#diferrent perspectives

[mr-nauseam]

Me alegra que tengas un descanso, aunque sea muy liviano. Es algo comparado con antes ugh ;-;

Por mi parte voy ahí, sobreviviendo. Creo que irá bien, después de todo.

Cuando lo describes así... es como si Raffles diera todo lo que da Holmes pero mejorado. Con una planeación y desarrollo de personajes superior a la entregada por ACD.

A su punto, diré que tener otro autor como imagen lejana ayuda a no cometer los mismos errores. Además el formato de Raffles le da más tiempo y espacio a la planeación que el de ACD, que era en una revista y periódica.

Aunque creo que Watson si es un narrador poco confiable hecho con propósito, a pesar de que la memoria de ACD tambien contribuya al borrado de información. En el Valle del Miedo, Watson censura lo ocurrido a principios de la historia y también en otros relatos, las muchas fallas de Holmes. Para evitar su completa exposición al público.

Dejando de lado eso.

Es interesante. Me gustan los anti héroes, en este caso, van a por todas en Raffles. Algo que hace más fácil identificarte con ellos ¿quién no ha querido hacer cosas malas moralmente pero por razones que resuenan con nuestras emociones? (Lo cual es venganza, no justicia. Y la gente las confunde mucho. Pero eso es platica para otro día)

Sinceramente, no le encuentro el interés todavía. Pero ahora entiendo mejor porque a la gente le gusta mucho.

Gracias

-Sungroth + Raffles y Bunny sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

Gracias Sun. 😭♥ Es muy bonito descansar unos días (lo que se puede). Y me alegra saber que sigues sobreviviendo y que las cosas vayan bien. 🤞 🤞 Cruzo deditos pa que siga asi.

¡Exacto!, lo has dicho muy bien. Por eso mismo yo mencione que ACD tuvo varios factores externos influyendo en su obra, que es algo luego el fandom olvida mucho. Es divertido hacerle chistes pero cuando se discute un asunto seriamente creo no vale olvidar todo lo que sucedía en la vida del tipo porque fue a partir de esto que su escritura se definió (es inevitable). Igual hay cierta desventaja y es que de E.W no se sabe mucho. He buscado biografias pero nada, en general el personaje esta muy olvidado (y por ende su autor) y en el fandom somos perfectamente este meme 😂😂😂 (aunque como dices últimamente ha ido en aumento, yo creo que ya somos 10 oksno. Si hay más)

Las circunstancias de vida afectan bastante a las obras. De E.W no sabemos bien que paso (ni de cerca hay el material dedicado a ACD) pero de lo que se deduce (años como homelsianos no han sido en vano jsjajs) parece tuvo unas circunstancias más favorables o estables que le permitieron escribir su historia.

Y sí yo también consideró el vibe de anti héroe es algo muy atractivo -en sí siento es algo que en la modernidad es más popular, en la época de ACD pues Raffles fue muy popular pero creo que parte del porque fue olvidado es porque una vez paso la novedad, las sociedades de la era eduardiana-a posterior no querían admirar a "villanos", la actitud de antiheroe era menospreciada, dominaron las críticas que recibio E.W porque sobretodo con cosas como la segunda guerra mundial donde necesitabas HÉROES, personajes como Raffles en UK murieron. Y a su vez refleja bien el porque la popularidad de SH en esos tiempos y en la actualidad que no es que el chico lo sea al 100%, pero sin duda es más fácil meterlo en ese saco-. Como mencionas creo todos en algún momento hemos querido hacer cosas guiandonos en nuestras emociones pero esa no siempre es la mejor opción (aunque podemos discutir mucho sobre lo que implica el asunto de maquina fria de razonamiento pues Holmes no estaba muy errado al decir que las emociones interfieren en la lógica y razón. Lo hacen. Y no siempre sale bien -por no decir que rara vez-).

Pa gustos colores. Igual un día te llama la atención, igual nunca lo hace. Como sea esta bien cualquier cosa que hagas pero si mas o menos por esas razones yo creo muchos terminan leyendo a Raffles y se quedan en el fandom (o se cambian). UwU

Creo lo de Watson también es cosa de perspectiva. Yo siento no fue intencionalmente un narrador asi pero que resulto serlo y ACD se dio cuenta. O sea creo que ACD jamás se planeo que Watson fuera exactamente un narrador no confiable pero a la hora de escribir las historias el chico, bueno, no es que pierda credibilidad pero sí fue obvio unas cosas parecian omitidas, reprimidas, cambiadas, etc. Asi qué ACD lo detecto y le toco seguir con eso, incluso se divirtio con la idea pero que las cosas se dieran asi afectan todo pero de nuevo eso es solo en opiniones, también puede ser como dices, que lo tuviera claro desde el inicio y siempre estuvo haciendo sus pequeños trucos con ese rasgo. No me extrañaría nada del autor, aunque el hombre tenia sus cosas muy cuestionables según vi en su autobiografía y otros relatos de su vida, pues ACD tenía bastante del lado travieso-jugueton de Holmes. :)

Creo eso también daría pa otra platica, todos ven clarito lo que tenía ACD de Watson pero Holmes por muy basado este en otras personas te lo digo yo, los ocs rara vez se separan tanto de su nucleo. Puede dar la impresión de, pero más bien acá entra en juego lo que se sabe de alguien y lo que es realmente.

En definitiva el asunto de venganza y justicia entra en un debate muy extenso. Sobretodo con conceptos como la llamada "justicia por propia mano". Vamos incluso muchos casos de SH puden servir para explorar a fondo este dilema (el cazador de leones, el caso de Abbey, etc). 🤔 Podríamos armar como seis post-metas-ay no se el nombre-analisis de eso si unieramos las fuerzas pero aun hay tareas. ¡Demonios!

Chamffles fue fabuloso y es absolutamente canon que Raffles y Bunny se esten besando en un árbol.

No sé si se llamen igual en tu país pero acá hay unas papas (frituras?) similares a sabritas pero que se llaman Ruffles (Raffles). Perdón por el mucho texto y tenga un lindo día. ♥♥♥

[drownedinlight]

this post talks about religion. specifically Christianity. scroll now if you don’t want to read.

I just saw a post that was talking about how Christ only died for our sins, but it was no big deal because he was only dead for three days. He gave up a “long weekend” the post claims. The original post was tagged atheism, and I don't want to step on anyone else's beliefs (or lack there of), so I wanted to make a post about how that's kind of a misconception about the importance of Christ's death and even His time as a mortal man. I don't know everything, of course, so this is based off of my years of theological study.

Censoring G-d, because I know I’ve got some Jewish followers. Discussion on this post is okay, but keep it polite.

To really understand the importance of Jesus' sacrifice you actually have to go all the way back to Adam and Eve. You see, G-d created the Earth and essentially gave dominion over it to Adam (and then later to Eve). But they also create a covenant, basically a promise with consiquences for breaking it, that Adam's dominion is contingent on him not eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The fruit contained the truth about good and evil, and with that knowledge mankind would be doomed to die. Mankind would also then loose dominion over the earth. 

Cut to however many years later (nobody really knows how long, but it's suspected that Cain and Abel are not Adam and Eve's first children because there are other people living outside of the Garden at the time of the Fall of Mankind). The serpent tempts both Adam and Eve (yes, Adam's sitting right there next to her, hearing the same pitch about how they should eat of the fruit, and it's aokay, nothing bad will happen) and after both of them eat (Eve, then Adam), they and all their descents become aware that there could be both good and evil in the world. They are now bound to die and no longer have dominion over the earth. 

So.

Who has dominion over the earth?

Lucifer of course. 

Now, bear in mind I'm talking from a Christian perspective of Lucifer -- I know there are other religions with diferrent takes. But the fallen angels, or demons, are not actually in hell. Not yet anyway. Hell is the final resting place and punishment of those who willfully defy G-d's will. When whoever said, "Hell is empty, all the devils are here," you can take that quite literally. By Christian theology, demons rove the earth, and will do so until G-d casts them and all other defilers into the lake of fire and seals it forever. And when Lucifer convinced Adam and Eve to break their covenant with G-d, dominion over the earth falls to him.

So there are three things that occured with the fall of man. One is that humanity is now exposed to sin and so have become sinful. The second is they are doomed to die. The the third is that we have lost dominion over the earth. Christ's death is important because it remedy's both of these things. 

Early on in the Bible (speifically talking the Christian bible here, because I'm not really versed in any Talmudic knowledge or the Quoran), we begin to see ways you may be (temporarily) forgiven from sin. All of them involve blood sacrifice. I'll be honest and say that I don't know why the blood sacrifice is so important (someone feel free to chime in). But here's where Christ gains the moniker of the "Lamb of G-d." Unblemished lambs were the highest form of sacrifice a person could offer. 

Jesus of Nazareth lived a perfect life, unblemished by any form of sin. He is the spotless lamb offered up on the altar of the world to cover our sins and allow for our forgiveness (yes, allow, not automatically permit, but that's another discussion). Christ, if you believe in him as the messiah, is also the final sacrific, the final lamb, needed in order to cover up our sins and wash us clean. 

But the time when he is dead is not wasted. We know that Christ goes to heaven to prepare the way for us, and there are apocryphal texts about him performing a jail break in Sheol (the Grave). His return to life though is probably equally as important as his death in terms for atoning the loss made by Adam and Eve. By returning to life, Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice, has defeated death. He does so as the second step to giving humanity everlasting life in Heaven with Him. Basically, not only does humanity have the potential to no longer being sinful, we get the chance to live in paradise forever. 

That's two of the three problems conquered (sin and death, that is), now let's talk about dominion. 

So, when Jesus is in the desert for 40 days and nights, Satan comes to taunt him. At one point, Satan takes Jesus to Mt. Everest a tall place where he can see the whole earth. And Satan basically says, "Admit I'm better than you, and I'll give you back the Earth."

Jesus says, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your G-d, and serve him only.’” (NIV, Matthew 4:10, Deut. 6:13). 

This passage goes to show that Satan could have given Christ back the earth. It's important to remember that Christ, while he is an extention of G-d, is human here. Satan's trying to trick Jesus into making the same mistake Adam and Eve had so long ago. And Jesus doesn't fall for it. He knows that when He dies -- when he defeats sin, when he defeats death -- his atonement for the mistakes of Adam and Eve allow him to take back the covenant for mankind to have dominion over the earth.

Tell me, when have you had such a productive "long weekend?" 

[taswhapstuff]

History is a Weapon #1: Historical Materialism vs idealism and capitalism ( Khoa Vu)

Covered by Mr. Sean and Antifada, in this episode we will get the chance to look through three diferrent theories that contradict each other: historical materialsim, idealism and capitalism. Focus on the main idea about Karl Marx’s historical materialsim, the author used Hegel’s idealism and Fukuyama’s liberal democracy to show the viewpoint of historical materialsim and how it stands against the other two theories. This help the author to highlight the historical materialsim’s thesis which is about how material concept influences social organization and the diverse development of the society. Moreover, this episode also contains many and variety of strong languages. Therefore, make sure that you are gang enough to join the lesson.

Sean started the argument with Historical materialism. He explained the historical materialism as an argument by Marxists and some communists that history is a result of material conditions instead of ideas. That it is based on productive forces and relations of production which determine society's organization and development. That in order for human being to exist it argues that they must produce and reproduce materials which they require for everyday life. Further it is argued that production depends on societal values and division of labor. All these factors are used to define history. What is interesting about the definition is that it is coined or premised on modes of production and processes thereof as a definition of history. The lame aspect of the definition is the other factors argued to buttress the definition which are rather lame and impractical are that the state power can only be transferred when there is sociopolitical upheaval and state imposes its mode or production in society. The implication of the definition is that the definition is only sustainable where the is absolutely in control or where there is an autocratic kind of rule.

On the other hand, in the episode Sean also discussed about Francis Fukuyama. So what was it about Fukuyama? He talks about the history of democracy, capitalism and different form of economic policies and governments. An interesting style of government he talked about is the China model. In this model the Chinese have been increasingly successful especially in their ability to make quick decisions on complex issues. However Fukuyama describes this model as unsustainable. Every other week there is a new protest of how the government is oppressing its people in one way or another. In this model the Chinese government has no compassion for its people. This leads into a discussion about the problems with the government systems that we have going on right now. Neither the left wing nor the right wing knows how to solve our problems.

Follow Sean’s idea of historical materialism, he used Fukuyama’s end of history to contrast the ideas of Marx. Fukuyama argues that end of history does not necessarily mean that all societies become successful liberal societies, but that they understand that the working systems are superior and thus adopted. Conflict is still possible because of cultural and ideological differences between cultures. Moreover, when Fukuyama talks about Marxist he is talking about the economic system under the communist party. He states that Marxist has been discredited in the past fifteen years because of the failure it has brought forth. To sum up his idea, the fall of communism showed the superiority of western capitalism. The unabashed victory of political liberalism is in reference to the success of western political ideas. These ideas and concepts include independence and individual rights, essentially everything that makes the west great.

Third, Sean mentioned about the idealism of Hegel to also contrast the idea of historical materialism. According to Hegel, Absolute Idealism is the view where all of reality is created and shaped by the mind. Hegel’s philosophical views find its roots in the absolute idea which is the marriage of a theoretical and practical idea. The absolute is independent and permanent. Knowledge can be seen as an instrument to understand the Absolute. Which is mean if there is a fear of having an error which leads to a distrust in science, which undoubtedly would work, it’s hard to understand the reason why a distrust is there on the distrust and why we shouldn’t pay attention unless the error is not just the beginning. This fear foresees a greater truth.

To add up all of these three theories, we can see that the author wanted to use the theories of idealism and capitalism to show the big differences between Fukuyama + Hegel’s perspective and Marx’s perspective. Specifically, it mentioned the differences between the rich and the poor (social inequality), especially the middle class when it compared capitalism and historical materialism. To add on, idealism supported the spirit and external spirit which contrast the ideas of historical materialism. Sean showed the importance of subjectivity and used that to show the conflict between the idealism and historical materialism. 

[jimabernethy]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 𝗝𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗵𝘆 (@jim_abernethy)

Video by @jim_abernethy // The Flying Inflatable Boat named "Oversear", above 10,000 spinner shark and roughly 20 surfers and a few paddle boarders off the coast of Palm Beach while my great Friend, conservationist and founder of @sealegacy Paul Nicklin @paulnicklen films the scene from a helicopter above! Look closely in the water to see all the sharks! Since 1997, I've been blessed to be able to fly "Oversear" as an aerial photography platform and spotter plane looking for sharks, dolphins, mantas and baitballs etc. This high adventure aerial perspective havecallowed me to watch, photograph and observe these creatures from an diferrent perspective! I realize it just doesn't seem normal, but it is very easy to fly and incredibly enjoyable, in fact I've even forgotten my camera once or twice! What do you think of this crazy flying machine? Hope you enjoy it! In this video the dark shadows in the water are the black tip shark migration when it was huge! This was the poster child of shark management years ago, but while it was being managed it suffered a 77% loss in numbers! Obviously shark management doesn't work...so please go to the link in my bio and help us with the Florida Shark Fin Trade Ban! @jim_abernethy @wildlifevoiceinc @sealegacy #TurningTheTide #FlFinBan #finfree #fib #savethesharks #beautiful #NoFinFl #StopTheFinTrade #FinBanNOW #epicencounter #shark #natureinspiration #naturelovers #highadventure #flyinginflatableboat #spinnershark #palmbeach #discoversharks #sharks #ilovesharks (at Palm Beach, Florida) https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Me7zmn0mc/?igshid=wua4756ug6jo

[hearts-of-words-blog1]

Loving Someone By Hurting Them

"We all have diferrent perspectives on life, and situations in our lives. Sometimes your perspective won't align with someone else's, and you know that you'll hurt them by doing something to help, love, and protect them (as well as those around them). In such a case, maybe an act of love will end up hurting them, and their relationship with you, but you know that they'll be better off in the big picture.  Maybe the most loving act you can commit, is also the most harmful."

This may sound strange, or difficult to understand to some, but if you know me and what's been happening in my life recently, you'll understand where I'm coming from more (I'll probably turn this into a more detailed blog post).  I believe that sometimes the most loving act, is one that causes harm to the person you are loving. Expect a more detailed Blog Post about this on Monday.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic!

[estefaniamgomeztrevino]

Schindler’s Ark vs Schindler’s List

Movies and books are two different perspectives. A lot of people says that they prefer the book instead of the movie or the other way around. Probably they do, but I think that in a lot of cases, both the movie and the book can be good in their own way. My opinion is that comparing them is not as effective as comparing two books or two movies because they have different objectives. But, someone can aprecciate better one than the other, and that is the reason why some prefer the movie than the book and vice versa. Schindler's Ark and Schindler's list are examples of how interpretation works. Most of the times, people complain about how a movie is different from the book it is based on. However, there are multiple reasons why they cannot be similar. One of them is that a book is not the same for everyone. When people read, they use their imagination to understand the place where the story is set and the characters from them, but nobody imagines the same things because they interpretate different aspects. When a movie is based on a book, the director makes the story the way he or she imagined it, so the audience watch another perspective of the same book. Schindler's list does not folloes Schindler's Ark as it goes because cinematographically the story was not made for a movie, so it had to change. A movie has different tools to transport the audience to the story, while the book is made to understand the facts of the history. In a way, both movie and book can be good without being the same. If they were the same, then there would not be a reason to make a movie because that would be "copy-paste." Also, they are different because symbols are different from one another because are understood in diferrent ways by the spectator. However, a person can like better the movie or the book, but that depends on how he or she gets story. My opinion is, that I can like both because I can understand them the same way and I can see how to they work in their own way.