#they are deep contradictory conflicted human beings

[hacked-wtsdz]

Bewildering to me that house of the dragon is disappointing people because the women of the show aren’t badass girlbosses who do whatever they can to get to the throne. If you want that, game of thrones is right there for you. Daenerys and Cersei and Sansa and Arya are all badass women, ruthless, ambitious and powerful. They have many scenes in the show in which they hold power: sack cities, avenge their families, break free of chains, acquire even more power. It’s all there, enjoy. House of the dragon is NOT about that, and I think that as soon as people grasp that concept, it will be much easier for them to either enjoy the show or stop watching it. Hotd is about familial cycles, the tragedy of losing your best friend to a patriarchal system, soulmates, existential rot, generational trauma and women feeling conflicted, confused, heartbroken, enraged, lonesome, feeling grief, longing, love, fury all of it about the same people. This is not a show about girlbossing your way through court life, to my great joy.

[marie-m-art]

Apart from the drunken bookshop scenes in Good Omens S1E1 being very entertaining, these well-loved scenes continue to fascinate me, because I'm seeing someone be persuaded to change their mind without being on exactly the same page.

My observations: they have common ground; Aziraphale isn't too far gone to be reasoned with; Crowley succeeds by meeting him where he is, and by reflecting Aziraphale's own logic back to him.

In conflict resolution IRL, identifying common ground can be a hurdle, but this is easy for them here, and also amusing that their common ground is the whole earth; they love it and deep down don't want it to be "tested to destruction". But Crowley's attempts to persuade him by pointing out all the things Aziraphale would lose personally isn't enough to sway him to help stop Armageddon.

I've observed IRL that someone too far gone to be reasoned with in a given moment tends to be someone so caught up in a strong emotion that their brain seems to completely block the ability to consider someone else's thoughts and feelings outside their own (and/or they'll seek out someone whose opinion confirms their own). I see that Aziraphale is disturbed by the idea of animals suffering when the world ends - which probably extends to humans, given how he cared about Adam and Eve, and that art and theatre comes from humans. He has deep, well-founded fear about disobeying his superiors, but he hasn't lost access to his empathy for others. He's nearly there: "I don't like it any more than you do, but I told you, I can't [disobey]. I'm an angel". "I can't interfere with the Divine Plan."

The really interesting part is when Crowley takes Aziraphale's ideas about disobedience and about the Divine Plan, and manages to get him to see them in a different way: the two seemingly contradictory ideas can actually be consolidated. Since the Plan is ineffable - Aziraphale's own idea reflected back - "You can't be certain that thwarting me isn't part of the Divine Plan too". Aziraphale doesn't have to completely reconsider his belief system, or change the status quo, or consider uncomfortable ideas related to his identity as an angel, to be persuaded: Crowley meets him where he is, and so he only has to stretch his comfort zone a little bit, rather than take a big leap. Additionally, Crowley prompts Aziraphale to think for himself rather than spell out his idea for influencing the antichrist: "It'd be too bad if someone made sure I failed..." Which I also like to see.

(Also, how great is it that Aziraphale uses this same tactic at the airfield base later?!)

As I write these sorts of posts, I worry that I'm just pointing out really obvious stuff; but I'll go ahead and post this anyway because it's an interesting exercise for me to ponder and pinpoint why exactly I like certain things.

And I love me some pragmatic, productive conflict-resolution and problem-solving in real life; scenes like these get me thinking along those lines.

[the-tragic-heroine]

Haitani Brothers Analysis

While the Haitani brothers didn’t get as much screen time in the series as many fans would probably like, we did get a small glimpse into their characters during the main events of the manga and some extra content in the character books—enough for me to reasonably speculate on some things. As always, these are just my own thoughts, and you are more than welcome to disagree with me.

**THIS ANALYSIS CONTAINS SPOILERS!**

Neither Ran nor Rindou actually enjoy fighting that much.

In the main series, they don’t have an actual clear reason for participating in the gang wars. They even state stuff like “well, I guess we have to” before entering the battlefield

Whenever they are beat up they very readily accept defeat.

They fight very unfairly, with Ran using his baton to beat up opponents while Rindou holds them still and breaks their bones. Once they are separated, they lose quite easily. If they really enjoyed fighting, they likely a) wouldn’t be using these underhanded methods at all and b) wouldn’t be this bad on their own.

Both of Rindou’s extra stories in the character book involve being unwillingly dragged into some kind of conflict.

EDIT: I was mulling over this point and I think I mean to say that while they do like fighting, because it’s clear they do have fun beating people up, they don’t CARE about fighting the way some of the others do. Eg, those who fight to protect, those who fight for a cause, those who fight because they have a passion for it, etc.

This is pretty much where the similarities between the two brothers end, though. So, if they don’t care about fighting, why are they even delinquents in the first place? What do they care about?

Ran cares about maintaining an image.

Rindou talks about being annoyed about Ran trying to strike ‘cool’ poses when fighting

His special skill is “presenting himself in a favorable light”

In CB3, his profile states that Ran wants to be a celebrity and he enjoys getting his hair done at beauty salons

In fact, he tends to talk out of his ass, shown in his conversation with the hairdresser and…what he says about music here…

The two living in Roppongi makes even more sense, as it is a very high-end district

However, with that being said, there are a few additional pieces of information that may strike people as rather odd, as they seem a bit contradictory to what we are led to believe Ran is like.

His hobby is sleeping, he likes staying in bed, and his special talent is sleeping 24 hours in one go

In Rindou’s story, Ran was so pissed off at getting woken up because of his party that he got violent

What this reminds me of are my interactions with people who tell me that their hobbies involve clubbing and drinking, only for them to admit later on that they don’t actually like doing those things at all and would much rather be at home. Instead, these hobbies are simply a means to make up for something that they are lacking: something like, human connection, self-esteem, etc. In Ran’s case, delinquency—because what it got him was an army of followers in Roppongi that he and his brother can command. In the delinquent world, he is that celebrity he wants to be.

When Kakucho invited them to join Tenjiku, their conditions to accepting were that their uniforms be a different colour than the rest. Izana beat him up because that made them stand out more.

We don’t get much more info beyond this, but I think there’s some valid reason to believe that, like many who choose to surround themselves with material possessions, he is merely putting up a front to cover up a deep-rooted insecurity. Perhaps one that developed in an environment full of wealthy elites that is difficult to stand out in.

Rindou cares about his brother.

This might take a little more explanation because sibling love-hate relationships are complicated, and like Ran a lot of Rindou’s character traits are contradictory, but there are a few things that make this evident both in the series and the character book.

Rindou’s interests are DJing and martial arts, the latter of which is quite known for promoting stuff like peace, respect, etc unlike Rindou’s delinquent tendencies

Again, both of his stories involve being dragged into conflict he didn’t wanna be a part of. Kakucho once invited him to train, which Rindou thought was weight lifting, only to be brought to a Yakuza hideout. Rindou vowed never to hang out with him again.

He is actually ranked 2nd best boyfriend and 2nd least vicious in Tenjiku, which would strike people as odd considering his special technique in combat is literally breaking bones

All of this should make Rindou a pretty chill guy but he isn’t. Instead he follows his brother into gang wars, gets sent to prison, and in the Bonten timeline gets involved in criminal activity. While we don’t see him or his brother really doing anything during this arc, I think that itself (just standing and watching) tells us enough about how they feel being a part of it. So, we get into the next key part of Rindou’s character book profile.

Rindou’s most feared/disliked person is Ran

In his second story, he locks himself in the bathroom to avoid Ran’s angry outburst and has to buy him Mont Blanc to appease him

I don’t think Ran is abusive in the way Taiju was toward the Shiba household, because in their interactions it’s quite clear that they do care about one another and are comfortable enough together. They always stick together throughout alliance changes, their signature technique involves teamwork, and are in the same business owning a club in the final ending.

Instead, I think it’s clear that Ran was a pretty terrible influence to Rindou. I think he was pulled into this pretty early on due to circumstance and was unable to get out because he didn’t know much else—again, because of Ran’s influence as the older brother. Otherwise, I don’t think he’d have chosen this path voluntarily.

There isn’t much else for me to use to make more speculations on Rindou’s character, but I think based on all that info he really just seems like a big himbo on the inside. All the dude wants is to make music and get buff. Also, probably a tsundere, because it seems that he calls Ran “aniki” in public but “niichan” in private. So cute!!

Anyways, I think that’s it for now! I typed this all up in one sitting so I hope I didn’t miss anything. If you have any input do feel free to comment as I love these boys and am always looking to read more headcanons and scenarios with them!

[spiralingthoughtpost]

Vedic Astrology Observations: “boy of the month” and possible generational preferences for men

In Vedic astrology, Jupiter, also known as 'Guru' or 'Brihaspati', stands as a towering figure representing wisdom, expansion, and prosperity. This celestial body is closely linked with both the spiritual and material realms, often regarded as a harbinger of positive and beneficial influences. Individuals under the strong sway of Jupiter in their astrological charts are a source of deep fascination. These Jupiter-dominant natives mirror the quintessential attributes associated with this planet, displaying an intriguing blend of personality traits, physical characteristics, and distinctive energy patterns. A closer examination of these individuals offers a rich look into how Jupiter's expansive and nurturing energy takes form in human life. This journey of understanding not only unravels the myriad ways in which Jupiter's influence manifests but also deepens our comprehension of the overarching impact of such planetary forces. It's a testament to the profound and subtle ways in which cosmic entities like Jupiter shape and define our existence and traits through the perspective of Jyotisha.

When discussing ‘Jupiter dominant men’, we delve into the sphere of individuals whose astrological kundli (birth chart) is markedly influenced by Jupiter. This dominant influence of Jupiter is discernible in the chart through its strong presence in the native's primary nakshatras and its overall potency and prominence. For instance, this can be seen in individuals who have key placements (such as the sun, moon, or ascendant) in a nakshatra governed by Jupiter, such as Punarvasu, Vishaka, or Purva Bhadrapada. Each of these nakshatras imparts a distinctive essence to the overarching Jupiterian influence with their one rich expression.

Taking Purva Bhadrapada as an example, men born under this nakshatra often display a conflict between polarities of good and evil, coupled with an innate uncontrolled expansiveness in their nature. This often manifests as a subtle but pronounced fierceness and contradictory character, traits that distinguish them from other Jupiter-influenced placements. Across the board, Jupiter-dominant men typically exude a nurturing yet masculine energy, characterized by deep understanding and emotional sensitivity. They typically exhibit an expansive outlook and a pattern of philanthropy, combined with a philosophical mindset. They are often perceived as seekers of wisdom, truth, and expansion, attracting others with their insightful and optimistic nature. In terms of masculinity, Jupiter-dominant men often stand apart from conventional archetypes, thanks to their refined wisdom and nourishing disposition, which tends to favor emotional intimacy and commitment over sexual gratification. Their presence often serves to challenge traditional perceptions of masculinity, adding a richer dimension to the male archetype and leading them to have their sexuality questioned.

The evolving media portrayal of 'Jupiter men' in recent times, especially through the 'boy of the month' archetype that I’ve noticed, signals a significant shift in widespread cultural perceptions of masculinity. This new ‘boy of the month’ archetype, which focuses on elevating a man as being a highly desirable heart throb based on his representation in popular media, has traditionally spotlighted men with more conventional attributes. Examples include the sun-dominant Michael B. Jordan, Sun-dominant Chris Hemsworth, Rahu-dominant Chris Evans, and Moon-dominant Henry Cavill, who embody traits like stoicism, womanizing charm, or a cold, detached and mysterious allure.

However, I’ve noticed a change has been occurring. The archetype is gradually moving away from these typically glamorized hyper-masculine traits and instead highlighting qualities traditionally seen as feminine, including a nurturing passivity, especially in romantic contexts, bringing a new type appreciation for men that embody these characteristics, which are mostly Moon men and Jupiter men. The allure of Moon men, such as Henry Cavill, Christian Bale, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harry Styles, Tom Hiddleston, etc. has always been somewhat recognized, given their mysterious and emotional appeal from their understanding of women. But, it is the rising prominence of Jupiter men that stands out as being particularly noteworthy to me.

In 2023, an overwhelming majority of men popularized in media - over 80% - have been Jupiter men. This is a stark contrast to earlier representations, where Jupiter men like Will Ferrell, Robert De Niro, Jack Black, Michael Cera, Elijah Wood, and so on who were often depicted as being sexually awkward and comically fatherly, becoming targets for abuse and judgment from most other men that aspire to be like Sun and Rahu dominant men. This trend suggests a broader societal move towards redefining masculine ideals, moving away from traditional archetypes and towards a more balanced, inclusive understanding of masculinity that embraces emotional depth, wisdom, and nurturing qualities and showcasing newfound acceptance and even admiration for these men. Jupiter men such as Tom Blyth, Timothee Chalamet, Logan Lerman, Dylan O’Brien, Jacob Elordi, Nicholas Galitzine, Sam Claflin, Drew Starkey, Will Smith, Cody Fern, Andrew Garfield, and Barry Keoghan, once sidelined, are now at the forefront redefining standards for a new Ideal.

Overall, this might be reflective of a larger societal yearning for hope and direction in turbulent times. In a world where uncertainty seems to be the only constant, the qualities of a 'Jupiter man' – wisdom, optimism, forgiveness, comfort, and an inclusive view of life – might be particularly appealing, especially to younger generations who have witnessed the effects of turbulent times and traditionally masculine ways of dealing with them. It's a reminder of the human tendency to look for guiding principles and figures who embody things we yearn for as a collective society.

[randomnameless]

It's crazy how SoV preluded 3H by making one of the protags have a tremendously contradictory mindset of humanity being better off without gods, while also relying on those same gods to fulfill their goals, the hypocrisy of which goes completely unadressed throughout the game; truly masterful foreshadowing

Who directed FE15?

lol

I've recently tried to think about this "gods BaD" shift in more doylist terms - especially since I've finally played a Squenix game recently and...

FE13 was the FE series last ditch effort, it will either work or end up as the F-Zero series, FE13 worked and FE14 followed suit.

Lolcalisation aside, FE14 had a nice plot and I engaging characters - to some people but not me, different tastes and all - but FE14 and FE13 were still FE games, as in part of the old FE series, aka a niche series. Adding dating sim/interpersonal relationship through avatars might have helped a bit, and yet, imo, it was still the "niche" FE series.

Comes FE15 where we basically have a remake, and can't add the interpersonal thing because Alm isn't an avatar (even if the game spends a lot of time praising his oranges) - how to make the game work? Sure, some weirdo fans of the FE series will buy it, and it was never supposed to sell as much as FE13/14, but if it was a 1:1 remake or just with minor adjustments? It might bomb like the Archanea remakes, and good luck coming after that - will they need another "FE13" to reignite the sales or??

And here I thought about it : FE15 was retconned with the "GoDs BaD" spiel, to make this game more in-tune with what I'd call "traditional" JRPGs where the protagonists often defy a corrupt church and "divine" being.

("Traditional" imo being the Squenix way, because while I didn't play all entries of this series, the Tales series never striked me as being particularly as, uh, vindicative against organised religion, maybe save for Symphonia 1 - Abyss' Church really wishes to help the people even if it is corrupted from within by some dude who doesn't want to let the world die and played by the big bad, Xillia has no church, ditto for Zestiria and Phantasia had Mint and... that's it? - compare this to Squenix's Triangle Strategy and Hyzante being comically EvIl and without any redeeming traits/points when all of the other major parties of the conflict have "token good NPCs" as forced as they are in the game, to make it very clear that they might have done questionnable things like invading and slaughtering civilians from a foreign nation who welcomed them at their wedding, but at least they have "MoRaLs" unlike those bozos in their desert...)

And this "let's make FE mainstream by kicking gods" mentality completely runs at odds with the rest of the FE franchise, and while I know RD basically ends like this bcs "uwu Ike defeated a GoD with the help of another who used the lead of that game as a soul jar and granted him exclusive powers to put her sister to sleep" the morale of RD's story - as seen in the perfect ending but in Ike's speech to Yune itself - is that everyone can and should try to live together, asking Gods not the fuck out to let Humanity alone, but to believe in them just like humans believe in gods.

So FE15 ends as this big, uh, mismatched clash of narrative directions - being a remake it cannot stray too far from the source material and Archanea verse : Dragons and Humans can live together (even if it means dragons must sacrifice part of themselves to do so because fuck them I guess) and dragons can help humans just like humans can, uh, not be asses and not target them because their ears are pointy or when they are weakened...

And we had the new Squenix direction where GoDs BaD and HuMaNiTy fuck yeah, which leads to FE15's hypocrisy : please trust and rely on us Gods/dragons and kindly help us when we're in deep shit, and at the same time "HuMaNiTy FuCk YeAh".

Interestingly, the Squenix direction loses in the post game campaign (the one where we discover Thabes) but is reintroduced in the official (tm) timeline, depicting basically how BaD Duma is and how much of a chad Rudy was, before his very tragic (bring the onions!) death.

But yeah, I agree anon, FE15 was crazy foreshadowing and I guess is part of the reason why Tru Piss has this message "Humanity doesn't need Gods" targeted at... Rhea, aka a Nabatean (while Supreme Leader got there thanks to Sothis' powers!!) because the "Humanity Fuck Yeah" narrative is a staple of Squenix JRPGS, and if FE has to become mainstream, I guess to some devs, it has to copy what sells.

That would also explain why FE16 went so off the rails and forgot the tradition FE series message about coexistence, because what the fuck do you mean by "Humanity doesn't need Nabateans", after parroting for the entire game "Nabateans are to blame for the irrational world we live in" and blame "Nabatean blood" for everything wrong in Fodlan, without ever acknowledging the "evilness that lurks in the heart of men" (who aren't called Dimitri) ?

In a series that, albeit hazaphardly at times (FE8's manaketes feel forced in the lore! and the less is said about Nowi/Panne in FE13 the better we are), tried to push the "coexistence between all inhabitants of the land is the key to peace!" card - this Squenix direction feels all kind of wrong, especially when friendship with the divine beings (dragons) have been a staple of the franchise (Y!Tiki's number of alts, imo, is telling : for better or worse, Y!Tiki is, along with Marth, the figure of the franchise. She is a dragon, and she's a kid who wants to make friends. Sure it brings the loli crowd, but all those dragon children in the different games? They are a direct throwback to Y!Tiki!).

In a nutshell, I'd say the first crack was FE10's writing that made things seem like the Hero defeated a goddess and its subsequent wanking.

But I agree with you anon, FE15's change in direction and retcons were absolutely gunning for that Squenix "GoDs BaD" while keeping the "traditional" FE message which resulted in hypocrisy that showed in the writing but I guess no one really paid attention because FE15 has other issues too (I didn't before happening on FE16... even if I remember wondering why the fuck the game kept on hammering how BaD Duma was when we had people being asses right and left on their own).

FE Fodlan completely ignored the "we can coexist" message - save for subtext you can have where the optional lords who win the war and aren't Supreme Leader can have half/quarter-nabatean heirs through Flayn but her heritage is never ever mentionned in the ending cards - by completely shitting/ignoring the local dragons, they're blamed for everything wrong and don't get their voice to the chapter.

Masterful writing lol

I can't wait for the next game, let it be a remake (pls not Jugdral!!) or a new entry (Engage was developped alongside Fodlan, not after!) to see if IS will continue with the Squenix developments or return to their roots, even if they seem milquetoast, of "humans and lizards can hold hands".

---

NGL anon, during 2020/2021 and the daily "Supreme Leader was right though" threads in SF, I kind of realised that what I took for granted, aka "coexistence between humans and dragons!" being the message of FE in general, wasn't, even in what used to be the most serious board/thing.

FE as a series came to the West through FE7 where Dragons and Humans were at war, but ultimately the cast learns that dragons aren't evil incarnate and the best ending reveals that the big bad went mad because his dragon wife was killed and he tried to reunite with their dragon-human children he hid away for their safety.

So it was kind of surprising to see long-time, or at least not "Fodlan introduced" members of SF parroting the "well they can't live together" by buying the most ludicrous headcanon/fanon arguments you'd find in other series like "different lifespans" - this argument is pretty much non existent in the FE series, and I've never seen it opposed to Miccy's rule in Daien when, as a Heron Branded, she will outlive her citizens, or what, are we supposed to believe that Myrrh shouldn't interact with humans and remain in her forest because she will outlive humans, or is too "different" from them thus wouldn't have the same considerations?

FE13/14 brought the fandom wars of "new fans" vs "old fans", but FE Fodlan? Brought "casual JRPG gamer" vs "FE gamer" which usually boils down to "Supreme Leader fans" vs "everyone else".

Sure, we had the religion hate boner because the dragons in Fodlan verse made a "Church" with catholic imagery which is a deadly sin to some - but the "dragon blood is indeed the reason why everything sucks in the world" being parroted? "Dragons cannot have power over humans because of the sheer inbalance"? What, are you implying Nergal was forced by Aenir to mate with her twice or what? Ninian was oppressing Pherae in the endings where she marries Eliwood, and humans were finally liberated when she died?

Kana is, by nature, someone who will oppress humans because they're part dragon and their blood will bring strife to the world?

So unless IS doesn't fully commit to one narrative - because yes, for all of its flak, FE Fodlan still takes time, when it remembers, to portray Nabateans in a relative positive light when it comes to them as characters and in the general background, it's just that, they're never given a voice when it comes to discussing about the plot - we're bound to have this hypocrisy :

Dragons BaD bcs Humanity Fuck Yeah

and

Dragons and Humanity can coexist and make babies for scalies/monsterfuckers out there because acceptance/diversity is a way for peace.

[lifephilosophys-blog]

كثيرًا ما نردد أو يتردد داخلنا شعور بأن "كل هذا أكثر من اللازم وغير كاف في نفس الوقت" تلك العبارة التى تحمل مشاعر عميقة ومتناقضة تتحدث عن تعقيدات الوجود الإنساني. إنها تجسد الشعور بالإرهاق من وفرة الخبرات أو المهام أو المسؤوليات، بينما تشعر في الوقت نفسه بعدم الإنجاز أو النقص بطريقة ما. يجسد هذا التجاور ازدواجية المشاعر الإنسانية وطبيعة الحياة المتناقضة.

يمكن للعديد من الأفراد أن يرتبطوا بهذا الشعور لأنه يعكس التجربة الإنسانية الحديثة المتمثلة في التوفيق بين أدوار متعددة، والنضال مع ضيق الوقت، والصراع مع ضغوط مجتمع سريع الخطى. إنه يجسد الشعور بأنك غارق في المطالب والمحفزات، ومع ذلك لا تزال تتوق إلى شيء أكثر، شيء ذو معنى، أو شيء جوهري لإرضاء الروح.

في الحياة اليومية، غالبا ما تتجلى هذه المفارقة في جوانب مختلفة من المجالات الشخصية والمهنية. قد يكون هذا هو الشعور بأنك غارق في العمل ولكنك تشعر بعدم الرضا أو الرغبة في المزيد من المعنى في حياتك المهنية. ويمكن أن يكون أيضًا تجربة امتلاك العديد من الممتلكات المادية ولكن الشعور المستمر بالفراغ أو الشوق لاتصالات وتجارب أعمق. تجسد العبارة جوهر هذه المشاعر والرغبات المتضاربة.

علاوة على ذلك، يمكن تفسير عبارة "كل هذا أكثر من اللازم وغير كافٍ في نفس الوقت" على أنها تعليق على الثقافة الحديثة للإفراط والنزعة الاستهلاكية. في عالم يتسم بتدفق مستمر للمعلومات والمنتجات والخبرات، قد يجد الأفراد أنفسهم غارقين في الاختيارات والخيارات، لكنهم ما زالوا يتوقون إلى الشعور بالبساطة والرضا. وهذا قد يؤدي إلى شعور متناقض بالوفرة والفراغ في وقت واحد.

على مستوى أعمق، يمكن لهذه العبارة أيضًا أن تتحدث عن التوق الوجودي للمعنى والوفاء. على الرغم من وفرة التجارب والممتلكات، قد يجد البشر أنفسهم يتصارعون مع شعور عميق بعدم الإنجاز أو الشوق إلى روابط أو أغراض أعمق أو شعور أكبر بالانتماء. تؤكد هذه المفارقة سعي الإنسان للبحث عن المعنى والأهمية في عالم غالبًا ما يكسونا بالشعور بالإرهاق والافتقار في نفس الوقت.

في الواقع، "كل هذا أكثر من اللازم وغير كاف في نفس الوقت" يلخص السعي الإنساني الأبدي لتحقيق التوازن والانسجام. إنه بمثابة تذكير مؤثر بأن السعي وراء حياة مُرضية لا يكمن فقط في تراكم الثروات أو الخبرات الخارجية، بل في إيجاد شعور بالتوازن بين الوفرة والندرة، بين الإنجاز والرضا، وبين المادي والروحي.

ووسط التناقضات والتعقيدات التي تلخصها هذه العبارة، فإنها تدعو البشر إلى إعادة تقييم قيمهم وأولوياتهم وأهدافهم. تدعوهم إلى البحث عن الإنجاز ليس فقط في الزخارف الخارجية للنجاح ولكن في ثراء العلاقات والمساعي الهادفة والسعي لتحقيق السلام الداخلي. إنها بمثابة شهادة على الشوق الإنساني العميق لحياة وفيرة ومرضية للغاية.

في نهاية المطاف، "كل هذا أكثر من اللازم وغير كاف في نفس الوقت" يجسد جوهر الحالة الإنسانية - وهو تفاعل معقد بين الرغبات والنضالات والتطلعات. إنه يعكس التوتر الأبدي بين الوفرة والندرة، بين الإفراط والنقص، وبين السعي إلى الإنجاز والشعور الدائم بالشوق. إن احتضان هذه المفارقة يدعونا إلى الشروع في رحلة من الاستبطان واكتشاف الذات والسعي وراء حياة غنية حقًا وذات معنى عميق.

The phrase "It’s all too much and not enough at the same time" carries a deep and paradoxical sentiment that speaks to the complexities of human existence. It embodies the feeling of being overwhelmed by the abundance of experiences, tasks, or responsibilities, while simultaneously feeling unfulfilled or lacking in some way. This juxtaposition captures the duality of human emotions and the contradictory nature of life.

Many individuals can relate to this sentiment as it reflects the modern human experience of juggling multiple roles, battling with time constraints, and grappling with the pressures of a fast-paced society. It encapsulates the feeling of being inundated with demands and stimuli, yet still yearning for something more, something meaningful, or something substantial to satisfy the soul.

In daily life, this paradox is often manifested in various aspects of personal and professional spheres. It could be the feeling of being swamped with work yet feeling unfulfilled or craving more meaning in one's career. It could also be the experience of having a multitude of material possessions but feeling a persistent sense of emptiness or longing for deeper connections and experiences. The phrase captures the essence of these conflicting emotions and desires.

Furthermore, "It’s all too much and not enough at the same time" can be interpreted as a commentary on the modern culture of excess and consumerism. In a world where there is a constant influx of information, products, and experiences, individuals may find themselves inundated with choices and options, yet still yearning for a sense of simplicity and contentment. This may lead to a paradoxical feeling of abundance and emptiness simultaneously.

On a deeper level, this phrase can also speak to the existential yearning for meaning and fulfillment. Despite the plethora of experiences and possessions, individuals may find themselves grappling with a profound sense of unfulfillment or a longing for deeper connections, purpose, or a greater sense of belonging. This paradox underscores the human pursuit of seeking meaning and significance in a world that often feels overwhelming and lacking at the same time.

Indeed, "It’s all too much and not enough at the same time" encapsulates the eternal human quest for balance and harmony. It serves as a poignant reminder that the pursuit of a fulfilling life does not solely lie in the accumulation of external riches or experiences but in finding a sense of equilibrium between abundance and scarcity, between achievement and contentment, and between the material and the spiritual.

Amidst the contradictions and complexities encapsulated in this phrase, it calls upon individuals to reassess their values, priorities, and goals. It beckons them to seek fulfillment not just in the external trappings of success but in the richness of relationships, purposeful endeavors, and the pursuit of inner peace. It serves as a testament to the profound human longing for a life that is both abundant and deeply satisfying.

Ultimately, "It’s all too much and not enough at the same time" captures the essence of the human condition—an intricate interplay of desires, struggles, and aspirations. It reflects the eternal tension between abundance and scarcity, between excess and insufficiency, and between the quest for fulfillment and the enduring sense of longing. Embracing this paradox invites individuals to embark on a journey of introspection, self-discovery, and the pursuit of a life that is truly enriched and deeply meaningful.

[the-peruvian-whovian]

An alternate Barbie movie ending *spoilers, obviously*

.

What if instead of choosing to become human, Barbie decided to become Weird? The story was already leading up to "weirdness" as complexity and depth, and setting up a very common womanhood conflict: being pretty vs. being expressive.

Weird Barbie isn't "pretty" anymore because she's been played with too hard and mutilated. But what if we establish those "alterations" of Barbie as creativity instead of destruction—little girls cutting and coloring their Barbie's hair and tattooing their skin with markers as a form of self-expression? That would tie perfectly with the theme that it's more important to "be yourself" than it is to "be pretty". In the original movie, even though her human (Gloria) wasn't chopping up her hair or burning her clothes, she was still altering her by imbuing "weird thoughts" in her like death and depression.

What if Stereotypical Barbie (Gloria's Barbie) and Weird Barbie (let's make it her daughter Sasha's Barbie) worked together to heal the mother-daughter rift? Like, let’s say Gloria finds Sasha weird and creepy for chopping up her Barbie’s hair and coloring it green and scribbling over her face as a kid, and for being brooding and off-kilter as a teen because she, Gloria, prefers a more traditional expression of femininity for herself. And Sasha thinks her mom is sterile and uncool, hates her girliness with deep reactionary internalized misogyny because the mere presence of her mother's traditional femininity feels like an expectation and a box for her. But their Barbies make them realize they are both strange and out-of-the-box in their own ways, and that they are both capable of hurting each other with mutual misogyny and contradictory expectations. Through the story, they find a way to appreciate each other’s different expressions of femininity, and their different rejections of it.

And then the climax could have been the CEOs forcing Stereotypical Barbie into the box to keep her pristine and sterile and pretty to be admired for all time, but never again be an extension of playtime, creativity or an avatar for a young girl's imagination. For a double whammy you could even make this be an allegory for Gloria’s (and many mothers') anxieties about aging (!!!), which is once again about the conflict between being pretty vs. being expressive. You can have Barbie's big moment be her choosing to be present for the human women she cares about instead of a future where being looked at is the most important thing!

We could still have the interaction with Ruth Handler at the end, but instead of Ruth giving Barbie her blessing to become human, she gives her a blessing to become Weird. A creator giving her creation the blessing to become something beyond what she intended—paralleling Gloria's experience of motherhood with her daughter. Both Ruth and Gloria navigate misogyny/oppression while being the imperfect creators of autonomous beings who choose to become something they didn’t intend. This way, we even take a little corporate responsibility for the way Barbie has been used to enforce femininity on young girls, but it still keeps that tender moment that makes women feel like they can be anything they choose to be, beyond patriarchy's expectations, and even beyond their mother's imaginations.

We could have that scene edited alongside a conversation between Gloria and Sasha where they accept each other and heal their rift. Since Barbie is sort of a representation of Gloria's inner child, that gives this moment a intergenerational feel: an older woman blessing a mid-adult woman, a mid-adult woman blessing a teen girl. I loved Gloria's "being a woman is literally impossible" speech in the original movie, but I wish the story had shown Gloria and Sasha go through any of the struggles she listed in her monologue to make it hit more emotionally for me within the narrative. In this version, maybe Gloria is a stay-at-home mom and Sasha is angry that her mom isn't feminist enough, or maybe Gloria is a career woman and Sasha is angry her mom doesn't spend enough time with her. Maybe Sasha wants to express her fashion choices and sexuality and Gloria acts out against it because is afraid Real World patriarchy is going to eat her alive. But in that weird nether world between Barbie World and the Real World, with Ruth Handler and their Barbies looking on, they can come to have grace for each other and accept that their choices are both valid and impossible. That they've both just trying to cling to each other to survive the contradictory expectations of women, and that ultimately their best allies are each other.

If you end THAT with a montage of moms and daughters throughout time, with that sad Billie Eilish song, I would ABSOLUTELY cry.

[phlve]

Psychosophy Descriptions — LEVF

A person with a mental type of "Pascal" is thoughtful, gifted, capable and, most likely, talented.

It would be nice to recognize these virtues from childhood and give them the green light in later life.

The character of a person of the "Pascal" psychotype is difficult, artistic, and prone to logical and philosophical understanding of the world around. The desire for intellectual knowledge is one of the main features of his personality, and he pays special attention to the knowledge of everything new and unusual. People around him do not consider him hardworking, he is prone to laziness, and it may very well be that there is a mess in his wardrobe and room. In childhood and adolescence, he often conflicts with relatives and teachers.

His inner attitude is as follows: the world is systemic and not perfect at the same time; thoughts and ideas can explain a lot, and the world is open for research; everything is predetermined and not accidental; in everything there is a deep meaning, mediated by cause-and-effect relationships; I need to understand this and declare myself, because they do not understand me, and my abilities have not yet been sufficiently appreciated by others! “People hate each other - such is their nature” (Blaise Pascal “Thoughts”).

It is possible that the bearer of the mental type "Pascal" is a misanthrope (enjoys misanthropy). He is tormented by human imperfection, including his own. He makes ethical claims to the world, and it seems to him that the world offends him. He is a vindictive person, but most likely denies it. A person with a mental type of "Pascal" with age tends more often to a religious worldview (there is God's Will for everything!).

He is often interested in various philosophical and mathematical models of the world order, mythology, psychosophy, history in all its diversity. On many issues, he has his own strong opinion, and it is very difficult to convince him.

In the case of the formed high intellectual level of development of his personality and the available educational background, he feels comfortable in science, primarily theoretical. He has an excellent memory, excellent erudition, original knowledge on certain issues, acquired in the process of self-education.

The complex nature of a person of a carrier of the mental type "Pascal" is manifested in duality, a hidden aggressive form of communication, resentment, embellishment of oneself, a critical analysis of the surrounding reality, based on one's own ideas; prone to argument, dogmatism and fanaticism; peremptory and excessive self-confidence in their rightness; promoting their ideas and views; in the pursuit of career and professional growth. He sometimes sleeps badly at night, dreaming of career advancement, fame and glory, but all his actions are often half-hearted, and he does not achieve his goals. This is from inner uncertainty. He is prone to depression and even suicide (parents, pay attention!).

In ordinary communication, a person, a carrier of the mental type "Pascal", is an original interlocutor, quite emotional and erudite, slightly monologue. His speech is bright, interesting, and incendiary. He is characterized by a good sense of humor, satire and sarcasm at the same time. The original sense of beauty, interest in complex and unusual art, his own talent and extraordinary appearance, charisma are conducive to communication. He is artistic, emotionally relaxed, his emotions are free and adequate to the moment of communication, and he always knows how to say what is needed. Sadness often visits such people due to the periodic feeling of self-doubt, ordinary human weakness in front of the objective difficulties generated by the surrounding world order (which is included in his plans to transform), and also due to the feeling of being a “black sheep” among people.

A person who is a bearer of the mental type "Pascal" is internally deeply insecure, contradictory in his actions. He carefully hides this duality from others. He hardly admits to himself in a certain duality of attitude, hostility towards people who, as it seems to him, do not understand him as an extraordinary and talented person. He is prone to lying. In disputes and discussions, his hidden, sometimes powerful intellectual cynicism, global and systematic thinking, accuracy as a quality of his mindset make themselves felt. In his heart, he remains a vulnerable teenager who needs a kind and wise parent. Pascal wrote in his “Thoughts”: “A person is by nature trusting, distrustful, timid, courageous ... dependent and longing for independence in a state of inconstancy, longing, anxiety.”

He is more than others interested in promoting his ideas, views and dreams of meeting a like-minded person with pronounced strong-willed character traits, whom he could lead.

He believes in destiny and his special destiny in this world.

The material world (money, things) for a person, the carrier of the mental type "Pascal", is of secondary importance - usually due to its absorption by philosophical reflections, and sometimes due to the fact that the material world is perceived not just as a burden, but as something that it must either change (and, by virtue of its global value, it cannot get), or as something that can be sacrificed without much regret (probably, people of this type are most inclined to develop predictions of the "end of the world"). In everyday life, "Pascal" is not selective, content with little. Easily adopts the household version of life, sexual style, preferences and tastes of a life partner. He himself is inclined to asceticism.

In nutrition, he easily joins vegetarianism, a raw food diet, and a separate diet. He is fond of oriental health practices, could be attracted by the culture of the East, traveling to places of Power; sometimes travel in India, Tibet, etc.

He is healthy, fearless and risk-averse. Cruel and merciless in an emergency. Outwardly, it is very attractive with the subtlety (icon-painting) of features, the harmony of the figure (if there are no hormonal disruptions in the focus).

Sexual relationships grow from hormonal surges, therefore they are not systemic and adapt to the sexual programs of partners.

By vocation - an inventor, researcher, traveler, dreaming of power, fame and recognition.

Source: The16Types

[denimbex1986]

'The day Christopher Nolan called Cillian Murphy about his new film, " Oppenheimer," Murphy hung up the phone in disbelief.

The Irish actor, though a regular presence in Nolan films going back almost two decades, had always been a supporting player. This time Nolan wanted him to lead.

"He's so understated and self-deprecating and, in his very English manner, just said, 'Listen, I've written this script, it's about Oppenheimer. I'd like you to be my Oppenheimer,'" Murphy, 46, told The Associated Press recently. "It was a great day."

For Murphy, it is never not exciting to get a call from Nolan. It's just hard to predict if he's going to. He knows there are some movies he's right for and some movies he isn't.

"I have always said publicly and privately, to Chris, that if I'm available and you want me to be in a movie, I'm there. I don't really care about the size of the part," he said. "But deep down, secretly, I was desperate to play a lead for him."

Murphy first met Nolan in 2003. He was brought in to screen test for Batman —not just the movie, the character. Murphy knew he wasn't right for the Dark Knight, but he wanted to meet the man who'd directed "Insomnia" and "Memento." They hit it off and Murphy got to tap into a sinister intensity to play the corrupt psychiatrist Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, who would go on to appear in all three films. Nolan would also call on Murphy to be the conflicted heir to a business empire in "Inception" and a traumatized soldier in "Dunkirk."

"We have this long-standing understanding and trust and shorthand and respect," Murphy said. "It felt like the right time to take on a bigger responsibility. And it just so happened that it was a (expletive) huge one."

Soon after the phone call, Nolan flew to Dublin to meet Murphy to hand him a physical copy of the script, which he devoured right there in Nolan's hotel room in September 2020. It was, he said, the best he'd ever read.

Then the scale of it started to sink in.

This would be a film about the charismatic and controversial theoretical physicist who helped create the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer and his peers at Los Alamos would test it on July 16, 1945, not knowing what was going to happen. Then several weeks later the United States would drop those bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people and leaving many with lifelong injuries.

As Nolan said last week in Las Vegas, "Like it or not J. Robert Oppenheimer is the most important person who ever lived."

"Oppenheimer," which opens in theaters on July 21, features a starry cast including Emily Blunt as Oppenheimer's wife Kitty, Matt Damon as Leslie Groves Jr., Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss, Gary Oldman as Harry S. Truman, and many more rounding out the pivotal players in and around this tense moment in history.

"You realize this is a huge responsibility. He was complicated and contradictory and so iconic," Murphy said. "But you know you're with one of the great directors of all time. I felt confident going into it with Chris. He's had a profound impact on my life, creatively and professionally. He's offered me very interesting roles over and I've found all of them really challenging. And I just love being on his sets."

Murphy continued: "Any actor would want to be on a Chris Nolan set, just to see how it works and to witness his command of the language of film and the mechanics of film and how he's able to use that broad canvas within the mainstream studio system to make these very challenging human stories."

Over the years, Murphy has come to appreciate that with Nolan there's always something deeper to discover than what's literally on the page. "Dunkirk," he recalled, was only 70 pages and there wasn't much to his character, not even a name.

"He said, 'Look, let's figure it out together and you and me can find an emotional journey for the character. And we did it. We did it out in the water on that boat. That comes from trust and respect," Murphy said. "I'm really proud of that performance."

As with all Nolan endeavors, secrecy around "Oppenheimer" is vitally important. Murphy loves the "old-fashioned approach" that builds interest and anticipation.

The difference with "Oppenheimer" and other Nolan originals, though, is that this is rooted in historical fact. You can read the book it's based on, Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin's Pulitzer Prize-winning "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer." You can watch the 1981 documentary "The Day After Trinity" on The Criterion Channel.

And you can try to parse Nolan's words for clues. He's talked about recreating the Trinity Test, the fascinating paradoxes, the twists, turns, and ethical dilemmas, and that the story is cinematic and both dream and nightmare. But ultimately, it's something that just needs to be seen.

"The question will be how Chris presents it," Murphy said. "I think people will be very surprised and wowed by what he does. Anything I say will just seem a bit lame as compared to seeing this in an IMAX theater."

The time for discussions will be after the movie comes out.

"There's an awful lot to talk about when we can talk freely," Murphy said with a smile.

He did offer up that they worked hard to get Oppenheimer's look right, from the silhouette to the pipe to the porkpie hat. The man, he said, "seemed aware of his own potential mythology." But, again, those conversations will have to wait.

"I'm really proud of the movie and I'm really proud of what Chris has achieved. This was, for sure, a special one, certainly because of the history with me and Chris. We were not walking around the set high fiving, but it did feel special." Murphy said. "It's an event every time he releases a film, and rightly so. Whether I'm in them or not, I always go to see his movies."'

[telekinetiq]

HEROIC

genuinely caring and sympathetic; wants to protect Pokémon and maintain their freedom and happiness. most of the 'wrong things' Mewtwo does is in pursuit of good goals.

fights for the 'underdog' and the weak; he wants to use his power and privilege to better the lives of those who don't have it.

overprotective and self-sacrificing; willing to put himself in harm's way and even give up his own life or freedom to preserve that of those precious to him.

honest and genuine, to a blunt and offensive extreme. will not sugarcoat things, but will also not leave anyone confused about where he stands.

courageous and brave; despite how much he runs and hides from things, when all the chips are down, he won't run. he will fight when it is the best or only option.

stubborn, both in the good and bad way. in the good ways, he won't back down or give up in the face of adversity. no matter how heavy the burden, he will keep going until he breaks.

careful and thoughtful, really tries to think about how his actions will affect those he cares about, and tries his best to avoid causing them harm.

beneath his hard shell, he is loving. he loves so much. he cares so much. he feels so much. he can't help it. and sometimes those feelings take him on very bad paths with dire consequences, but he can't shut them off, because the alternative of feeling nothing is terrifying. he wants to help, even if he can only hurt.

VILLAINOUS

anger. so much anger. at everything. at the world, at humans, at himself. this anger is what fuels his desire for change, to make the world a better place. even if 'better' is subjective.

emotionally and mentally isolated / guarded, somewhat intentionally. keeps people at a distance, even loved ones, as much for their protection as his own.

distrusting and paranoid. always suspicious of strangers, especially if they're humans. plagued with intrusive thoughts and feelings, always on edge, looking for enemies and seeing shadows around every corner.

selfishly selfless, selflessly selfish.

arrogant and controlling, even if he tries to rein himself in. doesn't think he knows everything, but does think he knows better. "mother father knows best" mother gothel style. but gentler about it. usually.

on the flipside, also self-loathing, although will rarely ever open up or admit it. feels trapped and doomed to be the monster Rocket created him to be. fears he will never grow. fears even more than he doesn't really want to. hates himself for being a bioweapon. hates himself more for, somewhere deep down, enjoying it.

conjoined with above, prone to violent outbursts and acting impulsively when consumed with his emotions. an emotional ticking timebomb; spends so much effort repressing his negative feelings and urges that they eventually combust. doesn't believe in 'might is right', but simultaneously uses his might to prove he is right.

bit of a hypocrite at times and has a shitload of cognitive dissonance. extremely conflicted and indecisive at times; has competing and contradictory feelings and wants. ex: M2 is very big on personal freedom and agency, but also wants to make decisions for the world and its pokemon in trying to make the world "a better place".

'the ends justify the means.'

petty and vindictive, holds onto grudges for a long time and doesn't forgive easily, if at all. not a big believer in redemption or change, for others as well as himself. stubborn and very difficult to change his mind.

[aulel-process]

I feel intrigued.

Tyrell is openly gay and openly in love with Elliot!!! Will this chemistry get me to watch Mr. Robot?

I also feel discomfited because, from only a 10 minute clip of Mr. Robot, I feel I relate too much to Elliot, and I’m not sure I feel ready to watch that on screen...

I think the heart of a lot of great art is the ability to tap into the chaos that can be the human condition... it’s... therapy in a way... but I don’t think I’m ready to really... go there... or if I do... it’s more like the Disaster Artist movie - so melodramatic that his personal tragedy becomes comedy, haha.

But I do... like what creator Esmail said about Elliot as a character here:

“when I started piecing together who Elliot as a character is, I wanted to really represent his loneliness in a very authentic way. And because his isolationism is part of what drives him to hack people - I mean, that was the sort of irony or twist in his characters, is that he's so alone, but yet he's able to access sort of the most intimate details of everyone around him, to stay true to that kind of person, that kind of extreme that Elliot goes to. Dissociative identity disorder sort of fit what Elliot was sort of experiencing because he wasn't able to essentially connect to people. And sort of the contrast to that is that he just dissociates from them... So DID was just something that really fit, I think, what Elliot's journey was ultimately going to be about across the whole series, which is about this young man who cannot - through... his sort of deep isolation, can't find a way to connect with other people.” ( 1 )

I feel a desire to connect to others, and I think that is a part of making art (any stranger will know way too much about me from my art... as Taylor Swift said “I write songs that are like diary entries. I have to do it to feel sane.”)... but more often than not, the attempt leaves me feeling more alone. If someone talks about how they like the weather, I think, “Please stop. I don’t know anything meaningful about you from your affinity for blue skies. Is there anyone you would die for?” I do think many of our attempts to connect only result in more shallow and profound disconnection (social media)... and on the rare occasions I do feel close to someone, it’s more likely that the person has super powers in understanding and relating, and I am not so great at reciprocating... a friend once said his ex-wife couldn’t write male characters because she couldn’t understand in a deep and compelling way their experience... I suppose it’s something like that... I also don’t understand how for someone, playing a board game with a friend can feel like an intimate activity, when it feels for me like loneliness because my board game partner feels no less a stranger to me after the activity... (OH BUT WAIT... random contradictory thought... I wish I could find the article... a professional chess player once psychoanalyzed an opponent’s personality based off of the types of moves he liked to play and was astounding at understanding his values simply based off of which pieces he was most willing to sacrifice... it was compelling... can’t find the article now... so nevermind... I guess you can know someone deeply from a board game)

From the reviews I’ve read online, it does seem uplifting that Elliot does manage to form a number of strong relationships as the show progresses, Tyrell being one of them... He also seems to have some very complicated relationships with the multiple personalities within himself and that just seems like a fun party... he also seems to have a lot of inner conflict because of his belief system (oh goodness...)... I have no passion or knowledge of politics, so I shouldn’t even mention this... I think.. elements of elitism/meritocracy, authoritarianism, egalitarianism, libertarianism, and anarchism all speak to me and clash... I believe in the value of authority and expertise and even think a life devoted to mastering/achieving authority in an area of expertise is a meaningful choice (and I think certain authorities, especially in the sciences should play a governing role in society maybe)... But I think for whatever reason, I value freedom above all else, so the anarchist maxim of “no individual has the right to coerce another individual” is compelling... I don’t see the point of consumerism... Mr. Robot... is an anarchist??? Not sure, haven’t seen more than 10 minutes... I also have strange stigmas around commodifying art because that is akin to turning selfhood into a commodity which in some ways, I won’t explicate here, seems morally wrong...

I think I’ve never made conscious any of my beliefs and I seem to have a hard time disagreeing without being disagreeable... and whatever unconscious beliefs I do have seem strong enough that I become angry when I feel conflict/misunderstanding? Strange... all new things to me... 

Rambles... Elliot would probably count this as spam... I count most of my posts as spam... not sure I want to diary my thoughts on overstimulation (there is too much of everything... in short.. when I was young and naive, I used to think everything I thought was fascinating... then I came across too many brilliant ideas... billions of brilliant truly novel, ground breaking ideas are churned out everyday in every discipline.. many requiring years of thought to construct... any of my copious 5 minute word vomits are noise at best... a youtuber I like said once, he always ponders is he only producing more noise the world doesn’t need? Why do I do it? I suppose in another bid to be understood... being understood doesn’t need to be groundbreaking... 

also.. I’ve realized anytime I share something self-critical, there are some who rejoice? It’s similar to how some people rejoice when they imagine negative events happening to me... I am perhaps... far too not light hearted as a person... and am egregiously unforgiving when I sense the slightest hint of “betrayal” or someone not being on my side... hell... if I define trust in another as, “this person would die for me” should the hypothetical life or death circumstance ever arise, then even light hearted ribbing I can count as betrayal... too extreme maybe? Going from, this small tease implies you don’t wish well for me, this means you won’t die for me, get out of my life.

I mean... if a person won’t hypothetically die for you... why would you want them in your life?

Should I watch Mr. Robot? 

[blueiight]

I think modern Louis still speaks like someone from a different time though, he doesn't use modern slang/references the way Daniel often does (even though he's an old man) so I think he's still relating the story using the language he is familiar with. The "sanctioned" part is because he wasn't going to compromise on the blood diet and in doing so is not giving Lestat his patriarchal privileges in the bedroom. He later calls it an agreement to Jonah but later he sees that its absolutely not after Lestat flips out on him and by the end of the episode he's walking out on him cause they can't get on the same page about anything. Yes there's conflicting sentiments in what he's saying but it's also cause the situation is so jumbled and you could also argue that Lestat has the same issue when he differentiates their cheating with Louis having feelings for Jonah, even though that was never prohibitive in their agreement?

well daniel is a mere 69-70 to louis’s 144-145 n danny work/ed in mass media so being in tune w current lingo / trends is a near req for his job. i think modern louis use of language is purposeful: when u think of the titular interview with the vampire, we have our own cultural perceptions, and to a certain extent, the ricean vampire is a relic of its time that is as stubborn as it is adaptive. they pick and choose what about the present they like, and maintain past patterns convenient for their purpose. so yes, louis may genuinely be out of trend but i like to think its also purposeful. he wants to be like that. louis is extremely familiar with literary conventions and archetypes. the interview itself is a rhetorical device, and louis is purposeful in the story he wants to tell in 2022 to the point of burning the 70s tapes even. thats not ethical louie lou lol. the introduction of the concept of vampire to the gp as an eternal creature purposefully discomfits the modern observer, reminds the modern viewer of its alien ways with its selectively archaic use of language. louis's power is his use of language. i think that was the point of the person's original post in discussing the contradictory use of language in the phrase "sanctioned infidelity” along w their other examples. agree that the semantics of sanctioned infidelity aside the actual situation in that moment for les x lou in the 1910s-20s is clearly one-way like u said it is not reciprocal at all bc louis is the wife/pursued party in this dynamic, and the anger from lestat is bc jonah is a tether to humanity. jonah & louis were both black gay men in the deep south, and knew eachother since they was young. even tho jonah was clearly leaving the city not long after to go back to the warfront & imo the only person 1910s lou could even think of or would try to be with outside of lestat, all these things, lestat is also a paranoid hypocrite scared of being abandoned nd cannot delineate louis's past feelings from the present. multiple things can be true ykwimmm. this is my catchphrase w my anons soz

[unluckyhorseshoecrab]

this post has been a long time coming: it's about the kintsugi kid (ten years) because of course it is

i've been seeing a lot of reads of Marvel's feature as, "and then he made it! he survived! and has a beautiful family!" which--of course that's true. of course that's true, and we absolutely can celebrate that for him. and that acknowledgement, that juxtaposition between the lyrics of the song and the joy implied in Marvel's feature--that's very real, and very beautiful.

and also pete wentz never met a meaning he couldn't multiply. there is never only one way to read a fall out boy song.

I'll be upfront with my biases here: i'm neurodivergent, from a family of neurodivergent addicts, and so i read this song through that lens. and what first struck me about it--and one of the things that keeps this song in my chest--is that he says "i miss" in present tense

"i miss the way i felt nothing"

the thing about mental illness, and addiction, and neurodivergence whether it gets classed as 'illness' or not, is that it never fucking goes away. it double extra never goes away when there's no medication for it, or medication isn't for you for reasons of addiction, or access, or, or-- and the thing about addiction is that the drug of choice can become dear, and there can be a deep loss in leaving it behind (i felt you at the beginning and needed you at the end). and the thing about grief is that it never goes away, either. and the thing about the kintsugi kid (ten years) is that, to me, it is a song with long arms. it can hold many things at once.

"on the bright side / got the wrong insides" is a central moment when the song holds two conflicting truths at the same time. there's gratitude, there, for the way you don't fit with the world, and for the ways that experience has shaped you painfully--it can't not be painful, not when you see yourself as a hard, hard pill to swallow-- but embracing it/yourself/your hurt all the same

and in that light, I let Marvel's feature hold contradictory simultaneous truths, too. she is joy: a child howling in primal glee, so "into being a rock star;" unfiltered, wholehearted human expression

and, Pete says "i miss" in present tense. the ache for the drug of choice, for the comfort and ease of being numb, is always there. even when you have a beautiful life, and a loving family, and a band who supports you and puts music to thoughts you were afraid to share. even then, amidst the joy, and the living beyond where you ever thought you'd get, "i miss the way i felt nothing"

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | The Color of Money (Scorsese, 1986)

I don't believe most people think of Martin Scorsese as an action director, but one can find plenty of examples that suggest his talents in that area. There's the Rube Goldberg machine of violent comeuppance that closes The Departed, the splatterific climax of Taxi Driver, the bruising boxing matches of Raging Bull, the thunderous final moments of Boxcar Bertha. These aren't exactly intended to deliver the thrills we associate with action movies (except maybe Bertha), but they display a sure sense of how to stage and cut action to generate precise effects. In that sense, The Color of Money offers ample more evidence of such abilities in its numerous pool matches. The best thing about these scenes is the way Scorsese captures their sense of geometry, moving his camera in kinetic bursts along angles that evoke the ricocheting of the balls off each other and the edges of the table. The climax of the movie is a tournament match between Paul Newman and his protege Tom Cruise, the camera snapping along, the editing whipping us back and forth, masterfully capturing the energy of not just the match but the sense of personal conflict between the two characters. Scorsese has delivered us so many great sequences that I wouldn't dare rank this near the top, but in that long, long list, I think we can carve out a well deserved spot for this.

The movie is not regarded as one of his best and I understand it was seen as something of a sellout assignment. Now, I have two perhaps contradictory responses to this. One is: so what? Perhaps I've grown weary of our modern studio environment where big money generally gets thrown only at increasingly bland projects and where actual star power seems harder and harder to come by, but going back a few decades and seeing a mass-marketed commercial movie made with this standard of craft and this level of personality and confident execution of tropes, it's easy to find things to enjoy here. The fact is, Scorsese is a master director, and even a more overtly commercial project by him is going to be extremely well made. I happen to think Cape Fear and the aforementioned Boxcar Bertha are both pretty good too. As far as selling out goes, one could do a lot worse.

My other response is that I don't think he's really selling out here. Yes, there are formulas, but Scorsese finds ways to either subvert them or colour them with additional human interest. The fallout from the big match isn't what we expect, and the resonance of these scenes come from how specifically these characters have been developed. The movie is a long gap sequel to Robert Rossen's The Hustler, and while it initially seems to lack the same psychological claustrophobia as the earlier movie, developments later in the movie wring a sense of trauma from our memories of our earlier movie. One of the best scenes in the movie show astutely how deeply shaken Newman's character is after being conned by a pool hall hustler (an electric Forest Whitaker, threatening to run away with the movie). The tension in his voice is palpable when he asks repeatedly, "Are you a hustler, Amos?"

And Scorsese has a deep appreciation for his actors' star qualities, particularly Newman, who combines his classic Hollywood charm with a sense of fallibility and fraught psychological realism. Probably the greatest thing about Newman's performance is its sense of texture, effortlessly evoking a sense of being at this for too long, and having picked up a certain amount of wisdom but maybe not enough. It's a quality that extends to his wardrobe: Newman is one of the most stylish people to ever grace this planet, and in this movie wears one of the greatest collection of sunglasses I've seen in a movie. (In contrast, Cruise gets an amusingly high pompadour that feels like a joke Scorsese played on him, although it works for the character. Just because he's got a story to tell doesn't mean he can't have some fun.) And it's extends even to his voice, simultaneously smooth and gravelly, aged like the whiskey he's been hawking, and Scorsese complements it with the sense of texture he brings to his direction. This doesn't have the intense B&W look of the original, but from the opening shots, a pan across the bar where you can practically feel the wood underneath your hands, smell the cigarettes in the air, taste the booze in those half-empty glasses, it's quite evocative in its own way. This movie is coloured by a deep love of these milieus and the characters who make their way through them.

[barbaramoorersm]

May 26, 2024

Trinity Sunday

May 26, 2024

Deuteronomy 4: 32-34, 39-40

This is a reflection on God’s goodness to the Hebrew people.

Psalm 33

The psalmist reflects on the fact that we are blessed by God’s choice.

Romans 8:14-17

Paul speaks of the power of God and that we are recipients of the Spirit as well as being heirs with Christ.

Matthew 28: 16-20

Jesus asks his disciples to baptize men and women in the name of the Trinity.

Father Joseph Donders, a Missionary serving in Africa wrote, “Who is God?”  “Jesus revealed to us that God is community, that God is not alone, though one.  God is family, not isolated, not aloof, haughty, or unsocial.  God relates, God is one, but also many.”  These descriptions on the one hand, sound contradictory but on the other hand, may help in a limited way, to understand the character of the Trinity we celebrate this weekend. 

In a sermon which I heard at Pentecost time; the preacher spoke about the unity yet diversity that is characteristic of the parish he serves.  He also added that unity does not mean uniformity.  His bottom line was that his community is diverse, yet each of these diverse elements enrich the whole.  On a very human level his ideas may help us understand the Trinity and its unity of purpose.  All be it in a very limited way.

Jesus spoke so frequently that “God is love,” and that we are “to love one another.”  But these statements presume that we are members of a community.  And Jesus reinforces that idea by saying that he is with us in community.  “I am with you always.”

Community is at the heart of our Christian faith.  Paul reinforces that concept when he writes to the Romans that they are” children of God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ….”  And you and I were baptized into a community of faith.

But we must admit that in many areas of our lives and indeed even in our Church, there are divisions within the communities to which we belong.  Divisions over human sexuality, the place of women in the Church, the conflicts over the role of government and the courts, as well as conflicts over who should vote and who should be restricted from voting.  The access to abortions had deeply divided our communities.  And expression of conflict over the war in Gaza have divided colleges and universities.

But our faith tells us that God, while one, expresses divinity in the person of three with different roles.  The three, while distinct are united in harmony and love, and model so much for our conflicted world. The Creator, the Redeemer and the Advocate work together displaying unity in their diversity.   It is a mystery to be sure.

And as limited human beings we try to define the Trinity.  Kathleen Norris, a Presbyterian, and associate with the Benedictine order, shares a metaphor about the Holy Spirit.   She speaks of “an image of the Trinity as a plant, with the Father as a deep root, the Son as the shoot that breaks forth into the world and the Spirit as those which spreads beauty and fragrance….”

The Trinity, is unity amid diversity.  And that it seems to me is the challenge of all of us as modern Christians.  To be one in our love for one another, and at the same time respect the diversity we each bring to the world.  Imagine what might happen if we tried to live that way.  To accept and rejoice in the gifts God has given each one of us and respect and rejoice in the gifts of our brothers and sisters.  The Trinity is a model of “Unity in Diversity.”  And it is a model that can bring peace, acceptance, and joy to our small and large worlds.

[aressida]

A Dream: "Free Yourself From Yourself And Others." - Aressida. 7.12.23.

When will some individuals come to the realization that their ignorance has been preventing them from being convinced? That the only person obstructing your path is you.

I see your face, but my eyes are focused on your spirit.

I may appear contradictory to you, yet you can still count on my devotion.

I understand that the hardships in my life are not intended to ruin you. I have learned to cope with enough agony to last a lifetime by handling it all on my own. I have experienced a great deal of suffering, and I have decided enough is enough.

A pain that I can manage, but that does not imply that I should deserve it.

I faced trials and adversity more than I might realize, and I have faced head-on. I had to overcome my inner darkness before I could fully emerge as the light. In order to save my soul. Just like the dark cannot exist without the light.

I live on the chaotic energy that's unleashed from the use of power. Because I have fought several conflicts and skirmishes, I do not have an ordinary vocation. With a prayer in their minds, I lead the lost souls free and imprison my enemy.

I know that now I use prayer to imprison my adversary first, then I learn to imprison my adversaries and ask them to pray. It our job to help another human being. Period.

In my opinion, I am not designed to be around a lot of people. I serve as an example for others.

I want to inspire individuals to think independently, consider the available data, and act in their own best interests. After imparting the necessary knowledge, I move on. Since helping others is what life is all about, it fills me with a deep sense of appreciation and serenity. That is fundamental to me and what I am.

It is challenging when I can detect your dishonesty, mislead me or others, taste the words you withhold, sense the energy from your soul, and detect when you lie. It bothers me when people's potential gets harmed, and their sense of fulfillment is damaged or misguided.

I understand what it's like to be lost, to meander, and to fall from grace, and it's crucial that you never lose yourself in the process. Healing is a long, steep learning curve in which you examine yourself and discover how to let go of the suffering of your ancestors and your circle.

Though you might feel dark right now, take a glance about you and discover your inner Light. I have faith in you.

I want to remind Satan himself that despite he may have wounded you, he does not have the last say. Because the Lord is winning the war and will ultimately prevail, you cannot beat Satan by talking sense into his head or by compromising with him.

Never forget that God triumphs.

"In the name of Jesus, I forever destroy every fort, connection, disguise, curse, hex, evil desire, spell, incantation, seal, and wicked scheme those came from the tenants and evil spirits division that been directed at you. I cast you and your impure and deception at the feet of Jesus. Give you more time, grace, and mercy to sow and self-control to live these last days. You are the one being selected to follow your path towards authenticity. That is your rising. Amen."

I pray you will make it, and I will see you there.