Thank you for the amazing feedback. Yes, I invented a slang word, thinking that five or six years from now, hot might go out of style. I mean, who says fox any more, right?
I referenced the Crowley quote for a couple of reasons, although I like your take on the Lucifer connection. Mostly I was thinking about how one could read the Adoration as referring to JB himself in a way, from the line Unity uttermost showed! JD shows himself as a unified person, but he's got khabs and khu issues, if you get my drift.
That's hot. (Sorry.) And JD would absolutely say "fox". Possibly even "hottie".
Moving onto a Syn-esque reader-interpretation set of thoughts,the Lucifer reference hit me with and for a moment the tattoos looked like wings folded tightly down, although it's now striking me that perhaps he's closer to Raphael than Lucifer in M-verse, although of course closer to Michael in BW-verse. (Much, much closer.)
I like the duality interpretation of khabs and khu, but I end up striking into the holistic grey-area issues that I always run into with duality-based systems and structures. Hi! I'm a pomo homo, please feel free to take some of this lovely unwillingness to come down on one side or the other of anything.
Well, I'm the opposite of pomo, being trained to the bone in logical positivism (biomedical science, terminal degree). If nothing else, my science background has made me less of a dualist than my "weird esoteric stuff" background. The idea of the khu being the body and the khabs the secret light hidden within the body, really applies to JD for me. He's had to struggle a lot with who he his and the body he wears. Also all that stuff about making the gods and death tremble before him. The light is mine; its rays consume Me: I have made a secret door Into the House of Ra and Tum, Sound like a star gate?
Anyway, it's a bodymind, not one or the other. The answer to the nature or nurture question (or almost any either/or duality) is, "Yes."
(And I was being totally non-esoteric with that line about JD's tattoos, and referring entirely to Broken Wings. Shallow, that's me.)
Yeah, I come to the table from the position of being a fairly strong constructivist in the field of international relations. (One day, I will write that Weir-at-the-UN story. Shortly after I make that wikipedia article suck less.) My own omnium gatherum of weird esoterica kind of developed at the same time.
I can't help thinking that do what you will is a rather constructivist approach in itself, and I'd say that the answer to the nature or nurture question (or the khabs : khu, yin/po : yang/hun, etc etc insert 25¢ duality here) is "Why?" rather than "Yes". Thinking about it more, I suspect that this approach is more appropriate for fixing Daniel than for fixing JD.
Now, see, constructivism and literary criticism is why I went into experimental science. No, I'm not equating the two, but they do come down to opinions rather than data. If I have a theory, I can test it in the lab. The secret is, constructivist theory is also testable, but it's not easy or cheap, and most people in the field wouldn't begin to know how.
Er, this should also explain why I'm not good with the air of mystery thing. I like knowing how things work. I knew all the technology in Disney's Haunted Mansion by the time I was eleven, and went with the chaos approach early on.
Also, I looked at your LJ, and a while back you were looking for long SGA J/R. I did a series with z_rayne a while back that you might like. Law of Time [end pimp]
Oh, they do, absolutely, and the reason I love my constructivism so much is that I have the natural born arrogance that lets me know that my opinion is correct, and then I go find some "evidence" (usually others' opinions) to back it up. This is why hard science and I don't get on. I don't like there being clear-cut answers.
In IR we can't really test anything, at least not on the scale that we'd need to, and when we even start approaching that scale there are more than enough random chaotic variables that we can point at and say "look! contaminated test!".
At the end of the day, I find the problem with all the pomo constructivist wankery is the "okay, now what?" question, because with the acceptance of uncertainty and shared values comes a lack of impetus for analysis and/or a lack of willingness to say "...and so I think X" or "...and so we should Y".
Reply
I referenced the Crowley quote for a couple of reasons, although I like your take on the Lucifer connection. Mostly I was thinking about how one could read the Adoration as referring to JB himself in a way, from the line Unity uttermost showed! JD shows himself as a unified person, but he's got khabs and khu issues, if you get my drift.
And, someone got the Crowley reference. Cool!
Reply
Moving onto a Syn-esque reader-interpretation set of thoughts,the Lucifer reference hit me with and for a moment the tattoos looked like wings folded tightly down, although it's now striking me that perhaps he's closer to Raphael than Lucifer in M-verse, although of course closer to Michael in BW-verse. (Much, much closer.)
I like the duality interpretation of khabs and khu, but I end up striking into the holistic grey-area issues that I always run into with duality-based systems and structures. Hi! I'm a pomo homo, please feel free to take some of this lovely unwillingness to come down on one side or the other of anything.
Reply
Me: I have made a secret door
Into the House of Ra and Tum,
Sound like a star gate?
Anyway, it's a bodymind, not one or the other. The answer to the nature or nurture question (or almost any either/or duality) is, "Yes."
(And I was being totally non-esoteric with that line about JD's tattoos, and referring entirely to Broken Wings. Shallow, that's me.)
Reply
I can't help thinking that do what you will is a rather constructivist approach in itself, and I'd say that the answer to the nature or nurture question (or the khabs : khu, yin/po : yang/hun, etc etc insert 25¢ duality here) is "Why?" rather than "Yes". Thinking about it more, I suspect that this approach is more appropriate for fixing Daniel than for fixing JD.
(Don't tell people! Retain air of mystery!)
Reply
Er, this should also explain why I'm not good with the air of mystery thing. I like knowing how things work. I knew all the technology in Disney's Haunted Mansion by the time I was eleven, and went with the chaos approach early on.
Also, I looked at your LJ, and a while back you were looking for long SGA J/R. I did a series with z_rayne a while back that you might like. Law of Time [end pimp]
Reply
In IR we can't really test anything, at least not on the scale that we'd need to, and when we even start approaching that scale there are more than enough random chaotic variables that we can point at and say "look! contaminated test!".
At the end of the day, I find the problem with all the pomo constructivist wankery is the "okay, now what?" question, because with the acceptance of uncertainty and shared values comes a lack of impetus for analysis and/or a lack of willingness to say "...and so I think X" or "...and so we should Y".
Hurrah, more fic. Thank you!
Reply
Leave a comment