Squee Flail Picspam Meta Retwatch Project for your delectation
Some while back, when bitterlimetwist and I were discussing my slow-grinding meta project The Road So Far (and suffering hiatus withdrawals), there dawned upon us an excuse to watch boys and flail a whole lot AWESOME idea. We would watch a random episode while having ourselves a typed conversation/commentary on it, and then discuss the deep, deep meta that we accidentally stumbled upon whilst squeeing noticed during watching and wanted to develop further.
And, because it's AWESOME everybody needs some shallow flailing and gorgeous picspams of boys it's AWESOME and everybody needs some shallow flailing and gorgeous picspams of boys, we decided to post it for the benefit, edification, and delectation of all. You're welcome.
First up: Hell House. (Thanks random episode generator! :D)
How it works:
We typed a conversation while watching. This is the transcript. Plus a whole lot of pictures. (I am not kidding about the whole lot of pictures. Proceed at your own risk. They are many. And very, very pretty.)
Bitterlimetwist is in blue,
I'm in dark grey.
Commentary made in the duration of the episode is on the left,
pictures and additional comments are on the right. (All screencaps by bitterlimetwist.)Anything that we came back and expanded in the meta section is marked with a red asterisk*.
Thus:
“Previously, on supernatural...” \o/
Babies!
I know right!
So young, it’s crazy.
These teenagers, my god.
Have they never seen a horror movie? Hey let’s check out the creepy house.
I just … seriously? This is you getting your kicks? DON’T YOU KNOW THIS STUFF WILL KILL YOU UNTIL YOU’RE DEAD?!?!?
Sorry, I just spaced out for a second. Oh there’s a legend, you say.
TITLE CARD!!! \o/
Blue Oyster Cult!!! \o/
Man I miss the classic rock stuff.
Oh Dean. So mature.
Ha ha. Very funny. I bet … just melted a little. Nair!
I like how pissy Sam is. Oh Dean, it always escalates!
Be MATURE, Dean. GOD.
LOL. Sorry distracted by the pretty. God, the pretty.
Persqueeter!
He IS so pissy. <3
I like how Sam’s now on board with the hunting stuff.
Well, it’s really their only option at this point.
What was interesting to me was Dean was all “where the hell do we find these losers anyway?” and Sam is like “I know where the normal people be, m’kay?”
Good point. I never really noticed.
The kid is pretty good at acting, though.
Agreed. Wait, I’m trying to think of something clever... Nope.
Because they’re so PRETTY.
YES. And this episode cracks me up. My brain refuses to function.
“That is exactly why you never get laid.” Oh, DEAN.
LOL. Oh Dean. Sam can totally get laid WHENEVER HE WANTS. But that’s okay, I love your older brother teasing. Stop being so adorable.
It’s an inbuilt defence against being beaten to death for being annoying.
Hell Hounds! In the non-threatening way. Oh, Ed. Oh, Harry. You douches.
But they are funny douches.
SAM’S DIMPLES.
*flail*
Oh God, their faces.
inorite? *snerk*
Wait for it..... HEEE! \o/
Gotta agree with Dean, that IS weak.
Yeah, but.
He was trying.
Well, it does start small, and then escalates.
Oh look, more stupid people looking around a haunted house.
We wouldn’t really have Show without them.
Nope. :)
Although … I’m already bored with them.
Yeah, that’s one thing that’s really changed a lot. Look how much time we’re spending following them around.
Yeah, they definitely focused in on the boys. (later on, I mean)
I got nothing.
I like when it’s Dean’s esoteric pop culture knowledge that’s the key, rather than the lore stuff. It’s kind of like another slant on the “everybody knows the story...” thing. Because everybody DOES know the pop culture stuff. Well, for a given value of “everyone”. (SAMMY.)
So much stuff going on now, no time to type! Wait, no I love this line.
Sweet Lord. Of the Rings.
He goes after chicks, right? Explains why he went after you, but why me?
Oh Dean, why always the need to reassert your masculinity? Sam is so cute.
Because that’s what masculinity is FOR. And I don’t think calling Sam cute does a lot to restore his.... :D
Do you know what else does nothing for Sam’s masculinity? His haircut. There, I said it.
I’m not the biggest fan of Sam’s season 1 hair.
But it’s so … moppy. He’s moppy puppy. How can you not love that?
Well sure, I like moppy puppy fine. But cute baby!Sam isn’t my favourite flavour. I prefer older, sexier, no-bangs-longer-hair Sam.
UNF. *fans self*
Besides, I like it when both of them are grown-up and sexy, rather than just sexy Dean and his baby brother Sam. (I mean, you know, if I’m being shallow. *shifty eyes* I watch for the story. You know I do!)
See, sexy hair-in-the-face. So much better. (Not that this is a particularly “sexy” picture, more of a “Sam’s breaking my heart with his face” picture, but you get the idea.)
And it took me FOREVER to find a picture I liked, so you’re getting it. My suffering should not be in vain.
Oh, no. Vain suffering is bad. *pets you*
Hee. DEAN. \o/ I don’t like this guy.
Just another douche. But yeah, I love Dean turning the screws … in his very particular way. :)
Although [the guy] is a cautionary tale of pranks gone wrong*. Boys, are you paying attention? … *itching powder* … no, guess not....
Oh you’re right! I never really noticed that either. This is what happens when I’m busy being distracted by stuff.........like towels.
But they’re such DISTRACTING towels.....
Behold my restraint. Only one picture of towel-clad Sam.
Mmm, hip bones. Oh and Dean’s face RIGHT HERE.
With the scratching?
No when he says about Santa, or even right here - so gorgeous. But yes, his laughing behind Sam’s back is adorable.
A picture of Dean’s gorgeous face in the scene I was talking about. Just so you know what I was talking about. You know, because Dean’s face is very important. *nods*
Unf ... I … I think perhaps I don’t QUITE know what you’re talking about? And maybe there needs to be more elaboration? Is there ANY WAY we could do that? I’m racking my brain here....
Like, say, a bunch more pictures of Dean’s face? Just so we’re all clear on how beautiful he is in this scene? Because I know Sam’s giving us a lot of exposition, but really, who can pay attention when JAckles looks like THAT.
A bunch more pictures of Dean’s face?... You know, that Just Might Work! 8D
But Ed, she’s stronger than me....
Sex......with girls.
And stoppit with the hip bones. I’m TRYING to concentrate. :[
WWBD. LOL
Well, for a start, she’d totally jump Sam’s bones.
Really? I think she’d be more of a Dean girl.
She goes for the sensitive guys. Riley? Spike was an abberation.
No, maybe not.
Oh sneaky boys. DIMPLES.
Do you know what important fact we have thus far failed to mention? Boys are SO TALL. You’re welcome.
It’s a public service, really.
“EHhehehehe. EHhehehe.”
I love how rumpled Dean’s hair looks.
Oh … he DID. \o/
Dean’s hair is, I think, what’s making him look so extra delicious this episode. Sam’s hair is stupid in this scene. But yes....HE DID. \o/
And I love the little retaliatory *flashlight-to-the-face* Dean gives him after the “not touching that line with a ten-foot pole”
Ah writers, not enough to put Sam in a towel, but Dean has to make a joke like that. What do you want to do, kill all the fangirls?
… I think so.
Besides, I like Sam’s hair this way. So young looking. Adorapuppy.
Sam’s hairstyle changes in almost every scene in this episode. It’s kinda funny.
Huh. I think I’ll have to rewatch. WHAT A HARDSHIP.
Well, it’s not like it’s important. ;D I just noticed because it’s like “ Oh here it’s cute, here it’s less so, oh cute again....”
Sam’s ever-changing hair.
Well, that’s the kind of thing that’s important to track.
Okay, wait … something important just happened. First little greying of the black-and-white. “How many things we killed existed just because people believed in them?”*
Yeah, this whole part. I feel like it means something important, but I can’t figure out what.
Except they never really explored that one any further.
BUT I love the way their two pranks on the Hell Hound boys played out - Sammy with the intellectual prank (sort of), and Dean with the visceral, physical one. Both nasty. :D:D
Word. I love how much the pranks reflect their personalities. Also, wait - LAUGHING
TOGETHER.
OH MY. ADORABLE.
*MELTS AGAIN*
Aw, show’s over. I’m sad.
It went so quickly!
I know!
So … now what?
Okay, well, do you have any more thoughts on that bit at the end. I mean, I know they never addressed it again, but it feels like it’s supposed to mean something and it kind of drives me crazy - What does it mean? Thoughts?
Yeah … they’re simmering right now. (BOYS! TOWEL! LAUGHING!) I’m trying not to get distracted.
Well, first off, there’s definitely a kind of call-out to the whole idea that supernatural entities derive their existence/potency from belief of people* (which, when you think about it, arrogant much?).
Yes, there’s that. Isn’t there another episode where that idea comes up again? I’m blanking now, but I think there is. But that part where Dean improvises and Sam seems to think it’s a bad idea, and then Dean says they’ll just come back - that part feels like *something* that I can’t quite put my finger on.
There’s a sense of leaving it hanging, which reminds me of Croatoan.
And the idea of believers = strength was, I think, one of the issues many people had with … uh. What was the one where Lucifer slaughtered all the pagan gods? Oh, and in A Very Supernatural Christmas, the pagan gods in that took tributes … nah, not quite the same thing, really.
Hammer of the Gods. Yeah, maybe it’s just that unfinished business, and this is the first time something is left hanging like that, maybe? I like that it’s left unfinished, so maybe that’s what makes it seem so important?
And I never got that believers=strength vibe from that ep., but what the hell do I know?
Oh, no, that was my point. Because Show has never really gone back to that idea and said it was a valid understanding of how the supernatural realm works - this is the only episode I can remember where that’s the origin of the beastie - but when we got to HotG (thank you), it *outraged* a lot of people that all these pagan gods WHO HAD ALL THESE BELIEVERS, OKAY? were just completely destroyed by one angel (even if it IS Lucifer), because that’s like saying that the “Christian” God is, like, SO much more powerful than all the others. Which really seemed to be going off the idea that believers=strength, which was never a principle that Show expressed. Which left me all O.o
Oh fandom. Always so quick to be outraged. No, I knew YOU didn’t think that. Hmm, so this is the only episode where something exists because it’s willed into existence. Maybe it’s like...okay I’m trying to think of how to express my breakthrough... The idea that we can will something to happen? In this case a ghost, but say like....oh forget it, it’s not coming to me.
Well, that’s the beauty of coming back to it later.
Although as you said that, it reminded me of … not Adam. The little Anti-Christ kid. ?? Why are my head not being good now?
Boys broke our brains.
Jesse! That was it. (I looked it up.)
Which was a different thing, though. This was the belief of many people; that was one person specially endowed with the ability to warp reality. Which you could argue (if you were invested in that perspective) that all people have that ability and the demon simply magnified it umpty-billion times, but still. It’s a stretch, considering nothing else seems to work that way. (Sorry, kind of going back-and-forth in my head there.)*
:) But, I mean more like, you know how the monster usually has some thematic significance for Sam and Dean, but I don’t know, maybe this episode was just meant to be fun, and smiling boys. Because I think this may be the least angsty episode in Show’s history.
Well, I couldn’t confirm that with out SIGNIFICANTLY more watching, but I’d definitely put it in the top 3. Without thinking too hard about it.
Oh! Name the other two!
Just a convenient number. I can’t think of anything much right now ;) TOWELS. HIP BONES. WHUT?
Least Angsty Episodes:
1) Hell House
2) Frontierland
3) The French Mistake
(And seriously, that says a lot about Show. Or me, I guess.)
I like those choices! My Least Angsty Episodes:
1) It’s a Terrible Life
2) Hell House
3) Tall Tales
* Okay. So. Thoughts. Of the meta variety. (Subjects in bold.)
The beastie having thematic significance to the boys’ journey. I mean … there’s the pranking thing, but that’s the only angle I can think of, really. It’s a cautionary tale, but it’s nothing so simple as “don’t prank”. The events of the Hell House and the boys’ prank war provide comparisons along the lines of “always escalates”. The contrast comes from the natures of the pranks: where the boys’ pranks were thoroughly within the “natural” realm, the Hell House prank was unwittingly accessing the supernatural. The escalation of the first being mostly benign, and controllable by the human participants (Sam and Dean calling a truce); the escalation of the second becoming uncontrollable once the supernatural becomes a factor (or a participant, if you prefer).
Which becomes an early warning against messing with the supernatural, even in fun, even if you don’t believe in it - or think you can handle it. Which has been a consistent theme of Show: you [humans] cannot control the supernatural. If you try, you’re only opening yourself up to it controlling you. The only thing you CAN legitimately control is yourself: your choices according to the (sometimes very poor) range of options presented to you. (This also has an echo in the third story thread of the episode, the Hell Hounds/Ghostfacers boys - if not for the intervention of Sam and Dean, their messing around with the supernatural would probably have killed them.)
It dawned on me that the "monster" was really record store guy. He chooses to do something nasty but "harmless", and it gets out of control, affecting more people than he would ever dream. He’s responsible for setting up the conditions that lead to Mordechai coming to “life”. This ties in with one of the important elements of Show, that what we do, our choices, affect others. For instance, for every deal, a price was paid not only by the person who made the deal, but by some other innocent person(s) as well, Mary -> Sam (and Dean and John).
Oh, and how could I forget, there’s also the idea that choices/actions are what determine whether someone is a “monster” or not, say a human choosing to kill, or a vampire choosing not to feed on humans. In this case, record store guy (and yeah, I really can’t be bothered to check his name) isn’t making a conscious choice to do something bad, but Show always likes to point out that harm can be caused inadvertently.
That it took me so long to realise all of this I’m chalking up to the distraction of pretty, pretty boys. Really, it’s a wonder I was able to focus my brain at all.
The "unfinished business" of killing Mordechai. I don't know, that may just be a vague bit of foreshadowing. The episode before this one is Shadow, where they think they've killed Meg. But she's "unfinished business" that comes back to bite them. Just throwing that out there.
The power of belief (and the nature of authority) on Show. Which is a meta I’ve had in my head FOREVER and I guess is finally getting written out.
First, authority just in general: authority is essentially the right to exercise power (power being a very broad concept here), and it flows from the greater to the lesser. It is endowed. The simplest example of how this works is the military; to see where the authority is coming from, you have to keep looking up. Likewise a traditional monarchy, along with the hierarchy that descends from that. Your authority to command, or rule, or whatever - to exercise power and thus affect reality - comes from the one who invested it in you, all the way up. You *have* whatever measure of authority inherent to the rank they give you, to wield as you see fit. (Clearly, this is bounded by the limits of the authority or rank they give you. Try stepping outside those limits, and things have a way of going badly.)
Along with that, within the hierarchy tree, you can wield the higher up’s authority if you speak in their name (and are thus, in yourself, representing THEM). The lowliest private can walk up to a major, or whatever, and say “General Whatshisface says that you need to....” And the major is as obliged to obey as if that private WAS the general, because he is obeying the *authority* of the general (which, limited to this task, the general has given to the private), not the *person* of the general. (Likewise, for example, a diplomat speaking on behalf of the head of state that sent - authorised - him.) Of course, if the private is misusing the general’s authority, things are likely to go very, very much worse than if the private were misusing their own authority.
(This, by the way, is the EXACT dynamic behind the third commandment, “You shall not misuse [take in vain] the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7) THIRD commandment - THIRD - right after having no other gods before Him and not making idols, long before not murdering or stealing. It’s not about swearing “Ow, God, who put that there!” when you stub your toe. I’m not saying that using His name lightly like that is a good idea. I’m just saying that He didn’t make people yelling “Jeeesus!” in an excitable moment third on the list of laws He’s handing down (and I know that’s anachronistic for the Ten Commandments, but it’s come to be filed under the same thing); it’s about people illegitimately tying His ultimate, ULTIMATE authority to their own agenda. Think the Crusades or the Inquisition for how far that can go. He has a BIG problem with that, and if a private misusing a general’s name is not going to go well, just think how it’s going to go for the people who’ve misused God’s when He calls them to account.)
It should be noted that outside the hierarchy tree, it is also less straightforward; a general trying to *order* a civilian to do something SHOULD be met with “All due respect, but I’m not under your command.” The civilian has the right to choose whether or not to obey, where the private (or major) has already placed themselves under the general’s authority by joining the miliary and does NOT have a choice. (Whether the civilian’s right to choose is respected is, of course, another question, but it’s not strictly one of authority dynamics, unless those dynamics include the abuse of power.) Additionally, we should note that when the nature of the hierarchy itself is in dispute, you have … uhm, well, pre-series and season one Winchesters, for example. Ie, a big old mess.
To edge back toward the episode at hand, a president, or a democratically elected head of state, does work differently to a monarchy or a military. In monarchies or militaries, the assorted Grand High Poobahs derive their ultimate authority over the hierarchy tree from an external - higher - source, which also limits and determines the nature of the authority of that hierarchy tree. Monarchs technically claim their authority as being divinely appointed. The military is (usually) authorised by the head of state; ie, the President of the US being the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. But a democratically elected leader derives his authority from WITHIN the hierarchy. When the nature of the hierarchy is not in dispute, it is agreed that the majority of the people speak for the people as a whole, and the authority to speak for the people as a whole is then invested by the people in one person (because the entire nation can’t keep turning up to voice their will at Congress, they’ve got better things to do). Their voice is funnelled into a single directive - a mandate - by way of a vote. This is basic social science, and I appear to have taken everyone back to fourth grade here. Sorry about that. (You may notice I said “it is agreed”. Yes, this means that the majority of people say that what the majority of people say goes. Yes, this is circular. Yes, this has implications for endowed authority. Yes, there’s more to it. Yes, we’ll get to that.)
So, the tulpa of “Mordechai”. (See? It does all connect!) Literally brought into existence because the concerted belief of a whole lot of people was focused by the Tibetan symbol on the wall. Or, if you want to put it another way (and I do), “authored” by the (supernaturally) focused belief of a whole lot of people. An author authorises the nature and existence of what they have authored. Follow me? In this case - within Show’s universe - the innate, but limited, ability to “author” of a whole bunch of people was funnelled into a single directive by way of the symbol. Did the authority to author a supernatural creature come from the symbol, or was it innate (but so limited on an individual basis as to have no real effect unless marshalled by the symbol)?
Given Jesse the antichrist, the psychic abilities of YE’s special kids, and the human origin of demons, it seems like Show is saying that in Show’s reality, it’s innate in humans. However, it requires a supernatural element (half-demon conception; demon blood; significant time and twisting in Hell, which then traces anything demonic all the way back to whatever illicit access - authority - Lucifer first gave damned souls to supernatural power; whereas ghosts who can affect reality have the supernatural advantage of not being tied to a “natural” body any more, but beyond that I don’t know enough to speculate how that works) to boost the effectiveness to where it can impact reality in any significant way. (Side note: for the psykids stuff, I believe that booster was YE’s blood alone. Witness: Jake’s immediate proficiency. I believe Ruby when she said her blood was just a feather, Dumbo. The demon blood to say yes to Lucifer was something else again.)
Given that this is part of the reality Show has set up, I can see the argument for inferring that the different pantheons exist or derive their authority - the potency to affect reality - because people believe in them (and thus the consternation at the implication that a mere fallen angel of the “Christian” God was so much more powerful). However, the argument is incomplete, and therefore seems to take people only as far as they want to go with it. The first, and most obvious, problem with it is that Show never said this was where the gods came from. It never said this was the only way supernatural entities exist; it only had Sam question how many of them did exist because people believed in them. The audience can speculate, but can’t hold Show to something it never declared to be true.
(It could also be pointed out that even if you keep the argument as is, and assume that IS how it all works on Show, and that Show is based in essentially the same religio-political world as we are, there’s a severe numbers problem with the argument. According to Wikipedia, the Judeo-Christian God has between 2000-2,200 million Christian believers, along with 14-18 million Jewish believers. If you combine that with Islam, which began by claiming the authority of the same God, you get another 1,570-1,650 million believers. Which is all this belief going to the ONE God. Hinduism, which is the closest contender, has 828-1000 million believers. The Hindu pantheon has literally over 1000 gods, most of them local to a specific area and its worshippers. There are a few major Hindu gods that are more universally recognised in worship, but either way, according to the argument itself, those gods have to be splitting the difference of the “number of believers” each, and how much “belief” each. The same applies to all the other pantheons. Even if you include ALL worshippers, past and present - which makes more sense of why ODIN is there, for one - and even if you assume that belief-potency carries internationally so that home-court advantage means nothing, and even if you won’t grant the Islamic Allah and Judeo-Christian God as being the same deity, the main monotheistic “God” still comes out way ahead. So, yeah, even within that argument I’d back His highest-ranking archangels - in whom He invested the most authority - against the pantheons any day, no matter how douchebaggy those angels happen to be. Unless of course you want to abandon the number-of-believers notion and just wail “’SnotFAIR!” because you don’t like Christianity, in which case, by all means carry on.)
The other major problem with it is that “God” is an inherently meta concept. If, on Show, you want to say that all people have the innate authority to believe something into existence (or in a real-world democracy to invest their authority in one person to speak and act on their behalf - told you we’d come back to this), and if, as we’ve seen, authority is endowed from the greater to the lesser … then how were they endowed with that innate authority? (To be clear, “innate” does not mean “comes from nowhere”; it means “born with it”.)
Actually, that answer is easy, and I already said it above: “it seems like Show is saying that in Show’s reality, it’s innate in humans”. SHOW has made people with that innate authority, or more accurately, the creators - the authors - of Show have authored its people so that, in Show’s reality, they are born that way. The authority doesn’t come from nowhere, it comes from the authors. THE God of Show is the one[s] who CREATED (and maintain) Show, which was why SamnDean were never going to find the real “God”; He cannot BE a creation in or of His own creation. That’s even more circular and nonsensical than “the majority says that what the majority says goes”. God is outside - meta - to the medium He created. The closest you can get is an in-universe representation of something that exists outside of it. (O hai, Chuck. Anyone else get shivers when you think about it that way? I do. Whether they intended it that way or not, it’s uncanny.)
(This should also clear up the Lucifer vs gods question. Why does he spank them so handily? Because the authors said so. That simple. That’s the nature of the story they wanted to tell, so that’s the authority they gave him.)
To bring it full circle, this also applies to the idea of individual authority upon which we build the idea of modern democracy. (I haven’t studied ancient democratic philosophy, but given they had no problem with the idea that the divine exists, in whatever form, I’m willing to bet they did the same within their own theistic paradigm.) Let’s say it together: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....” (my italics) While this is the most famous statement of this authority dynamic, nearly every iteration of “rights of man” (beginning, I believe, with the Magna Carta) appeal to God’s ultimate authority to substantiate these rights. Mankind does not author its own authority; that majority we keep coming back to can only say that they recognise that we are made (authored) that way. The authority that the majority gives its democratically elected leader claims its authority from God, which is indeed authority endowed by the greater onto the lesser. In essence, no God=no democracy.
Ah, yes, but - what about the French Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), I hear those of you paying attention in fifth grade cry? (Not really. No one was paying attention, were they?) IT makes no mention of God at all! In fact, it implicitly and deliberately appeals to “natural law” for its universal, inalienable rights of man. It was written in part to DENY the divine right of kings (authority).
Which is all great until it runs into the same circular problem you get any time you remove God from the equation: the question “Why?” WHY are these things universal and inalienable? (These questions apply equally to “natural law” and to the rights derived from it.) Who says this is so? Upon what authority are you basing this claim? Yours? The “majority”? What if I say different? Are you then saying that your (or the majority’s) authority to determine this overrules mine? (Who says numerical advantage means anything when it comes to authority? You? Because I don’t, and neither does General Whatshisname over there, telling his military what to do.) You just said we were born (no “created” for you) equal. If I don’t agree and you say I have to abide by it, that doesn’t sound like you really believe it. That sounds like you say we’re born equal, unless I don’t agree with you, in which case you’re saying you’re born … more equal than me.
I, on the other hand, can say that I’m born waaaay better than you, and can do whatever I want. And you have no higher, external authority that exists over both of us to appeal to to say that I’m wrong, because I have decided that I’m not subject to your hierarchy tree of numerical majority, or “natural law”, or any other ideology you want to espouse and impose on me by your “equal” authority. The only thing you can ultimately assert is “it is because it just is!” while rejecting the idea that “it is because God made it that way.”
(Incidentally, there DOES need to be a “because it just is” at the top of *looking up* for authority; the ladder cannot go up forever, it needs an ultimate source that isn’t circular or it all falls apart. In metaphysics, this was first proposed by Aristotle as the Unmoved Mover, the first cause which itself has no cause. Latterly, it’s the metaphysical problem with the Big Bang - what made it happen? If it’s a cycle of big bangs and big crunches of universes, stretching back in time - what started that cycle? Either you say it “just happened” (“it just is”), or you say “it created itself”, which is enough to give logicians serious headaches. In Hebraic thought this idea of a cause, or creator, which had the unique property of not being caused or created but always *was*, outside the medium of time and space because it created them (Genesis 1:1), was understood from the beginning as “YHWH”, or, essentially, “I AM”. This was God’s name that He told Moses at the burning bush when Moses asked who he should say sent him, what name/authority he was representing (Exodus 3:13-14): “I am who I AM.” No one gave God His name; there is no one above Him to give Him His authority, which makes His name the statement of ultimate, un-endowed, inherent authority, from which all else derives.)
Ha, and y’all thought this was a *lightweight* episode.
And, because it's AWESOME everybody needs some shallow flailing and gorgeous picspams of boys it's AWESOME and everybody needs some shallow flailing and gorgeous picspams of boys, we decided to post it for the benefit, edification, and delectation of all. You're welcome.
First up: Hell House. (Thanks random episode generator! :D)
How it works:
We typed a conversation while watching. This is the transcript. Plus a whole lot of pictures. (I am not kidding about the whole lot of pictures. Proceed at your own risk. They are many. And very, very pretty.)
Bitterlimetwist is in blue,
I'm in dark grey.
Commentary made in the duration of the episode is on the left,
pictures and additional comments are on the right. (All screencaps by bitterlimetwist.)Anything that we came back and expanded in the meta section is marked with a red asterisk*.
Thus:
“Previously, on supernatural...” \o/
Babies!
I know right!
So young, it’s crazy.
These teenagers, my god.
Have they never seen a horror movie? Hey let’s check out the creepy house.
I just … seriously? This is you getting your kicks? DON’T YOU KNOW THIS STUFF WILL KILL YOU UNTIL YOU’RE DEAD?!?!?
Sorry, I just spaced out for a second. Oh there’s a legend, you say.
TITLE CARD!!! \o/
Blue Oyster Cult!!! \o/
Man I miss the classic rock stuff.
Oh Dean. So mature.
Ha ha. Very funny. I bet … just melted a little. Nair!
I like how pissy Sam is. Oh Dean, it always escalates!
Be MATURE, Dean. GOD.
LOL. Sorry distracted by the pretty. God, the pretty.
Persqueeter!
He IS so pissy. <3
I like how Sam’s now on board with the hunting stuff.
Well, it’s really their only option at this point.
What was interesting to me was Dean was all “where the hell do we find these losers anyway?” and Sam is like “I know where the normal people be, m’kay?”
Good point. I never really noticed.
The kid is pretty good at acting, though.
Agreed. Wait, I’m trying to think of something clever... Nope.
Because they’re so PRETTY.
YES. And this episode cracks me up. My brain refuses to function.
“That is exactly why you never get laid.” Oh, DEAN.
LOL. Oh Dean. Sam can totally get laid WHENEVER HE WANTS. But that’s okay, I love your older brother teasing. Stop being so adorable.
It’s an inbuilt defence against being beaten to death for being annoying.
Hell Hounds! In the non-threatening way. Oh, Ed. Oh, Harry. You douches.
But they are funny douches.
SAM’S DIMPLES.
*flail*
Oh God, their faces.
inorite? *snerk*
Wait for it..... HEEE! \o/
Gotta agree with Dean, that IS weak.
Yeah, but.
He was trying.
Well, it does start small, and then escalates.
Oh look, more stupid people looking around a haunted house.
We wouldn’t really have Show without them.
Nope. :)
Although … I’m already bored with them.
Yeah, that’s one thing that’s really changed a lot. Look how much time we’re spending following them around.
Yeah, they definitely focused in on the boys. (later on, I mean)
I got nothing.
I like when it’s Dean’s esoteric pop culture knowledge that’s the key, rather than the lore stuff. It’s kind of like another slant on the “everybody knows the story...” thing. Because everybody DOES know the pop culture stuff. Well, for a given value of “everyone”. (SAMMY.)
So much stuff going on now, no time to type! Wait, no I love this line.
Sweet Lord. Of the Rings.
He goes after chicks, right? Explains why he went after you, but why me?
Oh Dean, why always the need to reassert your masculinity? Sam is so cute.
Because that’s what masculinity is FOR. And I don’t think calling Sam cute does a lot to restore his.... :D
Do you know what else does nothing for Sam’s masculinity? His haircut. There, I said it.
I’m not the biggest fan of Sam’s season 1 hair.
But it’s so … moppy. He’s moppy puppy. How can you not love that?
Well sure, I like moppy puppy fine. But cute baby!Sam isn’t my favourite flavour. I prefer older, sexier, no-bangs-longer-hair Sam.
UNF. *fans self*
Besides, I like it when both of them are grown-up and sexy, rather than just sexy Dean and his baby brother Sam. (I mean, you know, if I’m being shallow. *shifty eyes* I watch for the story. You know I do!)
See, sexy hair-in-the-face. So much better. (Not that this is a particularly “sexy” picture, more of a “Sam’s breaking my heart with his face” picture, but you get the idea.)
And it took me FOREVER to find a picture I liked, so you’re getting it. My suffering should not be in vain.
Oh, no. Vain suffering is bad. *pets you*
Hee. DEAN. \o/ I don’t like this guy.
Just another douche. But yeah, I love Dean turning the screws … in his very particular way. :)
Although [the guy] is a cautionary tale of pranks gone wrong*. Boys, are you paying attention? … *itching powder* … no, guess not....
Oh you’re right! I never really noticed that either. This is what happens when I’m busy being distracted by stuff.........like towels.
But they’re such DISTRACTING towels.....
Behold my restraint. Only one picture of towel-clad Sam.
Mmm, hip bones. Oh and Dean’s face RIGHT HERE.
With the scratching?
No when he says about Santa, or even right here - so gorgeous. But yes, his laughing behind Sam’s back is adorable.
A picture of Dean’s gorgeous face in the scene I was talking about. Just so you know what I was talking about. You know, because Dean’s face is very important. *nods*
Unf ... I … I think perhaps I don’t QUITE know what you’re talking about? And maybe there needs to be more elaboration? Is there ANY WAY we could do that? I’m racking my brain here....
Like, say, a bunch more pictures of Dean’s face? Just so we’re all clear on how beautiful he is in this scene? Because I know Sam’s giving us a lot of exposition, but really, who can pay attention when JAckles looks like THAT.
A bunch more pictures of Dean’s face?... You know, that Just Might Work! 8D
But Ed, she’s stronger than me....
Sex......with girls.
And stoppit with the hip bones. I’m TRYING to concentrate. :[
WWBD. LOL
Well, for a start, she’d totally jump Sam’s bones.
Really? I think she’d be more of a Dean girl.
She goes for the sensitive guys. Riley? Spike was an abberation.
No, maybe not.
Oh sneaky boys. DIMPLES.
Do you know what important fact we have thus far failed to mention? Boys are SO TALL. You’re welcome.
It’s a public service, really.
“EHhehehehe. EHhehehe.”
I love how rumpled Dean’s hair looks.
Oh … he DID. \o/
Dean’s hair is, I think, what’s making him look so extra delicious this episode. Sam’s hair is stupid in this scene. But yes....HE DID. \o/
And I love the little retaliatory *flashlight-to-the-face* Dean gives him after the “not touching that line with a ten-foot pole”
Ah writers, not enough to put Sam in a towel, but Dean has to make a joke like that. What do you want to do, kill all the fangirls?
… I think so.
Besides, I like Sam’s hair this way. So young looking. Adorapuppy.
Sam’s hairstyle changes in almost every scene in this episode. It’s kinda funny.
Huh. I think I’ll have to rewatch. WHAT A HARDSHIP.
Well, it’s not like it’s important. ;D I just noticed because it’s like “ Oh here it’s cute, here it’s less so, oh cute again....”
Sam’s ever-changing hair.
Well, that’s the kind of thing that’s important to track.
Okay, wait … something important just happened. First little greying of the black-and-white. “How many things we killed existed just because people believed in them?”*
Yeah, this whole part. I feel like it means something important, but I can’t figure out what.
Except they never really explored that one any further.
BUT I love the way their two pranks on the Hell Hound boys played out - Sammy with the intellectual prank (sort of), and Dean with the visceral, physical one. Both nasty. :D:D
Word. I love how much the pranks reflect their personalities. Also, wait - LAUGHING
TOGETHER.
OH MY. ADORABLE.
*MELTS AGAIN*
Aw, show’s over. I’m sad.
It went so quickly!
I know!
So … now what?
Okay, well, do you have any more thoughts on that bit at the end. I mean, I know they never addressed it again, but it feels like it’s supposed to mean something and it kind of drives me crazy - What does it mean? Thoughts?
Yeah … they’re simmering right now. (BOYS! TOWEL! LAUGHING!) I’m trying not to get distracted.
Well, first off, there’s definitely a kind of call-out to the whole idea that supernatural entities derive their existence/potency from belief of people* (which, when you think about it, arrogant much?).
Yes, there’s that. Isn’t there another episode where that idea comes up again? I’m blanking now, but I think there is. But that part where Dean improvises and Sam seems to think it’s a bad idea, and then Dean says they’ll just come back - that part feels like *something* that I can’t quite put my finger on.
There’s a sense of leaving it hanging, which reminds me of Croatoan.
And the idea of believers = strength was, I think, one of the issues many people had with … uh. What was the one where Lucifer slaughtered all the pagan gods? Oh, and in A Very Supernatural Christmas, the pagan gods in that took tributes … nah, not quite the same thing, really.
Hammer of the Gods. Yeah, maybe it’s just that unfinished business, and this is the first time something is left hanging like that, maybe? I like that it’s left unfinished, so maybe that’s what makes it seem so important?
And I never got that believers=strength vibe from that ep., but what the hell do I know?
Oh, no, that was my point. Because Show has never really gone back to that idea and said it was a valid understanding of how the supernatural realm works - this is the only episode I can remember where that’s the origin of the beastie - but when we got to HotG (thank you), it *outraged* a lot of people that all these pagan gods WHO HAD ALL THESE BELIEVERS, OKAY? were just completely destroyed by one angel (even if it IS Lucifer), because that’s like saying that the “Christian” God is, like, SO much more powerful than all the others. Which really seemed to be going off the idea that believers=strength, which was never a principle that Show expressed. Which left me all O.o
Oh fandom. Always so quick to be outraged. No, I knew YOU didn’t think that. Hmm, so this is the only episode where something exists because it’s willed into existence. Maybe it’s like...okay I’m trying to think of how to express my breakthrough... The idea that we can will something to happen? In this case a ghost, but say like....oh forget it, it’s not coming to me.
Well, that’s the beauty of coming back to it later.
Although as you said that, it reminded me of … not Adam. The little Anti-Christ kid. ?? Why are my head not being good now?
Boys broke our brains.
Jesse! That was it. (I looked it up.)
Which was a different thing, though. This was the belief of many people; that was one person specially endowed with the ability to warp reality. Which you could argue (if you were invested in that perspective) that all people have that ability and the demon simply magnified it umpty-billion times, but still. It’s a stretch, considering nothing else seems to work that way. (Sorry, kind of going back-and-forth in my head there.)*
:) But, I mean more like, you know how the monster usually has some thematic significance for Sam and Dean, but I don’t know, maybe this episode was just meant to be fun, and smiling boys. Because I think this may be the least angsty episode in Show’s history.
Well, I couldn’t confirm that with out SIGNIFICANTLY more watching, but I’d definitely put it in the top 3. Without thinking too hard about it.
Oh! Name the other two!
Just a convenient number. I can’t think of anything much right now ;) TOWELS. HIP BONES. WHUT?
Least Angsty Episodes:
1) Hell House
2) Frontierland
3) The French Mistake
(And seriously, that says a lot about Show. Or me, I guess.)
I like those choices! My Least Angsty Episodes:
1) It’s a Terrible Life
2) Hell House
3) Tall Tales
* Okay. So. Thoughts. Of the meta variety. (Subjects in bold.)
The beastie having thematic significance to the boys’ journey. I mean … there’s the pranking thing, but that’s the only angle I can think of, really. It’s a cautionary tale, but it’s nothing so simple as “don’t prank”. The events of the Hell House and the boys’ prank war provide comparisons along the lines of “always escalates”. The contrast comes from the natures of the pranks: where the boys’ pranks were thoroughly within the “natural” realm, the Hell House prank was unwittingly accessing the supernatural. The escalation of the first being mostly benign, and controllable by the human participants (Sam and Dean calling a truce); the escalation of the second becoming uncontrollable once the supernatural becomes a factor (or a participant, if you prefer).
Which becomes an early warning against messing with the supernatural, even in fun, even if you don’t believe in it - or think you can handle it. Which has been a consistent theme of Show: you [humans] cannot control the supernatural. If you try, you’re only opening yourself up to it controlling you. The only thing you CAN legitimately control is yourself: your choices according to the (sometimes very poor) range of options presented to you. (This also has an echo in the third story thread of the episode, the Hell Hounds/Ghostfacers boys - if not for the intervention of Sam and Dean, their messing around with the supernatural would probably have killed them.)
It dawned on me that the "monster" was really record store guy. He chooses to do something nasty but "harmless", and it gets out of control, affecting more people than he would ever dream. He’s responsible for setting up the conditions that lead to Mordechai coming to “life”. This ties in with one of the important elements of Show, that what we do, our choices, affect others. For instance, for every deal, a price was paid not only by the person who made the deal, but by some other innocent person(s) as well, Mary -> Sam (and Dean and John).
Oh, and how could I forget, there’s also the idea that choices/actions are what determine whether someone is a “monster” or not, say a human choosing to kill, or a vampire choosing not to feed on humans. In this case, record store guy (and yeah, I really can’t be bothered to check his name) isn’t making a conscious choice to do something bad, but Show always likes to point out that harm can be caused inadvertently.
That it took me so long to realise all of this I’m chalking up to the distraction of pretty, pretty boys. Really, it’s a wonder I was able to focus my brain at all.
The "unfinished business" of killing Mordechai. I don't know, that may just be a vague bit of foreshadowing. The episode before this one is Shadow, where they think they've killed Meg. But she's "unfinished business" that comes back to bite them. Just throwing that out there.
The power of belief (and the nature of authority) on Show. Which is a meta I’ve had in my head FOREVER and I guess is finally getting written out.
First, authority just in general: authority is essentially the right to exercise power (power being a very broad concept here), and it flows from the greater to the lesser. It is endowed. The simplest example of how this works is the military; to see where the authority is coming from, you have to keep looking up. Likewise a traditional monarchy, along with the hierarchy that descends from that. Your authority to command, or rule, or whatever - to exercise power and thus affect reality - comes from the one who invested it in you, all the way up. You *have* whatever measure of authority inherent to the rank they give you, to wield as you see fit. (Clearly, this is bounded by the limits of the authority or rank they give you. Try stepping outside those limits, and things have a way of going badly.)
Along with that, within the hierarchy tree, you can wield the higher up’s authority if you speak in their name (and are thus, in yourself, representing THEM). The lowliest private can walk up to a major, or whatever, and say “General Whatshisface says that you need to....” And the major is as obliged to obey as if that private WAS the general, because he is obeying the *authority* of the general (which, limited to this task, the general has given to the private), not the *person* of the general. (Likewise, for example, a diplomat speaking on behalf of the head of state that sent - authorised - him.) Of course, if the private is misusing the general’s authority, things are likely to go very, very much worse than if the private were misusing their own authority.
(This, by the way, is the EXACT dynamic behind the third commandment, “You shall not misuse [take in vain] the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7) THIRD commandment - THIRD - right after having no other gods before Him and not making idols, long before not murdering or stealing. It’s not about swearing “Ow, God, who put that there!” when you stub your toe. I’m not saying that using His name lightly like that is a good idea. I’m just saying that He didn’t make people yelling “Jeeesus!” in an excitable moment third on the list of laws He’s handing down (and I know that’s anachronistic for the Ten Commandments, but it’s come to be filed under the same thing); it’s about people illegitimately tying His ultimate, ULTIMATE authority to their own agenda. Think the Crusades or the Inquisition for how far that can go. He has a BIG problem with that, and if a private misusing a general’s name is not going to go well, just think how it’s going to go for the people who’ve misused God’s when He calls them to account.)
It should be noted that outside the hierarchy tree, it is also less straightforward; a general trying to *order* a civilian to do something SHOULD be met with “All due respect, but I’m not under your command.” The civilian has the right to choose whether or not to obey, where the private (or major) has already placed themselves under the general’s authority by joining the miliary and does NOT have a choice. (Whether the civilian’s right to choose is respected is, of course, another question, but it’s not strictly one of authority dynamics, unless those dynamics include the abuse of power.) Additionally, we should note that when the nature of the hierarchy itself is in dispute, you have … uhm, well, pre-series and season one Winchesters, for example. Ie, a big old mess.
To edge back toward the episode at hand, a president, or a democratically elected head of state, does work differently to a monarchy or a military. In monarchies or militaries, the assorted Grand High Poobahs derive their ultimate authority over the hierarchy tree from an external - higher - source, which also limits and determines the nature of the authority of that hierarchy tree. Monarchs technically claim their authority as being divinely appointed. The military is (usually) authorised by the head of state; ie, the President of the US being the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. But a democratically elected leader derives his authority from WITHIN the hierarchy. When the nature of the hierarchy is not in dispute, it is agreed that the majority of the people speak for the people as a whole, and the authority to speak for the people as a whole is then invested by the people in one person (because the entire nation can’t keep turning up to voice their will at Congress, they’ve got better things to do). Their voice is funnelled into a single directive - a mandate - by way of a vote. This is basic social science, and I appear to have taken everyone back to fourth grade here. Sorry about that. (You may notice I said “it is agreed”. Yes, this means that the majority of people say that what the majority of people say goes. Yes, this is circular. Yes, this has implications for endowed authority. Yes, there’s more to it. Yes, we’ll get to that.)
So, the tulpa of “Mordechai”. (See? It does all connect!) Literally brought into existence because the concerted belief of a whole lot of people was focused by the Tibetan symbol on the wall. Or, if you want to put it another way (and I do), “authored” by the (supernaturally) focused belief of a whole lot of people. An author authorises the nature and existence of what they have authored. Follow me? In this case - within Show’s universe - the innate, but limited, ability to “author” of a whole bunch of people was funnelled into a single directive by way of the symbol. Did the authority to author a supernatural creature come from the symbol, or was it innate (but so limited on an individual basis as to have no real effect unless marshalled by the symbol)?
Given Jesse the antichrist, the psychic abilities of YE’s special kids, and the human origin of demons, it seems like Show is saying that in Show’s reality, it’s innate in humans. However, it requires a supernatural element (half-demon conception; demon blood; significant time and twisting in Hell, which then traces anything demonic all the way back to whatever illicit access - authority - Lucifer first gave damned souls to supernatural power; whereas ghosts who can affect reality have the supernatural advantage of not being tied to a “natural” body any more, but beyond that I don’t know enough to speculate how that works) to boost the effectiveness to where it can impact reality in any significant way. (Side note: for the psykids stuff, I believe that booster was YE’s blood alone. Witness: Jake’s immediate proficiency. I believe Ruby when she said her blood was just a feather, Dumbo. The demon blood to say yes to Lucifer was something else again.)
Given that this is part of the reality Show has set up, I can see the argument for inferring that the different pantheons exist or derive their authority - the potency to affect reality - because people believe in them (and thus the consternation at the implication that a mere fallen angel of the “Christian” God was so much more powerful). However, the argument is incomplete, and therefore seems to take people only as far as they want to go with it. The first, and most obvious, problem with it is that Show never said this was where the gods came from. It never said this was the only way supernatural entities exist; it only had Sam question how many of them did exist because people believed in them. The audience can speculate, but can’t hold Show to something it never declared to be true.
(It could also be pointed out that even if you keep the argument as is, and assume that IS how it all works on Show, and that Show is based in essentially the same religio-political world as we are, there’s a severe numbers problem with the argument. According to Wikipedia, the Judeo-Christian God has between 2000-2,200 million Christian believers, along with 14-18 million Jewish believers. If you combine that with Islam, which began by claiming the authority of the same God, you get another 1,570-1,650 million believers. Which is all this belief going to the ONE God. Hinduism, which is the closest contender, has 828-1000 million believers. The Hindu pantheon has literally over 1000 gods, most of them local to a specific area and its worshippers. There are a few major Hindu gods that are more universally recognised in worship, but either way, according to the argument itself, those gods have to be splitting the difference of the “number of believers” each, and how much “belief” each. The same applies to all the other pantheons. Even if you include ALL worshippers, past and present - which makes more sense of why ODIN is there, for one - and even if you assume that belief-potency carries internationally so that home-court advantage means nothing, and even if you won’t grant the Islamic Allah and Judeo-Christian God as being the same deity, the main monotheistic “God” still comes out way ahead. So, yeah, even within that argument I’d back His highest-ranking archangels - in whom He invested the most authority - against the pantheons any day, no matter how douchebaggy those angels happen to be. Unless of course you want to abandon the number-of-believers notion and just wail “’SnotFAIR!” because you don’t like Christianity, in which case, by all means carry on.)
The other major problem with it is that “God” is an inherently meta concept. If, on Show, you want to say that all people have the innate authority to believe something into existence (or in a real-world democracy to invest their authority in one person to speak and act on their behalf - told you we’d come back to this), and if, as we’ve seen, authority is endowed from the greater to the lesser … then how were they endowed with that innate authority? (To be clear, “innate” does not mean “comes from nowhere”; it means “born with it”.)
Actually, that answer is easy, and I already said it above: “it seems like Show is saying that in Show’s reality, it’s innate in humans”. SHOW has made people with that innate authority, or more accurately, the creators - the authors - of Show have authored its people so that, in Show’s reality, they are born that way. The authority doesn’t come from nowhere, it comes from the authors. THE God of Show is the one[s] who CREATED (and maintain) Show, which was why SamnDean were never going to find the real “God”; He cannot BE a creation in or of His own creation. That’s even more circular and nonsensical than “the majority says that what the majority says goes”. God is outside - meta - to the medium He created. The closest you can get is an in-universe representation of something that exists outside of it. (O hai, Chuck. Anyone else get shivers when you think about it that way? I do. Whether they intended it that way or not, it’s uncanny.)
(This should also clear up the Lucifer vs gods question. Why does he spank them so handily? Because the authors said so. That simple. That’s the nature of the story they wanted to tell, so that’s the authority they gave him.)
To bring it full circle, this also applies to the idea of individual authority upon which we build the idea of modern democracy. (I haven’t studied ancient democratic philosophy, but given they had no problem with the idea that the divine exists, in whatever form, I’m willing to bet they did the same within their own theistic paradigm.) Let’s say it together: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....” (my italics) While this is the most famous statement of this authority dynamic, nearly every iteration of “rights of man” (beginning, I believe, with the Magna Carta) appeal to God’s ultimate authority to substantiate these rights. Mankind does not author its own authority; that majority we keep coming back to can only say that they recognise that we are made (authored) that way. The authority that the majority gives its democratically elected leader claims its authority from God, which is indeed authority endowed by the greater onto the lesser. In essence, no God=no democracy.
Ah, yes, but - what about the French Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), I hear those of you paying attention in fifth grade cry? (Not really. No one was paying attention, were they?) IT makes no mention of God at all! In fact, it implicitly and deliberately appeals to “natural law” for its universal, inalienable rights of man. It was written in part to DENY the divine right of kings (authority).
Which is all great until it runs into the same circular problem you get any time you remove God from the equation: the question “Why?” WHY are these things universal and inalienable? (These questions apply equally to “natural law” and to the rights derived from it.) Who says this is so? Upon what authority are you basing this claim? Yours? The “majority”? What if I say different? Are you then saying that your (or the majority’s) authority to determine this overrules mine? (Who says numerical advantage means anything when it comes to authority? You? Because I don’t, and neither does General Whatshisname over there, telling his military what to do.) You just said we were born (no “created” for you) equal. If I don’t agree and you say I have to abide by it, that doesn’t sound like you really believe it. That sounds like you say we’re born equal, unless I don’t agree with you, in which case you’re saying you’re born … more equal than me.
I, on the other hand, can say that I’m born waaaay better than you, and can do whatever I want. And you have no higher, external authority that exists over both of us to appeal to to say that I’m wrong, because I have decided that I’m not subject to your hierarchy tree of numerical majority, or “natural law”, or any other ideology you want to espouse and impose on me by your “equal” authority. The only thing you can ultimately assert is “it is because it just is!” while rejecting the idea that “it is because God made it that way.”
(Incidentally, there DOES need to be a “because it just is” at the top of *looking up* for authority; the ladder cannot go up forever, it needs an ultimate source that isn’t circular or it all falls apart. In metaphysics, this was first proposed by Aristotle as the Unmoved Mover, the first cause which itself has no cause. Latterly, it’s the metaphysical problem with the Big Bang - what made it happen? If it’s a cycle of big bangs and big crunches of universes, stretching back in time - what started that cycle? Either you say it “just happened” (“it just is”), or you say “it created itself”, which is enough to give logicians serious headaches. In Hebraic thought this idea of a cause, or creator, which had the unique property of not being caused or created but always *was*, outside the medium of time and space because it created them (Genesis 1:1), was understood from the beginning as “YHWH”, or, essentially, “I AM”. This was God’s name that He told Moses at the burning bush when Moses asked who he should say sent him, what name/authority he was representing (Exodus 3:13-14): “I am who I AM.” No one gave God His name; there is no one above Him to give Him His authority, which makes His name the statement of ultimate, un-endowed, inherent authority, from which all else derives.)
Ha, and y’all thought this was a *lightweight* episode.