#structuralist

[germanpostwarmodern]

Paviljoen (1963) of Twente University in Enschede, the Netherlands, by Joop van Stigt. Photo from August 2019.

[karlachian]

i think it is funny when people make wyll the therapy friend as if that man even knows what therapy is. that 18 charisma is making you think he’s not fighting literal devils in there HE IS LYING TO YOU. don’t get me wrong he loves healthy communication he does NOT ever think about cognitive behavioral therapy though. actually give me 15 minutes alone in a room with him i know he has an ulder sized blind spot in his view of authority but i bet i could get him to subscribe to a deleuze-guattari viewpoint of psychiatry even. defender of the people and all that.

[antiqua-lugar]

I'm so tired of people playing Sorcerers and getting upset when Gale clarifies they needed someone studied in magic and being like "But I am sooo much better than a wizard, I was born with it!"

Girl, you might be *check notes* magic incarnate but that means absolutely nothing when he is looking for an academic

"But I was born good at magic!"

Okay, and I was born a native Italian speaker, however if an academic asked me if I have studied Italian I would have to say no, because academically I have not. I don't know a single italian linguist. I don't know how we went from indio european to latin to Italian. I don't even know why sardo is a language and bergamasco is a dialect. I forgot all the grammar I had to learn. Sometimes I talk to Tuscans and I do not understand them. it's almost like those are two entirely different things

[oneheadtoanother]

[revvethasmythh]

I think something we're sleeping on in the Gale epilogue is that he says he wants to try writing books about our adventures, which directly puts him in competition with Volo, who is also writing about the same adventures

This would--inevitably--devolve into a writer/academic feud for the ages, spreading copious misinformation to the masses as both writers can accurately claim to be primary sources, with wildly different tellings between them. There will be synthesis commentary papers written about both of their works by historians for centuries, and even though Volo's is full of blatant lies it must be considered because he is....well, Volo. and, like, he was verifiably there and involved with everything. there is no world where that is not infuriating to an academic like Gale. Gale will be blowing a gasket for the rest of his life about being in competition with Volo's Tome of Lies. There will be sniping in the footnotes of all his papers at the bard for the rest of his life. Bitter bard vs academic warfare, that's what we're looking at here

[blood-orange-juice]

I promised a "Furina is Jesus" post. It's kind of a shitpost but also it's not.

The theatre of the courtroom

I'll first have to note that law is a peculiar thing. It is created through practicing it.

It's not just the written rules, it's how we apply them, and who gets to write and rewrite them, and there's no solid foundation underneath.

It's supposed to be treated as immutable until it's suddenly not. Until an insurgence turns into a revolution or the divine right of kings becomes a symbolic relic of the past. In the mildest scenario a bunch of old farts just gather and vote for new rules. Sometimes the very same rules that give those old farts the right to decide rules.

A law remains a law as long as enough people agree to believe and enforce it. How much is "enough" is also debatable (often depends on the size of your army).

It is very much like theatre. Humans like it when the world is molded into coherent stories so they happily participate.

Furina making a show out of trials is not a perversion of law, it shows she understands its very nature.

Transgression and transcendence

Now back to Christianity. The essense of Christianity is transgression. No, seriously.

It's as punk as a religion can get. A god hanging out with publicans and harlots? Killing a god in the most humiliating way possible and being forgiven for it? Symbolically eating a god?

It's insane.

Such practices are usually reserved for small communities of a very special sort (*ahem* left-hand path tantrics*ahem*). It's the only religion I know that gleefully and unashamedly incorporates such things into rituals meant for the lay public.

(this is probably a good time to mention that I'm not Christian and it's a look of an outsider fascinated with philosophy of religion in general)

It's actually one of the real reasons a lot of pagans rejected Christianity so fiercely: it's spectacularly nonchalant in dealing with things that would be considered "unclean" by most archaic cultures.

Now this is important.

As post-structuralist theories state, any attempt to establish a power structure, to set rules or to define self will also produce things that would seem unclean. Impure. Things that should be cast off. It's in the nature of our psyche. The concept of uncleanliness is one of the core mechanisms that allow our mind to function.

(I'll redirect you to Julia Kristeva and the concept she names abjection if you want to dive into it.

I also want to note that abjection and horror go side by side and it makes a lot of sense that Fontaine is also the Lovecraftian expansion)

And what did Christianity do? It subtly removed the importance of "cleanliness". The gravity of it. It established as the norm that norms can be redefined and transcended. That the outcasts and the sinners are not to be forgotten.

It fucking changed the rules of how human psyche and society function. Added an extra possible move.

A sin can be forgiven. A criminal executed in the most ignominious way can turn out to be a god. You never truly know. And also anything can be made clean. Go wash it kitten.

(yay)

(and yes, I know a lot of modern Christians practice the opposite of what I describe. I'm not a fan of these folks too. doesn't matter. the possibility is there. it's glorious. also horrifying and a bit disgusting)

That dude from two thousand years ago

What about him.

I often see people calling a "Jesus figure" anyone who is sacrificed to save others. Or anyone who is reborn. The thing is, this is not how it works.

A god dying and being reborn is the oldest myth on this planet. Last time I checked it was connected to the sun worship, day/night cycle and winter solstice rituals (although it could have changed and also I didn't check very thoroughly). In any way, it predates Christianity by millennia.

Sacrificing all kinds of things and beings to get something in return or to offer gods something else in your stead is also pretty old and very much not Christian.

The unique beauty of that story is that a supreme being, ultimately more worthy than any human, wilfully chose to sacrifice himself for lowly mortals. Actually, allowed them to betray and kill him. And then forgave them.

Do you see how it ties to the previous section? It defied the previoisly established world order (where gods were incomparably more important than humans). It created a paradox. It broke the rules, or rather it destroyed the rules.

Theological debates aside, on a symbolic level it pretty much destroyed the old concept of sin and the idea of a fundamental difference between a god and a human. Everything a paradox touches stops being fully real and needs to be redefined (ceci n'est pas une pipe).

'Sin' doesn't mean the same thing anymore, and 'god' doesn't mean the same thing anymore, even 'death' means a different thing now. The world just starts to function differently after a story like that happens or is told.

(since it only needs to mess up the symbolic order it doesn't even need to happen, only to be told and believed)

And there we have it. A Jesus figure should establish new rules. Preferably better ones. It's someone who fundamentally changes the world with their sacrifice.

That's also where we get back to "law is established by practice". That was the process of establishing a new law.

(this is also why I dislike the idea of Childe as a Jesus figure. he is not a supreme being, he's not the type to sacrifice himself for people he perceives as lower than him, and he is not integrated into society enough for his death to establish new rules. he can still die and be reborn in a new quality, he can even change the world in some way but that would be a different type of story)

Our precious girlfailure

So. Furina.

Fontaine's prophecy speaks of all Fontainians being born with some kind of 'sin'. And the way Neuvilette is talking to the pool of primordial water in 4.1 implies that its ability to dissolve Fontainians is not some kind of natural law but an intentional wrathful act.

And Varunada Lazurite (we know that ascension materials contain the final lines of the archon quest) says this:

"My ideals have no stains. I must correct you. People here bear no sins in the eyes of the gods... Only laws and the Tribunal can judge someone. They can judge even me. So praise my magnificence and purity."

I assume the solution will not be simply killing the eldritch whale or "cleansing" the sin or locking the sea away.

I think Furina will in some way redefine what is considered a sin, or how it should be judged, or who gets to administer judgement. She will create new rules for the world. Probably by dying in some way (temporarily or symbolically) to create a paradox.

(maybe we'll also get to learn that death in Teyvat is not true death)

As I said at the beginning, she understands the law and the very nature of law very well, probably better than Neuvilette. Who else would be better suited for this task.

And no one will notice the beauty and insanity of her gesture, like no one really noticed with that guy two thousand years ago. They'll just think things got fixed because they sacrificed Someone Important.

But that's all right. She'll forgive them.

[crethida]

Oedipal in the streets, Oedipalized in the sheets

[wonder-worker]

"The feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist being appointed as the day upon which the coronation of the king [Edward V] would take place without fail, all both hoped for and expected a season of prosperity for the kingdom."

-Excerpt from the Croyland Continuator / David Horspool, Richard III: A Ruler and Reputation

Even though Edward IV’s death was unexpected, after twelve years of peace there need not have been too much of a sense of foreboding about the succession. The great dynastic wound from which the Wars of the Roses had grown had not so much been healed as cauterized by the extinction of the House of Lancaster. There was no rush for London, as had happened in earlier, disputed successions. The royal party didn’t set out from Ludlow for ten days after hearing the news of Edward IV’s death, while Richard took his time, too. And the new king had [his mother the dowager queen and] two uncles to support him: his mother’s brother, the sophisticated, cultured, highly experienced Earl Rivers; and his father’s, the loyal and reliable Duke of Gloucester, to whom Edward IV had entrusted unprecedented power and vital military command.

... [Richard of Gloucester] had achieved his goal by a mixture of luck and ruthlessness, and if he made it appear, or even believed himself, that destiny played a part, this only made him a man in step with his times. Modern historians have no time for destiny, but sometimes the more ‘structuralist’ interpretations of the events surrounding the usurpation can come close to it. When we read that ‘the chances of preserving an unchallenged succession were . . . weakened by the estrangement of many of the rank-and-file nobility from . . . high politics, which was partly a consequence of the Wars of the Roses and partly of Edward IV’s own policies’, it is hard not to conclude that an unforeseeable turn of events is being recast as a predictable one. But without one overriding factor – the actions of Richard, Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III – none of this could have happened. That is, when the same author concedes ‘Nor can we discount Richard’s own forceful character’, he is pitching it rather low*.

Edward IV had not left behind a factional fault line waiting to be shaken apart. Richard of Gloucester’s decision to usurp was a political earthquake that could not have been forecast on 9 April, when Edward died. After all, Simon Stallworth did not even anticipate it on 21 June, the day before Richard went public. We should be wary of allowing hindsight to give us more clairvoyance than the well-informed contemporary who had no idea ‘what schall happyne’. This is not to argue that Richard’s will alone allowed him to take the Crown. Clearly, the circumstances of a minority, the existence of powerful magnates with access to private forces, and the reasonably recent examples of resorts to violence and deposition of kings, made Richard’s path a more conceivable one. But Richard’s own tactics, his arrest of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, the rounding up of Hastings and the bishops, relied on surprise. If men as close as these to the workings of high politics at a delicate juncture had no inkling of what might happen, the least historians can do is to reflect that uncertainty [...].

(*The author who Horspool is referencing and disagreeing with is Charles Ross)

[murderballadeer]

now the question is: is "boas wrote about it" a sufficient justification for why my folklore stuff counts as anthropology

[blorbocedes]

reading any philosopher or social theorist is an exercise in impressive. very nice. now let's see their views on women

[agalychnisspranneusroseus]

The sleepover scene always breaks my heart 😭 literally me at 12

[germanpostwarmodern]

Hubertushuis/Moederhuis (1973-78) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, by Aldo van Eyck

[ladymetroland]

If u think about it my childhood fear of watching anything featuring an actor who had since died was not an irrational fear but actually an inherent grasp of derrida's work on cinema as a site of spectral return

[professionalowl]

you know the anthropology is lit when it's just someone from the '70s or '80s being racist without citations for 35 consecutive pages

[thunderoad]

american vandal season 3 in which peter and sam are goofing around filming a video and accidentally witness a crime and peter goes "was that -? dude, i think i know who that was"

and then they run around trying to solve it BUT!! peter can't help but get a little too involved which skews the results of their investigation which was always the point!! also he's mean to sam but eventually they reconcile.

[dapurinthos]

this year's jsc choice versions:

all-female cast. i haven't actually seen this yet, i just found it on a youtube search today. i'm looking forward to starting it after i finish with the original film version, but i have listened to the album and loved it.

latest tour production. i saw this version when it was (very) briefly in toronto in december 2021, before the run was cut short due to cast & crew testing positive for covid. fantastic set, amazing costuming for king herod, tyrone huntley as judas (after he originated this version in the regent's park open air theatre) which was an experience (the cast in this video is from 2022 - 2023, not the cast i saw).