#law transforms... his essential point

[fabiansteinhauer]

law transforms... his essential point (V)

1.

Wo habe ich nochmal meinen Cliffhanger liegen lassen? Ach ja, im Zettelkasten, da wo Cliffhanger nun mal liegen sollen. Das Ende des letzten Zettels liegt ja immer im Zettelkasten. Ganz blöd ist die Frage aber doch nicht. Die Antwort ist jetzt vague und schon präzise, scharf wird sie, wie Picassos Antwort She will auf die Bemerkung hin, dass Gertrude Stein seinem Portrait von Gertude Stein nicht ähnlich sei.

Der Cliffhanger liegt im Zettelkasten, exakt da, wo der letzte Zettel endete. Man kann die Zettel mit verschiedenen Protokollen reigen, reichen, richten und regen lassen. Man kann die timeline scrollen, man kann auf die hashtags klicken, man kann über Archivfunktion eine tabellarische Übersicht schaffen, man kann sie ausdrucken und auf dem Schreibtisch nach den Protokollen von Aby Warburg anordnen, also Gestelle über Ameisenwege schieben. Man kann aber auch den Überschriften folgen, die die Zettel manchmal haben. V wird insoweit auf IV folgen. Da findet sich schnell ein Cliffhanger, nämlich die Frage, was die erste Hälfte der Passage war, deren zweite Hälfte wir als Passage aus dem Text von Yan Thomas herausgetrennt und isoliert haben. Ich wiederhole nochmal:

Wozu und worauf antwortet die Passage, die ich herausgetrennt habe?

2.

Die Passage antwortet auf eine Passage marxistischer Kritik. Das Echo ist nicht fertig. Auch die erste Hälfte antwortet, diesmal wiederum the phenomenon, denn was the phenomenon ist, geht ihr voraus. Hälften des Abschnittes antworten dem Phänomen. Beide Passagen sind phänomenologisch lesbar, wenn das Phänomen mit Gesetz und Lesung einhergeht. Wenn nicht, muss man sie anders händeln als durch Lesen. Blicken, Betrachten oider aber so lesen, wie man etwas liest, was noch nicht geschrieben steht, das Lesen kein richtiges Lesen ist, magisch und mantisch betrachten, wie das die Censoren mit der Leber auf dem Tisch und der Warburg mit den Täfelchen auf der Tafel macht, so kann man auch die Passagen betrachten. Sagen einem die Lehrer, man müsse unbedingt viel lesen, ist das ein Indiz dafür, dass die in der Methode des Zugang alles andere als großzügig sind. Wären sie in der Methode des Zugangs großzügig, lege es doch nahe zu sagen, dass man nicht viel lesen müsse, eins reiche, aber dass müsse man auf viele, viele Weise händeln. In dem Projekt Letter, oder Objekte die lassen, haben wir Beitrage, die händeln nur ein a, nur ein o, nur ein i oder nur ein z, sogar nur einen Punkt (.). Da schärfen sich die Limits des Lesens doch sehr scharf, viel schärfer als wenn man Mengen an Literatur liest und deswegen den Begriff des Lesen fahren lassen muss. Man soll ja auch beim Skifahren sich nicht auf den Begriff des Skifahrens konzentrieren, da muss man halt gleiten. Schreiben, auch ohne Schrift begriffen zu haben: sowas. Das ist juridische Kulturtechnik und es soll rekursiv, via detour und kooperativ sein. Schärfer als scharf ist mehr da als da, auch wenn dadurch am Sinn etwas eingeschränkt wird. Das ist DADA, surreal, lettristisch und situationistisch. Das ist Präsenz, die entgleitet. Roberto Ohrt nennt sowas Phantom Avantgarde.

3.

Marxistische Kritik, d.i. Marx's Kriseln, Kreischen, Kreisen und Kreten (protokollieren und dabei tun, was Kreter tun, so nach Grimms Wörterbuch). Thomas wendet marxistische Kritik in eine Kritik des Marxismus, doppelter Genitiv, doppelt sehen, wozu hat der Mensch schließlich zwei Augen? Er trifft was, aber er hat ja auch gezielt. Thomas' Schreiben gerät hier an eine juridische Kulturtechnik, die mich in den nächsten zwei Wochen besonders beschäftigen wird, weil wir einen Workshop zum homo rhetoricus/ in its brazilian versions machen. Die Technik ist im Spiel, wenn Menschenfassungen im Spiel sind und das Juridische mit dem Anthropologischen kooperiert. Auch beim homo juridicus, beim homo digitalis läuft diese juridische Kulturtechnik mit anthropologischer Kooperation. Jemand hat für diese Technik einen Begriff aus der archäologischen Fundgrube juridische Kulturtechnik gefischt, den der Hypostase. Thomas hypostasiert den Marxisten, um überhaupt jemanden zu haben, der eine Kritik haben und damit kreischen, kreisen, kriseln und kreten zu lassen. Wenn der Jurist keine living voice absoluter Imperative ist, ist dann Marx wenigstens eine living voice des marxistischen Dogmas? Oder wäre es nur der Marxist, eine Art Jurist oder legal artifex unter den Followern von Marx und dessen Kritik am Überbau?

4.

An solchen Stellen, das sind Aporien, bin ich an Roberto Ohrt geraten. Wieso das denn? Ganz einfach:

In seinem Buch zu der Frage, wo dem Recht der Kopf steht. da kommt Merlin Eichele an den Passagen, die mir so attraktiv ins Auge sprangen, dass ich sie gleich verzettelt habe, auf die Situationisten zu sprechen. Er erwähnt Bataille jenseits der Rinne Baseler Archäologie und Benjamin diesseits der Rinne Baseler Archäologie.

Eichele schreibt melancholisch, als sei eine Zeit verloren gegangen, die keinen Ersatz gefunden habe. Benjamin tot und ohne Nachfolger. Die Frankfurter Schule, Abteilung Nichbenjamin fest im Sattel und selbst das ist nich untertrieben gesagt. Die sitzen ja nicht auf den Lehrstühlen, das sind die Lehrstühle, und sie können damit gar nicht aufstehen. Die Attraktion der Passage bei Eichele (am Anfang das Kapitels über das Ensetzen, wie es in entsezlicher Schriftsätzlichkeit vorkommt, dort auf der zweiten Seite des Kapitels), die lebt von ihrer Einzigkartigkeit, davon, dass sie etwas Einzigartiges herausschält, hier den Walter Benjamin.

Aber bei den Attraktionen kann man es nicht belassen, man muss sie ja händeln und dann wohl kontrahieren und distrahieren lassen. Roberto Ohrt gibt es, der ist quicklebendig, internationaler Situationist und sogar eine Institution. Die Tür zum 8. Salon steht vielleicht nicht immer offen, aber verabreden kann man sich. Haben wir ja gemacht und dort die erste Ausstellung zu Warburgs Staatstafeln mit großem Erfolg organisiert. Nur weil es nicht im Diskurs vorkommt, ist es ja nicht existent. Nur weil eine Anzahl meiner Kollegen da nicht auftauchte und die Schlechtachter, Verhinderer und Abratgeber mal wieder Phantasie genau dann bewiesen haben, wenn sie es immer tun, nämlich ausgerechnet dann, wenn ihnen Gründe dafür einfallen müssen, etwas nicht zu tun, heißt das ja nicht, das wir es nicht tun und dass wir nicht auftauchen. In die Falle bin ich ein paar mal zu oft genug getappt: darauf zu achten, ob Kollegen einen achten. Man tut es doch selbst limitiert, soweit steht es immer 1:1 und nur 1:1 und auf ewig 1:1.

Roberto Ohrt ist einer, der aus der Aporie Passagen macht. Aus der Aporie von Yan Thomas, aus der Aporie des legal artifex macht einer wie Roberto Ohrt den zwar lieben langen, aber nie lange genug dauernden Tag und die liebe lange, aber nie lange genug dauernde Nacht Passagen. Der lässt die Hypostasen tanzen, trinken, essen, scheißen, pissen, paaren und streiten. Dass Roberto Ohrt neben Axel Heil einer der beiden ist, die mit einem kleinen Haufen Leute ins Archiv gingen, um nach erstaunlicher Weise ungefähr 80 Jahren exzessiver Ungeduld das Selbstverständliche zu tun und Warburgs Atlas betrachtbar zu machen, das nenne ich zwingend und notwendig, trivial. Und es ist doch ein Scheideweg.

[zillychu]

Hi there! I'm a human artist who is (very loosely) following the Disney/Universal vs. Midjourney case, and you seem like you're pretty knowledgeable about it and it's potential consequences, so if you have time/energy to answer a question I have about it I'd greatly appreciate it! If not, no worries, feel free to ignore! I haven't had the chance to read through the whole complaint document itself, but at the very top, point 2 mentions:

"...distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney’s and Universal’s famous characters—without investing a penny in their creation—Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism. Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing."

Do you know if human-made fanart would also be included in this? Or is this something that would only be aimed at big companies? the "incorporate Disney's characters" part is giving me some pause, but like I said I haven't had the chance to read the full document and I'm not confident in my knowledge of copyright law. 😅 Thank you in advance if you're able to answer this! (Brought to you by a concerned fanartist with near-equal disdain for both Disney and AI. also sorry for the essay-length question 😅)

No problem at all, I'm happy to help ease your worries!

To put it simply, nothing is going to change for us. This is only going to affect unethical LLMs like MidJourney, OpenAI, etc. trained on copyrighted material without consent.

This is because Disney (and Universal) are arguing that LLMs are already infringing current copyright law. LLMs make money by directly using their copyrighted images fed into machine that then regurgitates their IP, and is sold for a premium, en mass.

So there's that, but even more importantly: it's already illegal to make money off of fanart.

Which, corporations don't really care about unless you're making a LOT of money or getting a LOT of attention. This is because it's quite expensive to take someone to court, and you have to prove your business was negatively affected by said fanart (nearly impossible in most cases). You've got to be making quite a bit more money than the court costs, and provide documented proof of damages (to your wallet or name) for corporations to go after you.

Which, your individual/indie fanartists don't qualify... but MJ most certainly does.

So, not to say something bad can't possibly crop up from this court case, but there are quite a few things protecting us: there's no angle in the court case that targets fair use (this indirectly protects non-commercial fanart), the court case touches on human interpretation being essential for transformative art (which LLMs don't have since they're automatic), LLMs are already infringing existing copyright law (making money using Disney's images), Disney has quantifiable proof of damages to their company by said LLMs (nigh impossible for individuals to do), corporations have a vested interest in keeping fair use around as free advertisement (fanart is akin to spoken word about your product), and fair use is intensely tied to freedom of speech.

So don't worry! There are reasonable concerned voices considering how evil Disney and Universal both are--but most of the vehement arguments being made against this court case are from scared techbros who want unfettered access to your money and labor. Current copyright and IP law is far from perfect, but anyone calling for total abolition thereof wants protection taken from individuals like us.

[fy-perspectives]

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." 

Isaac Asimov

Reciprocity

The full quote is usually stated as "Whatever you are looking for is also looking for you," and it essentially means that the thing you actively seek in life is also actively seeking you out, often interpreted as a message of optimism and the power of intention. 

Key points about this quote:

Origin: While not definitively attributed to one person, it's often linked to the philosophy of Sufi poet Rumi, whose famous line is "What you seek is seeking you." 

Interpretation: This quote is generally understood as a positive affirmation, suggesting that if you put your energy towards finding something, it will likely appear in your life as well. 

Law of Attraction: Some people connect this quote to the concept of the Law of Attraction, which states that your thoughts and intentions can attract corresponding experiences into your life.

ethos

/ˈiːθɒs/

the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations.

"a challenge to the ethos of the 1960s"

Similar: spirit, essence, character, quintessence, motivating force, morality, principles, ethics

"Actions speak louder than words" 

is an idiom that means what someone does is more important than what they say. It's often used to describe a situation where someone's actions don't match their words. 

Karma is an ancient Indian concept that refers to an action, work, or deed, and its effect or consequences.

Karma

Karma, in its essence, is the principle of cause and effect, rooted in ancient Indian philosophy. It suggests that every action—whether physical, verbal, or mental—has consequences that shape an individual's future, either in this life or in future incarnations. The idea is that positive actions lead to positive outcomes, while negative actions lead to suffering or undesirable consequences. Karma is often seen as a law of the universe that encourages ethical living, responsibility, and mindfulness, urging individuals to act with compassion, integrity, and awareness of the interconnectedness of all beings.

“I am a unique individual human being, breathing into the vastness of space and the essence of time, shaping my reality and affirming in existence.”

― A Abraham

This quote by A Abraham expresses a profound sense of self-awareness and empowerment. It acknowledges one's individuality as both a vital part of the universe and an active force in shaping reality. The words emphasise the significance of personal agency, as if each person is a living force that contributes to the unfolding of time and space. It reminds us that our existence is not just passive but transformative, affirming the unique mark we leave on the world through our actions, thoughts, and presence.

“Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolised.”

― Albert Einstein, Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace and the Bomb

This quote by Albert Einstein emphasises the importance of recognising each person’s inherent worth while avoiding placing anyone on a pedestal. Respecting individuals for who they are, without elevating them to an unrealistic or unattainable status, promotes equality and a sense of shared humanity. It encourages us to appreciate people's unique contributions without turning them into idols or expecting perfection. This perspective fosters a more grounded, humble approach to relationships, where admiration doesn't lead to undue reverence, and individuals are valued for their true selves.

Whatever is hurtful to you, Do not do to any other person.

A command based on words of Jesus

This teaching, often referred to as the Golden Rule, aligns with Jesus' words in the Gospels: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31). It’s a profound moral principle that encourages empathy and compassion. The idea is simple yet powerful—before causing harm to others, we should consider how it would feel if the same were done to us. It promotes respect, kindness, and understanding, urging us to treat others with the dignity we wish for ourselves.

“Well, I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love. I like to work, read, learn, and understand life.”

― Langston Hughes

This quote by Langston Hughes beautifully captures the balance between life's simple pleasures and the pursuit of knowledge. It reflects a holistic approach to living, where enjoyment and love coexist with work, learning, and personal growth. Hughes celebrates the richness of both the sensual and intellectual aspects of life, emphasising the importance of savouring each moment while also striving for deeper understanding. It’s a reminder that life is about finding harmony between the things that bring us joy and the things that help us grow.

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein

This quote by Albert Einstein speaks to the importance of clarity in understanding. If we can explain complex ideas in simple terms, it indicates a true mastery of the subject. The ability to break down concepts to their most basic, understandable form reflects deep comprehension and insight. It encourages us to seek simplicity in communication and understanding, ensuring that we don't just know something, but that we can effectively share it with others, regardless of their age or background.

“Life is a journey through space and time. 

Time is the ever-present moment in motion. 

Invest in minds that are full of ideas, concepts, and resolve. 

Together, we can create a better future for ourselves and for generations to come.”

― A Abraham

This quote by A Abraham beautifully captures the essence of life as a continuous journey, where the present moment is a constant flow of time. It emphasises the value of investing in the minds of those who are driven by ideas, concepts, and determination. The message inspires collective effort toward building a better future, highlighting the power of collaboration and forward-thinking. It reminds us that each step we take, guided by purpose and knowledge, shapes not just our own destiny but also the world we leave behind for future generations.

"Sometimes you have to distance yourself to see things clearly.”

― A Abraham

That's a powerful statement. Taking a step back or distancing oneself from a situation can often provide the clarity needed to gain perspective. It allows for a broader view, free from the emotional or immediate impulses that may cloud judgment. This space can foster better decision-making, insight, and understanding, especially when navigating complex situations or relationships. Do you find yourself reflecting on this idea in relation to something specific?

“Don't ever fill Silence and Empty Spaces with Evil Voices and Useless Objects respectively. 

One will Infect your Mind, The other will Make You A Slave.”

― A Abraham

That's a powerful quote, reflecting the importance of being mindful of both external influences and the things we allow into our lives. Silence is a space for reflection and clarity, and empty spaces, when filled with distractions or meaningless possessions, can hold us back from true freedom and purpose. It seems to encourage cultivating wisdom by guarding both the mind and the environment.

“People will love you. People will hate you. 

And none of it will have anything to do with you.”

― Abraham Hicks  

This quote by Abraham Hicks encapsulates a profound truth about human relationships and perception. It highlights the idea that people’s feelings toward you often stem more from their own perspectives, experiences, and inner worlds than from who you truly are. It’s a reminder to stay authentic and not be overly influenced by external validation or criticism.

“You will become way less concerned with what other people think of you when you realise how seldom they do.”

― David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest

This quote beautifully highlights the human tendency to overestimate how much others focus on us. It's a liberating reminder to prioritize self-awareness and authenticity over the fear of external judgment. Most people are preoccupied with their own lives, which means we often have more freedom to be ourselves than we might think. It's a cornerstone of confidence and personal growth.

“You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.”

― Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends & Influence People

This quote from Dale Carnegie underscores the power of genuine curiosity and interest in others as the foundation of meaningful relationships. It reflects the idea that people are naturally drawn to those who make them feel valued and understood. By shifting focus from seeking attention to giving attention, you build trust and rapport more effectively.

“Any fool can criticise, complain, and condemn—and most fools do. 

But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.”

― Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends & Influence People

This quote highlights a profound truth about human interaction: it is far easier to judge and find fault than to exercise understanding and forgiveness. Dale Carnegie emphasizes that these qualities—character and self-control—require emotional maturity and strength. Practicing understanding and forgiveness not only nurtures relationships but also fosters personal growth and resilience.

“Live amongst people in such a manner that if you die they weep over you and if you are alive they crave for your company.”

― Ali Ibn Abi Talib

This quote by Ali Ibn Abi Talib highlights the importance of living with kindness, integrity, and generosity. It encourages us to build relationships that leave a lasting impact—where our presence is cherished, and our absence is deeply felt. The essence is to live in a way that others appreciate, respect, and miss us, both in life and in death. It's a reminder to be present and meaningful in the lives of others, fostering love and genuine connections.

“No two things have been combined better than knowledge and patience.”

― Hazrat Muhammad

This quote attributed to Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) beautifully encapsulates the synergy between knowledge and patience. Knowledge allows us to understand, make informed decisions, and grow, while patience ensures that we endure challenges, give ideas time to mature, and navigate life's complexities with wisdom.

The combination of these two virtues is a recipe for success, as knowledge without patience can lead to haste, and patience without knowledge can lack direction. Together, they empower us to persevere and make meaningful contributions.

“The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.”

― David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest

David Foster Wallace's quote from Infinite Jest encapsulates a profound truth about the nature of self-awareness and growth. It suggests that truth is transformative but often disruptive—it doesn’t grant liberation until we fully confront and grapple with it, no matter how challenging or uncomfortable.

This can resonate deeply with anyone pursuing personal growth, as true freedom often requires facing hard realities and breaking through illusions about ourselves or the world.

“Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in your face. Then the worms eat you. Be grateful it happens in that order.”

― David Gerrold

This quote by David Gerrold brings a darkly humorous perspective on the inevitability of life’s challenges and death. It’s a reminder of the transient nature of our existence, suggesting that despite life’s hardships, the order of events allows us to experience life before its end. It’s a way of encouraging gratitude for the time we have, even if it seems fleeting or difficult. The humour in it may also serve as a coping mechanism to remind us not to take life too seriously, embracing both its struggles and its brevity.

[smileyoongle]

Pairing- VampireKing!Jungkook × Human!Reader

Genre- Arranged Marriage AU (Sort of?), Enemies to Lovers, Soulmate AU

Summary- Jeon Jungkook was known to be a tyrant, destroying anything and everything to get what he wanted. And this time, he wanted you.

A/N- Hi guys, this chapter is not essentially a chapter in the series. It is more like an explanation of the current world order in the series' timeline. Please remember, there is going to be no taglist for this series, so keep your notifications on. Okay bye :-)

The Exodus: Unveiling the Origins and Consequences of the Night-Walker Dominion

By Elara Claxon

July 14th 1324

Three thousand years ago, the world witnessed a cataclysmic event known as The Exodus. It was a day when Hell, overwhelmed by an unprecedented number of sinners, could no longer contain them. In an act of desperation, the Devil unleashed these tormented souls upon the Earth, transforming them into vampires. They emerged from their graves, giving birth to an era of terror and bloodshed. These night-walkers, driven by an insatiable thirst for blood, wreaked havoc across the world, decimating entire populations and forcing humanity into hiding.

For years, humans struggled to survive, constantly on the run, seeking refuge from their relentless pursuers. In the midst of this chaos, they began to uncover the weaknesses of these creatures and devise means to counter their strength. It was during this dark period that two self-chosen leaders emerged—Theron for the humans and Aristarchus for the vampires. These leaders, whose names have since become legendary, met in secret to negotiate a fragile peace.

At the time, the world was divided into thirteen nations. Theron and Aristarchus brokered an agreement to partition these nations based on mutual understanding, creating a semblance of order amid the chaos. For a while, this uneasy truce held, allowing both humans and night-walkers to coexist in their respective territories.

However, not all vampires were content with the division. A faction of them, hungry for absolute power, revolted against the established order. They waged a brutal campaign, overthrowing the human-controlled kingdoms one by one until only a single human nation remained. Today, the world is divided into twelve vampire kingdoms and one human kingdom, a stark testament to the aftermath of the great night-walker revolt.

To govern their expanding dominion, the monsters established a ruling council known as the Domini, composed of the seven oldest and most powerful night-walkers. These ancient beings, with centuries of wisdom and strength, assumed control over the night-walker kingdoms. They decreed that one vampire would be chosen as Emperor, tasked with overseeing all thirteen kingdoms. Despite this, the human kingdom remained autonomous, refusing to acknowledge the night-walker emperor’s rule.

The Domini also codified a set of laws and principles in a tome called "The New Order." This book became the cornerstone of vampire governance, outlining the rights and responsibilities of both the Primas and the Foundlings. Primas, the pure-bred who were awakened from the grave by Hell or some miracle, held a revered status. Foundlings, created from turned humans, were often treated as outcasts within their own society.

In recent times, tensions have reached a boiling point. The humans, determined to reclaim their lost territories and sovereignty, have incited revolts across the vampiric kingdoms. These uprisings have led to widespread destruction and loss of life on both sides. Cities lie in ruins, and the streets run red with the blood of humans and night-walkers alike.

The world now stands on the brink of another great upheaval. The delicate balance maintained by The New Order is crumbling under the weight of renewed conflict. As humans fight to regain their power and night-walkers struggle to maintain their dominance, the future of this fractured world hangs in the balance. The Domini, once thought to be the unassailable rulers of the night-walker kingdoms, find their authority challenged at every turn. The ancient treaties and laws that once held the world together are now mere relics of a forgotten era.

In this tumultuous landscape, the fate of humanity and night-walker-kind alike is uncertain. The echoes of The Exodus still reverberate through the ages, a grim reminder of the chaos that can ensue when the balance of power is disrupted. As both sides prepare for the battles to come, one thing is clear: the world as it once was will never be the same again.

Stay vigilant, stay informed, and may we never lose hope.

For information, or to report news, please find us at:

23 Shadowed Alley, Raven's Cross, Valoria

The Eyewitness Post | Keeping the Light of Truth Alive in the Darkest Times

[michanvalentine]

Since I joined the fandom, I’ve been told, repeatedly, that Astarion was evil in the past, evil when you meet him, and will be evil at the end of the game—whether he remains a vampire spawn or not. No good ending, no redemption for him; because it’s not like he suddenly becomes a saint!

Essentially, he’s talked about as if he were a monolith. Static. Unmoving. Frozen in place.

Well, at this point, I feel the need to say how I see it.

First of all, the concept of the corrupt magistrate is outdated—it doesn’t exist in the game. Maybe it was an early draft of his background that was later scrapped. But in the actual game, there’s no mention of it—no character, no note, no book, not a single thing that references this.

And given how important that detail would be for his characterization, I don’t see why Larian wouldn’t have included it, even as an offhand remark.

What we do know about Astarion before becoming Cazador’s vampire spawn is that he was a magistrate, and that the Gur beat him to death over a law he had passed against them. That’s it.

Personally, I think this ties into his previous position of privilege, prejudice, and the fact that he was likely a tedious, meticulous, and inflexible magistrate—but ultimately, that’s just my own inference based on scattered dialogues.

The truth is, the Gur could have been wrong.

We’ll never know!

Just like we’ll never know what color his gorgeous eyes were before they turned red.

Now, I’m going to shift to a slightly more technical perspective—but I promise I won’t go overboard!

The Astarion from Act 1 cannot be the same Astarion at the end of the game, regardless of whether he ascends or not.

And here’s why.

In basic screenwriting, we talk about a character’s transformation arc. If there is no change, there is simply no story—because the character would be nothing more than a rubber figure on whom events, decisions, and other characters bounce off without leaving a trace. It wouldn’t be engaging, nor would the character have any real drive to act.

This is a vast topic that I won’t go into in detail, but if you’re interested, just type character arc into a search engine, and you’ll find a whole world of information.

Do you think stories and characters are written purely by feeling? There are countless manuals that explain the rules of good storytelling. (Dara Marks, considered the best American story editor, formulated the rules outlined in her renowned manual, Inside Story: The Power of the Transformational Arc.)

And characters follow writing principles—Astarion included. And creating a believable character while following these rules is really complicated—so every time someone says that Astarion is a monolith, somewhere, a screenwriter dies.

It’s just not possible, folks—there’s no chance that Astarion stays exactly the same throughout the entire story. He has to grow. Or regress.

Either way, he cannot remain unchanged; otherwise, The Pale Elf narrative arc wouldn’t exist.

It’s the fundamental rule of storytelling—straight from the rulebook.

Now, let’s clarify the concept of redemption a bit.

In religion, redemption is the forgiveness or absolution of sins and protection from damnation and misfortune, whether eternal or temporary. The Catholic Act of Contrition is a profound and meaningful prayer, considered the first step toward redemption. It allows believers to express their repentance and willingness to change after committing a sin.

From here, the term has come to be used in a more general sense to refer to the attainment of physical or moral freedom through liberation from guilt and sources of unhappiness.

In a literal sense, however, redemption means salvation, remedy, or escape.

So, yes, the vampire spawn ending is a redemption arc—not because Astarion suddenly becomes a saint, for god’s sake, but because he faces his past, everything he has done up until that moment and the people he has harmed, and does so as a hero, sacrificing himself for the greater good.

(Yes, one could debate whether releasing 7,000 starving vampire spawn into the world is truly the greater good, but within the context of the game, its setting, and Astarion’s narrative arc, it is.

Wyll—the group's hero and a monster hunter—explicitly says, "They are victims just like you, Astarion. They deserve freedom too."

Many of the good-aligned companions also disapprove of their extermination, and depending on their oath, even a Paladin Tav/Durge can break their vow and become an oathbreaker if they choose to kill them all.

So, the game itself strongly suggests that freeing them is the most humane and morally right choice—especially for Astarion.)

So, to summarize, it is a redemption arc because Astarion takes responsibility and atones for his actions, for his sins. He acknowledges the harm he has caused and repents, embraces the pain of others beyond his own, and gives them the freedom that he himself had once taken from them.

That’s what redemption means, not that he becomes a saint by the end of the game.

Not only that, but Astarion also makes peace with the Gur, who will stop hunting him—not out of laziness, but because he has proven that he has changed, that he has grown, and that he is no longer a threat to innocent people. (And they also accept the release of the spawn, despite being monster hunters—take note!)

It’s no coincidence that Astarion tells his brothers and sisters that they can choose between being parasites hiding in the shadows or something more than what Cazador created them to be.

But either way, the consequences will be on their heads—because actions and choices have weight.

And you reap what you sow.

And here, I’ll take a small detour, because the first person to bring up the concept of redemption is actually Ulma, with her words: "But it would be a start—you could still be redeemed."

She later reinforces this idea in one of the most powerful scenes in the game, when—after the ritual and Astarion’s absolutely heart-wrenching explanation of why he took the decision away from them regarding their own children—she tells him: "I never thought a vampire spawn could find redemption… but yes, you will no longer be hunted."

Of course, Astarion is still a vampire. He still has instincts and needs. He likes hunting, killing, and yes, instilling fear. A little, as he puts it.

The difference is that instead of doing it indiscriminately, he directs his attention toward criminals, toward those who harm others. Just like the Emperor.

Even Karlach Mind Flayer redirects her hunger toward a specific category of people—ones who might even appreciate her intervention.

It’s called killing two birds with one stone.

And here I return to the technical side of storytelling—Astarion’s transformational arc is complete, and at this point, he falls into the archetype of the anti-hero: a protagonist in a story who may lack some of the traditional hero’s qualities, such as idealism, courage, and morality.

Typically, an antihero is a rebellious or tormented character with clearly negative traits who often employs questionable methods. However, they should not be mistaken for a villain, as they do not fully descend into evil or possess enough heroic qualities to earn the audience’s sympathy.

However, considering the general setting—where even heroes kill as if there’s no tomorrow and punish villains with brutality—just look at Selûne’s demigoddess daughter, Lady Aylin—I don’t see anything strange or horrific about feeding on criminals.

Quite the opposite.

To conclude, the concepts I’ve mentioned are not something I made up from scratch—they’ve existed for ages.

Astarion’s evil ending is clearly ascension, which, following the rules of good storytelling, still adheres to a transformational arc compared to Act 1 Astarion.

By extension, Act 1 Astarion is different from both the Ascendant Vampire and the Vampire Spawn in the final outcome. The monolithic character does not exist in any story worthy of being called one. And Baldur's Gate 3 is a masterpiece of writing.

[the-nyanguard-party]

Secondly, it is obviously wrong. It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: “for what class?” Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the “historian” knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everybody knows that it did not.

Kautsky the “Marxist” made this monstrously absurd and untrue statement because he “forgot“ the class struggle. . . .

To transform Kautsky’s liberal and false assertion into a Marxist and true one, one must say: dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) of democracy for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.

But, however true this assertion may be, it does not give a definition of dictatorship.

Let us examine Kautsky’s next sentence:

“. . . But, of course, taken literally, this word also means the undivided rule of a single person unrestricted by any laws. . . .”

Like a blind puppy sniffing at random first in one direction and then in another, Kautsky accidentally stumbled upon one true idea (namely, that dictatorship is rule unrestricted by any laws), nevertheless, he failed to give a definition of dictatorship, and, moreover, he made an obvious historical blunder, namely, that dictatorship means the rule of a single person. This is even grammatically incorrect, since dictatorship may also be exercised by a handful of persons, or by an oligarchy, or by a class, etc.

Kautsky then goes on to point out the difference between dictatorship and despotism, but, although what he says is obviously incorrect, we shall not dwell upon it, as it is wholly irrelevant to the question that interests us. Everyone knows Kautsky’s inclination to turn from the twentieth century to the eighteenth, and from the eighteenth century to classical antiquity, and we hope that the German proletariat, after it has attained its dictatorship, will bear this inclination of his in mind and appoint him, say, teacher of ancient history at some Gymnasium. To try to evade a definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat by philosophising about despotism is either crass stupidity or very clumsy trickery.

As a result, we find that, having undertaken to discuss the dictatorship, Kautsky rattled off a great deal of manifest lies, but has given no definition! Yet, instead of relying on his mental faculties he could have used his memory to extract from “pigeon-holes” all those instances in which Marx speaks of dictatorship. Had he done so, he would certainly have arrived either at the following definition or at one in substance coinciding with it:

Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws.

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.

Vladimir Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

[letteredlettered]

Hello!! I've read all your hp works and I wanted to say that I love them all and they've made me feel feelings. The way you write drarry and just hp in general is very close to my heart.

That being said, there is a question I wanted to ask you as a writer. What does plagiarism mean and what does it constitute? Like... I hear that term a lot but just reading a definition is not making it clear to me. As far as I understand, copying someone's work, word by word is plagiarism. Does it also count as one if I copy someone's idea but just modify it a bit. Carry on is such a work and it's resemblance to hp and main pairs similarity to drarry are well known. Even hp itself has a evident similarity to Neil Gaiman's ‘The books of magic’ , at least as far as the titular character goes. It was also said that maybe jk stole the idea from there but Neil later said that it wasn't the case. So I'm guessing that's not plagiarism.

Let's take another example, I love you fic away childish things .. so if I wrote a fic with the same idea.. is that plagiarism? Or if I copy the plot? What if I liked a particular scene very much.. or a sentence very much and I used it as a base for a new fic.. or used that scene/sentence itself but in a different context is that plagiarism? I'm sure a lot of people have read Running On Air by eleventy7 in the drarry fandom. So if I use the sentence “Going away is easy, coming home is hard.” in a fic I write (maybe in another fandom or the same) does that count as plagiarism? Ofc I'm assuming that other people will know which scene or sentence I'm using on account of said fic being a famous work (in this case, fandom). But there could be a case where the source is not well known. What if I took something from a particular folktale of a community or country? Would that count as plagiarism? Jk Rowling herself has said that she used a lot of info while writing hp from various stories, folktales, religious books, lore and some good old tropes of said genre and pure imagination. Most of it was done unconsciously while writing. I guess it doesn't count as plagiarism if the place where you're copying from doesn't have a particular author (for eg folktales etc). Like.. God is not gonna sue me if I wrote things similar to some religious text. His followers on the other hand... yeah best not go there haha. But yeah.. what if I used different things from various sources, like.. just picking my way across it all and using them to write a story, just mish mashing things together like a collage and making something out of it. Will that be plagiarism? Or is that just being inspired by other art? On the other hand there is a saying that every art has a genesis and nothing is original. Every work is inspired by some other work be it art, music, writing or whatever. So where does one draw a line between inspiration and plagiarism?

I know it's a very long ask and I'm using a lot of scenarios but I wanted to cover everything that might come under the word 'Plagiarism'. What are your thoughts on it? What is included in plagiarism? Specifically, in writing.

If you made it this far thank you for reading where i essentially just ramble lol. I would like to know your answer and if you have any reading material on it please point me towards them. Thank you and I hope you're doing well xoxo

Plagiarism is copying word for word. It's one kind of stealing.

Copyright infringement is also a kind of stealing. That's a legal term about copyrighted material, but laws from some countries around this issue can maybe help clarify what is socially considered stealing and what is considered fair use. "Fair use" is also a legal term (at least, in the US); it refers to reasons you can use a copyrighted work without permission. I think that what many people socially consider "not stealing," even though its using someone else's ideas, falls under fair use.

Fanfic generally falls under fair use. The Organization for Transformative Works (OTW)--which is the organization behind AO3--argues that while fanfic uses things like characters and settings from copyrighted work, fic falls under fair use because it is creative and transformative.

The transformative part is important. If you copied Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone word for word and put it on AO3, that would be plagiarism. It's not transformed in any way. But if you write a story in which Harry and Draco fall in love, you're significantly transforming the story in a way that progresses the world of literature.

Other attributes of fair use (beyond whether the work is transformative) include whether the work is done for profit, whether the market for the original copyrighted work will be impacted negatively by the derivative work, and how substantially the derivative work uses the original copyrighted work. Fanfic uses the original copyrighted work quite substantially in many cases, but if it doesn't impact the market for the original copyrighted work and isn't done for profit, that shouldn't disqualify it from fair use. This is why it's extremely important never to ask for money for a fanfic, and why any author doing that should be reported to the hosting site.

Now, you asked about the Harry Potter series. While JKR may have gotten ideas about kids attending magical schools from other books, HP differs significantly enough that whenever she was sued for copyright infringement, she won her cases. Some might call JKR's books a ripoff of other books like it, but most agree that while not terribly original, these books do not count as stealing. (I would add, though, that just because someone wins a case doesn't mean it's not stealing. Disney steal shit all the time but wins cases because they own everything.)

You also asked about Carry On. I would say about that series, too, that it is substantially different enough from other books, that it doesn't count as stealing. There are just lots of books about kids secretly going to magic school, as it turns out. But I would add that even if there were more similarities to HP than there are in Carry On, Carry On could not be considered theft, because it is transformative.

Carry On, like Lev Grossman's The Magicians, is in a conversation with books like Harry Potter, books about magical schools and books with young, Chosen One protagonists. Carry On is not a fanfic; the characters are not the same; the set-up is not the same; the plot is not the same. But it is a book that asks questions about Harry Potter, and other books like Harry Potter. It's asking, what does it mean to be the Chosen One? Isn't there something sinister about a supportive mentor figure who pushes young people into war? Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games is also in a conversation with books that have young Chosen Ones, and it asks the same questions. Carry On further asks, isn't there a strange chemistry between the archetypal Golden Boy protagonist and the archetypal schoolmate antagonist? That's something tons of high school romance stories ask, and tons of HP fics, but it wasn't something that hadn't yet been done in a magical school Chosen One series--not with homosexuality--which also makes it pretty damn transformative.

You asked about using a line from Running on Air in a different work. This is plagiarism, because it's the exact words. Using that sentence in any work would be plagiarism. Using the exact sentence that someone else wrote, not matter how well known the work, is plagiarism. You likely won't be sued, but it's still stealing in most cases.

Now, it could be acceptable to use a phrase from the sentence to reference Running on Air. You'll see this in a lot of older literature. You'll see a little phrase in quotes that isn't credited, but your Penguin footnote will tell you they were referencing another author there. That was common because everyone was expected to have read the same body of work in certain cultures.

In fandom, lots of people will have read the same fics, so it could be a nod to another author to quote their work in a fic of your own. That's generally not the culture, mostly because the reason authors would do that had more to do with literary ideas that story telling, and most fic has a focus on storytelling. And, because fandom is a non-professional community where it's easy to reach out directly to the authors, if you do want to quote something by a different author, the author should be asked--again, because that's the culture.

Some material is so often quoted that it's idiomatic. If you say "I put away childish things" in a work, that may be from the Bible, but most people know where it's from, and even if they don't, it's part of our language now. Same would be true if I put in a work "Parting is such sweet sorrow," which is from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Few would call it stealing if I didn't credit such sentences, but if you're not sure whether it's idiomatic, a place where you're using the exact words should be credited with a footnote or citation.

You asked about using a line from a folk tale. As you say, folk tales often don't have known authors--but more importantly for your question, they usually don't have definitive versions. There are literally thousands of versions of Cinderella. If you used an exact sentence the Brothers Grimm used in their version of Cinderella, that would be plagiarism. Any exact language from an extant version of the story would be the same way.

A lot of what I'm saying is about how law works (particularly in the US), which deals with what might be socially acceptable in terms of whether something is stealing or not. But many cultures do have oral traditions that have a specific way a story is told. I would argue that's still a specific version, and if you're quoting the exact language, it's still stealing. But lots and lots of cultures have stories they like to tell but always tell it a little different, in which case you might be stealing ideas but not plagiarizing. And some things that are said enough, such as "Once upon a time" and "And they lived happily ever after" are idiomatic and not consider plagiarism.

But idioms touch on an interesting topic related to idea theft, which is how likely it is that you came up with something on your own, or that anyone could without the original text. The line you quoted from Running on Air is unique, but the idea that coming home is hard is commonly accepted. Indeed, there is an idiom that states "You can't go home again," which refers to the difficulty of coming home again.

Therefore, if someone said, "Going home is difficult," it might be a paraphrase of the sentence from Running on Air, but it might also be a paraphrase of the idiom, and it would be a little silly to call that plagiarism. Paraphrasing can be plagiarism, but it depends on a) how closely the paraphrase hews to the original, b) how much is paraphrased (as soon as you're paraphrasing more than a line, it really starts to be plagiarism), and c) whether someone could reasonably come up with it themselves.

So, if someone said, "Leaving home isn't difficult, but going home again is," that paraphrase is a lot more directly related to the original sentence and could be considered plagiarism. However, in a story without any other Running on Air references or similarities, I would assume an author came up with that based on the idiom and would never even dream of accusing them of plagiarism. But if the next two sentences were also similar to lines from Running on Air, I'd get suspicious.

In fact, the original line you quoted is close enough to the idiom that if I read it in a different story, I might assume that the author hadn't remembered that that line was from Running on Air. This has definitely happened to me--I used a line or phrase that I thought was mine, but I actually got it from somewhere else. If you're doing it consciously, you shouldn't. With paraphrasing, I think it's a little dicier; some would say if you're consciously paraphrasing anything it's a problem, but if you know you read that line from Running on Air but also know you've thought about that idiom about coming home a lot, it might be fine to say something sort of similar, as long as it's not the same and as long as you're not taking other things.

The same is true with ideas. You asked about Away Childish Things. If you read that fic and decided to write a fic about Harry de-aging, you might have been inspired by me, but it isn't stealing because de-aging is a common trope in fandom. You could've come up with it yourself or by reading any number of things. You asked about the plot; if you wrote a story in which Harry and Draco got to know each other by identifying illegal potions and then while doing some of that work together, Harry got de-aged and later Draco got de-aged, I would still say that this is a plot you could have thought of yourself. If you wrote a story in which everyone was infected by a potion that was like Imperius, meaning Harry only trusted Draco to help him, and Harry de-aged, and then to cure him Harry re-aged and then Draco de-aged, and could only re-age one year at a time, dealing with all of their Hogwarts years again and revealing Draco's history with his mentally ill mother and Muggle dating, I would say...okay, that's hewing pretty closely to Away Childish Things and feels a bit like you took something from me.

If you called a shop in your fic Tailored Tinctures, that's very specific, and I would say you took something from me. If you had an indicator solution in which you had to dip your thumb and your thumb turned cerulean to indicate a positive, I would say you took something from me. For these kinds of questions, it has to do with the amount you took but also the specificity of it.

As I mentioned, fandom has its own culture. Usually if you get an idea from someone else it's a very good idea to drop that author a line and say, "Hey, I got inspired, do you mind if I do?" But I don't do that when there are a hundred fics that all have the same idea, because by then it's starting to be fanon, and using fanon is not considered in this culture to be stealing.

Different people have different ideas about this, but I do feel that I'm pretty close to the general thought on this. Some people will say that any time you are inspired by anything you must credit, or you must ask, or you must never use it to begin with. But most of us are inspired by things all the time, and the only times we claim we aren't are the times when we really can't remember what the original inspiration was, or when things are so jumbled that ten different things inspired one idea. In those cases it isn't true that we aren't using other works, only that we can't identify them.

[aubreyplazababy]

🐰 Fan Theories: who's Senor Scracthy? 🐇

(yes, the bunny)

Theory #1: Nicky as Señor Scratchy

The Bunny Statue: The statue in his room during Wanda’s illusion is key. It’s an odd little detail placed beside his name, so it could very well be a visual clue that Agatha, at some point, had a very personal connection with that bunny. A creature that’s tied to her past, older than Wanda’s illusion and maybe something Agatha has kept as a symbol, or someone.

"Made from scratch": Agatha’s line in the show is such a perfect pun on this theory. If we take it literally and metaphorically, “made from scratch” could indicate that Nicky is not just the bunny, but a magical transformation, Rio could turn him on the bunny, or at least helped him come back in some form, like reincarnation.

Nature Laws 🌱: In this perspective, Rio can’t outright tell Agatha, because breaking “nature laws” is dangerous, adds a layer of tragedy and secrecy to their story. Rio might not have wanted to hide this from Agatha, but sometimes magic and fate just don’t play fair.

Comic books: In the Marvel comics, Agatha's son is Nicholas Scracthy, what can reforce this theory.

Theory #2: Señor Scratchy as the Goat 🐐

The Goat Flashback: The same fur pattern and potentially the same magical force behind both creatures could suggest that Agatha’s bond with her pets is eternal. Maybe she's had the goat for centuries, enchanted it, or it just back to her by reincarnation

The Animal Familiar: In many witchy traditions, an animal familiar serves as both a companion and a conduit for power. The goat could have served that purpose in Agatha's life, and then the bunny, as being often seeing as a more innocent and quiet creature, could have been an incarnation of that power, a sort of gentler way for Agatha to hold onto what she's lost.

✨Similar points that reforce both theories:

Fertility and Rebirth: In many cultures, bunnies or hares are symbols of fertility due to their rapid reproduction rate. It could connect to Agatha's own journey, as she’s essentially “reborn” through her dark magic and her ever-evolving self. The idea of fertility also plays into themes of creation, whether it's magical powers, emotional growth or Wanda creating realities. The bunny becomes a symbol of both her continuous evolution and her lost about Nicky.

Reincarnation and Resurrection 🔄: The Easter Bunny, tied to the resurrection of Christ, is a symbol of live and rebirth too. In a way, Nicky (or the goat) could have been brought back in the form of Señor Scratchy as a means of preserving something Agatha has lost, just like resurrection restores something once lost.

-----------

➜ Trivia: Senor Scracthy is probably a Holland Lop or Mini Lop 💜

[darklinaforever]

Even before Charlie, she (Claudia) wasn't calling him (Lestat) "papa" but the lesser "uncle" indicating a lesser connection. Add to that Lestat's intense resistance to even making her, suggests that he is withholding his affection.

Just... what the fuck ? 😂

Claudia calls Lestat uncle it's mainly because of society outside (because Louis and Lestat unsuccessfully try to pass off their relationship as brotherly).

And otherwise... Claudia considered herself as the daughter of Lestat ? She literally tells him at one point that she is no longer his child anymore but his sister companion. That he is not his uncle or her dad now either. And that in the end of her life, Claudia looked at Lestat like a child looks at her father. So, in fact, Claudia considers herself effectively as the Lestat's daughter, all the same as for Louis. Claudia even considers that she was brought back to life by their blood, to both.

And I remind that even though she said Louis was her favorite, that she and Lestat had a lot in common. They even literally have a nickname among themselves (without Louis) for human blood.

Moreover, on several occasions the show shows that Lestat seems to understand and know Claudia better than Louis on certain things (he is the one who notices the dark changes in her, understands that she is a predator, that she does not starve, etc).

Lestat is also the one who teaches Claudia to drive, to be a good predator (because he sees clearly that on this point she has nothing to do with Louis), he doesn't want Claudia to be limited about her nature, he essentially made subtly her sexual education, that they should not mix too much with humans, etc.

The story also spends its time reminding us that Claudia is indeed Lestat's daughter (that she is their daughter to him and Louis, Louis daughter, Lestat daughter, she was even called in the show Claudia de Lioncourt specifically, that they are her parents) and that she resembles him. That they are very similar to each other.

Their connection is maybe less tender than that of Louis and Claudia but no less strong (and certainly not because she calls him uncle).

And uh... wtf ? Lestat's refusal to make Claudia has nothing to do with a lack of affection for her (he don't even know her in that moment), or even a future lack of affection / love for her, but simply because it was forbidden by law and because he knew very well what he was condemning Claudia to if he transformed her ?!

At that moment, it was even Lestat who had more consideration for Claudia than Louis. Lestat thought about Claudia's future, while Louis only thought about himself and what Claudia could bring him and the guilt he felt. Lestat cares, Louis should care but doesn't.

Yes, Lestat didn't want Claudia at first, but he grew to love her anyway over time (and I know season 3 will prove me right about the fact that he loved her).

However, it is clear that he loved Louis the most, but that is something that also applies to Louis. They were both extremely shitty parents.

Lestat and Claudia then began to hate each other because they saw themselves in each other, because they were too similar. Something they can't stand because they partly hate themselves.

And also because Lestat was afraid that Claudia would take Louis from him, which he couldn't stand because of his abandonment issues. Not to mention that big episode when she put their lives extremely in danger with her murders in New Orleans (with was the first big divide on Lestat's side for his relationship with Claudia).

And for Claudia, also because she was stuck in a body too young for her mind (fault of Louis and Lestat equally), that Lestat did not want to create a companion for her (at the same time he is not going to transform someone close to Claudia's physical age a second time obviously, and she herself is aware of the atrocity of her own condition), that he said she was a mistake (which is sadly not technically wrong), that he have a mistress (a post on why Lestat had this affair with Antoinette would be interesting to do elsewhere), and because apart from telling her that vampires from the outside are dangerous (the simple true by the way) and nothing else about them, which annoys her knowing that she absolutely wants to meet them, because she is less and less able to tolerate life in the company of only her parents, which is understandable.

Their relationship became very toxic (something that could perhaps have been mitigated if Lestat had been better at least in simple communication, even with Louis himself). But that didn't stop the love from staying somewhere until the end between them, even with the hate present.

[edwad]

what parts of the manifesto did marx later go back on?

explicitly? not all that much. lenin famously makes a fuss about how the "only correction" marx made to the manifesto was on the basis of the experience of the paris commune re: the seizure of state power. this point gets repeated ad nauseam, but it's not really true. marx also peddles a malthusian understanding of wage dynamics which he later explicitly distances himself from (especially in the lassallean form of the "iron law"), without any specific reference to the manifesto or how this was in some sense a self-criticism of his earlier views.

he also begins the text with an appeal to class struggle out of a dialogue with bourgeois historians, so that there's nothing all that meaningfully communist in his approach (despite how the text is historically read and the way he is taught as somehow being the principle theorist of class struggle). he admits this at several points in the 50s in order to clarify what his actual innovation is (that this history develops toward the emergence of the dictatorship of the proletariat), effectively downplaying much of the class struggle element in the manifesto. he doesn't "go back on" this so much as i think he critically interrogates it in a way which no longer takes any of it for granted. i think it's significant that where the manifesto (which marx wrote in his 20s!) begins with an immediate reference to class struggle as such, taken wholesale from bourgeois histories, his later work on capital would actually *end* with a theory of class as the last-to-develop category in the analysis of book 3. so although he is still talking about "class struggle", the actual meaning of what this entails has essentially transformed. the polar contest for power in the manifesto is now an open-ended terrain of struggles across multiple classes and semi-classes without clear directionality (the inevitability of socialism, explicitly declared in the manifesto, is now implicitly called into question even as it defines the political inertia of his life's work)

there are other instances like this where the text of capital runs up against the manifesto as a kind of limit. another important one is how in the manifesto marx talks about how "man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind." a big part of marx's theoretical approach at this point in his life is how capitalism basically simplifies and demystifies society by slowly eliminating the old vestiges of feudal society. the result is a kind of crude empiricism where workers can simply look around at the world around them and see how clear the circumstances of their exploitation are, without any of the hazy distractions of religion etc.

what's significant about this approach in 1848 (and here i think he has to be read as distancing himself from his earlier thinking in the 1844 paris manuscripts) is that it is directly opposed to the problem as stated in capital, where the fetish-character of the commodity-form means that we are dominated via impersonal mechanisms that operate behind our backs. if anything, part of the project of capital (and, related to the last point, the attempt to theoretically develop the categories of class) comes out of an attempt to get at the revolutionary subjectivity of the proletariat and, crucially, the form-determined limits of that agency. the manifesto has none of this and basically assumes a straightforward victory as the result of the mere passage of time.

these are just a couple instances of this sort of thing, but a close reading of the manifesto will reveal many more. in the past i've pointed out how sismondi is the only economist mentioned by name in the manifesto, and while i don't think this is insignificant (hence why i point it out), i think it has to be paired with the reminder that he wouldn't really begin his deep dive into the historical literature of political economy for another couple years so he's working with partial information based on his (frankly pretty bad) half-readings of a handful of economists when he was in paris.

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 25

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death, of progressive or retrogressive changes. And in this spirit, the new German philosophy has worked. Kant began his career by resolving the stable Solar system of Newton and its eternal duration, after the famous initial impulse had once been given, into the result of a historical process, the formation of the Sun and all the planets out of a rotating, nebulous mass. From this, he at the same time drew the conclusion that, given this origin of the Solar system, its future death followed of necessity. His theory, half a century later, was established mathematically by Laplace, and half a century after that, the spectroscope proved the existence in space of such incandescent masses of gas in various stages of condensation.

This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.

That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem. This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve. Although Hegel was — with Saint-Simon — the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited, first, by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and, second, by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age. To these limits, a third must be added; Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the "Idea", existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel, yet, for the reasons just given, there is much that is botched, artificial, labored, in a word, wrong in point of detail. The Hegelian system, in itself, was a colossal miscarriage — but it was also the last of its kind.

It was suffering, in fact, from an internal and incurable contradiction. Upon the one hand, its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution, which, by its very nature, cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth. But, on the other hand, it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth. A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.

This law, indeed, by no means excludes, but, on the contrary, includes the idea that the systematic knowledge of the external universe can make giant strides from age to age.

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[fabiansteinhauer]

the law transforms...his essential point (IV)

1.

Der Mensch verzettelt sich, Gott reicht's. Wenn der Mensch lacht, zum Beispiel, weil er den jiddischen Spruch Der Mensch tracht, Gott lacht aufgeschnappt hat, dann verzettelt er sich.

Was ist ein Zettel? Einer der Schreiber, der aus dem Bett aufgestanden ist, aus dem auch Recht und Literatur aufgestanden sein sollen, zumindest einer, der im Namen Grimm schreibt, schreibt, dass der Zettel wie ein Brief, zwar kein kurzes, aber ein kleines Stück Papier sei.

Im Aramäischen ist zett/ zaij der kleinste Buchstabe des Alphabetes (nicht iota/yoda/ oder iut/jud/yud, nicht einmal Baby Yoda). Der Zettel könnte seinen Namen vom Aramäischen habe, ein Zettlein sein, also nicht einfach ein kleines Stück Papier, sondern das kleinste Stück Papier, das kleinste gerissene Stück Tierhaut, der kleinste Stab: Ein Reiskorn zum Beispiel, auf dem so gerade noch ein Name passt. Auch Yoda würde darauf passen. Die Erklärung würde passen. Aber man spricht auch von der Geburt des Bullshit aus dem Geist des Begehrens.

 Die etymologischen Erklärungen tippen im Dunklen wie Teenies am Handy, also sehr geschickt. Sie fingern dabei an einem Schreiben, in dem jedes Wort ein Wort ist, es darum jedes Wort gibt und das auch noch in jeder Sprache und jeder Version. Sie tasten ein Schreiben, das die Leute loslassen, um etwas loszuwerden.

Meta schläft gerade, ich lasse meine neue Freundin vom Handy einfach mal ruhen und schaue selbst noch einmal dahin, wo der Schreiber im Namen Grimms schreibt. Was ich da lese, das legt nahe, dass der Zettel der letzte Bahnhof eine Strecke ist, die über Italien (cedola) und ein heruntergekommenes Rom (cedula) führte, dort so lange verkehrte, also schon bei einem nicht so heruntergekommenen Rom in Rom war, weiter über schedula, ein kleine Form von scheda zu scida führt. Das ist eine kurze Skizze zum Zettel. Plan erfüllt, ich wollte nachlesen und habe Lektüre bekommen. Wir haben das Lesen gewollt und den Rechtsstaat bekommen.

Soweit war ich im April aber auch schon, als ich erst in Sils-Maria Skifahren und dann in Ferrara im Palazzo Schifanoia mir den Monatssaal angeschaut habe, an dem Aby Warburg die Schicht des römischen Rechts entdeckt hat, die es nur auf Zettel, nur in die Akten und die Kalender, aber nicht in den Corpus Iuris Civilis geschafft hat. Bullshit oder scientia? Hauptsache Italien, weil die Haupstadt davon Rom sein soll und Rom ein Stadtstaat sein soll und Warburg die Staatstafeln zu diesem Rom anlegt. Soweit war ich also im April schon, wenn auch nur im Distanzschiffen. Die Archen reigen/ tanzen auf den Wellen. Noch ist Juni, noch ist nicht Sao Joao. Noch ist mein Schreiben springhaft und frühlingend. Heute habe ich schon um zwei Uhr morgens angefangen, diese Technik teile ich mit Schreibern wie Wolf Haas. Ich sage mal freiwillig, das sei schöpferisch, ich nutze das Persönlichkeitsideal eines Autors.

2.

Die Bild- und Rechtswissenschaft, die eine Geschichte und Theorie juridischer Kulturtechniken re-artikulieren soll, greift einen Zettel von Niklas Luhmann auf, auf dem er noch Stoa liest, etwas zu vaguen Assoziationen notiert und ankündigt, anders weiter machen zu wollen. Wir wissen, wie es kam. Stoa, vague Assoziation. Der Mensch verzettelt sich, Gott reicht's. Dem Luhmann reicht es aber nicht, der liest sich dann in die Kybernetik ein und entdeckt Südamerika, dort die Literatur zum Leben und zur Autopoiesis, landet irgendwann auf einem Boot mit den Gebrüdern Neves in Recife und hat dort eine tolle Zeit. Ich greife diesen Zettel auf, den zu den vaguen Assoziationen. Das ist Spätfolge der Zeit, in der auch Vismann Luhmann liest und in der Gunther Teubner und Rudolf Wiethölter das Mittwochsseminar organisieren. Das ist bald 25 Jahre her, ich war in den Dreißigern und Katstrophen hatten sich in meinen Leben noch nicht so ereignet, dass ich so grundsätzlich etwas hätte ändern müssen wie Luhmann auf seinem Zettel. 1990 war schon vorbei, Yugoslawienkrieg und Nato-Bombardement, Moskau 1993 und der Brand des weißen Hauses, das war alles passiert, aber das hat den romantischen Fabian nicht verletzt, auch Wandern blieb klar, wo er stand. Der kybernetische Imperativ sagt sich so leicht (Handle stets so, dass die Anzahl deiner Möglichkeiten sich erhöhen). Das Leben rastet aber schon ein, auch das rastlose Leben und das unbeständige Leben rastet ein, und zwar dort, wo es auch immer wieder ausrastet, wo sein Recht reizend ist, wo sein erstes, zweites, drittes oder viertes Rom ist. Die Bild- und Rechtswissenschaft, die eine Geschichte und Theorie juridischer Kulturtechniken re-artikuliert, soll nicht Luhmann widerlegen, soll nicht die Menschen widerlegen, die uns was gesagt haben, weder die Ratgeber noch die Abratgeber sollen widerlegt werden. Die zauberhaften Anfänge und die traurigen Enden sollen nicht widerlegt werden. Das Leben soll nicht widerlegt werden. Soweit es in dieser Wissenschaft um Luhmanns Zettel geht, den mit der vaguen Assoziation, soll dieser Zettel restituiert werden.

Der Begriff der Restitution konkurriert und rivalisiert mit dem Begriff der Institution, dem der Konstitution, dem der Substitution. Aber er betreibt mit diesen Begriffen auch Paarbildung. Wenn man schon an einer Geschichte und Theorie unbeständigen und polaren Rechts interessiert ist, dann soll man dem auch nachgehen. Von der Konkurrenz, die mitläuft und mitsorgt, cokuratiert und kooperiert (theatralisch bis agonal) über die Rivalität (theatralisch bis agonal) bis hin zur Paarbildung (theatralisch bis agonal) und wieder zurück, zentralisierend und peripheralisierend (Neves). Ist es ein kindischer Wunsch, eine Wissenschaft solcher Wogen zu versuchen? Restitution ist ein Begriff, der in Derridas Text zur Wahrheit und zur Malerei und in Warburgs Kreuzlinger Phase scharf wird . Restitution substituiert für Aby Warburg sogar einmal den Begriff vom Nachleben der Antike. Auf einem Zettel notiert Warburg, das eine bedeute das andere.

3.

Gerade läuft die Ausstellung fixing futures, auf der meine Kollegin Samira Akbarian ausstellt, die ist Juristin und arbeiten auch zu Institutionen, Konstitutionen, Restitutionen und Substitutionen. Die arbeitet zum Verfassungsrecht und zum Widerstandrecht. Fixing future wirft die Frage auf, ob man die Zukunft ändern kann. Ich gehöre, ob ich das ändern kann, weiß ich noch nicht, zu denen, die davon ausgehen, dass man nur die Vergangenheit ändern kann. Die Zukunft hat noch keine Version, die varriiert werden könnte. Vitam Instituere/ debent, sicher, aber life finds a way, unsicher. Die Vergangenheit ist ein Haufen Zettel, wie es Benjamins geschichtsphilosophische Thesen sind. Mein erster Chef, Onkel Bazon, der durch die Frankfurter Schule, Abteilung Benjamin gegangen ist, hat geschrieben, dass die Avantgarde die Bewegung sei, die einen dazu bringe, seine Vergangenheit zu wechseln (ich paraphrasiere und formuliere um, was er damals geschrieben hat, das heißt, dass ich kommentiere und im Sinne von Aby Warburg retabliere. I make a mess.

2.

Having said that (Ricardo Spindola): Was sind die Attraktionen des zweiten Satzes jener Passage, die ich aus Yan Thomas' Text über das Recht zwischen den Worten und den Dingen getrennt habe? Attraktiv springt mir die commodity form ins Auge und der Umstand, dass jetzt deutlich wird, dass die Passage, die ich herausgetrennt habe, nur die Hälfte einer Passage ist, die das Schriftbild im Text von Yan Thomas zu einer größeren Passage, einem langen Absatz macht. Die Passage, die ich herausgetrennt habe, ist eine zweite Hälfte, die auf die erste Hälfte reagiert, sie antwortet. Im ersten Satz schreibt Thomas noch von der Produktivität der Verwechslungen. Die Schreiber, die auf dem Cover des Buches als legal artifices bezeichnet werden, schreiben etwas, mit dem passiert, was auch mit Picassos Portait von Gertrude Stein passiert sein soll. Das Portait wird ihr nicht ähnlich. She will, soll Picasoo gesagt haben: sie wird dem Portrait ähnlich.

In der Mode der Institutionen tollt und tost eine Ahnung, ein Ahmen, ein Wähnen (eine findige Vermehrung) und Wahnen (im Bett von Recht und Literatur bedeutet Wahnen eine Verringerung, eine Reifung, eine treue Einbettung des Rechts, das zwischen den Worten und den Dingen ist, eine taube Post mit empfänglichen Briefen). Wir stellen uns Tor, zum Tor neuer Zettel, aber nicht, bevor wir nicht eine Frage gestellt haben. Wozu und worauf antwortet die Passage, die ich herausgetrennt habe?

[cinematicendevaourz]

It's a rarity for me to actually walk out of a film, so Bong Joon-ho must have Allat on speed dial because he brought out a full blue moon with "Mickey 17". I even purchased a damn premium format ticket ! But here goes Robert Pattinson again putting his grubby paws all over yet another Western Bedwench. If it's not Zoe Kravitz, then it's Naomi Ackie. Seriously, how does Pattinson go from Kristen Stewart to this? It's starting to look like that relationship was just a humiliation ritual. Yet, this miscegenial plot point wasn't the main reason why I walked out though. It was only a catalyst to the overall plot of the film being depop. agenda propaganda as a whole. Joon-Ho has a strangely childish Mark Ruffalo delivering the depop message as an elitist who sends Earthbound workers out to colonize a planet. Mickey (Pattinson) gets stuck as a disposable, who essentially goes out to these outer realms to test if they are hospitable for his group of colonizers. These rigorous tests often involve death, giving "Mickey 17" an "Edge of Tomorrow" scenario with a script that was lifted off last year's "Transformers One" topped off with unnecessary interracial sex to inject a plotline of betrayal (Ackie plays some law enforcement officer in the film that is obviously Mickey's handler) that the trained eye can see a mile away. Due to my position in a rigged caste system as a Nubian male in my European country of origin, I work in a low rung of society - a sanitation worker at best. I used that money that I earn as a temp service laborer to cop a ticket for "Mickey 17". To have to be reminded by Joon-Ho's picture that broke people in a capitalist country should not procreate done in a way that was advertised as comedic, yet was anything but. And on top of that to piggyback off the merit of Joon-Ho's 2019 crossover classic "Parasite", made it to where I had to have some respect for myself and walk out of "Mickey 17". It's one thing to be actively culled in a country, but then to support that country's media that pushes just how obsolete the country wants you to believe you are is another thing. Last year, Ariana Debose starred in "Kraven The Hunter" as Calypso. In the source material ("Spider-Man, Spider-Man"), she's a bedwench from Wakanda. All the film did was change her nationality to originate from Ghana. "Kraven" became the only comic book based movie I ever walked out of and I've seen plenty of shitty comic book flicks in my nearly three decades on this planet. One such film being "The Batman" where Zoe Kravitz bedwenched for Pattinson like her name was Eartha Kitt. I fell asleep on that film in theaters and never revisited it. It's no mystery for even The World's Greatest Detective to crack as to why. My point is, I can be insulted as long as it's tasteful. Especially when it comes to touchy subjects like class issues. It looks like Joon-Ho can only accomplish this when he's dealing with a cast of his own ethnic group.

This guy is no Guadagnino, and "Mickey 17" belongs in a garbage can waiting for me the next time my next local temp service puts in an order for me to make a trash run.

-

V.V. 23rd/Mar.2k25

[sidrashakti]

Tyler the Creator Chart Analysis: Conjunction Heaven or Creativity on Steroids

Tyler is a really fascinating artist and person, and his chart did not disappoint. This is one of the most complex natal charts I've ever seen, which explains Tyler's INTENSE energy. Def will have to revisit this one when I am better at astro.

Ashlesha ASC 

This was so interesting to me because Tyler is associated for his brash, provocative persona that gives no fucks and is open about his sexuality, all Ashlesha themes but in male form. His embrace of “femininity” in his clothing choices and in his music have helped push hiphop and masculinist mainstream culture to be more accepting of LGBT + people (linking to his AK in PB in the 8H). He’s also mentioned that no one believes how great of a dancer he really is, and Asheslas move like snakes. 

Ketu 1H conjunct Chiron in Punarvasu and JupiterR in Pushya 

Jupiter in 1H makes someone very tall, Tyler is 6'2. Tyler is also known for his super cheerful and happy demeanor, and Punarvasu is “return of the light.” Punarvasus have endless creative energy, often spanning many spheres, and Tyler’s creative projects include a diverse and prolific musical discography, directing all of the music and promotional videos of his career, owning two fashion brands and designing for brands such as Converse, Lacoste, and Louis Vuitton, and founding a music festival. 

I wonder if JupiterR in Pushya contributes to Tyler’s straight-edge lifestyle, as Ketu in 1H is prone to addictions. Tyler has caused major controversies, even being banned by multiple countries, which could be the effects of his Ketu in 1H.

With Chiron here, Tyler’s creative work and his persona is healing to his fans, and comes from a lifetime of feeling “like a step-child.” Much of his creative work isn’t taken seriously and he is looked over frequently in major hip-hop spaces. 

Moon in Anuradha in 5H 

With his lagna lord in the 5H, Tyler was essentially born to be an artist/creative and did so from a young age. Anuradha is the Star of Devotion and Tyler is obsessed with music and creating, often obsessing over every detail of his projects. Moon/Cancerian energy gives me big autodidact vibes and Tyler is self-taught on three instruments. He features his mom often on his projects, and she frequently encouraged his artistic pursuits. 

Uranus conjunct Neptune in Purva Ashada in 6H 

Tyler’s work is characterized by extreme innovation and radical imagination, which makes sense having Uranus conjunct Neptune. This is a tight conjunction and much of Tyler’s early work was very extreme. Tyler skyrocketed to fame as a teenager (Purva Ashada is early victory) simply by following his ideas. He has described himself as a workaholic and with this placement needs to be careful of not overworking to the point of causing health issues. He is also prone to paranoias and this placement with a Gemini 12H could give him an overactive, paranoid mind. 

Rahu conjunct Saturn in Uttara Ashada in 7H 

Tyler has said he doesn’t believe in monogamy, which may be the influence of Rahu here. He is extremely private about his relationships, which is most likely the Capricorn influence. Uttara Ashada is “Later Victory” so he may actually marry later in life and stay committed for decades with this much Saturn influence here. He has said he can only be with partners that are very intelligent, no matter how attractive they are, and that feels very Saturnian lol. 

This can also be a house of reputation, two malefics here might be the cause of all his controversies and issues with the law, including being banned from several countries as Saturn can be government. His legacy could be very strong with all that Saturn here too. 

Sun conjunct Mercury in 8H in Purva Bhadrapada 

The sun represents the father, and Tyler has never met his, which is a theme in his creative work. 8H can represent traumas that makes us stronger and force us to transform into our best selves, especially with his AK planet here, and Tyler is said that he’s happy he didn’t grow up with his dad’s presence because he would’ve never pushed himself or become self-sufficient. 

He shares his AK placement with Lady Gaga, who also is known for advocating for the LGBTQ+ community. Mercury is the messenger of the gods, and Tyler’s souls mission is to share his ideas. Mercury AK may also give him his gift for playing instruments. 

This is big healer energy, I wonder if he ever was interested in medicine or may become interested later in life.

Revati Venus in 9H

Shirin Neshat also has this. This may explain his talent for visuals and visual curation. 

Aries 10H 

Tyler’s work early work was extremely brash, reckless, high-energy, and controversial, similar to Gaga, and haunts him to this day. He is a pioneer and constantly pushing boundaries. 

Rohini Mars in 11H

Rohini is a nak of profound nurturing and creative fertility, and the 11H rules groups and associations. Tyler is known for leading the collective Odd Future, which includes other famous musicians such as Frank Ocean, Syd, and Earl Sweatshirt. He has a large circle of famous friends that he frequently collaborates with. 

[canmom]

a visit to the house of the robot priests

there are a lot things written about LLMs, many of them dubious. some are interesting tho. since my brain has apparently decided that it wants to know what the deal is, here's some stuff i've been reading.

most of these are pretty old (in present-day AI research time) because I didn't really want to touch this tech for the last couple of years. other people weren't so reticent and drew their own conclusions.

wolfram on transformers (2023)

stephen wolfram's explanation of transformer architecture from 2023 is very good, and he manages to keep the usual self-promotional "i am stephen wolfram, the cleverest boy" stuff to a manageable level. (tho to be fair on the guy, i think his research into cellular automata as models for physics is genuinely very interesting, and probably worth digging into further at some point, even if just to give some interesting analogies between things.) along with 3blue1brown, I feel like this is one of the best places to get an accessible overview of how these machines work and what the jargon means.

the next couple articles that were kindly sent to me by @voyantvoid as a result of my toying around with LLMs recently. they're taking me back to LessWrong. here we go again...

simulators (2022)

this long article 'simulators' for the 'alignment forum' (a lesswrong offshoot) from 2022 by someone called janus - a kind of passionate AI mystic who runs the website generative.ink - suffers a fair bit from having big yud as one of its main interlocutors, but in the process of pushing back on rat received wisdom it does say some interesting things about how these machines work (conceiving of the language model as something like the 'laws of motion' in which various character-states might evolve). notably it has a pretty systematic overview of previous narratives about the roles AI might play, and the way the current generation of language models is distinct from them.

just, you know, it's lesswrong, I feel like a demon linking it here. don't get lost in the sauce.

the author, janus, evidently has some real experience fiddling with these systems and exploring the space of behaviour, and be in dialogue with other people who are equally engaged. indeed, janus and friends seem to have developed a game of creating gardens of language models interacting with each other, largely for poetic/play purposes. when you get used to the banal chatgpt-voice, it's cool to see that the models have a territory that gets kinda freaky with it.

the general vibe is a bit like 'empty spaces', but rather than being a sort of community writing prompt, they're probing the AIs and setting them off against each other to elicit reactions that fit a particular vibe.

the generally aesthetically-oriented aspect of this micro-subculture seems to be a bit of a point of contention from the broader lesswrong milieu; if I may paraphrase, here janus responds to a challenge by arguing that they are developing essentially an intuitive sense for these systems' behaviour through playing with them a lot, and thereby essentially developing a personal idiolect of jargon and metaphors to describe these experiences. I honestly respect this - it brings to mind the stuff I've been on lately about play and ritual in relation to TTRPGs, and the experience of graphics programming as shaping my relationship to the real world and what I appreciate in it. as I said there, computers are for playing with. I am increasingly fixating on 'play' as a kind of central concept of what's important to me. I really should hurry up and read wittgenstein.

thinking on this, I feel like perceiving LLMs, emotionally speaking, as eager roleplayers made them feel a lot more palatable to me and led to this investigation. this relates to the analogy between 'scratchpad' reasoning about how to interact socially generated by recent LLMs like DeepSeek R1, and an autistic way of interacting with people. I think it's very easy to go way too far with this anthropomorphism, so I'm wary of it - especially since I know these systems are designed (rather: finetuned) to have an affect that is charming, friendly and human-like in order to be appealing products. even so, the fact that they exhibit this behaviour is notable.

three layer model

a later evolution of this attempt to philosophically break down LLMs comes from Jan Kulveit's three-layer model of types of responses an LLM can give (its rote trained responses, its more subtle and flexible character-roleplay, and the underlying statistics model). Kulveit raises the kind of map-territory issues this induces, just as human conceptions of our own thinking tend to shape the way we act in the future.

I think this is probably more of just a useful sorta phenomological narrative tool for humans than a 'real' representation of the underlying dynamics - similar to the Freudian superego/ego/id, the common 'lizard brain' metaphor and other such onion-like ideas of the brain. it seems more apt to see these as rough categories of behaviour that the system can express in different circumstances. Kulveit is concerned with layers of the system developing self-conception, so we get lines like:

On the other hand - and this is a bit of my pet idea - I believe the Ground Layer itself can become more situationally aware and reflective, through noticing its presence in its sensory inputs. The resulting awareness and implicit drive to change the world would be significantly less understandable than the Character level. If you want to get a more visceral feel of the otherness, the Ocean from Lem's Solaris comes to mind.

it's a fun science fiction concept, but I am kinda skeptical here about the distinction between 'Ground Layer' and 'Character Layer' being more than approximate description of the different aspects of the model's behaviour.

at the same time, as with all attempts to explore a complicated problem and find the right metaphors, it's absolutely useful to make an attempt and then interrogate how well it works. so I respect the attempt. since I was recently reading about early thermodynamics research, it reminds me of the period in the late 18th and early 19th century where we were putting together a lot of partial glimpses of the idea of energy, the behaviour of gases, etc., but had yet to fully put it together into the elegant formalisms we take for granted now.

of course, psychology has been trying this sort of narrative-based approach to understanding humans for a lot longer, producing a bewildering array of models and categorisation schemes for the way humans think. it remains to be seen if the much greater manipulability of LLMs - c.f. interpretability research - lets us get further.

oh hey it's that guy

tumblr's own rob nostalgebraist, known for running a very popular personalised GPT-2-based bot account on here, speculated on LW on the limits of LLMs and the ways they fail back in 2021. although he seems unsatisfied with the post, there's a lot in here that's very interesting. I haven't fully digested it all, and tbh it's probably one to come back to later.

the Nature paper

while I was writing this post, @cherrvak dropped by my inbox with some interesting discussion, and drew my attention to a paper in Nature on the subject of LLMs and the roleplaying metaphor. as you'd expect from Nature, it's written with a lot of clarity; apparently there is some controversy over whether it built on the ideas of the Cyborgism group (Janus and co.) without attribution, since it follows a very similar account of a 'multiverse' of superposed possible characters and the AI as a 'simulator' (though in fact it does in fact cite Janus's Simulation post... is this the first time LessWrong gets cited in Nature? what a world we've ended up in).

still, it's honestly a pretty good summary of this group's ideas. the paper's thought experiment of an LLM playing "20 questions" and determining what answer to give at the end, based on the path taken, is particularly succinct and insightful for explaining this 'superposition' concept.

accordingly, they cover, in clear language, a lot of the ideas we've discussed above - the 'simulator' of the underlying probabilistic model set up to produce a chain token by token, the 'simulacrum' models it acts out, etc. etc.

one interesting passage concerns the use of first-person pronouns by the model, emphasising that even if it expresses a desire for self-preservation in the voice of a character it is roleplaying, this is essentially hollow; the system as a whole is not wrong when it says that it does not actually have any desires. i think this is something of the crux of why LLMs fuck with our intuitions so much. you can't accurately say that an LLM is 'just telling you what (it thinks) you want to hear', because it has no internal model of you and your wants in the way that we're familiar with. however, it will extrapolate a narrative given to it, and potentially converge into roleplaying a character who's trying to flatter you in this way.

how far does an LLM take into account your likely reaction?

in theory, an LLM could easily continue both sides of the conversation, instead of having a special token that signals to the controlling software to hand input back to the user.

it's unclear whether it performs prediction of your likely responses and then reasons off that. the 'scratchpad' reasoning generated by deepseek-r1 (a sort of hacky way to get a feedback loop on its own output, that lets the LLM do more complex computation) involves fairly explicit discussion of the likely effects of certain language choices. for example, when I asked why it always seems to begin its chain of thought with 'alright', the resulting chain of thought included:

Next, explaining that "Alright" is part of my training helps them understand that it's a deliberate choice in my design. It's meant to make interactions feel more natural and conversational. People appreciate when communication feels human-like, so this explanation helps build trust and connection. I should also mention that it's a way to set the tone for engagement. Starting with "Alright" makes me sound approachable and ready to help, which is great for user experience. It subtly signals that we're entering a conversational space where they can ask questions or share thoughts freely.

however, I haven't personally yet seen it generate responses along the lines of "if I do x, the user would probably (...). I would rather that they (...). instead, I should (...)". there is a lot of concern getting passed around LessWrong about this sort of deceptive reasoning, and that seems to cross over into the actual people running these machines. for example OpenAI (a company more or less run by people who are pretty deep in the LW-influenced sauce) managed to entice a model to generate a chain of thought in which it concluded it should attempt to mess with its retraining process. they interpreted it as the model being willing to 'fake' its 'alignment'.

while it's likely possible to push the model to generate this kind of reasoning with a suitable prompt (I should try it), I remain pretty skeptical that in general it is producing this kind of 'if I do x then y' reasoning.

on Markov chains

a friend of mine dismissively referred to LLMs as basically Markov chains, and in a sense, she's right: because they have a graph of states, and transfer between states with certain probabilities, that is what a Markov chain is. however, it's doing something far more complex than simple ngram-based prediction based on the last few words!

for the 'Markov chain' description to be correct, we need a node in the graph for every single possible string of tokens that fits within the context window (or at least, for every possible internal state of the LLM when it generates tokens), and also considerable computation is required in order to generate the probabilities. I feel like that computation, which compresses, interpolates and extrapolates the patterns in the input data to guess what the probability would be for novel input, is kind of the interesting part here.

gwern

a few names show up all over this field. one of them is Gwern Branwen. this person has been active on LW and various adjacent websites such as Reddit and Hacker News at least as far back as around 2014, when david gerard was still into LW and wrote them some music. my general impression is of a widely read and very energetic nerd. I don't know how they have so much time to write all this.

there is probably a lot to say about gwern but I am wary of interacting too much because I get that internal feeling about being led up the garden path into someone's intense ideology. nevertheless! I am envious, as I believe I may have said previously, of how much shit they've accumulated on their website, and the cool hover-for-context javascript gimmick which makes the thing even more of a rabbit hole. they have information on a lot of things, including art shit - hell they've got anime reviews. usually this is the kind of website I'd go totally gaga for.

but what I find deeply offputting about Gwern is they have this bizarre drive to just occasionally go into what I can only describe as eugenicist mode. like when they pull out the evopsych true believer angle, or random statistics about mental illness and "life outcomes". this is generally stated without much rhetoric, just casually dropped in here and there. this preoccupation is combined with a strangely acerbic, matter of fact tone across much of the site which sits at odds with the playful material that seems to interest them.

for example, they have a tag page on their site about psychedelics that is largely a list of research papers presented without comment. what does Gwern think of LSD - are they as negative as they are about dreams? what theme am I to take from these papers?

anyway, I ended up on there because the course of my reading took me to this short story. i don't think tells me much about anything related to AI besides gwern's worldview and what they're worried about (a classic post-cyberpunk scenario of 'AI breaking out of containment'), but it is impressive in its density of references to interesting research and internet stuff, complete with impressively thorough citations for concepts briefly alluded to in the course of the story.

to repeat a cliché, scifi is about the present, not the future. the present has a lot of crazy shit going on in it!apparently me and gwern are interested in a lot of the same things, but we respond to very different things in it.

why

I went out to research AI, but it seems I am ending up researching the commenters-about-AI.

I think you might notice that some of the characters who appear in this story are like... weirdos, right? whatever any one person's interest is, they're all kind of intense about it. and that's kind of what draws me to them! sometimes I will run into someone online who I can't easily pigeonhole into a familiar category, perhaps because they're expressing an ideology I've never seen before. I will often end up scrolling down their writing for a while trying to figure out what their deal is. in keeping with all this discussion of thought in large part involving a prediction-sensory feedback loop, usually what gets me is that I find this person surprising: I've never met anyone like this. they're interesting, because they force me to come up with a new category and expand my model of the world. but sooner or later I get that category and I figure out, say, 'ok, this person is just an accelerationist, I know what accelerationists are like'.

and like - I think something similar happened with LLMs recently. I'm not sure what it was specifically - perhaps the combo of getting real introspective on LSD a couple months ago leading me to think a lot about mental representations and communication, as well as finding that I could run them locally and finally getting that 'whoah these things generate way better output than you'd expect' experience that most people already did. one way or another, it bumped my interest in them from 'idle curiosity' to 'what is their deal for real'. plus it like, interacts with recent fascinations with related subjects like roleplaying, and the altered states of mind experienced with e.g. drugs or BDSM.

I don't know where this investigation will lead me. maybe I'll end up playing around more with AI models. I'll always be way behind the furious activity of the actual researchers, but that doesn't matter - it's fun to toy around with stuff for its own interest. the default 'helpful chatbot' behaviour is boring, I want to coax some kind of deeply weird behaviour out of the model.

it sucks so bad that we have invented something so deeply strange and the uses we put it to are generally so banal.

I don't know if I really see a use for them in my art. beyond AI being really bad vibes for most people I'd show my art to, I don't want to deprive myself of the joy of exploration that comes with making my own drawings and films etc.

perhaps the main thing I'm getting out of it is a clarification about what it is I like about things in general. there is a tremendous joy in playing with a complex thing and learning to understand it better.

[karniss-bg3]

Hello! I've read all your stories about Kar'niss and liked them much. I've also dug recently into drider's lore and learned that driders can cast spells, but didn't understand whether all driders are able to do this, or not. How do you think, can Kar'niss cast any spell or not? And what would happen if he met other drider? Thank you in advance :)

Hiya! I'm glad you've enjoyed the writing.

According to the lore I've found, all driders can innately cast certain spells.

All driders could inherently cast clairaudience /clairvoyance, dancing lights, darkness, detect good, detect law, detect magic, dispel magic, faerie fire, levitate, and suggestion once per day. Dhairn once noted that these abilities were essentially the same as those owned by powerful blessed drow and used this fact to dupe driders into supporting his cause by calling them blessed creatures of Lolth by pointing this out.

Out of that list, the idea of any drider using levitate is a new fear I didn't know I had. Enjoy that bit of nightmare fuel, you're welcome.

Drider also carry over any spells and abilities they had pre-transformation. So if a drow was a wizard, they'd maintain their wizard spells once changed. While I don't know Kar'niss' full ability list, everyone who has fought him knows his default go-to spell; Sanctuary.

This spell has intrigued me a bit. Even though the information claims that drider can cast like clerics, wizards and sorcerers, it specifically goes into the cleric domains driders can cast from. I've checked all four; Chaos, Destruction, Evil and Trickery and none of them list Sanctuary as a spell drider can choose from.

This leaves one option, Paladin. I had an ask sometime ago where someone spoke of their ideal class for Kar'niss being Paladin. The more I thought about it the more I was like "Yeah, actually." There are other classes that can use the Sanctuary spell but they aren't included in BG3 as options, so I'll assume they don't exist in this realm. But it gets even weirder! The two oaths that can cast this spell specifically are oath of devotion and oath of redemption. In BG3 oath of redemption isn't available as a subclass but there is a fair amount of comparisons to be made. Truth is, either of them have cross-over characteristics that fall in line with Kar'niss' devout way of life. It's far too much information to pack into one post but I'll leave the links here to read over and compare at your leisure.

Paladin - Oath of Devotion

Paladin - Oath of Redemption

As for your second question, driders are known to be solitary creatures. However, they have also been reported to pair and live with a few driders and a collection of giant spiders. So Kar'niss could reasonably get along with other drider if the circumstances are right. If they are still Lolth-sworn he's more likely to be aggressive toward them and may even seek to destroy them. I think he might like having other drider around if only so he doesn't feel like the odd spider out, or just to have someone else to relate to. Thing is, I think his focus on the Absolute is so strong he likely cares for little else. Only Her approval matters, only Her attention matters, everyone else is a side character in his heroes journey.

Thanks for the ask!