sonoffenris  asked:

Souls: Argel Tal, Kharn, Ahzek Ahriman

Commander Krole: *hand gestures*

Melpomanei: “Argel Tal’s soul always sang a melancholy hymn, of blessings and curses entwined in symbiosis, though I gather it acquired a companion before he met his end. Khârn’s is an endless roar of infinite rage. A thousand voices vie for primacy in Ahriman’s soul - not all of them his own.”

(send me a ‘soul’ and my muse will describe what they think your muse’s soul ‘sounds’ like)

Film Analysis: The Themes of Wonder Woman

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures

I know I pretty much never deviate from SU but I really loved the latest Wonder Woman film. I just wanted to do a brief analysis because I feel like there are so many themes to unpack in the film (so there’ll be spoilers) and I was pleasantly surprised by the way things turned out. 

I’ll be using images only from the official trailer WB posted on their YouTube channel though, in case you happen to scroll past and don’t want to see anything yet.

This post doesn’t feel like the appropriate avenue to talk about the cast, the sets, music, and colours, so I’ll be focusing on the film itself, particularly on the story. I enjoyed all the other things about the movie but won’t go into them here.

1. Diana of Themyscira 

Source: WBP

Before any other character in DC and now the DCEU, I read and watched Wonder Woman. One thing I’d like to point out is how the story doesn’t shy away from her god-heritage and how that dictates her interactions with others. In fact, one pertinent lens to view this film is that of self-discovery.

Diana doesn’t know she’s god. Throughout the story she believes that she is as capable as any other Amazon (I really liked the Amazons, but maybe another post). She believes she’s equal in capacity and potential. I think this is an important thing to note. Diana didn’t go into war, looking for Ares, certain she was stronger than any other member of Themyscira. She left her home not because of a conviction that only she could do the task but because she believed it was the right thing to do. In her eyes, her mother and the other Amazons just didn’t see the value in entering human affairs the way she did. That was all. 

What I appreciated was that she went on her “hero’s journey” not out of a sense of duty as the only one who could do it, but precisely because anyone could go and help put a stop to the fighting. It then was not a question of who was most worthy, which is a question that excludes, but a question of who believed in this cause.

That agency is important in the story, as many heroes’ journeys often begin with a powerful force that pushes the hero to step up. In this case, she could have remained in her insular life, but she decided to step out of the comfort of the island and into a world she’s repeatedly been told does not deserve her.

In that regard, Diana knows what’s waiting for her will be difficult and fulfilling her objective will be a struggle. That struggle extends beyond the fighting, as even walking down the street is an issue for her.

And these “issues” are laden with our concept of heteronormativity. We’re talking about the early 1900s and perceptions of women at the time were brought up again and again. How she should act, speak, and dress are all moments that were presented with a tension that rubs up against our current understanding of equality. For instance, that a session could no longer be held because a woman entered the room is the kind of dissonance that I feel was intended to come off as laughable, because decades later the idea of perpetuating the same attitude is absurd (and very inefficient). In the same way, I feel it calls to attention present and more subtle forms of bias that the film hopes we grow to see as equally absurd to perpetuate.

Source: WBP

Diana is presented as a character of depth. She is exceptionally strong, learned, and yet feels like a believable character because she is also prideful, flawed, funny, and naive. It’s a good proof as to why realistic movies don’t have to be “gritty” per se. Grit isn’t the magical ingredient; it’s grounding. And in her struggles to understand those around her as well as understand herself, the movements of the micro story are embedded and woven into a huge historical narrative, that of the Great War. 

And I think that’s where we feel all our individual stories are. We are at once absorbed in the primacy of our own lives while living in the tumult of the world at large. Navigating both the personal and the global is the daily struggle. 

Despite all of these struggles, both the physical fighting and the social tension, Diana stays true to her convictions about who she is and what she aims to do. Those beliefs can change, especially in light of new knowledge, which is what does happen in the film as she learns more about Sameer, Charlie, and Chief, but there is a Diana who remains. 

“I am Diana, Princess of Themyscira,” she says in the film. Her commitment to an identity of which she isn’t even fully aware is striking, and that message is empowering to any viewer. 

Because of this, the “reveal” of her godhood does not seem like an upheaval of her character. It is a part of Diana, but it doesn’t exclusively define her. In fact, as she knows more about herself, of which being a god is only a part, the more she is able to succeed. At the climax of the film, it is when Diana declares she fights for love and peace that she is able to muster up the strength to defeat Ares. 

2. Her relationship with Steve

Source: WBP

From the onset, Diana is presented as the protagonist of the film. There is no question. Her first interaction with Steve is her saving him from drowning. Then, she walks in on him immediately after he bathes. Then after they leave the island, she makes it clear that she knows about “the pleasures of the flesh” and just doesn’t believe that having two people sleep beside each other is going to lead to anything if they don’t want it to.

In the earlier parts of the film, their interactions were presented with vulnerability on Steve’s part (danger, nakedness, fear), but we begin to see it in all the characters as the movie progresses. Moreover, we see how they deal with their vulnerability. Steve is a cynic, and this underlies the way he acts.

Steve isn’t a one-note character though. He is complex and has stories implied about him. He is able to think quickly and hold his own in all the situations they’ve been placed. And his occupation as a spy does seem to hit very close to the theme of self-discovery taken by Diana’s character. As a spy, Steve holds on to his core identity and plays with the characters he assumes, never losing sight of who he is. As such, we have two characters very different, but also very similar. 

On the other hand, Diana isn’t presented as a character with gaps to fill (in the form of Steve). Rather, she’s a complete individual on her own, which is what makes her decision to love Steve more significant. It isn’t a decision of necessity, but similar to her deciding on taking the hero’s journey, it is a matter of choice.

The romance in the film feels organic in progression. I think it should be noted that the threat of death and the war ahead may have provided an adrenaline rush that propelled their romance forward, but even without taking it into consideration, they had a very intimate platonic relationship prior that could have believably developed towards the romantic. And again, for Steve’s character as well, it was a choice.

I enjoyed the contrast of Diana’s frankness and Steve’s truly trying to be inconspicuous and subtle in all his affairs. By the end of the film, both had begun to take up the better traits in the other. It is especially marked in Steve as he’d begun to trust Diana and open up about himself a little more.

3. The “Villain” 

Source: WBP

A lot of people I know found the “villain” Ares to be lacklustre, and the ending cheesy. I disagree because systemic issues and human nature are my favourite things to explore in media, particularly media created for popular consumption. 

Very explicitly it’s said in the film that we can’t all point our fingers to one “bad guy.” There is no one reason for war, inequality, poverty, and all of the injustice that we see in the world. There are many people who, and entire societies that orchestrate, execute, and then perpetuate the injustices that plague people even today. Tyrants don’t rise overnight (and they hadn’t in history either). This isn’t the first film to show this, and I hope it isn’t the last. 

I really liked how the film pointed out that systemic and systematic injustice exists. There are specific people who do things that are deplorable, but there are also systems that enable them, and I think that is the takeaway from this theme.

I also applaud the look that was given Ares. Instead of the stereotypical villain, who is bigger, more violent, and appears more physically powerful than the protagonist, we have someone who looks unassuming but is infinitely powerful. We don’t see the usual male villain who is really muscular and that becomes the focal point of his villainy. Instead, we have someone manipulative and powerful in a different way. Instead of the traditional god of war who brawls, we have someone equally powerful but more tempered in that power, and it’s the mark of someone who really has lost everything and everyone and now just wants to start over.

Striking also is how all of the characters talk about the war as “The war to end all wars.” That was the honest sentiment of people during the First World War. Operative term here being “first.” That there were more wars that followed really speaks of how those systems and ideologies lived on after the people who instigated the conflict. And situated in the context of all those who died and lost everything, it seems callous that we would keep fighting one another and causing more destruction. But it is something that’s been done and is now etched forever in history. 

The non-violent message features rather heavily in the film’s climax. When Diana fights Ares, the first thing to go is her sword, the one she believed was the god-killer. The sword is a classic symbol of violence, conflict, and war, and it was destroyed almost immediately. It’s interesting because she clung to that weapon throughout the film, and it gave her faith in her own abilities.

In the end, it is not brute force that will stop the existing brute force. Diana herself put a stop to Ares. It was what emanated from her that destroyed the embodiment of violence. 

In that regard, it is the individual who has to decide not to give in to the temptation of furthering violence and injustice. After all, Ares’ main role in the film was to tempt. That was exactly what he did to Diana and she resisted.

4. The role of Dr. Poison

Source: WBP

Isabel Maru had such a presence in the film, even though she didn’t feature on the screen as often as did the other characters. Back in London, they deemed her the greatest threat. They were setting out specifically to destroy her laboratory. 

I find her character very interesting because we get the faintest sign of a backstory from her and it’s still all very coherent. Her file reveals that she didn’t always have an injury on her face, and based on her interactions with Ludendorff and later, Steve, she’s searching for acceptance and affirmation. There is a subtle manipulation that goes into convincing her to continue creating poisons and chemical weapons.

Even among enemy lines, there is a struggle for her not to be infantilised and patronised, or to be viewed only as a woman in the case of her interaction with Steve. Especially in the latter scene, Isabel is fully aware of this and explicitly tells him she knows. She may not have been pulling all the strings, but she was presented from the beginning as a strong secondary character to the main enemy.

Diana was able to defeat Ludendorff relatively easily, but Maru had survived until the end of the film and was in the climax. What Ares tempted Diana to do was destroy Dr. Poison, and Diana let her go.

In depth: Throughout the movie, Diana was never directly pitted against her. The former’s goal was always to remove Ares in the form of Ludendorff. Then suddenly, close to the end, Ares pits the two women against each other (It’s all a very familiar story). Diana chooses not to perpetuate the cycle of killing and violence that characterises the pasts of so many of the other characters.

5. What it leaves us

Source: WBP

One emergent theme from the film that we get is a loss of innocence. At first, Diana is idealistic and feels her beliefs are clear-cut. Liars are bad. Ares is responsible for everything. Being strong is enough to save the day.

Gradually, we see her belief in these things erode, eventually replaced by an understanding that the world is more complex than it was made out to be. At the same time, there are moments when world doesn’t want to be saved.

It culminates when Steve sacrifices himself at the climax of the film. At this point, it appears as though there is no use in fighting Ares, and it seems as though Ares was proven correct all along. Human beings are cruel and violent and selfish. It becomes so easy to assume apathy. What does it matter what one person does if there are all these people and systems that perpetuate injustice? It becomes easy to give up and do nothing or give up and join in.

At the same time, though, Steve’s loss presents the other side of the story. Human beings are empathetic and altruistic; they try to see the good in others and are moved to change by others’ suffering. It is true that a lot of the systemic issues we see in the movie, particularly for equality and peace, are still present today, but we’re making progress.

Diana emerges with a realistic working understanding of human beings. They aren’t perfect, and they are capable of great harm, but also great good. As she said, she’s realised it wasn’t up to her to save the world for them, but she’d be there when they did make the decision.

In our current socio-political climate, it is almost the default to affect the same hopelessness and apathy. But that’s why the message of love, justice, and peace was anything but “cheesy.” It’s precisely what we can do in the environment we’re put in. It’s something that is in our control, and like all things the movie presents, it is a choice.

I really love Wonder Woman. Before there was Harley Quinn in my life, there was and will always be Wonder Woman. I loved the way Jenkins told the story and I really hope for more like it in the DCEU. So much could be written specifically about the character as a woman, and all the imagery that comes with it. And the Amazons. Countless posts could be dedicated only to analysing their social structure, values, and dynamics. The film was great and it did justice to a lot of what made Wonder Woman so appealing when I was growing up.


Millennials face a unique challenge when resisting war — they’ve never known peace

  • Since President Donald Trump’s election, a sudden eruption of protests have risen to meet each of his measures, whether that’s pushing the courts to move against the Muslim ban or putting the heat on Democrats to reject cabinet appointees.
  • So when Trump launched 59 cruise missiles on a Syrian airfield, organizers and progressives posed a question solidly ignored for a decade: What would it take to revive the anti-war movement in the United States?
  • One of the troubles facing the next generation of activists is that war is all they’ve ever known. Unlike the struggles of the Vietnam era, or even the Iraq War, today’s activists grew up in a climate of conflict that began in 2001 and has no end in sight. The military has achieved a place of primacy in U.S. foreign policy. Now, Trump’s presidency offers an opportunity to revive a movement that fizzled under President Barack Obama, beginning with a new understanding of the role of anti-war work in the broader scope of anti-Trump resistance. Read more. (4/11/2017 2:06 PM)
There’s no such thing as the Dark Ages, but OK

As a very serious adult, with a respectable career and life, and a healthy ability to let petty shit slide, I spent much too much time last week arguing with strangers on the internet who believe in the myth of the Dark Ages.

The arguments in question focused on a massively inaccurate meme, which some observers of the group pointed out was originally supposed to be about knowledge loss after the burning of the Library of Alexandria, but which some very cool EDGE LORD had changed to be about ‘The Christian Dark Ages’. Please feast your eyes on it in all it’s massive wrongness:

This is, pretty obviously, a bunch of honkey bullshit and also massively incorrect, as many important scholars have noted. As a result, I spent hours of my life – which I will never get back -  pointing out repeatedly that the ‘graph’ in question has nothing to do with reality, and arguing with non-experts about the medieval period.

For the most part – these people were well-meaning. Many pointed out that this was a very Euro-centric world view, and that Asia, Africa, and the Arab world were all making huge advancements in scientific and medical theory at this time. That is absolutely true. White people have never been the entire world. The Chinese had a massively advanced scientific culture by this time, for example, and had been holding it down with hermetically sealed research laboratories since the third century BCE. The Arab world, meanwhile was compiling treatises on eye surgery. Scientific advancement was something that was happening in this period. Europe is not the centre of the world.

Having said that, while it is important to acknowledge that the-rest-of-the-world was making huge strides in scientific advancement during this time, and that Europe and white people are not the entire world, nor responsible for all of human advancement, there was no such thing as the Dark Ages in Europe either.

While everything about the idea of the Dark Ages is incorrect, lets start off with the way the term was meant to be used. The totally ignorant graph above, unsurprisingly, is completely fucking off. Hilariously, the idea of the ‘Dark Ages’ actually originated in the medieval period itself. Petrarch – the poet laureate of fourteenth-century Rome - was actually the originator of the idea that there was a period of stagnation that Europe was moving out of. Petrarch had a political axe to grind. He considered that any point at which Rome – where he lived and worked and had considerable sway – did not completely dominate the world was a BAD TIME. This is not an unbiased assessment of world history.

The actual phrase ‘Dark Ages’ itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, which Caesar Baronius – a cardinal and Church historian - came up with around 1602. He applied the term exclusively to the tenth and eleventh centuries.  However, and very significantly in his use of the term, Baronius was not decrying a state of scientific malaise, or a particularly turbulent political period – he’s talking about a lack of sources surviving from that time.  Indeed, Baronius sees the cut off point for the dark ages to be the Gregorian reforms of 1046, following which we see a massive increase in surviving documentation. Witness an actual useful chart:

When we move into a period where there are more texts to be considered, Baronius argues, Europe moved out of the period of darkness and into a ‘new age’.*

Now this is some real talk. As you can tell from that graph, during the Carolingian Renaissance of the ninth century, we see a flurry of Latin writers emerge, and a lot of text copying. This drops off again until what we term the Twelfth-Century Renaissance – home to this blog’s favourite philosopher/proto-Kanye –  Abelard. (Shout out to my boy.) However, when people use the term ‘Dark Ages’ now, they usually use it to talk about the entire millennium of the Medieval period, and they aren’t talking about source survival.  They aren’t thinking ‘dark’ as in ‘occluded’, they are thinking ‘dark’ as in pejorative.

We can thank the Enlightenment historiography for the expansion of the idea that the medieval period was a bad dark time. Kant and Voltaire in particular liked to see themselves as a part of an ‘Age of Reason’ as opposed to what they saw as the ‘Age of Faith’ of the medieval period. To their way of thinking, any time that the Church was in power was a time of regressive thinking. The Middle Ages, then, was a dark time because it was so dominated by religion. 

The first push back against the term dark ages began with the Romantics. After the, um, unpleasantness of the Reign of Terror, and the major cultural and environmental upheavals of the Industrial Revolution it became fashionable to look at the medieval period as a time of spiritual focus, and environmental purity. Obviously this is a super-biased way of looking at the period – just like it was biased for Enlightenment thinkers to take one look at the primacy of the Church and declare an entire millennium to be bad. I mean, really what the Romantics were doing was just casting shade on the Enlightenment historiography because they felt like it inevitably led to the guillotine. But what can you do?

By the twentieth century historians had moved on from the idea pretty much completely. If you take the time to actually, you know, study the medieval period, it becomes very apparent very quickly that there was a tremendous amount of intensive thought happening. This is the era of Thomas Aquinas – a bad ass philosopher who will think you under the fucking table. Of Hildegard of Bingen – who basically founded scientific natural history in the German speaking lands. Hell, like we talked about last week Rogerius and Giles of Corbeil were throwing it down for major medical advancement. There was a lot going on. On the real, without the contributions of medieval thinkers you would not get Galileo, Newton, or the Scientific Revolution. The medieval period was not a period of stagnation, it was a time of progress.

But it’s not just that the idea of a ‘Dark Ages’ makes no sense when you look at what incredible advancement was happening at the time, it also makes no sense because it implies that stuff was going really well under the Romans. We estimate that somewhere between thirty to forty percent of the population of Italian Rome were slaves. The Romans had total bans on human dissection, meaning that there was no real way for medicine to progress any further than it had by the time of collapse – a problem that medieval people didn’t have. I mean even if you just want to make it about religion - the Roman Empire was Christian at the time of its collapse and had its heads of state worshipped as LITERAL GODS during the pagan era. Somehow every edgy motherfucker with a fedora is totally cool with this and thinks it is super reasonable though. Because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The Romans were not a bunch of really awesome people living a life of idealised rationality any more than medieval people were all ignorant savages living in fear of God.

Is there a time that historians use the term ‘Dark Ages’? Yeah, we do use it to talk about source survival rates. It’s not a term we use as a value judgment, however. We just mean that we don’t have a lot of evidence to go off of. By the same token – if we somehow move on to another electronic format without converting the way things are stored now, we could be moving into a theoretical Digital Dark Age, where historians in the future won’t be able to study what we are writing now. (And that would be a tragedy, because legit, I would kill to be a historian working on Donald Trump’s tweets in the year 2717.)

We’re now moving away from using the term Dark Ages at all, however, because of the frequency with which it is misinterpreted. I mean, if every basic motherfucker out there who never bothered to read God’s Philosophers (hat tip to James Hamman – this book is amazing) will insist on willfully misinterpreting us, we just ain’t gonna give them the ammo.

What it comes down to is that the medieval period was as vibrant as any other period of history. If you’re going to player hate, go ahead, but please don’t act like you know anything about either medieval or ancient history when you do. There is no period of rational supermen followed by ignorant monsters. There are just people doing their best in the circumstances.

* Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici Vol. X. (Rome, 1602), p. 647. “Novum incohatur saeculum quod, sua asperitate ac boni sterilitate ferreum, malique exudantis deformitate plumbeum, atque inopia scriptorum, appellari consuevit obscurum.”

goldsparkbreeze  asked:

¡Hola, Cassie! I have a question about Julian and Cristina. They've been my favorite characters. Julian, so sweet, suffering and sad; and Cristina, that I felt it as the heart of the book and its characters. But as I read TDA, I had the impression that Cristina and Julian haven't developed any friendship. A pleasant companionship, perhaps, but not friendship. So, we'll can see a deep friendship between Julian and Cristina in LoS? Muchos besos.

I’m delighted you like Jules and Cristina! I would say pleasant companionship describes it pretty well. Which isn’t to say that they will never deepen their friendship, but Julian has exactly one friend: Emma, who he trusts because he has known her all his life. Right now, under the burden of all his secrets, it is nigh impossible for him to make friends outside his family. As for Cristina, she is Emma’s friend, her very close friend, the person in whom Emma confides about Julian. It would be very difficult for Cristina to become Julian’s deep friend and retain Emma’s total trust and confidence.

 It’s totally normal to want your favorite characters to be friends, but characters do have loyalties and come with previous baggage. There is a primacy of other relationships in Cristina’s life — Jaime; Mark; Emma; Kieran; Diego, all of whom are deeply enmeshed in her life in LoS. Not to say she and Julian won’t be friends, just to say there’s a reason for their distance.

Use repetition.

If provided with a list, people best remember the first item (primacy effect) and the last item (recency effect) on the list. Therefore, if something is particularly important, say it twice: once at the beginning and once at the end. If a concept is particularly difficult or unwelcome, it may be worth building up to it over a period of time, and then to repeat it until it has been both understood and—crucially—accepted. 

The Goddess and God

Wiccan views of divinity are generally theistic, and revolve around a Goddess and a God, thereby being generally dualistic, (with the Goddess given primacy or exclusivity in Dianic Wicca). Some Wiccans are polytheists, believing in many different deities taken from various ‘pagan’ pantheons, while others would believe that all the Goddesses are one Goddess, and all the Gods one God. Some Wiccans are both duotheistic and polytheistic, in that they honor diverse pagan deities while reserving their worship for the Wiccan Goddess and Horned God, whom they regard as the supreme deities. Some see divinity as having a real, external existence; others see the Goddesses and Gods as archetypes or thought forms within the collective consciousness.


Traditionally in Wicca, the Goddess is seen as the Triple Goddess, meaning that she is the maiden, the mother and the crone. Some Wiccans have a monotheistic belief in the Goddess as One, excluding the God from their worship.


In Wicca, the God is seen as the masculine form of divinity, and the polar opposite, and equal, to the Goddess.The God is traditionally seen as the Horned God or Green Man. 

.At different times of the Wiccan year the God is seen as different personalities. He is sometimes seen as the Oak King and the Holly King, who each rule for half of the year each. Another view of the God is that of the sun god, who is particularly revered at the sabbat of Lughnasadh. Many Wiccans see these many facets, as all aspects of the same God, but a minority view them as separate polytheistic deities.

The first Wiccan authors were Traditionalists who had taken oaths to not make the names of their gods public. As such, they used a variety of descriptions, including simply “God and Goddess.”

Since different Wiccans worship different deities, books often continue to use these terms to reflect whatever pair you are personally following. The concepts are also useful in discussing metaphorical concepts revolving around gender.

Some Wiccans simply address their deities as God and Goddess, either because they haven’t found suitable names, or they see them as the sum of other deities: all gods are aspects of one god and all goddesses are aspects of one goddess. For a variety of reasons, this view has become widely popular in Eclectic Wiccan literature, giving many the erroneous impression that it is the only view of deity that Wiccans have.


anonymous asked:

You think Clarke is in love with Bellamy? When L.exa drawing is the first thing she wants to see every day? Or Niylah's face sharing her bed? It just goes beyond my understanding that she can do those things while Bellamy is right there, in the same place as her. Niylah's love isn't possesive or passional but it's still love and makes Clarke feel comfortable. In your opinion why have the writers put Clarke and Niylah together, as a couple? What's the point?

(Listen, you sent this to my Bellarke blog, and you’re challenging my understanding of love, and the primacy of CL over Bellarke, so I’m going to tell you without worrying about your sensitivity. If what I’m about to say was going to trigger or harm you, you shouldn’t have come to me. And you know it. You’re either asking for real about how I can make this claim, or you’re trying to find a flaw in my reasoning and call me on… I don’t know? hypocrisy? lesbophobia? delusion? In which case, I’m just going to answer the way I’d answer the first possibility, with my reasons.  And if I say Bellarke is more important to Clarke [not as representation in the real world but in the narrative] I run the risk of being called a lesbophobe anyway, so I’ll say what I have to. But thanks for abbreviating Lxa. That’s kind of you.)

Yeah I think Clarke is in love with Bellamy. And has been for 2 seasons now. 

I think Clarke realized she was in love with Bellamy while he was in the mountain and she was spending all her energy and attention trying to keep him alive. I think when she told Lxa she wasn’t ready for anything with anyone, because of her first love’s very recent death, she was talking about both L AND Bellamy. That’s why she couldn’t hug him when she met him under the mountain and that’s ONE of the reasons she left Camp Jaha. Because it was all too much. But she did kiss him then. 

Yes. That means that Clarke was in love with Bellamy the entire time she was in Polis. Yes. I am saying that Clarke loved Bellamy before she loved Lxa. She sent him away from Polis to protect him from what happened to Costia. She knew already that L and Roan knew she valued him. They had already put his life at risk. And she also didn’t go home because she still wasn’t ready. It was still too much. She had not healed yet. She was not ready.

She stayed in Polis and worked with Lxa and for the most part it was pretty business like. She came to her in a nightgown and was sent away. Clarke did not open up to Lxa until after she visited Bellamy in Hakeldama and he refused her partnership and basically told her everything she’d done wrong and how she had hurt him and then tried to lock her up. In other words. She thought there was no shot with Bellamy anymore. She thought he hated her.

And then suddenly Clarke was open to Lxa and letting her in and more friendly. Yes. I am telling you that Lxa was a rebound. Or rather, the man she loved rejected her and she turned to the woman who loved her and she cared for a lot, and yes, loved… maybe not the same way that she loved Bellamy, but she loved her. They had a great chemistry and a connection that was a singular thing. And that is what allowed Clarke to love Lxa when she was already in love with Bellamy. And that was right and good. No one should ever have to pine away and deny themselves love because someone else doesn’t feel the same back. They should DEFINITELY move on and find love where it is. 

I mean, listen. love is not this thing you imagine it is, with One True Love and Never Again Shall I Love Another Or At Least Not Until I Have Suffered Enough And Am Old And Ugly And Not Hot Anymore.

She did love Lxa and it was a passionate, painful, traumatic love affair. It also lasted a couple weeks tops. If I’m feeling generous about what constitutes a love affair, and not a difficult, fraught political arrangement and royal imprisonment. But honestly, as someone who was in a passionate, painful, traumatic marriage for ten years, I’m really not all that impressed with a few days on vacation in a tower.

Do you know that I still have photos of my ex lovers that I look at from time to time? And they didn’t die a horrible death. Did you know that sometimes, when your heart is broken, you just need to feel human comfort and touch? This has already been their relationship, Clarke and Niylah. Human comfort, which I think is wonderful. We should be able to find that with each other, as long as both partners are on the same page. 

So how could she turn to Niylah when Bellamy is right there? 

Ahh…. my theory on Clarke turning to another lover when she is rebounding from Bellamy’s rejection has actually been proved.

Clarke touched his hand and opened the door for more intimacy, pressed her face to his hand, sought out more contact than they’d ever had before and he… told her to go to sleep. He shot her down. This does not mean she doesn’t love him. She puts it away, and goes back to work like he told her to. Her feelings for him, her caring for him more than anyone, are confirmed by his hostage situation. But she does not think he wants to be romantic with her. The comfort from Niylah, her friend, is the comfort she needs, because she cannot have the man she loves. She is SAD, nonny. And lonely. And Niylah is so sweet and supportive and beautiful. There is nothing wrong here.


ajin x undertale crossover again 

the beginning of the battle

the end of the battle

i didn’t decide how things are with IBMs Chara and Frisk 

but mb after first death of Frisk

 Chara call up her ghost 

and in the room there are 2 IBMs at once 

in the end IBMs Chara and Frisk Merged into one because Chara and Frisk minds  start battle for primacy 

idk i should thinking a lot

Understanding Ni

Section 1: Ni as cognitive function

To begin we must recognize three things about Ni:

  1. It is a perception function. 
  2. It is primarily visual. 
  3. Out of all the functions, it has the closest proximity to the subconscious.

The first point is intriguing, since perception is usually associated with the external environment. How can we perceive information internally? In a word, with great distortion.

Says Jung,

Like sensation, intuition has its subjective factor, which is suppressed as much as possible in the extraverted attitude but is the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although his intuition may be stimulated by external objects, it does not concern itself with external possibilities but with what the external object has released within him.

In a word, the worldview of an introverted perception function is inextricably linked to the user. This is doubly true of Introverted Intuition over Introverted Sensing, as the former relies wholly on abstract interpretations of objects with almost no immediate applicability to the outer world, whereas the latter relies on the literal interpretation which is apparent to any person with basic sense faculties. Certainly it is true that this literal data must undergo a careful process of selection and personalization before being stored in the Si database, but the fact remains that each data point must originate in one of the five senses.

In contrast, Ni begins with the abstract, and ends there. If we define abstraction as a method of “knowing the unknown,” or of developing models to deal with the absence of perfect information, then it becomes obvious that this faculty must be highly individualized.

Imagine a stranger shows you the sequence of numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and asks you to discern the pattern. Was he listing all the odd numbers from 1 to 10? Did he start at 1 and add 2 four times? Or were the numbers picked randomly? It’s impossible to know; your answer will inevitably reveal more about the contents of your own mind than any inherent property of the sequence itself.

Thus, although Ni does gain its initial impressions from sensory data, it cannot rely on the senses alone. In order to realize the true essence of these patterns, Ni must go beyond the immediate sensory reality of Se to create an entire inner world of its own.

In the words of SolitaryWalker,

Unlike Extroverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition cannot adapt itself to the external perceptions and the external environment but instead has a tendency to create an environment of its own. Since we know it is not possible to wholly create a world of one’s own, this endeavor of the INJs does not appear particularly promising — as nonetheless they will require some external stimulation to propel their perceptions in motion. Accordingly, just like the Introverted Sensor grasps the image of the external environment and then explores it in depth, the Introverted Intuitionist does no different. As he grasps the external environment in the guise of abstract perceptions and seeks to solidify the image.


As Introverted Sensing anthropomorphizes the physical world, Introverted Intuition — almost wholly without a doubt — anthropomorphizes abstractions and ideas. For this reason it is not uncommon for INJ philosophers and scientists to be observed deeming some ideas as wicked and others as benevolent without having any reasonable explanations for such taxonomy. That is because there truly is not an explanation for such a thing, as judgments of the like reflect more about them personally rather than about the matter they have commented on and therefore often serves as evidence of their personal biases and prejudices.

Thus we have seen that Ni filters the perception of the object by its relation to the inner vision of the user, rather than by any externally observable quality of the object itself. We’ve seen that the object is essentially discarded in favor of Ni’s abstract conception of it. But this raises an important question: where does these conceptions originate, and how exactly are they processed and stored?

Section 2: Ni-Se axis

We’ve arrived at the heart of the matter: the interaction of Ni with the external perceptions of Se. Rather than absorbing abstract patterns and possibilities from the outer world and then drawing connections between them, as Ne does, Ni subconsciously ingests information through Se and then stitches it into an entirely new environment of its own. We will address the form this environment actually takes later on.

For now it will suffice to say that Se is the little serf that goes out and collects raw data, which Ni (the lord) sits on and processes later. It is for this reason that Ni dominants have difficulty producing insight under pressure; most of their ideas come long after an event is done and gone, usually during exercise, sleep, or in the shower. Their thoughts are not useful until they have been passed through Ni’s many-layered filter.

This is why ENTJs are so impressive; they can produce incredibly precise insights on demand. That’s the power of Te-Ni. It’s an enviable talent; the cunning and quickness of thought necessary to succeed in social and business circles is backed up by the grand, holistic vision of the future needed to establish and achieve lifelong goals.

Yet few INTJs would switch types. Make no mistake: Ni dominance produces the deepest perception of all the types, and the INTJ — with his auxiliary Extroverted Thinking being more tough-minded than the INFJ’s Extroverted Feeling — enjoys the deepest of all. It is commonly said that the INTJs are the most open-minded type, and this is why. A mind which entertains literally dozens of abstract possibilities at any given moment cannot be easily corrupted by false influences. Even the most outwardly stubborn INTJ will, in the privacy of his own home and far removed from the outside world, secretly question the truthfulness of his insights. Be that as it may, this incessant nagging voice is his greatest frustration, and in fact one of his life’s tasks is to temper this voice with the steadfast inner confidence of a well developed Introverted Feeling.

Interestingly enough, the INTJ’s open-mindedness arises for the exact opposite reason of that of the INTP, who can be convinced of any idea provided he is given sound reasoning for it. Nonetheless the INTP both starts and ends with reason, and his ideas are ultimately confined to those which can be expressed logically. Though the INTJ’s cognition lacks the logical constraints — and thus the precision — of the dominant Thinking types, for this very reason the power of his imagination is amplified a thousandfold, and thus he acquires the ability to discern patterns in the presence of startlingly little data.

If the INTP is the analyst we may dub the INTJ the strategist, plotting and maneuvering far into a future that only he can see. The very lack of mental barriers that robs him of of logical precision imbues him with a great facility for dealing with uncertainty. The secret to this process lies in the conceptual web every INTJ holds in his mind, a web which gives him the appearance of assimilating new information with uncanny speed. But to deem this process speedy is only partially correct; it is speedy in the sense that fitting a final piece into a nearly completed puzzle is speedy. The mental models built up by every INTJ since childhood are so vast and all-encompassing that few new concepts require significant modifications to the overall structure.

We have now arrived at the differing ways in which the two types deal with abstraction. The INTP’s fluency with ideas resides in the power and flexibility of his logical deduction, whereas the INTJ’s fluency comes from the fact that he has predicted nearly every possible outcome in advance. For each new idea the INTP returns to his core principles, deduces the logical consequences of adding the new idea, and then checks whether any new contradictions have arisen. The INTJ, on the other hand, first makes an attempt to stitch the new data into the mental environment, and, if this proves impossible, proceeds to synthesize an extension of the environment in which the data becomes congruent with the already extant mental models.

If contradictions arise during this process the INTJ assumes the source must be a flaw in the mental model; he believes physical reality takes precedence over ideas. The INTP — who believes ideas take primacy over physical reality — assumes the contradiction must have arisen from a flaw in the data. INTPs deduct; INTJs induct. In the presence of contradictory facts an INTP questions the facts; an INTJ questions the theory.

Thus the INTJ maintains an openness to new ideas because the nature of Introverted Intuition compels him to simulate a reality in which these ideas were true. The inductive “logic” of Ni (insofar as Ni can be described logically) starts with the data and works backwards to the theory. In this system any collection of ideas, no matter how fanciful, can be worked into a plausible theory. We must recognize, however, that INTJs are not compelled to accept all of these fantastic possibilities, only to entertain them, and in fact their Extroverted Thinking function tends to aggressively weed out incorrect assumptions. Yet the fact remains that Ni can entertain nearly any idea, and this is the source of the INTJ’s power. The usefulness of this type lies not in what they do, or even in what they think. It lies in what they see.

Section 3: Ni as perception function

My use of the word “see” is not an accident, and in fact this word uniquely describes the types with dominant perception functions. There is a subtle difference here: dominant judgers deduce, think, and analyze; dominant perceivers see, discern, and produce insight. The best way to tease out the difference between the two is to examine the contrasting ways in which they deal with paradox. I will here continue to use the INTJ/INTP dichotomy.

An INTP presented with a paradoxical hypothesis will attempt to find a contradiction that leads to one of the following outcomes:

  1. The discarding of the new hypothesis.
  2. The modification of the new hypothesis for integration into the INTP’s logical structure.
  3. The modification of the INTP’s logical structure to accommodate the new hypothesis.

Ultimately each of these outcomes can be traced to a finite number of contradictions in either the extant logical structure or the new hypothesis. The INTP’s life mission is logical coherence; therefore he is a creature of the explicit, building his internal structure out of logically discrete lego blocks. Such a structure has clear advantages: it is strong, it can be built to great heights, and its component parts can be repaired or switched out without destabilizing the entire tower. But ultimately the structure is limited to whatever can be built with lego blocks.

Both types seek the truth, but the INTJ accomplishes this goal in a unique way. If the INTP builds his structure on a bedrock of axiomatic principles, the INTJ builds his on the abstract perceptions of physical objects gathered over a lifetime of sensory experience. In fact the INTJ does not build a tower at all; he weaves a tapestry. Although each thread of the tapestry must clearly have been collected at a distinct point in time, after reaching even a modest size the holistic image the tapestry represents becomes so compelling that the INTJ inevitably loses track of the individual threads. It is in this way that the INTJs’ infamous hunches arise. Vague and amorphous, they appear in the mind as a complete image, and possess an almost tangible quality that demands action.

Yet asking the INTJ to explain the origin of these hunches is analogous to asking the weaver to recall the country of origin of every individual thread in his tapestry. The customer says, “If I don’t know where the threads came from I cannot trust the quality of the cloth.” To which the weaver responds, “One needs only to observe the richness and vitality of the tapestry’s overall image to determine its quality. Once this quality is discerned the origin of the individual threads becomes irrelevant.” But the customer cannot see the tapestry as the weaver does; he does not possess the intuitive faculty which lends the weaver his grasp of the holistic, unless he is also an Ni dominant. Herein lies the source of the INTJ’s struggles with human interaction, and in fact his success in life will depend on his ability to communicate his insights clearly and persuasively with the simple, linear arguments of a well developed Extroverted Thinking.

We now have the tools to examine the INTJ’s handling of paradox. When confronted with a paradox between two data points, as long has Te has gathered enough empirical evidence to deem both data points objectively valid, Ni will proceed to incorporate them into a unified structure in which both are fundamentally true. Where the INTP analyzes, the INTJ synthesizes. Ni comprehends the world in a framework of opposites; good cannot exist without evil, true without false, and since they both comprise part of the same cohesive whole, the negation of one would automatically negate the other. To rigidly sort concepts into one pile or the other would be to deny the complementary nature of all things.

The INFPs I know are incapable of processing this. To them someone is either good or evil, a hero or a villain. This is because they lead with Fi, which, as a judging function, attempts to sort things into two piles: right and wrong. The immature ones haven’t yet learned temper Fi with their auxiliary Extroverted Intuition, which lends depth and vitality to these binary judgements. INTPs sort ideas in a similar way using the true/false dichotomy. “Either an idea is true or it’s false,” says the INTP, “but it can’t be both. To make such a claim would be to negate logic itself!” But Ni does not use logic, and in fact frequently flaunts in its face. Rationality has its limits, and INTJs know this better than most.

Ni’s identity as a perception function also reveals itself in the the way that it solves problems. Let us contrast Ni’s methods with those of the INTP’s dominant function Ti.

Introverted Thinking solves problems through brute logical deduction — the essence of raw computing power. INTPs are frighteningly fast when they want to figure something out. INTJs can’t compete with that speed. They would be foolish to try! But the good news is they don’t have to.

This is because Ni attacks problems by taking on an entirely different perspective in which the problem itself ceases to exist, or else becomes trivial to solve. It’s like this: Ni and Ti are hiking and come upon a brick wall. Ti immediately whips out its high-powered laser and starts cutting. Ni decides to zoom up a dozen feet, sees that the wall ends over the next bend, and walks around. Which one arrives at the destination first? Depends on the wall. Sometimes brute force really is necessary. Other times the perspective shift will do the trick. The world needs both.

Section 4: Ni and the subconscious mind

The elusive and poorly-defined nature of the subconscious makes this a difficult topic to write about, and in fact the true methods of the subconscious are essentially unknowable. To make matters worse, although every function must at some point interface with the subconscious, Ni’s unusual proximity to it makes this a particularly difficult function to analyze. Nonetheless I will make an attempt.

Once Ni has formed abstract impressions from the sensory data collected by Se, this data is then taken into the “below mind” for further processing and storage. It is there, outside of consciousness and rational thought, that the magic happens. This process can never be brought fully into consciousness, however it is possible for the user to come into closer contact with it over time. This happened to me gradually after taking LSD, and especially after beginning my study of physics and math.

An Ni dominant’s most penetrating insights must originate, almost by definition, directly from the subconscious. Because of this many Ni dominants report thinking in images more than words, but this phenomenon goes deeper than simple visual thought.

Ni dominants’ preferred currency is not that of logic or even images, but of pure ideas; these can be best described as signatures or impulses within the mind that arise outside of conscious thought. In fact they often seem to have an origin outside of the mind. This is not a spiritual claim, however, any more than it would be spiritual to claim that the vacuum salesman is not responsible for the design, manufacturing, and distribution of the machines he sells. He is simply the final link in the chain — an essential link, certainly — but still only one link out of many. Intuitive synthesis for an Ni dominant happens behind the scenes; conscious analysis of these intuitive insights is the end cap on a process which could have originated anywhere from a few hours to many years ago.

This process is constantly at work, and does not require conscious thought to propel it into motion. This is the great strength of Ni dominants, and also the greatest potential weakness. Intuition cannot be controlled any more than a raging river can be stopped or reversed, but it can be put under conscious influence by way of the information it has access to.

This brings me to my final point. As an INTJ you must constantly feed your brain new data to work with. Ni is the epitome of “garbage in > garbage out”, and if you close yourself off to novel sensory experience, your dominant function will spiral in on itself and, fed by Fi, start producing negative and unproductive thoughts. Take walks; strike up conversations; engage Se! Don’t isolate yourself, or you risk becoming the quintessential INTJ conspiracy theorist who thinks everyone’s out to get him.

Stress plays an important role in bringing this out. Your brain wants to do as little work as possible; if it can solve a problem using an already existing framework it will absolutely do so. Thus to develop Ni you must force yourself into conceptual corners that would be impossible to solve with any other function. Difficult technical subjects are great for this: physics, math, computer science, even the type theory itself. But this will vary with individual interest. Find what floats your boat, and then study it so deeply that you encounter a problem nobody else can solve. This doesn’t have to mean doing a doctoral thesis; for me finding intuitive understanding of physical concepts is all it takes, since so few people are willing to teach that way.

The gifts of Ni — independence and singular insight — are also its curse; nobody can understand your thought process but you. So get to know yourself, and study hard things. These are the only ways I know of developing Ni.

But here’s the catch: more than any other function, Ni needs time. You can’t expect to introduce it to a concept and get cohesive results minutes later. It needs to be fed days or even weeks in advance to produce a reliable solution. The price of insight is protracted effort. You must be willing to expend that effort to obtain the result you desire.

This raises an important point: how does an INTJ feed concepts into Ni to begin with? In short, through Te. You need to plan things and then carry out those plans. You need to take organized action in the external world. You need to logically analyze problems from so many angles that Ni is forced to produce an intuitive understanding of them.

This understanding is not a given, even for someone with Ni in their dominant slot. You must put in the effort, but the reward if you do is an understanding so deep and comprehensive that it will dwarf that of almost every other type. I have many, many more thoughts on the relationship between Te and Ni, but I won’t elaborate more in this already too-long essay. Please comment if you are interested in hearing some of them.


We now come to the synthesis of everything we have covered. That synthesis is: Ni requires, and produces, conceptual context. The INTJ mind is a vast underground cavern with miles of half-explored caves, tunnels, and deep pools. To an Ni dominant, describing a single room of this network seems pointless, and is in fact nearly impossible to do without delineating the surrounding structure. This explains the INJ’s seeming inability to communicate insights on demand, in stark contrast to the ENJ for whom Ni is just a faithful servant to the dominant judging function. Destroy algebra and calculus would collapse. Likewise, excised from the context in which they were conceived, the ideas of an Ni dominant become meaningless.

The ENJ is the boat floating on the surface of the ocean. The INJ is the ocean, and his ideas are the waves riding gently but unstoppably towards the shore. The best he can do is ride those waves as they come.

-Michael Castillo