#like there is a notion of generating set of a category

[proof-by-intimidation]

I never really understood this business of classes and sets. I get that certain collections cannot be called a set (for instance, the Russell's Paradox). Ok then what exactly are classes? Do they behave like sets? Why should I care if a category is small !!

[lipshits-continuous]

A Short Intro to Category Theory

A common theme in mathematics is to study certain objects and the maps between that preserve the specific structure of said objects. For example, linear algebra is the study of vector spaces and linear maps. Often we have that the identity maps are structure preserving and the composition of maps is also structure preserving. In the case of vector spaces, the identity map is a linear map and the composition of linear maps is again a linear map. Category theory generalises and axiomatises this common way of studying mathematical objects.

I'll introduce the notion of a category as well as the notion of a functor, which is another very important and ubiquitous notion in category theory. And I will finish with a very powerful result involving functors and isomorphisms!

Definition 1:

We call the last property the associative property.

Here are some examples:

Examples 2:

Note that whilst all of these examples are built from sets and set functions, we can have other kinds of objects and morphisms. However the most common categories are those built from Set.

Functors:

In the spirit of category theory being the study of objects and their morphisms, we want to define some kind of map between categories. It turns out that these are very powerful and show up everywhere in pure maths. Naturally, we want a functor to map objects to objects and morphisms to morphisms in a way that respects identity morphisms and our associative property.

Definition 3:

Example 4:

For those familiar with a some topology, the fundamental group is another exmaple of a covariant functor from the category of based spaces and based maps to Grp.

We also have another kind of functor:

Defintion 5:

It may seem a bit odd to introduce at first since all we've done is swap the directions of the morphisms, but it turns out that contravariant functors show up a lot!

This example requires a little bit of knowledge of linear algebra.

Example 6:

In fact, this is somewhat related to example 5! We can produce a contravariant functor Mor(-,X) is a similar way. For V and W vector spaces over k, we have that Mor(V,W) is a vector space over k. In particular, V*=Mor(V,k). So really this -* functor is just Mor(-,k)!

Isomorphisms

Here we generalise the familiar notion of isomorphisms of any algebraic structure!

Definition 7:

For a category of algebraic objects like Vectₖ, isomorphism are exactly the same as isomorphisms defined the typical way. In Top the isomorphisms are homeomorphisms. In Set the isomorphisms are bijective maps.

Remark:

So if f is invertible, we call it's right (or left) inverse, g, the inverse of f.

Isomorphisms give us a way to say when two objects of a category are "the same". More formally, being isomorphic defines an equivalence relation.

Lemma 8:

A natural question one might as is how do functors interact with isomorphisms? The answer is the very important result I hinted at in the intro!

Theorem 9:

Remark: In general, the converse is not true. That is F(X) isomorphic to F(Y) does not imply X is isomorphic to Y. An example of this is the fundamental groups of both S² and ℝ² are isomorphic to the trivial group but these spaces are not homeomorphic.

Taking the negation of Theorem 9 gives us a very powerful result:

Corollary 10:

This means that if we can find a functor such that F(X) and F(Y) aren't isomorphic, we know that X and Y are not isomorphic. This is of particular importance in algebraic topology where we construct functors from Top or hTop to a category of a given algebraic structure. This gives us some very powerful topological invariants for telling when two spaces aren't homeomorphic or homotopy equivalent. (In fact, this is where category theory originated from!)

[1800pain]

PRIVATE SYSTEM SERVER.

Hello. As a show of my ability, I have created a private system server template for you to use. While "private" is in the name, I have included two access roles (Friend and Trusted Friend)—however I have not done any permissions for them. There is a Bot role that has permissions for them, like access to the System Setup category.

And, like the last template, only traumagenic systems can interact with this blog and use my templates. Endogenic systems and their supporters get blocked.

Note that not every single channel is in this gif, just the ones I deemed the most important to show.

Use the template here, however do note that the announcement channel and all of the forums channels will not copy over, and you will have to add them yourself: Private System Server Template

I am okay with you editing my template for your own use. Do not redistribute as your own.

If you need any help, you can leave an ask in my inbox.

Explanations for channels under the cut. LONG, BUT PRETTY DAMN IMPORTANT TO READ.

All forum channels are marked with a speech bubble emoji 💬 in front of them; those are channels that you will miss. The single announcement channel that also will be missing is marked with a mega emoji 📢.

#welcome - When someone joins the server, they will not see any channels, and you must give them a role so they can access this the server. You can see their welcome message here so you know someone's joined.

📢 update-status-fronting - If a switch happens, you put up a DNI, or want to otherwise warn people about your current state, you can update it here.

🔇 layout by 1 800 pain on tumblr - Feel free to delete this.

Text channels:

#bot - This is the only channel that has "Use application commands" permissions on it. If you would like to set it on other channels, you'd have to do it manually—or you can add it to the @​everyone tag.

💬 dms - In the title, I put "[DM/GC] Channel name" under the post, then write the participants. I have a tag system for this channel (see below).

💬 thoughts - Headmates' thinking time. I also have a tag system for this channel (see below).

💬 mailbox - Essentially, I create a channel with a headmate's name and there are two tags: Read and Unread. Read means they've read the messages people leave for them, and Unread means they have yet to read them. It's a simple way to communicate with headmates who are not fronting.

System Setup:

All servers here are unable to be chatted in; only any member with the Bot role can do that. I enjoy setting up my PluralKit work into a few separate categories:

#resources - Easy access to Simply Plural, Notion, Evernote, or various places I get PNGs to set up PluralKit profiles—things of that nature and related to it.

#pk-setup - For descriptions and things.

#pk-pfps (not in gif) - To add profile pictures and banners. I put it in its own space because it's a different type of spam, image-based spam, than pk-setup, which is mostly text-based spam.

#new-arrivals - For showing people who made their PluralKit account, mainly for documentation.

#pk-spam - Just general things that don't quite relate to the ones above; typically things like pk;r.

💬 image-resources - If you change your icons or banners a lot, this can help. I put icons/banners here with credits to the original artist, the original art, and the edited version we use in our profiles. It's tagged by Icon, Faceclaim, Banners, etc.

#pk-log (hidden, not in gif) - To store PluralKit messages. If you also would like, you can add a more general moderation bot (such as Carl-bot) to also store non-PK messages.

System-centric:

#to-do: Self-explanatory; got any plans? Put them here.

#sys-chat: More general system chatter.

#sys-work: Talk about... system work.

#headmate-observations: If you notice something about your headmate—such as a positive/negative trigger, a various quirk they have, or any idea how their role works—share it here.

💬 headspace: A headspace forum to talk about headspace. More information in the image below.

The collection of the channels that you will miss, check the images above for extended information:

📢 update-status-fronting (uncategorized)

💬 dms (in general category)

💬 thoughts (in general category)

💬 mailbox (in general category)

💬 image-resources (in System Setup category)

💬 headspace (in System-centric category)

[bubbloquacious]

Kernels and Injectivity

So one very nice thing about categories like the categories of abelian groups, vector spaces, Lie algebras, rings, etc., is that a homomorphism of such objects is injective (i.e. it is, essentially, the inclusion of some subobject) if and only if its kernel, meaning the set of elements that get mapped to the zero element, is trivial. Notable abstract nonsense enjoyer @algebraic-dualist recently linked me to a webpage featuring a method to extend this to arbitrary categories, which I thoroughly enjoy.

Let 𝒞 be a category. For an object A of 𝒞, define an equation in A to be a pair of parallel arrows f, g: X -> A into A from some object X. We refer to X as the domain of the equation. We write e: f = g to say that e is the equation in A given by the pair (f,g). Let 1(A) denote the set of all equations in A (we'll see later why we use 1 for this set). Note that if h: A -> B is an arrow in 𝒞, then it induces a function 1(A) -> 1(B) by mapping e: f = g to the equation h(e): h∘f = h∘g.

(For those worried about set theoretic size issues, later on we'll see that if you take a set of generating objects in 𝒞, it suffices to restrict to equations whose domains are in that set. If this set is small, so is the set of equations. This is possible for very many categories of interest, in particular any category monadic over a Grothendieck topos.)

Within 1(A) we can point out a special subset, namely those equations of the form e: f = f. Call such an equation a tautology, and let 0(A) ⊆ 1(A) denote the subset of tautologies. Now for an arrow h: A -> B, let its kernel be defined as the set

ker(h) = { e ∈ 1(A) : h(e) ∈ 0(B) }.

Written differently, ker(h) = h¯¹(0(B)). Note that we always have 0(A) ⊆ ker(h) for any h. Here the notation for 1 and 0 starts to make sense; they are thought of as corresponding to the unit ideal and zero ideal of a ring. In fact, the webpage continues to develop an entire theory of ideals, being defined as intersections of kernels, but let's restrict ourselves to just the kernel for this post.

Recall that the arrow h is a monomorphism if for all i, j: X -> B we have that if h∘i = h∘j, then i = j. Monomorphisms are the most common generalization of 'injectivity' and 'subobjects' to arbitrary categories, but one thing I'll sweep under the rug here is that there are also others. Note that the definition of being a monomorphism is equivalent almost by definition to the statement that ker(h) = 0(A). We've succeeded in the construction we wanted: a morphism is the inclusion of a subobject if and only if its kernel is trivial.

How do we connect this to the classical notion of the set of elements that get mapped to 0? Call an object G of 𝒞 a generator (of 𝒞) if for all objects A, B and arrows f, g: A -> B we have that if for all x: G -> A we have f∘x = g∘x, then f = g. In words, arrows in 𝒞 that are not equal can always be distinguished by precomposing them with an arrow out of G.

In the category of sets, any singleton set {∙} is a generator, because a function x: {∙} -> A is the same as just picking out an element x ∈ A, and two functions out of A are equal if and only if their images on every element of A are equal. In the category of groups, the infinite cyclic group ℤ serves the same purpose. In the category of rings, the integer polynomial ring ℤ[X] does.

Fix a generator G of 𝒞. For an object A, instead of the set of all equation 1(A), consider just the subset

1'(A) = { e ∈ 1(A) : the domain of e is G }.

Now we can consider the set 0'(A) of tautologies with domain G, and for an arrow h: A -> B we have the restricted kernel ker'(h) = ker(h) ∩ 1'(A). Here's the nice thing about all of this: we have that ker'(h) = 0'(A) if and only if ker(h) = 0(A). The latter trivially implies the former, so to prove this assume that ker'(h) = 0'(A). We only have to show that ker(h) ⊆0(A) (or equivalently that h is a monomorphism), so let e: f = g be an equation in A with domain X such that h∘f = h∘g. We want to show that f = g. Well, because G is a generator it suffices to show that f∘x = g∘x for all x: G -> A. But we have h∘f∘x = h∘g∘x by assumption, so (f∘x, g∘x) ∈ ker'(h) = 0'(A), so by definition we have f∘x = g∘x, so f = g and we're done. We have shown that h is a monomorphism if and only if ker'(h) is trivial.

The final step to connect this back to the classical kernel is to talk a little bit about adjoint functors. For all our familiar categories 𝒞 of algebraic structures, we have a forgetful functor U that maps an object A to its underlying set U(A), and a homomorphism f to its underlying set function U(f). Going the other way, we also usually have a free object functor F, which sends a set X to the 𝒞-object F(X) which is in some precise sense 'freely generated' by the elements of X. This sense is captured by the fact that we have a natural bijection

{ 𝒞-morphism F(X) -> A } ≅ { set functions X -> U(A) },

which makes F into the left adjoint of U. Recall that the singleton set {∙} is a generator in the category of sets, and that set functions {∙} -> X correspond naturally to elements of X. Using this we can specialize the above bijection to

{ 𝒞-morphism F({∙}) -> A } ≅ { elements of U(A) } = U(A).

In fact, if the forgetful functor U is faithful (as it usually is), then F({∙}) is necessarily a generator of 𝒞. This shows that elements of 1'(A) can be identified with pairs of elements of the underlying set of A; i.e. an equation of the form e: x = y with x, y ∈ A. And as a final final step, note that in our example categories, any equation x = y is equivalent to the equation x - y = 0. It follows that a homomorphism h is a monomorphism if and only if the only elements that get mapped to 0 by h are those of the form x - x (which we already have a different symbol for!), so it's exactly when the classical kernel is trivial.

[max1461]

Ok, I have a lot of people who read my blog and are (rightly) very skeptical of generative syntax. For my linguistics mutuals this is usually for somewhat subtler reasons, but for my non-ling-readers the reasoning is generally something like "well, it seems like a bunch of bullshit".

This is a very good instinct! I personally think that most of what gets published in generative syntax is a bunch of bullshit. There are very deep problems in the field, which basically everyone who is not a Chomskyan is in agreement on. But I do think people should understand, if they want to critique generative syntax well, what motivated the whole thing, what Chomsky was trying to explain, and why it's a genuine puzzle. Without that I think you're swinging blind.

I'm assume that anyone reading this will have at least some passing familiarity with the basic concepts of linguistics, but I'll try not to assume too much.

Right, so, one of the basic goals of linguistics, the thing you have to do before positing any deeper theory of the mind or linguistic cognition, is to be able to write down descriptions of existing natural languages. This descriptive task is where modern linguistics got its start. You want to look at a language, collect a bunch of data from speakers, and answer structural questions like "how can the words in this language be ordered? How can the sounds in an individual word be ordered? How do smaller pieces of words (morphemes) combine to make bigger words? Etc.". That first question, "how can the words in this language be ordered?" is the domain of descriptive syntax. Theoretical syntax (which really starts with Chomsky) attempts to find broader principles which govern the order of words in all languages, syntactic universals. Furthermore, the hope is generally that finding such principles will tell us something about the way language is generated and processed in the brain.

The first thing I want to talk about is, basically, what was already understood when Chomsky came onto the scene. I'll use modern terminology and notion (and bring a modern, computational lens to the question), but I'll describe the basic state of understanding at the very beginning of the generative project.

Let's get back to that original question, "how can the words in this language be ordered?". For the specific language we are trying to describe, let's take English. We know that some orderings of words produce valid English sentences: "the dog went to the store and bought a meteorite". We know that other orderings of words do not produce valid English sentences: "him the went dog store meteorite have bought". We would like to write down some rules or principles that characterize which sentences will be valid and which will not.

The first thing we can do is abstract away from individual words and start thinking about syntactic categories. We notice that certain words seem to be able to be swapped out for each other without affecting the validity of a sentence: if I can say "the dog went to the store", I can also say "they man went to the store". If I can say "I saw the dog", then I can say "I saw the man". Of course these sentences don't mean the same thing, but the point is that if one of these sentences with "dog" is valid, the corresponding sentence with "man" is also valid. We say that "man" and "dog" have the same syntactic distribution in English. The set of all words with a given syntactic distribution is called a syntactic category. In this case, "man" and "dog" are both nouns.

In school grammar, you might have learned that a noun is a "person, place, or thing". But in syntax, we want to understand a noun as a class of words with a particular syntactic distribution.

In fact, simple categories like "noun" and "verb" are too broad; in order to describe English grammar we need more precise categories than this. But we will keep running with these for now. If we want to be precise, we can think of "noun" and "verb" as classes of categories having similar-but-not-identical distributions. We're already at an important empirical observation—every language appears to have noun-like categories and verb-like categories, and this is interesting. But we won't dwell on this.

So we can view a sentence as a sequence of categories. "The dog went to the store" might as well be "D N V P D N" for all the syntactician cares. Here I'm using standard abbreviations for these categories: D is "determiner", N is "noun", P is "preposition", and V is "verb". I'll also use A for "adjective" later. But at this point we can abstract again. Look, there are two pieces of the above sentence that have the same shape: "the dog" and "the store" are both D N. Hmm. Let's look at another sentence. "The red dog goes to the store". Now here, the sentence starts with something shaped D A N, in place of that first D N. What about this: "the big red dog goes to the store". Now it starts D A A N. And we could have said "the dog goes to the big red store", D N V P D A A N. So it starts to look like anywhere a D N can go, a D A N can go, or a D A A N, or D [any number of As] N. These are sequences of words that have the same syntactic distribution as each other, and thus can be freely swapped out for one another. If we can describe the internal structure they have, and the positions they're allowed to go in, we can describe the syntax of the whole language.

Thus, the idea of describing syntax with trees. Sentences consist of parts nested inside other parts. These parts are called constituents or phrases. Each phrase has a particular syntactic distribution, just like individual words do. We can test what the constituents of a sentence are by trying to swap them out for one another (and for other things, like pronouns) and seeing if it works. Then we can diagram a sentence in terms of the way the constituents bracket: [[the dog] [went [to [the store]]]]. And we can represent that as a syntax tree, like this

I won't explain the concept of "headedness" right now, but the basic idea is that in some constituents, certain words play a special role, and these words are called "heads". A constituent whose head is a noun is called a noun phrase (NP), one whose head is a verb is called a verb phrase (VP), and so on. That's what the labels in the tree mean. The labels on the leaves of the tree refer to syntactic categories of individual words, and the ones up inside the tree are phrase types. The important thing is that each phrase is a subtree, and each phrase type has a specific syntactic distribution. Additionally, any individual word can be seen as a one-word phrase.

What we are building right now is called a phrase-structure grammar. If we want to describe the sentences of a language this way, we specify some abstract symbols for phrase types (NP, VP, N, V, etc.), and some rules that say what shape these phrase types can have. We know from the examples above that a DP can have shape D N (as in "the dog"), D A N (as in "the big dog"), etc. We could write this rule as DP -> D A* N. The "*" after A means "any number of As". Actually, that notation is not quite what a linguist would use, but I'm using "*" because I think it will be familiar to a lot of people already from computer science.

A phrase-structure grammar is a list of syntactic rules like this, that describe the valid shapes of different phrases. Once you do that, you need only specify what the different vocabulary items of the language are and what syntactic categories they're part of, and you've fully described the syntax.

But, wait... does that actually work? Can this system actually describe all of natural language syntax?

No!

Enter Chomsky. The term "phrase-structure grammar" was not around at the time, but diagramming sentences as trees in roughly the way shown above was not new. Chomsky wondered "is this sufficient"? In trying to answer that question, he came up with the Chomsky hierarchy. The Chomsky hierarchy is a hierarchy of different types of "formal language" (sets of sequences of symbols, like our sequences D N V P D N etc.). The hierarchy is ordered by what kind of computation apparatus you need in order to describe the given language type. Phrase-structure grammars like we constructed above are, mathematically, only able to describe languages at the "context-free" level in the Chomsky hierarchy. Are natural languages context-free languages, under Chomsky's definition? They are not.

Consider, for instance, English question words: who, what, when, where, how. Words of this type are known as wh-words, because most of them start with "wh" in English. Yes, that is as Anglocentric as it sounds. Anyway, where can they go?

Well, they usually go at the beginning of a sentence. "What did you see?", "How are you doing". Notice that in these sentences, there is something that looks like a constituent with a gap. We know already that English transitive verb phrases (VPs) have the shape V DP, where V is a verb and DP is a determiner phrase, described above. So verb phrases will be things like "saw the man" or "ate the rice". But in "what did you see", the transitive verb see doesn't have a DP after it. In fact, if you try to put the usual DP after it, then the sentence with what becomes ungrammatical: *"what did you see the dog".

(By the way, putting a "*" before a sentence is what linguists use to indicate that speakers judge it ungrammatical. Another helpful bit of notation: "?" before a sentence means speakers aren't sure if it's grammatical or disagree, the sentence is of dubious grammaticality.)

So, ok, you can put a DP after a transitive verb, unless the sentence starts with what, then you can't. Is that it? Well, not quite, but let's run with that for now. Check this out: the above rule still works no matter how far away the wh-word is from the DP gap:

"What did you see?"

*"What did you see the dog?"

"What did you tell me the man saw?"

*"What did you tell me the man saw the dog?"

"What did you tell me the man told you he saw?"

*"What did you tell me the man told you he saw the dog?"

This situation is called a long distance dependency, and it is impossible to describe them with the kind of context-free phrase-structure grammar we came up with above. Thus, context-free phrase-structure grammars are insufficient for describing natural language syntax.

So what do we do about it? Well, it's certainly the case that phrase-structure-grammar gets close to describing what we want. Lots of sentences can be diagrammed as context-free syntax trees just fine. And thinking about language in terms of constituency is very useful in a bunch of other contexts that I haven't mentioned here; phrases are the bread-and-butter of linguistic description. Chomsky's solution was to take a good old context-free phrase-structure grammar and augment it with a mechanism called movement, turning it into a context-sensitive grammar (a higher position on the Chomsky hierarchy, capable of describing long distance dependencies like that above).

There are a lot of different forms of movement, and proposals for what its limits should be, but the basic idea is that movement allows you to take something from one node in the tree and move it to another node, under some set of conditions. Generally the node it moves to should be empty; you sort of have to imagine trees like the one I drew above as having valid nodes at every possible location specified by the phrase-structure grammar, even if most of them don't have words in them. The ones without words are the empty nodes. Every syntactic theory with movement is based on some phrase-structure grammar, which determines what trees exist in the language. Movement is then allowed to apply to this set of trees generated by the PSG, shifting constituents from one node to another. In most theories, movement is only allowed to be upward (that is, things can only move to strictly higher positions in the tree). Other limitations may be put in place as well: heads may only move to other head positions, complements may only move to spec positions, movement cannot progress across certain barriers in the tree, etc. It all gets very technical.

The ideal generative theory is a PSG and a set of conditions on movement that allow linguists to describe all and only the possible syntactic structures of natural human language. This is where the term "generative" comes from: a grammar (of a specific language, in a specific theory) generates possible sentences, and a theory generates possible grammars. A bad grammar either overgenerates (predicts ungrammatical sentences) or undergenerates (fails to predict grammatical sentences). This makes it an insufficient description of the language. On a meta-level, a bad syntactic theory either overgenerates (predicts impossible grammars) or undergenerates (fails to predict possible grammars).

Anyway, back to movement. Why is it an appealing mechanism? Well, it unites a bunch of related phenomena under one description. First of all, let's notice something else about those long distance dependencies in English. There are a bunch of them: "what did he see", "where did he go", "how does he feel", etc. In all of them, the syntactic category of the gap corresponds to the question word you use.

"What did he see?" ↔︎ "He saw the dog" (DP)

"Where did he go?" ↔︎ "He went to the park" (PP)

"How did he feel?" ↔︎ "He felt good" (AP)

We might like to say that certain types of phrase are allowed in the highlighted positions in the sentences on the right, and this includes the corresponding wh-words. Then, the wh-word moves out of that position and up to the front of the sentence. This allows us to describe what sorts of wh-words pair with what sorts of constituents without having to "say the same thing twice" in the grammar. Many natural generalizations present themselves by simply specifying what is allowed to go in the position where movement starts, and then specifying where things can move to.

Here's another compelling reason to posit movement: sometimes, things don't move. Above, I said that it was a simplification to say that wh-word always show up at the front of the sentence. For example, when multiple interrogatives are present in a single sentence, only one of them can be fronted. If I say "Stacy went to the store and bought apples", and later you forget what I told you and want to ask about the details, you might say:

"Tell me again, who went to the store and bought what?"

Here, who has is in its fronted position but what is not (linguists call this wh-in-situ). Where does the in situ wh-word appear? It appears in exactly the position of the gap that must be present when it is fronted! This makes it very tempting to say that it "started there" and moved. This even provides a natural explanation for why it fails to move in the above sentence: if we suppose that words can only move to empty positions, then the position it would like to move to is blocked by the other wh-word who, and so it must stay were it is. This is fairly parsimonious.

Positing other limits on movement explains other phenomena. There are certain syntactic positions out of which wh-words can't move. Such positions are called islands. In English, wh-words are not just used for questions but also for introducing certain subordinate clauses, for instance "I know what the man saw". What if you try to move a wh-word out of a subordinate clause itself introduced with a wh-word? For example, suppose someone says "I know what Jim saw", and you later forget they were talking about Jim. You might like to ask who they were talking about. But you cannot say:

*"Who do you know what saw?"

This is an island. The most standard analysis of such islands follows from positing that movement must be local: items must always move to the closest valid syntactic landing site before they can move anywhere else. Our wh-word who would like to make it to the very front of the sentence. But that position is structurally identical to the one in the subordinate clause in which what already sits. This follows from the basic phrase-structure grammar: subordinate clauses are merely sentences-within-sentences. So, locally, the "front of the sentence" for who is the front of that subordinate clause. But what is already there! So it can't move, it can't get out.

Locality conditions and movement blocking explain a fair number of really weird, really arcane phenomena in natural language syntax, which is enough to make movement seem to me at the very least a compelling idea.

There are a bunch of other island effects that are difficult to even really talk about without the vocabulary introduced by generative syntax, at least, like subject islands:

"That John went home is likely"

*"Who is that went home likely?"

And left-branch islands:

"Susan likes Fred's hat"

*"Whose does Susan like hat?"

Which appear to be constraints on movement out of subtrees of specific shapes.

I don't consider these to be evidence for movement, but they are easy to phrase using movement, and they are essentially impossible to phrase without reference to tree structure and long distance dependency.

So, this is what the Chomskyans are seeing. There is a lot to be understood about natural language that you cannot even start asking about without looking in a pretty fine-toothed way at trees, natural language sentences, and the kind of rulesets that can generate them. I don't think there is a way to address these concerns without at least meeting generativism where it's at on some level, unless you are entirely disinterested in describing this aspect of natural language.

Where do I think generativism has failed? Well, I said that all these phenomena make movement a compelling idea, but that's a far cry from the generativists having a good scientific theory. And, in fact, I think that they don't. I think formal syntax research is marred by a thousand problems big and small that make it difficult to progress on turning their compelling ideas into good scientific theories, and I think Chomsky's personal approach to the research program has had a large hand in making things the way they are. But that's all a topic for another time. What I wanted to convey here is just... why, why are we talking about this? Why are these ideas important to think about to begin with? And I hope, even to the generativism-skeptical, that I've demonstrated that somewhat.

[the-angry-acrobat]

Helloo it's meee (btw my nickname is Ray, put that on my intro post like two minutes ago lol)

I've wanted to ask for a very long time and recently I've been doing a bit of "fuck being afraid of social interaction let my inner extrovert shine"

So

How does working at a circus as a minor work? It sounds so so so cool to me because I've never met anyone from a circus/even been to a circus my whole life.

Give me so many details (if it's ok and u wanna)

Is it like your family's? How often do you perform? Is it travelling?

hi!! great nickname :) 

wow, that’s really motherfucking awesome of you, it’s about time we fucked anxiety around social interaction. proud of you 

okay so firstly thanks so much for asking, I really appreciate your interest and I would loveee to tell you all about the circus! prepare for my large info dump lmfao

so for one, there are many different types of circuses around the world. circus is first and foremost performance art—some see it as a deeply-rooted, and perhaps even immutable, form of expression, and for others (including myself), its innate artistic inclination makes it destined to remain forever changing and incomplete. but both sides agree on this notion of genre; as global conversations have intensified and as the contemporary circus community has begun the process of dismantling categories, the focus is shifting to a widening of perspectives in time and space.

contemporary circus are performances designed to showcase circus acts and arts, an evolution of what has come before, drawing on dance, theatre, and philosophy as much as, if not more then, the circus in its original form. it’s synonymous with creativity, sparked with original thought and resulting in much diversity. 

circus nowadays is different to how the traditional circus was, which is now seen as classical, with various acts included in a lineup deemed essential by its proponents. it came with more narrative and aesthetic rules. the contemporary circus are shows that keep reinventing themselves overtime, a collective consciousness. 

the circus I work in is a performing troupe full of many different performers, acts, and arts included—and the troupe is like family. my older sibling and I grew up around them, and with some of them, and in the circus, because we have been working and performing there since we were really young. 

the circus is owned, run and managed by a really talented and experienced lady that has performed all over the world. our foundation is a building where we have all our equipment, apparatuses, rigging, tools, and much more, but we could technically be referred to as a travelling circus, seeing as we do quite often move around and perform in different venues, including different towns, cities and sometimes states, and if we’re not in a theatre or a festival, then we do set up tents and a big top etc, like devotees of the ring lol, or raison d’être. we’ve worked with and collaborated with other circus in the past, including multi generational circus families, road shows, and performances big and small. 

my sibling and I have basically always been in the performing world. we started training when ww were really little. some of the performers that trained us had worked in cirque du soleil, which is basically the crowned head of the circus industry today, and an institution for some of the biggest and greatest live performances of all time. we trained in acrobatics, aerial, tumbling, contortion, trapeze, hoop, silks, different forms of dance, corde lisse, spanish web, tightrope, miming, magic tricks, clownery, manipulation, stunts, flying trapeze, cloud swing, cabaret, musical instruments, drama, etc and have been performing and working in the circus for a long time. we love the circus, our home, a lot, especially because of how complicated and difficult our blood family situation is. 

a main aspect of circus in my opinion is razzle-dazzle — being big, bright, showy and entertaining. there’s no better way to showcase circus arts and talents. drawing in an audience’s attention for showcasing the strange and the unique is one of the greatest things to experience. circus performers are probably most accurately referred to as artistes, or artists.  we perform whenever we can, and there’s also always different shows and venues coming up.

this ended up being so long lol. thanks again for asking! I hope this was informative enough but let me know if you have any other questions, you can ask me anything at any time 🖤🎪

[self-loving-vampire]

the makeup thing is the result of people arguing that actually its "femininity" that is oppressed under patriarchy and not like being A Woman in general (igss bc what that even means is an uncomfortably grey subject for people regardless of where they fall, even tho its frequently the case that taxonomies dont describe something that cant be said to have an actual succinct definition or perhaps even exist in the first place but has a colloquially understood "you know it when you see it" type definition, not that thats great for subjects that arent immediately recognizable as that taxonomical category by most people tho, but i digress lol. the short version: people like easy answers, and people can actually point to things that are very concretely considered feminine, while also citing the reality that femininity in men or people who are understood at the time to be men is policed often violently to say that this hatred of femininity is the motivation for womens oppression even though like obviously women are constantly incentivized to be more feminine because thats what they're "supposed" to do which is different from what men are "supposed" to do. wow that wasnt shorter at all! sorry)

i think the thing the previous anon is tapping into is a pre-jezebellian (as in the website jezebel lmao) form of this prejudicial reading of girls who are not gender conforming-- before we had the feminist thinkpiece industry, gender nonconformity was still understood to be bad and require policing, but in what sense was not informed by an allegedly feminist set of beliefs. in an era after the brand of feminism™️ that put emphasis on the idea that femininity is what is derided under patriarchy as opposed to its enforcement being an aspect of the oppression of women themselves, along with the popularization of "feminist" and "progressive" as desirable identities for women to have amongst themselves and "open homophobe" became somewhat passé while STILL having unexamined biases against gender nonconforming women (especially as that feminist framework essentially worked to argue that masculinity is rewarded in all arenas of gender by arguing that femininity is derided in all arenas of gender) the notion that not performing femininity was now understood solely as a form of internalized misogyny and not simply as another way of being

i think that a lot of the motivation for this gender policing still comes from the same place, which is this kneejerk reaction to "having your lifestyle challenged" by the existence of women who do not put two hours of work into their hair and makeup and outfits where they feel as though, by not doing those things, the women who do not perform femininity to their standard (because a lot of the time, these women are not even masculine at all, they just like dont wear makeup lol) those women are trying to shame and embarrass them or act like they are "better" than the women who do. basically any time a female celebrity stops wearing makeup for whatever reason, the comments are inundated by women saying things like "omg youre special for not wearing makeup 😒" even though quite obviously they are in a world where a significant proportion of the population is compelled to wear makeup to such a degree that it becomes a part of their personality that they are extremely defensive about lmao. and for the record im not even anti-wearing makeup, i just think its goofy as hell to act like any woman is rewarded by anyone for not wearing makeup, let alone by men, which is what these people argue for now. i do think that a lot of women know in the back of their mind that wearing makeup is rewarded by the patriarchy and are largely invested in makeup because it is rewarded by the patriarchy but dont want it to be true because then they would be engaging in regressive behavior and so are extremely insecure about their participation in this activity, lol

of course, it doesnt help that in an absurdly gender segregated world, many men cannot even recognize that a woman is wearing makeup depending on the style, and so often prefer "natural" or "no makeup" looks that require a shitton of makeup, creating the illusion that not wearing makeup is preferable to men when honestly they still want women to wear makeup lol. this is also conflated with the "sexism is over!!!" style badass woman character who, while absolutely wearing a ton of makeup and being absurdly beautiful in the most normal heterosexual mans desire way, also knows how to do perhaps one traditionally masculine thing like fighting or working on cars (im picturing black widow or megan fox in the transformers movies for these examples.) all of this is flattened into an idea that this is the reason why a woman would "choose" to be gender nonconforming-- to impress men. it becomes the only reason they will accept as the truth regardless of what a gnc woman may say-- because obviously shes just lying about it to avoid criticism-- and prejudices their reaction to the mere sight of gnc women, leading to mistreatment, cruelty, and exclusion, which, ironically, may make the only viable, nonjudgmental social settings for those women to exist in to BE among primarily men who are relatively chill and see those women as "one of the boys" and to talk shit with those men about the absolutely horrid way women have treated them, thus completing the illusion that this was the purpose of the gender nonconformity in the first place. this cycle certainly existed prior to the feminist thinkpiece industry, but i dont think people conceptualized it as an act of antifeminism the way they do now, but rather a form of moral degeneration of another kind.

sorry this is so long feel free not to publish if you dont want lol. i just wanted to share my perspective as someone who has borne the brunt of a lot of these judgments for most of my life and has watched the way the judgments have morphed from being really based very strongly in the idea that gnc=not trying to be appealing to men= judging women for trying to appeal to men= bad into gnc=trying to appeal to men= hating other women= bad. ultimately its all just a posthoc justification for the insecure kneejerk reaction to what challenges status quo dressed up in social justice language now due to cultural shifts igss

"People are oppressed for displaying femininity rather than gender-nonconformity in general" is one of those takes that seem very common in some spheres but don't really hold up when you examine it.

For one, being GNC is used as a sign of being queer by a lot of people (including those who are not themselves cishet), and in much of the world being visibly queer is literally dangerous to your life.

But even aside from that, have you seen what religious conservatives actually preach on the matter? They unambiguously hate it when women are not feminine. They see it as a doomed effort to fight the divine natural order that will only leave said women and those around them miserable. A sign of a decaying civilization.

For example, the professional child abuse advocate and voice of christian homophobia James Dobson writes that not conforming arises from political brainwashing and corruption distorting the natural order of things:

He goes on to write that failing at this could also be a sign of "daddy issues", and the wording on this is maximally creepy.

These conservatives would much prefer if men were universally masculine and women were universally feminine, with punishments for any deviation.

[embroidery-pro]

Your Comprehensive Guide to Successful Sewing

Guide to Successful Sewing

Whether you're a beginner just starting your sewing journey or an experienced seamstress looking to refine your skills, the Guidelines offer a wealth of knowledge to help you succeed in your sewing projects. This comprehensive collection of educational articles covers all aspects of sewing, from basic techniques to advanced methods. Exploring the Guidelines The Guidelines are organized into various categories, each focusing on different aspects of sewing. Let's take a closer look at what you can find:     1 - Sewing Tools   Basic Tools   Sewing Tools   More Sewing Tools   Mats for Rotary Cutters   Rotary Mat Q&A   Scissors and Shears   Rotary Cutters   Measuring Tools   Marking Tools   Tube Turners Part 1   Tube Turners Part 2 2 - Equipment   Setting Up a Sewing Room   Sewing Machine Basics   Buying a Sewing Machine   Pressing Equipment   Ironing Boards   Sergers   Presses & Home Pressing Systems   Serger Stitches   Computerized Sewing Machines 3 - Understanding Patterns   Pattern Markings Part 1   Pattern Markings Part 2 4 - Fabric   The Right Fabric   Preparing to Sew - Fabric and Pattern Preparation   Cotton   Identifying Fibers & Fabrics   Denim - More Than Just Jeans   Napped Fabrics   Unconventional Fabric Sources   Straightening Fabric Grain   Sewing with Knits   Working with Napped Fabrics   Wool   Slick Tricks: Laminated Fabrics and Vinyls   Sewing with Handwovens   Identifying Plaids   Sewing with Minkee-like Fabrics 5 -Linings & Interfacings   Interfacing 101 6 - Notions   Button, Button   Pins   Invisible Thread   Elastic - the Notion that Gives   Selecting Snaps   Bindings & Tapes   Using Bias Tape   Rick Rack 7 - Home Dec   Bed Coverings   Drapery Types   Table Treatments: Tablecloths   Table Treatments: Placemats, Napkins and Runners   Decorating with Quilts 8 - Home Dec How To   Pillows   Fabric Napkins   Covering a Lampshade with Fabric   Making Rod Pocket Curtains   Tab Top Curtains   Making a Shower Curtain   Covering a Bench Top   Tassels 9 - Quilting   Quilting Tools   Quilting Terms   Notions for Quilters   Pre-Cut Quilting Fabrics   Quilting Rulers   Quilting Designs   Making Bias and Bias Binding   Binding a Quilt   Prairie Points   Yo-Yos   Seminole Piecing

10 -  Fashion/Apparel

  Body Types   Clothing Care and Repair 11 - General How-To   Pressing Pants   Simple Seaming Techniques   Seam Finishes Part 1   Fold-Down Casings   Simple Hems   Staystitching   Easing, Gathering & Shirring   Working with Fold-over Elastic   Applied Casings   Twin-Needle Sewing   Seam Finishes Part 2   Ruffles   Working with Stripes   Piping   Princess Seams   Flat Fell Seams   Bound and Hong Kong Seam Finishes   Beading Part 1   Beading Part 2 12 - Garment How-To   Attaching Buttons   Easy Waistband Casings   Centered Zipper   Button Loops   Covered Buttons   Understitching   Dart Basics   Topstitching   Shirt Collar Pointers   Read the full article

[rstarsims3]

Hi! What tutorials helped you learn how to mesh clothes in Blender? Or what tutorials or tips would you recommend? Thank you

Hi,

I've watched a lot of character modelling videos on YouTube to get better acquainted with Blender. What I can recommend for you to watch is this 10-part tutorial by Darrin Lile. The creator even provides the images he's working with which makes his workflow easier to follow. The notions you'll learn here will help you create basically anything in Blender, from a bed to a crop top to a bridge.

Another good series you can watch -and specifically made for creating clothing in TS3 - is this one by Lyralei.

Once you're more comfortable with Blender, you can search all kinds of tutorials (like how to mesh flowers, coats, skirts, pillows, etc)., if you're interested and need further clarification.

What I strongly recommend is for you to export the EA game meshes and break them apart in Blender to see how the dev team has approached the category you're interested in. At the beginning, I wouldn't look too much at anyone's meshes except EAs because every creator has their own style and views over what a reasonable polycount is (you can have the same skirt at 2k or 4k- for instance, depending on how much detail you want to add to the mesh). But it is useful to look at other creator's meshes when you deal with transparency, for example.

You can also try to convert CAS stuff from TS4 if you have the possibility. This helped me a lot in getting used to meshing in general because, while being similar to TS3s, their meshes are a bit more detailed (a belt is often painted on the mesh in TS3, but in TS4 the belt will be meshed).

Another important process in Blender is UV mapping. Because it's TS3 and you can't get away with wonky and stretched textures -as long as you make your stuff recolorable, that is - you need to pay special attention to this part.

In general, for Blender I'd say:

keep your polycount in check; too detailed/high poly meshes will "explode" in the game;

close the openings on a mesh (where the sleeves, pants or skirts/dresses end); I also UV unwrap these and find them a spot on the UV layout to make the textures more cohesive.

avoid using the "subdivision surface" modifier as it increases the polycount too much;

try to delete as much of the body under the clothing mesh as possible (I'm also doing this part in Blender for a while now and it's a lot better, easier and more precise to crop it; it helps a lot with avoiding clipping too);

for baggy clothing you can use a plane or cylinder to start with; for skin-tight clothes you can use the EA body meshes ((like in the second link);

If you're really set on creating custom clothing -and sharing your stuff- I'd get used to some good practices from the beginning (because we humans tend to get used to do things one way and keep at that from there on):

create all the LODs required for your item (if it's clothing you'll need all these three: HLOD, MLOD and LLOD) and load them into TSRW. This way your carefully crafted blouse won't change into a t-shirt when zooming out in the game.

in TSRW leave only the maps/images you created for your item. Delete everything else.

for every LOD in TSRW, go to Mesh -> HLOD (MLOD, LLOD)-> Material and load your maps by using Browse. Don't import over the same map again.

textures are really important and the more time you spend working on them, the better your item will look. It's very useful to know how to create normal maps as they add depth to your mesh.

never export packages directly from TSRW as it doesn't compress your file the way it does for sims3pack files. Export as sims3pack, use S3RC to compress it further, then use the Sims 3 Pack Extractor to convert into packages.

Note: When I say TS3 and TS4 meshes, what I'm referring to is meshes from the games, not CC. Also what you're going to learn here is how to make Maxis-Match content for TS3, which I do 90% of the time. The only differences is that my textures are usually more "alpha" looking. I've got a similar ask a while ago if you want to check it out.

The most important thing is to keep at it and don't get discouraged. All this info might seem like a lot now but with practice you'll get used to it. Start with something easy like a tube top and see how it goes. If you have any more questions you can contact me again, either through ask or through DM if you feel comfortable.

Hope this helps!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Social Impurity

Published: May 11, 2024

The occupation of university campuses by terrorist supporters celebrating the October 7th massacre of Israeli citizens and visitors to the country by Hamas and calling for more Jewish blood makes abundantly clear the extent to which our academic institutions have been damaged by the ideology of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI, sometimes also called EDI). Yet, against the backdrop of positive news (MIT dropping DEI statements, UNC System votes to repeal its DEI policy, UT Austin laying off multiple DEI employees, multiple universities re-instating standardized testing for admissions), there are continued calls to reform, rather than eliminate, DEI, claims that diversity, equality, and inclusion are “important values”, as well as paradoxical remarks that with proper definitions of the three terms, the ideology can be salvaged, returned to its original “good intentions”.

In my view, the problem here is that many Westerners misunderstand what DEI is, how it works, and why it is so destructive. They misunderstand it because they were born, grew up, and lived in democratic, capitalist societies that valued individual freedoms and responsibilities, while DEI at its core is a collectivist ideology. Therefore, its comprehension comes easier to those of us who experienced collectivist notions first-hand.

A good example of this misunderstanding is the term “DEI hire” that is being applied to individuals, most recently the disgraced former president of Harvard University Claudine Gay and the democratically elected Mayor of Baltimore Brandon M. Scott. The problem is that DEI does not operate at the level of individuals, but on the scale of the entire society, by modifying the selection criteria for admissions, hiring, and promotion. The term, therefore, is an oxymoron; everyone hired in academia in the past decade or so has been a DEI hire, and that is precisely why the ideology is so destructive. DEI works by replacing selection criteria that have previously been based on merit with those based on an allegiance to the ideology, propagating its destruction in the space of multitude of institutions, and in time—through generations of faculty and students. Whereas in the past, hiring and admission decisions were based on one’s ability to do the job, thirst for knowledge, and aptitude to pursue it, now they are based on one’s ability to perpetuate the ideology and its growing bureaucracies. The result is a communist dream, where those who were nothing, are becoming everything—with the associated destructive consequences.

A detour is needed here to address one of the most pervasive myths behind the need for DEI: that academia was never a meritocracy. This nonsense is being repeated ad nauseum in the hopes that repeating it will somehow make it true. One argument is that it could not possibly have been a meritocracy because the applicant pool was limited: e.g., women were not admitted to educational institutions, quotas were instituted limiting the admission of Jewish candidates, etc. Yes, imposing such limits on the applicant pool is a bad thing. Progressive societies have been doing away with these practices (unlike regressive societies, cue the Taliban). Yet, the principles that were used to select candidates from the limited pool – those principles were based on ability and aptitude and were, at their core, meritocratic, much like sex-segregated athletics or chess remain meritocratic in each sex category.

A more poignant criticism is not that academia wasn’t meritocratic, but that meritocracy itself is imperfect; that the failure of nominally meritocratic procedures resulted in the selection of the proverbial “wrong man for the job”. This, of course, is true: anyone who’s ever set foot on a university campus has no doubt encountered people of very questionable qualifications. Coupled with limited applicant pools, such failures of meritocratic selection evoke a deep sense of unfairness: why should someone incompetent be selected over someone who had no chance to compete in the first place? They shouldn’t, of course.

Meritocracy is imperfect. That is a fact. Arguing with facts is counterproductive. Admission, hiring, and promotion procedures must continuously be improved. Yet, it is imperfect in the same sense as democracy or capitalism are imperfect: there simply is no viable alternative—as long as we want things to work, that is; for the human race to continue to survive, peacefully prosper, and progress. After all, we know very well what happens to societies that exchange the imperfection of democracy and capitalism for the perfection of communism, socialism, or national socialism. Indeed, DEI has already led to some spectacularly unqualified individuals infiltrating academia—Claudine Gay is merely one example—and the storm of violent, antisemitic, pro-Hamas protests.

DEI grew out of authoritarian ideologies and is repeating their tried and tired destructive paradigms. It is based on the fallacy that a fair selection must reflect the composition of the population, on fighting “overrepresentation”—the same notions were used by the Nazis to justify their antisemitic policies in German and Austrian universities, and beyond, in 1930s; It is based on the notion that everyone must first and foremost be an activist, guarding ideological purity and promoting contemporary notions of morality and social justice—the notion adopted in the USSR, where every act and statement were imbued with political significance, one that was either in accordance the party line, or against it.

This brings me to my final point. According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Russian-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was fortunate to have escaped Lysenko’s purges by defecting to the West, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Neo-Marxists occupying Western universities, following in the anti-Darwinist footsteps of their forebears, criticize the “survival of the fittest” approach to admissions, hiring, and promotion. But a living system subject to a selection pressure will always evolve; the only question is, what will it be evolving towards? In other words, “survival of the fittest” is a universal law. What changes with the nature of the selection pressure is not whether the fittest survive—they always do—but what they are fit for. Those, who survive the selection based on DEI ideology, are fit for activism, cowardice of mobs, bigotry, antisemitism and other forms of racism, violence and destruction. This is exactly what we see in today’s campus protests, and this has always been the point: to produce generations of activists who not only lack knowledge, but who were robbed of the skills needed to develop it, of the curiosity to seek answers to their questions beyond the “party line”. There never were any good intentions.

[ewaneneollav]

mind, i am being very candid & only stating individual impressions in my own brain: i have trouble fully visualizing the perspective of the other people, who say things like “the administration has delegitimized my identity & taken away my healthcare,” because i… i feel like they’re not going to die without those relevant forms of health care per se, like physically! but rather just be really sad & uncomfortable with functions of their bodies. like me! in the exact state i remain in, after the same treatments! i’m not trying to discount anyone, i am just trying to sketch out the internal geography of my head… to say one will die without such things has always struck me a little as the same type of political cudgel as “the gay gene” or whatever, a fine & completely utterly fair card to play if it’s in the interest of general liberty & bodily autonomy, as these are what it all boils down to really, but it’s sad that we should even need it

they may die as a secondary psychological effect of this, i know, i do not reject or dismiss anyone’s despondency, i feel it too, it’s just that… it’s a way i have already felt for so long, & which medical treatments didn’t really deliver me from, as i feel like my birth was permanent & intractable, & i experience the notion of the word “trans” applied to me as a kind of unyielding paragon of the kinds of unbudging futility we can end up having to face as human beings. “to be something despite not even being it,” is how i feel. how is legislature in some far-off political world supposed to make me feel even worse? ridiculous

i guess people may find a major psychological harm in the sense of being rejected by the world if the government does not acknowledge them? i don’t know. that just feels like identifying with a tv show to me. why would i look to the dome of the u.s. capitol building for affirmation. it feels like the idea of having a paternal emotional attachment to the  wikipedia picture of george washington. no one in the u.s. government has souls in the first place. i mean… i can understand the feeling of riding the bus & not knowing how anyone there voted, wondering if they accept you, but… i am just numb to the matter of acceptance. i have had a horrible lifelong relationship with interpersonal acceptance, for reasons more psychologically abstract than politicized identity categories

have i not been actually binary “transgender” this whole time if i don’t have a kind of soul-voice inside me originating from sexuated regions of my nervous system telling me i need specifically the effects of estrogen on my body or else i must succumb to an unlivable despair?? are the people who are gonna die without that actually the thing i only supposed i was?? this does not seem like a conclusion i am supposed to draw

also i don’t generally respect or value personal identity enough in relation to myself to feel like the government delegitimizing mine really does anything to me. i am just me. this me happens to involve deep disagreement with my own body, but i do not have whatever quality it is that gives some people the need to call themselves one noun or another. the government doesn’t want me to exist, you say? no. they don’t view the “thing i am” as all that innate, they don’t think i have some genetic characteristic that makes me undesirable. hypothetically, they would just like me to restrict myself to a certain set of patterns of behavior. that’s quite ugly, but not exactly a desire for me to not exist

perhaps a desire for certain forms of life to not exist? that’s hideous, absolutely hideous, but i already feel like i’ve been confronting the extermination of 99.99999999% of forms of life since i was born so what’s my gender-based one in addition? whatever happens, i will probably live. i have already been living & living, despite not wanting to that much. if legislature changes such that i want to live even less, it will not feel like that radical a change. shit, if things got bad enough in the next four years, at least my body would hypothetically work well enough to carry out some kind of political direct action

what am i supposed to say. am i doing it wrong? am i, within my own head, doing my response to such things wrong? do you have a wise verdict on what thoughts i should be having. tell me how to be “transgender” in a way that’s really smart & agreeable & affected by legislature in the ways you personally think are appropriate & not infected with awkward apathy? are you gonna confiscate the like, dignity or whatever that i’m supposed to have due to being “repressively affected by legislation?” because i didn’t care about it enough? do you have a treatise on what flavors of personally experiencing these things are valid? as (apparently) an insider on The Disastrous Political Thing In Question, am i individually supposed to feel about it in a more simple & convenient way?

maybe i am some kind of wretched creature without real connection to life on earth, with no place having feelings on the events which affect life on earth, & i only think i should at this particular moment because some specific detail of myself happens to fit into some form of life that’s affected. but in this framing i imagine the fact of being a wretched creature being more... definitive about me than this one aspect

all that said it’s really awful ! let people have what they want / need ! everyone else is probably capable of  producing body fat in any capacity & thus experiences the effects of hormonal medications more amrkedly & actually has something to lose ! ummmyea !

[hecatesbroom]

How I organise my (fic) writing in Notion

@this-geek wondered how I organised my works in Notion, and considering I'm nothing if not always happy to ramble about anything concerning lists and sorting my various things, here we are ;) thanks for giving me an excuse to talk about this haha

Under the cut because I have unfortunately rambled quite a bit (sorry!)

Okay so first off: I really only use Notion for my fic writing (I prefer to work on original projects in physical notebooks or Word, for reasons unknown to even me) and I only keep my first drafts in here. I move on to Google Docs for second drafts (again, who knows why I do this? I sure don't!) Anyway, onto the organisation:

This is what my main page looks like! I have some fancy sidebars I never really use, the to do list is horribly outdated, and I haven't updated that quote (from one of my favourite book series: The Locked Tomb) in ages, but I still think it looks nice!

The thing this is mainly about, though, is the part in the middle that says "all fics". This is what Notion calls a database. It's basically one gigantic collection of pages (in my case: fics) that you can add tags to and display in various different ways. I prefer gallery view because it allows me to add a picture to the overview if I want to. I used to do this for my Locked Tomb fics and it looked pretty fun:

The thing is that it's also a lot of work to find pictures to match your fics (and nowadays I'm more focused on writing than all the thing surrounding it) so my Golden Girls overview looks more like this! I still like the gallery view because it gives you a little preview of every wip :)

As you can see, there's lots of different tags under the titles. The stuff you see in this view is a quick overview (mostly to help with sorting, so all my posted wips line up, and the rest shows up according to which state of unfinishedness they're currently in)

When you click any fic in this view, you'll be taken to the actual fic, and its complete overview of tags & info! I like to keep track of a lot of things (when I remember to, anyway). Here's a little overview for the things I tracked for the finish line :)

Created: shows me the date I started the document (and therefore the fic). Very useful! I love this feature a lot

Fandom: is mainly there for organisation purposes! I set my gallery view to toggle per fandom, so it's all sorted into neat little sections thanks to this tag

Characters: pretty self explanatory

Type: I've got several categories here: "one-shot", "multi-chapter", "drabble", "ficlet", and (reserved for one AU in particular) "i honestly don't know anymore"

Status: again, there's quite a few options for this one: "plotting", "writing draft 1", "1st draft", "2nd draft", "finished", "posted", "hiatus" and "abandoned" (which I rarely use)

Quick summary: is where I play around with my ao3 summary whenever I'm bored and don't really feel like writing

Draft 1 wc: I usually just put the final word count for the first draft there, unless I remember to track individual writing sessions (in which case I add those word counts as well, like in the example above, because I love looking back on the process!)

Draft 2 wc: I tend to completely retype a fic into my google docs for the second draft. Once I've done that I put the end result into my Notion doc

Finished wc: after I've reread and edited my 2nd draft, and possibly managed to have it all get a little out of hand (like you can see in that doubled word count for the finish line, lol) I put the finished word count here!

WC goal: is just a fun way to see what my initial idea was for the fic (I try to set a goal when I've got a general idea of what I want the work to look like, and always end up exceeding it)

The rest of it is just my writing, basically! Scroll down from there and you get the body for the fic :)

I hope this was somewhat helpful! I'm not a pro at Notion by any means, but if you have any questions or need some help, feel free to ask! I'm happy to try to help out!

[shadiela]

How to build your own SEO ‘second brain’ (and why you need it)

Whether you’re an internal SEO whiz or a digital agency pro, chances are you’ve experienced one or more of these all-too-familiar problems:

Feeling drowned in an ocean of ever-evolving industry trends.

Spending forever in the set-up phase, building deliverable trackers, audit sheets, keyword map templates, content briefs, and backlog grooming can feel like you’re on a never-ending treadmill.

Yes, I’ve been there too. I felt the relentless churn and knew that something had to shift dramatically if I wanted to continue growing as an SEO. 

This realization led me to discover the game-changing concept of building a “second brain,” an idea popularized by Tiago Forte. 

I’ve since applied this concept to my own SEO practices. Below, I’ll cover how you can build your own SEO second brain.

Why you should consider building an SEO second brain 

Before building a second brain, let’s examine what an organic brain excels at and where it falls short. Here’s a quick snapshot:

Our brains are great at:

Generating original ideas.

Interconnecting ideas and spinning compelling narratives.

Fostering empathy with others.

But terrible at:

Retaining information over a prolonged period.

Segmenting and categorizing stored data.

Retrieving and applying stored information.

By delegating the latter tasks to an external database or a “second brain,” you can better store and retrieve crucial documentation, templates, and key learnings between websites.

Most importantly, never again will you forget crucial information when you most need it.

How to start building your own SEO second brain

Building your second brain may seem daunting initially, but take it one step at a time, and you’ll get there. Start with the following steps and tips:

Selecting the right tools to suit the way you work

Structuring your second brain with the PARA system

Operating your second brain: Start with idea capturing

A quick walkthrough of my own SEO second brain

You can use plenty of systems and platforms to build a second brain. It all comes down to your preference and which platform you’re most comfortable with. 

I use Notion to build my SEO second brain (and operate most of my SEO projects), so I’ll use examples from Notion throughout this article.

A great way to identify which tool to use for building your SEO second brain is to get to know your style of information organization. Here are some examples Forte mentions:

The architect: Prefers systematizing information in a hierarchical manner, focusing on large-scale projects and using a systems mindset. They have to be careful not to force information into their system when it doesn’t fit. Apps like Notion and Craft are well-suited to this style.

The gardener: Thrives on cultivating many ideas at the same time, favoring relationships and connections. They must beware of getting easily distracted by new, unrelated information. Apps like Obsidian and Roam are well-suited to this style.

The librarian: Practical and project-oriented, they like to capture information from diverse sources and curate a collection of knowledge. Their pitfall might be amassing content without using it. Apps like Evernote and Microsoft OneNote are well-suited to this style.

The student: Usually new to knowledge management or focusing on a specific part of their life. They favor ease of use and avoid complexity. Apps like Apple Notes or Google Keep are well-suited to this style.

Structuring your second brain with the PARA system 

The PARA system stands for:

Projects: Specific tasks linked to a goal or deadline.

Areas: Responsibilities that need to be maintained over time.

Resources: A topic or theme of ongoing interest.

Archives: Inactive items from the other three categories.

Here are some examples of which SEO tasks suit each category.

Projects: Your most important and time-sensitive tasks.

Example: Optimize the internal linking structure for a core landing page by the end of the week.

Areas: Your ongoing optimization efforts and routine tasks.

Example: Create monthly performance reports.

Resources: Shared credentials and background information.

Example: CMS logins and target personas.

Archives: Completed tasks and documentation

Example: Title tags updated over the past 24 months.

I’ve adopted some version of the PARA framework to manage SEO campaigns for 35+ websites. 

It’s a game-changer to help me get the most impactful tasks done first and still deliver on smaller issues.

But how does this help me better manage SEO projects?

Traditionally, SEOs tend to structure our work into static categories like keyword research, technical audit, link building, and content production. However, this doesn’t mirror the dynamic nature of SEO projects.

This conventional and static way of organizing information is like categorizing your kitchen by individual ingredients rather than usage and priority (a fun analogy credited to Forte). 

Wouldn’t it be odd to organize your kitchen by carrots, potatoes, and fruits rather than stovetop items, pantry goods, and fridge contents?

Like kitchens, static file structures can lead to “cross-contamination” between outdated and fresh documents, making it challenging to locate the most relevant information quickly.

Enter the PARA framework – a dynamic solution reflecting the shifting priorities of an SEO project:

Immediate concerns reside in the Project folder.

Ongoing work belongs to the Area folder.

Thematic and research material is kept in the Resources folder.

Completed tasks and old data go into the Archives folder.

This way, PARA keeps your SEO project fluid, organized, and current.

Operating your second brain: Start with idea capturing

Let’s say you’ve built an SEO second brain of your own. How do you go about using it in the best way possible?

For me, it’s all about idea capturing. This is the act of quickly and effortlessly storing information you’ve encountered throughout the day in a temporary repository.

It’s the single most important mechanism to master in operating a second brain.

That’s because it enables me to quickly and passively store new information in a temporary space of my second brain so that I can later revisit and move it to relevant sections of the brain.

These can include:

Important algorithm or industry updates.

Interesting articles on new tactics I can apply to my own websites.

Add meeting notes and recordings throughout the day.

Insightful conversations I’ve had with my colleagues.

I’ve built an empty page in my second brain called the Idea Capturing Station, meant to do just this, keeping it immediately accessible to me at all times on both desktop and mobile.

Here’s an example of how I quickly capture an interesting article on desktop:

And here’s how I quickly capture a new idea on mobile:

A quick walkthrough of my own SEO second brain

Here’s a quick snapshot of what my SEO second brain dashboard looks like.

Each of these individual areas, like Project Timeline, is then linked to separate databases where I store and organize information hierarchically. That’s right. I’m a classic architect when it comes to information organization.

In reality, however, I rarely use this dashboard. I use the tool’s internal search function to find specific areas of my second brain I want to navigate to. 

For instance, if I’d like to find one of my project timelines, I can search for it and hop straight to it like so.

Building reusable templates

One of the most useful “powers” of this second brain is its ability to create reusable templates, giving me an almost instant set-up each time we onboard a new client at my agency.

With just a few clicks, I am able to populate a full SEO roadmap timeline, each broken into tickets with specified templates to be delegated to team members and shared with clients. Here are a few examples:

Keyword mapping

Content production

Documentation at hand

What about that time you forgot a key piece of information or statistic while meeting with stakeholders?

I have a database called the Knowledge Bank that allows me to pull up key information to reference at all times.

Let’s say I’m trying to convince some stakeholders that it can be worthwhile pursuing keywords with “zero search volume.” 

In the middle of the conversation, I vaguely recall having read an article by Steve Toff on discovering zero search volume keywords, showing strong evidence of their ROI potential.

In this case, I can quickly search for the article on my second brain and reference the article almost instantly.

How to make the most of your second brain? Exercise it! 

My second brain is far from complete and probably always will be (very much like our organic brains!). 

The key here is to exercise our SEO second brain regularly so that we get better at using it to store, retrieve and synthesize information.

Once you’re familiar, extend your second brain to other domains of life!

Our second brain goes far beyond SEO at Criclabs, the digital agency I’m running. We use it to track new hires, document company processes, run employee portals and more.

The good news is many of us already have an SEO second brain in the works, whether we know it or not. If you have a shared drive to store information or occasionally take notes on your phone, your SEO second brain is already on its way. 

What you can do now is what we SEOs know best, optimize it!

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

Add Search Engine Land to your Google News feed.    

Related stories

New on Search Engine Land

<![CDATA[ @media screen and (min-width: 800px) #div-gpt-ad-3191538-7 display: flex !important; justify-content: center !important; align-items: center !important; min-width:770px; min-height:260px; @media screen and (min-width: 1279px) #div-gpt-ad-3191538-7 display: flex !important; justify-content: center !important; align-items: center !important; min-width:800px!important; min-height:440px!important; ]]>

About the author

Toon is an organic growth expert and co-founder of Criclabs, a digital agency based in Bangkok. He's worked with global brands like Electrolux, Greenpeace, and a multitude of startups deliver organic growth to their digital products.

Read more here https://sites.google.com/view/gorilladigitalseo/home

[bubbloquacious]

Graphs as presheaves 4: coverages

So as we all know, directed multigraphs are presheaves on the small category Q = V ⇉ A, with two non-identity morphisms s,t: V -> A. In order to determine which graphs are in fact sheaves, we need to equip Q with a notion of 'covers' of its objects. I will call this structure a coverage, though note that often this specific kind of coverage is called a Grothendieck topology.

A coverage J tells each object X of our category Q which of the sieves on X are covering. The collection of covering sieves is then denoted J(X). A sieve on X is a set of arrows into X closed under precomposition. A sieve on X can be identified with a subfunctor of the hom-presheaf よ(X), so in our case this is a subgraph. A coverage J needs to satisfy three axioms for all objects X:

(S1) よ(X) itself is a covering sieve of X,

(S2) if U is a covering sieve on X and y: Y -> X is an arrow, then the pullback sieve y*U covers Y,

(S3) if U is a covering sieve on X, and W is any sieve on X such that for all u ∈ U we have that u*W is a covering sieve, then W is a covering sieve.

If a category is equipped with a coverage, we call it a site.

So for Q, a coverage assigns to our objects V and A a set of subgraphs of よ(V) and よ(A), respectively. Recall that よ(V) is the graph consisting of just one vertex and no arrows, and that よ(A) is the graph consisting of two vertices and one arrow from one to the other. By the Yoneda embedding, we can identify V and A with these graphs, and Q with the full subcategory of graphs containing the hom-presheaves. It's easy to see that V has two subgraphs and A has five, so it's not too hard to find every coverage on Q. Let's name the subgraphs in question. The subgraphs of V are V itself and the empty subgraph, which we denote by ∅. For A, let A be the whole arrow graph, let B be the subgraph containing just both vertices, let S and T be the subgraphs containing just the source or target vertex respectively, and let E be the empty subgraph (we distinguish the empty graphs as subgraphs of V and A, as they are 'embedded' in different objects).

By S1, J(V) must contain the whole graph V. This gives us two options for J(V): either it contains ∅ or it doesn't.

Note that if E ∈ J(A), then J(A) must be the set {E,S,T,B,A} of all subgraphs. To see this, check out the third coverage axiom S3; by definition, the vertex set and arrow set of E are empty, so as a set of morphisms into A it contains no elements. It follows that if W is any sieve on A, then vacuously for all u ∈ E we have that u*W is a covering sieve, so any sieve W on A is covering.

We have four arrows in Q. Pullbacks of sieves along identities give you the same sieve back, so there's two interesting cases. Because the arrows s,t: V -> A correspond via the Yoneda embedding to the inclusions of V into the subgraphs S and T of A respectively, the pullback of a subgraph W of A is the intersection of W with either S or T, depending. So if W does not contain the vertex T, then t*W = ∅. It follows that if S ∈ J(A), then by axiom S2 we have that t*S ∈ J(V), so ∅ covers V. Then by axiom S3 we can show that E covers A, so we're in the case we've already done. The same argument holds if T ∈ J(A).

If B ∈ J(A), we have two options. If V is covered by ∅, then by S3 we can show that E ∈ J(A). If J(V) = {V} on the other hand, then J(A) = {A,B} does in fact define a coverage on Q. Finally, if J(A) = {A}, then we are free to choose J(V) as we like. We conclude that there's four coverages on Q in total:

the trivial coverage, where J(V) = {V} and J(A) = {A},

the vertex coverage, where J(V) = {V} and J(A) = {A,B},

the arrow coverage, where J(V) = {∅,V} and J(A) = {A},

the maximal coverage, where J(V) = {∅,V} and J(A) = {A,B,S,T,E}.

It's clear that any category can be made into a site by equipping it with its trivial or its maximal coverage. A general fact is that any presheaf is a sheaf for the trivial coverage, and the only presheaves that are sheaves for the maximal coverage are those which are constant functors to a one point set. So for the trivial coverage, all graphs are sheafgraphs, and for the maximal coverage, only the graph with one vertex and one loop is a sheafgraph. For the arrow coverage, because V is covered by the empty subgraph, a sheafgraph must have exactly one vertex, and that is in fact sufficient to be a sheafgraph.

For the vertex coverage, a graph G is a sheafgraph whenever for each matching family of vertices indexed by B (that is, a pair of vertices of G, because the matching condition is vacuously satisfied) there exists a unique arrow with those vertices as source and target. So the sheafgraphs are what you might call the indiscrete graphs, with a unique arrow from each vertex to any other. Note that a graph is a sheafgraph for both the vertex coverage and the arrow coverage if and only if it is a sheafgraph for the maximal coverage.

By the general theory, each of these categories of sheafgraphs is a Grothendieck topos, meaning they are cocomplete, finitely complete, have subobject classifiers, etc. In this case this is not terribly interesting, as for the trivial coverage this is the category Q^hat, which we've already explored, for the vertex and arrow coverages the resulting category is equivalent to the category of sets, and for the maximal coverage the sheafgraph category is equivalent to the terminal category.

As a final bit of calculation, there's another way of viewing a coverage on Q: as a Lawvere-Tierney topology on Q^hat, meaning it's specific kind of morphism into (or, equivalently, subobject of the) subobject classifier Ω. We previously worked out what the graph Ω looks like. Can you see which subgraphs of Ω the four different coverages correspond to?

[fellharder]

Terminology quibbling

What defines a BL/GL/QL that makes it not a regular queer romance?

My short answer to that is "I don't have any fucking idea".

My long answer is that personally I go with whatever people decide something is called because it's easier to be understood when you operate within an agreed upon terminology. If the romance is the plot line and other plot aspects take the backseat, there's zero or very little Gay Angst, the themes are reasonably typical of BL since the start and how it has developed, sure, I'll call it BL/GL/QL.

From the manga A Man Who Defies the World of BL

To continue the long answer, I don't view queer romance as a subgenre of romance, but queer is a useful additional label (and an academic term) for not-straight and/or not-cis romance subgenres. Of course, genres are only commonly agreed upon labels, they're not cast in stone, and your mileage may and will vary depending on what you find relevant when categorising works. It's just, as I mentioned above, easier to do as the Romans when in fiction-discussion Rome.

Genre definitions based on themes and form make a fair bit sense to me personally, such as romance, satire and documentary, but genres as a tree structure don't make sense to me at all. A set of labels/tags for various important characteristics of the work in question do make the most sense to me - like "love story, LGBTQIA+, gay/bi/pan male lead character(s), gay/bi/pan male support character(s), South Korea, urban life, paranormal, comedy, animal-human transformation, bar setting" - I'd be interested in a queer love story, side-eye the paranormal bit but be intrigued by the transformation. This is me making a set of tags for a specific show that exists, by the way. It gets classified as a BL, not as a queer romance.

There's already a generally agreed upon characteristc of BL/GL that the most important part of the story is the love story, they're not for instance action shows with a love side plot, which makes the romance/love story label fairly mandatory. Labels indicating that the main love story isn't about heterosexuals would also be ever-present for what we call BL/GL/QL now.

The long answer also includes that romances are not limited to rom-com or lighthearted feelings, but include tragedies, tales of loss, tales of abuse, crime stories and so on and so forth. The number of fiction genres and subgenres is vast - and it makes no sense to me to make a branch on the fiction tree called queer, where pretty much all of the general fiction varieties get a second twig or leaf labelled "queer [insert usual subgenre term]" and then staple another branch to the queer branch and do the same thing all over again with "BL [insert usual subgenre term]". Or stick the BL branch somewhere else in the tree, for that matter.

Side note: a Tumblr post is probably not the best way to revolutionise how the world thinks about genres and labelling of fiction.

Another side note: I'm not dipping into how the terminology is used in Japan, but do read this great blog post by nicks-den. BL history is very interesting and it's always good to know some background. But as Erica Friedman says in the notes to "On defining yuri", "Fan language is free to shift and change with fashion and need, so that it often runs ahead of both commercial and research terminology (...)" - this fan language has shifted a fair bit in the export out of Japan, and the usage a lot of fans globally are familiar with is what I'm talking about.

However the category is defined, the outdated notion that BL/yaoi is more or less steamy gay stuff made for and by straight women shouldn't be a factor in the definition anymore, although some people do like to cling to that idea. There may however be a notable lack of queer community references, because the target audience is generally more widely defined than The Gay People, but as there are cultural differences between such communities, it may just be that as a queer moving in social circle A in region B you miss a reference that's well known in social circle C in region D.

Which means I can't really see how BL/GL differs all that much from any other queer romance, except possibly in that the plot conflicts, the obstacles to the love story, don't primarily have to do with being queer (i.e. the QL lack of Gay Angst). If there's a struggle with acceptance from the couple's surroundings, does that maybe make it a non-BL/GL?

Is SKAM season 3 a queer romance because the main character struggles with accepting his sexuality and with belonging to a community he doesn't feel is relevant, or is it a BL because it's an intense boy/boy romance with very little in the way of sexuality acceptance plot points and very much in the way of other forms of acceptance plot points?

tl;dr I don't like the BL/GL/QL terms all that much.

It's all (queer) romance, as far as I'm concerned. I also happen to be extremely tired of the main obstacle to love and happiness etc. in queer fiction being omg gay. I've practically stopped watching Western queer films because if I have to watch one more teary homophobia scene I may have to maim the director. I want some fucking escape, goddamnit, I want non-heterosexuality to not be a fucking problem all the time in our own fucking media. And this is why I have a permanent grin on my face when watching something where anything can be an obstacle except the queerness. I have actually slowly started to get rid of some of the annoyance with queerness obstacles, some soft BL approaches have been just fine with me, since I said to hell with it and dived into QL.

I don't really have any great suggestions for a better terminology than LGBTQ+ romance/queer romance (I quite like this overview of the genre, although it lacks some common Asian QL traits), but I do have some thoughts.

Perhaps what we in this age and place call BL/GL could be labelled idealised queer romance.

I mean, the usual expectance of a BL/GL is that it's pretty idealised anyway.

(Yes, I'm aware that "idealised romance" is a bit of a pleonasm. A romantic story can be pretty gritty, though. For an example of a romance narrative that's not very idyllic you have literally thousands of so-called regular queer films and books to choose from.)

Seeing as BL/GL often feature a queer semi-permeable bubble where the characters don't have to deal much with being surrounded by straights, and the obstacles to the romance often have little to do with struggles queer people face, the world in a typical QL can be viewed as a fairly rosy picture. In other queer romances, you can bet homophobia is going to rear its ugly head at some point.

Ditching the BL/GL terms would sort out some arguments about for instance I Told Sunset About You - it's romantic, it's Asian (which does tend to make a lot of non-Asian people think BL automatically), but Oh-aew's and Teh's struggles with identity and sexuality practically scream Gay Angst queer romance.

If everything is a variety of queer romance, then I Told Sunset About You is a queer romance, which could also be tagged as idealised by some, while 2gether is without doubt an idealised queer romance.

These two examples are naturally not randomly picked, 2gether is often held up as an example of extremely BL-y BL while there are arguments about which genre I Told Sunset About You belongs to.

(What's more, in Thailand the genres aren't called BL and GL, although they do use those terms as well so that the international crowd understands. It's called waai (วาย) from the letter Y for yaoi/yuri, which is basically as little helpful as BL/GL, but it neatly illustrates a shift in fan language.)

In more recent days and somewhat ambiguous, we have My Stand-In, which dips its toes into the cesspool of homophobia but resolves it BL style easily. Is it an idealised queer romance? Maybe. Do we have to argue at great length about that or can we just call it a queer romance? I think so. Would I call it an IQR (look, groovy acronym!)? I would, but I can see how it could be viewed as not sufficiently idealised.

All in all, I'd like to move on from arguments about whether something is a BL or not, based more or less on personal ideas about what a BL is (I've seen some who seem unaware that non-BL queer shows and films exist) to arguments about how idealised a show is and how central the love story is in it. The volume of arguments wouldn't be reduced in the slightest, but I think it would make more sense as the output of comics/novels/live action shows and films operate now.

Gratuitious My Stand-In gif as a separator before some parentheses finish up the post:

(I've talked a bit about terminology with some friends and I was very insistent to one about having spotted a Greek BL on Gagaoolala, and then I mulled over words and meanings for a while and I also looked in vain for that Greek BL, hence this post. I found two Greek films, but are they BL/GL or not? Gagaoolala has a BL/Yaoi category, but they don't tag films or shows as BL. Is it important how the films are labelled, when I'm able to find what I want to see? (Actually the 'Greece' tag does not work and I need to have words with Gagaoolala, but I digress.) Either way I'm planning on giving both a go. And possibly call them QR or IQR or just bloody IR as I see fit.)

(I may have to revamp this blog to try and make "idealised queer romance" happen instead of talking about BL/GL/QL.)

[newagesurvivalist]

The modern devotion: a meditation on fate

There is certainly a need for edification, but we can only find this in the pleasant repose of friendly science, that lies somewhere in the structure of our everyday undertakings. A man can dedicate his life to God or to freedom, but he will never encounter the endless in which he has placed his trust, because he is somehow stupified (he chooses at times, and cannot unchoose his superintendence). Of course, modern thinkers shall overthink the meanings of his choices. Wisdom, or something like it, shall infest the ruminations of the wise, even as they try to stick to the rules of their good Lord. In the end, our notions of wisdom are as irrelevant to simplicity as the practical wisdom we use to be aware of the changes in the world, or even when we read the newspaper: and in this wise, we will stick to categories. Death will take us to the depths at some point, and then we will be remorseful, but we can find some kind of unfetteredness in the contemplative life. In the last analysis, our shelteredness will suppress us in some sense; or, failing that, it will support us in our decrepitude.

The thing we see in government is that the entire world is somehow just a result of the ordinary things that we try to see. We must continue to study and improve our stead, but there is a lot of vagueness in this regard, so we stick to certain rules that we can follow, that we can live by, in a sense to avoid hypocrisy, but also to leave some room for wonder. This is a clear substantivity, that moves liberally in some inordinate relation, but the phantoms of liberality will always support us in the final structure that our desire still upholds, and some clever man will always send us debauchingly into the abyss, which has no more to do with our ordinariness than any sheer resolution; therefore, we are still stuck in the repetition of sheer inordinality, but we cannot respect the machinery.

A holy man will therefore be required. Certainly, the power of this singular monolithic force shall steer us in some maniacal direction, but the wise men of the old time will always keep us in a bad way, edifying us, but never holding us at the point of reclaiming the dead waters of hope and glory, because we are sincerely the moribund glorifiers of the holy order; still hiding in the entirety of existence, an individual will not see the control-center of these variable things, because he is not a simple man, but he will, at the same time, keep his tension ready to support the new world. A good politic against the feebleness of genesis.

This brings us to that fatal flaw of academic thinking: it cannot escape from engineering philosophies into social doctrines. Verily, wise men engage in speculation from the ground up, and they do not seek to continue down a particular senseless path only to cover ground that flies below one's feet anyway. Truly, he just wishes to send missionaries unto the road and restructure time in a way that shall allow us in some bicentennial way to refurbish meaningful communication to suit particular ends, and that will send men roaringly into riotous assemblies that have nothing to do with high-tech industry, but frankly, only with arcane-minded priests and hoary old generals. The true sage must in this wise always control his mightier frontline to set up a siege against the ignorant who cannot subject themselves to the higher Lord, who is still hard to make out in the darknesses of spiritual crisis, and this is verily a maintenance that will never be returned to the control center of computer science, which is just a result of endless work: nobody will ever see things for what they are, because we are just kleptomaniacs who have no better use for knowledge than the ordinary children of the Lord who build castles in the air and keep the essence of life obscured from the villainy of proper cheerfulness, and this result of endless labour is still the meaning of life (in the last analysis). Be that as it may, there is still some kind of mystical or mythical ordination happening in the value of the Lords work, where we still see contrivances happening in the build of visceral virtuality; here, the motions of the stars are reconvened in some higher reality, whereby distinctions between collateral choices are subsumed under the rubric of pestering revolution, makings us forget the ordinary work of the best men who still want the best for the world, and sending us, headlong, into the effigies of maniacal creativity, where there are no more controllings in the totality of space and time; and people will certainly see the moribund autarky happen in the categorical ways of the old style of thinking; people only had the European framework at the time, a framework contructed around the promise of God and the power of the mind, where will only find complacency and analysis, or simple breakdowns and formulas, and this is not brilliance, even though there might be an analytic truth.

The true problem really is scholarly science. People encounter complete crafts in the professionalism of normal work, but they cannot reveal the misery of the commonplace actuaries who build the structure of actual time. A kind of vendetta exists in the search for appropriate action, and people will always discover there might be some release in the violence of relentless creation; this is still a sign of the normal times, that will suppress us and derail us in the last analysis, but will never send us forward into magnificence and will not regain superiority in the entirety of the universe: why, everybody simple ruffles the feathers of the old fathers, who make sense of the revolutionary world, but holy kings will not break the mold of vampires who construct the meritocracy of the greatest kind of heroism that will suppress us in the final way forward: and everybody simply wishes to go on and forward in the misery of ordinariness, that will somehow complain to the God of war that there will be some kind of recluse from happiness: and this is truly what we see all the time. That there is no escape from structure.

So we see that villainy is just a sign of holy writ, that combines us, in some dark way, to election and this will never support us in the confines of liberality, and the kings will not do anything to save us. The poor men of the old world who do what they can to live forget about the happy world, and this is all nothingness: nobody cares about it, and it is silly. But a wise man may come to teach us the truth about ordinariness; why, he will derail the ordinary from the set ways of yore, and move us upwards. The king of the Jews will collect us in the final days of the master. And some deep thinker will perhaps make us see the light of the mind to see in the dark. Nevertheless, supportive entities of vision cannot sustain us; we struggle and suppress, and this has no connection to the virile contours of idiocy, but we may enjoy some part of it. Ultimately, there will be repose, but it will be situated in a terrific predicament; and that will certainly cut us down.