emphasis on the ultimate

Prayer

Prayer is not merely a chore or a daily requirement. It is not a key for one’s entrance to heaven, nor does it promise such a notion. It is key to recognize the habitual act of the salat as a mean to be Present and connected to the heavens and cosmos at a particular time. In a sense, the occurrence of the salat at such metaphysically critical hours is to assert and remind us of our connections to the macrocosm.

The five daily prayers in Islam occur at pivotal points of the day- before sunrise, noon, before sunset, sunset, and post-sunset. Traditional cosmology and astrology have noticed a certain cosmic opening during these hours. There is no doubt that this is the reason behind the prayers being fixed in such a pattern. In fact, if one even looks at the Hindu tradition , its prayers and meditation methods are designated at similar hours , with a particular emphasis on the practice of mantras and meditation before sunrise.

Ultimately, the salat is a cosmic invitation to the infinite abode during the sacred times of the day. It is best for one to initiate the prayers right around the time of the azaan, to ensure that the flowing grace and light reaches the soul. We can always makeup the prayers if missed or forgotten, but in a sense when one has missed out on this time of sacred opening, one has missed to be Present. Salat is not a checklist that has to be marked off, rather it is a practice for those who wish to feel the pull of the universe right here, right now, in its own sacred manner.

Thus, I ask you to open your hearts to the cosmic pull and engage in the sacral opening during the times of salat. Be conscious of your intertwinement to existence, from a single particle to the infinite stars, and learn to cherish the moment rather than view it as a requirement. Feel the vibration of the words throughout every limb, experience the endless capacity of the soul within the finite body, and soak yourself into the showering grace of that time.

Once again, I reiterate that the five daily prayers are ringing bells to remind us of our existence. We have five official opportunities on a daily basis to  be aware of this eternal consciousness, and if a prayer is missed, then there is an opportunity for the next. Do not allow these simple and abundant reminders to go to waste. The salat is not a system or a requirement for being a good Muslim, but transcends all of those parameters. It is a merciful call from our Creator over and over again. So be Present- feel the energy of the stars and heavens, tune in to the holy sound of the azaan, be united with your Lord here and now— that is really all that it is about, and God knows best.

anonymous asked:

So I hate used to really ship Klaroline but lately my mind has been breaking on them. Idk I just think Klaus has done too many bad things to her and her friends to give him a second chance. Can you change my mind? Why do you ship them so hard?

Hi, okay so Idk if I’m going to be able to change ur mind because at the end of the day you feel how you feel. A lot of times I’ve doubted my shipping of Klaroline so ur not alone. The thing I wanna tell you before I start is that shipping is supposed to be fun so pls do not agonise over it; if it’s still fun, do it, if not, don’t.

(Warning: Anti D*mon and Dullena) 


*cracks knuckles*

So

  1. Firstly you have to remember when it comes to the issue of Klaroline being problematic, is that that all ships that stem from tvd or TO are inherently problematic. This is because the show its self is problematic. It’s misogynistic, it’s systematically racist and most relationships on the show put the female character at a distinct disadvantage. So very few ships can be seen as healthy or idealistic in the real world. I might say Stelena, Jolaric, and Jalaric are rare examples but even then those ships have their various issues.
  2. Secondly, even if the writers and the CW, in general, did a better job with their shows, you have to remember that this is the vampire genre. It’s meant to be gothic and the characters are meant to be morally dodgy, selfish and do horrifying things. TVD’s mistake was that it could never properly straddle the line between keeping up that gothic theme and appealing to a teen audience (hence the babies, and romanticising of characters that are clearly villains, - cough, cough Damon) so often they put too much emphasis on morality and people being either ‘good’ or ‘bad; even though supposedly good characters like: Matt, Bonnie, Caroline and Elena do bad, selfish things all the time. (More detail in point 3)
  3. Because Klaus was conceptualised when TVD was actually half good and they were still writing a show about vampires; dark, twisted, immoral, seductive, vampires; he hence is a product of that. Klaus is a vampire in the true sense. I don’t believe a person can be a Klaroline shipper unless they accept the fact that Klaus is not a good person. He’s not supposed to be and that’s part of what makes his dynamic with Caroline so interesting. Love, or infatuation/affection, doesn’t change him. Yes, he does things deviant to his ‘cold hearted bastard’ persona. The gifts, deviating from his evil plans for Caroline’s sake, showing mercy, reasoning, barging when he doesn’t have to etc… But none of these things makes him redeemable. This isn’t one of those ships where love makes the person more moral and good. In fact, in Caroline’s case, I’m quite sure it does the opposite - or would do, had they gotten more screen time - Caroline is very in denial about her vampirism. She constantly makes claims about how she’s a ‘good vampire’ (an oxymoron in its self) and is characterised as ‘judgy’ because she demands such a high moral standard from other people around her. And while yes, she is exceptionally good at controlling her urges and at self-discipline (likely a result of  being under Stefan’s self-denying mentoring program and learning about vampirism from someone who detests it because of his own lack of control) Caroline still does terrible things often just because it’s convenient for her or because it’s ‘what it takes to get the job done’. Caroline’s often the most level-headed out of all her friends when it comes to doing something immoral in aid of the greater good, in fact, she’s almost eerily ruthless, especially if said action if in aid of helping one of her friends. (See the slaughtering of the 12 witches for Bonnie’s sake). But Caroline doesn’t see that, she also very scarcely acknowledges how much she loves being a vampire and from day 1, Klaus has been perceptive of how much she does. From when he saves her life, to when he intuits that she doesn’t want the cure and predicts that small town life wouldn’t be enough for her + encouraging her to think outside of the box and use her vampire abilities to get a dress for prom. Even his smug little recital of what Caroline says in 5x11 (’in school, building a life for her self, plans… etc’) shows that he knows that Caroline is just playing herself with her whole ‘mission to be normal’ (e.g: being in school - whic she dropped out of - playing house with Alaric and the babies, being with Stefan, who was always ‘the perfect guy’ in Caroline’s mind, because of the pedestal she put him on, denying herself the true pleasures of vampirism). Furthermore one of the most poignant Klaroline scenes for me is when Klaus is burying the 12 witches and calls Caroline out because not a few hours ago she’s called him a terrible person, because he did terrible things and now here they are staring at the corpses of the witches Caroline killed for Bonnie, while also, inadvertently, enabling an evil, supernatural being to rise from the dead and raise hell. on mankind. For a Klaroline shipper the moment is agonising because Klaus passes up the opportunity to be a shoulder for Caroline to cry on but at the end of the day it was something she needed to hear and quite frankly doesn’t hear enough. As long as you’re a vampire and you feed of human flesh, lie, compel, steal, murder at your own leisure; as long as you’re a witch/human/hunter who enables or condones it, you cannot claim to be ‘good’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.
  4. The most important thing, in my opinion, to remember about Klaroline as a ship is that Klaus’s actions are never presented as okay. Caroline never tolerates anything he does and constantly calls him out on his behaviour, furthermore, the show doesn’t romanticise him or excuse/ignore his behaviour. In contrast characters like Damon, who magically become the hero because it’s the only convenient way to put him with Elena. Elena’s love is supposed to change him and make him a better person but we see no evidence of this on the show, Damon’s his same rapey, abusive self all 8 seasons. But with Klaus, no excuses are made. He’s not supposed to magically turn good, you ask why I ship them so hard? It’s because 9/10 in all their scenes together and in their dynamic in general Caroline always has agency and nearly always has the upper hand, even when she’s dying. She manipulates Klaus into saving her life (”I know you’re in love with me’ ‘I guess we’ll never know’) in fact I’m convinced that Caroline used her A1 drama skills in that last part where Caroline makes those little croaky dying noises and was actually laying it on thick so that Klaus would be moved enough to save her- which he did. Caroline constantly manipulates Klaus and uses her emotional upper hand against him (’Show me I can trust you’ ‘I was promised a date for one of my hybrids’ ‘Show me your compassion’). So the relationship doesn’t just purely consist of Klaus doing horrible thing to Caroline and her friends and getting away with it. It’s far more complicated than that, there’s a power struggle involved and it’s extremely gripping and intriguing.
  5. When it comes down to it, Caroline was Klaus’ first choice, unlike many other TVD relationships, their’s is centered around Caroline (take dullena for example, even in a show centred entirely around elena, every bit of their relationship is all about Damon, or he finds a way to make it about him). Like I said Caroline has the agency, the emphasis is on her future, her hopes, her dreams and ultimately he respects her wishes, leaves mystic falls gives her space and waits for her to be ready.

I hope that helps or gives you some perspective. Anyone who wants to chime in please feel free to add something else.

anonymous asked:

Julie is totally making yousana endgame because there's so much emphasis on them. Last HB video was there to show us how depressed Yousef was. They even had text messages and the last clip reference it so the audience would see it. And then there's so much emphasis on Sana feeling sick with jealousy and the carrots. Even though they haven't shared a scene for a while, they're the focal point of. Yousef is the person Sana feels she can be her true self with. She needs that to be happy.

I COMPLETELY AGREE also notice how 70% of ALL clips in the entire season has SOMETHING to do with yousef - ep 1 had 4/5, ep 2 had ¾, ep 3 had 4/5, ep 4 had ¾, ep 5 3/5, ep 6 had 2/5, ep 7 had 2/5. there wouldn’t be such an emphasis on yousef if he weren’t ultimately important for sana’s story

hellyeahtitans67  asked:

Regarding Darkseid then, for me as a Catholic I've always placed emphasis on the Satan archetype being the ultimate evil in any fictional universe hence why I somewhat tend to go next to Trigon and from what I get, the Apokoliptans are basically the closest we'll get to a Satanic archetype from Norse Mythology. Is there some elements of Satan in Darkseid (like is his immortal and tempts sentient life to misdeeds for his benefits)? Just curious

Certainly there’s a bit of Satan in there; he’s a god of evil and unrelenting power who tempts sinners and schemes against the light of the highest of fathers. But for him, that’s only on a surface level. For Trigon, that surface is all there is; he was a mean bad demon baby (as opposed to the thoroughly charming Darkseid baby) with devil iconography who killed a whole bunch of people and became god-king of what amounted to hell until a bunch of teenagers in leotards beat him up. He’s hardly unique in that regard; from C.W. Saturn to Satanus to Neron to Doctor Hurt to the First of the Fallen to Vyndktvx, DC’s absolutely lousy with devil figures, with the actual Lucifer of the bunch mostly just hanging out and running a piano bar in L.A. these days. Some of them are better than others, but the fulfillment of that archetype - however uniquely or subversively - is what they’re all about.

Darkseid has his own thing going on.

What it really amounts to above all else - as I understand it, allowing that I didn’t go to Sunday school as a kid - is that Satan is a rebel, at least as far as Milton popularly defined him. He wants to be free, he wants to define himself on his own terms, and whether that’s borne of a genuine ideological divide, sheer ego, or both, that’s the starting point of everything he does. He will endure Hell if it means God can’t tell him what to do anymore, or at the very least he can spit in the lord’s eye. If anything, Lex Luthor’s the most traditional Satan that DC has to offer, in terms of stature and motivation.

Darkseid on the other hand? He wants order, not rebellion - absolute, irrefutable, cosmic order. He’ll push and prod and manipulate and intimidate and even dispense rewards as appropriate to edge towards that order, tempting us to listen to the “other side” as it brings us closer to himself, but freedom plays no role in his desires, because his endgame leaves him with nothing to be free of. Even “conquest” or “domination” are ultimately too weak as concepts to encompass the scope of what he craves; want he wants isn’t to rule men and gods, but for them to stop being in any way that matters, along with everything else in creation except for Darkseid. To him this is perhaps almost something like a moral right, insomuch as that idea is capable of forming in his head, because to him any other outcome is clearly, utterly unacceptable, permitting as it would anything to exist that isn’t Darkseid.

A couple people have put it well; @andrewhickeywriter had a great piece on Darkseid, and Chris Sims had a solid look at the basics of it (even if it positioned his relationship to Superman as far more central than I see it; I’m very much in the camp of his villainous status to the DCU as a whole being completely secondary to his status as the villain of the Fourth World story). And as usual, Grant Morrison put it pretty well, in this case in the script for the first issue of Final Crisis

His is a hatred without emotion, a cold, utterly inhuman and destructive thing. Nothing is real in his world but Darkseid. He would feel perfect if it wasn’t for the whole universe hating him, so he obviously has to bring the universe into line with his viewpoint or he’ll never feel comfortable. Darkseid has no experience of love, tenderness, sorrow. He is monstrously, sociopathically at odds with all free, living things. Everything that is not Darkseid is a thorn in his side and must be converted. Only when the whole universe is an expression of Darkseid’s will can it ever feel comfortable to him. He does terrible things because…he MUST.

So no, I don’t quite see them as equivalents. DC’s Lucifer for instance would likely find Darkseid’s goals banal and pointless in the extreme, while Darkseid would consider the Morningstar a childish, weak-willed wandering fool without the ambition to match his power. They are, after all, products of different moral orders: Satan is classically born of a moral axis of Order vs. Chaos, while Darkseid exists in the context of Control vs. Freedom, with which side you take having vastly different implications in those different frameworks. The Devil wants to do his own thing, whatever the consequences for the rest of us. Darkseid wants us all to do his, to the point where “us” becomes an anachronism, because when that day comes, only Darkseid Is.

“I wasn’t aware that super-mega-ultra-ley-cool was an adjective, Alan. Let alone one used to describe meditation.”

The Disappearing City In Peru

The Chimu people once had a vast empire that stretched more than 1000 kilometres from southern Ecuador down the coast of Peru. It was built on the remnants fo the Moche culture. Their empire thrived thanks to complicated water works to bring water to the desert, and the abundant seafood off the coast.

At one point, their capital Chan Chan housed over 30,000 inhabitants. That makes it the largest city in the Americas before Europeans arrived. It had been founded in 850 CE, and eventually covered over 20 square kilometers. Chan Chan had grand palaces, public meeting spaces, and of couse lots of houses!

Some of the walls have intricate designs of the things that were important to this culture – so lots of seafood. In the middle of the compound, representing the most important thing of all – water – a large lake was used for aesthetic and ceremonial purposes. Although Chan Chan was a functioning city, the Chimu put great emphasis on art and design and this citadel was one of the ultimate showcases of this.

Today, Chan Chan is under threat – not from the Incans who stormed in and ended the Chimu, or the Spanish who stripped the city of its precious gold and silver – but from the weather. Since Chan Chan is made from mudbrick, it erodes in rain. With changing weather patterns what was once the driest place on earth is getting lots more rain. Peru is trying to protect this once-great city, but UNESCO has named it an at-risk site and the site is so large perfect protection is impossible.

Reasons to watch Hellsing Ultimate
  • REAL vampire action (emphasis on real because violent and bloody and no mercy u v u)
  • Puts religion in a positive light on both the protestant and catholic sides
  • Badasses. Badasses everywhere. Even the butler and on the catholic side. 
  • Single lady Integra Fairbrooke Wingates Hellsing (runs an entire vampire/ghoul killing estate and got no time for a man u v u)
  • An ass-kicking yet bumbly and silly police girl with cannons (bitches love cannons)
  • Comic relief mixed in with beautiful and flowing action 
  • Engaging monologues (this anime has some of the best voice acting you’ll ever hear in an English dub) 
  • The perfect Halloween anime. Go watch while the season is still fresh!

anonymous asked:

Okay this is probably a very stupid question but it's basically about Haikyuu and since you're familiar with Japanes I'm just going to ask: So it always kinda confused me that they're basically address each other with their family name like "Oikawa, Iwaizumi, kageyama etc." isn't that kind of weird? If I'm friends with someone I don't address them with their family name :/ Could you maybe explain this ? :)

In Japanese culture it is customary for people to address each other by their family names, and not by their given name. Plain and simple; that’s just how it is. For some obvious reasons, families are an exception to this rule.

TL;DR ahead

In haikyuu!! everyone’s mostly referred to by their last names because, simply put, they aren’t good enough friends to call each other by their given names. If you think about it, they’ve pretty much only just met.

To complicate this a little bit, if you are close enough with someone (read: good friends), it is sometimes acceptable for you to address that person by their given name. (so, in theory, Iwaizumi and Oikawa could call each other Tooru and Hajime. The problem with this is that they’ve known each other for so long that calling each other by their first names might seem a little too intimate. In anime usually, calling someone by their first name in young adulthood can be embarrassing and have other implications). 

To add to this, if you are older than someone it is also more acceptable for you to call them by their first name, though most people still use last names. For example, Oikawa can call Kageyama “Tobio-chan” because he’s  1) older than Kageyama, 2) a superior in school, and 3)  he’s known him for a few years. (Mostly, though, he just uses “Tobio-chan” as a way to tease and exercise his superiority). 

Ultimately, the emphasis should be on the fact that calling someone by their first name can show a deeper level of friendship (or intimacy) between two people. (like sugawara calling sawamura, “Daichi”) Foreigners aren’t typically expected to abide by this rule, unless you are a working professional, then you are.

in my head i think of it a bit like this:
last name - Friends/coworkers/employers/acquaintances/strangers
last name nickname/first name/first name nickname - Friends/close friends/ family

If you’re looking for the specific historical explanation as to why this is, i’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place, bc i don’t know. 

I feel like society today puts way too much emphasis on success when we should be putting the emphasis on the process that gets us there. Ultimately being successful is just the destination in a journey that has no set timeline. Our successes and failures don’t define us so don’t let society make you think you’re worthless just because you’re not winning right now. Take control, push yourself and don’t give up. Focus on where you are right now and what your next step is, not where you’re “supposed to be” or where you desire to be. Pay attention to the process and knock shit off the list one by one until you reach the top.

5

Artwork Spotlight: The Arts

Alfons Mucha, 1896

Today is the 155th anniversary of Alfons Mucha’s birth. He was born in the town of Ivančice in the Moravian region of what is now the Czech Republic on July 24, 1860. I’m planning in the future to feature him in one of my artist spotlights, and I will at that time delve more into his biography and why he is such an iconic artist today, but today, in honor of his birthday, I will discuss one of his most iconic works, the four decorative panels on the arts he produced in 1896.

Before delving into imagery and style, I will first delve into their purpose. Mucha’s first successful work was in posters, and these works bear many similarities to his poster work, including the vertical format and compositions centered on single female figures. However, these are not posters. They advertise nothing and were never meant to hang in a public venue. Rather they are panneaux, decorative panels, meant to be luxury objects, printed using the lithographic process in large-format on silk or high-quality paper and hung in private rooms as decoration. 

Since they served a decorative purpose, it’s easy to see them as just pretty images with little meaning or depth. But they do function, as pretty much all of Mucha’s panel art does, as allegories. Other series of panel arts he did include ones centering on flowers, precious stones, stars, and the times of day. However the Arts series is unique in two ways. One is the fact that its main subject, the Arts, are not aspects of nature but are human processes. The second quality that sets it apart is that it is a double allegory. While it is ostensibly about the arts, it also functions as a subtle ”times of day” series. So each panel has a dual sense. The Dance panel also functions as the morning panel, the Painting panel as day, the Poetry panel as evening, and the Music panel as night. The two themes feed into each other.

Stylistically the panels share the same style of linework. Shading is used sparingly and represented mostly by hatching. Mucha uses thicker linework outlining the female figure and the roundels, but most of the linework is very fine. Harder to discuss is the coloring, since different printings yield slightly different color schemes, but most printings show muted, pastel colors or warm colors. Composition-wise, the panels are strongly vertical. Space is carefully delineated by the roundels surrounding the figures, which also provide a seat for three of the figures. Background is barely suggested; perspective is non-existent. Flowers in the upper corners and arabesques lining the sides of the lower half of the panels add a highly ornamental effect. 

Within the space of the roundels, half-delineated landscapes provide the sole suggestion that these panels inhabit any sort of reality. They give us visual clues as to what these panels depict. In Dance, leaves flutter beyond the confines of the roundel as the bare suggestion of trees evoke a landscape in the morning mist. In Painting, sunlight beams on a flower in stylized circles as the background depicts a noon sky. In Poetry, the most clearly depicted landscape shows the sun setting behind trees. In Music, branches laden with nighttime songbirds stand out darkly in front of the moon. The landscapes themselves have little perspective. The entire atmosphere is highly unnatural, almost mystical.

The female figures are central to the images. Not Symbolist femme fatales, not modernistic Parisian beauties, they have sexual appeal but are hardly acting in a manner one would consider seductive. Like in most of his panel art, they seem to function as allegorical spirits. Their poses are highly stylized, as if they are intentionally presenting themselves. None of them are clearly moving, but seem rather to be in poses suggesting movement. Even Dance stands surprisingly straight considering she represents an art form defined by activity. In fact all these panels would be incredibly still, in fact even uninteresting, were it not for the complex flow of fabric, hair, and arabesques that provide an extra layer to the composition as well as visual interest. Visual interest is provided also by the details of the highly fantastic clothing which further divorce the images from any clear culture or reality, and the unusual details of the roundels.

Beyond the relative lack of motion in the figures themselves is also the curious fact that none of them is participating in the art they represent. Even Dance does not dance but instead holds an impossible pose that no dancer would naturally be able to get into, get out of, or hold. Instead they seem to be caught in acts of inspiration. Dance stands and arcs her back against the breeze blowing against her. Painting watches the sunlight reflect off the flower she holds and seems to trace with her loose hand its outline. Poetry watches the landscape before her, musing on the evocative scene. Music listens to birds with her hands to her ears, while in the roundel around her a motif of a disembodied hand plucking stylized strings of starlight is repeated. That Mucha goes for such an unusual depiction of the arts invites further analysis. To me two messages are readily apparent.

One is the emphasis on the idea that all art has ultimately natural inspiration. To the Art Nouveau designer, this is a given. Mucha worked in the age that saw the triumph of nature as artistic inspiration. There was never such a time when artists and designers were so influenced by natural world. Indeed the focus here on the way nature inspires the arts not only emphasizes the importance of natural inspiration but also emphasizes it over the physical process of creating. The artist is placed in the passive position of spectator of the natural world instead of a creator. Ultimately, Mucha seems to say it is better for that artist not to think of oneself not as a creator, but as a transcriber and translator of the already-created. That Mucha depicts the artists of these scenes as women connects them to already established tradition in Symbolist art of using women to depict nature herself and the forces that control it. So Mucha’s artists are both separate from nature, in other words spectators of it, and representative of it, an actor of nature demonstrating its power as much as the dancing leaves or the singing birds. There is thus interwoven in this idea of natural inspiration the idea that the artistic process is a continuation of the natural processes that influence it.

The second and final message I feel this work conveys is the idea that art is primarily a mental process. In the time of Mucha, the idea that artists and designers were essentially nothing more than craftsmen was already outdated. Already in this period artists were seen as thinkers and philosophers, and their work were seen as valuable because they embodied concepts of truth. As the modern era has played out to now, the idea has continued to take hold that art derives value more from the concepts behind it than from the virtuosic skill used to make it. Mucha’s panels make a subtle commentary on this, considering that only a few years later cubism would throw these ideas into the spotlight. I would not go so far as to call these works masterpieces of conceptualism. But Mucha, by showing no final product nor depicting any of his figures actively making one, puts all the emphasis in this allegory of art on the thought, the inspiration, the mentality of creation. 

It should be noted the most detailed part of the work is in the upper parts of the images and in the figures themselves. One’s eyes are focused almost entirely on the space within the roundels, where reality is most fully fleshed out, and where we are forced to confront both the figures and their inspiration. Music and Dance make eye contact with us, perhaps reflecting the immediate and involving naturre of their art forms, while Painting and Poetry are lost in thought. Beyond the roundels everything melts into nothing. It is possible even that what is in the roundels are not real, that the women are imagining everything around them, or remembering hazily something they already saw, meaning that beyond the figures, the whole image is the depiction of their mental process. The landscapes, which seem before the most real part of the background, may be no more real than the arabesques.

Because the world of the images is so stylized, the viewer is made to reflect on the artifice of the work. In the end wondering whether the figures are observing or imagining is unimportant, as the figures and everything around them are already the product of someone’s imagination and mental process, lovingly made and beautiful to look at. Mucha’s work later in his life would indulge more and more in heavy-handed allegory, but this is perhaps his only work that tries to allegorize the artistic process. That he does it in this way, that plays so much with our understanding of thought and inspiration’s role in art, and our understanding of when nature ends and art begins, shows himself as an artist willing to play with heady, intellectual concepts even where you would not expect them.

Essentialism: A philosophical problem?

“In art, essentialism is the idea that each medium has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, contingent on its mode of communication. A chase scene, for example, may be appropriate for motion pictures, but poorly realized in poetry, because the essential components of the poetic medium are ill suited to convey the information of a chase scene. This idea may be further refined, and it may be said that the haiku is a poor vehicle for describing a lover’s affection, as opposed to the sonnet. Essentialism is attractive to artists, because it not only delineates the role of art and media, but also prescribes a method for evaluating art (quality correlates to the degree of organic form). However, considerable criticism has been leveled at essentialism, which has been unable to formally define organic form or for that matter, medium. What, after all, is the medium of poetry? If it is language, how is this distinct from the medium of prose fiction? Is the distinction really a distinction in medium or genre? Questions about organic form, its definition, and its role in art remain controversial. Generally, working artists accept some form of the concept of organic form, whereas philosophers have tended to regard it as vague and irrelevant.”

So, paraphrasing to the best of my knowledge: Each medium of communication has strengths and weaknesses, depending on the mode of communication. After this, the other question is, ‘how do we evaluate art?’. What is organic form? What is a medium? How is one form of media like poetry different from haiku, etc.

I’m going to try and discuss this problem.

1. I believe that certain forms of communication work better than others, depending on how/what message you want to convey.

What is organic form?
“A work is said to possess an organic form if the work’s structure has originated from the materials and subjects used by the author, "as a plant”. It stands in contrast to a mechanical form, a work which has been produced in accordance with artificial rules. Samuel Coleridge suggested that the concept of organic form meant that a poem or literary piece was shaped, rather than structured, from within. The use of the form allowed a piece to uniquely develop itself as it unfolded, and ultimately revealed an emphasis on the whole outcome of the piece, including the connections of each development to each other. In contrast to the more mechanical processes and rules which many critics believed were necessary for the formation of poetry and works, S.T. Coleridge determined that a more subconscious approach was possible through the, ‘‘imagination of the artist’’ whereby the outcome is an organic form, where ‘‘content and form have coalesced and fused’’

Is seems to me the organic form must arise by itself. In my opinion, I’m not sure about calling this art. Art like literature, sculpture, painting, etc. MUST be mechanical because of it arising from the artist. Organic art cannot arise from an artist, because art is made to fit constraints. We cannot call a haiku a ballet, yet we call a novel a painting or a sculpture. But we cannot call a ballet a painting, or a novel a ballet. A ballet is not a waltz.

Art and Organic Form are different things!
But then how are Art and Organic Form related to each other?

They are connected by the idea of beauty/ugliness, a response of a certain energy that occurs.
Since we can be unsure of outside of our mind, beauty/ugliness rests within the mind and perception that creates a certain defined reaction of pleasure or disgust.

Definition:
Art form - A 'crafted’ work by deliberate action. It is not produced on its own/through its own work. It does provoke a response, ! It has intention! Organic form does not have intention.
Example: A tornado rips through a corn field tearing out a path that looks like the letters D O & G.
A tornado had no intent to spell out the word Dog. It just happens, non intentionally.

(The ! means I suddenly had an idea)

This 'intentionality’ allows use to formulate a way to evaluate an Art Form. Quality relates, not to organic form, but to Intentionality. How well does the communication of intent from the artist to the viewer succeed? Art is a way of expressing intent. Which strangely makes sense.

Let’s us hypothesize an art student is assigned a pottery assignment. He is given a lump of clay. He does nothing to it, and turns it in for a grade. The teacher gives him an F. The art student’s intent was to showcase the natural form of the clay, and in this case he failed. But let us say the teacher gives the an A because the teacher felt he was trying to show case the natural form of the clay. The Art form was a success!

However let us switch the intention. Let us say the art student simply didn’t want to do the work. In this case if the teacher gives him an A, the art form was actually a failure, because the intention did not communicate well. The teacher giving a F is now the success, why then did he get an F?

What is a medium? The structure of intentionality. And yes, it does largely depend on defining the structure. You can convey a chase scene in a poem as well as a painting. It largely depends on how well the intent is conveyed.

So, What, after all, is the medium of poetry? If it is language, how is this distinct from the medium of prose fiction? Is the distinction really a distinction in medium or genre? Yes, the distinction is a matter of structure.

anonymous asked:

Why does sasusaku want minakushi to parallel their ship? Isn't that what Sasuke's parents are for?

First off, I’d like to say I’m putting this in the SS tag because it relates to them. Not because I’m looking for a fight or anything.

MinaKushi is an indisputable ship in the fandom. You don’t have to necessarily like it, but it’s canon in the sense that without it, there is literally no story. Without them, there is no Naruto. And with no Naruto, there is no story. Some would claim that Sasuke and Sakura drive the story, but they would be wrong.

The other thing about MinaKushi is that their story has a lot of emphasis on the red thread of fate, which is basically the ultimate form of love story. SasuSaku so badly wants to be this, when they really aren’t. As much as some people don’t want to admit it, they don’t exactly have the happiest (for lack of a better word) relationship in the world. They aren’t this lovey dovey and passionate relationship that gets presented in fanon so much. It’s quiet and subdued and that’s what works for them. 

As for the bit about Sasuke’s parents, I hadn’t thought about it before, but now that I do, yeah. Sasuke and Sakura have parallels to Fugaku and Mikoto, while Naruto and Hinata have parallels to Minato and Kushina. None of these parallels are perfect matches for each other, but they do fit with each other.

[L]esbians are represented as outside the sexual economy, tied to home and childbearing, while the gay male characters exist in a world of backrooms and anonymous sex. Lesbians are thereby also […] situated outside potential radicalism and necessarily imbricated with assimilationist politics. [Suzanna Danuta] Walters asserts that such characterization is common to the “new queer culture” wherein “gay male sex and its histories have become the very model of radical chic”, while lesbian sexual history is characterized as nonexistent and lesbians are portrayed as puritanical. While repression of certain forms of sexuality and gender expression have certainly taken place, the emphasis on the “lesbian sex police” as the ultimate repressors, instead of the mechanisms of repression enacted by heterosexist and homophobic society, is curious.
—  Rebecca Beirne (2008): Lesbians in Television and Text After the Millennium
3

Israel’s March 17 election is two years earlier than it should be, thanks to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government in December. Contributing to the breakup was an impassioned debate over whether a stronger legal emphasis on the country’s Jewish character would ultimately make Israel less democratic.

In Israel’s early years, leaders hoped that becoming Israeli would unite the nation’s diverse population, which now includes Jews of eastern European origin, of Middle Eastern descent and, more recently, from Africa; secular liberals; right-wing West Bank settlers; ultra-Orthodox of many sects and large numbers of Russians not recognized as Jewish by government rabbis. Twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Arabs; many feel loyal to both Israel and their Palestinian relatives.

All these individuals and groups have their own definitions of what it means to be Israeli. While more than three-fourths of Jewish citizens say they are proud to be Israeli, the number has been dropping in recent years, according to pollster Tamar Herman, with the Israel Democracy Institute.

In Israel, A Vote To Choose A Leader And An Identity

Photo credit: Emily Harris/NPR

Top: Daniella Weiss is a prominent West Bank settler who believes the entire territory should be recognized as part of Israel. Now a grandmother of 18, her activism at times leads her into conflict with Israeli authorities.

Left: Nava Hefetz directs the education program of Rabbis for Human Rights and is a strong advocate of studying the country’s founding laws that promise equal rights for all. She is a Reform rabbi in a country dominated by the Orthodox rabbinate. ‘I’m not recognized by the state,’ she says.

Right: Uzzi Ornan, 91, built bombs to fight the British who ruled before Israel gained statehood in 1948. He has since battled the state of Israel, saying he should be identified as 'Israeli’ and not as 'Jewish’ on official documents. A nation, he says is 'one territory, one people, everyone who lives here.’

lusarity  asked:

Hey there LazyYogi! I've been following the blog for a while and found solace when I felt grim. Up until recently, I was meditating twice a day, I was eating right, I didn't feel depressed nor anxious any more, and everything seemed, just right. One day, I just awoke and didn't feel like doing anything. I stopped reading the book you recommend, The Places That Scare You, and I just don't know what is happening. I've tried to meditate again, but didn't even get through 1 minute. Any advice? :(

This is a very common experience. It is also a sign of progress. 

Before, you were taking up the path of meditation and self-care as a way to stave off depression and anxiety. And it worked! But then once the depression and anxiety ceased to be a major influence on your state of mind, you lost the motivation for your practice.

Motivation for spiritual practice is an important facet of the path. That motivation can and will shift throughout your journey. 

Most people start on the spiritual path for narrow reasons, personal reasons. Perhaps they have depression or anxiety but they may have also had a close encounter with death, a looming fear, a desire for something divine, or some sense of lack that needs completion. 

Whatever the form such narrow reasons take, it is temporary. As you have experienced, depression and anxiety can and will melt away. Fears, desires, and delusions will give way to clarity and peace. But then what? If your motivation stops there, then so does your path. 

There are two ways you can “level-up” your motivation. 

  1. Aspire to endless happiness and peace supreme by orienting your path toward self-realization.

    Sooner or later we must really acknowledge that we will die. Everything we consider to be who we are will end. Every reason we have to be happy, playful, and loving will end. Everyone we love will dissipate.

    This is a very sad fact. So how is it that realized sages of the past and present have emphasized this fact and yet themselves remain jolly and peaceful? They must existentially know something of which we are unaware.

    We cannot avoid the limiting aspects of bodily incarnation and worldly existence, nor can we pretend that our beliefs and desires are enough to save us. Instead, if we really wish for authentic liberation from suffering, then we must question those very beliefs. 

    Spiritual practices such as meditation, mindfulness, energy work, and so on are all methods for questioning the assumptions on which we base our sense of reality. The emphasis, however, isn’t on the “ultimate answer” but the end of all possible questioning. 

  2. Aspire to liberate all sentient beings from suffering. 

    It is not enough for us to seek liberation and freedom from suffering for only ourselves. Until our motivation includes the whole, it is still limited by the false sense of separateness. 

    How can we possibly help liberate all beings? On an ultimate level, the best way we can do so is with our own enlightenment. Buddha was a single human but his enlightenment changed countless lives and led numberless people from suffering to peace. There is no fundamental difference between you and Buddha. He started on his path not to save everyone but to find his way out of the riddle he later called samsara. After his enlightenment, he was graced with tremendous capacity to help others. 

    On a more immediate level, we can help others directly through the practices of compassion, charity, and clarity. When you meditate now, it is not just so you can be free from your suffering, but also so you can be free from causing others suffering. And so you can even start to take in ignorance and pain and transmute them into clarity and love. 

    This is a very potent motivation because it is always building. As you noticed with your own motivation, once the circumstances that caused you to meditate changed, you lost the will to meditate. When your motivation is connected to a universal well-being, it is continual and undiminished. 

But in the end, the most simple meditation advice I can give is this: When times are good, meditate. When times are bad, meditate. 

It doesn’t matter if you feel like it or if your meditation feels awful and unfocused. Pick the amount of time you will sit daily and do it. Rain or shine. Don’t expect anything and don’t avoid anything. 

Keep after it! You’re at an important change of the tides. 

Namaste :) Much love. 

The Way of the Ackerman Clan, Part 1: 武士道 Bushido

First off, thank you guys for the support on my post discussing Erwin being referred to as Levi’s master and how it was worded! It’s gotten a lot more positive feedback than I anticipated, and that really means a lot to me. Hugs for all ^^

@ongzori reminded me of the fact that Japanese fans call the Ackerman family 武家 (buke) of the SNKverse, and I find this very intriguing! In the real world, this is what the Japanese call their warrior clans, which are specifically known in English to be the samurai! Its assigned kanji is , the Chinese character that means “to serve,” “to accompany one’s superior,” and of course, “one who serves.”

I don’t know enough about Japanese history to talk about samurai at length, but I can pitch in somewhat when it comes to the way of the samurai, or 武士道 (bushido)! It’s still very much present in modern day Japanese culture, and yes, loyalty is indeed THE most important one among all of its core principles. Bushido has been romanticized in fiction again and again, perhaps for as long as it has existed. 

The more I did my fact-checking for this post, though, the more I’ve come to think that the way Erwin and Levi interact with each other reminds me of bushido’s traditional Confucianism counterpart: 士道 (shìdào). In fact, I’m actually entertaining the idea that their relationship follows the virtues of 士道 more. 

However, this post has gotten so ridiculously long that I’ve decided to split it in two for the following reasons:

  • While a lot of people have heard of bushido, it seems that knowledge of 士道 is…not very widespread. It doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia entry! Heck, even my dad, who grew up learning about Confucianism in school, didn’t know it was a thing prior to me asking him about it x’D
  • Speaking of Confucianism, I’d like to talk a bit more about that as well. Bushido itself is quite heavily influenced by its philosophies.
  • I want to do more reading so I can back my claims properly.
  • You guys can have something to read in the meantime!

So yeah! It’ll probably be a few days before it’s ready to be read - I do have a life outside of fandoming, haha ^^; - but I hope it’ll be worth the wait! I’ll also update this post to include a link to part 2 when I’m done, so stay tuned for the next installment ^^

Whew, even the foreword of this post got really long! In any case, it’s finally time to talk about the eight virtues of bushido.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

After that I listened to your latest podcast I wondered, what do you think we should strive for, if not happiness?

I think we should strive for wholeness. Emotions aren’t sustainable goals because emotions are temporary. All of them. I also think that looking at happiness as the ultimate goal places a higher emphasis on it. It creates this hierarchy where happiness is the best emotion, and I don’t agree with that. I believe that there’s a reason for every feeling. That reason for me is something that I choose to find, so like this isn’t like an overall universal rule. What even is happiness? I think when most people think of happiness, they think of what it represents. But if you just had happiness, you’d be bored. 

When I say I want wholeness, I mean that I want to entire spectrum of emotions. I want to experience as much as I can of what it means to be human. I want to build a full and complete life in whatever way that I can for myself. I want to share that life with other people. I want to create something really full and real and important, and to do that I need way more than happiness. I need sadness, devastation, jealousy, insecurity, pride, anger, etc. I need and want all of it because I’m painting a picture out of my life. And the best paintings are the ones that are multi-dimensional, complex, and able to be interpreted in an infinity of ways.

I wanna throw up some of this reads so pretentious lol sorry guys.