value judgments

Unlearn internalized misogyny in your writing.

  • Femininity is not weakness 
  • Softness is not bad 
  • It is possible to enjoy both traditionally​ male activities and traditionally female activities 
  • Other women are not amoral temptresses or rivals 
  • There’s nothing wrong with a woman knowing she’s attractive 
  • There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to be attractive 
  • Attractiveness has no bearing on sexual desire or history 
  • Being sexually active has no bearing in a woman’s morals or character 
  • Not being sexually active has no bearing in a woman’s morals or character 
  • Weight is not a value judgment 
  • Attractiveness is not a value judgment 
  • Able-bodiedness is not a value judgment
  • The ability to bear children has no bearing on womanhood
  • The desire or decision whether to have children has no bearing on womanhood
  • Women can and do support each other, even when they’re working towards different goals 
  • Women can be friends even when they want different things 
  • Thin white women don’t have exclusive rights to femininity 
  • Butch women are just as validly women 
  • Queer women are just as validly women 
  • Women can be as vicious, cruel, petty, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and abusive as men, and they shouldn’t be excused from it because of their gender 
  • Being a woman has nothing to do with genitals, chromosomes, or physical presentation
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.”

Sense8 MBTI

Sun Bak

ISTJs are quiet and reserved individuals who are interested in security and peaceful living. They have a strongly-felt internal sense of duty, which lends them a serious air and the motivation to follow through on tasks. Organized and methodical in their approach, they can generally succeed at any task which they undertake. ISTJs are very loyal, faithful, and dependable. They place great importance on honesty and integrity. They are “good citizens” who can be depended on to do the right thing for their families and communities. 

The ISTJ is not naturally in tune with their own feelings and the feelings of others. They may have difficulty picking up on emotional needs immediately, as they are presented.  ISTJs are likely to be uncomfortable expressing affection and emotion to others. However, their strong sense of duty and the ability to see what needs to be done in any situation usually allows them to overcome their natural reservations, and they are usually quite supporting and caring individuals with the people that they love. Once the ISTJ realizes the emotional needs of those who are close to them, they put forth effort to meet those needs. [Personality Page]


Nomi Marks

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

INTPs do not like to lead or control people. They’re very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance. The INTP is likely to be very shy when it comes to meeting new people. On the other hand, the INTP is very self-confident and gregarious around people they know well, or when discussing theories which they fully understand. [Personality Page]


Kala Dendekar

ISFJs live in a world that is concrete and kind. They are truly warm and kind-hearted, and want to believe the best of people. They value harmony and cooperation, and are likely to be very sensitive to other people’s feelings. People value the ISFJ for their consideration and awareness, and their ability to bring out the best in others by their firm desire to believe the best. More so than other types, ISFJs are extremely aware of their own internal feelings, as well as other people’s feelings. They do not usually express their own feelings, keeping things inside. If they are negative feelings, they may build up inside the ISFJ until they turn into firm judgments against individuals which are difficult to unseed, once set. Many ISFJs learn to express themselves, and find outlets for their powerful emotions. 

The ISFJ feels a strong sense of responsibility and duty. They take their responsibilities very seriously, and can be counted on to follow through. For this reason, people naturally tend to rely on them. The ISFJ has a difficult time saying “no” when asked to do something, and may become over-burdened. In such cases, the ISFJ does not usually express their difficulties to others, because they intensely dislike conflict, and because they tend to place other people’s needs over their own. The ISFJ needs to learn to identify, value, and express their own needs, if they wish to avoid becoming over-worked and taken for granted. [Personality Page]


Riley Blue

ISFPs live in the world of sensation possibilities. They are keenly in tune with the way things look, taste, sound, feel and smell. They have a strong aesthetic appreciation for art, and are likely to be artists in some form, because they are unusually gifted at creating and composing things which will strongly affect the senses. They have a strong set of values, which they strive to consistently meet in their lives. They need to feel as if they’re living their lives in accordance with what they feel is right, and will rebel against anything which conflicts with that goal. They’re likely to choose jobs and careers which allow them the freedom of working towards the realization of their value-oriented personal goals.

ISFPs tend to be quiet and reserved, and difficult to get to know well. They hold back their ideas and opinions except from those who they are closest to. They are likely to be kind, gentle and sensitive in their dealings with others. They are interested in contributing to people’s sense of well-being and happiness, and will put a great deal of effort and energy into tasks which they believe in. [Personality Page]


Wolfgang Bogdanow

ISTPs have a compelling drive to understand the way things work. They’re good at logical analysis, and like to use it on practical concerns. They typically have strong powers of reasoning, although they’re not interested in theories or concepts unless they can see a practical application. They like to take things apart and see the way they work. hey thrive on action, and are usually fearless. ISTPs are fiercely independent, needing to have the space to make their own decisions about their next step. They do not believe in or follow rules and regulations, as this would prohibit their ability to “do their own thing”. Their sense of adventure and desire for constant action makes ISTPs prone to becoming bored rather quickly.

ISTPs like and need to spend time alone, because this is when they can sort things out in their minds most clearly. They absorb large quantities of impersonal facts from the external world, and sort through those facts, making judgment.  ISTPs avoid making judgments based on personal values - they feel that judgments and decisions should be made impartially, based on the fact. They are not naturally tuned in to how they are affecting others. They do not pay attention to their own feelings, and even distrust them and try to ignore them, because they have difficulty distinguishing between emotional reactions and value judgments. This may be a problem area for many ISTPs. [Personality Page]


Lito Rodriguez

ESFPs live in the world of people possibilties. They love people and new experiences. They are lively and fun, and enjoy being the center of attention. They live in the here-and-now, and relish excitement and drama in their lives. ESFPs love people, and everybody loves an ESFP. One of their greatest gifts is their general acceptance of everyone. They are upbeat and enthusiastic, and genuinely like almost everybody. An ESFP is unfailingly warm and generous with their friends, and they generally treat everyone as a friend. However, once crossed, an ESFP is likely to make a very strong and stubborn judgment against the person who crossed them. They are capable of deep dislike in such a situation.

The ESFP under a great deal of stress gets overwhelmed with negatives thoughts and possibilities. As an optimistic individual who lives in the world of possibilities, negative possibilities do not sit well with them. In an effort to combat these thoughts, they’re likely to come up with simple, global statements to explain away the problem. These simplistic explanations may or may not truly get to the nature of the issue, but they serve the ESFP well by allowing them to get over it. [Personality Page]


Will Gorski

The ESFJ takes their responsibilities very seriously, and is very dependable. They value security and stability, and have a strong focus on the details of life. They see before others do what needs to be done, and do whatever it takes to make sure that it gets done. They enjoy these types of tasks, and are extremely good at them.

ESFJs are warm and energetic. They need approval from others to feel good about themselves. They are hurt by indifference and don’t understand unkindness. They are very giving people, who get a lot of their personal satisfaction from the happiness of others. They want to be appreciated for who they are, and what they give. They’re very sensitive to others, and freely give practical care. ESFJs are such caring individuals, that they sometimes have a hard time seeing or accepting a difficult truth about someone they care about. [Personality Page]


Capheus

ENFPs are warm, enthusiastic people, typically very bright and full of potential. They live in the world of possibilities, and can become very passionate and excited about things. Their enthusiasm lends them the ability to inspire and motivate others, more so than we see in other types. They can talk their way in or out of anything. They love life, seeing it as a special gift, and strive to make the most out of it.

To onlookers, the ENFP may seem directionless and without purpose, but ENFPs are actually quite consistent, in that they have a strong sense of values which they live with throughout their lives. Everything that they do must be in line with their values. An ENFP needs to feel that they are living their lives as their true Self, walking in step with what they believe is right. They see meaning in everything, and are on a continuous quest to adapt their lives and values to achieve inner peace. They’re constantly aware and somewhat fearful of losing touch with themselves. Since emotional excitement is usually an important part of the ENFP’s life, and because they are focused on keeping “centered”, the ENFP is usually an intense individual, with highly evolved values. [Personality Page]

What do listening to music, hitting a baseball and solving a complex math problem have in common? They all activate less gray matter than drinking wine.

According to Yale neuroscientist Gordon Shepherd, the flavor of wine “engages more of our brain than any other human behavior.” The apparently simple act of sipping Merlot involves a complex interplay of air and liquid controlled by coordinated movements of the the tongue, jaw, diaphragm and throat. Inside the mouth, molecules in wine stimulate thousands of taste and odor receptors, sending a flavor signal to the brain that triggers massive cognitive computation involving pattern recognition, memory, value judgment, emotion and of course, pleasure.

Whereas most wine writers tend to focus on the various elements that go into the wine itself — the grape, the oak, terroir, the winemaker — Shepherd’s subject is the drinker. He explores biomechanics, physiology and neuroscience to describe a journey that begins as wine passes the lips and ends with a lingering “finish” that can last for minutes.

The Taste Of Wine Isn’t All In Your Head, But Your Brain Sure Helps

Illustration: Alex Reynolds/NPR

Running Out of Time: Bellamy and His Feelings

Obviously, there was a lot to unpack from the Bellarke Beach Scene 2: Hugless Boogaloo, but what I thought was most interesting was what it tells us about Bellamy’s emotional status.  The line I think was most telling was It’s pathetic, right?  She hates me but I keep coming back for more because there’s just so much desolation in those two sentences, starting with it’s pathetic.  That line lands like a value judgment on himself– he is pathetic for still loving his sister, despite her hatred of him.  It also speaks to his feelings of helplessness, both with Octavia and with their larger situation: there is not a goddamn thing he can do to make his sister forgive him or stop the end of the world, but he’s still going to keep trying.  But even though he’s not giving up, he also sort of has– he’s given up on the idea of surviving, really.  He’s got faith in Clarke (and Raven), but the cynic inside of him keeps whispering there’s no surviving this so he’s decided he’s just going to do his best to make things right.

And where things stand right now, there’s two important people in his life: Clarke and Octavia.  Other people matter to him, of course, but those two women are his primary concern.  Things are pretty good with Clarke and pretty terrible with Octavia, so when faced with the choice of “where to go from here” he chooses Octavia because Bellamy doesn’t want to die with her hating him.  He knows that still might happen but he has to at least try to fix it, even if it seems pointless.  He could have chosen Clarke and gone over to Science Island and spent his last few weeks on earth with someone who trusts him and loves him and supports him, but that would mean sacrificing any chance to put things right with Octavia.

And make no mistake: Bellamy does not see them coming out of this alive.  He thinks this is the end, and that’s part of what is hanging over his head when he says it’s pathetic.  Because he’s not just talking about returning to Octavia for more abuse, he’s talking about how he’s spent the last nine months fighting to keep everyone alive, often at great cost to his own moral values, only for everyone to die anyway.  He hasn’t reached Jasper’s level of nihilism and I honestly doubt he will, but there is a certain fatalistic attitude leaking through in this scene that punches me in the gut.  He feels pathetic and pointless, and so all that’s left is to try and get his sister to love him before they die.

But there is one thing left to tell Clarke, and that’s how he feels about her.  Guys, when he says Clarke, if I don’t see you again, there’s really only one way to end that sentence.  He has made it clear he loves her through his actions time and time again– letting her go in 216, going after her in 302, telling her he doesn’t want to be angry with her in 313, trusting her in 315 and 316, being there for her at her absolute lowest in 403– but he’s never actually said it.  It’s literally the last thing left to do, and standing next to her on that beach, he really does think it could be the last time he sees her, and not just because of praimfaya.

It’s because over the course of the last few days, Bellamy has thought his sister died and watched their best hope for surviving the apocalypse go up in flames.  And in the course of the previous twelve hours, he thought Clarke was dead and/or that he would watch her die twice.  Clarke might not make it back before the radiation hits, or she might die from a stray arrow or an ambush or 400 other things that could go wrong.  He knows that life is uncertain in their world and he’s not sure he’ll ever see her again.  Thanks to Echo, Bellamy knows what it feels like when someone you love dies with things unsaid, so he steels himself for what is about to be a painful admission because he knows he loves her and he knows she loves him, but he also thinks Clarke doesn’t love him in the same way.  He’s not planning on telling her this because he thinks she’ll reciprocate, he’s planning on telling her he loves her because that’s all there is left to do.

But Clarke stops him.  First of all, guys, she fucking knows what he’s about to say.  They just spent an entire episode being Drift Compatible as fuck, and she just said she’ll see how special you are which is a weird fucking thing to say about someone’s sibling (I don’t really need to see how special my brother is; I  need to remind him of how we used to play chicken while sledding and I won every fucking time because he’s a goddamn chickenso you cannot tell me she would have been surprised if he said I love you.  Clarke was talking about her feelings for Bellamy here and pretending it was about Octavia because right now, feelings are painful for Clarke.  (If you’re special wasn’t a significant admission for Clarke she wouldn’t have broken eye contact after she said it.)  She’ll see how special you are is as close to I love you as Clarke can get at the moment, and I do think that if Bellamy was wavering (do I tell her I love her?  Or do I leave that unsaid because she’s not ready to hear it?) having Clarke tell him he matters was all he needed to decide.

Except Clarke sees where this is going and stops him, but not just because hearing Bellamy Blake say I love you when she’s still a tangled mess of grief and fear would be too much.  She stops him because she knows he’s saying it because he’s giving up hope, but she hasn’t yet.  She believes they can survive this so there’s no need for last minute love confessions.  In Clarke’s mind they have a future, and letting Bellamy say this might be the last time I see you so you need to know I love you is just too painful to contemplate.  Bellamy was ready to say goodbye, but Clarke isn’t.

I’m honestly not sure if Bellamy would have said it anyway if Roan hadn’t interrupted them.  He wasn’t looking convinced, at any rate, and I suspect if Roan hadn’t blown the Time Out From Feelings Whistle, Bellamy would have gone through with it.  Not because he doesn’t consider Clarke’s feelings important, but because he’s desperate.  This is it: the finish line is approaching, so make your peace and get ready for whatever comes next.

But Clarke didn’t stop Bellamy because she didn’t want to hear that he loves her; she stopped him because in her mind, there’s still time.  It wasn’t “If you love me I’d rather die not knowing,” it was “Please don’t say goodbye to me because I haven’t given up hope.”  Clarke is an expert at last-minute love confessions but she’s not ready to say they’ve reached that point.  She has hope that there will be time later to talk about this, so she doesn’t say I don’t want to hear it she says we’ll talk about this later.  Because Clarke has decided there will be a future for Bellamy, whether he believes in it or not.

sometimes I think about how in the very first episode Jemma Simmons shouted “why are you making nonsense” at Leopold Fitz, not only avoiding the word ‘stupid’ but also putting the value judgment on the thing he was making rather than him, and I get emotional

anonymous asked:

Why does the game so badly to try to trick the player into killing toriel, with the sudden unavoidable crit and all? Isn't that kinda a cheap trick to pull on a body? It's hard for me to accept the message of the game when it's so manipulative all like that.

See, I actually love this, because I don’t take it as a value judgment. See, if you see Undertale as a game about being nice and not hurting anyone no matter what, the Toriel fight is tricky. But if you see it as a game about thwarting fate, it fits perfectly … I’ll show you what I mean.

Do you know what kind of game Undertale was going to be? When it was just a ghost of an idea in Toby’s head, when he hadn’t actually  gotten it ironed out? In Cave Story, you have to kill Toroko in order to progress in the game, There’s a big tragedy and you need to kill her to progress. You can’t do anything about it.

In the first version of Undertale that existed in Toby’s head, you had to kill Toriel to progress. HAD TOO. In the first version of Undertale, this world truly WAS kill or be killed.

So like, clearly mercy is the choice you’re meant to find eventually. But are you meant to find it on the first time? Are you meant to get through this flawlessly? 

Kill or be killed. That’s the rule. That’s the choice the game thrusts on you. That’s what Flowey says to Frisk. And Flowey is right.

Undertale is the tragedy of a child floundering through the Underground and getting out at the end, leaving friends behind, but also damage, hurt feelings, hurt people. And Undertale is the story of looking back at that tragedy and saying 

HELL.

NO.

The ‘trick’ doesn’t register as a trick anymore if you think about it that way. Not JUST as a story about being kind, but a story about changing fate. The best way to play Undertale is to go in without knowing you can save everyone, and discovering that through the course of the game. 

It’s why I’m super frustrated with the ‘this is how you’re meant to play the game’ crowd. If you’re telling someone how to play the game, you’re stopping them from playing the best way.

I don’t hold how easy it is to kill Toriel against the game for that reason. I don’t think of killing Toriel, or any of the monsters, as a failure in the first run. I think it helps the experience.

How Emotions and Feeling Relate

Conflation is a pet peeve of mine and I’ve noticed Tumblr has a really really strong habit of conflating Emotion with Feeling in Jungian cognitive functions. As I clarified in an earlier post, the Feeling functions make judgments of value. To explain further, I’m going to try to explain the relationship between value judgement and emotion. Since I believe most arguments end up with arguing semantics, I’m going to start out by providing a few definitions.

First, here are the definitions that I came to in my post on Semantics and Judging Functions with regard to the Feeling functions;

Introverted Feeling (Fi) determines the degree of importance (value) given to something based on a standard sanctioned by one’s conscience.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) determines the degree of importance (value) given to something based on the accepted principles of right and wrong.

A Value Judgement is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, based on a particular set of values or on a particular value system.

From that definition, I would say that Fi uses a personal, subjective set of values, and Fe uses the particular value system relevant to the circumstances.

Emotion is a person’s internal state of being and involuntary physiological response to an object or a situation, based on or tied to physical state and sensory data.

So maybe emotion isn’t the right word to use here. I suggest using the psychology definition of the term “affect” in order to more accurately get at what we are talking about.

Affect is a subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

And there’s that word again causing so much confusion; feeling.

For the sake of clarification, lets look at three definitions for feeling;

1. Emotion or Impression
2. Intuition
3. An opinion or attitude

Well that just confuses things even more! In secular use, the word “Feeling” can mean both emotion and intuition so what are we to think? Well, lets look at the Jungian definition and see if we can find a solution.

“[Feeling is] primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection.”

So Feeling has nothing to do with emotion according to Jung, it’s all about value. In fact, here’s another Jung quote differentiating affect and Feeling;

Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it gives rise to no perceptible physical innervations.”

So, going off of the above definitions, Feeling is clearly different from emotion and affect.


So Why is This Conflation So Common?

Partially, because of semantics. Words are confusing and have multiple meanings, interpretations and definitions. This is why its so important to make sure that any time you engage in disagreement, argument or debate, you start off with clarifying your definitions. 

But also because there is definitely an observable correlation between Feeling personality types and emotional sensitivity.

Feelers are characterized by having a preference for making judgments of value over judgments of fact. Therefore, it can be assumed that those value judgments occur in greater frequency than a Thinking type. 

Emotional theory gets complicated really fast, but I will do my best to keep this simple;

Emotions arise out of situations which call on prior judgments of value.

When you experience that moment of “I don’t know how to feel about that”. It is because you have not made a prior value judgment on that subject. Only after the value judgment is made does any emotion arise.

The higher the feeling function is in your stack, the more prior value judgments you are likely to have made.

The good news about all this is that no one type is inherently more emotional than another and there is a solution for highly emotional feeling types;

Practice suspending judgment as long as possible. Remember that you cannot truly know the value of something until after the fact.

Stay tuned for another post on how emotions arise from Thinking in relation to value. The Feeling function may lay the ground work for emotional reactions, but the Thinking function kicks it off.

Notes on Looping Woes

Hard to spot in oneself.

tert Si: favors prior knowledge and gets stuck there
tert Ni: holds to own idea of Truth but oversimplifies everything
tert Ti: only trusts own analysis even when mired in contradictions
tert Fi: sticks with own value judgments even as failing badly
tert Se: wields the evidence but gathers it very selectively
tert Ne: indulges random ideas that lead to absurd beliefs
tert Te: proclaims universal facts that are skewed by personal bias
tert Fe: uses others to get affirmation yet still deeply insecure

anonymous asked:

Could you give us your thoughts on Clarke and compartmetalization? I find it to be one of the most interesting trait of hers and also something that, even though it has negative effects on her, it has also "saved" her in a way, because how the fuck someone with so much burden on her shoulders is even able to walk at this point?

So we know Bellamy is in love with Clarke but is Clark in love with him? I have been Shipping Bellarke since season one and tbh Bellamy reveals way more than she does. Especially the way he looks at her when she isn’t looking

I’m combining these two anon asks, because they actually cover the same topic: how Bellamy and Clarke show their emotions.  I also think how they handle emotions is very closely tied to how they function as leaders and their relative strengths.

As you point out, nonny #1, Clarke’s ability to compartmentalize has saved her because she’s able to put things aside that really would crush someone else.  Since early season one, Clarke handles emotions one of two ways: she either handles it directly and straightforwardly, or she locks that shit up tight and doesn’t look at it until absolutely necessary.  We see the latter with her anger towards her mother and Wells and L.exa, and it’s no coincidence that all three of those grudges were deeply tied to personal traumas as well.  We also see it when Raven lands and Clarke figures out that she’s the other woman– she tells Finn it’s done and doesn’t allow anyone to see how hurt she is.  When she’s hurt, she channels it into anger and coldness because anger is always easier than pain.  It’s maybe not the healthiest way to handle things, but it’s certainly an effective one.  

Clarke is very good at processing positive (non-romantic) emotions, though, she’s not just terribly demonstrative.  A lot of that comes from her parents because as Emori pointed out, Clarke has always been loved.  So when it comes to giving and receiving (non-romantic) love, Clarke is very comfortable.  In fact, she’s so comfortable that she doesn’t always realize that her love isn’t apparent, because in her mind, it’s  not something she really needs to explain.  If she loves you, she loves you, and because Clarke has never really felt the absence of love she struggles with understanding why someone would need that concretely demonstrated.  She’s always known that she’s loved and cherished and so the constant doubt that plagues someone like Bellamy is utterly foreign to her.  As a result she’s not always good at reassuring him of her love, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him deeply– it just means she shows it differently.  

(I’d also like to note that this season (and in 3B), Clarke’s been much more cognizant of recognizing when Bellamy needs to hear that he’s valued.  In season two she took him a little for granted, but after 305 (well, after 310) Clarke has been very careful about showing him that she cares about him, either verbally (I trust you, she’ll see how special you are) or physically (the beach hug and the hand nuzzle).  She’s recognizing that how he processes love and how she shows it are different and she’s adjusting to make sure he knows she loves him.  And you don’t do that for just anyone, btw– you do that for people who are precious to you.)

But Clarke’s ability to lock shit up makes her an effective leader because she can make terrible, heartbreaking choices and then keep going. It’s not that the choices don’t cost her or hurt her– they do, and so deeply it threatens to break her– but for people who don’t want to make those choices it’s a relief because it seems like not only is she willing to make them, she’s able to bear the weight of them.  That’s a bit of an illusion (and one that Bellamy sees straight through, hence why he was there while she wrote the list) but she sees not letting people see you’re breaking as a part of leading, especially when the stakes are this high.  Letting Bellamy in when she’s vulnerable is part of how she shows she loves and trusts him.

Bellamy, on the other hand, can’t lock anything up.  He tries so fucking hard, but it’s just not in his nature.  Every damn thing he feels is written on his face the second he feels it, and the one time he did suppress everything was when Clarke left and that was mostly because he didn’t feel like he was allowed to feel angry about it.  It all came exploding out of him after he suffered yet another trauma in losing Gina, but even before that he was doing a terrible fucking job of hiding his feelings.  While Clarke either ignores her hurt or channels it into rage, Bellamy usually just…sits with it.  He broods, and I want to emphasize that there’s no value judgment here on either Bellamy or Clarke’s methods for handling pain– they’re neither good nor bad, they just are.  Bellamy’s emotional reactions, however, tend to make him a good front-line leader, because people trust him to feel their pain too.  Clarke can take the long view because she can compartmentalize the pain later until it’s more convenient to feel it, but Bellamy can convince people to follow them in the moment because they can see everything he’s feeling.

Bellamy had a childhood that may have been full of love but it was love that felt like it came with conditions (protect your sister, keep your family safe), so he’s far less emotionally secure than Clarke when it comes to positive emotions.  He’s actually quite comfortable being sad and hurt and scared, but something like “someone else loves me outside of my utility to the group” is utterly terrifying for him. He’s not sure he deserves that sort of love and he’s constantly worried it will be taken away from him, just like how his family was taken away from him on the Ark.  Because she had a fairly emotionally healthy upbringing, Clarke is comfortable with positive emotions– except for romance.  With romantic feelings, Clarke locks that shit up tight just like she does with her hurt.  It’s scary for her to feel so vulnerable (for all of us, really), so she just…doesn’t deal with it until she’s absolutely forced to.  

Bellamy, however, because he’s so used to feeling vulnerable and exposed, just fucking goes with it.  Unrequited love is right in his wheelhouse, so we see how much he loves Clarke in every single look.  He doesn’t bother to hide it because he honestly can’t, and I actually think it will be harder for him once she reciprocates because love being returned to him openly and honestly will be far more difficult than loving someone without any hope of reciprocity.

So to tackle nonny #2′s question head on: I think right now we see more of Bellamy being in love with Clarke because right now, Bellamy is in love with Clarke.  She’s not quite there yet and there’s nothing wrong with that because she loves him fiercely and she has for months now and love doesn’t come in a hierarchy.  Platonic love is not below romantic love– it’s just a different type of love.  And while I do think Clarke is making baby steps towards falling in romantic love with Bellamy, I also think it will take her some time because she does not like to look at those feelings head on.  I also think that Clarke will always be less demonstrative when it comes to romantic love simply because that’s who she is, and that doesn’t make her love for him any less powerful or profound.

anonymous asked:

Yo I am a Muslim witch (as salaamu alaykum) and I don't appreciate the anon saying we don't exist ✌🏼✌🏼 I wear sigils on the inside corners of my hijab and I definitely exist thx

That’s really cool! But yeah, I’ve been getting these comments about witches and Islam, and the wariness is understandable (it makes sense with what’s said in the Quran regarding divination and the old beliefs). I think what many people need to understand though is that there are infinite expressions of religion, and a number of these expressions may not 100% add up to your expectations of what a particular religion is or what that religion intends to claim to be. Think of Mormons vs Catholics, Sufism, Orthodox vs Reform, the thousands of variations of Hinduism, and think about how local people weave their local traditions/superstitions with the ‘dominant’ religion (eg. the diversity of Christianity in South America, the continuing belief/practice in shamanism in Malay Muslim culture, etc).

So it’s not accurate to say ‘so-and-so’ would not exist in this religion, cos guess what: there are 7+ billion people in the world, and there’s going to be at least one person who exists in the way you say it’s ‘wrong’, never mind the judgment of value. It’s also not accurate to think of religion as ONLY an ‘entity’ that imposes itself on people and doesn’t change; the more accurate way to view it is a dynamic conversation between itself and its people (and of the power structure in context). Understanding it this way means you recognise that religion is expressed differently in every culture, or in every individual, and it’s informed by experiences, race, power and politics, class, etc. Most importantly it stops you from falling into the trap of thinking there’s only one version of one religion.

So yes, if you can have Christian witches, Jewish witches, secular witches, and whatever, then there’s room for a Muslim one. And this anon’s expression of their religion/witchiness is valid; if not to you, then to them.

Religious Literacy Project

TRUE DETECTIVE (SEASON ONE) STARTERS.
send a sentence or send ✉ for a random starter. some trigger warnings apply. continued under the cut. change as needed.

  • kind of a strange guy, huh?
  • don’t be assholes. you want to hear this or not?
  • you know, i’ve seen all the different types.
  • we all fit a certain category.
  • i was just a regular-type dude with a big-ass dick.
  • a smart guy who’s steady is hard to find. 
  • i’d offer you a seat, but uh…
  • past a certain age, a man without a family can be a bad thing.
  • this is gonna happen again. or it’s happened before.
  • you get that from one of your books?
  • listen, this is a stupid time to mention this, but you got to come to dinner.
  • there’s nothing i can do about it. maybe not today. maybe not tomorrow. 
  • i’m gonna have a drink.
  • people out here, it’s like they don’t even know the outside world exists.
  • might as well be living on the fucking moon.
  • can i ask you something? you’re a christian, yeah?
  • i believe that people shouldn’t talk about this kind of shit at work.
  • look, i’d consider myself a realist, all right, but in philosophical terms, i’m what’s called a pessimist.
  • i’m bad at parties.
  • i think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution.
  • huh. that sounds god-fucking-awful, ___.
  • i wouldn’t go around spouting that shit if i was you. 
  • people around here don’t think that way. i don’t think that way.
  • so what’s the point of getting out of bed in the morning?
  • i get a bad taste in my mouth out here.
  • i got an idea. let’s make the car a place of silent reflection from now on.
  • what should i bring for dinner?
  • when you’re at my house, i want you to chill the fuck out.
  • i’m not some kind of maniac, all right? i mean, for fuck’s sake.
  • fuck that prick.
  • we’ll lake two large long Island iced teas, please.
  • what kind of tits does she have?
  • you get pills pretty easy?
  • this place is like somebody’s memory of the town, and the memory’s fading.
  • stop saying shit like that. it’s unprofessional.
  • you get any sleep last night?
  • i don’t sleep. i just dream.
  • you believe in ghosts?
  • i’m gonna have to call a little timeout, make a beer run.
  • why is this so important to you all of a sudden?
  • she was high. fucked up.
  • what the hell? you can barely stand up.
  • i don’t drink ‘cause I’ve had trouble with it before.
  • have some more coffee and just try to make 10 minutes of conversation.
  • people change, relationships change.
  • i believe that shit leads to cancer.
  • then start asking the right fucking questions.


Keep reading

CONFUSION
Six points relate to the state of confusion, with its faulty perceptions and negative thoughts:
There is no end to the harm created when your own mind is not tamed.
The appearance of harmful things is the result of your own impure perception.
You make arbitrary value judgments about sounds, though they are but audible emptines.
You react to your mind, which is naturally expansive, by suppressing or indulging in thoughts.
You assume that what is pleasurable or painful is always so, when it is not.
Your mind is inflamed by rage and spite.

COUNTERACTING CONFUSION
There are six ways to undertake the great task of counteracting your confused perceptions:
Be tolerant of and arouse compassion for those who harm you.
Have no fear of demons, but rather understand them to be your parents or gods.
Train yourself to see that your confused fixations have no validity.
Cut through to the very root of mind, for therein lies the basis of your confusion.
Whatever circumstances manifest, bring them to your spiritual path.
Do not be distracted by ordinary attitudes, but rely on antidotes.
—  Longchenpa

anonymous asked:

"if anyone has taken up Jimmy’s mantle as Claire’s dad in any regard, it’s Dean. Even in 10x20, when Cas was around, Dean’s the one who really bonded with her. " Yeah just give Dean another character while Cas is completely isolated. What a good idea! Its not like every chars revolves around him. Charlie,Jody,Donna,Ketch, Bobby, Mary and now Claire too

Do you really think that Claire’s character “revolves around” Dean? That she isn’t entirely her own character? or that her dynamic is very different with Sam than it is with Dean?

It’s not a good thing or a bad thing, but she’s clearly just as important to Sam. It’s just… Sam relates to people differently than Dean does.

And Jody. You really think Sam’s friendship with Jody isn’t as strong as Dean’s? I mean, I’ve always thought at least her character “revolved around” Sam more. Sure Dean and Jody have bonded over “parental” sorts of things, while Sam and Jody have bonded more as “friends.”

Thing is, other characters serve as mirrors to bring out traits and show underlying characteristics and feelings of the main characters. And because Sam and Dean are fundamentally different people, the side characters are going to reflect those differences.

This is how storytelling works.

And since the start of the show, and for the majority of the 12 years it’s been on, Dean has been the emotional POV character (aside from that time he was in Sam’s usual spot as the Mytharc character during the MoC arc, and even then we often saw Dean’s emotional reactions more than Sam’s). So just by the structure of the narrative, we inherently understand Dean’s pov more than Sam’s.

It’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. And because of that, the mirror characters tend to reflect Dean’s POV more than Sam’s. Dean also tends to bond with people more readily than Sam does, because that is his personality. You can see that really clearly in 2.18 (which I watched yesterday so it’s a fairly fresh example in my mind) and in 2.19 (which I just watched like 20 minutes ago, so also fresh in my mind). Heck I’m writing up notes on 2.19 now, and the thing I’ve still got saved to the clipboard is Sam’s quote to Dean:

Dean, does it … bother you at all, how easily you seem to fit in here?

And Dean’s like, no. It doesn’t bother him. He can fit in practically anywhere he wants to.

What’s the first thing we learn about Sam? He’s got a very solid idea of where he wants to fit in, and he’s never felt like he fit in in the hunting world. He wanted to go to Stanford and have a normal girlfriend and a normal life being normal. His entire narrative has been about getting dragged back into hunting, where he dragged his heels kicking and screaming back into the life.

It’s just who he is as a person.

But if you think Sam doesn’t have just as important of a bond with Mary or Bobby, then I don’t really think you’ve been paying attention. It might not be the same kind of bond that Dean has with them, but it’s no less important.

Saying it’s different doesn’t imply a value judgment here, either.

As to Charlie… well, why do you think the queer character has been more associated with Dean than Sam? Knowing that other characters serve as narrative mirrors for the main characters? It’s not difficult to understand that one.

Donna, who has self-image issues, is a tough-as-nails cop on the surface but who also is completely unashamed of her bubbly, fluffy sense of humor? Oh, and who deals with her emotional distress through a complicated relationship with food… She’s basically the G-rated girl version of Dean.

And Ketch. Really? Wtf? You really think his character “revolves around Dean?” He’s basically a dark mirror for Dean, in the way that we’re supposed to disassociate his character from Dean. This is the WORST incarnation of what Dean could’ve become… IF IT HADN’T BEEN FOR SAM showing Dean the shades of grey in the world…

Yes, Dean gets more of these narrative mirrors than Sam does, and yes he relates to these character differently than Sam does… but that’s because Sam has almost always been the character that the narrative happens TO, Dean’s the observational POV through which the audience processes our reactions.

It’s not a judgment about Sam vs Dean here. It’s literally the narrative structure of the show.