Jasmine & Angelus
Peter Morris
about why Jasmine bothered to turn Angel into Angelus.
Here's my answer, which I haven't seen anyone else
advance, though it's obvious enough.
It was allo part of her plot to get born. Putting the
city in darkness, and Angel on the loose was all intended
to manipulate Connor and Cordy together at exaqctly the
right time, with Connor just in the right frame of mind.
Even restoring the light was part of the plan all along.
--
_______________________
/_____________________(_)
| ______________________ email to
| | |__________________(_) Peter_Morris_1 at
| |/____________________ btinternet dot com
|_____________________(_)
Shuggie
>
>In this forum recently I've seen a lot of people arguing
>about why Jasmine bothered to turn Angel into Angelus.
>Here's my answer, which I haven't seen anyone else
>advance, though it's obvious enough.
>
> It was allo part of her plot to get born. Putting the
>city in darkness, and Angel on the loose was all intended
>to manipulate Connor and Cordy together at exaqctly the
>right time, with Connor just in the right frame of mind.
>Even restoring the light was part of the plan all along.
Right frame of mind? To quote Xander - "I'm 17, looking at linoleum makes me
want to have sex."
Jasmine controlled Cordy at that point, Connor grew up in a hell dimension with
no women. How hard is it to get them together?
There may have been a need for keeping AI distracted but Rain of Fire and
Angelus on the loose was gratuitously over the top for that.
Hunter
> In this forum recently I've seen a lot of people arguing
> about why Jasmine bothered to turn Angel into Angelus.
> Here's my answer, which I haven't seen anyone else
> advance, though it's obvious enough.
>
> It was allo part of her plot to get born. Putting the
> city in darkness, and Angel on the loose was all intended
> to manipulate Connor and Cordy together at exaqctly the
> right time, with Connor just in the right frame of mind.
> Even restoring the light was part of the plan all along.
I don't think so judging from the less than joyful expression on
EvilCordy's face after the Sun's return at the end of "Salvage". I
have no evidence but I think it was ment for Jasmine to "miracliously"
return the Sun and give a tangle demonstration of Jasmine's power,
even if she did have the population under her thrall. I do think
Angelus was ment as at least as a distraction and weakening of AI
resources.
As for getting Conner and Cordy together, a combination of a
vulnerable Cordelia to stur Conner's ingrained chivary, his natural
teenage urges and the competitive feeling of stealing the woman of a
man he consciously despised would be enough.
-----
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Kas
>
> Right frame of mind? To quote Xander - "I'm 17, looking at linoleum makes
me
> want to have sex."
>
But it had to be believable, part of the ploy to manipulate Connor. If
Cordie had of just gone to him and said "lets have sex" when he knew she was
in love with angel he would have known something was up - with the end of
the world happening around them (or what appeared to be) it would have been
easier to believe the situation, making it easier for her to manipulate him
right down the line...
Kas
Shuggie
>
>On 7 Jul 2003 09:56:48 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>to succeed?
Not my point. I meant that killing thousands of people merely as a piece of
misdirection was extreme. The fact that it was unsuccessful misdirection just
makes the whole thing worse.
>
>What made no sense to me was that Angel and the gang would actually
>set Angelus free....not that Jasmine would try and make that happen.
>
It made little to no sense but if you ignored that it was still kinda fun.
Shuggie
Perhaps, but as it was her manipulation of him depended on Connor being
spectacularly dumb.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: In article <3f09fa37$0$7969$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Kas" says...
Now I really think its unfair to say that Connor was dumb. The boy
grew up in a hell diminision; his *only* frame of reference for human
behavior was Holtz, a man sick with hate and vengeance whose idea of
playing a game of hide and seek was tying Connor to a tree and
abandoning him for days on end. Now less than two years into this
new diminision and the boy has been led to believe - as did members of
Angel investigation - that he may be responsible for its impending
destruction. And a beautiful woman - one of the first ones he's ever
seen - says she wants to give him something real to remember before they
all die. Now how the hell was Connor suppose to figure out that he was
being manipulated and deceived? Given what he knows about women, human
relations, and sex in general, how was he suppose to know that it was
all a great big lie? He couldn't. Hell even the audience couldn't
figure out why Cordy was doing the things she was doing. But because
Connor didn't catch on he's dumb or stupid. Not right.
Shuggie
>
>On 8 Jul 2003 02:03:02 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Since it failed to work....how over the top would it have needed to be
>>>to succeed?
>>
>>Not my point. I meant that killing thousands of people merely as a piece of
>>misdirection was extreme. The fact that it was unsuccessful misdirection just
>>makes the whole thing worse.
>
>perspective, but perfectly in line with what a God would be inclined
>to do.
Not the kind of god that Jasmine claimed she was.
>What's a thousand people if it guarrantees Jasmine's glorious
>and triumphant entrance into the world?
It's still a thousand people that didn't need to die.
>In fact, it makes for a rather
>spectacular entrance, and really what more could a god ask for or
>want?
Exactly, it was a gratuituous display of violence showing Jasmine's true
underlying nature.
Shuggie
>On 8 Jul 2003 08:14:31 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4velgvg5pmhm98bs9...@4ax.com>, st says...
>>>
>>>On 8 Jul 2003 02:03:02 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Since it failed to work....how over the top would it have needed to be
>>>>>to succeed?
>>>>
>>>>Not my point. I meant that killing thousands of people merely as a piece of
>>>>misdirection was extreme. The fact that it was unsuccessful misdirection just
>>>>makes the whole thing worse.
>>>
>>>Worse? As a way of distracting AI, its excessive from a human
>>>perspective, but perfectly in line with what a God would be inclined
>>>to do.
>>
>>Not the kind of god that Jasmine claimed she was.
>
>She brought peace, peace had a price.
But what does it say that she pays that price so easily? That there was
apparently no attempt to keep the casualties to an absolute minimum?
>
>>>What's a thousand people if it guarrantees Jasmine's glorious
>>>and triumphant entrance into the world?
>>
>>It's still a thousand people that didn't need to die.
>
>How so? Quite clearly, it wasn't enough, or Jasmine would be ruling
>the world.
Sorry? Please explain how more people dying would have prevented Angel
and Connor doing what they did.
The point is that there is only the flimsiest of evidence that Rain of
Fire and Angelus were necessary to get Jasmine born. As far as I can see
they ought to have been able to do it with just the death of that one
girl.
>
>>>In fact, it makes for a rather
>>>spectacular entrance, and really what more could a god ask for or
>>>want?
>>
>>Exactly, it was a gratuituous display of violence showing Jasmine's true
>>underlying nature.
>
>No, it was a necessary display of violence, meant to show in extreme
>example, how the world could benefit from Jasmine's peace.
So she had to kill a few people so we'd realise how much we needed her?
How callous is that?!
>It also
>served to make sure that AI was busy, and therefore not able to
>prevent Jasmine's holy birth.
And yet when Jasmine was born they weren't busy but she still managed to
make it.
Even if it was necessary to keep them busy - Jasmine was a PTB and Cordy
was vision-gal - they could have kept AI busy with any number of wild
goose chases without endangering a single life.
>Your use of the word gratuituous is a
>value judgement that ignores the actual requirements of Jasmine's
>birth.
I used the word I found appropriate. I remain unconvinced that the
deaths, bar one, were requirements of Jasmine's birth. If the story was
supposed to demonstrate that necessity - it failed.
What it did do, very successfully, was demonstrate that Jasmine's
apparent goodness was at best self-delusion and at worst pure evil.
--
Shug
Snyder: There're some things I can just smell. It's like a sixth
sense.
Giles: No, actually that would be one of the five.
Shawn H
:>Worse? As a way of distracting AI, its excessive from a human
:>perspective, but perfectly in line with what a God would be inclined
:>to do.
: Not the kind of god that Jasmine claimed she was.
But Jasmine's a liar.
:>What's a thousand people if it guarrantees Jasmine's glorious
:>and triumphant entrance into the world?
: It's still a thousand people that didn't need to die.
But she's interested in the big picture, not individual lives, she said as
much to Angel.
:>In fact, it makes for a rather
:>spectacular entrance, and really what more could a god ask for or
:>want?
: Exactly, it was a gratuituous display of violence showing Jasmine's true
: underlying nature.
Correct.
Shawn
PJ Browning
<Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <bec1mm$96k$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Peter says...
> >
> >In this forum recently I've seen a lot of people arguing
> >about why Jasmine bothered to turn Angel into Angelus.
> >Here's my answer, which I haven't seen anyone else
> >advance, though it's obvious enough.
> >
> > It was allo part of her plot to get born. Putting the
> >city in darkness, and Angel on the loose was all intended
> >to manipulate Connor and Cordy together at exaqctly the
> >right time, with Connor just in the right frame of mind.
> >Even restoring the light was part of the plan all along.
>
> Right frame of mind? To quote Xander - "I'm 17, looking at linoleum makes me
> want to have sex."
and for Connor who lacked previous experiences (save one kiss with a
druggie who was so turned on that she went and overdosed) , looking at
anything probably made him want to have sex.
can't blame the boy for majorly crushing on the hot girl. especially
when they ended up setting up house together.
Peter Morris
"Shuggie" <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tabmgvkah7meshgbm...@4ax.com...
>
> The point is that there is only the flimsiest of evidence that Rain of
> Fire and Angelus were necessary to get Jasmine born. As far as I can see
> they ought to have been able to do it with just the death of that one
> girl.
My original point was that without the rain of fire and Angelus,
Cordy and Connor wouldn't have come together.
Shuggie
>
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:09:20 +0100, Shuggie
><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>She brought peace, peace had a price.
>>
>>But what does it say that she pays that price so easily? That there was
>>apparently no attempt to keep the casualties to an absolute minimum?
>
>attention focused on Cordelia and her mystical pregnancy.
>
But at that stage (Rain of Fire) there was no pregnancy, and, back my original
point there didn't need to be chaos to persuade Connor to sleep with Cordy.
Even when Angelus was released Cordy wasn't showing yet. In fact the baby grew
so fast that AI found out about it about as early as they were ever likely to -
chaos and distraction or not.
>>>>>What's a thousand people if it guarrantees Jasmine's glorious
>>>>>and triumphant entrance into the world?
>>>>
>>>>It's still a thousand people that didn't need to die.
>>>
>>>How so? Quite clearly, it wasn't enough, or Jasmine would be ruling
>>>the world.
>>
>>Sorry? Please explain how more people dying would have prevented Angel
>>and Connor doing what they did.
>
>Connor? Angel was the one trying to stop the pregnancy, thats why
>Cordy needed Angel out of the way.
>
Hang on. You just said that if more people had died then Jasmine would be ruling
the world. The thing that prevented that was Angel getting the demon's head to
speak her name and Connor killing her.
>Simple plan:
>
>Angel is a major threat, remove him.
OK. So kill him or send him on a quest to Australia.
>Also Angelus will create major chaos, which means a distracted AI.
First, I question how important it is to distract AI (see above).
Second, how much chaos did Angelus really create. When all said and done he's
one more vampire in a city over-run by vampires.
>The beast will create major chaos, which means a distracted AI.
Which could equally be acheived by many, less extreme things.
>The beast will destroy W&H, a major obstacle.
OK.
>The beast will set the stage for Jasmine's appearance as 'savior'.
Which is not necessary because she used mind control anyway. Her first followers
were people who were trying to kill her 5 minutes before her birth. So why does
the stage need setting?
>
>Wild Card: Faith.
>
>Allows Angelus to get close enough to kill Beast, then is key in
>returning Angel, who immediately recognizes whats really going on and
>tries to stop Jasmine's birth.
>
>Its standard slight of hand.
>
>The only problem I have with the story, as I said, was the rather
>dubious reason for releasing Angelus. But that was essential to remove
>Angel, who was the person most likely to pick up on what Cordy was
>doing.
>
And as I said there are many ways to get rid of Angel without turning him into
Angelus. I can see how the events that Jasmine organised contribute to her plan
in the way you describe. I just don't see them as strictly necessary - which is
why I stand by my use of the word gratuitous.
Also a lot of the 'AI needed to be distracted' argument rests on them not
figuring out that Cordy was the one behind everything. Which they could only do
because Cordy was doing stuff in their midst. Cordy could just as easily have
slept with Connor and then disappeared somewhere until Jasmine was born.
>>>No, it was a necessary display of violence, meant to show in extreme
>>>example, how the world could benefit from Jasmine's peace.
>>
>>So she had to kill a few people so we'd realise how much we needed her?
>>How callous is that?!
>
>Gods do it all the time. Check out the old testament, where lots of
>people die....even children... at the whim of a god. Its pretty
>standard actually, all the cool gods do it.
And if those other gods do it in a whimisical, unneccessary manner then I'd use
the word gratuitous about them too.
>
>>>It also
>>>served to make sure that AI was busy, and therefore not able to
>>>prevent Jasmine's holy birth.
>>
>>And yet when Jasmine was born they weren't busy but she still managed to
>>make it.
>
>No, Cordy had to get Connor to sacrifice a virgin to speed up
>delivery. Otherwise Angel would have killed both Cordy and, the as yet
>unborn, Jasmine.
What do you mean 'No' - did they or did they not make it? Jasmine was born. Yes
they had to act quickly near the end but they succeeded.
>
>>Even if it was necessary to keep them busy - Jasmine was a PTB and Cordy
>>was vision-gal - they could have kept AI busy with any number of wild
>>goose chases without endangering a single life.
>
>Your opinion. I think they would have noticed the bun soon enough. And
>it didn't take but an ep for Angel to decide what to do when he did
>find out about said bun.
And Cordy didn't have to hide the bun for more than an ep or two because of the
rate of growth.
>
>>>Your use of the word gratuituous is a
>>>value judgement that ignores the actual requirements of Jasmine's
>>>birth.
>>
>>I used the word I found appropriate. I remain unconvinced that the
>>deaths, bar one, were requirements of Jasmine's birth. If the story was
>>supposed to demonstrate that necessity - it failed.
>
>Your opinion, not mine.
Since I wrote it not you that's hardly surprising is it? :)
Shuggie
Firstly - Angelus wasn't necessary for the pregnancy so we can forget about him.
Secondly - all that Cordy had to do was to get on her own with Connor and
persuade him to sleep with her. She'd already got him on her own by moving out
of the Hyperion - and I'm amazed that anyone thinks it was necessary for there
to be a Rain of Fire to persuade a teenage boy to have sex with a beautiful
woman.
Shuggie
>
>Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>:>Worse? As a way of distracting AI, its excessive from a human
>:>perspective, but perfectly in line with what a God would be inclined
>:>to do.
>
>: Not the kind of god that Jasmine claimed she was.
>
>But Jasmine's a liar.
Exactly!
>
>:>What's a thousand people if it guarrantees Jasmine's glorious
>:>and triumphant entrance into the world?
>
>: It's still a thousand people that didn't need to die.
>
>But she's interested in the big picture, not individual lives, she said as
>much to Angel.
The big picture is made up of individual lives. Anyone who claims to care for
the world in general but doesn't have some regard for individual lives is either
lying or deluded.
>
>:>In fact, it makes for a rather
>:>spectacular entrance, and really what more could a god ask for or
>:>want?
>
>: Exactly, it was a gratuituous display of violence showing Jasmine's true
>: underlying nature.
>
>Correct.
>
That's all I'm saying :)
Kas
"Shuggie" <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bee1g...@drn.newsguy.com...
I wouldn't say Connor was dumb, infact considering he had never seen earth
before (enough so that when he first arrived he didnt even know what a car
was), and only ever had contact with 1 human being I would say he adapted to
the new environment rather well under the circumstances. In normal times the
AI team might have worked closer with him, taught him how they really are so
that maybe he would see the difference when cordie started manipulating him.
But they had more important things to worry about at the time - like the
prophecy's that were all pointing to the destruction of the earth, which if
it came true all the time in the world they spent with him wouldn't matter
after they were dead. He saw bits and pieces of them but he never had a
chance to know the "real" them, what he saw of cordie later on spending time
with JUST her getting to know her he thought was the "real" her because he
really didn't have a lot to compair it with because he never really had one
on one with any of them other then Angel for a bit of combat "training", I
never really saw any one sitting down and having a huge heart to heart with
him, they were always standoffish and often around him in two's..
Shuggie
>
>On 9 Jul 2003 02:41:54 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>The only problem I have with the story, as I said, was the rather
>>>dubious reason for releasing Angelus. But that was essential to remove
>>>Angel, who was the person most likely to pick up on what Cordy was
>>>doing.
>>>
>>
>>And as I said there are many ways to get rid of Angel without turning him into
>>Angelus. I can see how the events that Jasmine organised contribute to her plan
>>in the way you describe. I just don't see them as strictly necessary - which is
>>why I stand by my use of the word gratuitous.
>
>repeat myself, for it being a very logical, if complicated, course of
>action. The fact you would do it differently is really not the issue.
I didn't say I would do it differently, I said that there are other ways to do
it, the very fact of which means that a lot of what we saw was not strictly
necessary. Which was my original point. But since I don't really want to repeat
myself either I'll leave it at that.
>
>You're simply being an armchair quarterback, but I'm sure if you had
>written it, it would have been a better story.
It's disappointing that you feel the need to attack me. I can assure you that it
would not have been better if written by me, but that doesn't disqualify me from
having an opinion.
Also it seems you're assuming that because I used the word gratuitous about the
violence and mayhem, that I thought the story was bad. Nowhere in this thread,
or in this group for that matter, have I ever said that. I'm actually a big fan
of S4. It's true that I was less impressed with the Jasmine episodes but that's
for different reasons.
When I said that the violence was gratuitous I always assumed it was intended to
be so - because that's what evil creatures like the Beast and Angelus do. When
we discover it was Jasmine pulling the strings then it stood as an important
factor in what we know about her morally.
>Regardless I happen to
>like the one we got, except for Angel's motivation to release Angelus.
>
So, on the whole, do I.
Shawn H
: On 8 Jul 2003 21:57:00 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>But Jasmine's a liar.
: When exactly did she lie to anyone?
When she hid her true face.
Shawn
Shawn H
:>: Not the kind of god that Jasmine claimed she was.
:>
:>But Jasmine's a liar.
: Exactly!
:>But she's interested in the big picture, not individual lives, she said as
:>much to Angel.
: The big picture is made up of individual lives. Anyone who claims to care for
: the world in general but doesn't have some regard for individual lives is either
: lying or deluded.
Jasmine offered to bring peace to the majority, at the expense of the
minority she'd have to eat. And only as long as that majority worshipped
her.
:>:>In fact, it makes for a rather
:>:>spectacular entrance, and really what more could a god ask for or
:>:>want?
:>
:>: Exactly, it was a gratuituous display of violence showing Jasmine's true
:>: underlying nature.
:>
:>Correct.
:>
: That's all I'm saying :)
Cool!
Shawn
Hunter
says...
Then color me dumb then because at 18 I would most likely had done the
same. More like spectacularly horny. A beautiful, lucious babe like
Cordy being tender toward me and she is only about three or four years
older than myself? I would had lept at the chance, and I would not had
needed a feeling of deep hatred and resentment toward my father to do
so.
The Babaloughesian
"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:omgogvkeisrt2a4m9...@4ax.com...
>
Right before she had the guy burn to death in his own store, she lied to
him.
The Babaloughesian
"Dallas, November 22, 1963-there was no second gunman. Oswald acted alone."
Actually, come to think of it, that wasn't *right* before she let the
shopkeeper burn to death. There was a whole violent confrontation thing
first, but you get the picture. :)
--
"Everybody dies alone."
-Capt. Malcolm Reynolds; Firefly ep 1AGE07, "Out of Gas"
Shawn H
: On 9 Jul 2003 20:50:55 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>:>But Jasmine's a liar.
:>
:>: When exactly did she lie to anyone?
:>
:>When she hid her true face.
: So, when people wear cosmetic prosthetics, when women wear makeup,
: when people wear clothes, even.
: They are liars?
When they're covering up suppurating sores from which maggots ooze?
When they're touch can cause your own body to mutate, and their
blood can effect your mind? Kinda.
: Xander's eye patch makes him a liar?? Anyone who participates in
: halloween, or a costume party is a liar?
: I think you're stretching the definition beyond its reasonable scope.
I think you're missing the point by a mile. Jasmine wasn't just
cosmetically challenged. She was a demon pretending to be a goddess.
: Jasmine never uttered a falsehood that we know about, and that is
: generally what people refer to as a 'lie'. Hiding things is not lying,
: its hiding. She had every reason to believe people would judge her
: based on her appearance, and she was right.
She had every reason to want people to love her, because that fit in with
her plans. She knew, if they saw her real face, her plan would fail.
That's dishonest manipulation.
Shawn
madeupagin
> On 10 Jul 2003 14:39:13 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >: They are liars?
> >
> >When they're covering up suppurating sores from which maggots ooze?
> >When they're touch can cause your own body to mutate, and their
> >blood can effect your mind? Kinda.
>
> 'lying' so you are wrong. Hiding ones looks his HIDING ONES LOOKS, its
> not lying. If Jasmine had said something that she knew was untrue,
> that would be a lie.
>
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German
liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Number 2 pretty much wipes out your theory --
lying is not just what you SAY it's the impression you give. You can
definitely lie by omission. You can lie by the tone of your voice. Number 2
doesn't say what you do to make the false or misleading impression has to be
done orally -- only that you create that impression.
"[C]overing up suppurating sores from which maggots ooze?"
Would DEFINITELY fall into the lying category.
Tere
Shawn H
: On 10 Jul 2003 14:39:13 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>: They are liars?
:>
:>When they're covering up suppurating sores from which maggots ooze?
:>When they're touch can cause your own body to mutate, and their
:>blood can effect your mind? Kinda.
: You are not describing something that is generally referred to as
: 'lying' so you are wrong. Hiding ones looks his HIDING ONES LOOKS, its
I'm not describing something that generally happens in the real world,
yet happen in Angel it did, and we have to translate it from those terms.
Hiding one's looks for nefarious purposes seems like lying to me.
: not lying. If Jasmine had said something that she knew was untrue,
: that would be a lie.
I really find this a strange semantic stumbling block for you. Lying
isn't only words; it can be actions (or even inaction) as well.
:>I think you're missing the point by a mile. Jasmine wasn't just
:>cosmetically challenged. She was a demon pretending to be a goddess.
: Really? Please quote the scene where we find out Jasmine is a demon.
: All indications I have seen point to her being one of the powers that
: be, or something like them.
Not a very good one. When I think Goddess I think of something other than
evil.
:>She had every reason to want people to love her, because that fit in with
:>her plans. She knew, if they saw her real face, her plan would fail.
:>That's dishonest manipulation.
: Ok, manipulation is not lying, hiding is not lying. Now you threw in
: the word 'dishonest', but you still haven't justified it. Maybe if you
: described 'honest manipulation' things would be more clear.
Is there such a thing? If you're being honest with someone, why would you
have to manipulate them?
: You seem to want to call Jasmine a liar because you disagree with her,
: but you have yet to show one instance of her actually lying to anyone.
Do you agree with her? HER ENTIRE LIFE on Earth WAS A LIE! She promised
world peace, but it was a ruse for her plan of world domination.
: She was in fact completely open with Connor about her food
: requirements. She could have lied. No one else really bothered to ask
: her, some worshipped her, some tried to destroy her. If you have a
They couldn't even think of asking her, because they were under the same
manipulative spell (charm/enchantment/trick/lie) that made her seem
attractive and beautiful.
Connor was not under that spell, being her father. She tried to lie to
him as well, but found she didn't have to; he liked her as she really
was, without the tricks.
: quote that actually shows she lied, thats one thing, I would actually
: be interested in seeing it, but if all you have is 'she wasn't
: completely open about herself', well sorry, but that ain't lying.
I'm sorry, "not completely open" falls far short in describing a woman
who absorbs people by the hundreds as food (while making them think she's
giving them a great honor), uses her hypnotic powers to get her way and
route out her enemies, and is actually an evil demon from another
dimension looking for a new world to conquer.
Shawn
Lord Usher
news:bel6oc$asv$9...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
>:>I think you're missing the point by a mile. Jasmine wasn't just
>:>cosmetically challenged. She was a demon pretending to be a goddess.
>
>: Really? Please quote the scene where we find out Jasmine is a demon.
>: All indications I have seen point to her being one of the powers that
>: be, or something like them.
>
> Not a very good one. When I think Goddess I think of something other
> than evil.
Um... Glory?
I defy you to provide *one* shred of evidence to suggest that Buffyverse
gods and goddesses cannot turn to evil.
I really don't understand why so many fans are reluctant to accept the
explanation for Jasmine's origins that was presented on screen and never
contradicted in any way -- that Jasmine was a rogue Power That Be who
grew tired of watching the chaos on Earth and came down to impose her
version of a Paradise.
It's a very simply explanation and it makes perfect sense in light of
everything Jasmine did once she was free of the Cordemon; why look a
gift horse in the mouth?
>: You seem to want to call Jasmine a liar because you disagree with
>: her, but you have yet to show one instance of her actually lying to
>: anyone.
>
> Do you agree with her? HER ENTIRE LIFE on Earth WAS A LIE! She
> promised world peace, but it was a ruse for her plan of world
> domination.
No, she promised world peace and that's exactly what she would have
provided. It was world peace at the cost of free will and thousand of
lives, but that doesn't make her promise any less genuine.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bel6oc$asv$9...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
:> Not a very good one. When I think Goddess I think of something other
:> than evil.
: Um... Glory?
Yeah, that's why I said "when I think." I see Jasmine as a demon. She had
all the trappings, including the world she came from. I know Glory was a
god, albeit an evil/amoral one.
: I defy you to provide *one* shred of evidence to suggest that Buffyverse
: gods and goddesses cannot turn to evil.
I won't bother. I'll even go futher; it says some start out that way.
Me, I call bad gods demons.
: I really don't understand why so many fans are reluctant to accept the
: explanation for Jasmine's origins that was presented on screen and never
: contradicted in any way -- that Jasmine was a rogue Power That Be who
: grew tired of watching the chaos on Earth and came down to impose her
: version of a Paradise.
Because she was also presented as a voracious user who only went looking
once her previous world was all dried up and husky?
: It's a very simply explanation and it makes perfect sense in light of
: everything Jasmine did once she was free of the Cordemon; why look a
: gift horse in the mouth?
Because it's actually a walking talking corpse?
:> Do you agree with her? HER ENTIRE LIFE on Earth WAS A LIE! She
:> promised world peace, but it was a ruse for her plan of world
:> domination.
: No, she promised world peace and that's exactly what she would have
: provided. It was world peace at the cost of free will and thousand of
: lives, but that doesn't make her promise any less genuine.
Or any more desirable. She presented it as a valid answer. As an
improvement. It wasn't. And she didn't really want to help. She wanted
worship, most of all.
Shawn
xfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxf
"I'm fine, Agent Doggett."
-- dana
xfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxffxfx
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
AE Jabbour
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
> : news:bel6oc$asv$9...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
>
> :> Not a very good one. When I think Goddess I think of something other
> :> than evil.
>
> : Um... Glory?
>
> Yeah, that's why I said "when I think." I see Jasmine as a demon. She had
> all the trappings, including the world she came from. I know Glory was a
> god, albeit an evil/amoral one.
Glory was a god, yes. She was also Evil. And why, when you think of
the word Goddess, do you immediately assosciate it with good? There
are many, many examples of evil goddesses in our own pantheons, let
alone in a fictional universe where it has explicitly been stated that
evil ones exist.
> : I defy you to provide *one* shred of evidence to suggest that Buffyverse
> : gods and goddesses cannot turn to evil.
>
> I won't bother. I'll even go futher; it says some start out that way.
> Me, I call bad gods demons.
But, see, if you call bad gods demons, then it becomes almost impossible
to have a discussion on the subject. If we can't at least come to
some agreement on vocabulary, then further discussion is futile.
I can go around calling my laptop a toaster, but then it's going to
be very difficult to communicate with the rest of the world. And in
any philosophical discussion, agreement on the meaning of terms is
of paramount importance; even more than in regular expression.
> : I really don't understand why so many fans are reluctant to accept the
> : explanation for Jasmine's origins that was presented on screen and never
> : contradicted in any way -- that Jasmine was a rogue Power That Be who
> : grew tired of watching the chaos on Earth and came down to impose her
> : version of a Paradise.
>
> Because she was also presented as a voracious user who only went looking
> once her previous world was all dried up and husky?
Oh, and no gods, even in our own pantheons and myths have ever been
like *that*. So what if she was a "user"? That doesn't in any
way undermine what the show itself implied. Her being a "user"
and her wanting to come to Earth, as a rogue power, to enforce her
own brand of paradise and peace are *not* mutually exclusive.
> : It's a very simply explanation and it makes perfect sense in light of
> : everything Jasmine did once she was free of the Cordemon; why look a
> : gift horse in the mouth?
>
> Because it's actually a walking talking corpse?
Hmm.
> :> Do you agree with her? HER ENTIRE LIFE on Earth WAS A LIE! She
> :> promised world peace, but it was a ruse for her plan of world
> :> domination.
>
> : No, she promised world peace and that's exactly what she would have
> : provided. It was world peace at the cost of free will and thousand of
> : lives, but that doesn't make her promise any less genuine.
>
> Or any more desirable. She presented it as a valid answer. As an
> improvement. It wasn't. And she didn't really want to help. She wanted
> worship, most of all.
Yes, and again, we don't any gods who want worship most of all,
do we? Come on. That's practically the textbook definition of
a divine entity.
And Jasmine's plan was genuine. I have no reason to believe
that she didn't feel she could improve on the situation on
Earth. Augustus felt that he could improve on the situation
in Rome. Jasmine felt that she could bring Peace and
Unity and Togetherness. There was a cost. There is *always*
a cost. Whether the Peace was worth the cost is a different
discussion. But to say that because there was a cost, there
was no offer of Peace is to completely ignore what happened.
--
AE Jabbour
"Angel, it wasn't for her. It's because I trust you.
Well, more than three gun-toting maniacs at any rate."
Wesley Wyndham-Price
Shuggie
>
>
>I really don't understand why so many fans are reluctant to accept the
>explanation for Jasmine's origins that was presented on screen and never
>contradicted in any way -- that Jasmine was a rogue Power That Be who
>grew tired of watching the chaos on Earth and came down to impose her
>version of a Paradise.
For the record I don't have a problem with this characterization of events. I'd
probably put emphasis on the words "rogue", "impose" and "her version" but
basically I'd agree.
<snip>
>No, she promised world peace and that's exactly what she would have
>provided. It was world peace at the cost of free will and thousand of
>lives, but that doesn't make her promise any less genuine.
I think there's a genuine issue of credibility here. Jasmine may well be sincere
in that she believes that what she's doing is for the best, and that she fully
intends, at the moment, to deliver on her promises - but we know enough about
her to seriously doubt whether she will.
She's incredibly indifferent to individual human life. Even if you don't accept
my case that most of the deaths she caused are unnecessary, then there's the
fact that she can move from "I love you" to "you're in the way of my plan and
must therefore die" in a heartbeat with not so much as a flicker of conscience
or concern.
She's also capricious. When her plan failed her response was not to take up
Angel's offer to help make the world a better place but to wipe out humanity. On
bug-world things didn't work out her way so she just left.
I find her lack of care about individual life and her petulance in the face of
set-backs to be a deeply scary combination given her powers. That's why I don't
trust her promise - even if she's self-deluded enough to believe it herself.
I actually think that Jasmine likes the idea of a world of peace and harmony,
with her in charge, but that's not necessarily the same as actually caring about
humanity's happiness. She just wants the chaos to go away.
Shawn H
: On 11 Jul 2003 03:41:33 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>Or any more desirable. She presented it as a valid answer.
: And the W&H 'answer' is somehow more valid, because in the end, thats
: the 'improvement' that Angel chose.
Angel chose free will and self-determination.
:> As an
:>improvement. It wasn't.
: World peace, heaven on earth, peace of mind and body....yeah thats
: gotta suck.
When personal desire, aspiration, family loyalty, valued ethics and
morality and even individuality itself are gone? Yes, that would suck.
Jasmine was offering "heaven on earth" by making us less than human.
:>And she didn't really want to help. She wanted
:>worship, most of all.
: And how does that make her 'notagod'?
Because she had to deceive to get it.
Shawn
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> : Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
:> : news:bel6oc$asv$9...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
:>
:> :> Not a very good one. When I think Goddess I think of something other
:> :> than evil.
:>
:> : Um... Glory?
:>
:> Yeah, that's why I said "when I think." I see Jasmine as a demon. She had
:> all the trappings, including the world she came from. I know Glory was a
:> god, albeit an evil/amoral one.
: Glory was a god, yes. She was also Evil. And why, when you think of
: the word Goddess, do you immediately assosciate it with good? There
: are many, many examples of evil goddesses in our own pantheons, let
: alone in a fictional universe where it has explicitly been stated that
: evil ones exist.
Thanks for bringing the discussion out of the strict world of the show and
into our own perceived attitudes and beliefs somewhat. I don't think of
Evil Goddesses when I think of the pantheons I know. Goddesses of
Destruction, yes, of Death and War, yes. But their concerns are such
august reflections of ours, I'm not sure if they can be called good or
evil. More like amoral, on a grander plane.
They can be deadly, in other words, because their rules are not our
own. But can they really enjoy hurting us as much as Glory did?
I suppose, put that way, Jasmine can be seen as a death goddess; her evil
was in presenting herself as something else.
:> : I defy you to provide *one* shred of evidence to suggest that Buffyverse
:> : gods and goddesses cannot turn to evil.
:>
:> I won't bother. I'll even go futher; it says some start out that way.
:> Me, I call bad gods demons.
: But, see, if you call bad gods demons, then it becomes almost impossible
: to have a discussion on the subject. If we can't at least come to
: some agreement on vocabulary, then further discussion is futile.
Is there any reason not to call a bad god a demon? Is it so outside of
even the Buffyverse lexicon? The troll god seemed demonic. Anyanka seemed
to have god-like powers. She could alter reality.
: I can go around calling my laptop a toaster, but then it's going to
: be very difficult to communicate with the rest of the world. And in
: any philosophical discussion, agreement on the meaning of terms is
: of paramount importance; even more than in regular expression.
But there's more of a connection between the concepts of god and demon
than there is between laptops and toaster, even if we get down to
functionality.
:> Because she was also presented as a voracious user who only went looking
:> once her previous world was all dried up and husky?
: Oh, and no gods, even in our own pantheons and myths have ever been
: like *that*. So what if she was a "user"? That doesn't in any
: way undermine what the show itself implied. Her being a "user"
: and her wanting to come to Earth, as a rogue power, to enforce her
: own brand of paradise and peace are *not* mutually exclusive.
But it's also not a real paradisal peace.
:> : No, she promised world peace and that's exactly what she would have
:> : provided. It was world peace at the cost of free will and thousand of
:> : lives, but that doesn't make her promise any less genuine.
:>
:> Or any more desirable. She presented it as a valid answer. As an
:> improvement. It wasn't. And she didn't really want to help. She wanted
:> worship, most of all.
: Yes, and again, we don't any gods who want worship most of all,
: do we? Come on. That's practically the textbook definition of
: a divine entity.
They receive worship without asking for it, due to the roles they play
in human affairs, and they deserve it. Did Jasmine deserve it?
: And Jasmine's plan was genuine. I have no reason to believe
: that she didn't feel she could improve on the situation on
: Earth. Augustus felt that he could improve on the situation
: in Rome. Jasmine felt that she could bring Peace and
: Unity and Togetherness. There was a cost. There is *always*
: a cost. Whether the Peace was worth the cost is a different
: discussion. But to say that because there was a cost, there
: was no offer of Peace is to completely ignore what happened.
It was a cost no reasonable person would consent to. Jasmine had bypassed
consent altogether. It was a cost only being paid because Jasmine had
mystical powers of persuasion. When a god tricks us into doing what it
wants, it's lying. And what kinds of supernatural beings trick us
regularly into self-betrayal? Demons.
Shawn
Shawn H
: On 11 Jul 2003 02:17:48 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>I'm not describing something that generally happens in the real world,
:>yet happen in Angel it did, and we have to translate it from those terms.
:>Hiding one's looks for nefarious purposes seems like lying to me.
: One can tell the complete and honest truth for nefarious purposes.
And in that case one is still lying about their intent.
: All I'm saying is that reaction does not justify calling her a liar,
: which is much more specific. Its not just about appearances, its about
: specific intent. One can be hide oneself without lying, one can alter
: one's appearance without being a liar.
Jasmine's intent, however, was nefarious.
: Well if you see it as semantic then you are ignoring the common use of
: the word. There are certainly those who will use it as you describe,
: but if you do, you label 'everyone' a liar and then the word has no
: meaning whatever. For me its not semantic its an essential distinction
: in meaning. You may think everyone in the world is a liar, I don't.
I do think everyone lies at one time or another; I'm not sure why that
makes the act itself indistinguishable from other acts.
:>Is there such a thing? If you're being honest with someone, why would you
:>have to manipulate them?
: have to? Not sure I understand that.
: I see no required relation between honesty or dishonesty and
: manipulation.
: You used the negative 'dishonesty' to modify 'manipulation', so unless
: you were simply being redundant to provide emphasis, one should be
: able to have honest manipulation.
I suppose that is possible; or at least benevolently intended
manipulation, as in training or education.
: In this case, either is simply a tool of the manipulator. Parents
: manipulate their children with offers of rewards, there is no
: dishonesty there, and hopefully no malicious intent. Parents can also
: LIE to their children, and use a LIE to manipulate them.
Which kind did Jasmine do?
:>Do you agree with her? HER ENTIRE LIFE on Earth WAS A LIE! She promised
:>world peace, but it was a ruse for her plan of world domination.
: Since Jasmine dominating the world, would bring world peace, I see no
: lie. You are somehow equating freedom with peace. Jasmine never
: promised freedom, except freedom from pain, unhappiness etc...
Happiness brought about by mind control and at the cost of personal
freedom is not something most people would recognize as happiness. She
didn't give anyone a choice.
:>They couldn't even think of asking her, because they were under the same
:>manipulative spell (charm/enchantment/trick/lie) that made her seem
:>attractive and beautiful.
: So you are saying since she didnt have to lie, she lied?
I'm saying she manipulated events so that her lies looked like truth.
:>Connor was not under that spell, being her father. She tried to lie to
:>him as well, but found she didn't have to; he liked her as she really
:>was, without the tricks.
: When did she lie to Connor?
She wasn't aware, at first, that he accepted her as she was.
:>I'm sorry, "not completely open" falls far short in describing a woman
:>who absorbs people by the hundreds as food (while making them think she's
:>giving them a great honor),
: Being one with your god IS a great honor. Giving one's life for one's
: god IS a great honor. Sacrificing oneself to one's god IS a great
: honor. In most religions achieving such things is highly desired.
By people who choose whom they worship.
: You may not approve, which is your right, but that don't change nutin.
Jasmine's wasn't really their god, because they didn't really know
Jasmine.
:>uses her hypnotic powers to get her way and
:>route out her enemies, and is actually an evil demon from another
:>dimension looking for a new world to conquer.
: Again I ask you to show us where Jasmine is shown to be a demon and
: not a god.
By her actions.
Shawn
Shawn H
:>: And the W&H 'answer' is somehow more valid, because in the end, thats
:>: the 'improvement' that Angel chose.
:>
:>Angel chose free will and self-determination.
: Which is something YOU value over world peace. I get it. But there are
: lots of people however, who would rather see their children grow up
: happy in a peaceful world, with a nominally benign deity in charge.
: Angel's 'choice' was not without its price, in both death and
: suffering. People WILL suffer, they WILL die because Jasmine is not
: around, and more people than if she was.
I really doubt that there are "lots of people" who would trade peace for
subservience to any sort of diety, however "nominally benign." She
collapsed human distance and strife by erasing human difference,
individuality, heritage and history. That's a might big tradeoff.
People would have suffered without her interference, but at least they
would have been capable of learning from their mistakes.
:>: World peace, heaven on earth, peace of mind and body....yeah thats
:>: gotta suck.
:>
:>When personal desire, aspiration, family loyalty, valued ethics and
:>morality and even individuality itself are gone? Yes, that would suck.
:>Jasmine was offering "heaven on earth" by making us less than human.
: Human meaning: violent, selfish, greedy, and alienated.
That's a mighty dim, and terribly one-sided, view to take of humanity.
:>Because she had to deceive to get it.
: She merely had to be born to get it. In their hearts that is what
: people wanted. Even the AI crew missed 'it' when it was gone, and so
: did everyone else who had it.
I miss the booze when I'm not drinking, but that doesn't mean I should
open a fresh bottle.
: I think you are either intentionally oversimplifying because you want
: the W&H 'answer' for yourself, or you simply missed the very ambiguous
: end to the season.
I saw the W&H "answer" as a completely new direction (if I know what
you're referring to) unrelated to Jasmine's demise; I have yet to know
whether it will be positive or negative. As it doesn't involve, at this
point, world domination, I don't think it's even comparable to Jasmine's
plan.
: Either way, thats your choice. But, imo, Jasmine really WAS offering
: something amazing. Everthing has its price.
And everything has it's value. Jasmine's offer was a bad deal.
Shawn
AE Jabbour
> Thanks for bringing the discussion out of the strict world of the show and
> into our own perceived attitudes and beliefs somewhat. I don't think of
> Evil Goddesses when I think of the pantheons I know. Goddesses of
> Destruction, yes, of Death and War, yes. But their concerns are such
> august reflections of ours, I'm not sure if they can be called good or
> evil. More like amoral, on a grander plane.
>
> They can be deadly, in other words, because their rules are not our
> own. But can they really enjoy hurting us as much as Glory did?
>
> I suppose, put that way, Jasmine can be seen as a death goddess; her evil
> was in presenting herself as something else.
Well, then you are proposing a completely different and atypical
way of interpreting both our mythos in this world, and the more
exlipicit elements of the Buffyverse.
I don't think, given the basic sophistry of your arguments, that we
can possibly have a productive discussion on this matter.
[snip]
> It was a cost no reasonable person would consent to. Jasmine had bypassed
> consent altogether. It was a cost only being paid because Jasmine had
> mystical powers of persuasion. When a god tricks us into doing what it
> wants, it's lying. And what kinds of supernatural beings trick us
> regularly into self-betrayal? Demons.
>
> Shawn
Who cares if any reasonable person would consent to it? Since when
is the interaction between mortal and god about reasonable consent?
And gods trick people into doing what they want all the time. There
are even gods whose entire raison d'etre is deceit, mischief, discord,
lies, etc.
Shawn H
:> They can be deadly, in other words, because their rules are not our
:> own. But can they really enjoy hurting us as much as Glory did?
:>
:> I suppose, put that way, Jasmine can be seen as a death goddess; her evil
:> was in presenting herself as something else.
: Well, then you are proposing a completely different and atypical
: way of interpreting both our mythos in this world, and the more
: exlipicit elements of the Buffyverse.
I don't really find my words or my choices to be all that atypical, unless
you believe in one monolythic interpretation of either goddesses or Buffy
itself.
: I don't think, given the basic sophistry of your arguments, that we
: can possibly have a productive discussion on this matter.
Of course you must choose what works for you.
:> It was a cost no reasonable person would consent to. Jasmine had bypassed
:> consent altogether. It was a cost only being paid because Jasmine had
:> mystical powers of persuasion. When a god tricks us into doing what it
:> wants, it's lying. And what kinds of supernatural beings trick us
:> regularly into self-betrayal? Demons.
: Who cares if any reasonable person would consent to it? Since when
: is the interaction between mortal and god about reasonable consent?
When it's a demon?
: And gods trick people into doing what they want all the time. There
: are even gods whose entire raison d'etre is deceit, mischief, discord,
: lies, etc.
Do we think of them as saviours out to better the world?
Shawn
AE Jabbour
> AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : Who cares if any reasonable person would consent to it? Since when
> : is the interaction between mortal and god about reasonable consent?
>
> When it's a demon?
Huh? What I am asking is when is a god concerned with informed
consent? In what mythology is there a clause about waivers?
Gods do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they
want. They are not bound by whether you or I am informed about
what they are doing? Were the first born of Egypt asked about
how they felt? No, they were slaughtered. Were all of Zeus'
conquests given some sort of form to sign, to see if they understood
that they were about to raped? I don't think so.
And why would no "reasonable person" consent to it?
> : And gods trick people into doing what they want all the time. There
> : are even gods whose entire raison d'etre is deceit, mischief, discord,
> : lies, etc.
>
> Do we think of them as saviours out to better the world?
>
> Shawn
Yes, often. Hell, Hathor was revered, and she tried to destroy all
of Mankind.
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:> AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> : Who cares if any reasonable person would consent to it? Since when
:> : is the interaction between mortal and god about reasonable consent?
:>
:> When it's a demon?
: Gods do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they
: want. They are not bound by whether you or I am informed about
: what they are doing? Were the first born of Egypt asked about
: how they felt? No, they were slaughtered. Were all of Zeus'
Their people were given a choice, God warned them through his agent, and
they refused to hear. Humanity's gods don't just do whatever they want;
omnipotent as they are, they are bound by rules, goals, duties and even
by the prayers of their people.
Gods perform functions. Jasmine's function wasn't as she presented it.
: conquests given some sort of form to sign, to see if they understood
: that they were about to raped? I don't think so.
Yes, they were acting for their own ends, irrespective of the pain it
would cause. But were they also telling their victims this was the road
to peace and everlasting happiness. We're they deceptive, or were they
nakedly capricious and selfish. Did they have to play the games Jasmine
played to get their way?
: And why would no "reasonable person" consent to it?
Because it's only an illusory boon.
:> Do we think of them as saviours out to better the world?
: Yes, often. Hell, Hathor was revered, and she tried to destroy all
: of Mankind.
In one of her dark, mad aspects, related to a drive for vengeance; she
spent most of her time in far more light-aspected, benevolent and fertile
roles.
Shawn
Shawn H
: On 11 Jul 2003 20:42:47 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>People would have suffered without her interference, but at least they
:>would have been capable of learning from their mistakes.
: Personal growth is not one of the things Jasmine offered.
I know. That's one of my biggest problems with her.
:>: Human meaning: violent, selfish, greedy, and alienated.
:>
:>That's a mighty dim, and terribly one-sided, view to take of humanity.
: And yet accurate as it relates to what Jasmine offered to humankind.
It's how she saw things; but was she right?
:>: She merely had to be born to get it. In their hearts that is what
:>: people wanted. Even the AI crew missed 'it' when it was gone, and so
:>: did everyone else who had it.
:>
:>I miss the booze when I'm not drinking, but that doesn't mean I should
:>open a fresh bottle.
: You are trying to derive an ought from an is. Should and want are not
: the same. You think people should.....whatever. That is your opinion.
: It is however not relevant here.
What else is? And I think the text substantiates this opinion; what the
crew felt when Jasmine's love was withdrawn was an almost-physical
depression, exactly like a body coping with a drug addiction.
:>I saw the W&H "answer" as a completely new direction (if I know what
:>you're referring to) unrelated to Jasmine's demise; I have yet to know
:>whether it will be positive or negative. As it doesn't involve, at this
:>point, world domination, I don't think it's even comparable to Jasmine's
:>plan.
: The W&H 'answer' was a return to 'freedom', in other words, business
: as usual.
Not for the AI team, know, they've opened all-new doors of temptation.
But for the world at large, yes, back to normal.
:>: Either way, thats your choice. But, imo, Jasmine really WAS offering
:>: something amazing. Everthing has its price.
:>
:>And everything has it's value. Jasmine's offer was a bad deal.
: Your opinion. You obviously don't share a faith in a god, but see your
: desire for 'autonomy' as paramount. Jasmine offered peace and divine
: direction. She never claimed to offer what you apparently 'want'.
: Again, she never lied.
I'm sorry that's so obvious, since it's not true. I have faith. But my
god doesn't resemble Jasmine.
Shawn
AE Jabbour
> AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> :> AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :> : Who cares if any reasonable person would consent to it? Since when
> :> : is the interaction between mortal and god about reasonable consent?
> :>
> :> When it's a demon?
>
> : Gods do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they
> : want. They are not bound by whether you or I am informed about
> : what they are doing? Were the first born of Egypt asked about
> : how they felt? No, they were slaughtered. Were all of Zeus'
>
> Their people were given a choice, God warned them through his agent, and
> they refused to hear. Humanity's gods don't just do whatever they want;
> omnipotent as they are, they are bound by rules, goals, duties and even
> by the prayers of their people.
Bullshit. The Pharoah was informed through God's agent. Some child
sitting around in the imperial city, playing a game, was never
imformed, by anyone, at anytime.
> Gods perform functions. Jasmine's function wasn't as she presented it.
It was exactly as she presented it. It just had a different cost from
what people might want to pay.
> : conquests given some sort of form to sign, to see if they understood
> : that they were about to raped? I don't think so.
>
> Yes, they were acting for their own ends, irrespective of the pain it
> would cause. But were they also telling their victims this was the road
> to peace and everlasting happiness. We're they deceptive, or were they
> nakedly capricious and selfish. Did they have to play the games Jasmine
> played to get their way?
Umm ... pretending you are a swan? Changing Io into a heifer to
fool Hera? Etc. Come on! You act as if the stories of the
gods are stories of honesty, forthrightness, etc. One of the
problems many have had with Jasmine is that she covered her
actual appearance. Well, ask Leda about that.
> : And why would no "reasonable person" consent to it?
>
> Because it's only an illusory boon.
No.
You keep saying this. And it simply is not true. It is
real peace, real avoidance of pain. People were actually
happy. Whether or not they wanted to pay the cost is
a totally different question.
> :> Do we think of them as saviours out to better the world?
>
> : Yes, often. Hell, Hathor was revered, and she tried to destroy all
> : of Mankind.
>
> In one of her dark, mad aspects, related to a drive for vengeance; she
> spent most of her time in far more light-aspected, benevolent and fertile
> roles.
>
> Shawn
And your point is?
Hathor, at one time, set out to destroy mankind, and almost
succeeded. Later, she was revered. Obviously, people don't
really hold that against her.
himiko
> st <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>: Either way, thats your choice. But, imo, Jasmine really WAS offering
> :>: something amazing. Everthing has its price.
> :>
> :>And everything has it's value. Jasmine's offer was a bad deal.
>
> : Your opinion. You obviously don't share a faith in a god, but see your
> : desire for 'autonomy' as paramount. Jasmine offered peace and divine
> : direction. She never claimed to offer what you apparently 'want'.
> : Again, she never lied.
>
> I'm sorry that's so obvious, since it's not true. I have faith. But my
> god doesn't resemble Jasmine.
>
life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
alternatives.
Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
be mutually incompatible.
This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
As I recall, we had the same problem with S5 of BTVS. People kept
claiming Glory couldn't really be a "god" because she was evil and/or
from hell. There seems to be something about the word "god" that sets
people off in a way "vampires" or even "demons" doesn't. "Gods" in
the Buffyverse are just another subset of fictional beings.
himiko
AE Jabbour
> And I think you and a large number of others are letting your real
> life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
> god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
> a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
> of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
> alternatives.
> himiko
Oh my god, Himiko, we agree on something! I am not sure waht
to do!
*laugh*
Honestly, I couldn't agree more. And really, that scares
me. :)
Shawn H
:> : Gods do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they
:> : want. They are not bound by whether you or I am informed about
:> : what they are doing? Were the first born of Egypt asked about
:> : how they felt? No, they were slaughtered. Were all of Zeus'
:>
:> Their people were given a choice, God warned them through his agent, and
:> they refused to hear. Humanity's gods don't just do whatever they want;
:> omnipotent as they are, they are bound by rules, goals, duties and even
:> by the prayers of their people.
: Bullshit. The Pharoah was informed through God's agent. Some child
: sitting around in the imperial city, playing a game, was never
: imformed, by anyone, at anytime.
That was a very different world than now. The Pharoah himself was a god by
the definitions of the time. Why should we let Jasmine return us to a
pre-historic state?
:> Gods perform functions. Jasmine's function wasn't as she presented it.
: It was exactly as she presented it. It just had a different cost from
: what people might want to pay.
Did she present that part?
:> Yes, they were acting for their own ends, irrespective of the pain it
:> would cause. But were they also telling their victims this was the road
:> to peace and everlasting happiness. We're they deceptive, or were they
:> nakedly capricious and selfish. Did they have to play the games Jasmine
:> played to get their way?
: Umm ... pretending you are a swan? Changing Io into a heifer to
: fool Hera? Etc. Come on! You act as if the stories of the
: gods are stories of honesty, forthrightness, etc. One of the
: problems many have had with Jasmine is that she covered her
: actual appearance. Well, ask Leda about that.
They were hiding being gods. They weren't hiding being dessicated lumps of
stinking flesh.
:> : And why would no "reasonable person" consent to it?
:>
:> Because it's only an illusory boon.
: No.
: You keep saying this. And it simply is not true. It is
: real peace, real avoidance of pain. People were actually
: happy. Whether or not they wanted to pay the cost is
: a totally different question.
They were happy because Jasmine's spell on them gauranteed it. But they
were being fooled; her spell was an illusion, a charm, obscuring the truth
rather than revealing it.
:> :> Do we think of them as saviours out to better the world?
:>
:> : Yes, often. Hell, Hathor was revered, and she tried to destroy all
:> : of Mankind.
:>
:> In one of her dark, mad aspects, related to a drive for vengeance; she
:> spent most of her time in far more light-aspected, benevolent and fertile
:> roles.
: And your point is?
: Hathor, at one time, set out to destroy mankind, and almost
: succeeded. Later, she was revered. Obviously, people don't
: really hold that against her.
She was revered before, too. I suppose Jasmine could have redeemed herself
and stopped acting in vengeance at the end; but thankfully Connor didn't
give her the chance.
Shawn
himiko
> himiko <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
> > And I think you and a large number of others are letting your real
> > life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
> > god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
> > a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
> > of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
> > alternatives.
>
> > himiko
>
> Oh my god, Himiko, we agree on something! I am not sure waht
> to do!
>
> *laugh*
>
> Honestly, I couldn't agree more. And really, that scares
> me. :)
Me too.
himiko
Shawn
>
> As I recall, we had the same problem with S5 of BTVS. People kept
> claiming Glory couldn't really be a "god" because she was evil and/or
> from hell. There seems to be something about the word "god" that sets
> people off in a way "vampires" or even "demons" doesn't. "Gods" in
> the Buffyverse are just another subset of fictional beings.
>
Oh, here you are, I found it on google if not on my regular server.
I didn't get into those discussions about Glory, because I could
accept her as some sort of incomprehensible "god" forced into a human
form and onto a human plane she detested.
But she wasn't like Jasmine, offering anything good to anyone, or even
concerned about human affairs in the slightest. She was different,
capricious, selfish, driven. She may have been hideous to our eyes,
but she had become human, and hated every second of it. She convinced
me she was a god because of her power.
Jasmine, however, claimed to understand us, to feel what we felt. She
claimed to empathize with our pain, and to desire to end it. She
claimed to long for order, and to desire to make it in the world
around her.
And it turned out she had very little power at all. Angel undid her
with a word, and that word was signified as her real name, as the
truth that revealed all of her lies in an instant. The truth she was
struggling fervently to hide.
The Angelverse signified her as demonic in ways that the Buffyverse
did not the sexy, satin-draped, high-heel-loving Glory. Glory glowed
like her namesake, brighter and hotter than we could stand; but
Jasmine, that's a night-scented smell, wafting in from the garden with
mystery and exotic hints of mischeif. Those soft fabrics she wore, her
grand plans to lead us, seduce us and use us were all too evident. And
what did she do at any point besides try to curry favor (and deceive
and manipulate people and events) to get her way? She wasn't
indifferent to us, because she needed us so desperately.
Her lie was that we needed her even more.
Shawn
Shawn H
: AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<beusp7$8m4ns$1...@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>...
:> himiko <him...@animail.net> wrote:
:>
:> > And I think you and a large number of others are letting your real
:> > life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
:> > god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
:> > a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
:> > of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
:> > alternatives.
:>
:> > himiko
Himiko, I never saw your first message for some reason: who's missing the
point again, me or AE?
Because while I don't think Jasmine is good or a god, I do think the
point was clearly in favor of our hard cruel lives as preferable to what
she offered.
Shawn
Shuggie
says...
>
>And I think you and a large number of others are letting your real
>life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
>god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
>a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
>of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
>alternatives.
>
I think you're insulting people's intelligence if you think they can't
distinguish the ways in which Jasmine is different from the god they believe in.
In fact, if a person is religious then they'll know a great deal about their
god, so the ways in which Jasmine doesn't conform which stand out all the more.
>Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
>another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
>want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
>personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
>be mutually incompatible.
>
>This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
>with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
>
Nothing to do with real faith? Several libraries' worth of books have been
written on the topic of Free Will vs Divine Predestination - which is what
you're describing. Whole movements and denominations have been born because they
disagree slightly on how to reconcile, or at least try to balance, these
opposing concepts.
Far from having "nothing to do with real faith or lack of it", this is either an
issue one must grapple with or, often, a stumbling block that prevents faith. It
has *everything* to do with real faith and the lack of it.
As for the "Buffyverse mythos and message", which would appear to be "Free Will
is more important than Happiness" - well that's an important idea, but it's not
particularly novel and I can't see what you think sets it so apart from ideas
about faith. I'm not saying it *only* has to do with ideas about faith but to
say it has nothing to do with that is ridiculous.
himiko
> In article <c7902983.03071...@posting.google.com>, him...@animail.net
> says...
> >
>
> >And I think you and a large number of others are letting your real
> >life faith in a god-who-is good blind you to the entirely fictional
> >god-who-is good that Jasmine was. And so you're missing the point of
> >a very good story that is entirely in line with ME's usual depiction
> >of human life as hard and cruel, but still better than the
> >alternatives.
> >
>
> I think you're insulting people's intelligence if you think they can't
> distinguish the ways in which Jasmine is different from the god they believe in.
> In fact, if a person is religious then they'll know a great deal about their
> god, so the ways in which Jasmine doesn't conform which stand out all the more.
Which is precisely my point. Jasmine does not conform to any
Judeo-Christian concept of a deity. She is more in line with a whole
mess of pagan deities, however, and there's some SF added. Those
stuck on a single concept of what a "good god" is, however, keep
harping on how she isn't like that concept and therefore not a "good
god," thus missing the whole point of her story which is that what's
good for one species (insect or deity) may not be good for another.
> >Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
> >another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
> >want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
> >personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
> >be mutually incompatible.
> >
> >This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
> >with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
> >
>
> Nothing to do with real faith? Several libraries' worth of books have been
> written on the topic of Free Will vs Divine Predestination - which is what
> you're describing. Whole movements and denominations have been born because they
> disagree slightly on how to reconcile, or at least try to balance, these
> opposing concepts.
Yep. I know this too. So what? Jasmine's story fits right in.
Hopefully without creating any more movements or denominations to
sqabble with each other about which one is right. Jasmine's story was
about two rights. It can and has promoted discussion about free will
v. divine force, but unfortunately, it has mostly promoted discussions
about whether the use of force means Jasmine was evil and/or not a
god.
>
> Far from having "nothing to do with real faith or lack of it", this is either an
> issue one must grapple with or, often, a stumbling block that prevents faith. It
> has *everything* to do with real faith and the lack of it.
>
> As for the "Buffyverse mythos and message", which would appear to be "Free Will
> is more important than Happiness" - well that's an important idea, but it's not
> particularly novel and I can't see what you think sets it so apart from ideas
> about faith. I'm not saying it *only* has to do with ideas about faith but to
> say it has nothing to do with that is ridiculous.
I was talking about Jasmine's "good godhood" which some folks seem to
think can't exist because it doesn't conform to their movement's views
on the topic. They are not talking about the validity or otherwise of
the idea. They are talking about whether or not she can be considered
a "good god" if she doesn't offer a choice. As you point out, many
versions of the J-C god don't offer a choice either.
Some discussion of this would be interesting if not obscured by the
"Jasmine was evil and/or not a real god" nonsense. Obviously she
considered herself to be a "good god" and just as obviously the only
free-willed humans (and demons) left did not consider her so. That's
the point of her story.
Sorry if it or I offend your intelligence by pointing it out so
baldly. Also, apologies to ME for taking their carefully crafted,
rather subtle allegory and deconstructing it so crassly.
himiko
Shuggie
>Which is precisely my point. Jasmine does not conform to any
>Judeo-Christian concept of a deity. She is more in line with a whole
>mess of pagan deities, however, and there's some SF added. Those
>stuck on a single concept of what a "good god" is, however, keep
>harping on how she isn't like that concept and therefore not a "good
>god," thus missing the whole point of her story which is that what's
>good for one species (insect or deity) may not be good for another.
I don't believe that's the whole point of the story. Almost no time is
spent on Jasmine's idea of good versus humanity's. One of the reasons I
didn't enjoy the Jasmine arc as much as I might is that they don't
effectively get us inside Jasmine's head.
What they presented, I think, is a story about whether it's worth giving
up some (or all) freedom in the hope of gaining peace and happiness.
I think the question of whether Jasmine is good or not can only be
answered from a point of view of human morality. You can say that from
her own pov Jasmine's actions were good, that what's good for her is as
different from what's good for humanity as what's good for humanity is
from the good of insects. However that doesn't get us any where
interesting because we're never given any real insight into what that
other morality might look like. Whenever the question arises it's always
handled in terms of the good she's doing for us outweigh the bad - i.e.
in terms of a human perception of morality.
In that context I think it's absolutely natural that people judge
Jasmine from their own moral background, religious or not - because how
else can they?
>
>> >Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
>> >another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
>> >want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
>> >personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
>> >be mutually incompatible.
>> >
>> >This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
>> >with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
>> >
>>
>> Nothing to do with real faith? Several libraries' worth of books have been
>> written on the topic of Free Will vs Divine Predestination - which is what
>> you're describing. Whole movements and denominations have been born because they
>> disagree slightly on how to reconcile, or at least try to balance, these
>> opposing concepts.
>
>Yep. I know this too. So what? Jasmine's story fits right in.
So saying it had nothing to do with real faith was incorrect then wasn't
it?
>Hopefully without creating any more movements or denominations to
>sqabble with each other about which one is right. Jasmine's story was
>about two rights. It can and has promoted discussion about free will
>v. divine force, but unfortunately, it has mostly promoted discussions
>about whether the use of force means Jasmine was evil and/or not a
>god.
I think whether or not she was a 'god' is largely semantics. Whether or
not she's evil is important. Put it another way, asking whether or not
Jasmine is ultimately good for the human race is as close to asking
whether she's evil as makes no practical difference.
>>
>> Far from having "nothing to do with real faith or lack of it", this is either an
>> issue one must grapple with or, often, a stumbling block that prevents faith. It
>> has *everything* to do with real faith and the lack of it.
>>
>> As for the "Buffyverse mythos and message", which would appear to be "Free Will
>> is more important than Happiness" - well that's an important idea, but it's not
>> particularly novel and I can't see what you think sets it so apart from ideas
>> about faith. I'm not saying it *only* has to do with ideas about faith but to
>> say it has nothing to do with that is ridiculous.
>
>I was talking about Jasmine's "good godhood" which some folks seem to
>think can't exist because it doesn't conform to their movement's views
>on the topic. They are not talking about the validity or otherwise of
>the idea. They are talking about whether or not she can be considered
>a "good god" if she doesn't offer a choice. As you point out, many
>versions of the J-C god don't offer a choice either.
I don't think it's pointless to argue about whether Jasmine is good or
not. The fact that it's very possible that she considered herself good
doesn't resolve that from our pov. And the choice issue is part of how
I, for one, judge her on the good-evil scale.
>
>Some discussion of this would be interesting if not obscured by the
>"Jasmine was evil and/or not a real god" nonsense. Obviously she
>considered herself to be a "good god" and just as obviously the only
>free-willed humans (and demons) left did not consider her so. That's
>the point of her story.
Yes. Free Will vs Happiness.
>
>Sorry if it or I offend your intelligence by pointing it out so
>baldly. Also, apologies to ME for taking their carefully crafted,
>rather subtle allegory and deconstructing it so crassly.
>
I wish I found it subtle and carefully crafted. Glad you enjoyed it
though.
--
Shug
Sometimes I shouldn't say words
himiko
>
> >Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
> >another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
> >want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
> >personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
> >be mutually incompatible.
> >
> >This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
> >with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
> >
>
> Nothing to do with real faith? Several libraries' worth of books have been
> written on the topic of Free Will vs Divine Predestination - which is what
> you're describing.
Sorry. I didn't realize this until I already posted another response,
but this is not what I was describing. I was describing the choice
between dying as a human being and surviving as something non-human.
This is a common theme in the Buffyverse. Humans who become vampires,
for example, gain immortality at the cost of their much of their
humanity; how much seems to vary, but the conscience is always lost.
They don't seem to get a choice, but when other humans who are still
human see the result, they usually feel it wasn't worth the cost and
make the choice for the new vampire...with a stake. AI made the same
choice for all humanity with Jasmine; they chose to keep us as we are
with all the unpleasantness and risk that entails rather than allow
Jasmine to complete her promise of hive-minded happiness and love.
She didn't offer a choice either, but AI got a choice courtesy of Fred
and made that choice for everyone.
This is the point of her story, not whether or not Jasmine should have
offered humanity a choice or whether or not she's a "real" good god.
And even the voluntarism or lack of it Jasmine offered isn't really
the same thing as predestination. The predestination issue developed
almost inadvertantly out of the Christian assertion that their god was
omniscient, that he knew all that had ever been, was, or would be.
It's that last part that's the kicker. If god 100% for sure knows
what you're going to choose, it's not a choice, is it? You're
predestined to make the choice you make. If it's a real choice, if
god can be surprised, then he's not omniscient.
But none of that relates to Jasmine. She never claimed to be
omniscient. She didn't offer humans a choice because she knew they'd
never accept the cost, and she thought she knew what was best for them
even if they didn't...another common Buffyverse theme. But she didn't
eliminate choice passively as does the Christian god...through just
knowing the outcome. She eliminated choice quite actively through
mind control and by trying to destroy those that evaded her control.
A very different matter. She could be surprised and was. She just
didn't want to be.
himiko
Shuggie
>Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bf0fk...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <c7902983.03071...@posting.google.com>, him...@animail.net
>
>>
>> >Jasmine offered a real way to peace, happiness and love for one
>> >another to humanity. These are things we claim to want, mostly do
>> >want. But we also mostly want to keep our autonomy and individual
>> >personalities. The story of Jasmine suggests that these two wants may
>> >be mutually incompatible.
>> >
>> >This has nothing to do with real faith or lack of it. It has to do
>> >with the Buffyverse mythos and message.
>> >
>>
>> Nothing to do with real faith? Several libraries' worth of books have been
>> written on the topic of Free Will vs Divine Predestination - which is what
>> you're describing.
>
>Sorry. I didn't realize this until I already posted another response,
>but this is not what I was describing. I was describing the choice
>between dying as a human being and surviving as something non-human.
It's about a human with freewill versus one without.
>This is a common theme in the Buffyverse. Humans who become vampires,
>for example, gain immortality at the cost of their much of their
>humanity; how much seems to vary, but the conscience is always lost.
>They don't seem to get a choice, but when other humans who are still
>human see the result, they usually feel it wasn't worth the cost and
>make the choice for the new vampire...with a stake. AI made the same
>choice for all humanity with Jasmine; they chose to keep us as we are
>with all the unpleasantness and risk that entails rather than allow
>Jasmine to complete her promise of hive-minded happiness and love.
>She didn't offer a choice either, but AI got a choice courtesy of Fred
>and made that choice for everyone.
AI's choice was to give people back freewill. Jasmine denied them
freewill. Those are not equivalent. The choice AI took on behalf of
humanity was one they couldn't make for themselves because Jasmine had
already denied them the opportunity.
>
>This is the point of her story, not whether or not Jasmine should have
>offered humanity a choice or whether or not she's a "real" good god.
You're still talking about whether giving up Freedom for the promise of
Happiness is a good thing. You're using the word 'choice' instead of
'freewill' but other than that I don't see a difference.
>
>And even the voluntarism or lack of it Jasmine offered isn't really
>the same thing as predestination. The predestination issue developed
>almost inadvertantly out of the Christian assertion that their god was
>omniscient, that he knew all that had ever been, was, or would be.
>It's that last part that's the kicker. If god 100% for sure knows
>what you're going to choose, it's not a choice, is it? You're
>predestined to make the choice you make. If it's a real choice, if
>god can be surprised, then he's not omniscient.
>
Well that's certainly one view but it's not the only one. You've also
not mentioned omnipotence - which to my mind has a stronger link with
predestination. See all those books I mentioned earlier - not just
religion but philosphy too.
>But none of that relates to Jasmine. She never claimed to be
>omniscient. She didn't offer humans a choice because she knew they'd
>never accept the cost, and she thought she knew what was best for them
>even if they didn't...another common Buffyverse theme. But she didn't
>eliminate choice passively as does the Christian god...through just
>knowing the outcome. She eliminated choice quite actively through
>mind control and by trying to destroy those that evaded her control.
>A very different matter. She could be surprised and was. She just
>didn't want to be.
She's still pre-determining on other's behalf what's good for them and
imposing it upon them. Which is why I said omnipotence has at least as
much to do with predestination as omniscience.
Not that Jasmine is omnipotent - though she's wants to be for the earth
at least - but the same themes apply. Is Jasmine's promise of peace and
happiness worth the loss of free will? Can we talk about freewill if
we're free to do anything except what Jasmine doesn't want us to do?
These are themes that the major religions and philosophers have dealt
with as well. You seem to be trying to convince me that Jasmine is not
like the Christian god - which I agree with. But that doesn't mean that
Christianity, or any of the other major religions have no relevance to
the themes the story is based on.
--
Shug
"To look at her you'd never guess,
that she could hurt so bad in such a beautiful dress"
- Tonio K, Living Doll
Ian
> But none of that relates to Jasmine. She never claimed to be
> omniscient. She didn't offer humans a choice because she knew they'd
> never accept the cost
That's an interesting point, and one which occurred to me while
watching the last couple of AtS episodes this season.
Would humanity have accepted the cost in return for world peace and
universal love?
People accept such costs all the time for much lessor gains: we drive
cars, though thousands die each year in car accidents; this last year,
the US and UK went to war in Iraq, for whatever reason; people smoke,
though there is a signficant chance they will die of lung cancer as a
result.
Why wouldn't they have accepted the cost for Jasmine's utopia?
Shawn H
: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:40:32 +0000 (UTC), arro...@violet.rahul.net
: (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
:>I was mistaken. Even if I described myself as something vaguer, like a
:>vampire or a good god, I could still be mistaken, because "vague" doesn't
:>mean "can be absolutely anything".
: You're missing the point that what Jasmine offered is what people DO
: want, and what Angel ended up getting for his son. And also that what
: Angel and the others wanted for humanity will mean untold suffering
: and death.
No it won't. It'll mean the same old suffering and death we're all
already used to.
: Its not a matter of good vs evil, but the lesser of two evils. And
: even the champion who defeated Jasmine ended up wanting exactly what
: she offered. So was what they got REALLY, the lesser of two evils, or
: just the status quo?
The status quo is preferable to Jasmine's evil sway.
Shawn
Shawn
> Which is precisely my point. Jasmine does not conform to any
> Judeo-Christian concept of a deity. She is more in line with a whole
> mess of pagan deities, however, and there's some SF added. Those
My diety is pagan. She's not much like Jasmine though.
> stuck on a single concept of what a "good god" is, however, keep
> harping on how she isn't like that concept and therefore not a "good
> god," thus missing the whole point of her story which is that what's
> good for one species (insect or deity) may not be good for another.
Is a diety the same thing as a species? If so, is it a diety at all?
> Yep. I know this too. So what? Jasmine's story fits right in.
> Hopefully without creating any more movements or denominations to
> sqabble with each other about which one is right. Jasmine's story was
Not just hopefully; she superceded all other religions, making her
followers lose interest in any other belief system. She wasn't just
the universal unifier; she was the universal leveller, and debaser.
>
> I was talking about Jasmine's "good godhood" which some folks seem to
> think can't exist because it doesn't conform to their movement's views
> on the topic. They are not talking about the validity or otherwise of
> the idea. They are talking about whether or not she can be considered
> a "good god" if she doesn't offer a choice. As you point out, many
> versions of the J-C god don't offer a choice either.
I don't think her story represents free will vs. predestination. I
think it represents a nostalgic wish for such a simple premise as a
universal leader, as well as the knowledge that we already fell out of
that garden.
> Some discussion of this would be interesting if not obscured by the
> "Jasmine was evil and/or not a real god" nonsense. Obviously she
> considered herself to be a "good god" and just as obviously the only
> free-willed humans (and demons) left did not consider her so. That's
> the point of her story.
Himiko, you usually don't confuse me this much. If that's the point of
her story, how can it also be nonsense?
Shawn
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0307...@posting.google.com>...
Maybe because of the probable anwsers to the following questions which humanity would
[hopefully] have asked:
1) Exactly how long would Jasmine give humanity this world peace and universal love?
A month? A year? A millennium? I don't recall Jasmine giving an exact time-frame.
2) Does this peace and love include the end of all disease? Given how much
"worship me" focus Jasmine demanded from humanity, the normal medical and behavorial
safeguards to control the spread of diseases such AIDS, Cancer, SARS, etc. would probably
be abandoned altogether, thus guaranteeing all sorts of plagues speading through out
the world destroying humanity within a few years. So is Jasmine going to pick up
the slack sotaspeak?
3) What about natural diasters? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, etc. all
these take their toll in human casualities. And again, with humanity in serious
worship-mode, the normal response and safeguards would be seriously curtailed. Will
Jasmine prevent these or aid humanity somehow?
4) And just how many humans Jasmine will need to consume to control humanity? She was up
to about a hundred a feeding just before her television appearance, and that was just
for LA. She probably would need thousands a feeding to control California, tens of
thousands for the east coast, hundreds of thousands for America.....to the point where
by the time she had control of the world, she could conceivably need to consume millions
of people a day. And that's just in gaining control - maintaining it day to day would
probably required a great deal more. So again, we may be talking only a few years if that
of Jasmine's peace and love before she would have eaten it all away.
Now maybe I missed Jasmine saying she was going to take care of part or all of the above,
but unless there was an absolute guarantee and proof of her being able to do so, I
don't see how her idea of peace, love, etc. would last more than a year or two before
there wouldn't be any humanity left, thus making the price for her peace and love way
too high.
Shuggie
>>himiko <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>>>Some discussion of this would be interesting if not obscured by the
>>>"Jasmine was evil and/or not a real god" nonsense. Obviously she
>>>considered herself to be a "good god" and just as obviously the only
>>>free-willed humans (and demons) left did not consider her so. That's
>>>the point of her story.
>>
>>independent of one's own opinion on the subject. If I called myself a tree,
>>you wouldn't say that people disagree about what a tree is, you'd just say
>>I was mistaken. Even if I described myself as something vaguer, like a
>>vampire or a good god, I could still be mistaken, because "vague" doesn't
>>mean "can be absolutely anything".
>
>You're missing the point that what Jasmine offered is what people DO
>want,
What Jasmine appeared to offer. As for how it really would ahve turned out is
another matter - we don't really know.
We do know that she relied on mind control. We know that she has a history of
tinkering with planets then abandoning them. That she's given to fits of anger
if things don't go her way. That she needs to feed off people to survive - more
and more as time goes by. That she hides that fact. That she engineered her
entry to this world amidst thousands of deaths - most of which weren't
necessary, and if they were she's never even tried to explain how.
So knowing all that, why would we believe that what Jasmine is offering is
genuine?
>and what Angel ended up getting for his son. And also that what
>Angel and the others wanted for humanity will mean untold suffering
>and death.
As others have said what Angel wanted for humanity hasn't made things any worse
than they already are. What he wanted for his son was happiness and yes he
violated his freewill to achieve that. But the fact that Angel is a hypocrite
doesn't make what he did for the world any less right.
The other difference between what Angel did and Jasmine is that his was a single
act rather than ongoing mind-control.
>
>Its not a matter of good vs evil, but the lesser of two evils.
I'd agree with that.
>And even the champion who defeated Jasmine ended up wanting exactly what
>she offered.
Actually it's more accurate to say that he became like her in that he was
willing to impose his idea of happiness on Connor without Connor having a
choice. He still didn't want what Jasmine offered - he didn't want to give up
his own freewill.
> So was what they got REALLY, the lesser of two evils, or
>just the status quo?
Both.
Shawn H
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:03:51 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
: <tsdn...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
:>1) Exactly how long would
: Looks like someone would fit in quite well in the contracts division
: of a certain law firm.
: Jasmine was about love, you needed only to have faith in her.
To be fooled into falling into her meat grinder.
Shawn
Shawn H
:>And even the champion who defeated Jasmine ended up wanting exactly what
:>she offered.
: Actually it's more accurate to say that he became like her in that he was
: willing to impose his idea of happiness on Connor without Connor having a
: choice. He still didn't want what Jasmine offered - he didn't want to give up
: his own freewill.
And he was acting for his son, still a minor in need of fatherly
intervention. Jasmine's plans rendered all adults into needy children.
Shawn
Ian
All very good and valid points. It's certainly true that Jasmine was
not very forthcoming regarding the details of her utopia.
But, still, it makes an interesting question in theory. What if
Jasmine's utopia was genuine? What if the price was a few hundred or
thousand sacrifices every year? Hard to say what the answer would be.
The Babaloughesian
Or rather, to be transformed into pure light and become one with her radiant
form.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:bf40se$7ml$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> st <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> : Jasmine was about love, you needed only to have faith in her.
:>
:> To be fooled into falling into her meat grinder.
: Or rather, to be transformed into pure light and become one with her radiant
: form.
Which glowed a sickly green and had writhing tentacles.
Shawn
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Keep in mind also that Connor was an emotional and psychological wreck, probably
insane and on the verge of killing himself and committing mass murder. So he
was incapable of determining or acting in his own best interests.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:03:51 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
: <tsdn...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
:>1) Exactly how long would
: Looks like someone would fit in quite well in the contracts division
: of a certain law firm.
And asking such questions is a negative....how? Faith does not mean
stupidity where you check your brain and all common sense at the door.
When one is talking about the fate of humanity, its essential to know
what exactly that entails.
: Jasmine was about love, you needed only to have faith in her.
And be prepared to kiss the human race goodbye in a few years, either via
disease, natural disasters or Jasmine's eating habits. And frankly, if we
were to blindly accept Jasmine's promise of world peace and love without
question, we'd deserve extinction - any self-aware species would that
chooses to completely surrender their fate and future to a third party
who makes declarations of peace and love with little or no explanation.
Ian
> Ian <igs6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a further point, how do you think that Jasmine's promise of "peace
and love" stacks up against the promises of any major religion?
People kill and die all the time for such ideas. Why would they be
any less willing to do so for Jasmine's promises?
Shawn H
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:21:02 +0000 (UTC), arro...@violet.rahul.net
: (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
:>By that reasoning I'm a god. If you don't think I know best, you need to have
:>more faith in me.
: I don't see any miracles, any world peace. You're not giving me a
: sense of peace.. or even a warm and fuzzy feeling.
: Jaz was the real deal.
Jasmine was mellow yellow.
Shawn
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:03:37 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
: <tsdn...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
:>st <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:03:51 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
:>: <tsdn...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
:>
:>:>1) Exactly how long would
:>
:>: Looks like someone would fit in quite well in the contracts division
:>: of a certain law firm.
:>
:>And asking such questions is a negative....how? Faith does not mean
:>stupidity where you check your brain and all common sense at the door.
:>When one is talking about the fate of humanity, its essential to know
:>what exactly that entails.
: Well I'm not about to get into a discussion of the meaning of Faith,
: but a standard definition is: belief without proof, or even in spite
: of contrary evidence.
: Your particular brand of Faith may be different. Regardless, Faith is
: about trust, not common sense. It is a feeling, not a quantifiable
: thing.
My "brand" of faith depends in part on common sense; prior conduct or
evidence that supports my belief in someone or some thing. If a friend
has been there emotionally, physically or psychologically in the
past, I have faith that they will continue to do so in the future.
If I have seen and experienced the miracles of healing, health and the
beauty in Nature in the past, I have faith that they in some capacity
will be a part of my life in the future. What you're describing in your
"belief without proof, or even in spite of contrary evidence" is Blind
Faith which is Faith without evidence, experience or common sense
and usually occurs in moments of desperation when answers to questions
or evidence simply isn't obtainable for whatever reason(s).
:>: Jasmine was about love, you needed only to have faith in her.
:>
:>And be prepared to kiss the human race goodbye in a few years, either via
:>disease, natural disasters or Jasmine's eating habits. And frankly, if we
:>were to blindly accept Jasmine's promise of world peace and love without
:>question, we'd deserve extinction - any self-aware species would that
:>chooses to completely surrender their fate and future to a third party
:>who makes declarations of peace and love with little or no explanation.
: So I take it you're an atheist, because there is no god in existense
: that has done what you require, or even gone so far as Jasmine in
: proving its existense. Unless you are claiming to have met your god in
: the flesh?
No I am not an atheist. I have seen, felt, witnessed, whatever
what I consider extraordinary evidence that God exists. However,
my evidence is probably your happenstance or scientific proof or
whatever. <Shoulder Shrug> But my Faith didn't come about by
foregoing common sense, questioning, etc. but continues to evolve in
part because of these qualities. For me, it can't be any other way.
: How does one go about guarranteeing the future anyway? Contracts? How
: could Jasmine prove herself to you? Really? What would it take?
The future can't be guaranteed. That's the point. Jasmine guarantees
peace and love, but her peace and love sacrifices humanity's future.
Humanity may be in crappy shape in a lot of ways, but I don't believe
that our situation is so desperate as to forego our future via Blind Faith
in Jasmine's world peace and love.
The Babaloughesian
"Tammy Stephanie Davis" <tsdn...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in
message news:J4jRa.822$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> st <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:03:51 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
> : <tsdn...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>
> :>1) Exactly how long would
>
> : Looks like someone would fit in quite well in the contracts division
> : of a certain law firm.
>
> And asking such questions is a negative....how? Faith does not mean
> stupidity where you check your brain and all common sense at the door.
Of course it does.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: "Tammy Stephanie Davis" <tsdn...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in
: Of course it does.
Well then I guess you have faith in nothing because you're obviously
too smart and wise to fall for that old con. Lucky you.
himiko
I think it was established that Connor was 19 when he slept with
Cordy...hence removing the statutory rape issue. Not a minor.
himiko
himiko
Good point. I must desist from posting when I am tired and hurried as
I have been for the past week; I am clearly not expressing myself well
and when I do, the idea is not fully thought out.
Of course people do accept utopias like Jasmine's all the time for
many reasons, but by far the most common is religion of some sort.
Then they come at you with those silly "shiney happy" smiles and tell
you they've found Jesus, Krishna or whomever. That, or they tell you
that they've taken responsibility for their own emotions or achieved
oneness with the universe or some new agey happy-wappy equivalent.
What Jasmine offered was the mindless bliss that comes with complete
faith in something. And that's what AI took away: their faith. I
wonder how many of them were grateful or would have cheerfully chosen
to remain in Jasmine's thrall.
himiko
himiko
>
> Maybe because of the probable anwsers to the following questions which humanity would
> [hopefully] have asked:
Some might have. Most would not. Do not. People regularly abandon
reason to religious, political, and economic leaders and/or systems
without asking any of these questions.
>
> Now maybe I missed Jasmine saying she was going to take care of part or all of the above,
> but unless there was an absolute guarantee and proof of her being able to do so, I
> don't see how her idea of peace, love, etc. would last more than a year or two before
> there wouldn't be any humanity left, thus making the price for her peace and love way
> too high.
Pure speculation and iffy math. We don't know how often she dined.
It seemed to be daily and about 20 people at a time. She could do
that for a long time without even making a dent in 6 million. As for
controlling disease, natural disasters, and so forth, people didn't
necessarily stop doing their jobs because of the changes; they just
dedicated what they were doing to Jasmine. No reason to assume she
wouldn't see that her food supply was maintained. Jasmine clearly left
the last dimension she ruled fully populated. Beyond that, it's
speculation.
himiko
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:34:42 GMT, Tammy Stephanie Davis
: <tsdn...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
:>: Well I'm not about to get into a discussion of the meaning of Faith,
:>: but a standard definition is: belief without proof, or even in spite
:>: of contrary evidence.
:>
:>: Your particular brand of Faith may be different. Regardless, Faith is
:>: about trust, not common sense. It is a feeling, not a quantifiable
:>: thing.
:>
:>My "brand" of faith depends in part on common sense; prior conduct or
:>evidence that supports my belief in someone or some thing. If a friend
:>has been there emotionally, physically or psychologically in the
:>past, I have faith that they will continue to do so in the future.
:>If I have seen and experienced the miracles of healing, health and the
:>beauty in Nature in the past, I have faith that they in some capacity
:>will be a part of my life in the future. What you're describing in your
:>"belief without proof, or even in spite of contrary evidence" is Blind
:>Faith which is Faith without evidence, experience or common sense
:>and usually occurs in moments of desperation when answers to questions
:>or evidence simply isn't obtainable for whatever reason(s).
: Wrong. Please supply a reference. I pulled 'my definition' right out
: of my dictionary.
: And I'll give you another from:
: http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html
: NOUN: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of
: a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical
: proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust. 3.
: Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
: supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined
: as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5.
: The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of
: principles or beliefs.
: Nowhere is 'common sense' involved or 'proof of' anything required.
Following is three of five definitions of Common Sense from Dictionary.com:
3. Perception through the intellect; apprehension; recognition; understanding;
discernment; appreciation.
4. Sound perception and reasoning; correct judgment; good mental capacity; understanding;
also, that which is sound, true, or reasonable; rational meaning.
5. That which is felt or is held as a sentiment, view, or opinion; judgment; notion;
opinion.
So "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of
a person, idea, or thing" is often arrived at via "perception through
the intellect" or "sound perception and reasoning" or "sentiment, view, or
opinion." Just because common sense is not implicitly stated as part of
the definition of Faith doesn't mean it isn't or can't be used as part of
the process in which one develops or reinforces Faith.
: 'blind faith' is simply redundant, and refers to faith that a person
: considers misplaced. In other words, if I believe in something for no
: good reason, its faith, if someone else does, its blind faith.
For you, yeah. But what you view as "no good reason" may be of great
importance to someone else.
: Its strictly pejorative in usage. There is no 'good' blind faith. It
: simply means 'faith in the wrong thing'. Which is completely
: subjective.
:>: How does one go about guarranteeing the future anyway? Contracts? How
:>: could Jasmine prove herself to you? Really? What would it take?
:>
:>The future can't be guaranteed. That's the point.
: So ALL faith is blind.
Ahhh, no. And I've explained in detail the distinction between Faith
and Blind Faith. You don't agree. Fine.
:Your god cannot be trusted with the future any more than any other god can.
No. *Jasmine* can not be trusted with humanities future because
humanity would not have a future if it has blind faith in Jasmine's peace
and love.
:>Jasmine guarantees
:>peace and love, but her peace and love sacrifices humanity's future.
: Prove it. Supply a reference from the Angel TS that proves Jasmine
: would destroy 'humanities future'. She had a very keen interest in
: humanities future and shaping it to her will.
I've stated in detail the flaws in Jasmine's peace and world love, especially
the number of people she was eating in a day was increasing dramatically
in response to the number of people she sought to control. By the time she
controlled the world millions of people a day would have been consumed. Maintaining
that control over a month would have required her to eat hundreds of millions,
perhaps billions of people a day. Angel established this pattern in "Magic
Bullit", "Sacrific", and "Peace Out". With the consumption of the population
on this scale, humanity's future would be destroyed.
:>Humanity may be in crappy shape in a lot of ways, but I don't believe
:>that our situation is so desperate as to forego our future via Blind Faith
:>in Jasmine's world peace and love.
: Right, you don't believe in Jasmine so those who do are 'blind to the
: truth', and her followers are gonna say the same thing about your
: 'blind faith' in your god of choice.
Common Sense prevents me from having blind faith in Jasmine - the same common
sense that informs and reinforces my faith (not blind) in my God. You don't
agree with my definition of Faith, Blind Faith or the questioning of Jasmine's
version of world peace and love. Which means that we could go around and around
about this Ad Nauseum and we would never change the mind of the other while
stating and restating our positions time and time again.
Time to agree to disagree.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
: Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdn...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<H84Ra.789$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
:>
:> Maybe because of the probable anwsers to the following questions which humanity would
:> [hopefully] have asked:
: Some might have. Most would not. Do not. People regularly abandon
: reason to religious, political, and economic leaders and/or systems
: without asking any of these questions.
:>
:> Now maybe I missed Jasmine saying she was going to take care of part or all of the above,
:> but unless there was an absolute guarantee and proof of her being able to do so, I
:> don't see how her idea of peace, love, etc. would last more than a year or two before
:> there wouldn't be any humanity left, thus making the price for her peace and love way
:> too high.
: Pure speculation and iffy math. We don't know how often she dined.
: It seemed to be daily and about 20 people at a time.
No, it started out with just two people and increased over the next fews
days to several dozen just before her television appearance.
:She could do
: that for a long time without even making a dent in 6 million. As for
: controlling disease, natural disasters, and so forth, people didn't
: necessarily stop doing their jobs because of the changes; they just
: dedicated what they were doing to Jasmine. No reason to assume she
: wouldn't see that her food supply was maintained. Jasmine clearly left
: the last dimension she ruled fully populated. Beyond that, it's
: speculation.
We don't know when Jasmine left the last dimension she ruled or what shape
She left it in. She may have decimated it and the population was just now
recovering, or maybe she wasn't there long enough to cause much damage to
the overall population. All we know is that Jasmine considered them
a trial run, "an early experiment to work out the bugs, so to speak."
Lord Usher
@posting.google.com:
> I didn't get into those discussions about Glory, because I could
> accept her as some sort of incomprehensible "god" forced into a human
> form and onto a human plane she detested.
>
> But she wasn't like Jasmine, offering anything good to anyone, or even
> concerned about human affairs in the slightest. She was different,
> capricious, selfish, driven. She may have been hideous to our eyes,
> but she had become human, and hated every second of it. She convinced
> me she was a god because of her power.
>
> Jasmine, however, claimed to understand us, to feel what we felt. She
> claimed to empathize with our pain, and to desire to end it. She
> claimed to long for order, and to desire to make it in the world
> around her.
So you're saying that it's difficult for you to believe that Jasmine was
a god because she wasn't distant and contemptuous enough? Since when
must a god be distant and contemptuous?
Hell, modern-day folks are more familiar with gods like Jasmine -- who
care deeply for humanity and want earnestly to improve their situation
-- than old-school gods like Glory who are above mortal concerns and
look down their noses at humanity. Glory-type gods pretty much went out
of fashion with the Greek pantheon; the Jasmine model fits the Supreme
Being of nearly every major religion in the world today.
> And it turned out she had very little power at all. Angel undid her
> with a word, and that word was signified as her real name, as the
> truth that revealed all of her lies in an instant. The truth she was
> struggling fervently to hide.
I think you're underplaying the importance of the "true name" solution.
It's a recurring theme in various human mythological systems that true
names are sacred utterances of great power that give the speaker power
over the creature named. Angel didn't defeat Jasmine easily by just
saying one word; he defeated her by crossing dimensions and climbing
mountains and battling a vicious opponent to the death -- and in doing
so discovering the *one* thing in the universe potent enough to steal
her power.
Indeed, I would argue that the "true name" resolution actually
*strengthens* the notion that Jasmine is a true god come down from
Heaven and not just some demon poseur. Because the concept of a true
name that holds special power and must be safeguarded and treated with
reverence is now most commonly connected with Hebrew religion and
mythology -- with the Judeo-Christian God in which the majority of
Western world believes!
> The Angelverse signified her as demonic in ways that the Buffyverse
> did not the sexy, satin-draped, high-heel-loving Glory. Glory glowed
> like her namesake, brighter and hotter than we could stand; but
> Jasmine, that's a night-scented smell, wafting in from the garden with
> mystery and exotic hints of mischeif. Those soft fabrics she wore, her
> grand plans to lead us, seduce us and use us were all too evident.
Again, you're suggesting that Jasmine is not godlike because she's too
close to humanity, which doesn't jibe with what most people today belive
a god is or can be.
> And what did she do at any point besides try to curry favor (and
> deceive and manipulate people and events) to get her way?
Encouraging her followers to wipe out evil demons, and giving advice and
reassurance to people who were already under her sway (and thus didn't
*need* to be kissed up to) wasn't enough for you?
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
The Babaloughesian
"Tammy Stephanie Davis" <tsdn...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in
message news:f8mRa.844$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
I don't know that I'd say it makes me lucky.
Ian
> igs6...@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > But none of that relates to Jasmine. She never claimed to be
> > > omniscient. She didn't offer humans a choice because she knew they'd
> > > never accept the cost
> >
> > That's an interesting point, and one which occurred to me while
> > watching the last couple of AtS episodes this season.
> >
> > Would humanity have accepted the cost in return for world peace and
> > universal love?
> >
> > People accept such costs all the time for much lessor gains: we drive
> > cars, though thousands die each year in car accidents; this last year,
> > the US and UK went to war in Iraq, for whatever reason; people smoke,
> > though there is a signficant chance they will die of lung cancer as a
> > result.
> >
> > Why wouldn't they have accepted the cost for Jasmine's utopia?
>
> Good point. I must desist from posting when I am tired and hurried as
> I have been for the past week; I am clearly not expressing myself well
> and when I do, the idea is not fully thought out.
>
> Of course people do accept utopias like Jasmine's all the time for
> many reasons, but by far the most common is religion of some sort.
> Then they come at you with those silly "shiney happy" smiles and tell
> you they've found Jesus, Krishna or whomever. That, or they tell you
> that they've taken responsibility for their own emotions or achieved
> oneness with the universe or some new agey happy-wappy equivalent.
I think that's right, though I would go further. It seems to me that
most major religions practice that sort of flim flam to one degree of
another. Sure, it's more obvious with the extreme examples, but I
think they're pretty much all like that.
By way of comparison to the tenets of most religions, Jasmine's utopia
was actually a pretty real thing. She actually delivered.
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<bf40ni$7ml$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
I don't remember that, but even if so, let's go with Tammy's version of
invents; he was a very disturbed young man.
Shawn
Shawn H
: dedicated what they were doing to Jasmine. No reason to assume she
: wouldn't see that her food supply was maintained. Jasmine clearly left
: the last dimension she ruled fully populated. Beyond that, it's
: speculation.
Did she? Looked more like she left a lot of twisted, deformed victims in
a barren, desolate landscape. Did they do one of those "infinite field of
Turok-hans" CGI deals when Angel went there, or was it just the ones
menacing him on the cliff?
shawn
himiko
> him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message
>
> was actually a pretty real thing. She actually delivered.
So do many religions. Those who have total faith in them actually do
feel happiness as a result. It's only those of us on the outside, who
don't share their faith, who see their happiness as delusion. Not all
religions do this; some control their followers through fear.
This also seems to be difference between good and evil gods in the
Buffyverse. Good gods like Jasmine offer happiness to their
followers. Evil gods like Glory offer pain...like Prof. Walsh, they
need a better reward system. Neither offers any kind of choice or
even a clear statement on what the options are.
himiko
Shawn H
: sh...@fas.harvard.edu (Shawn) wrote in news:289e7d1c.0307142051.5327d8f2
: @posting.google.com:
:> Jasmine, however, claimed to understand us, to feel what we felt. She
:> claimed to empathize with our pain, and to desire to end it. She
:> claimed to long for order, and to desire to make it in the world
:> around her.
: So you're saying that it's difficult for you to believe that Jasmine was
: a god because she wasn't distant and contemptuous enough? Since when
: must a god be distant and contemptuous?
That's sort of an inverse way of putting it, but ... yeah, exactly. I
don't accept Jasmine as a god (but rather as a demon) because she's far
too vulnerable and flawed; Gods may deceive to get their way (mostly to
avoid a tasteless struggle), but they could as easily command and take.
Jasmine was always very vulnerable, and she knew it.
: Hell, modern-day folks are more familiar with gods like Jasmine -- who
: care deeply for humanity and want earnestly to improve their situation
: -- than old-school gods like Glory who are above mortal concerns and
: look down their noses at humanity. Glory-type gods pretty much went out
: of fashion with the Greek pantheon; the Jasmine model fits the Supreme
: Being of nearly every major religion in the world today.
Parodies it, more like. Her whole performance was about adapting herself
to her audience. Glory could have cared less about mere mortals.
:> And it turned out she had very little power at all. Angel undid her
:> with a word, and that word was signified as her real name, as the
:> truth that revealed all of her lies in an instant. The truth she was
:> struggling fervently to hide.
: I think you're underplaying the importance of the "true name" solution.
: It's a recurring theme in various human mythological systems that true
: names are sacred utterances of great power that give the speaker power
: over the creature named. Angel didn't defeat Jasmine easily by just
: saying one word; he defeated her by crossing dimensions and climbing
: mountains and battling a vicious opponent to the death -- and in doing
: so discovering the *one* thing in the universe potent enough to steal
: her power.
That would have instantly rendered her spell useless had anyone known it
from the start. That Wes could probably have researched everyone towards
much earlier if not for all the hiding, Cordemon subterfuge, and
mind-control Jasmine happy pills.
: Indeed, I would argue that the "true name" resolution actually
: *strengthens* the notion that Jasmine is a true god come down from
: Heaven and not just some demon poseur. Because the concept of a true
: name that holds special power and must be safeguarded and treated with
: reverence is now most commonly connected with Hebrew religion and
: mythology -- with the Judeo-Christian God in which the majority of
: Western world believes!
Except, in this case, those who know the true name are among the
enlightened who are as close as possible to their God, right? Whereas
knowing Jasmine's name instantly makes her followers lose faith.
:> Jasmine, that's a night-scented smell, wafting in from the garden with
:> mystery and exotic hints of mischeif. Those soft fabrics she wore, her
:> grand plans to lead us, seduce us and use us were all too evident.
: Again, you're suggesting that Jasmine is not godlike because she's too
: close to humanity, which doesn't jibe with what most people today belive
: a god is or can be.
I think that's definitely an assertion that's up for argument. I'm afraid
I don't know how to characterize current Buddhist or Hindu dieties, but
the old ones could render mortals agape. Islamic art still avoids
reference to figures, because only God can create humans. That would seem
to put him on a different plane than us. AFAIK, Christians still see God
(and usually Jesus) as supreme beings. Even their lesser agents, angels,
have powers and abilities we lack.
:> And what did she do at any point besides try to curry favor (and
:> deceive and manipulate people and events) to get her way?
: Encouraging her followers to wipe out evil demons, and giving advice and
: reassurance to people who were already under her sway (and thus didn't
: *need* to be kissed up to) wasn't enough for you?
Hardly. Wiping out the competition and telling easy, comforting lies still
serves her self-interest. She was at every step hyper-vigilant of anyone
who might not be falling victim to her seductive power. She knew how
tentative her much-desired hegemony could be.
Shawn
Lord Usher
>: So you're saying that it's difficult for you to believe that Jasmine
>: was a god because she wasn't distant and contemptuous enough? Since
>: when must a god be distant and contemptuous?
>
> That's sort of an inverse way of putting it, but ... yeah, exactly. I
> don't accept Jasmine as a god (but rather as a demon) because she's
> far too vulnerable and flawed; Gods may deceive to get their way
> (mostly to avoid a tasteless struggle), but they could as easily
> command and take. Jasmine was always very vulnerable, and she knew it.
Because she *made* herself vulnerable, by taking human form. Much like
another god we all know...
Not that godhood necessarily implies physical hardiness, anyway, as st
has already pointed out.
>: I think you're underplaying the importance of the "true name"
>: solution. It's a recurring theme in various human mythological
>: systems that true names are sacred utterances of great power that
>: give the speaker power over the creature named. Angel didn't defeat
>: Jasmine easily by just saying one word; he defeated her by crossing
>: dimensions and climbing mountains and battling a vicious opponent to
>: the death -- and in doing so discovering the *one* thing in the
>: universe potent enough to steal her power.
>
> That would have instantly rendered her spell useless had anyone known
> it from the start. That Wes could probably have researched everyone
> towards much earlier if not for all the hiding, Cordemon subterfuge,
> and mind-control Jasmine happy pills.
Yes, and all of Glory's powers would have instantly been rendered
useless had anyone known that she was trapped in the body of Ben from
the start. If not for *her* mind-control tricks, and half-assed
protection of her simpering minions, the Knight of Byzantium would
probably have killed her decades earlier.
IOW, you're handwaving away all of Glory's weaknessnes, and dismissing
all of Jasmine's strengths as mere cheap tricks. There's a serious
double standard swingin' here, and it's the only basis for arguing that
Glory is a god and Jasmine is not.
>: Indeed, I would argue that the "true name" resolution actually
>: *strengthens* the notion that Jasmine is a true god come down from
>: Heaven and not just some demon poseur. Because the concept of a true
>: name that holds special power and must be safeguarded and treated
>: with reverence is now most commonly connected with Hebrew religion
>: and mythology -- with the Judeo-Christian God in which the majority
>: of Western world believes!
>
> Except, in this case, those who know the true name are among the
> enlightened who are as close as possible to their God, right?
Right. Like the Guardian of the Word and the Keeper of the Name in the
Devourer's giant temple in the sky?
> Whereas knowing Jasmine's name instantly makes her followers lose
> faith.
Not seeing the contradiction, I'm afraid. The idea that the name of God
not only possesses potent magickal power, but also can be *misused* by
those not wise and holy eough to wield it properly, is an old
superstition.
(Which, among other things, is the basis for a bad B-movie [WARLOCK],
and an Arthur C. Clarke short story ["The Nine Billion Names of God"].)
>: Again, you're suggesting that Jasmine is not godlike because she's
>: too close to humanity, which doesn't jibe with what most people today
>: belive a god is or can be.
>
> I think that's definitely an assertion that's up for argument. I'm
> afraid I don't know how to characterize current Buddhist or Hindu
> dieties, but the old ones could render mortals agape. Islamic art
> still avoids reference to figures, because only God can create humans.
> That would seem to put him on a different plane than us. AFAIK,
> Christians still see God (and usually Jesus) as supreme beings. Even
> their lesser agents, angels, have powers and abilities we lack.
And Jasmine didn't? I guess I've just failed to notice all the humans
out there who know everything about every human being on Earth, who can
melt away fear and sadness and doubt with a single look, who can merge
with their companions into a collective body and mind that shares
strength and absorbs weaknesses, who can consume living beings with a
touch, and who cannot be killed except by their own parents' hands.
The fact that Jasmine has many human characteristics does not negate the
fact that she also has many *superhuman* characteristics.
>:> And what did she do at any point besides try to curry favor (and
>:> deceive and manipulate people and events) to get her way?
>
>: Encouraging her followers to wipe out evil demons, and giving advice
>: and reassurance to people who were already under her sway (and thus
>: didn't *need* to be kissed up to) wasn't enough for you?
>
> Hardly. Wiping out the competition and telling easy, comforting lies
> still serves her self-interest. She was at every step hyper-vigilant
> of anyone who might not be falling victim to her seductive power.
No, that is manifestly untrue. Jasmine had *no* idea that her blood or
anything else might break her hold on humanity, and she was utterly
shocked and devastated when Fred turned against her.
And there's no basis for saying that she was "hyper-vigilant" against
others falling out of her thrall, considering that her primary
consideration when Fred turned was to reach out to her and bring her
back into the fold, even when her followers warned her that Fred was
dangerous and needed to be wiped out. Hell, she was even angry at
*herself* for *not being vigilant enough* -- "My kindness turned him. By
being loving to Fred, I opened to the door to her hate. By trying to
save Fred, I lost Angel. It won't happen again."
--
Lord Usher
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bf6r20$8ek$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
:> don't accept Jasmine as a god (but rather as a demon) because she's
:> far too vulnerable and flawed; Gods may deceive to get their way
:> (mostly to avoid a tasteless struggle), but they could as easily
:> command and take. Jasmine was always very vulnerable, and she knew it.
: Because she *made* herself vulnerable, by taking human form. Much like
: another god we all know...
No, she already WAS vulnerable; she took human form as a prerequisite to
enter our world, after using up her previous one, and some very complex
machinations were required to make even that plan work. Her existence was
defined from the start as precarious.
:> That would have instantly rendered her spell useless had anyone known
:> it from the start. That Wes could probably have researched everyone
:> towards much earlier if not for all the hiding, Cordemon subterfuge,
:> and mind-control Jasmine happy pills.
: Yes, and all of Glory's powers would have instantly been rendered
: useless had anyone known that she was trapped in the body of Ben from
: the start. If not for *her* mind-control tricks, and half-assed
: protection of her simpering minions, the Knight of Byzantium would
: probably have killed her decades earlier.
I never really got the Glory/Ben connection. Weakest part of that story to
me. I still don't get how he contained her Glorificusness in his fragilely
human and weak-willed form, especially for 25 years or so.
: IOW, you're handwaving away all of Glory's weaknessnes, and dismissing
: all of Jasmine's strengths as mere cheap tricks. There's a serious
: double standard swingin' here, and it's the only basis for arguing that
: Glory is a god and Jasmine is not.
It's just as valid as finding Jaz to be ambiguous and somewhat credible
because you think the story's stronger that way.
:> Except, in this case, those who know the true name are among the
:> enlightened who are as close as possible to their God, right?
: Right. Like the Guardian of the Word and the Keeper of the Name in the
: Devourer's giant temple in the sky?
Demons from a demonic realm.
:> Whereas knowing Jasmine's name instantly makes her followers lose
:> faith.
: Not seeing the contradiction, I'm afraid. The idea that the name of God
: not only possesses potent magickal power, but also can be *misused* by
: those not wise and holy eough to wield it properly, is an old
: superstition.
Such misuse as saying it in public, to the "god's" own face?
: (Which, among other things, is the basis for a bad B-movie [WARLOCK],
Warlock rules!!! Julian Sands and Mary Waronov, together at last!
:> That would seem to put him on a different plane than us. AFAIK,
:> Christians still see God (and usually Jesus) as supreme beings. Even
:> their lesser agents, angels, have powers and abilities we lack.
: And Jasmine didn't? I guess I've just failed to notice all the humans
: out there who know everything about every human being on Earth, who can
Willow when she tries, assorted demons, guides, seers and guardians,
Drusilla, Cassie, Buffy when she touches psychic demon blood, etc.
: melt away fear and sadness and doubt with a single look, who can merge
Dracula
: with their companions into a collective body and mind that shares
: strength and absorbs weaknesses, who can consume living beings with a
Bad Eggs
: touch, and who cannot be killed except by their own parents' hands.
All vampires for the former, and that last is not fully substantiated;
Angel was working on it, too, and even Skip and the Beast might have had a
chance.
: The fact that Jasmine has many human characteristics does not negate the
: fact that she also has many *superhuman* characteristics.
Which makes her a super-villain or a demon just as likely as it renders
her a god.
:>: Encouraging her followers to wipe out evil demons, and giving advice
:>: and reassurance to people who were already under her sway (and thus
:>: didn't *need* to be kissed up to) wasn't enough for you?
:>
:> Hardly. Wiping out the competition and telling easy, comforting lies
:> still serves her self-interest. She was at every step hyper-vigilant
:> of anyone who might not be falling victim to her seductive power.
: No, that is manifestly untrue. Jasmine had *no* idea that her blood or
: anything else might break her hold on humanity, and she was utterly
: shocked and devastated when Fred turned against her.
Because it threatened her nefarious plans. She knew she'd be opposed by
anyone immune to her sway, and took every measure she could to remove free
will.
: And there's no basis for saying that she was "hyper-vigilant" against
: others falling out of her thrall, considering that her primary
She certainly worked hard to maximize the number of people falling into
her thrall, as quickly as possible. Lucky that tv and radio worked for her
so well.
: consideration when Fred turned was to reach out to her and bring her
: back into the fold, even when her followers warned her that Fred was
: dangerous and needed to be wiped out. Hell, she was even angry at
Which is why most of them were trying to kill her, until she offered
herself up in seeming supplication? Jasmine was desperate to learn HOW
Fred got free, and what could be done about it. That's all that kept Fred
alive.
: *herself* for *not being vigilant enough* -- "My kindness turned him. By
About her own self-interests, not about helping anyone.
: being loving to Fred, I opened to the door to her hate. By trying to
: save Fred, I lost Angel. It won't happen again."
Was she trying to "save" Fred, or merely nullify her threat? Why should we
believe a word this creature says? Angel with his full faculties was her
biggest fear at all times.
And even if Jaz sincerely believed she was helping anyone but herself, she
was still mistaken. Her loving touch created monsters.
Shawn
Ian
> igs6...@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message
> >
> > By way of comparison to the tenets of most religions, Jasmine's utopia
> > was actually a pretty real thing. She actually delivered.
>
> So do many religions. Those who have total faith in them actually do
> feel happiness as a result. It's only those of us on the outside, who
> don't share their faith, who see their happiness as delusion.
Mmmm... maybe. Personally, I take a less charitable view of religion,
what it does and how it's used, but I do see you point.
However, I maintain that what Jasmine offered was something very
different. She brought what appeared to be automatic and complete
happiness to people, even "non-believers".
> This also seems to be difference between good and evil gods in the
> Buffyverse. Good gods like Jasmine offer happiness to their
> followers. Evil gods like Glory offer pain...like Prof. Walsh, they
> need a better reward system. Neither offers any kind of choice or
> even a clear statement on what the options are.
Well, perhaps the nub of the issue is the question of whether Jasmine
was an evil god (ie. using her mesmerizing power to control people
while using them for her own benefit) or a good god (bringing true
happiness and peace to the world, at a minor price). Or maybe there's
no difference.
Lord Usher
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
>: news:bf6r20$8ek$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
>
>:> don't accept Jasmine as a god (but rather as a demon) because she's
>:> far too vulnerable and flawed; Gods may deceive to get their way
>:> (mostly to avoid a tasteless struggle), but they could as easily
>:> command and take. Jasmine was always very vulnerable, and she knew
>:> it.
>
>: Because she *made* herself vulnerable, by taking human form. Much
>: like another god we all know...
>
> No, she already WAS vulnerable; she took human form as a prerequisite
> to enter our world, after using up her previous one, and some very
> complex machinations were required to make even that plan work. Her
> existence was defined from the start as precarious.
Because from the start *she had already taken human form*. We have *no*
reason to believe that in her true form, in the Higher Realms, her
existence was at all "precarious."
Your mention of her "using up her previous [world]" also makes me wonder
if you're confused as to one of the details of her backstory. Jasmine
didn't originate on We Loved Her First, and then bop on over to Earth
when WLHF ran dry. She existed originally as a PTB on the Higher Planes,
and her existence on WLHF was just a trial run of the whole "go down and
make things better on the mortal coil" plan.
You did get the part where Jasmine *left* WLHF and returned to the
Higher Realms, right? Seeing as how the *whole point* of Cordy's
ascension was that Skip needed to bring her to where Jasmine was so Jas
could jump inside.
>: Yes, and all of Glory's powers would have instantly been rendered
>: useless had anyone known that she was trapped in the body of Ben from
>: the start. If not for *her* mind-control tricks, and half-assed
>: protection of her simpering minions, the Knight of Byzantium would
>: probably have killed her decades earlier.
>
> I never really got the Glory/Ben connection. Weakest part of that
> story to me. I still don't get how he contained her Glorificusness in
> his fragilely human and weak-willed form, especially for 25 years or
> so.
And yet he did, so any characterization of her nature must take that
into account. You can't just *ignore* that part of the story because it
doesn't fit into your argument.
(Well, you *can*, but don't expect anyone to find your argument
compelling.)
>: IOW, you're handwaving away all of Glory's weaknessnes, and
>: dismissing all of Jasmine's strengths as mere cheap tricks. There's a
>: serious double standard swingin' here, and it's the only basis for
>: arguing that Glory is a god and Jasmine is not.
>
> It's just as valid as finding Jaz to be ambiguous and somewhat
> credible because you think the story's stronger that way.
No, because I'm not employing a double standard to make my point. Do I
really need to explain why a double standard cripples an argument?
And, really, the question of whether Jas is "ambiguous and somewhat
credible" has nothing to do with the question at hand. She can be purely
evil and entirely incredible -- and that still doesn't mean she isn't a
god.
>:> Except, in this case, those who know the true name are among the
>:> enlightened who are as close as possible to their God, right?
>
>: Right. Like the Guardian of the Word and the Keeper of the Name in
>: the Devourer's giant temple in the sky?
>
> Demons from a demonic realm.
Yes, and?
Just because Jasmine was the god of a demon realm, that doesn't mean she
wasn't a god. It *certainly* doesn't mean she was a demon.
>: Not seeing the contradiction, I'm afraid. The idea that the name of
>: God not only possesses potent magickal power, but also can be
>: *misused* by those not wise and holy eough to wield it properly, is
>: an old superstition.
>
> Such misuse as saying it in public, to the "god's" own face?
In some of the stories its misuse can *undo all of God's creation*. Is
it really less plausible that it could simply mess with the bond between
god and man?
Indeed, the very essence of the superstition is that the name of God has
inherent power independent of God's own will -- that it can be used in
dark rituals that defy God's wishes. If that weren't the case, there'd
be nothing to fear from it.
>: The fact that Jasmine has many human characteristics does not negate
>: the fact that she also has many *superhuman* characteristics.
>
> Which makes her a super-villain or a demon just as likely as it
> renders her a god.
You could just as easily say that about Glory, or Zeus, or Jesus, or
*any* godlike figure with supernatural powers. You can't handwave away
every one of Jasmine's powers as demon tricks, while holding up the no-
more-impressive powers of other supposed higher beings as evidence of
their "real" godhood. It's a completely arbitrary distinction.
>: And there's no basis for saying that she was "hyper-vigilant" against
>: others falling out of her thrall, considering that her primary
>
> She certainly worked hard to maximize the number of people falling
> into her thrall, as quickly as possible. Lucky that tv and radio
> worked for her so well.
You're not speaking to your own point. Working hard to get people *in*
her thrall is one thing. Being "hyper-vigilant" about people falling
*out* of it is something entirely different.
>: consideration when Fred turned was to reach out to her and bring her
>: back into the fold, even when her followers warned her that Fred was
>: dangerous and needed to be wiped out. Hell, she was even angry at
>
> Which is why most of them were trying to kill her, until she offered
> herself up in seeming supplication?
Err... Who exactly was trying to kill Fred before that point?
> Jasmine was desperate to learn HOW Fred got free, and what could be
> done about it. That's all that kept Fred alive.
Now you're making stuff up to support your claim. Jasmine herself says
that she did was she did because of "kindness," because she was "being
loving to Fred." And *she had no reason to lie*, because her followers
would be just as happy if she said the wanted Fred's skull for a pencil
holder.
> And even if Jaz sincerely believed she was helping anyone but herself,
> she was still mistaken. Her loving touch created monsters.
I didn't say she wasn't mistaken. I said you have no reason to believe
she wasn't a god.
Shawn H
:> No, she already WAS vulnerable; she took human form as a prerequisite
:> to enter our world, after using up her previous one, and some very
:> complex machinations were required to make even that plan work. Her
:> existence was defined from the start as precarious.
: Because from the start *she had already taken human form*. We have *no*
: reason to believe that in her true form, in the Higher Realms, her
: existence was at all "precarious."
But we're talking about her existence on earth.
: when WLHF ran dry. She existed originally as a PTB on the Higher Planes,
: and her existence on WLHF was just a trial run of the whole "go down and
: make things better on the mortal coil" plan.
and, apparently, wherever she gets corporeal, she causes a world of hurt.
: You did get the part where Jasmine *left* WLHF and returned to the
: Higher Realms, right? Seeing as how the *whole point* of Cordy's
: ascension was that Skip needed to bring her to where Jasmine was so Jas
: could jump inside.
Actually, no, I didn't get that. I thought Cordy got pregnant from
Connor, not before.
:> I never really got the Glory/Ben connection. Weakest part of that
:> story to me. I still don't get how he contained her Glorificusness in
:> his fragilely human and weak-willed form, especially for 25 years or
:> so.
: And yet he did, so any characterization of her nature must take that
: into account. You can't just *ignore* that part of the story because it
: doesn't fit into your argument.
: (Well, you *can*, but don't expect anyone to find your argument
: compelling.)
Except for those who see no double standard because they see Jaz and Glory
as different already. I've never seen one subject or event nailed down to
one definitive meaning on either show.
:>: the Devourer's giant temple in the sky?
:>
:> Demons from a demonic realm.
: Yes, and?
: Just because Jasmine was the god of a demon realm, that doesn't mean she
: wasn't a god. It *certainly* doesn't mean she was a demon.
If it looks like one and acts like one ...
: Indeed, the very essence of the superstition is that the name of God has
: inherent power independent of God's own will -- that it can be used in
: dark rituals that defy God's wishes. If that weren't the case, there'd
: be nothing to fear from it.
This, however, was a "light" ritual; the darkness was Jasmine.
: You could just as easily say that about Glory, or Zeus, or Jesus, or
: *any* godlike figure with supernatural powers. You can't handwave away
: every one of Jasmine's powers as demon tricks, while holding up the no-
: more-impressive powers of other supposed higher beings as evidence of
: their "real" godhood. It's a completely arbitrary distinction.
Glory was more far more impressive. Buffy could have punched Jasmine's
face out, but had little hope against Glory in direct conflict.
: You're not speaking to your own point. Working hard to get people *in*
: her thrall is one thing. Being "hyper-vigilant" about people falling
: *out* of it is something entirely different.
You see no connection between the two?
:> Which is why most of them were trying to kill her, until she offered
:> herself up in seeming supplication?
: Err... Who exactly was trying to kill Fred before that point?
Were all of Jasmine's eyes and ears just going to capture her and deliver
her home?
:> Jasmine was desperate to learn HOW Fred got free, and what could be
:> done about it. That's all that kept Fred alive.
: Now you're making stuff up to support your claim. Jasmine herself says
: that she did was she did because of "kindness," because she was "being
: loving to Fred." And *she had no reason to lie*, because her followers
: would be just as happy if she said the wanted Fred's skull for a pencil
: holder.
Jasmine was deluded in seeing her ministrations as a positive. And whether
she needed to appear positive and loving to her followers to maintain
their support, she did it nonetheless constantly. She never had a harsh
word for anyone, even as she was having them for lunch. Maybe it did help
maintain the spell, or at least give them more chances to talk about her
grace. Maybe if they'd seen her actually get bloody and blunt more often
her hold would have weakened. We certainly know how they felt when her
illusion of beauty faded.
:> And even if Jaz sincerely believed she was helping anyone but herself,
:> she was still mistaken. Her loving touch created monsters.
: I didn't say she wasn't mistaken. I said you have no reason to believe
: she wasn't a god.
The show signified her as a demon. ME did not succeed in impressing her
godhood upon me, as they did with Glory.
Shawn
Don Sample
<igs6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, perhaps the nub of the issue is the question of whether Jasmine
> was an evil god (ie. using her mesmerizing power to control people
> while using them for her own benefit) or a good god (bringing true
> happiness and peace to the world, at a minor price). Or maybe there's
> no difference.
Given the behaviour we saw from her, I'd go with door number 1.
Jasmine was evil, controlling minds for her own benefit. She didn't
really give a damn about anyone. One of her mind controlled minions
happily chased after Fred while he was blazing on fire. She told the
bookstore guy to burn it down, and he asked if she wanted him to stay
inside while it burned, and I don't recall if she gave him an answer.
When Angel foiled her plans for world domination she behaved like a two
year old child, declaring that since he wouldn't let her rule it, she
would destroy it.
If Angel *hadn't* foiled her plan, what would Jasmine have done if she
decided all the happy shiny people in her brave new world were just
boring? Might she have decided it would be fun to have all the blondes
declare war on the redheads?
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Shawn H
: igs6...@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.03071...@posting.google.com>...
Jasmine offered nothing under a pretense of offering everything. It's
laughable to me that anyone can see her as in any way "good," even if I
concede the "god" part. The show wasn't even TRYING to make her look
benevolent; rather, it was reveling in her corruption as a horrific,
insidious threat. Her beauty made only heightened her threat. How can they
have gone so wrong that anyone was convinced by her shallow rhetoric?
Glory offerered indifference. Big deal if some humans or Slayers or
witches died; their bad luck for getting in the path of a superior being.
Shawn
himiko
Quite possibly. None of this prevents her from being a legitimately
good god.
She cared about humanity in the mass. She didn't care about
individuals. That doesn't mean she wouldn't have seen to humanity's
best interests (her interpretation of them, of course); indeed, since
she needed humans for food, adulation, and other services, she had
every reason to take good care we survived in the mass sense of the
term. And since she clearly enjoyed our company/adulation/obedience,
I have no problem believing her statement that she wanted to help
us...in her own way.
And, if we didn't obey and adore her as she felt she deserved, she
would bring on Armageddon or Ragnarok or whatever.
Perfectly normal behavior for a deity. It's why so many of us prefer
not to believe in deities...or at least hope they don't exist.
himiko
Shuggie
>She cared about humanity in the mass. She didn't care about
>individuals.
I don't believe you can care about humanity in any meaningful sense and
not care about individuals.
--
Shug
Oz: Wrong. The gold kryptonite's the power-sucker. The red
kryptonite mutates Superman into some sort of weird...
Buffy: Guys? Reality?
Linda
"Shawn H" <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bf95bv$tmv$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Snip a lot
Okay, I've been following this thread for a while and something just now
jumped out at me.
Could there not be a third class? So far you've been argueing about Jasmine
being a G*d or a demon. I thought she was a PTB. Somewhere between demon and
G*d. I just realized that is where I had placed her. On the level of one of
those higher beings such as an Angel (not to be confused with our Angel -
vampire with a soul) or Devil might be.
>
> The show signified her as a demon. ME did not succeed in impressing her
> godhood upon me, as they did with Glory.
Same here.
Here's how I picture it.
Glory/G*d
Jasmine/Angels/devils
Demons
Vampires
Humans
Other animals/etc.
Kinda like a food chain or hierarchy or class.
Maybe that's just me though.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
Lindsey - "How did you think this would end?" - The Trial
himiko
> On 18 Jul 2003 16:45:52 -0700, him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote:
>
> >She cared about humanity in the mass. She didn't care about
> >individuals.
>
> I don't believe you can care about humanity in any meaningful sense and
> not care about individuals.
I know YOU don't. I don't either. Most people can't and those who
can are usually labelled sociopaths or saints. But I can and do see
how an insect deity might view things otherwise...and still be very
sincere in a totally meaningful (to her and other insect) way.
himiko
The Babaloughesian
"Shuggie" <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v92hhv8i5u486pafg...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jul 2003 16:45:52 -0700, him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote:
>
> >She cared about humanity in the mass. She didn't care about
> >individuals.
>
> I don't believe you can care about humanity in any meaningful sense and
> not care about individuals.
I can think of a way. The human species as an organism; individual human
beings as cells. Needs of the whole vs. needs of the few. You can
sacrifice a lot of cells without killing the organism. Some whole organs
can be superfluous. The only problem I see there is that the cells are
still ultimately what makes up the organism, so their needs still have to be
met to ensure the survival of the whole. So one must care to some extent
about individuals, or the whole mass crumbles. And I think Jasmine did in
fact care to an extent about individuals. I think her utopia showed a
combination of thinking of people as a herd or a sort of extension of
herself of which individual parts were often expendable and thinking of them
on a more individual, personal level. They seemed to retain their own lives
when she wasn't using them in mass as pseudopods.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:bf95bv$tmv$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Snip a lot
: Okay, I've been following this thread for a while and something just now
: jumped out at me.
: Could there not be a third class? So far you've been argueing about Jasmine
: being a G*d or a demon. I thought she was a PTB. Somewhere between demon and
: G*d. I just realized that is where I had placed her. On the level of one of
: those higher beings such as an Angel (not to be confused with our Angel -
: vampire with a soul) or Devil might be.
It's fictional metaphysics, which is why it's so hard to talk about. ME
starts from pop (Western, quasi-Judeo-Christian and/or pagan/Greek)
cultural assumptions and works from there, adding their own particularly
writerly spins. And then we bring all our own faith-based feelings and
interests and try to sort it out as viewers. Of course there might be a
third, or even multiple other levels of supreme being.
:> The show signified her as a demon. ME did not succeed in impressing her
:> godhood upon me, as they did with Glory.
: Same here.
: Here's how I picture it.
: Glory/G*d
: Jasmine/Angels/devils
: Demons
: Vampires
: Humans
: Other animals/etc.
: Kinda like a food chain or hierarchy or class.
: Maybe that's just me though.
It's all just us.
Shawn
Lord Usher
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:> No, she already WAS vulnerable; she took human form as a
>:> prerequisite to enter our world, after using up her previous one,
>:> and some very complex machinations were required to make even that
>:> plan work. Her existence was defined from the start as precarious.
>
>: Because from the start *she had already taken human form*. We have
>: *no* reason to believe that in her true form, in the Higher Realms,
>: her existence was at all "precarious."
>
> But we're talking about her existence on earth.
No, we're talking about whether she was a god or a demon. You argued that
she couldn't be a god because she was too weak and vulnerable, and
therefore that made her demonic. But her weakness was a side-effect of
*becoming human*, and that has nothing to do with whether or not she was
originally a god, and it *certainly* doesn't suggest that she's a demon.
>: when WLHF ran dry. She existed originally as a PTB on the Higher
>: Planes, and her existence on WLHF was just a trial run of the whole
>: "go down and make things better on the mortal coil" plan.
>
> and, apparently, wherever she gets corporeal, she causes a world of
> hurt.
Yes, and?
>: You did get the part where Jasmine *left* WLHF and returned to the
>: Higher Realms, right? Seeing as how the *whole point* of Cordy's
>: ascension was that Skip needed to bring her to where Jasmine was so
>: Jas could jump inside.
>
> Actually, no, I didn't get that. I thought Cordy got pregnant from
> Connor, not before.
"Inside Out" made it clear that Cordelia has been under Jasmine's control
since she got her memory back in "Spin the Bottle." We know Jasmine was
inside Cordy as far back as "Slouching Toward Bethlehem," because it was
*her* mind-blowingly complex destiny that Lorne was reading when Cordy
sang.
The reason that the Cordemon impregnated herself with Connor's seed was to
get Jasmine *out* of her, to birth the god that was controlling her into
its own independent and less fragile body. But Jas was already in there
waiting to be conceived.
That was the whole purpose behind dragging Cordy up to Heaven. If that
weren't the case, what would be the point of the whole Higher Plane
adventure?
>:> I never really got the Glory/Ben connection. Weakest part of that
>:> story to me. I still don't get how he contained her Glorificusness
>:> in his fragilely human and weak-willed form, especially for 25 years
>:> or so.
>
>: And yet he did, so any characterization of her nature must take that
>: into account. You can't just *ignore* that part of the story because
>: it doesn't fit into your argument.
>
>: (Well, you *can*, but don't expect anyone to find your argument
>: compelling.)
>
> Except for those who see no double standard because they see Jaz and
> Glory as different already.
This isn't where I'm talking about a double standard. Here I'm talking
about you *ignoring part of Glory's backstory* because it doesn't fit with
the story you *wish* they had told.
Despite what you might want to believe, Ben the fragile, weak-willed human
*was* capable of containing Glory's fabulousness. If that means Glory
wasn't as fabulous as you wanted her to be, tough noogies. That's the story
they told, and that's the story on which you need to base your arguments.
>: Just because Jasmine was the god of a demon realm, that doesn't mean
>: she wasn't a god. It *certainly* doesn't mean she was a demon.
>
> If it looks like one and acts like one ...
That's a different question altogether that I'm dealing with elsewhere in
my responses. Simply repeating it here doesn't answer the weakness in your
original argument -- namely, the unsupportable assumption that the god of a
demon realm is necessarily a demon.
You know, Shawn, it'd be nice if you could concede a point every once in a
while, instead of spinning out red herrings like this one every time one of
your arguments goes bad.
>: Indeed, the very essence of the superstition is that the name of God
>: has inherent power independent of God's own will -- that it can be
>: used in dark rituals that defy God's wishes. If that weren't the
>: case, there'd be nothing to fear from it.
>
> This, however, was a "light" ritual; the darkness was Jasmine.
Another red herring. Whee!
My point was that the True Name superstition is based on the idea that a
god's name can be used contrary to that god's own wishes. Whether it's a
dark ritual or a light ritual or a sparkly funtime ritual is absolutely
immaterial to the argument.
>: You could just as easily say that about Glory, or Zeus, or Jesus, or
>: *any* godlike figure with supernatural powers. You can't handwave
>: away every one of Jasmine's powers as demon tricks, while holding up
>: the no- more-impressive powers of other supposed higher beings as
>: evidence of their "real" godhood. It's a completely arbitrary
>: distinction.
>
> Glory was more far more impressive. Buffy could have punched Jasmine's
> face out, but had little hope against Glory in direct conflict.
No, that's simply not the case. "Peace Out" made it clear that there are
only *two people in the entire world* who could have punched Jasmine's face
out, and Buffy Anne Summers was *not* one of them.
Not to mention that you're limiting your definition of "impressive power"
to physical strength alone, which doesn't really measure the scope of
Jasmine's impressiveness. Even if Buffy could've killed Jas (and she
couldn't have), *she wouldn't have wanted to*. Jas's ability to dazzle the
mind of any human being is a major part of her power, and it must be taken
into account if you're going to compare her fairly to another god.
>: You're not speaking to your own point. Working hard to get people
>: *in* her thrall is one thing. Being "hyper-vigilant" about people
>: falling *out* of it is something entirely different.
>
> You see no connection between the two?
What are you talking about? Of course there's a connection between the two,
inasmuch as they are similar goals that further the same ends. But that
doesn't change the fact that Jasmine was clearly pursuing the former but
showed *no* interest in the latter.
Just because things are connected doesn't mean they're inextricably
connected. There's a connection between immigration and deportation, too,
but that doesn't mean a country can't have strong immigration laws and weak
deportation enforcement.
>:> Which is why most of them were trying to kill her, until she offered
>:> herself up in seeming supplication?
>
>: Err... Who exactly was trying to kill Fred before that point?
>
> Were all of Jasmine's eyes and ears just going to capture her and
> deliver her home?
I defy you to provide me with one *shred* evidence that Jasmine's eyes and
ears were going to do anything other than that.
>: Now you're making stuff up to support your claim. Jasmine herself
>: says that she did was she did because of "kindness," because she was
>: "being loving to Fred." And *she had no reason to lie*, because her
>: followers would be just as happy if she said the wanted Fred's skull
>: for a pencil holder.
>
> Jasmine was deluded in seeing her ministrations as a positive. And
> whether she needed to appear positive and loving to her followers to
> maintain their support, she did it nonetheless constantly. She never
> had a harsh word for anyone, even as she was having them for lunch.
> Maybe it did help maintain the spell, or at least give them more
> chances to talk about her grace. Maybe if they'd seen her actually get
> bloody and blunt more often her hold would have weakened.
And maybe the Magick Positivity Fairies would've given her a Negativity
Citation if she'd yelled at anyone. Once again, you're *making up*
explanations for which no evidence exists, simply to support your own
argument.
The series gave us no reason to believe that Jasmine's positivity was
necessary for the maintenance of her spell. Indeed, she continued to insist
that she loved humanity and had just been trying to help *even after her
divine aura had been entirely neutralized* -- at which point there was
nothing left to maintain.
> We certainly know how they felt when her illusion of beauty faded.
Because they were simultaneously being freed from her thrall. And we know
that the restoration of free will was not just a side-effect of seeing
through her beauty, because several of Our Heroes were freed *without ever
seeing Jasmine's wormy face*.
>:> And even if Jaz sincerely believed she was helping anyone but
>:> herself, she was still mistaken. Her loving touch created monsters.
>
>: I didn't say she wasn't mistaken. I said you have no reason to
>: believe she wasn't a god.
>
> The show signified her as a demon. ME did not succeed in impressing
> her godhood upon me, as they did with Glory.
Hey, that's your prerogative, and I can't argue with affect. (Though I do
wish you hadn't resorted to so many crazy and irrational arguments to try
to get that simple point across.)
For my part, I found Jasmine *infinitely* more impressive than Glory, who
always struck me as a phony-baloney attempt at cheap one-upmanship. Oooh,
she's super-strong! Wow, she's *invulnerable*! We've never seen Big Bads
who were super-strong or invulnerable before! Oh, but wait -- she's also
*hot*! And wimpy little demon losers worship her!
Yawn.
Jasmine, on the other hand, was perhaps the most unique Big Bad ME has ever
devised, and IMHO her powers were the most impressive of any villain we've
seen. The ANGEL writers portrayed her not as another sneaky evildoer
lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to cause mayhem, but as an
unapologetic go-getter who was actually *remaking the whole world*, from
the sewers to the heavens, as Our Heroes looked on in horror.
Hell, this is a character who's responsible for half the things that
happened in the series *before we even knew she existed*. She's one of the
beings who were mentioned as big, important mucky-mucks from the first act
of the very first episode -- one of the very beings who supposedly gave
meaning to Angel's eternal life, and the life of every person. Someone who,
in her original form, could see the past, present, and future, and into the
heart of every living being. It doesn't get more important or more
impressive than that.
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bf95bv$tmv$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
:> But we're talking about her existence on earth.
: No, we're talking about whether she was a god or a demon. You argued that
: she couldn't be a god because she was too weak and vulnerable, and
: therefore that made her demonic. But her weakness was a side-effect of
: *becoming human*, and that has nothing to do with whether or not she was
: originally a god, and it *certainly* doesn't suggest that she's a demon.
It did to me.
:> Actually, no, I didn't get that. I thought Cordy got pregnant from
:> Connor, not before.
: "Inside Out" made it clear that Cordelia has been under Jasmine's control
: since she got her memory back in "Spin the Bottle." We know Jasmine was
: inside Cordy as far back as "Slouching Toward Bethlehem," because it was
: *her* mind-blowingly complex destiny that Lorne was reading when Cordy
: sang.
I don't find any of the events prior to Jasmine's emergence all that
clear.
: That was the whole purpose behind dragging Cordy up to Heaven. If that
: weren't the case, what would be the point of the whole Higher Plane
: adventure?
Rewarding Cordy for a job well done? An inevitable outcome of her decision
in Birthday? PTB misunderstanding and mismanaging human affairs yet again?
When did all those get pulled out of the picture?
:> Except for those who see no double standard because they see Jaz and
:> Glory as different already.
: This isn't where I'm talking about a double standard. Here I'm talking
: about you *ignoring part of Glory's backstory* because it doesn't fit with
: the story you *wish* they had told.
Sounds very familiar.
: Despite what you might want to believe, Ben the fragile, weak-willed human
: *was* capable of containing Glory's fabulousness. If that means Glory
: wasn't as fabulous as you wanted her to be, tough noogies. That's the story
: they told, and that's the story on which you need to base your arguments.
I'm not making arguments. I'm sharing perspectives, conclusions, judgments
and feelings. I know I've got no hope of convincing you of anything.
You're still in Jasmine's thrall.
:> If it looks like one and acts like one ...
: That's a different question altogether that I'm dealing with elsewhere in
: my responses. Simply repeating it here doesn't answer the weakness in your
: original argument -- namely, the unsupportable assumption that the god of a
: demon realm is necessarily a demon.
It seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw.
: You know, Shawn, it'd be nice if you could concede a point every once in a
: while, instead of spinning out red herrings like this one every time one of
: your arguments goes bad.
Surely you must be aware of my posting style by now. I'll concede a point
when I'm actually convinced of it. You've not done that yet on this topic.
:> This, however, was a "light" ritual; the darkness was Jasmine.
: Another red herring. Whee!
No, it's the actual way I see things. I've taken the text we both saw, and
interpreted it in my own way. I know it's stunning that it's a different
way than you did, based on different beliefs, assumptions, judgments and
thought processes, but there you go.
: My point was that the True Name superstition is based on the idea that a
: god's name can be used contrary to that god's own wishes. Whether it's a
: dark ritual or a light ritual or a sparkly funtime ritual is absolutely
: immaterial to the argument.
"The True Name" superstition is hardly a codified, universal or concrete
phenomena; it's as multidimensional and open-ended as any other
recognizable cross-cultural theme. I understand the TNS to be dangerous
not to the god, but to the people who weild it. Some are not meant to
know, are not capable of processing the naked wisdom. It's too good for
mere mortals, in other words.
Jasmine's name was too BBBAAAAADDDDDDD.
:> Glory was more far more impressive. Buffy could have punched Jasmine's
:> face out, but had little hope against Glory in direct conflict.
: No, that's simply not the case. "Peace Out" made it clear that there are
: only *two people in the entire world* who could have punched Jasmine's face
: out, and Buffy Anne Summers was *not* one of them.
It didn't make it clear to me. I was stunned when Connor took care of her.
: Not to mention that you're limiting your definition of "impressive power"
: to physical strength alone, which doesn't really measure the scope of
: Jasmine's impressiveness. Even if Buffy could've killed Jas (and she
: couldn't have), *she wouldn't have wanted to*. Jas's ability to dazzle the
: mind of any human being is a major part of her power, and it must be taken
: into account if you're going to compare her fairly to another god.
An ability that can be undone by touching her blood, ie, symbolically
seeing past her (lying) substance to touch the (horrorible) truth that
resides within. Glory had no such revelatory or symbolic weakness; she
couldn't stay sane in her human form, but she had a ready method of coping
with that.
And, as I've said, Jaz's parlor tricks could be duplicated believably by
any number of demons and magicians we've seen on Buffy (I admit Jaz had
more ambition than most), all of whom would have fallen before Glory's
might.
:>: You're not speaking to your own point. Working hard to get people
:>: *in* her thrall is one thing. Being "hyper-vigilant" about people
:>: falling *out* of it is something entirely different.
:>
:> You see no connection between the two?
: What are you talking about? Of course there's a connection between the two,
: inasmuch as they are similar goals that further the same ends. But that
: doesn't change the fact that Jasmine was clearly pursuing the former but
: showed *no* interest in the latter.
She worked very hard to get Fred back on her side, and I don't see that as
"spreading the love." I see it as avoiding the hate, just as she tried to
do when she started losing the rest of her support staff.
: Just because things are connected doesn't mean they're inextricably
: connected. There's a connection between immigration and deportation, too,
: but that doesn't mean a country can't have strong immigration laws and weak
: deportation enforcement.
But is it very likely?
:> Were all of Jasmine's eyes and ears just going to capture her and
:> deliver her home?
: I defy you to provide me with one *shred* evidence that Jasmine's eyes and
: ears were going to do anything other than that.
I'm sure Fred would have made a very tasty snack.
:> Maybe it did help maintain the spell, or at least give them more
:> chances to talk about her grace. Maybe if they'd seen her actually get
:> bloody and blunt more often her hold would have weakened.
: And maybe the Magick Positivity Fairies would've given her a Negativity
: Citation if she'd yelled at anyone. Once again, you're *making up*
: explanations for which no evidence exists, simply to support your own
: argument.
I'm telling you how I saw her. She was a hateful, selfish bitch; worse
than that, she was a carnivor loose among the sheep, wielding a soporific
to make them docile while she chewed.
: The series gave us no reason to believe that Jasmine's positivity was
: necessary for the maintenance of her spell. Indeed, she continued to insist
: that she loved humanity and had just been trying to help *even after her
: divine aura had been entirely neutralized* -- at which point there was
: nothing left to maintain.
And she showed it by rampaging through town like the Hulk in smart mode;
more hypocrisy from the cursed one.
:> We certainly know how they felt when her illusion of beauty faded.
: Because they were simultaneously being freed from her thrall. And we know
Because their false happiness and supplication was shattered by the sight
of her.
: that the restoration of free will was not just a side-effect of seeing
: through her beauty, because several of Our Heroes were freed *without ever
: seeing Jasmine's wormy face*.
Only because they had an even more direct exposure, to her demonic blood.
Her "parents," btw, all being at least part-demon.
:> The show signified her as a demon. ME did not succeed in impressing
:> her godhood upon me, as they did with Glory.
: Hey, that's your prerogative, and I can't argue with affect. (Though I do
: wish you hadn't resorted to so many crazy and irrational arguments to try
: to get that simple point across.)
When people ask questions, I try to explain. Unlike Jasmine, I'm not in
control of their understanding and response.
: For my part, I found Jasmine *infinitely* more impressive than Glory, who
: always struck me as a phony-baloney attempt at cheap one-upmanship. Oooh,
: she's super-strong! Wow, she's *invulnerable*! We've never seen Big Bads
: who were super-strong or invulnerable before! Oh, but wait -- she's also
: *hot*! And wimpy little demon losers worship her!
: Yawn.
I found Glory genuinely scary, and strange and perverse enough to convince
as an actual Higher Being.
: Jasmine, on the other hand, was perhaps the most unique Big Bad ME has ever
: devised, and IMHO her powers were the most impressive of any villain we've
: seen. The ANGEL writers portrayed her not as another sneaky evildoer
: lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to cause mayhem, but as an
: unapologetic go-getter who was actually *remaking the whole world*, from
: the sewers to the heavens, as Our Heroes looked on in horror.
Yes, she was one of the more powerful and complicated demons they've yet
come up with.
: Hell, this is a character who's responsible for half the things that
: happened in the series *before we even knew she existed*. She's one of the
Much as I don't buy Ben/Glory, you can't seriously expect me to believe
Skip, too.
: beings who were mentioned as big, important mucky-mucks from the first act
: of the very first episode -- one of the very beings who supposedly gave
: meaning to Angel's eternal life, and the life of every person. Someone who,
: in her original form, could see the past, present, and future, and into the
: heart of every living being. It doesn't get more important or more
: impressive than that.
It'll have to get more convincing before I feel it, though.
Shawn
Lord Usher
news:954khv8gg4icms1js...@4ax.com:
>>Hell, this is a character who's responsible for half the things that
>>happened in the series *before we even knew she existed*. She's one of
>>the beings who were mentioned as big, important mucky-mucks from the
>>first act of the very first episode -- one of the very beings who
>>supposedly gave meaning to Angel's eternal life, and the life of every
>>person. Someone who, in her original form, could see the past,
>>present, and future, and into the heart of every living being. It
>>doesn't get more important or more impressive than that.
>
> I agree, she was the most impressive, although she does in many ways
> resemble the Mayor on BtVS.
True. The Mayor has that same kind of behind-the-scenes importance to
the mythology -- since he's the guy who created Sunnydale in the first
place.
It's funny the way stories come back around -- following the end of
BUFFY season 3, I was very much hoping that the series would explore the
idea of Sunnydale as a town that had outlived its intended purpose. We
were led to believe that Sunnydale had been built and cultived for a
hundred years for one reason -- to empower the Mayor's ascension. And
now all of a sudden there is no Mayor, no one who has a vested interest
in keeping all the demon happenings under wraps. What happens to a city
overrun with demons, if there's no one around anymore to tell you that
there's nothing to worry about? If there's no one around to tell you
what kind of city you live in, what kind of city will *you* turn it
into?
IMHO, that would've fit *very* nicely with the new college setting, and
the themes that attend it. The idea that, when you go off to college,
all of a sudden you don't have authority figures standing over you
telling you who you are and what you should be doing. Sunnydale's loss
of clarity could've mirrored *Our Heroes'* loss of clarity, as all of a
sudden they're forced to figure out who they are for themselves.
Now, four years later, that's exactly what I'm hoping to see on ANGEL
next year -- Our Heroes dealing with the possibility that they've
outlived their own divine destinies. Their lives were leading up to the
birth of goddess on Earth, and now that Jasmine is gone, and their
source of divine visions is in the coma, they're left without the
guidence of gods and fate and prophecy.
Which is also a great metaphor for entering the "grown up" working
world: When you're young and idealistic you think you've got this super-
special life ahead of you -- that you're smarter, more passionate, and
more devoted than the capitalist zombies of the world, and you're going
to change the world. And then you wake up one day and realize that
*you're* a corporate cog, too, just like everyone else.
Shawn H
: IMHO, that would've fit *very* nicely with the new college setting, and
: the themes that attend it. The idea that, when you go off to college,
: all of a sudden you don't have authority figures standing over you
: telling you who you are and what you should be doing. Sunnydale's loss
Instead, you have to actually go find your authority figures and beg them
to guide you.
: of clarity could've mirrored *Our Heroes'* loss of clarity, as all of a
: sudden they're forced to figure out who they are for themselves.
Could they have kept the town and the college and the Initiative all
coherent at the same time?
: Now, four years later, that's exactly what I'm hoping to see on ANGEL
: next year -- Our Heroes dealing with the possibility that they've
: outlived their own divine destinies. Their lives were leading up to the
: birth of goddess on Earth, and now that Jasmine is gone, and their
: source of divine visions is in the coma, they're left without the
: guidence of gods and fate and prophecy.
There are other seers, other gods, other threats and other powers always
ready to take the stage. And they've still got Lorne.
: Which is also a great metaphor for entering the "grown up" working
: world: When you're young and idealistic you think you've got this super-
: special life ahead of you -- that you're smarter, more passionate, and
: more devoted than the capitalist zombies of the world, and you're going
: to change the world. And then you wake up one day and realize that
: *you're* a corporate cog, too, just like everyone else.
Angel is still a fantasy show; I bet the message that they're special
will be re-affirmed rather than revealed as mistaken.
Shawn
Shawn H
:>Angel is still a fantasy show; I bet the message that they're special
:>will be re-affirmed rather than revealed as mistaken.
: Unless you mean as in special olympics, I wouldn't be so sure.
: Including Spike in the next season could be used to play on that whole
: 'I had a soul first' specialness that Angel seems to covet.
Spike was made to suffer. I'm sure he'll suffer some more, in his own
special way.
Shawn
Shawn H
: herself of which individual parts were often expendable and thinking of them
: on a more individual, personal level. They seemed to retain their own lives
: when she wasn't using them in mass as pseudopods.
Until she got hungry. Or angry.
Shawn
Shawn H
: On 18 Jul 2003 16:45:52 -0700, him...@animail.net (himiko) wrote:
:>She cared about humanity in the mass. She didn't care about
:>individuals.
: I don't believe you can care about humanity in any meaningful sense and
: not care about individuals.
THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING!!!! If her "care" reduces us to pets, then it's
not care at all. It's destruction.
Shawn
though I really like the Porno for Pyros song
Shawn H
: On 22 Jul 2003 03:31:51 GMT, Shawn H <shill...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING!!!! If her "care" reduces us to pets, then it's
:>not care at all. It's destruction.
: So you have to care about every individual in order to care about
: humanity? Seems a pretty big leap in logic.
: It actually seems rather ridiculous.
Nobody said "every." That's hypberbole. Jasmine didn't care about the
concept of individuality. Except for her favored few, and herself.
Her morality was inhuman.
: I don't give a rats ass about child molesters. They can rot for all I
: care.
: And quite frankly, people are dying in africa right now. I could send
: them my extra cash, but I don't. So do I really care about them? Thats
: a hard argument to make. My trip to the movies last weekend probably
: could have fed more than a few people for a month in some parts of the
: world. What do I have to do to show I 'really care'?
Not saving them and not killing them are two different things.
: People really do care about their pets. Some treat them like children.
: But is that 'real caring'?
Since they ARE pets, I'd say there's not a problem.
: Truth is, I don't care what most people think or what they do. I
: certainly don't want to see innocent people hurt, but if I do nothing,
: which is what most of us are guilty of, do we then 'not care' about
: humanity?
Do you really compare yourself to Jasmine, in your content inactivity? She
seemed to be doing a lot, that affected everyone.
: I would say you are both making a poor arguments.
: One can indeed care about something 'in general' and not care about
: the particulars, if for no other reason than a completely selfish one,
: the general state of humanity affects me. I care about that, most
: people do.
But are most people also setting themselves up as the supreme leader?
: What is 'true caring'? I'm sure everyone has their own idea about
: that, but I don't really care to hear all those opinions.
It's something Jasmine didn't possess.
Shawn