gossamer_musings: (Julian)

Written by Daystar Solander of the system of Wonderbeasts


Introduction: Hello world, can you hear me?

The alterhuman community doesn't talk about conceptual experiences enough. This essay aims to pave the way for a broader discussion of this way of being, so that others can begin to have the language to make sense of things like this, instead of struggling to put it into words. It is not intended to be a conclusive or final word on the subject, it is an entry point and only one person's way of thinking.

For a long time, myself and the two people in my subsystem (Solander) have struggled to understand the way we experience draconity. Make no mistake, I am--we are--a dragon. But the mark that our draconity left on us seemed to be different than how both therian and otherkin dragons have approached their identity. Since there is little to no draconic community left (a fact we mourn to this day), this was a worry we could not allay by talking to others.

Rather than being based in physicality--having phantom shifts, draconic instincts, and the like--our draconity seemed to be the product of culture, almost of the ideas of what dragons are, rather than any specific dragon in particular. Our draconity was not focused on a discrete entity. This is a term I will return to in the essay, so it's useful to define here. 'Discrete' is here defined as taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values. This in and of itself is a very draconic characteristic, ironically. Our draconity felt malleable, based on abstract ideas and stories in a very direct way that seemed unusual for dragonkin.

And then there was storytelling.

In the same way that my species is dragon, my species is also storyteller. This has consistently felt like an experience that goes over the edges of the map (which, luckily, is draconic territory). We are a Storyteller to the bone, it is intrinsic and fundamental to our sense of self. To take it out would even be to remove our draconity.

I don't believe that already existing alterhuman frameworks (eg otherkinity, therianthropy, heartedness) can be easily and directly translated over into the conceptual realm all the time. I've found it really hard to make sense of myself when thinking in an otherkin framework, and also that it has been hard to fit into an otherkin community when my approach is so different.

 

What is a Concept?

'Concept' is an inherently difficult word to define. Let's go with the dictionary definition first! Merriam-Webster defines Concept as 1. something conceived of in the mind and 2. an abstract or generic ideal generalized from particular notions. Historically and currently, within the community, the definition of concept has ranged far broader than that, and so in an attempt to be thorough but by no means conclusive, we understand Concept (in an alterhuman context) to be defined as

  • The general idea or understanding of something
  • A unifying idea or theme
  • An abstracted understanding of something that exists in the world
  • A symbol, metaphor, glyph, idea, archetype, role, persona, analogy, simile, signifier, sign, and other such things
  • An abstract representation of something else, which may or may not have acquired additional dimensions beyond being the abstract representation of something.
  • The way honeybees may not just be honeybees, but are also a human's understanding of honeybees, as the literary symbol of honeybees, as a religious and mythological symbol/character/concept, as an artistic symbol/character concept.

The problem with this definition is that it still does not include everything and everyone who has been using the conceptkin label at the very least. Anything can be a conceptual identity, anyone can be conceptfolk.

Viewed in this manner, I can say that my draconity based in being a symbol of the power of fantasy and myth, being an archetypal Other, and existing in dialogue to ideas of humanity as both monstrous and divine. These ideas, coalesced into a symbol, are things I live out in my day to day life.

Conceptfolk

The term I want to propose is an umbrella term, inspired by 'fictionfolk', which is inclusive of anyone and everyone who feels it applies to them. I don't want to set limits on this label, if it takes off; this is for all of us. But, in order to illustrate what and who could fall under this term, let's set out some examples, which are not at all exhaustive. I've chosen to go with experiences rather than labels, as I think it will make it clearer.

Being a concept, or conceptkin. This one, I think, is the most intuitive for people to understand. It involves being the concept of something, being the embodiment of a concept, identifying as a concept.

Embodying a role, profession, or archetype, or understanding yourself through the lense of an archetype, narrative, or trope.

Intimately associating yourself with a concept (eg an aesthetic or subculture).

Relating to, identifying with, caring deeply about, being affected strongly by a concept.

Basing your sense of self around a concept, so that, while you are not that concept itself, you are inextricable from it.

Feeling like a part of, a shard of a concept.

Feeling at home with a concept.

See: an incomplete list of alterhuman frameworks for more ideas.

I think conceptfolk can associate with the thing itself and also with the idea of the thing. Usually both at once. We are a dragon because we embody the ideas of draconity most resonant with us. We are a storyteller because we perform the role of storytelling, and because we identify as one. Conceptivity (is that a word?) is often an abstract, symbolic, non-literal thing which is anchored in the person embodying it in such a way that it becomes concrete, specific, and personal. It is as real, direct, and impactful as other forms of alterhumanity.

 

Proposals

In this essay, I have found myself using the term embodiment again and again. This being not the first time that I have encountered it in an alterhuman context, I should probably provide some background.

Within the Archetroper's Guild discord server, discussions around the nature of archetropy have begun to lay bare a different paradigm, which I think is more in line with conceptual alterhumanity. This begins with the concept of embodiment. In simple terms, embodiment is archetropy's version of what shifts are to many alterhumans. There are some key distinctions within this specific context.

First of all, there is no voluntary/involuntary or with/as divide in our emerging framework of archetropy. Archetropy can be both chosen and reinforced consciously and it is usually both an identification with and as the archetrope. The elimination of two very big stumbling blocks has lead to a really interesting discourse on what being your archetrope really means. That's where embodiment comes in.

 

Embodiment in an archetropal context

  1. A moment in which an archetroper feels uniquely connected to their archetrope, as if they have become part of a larger idea and act as its channel in the world.
     
  2. A life long process of aligning oneself with their archetrope. Aligning one's aesthetic, hobbies, career, values, interests, ethics with their archetrope in order to better embody their role socially and narratively.

See: moments of moreness (note that syncing is the word used here, but that I prefer embodying. I feel like both are terms to use and explore )

I believe this concept is more widely applicable to conceptual experiences (archetropy itself being one such experience).

 

The other term I wanted to bring up for discussion is an idea I circle around in the above list, too. In my very limited experience, conceptfolk tend to have a concept that they are oriented around in some way. Naturally, I suppose. This concept is something central, and acts as an organizing principle for this identity. It can be as general or specific as suits the user. I propose for this to be called a keystone or lodestone concept. I prefer lodestone, as the actual object is an magnetite-rich rock that was used as an early compass. Lode means "course-stone" or "journey-stone" in Middle English, which is very representative of the concept I am trying to express. I am sure that there are different metaphors that suit other people better than this one, and I would encourage people to experiment with their own terms, too!

A lodestone concept, therefore, is the central pillar of one's conceptual alterhumanity, the concept a person is oriented around. For example, my lodestone is storytelling. Being oriented around this concept, for me, has affected my life path and self identification. I am a storyteller and a dragon (a dragon being of the same stuff that stories are made), I write, I seek out roles involving communication, I try to create community, I read voraciously, I think deeply about narrative and symbolism. Not doing any of these things, as has happened in the past, feels like starvation. It's who I am.

 

Conclusion: Where do we go from here?

In this essay, I've tried to set out the fumbled beginnings at a project that I simply cannot carry out on my own: the creation of community. If you have read this and been struck by any of my ideas--positively or negatively, in agreement, in curiosity, in disagreement--I implore you to talk about it! I would love to read people exploring their own conceptivity, I would love to read people exploring why they aren't conceptfolk. My hope is that I've provided the initial tools to get the conversation started, and that this idea will flourish, but community is built by everyone.

 

 

 

 

 


 

gossamer_musings: (Julian)
Communicating with your daemon might mean changing the patterns of your thoughts. Not everyone thinks in monologue, let alone dialogue! But the good news is: it’s not impossible to get used to a new style of internal communication. Let’s go through the three steps to jumpstarting communication with your daemon: Narration, Dialogue Separation, and Discussion!

Narration
Narration is something you might already do unconsciously. It is the daily jumble of thoughts & feelings and is often found as an internal monologue.

Examples:
"I should have done my project differently. I noticed these three issues. No, I liked my project the way it was. But I didn't do well on it. That means I should do better next time, not that it was bad."
"I have some free time after I finish the chores. I can watch a couple of episodes. There are a few interesting ones I can watch but I'm undecided."

When you notice yourself thinking, slow down and actually listen to your thoughts. Don't do anything with them just yet, just focus on what you're saying and direct it towards the second presence you are trying to build. Tell them stories, talk about your day, discuss projects you want to do, complaints you have and so on. You may notice this slowing down your instinctual thinking to something more verbose. Don’t panic! This is normal & a good part of the process. The whole point is to notice the content of your thoughts. In the examples above, there is already a second partner to the dialogue there, just being processed as part of your own monologue instead.

Dialogue Separation
This is the second part to narration! In any mental narration, you may be considering a given thought or situation from multiple points of view, emotions, opinions & thoughts.

Example: "I should have done my project differently"

"But I really liked how it turned out!"

"I still failed the grade though."

"That means you know what to improve next time, not that it was bad."


When you start to become more aware of your narration, you can more easily separate out this second voice. This will be your dæmon. Purely and simply: a dæmon hides in your second thought. When you narrate, start to pay attention to what these thoughts say and do. Replay previous conversations with yourself and separate out the second thought. Imagine your dæmon is responding to what you're saying as a new friend of yours whom you are telling about yourself. You don't know them well yet, but they seem nice and they would like to hear about you!

Remember that your dæmon should be responding compassionately to what you say. They may not always say what you want to hear, just like a good friend might be brutally honest with you, but they are not your negative thoughts. More often than not, they are the one doubting the negativity.


Discussion
You know your second voice now. The next step is to initiate an intentional discussion with your dæmon. It's useful to write these things down initially, as it helps to focus & clarify the conversation. Put together narration and dialogue separation into one practice. In fact, you may already be doing this instinctively! But now, take the time to really do it intentionally. Take some time out of your day to focus on your dæ.


Example:
Me: "Hmm, there are a few shows I'd like to watch right now, but I'm not sure what I should pick?"

Dæ: "Well this show is about X & you are in a Y mood, those don't mesh well. Plus, Z show is much more fun! I want to watch that one."


"I liked my project, but the feedback makes me doubt it was any good."

"Don't worry, you can improve next time. You got this!"

Depending on how you operate, it is simplest to proceed in one of two main ways. One option is to talk about an emotionally charged subject for you. This is good if you already know your mind on the topic, as the charged nature and your subjectivity will help bring out the second thought. The other option is to start talking about a subject you may casually enjoy or already have thoughts on but maybe aren't sure how to proceed. This is better if you have trouble thinking when processing emotions, or if you want to allow more room for you and your dæmon to explore something together. Both methods are possible and valid ways to approach this! You will end up engaging in both these conversation types & many more as you build your relationship with your dæmon. Go with what feels right at the moment.



One thing to note is that this discussion will most likely feel forced at first. You are drawing on reasoning you've already worked through but haven't given voice to when you first do this. Your dæmon may not have strong opinions of any kind. That isn't important. The important step here is to take that thought process & attribute it to your dæmon. Teach your brain a new trick!

Also, you've just had your first intentional conversation with your dæmon! Congratulations! Take some time to celebrate; that's a huge first step.

Next Steps
From here, it's mostly practice, practice, practice! You are ironing out new neural pathways, which doesn't happen in a day. Keep narrating & separating, keep asking questions.

Some further advice for you as you progress:
1. Choose a specific time of day to check in with your dæmon. It's okay if this doesn't happen every day, especially at first! But really sitting down, maybe at the end of the day, reviewing things that happened and asking for thoughts and opinions from your dæmon, retroactively attributing mental chatter and just spending some time with them is an awesome next step!
2. Similarly, you could pick a specific activity during which you talk to your dæmon. Maybe you walk to school or work, or maybe you do the dishes every two days. Find some time to check in and really say hi!
3. Play simple games with your dæmon throughout the day.
1. Word association: Think of a word and have them come up with a related concept. Mental ping pong!
2. Eye spy: "I spy with my little eye something that rhymes with hello..."
4. Imagine scenarios which involve interacting with your dæmon. They can be as simple or elaborate as you like. Maybe transpose yourself in your favourite TV show together with your dæmon, or create a whole new world to explore together! The main focus isn't the world, but seeing how your dæmon interacts with it and how you interact with them.
5. Have your dæmon talk to you about a concept you are passionate about. This one is maybe a bit more advanced, but really truly have them explain a fan theory, or mechanical engineering. It gets you to externalize your thoughts as them and helps them find something to talk about.
6. Google conversation starters, prompts & ice breaker questions. Pick one you both like & have a conversation based on it! There might be some initial awkwardness, but push past it and remind yourself about why you want a dæmon.







This is a (slightly) edited draft of a dialogue separation guide I wrote a few months ago for TDF. I think there's a lot I could add to it, and quite a bit that I honestly would prefer to change, as my views and experiences with dialogue separation and other forms of internal communication have evolved quite a bit since the time of writing. That's a project for another day, though. Hopefully this guide is useful to someone!

-- Julian & Ki, of the system of Wonderbeasts

White Oaks

Mar. 9th, 2025 12:44 pm
gossamer_musings: (Julian)
Pax is pushing me to actually write this instead of loudly thinking about how I want to, so this is a favour to him alone. Please stop sighing at me! I'm doing it!!!!!

Lately, my thoughts have turned again and again towards the prospect of linking some kind of plant. For a while that's all it was, idle musings. I found that I could not really imagine what plantness is, and that held me back from even considering the question seriously. But the desire keeps resurfacing again and again, so I've decided to properly try!

The first step was in determining what plant I wanted to focus on. It might have been nice to find a flowering plant or some kind of shrub, and I'd probably like being a reed of some kind... cat tails maybe. My heart was set on trees though, because I gravitate to size and silence most of all. Even then, there are so, so many kinds of tree and many kinds I really love. I thought about birches, balsam fir. We've always had a special connection to ginko, as there's been ginko trees in every place we've lived. I seriously considered linking Pando, the giant quaking aspen colony in Utah, which is really really cool to learn about.

But as I searched through my memory of trees, I recalled the existence of white oaks--quercus alba. The tree has been an on and off fascination for me; I first encountered it when I was still intending to be a candidate in the AODA (Ancient Order of Druids in America). They used to thrive in the ecoregion we are in, the Southern Great Lakes forest (as defined by WWF). Canadian classification labels this as the Mixedwood plains. As I really love my home, linking a tree that grows here felt like a no brainer, and googling photos confirmed the decision immediately. White oaks are beautiful, and looking at them gave me an immediate sense of euphoria.

So that's that, right? Well, no, of course not!

I've lately been discovering in myself a great and quiet joy in movement. This is a very animalistic impulse and a very natural one, seeing as I am an animal in both body and mind. My draconity gives me delight in moving my muscles properly, in leaps and spins, and even in dancing. Having been sedentary for so long, a necessity when living with severe chronic fatigue syndrome, it feels impossible to cease that movement and demand stillness of myself, as plants do. From an animal point of view, animals are active and plants are wholly passive. Except that isn't really true. An oak tree, of course, is stationary. It is anchored to the ground it first sprouted in unless moved by an outside force. But a mature white oak tree, who can live to about 600 years old, will probably die if it is dug up and replanted elsewhere.

My first attempts at finding the mindset of such an oak were failures, then, because I assumed that passivity meant being wholly shut in and self oriented. Dumb. Vegetal. Oh the arrogance of apes and lizards... (said lovingly, of course, for I greatly treasure being an ape and a lizard both, and a human and a dragon besides).

The passivity of white oak trees is characterized by an intense awareness. A constant, mindful attention. Being so long lived and so solid, they can observe the world around them at leisure, and notice things we never could. What looks like passivity to us, for whom stillness is a condition only diagnosed in sleep or in death, is one long, slow listening and observing. The actions and movements of trees are simply different to the actions and movements of animals, but they are there, if you know how to look in turn.

There is the process of growth itself, from seed to seedling to tree. The cycle of xylem and phloem, the intake of water and nutrients from the soil, the constant process of photosynthesis, the creation of acorns and their releasing. There is the movement of animals taking up residence in your branches and roots and under your bark. There is the wind setting your branches to swaying. There is hibernation. And the wonderful part of it is that you always know exactly where you are. You change, of course, and the world changes with you and for you, but it is always around you. Your place in it is secure, and so you can devote a great deal of time to observing it.

So far, I have not really experimented much with reaching this kind of state, and certainly not for long periods of time. It doesn't come naturally to me, and it isn't always wanted. But I don't want to be in motion all the time, either. Sometimes it is a welcome pleasure to root myself and just watch the world instead. I'm currently working on finding the sensation of photosynthesis. I have no idea if there's an equivalent sensation in a human body, but it's still nice to stand in the sunlight and feel the warmth of it.

My next steps are to find white oak trees close to me, so I can observe them in person, to research their life cycle and environment so I can shape my attempts at inducing shifts, and to start thinking about what roots feel like. I'd like to try and continue documenting my attempts at linking, but we'll see if my memory lets me hold to that desire.

Written by Julian of the Wonderbeasts, on March 9th 2025.
gossamer_musings: This is a depiction of sunlight shining on the surface of a river, as seen from underwater. (Pax)
Pax of the Wonderbeasts discusses our approach to embodiment and his philosophy of body as place.


The topic having recently come up in a server we are in and myself wanting an excuse to write something for our Dreamwidth seems a match made in heaven. I want to discuss my system's negotiations towards our own embodiment and the terms on which we have accepted it.

Many plurans--and many other people--are likely to have a fraught relationship with the body they occupy. It comes as the result of a toxic mix of not looking the way you would like to and the denial of your selfhood by other people, I think. We have disputed our embodiment for a long time, but I think we are working our way towards some kind of compromise.

We (Julian especially) have struggled with depersonalization/derealization and ipseity disturbance for a long time. His dissociation most often manifests as feeling reduced to or trapped in the body's eyes as his body reacts to things on autopilot. This dissociation mostly results from trauma, but we suspect the ipseity disturbance would have occurred anyway and these clinical factors combined with our transgender identity, nascent nonhumanity and alterhumanity and burgeoning plurality to create a very toxic stew.

What, then, has changed?

Most obviously, the fact that the rest of us have properly manifested ourselves seems to have reduced the ipseity disturbance by a lot. We still feel it, especially in these early days where establishing ourselves as independent people sharing the same brain is an ongoing process, but it has reduced his/our distress by a lot. Julian has wanted to be plural for years and for years was hesitant or unable to make it happen because of his mental health issues and our ongoing chronic health problems.

I've been present for years. My earliest memories are of middle school. Arthmael played princess as a child. Ru emerged when we learned how to cook. Mazarin was probably the one pretending to be a Hunter of Artemis. Julian, in though present in various iterations before then, has solidly existed since age 14. I suspect that part of his ipseity disturbance was the result of trying to mask our plurality, trying to accommodate for very different self-consciousnesses.

There are different ways to configure one's relationship to their body, especially when you share it with other people.

A non-exhaustive and very brief list of positions we've encountered and some we've adopted:

  1. The body belongs to one headmate (usually the person who most identifies with the physical body)
  2. The body is shared between everyone
  3. The body belongs to whoever's fronting
  4. The body is a vessel or a machine that holds our consciousnesses
Different configurations will, obviously, work better for some people than others. At one point in time, number 5 was our preferred approach, but that's been changing as each of us work on existing more as people. I want to document our nascent approach.

I think it started with me; I've been interested in developing a religious framework for our system and was researching how religions form for that purpose when I came across a quote from the philosopher Edmond S. Casey on the Wikipedia article on culture (accessed on October 4th according to my notes).

"The very word culture meant 'place tilled' in Middle English, and the same word goes back to Latin colere, 'to inhabit, care for, till, worship' and cultus, 'A cult, especially a religious one.' To be cultural, to have a culture, is to inhabit a place sufficiently intensely to cultivate it—to be responsible for it, to respond to it, to attend to it caringly."

I can't verify that the quote comes exactly from his work, this was quoted from a book called Intercultural Communication: Globalization and Social Justice by Kathryn Sorrels. For my purposes, the quote's context doesn't matter as much; what struck me was the last line: to be cultural, to have a culture, is to inhabit a place sufficiently intensely to cultivate it--to be responsible for it, to attend to it caringly.
 
I've been thinking about our body as a beloved place, cultivated and cared for such that our culture arises from our interactions with and within it. Because I inhabit this body, I become myself; I feel emotion, I use my senses, I talk to my headmates, I have memory and life. My body is not me, and I am not it, but each of us benefit from this partnership. We look after it and it rewards us with a rich harvest. I think attending to the body as a landscape we all share has been really beneficial for us. It creates enough distance between our selfhood and our presence in the body that we can share it as desired, it's helped Julian to feel his emotions more (by imagining them as weather patterns that he can assess, prepare for, and survive because they are temporary), and it's helped us come to terms with not seeing ourselves in the mirror. Because this body is shared, the face that looks out at us from the mirror is a reflection of who we are, individually and as a shared culture. Clothing, tattoos, hair style and colour, hormones--all become extensions of our cultural aesthetic and values. It's been helpful for us in agreeing on transition goals and personal aesthetics. It hasn't eliminated conflict by any means, but we have a common ground to agree on. Those of us who experience dysphoria at occupying a human body have found this approach useful too, because we can agree to take care of its needs without making them our own.

There's a lot we're still establishing though. Julian and I are both interested in creating a symbiont to inhabit the body fully and act as a genius loci or representative for its needs and desires, but we're still discussing that with everyone. We'd have to think of how to create the symbiont as well, which I think will entail a different process than the ones usually used to create thought forms. I know I'm going to have fun with that.



gossamer_musings: This is a depiction of sunlight shining on the surface of a river, as seen from underwater. (Pax)
In talking to Julian's therapist today, we have realized that being a writer--the state of being a writer--is important to us, but that desire has eclipsed the ability to write. In that vein, I wanted to reflect on our experiences of selfhood a little.

One of the commitments that helped us drag ourselves out of the ipseity disturbance hole was a firm commitment to defining ourselves by the things we do. But a body does so many things in a day, and many of them unconsciously. Am I a breather; am I defined by the action of breathing? In some ways, yes, I am. Without drawing in breath, this body could not live. The state of not breathing is the state of death. And a dead body could not support our thinking selves. Why do I not include unconscious acts within my self image?

Descartes argues that a human being is a 'thinking thing.' Whereas all other objects in the universe are just matter extended in three dimensions (including animals and plants), human beings are made of res cogitans, the act of thinking itself. God ties us to the world through some mysterious organ in the body, subjecting us to the imperfect horror of a subjective world, where we must struggle to perceive eternal truths which our bodies conceal from our immortal souls. Or something like that. I only ever took an introductory philosophy class.

Let me take Descartes seriously for a moment though. I am a thinking thing inside a body composed of matter extended in three dimensions. Anything I perceive clearly and distinctly--such as the width of a triangle--must be true. I know I am a thinking thing because I perceive, through clear thought, that I am this. Here again, act supersedes being, as we have tried to allow ourselves to believe.

It makes sense to me that a mind mired in uncertainty would clutch at the definition action gives the world. Action produces change. Action shows me that I am still real.

Looking back, this is what I would say to that older us.

I am what I am. The substance I am made of is me. I am the substance of myself. I will be what I will be. I can only be what I am, because I am made of my substance. 'I' is a neutral quality. Being is an act. I can define myself only with reference to myself.

Breathing is part of me because I breath. Writing is part of me because I write. Thinking is a part of me because I think. If I do wrongly, it is part of me. If I do well, it is part of me. But none of this is me.

I will be what I was and I was what I will be.

The self is without reference and without peer, the self is indefinable, and yet it permeates the world.

I am what I was I will be what I am I was what I will be.

gossamer_musings: (Default)
I suppose most of you are already filled with questions at the title, though to me it seems quite self explanatory. Before I begin to explain why I've chosen to name my experience as such, and examine it a little further, let me disavow something.

I do not believe that any traits, behaviours, activities, beliefs, or even the concept of personhood, culture, and sapience itself belongs wholly to humans, and this is not something I intend to argue in my writings, ever. What makes these things human, for me, is when they are set into the broad context of human evolution, human history, and human cultures. In other words, the behaviours themselves are not exclusively human, but the context in which they become important to me is.

-------------------------------------------------------

I know that I have felt ancient from a young age. I have felt disconnected from and denied personhood from very young too. I know when I was younger, I was much more animal, and much more aware at the same time. It's a specific locus of feeling that I can only label draconic in character. I felt subject to instinct because instinct was denied to me, and cursed to be an anthropologist among members of my own species. Some of this was likely undiagnosed autism, as I have come to realize decades later. And perhaps being autistic is the only explanation someone may need to understand these experiences. But, I was a dragon when I was younger, and I still am one today. In grade ten, I realized that the ostracism I had experienced from my peers, and the abuse from my father, resulted in a completely alien framework of morality that had no room for compassion--indeed, it had no room for anyone else except me. It was the small, cold, detached world of an ancient creature that I operated under. It was also the small, cold world of someone denied companionship, denied affection and care from a young age.  Though, looking back, I think I make this disconnect worse and wronger than it was. I know, now, that it was a coping mechanism. If I could stop myself from caring, then the world could not hurt me so. But I resolved, then and there, to change it.

The long and short of the change which occurred that day in grade ten is that I resolved to make myself human. The kind of humanity I had read about in books, and heard talk of among adults in my life.

It is here that I want to make an aside to discuss the origin of our ideas of humanity within the Western cultural sphere. I will discuss Renaissance humanism, but I must first discuss the Age of Enlightenment, and the refusal of humanity to non-European humans.

It is imperative to understand that a continuation of the tradition of humanism, which was first explored in the Renaissance by humanist philosophers, made itself known in an abhorrent way during the Enlightenment period (the 17th and 18th centuries). This is the immediate post-contact period and the focal point of the consolidation of empire and imperial ambitions. This period sees the codification of the nation state as the primary political entity. Liberalism as a philosophy emerge from this context. Capitalism, though having begun the process of development a century or two earlier, begins to take on its modern shape at this point in time, and finds an advocate in Adam Smith.

Broadly speaking, the aim of Enlightenment philosophy was to construct human society on the basis of human knowledge and skill, rather than around a Divine plan. This was done through the separation of church and state, the abolishing of the divine right of kings, and the challenging of the idea that some men should have more power and privilege, more of a say than others. All men are created equal.

And all of this, all of this was done on the backs of Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples. The concept of corporations comes from the English and Dutch East India companies, the first joint-stock companies in the world. Any English of Dutch citizen could buy stock in these companies, and thereby directly profit from the colonial enterprise.

The restructuring of power to, in some limited way, be more democratic in the past, and the granting of citizenship to all (land-owning men) was only possible through the denial of personhood, the eploitation and death, the genocide of non-european peoples.

The definition of human originates from this period as a way to justify and accomplish imperial violence.

There is no easy way to reckon with this history, and I do not think it should be easy to do so, especially as we feel its repercussions today. Especially as BIPOC are still denied humanity today. I think my own grappling will have to come later, as it is beyond the scope of this essay right now. But it was important to me to acknowledge this fact and to build my own conception, not within its legacy, but in opposition to it.

I think the deconstruction of humanity as a historical construct is perhaps best saved for another essay. I need to consolidate my thoughts on that much more before I can come to any (necessarily preliminary) conclusion.

-------------------------------------------------------

What is being human, to me, then?

Much more than a species identity, or the body I am in, humanity is a set of values, a guide to who I want to be in the world. These values, for me, consist of resilience, compassion, curiosity, and creativity. True to the original definition of archetropy, my understanding of humanity is shaped through the stories humans tell about themselves, though more than a specific role in fiction, I locate myself within the project of fiction as a whole being a way that the humans of this world use to make sense of it. Because that was what I did, and do. Even if I was not human, and am not human, I saw myself in that storytelling urge, that refusal to be only what we are, and instead imagine ourselves as what we want to be. Because I made sense of the world through story, I became the storyteller, and I became human. Gold dragons, too, strive to understand the world around us, and to make it better than how we found it. Because of this, and because dragons can take on a human form, I do not, in the end, see much conflict between my species and my humanity. They are not the same, but they are fundamentally alike.

My humanity has impacted my selfhood in ways beyond moral as well. My hobbies (gardening, cooking, storytelling, fibre arts, clay sculpture, painting, music) are also ways in which I feel connected to humanity as an archetrope. It is then fitting that I find myself mostly aligned with our ideas on paleolithic humans, and how they live. I have my vocation as philosopher, and potentially as archeologist to thank for it. My own hearthome lies within Paleolithic Europe and the Neolithic steppes of Anatolia.

I am rambling, now, and do not have much more to say. Perhaps I will expand on this concept in the future.
gossamer_musings: (Default)
I once identified quite strongly with paladins. There's still a lot about that archetype which appeals to me--the devotion, the oath, the faith, the code. But none of that is exclusive to paladinry! Nor even to adjacent archetypes like the knight. Truthfully, I am a peace-loving person, who cares less about some grand quest and more about the people they are surrounded with. This is the cornerstone of my archetype--the service (and the stories). There were always things which did not fit about paladins. Imagining myself in armor was laughable, much less at the court of some great king (and yes, I know that wouldn't have been possible within a modern context anyway, but the archetypal narratives are still there no matter what period one finds oneself in!). I am also much more closely entwined with knowledge than paladins tend to be, as well as community building, storytelling, and spirituality.

For all these reasons, paladins don't fit. They are certainly a para-archetype of sorts, for the reasons I was drawn to them in the first place, but they are not me. But what is? I started to think carefully about which details fit me and which didn't, assembling a list of traits that summed me up in the process.

The list is as follows:
  • Community-oriented; my focus is around helping & serving a community more than an ideal or an oath.
  • Devotion; despite my focus on community, I am still devoted to some higher purpose/cause/being.
  • Peace-loving.
  • Committed to knowledge, the preserving & dissemination thereof.
  • Tangible acts of service; living rather than questing.
  • Spiritual.
Those of you who have seen the title, or know anything at all about monks will be screaming at my ignorance at this point, but truly I did not realize who I was until I was contacted by Them, whom I will call Fairlight.

Fairlight has appeared to me several times over the years, always in similar visages. Owlish faces, brilliant light, outstretched arms were all common, as were stars, wings, and the sun. In my childhood I knew Them as Athena and Artemis, Apollo and Hestia, I knew them as Brigid and God, as Inspiration, Muse, and Story--They wore many names and faces for me. But at last They have appeared to me with Their own face. And I have found my purpose at last.

A monk cannot enter into service without knowing his God. Now, I know mine.

gossamer_musings: (Default)

I go looking for myself, catching glimpses 

Seeking the mirror, I am bared of

The familiar, moulded into a body that is not mine.

My freckled nose and the scar from four years old

My moonish belly, white & round, and
Nose
arched and crooked. My legs bear marks,

My eyes are bleak and my shoulders droop with misery. 

But search deeper.

 

Find my eyes in the saw-whet owl. 

Find my cheer in dandelions.

I soothe as river water,

Yet endure as granite will.

My dreams bear flight on monarch’s wings

And the art of spiders cobwebs my thoughts.

Take me off on flightless reverie,

And show me what I might be.


My teeth become the river rocks,

My eyes, the sun and moon.

Split my veins into waterways,

And my mouth opens to the cry of a loon. 

From my marrow comes the ocean,

And freely flow my blood cells as fish into the sea.

My hair, as kelp, it tangles,

Ensares you to my side.

And though you begin to struggle, you should not be terrified.


Oh, you are a strange animal, stitched of love and bone

Made of blood and promises where you were called into your own. 

Touch your hand to mine through the mirror and look at me through my eyes,

See the soul of the wild in your thoughts and mine.

And I know now, for all I have seen and seemed to be

The word for you is me.


Oh, you are a strange animal, stitched of love and bone

Made of blood and promises where you were called into your own. 

Touch your hand to mine through the mirror and look at me through my eyes,

See the soul of the wild in your thoughts and mine.

And I know now, for all I have seen and seemed to be

The word for you is me.


Taste my tears as sweet molasses,

And watch me weave a lesson from morning dew. 

Hear me, I speak directly to you. 


Through the world I inhabit myself. 

I am part of what’s around me,

I live because you do. 

Because I am what surrounds me, I vow to love all mortally.

Let my tears run as sunshine rivers,

Let my mind bear witness to atrocity.

Let my mouth shape feral stories,

And my blood sing with secret things.


I have looked into the face of the Other 

And I discovered my own face reflected back at me,

In all my wildness, in all my cruelty,

I am set free

I am embraced for who I should be. 


Now, when I see you I see me.

Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 09:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios