#but on this aspect at least it's been an enlightening experience so far

[yume-fanfare]

im taking notes on oscar's gender as i read

[bi-hop]

why the vulture scene in atsv is pure horror (spoilers under the cut)

As promised, I now have the mental bandwidth to actually talk about Adriano Tumino aka the Medieval Vulture in Across the Spiderverse. This is a spoiler fest, so I'm putting everything under the cut. Enjoy!

So, at some point when I was younger, I first heard about Flatland. It's this satirical novella from 1884. When I was looking it up again last night to prepare myself to explain it to other people, I was SHOCKED to hear it was satire on Victorian society and class structures. I had only ever heard about it in science and horror spaces. As a work, it's mainly known now for exploring the idea of 4th dimensions before Einstein, but it also continues elements that are straight out of horror. So, instead of breaking down the whole thing, I'm going to be focusing on that stuff specifically.

Flatland is about A. Square (yes, that's his name), who is a square. As you can imagine, his entire world is two-dimensional and functions as such. There's a lot of worldbuilding, but just keep in mind that

The people in his world cannot conceive of a 3rd dimension, and any mention of such is heretical.

Circles are the highest ranked people in this world.

One day, he encounters what he thinks is a circle. Said character is actually a sphere. Even as said sphere fucks with his perception by looking like disks sliding in and out of reality and tells him about the 'truth' of the world, A. Square can't comprehend the third dimension until his teacher lifts him into it, into Spaceland. The square is enlightened! His mind has been opened! He tells the sphere, if his reality is false and there's truly a third dimension, what if there are more? What if a fourth dimension exists with fourth dimensional beings who cannot be accurately perceived?

His teacher immediately casts him back down into Flatland, where he is subsequently imprisoned. No one believes that the third dimension and Spaceland exist. He only is able to write the novella and hope that one day Flatland will be ready for this knowledge.

All of this to say that Adriano is A. Square.

I read a lot of dimension-based horror. Maybe it's because the multiverse has compelled me since I was a kid, or maybe it's because I've heard way too many thought experiments about how every person on the planet may see the world differently, and we just use the same language to describe fundamentally different visuals because we can't accurately verify anything. The horror of it all, for both readers and writers, isn't necessarily the idea of seeing things others can't. At least, it's not in the hands of someone sincerely thinking about the 'eldritch'. Instead, imagine a higher being grabbing you and exposing you to a whole new, weighty aspect of reality you could never conceive without actively being dragged into it. And then you're thrown back into your reality. It consumes you, drives you, and no one believes you. How can they, when it's something so alien to your reality that no one can even think of it unless shown?

Because of the ripple effects of the collider, Adriano Tumino is dragged into Earth-65, the home of Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy). We don't know a lot about his world. As far as I remember, we don't even get a number designation. But his design, dialogue, and track all communicate a great deal about him. Vulture Meets Culture as a track blends Gwen's theme with the sort of opera he might listen to back home. He's designed heavily on the aesthetics of Da Vinci notebooks. As he affects the world, you can even see notations a la research scribbles next to diagrams. From memory alone, disregarding the fact that he's Italian (though I'm sure the insistence on English in Earth-65 was probably disorientating if his entire world speaks Italian), he also finds this new reality to be abhorrent and lashes out. This alone, an exposure to new colors and strange art and even weirder people who look nothing like you and the rest of your world, would be hard enough to cope with.

And then Miguel, this Spider-Man from 2099, drags Adriano out into the modern day.

The thing with movies being in theaters is that I'm at the mercy of random people who film showings on their phone to get footage. Because everyone finds the helicopter scene directly after this more interesting (which is valid), I don't have a picture of this moment. But when Adriano is flying out into this future, when he lays his eyes on these towering skyscrapers alight with color, you can see his shock, perhaps even terror. It'd be rough enough being exposed to a version of Italy that's, say, his time period but in technicolor. But this is worse. This is his Spaceland moment. The opera builds almost mournfully.

Soon, he will be sent back to his reality. This will happen in an even more incomprehensible future dimension, with even more people who look nothing like him. Perhaps there's a version of his granddaughter there. Tiana Tumino? It doesn't matter. Imagine this though. Your grandfather is yanked out of existence. He comes back. And he tells you 'I have seen colors beyond the ones we live in. I have seen towers of glass and metal scraping the sky, all alight in these colors. I have seen art that contains more art, and it was hideous. No one understood me. Flying things neared me that were beyond anything even our greatest geniuses can make.'

Do you believe him? Can you even imagine it all, even if he describes it, even if he shows you drawings of what he witnessed?

What will you say?

[h50europe]

Happy hamster wheeling with Uncle Buck...

I had to empty my brain after catching up with 9-1-1 Lone Star season 5. So bear with me, or scroll past it. Thanks. xoxo

9-1-1 LA—It can be incredibly frustrating when a series loses its initial magic and starts to become formulaic or predictable. Character-driven stories often resonate more because they delve deeper into the characters' emotional and psychological aspects, making their journeys more relatable and compelling.

The depth of character development in 9-1-1: Lone Star comes across better and makes the narrative richer and more engaging. It's a shame when another series, presumably from the same creative team, doesn't have the same quality and emotional depth.

On the other hand, 9-1-1 LA has shifted focus, which is disappointing as beloved characters and their stories are sidelined. An overemphasis on a metaplot and less engaging characters like Brad detract from the overall experience. Finding the right point where the action doesn't overshadow the character-driven story but enhances it was not on TMs bingo card so far.

The OS writers should take note of the feedback from GA and fans alike and bring the series back to its roots. The intricate details of the characters and their evolving relationships often leave a lasting impression, even in the chaos of an emergency. Season 8A was a dumpster fire in more ways than one.

What's with the romantic element that was so prominent in all the post-Season 7 interviews about Buck and Tommy's relationship?

Well, that part of Oliver's interview for Gay Times hasn't aged well.

It ended traumatic, or am I wrong? Tommy's traumatized, though it was never addressed why. What happened to him that he pulled the plug (pun intended) on their relationship? And yes, he threw all the biphobic tropes at Buck he could muster.

At this point, I'm mourning the loss of Lone Star and Tarlos. While I would be okay with 9-1-1 OS being canceled. I'm sure I am not the only one feeling betrayed. It's not just Buck back hamster wheeling. We all are.

As the plots become repetitive and foreseeable, there are two possible scenarios for Maddy's kidnapping: 1) she is saved, and the baby is okay. 2) She's saved but loses the baby. Pick a base. Plus, given the preview, the serial looks like a woman (if the hair we see isn't a wig).

If you already know that TM isn't going to off one of his mains, where is the thrill? Instead he is busy axing everyone else whose name isn't Brad. I am still determining what I should look forward to... Maybe I will be enlightened. Anyway, thanks for coming to my pep talk.

On a side note, wouldn't it be great if they would at least release the cute scene in the car Lou mentioned in one of his recent interviews?

Or they could recycle it in an upcoming episode as a flashback or a dream sequence for Buck. Who knows... Recycling has been one of their favorite things lately. If there was an award for it, they would be runners-up!

[archivus]

MAG[REDACTED] - Dark Down Below

This is episode dedicated to fans of Agnes Montague, the Cult of the Lightless Flame or the People's Church of the Divine Host

Statement of Lisa Yordanka regarding her experience with a strange mattress. Original statement given 22nd of August 1998, recording by Arcturus Walker, head archivist of the Magnus Institute, Budapest. Put to tape on April 2nd 2024. Statement begins:

I know about the entities. And I know that you must know about them as well. The ten lords in the sky beyond controlling our fears, but there's only one to which's power I consented to: the Desolation. I never thought a daughter of The Blackened Earth would be haunted by The Forever Blind. But I guess dark and destruction, flame and ash and coal go hand in hand. I never thought of their faction as the enemy. I thought we had some kind of contract binding us until we rid our area of The Mother of Puppets. Assuming they were the ones that brought it upon me.

I'm a coward. I have been devout to Asag ever since it enlightened me to it all: the human race deserves not what it has. The only one to bring destruction to it all is my God and no one else's. I would sacrifice myself in its name and yet, I haven't. I want to say I just haven't had the chance to, but that'd be a lie. I am afraid to die. Even in light of the powers at my fingertips I cannot bring death upon my shell. Because wouldn't that mean giving myself up to Terminus? Wouldn't that just feed The Coming End That Waits For All? Will I stop lying to myself one day? I can't bring myself to do it. It's that simple.

Until the inevitable end comes when I'll finally unite with the one to light my fire I will put this body to the most use that I can for both IT and the cult. So then, how come The Dark set it's blind gaze upon me? Why did I become their target? I don't even know what it counts, maybe as- as an artefact? A monster that came for me? Did something *posess* my mattress while I was busy fighting for Agnes?

It was a cold night, I remember. I got the chance to be around the chosen one, for a week I was blessed by her presence and I soaked it up, I could feel it in my powers. But the apartment she and Jude shared didn't have a guest bedroom nor a third bed, but luckily someone from the cult had a spare mattress we brought over to accommodate those that wish to see messiah and bathe in her immediate divinity. I was not the first to sleep on it. But I was there at the wrong time.

See, we had a bit of a commotion with our siblings over at the people's church, some started a protest that this joint of powers is a downright sacrilege towards their "Mr. Pitch", that whilst our flame is lightless, the heat it emanates is reminiscent of the thing they hate the most. They argued that our burning is parallel to that of the Sun which they're so desperately trying to blacken and thus we were harmful to their sanctity.

Though we tried to keep Agnes's identity a secret, their most sensitive to the world beyond ours could feel her presence and the gossip carried the word quick and far. So their target was set on our dear messiah's back and that was something I simply I could not let happen. The physical aspect of the fight was lacking to say the least, the darkness works by disorientation not by direct combat, which is what the flame excels at.

Thankfully my blessed abilities include striking a spark into all that's electric and once the churchmen's frosty void surrounded us all I was able to flick all the broken bulbs lying around, those that they ritualistically destroyed into a flashbang for those who still perceived with their eyes. The rest also felt their power dissipate. The destruction of their ego, their fear of eradication almost made me want to get up close and personal with those who were first to open fire but there was no need, for they all turned their backs and my family from the cult urged me to leave them behind. That mercy was undeserved and it hurt.

That evening I had a hard time ridding my system of the pent up adrenaline. I took to some meditation with the members who were still there by the nightfall, but I still struggled to fall asleep. The mattress seemed too wavy and for long long hours I thought it was just my shocked perception playing tricks on my brain. But then I felt something slam into the middle of my spine, a shocking pain piercing through my skin like a round knife. It was like a heavy wooden door shutting, again and again and again. I tried to scream. I see well in the dark, my heat perception is impeccable yet I couldn't find a thing in my vicinity. The room seemed empty and after half a second the darkness seemed to wrap around my neck, flowing down my throat, muffling any sound I made. Then another spring etched into the nape of my neck, with a power that should've sprung my head up but something weighed me down on the needle bed that kept on prying into my body, spring by spring until I lost consciousness.

I don't even have to mention. It was dark. The most pitch black one couldn't see. This one had to be lived by a soul, as I was sure that was all I had now. My, at least what I believe to be my projected- body was glowing. I wasn't floating though. All around me was all encompassing darkness, yes, but I was laying in a swamp of some sort of viscous liquid that barely felt like it was even there. At first at least. I could barely touch it, the texture escaped my fingertips. That was until I felt a bump forming under my back from what, I now felt as a tiny swarm of particles, a dark sentient confetti. Thinking they were about to transport me I relaxed my body. How naive of me. Expecting to meet face to face with one of the gods from beyond? In my right mind I definitely wouldn't have thought myself worthy and I still not am. But I let go to see where the darkness takes me. Nowhere.

All of a sudden I experienced an ache of a thousand suns burrowing under my skin, the wounds were still obviously there from where the springs burst into me, and now they were being pried open once again by the mysterious creatures, bleeding me dry in the dreamscape of their master(s). I was numb. The pain made my brain forget where my muscles were positioned. I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of a spinal cord injury. For a moment it all seemed to cease but right after the calm my whole being began to spasm. I was experiencing a shock, a fit that I can't describe. I wasn't conscious all throughout though, I can tell you that much. After all my muscles startes vibrating uncontrollably, I lost myself.

And then awoke. My head throbbing like a bad hangover, I climbed over to the bathroom. I spare you the details, I was in a rather sorry state. I do not know who cursed me in the church and I do not care to find out. I want them all to pay, to burn among the flames they'll wish so desperately to not see. But my fire will burn through their blackened eyeholes and etch a flash in the deepest corners of the minds of even those that could never see. And I'll leave this statement to you and the ages to come, to note the day those wretched monsters dare lay their closed eyes upon our Agnes.

Statement ends. There are certainly a few interesting details to this statement so I'll go over them in order. First, Lisa only seems to know about 10 of the 15 entities, which may translate to the Cult of The Lightless Flame having the same, limited knowledge. This can be seen by the fact that miss Lisa's powers described here more closely resemble The Extinction's, rather than The Desolation's. It definitely gets me wondering how someone devout could be snatched from their entity's grasp. Maybe the Future Without Us was already within her when she first joined the cult?

Still baffles me how such a new power would dare mess with the subordinates of the burning destruction. Miss Lisa's fear and inability to sacrifice herself may come from The Extinction preventing her from becoming an avatar to the *wrong* entity, or it could just be a manifestation of its powers, just like her wishing death upon the entirety of the human race. I was also unaware that the two most active cults at the time, at least of those serving the entities, held such close ties, even if we just witnessed them getting severed...

Two days after giving this statement the apartment under the name of Lisa Yordanka caught fire, which is assumed to be electrical in nature, her kitchen appliances being the most likely source, and whilst cameras don't show her leaving, no body was found. Per my deductions this means she had completed her transformation into an avatar, though maybe not the one she wished to become. I wonder if the metal from the springs could've helped her body transform, like a crystallization chain reaction. Those born of The Terrible Change seem to enjoy their robotic bodies more than their organic ones, which they often experience as flesh-prisons. *sigh* I hope this fellow avatar finds it freeing as well and not as another bound to something she doesn't even know about. Wonder if she's ever going to figure it out. Recording ends.

Thanks for reading! I love how this turned out and actually written most of it before The Stranger's episode was done 😅. This episode is dedicated to The Dark and you can find the other ones here: The Flesh The Vast The Stranger

[sketching-shark]

Uhum, hi, I've seen some Wukong posts here and... Wukong is trans and asexual and a representation of the mind at the same time? or how is it? I'm a beginner in Journey To The West so sorry if this sounds ignorant, I don't want to disrespect something...

Hey no worries anon! It's honestly understandable that you would feel really confused about all the different kinds of Monkey King posting; there are a LOT of very different ways that this simian has been represented and understood throughout the centuries.

I think you could say that in his most basic of basic descriptions, Sun Wukong is a monkey born from a stone who acquires vast magical power through Taoist cultivation, and who is most well known for having accompanied the Buddhist monk Tang Sanzang on a journey from China to India in search of Buddhist scripture.

The thing is that he's one of the starring characters of the important Chinese classic Journey to the West, and this book is both a fun adventure story as well as a religious text about self cultivation, thus lending itself to many different interpretations. One of the most important and widely accepted of these is that Sun Wukong is metaphorically acting as the "monkey of the mind," which is a Buddhist term describing the unsettled, restless, and uncontrollable parts of ourselves that we must "tame" and "cultivate" in order to achieve Enlightenment.

Sun Wukong being described explicitly as asexual is something that I think started with the 1996 television series based on the book, but in the text of Journey to the West he shows 0 interest in sex and romance too.

The Monkey King as trans is (as far as I'm aware) also a pretty recent interpretation, but from what admittedly little I know it's one that's been increasingly adopted by the Chinese trans community for a number of reasons, one of the biggest being that Sun Wukong's story is largely one of fighting hard to genuinely be himself in every situation. @antidotefortheawkward knows a lot more about trans readings of the Monkey King than I do, so if you're interested I would definitely suggest giving his posts on this subject a look!

If you're interested in a very detailed overview of Sun Wukong and Journey to the West, you should definitely give Anthony C. Yu's translation of the text a look, or at least flip through the introduction! @journeytothewestresearch, besides providing a LOT of really good analysis and sources on many different aspects of this text, has also kindly provided links to free pdf copies of Yu's English translation. You can find them at the top of his blog here:

I hope that helps settle some of your confusion anon! I totally get that all the different interpretations and retellings out there can make trying to learn about Journey to the West and Sun Wukong seem overwhelming, especially when you're trying to be respectful. But I hope that you find these things to be a good start. Based on my own experiences, if you keep you mind open to new information then you'll be golden :)

[sleepy12ftpanda]

Ey! I’m cooking something weird for DnD, and would love some input if anyone’s up for it. It’s a concept for some true deities called, “Primordials”.

"Primordials" in my DnD world are deities that manifest as the result of mortal perception. They are magically generated as a passive consequence of collective thought and represent the primal emotions which have underpinned our consciousness since the beginning of time. They are the true secret gods of the plane, as the commonly worshiped “official” pantheons are merely comprised of old adventurers who had amassed enough wealth and power to appear divine. Ultimately, the power of those “pretender gods” still stems from the Primordials, whom which hey live in constant fear of. Although some may become attuned to these true gods’ influence and believe themselves to express their will at times, these entities are not so much people as living aspects of the worldmind, taking on true forms that are more landscape than man. They are just as defined by how we see them as we are by their whims, and so long as people exist, so too will these divine beings.

To witness such a Primordial, one must succeed at a THIRD EYE check (Intelligence + Wisdom) at a DC of 20 in order to achieve an epiphany that would render its form both visible and tangible to the viewer for a period of 24 hours. During that time, a vertical slit will form down their entire face and peel it back as a lid to reveal The Eye Within, a large eyeball that had always been part of their body which had been instinctively forgotten until the moment of revelation. While the eye is open, all communication attempted with the Unenlightened will be perceived as hysteria, requiring all who gaze upon their visage to also make THIRD EYE saves. If they succeed, they will also be Enlightened. All Enlightened must make Will saves or else fall prey to their own inner natures and become receptive to the influence of the Primordial.

A Primordial’s influence is not direct mind control more than suggestion. On their turn, a player under its thrall first must state what they intend to do, the DM describe the Primordial’s impulse, and finally that player rolls a Will save to determine the actions of their character. On a 1-6, the Primordial succeeds. On a 7-13, the player character does an action that attempts to appease both minds at the same time. On a 14-20, the player succeeds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primordial Example:

Guiy: Primordial of Curiosity

A large eye in the sky seemingly one with the horizon comprised of interwoven, knotted tendrils that are connected throughout the world with the heads of all conscious beings at the base of the neck.

Throughout its complex it gathers information into its central eye called “The World Knot”.

Many of its thralls feel compelled to journey to The World Knot and peer into its depths, whereupon both the knot and the thrall learn the entire contents of the other’s mind. The soul of the thrall then assimilates into The World Knot while its expired carcass, set aflame by knowledge far beyond its comprehension, crumbles to ash.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ I don't have much experience when it comes to balancing, but I know what I want to convey at least. I'm not trying to overwhelm the party with an impossible to kill foe more than establishing a force of nature that they will have to figure out how to circumvent. Thanks for reading, and feel free to comment and reblog if you like! ]

[alialmans]

Nah, this explains it pretty well.

I've still got a lot of CS to play through before I get to BoH, so I won't be getting direct experience with the new aspects, but I feel like I understand the basics pretty well now.

So far I've done:

- 2 Enlightenment victories

- 1 major Enlightenment victory

- 1 Power victory

- Half a change run while not creating a cult (really fun challange)

- And currently doing my first ghoul/medium run

I still wanna at least complete all the DLCs, cause I only bought them this Christmas and I'm having A LOT of fun with them

While at first the addition of new aspects weirded me out (I was considering whether you were trolling for a good second), this explanation really got me on their side

I've long been thinking about how the 9 aspects I was aware of could be applied to everything but the mild and mundane aspects of life - those additions seem to be filling that gap.

Maybe when I play BoH I'll add the new ones to my blog (assuming it'll still be secret histories themed) (and that it'll still exist by then)

Book of Hours also has extra aspects/principles: moon for the secret and forgoten, nectar for the blood and honey, rose for the wandering and wondering, scale hard and heavy, and sky for the song and balance.

That just sounds like alternate names for / subsections of the existing ones tho?

Moon = Moth

Nectar = Grail

Rose = Secret Histories

Scale = Edge (this one seems to fit the least)

Sky = Heart

Like... a huge part of moth already is collecting secrets, thought I do admit it seems pretty separate from the moon in the description of the dappled mask and when you dream with passion and then moth lore

Blood and honey sound decently similar to the feast and the birth and imo that's an even better description of the 'yearning' side of grail

Heart has a huge rhythm motif, preserving & balance are really related concepts. The description of 15th level heart influence also links them An Imminence -"The sky is a drum; the earth is ready for its ecstasy." by invoking both the motifs of music and the sky. Also can't forget about the thunder motif of heart being linked to the motif of "sky"

[limerental]

ficletvember 2021 - day 15

geraskier centaur!geralt sex preparation shenanigans content warning for explicit considerations of centaur sex logistics and therefore non-human anatomy and reference to bestiality but not sexy at all I promise

Of all the many virtues Jaskier could be said to be lacking, perseverance was certainly not one of them.

He did not know which gods or spirits presided over the realms of stubborn grit and dogged persistence, but surely, he had been born under signs most auspicious to them and had therefore been blessed with an endless determination to rival any other. 

If he set himself toward a task, he charged toward it with unflagging gusto and rampant enthusiasm. (The loophole being, of course, that to maintain the strength of this virtue, he danced around committing to or promising almost anything, but that was another story entirely.)

He took ceaseless pride in this facet of his personality.

It was perseverance that had bolstered him from a penniless wanderer pelted by bakes goods to an esteemed purveyor of the arts. It was perseverance that had cemented the dearest friendship in his life, refusing to be deterred by his Witcher's early attempts to shake him off until he had so wheedled under his companion's skin that Geralt admitted he found the world far more dull without Jaskier at his side to liven it.

And it was perseverance that had allowed Jaskier to effectively prepare himself to be impaled by Geralt's undubitably and incomparably massive horsecock.

"Horse" being not a fanciful descriptor to estimate the measure of his endowment but most literal, given that Witchers (or perhaps only Geralt's additionally mutated flavor) bore the torso of a man held upright above the lower body of a horse.

Including the genitalia of one.

Through the decades, their inevitable romance had been slow-burning and steady, at last pouring over into mutual confessions of desire and care and love. It had Jaskier dabbing at the corners of his eye with his handkerchief simply revisiting the memory of that moonlit moment, how Geralt's white hair had shone as it fell in a curtain across their faces as they shared a first kiss, strained by their height difference. At last, Geralt had folded his equine knees to the earth to ease the developing crick in Jaskier's neck, and it was that reminder of their differing bodies that had jolted him into the awareness that to experience their intimacy in fullness, there would have to be some adjustment on his part to a certain… fullness.

As an enlightened, free-thinking man of a certain age, he was no stranger to the methodology. Though, contrary to assumptions based on his rather flamboyant and delicate manner, Jaskier's preference did not lean toward the receptive side of things, preferring to be an active participant in wringing out pleasure from his satisfied lovers, but Geralt had never failed to awaken new and exciting aspects of himself that he had not anticipated.

In the least, having been to university, he was no virgin and had taken the receptive role enough that he considered himself fairly skilled at the requisite achievement of muscle laxity. 

For Geralt, he could be flexible.

He would have to be very very flexible indeed.

He had briefly considered the penetrative role but soon had the worry that the logistics of Geralt's anatomy would make for a bizarre and likely humiliating affair, as the Witcher's equine body was comparable in breadth and height not to your everyday riding pony but to a sturdy and massive draught horse, requiring the use of a ladder or perhaps a well-positioned hill to achieve penetration. The length of Geralt's strong back would not lend itself to much physical intimacy, being that his human torso would be positioned too far forward to reach one another even with dedicated contortions of both of their bodies. 

Additionally, his ego surely would not survive if it came to pass that his beloved Witcher failed to feel much of anything at all within his… passage. Whilr his own endowment was not insubstantial, given the reality of Geralt's anatomy, he was fearful he would find himself dwarfed to ineffective smallness.

And frankly, as dearly as Jaskier loved and felt deep and abiding physical, emotional, and spiritual attraction for his stalwart companion, he had thankfully not developed any untoward inclinations toward actual equines.

So yes, while he loved and appreciated all that Geralt was, he was not certain that the act of becoming personal with the Witcher's sizeable, plush rump would bring either of them anything but discomfort.

Not that penetrative sex was the whole sum of sexuality or necessary for a loving and stable union, but once Jaskier set his mind to it, he could hardly give up and limit their sensual activities to schoolboy necking for the rest of their days. Once he had gotten the idea into his head, he could not shake it out. He longed for that pinnacle of intimacy, that closeness, to give his beloved the gift of a pleasure that no other had ever been brave or persistent enough to offer him before.  

He did not flinch in stubborn pursuit of his goals. He did not shy from the strenuous, seemingly impossible climb ahead of him. He frequented several highly illicit establishments to finally find someone willing to sell him the necessary goods, turned away with raised eyebrows and touching concern for his safety and health, or perhaps just his sanity.

But the naysayers did not deter him and were soon proven to have underestimated the true depths of his determination. He worked his way through the series of stretching plugs with a steadfast endurance and dedication that would have shamed all of his academic mentors and least favorite university professors into admitting that he truly did have admirable follow through on matters of actual importance.

Within a month, he was ready to approach his lover with the fruits of his arduous labor and at last become one in all possible ways with the wonderful, gentle, patient not-quite-man who was the one great and truest love of his life.

The difficulty was that the announcement of his preparedness and subsequent more hands on explanation that involved taking Geralt's hand to allow him to feel where the wooden plug impossibly stretched him in his most delicate places, was met with only blank confusion.

"Jaskier," said Geralt, a deepening blush climbing his handsome cheekbones as his fingertips brushed the taut skin. "I have a human penis too."

"What, " said Jaskier as the Witcher caught his hand and pressed it against the sash slung low around his human hips. There, he felt the firm evidence of a girthy but more feasibly mountable bit of anatomy. 

"The other one is for... urinating," Geralt said stiffly, clearly embarrassed. "Nothing else."

"Oh."

"I don't think anything else is possible. Even for you."

Which was a mistake. Geralt realized it a moment too late, his face falling.

"Oh really?" Jaskier said in a seductive drawl. "You don't think I can do it?"

"I think I'll step on your fingers. Or worse."

"It would be a pity to let all this effort go to waste."

"No Jaskier."

"I can take it," he breathed against Geralt's ear. "Allow me to try."

At last, Geralt grunted in acquiescence. For all his griping and moaning, he always gave to any of Jaskier's whims with a placid ease that was truly heart-warming. 

Alas, the whole affair proved a fruitless effort anyhow.

In reality, the plug proved insuffienct preparation for anything beyond the flattened head. As much as he had romanticized that he would, Jaskier was not overly fond of the uncomfortable reality of having his internal organs thoroughly rearranged.

The positioning required was dreadfully precarious and impractical.

Geralt trod on Jaskier's hand with his dinnerplate hooves almost immediately.

His yelps of pain as Geralt fretted soon gave to laughter, and he lay there on his back feeling utterly foolish, swatting at Geralt's probing hands as he laughed and laughed.

"You're an idiot," said Geralt, finally catching his fingers to inspect them for damage. "You are the most absurdly stubborn and ridiculous man I've ever met."

"And you love me," said Jaskier, grinning cheekily, pillowing his head against Geralt's thick cannon bone, breath ruffling feathered fetlocks tucked against the warm bulk of the body curled around him.

"Debateable."

Geralt passed his fingers with lingering tenderness through Jaskier's hair. 

A debate, Jaskiee knew, that he would persevere long enough to soundly win.

[aelaer]

Hi friend! You seem vast in your knowledge of Stephen and willing to share so please enlighten me as I don’t read the comics but I do watch the mcu movies, and do love Stephen.

I know he’s erratic and impulsive and reckless sometimes but didnt we already complete this arc in his first movie? Especially since we’ve watched him deal with the consequences of his actions for the entirety of the film and end of the movie Stephen was a different Stephen from the beginning of the movie.

IW Stephen seemed like a more mature version of the man we’ve met at the end of his first movie, a linear progression of the character, more responsible.

The spider man trailer is just a few minutes so I’ll further reserve judgment till I see the film, but he seems.. silly almost? I’m aware he has his funny moments but I’m just nervous they’re gonna make him the joke instead of having him make the jokes.

Do you notice anything weird about how the adults act in these newer marvel projects.? (I’m thinking of loki specifically) they all have a silly undertone to them? I cant put my finger on it but it’s definitely new and ..off

Is this a constant characterization for Stephen in the comics? Is this what he’s like all the time?

Regardless, thank you for your time if you see this xx

Oh yeah, Stephen's my favorite subject at the moment so I'm happy to give my thoughts!

Note that my answers apply to MCU!Stephen and what we've seen in the four films he's been in.

I know he’s erratic and impulsive and reckless sometimes but didnt we already complete this arc in his first movie? Especially since we’ve watched him deal with the consequences of his actions for the entirety of the film and end of the movie Stephen was a different Stephen from the beginning of the movie.

In my experience of just living, there are personality quirks that can be tempered out and made better, but not entirely eliminated, even if it's undesirable. In my opinion, Stephen's need to push himself and prove that he can Do A Thing is a trait that won't ever go away--especially as that trait has helped him more than hindered him. Examples would include the more mundane such as getting through a combined MD/PhD program and inventing surgical procedures at what is still a really young age for a neurosurgeon. We don't have a canonical age for Stephen, but Benedict was 40 when Doctor Strange was filmed and released; even if he's canonically in his mid-40s, that's still very young for him to be at his caliber after the necessary years of med school and residency in the United States. He's young and nowhere near the end of his career when he gets in the car crash. So with that information in mind, we know that he's very ambitious and throws himself into doing difficult work with gusto. That doesn't even go into everything he did as a sorcerer.

Why get into all of this? Because while we, the viewer who has seen the multiverse open at... some point (possibly, in a rewritten timeline, it's always been open now with what happened in Loki!), we have seen just how nuts it gets. We have seen the consequences. Stephen's smart, but I don't think it's a matter of strictly recklessness and more a combination of ignorance on this specific subject (erasing memories across the world or slightly rewriting time-- we don't know how he's doing it, but a memory spell makes more sense to me), hubris (of course), and the real desire to help Peter out. The latter two traits combined in intelligent people have proven bad in both fiction and reality.

The reason I don't think it's pure impulsiveness is because in the trailer, we see Stephen doing some meditation type thing in the underground area before the spell. He's also always doing research and as he tells Peter he'll help him, he clearly knows of a spell already and has some working knowledge of how it works. The conversation with Wong wouldn't have happened otherwise. But I personally get the vibe off him that he'd not do it without being very confident that he can do it -- and his history in the films has shown 0 failures in any of his spells once he's past novice-level, so in that aspect, his confidence makes sense. If he *should* do the spell due to the risks of failure, and lack of practicing precaution in the face of his confidence, is where his flaws lie, IMO. And in that sense people could say he was reckless for deciding to perform a complicated, dangerous spell, but that follows his M.O. completely -- he performed a very complicated, dangerous spell consistently with the Time Stone again and again, from how the sorcerers spoke about the Infinity Stone (and he casually just... throws himself into a time loop, then to look through time. He takes calculated risks, but they are very much risks).

One last thought on this statement - the biggest, biggest lesson that Stephen learned in his first film was that it was not about him. There was more to the world than his glory and his brilliance and even his happiness. He started doing things for the greater good rather than himself. And he started doing things for others -- fighting for the Sanctum in his own film, and protecting the Earth. Serving something greater than himself. But that doesn't make him suddenly humble, and it doesn't suddenly take away his strange (hah) sense of humor.

IW Stephen seemed like a more mature version of the man we’ve met at the end of his first movie, a linear progression of the character, more responsible.

He was more serious in that film. So was Tony. They still had some quips and arguments, but they were very serious. And it makes sense as to why -- it was the end of the world. So the mood of the setting would change anyone's demeanour. But he had very little chance to unwind in that film, considering that he was trying to protect one of six items that would destroy the universe, and also got freaking tortured in the middle of the film with little time to recover. But nearly every Avenger was super serious in that film, and for good reason.

It's a completely different setting from what is now Stephen's life which, from what little we've seen in the trailer, is weird enough that he got a magical snowstorm in the Sanctum. It's safe enough that Wong's off on vacation. It's been nearly a year since he returned from the dead. He's either figured out how to move on in the last year or, as some prefer, has gotten good enough to put on a facade and bury the trauma so far down that he's putting on a normal act - but that's up to debate until MoM. And we have no idea if old traumas are going to be brought up there or if it's just the new things.

I think the point is that it's possible to be both a responsible person and also to make colossal mistakes due to either emotional connections or hubris (or both - we don't know which way the film will go, if they'll explain it at all). They're not mutually exclusive. He can be protecting reality fantastically, while also believing that he's skilled enough to pull off the ability to pull off a dangerous spell which he did in his own film and in IW. He's guided the timeline down a specific path in IW/Endgame, after all - what's a little identity item compared to the fate of the universe, after all? Removing the Spider-Man/Peter association is, in comparison, child's play I imagine to a man like Stephen.

The spider man trailer is just a few minutes so I’ll further reserve judgment till I see the film, but he seems.. silly almost? I’m aware he has his funny moments but I’m just nervous they’re gonna make him the joke instead of having him make the jokes.

Do you notice anything weird about how the adults act in these newer marvel projects.? (I’m thinking of loki specifically) they all have a silly undertone to them? I cant put my finger on it but it’s definitely new and ..off

He was definitely silly in his own film. He was constantly trying to get Wong to laugh and there was a banter between Stephen and Christine after he gets stabbed. He's always been a bit awkward and a bit jokey--I think Thor showed that combination of humorous snark and good research rather well, though he was flippant in a way that didn't get to show his kinder side that is better established in his film. And now we get to see that sympathy in his agreement to help Peter (at least, in my opinion).

Because he was doing an amazing awesome spell not once, not twice, but *three* times in the trailer alone, I am not worried about Stephen just being a joke. He seems just as powerful as he was in IW and Endgame. The rest of the world is just getting reminded that he's definitely a bit of a socially awkward duck at times (or, if you prefer, Putting On a "I'm Fine" Front And It's Coming Across As Weird). So him being a big joke is not something I am personally worried about.

Situational humor has been a staple of Marvel films since Iron Man. I watched the films casually before 2016 when I fell head deep into Stephen Strange (or well, 2018/9 is more accurate as that's when I *really* went nuts), and my viewings before that time and after that time was a lot more analytical. And it's very easy to see where the silliness started, all the way back when Tony crashed into his own car and Dum-E sprayed him with a fire extinguisher. Thor was the butt of the joke in the "fish out of water" scene in a good, good chunk of the film. Even Captain America had some situational humor. And remember that Guardians of the Galaxy was back in 2014, which was halfway through the MCU's time thus far. The stars of these films are almost always the butt of some joke a couple times and do things that could be viewed as childish.

I don't know your age at all, but if you were born after 1990, what might be happening, rather, is that they are not getting sillier, but that you may be getting older. I was an adult (legally, at least) in 2008, but the way I view the adults of the films throughout the early 2010s as compared to now is night and day. It's just come with my own life experience, and wider understanding to media tropes. The jump is even more significant if you were younger in Iron Man/Avengers days and are an adult now. If you're an older adult than me, then I'd argue it's the matter of life experience adding to your overall knowledge of media plus, potentially, rose-tinted glasses giving you a better vision of the older movies while forgetting that the older movies had plenty of their own flaws (and silliness). Could be a lot of things- it's too individual to really say why your perspective has changed. But I don't think the MCU's largely changed their comedy formula since 2012/2013.

Is this a constant characterization for Stephen in the comics? Is this what he’s like all the time?

Oh the comics are a mess of characterizations. It's very difficult to find full consistency across writers, and some writers did him much better than others. At the moment, Jason Aaron's 2015 run is viewed as very good by a large amount of fans, while Waid's 2018 run is viewed with mixed reviews. It's largely a matter of preference as you'll see traits that are just so uncharacteristic in an arc and then it never happens again. He takes on secret identities, he kills billions to save trillions (along with the other Avengers!), he sells his soul, he's in a steady relationship for 30 years, then he's sleeping with a new woman every arc he co-stars in-- it's just so dependent on the writer over the decades. What Marvel thinks will sell. Right now Marvel thinks his death is gonna sell issues, so yeah :P You pick and choose with the comics and build a personality from there.

Thank you for the thoughtful ask. I hope this wasn't too much of a drag to read through; I get rambly on my favorite subjects. Or anything, really.

[hieromonkcharbel]

The Helmsman of the Spiritual Life - The Eye of the Heart:

Before approaching themes of the Philokalia and the spirituality of the hesychast Fathers, it is helpful, and one might say absolutely necessary, to clarify how they use various words. Indeed, over the years I have been most grateful for the wonderful glossary that the translators provided at the end of the first volume. Without this aid, I dare say, the meaning of many of the Father’s sayings would be completely lost or at least severely truncated. The two other resources that have helped me the most are Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos’ “Orthodox Psychotherapy” (which offers the most refined distinctions regarding the terms the Fathers use of terms and to which I will return in later posts) and Anthony Coniaris’ “Confronting and Controlling Thoughts” and “The Beginner’s Introduction to the Philokalia.” As a first step in understanding the Father’s use of the term “nous” (mind, intellect), I offer his very thoughtful and succinct reflections for your consideration. One very quickly recognizes the significance of these distinctions for understanding philokalic spirituality and the ascetic tradition of the desert fathers. Coniaris writes:

“Orthodox spirituality places great emphasis on the ‘nous’, or mind, and the thoughts, ‘logismoi’, that the mind produces. It does so because everything we do begins in the nous or mind with the thoughts (logismoi). ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he,’ we read in Proverbs. So, let’s begin our study of confronting and controlling thoughts according to the Fathers of the Philokalia with a brief study, first of the nous (mind) . . .

In an interview, Bishop Kallistos Ware offered the following definition of nous or intellect: ‘Nous, in particular, is a very difficult word to translated. If you just say ‘mind’, that is far too vague. In our translation of the Philokalia, we, with some hesitations, opted for the word intellect, emphasizing that it does not mean primarily the rational faculties. The nous is the spiritual vision that we all possess, though many of us have not discovered it. The nous implies a direct, intuitive appreciation of truth, where we apprehend the truth not simply as the conclusion of a reasoned argument, but we simply see that something is so. The nous is cultivated certainly through study, through training our faculties, but also it is developed through prayer, through fasting, through the whole range of the Christian life. This is what we need to develop most of all . . ., something higher than the reasoning brain and deeper than the emotions.’

Nous then is spiritual vision that enables us to recognize truth as soon as we see it.

An additional definition of nous comes from the book ‘Themes of the Philokalia - The Nous’. ‘A nous that is pure and loves and does not offend God is similar to an eye that does not even accept the smallest dust particle. It is from the nous that all the powers of the soul depend. That is why the Lord tells us ‘if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. Since the nous of contemporary man has fallen into the same sin as Adam and Eve, it has turned towards creation with an unrestrainable idolatrous and evil disposition. In this way the nous of man, away from the vision of the glory of God, becomes either demonic or bestial. The nous which is overcome by the passions and egoism is unenlightened, dark, short-sighted and feeble.’

Thus, purified nous, enlightened by God’s grace, is designed to be the eye of the soul.

The nous is also designed to presided over the person as the ‘hegemonikon’, the dominant leader or ruler of the personality. Yet because of the Fall of man, the nous has been wounded and is now subject to disruption by epithymia, by the desires imposed by the powerful passions. It is only by God’s grace and askesis, discipline, resistance, that man can be healed and come to prevail over the epithymia(desire) of the passions through the power of the Holy Spirit. St. Hesychios states that the Fathers liken the intellect (nous) to the leadership of Moses: ‘The Fathers regard Moses the Lawgiver as an ikon of the intellect. He saw God in the burning bush; his face shone with glory; he was made a god to Pharoah by the God of gods; he flayed Egypt with a scourge; he led Israel our of bondage and gave laws. These happenings, when seen metaphorically and spiritually, are activities and privileges of the intellect hegemonikon.’

Like Moses, the nous (intellect) is called and empowered by God’s grace to be the dominant factor - the acropolis -ruling over the kingdom of the self. It is the hegemonikon, the rudder that steers and directs the kingdom of self. If the individual person allowed the hegemonikon to rule, spiritual harmony and progress would follow. The hegemonikon is what Jesus calls ‘the eye’, which, if it is single, will fill the whole body with light. Some consider the hegemonikon to be the ‘mind of Christ’ which we receive when we ‘put on Christ’ in holy baptism.

The translators of the Philokalia themselves offer the following definition of nous (intellect):

‘Nous is the highest faculty in man, through which - provided it is purified - he knows God . . . Unlike the dianoia or reason from which it must be carefully distinguished, the intellect does not function by formulating abstract concepts and then arguing on the basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning, but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition or ‘simple cognition’. The intellect dwells in the ‘depths of the soul’; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart. . . The intellect is the organ of contemplation, the ‘eye of the heart’.”

In the future, I hope, by using other resources and the Fathers themselves, to clarify this understanding of the nous and to address how the nous is purified and healed.

[latenightcinephile]

#703: 'Marketa Lazarová', dir. František Vláčil, 1967.

Marketa Lazarová is a slightly unusual film for me, because its effects go slightly beyond my ability to articulate or explain them. I originally saw it at a Film Society screening in 2015 or 2016, back when I was able to go to movies at 6 p.m. on a Monday evening, and it enthralled me then, splayed wide across the screen at the Paramount in crisp black and white. I knew very little of Czech cinema at the time and, embarrassingly, still haven't seen very much. Coming back to it five years later, it still holds a lot of that arcane power that it had. Marketa Lazarová is simultaneously a meditative experience and a gut punch.

František Vláčil was one of the Czech filmmakers who was originally trained with the Army Film Division, which surprisingly became a breeding ground for avant-garde filmmaking styles. Vláčil became disillusioned with the types of historical films that were being produced at the time, which seemed to him to feature contemporary people pretending to be characters from the past. What was needed instead, he argued, was a more immediate form of historical cinema that made audiences feel like they were witnessing history rather than a lacklustre interpretation of it. In order to achieve this, he frequently joined his cast and crew on long-term shoots where they lived in the types of conditions that the characters would. Sets were built using traditional methods, and scripts were written using archaic dialects to avoid that common experience of characters speaking in a recognisably modern way. The shoot for Marketa Lazarová lasted almost two years in these conditions.

The film's plot concerns three groups. The Kozlík clan, a family under the helm of a robber baron, robs a noble entourage and takes Kristian, the son of the bishop, hostage. Before Kozlík's sons can return to claim their loot, a neighbouring clan led by Lazar steals the spoils. Lazar is saved from being killed when a vision of a nunnery on a hillside appears. One of the chief themes of this film, alluded to early on, is the conflict between paganism and early Christianity. The two worldviews are muddy and indistinct, but the difference between them is what drives a lot of the retribution in the film. Kristian falls in love with one of Kozlík's daughters, Alexandra, while Kozlík's son, Mikoláš, falls in love with Lazar's daughter, Marketa, whom he has taken as a hostage in retaliation for Lazar refusing to side with Kozlík against the king and the bishop. In addition to the religious dimension, then, there is also an ongoing theme of where one's loyalties lie - with existing morals (family, God) or with the person you love. Over the course of this epic, the fates of all three groups trend downhill: members of each of these bands are slaughtered and betrayed; Kozlík and Alexandra are imprisoned; Marketa is released by Mikoláš but rejected by Lazar. The film's conclusion seems to suggest that it is Marketa, and the future generations she helps to bring into the world, that will be able to overcome the divisions that affected the clans so catastrophically, but also acknowledges that these types of conflicts are part of the human experience.

As vast and interwoven the plot of the film is, it's not what makes the experience of watching quite so transcendent. What makes this film feel like an out-of-body experience is Vláčil's use of non-linear and non-realistic techniques. Parts of the film's story are told in flashback, but without any explicit indication that this is happening. At times we see disconnected, hallucinatory images that only make sense when they are contextualised later on. One example of this is an erotic scene between Alexandra (Pavla Polášková) and a young man, who we assume to be Kristian (Vlastimil Harapes). It's only later that we discover that this is a flashback to an abortive romance between Alexandra and her brother Adam (Ivan Palúch) - a man I had initially disqualified from appearing here because Adam only has one arm in the current scenes. Revealing that it is Adam propels the story forward in traditionally linear fashion, but also causes the viewer to reassess the film's earlier scene to determine why these images are included there. These images are made further alien by their unexpected visual qualities: the sex scene takes place in a field of summer grain, but most of the film's 'present day' takes place in winter and early spring. Rather than ascribe them to an unmotivated flashback, it seems easier to read them as a poetic hallucination, and then Vláčil returns to reorganise what we had previously believed of the narrative.

As well as the narrative structure, Vláčil frequently employs long periods of silence and a seeming mismatch of cinematography, where figures are either oddly close to the camera or absurdly far away. On a deep level, it feels like nobody, even the director, has total control over what is being portrayed - like we've entered a kind of fugue state in which cinema just happens regardless of how legible its results are. Although its filming process was so long, the resulting scenes feel accidental or improvisational, culled down from a vast amount of footage.

While many of these techniques give us the experience of watching a dream of an imagined past, these techniques are also quite violent and confrontational. Even when the shots are distant or filmed in long takes, they're cut together in a jarring way, and the lack of a straightforward narrative makes it difficult on the viewer too. The activity implied in this method of editing, a complicated soundscape and opaque narrative combine to make Marketa Lazarová a film that feels very immediate and present. As Tom Gunning put it, writing for Criterion about his early encounters with the film, "an energized mobile camera and abrasive editing peers into a primitive era of human history." Just as the characters of the film are quick to anger and quick to act, the film also lacks temperance. This is a film of life and death in its most vital forms, and so it makes a certain kind of sense that Vláčil would, in defiance of the typical historical film, try and remove any layer of modern logic or reason that would prevent us from experiencing the film's events in a visceral way. This is also why the myth of the werewolf hangs so heavily over the film - invoked a few times by Kozlík's wife, and present in the appearance of his children and their uncanny survival abilities - it both defies modern logic and refers to a particularly corporeal type of monster.

Vláčil structures Marketa Lazarová with sudden intertitles that refer to the events and themes that we are about to see, in a poetic way that recalls the chapter titles of a 19th-century novel. 'On the Lot of Widows' and 'Who in the Past Brewed with Hops' provide the vantage point of someone placed about the action, narrating it to us in a distant sort of way. The music is similar: both ancient and modern, it frequently uses atonal incantations. Taken together, it feels like this story is being shouted at us from a distant time when things were more tactile. "The presence of animals and plants, the textures of stone and tree bark, of snow and marsh water," Gunning writes, "cling to us as we watch, often overriding the narrative."

The grand experience of watching this film is partly contradictory, then: this is a film that feels very modern, tells a story from the past, alludes to contemporary struggles, and when situated in Czech film history is wildly experimental. Gunning sees this film as being, in some respects, a statement about what Vláčil thought cinema could be, in those days of the 1960s where most national cinemas were experiencing their own variations on the New Wave that had developed in France. The experimental aspects of the films of Godard and Varda would be subsumed into the traditional toolbox of cinema and lose some of their vibrancy as a result - either directors would use them for blockbuster films or extend them into a new type of experimental film that was sterile and aloof.Considering this, it's worth appreciating exactly how daring Vláčil was being here: under a Communist regime, making a film about paganism, bestiality, sadism, incest, and torture. With all this darkness, Marketa Lazarová is a bright film, even funny at times. Humanity is a fallen, self-destructive thing, but there is something about this way of life, before it was layered deep underneath civilisation, reason and enlightenment, that was exciting and vibrant.

Does civilisation mean we lose something of our potential? The final narration of Marketa Lazarová tells us that these cycles of mistrust and anger are likely to repeat through the generations, but is that a price Vláčil thinks is worth paying? The urgency and difficulty of life in the distant past was inseparable from the superstitions of the time, but the urges were easier to sate, at least temporarily. The taming of these clans, like the taming of the avant-garde techniques Vláčil employs here, might have been inevitable, but this film shows that there is something valuable there nonetheless.

[aphrodites-law]

A Bit of Clarity 🍂 (7/?) The visions had started last autumn, a year ago now. It had caused a bit of chaos for some, a bit of clarity for others. Two days ago, Clarke Griffin had been perfectly fine managing both her Café and her stress. But now she was curious - so deeply curious about the vision of herself entwined with the aloof Lexa Woods that it was leading her to complete distraction.

[part 1] [part 2] [part 3] [part 4] [part 5] [part 6]

Clarke usually went straight to the café, but the past few days she'd started taking a detour. Since the article in the Gazette, Finn's Coffee & Bagels had taken a serious hit. Costial was a city with a deep-rooted pride for small businesses; mom-and-pop stores that had earned their success and customers' fidelity. Hard work and honesty were appreciated - shortcuts and lies were not. In just the one exposé, Finn's shop had lost half its patrons. Other outlets had jumped on the bandwagon and word had spread very quickly that anyone who bought his food or coffee might as well buy it in super stores for the same mass-produced quality at half the price. Finn had lost the support of his backers, but, more importantly, the Mayor had publicly condemned his son's business tactics.

To be perfectly honest, Clarke took some joy in the fall of Finn's plans. She had no doubt he would come up with another project very soon, perhaps in the theater sector, but at least his future in restoration was bleak. Clarke knew gloating wasn't a good look on anyone, but she wasn't ready to climb down from her cloud just yet. She was sure something would soon come along to knock her down a few pegs, but these days she was feeling pretty confident.

The café had been busier, which Clarke and Wells planned to capitalize on with the right promotion. Today he'd surpassed himself with some mini marble cakes, one of which Clarke had shoved in her mouth as soon as he'd shown her. It was the perfect time to look more seriously into new hires, which Clarke had pushed back for far too long. Gaia and Harper had been noticeably excited by the news. Wells would vet any additional help in the kitchen, but she could tell it was a relief for him too. Their café was small, but the workload wasn't.

Clarke was drafting the job application at the end of the counter when she heard someone clear their throat. She looked up and closed the laptop with a mischievous smile, her heart doing its now familiar dance.

“Lexa.”

“Clarke.”

Lexa had her dark green raincoat on, hiding the plaid collar Clarke only associated with her now. It didn't seem like she'd ordered anything yet, bypassing the two people in line to find her.

“Have a good weekend?” Clarke asked.

“I did. Had a long chat with Semet actually.”

“And?”

Lexa smiled at Clarke's interest. “You’ll find my observations in the Gazette... eventually.”

"Nothing world-changing though, I take it?"

Lexa shrugged. "I think the world's seen most of the changes already."

"I'd knock on wood if I were you."

"Why? Wary of change?"

"No, but a break for… oh, the next five or ten years might be nice. I miss going about my day not wondering when aliens will come crashing."

Lexa laughed. "I assure you Semet's experience didn't give any indication we might soon meet our celestial neighbors."

Clarke glanced at Gaia and Harper, making sure they still had everything under control with the orders. 

“So um, I had an enlightening weekend too.”

“Oh?” Lexa asked, nonchalant.

“Yeah. I was thinking we could... discuss." Clarke bit her lip. "Maybe over dinner?”

Lexa's demeanor visibly shifted, not as casual as she'd been just a few seconds ago. “Is that really what you want?”

“Trust me, it’s become crystal clear what I want.”

Lexa seemed a cross between reticent and eager, like she was a wild animal in a cage and the door had just opened, but she didn’t quite know what might come from stepping outside- freedom or punishment.

“Clarke. Maybe we should... slow down.”

That was surprising. Clarke frowned. “Slow down from a glacial pace?”

“Just days ago you weren't even sure what to think of me."

“But then we- I thought the rooftop-" Clarke's cheeks felt warm. "I was under the impression we were on the same page."

Lexa looked away and Clarke felt her morning's happiness wither away. So much for staying on her cloud. She took in Lexa's demeanor: tense shoulders and the obvious inability to catch her eyes. Clarke truly didn’t understand her. It was frustrating - bordering on humiliating.

"You've got to be kidding me."

"Clarke-"

"No, no. I don't know what game you think this is, but I'm not playing it."

Lexa seemed panicked. "It's not a game."

"Then what the fuck is it?"

Lexa looked toward the door as two people came in. Harper greeted them cheerily, waiting for their order. This was neither the place nor the time. She looked back at Clarke with pleading eyes, unable to offer an explanation.

Clarke shook her head, tired of the silence. "I told myself I'd stop sitting around and waiting for things to happen, but I won't waste my time on someone who can't decide if I'm worth the chase. You clearly don't want any sort of relationship-"

“It’s not that simple,” Lexa argued.

“It is that simple," Clarke gritted through her teeth, feeling both stupid and angry. She'd fallen for Lexa's charm again only to be disappointed once more. It felt like being doused in ice-cold water. "You either want someone or you don’t. So which is it?”

Lexa shook her head imperceptibly. There was something on the tip of her tongue, Clarke could tell, but she couldn't get it out.

Clarke glanced at the front door when it opened, a family of three walking in. She swallowed her disappointment at the turn in her morning before giving Lexa a hard stare.

"I have to get back to work."

"Clarke-"

“You need to figure out what you want,” Clarke snapped lowly. “Preferably without stringing people along while you do so.”

She took the family's orders with a smile, trying her hardest not to look toward the door as Lexa walked out with hunched shoulders.

* * *

Clarke posted the application on their website and several job boards in the afternoon. Resumes came fast, but Wells wanted to be a part of the process - usually less involved in the business side now that most things were squared away - so they'd set some time aside on Wednesday to reach out to applicants. Wells even planned to speak to a couple smaller theaters over the weekend to expand their partnership program.

And yet, the more good news and exciting plans came their way… the more frustrated Clarke became. Clearly she wasn't incompetent and had a firm handle on most aspects of her life, but for some reason her romantic aspirations had turned into a complete disaster. Was that really all that was in store for her? Had she somehow agreed to a bustling café in exchange for an empty home? Professional success so long as she slept alone? The exchange with Lexa had left a bitter taste in her mouth, like it'd been a cosmic reminder her happiness would always be short-lived.

She kept busy to avoid blowing the lid off her anger, forcing smiles while she chatted with patrons, made coffee, and watched the mini marble cakes disappear one by one. There were so many reasons to be elated, but not even Finn's fall from grace could lift up her mood anymore. He'd get on with his life eventually - people like him always did.

Maybe Clarke had made a mistake with Niylah. She was sweet and charming in her own way. They got along great and were certainly compatible in bed. What they had was easy and uncomplicated - Clarke had never given herself a headache trying to figure out Niylah and Niylah had never chased after her only to run the opposite way. She was straightforward and easygoing; eager to share every aspect of her life Clarke might be curious about. Niylah was a Costialite through and through: honest, hardworking, and kindhearted. She didn't make her heart race or take up her thoughts, but she didn't make her feel like a tightly coiled spring either.

Which meant Niylah deserved better than her. She deserved someone who looked at her like she was the only person in the room. She deserved someone who wanted everything with her. Clarke knew it wasn't their sexual relationship she missed, but rather that period of time when she hadn’t cared as much about her loneliness. She missed the whirlwind of planning and opening the café, the breezy attitude that had carried her through so many problems.

One vision had changed it all, and Clarke couldn't say it was for the better.

* * *

Wells was already gone before closing time, the kitchen immaculate and the next day's ingredients already prepared. Clarke didn't know how he did it - as if he had ten hours more in the day than the rest of them. The last patrons trickled out until eventually there was no one and Gaia turned over the OPEN sign on the front door.

"Go home; I'll clean up," Clarke told her, putting her hair up while Gaia grabbed the broom from the back room.

"You sure?"

"Yeah, give Poppy a good cuddle for me."

Gaia took her coat and purse. "You should come over soon. Give her those cuddles yourself."

Clarke smiled tiredly. "I do miss those big ears."

Gaia had the sweetest beagle she took on long hikes every weekend. She'd been born with one ear much longer than the other, but her lopsided anatomy only added to her personality.

"You haven’t even seen my new place yet," Gaia pointed out.

She'd moved into her mother's second building a few months back, the one on the same street as Lexa's, which only reminded Clarke how poorly she'd neglected all her relationships. 

"One day soon I'll pop in with wine and a pizza and you won't be able to get rid of me," she promised.

Gaia smiled brightly as she shouldered her purse. "Holding you to that, boss."

"See you tomorrow," Clarke said as Gaia walked out.

Clarke dimmed the main lights, wiped the last few tables and put the chairs up. She straightened out the coffee mugs and cleaned the front of the display case, giving herself a few more minutes before she headed home. The rush hour traffic outside was slowing down, giving Clarke some needed quiet.

To hear their small bell ring as the door opened was more than a surprise. Clarke turned around and stilled, watching as Lexa pulled down her raincoat’s hood and looked at her across the room. Her hair was out of its braids, damp and frizzy.

Clarke felt her anger roar back to life and stoke the fire inside her. Her heart pounded, furious that Lexa had had such an effect on her mood today. But she wouldn't back down. She wouldn't look away until it was Lexa who was forced to do so.

"We're closed," she told her coldly. It was so unlike her to be so curt.

Lexa didn't move, didn't even open her mouth to attempt a reply. It was infuriating.

"What do you want?" Clarke asked harshly, echoing her question from this morning.

Lexa's eyes flashed with similar ardor and her jaw locked. Then, in four strides, she was in front of Clarke and kissing her.

Clarke felt her hands on her waist first, and then the heat of her mouth against her own. She gasped, fisted her hands in Lexa's collar and then unraveled. She kissed Lexa back with the force of her anger, pulling and pulling until Lexa had her pressed against the display case and her body flush against hers. Her tongue felt like silk when it brushed the tip of hers, when it took a risk and was rewarded. Her hands felt like embers, leaving a trail of fire wherever they touched her, first on her waist and then lower, on her hips, until they became more dangerous and cupped her ass while she pressed tight against her. Desperate and possessive.

Clarke moaned loudly, overwhelmed by the sudden force of her desire. She needed Lexa to take her, to be inside her, to fulfill her incessant need for release. She couldn't imagine a second away from Lexa's lips, a second where Lexa didn't touch her.

“God, I thought of this,” she moaned between kisses, eyes closing when she felt Lexa's mouth down her neck. She smelled like the rain; felt like a storm.

“I think about you all the time...” Lexa breathed in her ear, almost like she hadn't meant to say it aloud.

Clarke pulled back, cupping Lexa's face to make sure she wasn't imagining this again. After a beat, their next kiss turned hungrier. Clarke wanted nothing more than to pull Lexa in the back room. She didn’t need romance or a bed. She needed Lexa’s fire to consume her and for the world to stop existing for just a moment. At the same time she was content staying there, pinned between glass and Lexa's body while they kissed into the night.

But her imagination was kinder than reality, as a car suddenly honked at another outside, startling Lexa. She ripped away from their embrace with wide eyes, stumbling back like she was dizzy, the reality of the situation catching up to her.

Clarke could read it all on her face: the surprise at her own actions, the realization of where they were and what they had almost done so publicly. She could've cried when Lexa suddenly looked like a deer in headlights.

It was the same expression from this morning. Clarke shook her head at her, begging her not to run. But a part of her knew it was futile - Lexa had already made up her mind. Still, she had to try one last time.

"It's okay."

Lexa's bottom lip trembled. "I shouldn't have done that. I thought I could, but-" She pressed her hands against her eyes in frustration. "I'm so sorry, Clarke."

Clarke's chest felt heavy. "Please don't go. Help me understand."

"I won't bother you again."

"That's not what I want," Clarke replied in frustration, stepping closer.

Lexa shook her head. "You don't want me."

"Why not?"

To Clarke, Lexa seemed broken. Like something in her had finally shattered.

"You started looking at me after your vision," Lexa whispered. "We never spoke until… until you had it. And I never realized it was you in mine until I saw you drawing."

"What does it matter?"

"You don't know me," Lexa told her, voice cracking. "If you did, your vision would never become true. You'd want nothing to do with me."

"Don't you dare put words in my mouth," Clarke snapped.

Lexa stopped short, so Clarke took a deep breath and stepped even closer.

"Lexa. I don't need to be protected. You're right, we don't know much about each other. So let me learn and let me make my own decisions afterward. Please. You can't pretend there's nothing between us - you can't."

"The visions-"

"I don't give a fuck about the visions," Clarke told her stubbornly. "Maybe it opened my eyes, but it didn't create feelings out of thin air. That's not possible."

Lexa still looked skittish, ready to bolt at any moment. Clarke reached out for her hand, relieved when Lexa took it. It was so different than the rooftop, where Lexa had grabbed hers so confidently. How could a person be so torn?

"Maybe you were right this morning," Clarke said softly. "We've skipped a lot of steps. So let's start over."

Lexa finally caught her eyes. "I hurt people, Clarke. I don't mean to, but inevitably it's what I do."

Clarke knew that was all she'd get out of Lexa tonight. Hesitantly, she cupped her cheek.

"How about this? If the rain lets up, I take you to the river this weekend. We bring some drinks, some snacks, maybe some hiking shoes. You can tell me about the Mountain Men and I can tell you about the weird resumes I'll inevitably get this week."

Lexa let out a chuckle, which made Clarke smile hopefully. "Doesn't sound too scary, does it?"

"No. That sounds nice."

Clarke felt hopeful for the first time. "Just two people hanging out, getting to know each other."

"I'd like that." Lexa glanced at her mouth and swallowed. "I do want you, Clarke."

Clarke pressed her index against her lips. "I know. Nobody kisses a friend like that. But…"

"Fresh start?"

"Right.” Clarke still had to speak her mind: “Lexa, you can't keep running away without telling me why. I'm patient but I'm not a saint. I get angry too. I get scared."

Lexa nodded quietly, looking down at their hands before she glanced around the room.

"You were closing up."

"Yeah, did you not notice the chairs on the tables?"

"I was preoccupied. Can I help?"

"Lexa… I think maybe you should go home."

Lexa looked down. "I'm sorry, I must be giving you whiplash."

"Just a little," Clarke smiled.

"I'll see you this weekend?"

"I didn't mean you can't swing by for a quick hello and a cup of coffee. Or not coffee. Wells is baking up a storm, it'd be a pity if you missed it."

"That sounds nice."

Clarke accompanied her to the door, where she noticed the rain had become heavier. It was incessant these days, washing down the streets of Costial and keeping the coffee shops and movie theaters busy. Nothing unusual for the season. She grabbed one of the forgotten umbrellas in the stand by the entrance, giving it to Lexa.

"That's alright-"

"Take it. I don't you want coming in sneezing and sniffling this week."

"Thank you, Clarke." Slowly, hesitantly, Lexa kissed her cheek. "Goodnight."

After Lexa walked out in the rain and turned the corner with one last glance over her shoulder, Clarke stood in the dark for a moment. Then, she walked to the back room and slid down the wall until she was sitting on the ground. She clutched her heart, eyes closing as she let the last few minutes rush over her. Whiplash didn't even begin to cover it.

In the resounding silence, she tried processing what had just happened. She could still feel Lexa's kiss, everything she had imagined and more. But then Lexa had pulled away. It felt like she was two different people, one aching with desire like Clarke, the other convinced it would hurt them both. But why?

Clarke thought back to when she had first noticed Lexa. Courteous, quiet Lexa who had placed her order and sat near the weeping fig tree for hours while she worked. What could have driven her to Costial? It couldn't be the job opportunities - she didn't work in theater and the Gazette was no more reputable than their neighboring cities' newspapers. Family was the obvious guess, but then why not come earlier? What kind of life had she left behind that still haunted her today?

Clarke wasn't sure she'd be able to shut up this weekend, too wrapped up in Lexa's mystery to keep herself from asking questions. She wanted to know everything but knew she had to be cautious. Still, spending time together was a step forward. She was relieved Lexa hadn't run after all, but it would be difficult to forget the pain in her eyes. Despite the uncertainty of their relationship, if it could even be defined, Clarke had a feeling it would be worth fighting for.

-

[part eight]

[sasorikigai]

WHAT’S YOUR D&D 5E CLASS?

Monk + Fighter

You are a monk! Your power comes in equal parts from training your body and your search for spiritual enlightenment. All monks practice martial arts in some capacity, honing their bodies to be deadly tools even without using any weapons or armor, but some - often called ninjas - focus on stealth and striking from the shadows, while others prefer direct combat or even possess the ability to channel their spiritual energy - called ki - to produce magical effects, such as fire breaths or blasts of force. As they step towards enlightenment, many monks transcend ailments of the flesh entirely, including disease, poison, hunger, thirst and even old age. A monk a mobile and versatile combatant, whose resistance to ailments of the mind, flesh and soul alike makes them a difficult opponent to counter.

You are a fighter! The base of your power is tireless martial training and a rigorous discipline. A fighter is any type of trained warrior, whether it's a soldier, mercenary, soldier, gladiator or knight. What they all have in common is an intimate knowledge of different types of armor and weapons as well as a trained combat stamina which allows them both to exert themselves to end battles quickly and survive prolonged assaults. Some fighters polish these basic techniques to perfection, while others practice complex combat maneuvers or even basic combat magic to supplement their martial prowess. A fighter is a seasoned and dedicated warrior who can battle effectively at any range, using a dagger, an axe, and a longbow with equal comfort and striking a balance between offense and defense on the battlefield.

Sorcerer + Mystic

You are a sorcerer! Your power comes from an ancient magical bloodline or from an event that changed the makeup of your very soul. Many sorcerers gain their powers through the blood of a magical creature - such as a dragon, angel or elemental - that simply manifests as a natural capacity for magic. Others might have survived a terrible magical fire or been born during a magical storm, which left magical marks on their souls. In either case, a sorcerer's magic is as natural as breathing and results not from study, but the ability to call on an innate magical power within themselves. Since their magic comes so easily to them, sorcerers can bend and manipulate the effects of their spells in a way that no other spellcaster can. A sorcerer is an instinctive and potent mage who despite not having the broad magical knowledge and spell repertoire of the other classes manages to unleash powerful and unpredictable spells to destroy their foes.

You are a mystic! Your power comes from the Far Realm, a cerebral realm which the likes of Chtulu call home. Naturally attuned to this realm gives you supernatural extrasensory powers known as psionics. These psionics can manifest in a number of ways, from telepathy and mind control, over altering one's own metabolic processes and physical characteristics to abilities such as teleportation, telekinesis and pyrokinesis. Different orders of mystics focus on different psionic capabilities. Some focus on telepathy, some on self-altering, others on emotional manipulation or teleportation and others yet on manifesting psionic power as physical energy. To use these abilities, a mystic needs razor-sharp focus and an unerring mental discipline. A mystic is a strange and supernatural sage, who uses varied and unpredictable powers for battle as they take steps on a path to self-perfection and a greater understanding of the universe.

Druid + Ranger

You are a druid! You draw power from nature itself and channel it into powerful magic. A druid's signature power is the ability to take on animal forms and observe the world through different eyes. Some druids focus on mastering this art, transforming into fearsome beasts and even primal, elemental creatures! Others seek to master the healing aspect of nature, gaining great curative capabilities. Others yet focus on the destructive powers of the elements, calling forth thunder and lightning, or beckoning animals and plants to defeat their foes. Whichever aspect a druid specializes in, they have access to the full spectrum of nature's gifts at their beck and call. A druid is a wise and empathic priest of nature with the power to summon allies, heal friends and destroy enemies with equal ease, though they eschew tools of civilization, technology or even items made of metal in exchange.

You are a ranger! Your skillset is a blend of naturalistic knowledge and personal survival skill. Rangers are at home in even the wildest and least hospitable of places, such as vast jungles or suffocating caverns. They are skilled hunters and nimble warriors, a base which they supplement with impressive tracking skills and a vast knowledge of their prey obtained through observation and experience. Some rangers bond with an animal and battle alongside it as a partner, while others practice complex combat maneuvers or place a focus on stealthy ambushes. Some even focus on harnessing the magical power of nature, much like druids. A ranger is a skilled and self-sufficient skirmisher who uses their mobility and skillset to fight effectively at any distance - especially against their favored prey.

Tagged by: @sonxflight  Tagging: @indulgentia, @hanakarii, @drecmcrcfters, @splatterlewis​, and YOU!

[gravitascivics]

A GOOD PLACE FOR A BELL

To continue from the last posting, this entry looks at the development of Pennsylvania in mostly the 1700s.  But before the turn into the eighteenth century an event in the seventeenth century is going to have a good deal of an effect on the new one.  And that would be the conversion of William Penn to Quakerism.  That happened in 1663.  The effect would be that Penn used his land grant to establish Pennsylvania so as to, in part, provide refuge for his fellow Quakers.  And that would initiate the initial migration to this granted area in North America.

         But Quakers would soon be joined by emigrating Germans and Scot Irish people. Despite that, Quaker beliefs had profound influence on Penn and his original ideas of governance.  First, Quakers were considered radical Puritans, but unlike other radicals, they, in their beliefs, democratized the dispensing of God’s grace.  They believed that each person shared in God’s grace in some varied way so that each person has a special or unique value or worth.  

Therefore, according to this resulting aura in each person, each is unique with the potential to make his/her own contribution. The belief further sees each person as equal, and it projects a responsibility for each to look after all others.  This includes for one to do what is necessary, and within one’s power and ability, to protect others from harm.  In addition, Quakers emphasize that people rely on their inner conscious experiences – one’s conscience serves as a basis for a moral life.[1]  One can observe the effects of such a belief system on the actions of Penn and of his cohorts.

One aspect of this bias can be detected, and mentioned in the previous posting, about how Penn interacted with indigenous people. Despite his land grant, he initiated and completed a series of agreements with the local tribe leaders to attain tracts of land.  Some of the details of these additions are involved, but one can judge Penn’s actions as above board in every case.

Another aspect of this bias was how it attracted its early “fellow travelers” – they have been described as the dredges of society. It was from those ranks that the first immigrants were recruited.  And it is those who, once on this side of the Atlantic, started what was to become a very industrious and successful colony.  To be measured, though, Quakers never accounted for more than ten percent of the immigrants that would populate this land mass. Eventually, the immigrant population became anglicized (including Penn’s son).[2]

         One uncommon result of the Quaker influence, uncommon as compared to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, was that religion’s anti formal education bias. Unlike the other colonies, Pennsylvania delayed any establishment of an academy or higher educational facility. To recall, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia each had one – Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary.  

In 1740, the Academy of Philadelphia was started, and that institution became first the College of Philadelphia and then the University of Pennsylvania.  Despite, or because of its later start, the institution took on an Enlightenment prone curriculum almost from its beginning.  Some of the famous names of Enlightened thinkers one can associate with the University of Pennsylvania include William and John Alison, John Ewing, Benjamin Rush, and, of course, Benjamin Franklin.[3]

And this short overview of the Pennsylvania colony should share some information as to the beginnings of Philadelphia and, by doing so, more information can be added as to Penn’s efforts in this settlement. And one question the reader might ask, why did Charles II grant the initial lands that were to become Pennsylvania and Delaware to a Quaker.  Well, the grant was to satisfy a loan the king had with Penn’s father, Admiral Penn, mentioned earlier in this blog.  And part of the story includes a conflict with Maryland since the Penn grant overlaid with territory issued to Lord Baltimore and a resulting armed conflict, Cresap’s War, settled the dispute.

Shortly after that conflict, Penn organized a colonizing expedition.  Penn himself led this effort and upon landing (in New Castle, Delaware) set out to establish a peaceful change of government from Baltimore’s claims in which its people pledged allegiance to the new proprietor, Penn.  This led to the first structured government, previously described.  

Moving up the Delaware River, Penn, along with a group of fellow Quakers, then founded Philadelphia in order to secure religious freedom of the group.  Without going into the details, these developments had as a backdrop a complicated set of antagonism with local tribes.  These pitted settlers in Maryland against Susquehannocks and the settlement of nearby areas by other European immigrants, e.g., Dutch, Swedish, and English in what would become Delaware and New Jersey.

As for the general areas of what became Philadelphia, they drew the interest of European explorers all the way back to 1609 when Henry Hudson was actively seeking a Northwest Passage to the Far East. Some years later the New Sweden Company engaged in fur trade activities.  This included the building of a fort.  A series of claims and establishment of business enterprises followed – including the establishment of New Sweden – but it had difficulties remaining viable.  But as far as establishing a permanent settlement, it was the Penn group that did so.

He, upon arriving at that area, found about fifty people – mostly subsistence farmers – making their livings there.  From the start, he foresaw a city as a safe zone for people of all faiths.  They would be able to practice their religions in freedom and be able to live peacefully together.  Penn personally appreciated this vision because he had experienced discrimination due to his Quakerism.  

He also was an early visionary who saw the Enlightened urban plan of a grid outlay that would mimic English rural towns rather than its crowded cities.  He also advocated spacious house plots which could have gardens and even orchards. The first purchasers would be allotted plots along the river.  He planned for a commercial center, a state house, and some other key buildings.[4]

In this Philadelphia story, one does not see any diminution of federated values.  If anything, Penn encouraged those foundational elements that would enhance the institutional qualities that not only allowed it to influence how the various polities got started but encouraged people to think in terms of adopting federal values in how they saw governance should occur.  This included high degrees of tolerance for believers of other faiths and even accommodation of indigenous people.  

In short, the combination of Puritanical thinking and Enlightenment ideas and ideals, while contrary on many levels, did not contradict each other in this area of concern at least under the leadership of Penn.  Here is how the History Channel describes Pennsylvania’s origins:

 Philadelphia, a city in Pennsylvania whose name means City of Brotherly Love, was originally settled by Native American tribes, particularly the Lenape hunter gathers, around 8000 B.C.

By the early 1600s, Dutch, English and Swedish merchants had established trading posts in the Delaware Valley area, and in 1681, Charles II of England granted a charter to William Penn for what would become the Pennsylvania colony.

Penn arrived in the new city of Philadelphia in 1682. A Quaker pacifist, Penn signed a peace treaty with Lenape chief Tamanend, establishing a tradition of tolerance and human rights.

But in 1684, the ship Isabella landed in Philadelphia carrying hundreds of enslaved Africans. Tensions over slavery, especially among local Quakers, resulted in the 1688 Germantown Petition Against Slavery, the first organized protest against slavery in the New World.

Penn’s colony thrived, and soon Philadelphia was the biggest shipbuilding center in the colonies. Among those attracted to the city was Benjamin Franklin, who in 1729, became the publisher of The Pennsylvania Gazette.

The Pennsylvania State House—later known as Independence Hall—held its first Assembly meeting there in 1735. State representatives ordered a large bell for the building in 1751 with a Biblical inscription: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”[5]

 Of course, Philadelphia would play a central role in the events leading up to the Revolution.

[1] See “Quakers,” BBC (July 3, 2009), accessed May 12, 2021, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_1.shtml#:~:text=of%20the%20Quakers-,Quakers%20believe%20that%20there%20is%20something%20of%20God%20in%20everybody,as%20the%20basis%20of%20morality.

[2] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – a transcript book – (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005).

[3] Ibid.

[4] “History of Philadelphia,” Wikipedia (n.d.), accessed May 12, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Philadelphia#:~:text=The%20written%20history%20of%20Philadelphia,inhabited%20by%20the%20Lenape%20people.

[5] History.com Editors, “Philadelphia,” History Channel (March 8, 2019), accessed May 13, 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/philadelphia-pennsylvania .

[geopolicraticus]

The Infinite telos of Reason

“…what if truth is an idea, lying at infinity?” Formal and Transcendental Logic, sec. 105

Edmund Husserl and Scientific Civilization

In many posts I have discussed the idea of scientific civilization, while I have also discussed the idea of a science of civilization (cf., e.g., Thought Experiment on a Science of Civilization and On a Science of Civilization and its Associated Technologies), and these two ideas—scientific civilization and a science of civilization—are connected in an important way. A truly scientific civilization that takes science as its central project will continuously expand the scope of science until it eventually means that a science of civilization takes shape in the form of a reflexive scientific theory of scientific civilization (as well as a theory of the precursors of scientific civilization, so that the whole of civilization is thematized in terms of scientific knowledge). As a result, scientific civilization will eventually but inevitably converge on the self-understanding that has eluded industrialized civilization to date.

In several posts (cf. On the Reflexive Self-Awareness of Civilizations and Five Ways to Think about Civilization) I have argued that industrialized civilization possesses less self-understanding than agricultural civilizations, because agricultural civilizations understand that agriculture is the source of their wealth, whereas most individuals who constitute the population of industrialized societies do not understand that science is the ultimate source of their wealth and what has driven the great divergence. An industrialized civilization might stagnate at some level of technological development, when everyone in the society is sufficiently comfortable and is sufficiently entertained that there is no longer any ambition to pursue change (the perennial function of bread and circuses). As long as the pursuit of science is not part of the central project of a given industrial civilization, there will be no imperative to continue the kind of scientific research that would result in new technologies and new industries. An industrialized civilization can thus indefinitely remain ignorant of its ultimate source of wealth (though it will not necessarily remain ignorant).

In what I would call a properly scientific civilization, in which the pursuit of science is part of the central project of the civilization—when science is pursued for its own sake, as an end in itself—eventually this pursuit of scientific knowledge as an intrinsic good to be sought for its own sake, will turn toward the clarification of the idea of civilization, and the thematization of scientific civilization itself as an object of knowledge. A scientific civilization that eventually arrives at the point of thematizing itself as an object of knowledge will, by definition, attain a level of self-understanding beyond that of extant industrialized civilizations. Moreover, this self-understanding of scientific civilization will be far superior to the self-understanding of agricultural civilizations, because it will be based on a systematically elaborated scientific understanding; the self-understanding of agricultural civilizations is usually intuitive, informal, and anecdotal.

In this way, then, scientific civilization inevitably leads to a science of civilization. And it is at least arguable, even if perhaps not plausible, that an industrialized civilization that reaches a level of maturity at which a science of civilization is eventually formulated, might be nudged toward becoming a scientific civilization through this experience of research into a science of civilization, so that a science of civilization could influence the development of a scientific civilization. This is a weak argument, however, and, while I find it unpersuasive, I will not dismiss it out of hand; it remains and will remain a possibility. As we do not yet know the limits of central project formation, we cannot afford to dismiss any possibility.

We today inhabit an industrialized civilization that derives is productivity from science, but there is little or no awareness that science lies at the basis of our wealth. This is one sign, inter alia, that we are not a scientific civilization—or, at least, not yet a mature scientific civilization—because we do not have a science of civilization. Without a science of civilization, without a systematic framework for thinking about civilization, philosophers who have turned their attention to the problem of civilization have typically seized upon some one aspect of civilization that has suggested itself to them, presumably because this particular aspect of civilization happened to align with their habitual interests.  

Most discussions of scientific civilization are thus little more than comments made in passing while discussing other matters. I have previously taken up brief remarks on scientific civilization by Jacob Bronowski (“Pathways into the Deep Future: A Commentary on Jacob Bronowski’s Comment on Scientific Civilization”), as well as discussing Susanne K. Langer’s essay on civilization, which is more than a mere remark in passing (“The Role of Science in Enlightenment Universalism: A Commentary on Susanne K. Langer on Scientific Civilization”). Now I am going to take up a few remarks in passing that Edmund Husserl made about scientific civilization—remarks that are particular interesting in light of the relation between scientific civilization and a science of civilization noted above.

Husserl made a remark in passing about civilization, in which he acknowledges that civilization is only mentioned, but he mentions civilization in the context of a science of forms of civilization or an historical science of civilization:

“Insofar as the individuals are members of a social community and especially also, in practicing science, exercise socially connected activity, insofar, then, as science can also be viewed as a social and cultural phenomenon, it is also a part of sociology and the science of civilization, whether in the general science of forms of civilization, or in historical science, in history of civilization does not matter to us here. It does not even lie in our path. It is just mentioned for the sake of completeness.”(Husserl, Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge, section 12, p. 40)  

Here is the text in the original German:

“Sofern die Individuen Glieder einer sozialen Gemeinschaft sind und speziell auch in Hinsicht auf den Betrieb der Wissenschaft sozial verbundene Tatigkeit iiben, sofern also Wissenschaft auch als soziale und Kulturerscheinung betrachtet werden kann, so weit gehort sie auch in die Soziologie und Kulturwissenschaft, sei es in die allgemeine Wissenschaft von den Kulturgestaltungen, sei es in die historische Wissenschaft, in die Kulturgeschichte. Dies geht uns hier nieht an, es liegt auch nicht auf unserem Wege, es sei nur der Vollstandigkeit wegen erwahnt.”

We see that “science of civilization” has been used to translate “Kulturwissenschaft” while “forms of civilization” has been used to translate “Kulturgestaltungen” and “history of civilization” translates “Kulturgeschichte.” In a few places in other texts Husserl does employ the German term specifically for civilization, “Zivilisation,” but it is often the case that Husserl’s translators into English have rendered various German terms as “civilization,” including Kultur,  Menschheiten, and Menschentum, and there are good reasons for doing so.

Husserl explicitly uses Zivilisation in a manuscript from 1922-23, discussing it in terms of the distinction between culture and civilization then made current by Spengler.

“…culture always has its milieu of civilization, productive vitality always has its milieu of revealed vitality, its milieu of sunken, ‘conventional,’ merely ‘traditional,’ no longer or hardly understood spirituality, a spirituality that is expressed, but whose intellectual content can no longer be reproduced with its original motivations, whose motivations are perhaps submerged and completely dead: such can only be understood through historical scholarship, no longer as something that can be reactivated in the form of lively opinions and newly established and originally justified and shaped attitudes.” (Appendix IX, Ursprüngliche Kultur und Zivilisation. Können die neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften “selig” machen? (1922/23), in Aufsätze und Vorträge (1923-1937), Husserliana Band XXVII, p. 111.)

Here is how Spengler had earlier expressed his conception of the relationship of culture to civilization:

“…every Culture has its own Civilization. In this work, for the first time the two words, hitherto used to express an indefinite, more or less ethical, distinction, are used in a periodic sense, to express a strict and necessary organic succession. The Civilization is the inevitable destiny of the Culture, and in this principle we obtain the viewpoint from which the deepest and gravest problems of historical morphology become capable of solution. Civilizations are the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable. They are a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thing-becoming, death following life, rigidity following expansion, intellectual age and the stone-built, petrifying world-city following mother-earth and the spiritual childhood of Doric and Gothic They are an end, irrevocable, yet by inward necessity reached again and again.” (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Introduction, section XII, p. 31.)

After the first volume of Spengler’s The Decline of the West appeared in 1918 the book became a sensation and Spengler himself briefly a celebrity. Almost every philosopher at the time had something to say about Spengler, because this was the book of the moment to which everyone felt a need to respond. When Husserl wrote this manuscript in 1922 or 1923, Spengler was being talked about in almost all intellectual circles, so that it is no surprise to find the distinction between culture and civilization as formulated in Spengler essentially adopted by Husserl.  

Given an organic relationship between culture and civilization, where civilization is the decadent remainder of a once-vigorous culture, there is some justification for translating Kultur and its cognates by “civilization,” as both culture and civilization can be understood as distinct but related periods in the history of a single continuous social tradition. A history of culture inevitably is transformed into a history of civilization, in the Spenglerian schema, so that to speak of a culture is to speak of the earliest stages of a civilization, and to speak of a civilization is to speak of the later stages of a culture.

A passing reference to culture is thus as good as a passing reference to civilization, so when Husserl mentions civilization (or culture) as a particular illustration, for the sake of completeness, of pure logic as a theoretical science (this is the title of Chapter 2 of Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge) this is an acknowledgement that a science of civilization is part of a larger project of formulating theory of science that applies to any and all of the special sciences:

“…a science must be possible that deals with the universal essence of science as such, that therefore teaches us about everything that must necessarily pertain to all the actual and possible sciences as a whole if they are to merit the honorable name of science. In short, there must be a theory of science. The theory of science is then eo ipso the science of the logical as such.” (Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge, section 2, p. 7)

This is an idea that goes back at least to Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, and which was elaborated at considerable length in a modern idiom by Bernard Bolzano in his Theory of Science (according to the Bolzano, the idea goes back to Zeno of Elea and Parmenides; cf. Theory of Science, sec. 3). Aristotle’s work retains a Platonic indifference to the natural world, so that despite Aristotle’s vaunted empiricism, there is nothing of modern scientific naturalism in the Posterior Analytics; Bolzano and Husserl make a place for the empirical sciences within a theory of science, but these special sciences are understood as mere fragments of the totality of an ideal science.

Contemporary scientific naturalism rarely makes reference to this traditional conception of logic as a universal organon that constitutes a theory of science. The special sciences are understood as more-or-less self-contained, definitely involving principles specific to the science and not shared with other sciences, and perhaps even employing a unique mode of reasoning that is specific to the special science and not shared by other special sciences. (Ernst Mayr, for example, wrote a book—What Makes Biology Unique?—devoted to demonstrating the autonomy of biology as a discipline, and thus its independence from the other sciences.) Nevertheless, the idea of unified science (as the positivists called it) remains in the background of scientific thought whenever it emerges from its disciplinary silos; the unity of science movement in early twentieth century positivism, the idea of consilience, and the idea of interdisciplinarity all implicitly appeal to a now lost sense of scientific unity on a theoretical level.

The Introduction of Husserl’s Logical Investigations is an uncompromising exposition of the idea of a purely universal logic and theory of science: “The aim is not merely to arrive at knowledge, but knowledge in such degree and form as would correspond to our highest theoretical aims as perfectly as possible.” (section 6) And, “…pure logic covers the ideal conditions of the possibility of science in general in the most general manner.” (section 72) Nevertheless, there are passages in the opening Prolegomena to Pure Logic that any positivist contemporary of Husserl could have endorsed, such is his focus on logic and science to the exclusion of other concerns.  

The Logical Investigations belong to Husserl’s earliest published works. In Husserl’s later thought, he retained the ideal of an a priori universal science, but came to realize that this universal science represented a path not taken for western civilization, which latter had become distracted by the naturalistic path to knowledge. The universal science that Husserl posited is not a naturalistic science; it has its origins in Plato, and as western civilization developed in the direction of naturalism (Aristotle rather than Plato), the Platonic tradition become more of an historical curiosity, often shorn of its most spectacularly non-naturalistic elements.

Near the end of his life, Husserl turned to the social and historical questions that had played such a minor role in his earlier thought, and in so doing applied to the social sphere his vision of a purely universal science. What is continuous in Husserl’s thought from its earliest to its final expression was his non-naturalism and his pursuit of a universal theory of science. Husserl’s recognition that there could be a pure theory of civilization that was a particular application of the pure universal theory of science that he sought is not closely tied to his latter reflections on history and society, but we can clearly see, implicit in his work, the possibility of an Husserlian conception of civilization, a Husserlian conception of a scientific civilization, and a Husserlian science of civilization.  

Husserl identified the civilization of ancient Greece as already being a philosophical or scientific civilization, said that this scientific civilization constituted a novelty in history, and also looked forward to a modern scientific civilization:

“…a new civilization (philosophical, scientific civilization), rising up in Greece, saw fit to recast the idea of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ in natural existence and to ascribe to the newly formed idea of ‘objective truth’ a higher dignity, that of a norm for all knowledge. In relation to this, finally, arises the idea of a universal science encompassing all possible knowledge in its infinity, the bold guiding idea of the modern period.” (Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, p. 121)

In Husserl’s German:

“Nur, daß eben ein in Griechenland entspringendes neues Menschentum (das philosophische, das wissenschaftliche Menschentum) sich veranlaßt sah, die Zweckidee ‘Erkenntnis’ und ‘Wahrheit’ des natürlichen Daseins umzubilden und der neugebildeten Idee ‘objektiver Wahrheit’ die hahere Dignitat, die einer Norm fUr alle Erkenntnis zuzumessen. Darauf bezogen erwachst schlie Blich die Idee einer universalen, alle mogliche Erkenntnis in ihrer Unendlichkeit umspannenden Wissenschaft, die kuhne Leitidee der Neuzeit.”

“Civilization” in the translated passage translates “Menschentum.” If we were to translate Husserl as writing of “philosophical humanity” or of “scientific humanity,” instead of “philosophical civilization” or “scientific civilization,” that would be closer to a literal translation, but it is not clear that that captures Husserl’s meaning. “Scientific humanity” may be a more comprehensive concept than “scientific civilization,” as humanity is more comprehensive than civilization, since it comprises both civilized humanity and the history of humanity before civilization, but there is also a sense in which it can be construed more narrowly.

As Husserl does not discuss the character of civilization in other cultural regions, except to mention them in passing, we do not know the extent to which he would have judged these rational to the degree that ancient Greece was rational. Since he characterizes rationalistic Greek civilization as being a novelty, the contrast may be identified as being with the archaic civilizations of the Fertile Crescent and the Mediterranean Basin that preceded Greece—clearly civilizations, clearly precursors of Greece, but not yet having made the breakthrough to rationality that Husserl identified with ancient Greek civilization.

There is also a contrast in this passage between knowledge and truth in natural existence on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a novel idea of objective truth that possesses a higher dignity and serves as a norm for all other knowledge. Presumably by the latter Husserl was referring to Platonism, which portrays the objects of knowledge as starkly distinct from natural existence and possessing a superior dignity to that of natural existence. Natural existence presumably corresponds to what Husserl called the “natural standpoint” (also translated as the “natural attitude”), whereas the task of phenomenology is to transcend this natural standpoint as Platonism did. 

Husserl began his Formal and Transcendental Logic with an exposition of what he calls Plato’s founding of logic, which, to the reader coming from a background of Anglo-American analytical philosophy, sounds more than a little eccentric. It is Aristotle, and not Plato, who is associated with the ancient foundations of logic, but for Husserl it was the Platonic tradition that defines what is distinctive about rationality and represents the telos of human reason:

“Science in a new sense arises in the first instance from Plato’s establishing of logic, as a place for exploring the essential requirements of ‘genuine’ knowledge and ‘genuine’ science and thus discovering norms, in conformity with which a science consciously aiming at thorough justness, a science consciously justifying its method and theory by norms, might be built. In intention this logical justification is a justification deriving entirely from pure principles. Science in the Platonic sense intends, then, to be no longer a merely naïve activity prompted by a purely theoretical interest.” (Husserl, Edmund, Formal and Transcendental Logic, translated by Dorion Cairns, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978, Introduction, p. 1.) 

The Greeks, then, gave us the idea of a rationalistic civilization, perhaps even the idea of a scientific civilization, but it is only in the modern period—perhaps since the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment—that this idea is fully realized as the idea of “…universal science encompassing all possible knowledge in its infinity.” (Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, p. 121; quoted above)

If we draw back from the tumultuous immediacy of history and look at science from a big picture perspective, we can think of the scientific revolution as producing a torrent of new ideas, and when the scientific revolution was overtaken by the Enlightenment, we then see a kind of metahistorical reflection upon the meaning of the new scientific knowledge made possible by the scientific revolution, all from an Enlightenment perspective. There is also, increasingly, an imperative to make scientific knowledge fit into the ideological presuppositions of the Enlightenment, as past scientific knowledge had been made to fit the Procrustean bed of whatever religion or moral system constituted the central project of the civilization in which the scientific knowledge was produced. Thus the crisis that Husserl postulated in western history can be generalized beyond the details of European history, and can probably be found in any tradition of civilization of sufficient longevity for periods of scientific curiosity to alternate with periods of ideological consolidation (which is usually also ideological stagnation).

There are places in Husserl’s writing in which he seems to assert the full generality of his thesis, when it is formulated in terms of humanity rather than the specifics of European history:

“To be human at all is essentially to be a human being in a socially and generatively united civilization; and if man is a rational being (animal rationale), it is only insofar as his whole civilization is a rational civilization, that is, one with a latent orientation toward reason or one openly oriented toward the entelechy which has come to itself, become manifest to itself, and which now of necessity consciously directs human becoming.”(Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, section 6, p. 15)

And in the original German:

“Menschentum überhaupt ist wesensmaßig Menschsein in generativ und sozial verbundenen Menschheiten, und ist der Mensch Vernunftwesen (animal rationale), so ist er es nur, sofem seine ganze Menschheit Vernunftmenschheit ist - latent auf Vernunft ausgerichtet oder offen ausgerichtet auf die zu sieh selbst gekommene, für sieh selbst offenbar gewordene und nunmehr in Wesensnotwendigkeit das menschheitliche Werden bewußtleitende Entelechie.”

A similar passage, though more focused on science specifically, occurs in Husserl’s Prague lecture (delivered 07 May 1935 at the University of Prague), which was the basis of the Crisis manuscript:

“…natural science (like all sciences as such) is a title for spiritual activities, those of natural scientists in cooperation with each other; as such these activities belong, as do all spiritual occurrences, to the realm of what should be explained by means of a science of the spirit.” (Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, p. 154)

A scientific civilization would be the social setting in which the cooperation among natural scientists would be most fully facilitated, but a scientific civilization based on Husserl’s conception of science would be distinct from a scientific civilization based on a more conventional conception of science, and would, in turn, facilitate the formation of a science of civilization consonant with the Husserlian ideal of science, also distinct from a science of civilization based on a more conventional conception of science. By “a more conventional conception of science” I mean science as it has been practiced, as it has been developed, and as it has been refined, from the scientific revolution to the present day, along with the presuppositions inherent in this scientific practice. Formulated theoretically, conventional science is naturalistic—proceeding by methodological naturalism and implying metaphysical naturalism—which is a presupposition virtually unquestioned in our time. Husserl’s explicitly anti-naturalistic conception of science constitutes an outlier even among philosophers.

Bronowski and Langer (already discussed in “Pathways into the Deep Future” and “The Role of Science in Enlightenment Universalism”) both employed a more conventional conception of science than did Husserl—and, indeed, a more conventional conception of philosophy—thus the conception of scientific civilization held by Bronowski and Langer overlaps but does not coincide with that of Husserl. Husserlian radicalism, or, at least, the attempt to attain the kind of radicalism that Husserl sought in philosophy and science, also entailed a radicalism in his conception of scientific civilization based on a radical conception of science and philosophy. Husserlian methodology would push a Husserlian scientific civilization toward a Husserlian science of civilization, much as a conventional scientific methodology would push a conventional scientific civilization (if there is or could be such a thing) toward a conventional science of civilization.

While the implicit theory of history in Husserl’s analysis of the crisis in European science might be generalizable, and Husserl sometimes cast his formulations in terms of the whole of humanity, Husserl primarily treated the crisis he identified in science and philosophy in the specific terms of European history, and insistently did so in his final posthumously published The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. 

When Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote of Richard Cartwright, “He gives no public lectures, he reviews no books for the popular press, and to the extent of my knowledge he has never declared himself on the crises of Modern Man or Modern Science,” (On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright, Preface, p. vii) one wonders if she had Husserl in mind as the philosopher who did, in fact, declare himself on the crises of Modern Man and Modern Science. Husserl not only declared himself on the crises of Modern Man and Modern Science, he devoted his final years to these crises, and he left this work unfinished on this death. Had he lived longer, Husserl’s body of work on the crises of modernity would likely have been more substantial than it already is. 

One could do worse than to say that the crises of Modern Man and Modern Science are crises of scientific civilization, or perhaps even the birth-pangs of scientific civilization—an axial crisis of the modern age. The historian Michael Wood characterized an Axial Age as a time of spiritual crisis:

“The historian Karl Jaspers called the period of the Buddha’s lifetime, from the sixth to the fifth century BC, the Axis Age, because so many of the great thinkers in world history were alive at the same time: the Buddha and Mahavira in India; Pythagoras, Heraclitus and the early Greek philosophers; the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, in particular ‘Deutero-Isaiah’; Confucius, Lao Tzu and the Taoists in China. It is extraordinary to think that some of those people could actually have met each other! This coincidence of lives suggests that the ancient world which had emerged from the first civilizations of Iraq and Egypt, China and India, was undergoing a crisis of spirit. Fundamental questions were being asked about the nature of God, about the purpose of life on earth and about the basis of the authority of the kings and states.” (Michael Wood, Legacy: The Search for Ancient Cultures, p. 68; also published under the title In Search of the First Civilizations)

A similar spiritual crisis of modern industrialized civilization was Husserl’s theme—the crisis of the European sciences—but Husserl’s way of treating this theme differed strikingly from his contemporaries (probably due to his anti-naturalism, which set him at odds with almost all his contemporaries). However, it could rightly be said, analogously to the above, that Husserl asked fundamental questions about the nature of rationality, about the purpose of life on Earth and the basis of the authority of the modern nation-state. His insistence upon asking these fundamental questions in a non-naturalistic framework, at a moment in western history when naturalism was triumphant, limited the ability of Husserl’s message to be heard, or, when heard, to be understood. 

There is a tension here between that distinctive form of rationality envisaged by Husserl, and the distinctive form of rationality represented by western philosophy and science, as it has existed in historical fact, and this tension between the ideal and the real points beyond itself to historically distinct traditions of knowledge in different societies. Precisely because western civilization did not exemplify the Husserlian ideal of science and philosophy, science was in a sense free to take other forms, and it eventually took an Enlightenment form and a positivist form, inter alia, which various forms allowed for the narrow specialization that has allowed science in the western world to proliferate specializations and for these specializations to grow far faster than any programmatic and holistic rationality that precedes with an agenda for the whole of human knowledge. Pluralism in the realization of our epistemic ideals sacrifices holism but outstrips the progress of any holistically conceived scientific research program.    

This is historically important because the kind of rationality in fact exemplified in western civilization led to the scientific revolution, to the industrial revolution, and to the great divergence between western civilization and every other tradition. Sometimes called the “Needham puzzle” and sometimes explained (or explained away) as the high level equilibrium trap, why the industrial revolution did not originate in China (or, endogenous industrial capitalism, as Elvin sometimes puts it) is a question that has vexed some historians. My answer is this: the industrial revolution didn’t occur in China (or in India, or elsewhere), because no scientific revolution occurred in China (or elsewhere), and the emergence of modern science in western civilization was an outgrowth of the distinctive character of western philosophy. We have our distinctive way of thinking to thank for the industrial revolution and the great divergence. Science is not merely related to philosophy, science is a particular kind of philosophy—methodological naturalism. We have lost the sense of science as a form of philosophy because of its disproportionate success and its subsequent positivist interpretations that seek to expunge the philosophical origins and orientation of science. This is precisely the problem that Husserl identified as western civilization’s failure to exemplify Husserl’s canons of rationality.

The Husserlian conception of science is in many respects the antithesis of the positivist conception of science, which reached the apogee of its influence during Husserl’s mature years. While philosophers and scientists today might hesitate to affirm an uncompromising statement of the positivism conception of science, there is a sense in which this conception represents the idealized telos of certain ideas within contemporary science; the philosophical presuppositions of positivism remain the philosophical presuppositions of contemporary science. Husserl represents the antithetical idealized telos to that of positivism. 

Nevertheless, in the bigger picture—as I put it above, if we draw back from the tumultuous immediacy of history—this observation is in the spirit of Husserl’s conception of the philosophical mission of western civilization, even if it does not embody the letter of Husserl’s approach. Science and philosophy in western civilization have had a unique role to play in every aspect of the culture—art, literature, politics, law, economics, and so on—that has given to  this tradition its distinctive character, and which has led to its divergence from other traditions. Husserl saw this divergence, and understood it, but also entertained the possibility of the distinctive rationalism of western civilization being embodied in a more thorough-going fashion than has been the case in our history. 

If we are sympathetic to Husserl’s philosophical program, there are aspects of his thought that bring together science and civilization with unique potency, and it represents a sweeping and comprehensive vision of the philosophical enterprise as an expression of the human spirit, which must ultimately be expressed in human civilization—a scientific civilization that, if it existed, would differ in important respects from a scientific civilization conceived along the lines of a more conventional Enlightenment interpretation of science. Yet Husserl’s vision of the human condition is in some respects as formidable as that of the Enlightenment itself, and it could be taken as a rival to the Enlightenment—an unrealized possibility that powerfully unifies science, philosophy, and society into an organic whole. It is not difficult to see the attraction of this vision and the influence that it held over a generation or more of philosophers, though it has never been translated into social or political action.

[cristalknife]

On Comments, feedback anxiety on both the writer and the reader’s side

 If one could look into  my WIP draw, or take a glance at the fics I’ve actually posted, it becomes clear misunderstandings based on miscommunication is something I seem have a thing for. In all honesty is more of a lifelong study and recurring theme I keep stumbling on or consciously walking into. Preface: I am only human and mistakes can happen, but usually I try to handle the detailed label (also referred as Read the Tin or as written on the tin) of major warning with my writings that is usually missing in any other aspect of life, sort of a lovely user manual/preview so one could know to walk away before getting invested or worse triggered. 

Or at least know exactly what they signed up for.

Is it perfect? No but at least it’s there, as a writer I did all I could to avoid unpleasantness, the rest it’s up to the reader’s discretion. Which leads me to the heart of this post: comments, feedbacks, criticism, politically correctness, manners and the anxiety they produce in both the writer and the reader. 

The picture is big so I’ll divide in sides, but remember that people are made of multiple sides, and sometimes those sides are at odds or outwardly warring against each other. That’s pretty average for any irrational human being with emotions.

From the POV of an overthinking anxious writer:

1)  Ao3′s Kudos are sort of like a watered down thumbs up, after about 4-5 fic posted (or ~15K words of stories out there to be consumed), they became the kind of anxiety triggers feeding thoughts of why so many people/guests left a kudo but the story wasn’t good enough to warrant the time of a comment/review 2) Comments are lovely reminder someone found something in your words that made them react so strongly they felt like sharing that reaction with you was worth their time. 

2.1) Comments are also the cause of anxiety about their content before you have the courage to read what they says...

3) Criticisms and feedbacks can be a wonderful tool to improve your writing for the next story. But not if they are laced with insult, personal attacks in that case they are the kind of black hole that pushes people to stop writing all together, or at least stop sharing what they write. 

4) single emoji (♥), 2 char long (<3) comments takes years of effort and a lot of conditioning to remember to slip in reader mode and appreciate the effort it took to stop and do even that, instead of allowing doubts to gnaw at the back of your head with waaaiiiiit that’s all? was it good? was it bad? arrrghhh what does it even mean??? 

5) Statistics and numbers, those are the evilest of the most buggering things and the most vile tempters that will push you to compare your stories against others (a futile exercise in frustration and pointless reason to shred one’s own self confidence to the tiniest of pieces for literally nothing)

5.1) Especially when you have two writing mind frames: 

 writing the stories you want to read (and usually it is either a niche where you’ve already consumed all you could find so you write it because duh, more content might ignite back the fire please, or you haven’t found yet someone to say it how you want to read it) vs what I simply call 

 exorcism writing (the kind of free therapy exercise when something is bugging the heck out you and not leaving your mind so you put it down to words and then let them fly free, instead of trapping them on a diary you’d just return to read and start the vicious cycle all over again)

5.1.1) and your exorcism stories become more popular than the stories you want to read, because at the end of your raw ranting exorcism you managed to write something that would end up falling within mainstream tropes. Which just makes you sad because those were not the result of love and planning and endless hours of writing and editing that you put in your other stories.

6) I’m not writing fan fiction to be an educator, it is possible that my day job is being an educator, but unless I’m there writing textbooks, as a writer it is not my responsibility to teach the reader something that has to be authentic, realistic and a good practice. I’m just here to tell a story.  Or are you really telling me that you watch superheros movies and series and expect them to appear outside your window? If you just laughed then why are you looking at fanfic smut with the expectation of finding a more interesting and alternative way to have a sex ed lesson? If you subscribe to the school that a story has has to make sense... Let me ask have you ever read some of the greatest literature works like Frankenstain, Moby Dick, The Hobbit, Journey to the center of the Earth, Alice through the looking glass, Aeneas, if you did and subscribe to “fiction as to make sense” then please please enlighten me I’m rady to sit back and hear all the points you can make how any of those are realistic representations of how things go. If you  says that those are just stories told oh so long ago... Lets pick more recent ones, the Harry Potters books, Goosebumps, Twilight, The Shadowhunters Chronicles, 50 shades of , all those are listed as fiction  which yes sadly too many used as a portrait of theme touched in there as realistic because the story was not set in a fantastical world and made the mistake of treating a work of fiction as a documentary... Sorry people I’m a writer, choosing the right words matters, words meanings and definitions matter please  learn to think critically, and learn your words, there is a difference between fiction and documentary  6.1) At the same time it might be that I am the kind of writer who loves to add factually authentic things in my writings, someone who actually had spent hours and hours on research to make sure that what they have been writing is not utter and complete made up rubbish, and that’s ok too. I do not expect readers to assume it is correct or that it is purely made up, and if someone is curious they could use the comment to ask a question, I’ve never turned out a curious question, even when it was difficult to answer it

7) Just because I am writing about something, it doesn’t mean I support it...  Again those are stories, not a scientific report on a lab experiment, I can write about abusive relationships, doesn’t mean I support them, I could write about self harm or depression, doesn’t mean I am encouraging those behaviors, in fact those usually come with a Trigger Warning, why? because a reader should have the option to walk away from what should be just a moment of pleasure and relax, not finding themselves triggered because I didn’t want to spoil the surprise of what was going to come in a story posted on the internet... 8) This far I’ve personally chosen to not push for comment, no beg necessary, I decided years ago to be the kind of self centered bad ass who writes for themselves, who’s not going to dangle the promises of more chapters in exchange for comments, I dislike the practice, and I find too exhausting shouting left and right hey hey I’ve written this read it read it... So I do get why my stories do not have such a large audience, it doesn’t help I’ve actually posted way less than what I’ve written over the years. I do welcome comments, though I have no clue on how to respond to short ones, or a single emoji/<3 to all chapters to those I end up answering only to the most recent one of that person and thank for their support. Longer comments are easier to answer because it gives me something to say back or comment/thanks for, though it becomes weird for me when someone speculate on future developments in what they wish to see, and since I’ve recently adopted the policy of posting only completed stories (even for the chaptered ones that will not be posted at the same time, the number of total chapter is not an estimation it is exactly the number of files I’ve divided the story into for reasons) because I do know whether something of that sort will happen or not, and I don’t want to put someone out of my story if they are too invested in see what they imagined happen... Though as I do write stories I’d like to read I’m quick to encourage aspiring writers to feel free to take that what if and work with it, just to please mention that my story inspired theirs and that I’d love to see what they come up with. Constructive criticisms, I do not have a beta for most of my works, I do not work too well depending on other people’s time, I confess even in the past I received criticisms that were not constructive if we push the boundaries and call those criticisms rather than just plain old complains, which is sort of the reason why I stopped explicitly encouraging communication. Because I do expect respect, you don’t know anything about me or what I believe in, you might make some guesses from my profile because I haven’t been shy and pretty open on them, but I won’t accept being personally attacked or talked to in a disrespectful manner just because you didn’t like what I wrote. I have no problem accepting criticisms, as long as they are criticisms and not just whining. You cannot come to me with “I hate your story” and leave it at that, you already took the time to express your opinion instead of simply walking away, the least you can do is explaining why... Otherwise I seriously don’t get why you wasted both of yours and more importantly my time and energies... From the POV of a spoonie reader who barely has the energy to read: 1)  Ao3′s Kudos are a life saver that allows you to show your appreciation (even if you are allowed only one as registered user) with only a click (and some times even that click takes so much out of you) instead of relegating you to invisible reader, barely visible number (*coughs*ff.net*coughs*)  or forcing you to make a story a favorite/followed 

2) Comments are the source of anxiety, because you might want to show support but would they get that or would it sound strange? will the author understand that a a ghsafdgsakdjfh (read: key smash) happened with excitement and love and you’ve no other words to express it? 2.1) also trying to put your support in words when you are in your pj cozily being a blanket burrito and reading from your phone in bed because there’re no more spoon left for the day it’s hard 

3) The author asked for R&R, or welcomes comments and constructive criticism. You loved the story enough to spend energies to

point out things that were plain plot hole or downright inconsistency or lose ends, pointing out botched translations from your own mother tongue and offering correction that were not google translated, in ao3 case pointing out lack of some appropriate tags, which would have 1 improved your story’s visibility and 2 allowed the reader to choose whether they wanted to read it or not both points that would have benefit you as author...

Only for the author to react: 

- badly with a why are you such a nitpick hadn’t anyone told you that you should just stay silent if you have nothing nice to tell me? - Excuse me you’re the one asking for my opinion not my adoration, I gave you exactly what you asked for, if you cannot handle your work being nitpicked or the holes in your plot being publicly poked then there’re fabulous people called Beta reader who will give you the needed dose of though love in private get one..

- badly with a don’t like don’t read -  legit reader’s counter point is  I wouldn’t have read it if you had given me a way to know then what I discovered now  [personal addendum, on a not that well low energy day it takes me less about 3 mins and half to read 1.5K words don’t came at me on your 1k long story and tell me I could have stopped reading when I noticed it wasn’t that good for me...I was done with it before I could get any warning]

- dismissively because a meet cute  clearly is an AU  - Bless your heart if you need me to point out to you that there is a difference between an Alternative Universe (AU) and a Canon Divergence and the fact that   meet cute is a trope  which in fandoms usually implies different circumstances within the fandom’s canon world  of the first meeting between the characters in the main relationship but doesn’t automatically include different premises for the character example: 

in canon: characters from a magical supernatural fandom one a wizard with magic, one a fighter with superhuman speed and holy weapons, in their first meeting the fighter saved the wizard’s life. 

in a meet cute:  a wizard and a fighter with superhuman speed and holy weapons meet in the middle of the forest where the fighter was hunting for food failing miserably and the wizard took pity on the fighter and offered to share their dinner, if the fighter dared to step inside the wizard’s home

in a No Power/Human AU meet cute: where there is no magic, one of the two is a barista who uses flirty coffee jokes lines to call the other’s person order, and finally discover they are an accountant so instead they start using math puns to get the accountant’s attention. 

Those are all valid stories but as an author don’t came at me believing that just because you mention a trope that is enough to distinguish between the 2° and 3° examples, or that having mentioned the trope gives you the standing to look down at me if I do have my own reasons that you do not know about  for wanting to read only stories like the second pitch and get upset but still tell you in a polite way that there are missing tags in your story, especially when you’ve falsely advertise your 3° like pitch as if it was a 2° one and I get upset and let you know about it and do so with the curtesy of signing it with my name rather than leave an guest/anonymous comment 

- shrugging off issues with the tags with a Oh but I’m bad at tagging  -

then I have 3 things to say to you buddy one) that’s not an excuse if you haven’t learnt how to do it yourself get a beta, get a friend, read more and compare what your story tells with a similar one and how that one is tagged, there’re ways Ignorance is not an excuse; 

two) you can’t claim you’re bad at tagging but then refuse to listen when someone is pointing out to you more tags for your story, dud learn how search engines work, searching by tag is basically having a filtered search, the more tags your fit your story the more venues your story can appear in reader’s search for something to read... which means visibility for your work, are you really telling me that you dislike to have that and would prefer less people reading what you post? then sorry but I think you’re doing it wrong and should get a diary instead, not post them on the internet.

addendum: still claiming to be bad at it after having posted over 40 stories and all posted in recent times in the span of a couple of months, just suggest you lack the intelligence to learn how to do things. Which only encourages me to never ever get close to your works, certainly to never promote or share them if not actively discouraging my friends from spending their time on them.

three) and guess what?  there is a frikking I'm Bad At Taggingtag for that too!!!

As a reader I might be ranting in this post, but the long effect of those is a growing apathy and increased unwillingness to spend my energies for commenting unless I’d really really really really liked or loved a story, or I have something more than a one liner to share, which while I intellectually know it might be unfair to let the whole pay for the disrespect of few, my own survival instinct is glad I’m not spreading myself even thinner...

truthful disclaimer: in all fairness it has been my experience, that those reactions usually come from authors with already quite few stories or a decent word count out there. 

New authors are still very much enthusiastic and happy about even the smallest crumbs of recognition or encouragement, which in return is lovely because it recognise that my own time and energy as reader are worthy, that it does take effort to share an opinion or encouragement or suggestion.

4) The author might never know how that day I posted that single emoji, or two character <3,  it was one of those bad days when even opening a small water bottle to swallow down the painkillers was too much, when using a finger to scroll down the page to reach the end of the story had wiped out more energies than I could really afford and yet I still pushed myself to leave a sign that I was there and appreciated their story

5) readers should be allowed to have the “if you thought writing was hard, try commenting other people words” tag...  because sometimes especially on older platforms (yes ff.net I’m looking at you) as a reader I can’t find the energies to wipe up something to say so I become a silent invisible reader. And sometimes it’s really that I am able to stand only stories with certain characteristics, personally for example I do not have the emotional fortitude to read more a certain amount of Work In Progress at the same time across multiple fandoms because my brain can’t recall all the details and I might not feel to rereading the story from the beginning every single time there is a new chapter... 6) Maybe it’s because I’m way out of my teens, maybe it’s because even in my teens and before stories were my safe place, my escape, I do not expect things to be factually correct in stories, but I am a logic driven person, I will see those plot holes and I might even poke through 'em if I find your story good enough that I feel it would be a pity not pointing those things out. You cannot tell a classic vampire story (not the twilight kind of sun sparkling vampires but the sun burn me to ashes kind) and have your group of vampires prancing about at noon of a clear summer day without some sort of reason for that to work. I promise you, I’m not picky, I will accept ridiculous reasons like they were standing under and umbrella covered from head to toes and none of their skin was exposed to the sunlight, but do put the effort to give me a reason why I should believe it was intentional, or do not cry and complain if I do decide to point out dude you’ve normal vampires that are sunbathing and did not become piles of ashes that’s not plausible... 7) Stories are just that, something to listen to, they don’t have to have a moral for them to be worthy of being shared, they don’t have to be a mirror  of your thoughts, or they could be a mirror of your beliefs, and if I am commenting on them I’m commenting on the story itself not your connection to it. And I do need you to advertise in advance if there’re things that might be triggerish, because what might be  just a mental exercise of stepping outside your shoes, if not done might result in me walking into a panic attack while maybe I was just recuperating for one and trying to find comfort or a distraction. While I as a reader cannot know you author and where you come from, unless you want to make an ass of u and me do not assume you know where I am or what path I’m walking in my life as a reader.  8) I despise people telling me what to do, especially if I didn’t ask for an opinion... If someone (who doesn’t have an economical or authorative position over me) demands me to do something the chances I’ll be do it, especially if I was going to do it before, become nil instantaneously. I’ve been running and lurking in writing circles and fanfictions for closer to three decades at the time this is being written, and from the very beginning I found disgusting and deplorable the practice some authors adopted of bargaining reaching certain numbers of comments/kudos in exchange for the next chapter. I can respect an author saying I don’t want to get this or that, but the final result is that most likely I would walk away without commenting even if it would have been a story I would have otherwise supported. There’re few authors I do know personally, at least superficially through other channels, that have this kind of disclaimers and I still comment. But that’s because I have an appreciation and will to support the person themselves who also happened to be authors.