noah and the flood

when you log on to relax and are immediately flooded with negativity

me leaving home at 6:40 am: cute and preppy, soft skin

me returning home at 5:30 pm: has seen the birth and destruction of a thousand empires, my death will bring about the end of the world, the Flood is Upon Us, Noah

Enantiodromia: How a Type Becomes Its Opposite

“Enantiodromia” is a Greek word that means “a running counter to”. The philosopher Heraclitus used it to refer to the tendency of one thing to turn into its opposite. In Jung’s typology, in practice, it’s what we could call a change of attitude, or a reversal of type. This can happen in a number of ways and for a number of different reasons: But, in this article, we’ll focus on what happens when the unconscious personality (centred around the inferior function) invades and overturns the conscious one (centred around the dominant). This is not unlike “The Grip” of contemporary MBTI discussions: However, the way it progresses is a bit more elaborate. Essentially, Enantiodromia consists of A) overvaluing the dominant function and attitude – which I’ve called Hubris, a word meaning pride and defiance of the gods – followed by B) an overwhelming invasion of consciousness by the inferior function-attitude – which I’ve called Nemesis, meaning divine retribution.

Jung’s Enantiodromia focuses on a certain chronology, an order of events. It goes something like this:

  1. Development of a one-sided consciousness: the dominant function-attitude is overvalued, and everything else is suppressed.
  2. Strengthening of the inferior function-attitude in the unconscious: “As above, so below.”
  3. Inhibition of conscious performance by the inferior function-attitude.
  4. Total breakthrough: the inferior function-attitude overtakes consciousness, resulting in a kind of nervous breakdown.
  5. This violent psychological “coup” ideally rebalances the individual’s psyche.

In past ages, we believed that gods and angels would regularly interfere in our lives, or that demons would possess us against our conscious will. An uncharacteristic bout of rage was the work of Ares; hopelessly falling in love was the work of Aphrodite. Now, we call these things influences from the unconscious. With this in mind, we can make allegories for the process of Enantiodromia using elements of mythology and religious stories; wherein the divine principle, the deity, is the unconscious; and the heroic principle, the protagonist, is consciousness. Two stand out:

The first allegory is Hubris and Nemesis, terms from Greek tragedy. Hubris is the sin of pride in the face of the gods. The prime example is of Icarus flying too close to the sun, his brashness overcoming the warnings of his father Daedalus. The image of a falling angel might also remind us of Lucifer, cast down from heaven, also for the sin of Hubris or pride in the face of God. Nemesis is the divine retribution, the goddess whose whole purpose was to enact punishment on the people who succumbed to Hubris.

The second allegory is the Deluge. The Deluge is an almost universal myth, in which a god floods the earth and its people to purify it. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is the story of Noah’s Ark. Humanity is corrupt and has sinned against God, so He floods the earth. He uses Noah as a kind of hard reset: the image of the Ark making landfall at the tip of a mountain, surrounded by ocean, is representative of the new beginning of consciousness emerging from the turmoil of the unconscious.

The goal of this process is to regulate and rebalance the psyche. It can’t operate properly when it’s cut off from itself: when consciousness and unconsciousness stand in stark opposition. When the inferior function-attitude invades consciousness, it destabilises and tears down the one-sided attitude: eventually replacing it with a new conscious attitude that, ideally, is more open and receptive to compensation from the inferior functions.

I’d point you to my Jung Abridged series, where each type description includes a rough picture of what happens when the type succumbs to Hubris, and is subsequently overcome by Nemesis. However, I’ll also include a brief chart here:

so i’m listening to the bible

cus some ppl who never read the bible use it as proof but don’t know what’s in it 

This is what i found out so far that was interesting:

-The first part where God creates shit is literally evolution but realy realy fast.
like i’m paraphrasing here but it says:
“ so god made fish and other creatures in the water and birds in the sky, and than he told the fish to walk on land and it did. and from that cows and live stock were created and so on on”
basically evolution

- God put Adam to sleep and stole his rib

- a woman is called a woMAN cus she came from man

- Eve’s punishment for eating the apple was labor pain and she was now Adams slave, While Adams was that his crops would be shitty. (so fair brah)

- Adam lived to be 930 and so did everyone else apparently

- one of Adams grand kids had 2 wives
- The ark was 137 m long 41 m wide and 13 m tall

- Noah was 600 when the flood happend 

- The dove brought back an olive leaf not branch (Ur fanart is wrong churches)

- literally everything else so far is (no joke) the narrator goin “and than he had this son and than he had this son and than he had this son and then he died, but than his son had this son etc..

Like if u want more i guess 
i have no idea wut i’m doin anymore

pls correct me if you think i got something wrong

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—

if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

—  2 Peter 2:4‭-‬9 NIV

iwentontheinternet  asked:

Hi Ivy, thank u for being a reasonable voice since S4. I still have a cognitive dissonance regarding your S4 reading, though. On the one hand I see it almost a 100%, on the other the creators bile towards johnlock reading creates a problem for me. Anyway, my q is related to the "almost". Why do you think John still wears his wedding ring in TFP (and in the final montage)? If they got together and now love of each other's lives, how can he wear it? Wouldn't' that go against your reading? Thanks!!

I’m not trying to convince you of my reading of Sherlock. It’s my reading and I love to share it, but I’m not here to convince you. You should have your own reading. Don’t let me, or anyone, creators included, tell you what you see.

When I was 16 I went to see Timothy Findley, Canadian author of one of my favourite books, Not Wanted on the Voyage. It’s a novel reinterpreting the story of Noah and the flood. In it, one of the characters, Japeth, is captured by cannibals and marinated in a pot. While trapped in the pot, it rains and rains and rains, and the water drips in and raises the level of the marinade in the pot to the point that he can push the lid off and escape. Once free, he discovers that the cannibals have all been struck by lightning in the storm. Japeth is blue for the rest of the story because of the marinade.

Like Japeth, Noah and his family are trapped on a boat, marinating not in a blue liquid, but in fear, faith, doubt, and each other. That experience shapes who they are ever after. It rains and rains until the world nearly comes to an end, but when the storm is over they are freed, the story suggests God has since died and there is no one dictating what happens next. Japeth’s time in the pot seemed like foreshadowing for the grander arc of the story.

So when I went to see Timothy Findley, when I was 16 years old, I brought him my book for him to sign, and I told him my theory about Japeth’s predicament being the entire story in miniature.

Timothy Findley was pleased by my interpretation and praised me for it.  But then he told me, “I just wanted Japeth to be blue.”

Does it matter that Timothy Findley didn’t intend for his story to include a summary of itself in the story of one of its characters? Does it mean I was wrong? It doesn’t matter whether or not it was intended. It’s still there, and I don’t think I was wrong.

I understand that creators weighing in and tell us what we’re supposed to see in a story is upsetting. I enjoy hearing what writers and creators have to say, honestly I could listen to them all day, but in the end I’m not that interested in accepting their interpretations over my own. Creators have a chance to create the story they want to in the narrative itself. After that, it’s up to the audience to decide what it means. If the evidence for my interpretation exists, no creator has a right to tell me that I’m wrong.


Regarding wedding rings: I don’t think John is ready to remove his wedding ring, and I’d be pretty surprised if he had been ready by the end of S4. It’s too soon. I don’t expect he’lll be ready for a step like that for a while. That’s very normal for anyone who loses a spouse, particularly in the fraught and painful way that John does.

That ring honours Mary’s role in John’s life in a way that he critically fails to do while she was alive, and as we know, that’s something he struggles with. Keeping that ring on is a way to cope with that failure.

Sherlock has always been very accepting of Mary’s role in John’s life (and by extension, his own). If they had recently opted to start redefining their relationship to each other, so to speak, and I don’t think Sherlock would be offended by John continuing to wear his wedding ring. I think what happened to Mary is very much a part of what happens next between them. Her absence is part of them. I think her final message to them says exactly that.

Wearing a wedding ring would certainly put anyone else off dating John, though. Obviously he’s not on the market for a new girlfriend. But he does seem awfully happy with his life at the end of S4, doesn’t he? Particularly for someone who had been, until now, almost constantly on the hunt for something more.

He’s been at his very, very lowest in this series, and lost almost everything, but he ends it happier than we’ve ever seen him. That’s kind of interesting, isn’t it?

The Talmud tells a story about the famed author of the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The rabbi was walking down the street one day, when a little calf ran up to him and hid under his cloak. Apparently, the calf had run away from the slaughterhouse.

The rabbi said to the calf, “Go back to be slaughtered, for this you have been created.” At this point, a Divine decree was made against him because he had not shown pity on the creature. As a result he become sick and suffered for many years, until one day he showed pity on a family of young rats and was suddenly healed.

We know that Judaism permits us to eat meat as long as the animal was slaughtered properly, so what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do that was so wrong? He incorrectly said, “for this you were created.” The Talmud is teaching us that, contrary to his declaration, animals were not created for human consumption. The first man and woman ate fruits and vegetables—not animals—in the Garden of Eden. It was only later, after the Flood during the time of Noah, that G-d allowed mankind to eat meat. The Talmud, therefore, is teaching us that eating meat is not a Torah ideal.

We cannot understand the exact connection between the sins of mankind and the subsequent permission to eat meat, but we do know that eating meat is a concession that G-d made. The ideal state of humanity is to be vegetarian.

—  Rabbi David Aaron

anonymous asked:

in dgm it's stated that nea found a third side to the war, do you have any theories about the side and what they might stand for??

Honestly, it’s hard to tell, because I’m still not 100% sure what the Noah and Innocence really fight for. 

The Noah want to eradicate humanity, but we don’t know why. I mean, humanity has already been destroyed once, during Noah’s Flood and current humanity is their descendants. Why do they want to do it again? And why didn’t they do it before the Cube was found? Is the Heart truly powerful enough to stop them?

Also, it is unclear what the Innocence itself wants. Destroy the Noah. And then? Does it care about the salvation as humanity or is ok with its extinction if it means the Noah die. What is it fighting for. 

Then there’s also Neah who said he hated humans and Cross who trusts Neah’s abilities enough to ally with him.  If the two are so shady though, why are there so many people willing to put their dibs on Neah? When he was properly introduced in ~189 certain translations said “I’m the Noah who will destroy everything” - so I suspect that currently he wants to destroy both sides and not win, but permnanetly end the war.

Using the Unusual; Metaphors and Similes in Creative Writing

while i was getting my bachelor’s in fiction writing, one of the most useful classes i ever took was a poetry class taught by a woman named Mary Leader because she really taught me to examine my prose. poetry, at least in her class, was an excellent way to fully capture the visuals, sounds, and setting of a particular moment in time, which is a skill (i believe) that prose writers can use as well.

but today I’m gonna focus on my particular favorite thing in writing, which is the Unexpected Metaphor or Simile.  (long post, and some really personal takes/analytical perspectives, but i hope this helps some people who want to get more creative with their analogies!)

Keep reading