#and there's a great beauty to learning about these concepts. philosophies of how people have approached & dealt with life over 1000s of yrs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

charmedreincarnation · 1 year

Text

Wu Wei: The Taoist Principle of Action in Non-Action

This concept has been around for thousands of years, and is a major component in the philosophy of Taoism. It is a call to practice non-intervention and non-resistance in everyday life, encouraging an effortless flow in one's actions and interactions.

Rather than striving for a desired outcome or forcing change, Wu Wei invites us to accept what is and remain open to the unfolding of our lives. We can observe without judgement and seek understanding without manipulation. It can be easy to become overwhelmed with life's problems and challenges when we focus on our desires for things to be different. But in Wu Wei, we learn to simply "be" in the moment and savor the beauty of it.

In Wu Wei, every action is connected and has an effect, even when it appears that we are not doing anything. We can practice being mindful and present in our daily lives, with a calm trust that all will unfold as it must. We can acknowledge what we need to do but not become attached to a particular result, understanding that the outcome may be very different from our expectations.

In summary, Wu Wei is much more than simply inaction. It is an active practice requiring deliberate intention and presence. To truly embody Wu Wei requires us to be aware of our actions and reactions in every moment and to make decisions based on our innermost truth rather than external forces. This way of living allows us to be more connected with ourselves and find harmony within our environment.

So how do we apply Wu Wei to manifesting?

To put it into perspective, have you ever noticed how when you’re not paying attention to something you do it better. Wether it w dancing, singing, or mundane work, if I’m not actively paying attention to said activity, it gets done the best way possible.

To use this principle into spiritual practices First, it’s important to get clear on what you want. So take some time to get really specific about what you want to attract into your life. Visualizing your desired outcome can be a great way to keep that focus.

Once you’ve done this, the next step is to be open to the infinite possibilities that exist within the universe. Surrender to the idea that you don’t know all the possibilities that are available for you – and it’s because of this openness that the universe will start moving in the direction of what you desire.

At this point, start doing things that will bring your desired outcome closer. This could be doing research on the topic, or making connections with people who can help you out. Take action with intention and from a place of power. Additionally, take note of any signs or opportunities that suddenly come up- these are your affirmations that the universe is leading you in the right direction.

Finally, let go of expectations and trust in the process. Don’t try to control or manipulate anything- instead let the flow of life take its course, and if it doesn’t happen right away, trust that something better is coming your way.

Applying Wu Wei to manifesting is all about believing that the universe is on your side and will provide what you need when the time is right. With just a bit of conscious thought and effort, you can trust that what you desire will come into fruition. Using this I’ve practically been able to attain whatever I want. It’s easier said than done but with practice I believe it’s not only good for your mind and stress for achieving your goals, but is pretty efficient and liberating :)

#law of assumption #void state #manifesation #manifesting #reality shifting #law of attraction #shiftblr #self concept #shifting

187 notes · View notes

jcmarchi · 3 months

Text

Zev Farbman, Co-Founder & CEO at Lightricks – Interview Series

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/zev-farbman-co-founder-ceo-at-lightricks-interview-series/

Zev Farbman, Co-Founder & CEO at Lightricks – Interview Series

Zev Farbman is the Co-Founder & CEO at Lightricks, a pioneer in innovative technology that bridges the gap between imagination and creation. As an AI-first company, with a mission to build an innovative photo and video creation platform, they aim to enable content creators and brands to produce engaging, top-performing content. Their state-of-the-art technology is focused on photo and video processing and is based on both groundbreaking computational graphic research and generative AI features.

What initially attracted you to computer science?

I grew up in a science-minded house with both parents trained as mechanical and electrical engineers. We emigrated to Israel when I was 12, where I developed an interest in computers and always liked creating beautiful pixels, starting with using Basic when I was just ten. The field’s capacity for problem-solving and innovation was a major draw.

By the time I entered university, computers had already become valuable tools for creative tasks, such as enhancing photos, similar to the edits being done for high-end magazines. Though I gravitated toward computer graphics and image processing, I was fascinated by all the areas of computer science and learned what I needed to advance my studies.

Could you share the story of how an academic discussion you had about editing images on a smartphone suddenly created a lightbulb moment for a new business opportunity?

My research colleagues and I were working on new ways to manage the characteristics of pixels that make up a digital image. This was during the time when social media was just entering the “selfie” era, and we were having a hard academic discussion about the limitations of image editing on mobile devices. We were exploring how smartphones, despite their growing camera capabilities, lacked sophisticated editing tools.

This gap in the market led to a eureka moment. We envisioned a mobile app that could bring professional-level photo editing to the average smartphone user, making it as easy as a few taps on the screen.

How did this discussion then transition to the launch of Lightricks?

We realized that academic research, while valuable, wouldn’t have as broad an impact on as many people. And with the explosion of social media, there was an opportunity to leverage our knowledge – so we transitioned from academia to industry and created Lightricks, a fully bootstrapped company.

The first product that you launched in 2013 was Facetune. What was the initial concept for this app, and what made it such a huge success?

The initial concept for Facetune was to democratize photo retouching. Before Facetune, such editing was mainly reserved for professionals using complex software. We simplified this process, enabling users to achieve magazine-level photo retouching on their phones. Its success was due to its simplicity and the increasing desire for high-quality social media content.

In the beginning, we were aware that every expense, even an additional table, was significant. One of our co-founders actually chased journalists to introduce our app because we had no advertising or marketing budget. As we grew, we needed office space but couldn’t afford much. We ended up renovating an abandoned student dorm into our office space. It started humbly but eventually became a great workspace.

What are some of the other popular tools you have offered over the years?

Following Facetune, we expanded our suite with apps like Enlight, a more comprehensive photo editing tool, and Videoleap, which brought our approach to video editing. Each tool was designed with the same philosophy: to make professional-grade creative tools accessible. For example, Videoleap offers powerful video editing features in a mobile-friendly format, making it easier for creators to produce high-quality video content.

How have your legacy tech stack and apps evolved with the advent of generative AI?

For a long time, our backend systems have depended on different degrees of AI to edit content without disrupting the original source. Over time these have evolved, and it is only in the last year or so that the AI layers are visible – and understood – by users.

These intuitive features integrate a setting, makeup, hair, or clothing in a way that assists in understanding user intent and automating complex tasks. For instance, AI-driven features in photo editing can suggest edits based on the content of the photo, or automate tasks like object removal or style transfer, making the process more efficient and creative.

Lightricks has recently released an open-source variant of Stable Diffusion’s AnimateDiff called LongAnimateDiff. What is this specifically and what should users expect from this tool?

LongAnimateDiff is our open-source contribution to the community. It offers advanced capabilities for animating sequences but also extends the number of frames that can be created to 64. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s a tremendous leap toward true generative AI video.

You stated recently that you believe that photo editing will soon be a commodity, could you elaborate on this statement and how it will impact software companies?

It’s not a surprise that advanced photo editing tools have become widespread and user-friendly. Correcting or enhancing photos was once only done by experienced photo editors using expensive software and hard to come by computing systems. Today, you can fix a selfie with the flick of your finger. And now even the early challenges of the first AI images that made them awkward looking and non-realistic have been addressed.

Video will be coming right behind – and as democratization expands, any unique selling points for software companies will increasingly lie in user experience, community building features, and specialized functionalities. Companies will need to innovate constantly to provide value beyond the basic editing capabilities that will become standard.

What is your vision for the future of the creator economy?

In the future, I see the creator economy becoming even more dynamic and inclusive, with AI playing a pivotal role. AI will unlock new tools and opportunities, especially in areas like video creation, where it can automate time-consuming processes or generate new content ideas.

This will lower the barriers to entry, allowing more people to participate in the creator economy. For example, AI could enable creators to generate custom animations or enhance video quality, opening new avenues for creativity and monetization. The impact of AI will be to make sophisticated content creation more accessible, thus empowering a broader range of voices and talents in the digital landscape.

Thank you for the great interview, readers who wish to learn more should visit Lightricks.

0 notes

artardordesign · 1 year

Text

Everything You Need To Know About Minimalist Interior Designing

Since the 1990s, minimalist design has remained a timeless trend. Many people’s personal organisation and life design, whether at home or in business, now incorporate minimalist living and design. These days, more individuals favour this look due to its many great advantages, including its simplicity, elegance, and cleanliness. Learning and comprehending the fundamentals of minimalism is an important first step if you are new to the movement. Therefore, this blog post will assist you in being aware of all pertinent information about minimalist design.

What is Minimalist Interior Designing?

When you hear the term “minimalist design” used to describe a piece of architecture, a home office, a house, a bedroom, a living room, a dining room, even a dining table, it refers to an effort to live simply and with fewer distractions. It describes a person’s lifestyle and mentality. This implies that everything in your house or workplace should serve a purpose; nothing should be there merely to take up space. On the other hand, don’t equate frugality with your home’s minimalist design. Even though minimalist households may have fewer items, they typically have much more valuable items. The fundamental goal of having fewer things is to draw attention to the beauty of each object in your area. Your entire home, your kitchen, or even your workplace at work will look stunning when decorated with this minimalist style.

Identifying Minimalist Interior Designing

By adhering to several guiding principles, a minimalist interior design can be easily identified and attained. Because a minimalist design has fewer components, you might believe that implementing it is simple. That is inaccurate. Even though you can create a minimalist design for a room by simply not putting anything in it, this won’t be aesthetically pleasing. There are numerous factors you need to take into account if you want to maintain a minimalist design in a beautiful and functional setting. Therefore, you should understand the following minimalist design principles:

Clean and Simple Lines An empty space functions exactly as a type of design element as accessories and furniture in a minimalist design. Thus, open layouts with crisp, clear lines and even simple forms are preferred. This explains why minimalist designs frequently use a black and white colour scheme. These hues go well together and can produce a sleek, contemporary style.

Less is more

Ludwig Mier van der Rohe, a well-known German architect, is credited with coining the expression “less is more.” It simply means that the minimalist aesthetic places less emphasis on furniture, accessories, and other characteristics in a room. This design philosophy takes into account what a person needs and loves to live a straightforward but incredibly effective life.

Rational Design Rational design concepts reduce objects to their most basic components. For instance, minimalist furniture is noted for its simplicity and lack of frills. This can also be seen in minimalist home design, where just the necessary furniture is displayed. Only the essentials, such as a bed, dresser, and perhaps a reading chair if you think it’s appropriate in your area, should be present in a minimalist bedroom.

Elements of Minimalist interior design

Certain characteristics make a minimalist home design much simpler to identify. Understanding each component will enable you to apply more minimalist décor in your area and let your minimalist inspiration blossom.

Patterns

Prints and patterns go together, however prints are utilised less frequently in this design context. Instead, you can think about going with a monochromatic look. However, because they think that monochromes exclusively come in black and white patterns, individuals frequently misinterpret how to apply them. The truth is that achieving a texture-like appearance is really only a matter of gradating the same colour tones. This might make your room look more contemporary while maintaining a minimalistic and straightforward appearance.

Surface & Texture

Since you can only use a few different colour tones and no patterns, you should employ a variety of textures to give your interior design more visual interest. The paint you select may have a variety of textures, including flat, glossy, or matte. To provide various textures, you can also have a look at various materials (which we will explain separately). Materials like wood, metal, or stone can be stunning ways to add texture to a space while maintaining a simple style.

Colour Palette

To maintain a minimalist home design, it will be crucial to adopt a unified, more neutral colour palette. Tan, black, white, beige, grey, and other neutral tones are available for selection. When painting your walls, hanging paintings, purchasing furniture, and adding other minimalist decor, keep this in mind.

Forms

Simple forms sticking to any straight line are preferred in this minimalistic design. Typically, each room will only have one piece that stands out. The remaining items surround the centrepiece as complementing pieces. You want your favourite object to be the room’s focal point, similar to minimalism, and then you want to let everything else enhance that.

0 notes

ramblings-of-a-living-ghost · 2 years

Text

Introduction

The intentions of this blog are simple: it’s a notebook for my thoughts on the afterlife, as well as the context surrounding what makes it feasible and why I think the way that I do. I have a lot of thoughts on the afterlife! I certainly have more than anyone should at my ripe old age of twenty-two, but I take this knowledge in stride. It’s not like my life has tragically led to this, or I have any ulterior dogma to spread over the Internet. I just...have a brain and a mind and a lot of time to think about the big ol’ questions in life. After spinning these concepts around in my mind and churning them into something of a metaphysical soup, I figured that I may as well put these theories and thoughts--this delicious, soupy mess of reality--into words. Who knows? There might be someone else out there who resonates with them.

I would like to preface this entire endeavour: I do not intend to change people’s minds, question their religion or lack thereof, or instill the belief that any of these pursuits are objectively, empirically true. I have not tested if there’s actually an afterlife, and if you’re a person who can interact with this post, you most certainly haven’t explored that frontier, either. I am a woman who believes in science’s power: yes, vaccines work, climate change is real, and I can’t believe these are things people love to be contrarian about. I regard science to be a great method of gaining knowledge about our world, and I think it is necessary for a society that wants to treat its people better. However, I also believe that spirituality is an often-neglected part of some people’s lives, too. It’s normal to believe these two things are different, because they are! But that does not make them incompatible. In its strictest sense, if you only believe in what you could empirically measure and see, many things cease to exist altogether: the intuition that you, reader, even experience self-awareness in the level that I do would not exist were I only to measure your brain waves, because I cannot experience what you experience; I cannot experience your qualia. The concept of having a soul or there being any kind of afterlife does not have to be at odds with scientific thought. It is my aim to marry these concepts in a way that makes some intuitive sense. Whether I actually accomplish this goal remains to be seen, but I do have faith in myself that these words will accomplish something, or at least broaden somebody’s mind in some form.

While I dabble in Wikipedia articles (yeah, lol, I know) I’m not a philosophy major, or a neuroscientist, or a theologist, or anything like that. I’m not even religious, nor have I been my entire life. But the interesting thing, I think, is that nobody needs to be for this sort of thing. Everyone is equipped with a soul and a mind and can explore these concepts as much as they please, no matter where they might be in life. If you do not enjoy hearing my theories or find my ideas to be utter nonsense, that is completely okay. I am one person, and one person’s thoughts will not be compatible with every other person’s thoughts. You, reading this, are a person as much as I am a person. Our instances of reality, though subjective to ourselves, are equally real. No more solipsism, or “I’m more important” attitudes. We have a responsibility to care about each other, all of us, and actually recognize our differences as a beautiful part of reality. This is idealistic and flowery, perhaps, but, to stay afloat in a very horrifying world, sometimes we must dream ourselves our happiness.

Lastly, while I do believe in the afterlife, I think life itself is perhaps even more beautiful with its uncertainty and rawness. To me, life is how we learn what it means to love, hate, feel emotion, and situate our identity in a greater world. So enjoy your life in any way you can. Eat a snack you like. Go for a walk on your favourite path. Talk to your favourite person in the world. All of these experiences enrich our minds and shape who we are, and the most wonderful thing about our happiness is that we can share it with others like us. You being here--being alive with me and the almost eight billion other people on this planet--is precious. You make the world a brighter place, be it for your pet, your partner, your family, your friends, or even that kind stranger at the grocery store. If you are ever feeling like your life isn’t worth living, please reach out. There will always be things to look forward to: new faces, new foods, new places...see where your funny little meat body takes you :)

0 notes

sonicghost22 · 2 years

Text

Sonic Boom: Sound And Philosophy

More than 2000 years ago in Greece, there lived a philosopher famous for his multitude of works. Aristotle, son of Nichomachus was a man who had been the teacher of one of the most famous kings in history- Alexander the Great.

However, Aristotle was not famous just for being the teacher of Alexander; he was one of the best students in Plato's Academy and wrote innumerable number of books pertaining to metaphysics, logic and ethics. His, Nichomachean Ethics, Poetics, Politics and Metaphysics are still widely studied and taught by scholars all around the world.

So, how does sound connect to this ancient Greek philosopher? Well, in his yet another famous book- Categories, Aristotle tells us something unique and interesting.

He says that what makes us, humans, different from other animals is our ability to assign names to things. We use language to assign names to various objects or in scientific terms, categorize things. This, is a superpower which we possess.

So, why is this a superpower you ask? Because once we assign names to living things we start gaining control over them, something like knowing the name of a demon or angel gives the conjuror complete control over the entities.

A baby when born is assigned a name by its parents. This automatically makes the parents the one in control over the baby. The baby comes to realize that the parents are the ones in control and gives them its complete trust.

Do you know what us Asians believe the most beautiful sound is? It is Mother (ma). Often babies, infants, kids even youngsters feel psychologically soothed when they address their mothers. Hence, mother does not remain as a name given to a subject i.e. the female parent, it becomes a psychological pillar of support and comfort.

So where does sound fit in in this equation? Well, language is sound emitted by us (yes there is the concept of body language as well, but let's keep that out of discussion for now).

Our language, human language is unique. Every other species has a common language that they use to describe an emotion, dogs whine when they are sad, cats hiss when they are angry. Their language is even universal.

But our language is different, not only do we not have a universal language(well there is, and it is called mathematics) but also our language is not just a series of sounds reserved for expressing emotions. Like I said, we have the superpower of assigning names to subjects. Language is what gives us that superpower. Sound, gives us that superpower. Aristotle tells us exactly that.

This reminds me of the story of the Tower Of Babel. Humanity started out with a universal language. One day they decided to build a ziggurat so high that it reaches the Heaven, it reaches God. This meant that humans could communicate directly with God. But that was impossible because humans were not meant to reach the Heavens because Adam and Eve were cast out from Heaven. God found out about this and decided to not destroy the ziggurat, instead destroy the thing that unified the entirety of humanity- language. God, destroyed the universal language and soon humans started to develop their own languages, according to their own nations. The ziggurat was never completed, and people became divided based on language. This story tells us that even God was afraid of the power of language.

Therefore, somewhere, somehow, I believe sound merges with philosophy. Maybe there is God Himself at the confluence of sound and philosophy. I am a self taught sound engineer, I still learn everyday. But I am sound engineer by choice, because I want to dissect sound and see where philosophy and sound merges.

So, come join me on my spiritual sonic journey, let's dissect sound together and find the mysteries behind language. Maybe one day, we might even find God somewhere.

~ @sonicghost22

#philosophy #sound #sound engineering #language

0 notes

shirecorn · 3 years

Note

how about 17 and 24? what inspires you and how do you deal with art block?

Long post warning.

Art block...

I don't actually get art block, which is probably a combination of neurodivergence and drawing every day for the last 3 years

I wrote an entire tutorial about how to do that, but didn't feel like illustrating it. Would people want to read it even without visuals?

Maybe... I'll just start rambling.

There's a couple different types of art block, and it's really just a philosophy puzzle to get past them. I'm going to assume that the things I think of slow days, or art mud, is a milder form of art block and work through that.

Art block is a symptom, not a disease. You probably have something deep inside that you don't want to face, or don't know how. Sometimes you need to discover the cause, sometimes just power through.

Method 1: Rest

Let yourself just Exist. The act of consuming art is part of the process. Watching shows and playing games, taking a break and going gardening or focus on school. This is what you need for burnout-induced art block.

Method 2: Action

I always choose action, sometimes it means a tiny 2 min sketch per day. Ugly or super simplified. As long as I don't stop moving.

Toss everything. Start every piece thinking you will throw it away.

The act of drawing moves you forward; pinning it to the fridge does not. Don't work things until they are perfect. Work them until they are there.

Art block causes and solutions:

- No Inspiration

Not sure what to draw, nothing seems appealing. Art won't come out like it used to.

Do studies from life or photos. Sketch, paint, digital, traditional, doesn't matter. Rocks, fruit, figure drawing, landscapes, buildings, anything.

Study and copy professional's work. Old masters are best, like rubens, michalangelo (only his men tho) etc because they will teach you anatomy while you work. If you copy someone with a lot of flaws, you will repeat those flaws.

Trace to learn, not to earn. Trace photography and art from anyone you want. Don't post it unless you have the artist's permission or they are dead, whichever comes first. This is strictly work for yourself, on yourself. It's not about the finished drawing.

Find an artist with a fun style and try converting stuff into their style. Don't make that your new style though and especially don't start selling it. Your style is a chimera of everyone you love, not a clone of one person.

Take blurry photos. You don't need a fancy camera or good skills or beautiful subjects. Doing studies from your own photos can spark life into your workflow.

Make challenges for yourself. Randomly generate things to combine. Try fusing characters! Don't try to make it look good, just be fun.

Doodle patterns, swirls, lines, random stuff. Try looking up art warmups and doing some of those.

- Everything Sucks

You finally see how bad you are. Or somehow you got worse. Every piece is a fight and you spend hours trying to get something right only for it to be stiff and disgusting and STILL wrong.

Why are you trying to draw good? It's enough just to draw.

Accept that your art is bad. Every artist can see flaws in their work. Your problem is that those flaws outweigh anything remotely worthwhile and hurt to look at.

So what? You're in a period of growth, not a period of production. Keep that wonky second eye. Let them have hot dog fingers.

Show everyone! Show no one! No piece of art can ever be a reflection of the artist. Not their worth, not their skill. The only thing your art says about you is "Held and moved a pen for a bit."

Make bad art. It's ok. Most of the time, the pressure to perform and get things Right is what made them wrong in the first place. Relax.

- No Motivation

The #1 killer of artists everywhere. On some level you think you should draw, on every other level you think you should stay in bed.

You are not lazy. You wouldn't have read this far in a post about art block if you were lazy. You wouldn't CALL it art block if you were lazy. Laziness is wishing you didn't have to do anything. A block is wishing you were doing something. If you think you can namecall Yourself into productivity again, you're wrong and You need to unionize so that you don't treat You like that anymore.

Consider Mental Illness. Losing interest in something that brought you joy can be a symptom of depression. I know it seems obvious, but if you're waiting for a sign that it's "bad enough," it's bad enough. Seek care if you have the means. Forgive yourself if you already know this.

Selfcare. Examine yourself for neglect. Nutrition, exercise, enrichment, social need, and sleep are all part of the art process. Eat three meals and sleep 8 hours. That's your gaymer fuel. You deserve it, I promise. Depriving yourself of your needs will make your blocks worse, not kick you into making them better.

Identify potholes. Sketchbook falling apart? Tablet cord frayed? Half your pencils missing? Chair uncomfortable? Desk hard to reach? There's a lot of things that you tell yourself to work around and get over. Just because you CAN workaround something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. A difficult work environment can cause secret dread deep inside that you don't recognize and just think you're lazy. What you think of as "no motivation" might actually be "I don't want to deal with my tablet disconnecting every time I move it wrong and I have to wiggle it for a few seconds to make it work again." These little things are like potholes in the road. Sure you CAN still drive through them, but eventually you're going to look up and realize you haven't voluntarily left the house in weeks.

Repair potholes and roadblocks. You might feel bad about buying a new pencil, headphones, tablet, car, etc because technically the old one works if you hustle. But if you're running into so many potholes you've ground to a halt, it doesn't Actually work anymore, does it? Invest, save up, request, and require working equipment and suitable conditions. This stuff isn't just cushy privilege, it's an investment in yourself and your art. You are worth the effort it takes to clear the way. If you can't afford reliable (reliable! not perfect or luxurious) equipment, then say it. If cardboard is all you can afford, draw on cardboard. But know that you deserve canvas, and one day you might be able to make the jump. Acknowledge that sometimes, if you don't have it in you to smear burned twigs on wet cardboard, the problem isn't motivation, but opportunity.

- Haven't Drawn in So Long

A unique type of art block that self perpetuates. The thought of starting again is so stressful you can't do it. Or maybe you'll do it tomorrow. Yeah. Tomorrow for sure.

Face your fears. Are you ashamed of your lack of drawing? Are you anthropomorphizing your paper and thinking it's going to judge you, like "oh NOW you come back >:/" I internalize voices I hear and project them onto other people, concepts, locations, and inanimate objects. Your paper, computer, WIPs folder.... none of that is judging you.

Reframe your WIPs. Do you feel shame when you see "unfinished" projects? Why? Who says you MUST bring everything you start to Finish? You don't have to. A sketch is a finished art piece; it's called a sketch! If a sketch is a fully realized creation, pages that are half colored, 75% lined, or partially rendered are all fully realized creations too. Unless paid otherwise, art is done when you're done working on it.

Lower the stakes. Draw a chibi or grab some crayons. Get messy and slowly ease yourself back into the flow over the course of a couple days. It's fine.

Get a buddy! Find an art meme, do an art trade, get a study subject, or just wing it. Drawing art alongside someone can help you get past that block.

Pretend you never stopped. Don't think about the gap, how long it's been, or rustiness. As far as anyone knows, you drew the mona lisa yesterday and didn't break a sweat. Today, you drew a starfish on your hand with a gel pen. Keep up that streak, good job!

Just keep drawing. Make a goal to do one sucky drawing per day on the back of a napkin. Don't make up for missed days, just pretend they didn't happen. Who's going to judge you? The calendar? That's pieces of paper; it doesn't have an opinion. Draw a cat on it. Done. Keeping up the momentum is a great way to prevent art blocks in the future.

TLDR: Draw imperfectly and toss it. Selfcare is king. Draw often and don't judge yourself.

Art is a process, not a product.

#shire screams #art tips #ask #art block #long post

487 notes · View notes

flying-mochis · 3 years

Text

I LEARNED COOL STUFF ABOUT IRL TACHIHARA MICHIZOU SO I WILL NOW SHARE IT

(spoilers)

also this was very long so here's some paragraphs and there's more under the cut + pictures

a lot of Tachihara's works and philosophies center around the balance/imbalance between Nature and Urbanism(Intelligence). Reason and Emotion.

He was an architect and was trying to understand how to implement Nature into his designs, or if they could coexist at all. One thing he says is that a building in ruins is the only way Architecture can be in balance with Nature. He believed Nature is, yknow, the natural way of being. He saw Nature as "God". But he also knew architecture/human innovation in general was important and couldn't be avoided. He struggled a lot with trying to support both of these concepts at the same time.

He also thought the best way for a person to be was both Reasonable and Emotional (and able to create. he said the best human is one who thinks with their hands, instead of just their head or their heart). But Tachihara thought of himself as too reasonable, but wanted to connect more with his emotions because he thought his Reason limited his art.

Tachihara used a myth to explain his feelings, but before I talk about that, let me bring back something. On BSD Tachihara's character sheet, his two listed likes are "pencils" and "hyacinths". I figured him liking pencils is a reference to the real Tachihara's art and architecture design. But I didn't know what the hyacinth was referencing, past it's symbolism according to google. But now I know :D

The real Tachihara Michizou said he felt like "the man in the middle" or the "Hyacinthus". In Greek myths, Hyacinthus was loved by Apollo, but killed by Apollo because he was loved by another person(or loved another person, myths are hard to get a consistent story on). Tachihara thought of Apollo as Reason, and the other person as Emotion. And Tachihara was caught in the middle of them. He was loved by Reason but killed by Reason, and could never really ally himself with Emotion.

So let's get into how this connects to the lil anime character. The main source of conflict for BSD Tachihara is his struggle to choose between the Mafia and the Hunting Dogs. He feels kind of like a middle man, stuck in-between them. Valuing both but not being able to have both at the same time.

I think the The Hunting Dogs represent the Reason/Urbanism to Tachihara and the Port Mafia represent the Emotion/Nature to him. The Hunting Dogs, specifically Fukuchi, love Tachihara. Or at least I get the impression Fukuchi cared for him. But, still, he killed him. Severally wounded him? idk but it didn't go well. The Hunting Dogs, the government, are the reasonable option for Tachihara. But then there's the Port Mafia. Tachihara also feels drawn to them, and wants to be a part of them, and wishes he was closer to them. I think it's implied they feel more natural to him, he feels more himself despite the secret identity. But wether Tachihara can't ever truly reconnect with the PM, or if he just feels like he can't, I don't know. I hope he can.

There's unfortunately very little about the real Tachihara Michizou out there, and least on English websites. I couldn't find almost any his art pieces or structure designs or essays. I can only find his poems translated by some people on Reddit. That being said, they are great poems. I often has trouble connecting with other people's poetry and understanding it enough, but a lot of his poems really resonate with me. They're very nature focused and paint very beautiful and melancholy pictures. I highly recommend them, honestly. I wish there was more about him out there, but what I've learned is very interesting.

Can't wait to see this fucker animated in season 4✌️

here's some art pieces Tachihara made, an expert from his letter talking about the Hyacinthus metaphor, and a link to the article I got most of this information from

The Article (pretty fancy wording but if you stick with it i think you can pull put the main topics and points)

PLUS! Some Tachihara poems I recommend!

Midwinter Memento

In Gathering Gloom

To the wind/Song of the Wind

Early Winter

#bsd #just thoughts #plus hyacinths are usually associated with purple and purple is also an in-between color!#a mix of red and blue which are usually used to show opposition!#bsd tachihara is the most bisexual mf #tachihara #i love ranting abt my favorite charactersss #hope someone found this as cool as I did #tachihara michizou #favorite #saved

103 notes · View notes

vampireinterview · 3 years

Text

It has come to my attention that some of you have not been made aware of the fact that Plato was well known for being a Destiel shipper, in addition to the fact that he also wrote some philosophical works on the side. Let me explain.

Plato was an Athenian thinker whose real name was Aristocles (Plato most likely comes from the Greek word for ‘broad”, he might have been so jacked that people nicknamed him for his wide shoulders, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand but I’m collecting receipts on my hypothesis that all hellers are physical beheamoths). His work regarding the philosophy of love can be interpreted through the lens of the Deancas love story, which can potentially lead us to discover the very essence of what makes Destiel so impactful and universal, so bear with me, I’ll make it as introductory as possible.

Plato’s Symposium is a dialogue which contains the philosopher’s basic view on what love can be. The influence of the aforementioned text has been so strong that even those of us who are blissfully unaware of its contents have heard of the concept of “platonic love”. It is with great disappointment that I have to inform you about the fact that the way in which the term is colloquially used can be considered quite removed from the core idea of what Plato’s love is supposed to be about. Commonly people utilize it to refer to a non-romantic and non-sexual emotion towards an individual. However, even though the extrasensory love was the end goal, it was never too far distanced from the earthly, carnal desire that was supposed to lay the foundation for greater experiences.

One of the most illustrative elements of the Symposium is no doubt the Love Ladder metaphor (also known as Diotima’s Ladder of Love, the Scala Amoris); Plato believes the act of loving to be a part of the process of initiation into the non-material world of ideas. Every step of the ladder helps one approach the transcendence of one’s soul, and so we can single out six steps to immortal absolutes:

1. The first step is developing an appreciation for a particular person. It’s a very much carnal (though not necessarily conventionally sexual) desire for beauty of a specific individual. According to Plato only through the love of the physical can one love the non material. The visceral infatuation with another’s body is often strongly rooted with the self-hatred of one’s own aesthetical poverty: within the carnal love we seek to find that which our own body lacks. The desire between Dean and Cas doesn’t have to be seen as strictly sexual, as the appreciation of beauty does not warrant a conventionally erotic subtext. This sort of fascination with the flesh is most noticeably highlighted in the many “eye sex” scenes in seasons 4-5, and is later brought up by Hester:

The very touch of you corrupts. When Castiel first laid a hand on you in Hell, he was lost.

2. The second step stems from the appreciation for all physicality derived directly from the love one has for the lover’s form. It’s fleshed out any time Dean finds beauty in the dark times, where he would have never found it before or when Cas sees humanity through the lens of the love he has for the beauty within Dean Winchester. This step is all about finding the allure in everybody, not in spite of but rather because of having fallen for a specific person’s material form.

3. The next step is a love which transcends the physical and teaches an individual to feel affection towards the souls. The attraction one can experience in relation to that which is non material is precisely what takes the function of the driving force behind both Castiel’s and Dean’s decisions in season 6 and onward (arguably even much earlier for Cas? or even Dean? Maybe we’re talking about season 4?). As evidenced by the apparent lack of attraction Dean experiences towards Jimmy himself, he must have already moved on to this stage (the Cas he loves is not just the vessel he inhabits). Castiel on the other hand feels heavily infatueted with Dean’s spiritual allure (even when he’s physically on the verge of a breakdown, he’s still beautiful, still Dean Winchester).

4. It is only then that one can find love for the institution. If one worships souls, then one also has to worship the product of those souls: and, sure enough, loving humanity led Castiel to love its structures and ethical systems and be willing to die fighting for them. In the later seasons he exhibits fascination over all the little rules that guide an average human’s life (which is especially fleshed out in his season 7 dialogues, where he contemplates all the small details of the societal structure, ie: how important is lipstick to you?, maybe the human institutions should ban its production). Same can be said of Dean: the customs and traditions of other people are subject to his affectionate protection in the later seasons, which sets s6 and onwards Dean apart from the early seasons Dean who cared mostly about his blood relatives. The found family arc was for him a process of growing attached to the order of life which was previously foreign to him, and him learning to navigate functioning within a big family structure and an organization (the last one is physically manifested by his move from a chaotic life spent at random motels to living at the bunker, property of the institution of Men Of Letters).

5. Then comes the deep appreciation of knowledge. Now, it is widely disputed whether what Plato meant should be strictly narrowed down to just one kind of knowledge (in many English translations you might encounter the word ‘science’, though used in the ancient sense). The process of gaining knowledge is often equated with the understanding of ideas in Plato’s work, therefore we’re going to stick with that. The act of loving the process of discovering both the external and the internal world is a strong factor which pushes Dean to self examination, or the examination of the inner psyche. It is that pursuit of knowledge that is the very coronation of his entire character arc: the realization of his role within the story (”I’m not the ultimate killer”) which was directly derived from the act of loving Cas.

6. The final stage of platonic love is reaching the love of the very concept of Love. Once again, interpretations vary, but for the sake of the argument, I’ll clarify that: the discussed kind of love transcends both the body and the soul. An individual is in love with Beauty, not just one of it’s physical or spiritual manifestations. In my opinion, this stage is extremely well depicted during the 15x18 confession scene, for it is a kind of love achieved by Castiel. He is no longer just in love with the body or soul of Dean, he’s also in love with the sole idea of loving him. He quite literally states that he’s fallen in love with the idea of just being, just saying it, just falling in love.

Upon achieving this state, he transcends his material conditions both by leaving the human world (his move to another dimension - the Empty - could be just an illustrative manifestation of the transcendental move of his essence) and giving birth to a new world order. The way in which he later on goes to rebuild Heaven and give birth to a completely new, structure of the universe is in line with a concept that Plato ties into the finale step of the Ladder - pregnancy of the soul. At one point in Symposium he describes Diotima saying that:

That in that life alone, when he looks at Beauty in the only way that Beauty can be seen--only then will it become possible for him to give birth not to images or virtue (Because he’s in touch with no images), but to true virtue (Because he is in touch with the true Beauty).

What is the christian equivalent and personification of the true idea of Virtue if not the abstract concept of Heaven? The moment Cas creates a new portrayal of Virtue he finishes the Ladder. It could also be argued that the true pregnancy of the soul was actually finished when Jack ascended to the status of God: an entity which belongs to the realm of ideas and is perfect by its very nature is birthed through Castiel’s love (which can be traced back to the feelings he has for Dean Winchester).

And it is the fact that Dean’s arc got stuck on the fifth stage of the Ladder that causes me so much pain. He dies before transcending and experiencing the non-temporal and non-relative feeling of love that one can gain only through the admiration of beauty itself. His life was cut short and his soul has already left the mortal, physical world, therefore he is forever unable to experience the feeling of loving Love and Virtue so much that his soul gives birth to an unbreakable idea.

In conclusion: if you ever see somebody say that Dean and Castiel’s relationship is platonic, just agree. It is very much so platonic in the sense that through their carnal and spiritual desires they’ve manged to (nearly, in Dean’s case) transcend their material conditions and reached the divine aspect of ideal Beauty and Virtue, rooted in a love that’s so deep that it’s perfectly able to redefine the structure of one’s existence.

tagging some people who have vaguely expressed interest in acquiring the third eye:

@cryptcas @futureheadnerd @doctorprofessorsong @sinnabonka @theangelwiththewormstache @absoluteheller @fivefeetfangirl

393 notes · View notes

hellzabeth · 3 years

Text

i have opinions about The Prince of Egypt musical adaption and you’re going to listen to them: An Essay

So, quick disclaimer: The Prince of Egypt is one of my favourite movies of all time. The casting, the music, the animation, I think it’s one of the top-tier movies that have ever been made. I went into seeing the London West End production of PoE with a full expectation that nothing I saw on stage would ever live up to how much I love the movie. I was fully aware there are plenty of limitations to what can be shown live on a stage with human actors and props.

That being said, I was enormously disappointed with how the whole thing was handled.

The Good

Now before I launch into a whole tirade of what I didn’t like about the production, it does behoove me to say what I think they did do well.  

The casting of the role of Moses was done fantastically, as was Miriam, Tzipporah, and Yocheved. The swings and the ensemble were really engaged and well placed, going through lots of quick changes to go from Hebrews to Egyptians to Midianites and back. 

The two Egyptian queens, wifes of Seti and Ramses, are actually given names, lines, and character beyond being simply tacked onto their respective kings. We get to see how they feel about the events happening around them, and there’s even a scene where Ramses meets his wife and courts her, whereas in the movie, she stands in the background and says nothing. This is one of the areas I was hoping the musical, which would naturally have a longer run-time, would expand on, and I was pleased to see the opportunity was taken.

Light projections on enormous curtains were used to very good effect, taking us instantly inside the walls of the palace and then out to the desert.  

Over all, the work was really put in to be engaging and emotional, and the orchestra really worked to deliver the right musical beats. 

One of two stand out scenes as being done very well was the opening “Deliver Us”, which included a bone-chilling moment of Egyptians separating a mother and her baby, with her screams as she’s dragged off-stage, and the blood on the guard’s sword. It really brings home the fear as Yocheved tries to lead Aaron and Miriam to the river with her, not to mention Yocheved’s actress nailed the lullaby.  

The second was at the other end of the show, “When You Believe” was beautifully performed by the whole cast, though it was somewhat stunted by what came before...

The Bad

Oh boy.

So the main problem with this show is not the music, not the staging, not even that sometimes the ensemble was a little off-beat (the lai-lai-lai section in Though Heaven’s Eyes comes to mind). Any mistakes there can all be forgiven, since sometimes things just happen in live performance, someone’s a bit off or something’s just not possible to do on the budget allotted.  

The problem is in the script.

The Prince of Egypt movie is a story that stands not only on the shoulders of its fantastic music and visuals, but also on its emotive retelling and portrayal of the characters within - mainly Moses and Ramses. And while the stage musical does spend a lot of time with the two mains, it neglects two other, incredibly important characters.

Pharaoh Seti, and God.  

In the movie, Seti strikes an intimidating figure. He is old, hardened, and wise in the ways of ruling his kingdom - and is voiced by Patrick Stewart, who brings his A-game to the role. Both Moses and Ramses admire him and look up to him immensely as young men, and the relationship he has with both of them deeply informs their characters as the story progresses. It’s from Seti that Moses learns that taking responsibility for your actions is the respectable thing to do (and later, the true horror of having your idol turn out to be not what you think), and it’s from Seti that Ramses takes a huge inferiority complex.

There are two lines that Seti gets in the movie, one spoken to Moses, and one to Ramses. These two lines define Moses and Ramses’ actions later on in the story:

To Ramses - “One weak link can break the chain of a mighty dynasty!” To Moses - “Oh my son... they were only slaves.”

Guess which two lines are absent from the musical?

One Weak Link is turned into an upbeat song, rather than shouted at a terrified and cowed young Ramses. Instead of being openly a traumatic, internalised moment of negative character development for Ramses, it’s treated as a general philosophy that Seti passes down to his son. Instead of a judgement that is hung over Ramses’ head like a sword of Damocles, lingering in his mind through the whole story and coming up in a shouted argument with Moses later, it’s said and then moved on from.  

The “they were only slaves” comment, on the other hand, is absent entirely. This changes Moses’ relationship with Seti enormously, as well as his relationship with the Hebrew people. Upon finding the mural depicting the killing of the slave children, Moses is appropriately horrified, and Seti shows up to comfort him and defend his terrible actions. Moses leaves this interaction... and then sings about how this is indeed all he ever wanted! He has no moment of horrific realisation that his father thinks of the slaves as lesser, as lives that can be thrown away. This means that the scene where he kills the guard doesn’t lead into a discussion of morality with Ramses as he runs away, but rather Moses breaking down about his heritage as though it’s a negative, instead of something he’s realised is just as valuable as his life as an Egyptian. Instead of Moses being shown as having a strong moral core that protests against the idea of any life being lesser, he bemoans his Hebrew blood loudly, and makes little mention of the man he killed. His issue that causes him to run away is being adopted, rather than his guilt that he’s a murderer, and nothing Ramses can say will change it.

Later on, we don’t see Ramses express this opinion either (in the movie - M:”Seti’s hands bore the blood of thousands of children!” R:“Hah, slaves!” M:“My people!”) so it seems the core reasoning for the necessity of the extremes God had to go to in order to convince Ramses to let the Hebrews go is completely gone.

Which leads us into God Himself, as a character.  

God is a tricky topic in general. He is hard to talk about as a concept and as a character, and even harder to depict in a way that won’t offend someone. The Prince of Egypt movie always struck me as a very good depiction of the Old Testament God - vengeful and strong-willed, commanding and yet nurturing, capable of great mercy and great cruelty in one fell swoop. God is incredibly present in the story, a character in and of Himself, speaking with Moses rather than simply commanding him. The conversation at the Burning Bush is bone-chillingly beautiful. Moses is allowed to question, he’s allowed to enquire, he’s allowed to express how he feels about God’s choice, and God is given the chance to respond (and reprimand, and comfort).

In the musical, the Burning Bush scene lasts all of two minutes, during which God (the ensemble cast, acting as one moving flame, speaking in unison) monologues to Moses, and Moses is not given room to question, talk to, or build a relationship with God. Later on, once some of the plagues have gotten underway, Moses rails against God, flinches in his resolve, and tries to back out... and God says nothing. It’s Miriam and the spirit of Yocheved that convince Moses to keep going. As a character, God is nearly absent. Even when it comes to calling upon the Plagues, or parting the Red Sea, God’s voice is absent. Moses does not pray. He does not even use the staff that God encouraged him to pick up as a symbol of his becoming a shepherd of the Hebrews out of Egypt.  

It’s these little changes, these little absences of such vital lines and presences, that ends up changing the whole vibe of the show. Seti is more like a dad than an emotionally distant authority figure, and God is more like an emotionally distant authority figure than a character at all. Ultimately, the whole feeling that one is left with at the end…

The Ugly

… is that the script doesn’t like God, or religion in general.

A bold statement to make, considering the source material is one of the central biblical stories in EVERY Abrahamic religion. Moses as a figure is considered so important and close to god, that The Prince of Egypt, even with its sensitive portrayal, cannot be aired in a number of Islamic states, because it’s considered disrespectful to depict any of the prophets, especially an important one like Moses. Moses is arguably the MOST important prophet in the Jewish canon.

However, I haven’t highlighted one of the most noticeable script changes - the elevation of Hotep, the high priest, to main antagonist.

In the original movie, Hotep is a secondary villain, a crony to the Pharaohs, bumbling and snide and two-faced. He and his fellow priest Hoy are there primarily to juxtapose how charlatans can control power through flattery and slight of hand, reassuring Ramses that Moses’ miracles are merely magic the same as what they can do. They even get a whole villain song, “Playing With The Big Boys” which is a lovely deconstruction of lyrics vs visuals, where while the priests boast that their gods and magic are much more powerful, in the background the staff, transformed into a snake by god, devours and defeats the priests’ snake handily. The takeaway from the song is that God’s power is true, and doesn’t need theatrics.

It’s a good little nugget of wordless world building. And it is completely absent from the stage musical, with only a vague reference to the chant of all the gods names.

Hoy is gone, and Hotep is the only priest. He actively speaks out against the Pharaoh, boasts about having all the power, and is played as bombastic and proud. He’s a wildly different character, even threatening Ramses at one point. In the end, it’s shown that Ramses won’t let the Hebrews go not because he has inherited his father Seti’s cruel attitude towards the lives he considers beneath him, but because he is being actively bullied by the priest, and will lose his power and credibility if he doesn’t do as he’s told. Ramses is even given a whole song about how little power he really has. The script desperately wants us to feel sorry for Ramses’ position and hate the unrepentantly, cartoonishly evil priest.

That’s another matter as well - a LOT of time is dedicated to making the Egyptians more human and sympathetic, portraying them as largely ignorant of the suffering beneath them, rather than actively participating in slavery. Characters speak out of turn without regard for formality and class, even to the royal family. They are casual, chummy even. And this would be fine - in fact, it’s good to have that sort of third dimension to characters, even ones who are doing reprehensible things, to show the total normalcy and banality of evil - if it were not for the fact they still include a completely open-and-shut case of evil right next to them.

Hotep has no redeeming features. And on the other side, God is barely present, certainly not in a relatable context. Moses has several lines about how cruel and unnecessary God’s plagues are - and you know what, in this version, they are unnecessary! Ramses is not the stone-hearted ruler that his movie counterpart is, he has no baggage over being a potential failure, because it was never really given to him in the same way! By taking away Ramses’ threatening nature, numbers like the Plagues lose half their appeal, as the back-and-forth ‘you who I called brother’ lines between Moses and Ramses are completely absent. Moses is faithless, and is less torn between the horror of what he’s doing and the necessity of it for the freedom of his people, and more left scrabbling for meaning that he doesn’t find. And the only thing hanging over Ramses is Hotep nit-picking everything he does and threatening him, which is considerably less compelling than the script seems to think it is.

This is best exemplified at the end, when all the issues come to a head. The angel of Death comes and takes the Egyptian first borns (which was actually a well done scene), and the Hebrews leave to a rousing rendition of When You Believe. But then we cut to Ramses and Hotep, with Hotep openly threatening to revolt against the Pharaoh - whom was believed, especially by the priesthood, to be a living god! Hotep is so devoid of redeeming features he cannot even be trusted to stand by his beliefs! - unless Ramses agrees to chase after the Hebrews. Reluctantly, Ramses is badgered into the attempt.

Back with the Hebrews, Moses parts the Red Sea… not with his faith, not by praying to God for another miracle, not even by using his staff as in the most famous scene of the movie… but by holding out his hand and demanding the ‘magic’ work. Setting aside the disrespect of Abrahamic religions to call one of the most famous miracles “magic” (and my oh my, if there was a fundamentalist of any religion in the audience they might have gasped to hear it), it again belittles the work of God, and puts all the onus on Moses, not as a conduit for God’s work, but as the worker himself. Then, the Egyptians arrive in pursuit, lead by Hotep, not Ramses. Moses sends the Hebrews through first, lead by Miriam, and stays behind with Tzipporah… to offer his life in penance to Ramses! The script has completely stripped both Ramses and Moses of their convictions towards their causes, and Moses cannot even stand by his decision to lead his people.

Then, in a moment of jarring melodrama, Moses has a sudden vision that Ramses, his brother, will one day be called Ramses the Great (an actual historical Pharaoh who reigned 1279-1213 BCE). There is no historical evidence that this was the Ramses that ruled over the Hebrews (there are 11 Pharaohs called Ramses through the history of Ancient Egypt), and maybe if the scene was acted a little better, it wouldn’t have been so sudden or jarring. Even more jarring, is that then Hotep arrives with the rest of the army, and Ramses refuses to lead the charge into the parted sea. Hotep does so himself, and is the one to have the final dramatic moment, being crushed under the water.

The Takeaway

After watching the show, I’m afraid I could never recommend it as either a play, an adaption, or even as a faithful retelling of a bible story. Its character drama isn’t compelling enough to be good as a standalone play, with it two main characters declawed and their core motivations reduced to a squabble between brothers rather than a grand interplay between two cultures and ideas and trauma handed down from their father. As an adaption of the movie it’s upsettingly bad, with grand numbers like the Plagues rendered piecemeal and fan favourites like Playing With The Big Boys missing entirely. As a retelling of the bible story, it’s insulting, completely cutting God out of the equation, taking no opportunity to reintroduce Aaron as an important character (which he was, in the bible, as Moses was a notoriously bad public speaker, with a stutter, and Aaron often interpreted for him) and more importantly, completely erasing God’s influence from the narrative.

I don’t know who this show was… for, in that case. If it wasn’t for drama lovers, movie fans, or people of the faith, then who the hell was it for? Why change such a critically acclaimed and well-beloved story? Why take away all these defining moments? If you wanted to tell a story about how religion is the true evil, how God can command people to do terrible things, and how those who uphold organised religion like Hotep are unrepentant, one-dimensional monsters… why would you tell that through the Prince of Egypt?

Underwhelming at best, infuriating at worst… just watch the movie. Or read Exodus. At least the Bible’s free.

#the prince of egypt #the prince of egypt musical #PoE #review #essay

67 notes · View notes

kavouras · 2 years

Text

Magic isn't real - But it does exist!

Now this might be a bit of a touchy subject, so keep in mind, these are just my personal thoughts about this. If they don't align with yours, that's cool. I just wanted to throw this out into he big internet soup of thought.

-----------

Magic is quite a weird concept when you think about it. It can do supposedly anything, from talking to gods and ancestors, to cultivating a perfect garden, to just getting a good parking spot. Magic is one weird powerful thing. But what even is it??

Now normally with these kinds of things people stop short and say "don't question it" or "it's incomprehensible, you won't be able to understand even if you try". But I got stinky nerd brain ok? I'm not satisfied without a proper explanation. And after a good while of living this sorta lifestyle that I have, I think I've found a mindset that makes everything fit into place for me!

My personal definition of magic is: "The connection between consciousness and the reality it resides in."

So what does that mean in broader terms? Basically, as the Minecraft end poem says, "you are the universe tasting itself, talking to itself, reading its own code; and the universe said I love you because you are love." (Wow, real cringe using content from a videogame buddy. SHUSH I KNOW. But go really read the rest of that poem. It's really beautiful). Magic is your experience as a randomly created conscious machine. It appears when you touch, sense, and exist in the world. It is there in your parents, birth, life, transformations, death, and rot. Magic is the act of the conscious experience.

But at the same time, magic itself isn't real. It is not tangible, measurable, or perfectly replicatable. But it clearly exists! We can feel it! Sense it!! Know it!!! Just like our thoughts, they are fully influenced and shaped by reality but they are not reality. Things that happens in your mind do not directly happen in the real universe, however they can influence it by sparking feelings and actions.

When we utilize magic, we are utilizing our consciousness. We meditate, using our senses to focus on our surroundings and body. We dream, astral project, and reality shift, to different imagined places in our mind to explore our inner beyonds. We commune with deities/ancestors, talking to ourselves from different perspectives using our memories and stories. We create spells, to remind ourselves that the universe will give us what we wish when the time comes so we'll be on the look out for opportunity. We practice divination, to give ourselves perspectives we've never considered before. We carry crystals, because they remind us that we're secure and more in control of our emotions/mental states. We use astrology to find thinking/social patterns in ourselves and others. And much much MUCH more! The list just keeps going on, I gotta stop.

Magic itself can't be studied as a science because it is not real. But it is essentially science. Kinda confusing I know. But think about things like philosophy, biology, archeology, psychology. These studies could all be considered magic. It is us experiencing the universe, studying it, testing it, practicing it, trying to find out how all of this even works. Because ultimately, the more you know, the less you know. The universe is just one big puzzle that our great ape brains would just love to solve.

I like to imagine there are two forms of magic on top of the basic "consciousness experience" magic. Passive and Active.

Studying the universe (that includes you) and learning about how it all works, just sitting back and observing. Simply questioning why things are the way they are and trying to satisfy own own hungry desire for answers. That's passive magic.

Active magic would be using that knowledge for our benefit. Things like making placebos and practicing introspection for our wellbeing, or making compost for our plants, or remembering the stories of the past to use in the present.

Magic is ingrained in everything we are, do, and feel. It is intangible, seemingly infinite, and nearly impossible. So yeah it's not real. It's not a part of reality. But it is our connection with it. We are real. The universe is real. Magic is not. But we do all exist and by God isn't it wonderful.

10 notes · View notes

gothicprep · 3 years

Text

i made a joke about “math hater culture” last night, and upon reflection, it does actually kind of suck that you have to get to relatively higher level math to really appreciate its functionality as a discipline.

with many humanities subjects, the utility of them doesn’t take a lot of deep critical thought to recognize. with english, being able to write well is extremely advantageous, and proficiency in analyzing text makes reading for fun a lot more enriching. with philosophy, being able to take a step back from concepts that we take for granted and really dig into them is a productive thought exercise that lends significant insight to how we engage with the world around us. psychology, even though i found it to be devastatingly dry, lends to understanding of the people around us, in addition to inviting us to consider our own hangups. history contextualizes politics and culture. i could probably go on hah.

and in a similar vein, even many natural sciences have captivating tendencies. even if you never use them in a practical way, things like biology, chemistry, and physics can be really fucking cool. that’s engaging! it feels worth learning about.

and math really doesn’t scratch that itch a lot of the time. i’ve noticed that a lot of the people who elect to teach it don’t do a particularly great job of making their lessons enjoyable, and many of the fundamentals scan as completely useless. a lot of anti-intellectualism i’ve seen on social media has been predicated on the idea that this stuff has no business being taught, and i find that quite shitty.

i personally did a heel-turn on the idea of “buhhh math wastes my time” when i realized how much of our present knowledge of astronomy was dependent on math. i was moved, found it beautiful. i think more people could get excited about it if it’s all presented to them correctly.

don’t know if i have a bandage for this issue. maybe, you should consider teaching math if you’re good at it and nerdy about the possibilities and ideas it’s enabled us to examine. maybe, if it’s not so much in your wheelhouse, it’s worth looking into the cool shit we have as a result of it and temper your Bleh feelings with acknowledgment of how much it does for us. i think i’d have hesitated less in my personal experience if i didn’t hear people bemoaning the subject constantly.

oh well. nerd shit over. i’ll go back to my regularly scheduled content when i think of Additional Posts.

37 notes · View notes

theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin · 3 years

Note

"I have some problems with [Luke] as a character)" was mentioned in your Reylo response post. Very interested in what your thoughts are on Luke! 👀

Do you want me to get murdered?! Well, if I didn’t get lynched for calling Sirius Black a Stephen King villain I can surely do no worse here.

Let’s do this.

Caveat that, as usual, I am wearing a heretic hat and expect no one to agree with what I’m saying.

Luke Skywalker, much like Harry Potter, is not the character the authors and vast majority of the audience seem to think he is. Luke is seen as the true coming of the Jedi, the light side of the Force incarnate, and someone so innately good he was able to redeem his father, restore peace to the galaxy, and restore the Jedi Order.

I disagree with all of this.

I think this is what Luke thinks he did but the truth is far sadder and, well, in general worse.

First, let’s start off with Luke’s hero’s journey throughout the saga.

Luke starts your ordinary guy, he’s not bad by any means, but he’s not particularly good either. He lives in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, part of a relatively well off family, and set to inherit the world’s most boring business: moisture farming. He has dreams of going out, seeing the world, and becoming a great pilot.

Important to remember but what most people gloss over: Luke starts if not pro-empire then neutral towards it. Luke wants to attend flight school, given his desire for glory and adventure, he probably wants to join the empire’s military. He might not like Storm Troopers all that much but the fire of revolution doesn’t burn in his heart the way it does Leia’s.

Now, personally, I like this about Luke. It makes sense to me. Given where and how Luke grows up, given all he’s ever known, I think this makes perfect sense for his viewpoint. He might get hassled by stormtroopers now and then but the empire really doesn’t interfere with his life except in a) propaganda b) offering an escape from his dull existence. What would someone like Luke know about the Rebel Alliance?

The movie however... sort of goes out of its way not to acknowledge this, and this is where I start having problems with Luke. Luke gets Leia’s message about Obi-Wan Kenobi, sees the most beautiful woman he’s ever seen in his life, and gets to embark on this amazing adventure. The story sort of takes it for granted that he then agrees with old hermit, Obi-Wan, that the empire is evil. This is helped because Luke does too.

In other words, Luke’s opinions are very shallow and lack any introspection. Finding himself in the company of Jedi, smugglers, and hot rebel princesses, Luke suddenly goes, “Ah, yeah, I hate the empire!” We never really see him change his mind by reflecting over what the Death Star means/the destruction of Alderaan, the death of his relatives, or his meeting with Darth Vader. Luke seems to be won over... Honestly, it feels like it’s because the Rebel Alliance let him fly a plane before the Empire did.

Then he blows up the Death Star, is a galactic hero/enemy number one of the empire, and he’s full on board resistance man and the next Jedi.

Which brings us to point number two, Luke legitimately thinks he’s a Jedi.

Obi-Wan gives him half a word of advice for maybe half of a day, watching Luke swing a sword around and get shot at by a robot. Yoda trains Luke in a swamp for, generously, maybe a week or so before Luke ditches him (against his advice even) to go save his friends. Luke has 0 training (beat out only by Rey, who wasn’t trained at all). More, he lives in a world where everything he knows of the Jedi is colored by Palpatine’s propaganda and old legends. The Jedi temples have been ransacked and presumably next to nothing of the Jedi culture remains, I can imagine Palpatine as being nothing but thorough in his elimination of the Jedi religion. The Jedi survived in Obi-Wan, Yoda, and in some sense Anakin Skywalker.

They do not survive in Luke. Luke puts on some quasi-Jedi robes, slashes his sword around a few times to save Leia from Jabba, and he says, “Now I am a Jedi!” Luke is that kid, LARPing, yelling “firebolt, firebolt, firebolt!” Only, that is, if the LARPing consisted of him representing a massacred culture thinking he’s it’s sole legitimate heir. So... Luke is playing Cowboy and Indians, and he’s the Indian.

In my opinion, Vader wasn’t so much redeemed as he always had a very high priority in finding his son and keeping him alive. The obvious way to do this would be to take Luke as an apprentice and, eventually, murder Palpatine. Well, that didn’t pan out, and eventually Anakin chooses murder-suicide to save his son’s life. It’s very touching, I’m not knocking the moment, but I do think a lot of that was Anakin vice the inherent goodness of Luke.

Anyways, Luke and pals save the day, they start a new republic and then they learn life is complicated. The new republic fails within decades, worse, it’s feeble and likely torn apart by civil war, strife, and constant infighting. It is utterly powerless, to the point where the First Order easily rises to replace the Empire and take over its vast resources (with Palpatine building a secret sith army on the side no less). That Leia rather than lead an army through the new republic in the sequels is leading her own private resistance army is very telling.

Fitting in with this, Luke starts a Jedi Academy. The prequels, and yes go ahead and slander them all you like but they’re better than many admit, taught us a few things but one of them is that it is hard to be a Jedi. To walk the path of a Jedi is to open yourself up to great temptation to use the dark side, and the dark side isn’t just some strange quirk or sense of duality, it is the equivalent of selling your soul. It is an unnatural action that leads to unnatural abilities.

You get a bunch of Force Sensitive kids in a room: you better know what you’re doing.

Luke doesn’t. He collects a handful of the remaining Jedi artifacts that Palpatine somehow didn’t destroy, opens up his Jedi School (even teaching his nephew), and within maybe five years the place is burned to the ground, his students murdered by his nephew, and his nephew runs off to join a Sith Lord who appeared out of nowhere (Luke not realizing that this was just immortal cockroach Palpatine).

Luke then becomes a grumpy old man who just can’t deal, sits on a rock drinking blue milk, and whines that for how shitty of a teach he was that Obi-Wan guy was worse for messing up with his father. Which, frankly, is very in character for Luke.

Luke has never really failed in his life, or at least, never had to recognize his own failure. So, when he does, he a) doesn’t realize what went wrong b) blames everyone but himself c) sits on a rock and waits to die.

So yeah, that’s Luke for you.

A whiney, shallow, stupid, somewhat narcissistic, hero. I... don’t dislike the concept of his character, played more straight I’d love his character, but I dislike that people talk about him like he’s the most noble creature to ever grace the planet and has this inherent understanding of a murdered people that the murdered people themselves never had.

(All the Jedi were doing it wrong! Luke made the real Jedi Order! Is something I see a lot and... well... say what you will about their philosophies, but this kid who was not a part of that culture “doing it better”... That’s real problematic folks, real problematic.)

#ask #anon #star wars #anti luke skywalker

123 notes · View notes

wisteria-lodge · 3 years

Text

lion primary (bird model) + slightly burnt lion secondary

Hi there! I’m a fan of your sorting posts, and of your kind and insightful way of supporting people in finding out more about themselves. So naturally I’d be very interested in your take about my own sorting, if you’re game! :)

I won’t talk much about my Secondary, because now that I’m starting to unburn my Lion seems very clear to me, even when my explosion-prone Badger model still tries to get in the way of that clarity sometimes. The more interesting riddle is my Primary. So far I’m operating under the working theory that I am a Lion with a very strong Bird model - or is it the other way ‘round?

The supposed dichotomy between “thinking” and “feeling” in many of the more binary personality models has always bugged me, so it’s no wonder this is the area where whenever I feel like I’ve decided on who I am (for now) a new question mark pops up (so much fun!).

If ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ doesn’t work for you as terminology, it might help to think of Lion as leading with subconscious reasoning, and Bird as leading with conscious reasoning.

Instead of trying to formulate a cohesive text, which would have gotten even longer, I’m putting together an associative list of thoughts and stories that kept turning up while I was trying to figure out my Primary.

A very Lion primary way to solve a problem, not gonna lie ;)

- I think I got my Bird model from my father, who made quite an effort to teach me to look at things from all angles. As a child, whenever I got in a fight with this friend I had, he would sit me down and ask me to put myself in my friend’s shoes. It was hard, because a lot of the time my friend was being unfair to me and I actually could have used some support, someone to tell me that it was not okay to treat me this way. But I’m still immeasurably grateful for my father’s lessons, through which I’ve learned to understand peoples’ motivations and gained an understanding for the complexities of every conflict. He also taught me to doubt, to look closer, to not just believe the first thing I see, or want to see. To this day I still consider my ability to pin down the relevant factors of a situation before I make judgments one of my strengths.

That definitely sounds like a very strong, beloved Bird model.

- Whenever I had to write an essay at school or uni, I first had to come up with some aspect about the subject that I really cared about, even could be passionate about. (I am passionate about many things, so it was usually possible to find some connection to that.) Then I would use the essay to discuss this aspect in great detail, ending with a polemic flourish. I had the time of my life doing that; meanwhile the text would structure itself magically in relation to the issue I had chosen to focus on. Whenever I tried to write without such a focus, I’d get bored, stressed and the text would be of a much lower quality.

- Something similar happened in oral exams at uni: Only when I got the opportunity to bring a discussion paper (a few pointed statements regarding the exam topic) which I could then debate, I was able to recollect all the important details I needed for that. If I just had to report on the topic or answer questions, I often got confused, to the point of drawing a complete blank.

Linking things to emotion and passion - thinking with emotion and passion, basically - is a Lion primary thing. Especially if doing that makes you feel safe & comfortable & effective & happy.

- Even as a teenager I was very interested in philosophy, ethics and moral decision making.

I love teaching philosophy to teenagers. It’s the perfect time for it, they are so into it, and if it were up to me I would absolutely make it a required class.

I picked up certain philosophical ideas and concepts that I liked and integrated them in my belief system (yes, I know how very Bird that sounds).

I had my mind blown by Genealogy of Morals in high school, and I still won’t shut about Eichmann in Jerusalem. But what was so staggering to me in high school was… here are these ways of thinking that are possible and allowed. The fact that here they are in words in front of me made me a great deal more expansive.

Now that I think about it — I don’t remember adjusting my beliefs as in any way traumatic back then. The shift from a belief in the Christian God to Mother Goddess to my very own brand of agnostic paganism was smooth, natural.

Now that I think about it… I would describe myself as a mythic relativist (which is a term I just made up.) Systems of belief are metaphors, and they’re metaphors trying to describe and say something large and beautiful about what it means to be human, and what it means to live a good life. And since we are all human, they are all attempting to describe the same central, indescribable thing in different ways.

I feel this very deeply, but it took me a long while to be able to articulate it.

I constantly reevaluate, and I adapt.

You stop reevaluating and adapting, might as well be dead.

Still, there are some basics I’ve kept with me that just make too much sense to me to give up, and some that perhaps I keep because I just really like them and I’m kind of attached to them.

… somebody’s thinking with Pathos :)

- I’m a constructivist at heart, so that makes it much easier to tweak the content of my beliefs while staying true to the principle that we (socially) construct our reality, and (my take on this): that I choose what kind of world I want to live in, and according to that I make choices which are the most likely to create that world.

- At uni I attended a seminar about the development of moral judgment and action. What I remember most clearly about it is how much it bugged me that the other students didn’t seem to understand that morality always depends on the perspective. Even though I had definite moral convictions that I was ready to fight for, at the same time it seemed obvious to me that theoretically there could be a justification for every kind of moral guideline; it depended on your principles and the world you wanted to live in.

A human after my own heart.

I wanted to understand these different perspectives, not talk about empty categories like “right and wrong” or “good and evil” that meant nothing to me. I still feel that way.

Absolutely. I don’t use alignments when I DM Dungeons & Dragons. I mean, I can list evil *things* but that’s not the same thing as defining *being evil.* I want to know WHY these people did these evil things.

It just seems so impractical and complicated to base a conversation on those broad categories that don’t have any definition people can agree on instead of referring either to defined principles (in order to explain what good/ bad is *for you*) or consequences of certain actions, and whether you want them/ accept them/ don’t want them.

Oh that’s a fun discussion. Asking a highschooler to define “evil.”

(and then they have to figure out what moral systems Jigsaw, Pinhead, the Joker, and Bane all subscribe to.)

- Between “the Revolutionary” and “the Grail Knight”, I would love to be the former, but I’m clearly the latter. I’m someone who questions, not someone who knows.

Take my archetypes with a grain of salt, they are supposed to describe characters. (Who are different from people - but still useful, because they are attempts to describe us.) I actually want to write more about the differences I see between the way fictional secondaries are written and the way real-life secondaries work.

And just “knowing”... is dangerous. That’s how Exploded Lions happen.

There are a lot of causes I find worthy to fight for, but I haven’t committed to any one, which so far I’ve attributed to my Burned Secondary (How do I do things?).

Sounds about right.

If I’m honest, though, it feels a bit strange to really, really fight for anything. I’d rather contribute to the cause by keeping an eye on whether we stay aligned to our values on every level of the fight, not by storming sightlessly in front of some army. (I got polemic again, didn’t I? ;))

So after all this Bird talk, why do I think that I’m a Lion?

… that was the Bird segment?

- I trust my intuition. It has never steered me wrong, with one exception: My Primary burned for a time when I first understood the concept of privilege and internalized bias, which was coincidentally at a time when I also went through a lot of changes in my personal life. Like many people unaware of their own privilege, I had thought of myself as “one of the good ones”. I learned that even with the best intentions I could cause great harm without even noticing it. This then also happened to me in a relationship, when I was already confused, hurt and more than a bit burned. It seemed like I couldn’t trust my intuition anymore, but I also couldn’t figure out intellectually what to believe, because I felt mentally overwhelmed by all those new concepts, all of which put my previous convictions into question. Which Primary burned then?

Been there, done that, it’s brutal. It sounds to me like a Lion dramatically changing direction - that’s what I mean when I say that it *hurts* when a Lion changes their mind. Birds see their past selves that thought wrong as almost different people. “I wasn’t aware of my privilege then, now I am, and can take steps doing forward.” But if you’re a lion it’s like… I *should* have been aware, and the fact that I wasn’t says something terrible about my moral/emotional calibration, and THAT has to be put right.

- I felt like everything I had learned about the world and myself didn’t count anymore. My concepts and my strategies didn’t serve me anymore. So I started to rebuild everything from scratch, this time with less pride and more practicality.

Yeah. That’s some Lion recalibration. With a Bird Model, to help.

- Anyway, I trust my intuition. It contains my experiences, instinct and all my accumulated unconscious observations of the situation, and it’s very reliable. Usually I use it as an important source of information which I try to back up with data/ understanding, but when push came to shove and the apparent facts would contradict what my intuition told me, I would be unable to set my gut feeling aside. I wouldn’t follow it blindly, of course. But I would never just go against it either. If the voices of my unconscious and conscious mind don’t align, I keep poking at the issue until they do. If I absolutely cannot come to a satisfying conclusion, I go with my gut. Since I know it usually knows what it’s doing, I’ll find out the reasons for my feelings later. (Weird, says my inner bird who is busy compiling these examples.)

I’LL FIND THE REASON FOR MY FEELINGS LATER. What a perfect way of articulating what is perhaps the central experience of being a Lion primary.

- Probably I’m just both, you know. Some interesting lion/bird-chimaera. I like it.

I read you as a pretty clear Lion Primary, Bird primary model. But as always, the decision is very personal.

- I have a weird way of processing information: I read/ hear it, work to understand it, work to connect it to existing knowledge in my mind, then my beliefs, my existing knowledge and my feelings about it all wind around each other, grow into each other, some dissolve together, becoming a swamp which then nourishes the plants of new ideas and connections that grow from it.

You grok it. And that’s not weird.

I often can’t remember where certain knowledge came from. I can’t take it out of a memory shelf and tell you about it. I usually remember that I’ve read a certain book and whether I liked it / it influenced me, but I won’t exactly remember what was in it, even if it was important to me. Because all that information is already processed/ digested/ transformed into something new. It’s much easier to access my memory swamp intuitively than consciously.

and you seriously had like… any doubt that you were a Lion.

In intellectual discussions I tend to get stuck because I just can’t remember enough of the details (for my satisfaction), just my conclusions about the topic and how I feel about it.

I’m inclined to think that not accessing the details is either a secondary thing, or an entirely unrelated processing thing.

What do you make of all this? I’m very curious!

[On an unrelated note, I’d like to specify the compliment I made at the beginning of this post. I’m really impressed with your ability to pick up on what people need, not just what they say they want. As a counselor this is a skill I try to hone, so I know how difficult it is to not get too distracted by the story people tell and miss the more subtle cues. You have a powerful combination of perceptiveness, insight and so much kindness, which you use to effectively support people who have questions, are in distress or confused. You don’t generalize. You don’t judge. You see the people who talk to you. I love that you’re a teacher, because I can see you’re using the influence that gives you in a way that contributes to making the world a better place. Fellow Idealist, I’d like to give you a High Five for that, if I may. :)))]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been given a better compliment. Thank you.

#submission #sortinghatchats #lion primary #lionpri #bird primary vs lion primary #philosophy stuff

22 notes · View notes

bryanlyon · 3 years

Text

Thoughts on Adastra

Disclaimers:

1. This is going to have spoilers for the entirety of Adastra, as well as marked spoilers for Echo and The Smoke Room. Not sure why you'd read an Adastra analysis if you haven't read Adastra, so this shouldn't be a deal breaker.

2. I'm not gonna do that weird bullshit people do in analysis where they just summarize the entire plot. Again, the audience of this analysis is people who have read Adastra, so a summary doesn't add anything.

"Ad astra" is a Latin phrase meaning "to the stars". Sometimes it was used literally, to mean something going up or even potentially going into space, and sometimes it was used metaphorically to mean something going to greatness. It's either a beautiful coincidence or a genius move by Howly, writer of Adastra, that the most common English phrase with "to the stars" is "I love you to the stars and back", whereas Latin phrases are mostly used in modern day by neo-nazis.

Intentional or not this reflects the main thing Adastra is about: a character who has been taught not to love trying to become better, and a society that is deeply ingrained in fascism trying to become better. Focus is also placed on the way these two things relate to each other: an Amicus who becomes increasingly loving and open is more capable of making a more progressive and free society, and a more progressive and free society enables characters to become more open and loving.

This is demonstrated well by the differences and similarities between Amicus and Cassius with their pets. Both of them have a pet who is a sibling or sibling level intelligence, but Cassius, constantly needing to perform strength to build towards a fascist state, has a strained, abusive, master/slave relationship with his pet. Amicus has the opposite kind of relationship. In line with his progressive ideals for the world, Amicus tries as best as he can within their system to treat Marco like an equal, and even gives Marco choices and requires his consent to do anything with him (SIDENOTE 1).

In this way Adastra is very comparable to The Wall by Pink Floyd to me. We see the way the political and personal affect each other, and one side is clearly presented as the better option (in both cases, a more progressive and liberal society, and a more caring and open personal life). Where Adastra stands head and shoulders above something like The Wall is in the additional commentary on society it gives while saying this.

Adastra does something I greatly appreciate in art: extremely not subtle metaphors and symbolism. The siblings have a rivalry between each other because each of them wants to impress the parents more than the others. One of the key methods they use to do this is having children, which they see not as people, but as workers and status symbols to impress their parents and outdo the other siblings. Eventually one of the siblings realize that their goal never should have been to impress the parents, but to better themselves. After realizing this they begin to cooperate with the other siblings, treat the children like people, and urge the other siblings to do the same. This is all so on-the-nose that I don't think it needs any explanation.

What might need explanation is the Other. If it weren't for the stylization of always capitalizing Other I'd think it was a coincidence. Because they stylized it like that, I can say with certainty this is a reference to Hegelian philosophy. In Hegelian philosophy the Other is a part of the Other-Self dialectic. The Other is things outside of ourselves and the Self is things within ourselves. The dialectic is the process by which we integrate things outside of ourselves to become better people.

Where I'm almost certain Howly is familiar with the concept from is pop-philosopher Slavoj Zizek. Zizek argued that this concept should be applied on a societal level when it comes to diversity. He says that where conservatives are at fault is that they don't want to integrate the Other at all, and where liberals are at fault is that they remove the Other from its Otherness (that is, they want people who are different to lose the parts of themselves that make them different in the first place).

Adastra's supernatural entity called The Other is treated by societies the same way the Hegellian Other is treated by them. The Khemians have been learning about The Other and how their society can adapt for it for a long time, whereas Adastrans don't even consider The Other until Amicus becomes emperor.

I can't say much more about this theme until we're further into the sequels, as what The Other is and what it does is yet to be seen, but stay tuned for that!

Lastly, I don't think it can or should be ignored that Adastra presents itself as a porn game. The game has several illustrated sex scenes, the main initial draw of the game is Amicus' fat cock, and everyone I know who played the game found it initially because they saw Haps' porn account on Twitter and thought his art was really good. There's nothing wrong with this! It's totally in line with the game's themes that the game itself is totally aware that, to some degree, it's a porn game, but it also tries to be much more than just a porn game.

Adastra can't be removed from its origins in the furry subculture. The furry subculture is an oft ridiculed and looked down upon loose group of people who are largely queer, largely counter-culture, largely ultra-progressive, and who like talking animals. If you know anything about furries, you know that they make a lot of porn of their talking animal characters.

Ordinary people ridicule furry porn often for being very weird (it is), but I think it's also a cool and important part of our culture. A whole subculture of traumatized, queer, arrested development people use the medium of furry porn as a type of escape from that life. This is largely because in furry porn the sexual fantasies of gay mentally ill manchildren are realized in a grand and superb way.

Adastra isn't alone in integrating its sex into its storytelling, and I actually think The Smoke Room and Echo both do it better.

ECHO AND TSR SPOILERS

With Echo we see this in Flynn using hypersexuality as a coping mechanism, Leo's exhibitionism acting as his only escape from his otherwise lonely and closed off life, and the shame that Carl and TJ carry due to their sexualities. The Smoke Room goes even further in using sexuality with its character development. Murdoch has no control over his day to day life, so he sees pleasing other men sexually as a way he can have control over others, the irony of this being that his most frequent sexual partner is one he only has sex with because he's externally coerced into it. William's character arc arguably centers around the fact that he's terrible at sex and refuses to do anything to make his partners happy at the risk that that would make him gay.

END OF ECHO AND TSR SPOILERS

In Adastra, Amicus hilariously declares that "emperors don't put things in their ass", and a major part of his growth as a character is that he gets over himself to such an extent that he eventually offers, reluctantly nonetheless, to bottom for Marco. Using sex as an integral part of the storytelling shows how Howly has integrated the Otherness of furry porn with the Self of writing a damn good somewhat traditional story. Integrating these two usually clashing things isn't weird or a problem for Adastra, it's something that should be celebrated. It should be celebrated that Adastra both made me want to see how Amicus can retake his rightful place as emperor and better the world around him while also making me want to see how much Amicus cums from a prostate orgasm.

It might go without saying since I wrote this much, but I think Adastra is really fucking amazing. It's cheesey as all hell, tacky, and littered with plot holes, but if you're going into a furry porn game looking for plot holes you aren't outsmarting the game, it's outsmarting you. Amicus is a surprisingly deep and likable character, the plot kept me engaged, and for God knows what reason Howly put in the work to make the game smart as hell and deep as fuck.

It could be argued that Amicus was not treating Marco like this because of his ideals but because of his self-perception. After Marco learns Amicus is gay Amicus cowers and asks if Marco is disgusted with him now. Given that the power dynamics of sexuality are so strong on Adastra that they make a 7 foot tall wolf emperor cower to a twink slave, it stands to reason that Amicus might have just not forced himself upon Marco because he was afraid of a slave being able to leverage his sexuality against him. Further, it could be the case that Amicus wanted to treat Marco as an equal because after being humiliated for his sexuality as a teenager he no longer felt as though he could have complete control over other people the way that other wolf royalty do. I think this is all not just plausible, but true. I think these, in addition to Amicus' ideals, contributed to the way he treated Marco.

#adastra #echoproject

37 notes · View notes

postmodernbeing · 3 years

Text

Shingeki no Kyojin headcanons: 104th training corps (College AU)

Hello, Postmodernbeing here. This time I wanted to write about things that I actually know, since I’m a college student and I’m studing History and Social Sciences I found myself wondering about what would the 104th training corps focus their studies on if all of them had chosen humanities as their career. I hope you find this funny and at least a bit accurate.

IMPORTANT: I do not own Shingeki no Kyojin, only these HCs are my own. // Might contain a few spoilers from the manga. // English is not my first language and I study uni at Latin America, so scientifical terms/words/concepts may vary. Anyhow, I thank you for reading and for your patience.

Eren Jaeger

He’s passionate about Military History, not to be confused with history of army. Eren’s rather focused in strategies, weapons and semiotics involved in military speech.

First started with books about great wars in modern era. The use of certain weapons took him by surprise due the technological development.

Then he took classes about discourse analysis, semiotics and such, and felt inspired by the discourse reflected in emblems, uniforms, flags, etc.

Eren doesn’t really have a preference between occidental or oriental, North or South, Modern or Ancient settings. He would simply devour all the books that deal with military strategy and warlike conflicts. Although he has more experience and information about great wars in modern era.

He’s fascinated with the inexhaustible human desire of freedom and the extent that it can reach. This fascination might not be very healthy, he concludes.

Also, finds a cruel beauty in violence when showed in freedom and ideals are protected over one’s own life. But he won’t tell his classmates or professors. He knows is a controversial opinion for he’s still aware the implications of massive conflicts and the abuse of power.

One thing led to another, Eren is now taking classes and reading about philosophy in war and anthropological perspectives about violence through time.

He’s so into social movements besides his main interest in college: “No one’s really free until all humanity is”, that’s his life motto pretty much.

Due his readings and researches he decided it was important to develop a political stance about the world’s problems. Eren strongly believes all lives worth the same, but systems and nations had imposed over others and vulnerated other human's lives.

Yes, Eren is anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.

Mikasa Ackerman

Asian Studies Major / History Minor.

She thinks by studying these degrees, she pays honor to her heritage. Specially to her mother. Her family is the proudest for Mikasa is also the best student in her whole generation.

Mikasa received a scholarship thanks to Azumabito family, who are co-founders of an academic institution dedicated to Asian historical and cultural research. She might as well start working when she graduates.

Although she’s passionate about Japan’s history, she has written a few articles and essays about Asian Studies themselves and the importance of preserving but also divulging by means of art and sciences.

In her essays and research work, she likes to employ tools from many disciplines since she strongly believes all humanities and social sciences serve the very same purpose at scrutinize the social reality all the same. Might as well use demographics, ethnology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, archeology, and so on. For it proves to bring light into questions that history by itself could answer unsatisfactorily (in Mikasa’s opinion).

Even her professors wonder how she manages to organize that much information and pull it off successfully. She might as well be more brilliant than a few PhD’s students.

Armin Arlert

Prehistoric studies / Archeology

He’s so into the studies about the prehistoric humans and routes of migration.

Passionate about the ocean and natural wonders since kid, Armin believed his career would be environmentalist or geoscience related.

That was the agreement he had with his grandad since middleschool, until he read Paul Rivet’s “The Origins of the American Man” book and captured him thoroughly. The way the book explained logically the diverse theories about global migration and enlisted the challenges of modern archeology -for there are numerous mysteries- simply devoured his conscience.

He knew from the books he’d read that most evidence of the first settlements are deep under dirt or far away in the ocean whose level has risen over the centuries leaving primitive camps – and answers – unreachable.

That’s the reason he is so eager to study and give his best to contribute both archeology and history disciplines. Also, he’ll forever love the ocean and nature, just leave him do all the fieldwork, please.

Jean Kirstein

History of industry / Industrial heritage / Historical materialism

Jean first started interested in capitalist industries and production development in first world countries. Kind of rejected other visions and explanations since he’d read about positivism studies.

His interest in such matters started when he was a just boy. He often found himself wondering how things were made and that question captured him ever since. As he grew up, he realized that machines and industrial processes were highly involved in the most mundane objects creation.

Nonetheless, he learnt that not always the best machinery was used, nor the best work conditions were available for mass production. From that moment he’d started to read about the First Industrial Revolution and his mind just took off with questions. Invariably, he learned about labour struggle and the transforming power due workforce.

Between his readings and university classes, he’d knew more about labour movements, unions. And in the theoretical aspect, he'd learned about historical materialism analysis.

One could say that Jean possesses a humanistic vision of the implications in mass production under capitalist system along history and nowadays.

Marco Bodt

Royalty's history / Medieval Studies

I wanted to keep his canonical fascination to royalty and the best way to do that was including Medieval Studies.

Marco would study since the fall of Roman Empire until the latest gossip of royal families all across Europe.

Might get a bit of Eurocentric with his essays but in real life discussions he’s always open to debates about decolonization. He has even read Frantz Fanon books and possesses a critical thinking about colonial countries and their relations with the so named third world.

Nevertheless, Marco finds a strange beauty in the lives of monarchs and he’s interested in study from their education, hobbies, strategies, relationships, everything.

I’d say that his favorite historical period is probably the establishment of the descendants of the barbarian peoples in the new kingdoms such as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Vandals, Huns, Saxons, Angles and Jutes (holy shit, they're a lot).

Because this would transcend as the beginning of his favorite matter of analysis.

Sasha Braus

History of gastronomy, development of cooking, antropology and archeological studies.

Sasha’s interested in the history that shows human development of food and cooking. She finds wonders when she inquires into cultural aspects from the first farming till modern artistic expressions that would involve food.

Such as gastronomy. But her attention got caught in literature’s food representation too, with its symbols and allegories, also in paintings that belong in still life movement, but also Sasha finds interest when food is used as rhetorical devices (for example: the apple in Adam and Eve’s myth).

She’s curious about primitive systems of irrigation, cultivation, food distribution, adaptation of wild species; as well as the domestication of animals, the diversification of the diet and its link with sedentary life, as well as the subsequent division of labor once the need for food was assured in humanity’ first cities.

Sasha’s convinced that alimentation is the pilar of civilization as we know it. For it involves cultural, artistic, economic, emotion and social aspects. Food is a microcosm of analysis of humanity.

Sasha hasn’t a favorite historical period or setting. But she definitely has a special fascination for first civilizations and their link with alimentation. Also, she likes to study the development gastronomy in occident world around different regions, social classes, and time.

Although, let’s be honest, Sasha would devour (lol, couldn’t help it) ANY book about agriculture, cattle raising, cooking or gastronomy.

Connie Springer

Micro-history / History of everyday life.

Connie loves his hometown, has a deep respect to his family and traditions. That’s why he finds himself wondering about the most ordinary events that developed in his dear Ragako.

The book “The Cheese and the Worms” by Carlo Ginzburg changed the way he used to understand history and capture him into meaningful discussions about what he learned was called micro-history.

His favorite quote from that book is: “As with language, culture offers to the individual a horizon of latent possibilities—a flexible and invisible cage in which he can exercise his own conditional liberty.”

Once deep into studying the Italian historians and their works, he decided to give it a try, and ever since he’s mesmerized with the mundane vestiges craftsmen that worked in his village left behind.

Connie’s parents are so proud of him and his achivements, but mostly because he became a passionate academic over human and simple matters, (so down to earth our big baby).

His attitude towards his essays and research works truly shows his great heart and humility. Connie is aware that academic works have no use if they are not meant to teach us about ourselves too and current times.

Empathy and hard work, that’s how one could describe the elements that integrate his recently started academic career.

Historia Reiss

Political History / Statistician

Her father’s family pressured Historia since she was a little girl into studying History just like his dad. For he’s a very famous historian that had made important researches and books about the greatest statesmen of Paradis.

She thought in numerous ways that she could sabotage her career or study any other career without her family’s consent and end with her linage of historians. But she ended up enrolling in tuition and so far, she is trying her best in her studies. Historia swears this is the right path for her.

But don’t let the appearances fool you, even thought she studies her father’s career and the very same branch of history’s discipline, she has her own critical sense and she’s so talented on her own, very meticulous with her research papers.

Definitely wants a PhD about women, power and politics. We stand a Gender Studies Queen.

Her complementary disciplines are Political Sciences. Historia also has a talent for philosophy and owns a diary with all her thoughts about them. She hopes one day she would write a book or a manifesto about an innovative methodology for research and teaching History of Politic Thinking.

Ymir

Religion’s History / Theology

Just like Historia, Ymir was pressured into studying History. And if she’s totally honest, she still has some doubts about it. Even if she couldn’t imagine herself studying anything else.

Anyways, Ymir thought that she could build her career around topics that she enjoys. So, she finally chose theology for unusual reasons.

Her classmates had grown up in religious families or had experience studying the doctrines they practiced. But she, being an agnostic, found satisfaction in unraveling belief systems in different cultures and time periods.

Albeit she studies in Paradis’ University, she currently has the opportunity of taking an academic exchange at Marley’s University. This only made Ymir more conflicted about her future, for she wants to stay (near Historia) but she’s aware that Marley would offer her more academic opportunities for her specialization.

Nowadays she’s working in some collaborative research paper with some people from Mythological Studies from the Literature department. She’s nailing it, writing some historical studies about titans in Greek mythology and its impact in shaping neoclassical poetry. Her brains ugh, love her.

Reiner Braun

Official History / Biographies of heroes and great wars.

His mother convinced him with numerous books about great national heroes, but mostly because she knew that would mean sure job to her son. All political administration in every level requires of an official chronicler.

When he started his college courses, Reiner felt motivated and he was actually convinced that he had the vocation. But the more he read the less sure he felt that the academic world was for him. He wondered if he made the right choice. If he did it for him or for his mother.

Stories and myths about heroes have always cheered him up. That gave him purpose and consoled him when feeling down. Or at least it was like that when younger. Reiner truly didn’t feel like himself when regretting his choices, but he couldn’t help it for he was changing in more than a way.

That’s why he decided to experiment with other disciplines and with time he would find joy in historical novels. He would analyze them just as good as a litterateur and research about historical context in the written story AND study the artwork’s context itself.

His favorites theorical books are: “Historical Text as Literary Artifact” by Hayden White and Michel de Certeau’ “The Writing of History”.·

Heroes stories would always accompany him, just differently now.

Bertolt Hoover

History of mentalities / Les Annales

Intimate relationships, basic habits and attitudes. / Culture

Bertie has always been a much reticent and shy guy. As he grew up, he consolidated his sullen personality, but maintained a friendly attitude towards anyone who needed him. That’s why he thought that the priority in his studies was to be at the service of his classmates.

So, although he was passionate about research and was a fan of the French Les Annales current, he considered his mission to be in the Archive. As a cataloger, organizer and curator of ancient documents.

But the ways of History are always mysterious, and Doctor Magath showed him that other way of being was possible. Before Bertolt picked his specialty, he met Theo Magath, a professor who recently had finished writing a book: “The Idea of Death in Liberio’s Ghetto in Marley During its War Against Eldia (Paradis)” (long-ass titles are historians specialty btw). After Magath ended his book’ presentation, Bertolt reached him. They talked for hours and finally, he felt inspired into pursuing his true passion. Magath gifted him “The Historian’s Craft” by Marc Bloch as a way to reminding him his way.

By the time Bertolt took History of Mentalities as optional class, he already had some basic notions about Les Annales, Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel, Jacques Le Goff and such.

Being the gentle giant he is, Bertolt finds joy in reading about different lifestyles in diverse cultures. He constantly wonders about the origin of social constructs and the way they shape thinking as much as identity.

This boy is a wonder, he might not be the best in oral presentations or extracurricular activities but sure as hell he’ll graduate with honors.

Annie Leonhart

Oral history, about institutions. Particularly, police and justice system in early XXs.

Albeit she got into the same University than Bertolt and Reiner, even shared classes and hopes, Annie regularly felt disconnected from her studies. With time she realized it wasn't due her career itself but rather because of the currents that her professors had suggested her taking. Until now.

Talking with Hitch and Marlow about their doubts concerning subjects and departments it came up the topics of history and present time but also oral history. She’d never heard something like that before. So, that very same week, Annie started searching for information about that.

She ended up with more questions: is it all of this just academic journalism? Or maybe sociology? When we can talk about regular history and when it starts being present time? If she introduces interviews due oral history, then that makes it an interdisciplinary work? Which are the best systems for analyzing data? Definitely, she’ll need help from anthropology and sociology departments if she wants to keep going.

Contrary to her initial prognostic, philosophy and history of historic writing became her new allies, and the text “Le temps présent et l'historiographie contemporaine” (Present Time and Contemporary Historiography) by Bédarida among others, provided Annie another perspective.

Regarding her favorite topics, she wouldn’t say that she selected them freely. They were just practical preferences. For institutions own extensive archives and numerous functionaries. One way or another, she ended up tangled in judicial system and police issues.

With new tools and object for studying, one could find Annie having a blast as detective too. Even if her academic essays focus on institutions’ history and configuration, she’s also working in corruption and more. She doesn’t do it because she believes it’s the right thing, but besides, the thrill of the tea is spicy. Although she won’t admit it.

#shingeki no kyojin #attack on titan #aot headcanons #snk headcanons #eren jaeger #mikasa ackerman #armin arlert #jean kirstein #marco bodt #sasha braus #connie springer #historia reiss #ymir #reiner braun #bertolt hoover #annie leonhart #modern au #college au

90 notes · View notes