#and now i'm left just with instincts vs learned experience

[furiousgoldfish]

Being betrayed by your first ever bond in your childhood (be it parents, caretakers, friends, peers or relationship) puts you in a horrible psychological position, because after experiencing that, your instincts, and your learned experience will constantly clash with each other.

As humans, our instincts and desires are to bond with each other in order to be safe, connected, feel valuable, worthy, loved, taken care of. We generally feel better in a group of people we trust to do us no harm, who keep us company, fulfill our social needs, and will readily aid us in the times of trouble. This, historically, was the safest and the best way for our species to survive, we rely on each other to keep resources available, and to take care of our needs.

However, if your first experience with close bonds came with trauma, exploitation, abuse, betrayal, pain, danger, or something as extreme as being pushed into a suicidal state or close to death, your learned experience is now that bonding with others is highly dangerous, painful, terrifying and extremely risky activity. After this, your brain will keep reminding you during any kind of bonding, that you’re taking a huge risk, and will keep triggering you to the past events and how badly they damaged you, in order to keep you well aware of what could happen if you make yourself vulnerable like this again.

And so you end up in a constant conflict with your own needs and learned experience. You will still long for closeness, maybe even more than a regular person because your social needs have never been fulfilled even slightly, you’re drowning in yearning for something as simple as conversation and approval, being seen as worthy and valuable, the very basics of human connection. But you’re stopped, at your every step, by your learned experience of how risky, terrifying, and potentially deadly would it be, to actually be close to another human being.

And abuse then just builds up more burden on top of that foundation. It’s not enough you have to constantly struggle with avoiding people and wanting to be close, no, you’re also feeling guilty and ashamed, for being betrayed and abused, for how society sees you after that, for feeling the desire for intimacy, for longing to be close even though it hurt you. Abuse will also teach you that it’s your fault you got abused in the first place, so now you feel like external circumstances are internal, and it was something you did in a context of a close relationship that caused you this pain. So instead of avoiding close relationships, you reach for them and them over-focus on your own faults within, trying to locate what in your behaviour is causing others to hurt you so badly. You automatically take responsibility for everything that happens within a close bond, so you take responsibility for the abuser’s actions too, and become unable to view them critically, to condemn them, to put the blame on them for it.

Society will almost always point at you as the problem - diagnose you with ‘trust issues’, or ‘victim mentality’, and will tell you to forgive and open yourself up to love again, (or even worse, claim that you already are loved, but apparently you don’t feel it in any way), causing you to again, keep finding the faults within yourself, and never look for them externally.

Having your instincts tell you that something is dangerous and risky, after you’ve been betrayed horribly and put in an awful state by it in the past, is not ‘having trust issues’. Your ‘mentality’ cannot make anyone abuse you. Love is not something that does absolutely nothing for you and fails to protect you from pain at any point in your life. If you had to fight for yourself alone, unprotected, vulnerable and devastated, and nobody ever stood up for you or helped you, then you can correctly conclude that you were not loved. Love would stand up for you.

None of these are claims you should be forced to defend yourself from, yet this is where the conversation goes, to over-focusing on whatever the victim could have done wrong, and never placing any blame to external circumstances (such as, abusers having access to children). There’s a reason why we, as a society, know not do to fucked up things to children. There’s a reason why it’s different when it’s a child, to when it’s an adult. An adult who has managed to secure enough close bonds with others, will not be crushed by just one betrayal. A child, who is dependent on keeping a bond to survive, who has not yet learned the safe way to develop closeness with others, who is open to any bond they could possibly form, in hope of safer survival, will psychologically be turned against their own instincts, and grow to fight with themselves, and struggle to develop safe bonds, for most or all of their life.

#child abuse #safe bonding #abusive parents #psychological abuse #how betrayal in childhood affects development #abusive relationships #toxic relationships #child abuse setting up children to enter and stay in toxic relationships #toxic #toxic guilt #i feel like i managed to peel off all of the layers of shame guilt and self blamee #and now i'm left just with instincts vs learned experience #instincts want to bond and experience says it's going to kill me if i do

[tsururoach]

Honestly I'd read your essay on P3 being a game about loving life because I've been holding the same essay in my head since playing the OG in like 2006 and I firmly believe it is the intended message of the game.

Persona 3 is a game about loving life, but god if I knew how to write coherently. Sorry if it's not perfect, I'm just writing off the top of my head for now.

[PERSONA 3 RELOAD FREELOADERS DNI!!!]

I could very well just talk about base game or p3r, but I feel like that'd be dishonest to my experience with persona 3.

One thing we'd have to talk about is the difference between the two protagonists. Hamuko Vs Minato is interesting because fundamentally to me they're the same people. They, at their core suffer the same kind of apathy... and the reaction is different. In all honesty this is pure speculation on my part especially since there is the dubious canonicalness of the alternative media forms but I believe the reason the difference is so big between Hamuko and Minato is because their gender forces their expression of self to be different. Like obviously there's Nihilism vs 's that meme about the two different versions of nihilism, but there's also this:

While Minato can act aloof and distant and live separate (and relatively unbothered) from other people, I've always interpreted Hamuko's more active/upbeat dialogue as... a sort of playing along? For a girl, especially a high school girl, it's probably easier to pretend to get along with everyone than act aloof and distanced since that is a common way to get singled out and bullied. While it would happen to guys as well, I think it's more typical and stronger with high school girls from my experience. Even removing my own experience it's also a common trope in media (ESPECIALLY ASIAN MEDIA) for girls who are unable to express themselves or refuse to get orchastrized. In fact, isn't this what happens to Saori?

Not only that, in the stageplay Kotone (Hamuko's stageplay name) is shown to also suffer that same indifference-- just how she shows it is different. For her, putting on that act is her way of passing under the radar- playing along with other people so they don't point her out as different and following how she's supposed to act. Her investment in others only goes surface level because that's what's best for her. (Yukari in the stage notes that she seemed to have no interest in her friends).

In contrast, Minato is like a wall. He doesn't play with how others want, but others aren't concerned with him at all. I mean you could easily make the case of him also standing out so much as well, but it doesn't matter too much. In any case both of them were unable to form full connections with others in their life before and both of them were somewhat helpless about how their life was playing out.

I think to the protagonist in most iteration where they were allowed their own self they were helpless because they didn't have a proper motivation aside from going on with motions.

This, of course they learn as they follow other people's lives. Finding out why others live.

"You all have reasons not to die, right? But I have nothing, so..."

The protagonist starts from 0.

But that changes. The more the protag goes through life, the more memories they make, the bonds they forge. It changes them. Gains something through the time they can spend with others.

The protag knows. Has known: They have something to live for- something to protect and stay with. They find their answer.

It's because they understand the beauty of life. Some, people finding their own goals and reasons to keep going. Others, finding acceptance of what's left.

I always interpreted the protagonist growing stronger after forging bond symbolic in that way. More powerful as their understanding of others deepen. As they find more and more reason to live, their ability to fight against death and the apathy that plagues them grows. Did SEES truly draw power from accepting death? Or is the instinctive will to keep living? The protagonist was alive, but they learn what it is to live. Through changing the world they inhibit, they learn what life is: Change.

Death is inevitable yes, but life does not end at death (Akinari told you as much)

Someone said the beauty of how difficult it is to 100% p3 without a guide is that it signifies the limit on life. I also think that the beauty is that I don't think anyone played p3 that first time with the thought of wasting time. Every moment, I think was spent meaningfully.

(I don't know if it's in the og since its been years, but I think P3R has more flavortext about the protaganist and their state of being as the game goes on. More reason to go on, their health increasing. Thinking about the future and such.)

IF THE PROTAGANIST DID NOT LOVE LIFE, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE SEAL.

-

We'd also have to address Aegis and Ryoji and their relationships with the protagonist. Moreso Aegis than Ryoji though (if you're following the older iterations of p3. the movies are. well. the movies. the manga . well. you know how it is.)

For the both of them, they are something inhuman learning about what it means to be alive. For Aegis, she knows the actions that humans can take, but doesn't understand the emotions behind them and the reasons humans do them. For Ryoji, he's able to carry out the emotions, but has no knowledge of the proper actions to properly convey them. They're both approximating a human being but it's something else they lack more.

There's a reason I said Ryoji understands how to "carry out" his emotions. Both of them don't understand [human connection].

Well.

And isn't that the whole point of the social link system? Isn't that becoming more and more the thesis of the Persona games?

Here, Aigis mostly only is able to connect to SEES through what she was made for. Ryoji is connecting to the inverse, able to connect to their classmates separate from who he was meant to be.

-

I'm gonna separate discussing the two to make it easier though, so let's start with Ryoji, since Aigis will have lots more to go over.

I think it's not totally wrong if Ryoji... is kind of like Hamuko? Now hear me out.

I've never fully stood by the Male vs Female protags are siblings, and instead stood by the 'they are the same person' like in Persona Q2. I think at their very core, they are similar if not the same people and their expression of it contrast each other heavily.

I think Ryoji started off on something like that? Like he's his own person and he deviates from Minato and Hamuko quite a bit even from the start, but I do think having lived inside of them influenced his (core) of being. The time before the protagonists properly started making connections, they had Pharos.

Pharos was the first social link the protagonist establishes (if I'm not wrong) and I think the way Pharos acts initially, is the same understanding of the world the protagonist may have internally... just maybe with more understanding of the world but not the people in it.

Now there's heavy distinctions between the manga, the game, the stageplay, the movies, and spin offs considering about media and their ability to portray stories. You cannot tell the (exact) same story across media especially when it's initial point is a game. Forgive me if my memories of p3p and p3 are loose since I quite literally was Ken's age when I first played. (Trust me I feel insane realizing that now too).

But as time goes on you're expected to interact with others and form connections to them as Pharos himself also becomes closer to you (but also separating, becoming his own being in the process). Maybe it's because of that he's able to.

Once Ryoji is able to be, he tries starting conversations with everyone and anyone... he just doesn't fully understand why or what makes a real connection. He asks this of the protagonist, what connections are and what they mean. He doesn't get it because he's trying to mimic it without understanding it fully I think.

But he's able to form a real relationship with the protagonist. Friendship or romance, there is an understanding there. Ryoji's not aware of it and the protagonist likely isn't either, but I feel like the reason that their connection works (in a way Ryoji can understand) is because I guess in a weird way, he's not forcing it? I can't think of the right word here, and hell I can be wrong. But I do think there is some significance in Ryoji trying to befriend several people, but only mostly hanging with Junpei and the protag.

I think a little bit in this way, he's like Hamuko? Of course, I don't think it's intentional, but shrugs. I do think initially he struggles to form actual meaningful connections.

Anyways did you know apparently the song that Ryoji plays in Reload is a graduation song. Did you know that. A song about hope and existing freely. Anyways. Anyways.

Anyways, killing Ryoji being a bad ending... I don't think it's just because it's yknow, against the plot of the game or whatever. I think it's because it's forsaking a bond that the protagonist forged, it's forsaking a life that the protag had connected to. It goes against their powers I think. Their reason to live... Not just the fact they'd be forgetting everything (A majority of SEES' reason) but also appreciating the beauty of life? I guess. I'm not the most eloquent.

I think also there's something symbolic in the protag loving the call of death, yes. But there's also the embodiment of what should be calling death, being told by someone who is so intimately familiar with death and grief that life matters. Even death's own 'life', he didn't kille the aspect of 'life' in death.

(Also I couldn't figure out where to fit Ryoji's fight from the manga and the tarot's meaning being told out to the protag as the fight goes on)

-

Now on one hand I can reference Aegis: The First Mission, for Aegis having already capacity for emotions and just losing it, but that was never the whole thing.

Aigis Atlus Autism Blast.

Anyways. Aigis... I think her capacity of feeling emotions being inhibited by her inability to break away from her "reason." Because her reason was still... being formulated I think? Like she kind of blocked off her capacity in order to follow this reason she was told to keep and not fully understand?

I think Aigis always had emotions it's just that it's always been held back, time and time again. I think she unintentionally forces her emotions down because she's prioritizing this [reason], before her emotions become part of her reason. I think for Aigis it genuinely about the small things. SEES can't help but consider Aigis human, even if her appearance is obviously not. Aigis can't help but have her humanity leak out of her, and its through her that SEES feels more cohesive. Like you may say that she broke out of those restrictions on her because of the protag, I think it's because each and every one of SEES is her friend. Yes shes weird, and acts out, but they cared for her.

Even way early on, Aigis had the capacity to be human even if bonds and such imply otherwise-- And I truly believe it's no other reason than Aigis herself. I think it's her lack of understanding of self, a little bit too? Like, I think she knows that the protag is part of her reason, and she genuinely doesn't know why. But it never delves into anything more personal than that until she learns the full truth. As Ryoji sheds his humanity, Aigis gains hers.

Like... Aigis is so compelling because she's so genuine about her emotions? Like simple enjoyment of being, her bluntness. She also is starting from a relative 0 like the protag does, but she's starting from not understanding the actions one takes to form a connection? Like you can very much argue that Aigis didn't, since she replies robotically, but I feel like its more so bc she didn't have that kind of care yet, personally.

GOD I'm making my case so poorly here, but her learning about life and learning about loving life to only lose the person who gave her purpose for so long. The person she loves, the person who loves her back. Losing the person who gave her that push to find her own humanity. Aigis drives me so crazy.

Like, Aigis doesn't just learn about happiness, she's forced to feel grief, forced to confront it and how to cope with it. She's forced to understand death... but she's also taught that death means you have to appreciate the time spent as well.

I think the fact she exists distinct from her purpose and the protag is her miracle of life. She finds her own answer. No one can give someone else their answer, but they can help find it. SEES fights with her, helps guide her to her answer. Like all the SL finding their goals and conclusions in their general life, Aigis is helped by the entirety of SEES.

LIKE. I'm trying to stick to main-game's storyline, but the answer. god. The Answer. Aigis is so painfully human, and the fact her body doesn't match is painful. Her failures isn't what makes her human, her refusal to lose purpose and keep fighting does.

She fights against death, and she fights the body that refuses her humanity.

If Persona 3 was a game about death, they wouldn't have filled it with so much determination to live.

ok i realize i spent too much time on this so sayonara. maybe another time.

#Persona 3 spoilers #persona 3 #not my art #roach rambles #Im sure i could write more and something more organized but I kind of just want to draw

[panlight]

So correct me if I'm wrong but one thing that has always stuck out to me about book!Edward vs movie!Edward is his fighting ability. Im not sure if the copious amount of fanfiction I've read over the years has distorted my memory of the original source material but I'm almost positive Edward was a decent fighter in the books. Yet in the movie, he gets his butt handed to him by literally everyone? Did you get the impression that he was decent in combat from the book or did I read that poorly?

This may get convoluted so here’s my central point up front: He’s supposed to be a good fighter in the books but like, why? The movies are ‘wrong’ but maybe they’re right? So in Twilight when they’re facing James the Cullens are described as a coven of “strong fighters” but like . . . why would they be?? They’re also described as living in peace, and Carlisle hates violence.  Who have they been fighting? Why would they be good at it? I guess you could argue Jasper taught them, but he only showed up 50ish years ago, and if he taught them and made them good fighters, why did he need to teach them again in Eclipse? I’ve also seen it proposed that the Volturi taught Carlisle how to fight but again, why would Dr-I-hate-violence want to learn to fight, and why would the paranoid Volturi teach someone who wasn’t a member of their group their fighting techniques and then release him out into the world? Carlisle also has like a 100 friends and even his ‘enemy’ wants to be his BFF so it seems pretty obvious to me he’s never really fought anyone and any vampire he ran into in his travels he charmed and befriended rather than fought. 

tl;dr: I don’t think there’s any reason that the Cullens, as a whole, would be ‘strong fighters’ other than the obvious exception of Jasper. Emmett’s obviously got the spirit and brute strength, but that’s not actual experience.  Now Edward specifically is supposed to be a good fighter because of his mind-reading which, I mean,  I guess? The idea being that he can ‘read’ the moves that the person is going to make in their mind and anticipate them. But how much ‘thinking’ do people actually do when they fight? I’ve never been in a fight other than childhood squabbles with my brothers but I don’t think people are like “okay now I’m going to move my left arm here and use my right foot to kick my opponent in the stomach” you just sort of . . . move and go on instinct? I’m not 100% convinced that mind-reading would be all that helpful? It might help some, but again, where has he practiced this?  Training with Jasper and play-fighting with Emmett is not the same as having actual experience in vampire fights to the final death so again I’m just . . . not sure why Edward and the rest of the Cullens would be “strong fighters.” I don’t think, given what we know of canon, they have the experience to back up that assertion.  Maybe they’re lying to make Bella feel better about this, maybe they’re naive and think they’re amazing fighters but have never really had to do it, I don’t know, but color me skeptical. It feels like, to me, another one of those “Edward is amazing!!” or “The Cullens are amazing!!” details that don’t necessarily make the most sense in the world.  The fight with Felix, at least, never happens in the books, and SM has explained it as fighting basically being Felix’s enhanced trait/superpower, so even if Edward were a good fighter Felix could probably wallop him.