#Create framework category

[trendfag]

thinking about tma/tme labels especially re: nonbinary genders

i get that the proponents of these labels are trying to avoid a situation where tma=amab but like…what are the criteria lol because if we’re talking just binary genders then ok that makes sense but once you eliminate that boundary then its like…like im not saying the terms arent useful or applicable but what im saying is i think you girls need to look at the cases individually? and take into account the testimony of the person being discussed? this thought process was sparked by a post about a joke a user made about staying on tumblr in spite of the structural transmisogyny and criticizing them for being tme and saying this but…i remember a similar ‘scandal’ from a few years ago where ct was like. im tma. and i just feel its strange to look at someones gender presentation on or offline and say “ehhh thats not girly enough for me so ive decided you dont experience transmisogyny” like whats wrong with you LMAO are you going to say that i, as a trans girl who doesnt typically pass and who doesnt typically make extraordinary attempts to pass, am tme? because thats ridiculous. im not going to sit here and pretend that a cis guy who looks just like me and acts as femininely as i do would be tma. but what about an amab agender or otherwise ‘neutral’ (bc i cant think of a better word) nonbinary gender? with the same face, body type, amount and style of hair including hair on head, face, and body, are they tma or tme? imo youd have to talk to them and discuss their experiences

[buttastic]

god I told myself I wouldn't do political discourse on tumblr anymore but I swear to god if I see one more "artists are only against generative ai because it threatens their petit bourgeois profit margins" take I'm going to lose it

there are artists who are petit bourgeois. these are your mid-level gallery artists who run studios staffed by assistants and apprentices, as well as like showrunners and creative directors and the like who are at least partially in charge of a system that employs workers. there are also outright wealthy artists who are what it says on the tin. mosts artists do not fall into either of those categories however and tend to either be hobbyists (whose class is not defined by their artistic output) or workers themselves

in calling anyone in the art world "petit bourgeois" we are acknowledging that the creation of art is labor, and that that labor can be exploited. anybody who knows anything about any creative field can see why this would be the case

copyright is kind a double-edged sword in a lot of ways, in the united states it mostly functions as a means for large corporations to hold onto power. this is true. while it can sometimes be used to help avoid the exploitation of smaller creators, that's not usually how it works.

THAT SAID, copyright is a tool used by large corporations to hold onto the labor they have extracted from artist-workers, who obviously and completely do not own the means of production. this is why people say pirating from major corporations is always morally correct, that labor was already stolen

but so like you see where we're getting at here? that we're reaching a consensus that art is labor and artists can be exploited as workers?

I'm not going to get into the individual ethics of piracy since it's a big topic with a lot of nuance, I'm just going to point out that nearly all of my comics are already available for free. so with all this in mind:

how the fuck are you gonna use the framework of marxism to say it's perfectly fine to reconstitute the labor of others to your own ends without compensating them???

like I've been banging this drum the whole time generative ai is first and foremost a fuckin labor issue. all your bullshit phone games and product designs dumb commercial jingles were created by real people putting food on their tables. to treat it as unworthy of consideration is to concede that the need for these commodities outstrips the rights of the people that make them. like. oh my god???

[mesetacadre]

How can I stop my otherwise well-meaning friends and myself from falling into the trap of Adventurism?

Adventurism is so appealing because it interfaces with (1) an understandable impatience to see change and with (2) the individualism conditioned into people by growing up in and existing within liberal frameworks and common pathways for understanding societal and historical change. If, for the formative years of your life, the dominant ideology of capitalism, that being liberalism in all its branches, is educated into you through all possible channels, especially history, it's to be expected that an individual who decides to participate in some of that change will see themselves as an agent in and of themselves. If your perspective on both history and current events can be boiled down to a simple concatenation of events whose only common motor is the free will of the most remarkable individuals, then you will try to act like one of those remarkable individuals and create one of these events through the only motor of your free will. And, the set of actions and attitudes that fall under the category of adventurism meets those frameworks very neatly for the radical extremes of liberalism. It's both the far left of liberalism and far right of liberalism that find adventurist methods appealing, though for describing the attitudes of that far right, using accelerationism is more common and IMO more accurate, but at their core, adventurism and accelerationism are the same methods modified by the particulars of their corresponding ideologies.

That is an erroneous way to look at the world of course, history is moved by the forces exerted by massified classes, themselves defined by their role in the mode of production, as well as the historical forces that serve as a precedent. It's not remarkable individuals who move history in any direction that they please, it's history and the weight of the context in which they exist that limits and expands the possibility of their action. It's more than the simple sum of all individual parts. Individuals are not agents, they are constituent parts that can only effect change when they act like so, organized as constituent parts, aware of the limitations and possibilities afforded by the past and present context. If you want to avoid the pitfalls of liberalism and individualism, such as adventurism, you should commit to a conscious change in the framework through which you see history, because adventurism is logical in one framework, and isn't in another.

This whole CEO murder business has had people of all stripes (such as myself, even if you think I'm a wet blanket) making fun of the situation. I also don't particularly care for the life of a capitalist. But there is also a smaller group of people who seem to believe this is significant. And within that, I think there is another division. First, the people who think this is significant because they believe that healthcare insurance providers have now been bullied into giving a better service, or because they believe that now all CEOs across the board will be scared themselves and do better things (or even because apparently now everyone will be hunting their nearest CEO). These are all various forms of engagement with adventurism. The second group of people, who I think are being much more reasonable, see the generalized perspective on this being that of celebration, that such a bad person got their comeuppance, and that this is first a proof that it's still very possible to stimulate class consciousness in the US working class, and that it is second a good opportunity to stimulate it.

While this is in some ways true, the class consciousness in display ("even by trump supporters", as if the difference between them and US democrats even existed) is one that's extremely unconscious. People dislike this guy because he's notorious among healthcare insurance providers and even his predecessors for denying a lot of claims. This is individualism again, people dislike him individually and maybe they dislike all individual healthcare insurance providers CEOs, or even all individual CEOs regardless of sector. The vast majority of people celebrating who you wouldn't expect aren't class conscious, they're class unconscious from decades of consequent liberal punches to their liver, heart, and head. Most people dislike him as an individual, and it's not very difficult to hate all CEOs without ever stepping off the wide bounds of liberalism and individualism. In fact, it's the placing that of pointless hate at the center of your ideology that's preventing you from shedding the ideology of capitalism.

And no, I don't mean to say that it's pointless to talk to your lifelong republican uncle about this or whoever, and I would encourage my USamerican followers to use this event to their advantage. But you can't think that just hating CEOs is a good enough base to develop a revolutionary consciousness. You need to begin seeing the world through a class lens, only then can you only really understand the impotence of adventurism, and that it lies in the fact that it does not engage with change through class, but through the individual, who by itself is an insignificant agent of change.

[scarlet97531]

It’s really fascinating how the fictionkin community has kind of normalized a certain level of plurality seemingly without realizing it. In the fictionkin community it’s like there’s this natural spectrum of plurality that is just accepted as normal.

There are people with multiple kins that experience it in a singlet way and people who experience it in a plural way. They’ve created their own terminology surrounding their plural experiences within the fictionkin framework with polykin and kinshifts. It honestly feels like it’s more common to see people with multiple kins than with just one.

And I want to clarify, having more than one kin identity doesn’t necessarily make you plural on its own, this is very much a wide spectrum of different experiences and I find it very interesting. It kind of feels like getting a glimpse of what it would be like if plurality was never stigmatized in the first place and if it was just naturally integrated into society without us being separated into an entirely different category of people. Where singlets and systems are the same, where we’re all just people. some of us are just multiple, but that doesn’t make us fundamentally different. It’s kind of refreshing. There’s not as much of an “us and them” mentality. Of course what the fiction kin community has isn’t perfect for plurality, but it’s very interesting, and I feel like people should talk about it more.

This is all my observations as a partial outsider though since fictionkin has always been more of a neighbour community to us than something we’ve been actively involved in. I’d love to hear what people who are more involved think about it.

[joy-haver]

I try to reject the framework of good people and bad people, and instead think of it in more bite sized terms. Good and bad are so big that they aren’t navigable, don’t seem fixable or movable. In general, I approach it by thinking 1. How is this person causing harm. 2. How is this person offering aid. 3. How is this person creating joy.

Those categories are then easier to break up and see in more nuanced ways, and assist me in maintaining my compassion, while also helping me address harms and offer aid and joy when viable

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Enemies vs cowards

With few exceptions, it is more accurate to divide most politicians into two broad categories: Enemies, and Cowards. The enemies are those politicians who are legitimately opposed to your policy goals. The cowards are those politicians who may agree with your policy goals, but will sell you out if they must in order to protect their own interests. Embrace the idea that we are simply pushing to elect the cowards, rather than the enemies. Why? Because the true work of political action is not to identify idealized superheroes to run for office. It is, instead, to create the conditions in the world that make it safe for the cowards to vote the right way. Under this framework, you can set aside the tedious feelings of disappointment that come with holding moral views while also supporting any politician. Will your favorite candidate do something bad? Almost certainly. After all, they are cowards. The onus is on us to give the cowards a soft path to the moral choice. The education necessary to equip citizens with the facts; the persuasion necessary to move public opinion to the right place; the organizing necessary to mobilize people to fight for the right thing. These things are the substance of “politics.” Elections can be seen as just another organizing task, one in an endless procession of efforts necessary to arrange the chess pieces of power in a way that will, eventually, produce the righteous outcome.

-Hamilton Nolan

[lurkingshan]

If it's something you're interested in talking about, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the ways Heesu succeeded in expanding a BL to a more mainstream category vs. some of the shows like Spare Me Your Mercy and I Hear the Sunspot etc. that I know you felt missed the mark

Hey anon, thanks for the ask. This is a good question, because there is important nuance in discussions of how to expand the reach of queer art (and as I have written about before, confusing commercial success with artistic merit). I think for me this idea of what is a successful version of taking queer stories more mainstream is about two primary things: 1) does the story stay authentic to queer truth even as it speaks to a broader audience and 2) does the story stay honest to the genre it's working in and give the queer characters the same full spectrum of humanity that it would hets in the same story. Note that all of these shows have source material that differs from the screen adaptation, so I am only talking about the shows here.

For me, SMYM missed the mark on this by setting its story in a genre that would normally have a more mature and sexually explicit depiction of an adult couple and intentionally removing much of that material for a queer pairing to cater to het sensibilities, along with generally de-emphasizing the romantic development to the point where the main pair's relationship trajectory was confusing to follow. I Hear the Sunspot missed the mark by artificially interrupting and regressing the main relationship to put off letting them get together and switch focus to a side character. Neither of these shows felt like they were depicting an honest relationship progression, and the creators spoke openly about making those choices to disrupt the queer narrative intentionally in seeking broader appeal. Essentially, these shows betrayed their own genre conventions and de-emphasized aspects of the characters' queer experiences to try to appeal to a broader (and homophobic) audience.

In seeking to speak to a more mainstream audience, Heesu took a different approach. It set its story within the high school romance kdrama framework, and it followed the conventions of that genre to a tee (including all the romances, het or queer, staying chaste). And despite not seeing sexual content for the characters, the entire narrative was about Heesu's experiences as a queer person, his journey to coming out to his loved ones, and his pursuit of a queer romantic relationship that made him feel fulfilled and content. It called to mind Japanese queer programming that is specifically created to depict "alternative lifestyles" to a mainstream audience to promote tolerance and understanding (think Koisenu Futari or Oppan). The intent behind this show was to help a broader audience understand and empathize with the reality of life as a queer teenager in Korea, not to obfuscate it. It sought to make the audience care about queer people by showing us who they are instead of hiding who they are. That, for me, is the crucial difference.

[tanadrin]

Classifying anything that isn’t Christianity as “religion” is historically fraught bc it is a discursive category constructed with Christianity as its prototype; a lot of things which don’t even faintly resemble Christianity in either their structure or their function within a society have gotten classified as a religion because historically that was how Christians constructing the category of religion made sense of them. And this has weird effects, both in the way that, in an appeal for legitimacy from outsiders, some of these practices have gradually reconstructed themselves in the model of Christianity, and in the way conscious attempts to create new religious traditions cannot help but adopt major structural elements of Christianity into their foundations (like neopagan sects that replicate congregational and bishopric structures just with the names swapped).

I think this is one reason why I am out off by people classifying this or that patently secular group (even one with kooky beliefs) as a “modern-day religion.” Like even if you didn’t just mean “they have beliefs which are incomprehensible to me,” there are lots of insular subcultures and communities which are not religions; if “religion” is at all a generalizable analytic framework (debatable!), it has to be more than just “these guys seem weird to outsiders.”

[courtkossai]

think time to also warn for folks .

blog thehavenhollow currently make point to post about spiritual truths and awakenings , with language and methods that no doubt can get folks hurt .

neither owner of this blog , kit or avery , seem to care very much about this , and claim that there is no force in this . while both may feel this intent is not forceful , seem to very purposefully choose language so as to draw in .

kit and avery make claims that those who belong in this family will simply know , and that appearance of blog is in fact divine proof of this fact ... not just algorithmic coincidence . these two say that mission is to teach such family about divine powers and control , true home among stars , and to break down illusions which some grand force create in order to suppress masses .

theories of grand forces like this often have antisemitic roots , even if many will not blame jewish folk outright .

theories and schools of thought on starseeds have racist undertones at best , and can too easily lead down road to denial of proven human history .

theories of manifestation and divine power can be dangerous to whole host of folks , as very basis is that thoughts control world .

kossai have many thoughts on categories of madness and psychosis , and how modern systems use these to hurt and oppress , whether or not one actually measurably fit within frameworks . however , incorrect and frankly dangerous to suggest that these labels only exist to smother any form of truth - religious , spiritual , or otherwise . both answers must get to exist .

kossai post this so folks who need to block will hopefully see this before any encounters with this blog - will ask , please do not send hate or cruel messages . frankly doubt even kind , educational messages would help either one to understand impact at this point .

[imsobadatnicknames2]

(Please read this post with a tone of intellectual curiosity, not mockery or derision etc)

A D&D-ism I find kind of interesting is the assumption that the concept of "homebrew" as a distinct category of content is broadly applicable outside of like. The very biggest games in the medium.

Of course, "homebrew" mechanics are always gonna be a thing for most RPGs, because people like modifying rules to tailor their games to their specific group etc (althought to me the idea of "homebrew" mechanics implies not only a few houserules but like. A major overhaul of at least one of the game's systems). But in terms of like, content, I think the framework of a clear delineation between official and "homebrew" content presupposes the existence of both an extensively defined default setting and a wealth of official published material that most games simply don't have.

I was recently asked by a friend (through no fault of his own, this isn't like a personal failure of anything, he's a nice and smart guy 👍) if a Mausritter campaign I was preparing to run was gonna be homebrew, and in that moment it kinda clicked for the that the concept of "homebrew" doesn't really make sense to apply there. For a game like Mausritter (and other like Macchiato Monsters, The Black Hack, etc.) which at most provide some vague background info about the world (mostly in the form of random tables) and then present you with a solid toolkit to create your stuff for it, the idea of "homebrew" as a distinct category of content isn't really a useful or applicable lense through which to look at them. Short of only ever running the example adventure from the Mausritter rulebook over and over again, there is no mausritter campaign that isn't "homebrew".

[olderthannetfic]

I’l throw my two cents into the f/f vs m/m wank fire.

I wonder if part of more m/m being written in general isn’t that certain character dynamics are more likely to remind people of mysogynistic tropes if it involves women.

I’m not sure if these are the best examples— but if the woman is the one getting dominated and the one that gets "babyfever" that seems like it invites harrasment and accusations about misoginy because authors of ye olde times reduced women to only that, and you are decidedly not safe even when all the characters are women because "how dare you write a woman uphold patriarchial standards" or something. Talking about wanting to get a cis man pregnant comes off less creepy than saying the same thing about any woman, doesn’t it?

Maybe these tropes are too niche to actually have any considerable bearing on the shipping scene at large, but it does seem to me like men just become the safer bet to explore sex with and don’t carry the fear to need to write a PhD dissertations about misoginy and sexism as a preface before writing dynamics or kinks that you like, or an explanation to why you are allowed to like that kink or dynamic.

It feels like this might extend to other marginalized or uncommon identities where certain things come with unfortunate sociohistorical (is that a word?) implications, and thus becomes much more restricted in what becomes socially acceptable to depict.

And people don’t want to risk or worry about depicting something "wrong" when they are in a space to relax, and in many cases to avoid thinking too hard about things.

More sensitive topics seem to open up more bad faith readings, which is counter productive for more text to be created about it.

Which now typing out a long explanation for seems stupid- I guess it’s a stupidly obvious conclusion to draw now that if there is a selective pressure of any kind on what gets submitted in a specific category, there will be overall less of it.

If people did feel less concious over what the worst possible reading could be of their f/f and m/f fic there’d certainly be more of it, but I don’t know if people complaining about the lack of f/f want to sacrifice the proportions of "quality" over higher statistics.

I think this might have been touched upon in some ways by other anons under "then we should encourage more het men to write f/f", just not with the exact framework I’m coming from I think.

I don’t have a good way to end this and I’m not sure if it’s worth anything (as far as these types of discourse go anyways), but this is way longer than originally intended already

--

This is a pretty standard point in "Why do women like m/m?" discussions going back decades, yeah. I'm sure this is a reason for many women just as some guys write female characters to explore things they find uncomfortable to explore via male ones.

The thing about the cyclical wank is that it boils down to m/m fans listing a bunch of reasons that make a lot of sense... at extreme length.

And then a bunch of f/f fans feeling rather attacked because nobody really wants to read a thousand pages about why their thing is unpopular.

And then someone goes "Okay, but it's weird/bad that women like slash!" and we're back to the tl;dr explanations.

[macherielottie]

Mari’s "Dual Realities": Yellowjackets as an Exploration of Memory and Trauma

I’m not sure if anyone's unpacked this in-depth yet, but I've been ruminating on Mari's exchange with Ben regarding there being "two versions of reality" and how this ties in with the Pit Girl scene and Shauna's on-screen mental unravelling, and I'm convinced that this isn't the first time we'll experience whiplash from what we thought was real versus what actually happened. Natalie’s flashback regarding her father’s death is one of many scenes I believe is worth reconsidering now that we've been introduced to the framework of there being Dual Realities. I apologize in advance because this is a long post, but I swear it all ties together in the end. Please walk with me.

The "Dual Realities" Theory

In Season 3 Episode 3 “Them’s the Breaks,” Mari tells Ben the story of her cousin dying from brain cancer, he asks her what the point of her monologue was. In response, she says, “I think... maybe there are two versions of reality. Most of the time, the [bad] one… is just hiding, or waiting, but it's all real.”

While many interpret Mari’s quote as the show's confirmation of the supernatural, I see it instead as a commentary on trauma and how our minds deal with the trauma the world deals to us and/or our own morally abhorrent actions. Instead of dealing with the truth of what happened to us or accepting our actions as our own and the being forced to reckon with the way this reflects on our own character, we construct Dual Realities to cope.

In fact, the entire show functions as an introspection on how people cope with trauma in their everyday lives. In an interview with Polyester, Lauren Ambrose (Adult Van) says “The thesis of the show is about how trauma plays on us and how it affects these women, in their day to day lives. How does what they went through, what they lived through, what they're holding in their bodies, and what they sometimes probably can't even bear to look at…”

With this context, the Dual Realities can be broken down in the following categories:

The “Normal Reality" is what people live in for a majority of the time and the reality that we choose to accept as the truth. It’s the story we tell ourselves and the warped or redacted memories that our brain uses in order to cope with trauma and the inevitability to having to move forward after traumatic experiences. This is the Normal Reality because it's what allows us to live normal lives by concealing any "abnormal" components- the trauma.

The “Bad Reality" exists concurrently with and in-opposition to the Normal Reality. While we blind ourselves with the Normal Reality, the Bad Reality hides just beneath the surface. The Normal Reality overshadows the Bad Reality in our everyday lives, protecting us from the Bad Reality that we “can't even bear to look at."

Although the Dual Realities may at first appear to be incompatible, “[they're] all real"- one in a personal sense, and the other in an objective sense. The Normal Reality and the false memories we create are just as real to us as the objective Bad Reality. We need to believe that the Normal Reality we live in is just as (if not more) real as the Bad Reality. The Normal Reality is real to us as individuals, and without it we'd break. Regardless of what others may say to try and break the illusion, we fight to hold onto the ambiguity that exists between the Dual Realities.

Re-examining the Pit Girl Scene: Shauna’s Dual Realities in Conflict

Currently, the most transparent example of the Dual Realities clashing with one another and causing unease is seen in adult Shauna. As Shauna continues to interact with the other girls in the adult timeline, the other adults' own recollections form cracks in her Normal Reality and she becomes increasingly unhinged when the Bad Reality starts to fill in those cracks. Instead of acknowledging her complicity in the events of the Wilderness, she instead does whatever she can to suppress the Bad Reality the way she knows best- primal dominance and power. This is part of why she tracks down Melissa, berates her for completely shedding her past self, and insists that Melissa consume the part of her arm that Shauna gnawed off. She needs confirmation that others share the same Normal Reality as she does so she doesn't have to reckon with the Bad Reality.

At the end of Season 3 Episode 10 "Full Circle," Shauna directly acknowledges the way trauma skews traumatic memories during the infamous journal scene. In Shauna’s version of the Normal Reality, “We became so alive in that place that we lost our capacity for self reflection... but I think we can't or won't remember it clearly because we recognize, deep down, that we were having so much fun."

While Shauna journals, the audience is shown the Bad Reality version of the Pit Girl scene. This version contrasts sharply with the Pilot’s Pit Girl scene- which may have been presented through Shauna’s distorted memory as her Normal Reality. Further tying this theory together is the fact that Shauna is the first adult Yellowjacket we're introduced to and her reveal immediately follows the Pilot's Pit Girl sequence.

Others have done absolutely fantastic deep-dives of this scene and I won't dare try my hand when they've done it better, but dichotomy between the Pit Girl scene in the "Pilot" vs. the Pit Girl scene in Season 3 Episode 10 a perfect illustration of Shauna's personal turmoil when she's forced to acknowledge the existence of the Dual Realities. Shauna's choice when confronted by this is to cope by consciously choosing to keep living in her Normal Reality- the one where everyone openly enjoyed the brutality of the Wilderness. She absolves herself of her guilt by projecting her own motivations onto the other girls and place herself not just in the same metaphorical pit as them, but above it all. In her Normal Reality, Shauna was a "queen" in the Wilderness, regardless of the fact that in the actual, Bad Reality, no one (except perhaps Lottie) acknowledged her as such.

The Mythos of the Misfired Gun: Natalie's Reconstruction of Her Father's Death

Shauna is definitely not the only Yellowjacket that engages in these Dual Realities as a coping mechanism, and there’s likely many other flashbacks we’ve been shown throughout the past three seasons that are tainted by the girls’ own spin on the events. One instance that stood Natalie’s memory of her father’s death.

What we're shown, the version of events where Natalie fails to disengage the safety on the gun and her father's death is simply accidental, could parallel the first Pit Girl scene. We know from her father's own words that Natalie has used a gun before, and is therefore familiar with at least the basics, and disengaging the safety before shooting at a dangerous target is one of the first things new gunowners are taught. Natalie's familiarity with guns would explain why she's such a great shot in the Wilderness, but if we just blindly accept the flashback as the truth, a clear incongruence arises. Because of this, I believe that Natalie's failure to disengage the safety and therefore not pulling the trigger is her Normal Reality, while in actuality- in the Bad Reality- Natalie did kill her father.

I could be looking too far into this, but I think the meta timeline of this event also serves as important subtext, after all, the Yellowjackets writers are no strangers to such meta-level references. The song Natalie and Kevin are listening to right before her father’s barges into her room was released in 1994, so we can assume his death takes place in 1994. 1994 was also the same year of Kurt Cobain’s suicide. Cobain’s suicide is often a subject of conspiracy, with fans constantly debating if it was truly suicide or if his then-lover, Courtney Love, pulled the trigger, insisting that there’s simply no way someone could shoot themselves in the head with a shotgun. While I don’t believe the narrative about Courtney Love (and frankly think it’s rooted in misogyny), I believe the showrunners may be playing with the imagined ambiguity surrounding Cobain’s tragic death and the Dual Realities that emerged because of it. Many of his fans find it easier to cope with his suicide by convincing themselves of the Normal Reality- where Kurt Cobain was happily recovering and on a positive path, and Courtney Love snuffed-out his flame- rather than the Bad Reality- where Kurt Cobain continued to struggle with his mental health right up until his suicide.

There’s clearly more than a few parallels between the deaths of Kurt Cobain and Natalie’s father and the mythos surrounding them- the most obvious being that the weapon of choice was a shotgun, and on a deeper level, the imagined ambiguity caused by the chasm between the Dual Realities. We aren't ever shown the moment Natalie’s father is shot- this happens off-screen- and all we see is Natalie’s reaction and the immediate aftermath of his death. This allows for reasonable doubt, and therefore the emergence of the Normal Reality and the Bad Reality.

The "Endless Pit of Guilt"

To tie this together, I also want to recall a scene from Season 1 Episode 7, “No Compass” where in the adult timeline, Shauna, Natalie, and Tai are planning to confront the person who has been blackmailing them with the postcards. When they see the blackmailer, Natalie shoots at him and misses, which causes Shauna and Tai to freak out and say that, had she not missed, they’d all be jailed for murder. In response, Natalie claims she was never going to kill the man, and the shot was more of a warning than anything else. A heated exchange unfolds between Natalie and Shauna during this scene, and it takes a whole new meaning if we consider the Dual Realities:

Natalie: Like we haven't done a lot worse [than shooting a blackmailer]. Shauna: You know what? Speak for yourself, Natalie. I... Don't drag us into your endless fucking pit of guilt.

On first watch and within the tight confines of Season 1, it seems Shauna is referring to their shared experience in the Wilderness and Natalie's guilt about the events that transpired. However, taking into consideration what we've learned in Season 3 and the growing prominence of the Dual Realities in the narrative, Shauna could simultaneously be making a jab at Natalie for the guilt she carries after killing her father. (Sidenote, but Shauna's use of the word "pit"? Brutal.)

Recall that in Natalie's memory, her father said she cried after hunting a turkey. This can indicate that Natalie doesn't view herself as a violent person and/or refuses to accept that she’s capable of violence, but the fact that she killed her father is direct opposition to this belief. Perhaps the others all know and understand deep down given their own experiences with trauma that Natalie’s memory of her father’s death is skewed by her inability to cope with the Bad Reality.

However, Natalie's reliance on the Normal Reality and any ability to convince herself that she's not capable of violence is stripped away after the brutality she experiences in the Wilderness. Natalie assumed the role of the hunter/provider, needing to kill wild animals day-in and day-out to ensure the survival of the other girls while wielding the weapon she used to kill her father, and her killing Ben, although it was a mercy-killing, and being forced to butcher him afterwards forces Natalie to come face-to-face with her capacity for violence.

Predictions for Seasons 4 and 5

I believe the Pit Girl dichotomy is just the first of many revelations to come. As the show dives deeper into the Dual Realities in Seasons 4 and 5, we'll likely witness more moments where the illusion shatters. As stated above, I believe one such moment is the confirmation that Natalie didn’t just witness her father’s death- she pulled the trigger. Like the Pit Girl scene, Seasons 4 and 5 won’t just reframe the past, but force us to question everything we thought we understood about the Yellowjackets and what they’ve done, and continue to do, in order to survive.

[theredhairedmonkey]

I keep reading takes from so many fans that Callum is just a "Rayla simp" that he's moping over Rayla or that he is just obsessed with her. I obviously don't think that's true, but I'm a little confused - I remember during Arc 1 the fandom LOVED that Callum wasn't as capable as Rayla for long stretches of time, there were tons of fanfiction centered on Rayla doing everything and Callum just sitting and drawing. So why did all of a sudden NOW people don't like him relying on her and call him a "simp" for doing that?

I think it boils down to he seems to challenge some viewers' expectations of what a male protagonist "should" be.

Basically it boils down to expectations rooted in toxic masculinity that create an artificial binary for male characters:

An awkward "beta" who lacks power, strength, or any ability to effect the plot in any meaningful way, but is endearing because of it, and who needs a strong female character for basic life functions.

A completely independent "alpha" who uses his powers for himself and makes the narrative bend to his will. He stands alone, he has no need for other people, who are there to just aid his purpose or oppose it.

Callum obviously never fell into either category (because TDP is still written far too well to fall into patriarchal BS), but that didn't stop many fans during Arc 1 from seeing Callum as "completely dependent" or "beta" coded - awkward, limited to two spells, relying on Rayla for protection and guidance through Xadia. This perception was flimsy but sturdy enough for viewers with traditional expectations.

But following the timeskip, Callum had become a person who defies these categories: powerful and confident yet compassionate and supportive. He demonstrates strength without domination, agency without selfishness, and love without abandoning his principles. And some fans HATED that.

On the one hand, like what you're describing, some fans are angry that a powerful Callum uses his abilities to support Rayla rather than just whatever he wants. Rayla "wronged" him, you see. Compassion and forgiveness? That's for lesser beings, he should force Rayla to "supplicate herself" or else be labeled a "simp." It's just impossible that Callum would love her regardless and support her.

But of course, on the other hand, there's the Snake Bois - the people who want Callum to be completely defined by his devotion to Rayla, to have his sense of right and wrong completely subjugated to their relationship, where he would no longer represent any independent perspective or values that might conflict with Rayla's.

Basically, this is the other end of the spectrum - whereas the first group see Callum as a failed alpha, this other group sees him as a failed beta. He HAS to be entirely devoted to her, and the best way to prove that is by having him sacrifice the entire world, and his own morality, for her. And people got Big Mad about that too (here and here, for example) for much of the same reason - if Callum is his own person but still compassionate and loving, then Rayllum is a relationship between two strong, independent characters who both maintain their own agency and moral frameworks.

Both groups worry about the same thing: a relationship between two strong, independent characters who maintain their own agency and moral frameworks while still deeply caring for each other.  Snake Bois worry about this because it might put him at odds with Rayla in certain situations, but the group you're talking about might be upset because it means power isn't just a means to dominate others. It's not just a tool for advancing yourself.

Instead, it's a means of recognizing your own humanity.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

If you are wonky enough to be reading this blog, you have probably heard the expression, “a budget is a moral document”. Budgets are not just pages of numbers, they are also statements of values. It is one of those insights, once learned, that seems indisputable and never to be forgotten. It forces us to ask “what values does this document represent?” “A budget is a moral document” is a fine lens to consider Trump’s budget proposal to Congress, or to whatever the Republican controlled Congress will come up with, which in its broad outlines is likely to be a large wealth transfer from the more vulnerable to the more wealthy. See, for example, this estimate created by the Yale Budget Lab that considers the House Budget Resolution both from the perspective of who lose from spending cuts (mostly people with low incomes) and who wins from tax cuts (mostly people who are already wealthy). See also, this useful graph from Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress, which shows how the Trump budget proposal dramatically cuts spending on domestic discretionary spending, a broad category that includes education, science research, environmental protection, child care, national parks, housing and regulation. It illustrates an almost halving of support from the historic benchmark, a huge walk-back from some of the key policies that support a modern society. At the same time, Trump wants massive increases in national security functions. The proposed Defense budget, which would go above $1 trillion for the first time, would increase by more twice the total of dollars being eliminated from foreign aid and diplomacy. Homeland Security would see a 65% increase. In terms of values, we are swapping relatively small investments in soft power (research, education, diplomacy, foreign aid) to prioritize military investments, and swapping investments in human capital for building out a police state.

So, “a budget is a moral document” is a good framework. But I want to offer another way to characterize Trump’s budget proposal: A budget is a propaganda document. I am dorky enough to actually read (ok, skim) budgets, and have never seen anything like Trump’s, which has converted the President’s budget proposal into a form of propaganda. By propaganda, I mean inflammatory and factually misleading claims are made to generate an emotional response. Agencies are portrayed as engaging in conspiracies and corrupt behavior, radicals working for unAmerican causes and foreign enemies. They therefore must be punished in the form of draconian budget cuts.

[...] The “targeted harassment” of the conservatives is a perennial yet debunked right wing trope. The most visible Republican who might reasonably claim such IRS targeting in recent years is James Comey, who along with another FBI official who encountered Trump’s ire, was audited by the IRS. The mention of 19,000 new IRS employees, ignores that 10,000 left in fiscal year 2024, that 34,000 employees have been fired or resigned under Trump, and that the administration is seeking to cut 60,000-70,000 in total. It likewise does not mention the massive budget hole that could run into the trillions due to a collapse in tax enforcement if these cuts are made permanent. The reality is that the IRS is heading towards a catastrophe in a way that will worsen the deficit. Some facts are too inconvenient to make it on the fact sheet.

The Trump/Vought budget proposal is rooted in right-wing propaganda fantasies.

[thefadecodex]

One of the primary goals of The Fade Codex—at least to its creator—is to move beyond the rigid structure imposed by the Chantry and develop a flexible and nuanced classification system for spirits. Thus, the 'Spirit Alignment' classification system was created.

Spirit Alignment System:

Spirits are categorized based on their core ideals, emotions, or drives, rather than narrow, static definitions.

This approach provides a more adaptable and insightful exploration of their identities, behaviors, and transformations.

Spirit Evolution:

The Spirit Alignment system aims to address the evolution of spirits, showing how they grow from simpler forms into more complex, emotionally driven entities.

Example: Docktown's Spirit of Compassion evolving into Eulogy from In Memoriam in DATV

Now that we understand the goals of The Fade Codex, let’s explore its classification system and see how Spirit Alignment offers a different perspective on these enigmatic entities we call spirits!

Why Classifying Spirits is Helpful

Classifying spirits into 'Spirit Alignment' categories such as learning-based, hope-based, and others provides a structured framework for understanding their nature, purpose, and behavior within both the Fade and Thedas. Spirits are complex entities shaped by emotion, thought, and intention, making them inherently difficult to define. By organizing them into these thematic groups, scholars, mages, and Fade researchers can:

Identify Motivations: Each category highlights the primary drive behind a spirit's actions, whether it's the pursuit of knowledge, the will to survive, or the need to instill hope.

Predict Behavior: Spirits within a category often share behavioral patterns, making it easier to anticipate how they might interact with mortals or other spirits.

Assess Risk and Corruption: Different spirit types have unique vulnerabilities to corruption, and classification helps identify the potential demonic forms they might take.

Guide Interactions: Mages and mortals who deal with spirits can tailor their approaches based on a spirit's category, improving the chances of peaceful or productive interaction.

Preserve Knowledge: Organizing spirits into defined groups helps pass down knowledge more effectively, preventing misunderstandings or misclassifications that could lead to dangerous consequences.

How Spirits are Classified

Spirits are categorized based on their core essence and purpose, which reflects the emotions, ideals, or drives they embody. Each classification represents a fundamental aspect of mortal existence, as spirits themselves are shaped by mortal emotions and thoughts.

These categories are not rigid but serve as a flexible guide, acknowledging that spirits often overlap across multiple classifications depending on the circumstances. For example:

A Spirit of Passion, which is classified in the Spirit Alignment system as a survival-based spirit, it might also overlap with other alignments depending on what fuels its 'passion.'

The Fluid Nature of Spirit Alignment: A Case Study of Spite

Spite as a Spirit of Passion:

In datamined notes from DATV, Spite was originally described as a Spirit of Passion before being later redefined as a Spirit of Determination.

Spite was drawn to Lucanis because of his unwavering will to live.

Over time, Spite evolved into a Spirit of Obsession.

Spirit Alignment Classification:

This connection led the creator of The Fade Codex to classify Spirits of Passion under survival-based spirits.

Fluid Alignment of Passion Spirits:

The alignment of a Spirit of Passion can vary depending on what fuels their passion.

They might align with chaos, love, or strength, depending on their purpose and connection to the mortal they are drawn to.

Case Study: The Evolution of a Spirit – From Compassion to Eulogy

Stage 1: Spirit of Compassion

Purpose: A Spirit of Compassion manifests in Dock Town during a series of demonic murders, offering comfort to the fallen.

Awareness: It senses a connection between the victims, but lacks the knowledge to fully understand it.

Stage 2: Transformation into Eulogy

Catalyst: The repeated loss and a growing awareness of manipulation behind the deaths drive the spirit to evolve into Eulogy.

Purpose: Eulogy vows to remember the dead and protect others from demonic threats, gaining a clearer sense of purpose and identity.

Stage 3: Eulogy’s Role in Dock Town

Action: Eulogy actively protects Dock Town’s residents and seeks to prevent further manipulation.

Analysis of Spirit Evolution

Emotional Catalyst: Exposure to suffering and injustice pushed the Spirit of Compassion to evolve.

Outcome: Eulogy combines its original compassion with a clear mission of protection and remembrance.

Significance: This evolution highlights how spirits can grow from simple embodiments of emotion into complex entities with distinct goals.

Eulogy serves as an example of spirit evolution shaped by emotional resonance and purpose, showing how a spirit can adapt to meet the needs of those it watches over.

[w1ng3dw01f]

Portrayals of Secularism and Religion in Lost, Explained Through Scholarly Thought

--

As I rewatched this series with my friends this semester, I realized that Lost (TV 2004) offers a compelling narrative that explores the complex connections and contradictions between secularism and religion. While there are tons of articles about the religious aspects of Lost, there are almost none about the secular, and I wanted to talk about both.

I specifically draw from Talal Asad, Tomoko Masuzawa, Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison and Susan Harding to explore how the show interrogates examples of knowledge production within religion and secularism in ways that reflect and complicate contemporary critiques of secular modernity through the characters and groups.

Introduction / Theoretical Framework:

A way of knowing refers to how different cultures, religions, and societies define and produce knowledge. It is the systems of belief and reasoning that shape how people understand the world. A way of being, on the other hand, is how individuals embody these beliefs in their daily lives. It manifests through traditions, practices, and experiences shaped by their unique social and cultural contexts (Masuzawa, 2005, 12). While they are very much associated with how people have studied religion, these two concepts also tie into secularism. To understand the tension between secularism and religion, it is essential to define them. 

Secularism, a ‘Western’ concept, is often understood as the separation of religion from other aspects of life, such as politics, education, and science. The term has become almost synonymous with modernity, one of secularism’s various projects. It claims neutrality, positioning itself as independent of religious or spiritual influence. However, secularism is not merely an absence of religion. It is a pervasive framework that shapes everything from scientific inquiry to public discourse and everyday life (Asad, 2003, 9; Daston and Galison, 2007, 32). It reflects Eurocentric assumptions about what constitutes legitimate knowledge and practice. Thus, secularism is not a neutral or static concept. 

Conversely, there is a modern concept of religion which overcasts any definition of the term we may have had previously. While religions are generally seen as systems of beliefs, values, and rituals, the way they have been categorized is deeply influenced by Western colonial history. European scholars created hierarchies that positioned Christianity as the dominant or “universal” faith while labeling other traditions as “minor,” “tribal,” or “superstitious.” These classifications were not neutral or natural; they were constructed to reinforce Western dominance over other cultures (Masuzawa, 2005, 11).

Both secularism and religion are shaped by history, power, and Western, Christian, and colonial perspectives. The very notion of separating religion from public life emerged during the Enlightenment, when European powers established their cultural norms as universal while dismissing other ways of knowing as outdated or irrational. Over time, this perspective has cast religion, especially non-Christian ones, as inferior to the secular (Masuzawa, 2005, 14). Even within the West, the boundaries of secularism are constantly shifting, requiring ongoing reinforcement to uphold its authority over alternative ways of understanding the world.

A binary between secularism and religiosity can look like this:

Secular:

- Mastery over nature

- Fact

- Progressive

- Peaceful

- Modern

- Reason

- Free-thinking

- Objective

- Good / Evil 

Religious:

- Harmony with nature

- Fiction/faith

- False

- Regressive

- Violent

- Ancient 

- Dogma

- Brainwashed

- Good / Evil

This boundary is unstable because it can overlap or sometimes, slightly confusingly, be interchangeable. There are many grey areas, typically because these categories are historically constructed rather than inherent and how often they can blur together in practice. These are also common stereotypes rather than inherent truths.

With this theoretical groundwork established, we can now examine how Lost exemplifies these concepts.

Lost, for those who don’t know, is about a group of people whose’ plane (commercial flight) crashes on an island. They need to learn how to survive—together—especially as they navigate the island’s mysteries, the inhabitants of the island, and even a scientific organization that once operated there. Beyond that, there are instances of time travel. And, a constant of the series is non-linear storytelling through flashbacks and flash-forwards.

When I say that Lost is a fantastic tool for exploring the binaries and other tensions between secularism and religion, I mean that in the way the show continuously dramatizes tensions between secular and religious worldviews in ways that align with academic critiques of secularism. Whether intentional or not, the show serves as an exploration of how knowledge is constructed, contested, and destabilized in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Man of Science vs. Man of Faith:

One of the largest themes throughout the show, and the most blaring example of secular and religious discourse being present in this show, is Man of Science vs. Man of Faith, two very different ways of knowing and being. Jack Shephard, the doctor and self-made leader of the survivors of the plane crash, is thematically known as a Man of Science. His training as a surgeon shapes the way he approaches problems. He believes in evidence, logic, and fixing things through practical solutions. John Locke, embracing a more mystical, intuitive way of being while on the island, almost as a sage type, is a Man of Faith. He sees the island as a place of destiny and purpose (Lostpedia). The dynamic of these two characters can be defined as friends and enemies, with their worldviews dictating how they see each other and the world around them. This can be seen in Season 1 episodes, “White Rabbit,” and “Exodus, Part 1," and further in the episodes titled “Orientation,” and “Man of Science, Man of Faith” in season 2. 

One scene from "White Rabbit" shows Jack and Locke in discussion. Jack expresses to Locke his hesitations because he sees his dead father in different parts of the island. It perfectly exemplifies the divide between religious and secular ways of knowing and the binary between the two characters. Additionally, it reflects a broader historical debate about how we define and pursue knowledge, particularly with what can be considered credible (Asad, 2003). This is also not the first time Locke’s perspective is implicitly or explicitly framed as irrational within the show’s narrative, despite being presented as a valid alternative. That reflects how modern secularism privileges science as the dominant way of understanding reality, which is an extensive part of Talal Asad’s and Tomoko Masuzawa’s argument—in their books, “Formation of the Secular,” and “The Invention of World Religions”—that secularism and modernity are historical and political projects rather than a universal truth. 

Furthermore, there are other characters beyond Jack and Locke who experience personal conflicts that blur the secular-religious divide. 

Desmond’s journey is one of the most direct challenges to the modernist faith in empirical knowledge. His experiences on the island blur the lines between rationality and faith. In season 3, after surviving an explosion and exposure to an electromagnetic anomaly, Desmond starts experiencing consciousness-jumping through time (Lostpedia, “Before Your Eyes.”). Later in the series, Daniel Faraday—arguably the show’s most committed “man of science” outside of Jack—attempts to explain Desmond’s experiences through physics, but his theories prove inadequate. Desmond’s survival ultimately depends not on scientific reasoning but on an emotional, almost mystical connection: his love for Penny (Lostpedia, “The Constant”).

In the next season, he begins having prophetic visions, particularly of Charlie’s death. These premonitions are demonstrably real within the logic of the show, yet they defy scientific explanation. This directly challenges the secular assumption that knowledge must be empirical and measurable to be valid. 

By redefining the scientific concept of a “constant” as something deeply personal and unquantifiable, Desmond’s story subverts the idea that knowledge and truth are solely determined by empirical methods. His arc suggests that intuition, love, and premonition—qualities often dismissed as irrational—may hold just as much, if not more, epistemic weight as logic and measurement. This directly undermines the secular assumption that rationality and faith exist in opposition, instead portraying them as intertwined.

Mr. Eko represents a different kind of faith than Locke. As seen in Season 2 Episode 10, before the island, he became a priest through unsavory means tied to a misunderstanding. As a crime lord, he attempted to fly drugs out of Nigeria as there was no market for them. The day of the flight, they disguise themselves as priests. As they were about to take off, his brother Yemi, an actual priest, was shot and killed by the military chasing after them. The plane ended up taking off without Eko and the man was mistaken as a real priest by the military. The man then proceeded to become an actual priest under a fake name to keep himself safe and continue his brother’s work (Lostpedia, “The 23rd Psalm”).

When he sees Yemi’s apparition (the smoke monster in disguise) on the island in season 2, Episode 21, Eko believes it is a divine message, while Locke dismisses it as just another island vision. Unlike Locke’s mystical faith, Eko’s belief is shaped by institutional Christianity but operates independently of rigid doctrine. However, his arc questions religious authority and its intersection with power. His pre-island transformation challenges the secular assumption that religion exists separately from politics and violence. Eko’s rejection of confession, once with Yemi in Nigeria and a second time with the smoke monster on the island, also suggests, similar to Asad, Masuzawa and Harding, that religious meaning is shaped by individual interpretation rather than institutional structures. 

In Season 6, Episode 9, we see Richard Alpert’s backstory. After crashing on the island in 1867 on a ship, gains his immortality (a secularly impossible concept) from Jacob, the protector of the island. This was part of a deal. Jacob would give him immortality and Richard would act as an in-between for Jacob and everyone else who arrives on this island, a good number of whom view Jacob as some kind of deity  (Lostpedia, “Ab Aeterno”). The amount of blind faith Richard has in this man afterwards as he does his bidding and acts as a medium between him and the rest of the island’s inhabitants, reveals the similarities between religious and secular governance structures—both require belief in an unseen guiding force. 

Conversion Narrative and Other Themes Surrounding Fundamentalism:

Locke’s storyline exemplifies a conversion narrative. He goes from an ordinary man to a believer in the island’s mystical destiny. He goes from needing a wheelchair due to a paralyzing injury to being able to walk again, instantly healed when he wakes up upon the crash of the plane. For him, this newfound ability is an undeniable sign of the island’s supernatural power (Lostpedia, “Walkabout”). Like a religious convert interpreting the world through faith, Locke begins to see the island’s influence everywhere and becomes its most ardent believer. His journey aligns with themes explored in Susan Harding’s “The Book of Jerry Falwell”, which examines the intersections of secular, religious, and political discourse in the rise of Fundamentalism and the Born-Again Christian movement. One of her key arguments is that conversion, often marked by baptism, reorients an individual’s worldview. Those who undergo this transformation begin interpreting their experiences through a spiritual or divine lens, seeing evidence of higher powers in everyday life. The converters, once ‘unsaved’ individuals, are then saved (Harding, 2000). Locke’s testimony of transformation parallels what Harding describes as the creation of new subjectivities through evangelical storytelling.

In contrast, Jack has a conversion, which is much more drawn out. He repeatedly challenges Locke and the Others, refusing to accept their faith-based explanations. However, as the series progresses, Jack’s stance changes. Toward the end of the show, he begins to embrace notions of destiny and sacrifice, culminating in a savior complex that ties his sense of purpose to the island. His shift reflects the broader tension between faith and reason—a central theme in both religious and secular discourse.

Furthermore, an actual baptism occurs on the show. Claire asks Eko to baptise her and her baby, Aaron, after Charlie testified over and over again that it was important so the baby could be saved (Lostpedia, “Fire + Water”). It’s an intense, aggressive insistence, especially since his only drive to save the baby came from hallucinations leading him to thinking he had to save the baby. It is never really explained why Charlie had these hallucinations, but the show correlates it to him being a recovering heroin addict. Additionally, it was a discussion with Eko that led Charlie to the conclusions he made. Claire, skeptical but emotionally vulnerable, is upset at Charlie at first for literally taking Aaron and trying to baptise him in the ocean, which might have caused the baby harm. The next day, she also seeks Eko’s advice. Meanwhile, Eko and Claire discuss why a baptism may be important and what that means for her and her baby. Harding notes that testimony works because it often bypasses rational persuasion and instead appeals to emotions of fear, and care (Harding, 2000). Charlie’s tactics fail, but Eko’s gentle way of framing it does. Claire and Aaron end up getting baptised due to the relational trust and belief that Eko fosters. 

A different example of Evangelical Christian dynamics is the (not so cleverly named)  inhabitants of the island: The Others. This is a group of people who mostly end up and decide to live here, but have a strong sense towards protecting themselves. On top of gathering info on them from the outside world (they have a network of people), they have people infiltrate the survivors and pick out those who are deemed “good.” They then take these “good,” people to live with them. To those not deemed “good,” they come off as highly secretive and aloof. Their secrecy, strict initiation processes, and emphasis on faith in the island create a strong insider/outsider divide. Each of these mirrors aspects of Fundamentalism. Conservative Protestants mentioned in Harding’s book had a strong sense of how right they were in their ways of knowing to the point of infiltrating secular spaces to show the truth, and how those not in the religion would have to be set outcasted,  set aside (as Harding herself recounted experiencing) or shepharded’ (Harding, 2000, 64).

Beyond that, many characters undergo moments of “fall and redemption” that echo the structure of evangelical testimonies. The character with the most stretched out fall and redemption arc as well as the most known in the series is “Sawyer” Ford, an asshole conman who becomes a very likeable and reliable leader. This narrative approach is especially prevalent among leaders—religious and political—who use personal stories of past struggles and redemption to establish credibility, a sense of humanity, and gain followers  (Harding, 2000). Jerry Falwell, Francis Shaeffer, and Donald Trump have often utilized this technique. It is in this way, as well as a few other narrative techniques that people such as them like to paint themselves as prophet figures. It can be argued that Benjamin Linus of Lost tries to do similar things in his manipulations of the people around him.

Knowledge Production:

Something important to epistemology and broader scientific knowledge is atlases. Scientific atlases do more than compile knowledge; they actively shape what is considered legitimate and train practitioners in how to see. In their book, “Objectivity,” Daston and Galison describe atlases as tools that refine the scientific eye, a concept that can be applied to Lostpedia’s role in guiding viewers' engagement with Lost. Like an atlas that organizes exemplary images to instruct observers, Lostpedia structures vast amounts of information—from plot details to thematic analyses—helping both new and seasoned fans navigate the show’s intricate world.

As a reference work, Lostpedia reinforces what is significant and how it should be interpreted, much like an atlas that teaches users to categorize specimens. By highlighting recurring numbers, symbolic references, and character arcs, it trains fans to recognize patterns and hidden meanings, shaping their perception of the show just as atlases shape scientific observation. Moreover, Daston and Galison emphasize the immense effort, resources, and meticulous documentation required to produce atlases. While Lostpedia is crowdsourced rather than the work of a single author, it similarly represents a massive collective endeavor to map Lost’s narrative universe—much like anatomical or astronomical atlases map physical realities. Just as atlases for new scientific instruments require even experts to learn how to see anew, Lostpedia provides a dynamic space where fans continuously refine their interpretations as new theories emerge.

Now, to address epistemological frameworks in regards to some groups of characters.

Jacob himself, and his counterpart known simply as the Man in Black by the fandom, or the Smoke Monster in the show, represent another piece of religious and secular knowledge production: good vs evil. Jacob, seen as a deity, wants to prove to the Man in Black, a devil-like figure, that people can be inherently morally good. So, he keeps bringing people to the island (by plane or boat crash, or some other way), and the Man in Black, often through appearing to people as dead loved ones, keeps trying to corrupt them to show that they can’t be inherently morally good (Lostpedia, “Ab Aeterno”). This is a very clear binary between the two that echoes both religious and secular notions. 

Additionally, certain Others more tied to Jacob than most have call and response phrases: (a) What lies behind the shadow of the statue? (b) He who protects us all. This ritual speech functions like a sacred password. It implies a secretive, esoteric system of knowledge and loyalty. It divides insiders from outsiders not based on felt experience or personal narrative, but on access to hidden knowledge and correct performance.

However, just as modern secular states often claim to be neutral while enforcing their ideological structures, Jacob presents himself as a distant, rational authority figure while covertly maintaining control over The Others through Richard. Moreover, Jacob's moral authority mirrors the secular power enacting and legitimizing suffering in the name of a ‘greater good’ (Talal Asad, 2003). The Man in Black, like individuals discussed in Asad’s “On Suicide Bombing,” is cast as irrational and dangerous precisely because he resists the terms of moral order. Such a framework brings knowledge production into sharp focus, particularly with how the show dramatizes who gets to define truth, morality, and reality on the island (Asad, 2007). If we think of the island as a microcosm of the modern world, the conflict between the two becomes not just a moral or spiritual struggle, but a struggle over epistemic authority: who has the right to know, to name, to define what counts as knowledge and what does not.

The D.H.A.R.M.A. Initiative (standing for Department of Heuristics and Research in Material Applications) is thus a perfect juxtaposition to The Others. They were hinted at throughout the series, but were first actually introduced in season 4 (Lostpedia, “Season 4”). Stationed on this island, this organisation is inspired by Hindu and Buddhist concepts of “dharma.” The logos represent the I Ching, a Taoist method of divination. In the show's context, “dharma” refers to a duty or responsibility, interconnectedness, and the pursuit of a "right way of living". The Initiative's stated mission is to study the island's unique properties for the betterment of mankind and world peace, aligning with the Buddhist concept of seeking enlightenment and the Taoist concept of harmony with nature (Lostpedia, “The DHARMA Initiative”). However, the Initiative represents a modern, scientific project of knowledge classification and control, much like 19th-century European anthropology’s approach to “world religions,” explored by Masuzawa. To reiterate, there exist no truly neutral classifications, only defining ways of being through Western secular-modern thought (Masuzawa, 2005, 14). The Initiative embodies a similar colonial impulse regarding the island. Rather than engaging with the island’s mysteries on its or The Other’s terms, they attempt to systematize and dominate the local knowledge, completing electromagnetic experiments because of the Island’s specific properties, and ultimately unintentionally making it possible for a nuclear incident to take place (Lostpedia, “The Incident, Parts 1 and 2” ). The Initiative met its end when The Others (or, The Hostiles, as they were called by DHARMA) wiped them out with gas. The downfall of this group suggests that institutionalized, empirical approaches to knowledge are not universally applicable. Instead, they are an example of how knowledge, scientific or religious, as historically and ideologically constructed, can be the causes for wars to start (Asad, 2007, 49).

The island serves as a liminal space where secular and religious worldviews collapse into each other, reflecting Asad’s critique of secularism as a historical, power-laden construct rather than a neutral, universal condition. It disrupts secular modernity in multiple ways—through Jacob, a mystical protector whose role frames the island as essential to the world’s stability, and through its perceived isolation, which strips away the usual structures that separate science from faith, forcing the survivors to engage with both.

It almost acts as a perfect example and a failed example of Asad’s analogy of secularism as a garden to be cultivated in a jungle. That is to say, secularism is a garden, an ordered, cultivated space that must be constantly maintained against the perceived chaos of the jungle, or religious and “non-rational” forces (Asad, 2003). Yet, on the island, this attempt at control repeatedly collapses, suggesting that the boundaries between science and faith, like those of secularism itself, are far more unstable than they first appear.

This island is also a place where agency—or, in the show’s case, in plainer words, fate and free will—is challenged: How do I reconcile with being stuck on this island? How do I know what to believe? Why are we stuck here? What are ways in which I could leave? Why do I need to go back? Do I have to consider becoming the Protector of this place, thus making it my main focus even though I was once so desperate to leave?

Even when the Oceanic Six do leave the island and return to the real world, this world, which is modern and secular, insists on rational explanations for events the survivors understand as supernatural. This is a clear example of Asad’s idea of secularism’s regulatory power.

And, when they enter the flash-sideways/alternate/purgatory world, this could be an example of an ultimate collapse of these epistemological boundaries—science, faith, and narrative authority dissolve into a post-secular reality where knowledge is experiential and relational rather than objective. Characters must "let go" of their attachments before moving on, similar to religious ideas of reaching enlightenment or heaven. But the fact that this world is not "real" raises questions about interpretations of the afterlife—is salvation a metaphysical truth, or just another constructed reality?

Conclusion:

This show is, to put it mildly, absolutely wild. There is so much packed into it, and it goes every which direction it might go (or at least, that the writers allowed). It can be very profound at times and has impacted thousands of people for thousands of reasons.

That being said, there are heavy themes of secularism and religion, especially the discourse between them, present throughout the series. To reiterate, both main and side characters grapple with profound personal struggles at the intersection of these worldviews, manifesting in a diverse spectrum of experiences. Narratives emanating from both secular and religious perspectives actively shape these characters, not only on an individual level but also as members of a complex, interconnected community. Even the very island itself, a liminal space where the boundaries of science and faith blur, becomes a potent site for this ongoing discourse. Beyond a mere backdrop, the island serves as a crucible, testing the limits of established epistemologies and revealing the constructed nature of our perceived realities. Through the characters' journeys, Lost compels us to reconsider the seemingly rigid binaries that define our understanding of knowledge, authority, and even destiny. Ultimately, the series transcends its genre, offering a nuanced exploration of how we construct meaning in a world where the rational and the mystical are inextricably intertwined, leaving us to ponder the enduring questions of belief, reason, and the very nature of truth itself.

By giving us these dramatizations of the secular and the religious, Lost not only exemplifies some of the ins and outs of both but also manages to critique them in ways that are similar to scholarly works. The show presents a world where epistemologies are historically contingent, socially constructed, and, in some cases, challenged. Through this lens, Lost becomes more than a survival mystery, it serves as a compelling exploration of the constructed nature of knowledge, challenging the rigid boundaries between secular and religious worldviews.

—

If you want to read more about the intersections of secularism, religion, the colonial projects and more, I highly suggest reading: Tomoko Masuzawa’s “The Invention of World Religions,” Talal Asad’s “Formation of the Secular,” & “On Suicide Bombing,” “Objectivity” by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Saba Mahmood's "Politics of Piety," and “The Book of Jerry Falwell” by Susan Friend Harding. I will say, however, that in terms of accessible readability, Harding’s work is the best, followed by Masuzawa’s, Daston’s, and Galison’s, Mahmood's, then Asad’s.