#interesting that these are more focused on religious/philosophical points

[gaylittleguys]

watching the alien prequels, Prometheus was pretty good, but I think the concept probably would have been stronger if it wasn’t a capital A Alien movie, also I wish the human tech looked clunkier like in the originals but that’s ok. I guess. 😔 Starting out Covenant and I don’t care for the guy taking over as captain.

[aboutanancientenquiry]

If you are still interested, I have read Edmonds’ “Redefining Orphism” and am working on his “Gold Tablets” book now. I must say that, like you, I am not convinced by his skepticism to the existence of Orphism as a movement. Eg, evidence such as the graffiti from Olbia (5th C. BCE) point to those who called themselves “Orphics”. And while certain myths and themes differed across the corpus, there was always a certain commonality of ideas. To say with Edmonds that the only similarity between sources and texts is marginality and otherness to polis religion is true only marginally itself. Turning back to Orphism, a concern with afterlife in underworld and reincarnation are common tropes found in all the sources so far. Again, taking an example from the Olbia bone tablets, we find the inscription, “Life-Death-Life” accompanied by an inscription mentioning “Orphics”. The golden tablets also mention liberation from the cycle of sorrow. So too there is similar evidence on the Apulian vases and in the Derveni krater. And the similarities do not stop there, but it seems that “Orpheoskeptic” scholarship does not most fully reflect this reality. However, this is not to say that there was not a great deal of fluidity and multiplicity within the Orphic movement. And it is pretty clear that there were derivations. But to claim with Edmonds and the Orpheoskeptics that “Orphism” was simply a label for being outside the mainstream cults has little support by emerging evidence today. From all that I can see, an Orphic religious movement — not to say that there was only one form of Orphism that remained constant across centuries — did in fact exist, of course with similarity and differentiation. And re. the question of whether the related cults referred to themselves as “Orphic”, the Olbian graffiti suggests an answer to the affirmative…

I totally agree about the "Orpheoskeptics", despite all the uncertainties that surround early Orphism, and you are I think totally right that the graffiti from Olbia are particularly important as evidence.

Perhaps one could also say that Orphism was a part of a broader mystery and "Bacchic" movement, a movement which had as main themes the special relationship of the worshipper with a deity (most often, although not exclusively, Dionysus) and the prospect of a blessed immortality through this relationship, breaking with the traditional Homeric bleak vision on the afterlife for most humans. Not of course that every celebration of Dionysus in the Greek cities would be necassarily based on such an eschatology, neither all mysteries in ancient Greece promised a better afterlife.

Orphism was probably a particular tendency in this Bacchic movement aspiring to a blessed immortality through the relationship with Dionysus. This Orphic tendency focused more particularly on the person of Orpheus as founder of rites and "prophet" of Dionysus (although it seems that initially Orpheus was associated with Apollo), created a corpus of literature attributed to Orpheus and developed a theogony and cosmogony alternative to that of Hesiodus. Orphism put also a special emphasis on the myth of Dionysus Zagraeus and its anthropological significance with the double character of human nature (divine and titanic) that it introduced, as well as on the transmigration of the souls and the necessary purification till the human "debt" for the ancestral crime is paid and the human soul is admitted to a blessed afterlife near or even among the gods. It seems that already ca 450 BCE Orphism had acquired such an importance within the broader Bacchic movement that Herodotus could write without distinction about Bacchica and Orphica and see in them a common Egyptian origin.

This Orphic movement was not for sure itself totally homogenous, as it seems that there existed at least two Orphic traditions, one South Italian, the other Athenian-Eleusinian, but also a difference between a more serious religious and perhaps also proto-philosophical version of Orphism and the more controversial ritualism of the itinerant orpheotelestai, the ones that Plato in his Republic mocked essentially as charlatans. Moreover, there are later Bacchic cults like the notorious Bacchanalia in the Greek cities of S. Italy and in Rome, especially after the second Punic war and until its ferocius repression by the Roman Senate in 186 BCE, in which it does not seem that Orpheus played a role.

But I believe that all this does not refute the existence of an Orphic movement in Late Archaic and Classical Greece with the broad characteristics that I have described above. This is for me the most plausible reconstruction of the facts.

[artoodeeblue]

Tagged by the iconic @maggot-monger (thank you love)! This will be for my ocs Kandra Vi and Pris Lem from my doctor who fic, as I'm in the middle of writing the climax <3

✧˖°. PERSONAL

$ Financial: wealthy / moderate / unsure/ poor / in extreme poverty

✚ Medical: fit 🔥🔥🔥/ moderate / sickly / disabled / non-applicable

✪ Class: upper/ middle / working / unsure / other

✔ Education: qualified / unqualified / studying / other (they are both qualified as in received normal training for their station, but Pris didn't go to college and dropped out of school after their mother died)

✖ Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but not caught yet / yes, but charges were dismissed

✧˖°. FAMILY

◒ Children: had a child or children / has no children / wants children (eventually)

◑ Relationship with Family: close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased

◔ Affiliation: orphaned/ abandoned / adopted / found family / disowned / raised by birth parent(s) / not applicable

✧˖°. TRAITS + TENDENCIES

♦ extroverted / introverted / ambivert

♦ disorganized / organized / in-between

♦ close-minded / open-minded / in-between (Kandra is more prone to sticking with her already existing world-view, though is open-minded about most people, whereas Pris is more open-minded about their worldview and more prone to sticking to their first impressions of someone)

♦ calm / anxious / in-between / highly contextual

♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in-between (depends on your sense of humour)

♦ cautious / reckless / in-between / highly contextual

♦ patient / impatient / in-between

♦ outspoken / reserved / in-between / highly contextual (She knows when to speak up and when to shut the fuck up!)

♦ leader (reluctantly) / leader (gladly) / follower / in-between (follower but only for Kandra lol)

♦ empathetic / vicious bastard / in-between / highly contextual

♦ optimistic / pessimistic / in-between

♦ traditional / modern / in-between (51st century yknow.)

♦ hard-working / lazy / in-between (can actually be extremely focused on a task when they want to. just doesn't want to most of the time :P)

♦ cultured / uncultured / in-between / unknown

♦ loyal / disloyal / unknown /highly contextual

♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown / highly contextual (like in a religious sense?)

✧˖°. BELIEFS

★ Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic

☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care / in a matter of speaking

✮ Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care / in a manner of speaking

✯ Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care / in a manner of speaking

❃ Belief in Aliens: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care (bit hard not to in this universe)

✧ Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious

❀ Philosophical: yes / no / in between / highly contextual

✧˖°. SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION

❤ Sexuality: heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual

❥ Sex: sex-repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable/ naive and clueless

♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable / naive and clueless/ romance suspicious

❣ Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious

⚧ Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / both (but has little interest in sex) / agender / other / none / all

⚧ Potential Romantic Partners: male / female / both / agender / other / none / all

✧˖°. ABILITIES

☠ Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

≡ Literacy Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✍ Artistic Skills: excellent (makeup skills on POINT) / good / moderate / poor / none

✂ Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✧˖°. HABITS

☕ Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / tried it/ alcoholic / former borderline alcoholic turned sober

☁ Smoking: tried it / trying to quit / already quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / chain-smoker

✿ Recreational Drugs: tried some / never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

✌ Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / infrequent need for medication / some medication needed (does estrogen count) / frequently / to excess

☻ Unhealthy Food: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently

$ Splurge Spending: never (very careful with money due to their working class background) / sometimes / frequently / shopaholic

♣ Gambling: never / rarely (has done it to network with higher-ups lmao) / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gamble

TAGGING @whisperoftheheart925 @starsandwriting @learning-to-think with no pressure <3

[dailycharacteroption]

Kalistocrat (Starfinder Archetype)

(art by SkavenZverov on DeviantArt)

The Kalistocrats of Pathfinder, and their far-future inheritors in Starfinder, are… interesting. They’re pretty blatantly based on those weird “not quite a cult but certainly not entirely innocuous” pseudo-religious movements for rich people that teach that their wealth and the continued drive to acquire more is a clear sign of their superiority and willingness to adhere to the strange doctrines of the movement, but aside from pointing out how the actions of these greedy elitists affect other people, the writing rarely claims that they’re entirely full of it. Compare this to the church of Razmir, where it’s pretty explicit that the so-called “Living God” is really just a sorcerer con-man who has recruited an army of other magic users and plain old fashion thugs to con the wealthy and browbeat the poor to wring every last copper out of both, because who needs actual deific power and authority when you have money and people believe you are a god anyway.

I think that the reason Kalistocrats don’t get the same rap is that, despite their focus on the acquisition of wealth of all things, they’re not necessarily evil people. Aside from their adherence to the “advice” of Kalistrade’s Prophecies, they get to decide exactly how they go about making their wealth, and this holds true into Starfinder too, though let’s be clear here, just because they’re not evil doesn’t mean they’re good. After all, you can’t get absurdly wealthy without exploiting someone somewhere.

But let’s say you want to play one of these weird uber-businesspersons, (I don’t. The whole cult-y vibe of the group gives me the heebie-jeebies) There is an archetype for you in Starfinder, either as a player or as a GM who wants the villain of the week to be Jared Leto and pals.

This archetype is interesting, because it’s one of those that let’s you pick and choose from a list of abilities, or even skip levels that you would normally get these abilities if you so choose, making it almost more like a selection of feats or modular class features than an archetype.

Some work on perfecting their bodies and minds through meditation and exercise, allowing them to bolster one of their saves each day.

Others focus on learning about other cultures, bolstering their ability to interact with them amicably and avoid insulting them.

An advantage of being so well-connected is that you can call in favors for people to do your research for you, allowing them to use their social skills to learn more about a subject, assuming they have time and a way to contact their allies. Additionally, they can use their connections to secure discounts every now and again.

Their focus on the writings of a long-dead philosopher-prophet allows some to better understand hidden messages and codes, as well as speak in code with others of their philosophy through modified quotes from the core writings.

The key to successful business is building your network, and many excel at just that, able to make a good first impression as well as do research on new potential partners ahead of time.

Some take their physical fitness even further to better resist assault on whatever aspect of their being they focused on during their meditations that day.

Whether it be through esoteric knowledge, knowing the right doctor, or knowing enough about mystic arts to enter a meditative trance of healing, many of these wealthy figures are able to bolster the effects of long-term care to heal their bodies and minds faster.

This archetype is, by nature, very flexible, and can be used easily with pretty much any class. Gaining a buff to saves as well as various social and financial boons makes the most sense of course with a character geared at least partially for the social side of things, as well as being a bit more durable. More than anything, though, it offers thematic abilities character lore, which is always nice.

Again, I don’t get the appeal, but you don’t necessarily HAVE to use this archetype with the Prophecies of Kalistrade in mind, and even if you do, it’s perfectly possible to play one as benevolent as a financial up and comer can be, or, if we drop them being actual kalistocrats, they might even be philanthropists in the truest sense.

The Kalistocrats have endured throughout the ages because their strange restrictions seem to actually work, but is it actually the taboos that bring them this fortune? Or is it just sound financial advice and/or inter-philosophical nepotism? The duo of the mystic Targaad and the witchwarper Veox seek answers without letting the wealthy organization know.

Given their focus on wealth over all things, the White Glove Club boasts some of the best security for it’s members to flaunt their wealth. However, recently a string of thefts have left many minor members of the club embarrassingly destitute. All the security camera footage shows is someone looking exactly like the vault’s owner extracting the cash in each case, a mocking calling card of the endiffian thief who has made the club and it’s member their target.

They say that Baron Yanras gained his fortune by using his witchwarping magic to glimpse alternate realities where he was already successful. Whatever the truth of this, he is almost as skilled at bending reality as he is at business, all of which has attracted the attention of a horror beyond the stars, a warpstitcher intent on making his body a prize to feed off the visions of realities where he has failed.

[bimboficationblues]

what is the difference between communitarian and marxist critiques of liberalism?

the most obvious distinction is that the communitarians positioned themselves as an alternative to liberalism but *not* as an alternative to capitalism (or at least only in the qualified way that, similarly, Rawls’ ideal of “property owning democracy” is an alternative to capitalism, which is to say not meaningfully)

like tbh my catty but sincere answer is that the real difference is that communitarianism is essentially a Marxian critique of liberal social ontology, shorn of almost all substantive content or analysis of liberalism's relationship with capital and state, until it becomes a soft conservative, anti-atomist truism ("people are not isolated islands and atoms divorced from social context and community inputs on their subjectivity"). Charles Mills makes this same critique of liberalism but in a way more pointed and interesting way, with far less conservative baggage!

if I'm in a more charitable mood: obviously, different writers' critiques take different shapes. but the broad strokes would be that the Marxist critique of liberalism is directed towards its conception of rights, which rights it guarantees and which it doesn't, and the implications of a political-economic formation that uses positive law to guarantee and secure outcomes. I consider this a primarily *formal* critique which connects with broader substantive/formal critiques directed at liberalism's twin, political economy.

I would say that communitarians are more focused on like, a substantive critique of liberalism as a moral philosophy - they object to its social ontology and how it minimizes certain kinds of grounding moral culture like identity, religion, and nation, either in its narratives (the "secularization thesis" of religiosity fading with an increase in reason and science) or its values.

another critical detail is that a lot of what we now think of as "communitarians" are specifically in dialogue with Rawls & co. (i.e. the elite-approved political philosophers), while most Marxists are responding to an arguably wider (or perhaps older) scope of liberal writers and thinkers.

having been raised by someone whose politics would most aptly be described by the term "communitarian," I’m always suspicious when self-proclaimed radicals talk about the evils of individualism and appeal to the nebulous concept of community. isolation and abuse is made possible by atomization, but they're also made possible by rigid, conformist societies that reject internal and external threats to the community's values or principles. and again, capitalism and liberalism have a lot of internal flexibility that allow them to absorb threats, which includes older social orders and value systems that might take a more "collectivist" character. just look at religious thinking and sexual repression in the modern age. like, liberalism is only really "individualist" in the realm of ideas

[processsandenquirysophie]

Contextual Research

From completing my mind map I am most interested in exploring the unpredictability of life itself, including subjects of anxiety and death within this. I also want to look at evolution, more so focusing on human ascension and inner rebirth and so i plan to do research on this.

I am interested in exploring the ideas and theories of what happens after death and so I want to research the theories people have came up with over the years, religious and non religious beliefs.

Life after death theories

Reincarnation-

Reincarnation is the concept that when we die, we begin a new life in a a different physical body or form after each death. This is also known as rebirth or transmigration.

There is also mentions of Samsara which refers to the process where souls go through a process of human and animal forms. The idea that each soul must learn until the soul becomes purified to the point of liberation - which is the true and pristine nature of infinite bliss, knowledge and perception.

Ideas of reincarnation can be found in many religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism and have their own interpretations for this. The idea of human reincarnation was also held by Greek figures such as Pythagoras and Plato (Ancient Greek philosophers) and found in many tribal societies around the world.

Heaven and hell-

Heaven is believed to be a place where gods, angels and saints originate from and live. Some beliefs believe these heavenly beings can come down to earth and that humans can ascended to heaven in their after life. It is described as the holiest place and referred to as paradise.

Hell is believed to be a place of torment and punishment in the afterlife, a place for those who have sinned to be sentenced in hell for eternity. Some believe hell has many stages, often referred to as the 9 circles of hell, each having its own severity depending on the punishment.

Some also believe purgatory and limbo is a form of hell. Purgatory refers to the final cleansing of those who died in the state of grace. It is a place of suffering for the souls of sinner who are getting rid of their sins before going to heaven. Limbo is the place of souls of unbaptised infant and is referred to as the edge of hell. The term limbo has also been used to describe nothing in between time and space.

Egyptian’s beliefs-

The ancient Egyptian religion and its beliefs is the earliest known recorded in history. They believed that when the body died part of its soul and personality would go to the kingdom of dead.

Egyptians believes that being mummified and being put in a coffin carved with symbols and hieroglyphics was the only way to have an afterlife.

Greek mythology-

In Greek mythology, there is a god named Hades who is known as the king of the underworld, a place where souls live after death. Another Greek his named Hermes, the message of gods would take the soul to the underworld and leave them on the river between life and death.

Islam-

It is believed that after death, humans will be questions about their faith by two angels, Munkar and Nakīr. Those that die as martyrs immediately go to paradise. 

Wicca-

Wiccan’s believe in an after life described as The Summerland. A place for souls to rest, recuperate from life and reflects on their experiences and actions. It is not a reward but the end of life journey.

General theories-

There are also theories that there is completely nothing after death, an emptiness void. Some believe there is nothing to this void, some think we still have our consciousness and the opportunity to reflect on our lives and relive memories in our head.

Some theorise there is an afterlife where we go to our happy place, our most desired and that each of these “paradises” are different for each individual.

In the theory of reincarnation, some also believe we can reincarnate as animals and other living beings - and that in some cases apart of the soul remembers the past live and visits their loved ones.

There are of course many many more beliefs of what happens after death but these are the ones that interest me most. I am not completely sure what I believe happens after death but I hope when we pass we are taken to a paradise each personalised to our own happiness and desires, a place we can truly live in peace for eternity.

[dmarket360]

Revelation of Divine Encounters & Divine Wisdom in the Gordian Knot Book

Michael's The Gordian Knot Book is a life-changing look at faith and divine direction. Because of a deep spiritual experience, the author gives readers a new way to think about how God affects their lives. This book isn't just a collection of religious stories; it's also a strong call to understand and accept divine truths that can change your life. Also, his meeting with God was very important; it changed the way he thought. His thoughts about faith inspired him to write a book that people still read and learn from today. Further, the book encourages readers to explore their spiritual paths. Also, it wants readers to understand the depth of divine knowledge through moving stories and lessons that make you think.

Exploring Life's Deepest Questions

Michael asks deep moral and philosophical questions in The Gordian Knot Book. So, the book makes you think about the worth of life and the moral issues that come up with abortion. Further, Michael wants his readers to think again about the value of life and the huge responsibilities that come with it. He does this by looking at the spiritual effects of the choices we make. The goal of this journey is to make you think deeply about life. Also, to gain a deeper appreciation for how sacred it is.

The Spiritual Journey of Parenthood

In The Gordian Knot Book, Michael also writes about parenting; showing how important it is and how much love and care goes into it. So, the book praises selfless women who appreciate life's gifts. The book stresses how important it is to care for children as a holy duty. Michael gives us useful information about how much love and care can change a child's life. This part is a strong reminder of the spiritual side of being a parent and how it affects both the parent and the kid.

The Divine Influence in Writing

The history of The Gordian Knot Book is one of the most interesting things about it. The book has spiritual depth and knowledge because Michael talked to the Holy Spirit directly while writing it. This divine impact gives the author a unique point of view that strikes a chord with readers. It gives them a new and powerful way to look at spiritual issues. Michael has a deep link with the Holy Spirit, and his writing gives readers insights that are both enlightening and life-changing.

Fostering Unity Among Believers

The Gordian Knot Book brings people of different faiths together; it does by focusing on their shared values instead of their differences in religion. Michael wants his readers to look past their faith differences; focus on the universal ideas of love and the worth that each person has on their own. So, this open-minded attitude helps people of different faiths understand each other better. Also, it leads to a wider spiritual awakening and brings people together in their search for divine truth and purpose. The book tells readers to let their faith guide them through the hard times in life.

The Impact of Spiritual Encounters on Personal Growth

Michael writes about how spiritual encounters can have a big effect on human growth in The Gordian Knot Book. He shows how having a divine experience can cause big changes in how you think and act. The author of the book tells readers to be open to spiritual experiences. Also, it helps you to think about how they can help them grow as people. Michael gives readers who want to use spiritual events to grow a way to do it . He did this by telling stories of growth that came from interactions with God.

Embracing the Mysteries of Faith

The Gordian Knot Book encourages people to be open and curious about the secrets of faith. The book doesn't shy away from difficult spiritual ideas; instead, it supports a deep connection with the mysterious parts of belief. Further, Michael says that accepting these mysteries can help us understand faith in a deeper and more complex way. By looking into the unknown and accepting that some parts of religion are hard for humans to understand, readers can grow spiritually and connect with God more deeply.

Conclusion

Michael's The Gordian Knot Book is a deep look at religion, divine revelation, and spiritual growth. The book encourages readers to get more involved with their faith by telling interesting stories and giving wise advice. Michael teaches us how to accept life's mysteries. Also, it helps people to face challenges with faith by talking about his own life-changing experiences and divine direction. Michael gives his readers the tools they need to deal with problems with grace and persistence, which leads to a stronger spiritual life. This book not only makes you think about your spiritual life, but it also urges you to seek and value the divine knowledge that can have a huge effect on your life.

[eligalilei]

TTC 4

I just went ahead and gave multiple renderings some of the time, and then stuck in a gloss, since I sort of had a lot of trouble with this chapter. There's a strange tension between 'Empty' and 'never having excess'.... that I... just couldn't get over. Some part of me thinks there's just a translation failure, or a corruption that got passed down... or I'm just too dumb.

So I decided to take this up as a text of 'negative theology'.... the (non-)identity of the Dao with the Trace or thread without end, designedly attacking any kind of objectification in any sense. Not explicable, not an origin, not a destination.

The Origo is the pragmatic position of a statement (the locus of issuance, by which I understand 'I' to be a meaningful utterance).... and that's as strong of a pronouncement as I'll make. A point in a network; could be anyone saying 'I', but always embedded and understood "is" that the Dao? I'm not sure, but it seizes on the linguistic/mathematical 'vibe' of the text.

Γνῶσις is unspeakable insight, always one's own, and never exhaustible, the One is Plotinus' 'Origin beyond being'. Maybe that's going a bit farther down a Western way of thinking, but... it's hardly unprecedented.

The Other is Mystery behind the signifier of the face, present in absence, and signifying an unconquerable order. תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ is the state of the World before Elohim's creation of the firmament, thus, as some have said, designating the Tao as 'older than God'.

'Es' is Freud's 'Id'... the unconquerable alien within us, behind, us following us.... (Wo Es war, soll Ich Werden....Aber es wird immer die Andere Seite gegeben, and It gives: Es gibt; the Other side, the Gift that poisons, questions, my boundaries)

But this negation is of course preferatory, and, I think, the text goes back and forth about specificity and negation: our idols are trashed, we are asked to let go, so that we can begin to grasp threads, to set ourselves on the way. To me, this feels very sympathetic to many religious traditions and their reverence to the divine, the TTC is just so much more unwavering on this point, and I choose to kind of give it an overkill execution here. I feel it as a prayer of supplication, or Job's recognition that he is, ultimately, dust. But this isn't intended to make us... give up, but rather open us to subtler attunements, and release obsession with dwelling. To become the hermits we are on the face of God's great organless body.

While this maybe feels anti-philosophical, my interest is in fact to read the TTC as a preface or inspiration for doing philosophy. It doesn't even speak to me as anti-systemic.... if anything, it relocates the joy of systemization in the World Itself, as a human activity: it's not about the words: once you have climbed to the top of the ladder, you don't proceed to carry it around with you.

This is for sure a different reading than some might have, it being focused on the cultivation of the self  by way of the intellect... but that by stretching it to its borders, but not to defeat it, but to acknowledge its essential undefeatability. You can't not think. You can't not act. The TTC is then painted as a kind of militant, mystical deconstructionist ritual danced out on the altar of the Alien God, petitioning the beyond for more traces, sparksof itself.... each human souls, shadows, inklings of the Pattern we will begin to dance, but never put to speech, though we tell only its story.

'Exout'.... seemed a necessary coinage, glomming together Latin 'ex' (out of) and English 'out'.... with maybe a hint of... exile, exscription crossing out, which seems to be something one wants to do with one's attempts to approach or characterize what one cannot.

I'm sure there is something I missed here, in this text, by saying too much, but that was the particular error which seemed attractive to me at the moment.

4.

Es, Other, ἄπειρον, ∅, it

The Origo is an emissive emptiness

However, in its deixis, there is no ambiguity

Γνῶσις comprises no words,

But in its utterance, it is a seamless textile of perfectly tau(ght)t strings

The seamless One has no borders,

But in its exitus, it fits perfectly within all of its parts

It has been said of it that it 'is' deep, all-containing, unplumbable, vast, תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ.....

It would seem only reasonable to assume it to be the origin of all beings and the fields from which they emerge,

but,

Withheld in its acuity,

Loosened with in its entanglement

Softened in its blinding splendour

Its identity is both like and unlike that of the byte or the ἀτόμων with the world.

It is present in its hiddenness, and hidden in presence.

Obscured in its indication, and indicated by its obscurity

Clarified in its erasure, and erased completely by being made clear,

I do not know how I would refer to its history,

being It exout any generation or genesis.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

" The Mind is not talking to us but by means of us. Its narrative passes through us and its sorrow infuses us irrationally. "

~~ Philip K. Dick

I wanted to append this quote, since it speaks to me of the orientation of the TTC to philosophy. We do not grasp the Tao, in essence, that is entirely the wrong formulation. We are grasped, spoken, uttered ourselves. That is the way on which we are set, and this says something to the fractaline Gnostic intersection therewith. One learns the play by acting it out, and in that it is also a Working on the self.

Yes, and. It is yet unwritten.

The main character is the collected and divided Subject, perhaps divine. They may or may not be a schizmogenic democracy performing in the mirror which is each of our own alterior and other selves.

[pashterlengkap]

Donald Trump’s ties with conservative evangelicals are far stronger now than they were in 2020

Donald Trump has always depended upon conservative evangelicals as his base support. They overcame their concerns about him in 2016, thanks in part to the reassuring presence of fellow believer Mike Pence on the ballot. Trump’s Supreme Court appointments made him a hero for the religious right in 2020. But now the relationship between the convicted felon and the self-proclaimed moralists has moved to a new and even more frightening level. Buoyed by the fall of Roe v. Wade, conservative evangelicals see a chance to enforce their Christian nationalism ideals on the country. And Trump is perfectly happy to give them every opportunity to do so. Related Meet the trans folk who found acceptance after embracing their surgery scars Scars from gender-affirming surgeries are a mark of self love. Let your scars be a permanent reminder to love yourself and your identity. The latest sign was Trump’s appearance last weekend at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “2024 Road to Majority” conference. The meeting is the largest political gathering of the religious right, with Republican leaders showing up to give speeches as homage to those in attendance. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today The star attraction was the former president. Trump spoke for an hour in a speech that mainstream media described as “rambling,” a euphemism for what looked like an audition for a memory care unit. The main point of Trump’s remarks – besides the detours into “did he really say that?” territory – is that he will bend over backwards to give conservative Christians what they want. To prove it, he endorsed the Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, a clear violation of church-and-state separation. “I mean, has anybody read this incredible stuff? It’s just incredible,” Trump said. “They don’t want it to go up. It’s a crazy world.” That was just the tip of the iceberg. Trump promised to “aggressively” protect Christians – or at least certain Christians – if he is re-elected. “We will protect Christians in our schools, in our military, in our government, in our workplaces, in our hospitals, and in our public square,” he told the crowd. In doing so, Trump cast himself as not merely the religious right’s warrior but as a martyr to the cause. He said he had “stood up to the communists, Marxists, and fascists to defend religious liberty like no other president has ever done.” “If I took this shirt off, you’d see a beautiful, beautiful person. But you’d see wounds all over, all over me, I’ve taken a lot of wounds,” Trump said. “In the end, they’re not after me, they’re after you,” Trump added. “I just happen to be, very proudly, standing in their way.” While much of the media focused on Trump not giving the attendees everything they wanted on abortion, the fact is there is much more wiggle room to Trump’s position than people give him credit for. Trump hasn’t come out in favor of a national ban, not on any philosophical grounds, but because he has no foundational principles besides his own self-interest. His only concern is turning off voters by going too far. “You have to go with your heart, but you have to also remember, you have to get elected,” Trump told the crowd. He said he supported exceptions for rape and incest and when a mother’s life is at risk. At the same time, however, Trump called out all six conservative Supreme Court justices by name, thanking them for “the wisdom and the courage they showed” in overturning a woman’s right to choose. The religious right has a list of specific goals for a second Trump term. They are dramatically more radical than those from the first Trump administration. There are, of course, the usual attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, including banning medical care for trans youth and creating even more exceptions for non-discrimination measures. But all of… http://dlvr.it/T8jhb6

[denimbex1986]

'The 20th century was known for some colossal figures in the sciences. One such figure is currently receiving a surge of interest: physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. That’s because of a major new film by Christopher Nolan. The film has opened old debates about Oppenheimer’s communist sympathies as well as the enduring question of the morality of making let alone using atomic weapons.

But for me, the Oppenheimer film brings back memories of Edward Teller, an Oppenheimer nemesis noted in the movie, and likewise a father of the bomb: the hydrogen bomb, the hell-bomb, the super-bomb. It was this summer 20 years ago that I had a fascinating encounter with Teller — on his deathbed.

It was July 15, 2003. I had come to interview Teller for research I was doing on Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. Teller had been a major influence on Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

When I arrived at Teller’s house in Palo Alto, Calif., I was shocked at the total lack of security around this man who had invented history’s most powerful weapon. I was even more shocked at his condition. I had come upon a dying man.

The 95-year-old was almost completely horizontal in a light blue recliner. He struggled to talk and even breathe normally. A bunch of books sat nearby. The closest one, which Teller was reading, was “Men Who Play God: The Story of the Hydrogen Bomb,” by Norman Ross, which fittingly, focused on men like Edward Teller. Above all, it was about Teller, being the father of the hydrogen bomb. And yet, Teller was hardly one to assume he was playing God because, given that he had lingering questions about the mere existence of God, which I was about to find out.

Amid a long discussion with Teller, which ranged from Ronald Reagan to Reykjavik, one subject kept returning: religion. Teller told me emphatically: “I strongly believe that I should not talk about things I don’t understand.” And yet, it was the subject that kept coming back up. It was the elephant in the living room.

So many topics of discussion prompted philosophical-celestial reflections. At one point, we somehow ended up talking about the complexity of a strand of DNA, which led to a dialogue about a possible Designer. When I later talked to Teller’s assistant, I told her about our religious probes, and alas, how they seemed to consistently hit a dead end. “He’s keeping it to himself,” she agreed. Until literally the very end.

That end came just a few weeks later, when Edward Teller died Sept. 9, 2003. To my knowledge, I was the last person to interview him.

There’s much I’ve reflected upon since that interview with Teller 20 years ago, but the one thing that keeps coming back to me is that human beings really are hardwired for God. Teller sensed it. Certainly in those final days.

Ultimately, this man who once unlocked the power of the universe in the atom — this man of whom it was alleged “played God” with the hydrogen bomb — laid alone in his bed waiting to one day meet his maker. It is the ultimate fate of each of us. And at some point, we will all know and understand. Including Edward Teller.'

[utilitycaster]

What are your honest, unfiltered thoughts about everything going on currently with this “are the gods really good and necessary” line of thought the latest cr episode has been tackling, both in terms of your feelings on the subject in general and also how it’s being portrayed/discussed.

I don't agree with the idea of gods using mortals as batteries - I don't actually think we have any official canonical support that the prime deities (or, presumably, betrayer gods) do need worship to sustain them - but in terms of a conversation being had I don't actually mind it because the general attitude among Bells Hells and among Deanna and FRIDA is "does it really matter how important the gods are? Actively unleashing them seems like a cataclysmically bad idea." It's actually really interesting to me that this is the focus! A lot of D&D in which there are divine entities explores religion and faith in a scenario where the existence of gods is unquestionable. This is instead exploring whether it's legitimate to destroy something simply for not being important to you personally.

I'd also add that what Deanna is saying and how she's acting are not always in sync - which to be clear I believe to be a deliberate choice from Aabria in her portrayal. Like, I think it's obvious that Deanna has complicated feelings towards the Dawnfather, but that's the key - there are positive and negative feelings, and when she says "batteries" there is a symbiosis here, not a simple "they're using us and controlling us".

Just to give a brief overview of where I am personally coming from, like, IRL, philosophically: I'm Jewish, and my personal religious practice is heavily focused far more on what one does rather than what one believes, which I feel fits very well with Bells Hells. The Yom Kippur service, which one reads while fasting and spending a day in prayer, actively includes a reading (from Isaiah) that boils down to "It's cool that you're fasting right now but if, tomorrow, you go back to engaging actively in systems of oppression that you have the power to fight against, this was all meaningless and performative."

This covers two things I feel very strongly about religion and morality: First, actions speak way louder than words and religious observance should serve as a reminder of what you need to be doing during the rest of your life, ie, you can't show up at your place of worship with an attitude of "ok cool gonna cleanse my soul and then it's ALLLLLL fixed and I can go back to kicking puppies". Religious services, should you choose to attend them, are more about the meditative process of setting one's intent via symbolic rituals, but really, it matters way more that you are not a fucking dickhead in the rest of your life. And second, you, as a mortal finite being who is not a god have the power to throw off these systems of oppression, because in a world where divine entities step in constantly, we as mortals do simply become mindless puppets, and that would suck.

Which I should note also means that one's issues with an organized religion must be taken up with the mortal leaders of that institution. I mean, in our real world, if you are an atheist, I think that's a completely valid belief, but also, in the end, it does not matter if or if not there is any cosmic entity or higher power. If you're an edgy FACTS NOT FEELINGS neckbeard 4chan atheist bigot, or a hard-right evangelical bigot? the bigotry is what matters. The existence of deities is a moot point. What people are being shitty? How do you stop them? You are welcome to overlay religion if it helps or avoid it if it doesn't. Like, one last note re: Jewishness, which is that there's a parable that a guy once said "I will convert to Judaism if you can teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot," and the first rabbi he asks scoffs and sends him off, and the second tells him the golden rule ("that which is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor") and it's fucking great not just because it's a good moral principle, but because it also removes religion from the equation. If this guy were scamming you? You've given him some solid advice at no cost to yourself that requires no adherence to any religion. If he were in earnest? You met his conditions.

Another relevant way to put this: The oft-used but really good Brennan quote! " 'On the level of individuals and civilizations, personality predates ideology.' Meaning that before you were a fascist, you were a bully and an asshole." Replace fascist with hateful religious right-winger; it's not about god, it's about a system that lets you feel justified in hating other people for who they are or like you're getting a reward for not doing stuff you weren't interested in anyway.

So uh, getting back to CR, it's interesting in that it's managed to recreate the real-world argument in D&D. I happen to prefer stories in which characters are actively engaging with deities in a positive manner, as we've seen with say, Pike, or Vax, or Fjord, or Caduceus, or Jester, or Yasha. However, in the end, all the theological arguments are purely academic. The point is that no one's controlling the Vanguard - Tuldus's quarrel is with his abusive family, not their gods. Ludinus says he's mad the gods didn't step in to stop the Calamity...but in many ways the Calamity happened because the gods let the people have free rein. If the gods stop everything bad from happening, how far do they go? Sure, stop the Calamity. Do they stop every individual accidental death? Do they stop all wars? What happens if they slip up? Can they slip up? It's an inherently contradictory spiral if you start getting into this - are you saying the gods are perfect and infallible and choose not to use this, in which case, wouldn't that make them fallible? If the gods are actually powerful enough to constantly control you, why are you openly talking about their destruction and Kord hasn't vaporized you with a bolt from the blue?

And you can tell this because the only arguments that matter in the end are people like Orym and Ashton saying "I don't fucking know about the gods, but these guys are murdering innocents, which seems really bad." Like, sure, I'd like to see some more for lack of a better term traditional clerics or paladins pop up, or someone with a high religion score who can talk through the theology, but it's kind of nice to have a story where most people are like "I can take or leave the gods, but actively unleashing an even more powerful entity to kill them seems dumb and unnecessary" and I think that argument is ultimately more successful than a head-on discussion of the role of the gods.

[flickeringart]

Jupiter in aspect (brief overview)

Sun-Jupiter: Generous, optimistic, benevolent, getting into trouble, having a lot of help, believers in the good and the bountiful, expansive, have trust in the goodness of people, wise, will attempt to live in honor of one’s highest potential, encouraging, inspiring, can be impulsive and irresponsible depending on the signs involved, making promises that one can’t keep, insightful, consistent positive attitude, over-extended, adventurous, naïve, loud and exuberant, always up for a good time, allowing rather than controlling, philosophically inclined, religious, spiritual seeker, appreciative of variety, easy-going, indulgent, reaching, believing, getting a lot of opportunities, enjoying an easy life, refusing to absorb negative energy, seeing the good in people.

This configuration might indicate a father figure who had trust and good faith in life. He could’ve been interested in foreign cultures, traveling, religion, philosophy, or simply enjoying life to the fullest, taking chances and reaching toward the highest potential. He could also have been a promiscuous figure, unfaithful and non-committal, living of off other people’s efforts and enjoying food and drink a little bit too much.

Examples: Kanye West, Adele, Mick Jagger, Robbie Williams, Kylie Jenner, Khloe Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, Harry Styles, Ariana Grande, Frank Sinatra.

Moon-Jupiter: Exaggerated emotions, dramatizing feelings and experiences, over-estimating one’s needs, might’ve grown up in a big family/with a big friend circle, wanting life to play out like a movie, easily excitable, good-natured, open-hearted, inclusive, preaching and lecturing, emphasizing the inner/subjective experience, over-sharing, attention seeking, making a big deal out of things, might dwell on how emotions are affected by the political-religious-philosophical climate of the times, enjoys eating and drinking, neglectful of one’s health in favor of having a good time, comfortable living, having access to a lot of resources, laid-back, having an easy time receiving good things, lazy, all play no work, taking things for granted, carefree.

This configuration might indicate a mother/maternal influence who had big dreams and a generous disposition, a big personality, prone to excess, uplifting but somewhat unreliable, likely to make a big deal out of things, wanting to share pieces of wisdom, encouraging, philosophical, religious, contemplative, riding on inflated confidence, a little bit careless but willing to take chances, over the top caretaking or grand gestures could be common.

Examples: Whitney Houston, Alfred Hitchcock, Usain Bolt, Tom Petty, Kim Kardashian, Bruno Mars, James Spader, Emily Brontë, Johnny Depp, Sandra Bullock, Timothée Chalamet.

Mercury-Jupiter: Explorative mental capacity, a curiosity for a wide variety of subjects, interested in many different things, unwilling to make too many distinctions, associative thinking, making generalizations, never wanting to be too specific, head up in the clouds, desiring a lot of stimulation, taking on big intellectual projects, focused on expanding the mind, making a point out of not becoming too bogged down in the details, potentially great storytellers, students of scripture/ philosophy and anything under the sun, an ability to use the mind intuitively – to not take things too literally, good at deciphering the meaning of symbolic content, lengthy way of describing things, entertaining, humorous.

As Mercury has to do with siblings, friends, neighbors and the extended family it’s possible that the person has many contacts all over the place and as a result having access to a lot of different perspectives and from a variety of different cultures and sources.

Examples: Jim Carrey, Woody Allen, Carl Sagan, Dean Martin, Robert Redford, John Travolta, Hugh Grant, Bruce Sprinsteen, Wendy Williams.

Venus-Jupiter: Enthusiastic in love, a taste for richness, grand romantic gestures, a big appetite, “more is always better”, too much is better than too little (with everything), generous to a fault, unable to say no, indulgent, spreading joy, encouraging and supporting people, falling in love with someone from far away, might indicate a love of history/knowledge and art/design, someone who's popular and funny, encouraging, seeking pleasure, can’t get enough, a big flirt, willing to take risks/trust in the possibility of romance, a player personality, kind and gracious, accepting and allowing, interested in exploring all facets of romance/love/relationships, giving gifts, attracting good fortune, making a lot of money, spending a lot of money, gambling, testing one’s luck.

Since Venus has to do with lovers, partners and friends it’s possible that the native has a lot of contacts all over the place, has the benefit of marrying into greater wealth (material or otherwise), is well-liked by people all over the place, has an easy time in relationships and surrounds themselves with a supportive (perhaps religious/spiritual) community.

Examples: Jennifer Lawrence, Scarlett Johansson, Demi Lovato, Victoria Beckham, Matthew McConaughey, Miley Cyrus, Lana Del Rey, Monica Belucci, Andrew Garfield.

Mars-Jupiter: Big movements, an abundance of energy, being active and going places, goal oriented, excitable, taking the initiative to learn, showing up everywhere, not wanting to miss out on anything, restless, loud, obnoxious, cocky, aggressively promoting a vision or an ideal, believing in oneself, taking strides, jumping and hoping for the best, acting without taking precautions, over-estimating one’s ability, a religious/spiritual crusader, a “Don Juan” character, living for the conquest, seeking inspiration, motivating, energetic, physically robust, believing that anything is possible, picking fights for fun, feeling young, traveling far, wanting to explore things in a very physical sense, being a leader, advocating for a particular belief, insisting on taking things as far as they can go, “making it big”, playing the hero.

Mars has to do with antagonistic, violent and immediate influences of the environment, like threats, enemies and competitors. This aspect could potentially imply having to expand one’s mind relative to how one can protect oneself, how to face resistance effectively and how to outmaneuver the threats to one’s own success. The native might come up against quite knowledgeable and experienced forces.

Examples: Elizabeth II, Jon Bon Jovi, Ozzy Osbourne, Martin Luther, Richard Nixon, Mahatma Ghandi, Bruce Lee, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Gere, Mao Zedong.

---

Read the whole post by subscribing to Patreon!

[femsolid]

Sometimes I think radfems and feminists in general put too much focus on the past in certain instances. One example is the "holy mother goddess" thing. That's fine to speculate about but some women aren't religious and will find it off-putting. It's fine to look into past to study and understand women's achievements and history, but "Mother Goddess" thing feels very religious and Radical feminism is about Material reality. Some radfems underestimate conservative propaganda.

I agree. I lost a few friends over this, believe it or not.

See I had a group of radical feminist friends. We were even discussing serious separatist projects together, we looked into buying land etc. Then some spiritual women joined in, one in particular, let's call her Claire, a philosopher, deep into the woowoo pseudoscience. Like most philosophers, she would ponder for hours about pointless things instead of actually doing anything. Everyone thought she sounded smart enough. Except for me who was rolling my eyes and making sarcastics comments in the background. So Claire started avoiding me and I started avoiding Claire. No problemo. Except that while I was avoiding her she was spreading the woowoo. Before I knew it, the conversations had become entirely focused on the "sacred womb", the "true nature of women", "women think through their uterus" and other crap like that. They were proud to be bioessentialists at this point. I was bewildered. This was so far removed from our initial community.

When I asked for evidence regarding any of their claims they replied that men control science therefore science is irrelevant. They promoted motherhood as the reason for women's existence. I asked if being childfree made me a failed woman and if lesbianism was unnatural. They said I was being mean to the new guru Claire. Any resistance to these spiritual ideas started to be met with utter contempt. They said I was thinking like a man and denying my true nature you see. I just wasn't as enlightened as they were, with my stupid useless radical feminism. Of course the main women promoting holy motherhood were mothers themselves. Claire would say ridiculous unscientific nonsense every day and get praised for it.

And eventually they all became anti-feminists, they said feminism was about denying women's true essence, our real uterus driven instincts. Talks of the holy mother goddess were becoming the norm. Radical feminist thinking was not welcomed anymore, especially not my proclivities for scientific inquiry and materialism. And what a waste of time... All they did was complain about feminists while doing nothing at all themselves. The ambiance was extremely toxic. So when women were coming to us in search of feminism they were receiving agressive pseudoscience and spiritual anti-feminism instead. And that's when I truly became alarmed.

My "true nature" is confrontational it seems. If I have a problem with someone, I'd rather talk it out, so we can solve it you know? So I ended up confronting them all. Especially the one woman who was becoming like a cult leader. I told Claire this was all misogynistic and spiritual nonsense, in more words than that. She said I had dicks in my brain and that I had unresolved issues with my mother that I needed to take care of that was the source of my animosity. Charming. I told them all that they had become a religion and that I was leaving. And so I did. And then three other women who had witnessed the confrontation contacted me afterwards to tell me they were leaving too, for the same reasons. And so they did.

The irony is that I'm actually very interested in women's history, female figures in mythology, women's cultural impact. I've loved learning about ancient religions and their goddesses creating the world (and humans from clay! The bible is just bad plagiarism btw). I'm interested in many things. And even in my aversion for "spirituality" I don't mind the women who are into that, because for the most part it's harmless and it's just women trying to have a common culture and feel powerful. I kinda like it actually, I like the art they make, the sisterhood they feel, good for them, as long as they stay grounded in reality. Men have erased us from history and culture, it's nice to be reminded that we have existed and mattered. I also understand the need to reclaim and celebrate our bodies. It's not the problem at all.

Just beware of the pipeline to actual cults my friends... I've experienced it. No magic crystals and sanctified menstrual blood will elevate you towards liberation... only activism will. You need to fight not to pray.

[mikrokosmos]

Hi! Are there any good books or texts you would recommend to someone who want to deepen their musical analysis abilities?

(I love your blog and the descriptions accompanying the pieces! I find them incredibly interesting and of great help to get a better understanding of what lies behind a composition. They add plenty to the listening experience so... Thank you for sharing your knowledge on here! 🙂)

Thanks for reading my posts! :D I was thinking about how I miss updating this blog more often...work has been taking up most of my energy.

A lot of my musical reading was either library books, or more often reading up about music online or watching video essays/lectures/listening to podcasts. I have a stack of books in my personal library, here are my favorites that helped me understand more about music:

Alex Ross - The Rest is Noise. This is a popular choice, Ross is a music critic for The New Yorker, and this book is a set of essays covering music through the 20th century. He focuses on the political, cultural, and technological events that inspired composers. It's a broad overview of styles. I remember reading it in college when it introduced me to Steve Reich

Alex Ross - Listen to This. Also has essays on popular music, but here are the classical topics he covers: The descending bass-line, chaconnes, and 'lameno' style voice writing. Mozart's Don Giovanni. Schubert. John Luther Adams. Verdi and Opera in our culture. John Cage. Late Brahms.

Prentice Hall History of Music Series - Various. I bought these at a library sale; Baroque Music (Claude V. Palisca), Music in the Classic Period (Reinhard G. Pauly), Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music (Rey M. Longyear), and Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction (Eric Salzman). Downside is that this set is older, so the 20th century book only covers up to early 1960s. But each volume is pretty short so it is a helpful overview

Manyard Solomon - Mozart, A Life. I'm still reading this because it's very long, but it is an extensive biography on Mozart that also helps to explain the cultural, political, and philosophic world that Mozart was living in. It also has a great defense against the claim that Mozart put no effort into his music.

Charles Rosen - The Classical Style. Talked about music of the late 18th century, most emphasis going on Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. It can be dense and academic at times, but helped me learn more about aesthetics

Charles Rosen - The Romantic Generation. Even longer and more academic than the Classical Style, this book focuses on the major Romantic composers of the 1830s; Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Romantic Opera. Probably my favorite book because of how much history is in it. Talks about a new view of history that developed after new theories in geology changed our perspective on time, which in turn changed how the Romantics thought of musical time. It talked about these composers styles, how they used the sounds of instruments as being what drives the music, how Bach influenced them all growing up, how Romantic Opera is simultaneously the greatest art genre and kitschy garbage, how post-Enlightenment religion was hyper-personalized to the point of making art that tries to create a spiritual atmosphere without being 'religious', and Schumann's illusions of musical eternity

Paul Roberts - Images, The Piano Music of Claude Debussy - Another favorite, talks about the cultural world of turn of the century Paris, and all the musical and artistic influences that went into Debussy's piano works; Impressionism, Symbolism, Japanese visual art, Baudelaire's poetry, Watteau's paintings, Javanese gamelan music, and others

Haruki Murakami - Absolutely on Music, Conversations with Seiji Ozawa. A lot of great insight from both Murakami and Ozawa, they talk about composers, artists, specific performances (like Glenn Gould's radically slow tempo for Brahms' concerto), some industry talk, and attitudes on being Japanese while performing Western art.

Richard Taruskin - Music in the Late 20th Century - I've been warned that this author has a negative bias toward some of the composers and styles he talks about, but it helped me understand Webern inspired Serialism a lot better.

Tim Rutherford-Johnson - Music After the Fall. Currently reading this one, it's also academic and somewhat dense at times, but it's about contemporary music since 1989 (published in 2017) which I'll admit I don't know a lot about contemporary classical music. Trying to rectify that. So far I'm very fascinated by the way the recording industry, and the shift toward music listening as a personal and mobile activity, as changed how we think of music in a way so so so different from pre-industrial humans.

Nicolas Slominsky - Lexicon of Musical Invective, Critical Assaults on Composers since Beethoven's Time. Ending with a fun book, it is a collection of negative press from music-criticism history. The edition I have has an intro from Peter Schickele (PDQ Bach) which is an enlightening essay on how we react to new art. I think it's interesting to see the minority opinion of a lot of the greats. And sometimes it is funny to see how other cultures perceived music that we love today. Here is a quote with the composer's name cut out:

"In search of ear-rending dissonances, torturous transitions, sharp modulations, repugnant contortions of melody and rhythm, [X] is altogether indefatigable. All that one can chance upon, is here brought forward to produce the effect of bizarre originality, especially the strangest tonalities, the most unnatural chord positions, the most preposterous combinations in regard to fingering..."

This is a criticism of Chopin by the way. "Bizarre", "strange" tonality, "unnatural" chord positions...

[cancerjupiter]

ascendant signs and projections

aries rising

they project themselves with intense energy and with primal power. their decisiveness enables them to act on their ideas the minute they are formed. arians do not waste time. they are competitive and have the urge to excel in everything they do. they must continually prove themselves to themselves through action. 

with libra on the descendant, often arians marry without considering the major factors involved; and divorce is a likely result. they tend to choose gentle and vulnerable marriage partners. their mates are usually skilled in public relations and intent on presenting a good image to the world.

taurus rising

taureans can express their potential for power through their productivity, financial dealings, and structuring material and resources. they love the good things of life and often create beauty in some form. 

with scorpio on the descendant, they are attracted to power and status. they seek energetic partners, those who excel in creative expression and the power to accomplish. however, they must guard against jealousy, combativeness, and possessiveness with partners. there is often a need for spiritual detachment.

gemini rising

geminis are original and creative thinkers and tend to dominate their circles intellectually. they also have the power to visualize their ideas and express them scientifically. since they tend to identify themselves with their ideas, their most dynamic form of expression is intellectual. 

with sagittarius on the descendant, geminis tend to emphasize ethical, religious, and philosophical values when choosing personal relationships. they are usually lucky in marriage (jupiter ruled 7th house) and have good relations with the public.

cancer rising

cancers tend to be emotionally volatile. they expend a great deal of energy through their feelings and are romantic and dramatic in their emotional expressions. their emotions are supported by their will, however. they identify with their families and familiar concerns.

with capricorn on the descendant, there is a tendency to be cautious and reserved in forming partnerships and to be shy in public relations. since large crowds frighten them, cancers do not like to remain in a crowd for very long. they are cautious in marriage. they tend to marry late in life and sometimes for status, or because it’s the “right” thing to do. 

leo rising

while leos project themselves with dignity, energy and will, they are at times abrupt and overbearing. they are determined to express themselves wherever they see fit, and they will sometimes enter into and dominate a situation without being invited. 

with aquarius on the descendant, in partnerships leos like to be free. they are humanitarian in public relations and enjoy creating the image of altruism. they have an instinct to centralize things in partnerships; and when they are married they want to know, for no rational reason, the whereabouts and activities of their partner. go figure.

virgo rising

virgos' mental acuteness is projected in practical affairs. they are systematic and well-organized in developing ideas and executing them. no detail is too small for them to notice or explain; and their success is due to the careful attention to fine points and details overlooked by others. perfection is virgos' goal, and there are no flaws in what they do. quality often supersedes quantity.

with pisces on the descendant, partners are often the avenue by which the natives expand into new fields; these partners enhance virgos' human understanding and emotional involvement. virgos attract people who are not nearly so well organized as they are. they must watch out for a possible savior complex, since they might see their partner as a project they won’t quit until they get them right. 

libra rising

libras project their individuality through co-operation with other people; their personalities must be focused on and mirrored in those with whom they co-operate. their actions express beauty and harmony, along with discipline, sternness, and a strong sense of justice. their strongest virtue is their ability to see any matter from the viewpoint of the people with whom they are dealing. libras do not like to be alone; they feel lost when they are forced to rely entirely on themselves. 

with aries on the descendant, libras can be aggresssive in order to gain the respect and attention of others. they also have the power to motivate other people into action without even being aware of it. their partners must understand that if they want peace they must maintain a high activity level and work hard.

scorpio rising 

scorpios project themselves with energy and willpower, and are willing to stake their lives to accomplish their aims. it’s futile to attempt to convince them that something cannot be done, since xcorpios will do it or die trying. they fortify their objectives with a tremendous, fixed, emotional intensity. they have the ability to draw on hidden resources of power to attain their ends. 

with taurus on the descendant, scorpios attract marriage partners who have wealth and/or stability to offer. they are co-operative in partnerships but expect some practical gain as a result. they spend money on lovely things that have quality. they also spend money on their partners and take great pride in the fact that they like their gifts.

sagittarius rising

sagittarians project themselves with optimism. their ambitions are geared towards large-scale goals. they appear to be friendly, interested, and jovial. however, they have a tendency to take things for granted and to think solely in terms of their own affairs and frames of reference. their power comes from an ability to influence other people to subscribe to a system of thinking that is arranged to provide them with all the advantages. nevertheless, the sagittarians' optimism is a source of inspiration to anyone with whom they have contact. 

with gemini on the descendant, frequently there is more than one marriage or partnership, since they often have their eyes on greener fields. even though sagittarians are primarily loners, they attract people who are intelligent and versatile, and who can aid them in practical ways. they are astute and intelligent in public relations. however, they often prefer that their partners represent them and their ideas instead.

capricorn rising

discipline, systematic endeavor, hard work, and patience are capricorns' projected image. everything they do has a purpose, and is designed to achieve some definite practical end. capricorns are serious, austere, somewhat melancholy, and reserved (this is not considering other aspects of the chart). 

with cancer on the descendant, they are strongly attached emotionally to their significant others. however, the fact that their partners also are often emotionally dependent on them presents problems at times. capricorns are, moreover, emotional about their relations with the public and with dear friends whom they regard as members of their family.     

aquarius rising

aquarians’ projections are original, creative, independent, wishing to make their own unique contribution to the common good. they are at the same time fun-loving, people-oriented, and friendly in an impersonal way. they are modest and do not like to call undue attention to themselves. they would rather be loved than admired. they find their source of power in group activity within a close circle of friends. 

with leo on the descendant, marriage and business partners who are powerful and well-established are attracted to aquarians and occasionally dominate them. aquarians are very independent, however, and this domination is (hopefully) never carried to the point of repression. the marriage partners are generally warm and loving and have their own place in the sun.

pisces rising

pisceans project themselves as sympathetic, adaptable, ethereal, and visionary. their achievements are the result of their sensitivity to the subtle currents of their surroundings. their mystical insight allows them to penetrate the subtleties of human nature. they usually have artistic and musical ability.

with virgo on the descendant, some with this configuration will be so absorbed in spiritual ecstasies or daydreaming that they will want partners to manage the more trivial and mundane necessities of everyday life. sometimes the pisces will be so idealistic and romantic that unconsciously they are highly critical and condemning of others for not living up to their expectations. others derive their identity solely through rescuing or serving others (Savior Complex by Phoebe Bridgers lol).

[girl4music]

Season 4 of Killing Eve and the odd, bizarre, weird choice to involve religion when it came to Villanelle’s character

I can’t stand religious psychobabble. That’s what Season 4 of Killing Eve felt like to me. With the whole Jesus Christ appearing as Villanelle thing and her suddenly converting to Christianity. I mean as entertaining as it was to watch Jodie Comer portray that, what exactly was the point of it? What was it supposed to prove or teach us? I just have a problem with religion as a whole in TV art/entertainment when it’s not necessarily meant to be there. When there’s no rhyme or reason for it to be written in. Especially when it’s a very dogmatic view of religion that’s being permeated within the storyline. Like I don’t mind when a TV show brings up God and talks about it seriously or tries to ask and answer questions about the nature of everything. That’s always an interesting discussion ‘cause it’s always one I have in my own head. But it’s when they move into specifics when it bothers me because my personal view of God isn’t one that is tied to religion or spirituality. It’s not rigid or rigorous. I believe in God. Of course I do. I also believe all people believe in God in some way or another whether they realize it or not. To me God is not the way Christianity, or any actual religion, teaches it. God is the way nature shows us it. Or put simply - God is the way of nature. Or just the way of everything. Which means God is everything and the creator of everything at the same time. That makes more sense to me and is a more logical understanding and plausible existing of God than any religion can teach. And so, for me, works of art/entertainment have to be very careful with how they involve the concept of God in their storytelling. And I feel like Season 4 of Killing Eve was more about converting than understanding. It was clear to me that the show runner; Laura Neal, is a devout Christian that couldn’t keep her beliefs and views out of the writing. Like I said: psychobabble. The choice to focus more on that than on the story itself was an odd one. It was bizarre how she kept writing in philosophical rhetoric into the scenes where it was more natural to not to. It was so out of place and just unnecessary. It didn’t make sense for Villanelle especially given she clearly had a more atheistic or agnostic outlook on things pertaining to religion/spirituality/philosophy. Maybe it would have made some sense with Eve but not Villanelle. Villanelle didn’t know what she believed in. The way she was played by Comer gave off a very strong “I don’t give fuck about anything” vibe. And she didn’t. She didn’t care about anything, really. She was so chaotic and impulsive and that was part of her charm. It’s part of what viewers find appealing about her as a character. That she was unpredictable and could fluctuate any one way other another at any point. And I guess in that sense - you could say her finding Jesus was appropriate. She was just trying it out to see how it fit in with her tumultuous lifestyle. The woman possessed so much passion but had nothing really to direct it at. Which is really quite sad. I would say that’s the only way her turning to Jesus made any sense at all within the storytelling of her character: her values and motivations were there but weren’t… Organised? Thought out? Coherent? I don’t know. She was just very much someone who just went with it regardless whether she understood it or not. Sorta just went with the flow of what and how things happened. Which is always the best way to be in my opinion. Not really having any specific way of being. I’m very much like that too but my passion is always directed somewhere, on something or someone. And I guess for Villanelle the only good thing that she really ever truly focused on in her life, if anything, was Eve.