#wooow!

[alasmyrs]

@athofear happy birthday. yeah sorry im posting this everywhere because i think its funny

(applause of 14 paws)

IT'S PENGUIN DAY TOO! JOY! REJOICE! go watch happyfeet2

[burnt-enough-starlight]

150924 신데렐라 퇴근 #빅스 #켄 #재환 

PICK HIM UP :: 픽힘업!‏ @pickHIMup0406

[readyfreddie]

[deathlessathanasia]

“Let me now venture a reading of the main lines of thought in (Theogony) 116–33. This will put us in position to return to Anaximander and begin to mark the ways his proposal of an apeiron archē responds to Hesiod. I proceed in five steps:

(1) The first four:  Chaos, Earth, Tartara, and Eros (116–22). Though the first four beings are “born” (γένετ’, 116), Hesiod refrains from naming a parent and, indeed, from asserting any sibling relations. What he offers instead is the vision of an event that is partly topological, partly logical. His word Chaos derives from the root cha- and signifies the sort of “gap” that appears, to cite a cognate, in a “yawn” (χάσκειν, χαίνειν). The birth of Chaos is the topological event of the opening of a gap in what can only be thought of retrospectively as a hitherto undifferentiated field, and the opening brings along with it, in its immediate aftermath (“next”), the emergence of Earth and Tartaros as its two sides. The birth of Eros is, strange to say, a logical event. Eros is not to be envisaged as a thing in space but rather is the force that draws spatially distinct partners together, and its birth therefore presupposes and complements the birth of Chaos.

(2) The character of Tartara. To appreciate the motivation of the subsequent series of births in the cosmogony, it is important to keep in the mind’s eye a vivid image of Tartaros. As the underworld, it is as far below the Earth, separated from it by Chaos (814), as the Earth is below the Sky (720–25). It is a “vast chasm” (740), and its darkness—it is associated with Erebos and filled with “murk” or “gloom” (729, also 653, 659) and “mist” (119, 721, 729, 736 [= 807])—and its “dank, moldy” character (731, 739 [= 810]) prevent any distinct contours or shapes from appearing to sight and touch. Indeed, were a man so unlucky as to fall into it, “stormblast upon stormblast would sweep him one way and another” (742), making it impossible for him to get his bearings; as the onomatopoeia of its name suggests, it is characterized by unceasing disturbance. These vivid details help to explain the curious fact that Hesiod first names Tartaros in the plural, Tartara; a being so lacking in internal structure must also lack integrity.

(3) The offspring of Chaos (123–25) and Earth (126–33): two kinds of order in interplay. The topological event of the opening of the gap that separates Earth and Tartaros is only the first, in itself incomplete step in Hesiod’s vision of cosmogenesis; Earth and Tartaros only receive their full specificities as Earth and as Tartaros through the further offspring of Chaos and Earth. These births exhibit two kinds of relation, and in their fitting together these constitute the order of the cosmos as a whole. First, already prefigured by the complementing of Chaos by Eros, there is a being’s need, if it is to have its full specificity, for its opposite; thus Chaos’s firstborn, the spatial and temporal powers of darkness, Erebos and Night, together beget their correlative opposites, Aither and Day. By these begettings Erebos expresses his need, if he is to be the darkness of the underworld, for there also to be the brightness of the upper sky, Aither, and Night expresses her need, if she is to be the time of darkness, for there also to be the time of light, Day. Second, there is a whole’s need, if it is to have genuine wholeness, for its articulation into parts. Hesiod displays this by having Earth bear, by and within herself, Mountains and Sea; thus Earth gives herself the internal differentiation essential to her as Earth. What is more, these two kinds of relation, each of which is itself a kind of complementarity, also complement one another. That a being’s need for its opposite can complete a whole’s self-differentiation is already evident in Earth’s bearing of Mountains and Sea: as “tall,” “forested,” and the “pleasing haunts of nymphs,” Mountains stand in determinate contrast with the low, “barren,” and “raging swell” of Sea. More striking still is the way this self-differentiation completes Earth’s acquiring of her opposite, Sky: when Earth first bears, “as an equal to herself, starry Sky,” they are merely two undifferentiated masses, with Sky “covering [Earth] all over” without, however, standing in any qualitative contrast to her; by giving birth to Mountains and Sea, however, Earth makes herself into—as, now, a differentiated whole—the opposite to the undifferentiated expanse of Sky. That this achievement of qualitative contrast allows them to fit together as opposites, Hesiod lets us see in the final begetting of the cosmogony: Earth now lies with Sky and together they beget “deep swirling Ocean,” the circular stream that, flowing around Earth at the farthest horizon, forms the continuous “point of contact between earth and the enclosing bowl of sky” (Kirk et al. 1983: 36n1)—thus Earth and Sky join together, constituting the upper world as a whole.

(4) Hesiod’s vision of the cosmic whole. This constitution of the upper world of Earth and Sky is, in turn, both the analog to and the completion of the constitution of the cosmos as a whole. If, letting ourselves “see” the process of cosmogenesis unfold, we keep vividly in the mind’s eye the character of Tartaros as a “vast chasm” without either internal structure or integrity, we will see that just as the upper world is constituted as the whole of the internally differentiated whole of Earth, with its Mountains and Sea, and undifferentiated Sky, so the cosmos in its entirety is constituted as the whole of the differentiated whole of the upper world and undifferentiated Tartaros.

. . .

How does Anaximander’s thought respond to Hesiod’s? We have no surviving explicit evidence—no text of Anaximander’s referring to Hesiod—to guide us. What we can do, however, is to set Anaximander’s notions of the apeiron archē and the interplay of the opposites against the background of Th 116–33; if we do, three observations present Reception of Hesiod by Early Pre-Socratics themselves. First, while for Anaximander the coming into being of each of the opposites negates the other’s existence, the requirement of justice reflects his recognition of the need that each has for the other; that each must pay reparation to the other “for [its] injustice” attests that the being of each requires the being of the other. Thus Anaximander shares the understanding that leads Hesiod to balance the being of Night with that of Day and, more generally, to structure the cosmos as a complex of counterbalancing opposites. Indeed, it is precisely because he agrees with Hesiod in letting his thought be guided by justice that Anaximander challenges Thales, rejecting the privileging of the wet over the dry. Second, this very agreement also leads Anaximander to challenge Hesiod—albeit, remarkably, in a way that Hesiod’s portrayal of the birth of Chaos itself seems to invite. Just insofar as the differentiation that first begins to bring the world into being occurs as a “birth” (γένετ’, Th 116), there would seem to need to be a parent. But what sort of being could precede the birth of Chaos and play this role? Insofar as it is only with this first differentiation, the gapping of Earth and Tartaros, that the world begins, this presupposed parent would seem to have to be an undifferentiated, indefinite, and—lacking any other to delimit it in place or time—boundless being. Thus Anaximander’s conception of the apeiron archē in effect challenges Hesiod’s beginning by making explicit the still more primal being that the birth of Chaos itself silently presupposes!10 Third, and as already noted, by giving his conception the strikingly transparent name a-peiron, Anaximander takes a decisive step beyond Hesiodic mythopoeia and toward the non-imagistic conceptual thinking that will eventually prevail, above all with Parmenides, in the emerging philosophic tradition; again, however, it is a step that, as the implicit conceptual order of Hesiod’s cosmogony makes palpable, Hesiod’s own thinking itself in effect invites.”

 - The Reception of Hesiod by the Early Pre-Socratics, Mitchell Miller (The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod)

[squeiky]

sooooooooooooo... goth x palette is kinda my #2 favorite ship sans ship besides after death soooo... i thought of designs. im sorry le stick cat mum but somehow gothy has of child? XD 

this is just a sketch and im not aware if anyone has done this yet. no back story or anything. this is still in process if anyone wants you can help me with a name... i suck. oh well! -3- im sticking with Gothet but eh.? it doesn’t work out.

anyways im still in process of my information i am DUMb. i litarlly have the half brain of a temmie and a bob.

anyways for some unnecessary tagging!! :D

goth @nekophy

pallette roller @angexci 

or atleast from what i know angexci is the creator. remember im dumb.

still working on attacks!!!!!!!!! ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! and a bunch of stuff X3 oh excitment!

[justfoodsingeneral]

Loooooooove! Everything is so mouth watering, it makes me want to try everything! Keep up the great work!

Thanks! I’m really thankful for supports like you. I hope you continue to enjoy this blog! 

[fyeahjichangwook]

JCW for Konus [x]

[perfectlyvindictive]

I'm not sure if this was a coincidence or on purpose, but you did a parody on No Good Deed from Wicked and Sardonyx's VA actually played Elphaba in one of the London productions. I just love this. Keep up the good work

I never knew that! 0_0 No wonder her voice sounded familiar! (That’s so cool! I’m happy they got Alexia Khadime to voice act Sardonyx!) But wow! Thank you so much for telling me! <3 (also i’m happy you liked it!)