My most recent acquisition was an elephant sculpture toy from the thrift store for 2.99 CAD, and I picked up a soccer ball left on the side of the road which caused a big conflict that made my chest hurt abd body ache from the stress involved with the argument about that ball that I viewed as a positive and fun thing to find and potentially play with and do much needed exercise with.
I wanted a statue of Serqet/Selket from Amazon but it disappeared for now, and I've been looking at some Ancient Egyptian themed statues, books like the Manhwa called Ennead (my display picture is from that Manhwa), and encyclopedias/dictionaries with names of various Egyptian entities and terms in them.
For "cosplay" and dressing up, I had been looking at some things that look similar to my display picture also, but I'm also interested in elements that might look like the player character's costume in Ultima Ascension.
All these things are significant to me in multiple ways beyond their entertainment value, as I look at them for artistic inspiration and ideas and learning as well as spiritually, or only getting things that I think may at least contain significant spiritual use and would be stimulating and productive for me in that way as well. I approach these things holistically and have barely touched anything that I've acquired, mainly just looking at them, thinking about them, and longing to someday actually make some more use of them.
What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Forum rules
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HUZxsll5Ohw?feature=shared
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
I wonder if I'll also use this thread for another idea too, since the title is:
"
What you have and what you want, what you want but can't have, what you have but don't want, & what it means!
"
This was about a few things including the idea and the phrase I hope I coined "I shop, therefore I am", which is about the things that end up surrounding us which may represent us and form and further influence and may act asa stabilization and anchoring to develop a sense of personality.
Even though this may be a public forum, and thus perhaps a little bit dangerous for me to experiment with things, I wanted to see if I could somehow, at least at times, present a "devil's advocate" perspective, but not in the most expected fashion, so sometimes what I present may be hyper-augmented, or exaggerated and extreme forms of sentiments, in other cases I may present strong looking opinions about things I really barely care about, for me my interest is always in exploring ideas and learning about myself, while what I present might imply lots of things or nothing, and I am always prepared to disavow everything I say, just like the one "Nelk boy" is constantly excusing himself with the claim that he is merely an idiot.
It isn't true in my case, hopefully, but rather I do feel passionately and strongly about some things but not necessarily the things I present or what one might think by what I present and how I may present it, since what I try to do for myself first is push ideas everywhere.
A habit of pushing and stretching ideas everywhere has also possibly in some cases blurred the lines about what I really think, but a few things seem to be trie which I think should be for most humans and animals, and are very straightforward, but with a lot of things I probably don't really care, or feel hopeless, or think of it in two or more very stretched in seemingly the opposite ways, in other cases my thought is just careless and callous or perhaps even what might be considered the worst, though I'm never entirely serious about the execution of much of anything, only fantasies which represent emotions.
My hatred for trouble and suffering is genuine, and which I think is likely shared by most anything, we don't like to be frustrated or blocked or interfered with, and I probably would not mind if there were quick and easy solutions to everything which work in my favor even if something or someone else, mainly something or someone else directly impeding or causing serious problems for me, was a non issue and removed from functioning as a problem factor, even one possible due to the fear and anticipation of a return of the issue.
Like spiders and the other insects that they eat, the spider wants something, the fly wants something else and not what the spider wants or wants from it.
The YouTube channel "CarefreeWandering" makes videos that often bring up the idea of "Authenticity" to do with ideas of what they and their co-author colleague call "Profilicity", which is a carefully curated presentation of identity, an "all you need to know" or really "all I want you to know" that people have increasingly been feeling pressured to produce. In my case, I don't think I'm ever actually doing that as much, since I try to present everything, even things that maybe have not all that much to do with anything I'd really think of feel is truly a sufficient or acceptable "me".
I was thinking back to where it all went wrong, or if I even appreciate anything, and though I surely do, I also feel like there would be no end to the things I could do without, and I could just skip it all, as if nothing was good or "worth it", that it all seems like babble and rubbish, yet I still choose things out of all the stuff I'd probably not mind not even existing again, and certainly would be fine had I never known it (since ignorance can be bliss too, and you can't know the displeasure of not "having" or experiencing what you didn't even imagine.
At the same time though, I can easily differentiate what I like, and like more, and like less, and don't like at all, and can theorize as to why that may be or what it does for me.
Somehow, also, this can be tied in to the really vile behaviour of certain people online who are gloating about the suffering that they and those they support abd their people are inflicting upon others, and how they frequently say "Where is your God? Why isn't your God helping you? Your God has left you?" over and over and over, which really achieves nothing but showcasing their monstrousness for being linked to and part of a culture they themselves never chose for themselves, nor did their enemies, plus the ones saying such things are the furthest from decent or righteous beings in the slightest, but I've seen lots of varieties of disgusting people show what they are these days, even some daring to pretend religion for themselves while clearly the majority of people, including the religious minded, could never accept the suggestion that the apparent villainy is acceptable and not clearly just more of what people were warned against doing to others by others, authorities from the past, mankind, and their religious standards and belief in right, justice, and sense of propriety.
I was also looking at this information from a P*rnogr*phic M*dia Empire with tremendous influence, claiming that this represents a reality and a clue, though it may be a lie and an attempt to influence, all stemming from the owner of it all who was trained to be a R*bb*.
https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2024-year-in-review
https://mashable.com/article/10-fastest ... clips4sale
https://blog.clips4sale.com/b/the-unite ... of-fetish/
https://www.pornhub.com/insights/united ... p-searches
Based on the dates, and the claims, if any of this is even true, it at the very least is claiming shifts and specifications over around 10 years.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pornhub-study ... 25260.html
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/20-c ... 3-1168656/
https://www.inverse.com/article/26011-p ... eport-2016
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread ... country/1/
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/1 ... sex-online
https://www.statista.com/statistics/145 ... y-country/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/commen ... h_country/
https://wour.com/nsfw-pornhub-reveals-m ... -new-york/
https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-st ... the-south/
The third link in the list, mentions "vore" and "giantess", which reminds me of "Attack On Titan", inspired by this piece of art by Goya:
https://www.19thcenturyart-facos.com/ar ... s-children
https://www.reddit.com/r/titanfolk/comm ... war_manga/
"
I think each titan is supposed to represent a different aspect of war, although I'm not sure how for each individual one. There's some obvious ones like the armored and colossal titan representing defense and offense, and the cart titan representing transportation.
Then there's the jaw titan, which I suspect is supposed to represent sacrifice. Mainly due to the fact that the person inheriting this titan is always someone who sacrifices themselves at some point, or at least has that intention.
The female titan of course would be adaptability, as represented by its ability to be versatile and absorb other abilities. But that might be more of a stretch.
Then there's the attack and founding titan. I have multiple theories on these. They could represent past and future (understanding history, and being able to predict the enemies next move)
Or the founding titan could represent authority, while the attack titan literally just represents advancement. Advancement in technology, tactics, etc.
If it's the warhammer titan instead that represents authority, the founding titan could represent knowledge that gets passed down, the passing of the torch, the cycle of old teaching the young (which would include indoctrination, making it more symbolic as the antagonist of the series, and an antagonist against the one who represents the advancement titan. Lots to unpack there)
The warhammer titan could represent supply. Supply is always an integral part of any military. Making sure everyone has the equipment they need is extremely important. This would explain it's ability to create weapons.
But this wouldn't explain the symbolism involving grounded-ness, so I'm less sure about this one.
The beast titan. This one has me the most unsure of what it represents.
My best guess is that it represents individuality. Most importantly individual talent.
Each beast titan is completely different, which makes it different from all the others that stay mostly the same from generation to generation.
Even the jaw/self sacrifice titan, when consuming a piece of it, changes drastically, giving their titan more individuality.
Each beast titan is given the task of figuring out their own strengths and how to apply them in battle. Even Zeke's character as a whole is a pretty thorough representation of individuality. His eldian blood defines him the least out of all Eldians in the workplace, and he always had his own motives from the beginning, despite the fact that they were not shared by anyone else.
But let's discuss all this in the comments and see if we can come to an agreement on what specifically each titan represents.
"
"
I actually really love this idea, and I’d love to share some of my own ideas for the symbolism, not to say your ideas are wrong I just have some of my own.
• Colossal titan could represent destruction and the horror of unrelenting, apathetic, and indiscriminate death on a massive and sudden scale. It could show how war takes everything from so many in a second
• The beast titan could represent the loss of humanity, the, ahem, beast in man.How people become something else entirely, something different from anything on a savage level once they go through hell, similar to how the inheritors are all something else on a person on person basis (This could also be interpreted as the idea you had of individuality, I like both)
•The Jaw Titan could represent the push forward, offense which is capable and willing to destroy their enemies. The inner attacker and fighter in each human who fights on the line, and the truly horrifying murderer in each of us. Similar to how the Jaw Titan is such an offensive unit capable of decimating its enemies in quick attack flurries and crushing blows.
•The Armored titan could be self preservation to live another day, or in other words defense like you said. Not much to say here, other than the part of a soldier which they use to defend themself and stay alert for attacks
•The Warhammer Titan could be ingenuity and creativity in ways the enemy couldn’t plan for. With its ability to create anything from hardening it could easily represent attacking enemies in a way not before seen, or in an entirely unique way on the battlefield. New technology being created to catch the enemy off guard and being used in new ways is exactly what the War Hammer is about.
•The Founding Titan like you said, Authority. The power to command, wield armies and use them upon your enemies. To be in control of a overwhelming power which can be unleashed at any time if the order is given. Just like Ymir’s overwhelming power, and the potential of the founder titan (ironic because she can’t personally use any of it without someone else’s authority, at least before Eren).
•The Cart Titan, the only thing I can thing of is maybe something like the burden soldiers carry for the nation, or the weight of everything they carry around from the horrors seen, the guilt and shame from what has been done, to the memories of those lost. I know this one is a more symbolic notion, however I really don’t know what else it could mean other than supplies or industry in general. Just like how Pieck carries stuff. That’s the explanation.
•For the Female Titan I don’t have any ideas other than what you said about adaptability. A soldiers ability to adapt to their environment or situation whenever conflict arises. Just like how Annie adapts through the experiments given to her, and in general to how she adapted to the mission going off rails, joining the army, or the scout corps attacks.
•Last but not least, The Attack Titan. This is another one I think you nailed, it’s the idea of tactics, formation, and strategy it takes to win a war and make sure all of your enemies are destroyed.
This is was pretty fun to think of, so thank you for the idea OP, it’s a pretty cool idea to sort out. Also, I tried my best to not repeat what you already said, and when i did i tried to bring other ideas or explanations into the mix to contribute.
Upvote
9
Downvote
2 more replies
DuudPuerfectuh
•
5y ago
I think colossal just represents weapons of mass destruction
Upvote
2
Downvote
00red00green00yellow
OP
•
5y ago
Symbolically, if it represents initial attack, or power, it makes sense that it would have the greatest offensive power out of all the titans.
If it was just "weapons" of any kind, that would just fall under supply imo
"
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Nine_Titans
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Ymir_Fritz
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Subjects_of_Ymir
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/P ... the_Titans
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Titan
"
Unlike other species, Titans did not mate, and their interactions were nonexistent with organisms other than humans;[4] their sole purpose in life was to seek out and devour humans. They did not derive any real sustenance from humans either, as many of them did not taste human flesh for a century after the Walls were raised; but it did not affect their activity or decrease their numbers.[5]
Some Titans did not react to pain, and all would move as long as there is sunlight.[6] Titans did not possess a complete, functioning digestive tract; they merely had a stomach-like cavity that eventually filled up with what they swallow.[7] After consuming a certain amount, they regurgitated the contents of the cavity before they continued eating more humans.[7]
Most Titans showed no signs of intelligence and acted like mindless beasts—easy to trick, distract, and deceive. The Nine Titans were the exception: they had human level intellect due to being piloted by a human. However, some Abnormals were also able to sustain some of their former intelligence, such as Connie's mother[8] and the Titan encountered by Ilse Langnar[9], both of which demonstrated the capacity to form thoughts and even communicate with humans.
"
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Abnormal
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/953232
"
In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (H. Aphr.), Zeus exacts revenge on Aphrodite because she has been repeatedly forcing him and other deities to pursue mortal women and men and then bragging about it. To that end, Zeus casts desire into the goddess of love with the intent of humiliating her. Without delay, Aphrodite lusts after the mortal and heroic Trojan Anchises, and so she constructs a disguise to deceive him into sleeping with her. More specifically, Aphrodite appears to Anchises as a beautiful maiden and says that she is a Phrygian princess, the daughter of Otreus, abducted [End Page 75] from a chorus by Hermes and dropped onto Mount Ida to be married to Anchises. Many scholars of this poem have noticed the ironic nature of Aphrodite’s so-called “seduction” of Anchises: while both the goddess and Anchises think themselves to be in control of their sexual relationship,1 Anchises is tricked, Zeus is the mover behind Aphrodite’s lust, and Aphrodite is the ultimate cause of her own unwanted affliction.2 The poem thus perfectly encapsulates the problem of desire in Greek thought, which, as Froma Zeitlin puts it, construes eros as “a power difficult or impossible to control,” whose nature raises questions “as to which element is active or passive, which the aggressor or the victim.”3
Because the sex between the pair is not physically violent, and because of the Greek construction of eros as a power forceful unto itself, the events that transpire between Aphrodite and Anchises are always called in the scholarship on the Hymn a “seduction” or “affair.” John García says of Aphrodite’s coercive lie to Anchises that it is “one of the most charming passages in all of Greek literature,” and Monica Cyrino calls it a “sexy speech” (García 2002.23 and Cyrino 2010.91).4 Hugh Parry, despite the fact that he finds fear, compulsion, submission, and deception to be crucial to the meaning of H. Aphr., maintains that “both lovers find their condition [welcome]” (Parry 1986.257). Zeitlin, for her part, draws a sharp contrast between Aphrodite’s mode of behavior and that of “Male gods [who] may ravish their mortal women in disguise—a cloud, a shower of golden rain, the form of a satyr, a swan—or even in person. A female divinity, however, cannot simply enforce her desire” (Zeitlin 2023.35).
According to Jenny Strauss Clay, “Seduction [ . . . ] in which the weaker overcomes the stronger, is the polar opposite of forcible rape” (Clay 2006.177). Rosanna Lauriola’s recent treatment of mythic rape, however, ought to give us pause when considering the “charms” of Aphrodite’s lie, as should Zeitlin’s observation that eros renders many Greek mythic sexual encounters ambiguous (though she does not locate Anchises’ experience in this category).5 Lauriola’s definition of rape does not exculpate the rapists [End Page 76] of myth on the grounds that desire is construed in the Greek imagination as irresistible and externally motivated. Importantly, Lauriola includes acts that are committed by deception in her characterization of rape—a modality particularly favored by Zeus, a “master rapist” notorious for using disguise, deceit, and metamorphosis to trick and trap his mostly female victims (Lauriola 2022.60, 66; see also Deacy 2018). Lauriola’s discussion of rape in Greek and Roman myth (2022.55):
[reflects] the victims’ perspective. This definition is as simple as it should have been since the dawn of time: rape is a violation of the female personhood which occurs through a coerced sexual intercourse, where resistance and rebellion are impeded and inhibited in a variety of ways, and where silence or lack of fighting are by no means a sign of consent [ . . . ] In addition, any abduction performed for, and resulting in, rape or forced marriage [is] considered an act of rape in itself.
This last stipulation is crucial because ambiguous terms such as the Greek harpazdō, “snatch,” and helkō, “seize,” often foreshadow or imply sexual violence. Because the violence is not explicit, mythic abductions can be treated in scholarship or receptions as somehow consensual,6 perhaps, in part, because of the way in which the Greek marriage ritual re-enacts elements of rape.7 Indeed, Aphrodite Avagianou and Eric Dodson-Robinson have each applied insights about marriage rituals to the myths of the abductions of, respectively, Kore/Persephone and Helen (Avagianou 1991.115–16 and Dodson-Robinson 2010.10–16). As John Oakley and Rebecca Sinos put it in their discussion of the Talos painter’s use of Helen’s abduction to convey the beauty of a bride, “brides play a role like that of Helen [ . . . ] in the show of resistance that is built into the ritual” (Oakley and Sinos 1993.13). Because of their shared characteristics with marriage, then, abductions (and we shall return to this point shortly) can be (mis)construed as consensual.
"
Now, this may seem like I'm talking about numerous things m, because I am, but these are all themes and ideas, with other things including visuals that are related along with adjacent concepts and terms that are closely tied together, or are meant to be at least in this thread, since a major aspect is "seizing" and "devouring" and "you are what you (acquire and) eat".
America is also the descendant of "Roman Power" and "Greek Thought", or would like to think of itself as the heir of such, regularly priding itself as the current "Greatest Nation On Earth" and "Ruler Of The (Whole) World".
It has created a Phantom Rome which it parodies in various ways, without really knowing all too much about historic Rome:
https://youtu.be/1D1_fE5tqRg?feature=shared
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articl ... n-of-rome/
"
At the heart of this way of thinking is the radical equation of the secular with sin. John Milbank, to take a modern example of this venerable tradition of interpreting Augustine, writes in Theology and Social Theory:
This civitas [the civitas terrena] as Augustine finds it in the present, is the vestigial remains of an entirely pagan mode of practice, stretching back to Babylon. There is no set of positive objectives that are its own peculiar business, and the City of God makes usus of exactly the same range of finite goods, although for different ends, with “a different faith, a different hope, a different love” [Civ. Dei 18.54]. For the ends sought by the civitas terrena are not merely limited, finite goods, they are those finite goods regarded without “referral” to the infinite good, and, in consequence, they are unconditionally bad ends. The realm of the merely practical, cut off from the ecclesial, is quite simply a realm of sin (406).
Although some of the assumptions behind this statement are very open to question, a great deal in Augustine’s thought points in this direction. There is certainly a sense in which Augustine was committed to the view that only in the Church, and indeed only in the Church as it will be in its final, eschatologically purified state, can justice properly speaking be realized. The claim that classical political theory is relocated by Christianity as thought about the Church has solid foundations in Augustine’s thought: especially in his mature thinking as it developed under the overwhelmingly anti-Pelagian concern that had come to be pervasive in it.
This would give some support to the view of the Church as the exemplary community espoused by theologians who like to describe themselves as “radically orthodox.” Paul Lakeland says that according to theologians of this persuasion, “The fullness of the gospel demands . . . something like a premodern understanding of the integrity of the Christian community” (Postmodernity, 43)—what in common usage would be meant by “Christendom.” In such a view no sound political theory can be constructed except within the framework of a Christian “ontology” or worldview.
If true justice is dependent on true piety, as Augustine undoubtedly held, then it is certainly true that Augustine could not envisage any community other than the Church as capable of realizing the political objectives of the res publica. For if justice (iustitia) in the full-blooded sense given it by Augustine is an essential constituent of the notion of “what is right” (iuris consensus), then evidently “where there is no true justice there can be no ius either” (Civ. Dei 19.21.1), and, as Augustine concludes, that true justice,
Is found only where the one true God alone rules by grace over a society which obeys Him and sacrifices only to Him, in all of whose members the body is subject to the soul, the vices to reason in observance of the right order; in that city the whole community and people, like the individual just man, live in that faith which works by love, that love whereby man loves God as He is to be loved and his neighbor as he loves himself (Civ. Dei 19.23.5).
Augustine not only accepts the conclusion but insists on the impossibility of true justice being attained, even by just and pious believers, except by humility, with the help of God’s grace.
This holds for true or perfect virtue, virtue which avails a person for salvation. But Augustine’s polemic against the virtues of pagans should not induce us to believe that all acts of virtue, to be virtuous, need to be perfectly virtuous, that justice can be real only when perfect. Even though, as he has just told us, true or perfect justice, like the true or perfect virtue which procures salvation, can be possessed only by those who have true pietas, he nevertheless leaves no doubt that an imperfect but useful virtue can be found among citizens of the earthly City (see: Civ. Dei 5.19).
"
https://www.cfr.org/article/self-absorb ... rder-world
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/670580/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... arcissists
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _centered/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_ancient_Rome
"
The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious,[15] and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the Gods. According to legendary history, most of Rome's religious institutions could be traced to its founders, particularly Numa Pompilius, the Sabine second King of Rome, who negotiated directly with the Gods. This archaic religion was the foundation of the mos maiorum, "the way of the ancestors" or simply "tradition," viewed as central to Roman identity.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum
America's "parody" of an ignored, more "actual" "Rome (=Power)" still has echos of similar pretensions, likely common across the globe, but which make America a spectre that had existence in the "Real Rome" while it existed, except neither knew of the presence of the other, and America still doesn't know about Rome, but still thinks it is the New Rome, similar to "The Emperor's New Clothes", a nothing that they were convinced to be so proud of.
Echos of aspects that solidified more in "Actual America", like "Right Now" still had occurrences in Roman times, such as importance placed on "self" through names:
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-o ... me-matters
https://www.bondandgrace.com/lit-talk/t ... nd-meaning
https://www.vroma.org/vromans/bmcmanus/roman_names.html
"
Names of Freedpeople: When slaves were freed, they occupied a middle status between the freeborn and the enslaved; they were referred to as liberti or libertini, which we translate as “freedpeople.” While they were still enslaved, they had a single name, either a part of the name they had carried before they were enslaved or a name given to them by their master, often coming from mythology, referring to their country of origin, or referring to a personal characteristic. The slave's name, like everything else, was completely at the discretion of his/her owner. However, there were specific conventions that governed the names of freedpeople. A freedman took the praenomen and nomen of his former master, who was now his patron, plus his slave name as a cognomen; if he had been freed by a woman, he took her father's praenomen and nomen plus his slave name (e.g., Marcus Antonius' daughter Antonia freed a slave named Pallas, who was then called M. Antonius Pallas). Freedwomen took the feminine form of their master's (or mistress's) nomen plus their slave name (e.g., Antonia's freed slavewoman Caenis became Antonia Caenis). If the freedperson then contracted a legal marriage, the children born after this marriage were freeborn, and they often continued to bear the nomen of their father's patron. For example, according to an inscription from the first century BCE, a man named Publius Larcius freed a male slave named Nicia, who was then called Publius Larcius Nicia, and his freeborn sons were named Publius Larcius Rufus and Publius Larcius Brocchus. Publius Larcius Nicia later freed his own female slave named Horaea, who was then named Larcia Horaea.
Possession of three names did not necessarily mean that a freedman was a Roman citizen. If his former master or mistress had been a Roman citizen and if he had been formally freed according to certain specific procedures and conditions, he would become a Roman citizen. However, if he had been freed informally by a Roman citizen, he would become a Junian Latin rather than a Roman citizen, even though his name would be the same; thus only an indication of a voting tribe after his name would prove that the freedman was now a Roman citizen.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_name
"
What you have and what you want, what you want but can't have, what you have but don't want, & what it means!
"
This was about a few things including the idea and the phrase I hope I coined "I shop, therefore I am", which is about the things that end up surrounding us which may represent us and form and further influence and may act asa stabilization and anchoring to develop a sense of personality.
Even though this may be a public forum, and thus perhaps a little bit dangerous for me to experiment with things, I wanted to see if I could somehow, at least at times, present a "devil's advocate" perspective, but not in the most expected fashion, so sometimes what I present may be hyper-augmented, or exaggerated and extreme forms of sentiments, in other cases I may present strong looking opinions about things I really barely care about, for me my interest is always in exploring ideas and learning about myself, while what I present might imply lots of things or nothing, and I am always prepared to disavow everything I say, just like the one "Nelk boy" is constantly excusing himself with the claim that he is merely an idiot.
It isn't true in my case, hopefully, but rather I do feel passionately and strongly about some things but not necessarily the things I present or what one might think by what I present and how I may present it, since what I try to do for myself first is push ideas everywhere.
A habit of pushing and stretching ideas everywhere has also possibly in some cases blurred the lines about what I really think, but a few things seem to be trie which I think should be for most humans and animals, and are very straightforward, but with a lot of things I probably don't really care, or feel hopeless, or think of it in two or more very stretched in seemingly the opposite ways, in other cases my thought is just careless and callous or perhaps even what might be considered the worst, though I'm never entirely serious about the execution of much of anything, only fantasies which represent emotions.
My hatred for trouble and suffering is genuine, and which I think is likely shared by most anything, we don't like to be frustrated or blocked or interfered with, and I probably would not mind if there were quick and easy solutions to everything which work in my favor even if something or someone else, mainly something or someone else directly impeding or causing serious problems for me, was a non issue and removed from functioning as a problem factor, even one possible due to the fear and anticipation of a return of the issue.
Like spiders and the other insects that they eat, the spider wants something, the fly wants something else and not what the spider wants or wants from it.
The YouTube channel "CarefreeWandering" makes videos that often bring up the idea of "Authenticity" to do with ideas of what they and their co-author colleague call "Profilicity", which is a carefully curated presentation of identity, an "all you need to know" or really "all I want you to know" that people have increasingly been feeling pressured to produce. In my case, I don't think I'm ever actually doing that as much, since I try to present everything, even things that maybe have not all that much to do with anything I'd really think of feel is truly a sufficient or acceptable "me".
I was thinking back to where it all went wrong, or if I even appreciate anything, and though I surely do, I also feel like there would be no end to the things I could do without, and I could just skip it all, as if nothing was good or "worth it", that it all seems like babble and rubbish, yet I still choose things out of all the stuff I'd probably not mind not even existing again, and certainly would be fine had I never known it (since ignorance can be bliss too, and you can't know the displeasure of not "having" or experiencing what you didn't even imagine.
At the same time though, I can easily differentiate what I like, and like more, and like less, and don't like at all, and can theorize as to why that may be or what it does for me.
Somehow, also, this can be tied in to the really vile behaviour of certain people online who are gloating about the suffering that they and those they support abd their people are inflicting upon others, and how they frequently say "Where is your God? Why isn't your God helping you? Your God has left you?" over and over and over, which really achieves nothing but showcasing their monstrousness for being linked to and part of a culture they themselves never chose for themselves, nor did their enemies, plus the ones saying such things are the furthest from decent or righteous beings in the slightest, but I've seen lots of varieties of disgusting people show what they are these days, even some daring to pretend religion for themselves while clearly the majority of people, including the religious minded, could never accept the suggestion that the apparent villainy is acceptable and not clearly just more of what people were warned against doing to others by others, authorities from the past, mankind, and their religious standards and belief in right, justice, and sense of propriety.
I was also looking at this information from a P*rnogr*phic M*dia Empire with tremendous influence, claiming that this represents a reality and a clue, though it may be a lie and an attempt to influence, all stemming from the owner of it all who was trained to be a R*bb*.
https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2024-year-in-review
https://mashable.com/article/10-fastest ... clips4sale
https://blog.clips4sale.com/b/the-unite ... of-fetish/
https://www.pornhub.com/insights/united ... p-searches
Based on the dates, and the claims, if any of this is even true, it at the very least is claiming shifts and specifications over around 10 years.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pornhub-study ... 25260.html
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/20-c ... 3-1168656/
https://www.inverse.com/article/26011-p ... eport-2016
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread ... country/1/
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/1 ... sex-online
https://www.statista.com/statistics/145 ... y-country/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/commen ... h_country/
https://wour.com/nsfw-pornhub-reveals-m ... -new-york/
https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-st ... the-south/
The third link in the list, mentions "vore" and "giantess", which reminds me of "Attack On Titan", inspired by this piece of art by Goya:
https://www.19thcenturyart-facos.com/ar ... s-children
https://www.reddit.com/r/titanfolk/comm ... war_manga/
"
I think each titan is supposed to represent a different aspect of war, although I'm not sure how for each individual one. There's some obvious ones like the armored and colossal titan representing defense and offense, and the cart titan representing transportation.
Then there's the jaw titan, which I suspect is supposed to represent sacrifice. Mainly due to the fact that the person inheriting this titan is always someone who sacrifices themselves at some point, or at least has that intention.
The female titan of course would be adaptability, as represented by its ability to be versatile and absorb other abilities. But that might be more of a stretch.
Then there's the attack and founding titan. I have multiple theories on these. They could represent past and future (understanding history, and being able to predict the enemies next move)
Or the founding titan could represent authority, while the attack titan literally just represents advancement. Advancement in technology, tactics, etc.
If it's the warhammer titan instead that represents authority, the founding titan could represent knowledge that gets passed down, the passing of the torch, the cycle of old teaching the young (which would include indoctrination, making it more symbolic as the antagonist of the series, and an antagonist against the one who represents the advancement titan. Lots to unpack there)
The warhammer titan could represent supply. Supply is always an integral part of any military. Making sure everyone has the equipment they need is extremely important. This would explain it's ability to create weapons.
But this wouldn't explain the symbolism involving grounded-ness, so I'm less sure about this one.
The beast titan. This one has me the most unsure of what it represents.
My best guess is that it represents individuality. Most importantly individual talent.
Each beast titan is completely different, which makes it different from all the others that stay mostly the same from generation to generation.
Even the jaw/self sacrifice titan, when consuming a piece of it, changes drastically, giving their titan more individuality.
Each beast titan is given the task of figuring out their own strengths and how to apply them in battle. Even Zeke's character as a whole is a pretty thorough representation of individuality. His eldian blood defines him the least out of all Eldians in the workplace, and he always had his own motives from the beginning, despite the fact that they were not shared by anyone else.
But let's discuss all this in the comments and see if we can come to an agreement on what specifically each titan represents.
"
"
I actually really love this idea, and I’d love to share some of my own ideas for the symbolism, not to say your ideas are wrong I just have some of my own.
• Colossal titan could represent destruction and the horror of unrelenting, apathetic, and indiscriminate death on a massive and sudden scale. It could show how war takes everything from so many in a second
• The beast titan could represent the loss of humanity, the, ahem, beast in man.How people become something else entirely, something different from anything on a savage level once they go through hell, similar to how the inheritors are all something else on a person on person basis (This could also be interpreted as the idea you had of individuality, I like both)
•The Jaw Titan could represent the push forward, offense which is capable and willing to destroy their enemies. The inner attacker and fighter in each human who fights on the line, and the truly horrifying murderer in each of us. Similar to how the Jaw Titan is such an offensive unit capable of decimating its enemies in quick attack flurries and crushing blows.
•The Armored titan could be self preservation to live another day, or in other words defense like you said. Not much to say here, other than the part of a soldier which they use to defend themself and stay alert for attacks
•The Warhammer Titan could be ingenuity and creativity in ways the enemy couldn’t plan for. With its ability to create anything from hardening it could easily represent attacking enemies in a way not before seen, or in an entirely unique way on the battlefield. New technology being created to catch the enemy off guard and being used in new ways is exactly what the War Hammer is about.
•The Founding Titan like you said, Authority. The power to command, wield armies and use them upon your enemies. To be in control of a overwhelming power which can be unleashed at any time if the order is given. Just like Ymir’s overwhelming power, and the potential of the founder titan (ironic because she can’t personally use any of it without someone else’s authority, at least before Eren).
•The Cart Titan, the only thing I can thing of is maybe something like the burden soldiers carry for the nation, or the weight of everything they carry around from the horrors seen, the guilt and shame from what has been done, to the memories of those lost. I know this one is a more symbolic notion, however I really don’t know what else it could mean other than supplies or industry in general. Just like how Pieck carries stuff. That’s the explanation.
•For the Female Titan I don’t have any ideas other than what you said about adaptability. A soldiers ability to adapt to their environment or situation whenever conflict arises. Just like how Annie adapts through the experiments given to her, and in general to how she adapted to the mission going off rails, joining the army, or the scout corps attacks.
•Last but not least, The Attack Titan. This is another one I think you nailed, it’s the idea of tactics, formation, and strategy it takes to win a war and make sure all of your enemies are destroyed.
This is was pretty fun to think of, so thank you for the idea OP, it’s a pretty cool idea to sort out. Also, I tried my best to not repeat what you already said, and when i did i tried to bring other ideas or explanations into the mix to contribute.
Upvote
9
Downvote
2 more replies
DuudPuerfectuh
•
5y ago
I think colossal just represents weapons of mass destruction
Upvote
2
Downvote
00red00green00yellow
OP
•
5y ago
Symbolically, if it represents initial attack, or power, it makes sense that it would have the greatest offensive power out of all the titans.
If it was just "weapons" of any kind, that would just fall under supply imo
"
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Nine_Titans
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Ymir_Fritz
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Subjects_of_Ymir
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/P ... the_Titans
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Titan
"
Unlike other species, Titans did not mate, and their interactions were nonexistent with organisms other than humans;[4] their sole purpose in life was to seek out and devour humans. They did not derive any real sustenance from humans either, as many of them did not taste human flesh for a century after the Walls were raised; but it did not affect their activity or decrease their numbers.[5]
Some Titans did not react to pain, and all would move as long as there is sunlight.[6] Titans did not possess a complete, functioning digestive tract; they merely had a stomach-like cavity that eventually filled up with what they swallow.[7] After consuming a certain amount, they regurgitated the contents of the cavity before they continued eating more humans.[7]
Most Titans showed no signs of intelligence and acted like mindless beasts—easy to trick, distract, and deceive. The Nine Titans were the exception: they had human level intellect due to being piloted by a human. However, some Abnormals were also able to sustain some of their former intelligence, such as Connie's mother[8] and the Titan encountered by Ilse Langnar[9], both of which demonstrated the capacity to form thoughts and even communicate with humans.
"
https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Abnormal
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/953232
"
In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (H. Aphr.), Zeus exacts revenge on Aphrodite because she has been repeatedly forcing him and other deities to pursue mortal women and men and then bragging about it. To that end, Zeus casts desire into the goddess of love with the intent of humiliating her. Without delay, Aphrodite lusts after the mortal and heroic Trojan Anchises, and so she constructs a disguise to deceive him into sleeping with her. More specifically, Aphrodite appears to Anchises as a beautiful maiden and says that she is a Phrygian princess, the daughter of Otreus, abducted [End Page 75] from a chorus by Hermes and dropped onto Mount Ida to be married to Anchises. Many scholars of this poem have noticed the ironic nature of Aphrodite’s so-called “seduction” of Anchises: while both the goddess and Anchises think themselves to be in control of their sexual relationship,1 Anchises is tricked, Zeus is the mover behind Aphrodite’s lust, and Aphrodite is the ultimate cause of her own unwanted affliction.2 The poem thus perfectly encapsulates the problem of desire in Greek thought, which, as Froma Zeitlin puts it, construes eros as “a power difficult or impossible to control,” whose nature raises questions “as to which element is active or passive, which the aggressor or the victim.”3
Because the sex between the pair is not physically violent, and because of the Greek construction of eros as a power forceful unto itself, the events that transpire between Aphrodite and Anchises are always called in the scholarship on the Hymn a “seduction” or “affair.” John García says of Aphrodite’s coercive lie to Anchises that it is “one of the most charming passages in all of Greek literature,” and Monica Cyrino calls it a “sexy speech” (García 2002.23 and Cyrino 2010.91).4 Hugh Parry, despite the fact that he finds fear, compulsion, submission, and deception to be crucial to the meaning of H. Aphr., maintains that “both lovers find their condition [welcome]” (Parry 1986.257). Zeitlin, for her part, draws a sharp contrast between Aphrodite’s mode of behavior and that of “Male gods [who] may ravish their mortal women in disguise—a cloud, a shower of golden rain, the form of a satyr, a swan—or even in person. A female divinity, however, cannot simply enforce her desire” (Zeitlin 2023.35).
According to Jenny Strauss Clay, “Seduction [ . . . ] in which the weaker overcomes the stronger, is the polar opposite of forcible rape” (Clay 2006.177). Rosanna Lauriola’s recent treatment of mythic rape, however, ought to give us pause when considering the “charms” of Aphrodite’s lie, as should Zeitlin’s observation that eros renders many Greek mythic sexual encounters ambiguous (though she does not locate Anchises’ experience in this category).5 Lauriola’s definition of rape does not exculpate the rapists [End Page 76] of myth on the grounds that desire is construed in the Greek imagination as irresistible and externally motivated. Importantly, Lauriola includes acts that are committed by deception in her characterization of rape—a modality particularly favored by Zeus, a “master rapist” notorious for using disguise, deceit, and metamorphosis to trick and trap his mostly female victims (Lauriola 2022.60, 66; see also Deacy 2018). Lauriola’s discussion of rape in Greek and Roman myth (2022.55):
[reflects] the victims’ perspective. This definition is as simple as it should have been since the dawn of time: rape is a violation of the female personhood which occurs through a coerced sexual intercourse, where resistance and rebellion are impeded and inhibited in a variety of ways, and where silence or lack of fighting are by no means a sign of consent [ . . . ] In addition, any abduction performed for, and resulting in, rape or forced marriage [is] considered an act of rape in itself.
This last stipulation is crucial because ambiguous terms such as the Greek harpazdō, “snatch,” and helkō, “seize,” often foreshadow or imply sexual violence. Because the violence is not explicit, mythic abductions can be treated in scholarship or receptions as somehow consensual,6 perhaps, in part, because of the way in which the Greek marriage ritual re-enacts elements of rape.7 Indeed, Aphrodite Avagianou and Eric Dodson-Robinson have each applied insights about marriage rituals to the myths of the abductions of, respectively, Kore/Persephone and Helen (Avagianou 1991.115–16 and Dodson-Robinson 2010.10–16). As John Oakley and Rebecca Sinos put it in their discussion of the Talos painter’s use of Helen’s abduction to convey the beauty of a bride, “brides play a role like that of Helen [ . . . ] in the show of resistance that is built into the ritual” (Oakley and Sinos 1993.13). Because of their shared characteristics with marriage, then, abductions (and we shall return to this point shortly) can be (mis)construed as consensual.
"
Now, this may seem like I'm talking about numerous things m, because I am, but these are all themes and ideas, with other things including visuals that are related along with adjacent concepts and terms that are closely tied together, or are meant to be at least in this thread, since a major aspect is "seizing" and "devouring" and "you are what you (acquire and) eat".
America is also the descendant of "Roman Power" and "Greek Thought", or would like to think of itself as the heir of such, regularly priding itself as the current "Greatest Nation On Earth" and "Ruler Of The (Whole) World".
It has created a Phantom Rome which it parodies in various ways, without really knowing all too much about historic Rome:
https://youtu.be/1D1_fE5tqRg?feature=shared
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articl ... n-of-rome/
"
At the heart of this way of thinking is the radical equation of the secular with sin. John Milbank, to take a modern example of this venerable tradition of interpreting Augustine, writes in Theology and Social Theory:
This civitas [the civitas terrena] as Augustine finds it in the present, is the vestigial remains of an entirely pagan mode of practice, stretching back to Babylon. There is no set of positive objectives that are its own peculiar business, and the City of God makes usus of exactly the same range of finite goods, although for different ends, with “a different faith, a different hope, a different love” [Civ. Dei 18.54]. For the ends sought by the civitas terrena are not merely limited, finite goods, they are those finite goods regarded without “referral” to the infinite good, and, in consequence, they are unconditionally bad ends. The realm of the merely practical, cut off from the ecclesial, is quite simply a realm of sin (406).
Although some of the assumptions behind this statement are very open to question, a great deal in Augustine’s thought points in this direction. There is certainly a sense in which Augustine was committed to the view that only in the Church, and indeed only in the Church as it will be in its final, eschatologically purified state, can justice properly speaking be realized. The claim that classical political theory is relocated by Christianity as thought about the Church has solid foundations in Augustine’s thought: especially in his mature thinking as it developed under the overwhelmingly anti-Pelagian concern that had come to be pervasive in it.
This would give some support to the view of the Church as the exemplary community espoused by theologians who like to describe themselves as “radically orthodox.” Paul Lakeland says that according to theologians of this persuasion, “The fullness of the gospel demands . . . something like a premodern understanding of the integrity of the Christian community” (Postmodernity, 43)—what in common usage would be meant by “Christendom.” In such a view no sound political theory can be constructed except within the framework of a Christian “ontology” or worldview.
If true justice is dependent on true piety, as Augustine undoubtedly held, then it is certainly true that Augustine could not envisage any community other than the Church as capable of realizing the political objectives of the res publica. For if justice (iustitia) in the full-blooded sense given it by Augustine is an essential constituent of the notion of “what is right” (iuris consensus), then evidently “where there is no true justice there can be no ius either” (Civ. Dei 19.21.1), and, as Augustine concludes, that true justice,
Is found only where the one true God alone rules by grace over a society which obeys Him and sacrifices only to Him, in all of whose members the body is subject to the soul, the vices to reason in observance of the right order; in that city the whole community and people, like the individual just man, live in that faith which works by love, that love whereby man loves God as He is to be loved and his neighbor as he loves himself (Civ. Dei 19.23.5).
Augustine not only accepts the conclusion but insists on the impossibility of true justice being attained, even by just and pious believers, except by humility, with the help of God’s grace.
This holds for true or perfect virtue, virtue which avails a person for salvation. But Augustine’s polemic against the virtues of pagans should not induce us to believe that all acts of virtue, to be virtuous, need to be perfectly virtuous, that justice can be real only when perfect. Even though, as he has just told us, true or perfect justice, like the true or perfect virtue which procures salvation, can be possessed only by those who have true pietas, he nevertheless leaves no doubt that an imperfect but useful virtue can be found among citizens of the earthly City (see: Civ. Dei 5.19).
"
https://www.cfr.org/article/self-absorb ... rder-world
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/670580/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... arcissists
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _centered/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_ancient_Rome
"
The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious,[15] and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the Gods. According to legendary history, most of Rome's religious institutions could be traced to its founders, particularly Numa Pompilius, the Sabine second King of Rome, who negotiated directly with the Gods. This archaic religion was the foundation of the mos maiorum, "the way of the ancestors" or simply "tradition," viewed as central to Roman identity.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum
America's "parody" of an ignored, more "actual" "Rome (=Power)" still has echos of similar pretensions, likely common across the globe, but which make America a spectre that had existence in the "Real Rome" while it existed, except neither knew of the presence of the other, and America still doesn't know about Rome, but still thinks it is the New Rome, similar to "The Emperor's New Clothes", a nothing that they were convinced to be so proud of.
Echos of aspects that solidified more in "Actual America", like "Right Now" still had occurrences in Roman times, such as importance placed on "self" through names:
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-o ... me-matters
https://www.bondandgrace.com/lit-talk/t ... nd-meaning
https://www.vroma.org/vromans/bmcmanus/roman_names.html
"
Names of Freedpeople: When slaves were freed, they occupied a middle status between the freeborn and the enslaved; they were referred to as liberti or libertini, which we translate as “freedpeople.” While they were still enslaved, they had a single name, either a part of the name they had carried before they were enslaved or a name given to them by their master, often coming from mythology, referring to their country of origin, or referring to a personal characteristic. The slave's name, like everything else, was completely at the discretion of his/her owner. However, there were specific conventions that governed the names of freedpeople. A freedman took the praenomen and nomen of his former master, who was now his patron, plus his slave name as a cognomen; if he had been freed by a woman, he took her father's praenomen and nomen plus his slave name (e.g., Marcus Antonius' daughter Antonia freed a slave named Pallas, who was then called M. Antonius Pallas). Freedwomen took the feminine form of their master's (or mistress's) nomen plus their slave name (e.g., Antonia's freed slavewoman Caenis became Antonia Caenis). If the freedperson then contracted a legal marriage, the children born after this marriage were freeborn, and they often continued to bear the nomen of their father's patron. For example, according to an inscription from the first century BCE, a man named Publius Larcius freed a male slave named Nicia, who was then called Publius Larcius Nicia, and his freeborn sons were named Publius Larcius Rufus and Publius Larcius Brocchus. Publius Larcius Nicia later freed his own female slave named Horaea, who was then named Larcia Horaea.
Possession of three names did not necessarily mean that a freedman was a Roman citizen. If his former master or mistress had been a Roman citizen and if he had been formally freed according to certain specific procedures and conditions, he would become a Roman citizen. However, if he had been freed informally by a Roman citizen, he would become a Junian Latin rather than a Roman citizen, even though his name would be the same; thus only an indication of a voting tribe after his name would prove that the freedman was now a Roman citizen.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_name
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Male_Renunciation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s ... form_Party
"
John Flügel, a psychologist and member of the MDRP, claimed since the end of the 18th century men had been ignoring the colorful, elaborate, and varied forms of "masculine ornamentation."[2] He called this time the Great Masculine Renunciation. "Man," Flügel claimed, had "abandoned his claim to be considered beautiful. He henceforth aimed at only being useful."[4] This view aligned with that of founding member of the Men's Dress Reform Party, William Ralph Inge. Inge believed that the democratic movements of the French Revolution had led to the increasingly dull male look: "to escape the guillotine, dress as bourgeois as possible."[2] The party's goals were largely reactions to circumstances brought on by World War I. They saw the everyday man as "oppressed by capitalist labor"[2] and saw his clothes as "depressing"[2] and lacking in creativity. The military-style uniformity[2] of the interwar period had created a culture of men who were happy to see others dressed like them, as opposed to seeing those who craved individuality. World War I also brought increased unemployment, which caused state intervention, which the Men's Dress Reform Party saw as the "oppression of professionals".[2] Lastly, the status of women in society was changing. Feminism was developing in the interwar period, as women had taken over for men during World War I in jobs, schools, and social life. This threatened men, causing some to feel "like accessories to women".[2] The MDRP sought to improve the health and hygiene of men by changing their dress, as they saw the typical male styles and materials growing more restrictive and harmful, while women's clothing was increasingly becoming more "emanicipating"[2] Their goals included "freeing the neck" by wearing the "Byron collar"[1] which was an open-front collar, and gaining approval of the kilt[2] as everyday wear for men. They also preferred blouses instead of shirts, sandals over shoes, and shorts or breeches to trousers. The party felt that hats and coats were only acceptable in appropriate weather, and that underclothing should be loose. Most of these rules were already acceptable for occasions such as vacation, but the party looked to make these the standard for town, professional, and evening dress.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoFap
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s ... form_Party
"
John Flügel, a psychologist and member of the MDRP, claimed since the end of the 18th century men had been ignoring the colorful, elaborate, and varied forms of "masculine ornamentation."[2] He called this time the Great Masculine Renunciation. "Man," Flügel claimed, had "abandoned his claim to be considered beautiful. He henceforth aimed at only being useful."[4] This view aligned with that of founding member of the Men's Dress Reform Party, William Ralph Inge. Inge believed that the democratic movements of the French Revolution had led to the increasingly dull male look: "to escape the guillotine, dress as bourgeois as possible."[2] The party's goals were largely reactions to circumstances brought on by World War I. They saw the everyday man as "oppressed by capitalist labor"[2] and saw his clothes as "depressing"[2] and lacking in creativity. The military-style uniformity[2] of the interwar period had created a culture of men who were happy to see others dressed like them, as opposed to seeing those who craved individuality. World War I also brought increased unemployment, which caused state intervention, which the Men's Dress Reform Party saw as the "oppression of professionals".[2] Lastly, the status of women in society was changing. Feminism was developing in the interwar period, as women had taken over for men during World War I in jobs, schools, and social life. This threatened men, causing some to feel "like accessories to women".[2] The MDRP sought to improve the health and hygiene of men by changing their dress, as they saw the typical male styles and materials growing more restrictive and harmful, while women's clothing was increasingly becoming more "emanicipating"[2] Their goals included "freeing the neck" by wearing the "Byron collar"[1] which was an open-front collar, and gaining approval of the kilt[2] as everyday wear for men. They also preferred blouses instead of shirts, sandals over shoes, and shorts or breeches to trousers. The party felt that hats and coats were only acceptable in appropriate weather, and that underclothing should be loose. Most of these rules were already acceptable for occasions such as vacation, but the party looked to make these the standard for town, professional, and evening dress.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoFap
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
This is thanks to your showing the video by this guy:
https://youtu.be/c6xQp9UccNo?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/fk2PpmlxIfA?feature=shared
They both have a similar hair color and possibly hair texture, with very possibly some shared ancestry at some point, while talking about similar things also, interests which they may be inclined to due to some genetic factor, and further pushed towards due to how their appearance and hair color is treated in society by people, since superficial seeming things like that can keep pushing people in certain directions by closing certain other doors more, everything counts (unfortunately).
It may be literally this silly, that if a person merely had a different appearance, or just part of their appearance, nothing would have been the same for them, which could even be said if one makes a single different move in any moment like the "Butterfly Effect", but what I'm suggesting is that if this guy had dark hair and everything else in place the sane, but started out with a different hair color only, the whole course of their life and interests may have been different, even with largely the same gene code amd influences coming in and inclinations, that everything could have manifested differently because of how they interpreted information based on their image of themself as having the dark hair, how they receive information about and from characters with an appearance similar to theirs (other dark haired people), what characters were idealized by them and how they were treated by others from the earliest times. If they somehow ended up making similar video content, their style and approach may have been totally different, and the "why" could have been as literally stupid and absurd seeming as "because of the hair color they've grown up with".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMq2aVfJ ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1PCixdX ... ure=shared
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning ... ger_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/com ... eral_mind/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrixial_Gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_horror
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Beholder
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMFtM7abC ... ure=shared
Now how in the HEIL does this tie in?:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Church_of_Bane
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Iyachtu_Xvim
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonari
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blo ... /secret-3/
"
[Carl Jung on Secret Societies and the member who fails to differentiate themselves.]
The secret society is an intermediary stage on the way to individuation.
The individual is still relying on a collective organization to effect his differentiation for him; that is, he has not yet recognized that it is really the individual’s task to differentiate himself from all the others and stand on his own feet.
All collective identities, such as membership in organizations, support of “isms,” and so on, interfere with the fulfillment of this task.
Such collective identities are crutches for the lame, shields for the timid, beds for the lazy, nurseries for the irresponsible; but they are equally shelters for the poor and weak, a home port for the shipwrecked, the bosom of a family for orphans, a land of promise for disillusioned vagrants and weary pilgrims, a herd and a safe fold for lost sheep, and a mother providing nourishment and growth.
It would therefore be wrong to regard this intermediary stage as a trap; on the contrary, for a long time to come it will represent the only possible form of existence for the individual, who nowadays seems more than ever threatened by anonymity.
Collective organization is still so essential today that many consider it, with some justification, to be the final goal; whereas to call for further steps along the road to autonomy appears like arrogance or hubris, fantasticality, or simply folly. ~Carl Jung; Memories Dreams and Reflections; Page 342.
"
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/strategy/f ... -societies
"
The strategy of secret societies is used to gain some power over, or defence from, the surrounding social environment's pressures or ideas. At its mildest, the secrecy of rites and membership heightens the sense of identity within members of a group. Forming a secret society requires the establishment of initiation rites, means of protecting the secrets of the group, and usually involves degrees of membership, structures of authority and discipline, rituals and mythology. Generally the rituals and mythology are tied to the original cause or purpose of the society.
"
"
Psychologists have argued that secret societies filled a need of immature individuals as a stage on the development path toward free, open adult responsibility.
The intensity of secret society relationships can bestow a sense of purpose and direction and evoke creativity and commitment from its members.
In situations where the open espousal of particular values, ideas or causes may provoke repression from reactionary powers, secret societies may provide the only viable vehicle through which to work for social change and development.
Secret societies for moral and psychic training and spiritual development exist because the masses are incapable of understanding human potential and fear and attack what they suppose to be elitism.
"
"
Most opposition is directed toward the excesses and perversions of secret societies: the susceptibility to criminal infiltration, brutalization of members, authoritarian leadership, anti-social values and behaviour and blind obedience.
Where a cult is made of secrecy, when a group seals itself off from the outside world and open debate, where minds are closed, and where whole lives are swallowed up in the society and not simply a few secrets, then secret societies tend to accentuate and represent a negative contribution to society and history.
Even where the aims are worthy and the perversions warded off, it may be argued that secrecy becomes a habit, and the esoteric isolation of the society perpetuates itself after the historical need which required its formation no longer exists, such as when the leaders of a successful revolution are unable after attaining power to change their style of operation and refuse to allow the participation of the whole population in polity. The very existence of secret societies prompts antagonisms and fosters accusations of immorality, subversion and heresy.
"
Look at this cool links section:
"
Broader
Ritualizing
Practicing elitism
Forming intentional communities
Entering into conspiracies
Narrower
Holding cabals
Concealing esoteric knowledge
Constrained by
Exposing secret societies
Exposing cults
Facilitates
Transforming society
Studying primitive secret societies
Promulgating conspiracy theories
Maintaining secrecy over religious material
Related
Undertaking mediaeval studies
Researching psychic science
Protecting official secrets
Problem
Primitive secret societies
Secret societies
Value
Secrecy
Habit-forming
Conspiracy
"
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/strategy/p ... ng-elitism
Elitism is built into thinking anything is right abd wrong, having any beliefs at all, though one doesn't have to be a total "bastard" about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK ... Elvb9QWLcu
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YmJIccPWn ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtt48cFAq ... ure=shared
https://youtu.be/wibs4T1pGHA?feature=shared
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemp ... _anarchism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_presentism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectival_realism
https://web.mit.edu/casparh/www/
Caspar Hare (Bugs Bunny) has a drawing of himself like these "redheads":
https://web.mit.edu/~casparh/www/VerySm ... trait1.JPG
but looks like the theoretical dark haired version I talked about:
https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/file ... 0814-1.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/NevilleGoddard ... gher_self/
"
Neville's lecture "Blake on Religion" is a real insightful lecture.
In this lecture Neville discusses a vison he had and discussed a similar vision in meditation that Carl Jung had as well.
Neville spoke about while in meditation he saw himself (or a 4th dimensional version of himself) imagining his 3d self as he knew it.
Jung, big on our dreams and imagination is of great importance, had a similar vision during meditation.
In this lecture, as with other lectures Neville talks about waking up in a dream and living in an actual other dimension. IMO, in our modern understanding Neville was skilled in Astral Projection.
Back to Neville's discussion on his higher self imagining his 3d self into existence. He said (OP - I am paraphrasing here) "if that 4th dimensional self stopped imagining I would cease to exist."
This had me thinking, if a higher version of ourself is imagining our life into existence, then I started to look at it as somewhat of a "test" and to handle things in stride and continue to imagine what I want. I found this to be empowering, since "it is all imagination."
This all goes back to what Neville, The Bible, and Mystics have all said. "We are in God, God is in us and there is nothing else." The Kabalian by William Walter Atkinson is a great read on this topic.
Neville really said it the best "It's all God and there is nothing else." His comment really makes the scripture more clear to me "Besides Me, there is no Other." I recall a lecture Neville gave where he said the literal translation said "Besides Me, there is nothing Else. "
It is more clear to me now, that live in the consciousness of God or this Higher Being. Science has now caught up with this idea that we are living in a Holographic Universe. Holograms are projected energy and so are we. We are the holograms.
"
https://thelondonmagazine.org/article/w ... tive-self/
"
In these two early Romantics, the modern concept of childhood as a special and separate state of life had one of its major sources. Each in his own way, both writers unlocked the wisdom buried in Heraclitus’s riddle that time is a child playing draughts and in Jesus’s assertion that children were the inheritors of the kingdom of god. Slowly, childhood came to be seen as a stage of life that had its own distinctive physical needs and psychological rhythms. To understand himself as an adult, Rousseau looked back to his early years to locate formative moments of change, of trauma and dissociation, often touching on the power of early sexuality as well as the gratification of unselfconscious play. If Rousseau’s father had spent his life examining the inner mechanisms of clocks and watches, his son had inspected the hidden workings of the psyche with a similar precision and care. Meanwhile Blake, in a quite different manner, offered his unique symbolic mapping of the psyche to expose its titanic conflicts, surreal phantasmagoria and oblique sublimations. Occupying different philosophical worlds, they were both pioneering psychologists, opening uncharted continents of the mind, prefiguring much that was to follow in the understanding of the inner self with its roots in childhood experience. Much of the devil’s wisdom is psychological in nature. One of the devils proclaims to Blake: The weak in courage is strong in cunning.
Another bright thread running through the seventy proverbs concerns the peculiar powers of genius. The devils urge: When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius; lift up thy head. Genius is seen as both unique and quirky: Improvements make strait roads; but the crooked roads without improvement are the roads of genius. This notion of genius was not original. The concept had developed through the course of the eighteenth-century to become a cardinal tenet of Romanticism. For the Romantic the artist was an inspired being, one set apart, a prodigy with incomparable powers of articulation and perception. Previously, ‘genius’ had referred either to a common talent or to a guardian spirit, but never to a particular individual, a virtuoso, someone with exceptional qualities of insight or execution. In its new sense, the word no longer described a common faculty or a transcendental spirit, but an individual, generally an artist or scientist who possessed phenomenal gifts. It is interesting that Johnson’s Dictionary of 1755 did not include this particular usage, for it must have been buzzing around the ears of the industrious lexicographer. Was he, who linked Romanticism only to the words ‘wild’ and ‘fanciful’, resistant to the emergent meaning? Most likely. Only a few years before, the novelist Henry Fielding pitched individual genius against cultural training and conscious effort. In Tom Jones he talked of: the wonderful force of genius only without the least assistance of learning. Unnoticed by Doctor Johnson, this was a new and sharp differentiation. The contrast between soaring genius and plodding talent was to be taken up by German Romantic philosophers and then re-imported back into England becoming, by the end of the Romantic period, a dichotomy etched into the language.
As early as 1774, Alexander Gerard in his pioneering essay on the nature of genius called it the grand instrument of all investigation, linking it to the powers of feeling and association. True genius, he declared, had to be an enthusiast. Etymologically, enthusiasm means: (being) in God. It might have been one of the proverbs from hell. Once again, the new reference discloses a dramatic internalisation of meaning. From the Renaissance onwards, the word ‘genius’ had moved from denoting something ‘out there’ to something ‘in here’, from the outer cosmos or tribal collectivity, into a mysterious inner space. All but divine powers of creation were now seen as residing in the very depths of a creative self. It was Coleridge who later named true acts of creativity as the repetition of the finite mind in the infinite I am. Carrying a strong Christian resonance, it still reverberates like a new ontology.
And around the emerging conception of ‘genius’ lay a cluster of related words which further articulated and extended the romantic concept of art and identity: ‘organic’, ‘original’, ‘expressive’, ‘vital’, ‘symbolic’, ‘spiritual’, ‘numinous’. But the most resounding word in the budding semantic of Romanticism was, surely, ‘imagination’. Keats wrote to inform Shelley: My imagination is a Monastery and I am its monk. And it is one of Blake’s most emphatic words. He constantly defined the true self as Imagination, the ground of all being. Annotating Wordsworth’s poems, he scribbled in the margins of the book: One power alone makes the Poet – Imagination The Divine Vision. In the proverbs he quoted the devil’s adage: What is now proved was once only imagined. Once again, the historical development of the word relays a seismic shift towards a greater subjectivity. With one exception, there would seem to be no counterpart to the Blakean concept of imagination before the middle of the eighteenth century; before then, the word carried the sense of a mental image or reflection, often with the connotations of a pleasing delusion, a figment of experience closer to magic than reality. The stunning exception is found in Shakespeare. Around 1596, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the playwright conceived of an inner faculty capable of discovery and recreation:
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
It took nearly two centuries for Shakespeare’s linguistic invention to find its cultural home and its apotheosis.
By the time Blake was writing and etching, imagination had become for many the modus operandi of the mind, or what later Coleridge, hugely influenced by Kant, named the living power and prime agent of all human perception. Metaphorically, imagination was often pictured as the fountain, the source, the bubbling well-head or, alternatively, as the inner lamp, spark or light which illuminated the outer world. Conceptually, it was related to Kant’s analysis of the mind. For Kant, all human experience was shaped through certain a priori categories, like those of space and time; but the Romantics sought to extend this account by including a priori images. A complex set of categories and archetypes worked mysteriously together to weave the common fabric of our human world. The imagination was inherently active and dynamic. It knitted together feeling, sensing and thinking in a continuous struggle to create unity out of the larger flux of life. In 1794 Friedrich Schiller published his seminal work On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters in which the continuous struggle (and joy) of creativity was extolled as a liberating force in the life of humanity. The aesthetic play of the mind could augment a new world, what Blake would have christened as the eternal Jerusalem of the Imagination.
One of the devil’s proverbs reads: Where man is not, nature is barren. And why was this? Because the imagination lit up the objects it beheld, bestowing a radiance on the universe, casting a light that never was on sea or land.
The romantic conception of imagination may unlock one of the more enigmatic proverbs of the devils: Every thing possible to be believed is an image of truth. It is as if the mind possessed a storehouse of cognitive possibilities only waiting to be recognized and enumerated, as if the forms of things unknown lay stacked away in the secret larder of the mind. Of course, this view largely derived from Plato and Plotinus, two ancient philosophers who had a seminal influence on romantic thinking, keeping open subterranean movements of mystical thinking and checking the supreme rationalism of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution.
Closely related to imagination was the idea of the sublime. It is another of the words Blake’s devils relish. In the proverbs the head is seen as the sublime part of the human body, while (unexpectedly for devils) the same word is used to mark acts of moral goodness: The most sublime act is to set another before you.
"
https://youtu.be/c6xQp9UccNo?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/fk2PpmlxIfA?feature=shared
They both have a similar hair color and possibly hair texture, with very possibly some shared ancestry at some point, while talking about similar things also, interests which they may be inclined to due to some genetic factor, and further pushed towards due to how their appearance and hair color is treated in society by people, since superficial seeming things like that can keep pushing people in certain directions by closing certain other doors more, everything counts (unfortunately).
It may be literally this silly, that if a person merely had a different appearance, or just part of their appearance, nothing would have been the same for them, which could even be said if one makes a single different move in any moment like the "Butterfly Effect", but what I'm suggesting is that if this guy had dark hair and everything else in place the sane, but started out with a different hair color only, the whole course of their life and interests may have been different, even with largely the same gene code amd influences coming in and inclinations, that everything could have manifested differently because of how they interpreted information based on their image of themself as having the dark hair, how they receive information about and from characters with an appearance similar to theirs (other dark haired people), what characters were idealized by them and how they were treated by others from the earliest times. If they somehow ended up making similar video content, their style and approach may have been totally different, and the "why" could have been as literally stupid and absurd seeming as "because of the hair color they've grown up with".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMq2aVfJ ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1PCixdX ... ure=shared
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning ... ger_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/com ... eral_mind/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrixial_Gaze
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_horror
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Beholder
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMFtM7abC ... ure=shared
Now how in the HEIL does this tie in?:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Church_of_Bane
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Iyachtu_Xvim
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonari
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blo ... /secret-3/
"
[Carl Jung on Secret Societies and the member who fails to differentiate themselves.]
The secret society is an intermediary stage on the way to individuation.
The individual is still relying on a collective organization to effect his differentiation for him; that is, he has not yet recognized that it is really the individual’s task to differentiate himself from all the others and stand on his own feet.
All collective identities, such as membership in organizations, support of “isms,” and so on, interfere with the fulfillment of this task.
Such collective identities are crutches for the lame, shields for the timid, beds for the lazy, nurseries for the irresponsible; but they are equally shelters for the poor and weak, a home port for the shipwrecked, the bosom of a family for orphans, a land of promise for disillusioned vagrants and weary pilgrims, a herd and a safe fold for lost sheep, and a mother providing nourishment and growth.
It would therefore be wrong to regard this intermediary stage as a trap; on the contrary, for a long time to come it will represent the only possible form of existence for the individual, who nowadays seems more than ever threatened by anonymity.
Collective organization is still so essential today that many consider it, with some justification, to be the final goal; whereas to call for further steps along the road to autonomy appears like arrogance or hubris, fantasticality, or simply folly. ~Carl Jung; Memories Dreams and Reflections; Page 342.
"
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/strategy/f ... -societies
"
The strategy of secret societies is used to gain some power over, or defence from, the surrounding social environment's pressures or ideas. At its mildest, the secrecy of rites and membership heightens the sense of identity within members of a group. Forming a secret society requires the establishment of initiation rites, means of protecting the secrets of the group, and usually involves degrees of membership, structures of authority and discipline, rituals and mythology. Generally the rituals and mythology are tied to the original cause or purpose of the society.
"
"
Psychologists have argued that secret societies filled a need of immature individuals as a stage on the development path toward free, open adult responsibility.
The intensity of secret society relationships can bestow a sense of purpose and direction and evoke creativity and commitment from its members.
In situations where the open espousal of particular values, ideas or causes may provoke repression from reactionary powers, secret societies may provide the only viable vehicle through which to work for social change and development.
Secret societies for moral and psychic training and spiritual development exist because the masses are incapable of understanding human potential and fear and attack what they suppose to be elitism.
"
"
Most opposition is directed toward the excesses and perversions of secret societies: the susceptibility to criminal infiltration, brutalization of members, authoritarian leadership, anti-social values and behaviour and blind obedience.
Where a cult is made of secrecy, when a group seals itself off from the outside world and open debate, where minds are closed, and where whole lives are swallowed up in the society and not simply a few secrets, then secret societies tend to accentuate and represent a negative contribution to society and history.
Even where the aims are worthy and the perversions warded off, it may be argued that secrecy becomes a habit, and the esoteric isolation of the society perpetuates itself after the historical need which required its formation no longer exists, such as when the leaders of a successful revolution are unable after attaining power to change their style of operation and refuse to allow the participation of the whole population in polity. The very existence of secret societies prompts antagonisms and fosters accusations of immorality, subversion and heresy.
"
Look at this cool links section:
"
Broader
Ritualizing
Practicing elitism
Forming intentional communities
Entering into conspiracies
Narrower
Holding cabals
Concealing esoteric knowledge
Constrained by
Exposing secret societies
Exposing cults
Facilitates
Transforming society
Studying primitive secret societies
Promulgating conspiracy theories
Maintaining secrecy over religious material
Related
Undertaking mediaeval studies
Researching psychic science
Protecting official secrets
Problem
Primitive secret societies
Secret societies
Value
Secrecy
Habit-forming
Conspiracy
"
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/strategy/p ... ng-elitism
Elitism is built into thinking anything is right abd wrong, having any beliefs at all, though one doesn't have to be a total "bastard" about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK ... Elvb9QWLcu
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YmJIccPWn ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtt48cFAq ... ure=shared
https://youtu.be/wibs4T1pGHA?feature=shared
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemp ... _anarchism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_presentism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectival_realism
https://web.mit.edu/casparh/www/
Caspar Hare (Bugs Bunny) has a drawing of himself like these "redheads":
https://web.mit.edu/~casparh/www/VerySm ... trait1.JPG
but looks like the theoretical dark haired version I talked about:
https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/file ... 0814-1.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/NevilleGoddard ... gher_self/
"
Neville's lecture "Blake on Religion" is a real insightful lecture.
In this lecture Neville discusses a vison he had and discussed a similar vision in meditation that Carl Jung had as well.
Neville spoke about while in meditation he saw himself (or a 4th dimensional version of himself) imagining his 3d self as he knew it.
Jung, big on our dreams and imagination is of great importance, had a similar vision during meditation.
In this lecture, as with other lectures Neville talks about waking up in a dream and living in an actual other dimension. IMO, in our modern understanding Neville was skilled in Astral Projection.
Back to Neville's discussion on his higher self imagining his 3d self into existence. He said (OP - I am paraphrasing here) "if that 4th dimensional self stopped imagining I would cease to exist."
This had me thinking, if a higher version of ourself is imagining our life into existence, then I started to look at it as somewhat of a "test" and to handle things in stride and continue to imagine what I want. I found this to be empowering, since "it is all imagination."
This all goes back to what Neville, The Bible, and Mystics have all said. "We are in God, God is in us and there is nothing else." The Kabalian by William Walter Atkinson is a great read on this topic.
Neville really said it the best "It's all God and there is nothing else." His comment really makes the scripture more clear to me "Besides Me, there is no Other." I recall a lecture Neville gave where he said the literal translation said "Besides Me, there is nothing Else. "
It is more clear to me now, that live in the consciousness of God or this Higher Being. Science has now caught up with this idea that we are living in a Holographic Universe. Holograms are projected energy and so are we. We are the holograms.
"
https://thelondonmagazine.org/article/w ... tive-self/
"
In these two early Romantics, the modern concept of childhood as a special and separate state of life had one of its major sources. Each in his own way, both writers unlocked the wisdom buried in Heraclitus’s riddle that time is a child playing draughts and in Jesus’s assertion that children were the inheritors of the kingdom of god. Slowly, childhood came to be seen as a stage of life that had its own distinctive physical needs and psychological rhythms. To understand himself as an adult, Rousseau looked back to his early years to locate formative moments of change, of trauma and dissociation, often touching on the power of early sexuality as well as the gratification of unselfconscious play. If Rousseau’s father had spent his life examining the inner mechanisms of clocks and watches, his son had inspected the hidden workings of the psyche with a similar precision and care. Meanwhile Blake, in a quite different manner, offered his unique symbolic mapping of the psyche to expose its titanic conflicts, surreal phantasmagoria and oblique sublimations. Occupying different philosophical worlds, they were both pioneering psychologists, opening uncharted continents of the mind, prefiguring much that was to follow in the understanding of the inner self with its roots in childhood experience. Much of the devil’s wisdom is psychological in nature. One of the devils proclaims to Blake: The weak in courage is strong in cunning.
Another bright thread running through the seventy proverbs concerns the peculiar powers of genius. The devils urge: When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius; lift up thy head. Genius is seen as both unique and quirky: Improvements make strait roads; but the crooked roads without improvement are the roads of genius. This notion of genius was not original. The concept had developed through the course of the eighteenth-century to become a cardinal tenet of Romanticism. For the Romantic the artist was an inspired being, one set apart, a prodigy with incomparable powers of articulation and perception. Previously, ‘genius’ had referred either to a common talent or to a guardian spirit, but never to a particular individual, a virtuoso, someone with exceptional qualities of insight or execution. In its new sense, the word no longer described a common faculty or a transcendental spirit, but an individual, generally an artist or scientist who possessed phenomenal gifts. It is interesting that Johnson’s Dictionary of 1755 did not include this particular usage, for it must have been buzzing around the ears of the industrious lexicographer. Was he, who linked Romanticism only to the words ‘wild’ and ‘fanciful’, resistant to the emergent meaning? Most likely. Only a few years before, the novelist Henry Fielding pitched individual genius against cultural training and conscious effort. In Tom Jones he talked of: the wonderful force of genius only without the least assistance of learning. Unnoticed by Doctor Johnson, this was a new and sharp differentiation. The contrast between soaring genius and plodding talent was to be taken up by German Romantic philosophers and then re-imported back into England becoming, by the end of the Romantic period, a dichotomy etched into the language.
As early as 1774, Alexander Gerard in his pioneering essay on the nature of genius called it the grand instrument of all investigation, linking it to the powers of feeling and association. True genius, he declared, had to be an enthusiast. Etymologically, enthusiasm means: (being) in God. It might have been one of the proverbs from hell. Once again, the new reference discloses a dramatic internalisation of meaning. From the Renaissance onwards, the word ‘genius’ had moved from denoting something ‘out there’ to something ‘in here’, from the outer cosmos or tribal collectivity, into a mysterious inner space. All but divine powers of creation were now seen as residing in the very depths of a creative self. It was Coleridge who later named true acts of creativity as the repetition of the finite mind in the infinite I am. Carrying a strong Christian resonance, it still reverberates like a new ontology.
And around the emerging conception of ‘genius’ lay a cluster of related words which further articulated and extended the romantic concept of art and identity: ‘organic’, ‘original’, ‘expressive’, ‘vital’, ‘symbolic’, ‘spiritual’, ‘numinous’. But the most resounding word in the budding semantic of Romanticism was, surely, ‘imagination’. Keats wrote to inform Shelley: My imagination is a Monastery and I am its monk. And it is one of Blake’s most emphatic words. He constantly defined the true self as Imagination, the ground of all being. Annotating Wordsworth’s poems, he scribbled in the margins of the book: One power alone makes the Poet – Imagination The Divine Vision. In the proverbs he quoted the devil’s adage: What is now proved was once only imagined. Once again, the historical development of the word relays a seismic shift towards a greater subjectivity. With one exception, there would seem to be no counterpart to the Blakean concept of imagination before the middle of the eighteenth century; before then, the word carried the sense of a mental image or reflection, often with the connotations of a pleasing delusion, a figment of experience closer to magic than reality. The stunning exception is found in Shakespeare. Around 1596, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the playwright conceived of an inner faculty capable of discovery and recreation:
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
It took nearly two centuries for Shakespeare’s linguistic invention to find its cultural home and its apotheosis.
By the time Blake was writing and etching, imagination had become for many the modus operandi of the mind, or what later Coleridge, hugely influenced by Kant, named the living power and prime agent of all human perception. Metaphorically, imagination was often pictured as the fountain, the source, the bubbling well-head or, alternatively, as the inner lamp, spark or light which illuminated the outer world. Conceptually, it was related to Kant’s analysis of the mind. For Kant, all human experience was shaped through certain a priori categories, like those of space and time; but the Romantics sought to extend this account by including a priori images. A complex set of categories and archetypes worked mysteriously together to weave the common fabric of our human world. The imagination was inherently active and dynamic. It knitted together feeling, sensing and thinking in a continuous struggle to create unity out of the larger flux of life. In 1794 Friedrich Schiller published his seminal work On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters in which the continuous struggle (and joy) of creativity was extolled as a liberating force in the life of humanity. The aesthetic play of the mind could augment a new world, what Blake would have christened as the eternal Jerusalem of the Imagination.
One of the devil’s proverbs reads: Where man is not, nature is barren. And why was this? Because the imagination lit up the objects it beheld, bestowing a radiance on the universe, casting a light that never was on sea or land.
The romantic conception of imagination may unlock one of the more enigmatic proverbs of the devils: Every thing possible to be believed is an image of truth. It is as if the mind possessed a storehouse of cognitive possibilities only waiting to be recognized and enumerated, as if the forms of things unknown lay stacked away in the secret larder of the mind. Of course, this view largely derived from Plato and Plotinus, two ancient philosophers who had a seminal influence on romantic thinking, keeping open subterranean movements of mystical thinking and checking the supreme rationalism of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution.
Closely related to imagination was the idea of the sublime. It is another of the words Blake’s devils relish. In the proverbs the head is seen as the sublime part of the human body, while (unexpectedly for devils) the same word is used to mark acts of moral goodness: The most sublime act is to set another before you.
"
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_flag
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonfalon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_badge
"
Cheaper forms of badge were more widely distributed, sometimes very freely indeed, rather as modern political campaign buttons and tee-shirts are, though as in some modern countries wearing the wrong badge in the wrong place could lead to personal danger. In 1483 King Richard III ordered 13,000 badges in fustian cloth with his emblem of a white boar for the investiture of his son Edward as Prince of Wales,[5] a huge number given the population at the time. Other grades of boar badges that have survived are in lead, silver,[6] and gilded copper relief, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire, and very likely worn by one of his household when he was Duke of York.[7] The British Museum also has a swan badge in flat lead, typical of the cheap metal badges which were similar to the pilgrim badges that were also common in the period.[8]
The Wilton Diptych (c. 1395–99), showing Richard II and the angels wearing livery badges.
In 1377, during a period when the young Richard's uncle John of Gaunt as Regent was highly unpopular in London, one of his more than 200 retainers, the Scottish knight Sir John Swinton, unwisely rode through London wearing Gaunt's badge on a livery collar (an innovation of Gaunt's, probably the Collar of Esses). The mob attacked him, pulling him off his horse and the badge off him, and he had to be rescued by the mayor from suffering serious harm.[9] Over twenty years later, after Gaunt's son Henry IV had deposed Richard, one of Richard's servants was imprisoned by Henry for continuing to wear Richard's livery badge. Many of the large number of badges of various liveries recovered from the Thames in London were perhaps discarded hurriedly by retainers who found themselves impoliticly dressed at various times.[10]
Apparently beginning relatively harmlessly under Edward III in a context of tournaments and courtly celebrations, by the reign of his successor Richard II the badges had become seen as a social menace, and were "one of the most protracted controversies of Richard's reign",[11] as they were used to denote the small private armies of retainers kept by lords, largely for the purpose of enforcing their lord's will on the less powerful in his area. Though they were surely a symptom rather than a cause of both local baronial bullying and the disputes between the king and his uncles and other lords, Parliament repeatedly tried to curb the use of livery badges.[12] The issuing of badges by lords was attacked in the Parliament of 1384, and in 1388 they made the startling request that "all liveries called badges [signes], as well of our lord the king as of other lords ... shall be abolished",[13] because "those who wear them are flown with such insolent arrogance that they do not shrink from practising with reckless effrontery various kinds of extortion in the surrounding countryside ... and it is certainly the boldness inspired by these badges that makes them unafraid to do these things".[14] Richard offered to give up his own badges, to the delight of the House of Commons of England, but the House of Lords refused to give up theirs, and the matter was put off. In 1390 it was ordered that no one below the rank of banneret should issue badges, and no one below the rank of esquire wear them.[15] The issue was apparently quiet for a few years, but from 1397 Richard issued increasingly large numbers of badges to retainers who misbehaved (his "Cheshire archers" being especially notorious), and in the Parliament of 1399, after his deposition, several of his leading supporters were forbidden from issuing "badges of signes" again, and a statute was passed allowing only the king (now Henry IV) to issue badges, and only to those ranking as esquires and above, who were only to wear them in his presence.[16]
The Tudor Rose badge of the House of Tudor.
In the end it took a determined campaign by Henry VII to largely stamp out the use of livery badges by others than the king, and reduce them to things normally worn only by household servants in the case of the aristocracy. Livery badges issues by guilds and corporations, and mayors, were exempt, and these continued in use until the 19th century in some cases. A particular concern in all the legislation was to forbid the issuing of liveries to those without a permanent contract with the lord; these groups assembled for a particular purpose were believed to be the most dangerous. The Statute of Liveries of 1506 finally forbade entirely the issuing of liveries to those of higher rank; they had to be domestic servants or persons experienced in the law, unless covered by a specific royal licence.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonfalon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_badge
"
Cheaper forms of badge were more widely distributed, sometimes very freely indeed, rather as modern political campaign buttons and tee-shirts are, though as in some modern countries wearing the wrong badge in the wrong place could lead to personal danger. In 1483 King Richard III ordered 13,000 badges in fustian cloth with his emblem of a white boar for the investiture of his son Edward as Prince of Wales,[5] a huge number given the population at the time. Other grades of boar badges that have survived are in lead, silver,[6] and gilded copper relief, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire, and very likely worn by one of his household when he was Duke of York.[7] The British Museum also has a swan badge in flat lead, typical of the cheap metal badges which were similar to the pilgrim badges that were also common in the period.[8]
The Wilton Diptych (c. 1395–99), showing Richard II and the angels wearing livery badges.
In 1377, during a period when the young Richard's uncle John of Gaunt as Regent was highly unpopular in London, one of his more than 200 retainers, the Scottish knight Sir John Swinton, unwisely rode through London wearing Gaunt's badge on a livery collar (an innovation of Gaunt's, probably the Collar of Esses). The mob attacked him, pulling him off his horse and the badge off him, and he had to be rescued by the mayor from suffering serious harm.[9] Over twenty years later, after Gaunt's son Henry IV had deposed Richard, one of Richard's servants was imprisoned by Henry for continuing to wear Richard's livery badge. Many of the large number of badges of various liveries recovered from the Thames in London were perhaps discarded hurriedly by retainers who found themselves impoliticly dressed at various times.[10]
Apparently beginning relatively harmlessly under Edward III in a context of tournaments and courtly celebrations, by the reign of his successor Richard II the badges had become seen as a social menace, and were "one of the most protracted controversies of Richard's reign",[11] as they were used to denote the small private armies of retainers kept by lords, largely for the purpose of enforcing their lord's will on the less powerful in his area. Though they were surely a symptom rather than a cause of both local baronial bullying and the disputes between the king and his uncles and other lords, Parliament repeatedly tried to curb the use of livery badges.[12] The issuing of badges by lords was attacked in the Parliament of 1384, and in 1388 they made the startling request that "all liveries called badges [signes], as well of our lord the king as of other lords ... shall be abolished",[13] because "those who wear them are flown with such insolent arrogance that they do not shrink from practising with reckless effrontery various kinds of extortion in the surrounding countryside ... and it is certainly the boldness inspired by these badges that makes them unafraid to do these things".[14] Richard offered to give up his own badges, to the delight of the House of Commons of England, but the House of Lords refused to give up theirs, and the matter was put off. In 1390 it was ordered that no one below the rank of banneret should issue badges, and no one below the rank of esquire wear them.[15] The issue was apparently quiet for a few years, but from 1397 Richard issued increasingly large numbers of badges to retainers who misbehaved (his "Cheshire archers" being especially notorious), and in the Parliament of 1399, after his deposition, several of his leading supporters were forbidden from issuing "badges of signes" again, and a statute was passed allowing only the king (now Henry IV) to issue badges, and only to those ranking as esquires and above, who were only to wear them in his presence.[16]
The Tudor Rose badge of the House of Tudor.
In the end it took a determined campaign by Henry VII to largely stamp out the use of livery badges by others than the king, and reduce them to things normally worn only by household servants in the case of the aristocracy. Livery badges issues by guilds and corporations, and mayors, were exempt, and these continued in use until the 19th century in some cases. A particular concern in all the legislation was to forbid the issuing of liveries to those without a permanent contract with the lord; these groups assembled for a particular purpose were believed to be the most dangerous. The Statute of Liveries of 1506 finally forbade entirely the issuing of liveries to those of higher rank; they had to be domestic servants or persons experienced in the law, unless covered by a specific royal licence.
"