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
