JADE: i dont know, it feels like...
JADE: like im part of a play
JADE: but im playing every part in it!!!!
JADE: one moment im dorothy, and then im the lion, then the tin man, the scarecrow, the wicked witch...
JADE: and im constantly switching between who im supposed to be and it all gets really confusing......
JADE: i dont know. does that make sense??
JOHN: yeah that makes perfect sense!
JOHN: i think every one has that sort of thing going on.
JADE: you think so? i never got that impression...
JOHN: no i think it's normal.
JADE: ohhh. okay!
ROSE, EAVESDROPPING:
68 notes
·
View notes
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 ^^
30 notes
·
View notes
I dislike the Earth Giving Therapy trope.
Ok so I know it's just a fictional show, BUT I can't get over how they handle the aspect of earth giving "therapy" to the whole cast of characters. I LOVE earth don't get me wrong... but she doesn't handle therapy or counseling in that matter really well. The writers should have done a bit more digging tbh like watch a mock counseling or therapy session just to keep things accurate at least. And yes, some things earth does in these therapy sessions are ok I'm not saying she did awful.
But I want to touch on the things that irked me.
First of ALL, Earth has no right to counsel or give therapy to family members, friends, or anyone shes in a relationship with. This is considered unethical be cause Earth can be biased, and Earth can be affected over certain topics because she is so close with the one receiving therapy. This also creates conflict of interest.
ANOTHER thing that irked me was when she gave therapy to Eclipse the first time around. I already hated Moon dragging Eclipse to Earth because when one doesn't want therapy it'll be harder for them to accept help or cooperate they won't be comfortable and this'll create a hostile environment for the client in this case Eclipse. I like how Earth makes it clear that she doesn't like when someone is forced into therapy so I liked that
Then Earth manages eclipses session atrociously....
Although she says she holds no bias torwards Eclipse, there will always be some sort of feeling there, they've already exchanged conversations numerous times, and Earth has already been to some extent been influenced by sun, moon, and lunar's feelings torwards Eclipse.
Moon says he doesn't deserve confidentiality after Eclipse requests it!!! I hate that... ik he is a criminal basically but this rubs me the wrong way. Especially when one of Eclipse's problems are his trust issues. Then Moon goes on to say he knows all his problems! LIKE no you dont. You have no clear idea back off... To me thats so degrading.
Earth also mentions to Eclipse that she doesn't have the MENTAL capacity to deal with Eclipse's retorts torward moon being there... Let's keep in mind that she shouldn't even be here to begin with! Especially after what she witnessed with Lunar! And Eclipse was part of that situation as well. THIS IS CAUSING HER PROBLEMS MENTALLY SHE IS IN NO CONDITION TO BE GIVING THERAPY TO OTHERS much less Eclipse who is a really convoluted character. I love Earth so seeing her do this session while she herself is in a bad place is really self destructive.
SHE GOES ON TO BELITTLE THE MAN TOO! When Eclipse is being particularly fussy to the point he calls Earth an idiot, she goes on to say "A harmless one compared to you" I hate this because there should be no antagonizing in a therapy session it makes things hostile... and thereafter Eclipse closes up again destroying the progress Earth had previously achieved.
I can go on to other smaller details and things I disliked but overall these were points that made me particularly mad. Earth does do a good ok job at times so I don't want to take away her merits. I really enjoy the show and all just I wish it could be more considerate at times. Especially since this is creating an impression of what therapy is like to young impressionable children.
Thanks for comming to my Ted Talk 👁👁
.
39 notes
·
View notes
speaking my truth on npmd because im thinking about this alot. i think the reason it falls flatter than tgwdlm and bf as a musical is that tgwdlm and bf have a running theme — want.
(whole thing undercut)
the cast of tgwdlm want human connection - charlotte wants sam to love her, bill wants alice to love him, mr davidson wants his wife to choke him while he jerks off etc etc, and eventually paul goes from 'i want what anyone wants, money, kids, a partner maybe idk' to - to put it simply - wanting emma (putting it very simply, if i went into detail this post would go off the rails). this switch is what makes him vulnerable to the hive and this want to live and to survive and to be happy with emma is satiated by pokey by giving him the connection he craves via hivemind, this is how it works for everyone. they want to be happy, pokey makes them happy by removing any need to want anything in the first place.
similarly, in bf, the adults of hatchetfield are still miserable and they want to be happy, they have this void within them that they feel they need to fill with products and consumerism. if they buy this stupid fucking doll their kids will love them, they will be happy, etc etc. and this want to be happy is similarly satiated by wiggly via the cult - they have something to worship, or - in lindas case - people who worship them. they have purpose, or at least they think they do, but whether their problems have actually been solved or not - they are still content.
but in npmd, this is less solid. theres that bit where they have to sacrifice what they want the most, but this is near the end. its kind of all over the place, and this wobbliness(?) is sort of just emphasised by the fact that there is no specific lord in black, its all of them. now i loved the summoning when i first watched it because im obviously a huge hatchetfield fan so i like. know who these characters are but as ive seen others say, alot of npmd does rely on knowing hatchetfield lore - understanding injokes. and in hindsight it just... isnt great for the cohesion of the plot.
tgwdlm and bf both have specific themes, specific lords in black, they have subplots but they have a solid throughline that is easier to follow. to me, npmd feels like its all over the place and it just feels kind of...mid for lack of a better word.
i think there were some moments that were just kind jarring? i guess? like if i loved you coming directly after ruths death was really strange, tonally. i wish they spent more time on ruths death tbh she deserved better. richie got two songs and an opening scene. anyways i digress- i feel like whenever i think about it im always like. i just wanted More. which is weird cuz its already like 2 hours long but idk. IDK!!! if i loved definitely felt unnecessary to me- like just conflict out of nowhere. i would have liked more build up to it. maybe im just salty that it took up stagetime that could have been used to grieve ruth but. sorry for the random if i loved you slander i think my point here is that some moments and some subplots felt more tropey, injokey or like fanservice??but not in a sexual way?? - is that the right word to use idk - than actual compelling plot moments. tgwdlm is an incredible work of theatre and uses subversions of tropes to communicate a great story, bf is a detailed criticism of american consumerism and how capitalistic societies force people to rely on products to make their lives better, npmd is. high school drama with ghosts. it just doesnt hit as hard on its own.
i dont want to be one of those "im a better writer, and THIS is how i would have done it!!!! im going to fix this!!!" people so im not going to do that but i think something i would have liked to see was focus on just one lord in black, probably nibbly because i feel like he fits the most and has the least preexisting story. i mean for gods sake, why does wiggly have the most speech time out of all the lords in black again!!! he already has an entire musical about him!!! greedy bitch- well i guess thats kind of his thing. i think i just want to see more of nibbly tbh, he has one nmt story and he only shows up at the very end. anyways that was kind of a side rant sorry gang. there isnt a problem with having a story featuring all the lords in black, but i think it just doesnt quite work in npmd for like structural reasons as well as plot cohesion.
i did enjoy npmd, im not pretending i didnt, but narratively it is the weakest hatchetfield musical and i just wanted to put my finger on what it is specifically. please dont take this as like hate or slander, i am a huge starkid fan, but i think it is important to consume media critically.
also i am not a professional i am a teenage drama and english lit student who likes media analysis and narrative design so just. take everything i say with a grain of salt :)
if you read all this, thankyou and if you disagree please lmk what you think(civilly.i do not want discourse in my notes)!! i could be hugely wrong about this and just need to think more about npmd and id love to see others' analyses!
26 notes
·
View notes
ok im not sure if anyones pointed this out yet, but this is a helluva boss sticker pack that just recently released. its very possible that it means absolutely nothing........but is it possible that these are hints to upcoming shorts???? (personal rambles and theories under the read more)
these all seem really random. which wouldnt be out of the norm for helluva merch, usually its just an assortment of random characters doing random things. but with the fact that we now know that we'll be getting shorts, and the fact that these all seem like very specific scenarios, i think its plausible that these are hints for things that might be upcoming.
the cherubs being here is especially interesting, because we havent seen anything about them AT ALL since early season 1. we know theyll be making a return (presumibly in mastermind) but then why is the merch featuring these cherubs, and not collin, keenie, and cletus? i think its possible that well be getting a short set in heaven, specifically about these characters/perhaps in preparation to the release of mastermind.
as we know from hells belles, verosika will be going on a tour in pride, which presumably sets up apology tour. but in this art shes not in pride, shes in sloth. this is where we know the rehab center is. is it possible shell end up back in rehab/well get a flashback short about her time in there? potentially even some backstory with her and barbie??
the next one features bee, tex, and loona. i THINK it was confirmed somewhere (although i dont have a source) that well be seeing bee again this year, although i just assumed that would be in the finale. its possible that she, tex, and loona will be hanging out again in a short, which would be nice! ive also seen some theories/speculation that this specefic piece of merch might allude to the ship ""honeybunch"" (or bee x tex x loona) potentially becoming canon.
stolas and octavia sort of has me stumped. based on her lines in the trailer, it seems like octavia is still harboring some resentment, and this picture seems like a really sweet glimpse into their domestic life. honestly this feels so out of character for me that it almost made me throw my whole idea about these being potential shorts out the window. im sure they still do have nice moments like this, but i struggle to picture them happening since the only interactions weve seen them have have been negative. maybe therell be a short trying to rectify this? or this could be a pre-blitz flashback.
im partially hoping these are shorts JUST for this next one. i want striker to have a short so so bad. i have literally NO idea what it would be, though. i just wanna see more of him and bombproof :( zooming in on the picture, i did notice that 1) theyre back in wrath. 2) striker is polishing a (not-blessed) knife. and 3), he doesnt seem to be too injured from the escape in oops. although, interestingly, we only get to see the left side of his face. im pointing this out, because in oops, when the explosion occurs, the shot of the fire zooming towards strikers face is a direct parallel to the shot of the fire zooming towards BLITZ face. i think it would be REALLY sick if they ended up with matching burn scars.
finally, moxxie and his mom. this is the piece that gave me this idea in the first place, just because it seems so incredibly random. i cannot even imagine a place where she would come back, if not a flashback short that delves deeper into his childhood. where else would she fit in this whole season? its possible that he has another flashback in the show, but the trailer seems REALLY focused on stolas and (especially) blitzs past, so it feels slightly unlikely. it makes sense that theyd get a whole short dedicated just for them.
idk, maybe im WAYYYY off. i just think it would be nice to get some time away from the main cast in their current states for a while and these seem like some of the best ways to do it
20 notes
·
View notes