#analytical

[humanityisraw]

one of my favorite things to do is sit in a public area and watch, you can tell so much about a person by how they walk, speak or interact with one another.

or by their expression shifts when they look at their phone.

there's something so fascinating about details that other people think we don't notice.

[mallorymango7]

Moodboard

[sambhavami]

Arjun, Subhadra and Krishna(a)

The moment Arjuna reaches Prabhasa, after twelve long years of travel, Krishna appears, and practically drags him back to Raivataka. Here, I kind of have to mention, Krishna and Arjuna, when together, have no sense of personal space. This is, however, the first time we see the level of their intimacy, at least in Mahabharata. For that one day they pretty much sit, eat, talk and sleep on the same asana. Even when Krishna then takes him back to Dwarika, their closeness only increases, much to, I imagine, the discomfort of the more traditional parliamentarians.

Then comes a festival on Raivataka, where Arjuna sees Subhadra, and immediately goes mad, much to the abject delight of Krishna. He in fact takes great pleasure, to tease the heck out of Arjuna at this point.

Arjuna however, doesn’t like Krishna’s initial idea to ask Vasudeva for permission. He does understand that no matter how liberal their upper-class society is at this moment, Arjuna and Subhadra are still first cousins, and we in fact see the Yadavas later object to the kidnapping based on this fact alone.

Krishna, in response, does say something a little controversial, “There’s no point in betting on a swayamvara, as she’s a young girl, and her mind may be fickle. Hence, kidnapping is the best option.” This was probably (and I’m reaching here) less about Krishna’s misogyny and more about the Yadavas’ (frankly, kind of valid) issue with Arjuna and Subhadra’s blood-family situation.

Now, interestingly, after two marriages, for his fourth one, Arjuna decides that he must take permission from Yudhishthira (was he afraid that Yudhishthira might hand him back to Balarama later, if he didn’t sort this beforehand?)

And hence, shubhasya sheeghram, the next morning Arjuna is tip-top dresses and armed, and picks up Subhadra when she’s on her way back from Raivataka.

Obviously Dwarika’s parliament is in uproar. Balarama, however is the only person to defer to common sense, as he hands over the ‘mic’ to Krishna, albeit after cussing Arjuna out pretty thoroughly. Krishna gives a few reasons (a bit flawed, but okay) for his support and recommendation for peace:

He doesn’t like an arranged marriage, as he feels it is as though the bride is treated like an animal who is ‘sold’ from one family to another (don't like how you got there, but congrats, I agree).

In a swayamvara, there’s no telling what Subhadra might to (or be made to do).

Arjuna is a kshatriya, and he doesn’t look good getting married in a ‘tame’, arranged ceremony, and the kidnapping raises the ‘value’ of Subhadra herself (like I said, flawed)

If the Yadavas now try to stop him, and an entire army (known for being tide-turning mercenaries btw), go after and get defeated by a single man, how does that look, before the international community?

Kunti’s gotra changed once she was adopted by Kuntibhoja, so legally, Arjuna and Subhadra are no longer first cousins (but still second or third, though!)

Arjuna is still, biologically their first cousin, so fighting a battle against family would be counterproductive, and make other kingdoms look down upon them (ironic, and you just said he wasn't! xD).

Arjuna is a great warrior, and any kingdom would be lucky to make him a permanent ally.

In Kashiram Das’s version, we see Subhadra in a more active role. Here, Daruka, who was driving the chariot, refuses to let Arjuna fight when Krishna’s sons challenge him. So, Arjuna ties him up, and hands over the reins to Subhadra, as he goes ahead and defeats everybody.

Well, after one year of marriage, Arjun remembers his vanavasa again, and goes to Pushkar, to spend the remaining time.

Then finally, he returns to Indraprastha, and straight to Draupadi, who promptly directed him to return to his ‘newer-model’ and stay there, among other things. So, Arjun did exactly that.

Interestingly, it is his idea to dress up Subhadra as a gopa woman, and send her in to mollify Draupadi instead. It works, only somewhat. Draupadi is impressed with the gesture, but she is still angry. She says to Subhadra, “Nihsapatno-stu te pati.” This on-the-face translates to ‘may your husband not have any enemies’. However, sapatn[o/i] also means co-wife (‘sautan/shotin’).

Dr. Bhaduri interprets this as: ‘may you have no co-wives’, by which Draupadi still keeps Arjuna on the rack, as an extension of her previous comment.

I also like the other reading which is: ‘may your husband have no co-husbands’: a covert expression of how tired she was starting to get of her husbands’ antics and marriages.

Krishna also arrives shortly (primarily for damage control with Draupadi, I imagine), but also, with huge military help, which he practically ‘launders’ into the Pandava artillery disguised as wedding presents, since Balarama wouldn’t let him otherwise (Rohini is Shantanu’s brother Bahlika’s daughter/granddaughter, so that’s where his neutrality mainly comes from). This is also the time when Krishna is properly promoted from ‘weird generous acquaintance’ to ‘best friend forever’ in Draupadi’s books.

[alixanderkrex]

“True freedom lies in a power to decide, to constitute the problems themselves. And this ‘semi-divine’ power entails the disappearance of false problems, as much as the creative upsurge of true new ones."

― Gilles Deleuze, Bergsonism, trans. by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (New York, NY: Zone Books, 1991), p. 15.

[ineedhelpwithenglanglit]

The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway

Within the first lines that begin ‘The great Gatsby’ Fitzgerald establishes to the reader that the main character, Nick Carraway, is a reliable narrator using the technique of flashbacks. The first line from The great Gatsby says “In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice….. “Whenever you feel like criticising anyone,”... “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”...... in consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgements,”  The foundation of a reliable and unbiased narrator allows Fitzgerald to fully explore the complexities of the roaring 20’s and the glamour and hedonism that defined the era, and all the corruption and destruction that came with it. Despite his midwestern and conservative upbringing, Nick arrives in New York to chase the fortune associated with the developing stock market. The story unfolds through the interactions Nick has with his vain and wealthy cousin Daisy Buchanan, her friend Jordan Baker, her husband Tom, and his neighbour Jay Gatsby. While in New York, Nick sees the excess and immoral behaviours spark tragedy, and eventually, his own return to the midwest. We can see the lack of ethics already in the first chapter, where Fitzgerald uses descriptive language to show the excess within Daisy and Tom’s home, he writes “... a bright rosy-coloured space, fragilely bound into the house by french windows at the end. … gleaming white against the fresh grass outside….blew curtains in at one end and out the other like pale flags, twisting them up toward the frosted wedding-cake of the ceiling, and then rippled over the wine coloured rug, making a shadow on it as wind does on the sea.” The description of their house implies an almost otherworldly and ethereal picture, with the use of the adjectives “rosy-coloured”, “fragily bound”, and “gleaming white” painting a picture of purity and excellent that is maintained and upheld by the Buchanans even though their actual lives are nothing of the sort, with both people eventually falling in to affairs. This can be seen as Fitzgerald's way of criticising the characters of Daisy, Tom and everyone who comes from old money. Their class as seen from the luxuries they can afford, and their transactional marriage as seen from how they both commit adultery. This is a critique of the mentality at the time, where people chase after the capitalist "American dream" and the dream of becoming rich through their own hard work, where people are greedy in the way they approach the glamour, and that decision leads to the decay of their inter-personal relationships in the end. Showing the ugly underbelly of the American dream, and how the working class suffer in order to please the elite.

[rubysnumbr1fan]

Do you guys like me

i spent more time on cologne then i did wit CJ

[yourlocaladhder]

The problem with being an analytical brain is even when you come across someone you know on some level is being crazy and irrational you can't help but automatically analyzing their behaviour and finding logic in it. You only end up being tired and confused cuz there is none.