#because he’s just watching the visions play out before him and playing his pre-destined role in it all. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dahniwitchoflight · 5 years ago

Text

Homesquared Chapter 4

I cheated and some of my chapter 4 thoughts leaked into the chapter 3 post lol

Mostly about the pretty obvious Garden of Eden metaphor Dirk is for some reason setting up for himself and Rose as Adam and Eve

and I was about to say which begs the question of what the heck role Terezi is supposed to play as but then it’s very obviously as the Snake in the Garden

Terezi is very much just barely holding back some irritation towards how Dirk is treating Rose, but she’s also very intelligent and is aware of How much Dirk sees/knows and controls about their situation, so she’s probably leveraging her powers over Mind as much as possible in order to stay hidden in plain sight from Dirk’s narrative

and she does so in a way that is one of Dirk’s only blindspots - How Mind and other people have an effect in the determination of the Soul/Heart

By acting in a manner and doing things in a way that aligns with his expectations of her, he assumes and pigeonholes her into a type of character and bases his predictions of her behaviors off of that archtype, never expecting her to act outside it, and when he sees her actions and thoughts and desires all align within it, never questions that it might one day change or was different all along. Dirk’s never really been good at reading other people, can’t see without the lens of “how would I do it” blinding him to things he would never think to do, a trap that he keeps falling into with his friends and one he’s probably trying to overcome by becoming Ultimate God Person/combining all perspectives into his own and uncovering blindspots like that

But right now Mind is the darkest thing in is corner still and I think he sort of knows that as well

Terezi walks the crazy wiggled line boundary between their two Souls that defines who each of them is, as expertly as a person on a tightrope, never wavering until she reaches her destination, at which point she’ll leap off of that line and leave Dirk scrambling to try and calculate her next move/who exactly is she/what her goals are, since’s it won’t be following the clearly defined Heart boundary he’s used to drawing his plans by, so she’ll have to choose the perfect moment in order to entice Eve of the Apple of Revelation once more, heck, she might even do that so sneakily that she gets Adam to take a bite as well, since as soon as Rose bites it she’ll have an ally with her against Dirk.

For God created the Serpent originally as well, so thus why did he not imagine it’s betrayal and prevent it before it could have happened? Or else why did he create something he knew was going to betray? Eden was a paradise, so why intentionally create Evil in that paradise?

If Eve corrupted Adam and the Snake corrupted Eve, Who exactly corrupted the first Serpent? That’s something that the bible never goes into really, at least in Genesis, except to say that the Snake was punished for it’s action to forever crawl the earth eating the dust of man’s heel, punishing all snakes, as Adam and Eve’s punishment punished all humans

(Later I think the bible would try to say that the Snake was the Devil all along, but then why punish the Snake and all it’s progeny for it? If it was the Devil’s doing that undid Adam and Eve then why punish them for the Devil’s actions they would have no way of guarding against or now way of knowing it was a lie? Was it not God’s failure? The Walls of the Garden of Eden were supposed to protect his perfect creation afterall)

Gotta say though I really Rose’s design

I would call her Evil Rose, but she things she does she does in ignorance, not really out of evil, it would be like calling Eve evil for listening to the Snake when she was purposefully blinded to it’s intentions by her creation by God.

Once again we get this idea of Knowledge and Choice affecting eachother, Well I say again but really I’ve been watching RWBY a lot lately and the idea that you can’t make a real choice without real knowledge comes up a lot in it’s mythos and it is really applicable here

Terezi’s design as well is incorporating a lot more Red, she really dug those red shoes aesthetic but gave it her own twist, she’s got a red tie, her ever present red cane and glasses and even in that shot of her her horns look more red and solid as well, even though i know it’s just the lighting

So really digging the whole Terezi is the Apple/Snake in the Garden metaphor, she has also been having that tendency to just snack on random plants, intentionally for her own or Dirk’s unaware benefit or not, it’ll make it that much easier to her actions of later betrayal to be seen as “in character and therefore expected and not dangerous” instead of pre-meditated and actually dangerous, to him

And then they start waxing about their various philosophical babble, Dirk seems really determined to also use this to try and figure out that whole problem of how other’s affect the self, he’s trying at least, I think, in his own way. But not for a good reason, not so that he can have a real understanding of that, but because he wants to use it to guard his own self even further

He’s maybe not using Rose here as an equal player, but more like a wall to bounce his own ideas off of and test them, like using a neural learning AI to test ideas or an actual literal wall in a game of table tennis.

Heh, I got a chuckle out of the fact that Dirk’s answer to the Ship of Theseus problem is “why does we even have to remove and replace parts of it, why not keep the original pristine and eternal?”

because it’s funny how avoidant of the problem that answer is, man he really really is uncomfortable with the idea of changing the self in any way

“He's avoiding the question again. It's amazing how one can technically have the maximum amount of metaphysical personal awareness possible, and still not notice these sorts of things. “

SAYS LITERALLY YOU but honestly this is just more fuel to the idea that maybe he can make a genuine connection and understanding with a person if he can recognize how he and her are the same

“It's stuff like this that makes me wonder sometimes whether there's anything about myself that I'm missing. Then I throw that wonder in the garbage can and turn the incinerate setting on.”

but nah he’s still firmly denying that possibility, he’s almost actually equating his trauma of self erosion with the idea that making friends and understanding others changes the self in subtle ways as well

He can’t even stand the thought of his own close friends influencing him to be different in small subtle ways or adjusting his behavior for others because that STILL counts as a change of self that he didn’t authorize or choose.

Also can’t help but by be reminded of my wacky little fan made Gamma session I made forever ago by them using the name Delta-Detritus and basically be like alright, what if we do SBURB again but BETTER/worse this time?? Which is essentially the thread that most Homestuck fix it fanfiction tends to go towards

Though I am curious now

We got A/Alpha for Alternia which is based of off “Alternate” introducing the trolls as an alternate race to Human Earth

B/Beta for Beforus which is based of off “Before” introducing the planet of trolls that came before the first group

And then Earth C, now, there isn’t a letter C, the third in the greek alphabet is actually Γγ Gamma, (and the fourth is ΔδDelta)

So I wonder what “name” Earth C really has?

It feels like it should either start with C OR with GA, as Alternia starts with the AL of Alpha, Beforus starts with the BE of Beta and same with Deltritus and Delta

As as “Another for Earth” Gaia isn’t a terrible option all things considered, now you just have to make it sound like a word which describes it’s use to the narrative

It’s is a very split place, having the two timelimes Meat and Candy associated with it, as well it does feel extremely mercurial in nature, being a sort of crosswords between Homestuck and Homesquared proper, and really exists in a place between stories, an ephemeral epilogue of sorts

really a merger of Gaia and Gemini feels the most appropriate here, like Gamini, also the word mini stands out in there as well, knowing that this Planet is sort of on a lesser status compared to the other three since it’s not going to be the birthplace of a session, also has the word Game in it

But then people will wonder why it doesn’t begin with a C since it still is called Earth C so *shrug*

Honestly C K and G sounds are all very similar in the tongue, so maybe it’s both Camini and Gamini at the same time OH FUCK CA AND GA, ONE HAS CALLIOPE ONE HAS GAMZEE? SHIT IM ONTO SOMETHING (no im not)

I like Camini now better, it comes from a place of Gamma/Gamzee/Game/Gemini but ends up being more about the twinned Ca’s that were used to, Caliborn and Calliope and fits with the establish Earth C theme

So there you go, Earth C’s actual planet name should be Camini

which also works because:

Camini

home stove/furnace

smelting/foundry furnace, forge

vent (underground fires)

according to the latin language this word also has multiple meanings and many Irons in the Fire, I think the fandom will appreciate the name haha

Yeah both races are definitely going to both be playing one game of SBURB, despite what Dirk is intending, the pic does make it really clear

There’s something to say how Dirk seems to be represented by Purple and Rose by Orange in this here and then how all of the cave is a backdrop of that same purple.

Look at even the controllers on the machine having purple and orange knobs, even being solely on Dirk’s side of the image

I guess Dirk intends himself to be the force behind Derse, since that’s the force that always “wins” and Rose fitting in her place as the ultimate loser (since of course Dirk will want to win his own game) but also to be like Skaia the force of Prospit

So Dirk intends to be a whisperer like a horrorterror, choosing to manifest his influence that way, while Rose will give visions to her race like Skaia?

makes sense honestly

but again even with the themes of duality, the theme of the trio is bright and center in that piece of ultimately technology, the third influence hidden unseen in the furthest corner behind the curtain of snakelike tubes and wires that Dirk will not expect to interfere, or even have the capability to interfere, Terezi

heck it’s even in the buttons next to the controls being colored red blue and green

there’s so much duality in homestick with destructive red and creative green but then there’s also always been that mercurial breathy blue as the third

God, tell me that doesn’t look like a baby proto horrorterror

I can hear it raging it’s revenge against it’s cruel human creators even as I type

No wonder they become associated with destruction, they know theyre the pawns of two heartless cruel god children playing at life like it was a game

Rose you MUST KNOW how bad this is, it’s not a theoretical discussion anymore, that things exists and is alive and has feelings and you did it to that

and that thing is technically a Dirk too

Is this how Dirk get’s his revelation? Or downfall? As his Heart is unwittingly invaded by the horrified cacophanous screams of his grotesque tortured progeny crying out for his blood?

His end unintentionally ending up as the thing he feared most? Inner self destruction caused by his own sharp and bloody splinters turned and pointed inward, tearing himself apart with the pieces of his own Soul? Caused by his own Hubris?

I will say typing that all out is pretty good

I’m just sad the same will probably happen to Rose too though ): Maybe she’ll make careful more humane species? Something that has the potential to exist and be happy as it’s own creature while Dirk just creates monstrosities forever in conflict with Rose’s race?

They’ll each be the master of their own eventually destinies I suppose but Homestuck seems to have a good track record so far of the Ultimate Female Creator being out to protect the happiness of the children that exist in her creation while the Ultimate Male God just ends up destroying everything in his

#Homesquared #Homestuck^2 #Dirk Strider #Rose Lalonde #Terezi Pyrope #long post

71 notes · View notes

cjrae · 5 years ago

Text

How Do You Know It’s Finished? Or: Does God actually have a plan?

A Priest Walks Into A Bar is one of my favorite episodes of Lucifer. Full stop. Season 1 gets a decent amount of flack for some tonal issues as they were finding their feet, but if you’re looking for episodes that deal with the Big Questions, Season 1 really sinks it’s teeth into them. 1x09 deals with a larger question within the context of a more intimate one. Does God have a plan? More specifically, does he have a plan for Lucifer?

What we’re essentially asking is the question of pre-destination versus free will. Given that free will is one of the standard responses to the problem of evil, let’s take a (brief!) look at the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is the logical contradiction that arises from the following axioms. If God is all of the following:

1.) omniscient - all-knowing

2.) omnipotent - all-powerful

3.) omni-benevolent - good

Then why does evil exist? If God is any of the two, but not the third, then the state of the world is perfectly explainable. An omniscient and omni-benevolent God knows everything and is good, but lacks the power to resolve the problem of evil. An omnipotent and omni-benevolent God is all powerful and good, but lacks the knowledge of all evil in the world - evil is capable of hiding. And an omniscient and omnipotent God that is NOT omni-benevolent means that God has deliberately created evil for Reasons.

(It is worth noting that the idea of God embodying all three of these axioms is a very Christian concept of God, but given that the character of Lucifer originated from John Milton’s famous Bible fanfic, Paradise Lost, it may be fair. Of course, Gaiman himself is Jewish and some Jewish thought tends to drop omniscience from the equation. We’ll come back to this, because if you have a God that can change, then God becomes much more interesting in a narrative structure.)

This is, as you can imagine, a logical contradiction that has fascinated theologians and philosophers for centuries, but the most popular resolution within popular culture is the concept of free will. In other words, evil is our fault, not God’s. The ability to choose gives the very concepts of good and evil relevance, in fact.

Free will has plenty of problems, but its issues are irrelevant in terms of this discussion because we are dealing with a fictional universe, where free will and the axiom of choice work very well within drama. And within the universe of Lucifer, free will exists. Choice is a central theme because everyone in the universe self-actualizes to an extent.

Humanity chooses their final destination based on their own subconscious judgment (God is completely uninvolved). Angels literally control their own appearances and abilities subconsciously. Lucifer’s devil face (and later his entire transformation) are manifestations of his own self-hatred while Amenadiel’s fall and the restoration of his wings (but not his ability to slow time) are based on his judgment of his own virtue and his connection to humanity.

So, let’s wrap this back around to the big question - is the universe predestined or not? Do our choices actually matter or does God have a plan and your choices are an illusion?

Predestination

One of the things that makes 1x09 work so well as an episode is watching patterns come together.

A parent without a child tries to reconnect with and guide the child of his lost friends, who has gotten himself into trouble. That leads him into Lucifer’s bar - where Lucifer just happens to have recently gotten involved with investigating homicides. Once Lucifer’s involved, Chloe gets involved when they find the head of the program murdered, leading them to Conor and the Spider’s operation. Which leads to Conor being literally put in the middle of two men fighting over him and being forced to choose between their very different visions of his life. Father Frank then chooses to put himself between Conor and the Spider, getting himself shot, which leads to him dying in Lucifer’s arms.

We know that at one point God had a plan - Lucifer confirms that. In fact, it’s the central tenant of Father Frank’s faith. The idea that all of his pain and loss had a purpose behind it is how he deals with grief and finds meaning in a loss that can and has broken people before him.

It’s Lucifer who points out the obvious - that killing a young girl and two loving parents in service of the Plan is cruel. It leaves two people behind who are broken in the exact same way, but who deal with it very differently. Frank finds faith and turns to helping others where Conor becomes extremely vulnerable and prey to the predators of the world like the Spider in his own search for a place to belong.

Perhaps that does a good job of illustrating the different choices available to people, but how much of a choice did Conor actually have? He was a child without the coping processes of an adult, grew up in foster care, clearly bounced around the system and so desperate for love and affection while also mistrusting healthier expressions of those emotions due to being (unwillingly) abandoned by his dead parents that he was drawn into a criminal drug operation in an attempt to find his place.

if we believe that this was all a plan, then both Frank and Conor’s choices were illusions. Yes, they made choices, but their circumstances and environments shaped those choices.

In a system like this, think of the choices people make in terms of a physics problem. If you’re looking at a single atom, it is chaotic - able to go in any direction. But, put that atom in a sea of other atoms, in various environments and you can start to predict with reasonable accuracy how the group is going to behave - which other atoms it might bond to, how it’ll react under pressure or with the introduction of other elements. Patterns begin to emerge.

Lucifer had just put out a fragile tendril of friendship before watching it be cut away with Frank’s tragic fate, his friend’s last words suggesting that all of this was to simply put Frank in Lucifer’s path for…what reason? To remind Lucifer that his Father has a plan? That his Father isn’t done with him, to imply that all of Lucifer’s suffering up to this point has a Purpose? A role he is being shaped for?

Lucifer already knows this. Lucifer has already rebelled against this. Frank’s fate is just more evidence to Lucifer that his Father’s plans are needlessly cruel and manipulative.

And, honestly, Lucifer has a point.

Can God Change?

Earlier, we talked about the Problem of Evil. However, the role of God changes dramatically if we drop one of the axioms - and I would argue that Gaiman, as well as the Lucifer show runners have done just that.

God is, frankly, far more interesting if He is capable of change, just like our main characters. The biggest issue with the traditional Christian interpretation of God is His very perfection, which makes Him utterly static. A perfect deity is, well...boring. Especially within the context of a narrative.

At it’s heart, Lucifer is a show about family - the families we come from that shape us and the families that we create around us - and how the two can and do merge.

Imagine the frustration of a God who loves His son, has all the power in the world to effect change - but doesn’t know how best to employ it? Who didn’t see Lucifer’s rebellion coming and reacted out of anger or frustration or even sorrow, possibly understanding how things went so wrong in retrospect, but unsure how to reach out to a child who was holding that much anger and self hatred? How would that parent try to help their child? Do you give them space? Do you actively punish them so that they understand the consequences of their actions? Do you passively stand back and let the consequences of their actions play out so that they learn and grow?

Given how subtle divine intervention is within the show, it’s reasonable to assume that God is mostly trying to stay out of things - after all, why bother with free will if you don’t let people exercise it?

Free Will

We know that choice is important within the universe of Lucifer. So, if God is looking at humanity like a social physics problem, then He probably has a pretty decent idea of how general patterns will pan out and the divine intervention, as such, is much more subtle. Father Frank, after all, has a number of different ways he can attempt to help Conor, but he chooses to go to Lucifer Morningstar, a club owner known to grant favors.

Father Frank is a priest - presumably he believes in the Devil. He may not believe, when he first steps foot in LUX, that the man in front of him is the actual, literal Devil, but the absurdity is enough to rope Lucifer in. So, where did Father Frank get the idea to go to the Devil for help?

Well, we’ve got the luxury of having an episode told with God narrating it, so let’s briefly poke the bear that is 3x26 - Once Upon A Time.

Aside from arranging for Chloe to be born, God is very specific that He is NOT controlling the situation. In fact, in order to run this little experiment, He only makes one, tiny change. He moves a bullet a few inches to the left and John Decker survives the assassination disguised as a robbery.

The central question of 3x26 is, “Did God’s plan of putting Chloe in Lucifer’s path actually change anything?” And the answer at the end of the episode is a fairly clear ‘no.’

“And some, no matter how you shake things up, are drawn to the same people, the same passions. So all seems to have ended well, does that mean I never should have manipulated things to begin with? I have a better question: wouldn’t you, in my shoes? After all - a parent just wants what’s best for their child.”

Who knows whether God planted the idea or not, but a priest walks into a bar to ask the Devil for help.

Once that happens, the patterns continue to play out, but there is room for each individual choice to matter. Conor could have chosen to shoot Father Frank and prove his loyalty. Father Frank could have chosen to try to pull Conor out of the way of the bullet instead of stepping in front of it.

But they make the choices they make and in the end, Father Frank again lies dying in Lucifer’s arms, insisting that his choice was worth it because Lucifer’s Father has a plan - but the subtext has changed. Father Frank dies believing his death will serve the Purpose of showing two lost sons that they are loved.

The Messenger

The parallels here are not subtle. Conor and Father Frank are very much a reflection of Lucifer and his Father. Except that, in Lucifer’s eyes, Father Frank is fighting for Conor whereas he was abandoned. This episode is the first time that Lucifer is asked to question that basic assumption about his life.

Father Frank: “God has faith in him. In all of us. Even in our darkest moments.”

Lucifer: “You really believe that, don’t you?”

Father Frank: “I do. Why don’t you?”

Lucifer: (looking visibly uncomfortable) “Because he didn’t have faith in me.”

Father Frank: “I felt that way once too. But now I know, deep in my heart. God has a plan for me.”

Lucifer: (scoffing) “Oh his plan for me was quite clear.”

Father Frank. “How do you know it’s finished?”

From Lucifer’s perspective, that question should be terrifying. His Father’s plan has already gotten him sent to Hell to rule over the damned for all eternity. What more could God want from Lucifer?

I would argue that what God wants is quite simply what’s best for his son - his child who believes so throughly that he is damned that he’s manifested a completely different, horrific face to punish himself with. Lucifer doesn’t believe in second chances. So He shows him one.

Conor chooses not to kill Father Frank, twice. He chooses to stand against the Spider. Those choices cost him, but the cost of his actions doesn’t negate their importance. In the wake of losing Father Frank, Conor again chooses to help the police, taking down a drug operation that was preying on vulnerable children inside that foster center, which will presumably make L.A. a slightly safer place for those kids.

Chloe sees the potential for good in the consequences of this night, and she speculates about that to Lucifer. But Lucifer’s in no state of mind to hear it. What he does do, however, is significant. He allows himself to feel pain and, rather than numbing it, as we see him fail to light the cigarette, he yells at his Father.

The dialogue is one sided and angry, but it’s implied that this may be the first time Lucifer has spoken to his Father since he became the Lord of Hell. This is a relationship that had been depicted as broken beyond all hope of repair, both sides having shut down communication with the other.

Father Frank’s sacrifice changes all of that. Yes, the priest gets to fulfill his desire of helping Conor make a different choice, a better choice. But he’s also a messenger. The subtext becomes less, “you are being shaped for a role” and more “your Father still loves you and has never given up on you.”

What if what God’s initial goal was to simply get his son to talk to him?

Redemption

The next episode, Pops, is very revealing when it comes to Lucifer’s internalized guilt that he won’t be able to begin voicing until the end of season three. The things he says about Junior’s relationship to his father again parallel his own estrangement from his Father.

Anne: “That ungrateful kid was given everything and he threw it all away. But it didn’t matter. He was still the favorite.” (emphasis mine)

Lucifer: “Because he was worthy of his father’s love! And he had a chance at redemption until you ruined it!”

This exchange indicates that God’s desire for reconciliation is mutual. That doesn’t mean that either party wants to go back to the way things were - Lucifer doesn’t want to change who he is or what he’s done, whether he regrets it or not. That’s impossible and he knows it. But there is a desire to move forward, and for Lucifer putting the past behind him is very much about leaving Hell and it’s throne firmly behind.

But getting to that point of reconciliation is already going to be hard enough without Lucifer trapped in the same spiral of anger, guilt and pride.

So God reaches out, using a priest who has a shocking amount in common with Lucifer, to try to begin mending the breach. The consequences play out far beyond the end of 1x09. In the climax of Season 1, as Lucifer lies on the hangar floor, bleeding out, we see him open a dialogue again with his Father. Yes, he’s desperate, but would he have believed that asking his Father might do anything if it hadn’t been for Father Frank?

And this time, we see God answer. When Lucifer is desperate for help, his Father doesn’t abandon him. Instead, he gives him an opportunity. Moreover, he gives him an opportunity on Lucifer’s terms. The only way his son knows to ask for help is to offer a deal - sacrificing Lucifer’s own agency in exchange for Chloe’s life.

Yes, it’s a sign of Lucifer’s growth over the season, but it’s made clear that Lucifer going back to Hell was always a much more likely possibility than Lucifer himself ever wanted to accept. Lucifer came to earth with multiple backup options to get back to Hell - first Amenadiel, who will happily drag Lucifer back. Then the wings, which he burns and finally the Pentecostal coin that we see Lucifer playing with over and over again. Lucifer has planted the seeds of his own escape from Hell.

God’s intervention is subtle. Again, all He does is make a slight change - He moves the Pentecostal coin from Malcom’s possession back to Lucifer’s. The biggest difference is that He lets Lucifer know that he’s involved at all.

#lucifer meta #lucifer analysis #lucifer on netflix #lucifer on fox #lucifer season 1 #lucifer morningstar #father frank #god's plan #predestination #free will #the problem of evil #long text post

86 notes · View notes

ultrasfcb-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Andres Iniesta: Barcelona legend

Andres Iniesta won his 31st club trophy with Barcelona’s recent Copa del Rey victory over Sevilla

Six minutes into the second half of Barcelona’s Copa del Rey final victory over Sevilla last Saturday, Andres Iniesta received possession in the centre of the field, 30 yards from goal.

He flicked a square ball to Lionel Messi, continued his run into the box, received a perfect return pass, danced around Sevilla goalkeeper David Soria and slotted the ball into the net from a narrow angle.

It was a brilliant goal, and a deeply symbolic moment for a man who has now, as expected, announced he is leaving. Symbolic because it was a moment of quintessential Iniesta: the shuffle, the vision, the execution. Symbolic because it involved a flash of instinctive understanding with Messi. Symbolic because it was probably his last piece of significant action in Spanish football.

Half an hour later, with the game dying out, Barca boss Ernesto Valverde substituted Iniesta so he could receive a standing ovation from the 67,500 crowd at the Estadio Wanda Metropolitano in Madrid.

Fighting back tears, the 33-year-old applauded in response to the fans who rose as one – even the Sevilla supporters whose hearts he had helped to break – to salute a universally loved legend.

The word legend absolutely applies to Iniesta, who will head away from the Nou Camp after winning 32 trophies and making nearly 700 appearances, having first joined the club more than two decades ago at the age of 12.

Andres Iniesta was runner-up for the 2010 Ballon d’Or behind team-mate Lionel Messi

More than plain statistics, though, Iniesta is a legend because of what he represented. His style of play, along with Xavi and Messi, embodied the silky smooth passing carousel – to steal Sir Alex Ferguson’s phrase – which enraptured the world and won two Champions League titles under Pep Guardiola in 2009 and 2011.

That team has been gradually breaking up, year after year: Eric Abidal left in 2013, Carles Puyol and Victor Valdes in 2014, Xavi in 2015, Dani Alves in 2016, and now Iniesta, leaving Messi, Sergio Busquets and Gerard Pique as the only remaining members of perhaps the greatest club side ever.

Iniesta is more than just a player, and his departure is more than just the usual end-of-season squad reshaping. For his millions of admirers, he means more than just a midfielder who passed and dribbled the ball with rare brilliance. He simply means football.

Destined for greatness

It’s easy to say with hindsight, but Iniesta was always destined for greatness from the moment he stepped through Barca’s ‘La Masia’ academy doors, with tears of homesickness pouring down his face, at the age of 12.

One of his earliest admirers was Guardiola, who first glimpsed the precocious young talent when he scored the winning goal for Barcelona in a prestigious global under- 15 tournament at the Nou Camp in 1999. Famously, Guardiola told Xavi: “You’re going to retire me, but he’s going to retire us all.”

Iniesta helped me understand football better – Guardiola

Iniesta graduated into the senior team as a teenager, but a lack of physique saw him fail to nail down a regular starting place for the first few years before his great turning point came in the 2006 Champions League final against Arsenal.

Manager Frank Rijkaard left Iniesta on the bench for that game in Paris, but introduced him at half-time with the Gunners leading 1-0. And he was the key factor in allowing the Catalan club to wrest control of the encounter, eventually triumphing through goals from Samuel Eto’o and Juliano Belletti.

Thierry Henry, who played for Arsenal that day and subsequently joined Barcelona, later ruefully recalled Iniesta’s influence, telling Barca TV: “The final was changed by Iniesta when he came on in the second half. When he started to turn with the ball, after an hour I couldn’t follow him. Iniesta killed me.”

From that moment Iniesta didn’t look back, becoming an automatic selection for the remaining two years of Rijkaard’s reign and then forming an indispensable triumvirate with Xavi and Messi after the arrival of Guardiola in 2008. The rest is a captivating chapter of footballing history.

A true national hero

World Cup moments: Andres Iniesta’s winner in 2010 final

Iniesta has never been a prolific scorer, but when he has struck it has generally been at significant moments such as his balletic effort in his final final on Saturday.

He netted one of the most important goals in Barca’s recent history, thumping home a superb injury-time strike at Chelsea in the 2009 Champions League semi-final, sending the team into the final in Guardiola’s first season in charge.

Above all else, though, he will always be remembered for one moment: the 116th minute of the 2010 World Cup final.

With Spain and the Netherlands locked in a goalless stalemate, Cesc Fabregas found him in space inside the area, he took one touch to control, waited for the ball to drop and thundered a volley into the back of the net to make his country world champions for the first time.

Iniesta celebrated by whipping off his jersey to reveal a T-shirt bearing a message: ‘Dani Jarque, Always With Us.’ Jarque was the captain of Espanyol who had died suddenly of heart failure a few months earlier, and Iniesta’s remembrance of his friend touched a nerve with the entire nation, becoming the iconic image of Spain’s glorious triumph.

Iniesta’s celebration in the World Cup final remembered his friend Dani Jarque

The World Cup-winning goal, and the manner in which he delivered it, is Iniesta’s greatest legacy. It explains why he is loved throughout Spain, not just by Barcelona fans – and it also helps, especially in these deeply politicised times, that he is not from Catalunya, having been born and raised 300 miles to the south of Barcelona in Albacete, a small city in the Castilla-La Mancha region.

Iniesta is not just a Barcelona hero: he is a national hero. He is unique among Barca players in receiving a warm welcome wherever he travels in Spain, even being granted a standing ovation from Real Madrid fans after netting a sizzling strike in a 4-0 victory at the Bernabeu in November 2015.

His departure from La Liga is therefore prompting an unusual and unashamed outpouring of emotion from across the country, with even the rabidly pro-Madrid sections of the media eager to salute the outgoing star: Marca’s front page on Sunday hailed him as ‘The Last Emperor’, and AS headlined its front page by simply stating: ‘Iniesta, Don’t Go!’

Why is he leaving?

Coutinho (left) will be one of the players burdened with filling the sizeable gap left by Iniesta at Barca

Watching Iniesta’s magnificent performance against Sevilla on Saturday, the obvious question was why someone capable of producing such brilliance is choosing to leave for the pre-retirement backwaters of China. If he can still play like that, surely he should stay at Barcelona?

The problem, though, is Iniesta has been delivering performances of that quality with increasing infrequency, with Saturday’s masterclass at least partly facilitated by Sevilla’s strangely wide-open approach. Conversely, Barca’s humiliating Champions League exit against Roma earlier this month was a clear demonstration of his difficulties in overcoming physically powerful opposition.

He will turn 34 next month, and his body is telling him that he could only stand the rigours of a nine-month season by becoming a bit-part player – a role he would never want to fill. He also wants to avoid becoming a selection problem, knowing that the sight of Iniesta on the bench could hinder the integration process of recent signings Philippe Coutinho and Ousmane Dembele.

Iniesta, naturally, could have stayed in Spain or moved elsewhere in Europe – on Sunday, Real Betis manager Quique Setien jokingly pleaded on Twitter for Iniesta to join his club.

But he would never want to play against Barcelona by staying in Spain or joining a potential Champions League rival, and moving to China provides a clean break, an enriching life experience and, admittedly, an enriching pay packet – he will reportedly earn £2.5m per month with his new club.

He hasn’t quite finished yet, though. Iniesta has five more games with Barcelona to enjoy an emotional farewell, including a final Clasico clash with Real Madrid on Sunday, 6 May.

Then he will head to Russia for the World Cup finals and surely his last international tournament, where his midfield sorcery alongside the likes of David Silva, Isco and Busquets will play a key role in Spain’s quest to reclaim the title. Don’t bet against him scoring in the final.

Iniesta was visibly emotional when announcing his departure from Barcelona

BBC Sport – Football ultras_FC_Barcelona

ultras FC Barcelona - https://ultrasfcb.com/football/2949/

#Barcelona

#Football

0 notes

expressionisfree-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Heidegger’s ghost in our purposefully constant and obsolescent worldly world

[“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” - Usually attributed to Albert Einstein. It is probably closer attributed to Richard Feynman, but both of these people said things at one point or another pretty similar to this (about different things, of course). It would be an absurd scenario if it was about the same thing – but if that was the situation then it would be easier to see the confusion about who should be cited. But this was not the case.]

Since our inception, it is believed that we as people have sought technological advancement in an attempt to transcend our own reality. We lie on our backs, amid a blanket of permanently distant combusting stars, forced to gaze out into the vastness of space – constantly and perpetually wondering about our place in it all, grappling melancholic with the idea of that question itself. Knowledge is fleeting: and our existence is so far outside that of our understanding that one of the few responses possible is humane wonder. It is from this wonder which stems imagination, creation and in turn, technological advancement. By innovating new technology, it is thought that we can carve out our own path in the universe by continually distinguishing ourselves from the nature of everything around us; becoming markers immortalised through time and intellectual beacons amongst the greater collective unconscious.

Fittingly, I’ve had my own personal odyssey across the cosmos in an attempt to articulate Heidegger’s view of contemporary technological development. This is an odyssey from which I have not been able to transcend into superhuman appearance or intelligence - much I imagine would be to his dismay. His work ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ is a labyrinth so far beyond that of my current understanding (or verstand, as I’m sure he would correct) that my inability to grasp even the most basic of his inferences he draws makes me not only feel that I look stupid; but think that I think stupid. Then that makes me think that I’m thinking too much about thought and then this all just becomes a vicious Cartesian cycle of existential self-loathing and bewilderment. It’s a helpless irony that, judging by the register of his text, Heidegger revels in. It’s as if he has created his entire body of work solely to spite me. If only it was possible to abort him before he began. A pre-abortion is what he deserves, an abortion before the abortion, an abortion worse than the subsequent abortion I’d make him suffer through. In hindsight, this is not sinister enough to describe my feelings towards the pain that his thoughts have caused me over the last few weeks. I instead, with the benefit of hindsight, would let him age until his late teenage years; blessing him with good health and complete faculty of his being before allowing him to decompose naturally. Let the world outside sting him until the very bastion of his blackened soul has had enough. I wish for his euthanasia -- and I wouldn’t mind lending my hand, or two.

I wish to be clear here. Let it not be misunderstood. I do not yearn for his metaphorical euthanasia; but his literal euthanasia. His literal voluntary euthanasia. I would love to be able to help him euthanize himself. To be honest, even if he wasn’t into it I probably would still give it a go. It is only in the deep twilight of my thoughts in the many morns since I have commenced this study that I dream this dream recurrently. It is only when I shut my vision, in silent sleep ridden retreats of lucidity that I picture taking him out to the back and shooting him right between the eyes, to put the miserable man out of his own misery once and for all. It is tempting to think so… but to act in such a manner misses the point entirely. What is my point, you ask? Indeed.

Despite my absolute confusion about everything in and out of Heidegger’s work, trying to demystify it has provided a peculiar vessel for which my own views on technology have been challenged and expanded. In order to examine technologies role and its impact on us, Heidegger escapes his murky present by gaping back through time to Aristotle and Ancient Greece, a culture which he enjoys going to as a spectator I presume completely outside of any period over-romanticism, superiority or benevolent God complex the great man definitely did not have. This is a half-joke, Heidegger knew as well as I, if we fail to draw comparisons from the past, we are destined to continue to repeat errors of judgement which we are currently unaware of living under. I almost do not mention that I have had previous conversations with him regarding this very topic, and I hesitate to say that I influenced Heidegger in this respect - but I suppose that is what happened. I am too humble to take this credit but I suppose somebody must set the record straight.

Walter Benjamin stated that “In gauging [technological] standard, we would do well to study the impact which its two different manifestations—the reproduction of artworks and the art of film—are having on art in its traditional form”. So, in the same way that it is considered that Athens is best understood under the guise of Aristophanes, I delayed the writing of this blog post for weeks to watch somewhat related comedic cinema. I didn’t know what else to do. In fact, I still don’t. Even now, when the completion of this blog post is in sight I still wander around the library late into the night aimlessly staring at the spines of the books overhead while listening repeatedly to “Never Let Me Go” by The Impressions. This is just one of the patterns. When it gets quiet, when the library is empty and we are both without light or human presence, I tiptoe myself into the bathroom (after taking great care to ensure that I am alone) before stopping dead in my tracks to stare at myself through the infinity mirror, lost in the image of my own infinitesimal refractions. Sometimes this lasts for hours, it is hard to keep track. It is almost over now, soon.

But I was not always this way. When I re-watched Playtime by Jacques Tati, Tati’s universal character Mr Hulot stumbled his way across a concreted white-walled large-windowed Paris cityscape, being confronted by the absurdity of the mechanisms he encounters but fails to understand. This metaphor works if you substitute Paris for complicated German philosophy. I was Mr. Hulot but especially when applied as a metaphor for and in relation to Heidegger. On this occasion, the one I am describing to you now, I was even more Mr. Hulot than Mr. Hulot was. I am not unique in this regard. We all, when reading Heidegger, become the Clairian figures of A Nous la Liberte marching our way blindly into the cerebral cortex of his void fuelled active nihilistic mind. I hesitate to reference these French pieces of technological celluloid as I know Heidegger wasn’t a great fan of the country; or likely the films. I wouldn’t want to upset him.

I am back now, for clarity, as being future Philip as opposed to past Philip. I am the one listening to Curtis Mayfield’s slow doo-wop soul fusions on repeat from one of the previous paragraphs. I can now see that the deadline for other, perhaps more important work is approaching… but I must finish this Heidegger post to conclusion. I must understand him.

* * *

I eventually emerged from my constant slumbering and time warping before retreating to and back from the realm of imagination. I subsequently ironed out, binned, and then reconsidered by taking back the torn up scraps of drafts of paper from the bin. It is from these scraps whereby I chose to re-iron these recycled drafts before my theme became clear to me. Much like Aristophanes speech in Plato’s Symposium, this - what you have been reading and hopefully will continue to read, is a comic piece, despite all appearances. And I urge you not to laugh. Actually, scratch that, I urge you to laugh. Please laugh at this. But don’t smile. Because this is serious business.

I could avoid joking about the man altogether, but he makes that very difficult. Humour is the only defense against the ethical conundrum of Heidegger as a being himself. Put yourself in his shoes for a second. As an unapologetic Nazi after the Second World War, it would make sense that he would attempt to be misinterpreted linguistically to the point where he could become an academic figure beyond the grasp of critique. Then he could achieve true transcendence, the kind of solidified reputation he was searching for his entire life. Ironically for a philosopher of his ilk, Heidegger was not necessarily the almighty judge of ethical morality. I’m sure to Heidegger, the only thing he was culpable for was placing a bet on the wrong philosophical and moral horse. All I’m saying is that, at best, the man was a politically crazed gambling addict playing the slots for cheap thrills. He got a little confused there because gambling’s a little bit too black and white for him. Call me old fashioned, but I actually really respect Heidegger’s commitment to his support of ideological racism. A gambler lives by two things: their character and the roll of the dice. Heidegger lived by that roll and he died by that roll. The true crime for him would be to jump over to the side of the winning table, when everybody on that side already knew that he had lost. Because then he’d have to admit that he was wrong - something so far outside that of his understanding that he couldn’t possibly imagine it as an option. But I don’t wish to belittle him, clearly he was a scholar and a gentleman.

It is here where the gags dry up. Below is an extract from the extremely tedious analysis I concocted out of Heidegger’s essay. If that is all that interests you, then I have pity, for you will never understand it. Here it is, god help you:

“Heidegger is specifically interested in the craft of the techne, simply meaning technology in its original manifestation. He describes the phrase bringing-forth (to bring into appearance) as the marriage of the four Aristotelian causes of being, which were originally brought together by the craftsman who were required then to ‘answer and respond to all the different kinds of wood and the shapes... to the wood as it enters into man’s dwelling with the hidden riches of nature’. He contends that the Greek word poieses, which literally translated means art to but for Heidegger is repurposed as the bringing out of ‘concealment from un-concealment’. This technology in the ancient world then, combined with art, becomes the completion of nature, with an inherent link to truth and clarity semantically. This bears distinction from the current reality of technology envisaged by Heidegger, which he defines as challenging-forth. In the current day, modern reveling in technology now conceals truth and denies us the ability to clearly analyse technologies impact and its relation to us. It is the enframing of modern technology which is of pressing concern. The only way we can question the apocalypse is if we have forgotten our own being” – Philip Doherty (2017)

It’s pretty ironic for Heidegger to get on his high horse about translations and definitions across languages, when the English translation of his text is so packed full of neologisms, it is ripe for misinterpretation by impressionable half-baked intelligentsia. This is a club which I have no wish to be a part of; but I’m sure by committing my high strained calculated ramblings to paper, I have now truly joined. Wunderbar.

In greek philosophy, Eidetic refers to the ability to achieve and accumulate knowledge. I have a small slither of knowledge on Heidegger's work, but what if it’s the wrong kind? Is that a problem – surely that’s the principal epistemological problem. But what of technology in and of itself? Is it destructive in nature when taken too far? I can only speak of my own experience.

When I was a meagre GCSE student of Technology and Design, my teacher: grey-bearded and blocky informed us of the concept of planned obsolescence. After explaining that corporations purposefully design products to fail, he set us the end year task of creating our projects in a fashion which would allow them to malfunction after a period of time. The more accurate the motors we designed to purposefully fail were - the higher he would grade us. It was strange because the students who usually perfectly crafted their projects achieved a lower grade than those who just barely made anything. This, while a pretty derivative tale (in a pretty derivative post), does have an important economic lesson to teach us. This is the same way, substituting academic results with currency, which Vance Packard’s The Waste Makers describes corporations achieving increasing returns to scale by exploiting consumers product’s product expectancy. In California, there is a light bulb which has been burning for one hundred and fourteen years, lighting the fire department desk. How can we trust multinational corporations to care about nature if they care so little for us as humans? We are numbers to them, so surely they would treat nature as the mining of the natural resource they view as required for progression.

So why do we continue on this possible destructive path when we are half aware of it? You might say it’s because theological creation stories push us to want to innovate. Chomsky and Herman might say that we are complicit, our consent manufactured until we become submissive. You might say, like John Dewey, that it’s the educational system that is to blame. Who knows? What if the planet just wanted plastic and needed us for it, like George Carlin thinks? I don’t know. Not I, not Heidegger. Who knows if even the opening paragraph of this blog is true, what reasoning has been taken to siphon that belief outside of the powerful rhetoric and description of the vast unknown? You can justify anything by the void or whatever you define as human nature. Foucauldian discourse analysis is not for students as inexperienced as I.

But I will pose an alternative. We don’t create anything because we want to transcend, but simply because it is something to do. Creating technology is something we are told is important, so therefore we are compelled by conditioning to do it. We are all just biding our time before we leak down the drain and the compulsion to create is un-explainable, in-articulable. It is the feeling of wanting to leave an anonymous calling card, an after echo. This how we live our daily lives: going to work at the factory, coming home and deciding to watch Charlie Chaplin slip himself into a machine - or if in pursuit of an answer, reading Heidegger himself. It’s all either a glorious distraction or a terrifying reminder of the fact that everything is constantly ending all at once, infinitely, over and over again. We listen to what we are told to do because somehow without it we think we wouldn’t know what to do. This is what they want us to think, whom I describe and prescribe as the unwitting unknowing influencers of innovation (not to be confused with the original literal definition of innovation; but more so the conceptual linear creation of innovation by innovators who can and will at some point carry out innovation in accordance with the innovators who purport to carry out the innovation required for such an act to be considered a development technologically worthy of innovation as a title). They think it, so we think it. They think it because they have been told to think it. They might have caught a glimpse of how it might make us better. Or, they know cynically that it won’t, and don’t care. Either way it doesn’t matter, it’s impossible to tell. In the same vein of the former Facebook employee openly rejecting the lure of its cult, tides can change but the ocean will take some serious work.

So we will continue to think it for I don’t know how long, because Heidegger is just challenging enough to comprehend that his message won’t be spread far enough outside certain hermeneutic circles for it to have a wider impact on the majority. Because this is not fun stuff. I’m not referring to simply the writing of this article but also I’m sure to the soon to be forgotten reading of this article. To explain Heidegger in abbreviated foot notes is itself a drag comparable to that of athletes’ foot.

In summary, it’s too profitable to exploit nature and Heidegger is too hard to read. Despite Heidegger appearing as the shining star - he in fact flogs the horse which is, in essence, the most deceased. He is the principle architect of his own mass misinterpretation. He is the chief concealer to me. Perhaps it is only me but I suspect it is not. And I hope that it is not. As Bertrand Russell puts it:

"Martin Heidegger's philosophy is extremely obscure and highly eccentric in its terminology. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic."

If we want to get more personal, Orwell would say:

“The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality…”

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

* * *

Unlike the lay person gazing in wonderment at the stars; I do not wonder at or about Heidegger or this work any longer, for fear of what it might do to me. Do not be mistaken: I have not cracked the code. The answers are ready-to-his-hand but slip through mine. I follow him around town to try and spot the glimmer of genius I am told persists but alas he appears as the sad old man sitting outside of the coffee shop, simultaneously spitting on the bystanders whilst leaving cognitive ejaculate on his seat. Anytime I’m near the man or his thoughts I can’t help but be physically sick out of repulsion. If I hear a brief mention of his name: or even an utterance phonologically similar to that of his name -- I must run into a small escape-proofed concreted box which has been designed for me at great expense for my use alone to lock me away. It is in this vessel I aboard in vain to avoid the self-harm which arises at the very verbosity of his name. He makes me sweat my own blood. I view him more as a medical condition which must be treated than a man with thoughts or ideas. Heidegger is an academic trauma to the nerves and to the skull. He is a daily condition, a brightly-sentient old man in a retirement home which must be helped up and down the stairs at the start and end of day. Between you and me, I wish to be rid of him. At many points: when it is just the two of us alone, I have questioned pushing him down the stairs and pretending he’s slipped. Nobody would know the truth, it would be a truth we’d both take to the grave. But, unfortunately, this is all just a mere dream, and I have had too many Heideggerian nightmares to count. It will not relent, he will not let go. I awake in the middle of the night, covered in cold sweat, feeling his ghost breathing down my neck, grabbing my hands, whispering softly to me that I have been misguided before he tries to pull me out from under the covers into the dark that I don’t want to go. My flat-mates hear me rumbling around late at night and they no longer answer my pleas. They know what I’m up to, what I’m dealing with. They know where the beyond lies. I keep frantically writing notes to the ghost of Heidegger to leave me alone, to leave me be, to let me go to back to where I once was, to let me be myself at once again. I was happy before; but now only the nagging persists… he is a curse, I tell you! I can’t even read dictionaries anymore because there are too many interpretations. It is all from the same stem. Forget literature forget blog posts there is nothing. People pass me by on the street and stare because they can tell that I’m haunted. They can tell by the look in my eyes that I do not understand. And they’re right. It’s true, I don’t. I don’t understand. I don’t. The truth is I don’t know if I can. And they can smell it, they can smell that right off me. And he can smell it. Heidegger, the superhuman, the ghost. The man beyond the beyond and then beyond that beyond. Beyond me –beyond us all.

Bibliography

Bingham, Shawn Chandler, and Alexander A. Hernandez. ""Laughing Matters": The Comedian as Social Observer, Teacher, and Conduit of the Sociological Perspective." Teaching Sociology 37.4 (2009): 335-52. JSTOR. Web.

Modern Times. Dir. Chaplin, Charles. CBS Fox Video, 2000.

A Nous La Liberté. Dir. Clair, René. WORLD World Cinema Ltd, 2003.

Connor, Steven. "Beckett and the World." 26th October 2006. Web. <http://www.stevenconnor.com/beckettworld/>.

Heidegger, Martin, and Ralph Manheim. An Introduction to Metaphysics. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1959. Web.

Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Harper Colophon Books Web.

Kockelmans, Joseph J. Martin Heidegger :A First Introduction to His Philosophy. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965. Print.

---. Martin Heidegger :A First Introduction to His Philosophy. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965. Print.

Lapointe, François H. "Martin Heidegger: A Bibliographic Essay (1973-1978)." Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 34.4 (1980): 624-56. JSTOR. Web.

Lewis, Paul. "'our Minds can be Hijacked': The Tech Insiders Who Fear a Smartphone Dystopia." The Guardian 2017. Print.

Orwell, George. George Orwell :Essays. London: Penguin, 2000; 1984. Penguin Classics Web.

Packard, Vance Oakley. The Waste Makers. London: Longmans, 1960. Print.

Pitt, Joseph C. Isis 94.1 (2003): 202-. JSTOR. Web.

Rockefeller, Steven C. Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society 28.2 (1992): 343-50. JSTOR. Web.

Rosen, Stanley. Plato's Symposium. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Print.

Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. 1st ed. New York: Crescent Books, 1989. Web.

Playtime. Dir. Tati, Jacques. British Film Institute, 2004.

George Carlin: You are all Diseased . Dir. Urbisci, Rocco. Perf. Carlin, George. Cable Stuff Productions; Home Box Office (HBO), 1999.

Waterhouse, Roger. A Heidegger Critique :A Critical Examination of Existential Phenomenology of Martin Heidegger. 15 Vol. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1981. Harvester Philosophy Now Web.

Young, Julian. Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.

---. Heidegger's Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

- Philip Doherty

0 notes