u/therealhyperborean

Guys. No scapegoating here. Don’t throw me down the bus. yet. Do not corner me into my already controversial self-take which is kinda making me question my own reality, but…

‘Am I the Asshole’, If I think Logan is actually the protagonist? It reminds me of Peter Thiel (see next photo), who being an LOTR fan has completely villainous perspectives of the storyline. And yes, the guy has that villany arc to him as well (Palantir).

Why do I think Logan is the protagonist? I feel like, he is the only character who has internal validation. All characters are part of his world. They are all little characters with side arcs in his own story line. Everyone is trying to seek his validation, but Logan is the only one who has the balls to be himself. Sure, he is the narcissist kind yes, the killer kind, but it’s his world. He has made it all. He is the creator of the so called ‘reality.’

Above all, it’s paradoxical yes. He has created the world and he is facing its consequences yes. The children? They are not living up to it. Why would they? They didn’t choose this life anymore than Logan. Chicken and the Egg story.

Hello all! Bought my first mac, honestly loving it specially the interface + iPhone mirroring (so cool!). Slightly used but has warranty till Jan 2027.

Just an appreciation post for this hauntingly eerie music. It is sensual, haunting, nostalgic, dark, bright, gripping, loosening all at once; a PARADOX of a track.

The music makes me feel the longevity and passing of time, at the same time lol. Hope Sandoval has been a favourite since I first discovered mazzy star years ago.

Above all, I recently had a chance to watch its music video, which is based on an interview of a pornographic actress of the so called ‘porn chic’ period.

‘individual. Anything that a man postulates as being a greater totality than himself can become a symbol of the self. For this reason the symbol of
the self is not always as total as the definition would require. Even the Christ-figure is not a totality, for it lacks the nocturnal side of the
psyche’s nature, the darkness of the spirit, and is also without sin. Without the integration of evil there is no totality, nor can evil be “added
to the mixture by force.” One could compare Christ as a symbol to the mean of the first mixture: he would then be the middle term of a triad, in which the One and Indivisible is represented by the Father, and the
Divisible by the Holy Ghost, who, as we know, can divide himself into tongues of fire. But this triad, according to the Timaeus, is not yet a
reality. Consequently a second mixture is needed.
The goal of psychological, as of biological, development is self-realization, or individuation. But since man knows himself only as an
ego, and the self, as a totality, is indescribable and indistinguishable from a God-image, self-realization—to put it in religious or metaphysical
terms—amounts to God’s incarnation. That is already expressed in the fact that Christ is the son of God. And because individuation is an heroic and often tragic task, the most difficult of all, it involves suffering, a passion of the ego: the ordinary, empirical man we once were is burdened
with the fate of losing himself in a greater dimension and being robbed of his fancied freedom of will. He suffers, so to speak, from the violence done to him by the Self.’

‘In speaking of religion I must make clear from the start what I mean by that term. Religion, as the Latin word denotes, is a careful and scrupulous observation of what Rudolf Otto aptly termed the
numinosum, that is, a dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On the contrary, it seizes and controls the human subject, who is always rather its victim than its creator. The numinosum—whatever its
cause may be—is an experience of the subject independent of his will. At all events, religious teaching as well as the consensus gentium always
and everywhere explain this experience as being due to a cause external to the individual. The numinosum is either a quality belonging to a visible object or the influence of an invisible presence that causes a peculiar alteration of consciousness.’

‘Who is this woman? To the dreamer she is a vague and unknown person, but when he had that dream he was already well acquainted with
her as the “unknown woman” who had frequently appeared in previous dreams. As this figure plays a great role in men’s dreams, it bears the
technical name of the “anima,” with reference to the fact that, from time immemorial, man in his myths has expressed the idea of a male and
female coexisting in the same body. Such psychological intuitions were usually projected in the form of the divine syzygy, the divine pair, or in
the idea of the hermaphroditic nature of the creator. Edward Maitland, the biographer of Anna Kingsford, relates in our own day an inner
experience of the bisexual nature of the Deity. Then there is Hermetic philosophy with its hermaphrodite and its androgynous inner man,the
homo Adamicus, who, “although he appears in masculine form, always carries about with him Eve, or his wife, hidden in his body,” as a
medieval commentator on the Hermetis Tractatus aureus says. The anima is presumably a psychic representation of the minority of female genes in a man’s body. This is all the more probable since the same figure is not to be found in the imagery of a woman’s unconscious. There is a corresponding figure, however, that plays an equivalent role, yet it is not a woman’s image but a man’s. This masculine figure in a woman’s psychology has been termed the “animus.” One of the most typical manifestations of both figures is what has long been called “animosity.” The anima causes illogical moods, and the animus produces
irritating platitudes and unreasonable opinions. Both are frequent dream-figures. As a rule they personify the unconscious and give it its peculiarly disagreeable or irritating character. The unconscious in itself has no such negative qualities. They appear only when it is personified by these figures and when they begin to influence consciousness. Being only partial personalities, they have the character either of an inferior woman or of an inferior man—hence their irritating effect. A man experiencing this influence will be subject to unaccountable moods, and a woman will be argumentative and produce opinions that are beside the mark.’

‘In the dream of the “House of the Gathering”
the voice confirms this fact. It says: “What you are doing is dangerous. Religion is not the tax you pay in order to get rid of the woman’s image,
for this image cannot be got rid of.” The “woman’s image” is exactly what we would call the “anima.”

‘It is normal for a man to resist his anima, because she represents, as I said before, the unconscious and all those tendencies and contents
hitherto excluded from conscious life. They were excluded for a number of reasons, both real and apparent. Some are suppressed and some are
repressed. As a rule those tendencies that represent the antisocial elements in man’s psychic structure—what I call the “statistical criminal” in everybody—are suppressed, that is, they are consciously and deliberately disposed of. But tendencies that are merely repressed are usually of a somewhat doubtful character. They are not so much antisocial as unconventional and socially awkward. The reason why we
repress them is equally doubtful. Some people repress them from sheer cowardice, others from conventional morality, and others again for
reasons of respectability. Repression is a sort of half-conscious and half-hearted letting go of things, a dropping of hot cakes or a reviling of
grapes which hang too high, or a looking the other way in order not to become conscious of one’s desires. Freud discovered that repression is
one of the main mechanisms in the making of a neurosis. Suppression amounts to a conscious moral choice, but repression is a rather immoral
“penchant” for getting rid of disagreeable decisions. Suppression may cause worry, conflict and suffering, but it never causes a neurosis.
Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering’

‘Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.’

‘Religion is a relationship to the highest or most powerful value, be it positive or negative. The relationship is voluntary as well as involuntary, that is to say you can accept, consciously, the value by which you are possessed unconsciously. That psychological fact which wields
the greatest power in your system functions as a god, since it is always the overwhelming psychic factor that is called “God.”’

‘Though our choice characterizes and defines “God,” it is always man-made, and the definition it gives is therefore finite and imperfect.
(Even the idea of perfection does not posit perfection.) The definition is an image, but this image does not raise the unknown fact it designates into the realm of intelligibility, otherwise we would be entitled to say that
we had created a God. The “master” we choose is not identical with the[145] [146] image we project of him in time and space. He goes on working as
before, like an unknown quantity in the depths of the psyche. We do not even know the nature of the simplest thought, let alone the ultimate
principles of the psyche. Also, we have no control over its inner life. But because this inner life is intrinsically free and not subject to our will and
intentions, it may easily happen that the living thing chosen and defined by us will drop out of its setting, the man-made image, even against our
will. Then, perhaps, we could say with Nietzsche, “God is dead.” Yet it would be truer to say, “He has put off our image, and where shall we find
him again?” The interregnum is full of danger, for the natural facts will raise their claim in the form of various -isms, which are productive of
nothing but anarchy and destruction because inflation and man’s hybris between them have elected to make the ego, in all its ridiculous paltriness, lord of the universe. That was the case with Nietzsche, the uncomprehended portent of a whole epoch. The individual ego is much too small, its brain is much too feeble, to
incorporate all the projections withdrawn from the world. Ego and brain burst asunder in the effort; the psychiatrist calls it schizophrenia.’

*‘*Here the “saviour” does not come down from heaven but out of the depths of the earth, i.e., from that which lies below consciousness. These
philosophers suspected that a “spirit” was imprisoned there, in the vessel of matter; a “white dove” comparable to the Nous in the krater of
Hermes, of which it is said: “Plunge into this krater, if thou canst, byrecognizing to what end thou wast created, and by believing that thou
wilt rise up to Him, who hath sent the krater down to earth.” This Nous or spirit was known as “Mercurius,”and it is to this arcanum that the alchemical saying refers: “Whatever the wise seek is in mercury.” A very ancient formula, attributed by q to the legendary Ostanes, runs: “Go to the waters of the Nile, and there thou wilt find a
stone that hath a spirit [pneuma].” ‘