#fixity

[doublethinkcrimes]

fixity

/ fik · si · tee /

(n.) the state of being unchanging or permanent

[itspileofgoodthings]

.

[dreamofmourning]

[doozierthanthou]

Me literally every second of listening to this song

[opencommunion]

"This new mode of sex intelligibility necessitated the eradication of the ‘true hermaphrodite’—that is, a conception of the hermaphrodite as possessing ‘both’ sexes, in a manner of corporeal simultaneity. This conception of hermaphroditism is reliant on what Anne Fausto-Sterling terms, citing early modern English jurist Sir Edward Coke, the doctrine of the ‘sex which prevaileth,’ a notion which, while testifying to the legal and juridical fixity of a two-gender system, nevertheless acknowledged a certain sexed co-presence in cases concerning hermaphrodites.

It is precisely this conception of sexed co-presence which is erased with the rise of the ‘pseudo-hermaphrodite’, which relegated hermaphroditic hybridity to the realm of the chimerical, claiming that behind the apparently mixed sexual attributes of hermaphrodites lay a ‘true’ sex, rather than a ‘prevailing’ or dominant one.

What ensued was the development of a variety of methodologies and experiments which aimed to find one absolute material determinant of sex and, thus, to discredit ‘true hermaphroditism’ (that is, an absolute, irreducible entwinement of ‘male’ and ‘female’ attributes in a subject) in order to reify and further congeal dominant cultural conceptions regarding the ‘truth’ of univocal sex."

Hil Malatino, "Situating Bio-Logic, Refiguring Sex: Intersexuality and Coloniality," in Critical Intersex ed. Morgan Holmes, 2009

[loveemagicpeace]

🎸🏠🏝️Life Events 🧜🏼‍♀️🍓🌙

🎨You Identity🎨

Your rising sign shows how u respond to the world and how u see yourself. It shows how other people see you when they first get to know you. Having Gemini rising means that you can quickly create contacts and can quickly communicate with others. Having Scorpio rising means that you have very intense way of how you see others around you. U feel things very deeply. And you can be very secretive.

Planets in your 1st house they symbolize the influence on your personality. And they are also visible to others and sometimes others notice them more than you yourself. If you have Venus in your 1st house you might come across as charming. And your value can be very much in the spotlight. You can also embody a lot of feminine energy. With Mars in your 1st house you can come forward sharper, quick-tempered and brave. You can give off a lot of masculine energy.

If you have aspects with you ascendant those can strongly colour your identity and how you feel the world out there responds to you.

🌇Change🌇

Certain signs respond to change more favourably than others. In particular, the signs of Taurus, Cancer, and Scorpio are conscious of security in one form or another, and will tend to hold on rather than let things flow. If you have personal planets here, the devil you know might feel more reassuring than a change of scene. By contrast, Aries or Gemini welcomes periodic change.

The cardinal signs- Aries tends to deal best with change, having all the fiery impetus of being the first sign. Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn possess the cardinal capacity to get on with things, but the cardinal signs prefer to be in control. For a person with personal planets in cardinal signs, change tends to be welcome only if it has been self-initiated.

The fixed signs -Lots of fixity in a chart suggests a tendency to stay with what you know, come hell or high water. The instinct of the fixed signs is to stabilize - the winds of change might blow around, but the person remains anchored.

The mutable signs -These usually respond positively when change is in the air. If you have personal planets in these signs, you probably hate for things to be static and will spontaneously generate movement in order to reassure yourself that there is always an alternative - even if this is just to move the furniture around from time to time or choose a different place to go on holiday.

🎑9th house- believing in what you can't see🎑

Planets in the 9th house give clues as to how you might feel about encountering the unknown. Whenever we are faced with making future plans, setting off on a long journey, or having to hold a vision of something yet to unfold, our 9th house is conjured. So whatever planets you have here, and the sign on the cusp, will mediate this for you.

With Saturn for instance, trust in these things might not flow naturally. You can have a lot of problems with really believing in something. With Uranus, you might actively seek the thrill of the strange and the unfamiliar. With Sun you may find your happy place somewhere across the sea. You can get married in another country and a lot of joy comes into your life through travel. You are very open in life with things that brings you joy. With Mercury you may find very inspiring going for a short trips every now and then. You can study in another country and are very good with languages.

🫀Troubled times🫀

In the 8th house we can find clues here as to how we react when the pressure is on. More accurately perhaps, it describes a journey into dark places, whether this is the maestrom of a divorce, financial crisis, or experiences of grief and bereavement.

The 8th house is the dragon's lair and any planets here are forged in the heat of that encounter. Even with no planets here, you can look to the sign on the cup of this house, and the planetary ruler of that sign, to tell you how you approach life's more extreme experiences and some of the key resources you might call on when things fall apart.

If you have Mercury in the 8th house then it might be an advantage to have a guide in the underworld - a counsellor or therapist, friends with good listening skills or knowledge of the terntory, or even just keeping a diary or personal record as a way of sorting through and understanding emotional experiences. If you have Venus in 8th house you can be very cautious in love and at the same time you can experience a lot of transformation through other people.

Or with Capricorn on the cusp of the 8th, you no doubt have a stoic approach to hard times, with the ability to lay aside your own feelings if someone else really needs your help. The position of your 8th house ruler Saturn in your chart gives clues as to how you can flex this stoicism even further, helping you to stabilize and feel rooted and secure.

💘Emotions💕

The Moon is the barometer of your inner feelings and describes gut reaction and also what you need in order to feel nurtured and safe. Anxiety arises when the Moon is under pressure. If you have the Moon in Scorpio for example, your instinct might be to cope with trouble alone, shutting yourself off so that you can draw deeply from your own resources. Or with Moon in Libra, you can nurture yourself by trying to create harmony and balance, even if this is just for one precious hour each week in a yoga class. The more difficult life gets, the more we need to pay attention to the Moon's promptings, through its particular realms of food, rest, and self-care.

The Sun -keeping our eyes on the prize can be a good way of seeing ourselves through troubled times. There has been the idea that a human life unfolds, that we begin as a seed containing its own purpose, and that the trials and tribulations we encounter along the way are in fact an integral part of the journey. The Sun in particular in the central light in your chart, whatever you are in the process of becoming.

Venus square to Saturn suggests that the desire nature has somehow not been given room to grow, which in relationships might emerge as barriers to intimacy or believing that one is unlovable. Or Neptune opposite the Sun might reflect a sense of loss in connection to father and therefore a longing for the masculine power which the Sun represents. These kinds of deeper dynamics can become crystallized as entrenched beliefs we have about ourselves, about other people, or about life itself. Self-awareness helps to release us from these

Home

The 4th house describes both your home of origin and the one you have created (or will create) for yourself. It is both the bricks and mortar and the atmosphere and dynamic that binds the family unit. This is also the tap root down into your history: your genealogy and family tree. Whatever planets reside here, and planets conjunct to the IC (the cusp of the 4th) will form your foundations

The MC and 10th house lie opposite the 4th house and between them they denote the idea of parents - mother traditionally in the 10th and father traditionally in the 4th, but we might take the view that whichever parent provided 4th house things (security, lineage, surname) belongs in the 4th, and whichever parent provided 10th house things (socialization, authority, plans for the future) belongs in the 10th, which for most of us is likely to be both parents. Just as the 4th describes the kind of home we create for ourselves, so the 10th will describe what kind of parent you might become, taking control and responsibility.

Home

Taurus in 4th house- you like a stable, comfortable home and perhaps a life somewhere close to nature and somewhere that is peaceful and relaxing. You are usually used to a stable life and can live a more luxurious life. You have to feel the home to live in it. A home can contain lots of greenery, a garden, a balcony, and a home where you feel safe. You may also enjoy filling your space with art, flowers, and elegant decorative pieces.

Aries in 4th house- Your home may be very busy, you may move a lot and changing homes may be quite frequent. You are used to living a lively, chaotic life. Your home can be very fiery and full of life. Your home might reflect your active personality with bright colors, bold designs, or minimalistic yet functional decor. Your home can be a place for action, self-expression, and renewal— a space where you regroup and prepare for your next adventure

Pisces in 4th house-Your home may have a soft, calming, and almost magical atmosphere. You may feel drawn to incorporating water elements into your home, such as aquariums, fountains, or artwork featuring oceans, lakes, or rivers. Alternatively, you might enjoy secluded spots even within bustling cities.

Capricorn in 4th house-your home is more than just a physical space—it's a foundation for stability and achievement. You may strive to build a secure and structured home environment, emphasizing discipline and tradition. Your home may have a classic, understated style.

-Rebekah🧜🏼‍♀️💕🎨

[cosmicpuzzle]

Random Astro Notes

Sun in 5th house are attracted to people who shine or have a strong character. They don't go for looks or status. It's the person for them.

Taurus is a Fixed Sign denoting fixity of purpose, resolution, self-reliance and stubbornness.

Ketu-Neptune people such as Ketu in Pisces or Ketu conjunct Neptune or Ketu in 12th house people have a tendency to daydream and not be practical. They live in a fantasy world. Some people can be creative and artistic.

Moon in 10th house people may try to please their parents than pursuing their own ambitions.

Mars-Jupiter people are courageous, approaching life with gusto regardless of the consequences.

Venus-Saturn men often attract divorcees or widows.

Cancer Venuses often invite friends to family functions.

[familyabolisher]

hi if u don’t mind me asking, could u please elaborate on your thoughts on the critique of contemporary anti-intellectualism (specifically on social media)? i’m legitimately curious and enjoy a lot of ur analysis and commentary i mean this in good faith :)

Broadly speaking, the philosophical concept of anti-intellectualism tends to critically describe the ideological + rhetorical relegation of intellectual production to an elitist practice fundamentally at odds with the interests of the layman; and, crucially, the treatment of these categories as fixities. I disagree with the propositions of that philosophical discourse as well, but that’s not always the form that the discourse takes on this website. On here, ‘anti-intellectualism’ is more of a vague catch-all used to describe anything from people who express frustration with the literary canon & mainstream schooling in ways that don’t coddle the sensibilities of people with literature degrees to people who come out with outright fascistic views on provocative art; it attempts to corral what are in fact very disparate positions and perspectives under the umbrella of insufficient ‘intellect,’ often shorthanded to ‘reading comprehension’ or ‘media literacy’ (or ‘[in]curiosity,’ a new favourite) without any materialist investigation into what we mean when we talk about intellect and literacy and a lack thereof or whether this is a politically expedient description of the dynamic[s] in question.

When I say materialism, I mean it in the Marxist sense, ie. as a counter to idealism—because what’s being described here is a fundamentally idealist (and therefore useless) position. The discourse of anti-intellectualism as it exists on this website relies on idealist propositions—people lack curiosity, they lack interest, they are ‘lazy,’ they are ‘illiterate’ where ‘illiterate’ is not a value-neutral statement about one’s relationship to a socially constituted ‘literacy’ but communicating a moral indictment, at its worst they are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots’—these descriptors rely on an assumption of immutable internal properties rather than providing a materialist description for why things are the way that they are. These aren’t actionable descriptors; at best they’re evasive because they circumvent serious interrogation of the conditions they’re describing, at worst they’re harbingers of an inclination towards eugenicist rhetoric. The discourse casts those who are ‘illiterate’—which in this capacity means those who fail to perform conventional literacy, who lack a traditional education, who don’t demonstrate sufficient interest in classic literature—or the more unkind ‘stupid’ (which, frankly, is what people want to say when they say ‘illiterate’ or ‘incurious’ anyway, lmao) as socially disposable and places the onus of changing one’s behaviour (so as to not be cast as illiterate/incurious/stupid) on them rather than asking what conditions have produced XYZ discourse of social disposability and responding with compassion and ethical diligence; I hope I don’t have to explain why this is eugenicist.

The discourse also lacks an ability to coherently describe what is meant by the ‘intellectualism’ in question—after all, merely appealing to ‘intellectualism’ is a similarly idealist rhetorical move if you don’t have the material grounding to back it up—and indeed tends to dismiss legitimate critiques of intellectual + cultural production as ‘anti-intellectual.’ People love to talk about ‘literacy,’ but don’t like expounding on what they’re actually describing when they do so—the selection of traits and actions that come together to constitute a correct demonstration of ‘literacy’ are built on the bedrock of eg. an ability to thrive within the school system (a mechanism of social control and stratification), fluently speak the dominant language by which this ‘literacy’ is being assessed (in online spaces like Tumblr this is usually English), and engage with the ‘right’ texts in the ‘right’ ways where ‘right’ means ‘invested with legitimacy and authority by the governing body of the academy.’ Literacy is used as a metric of assimilation into hegemonic society by which immigrant and working-class children are made rhetorically disposable unless they demonstrate their ability to integrate into the hegemonic culture (linked post talks about immigrant families being rendered ‘illiterate’ as a tactic of racism in France, but the same applies to the US, UK, etc); similarly, disabled people who for whatever reason will never achieve the level of ‘literacy’ required to not have Tumblr users doing vagueposts about how you deserve a eugenicist death for watching a kids’ show are by this discourse rendered socially disposable, affirming the paradigms which already make up their experience under a social system which reifies ableism in order to sustain itself. (This includes, by the way, the genre of posts making fun of the idea that someone with ADHD could ever struggle with reading theory.) ‘Literacy’ as the ability to understand and respond to a text is difficult and dispersed according to disparate levels of social access, and a lack of what we call literacy is incredibly shameful; any movement towards liberation (and specifically liberatory pedagogy) worth its salt needs to challenge the stigma against illiteracy, but this website’s iteration of ‘anti-intellectualism’ discourse seems to only want to reaffirm it.

Similarly, the discourse dismisses out of hand efforts to give a materialist critique of the academy and the body of texts that make up the ‘canon’—I’m thinking of a post I saw literally this morning positing a hypothetical individual’s disinterest in reading canonical (“classic”) literature as an “anti-intellectual” practice which marked them as an “idiot.” (Obviously, cf. above comments re. ‘stupidity,’ ‘idiocy’ as eugenicist constructions.) People who will outright call themselves Marxists seem to get incredibly uncomfortable at the suggestion that there are individuals for whom the literary canon is not even slightly interesting and who will never in their lives engage with it or desire to engage with it, and this fact does not delegitimise their place in revolutionary thinking and organising (frankly, in many areas, it strengthens it); they seem determined to continue to defer to the canon as a signifier of authority and therefore value, rather than acknowledging its role as a marker of class and classed affects and a rubric by which civility (cf. linked post above) could be enforced. (I believe the introduction to Chris Baldick’s The Social Mission of English Criticism touches on this dimension of literary studies as a civilising mission of sorts, as well as expounding on the ways in which ‘literary studies’ as we presently understand it is a nineteenth-century phenomenon responding to the predictable nineteenth-century crises and contradictions.) People will defer to, for example, Dumas, Baldwin, Morrison, to contravene the idea that the literary canon is made up of ‘straight white men,’ without appreciating that this is a hugely condescending way to talk about their work, that this collapses three very different writers into the singular category of ‘Black canonical writer’ and thus stymies engagement with their work at any level other than that of 'Black canonical literature' (why else put Dumas and Morrison in the same sentence, unless as a cheap rhetorical ‘gotcha’? I like both but they’re completely different writers lmfao), and that this excises from the sphere of legitimacy those Black writers who don’t make it into the authorising space of the canon; and, of course, reaffirms the canon’s authenticity and dismisses out of hand the critique of loyalty to hegemony that the ‘straight white men’ aphorism rightly imposes.

The discourse operates on a unilateral scale by which the more ‘literacy’ (ie. ability to speak the language of the literati) one has, the greater their moral worth, and a lack of said ‘literacy’ indicates the inverse. This overlooks the ways in which the practice of literary criticism wholly in line with what these people would call ‘intellectualism’ has historically been wielded as a tactic of reactionary conservatism; one only has to look at the academic output of Harold Bloom for examples of this. People will often pay lipservice to the hegemony of the academy and the practices by which only certain individuals are allowed access to intellectual production (stratified along classed + racialised lines, of course), but fail to really internalise this idea in understanding that the critical practices they afford a significant degree of legitimacy are inextricable from the academy from which they emerged, and that we can and should be imagining alternative forms of pedagogy and criticism taking place away from sites which restrict access based on allegiance to capital. Part of my communism means believing in the abolition of the university; this is not an ‘anti-intellectual’ position but a straightforwardly materialist one.

A final core problem with the 'anti-intellectualism' discourse is that it's obscurantist. As I explained above, it posits the problem with eg. poor engagement with theoretical concepts, challenging art, etc., to be one of 'intellect' and 'curiosity,' idealist rather than materialist states. In practice, the reasons behind what gets cast as 'anti-intellectualism' are very disparate. Sometimes, we're talking about a situation wherein (as I explained above) someone lacks 'literacy'; sometimes we're talking about the reason for someone's refusal to engage with and interpret art with care and deference being one of bigotry (eg. racist dismissals of non-white artists' work, misogynistic devaluing of women's work, etc.); sometimes we're talking about a reactive discomfort with marginalised people communicating difficult concepts online as a 'know-your-place' response (eg. backlash against 'jargon' on here is almost always attacking posts from/about marginalised people talking about their oppression, with the attacks coming from people who have failed to properly understand that oppression; I've been called a jargonistic elitist for talking about antisemitism, I've seen similar things happen to mutuals who talk about racism and transmisogyny). All of these are incredibly different situations that require incredibly different responses; the person who doesn't care to engage with a text in a way that an English undergrad might because doing so doesn't interest them or they lack the requisite skill level is not comparable to the person who doesn't care to engage with a text because they don't respect the work of a person of colour enough to do so. Collapsing these things under the aegis of 'anti-intellectualism' lacks explanatory power and fails to provide a sufficient actionable response.

Ultimately, the discourse is made up of a lot of people who are very high on their own capabilities when it comes to literary analysis (which, as others have pointed out, seems to be the only arena where all this ever takes place, despite the conventional understanding of ‘media literacy’ referring as much to a discerning eye for propaganda and misinformation as an ability to churn out a cute little essay on Don Quixote) and have managed to find an acceptable outlet for their dislike of anyone who lacks the same, and have provided retroactive justification in the form of the claim that not only is [a specific form of] literary analysis [legible through deference to the authority of the literary canon & the scholarship of the nineteenth century and onward surrounding it] possible for everyone, it is in fact necessary in order to access the full breadth of one’s humanity such that an absence thereof reveals an individual as subhuman and thus socially disposable. A failure to be sufficiently literate is only ever a choice and a personal failing, which is how this discourse escapes accountability for the obviously bigoted presumptions upon which it rests. In this, all materialism is done away with; compassion is done away with, as it becomes possible to describe the multiplicity of reasons why someone cannot or does not demonstrate ‘literacy’ in X, Y or Z ways in the sum total of a couple of adjectives; nothing productive comes of this discourse but a reassertion of the conditions of hegemony in intellectual practice and the bolstering of the smugness of a few people at the expense of alienating everyone else.

As I’ve said countless times before, the way to counteract what we might perceive as ‘incuriosity’ or disinterest in challenging texts is to talk about these challenging texts and our approaches to them as often as we can, to make the pedagogical practices that are usually kept behind the walls of the academy as widely accessible as possible (and to adjust our pedagogy beyond the confines of ideological hegemony that the academy imposes), and to encourage a culture by which people feel empowered to share their thoughts, discuss, ask questions, and explore without being made to feel ashamed for not understanding something. The people who cry ‘anti-intellectualism’ because they saw someone on Tiktok express a disinterest in reading Jane Eyre are accomplishing none of this.

[thunderstruck9]

Paulina Ołowska (Polish, 1976), Fixity Somewhere, 2003. Oil on canvas, 120 x 80 cm.

[transmutationisms]

i'm curious; could you elaborate on the "i barely even believe in personality traits first of all"?

i think like all psychological schemata and taxonomies, the idea of personality traits greatly overestimates the fixity, innateness, regularity, &c of human behaviour and affect. like these are not naturally existing immutable categories, they're discursive creations. which is ofc true of all language tho i think objectionable in a particular way when appearing as part of a scientised schema of knowledge, which necessarily fails to capture much about the human experience and distorts what it does capture to fit into its pre-fab conceptual boxes. i don't really put much stock in the notion of a fixed or discrete 'self' in general and i think the obsession with personality and personality traits is, on an individual level, really just part of that whole constellation of ideas. on a more corporate level it's basically an hr strategy, which should tell you something about the value and utility of these discourses

[noosphe-re]

In recounting dreams, we reformulate their narratives and shape them into their most honest and truest form. Dream re-visioning can be seen as a geological process where indistinct images are weathered into fixity by rational attrition. Dreams find their narrative equilibrium first through their remembering and then by their recounting to oneself. This unravelling of narrative is a process of form-finding, like a river finding a shortest path or a rock being worn smooth by flowing water. It is like the gradual shaping and refinement of a tale to fit the requirements of a myth that it encodes. The shifting collage of dream imagery – a visage of an intense, decalcomanic complexity – becomes anchored by the cues of the rational mind (like the fixing of a photographic image where vague shrouds slowly reveal sharper edges). This anchoring of the dream image is like a vision crystallising from the texture of a stone.

Paul Prudence, Figured Stones: Exploring the Lithic Imaginary

[historical-art]

Agostino Brunias, Free Women of Color with Their Children and Servants in a Landscape, ca. 1770-1796, Oil on canvas, 50.8 x 66.4 cm (20 x 26 in), Brooklyn Museum, New York, United States.

“Brunias’s commissioned picturesque images of Caribbean life under colonialism obscured the violence of empire and slavery. In this example, Brunias depicts free and enslaved people who lived in Dominica under Britain’s colonial rule. Their skin tones and dress represent “types” of people, alluding to the island’s social, racial, and economic hierarchies that defined relations between white Europeans and people of African, Afro-Creole, Carib, or mixed-race descent.

Brunias’s paintings coincide with the historical moment when skin color and other visual and sartorial markers were becoming signifiers of human differences. Even as these images were created to affirm 18th-century British racial and social boundaries in the colonies, they reveal the contradiction and instability of those ideas. The artist’s undermining of the very concept of racial fixity, and visualization of race as fluid and socially constructed, may make this painting particularly resonant with its viewers in Brooklyn, one of the most culturally and racially diverse places in the world.”

Source: “Free Women of Color with Their Children and Servants in a Landscape.” The Brooklyn Museum.

[dreamofmourning]

i was rereading old speranza fics over the weekend and i didn't read it but she has a brideshead revisited fic called "Sebastian Revisited" and i can't stop thinking about that title. it reminds me of something i love, texts that feature one narrator recounting another character so far after the end of the plot/the scope of their knowing each other, where implicitly it's the fact of this other's existence that the entire text has been undertaken to try to explain, and how it gives the impression that certain characters can only be understood in retrospect (difficult friend temporality). i think it's mainly the idea that to know this person or describe them would take an entire lifetime and almost can't be done while they are still before you, it has to come after loss or after time, and then even so you still end up failing to do it. like the harold chapters in a little life, i love the whole conceit of them and them being in a different tense, that they're ostensibly direct address but the "occasion" for him speaking ends up being so thin, talking to willem's portrait but the real occasion is that the event of knowing (having known) jude has to be explained somehow, after the fact (because back then he didn't know so much of this) and endlessly. i love that it's harold's life story, but its actual sole focus is to approach someone else. like framing harold's life as unfolding in the direction of bearing witness to this one magnificent miraculous person who even at the end of all this speaking still evades him

[valleyfthdolls]

Theodore Peterson might have OCD- a disorganized word dump which I wrote while very tired and burned out

I tried to make this fancy and coherent and well made but, well.

Obsessions, delusions, and Aaron:

From Cambridge University Press:

The DSM-IV diagnosis of OCD assumes that the patient at some time recognises that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. DSM-IV acknowledges that patients show varying degrees of insight into the validity of their belief, and specifies “with poor insight” for subjects who “for most of the time” do not recognise that their symptoms are excessive or unreasonable. It thus recognises that a given patient's strength of belief may fluctuate over time. Patients may logically repudiate their belief while in the safety of the therapist's office, but when in a ‘dangerous’ situation may be 100% convinced of the fact.

The fixity of belief in a third of the subjects in the study by Lelliott et al (1988) meant that they all met the criteria for ‘psychosis’ and delusional disorder in DSM-IV. To us this appears inappropriate, given that the subjects were otherwise indistinguishable from other OCD subjects in the study and responded similarly to treatment by exposure and ritual prevention.

OCD has been recorded since the late 1980s to result in similar expressions to delusional disorders and psychosis as a result of patients not recognizing their obsessive thoughts as irrational most of the time, or even simply in "dangerous" situations. While an uncommon expression of OCD, it certainly is possible.

Throughout the book series, Theodore experiences an obsessive, highly irrational belief that Aaron is a bad omen- and in the pilot of the animated series, that Aaron is cursed- which he does not recognize as irrational. The thought itself being rooted in perceived evidence as many obsessive thought processes are, Theodore is unable to distinguish this from reality in "dangerous" situations in which the obsessive thought is triggered, though it doesn't seem to always be prevalent in his relationship to Aaron.

From the same article:

We believe that the above subjects' symptoms were bizarre in that they are not readily understandable and do not derive from common life experiences usually described by OCD subjects, such as a belief that they may develop AIDS or that harm may come to their family.

As it relates to the article, the argument being presented is that these obsessions are actually to the point of delusions akin to those seen in psychotic disorders, which I believe is what we're seeing in Theodore. While this itself would more likely point to Theodore experiencing a psychotic disorder and not OCD, it is in line with recorded OCD experiences, which is relevant to understanding this possibility as it relates to his subsequent behaviors.

Compulsions as they relate to his house:

From International OCD Foundation:

Compulsive hoarding includes ALL three of the following:

A person collects and keeps a lot of items, even things that appear useless or of little value to most people, and

These items clutter the living spaces and keep the person from using their rooms as they were intended, and

These items cause distress or problems in day-to-day activities.

The Peterson house is full of seemingly useless items: mannequins, odd paintings and pictures, boxes, weights, bowling balls, Golden Apple coins, all sorts of remainders from Theodore's time as an amusement park engineer, tools in odd places, and doors that lead nowhere. While theories do suggest that the Golden Apple coins have some kind of worth to the cult causing Peterson to collect them, other items in the house make frankly zero sense and have no benefit to collecting them. On top of that, they do clutter the living spaces, leaving little space in the house for Theodore to actually live. These make it difficult for anyone to traverse the house, Theodore included. (Also, note that in the cartoon pilot, Theodore keeps food and trash in his house long past when it begins to rot, making a hazardous environment.)

Note that hoarding is listed on several symptom lists of OCD, as well as compulsive hoarding being explored as its own phenomena.

Similarly, a compulsive need to arrange and organize could lead to the repeated reorganizing of the Peterson house seen in the cartoon.

Also common:

Agitation- Enough said.

Apprehension, hypervigilance- Seen in the cartoon. Theodore seems to always believe he is being followed or in danger.

Troubled relationships- Seen in the cartoon with his relationships to the rest of Raven Brooks, and in the book series with his family relationships. His belief that his son is a bad omen causing a rift in their relationship, and his unpredictable and unstable behavior damaging his relationship with his wife.

Social isolation- See above re: the cartoon.

[radical-revolution]

"One of the most persistent and sticky habits of perception that has possessed those of us gestated in modern civilizations is: we tend to see things as separate from each other; we see things as bounded and atomized.

I see the strategy of separation as an attempt to create safety, permanence, fixity, for once and for all, to name things in a final way. That’s the modern impulse. But you run into trouble when things like what’s happening today start to crop up.

We are slowly coming to terms with a world that is more entangling, more relational, and more processual than our modern habits of seeing can allow us to notice or appreciate.

We are not so different from our technologies as modernity would have us believe we are. In shaping computers, we are shaped by computers. In participating in networks, we are conducting and performing emotional labor and shaping ourselves.

It means that we think, act, behave, see, want, yearn, practice, perform, and do things with the world and with others. The presumption that we act as individuals is already being haunted by the idea of an entangled world.

My work in thinking about climate change through the prism of Indigenous realities, poetry, and entanglement, is basically to note that we need to find the places of power with which we might respond to something that is beyond us. We are responding in the machine, and the machine is tired and exhausted.

Slowing down is not a function of speed. It is a function of awareness, and I don’t want to make awareness a mental construct. It’s a function of presence.

So, when I invite slowing down, I invite us to research and to perform research into the ancestral tentacularities that precede us. I’m asking us to touch our bodies, and touch our colonial bubbles.

I’m asking us to listen, to witness, to ‘with-ness’; to be with land, and community, and ancestor, and progeny, and children in a way that isn’t instrumental.

Activism is increasingly instrumental, meaning it’s a form of power that is tied to the logic and algorithm of the status quo. This makes activism, even in the search for justice, a creature of the status quo, which renders hope and justice, as ironic as that sounds, a creature of the things we’re trying to leave behind.

To slow down is to hack the machine, like we’re taking on other forms of body that allow us to penetrate into different kinds of realities—other worlds.

What if rest is listening to one’s Elders? What if rest is dreaming? What if working is playing?

The university structure is one example of a colonial imposition that sees study and learning as only one thing; university tells you that if you’re not studying in some disciplinary manner, then you’re not studying. But what if having a conversation with a friend is a form of study?

Rest is decolonial in its relational entanglements with a capitalist structure. I don’t want to see it as a binary thing: rest vs. non-rest. I want to move outside that binary altogether, and create fugitive communities where rest takes on new meanings altogether. I don’t know what that is—only in the performance of it can we speak about it, and that’s just fine."

~ Bayo Akomolafe

Text source: Dr. Bayo Akomolafe on Slowing Down in Urgent Times https://atmos.earth/dr-bayo-akomolafe-on-slowing-down-in-urgent-times/

[bright-wick]

Fixity (3973 words) by Esotarot Chapters: 1/1 Fandom: Sonic the Hedgehog (Live Action Universe) Rating: Explicit Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Dr. Robotnik/Agent Stone Additional Tags: Fisting, Porn with Feelings, Sex with Psychology, a TINY bit of a fix-it or giving S2 Robotnik what he deserves

A very belated happy b-day to @tryin-my-best-here! Sorry I'm late! I'm a bad friend!!