[hal0hal0]

I've never really loved any of her songs, but I do like the lyrics in that one.

Won't you take me by the hand
Take me somewhere new
I don't know who you are
But I'm with you​

I didn't really think much of her either, but I was kind of taken by surprise how much I liked her vocals, having not really given them much attention previously. Especially that AOL session for What the Hell, it occurred to me just what a tricky song that is tonally. I suppose I was on a vocalist binge last week, so parsing apart what makes a style unique is interesting to me. Especially when it comes to work I kinda just brushed off as meh prior to this point without really giving it a good listen.

I wouldn't say her low registers are very expansive, and it's actually not super impressive, but the mid-uppers are really expressive (i.e., the main chorus).

I've seen people say that Avril needs to grow up, since she's basically got the same black eyeliner persona she's always had or is being forced into the "emo" persona by the record label, but I'm like ehhhhh... you could just as easily say it's a style she likes and it happens to resonate with audiences.

Anyways, I don't really buy the whole "selling out" criticism, per se, and I like Avril more for her vocals than the writing, exactly.

Anyways, I might PM in a bit... I'm getting sushi, but I'm have somewhat mixed feelings about some work stuff that's like, sorta ick, but I can see where it's coming from.

May post more unless I forget.

Also... short people rule I think Avril and Hayley Williams are like 5' 1".

 

[Veggie]

@hal0hal0 - Saw Star Trek Beyond Friday night. I watched the trailer afterwards and it was kind of fitting with my last post's theme about parents, obedience, God, footsteps, and... what not. They say to Kirk -

"You spent all this time trying to be your father and now you're wondering just what it means to be you. It isn't uncommon you know. It's easy to get lost in the vastness of space. There's only yourself, your ship, your crew."​

I would have thought the movie might be more about that theme and individuation but it wasn't really. At least not directly. Well. Idk. Maybe it was lol. One thing I like that they say too in that trailer - and it's such a simple thing we impulsively say all the time in the face of danger - "Hold onto something!"

He admits that his dad joined Starfleet because he really believed in it. He joined on a dare. His crew mates tell him - well - you were trying to live up to him too. So he's trying to reconcile it all. He holds onto his dad's values, but he kinda accepts that he just does things for the adventure of them too. The movie begins with him really bored with the routine of their mission. There's no endpoint. It's monotonous. He's considering retiring due to that until they end up in this life or death situation. Once they reach safety everyone sorta assumes he'd want to retire then. Think of everything that could kill you and stuff! Lol. But that just makes him even more... bring it on. Haha.

Something about the... pioneer ...aspect made me want to check out A Dangerous Method finally. About Freud, Jung, and Sabina Spielrein. I know we've talked about it, but I hadn't actually seen it. I think I was keeping a distance in honesty. I remember I was arguing with someone (like I'll do), and you popped up (all calmly like you'll do, lol) about her theory of destruction. She thought that the pure and heroic could only come from sin.

"Only the clash of destructive forces can create something new."​

I got news of something pretty destructive literally in the middle of that (I acutely remember it because I knew it was something bad (never preparation regardless) and I was trying to distract myself continuing with it until I knew what) and then I just dropped it. It didn't feel appropriate anymore. Sadly, apparently Sabina and her two daughters were shot and killed in the Holocaust though. I wonder if she would still stand behind her opinion. If you would be doing her an honor to defend it or not. (<I wonder about that sh*t all.the.time now).

(I think my favorite part of Kierra Knightly's depiction of her is when she's playing in the mud all hysterical like and the super rational type psychologist is recommending that she turn her energy to "productive work." So he asks her - what are your interests? And she replies - "Suicide and interplanetary travel").

(Also sort of synchronistic what with my last post - when Jung notices that she starts getting ticks he asks her what she's seeing and she says - her father's hand ...after he hit them (her and her siblings) they'd have to kiss his hand).

Anyway, I'm watching and... I feel like I should be taking notes, lol. I liked this scene -

"Columbus, you know, had no idea what country he'd discovered. Like him, I am in the dark. All I know is I've set foot on the shore and the country exists."

"I think of you more as Galileo. And your opponents as those who condemned him by refusing to even put their eye to his telescope."

"In any event, I've simply opened a door. It's for men like yourself to walk through it."​

I think I said a long time ago that I thought Jung seemed more Se whereas Freud seemed more Si. I especially got that in this movie. Jung says that he doesn't like Freud's approach of - sit before the door and learn why this is what you are. Jung wanted patients to walk through and learn what they might become.

I liked this exchange:

Sigmund Freud: I have absolutely no objection you studying telepathy or parapsychology to your hearts content. But I would make the point that our own field is so embattled that it can only be dangerous to stray into any kind of mysticism. Don’t you see? We have to stay within most rigorously scientific confines.
[he looks at Jung who seems agitated]
Sigmund Freud: You alright?
Carl Jung: Yes, but I can’t agree with you. Why should we draw some arbitrary line and rule out whole areas of investigation?
Sigmund Freud: Precisely! Because the world is full of enemies, looking for any way they can to discredit us. And the moment they see us abandon the firm ground of sexual theory to wallow in the black mud of superstition, they will pounce! As far as I’m concerned, even to raise these subjects is professional suicide.
​

I think I'd also just recently said though that... you have to know where you've been to know where you're going. Sabina tells them:

"If you don't find a way to coexist it will hold back the progress of psychoanalysis perhaps indefinitely."​

(^I liked that image too).

This might have been their final exchange in the movie. There's both some truth and hypocrisy on both sides:

Carl Jung: If I may say so, dear Professor, you make the mistake of treating your friends like patients. This enables you to reduce them into the level of children, so that their only choice is to become obsequious non-entities, or bullying enforces of the parting line. While you sit on the mountain top, the infallible father figure, and nobody dares to pluck you by the beard and say, think about your behavior, and then decide which one of us is the neurotic. I speak as a friend.

Sigmund Freud: Your letter cannot be answered. Your claim that I treat my friends like patients is self evidently untrue. As to which of us is the neurotic, I thought on this we agreed that a little neurosis was nothing whatever to be ashamed of. But a man like you, who behaves quite abnormally and then stands there shouting at the top of his voice how normal he is, does give considerable cause for concern. For a long time now, our relationship has been hanging by a thread, and a thread moreover, mostly consisting of past disappointments. We have nothing to lose by cutting it.​

Freud had said earlier in the movie though that he wouldn't share a dream with Jung because he wouldn't want to risk his authority. Interdasting what Jung says about him as the father figure on a mountain top whom no one should dare to pluck by the beard too...

Marie-Louise von Franz talks about men falling from mountains or crashing as pilots if they fail to incorporate their anima. At the time I kinda read it like... huh? Haha. But that statement sort of brings it more into perspective. Without receptivity, there's no where to go from the top but down. (And the pilot bit - I was thinking about the animus while I was watching Star Trek... and then when I went to pull the trailer there was a trailer for Wonder Woman as an ad with... Chris Pine! Animus meet Anima?)

I found this especially interesting:

Carl Jung: Explain this analogy made between the sexes, the death instinct.
Sabina Spielrein: Professor Freud claims that the sexual drive arises from a simple urge towards pleasure. If he’s right, the question is why is this urge so often successfully repressed?
Carl Jung: You used to have a theory involving the impulse towards destruction, self destruction. Losing oneself.
Sabina Spielrein: Suppose we think of sexuality as futile, losing oneself as you say, but losing oneself in the other. In other words, destroying ones own individuality. Wouldn’t the ego in self defense automatically resist the impulse?
Carl Jung: You mean for selfish not for social reasons?
Sabina Spielrein: Yes. I’m saying that perhaps true sexuality demands the destruction of the ego.
Carl Jung: In other words, the opposite of what Freud proposes.​

Maybe it's all coexisting? I'd say what she's describing sounds more sp instinct. She's comparing it against so, and sx is left out completely. Maybe sx is destruction which can form an ego as it's opposite... I'm not entirely sure where I'm getting that from but on some level it makes sense to me. Like losing yourself first to find yourself (edit: and, well, also... you are potentially literally creating another ego too). And it probably all ends up going full circle...

I think I've been repressing my sx instinct some in an effort to err more on the side of caution as of late. Friday night I had this dream that I was speeding and cutting corners, running stop signs and red lights, and totally unable to really slow down by hitting the breaks until I slammed them and knocked myself out. I think I might have gone through my dream windshield lol. Can it be destructive to block... supposed destruction? If that's instinctual?

This pic of a universe apple popped up the other day and I liked it. Felt tree of knowledge-ish.

The story of Adam and Eve has vibes that are more sexual to me, what with Eve having to endure pain in childbirth as punishment. You know though. If they were the FIRST humans. And let's just go with this conceptually. Where would instinct be coming from? They think they're just creating this blissful, pleasurable experience together, third party (despite "God" as they conceived) or risk thereof free, getting it on, and all of a sudden Adam's, uh, trouser snake is creating this moving bulge in Eve. WTF is this thing?? No one knows for like nine months. Then there's blood, and a strange shrieking creature coming out of her pleasure hole and ...omg what's happening???

But that would also be a reminder that knowledge is a constant quest into the unknown too...

Thinking about the school bus again. And how Jung and Freud were essentially creating schools of thought. Maybe they weren't "the" answer, but you could definitely go along for the ride and they'd take you somewhere. Like when you follow a diet - you lose weight. When you follow instructions on how to play the piano... you can you learn to play it.

 

(^I thought that was funny. Ms Frizzle as a Time Lord lol. I used to watch Magic Schoolbus episodes true story when I had to study biology for massage school Helped it to stick).

That all got me thinking about how we were talking talent vs. skill too. (Talent's innate whereas skill is learned). And that shame video again, where dude pretty much talks about how men are more likely to do something about criticism or what external forces have deemed as deficiency than women are. I actually posted something about that too at one point, realizing:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls

My graduate advisor, psychologist Carol Dweck (author of Mindset) conducted a series of studies in the 1980s, looking at how bright girls and boys in the fifth grade handled new, difficult and confusing material.

She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up--and the higher the girls' IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than give up...

Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.

I've been trying to get better at incorporating the "boy's" strategy into my mindset. And also continuing not to just see it as learning the foreign but as... creating it potentially too. And being open when there isn't much to learn, at least yet.

I told you I went to a belief work seminar. I've talked a lot about that too. It was technically called a ThetaHealing Basic DNA Certification Course. So I'm a Basic DNA ThetaHealing Instructor now if I want to be lol. I wouldn't feel comfortable charging for it though as it is. It incorporates too much that doesn't seem credible, even if it makes sense to me on a level at it's core. (Though that's all most of this is in the end. Somebody throwing something out there and people going along with and building on it. I took this for continuing education, and I took a pregnancy massage class earlier this summer for the same (all finished ahead of schedule! woo!) My teacher was a creative type, and when people were asking how to market their skills she was basically like... you make something up. You're basically your entire creative team. I guess you could hire it out, but most therapists running a practice don't).

Anyway, theta brainwaves are tied to the subconscious, so, it was basically learning how to unearth those thoughts through focus and practice. (Wine, foruming then observing oneself (edit! (?) lol) and other's reactions the next day can help with that too, lol).

So breaking down what you really believe. Our instructor was saying that a lot of people really haven't explored their own belief system in depth. Even the people who have an interest in that sort of thing. So then we were determining where our beliefs were likely coming from. How deep they went and how much they really felt like they belonged to "us" individually.

And this is kind of interesting in regards to my last post too. She was saying it's fascinating how many people when really faced with the notion of letting the idea of suffering go... don't want to. Her belief was that the law of attraction is almost essentially 100 percent. And people have a problem with that, because then it seems like you're saying that people deserve terrible things that come to them or that they brought them on themselves or that they're fated by karma, if their beliefs are more deeply ingrained...

So then let suffering go, just in case. And they can't. They believe it's necessary to a degree (which one?)

I was thinking about this lack from an enneagram perspective and it might look something like this:

Ones. No good or bad, no better or worse, and therefore nothing to strive for if there's nothing to condemn
Twos. Feeling unneeded by an absence of others in need
Threes. Successes wouldn't feel earned or significant
Fours. Art wouldn't feel authentic
Fives. No bother assessing risk? Nothing to master? Or difficulty choosing? A sort of nihilism?
Sixes. No concern for status quo? A lack of order? (this and five were hardest imo lol)
Sevens. Boredom and lack of stimulation in total safety
Eights. Nothing to ramp up energy against?
Nines. ...Idk, maybe they'd feel like mission accomplished. (But then what's leading or creating what you go along with?)

We kind of came to the conclusion that it's how you frame it. There's a difference between pain and suffering, for example. Pain tends to be more of a temporary force. Suffering and adventure (adrenaline). Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New territory...

So this is fun. The new Harry Potter movie is taking place in the US. The school's name here is Ilvermorny. JK Rowling released a bunch about the history of magic in North America on Pottermore. This guy is nerdy in a fun way. He's so happy and pumped up and into it, lol.

This is kind of the meat of the history imo, with the juicier cuts highlighted:

https://www.pottermore.com/collection-episodic/history-of-magic-in-north-america-en

In brief, the catastrophe involved the daughter of President Rappaport’s trusted Keeper of Treasure and Dragots (the Dragot is the American wizarding currency and the Keeper of Dragots, as the title implies, is roughly equivalent to the Secretary of the Treasury). Aristotle Twelvetrees was a competent man, but his daughter, Dorcus, was as dim as she was pretty. She had been a poor student at Ilvermorny and at the time of her father’s ascension to high office was living at home, hardly ever performing magic, but concentrating mainly on her clothes, the arrangement of her hair and parties.

One day, at a local picnic, Dorcus Twelvetrees became greatly enamoured of a handsome No-Maj called Bartholomew Barebone. Unbeknownst to Dorcus, Bartholomew was a Scourer descendant. Nobody in his family was magic, but his belief in magic was profound and unshakeable, as was his conviction that all witches and wizards were evil.

Totally oblivious to the danger, Dorcus took Bartholomew’s polite interest in her ‘little tricks’ at face value. Led on by her beau’s artless questions, she confided the secret addresses of both MACUSA [Magical Congress of the United States of America] and Ilvermorny, along with information about the International Confederation of Wizards and all the ways in which these bodies sought to protect and conceal the wizarding community.

Having gathered as much information as he could from Dorcus, Bartholomew stole the wand she had obligingly demonstrated for him, showed it to as many pressmen as he could find, then gathered together armed friends and set out to persecute and, ideally, kill all the witches and wizards in the vicinity. Bartholomew further printed leaflets giving the addresses where witches and wizards congregated and sent letters to prominent No-Majs, some of whom felt it necessary to investigate whether there were indeed ‘evil occult parties’ happening at the places described...

The attention focused on the MACUSA building was so intense that it was forced to move premises. As President Rappaport was forced to tell the International Confederation of Wizards at a public inquiry, she could not be sure that every last person privy to Dorcus’s information had been Obliviated. The leak had been so serious that the after-effects would be felt for many years.

Although many in the magical community campaigned to have her imprisoned for life or even executed, Dorcus spent only a year in jail. Thoroughly disgraced, utterly shellshocked, she emerged into a very different wizarding community and ended her days in seclusion, a mirror and her parrot her dearest companions.

Dorcus’s indiscretions led to the introduction of Rappaport’s Law. Rappaport’s Law enforced strict segregation between the No-Maj and wizarding communities. Wizards were no longer allowed to befriend or marry No-Majs. Penalties for fraternising with No-Majs were harsh. Communication with No-Majs was limited to that necessary to perform daily activities.

Rappaport’s Law further entrenched the major cultural difference between the American wizarding community and that of Europe. In the Old World, there had always been a degree of covert cooperation and communication between No-Maj governments and their magical counterparts. In America, MACUSA acted totally independently of the No-Maj government. In Europe, witches and wizards married and were friends with No-Majs; in America, No-Majs were increasingly regarded as the enemy. In short, Rappaport’s Law drove the American wizarding community, already dealing with an unusually suspicious No-Maj population, still deeper underground.

Dorcus. LOL. JK Rowling is funny. Her humor didn't translate to the movies. Was it really fair to accuse poor Dorcus of a breach of security on that scale though? I mean I don't think it's like they're requiring students to pass polygraph tests and what not. There's no way to really determine - all clear! - with their system. (If you were a muggle were you parents in the dark about the whole thing too? Sounds suspicious to me. "Hi, your child is magic, and we'd like to send them to magic boarding school. It's top secret and you can't know anything about it, but we'll send owls." "Okay, bye Hermione dear, have fun!").

What if he hadn't just earned her trust by seducing her too? What if he'd gone undercover cop? Married her and sh*t? Isn't your father supposed to give you away to your husband? Where's your loyalty then? What do you keep secret and what's dishonest? Luckily exes are never spiteful and stuff too if it comes down to that...

I also started thinking, separately... it's like... Voldemort was dealing with dissonance within himself, not within society. He was obsessed with blood purity, whereas Americans were obsessed with a certain religious purity (which makes sense, since early Americans were literally Puritans). If Americans weren't really allowed to fraternize (good and "evil occult parties"), then his issue wouldn't have been one for them. Segregation isn't allowing blood to mix in the first place. Theirs was almost entirely external as opposed to internal. Meanwhile, it's like he was unable to reconcile the dissonance within himself and he essentially chose a side. His mother's, since his father wasn't a wizard and abandoned his family.

Going back to Dorcus too... I mean, the expectation back then was that you acquire a husband. Can you further blame her?

I saw Pride and Prejudice and Zombies not too long ago. I like what their father says - "My daughters are trained for battle, not the kitchen." They tell Elizabeth that for the right man she would relinquish her sword for a ring, but she says... the right man wouldn't ask me to. Is it really wise to explore the universe without the phallic?

I've been quoting a lot for whatever reason in this post so I'm just kinda paraphrasing here but this scene is entertaining. Basically Darcy goes to propose and he's like - "Although I know people view you to be inferior... my feelings will not be repressed. I've come to admire you against my better judgment. Will you marry me?" And he says it with assumption too. Like why wouldn't she?

It's funny because the actress, Lily James, played Cinderella in the new live action Disney movie. The slipper fits! But what if she were just kinda like, eh, no thanks?

Elizabeth is pretty much like this. Only more like - excuse me? F*ck off. LOL. I don't know if the author meant to create as much metaphor for the story (it was originally a book, a girl friend offered to borrow it out to me) as I read into but it's there. Everyone being expected to act exactly the same what with the stiff society are zombie like. The physical fight is a heightened depiction of what was happening otherwise in the scene too.

^And this is kinda lol. There was so much obsession with social rank and marrying for money in that time. (I mean, there still is, more than is acknowledged sometimes I think... but not to this extent). Technically though, Pride and Prejudice took place before the Victorian Era I think. Acquiring land and property was a big deal because Britain was financially instable. Maybe very specific standards helped to make sure that people were who they said they were within that? You couldn't con your way into something as easily? Every specific manner was like a secret handshake?

Or who knows. Maybe everyone was just bored and it gave them something to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Veggie]

I've seen people say that Avril needs to grow up, since she's basically got the same black eyeliner persona she's always had or is being forced into the "emo" persona by the record label, but I'm like ehhhhh... you could just as easily say it's a style she likes and it happens to resonate with audiences.

Well she's a white woman over the age of 25. We aren't really supposed to add as much flavor to our appearance lol. Maybe it's still that puritan-Victorian influence.

I had this other dream about Harley Quinn Friday night. Well, a series of them, really. She kept popping up with this ridiculously sexual energy. I went looking for pictures for an avatar (I love the one I found, btw. I might actually keep it for a while. The orange jumpsuit and the colored pigtails while she sits there all demure drinking her tea with her pinkie finger out, lol). Probably because there were giant cardboard advertisements for Suicide Squad all over the theatre when I went to see Star Trek.

Anyway, this popped up in my YouTube right afterwards. Avril Lavigne did a single for Suicide Squad. Bad Girl.

"What if Superman had decided to fly down, rip off the roof of the White House, grab the president right out of the oval office? Who would have stopped him?"

They need that balance of power that the Joker and the like provide.

I didn't realize that Harley Quinn was Margot Robbie at first. I didn't recognize her all punked out. The first time I saw her on Wolf of Wall Street I remember thinking that she was one of the most beautiful women I'd ever seen. Admiration. Girl crush. She can act too! She's actually really good. She creates characters. They have the being incredibly sexual as a commonality though lol.

I always love hearing actors and actresses go in and out of accents too. Flip them on and off like this (Australian to Long Island in this case):

She's in Tarzan right now too as Jane apparently. Kind of an interesting interview where they talk about home and family and the jungle versus Victorian England.

Hmm. Oh. And here's the Wonder Woman trailer.

I had no idea that her alter ego was Princess Diana. Or Diana Prince. There's so much I didn't realize I didn't know about comics. Lol. (Just learned Harley Quinn's backstory too. She was a psychiatrist who went insane when she started treating the Joker and fell in love with him? That makes her so much more interesting lol).

^I like that image from the trailer of... woman land. I guess the name Diana makes sense because the Goddess was so heavily associated to femininity and the moon. I read something that called her the "archetype of the free-spirited female" too and I liked that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[hal0hal0]

I think I said a long time ago that I thought Jung seemed more Se whereas Freud seemed more Si. I especially got that in this movie. Jung says that he doesn't like Freud's approach of - sit before the door and learn why this is what you are. Jung wanted patients to walk through and learn what they might become.

I've said before that I think Jung was likely an ISTP, in part because of the dominance of the introverted thinking and the unifying cooperation between Ni-Se.

His revisiting video is better, because it better emphasizes the conflict between Ni and Se, in that, because of their closer magnitudes, the auxiliary and tertiary form a more balanced (and thus more gradually oscillating) confluence... Namely that between the Ni "box" and that reality that transcends it. Hence, in a more conscious oscillation between what is there (Se) and the Ni "truth" that underlies it, the ISXP will more often "reality check" the generalization whereas an Ni-dominant is more inclined to run and run with it.

Similarly, Jung has stated many times the limitations of personality "boxes," cautioning at many times in The Undiscovered Self that the field consists of effectively nothing but exceptions to the rule. Because that would be the reality, is that people are not so easily classified.

So where Ni sees the trend line of the scatterplot, Se sees the individual dots saying, yeah, there *may* be a trend, but ultimately there are limitations to that strength.

Something about the... pioneer ...aspect made me want to check out A Dangerous Method finally. About Freud, Jung, and Sabina Spielrein. I know we've talked about it, but I hadn't actually seen it. I think I was keeping a distance in honesty. I remember I was arguing with someone (like I'll do), and you popped up (all calmly like you'll do, lol) about her theory of destruction. She thought that the pure and heroic could only come from sin.

"Only the clash of destructive forces can create something new."
​

I think Bjork's Mutual Core is actually a tectonic porno in disguise (i.e., did I just watch two terrestrial elementals do it on camera?)...

I had this other dream about Harley Quinn Friday night. Well, a series of them, really. She kept popping up with this ridiculously sexual energy. I went looking for pictures for an avatar (I love the one I found, btw. I might actually keep it for a while. The orange jumpsuit and the colored pigtails while she sits there all demure drinking her tea with her pinkie finger out, lol). Probably because there were giant cardboard advertisements for Suicide Squad all over the theatre when I went to see Star Trek.

Anyway, this popped up in my YouTube right afterwards. Avril Lavigne did a single for Suicide Squad. Bad Girl.

Hm, I didn't realize Marilyn Manson was in that, considering that each time I hear it, I kept thinking "huh, she's channeling Manson."

I've been listening to her latest album (it appears she contracted Lyme disease a year or so ago, so hasn't been recording), the eponymous Avril Lavigne, and it's quite a varied experience, almost like a sampling of breadth. To an extent, there are "vertical" and "horizontal" artists, but this is most certainly a horizontal venture, considering that a Manson-esque, Spector-ish Wall of Sound production like Bad Girl is on the same disk as a borderline country sounding Let Me Go...

Followed by the delightfully bizarre Hello Kitty that I kind of think is even more hilarious, simply because so many hated it and accused Avril of being a culturally insensitive racist (like, really? What sjw weed are people smoking?).

Avril Lavigne's 'Hello Kitty' Video: 'Favorable' Reactions in Japan After Racism Controversy | Billboard

I think there's a time and a place for social justice, but a harmless video like this, especially when people often times feel the need to speak on behalf of a race they were (i.e., non-Japanese speaking on behalf of the Japanese), seem especially frivolous.

I'm always fascinated by the notion of "fandom." Specifically, how often it occurs to "alienate" fans, most often, it seems, through moving beyond the artists' roots. Like Kimbra's 90s Music, which is kind of hilariously gaudy, and intentionally so, presenting a kaleidoscopic vision of the 90s. Is that preferable to artists that bang out the same style of tune year after year, without trying new things? Who's to say.

Continued on the next post...

 

[hal0hal0]

Kimbra's an odd one that I can't quite pin down and *very* horizontal as an artist. It's a strange, eclectic fusion, like a more pop/gospel oriented version of Bjork. That she can go at the gaudy/corny end of the spectrum with 90s music, then shift to the smoky, jazz-lounge noir vibes of Good Intent:

makes her weirdly versatile.

Well she's a white woman over the age of 25. We aren't really supposed to add as much flavor to our appearance lol. Maybe it's still that puritan-Victorian influence.

Oh, speaking of corsets...

^Aptly titled, I think.

IDK what my fascination is with her because it's only been a few weeks that I've been like "oh yeah, Avril Lavigne, I forgot about her!", but I think part of it is she's 30 years old, but still singing about high school, still rocking the black eyeliner, basically mocking those criticizing her puer aeternus.

There's something oddly nostalgic about it. Like how as we grow older, we get newer, and our youth gets older. Think about it... The newest album someone drops is when they are at their oldest, and their earliest work is their oldest. We become more youthful as we grow older.

I'm reading the comments and they're all questions of nostalgia, when Avril used to "sing real music", etc. The most hilarious comments are the videos from like, 2011 where people are like "when music was good." People have been saying the same thing in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, etc. There's something odd about nostalgia, and I think this ties into the notion of Sabina's concept of ego-destruction, is that these nostalgic widgets (whatever they may be) root themselves in our conscious, so that anything new violates that conception. But then again: Why don't all people view things that way? I don't, for instance. If anything, I find myself gravitating towards the newer work, because the old stuff, regardless of how good it is, is simply "been there, done that."

Like, what did I listen to in high school?

-Simon and Garfunkel, CCR, Bruce Springsteen.

Now? I'm listening to pop music that came out when I was in high school which I subsequently ignored. So I view it perhaps with some detachment, but in some regard I tend to crave the new territory over the old, so long as it is new for me. So I suppose I am exploring the territory "after the stampede has trampled through" so to speak.

Playing God... This one is actually really interesting.

So you could say that Paramore is a shell of its former self and I would actually agree with people that say that Hayley Williams sort of stole the band, although I think setting aside the drama and looking simply at the work, it's still a worthwhile listen. The Farras brothers left around the time this video was released, and it's kind of eerie how telling it is of the tensions within the band (i.e., Hayley as the dictator). The song takes on this weird biographical sketch in the band's disintegration. It's kind of interesting, because Hayley is basically the only remaining original band member, so it's arguable it's "no longer Paramore."

At any rate, while I can see where people get their nostalgia trips from, I'm not sure I "react" emotionally that way.... To me, the new work is new, and the old work is old. Like the "back when music was good" comment. It's a silly one, to be sure, and in some regard that spurs me even more to see value in the newer, more alienating work.

I suppose I do tend to prefer the evolving artist (i.e., like Bob Dylan). The Beatles for instance, I was once obsessed with, in spite of the fact that I don't really like Sgt. Pepper's. I think it's actually their weakest, with my favorite being either Rubber Soul/Revolver, White Album or possibly Let it Be.

Glass Onion. Great song, for instance. I'm also really fond of George Harrison's While My Guitar Gently Weeps. That one was a keeper.

 

[Veggie]

His revisiting video is better, because it better emphasizes the conflict between Ni and Se, in that, because of their closer magnitudes, the auxiliary and tertiary form a more balanced (and thus more gradually oscillating) confluence... Namely that between the Ni "box" and that reality that transcends it. Hence, in a more conscious oscillation between what is there (Se) and the Ni "truth" that underlies it, the ISXP will more often "reality check" the generalization whereas an Ni-dominant is more inclined to run and run with it...

So where Ni sees the trend line of the scatterplot, Se sees the individual dots saying, yeah, there *may* be a trend, but ultimately there are limitations to that strength...

Ni sees the limitations to seeing the individual dots too though, which is why it bothers to look for the trend in the first place. I don't even think it's necessarily a conscious thing. I've compared how I use Ni to propellers several times and I see the running and running as a way of manifesting. So the reality check isn't so much a compare and contrast against what is as it is what could be. Judging functions working as the auxiliary and tertiary in this case further help in determining if the manifestation has come to fruition, how best to implement it, etc.

I've heard criticism in how Ni dom's sometimes only choose to focus on certain pieces of information while turning a blind eye to others (I think this happens especially in the grip of the inferior when we are more so consciously gathering information rather than subconsciously processing it) but to me it makes sense, if focus determines reality. Sometimes you have to delude yourself a little bit to give yourself the confidence to make something happen or change too I think, haha.

^And sometimes you just have to create those green lights for yourself, lol. Whereas I think more prominent Se users maybe (and feel free to weigh in) don't see the point in putting so much energy into the manifestation process when there's already so much to experience and discover as is. Or when there's already avenues for manifestation as set up by society, so why waste precious time? (Going to pharmacy school for example ).

I'm not sold on Jung as an ISTP either I don't get the Ti dominant precision in his writing style. He writes in metaphor and tangents and even subjective experience at times ...almost without an awareness for that fact. His relationship with Se seems more... hypothetical in ways too. I feel like if Ti-Se were to want a patient to "walk through a door" then they'd have a clear literal vision of what and where that door is or should be, whereas Jung seemed comfortable keeping it within the realm of the metaphorical.

These are interesting. Harley Quinn's origin stories. They were in my YouTube recommendations. I like how by the end of the session, the Joker's turned it around and he's got her on the couch instead, lol.

Their little excursion kinda reminds me of being in the grip of the inferior. Se especially. It plays out more destructively because the person feels more powerless to it. What if you spend a lot of time in these places though? Can you start to form a bridge? In my case: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Ti-Se ...so then Ni and Se would be next to one another, just like with the IxSP. Or would it be more like - Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Se-Ti-Fe-Ni if you're switching to the shadow? In that case - would you be open to, like, hyper intuition and/or awareness?

I feel like I have a split personality sometimes. It's getting a lot better though. I'm able to maintain wavelengths in thought without having to flip a switch. That used to take a while too. Like accessing the creative part of my mind after work would require like an hour of going through three years of synchronicity boards. (Oh yea! That was really weird how that came together! ...or whatever, lol). Or vice versa. Conversing like a "normal" person would require going through extensive in depth to do lists of real life goals I'd made for myself at a prior time. (<What's interesting about this, is that a lot of intuitive dominants (so sensing inferior) I've known irl have admitted to something very similar). I test myself in altered states of consciousness too so that I'm confident I know how to remain in control and halfway consistent regardless.

^For about the past year, that pin in my Pinterest gets more repins than any other pin by far. Usually several a day. I'm not sure where it is, but it's labeled - "Shift" by Emil Alzamora.

I'm settling into that maybe the ideal isn't something I can create though. That maybe it's something I have to discover. There's a balance I'm sure. I've said anyway that pondering the extent to which I'm creating my reality has started becoming disturbing to me too, so it's a nice release.

Followed by the delightfully bizarre Hello Kitty that I kind of think is even more hilarious, simply because so many hated it and accused Avril of being a culturally insensitive racist (like, really? What sjw weed are people smoking?).

Avril Lavigne's 'Hello Kitty' Video: 'Favorable' Reactions in Japan After Racism Controversy | Billboard

I think there's a time and a place for social justice, but a harmless video like this, especially when people often times feel the need to speak on behalf of a race they were (i.e., non-Japanese speaking on behalf of the Japanese), seem especially frivolous.

Have you started Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt yet? I'm watching the second season and it's even funnier than the first imo, lol. There's this episode where Titus (the gay black dude) puts on a one man show as a geisha and SJW's go nuts about it online. He's convinced that he was this woman in a past life though, so he's like this IS my heritage. Lol. Idk. Just funny.

Kinda interesting too, after Harley Quinn... Tina Fey has a recurring character in this season as Kimmy's psychotherapist. She's extremely straight laced and professional by day and a total alcoholic wild woman by night. Her day self and night self have to write letters to each other that Kimmy delivers.

IDK what my fascination is with her because it's only been a few weeks that I've been like "oh yeah, Avril Lavigne, I forgot about her!", but I think part of it is she's 30 years old, but still singing about high school, still rocking the black eyeliner, basically mocking those criticizing her puer aeternus.

She's 31. Actually just a few months older than I am. '84 baby, so she'd probably be class of '02 too. Complicated took me back. Haha. She debuted my senior year, so it's kind of fitting to me that she's still singing about high school. You kind of get to that age where you realize that everything is high school too. That the people running sh*t are just people you grew up with. (Unless... aliens?! :shocked. You know, that Victorian etiquette video I posted reminded me of Fight Club somehow just now. Where he's looking at the Ikea catalogue - what kind of dining set defines me as a person? Lol. Am I an adult yet?

I like the trailer. Trailers can be their own art forms, I think.

Avril shouldn't have to split from her Tyler Durden. The Banger Sisters was kinda similar to that movie in ways. There's this scene where Susan Sarandon's character is wearing this neutral pantsuit at the DMV and Goldie Hawn is in this hot pink tank top with her boobies out and at first she's criticizing her for it but then she's like... omg. You look like a flower and I blend into the walls of the DMV. How depressing is that? Lol. Goldie Hawn wasn't literally an alter ego, but she was her sister, and they'd both been wild back in the day, so it was still kind of like a "lost" part of her that had returned.

There's something oddly nostalgic about it. Like how as we grow older, we get newer, and our youth gets older. Think about it... The newest album someone drops is when they are at their oldest, and their earliest work is their oldest. We become more youthful as we grow older.

That's interesting

Like the "back when music was good" comment. It's a silly one, to be sure, and in some regard that spurs me even more to see value in the newer, more alienating work.

There could be at least something to it. I remember reading this a while ago:

Pop music is getting louder and dumber, says one study: Here’s what they miss.

Most people are familiar with the idea that popular songs are constructed chiefly of a melody (usually the lead vocal line or tune) and supporting harmonies called chords (rhythm is the other chief component, but more on that later). The study found that, since the ‘50s, there has been a decrease not only in the diversity of chords in a given song, but also in the number of novel transitions, or musical pathways, between them. In other words, while it’s true that pop songs have always been far more limited in their harmonic vocabularies than, say, a classical symphony (see this very funny exploration of the ubiquitous four-chord sequence “I-V-vi-IV” for an example), past decades saw more inventive ways of linking their harmonies together than we hear now. It’s the difference between Carly Rae Jepsen’s “Call Me Maybe” (2012), which contains four simple chords presented one after another almost as blocks, and Alex North’s “Unchained Melody” (1955), which, though also relatively harmonically simple (it employs about six or seven chords, depending on the version), transitions smoothly from chord to chord due to more subtle orchestration...

So all this study’s conclusions seem plausible, but does it really mean that our pop is dumber than before? To answer that, it’s important to also ask what the researchers didn’t study. For instance, though “Call Me Maybe” is made from a rather blunt and familiar set of four chords, the infectiousness of the song, at least for this listener, is located in both the playful rhythmic friction between the vocals and instruments—rhythm, crucially, was not taken into account in this study—as well as the cappuccino-cozy, almost country quality of Jepsen’s voice. (Note how it glides and sometimes endearingly stumbles over her love-drunk lyrics.)

^The bolded though. I mean... yea. "Call Me Maybe" is pretty infectious, lol.

^The way she's fanning herself over the lawn boy in the window. Lol. I had to do a scene like that in a student film. I was married to a serial killer and I didn't realize it, even though he wore the mask all the time, but I was secretly in love with our lawn boy

I admittedly just spent way too much time looking at Call Me Maybe memes too. Speaking of inferior Se, I think they speak to it somehow for me. Like it's always expecting a catastrophe on some level. Or some mind blowing piece of information. ("Hey I just met you and... *something ridiculous*). I like the Romeo and Juliet one. Haha.

I wonder if it's partly because Ni slipping through Se is going to be less likely to form intuitions and conclusions based on what it's receiving at face value if Ni is used to making it's own associations as the dominant function. So it's own unique associations are seeping through which it starts... taking as face value instead - even if they're wildly dramatic, fiction based, etc. And plus, Ni just sees the sensory world as dangerous. And it can be.

^I don't even know what's going on with that one but I kind of like that about it Delirium might be a good word for function grips.

So I view it perhaps with some detachment, but in some regard I tend to crave the new territory over the old, so long as it is new for me.

I like this trailer too (open the door!). While We're Young. (Also liked the movie, lol). I wasn't sure if I identified more with Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried (the "young" couple) or Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts (the "old" couple). "It's like their apartment is full of everything we once threw out." They play board games, listen to records, have a VCR and watch VHS's. To them... that is more so "new" - so, pretty much what you're saying.

It's funny too though, because in some ways Ben Stiller was more arguably youthful than Adam Driver if you equate that to being open to the newness of experience. He learns that Adam Driver is actually very calculated and kinda manipulative. But then, what's open? Adam Driver is more successful, so that's it's own experience. (Good movie, I recommend).

Alright. Real life awaits. One of my past massage clients texted me and told me to give him a call. (The jiu jitsu instructor who used to teach me moves after appointments, lol). Apparently he knows a dude who owns a recruiting company so I have to update my resume (really, I was supposed to send stuff before, but I wasn't ready yet, so I'm glad he followed up). I think I'm headed out your way in a couple weeks too. Gonna get Rocky Mountain high. Lol. If I had a job waiting for me when I got back that would be like perfect timing...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[hal0hal0]

Warning: Will probably be multiple posts laden with references to old-school music (No, not The Ronettes or The Inkspots, but I like those too)... from someone who is basically the equivalent of a musical theory dropout, or the Quentin Tarantino of classical (lowercase "c") music history (i.e., little formal training, but enough experience playing classical music and appreciation of its many artforms).

There could be at least something to it. I remember reading this a while ago:

Pop music is getting louder and dumber, says one study: Here’s what they miss.

^The bolded though. I mean... yea. "Call Me Maybe" is pretty infectious, lol.

The oscillation between simplistic and complex is a consistent feature throughout much of musical history, and, simplifying in the extreme, it could be described as one of the chief patterns of musical evolution. However I would not equate "simple" with "dumbed down." That is an extremely broad brushstroke, and it's more accurate to say that there are simply varying styles in terms of musical complexity, structure and unity that more just speak to creating different tones or atmospheres.

And, of course, "complex" is taken with a grain of salt. Even though I would say Baroque music is apparently more complex (realizing that we are trying to make generalizations about worldwide musical movements...), in the sense that there is "more stuff going on" with each instrument's individual role, the Complexity (i.e., "genius" so to speak), depends entirely on the individual composer, not the movement itself, because ultimately, the composer is the "dot" to the musical movement's trendline...

So, I'll start with the Baroque period, since it's what I'm more familiar with and have the most experience playing (i.e., 1600s to mid-1700s). My violin teacher spoke of the unique qualities of Baroque that distinguished it from the later Classical era.

In terms of feel, Baroque I think of as cascading in its form. The visual equivalent that I tend to see in my head is a bunch of dolphins leaping out of the water as they rush forward in concert, jumping forth in alternating, yet harmonious and individualized melodies. This gives the misconception that Baroque music is "fast and furious" but that's not always the case... Canon in D is the the clearest example of a very easy piece to play (and many say boring), that nevertheless carries distinctly Baroque elements, such as the virtuoso melodies (most obviously characterized by the 1st and 2nd violins, who essentially play in a "round", with the cello riding bitch to everyone).

^Burn.

 

Instrumentation, and the choices and shifts in their choice, also impacted the distinctly Baroque quality, namely sharply pronounced instrumentation, a sort of grand spectacle, that, if we were to find a cinematic equivalent, would be that of DW Griffith or Cecille B. Demille (have I lost you? i.e., CB Demille and Griffith of the Silent era of film would be that of the grand spectacle... Birth of a Nation, Ben-Hur, etc.... you could say film movements underwent similar oscillations, but that is time for another post, as splintering my point with that tangent would be a very sloppy detour).

So back to instrumentation, Baroque tended to make wider use of the harpsichord, which compared with its younger sibling, the piano, tend to have a stricter volume range, seeing as it was essentially "plucking" the string at the same force, whereas a pianoforte could produce a much wider range of tones and volumes (whose name itself means soft-loud.... if that's not just spelling it out in a foolproof way, then what is?)

This tends, IMO, to give Baroque a "stiffer" quality that places strictures on the range of volumes that can be achieved, particularly for instrumentation like the harpsichord.

Part 2 incoming....

 

[hal0hal0]

Jumping backwards in time... with Baroque I see as something of an acme in the musical realm, where the "gaudy" virtuoso qualities or "flash" reached a very pronounced apex. In a way, I would consider Baroque music the "renaissance of renaissance music," which is arguably a pretentious way of putting it, but Baroque, melodically, exploded onto the scene, as instrumental range become a bigger player compared to the narrower ranges of Renaissance period....

The polyphonic qualities of the Renaissance period (and I don't really know the Renaissance period very well, mind you), tend to grant more equal "weight", leading to this quality of "many voices", with Baroque being a more "in your face" version of that.

I have read somewhere that the Renaissance period's polphony is the result of breaking itself with the Medieval tradition, which I know even less about... In some regard, Renaissance music's transition to Baroque is akin to the modernist tradition of the late 19th/early 20th century's break into postmodernism.... and similarly, Renaissance is the Medieval as Modernist is to Victorian era.

There is, I would say, a generally "harsh" quality to Baroque music, which I think is best characterized by the harpsichord. Ornate is perhaps the other word... The term "baroque" actually means "misshapen pearl" and was originally a derogatory term for when the movement first arose.

Drawing even more "controversial" parellels, but I could probably seen Baroque as more republican whereas Renaissance being more democratic (i.e., voice of the few representatives vs. the many).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque

In some regard, I would call Baroque "sloppy." but more precisely, asymmetric or cascading.

Transitioning to Classical era now, I would say the transition of the harpsichord to the pianoforte was a good indicator of where music was heading.... specifically, Classical music allowed for a much wider breadth of expression

I tend to see (or hear) Classical periods as having greater unity in a centralized melody and, simplifying once again into the extreme, an even more private and intimate tone than what preceded it in the Baroque period and even more so than in the Renaissance.

Whereas I would say Baroque focused more on the melodies for expression, Classical became more nuanced in its use of expression through things like crescendo and decrescendo. Weirdly, though, Classical tends to be more constrained, structured, and less flamboyant than Baroque.

Part 3 incoming...

 

[hal0hal0]

@Veggie it's funny how it says Unchained Melody is "more complex" by having 6-7 chords... I'm pretty sure Moonlight Sonata blows it out of the water (especially if we count arpeggios which are basically chords, right? ):

I dunno. I'm a dumb violin player that can't read bass cleft because I suck, but I'm pretty sure there are more chords in the first page than there are in the entirety of Unchained Melody... maybe?

But Unchained Melody is a really good fuckin' song, so, is complexity all that matters?

I mean, is this more complex than any pop music out there? Probably, but it's a single instrument, with 2 hands:

And... one final stop on this tour... Romantic music!

Characteristics often attributed to Romanticism, including musical Romanticism, are (Kravitt 1992, 93–94, 107):

• a new preoccupation with and surrender to Nature
• a fascination with the past, particularly the Middle Ages and legends of medieval chivalry
• a turn towards the mystic and supernatural, both religious and merely spooky
• a longing for the infinite
• mysterious connotations of remoteness, the unusual and fabulous, the strange and surprising
• a focus on the nocturnal, the ghostly, the frightful, and terrifying
• fantastic seeing and spiritual experiences
• a new attention given to national identity
• emphasis on extreme subjectivism
• interest in the autobiographical
• discontent with musical formulas and conventions

The obvious greatness that is Jacqueline Du Pre's performance, which is commonly seen as the gold standard of Elgar's Concerto, shouldn't get in the way of great performances like Sol Gabetta's, which I still prefer to Yoyo Ma's (far too clean for my tastes... his bow strokes are too fucking butter smooth, KEKEKEKE).

(eh, fuck it, I told myself not to post it, but WTH, why not, for the sake of comprehensiveness, and for the curious):

 

 

[hal0hal0]

@Veggie final part (maybe).

Of course, the issue is that within each movement, there will be exceptions, and this is particularly true of the later periods like the Romantic, where the modes of expression and experimentation branched off in such wildly different paths. For instance, Elgar's Cello Concerto, along with Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, firmly plant themselves within the "classic" Romantic period, or a focus on emotive expression, not so much technical virtuosity.

On the other side of the coin, Paganini, while historically "belonging" to the Romantic period, was probably in a class of his own, but I would say closer to the technical mastery of the Classic period.

By contrast, Lindsey Stirling I would say has much simpler melodic structures... there isn't anything insanely complicated or intimidating about her music... even if you can't read music, you can still look at the notes and discern whether hers or Paganini's is more "complex."

The main "hook" of The Arena is clearly more in tune with the typically romantic, expressive formulations. Looking at the actual sheet music, I was surprised at how simple it is, really... even simpler than I had thought, but that is part of the appeal, is that Lindsey's music melodically isn't challenging. Not like Shostakovich in terms of dissonance... she operates more like Mozart in that regard (obviously, not that level, haha), but there is a popular appeal that makes her songs very easy to listen to.

It is not the critic who counts
Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
Or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

I again, stand by Lindsey as a clear ESFP.

Things like Paganini are technically much more impressive, but they also make you feel like you're going to have a heart attack because how is it humanly possible for notes to combine that way? The transitions, shifts, and cadence of Paganini is arguably second to none, which is why his name is so closely associated with "virtuoso."

In a way, I would dub it simply Neo-Romanticism, simply because the focus is has been pared down, just as pop music is, to the catchy melody that provokes simply emotion. In a way, it's fitting that so many of her tunes are inspired by video games, because there is a similar simplicity to most video game soundtracks that is best described as evocative.

It's interesting to see how there are comments on Lindsey's newer videos are missing some of the personality of her older ones (nostalgia)... again, that's what we were talking about lamenting the "old" Avril Lavigne when really, I don't think she's changed that much. It would be nice to see Lindsey do some old school collaborations with Devin Graham, though, seeing as his camerawork was so crucial to her success.

^Like, insanely simple, melodically. To be fair, though, Elements' melody *is* simple even for her.

Of course, I can be critical even of Lindsey... Thematically, it doesn't really work, does it? Not in a structural sense of dividing into the different "flavors" of elements. It's juxtaposed in terms of imagery, but it's not like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, where each movement has a distinct flavor of the seasons.

But again, that's assuming you care about formal structure. "Classicist" does not equate "better" (or worse).

 

[Veggie]

it's funny how it says Unchained Melody is "more complex" by having 6-7 chords... I'm pretty sure Moonlight Sonata blows it out of the water (especially if we count arpeggios which are basically chords, right? )

Well, haha, the author does point out that he's not talking about classical music -

...while it’s true that pop songs have always been far more limited in their harmonic vocabularies than, say, a classical symphony (see this very funny exploration of the ubiquitous four-chord sequence “I-V-vi-IV” for an example)...

What's funny though, is that everything you posted WAS pretty much pop music at one point in time. Why stop at the 50's in terms of how far to take it back?

This is kind of funny too, in the new Star Trek they refer to hip hop as "classical" music.

‘Star Trek’ Predicts Hip-Hop is the ‘Classical Music’ of the Future « K-EARTH 101

^I had actually forgotten that they were playing Beastie Boys Sabotage the first time they introduced Kirk as a kid, a few movies back. Kinda foreshadowing I guess, because he jams out as captain of his ship, but he's listening to it the first time he's... well, maybe behind a wheel which is a little different ...but still, making executive decisions behind a control panel.

It is not the critic who counts
Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
Or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

I again, stand by Lindsey as a clear ESFP.

Do you mean like those lyrics and the type are related? I don't necessarily think so. Any type can enter the arena. They're just gonna process it - and probably go about it - differently, and be motivated for different reasons (though I think that's partially enneagram and not MBTI related too). I personally think that I've put myself out there a LOT, both in my personal and professional life, and I've taken a lot of bullets for it. So I kinda hate the stereotype that the dreamers of MBTI watch life from the sidelines or something.

In the vein of pop-y old school hip hop...

It was all a dream...

Biggie's lyrics are words to live by, lol.

Stay far from timid
Only make moves when your heart's in it
And live the phrase Sky's The Limit​

 

[hal0hal0]

.

 

[Veggie]

@hal0hal0 - I didn't want to thank your first post before I'd actually watched the videos. I broke my headphones in my laptop jack and now there's this little piece that's stuck preventing my sound from working. I started watching video on my phone instead, but I think I've used just about all of my data so I started backing off of that. I could probably connect to WiFi but that would require digging around for the password, since my computer just automatically connects usually.

I'm sure I could probably take it somewhere to get fixed, but that would mean being without my laptop for a while. Which is terrible. I was gonna respond to your second post last night, but I just woke up with my head pretty much on my keyboard.

It's been a rough week. I'll PM.

In regards to Suicide Squad per your PM - you might hate it anyway. The critics did. I wasn't super impressed but I liked it. Mostly for Margot Robbie. My obsession with her and Harley Quinn has only intensified. (It's funny, last year at Atlanta's version of Comic-Con probably about fifty percent of costumes were Harley Quinn. (The rest were basically Elsa). It's projected to be at about 98% this year).

^Why is there something so attractive about a beautiful head case? She's like Marilyn. (Monroe. But... sorta like Manson too I guess).

This is kind of interesting. The origin of her origin. She was inspired by an actress's character on a soap - Calliope. It's cool because Calliope was literally the goddess of inspiration in Greek mythology. One of the muses. In odd synchronicity too, I just got my latest goddess book Tuesday and it's about Calliope. That series has become this strange consistent in my life. That and certain television shows. My calendar is full of movie release dates too. It's nice to have some things you can pretty much depend on. Whatever keeps you from feeling lost I guess.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[FearAndTrembling]

@Veggie lol at those pics. I have a KING sized bed. I wish I didn't really. My parents had one that was barely used so I am like why not? I sleep on about 20% of the thing. The rest is a desk, dresser, etc. lol. It has books. Clothes. A good portion of it is never used as a bed.

 

[Veggie]

@Veggie lol at those pics. I have a KING sized bed. I wish I didn't really. My parents had one that was barely used so I am like why not? I sleep on about 20% of the thing. The rest is a desk, dresser, etc. lol. It has books. Clothes. A good portion of it is never used as a bed.

Lol, yea. Mine is like basically booby trapped at times. I just found a corkscrew so that's probably safe. Haha. I feel like there's always about four half finished water bottles scattered about as a rule too.

 

[FearAndTrembling]

Lol, yea. Mine is like basically booby trapped at times. I just found a corkscrew so that's probably safe. Haha. I feel like there's always about four half finished water bottles scattered about as a rule too.

lol. I am always losing things on it. Like if I am smoking a pipe and put the lighter down or remote down. It can disappear.

I recently came to the conclusion that my sleeping position is what is causing muscle strain from my lower ribs up to my neck.

I sleep like this:

I was gonna test you and ask what is wrong with that position but I will just say it. Her left arm. Folded across her chest. Can cause many muscle problems and brachial plexus compression. It is better to elevate or put space between like this:

The arm extended under pillow is bad too.

If you want to be perfect:

I am relearning the muscular system all over again. I was pretty good at it in Anatomy and Physiology but that was years ago. Also Yoga poses. I have muscle imbalances as most of us do. Sitting around all day hunched over a screen.

Even shit like the Eustachian tube. It amazes me the stuff we don't know about muscles. I get the brain and other stuff, but I figured muscles would be totally figured out by now. Like I was recently reading a study on how nobody really knows what muscles are involved in the eustachian tube exactly and how they work together. How is that possiblE? lol. Same thing with other stuff. Glutes. Everything.

Speaking of Star Trek, can you imagine seeing a guy sleep like that? In that perfect position? lol. He would be a weirdo. Klingons sleep on hard surfaces. They don't sleep on mattresses or beds at all. They would kill that guy. No Klingon would be caught dead sleeping like that.

 

[Veggie]

I am relearning the muscular system all over again. I was pretty good at it in Anatomy and Physiology but that was years ago. Also Yoga poses. I have muscle imbalances as most of us do. Sitting around all day hunched over a screen.

I had to re-learn it all for massage therapy but I hated it. Lol. I was never good with instructing clients when it came to these things, and they'd ask. I've found, for whatever reason, that so long as I'm cracking my back every day when I wake up that everything feels pretty much to be in alignment. So I leave it at that. If it ain't broke and all. I'd refer a lot of chiropractors.

I sleep on my stomach, like as a rule. Hands under pillow, face to the side. Can't fall asleep otherwise other than very rarely.

This is kinda interesting. What your sleep position says about you:

Freefall

Freefall sleepers enjoy resting on their stomach, with their head turned to either side and hands near their pillow. As the name implies, freefall sleepers are very free personality types. They are very sociable people and can also be brash at times. Although they show such a free spirit, freefall sleepers are secretly nervous on the inside and have an over-sensitivity to criticism.

Fetal:

The fetal position is a one of the most popular among sleepers. This position is defined by a person who sleeps on their side with their legs curled up. Seems like an uncomfortable position to some, but it happens to be a fairly comfortable sleep style for the majority of people. Those who sleep this way are described as having a tough exterior, but on the inside they are very shy and sensitive.

Speaking of Star Trek, can you imagine seeing a guy sleep like that? In that perfect position? lol. He would be a weirdo. Klingons sleep on hard surfaces. They don't sleep on mattresses or beds at all. They would kill that guy. No Klingon would be caught dead sleeping like that.

I'm picturing a bunch of sassy Klingons now so thanks for that mental image

Edit: Forgot the link -

http://www.minq.com/fitness/1611/9-common-sleeping-positions-and-what-they-say-about-you#page=1

 

[Kirjuri]

I'm just here to appreciate the amount of dedication and effort in this thread between you two.

 

[FearAndTrembling]

I had to re-learn it all for massage therapy but I hated it. Lol. I was never good with instructing clients when it came to these things, and they'd ask. I've found, for whatever reason, that so long as I'm cracking my back every day when I wake up that everything feels pretty much to be in alignment. So I leave it at that. If it ain't broke and all. I'd refer a lot of chiropractors.

I sleep on my stomach, like as a rule. Hands under pillow, face to the side. Can't fall asleep otherwise other than very rarely.

This is kinda interesting. What your sleep position says about you:

Freefall

Freefall sleepers enjoy resting on their stomach, with their head turned to either side and hands near their pillow. As the name implies, freefall sleepers are very free personality types. They are very sociable people and can also be brash at times. Although they show such a free spirit, freefall sleepers are secretly nervous on the inside and have an over-sensitivity to criticism.

Fetal:

The fetal position is a one of the most popular among sleepers. This position is defined by a person who sleeps on their side with their legs curled up. Seems like an uncomfortable position to some, but it happens to be a fairly comfortable sleep style for the majority of people. Those who sleep this way are described as having a tough exterior, but on the inside they are very shy and sensitive.



I'm picturing a bunch of sassy Klingons now so thanks for that mental image

Edit: Forgot the link -

What Does Your Sleeping Position Say About You? - Minq.com

Whole post sounds Enneagram 7. I've seen it summarized as this:

7s fear the inside world
5s fear the outside world

That is why 5s horde knowledge. To prepare against the outside world. I have spent more time learning about exercise than exercising. By fucking far. lol. It's like someday I will get enough knowledge to be confident enough to apply it. Whereas you can actually just apply it and not be so paralyzed.

lol. It is so bad though. If I spent as much time exercising as I did learning about it I would be fuckin jacked. lol.

 

[FearAndTrembling]

I changed my type to ENFJ too. After some conversations with somebody knowledgeable about Socionics. I use a ton of Ne, which an ENxJ should have a ton of, but they can also hit the Se pedal pretty quick. This girl who is INFJ say I hit Se quicker than she does and she is right. I can harden quick. I am generally a goofball but can ramp it up quick. I find many INFJ to be soft. You're kind of similar to me in that you can harden quick too.