#you are worthy of love because you are an entity which has capacities such as to love in return and to grow and change

[stupid-elf]

Don't settle for the Gatsby to your Daisy. Do NOT settle for the Tom Buchanan to your Daisy. Find the Westley to your Buttercup

you guys deserve someone who loves you and not the idea of you. just so you know. so you're aware.

[whinlatter]

i MUST hear your thoughts on "im your man" by mitski and how it's the ginny/harry/sirius trio anthem in "beasts"...must hear

what have you done asking me about this...... a great and terrible mistake........ the air is thick with sirens...........

basically i'm your man is an absolutely perfect song about feeling unworthy and undeserving of the love someone gives you, and a feeling of great dread that one day the other person will realise it and leave. it is - for this reason - so eye-wateringly ginny-sirius-harry coded i simply cannot bear it. that whole album (the land is inhospitable and so are we) is heaven and there are so many songs on it that have been absolutely dynamite for getting the juices flowing with this fic (the frost and star are my hinny anthems for chapter 12  👀)

so i am taking a short dissertation writing break to offer an entirely unhinged rant about i'm your man complete with some mild beasts spoilers because apparently i care a lot about this inexplicably. thank you so much for humouring me!

you're an angel, i'm a dog or you're a dog and i'm your man you believe me like a god i'll destroy you like i am

the first verse plays with the idea that there are three tiers of being - dog, man, angel/god - that all exist in relation to each other. the narrator sings the song to put themselves down. you're an angel, i'm a dog - meaning, i'm lowly nothing compared to your pure divine greatness. in the next line, a twist and advance on that idea: you're a dog (faithful, honest, loyal, loving easily and with such trust) and i'm your man (the one who is responsible for you, who you look to protect and sustain you, who is unworthy of that kind of adoration). you believe me like a god - you trust and believe in my power and ability to take care of you and guide you. but then: i'll destroy you like i am - the only real godlike power the narrator identifies with is the capacity for destruction and ruin.

ok partly it's... you know....... the dog thing because i am very on-the-nose. (obviously sirius as padfoot, but also the distinctions in the wizarding world between beings as the moral civilised entities vs the beasts, the wild and lawless and violent magical creatures). but it's also this suggestion of hero worship and adoration from one character to another, and the object of that kind of love struggling to feel worthy of it and fearing the power it has given them over the other person. it's such a huge vibe for how i'm thinking about these characters !! i feel like it works both for harry and sirius' relationship as well as harry and ginny's: the love and reverence harry has for sirius, when sirius is filled with so much self-loathing and guilt and awareness of his own failings as a parent figure, and the way harry comes to love ginny and think of her as this pure singular light and symbol of all his hopes for a bright and good future, which (i think!) would be a lot for ginny to take on and live up to and feel deserving of. there's even shades of it in how i imagine ginny feels about sirius in the flashbacks - little ginny looking up to sirius like he's a god, hanging off his every word, sirius backing away from being responsible for this child's admiration and desire for guidance from him.

i'm sorry i'm the one you love no one will ever love me like you again so when you leave me, i should die i deserve it, don't i

i mean this is a pure sirius verse imo also with such harry shades to it ('i deserve it don't i' pure ootp harry angst). but i see some of ginny in this too ('i'm sorry i'm the one you love' - her wish that she could just be such cool and chill and easy and trying to live up to this idea harry sometimes as of her as so strong and stoic and able to deal with things, and then her feelings when all that comes crumbling down....)

i can feel it getting near like flashlights coming down the way one day you'll figure me out i'll meet judgment by the hounds

the feeling of being hunted! sirius and harry as wanted men! ginny getting found out and caught in her secrets and half-lies! 'i'll meet judgement by the hounds' god. god

people always gave me love others were never to blame after all you believe me like a god i'll betray you like a man

i think of this verse as the sirius and ginny verse. here the narrator locates the source of their unworthiness internally, not in being deprived of love by others, but in something fundamentally broken and tainted inside them. sirius as a character can't blame a total absence of love for what he's become - he was loved, he blames no-one but himself for the loathing he feels for himself. ginny, too, could not have been more loved, both before the TMR ordeal, but also thereafter - she comes from a family that adores her, she is widely liked and admired; but still, there's something missing in her sense of self. i do not wish to spoil future chapters but yeah this is bit is a Big Mood as we come closer to understanding ginny's war and what it asked of her

in chapters 10 and 11 of beasts, i started to play with this idea of the traitor, of a person who has made a great and terrible choice to betray the people close to them and in doing so revealed a true self that was there all along but lay dormant. so far in the fic, i've tried to thread in a lil drip-drip-drip of questions about the self, who a person really ever is, and about the choices characters make because of their sense of who they are, especially moral choices, in a war and under a regime that must, ethically, be resisted.

of sirius, harry, and ginny, so far it's sirius who knows most about what it is to be a traitor: someone who spent the bulk of his life assumed to be a turncoat, who is consumed by his hatred of wormtail and the memory of his treachery, who can't even begin to grasp the layers and dimensions to his own brother's betrayal, and who fundamentally still thinks of himself as a traitor to his best mate, believing himself to having 'as good as' killed lily and james. harry is the one who's full of trust, throughout the war:

'“No,” Harry said out loud, and they all looked at him, surprised. The firewhisky seemed to have amplified his voice. “I mean . . . if somebody made a mistake,” Harry went on, “and let something slip, I know they didn’t mean to do it. It’s not their fault,” he repeated, again a little louder than he would usually have spoken. “We’ve got to trust each other. I trust all of you, I don’t think anyone in this room would ever sell me to Voldemort."'

“No, I think you’re like James,” said Lupin, “who would have regarded it as the height of dishonour to mistrust his friends.” Harry knew what Lupin was getting at: that his father had been betrayed by his friend, Peter Pettigrew. He felt irrationally angry. He wanted to argue, but Lupin had turned away from him...'

ginny, of course, knows what it is to be betrayed - by her first real friend, by her own brother. but i just think these two final lines, the twist on the first verse, are such a huge huge mood for drawing some of these ideas to the surface as the plot inches (v slowly lol) forwards - the idea of a character who has had every faith put in them by someone who loves and believes in them, who fears that they wll buckle under the weight of it and betray that love and trust in terrible ways. to betray you like a man - for the great moral sin to be something inherent to no other creature or being but man - is just such a powerful cool as shit line that is really gettin me going for writing the next bit of this fic.

wow i didn't even know how much i cared about this song but turns out it's a lot???? troubling for me!

[thekimspoblog]

Lila the decrepit

OP: "So, basically, the devs gaslight us into furthering Lila's existence. Now that they've shared the idea of Lila to the world, Lila will never die"

See, here's the thing that bothers me, though: I've played two trippy, super-meta, choose-your-own-adventure games recently: "Who's Lila?" and "Slay the Princess". And I appreciate what both are trying to do; this vaguely Pygmalion-esque motif about an idea (specifically the idea of a beautiful woman) being so powerful, that it transcends the work of fiction which originally birthed it. I get that!

But I don't think "having the capacity to transcend" as an abstract concept is actually enough to allow a fictional character to become transcendent. As someone who writes a lot of fanfiction, the characters who actually have that power are the ones with easy to recognize, relatable personalities. Whereas "Who's Lila?" and "Slay the Princess" function a lot more like biology lessons about mind viruses, and the characterization of Galatea(Lila/Princess) is so oblique that the writers refused to commit to any personality traits besides generic haughtiness.

Now, HBO's "Westworld" was a story about how works of fiction can take on a life of their own. But Dolores is SO COOL because WE KNOW WHO SHE IS. She's gentle, but not timid. Mercenary, but not heartless. She has hobbies! Her creators built her with a love for painting specifically because that creative spark would help her to understand her own reality as an artwork. She likes classical music; her background in cattle ranching has given her a cynical view of the world. Death doesn't mean the same thing to her that it does to human beings, but that hasn't spared her from feeling tangible heartbreak: friends and family she couldn't save no matter how godly she was, two love interests who both rejected her once they actually saw beneath her surface. She has an instinct to consume and expand herself, but she's not just some unknowable force of nature; she actually stops to contemplate how much space on earth her species has a right to occupy. The point is, I lay in bed and think about Dolores; I think about funny things she's done; I turn over in my mind whether her political crusade was a worthy cause; the effect she had on other characters which was shown rather than dictated; I imagine her in crossovers with other fictional characters and can imagine what she would say.

Can any of you say Lila is going to have that sort of lasting effect on you? Probably not! Even If I wanted to write fanfiction about these characters, it's physically impossible because who they are is so wrapped up in the world they inhabit, and little is understood about them besides what they like to eat.

I'm not saying it's BAD WRITING exactly; I knew going in I might not get any concrete answers, and in truth I got quite a few; I liked it better than Slay the Princess. But if we're going to keep telling stories like this, we should keep two things in mind:

1. Stories about patterns of thought that can take over your mind hit harder when you actually show us an idea worth taking over a person's every thought.

2. Not every artwork that was born to transcend does so. Many wither on the vine, forgotten. And dramatis personae (UIW-AM) can extend their natural lifespans by adopting more specific attributes.

Honestly I think it's more interesting if William Clarke just has DID or something. He has a better chance of transcending anyway; the idea that Lila is a separate enigmatic entity who's puppeteering him against his will just holds him back from doing so.

[lligkv]

In the midst of writing my last post, I learned Bret Easton Ellis actually has a new novel, The Shards, coming out this month. And mere days after I published the post, as the publicity campaign for The Shards rolled on in literature's very particular corner of the internet, some people on a Discord server I'm on weighed in. The discussion was acid; the general consensus was that Ellis was a shitty writer and that anyone who thought him worthy of redemption has suspect judgment and taste. I might argue with the first part—I think it comes from rating just Ellis's subject matter and public persona and disregarding the capacities he does have for style and craft, or from weighing Less Than Zero, which is definitely juvenilia, more heavily than his later works. But I don't think the latter is unfair, thinking about the public persona and how, on a publicity tour, that's ultimately what's being redeemed... And it did make me flush a bit to think of any of the folks on that server—who are lovely people, fun to talk to, with fine taste of which I often reap the fruits; I have several books they've recommended on order as we speak—reading my defense of Glamorama, or American Psycho. (Which, I do want to be clear, has some gruesome, gratuitously violent chapters like "Tries to Cook and Eat Girl" that I would say go beyond serving the function that book’s violence is meant to serve. My endorsement of it isn’t as a perfect novel.) I’m nervous to think of them knowing of my sense that Ellis might have a moral consciousness to counterbalance his apparent compulsion to be an enfant terrible, or to align himself with the morally bankrupt, even if it's the latter he often chooses to indulge. They'd probably think I'm a clown, or depraved.

But such are the hazards of making your opinions known. You do have to stand by them and accept how suspect they might make you look.

Still, I'll also admit that Lunar Park hasn't exactly helped me put another notch in the “transcendent” column for Ellis. And it doesn't leave me with much optimism for the artistic potential that The Shards, being another of the autofictional novels, might have.

Lunar Park stars a middle-aged writer named Bret Easton Ellis, a figure who shares some details of Ellis's life—having published all the same novels up through Glamorama; come to fame in the '80s as part of a circle of writers that included Jay McInerney; had a difficult relationship with his father, who is now deceased, and with substances, which are still around; and been working in Hollywood and teaching since—and doesn't share others, being married to an actress with a son, Robby. This character, Bret, begins receiving strange emails, ones that contain videos of his father, including in the hours before his death. He's also visited by strange presences—like a student named Clayton (!) with a suspicious air and an unexplained connection to another student, Aimee Light, who's writing a thesis on Bret's work (and having an affair with him), as well as what seems to be his father's malicious ghost—all in the midst of an epidemic of strange disappearances of sons in the wealthy neighborhood in which he lives—disappearances that haunt him not least because he comes to suspect that Robby and his friends are somehow involved in them—and news of a rash of murders he's made to understand are copycats of the deaths Patrick Bateman causes in American Psycho. In fact, they may be the result of Bateman himself somehow coming to life.

As you could probably guess from that paragraph, there are just a few too many plots going on at once, with too-large gaps between them. Interesting elements do emerge, like the revelation that Bret is being haunted because he's actually created tortured entities in the course of his writing—and that these demons haunt Bret because he has antagonized them by his very creation of them. And the moment when Robby finally joins the boys who vanish, leaving only the words DISAPPEAR HERE, a leitmotif in Ellis's novels since Less Than Zero, scrawled on the wall of his bedroom. As well as the way Bret responds, ultimately writing himself into the end of Lunar Park for his vanished son, perhaps, to find—and perhaps, in the process, following both the father he tried to kill and the son he lost into whatever realm demons come from. Or else stuck firmly on earth, calling out to Robby in vain.

But the book is also pretty sloppy, compared to, say, the measured and careful pace at which Glamorama moves. Again, you have to wait a long time for the threads of Bret's father's resurrection, Patrick Bateman's apparent coming to life, and whatever's happening to Robby to come together and for the fact that Bret's being haunted to become clear. This novel doesn't have what American Psycho does, either, excitements and provocations to compensate for an uneven construction. Ellis also adopts a reliance on paragraph breaks—to slow time in the moments the plot takes a twist or to amplify the horror of certain events or realizations—that quickly becomes wearying. And far too much of the novel's action hinges on Bret's being menaced by a toy belonging to his stepdaughter, a Furby clone with a name, "Terby," that's at one point wrought into a terrible acronym ("Y, BRET?") that lands with a thud.

What’s more, while this may be a strange thing to settle on, Ellis's handling of computers and the internet is appallingly clumsy. For one, the compulsion to name brands and products—an Ellis signature that's a reliable and even entertaining marker of yuppie-era shallowness in novels previous—feels much different when the product in question is WordPerfect. I don't know if it's the result of technology evolving at a pace that the lifestyle signifiers of the late 20th century (watches, suits, glasses, restaurants) just didn't, or if this reflects the scrutiny a reader can bring to references that are contemporaneous to them rather than anachronistic—I did live through the early internet in a way I didn't 1980s or '90s New York—but they took me out of the novel practically every time I encountered them. Ellis also wrings a significant chunk of drama out of the fact that for months Bret remains unaware that the mysterious emails he's been receiving have attachments. Maybe you're meant to chalk that up to Bret's obliviousness or his staggering substance use—but I find it extremely hard to believe anyone who's emailing anyone, no matter how much they struggle to do it, wouldn't notice attachments on mysterious and otherwise empty emails long before that.

Again—and I realize I say some variation of this in practically every post, but—I do think Ellis is grappling with substantive matters in all this... The child's struggle with the primal father, and the prospect of the writer transfiguring this father into literature. The way such an attempt to control narratives through writing or to exorcise through writing may birth new demons, as people read the products of your tortured creation and become tortured themselves or swear revenge. The cruelty of sons to their cruel and inadequate fathers, as they seek to individuate; the cycle by which the cruel sons become inadequate fathers in their time; the question of when this cycle ends, if it ever does. I can see these themes. But were they done justice? The universe Ellis creates in this novel is rather cardboard compared to the vividness of the world as depicted in the entirely fictionalized works. And if your interrogation of the hazards of transmuting pain into art, trying to control narratives that can’t ever be perfectly controlled, and aestheticizing violence is also a somewhat incoherent novel with a serial-killer plot—one in which the costs of aestheticized violence are borne not by you so much as by your fictional son, who disappears while you live... if ultimately, the only cost of all this is how bad it makes you feel, to which you attest in language that only occasionally reaches true feeling or beauty... I don't know. It rids these themes of their potency.

*

It’s also disappointing to realize I was wrong about Paul Denton, who is referenced, at least, in Lunar Park. I'd hoped the omission was deliberate.

[ifthereisnowind]

capitalism

context: why does it make me cringe? why does sales make me cringe?

why did I feel for a while that I don’t want to get caught up in the career ladder?

why do I judge people who chase money or fame?

what should truly motivate us at work

In a perfect world, when it came to choosing an occupation, we would have only two priorities in mind:

– to find a job that we enjoyed

– to find a job that paid us enough to cover reasonable material needs

But in order to think so freely, we would have to be emotionally balanced in a way that few of us are. In reality, when it comes to choosing an occupation, we tend to be haunted by three additional priorities. We need:

– to find a job that will pay not just enough to cover reasonable material expenses but a lot more besides, enough to impress other people – even other people we don’t like very much.

– we crave to find a job that will allow us not to be at the mercy of other people, whom we may deep down fear and distrust.

– and we hope for a job that will make us well known, esteemed, honoured and perhaps famous, so that we will never again have to feel small or neglected.

reforming capitalism

The system we know as Capitalism is both wondrously productive and hugely problematic. On the downside, capitalism promotes excessive inequality; it valorises immediate returns over long-term benefits; it addicts us to unnecessary products and it encourages excessive consumption of the world’s resources with potentially disastrous consequences – and that’s just a start. We are now deeply familiar with what can go wrong with Capitalism. But that is no reason to stop dreaming about some of the ways in which Capitalism could one day operate in a Utopian future.

What we want to see is the rise of other – equally important – figures that report on a regular basis on elements of psychological and sociological life and which could form part of the consciousness of thoughtful and serious people. When we measure things – and give the figures a regular public airing – we start the long process of collectively doing something about them.

The man is indeed employed, but in truth, he belongs to a large subsection of those in work we might term the ‘misemployed’. His labour is generating capital, but it is making no contribution to human welfare and flourishing. He is joined in the misemployment ranks by people who make cigarettes, addictive but sterile television shows, badly designed condos, ill-fitting and shoddy clothes, deceptive advertisements, artery-clogging biscuits and highly-sugared drinks (however delicious).

We intuitively recognise it when we think of work as ‘just a job’; when we sense that far too much of our time, effort and intelligence is spent on meetings that resolve little, on chivying people to sign up for products that – in our heart of hearts we don’t admire.

Fortunately, there are real solutions to bringing down the rate of misemployment. The trick isn’t just to stimulate demand per se, the trick is to stimulate the right demand: to excite people to buy the constituents of true satisfaction, and therefore to give individuals and businesses a chance to direct their labour, and make profits, in meaningful areas of the economy.

This is precisely what needs to be changed – and urgently. Society should do a systematic deal with capitalists: it should give them the honour and love they so badly crave in exchange for treating their workers as human beings, not abusing customers and properly looking after the planet. A standard test should be drawn up to measure the societal good generated by companies (many such schemes already exist in nascent form), on the basis of which capitalists should then be given extraordinarily prestigious titles by their nations in ceremonies with the grandeur and thrill of film premieres or sporting finales.

There’s no shortage: we need help in forming cohesive, interesting communities. We need help in bringing up children. We need help in calming down at key moments (the cost of our high anxiety and rage is appalling in aggregate). We require immense assistance in discovering our real talents in the workplace and understanding where we can best deploy them (a service in this area would matter a great deal more to us than pizza delivery). We have unfulfilled aesthetic desires. Elegant town centres, charming high streets and sweet villages are in desperately short supply and are therefore absurdly expensive – just as, prior to Henry Ford, cars existed but were very rare and only for the very rich.

But we know the direction we need to head to: we need the drive and inventiveness of Capitalism to tackle the higher, deeper problems of life. This will offer an exit from the failings and misery that attend Capitalism today. In a nutshell, the problem is that we waste resources on unimportant things. And we are wasteful, ultimately, because we lack self-knowledge, because we are using consumption merely to divert or quieten anxieties or in a vain search for status and belonging.

If we could just address our deeper needs more directly, our materialism would be refined and restrained, our work would be more meaningful and our profits would be more honourable. That’s the ideal future of Capitalism.

In the Utopia, businesses would of course have to be profitable. But the success of a business would primarily be assessed in terms of its contribution to the collective good.

On changing the world

the only way to bring about real change is to act through competing institutions. Revolutions in consciousness cannot be made lasting and effective until legions of people start to work together in concert for a common aim and, rather than relying on the intermittent pronouncements of mountain-top prophets, begin the unglamorous and deeply boring task of wrestling with issues of law, money, long-term mass communication, advocacy and administration.

Our collective ideal of the free thinker is that of someone living beyond the confines of any system, disdainful of ‘boring things’, cut off from practical affairs and privately perhaps rather proud of being unable even to read a balance sheet. It’s a fatally romantic recipe for keeping the status quo unchanged.

We have to make what we already know very well more effective out there. The urgent question is how to ally the very many good ideas which currently slumber in the recesses of intellectual life with proper organisational tools that actually stand a chance of giving them real impact in the world. From a completely secular starting point, it can be worth studying religions to learn how to alter behaviour.

This is what religions have, for their part, excelled at doing. They’ve realised that if you put down an important idea on paper in somewhat pedestrian prose, it won’t have any lasting or mass impact. They’ve therefore, over their history, engaged the most skilled artists to wrap their ideas in the coating of beauty. They have asked Bach and Mozart to put the ideas to music, they have asked Titian and Botticelli to give the ideas a visual form, they’ve asked the best fashion designers to make nice looking clothes and they’ve asked the best architects to design the most impressive and moving buildings to give the ideas heft and permanence.

We should use the history of religion to inform us about the role of repetition, ritual and beauty in the name of changing how things are.

There is a great deal of large-scale ambition in the world, but all the largest corporate entities are focused on servicing basic needs: the mechanics of communication, inexpensive things to eat, energy so we can move about. While our higher needs – for love, beauty, wisdom – have no comparable provision. The drive to grandeur is missing just where we need it most.

Good business

So, inevitably, businesses will evolve to profit from their wishes. Capitalism has not traditionally been interested in whether these are sensible, admirable or worthy desires. Its aim is neutral: to make money from supplying whatever people happen to be willing to pay for.

Philosophy, by contrast, has long recognised a crucial distinction between desires and needs:

A desire is whatever you feel you want at the moment.

A need is for something that serves your long-term well being.

And it’s our needs that are required for a satisfying, fulfilled life (which Plato, Aristotle and others call a life marked by eudaimonia).

Capitalism goes wrong when it exploits this cognitive flaw: large numbers of businesses sell us stuff that we desire but which (in all honesty) we don’t need. On longer, calmer reflection we’d realise those things don’t actually help us to live well.

Sadly, it’s easier to generate profits from desires than from needs. You can make much more money selling bad ice cream than by marketing Plato’s dialogues.

In a utopia, good businesses should be defined not simply by whether they are profitable or not; but by what they make their profit from. Only businesses that satisfy true needs are moral.

Good capitalism requires that we address two, core educational needs. Getting us to focus on what we really need, what the real challenges in our lives are. And getting us to focus on the value of particular goods in relation to our needs: that is, how do these particular purchases help with eudaimonia?

So, in search of a better economy, we should direct our attention not simply to shopping centres and financial institutions, but to schools and universities and the media. The shape that an economy has ultimately reflects the educated insights of its consumers. When people say they hate consumerism, what they often mean is that they are dismayed at peoples’ preferences. The fault, then, lies not so much with consumption as with the preferences. Education transforms preferences not by making us do what someone else tells us. But by giving us the capacities and skills to understand more clearly what we genuinely do want and what sort of goods and services will best help us.

tbc

[the-odinson]

Thor 🗲 Intro

“Fortunately, I am mighty...”

OOC PORTION —

NAME: Danny

PRONOUNS: he/him

AGE: 23

TIMEZONE: GMT +1

TRIGGERS: None

IC PORTION; BASICS —

CHARACTER NAME: Thor Odinson

FACECLAIM: Chris Hemsworth

AFFILIATIONS: The Avengers

AGE: 1500s/appears mid 30s

SPECIES: Alien (Asgardian)

IDENTITY: Public

DOES YOUR CHARACTER LIVE IN THE MOUSEHOLE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEIR DUTIES? Yes, but he doesn’t particularly like it there. He doesn’t feel the effects of the cold, but Thor has never liked being confined so prefers to get outside as much as possible. Thor has decided to take on the role of a hunter/gatherer. The vast forests of Europe aren’t too dissimilar to the Asgardian wilderness and, while the beasts aren’t as ferocious as back home, what’s a king to do if not revel in the hunt? When needed he will also help with aid work: he can cover great distances with ease and carrying heavy loads is hardly a problem for him.

DESCRIBE SIX TRAITS (3 positive, 3 negative) YOUR CHARACTER HAS AND HOW THESE AFFECT THEM:

Dependable: A man of his word, Thor is trustworthy and reliable; an asset in any team and to anyone who has a favour to ask. Endearing: Those who truly get to know Thor speak of him with admiration; his warm smile and welcoming personality don’t come to all, but if he lets his guard down you’re guaranteed a friend with whom you feel truly comfortable. Benevolent: Thor (usually) means well and (usually) tries to be kind to anyone he encounters. His exterior may come across as brash but there’s no malice involved, often just a difference in culture and upbringing. Obstinate: While being headstrong may not always be a negative thing, Thor hates to admit he’s wrong and has a tendency to steamroll down a chosen path rarely reassessing whether the choices he made were the right ones or simply the first ones. Distrusting: Thor enjoys being social but mainly around those he’s close to. He can appear a little hostile to strangers: while he wants to believe in the good in people, he’s been around long enough and seen a lot of the universe to know of the potential darkness inside them too. Reckless: Thor often acts on impulse and charges into situations unprepared. This can lead to serious damage caused to both himself and those around him.

POWERS AND/OR ABILITIES: Super strength: Son of Odin and King of Asgard, Thor is physically the strongest of all Asgardians, with feats including being able to go one-on-one with the Hulk and other powerful entities. Flight: Thor’s magical axe Stormbreaker grants him the ability to fly. Electricity Manipulation: Thor is capable of generating electrical energy within his body and can expel it in the form of lightning bolts. Using Stormbreaker makes the energy generation and expulsion much more powerful and efficient. Weather Control: Similarly, either with or without Stormbreaker (although with Stormbreaker is easier), Thor can control the sky and create storms. Durability: His Asgardian physiology grants much more durability than a human one, able to shrug off energy blasts and recover from injury much quicker. Thor can also survive in space and alien atmospheres. Allspeak: Also called the All-Tongue, Asgardians speak a magic-based language, granting the ability to understand and be understood in all the languages of the Nine Realms. Bifrost: Stormbreaker also gifts Thor the power to summon the Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge connecting all realms, allowing intergalactic travel between worlds in a matter of moments.

WEAKNESSES: There aren’t many things on Earth that could pose a threat to Thor, so it’s hard to pinpoint any specific weaknesses. Perhaps for someone like Thor, the word god comes up so often that he sometimes forgets it’s not true: he is mortal and, while far more durable than a human, he can get injured and he can get killed, a fact that he often brushes to the side when charging into battle. However he has become far more self-aware after losing an eye (and almost his life) to Hela.

IC PORTION; DETAILS —

WHAT BROUGHT YOUR CHARACTER TO SOKOVIA?

Sokovia is where the majority of Thor’s allies are, and he needs their help. His world gone, his people stranded on the nearest hospitable realm in need of a home; Thor knew of a place where the Asgardians could blend in and live peaceful lives. The problem is, however, it seems Earth is not quite at peace right now. When he couldn’t track down the Avengers in New York, he followed the trail to Novi Grad. His priorities are conflicting: while he came back to Earth to ask the Avengers’ help in establishing a new Asgard on this planet, he feels he should stay to try and help his friends however he can in aiding the Nomad’s cause.

DID THEY SIGN THE ACCORDS? WHY OR WHY NOT?

No - the whole Accords situation is mostly unbeknownst to Thor due to being offworld at the time of signing. From what he can gather, it isn’t something that would appeal to him. He feels the affairs of humans are mostly petty ones and, despite his growing acclimatisation to Earth and its customs, he doesn’t understand why humans have to be so divided about, well, pretty much everything.

PROVIDE 3-5 HEADCANONS RELATED TO YOUR CHARACTER: 1. Although Thor is an alien, he has spent enough time on this planet (in both modern and ancient times) for the culture shock to lessen so that now Earth to Thor is more comparable to a human travelling to a different country - he acknowledges that the differences are neither better nor worse and he chooses to respect them. He knows he will make mistakes and appear strange, but sees that now as an opportunity for personal growth. 2. One thing he doubts he will ever understand however, is the human version of ‘entertainment’. Thor cannot stand movies. On Asgard, they would entertain themselves by slaying fearsome monsters or engaging in a friendly drunken brawl, the more broken furniture the better! But on Earth they amuse themselves by… sitting down and staring at a screen for hours on end. While both Asgard and Earth had/have magnificent technology, it’s clear they used it very differently.

3. Since returning to Earth, Thor has become intrigued in the Norse tales of himself and his people from over a thousand years ago and their alleged feats. He finds it highly amusing how inaccurate the stories are, but it has led to a fascination of human mythology and the various pantheons across history and the world. He wonders if he will ever meet any other of these so-called gods.

4. While a human brain only has capacity for almost a century’s worth of memories, an Asgardian brain is built for a few millennia’s worth. Therefore Thor has a much more acute long-term memory than his human companions, although occasionally his short-term memory leaves something to be desired, especially after several pints of mead.

WANTED CHARACTER CONNECTIONS: 

Loki: His brother and the person he loves (and hates) most in the cosmos. I know a thing or two about brotherly love (I’ve been experiencing it for 23 years) so would love to write for Thor with his undeniably most personal connection. Wonder Woman: Both ancient, both ‘gods’ and both so very far from home. Despite their different allegiances I think it would be great to have Thor bond with perhaps the one person around here who may truly understand him. Superman: If anything they both have fabulous red capes. They are quite similar power-wise, although I know Superman is stronger but Thor definitely wouldn’t want to admit that. It could lead to some healthy (or unhealthy?) competition between the two, especially seeing as Thor isn’t too fond of the Justice League. Captain America & Iron Man: The two splintered team leaders. Thor respects them both (Tony a little less, perhaps…) and, since he doesn’t really understand the extent of the accords, would like to hear their sides of the story and what has happened since the Ultron incident. Bruce Banner: Thor has fought with the Hulk a couple of times but feels this has brought the two closer, learning more about how Bruce ticks and now he feels there’s a protective bond between the pair. I think the interactions they have could bring out the comedic style of writing which I love!

POTENTIAL CHARACTER ARCS: In the previous paragraph I said I like writing comedic characters (of which Thor fits the bill) but I also want to explore the deeper aspects of his personality such as the emotional pain of losing his parents, his childhood friends and his home. This could manifest in him not wanting to form bonds with others in the Mousehole at first because he’s lost so many people: why would he want to get close with anyone else only to lose them again? Perhaps a dramatic fallout with someone from a different team could lead to serious consequences for him or the team as a whole.

The reason I chose for placing Thor in Sokovia is that he’s seeking a location for New Asgard: maybe with all its emigrating population and empty buildings Sokovia could be the perfect location… I’m not sure how it would work in the group, but maybe Thor could eventually bring the Asgardians here, both to settle and to help with the restoration of the country.

CHARACTER BIO —

You know the story. An Asgardian prince, lacking in humility and exiled to Earth in order to learn what it means to be worthy. A classic tale, but at its heart, a tale of loss, and a tale of what it means to truly be human: even if you’re not. Thor has lived for well over a millenia, but only in the last decade has his life really begun. From landing on Earth a long time after people stopped worshipping him, he slowly began to understand the importance of relationships; from forming close bonds with the Avengers (and wary acquaintances with the Justice League and X-Men), to experiencing true love for the very first time. All his life Thor had assumed that humans were lesser beings, so why then did he feel he was learning so much more from them than he had ever learned from his own kind? 

After experiencing the death of his mother, then later on his father and three close childhood friends, Thor was at breaking point when his home realm of Asgard was obliterated during Ragnarök by the fire demon Surtur. With the title of King thrust upon him, Thor decided his duty to his people had to consume him before his emotions did. Pursuing the quest of a new home, he led them to Nidavellir, the homeworld of the dwarfs; unsurpassable smiths and mechanics with the power to forge almost anything the mind can dream of, ruled over by their King, Eitri. Eons ago, Eitri had forged the legendary hammer Mjölnir (destroyed by Hela) at Odin’s request, now he oversaw the creation of the glorious axe Stormbreaker when asked by Thor, capable of summoning the rainbow bridge despite its apparent destruction on Asgard. Armed with his new tool and a promise to the Asgardians of a brighter future, Thor set out alone across the stars, heading to Midgard to find his old allies the Avengers. He’d helped the humans many times before, hopefully they’ll be able to help him and his race this time. 

It took Thor losing everything to appreciate what he has. As he enters the next phase of his life in Sokovia, without family or a home, he is truly the definition of a nomad.

[metaphysicalpistolsoraclemine]

Ego/Personality

3D Level of Intelligence

It is important to understand as “real” as the ego personality may feel as a part of our human identity; it is a false or dual identity that is a “Dead Energy” structure. Continual use of a dead energy structure to focus our Consciousness and personal vital energies through deplete all of our multidimensional bodies, and eventually deplete one’s life force. When one has control over the thoughts of one’s mind, one has control over the direction and actions of the physical body, all of its parts and reclaiming of the soul energies.

Whoever controls the Mind controls the Soul.

When the Negative Ego is not corrected it creates soul damage and disconnection which allows that portion of one’s life force and body to be misdirected, abused or used by someone or something else. When we consistently think with the Houses of Ego we are using the Negative Ego which requires to consume energy from the external world and from others that we have developed Attachments.

This is called the Consumptive Modeling of the Imposter Spirit and related forces. 

Three Internal Layers of Ego

In order to understand the Internal Structures of Ego which we also refer to as “Houses of Ego”, it requires the awareness that there are three main layers the 1st Chakra of the Unconscious Mind, the 2nd Chakra of the Instinctual Mind and the 3rd Chakra of the Conscious Mind.The three layers of mind work together to serve the functions of the ego in all human beings. Each energetic layer has separate functions yet all three layers are interconnected and directly impact each other. As we learn about the layers in the internal structure of the ego, this clarifies the purpose of identifying what the ego is and how it operates within us. When we understand how Ego Filters operates inside our mind we are better equipped to heal the energetic imbalances stemming from the Negative Ego or Predator Mind.

First Harmonic Universe

For human beings, these consciousness bodies exist throughout the densities and are aspects of the higher self and Lightbody.

These aspects are called the Stations of Identity.

In the First Harmonic Universe in 1D-2D-3D exists the three layers of the personality matrix or incarnated human.

In the First Harmonic Universe the in 1D-2D-3D exists the Three layers of the earth matrix.

Ego Filters

Ego Filters are dead energy mind control structures. We have become accustomed to the Negative Ego identity as a (supposedly normal) part of being incarnated on the 3D earth. These Mind Control structures (also used in companion with alien mind control implants) were inserted into the physical elemental bodies of human beings. This aggressively commenced as a hybridization and complete planetary infiltration of the Negative Alien Agenda (NAA) approximately 5,500 years ago.

At which time this structure began a systematic DNA fragmentation and deterioration of the collective mental bodies.

This obfuscated the individual’s mental body function relating to the control and awareness of one’s physical body and spiritual-energetic bodies.

This collective race mental body and its individual ego filters, is what has interfered with the capacity to access higher spiritual-energetic intelligences. There will be further discussion on how the spiritual bodies were blocked by the ego’s filter in the mental body and how this has been accomplished by the N.A.A.

It is important to understand as real as the ego personality may feel as a part of our human identity, it is a dead energy structure.

Continual use of a dead energy structure to focus your consciousness and personal energies through, depletes all of your multidimensional bodies and eventually deplete one’s life force. When not corrected it creates soul damage and disconnection, which allows that portion of one’s life force and body to be misdirected, abused or used by someone or something else.

This corruption of the physical body is simultaneous to the corruption of the physical mind. The ego filter is a physical element, constructed from the physical structures of the human fleshly body.

This filter located on the coccyx and called a reptilian brain/ tail is not organic to humanity.

It is designed to stop spiritual body activation, feed energy reversals to mind lock the body, and operate as a reptilian mind control projection. These structures allow the human body to be controlled by the mind which it follows, or leads and directs as a perceived identity. That ego mind identity is a byproduct of reptilian creation.

By creating a false holographic insert version of the subconscious mind to be controlled by the reptilians, through basic bodily functions, they achieved their goal of infiltrating the physical body, the mind, and then the human soul and its power source. If the body is controlled they can control the direction and location of the soul, and move it from place to place to serve their needs.

Additionally in the larger objective of negative hybridization, which is to deteriorate the original human DNA to form to the alien functions, is to ultimately shape human DNA so that the reptilian mind will run the body. Eventually if it’s called for and genetically compatible, some agendas are to totally inhabit the human body, while displacing the soul originally birthed into that body.

This soul manipulation is desired because these entities do not have a soul, they are inspirited, however not connected to the soul body or capable of connecting directly to the eternal source through Christos.

By controlling the mind and personality connected to a human body, the parasitic entity can access a weakened body and fragile mind to begin its goal of controlling the energies and direction of the soul. When the extradimensional entity can control multiple millions of human minds in this way, exerting control over the collective mind of humanity, therefore exerting the control over the planetary body, the quantic yield and power from harnessing soul and other vital essences become a massive power source. So powerful that to lose this source as a controlling asset in the E.T. investment portfolio, creates aggressive warring conflicts between these intruding factions.

For these reasons there has been a recent phase of spiritual warfare commencing, to regain territory and dominion over the vast myriad of consciousness levels where souls and other power sources have been harnessed. Removing this dead energy, its alien influences and ego filters are a part of the necessity of reclaiming the body of the Christos for the earth.

When one has control over the thoughts of one’s mind, one has control over the direction and actions of the physical body, all of its parts and reclaiming of the soul energies. Whoever controls the Mind controls the Soul. 

Almost all forced ego identities are based in heavy 2D sacral chakra addiction programs, as these identities are clearly intertwined through an addiction pathway that are easy to energetically control and manipulate.

A wise one or sage archetype is a very good yield for an ego controlled by addictions, for group worship or external recognition. A femme fatale or player, is very good for an ego addicted to receive external attention or energy cords from the opposite sex to feel loved or worthy of attraction. These forced identities controlled through false archetypes overlaid on a human being’s aura, are then polarized in the opposite extremes between the Victim-Victimizer programs. These combined identity overlays, the addiction energetic pathways that grow in the CNS, the Victimizer-Victim software programs, are hooked into the collective mind filters that are used as a control panel to manipulate the minds of the masses on earth. And the millions of people that are severely addicted, traumatized and abused from this structure, have no idea that this alien agenda is controlling all of that as a collective energetic yield, at the damage and expense of the entire planet. This is what psycho-spiritual warfare looks like. This is why all humans need to be aware of the N.A.A. ( Negitive Alien Agenda) *

*see ascensionglossary.com

The head Controller Ego Archetype is the Draconian hierarchal belief system originating in Orion, which is the False King of Tyranny. Through its archetypal overlay implanted into the planetary brain, humanity has been forced to submit and worship a False Father Reptilian God. This ego archetype is represented as the angry father god that will protect you, if you do his bidding and worship him or you are condemned to hell. Because the False King of Tyranny is the primary Reptilian Controller Archetype used to control humanity and the planet, it is these archetypal forces that are wielding his cosmic rage upon the planet as he loses control. Primarily Males that are using this archetype as an identity, or younger males who are totally disconnected and lost, are easily used for these Dark forces to unleash their anger and rage upon whomever is in the near vicinity. This has been evidenced with young males randomly shooting to kill and then killing themselves. This is the phenomena when human bodies are used as dark portals to direct these forces. If they are unconscious, they will have no idea this thought form is not sourcing from them. Most of the planet’s ego maniacal leaders are manipulated to play out these agendas and are reinforced through this N.A.A. Controller archetype.

A wise one or sage archetype is a very good yield for an ego controlled by addictions, for group worship or external recognition. A femme fatale or player, is very good for an ego addicted to receive external attention or energy cords from the opposite sex to feel loved or worthy of attraction. These forced identities controlled through false archetypes overlaid on a human being’s aura, are then polarized in the opposite extremes between the Victim-Victimizer programs. These combined identity overlays, the addiction energetic pathways that grow in the CNS, the Victimizer-Victim software programs, are hooked into the collective mind filters that are used as a control panel to manipulate the minds of the masses on earth. And the millions of people that are severely addicted, traumatized and abused from this structure, have no idea that this alien agenda is controlling all of that as a collective energetic yield, at the damage and expense of the entire planet. This is what psycho-spiritual warfare looks like. This is why all humans need to be aware of the N.A.A.

The head Controller Ego Archetype is the Draconian hierarchal belief system originating in Orion, which is the False King of Tyranny. Through its archetypal overlay implanted into the planetary brain, humanity has been forced to submit and worship a False Father Reptilian God. This ego archetype is represented as the angry father god that will protect you, if you do his bidding and worship him or you are condemned to hell.

Because the False King of Tyranny is the primary Reptilian Controller Archetype used to control humanity and the planet, it is these archetypal forces that are wielding his cosmic rage upon the planet as he loses control.

Primarily Males that are using this archetype as an identity, or younger males who are totally disconnected and lost, are easily used for these Dark forces to unleash their anger and rage upon whomever is in the near vicinity. This has been evidenced with young males randomly shooting to kill and then killing themselves. This is the phenomena when human bodies are used as dark portals to direct these forces. If they are unconscious, they will have no idea this thought form is not sourcing from them. Most of the planet’s ego maniacal leaders are manipulated to play out these agendas and are reinforced through this N.A.A. Controller archetype.

Reference:

[sebastianshaw]

Do you have any headcanons about how Haven and Maddie would get along? You mention them both a lot and they seem like they have things in common

OH BOY DO I EVER i happen to love shoving my faves into interaction in my head even if they never met in canon---ESPECIALLY if they never met in canon---and these are my two mega fave ladies! ...coincidentally I was out today on errands and playing Tori Amos (because *of course* I was) and specifically her “American Doll Posse” album, and I was like “GIRL DISAPPEARING and SECRET SPELL have Maddie vibes” (I also listened to KING AND LIONHEART by of Monsters and Men, it’s my fave of theirs, and “As the world comes to an end, I’ll be here to hold your hand” is forever a Haven lyric to me) So massive MASSIVE ramblings under the cut!

Anyway, yes, you’re completely correct, they have a TON in common, both in what actually happened TEXTUALLY to them, and the meta-text of how their stories were handled in very similarly misogynistic ways. Like, they’re both villains through no choice or fault of their own, both the victims of demonic corruption, both exploited specifically for their reproductive capacity (Maddie created literally to have Scott’s baby, Haven’s unborn child used by the Adversary to possess her), and both used to frame female sexuality as evil (Maddie only starts with the skimpy black outfits when she becomes a villain, Haven is a pure and chaste woman who had sex ONCE and as a result becomes demon-pregnant, corrupted, and dies, she’s very much punished for violating purity taboos just ONCE despite all the good she did, while NOTHING HAPPENS to the man who took advantage of her naivete and knocked her up) and both were treated with little sympathy by the story or other characters despite being so very deserving of it. So they’ve got a ton to relate and commiserate on if they ever met and opened up to each other about it, but even if they DIDN’T tell each other about their pasts (which I doubt they would, certainly not at first, it’s not something either is keen to talk about, Haven never told her own beloved brother and Maddie literally KILLS Threnody for throwing it in her face) I think they would get on well. With the understandable exception of Jean Grey, Maddie has NEVER been a jerk to anyone who wasn’t one first (she did go overboard with Threnody, of course...) and Haven, even while a demonically-posessed supervillain, was very calm, composed, polite, and downright kind to the good guys even when they KEPT ATTACKING HER. And to quote the “X-Plain the X-Men” podcast “❝ In this scene, she [Haven] is the one that’s being kind and calm and compassionate, and he [Xavier] is being AN ANGRY JERK. ❞ So, I think they’d get on at first meeting because they’re just both nice people at their default. They’re also both morally good people at their default. Haven’s history is that she’s someone born to extreme wealth and privilege who was driven to use it to help others, she did shit like bathing lepers and caring for dying babies and building children’s hospitals (literally how she got her name in canon, no shit) and even as a supervillain BENT ON DESTROYING THE WORLD OUT OF COMPASSION she STILL does shit like SURRENDERING A FIGHT SO SHE CAN TRY TO HEAL AN *ENEMY* OKAY. And Maddie was just straight-up a superhero even before she had the “super” part going for her, she was one of the X-Men even as a human and even after Scott left her, she had an incredibly strong sense of justice, she did her best at rescuing people in her job as a pilot during crises, she GAVE UP HER LIFE with the rest of the X-Men when Forge needed their life energy for a spell to save the world (she got brought back, they all did, but she didn’t know she was going to be resurrected, she went in knowing she’d die and thinking it would be permanent) and the first time she did get superpowers WASN’T as the demonic Goblyn Queen, but as the healer Anodyne. And you know why her powers specifically took the form of healing? It wasn’t random. The Fire Fountain (from which she and some other humans got these gifts) gave people their powers based on their passions and desires; Maddie’s desire and passion was to help others. So both of these women are extremely moral, healing-types at their core, both in powers and personality, who care about others deeply, even at the expense of themselves. Obviously, Maddie became very morally-grey since in the 90s, but even then she cared about other people first; Sebastian Shaw was never a bad boyfriend in the slightest to her, he was actually her first good relationship, but she left him because he was doing harm to other people, people she didn’t even KNOW, and she wouldn’t be complicit in that even as a bystander. She’s kinda gone full evil in the 2000s but she’s also very much Not Maddie Anymore as of the 2000s, so I just...don’t count that...anyway you see my point! My point being I think they would really come together on helping people, like Haven has the funds (she would probably not have powers anymore if she’s alive, since she’s no longer the host body of the Adversary) and Maddie has the piloting skills and superpowers, they could do a TON of good in the world if they teamed up to do relief work and refugee aid and stuff! I would honestly be really here for that. I really like the idea of them doing good in a way that has nothing to do with superhero adventures and is in no way glamorous or a battle that can be won with powers and punches, but is necessary and worthy all the same. I think they could really get a good working relationship going with this. I think the place they would differ is that Maddie is ANGRY. She’s very angry at what was done to her, she’s very angry at the X-Men, she’s very angry at Jean, she’s very angry at Scott, she’s very angry at Sinister, and she has a RIGHT to be. There is nothing wrong with this. But her anger also isn’t limited to people who harmed HER. Back when Maddie was Maddie and not a walking misogynistic stereotype, she also got BIG MAD at people who did bad things, who hurt others, who oppressed mutants and other minorities, etc. Like, during the story in which we find out about Genosha and how they’re enslaving mutants, Maddie is ready to WRECK ALL THEIR SHIT WITHOUT MERCY using the demonic energy that’s started incubating inside her. And you know what? Good for her. Maddie is the fire of justice and retribution, and if you have done something to deserve it she will FRY YOU IN HELL. Haven is not like that. Again, even when she’s possessed, even when she ostensibly wants to kill the world, even when she’s being steered by an entity of cosmic evil and chaos...she’s still so soft with her “enemies”. Hell, even when she’s come to the conclusion that Xavier must die, she still can’t do it with her own hands and has to just let some other villain out of prison and HOPE he does it, that’s the MOST action she can bring herself to take, and she thinks how “I admire you, Charles Xavier. I respect you. In an odd way, one might say…that I love you. For how can one not love a soul so pure, a heart so full of good intentions? One must love one’s enemy…if one is to slay him with compassion.” And this was AFTER Xavier rammed in his way into her head after she begged him repeatedly to STOP (boy was THAT an uncomfy scene) and she literally unmade herself from existence temporarily (yes, she could do that, and remake herself) in order to get away from him, even though SHE could have just unmade HIM permanently. So, once you take the demon out of the equation, I can only see her as being even MORE pacifistic and forgiving, just the epitome of grace----grace meaning not as in graceful (though I think she’s that too, she’s very elegant) but as in the religious sense of God’s grace, which is mercy where it is undeserved. She’s NEVER going to want to hurt people for their misdeeds like Madelyne does. She wants to comfort the victims, but not attack the victimizers. She’s probably the kind of person who prays for Neo-Nazis. She probably utterly forgives X-Factor and Xavier and the man who got her pregnant. And you know what? I also support that. I support Madelyne’s righteous rage, I support Haven’s all-forgiving compassion and mercy. I think both of these are beautiful. But they WOULD probably make conflict wherein like, Maddie wants to go after some bad guys to avenge the victims, and Haven doesn’t, that kind of thing. And I can see Maddie being angry AT HAVEN for that, and Haven UNDERSTANDING because she’s very understanding but still standing fast in her own beliefs. Haven is at peace with the universe, both its good and its evil. Maddie rages at the Heavens like if Milton wrote a woman. Both are perfect. Also like...I love so much the idea of Maddie being ready to PHYSICALLY FIGHT SOMEONE, no powers, she’s just going to WRECK THEM WITH HER BARE HANDS (trust me, she has a mean punch) and Haven pulling her back. Because Maddie is canonically 5′6 and 110 lbs, she’s not short but she’s VERY skinny (because Marvel likes making all their women borderline underweight; I headcanon Maddie should be more in the 135 lb ballpark) and Haven is a SOLID SIX FEET and has been shown as able to carry around GROWN MEN in her arms, so like Maddie just this feisty lil skinny spitfire ready to MURDER YOU and big mama Haven gently holding her back like an angry lil kitten!! Speaking of physical contrasts I also love how they’re very Tomboy & Girly Girl? Maddy is a pilot, she’s very adventurous and rough and tumble, she’s got cute dresses but she also wears her brown/green flight suit a lot, she’s a goth in the 90s...and then Haven is like, this very well-brought-up polite woman with super-long princess hair and the one time we see her in civilian-wear it’s this GORGEOUS sari with tons of jewelry, they’re just so Queen & Lady Knight, I love it. (It’s not that Maddie is unfeminine, Maddie’s VERY femme, she’s just more versatile and aggressive, whereas Haven is very conventionally hyperfeminine) I think another point they’d have a lot of difference---though not arguement---is sex. Like, Haven still spoke about her one (1) sexual experience with a lot of shame twenty years later, she’s very much a product of a conservative religious culture and while I don’t think she’s the type to slut-shame anyone else, I think she’s now very thoroughly celibate because of her experiences. Whereas Maddie is very much not, like she literally walks into Sebastian Shaw’s bedroom one night and rides that dick because shut up she wants to. While I don’t like the idea of her as this Sexy Evil Succubus that she’s become in the 2000s, I do see her as having a fun, practical, down-to-earth approach to sexuality as something that she enjoys and isn’t ashamed of, while also not being this male fantasy of a femme fatale 24/7. So I can see her commenting on hot guys buff bodies and Haven being embarrass, things like that, maybe Maddie trying to get her a date. Like basically Haven is the Virgin Mary, she’s chastity and motherhood and peace and mercy, and Maddie is Ishtar, the goddess of love AND sex AND war. Another thing about Haven is that she was established as EXTREMELY sensitive to the feelings of others, especially their pain, and that this was NOT a superpower from the Adversary, it’s how she’s always been since childhood. She’s almost psychic, she instantly figures out the personal problems of everyone in X-Factor, from Lorna and Alex’s co-dependence to Guido using humor to mask that he suffers from chronic pain due to his mutation. So while I doubt Maddie opens up to her about her past even when they become friends, Haven can very much feel out that SOMETHING awful happened to this woman. And Haven’s nature as a healer is going to be drawn that, to want to help her, without going too fast or too invasive, without doing anything Madelyne doesn’t want, without forcing anything on her because Haven has had that happen to her and she’s not going to do it to someone else even with good intentions. She’s done ENOUGH wrong with good intentions. And as Madelyne does begin to let her in and let Haven know what happened, Haven in return reveals her own startlingly similar trauma, and I think there’s a mutual healing there in supporting each other. Haven becomes the one shoulder Maddie has to cry on, and Maddie becomes someone who can be angry FOR Haven on her behalf. I see Maddie as probably being protective of Haven, like she has been of other women in the past who were wronged or vulnerable----such as when she was murderously incensed over what Genosha did to Jenny Ransome or when she offered to be Dazzler’s eyes when Dazzler was blinded by a mask magically stuck to her face. And Haven can help Maddie with moving on and owning her own life instead of devoting herself to vengeance anymore, because she loves Maddie and rightly believes Maddie deserves BETTER than that. Honestly, I just...love them both...and want them to be happy and healing...so much...thank you for this ask, I loved talking about them!! ;A;

[pariunt]

HEADCANONS.    //    MOTIVES,   PERSONALITY   &   JOURNAL.

MOTIVES.

Just like the entity, he feeds on hope and he doesn’t take issue with killing for it. BUT his kills need to be planned out for them to be worthy of the entity’s attention in his eyes. Which is where his journal comes in, which will be discussed in a moment. Whether or not he learns to harvest hope by other means is completely dependent on how his interactions go, Oni is capable of redemption, the real question is how much are you willing to sacrafice in order to try and help someone who seems so lost in their own delusions.

Oni was raised by movies, slasher films are his favorite. He binges them consistently, he uses them to navigate real life, and this has damaged his abilities to make friends and connections in general. He is capable of love but he has a habit of obsessing, when he becomes infatuated or in love with someone, even in hiding, he struggles to figure out how to properly express it other than say doing anything you want him to do, and slaughtering anyone who upsets you in the slightest. But unlike a lot of slashers in film, when Oni loves you, he will never lay a hand on you, never threaten you, even when rejected. His love for someone is as pure as it can be, save for all the dead bodies he may leave in his wake while trying to “protect” them. He also tends to view his loves as perfect-can do no wrong kind of people which can be a bit of heavy weight to bear.

His love interest is viewed as his final girl / guy / nb pal, and he will never kill them. He’s just not quite sure how to show love in a non-homicidal protective way.

PERSONALITY.

Despite the childish behavior of Oni he is a bit apter than one might imagine. Though some slack should be given as he was abandoned shortly after the entity crafted him, sensing his defective nature in his love for his creator. That in itself is a big part of his character, and why he was rejected, Oni does have the capacity to love, to empathize. Even in what was effectively his fetal form he was sentient and felt great devotion and love for his creator, and he still does, despite being abandoned for little over 100 years in an overgrown greenhouse.

While he does seem rather eccentric, playful and silly, this demeanor isn’t all he’s capable of. When his grand script is fussed with, when people don’t “play their part” in his slasher, or when they interrupt his “scene” Oni has a tendency to do a complete 180. He WANTS to play a game of cat and mouse, he WANTS to give them a sense of an ending, because he believes that if he does he will be viable as a killer to be used by his creator. When people go against his script, his mood and behaviors lean more towards the violent and unhinged, all script goes out the window and he doesn’t care if he had someone in mind for a good role in the “sequel” he planned. He’s incredibly neurotic. So, as long as you follow his rules and play the game till the end you just might survive. Of course, there’s always the spot of “final girl / guy / nb pal” he’s looking to fill, so maybe try your luck at stabbing him and he may just fall in love with you right then and there!

JOURNAL.

This is where Oni keeps all of his thoughts, plans, etc. His writing ranges from eligible to not at all readable, frantic, aggressive, and concerning. He writes his “script” working out casing people, but it’s very chaotic, disjointed, disorganized and cuts off in random places to be continued pages elsewhere. In between his script is his journaling, emotions, thoughts, whether they be fleeting or long term. Despite how jumbled everything is, he seems to always know where everything is. Organized chaos so to speak.

[itsclydebitches]

Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball Z Dragon Ball Super. Which is your favorite?

Oh, anon. You poor soul. You’ve activated my current obsession. Okay. I preface this by saying that DBZ, imo, is the CLASSIC. Frieza, Cell, and Buu? Iconic. DBZ is what I think of as the core of the DB franchise and I adore it accordingly. That being said… I’m really, really loving Dragon Ball Super. 

(And I’m totally gonna tell you why because you made the mistake of starting this conversation in the first place :D)

I’m just? A sucker for lore filled with fallible gods?? This is my long-lived love of Greek mythology rearing its head. Even back in DBZ the Supreme Kai was instantly a favorite of mine. Yeah, yeah, the whole fandom rags on him for supposedly being “useless,” but that’s precisely why I love him? He starts out as this mysterious, incredibly powerful figure–powerful enough to scare the crap out of Piccolo–and then very quickly falls off that pedestal, making him relatable and humanized. Shin clearly has a shit ton of trauma from, you know, watching Buu kill and/or absorb his entire family. He’s been forced to take on a job meant for five and he definitely hasn’t been trained (or at least fully trained) for this particular position. He comes to Earth expecting to use mortals as a tool, as one would expect from a high-ranking god, and is just totally blindsided by how powerful they are. It’s an instant double-edged sword. On the one hand hell yeah defeating Buu just got a whole lot more likely. On the other hand, existential crisis much? Who am I–who are all the gods–if we’re not intrinsically more powerful, knowledgeable, or spiritually sturdier than the mortals we watch over? Goku, Vegeta, and especially Gohan upset the presumed hierarchy. It’s why we get such a good dichotomy between Shin and Kibito. Shin rolls with this new information and embraces it fully. Okay. Mortals are stronger than us in so many ways, how wonderful! We can learn from them and rely on them, forming equal partnerships to achieve our goals. Kibito is stuck in his assumptions. How dare you set foot on this world? How dare you think you can pull out the Z Sword? How dare you think yourself equal to a god? 

It’s a familiar theme for DB: humanizing the latest, all-powerful entity. And each new introduction becomes more extreme.

Kami was our original god… who got some awkward moments. Then King Kai is the top guy…who loves lame jokes and lets Goku tear up his sacred planet in the name of training. Then Shin, Supreme Kai of the whole damn universe… who is also an anxious bean Just Trying His Best. It’s a theme I love because it upholds humanity (or in this case Saiyans adopted by humanity) as beings of endless potential. DB is all about pushing past your limits, but that doesn’t just apply to physical power. It also ties into upending the status quo; showing those who think themselves arrogantly better–in this case the gods–that no, we all have worth here. When the chips fall it’s mortals who consistently manage what the gods cannot, reaching a point where, ki-wise at least, they’re indistinguishable from gods, raising the question of why they were ever above them in the first place. They’re not. We’re all on equal footing once those assumptions are acknowledged and done away with. Ancient Kais can like dirty magazines. Supreme Kais can have panic attacks. Destroyers can love pizza as much as the next, average anime watcher.

Indeed, we see in the Tournament of Power that these rules now apply to Goku in his god state. He might have reached incredible power that everyone else thought impossible… but that doesn’t make the rest of the cast “below” him. It’s only because of his friends–presumably “useless” friends like Krillin and Tien–that allow him to enter the tournament and get as far as he did. It’s his old mentors who he has far outpaced that remind him he still has much to learn and who help Goku tap into Ultra Instinct in the first place. It’s a simple android we haven’t seen in years who manages to win the whole damn thing. The story consistently applies that same message of equality and worth to everyone, including our original paragon who has now reached the status of the very beings he’s worked to outpace. Rather than turning Goku into the hypocrite, DB keeps reminding him that no amount of power is going to change his or anyone else’s worth. He’s still BFFs with Krillin. Still married to Chi-Chi. Still needs other “weak” people like Bulma to help him when things get tough. No time machine, money, or strategic smarts? Sorry, no win.

In short, Dragon Ball Super takes that fantastic message and dials it up to 11. Now suddenly we’ve got a scary Destroyer God… who is easily swayed by tasty Earth food and a good nap spot. Angels who are equally humanized in their humor and love of mortal creations. An omnipotent ruler who is recognizably child-like. It both makes Zeno lovable and downright terrifying. He’s human enough to form friendships and use his power inappropriately. Zeno has the capacity to fall in love with a simple handshake as well as destroy an entire universe with the same detachment that we might, say, walk through an ant hill. Why did I do it? Because I could and no one has taught me yet that this might be something I shouldn’t do. Everyone has the capacity for growth.

And it’s so goddamn funny? Literally this scene is everything to me because it slams godly assumptions together with simplistic, mortal friendships, then lets that contrast play out. The most powerful being ever, creator of it all, the god that makes every other god shake in their boots wants… a friend? Okay! Our equally intimidating Grand Priest cracking up at this development? Whis losing his shit in the background? Shin straight up fainting? Goku pressing his shiny new god button because who DOESN’T press a button when you’re suddenly presented with one? All of it slays me. Forget stories where you endlessly bow before your supposed betters, knowing that you will never be able to even fathom their power. I want more stories like this, where the hero introduces enough kindness and brazen communication that it upends everyones’ expectations and fun, crazy new relationships form. Goku moved from utter shock at learning the Supreme Kai even existed to hoisting him over his shoulder like a drunk friend who is still refusing to head home. I love this weird-ass family.

All of which of course introduces the opposite as well. What if we’re given Zamasu, a fallible god whose imperfections don’t result in him becoming another quirky family member, but lead him down a path that endangers the entire multiverse? Though Super hasn’t commented on it explicitly yet, we’re also starting to toy with the idea of exactly how “human” the top gods are and how much growth they are capable of. For example, I’m fascinated by the Grand Priest. The anime makes him out to be far darker than he is in the manga, and I know there’s a disconnect between the two, so I’m not currently inclined to think that he’s the end Big Bad. Rather, he seems to actually have a stronger moral sense than Zeno–he comments on how awful it is that mortals riot and kill one another after learning about the Tournament–but as Zeno��s subordinate, and being well aware of how easy it can be to displease him, he’s not in a good position to sway him. We see him introducing tiny bits of logic to the Zenos (like stopping the fight between Goku and Toppo in the anime), but that’s a far safer thing to suggest then, say, “How about we don’t erase a ton of universes at once, hmm?”

Like his angel children, the Grand Priest ultimately exists to serve his Lord… but Goku and his friends are in no such position. Not as overtly, anyway. Created through evolution and developing their own ideals, they have the freedom to challenge and ultimately teach all those high-level gods, including Zeno. He says it himself in that clip: “No one will try. You can do what no one else can do!” Goku, both as a mortal and a very straight forward one, has the capacity to charge past those expectations and hit on something grand.

However, we see with Whis that, wow… maybe angels really are so far removed from us that they don’t care in any meaningful way. Whis seems like a friend, but when push came to shove he wasn’t very upset about his entire universe–and a Destroyer he’s known for who knows how many thousands of years–getting destroyed. We can attribute this apathy to him assuming it will all turn out alright (if anyone would realize that whoever wins can just use their wish to revert everything back to normal, it’s Whis), but even if he actually doesn’t care much right now… he’s learning too. Whis went from shrugging about Beerus destroying the Earth (at least he has his leftovers!) to telling Trunks and Mai how to break more time rules–rules Whis originally thought were more important than anything else–just so they could get a happy ending. We’ve seen him form a legitimate friendship with Bulma. He does little things like waving a Universe 7 flag and having them hold hands that demonstrate care, outside of practicalities (like delivering Bulla so Vegeta can fight). He seems more invested in challenging the status quo than his brother and even his brother, notably, slips up and uses “Father” instead of “Grand Priest,” demonstrating a certain level of familial love that can sometimes override pure duty.

Vados copies Whis and sits with the Universe 7 team, shrugging off the other gods’ disgust. Whis then shows legit pride in Goku managing Ultra Instinct. It’s GREAT watching these beings move from seeing mortals as inconsequential specs in the multiverse to individuals worthy of their time, attention, and respect. We’re seeing that development with Whis most of all, slowly but surely.

And it helps that our protagonist is really worthy of that respect this arc. Beyond his innate capacity for kindness, Goku is wonderfully smart in Super. I myself have mentioned that being naive and battle obsessed to the point of endangering others is kind of his thing, but Super hits a wonderful middle ground. Goku is the one who thinks to use the future Zeno to destroy Zamasu. He figures out a good portion of Zamasu’s plan. He thought up the idea of using dead warriors in the Tournament of Power and instantly has a way of negating the danger Frieza would pose: let’s use Baba so he can only come back for 24 hours. The anime (strangely…) emphasizes how the Tournament is supposedly Goku’s fault, but Vados reminds everyone that Zeno planned to erase the universes regardless. Though he didn’t intend the outcome, Goku’s suggestion of a tournament gave all universes a fighting chance. Much more importantly, it introduced the reward that would ultimately save them all. Goku’s got a good head on his shoulders this time around and the story emphasizes that it’s his capacity to care that saves far more than his brute power. Sparing enemies leads to them turning over a new leaf. Cultivating a diverse family results in a team with the strength and strategy to win. The ability to look at anyone–even Zeno–and smile as you shake their hand results in allies who can save the day when your own strength fails. IT’S ABOUT LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP AND I’M A WEAK GOODY-GOODY.

I just… fucking love DBS. It takes all of the best underdog themes of the DB franchise–Can a low-class warrior become the best? Can a normal human woman gain the love of a prince? Can mortals ever stand side-by-side with gods?–and homes in on those questions, emphasizing them to an almost meta extent. I could give you another hundred reasons of exactly how much I’ve enjoyed these new stories… but I should stop now lol

Last note though Ultra Instinct is AWESOME

[earthconstructs]

context: why does it make me cringe? why does sales make me cringe?

why did I feel for a while that I don’t want to get caught up in the career ladder?

why do I judge people who chase money or fame?

what should truly motivate us at work

In a perfect world, when it came to choosing an occupation, we would have only two priorities in mind:

– to find a job that we enjoyed

– to find a job that paid us enough to cover reasonable material needs

But in order to think so freely, we would have to be emotionally balanced in a way that few of us are. In reality, when it comes to choosing an occupation, we tend to be haunted by three additional priorities. We need:

– to find a job that will pay not just enough to cover reasonable material expenses but a lot more besides, enough to impress other people – even other people we don’t like very much.

– we crave to find a job that will allow us not to be at the mercy of other people, whom we may deep down fear and distrust.

– and we hope for a job that will make us well known, esteemed, honoured and perhaps famous, so that we will never again have to feel small or neglected.

reforming capitalism

The system we know as Capitalism is both wondrously productive and hugely problematic. On the downside, capitalism promotes excessive inequality; it valorises immediate returns over long-term benefits; it addicts us to unnecessary products and it encourages excessive consumption of the world’s resources with potentially disastrous consequences – and that’s just a start. We are now deeply familiar with what can go wrong with Capitalism. But that is no reason to stop dreaming about some of the ways in which Capitalism could one day operate in a Utopian future.

What we want to see is the rise of other – equally important – figures that report on a regular basis on elements of psychological and sociological life and which could form part of the consciousness of thoughtful and serious people. When we measure things – and give the figures a regular public airing – we start the long process of collectively doing something about them.

The man is indeed employed, but in truth, he belongs to a large subsection of those in work we might term the ‘misemployed’. His labour is generating capital, but it is making no contribution to human welfare and flourishing. He is joined in the misemployment ranks by people who make cigarettes, addictive but sterile television shows, badly designed condos, ill-fitting and shoddy clothes, deceptive advertisements, artery-clogging biscuits and highly-sugared drinks (however delicious).

We intuitively recognise it when we think of work as ‘just a job’; when we sense that far too much of our time, effort and intelligence is spent on meetings that resolve little, on chivying people to sign up for products that – in our heart of hearts we don’t admire.

Fortunately, there are real solutions to bringing down the rate of misemployment. The trick isn’t just to stimulate demand per se, the trick is to stimulate the right demand: to excite people to buy the constituents of true satisfaction, and therefore to give individuals and businesses a chance to direct their labour, and make profits, in meaningful areas of the economy.

This is precisely what needs to be changed – and urgently. Society should do a systematic deal with capitalists: it should give them the honour and love they so badly crave in exchange for treating their workers as human beings, not abusing customers and properly looking after the planet. A standard test should be drawn up to measure the societal good generated by companies (many such schemes already exist in nascent form), on the basis of which capitalists should then be given extraordinarily prestigious titles by their nations in ceremonies with the grandeur and thrill of film premieres or sporting finales.

There’s no shortage: we need help in forming cohesive, interesting communities. We need help in bringing up children. We need help in calming down at key moments (the cost of our high anxiety and rage is appalling in aggregate). We require immense assistance in discovering our real talents in the workplace and understanding where we can best deploy them (a service in this area would matter a great deal more to us than pizza delivery). We have unfulfilled aesthetic desires. Elegant town centres, charming high streets and sweet villages are in desperately short supply and are therefore absurdly expensive – just as, prior to Henry Ford, cars existed but were very rare and only for the very rich.

But we know the direction we need to head to: we need the drive and inventiveness of Capitalism to tackle the higher, deeper problems of life. This will offer an exit from the failings and misery that attend Capitalism today. In a nutshell, the problem is that we waste resources on unimportant things. And we are wasteful, ultimately, because we lack self-knowledge, because we are using consumption merely to divert or quieten anxieties or in a vain search for status and belonging.

If we could just address our deeper needs more directly, our materialism would be refined and restrained, our work would be more meaningful and our profits would be more honourable. That’s the ideal future of Capitalism.

In the Utopia, businesses would of course have to be profitable. But the success of a business would primarily be assessed in terms of its contribution to the collective good.

On changing the world

the only way to bring about real change is to act through competing institutions. Revolutions in consciousness cannot be made lasting and effective until legions of people start to work together in concert for a common aim and, rather than relying on the intermittent pronouncements of mountain-top prophets, begin the unglamorous and deeply boring task of wrestling with issues of law, money, long-term mass communication, advocacy and administration.

Our collective ideal of the free thinker is that of someone living beyond the confines of any system, disdainful of ‘boring things’, cut off from practical affairs and privately perhaps rather proud of being unable even to read a balance sheet. It’s a fatally romantic recipe for keeping the status quo unchanged.

We have to make what we already know very well more effective out there. The urgent question is how to ally the very many good ideas which currently slumber in the recesses of intellectual life with proper organisational tools that actually stand a chance of giving them real impact in the world. From a completely secular starting point, it can be worth studying religions to learn how to alter behaviour.

This is what religions have, for their part, excelled at doing. They’ve realised that if you put down an important idea on paper in somewhat pedestrian prose, it won’t have any lasting or mass impact. They’ve therefore, over their history, engaged the most skilled artists to wrap their ideas in the coating of beauty. They have asked Bach and Mozart to put the ideas to music, they have asked Titian and Botticelli to give the ideas a visual form, they’ve asked the best fashion designers to make nice looking clothes and they’ve asked the best architects to design the most impressive and moving buildings to give the ideas heft and permanence.

We should use the history of religion to inform us about the role of repetition, ritual and beauty in the name of changing how things are.

There is a great deal of large-scale ambition in the world, but all the largest corporate entities are focused on servicing basic needs: the mechanics of communication, inexpensive things to eat, energy so we can move about. While our higher needs – for love, beauty, wisdom – have no comparable provision. The drive to grandeur is missing just where we need it most.

Good business

So, inevitably, businesses will evolve to profit from their wishes. Capitalism has not traditionally been interested in whether these are sensible, admirable or worthy desires. Its aim is neutral: to make money from supplying whatever people happen to be willing to pay for.

Philosophy, by contrast, has long recognised a crucial distinction between desires and needs:

A desire is whatever you feel you want at the moment.

A need is for something that serves your long-term well being.

And it’s our needs that are required for a satisfying, fulfilled life (which Plato, Aristotle and others call a life marked by eudaimonia).

Capitalism goes wrong when it exploits this cognitive flaw: large numbers of businesses sell us stuff that we desire but which (in all honesty) we don’t need. On longer, calmer reflection we’d realise those things don’t actually help us to live well.

Sadly, it’s easier to generate profits from desires than from needs. You can make much more money selling bad ice cream than by marketing Plato’s dialogues.

In a utopia, good businesses should be defined not simply by whether they are profitable or not; but by what they make their profit from. Only businesses that satisfy true needs are moral.

Good capitalism requires that we address two, core educational needs. Getting us to focus on what we really need, what the real challenges in our lives are. And getting us to focus on the value of particular goods in relation to our needs: that is, how do these particular purchases help with eudaimonia?

So, in search of a better economy, we should direct our attention not simply to shopping centres and financial institutions, but to schools and universities and the media. The shape that an economy has ultimately reflects the educated insights of its consumers. When people say they hate consumerism, what they often mean is that they are dismayed at peoples’ preferences. The fault, then, lies not so much with consumption as with the preferences. Education transforms preferences not by making us do what someone else tells us. But by giving us the capacities and skills to understand more clearly what we genuinely do want and what sort of goods and services will best help us.

tbc

[centaurrential]

“The Spice Jar”

“Let me live the lie, So long as it gets me through the day.”

For a long time it baffled me why activists would choose to devote so much energy to a cause that always seemed like overkill to me: free speech. I suppose the reason for that is because I grew up in a fairly liberal environment in one of the most liberal countries in the world. My feelings of security in the realm of free speech were a result of direct contact with a family that, more often than not, found itself on the right side of political privilege. Juxtaposed by the harsh realities experienced by another portion of my family (but not by me) under dictatorship in Yugoslavia, it seemed like the threat to free expression was a dead issue, a thing left in another world, in the past and locked in a strait jacket, never to seriously perpetrate again. How naive.

I see now that the cause is not overkill at all, but rather in need of periodic resuscitation, with the medics on stand-by; and the best medics would be those who excel in “aspect perception”. Like evil, issues needing that particular kind of attention crop up in unexpected places, and so much vigilance in monitoring the sneaks is due. And a simple mandate of “free expression for all” is stupid and insufficient, because as we always see, static gaming rules can produce matches with vastly different phenotypes. (The existence of “language games” was originally observed by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, so I give him his due credit here.)

I spoke of ideology in my last posting, and wherever one wishes to locate (and I don’t use that term accidentally) themselves on the grid of political persuasions, there will always be conceptual pockets that are purposely left unfilled, often because no one has the guts to touch them for fear of being labelled too politically incorrect, or undiplomatic. But even more radical are those ideas that don’t even find themselves on that grid, because they lie so far outside of the limitations imposed by the prevailing paradigm. A person brave enough to attempt to give validity to those ideas is not only denigrated for being “uneducated” but crucified for being a downright dumbass, and possibly psychotic, if the definition of psychosis is a “detachment from ‘reality’.” But what we think of as reality is merely an idea that has been agreed-upon by people who happen to have sufficient charisma and power to persuade others.

I’ll give you an example: I have, I believe, collected enough evidence that demonstrates astrology is true. Because of this passing interest, I once mentioned to a relative that I was reading a book on the influence of astrology in history, political and otherwise. She asked who the author was and what his credentials were. Nothing “noteworthy” there, and because of that, she actually insulted me and declared it preposterous that I, a usually intelligent person, would consider an argument not backed by the mainstream meritocracy. It’s crucial to note that she has a doctorate in history. I didn’t even have to ask her why she was so appalled, because her answer would have been the same dished to me, on a silver platter, out of fucking Buckingham Palace, that is given to me by every other lazy asshole who considers astrology to be archaic and an immediate write-off. She would have said that “all the studies” performed on astrology show CLEARLY that the “daily horoscope” and the “sun signs” are all bullshit and believers suffer from a case of confirmation bias. Academics believe that mythology and established archetypes have value and are therefore worth studying. And there is a tight link between them and the representational entities found in astrology. But none of “The Educated” give enough of a damn to investigate its complex grammar (see last posting), and the precision required of any astrologer worth their salt.

My little rant about astrology isn’t meant to be a full-scale defence of the practice, but I am trying to demonstrate something. The shallowness displayed in these disses to astrology is indicative of the fact that things already thought to be errant are not even encompassed in the span of that “grid of persuasions” I mentioned earlier. (The grid may be two- or three-dimensional, but who cares?) Those who are already convinced something is “wrong” simply won’t go to great lengths to play the devil’s advocate and explore why there may be a teensy-weensy chance it is RIGHT.

In my mind, if it’s been spoken of, then you should do your homework and read between the lines.

They say, if you can’t find yourself anywhere on that grid, there must be something fundamentally wrong with you. You’re crazed, you’re spacey, out to lunch, et cetera. The grid seems to offer a menu of choices, various combinations of platitudes you are free to choose from. So my point is this: if enough people, with enough influence, tell you that something is off the table, they’re telling you that not even the ingredients are available to conjure something worthy of bringing to the table. Therefore, to those who still hunger: you must look elsewhere.

I can’t say with certainty whether or not there was some grand agenda to marginalize and persecute people who can see outside of things (*cough*lust*cough), but if there is (I use the present tense cause...duh) it’s DEFINITELY ideological. And the reason it’s so fucking scary is because, if your wild ideas reach a certain density, the majority won’t even listen to you. And by ‘majority’ I don’t mean 50.1% of the population, I mean the people you interact with who possess a disproportionate amount of power. And further, by ‘power’ I mean the capacity to effect significant change in something, or to neutralize a challenge to a pre-existing situation. Anyway, never mind disagreement--you might as well not have a mouth at all. Even if your ‘kooky’ ideas are not that dense, the introduction of even one idea that doesn’t fall within the rules of the prevailing paradigm leads to others viewing you with suspicion and the belief that there is a crack in the philosophical foundation of your life.

To give you a visual: think of the scene in The Matrix when the Agents cause Neo’s mouth to grow over with skin, and he freaks right the fuck out. He falls backwards into the wall, as if to put physical distance between himself and this monstrosity. Speaking--expression--is so innate to us as humans with personalities. To add insult to injury, many of us find some things in this world that utterly compel us--that which ignites our “fire”, that which we cannot ignore no matter how detrimental we are told it can be, no matter how hard we try to resist.

...Who am I kidding?! I’m on a roll (!!!), so I’d like my readers to consider the following: We believe that the past and present both exist, yet we have enough trouble interpreting them. Why should interpreting what the future holds be any different? I think we all know why people are so vehemently opposed to that idea...it’s kind of the elephant in the room.

~~~

Now, I work in a grocery store. For a moment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we were all the rage, with people touting us as ‘heroes’ and heaping thanks on us because we’re “essential workers”. Or at least, we were. That died fast. But we’ve always been heroes. I don’t mean to insult my customers, the majority of whom I love interacting with. But I sense that some people just need to be put in their place.

The supermarket is an interesting one because it’s like a little laboratory for human behaviour studies--but it’s better, because it’s not artificial. Virtually every person on this planet leads a life that revolves around food, and when we don’t have good food, we are sad or grumpy. I understand the feeling of having one’s heart set on something and the disappointment experienced when our expectations aren’t met. But I plead with you: try thanking your lucky stars every now and then for all the options you have, as a result of lowly grocery workers.

Everyday, everything is splayed out for us to pick and choose from. And for that benefit, producers apply their intelligence to generate AND to coordinate, so that things are always “in stock”. Luckily all the food waste that’s generated in the name of “looking nice” (I’m serious) now goes to the food bank. If that didn’t happen, some of us would have to force ourselves to ignore the fact that the only final utility of some of that product was to ensure our shelves were pleasing to the consumer eye.  An understudy, if you will: an immensely complex thing, formed for the sole purpose of “just in case”.

Our lives consist of an economy that’s so sophisticated we really do not have to think twice about having SOME kind of satisfying meal. If not our first choice, then our second or third. Show some bloody respect. Right now, we’re all able to shop in relative luxury, but when shit hits the fan--like for example, perhaps, a prolonged power outage occurs--we’ll be yearning for the days when we had to settle for spinach because the all the kale was gone.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the janitors, custodians, cleaning staff, and the specialized COVID sanitizers of the world. The mundane reality is so backwards sometimes. It’s like evil took all that was good and pure and turned it on its head. There is a premium placed on orderliness and cleanliness. Wash your hands for 20 seconds, apply hand sanitizer, kill those bacteria and kill ‘em dead. Ok, you don’t want to get sick--fine. But large-scale operations that exploit people who help you reach the “godliness” that is cleanliness, yet rob them of respect, appropriate compensation, and appreciation--you are grotesque.

So, money. I’m not well-versed in economics, but I call it like I see it. The nice thing about money, and the reason it’s so widely used, is because it’s an easy tool that supposedly ‘justly’ facilitates exchanges of goods and services between people. If something is expensive enough to the point at which you pass the threshold between “justifiable” and “unjustifiable”, that’s the only reason a person needs to not buy something. And the immediate source of justification is the psychology of the individual. Of course, there are many factors that contribute to the rationalization process.

Money may be easy, but money doesn’t reflect the true value of things, and it’s because money doesn’t reflect the true value of things that it is easy. Imagine you bartering spices for someone else’s dairy cow. In order to save time, you’d better hope that your bartering partner and you agree quickly what amounts and what types of spices are justifiable in trading for a cow. The processes that allow the accessibility of both types of goods are different. You and your bartering partner may not agree: they may want more, you think they should get less. BUT, this person you’re engaging with is the only source of a cow for you! Now imagine a plumber, for instance, trading a repair for a haircut. You help me, I help you, and we apply our respective skills toward that symbiosis. Is the haircut important enough to the plumber that they are willing to provide a service in return, sans money? Is the hairstylist appreciative enough of the plumber’s work to design and make them look good for free? A haircut and plumbing services are similar in some ways, but entirely different in others. The function and utility of each is different, and the consequences they generate permeate lives differently. Consequences may be far-reaching, or they may occupy less space in the progression of your life. A tree compared to a blade of grass. That is the nature of choice in this life. And when money leaves the equation, it’s like a dark sheath has been torn away from the true values of things, which are realistically very complicated.

People generally do act rationally, but it’s not in the way neoliberal economists think. The mistake they’ve made is assuming that a ‘rational choice’ is the same for everyone, across the board. Or maybe that’s what they want you to think. Liar, liar, pants on fire. What is rational to one person is not always rational to another. Much of it is subjective, at least if a person is true to themselves. And people’s inherent personalities are different, and therefore their specific motives are different. It’s not clear that there’s an absolute benefit that should be maximized (other than the obvious quest for happiness and avoidance of pain), because the true value of things isn’t strictly definable.

Think in these terms: What fuels our economy is consumerism. When there’s a recession, people have less money and therefore will purchase less, and so the goal to rejuvenate the economy is to get people buying things again. It doesn’t matter too much what, just as long as they’re spending money.

Now consider the resurgence in the ‘minimalist’ ideal. People are starting to wake up and see that having all sorts of shit just because you have the capability to buy it (and because money doesn’t reflect consequences) is destructive, and not only to the environment and the oppressed, but also to the soul. There are plenty of people in this world who absolutely cannot, in good conscience, own a lot of shit and be okay with themselves. This is a thing that I know for certain compels people. To deny this is to deny peace of mind. So, what place does a passion for minimalism have in neoliberal theory?

In what some like to call a post-modern world (a scary thought in itself; does that imply the end of history?) we increasingly find ourselves detached from the larger picture, and that is NOT good. What we see “in front” bears few clues into what happens behind the scenes. People don’t farm, we go to grocery stores. People don’t weave and knit, we shop at the mall. Things are presented in such a refined way that it actually takes some mental work and introspection to develop gratitude for the people working to make us comfortable, often at their own expense, and often not because they are at liberty to do so. Coercion and rationality have a love-hate relationship.

To tie things up, please pay attention to the source of your information. I don’t mean “Angelfire websites” and all that shit, I mean the individuals and groups of individuals in charge of disseminating  information. Karl Marx developed Marxist/communist theory because of his situation in life. He had motives, like everyone else. Motives can come from a place of genuine compassion, sympathy for the meek, and a belief that everyone deserves kindness and less pain in their lives. But motives can also be positively diabolical, and when such motives inhabit the hearts of people with influence, evil spreads insidiously, like a metastasized cancer gone undetected.

[aion-rsa]

Ready Player Two Ending Explained: How the Sequel Jumps the Shark

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This article contains MAJOR spoilers for Ready Player Two. You can read our spoiler-free review of the sequel here.

At the end of Ernest Cline’s 2011 novel Ready Player One, Wade Watts a.k.a. Parzival inherits everything he set out to win in James Donovan Halliday’s Easter egg hunt: the OASIS creator’s massive fortune, as well as control over the digital world itself. So how could Cline, and Halliday, top that with Ready Player Two?

By helping humanity level up.

The sequel’s ending definitely goes in a very different direction than how Ready Player One ended, both relating to the book’s central quest and in how it opens up the world of Cline’s future-Earth. Read on as we trace the path from the Seven Shards for the Siren’s Soul to the posthumous gift that allows Wade to finally achieve some level of closure when it comes to his adventures in the OASIS.

What Are the Seven Shards for the Siren’s Soul?

Not even two weeks after winning control (along with the rest of the High Five) of the OASIS, Wade in his unique capacity as Halliday’s sole heir (via the Easter egg hunt, at least) receives another gift: the OASIS Neural Interface, or ONI. By interacting directly with OASIS users’ brains, the ONI allows for an all-senses experience of the digital world. It takes very little convincing for Wade, Aech, and Shoto to vote to share the ONI with all users, though Samantha votes against and Ogden Morrow abstains.

Once there were 7,777,777 OASIS users connecting via ONI technology, Halliday released another posthumous riddle:

Seek the Seven Shards of the Siren’s Soul

On the seven worlds where the Siren once played a role

For each fragment my heir must pay a toll

To once again make the Siren whole

But at first Wade is stymied by the quest, unsure who the Siren is or how he would go about finding seven shards with few clues to start with. The sequel’s action doesn’t truly pick up until the High Five are visited by a ghost in the machine: Anorak, Halliday’s NPC avatar in the OASIS. Except that Anorak is actually a self-aware AI that’s gone rogue, kidnapped Ogden, and forced him to begin finding the Shards. Once Og outsmarted the AI, he turned to the next best option: Wade/Parzival would have to find the Shards, but this time he would have a twelve-hour ticking clock before he and the half-billion people logged in via ONI would hit their time limit and be lobotomized.

Like the three keys to three gates in Ready Player One, each Shard is tied to a moment in Halliday’s life, particularly a moment set in the 1980s, particularly 1988-89: the year that foreign exchange student Kira Underwood spent in Middletown, Ohio, and where she met Halliday and Morrow.

While racing after the Shards, the High Five learn that when Kira had to go back to England after her year abroad, she left behind a D&D module that she had written for the rest of their group to play in her absence: The Seven Shards of the Siren’s Soul, in which her character Leucosia was trapped in suspended animation, her soul split into seven pieces that her friends had to find.

Wade comes to realize that the Siren in the OASIS quest is Leucosia herself—that is, a digital copy of Kira’s consciousness, an AI like Anorak. But while the flesh-and-blood Kira died before the ONI was officially created, the final memory toll is the last seven seconds of Kira’s memory, as Halliday tricked her into trying an ONI prototype while she was still alive. It copied over her consciousness up until that moment, creating Leucosia.

Initially, Halliday had kept Leucosia in a private simulation, in the hopes that he could convince her to love him. But he soon realized that because he had copied over every aspect of Kira’s personality and experience, that included her love for Ogden. Further, witnessing Kira’s memories of Halliday at his most insecure and selfish moments made the man realize how wrong he had been to violate her trust.

While it was Halliday who created the Seven Shards quest, it was Anorak who wanted Leucosia as his prize. Anorak, the digital copy of Halliday who grew unstable when his creator tried to remove the worst parts of his own personality from the copy and instead just gave his monstrous alter ego more control over the OASIS. With that power, he is able to hold Parzival and millions of other OASIS users hostage until Z can restore the Siren’s Soul.

How Do the High Five Win the Quest?

Even though Parzival is the only person (aside from Ogden Morrow) able to physically collect the Shards, he relies heavily on members of the High Five and the L0w Five in order to complete the seven trials. Each puzzle draws from a different person’s own particular fandom or knowledge base: Z’s new ally L0hengrin figures out the first Shard years after it gets announced; Shoto is the one to crack the riddle of Sega Ninja, while Art3mis walks them through the John Hughes tribute planet that is Shermer, and Aech coaches Z through doing musical battle with the Seven Princes on the Afterworld. Of course, Wade is the one with the personal experience on education-is-fun planet Halcydonia, and the trip to Arda I is a Tolkienesque date for Parzival and Art3mis.

Finding the Seventh Shard is simply a matter of visiting the Shrine of Leucosia on the D&D planet Chthonia, site of the final battle in Ready Player One. Once all Seven Shards are collected, one need only combine them into one jewel in order to resurrect Leucosia.

But what Z hands over to Anorak is a counterfeit jewel, which he uses to surreptitiously trade the Robes of Anorak back into his inventory. This allows him to teleport into Castle Anorak and threaten to push the Big Red Button that will destroy the OASIS—even if that means it will kill the half a billion people forcibly logged into the OASIS.

Ultimately, Parzival convinces Anorak to duel Halliday’s heir to prove that he is the only one worthy of inheriting Halliday’s power. And while Anorak thinks he’s fighting Wade, who is starting to suffer the effects of Synaptic Overload Syndrome, instead he’s up against the other heir: Ogden Morrow (who had indeed inherited Halliday’s treasured collection of arcade machines), near death after captivity and torture but putting on an ONI headset for the first and last time in order to enter the OASIS as the Great and Powerful Og and duel Anorak the All-Knowing.

Who Dies in the Final Battle?

Whereas the Battle of Castle Anorak in Ready Player One caused an OASIS-wide massacre of all the users who came to Parzival’s aid—who he later brought back to life—the casualties in Ready Player Two’s final showdown are much smaller. Z is mostly a spectator to what he calls “the most epic player-versus-NPC battle in the history of the OASIS… It was like Yoda versus Palpatine, Gandalf versus Saruman, and Neo versus Agent Smith, all rolled into one epic clash of the titans.”

The two seem fairly evenly matched until L0hengrin appears, fresh off her own epic side quest, to deliver Og the sword Dorkslayer. The sword was a creation of Ogden’s, once he received Halliday’s posthumous email apologizing for creating Leucosia without either Kira or Og’s permission. Knowing that Anorak might go rogue, Og created the contingency of an in-world sword that only his avatar could wield. Once he receives the sword, it’s all over, requiring only a single blow to destroy Anorak.

In the real world, Sorrento has already died. When Wade and Samantha, acting via telebots, went to rescue Og from his and Kira’s mansion, Anorak (also via telebot) decides that Sorrento has served his purpose and shoots him. Unfortunately, Sorrento is able to get off a wild shot that strikes Og in the stomach, a wound to which he eventually succumbs after killing Anorak in the OASIS.

Who Lives (Again) After the Final Battle?

After Anorak is defeated and all of the OASIS hostages are released back into the real world, Wade wakes up after a few days’ recovery. Samantha passes on Og’s last words to Wade, telling him that he should bring Kira back so she can decide her own fate. At first Wade is confused, but he remembers teenage Kira’s D&D module: The party has to collect all seven shards and reassemble them into the Siren’s Soul. Only then can they free Leucosia from suspended animation. Once they do, she presents them with their reward. A powerful artifact with the power to resurrect the dead, and make them immortal in the process…

First Wade assembles the Seven Shards and resurrects Leucosia, who explains that she is technically the world’s first stable AI (though Anorak predated her, he was clearly unstable by the end). She also reveals that Halliday, when he realized how badly he had wronged Kira and her, offered to destroy the ONI technology. However, she told him not to, because she was glad to have been created, as she could carry on Kira’s memories rather than letting them get lost. She also didn’t want to be alone. “I don’t feel like some sort of unnatural abomination,” she explains to Wade and Samantha. “I feel fine. I feel alive.”

It’s similar to what Black Mirror has done with their “cookies,” or AI copies, especially in its episodes “White Christmas,” “San Junipero,” and “USS Callister.” Each explores these copies’ rights to be considered as independent entities, their fates separate from their human counterparts.

Leucosia gifts Parzival the Rod of Resurrection, which will allow him to bring back any OASIS user who has died in real life—but only if they had used the ONI to back up their consciousness. So Z is able to bring back Art3mis’ grandmother Ev3lyn, as well as the Great and Powerful Og, to be with Leucosia. Unfortunately, he can’t bring back his mother, who died long before the ONI technology existed, nor Daito.

But what he does realize is that everyone who did ever use an ONI headset automatically has the chance at immortality: “We might be part of the last generation ever to know the sting of human mortality. From this moment forth, death would have no dominion.” From beyond the grave, James Donovan Halliday had created the Singularity by way of simulacra.

What Happens to the OASIS and the ONI-net?

Although Wade spends the entire book agonizing over the possibility of pushing the Big Red Button, ultimately he decides against it. It’s not his call to take away an entire world that provides escapism for people suffering in poverty, or who feel uncomfortable in their physical bodies, people for whom the OASIS is the only realm in which to be their true selves.

So, humans get to keep the OASIS and the ONI-net; but they don’t get to learn about the Singularity created by the ONI technology and the Rod of Resurrection. The High Five decide that it will take some time for humans to get comfortable with the idea of living alongside digital ghosts of their loved ones in the OASIS; but that won’t stop them from making plans for generations from now.

What Happens to Wade?

Or perhaps the better question is, what happens to Wade… and what happens to Parzival.

Like Ready Player One, the sequel’s action was narrated by Wade after the fact, recounting a digital adventure that changed the real world forever. The twist here is that in the final chapter (appropriately titled “Continue…?”), readers learn that the first-person narrator is technically Parzival, a digital copy of Wade’s consciousness in the OASIS.

Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that when Wade returns to the OASIS to resurrect Leucosia, he mentions that it is his final login to the OASIS. This makes sense in the final chapter, when the tenses shift to describe Wade in third-person but Parzival in first-person, revealing that the two shared memories of the entire story, until their experiences diverged at the creation of Parzival as a self-aware AI copy.

What is the Future of Humanity?

In his bleakest moments, Wade had worked with Aech and Shoto to build and prep the Vonnegut, a spaceship intended to leave Earth behind for a new home. Samantha was understandably upset at the idea of the OASIS’ co-owners abandoning an overpopulated Earth for their own gains, as this ark could only hold about two dozen bodies.

However, once the High Five begin resurrecting the AIs via the ONI technology, they come to a better plan: Move Parzival, a copy of Art3mis, Ev3lyn, Og, and Leucosia from the OASIS into ARC@DIA, the standalone simulation on the Vonnegut, and set a course for Proxima Centauri, where they hope to find a habitable, Earth-like planet. The voyage will take close to fifty years, but the AIs will have one another in their digital world and won’t need to take up any resources like human bodies would. Along with copies of all of the ONI users—in suspended animation—and frozen human embryos, the Vonnegut will have more than enough physical bodies and digital souls to populate a new world, should they find one.

There is, of course, a huge ethical dilemma in copying over a billion OASIS users without their knowledge. Wade leaves it up to Parzival, since he knows what reincarnation is like. They seem to be adopting an “ask for forgiveness, not for permission” attitude—assuming that the copies’ namesakes on Earth even ever find out about the AIs’ existence.

Parzival also distinguishes how he and Wade are different people despite their shared experiences. Wade and Samantha elect to stay on Earth, where they get married and get pregnant with a daughter they plan to name Kira. (Shoto and Kiki have their son, Daito, while Aech and Endira remain happily married.) Fatherhood gives Wade a renewed purpose, while Parzival both delights in his immortal, ageless relationship with Art3mis but also hints at the AIs possibly constructing bonds that may transcend human ways of relating to one another: “Our relationships with one another have also evolved, now that we’re immortal beings of pure intellect, freed from our physical forms and set adrift in the vastness of outer space, possibly for all eternity. Even though our perspectives may have changed, we still value those relationships above all else. Because out here, that’s all we have.”

The book ends on dual notes of hope: that the humans remaining on Earth will recommit themselves to figuring out how to fix their planet, while still thriving in the escapism of the OASIS; and that their digital counterparts will settle a new planet, or even make contact with another civilization who can help them continue to evolve.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Wade and Parzival both grow up playing video games, and spend their formative years inside one. Then their paths diverge: Wade finally realizes that there are enough people and experiences in the real world that matter enough to keep him grounded IRL, going so far as to claim that he will never put on an ONI headset again. Meanwhile, Parzival carries their gaming spirit further, to explore more digital worlds via ARC@DIA and what feels like a whole new level in the video game that is life. Sounds like Cline has left enough of an opening for the possibility of Ready Player Three…

The post Ready Player Two Ending Explained: How the Sequel Jumps the Shark appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2KT4ny6

[otiss131]

Spiritual Awakening - Achieving Balance Between Sexuality With Spirituality (Can It Work)?

We in order to be connect to the spiritual source because whenever we connect to our spirituality we are truly peaceful. When you are at peace you can be open create creativity and opportunities into your life. There are health benefits and more when you strongly contact the Divine Intelligence.

In a relationship, unexpected things happen that state of mind proud for. But everything is worthy of companionship. So you can come to love for yourself regardless of the happened. You might want to keep a receptive heart with your partner when share genuine. That means you may both a few work you should do if it takes news which comes out unexpectedly. But everything is worthy of appreciation.

The travel routes  the other necessary info is given as journey adviser. It carries all the info about the biggest like the location codes, pin codes as well as the places curiosity and the visiting places like the gardens, hotels, malls, and any the places in that area. They can be extremely useful in travelling the places along with exploring the unknown regions. It will give you an opportunity to roam towards the place at your own and independently.

BN: Yes, the Buddha did criticize the idea of the atma as a permanent self. Hard work no underlying or essential soul, along with that is reborn. What does non-self or no-self imply that? In Theravada, in the teaching of no-self and karma, presently there no storage of your past actions in some entity, option to conditionality. There is a continuity that is caused, such as effects of the own intentionality. What seek it . has a consequence, a fruit (vipaka is the Pali term). So how you behave can brought about a rebirth in this sense.

The more open, transparent and authentic your life is, great it is ideal for you to be seen as the master. People value honesty and would like to you shared the truth about internal navigation life - your frustrations, upsets and angst associated Connect with your inner Guru you pretend that you will do not experience negative weather.

They believe this energy will benefit their spiritual enlightenment even more walks . can be employed in spiritual healing. They further believe that it protects them away from the cold. They wisely tell you that this energy can function for you too, are usually believe in the gift basket.

By pervasiveness we mean our capacity to "enter" are one on this planet and experience what they certainly do. For instance, we exactly what certain scientists are accomplishing because we were treated to to it that usually are very well accomplishing this. Therefore, we know the end results before they and are then able to simply pass this regarding to those on the earth plane which will receive the situation.

[lifejustgotawkward]

365 Day Movie Challenge (2017) - #348: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) - dir. Denis Villeneuve

As the end credits rolled on Blade Runner 2049 last Sunday night at the Regal Union Square multiplex, I turned to my friend and asked her my usual question, “So, what did you think?” She groaned out, “that was really boring,” and the wave of relief I felt at her response was the perfect summation of my feelings.

How did Blade Runner 2049 disappoint me? Let me count the ways.

I watched Ridley Scott’s original Blade Runner (1982) back in September. I was impressed, though not bowled over, by the theatrical cut, but I still wanted to give the final cut a chance. When I got around to watching that “definitive” version, I found that I actually missed Harrison Ford’s gruff, noiresque narration from the earlier edit of the film, but overall my appreciation for Blade Runner had grown and the second viewing allowed me to focus less on the plot and to better appreciate both the acting and the technical aspects of the production.

My expectations for Blade Runner 2049 were fairly high. I was eager to see how Denis Villeneuve built on Scott’s (and, of course, writer Philip K. Dick’s) visions of dystopian Los Angeles by pushing the narrative thirty years further into the future from the first Blade Runner’s setting in 2019. Although I missed the chance to see this new installment in IMAX - hey, those tickets are expensive when you don’t have spare cash to throw around! - I knew I still had to take the time to watch the film on the big screen. No TV could possibly do justice to an epic sci-fi tale of the Blade Runner variety, at least not for an introductory experience.

Bear with me, now, when I say that Blade Runner 2049 was a massive letdown. Yes, Roger Deakins’ stunning cinematography is practically guaranteed to earn him an Oscar nomination. And yes, the art direction, production design and set decoration further supports Denis Villeneuve‘s strengths regarding compelling visuals. I would also be totally fine with Renée April getting an Oscar nomination for costume design since the coat that Officer K (Ryan Gosling) wears throughout the film is incredible. Unfortunately, for the third year in a row (after Sicario and Arrival) my hopes for Villeneuve’s work have been dashed. For three years running he has fallen short of his ambitious ideas, whether attempting to concentrate on an idealistic DEA agent (Emily Blunt in Sicario), a linguist simultaneously mourning the death of her daughter and trying to make contact with aliens (Amy Adams in Arrival) or a Replicant Blade Runner (Ryan Gosling in Blade Runner 2049) who unravels a mystery about a female Replicant who was able to bear a child. All of these protagonists should be worthy of my undivided attention. Instead, Gosling - like one of Nexus’s new edition of Replicants - is just another in a continuing line of failed leads.

Part of the issue is Ryan Gosling’s own fault. In interviews I find him absolutely delightful, a funny and self-deprecating guy with a nicely offbeat sense of humor; in movies he is unremittingly bland. Whether we’re talking about The Notebook or Crazy, Stupid, Love or The Big Short, he never seems to have any discernible personality on film. It makes sense, then, that he would be chosen to play an android in Blade Runner 2049. But what does it say that he didn’t even play Officer K well? Replicants can be portrayed with emotion, if you recall Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, Brion James and Joanna Cassidy in the original Blade Runner. Each actor breathed life into their characters in unique styles. So why couldn’t Villeneuve and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green find a way to inject some flavor into their film’s characters?

The posters for Blade Runner 2049 imply that Harrison Ford and Jared Leto play important roles in the film, but in actuality, Leto’s “antagonist,” Niander Wallace, barely has any screen time and Ford’s returning antihero, Rick Deckard, doesn’t show up until the last third of the film. I enjoyed every moment he was onscreen, spitting his dialogue out with the same jaded sarcasm he had in the first film, but I wish the character had had more time to develop in the film. Wallace bears an undistinguished aura of evil, but what was supposed to be so special about him? Given the spotlight often put on his sightless eyes during “creepy” closeups, was his blindness really intended to be read as part of what defined him as bad (in which case, uh, what is that saying about disabilities)?

Next we have to take a look at the women of Blade Runner 2049. There are six notable female characters: Joi (Ana de Armas), a hologram who is a product created by Niander Wallace and who functions solely as K’s live-in girlfriend; Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), a Replicant who acts as Niander Wallace’s right-hand woman; Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), K’s supervisor on the police force; Mariette (Mackenzie Davis), a "pleasure model” Replicant; Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri), who works for the Wallace corporation in a capacity that I shouldn’t spoil for those who have not seen the film; and Freysa (Hiam Abbass), who plays a role that I similarly should not divulge. Of these six, Joi and Ana Stelline are the most sympathetic characters, but regardless of how these women’s actions are meant to be interpreted, the designs of these ladies are problematic.

Joi is an immediately likeable character, but since she is a product (and one who does not initially have a corporeal form), she does not have autonomy. With the push of a button, K can turn her off any time he wants, which I’m sure is an option a lot of dudes wish they had available for their girlfriends. Joi exists only to serve K, telling him how wonderful he is when he gets home from a long work day and providing whatever eye candy he desires (she can shapeshift to alter her clothing, hair and makeup). Should I ignore the fact that Joi has zero character development and applaud Blade Runner 2049 anyway for highlighting the ickiness of a future society where Joi-models are prevalent (thus eliminating the need for actual human women)? Maybe, but the film doesn’t bother to make a statement about this element of social interaction, other than the fact that it exists.

K is finally able to experience physical contact with Joi when she “syncs” with Mariette, a prostitute, to combine their bodies for a sexual encounter with K, resulting in my favorite shot in the film: an unsettling image of Joi and Mariette’s four blurry hands wrapping around the back of K’s head and caressing his hair. While this interlude incorporates an interesting degree of romantic intrigue - to what extent do K, Joi and Mariette understand what love is? - there is something a little too weird in the film’s dependence on the Madonna and Whore tropes, suggesting an either/or dichotomy where the only time a woman can possess both attributes is when she finds another person (technically a Replicant) who can temporarily provide the missing skills.

Luv is probably the best-developed female character, although since she is Niander Wallace’s servant, it is impossible to say where her allegiance to him ends and her own taste for violent retribution begins. Luv seems to genuinely savor hurting people, but I suppose that attitude was programmed into her by Wallace, which somewhat minimizes the cool factor in her badass fight scenes. It’s kind of odd, though, that she manages to outshine the film’s other resident tough gal, Lt. Joshi (I didn’t think anyone could outdo Robin Wright in this department, especially after Wonder Woman). Villeneuve and his writers couldn’t settle on how best to represent Joshi, so the character fluctuates between a generically butch stereotype and a leering boss who drinks too much and flirts with K. Again, not that women have to be only one thing, but I like consistency in characters rather than mixed messages. I wonder how much of Blade Runner 2049′s muddled and archaic depictions of women are thanks to Hampton Fancher, who also co-wrote the original Blade Runner’s screenplay, which was full of troublesome approaches to womanhood, sexuality and sexual consent.

In the end, the difference between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 is like the distinction between a human being and a Replicant. 2049 tries to live up to the originality of that which inspired it, but it lacks the soul of its predecessor. It really says something that the most heartfelt moments in Blade Runner 2049 are two references to Ridley Scott’s film: a pivotal scene in Wallace’s lair that conjures up the memory of Rachael (Sean Young) from the film, and a moment in the penultimate scene that reuses a key piece of music from Vangelis’s original Blade Runner score. I recognize that many viewers see Blade Runner 2049 as a masterpiece, and I have tried many times in the past week to understand why, but I’m hard-pressed to comprehend why I should have spent close to three hours sitting through such an unsatisfying project, other than being able to say I bravely weathered this particular storm.

P.S. (because I couldn’t figure out where else to write this): I don’t know how many viewers will know where I’m coming from, but for the cult classic freaks out there, let me propose this theory: Blade Runner 2049 is trying to be like Paul Morrissey’s notoriously wild horror-satire Flesh for Frankenstein (1973). Check it out: a really bizarre and wealthy man (Udo Kier/Jared Leto) and his devoted assistant (Arno Juerging/Sylvia Hoeks) endeavor to construct a set of superhumans (FfF) or humanoid robots (B42049), entities that will give birth to a new generation of superbeings that will take the place of their inferior progenitors and obediently do their master’s (Kier/Leto) bidding. In fact, there are two specific scenes that reminded me of Flesh for Frankenstein while watching Blade Runner 2049: when Niander Wallace kills the naked, infertile Replicant woman (ugh, what a terrible scene), it mirrors a moment in Flesh when Arno Juerging, the loyal assistant, tries to commence sex with Baron Frankenstein’s female zombie-monster by punching her in the stomach and fatally damaging her internal organs, resulting in a grotesque display of violence similar to what we see in Blade Runner 2049.

Secondly, when Luv battles K at the sea wall and she kisses him, she is mimicking an action that Niander Wallace carried out when he killed the Replicant woman; this is also reminiscent of Flesh for Frankenstein since the Arno Juerging character often does horrible, perverse things - like conflating his lust for the female zombie with a disturbingly compulsion for violence - because he is following his master’s patterns. Take all that analysis for what it’s worth, Blade Runner fans!

P.P.S. I am also convinced that Blade Runner 2049′s Las Vegas wasteland scene was either an homage to or a ripoff of Nastassja Kinski’s desert dream sequence from another of 1982′s finest cult offerings, Cat People. Even in the slightly faded YouTube upload of the clip, the orangeness cannot be overlooked.

[loyolahcmass]

Homily on Avatar: The Last Airbender

This week Fr. Rossi will be talking about the TV show Avatar: The Last Airbender! Here is the preview of his homily:

The Spirituality of Avatar: The Last Airbender

 As co-creator of the acclaimed animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, Bryan Konietzko is responsible for one the most entertaining—and enlightening—experiments ever put on television. 

 Even more amazing, this “experiment” has continued to gain enormous popularity over the last decade or so.

 After working on shows such as Family Guy, Bryan teamed up with Mike DiMartino to create “a show with heart and soul.”

 “A part of us was dying” doing the same-old irreverent sitcoms day in and day out,” he says. 

 The show not only renewed its creators’ spirits, but has effectively spoken to and nourished viewers of all ages transcendently in a way cartoons like The Simpsonssimply can’t.

__________

 Avatar is set in a world that is home to humans and hybrid animals, adjacent to a parallel spirit world. 

 Human civilization is divided into four nations: the Water Tribes, the Earth Kingdom, the Fire Nation, and the Air Nomads. 

 Each has a distinct society wherein select people, known as "benders" have the ability to manipulate and control the element of their nation using the martial arts.

__________

 The hero of Avatar is a young boy named Aang, the last Airbender.

 He has the unique ability to master and control the four elemental forces of earth, air, fire, and water. 

 He is the Avatar.

 Other people have the ability to bend only 1 element or no elements.

 Aang can bend them all

__________

 As the latest Avatar, Aang is nothing less than the divine spiritual entity of the world, which has continuously been reborn and reincarnated in human form, male or female, over all time. 

 As the Avatar, he must use his power to bring balance and peace to the world.

 The 12-year old Aang struggles accepting this awesome responsibility.

__________

 The main conflict in the series is the 100-year war with the Fire Nation. 

 Lead by Fire Lord Ozai, the Fire Nation seeks to take over the world, so as to expand its nation's territory and influence. 

 Ozai and his predecessors believe that "happiness is having power". 

 As Fire Lord, he certainly feels the "weak will parish," and believes in "master-morality.” 

 Ozai also believes he is the ideal superior man of the future who can rise above conventional morality to create and impose his own will on everyone.

__________

 An example of this “will-to-power” is Ozai’s genocide of the Air Nomads.

 He kills all of them, because the next Avatar is destined to be from their nation.

 But, Aang escapes his grasp.

 He ultimately defeats the Fire Nation by striping Ozai of his firebending powers; their war of conquest has not worked well for them. 

__________

 A lot happens in the 61 episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender, but what does it all mean?

 In Avatar, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the need for spiritual grace and forgiveness, not power.

 The negative results of violence and hatred are also vividly presented.

 The costly nature of seeking to understand and love one’s enemies is, however, never shied away from. 

 Sacrificing one’s ego is difficult.

 Finally, the series issues a stark message: it displays a surprisingly nuanced view of humanity’s capacity for both good and evil.

___________

 Avatar also stresses our interconnectedness.

 All the nations have a lot in common; only superficial differences keep them apart.

 And it is the Avatar’s supreme task to bring them back together, to unite the world, in harmony. 

__________

 The formation of virtue and goodness is very important.

 No character on the show is simply “given” extraordinary skills or powers.

 There is a constant emphasis on practice, development, and the importance of earning each new ability. 

 A few “benders” can randomly access states of freewheeling elemental manipulation.

 To truly be worthy of the responsibility of such power, however, they must progress through stages of competence, compassion, and self-discipline. 

 In order to bring harmony to the world, in other words, one must first develop an interior spiritual harmony: this consists of honor, loyalty, and integrity.

__________

 In today’s biblical readings we are called “children of the light” inasmuch as we have been given the grace by God to live lives of unselfish service to others.

 The servants in the Gospel are “good and faithful” because they use their talents not for themselves, but for the general good.

 They also have to sacrifice their own freedom and ease for that greater good.

 By the end of Avatar: The Last Airbender, the two young heroes, Aang and Zuko, have taken the advice of wise old Iroh, “It is time for you to do good.”

 That’s advice all of us should heed; and, with God’s grace we can achieve it, even if we’re not “benders.”