#understanding beyond thought

[elisaenglish]

The Kiln and the Quantum of Relationships

Anything you give your time to and polish with attention will become a lens on your search for meaning, will lavish you with metaphors that become backdoors into the locked room of your most urgent reckonings.

This, of course, is what happens in our most intimate relationships, themselves the product of chemistry and chance. Under the extreme pressures of expectation and the high heat of need, something reacts with something, impurities are exposed and bubbles burst, each person activating dormant potencies in the other, so that a distinct third entity comes alive—the dynamic reality of the relationship—incinerating the notion of the individual self as a set of inherent properties, hinting at the relational nature of reality itself. 

A century after the Indian poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore observed that  “relationship is the fundamental truth of this world of appearance,” physicist Carlo Rovelli traces the scientific path to that same truth in his excellent quantum primer Helgoland (public library), titled after the windswept North Sea island on which the twenty-three-year-old Werner Heisenberg arrived at the idea that became the mathematical blueprint for the staggering cathedral of quantum field theory: that revolutionary description of how one aspect of reality—one object, one entity, one part of nature—manifests itself to any other. Because every description of a thing is a claim about its nature, at the heart of the theory is the claim that interaction is the fundamental reality of the universe, that there are no entities as such—only dynamic manifestations of which we catch an evanescent glimpse and call that flashing image entity. 

Rovelli writes:

“The world that we know, that relates to us, that interests us, what we call “reality,” is the vast web of interacting entities, of which we are a part, that manifest themselves by interacting with each other. […] The properties of an object are the way in which it acts upon other objects; reality is this web of interactions.”

This is why objectifying—the impulse to reduce something or someone to a set of properties—always misses the point of the objectified, and why we always draw closer to reality when we instead “subjectify” the universe, as Ursula K. Le Guin put it in her magnificent meditation on the interplay of poetry and science. The intersubjective—the dynamic reality that arises from the interactions between objects with seemingly fixed properties—is the essence of the quantum world, and it is also the essence of human relationships. Who you become in a particular relationship is not any more you or less you than who you are in your deepest solitude, because there is no you—the self is not the container of your interactions with the rest of the world but the contents. 

Observing that the “phantasmal world of quanta is our world,” Rovelli writes:

“The world fractures into a play of points of view that do not admit of a univocal, global vision. It is a world of perspectives, of manifestations, not of entities with definite properties or unique facts. Properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects. Objects are such only with respect to other objects, they are nodes where bridges meet. The world is a perspectival game, a play of mirrors that exist only as reflections of and in each other.”

With an eye to quantum entanglement, he articulates what I learned at the kiln:

“Even if we know all that can be predicted about one object and another object, we still cannot predict everything about the two objects together. The relationship between two objects is not something contained in one or the other of them: it is something more besides.”

The great paradox of this subject-object approach to modelling reality is that all of our descriptive models are inherently claims of an outside perspective on it, and yet they all arise from our mental activity, which is inherently interior. In a passage that calls to mind quantum pioneer Erwin Schrödinger’s koan-like insistence that ��this life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is in a certain sense the whole,” Rovelli writes:

“If the world consists of relations, then no description is from outside it. The descriptions of the world are, in the ultimate analysis, all from inside. They are all in the first person. Our perspective on the world, our point of view, being situated inside the world… is not special: it rests on the same logic on which quantum physics, hence all of physics, is based. If we imagine the totality of things, we are imagining being outside the universe, looking at it from out there. But there is no “outside” to the totality of things. The external point of view is a point of view that does not exist. Every description of the world is from inside it. The externally observed world does not exist; what exists are only internal perspectives on the world which are partial and reflect one another. The world is this reciprocal reflection of perspectives.”

This fundamental axiom of being is, to me, the first and final proof that the measure of our lives is the light between us.

Source: Maria Popova, themarginalian.org (20th April 2025)

[keferon]

THE NEW CHAPTER OF MISTAKES ON MISTAKES UNTIL IS OUT AND YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS~~~~~~

Spoilers for ch 74 below >:)

Head in hands. And then they all happened to be self sacrificial idiots.

Infinitely delighted by the fact that Optimus automatically decided to catch whoever was falling and only look who that was afterwards. 100/10. Peak Optimus writing.

[ratsreading]

Thinking of what it must be like to be loved by a ship like the Perihelion. I think it must be a little like being loved by a god. A minor god and one with true personality, a god from a pantheon, with limited power and no claims to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, no claims of being the One True God. And yet, a god. Its mind so powerful it can be present with you and yet in a hundred other places simultaneously, it holds you safe inside of it - or not (as Mother Nature holds us safe on Earth - or not). It can rain destruction when angered or help you if it wishes. Inside of its realm (itself), within its dominion, it sees all, controls all (not other people, but the very ground you walk on, the air you breathe). Outside of it, it can help you if it sees what is happening, but is not in control of everything. If you are within its reach, it is there, present with you always, a voice in your head, a friend (because this god spaceship loves you).

[can-a-tuna-fish]

I have something to say about boyf riends being queer platonic but the world isn’t ready

[fist-of-vengeance]

i can't believe how many people view mark and helly as an instance of the "forced heterosexual romance between two leads utterly devoid of chemistry" trend. like i respect your opinion and I've been there with many shows before. but i genuinely could not agree less

[nobodymitskigabriel]

So many people will be outright antagonistic to any acknowledgment of Dean's abusive tendencies and insist you "just enjoy the show" as if abuse is something tangential that people project onto the characters and not intrinsically linked with Supernatural's themes. Imagine if anytime you tried to discuss John's abuse of Sam and Dean, people said that it was unnecessary hair splitting. This isn't about cancelling Dean, or woobifying Sam or Jack. It's just a part of the show we are watching.

[thethiefandtheairbender]

Had a good chat with my partner about it today that maybe let me put a finger on what's always bugged me about "we're here to fix canon" attitudes being so prevalent in fandom (especially in the past 10ish years) throughout my life. This is not to say there's never a time or place for that (I've written fix its myself, or the occasional meta on how something could be fixed/improved) or that people are wrong to (we're anti fandom policing). It's also not an issue to me on the basis of "I love my blorbo in canon and fandom mischaracterizes them in the name of 'fixing' them" etc as it is just... coming from a fundamentally different perspective for story analysis / interaction than most (not all) people in fandom, I think.

One of the reasons I enjoyed getting my English degree was because I was finally being encouraged to and taught in alignment with what my brain had always be inclined to do: you always assume that there's a reason, and a good reason, for the story to do whatever it's doing. It assumes that the story is already exactly what it is supposed to be as it is supposed to be, and it's up to you to find the reasons Why.

The story was boring, or made you feel uncomfortable/bad, or you couldn't root for a character or relationship? All of that, at least at the beginning, doesn't really Matter. You assume that the story is paced fine, you assume the discomfort was intentional or part of something broader (historical shit that hasn't aged well) or that the dichotomy of "I feel invested or not invested" isn't useful. And in doing so, you replace all that with asking why.

An example I'll use is 1984 by George Orwell. I read that book in high school and I fucking hated it. Normally, I like the protagonist the most in anything I watch/read, but in that book, I loathed both the two leads and were actively rooting for them to be captured and tortured so the book could end faster; it was an actively miserable affair. I don't think that was necessarily the author's intention (certain amount of death of the author is baked in, but for a lot of the texts I was reading, we didn't even know the author or anything substantial about them, i.e. Beowulf) but, more importantly, I don't think any of those things are Flaws or downsides in the text.

Part of this is because 1984 is a dystopian novel (if a romcom book breaks genre convention that badly where you're miserable reading it, yeah, maybe something went wrong, but more on that in a minute) but even then it doesn't really matter on the basis of genre; I'm sure some people read 1984 and felt fascinated/excited while reading.

Rather, the focus becomes: what do I find so unlikeable about the protagonists? Why would they be written that way (on purpose)? What does it say about the society they live in? What does it say about their characterization, social stratification, etc etc? If a character does something that I think is non-sensical, why? Have I missed something? Should I watch retrospectively for clues? Is there another way to engage and to understand? Is what I label as confusion potentially a, or the, Point?

It is only after finding the reasons, and/or finding them unsuitable, that I let my subjective feelings into play. While a story can have great merit on the basis of relatability, relatability or "this aligns with my worldview / expectations / desires / etc." is not the be-all end-all of discerning quality

For example, I'm never going to be a fan of Jane and Rochester (she's 18, he's her 40 year old employer who routinely lies to her) but there are reasons, Good reasons, they get together in Jane Eyre (a book so subjectively boring I struggled through it twice) in response to both when the book was written and with the book's themes / symbols / their characterization. If they didn't end up together, it would be a fundamentally different story; it would not be Jane Eyre. So objectively, it's fine and an understandably massive influence on the western literary canon; subjectively, it's so fucking bad and I'm so glad I never have to read it again. But if I stopped there with my lack of interest or dislike of the main romance, I'd be missing out on what the text has to offer as well, the text.

This applies to more modern day stuff as well. I don't like Double Trouble from SheRa as nonbinary representation, and I'm nonbinary myself; however, I can acknowledge that the things I don't like about them were probably simultaneously empowering and exactly what the author (who is also nonbinary) wanted to be per his own experience of gender. Having a "I assume the text is right" mindset means that I can hold space for my own feelings/analysis (i.e. I also did not like Catra's arc, as I think she needed to learn other things / be written under a different lens) while holding space for the text as is (under the canonical lens of Catra learning it's never too late to be saved, I think her arc is conclusive and well done). And these two viewpoints aren't fundamentally opposed, but can coexist as analytical soup, being equally true / having equal value under the subjective (my view) and more 'objective' (the canon text's construction, or what I / the scholarly consensus, if it exists, believes it to be, anyway) at the same time.

Again, none of this is to say that you can't take issue with a canon text, or want to change something. I remember one time I was watching a show where their refusal to explore a romantic relationship between the female lead and her guy best friend was actively making the show worse; I understood their reasonings of wanting to put them with other people to explore their relationships, and wanting to emphasize a male-female friendship at the core of the story, and I still wanted them to put the two together as a Ship instead for various reasons. But that doesn't mean my line of thinking would've been Objectively Better—assuming if they had been paired together would've been executed in the manner I'd enjoy, or that them being paired with other people couldn't have been executed in ways I would've enjoyed more—merely that I likely would've enjoyed the series more per my own subjective preferences.

What I see in fandom sometimes is that people, understandably, aren't approaching at the start from a "the story always has a good reason" as much as they are speed-running from a "this didn't make sense to me or felt bad/off" and maybe examining why (which is supremely useful!) but not going back to examine the other side of the coin as to why the story would do it anyway.

Because sometimes the story—or a part of a story—is still 'bad' to us. It's just worthwhile to look at why it's 'good,' too.

[mulberrymelancholy]

Any "strong female character" list that includes MaoMao and Frieren but not Miyo is wrong and sexist actually.

[actuallyjustabiscuit]

Fuck it

I think I just need to say it

This whole scene to me…

Didn’t come off as flirting

Ok, I promise I’m not doing this to put down any FunnyGummy shippers.

The ship is fine. I like it

But just hear me out on this take, because there’s a specific reason I’m making it.

And to do that, I gotta do a quick analysis on their interactions.

So here’s the deal, it feels weird to call Pomni’s behavior towards Gummigoo in ep 4, namely all her clumsy stuttering and stumbling, as anything resembling infatuation.

The reason she’s failing to play it cool is because she’s suddenly reunited with someone who, not a couple days ago, was previously blown up right in front of her.

Like, I’m pretty sure she was struggling not to just immediately go “holy shit, you’re alive!?” as soon as she realized who was standing on the other side of the counter.

Let’s try walking in Pomni’s shoes for a bit. Imagine seeing someone you just befriended…suddenly get killed…in a pretty violent fashion…and then pop back up again with absolutely no warning.

You’d think the first thing you’d talk about upon reuniting would be something related to that.

But nah, they just waltz in wanting some breakfast like the average customer in this little fast food simulation game that you are being forced to play in.

Now, let’s go back to ep 2

Gummigoo had accidentally stumbled onto the other side of Caine’s curtain, making him question his entire existence. Leaving Pomni the only one available to explain and to effectively shatter his worldview by revealing that he, and everyone he knows, is an NPC. And his reaction to all of this was naturally negative. He goes from panicking at the discovery to being completely dismal over the loss of the reality he knew.

To say the poor guy was going through it would be an understatement.

Gummigoo was pretty much in a hopeless state. Being burdened with eye opening knowledge is a very lonely experience. Especially when it seems you’re the only one to be made aware of it. It’s not hard to see why Pomni took the time to help him. She was forced to suddenly comprehend a different reality just the other day.

“Feeling like your nothing is kinda normal.” is a wild way to try to relate to someone, but she decided to take a seat next to him because it’s probably the most normal thing she’s heard since she’s been there.

And what’s important to note about their conversation under the map is that with every attempt that Pomni initially makes to help him feel less alone, Gummigoo’s quick to brush it off because none of it is enough to diminish the fact that he’s not a real person, and therefore does not get to exist as a real person. Believing that his friends care about him the same way he does for them is pretty much cold comfort when their roles have been literally coded for them.

Even when she offered him a way out of his situation, he wasn’t immediately keen on taking it. His question, “how does this benefit you at all?” is the kind of question someone asks when they place no real value on themselves as a person. He was so quick to accept that he is nothing, because from his understanding that’s what he would essentially be reduced to once the adventure is over. This is what fills him with dread, knowing his life ends when his purpose as a character is complete. And it’s only when Pomni finally gives him a new role, being her friend, that he begins to respond positively.

He goes from a fake bandit to a real friend, giving his existence some validity.

The show has been doing a great job at establishing that Pomni is the kind of earnest person to lend a helping hand. But, considering how she failed to help someone the day prior, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was placing a lot of responsibility on herself to make sure this guy at least gets a chance to not feel like nothing. Helping him benefits her beyond feeling less alone in this strange new life, it was also a chance to redeem herself.

This time she wasn’t going to abandon someone who needed her.

And then he was fucking obliterated.

Once again, Pomni failed at helping someone. And not just a stranger, this time it was someone she called a friend. On top of that, she didn’t just failed, she practically led this lamb to slaughter. She didn’t know the outcome of course, but it was still her idea to take him to the Circus.

It was her insistence on bringing him along that got him killed

So now she’s talking to someone who may or may not be the same person because he sure damn well looks like him.

And if he didn’t really die, then perhaps she didn’t really screw up again, at least that’s what she’s hoping for

However, this isn’t the Gummigoo that got stranded under the map with her and needed consoling from his existential crisis.

This is just a guy who’s still waiting on his Sausage Bacon Jaffle Combo, and is super weirded out that the cashier girl is crawling around trying to get his attention.

And you can see all the hope in Pomni’s eyes die at that realization.

Additionally, her saying “I…don’t know” feels like it goes beyond the surface level “we met before…but you don’t remember me, so maybe not…”

Because, really, Pomni actually doesn’t know Gummigoo.

She never got the chance to know him. Sure she knows what he is, but who Gummigoo was as a person was what they both were going to find out together.

But this Gummigoo doesn’t have the baggage of knowing the truth, which is what ultimately led him to feel like nothing, and in turn needing the validation that he doesn’t have to be nothing. Here, he’s just a simple customer.

This isn’t her friend. And Pomni has to accept that it’s best that he doesn’t remember her. He doesn’t think he’s nothing, and that’s all that matters.

Alright, so why am I really going over all of this?

Why bother making a whole post analyzing these two just to pedantically point out that their interactions have been purely platonic?

Well to tell you the truth, it’s cuz I’m a little fed up with all of it.

I don’t mean people making assumptions that these two characters have feelings for each other.

Im talking more about the trend of when a girl is shown acting all nervous around a guy, people automatically conclude that she has a thing for him.

But when it’s two characters of the same gender acting the exact same way, you get some annoying commentary about how it’s for reasons unrelated to romance and how they “just don’t see it”

“It’s like people can’t just be friends anymore”

Does that phrase annoy you as much as it does me?

Now, thanks to Gooseworx, we are all in a collective understanding that none of the characters will actually get together romantically. So we are free to ship who we please, with the caveat that we are not to act superior over what will or will not be canon. And this is a good rule.

I’m too old to be making arguments against a ship because at the end of the day these weird little guys are public domain and you can imagine them being together in any way you please because they’re just characters.

So me saying that people viewing Pomni’s behavior towards Gummigoo in ep 4 as inherently smitten are misconstruing their relationship just sounds like I’m putting someone’s beloved ship down for no real reason other than just being weirdly contrarian about it.

And you’d be right to think that way.

But when you get people in this day and age who are so quick to label these interactions as romantic and then have trouble extending the same imagination towards a ship like ragapom, it starts to get a bit grating. That the awkward and nervous interactions between two women can be dismissed as platonic and anything more is just delusion.

Like, even people who sincerely ship them tend to make jokes about how delusional we are to do so. You don’t see that in people who ship FunnyGummy. And that’s a little depressing to me.

Now, I’m not saying you have to ship Pomni and Ragatha romantically. I’m not here to dictate anyone’s tastes or say anyone’s reasons for shipping are less valid than others.

I guess it just irks me that we don’t extend this platonic view just as readily towards straight pairings.

Like, I honestly feel that Pomni and Gummigoo’s relationship is appreciated less because of all the shipping.

Their story is so much richer than just another “love that could never be”. It’s the tragedy of losing a friendship only moments after its inception. Of having to come to terms that someone you wanted to be closer with, is better off living their life separate from yours. You wanted to be a positive influence on them, but it didn’t work out as planned, leaving you both to suffer as a result. And all you can do is wish them well as they leave you behind.

A lot of people like to see this pairing as a tragic romance because their circumstances give them prime shipping material. That her having feelings for him would make their separation feel bittersweet.

But Pomni not being in love with Gummigoo doesn’t invalidate the heartbreak of her having to say goodbye to him.

And it shouldn’t. Because he was her friend, for the brief special moment she knew him. And in the end, she did get to do something for him.

She got to wish him a pleasant day.

[beebfreeb]

One of the most heart-wrenching things that've ever happened to me occurred while trying to research the Super Paper Mario art style.

"Ohh what a beautiful and interesting art style! It is very distinctive! I wonder if anyone else has tried or wanted to try breaking it down and replicating it?" Obliviously, I typed in Super Paper Mario Art Style into my search bar... only to find many people calling it ugly and saying they hate it.

This simply could not be... permanent damage was done to my artistic soul.

No joy? No whimsy in this world? No love of computer graphics? Of a certain era of clipart? Of the art that was born from the computer and is difficult to replicate without one? Of the art made when this was something new and fascinating? No love for something unique?

Super Paper Mario don't listen to all those haters I love your geometric art style influenced by what shapes are easily drawn on a computer and the smooth mechanical interpolation within your animations. I love you. Also the music is banger.

[shorthaltsjester]

Imogen Temult, Exaltant Hope of the Red Storm

Heroes and Monsters by Penny & Sparrow // Critical Role Campaign 3

[elisaenglish]

List of Temptations (To Be Read Every Morning)

“Temptation of idleness (by far the strongest) Never surrender to the flow of time. Never put off what you have decided to do.

Temptation of the inner life Deal only with those difficulties which actually confront you. Allow yourself only those feelings which are actually called upon for effective use or else are required by thought for the sake of inspiration. Cut away ruthlessly everything that is imaginary in your feelings.

Temptation of self-immolation Subordinate to external affairs and people everything that is subjective, but never the subject itself—i.e. your judgement. Never promise and never give to another more than you would demand from yourself if you were he.

Temptation to dominate

Temptation of perversity Never react to an evil in such a way as to augment it.

Refuse to be an accomplice. Don’t lie—don’t keep your eyes shut…

— Two internal obstacles to be overcome:

Cowardice before the flight of time (mania for putting things off—idleness…)

Illusion that time, of itself, will bring me courage and energy... In fact, it is usually the contrary (sleepiness). Say to yourself: And suppose I should remain always what I am at this moment?... Never put something off indefinitely, but only to a definitely fixed time. Try to do this even when it is impossible (headaches…). Exercises: decide to do something, no matter what, and do it exactly at a certain time.

You live in a dream. You are waiting to begin to live…

— One must develop a habit. Training. Distinguish between the things I can put off, and those [I cannot]. Begin the training with small things, those for which inspiration is useless…

Every day, do 2 or 3 things of no interest at some definitely appointed time.

Reach the point where punctuality is automatic and effortless. —Lack of flexibility of imagination. An obstacle to be methodically overcome. The second screen between reality and yourself. Much more difficult. What is needed is something quite different from a methodical training… But precious.”

-Simone Weil, First and Last Notebooks-

[loboazul16]

This is how these two went right?

[dykealloy]

luffy getting frozen-hugged to death by a bird harpy woman, so close to giving in and passing out only to be woken up by the very THOUGHT of zoro telling him to get a grip.

[venti-death-watch]

actively exploring an 'opposite' au of sorts which started out as a 'switching role' au--

aventurine is a doctor (statistical analysis) and a member of the genius society. he's so good at predicting what'll happen that some people think he's psychic, and every company out there wants him on their official payroll instead of a contract.

dr ratio's work was stolen by the ipc, and he dropped everything to try to get it back and erase all copies of it, as a world-destroyer is horrifically dangerous in the ipc's hands. at this point, he's just trying to take down the ipc.

sunday & robin were picked up by the ipc after their planet's destruction, and are currently stonehearts (anglesite & moonstone).

[fluentisonus]

this daumier caricature of these gendarmes (apparently c. 1830) is killing me