#synthesizing theory and practice

[cryptotheism]

The "potion-crafter" archetype of alchemist used in fantasy is often, like, an independent chemist that works off commission or sales to create fireball elixirs or exorcism salves. Is there a grain of truth, there? Did alchemists in any period you studied make a living by synthesizing magical items (like panaceas or DIY-chrysopoeia-kits or somesuch) and selling them on to any willing customer, or was that not really in their domain?

Ha! You know sometimes it can be a bit annoying answering asks like this, because most fantasy media isn t terribly interested in authentically representing history, BUT THIS TIME I can give y'all a specific and direct answer!

The archetype of the potion-crafter you're talking about almost definitely has its roots in an actual pre-paracelcian european medical profession; the Apothecary.

There were three types of doctors in the 1500s. There were diagnosticians, the people who went to school to learn about anatomy, and were allowed to call themselves "doctor." There were surgeons, the low-skilled workers who were in charge of hacking off limbs and draining bedpans. And there were apothecaries, basically the medieval equivalent of a pharmacist.

If you were a wealthy merchant, and you went to a doctor for your runny nose, he would look you over, and give you a prescription that you were supposed to take down to your local apothecary, so you could buy a potion from them.

But these prescriptions weren't exactly strict. A doctor might prescribe you an exact list of ingredients with the amounts, or he might just prescribe you "a healing ungent of cooling and drying herbs." So the apothecaries occasionally had some wiggle room based on supplies and expertise.

The important thing to remember, is that apothecaries were NOT considered magicians or alchemists.

That is, until Paracelsus came along.

See, good ol' Paracelsus was a radical innovator. He was one of the first physicians in history to be all three types of doctor at once. He was a diagnostician, a surgeon, and an apothecary. He argued that all doctors should have knowledge of their entire profession, and that no doctor was above suturing their patients wounds, and mixing their patients medicines.

He was also, crucially, an alchemist and a magician.

Alchemy was the cutting edge of technology for the time, a practice regarded with equal parts awe and suspicion, but it was more the realm of glassblowers and metallurgists than doctors or botanists. Paracelsus disagreed. He argued that if it's part of God's creation, it should be used to heal the human body.

This extended to magic. Paracelsus figured that you had to factor in things like "the movement of the planets and their influence on the earth." And he was known for prescribing patients things like "astral talismans to be worn about the neck." A practice that, even for his time, was often seen as backwards and superstitious. (Although given how harmful medieval medicine was, the astral talismans might have been your best option sometimes.)

Paracelsus was a radical. People fucking hated him, especially when he was alive. But his ideas were extremely influential, and exploded in popularity after his death in 1541. I can confidently say that the fantasy archetype of the Potion Brewer is based on Paracelcian physicians, the doctor/alchemist/apothecary/magicians who followed his theories.

Here I'll link my Patreon if y'all wanna support my research! I have a whole section on Paracelsus.

[mesetacadre]

Reality itself forces you to think dialectically. The contradictions and the change that motivates dialectics are not invented by very smart dialectical thinkers, they're simultaneously the motor and its fuel of the evolution of reality, of the context. There always comes a point, sooner or later, when the sharpening of x contradiction balloons to the point its size is unignorable, and when you aim to analyze and extract a course of action from it, regardless of your awareness of dialectics the philosophical framework, dialectics the functioning of reality conditions and guides that reasoning. Considering something as simple as a problem that surges when you do x action and a possible solution, is engaging with the contradictions of practice and the theory that informed it.

The advantage, therefore, that a explicit dialectical method provides an organization, is the ability to anticipate its analyses to the point when a contradiction is unignorable. Dialectics is always evolving, even outside those moments where it all comes to a point that forces your hand, it's simply more inconspicuous. An organization that is able to interface with those inconspicuous contradictions and continuously extract synthesis (plural) will very naturally anticipate issues before they fully metastasize, and going even further, will be able to apply the synthesis drawn from one context to the contradictions in another. Dialectics don't have a premonitionary quality, I'm not saying that. But a dialectical method applied to one's own practice and theory (therefore synthesizing a praxis) will be able to identify root problems and key advantages by pulling the causal thread of the seemingly mundane apparition of smaller issues and their smaller solutions without needing to wait for those failures and triumphs to emerge in full apparent view.

[mbti-notes]

I see you learned many subjects of interest at school, & that was impressive. Was It hard to incorporate interdisciplinary learning in life, like learning is great in itself but It takes a lot to piece together so many different pieces of theories in life. Do you mind sharing how you can make peace with all those information? thank you.

If I'm a good interdisciplinary learner today, there is lots of credit to go around. The school I went to encouraged interdisciplinary study and I was lucky to have met several interdisciplinary professors who had a deep influence on me. Also, when you majored in a so-called "impractical" subject, you were generally encouraged to pair it with something more practical. For instance, psychology students were often encouraged to double major with education or business, which fostered an interdisciplinary mindset. Unfortunately, I doubled down on the impractical by pairing with philosophy lol.

Many people don't know the history of the university. The first universities in early Western civilization only had one subject: philosophy. This meant philosophy had to cover everything, so it is interdisciplinary at heart. It wasn't until much later during the scientific revolution that natural sciences separated out from philosophy. And it wasn't until about a century ago that the social sciences separated out from the natural sciences.

Most philosophy courses in university are labeled "philosophy of _____". The blank includes a wide range of possible subjects, such as: aesthetics; bioethics; business ethics; culture; death; economics; education; environmental ethics; existentialism; gender; history; knowledge; language; law; literature; logic; love; mathematics; medicine; meta-ethics; metaphysics; mind; money; morality; politics; psychology; religion; rhetoric; science; sex; technology; values; etc.

A person who is drawn to major in philosophy is likely to already have an interdisciplinary attitude. As you can see, a well-educated philosophy major is basically able to understand the theoretical underpinnings of any subject, which gives them a big leg up in studying anything. People like to joke about philosophy majors having few practical skills (it is true in my case), but they consistently get the highest scores on tests of intellectual ability compared to every other major.

Fortunately, I am blessed with natural talent for learning theory as well as a personal passion for it, so I don't find it particularly difficult. As for how to "make peace" with all the information, it's hard to explain. Suffice it to say that the ability to learn progresses in predictable stages, from lower order to higher order thinking skills. A philosophy textbook that I can now absorb in a week might've taken me a month to process in the first year of university. You have to take a lot of time to build up a solid foundation of knowledge through lower order learning before you can reach the higher order stage of being able to synthesize information, see: Bloom's Taxonomy.

[lapquang]

MBTI | ENTP

ENTPs are primarily guided by Extroverted Intuition (Ne), which gives them an insatiable curiosity and constant drive to explore new possibilities. This function makes them divergent thinkers, good at recognizing patterns, synthesizing ideas, and pursuing creative connections between seemingly unrelated concepts. Their quick thinking allows them to navigate complex situations with ease, always seeking new perspectives and discovering hidden opportunities. This emphasis on possibility over certainty makes ENTPs naturally creative. They thrive when engaging in conceptual exploration, coming up with creative solutions to problems, or re-imagining the future in creative ways. The dynamism of this thinking helps them stay in a state of intellectual stimulation, constantly creating new ideas and solutions. The drawback of Ne's dominance is its propensity to overlook concepts' applicability. ENTPs often get so engrossed in the possibilities that they forget to take the necessary steps to bring their ideas to life. Here's where a suppressed Introverted Sensing (Si) function might act as a blind spot, leading them to rush into decisions or give up on a project in the middle of monotonous, intricate work out of boredom. Although ENTPs are driven by their exploratory nature, their Introverted Thinking (Ti) serves as a logical framework for analyzing what they find. Through this function, they are able to assess the ideas they generate critically and determine whether they are based on logic or are merely fantastical. Ti helps ENTPs in difficult situations apply rigorous reasoning by breaking down systems and arguments to reveal underlying truths. Their disinterest in knowledge, however, can occasionally cause them to think nihilistically and begin to doubt the very basis of reality and knowledge. This never-ending probing, though helpful in the process of discovery, can make them question the veracity of their conclusions, leaving them feeling unsure or disoriented in their search for the only true answer. Even with their aptitude for logic, ENTPs do not lead socially secluded lives. Their ability to negotiate social connections with charm and adaptability stems from their tertiary Extraverted Feeling (Fe) function. People are often drawn to ENTPs because of their charm and wit, as well as their intellectual curiosity and sense of humor. They are skilled communicators and connectors because they can read social dynamics and modify their communication style accordingly. However, their charm can sometimes be considered superficial, as they may have difficulty engaging in deeper emotional relationships. Their focus on ideas and pursuit of theory can make it difficult for them to connect with others on an emotional level, especially when they care more about the intellectual value of the conversation than its emotional tone. Additionally, the ENTP's weak Introverted Sensing (Si) function can lead to a lack of interest in routines and specifics. They may become bored with repetitive tasks or long-term projects that require sustained focus on small, meticulous elements. This frequently results in a disjointed approach since they hop from concept to concept without really finishing any of them. The difficulty for ENTPs is not only coming up with ideas but carrying them out consistently, which calls on them to use their Si function to balance the practical aspects of their undertakings.

[erbiumspectrum]

Hello! What are you writing your thesis about? I saw you mention it in one of your posts and now I'm curious 🙃

Hi! Omg thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this ahaha

Broadly speaking: coordination chemistry of inorganic f-block compounds.

More detailed version: I synthesized 6 different coordination compounds of the two lanthanides chosen by my thesis supervisor (those are the crystals I talk about in here all the time). Now I'm in the process of confirming their structure via electron spectroscopy (am "in the process" bc I can only be in my thesis lab once a week, so it's taking like forever. Also, I'm a spectro newbie to say the least lol so for now I'm just running the spectrometer. Learning to analyze the spectra is still ahead of me). The next step will be to determine the hydration - dehydration equilibria in the solutions of my compounds and to analyze their ionic strength.

In practice that means I have to learn what seems like a ton of new things - which can be overwhelming, but at the same time it means I get to learn so much more than the standard program. I mean, electron spectroscopy is an elective (and not even for all the degrees at my faculty), quantum chem is mandatory but the way it's taught I learnt almost nothing, there's no class on group theory/ symmetry in chemistry, crystallochemistry is also only an elective - but these are some of the things I need to understand thoroughly what I'm doing and to do it well.

In simple words: I made crystals. Now I'm shining light on said crystals. Later I'm going to find out how much water there is attached. In the meantime I'm hoping not to break any expensive equipment 👍

[beardedmrbean]

GRAFTON, Mass. (AP) — When two octogenarian buddies named Nick discovered that ChatGPT might be stealing and repurposing a lifetime of their work, they tapped a son-in-law to sue the companies behind the artificial intelligence chatbot.

Veteran journalists Nicholas Gage, 84, and Nicholas Basbanes, 81, who live near each other in the same Massachusetts town, each devoted decades to reporting, writing and book authorship.

Gage poured his tragic family story and search for the truth about his mother's death into a bestselling memoir that led John Malkovich to play him in the 1985 film “Eleni.” Basbanes transitioned his skills as a daily newspaper reporter into writing widely-read books about literary culture.

Basbanes was the first of the duo to try fiddling with AI chatbots, finding them impressive but prone to falsehoods and lack of attribution. The friends commiserated and filed their lawsuit earlier this year, seeking to represent a class of writers whose copyrighted work they allege “has been systematically pilfered by” OpenAI and its business partner Microsoft.

“It's highway robbery,” Gage said in an interview in his office next to the 18th-century farmhouse where he lives in central Massachusetts.

“It is,” added Basbanes, as the two men perused Gage's book-filled shelves. “We worked too hard on these tomes.”

Now their lawsuit is subsumed into a broader case seeking class-action status led by household names like John Grisham, Jodi Picoult and “Game of Thrones” novelist George R. R. Martin; and proceeding under the same New York federal judge who’s hearing similar copyright claims from media outlets such as The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Mother Jones.

What links all the cases is the claim that OpenAI — with help from Microsoft's money and computing power — ingested huge troves of human writings to “train” AI chatbots to produce human-like passages of text, without getting permission or compensating the people who wrote the original works.

“If they can get it for nothing, why pay for it?” Gage said. “But it’s grossly unfair and very harmful to the written word.”

OpenAI and Microsoft didn’t return requests for comment this week but have been fighting the allegations in court and in public. So have other AI companies confronting legal challenges not just from writers but visual artists, music labels and other creators who allege that generative AI profits have been built on misappropriation.

The chief executive of Microsoft’s AI division, Mustafa Suleyman, defended AI industry practices at last month’s Aspen Ideas Festival, voicing the theory that training AI systems on content that’s already on the open internet is protected by the “fair use” doctrine of U.S. copyright laws.

“The social contract of that content since the ’90s has been that it is fair use,” Suleyman said. “Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it. That has been freeware, if you like.”

Suleyman said it was more of a “gray area” in situations where some news organizations and others explicitly said they didn’t want tech companies “scraping” content off their websites. “I think that’s going to work its way through the courts,” he said.

The cases are still in the discovery stage and scheduled to drag into 2025. In the meantime, some who believe their professions are threatened by AI business practices have tried to secure private deals to get technology companies to pay a fee to license their archives. Others are fighting back.

“Somebody had to go out and interview real people in the real world and conduct real research by poring over documents and then synthesizing those documents and coming up with a way to render them in clear and simple prose,” said Frank Pine, executive editor of MediaNews Group, publisher of dozens of newspapers including the Denver Post, Orange County Register and St. Paul Pioneer Press. Several of the chain’s newspapers sued OpenAI in April.

“All of that is real work, and it’s work that AI cannot do," Pine said. "An AI app is never going to leave the office and go downtown where there’s a fire and cover that fire.”

Deemed too similar to lawsuits filed late last year, the Massachusetts duo's January complaint has been folded into a consolidated case brought by other nonfiction writers as well as fiction writers represented by the Authors Guild. That means Gage and Basbanes won't likely be witnesses in any upcoming trial in Manhattan's federal court. But in the twilight of their careers, they thought it important to take a stand for the future of their craft.

Gage fled Greece as a 9-year-old, haunted by his mother's 1948 killing by firing squad during the country's civil war. He joined his father in Worcester, Massachusetts, not far from where he lives today. And with a teacher's nudge, he pursued writing and built a reputation as a determined investigative reporter digging into organized crime and political corruption for The New York Times and other newspapers.

Basbanes, as a Greek American journalist, had heard of and admired the elder “hotshot reporter” when he got a surprise telephone call at his desk at Worcester's Evening Gazette in the early 1970s. The voice asked for Mr. Basbanes, using the Greek way of pronouncing the name.

“You were like a talent scout,” Basbanes said. “We established a friendship. I mean, I’ve known him longer than I know my wife, and we’ve been married 49 years.”

Basbanes hasn’t mined his own story like Gage has, but he says it can sometimes take days to craft a great paragraph and confirm all of the facts in it. It took him years of research and travel to archives and auction houses to write his 1995 book “A Gentle Madness” about the art of book collection from ancient Egypt through modern times.

“I love that ‘A Gentle Madness’ is in 1,400 libraries or so,” Basbanes said. “This is what a writer strives for -- to be read. But you also write to earn, to put food on the table, to support your family, to make a living. And as long as that’s your intellectual property, you deserve to be compensated fairly for your efforts.”

Gage took a great professional risk when he quit his job at the Times and went into $160,000 debt to find out who was responsible for his mother's death.

“I tracked down everyone who was in the village when my mother was killed," he said. “And they had been scattered all over Eastern Europe. So it cost a lot of money and a lot of time. I had no assurance that I would get that money back. But when you commit yourself to something as important as my mother’s story was, the risks are tremendous, the effort is tremendous.”

In other words, ChatGPT couldn't do that. But what worries Gage is that ChatGPT could make it harder for others to do that.

“Publications are going to die. Newspapers are going to die. Young people with talent are not going to go into writing,” Gage said. “I'm 84 years old. I don’t know if this is going to be settled while I’m still around. But it’s important that a solution be found.”

[bimboficationblues]

I do have a general question about the liberalism-security thesis - the thing is, the actual mechanisms that seem to characterize liberalism for you (money, markets, positive law and related enforcement mechanisms, and specific mechanisms to reform said law) are also mechanisms you find in historical antecedents to modern states, the prime example being Rome during both the Republic and Empire periods (and China from the Qin dynasty forward, to some extent) that I think would be a stretch to characterize as "liberal," although certainly a lot of liberals took inspiration from idealized versions of them. And, of course, due to their flexible foundations these concepts have been successfully implemented by classically "illiberal" states of varying types.

So my question is - to what degree does it make sense to characterize these features as liberalism-in-practice, as opposed to just features of bureaucratic states in general? I know to some extent liberal thought dominates the ideological basis for what a modern state is supposed to be, but since (as you put it) these systems are basically agnostic in most cases towards different concepts of the social good, and they in several cases pre-date the development of what I'd consider capitalism per se, I'm not sure how much we can actually pin the blame on Locke, Mill and successors, as tempting as that is.

More to the point (and this is my own 'having a plan' bias showing), I'm skeptical as to whether this framing points toward said bureaucratic structures not being adaptable to a classless social order. If anything, to me this framing seems to point to modern state systems being much more ideologically and practically amenable to a classless society than my (and from what I can tell, your) gut instinct and experience would suggest.

Whether communism is actually doable and worth-it is of course a big question beyond the scope of what you're writing. But it seems like you are trying to say that the tendency of law to enforce predictable outcomes, or attempt to do so, is inevitably and inescapably tied to class society, and I think the hows and whys of that are not super clear to me, or at least not obvious inferences from what you've said so far.

Also, as you said, it's not totally unreasonable to want "security," or at least a relatively consistent social framework for some types of social problems - so to me, that leaves the onus on you to show why supporting this organizational ethic is either impossible or undesirable, which does seem like a tall order.

okay so one at a time

These things predate liberalism so what's up with that?: super helpful question - I think that there is a qualitative difference in kind between these things as they manifested in pre-capitalist societies and in capitalist society (particularly the combinations thereof). as to what that qualitative difference is I could just gesture at the early chapters of Capital and go "something like that" but I think that's part of the investigation to be undertaken to avoid resting on Marx's laurels and agreeing to his limits. and yes, to be clear, I do not think that Locke & co. are necessarily the dispositive force here - I think the history of political thought (HPT) is useful as a framing, as reflective of a time, but obviously being able to point to writers doesn't reveal anything about how people behave. what it does illustrate is how these kinds of considerations were at the forefronts of people's minds during these historical developments.

Is this something unique to liberalism or just a feature of bureaucratic statecraft?: this is one thing I was chewing on as I was writing that response - it's possible that "liberalism" is too load-bearing in my argument, or alternatively that I may be trying to synthesize too many separate arguments (i.e. my reading of liberalism in the HPT as a post-aristocratic and legalistic mode of thought, plus an in-progress theory regarding the modern state as embodiment of "security" in capitalism). it might be worth trying to strain out the different threads (and I think there's probably more than just those two) to see if/where they actually link. the risks of trying to answer a Tumblr ask and suddenly you're outlining a book project.

Wouldn't your analysis suggest that bureaucratic states could transition to a non-class society?: I'm not totally following the connection you're drawing, if you could clarify I'd appreciate it!

What are the mechanisms that link contemporary law to class society?: Right - this is I think going to be the major point of investigation and analysis so difficult to sum up here, rather than to take this question as a guiding one. But Foucault has an interesting discussion of what I'm gesturing at in D&P in the context of France; I want to tease that out more, or in a different/intersecting direction:

Furthermore, although a large part of the bourgeoisie had accepted, without too much trouble, the illegality of rights, it found it difficult to support illegality when it was a question of its own property rights. Nothing could be more typical of this than the problem of peasant delinquency at the end of the eighteenth century and especially after the Revolution. The transition to an intensive agriculture exercised, over the rights to use common lands, over various tolerated practices, over small accepted illegalities, a more and more restrictive pressure. Furthermore, as it was acquired in part by the bourgeoisie, now free of the feudal burdens that once weighed upon it, landed property became absolute property: all the tolerated 'rights' that the peasantry had acquired or preserved (the abandonment of old obligations or the consolidation of irregular practices: the right of free pasture, wood-collecting, etc.) were now rejected by the new owners who regarded them quite simply as theft (thus leading, among the people, to a series of chain reactions of an increasingly illegal, or, if one prefers the term, criminal kind: breaches of close, the theft or killing of cattle, fires, assaults, murders. The illegality of rights, which often meant the survival of the most deprived, tended, with the new status of property, to become an illegality of property. It then had to be punished.

5. What's wrong with security, anyway?: Well, I think the normative issue that I'm hinting at is the inescapability of poverty and deprivation under this kind of society, and thus (common theme of us critical Marx-influenced types), this fixation on the creation and maintenance of security becomes its opposite: the constant generation of insecurity. not to necessarily say we need a "true" security but that, if indeed this is a value we might hold (and on some level it is), this mode of thought and organization does not achieve it. and the "security" in question pursued by the modern state is not just like, general security - obviously there are lots and lots of people who do not live in a sate of "security" even under these conditions - but rather securing the rule of capital and the sanctity of private property, ideologically manifesting as the perpetuation of "civilization."

I hope I accurately and fairly represented your questions.

[marxandmore]

Can you explain like I'm five years old exactly what Marxism is and how it works? What would a Marxist world look like for you?

I know Karl Marx was a guy like 200 years ago and he had certain ideas about how the world should run.

I just can't understand the original sources and like i tend to think in more practical every day person terms and less...society planning. If that makes sense.

I'm anarchist myself, but like at the end of the day we all want human rights I think so idc. Your thing is just as valid as mine. :)

What Is Marxism?

Marxism is a deep philosophy with a rich intellectual history, which, without even taking into consideration the philosophy that came before it, has developed over the course of more than 180 years. 

It was first outlined by Marx and Engels over the course of more than four decades, and by Marx’s own admission should be called Marxism-Engelism (Bertsch et al 1976, 15). After the death of Marx, and later Engels, it was then developed by novelists, theoreticians, philosophers, economists, and many others up to the present point. Prominent examples are Lenin, Mao Zedong, Angela Davis, Herbert Marcuse, and Franz Fanon. The relevance of Marx’s philosophy has never been greater. The economic system that Marx and Engels originally set out to critique still exists. More than that, it has spread to almost every corner of the globe and has developed significantly, and thanks to advances in education, the possibility of comprehending the system that shapes our daily lives, from work, to friendships, to familial relations, to culture and religion, and even politics, has become ever greater. Yet many people do not understand the work of Marx and others like him. This is due to a variety of factors. Technical and outdated language, lengthy texts, complicated economic formulas, lack of time to study or read, these are all commonly heard reasons and complaints as to why people presently do not comprehend Marx’s work and thus fail to grasp its significance. Although the best way to learn Marxist philosophy is to read and critically engage with the original texts, this series of essays aims to promote Marxist philosophy, past and present, and help newcomers understand its basic premises and claims. This first essay in the series aims to outline the basic components that are necessary to comprehend all later works. Later essays will focus on each individual component and provide a more complete overview. The two basic components that Marxism bases itself on are philosophy and political economy. More specifically, Marxism synthesizes the philosophical theories of dialectics and materialism, and most completely analyzes economic processes in capitalist society, and based on its discoveries, promotes a new economic form and a new society. These components will be further outlined and explored in a little more detail in the upcoming paragraphs. The first essential philosophical concept that Marxism builds upon is the dialectic. Dialectics are essentially a way of viewing all sorts of processes. A form of reasoning already practiced by the ancient Greeks (Engels 1880). Dialectical thinking has two primary aspects. First of all, a dialectical way of thinking acknowledges that everything constantly moves and changes, that everything is interconnected, that things do not exist in a vacuum (Engels 1880). Regarding this, Engels wrote: “[...] we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected.” (Engels 1880), as opposed to “[...] observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life.” (Engels 1880), like a so-called metaphysician or idealist would do. The second main aspect is the aspect of contradiction, the idea that things and processes, both natural and within societies carry within them contradictory aspects. It is impossible to see everything as binary, for example, in the case of life and death. Death is a protracted process that does not happen instantaneously, from a physiological point of view at least (Engels 1880). We can thus speak of a time period in which a human or animal is not quite dead, yet also not quite alive, two contradictory aspects that exist momentarily together, until one process turns into the next. In the aforementioned example, that would be the process of living being completely finished, and then starting the process of decomposition. Within economics we see the principle of two economic classes that depend on each other for their existence within a particular economic system, and as soon as one of these classes abolishes the other, a new economic system is created.

The second essential philosophical concept that Marxism builds upon is materialism. Materialism too, has a lengthy philosophical history, which will be covered in later essays in this series. Materialism is the opposite of idealism. Idealism is the notion that the real world reflects ideas. An example of this would be objective morality or human rights. The idea that there is some sort of objective morality that is true regardless of time and place, or that human rights are an inherent thing that we are all born with, instead of morals and views on human rights being informed by the kind of society we live in, like we see when we analyze history, or even just contemporary societies. Materialism then, is the notion that our ideas, actions, and desires, are shaped by the physical world around us. Marxism aims to not only apply this materialist view to the natural sciences, but also to human society and its history. Regarding this, Engels wrote the following: “The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.” (Engels 1880) 

Now with the philosophical aspects out of the way, let us look at the second basic component of Marxism: economics. An economic system can be defined as “The institutions that organize the production and distribution of goods and services in an entire economy.” (The CORE Team 2017 ,22). As far as defining an economic system goes, this is an acceptable definition, but of course this is an incomplete definition if we want to look at what the economy itself is. It suggests that the economy is merely about production and distribution, and implicitly consumption. However, ultimately, as Engels has pointed out, as humans we produce and consume to support human life. The economy as a whole then, can be defined as the way in which we as humans organize production, distribution, and consumption, in order to sustain human life. Studying economics then, is about studying the ways in which we produce, distribute, and consume, and expressing this in laws, tendencies, formulas, and mathematical models.

The economic system that we currently live under is called capitalism. In order to understand what capitalism is, it is useful to compare it with what came before it: feudalism. Under feudalism, land and bureaucratic positions were held and passed down on a hereditary basis, people generally had their own tools with which they produced products. Sometimes they required the help of others, but the vast majority of the labor necessary to produce a product was put in by the individual producer, with their individual tools (Engels 1880). After they produced a product, the product was then generally theirs to do with what they pleased. Eventually feudalism collapsed as a result of its own unique set of contradictions, which then resulted in various political revolutions in the UK, France, the USA, etc, around the end of the 18th century. After these revolutions, hereditary positions and hereditary property were largely abolished in favor of all sorts of rights, as well as private property and free competition on a more or less free market. 

Capitalism is the result of a long historical process, and developed gradually out of feudalism, but it did not fully develop until these aforementioned political revolutions completely broke the old feudalistic order. Unlike under feudalism, under capitalism, production no longer happens by individual producers with their individual tools (Engels 1880). Under capitalism production is concentrated (Engels 1880). People, in general, no longer work on an individual basis or together with their close family, but instead, they work in workplaces that employ tens, hundreds, even thousands of people, all in the same place. Under capitalism, production has also been socialized (Engels 1880). Whereas before, people produced products using primarily their own labor, under capitalism, workers are only responsible for a small part in the production of the final product. Now nobody can truly say that they produced a product (Engels 1880). This process was made possible by the rise of large industry, which can produce commodities of the same quality as before, on a much larger and more efficient scale, and against far lower cost (in terms of labor), utilizing mechanical machines.We can clearly see that under capitalism, production has become concentrated instead of loosely organized, socialized instead of individual, yet there are still only few owners of the tools with which the commodities are created, henceforth called the means of production, and on the basis of this ownership over the means of production, they claim the products, and thus by extension the labor of others (the labor of many others is now necessary in the production process). This is one of the great contradictions in capitalistic production.

This new form of industrial production has made old forms of production superfluous because of its more efficient nature, and has consequently forced the owners of older, now obsolete tools, to purchase industrial equipment and continue producing in that way, or in most instances, due to a lack of money, become reliant on the sale of their labor to those who own these new means of production. In this way, capitalism has created two main economic classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The former sells their labor on an, often hourly, basis to be able to purchase the basic commodities necessary to maintain life. The latter appropriates the labor of others, by virtue of owning the means of production, and by that virtue alone, gets to keep the difference between the price at which a commodity is sold, which is determined by the laws of supply and demand, and the costs of production, including labor costs. In other words, they get to keep the profits. The interests of these two classes are completely opposite and irreconcilable. The proletariat seeks to receive the full worth of what their labor contributed to the finished commodity, while the bourgeoisie seeks to enlarge their profits as much as possible, and utilize these profits to expand their means of production, or capital (hence the name capitalist, and capitalism). This is the main contradiction, along class lines, within capitalism.

The capitalistic way of organizing production and exchange also leads to countless other contradictions that this essay will not go into. Things like the crisis of overproduction, of free competition leading to monopolies, etc.

More important is the way in which Marxism wants to solve these contradictions. Marxism wants to solve these contradictions using communism. As Engels wrote: “Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.” (Engels 1847) Now what exactly is communism? Communism is the next logical step in the development of the economy. Production has already been concentrated, made incredibly efficient, and socialized, all that remains is to also socialize the ownership over the means of production. Or as Engels wrote:

“Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.” (Engels 1847)

In doing so, the contradiction between socialized production and individual appropriation of labor will be solved, and the bourgeoisie, which relies upon the individual appropriation of labor, will be abolished, thus solving the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. In its most developed form, it will make money completely unnecessary, as we will no longer need to exchange meager wages for basic commodities, but instead communally produce and consume. It will also abolish the state, which Marxism defines as the oppression of one economic class by another, but that will be topic for a future essay in this series. 

In conclusion, Marxism aims to bring together dialectical thinking and materialist philosophy, and apply this, in a scientific way, to analyze societies past and present. Its analysis, which largely revolves around economic classes, incorporates and developed many economic theories, and has formulated and applied many economic laws and formulas. Its conclusion is simple: capitalism is contradictory and will bring about its own demise. From the contradiction in socialized production versus individual appropriation, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, to the repeated crises of overproduction, and the tendency of free competition to lead to monopoly, and thus unfree competition. These are all inherent to the capitalist economic system. History has shown us that contradictions can only exist side by side in one system for so long. Sooner or later, it will have to make place for a new economic system that completely negates the old one. Workers of the world, unite! Revolutionary regards, MarxAndMore Bibliography:

Bertsch, Gary K, and Thomas W Ganschow. Comparative Communism : The Soviet, Chinese, and Yugoslav Models. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1976.

Engels, Frederick. “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Marxists.org, 1880. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm.

Engels, Frederick. “The Principles of Communism.” marxists.org, 1847. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.

The CORE Team. “The Economy.” www.core-econ.org. Oxford University Press, 2017. https://core-econ.org/the-economy/v1/en/.

V.I. Lenin. “Lenin: The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism.” Marxists.org, 1913. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm.

[levnixattorney]

Conspiracy theory: Devo and Nine Inch Nails are the same band

My reasoning: Oh boy, synthesizers! Despite their experimental sound, both bands pushed different rather oddball genres into the mainstream. Very political and anti-establishment/religion. Really insane sexual imagery (at least in Devo's early work). Any songs involving romance are insane also. Both bands shared a drummer, Josh Freese, from 2005 to 2008. Devo did a cover of Head Like A Hole that sounded practically identical to the original outside of the weird vocals, despite Devo being known for their artistic liberties when doing covers. Debatably faggoty. Faggot synth music!

Thank you for coming to this informative talk

[sunder-the-gold]

Ranking "Theory of Mind" according to a person's ability to understand contradiction and opposition

Absolute Mind-Blind: Individuals at this stage exhibit no Theory of Mind (ToM), meaning they cannot attribute mental states, intentions, or perspectives to others; their perception remains entirely self-referential, lacking any awareness of independent thoughts beyond their own, rendering interaction with others purely reactive and devoid of understanding.

Partial Mind-Blind: At this level, a minimal ToM emerges, limited to immediate, practical needs—such as attributing basic sensory-based mental states like “they need to see it”—but individuals assume others share their context or knowledge, interpreting disagreement or misunderstanding as malice or defiance rather than a difference in perspective, which restricts their ability to model others’ minds beyond surface-level assumptions.

Argumentative Switcher: People here rapidly shift between contradictory models to achieve short-term goals, like winning arguments, using a shallow ToM to adopt others’ views tactically without depth or commitment; their flexibility serves immediate advantage rather than genuine understanding, resulting in a superficial grasp of perspectives that lacks conviction or consistency.

Doublethink Practitioner: This stage involves actively maintaining belief in at least one model, and maybe as many as two. The individual can maintain two contradictory “true” models—such as a taught ideology and personal experience—suppressing internal conflict through conviction, allowing for deep reasoning and persuasive articulation within at least one model; however, the focus remains inward, with little capacity to construct or engage with external “false” models, limiting broader perspective-taking.

Strategic Pretender: At this level, individuals demonstrate a high ToM that allows them to accurately model the minds of people whose beliefs contradict their own, and thus to understand disagreements as a difference in values or beliefs, rather than simply assuming all opposition is driven by irrationality or malice. Furthermore, being able to accurately model the "false" beliefs of others gives Strategic Pretenders the ability to persuade or deceive others according to their own logic. However, they assume external “false” models are inherently untrue, avoiding abstract questioning of their own “true” model(s).

Reflective Hedger: At this level, people can hold contradictory models while both acknowledging the contradiction and considering the possibility that either might be true or false. They keep the competing models in mind while seeking to refine or resolve them through evidence and testing. They use an advanced ToM to deeply engage with others’ perspectives while questioning the validity of their own “true” model(s); they remain open to adopting elements of another’s worldview at an abstract level, showing introspective flexibility to test and adjust beliefs, though they do not necessarily display the ability to fully integrate seemingly contradictory models into a unified framework.

Transcendent Synthesizer: This stage features exceptional ToM and cognitive integration, where individuals can begin with a robust but incomplete “true” model, encounter a contradictory model that explains unresolved experiences, and synthesize them into a single, cohesive paradigm by reconciling their core truths and adjusting peripheral assumptions; this creates a unified truth that withstands scrutiny, transcending initial contradictions to form a holistic understanding.

[desertleviathan]

Help Me Create a Character Part 6

This is it folks, the last poll, and then in the post following I'll synthesize the results into a person. Maybe with some art? We'll see!

In part 1 we selected Ancestry: Our character is of the enigmatic Fair Folk of the Buer Valley, a race of beings infused with Elemental magic whose origins are unclear in a world where the Creators otherwise left behind very thorough notes about everything they were adding.

In part 2 we selected Culture: Our Fair Folk is one of the devotees of Orofarne's Grove, a small mobile community of Druids who learn magic in harmony with nature from an ancient tree-like sage, and who dedicate themselves to pushing back the alchemical pollution caused by the neighboring Fascist Wizard Oligarchy.

In part 3 we selected Class: Our Fair Folk of Orofarne's Grove is a Marvel, a class that's less about what you know and more about what kind of freaky crab claws and death lasers you can cause to erupt from your body.

In part 4 we selected Specialty: Our Fair Folk Marvel of Orofarne's Grove is a Mastermind, an individual whose specific mutations are primarily related to mental abilities, communication, and extraordinary senses.

In part 5 we selected Conspiracy: Our Fair Folk Marvel (Mastermind) of Orofarne's Grove has joined the revolution against the Fascist Wizard Oligarchy under the auspices of the Agathion Zodiac, and specifically under its nominal leader Stolas the Owl, who has empowered his Anarchivists to be the masters of finding and revealing hidden documents, a specialty of particular note in a city that averages one private Library for every dozen citizens or so.

And in part 6 we'll determine Status: What degree of rank and privilege does our Fair Folk Marvel (Mastermind) and Anarchivist of Orofarne's Grove enjoy?

The Buer Valley is deeply stratified, with Wizards of Pure Bloodlines at the top, and everyone else in broadening ranks below them. Or at least that's the theory. In practice, the Baetylus-Illiaster Research Directorate (BIRD) is results-oriented enough to have made a lot of exceptions, and you can find wasteland mutants moving through the halls of power just as you can find highborn wizards cast down to ply their trade in slums. But overall, the hierarchy definitely favors certain individuals for certain positions, and an outsider has to be truly extraordinary (or lucky) to be elevated above where the Research Directorate would have normally placed them. On the other hand getting knocked down from a position of privilege is all too easy, leaving most folks too busy scrambling just to maintain their standing to focus on actually improving their material condition.

1.) LUMINARY: The elite of the elite. Most Luminaries are Wizards of the High Houses, actively involved in research and in good standing with BIRD, or else mid-to-high ranking Research Directorate officials. It's possible to gain Luminary rank as an outsider though, such as by completing training as an Armiger, the dedicated bodyguards who train to work in harmony with a specific Wizard, and then being assigned to serve a Wizard who also has Luminary rank. VIPs from elsewhere are often also afforded Luminary status - Royals and especially influential Nobles from the Spring, Summer, and Autumn Courts of Fae Folk, or the handful of mostly vestigial government officials from the larger towns in the Buer's Pelt region of the Buer Valley. In the case of our specific character concept, High House Madieras is desperate to recruit individuals with Druidic training, so they can assimilate the secrets of superior healing magic. Orofarne approves a handful of his pupils to accept this offer every year, because the actual secret to their potent healing is the cultivation of a harmonious spiritual relationship with the natural world, and if that actually somehow propagates to the House of Seeds then... well.. great!

Possession of Luminary rank means, among other things, that you can come and go between Baetylus on the surface and Illiaster floating above it as you wish, you can have a permanent residence in Illiaster (although not a large one, Illiaster has very limited real estate and even the ultra-wealthy live in compact spaces), and you enjoy a very comfortable level of personal wealth without having to spend very much time a week maintaining it. On the other hand, you are very much front and center in the eyes of the Research Directorate, and a character who lacks a talent for high-level espionage is going to find this position precarious. A Luminary also has the authority to appoint a small number of close family members, essential support staff, and others they find particularly important to have around to the rank of Scion, granting them access to Illiaster. It's assumed in play that a Luminary PC has already appointed their allotment of Scions though, so they can't just hand it out immediately to other PCs.

2.) SCION: Most individuals of this rank are of the bloodline of the High Houses but not actually Wizards, or else they're Wizards of sufficient skill and ideological orthodoxy with the Research Directorate that they might be considered a candidate for marrying into one of the High Houses. Anyone else who a Wizard in good standing considers important enough to get housing for them in Illiaster may also be elevated to this rank. In our character's case, if we build them as a former disciple of Orofarne who didn't actually personally learn Druidic Magic, then they might still be elevated to this rank just as a curiosity the Research Directorate wants to study.

Possession of Scion rank means that you can travel between Baetylus and Illiaster, although unlike Luminaries your passage isn't paid for by the state, and you're on the hook for your own expenses. You also have access to housing in Illiaster, probably attached to your patron's dwelling. Your relationship with the Luminary who vouched for you is very important, and you probably spend at least as much time maintaining it as you do on your job, unless your Luminary Patron is also your direct employer (a very common arrangement). If your patron becomes dissatisfied with your service, they may cut you off and demote you to Citizen, effectively ejecting you from Illiaster.

3.) CITIZEN: You are legally documented, have never committed any major crimes, and are employed in a manner that the Research Directorate recognizes as a "productive member of society", or at least eligible for such employment, although long lapses in work may put your citizenship at risk. You are the vanishingly small middle class who lives in the parts of Baetylus that are less likely to explode in a lab accident or be trampled by an escaped monster. And most importantly, you're in the pool to be considered for elevation to Scion or Luminary status when there's an opening... or so the Research Directorate tells you, to keep you striving to stay on their good side. In our character's case, they would have had to apply for residence at some point, then keep out of trouble long enough to earn Citizenship, which either indicates that bribes were exchanged, or else that they became employed in a capacity that made them useful enough to the Research Directorate that they might need to travel from Baetylus to Illiaster on occasion. If our character, a Marvel-Mastermind, is some kind of weird mutant, maybe they're traveling to the High City on occasion to allow researchers to take tissue samples.

Possession of Citizen rank means you can apply for visits to Illiaster if you can prove that you have a legitimate cause, and move freely throughout Baetylus. You probably work a fairly strenuous job, but have some free time and disposable income. And unlike the cramped accommodations of space-poor Illiaster, Baetylus is a sprawling mess where you can probably find a pretty good-sized place to live!

4.) RESIDENT: Your name and existence are known to the Authorities, and you are permitted to live in Baetylus, but you are afforded only limited rights under the law. In theory this is to encourage you to improve yourself and apply for Citizenship. In reality, this is because the economy of the Buer Valley demands a large and exploitable underclass. The good news is that the Research Directorate is only going to really pay attention to you if you do something overtly violent. All that it would take for our character to become a Resident is for them to apply, and keep out of trouble for the 10-15 years it would take for their application to be processed... or pay bribes to expedite things. Forged Resident credentials are also easy to come by, but aren't that much cheaper than just paying bribes for legitimate documentation.

Possession of Resident rank means you can only visit Illiaster on designated Public Festival days, where you will be limited to a small portion of the High City. You also don't have full access to all of Baetylus, and if you travel between districts too often the authorities will want to know why. Also a large selection of skilled labor positions are unavailable to you. A very large number of Residents make their living volunteering as test subjects for magical experiments. And by "make a living" I mean "make enough to pay for food and housing without having to rob someone else most months."

5.) INTERLOPER: You are undocumented, and have no rights under the law. That's rough. All of your earnings are off the books, and you have few options for earning a living that don't involve some level of crime. But on the other hand... there are a lot of people in Baetylus, and it's easy to vanish into the crowd. Anonymity is a potent boon under certain circumstances. Barring extraordinary circumstances, this is the default state of being for our proposed character, who would have come to Baetylus from Orofarne's Grove, and probably from one of the Four Seasonal Courts before that.

Possession of Interloper rank means by law you should be kept out of Baetylus and Illiaster and live in one of the tiny impoverished settlements in Buer's Pelt. Any movement in the twin cities will have to be with forged credentials, or through hidden paths. Life is precarious, but the Research Directorate's complete lack of information on you is a major benefit, if you're careful.

6.) TRANSGRESSOR: So you've chosen hard mode. While the first five ranks strike a balance between how much the Research Directorate favors you vs. how much the Research Directorate monitors you, Transgressor rank indicates both that you are an outcast cut off from most support and resources, and also that they're watching you like a hawk. You are some kind of convicted criminal, and will be expected to check in with your BlackBIRD handler regularly to prove that you're trying your very hardest to be a good little worker drone now. All our character would have to do to qualify for this rank is have been involved in something shady, but not so shady that the penalty would be death, and then get caught. Being a Marvel and a Fair Folk with ties to the Druids may have earned them some lenience, because they were such a potentially fascinating test subject. Indeed, they may have been brought to the city as a lab specimen and then gained Transgressor status when they escaped!

Possession of the Transgressor rank does grant one interesting benefit that may make it worthwile though - street cred. The Buer Valley has an extensive criminal underbelly, and if you're already known to have a set of unsavory skills and the willingness to use them, that will ensure that work is available if you're willing to risk further reprisal for getting caught. Also, the Transgressor rank indicates that you've already had some adventures before play starts, and you receive a couple extra points to spend on things at character creation. Enjoy!

_____

So what should our character be? There are interesting stories to tell at all ranks, and often an Agathion Cell will consist of individuals all from the same or similar ranks... but just as often individuals of wildly different ranks will be placed together so that they can expand their operating ability to different strata of the twin cities. High ranking individuals can often get a pass to restricted areas for their low-ranking friends, and low-ranking individuals can help their high-ranking friends avoid scrutiny.

[conegestalt]

in the beginning, there was void. then, the cosmos invented carnage. amid the strife and rubble of the dawning twentieth century, one man rose above the clamor with a note so pure it echoes to this day throughout the industrialized world: the sublime Traffic Cone.

these illustrious animals have come to populate highways and parking lots across the globe. extremophile invertebrates subsisting via chemosynthesis of car exhaust and geek bar vapor, before the dawn of the cell phone these beings communicated via 5G signal but tragically the pollution of the airwaves has rendered them mute and isolated, lost in a sea of noise.

YOU can help! if you are so wise as to disregard the laws of colonial entities you could, in theory, rescue one of these glorious creatures from your local pothole or freshly-paved sidewalk tile. when enclosed in a secure Faraday cage and provided with enough dab fumes to synthesize fuel the cones will begin to emit a gentle orange glow not unlike a fading match. this is because they love you and you are their savior, but act with caution, because the bodies of these beasts are used for measures incredibly vital and practical for humankind, such as preventing a cybertruck from shutting down and locking its inhabitants inside it because it hit a ditch. many such cases.

[plasticross]

You wanted to test a theory, push the threads of reality a bit further, and see what you could get away with.

You never considered your aspect to be one that allowed reality manipulation, you weren't a hope player, a rage player, nor a heart player. You couldn't manipulate shadows or change the color of light. You couldn't fly, or make fire balls, or teleport, or die. You came out of the game with barely a scratch, pristine, perfect, powerless. But if there was one thing you knew about yourself is that you couldn't quit, either. Literally. Many people have told you it's a problem- you can't drop things. But recently, you've been trying to see it in a more positive light. Maybe it isn't that you can't drop things, maybe you were a passionate person. Maybe you were a passionate and DRIVEN person. That sounded right. That sounded real.

Your wings didn't stand up like troll wings, they were made from tulle and were attached at your fingers, following any hand movement you made as you hummed and swayed. A record player sat atop the hotel desk which had been covered with candles atop of candles, rosaries scattered everywhere beside and beneath the desk. Music had become increasingly important to you in the past month or so, you had grown so sick of sitting in quiet rooms always reading some shitty nonsense written by a senile old man. A record of the Promises, promises album by Naked Eyes plays, enveloping the room in beautiful synthesized omnicord yellows. To you, the music felt like roads of bright morning snow laid out in front of you. The kind you used to see around your birthday, growing up. It matched the bright oranges and sunset yellows of your handmade godtier garb. Heavy on your feet, you raise your arms with a huff, trying to ignore the struggle in your chest as you took in deep breaths. You wouldn't exactly say you were dancing, not with this heavy, hard body of yours. But you would say you were close, stretching, maybe, along with the music. You imagine your feet hitting a thin layer of snow, the cool hitting your hot skin through pointed elf shoes, and you raise yourself up onto the ball of that single foot, your other leg kicked out behind you. Slowly, you lower it back down, connecting it to the ground and push off, spinning in a pirouette as snow kicks up and showers out around you. Cold air bites at your nose in a familiar way, and when your body stops abruptly with the music you take in a quick breath and bow. Behind you, you hear curtains shutter close behind you, the loud "thump" of the fabric material against the snowy road filling the air, causing you to pause.

That definitely wasn't the music, but it was more than in your head. You could still hear the fabric of the curtains ruffling and adjusting within the brisk wind, and when you turn on your feet, the imaginary visuals of bright red velvet and stark white snow practically blind you. You couldn't make anything out- text descriptions now turning their assigned color. You exhale, deeply, shocked as the cool air that replaced your stuffy, hot apartment air nipped at your cheeks.

"I,"

It's gone the moment you open your mouth.

"I KNEW IT."

With enough effort you could make anything true.

[checkoutmybookshelf]

Ok, let's talk about the Solo kids' relationships with the force for a sec here.

Jaina basically treated jedi training like a trade school (no pejorative undercurrebt here; we respect trade schools). She wanted the practical applications and treated the force like a tool that she could use to augment her mechanical and piloting hard skillsets. She wasn't interested in the difference ebetween the living and unifying forces because it didn't matter for her on a practical level.

Anakin was college-bound in his jedi training, and came out with something along the lines of a master's degree. He liked learning some of the theory, but he also had the exceedingly rare talent wherein he could bridge theory and practicality, could marry the academic with the day-to-day world. Our boy was so living force that he basically embodied it to take out the voxyn queen.

Jacen has both a PhD in the force and a complete inability to either divorce theory from practice to function in the real world or else synthesize the two to function in the real world.

What I'm basically saying is that fantasy is when your PhDs become sith lords and sci fi is when your PhDs become supervillains.

[brynnterpretations]

BOWERS GANG'S MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES ☻

Belch Huggins

ISFJ

Introverted Sensing (Si): This function leads the introverted sensing types to focus on details and facts. ISFJs prefer concrete information rather than abstract theories. They are highly attuned to the immediate environment and firmly grounded in reality. Because of this tendency to focus on and protect what is familiar, ISFJs are often seen as highly traditional.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): ISFJs place a great emphasis on personal considerations. Extraverted feelers are focused on developing social harmony and connection. This is accomplished through behaviors that are viewed as socially appropriate or beneficial, such as being polite, kind, considerate, and helpful. ISFJs try to fill the wants and needs of other people, sometimes even sacrificing their own desires in order to ensure that other people are happy.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): ISFJs are planners and tend to be very well-organized. They utilize logic in order to understand how the world works. As ISFJs take in new information and experiences, look for connections and commonalities in order to find patterns. Rather than simply trying to understand a small part of something, they want to see how things fit together and how it functions as a whole.

Extraverted Intuition (Ne): While ISFJs tend to be focused on the present and on concrete facts, this largely unconscious function can help balance the ISFJ personality by helping the individual focus on possibilities. Taking in facts and then exploring the "what-ifs" can lead to new insights about problems.

Henry Bowers

ISTP

Introverted Thinking (Ti): ISTPs spend a great deal of time thinking and dealing with information in their own heads. This means they do not spend much time expressing themselves verbally, so they are often known as being quiet. It may seem like an ISTPs approach to decision-making is very haphazard, yet their actions are based upon careful observation and thought.

Extraverted Sensing (Se): ISTPs prefer to focus on the present and take on things one day at a time. They often avoid making long-term commitments and would rather focus on the "here and now". ISTPs tend to be very logical and enjoy learning and understanding how things operate. They might take apart a mechanical device just to see how it works. While they are good at understanding abstract and theoretical information, they are not particularly interested in such things unless they can see some type of practical application.

Introverted Intuition (Ni): It is this function that is behind the "gut feelings" that ISTPs sometimes experience when making a decision. By synthesizing information brought in by the dominant and auxiliary functions, this aspect of personality may be responsible for sudden "aha" moments of insight.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): During highly charged situations, ISTPs can sometimes lash out in sudden outbursts of emotion. They often ignore their own feelings until things reach a boiling-over point, which can lead to displaying emotions in ways that can seem inappropriate.

Patrick Hockstetter

ESTP

Extraverted Sensing (Se): As sensors, people with this personality type want to touch, feel, hear, taste, and see anything and everything that might draw their interest. When learning about something new, it's not just enough to read about it in a textbook or listen to a lecture – they want to experience it for themselves. ESTPs also have lots of energy, so they can become bored in tedious or in learning situations involving a great deal of theoretical information.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): With auxiliary Ti, ESTPs have excellent observational skills, noticing things that others may overlook. As they take in information, they then apply their sense of logic to look for practical and immediately applicable solutions. They are skilled at working independently and can be very goal-directed when they want to achieve an objective.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): They enjoy being at the center of attention and are good at establishing a friendly rapport with other people. If isolated for too long, or if their work seems devoid of a socially meaningful objective, they can start feeling depressed or listless.

Introverted Intuition (Ni): this aspect of personality focuses on looking at information in order to see patterns and develop a "gut feeling" about situations. It allows ESTPs to gain impressions of incoming data and develop a sense of the future. Intuition is not an ESTPs strong suit, but they will sometimes develop strong gut reactions to a situation that may actually be completely inaccurate. Because of this, they may feel that they do not have good instincts.

Victor Criss

INFJ

Introverted Intuition (Ni): INFJs tend to be highly focused on their internal insights. Once they have formed an intuition about something, INFJs tend to stick to it very tightly, often to the point of being single-minded in their focus. INFJs are sometimes viewed as stubborn and unyielding.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): INFJs are highly aware of what other people are feeling but are sometimes less aware of their own emotions. INFJs sometimes struggle to say no to other people's requests. They are so attuned to what other people are feeling that they fear causing disappointment or hurt feelings.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): INFJs make decisions based on ideas and theories that they form based on their own insights. INFJs rely primarily on their introverted intuition and extroverted feeling when making decisions, particularly when they are around other people. When they are alone, however, people with this personality type may rely more on their introverted thinking.

Extraverted Sensing (Se): While this is a less developed and largely unconscious aspect of the INFJ, it does have an impact on personality. This aspect of personality helps INFJs pay attention to the world around them and stay aware of their surroundings. Extroverted sensing also helps INFJs live in the present moment rather than simply worrying about the future.

[bandedbulbussnarfblat]

"You see, I have so little ability to synthesize knowledge; I deal in the immediate with a cool intensity"

-Armand, from Queen of the Damned

I have been thinking about this line here a lot. Bc it actually reveals so much about Armand's character. Here is an article that goes in depth on what the ability to synthesize knowledge actually means for a person. But I'm gonna add some quotes from it up here.

"From a social perspective, the capacity to synthesize information allows individuals to comprehend and navigate complex social dynamics effectively. They can draw upon a diverse range of social cues, historical contexts, and behavioral patterns to understand interpersonal interactions and societal trends. This ability enables them to anticipate social scenarios and respond with acumen that often seems intuitive but is grounded in a sophisticated analysis of social frameworks."

Like, we don't need to delve to deep into that one. The autistic Armand theory has been around forever for a reason. (I'm autistic, so don't take that the wrong way. But we do be having problems with social skills.) That lack of ability could explain why even though he's coven master, he's not very good at it.

"Intellectually, synthesis manifests in the ability to connect concepts from different disciplines, creating novel insights and theories. Such individuals might combine principles from psychology and literature to explore the human condition or integrate concepts from physics and philosophy to examine the nature of reality."

Armand isn't getting anything intellectually simulating in Dubai, if his off-hand remark about vampires and hobbies is anything to go by. Until Daniel shows up, and goes off-script.

"Practically, the ability to synthesize information is a powerful tool in problem-solving and decision-making. Individuals skilled in this area can assess a situation by considering a multitude of factors, including potential risks, historical data, and current trends, to arrive at well-rounded solutions. Their decisions are often characterized by a depth of consideration that takes into account both immediate and long-term implications."

As we've seen, Armand doesn't make the best choices. He does, as he says, deal in the immediate with a cold intensity. And for all we like to think that he's a mastermind with his little plots, most of his decisions are made by the emotions he feels in the moment--then he has to plan and plot and scheme. Like, his problem to having Claudia around is to kill her. In the books he even says something about him and Louis being happy after Louis moves on from her death. He clearly didn't think too much about the long term, bc moving on from her death is not something Louis can do with him.

This ended up really rambling, but the point is, Armand has (more) issues.