All posts by Octagon Sun

Convergent Mistlands

A finite ring ideal with accomodating physics characterized by its unusual methods of entry and naturally misty environment.

The defining feature of the Convergent Mistlands is a blue-to-white moss. This moss grows in carpets across swathes of the Mistlands and facilitates the generation of mist. Mist generated by the moss has a unique property. When the mist becomes adequately dense, entry into the mist will transport a person into, out of, or around the Mistlands. The shifting boundary of the Mistlands is one such location.

As an ideal, it is possible to enter the Mistlands from many points outside it. Indeed, the Mistlands can be accessed from many rings. People from outside of the Mistlands will almost always leave it eventually; this is because objects nonnative to the Mistlands, including people, have a chance of leaving the mistlands each time the mist teleports them. They will usually track a small amount of moss with them outside of the Mistlands. The moss will then grow, if possible, in the new location. If this moss receives enough water to produce a dense mist, the moss patch will serve as a new entryway to the Mistlands.

Relatively small for a ring, the Mistlands feature a homogenous geography and ecology. The Mistlands are probably a created ring, based on its homogeneity and use of magic to simulate normal life-supporting environs. However, no potential creator is known.

The Mistlands are terribly wet. There are many lakes, rivers, deep aquifers, glaciers, wells, etc. The moss is an essential part of its water cycle, reintroduced a great deal of water into the atmosphere. The whole region is mountainous and stony. Soil is thin. The glaciers are magically maintained; a certain quantity of water becomes snow. The region is not cold enough for snow otherwise and outside specific snowpacks, there is no snow to be found.

Weather is dominated by mist and rain. While the mist often thins or opens large gaps, the sky is never clear altogether. The sky is magically illuminated during the day, but at night, a buoyant, bioluminescent species resembling a balloon replicates the effect of stars.

Two species of shortgrass appear in the Mistlands: one white and one green. Trees are rare. Every tree species in the Mistlands grows as an isolated cluster of trees that form a single individual. Both grasses and trees compete for resources where moss doesn’t grow, generally wetter areas, including lake edges, intermittent rivers and lakes, and the like. The stony landscape and poor sunlight mean most flora does not grow too large. Brush is not common.

Fauna are small. Terrestrial fauna are mostly burrowers, with a few grazers and animals that live in tree patches. One large predator-scavenger exists, which is somewhat reminiscent of a long-legged yak. It uses brute force to kill prey, but mostly scavenges dead grazers. Aquatic life is more varied, with many amphibians, salamanders, and fish.

Notable Locations: 8Sanctuary

Ring

A ring is, so to speak, a universe or a complete world. First, a ring is a set, so it contains something. Matter, energy, void, anything like that. In addition to the something, it has a physics, which are the principles under which the something acts, relates to itself, changes, etc. The something is the raw material, while the physics governs what happens in the ring.

In summary, a ring is a set of something with a governing physics.

Our universe, our ring, has a lot of something and a rather nice physics that allows us to exist. As for the knowledge of other rings, we mostly know about rings similar to ours. It’s hard to know about rings where matter as we know it can’t exist. It’s not even a question of survival; how could you send a probe or visit a place where atoms can’t exist, the matter is fundamentally different, or the physics would cause us to instantly fly apart?

Consequently, almost every ring described will have a physics that is close enough to ours. You can safely assume that there will be things different about it, like the science might work different, or the humans might need different internal organs to survive, magic might exist, etc., but fundamental concepts like “time moves in one direction” and “2+2=4” will still be true. Many rings’ physics would only be distinguishable from ours if you know advanced physics. Not important for day to day living, but possibly important if you want to make sure your organs will still work if you move there.

Useful Notes

List of Rings

  • I choose the term ring instead of universe because universe is a really incoherent term across scifi. It’s a loose adaptation of the mathematical concept of a ring, a set of objects with two operators comparable to addition and multiplication. The set is our something and the operators are our physics.
  • A ring may be infinite or finite. A ring need not be ring-shaped.
  • A ring’s something could just be nothing. This is an empty ring and is useless to consider in most contexts. No one lives in an empty ring, nothing happens in an empty ring, etc.
  • A ring can contain a ring. The contained ring would be a subring, while the container ring would be a superring. The subring may have more refined, complicated, or strict physics that don’t apply to the superring.
  • A ring is as extensive as its physics allows its something to go. Nothing can leave a ring by the ring’s own physics. However, a substance not native to the ring may be able to enter or leave it based on a higher physics from a superring. Even native substances may be able to leave a ring with the help from something outside its ring. This is referred to as closure.
  • Material trade between rings is important. While something might be physically impossible to create within a ring, it might still be able to exist inside the ring so long as it is created somewhere else (where it is physically possible).
  • Travel between rings is frequently possible and becomes more common as superring materials proliferate. For lifeforms, the outward appearance is usually preserved, while the internal organs may be refactored. Certain highly-accommodating rings are travel hubs, where magic allows the organ-refactoring to be done painlessly and the person can survive both before and after the refactoring. However, the rules for interring travel depend entirely on the rings and superrings in question and may only connect specific locations, involve arcane methods, or be otherwise obtuse.

Other World Concepts

  • An ideal is a type of subring, distinguished by a sort of capturing mechanism. If an object in the ring containing the ideal interacts with something from the ideal, then the object will also find itself within the ideal. That is to say, an ideal absorbs anything that interacts with it or its parts from anywhere in the broader ring.
  • Many things are almost closed, like planets: consider how escape from Earth was impossible until very recently. It certainly seemed closed. By this analogy, the pragmatic limits of a civilization are called a range. While expansion beyond a range is technically possible, it requires incredibly advanced technology for marginal benefits. A range is not necessarily the full expanse a species could theoretically reach, nor does a range need to have a clear boundary. As mentioned, a range can also expand as technology improves.

Recognizing World Type by Name

For interring societies, the type of world is often indicated within the name by prefixes, suffixes, or other modifiers. Place names are usually translated to represent the ideas the names are based off of in the original language. This avoids issues like unpronounceable names (if the name is even communicated through sound). Adding these modifiers to names helps mitigate repeating names somewhat and helps distinguish place names from words.

  • Ring: feld, rng, vers, dom
  • Ideal: ide, arche, arch, sur
  • Range: welt, velt, mundus, mundi, ran, ester, astr

Unusual Umwelten of Fodlan: Nabateans, Crest Beasts, and Edelgard

general, light spoilers for FETH, nothing to do with Three Hopes tho

Outline

I. Intro

II. Dragons

III. Crest Beast

IV. Hegemon Husk

V. Closing Thoughts

I. Introduction and Framework: Umwelten

For a long time, I’ve wanted to write about one of my special interests[1] as it applies to Fire Emblem Three Houses: umwelten. It’ll take a moment to set up since there’s some specialized vocabulary and some background concepts necessary to understand the whole situation, but, at least to me, the groundwork is beyond fascinating.

An umwelt is a term coined by biologist Jakob von Uexküll.[2] It’s a curious little concept lying underneath much more famous theories from people like semioticians like Heidegger and Bakhtin. Strictly translated, it means “environment,” but what it really refers to is the world that an organism creates by interpreting the stimuli received by sensory organs.

It is important to understand umwelten because physically speaking, before your or my personality/mind/voluntary will can begin to act, physical factors limit what we perceive and alter how we interpret. We can only act on data if we perceive it. A bat can act on all sorts of data we cannot thanks to its sonar; a tick cannot see and cannot build its worldview on sight (but it can build an umwelt using heat signals based on a sensitivity far more delicate than ours). There could be any number of senses that humans are incapable of, with data we’ll never be able to perceive (think about all the things you physically sense, through sight and hearing and taste and touch and smell, that a plant, or a jellyfish, living beings all, have no concept of, and indeed, can never contemplate). And, of course, our senses are imperfect: vision’s fuzzy, finite, imprecise, sometimes we missee things, confuse one thing for something else, etc. And a lot of those errors we never detect (because, most of the time, they don’t matter). Just like we never realize when we are correctly filling in the gaps in our perception, because most of that happens before the data is even presented to our conscious perception.

Not only do our bodies determine what raw data we possess, but they also influence how we interpret that data. Chemical signals can dramatically alter how we interpret things, like how McDonalds never tastes better than when you’re hungry, how adrenaline allows you to perceive some things with incredible accuracy but fail to perceive other things entirely, and how trauma can increase sensitivity or awareness to negative stimuli. The sophistication of our brains allows us to do things like detect lines, perform physical predictions, and distinguish rhythms and colors when many species can’t do any of these things, even when they are perceiving the light or sound or other stimuli that contains the lines, music, and the like. (I am deeply saddened by this truth because my dog will never understand why wrapping his leash around a pole limits his movement.) To say nothing of how memory and past experience also affect your interpretive framework.

So your umwelt is the world as you construct it, based on all your sensory abilities, limitations, filters, biases, etc. Your umwelt changes whenever you interact with anything, as you add new information and forget old data. Parts of your umwelt include your innenwelt, that is, how you construct yourself within your umwelt. Because, while we do have special access to information about ourselves, we are still perceiving most parts of ourselves in some fashion. Whenever we engage in self-reflection as is necessary to create concepts like “Identity” or “Self-Image”, we do so purely by using perception on ourselves. And not just our own perception, but we necessarily rely a lot on our perception of others and how we perceive others perceive us. This brings us to the final bits of vocabulary (which I probably won’t use but it’s good to have :>). When you perceive someone else’s umwelt, that’s an umgebung (it deserves a different name because you aren’t accessing their umwelt, the umgebung is just the parts of their umwelt that you manage to perceive imperfectly). Then, a sociosphere is created by the interaction of two umwelten. A sociosphere requires communication via signs to bridge the umwelten (these signs being everything from raw sensory data to spoken language to tone to body movements, each full of their own impreciseness, imperfection, and ambiguity, for good and ill). The signing process, that is, all communications of meaning, is semiosis.

As a final example, take a moment to consider the soles of your feet, the walls around you, or the palms of your hand. Your feet are touching something, possibly fabric or grass or carpet or wood or tile. There’s a whole lot of sensory data of softness, texture, shape, temperature. When you think about walls, most of the time I just imagine them as flat, but that’s not true at all. When I see a brick wall, I know it’s made of bricks, but I don’t observe the individual bricks at all. And despite the phrase “know it like the back of your hand”, how much do you actually know or perceive of your hands? The little platelike structures that compose your skin, the creases on the joints, the veins under the surface, the pores, the precise contours and shapes of your hands?

If you choose to focus on one of these things, you’re suddenly filled with new data and your world, your umwelt, is enriched and detailed. When you’re not focusing on them, they simply do not exist at all within your umwelt, because you are not perceiving them. They exist within the welt, the physical, unperceived world, but they don’t exist in your umwelt. Attention is important to prevent us from being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of data our senses provide, like the typically useless awareness of the taste of the inside of our mouth or the sensation of clothing against skin.

Between differences in sensory organs, chemical compositions, wills, and experiences, our perceptions are fundamentally different, not just from species to species but from individual to individual. You and I can never know what it’s like to be inside someone else’s head, not really, anyway. Empathy is somewhere between reasoned guesswork and outright projection.[3] The gulf between a person and a bat is not so severe as the distance between two people, but we never really know how close or how far we are experientially, linguistically, or physically. (This doesn’t mean empathy isn’t important or valuable, but it’s limited. See [1] for places where I talk about that in detail, but a discussion of the frailty of empathy and a subsequent reconstruction of empathetic action is well beyond the scope of this article.)

With the groundwork out of the way, let’s talk about three umwelten: that of dragons, that of crest beasts, and that of the Hegemon Husk. Note that this is speculative rather than concrete because this stuff is specific enough that you’d need authorial confirmation for it to have any authority. So, more questions and possibilities are raised than conclusions reached, but they’re fun questions and possibilities and you could do a lot exploring them in fanfiction and the like. (See [4] for stories that explicitly address stuff like this; it’s awesome.)

II. The Immaculate One and other Draconic Shapeshifters/Nabateans

A single creature with a composite umwelt, because it has two separate sets of sensory devices, united by a single mind interpreting the senses, but the inability to use both sets simultaneously. We can assume that dragons in human form have a sensory suite similar to humans in most respects.

Biologically, a dragon body takes much more energy than a human one, meaning it just doesn’t make sense to use unless it’s necessary. So what is it necessary for? I doubt dragon forms are dexterous enough for construction work, so that leaves hunting and fighting. This is reflected in Rhea’s nutty combat skills, from Hoarfrost to Miracle to Defiant Strength to Ancient Dragonskin. Draconic bodies are for fighting; human forms are for communication, living, crafting, i.e., all else. Social life.

This narrow purpose means that dragon bodies are likely to focus on certain types of sensory data, like hunger (because of how much energy a dragon body needs to maintain) and aggression (the body needs the mind to be on board with fighting when it is using this form). Dragons are probably more territorial or even conquering because they would need to be so in order to survive. Of course, they’re more than intelligent enough to resist these impulses, but it might be harder for them to resist these impulses in dragon form. A dragon form is probably better able to handle the peculiar cognitive burdens of combat, like intense stench, fear, loathing (both loathing others or the dreadful sensation of being loathed).

Note, though, that the Immaculate One’s mechanics suggest social cooperation might be physically built into the dragon form: the fact that Hoarfrost and Aurora Breath don’t damage allies and Sacred Power buffs allies means that the dragon form’s abilities are modified under the assumption that allies in combat are likely to be present. But these social components specifically may reflect Rhea’s own training, rather than innate physical qualities. While the dragon form likely elevates survival instincts, which are often antisocial, these social aspects repudiate the possibility that the dragon form is purely animal. (Crossing the streams, I note also that Nowi and Tiki can benefit from pair up while transformed too.)

In summary, a dragon’s umwelt may include much more threat information than a human one, with more stimuli being perceived as threatening. Survival information will also be elevated to sustain the body’s higher energy needs. Information irrelevant to the purpose of the dragon form is less likely to be incorporated into a dragon’s worldview as long as they are in dragon form.

How much that carries over to the human form is unclear. The mere existence of a dragon form might affect the human form’s senses as well, e.g., Rhea might get hungrier faster. There are probably ways for the body to communicate to the mind the need to shapeshift, attached to the processes of aggression (it could operate somewhat like adrenaline).

Other plausible differences between human and dragon forms include:

  • better sight (the Immaculate One has a range of 5, for instance) (but perhaps they use magic as a sensory organ; the Immaculate One has white, round pupils, which wouldn’t work well at all).
  • windsense: greater awareness of wind/wind currents thanks to wings.
  • physical insensitivity: scales and scale-the scales may not have the same level of detailed touch information as skin, and the scale of draconic bodies means that they have to filter out more sensory information to not be overwhelmed.

Plausible differences between humans and dragons (regardless of form):

  • cognitive capacity: this might differ between human and dragon forms, but also between human forms and genuine humans. Perhaps dragons have better pattern recognition or something.
  • lots of instinctual interpretive filters. Dragons probably have different microbiomes, gut systems, and all that changing what they can eat, what they like to eat, etc. And from there, that changes what smells they like, what chemicals or flavors are associated with “good” and “bad”, etc. E.g., maybe fish are really good for dragons and Flayn’s fishxation is more than sentimental.
  • Stamina & other physical abilities. Crests are innate to dragons. The fact that their human forms are combat-capable (and they don’t totally rely on dragon form for combat) means that even their human forms probably require more energy than humans and that combat in human form wasn’t uncommon. Otherwise, dragons would probably be quite physically frail.
  • Age and perception of time: there’s naturally a lot of debate over how “fast” different people or species might perceive time and it’s a subject quite resistant to empirical study. But I’d say it’s pretty reasonable to say dragons, especially long-lived ones,
  • Hibernation. Dragons can hibernate, but don’t have to. That makes you wonder what triggers hibernation, how they choose to do so, etc. Perhaps a dragon can just start overeating and that tells the body they’re about to hibernate.

The last note is dragon madness present throughout Fire Emblem lore. It wasn’t clear that dragon madness applies to the dragons of Fodlan until recently, when FEH had its forging bonds event that framed Fallen Rhea’s experience squarely within the domain of dragon madness. I actually started writing this before the Forging Bonds came out and I probably found the revelation a bit more exciting (in an academic sense) than most. What I’ve written here provides a purely biological explanation for dragon madness (as opposed to an ephemeral “dragons go crazy because old” that dragon madness has often been reduced to).[5]

As stated, it seems reasonable that the dragon form increases aggression, territorialness, decreases distress in combat, etc. The shift between this state and human state requires significant neuroplasticity, that is, the capacity for a brain to modify itself to adapt to different needs and circumstances. Neuroplasticity naturally decreases in humans with age and under high stress, i.e., the exact conditions that aggravate dragon madness. So, what dragon madness may represent is the gradual loss of the ability to revert and regulate the useful and productive cognitive qualities of dragon form. So dragons lose the ability to stop thinking and feeling as if they were constantly in combat and possibly in danger. In other words, the body approaches a state where it can’t exit its emergency mode.

Emergency mode, fight or flight, adrenaline-pumping, however you frame it, is incredibly taxing on mind and body. Focus and attention don’t work normally, there is a constant search for threats which involves a very specific type of detail-oriented perception (at the exclusion of other forms of perception and thinking), the heart, muscles, and the like work overtime, certain hormones and neurological subnetworks go wild, and so on. All very taxing, very tiring, very stressful. Plus, resources are devoted to survival-focused tasks at the expense of other functions, making it harder to perform normal, low-intensity tasks. That’s why it’s only used when necessary.[6] But without relief, the damage builds up from overworking the mind and body. As damage accumulates, the body and mind become less capable, and need to exert even more energy to function normally. And the victim is typically conscious of this decay, watching their capacities decline and losing their sense of control over their lives and actions. And, unless something interrupts the decay, it not only continues but accelerates. This is bad under any circumstances, but what is important about dragon madness is how it develops even in the absence of stress or trauma. Dragons are expected to experience this, no matter what they do, and despite their (assumedly) unlimited lifespans. Now, even in dragon madness, they are still people, but their umwelt is increasingly warped: they’re going to miss information that suggests things may be nonthreatening, they’ll miss details on all kinds of tasks, and they’ll be easier to provoke. The sort of information being missed also happens to be the sort that is often most helpful in mitigating stress and maintaining healthy worldviews and relationships. And, since this process does not seem to be strongly reversible,

III. Crest Beasts

The cognitive and perceptive state of crest beasts is probably quite similar to severe dragon madness, with some aggravating factors. First off, crest beasts are an imitation of dragons, what with how crests are ultimately draconic power. Crest beasts seem to undergo the same mental alterations as dragon shapeshifters, but where the negative effects are amplified. Humans are not meant to become crest beasts (meaningful insight, that one), and the dramatic shift in perception, emotional systems, and the like means that the human system is unprepared to experience the same things dragons experience during shapeshifting. For dragons, it’s built into them; for humans, it’s a radical, forceful, unnatural reconstruction of their being.

Some things to make it worse: First, the transformation itself is painful and intense pain is quite effective at blocking our perception of most stimuli. Recall how failing to perceive neutral or beneficial stimuli is one of the primary harms of dragon madness. Adding additional factors limiting perception means those harms will manifest more severely. Second, the human mind is not going to be ready to process information as it is presented to them by a crest beast’s body. Everything will look, smell, feel, taste, sound different. Some things will be too intense, other things will be conspicuously absent. This probably isn’t as severe or stressful or disorienting as, say, a person blind from birth receiving treatment to restore their sight as an adult, but that’s the sort of distress this is. Third, the process probably just causes straight brain damage. Nothing about it seems healthy. Fourth, crest beasts don’t have any of the moderating influences of natural selection or biology to make sure anything about them works properly.

So, crest beasts experience the worst parts of being a dragon, but all at once, with no biological safeguards or ameliorating factors. Checks out why they’d completely lose their sensibility in most cases or retain very little sense in the case of the most robust, like Maurice.

IV. Hegemon Husk

We know very little about the hegemon[7] husk, but it seems to be a recreation of nabateans using human material. I would put, biologically, the husk as a sort of midway point between crest beasts and nabateans. The blood reconstruction surgery Edelgard underwent with the double crest allowed her to become a shapeshifter and retain herself while transformed, much like a nabatean and quite unlike a crest beast. She is also able to reverse the transformation. I’ll also note that Fallen Edelgard, as depicted in FEH, is still very much in control of her faculties. She’s not mad, as the fallen characters often are.

The term husk does imply something is lost in the transformation.[8] If I had to guess at it, a lot of that applies to the physical level. Like the crest beast, the husk lacks all biological function and constraints. It is a purely artificial form, so questions like natural selection, adaptation, and fitness are off the table. I would assume the entire process is incredibly strenuous, if not ruinous, for Edelgard’s body. We can imagine that, as in the crest beast, the mental shifts are severe: as a human, Edelgard’s brain on the physical level is not naturally prepared for the change and subsequent increases in aggression. But as mentioned, she bears this well.

Indeed, the husk seems to exhibit everything about crest powers/shapeshifting more intensely than even nabateans. Consider the crest of flames weapon, with a whopping 27 range, as well as the ability to act twice. 27 range, even with a low hit-rate, implies a powerful perceptive ability (probably magical rather than purely physical, especially since her black irises and red pupils wouldn’t function very well as eyes).

This extremity of power, perhaps, is the best way to interpret the term hegemon as applied to the husk (even reading it as a husk of a hegemon is inaccurate, since Edelgard did not achieve hegemony in AM. Perhaps husk of a potential hegemon). Because, in the typical, political meaning of the hegemon, Edelgard isn’t a hegemon of anything at this point in AM. She does, however, represent the peak of physical might. The husk is at least on par with a nabatean, but also possesses twin crests. One last, but unevidenced possibility, is that Edelgard is manifesting only as a husk of her real power in that form. This type of highly specific, choice-and-context of language interpretation isn’t normally my speed, but given the lack of information about the husk, it at least gives us a bit more to talk about. Whatever the case, it’s odd that the only time the word hegemon is used in FETH is to describe Edelgard in husk form and in the much more context-appropriate title for Byleth in their Edelgard paired ending.

V. Closing Thoughts

Thanks for making it through. I hope at least part of the discussion was enjoyable. I’ll note that, while I haven’t relied too much on the vocabulary developed in the introduction, I think that discussion is still useful for foundational reasons, because it motivated this entire study, and it was underlying everything I wrote here. I did this for fun and hope it was fun for yall too.

An important limitation on the whole discussion: the study of umwelten and how our bodies and experiences color, limit, and define what we experience and how we construct the world is valuable. Both to better understand ourselves and others. It is not, however, grounds for vilifying or dehumanizing people by culture, experience, personality, or physical qualities. People and cultures have flaws, but in intelligent beings, our choices weigh much more than our physical differences (and I would say this would be just as true when comparing human and nonhuman characters). This is especially true when we intentionally observe, study, and accommodate these flaws in ourselves.[8]

Quickly, I want to discuss the nonphysical implications of the term husk. The other thing lost is that this is the only time that Edelgard genuinely accepts TWSITD’s influence over her body. It’s the culmination of the blood-reconstruction and the destruction of her family. It’s a last-ditch effort, after all her friends have been slain in previous battles and Edelgard is last person who can carry her vision forward. Edelgard’s final struggle in AM is a husk of what it was: even if she were victorious, TWSITD has expanded its control over her and the people she chose to fight alongside are gone. To drive it home, note how the hegemon husk has a skill called a Wilted Flower.[9]

This note is perhaps obvious, but if I were publishing this, there’s some stuff I’d fix up (like making sure to properly couch each statement as a potential interpretation rather than a how it is interpretation, but I’m not doing that much editing for free LOL). Took being unable to sleep as a good sign to finally finish this project/I’ve been sitting on this long enough that it just feels like it’s better to finish than keep holding onto it.

And most importantly, stay safe and take care yall. World’s crazy, but there’s a lot of good people out there and a lot of good you can do.

Footnotes

[1] If umwelten are something that interests you, I’ve written about it several times before but my favorite would be this: A Description of La Vida total. Pretty much anything on my site with the tag La Vida total is concerned with understanding others’ perception (and how, although it’s ultimately impossible, it’s a sacred and essential process).

[2] I think it’s tragic that there’s so much talk of semiotics, often without hitting on this core concept at the foundation of it all. Semiotics is essential for much of the good parts of postmodernism and especially understanding why modernist, enlightenment, and romantic thought were all kinda falling apart, i.e., why postmodernism became necessary. Alongside Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and non-Euclidean geometry messing with mathematics, an understanding of umwelten makes some amount of postmodernism essential. And knowing this stuff helps navigate a lot of current issues and debates a little better because it inoculates you against some common intellectual traps.

[3] This didn’t fit in anywhere, but for your consideration: Sonder. As much as I love tangents, I don’t want to overdo it.

[4] If you like applying science and biology to fantastic species, I’d recommend Heterogenea Linguistica, Delicious in Dungeon, and, to a lesser extent, Land of the Lustrous. Heterogenea Linguistica focuses on how language would vary based on the physical capacities of fantasy races, while Delicious in Dungeon focuses on all kinds of ecosystems, interactions, sustainability, and all that. I’ve been loving them both. And Land of the Lustrous focuses a lot on the mind-body relationship in the context of gem-body people and how differences in body affect concepts like memory. Oh, and the anime Flip Flappers actually introduced me to the concept. Due to some development issues, like the loss of their head writer halfway through the run, the second half of the show is pretty shaky. But the first half especially is very clearly playing with and trying to understand the issues of umwelten.

[5] The explanation I favored most before (and it applies to any long-lived species) is that a longer life also means more opportunities for life-shattering trauma. This, of course, was an inadequate explanation for dragon madness, because people can and do recover from life-shattering trauma and dragon madness seems inevitable (although, who knows, maybe it’s not; there are so few dragons that humans are basing their understanding of dragon madness off of a handful of individuals, individuals they have a bad tendency of starting wars and genocides with).

[6] Several human mental conditions, like PTSD (and cPTSD even more), anxiety, and paranoia are possibly, a deregulation of the same process, that is, these diseases arise when the body feels like it is in danger constantly. My experience of cPTSD squares with this description of the condition, but as someone who is more an “involuntary expert” than an actual expert on the subject, I think it’s appropriate to emphasize that I don’t know that this is the precise mechanism for these diseases. It’s a plausible explanation and one I believe, but I am unaware of how rigorously the explanation has been assessed at the scientific level.

[7] Clearing up a misconception I’ve seen in the wild about the term hegemon, that it’s pejorative or negative or some such. Hegemony is a descriptive term, not a pejorative. Hegemony is often criticized because it’s dangerous, but hegemony of some form is typical (and possibly necessary) in any given societal arrangement. A functional government is always hegemon within its territory, for instance. Modern governance limits the danger of hegemony by breaking it up between competing groups, but these groups possess the hegemony of the state between them. There may exist other powers that compete or limit a hegemon, but a hegemon is dramatically more powerful than rivals. Rhea was hegemon: the dominant power in Fodlan, a single figure who stands at the top of Fodlan’s hierarchies (albeit a power in decline by all accounts, evidenced by the incomplete loss of influence in Adrestia and the weakened ability to invoke Fodlan’s armies for the Church’s purposes). Byleth inherits that title in most routes. Edelgard can be emphasized as a hegemon in Fodlan only insofar as she represents a new hegemonic structure, i.e., a hegemon besides the head of the Church of Seiros.

[8] I feel the need to mention this because people have used semiotics and observations about biology for several noxious philosophies. Racism, for one, especially since the theory was first developed in the middle of scientific racism’s peak. Or the argument that infants don’t deserve protection because they supposedly can’t express preferences (from Peter Singer, but also an idiotic claim on the facts).

[9] If anyone recalls what I wrote about Edelgard as an empath, part of that was that she seems a lot like what is described as an orchid child, i.e., a child who blooms with support but wilts without it (as opposed to more resilient children who have less extreme outcomes). Wilted flower checks out.

libertarian cycle

hate government services for being low quality oppose taxes gov programs lose funding gov programs become worse hate government services for being low quality

like, yeah, having money doesn’t fix problems, but not having money certainly creates problems

Census Guide

Censuses are efficient methods for summarizing a community’s organization and individual’s place within that community. This page explains some standardized terms used in these censuses.

The census represents a snapshot in time. Each census should be treated as simultaneous, unless otherwise indicated (e.g., a census in a historical setting). Naturally, characters will deviate from this snapshot in more or less significant ways over the passage of time.

Household: Gives an address. All entries below a written address without a new address written live at the same location. This also suggests living arrangements and is strongly associated with family groups. It may also include renters, roommates, etc., which is clarified by the Name and Relationship entry.

Name: First name first, last name(s) second, middle names given after a comma. Aliases, alternate names, differences between legal names and used names may appear in the character’s personal info page. The name used in the census is the name that the person themself or the respondent (typically the head of household) provides. This is an authorial census, rather than a diegetic one, so it is the name I use for them, though it will typically be the same as the one the character uses for themselves in their own mind. Same with article titles. (goodness, im just gonna make this complicated at some point, aren’t i? some character who’s choice of name is just the most inconvenient thing.)

Relationship: Indicates head of household or relationship to head of household. The “head” is determined by who owns the property (or its lease). In the common event of coownership, nonresident owners will not be treated as the head, multiple residents may be marked as head with additional relationship notes, or one appropriate resident will be arbitrarily chosen as the head (i.e., dont read too much into it).

Age: given in Earth years because that’s what you use. Why would I make some abstract system up just so it can mean nothing to you, you know? Age is calculated within relativity, that is, based on the individual’s specific experience of time. A year is adjusted for the appropriate sensation of the passage of time within a given universe. Separately, some universes accelerate or decelerate maturation (i.e., an individual may have experienced more or less time than typically corresponds to their level of physical and cognitive development), which is better reflected in AgeFrame.

AgeFrame: AgeFrame is used to report more meaningful information than a simple yearcount, due to differences in development between species, access to medicine, and so on. The person is placed in a category, such as “child” or “adult”, based on cumulative physical development and compared against the projected lifespan of the species under similar circumstances and with similar medicine. Some terms may have specialized or uncommon terms for development, e.g., a pupal stage.

Origin: Origin refers to place of birth. For many individuals, this can be where they were raised, but not always. An individual’s page may provide more information. Origin may also be described at different levels of scale, e.g., a nomad’s origin will be the region their people hails from, unless that culture attaches special importance to certain places. Same for someone who is not nomadic, but lived throughout a region. Origins in little-understood regions may be much broader in scope than in well-understood areas.

a little piece on being a person who can help

A comment to someone feeling awful (understandably) about the violence certain religions have perpetrated throughout history. In this comment, I also wanted to address some other comments that were trying to make a general attack on religion in the comment thread. Note that the conversation was nominally tied to discussion of Edelgard’s character in Fire Emblem Three Houses, which is why there are some tangential references to her. Knowledge of the character is not required. The main virtue of this writing, I think, is the last paragraph, which, if you don’t care to read the rest, I’d recommend you read at least that. Take care, stay safe y’all.

I would note Edelgard isn’t really anti-religion, so much as anti-Church of Seiros (and even then, not opposed to the Church per se but the Church as a purveyor of political and social corruption).

And to kindly point to some reasons to appreciate religion in the world, it’s important to understand how diverse religion is (both in terms of ideology and administration). A lot, not all, but a lot of moral learning and revolution and idealism has been religiously motivated, eg, Thoreau followed by MLK and Gandhi, a lot of antipoverty philosophy and advocacy (bringing up MLK again, imo the most important part of his legacy that has been forgotten was his antipoverty advocacy), how many philosophies at least started out as explicitly religious movements (humanism, human rights, for example) or important thinkers who were deeply religious (Locke, Newton, Mr Rogers, Confucius, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, and Maria Gaetana Agnesi for some examples; Newton actually wrote more about theology than any other subject). Religious believers and institutions are just as diverse and complicated as everyone else and especially when religion is exploited to justify some evil, the first to decry it are often people within the religion, possibly from a different school of thought, sometimes from the very same school that’s causing the problems.

And to push back at another comment, while it is true that some religions are antiscience, they are hardly the standard (many such religions emerge from impoverished areas where government, medicine, and education have failed the people to such a degree that the ppl are likely to be antiscience whether or not they are religious). My own religion operates 3 universities-at a loss because of how heavily or subsidizes tuition-founded several more that have been integrated into the state education system, and whose leadership includes former educators, judges, doctors, and deans, and is headed by a heart surgeon/medical researcher. Even some of the most famous stories of antiscientific religion are exaggerated. For instance, Galileo’s feud with the Catholic Church is well-known, but people tend to be unaware that the Catholic Church sponsored and approved of Copernicus’ research into heliocentrism a generation earlier (as a non Catholic, my read of the Galilean feud is more that Galileo’s personality as a provocateur was the real issue).

Turning to the overall issue, there are a lot of people fighting to make the world a better place. There are different understandings of what that is, but remember that the reason we have cohesive societies, the reason things function at all, why we haven’t descended into anarchy or general warfare are people fighting to do what’s right. Good people don’t attract or demand attention the way people who cause damage do. A good person will spend hours intimately discussing and healing a wound that was formed by a bad person in seconds. And as fast as bad things happen, i would say less people are actually willing to do bad things; most of it is accidental or driven by stress and duress).

There’s a lot of power in seeking out people who are doing good and aligning yourself with them. In learning in such a fashion that your capacity to help expands the longer you live. Edelgard’s a particular person who was in the right place with the right talents to do a lot of good in her society. But as long as you make yourself a person who can help people, you’ll find yourself in such positions naturally. Not to reform a nation (I assume you’re not secretly in line to some throne haha), but to help people around you to hold on and give them a chance to see the beauty in life. An example of incredibly kind advocacy that hopefully can help a little (it always touches me): https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA

important things #2

Fires of Faith: A documentary series about the history of the English Bible. Not the Bible, mind you, but specifically the massive controversy and sacrifice and loss of life that were tied up in the creation of an English translation of the Bible, an act of translation that often carried the penalty of death for heresy. I loved this series when I was younger and it was my first introduction to excellent documentarian Lucy Worsley. I bought the DVD set seeing that physical copies may be disappearing, but fortunately it’s available for free digitally.

https://www.byutv.org/player/e0d8c9f3-b3b8-49f7-b139-2ff0c2a52a83/fires-of-faith-yearning-for-the-word

The process of religious learning (surprise: it’s basically the same as all learning but heavily otherized)

Written in response to a discussion about religion, specifically criticism towards committing to religious belief, believing in grand claims, and believing in one religion despite the possibility of being wrong. Alongside typical stuff like evidentiary burdens, proof vs. disproof. I find these lines of thought tend to hold religious concepts to standards we don’t apply to other forms of learning, part of a broad trend to have religious and secular parts of communities otherize each other. So, this comment is principally opposed to the otherization of religion.

Religious learning isn’t really that different from other forms of belief and learning. Like in any science, it’s not so much about having a perfect answer, but getting the best answer available to you, given your capacity to learn, plus the learning communities and resources which you can access, and of course, your own intuition and biases.

An earnest godseeker will usually favor a religious ideology or institution based on how well it connects them to religious growth (and that growth can be in terms of conduct or ideology).

Religion is full of deeply complicated questions. Some questions give rise to serious divides between faith groups, others don’t. But people have their sense of reality, accurate or not, but that’s hardly exclusive to matters of faith. Consider how government leaders don’t have the option of verifying empirically how their every act is going to play out; leaders have to commit to an ideology and courses of action well before they can understand the implications of those decisions. In the sciences, interminable debates rage over interpretations of quantum theory, mathematicians debate over whether and to what extent math is real, Freud is still debated in literature despite his being abandoned by psychology, and so on. Scholars take their position realizing, but never believing, that they could be wrong. We hear all about the rugged scientists who stuck to their positions until they were finally proven right, but for each such story, there are 20 scientists who just turned out to be wrong.

Another illustration: geocentric models of the solar system are only marginally less accurate than heliocentric ones (and much of that difference would not exist if we had refined the geocentric model over the past centuries). Geocentrism wasn’t abandoned because it was inaccurate in a predictive or prescriptive sense. Rather, heliocentrism was simpler mathematically and human intuition grew to favor it.

So in a world where even accuracy, modeling, and empiricism can’t answer all our questions, even when we need answers and must act, and we must rely on intuition and preference, religion is not peculiar. It is not even peculiar in terms of how grand its claims are. When you consider how you and I will never count the stars, nor measure the distance from the Earth to the Sun, nor witness Julius Caesar’s assassination, nor view the functioning of our organs, but we believe what others tell us about these startling, almost incomprehensible things. We can personally verify parts of the great mysteries, but 99% of our abstract knowledge will always be something we’re told to believe and must take on faith.

For myself, I subscribe to my religion based on certain phenomena I have experienced which genuinely aren’t covered by secular psychology, plus an intuition that I am on a productive course of inquiry and learning. I very strongly feel that i am much closer to the truth thanks to my religion than i would be if i relied on my own powers. Also, while not a foundation of my faith, studying advanced mathematics very much impressed upon me how arcane knowledge and reality are: even understanding it, i am tempted to call it magic.

I would also note how there is no dearth of evidence for the existence of some form of divinity. Consider how many people, over history, have claimed to have communicated in some form with a god. Certainly, a good number of them were off in some way. But if even one of these people told the truth, that’s it. Thousands of witness testimony should not be discarded hastily. And I can personally add that I know some very well grounded people who have offered testimony of some kind.

important things roundup #1

this screencap from Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken

it’s part of a brilliant sequence about the nature of human conflict in the final episode and how conflict’s not remediable by good faith, because there are genuine issues that need resolving for which the solution is not at all clear. no se muere la controversia.

a song by astrophysics ~ thank you miku

https://elfaro.net/en/202205/el_salvador/26177/Collapsed-Government-Talks-with-MS-13-Sparked-Record-Homicides-in-El-Salvador-Audios-Reveal.htm

proof of corruption in el gobierno bukelista

What Is Actually In Abortion Trigger Laws/Bans?

There is a lot of disinformation going around. In particular, a lot of people have made it out that these laws do not contain exceptions for medical emergencies, something that seemed incredibly unlikely to me. So, I read every relevant statute I could find and figured out what exceptions apply under each law.

Summary

20 states would have an abortion ban applying to any time or almost any time during the pregnancy. More states would ban after a a set period of time. 14 states have trigger laws, 5 have laws predating Roe still on the books, and 1 recently passed a law prohibiting abortion. 1 more included here merely has a proposed trigger law, but local media seems to suggest its passage is very likely.

Every one of these states would allow abortion for medical emergencies. Even statutes from the 1800s provide exceptions for medical emergencies (Wisconsin’s, for instance).

7 states (35%) have rape or incest exceptions. Only Mississippi exempts rape but not incest. No state exempts incest but not rape.

Of states enacting bans, Utah has the most comprehensive exceptions.

Since I’m just one person, there may be slight errors, but I believe this is mostly accurate. If you are concerned about your particular state, investigate it thoroughly and do not rely on this information, whose purpose is merely to survey and summarize.

Chart of Exemptions to Abortion Bans

StateCodeCategoryMedical Emergencies Affecting the MotherEctopic Pregnancies
(explicit)
Lethal Anomaly Affecting the ChildRape or Sexual AssaultIncestThreshold
AlabamaHB314Pre-RoeXXX
Arizona13-3603Pre-RoeXPossibly (included in related statutes)
ArkansasSB149TriggerXX
GeorgiaHB41RecentXXUp to 20 weeksUp to 20 Weeksheartbeat
IdahoS18-622TriggerXXX
KentuckyHB148TriggerX
Louisiana5.1061TriggerX
Michigan750.14Pre-RoeX
MississippiSB2391TriggerXX
MissouriHB126TriggerX
North DakotaHB1466TriggerXXX
OhioHB598Proposed TriggerX
OklahomaSB918TriggerXheartbeat
South CarolinaTITLE44 CH1 ART 6TriggerXXFewer than 20 weeksFewer than 20 weeksheartbeat
South DakotaSL 2005, ch 187, § 6TriggerX
TennesseeSB1257TriggerX
TexasHB1280TriggerX
UtahSB174TriggerXXXXX
West Virginia61 6-2-8Pre-RoeX
Wisconsin940.04Pre-RoeX
WyomingHB92TriggerXXX

Code is the citation with a link to the text itself. Some are links to the text as codified, others to the enrolled bills pre-codification.

The categories differentiate between laws passed before Roe was decided and laws passed with a provision that they will only go into effect if Roe is overturned or states otherwise gain the ability to restrict abortion as if Roe were overturned (such as if a constitutional amendment were passed).

Medical emergency is usually defined with reference to a medical professional’s good faith or reasonable evaluation that there is a serious health risk to the mother. The exact definition of serious health risk will vary, but broadly speaking it includes serious bodily harm, impairment of body functions, etc. May include some mental health emergencies, depending on the state, the exact nature of the emergency, and how well verified the emergency is (e.g., Alabama allows only mental emergencies verified by certain psychiatrists if the mental illness will cause suicide or the murder of the unborn child). Most states, when they contemplate the issue explicitly, exclude suicidality and self-harm as excuses for abortion. Many states’ statutory definitions of medical emergency are general enough that lethal anomaly could be included under their definition of medical emergency. The differences in statutory language reveal uncertainty about how to handle mental health, due to the tension between genuine mental health issues and appropriation of mental health issues by bad faith actors (just like the insanity defense has been severely harmed by the numbers of people who claim insanity because they think, contrary to fact, that insanity’s an easy way to get off).

Ectopic pregnancies is marked if there is an explicit allowance for abortions of ectopic pregnancies. The lack of a mark does not mean they would be prohibited, especially given medical emergency and lethal anomaly exceptions.

Lethal anomaly exemptions allow abortions where the unborn child will die at birth, be stillborn, or die shortly thereafter. E.g., Alabama’s definition: “A condition from which an unborn child would die after birth or shortly thereafter or be stillborn.” Language varies; sometimes it’s framed in terms of medical futility, lack of viability, etc. Might also be included under medical emergency when the definition does not limit itself to risks to the mother or when no definition for medical emergency is provided.

Rape and Incest exceptions often explicitly require a police report to have been filed prior to seeking an abortion. South Carolina would require the physician performing the abortion to report the allegation instead after informing the patient.

An entry in the threshold section means the ban only applies if a heartbeat is detected in the unborn (alongside a requirement that doctors perform reasonable checks when there is no medical emergency). Generally, the physician need only take reasonable steps to identify a heartbeat; if none is found after a reasonable test, there is no liability. Several states have looser, time-based thresholds. Heartbeat thresholds are included because they apply so early in a pregnancy.

Based on my review of the statutory texts, miscarriages, abortions that increase the probability of a live birth, unintentional injury/death, or accidents to the unborn (including during medical interventions by medical professionals) are frequent, explicit exceptions. Where not explicit, I would highly doubt that they are not implicit-the statutes that don’t explicitly mention this are usually brief.

Many, but not all, statutes explicitly disallow the prosecution of the abortion patient.

Many of these bills also explicitly target or condemn abortions of unborn children for reasons of sex, gender, or nonlethal disability (especially Down Syndrome).

Notes on inclusions: I focused on states included in these two lists: 1 (specifically states listed as banning), 2. I excluded some states when I could not find any texts supporting what the article said, e.g., (1) lists North Carolina as banning abortion, but local news reports suggest no such thing. States listed as restricting I left out since, generally speaking, a ban is more extreme than a restriction and so the restrictions can be expected to be looser than the bans. Obviously, I can’t catch everything, but I’m not aware of having missed anything and anything I would’ve missed will probably be similar to one of the statutes included in the chart. It’s hard to imagine any statute, for instance, not including the medical exemption. Some states also had a pre-Roe statute and a trigger law. For simplicity, I limited my study to the trigger laws.

Brief Note on Roe

Roe set itself up for repeal. Even for the pro-abortion position, Roe was bad law, because of how it fueled the culture war and left so little room for discretion.

  1. The Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue the decision in Roe. I am not a textualist by any means, but the Court has to base its decisions on its Constitutional authority of interpretation. Roe did not interpret anything. The main text referenced is the 14th Amendment, but the connection to the 14th Amendment is tangential at best. The Court does not have authority to make such decisions, regardless of how good or bad they are, because these decisions are not interpretations. Interpretation is precisely the limit that prevents Justices from being kings.
  2. Roe violated the interpretive limit, but reversing Roe probably does not since the reversal is itself based on interpretation. Undoing an abuse of discretion is not itself an abuse of discretion.
  3. Roe set onerous obstacles on legislatures regulating abortion no matter how reasonable that regulation was, and it has left the US with radical abortion laws untempered by science or morality. Roe didn’t just block abortion bans; it made all sorts of regulation impossible. A Supreme Court decision like Roe is a sledgehammer: it does not allow for refinement, caution, compromise, or (ultimately) good governance.
  4. Because of these flaws in Roe, discourse around abortion has been extremist and conflictive. Roe deserves blame for fueling the culture war in ways which statutes, legitimately enacted by legislatures, do not.
  5. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, there will be more states restricting, not just banning, abortion. But abortion in many-maybe even most-states will be exactly the same as it was under Roe.
  6. State legislatures certainly have the power to legislate for and against abortion in a post-Roe world, so long as their state’s constitution grants them that power. I don’t particularly think that Congress has that power, though. Federal legislation has to be based on some vested power to Congress, of which only 2 might be relevant. I don’t think banning or preempting state legislation really falls under either the Commerce Power or the 14th Amendment Powers.

Personal note

This information has been prepared to be as neutral as possible, even if my personal feelings are very much nonneutral. I write this, not to invite debate (I have little doubt you or I would be convinced by anything either of us write), but because disclosure and openness about the biases I write under are important.

I approve of Utah’s approach, because I can only see abortion as justifiable where there exists a serious intervening cause. The life-status of the unborn invokes so many unsolvable questions of epistemology and semiotics that it’s impossible to show the unborn are not humans. I certainly consider the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide, as well as a nonconsensual abortion to be murder. I don’t think miscarriage and abortions are distinguished by mere sentimentality. If we can’t be reasonably certain abortion isn’t homicide, if that question remains in a zone of ambiguity, I don’t think action is justified. And, even if abortion absolutely weren’t murder, I don’t know that it’d be different enough to be tolerable.

I also note how often the consent for abortion is nominal or uninformed. Legal access to abortion makes it much easier to pressure, manipulate, coerce, and abuse women into acting contrary to their will. On the question of choice, I find abortion just as, if not more disturbing, when men, partners, or family make the decision. Abortion also has nasty and enduring connections to eugenics, racism, sexism, classism, and ableism (enough so that Ginsburg may or may not have been caught up in that, enough that it may have at least influenced Roe).

Additionally, I note how urgent healthcare reform, orphanage/foster care reform, mental health reform, education reform, child rights reform, and parental rights reforms (like parental leave) are. As well as things like drug, alcohol, labor, and economic reform because of how much issues in those areas hurt people and their children. Abortion is one of the most serious forms of dehumanization of children, but it’s far from the only one.

Finally, I’m horrified when I reflect on how 1/3 of pregnancies were terminated the year I was born in my home state. A lot of us live lonely lives, and it is certainly lonelier, more painful, knowing that 1/3 of the kids who would’ve been my peers never drew breath.