#schemata

[olamientez]

my first tumblr post 🤠

[lajauladelrino]

[arc-hus]

HANARE, Izumi-shi, Japan - Schemata Architects

[eyes-0f-etro]

Please put Final Fantasy 13 characters in Kingdom Hearts I am begging you

Sora needs to talk to Vanille and Fang and realize they mirror him and Riku. but what do I know

[ofmonstersandpen]

somebody compliments me or tells me they like me or that i have a positive effect in their life and suddenly every word in my vocabulary no longer exists. like. what do I say??? how do i respond??? ‘thank you’ does not NEARLY encapsulate all the emotions I am feeling and how I would very much like to make you feel as loved as possible

[dlyarchitecture]

[transmutationisms]

"does a story need to mean something" i think i know what people are trying to get at here but it is also worth reiterating that 1) stories or narratives always convey meaning, question of 'need' irrelevant 2) that meaning is not necessarily or solely determined by authorial intent and it's not a property that the story in itself possesses transcendentally but comes about also as the result of an interpretive act occurring within a given set of social relations and circumstances. the iliad probably did not mean to homer exactly what it does to me. a generative language model can't imbue its output with its own 'intent' and yet if i read that output and interpret it, i'm engaging with it in a way that creates meaning, structured by the particular narratological frameworks or schemata i've learned. a story might 'mean' something internally, and 'mean' something quite different when that internal meaning is contextualised in its social and historical circumstances. etc.

[cursed-40k-thoughts]

Why, in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only loincloths? Did the Mechanicus never find the STC for boxers, briefs, or panties?

STC-A4#77, also known as the schemata textile parvum or, informally, the blessed panties, are a style of undergarment whose shape and thread alignment is considered so divine that only those who formally sit within the Emperor's light are permitted to wear them. Furthermore, the quality of such an undergarment is determined by the supportive strength of its materials, with smaller, lacier designs being seen as more blessed, their ability to hold shape and anatomy symbolic of the Emperor's unbreakable spirit.

As such, while panties do indeed exist, they are almost exclusively worn by high-ranking Sororitas, and astartes Chaplains, the latter of which tend to favour more compact, thong-like pieces so as to set an example to their brothers via the demonstration of unyielding faith in the Emperor's might.

[olamientez]

outfit check

[lajauladelrino]

[arc-hus]

63.02° House, Tokyo - Schemata Architects

[annabelle--cane]

call my girl free will the way she is difficult to locate in medieval schemata of the soul due to her contentious nature among scholars and her untranslatability between ecclesiastical latin and middle english

[txttletale]

can you elaborate on the reasons ? what criticisms do you disagree with?

criticisms i disagree with:

"they character assassinated jane" amiguita there was no character to assisnate.

"they character assassinated dirk" dirk is at his most interesting and likeable ever and is just about the only redeeming thing about these

"they were just written to spite the fans" if true tht would have been Epic, and Based. but they very obviously werent

"its too violent and sexual for cheap shock humour" did you. read homestuck, the web comic? what were you Expecting... also like it or not the sexual content isnt just random or gratuitous it is obviously trying to be a conclusion to the whoel coming-of-age theme of homestuck as a work.

"so-and-so is out of character" homestuck characters are malleable little dolls that can be rearranged to suit the narrative at a whim. this is true about all fictional characters ofc but it is like explicitly textually metaphysically true in homestuck

my criticisms:

the heavy-handed political messaging is fucking tedious and awful and so profoundly of its time in a bad way. its clearly a reaction to trump but it doesnt have anything interesting to say about him or fascism or racism or anything, really, except, um. Cheeto in the white house?. the whole Evil Jane plot is too stupid and contrived for the sake of the satire to take seriously but also its awful satire written by liberals who think fascism as invented in 2016 by the orange man

god can we fucking talk about how fucking embarassing the obama shit is. jesus fucking christ. for a start it's a callback to a running jhoke in homestuck that is straight up just super racist. and they decide to pivot from the joke being 'its funny that theres a black president', which is good, but they pivot it to 'obama seems so heroic and magical now that we're stuck with the Orange Man', which, admittedly, is better than Being Racist, but also sucks shit. he killed people amiguitas.

'post-canon' is cheap bullshit. like, the work makes a big deal about tryng to talk about What Canon Is, without ever acknowledging the concept of, like, IP law. claiming to just be a non-canon continuation like any other when it's made by people with the Official Exclusive Legal Rights just feels hollow and detooths any liberatory/deconstructive potential there. unironically my opinion of it would go up like tenfold if it had been actually published in AO3 instead of just joking about it.

in general i think that all of the attempt to deconstruct fiction or storytelling is rooted in a really weird and flawed model of storytelling. a lot of it seems to be taking an extremely long route to writing something bad on purpose and then saying 'see, if you wrote something like this, it would be bad'. Okay. i like deconstructive collapsing narrative shit in e.g. if on a winter's night a traveller because i think calvino has trenchant and interesting insights about literature and storytelling. i do think hussie also has those but they essentially dropped and explored all of them in homestuck and the epilogues just seem like an attempt to connect ohomstuck's disparate and contradictory approaches to Narrative into one overarching schemata and then crtiique that schemata, which i think is a doomed project that results in little of interest to me.

[thisispaper]

Hotel do-c Ebisu by Schemata Architects https://thisispaper.com/mag/hotel-do-c-ebisu-by-schemata-architects

[pluralthey]

If Jessie snaps someone to do something they don't want to do enough times, does it eventually lead to a cumulative personality shift? It seems like the more you want to resist following her commands, the more destructive they'd be, because more of you would have to be changed by the snap for you to be willing to follow them? If she snaps someone to do something that would require such a big personality/ideology shift for that person to rationalize as their own decision that the person would be unrecognizable after the snap, do they now count as being written by her? Or do most snaps, even ones making big changes to a person, only really affect how they view the specific subject of her snap and not really affect the rest of the person's psychology, worldview, personality, opinions, even if that ends up making that person's inner world and thought processes a lot more contradictory?

Generally people will know when Jessie has snapped them to do something because she is not so passive and would want to assert dominance openly. If she did, for some reason, then they could either write the behavior off as circumstantial or deny it even happened before changing significantly. These are defense mechanisms average people use every day. People at large may even rapidly develop the "a wizard did it" response knowing Jessie CAN and does randomly change people/force them to do things and blame her for anything they don't want to suffer consequences for like how one one may blame actions or feelings on demon possession. They would probably just become more contradictory.

Jessie would (and does) most successfully change other characters' psychological landscape by changing how they feel or think more than what they do, since actions are caused by inner motivators. Just directly changing their psychology.

That said, yes, she could change a character by making them do something like murder someone every Friday night. They would probably naturally become more paranoid because they know they will eventually be caught and there's nothing they can do, etc. But their fundamental ideology is unlikely to change without direct meddling. The schemata people develop in their minds are reinforced from multiple angles and it's why you can in real time see people pulling out excuse after excuse in an argument — even if you can disprove one point of rationale, there are others already ready to pick up the slack. Generally studies have shown people have the emotional reaction behind a belief first, and then they will use logic to rationalize that emotional belief afterwards. It is very difficult to change people ideologically entirely because even if you peeled away every justification, at their cores, the beliefs are still irrational emotional reactions. Hence why changing an emotional reaction will be more reliable in causing personality changes in a character.

For the most part, the characters aren't changed enough to count as "written by Jessie." She really is only forced to write them if the character's inner framework has literally no way to output a comprehensible response. Like no way for the character's original personality to even respond to it — more easily accomplished by replacing a large part of their personality instead. Then the original personality can't react because it doesn't exist anymore. Anything bizarre, traumatic, extreme enough to cause a person to just entirely shut down psychologically would force Jessie to write them to be able to interact with them further.

But yeah. Most snaps forcing people to do something or changing any part of their psychological landscape are done in plain sight, reactively, and there is no necessary rationale besides "Jessie forced me to do that," desire to Not Do That aside.