through cooperative effort. Perhaps the best example of a societal goal is national security. Adaptation to the social and nonsocial environment is, of course, necessary if goals are to be attained. But in addition, human and nonhuman resources must be mobilised in some effective way, according to the specific nature of tasks.

For example, there must be a process of ensuring that enough persons, but not too many, occupy each of the roles at a particular time and a process for determining which persons will occupy which roles. These processes together solve the problem of allocation of members in the social system. We have already touched upon the “need” for property norms. The rules regulating inheritance e.g., primogeniture-in part solve this problem.

The allocation of members and the allocation of scarce valuable resources are important, of course, for both adaptation and goal attainment. The difference between adaptation and goal attainment is a relative one.

The economy of a society is that subsystem which produces goods and services for a wide variety of purposes; the “polity”, which includes above all the Government in complex societies, mobilizes goods and services for the attainment of specific goals of the total society regarded as a single social system.

3. Integration:

Social system is essentially an integration system. In the general routine of life, it is not the society but the group or the subgroup in which one feels more involved and interested. Society, on the whole does not come into one’s calculations. Yet, we know as indicated by Durkheim, that individual is the product of society. Emotions, sentiments and historical forces are so strong that one cannot cut oneself from his moorings.

The working of these forces is best seen when society is involved in a domestic crisis or an external challenge. An appeal in the name of society, culture, heritage, patriotism, national solidarity or social welfare invokes quick response. Cooperation in effort is often demonstrative of integrating. It is the real basis of integration.

During normal times, the spirit of integration is best expressed by not disregarding the regulative norms. Abiding by them is essential, as otherwise, it will be the domination of might over right, of self over society, and the spirit of mutuality which is based on common welfare, will get eliminated. The command and obedience relation as it exists is based on rationality and order. If it is not sustained, the social order would break down.

In almost every social system, and in every system as large as a society, some participants, including whole subgroups, violate the relational or regulative norms. So far as these norms meet social needs, violations are a threat to the social system,

This necessitates the need for social control. “Social control” is the need for standardized reactions to violations in order to protect the integrity of the system. When there is dispute concerning the interpretation of relational or regulative norms, or concerning the factual aspects of conflicts of interest, there is need for agreed-upon social arrangements for settling the dispute. Otherwise the social system would be subject to progressive splits.

4. Latent Pattern-maintenance:

Pattern maintenance and tension management is the primary function of social system. In absence of appropriate effort in this direction maintenance and continuity of social order is not possible. In fact within every social system there is the in built mechanism for the purpose.

Every individual and subgroup learns the patterns in the process of the internalization of norms and values. It is to invest the actors with appropriate attitude and respect towards norms and institution, that the socialization works. It is not; however, merely the question of imparting the pattern, equally essential is to make the actor to follow it. For this there is always a continuous effort -in operational terms of social control.

There may yet be occasions when the components of social system may become subject of distraction and disturbance. Tension may arise due to internal or external causes and society may get involved into a critical situation. Just as a family in distress draws upon all its resources to overcome it, so also society has to overcome it.

This process of ‘overcoming’ is the management of the tension. Society has the responsibility, like a family, to keep its members functional, to relieve them of anxiety, to encourage those who would be detrimental to the entire system. The decline of societies has been very much because the pattern maintenance and tension management mechanism has often failed.

Equilibrium and Social Change:

Equilibrium is a state of ‘balance’. It is “a state of just poise”. The term is used to describe the interaction of units in a system. A state of equilibrium exists, when systems tend towards conditions of minimum stress and least imbalance. The existence of balance between units facilitates the normal operation of system. Community evaluates and recognises the importance of equilibrium.

The equilibrium condition, is a “condition of integration and stability”. It is sometimes made possible with the development of a certain set of productive forces such as pressure groups which brings into being an appropriate super structure of institutions. Equilibrium can also be of moving sort, which according to Parsons, is “an orderly process of change of the system”.

The maintenances of equilibrium, according to him resolve two fundamental types of process: “The first of these are the process of the socialization by which actors acquire the orientations necessary to the performance of their roles in the social systems, when they have not previously possessed them; the second type are the process involved in the balance between the generation of motivations to deviate behaviour and the counter balancing motivations to restoration of the stabilized interactive process which we have called mechanism of social control”.

A social system implies order among the interacting units of the systems. This order, be it equilibrium or harmonious relations between individuals, is likely to be disturbed, at times, by social changes, occasioned by innovations which force new conceptions of roles and norms. The role of a housewife is affected when she goes for work away from home. This change is bound to influence other social institutions as well.

Maintaining the orderliness or social system is difficult when social changes are frequent. Herbert Spencer introduced the cause and effect relationships to explain the changing nature of societies in the equilibrium/disequilibrium’ analysis.

The structural-functional pattern of institutions which constitute a society would change in accordance with change it may encounter in its total external environment, and with changes in its internal conditions. There would be a changing disposition of the parts of a society until some appropriate ‘equilibrium’ is reached.

Spencer elaborating the theory of equilibrium has indicated its universal applicability. He pointed out that members of a society are continuously in the process of adapting to its material substance. “Each society”, he wrote, “displays the process of equilibration in the continuous adjustment of its population to its means of subsistence.

A tribe of men living on wild animals and fruits is manifestly like every tribe of inferior creatures, always oscillating from side to side of that average number which the locality can support. Thought by artificial production unceasingly improved, a superior race continually alters the limit which external conditions put to population, yet there is ever a checking of population at the temporary limit reached”.

In elaborating his theory of equilibrium, Spencer has referred to several economic aspects, and to the industrial system, of a society which continuously adjusts itself to the forces of ‘supply and demand’. He has also discussed political institutions in ‘equilibrium-disequilibrium’ terms. It is applicable to, all societies equally.

Taking society as a total entity, and its interrelationship with its parts, the changes in them can be explained by ‘equilibrium- disequilibrium’ adjustments. “Marxian Historical Materialism” remarks Ronald Fletcher, in The Making of Sociology is in fact an” equilibrium-disequilibrium analysis of the historical sequences of social order and social changes, and the explanation of this process in terms of material changes, attendant social conflict, and its resolution.”

[pamphletstoinspire]

What the Trinity Reveals About God and Us

I once heard someone say that the most popular time for pastors to leave town is Trinity Sunday. How true that is, I don’t know. What I do know, is that during fifty plus years in the pews I have never heard a comprehensive sermon on the subject. I suspect my experience is not unique.

Few would deny that the Trinity is one of the most (if not, the most) important doctrines of the Christian faith and also one of the most misunderstood. Whether or not homiletical avoidance is to blame, it is regrettable, because no other doctrine tells us more about God and ourselves.

The Nature of God

Were it not for the Trinity, St. John’s claim, “God is love,” would be little more than glassy-eyed sentiment. Love without an object is frustrated, unfulfilled, and incomplete. Thus, a loving, but solitary God is a God who is contingent, a God who must create to satisfy his yearning, a God who is less than perfect.

On the other hand, a God who exists in a community of uncreated “One Anothers,” is a God who is complete in and of himself from eternity to eternity. For him, creation is not a divine necessity, but an extension — an extravagant extension — of whom he is.

Although Scripture lays out no explicit doctrine on the Trinity, it contains numerous references to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working in concert. For example:

In the Annunciation, Gabriel tells Mary how the Spirit will come in the power of the Father to produce the Word made flesh in her.

At the last supper, Jesus promises the disciples that the Father will send the Spirit to remind them of his teachings.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul reveals that spiritual gifts come from the Spirit, in service to the Son, according to the sovereign purposes of the Father.

Then there is Jesus’s rebuke of the Jews (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”) that, when combined with his response to Thomas (“No one comes to the Father except through me”) and Paul’s message to the Corinthians (“No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit”), reveals that personal salvation is the synergistic result of the Father’s initiative, the Son’s atonement, and the Holy Spirit’s promptings.

Scripture bears witness to a Godhead of three Persons united in will and purpose. One of those purposes is the creation of beings designed for union in the divine Community. For instance, notice how man’s tripartite nature of mind, body, and spirit relates to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the following verses:

“Who has understood the mind of [Yahweh]…?”

“The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God…”

“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”

It is sufficiently amazing that God has made us for communion with him. It is more amazing, still, that he calls into partnership with him through the “Greatest Commandment,” the Great Commission, and the Cultural Commission — three (!) directives aimed at expanding his community and uniting it cruciform, vertically with the Godhead, and horizontally with fellowman.

Three Directives

The Greatest Commandment — to love others as Christ loved us — is a summons to work for the sake of others, that they might experience the joy of knowing God and living in harmony with his creation. But only a disciple can know God, and only a world managed by caring stewards will be conducive to the flourishing of nature and mankind. Thus, fulfilling the Greatest Commandment requires that we take up both the Great Commission and the Cultural Commission.

To help us toward those ends, God established three (!) institutions: the family, the state, and the Church, each with its own sphere of responsibility. When each institution fulfills its unique calling, while respecting the others, it creates the conditions necessary for individuals to experience communion with family, neighbors, communities, creation, and God.

Sadly, the cruciform community for which we are created and called, is becoming less and less apparent. Instead of a growing sense of community with our fellowman and God, we are becoming more individualistic, socially and morally. While that may seem unremarkable, what is interesting is one place it has become evident.

Our Atomization

Citing a study on language usage, columnist David Brooks noted, that since 1960, individualistic words like “personalized,” “self,” “standout,” and “unique” have eclipsed communal words like “community,” “collective,” “share,” and “united.” In other studies he cites, researchers found that moral terms like “virtue,” “decency,” “conscience,” “honesty,” “faith,” “ought,” “evil,” and “prudence” have declined in use over the years.

What these findings tell Brooks is that as society “has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware” resulting in “certain forms of social breakdown.” I would flip his causative chain to say that our moral breakdown has led to our social breakdown and the pathologies associated with our atomization from God and neighbor. It is a trajectory traced back to the beginning.

Once God proclaimed, “It is good!”, Satan took to tearing asunder what God had put together. By sowing the seed of distrust, Satan successfully pitted man against God. Then, in quick succession, he turned husband against wife, brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor, son against father, man against his own nature, and, eventually, mother against her child.

If God can’t be trusted, nobody can — not our government, not our churches, not our families, no one. Our loss of faith not only isolates us from God, it isolates us from tradition, generational wisdom, shared values, and each other, creating a balkanized society of competing “others” where even the enwombed child represents a threat to our well-being.

Over the last forty years, the “fruits” of atomization have included the escalation of divorce, fatherless homes, single-parent families, sex without marriage, marriage without children, children unattached to their biological parents, and the loss of two billion (!) children worldwide to abortion. What’s more, personal dissatisfaction, disappointment, and depression are at record levels in an age of technological, medical, and economic progress unprecedented in history.

The doctrine of the Trinity informs us that this is not the way it was meant to be. Because God, the Source of being, is social, we, made in his image, are social, too. For that reason, the joy, peace, and fullness for which we were created will be experienced only to the degree that we are united cruciform, to him and each other. It also means that when we work to restore what Satan has torn asunder — relationships with God, spouses, neighbors, and nature — we fulfill the divine directives of love, discipleship, and stewardship.

If you are interested in how the triune nature of God is woven into the fabric of creation from the cosmic scale to cosmic scale,please read the following story.

The Trinity: A Mystery Revealing the Nature of God

The doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that has been the subject of debate, controversy, and misunderstanding for two millennia.

Part of the difficulty is that although traces of the Trinity run throughout the warp and woof of Scripture, God’s holy Word contains nothing explicit about it. But perhaps our larger problem is that as limited, “this-worldly” humans, we lack cognitive associations, experiences, and symbols to grasp how three beings can be one, yet somehow distinct.

C.S. Lewis picks up on that point in his poem, Footnote to All Prayers. There Lewis writes that when we “attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring, Thou,” we unwittingly blaspheme with feeble and inaccurate representations of the Divine. What’s more, Lewis suggests, “all men are idolaters,” because they visualize God and worship him in man-made metaphors.

With that in mind, and in the knowledge that some of the greatest minds in history have struggled to explain the triune Godhead, I will not attempt to do so here. That’s because our challenge is not to “understand” the Trinity, but to accept it as a mystery that is central to the nature and character of God.

Important Differences

Among world religions, past and present, Christianity stands apart. No other metaphysical belief system has a God who is both transcendent and immanent — one who is over all and who has “pitched his tent” with us.

Bare monotheistic traditions, like Islam, hold that God is transcendent, but not immanent. He is a cosmic Enigma who distances himself from his creation, leaving man to figure out how he can be placated to avoid punishment or gain reward.

In ancient polytheism, the gods were not omnipotent deities but Olympian heroes who exhibited the same flaws and foibles as their earthly counterparts. Their temperamental and petulant encounters with man made it difficult to determine, G.K. Chesterton once remarked, “about which [was] the hero and which [was] the villain.”

For pantheistic traditions, “God” is the universal force, energy, or spirit through which “all is one, and all Divine.” Although God is immanent, he is neither transcendent nor personal. He’s that all-pervading, supersensible something that must be “tapped into” to discover and master the techniques of spiritual evolution.

Absent are doctrines of original sin and substitutionary atonement, or any notion of divine grace. Salvation, whether that means winning favor with a silent and distant deity or actualizing one’s divinity, is a matter of moving up the escalator of merit through individual effort.

By contrast, the Christian God is neither silent nor remains an astronomical unit away. He communicates in the unbroken speech of his revealed Word while seeking communion with man. It is a fellowship expressed in intimate word-pictures, like vine and branches, father and children, and bridegroom and bride.

While, in other belief traditions, man must pull himself up by his own bootstraps and get right with God, in Christianity, it is God who reaches downward to make men right. Men are not expected to earn God’s favor by demonstrating their worth—instead, God seeks to win man’s favor by demonstrating the unfathomable dimensions of his love.

And that brings us to the Trinity.

Divine Attributes

Like other monotheistic deities, the Christian Godhead is transcendent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Those are the attributes we normally think about when we read Paul’s words: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). But since tri-unity is at the essence of the Godhead, we should expect that divine quality to be, also, stamped on those things “clearly seen.” And indeed, it is — at every level.

At the cosmic level, the universe consists of three things: space, time, and matter—each, themselves, having three integral components.

Space exists in three dimensions: length, width and height. Time consists of the past, present and future. Matter is made up of three sub-nuclear ingredients: quarks, leptons and bosons, each uniquely defined by three parameters: electronic charge, mass, and magnetic spin. What’s more, atoms contain three things: protons, neutrons, and electrons. And, if that’s not enough, all protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks. Am I sounding like a broken record or what?

At the chemical level, water — the major molecule of biological life — is an example of matter with distinctive triune qualities. Consisting of three atoms (two hydrogen and one oxygen), water can exist in solid, liquid or gas forms without changing its chemical makeup. Three forms, the same essence.

But wait! As explained by Einstein — you know, his E=mc2 relation — matter is energy and energy, matter. And, you guessed it, energy comes in three varieties: the strong-nuclear, the electro-weak, and gravitational.

Finally, each of these grand components — space, time, and matter — are intricately woven and interconnected in the unified fabric of spacetime. A single, integrated essence. Confounding, isn’t it? Just like the Trinity.

At the human level, experience and common sense tells us that we are more than material machines. Matter and energy follow determined paths according to physical laws. But we have choice and free will. We also have thoughts, affections, and aspirations that transcend deterministic laws. This suggests the ultra-physical or, what we call, spirit. When combined with mind and body, spirit completes our human nature mirroring the triune Godhead.

Consider the following verses of scripture:

“Who has understood the mind of [Yahweh]…”

“The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God…”

“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”

Notice how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit correlate and communicate, with our triune design. From the infinitesimal to the infinite, a trinitarian thread runs throughout the fabric of creation.

So what’s the significance of this?

So What?

At the heart of the matter is the character of God, which has been under attack from the beginning. After God completed his creation work declaring it good, Satan proceeded to “poison the well.”

Despite God’s warning to Adam about eating from the forbidden tree, Satan sashayed up to his companion with some been-around-the-block advice:

“Let me clue you in Eve. That stuff about ‘you will surely die’ — it’s bluster. Here’s the thing: God likes his power and the control he has over you and … he’s not about to give it up. So he goes around thundering out empty threats in hopes that you’ll be intimidated. Look at me — do I look scared? Now then … about that fruit — it tastes really good with a little coconut milk.”

From the Garden to the present, the charge has been the same: God can’t be trusted. He’s a toothless tiger who jealously guards his position by withholding good things from us: things that are fun and pleasurable; information and experiences that would enable us to achieve our own divinity.

It’s as if God’s wholeness depends in some way on his creation. Without underlings to obey him and worship him, God would be less than God. Yet such is not the Christian God who from eternity to eternity is perfect and complete in all aspects. To him, nothing can be added and from him, nothing taken away. As he himself declares, “I the LORD do not change” (Mal. 3:6). And that pertains to his love, as well.

Because God is changeless, creation is not needed to complete or express his love. Rather, God’s love exists in full within the triune Godhead. For it is there, in the eternal Community that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit participate in their perpetual fellowship.

So rather than a project of a lonely God in need of adoring sycophants, creation is the labor of a loving God who wants to share, not withhold, the good things he has prepared for those who love him.

“No eye has seen nor ear heard, or mind conceived what God has prepared for them who love him.” (1 Cor. 2:9)

BY: REGIS NICOLL

From: www.pamphletstoinspire.com