#disinterestedness

[samixayn]

johnny taking the pin in the building where he went to his first wwe live show after kissing his wife and baby

[kenobion]

I had the weirdest dream with Andrew in it last night, and it’s hard to summarize cause my dreams never are very logical, but it started out with a room with a bunch of desks in it (weird) and a whole bunch of people including me and Andrew filed into this room, and we all apparently had to fill out some kind of form and do it while seated at these desks. The spaces filled up really fast and I tried to grab one that was near-ish to Andrew but somebody else did, and then all the spaces seemed filled so there was nowhere else for me to go and the person who was handing out the forms just told me to sit on the floor and get busy filling out the form. Then somehow it all changed and everybody was seated at tables and booths like in a restaurant, and I was at one with some people I didn’t know and Andrew and there was some kind of awkward and/or forced conversation going on and I didn’t participate and observed instead, but it was very uncomfortable. I also felt like Andrew was avoiding looking like he was paying any attention to me at all even though I got the vibe that he didn’t want to have to pretend that way, but was doing it because of everyone else. It was overall very strange.

[rogue762mm]

"Men are tired to the point of disgust with the monetary economy. They hope for salvation from somewhere, in something truly honorable and chivalrous, of inner nobility, of disinterestedness and duty."

— Spengler, The Decline of the West

[ko-existing]

the reliance on an AI bot (or on anyone/thing for that matter) seems so counterproductive. a thought appears that says "i don’t understand", you identify with that thought and take it to be true, and then look for ways to resolve that thought because you consider it to be your problem that you now have to deal with. you think you don’t understand, you think you’re not there yet, you think you’re not fully realized and you act accordingly; you go to different sources, asking questions, seeking answers, collecting more useless information. but how do you know you "don’t understand" besides the thought that tells you so?

in reality, there’s nothing to understand because what you are cannot be understood. you can only be that. and you already are it, all the time.

the thought that you do understand, and the thought that you do not, are both equally illusory. the key is to do nothing* about any thought. stand apart from them. leave them alone. you act on the thought "i don’t understand" because you take it to be you, you self-soothe and read more, you think "now i understand" and are relieved momentarily, that thought eventually passes too, and then you’re back to square 1. stuck in a constant loop. thoughts are baseless. meaningless. they appear, then disappear. they are harmless. the only power (reality) they have is that which you give them by taking them to be true. you’re a slave to empty things that you have given authority to. 🫰wake. up. 🫰

there is absolutely zero knowledge to be gained. no more reading to be done, nothing. here and now, you are totally ready. you are at your full potential right this very instant, in every instance. at every moment you are choosing the experience. you are absolutely no-thing right now, dressed up as "this person" in "the world". you have the option to be any person in the world, to go beyond this illusory world to another one for that matter, to be/do/have literally anything… but you keep choosing the same experience out of habit and convincing yourself you’re "stuck" as this. you’ve got so used to what you’re doing that you don’t recognize it anymore, you think it’s forced upon you, that this is the life you were born into, but i promise you it’s all your choosing. investigate it just a little and see.

searching for more and asking more questions is totally useless. you are a dog chasing it’s tail. you can do absolutely nothing to become what you are seeking, because you are already that. act accordingly.

"you need not stop thinking. just cease being interested. it is disinterestedness that liberates. don’t hold on, that is all." —Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

*in case it’s not obvious, by "do nothing" i do not mean don’t eat/drink/walk/talk etc. you can never do nothing. even the act of doing nothing is doing something. staring at a wall all day is still a doing. continue to tend to your tasks, look after the seeming body, socialize with family and friends — just fix your attitude. don’t get involved. don’t be pulled in any direction by any thought. be like a calm sea, unstirred by whatever happens. know yourself to be beyond it all. when a thought arises, and the impulse comes to act on that thought, study it. inquire about it. peel it back. break down your beliefs. you will soon see how "reality" naturally follows your lead, bends to your will, moulds to fit your ideals, because it is all just you. you have always had total dominion.

Well said, thank you💯🕉️

[elsalouisa]

"To return to the ball. It was one of the most remarkable that it was ever my privilege to attend. The emperor took part in a square dance, which paved the way for his affair with Madame Walewska.

"How do you think I dance?" he asked me, smiling. "I suspect you have been laughing at me."

" In truth, sire," I replied, "for a great man your dancing is perfect."

A little before that Napoleon had seated himself between the future favourite and myself. After talking for a few minutes he asked me who his other neighbour was. As soon as I had mentioned her name, he turned to her as if no one knew more about her than he.

We learnt afterward that M. de Talleyrand had extended his labours as far as managing this first interview and smoothing the preliminary obstacles. Napoleon, having expressed a wish to count a Pole among his conquests, one of the right kind was chosen — lovely and dull. Some pretended to have noticed that, after the quadrille, the emperor had shaken hands with her, which was equivalent, they said, to an appointment; and it did take place, in fact, the next evening. It was rumoured that a great dignitary had gone to fetch the fair one ; quick and undeserved promotion for a good-for-nothing brother was spoken of, and a diamond ornament, which was said to have been refused. People said a great many things they perhaps did not know and invented at pleasure. They even went so far as to assert that Rustan, the Mameluke, had acted as lady's maid ! What is certain, however, is that we were all distressed that a person admitted to society had shown such facility, and had defended herself as little as the fortress of Ulm.

But time, which colours everything, gave this connection, so lightly contracted, a tinge of constancy and disinterestedness which partly effaced the irregularity of its origin, and ended in placing Madame Walewska among the notable personages of her period. Exquisitely pretty, she was a realization of Greuze's faces; her eyes, her mouth, and her teeth were beautiful. Her laugh was so fresh, her gaze so soft, her face so seductive, as a whole, that it was never apparent that anything was wanting to the complete regularity of her features".

Memoirs of the Countess Potocka

[isa-ko]

Mortier and the diamond flower

Saragossa, cites in the following terms a trait of disinterestedness from Marshal Mortier at the end of the Te Deum chanté, on February 24, 1809, at Notre-Dame del Pilar, in order to offer thanksgiving to God for the end of the siege:

"The archbishop, the clergy, the alcades mayors, the corregidors and the new junta knew how to appreciate the generous feelings which led Monsieur Le Maréchal (Lannes) to treat them with respect and to respect religion and all sacred things. The good discipline he maintained in the army and the assiduous care he took to console the inhabitants of Saragossa for the long misfortunes they had just experienced, touched them deeply; and when they came, after the ceremony, to thank him for his benevolent dispositions, they offered him a bouquet of great value from the treasure of the Madonna. The junta also brought Marshal Mortier a diamond carnation worth one hundred thousand francs.

And then we have a classic Mortier reaction to this:

The Duke of Treviso stubbornly refused it; but finally, urged by these magistrates, in the strongest manner, not to distress the city by a refusal which could put it in the position of doubting his benevolence towards it, he accepted the flower as an act of possession, and immediately paid homage to Our Lady of the Pilar, whose treasure it still adorns.…

Spain also had before its eyes a touching spectacle of disinterestedness, the one presented to it by the Duke of Treviso returning to Our Lady of the Pilar the precious gift that Saragossa offered him as a token of his gratitude. At both times, the noble conduct of these generals bore the same fruits for their policy, and the esteem and love they deserved often easily disarmed the people they were given to subjugate.

So Mortier was given a diamond flower as a gift, accepts it to not disrespect the gifters, but later gives it back anyways.

(Btw these are still google translated bc of a lack of a better way, so if there’s a mistake feel free to correct me!)

Frignet-Despréaux (colonel). Le Maréchal Mortier: Duc de Trévise. Par son petit-neveu Frignet Despréaux, Vol. I, Berger-Levrault, 1914. pp. 6-7

Source

[miffy-junot]

Some details on the later life of Hippolyte Charles

Hippolyte Charles isn't talked about much - which is understandable, given that he only plays a very small role in the grand Napoleonic saga. But I like looking into the lives of these lesser historical figures, so I'm going to share some things I found on the trajectory of Charles' life after the end of his affair with Josephine.

This is not a summary of the entirety of his later life, rather a collection of anecdotes I find interesting.

Charles and Junot:

On 14 Ventôse, Year X (5 March 1802), he lent thirty thousand francs to Junot, then commander of a Paris, who, in acknowledging this sum, wrote to him: "You know very well that this service you are rendering me cannot add to my sincere friendship. If you have nothing better to do, come and have dinner with us on the 17th."

Charles and his biens nationaux (land taken from the church/nobility during the French Revolution):

Charles owned former biens nationaux. Its manager, having learned that he was willing to return some of these properties to the members of a Ruellant du Cirent family, wrote on 1 Thermidor, Year IX: "With regret, I will see you deprived of a beautiful and an advantageous investment of funds; but, if you think it necessary to make the sacrifice to the positions and misfortunes that balance the enjoyment of this good in your heart, I consider that, in order to reconcile your advantages and your generosity, you must limit this sacrifice to 8% loss of the auction price." To which Charles replied, after having fixed the terms of payment: "These are the conditions that I believe to be just and reasonable; they have been dictated to me by the interest I take in an unfortunate family and by the desire I have to see them regain possession of property which unfortunate circumstances had taken from them. I like to believe that these conditions will be accepted and that the former owner will see that his interests are more taken care of than mine." This letter proves, without question, the disinterestedness of Hippolyte Charles and the delicacy of his feelings.

Charles and Napoleon:

As early as 1801, definitively separated from [Josephine], he sought to return to service. He turned to Leclerc, who was preparing the expedition to Saint-Domingue. Bonaparte's brother-in-law granted his request; he wrote, on 30 Brumaire, Year X (November 11, 1801) "To citizen Hippolite (sic), captain of the hussars, Go to Brest, where I will give you new orders." But it is probable that the First Consul opposed a measure of reinstatement in favor of the former aide-de-camp, to whom he has always held a certain grudge.  [...] However, in the time of his omnipotence, Napoleon never disturbed his former love rival, either in his person, or in his possessions; No police file has ever been drawn up in his name.

Charles and Josephine:

While he was residing in Cassan, Charles learned of the death of Josephine. Since the middle of October, 1799, he had never seen her again, not even after her painful divorce. For some time he had continued to correspond with her, but only to issues of interest. 

Charles' life after the Empire:

Forced to sell Cassan, the former chatelain retired to Paris, 52, rue de Clichy, after having lived at 118, rue Saint-Lazare, then 45, rue Joubert. There he lived in a cohabitation with a young mistress with whom he had a daughter, who died unmarried. Afterwards, Charles returned to Romans and in 1820 bought the chateau de Génissieux, a few kilometres from the place of his birth. The former captain of hussars had retained a love of thoroughbred horses; in his stables, he had always some reputed thoroughbred; one of them served as a model for Carle Vernet for one of his paintings.

The death of Charles:

He died at Génissieux, aged sixty-four, on March 9, 1837. Two days later, his body was buried in Romans, in the old and picturesque cemetery of Recollets. [...] On his deathbed, Charles expressed the delicate desire that the love letters which his passionate lover had written to him, and which he had preciously preserved throughout his life, were destroyed.

source

[fellow-weary-traveler]

Prince of Jerusalem 16° Morals and Dogma

Part VIII This, Freemasonry teaches, as a great Truth; a great moral landmark, that ought to guide the course of all mankind. It teaches its toiling children that the scene of their daily life is all spiritual, that the very implements of their toil, the fabrics they weave, the merchandise they barter, are designed for spiritual ends; that so believing, their daily lot may be to them a sphere for the noblest improvement. That which we do in our intervals of relaxation, our church-going, and our book-reading, are especially designed to prepare our minds for the action of Life. We are to hear and read and meditate, that we may act well; and the action of Life is itself the great field for spiritual improvement. There is no task of industry or business, in field or forest, on the wharf or the ship’s deck, in the office or the exchange, but has spiritual ends. There is no care or cross of our daily labor, but was especially ordained to nurture in us patience, calmness, resolution, perseverance, gentleness, disinterestedness, magnanimity. Nor is there any tool or implement of toil, but is a part of the great spiritual instrumentality.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Danton breaking up fights between Robespierre and his soon-to-be ex-boyfriends compilation

The surveillance Committee launched an arrest warrant against Minister Roland; it was the 4th (September), and the massacres were still going on. Danton was informed of it, he came to town hall, he was with Robespierre; […] I (Pétion) had an explanation with Robespierre, it was very lively. I tell him: “Robespierre, you are doing a lot of harm; your denunciations, your alarms, your hatreds, your suspicions, they agitate the people; explain yourself; do you have any facts? Do you have any proof? I fight with you; I only love the truth; I only want freedom.”

”You allow yourself to be surrounded, you allow yourself to be warned, he replied; you are disposed against me; you see my enemies everyday; you see Brissot and his party.”

”You are mistaken, Robespierre; no one is more on guard than I against prejudices, and judges with more coolness, men and things. You’re right, I see Brissot, however rarely, but you don’t know him, and I know him since his childhood. I have seen him in those moments when the soul shows itself entirely; where one abandons oneself unreservedly to friendship, to confidence: I know his disinterestedness; I know his principles, I proclaim to you that they are pure; those who make him a party leader have not the faintest idea of ​​his character; he has enlightenment and knowledge; but he has neither the reserve, nor the dissimulation, nor those lively forms, nor that spirit of consistency which constitutes a leader of a party, and what will surprise you is that, far from leading others, he is very easy to abuse.”

Robespierre insisted, but confined himself to generalities.

”Allow us to explain ourselves,” I told him, ”tell me frankly what is in your heart, what you know.”

”Well!” he replied, ”I believe that Brissot is at Brunswick.”

”What mistake is yours,” I exclaimed! ”it is truly madness; this is how your imagination leads you astray: wouldn't Brunswick be the first to cut his head off? Brissot is not mad enough to doubt it: which of us can seriously capitulate! which of us does not risk his life! Let us banish unjust mistrust.”

Danton became entangled in the colloquy, saying that this was not the time for arguments; that it was necessary to have all these explanations after the expulsion of the enemies; that this decisive object alone should occupy all good citizens.  Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (November 5 1792)

Robespierre: Camille's writings are to be condemned, no doubt; but nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish the person from his works. I consent freedom to treat Desmoulins like a spoiled child who had happy dispositions, and who has been led astray by bad company. His head sometimes wanders, but his talents are precious. But we must demand of him that he prove his repentance for all his thoughtlessness, by quitting those companies which have ruined him. We must crack down on his acts that Brissot himself would not have dared to admit, and keep Desmoulms in our midst. All these truths are not flattering for an author: but if the vanity of Camille Desmoulins is offended by them, he considers that he has attracted a small admonition sufficient to correct it. When he sees that he has deserved still more severe reproaches, he will feel the necessity of rallying to principles, and removing from himself all causes of an error that we are willing to forgive him for. Let him examine that his writings are the pain of patriots and the joy of aristocrats, and he will be grateful to us to see that it is only for him that we can forget them. I end by asking that his numbers be treated like the aristocrats who buy them, with the contempt that profanity deserves. I propose to the Society to burn them in the middle of the room (There is applause several times; Robespierre's speech was interrupted by applause and bursts of laughter).  Desmoulins: That's very well said, Robespierre, but I'll answer you like Rousseau: "To burn is not to answer."  Robespierre: How dare you still want to justify works that delight the aristocracy? Learn, Camille, that if you were not Camille, one could not have so much indulgence for you. The way you want to justify yourself proves to me that you have bad intentions. To burn is not to answer! But can this quotation of the sublime philosopher of Geneva find its application here? WelI, I retract my last motion; I ask that Camille's numbers not be burned, but that they be answered. Since he wants to, let him be covered with ignominy, let the Society not restrain its indignation, since he persists in supporting his diatribes and his dangerous principles. The man who clings so strongly to perfidious writings is perhaps more than misguided; if he had been in good faith, if he had written in the simplicity of his heart, he would not have dared longer to support works proscribed by patriots and sought after by all the counter-revolutionaries of France. His courage is only borrowed, he detects the hidden men under whose dictation he wrote his diary; he detects in Desmoulins the organ of a villainous faction which has borrowed his pen to distill its poison with more audacity and certainty. Desmoulins, who sees himself blamed by the patriots, finds himself compensated by the adulations of the aristocrats he frequents, and by the caresses of many false patriots, under which he does not perceive the perfidious intention of ruining him. You must know what he said in response to those who blamed his writings: Do you know that I sold 50 000 copies! I would not have said these truths if Desmoulins had not been so obstinate, but the point of order has become necessary. I therefore ask that the numbers of Camille Desmoulins be read from the rostrum: if there are individuals who defend his principles, they will be listened to, but there will be patriots to answer them.  Desmoulins: But Robespierre, I don’t understand you. How can you say only aristocrats read my paper? The Convention, the Mountain, are they composed of aristocrats? You denounce me here, but was I not at your house? Didn’t I read you my numbers, asking you, in the name of friendship, for your advice, and to trace the path that I had to take?  Robespierre: You didn’t show me all your numbers, I only saw one or two. To avoid quarrel I didn’t want to read the others, it would be said that I dictated them.  Danton: Camille mustn’t be frightened by the rather severe lessons Robespierre’s friendship has just given him. Citizens, let justice and cold-headedness always preside over our decisions. In judging Camille, be careful to not strike a deadly blow against the liberty of the press.  [A secretary reads number 4 of Vieux Cordelier, which excites reclamations, the reading is at several times interrupted by marks of improbation. The club, at the proposal of Robespierre, decides that it will hear the reading of Camille’s third and fifth number tomorrow, where he will justify himself.]  The Jacobin Club January 7 1794

[olreid]

As Pierre Bourdieu (1980) suggests, contemporary "bourgeois aesthetics" consistently values "detachment, disinterestedness, indifference" over the affective immediacy and proximity of the popular aesthetic (237-239). The popular, Bourdieu claims, is often characterized by the "desire to enter into the game, identifying with the characters' joys and sufferings, worrying about their fate, espousing their hopes and ideals, living their lives" (237-239). The "bourgeois" aesthetic Bourdieu identifies often distrusts strong feelings and fears the loss of rational control suggested by such intense and close engagement with the popular. Even when such critics accept some popular culture as worthy of serious attention, they typically read popular works as if they were materials of elite culture, introducing "a distance, a gap" between themselves and the text; the intellectual reader of popular texts focuses less on their emotional qualities or narrative interests than upon those aspects which "are only appreciated rationally through a comparison with other works," (upon evaluative notions of authorship, for example) [...] These viewers, Bourdieu suggests, consistently deny the pleasures of affective immediacy in favor of the insights gained by contemplative distance. Bourdieu is careful to specify the historical and social context where this ideal of distanced observation originated, though his followers have not always done so.

Since Brecht, this discomfort with proximity has assumed a specifically political dimension within ideological criticism: the native spectator, drawn too close to the text emotionally, loses the ability to resist or criticize its ideological construction; critical distance, conversely, bestows a certain degree of freedom from the ideological complicitness demanded by the text as a precondition for its enjoyment. Within this formulation, distance empowers, proximity dominates. Mary Anne Doane (1987) [...] argues that the female spectator is often represented as drawn so close to the text that she is unable to view it with critical distance and hence as less capable of resisting its meanings. Such identification, Doane suggests, cannot be "a mechanism by means of which mastery is assured," but rather "can only be seen as reinforcing her submission" to textual authority.

Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (1992) by Henry Jenkins

[batw1nggg]

I'm curious on your opinion of this theory:

https://behind-xemnas.tumblr com/post/172959032331/theory-nagito-komaeda-returned-to-being-ultimate

i do assume this theory is just for fun but i’m still going to nitpick at it because its entire basis is on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way komaeda’s behavior is affected by the environment he’s in (for anyone that doesn’t want to go read the whole post — the theory is that komaeda is so fucked up in the game but far less homicidal in the anime because he somehow became re-brainwashed once the killing game began, explaining the difference in behavior)

op points out that komaedas behavior changes from calming to insane once the killing game begins, and they don’t seem to understand that this drastic change is because komaeda has experienced a change in environment. before monokuma appeared, the island was peaceful, and so komaeda was acting calmer; however, it turned into a life or death situation within just hours of their arrival, an extremely high stress situation. the plan with teruteru that komaeda rigged to get himself killed was komaeda’s natural response to stress, in the same way YOUR natural response to stress might be to crawl up in your bed and cry. but komaeda is deeply emotionally repressed, and so his stress responses aren’t conventional. he’s logical and intelligent, he wants to rig the situation for the sake of hope.

compare it to island mode. komaeda’s still fucked up, but he doesn’t plan any elaborate murder suicide schemes. because he’s not in a stressful environment. and so there’s nothing pushing him to.

this weird brainwashing theory is not “the only way komaeda makes sense.” komaeda DOES make sense, if you take the time to actually analyze his mind

evidence op claimed that i’d like to debunk:

- the swirly eye thing. in danganronpa, swirling eyes does not equate to brainwashed, it equates to a feeling of despair; the reason why everyone had swirly eyes when they were being brainwashed was because the brainwashing forced them into a state of despair. they use junko as evidence and yes junko was ult despair but she never. she never brainwashed herself 😭😭😭 she was never a remnant?

- ai junko would just not single out komaeda like that sorry. he was one of the most boring remnants lol. there’s no reason for her to she dont gaf about him

- the brainwashing didn’t make komaeda more obsessed with hope. “but he doesn’t seem to be obsessed with it in the anime and when he gets brainwashed he gets real obsessed w hope” he very clearly was obsessed w it from the start im sorry like he talks about it all the time. they just dont hound in on it in despair arc because they already did in dr2 + run time limits + in a non stressful environment (hpa school life) komaeda doesn’t need to rely on his hope obsession as a coping mechanism as much, but when he is put in a stressful environment (like being fucking BRAINWASHED) he needs to fall back on that coping mechanism

- the brainwashing made him more obsessed with despair, in fact — it made him want to create despair with the justification that it was “for the sake of hope.” brainwashed komaeda was meant to be obsessed with both sides.

- izuru does not care about komaeda as a variable specifically either. we see his disinterestedness in the boat scene after he’s able to analyze komaeda’s psyche. the whole point for him was to create a battle between hope and despair to see which was more worth his time; keeping komaeda despaired rigs the battle

- claiming he committed suicide because he was brainwashed takes away from the meaning of the act. he did it because he wanted his life to mean something, and he thought that the only way he could do that was via grand sacrifice. a pathetic attempt to give himself meaning in the final days of his life expectancy. if you think about it, all three characters that achieve ult hope status don’t do it without some sort of self sacrifice. this theory takes away that theme by taking away komaedas full consciousness of his actions. he did it all of his OWN ACCORD and that is why its so much more tragic.

- komaeda did not kill for the sake of killing like mikan did. he was TRYING TO GET HIMSELF KILLED. IT WAS A SUICIDE PLAN NOT A MURDER PLAN. also mikan killed people she was attached to, teruteru had no emotional significance to komaeda, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. komaeda wanted to get the killings started for the sake of seeing hope overcome despair.

ok yeah overall this theory is stupid 👍 it’s not even interesting to explore and takes away lots of the themes and nuances of his character. dr3 isnt a good reference point for komaedas writing either because again we only see small snippets of his hpa life. the story’s focus is not on him, it’s more balanced on class 77b’s school life as a whole

[mollywog]

At this period the single opinion in the parish on herself and her doings that she valued as sounder than her own was Gabriel Oak's. And the outspoken honesty of his character was such that on any subject, even that of her love for, or marriage with, another man, the same disinterestedness of opinion might be calculated on, and be had for the asking.

[ryusxnka]

@starjynx ( For Jirou! }

" ------- Upon learning that our classes were going to collaborate on a reconnaissance mission, I hadn't anticipated that it would entail teaming up exclusively with a student from a different class. " he frowns in her distinct direction, eyne exhibiting conspicuous disinterestedness. " -------- more specifically, with someone as bothersome as you. "

[maximumslogandensity]

Selective reading. To see what is Good and Pure and True about their ravings, you have to blind yourself to everything which does not rise to the thought of the transcendental. I readily admit there's a lot of this everything. Capellanus' homophobia, Garcia-Marquez's "age gaps," almost all of their misogyny, etc. If you have any hope of extracting the universal and the eternal from the particular and the contingent, you have to go in blindfolded, as on a blind date; you have to not so much read as stumble around their writings through rose-tinted - and heart-shaped! - glasses. You have to blind yourself to anything except the transcendental, to anything except the exception (anything other than the other). Anything else is even worse than unsavoury or cruel - it's simply boring. Besides, you shall lose interest in this anything else. How could one feel otherwise? Is that not the l*ver's way? In spite of Kant, has anyone ever seriously found the Beautiful by virtue of their "disinterestedness"? Hardly how one reads with the scent of someone's perfume still burning strong and pure and true - oh so pureee, oh so trueee! - upon the pages!!

28/6/24

[thirdity]

[I]f we understand morality in the singular, as a generic decision on the part of consciousness, then it appears that our response to art is “moral” insofar as it is, precisely, the enlivening of our sensibility and consciousness. For it is sensibility that nourishes our capacity for moral choice, and prompts our readiness to act [...] Art performs this “moral” task because the qualities which are intrinsic to the aesthetic experience (disinterestedness, contemplativeness, attentiveness, the awakening of the feelings) and to the aesthetic object (grace, intelligence, expressiveness, energy, sensuousness) are also fundamental constituents of a moral response to life.

Susan Sontag, "On Style"

[horizon-verizon]

"We stan Criston for respecting sex workers and being the only feminist man in probably the entirety of GOT. And we hate Daemon for constantly making misogynistic remarks about any woman, generally his wives, that he doesn't like, emotionally neglecting his second wife , grooming Rhaenyra, cheating on Rhaenyra, neglecting his children, committing treason every other sentence, and that's not even half of it."

I mean… what book did they read? When did Daemon make misogynistic remarks about his wives there? Neglected Laena? Groom Rhaenyra? Neglecting his children? All this is never named in the book. I remember that Daemon married two pretty badass women and that he completely accepted the fact of being below his wife, future queen. And that he left Baela, his daughter, a lot of freedom. Deceiving Rhaenyra is something that has never even been proven. And what are the other supposed betrayals named? In my memories, he is on Rhaenyra's side all along and literally dies for her cause and to avenge Lucerys.

Even for the show, Daemon didn't heal Rhaenyra, or make misogynistic remarks towards the women in his life.

Rhaena is the only child with whom a problem seems to exist (and non-existent in the book once again), and it is frankly ridiculous. I want to say that just because something is shown / said in a series does not necessarily make sense for the characters / narratively speaking, or even that it is screaming any truth. It's just a ridiculous and overlooked part of the storyline, no more no less. Other than that, Daemon seems like a decent dad to his kids and stepsons from what little we've seen (unlike the other dads in this series). Wow, Negligent Father: Make Baela learn High Valyrian himself. Go find dragon eggs for his babies himself with Rhaenyra. Try to comfort Viserys II when he cries. Defend his sons-in-law. Yes. Behavior reflecting overall parental neglect and disinterestedness… Let me laugh.

As for Daemon's so-called infidelities, none have taken place so far in the series. As for insults, I'm not sure it can be considered deeply misogynistic to insult a woman you hate and were forced to marry, + the daughter of a man he hates, working actively to steal his niece and wife's right to the throne… Basically, he insults a woman he hates, classic human behavior. And another woman who literally deserves so much insult I can barely name them. In the book, Daemon actually never insulted Alicent, apparently treating her as her position as queen demanded, although he despised her.

And… Whether it's the book version or the series… Wtf for Criston Cole?! BE A FEMINIST?! But what have these people smoked my word?!

Basically, this commentary is a mix of head canon, mixing series and book. How can they expect to be taken seriously?! This kind of comment baffles me. They're crazy, that's the only possible explanation.

*EDITED POST* (12/14/23)

Daemon

I don't think book!Daemon cheated on Rhaenyra with anyone, not even with Mysaria anymore. He also never neglected any child. And he hardly committed any sort of treason against Viserys or Rhaenyra so much as never taking to Viserys' orders that really just isolated them both.

However, Daemon called his wife Rhea Royce his "bronze bitch" told through his own writings. I say this in another post:

Remember him and Mysaria, when he attached her sex work to his "curse" of her when he realized she helped Rhaenyra become distrustful of him? And again, calling your wife an ugly bitch who resembles the ugly sheep of her ugly homeland because you hate that you were forced to marry her, and constantly, is misogyny.

Yeah, Rhaena Targaryen (rider of Dreamfyre and Queen Dowager) took her frustrations out on Androw Farman when Elissa left and took the dragon eggs, becoming less amenable to being married to him and stuck almost similarly to Daemon.

However, while Androw still had that incel quality jump out of him as soon as people around him began to mock him enough to actually kill only women (which I think shows how that misogyny was in him all along), Rhea Royce had done nothing and will continue to do nothing to Daemon. Daemon began the ill-will between them by being so obvious in his dislike for her. Rhea definitely had justified feelings of discontent towards him for this alone if for nothing else.

Daemon's taking his frustrations on her because she was available and the one he's tied to, but 1) She warranted less than Androw 2) Daemon will always have more grace as a man than Rhana, espe since we know he fucked his way around in a way Rhaena had to mask through marriage. Do I feel bad that he was forced at 16 to marry Rhea, yes. But Rhea did not ask for it and Daemon has his freedom. Yet Daemon implies that she is a bad feminine presence by using a word that uses her femaleness. and connecting to how undesirable she is specifically to him--she is not the "right" type of woman for him. And her entire identity becomes wrapped up in that. finally, you know he's said this about her several times.

Yes, Mysaria was a traitor to them and turned Rhaenyra against him. Why did he have to use her sex work past to define, emphasize, or characterize her treachery? Why are they put side by side? When we already have societal misogyny against female sex workers for being "loose", inferior women?

Criston

I agree that it is hypocritical (and just stupid) to stan Criston while criticizing Daemon when the book and show Critson are the most flagrant misogynist men in the story (aside from Aegon, Aemond, Borros Baratheon). In the show, he explicitly calls Rhaenyra a "cunt" after he says she is a spoiled woman and years after she rejected his nonsensical proposal...after he accepted the chance to sleep with her....after he quite obviously lusted after her for the years before her 18th name day.

Yeah, the show made a mess of what sort of consent he was giving to her in their sex scene; however, it's strange and contradictory for people to claim that he primarily proposed because he genuinely loved her...then go on to say or repeat that he only slept with her because he was afraid of her position and was her subordinate.

A woman who convinces herself to "love" or devote herself to a man is not in the same danger as a man subordinate to a woman who is herself and doesn't know how stable her position as heir/future Queen is on account of her society's inclination against female rulers.