#who also believes even fictional entities are real in some way

[shadow-the-crow]

It's my goal in life to always say the name of random, increasingly weirder entities instead of "God"

"By Odin!"

"Oh StarClan..."

"Thank the Eye!"

[marzipanandminutiae]

I've gotten some interesting responses to my post wondering if Um Actually 3 AM Is The REAL Time For Supernatural Occurrences was a traditional thing before I first noticed it in the creepypasta boom of the late 00s-2010s, as many of those creepypastas claimed. some of them along "guys. please. reading comprehension" lines, I admit

"Lots of cultures have a Witching Hour!" yes, true, but that's not 3 AM specifically. for a long time it was usually midnight, or an unspecified late night/wee hours of the morning period

"This author says 3 AM feels like depression or vice versa!" that is not about Spooky Things Happening; try again

"early Christian beliefs say-" "well, in traditional Japanese folklore-" sources??? (also from what I've seen while looking into this, the Hour of the Ox in historical Japanese timekeeping was between 1 AM and 3 AM- 3 AM specifically was the end of it, not the beginning. but it was a traditional time for curses)

A mention of 3 AM as a particularly bad time of night re: health, sleep, nightmares, etc. in Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962), which DOES seem reliable and close enough to what I'm talking about

Apparently the 1974 Amityville murders happened at 3 AM, and of course that house had a highly public (probably faked) haunting. So that could have contributed

I haven't yet found anything earlier than that Bradbury reference that SPECIFICALLY mentions 3 AM as a time when scary and/or supernatural things happen, WITH ACTUAL SOURCES

Interestingly, the Bradbury quote doesn't seem to refer back to an existing cultural belief in the idea of Evil 3 AM(TM). rather it's framed as the narrator's personal feelings around that particular time of night:

"Oh God, midnight’s not bad, you wake and go back to sleep, one or two’s not bad, you toss but sleep again. Five or six in the morning, there’s hope, for dawn’s just under the horizon. But three, now, Christ, three A.M.! Doctors say the body’s at low tide then. The soul is out. The blood moves slow. You’re the nearest to dead you’ll ever be save dying. Sleep is a patch of death, but three in the morn, full wide-eyed staring, is living death! You dream with your eyes open. God, if you had strength to rouse up, you’d slaughter your half-dreams ... And wasn’t it true, had he read somewhere, more people in hospitals die at 3 A.M. than at any other time." [I can't find any credible studies of this, for the record]

so it seems like the seeds of the idea were floating around in the cultural consciousness for a long time, between unspecified Witching Hours and the Hour of the Ox curses and this probably erroneous but popular belief that most people who die in hospitals do so at 3 AM. but as for the very strictly-defined notion that Supernatural Things Are Most Likely To Happen At 3 AM...the earliest anecdotal reference I saw to someone having heard that was from the 1980s, and it doesn't seem to have really entered the zeitgeist with force until the late 2000s, earliest

unless someone shows me a source on something earlier, that's what I'm going with

which leaves my takeaway, as a paranormal believer, being: there's nothing supernaturally special about 3 AM, unless it has individual significance to a specific entity or haunting (ie residual apparition of an event that took place at that time). it's something people came up with for interesting fiction, as a fresh take on the longstanding western idea that the Witching Hour is midnight, and not even that long ago

[valtsv]

This isn't a gotcha, so please don't take it as such, but would yuou be willing to explain what it is about VAL that makes her such a favourite of yours? I can't stand her myself, she comes across to me as a bully given god-like power that she abuses for her own amusement, and I've seen you acknowledge as much, but we draw completely different conclusions from that. I just want to understand your perspective.

i've been anticipating a question like this for a while now, so i'm more than happy to answer for you!

you're right, VAL is in some ways a "bully given godlike power" as you put it, and there's no avoiding that (nor do i want to). and yeah, i do like her in part because of that, because i have a fondness for horrible fictional characters and in particular "bad victim" archetypes, of which VAL certainly is one. but i think what makes her compelling to me, rather than repulsive, is that she is fundamentally a cautionary tale and a tragedy. in-universe, she's the scapegoat. the example. the "make the right choices or this could be you". she's inescapably, heartbreakingly human in her awfulness, and that makes her terrifying, but it also makes her deeply sad (at least to me).

i also strongly believe in rehabilitative/restorative justice, so for me, wanting better for VAL is about my real-world principles to a degree. i can't and won't argue that VAL doesn't function as an uncomfortable allusion to a lot of atrocious crimes against humanity (by humanity) within the narative, and that anyone who finds her upsetting or even hateful for these reasons is absolutely justified in doing so. however, she's still a fantasy entity at the end of the day. she's not a 1:1 stand-in for real-world abuses any more than, say, a vampire or werewolf, which plenty of people are more than happy to explore the nuances of. and there's also the question of what punitive measures would even achieve in her case, beyond personal satisfaction for the one administering or spectating them (which is not to say that wanting to punch VAL makes you as bad as she is, just that her arc is, among other things, about how cycles of abuse and violence perpetuate). the worst that could possibly happen to her has already happened. she's been tortured. she's been taken advantage of for her mistaken belief that working for and with the system has the opportunity to benefit her, and died for it. there's nothing to be "learned" from her punishment that hasn't already been shown to us. that she hasn't already internalised. if she were ever to develop a stable conscience, that would be punishment enough in my opinion.

despite being a victim of people not entirely unlike VAL, i personally am not her victim, so treating her with sympathy and kindness whilst acknowledging the elephant in the room that is her many (fictional) war crimes is not something that requires any cognitive dissonance on my behalf. i would cautiously argue that the narrative agrees with me somewhat in this regard - the few times VAL is treated to a genuine act of kindness with no ulterior motives, it shatters her composure and outward conviction that what she's doing is necessary for her personal satisfaction, and even prompts her to reconsider on occasion (sparing the woodsman comes to mind). i'm not saying anyone needs to hug her and tell her she's valid, but if all it takes is some genuine good intent to get her to engage in introspection, i'm willing to be the person to offer it.

[kremlin]

i actually do know who needs to hear this, it’s most people, in fact, it’s likely you, statistically; we are entering the american election campaign season, and there are caveats i’d like you to be aware of, and to that effect, i am cashing in on my many years of demonstrated knowledge about The Computer.

you indeed cannot trust what you read on the internet. someone will, indeed, go on here and tell lies. this is no shocker to you, you know this, i know this, i know you know this, but i insist you think about it.

you must know my beliefs regarding conspiracy theories fall far, far to one side of the spectrum: i do not believe them. i dismiss them out of hand on principle. axiomatically. and i am here today to tell you the concept, existence, execution, and proximity of paid, phony, engagement-manipulated, political advertisement is not only real, it is the status quo.

would you describe yourself to others as:

A.) smarter than than they think you are

or

B.) not as dumb as they think you are

if you responded with option A, you are more than likely to be greatly more susceptible to these underhanded messages than you think. option B respondent’s outlook is brighter, only relatively. to restate this in a more digestible way, there are two wolves inside you, one takes top-voted comments to reddit posts on face value. the other, takes top-voted comments to reddit posts on face value. you take top-voted comments to reddit posts on face value.

those responsible for such comments are effective in their endeavors, because they think about it. they do not approach their work mystically nor inefficiently. they know what to say to you, because they know what language you speak.

a thoughtless individual would read one of the only proper noun phrases in this post, “american election season”, and limit their perspective to exactly two possible entities to watch out for. this individual has, with a pep in their step and a whistle on their lips, stepped directly on a land mine. maybe this individual was you, if so, don’t sweat it, allow me to yank you away at the last moment by your shirt collar. there's tertiary actors at play, and possibly even more, if only we could invent a word that mean's "the fourth thing" and so on

a very large, very easily guessable country has, for some time now, engaged in organized astroturfing or misinformation or disinformation or whatever-you-want-to-call-it campaigns, to great effect, with their angle being to flood the airwaves with so much conflicting information that you, the individual, feel hopeless, and lose your confidence in discerning truth from fiction.

i use this example not because that country or my country or this election or whatever is a key component here, they're not, this applies to everyone using the internet socially, and if you don't think there are disingenuous actors' words appearing on your computer screen at some regular rate, you're also stepping on a landmine.

you just have to think about things, and maybe, from time to time, turn on an electric stove and put your finger on it to remind yourself that there is indeed a very real, objective reality we live in, and that if you find yourself asking, "how can we see if our eyes aren't real", someone has put rats in your head

it goes beyond just politics though, hell, i would describe all of modern marketing to use essentially these same tricks. don't fall for them! my technique is to just approach any written text found online, most especially "comments", with the same utter hater energy as salieri in amadeus.

and hey, while you're at it, pass this thinking along to kids, they're kind-of the first generation that has to deal with an internet that is mostly ingenuine meaningless bullshit, not like we had it, when it was mostly genuine meaningless bullshit.

[altocat]

What do you think Sephiroth had to do to be good, assuming he couldn't simply quit ShinRa, him staying meant he had to kill his friends who deserted and him deserting meant he had to kill his friends who stayed with ShinRa and were sent to eliminate him? And Rufus was itching for a new war in Wutai?

I mean obviously, the same thing Rosen and Angeal did, but other than that?

I think "goodness", at least in the context of fiction and not reality, is a more morally gray concept in the world of FFVII. Sephiroth kills people under Shinra. But it's not personal. It's not because he takes pleasure in the act of killing. Even our heroes kill people. And there's a lot to be said about the real world ethics of people who kill in the line of duty when at war or under orders, which is honestly subjective. Whether you view people who kill under orders as "good" or "bad" is honestly up to the individual. You could certainly make a case for either side of the debate.

So with that said, I personally believe that while Sephiroth's actions were inherently awful under Shinra, within the moral framework of the universe and story, he's still a somewhat decent person. "Good", but because I can separate his morality as a singular entity from the actions he's forced to take. A person who has likely committed several atrocities, but is mainly a product of an environment in which he has no real agency. Angeal and Genesis are also in there, but to lesser degrees. Glenn and Zack below them. All of these characters are "bad" in theory for their actions under Shinra. But they WANT to be "good" and are shown to at the very least be capable of great kindness or potential. Some of them even die because of it. And when your in-universe moral afterlife features the same endgame for everyone, then yeah. You can be lenient. I think the lines would blur way more significantly if they were real people, but they're not. They're fictional characters. So the viewer can choose to engage with their shaky morality on a more personal level that leaves room for empathy.

SO with all that rambling out of the way, I do think Sephiroth had options. He could have retired. He could have bided his time and waited for the organization to eat itself. He could have joined Genesis under the pretense of "helping" him while actively collaborating with Zack. And he honestly could have just booked it out of there. He's strong enough to where he could at the very least held Shinra off for a time, grueling and exhausting though it would have been. There are parts of the globe that Shinra still hasn't gotten its hooks in. There was what was left of Glenn's team. And Avalanche. Sephiroth had OPTIONS, there were just various factors that delayed his decision. Sephiroth was still in the process of fully questioning his role under Shinra. And just as he's about to commit to an idea the Nibelheim Incident coincidentally takes place, likely thanks Hojo's manipulations. It was bad timing all around. The worst possible circumstance at the worst possible time.

[scr-ppup]

@ Scr-ppup | 🪦👁️

—"Even the divine of the mercy and prayers will not help you..

"For I will still smite your ass to the oblivion's growing hunger."—

- liomogai: neogenders, general & alterhumans flags and terms.

- request status: open

Ask box: — (24 requests) | queue: 35 | drafts: 500+

Creds; PFP mask.

Coinfight info link; team Villains.

Anons; 🌊🐈‍⬛,

— "sir, If the hounds don't kill you, I will make sure I have your head at my feet by sundown."

"You hear me, old bastard?"—

> my main is @ Reveseke and that's where I'll be interacting from. Don't get spooked lol.

> here's my pronouns cc & pronouns.page

> I am neurodivergent & disabled, 06/18 & genderqueer, Finnish entity, transspecies, alterhuman & holothere.

> Call me mainly Koiri or Ashlin on this blog, or Kalma.

> I don't have a DNI for my terms and flags, but I do block folks that are specified in my BYF if following. :)

> please use tone tags with me, it makes it easier for me to interpret y'all when it comes to answering questions and interactions in general. I have a tendency to interpret the tone wrong in text. Also please don't use fonts or colored text in the asks, thanks.

Masterlist nav. — req list - tag nav.

— "The world didn't go too easy on you, did it, Kalma?"

BYF

- I belong into quite a few blankqueer/-punk stances in some way; reclaimed feralqueer, hallowpunk, redemptionqueer, darlingqueer, yandequeer, (ally) rabiespride, eepyqueer, para-health, Beastpunk, mangledqueer, Sataniqueer & freakqueer.

None of these labels will override *my* stances that I've laid in my BYF. Beware of this. (Also I'm going to get all the links in a bit lol.)

I am anti harassment, pro-para - anti-contact (+ a para myself) & pro- safe recovery, anti-censorship & I'm peacefic. I'm pro good-faith / contradicting terminology, I believe everyone has a unique sense of self and should be able to use the terms and call themselves what they want to reflect themselves. I stand with the 4B, land-back, black lives matter movements, and pro decolonization.

My political view is anarcho-leftist, however I do not go into that side much since this is a hobby blog.

I am not interested in ship- or syscourse and I find radical pros and antis extremely harmful from both discourses. Do not include me in them. (Besides I'm singlet thus I don't think someone calling themselves endo or supporting or not supporting them is something I should be "included in" on or concerned by. Pro & anti endos alike can interact if they want, just know where I stand and don't break your own DNI for the sake of it.)

Also, those who cannot separate fiction from reality or glorify and romanticize real-life murderers, S/A, mafias, criminals, and so on, you're not even on the thin ice if you follow me you will be blocked.

I do not fuck with (read: i am a heavy anti of) wrongfully used harmful transid folks, rad./queers, xeno.satanists. white supremacists, nationalists, facists, or racists & ableist at all. (Neo) Na.zis and supporters/apologists, pro-colonialists and -capitalists, pro-cop / blue lives matter / all lives matter believers. Neither do I fuck with those who glorify, romantize, or demonize (or speak over folks with) mental illnesses, personality disorders or disabilities.

Also label lumpers and exclusionists (""bi-spec"", aros to aces, aphobics, transphobic, multitransphobic, intersexists, etc), queer-phobic/anti-LGBTQIA+ folk. SW-/TERFs, Radfems, misogynist & misandrist alike; sexists in general. + folks who suibait, witch-hunt, and harass others or condone/support it.

—"you look like an animal, a cornered hound baring its teeth in front of certain death..."

Themed after a CoD oc named Kalma.

—

Questions are always welcome, but please bear in mind that if the question is asked in noticeably bad Faith it will not be answered unless I feel the need to answer it because it's important.

[stormwaterwitch]

I have a question about Deities that you can TELL weren't brought into existence by you, but take on a form of fictional media that you hyperfixate on?

Hyper-fixation vs 'Real Deities'

Heya anon~♥

The term you might be looking for is Pop Culture Paganism or the inclusion of popular culture into your practice. I have my own hyper-fixations and moods that I go through with my path so I'll speak from my place and hope that it translates well enough ^^); b There are forms of media that mean everything to me. Things that have helped form the very basis of who I shaped up to be. Through these medias I was able to define my very sense of self and I feel a deep connection towards them. In a way they are anchors to me, holding me together. Tethers to the parts of myself that I don't want to lose.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with adding your pop culture fixations to your craft or to your path as your path helps to define you as a whole. These medias that you enjoy help to define you too. You see yourself in the characters, their struggles, their triumphs; their stories. It is natural to want and crave those characteristics for yourself, add them to your path or even celebrate them.

Ancient Greeks wanted the Strength of Ares, the Wisdom of Athena, the Beauty of Aphrodite. Were they not also stories that were told and are still told to this day? One of my personal beliefs for Pop Culture Paganism and the worship of Pop Culture entities as deities is that you just have to believe. Belief is part of what makes the magic real, what makes it happen.

-oOo-

Pop Culture MAGIC is something a little different but I do that over on my @pokemonmagic account more where I would utilize Pokemon for all the magical aspects they can provide to my craft as a whole~!

Some more great links and discussions about these topics can be found with these lovely people's posts!

Pop Culture Paganism & God Theory -@the-broken-stones Creating your own Pantheon - @thiscrookedcrown How I created my Pantheon Source Specific Pop Culture Paganism

Thanks for sending this in I hope it makes sense, please feel free to send in more if you'd like to keep talking about it!

Other Pop Culture Pagans feel free to chime in!

[screen-universe-official-thingie]

Welcome! Here is the guide to the Screen Universe for beginners. The Basics of the basics

What is Screen Universe? Screen Universe is a world that takes place behind the screen, what happens behind the TVs, the phones, the computers, all that stuff. Each part of the universe is separated into three main realms, all of which has creatures living in them. What are those creatures?

Fictionals: First off, the Fictionals! They are your favorite and not so favorite characters you see in animated media and video games. The characters responsible for the stories you consume, the instrument of your entertainment! And sometimes the ones who shape your childhood. But beware! They are not always what they seem. In fact, they're merely just actors, whose entire existence is to put up a show or a game for unknown entities.

Their stories, worlds, everything in their canons are all just an act! They may or may not be so different from their respective personas. A villain playing one may turn out to be nicer than their character, or a hero playing one being crueler than what they're shown for the camera, or perhaps closer or similar to the real deal. Who knows that they're truly like behind their masks. Interestingly enough, they can't or refuse to physically break character despite being mentally and emotionally different from them. meaning they must keep their bodies and names, their persona's identities. Why they can't do that is a mystery.

Weblings: They are creatures of the Internet realm, the embodiment of social media accounts and the product what their users do with them. They may be kind, an ass, or something worse. They either stay where they are or transverse to other realms. The rotten apples of their kind are usually the ones who pick fights with not just each other, but Fictionals too. Their appearance may vary from which part of the Internet Realm they are from.

Mancers: The deities of Screen Universe, the creators of both the Internet realm and the Fictional realm. They also create the Fictionals, their acting worlds, and direct them on what to do for their projects. As all mighty as they seem, they're just mortals, humans. They can die at any given time and can not be revived. What are those three realms? They are the Fictional Realm, the Internet Realm, and lastly the Memory Realm. Fictional Realm: Where the Fictionals hang out and take breaks from working on their series and being in character. There, they can also take on lives that may be entirely different or similar to their personas. They also form societies and territories, and much more.

Internet Realm: Where the Weblings are from. Each part of the realm are separated into different parts: media regions, Web sections, and many others. The media region are environments based on social medias and the weblings that reside within them

Memory Realm: The memory realm is the most interesting realm out of the others. It seemed to be always been around even way before the dawn of the Fictionals and Weblings combined, let alone have their respective realms created. It is the only realm Fictionals can't have easy access to and must meet very specific conditions to do so. The realm lives up to its namesake since it has recordings, both of the good and the bad, and contain permanently dead Fictionals, who'll remain a memory of the living.

Note that Fictionals are harder to kill and are functionally immortal. They must be killed in very specific conditions as well.

Other terminologies that'll be important for beginners

Ser-workers: The Fictionals' word for co-stars, they are those who work on the same series as them.

Rolcism: A form of discrimination where Fictionals judge and oppress each other for playing certain roles, usually the villain role. It can affect the other roles too and even the dynamic between actors both inside and outside of their on camera lives should some of them be rolcists.

Rolcists: Those who believe that they are better than others just because they play the "superior" role or believe that Fictionals of a certain role are worse than what they really are. Usually hero Fictionals are rolcists, but villain Fictionals can be rolcists too.

The Villainous Underground: A safe heaven for the villain playing Fictionals to hide from rolcists. The name of the place speaks for itself. It spreads across the undergrounds of the Fictional Realm, with an elaborated tunnel system that allows others to get around anywhere within the realm safely.

Acting Dimensions: Where the Fictionals' performances and project productions take place. They can be accessed via portal stations back in the Fictional Realm. A pocket dimension stage or an interdimensional studio basically.

Mascots: Certain Fictionals who are leaders of a territory and keep the place running and either keep it in great shape or abuse their power over it and the people in it. They are the representatives and the face of the territories they're from. The title is given to by the mancers. Examples of Mascots are SpongeBob, Mickey Mouse, and Mario.

Territories: They are large portions of land saturated in Fictionals of the same big animation or video game companies. They may have one mascot run the place (eg. Disney Kingdom), multiple mascots run it (eg. Nintendo Empire), a mascot and a council (eg. Nick Nation), or no mascot at all and only ran by a collective of non mascot Fictionals (eg. certain territories).

[pb-dot]

Film Friday: Red Eye

After ridding myself of some bile last week, I believe it is time to return to the world of the sanguine movie recommendation. I have a theory that the best movies, the best stories overall really, come from making a universal experience into something exciting. Jaws preys on the ancient fear and fascination with the sea, The Matrix taps into the feeling of the world not being what it appears to be, and today's movie, Red Eye, describes both the allure and dangers inherent to sharing a transport seat pair with a beautiful weirdo.

Our protagonist in this chamber play is Lisa Reisert, played by the always astounding and captivating Rachel McAdams, a consummate professional hotel manager who finds herself seated next to a charming, and clearly interested stranger, Jackson Ripner, played by the equally astounding and captivating Cillian Murphy. What initially plays out like a romcom meet-cute, though, takes a sinister turn once the plane takes off and Jackson tips his hand. He's a Fixer, and he has stalked Lisa with the express intention of forcing her to comply with his plan, an assassination plot against a politician staying at Lisa's hotel. In addition to the physical danger he represents, Jackson also has men keeping close tabs on Lisa's father, with the instructions to murder him if Rippner doesn't call it off.

What follows is an incredibly tight chamber play as Lisa attempts to outsmart Rippner, who for his part treats the outing as a delightful romp until unearthing certain facts about Lisa's life seemingly provokes something ugly within him. It's a tight story that utilizes the setting of a plane in flight to the max, weaving in near misses and almost-escapes to ratchet up the intensity of the drama. Rippner's control seems absolute with every contingency accounted for, but it does come to a head in a staggering act 2 climax where Lisa, after having ostensibly given in and aided Rippners plan, shares the last secret that Rippner has been unable to unearth... and stabs him in the fucking throat.

Act 3 may be a bit less tight than the preceding two acts, and rely heavily on a pre-9/11 level of airport security, but DAMN if I don't think of it every time I hear the sound of the "Seatbelts On" light turn off. Act 3 is decidedly more hectic as Lisa rushes to escape Rippner, who is down but not out, save her dad, and foil the assassination plot.

Now, while the setting and screenplay are both pretty clever what mid-budget thrillers are concerned, what really makes this movie sing are the characters and their actors. Cillian Murphy truly has some otherworldly peepers, and he leverages a fascinating blend of intensity and charm in his Rippner persona. He's the perfect man, as long as you're ok with everything about him being a lie to further whatever goal he's working for, even his laid-back "I'm too evil to have feelings" shtick is an act, as evidenced by the possessive rage he displays when he discovers Lisa having managed to hide things from him.

And Lisa, oh, Lisa. I may not be the biggest fan of the reveal that the secret Lisa has kept from everyone, even Rippner, was a sexual assault, but I won't deny that there is a certain triumphant flair to how she has turned this traumatic event into a bedrock of strength. If she was a real person and not a fictional entity I would perhaps ask if this was a healthy coping mechanism, but I am not an expert in these matters. Either way, I love the way McAddams plays her, how she projects this people-pleaser-act, but avoids social interactions, preferring to concede whatever ground is necessary to make sure conversations end prematurely. It's never elaborated on, but just the way she decides to lie to Rippner about her preferred drink order to dodge the connection is some compellingly subtle stuff.

Let's not forget about the chemistry, though. The setup only works if we believe in the meet-cute idea for long enough to get suckered in, and both McAddams and Murphy bring their a-game here. She's reserved but friendly, and he's harmless and charming, of course, they're both acting at this point, but that only underlines the parallels. For their own reasons, Lisa and Jackson both project a more socially acceptable persona, and it is in the way these come to clash throughout the movie that it ascends from engaging potboiler to something quite special.

Also, this may be a tiny bit unprofessional, but I have never claimed to be anything more than a passionate amateur so here it goes. Wow is this a tough watch for us bisexuals. Rachel McAddams and Cillian Murphy are both handsome people in their own right, but together they've got some kind of additive effect to each other that just makes them hotter. Perhaps it's that they're both fucked up in their own way or maybe it's just the way that "traditional" romantic tension gives way to an intense rivalry that just flips all the Enemies To Lovers switches and makes the whole thing seem way more queer than it has any right to be. That could be wishful thinking, but either way, this was a movie I watched a ton of times before I realized my sexuality and I couldn't quite figure out what I found so compelling about it. Now, however, I will say it makes way more sense.

So, with that personal aside, I will conclude my talk on this movie. Go see it if you haven't already!

[bearmemesreviews]

FotW: SDMI - The Song of Mystery

Well, it looks like we have a special case on our hands, as we have not one but TWO creatures for our fifth MI review. For this occasion, we'll do things a little differently than usual. Can our new ghouls beat the Crab Man as our current contender for best monster so far? No.

However, we still have to review them so let's talk about Que Horrifico and the use of Mayans in Horror Media. Yeah, we gotta address this at some point. Cultural influence is unavoidable in all genres, but there is a tendency to use a very quickly researched creature or even deity from other cultures to give a name to what might as well be an original demon or spirit in a kids cartoon or other horror media. This can range from passible, and sometimes informative, deep cuts in mythology getting representation in the mainstream for future creators to further research and enjoy - or it can result in what happened to many Indigenous Spirits I cannot name.

Not gonna' go deep into the Cannibal Deer furries white people call a name you aren't even supposed to state if you don't want to bring misfortune upon yourself but understand that I think the "let artists do what they want" mantra is a cowardly and reductive way to excuse poor research and abysmal treatment of Non-White folklore. Though sometimes, like today's episode, we're just talking about a fully original entity who's meant to "evoke" a culture rather than represent it.

Lets talk about the Made-up Mayan Monster from the talking dog show.

Backstory: During a random stint of babysitting for Daphne (genuinely the weirdest member of the gang to use for this role, and she never does this again), she hears a pan flute being played outside of her kid's house. Before she can check it out, a commotion draws her to the boy she was sitting to find him transformed into a monster. Now "Spookified", as the show puts it, the child proceeds to attack Daph and chase her out of the house.

The kid doesn't follow her as she runs outside, but Daphne soon discovers that the entire neighborhood has had its children turned into monsters. Before the intro, we see the mummified pan flute player disappear into some mist.

Daphne draws the rest of the gang into the mystery, and they soon discover that the entire town of Crystal Cove has slowly been overrun by the monster kids. The adults in town - including those without children possibly? - are then literally driven away, unable to return to their homes as the kids remain Spookified even during daytime hours. Effectively abandoning their kids to their own bestial devices.

This will not be the worst parenting you'll see in this show.

The first suspect, and not just for the Mystery Gang, is Luis de Potrillo, an exchange teacher for Honor's Social Studies. It is through his class that the cast find out about the fictional "legend" of Que Horrifico, who has no real origin but acts as a Pied Piper-esque boogeyman for South America.

Mr. Potrillo also suspects himself, believing that he's turning into the monster like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Sometimes these weird one-off characters show up in future episodes, but it feels odd when some just drop off the face of the earth like this guy. Especially since he's one of the few adults in town who don't treat the gang like garbage.

Reveal: The culprit is fairly obvious since she's the only other newly introduced side character of the episode, child genius and Fred's current Civics tutor Mary Anne Gleardan. The children turn out to not be actual monsters, as a turned-on television eventually makes them break character just to sit down and watch a cartoon. The kids were merely dressing up as miniature ghouls at the behest of Mary Anne who promised them "Utopia" - before finally getting their full cooperation with the promise of free candy instead.

Jamie Neutron here wanted to be part of the Town's council, since she's obviously smart enough to actually run it, but was rejected for her age. And like most child geniuses, she had the technical skill and smarts to create a convulated scheme to scare every adult out of Crystal Cove to turn it into some kind of Kinderstate. However, she still retains the child-like logic of not realizing what that actually entails since she'd have to eventually create her own police state filled with nothing but toddlers in Halloween makeup.

They canonically throw this child into jail for how much money the town wasted on trying to merchandise Que Horrifico.

Design: Que Horrifico, which you can tell with a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish means "How Horrific", is a "Mayan inspired" monster that is otherwise a fully original creature. It wears a semi-golden mask and ragged poncho based on the South American culture. Its mask is evocative of a monkey, with those Rangda teeth that jut outwards and "earring"-like shapes built beneath its molded ears. There's a metal piece attached to the "hat" that's also part of the mask, resembling those antennae-shaped features you'd see on a samurai helmet.

The show surprisingly never makes an Egyptian mummy, which is a staple of Scooby-media, and instead makes Que Horrifico a mummified ghoul with dull blue skin, black nails, and tattered bandages wrapped around most of its body with a few gaps for easier movement. Its hair is also long and white, connecting its design to the Spookified kids in a cool way.

As for The Spookified, they all resemble the child extras under the makeup, but with longer white hair and eyebrows, clawed extremities, fangs, and glowing yellow eyes. They mostly act like Gremlins and use their youthful energy to leap and flip around like a swarm of fast zombies. They're clothing is also torn up a bit, and they resort to hissing and growling while in-character.

I'm at odds with Que Horrifico, though I think the creature kids are a decent design for what amounts to a non-zombie "Horde". It feels odd how they avoided actually drawing any inspiration from real mythology and mostly did a South American "take" on the Pied Piper. It's not even bad, just weird, but as a Horror enthusiast who's experienced the way media and their fandoms butcher cannibal spirits and Hoodoo it does make me more forgiving when a show plays it safe.

In a way, I feel like Que Horrifico WOULD exist as a folktale, but specifically one made up by locals to scare tourists into behaving better. ESPECIALLY, if they're dragging their kids along for the trip. It's design is also just really cool, I can't comment on the mask because it could just be utter nonsense from a Geographical or Historical standpoint - I'm not the crazy teacher, I don't know what those masks specifically mean.

From a quick glance though, the semblance to a monkey might be intentional because Howler Monkeys in Maya culture are considered wise and are often connected with artistry - fitting both the culprit and her gimmick.

Final Ratings

Que Horrifico: 4/5

The Spookified: 3/5

Hmmm, maybe I should review the creature design of Maya and the Three...

[thenightling]

Slender Man (a small debunking and hypothetical)

I am in several supernatural and folklore groups on Facebook and recently one of them had a thread about Slender Man full of misinformation.

In June 2009 Slender Man made his first appearance in memes and creepy-pastas. Eric Knudsen AKA Victor Surge is credited with creating the fictional character. The character was a tall, bone-white figure in a dapper suit. There were various forms of lore invented for the character. But the most annoying thing about this new character was the retroactive attempt to make him "folklore." For some 4chan members it was a game to convince people that Slender Man had always existed in lore and to get "Legitimate" cryptid sites to post about him as if he was potentially real. Lots of people fell for the 4chan related efforts to pretend that Slender Man always existed in folklore. One "origin" was "Der Gross Mann." ignoring that this is very bad German, this was an attempt to tie Slender Man to old European Giant folklore and many people (mostly Americans with limited knowledge of actual folklore) fell for it. I had thought this misinformation died down in the last fifteen or so years but this new Facebook thread I read had a lot of comments of "But he is folklore." and "My grandfather used to tell me stories about Slender Man." No. Honey. No, he didn't. And "But Slender Man dates back centuries!" and "But he is an actual cryptid. People have seen him!" There are many folkloric and even pop culture characters that helped inspire Slender Man. This includes The Boogey Man and even Jack Skellington from Nightmare before Christmas. Yes, the character created by twenty-something Tim Burton while working for Disney. To me Jack Skellington is an obvious inspiration. You have the bald, bone-white, extremely thin and tall, character, who apparently feeds on fear and can induce it easily.

The only way Slender Man can be real is if you believe in the phenomena called the Tulpa effect. What is the Tulpa effect? Loosely based on the Tulpa concept from Buddhism, it is when a collective belief in something is so strong that the thing becomes real through belief alone. This concept has existed in parapsychology for a long time and has often gone unnamed. My first exposure to this concept came from an episode of The Real Ghostbusters animated where where the collective belief in Sherlock and Watson was so strong that it allowed them to manifest as ghost-like entities. In Neil Gaiman's The Sandman several entities of The Dreaming are the manifestation of the collective ideas of well-known characters of story. The condition of being a werewolf (a lycanthrope) and the condition of believing one is a werewolf (Lycanthropy) are interchangable because the belief can be so strong as to have physical manifestation such as increased strength and even hair growth. Pseudocyesis or Phantom pregnancy can also have physical manifestations because of the belief that the pregnancy is real is so strong. It is believed that the Tulpa effect can (through a collective belief) manifest an entity of fiction into retroactively becoming real in the present and past. And this happens simply because the belief is strong enough to conjure the being into existence in the present as well as the past. Well, once you realize Slender Man is at least partly probably inspired by Jack Skellington from Nightmare before Christmas, if the Tulpa Effect is real, let's hope you enjoy accidentally invoking a fear-preying anthropomorphic personification of Halloween who happens to sing like Danny Elfman. Also if the Tulpa effect is real, we probably created Count Dracula by now so you may want to stock up on garlic about now. You have fun with that.

[saint-starflicker]

Prompts from this post.

1. What is the most valuable piece of advice you've been given about writing?

The most valuable piece of advice was also the most detrimental. It was a list of writing tips in a high school English class that would improve our style, and it did get me thinking more keenly about the gears and axles that make up a language. Too bad it got to me at a time in my life that I didn't have much creative flow, and that I would cling to those tips and suggestions as though it would save me from real life. I still recognize when passive voice is not the best choice, and how that is a choice now that it's been (heh) pointed out to me what passive voice even is���but flow and content becoming more important than style is what got me actually writing again. Your body of work is only as good as the collection of stuff in it that actually exists. I still value the style tips more because the prerequisite about creative flow and content is a very internal issue, whereas style was one that I actually got external guidance with.

2. Is your main villain sympathetic? Why or why not?

I have read the wildest woobification essays on this site, combined with the most inexplicable vitriol aimed at the most non-entity characters...so I don't know anymore what makes a designated villain sympathetic or unsympathetic.

During the writing process, I think it depends on the stakes. The closer to high fantasy the vibe is, the less sympathetic I can make the villain because I'm drawing on the image of the Panopticon dictator who lives beside Mt. Doom (insert the "Are we the Baddies?" skit meme here). I do believe that we can meet real evil in a more domestic genre, but see paragraph above about how there's no consensus about what that "evil" even is.

If I write annoying people with ulterior motives who leverage their power over somebody else's life, then in the process I can think that's very annoying, but somebody else might either think it's funny or alternatively think it's triggering/enabling of the worst thing in the world and in their life. Meanwhile, if I write somebody so horrible that they can hardly be there except for the rumored impact of their abuse on a character that I am more considerate of, then I can still expect some readers to take the sympathetic characters' flaws and use that to frame that character as the worst person that never existed—while the other character, that I think of as so evil that I launched them into plot orbit, in whatever little discourse I'm lucky enough to get around something I wrote can still become woobified in that discourse and get all this backstory and reframing imagined for them. And that wild misinterpretation is going to be all my fault somehow. 😆 That's just the way I've noticed things usually go if a story gets noticed at all, so I can't be too cross.

3. Which of your characters do you think has the most similar traits to you? Why?

They're all going to be filtered through my tint of glasses, at the same time that none of them are going to be me. There's what I think of as an "authorial scope" of vocabulary and observations, within which I can try to keep more variety or consistency as appropriate...but there's other areas that I'm definitely going to flounder at, or that I can recognize as an interesting idea but I know that I don't have it in me to even go there.

Unless I'm writing a memoir, the fictional character that's most like me will still have as much emotional distance from me as a character in the background or in the chorus. I think the characters that I actually get overly protective about are unlike me and that's why I'm biased towards there being more of them in the world because I don't have what that character has.

[edwinspaynes]

i really want to know more about your conceptualisation of soulmates and what they are to you, whether you think they're something we all have, if fiction captures how it is in real life (how? how not?) platonic vs romantic and all of the things, etc. if you're okay with talking about it! personally i'm not sure yet whether i believe in soulmates or say, if my soul is drawn to this person at this time it means they're going to teach me some amazing discovery about how i fit into the world but we might not be everything to each other forever, but that's okay cause it makes room for more soul-teachers (as an example) anyway. i'm not sure yet. really. what i believe in terms of it and am keen to hear from you!

(p.s you're giving ace of hearts vibes, do you know what that is?)

This is going to be muse-y and rant-y and make little sense. I'm sorry. Please stick with me! Also, what's ace of hearts?

I'm a hardcore soulmates believer. I think there are some people we're destined to meet, and I think those people hold a little part of us forever, for better or worse. Their souls are knit with ours. For real, comically. Dust from the same star or something.

I think that with obvious exceptions for aro people, everyone has a romantic soulmate somewhere out there. I think everyone has a platonic one.

If you want to know how I conceptualize soulmates, you should look at my fic The Stars Are Aligned (So Save That Heart for Me). I tend to align with Thomas in that fic - I think that soulmates are fated, and that that's the most romantic and magical possibility out there. But, like Alastair in this fic, I do think there's an element of choice to it. Like, you can meet your soulmate and make the wrong choices. It's possible! But sometimes, in rare cases, everything aligns and it's perfect. As it is for Thomas and Alastair and always will be.

I don't think that all happy couples are soulmates. I do think that everyone has a soulmate, but I understand that some people may not choose to be with that person. Not all the ships I like feel soulmate-y. I don't think a lot of media hits the "soulmate" button for me. For example, I love Sophideon, I love Gracetopher. Do I thunk they're soulmates? Wouldn't wager on it, though I love the ships.

To me, soulmates are people who see the worst in each other and love even those ugliest parts. They're people who are so in sync with their values and goals that there's little question on what a happy life would look like for them. They're people who accept every single bit of each other, trust every part of each other, and can bring out the best in each other just by coexisting.

This is rare. So rare. And it's why Thomastair is the only ship (in any media) I'd be comfortable betting actual money on being romantic soulmates. They're in sync, and they clearly hold a part of each other. Thomas always felt something for Alastair, and Alastair was always seeking out Thomas when he didn't know it yet. (I love Wessa, I have a Wessa tattoo, and I STILL wouldn't stake the farm on them being soulmates, because of everything with Jem and because they were out of sync for so long. When I say Thomastair is rare in this way, I MEAN IT.)

I think that a fun fixture of soulmates is that they will find each other over and over in every life. (Shamelessly plugs my Thomastair fic that I linked earlier again). Whether there's reincarnation or simply a scattering of essences, those soulmate parts will always find each other. Because their souls are so knit that, while each person can be an independent individual entity, they will always be two halves of one predestined whole, made to love each other for eternity even as the tides of the universe change.

Edit: sorry, I didn't address soul teachers. I do think this is a thing, people who were put in our paths so we could learn from them and from our relationships with them. And that's so so important. But I think it's different than a soulmate.

[greensaplinggrace]

Hey! I am the anon who ask for an alternative for "grisha", and, as someone who don't know Russian culture or language, I want to ask your opinion on what I thought.

What do you think of "bditel'nyy" (which should mean awake, vigilant, according to an English-Russian dictionary I found online, but this could be wrong) as a substitute, at least as a formal title, for "grisha"? I was inspired by the "egregore", especially Frater Tenebris' definition: "[…] an occult term for an independently functioning spiritual entity created by one or more magick practitioners. Many egregores begin as thought-forms but then become capable of operating independently of the practitioners", with "thought-form" being "an esoteric entity created by magick […] or from worship and prayer by generations of believers". The definitions of Gaetan Delaforge and René Guénon respectively also seem interesting in this sense: "egregore" is "a kind of group mind which is created when people consciously come together for a common purpose", "possessing a subtle force made up in a way of the contributions of all its members past and present, and which is consequently all the more considerable and able to produce greater effects as the collectivity is older and is composed of a greater number of members".

In other words, it would be related to: 1) an elite spiritual group, who maintain traditions and are vigilant; 2) a group mind; and 3) an independent magical being arising from the collective mind.

PS.: Thank you for answering my first question! And, by any chance, do you think it's offensive to take a Western concept for a group that is part of a country inspired by Russia?

ah my apologies! I took your previous ask to mean a canonical replacement for grisha instead of a fictional exercise in creativity.

if you're searching for answers about russian culture and language, I'd recommend asking the slavic members of this community, of which there are actually many. I believe @stromuprisahat could help you out, if not with your question then just to recc others with more knowledge on the subject.

bditel'nyy is actually fun! and I'm sure there are many russian words or phrases you could use in your writing to replace the word grisha, especially if you came up with the lore for why the phrase exists and where it does and how it's dispersed throughout the world/who uses it/how it affects grisha culture and all of that other worldbuilding stuff which is incredibly fun. so I say go for ideas like that! it's cool and interesting.

I'm going to give a bit of a neutral reaction to frater tenebris and the term egregore in general, however. again, I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I think you should be wary of how you incorporate what seems to be american centric paganism into a tsarist russia built on what appears to be a mixture of slavic paganism and the russian orthodoxy. while I think the meaning of the term itself could be fun to play around with, I'd give it some thought and maybe ask around more. I'm also not partial to the "elite spiritual group mind" aspect of it, personally, but a name doesn't have to be logical or strictly defining of its members, so that's really one of my own hang ups lol. you could have real fun creatively with that if you used it right.

I love this creative peek into sab lore too! it's neat to explore rewriting it, considering the canonical lore is so lacking, and even sankt grigori is a shallow excuse for worldbuilding when it comes to the true naming of a whole people, imo. there are so many aspects of the grishaverse that could be built on lore wise in much more rich and complex ways.

and you're welcome! I'm glad I got to answer your first question, even if I maybe didn't get your point 😭

last note: I do think it's probably not a great idea to use a western concept for a group of people within a country inspired by russia. but at the same time, the grisha themselves take heavy inspiration from western jewish persecution and ghettoization. so in general, I'd be careful of both russian culture and your interpretations of the grisha and how they're named/treated in your world.

anyways, good luck on whatever you're working on! let me know if you have any more questions!

[jennamoran]

#huh?

This is a quote from a fictitious pop science book focusing on neuroscience.

It appears as an illustrative aside in the RPG Glitch: A Story of the Not, accompanying a section describing a faction that believes the world to be a lie. Its higher-order purpose is thus to complement the description of that faction with something that gives a sort of experiential and narrative life to their philosophy.

In this sense, it's serving a similar purpose to an illustration. RPGs often include illustrations to give a "feel" and inspire visual imagination. The marginalia found in Glitch and other games also provide "feel" and inspire the ... fictive? imagination ... of those who immerse easily in fiction and not so much in descriptive text.

Taking it down a level, we should all be familiar with the idea that the world we perceive is not "the world," but our perceptions. This is an iceberg of an idea, covering everything from "Mexico doesn't actually have a yellow filter in the real world, and thus my media-derived picture of the place does not reflect what is actually there" to "while we perceive a table as solid, the atoms of it are mostly empty space." From the idea of anatman, the idea that there is no permanent and persistent self because there is nothing in us that does not change, to the realization that things like debt are just social constructs rather than immutable laws. We perceive the sky as almost absent of the light of stars, and do not realize that this is a condition we have brought upon ourselves as a society through light pollution. We're losing the butterflies too, and some people won't ever know what they once were like.

And it's easy to accept that idea, but also relegate it to the status of a second-tier explanation of reality. To accept that a lot of our ideas about how things are are purely social or mistaken or just our personal imagination, but also imagine that there's this underlying solid bedrock of a world that those false ideas are kind of painted on. To imagine, for instance, that there's a "true nature" of a certain gender, even though most people don't get what that nature is right. To imagine that either tomatoes are or are not a fruit, rather than both of those being concepts we make up. To imagine that we're separate entities from the world. To say, yes, maybe words and nations and categories and flavors are made up, but, this sandwich is real. This chair is real. That maybe colors are divided up based on society, but that that's just how they're named; the colors themselves are "there."

That's what this quote is trying to dig at; that's the thing it's trying to show how you might question it.

In practice there are very few ground-level experiences that we're ever likely to discover are completely false. That's what makes them ground-level experiences---there's a particular solidity to the existence of a sandwich that derives from our long experience in life knowing that the reality of that sandwich isn't going to be questioned. We can say "it's not really there at the atomic level," but a physicist of my acquaintance might say that the limited way it is there is basically what "thereness" means. We can say "some argument exists about what 'a sandwich' means," but there's still this physical thing one is holding in one's hand. Irrevocable and impregnable in its reality.

Except, the sky isn't really there.

We all basically know that, at least according to the current picture of things, there isn't a blue sky up there. There's just air, going up and up, becoming thinner and thinner until for all practical purposes it's gone. But we also all had to learn this at some point. We had to learn that you couldn't reach up and poke it, though that was a lesson likely learned too young to remember when it happened. We had to learn that it wasn't there, just really high.

But somewhere, right now, someone is learning that. That the sky isn't really there. That that great physical blueness up above is an illusion.

Somewhere, someone is reaching for a handhold that isn't there.

Somewhere, someone is picking up a cup that they know is heavy and full of liquid, only, it's not. It's light.

Somewhere, someone is learning about saccades and the process of vision and how much of what's going on there the brain is filtering out. Or, put another way, someone out there is learning that our eyes are not magical objects that use the light around us to provide an unfiltered measurement of truth.

We live in a picture book created by our brains, and it's difficult to know just where simplification ends and self-deceit begins.

To be clear, I personally believe in trees.

I'm sure my definition of what a tree is will update sometime. I'm sure someday I will walk up to where I think a tree is and it won't be there, because I got turned around or forgot my landmarks and it's somewhere else. I'm sure I'll encounter a weird biology note someday about how something I'd call a tree isn't, it's a mimic of some sort.

But in general, I do personally believe that when I see a tree, I'm seeing a real physical thing. Or, rather---harkening back to our physicist, and the idea that a table is "solid" because tables are the kind of thing the word "solid" refers to---I believe that the model of the world where trees exist is more practical than an elaborate conspiracy theory that they don't.

But discovering one day that there aren't trees ... is the kind of thing that could happen to someone. Oh, it won't be that. But it'll be something, you know? Something that you're certain is real isn't.

So that's what this quote is getting at. It's getting at the idea that you can't just dismiss things like the social construction of reality and the way our models of the world are just models by saying "well, yeah, but that's just superficial stuff, the important stuff is really there."

We don't have direct access to reality. We have sensory experiences that we sort out to build the world, and when some idea keeps working for us, we call it "real." Calling it real, we begin to doubt anything that contradicts it, justifying and justifying until someday the accumulation of evidence reaches such a level that it's cognitively easier to discard that reality and bring in something new.

There's a bunch of interesting stories the neurologists have given us about people with brain damage and what it can make them believe, from "I'm dead, even though I'm talking to you" to "that's not my spouse" to "my hand is acting on its own."

And one thing that often gets overlooked there is, we all have brain damage.

Like, the idea that "normal" brains perceive things correctly and "damaged" brains don't is just a fallacy.

Normal brains perceive things in the normative way. When physiological abnormalities change that perception in a way that is both physiologically semi-replicable and less functional in our context, we call that damage.

But it'd be ridiculous to imagine that we're not all constantly immured in literal billions of errors that are every bit as egregious as believing oneself dead, if only they weren't shared by either everyone in our society or everyone alive and functional. Or rather, that those "errors" are to us as water is to fish; that we are the kinds of beings who perceive sandwiches as sandwiches, tables as tables, and trees as trees, even though it is almost definitionally certain that another kind of creature could perceive the world in a more functional fashion that did not include those things.

I believe in trees, but that mostly just means that I believe that being born with this kind of brain, it will never actually be useful to me to not believe in trees. I am not the kind of alien who will one day break through to a genuinely better picture of the world that doesn't have trees in it. That will require more than just a discovery or a new scientific paradigm; it would require neuroarchitecture I simply don't and can't possess.

(... I should qualify that a little, since it's worth note that neurology is itself just an after-the-fact model of our experience. But that's another kettle of worms; let's leave it there for now.

... although it is worth noting that every scientific theory will probably be revised and reframed repeatedly for as long as a continuous scientific culture exists. Sometimes the reframing will be ideological; sometimes it will be what today's scientists might call a genuine improvement. But it'll keep happening forever.

Still; that's not the topic of this post.)

Imagine a world where there aren't trees. Imagine a world where neuroscientists found a part of the brain that produced them. That instead of "I'm dead" or "that's not my spouse" or "my arm isn't underneath my own control," Dr. Feldr discovered a part of the brain that, when damaged, makes you see trees where they're not.

Imagine a world where further study of these "Feldr's dryads" revealed that ... anyone can see trees, when certain parts of their brain were electrically stimulated. That they can describe them in rich botanical detail. That they can't walk around them, because trees are solid things.

Recognize that this is, in part, how we do see trees; that is, we see trees when something stimulates our brain to see trees. Nobody's ever discovered a specific region responsible for this; the idea is a bit risible.

But also recognize that some risible things are true; that a neuroscientist might comment on this post and tell us there isn't and really can't be a specific part of the brain that identifies trees, but someday, you'll be reading the newspaper, or social media, or whatever, and you'll encounter a description of something weird and unexpected like the idea that there's a specific brain region responsible for trees.

And if it happens to be that ... if this post is going to get dredged up in 15 years as weirdly oracular, or whatever, and it turns out that the next ridiculous, impossible fact that people turn up is that there's a brain region responsible for trees ...

Well, what would that say about the world?

What if trees were like the sky? What if trees were like being "dead" after brain damage? What if trees were like colors and the way we differentiate them socially?

Of course they're not. Of course they're there.

By which I mean, of course it's a sucker's bet to imagine that this will be the thing we learn is meaningfully and practically wrong within our lifetimes.

Because that's how our brains work. That's how our perceptions work. Because that's what trees are, our ever-deeper understanding of a practical constraint on the environment we navigate. Because people who try to walk through trees are less adept at getting around than people who don't, and people who try to look through trees see less well than people who don't, and people who try to climb trees do better than people who try to climb the air, and we've taken all these practical effects and formed a theory of the world including trees.

Because the extent to which trees are actually there is basically what the words "trees" "are" "actually" "there" means.

It's practical to believe in baseline physical reality unless you're seeking enlightenment or whatever.

It's practically impossible to escape baseline physical reality given the neuroarchitecture that we have.

... but over and over again, people take advantage of that to fold things that aren't baseline physical reality into their model and imagine their ideas, their beliefs, their ideological constructs, as baseline physical reality.

Unquestionable.

Accordingly, part of being a person is being aware that sometimes, things you'd thought of as immutable and unquestionable ... aren't.

And like ... the Matrix is an allegory.

Zhuangzi was, for most practical purposes, a human who dreamt he was a butterfly.

The idea that we're all just brains in a vat being deceived by Descartes' "evil demon" is not meaningful---a distinction without a difference.

But they're all getting at the idea that reality isn't something we find, it's something we build out of what we find.

The Deceivers, that faction I mentioned, live outside the world; they think that we have built the world out of lies. They think the whole of Creation is a jungle of deceit that we have put up to keep from seeing ourselves the way we really are.

They love us but they love not that lie.

They come to unmake the world for us. They come to help you forget the Eyes and Ears and Nose, the Work and Home and School, the Trees and Wind and Laughter and Hearts and Hope.

They come because they think us marvelous, whatever it is they think we are—whatever thing they imagine, that we cannot imagine ourselves, lives behind these purported lies.

And like ... I call them Deceivers for a reason. Partly a historical reason, but also partly a practical one. And it's important, practically speaking, that the Eyes and Ears and Nose, the Trees and Wind ... that those aren't the same as the Work and Home and School, the Laughter and Hearts and Hope.

But if you're wondering, how can someone believe that? How can someone be like that? and you're a player or GM in Glitch?

Think about the elephants in the rooms. Think about trees being false. Think about how alluring the parallel between the nervous system and a tree would be to a certain kind of conspiratorial thinking, or at least, how alluring it could have been be if the solidity of trees were not so very evident within our world. And imagine that even if you can't walk through trees, there's a Deceiver over there who knows with absolute certainty that they're conceptual illusions and can walk straight through a larch to prove their point.

... it's probably more useful than spending 20 years studying Buddhism or whatever, anyway, only to get to the end and realize you no longer need to play or GM Glitch at all.

The Elephants in the Rooms

(glitch)

Keep reading

[tenaciouschronicler]

October 13 2024 2009

Hey Nanna?

Hey Nanna.

HEY NANNA?!

UM EXCUSE ME WHAT WAS YESTERDAYS UPDATE!

Ok. ok ok. So inside the original Colonel Sassacres book Nanna wrote John a letter full of even more implications than what happened with Mom and the Jasper bunker. In this letter, Nanna states the book has some sort of journey that ended on her date of death. Potentially afterwards if Dad wished it. Firstly, I guess its not entirely strange for her to assume she would die before John came of age depending on her own health and age. But the way its framed leads me to believe their is some sort of, I dont know, cycle? predetermined fate? something! that Nanna was aware Needed to come to pass. And Dad knew at least some of it. Is that why hes so obsessed with meteor sightings? What does he know? What did Nanna tell him? Is that why hes unbothered by the existance of Imps?

Moving on to the real crux of it all.

"There will come a day when you will be thrust into another world ... a realm of Warring Royalty in a Timeless Expanse."

What sort of prophetic BS?! Has she been to Skaia/The Incipisphere? Did she hack into SkaiaNet or something?? How did she know! You are already dead (let alone fictional) otherwise I would shake you down for more context! But thats for later.

In closing, Nanna goes cryptic again and I am scrutinising every word. She feels as though she and John have already met and Will meet once more, again playing into my cycle theory.

Theres just so much going on here and I am full of exicement and frustration and I have so many questions!!! *exhale* Im gonna just go over some of the things she has underlined in the third paragraph. Get ready for dictionary time!

Agents: a person who acts on behalf of another or takes an active role to produce a specified effect. Most likely to be, seeing as this is a game of chess, the minor pieces (bishops, rooks, knights) that we have yet to see.

Exiles: person in forced or voluntary absence from ones own home/country. So far consists of Wandering Vagabond and Peregrine Mendicant considering their current location is future Earth and their names.

Consorts: significant person, typically spouse, to a reigning monarch. Surprise, surprise. Looks like queen pieces will be very important to the story though I wont discount kings getting in on the action.

Kernelsprites: entities that affect the Medium upon entry after prototyping that act as sudo NPC guides. Weve met them, sort of, but this implies a far greater significance than has been shown so far.

These first four, all in the same sentence, seem like they are going to play some major roles in the story and how it unfolds.

Underlings: a person lower in status or rank. Pawns or I guess in this case Imps. Described as toiling.

Denizens: inhabitant or occupant of a particular place. Does this imply beings outside of the chess game? Are there any on the planet below John? Described as slumbering (or are they awake now that John has arrived?)

These two are also in the same sentence and while are seen probably wont go too far beyond whatever their defined roles are.

These next four are 1. a doozy, 2. probably going to describe our four friends, John, Rose, Dave and GG.

Heir of Breath: (inheritor of life tasked with its continuance)

Heir- inheritor of a legacy with the expectation of continuance

Breath- that which enters and exits the lungs, life

Seer of Light: (able to see beyond the visible path)

Seer- one that sees, predictor of events/developement sometimes by means of divination

Light- (god theres so many) visible spectrum, device to start flame, understanding of a problem (as in enlightenment)

Knight of Time: (servant to the progress of existence)

Knight- mounted man-at-arms serving a feudal superior

Time- indefinite progress of existence/events in the past, present, and future as a whole

Witch of Space: (able to manipulate the expanse of space and its demensions)

Witch- a person normally associated with evil supernatural power

Space- a continuous expanse which is unoccupied, the demensions within all things live and move

There is a ton of speculations you can make with these definitions alone but whos to say Hussie will follow expectations. I added my own theories next to each title and Id love to read any others.

Ascend: to go up, climb

Probably the most clear definition as we've seen it in action with John and the eccheladder. However, it feels too simple of a process for how convoluted Skaia has been. Theres gotta be something else we are missing here.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed dictionary time. Im gonna go ruminate on this some more while we wait for more updates.