#with the way that discourse is conducted. and that the problems will never truly be fixed. and even then | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

liquidstar · 4 years ago

Text

I feel as if many people, myself included, have been having problems with the way “critical thinking” is conducted in fandom circles more and more. Which I’d say is a good thing, because it means we’re thinking critically. But still the issues with the faux-critical mentality and with the way we consume media through that fandom group mentality are incredibly widespread at this point, despite being very flawed, and there are still plenty of people who follow it blindly, ironically.

I sort of felt like I had to examine my personal feelings on it and I ended up writing a whole novel, which I’ll put under the cut, and I do welcome other people’s voices in the matter, because while I’m being as nuanced as I can here I obviously am still writing from personal experience and may overlook some things from my limited perspective. But by and large I think I’ve dissected the phenomena as best I can from what I’ve been seeing going on in fandom circles from a safe but observable distance.

Right off the bat I want to say, I think it's incredibly good and necessary to be critical of media and understand when you should stop consuming it, but that line can be a bit circumstantial sometimes for different people. There are a lot of anime that I used to watch as a teenager that I can’t enjoy anymore, because I got more and more uncomfortable overtime with the sexualization of young characters, partly because as I was getting older I was really starting to realize how big of an issue it was, and I certainly think more critically now than I did when I was 14. Of course I don’t assume everyone who still watches certain series is a pedophile, and I do think there are plenty of fans that understand this. However I still stay away from those circles and that’s a personal choice.

I don’t think a person is morally superior based on where they draw the line and their own boundaries with this type of stuff, what’s more important is your understanding of the problem and response to it. There are series I watch that have a lot of the same issues around sexualization of the young characters in the cast, but they’re relatively toned down and I can still enjoy the aspects of the series I actually like without it feeling as uncomfortable and extreme. Others will not be able to, and their issues with it are legitimate and ones that I still ultimately agree with, but they’re still free to dislike the series for it, after all our stance on the issue itself is the same so why would I resent them for it?

Different people are bound to have different lines they draw for how far certain things can go in media before they’re uncomfortable watching it and it doesn’t make it a moral failing of the person who can put up with more if they’re still capable of understanding why it’s bad to begin with and able to not let it effect them. But I don’t think that sentiment necessarily contradicts the idea that some things really are too far gone for this to apply, the above examples aren’t the same thing as a series centered solely around lolicon ecchi and it doesn’t take a lot of deep analysis to understand why. It’s not about a personal line anymore when it comes to things that are outright propaganda or predatory with harmful ideals woven into the message of the story itself. Critical thinking means knowing the difference between these, and no one can hold your hand through it. And simply slapping “I’m critical of my interests” on your bio isn’t a get out of jail free card, it’s always evident when someone isn’t truly thinking about the impact of the media they consume through the way they consume it.

I think the issue is that when people apply “Critical thinking” they don’t actually analyze the story and its intent, messages, themes, morals, and all that. Instead they approach it completely diegetically, it’s basically the thermian argument, the issue stems from thinking about the story and characters as if they’re real people and judging their actions through that perspective, rather than something from a writer trying to deliver a narrative by using the story and characters as tools. Like how people get upset about characters behaving “problematically” without realizing that it’s an intentional aspect of the story, that the character needs to cause problems for there to be conflict. What they should be looking at instead is what their behavior represents in the real world.

You do not need to apply real-world morals to fictional characters, you need to apply them to the narrative. The story exists in the real world, the characters and events within it do not. Fictional murderers themselves do not hurt anyone, no one is actually dying at their hands, but their actions hold weight in the narrative which itself can harm real people. If the character only murders gay people then it reflects on whatever the themes and messages of the story are, and it’s a major issue if it's framed as if they’re morally justified, or as if this is a noble action. And it’s a huge red flag if people stan this character, even if the story itself actually presents their actions as reprehensible. Or cases where the murderers themselves are some kind of awful stereotype, like Buffalo Bill who presents a violent and dangerous stereotype of trans women, making the character a transmisogynistic caricature (Intentional or otherwise) that has caused a lot of harm to the perception of trans women. When people say “Fiction affects reality” this is what they mean. They do not mean “People will see a pretend bad guy and become bad” they mean “Ideals represented in fiction will be pulled from the real world and reflected back onto it.”

However, stories shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you the lesson as if you’re watching a children’s cartoon, stories often have nuances and you have to actively analyze the themes of it all to understand it’s core messages. Oftentimes it can be intentionally murky and hard to parse especially if the subject matter itself is complicated. But you can’t simply read things on the surface and think you understand everything about them, without understanding the symbolism or subtext you can leave a series like Revolutionary Girl Utena thinking the titular Utena is heterosexual and was only ever in love with her prince. Things won’t always be face-value or clear-cut and you will be forced to come to your own conclusions sometimes too.

That’s why the whole fandom-based groupthink mentality about “critical thinking” doesn’t work, because it’s not critical. It’s simply looking into the crowd, seeing people say a show is problematic, and then dropping it without truly understanding why. It’s performative, consuming the best media isn’t activism and it doesn’t make you a better person. Listening to the voices of people whom the issues directly concerns will help you form an opinion, and to understand the issues from a more knowledgeable perspective beyond your own. All that means nothing if you just sweep it under the rug because you want to look infallible in your morality. That’s not being critical, it’s just being scared to analyze yourself, as well as what you engage with. You just don’t want to think about those things and you’re afraid of being less than perfect so you pretend it never happened.

And though I’m making this post, it’s not mine or anyone else’s job to hold your hand through all this and tell you “Oh this show is okay, but this show isn't, and this book is bad etc etc etc”. Because you actually have to think for yourself, you know, critically. Examples I’ve listed aren’t rules of thumb, they’re just examples and things will vary depending on the story and circumstance. You have to look at shit on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on spotting tropes without thinking about how they’re implemented and what they mean. That’s why it’s analysis, you have to use it to understand what the narrative is communicating to its audience, explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or incidentally, and understand how this reflects the real world and what kind of impact it can have on it.

A big problem with fandom is it has made interests synonymous with personality traits, as if every series we consume is a core part of our being, and everything we see in it reflects our viewpoints as well. So when people are told that a show they watched is problematic, they react very extremely, because they see it as basically the same thing as saying they themselves are problematic (It’s not). Everyone sees themselves as good people, they don’t want to be bad people, so this scares them and they either start hiding any evidence that they ever liked it, or they double down and start defending it despite all its flaws, often providing those aforementioned thermian arguments (“She dresses that way because of her powers!”).

That’s how you get people who call children’s cartoons “irredeemable media” and people who plaster “fiction=/= reality!” all over their blogs, both are basically trying to save face either by denying that they could ever consume anything problematic or denying that the problematic aspects exist all together. And absolutely no one is actually addressing the core issues anymore, save for those affected by them who pointed them out to begin with, only for their original point to become muffled in the discourse. No one is thinking critically because they’re more concerned with us-vs-them group mentality, both sides try to out-perform the other while the actual issue gets ignored or is used as nothing more than a gacha with no true understanding or sympathy behind it.

One of the other issues that comes from this is the fact that pretty much everyone thinks they’re the only person capable of being critical of their interests. That’s how you get those interactions where one person goes “OK [Media] fan” and another person replies “Bro you literally like [Other Media]”, because both parties think they’re the only ones capable of consuming a problematic piece of media and not becoming problematic themselves, anyone else who enjoys it is clearly incapable of being as big brained as them. It’s understandable because we know ourselves and trust ourselves more than strangers, and I’m not saying there can’t be certain fandoms who’s fans you don’t wanna interact with, but when we presume that we know better than everyone else we stop listening to other people all together. It’s good to trust your own judgement, it’s bad to assume no one else has the capacity to think for themselves either though.

The insistence that all media that you personally like is without moral failing and completely pure comes with the belief that all media that you personally dislike has to be morally bad in some way. As if you can’t just dislike a series because you find it annoying or it just doesn’t appeal to you, it has to be problematic, and you have to justify your dislike of it through that perspective. You have to believe that your view on whatever media it is is the objectively correct one, so you’ll likely pick apart all it’s flaws to prove you’re on the right side, but there’s no analysis of context or intent. Keep in mind this doesn’t necessarily mean those critiques are unfounded or invalid, but in cases like this they’re often skewed in one direction based on personal opinion. It’s just as flawed as ignoring all the faults in the stuff you like, it’s biased and subjective analysis that misses a lot of context in both cases, it’s not a good mindset to have about consuming media. It’s just another result of tying media consumption with identity and personal morals. The faux-critical mentality is an attempt to separate the two in a way that implies they’re a packaged deal to begin with, making it sort of impossible to truly do so in any meaningful way.

As far as I know this whole phenomena started with “Steven Universe Critical” in, like, 2016, and that’s where this mentality around “critical thinking” originated. It started out with just a few people correctly pointing out very legitimate issues with the series, but over time it grew into just a trend where people would make cutesy kin blogs with urls like critical-[character] or [character]crit to go with the fad as it divulged into Nostalgia Critic level critique. Of course there was backlash to this and criticism of the criticism, but no actual conversation to be had. Just people trying to out-do each other by acting as the most virtuous one in the room, and soon enough the fad became a huge echo-chamber that encouraged more and more outrageous takes for every little thing. The series itself was a children’s cartoon so it stands to reason that a lot of the fans were young teens, so this behavior isn’t too surprising and I do believe a lot of them did think they were doing the right thing, especially since it was encouraged. But that doesn’t erase the fact that there were actual real issues and concerns brought up about the series that got treated with very little sympathy and were instead drowning out people’s voices. Though those from a few years back may have grown up since and know better (Hopefully), the mentality stuck around and influenced the norm for how fandoms and fandom people conduct any sort of critique on media.

That’s a shame to me, because the pedestal people place fandom onto has completely disrupted our perception on how to engage with media in a normal way. Not everything should be consumed with fandom in mind, not everything is a coffee-shop au with no conflict, not everything is a children’s cartoon with the morals spoon-fed to you. Fandom has grown past the years of uncritical praise of a series, it’s much more mainstream now with a lot more voices in it beyond your small community on some forum, and people are allowed to use those voices. Just because it may not be as pleasant for you now because you don’t get to just turn your brain off and ignore all the flaws doesn’t mean you can put on your rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and pretend that fandom is actually all that is good in the world, to the point where you place it above the comfort and safety of others (Oftentimes children). Being uncritical of fandom itself is just as bad as being uncritical of what you consume to begin with.

At the end of the day it all just boils down to the ability to truly think for yourself but with sympathy and compassion for other people in mind, while also understanding that not everyone will come to the same conclusion as you and people are allowed to resent your interests. That doesn’t necessarily mean they hate you personally, you should be acknowledging the same issues after all. You can’t ignore aspects of it that aren’t convenient to your conclusion, you have to actually be critical and understand the issues to be able to form it.

I think that all we need is to not rely on fandom to tell us what to do, but still listen to the voices of others, take them into account to form our opinion too, boost their voices instead of drowning them out in the minutiae of internet discourse about which character is too much of an asshole to like. Think about what the characters and story represent non-diegetically instead of treating them like real people and events, rather a story with an intent and message to share through its story and characters, and whatever those reflect from the real world. That’s how fiction affects reality, because it exists in reality and reflects reality through its own lens. The story itself is real, with a real impact on you and many others, so think about the impact and why it all matters. Just… Think. Listen to others but think for yourself, that’s all.

#see i told you guys id find that essay and post it for real. i wasnt kidding.#good luck inbox of mine :praying:

163 notes · View notes

spurgie-cousin · 4 years ago

Text

WHW Royals Edition 👑 Part 1: Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Born: February 6th, 1665 at St James's Palace, Westminster, Middlesex, England Died: August 1st, 1714 (age 49) at Kensington Palace, Middlesex Reign: March 8th, 1702 - August 1st, 1714

I thought I’d give you guys a little intro to Anne, Queen of Great Britain as a start for my series on weirdo royals. I got big into her after seeing the Yorgos Lanthimos film The Favourite (can’t recommend enough) and that resulted in endless hours of internet wormholes about her bizarre and interesting life. I’ve read about a lot of fucked up royals in my life (truly there’s many) but it was only when I was reading about Anne that I kind of had an ‘a-ha’ moment about how really drastically the monarchial system can fuck a person up.

Queen Anne fits this bill for me for a lot of reason; she was a surprise Queen who was woefully underprepared for ruling, which led to people pushing their political agendas on her under the guise of genuine affection. It’s hard to know if the relationships that define her legacy and life in popular culture were genuine, or if they would’ve existed at all had she not been a royal. Her legacy is muddied by the traditional, patriarchal writers of history of course and it sometimes is hard to get a clear picture of who she really was, but here are a few tidbits about her life and rule:

Anne’s signature

1. Queen Anne was born Anne Stuart, daughter of James II and Anne Hyde and raised in the traditional way for aristocratic girls, with an education that emphasized on arts, language, and music. This eventually proved to suck dick for her big time later on in life when she became queen. Traditionally, girls were purposefully taught nothing useful about politics or history because it was assumed they would never rule (cough) and this left Anne very much lacking in the political discourse department as a monarch; all of her future speeches and even remarks made around political figures would have to be scripted by advisors. If she found herself off script and not knowing what to say, it’s said that she’d sometimes “move only her lips and make as if she said something when in truth no words were uttered.”

2. 8 year old Anne first met friend Sarah Jennings (Churchill) when she was a lady in waiting at just 5 years old. As you’ll see later on, Sarah goes on to be one of the (if not the most) influential person in the Queen’s life, becoming a trusted friend and political advisor.

3. Anne was what we would probably refer to today as a ‘hot mess express’. The poor gal had a myriad of health issues, both mentally and physically, all of which only got worse as she aged. She suffered from gout and an undefined auto-immune disorder (we think) as well as a bizarre eye-watering disorder and poor vision. It’s also pretty evident that she didn’t have the best relationship with alcohol or food and most likely developed a binge eating disorder later in her life (she was very large at the time of her death and there are a few accounts of her eating to the point of puking in front of other people).

4. Besides her relationships with Sarah and Abigail Masham, Queen Anne is also known mostly known for the tragic loss of her 17 pregnancies. Of all her births she had only 5 live babies, only one of which survived beyond infancy. Her son William was also afflicted with various illnesses all of his life and died at the age of 11.

Prince William, Anne’s longest surviving child

5. Anne became queen by accident, after her Catholic father was ousted as king by her protestant brother in-law. He and her sister ruled for a short time before dying of pneumonia and smallpox respectively with no heir in place, so Anne, who supported the protestant reformation, was crowned Queen.

6. Over the years Anne and Sarah Churchill became extremely close friends, and most accounts agree that Sarah had an incredible amount of influence over Anne’s political decisions. Sarah is said to have had a more natural affinity for politics, and to have had a completely opposite disposition than Anne. Some think that Sarah may have maintained the relationship only to keep her political control.

7. A lot of people that believe that Anne and Sarah were so close because they were lovers. The pair at one time wrote each other 4 letters a day, that included things like “I had rather live in a cottage with you than reign empress of the world without you,” “Oh come to me as soon as you can that I may cleave myself to you,” one of Queen Anne’s “I can’t go to bed without seeing you… If you knew in what condition you have made me, I am sure you would pity.” I don’t think I necessarily share that opinion, for reasons you’ll see below.

8. Sarah was the only person under Anne that was allowed to speak to her without using a title. The two often used their nicknames for each other: Mrs. Morley (Anne) and Mrs. Freeman (Sarah).

Sarah Churchill, 1702

9. A lot of scholars disagree with the notion that Anne had any gay affairs with anyone, including Sarah, for a few reasons; first because, at the time, it was just apparently normal to act hella gay with your friends, particularly for royals, so excessive touching or writing wouldn’t have raised any alarms. Most historians attribute this to the extreme separation of the sexes, particularly in upper class households. Most people spent 90% of their time exclusively with people of their own gender, so it was a means to have your emotional needs met within the confines of your station. If an aristocrat started ‘friend flirting’ with you, it was also seen as rude to not reciprocate.

10. A few other reasons Anne was probably not lesbian: she had a pretty good relationship with her husband (Prince George of Denmark), and the 17 pregnancies thing suggests that they weren’t having any problems in the bedroom department. Also, when Anne later became close friends with Sarah’s cousin Abigail, Sarah became jealous and began to spread rumors that the two were gay lovers (more on that below). This rumor probably stuck and carried over into other areas of her life. Or maybe Anne was bi and both things were true, who knows.

Anne circa 1685. All physical descriptions of Anne, especially in her later years, don’t describe her in the most glowing terms, which is insane to think about when I see portraits like this.

11. Anne began to grow distant from Sarah after her husband’s death in 1708, which all sources agree flung the queen into a huge depression. She was said to have sat by and kissed his dead body long after his death. Sarah took a tough love approach to try and snap the queen out of it, which backfired. This was when Anne began to get close to Abigail Masham, which infuriated Sarah.

12. Sarah was so mad at Anne for this that she literally wrote a song about her and Abigail being gay together, printed it out on a pamphlet, and passed it around court Mean Girls-style. The pamphlet read: “When as Queen Anne of great renown / Great Britain’s sceptre swayed / Beside the Church she dearly loved / A dirty chambermaid O Abigail that was her name / She starched and stitched full well / But how she pierced this royal heart / No mortal man can tell However for sweet service done / And causes of great weight / Her royal mistress made her, Oh! / A minister of state Her secretary she was not / Because she could not write / But had the conduct and the care / Of some dark deeds at night.”

13. Besides Sarah, a lot of people took Anne’s relative political ignorance as an invitation to push their own political agendas. It didn’t help that her reign coincided with a rapid development of a 2 party parliamentary system, as the gap between the protestant Whigs and the Catholic Tories began to widen.

14. One of Anne’s crowning political achievements was the 1707 Act of Union uniting England and Scotland under the banner of Great Britain (she had good ideas sometimes, although it’s hard to tell if they came from her or her many influential advisors). Consequently, she was the first ruler to ever rule over united Great Britain.

15. After a series of pretty horrible strokes, poor Anne died at the age of 49 in August of 1714 with no heirs and without reconciling with Sarah Churchill. To her credit, it’s said that despite her failing health she continued to attend cabinet meetings as often as possible until her death. She is buried beside her husband and children in the Henry VII Chapel on the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey.

#weird history wednesday

22 notes · View notes

vajranam · 4 years ago

Text

Black Snake Discourt

The Black Snake Discourse

by Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo

The specific views and conducts of the higher and lower vehicles may be understood, in short, as follows. Their various views are posited based on the appearance of bodies, environments, and spheres of activity, all of which can be subsumed under body, speech, and mind. However, as to the question of whether things do or do not appear: No matter if you are an individual who upholds the various textual traditions, or someone ranging from a beginner up to a bodhisattva on the tenth bhūmi, there is no debate. This is because no one can exaggerate or denigrate direct, immediately experienced appearances. Therefore, all debates about this arise from the status of the defining characteristics of appearances.

In brief, there are five positions. Let us first offer an example. Consider, by way of analogy, a black snake reflected in water.

One type of individual regards this as an actual snake and, driven by fear, actively seeks to get rid of it.

One type of individual recognizes the snake as a reflection. Even though they know that it is not actually a snake, they see the reflection as capable of harm and, therefore, exert themselves in applying a remedy with skilful means.

One type of individual recognizes the snake as a reflection, without the material support of the coarse elements and, therefore, lacking the ability to perform any action. However, driven by the force of previous anxiety, this individual is unable to touch or destroy it.

One type of individual realizes the snake is a reflection and therefore incapable of performing any action. But, in order to swiftly free themselves of anxious thoughts, such individuals rely on ascetic discipline to touch and destroy the reflection.

One type of individual knows the snake is a reflection and therefore has no thoughts of rejection or acceptance, and does nothing whatsoever.

In this way, the philosophical tenets of the various Buddhist vehicles correspond with the meaning of the previous examples.

The first of these is the tradition of the Śrāvakas. The Śrāvakas posit that phenomena, such as suffering and its sources, exist both relatively and ultimately, and exist as substantial entities. This belief compels them to see phenomena as genuinely real and to accept and reject them. This is like seeing the snake’s reflection as real and trying to get rid of it. In this system, among the four kinds of existence, the Śrāvakas affirm three: “ultimate existence,” “relative existence,” and “the substantial existence of both.”

The second example corresponds to the Mādhyamikas of the Mahāyāna, since, for them, appearances are not substantially established but are like illusions. However, just as illusory poison can perform a function, thoroughly afflicted phenomena are likewise capable of harm if they are not embraced with skillful methods. When they are so embraced, phenomena perform beneficial functions. Because phenomena substantially exist at the relative level, the Mādhyamikas assert that they should be accepted and rejected. This is like asserting that although the snake is a reflection, its ability to perform a function substantially exists. Of the four kinds of existence, this system negates “ultimate existence” but retains “relative existence” and “imputed existence.”

The third example corresponds to the outer ascetic tantras, Kriyā and Yoga. As all apparent phenomena are illusion-like, they are utterly without substance. Despite phenomena posing no fault or problem, through the force of previous anxiety, yogis in this tradition dare not act themselves, but they are able to summon an external hero. This is like knowing the snake’s reflection to be harmless, yet still being unable to touch it. In this system, among the four kinds of existence, “ultimate existence” and “substantial relative existence” are both refuted. However, “imputed relative existence” is retained. On top of asserting merely this system of the commonly held two truths, proponents of this tradition know there is no substantial relative existence. Through this system, one first attains, to a small degree, the view of equality in which the relative and the ultimate are realized to be inseparable.

The fourth concerns the view of the inner tantras of Mahāyoga. Having mostly realized that all thoroughly afflicted phenomena are like illusions, and in order to swiftly put into practice the view of equality, the yogi engages in wonderous conduct. This is like swiftly eliminating fear for the mere reflection of the snake by practicing asceticism to destroy it. In this system, any grasping to imputed relative existence is extinguished even further, and these individuals are mostly free from grasping which views the truth dualistically. The yogis of this system attain, to a middling degree, an understanding of the inseparability of the two truths.

The fifth relates to the view of the Great Perfection. Here, as everything is like an illusion, the proponent realizes that every action, such as rejection or fear, or actual destruction, arises from a view that clings to things as real. As phenomena are illusion-like, the yogi realizes they are without any basis to act upon; one neither rejects nor strives for anything whatsoever. In this system, the understanding of the illusion-like reaches its pinnacle through the awareness of the absence of defining characteristics of appearance. The yogi is liberated from even the subtlest clinging to ultimate or relative truths and is thereby liberated from any view whatsoever. This is termed the “view of the inseparability of the ultimate and relative, the realization of equality itself.”

Actual, direct appearances arise through the force of latent tendencies and, therefore, do not immediately subside. Clinging, on the other hand, arises from adventitious, mistaken conceptions, and is easily reversed. Furthermore, clinging comes from grasping at defining characteristics, and this comes from a view of real entities. If these three concepts are overturned, a dualistic view of the truth will not arise, even if the appearances of intrinsically real entities are not reversed.

Here, some might say, “The Mādhyamaka scriptural tradition does not ultimately divide the truth into two, and the Secret Mantra scriptural traditions do not refute appearance.” To this, we would answer:

Individuals might evaluate objects of knowledge while keeping in mind that the defining characteristics of the two truths are truly established, but by doing so, they will never be able to abandon dualistic thinking. When they evaluate the position, “ultimately, the two truths are indivisible,” even the assertion that the relative truth exists as mere illusion has not been relinquished due to their strongly held belief in true establishment. Therefore, even when establishing the nondual nature of reality, their thinking arises dualistically.

When evaluating the statement, “relatively, like an illusion,” we can see that “illusion-like” refers to conceptual elaborations, since the imputations of ultimate existence made by the Śrāvakas and Yogācārins have been pacified. However, “illusion-like” does not mean that phenomena are devoid of substantial functionality on a relative level.

Here, even at the time of such evaluation, directly focusing on defining characteristics that are relatively established as substance, it is then claimed that “these are not actually established as real entities.” Therefore, the mind at this moment has not even given up the two systems.[1] This means that appearance—a property-possessor (Skt. dharmin, Tib. chos can)—is posited as an instance of characteristics (Skt. dṛṣṭānta, Tib. mtshan gzhi). As long as there exists in the mind the notion of being free from the properties or the conceptual elaborations of the instance, and as long as the property-possessor is perceived to exist as mere illusory appearance, then the obsessive mind that grasps to the defining characteristics of appearance has not been reversed. Someone like this cannot be said to possess the view of great equality.

Consequently, investigating objects of knowledge by focusing the mind on the distinction between the two truths was taught as an antidote for those people with excessive, obsessive clinging to real entities. However, in the very nature of phenomena, there are no dual characteristics. Whosoever reverses grasping to characteristics is free from this obsessive clinging. When one experiences no craving or wishful thought toward anything that appears, this is called “the view of great equality.”

There might be a further question: “Is not mere appearance itself relative?” This was already explained above with regard to any person who believes appearance to be relative and that freedom from conceptual elaborations regarding this is the ultimate. For the mind that does not believe in the reality of the two truths, the scriptures teach that to ask whether the truths are one or two is analogous to asking whether the son of a barren woman is blue or white.

Someone might then ask: “Well then, what does your tradition assert?” We merely refute your wrong views without at all establishing any point of our own. This, conventionally speaking, is called “the view of great equality,” but there is no clinging whatsoever to it as a metaphysical view.

| Translated by Patrick Dowd, 2021

3 notes · View notes

valsedelesruines · 4 years ago

Text

I once told Will that I found this new ideology of privilege was equivalent to the Christian dogma that all people are born in sin. Of course a simplification and quick comparison, but it has often felt like that in my experience lately, both in academic and personal circles. I have noticed something change in my interactions and conversations with people I know the last few years. As soon as people bring up personal anecdotes about my life, such as my economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. background, I start to lose interest, because the conversation no longer becomes a debate rather than a competition of subjectivity under the guise that one opinion is true. There are a few issues I find with this. For one, as an archaeologist, I fully understand that context is key, but the context works for all participants. Any ideology held right now by anyone is not truth. For example, let’s take economic liberalism (instead of my usual default example of Marxism lol). Economic liberalism is a relatively new concept but one that has been largely accepted in many circles as a true basis for interpreting the interface between our economic and political systems. This is cool, and there are many cool, new ideologies, philosophies, and perspectives that have influenced our modern culture, but the key is that most of what makes up our modern culture is formulated on ideas that are often less than 300 years old. So, how can we rely on these new ideas as a true, objective foundation for how the world works? The answer is we can’t, but we often get wrapped up in it and do. People forget that something like politics is a social science with a basis on philosophy. There is no truth in politics, otherwise we would all believe in the same thing. Surely if these ideas were universally true their origins would be biologically inherent to our species or at least naturally reoccurring. In another 300 years, ideas such as post-colonialism will be obsolete.

Another key axiom in archaeological theory, applicable here, is that our practice and interpretation is conducted in the social milieu we inhabit. Culture is a subjective and cumulative activity that we all partake in. So, often in discourse while my subjectivity is pointed out (of which I am almost always aware), it is never acknowledged the other way around. I think the problem is, while I enjoy being challenged on my worldviews, most people do not, and I have only recently become aware of that fact. To foster “good” discussion, I believe the aim is to strive towards total objectivity, whilst also acknowledging that it does not exist. True objectivity can only, maybe, be attained with the death of the ego, devoid of individual perception. But regardless, that’s not my issue. The issue is as I have started to follow a pursuit of challenging my own worldview, I have formed an opinion which promotes a lack of one; I don’t believe a true perception exists and therefore cannot have an opinion. This works well if you are a Zelig, questioning people you just meet on their beliefs out of genuine curiosity and lacking any form of judgement. But this does not work when you interact with people who you know very well, and who interpret your lack of opinion for a staunch opposition of theirs. So, the question is then, am I willing to forego my own perceptions for the sake of following the people I love’s dogma? Hard to say, and I’ve dwelled on this a lot, but the short answer is no. To acquiesce is to ultimately hold the view that you agree with theirs. Because I have been in this situation before, a long, long time ago, and ultimately the decision to keep on doing what I was doing, which is being true to my own interests, was what helped me in the long run. If I do not believe in an objective right or wrong, then why would I go against that to believe in someone’s perceived right and wrong? To do so would not only be disingenuous, but also an act of self-hatred (insecurity). So, following that, is the preference to follow self-interest an indication of a lack of empathy? Also, ultimately, no. Because the definition of empathy for most is also subjective, but tends to be formed around the idea that we can understand, and often relate, to other’s suffering. I don’t think we can do that. At most, I think empathy can only ever be the ability to forgive, because that forms a basis on the individual rather than on external experiences.

There is a story of a young man on a boat who is about to die after getting injured in a rough fight. As he was dying, he hurriedly requested that all f his shipmates come to him, so that he could ask whether he had ever annoyed or insulted any of them. When they replied in the negative, he was greatly comforted. This story is interesting to me because it displays a truly absurd scene: to be so self-hating that you rely on external opinions to justify a virtuous and moral life. And then I think, what is the point in attaining a useless merit like virtue? Is the aim to be comfortable and to provide comfort to those around you? if it is, then why? I’d much rather enjoy my life, embrace my curiosity, try to understand my own discomfort, forgive others as I can, and not close myself off to the thousands of worldviews held besides mine. I think trying to strive for truth or meaning is somewhat boring, and almost a recursive task, so I would much rather continue on devoid and critical of strong dogmatic influences. For now, I have accepted that I have grown into the person I am today and that I will continue to change as I learn from self-study and from others. I will never favor stagnation over growth, and I do not believe that there are right or wrong ways to grow. Surely, in challenge to the truth, curiosity did not always kill the cat.

#mine #thoughts #philosophy #once again my late night pondering turns out to be much longer than intended #archeology #archaeology

1 note · View note

tawakkull · 5 years ago

Text

Spirituality in islam: The horizons of the soul: Metaphysical thought

The modern Western world view is said to be founded almost entirely on materialistic notions that exclude or even deny the spiritual or metaphysical dimensions of existence. This is a controversial point, but many socalled Muslim intellectuals who blindly imitate and import what they see as Western, despise and reject their societies’ traditional modes of thinking and living. This is largely because they no longer have any awareness of the spiritual dimension of existence and life. Indeed, those who reduce existence to matter and think only in physical terms can hardly perceive and understand what is metaphysical and spiritual. Moreover, since those who can only imitate are more radical in their borrowed attitudes than the originators, and since imitation often obscures reality, those socalled intellectuals become more radical in rejecting what is spiritual and metaphysical, and lack adequate knowledge of matter and what is material.

Since the spiritual, metaphysical dimension requires us to go beyond our sensations and instincts into deep and vast horizons, materialists neither understand nor like it. In other words, they restrict their thinking only to what they can perceive and experience. Deceiving themselves and others that existence consists only of the material dimension, they present themselves as true intellectuals.

Despite their claims and the assertions of their Western counterparts, it is difficult to accept that Western scientific thought, although primarily materialistic, has always been separate from spirituality and metaphysics. Modern Western civilization is based on the trinity of Greek thought, Roman law, and Christianity. This latter, at least theoretically, contributes a spiritual dimension. The West never completely discarded Platonist thinking, although it failed to reconcile it with positivistic and rationalistic philosophy. It also does not pretend that such thinkers as Pascal and J. Jeans never existed, or exclude Bergson’s intuitivism. Bergson, Eddington, J. Jeans, Pascal, Bernhard Bavink, and Heisenberg are just as important in Western thought as Comte, Darwin, Molescholt, Czolba, and Lamarck. Indeed, it is hard to find an atheist scientist and philosopher before the midnineteenth century.

In contrast, metaphysical thought and spirituality have been almost entirely discarded by many Muslim intellectuals. In the name of certain notions that have been reduced to such simplistic slogans as “enlightenment, Westernization, civilization, modernity, and progress,” metaphysical thought and spiritual life have been denigrated and degraded. Such slogans have also been used to batter traditional Islamic values.

We use “the horizon of hope” to mean traveling beyond the visible dimension of existence, and considering existence as an interrelated whole in the absence of which things and events cannot be perceived as they really are. Nor can its essence and relation with the Creator, as well as the relation between Him and humanity, be grasped. Scientific disciplines that conduct their own discourse largely in isolation from one another and the prevailing materialistic nature of science that has compartmentalized existence and life cannot discover the reality of things, existence, or life.

When such investigations are seen in medicine, for example, people are viewed as being composed of many discrete mechanisms. The consequences are easy to see: Existence is stripped of its meaning and connectedness, and is presented as discrete elements consisting only of matter. However, the only way to fully comprehend and value life and existence is to experience existence through the prism of spirit and metaphysical thinking. Neglecting to do so means forcing reason to comment on things beyond its reach and imprisoning intellectual effort within the confines of senseimpressions. But when we heed the sound of our conscience, or inner world, we perceive that the mind is never content or satisfied with mere senseimpressions.

All the great, enduring, and inclusive modes of thinking developed upon the foundations of metaphysics and spirituality. The whole ancient world was founded and shaped by such sacred texts as the Qur'an, the Bible, the Vedas, and the Upanishads. Denying or forgetting such antimaterialistic Western thinkers, scientists, and philosophers as Kant, Descartes, Pascal, Hegel, and Leibniz means ignoring an essential strand of Western thought.

We can only imagine a new, better world based on knowledge or science if we look at the concept of science through the prism of metaphysics. Muslims have not yet developed a concept of science in its true meaning, namely, one derived from the Qur'an and Islamic traditions primarily shaped by the Qur'an and the hadiths. The application of science or technology by an irresponsible, selfish minority has engendered more disasters than good.

If Muslims want to end their long humiliation and help establish a new, happy world at least on a par with the West, they must replace oldfashioned positivistic and materialistic theories with their own thoughts and inspirations. Aware of their past pains and troubles, they must exert great efforts to define these problems and cure them.

A true concept of science will join spirituality and metaphysics with a comprehensive, inclusive view that affirms the intrinsic and unbreakable relation between any scientific discipline and existence as a whole. Only a concept embracing the whole in its wholeness can be called truly scientific. Seeing existence as discrete elements and trying to reach the whole from these will end up getting swamped in multiplicity. By contrast, embracing the whole and then studying its parts in the light of the whole allows us to reach sound conclusions about the reality of existence.

Spirituality and metaphysics also provide art with their widest dimensions. It fact, art only attains its real identity through spirituality and metaphysics. An artist discovers the inner world of humanity, with all its feelings, excitement, expectations, frustration, and ambitions and discovers how it relates to the outer dimension of existence. The artist then presents these in forms suitable to the medium being used. Art expresses our inner essence, which is in continuous movement to return to its source. In other words, artists unite the inspirations flowing into their spirit from things and events, from all corners of existence. Bringing together all nomena and phenomena, they then present things to us in their wholeness.

Remember that the most important source of science, thinking, and art, even virtues and morality, is metaphysics. All of existence can be perceived with a sound mode of thinking based on pure metaphysics. This allows us to view all of existence as a whole, and to travel through its deeper dimensions. Without spirituality and metaphysics, we cannot build a community on sound foundations; such communities are forced to beg continuously from others. Communities that lack sound metaphysical concepts suffer identity crises.

To build a new, happy world wherein human virtues and values are given due prominence and are effective in shaping policies and aspirations, all people, regardless of religion, must rediscover and reaffirm the spirituality and metaphysics taught in the Godrevealed religions.

1 note · View note

class-wom · 6 years ago

Link

[This story contains spoilers for the series finale of FX's Legion.]

Noah Hawley's Legion is officially over, and the FX superhero series (which is based on the Marvel Comics X-Men character of the same name) ended in the most Legion way possible: not with a knock-down drag-out battle, but with music, beers, intellectual and emotional discourse, and more than a few changed hearts and minds — not to mention a changed timeline.

Entering the Legion series finale, the stakes were high: David Haller (Dan Stevens) stood at the precipice of changing the past and therefore preventing his own monstrous future. Of course, his ambitions involved some truly monstrous means, including outright killing the Shadow King Amahl Farouk (Navid Negahban), twice over, with an assist from his all-powerful (and world-famous) father Charles Xavier (Harry Lloyd). But instead of slugging it out on the astral plane, Xavier chugs beers with the Farouk who spent decades inhabiting David's body. Given that experience, Farouk is fully aware of the damage done by his time with David, and he genuinely wants to stop it from ever happening.

For his part, David spends most of the finale beating up on the young version of Farouk and subsequently singing Pink Floyd's "Mother" opposite his actual mother Gabrielle (Stephanie Corneliussen). When it comes to actually changing his own future for the better, however, David does very little. Instead, he allows his father to step in and broker a peace deal to change the future with his once sworn enemy. The Shadow King convinces his younger self to avoid battling Xavier, therefore preventing the ensuing decades of pain and suffering for so many people, not the least of whom is David. In the final scene, David and ex-girlfriend Syd Barrett (Rachel Keller) both fade away from existence, as the infant version of David earns a new shot at a better life.

It's a fairly peaceful ending for Legion, which reliably zigs where most series would zag. (See: the final season's sixth episode, which contains a rap battle between two opponents where a fist fight would have normally done the trick.) It's little wonder Hawley's finale didn't break from the series' own past, even as it paved the way for altered futures for surviving cast members such as the Loudermilk siblings Cary (Bill Irwin) and Kerry (Amber Midthunder). Ahead, The Hollywood Reporter speaks about the Legion series finale with Hawley, who ends his Marvel drama with mere months left before FX's Fargo begins production on a fourth season.

How much does the Legion finale fit your original vision of the series' eventual ending?

On a literal basis, the Switch (Lauren Tsai) character didn't really come into being until we sat down to talk about season three, so, a lot of it [changed]. The emphasis on time, and of course time being what gives stories meaning and what gives people regrets, all of that was discovered along the way. But the idea that the story of David and Syd would reach this point, and that David would be on this precipice of is he going to be good or is he going to be bad, and that would have to resolve itself — I think that that was always there in the makeup of it. And obviously the conversation that started about Charles and Gabrielle, and about his parents, and about childhood and raising kids and all that, I think that was really unraveled as I went through, as I realized while I was writing it what the story was really about.

With the finale now out in the wild, what can you say about what you imagined for the totality of Legion, now that you can speak freely about the ending?

I think the original idea was let's take the genre out of it and think about it as a story. And if it works as a great drama, then when you add the genre back into it, it'll only be more exciting because you'll be able to play with all those tools that you don't have in a traditional dramatic story. And as I explored it in those opening weeks of figuring out what the show wanted to be, I was very adamant that if we were going to tell a mental illness story, we were going to tell it. We weren't going to use it as a launching pad into like, "Oh, he's not crazy. It's a superhero show." But the layers of that are what was really interesting. David says it at the end of the first season. He tells Syd that the most dangerous thing about having a mental illness is that your mental illness convinces you that you don't have it, and that if you relax, and you accept it, and you go, "I have these abilities, and this girl loves me, and everything's great," how do you know that that's not just because you've gone off your meds, and you're feeling great about things? It's the insidious nature of the disease: it convinces you you don't have it.

But again, he did accept that he didn't have it, and then, of course, was confronted with the fact that in the end of season two, he both had these abilities and there was something profoundly disturbed about him, and yet he couldn't really face that head on. And so season three became this narcissistic battle against reality for David saying, "No, no, this is my time. These time eaters who are coming to destroy the universe, they can't come because this is my time." The level of "I'm the most important being in the universe" was ... I mean his mother says "If you can go back in time, then stop the Holocaust." And he was like, "No, I was talking about me." It shows you the kind of self involvement that he was working under. The question [from there] becomes, A, how do you keep the audience from turning on him so much that they now are hate-watching the show, and they don't want any kind of resolution for him that's positive; and, B, how do you get any kind of resolution for him that is positive, but not just for him, for everybody?

Where do you feel we land on David in the end, after he gets the reset and gets to live his life again starting as a baby?

We live in a world where this nature versus nurture question is yet to be resolved. And it's probably both. But my sense of the timeline is that Xavier and Gabrielle are going to remember what happened, and so they'll be able to raise David quite deliberately knowing the path that he ended up on, and wanting to avoid that for him. And that may involve for his mother getting some help for herself in order to be a better role model for him, et cetera. So the great thing about it ending on that kind of loop is that [idea of] "press the button and watch again, maybe something different will happen."

There's a powerful moment when Charles tells David: "I wasn't here for you before, let me be your father now." What does that say about the themes and importance of parenting in this story?

Parenting is such a critical part of who people turn out to be and that so much of the damage of not just David but Syd and some of the other characters can be traced directly back to how they grew up, and the fact that so many of them were ostracized or treated as different. It was really rewarding for me in that sixth hour to be able to explore in a sort of allegorical fairy tale way this idea of a second childhood for Syd, and [explore the idea of] what if you grew up differently? What if you grew up with parents who really taught you the right things at the right time, and they taught you what was healthy and what wasn't healthy, and how to make good choices, and who you could help and who you can't help? And all those things that we all struggle with, then hopefully we would grow up and be people who make better choices. I think to see that allegory in this story allows one to look at the end of the story and go, "Well, maybe next time it'll be more like that."

We know David will get a more attentive second chance, but what about the rest? Syd? The Loudermilks? Are Melanie (Jean Smart) and Oliver (Jemaine Clement) still on the Astral Plane together? How much changes based on David's reset?

There's definitely a rabbit hole you can go down, looking at the timeline and what year this was and how old people were. If Oliver was in the astral plane for 21 years, and David is 32 years old? One could go down that road. I'm not going down that road. (Laughs.) I think a lot changes, and then there are things that probably wouldn't change at all, because people are who they are.

In the finale, Charles prepares to do battle against the "present day" Farouk. But this version of the Shadow King surprises him and us with an alternate offer: a truce, conducted over a couple of beers. It's not the all-out telepathic battle you might expect to find in a superhero series finale.

Well, here's the thing about war, which is what the end of this story was set up to be, the kind of epic final battle that we see in all of these stories: defeat is never change. Only change is change, right? So I suppose there's a scenario in which David and Charles were to defeat Farouk, and change the past. But that Farouk, if he survived, we know that he would just be waiting to get his revenge. And the reality is that the only way to change the future is to change people's minds and their hearts. And that's what was more interesting dramatically, and, for some reason, rarer with that diplomacy ultimately is the only way to solve the problem. Unless I'm going to annihilate you, we're going to wake up tomorrow and have the same problems that we had yesterday.

The finale features another Legion hallmark: a music number, this time featuring Dan Stevens as David singing Pink Floyd's "Mother" with, well, his mother. Why that song, and why place it here in the finale?

What I liked about making it a duet with his mother is that the mother in the song, as performed by Pink Floyd, is a sort of very dark and controlling character, and you never sort of think about [that]. But she's also a human being with a point of view, and the reason that she is the way that she is is because she is who she is. And by making it a duet, I felt like you could see how much love there was behind that. That she wasn't this cold and calculating person. She loved him. She was going to check out all his girlfriends for him and make sure no one dirtied him through. At the same time, it allowed us to really think about the hereditary nature of this mental illness that David has, and to go, "Oh, right. Well, yeah, she is a product of her own mentally ill mother, and grandmother, and her Holocaust experience." And it's going to be hard to raise a child with that.

As you walk away from Legion and move onto Fargo season four and other projects, what do you hope to carry with you from this series?

That it's important to play with this material, and to be open to what the show wants to be. And, obviously, you have to use your skills as a storyteller to make sure you're always telling a dramatic and character driven story. But I wouldn't have made any other story the way that I made Legion, and yet that was exactly the right way to make Legion, which was whimsically, and playfully, and exploring the subjective nature of storytelling, and being able to play with the genre. And you can solve a character through genre filmmaking in a way that you just can't do in a traditional drama. And so I always want to approach every story like no one has ever told a story like this before, and go, "Well, what's the best way to tell it?" Not just asking, "What is the story," but asking, "What's the way to tell the story?

#Noah Hawley #Legion #Chapter 27 #Spoilers

6 notes · View notes

jdwstaten-blog · 5 years ago

Text

The Individualistic Environment of the Internet

The digital creates an environment in which individuals are able to ignore forms of challenge to their views and create their own cult of individual. Today, individuals can remove ideas that disagree with their own from the public forum via a range of techniques. Internet users can seclude themselves from the outside world and become immersed in a world that reflects their opinions rather than truth and fact, as their ideas are legitimised and facts decried as "fake news". But how does the internet do this, and is the internet entirely to blame for this?

How we use the Internet

In Western civilisation, a social shift is taking place, the results of which are too vast to truly comprehend, especially within one sentence. The arrival of the internet as a staple of everyday life has changed the way people communicate, organise their days, entertain themselves and more. The internet is used to bring power to homes, find people new jobs and even to discover potential soulmates. It has become not only a staple of daily life, but integral to it, with users who are disconnected from it for long periods of time feeling disconnected from the world itself.

The Importance of Debate

Debate is vital to democracy. Debate is also vital to co-existence and co-operation with others, even when you find you might disagree with them. The internet does allow this. With so many people connected, people are able to share their different experiences and both the joys and hardships that they face. Anonymity may make a user less trustworthy, but it may also protect them and allow for their voice, that would normally be censored, to be heard around the world. That is why the #MeToo movement was able to thrive on social media, as well as suppressed voices in the recent Hong Kong protests to be heard on the other side of the world. Barnidge (2018) argues that political disagreement on social media is not so different to political disagreement in face-to-face conversation. However, whilst this may be true of more typical conversational debate, it ignores the taboo subjects that are rarely discussed outside of the internet, due to the need for anonymity. The internet allows for more honest debate in which people are able to speak freely without damaging their public face.

Why Are We So Open Online?

Whilst all internet users reside within cyberspace (Jordan, 1999), it is important to remember that beyond certain examples (such as Skype or FaceTime), we are unable to directly see one another within said cyberspace. We are instead represented by our avatars, sometimes pictures of us, or the things that we like and with pictures of ourselves or again, something we enjoy, these avatars are our personalities condensed into an image and a name. What they are not is human. Because of this, when we interact with one another, through our avatars, within cyberspace, we do not see another person, only another avatar. This can lead to something of a dehumanising effect and we become less aware of the person we are communicating within behind the avatar. As John Gilmore notes: "On the internet, nobody knows you at all, on the Internet nobody knows what your race is or your sex." (This was later popularised by the internet meme On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog, a cartoon by Peter Steiner of the New Yorker). Because of this, we become less inclined to see that person as someone within the real world. As proven by Milgram (1963), when we are unaware of the individual, we are less likely to care about inflicting pain on to them. Perhaps then this is why harassment online runs so rampant and we are so quick to attack those with whom we disagree. This has led to a perceived break down in discourse as people become disenfranchised from debate. The internet age has come to be seen as a time in which debate in inescapable and constant when they do not want to constantly defend their own opinions or attack the opinions of others, instead wishing to simply share their viewpoint with like-minded individuals.

Block Buttons

Most social media platforms have a system in place that allows for the blocking of other users. Although it is dependent on the website as to what exactly the block function entails, the block feature normally allows for one user to prevent the content uploaded by another user from appearing on their profile. Social media companies do not comment on when and how the block feature should be used but instead appear to allow the user base to determine for themselves what would constitute a reason for using the block feature. What these companies do comment on is their ability to block an individual’s access to their site, usually through the report function.

The reason given by social media companies tends to remain the same, whether it be Facebook who claim they block individuals from the platform to: “Combat harmful conduct, and protect and support our community” or Twitter who state they remove content on grounds of: "copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.” Perhaps then users should be using these parameters to determine what they block on the platform. Perhaps the largest issue with these guidelines however is the use of “harmful” in Facebook’s case and “harassment” in the case of Twitter as both of these terms and what is required of them is subjective. Whilst there are obvious cases of harassment such as death threats, it is up to the user to determine whether or not something like name calling is to be considered harassment. Because of this, what we unfortunately find now is that the block function is used by individuals, not just to block those who harass them, but more simply to block those who they disagree with.

Discourse is beginning to break down and this is a danger to Western society’s foundational material. As Mutz (2006) tells us: "Political disagreement is an important concept to democratic theory because it is believed to promote tolerance of the other side." So, the question arises: does the block function, in its ability to close off debate without resolution or compromise, pose a threat to democracy? Already the US court system has had to make a legal decision regarding the block function on social media regarding President Donald Trump and his personal Twitter account. Judge Naomi Budgewald ruled in a lawsuit against President Trump that it was unconstitutional for the sitting president to block Twitter users who were critical of his presidency as it violated the first amendment to the US Constitution. The First Amendment exists to protect the liberties of free expression that were important to the young democracy and remain important to democracies around the world today. Yet the block function was viewed by the court as a threat to this basic democratic function. We now have a situation whereby people are closing down debate, in part because it is so constant, and instead choosing to create echo-chambers in which their viewpoints are never challenged and instead regularly validated.

Echo-Chambers

An echo-chamber is the name given to a space, cyber or physical, in which the views of an individual are to be shared without critique and instead praised by like-minded individuals who are saying similar things. These occur when social media users create accounts and interact with other accounts, providing they agree entirely with what the other accounts say. This leads to users no longer reading what they disagree with or what challenges them and instead reading only validation for their beliefs. Therefore, when an individual encounters a text with which they disagree, they refuse to see its merits and instead use the validation they received from the echo chamber to disregard the challenging text (this is partially what has allowed the phrase “fake news” to become more widely circulated even when the text is objectively factual).

Deplatforming

Deplatforming is the process in which a large group of social media users come together and pressure the platform provider to remove another user from the platform. This can take place across the media (such as TV and Physical Publishing) but is particularly found within social media. Because so many people are willing to discuss their opinions more freely, as previously discussed, they are more likely to anger other users who may come to disagree with them. The offended users may sometimes believe that the topic this user is discussing is one that is too harmful to continue on the platform and so will protest the platform, asking it to remove the offender. What this often leads to however is further division as users begin to take sides between either the offender or the offended, leading to more aggressive and uncomfortable debate then began. If the offended group are successful in deplatforming the offending user, a further issue may occur: the idea may go underground. This tends to occur when ideas are considered taboo by larger society. Individuals who agree with this view but feel that they are not safe in discussing it within certain parts of the internet, will instead begin to discuss it elsewhere (usually on less monitored websites such as 4chan). Here echo-chambers form and grow, allowing the taboo idea to be more widely circulated and validated.

The Seclusion of the Internet

Perhaps the biggest fear to have grown out of the internet and its continued involvement in our lives is the fear of addiction. Internet addiction is not currently a recognised health problem by the World Health Organisation, yet it continues to be considered an issue, particularly in the media. According to Rees, Wilridge et al. (2019), "PSU (Problematic Smartphone Use) was reported in approximately one in every four CYP (Children and Young People) and accompanied by an increased odds of poorer mental health." The study further went on to argue that this was leading to an unhealthy mental health and decrease in social skills. The internet secluded us from the physical world, but it also has the ability to seclude us in the virtual world...

The internet, in its vastness, has created a series of pathways for every individual who uses it and that are each unique to them. Whilst we are all connected, and our paths might cross more easily, so too has our individual life paths never appeared so obvious. No two people interact on the same sites, in the same order for the length of their individual lives. We have become more secluded on our individual pathways, sharing less time together in the same places. This has only furthered emphasised our individualistic nature, as we become more engrossed in our own interests and care less for those around us (both physically and virtually). Some people may determine that the people around them are worthless and become so attached to just a few of their beliefs, that they will do anything to protect them.

The Dangers of Seclusion

Arguably the most frightening aspect of the internet is its ability, not just to connect us to individuals, but to connect us to the most dangerous individuals in our society. Extremist groups have easier access to their next recruits. YouTube is the most common place for propaganda to be found, with the site having to regularly undertake new methods to take down such material (thereby raising a free speech debate around extremist material and its similarity with hate speech). Pedophilia is also able to run more rampant online. Children often have access to the internet unsupervised and the seclusion they feel (particularly teenagers who already tend to feel secluded) is an easy target for pedophiles who look to give their targets validation before exploiting their trust and naivety.

The Seclusion of the Novel

But the idea of young people spending long periods of time engrossed in something, not pertaining to the real world, is not a new phenomenon. Novels have long had a similar effect and the child and teenage audiences have led to the creation of book markets specifically targeted towards them. Books, like the internet, transport people to another dimension, where they are able to explore another world. This transportation sees readers become, typically, more secluded as they search for somewhere quiet to read and choose to stay away from family members and friends for a few hours to enjoy their imaginary world.

Furthermore, whilst the words read in a novel may be identical, what we envision is not. A novelist is only able to go so far in transplanting their vision into their reader's head. What we therefore get is a system like the internet in which we live in an alternate world, for purposes of escapism, for long periods of time. Veltkamp even argues that this transportation increases our empathy saying: “fiction influences empathy of the reader, but only under the condition of low or high emotional transportation into the story.”

The idea of cyberspace is really not so different from the imaginary worlds we create when reading so why would the effects on children's brains, and their ability to emerge themselves into it, be so different? In fact, is it not more likely that the positive effects of fiction are also to be found due to the emotional transportation of the internet?

Of course, with a novel, children are unable to communicate with individuals who might exploit them, but they also miss out on communicating with friends and developing physical world bonds outside of their family. Though it should also be remembered that if children have a healthy amount of screen or reading time, then they should also have opportunities to explore relationships in the physical world be it in school-time, or other events aimed towards children.

Can it really be said that the seclusion created by the internet is so different from the seclusion created previously by the novel? Humanity has always strived to escape to somewhere different, the internet is arguably a new way to attain this.

Internet Gaming

Perhaps the most immersive form of entertainment through the internet is gaming and particularly the game Fortnite. Fortnite belongs to a fairly new genre in gaming known as the Battle Royale genre of games in which players (usually 100) are dropped into an environment and must pick up items on the island in order to survive, all the while fighting to become the last player alive. Fortnite is the most popular of this genre with an install base of over 250 million users across the seven platforms it is available on and at a recent World Championships, the 16-year-old winner took home $3 million. However, the game's popularity has led to countless reports claiming it causes violent behaviour in the children that play it, as well as other anti-social behaviours that come from long periods of seclusion. Is the game's main mode, in which players must defend themselves from other users for risk of losing, a rather helpful analogy in discussing how secluded people can become on the internet? Quite possibly. Even the game's modes in which players can fight alongside other players encourages tribalism as they still must fight over players in order to stay in the game.

Alternatively, however, Fortnite should perhaps be commended. After all, the game also encourages creativity (especially with its unique building aspect), co-operation (with regards to its co-op team-based modes) and puzzle solving. Furthermore, the game allows for new friendships, has created a new form of employment for several of the game's best players (several of whom have played the game as part of charity fundraisers) and created an exciting new brand for kids and even parents to bond over (with some parents even playing together once their children have gone to bed). Just like many entertainment franchises, Fortnite creates something well known that encourages people to create and share their ideas with others, creating and reinforcing friendships.

Not all internet gaming revolves around conflict either. Many games such as the Animal Crossing and Pokémon series have online elements that encourage players to work alongside each other. Whether this be building towns in Animal Crossing, capturing the various eponymous creatures in Pokémon or simply exploring the worlds of both games, these games, as well as others, offer players the chance to co-operate and succeed together.

The Information Superhighway

The internet is one of the defining inventions of the 20th Century and has had a transformative effect on Western society in the 21st Century. Communication and the spread of information has become available, quite literally, at the speed of light and on a global scale, especially among the Western World. These individualistic cultures are more connected and understanding between them has become easier.

This has created a cultural monotony as the various Western societies share their values more freely than ever. The internet is a connecting service that allows for quick and easy access to information. It is worth bearing in mind that the internet is not a unique entity or a metaphysical reality but simply a tool that, whilst advanced, still requires human input.

Collectivist Culture and the Internet

Whilst Western civilisation is seen as an individualistic culture, other cultures have been identified as collectivist. These cultures typically involve a larger community aspect and see success not as the product of the individual, but of the larger community. The question now is: has the internet made these communities more individualistic? Unfortunately, the answer is inconclusive as many of these traditional communities tend to be more rural and therefore less connected to the internet, whilst the urbanised communities have already become westernised due to the need to adapt to the global market. Still, we can see that even the rural, traditional communities in second world and some third world countries have gained new access to the internet and use it in much the same way those in rural first world communities use it (that is to say, largely on an individualistic basis). The internet is allowing the movement of ideas more quickly than ever, much as empires did in the 19th and 20th centuries and with this comes a colonisation not of land and resources, but of thought as ideology can spread faster than ever (somewhat like Christianity did in 19th century Africa due to British missionaries). This colonisation can be seen, at least in part, when examining the growth of western social media companies within emerging nations. Already Facebook has over 139 million users within Africa and many of the issues the internet issues that are said to threaten Western civilisation, are said to be doing the same within Africa. There are fears that Facebook is “undermining democracy in Africa” as “fake news” starts to become more prevalent

The Arab Spring

In 2011, the Arab Spring occurred across the Middle East. Uprisings in nations such as Tunisia, Libya and Egypt began that saw to alter the regimes that had taken hold there. These nations have all in the past been described as more collectivist communities than Western society and yet social media was highly influential in the genesis of these revolutions. Several groups used social media to come together and organise larger protests with a strategic purpose. With the aid of social media, revolutionaries were able to garner support from first world nations, leading to a NATO response in Libya, as well as aid in several other North African and Middle Eastern countries. The impact of social media in this situation cannot be underestimated as several videos of demonstrations and atrocities led to the eyes of the world turning towards situations they had long previously abandoned. What should also be noted however is the fall out that followed the demonstrations. Today three countries, or one fifth of countries involved in the Arab Spring, remain locked in Civil War, in part because whilst groups were able to use social media to overthrow the larger governments, none held a majority or even a sizeable minority within the national populace. The divisions that were always there between people have become more obvious, just as they political divisions in Western democracies have grown in the past ten years, a trend that has been largely put down to social media’s influence.

The Individual Behind the Avatar

The internet is arguably the largest collaboration of human work in existence and has seen billions of people contribute to it, despite its young age. When we discuss the internet, we have to remember that the people behind it are ordinary people. The infrastructure of the internet may be held by the Silicon Valley elite, but those who use it and populate the internet with content are the user base. This user base uses the internet as an extension of their pre-internet society and whilst becoming more integrated within the internet, the line between these two societies has become more blurred.

A Distrust of New Things

The distrust of the internet can be likened to the distrust of the written word observed in Ancient Greece. Socrates argued that the written word would "create forgetfulness in the learner's souls." A similar argument that can be found today regarding the internet, due to its ability to recall information at a moment's notice (and has previously been made by Daniel M. Wegner and Adrian F. Ward). Yet perhaps it would be fair to say that these individuals feel threatened by the changing world as it challenges a society in which they were the most powerful. Whilst the written word did ultimately change our society, it largely began what we now call civilisation. Perhaps the internet will be just as revolutionary for our society and therefore, like the written word before it, just as unfairly distrusted. Perhaps we are on the precipice of a new age that shall see humanity and its existence transform in a new way that as of yet is unknown. Or perhaps this is just a fluke and we shall abandon the internet as we collectively determine it to be too dangerous to continue. A new form of communication is a rare phenomenon for humanity, it is up to us to decide whether to embrace or destroy it.

Is it all the Internet's Fault?

It would be easy to say that the internet has created a more divisive, vitriol filled social climate, but to say so would be to scapegoat the human condition. In truth, we do not like to read what we disagree with and we have a dislike of things that are too different to ourselves. When we disagreed with newspapers, we changed the newspaper we read. When we did not like the change, a novel had made to a character, we put the book down and we told others that we did not enjoy it. The digital is not a new creation that has made us dislike one another, it has simply amplified and sped up the rate at which we hear things, both contrary to and supporting our opinions. It is true then, the digital creates an environment in which individuals are able to ignore forms of challenge to their views and create their own cult of individual, but no more so than any other environment. When an environment is created in which people of different ideas come together, there is always a way for people to walk away from debate and look for those who reaffirm their beliefs. Neo-Nazism in Post-War America and Europe and Islamic extremism grew without the aid of the internet. They grew, as any extremism does, by targeting those without cause and giving it to them. The internet simply allows this to be done on a faster and larger scale today. In truth, the internet simply speeds up the terrible things that humanity are willing to say and do to one another. In other words: the digital is not the problem, humans are.

Bibliography

Bal, P.M. and Veltkamp, M. (2013). How Does Fiction Reading Influence Empathy? An Experimental Investigation on the Role of Emotional Transportation. PLoS ONE, [online] 8(1), p.e55341. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055341 [Accessed 7 Dec. 2019].

Barnidge, M. (2018). Social Affect and Political Disagreement on Social Media. Social Media + Society, 4(3), p.205630511879772.

Brandwatch. (2019). The 20 Most Followed Accounts on Twitter. [online] Available at: https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/most-twitter-followers/.

Breuninger, K. (2018). Trump can’t block Twitter followers, federal judge says. [online] CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Facebook. (2019). Terms of Service. [online] Available at: https://en-gb.facebook.com/legal/terms [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Fleishman, G. (2000). Cartoon Captures Spirit of the Internet. [online] Archive.org. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20171229172420/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/technology/cartoon-captures-spirit-of-the-internet.html [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019].

Jordan T. Cyberpower the culture and politics of cyberspace and the internet. London ;: Routledge; 1999:66.

Madowo, L. (2019). Is Facebook undermining democracy in Africa? [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-africa-48349671 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Mcclurg, S.D. (2007). Diana C. Mutz. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, [online] 71(2), pp.312–314. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/71/2/312/1928937 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Meeker, M. (2019). Internet Trends 201. [online] p.91. Available at: https://www.bondcap.com/pdf/Internet_Trends_2019.pdf [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Milgram S. People do what they are told to do. . 2012:253.

News Consumption in the UK: 2018 PROMOTING CHOICE • SECURING STANDARDS • PREVENTING HARM. (2018). [online] Ofcom. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/news-consumption-2018.pdf.

Plato. c.399-347 BCE. “Phaedrus.” Pp. 551-552 in Compete Works, edited by J. M. Cooper. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.

Sohn, S., Rees, P. and Wildridge, B. (2019). Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1).

Twitter.com. (2019). Report a Tweet, List, or Direct Message. [online] Available at: https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/report-a-tweet [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Wegner, D.M. and Ward, A.F. (2013). How Google Is Changing Your Brain. Scientific American, 309(6), pp.58–61.

1 note · View note

wisdomrays · 6 years ago

Text

KEY CONCEPTS OF SPIRITUALITY IN ISLAM : The horizons of the soul: Metaphysical thought

The modern Western world view is said to be founded almost entirely on materialistic notions that exclude or even deny the spiritual or metaphysical dimensions of existence. This is a controversial point, but many socalled Muslim intellectuals who blindly imitate and import what they see as Western, despise and reject their societies' traditional modes of thinking and living. This is largely because they no longer have any awareness of the spiritual dimension of existence and life. Indeed, those who reduce existence to matter and think only in physical terms can hardly perceive and understand what is metaphysical and spiritual. Moreover, since those who can only imitate are more radical in their borrowed attitudes than the originators, and since imitation often obscures reality, those socalled intellectuals become more radical in rejecting what is spiritual and metaphysical, and lack adequate knowledge of matter and what is material.

Despite their claims and the assertions of their Western counterparts, it is difficult to accept that Western scientific thought, although primarily materialistic, has always been separate from spirituality and metaphysics. Modern Western civilization is based on the trinity of Greek thought, Roman law, and Christianity. This latter, at least theoretically, contributes a spiritual dimension. The West never completely discarded Platonist thinking, although it failed to reconcile it with positivistic and rationalistic philosophy. It also does not pretend that such thinkers as Pascal and J. Jeans never existed, or exclude Bergson's intuitivism. Bergson, Eddington, J. Jeans, Pascal, Bernhard Bavink, and Heisenberg are just as important in Western thought as Comte, Darwin, Molescholt, Czolba, and Lamarck. Indeed, it is hard to find an atheist scientist and philosopher before the midnineteenth century.

In contrast, metaphysical thought and spirituality have been almost entirely discarded by many Muslim intellectuals. In the name of certain notions that have been reduced to such simplistic slogans as "enlightenment, Westernization, civilization, modernity, and progress," metaphysical thought and spiritual life have been denigrated and degraded. Such slogans have also been used to batter traditional Islamic values.

We use "the horizon of hope" to mean traveling beyond the visible dimension of existence, and considering existence as an interrelated whole in the absence of which things and events cannot be perceived as they really are. Nor can its essence and relation with the Creator, as well as the relation between Him and humanity, be grasped. Scientific disciplines that conduct their own discourse largely in isolation from one another and the prevailing materialistic nature of science that has compartmentalized existence and life cannot discover the reality of things, existence, or life.

6 notes · View notes

walsiegirl · 4 years ago

Note

You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, but it's been bothering my mind quite a bit lately - how did you come to your conclusion in believing Geoffrey to be innocent in his case? I'm not judging or hating, I'm just curious. This is all coming from a fan new to him and his work, who really admires him but is feeling unsure. Again, you don't have to answer if you're not comfortable. I've looked at both sides and I'm just very, very confused as to what the truth really is, so I figured getting an older fan's perspective would help me understand anything I might be missing. Thank you in advance.🙏

Hi Anon! Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, I’ve been away and stuff.

This is a tough one and there honestly isn’t a right or wrong answer; it’s absolutely fine to be unsure and I cannot say one hundred percent he is innocent, nor can I say he is guilty. The way the case was initially reported was unfair to both parties, and they both went through essentially a trial by media, with others jumping in either with their own accusations or opinions, before anything really came to court. From a legal perspective, yes Geoffrey has won his case against the newspaper as there was, to over simplify it, little evidence to the contrary, which was a relief for those of us who have always admired him. But does that mean he hasn’t done anything wrong at all? It’s truly impossible to say.

When I very first heard about the allegations, I was confused, devastated and I wondered if I had got him completely wrong from the start. It’s taken time, reflection, and coming to terms with the fact that even people one admires may fuck up some times (some bigger than others) to help me feel, if not sure about things, then at least able to come to terms with it all to a degree. So straight off, I’m sorry I can’t give you a definitive answer, but I can ramble around the points that are central to the reason I still feel able to enjoy his work and the memories he gave me.

Firstly, I think Geoffrey Rush has enough integrity as a person to own up if he’s fucked up. Again, I’m going on my gut, it’s fine to disagree with me and people will. When presented with the allegations, he denied them, but he also stepped down from any positions of responsibility he felt he should not hold whilst being under scrutiny, and also apologised to former co-stars if he had made them feel uncomfortable with his work methodology. That isn’t him being silent and not acknowledging the problem, it’s taking a stand to start to work through it without being arrogant enough to go on as normal. It’s about starting a discourse.

Rolling on from that, I think the “making co-stars feel uncomfortable/sexually harassing co-stars” is probably the area of contention. I don’t personally feel or believe that Geoff would intentionally go out of his way to demean, oppress or harass people - again I am open to being proved wrong, this is just gut feeling and intuition - but Geoffrey is a naturally cheeky, playful, possibly even controversial character who I could easily see pushing boundaries in professional spheres - perhaps being overly extravagant, overly touchy-feely, overly jokey. This could easily make people feel uncomfortable and harassed. I think sometimes it can be too easy when you’re successful to become complacent and forget that not everyone is onboard with your ways of doing things and ways of being, with your self confidence and ego. A lot of people, myself included, are very good at being polite and tolerating things they find uncomfortable because they’re too worried/scared/tolerant to say otherwise. If you’re faced with an A-list actor who has a lot of clout, then by all means you may feel unable to speak up about feeling uncomfortable or not enjoying the way they treat you or work with you. It’s like being faced with the person at work who has been established at your company for a long time and is being overly familiar with you - do you dare tell the boss their favourite is too much for you? Probably not, you want to keep your job. And this kind of power imbalance may be where the issue lies.

So you are saying the allegations are all true? you’re probably asking now. No but I can easily see where there are lots of grey areas in this debacle rather than two black and white possibilities of guilty and not. Things may have been taken out of context or blown out of proportion - or not, who knows? When you’re acting and in close bodily contact with other people, and in theatre/film/tv this is a constant, there is a high risk you might touch people inappropriately. Was there true harassment in this instance, or were actions misjudged? Were comments said in jest, in humour, in affection misconstrued as creepy and inappropriate, or was that their real intent? When you only have two contrasting views, it’s impossible to know the truth. Also everything an individual experiences is relative - what one person may feel is harassment, the next may think is a funny joke or not even notice. This is where consent and communication come in - it’s important people, particularly those in positions of “power”, check in on their other halves/colleagues/co-stars once in a while to make sure everything is ok. If there isn’t trust and communication, then you end up with dumpster fires like this.

So what else can I ramble about?

People fuck up. All the time. The difference with being accused of fucking up when you’re an A-list Oscar winner is that the whole world will know about it and lynch you for it, regardless of your guilt, and the internet is very good for spreading information quickly, both truth and lies and everything in between. Though it is fine to hold people to account and question accusations, it’s worth remembering that we all have fucked up in our lives; not all to the same degree, and some things it is utterly fine to not to forgive someone for, but I think one of the reasons I came around about things was that I can think of a few occasions in my life where I have royally fucked up, and if I had been famous I would not have lived it down. As I’m not famous though, the fuck-ups were resolved to a greater or lesser degree and now are mostly forgotten - except by me who can never forgive myself and will think about it until I die. I guess I just realised that I cannot judge because I have been a dick in my time, too. It’s not an excuse, I’m not trying to say that fuck ups are excusable if they have happened, but again there has to be a point where we move on or else we just get stuck feeling suicidal and not being able to recover. The important thing is to make amends and face your mistakes if they have been made. Can we let celebrities fuck up and come back? Depends on the fuck up of course, and sometimes it may be they lose their liberties, they need to regain trust, but sometimes there can be rehabilitation and success again - like Robert Downey Jr.

And though positive past conduct does not mean a person will never do or hasn’t done wrong, a lot of people who have worked with Geoff either as a co-star, or have directed him, etc, have voiced their support for him and enjoyed working with him. On a personal note, I will always have ridiculously positive memories of meeting him and writing to him. It’s a totally different kettle of fish to working professionally with him, of course, but I can’t forget that during the 2000s he used to like to keep a distant eye on the discourse between his fans online; he liked to know if his fans would be at such-and-such an event, and he even brought me a promo book about The Golden Age as a thank you when I dragged my arse down to Norfolk in the UK to see him at an event in 2007; he often felt more friend than celebrity to us. He was polite and curious, asked little questions like what you studied at university, what dog you had, what your username meant. He was exceptionally trusting of us, too. And I just remember how chill he could be - I remember him texting his wife when a group of us met him in NY after his play there, or he’d step out for a smoke, and you’re like that’s a normal person, he’s checking in with his fam, doing his own thing, but he’s still got time for us. He was always a down to earth, friendly guy, beyond generous with his time and we all as a fan community felt appreciated by him. It was beyond cool. And I can’t forget that kindness, the fact he made me feel that I mattered. His benevolence has naturally garnered much loyalty in me.

And finally I also ask myself, if this was a family member, or a close friend, would I abandon them in bad weather? And the answer is no. Even if they fucked up badly, you help family and friends get through things, you help them rehabilitate, you support them making amends, and support them making reparations to anyone who has been hurt or wronged if need be. When I have fucked up, I haven’t been abandoned; yes reprimanded, yes cowed, but I’ve been given the opportunity to make amends and bounce back.

So long answer is, there is no answer. I have never affirmed or denied his innocence or guilt because I can’t. It has to come down to gut feeling in the end and trying to weigh up the mass of information and misinformation. It’s about invading the professional and private lives of people we probably have no business looking into. It’s about understanding that celebrities are just people, and they can potentially fuck up as badly as we do, but they may also be innocent of accusations like we can be too. It’s accepting that we can’t know any truths unless solid evidence is presented either way. So at present, I will continue to enjoy his films, his tv shows, his legacy, and appreciate everything he ever did for me either directly, or indirectly through his work. But I am also open-minded enough that if any hard evidence ever presented itself to the contrary, there may come a day I need to reappraise my position. But hopefully he is true to his word and to his success in winning his case, and he can work toward recovery and potentially even acting again, though the blow has been great, both to him and his accuser. He may never work again. My greatest fear is that if he is genuinely completely innocent of everything, then he has had the greatest joy in his life taken from him. I try not to dwell on that too much.

I hope that diatribe helps. It’s the elephant in the room that is hard to acknowledge but no one can tell you how to feel about it. It has to come from your own heart and soul. I also appreciate there are many other elements to consider but I can’t possibly cover all bases. It’s probably worth saying that I have been a victim of being groomed by a man so I understand the importance of women or vulnerable peoples having a voice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every accusation against men is true, either.

1 note · View note

booklust · 7 years ago

Text

Futurelit Vol 5: Grace Byron

This time around, I had the absolute pleasure of chatting with Grace Byron, the Brooklyn-based columnist, writer and filmmaker and all-around brilliant, benevolent creative spirit whose recent book release party for NB Carrie Bradshaw (read it here via Epigraph Mag!) at Babycastles solidified my love for her and her work.

This interview was the first time I had the opportunity to conduct a classic interview over the phone instead of over text chat, or as I like to call it for reasons I’d gladly explain to you over a glass of wine, “The Tony Hawk Method.”

This resulted in a truly gorgeous conversation that flows synaptically and always takes surprising directions (Twin Peaks, the afterlife, and a tender moment involving Coldplay that occurs towards the end---when you see it then you’ll understand!). It also brought me right back to the days at my editorial internship where I would transcribe hours of interviews, but in a good way this time. I took great pains to not only get the content and diction right, but to convey the undertones of our exchange that made it so vibrant. Which, interestingly enough, makes it take on the visual form of a text chat.

Check out our conversation at the jump, with gorgeous illustrations by Becky Ebben:

You do a column called “Trans Monogamist” for the Bushwick Daily (I binged that…it’s really dope) and your latest project is NB Carrie Bradshaw (which is out now!). So I’m curious, what sort of came first: your interest in the format of an advice columnist/relationship columnist, or your love of Carrie Bradshaw?

Actually--I didn’t start watching Sex and the City until January 2017, which everyone is sort of super surprised by, and honestly? Me fucking too. Not that it’s a perfect show, but the aesthetic signals that it’s something that I should have seen a long time ago. It took me a long time to get to it. I had heard a lot of the negative stuff, which there is a lot of, and rightfully so. There’s this one terrible bisexual episode where Carrie’s just like, “I just don’t know….he’s bi .” And I’m just like… “Girl, so what.” The point is, the column writing came sort of naturally. I had a column a few years ago at my paper called Queer Art Vibes before I had even seen Sex and the City. And I was mostly writing about art, and capitalism, artists, and things I was finding interesting aesthetically. The last column that I wrote was after I had a break-up, and it was called “How To Date an Anarchist.”

Oh my God

And it got like, no comments. Because most of the columns that I was writing were about trans identity and stuff. I got all these comments like, “Why can’t people just make up their minds about gender?” And I’m just like, that’s completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about. So this column got no comments at all. There’s this huge anarchist population at Indiana University. It just closed down this month, but we had this huge anarchist bookstore that was this huge draw for the punk scene.

It was a column that didn’t make sense for where I was writing. But then as I was watching Sex and the City, and as I was doing a lot more dating my last year in college, I was thinking “yeah, this is really important to talk about.” And I started thinking of dating as a political and aesthetic and emotional practice. It’s more using this pop culture phenomenon to let people understand something about what it’s like to be trans and dating. It’s not like it’s me and my three friends that are all going through the same things. Or it’s not like me and my straight girlfriends talking about how our experiences are different. Or me and someone who is nonbinary even talking about how it’s different for both of us. But I do like that element of friendship in it, that element of comradery. But I think it’s interesting now that shows act like there’s this group of 4 friends and they’re all the same. And that was never my experience? You know, there’s always a nonbinary person, a lesbian person, and...maybe a straight man.

LOL the token straight

Right. At least that’s my college experience, where I’ve never had a group of friends that were all the same. There were always at least one other gay or queer person. It’s a helpful lens to think about dating, and think about dating how much it’s changed since the early 2000s. A column is a dispatch from the front lines, like “this is what happened this month! How’s it going with you?” The book [NB Carrie Bradshaw] has a little bit of a more narrative arc to it. But in the columns, there’s no resolution. -----keep reading below------

Right, and that’s what I like about it. There’s endless thinkpieces about dating apps, queer dating, etc, and it’s so frustratingly depersonalized. It’s very strange how the discourse tries to force dystopia instead of actually having a comprehensive view of how people feel. There’s a lot more truth in the way that you present dating than how someone tries to dissect it in a thinkpiece.

Yeah, thinkpieces are weird. I love to read them, but I also don’t know how helpful they are a lot of the time. Especially when they try to draw a definitive statement. In some things, sure, that makes sense.

Like in a college thesis, where you’re forced to come to a resolution for your life, pretty much.

What was your experience working at a college newspaper?

Basically, I came to college, and I was on the media floor--and basically what I thought that meant was cross-genre. But in reality, what it meant was journalism. And then I thought, you know, okay, it’s fine. I thought it was interesting. And so I almost went to join the newspaper as a writer and interviewer, I did a few articles. But a rule was that if you were a writer for them, you couldn’t be interviewed. And that was my biggest problem with it--I knew I wanted to do art. I knew that I wanted to get press. I didn’t want to prevent that from happening.

Right after I came out my freshman year, this guy on my floor was like, “do you want to talk about being gay at IU?” And I was like uh….sure! It was weird because it was my first time being interviewed for something real, and I was talking about being gay. But I was also trying to sneak a pitch for my website while doing it, I was like...go watch it! They promptly cut that out of the interview, though.

Good effort, tho.

I didn’t love that environment. I wasn’t taken with it. I started volunteering at a local radio station where I did stories about lots of things. That was much more interesting and fulfilling than the college newspaper. And my friend was like, “do you want to be columnist--we need one.” Not because I was special or anything, because they really needed one. And I was like, “sure.” So I started writing these extremely leftist columns, like “capitalism is the devil, and here’s why : )”

And I wrote one that was like, “nudity in art isn’t porn,” which isn’t even an extreme opinion. But I started getting all of these comments like, “Counterpoint: nudity in art isn’t not porn.” I was just like wow, I can tell that you really read this column….

People just read titles a lot of times.

Yeah for sure. Our campus was filled with a lot of views of all extremes, and not just anarchists. We also had a militant white supremacist population on campus. There were a bunch of protests from that group over the course of years--it wasn’t just one year, or just this year, which was definitely the worse than the years before. I also got tons of hateful comments from white supremacist groups on my articles. So I was just one of the people on the receiving end of those comments.

But as far as my involvement in the newspaper group itself, I think I only attended one meeting. I didn’t really feel a sense of community at IU that a lot of people there felt. I think a lot of people looked down on what I did because it was so personal. It wasn’t like I was talking about music, or like I was talking about hard-hitting stories. So I wasn’t really a part of the “IU JOURNALISM COMMUNITY.” But it wasn’t like I really wanted to be. I would still sometimes get people who appreciated my work, that came up to me and said “I love this, I love what you’re doing,” but they were usually queer people.

Which is definitely the desired reaction, which is awesome. Talking about your webseries “Idle Cosmopolitan” -- what was your favorite audience, or your favorite venue that you showed it to? And what was that sort of reaction and vibe like?

I wasn’t at all of the screenings. It showed at Bloomington at Planet Nine--which is this small VHS rental/DVD rental video place that kind of reminds me of Ghost World or something. I wasn’t there, but a lot of my friends were there, since it was my home for so many years. I assume it went well. From the pictures, I saw that it went well, at least.

It showed at Sarah Lawrence, which I know very little about how that went. I wanted to be there, but I was scheduled at work. Which is a whole thing about how I’m not a full-time artist. I say that I’m a freelance artist, which means that I make MAYBE 50 bucks a month off of my art. If it’s a good month! So I can’t always go to everything that’s happening. It’s an interesting part about being an artist in this landscape. People expect you to be global, and there’s only so global you can be if you’re working class. Which I think is important to be transparent about. It’s not always fun to be transparent about that, but it’s important.

Exactly, you want to be honest about it, but you want to portray yourself as larger-than-life-to get attention, and at least the semblance of clout (whatever that fcking means). But being an artist, you’re a part of a community, and you want to treat that community well. You don’t want to stunt and act like you’re making a living off of your art when you’re not.

It’s not cool to lie one way or the other. It’s not cool to portray yourself as a poor person if you’re not, and I’m not super poor or anything, but I’m not living off of my artwork, and I make a decent living off of my work as a childcare worker. But yeah, you shouldn’t lie because you’re fooling yourself and making art seem elitist.

There’s the lie by omission, in a way. A lot of people are internet famous, or have a certain persona that makes people say “Oh, I want to be like this person, who so clearly lives off of their artwork.” When in reality, it’s probably a side hustle at best.

Or they live with their parents. Or they have rich parents.

It distorts people’s dreams and plans--it’s important to be responsible about that.

Totally. One show I was at physically was at Secret Project Robot, at this festival of poets, and my videos were showing between poets that were reading their work. So that was interesting---I was the only video artist at the show. And as many things as I have tried--I have written poems, but I’ve never called myself a “poet.” So I thought that was kind of cool to have that multimedia experience, to see my videos projected really large in front of a big crowd of 20 or 30 people. Which doesn’t seem like a lot, but it’s actually a lot. I remember thinking wow, the crowds are gonna be so big in New York. And they are! But 20 or 30 people is a lot for DIY art. Even if you’re successful, or internet famous--it’s hard to gather a crowd wherever you are.

And it was really cool because people who were actually in the video got to see it, which was cool! Chariot is in it, and he was there, so that’s cool.

There was one livestream and q&a in the UK, which was really cool. And that was my favorite, because the moderator was super smart and always asked good question about the fantasy genre, and its intersections with queerness. It was refreshing instead of questions like-- “Why are you gay? Why is this here?” It was a good convo to have beyond the surface level.

It’s awesome that I saw so many showings of your series was in Indianapolis, in Indiana. You may not see a big crowd--DIY art isn’t an Ariana Grande concert--but What you do see is how it sort of transforms the room, and creates a living space, a community. 20 people is a community. Especially in Indiana.

Right, there’s very established artists and documentarians where the only place they have more than 20 people show up is in their hometowns. Even world-renowned documentarians may struggle to get an audience. Which is awful. But I think that one thing that is happening in the real world is that there are plenty of people I look up to, who are famous, whose twitter gets pretty very few likes! And they may have a huge amount of followers! And I’m like--why am I getting more likes than world-renowned feminist scholars? I think that’s happening in real life too. These people are having talks and showings of their work and sometimes DIY work is a different experience and maybe draws more people than these professional pieces, and there’s a community of people who can see themselves in that as artists.

I agree, it definitely changes the dynamic for people are used to when it comes to art, you think there’s the artist and this huge invisible wall and then there’s the observer, and it breaks down that dynamic.

Right, it changes the power dynamic. The artist isn’t a preacher. What we’ve seen in DIY venues is, everybody is sitting in chairs. The artist is in the front, but everyone is on the same level. There isn’t a stage to walk down from.

I think people are only starting to observe this change, and aren’t sure what to call it yet. Some people see changes like this as the death of something, like the death of some kind of empire of how art works. But especially with this project, I think I’ve not only been an optimist, but a realist in the sense that it’s for the better. So many people are screaming “death to media! Death to print!” and I’m just over here like, “You’re a Baby Boomer, please don’t talk to me.”

Ha! Right. These media aren’t dead, but they’re definitely dying. But I think they’re going to be dying for a while to come. People broadcasting the death of all of these things---like, they’re not dead yet. The Met is gonna be in trouble, but the Met is gonna be around for the next 100 years. The Met’s not just gonna crumble.

Going back to “Idle Cosmopolitan”--I love how it’s a series of very short films. And by short, I mean like, slightly longer than a Vine length. And some people may come across that and immediately compare the series to Vine culture, but my immediate thought was comparing it to poetry, with a lot of tightly-wound content being fit into a small space. So I was wondering how poetry influences your visual work, or how visual work influences your poetry, etc.

That’s interesting. I actually originally applied to go to college for poetry. I never called myself a poet, but I did think about it for a while. When I do write poetry, it’s usually about nature, and viewing nature through the lens of divinity and power dynamics. Which I think is definitely a big part of my video work. The “Queer World” in my piece is a forest. Somebody was talking to me recently, and said that “I think it’s interesting that the queer world is a forest. Do you think of urban spaces as, like, not-as-queer spaces?” I hadn’t really thought about that. But whenever I think of that sort of the afterlife, I don’t think of cities. And what’s our other option, really? Nature. An ocean would be a terrifying destination for the afterlife. I think that poetry is super important, I think when I’m writing anything, I tend towards a lyrical, poetic style. I love hard facts, but I was never super into Hemingway. I always loved the Great Gatsby. Not that I like showy, hyper-stylized stuff; I hated the Great Gatsby movie. But the suggestion of artifice, the suggestion of things like that, I think is really interesting.

There’s ton of talk about heaven and nature and sin in “Idle Cosmopolitan.” I’m sure it comes from a long line of being raised in Christianity, and having read all of the Christian classics. And as a kid, I was obsessed with the apocalypse. Once, I was between 6-9 I remember looking at clocks in restaurants and thinking, “Could this be the hour of the end?” I remember being super into Revelations, and the ghost stories that my friends and I would tell each other, and often confusing them as the same thing.

I think that’s a form of poetry true, a strange, mental form of poetry. I think the afterlife is poetic, because there’s no concrete that you can provide.

I think in terms of modality, I think I’m always writing in the form of the poetic, even if I’m not writing a poem. Even my column--it’s not a how-to column, it’s not a safari.

It’s not MTV Cribs!

Right! Definitely more reflections.

I always thought of videos sort of in musician terms, like “this is my new album---Idle Cosmopolitan.” This is the tracklist, and each has a poetic name, etc. And each year, there’s a self-image overhaul….well, there’s no image overhaul for me this year, but especially in college I was into that idea, where I wanted to amp myself up every year.

But this iteration, for me, was trying to marry these poetic ideals with my own lived experiences, to make it sort of autobiographical, but still have a flourish. I mean, I was watching Twin Peaks when I was working on it.

Yeah, I can definitely see that influence in there. Where there’s that magic-realism, but it’s so mundane. The suspension of disbelief is so well-dissolved into it.

Right as I was starting to write this, I just finished the season of Veronica Mars---I’m not sure if it directly influenced it…

But it was there

Yeah, and watching Twin Peaks: the Return. What I thought was interesting about it was its formal elements. There was this sort of suspension of disbelief present for both the characters and the audience. So then you’re just like, “Yeah, queer spirits! That makes sense!” So, it’s that magic realism that is super appealing. And also the fact that it’s episodic. One of the things about David Lynch that I’m really into is the episodic nature of his work. There’s this loose play with time and narrative, and it’s an experience.

I think what Lynch talks a lot about, especially in later seasons, is agency. But in Sex and the City, for example--Carrie isn’t a bad person, but she’s not necessarily a good person either. She has affairs, runs around doing whatever she wants, she tries to take a break from dating and has a guilt complex where she feels bad about her actions, and also places guilt on other people--it’s complex, which I think is interesting.

Like chaotic neutral, but a little more complex than that?

Yeah, definitely. I’m obsessed with people who are chaotic neutral. I don’t think I’m chaotic neutral, but I’m fascinated by that those people exists.

I’m a super-intense Virgo, Type A, Blair Waldorf type. I definitely pride myself on hard work--which could be problematic--but I have that crawl-my-way-to-the-top sort of vibe.

This character in the webseries, they’re sort of neutral. They’re a relationship writer, but it doesn’t seem like a main part of their personhood. The only thing that they seem mad about is when their boyfriend breaks up with them, which is fair. But they don’t seem to be making many choices, and there’s something very sidekick about that.

I was in this space in my life where I was having to make all these intense decisions--deciding to move to New York, having to make all of these choices about who I wanted to be as a person. The character is the exact opposite, where there’s no movement. There’s a movement in narrative, a movement in place, but it kind of happens to them.

They get a letter, a pep talk from Fate--and they’re just like, “Sure, whatever, I don’t care.” Then they enter the queer world, and they’re like “Alright.” And then the Blue Spirit is the one who was like, “No, this wasn’t actually a good choice.” And they’re like, “Okay, sure.” They never really doubt people’s motives.

There’s a sort of guilt about making choices that Type A people have. Inevitably, if you’re a type A perosn, you’re going to hurt people. Even if you’re not actually hurting them, you’re going to make choices, and choices affect people. There’s winners and losers. So what does it mean for the sort of stoner archetype, this chaotic neutral archetype, when they don’t make choices?

I’ve never been a chill person, so I gravitate towards writing characters that are like that. Because I’m always wondering….what does that feel like?

Right! I feel like it takes a lot of effort to be chill, which isn’t chill. It’s kind of a self-consuming concept. I’m not gonna say it’s the only real binary, but…

Haha, right! Ok back to influences. Actually, as far as the soundtrack goes, I’ve gotten a lot of feedback where people say it reminds them of Sex and the City, and that it’s derivative. Actually, one person said that the soundtrack reminds them of Rugrats….

Stop!!!

Right!? Well, it’s jazz, but it’s sort of this chaotic jazz.

It’s a typical theme song in a lot of ways, but it’s disarming. Which I like.

Some people said it makes them anxious.

It offsets the perceived chill in the series, which signals you to look harder.

Watching it back, I was like...something is wrong. Narratively, there’s something up. But I’m not sure if that thing ever gets hashed out or resolved, it just sort of hangs like a dark cloud.

Which is what’s so great about poetry. There’s always that lack of resolution. People always get angry at that, where they want to feel satisfied...where’s the sequel at??

Do they get the girl or not??

Yeah! It’s how we’re taught to view life. But especially with creative people, it’s paradoxical--they only thing that makes them (us) feel satisfied is poetry, that sort of form that leaves things unresolved.

Totally.

How has the internet shaped your writing?

The internet is definitely fucked up. It was created by the military, and is now owned by billionaires. That’s already strike one. But let’s assume that the internet is also provides a space that provides more access for more people. But it doesn’t provide equal access for everybody. It provides equal access for a relatively small amount of people. You have to afford a computer, internet access--and even if you go to the library, you have to afford to be there.

But let’s say it does level the playing field in that way---even still, people don’t have more of a chance of getting their art noticed because of it. It does mean more people can put their stuff out there, but it doesn’t guarantee more viewers, or more fans, or some utopia.

The internet has become this neoliberal promise of equality. This reveals itself in every aspect---who dominates media, who dominates internet celebrity, etc. This doesn’t discount the fact that there’s fantastic DIY spaces based on the internet, but there’s a lot being overlooked.

The internet as a structure is racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. Even if we go back to technology like photography, for example, it was a technology developed to best depict white faces. It’s so great that the internet creates a platform for people, but that includes creating platforms for neo-nazis on 4chan, for alt-righters to doxx people. The web is pretty fucked up, and it amplifies our greatest strengths, like community. Especially the trans community, which is so important. But it also amplifies our problems, and reveals where we need to grow.

I don’t think the internet is the devil, but I think it makes it harder for people to feel like human beings. It mirrors capitalism, and degrades human beings in so many ways where we’re expected to become a brand, which is always tied to capitalism. We’re forced to reduce ourselves to something bite-sized, which is troubling me as a person and as an artist.

When did u start writing and being creative?

I was always drawing. I was super into Pokemon and all the Nintendo games. I was into anything cute and well-designed, like Zelda, and anything involving world-building. I was super into maps, and at a young age, I thought, “I wanted to do that.”

At a young age, I wanted to be a pop star. And I made the boys in the neighborhood be my band. Now I’m thinking that was sort of a strong signal of me being gay, haha. Boys---you’re gonna be in this band, and I’m gonna sing Breakout by Miley Cyrus.

I started getting really into bands. I was really into Coldplay, and I wanted to be Chris Martin.

STOP, ME TOO

I really liked “Clocks.”

ME TOO, when I first heard that, I was like, Now….that’s what I call music.

I also really liked “Lovesong” by Sara Bareilles, which is entirely different, but I was also like...that’s what I call music. Also Paramore and Deathcab, and I was like…..this is also Music. I still love all this stuff

I still listen to all this stuff pretty much on the regular, even though I laugh about it Yeah! And at the time, all of these things were coded as feminine. Even Coldplay, which was, not a boyband, but kind of more healing.

Right, like ~emotional boys~, ~soft boys~, this sort of soft masculinity before it was talked about and memed.

I went from wanting to be a popstar, to wanting to be in bands, to wanting to do comics, and then I was like...I want to be painter! I did a lot of paintings, and then I wanted to be an actor. I was fixated on stardom, on theater. I was in all the plays of my freshman year.

Then I moved schools, and this guy who didn’t even like me and stopped talking to me, but I liked him---I wrote this psycho-opera about him. It was all songs about him, and it was super awkward. I recorded an album about him. He started being nice to me, and then I was just like…...here’s an album…

I was like, that was fun, but then I started to getting into Wes Anderson. And Woody Allen, but #WORST. And then Godard, which was better. Then I started making movies. And I saw 30 Rock, and it confirmed what I wanted to do.

I love how you go from Godard to 30 Rock

I know!! I was very all over the map. Then I started watching more experimental films and wild stuff, so it’s been a journey to where I’m at now.

The wrapping up portion, something I ask at the end of every interview...this is actually the first interview I’ve done that’s over the phone, an actual physical conversation. And the form of how I’ve conducted each interview has really affected it.

How would you describe the future of literature in a tweet-length? Or a sort of verbal tweet length, also tweets are longer now so….yeah….

Smaller.

#nb carrie bradshaw #lit #futurelit #publishing #books #writing #spilled ink #becky ebben #idle cosmopolitan #trans monogamist #queer #grace byron

4 notes · View notes

eulawilliams · 5 years ago

Text

Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame

Have you ever heard of the Violet Flame of Saint Germain?

The Flame is a spiritual energy that corresponds to the frequency of violet light. People with spiritual sight are able to see the violet flame and have described it as a beautiful flame or aura. The flame represents the combined spiritual energy of love, freedom, justice, mercy, and change, wrapping it all together to create one flame.

The methods to use the violet flame is taught by Saint-German, an Ascended Master.

One of the Causes Behind Miracles

He teaches how the Violet Flame is one of the causes behind miracles, a way of conducting heavenly alchemy and a solution for all spiritual problems today.

The Violet Flame is one of the most important things to the spiritual world. Throughout history, saints have used the Violet Flame to ascend their spiritual vision. Working with the flame accelerates progress beyond what can be imagined and it takes a talented person to truly understand what can be accomplished with it. A rare and lucky few experienced the flame first hand and came to know of the power it held within. The true nature of the Violet Flame was not shared with the public for many years.

History Of The Violet Flame

For much of history, the Violet Flame remained a secret. Only members of the Great White Brotherhood were taught the ways of the flame. Then at the dawn of the 20th century, the doors opened on the spiritual world. The wider public became aware of the flame and its properties. Now the wisdom and strength of the flame can be taught around the world. Saint Germain (image above) and the other Masters have worked for over eighty years to ensure the world becomes ready for the age where peace and freedom are possible.

The New Song

Saint Germain himself was spoken of in the Book of Revelation as the Seventh Angel, who teaches our souls how to rise higher, and how to sing the New Song. The New Song is a song of spiritual energy and freedom that the world hasn’t seen for far too long. During the 1930s, Saint-German appeared to the author Godfre Ray King and bestowed upon him the teachings of how to progress swiftly along the spiritual path using the violet flame and affirmations. It was recorded that while Saint-German was speaking of the Violet Flame he said:

“The use of the violet consuming flame is more valuable to you and to all mankind than all the wealth, all the gold and all the jewels of this planet.”

He went on to talk about the violet flame in books such as: I AM Discourses, The Magic Presence, and Unveiled Mysteries. He never stopped preaching the ways of the violet flame through the 1960s, all the way up to 2000. He taught Prophets the practice so they may continue on the spiritual path to Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius is the age where freedom and peace on Earth are possible for all people. That is the goal of Masters of the Violet Flame. To bring the world into this new age of freedom.

Violet Flame Decrees & Mantras

The Violet Flame decree has great power within it. The power to harness and focus energy using the power of the spoken word. The spoken word is the most important part. When speaking, speak with the authority of the Father-Mother God, always with the “I AM.”

An example of a more basic Violet Flame decree or mantra is

I AM the Violet Flame In action in me now I AM the Violet Flame To Light alone I bow I AM the Violet Flame In mighty Cosmic Power I AM the Light of God Shining every hour I AM the Violet Flame Blazing like a sun I AM God’s sacred power Freeing everyone

Simple Yet Powerful Mantra

“I AM the Violet Flame” may be simple, but it is very powerful. It is short and able to be repeated many times while retaining focus.

It reminds me of the mantra of Hooponopono Healing. That is why “I AM the Violet Flame” is a popular and well-known mantra, perhaps the best one of all. A strong connection with the flame can be established and held for a long time while using this mantra.

Keep Trying and You Will Succeed

In the beginning, most people are likely to see only a flicker of the flame or nothing it all.

That shouldn’t be discouraging. It can take a long time for trust in the flame to flourish and the connection to become strong. Once the flame appears, work every day to keep the connection from vanishing. There are a few helpful steps that can be carried out for the most successful decrees each day. They are below, and while not everyone will be suitable in every situation, it is a great help for those unsure how to go about doing so.

Set Aside Time Every Day

It is possible to give Violet Flame decrees anywhere and anytime.

It doesn’t matter if you are getting ready for bed or driving to work.

Simply repeating the decrees can help you when you are feeling tired, stressed or upset.

However, the most benefit from saying the decrees comes when you set aside at least fifteen minutes a day.

Set up a space dedicated to the flame, like a chapel or well lit and clean room.

Begin With Prayer

Before you start your decrees, give out a prayer to the Masters, angels and elementals.

Call them and ask for their help.

The elementals of earth, fire, water, earth, and air, would only be happy to help cleanse your spirit and body. Repeating the prayer once is enough, but it is possible to do it multiple times. End on the note that feels most comfortable.

Start Out Slow

Starting off the decrees slowly and deliberately has much more power. Mean every word and carefully sound them out. Then as time goes on, speed them up until you are talking normally. This adds more power to the decrees and means you will have a better connection with the flame than if you had started off quickly from the beginning.

Visualize The Flame

Only very lucky people will see the flame with their physical eyes.

But it is possible to see it with your inner eye.

Close your eyes and concentrate on the energy flowing between your eyes.

By doing so, it is sometimes possible to see the flame from within.

People who have seen the flame say it can be anywhere from bright purple to a dark indigo color.

Sometimes the flame is burning through debris.

Heal Past Lives

It is not uncommon for those who have worked with the Violet Flame and become experienced to recall their past lives. This is a blessing, but it can come with consequences. The choices made in the past life and their karmic implications will arise and will need to be cleansed if some of those choices were poor. Don’t be discouraged if this is needed. Remembering past lives is a gift and it is important to use the lessons from them and grow as a person in your current life.

Violet Flame Prayers

It was touched on above that starting off with a prayer is a great idea. That should be done before a mantra is said. During prayer, thank the elementals, the Masters, and Saint Germain. Without them, the knowledge of how to connect with the Violet Flame would have never been available and you would not be prepared to say a mantra.

The spirits will appreciate the acknowledgment of their efforts and understand your goals. You want to cleanse your spirit and that of the Earth around you. Embrace it and the spirits will embrace you, along with the Flame. Everyone’s prayers can be different. Choose or develop one that resonates with you the most. It will help the connection between you and the spirits more then if you just randomly picked one. Do the time to figure out what works best and go from there.

Conclusion

The best way to become experienced is to find fellow practitioners of the Flame.

They will be able to pass down their knowledge to you and offer advice on how to forge the best connection possible with the flame. Their teachings will help you to remember past lives and shed any karmic debts attached to them. It is also a good idea to read books on the subject. Learn about the history of the Violet Flame and your appreciation for what Saint Germain and the Masters did will only increase. There are also YouTube videos and online lessons available, however, it is of the utmost importance to make sure the information is reliable before consuming it.

youtube

Listening to false information can harm the progress you have made and keep you from advancing farther. But, don’t let that be discouraging. Trust yourself and the flame. Even if you are just starting out, there is more than enough room for you. Embrace the flame and understand why it has spread around the globe.

The post Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame appeared first on Healing of Love.

Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame published first on https://healingoflove.com/

0 notes

ryanjkohnson · 5 years ago

Text

Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame

Have you ever heard of the Violet Flame of Saint Germain?

The methods to use the violet flame is taught by Saint-German, an Ascended Master.

One of the Causes Behind Miracles

He teaches how the Violet Flame is one of the causes behind miracles, a way of conducting heavenly alchemy and a solution for all spiritual problems today.

History Of The Violet Flame

The New Song

“The use of the violet consuming flame is more valuable to you and to all mankind than all the wealth, all the gold and all the jewels of this planet.”

Violet Flame Decrees & Mantras

An example of a more basic Violet Flame decree or mantra is

Simple Yet Powerful Mantra

“I AM the Violet Flame” may be simple, but it is very powerful. It is short and able to be repeated many times while retaining focus.

Keep Trying and You Will Succeed

In the beginning, most people are likely to see only a flicker of the flame or nothing it all.

Set Aside Time Every Day

It is possible to give Violet Flame decrees anywhere and anytime.

It doesn’t matter if you are getting ready for bed or driving to work.

Simply repeating the decrees can help you when you are feeling tired, stressed or upset.

However, the most benefit from saying the decrees comes when you set aside at least fifteen minutes a day.

Set up a space dedicated to the flame, like a chapel or well lit and clean room.

Begin With Prayer

Before you start your decrees, give out a prayer to the Masters, angels and elementals.

Call them and ask for their help.

Start Out Slow

Visualize The Flame

Only very lucky people will see the flame with their physical eyes.

But it is possible to see it with your inner eye.

Close your eyes and concentrate on the energy flowing between your eyes.

By doing so, it is sometimes possible to see the flame from within.

People who have seen the flame say it can be anywhere from bright purple to a dark indigo color.

Sometimes the flame is burning through debris.

Heal Past Lives

Violet Flame Prayers

Conclusion

The best way to become experienced is to find fellow practitioners of the Flame.

youtube

The post Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame appeared first on Healing of Love.

Violet Flame Of Saint Germain | Prayers And Mantras of the Flame posted first on https://healingoflove.com/

0 notes

phgq · 5 years ago

Text

NCIP facilitates IPs’ dialogue with UN, int’l community

#PHnews: NCIP facilitates IPs’ dialogue with UN, int’l community

MANILA – Indigenous peoples (IP) communities on Wednesday (August 5) cited accomplishments and challenges since the enactment of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in 1997, in commemoration of the International Day of World’s Indigenous Peoples.

In a web forum facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), its chairperson, Undersecretary Allen Capuyan, cited as some of the major recent initiatives the development of an IP Master Plan and Strategic Plan containing a roadmap to strengthen the recognition, respect, promotion, and protection of the four bundles of rights; the strengthened implementation of the Ancestral Domain Food Security Framework; the creation of a task force in partnership with the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate human rights violations and abuses against IPs; and the comprehensive documentation of the cultural profile of 132 IP groups in the country.

NCIP facilitated the dialogue between IP communities from all over the country with United Nations representatives and the international community during the forum, “Voices from the Ancestral Domains: Fulfilling Rights and Addressing Challenges”.

The web forum also presented the issues and challenges that indigenous communities continue to face.

NCIP said it pushed for IP communities to speak directly with the international community as the IPs feel they were never truly represented in discourses.

Customary laws mandate that only the tribal council or the tribal leaders can speak in behalf of the tribe.

NCIP said IP communities and leaders who were present were grateful that for the first time, they felt that they were given the opportunity to speak of the atrocities and issues that pervade their own ancestral domains, instead of stories narrated by non-IPs and non-ancestral domain settlers.

Some of the IP representatives who were in the forum were the families of the victims of summary executions and killings by the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF), designated as a foreign terrorist group, by the United States and the European Union in 2002 and 2005, respectively.

A number of reactors from IP communities were themselves victims of radicalization and inciting to violent extremism, enforced labor or slavery, and various forms of exploitation in the so-called “alternative schools” for IPs.

‘Not only on paper’

UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Francisco Cali Tzay, congratulated the NCIP on the organization of the web forum and welcomed the opportunity to hear directly from the IP communities and leaders themselves.

He commended the Philippines for being one of the few countries that recognize the human rights of indigenous peoples “not only on paper” but also through the awarding of the certificates of ancestral domain titles for ancestral territories in both land and water.

The special rapporteur emphasized the importance of ancestral domains which are integral in the realization of cultural and other human rights of the IPs.

A staunch advocate of indigenous peoples’ rights who spoke actively on IP issues in his country, Cali, while citing his support for a peaceful “struggle” or defense of rights, said the UN does not support armed struggle as a solution to a problem and is strongly against all terrorist activities.

IP master plan

Meanwhile, UN resident coordinator, Gustavo Gonzalez, recognized several concrete initiatives of the NCIP under Capuyan.

He identified as some of the measures that the UN would be interested to support and include in a joint program with the Philippine government the creation of an investigative task force and the IP master plan which respond to needs on the ground.

He said sustainable development in the Philippines would not be conceivable without addressing issues of the indigenous peoples and communities.

Gonzalez also cited that it was regrettable that the armed groups did not respect the ceasefire declarations of the UN Secretary General and President Rodrigo Duterte, which could have been a concrete way of supporting and helping indigenous peoples affected by the pandemic.

In response to a question about the position of CHR on the ongoing recruitment of IP minors by the CPP-NPA-NDF to join the armed struggle, Commissioner Pimentel-Gana said CHR decries such kind of abuse against the IPs and assured the public that it would investigate all complaints filed and would do its best to obtain justice for the victims.

She said CHR is in the process of signing a memorandum of agreement with the NCIP to facilitate better coordination on matters concerning the human rights of IPs.

In their call to action, IP leaders and representatives called for the fast tracking of the implementation of the IPRA and the conduct of a thorough and just community-based investigations on abuses and violations perpetrated by the CPP-NPA-NDF particularly against IPs in Mindanao.

Amid an alarming trend of misrepresentations and misinformation on IP issues by certain groups and non-state actors, the IP leaders called for the exercise of diligence and appealed to the UN and the international community to directly engage with IP communities and consider their voices in having a truly informed picture of the human rights situation of IPs in the Philippines.

Among the guest speakers at the forum were UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Francisco Cali Tzay, UN Resident Coordinator Gustavo Gonzalez, Commission on Human Rights Commissioner Gwendolyn Pimentel-Gana, and House of Representatives Chairperson of the Committee on Indigenous Cultural Communities/ IPs Allen Jesse Mangaoang, among others.

Also present during the forum were representatives from UN agencies, international organizations, diplomatic corps, government agencies, the academe, and non-government organizations.

The Indigenous Peoples Web Forum may be viewed at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=586338328744911&id=2008698719356500. (PR)

***

References:

* Philippine News Agency. "NCIP facilitates IPs’ dialogue with UN, int’l community." Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1112012 (accessed August 12, 2020 at 11:51PM UTC+14).

* Philippine News Agency. "NCIP facilitates IPs’ dialogue with UN, int’l community." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1112012 (archived).

#Philippines #News #Filipino #Pinoy #Tourism #Politics #Culture #Editorial #Environment #Society #History

0 notes

neworoldnews · 5 years ago

Text

Nihilism is a term which describes the loss of value and meaning in people’s lives. When Nietzsche proclaimed that “God is dead,” he meant that Judeo-Christianity has been lost as a guiding force in our lives, and there is nothing to replace it. Once we ceased really to believe in the myth at the heart of Judeo-Christian religion, which happened after the scientific revolution, Judeo-Christian morality lost its character as a binding code by which to live one’s life. Given the centrality of religion in our lives for thousands of years, once this moral code is lost and not replaced, we are faced with the abyss of nihilism: darkness closes in on us, and nothing is of any real value any more; there is no real meaning in our lives, and to conduct oneself and one’s life in one way is just as good as another, for there is no over-arching criterion by which to make such judgments.

Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is an odd film. It’s a seemingly complete narrative which has been chopped into vignettes and rearranged like a puzzle. It’s a gangster film in which not a single policeman is to be found. It’s a montage of bizarre characters, from a black mobster with a mysterious bandage on the back of his bald head, to hillbilly sexual perverts; from henchmen dressed in black suits whose conversations concern what fast food items are called in Europe to a mob problem-solver who attends dinner parties early in the morning dressed in a full tuxedo. So, what is the film about? In general, we can say that the film is about American nihilism.

First, a quick run-down of the film:

PART I : Ringo and Honeybunny decide to rob a coffee shop. Jules and Vincent discuss what a Quarter Pounder with Cheese is called in France. They collect a briefcase which belongs to Marsellus Wallace from Brad, Marvin, et al. Before Jules kills Brad, he quotes a passage from the Old Testament. Marsellus has asked Vincent to take Mia (Mrs. Marsellus Wallace) out for the evening, and Vincent is nervous because he heard that Marsellus maimed Tony Rocky Horror in a fit of jealousy. Vincent buys heroin and gets high, then takes Mia out to Jack Rabbit Slim’s, a restaurant which is full of old American pop icons: Buddy Holly, Marilyn Monroe, Ed Sullivan, Elvis; they win a dance contest. Mia mistakes heroin for cocaine and overdoses; Vincent has to give her a cardiac needle full of adrenaline to save her.

PART II : Butch agrees to throw a fight for Marsellus Wallace. Butch as a child receives a watch from his father’s friend, an army comrade who saved the watch by hiding it in his rectum while he was in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. Butch double crosses Marsellus and doesn’t throw the fight; his boxing opponent is killed. Butch must return to his apartment, despite the fact that Marsellus’ men are looking for him, to get his watch; he kills Vincent. Butch tries to run over and kill Marsellus; they fight and end up in a store with Zed, Maynard and the Gimp, hillbilly sexual perverts. The perverts have subdued and bound Butch and Marsellus, and the perverts begin to rape Marsellus. Butch gets free and saves Marsellus by killing a hillbilly and wounding another with a Samurai sword.

PART III : Returning to the opening sequence, one of the kids Jules and Vincent are collecting from tries to shoot them with a large handgun; he fails, and Jules takes this as divine intervention. Jules and Vincent take Marvin and the briefcase; Marvin is shot accidentally, and the car becomes unusable. Jules and Vincent stop at Jimmy’s, and Marsellus sends Winston Wolf to mop up. Jules and Vincent end up in the coffee shop which Ringo and Honeybunny are robbing. Ringo wants to take the briefcase, but Jules won’t let him. Jules quotes the Biblical passage again to Ringo and tells him that he would quote this to someone before he killed that person. This time, however, Jules is not going to kill Ringo. Ringo and Honeybunny take the money from the coffee shop; Jules and Vincent retain the briefcase.

As I said, in general, the film is about American nihilism. More specifically, it is about the transformation of two characters: Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Butch (Bruce Willis). In the beginning of the film, Vincent (John Travolta) has retumed from a stay in Amsterdam, and the content of the conversation between Jules and Vincent concerns what Big Macs and Quarter Pounders are called in Europe, the Fonz on Happy Days, Arnold the Pig on Green Acres, the pop band Flock of Seagulls, Caine from Kung Fu, tv pilots, etc. These kinds of silly references seem upon first glance like a kind of comic relief, set against the violence that we’re witnessing on the screen. But this is no mere comic relief. The point is that this is the way these characters make sense out of their lives: transient, pop cultural symbols and icons. In another time and/or another place people would be connected by something they saw as larger than themselves, most particularly religion, which would provide the sense and meaning that their lives had and which would determine the value of things. This is missing in late 20th Century America, and is thus completely absent from Jules’ and Vincent’s lives. This is why the pop icons abound in the film: these are the reference points by which we understand ourselves and each other, empty and ephemeral as they are. This pop iconography comes to a real head when Vincent and Mia (Uma Thurmon) visit Jack Rabbit Slim’s, where the host is Ed Sullivan, the singer is Ricky Nelson, Buddy Holly is the waiter, and amongst the waitresses are Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield.

The pop cultural symbols are set into stark relief against a certain passage from the Old Testament, Ezekiel 25:17 (actually, largely composed by Tarantino himself):

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Jules quotes this just before he kills someone. The point is that the passage refers to a system of values and meaning by which one could lead one’s life and make moral decisions. However, that system is missing from Jules’ life and so the passage becomes meaningless to him. Late in the film he teils us: “I’ve been saying that shit for years, and if you heard it – that meant your ass. I never gave much thought to what it meant – I just thought it was some cold blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.”

The absence of any kind of foundation for making value judgments, the lack of a larger meaning to their lives, creates a kind of vacuum in their existence which is filled with power. With no other criteria available to them by which to order their lives, they fall into a hierarchy of power, with Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) at the top and themselves as henchmen below. Things come to have value in their lives if Marsellus Wallace declares it to be so. What he wants done, they will do. What he wishes becomes valuable for them and thus becomes the guide for their actions at the moment, until the task is completed by whatever means necessary. This is perfectly epitomized by the mysterious briefcase which Jules and Vincent are charged to return to Marsellus. It is mysterious because we never actually see what’s in it, but we do see people’s reactions to its obviously valuable contents. The question invariably arises: what’s in the briefcase? However, this is a trick question. The answer is really: it doesn’t matter. It makes no difference what’s in the briefcase. All that matters is that Marsellus wants it back, and thus the thing is endowed with worth. lf Jules and Vincent did have an objective framework of value and meaning in their lives, they would be able to determine whether what was in the briefcase was ultimately of value, and they would be able to determine what actions were justified in retrieving it. In the absence of any such framework, the briefease becomes of ultimate value in and of itself, precisely because Marsellus says so, and any and all actions required to procure it become justified (including, obviously, murder).

In addition to the pop iconography in the film, the discourse on language here concerns naming things. What is a Big Mac called? What is a Quarter Pounder called? What is a Whopper called? (Vincent doesn’t know; he didn’t go to Burger King.) When Ringo (Tim Roth) calls the waitress “garçon,” she informs him: “ ‘garçon’ means ‘boy.’ ” Also, when Butch’s girlfriend refers to his means of transportation as a “motorcycle,” he insists on correcting her: “It’s not a motorcycle, it’s a chopper.” And yet – and here’s the crux – when a lovely Hispanic cab driver asks Butch what his name means, he replies: “This is America, honey; our names don’t mean shit.” The point is clear: in the absence of any lasting, transcendent objective framework of value and meaning, our language no longer points to anything beyond itself. To call something good or evil renders it so, given that there is no higher authority or criteria by which one might judge actions. Jules quotes the Bible before his executions, but he may as well be quoting the Fonz or Buddy Holly.

I’ve been contrasting nihilism with religion as an objective framework or foundation of values and meaning, because that’s the comparison that Tarantino himself makes in the film. There are other objective systems of ethics, however. We might compare nihilism to Aristotelian ethics, for example. Aristotle says that things have natures or essences and that what is best for a thing is to ‘achieve’ or realize its essence. And in fact whatever helps a thing fulfill its nature in this way is by definition good. Ducks are aquatic birds. Having webbed feet helps the duck to achieve its essence as a swimmer. Therefore, it’s good for the duck to have webbed feet. Human beings likewise have a nature which consists in a set of capacities, our abilities to do things. There are many things that we can do: play the piano, build things, walk and talk, etc. But the essentially human ability is our capacity for reason, since it is reason which separates us from all other living things. The highest good, or best life, for a human being, then, consists in realizing one’s capacities, most particularly the capacity for reason. This notion of the highest good, along with Aristotle’s conception of the virtues, which are states of character which enable a person to achieve his essence, add up to an objective ethical framework according to which one can weigh and assess the value and meaning of things, as well as weigh and assess the means one might use to procure those things. To repeat, this sort of a framework, whether based on religion or reason, is completely absent from Jules’ and Vincent’s lives. In its absence, pop culture is the source of the symbols and reference points by which the two communicate and understand one another; and without reason or a religious moral code to determine the value and meaning that things have in their lives, Marsellus Wallace dictates the value of things. This lack of any kind of higher authority is depicted in the film by the conspicuous absence of any police presence whatever. This is a gangster film, in which people are shot dead, others deal and take drugs, drive recklessly, etc., there are car accidents, and yet there is not a single policeman to be found. Again, this symbolizes Marsellus’ absolute power and control in the absence of any higher, objective authority. There is one small exception to this, which I will note in a moment.

Pulp Fiction is in part about Jules’ transformation. When one of his targets shoots at him and Vincent from a short distance, empties the revolver, and misses completely, Jules interprets this as divine intervention. The importance of this is not that it really was divine intervention, but rather that the incident spurs Jules on to reflect on what is missing. It compels him to consider the Biblical passage that he’s been quoting for years without giving much thought to it. Jules begins to understand – however confusedly at first – that the passage he quotes refers to an objective framework of value and meaning that is absent from his life. We see the dawning of this kind of understanding when he reports to Vincent that he’s quitting the mob, and then (most significantly) when he repeats the passage to Ringo in the coffee shop and then interprets it. He says:

I’ve been saying that shit for years, and if you heard it – that meant your ass. I never gave much thought to what it meant – I just thought it was some cold blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this morning that made me think twice. See, now I’m thinking, maybe it means: you’re the Evil Man, and I’m the Righteous Man, and Mr 9mm here – he’s the Shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean: you’re the Righteous Man, and I’m the Shepherd; and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. Now, I’d like that, but that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is: you’re the Weak and I’m the Tyranny of Evil Men. But I’m trying Ringo, I’m trying real hard to be the Shepherd.

Jules offers three possible interpretations of the passage. The first interpretation accords with the way he has been living his life. Whatever he does (as commanded by Marsellus) is justified, and thus he is the Righteous Man, with his pistol protecting him, and whatever stands in his way is bad or evil by definition. The second interpretation is interesting and seems to go along with Jules’ pseudo-religious attitude following what he interprets as a divine-mystical experience (he tells Vincent, recall, that he wants to wander the earth like Caine in Kung Fu). In this interpretation, the world is evil and selfish, and apparently has made Jules do all the terrible things he’s done up to that point. He’s now become the Shepherd, and he’s going to protect Ringo (who after all is small potatoes in mob terms, robbing coffee shops, etc.) from this evil. But that’s not the truth, he realizes. The truth is that he himself is the evil that he’s been preaching about (unwittingly) for years. Ringo is weak, neither good enough to be righteous, nor strong enough to be as evil as Jules and Vincent. And Jules is trying to transform himself into the shepherd, to lead Ringo through the valley of darkness. Of course, interestingly, the darkness is of Jules’ own making, such that the struggle to be the shepherd is Jules’ struggle with himself not to revert to evil. In this struggle, he buys Ringo’s life. Ringo has collected the wallets of the customers in the coffee shop, including Jules’, and Jules allows him to take fifteen hundred dollars out of it. Jules is paying Ringo the fifteen hundred dollars to take the money from the coffee shop and simply leave, so that he (Jules) won’t have to kill him. Note that no such transformation has taken place for Vincent, who exclaims: “Jules, you give that fucking nimrod fifteen hundred dollars, and I’ll shoot him on general principle.” The principle is of course whatever means are necessary to achieve my end are justified, the end (again) most often determined by Marsellus Wallace. This attitude of Vincent’s is c1early depicted in his reaction to Mia’s overdose. He desperately tries to save her, not because she is a fellow human being of intrinsic worth, but because she is Marsellus’ wife, and he (Vincent) will be in real trouble if she dies. Mia has value because Marsellus has made it so, not because of any intrinsic or objective features or characteristics she may possess.

The other transformation in the film is that of Butch. There is a conspicuous progression in the meaning and relevance of the violence in the story. In the beginning, we see killings that are completely gratuitous: Brad and his cohorts, and particularly Marvin, who is shot in the face simply because the car went over a bump and the gun went off. There is also the maiming of Tony Rocky Horror, the reason for which is hidden from all, save Marsellus. Again, this is evidence that it is Marsellus himself who provides the meaning and justification for things, and his reasons – like God’s – are hidden from us. (This may in fact be what the bandage on his head represents: the fact that Marsellus’ motives and reasons are hidden to us. Bandages not only help to heal, they also hide or disguise what we don’t want others to see.) The meaninglessness of the violence is also epitomized in the boxing match. Butch kills his opponent. When Esmarelda Villa Lobos (the cab driver) informs him of this, his reaction is one of complete indifference. He shrugs it off. Further, when Butch gets into his jam for having double-crossed Marsellus, he initially decides that the way that he is going to get out of it is to become like his enemy, that is, to become ruthless. Consequently, he shoots and kills Vincent, and then he tries to kill Marsellus by running him over with a car.

The situation becomes interesting when Butch and Marsellus, initially willing to kill one another without a second’s thought, find themselves in the same unpleasant situation: held hostage by a couple of hillbillies who are about to beat and rape them. I noted earlier the conspicuous absence of policemen in the film. The interesting quasi-exception to this is the pervert, Zed. Marsellus is taken captive, bound and gagged. When Zed shows up he is dressed in a security guard’s uniform, giving him the appearance of an authority figure. He is only a security guard, and not areal policeman, however, and this is our clue to the arbitrariness of authority. In the nihilistic context in which these characters exist, in the absence of an objective framework of value to determine right, justice and goodness, Marsellus Wallace is the legislator of values, the ultimate authority. In this situation, however, his authority has been usurped. Zed holds the shotgun now, and he takes his usurpation to the extreme by raping Marsellus.

Just as Jules’ transformation had a defining moment, namely, when he is fired upon and missed, so too Butch’s transformation has a defining moment. This is when he is about to escape, having overpowered the Gimp, but returns to save Marsellus. As I said, initially the violence is gratuitous and without meaning. However, when Butch returns to the cellar to aid Marsellus, the violence for the first time has a justification: as an act of honour and friendship, he is saving Marsellus, once his enemy, from men worse than they are. Note that Butch gets out of his jam not by becoming like his enemy, i.e., ruthless, but in fact by saving his enemy.

Butch’s transformation is represented by his choice of weapons in the store: a hammer, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, and a Samurai sword. He overlooks the first three items and chooses the fourth. Why? The sword c1early stands out in the list. First, it’s meant to be a weapon, while the others are not, and I’ll discuss that in a moment. But it also stands out because the first three items (two of them particularly) are symbols of Americana. They represent the nihilism that Butch is leaving behind, whereas the Samurai sword represents a particular culture in which there is (or was) in place a very rigid moral framework, the kind of objective foundation that I’ve been saying is missing from these characters’ lives. The sword represents for Butch what the Biblical passage does for Jules: a glimpse beyond transient pop culture, a glimpse beyond the yawning abyss of nihilism to a way of life, a manner of thinking, in which there are objective moral criteria, there is meaning and value, and in which language does transcend itself.

In contrast to the (foreign) Samurai sword, the gold watch is a kind of heirloom that’s passed down in (American) families. It represents a kind of tradition of honour and manhood. But let’s think about how the watch gets passed down in this case. Butch’s great grandfather buys it in Knoxville before he goes off to fight in World War I. Having survived the war, he passes it on to his son. Butch’s grandfather then leaves it to his own son before he goes into battle during World War II and is killed. Butch’s father, interned in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, hides the watch in his rectum, and before he dies – significantly – from dysentery, he gives it to his army comrade (Christopher Walken) who then hides it in his own rectum. After returning from the war, the comrade finds Butch as a boy and presents him with the watch. The way in which Butch receives the watch is of course highly significant. His father hides it in his rectum. The watch is a piece of shit; or, in other words, it is an empty symbol. Why empty? For the same reason that the Biblical passage was meaningless: it is a symbol with no referent. That to which it would refer is missing.

The sword is also significant because it, unlike the gold watch (an heirloom sent to Butch by a long-absent father, whom he little remembers), connects Butch to the masculine line in his family. The men in his family were warriors, soldiers in the various wars. Choosing the sword transforms Butch from a pugilist, someone disconnected who steps into the ring alone, into a soldier, a warrior, one who is connected to a history and a tradition, and whose actions are guided by a strict code of conduct in which honour and courage are the most important of valuess.

Finally, note how Butch is always returning. He seems doomed to return, perhaps to repeat things, until he gets it right. He must return to his apartment to get his watch. This return is associated with his decision to become his enemy. There’s his return to the cellar to save Marsellus, when he transcends his situation and begins to grasp something beyond the abyss. There’s also his return to Knoxville. Recall that the watch was originally purchased by his great-grandfather in Knoxville, and it is to Knoxville that Butch has planned to escape after he doesn’t throw the fight. After he chooses the sword and saves Marsellus, Butch can rightfully return to Knoxville, now connected to his paternal line, now rightfully a member of the warrior class.

0 notes