eos_nyxia

One of the appeals of academia though is that (in my experience) is that you can get through to the people who care. (Just maybe not enough of them to actually stay in academia and to centre a life around it.) Academia has already been vetted, for the most part, for people who care enough about what they do enough to actually do it, to spend the time and the energy on what they do in a committed way. E.g. research. One is generally not in it for the money. No one starts spending their time doing this, if at the very least, they didn't think there was an important purpose or point to it all. That is what... academia is supposed to be for. One of the issues is that outside of academia, it can hard to find this sort of commitment to quality control (in both intention and action) in clear concentrations. There are just people everywhere who are more committed to their idea of things, and making an identity out of it (perhaps this is unavoidable for the most part), but the supposed ""ego"" part of it, without the actual necessary work to be on par with academia in terms of the quality of "doing work" (as opposed to determining the quality of all of the results or work done). Big surprise. People do care, but it's usually more casual. People generally have lives and other things to do, understandably. Also: by the structure and set-up of the environment, people have to actually find a way to communicate, generally come to some sort of conclusion/ consolidation of ideas. Leaving people to their own devices, without structure or being led (or "encouraged") in one direction or another, people don't tend to do a great job of this for the most part... Remember that academia literally arose out of the cloister.....

That said, I think this is actually pretty neat, for its own sake. In a "diversity of communication" sort of way. In the way that there are also many other foreign languages, or even programming languages, that one can learn. Or that a language like Esperanto exists, intended as a form of universal communication via a grammatically simplified language.... but barely anyone actually uses it, let alone is a native speaker of it. Instead, we use messy, organically developed languages. Often stupidly complicated for seemingly arbitrary reasons, at least from the outside. It is a thing that exists, potentially for its own sake, or it can be used for >>>>insert various purposes<<<<. A lot of academic-speak, as disjointed and arcane as it looks, still developed organically enough and for certain means. By its definition and inception, it only has meaning within the context it was created. It's arguable that at a point, some people lost track of what certain things meant, in the sense that they lost a clear sense of objective, as well as a sense of groundedness. (At times, you might wonder if people really understand themselves as well.) Honestly? It's hard to be "in touch" when you become too insulated. I suppose there is always this risk when you become too insulated, whether as an individual or as a small group. You become seriously, seriously out of touch. No one can fucking understand you anymore. You start speaking in your own language, and language is by nature self-referential, one way or another..... And at this point, you definitely could say that it has become its own sort of "language game" in the most negative, critical sense of that term. Arguably: endlessly circular dealing with the same issues in the same sort of ways. Like a stagnant pool of water cut off from the flow of the river, or water stranded in pools from the ocean after a high tide has receded. In general, this is what the rigidity of institutions, and people doing things in a rigid, overly dogmatic way, both together and by themselves... this is what it tends to do. It gets STALE very quickly. People outside it cannot truly play it because they have no direct stakes in it, even if they're interested in the issues or questions being discussed. This is like... the nature of politicking, or being engaged in society, for better and for worse. At times, maybe we should instead be asking if "the means" (or language) is doing what the user intended of it. Not whether it strikes you to be of use to you personally, from where you stand. That is... if you actually care about understanding it. If the person who is using it is not interested in doing what you think should be done with it... I'm afraid you're going to have to convince them otherwise, one way or another. The answer to that is... appeal to what the user wants. Or could want.

Gods know you've heard enough from me about this over the years, lol. Academics love their arcane-speak, especially in the arts/ social sciences. It depends on the flavour, values, and tradition of your specific department though. We also had this convo: keeping outsiders out is very much on purpose sometimes. It's like being able to technically talk in code in plain sight. No one knows what you're really talking about and all the implications of it except others who speak your language. Don't get it or think it's pointless? It's literally not meant for you. It's straight up a clique, a party, or a social gathering that YOU are not invited to. Which is to say: understanding what they're actually talking about from the inside, and then coming to the conclusion that it's all a waste of time is actually different than being on the outside... and deciding it's a complete waste of time. People in STEM and the other sciences are less like this, actually. Maybe this is why I preferred being around my good handful of scientist/ social scientist friends when I was in academia for my very short stint. Lab people just wanna lab in my experience. It's not that they want to be misunderstood. But literally, all of their time and energy goes into research, at least for a time. They do not really... study communication either. I'm not sure if there is always a clear distinction or understanding in people's minds, especially the public. That wearing the hats of "professional academic" (as in researcher and communicator with other experts in their (sub)field) and "public communicator", (which includes teaching, but goes beyond this scope as well). I've noticed that people tend to be better at one thing than the other, with some exceptions, obviously, and usually, this is tied to one's interests, personality, and possibly one's levels of introversion/ extroversion. E.g. the researcher who just wants to research and talk to other experts, and doesn't really want to teach. All good educators are first communicators, because they have the real passion for communicating well. They LOVE and get a sense of gratification and achievement from people getting it, and they keep wanting to do it, over and over and over, even if and when challenges come up and people do not just "get it", for whatever the reason is. Being able to put more complicated ideas into the most simplistic and accessible form without interfering with the integrity of the ideas, that's a special skill. Being able to adjust the way you communicate, to different audiences and individuals, this is very much also a special sort of skill. I don't think people always appreciate and value this... one doesn't just "happen to be" an excellent educator and communicator even with a natural skill in communicating. Honestly though? There is not a great intrinsic overlap between the skills required for research and teaching. Obviously, if you want to keep and hoard all of your little secrets because you like the way it makes you feel, this is not going to work with educating. It's just not. Hasn't everyone had this math teacher (>or insert other subject<) who was obviously really good at math, like it seemed so effortless to them, but they can't really teach it worth a shit? Even if they do really, actually, truly care, in some ways, they can't naturally relate to your struggle. They literally have to put themselves in people's shoes to learn how people struggle, to actually be able to communicate. In a way, it helps to have struggled in various ways because you'll empathize and you won't overlook not understanding easily.

Man... where are the people who just learn things for fun, like almost entirely just for interest and curiosity and not necessarily for "usefulness" (which generally amounts to being able to use the language with other people, as a living language)? ...and also possibly because they're moderately masochistic in an intellectual way? Personally, sometimes I really just love a challenge. Especially if someone tells me it can't/ won't be done, or that I can't do that, or people just don't do that sort of thing. Also.... just general nerdery for its own sake. For example: I did a self-study course in Classical Arabic in uni because it was interesting to read parts of the Qu'ran in the original language, and not because I'm religious and interested in it, or I'm religious and felt it was necessary. And not because I was specializing in the subject in school either. I self-taught a little Sanskrit for the same reason. It's different, it's novel, it's foreign, and I want to have some sort of hands-on experience with what it's about. Something that's not just based on what other people (presumably and hopefully actual "experts") say about it, but something that is first-hand experience, so I can at least make some observations and conclusions for myself, or see where other people's conclusions come from. .........just because.

I started taking an interest in comedy as an art form about 5 years ago. While I've read a good handful of books on the subject (comedy writing, theory of comedy) since it does interest me, I've probably learned the most from watching LOTS of standup. All sorts. Famous, obscure, new comics, seasoned and respected, US, international, etc. People from all sorts of different backgrounds, with different personalities, and different styles of humour and perspectives of the world. But then, I didn't just watch it to be entertained and to laugh, but to study it because I found it interesting. Like if it works for you or doesn't, why? Who laughs at what, in what way, how much... and why? What doesn't work is just as important as what does... This then informs your own comedic/ perspective-generating process. Then, it's like a feedback loop: rinse and repeat, over and over again. You get different ideas, throw them out, test them out in conversation. Other times: you let ideas incubate or "marinate" for a while; it's more of a solo process. Another aspect of it (and maybe this is a personal thing too), is just continuing to observe reality better, like both people, other situations, and myself emotionally, and also in different ways. In non-obvious and unexpected ways. It required learning to find humour everywhere, and in the mundane and ordinary. In a way, you have to learn how to get outside your own seriousness// sense of self-absorption better. As an art form, I believe that it's something that should exist for its own sake first and to satisfy, grow, and even heal yourself... and everything else comes afterwards. Making other people laugh, getting attention, being seen as a better version of yourself... all of that should come strictly second. IMO, in order to be really good at it (like, having "wit" as opposed to just being "funny"), you have to be more than just confident, spontaneous, etc. You need to know yourself, and to have something to say and to share with others, perspective-wise. You have to "know" the subject of whatever it is that is your comedic focus well enough, whether that target is yourself, or it's about others, your environment, culture and society, etc. That requires a lot of being present and paying attention, just to start off.

@integral Why not mix vit C powder into your existing cream/ serum? I use this:

@Chives99 Thanks for reminding me of them! Hammock's been one of mine within the last year:

Wow... this is such a beautiful place! It looks so peaceful there.

There's only room for one king at the top of that throne, hey?

Real "boss bitches" were always too busy with the business of being themselves to care about what pleb dudes think, to really be held back by them... (Though not everything is about aggressive, active, direct, imposing power, and it never was... nor was it ever really all about nurturing qualities, if what you mean by that is only maternal qualities.) Feminism didn't exactly invent "strong women" across the board, lol.

A part of my mind has been looping this song in the background on repeat for the last half a week plus: This song is an incredibly pure multi-synesthesiac wonderland for me. It's like being poked with a bunch of multi-coloured buttons. ...or is it pots and pans that clang, but feel like needles against my whole body? ....amazing stuff, regardless. ☀️☀️☀️ It seems like sheer chance I never got into them when I was younger... These days, I definitely prefer them to listening to Joy Division because it doesn't sound like depression, and I'm not miserable enough to want to listen to Joy Division on regular rotation anymore, lol.

This rapper was a really nice find recently: (2:56, someone likes Siouxie enough to wear her face on his body!) Once in a while, I fall into some random person/ artist's playlist and it draws me in, often for reasons that I can't fully explain. For example, I found out about the artist above from this playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/55IB7gmP1GKCgqSfUE50eF?si=20b2d0ebef0f4a94 ("Weirdo's Disco" has a ring to it though.)

Something on topic with this and the rest of this thread: Ozzy Ozborne's ability to consume a massive amount of drugs and alcohol and not die has been studied by scientists. Apparently, his genes (or a specific gene?) make his body purge out these substances at a much faster rate, but the same gene(s) make him much more prone to being an addict in the first place.

This is very unfortunately not true for everyone. I remember when I thought this was true as well. My partner, for instance, has said that he cannot remember a time as a child when he did not feel like he hated himself, on some deep level. And I used to be like... are you sure that there wasn't there something that came before, that you can remember? (Where did this feeling come from?) From this perspective, at times, it seems to me that this would feel like a thing without a beginning or end, or any limits whatsoever. Sometimes I feel very strongly for people who do not have a sense of this sense of "something to return to" that is clear and concrete... because what are they supposed to do if they don't have a memory/ sense of something better? From where they stand, surely this idea of this mythical power of "Self Love" is as much a fabrication as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. Sure, people say it exists.. but does it really? They rely on someone/ something to strike them in this world (or alternatively: some sense of a supernatural force as being outside/ distinct from oneself, while often simultaneously feeling like a part of them as well). (Actually, now that I think about it, my brother very much had a sense of "being in the dark" growing up, especially in early childhood. He has even taken to describing himself as "being offline" before the last couple of years.) Unfortunately for those of us who are into PV, finding yourself in the position of "not loving yourself" becomes yet another thing to judge yourself for not having, and to whip yourself over repeatedly. Or to judge others, whether more or less subtly, with a sort of veiled benevolence. And sometimes being goaded helps, but only very temporarily at best. It is not a viable long-term solution. Ultimately.... it's no one's fault, it helps no one make the best of it all, and we all are wherever it is that we are in any given moment.

Relying on the strength and sanctity you feel from creating hard boundaries and distance... it's pretty relatable. At some point in our lives, some of us come to the conclusion that this is the only viable way to do things, to preserve the self. Typically: as long as you have a "strong" face in this way, there is always a "weak face" you have to protect. The two things are comorbid as they are. The thing that gives you a sense of strength and freedom also easily ends up feeling like the walls of a mile-high emotional prison. And the more you close it off in very strict and rigid ways, the more it festers, in the way that secrets and shame also festers when walled-off and left in the dark, unaccepted and untouched by anyone. The "weak face" always ends up catching up to the strong one... it's usually just a matter of how and when. At the same time, it makes sense to protect yourself, especially by keeping your eyes open. Because your instinct is right, you absolutely can end up doing far more damage getting provoked by the wrong people, and getting stuck in the wrong dynamics. I totally get this feeling. I'm not sure if this makes sense but... are you super attached (or even addicted) to the idea of people seeing you in a certain way? (And if so, either way: does people seeing you in the way that you want to be seen... does that ultimately and truly serve you?) What would it mean to let go of this sense? (And to not get yourself nuked, but to also not become "too soft"?)

In my own experience, this is a dynamic that can be worked past with some effort (or probably a lot of effort). The question is, for what reason, and for who? What would make it truly worth it? What do you think you would look like if you were closer to your more ideal, healed, "integrated" state? How would you behave, how would you treat yourself, or interact with others? Are you both normally avoidant types? Or is there a lot of intermittent pushing and pulling between the both of you? More importantly: whatever it is that you have, do you feel like the relationship between your shared give-take is pretty balanced overall? If we're just talking about yourself: what strikes me is wondering what sort of relationship you have between commitment to your vision (what we typically think of as a more "mind-centered" reality, which tends to be more rigid and attached to specific ideas, visions, and outcomes) vs. being more open, flexible, and going with the flow of feeling and the moment ("of the heart")? Do you find that there is a lot of conflict between these two things, or that both do not quite meet up or are on the same page? This might be the deeper issue beyond your relationship with one specific person, or even with romantic/ sexual love in general.

Yes, that's the point. Those people are pretty much never in the position to "spiritually bypass" their way into this sentiment here (unless you wanna go completely nuke yourself): This type of logic is what people often (not always very consciously and intentionally) use to justify staying with an abuser. It's in a similar vein of thinking you can via enough love or understanding "fix" someone; it's practically a trope to say that this does not work. If it's even possible, it's not possible if you're coming from that deficit. And if you are coming from that deficit or vulnerability, it's not your "fault" either. (But there is sometimes an undercurrent of feeling like the more moral, virtuous one in this situation, in the case that you've "tolerated" and "transcended" someone's abuse.) The thing is that people do not often recognize that they are in this deficit, or else a lot of situations like these would probably not ever happen. Sometimes, like I mentioned in one of my above examples, it's simply just being young, sheltered, and inexperienced with people, rather than being "super traumatized" to start with.

Respectfully: this sort of mentality is actually what leads people who are already victims back into victimhood, or keeps them there. It is often an unaffordable luxury if you actually want to get out. If you spent your whole life prioritizing people's perspectives, wants, needs, and desires before yours, to the point that it's pre-programmed into you in intensely self-destructive ways, this sort of concern with spiritual virtue and taking the moral high road can literally get you killed by staying too long in situations that you really shouldn't. (But if you can afford to do this, because perhaps naturally you would be less inclined to do so to start with, or you could use more of a shift away from classical notions of "self-centeredness", or for some other reason... good on you?) I noticed that detail and wondered about it too...

...is this a serious question? If answered seriously (because judgement is "badddddddddd"?), then the ultimate expression of "love" in a personal sense is the absence of judgment if not simply because you've dealt with this particular issue more than enough, and are finally over the way it makes you feel, and get that judgement itself is not an optimal way of transforming yourself, your surroundings, not living with reality the way it is. It will not bring you peace. On top of that, you have also earned the luxury to overcome it, whether through time, one's own direct efforts, etc. (Because a lot of people would like to be truly over being provoked, but are not.) Being judgemental in a reactive sense is tiring and draining, and to an extent, from a certain perspective: turning against others is no different than turning against yourself, and is felt as such. The body feels it and stores it as such. All sorts of emotions and thoughts are never good for your health and wellbeing, period. It's putting yourself in someone's shoes as much as ever possible, just because. If you are the prey: you take on the qualities of the predator (at least in understanding and feeling, even if not in action, hopefully). And vice versa is true too, I think. The predator learns what it means to become like prey; the abuser learns what it means to be abused. What kind of understanding can you possibly have if you haven't gotten up close and personal with what it means to be victimized, and extending this meaningfully to others beyond your own direct, lived-in experience? Or do you mean understanding without real empathy? (Empathy means you hurt when someone else hurts, quite directly and literally. Or you feel joy when they feel joy, because you take on their emotions as if they're you're own, and by extension, you learn to advocate for them as best as you possibly can. Without this, you can have all the "understanding" in the world, but you are cold, cold, COLD...) Or you HAVE before, so you can legibly say you know what this means in its many variations.

A couple of unsolicited resource recommendations (in case you might be interested), regardless of what you end up choosing, if you're interested in learning in more of an organic/ relaxed/ "fun" way, or if you need supplemental material: The Language Transfer: it's free, it's awesome, and I don't think there's anything else quite like it out there: The person who made it does a really amazing job at explaining the interrelationships between related languages in a very clear, concise, and accessible way. They have an app too. https://www.languagetransfer.org/free-courses-1 Language Reactor: you can get two sets of subtitles in whatever your chosen language is plus another for Netflix (and also Youtube, and possibly other sites). You can also save vocab, access a dictionary with sound by clicking/ hovering over the words, and save vocab and export it to ANKI, if you do the flashcards thing. https://www.languagereactor.com/

Depending on what French dictionary you're using, the Latin root/ etymology will also be in there and might be worth noting. In my experience (and this might not be very helpful), but French language-only dictionaries have been the best for this. And just thoroughness in general. (This is actually how I started with etymology when I first started French Immersion around middle school age.) To your answer: yes, you can learn French while picking up Latin etymology and that actually ends up overlapping a great deal with English. Based on observation: a lot of English words are imported directly from Middle French. Oh. I practically popped out of the womb a word-nerd, haha. Knowing the shared connections between languages can be extremely helpful for figuring out the meaning of words if you don't know them in another related language, or helping you remember the meaning of new words period, IMO. I find that it is a bit more organic to me than memorizing a bunch of words and grammar, and it sticks deeper and more effortlessly. So these might not actually technically be the closest languages to English (because I googled it and people said that Frisian/ Scots is closer), but in my experience, almost all of the North Germanic languages (Norweigan/ Swedish/ Danish) are much easier to pick up as a native English speaker, if not because of the relative shortness and accessibility of the written words and grammar compared to say... German. German has a ton of English cognates but it's not as immediately accessible. Especially when you realize that the most striking similarities are not in the way the words are spelt, it's how it sounds. It's like if you somehow "squint" with your ears, North Germanic sounds like "weird English" and vice versa, lol.

You're a classical studies or history nerd. You're a language and etymology nerd. (There's that helpful, interesting carry-over between Latin and all of the languages that came from it later.) You're an academic (or an aspiring academic). I think that you still have to learn it if you want to become a Catholic priest? (My dad learned it originally for this reason while he was in priest school, but many schools here actually used to teach some Latin as well, years and years ago. Like in the 60s/ 70s, lol.) For conversational use? No... why would it? If you want some insight into the original, elementary building blocks of English (as opposed to all of the words we imported into it from Latin, French, and other non-Germanic languages), looking at Germanic languages would probably be a better bet.

"taking the high road": ignore them completely "not taking the high road": troll the trolls? Not that I do this anymore, but there was something kind of amusing about someone talking about how you're such shit, and being like... "yup." Like just going along with their premise and running around in circles with them for a bit until you get bored. Or they get bored. Whatever.

Also: I'm not sure what the laws are like and how they're applied, but isn't her husband coercing her to do Onlyfans straight-up pimping?

I had heard about this but I never got around to listening to the recordings. Jesus.... what a piece of work that guy is. Nothing says "I'M POWERFUL HEAR ME ROAR" like threatening small, vulnerable animals and using them as a bargaining chip. Even if he has no intention of actually doing what he says (and TBH there is no reason to assume that he won't), there's no good excuse for it. Obvious Answers: Conditioning: there's often a background of being groomed to accept questionable treatment growing up (even if it's not explicit, obvious abuse). To accept, to endure, and to blame/ question yourself. Unfortunately, sometimes this is part of the conditioning of your gender. I think that overall, men and women tend to get a slightly different version of "suck it up// figure it out yourself" People don't usually show their "true colours" at first, which isn't necessarily on purpose. People change, but also you don't really truly know the nitty-gritties of someone until you live with them for at least a few years, IMO. Un-enmeshing yourself is something where it's like... you don't know how hard it can be to do until you actually do it. People's pickers/ filters aren't quite working as they should, for whatever reason. Sometimes the opposite of #1 appears to be true, like a sheltered life and perception of people, as well as a soft, sensitive personality makes you ripe for a shattering. "sunk cost fallacy" and the difficulty of getting yourself to change once you've invested deeply into someone (and your image/ beliefs about this person) Perpetually telling yourself that on some level, it's "really not that bad" even if your view of the relationship at its worst is not the same as an outsider's, at that point. Your perspective can get skewed in the heat of it. Deep down believing that you somehow deserve this and this is the best you can do, for whatever reason. In her case, like with harming her pets/ destroying her career... if you have someone/ something you want to protect, you might believe that complying with this person is your best chance of preventing damage (which may or may not be true). It's a gamble. Mostly, it seems to be the "fawn" and "freeze" instinct looping on repeat. Personally, listening to this stuff triggers my "fight" instinct and makes me furious. Like if someone fucked with my pets, they'd be done. In my case, I developed a "fight instinct" to deal with people who turn out to be like the one above, whether they are more or less subtle about it. It gave me a vengeful, vicious side whereas normally I would not ever have one, because I'm not like that by nature and there is otherwise no need for it anyway. Like: however hard you fight, I'll just do it better and smarter than you. .....like, I don't even know this woman and I want to fight this dude and tell him to get a hold of his sad, pathetic, small-dicked energy. Though I haven't been in this specific sort of situation, there are people who will blame you for fighting back (as well as not fighting back), for outting others, for not walking away even earlier or getting yourself in this situation to start with. People will blame you for being too angry, too passive, or too much or little of anything. People will say you're lying or you're being overdramatic. Etc. Even people themselves who have been abused (in my experience) will sometimes question you for getting that angry, (like you're not very moral/ "high consciousness"/ evolved, lol) so that you might protect yourself. Even if potentially, your life might depend on it. Or god forbid, the lives and wellbeings of others (such as her pets). When it comes to potential criticism, it can be a free-for-all. I am glad that it appears that people are at least moving away from this universal "blame the victim" or "she deserves it because she does sex work", because I think even 10-20 years ago, the reaction would have been even more unsympathetic as a whole. Attitudes are shifting IMO.