Hi! So, seeing you in my notes reminded me that I meant to ask you about that Instrumentality poll. Being as I am tumblr user 人類補完計画, I have, asyoumightimagine, a lot of interest in the topic, and I'd be very curious to hear *your* thoughts on Shinji's choice - in part because you mentioned in the tags that you were wondering whether your take aligned with the consensus view, but also because I feel like you're among the most distinctive & intellectually honest philosophical voices I've encountered on here, and I do wonder how your faith, along with your overall view on things, influences your take(s) re:EoE.
I was going to wait until the poll finally closed but i think its been plateauing for a couple of days now anyway so i might as well. This is all going to be pretty vague and mysticism-y ofc, especially given the vagueness and mysticism of the source material itself, and im going off of memory on top of that (i am not putting myself thru the emotional hurdle of rewatching EoE just for a post, sorry)
So, first off, my interpretation of shinjis ultimate choice is to reject instrumentality for all of humanity, to retain our ATFs and our individuality. And i lean towards thinking this was a mistake, on his part. I sometimes see ppl suggest that he offered everyone a choice to either join or refuse instrumentality, but i tend to think this is just projection; idr anything in the text to clearly support this
Im not really sure how to go about arguing for this position directly, beyond rebutting objections. To the extent we are given a clear explanation of what an ATF is, it is smth like the secrecy of our own thoughts and desires and personality; ie, others ignorance of those things. Ignorance is a terrible thing, just generally, in itself! Like impotence. Its terrible in proportion to the importance/value of the things one is ignorant of, and ppl are about the most valuable things there are. Thats much of whats so bad about death, which is why it makes perfect sense the dead get to join in HI as well. So, putting it all together, the presence of ATFs is a terrible imposition, and their removal thru HI is a great blessing, maybe even the greatest possible blessing. And this shows itself in the end of strife and discord and the beginning of real unity of spirit and will, but its already present in the mere dissolution of interpersonal ignorance
The narrative itself frames this as an erasure of individuality, but im not sure how to understand this. Is the idea supposed to be that we would not survive the loss of our ATFs? Im not sure thats even intelligible: the loss of our ATFs is just the lifting of certain kinds of ignorance or, in other words, the instilling of certain kinds of knowledge. Knowledge in whom? In those undergoing human instrumentality. So clearly we survive HI, if it involves us coming into knowledge, and thus being around to know these things. Is this supposed to mean our distinctive contributions to the diversity of human experience etc would all be destroyed in favour of some uniform replacement? I dont see why that would be necessary; we can certainly imagine ways ppls varying idiosyncratic quirks can all "make it into" some sufficiently rich collaborative work. Why should HI not be the same? I suppose the fact it involves everyones bodies into a homogeneous sea of yellow goop speaks against this, but my inclination is to read this as a sort of pupal stage from which a mature instrumentalised humanity can emerge. Tho thats admittedly a bit of a reach
Theres yet another negative interpretation of the "destruction of individuality" i sometimes hear: that it would somehow rob us each of our agency and ability to shape the world in accord with our desires and beliefs. This goes along with a worry that the inauguration of HI would necessarily be a violation of consent and mental autonomy, which strikes me as misguided for much the same reason. Our ignorance of one another is not an individual condition of oneself in particular one can opt in or out of irrespective of the choices of others; if my not being able to retsin my ATF is a violation of my "autonomy", why is my retaining my ATF not in turn a violation of the autonomy of the others being thereby kept ignorant of my deepest self? Mutual ignorance of one anothers mental states (including that very ignorance) is in no interesting way reducible to the ignorant subjects each having certain "individual" or "intrinsic" or "internal" states that can individually and unilaterally be shifted without affecting those of the others; it is an "external" relation. So thinking about HI in terms of individual, unilaterally revocable consent is confused; the fact it is changing is irreducibly collective, and thus consent to it and only be given or refused collectively if at all. Hopefully thats not too opaque
This reply feeds into my answer to the worry about the dilution of ones agency and control over the world. This objection makes sense against a background view on which, for an agent A to control the answer to a question Q and a distinct agent A* to control the answer to a question Q*, Q and Q* must be modally independent: any answer to the latter must be compossible with any answer to the former. Or that, if this isnt true, this is bc As control over Q or A*s over Q* must be only "limited" or "partial" or w/e. My rejection of this assumption (which is i think what lies behind the last objection about autonomy) is probably my deepest, most abstract anti-liberal commitment. Its a conception of control or freedom that i think ultimately requires a debilitatingly narrow view of what full freedom could look like, or of what facts can amount to states of a person. (For example, i think it prolly requires you to say that knowing that the sun rises, a property entailing the "external" fact that the sun rises, is not actually a state of a person, in some important sense, rather than smth like a conjunction of a state of a person and a state of the horizon/sun.) But going all the way into this would probably take a lengthy book; mb i will try to work it out slightly more precisely at some point tho
You asked how my feeling about EoE connect with my faith, and broader view of the world. This illiberal assumption is close to the heart of it. I am always tempted in this context to quote marxs comments in the 1848 manuscripts about the whole of nature being the "inorganic body of man", and i dont think im alone in seeing connections between those passages and remarks like pauls about the mystical body of the church ("So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Now there is smth for mereologists to chew on!!) And this is a trend you see elsewhere in the Christian tradition, like dantes description of the celestial eagle in paradiso xviii-xx. I was surprised, when talking to an atheist friend about my tentative support for HI, that they said my christianity made sense of my disagreement with them about this point; not bc i dont think theres a connection but bc idt of these emphases on the unity of the mystical body as particularly prominent in outsiders impressions of Christian belief
Anyway, hopefully that was at least somewhat illuminating. Thx for the kind words ^^
33 notes
·
View notes
I just realized why lestat marked Tom, like the big stupid idiot I am
(I know everyone else probably already figured this out, but this is MY blog and I get to post whatever deranged thought crosses my pea brained mind.)
When I watched that scene in episode 5 where they're at the bar talking to Tom, I was confused as to why exactly. Why does Lestat mark Tom? If he's marked to kill, why does he wait almost 2 decades later? Well I realized, as all realizations come, in the shower.
Lestat has been planning on killing Tom the whole time.
(Warning before you click read more, this post is a lot longer than I first intended holy fuck)
Well not the whole time. Just right when Louis realized that Anderson and Fenwick had screwed him over. Maybe even longer if he knew it was a trick ("ridiculous of you to mix human and vampire business it always ends poorly"). Notice how he's upset with louis when he kills the guy who's microaggressive with him, cus lestat wasn't there (even if he was there I have my doubts Lestat would understand microaggressions, but he would have definitely killed him for touching Louis.) But tells Louis he's proud of him for killing Alderman. I think this has to be because he witnessed the disrespect first hand. He didn't give a fuck about the money, what he DID care about was that those two disrespected not only him, but Louis.
Even with Lestats little understanding of race relations of the time in America, he did understand hierarchys. He's from 1700s France for God's sake. It's no coincidence wanted to be king of mardi gras. Lestat came to New Orleans and saw himself as the king, even if no one knew it. And he wanted Louis to be his queen. Honestly I could make an entire other post about how Lestat almost literally saw himself as if he was a King and Louis his beloved Queen, which is why he thought it was okay for him to sleep with other women (mistresses and playthings of the king should mean nothing compared to the queen in lestats eyes) but that's getting off topic. I only bring that up because I'm trying to paint a picture of how I think Lestat sees disrespect done to Louis. To him that goes beyond disrespect or rudeness, it's irreverence.
You begin to notice if you watch scenes with them together. Because while I wouldn't say lestat is good at controlling his anger, he's definitely great at concealing it until it erupts (props to Sam Reid have to be given here) lestat is always on the verge of fury when talking to Tom. It starts as a distaste then as he begins to fall more in love with Louis and become more protective of him, his anger builds. Claudia was wrong about one thing, it was no petty slight that was the reason Lestat killed Tom first, it was a loooonng time coming.
I could list every detail I think supports this but I'm sure you get the gist by now. My main point is really the layer of complexity this adds to not only the story, the characters, but also lestat and louis' relationship. Consider it for a second, Lestat saw all his violence as justified, everything he did one can see it through the lense of him punishing the disrespectful (take a shot every time I say disrespect in this post jesus christ). "I bring death to those deserving" indeed. Lestat has a god complex out the wazoo, and every attack, torture, and death he caused was righteous to him and thus enjoyable. Louis on the other hand didn't see himself so highly. He may seem confident but if you look through the cracks it's apparent Louis's self worth in near nonexistent and he's horribly insecure. I think lestat thought when Louis was made a vampire he would see himself as Lestat saw himself, and as Lestat saw Louis. But again, another post for another time.
Despite Louis' insecurities (or perhaps because of them) louis revels in the violence lestat commits for his sake. That's probably why louis is so quick to forgive lestat about the priests. For a brief moment Lestat truly said the truth to Louis and Louis could forgive him because of it. As lestat says, he doesn't kill the priests to intimidate Louis, nor does he do it just because he enjoys it. He does it because he sees them as humiliating Louis, charlatans that don't deserve Louis' sorrow. Louis didn't want the priest's to die, but he could understand why lestat killed them, simply because for once in his goddamn life lestat told the truth, and louis loved that truth. That truth being that lestat killed and mutilated and committed such horrors not just because he liked it, but because he did it out of a fucked up sense of protection. Him killing the priests was essentially a knight killing a dragon to earn the princess' hand in marriage.
The worst part is that Lestat doesn't even realize it. Not fully anyway. Let's be honest with ourselves, lestat doesn't understand Louis. Obviously there's the race, background, culture differences that lestat doesn't understand nor seems inclined to try, but there are better posts about that made by smarter people than moi. I'm mostly talking about lestat doesn't understand louis' mind itself (louis' mind in a vacuum I suppose you could say) he understands Louis' desire for violence sure, but he doesn't understand the core of that want. Honestly I'm on the fence of if he ever understood that Louis loved it when lestat was protective in the first place. I guess it can be dumbed down to Louis wants Lestat to kill to protect Louis and to protect the family (and anyone who deeply disrepects them), lestat perhaps understood a little at one point, but since he sees everyone as a threat and everything is a slight to him, he has no trouble and qualms with delighting in the torture of people Louis views as innocent. Louis' heart is a bit dark, but ultimately human, so he's disgusted by lestats violence towards the undeserving. Lestat can no longer read Louis' mind and even if he could, Louis doesn't quite understand the difference himself (that's why he tries to hunt for criminals briefly) so the cracks of miscommunication starts to form, and neither of them even realize there is miscommunication.
Therein lies the importance of Tom Anderson for season 1. Not much of a character, more of a plot device in human skin. Claudia can see that Lestat hates him, but doesn't understand why, nor does she care to get to the depths of that. (*Mr house voice* understandable) I think it's notable that Louis rarely brought him up, he didn't understand the depths of lestats love. Nor did he know about Lestats 3 decade long grudge, all because Tom disrespected Louis.
Now I'm not excusing Lestat's actions, I just think it's interesting how this one throwaway character reveals a whole level of complexity to the relationship between him and Louis, and better sheds light on not only Lestats personal philosophy but louis' as well. Even Claudia to a degree.
Anyway, uh. End of essay. Bye.
288 notes
·
View notes
Staying on my Couch
When you ask if I know anybody who needs a roommate, I offer to let you crash at my place for a few days. You tell me you don't need help moving, showing up at my door with two bags and whatever's in your pockets. I offer to take the couch, but you already feel bad about the situation. The first week consists of you trying to stay out of my way. It breaks my heart. I assume you're just getting comfortable and try to leave you be.
Your mood doesn't improve. The job hunt isn't going well, and you're hoping I don't ask for help with the bills. Finally I catch you, making you sit up so I can join you on the couch. You swear up and down that it's not me; I've been nothing but kind to you. But I feel like I could do better. I tell you to take a short break from applying to recharge.
The next few days I try more to make you feel at home. Insisting you eat with me rather than reheating my cooking, learning more about your life before you got here, and watching shows together on the couch. You aren't happy, but you're starting to be happier. Seeing those rare half-hearted smiles, noticing you tense up less when I'm around. It makes me happier than I thought possible. When you ask to see my bedroom I have to contain my excitement. I had been keeping it clean for days now, much longer than I did in the past. I sheepishly watch as your eyes dart around the room. You leave after a minute or two, content to not comment on any of my clothes or the posters on the wall.
Your phone not working catches you off-guard. You guess mom finally decided to stop paying for you. I don't want to pry, instead offering to add you onto my phone plan. You tell me you're very grateful, even if your contacts didn't get saved somehow. I never tell you I swapped the SIM card while you were asleep. Betraying the trust you have in me hurts. But I was so happy to see how soundly you slept now.
The nicer I am to you, the more comfortable you get around me. And the bolder I get. Your wallet's been empty for days now. The money went back to you, of course. Until one of those jobs calls you back, it's not like you need your ID for anything. I find some nice looking clothes I came across on clearance. They fit surprisingly well, even if some of them aren't your style. Once, we both fell asleep on the couch. I tried to apologize, but you laughed it off. It was the first time I heard that laugh.
On the day you ask again to see my bedroom, you hear me talking to somebody at the door. There's something familiar about the other woman's voice. I'm very sorry ma'am, but I don't know who you're talking about. She's gone by the time you show up behind me to ask. It was a missing persons case. Things like that scare me. I gently grab your hand. This is it. This is your chance to help me worry less. Your opportunity to make me happy, just like I made you happy.
106 notes
·
View notes