#it can represent knowledge and wisdom or it can represent flaws within a character and broken infallibility

[itsahotminuteinbetween]

me on tumblr: oh i just love flowers they're so pretty and i love the symbolism so much-

me in my head while creating bouquets: HOW MUCH PAIN AND ANGST CAN I PACK INTO A SINGULAR PLANT WHILE MAKING IT STILL SEEMINGLY INNOCENT

[thrashkink-coven]

A lot people underestimate eve

First wanna say, guys I’m so sorry. This ask is from JUNE 😭 If you need to ask me something pressing pls dm me because it takes me SO LONG to answer my dms. I am ashamed.

Anyways, yes I agree. Eve is very underestimated and shunned in witchy circles and I don’t agree with it. The “Be a Lilith, never an Eve” sentiment never made sense to me.

I consider Eve to be similar to Hera in the way that she considers the primary man in her life, Adam. While there is strength in the archetype of Lilith, the rebel, the self determined, the disobedient, there is also much power in the mother, the devoted and ultimate companion of man.

In a more magical/ occult setting Eve demands reverence of her partner and God before herself. She embodies the woman who willingly submits to her husband and authority, staying by his side always. For some more independent people that might seem like a flaw, but understanding how healthy leadership can empower you is one of the core aspects of Eve’s character. Eve was the woman who “chose” supposedly, but Adam was the man who bent to the will of his wife, knowing that even the word of God could be questioned when in conflict with the wishes of his wife. That is a love that exceeds faith.

I like to believe that Adam and Eve loved each other deeply, and that their action of eating the fruit of knowledge wasn’t a curse. God may have created the earth, but it was from Eve that humanity was born with knowledge and wisdom. That wisdom is the pillar of Luciferian gnosis, and it is not surprising to me that it was revealed by woman, as it was with Lilith. While Lucifer represents the light deep within the inner void, the feminine, Archangel Michael represents the sword of Heaven, the macro divine light and masculine. Both are essential elements on the Trees of Life and Death. I believe that Eve acts as a conduit for the communication between these spheres and mankind. She who was born from the rib of man, from the divine light of the macro, still saw the fruit of knowledge, of the forbidden gnosis, and chose it, I believe not out of ignorance but fascination. She saw something in Lucifer that existed within her. Yet still she remains by the side of her love, man. If not in Eden, if not in Heaven, then on Earth, to make a kingdom of our own. Woman is capable of doing such things.

I’m usually not so big on the divine feminine and masculine polarity stuff because it’s usually very bioessentialist and low key transphobic, but I believe the ideas of the light and dark feminine represented by Eve and Lilith is decently accurate here. In my gnosis Eve is the gentle mother of intellect, the one who made humanity with choice, yet still stayed loyal to the man she loves. That is an incredibly powerful thing.

[witchthewriter]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬

ᴹᵃˢᵗᵉʳˡᶤˢᵗ | ᴹᵃˢᵗᵉʳˡᶤˢᵗ ᴵᴵ

𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝑱𝒐𝒉𝒏 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒆

ENTJ

Slytherin

Lawful Good / Neutral Good

Capricorn Sun, Cancer Moon, Libra Rising

The Mentor: A wise and experienced character who guides and advises the hero, providing knowledge, skills, and guidance.

The Cunning Strategist: this character is known for their intelligence, sharp wit, and ability to manipulate situations to their advantage. They excel in political maneuvering and outsmarting their opponents.

The Fallen Hero: The Fallen Hero archetype represents a character who was once noble or heroic but has fallen from grace. They may have succumbed to their flaws, made tragic mistakes, or been corrupted by power. The Fallen Hero often grapples with guilt, redemption, or the desire to reclaim their former glory.

I will always see John as some type of leader. A leader of a wolf pack, or the King's Guard. Even a team of immortals. His task force would shift between each universe, but his station always stays the same. Price is the eldest and the leader of the men.

𝑺𝒊𝒎𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒚

INTJ

Ravenclaw

Neutral Good

Capricorn Sun, Scorpio Moon, Virgo Rising

The Guardian: A character who protects or defends a person, place, or idea, often serving as a source of strength and support. I can see him taking stray kids under his wing, and taking care of them.

The Knight: Is a character archetype in stories that embodies chivalry, honor, and a strong sense of duty. I think the strong sense of duty is most previlent here. I think he would even be the King's Champion.

The Rebel: A character who challenges authority, norms, or societal expectations, often seeking change or liberation. After seeing all the pain and suffering from the villagers/those less fortunate around him, he would snap. Wanting to help them.

Simon reminds me of both Geralt and Sandor Clegane. I think he would do well both within a group setting (with his teammates) or going out and doing something indepedently.

𝑱𝒐𝒉𝒏𝒏𝒚 𝑴𝒂𝒄𝑻𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒉

ESFP

Ravenclaw

Neutral Good / Chaotic Good

Aquarius Sun, Taurus Moon, Sagittarius Rising

The Trickster: A mischievous and cunning character who uses wit and deception to achieve their goals or disrupt the plans of others.

The Wise Fool: The Wise Fool archetype is a character who appears foolish or simple-minded on the surface but possesses unexpected wisdom or insight. They often use humor and unconventional behavior to challenge social norms, offer unique perspectives, or deliver profound truths.

The Loyal Companion: The Loyal Companion archetype is a faithful and devoted ally to the protagonist. They offer unwavering support, loyalty, and may serve as a moral compass or voice of reason.

I think Johnny is a bit of a difficult one, because he's both humorous - which can place him in the archetype of jokester & comedic relief. But maybe thast just makes him ... a wild card? Hence I think that' why people often give him the hybrid of werewolf.

𝑲𝒚𝒍𝒆 𝑮𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒌

ISFP

Gryffindor

Chaotic Good

Gemini Sun, Virgo Moon, Cancer Rising

The Romantic Interest: A character who forms a romantic connection or relationship with the protagonist, often adding depth and emotional tension to the story.

The Underdog: A character who faces significant challenges or disadvantages but ultimately triumphs against the odds.

The Sage: The Sage archetype represents wisdom, knowledge, and enlightenment. Sages are often revered for their insights and serve as a source of guidance or counsel for the protagonist.

God this man could fit into so many archetypes. He is just ... the perfect character. He can still have character development, however, he can still be put forward as a fully formed character. Romantic, loving, intelligent, mindful. He likes to sit back and learn about others. He's diligent in that way (hence the Underdog). I also think he's so wise. Especially for his age. And he feels the most magically inclined out of the rest of the men.

𝑲𝒐̈𝒏𝒊𝒈

ISTP

Hufflepuff

Chaotic Neutral

Aries Sun, Aquarius Moon, Leo Rising

The Outcast: A character who is marginalized or rejected by society, often possessing unique abilities, insights, or perspectives.

The Beast: A character or entity often found in stories that represents the primal, untamed, and instinctual aspects of human nature or the natural world.

The Antihero: is an archetype is a character who lacks traditional heroic qualities but still engages in heroic actions. They often possess flaws, ambiguity, or morally gray motivations.

I think there are many different ways of looking at Konig. Physically he's a powerhouse - tall asf, a tad arrogant (only because of his voicelines), somewhat dramatic. But some have written him as toxic, others like to baby girl him. I think he's a bit similar to Simon but there's more distrust about him.

What would really be great is the task force as the Knights of the Round table. I think I could see Simon or Johnny as Arthur and Kyle or Price as Merlin (obviously Kyle as a young version like the BBC Merlin).

I can also see them as pirates! I actually want to write a Pirate! Task Force. Obviously Price as the Captain, Quartermaster is Simon, Kyle as Bosun (or Boatswain) and Johnny as the Gunner (makes things go boom!)

If I had to give the men shapeshifting abilities (into one mythical animal) I would go: ▪️ John Price | 𝑫𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏 or 𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒖𝒓 ▪️ Simon Riley | 𝑮𝒓𝒊𝒎 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒑𝒆𝒓 or 𝑯𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 ▪️ Johnny MacTavish | 𝑾𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒘𝒐𝒍𝒇 or 𝑷𝒉𝒐𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒙 ▪️ Kyle Garrick | 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒏 or 𝑷𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒔 ▪️ Konig | 𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒌 or 𝑯𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒂

[none-shall-caricature-me]

On Kajii , Dazai , Ranpo & Sigma: BSD's Near - Lack of an All - Questioning Skeptist Who Is Portrayed Admirably

Trigger Warning - If you are disturbed by discussion of death, s*icide, and the above characters being flawed, don't read further !

==================

Kajii raised an important concept within a limited appearance - his search for when exactly death happens, what exactly constitutes and causes death, why it can't be reversed in many cases is a very important and central question in real life too. And his worship of science as necessary to understand the universe - though extreme - is sound at its core. He's always searching for a new discovery to break the monotony of conventional existence. Sure his methods are too cruel, he should restrain himself to more lawful experimentation. Sure he's a misogynist despite his knowledge.

But Kajii is atleast right in questioning all aspects of life, studying why death is so far inevitable, looking for new knowledge etc. People who just accept death, social norms and existing limited wisdom are stupid.

BSD did the all - skeptical scientist archetype dirty. Skeptics who question ingrained norms and 'facts' are very important people, the only ones who are responsible for progresses like modern medicine, increased lifespan, anti - cultism, anti - communalism, anti - dogmatism etc. So you say all experimentation on test subjects is bad ? Oh that means testing today's life - saving penicillin on WW2 soldiers back then was a completely bad thing. And that testing modern medicine on patients was completely wrong - even though because of that, the American who lived on average for 54 years a century ago now lives to be 78, significantly more if they can afford lifesaving interventions. And that many, many people don't die of common diseases anymore. Please. There's something called ethical or utilitarian experimentation.

The all - skeptical experimenter archetype on the 'good side' is Dazai. And he's a morally very flawed ex - murderer.

Asagiri should've given us SOMEONE who represented the crucially positive aspects of all - questioning experimentation. SOMEONE who mixed that and being a decent person.

Ranpo has not done any questioning on major issues like life and death, existentialism, nihilism till date. However he has questioned conventional morality - why should one die / risk death to save strangers who may or may not be good, worthy people ? Helping strangers is fine, but dying for them? Nah he'd rather live his life with his loved ones.

And yet Ranpo, the most moral all - questioning skeptist in BSD, is overshadowed by other characters, receives less gripping development, and isn't involved in BSD's core themes. Heck he doesn't spiritedly oppose the ADA do - gooders' suicidal do - gooderism.

Such a morally decent skeptist should've been a MAJOR character. On the good side, they'd implore the ADA to not throw their lives and mental health away just to be good people and saviours. On the bad sides, they'd oppose the Mafia's dog - eat - dog philosophy or Fyodor's concept of sin.

All the 'actually moral people' in BSD are bound by social norms of morality. Yosano blames herself for the soldiers' deaths. Why ? Because she is unable to dissect the logic of her complexes. She's fixated on being 'a good person who saves people' instead of having a realistic worldview. So she risks her life to save others instead of realising that it's necessary to live for oneself too.

Kunikida, Atsushi, Fukuzawa, Kyouka, Ango, Taneda, Oda etc - no need to elaborate, right?

Sigma shows some promise in the conventional morality aspect, though - he hates that his life is being risked by Dazai, who is using him as a pawn for the greater good. He just wants to have a secure, happy home where nobody will endanger or use him. Yet Sigma's a morally decent person.

(DON'T DARE TO REPOST / PLAGIARISE MY ORIGINAL WRITING)

[five-miles-over]

Why I Think ‘Gladiator’’s Commodus is a Better Character than Maximus

(Disclaimer: this schpiel is not intended to offend anyone, or any group of people. This is just a personal opinion I have based on the characters of the film, Gladiator. This has nothing to do with the historical Commodus. If you happen to disagree with some of the ideas here or might like to add on, I’m always happy to hear it. I welcome constructive criticism! Also SPOILER ALERT!!!)

So, without further ado...here are some of the reasons why I think Commodus is a better character than Maximus. 

Tag list: @beautifulyoungprospect @captain-el-writes @jokerflecker @cruellytearful @dreamingmaria @cherrymoon75​

(Note: When I talk about being a “strong character”, I don’t necessarily mean physical strength (I think I’ll leave that to your imaginations.) I think of strength as in emotional endurance and resilience combined with inherent good qualities present in both men. In addition, I factored in the ability to ‘win over’ the audience.)

1) Commodus is Self-Motivated

For this, I’d look no further than the scene in the first few moments of Gladiator, where Maximus checks on his camp and finds Commodus practicing with his sword. Aside from a little fanservice, I think this scene gives insight onto one of the ways Commodus acts upon his ambition. We (the audience) don’t see his father standing nearby or telling him to practice, thereby we can assume Commodus creates his own practice sessions. 

And by the looks of his fighting (I’ve only tried fencing for a few weeks so pardon my ignorance), Commodus looks like he is actually interested in perfecting his performance. He genuinely wants to be a good fighter, knowing how important it would be in the future.

Compared to Commodus, Maximus constantly needs other people to stir him into action - be it his wife and son, Proximo, or Lucilla and the senators. Even when he’s put in the gladiatorial area, Maximus initially refuses to fight and has to be goaded. This is possibly the consequence of being surrounded by people all his life - he constantly needs somebody else to be the catalyst for his actions. 

Commodus on the other hand knew he had to rely on none other but himself in order to get his things done. 

2) He knows himself....and he stands up for himself

“You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues. Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. As I read the list I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, father. Ambition, that can be a virtue when it drives us to excel. Resourcefulness. Courage. Perhaps not on the battlefield but there are many forms of courage. Devotion, to my family, to you. But none of my virtues were on your list.” 

For the record, ambition is a virtue when it drives us to excel. And in my opinion, it is a quality that Maximus lacks. I would rather trust a ruler like Commodus who had a clear vision of everything he wanted from his time on the throne, as opposed to someone simply thrusted the power of the empire with no intent (or possible idea) on how to rule. 

The ability of Commodus to advocate for his own virtues makes him look better than someone like Maximus, who constantly needs someone to remind him of his abilities. While someone could call Maximus ‘humble’ for refusing to brag about himself, it is Commodus’s ability to fight for his rights that enables him to fulfill his lifelong ambition.

And it is only when Maximus decides to stand up instead of letting someone else control his life that he is finally able to get his revenge. By deciding to win the crowd using his ‘mercy’ and ‘defiance of killing’, Maximus is able to get closer to winning over Commodus.

Moreover, Commodus’s ability to fight relentlessly to get what (he believes) he deserves is something desirable in today’s day and age. People like someone who knows what they have to offer, and isn’t afraid to use their talents to get what they want.

3) He appears to have learnt from his father on how not to raise a child

When it comes to being a father-figure, he appears to have learnt some of the things what not to do based on his experience with Marcus Aurelius. For proof of this, watch how he interacts with his nephew, Lucius. He plays with Lucius, reads to him, and encourages him. (”A gladiator? A gladiator fights only for the games. Wouldn’t you rather be a great Roman warrior like Julius Caesar?”) 

He never actively neglects him or berates him, like his father did. Most of all, once he finds out that Lucilla was conspiring against him, he made sure never to speak ill about her in front of Lucius. (Proof: the “busy little bee” monologue) Commodus wanted Lucius to have a mother he could respect, and he also knew when to separate politics from his family life. 

(Also, side note to Lucilla and the conspiring Senators: don’t you all know better than to get an innocent child involved in political schemes that could endanger him? All he had to do was shout, “Maximus, the savior of Rome!” in front of Commodus.)

4) He wasn’t afraid to call out the Senate on their bullsh*t

“I doubt many of the people eat so well as you, Gracchus. Or have so such splendid mistresses as you, Gaius.” 

Let me start with this: I admire sassiness in all its glory. And with Commodus particularly, I like the fact that he used witty retorts as a way to establish his authority in a room. It was the perfect, non-verbal method of saying ‘don’t mess with me’.

The Senate was elected to represent the Roman public, the majority of whom certainly did not fall into the aristocratic class of the Senators. 

Commodus actually had a point when he stated this flaw- throughout the film, the Senate never really did anything to help Rome. All they cared about was gossiping about Commodus’s spending habits and plotting his assassination. Honestly, I would’ve ordered the Senate to be temporarily dismissed until those guys got their act together. The Senators needed to realize that they were elected to represent the people, not their own individual interests. 

5) He shows instances of having excellent knowledge on being an emperor

For this point, I’m going to use the (deleted?) scene in which Commodus has two of his soldiers executed for lying about Maximus’s escape. 

Many viewers use this scene as a way to emphasize how cruel of an emperor Commodus seemed to be. On the contrary, Commodus shows what an emperor is supposed to do. 

To a ruler, lying is one of highest sins ever. Commodus himself explained it quite clearly in the film. “If they lie to me, they don’t respect me. If they don’t respect me, how can they ever love me?” The other point Commodus didn’t mention is, what’s the likelihood they won’t do it again? If a liar is allowed to go free, that makes the Emperor more vulnerable to further betrayal. So, to take no further chances, execution would be the correct punishment. 

On another note, public execution is by far one of the greatest ways of establishing authority by intimidation. It was the one way Commodus could tell the entire kingdom what happens to people who lie to the emperor. 

Most emperors, fictional and historical, would’ve seen this logic and followed suit during their own instances of betrayal.

Another instance is his organization of the gladiatorial games. His willingness to empathize with this particular aspect of the Roman people made him well liked among citizens - the very same citizens he is supposed to rule over as an Emperor.

6) Commodus had no allies throughout his reign...and still lived with his head held high

Being Marcus Aurelius’s only son may have gotten him the throne, but staying on the throne was all Commodus’s effort. 

This guy had no allies throughout the entire film, no ‘personal cheerleader’ to encourage him. In fact he had the total opposite. He’s been criticized and belittled all his life, while Maximus was praised all the time - even as an emperor, Commodus was belittled by every one of the Senators. They never took him seriously or even considered Commodus’s ideas to be good in any way. 

In fact, it would be plausible to say that Commodus was also his own enemy at times - fighting his conflicting urges, trying to create an identity for History to remember him by. (Should he be Commodus the Invincible or Commodus the Merciful?)

Nevertheless, he still keeps his head held high at the end of the day - never once do we see him attempt to give up the throne or drown himself in vices (like women, gambling, etc.) to try to escape from his duty as Emperor. He never lost his determination to be the best Emperor he could be. 

7) Your Hero is Only as Good as Your Villain Is

This is by far one of the most interesting parts about stories involving a Hero’s Journey archetype. Based on the types of things the villain metaphorically “throws” in the hero’s way, audience members get to see the hero’s adaptability and even the depth, or the extent, to which the hero is truly heroic (or not). 

(Side note: this gif is freaking adorable. He looks like a (big) little boy enjoying himself. I once watched this on loop for a solid five minutes.)

In Gladiator, Commodus is someone that many love to hate, but also many love to sympathize. Commodus’s desires to be a successful (and popular!) Emperor and a devoted son are things people see within themselves as well. This complex mixture results in a character that needed something as unforgivable as patricide or incestuous-looking actions in order for the filmmakers to tell the audience, “You are not supposed to be cheering for him. You’re supposed to cheer for the vanilla, goody-two-shoes guy.” 

However, with the amount of things Commodus does to seem relatable or even likable by the audience, Maximus is expected to do more or show more heroism and charisma to be really considered the ‘good guy’ of this story. It’s something that each and every viewer decides for themselves.

8) Commodus is more attractive than Maximus

Now, this is not a comparison between Joaquin Phoenix’s and Russel Crowe’s looks- I think “People” magazine can do a better job of this than me. 

(My ex-friends fawn over Maximus, I’ve found friends that think Commodus is more gorgeous...the feud never ends, folks.)

Commodus is definitely more charismatic, offering plenty more for the attentive audience member to dissect in his personality. His actions and emotions attract viewers into asking questions and even creating their own theories to understand what makes him tick. 

Maximus, on the other hand, offers nothing of that sort. His profile ends at just, “loves his family, wants to do the right thing.” This is the main reason I call his character ‘boring’ - he brings no element of mystery. With him, what you see is pretty much what you get.

So there you have it, everyone. This is why I personally appreciate Commodus as a character more than Maximus.  Sorry I made this super long; I really like analyzing movie characters. I hope you liked reading this and I would love to hear your opinions. Feel free to comment or message me directly.

[bk-lostintranslation]

Review: The Bhagavad Gita & Personal Choice

At once a down-to-earth narrative and a multifaceted spiritual drama, the Gita bears a concrete timelessness, with its magnetism lying in the fact that it is a work not of religious dogma, but of personal choice.

For years, the Bhagavad Gita has distinguished itself as a masterpiece of spiritual and philosophical scripture. Beautifully condensing Upanishadic knowledge, the Gita traverses a number of subjects – from duty as a means toward liberation (moksha), to the risks of losing oneself to worldly temptations, to the dichotomy between the lower self (jiva) and the ultimate, eternal Self (atman) – as well as detailing a vast spectrum of human desires, treating them not as one-dimensional abstractions, but as the complex combinatorial dilemmas they are in real life. Written in the style of bardic poems, the Gita bears a concrete timelessness, with its magnetism lying in the fact that it is a work not of religious dogma, but of personal choice. 

Recounting the dialogue between Arjuna, the Pandava warrior-prince, and Lord Krishna, his godling charioteer, the text covers a wide swath of Vedantic concepts which are then left for Arjuna to either follow or reject. This element of personal autonomy, and how it can lead to self-acceptance, environmental mastery and finally the spiritual path to one's true destiny, is an immensely alluring concept for readers today. But Arjuna's positioning is the real crux of the Gita: his conflicts between personal desire and sacred duty are the undercurrent of the tale, and the text offers equally spiritual and practical insights in every nuance.

The Gita begins with two families torn into different factions and preparing for battle. The sage Vyasa, who possesses the gift of divine vision, offers to loan the blind King, Dhritarashtra, his ability so the King may watch the battle. However, Dhritarashtra declines, having no wish to witness the carnage – particularly since his sons, the Kauravas, are arrayed on the battlefield. Instead, the sage confers his powers to Sanjaya, one of Dhritarashtra's counselors, who faithfully recounts the sequence of events as they unfold. From the start, readers' introduction to the Gita is almost sensory, with the battlefield stirred into action by Bhishma, who blows his conch horn and unleashes an uproarious war-frenzy, "conches and kettledrums, cymbals, tabors and trumpets ... the tumult echoed through heaven and earth... weapons were ready to clash." These descriptions serve as marked contrasts to the dialogic exchange that follows between Arjuna and Krishna, which is serene and private in tone, the two characters wearing the fabric of intimate friendship effortlessly as they are lifted out of the narrative, suspended as if in an aether where the concept of time becomes meaningless. 

Arjuna – whose questions carry readers through the text – stands with Krishna in the heart of the battlefield, between the two armies. However, when he sees the enemy arrayed before him, "fathers, grandfathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons and friends," he falls into the grip of a moral paralysis. His whole body trembles and his sacred bow, Gandiva, slips from his hands. He tells Krishna, "I see omens of chaos ... I see no good in killing my kinsmen in battle... we have heard that a place in hell is reserved for men who undermine family duties." As Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton remark in the book, Altruism in World Religions, "To fight his own family, Arjuna realizes, will violate a central tenet of his code of conduct: family loyalty, a principle of dharma." The concept of dharma holds an integral place in Hindu-Vedantic ethos, with Sanatana Dharma (eternal and universal dharma) regarded as a sacred duty applicable to all, and Swadharma (personal and particular dharma) sometimes coming into conflict with the former. It is this inherent contradiction that catalyzes Arjuna's self-doubt. "The flaw of pity blights my very being; conflicting sacred duties confound my reason." 

It is Krishna who must inspire him to fight, through comprehensive teachings in the essentials of birth and rebirth, duty and destiny, action and inertia. There is an allegorical genius here that will appeal tremendously to readers. The military aspects of the Gita can easily serve as metaphors for not just external real-life battles, but internal battles of the self, with the two armies representing the conflict between the good and evil forces within each of us. In that sense, Krishna's advice to Arjuna – the seven-hundred slokas – becomes a pertinent, pragmatic guide to human affairs. With each verse, both Arjuna and the readers are offered perspectives and practices which, if followed, can allow them to achieve a robust understanding of reality. 

With the spiritual underpinnings of the wisdom known as Sankhya, Krishna explains different yogas, or disciplines. Readers slowly begin to encounter all the components of humanity and the universe, through the lens of Arjuna, whose moral and spiritual weltanschauung undergoes a gradual metamorphosis – from, "If you think understanding is more powerful than action, why, Krishna, do you urge me to this horrific act? You confuse my understanding with a maze of words..." to "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed... I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words." 

We are introduced in slow but mesmerizing detail to the wisdom within Arjuna himself; an omniscience that eluded him because it was hidden beneath illusion, or maya. Indeed, Krishna makes it clear that the very essence of maya is to conceal the Self – the atman – from human understanding by introducing the fallacy of separation, luring individuals with the promise that enlightenment springs not from within but from worldly accouterments: in sensual attraction, in the enticements of wealth and power. However, Krishna makes it clear that the realm of the senses, the physical world, is impermanent, and always in flux. Whereas he, the supreme manifestation of the divine and the earthly, the past, present and future, is there in all things, unchanging. "All creatures are bewildered at birth by the delusion of opposing dualities that arise from desire and hatred." 

Although these themes are repeated often throughout the Gita, in myriad ways, not once do they become tiresome. Although Krishna's role in much of the Mahabharata is that of a Machiavellian trickster, invested in his own mysterious agenda, he does eventually reveal himself to Arjuna as the omniscient deity. Yet never once does he coerce Arjuna into accepting his teachings, though they are woven inextricably and dazzlingly through the entirety of the Gita. Rather, he gives Arjuna the choice to sift through layers of self-delusion and find his true Self. This can be achieved neither through passive inertia, nor through power-hungry action, but through the resolute fulfillment of duty that is its own reward. In order to dissolve the Self, the atman, into Brahman and achieve moksha, it is necessary to fight all that is mere illusory temptation. Just as Krishna promises Arjuna, victory is within reach, precisely because as a Kshatriya-warrior, it is his sacred duty – his destiny – to fight the battle. More than that, the desire to act righteously is his fundamental nature; the rest is pretense and self-delusion. "You are bound by your own action, intrinsic to your being ... the lord resides in the heart of all creatures, making them reel magically, as if a machine moved them." 

Although the issues that Arjuna grapples with often become metaphysical speculations, never once does it dehumanize his character. His very conflict between the vacillations of the self and sacred duty assure his position as something greater and more complex than a mere widget fulfilling Krishna's agenda. It is through the essence of Arjuna's conflict that he grows on a personal and spiritual level. Conflict so personal and timeless is inextricably tied to choice. In Arjuna's case, the decision to shed the constraints of temporal insecurities and ascend toward his higher Self – freed from the weight of futile self-doubt and petty distractions – rests entirely in his hands. Krishna aids him through his psychospiritual journey not with a lightning-bolt of instantaneous comprehension, but through a slow unraveling of illusions so that Arjuna will arrive at a loftier vantage, able to reconnect with his true Self, and to remember his sacred duty. The answers are already within him; the very purpose of Krishna's counsel is merely to draw it out. "Armed with his purified knowledge, subduing the self with resolve, relinquishing sensuous objects, avoiding attraction and hatred... unposessive, tranquil, he is at one with the infinite spirit."

At its core, the Bhagavad Gita is timelessly insightful and life-affirmingly human, an epic that illustrates the discomfiting truths and moral dilemmas that continue to haunt modern-day readers. Despite its martial setting, it is fueled not by the atrocities of battle, but overflowing with the wisdoms of devotion, duty and love. Its protagonist is inclined by lingering personal attachments, but compelled by godly counsel, to surpass both the narrow private restrictions of self-doubt and the broad social framework of family, in order to reconnect with his pure, transcendental Self. However the Gita does not offer its teachings as rigid doctrine, but as a gentle framework through which readers can achieve a fresh perspective on the essential struggles of humankind. At once a down-to-earth narrative and a multifaceted spiritual drama, the Gita bears a concrete timelessness, with its magnetism lying in the fact that it is a work not of religious dogma, but of personal choice.

[ellieforstraw]

Not my post, don’t know how to reblog something that I’ve already rebloged? Either way, thank you ‘the-lightning-strikes-again’!

the-lightning-strikes-again

How Voltron: Legendary Defender Became Bad Philosophical Propaganda

Voltron: Legendary Defender has many good moments with great characters and villains, even into its final season. The s8 finale, however, contains multiple plot holes that result in a very dark and unsettling message at its end.

The core issue surrounds the foundations from s6, about the second colony. The entire reason Honerva rises to power in s8 is because of the power vacuum caused by Lotor’s death. He is no longer there to maintain the Galran empire or to protect the (first) Altean colony from her influence. The result is mass-universal destabilization, the violent death of billions, etc. And why? We never learned what actually happened to the second colony or why/how Lotor was using that energy. All we have is an accusation from Romelle, and the existence of the second colony, with the assumption that everything is exactly as she recounted.

So the entire catalyst for his death, and the subsequent foundations for s7 and s8, remain masked in mystery.

Regardless, even if Lotor were truly so evil to deceive Alteans and kill them maliciously for their energy per Romelle’s exact statements, s8 fails to produce the logic for its own existence. Characters spend several episodes demonizing Lotor in various conversations as a deceiver/liar/killer, as a way to justify the decision to kill him despite the universal destabilization. And then Allura, who so despised him at the end of s6, offers at the end of s8 a general statement that “he was misguided but ultimately, he wanted to preserve life. Honor your son.” And Honerva agrees to say, “He deserved better.”

So wait, why is everyone so buddy-buddy with Lotor now that his face has been melted off? Is anyone taking responsibility for his death and for the power vacuum that destroyed the universe? Why are the people saying “he deserved better” also the ones who directly caused said misery? Why are they “honoring” the “mass murderer” they just slandered for the last two seasons?

The reason for s8’s problems with mass destabilization and Honerva’s rise are inherently tied to the revelation of the second colony. And yet, we have no further information about what really happened or why Lotor should be killed and then oddly vindicated/justified for his decisions as some strange Joan of Arc character. There’s furthermore no relevation from Allura prior to that point showing how she suddenly understood Lotor’s dilemma.

In the past, the s6 decisions have been meekly justified as a way to make Lotor a “tragic character.” In other words, Lauren Montgomery and Joaquim Dos Santos admit that Lotor is a purposeful martyr for the overarching storyline. Such “tragedy” is the final straw to make Honerva lose whatever was left of her sanity in s8 to convert her into the big bad.

But is this tragedy? Or did they create something actually worse than tragedy?

Aristotle described tragedy as a means of obtaining catharsis—an emotional release of tension. That is the stated purpose of a traditional tragedy: to make you experience emotions of fear, pity, pain etc. within the environment of a fiction so that you can move onward in your real daily life (debatably, feeling better about your own life circumstances, feeling drained of bad emotion, or otherwise motivated to work on and understand your own flaws).

Catharsis in tragedy writing is achieved when a reason is given for said tragedy. Without a reason, there is no catharsis that can be achieved. Often, tragedies come to a point of catharsis when the tragic hero realizes his/her own fatal flaw that resulted in the disaster of their life. It provides a framework to understand their tragedy and therefore their position in the universe. VLD unfortunately never really explains why s8 had to happen (see notes above about the second colony). Furthermore, Lotor never admits to a personal failing. Allura/Voltron never admit to their politically immature moves or take responsibility for the power vacuum they created. Honerva never admits to her scientific curiosity going too far. The only person who perhaps achieves catharsis is Honerva’s mind-version of Zarkon, whose very existence is yet another strange plot hole to be discussed in perhaps a later post.

Given the overwhelming mystery and lack of reason for s8’s events, neither the characters nor the audience can achieve catharsis. This internalizes the emotions, resulting in the exact opposite of what a tragedy is for. VLD is missing catharsis entirely as its biggest plot hole in its questionable attempt to reach for adult themes and be edgy.

Additionally, a legitimate tragedy is couched within an overarching plot designed to instruct viewers in some greater lesson (ethical, etc.) Because the main characters in VLD never achieve a lightbulb moment about the reason for their pain, there is no instructive lesson or moral to be obtained. From a literary perspective, wisdom is central to tragedy. Wisdom must be revealed to both the characters and the audience, or else the entire story is meaningless.

Per s8, the only ultimate wisdom I could ascertain is that all good people fall to darkness for mysterious reasons, and the only escape to peace is death? There is no lesson or revelation from the protagonists that, “Hey, this is what happens when you create a power vacuum, and maybe we shouldn’t have done that.” Or, “Hey, this is what happens when we take scientific knowledge too far without question.” Or, “Hey, this is what happens when you play judge, jury, and executioner without due process.” Not one single character walks away with a deeper understanding of the universe or their circumstances.

Oh, but what about the show’s overarching lessons about teamwork and friendship? The stated theme of VLD is “strength in unity”—something that is repeated again and again in every single season. But in the end, writers break up the act in order to undo Honerva’s actions. Allura’s decision to sacrifice herself represents a direct contradiction to the heart of Voltron’s own theme. Ultimately, it isn’t strength in unity that saves the universe. It’s fragmentation and death.

Then a comic band-aid is slapped over the deaths and insanity, along with a shoddily constructed happy ending for a few living characters to make you forget that the show is influencing viewers to believe life has no meaning, ultimately undercutting the legitimacy of the happiness, as well as the ultimate value, of both the dead and still-living characters.  

Now, nihilism is an official and legitimate school of philosophical thought. There’s a lot of debate about nihilism, and a spectrum of more positive to more negative understandings about it. Some sectors of nihilism simply seek to reject traditional assumptions about reality and put the responsibility of making meaning on the individual—which can be very helpful and positive. Other sectors, however, assert that life has no meaning whatsoever, from both a subjective and objective perspective. Unfortunately, VLD’s outrageously incoherent structure results in a latter understanding.

So if you are sitting here, disturbed by Voltron’s finale without words to explain why, look deep into yourself. If you feel there is supposed to be meaning of some kind to life (whether subjective to you or objectively defined), then know that your disconcerted emotions derive from the fact that Voltron is trying to tell you differently.

Understand that Voltron: Legendary Defender is not tragedy because it cannot fit into the defined literary genre of tragedy. It is ultimately bad philosophical propaganda, because it offers no reason behind or meaning for its terrible events, and its contradictory construction does not allow for individual viewers to make a subjective, coherent meaning or achieve catharsis from its insanity.

And this kind of highly charged, slippery-slope philosophy has no place in a Y-7 children’s show.

Source:

the-lightning-strikes-again

[asgardian--angels]

for @maylovely because you asked about why some people don’t see melkor as evil. i didn’t want to hijack your post with this super long thing. this is something of a summation of many different metas i’ve never gotten around to writing but i hope it even begins to express my thoughts on the matter (as nothing i write is ever comprehensive enough...). i’m not trying to disagree, because every person in the Silm fandom views the story differently. Hope this helps you maybe understand where some of us are coming from though? 

OK HERE GOES

I think it comes down to a couple things: what source material you’re looking at (just published Silm, Unfinished Tales, HoME, etc), and what perspective you view Middle-Earth from. I am definitely in the camp that believes Melkor isn’t evil, because to me Tolkien designed a world with no ultimate good or evil, that everyone is a mix, and furthermore, what is ‘evil’? Evil is a human (out-of-universe speaking) construct used mostly to judge other humans. In-universe, evil is used to represent that which actively works against the freedom of the Children of Iluvatar and seeks to mar Arda away from the vision of the Valar, which supposedly is also the vision of Eru himself. These are both extremely flawed ways of thinking when looking at Melkor, because 1) he isn’t human, and 2) defining evil as something that threatens your existence as you know it is super anthropocentric and does not tell a complete story.

To explain:

I know you tend to focus on the elves in the Silmarillion. A lot of people do. We’re going to obviously gravitate to groups of characters that act and think like us. Thus, you and others are looking through the eyes of the elves as they view the acts and deeds of Melkor - of Morgoth, as they call him. If one is looking through a purely mortal lens, then yes, the things Melkor does is the epitome of pure evil and you’re both goddamned terrified of him and absolutely loathe him with a burning passion (I know you don’t, but I’m just saying, if you were an elf). He threatens everything you know and hold dear. He’s tortured your kind and keeps them as slaves. He spilled the first elven blood. By every definition there, yep, evil. That’s valid, that’s fine! Obviously we are supposed to view Middle-Earth and its stories through the eyes of mortals. No one’s rooting for Sauron to get his ring back, not even me.

But I choose to see things from the perspective of the Ainur, and that which is even greater than the Ainur - Eru and the Great Music, and when possible, even beyond that to question what is the nature of Ea and the Void and hell, where did Eru come from anyway? Loads of fun, never many answers. But looking at the story from this POV changes a lot, especially how one thinks of Melkor. Melkor is the greatest Vala, the most powerful Ainu, he who was given the special gift of the wisdom of all other Valar combined - that is, while each Vala governs a specific element of Arda and can only comprehend that one small piece of reality and the great plan of Eru, Melkor can see it all. This is HUGE. One could argue his worldview is actually the most accurate, if you can sift through the resentment and shame and abandonment issues that cloud it. He knows more of Eru’s design than even Manwe (so why isn’t he king? ‘i’m not bitter,’ melkor says, bitterly with a bitter expression). Thus, it is fair to say that his treatment in Arda by the Valar is unjust. This is a really big topic, I’ll tl;dr it. They cannot possibly understand his role in Arda because it’s beyond their sphere of influence. Only Melkor can know what Melkor’s purpose is, even though he can know all of theirs.

So what is it? Like all Valar, he governs a realm, that which he thought of himself in the Song. His is even more expansive than his kin, to match his knowledge of the other elements. Fire, ice, rock. The core materials of Arda. More than that, decay, upheaval, entropy. Change. He is the Vala that maintains Earth’s dynamism. That’s his job. It’s a big one, and Eru made him fit for it. He needs the knowledge of how all things on Earth work. Now, Melkor is ruled by fate and his nature, and he cannot fight this, nor should he. Would one demand Ulmo live on land, or that Orome never hunt again? The rules are the same, and yet, he is treated differently. This is because his duty conflicts, in the limited perspective of the other Valar, with the intent of Eru, which is the maintenance of Arda as a paradise, eternal, unchanging. Melkor’s work destroys their creations, and thus it must be wrong. This is their biased point of view, for they cannot know Eru’s true intent. So you have the Ruling Powers all against Melkor, even his own brother, and they pass this on to the elves, starting them off with that viewpoint, and no one except Melkor (and his chosen few, Mairon included) actually freaking understands that his job is necessary and he’s just doing what he was made for. The Earth cannot be stagnant, change - even cataclysms - must occur for life to grow and evolve. It threatens that which exists, but offers opportunity for adaptation and survival, and a new place for those in the future. In the long run, Melkor’s work would help the creations of the other Valar, particularly Yavanna. It would never wipe out the Children of Iluvatar, just force them to evolve, become wiser, more wary, skillful, and hardy. However, the Valar and the elves see it only from the present - our creations and livelihoods are threatened, he wants to see it destroyed. He is Evil. No, he is the Earth. Impartial to that which inhabits it. The Earth doesn’t care whether you live or die. You are utterly meaningless to the Earth. Your life holds no value. You adapt to this inevitable change, or you go extinct. Not its problem. No one’s asking the Earth to halt continental drift or sea floor spreading, are they? No one can prevent volcanic eruptions or avalanches or mass extinctions, they are a necessary term and condition of dwelling here on Arda. The fact that this force has a face and a voice suddenly makes it subject to our moral code, which is, Don’t hurt us!! Sorry, doesn’t work like that. Melkor’s a force of nature, the biggest one in fact, and since he was made he’s been shamed and ridiculed for being who he was simply because no one else had the capacity to understand his role.

During the time of the elves, a LOT happened. Melkor was fundamentally changed by the silmarils. I put forth the argument that throughout his time here, he’s attacked sources of holy light, the most powerful thing in creation apart from the Flame Imperishable, not (only) because he was petty and bitter and wanted to get back at his kin, but because as a force of entropy, he can’t help but be attracted to them. Bringing things from a high energy state to a low energy state is sort of his gift. The silmarils messed him up. Everything in his life went downhill after he stole them. He’s suffered from a lot of internalized issues forever - what I’d talked about above, but also everything concerning his right to Arda as king and how he was wronged there (I am, also of the belief he does have standing for that claim), and a nice slew of fear (being the only Vala to be able to even feel that emotion - scary imo) and abandonment issues and self-loathing. When he took on the burden of the silmarils, these things intensified and weighed on him. His fear turned into extreme paranoia to the point where nearly all of his actions were driven by it. He was willing to go out of his way to try and secure his safety through torturing for information (not a great success rate there), making rash decisions, and literally cowering in his tunnels like a naked mole rat. He predicted his impending doom and was clawing at any way to avoid it until he fell into such a pit of despair about it that he just gave up and let himself be taken. He was just so tired. But to stay on topic - I just view all of his actions in the First Age from a non-human perspective, as he would, seeing people and individual lives as meaningless and inconsequential (Sauron’s biggest mistake actually, as that became his undoing multiple times. Also, hint, the other Valar don’t really care as much as they claim to about the cost of mortal lives). He acts on the scale of Gods, not Man. To me, from this perspective, he is not evil. I’m not saying from a different perspective he can’t be. We don’t really know for sure Melkor’s true goals and intentions, seeing as no one ever cares to ask him. I have plenty of firm theories, and they concern themselves with Arda, Ea, and the Void, and no where in that list is included Iluvatar’s children.

Whatever Melkor’s done, it is a part of fate. He has not rebelled, he has not broken any rules, everything he’s done has been within the realm of Eru’s intent - and everything Eru’s done in response to Melkor has also been to drive this ultimate plot forward exactly the way it must. The Valar more than any other being are driven by their nature, they have far less, so to speak, autonomous choice. They cannot change. If they did, the world would go topsy-turvy, and that includes Melkor most of all. The others physically cannot see that, illustrated by their audacity to claim that the world doesn’t need him and they can just boot his Vala butt out of Arda. The paradise of the Valar, stowed away for their eyes only (and the elves who were Good Children) cannot last forever, and then it will be Melkor’s time to return. Nothing is meant to last forever. So Melkor may have done things that to the human perspective, were evil and atrocious, but to sum it up, everything happened just how it was supposed to, Melkor’s job is to do things you don’t like and is thus doomed to never getting appreciation, he really is under no obligation to give a shit about the Children, and really the elves killed way more people than Melkor ever did. Melkor’s documented direct casualties can be counted on a hand lol. He concerns himself with Arda, his creation, his charge, not with the little people that are holding onto the skin of the world demanding it stop being itself. Add onto this the corrosive power of the silmarils, basically making the most powerful and potent being under Eru go a bit cuckoo for cocoa puffs in his later years, and that to me is why Melkor isn’t evil. If one insists he is, then he is a necessary one. No two ways about it.

[theonyxpath]

Hunter: The Vigil logo

Hello Hunter: The Vigil fans! I’m happy to present the outline for the Hunter: The Vigil 2nd Edition corebook. I kicked off the project with a team of writers, and we are working on first drafts. This is the high level overview, and I’ll be able to share with you more specific information at a later date. Right now, I want to remain focused on knocking out a killer round of first drafts.

Before I get to the outline, I wanted to drop in a few words of wisdom for those of you who’d like to work on this line in the future. My goal is to continue hiring new-to-Onyx Path writers for every book, but I will be placing preference on submissions that clearly indicate a working knowledge of the Chronicles of Darkness setting and rule set going forward. For supplements, this means I will assume that you have read the upcoming corebook as well. If your existing submission doesn’t fit that requirement, I encourage you to withdraw and resubmit.

Okay! With that administrivia in mind, here’s how I’ve proposed the chapter-by-chapter breakdown:

Fiction: We’re presenting the fiction as stand-alone pieces called “case files.” They’ll be highlighting different aspects of the setting, and they’ll precede several chapters in the book. Lots of fresh monsters and locations here!

Introduction: This will be a setting overview, and will include a lexicon for the setting and system.

Chapter 1: For this chapter, we’ll dive deeper into the setting and provide an overview of the tiers, The Code, history of the hunt, and threats & targets. The Code will be a rule designed specifically for hunters, and will help make them distinct. Unlike first edition, The Code will be a part of regular gameplay and presented as such.

Chapter 2: Compacts & Conspiracies: This is a huge section in the book and, as promised, we are representing every compact and conspiracy that has ever been created. For splats, we have six compacts and six conspiracies. Both compacts and conspiracies will get a new, never-before-seen splat. While I’m not ready to announce the new compact just yet, the new conspiracy is called the “Council of Bones”.

Members of the Council of Bones believe that the best way to hunt the supernatural is to “talk” to their dead victims by conducting seances, hiring mediums, using Ouija boards, and similar rites to communicate with ghosts and find out what really happened before they died. Within the conspiracy, the leaders monitor members to ensure they are not communicating with spirits for personal gain. They can, on occasion, also track, identify, and recruit hunters who show promise in this art, and frown on hunters who cross them or break their rules. Spooky!

Additionally, we are freshening up the rules on Endowments and ensuring they are a better fit with second edition rules.

Chapter 3: Character Creation – In addition to the rules for creating your character, this is also is where we’ll expand upon the rules for The Code, introduce hunter-specific Merits and Flaws, and tease some of the other rules present later on in the book. Chapter 4: Gameplay – This is another chapter that’s a “must”. Gameplay will be tailored for Hunter: The Vigil 2nd Edition. We will also be including Tactics which will also be freshened up for second edition.

Chapter 5: Monsters Around The World – Every hunter needs a monster to fight, right? This is where we’ll have your monster-hunting needs covered! Our approach to the monsters is to focus on urban legends around the globe, while remaining true to core monster archetypes (e.g. the vampire, poltergeist, etc.). We will offer NPCs, a section on how to create your own monsters, and a heap of Dread Powers.

Chapter 6: Mysterious Places – Have you ever wondered what would happen if hunters encountered a sentient haunted house? How would they cleanse a supernaturally-charged site? We’re attaching rules to places where hunters fight in exciting and (hopefully) scary ways! More on this as the systems and setting development comes together.

Chapter 7: The Slasher Chronicle – The idea behind the chronicle is that someone (or something) is creating slashers, and because of that hunters all around the world are rallying to fight and contain the very real, very terrifying problem. We will include two splats, one brand new compact and the VASCU conspiracy, to help round out the chronicle. The compact hasn’t been named yet, and I’ll have more on that at a later date.

Chapter 8: Storytelling – In addition to helping Storytellers best run your games, we’re also including a “Creating a Compact” and “Creating a Conspiracy” section to help you create new setting material that’s in line with our rules.

Appendices – We’ll cover customizing gear and building traps, Tilts, and Conditions perfect for hunters. Like some of the other rules, I can’t speak to the nitty gritty until we’ve had a chance to work out the details. I’m looking forward to it, though!

Thanks for being patient, and I’m happy that Hunter: The Vigil Second Edition is officially in first drafts. I anticipate there may be a few minor changes to the outline as the drafts proceed, but first we’ve got a lot of heavy lifting to do. Onwards!