Prospero's Footnotes
Notations, experiments and musings on Magic and Esoteric Traditions









  • "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars."
    Martin Luther (via godmoves)

    (Source: heavenisreality, via awgusteen)

    • 2259
  • "We are united in blood, even though we have not yet managed to take necessary steps towards unity between us and perhaps the time has not yet come. Unity is a gift that we need to ask for. I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: ‘I will continue to deal with the cause, but of both their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.’ This is what ecumenism of blood is."
    Pope Francis (via chrysostmom)

    (via awgusteen)

    • 183
  • Anonymous asked : Would you rather have a republic like the us or a monarchy like canada? I can't decide which is functionally most efficient . I love the idea of constitutional monarchy but I detest the idea of the prime minister simply being the winning party's leader. Thoughts?

    mattykinsel:

    prosperosfootnotes:

    carpeumbra:

    I’m… Not… British ???

    Anon is basically asking whether you approve of the Presidential Model government or the Westminster Model government, those being the two most wide-spread forms of government on the planet.

    Interestingly not all Westminster Model governments are constitutional monarchies - some have an elected head of state, usually a President, who fills the ceremonial roles thereof while allowing a Prime Minister to fill the roles of a head of government. And obviously it’s a spectrum with some ‘ceremonial’ presidents having more real power than others.

    To answer Anon’s question:
    Neither of them are really more efficient than the other. A bicameral congress doesn’t really move faster or slower than a bicameral parliament, although the nature of the Prime Minister’s election process does mean that parliaments tend towards coalitions - one of the reasons the Westminster Model is slightly more popular.

    Sorry if I’m not understanding your response to the anon ahah, but what do you mean the election process of the PM tends towards coalitions and therefore popularity with the Westminster style of governance?

    Also you don’t have to be British?? Ex. Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, India I think, I think the Bahamas? Or is it Jamaica? Anyways you get my point Ahahah

    A prime minister in a Westminster model government is a member of the parliament who is elected by the majority of said parliament. This means that even small parties within the parliament can wield considerable weight by forming coalitions with other factions - for instance, the current Prime Minster of the UK is Conservative Party, but his Deputy is from the Liberal Democrats(actually the centrist party in the UK, with Labour representing the left) because of the current coalition between their parties.

    This is popular in developing countries with multiple factions or interests - India is a good example, as they have a multitude of religious, ethnic, and linguistic groups, many of whom have their own parties, some overlapping, and all this on top of the usual left/right suspects.

    • 4
  • Excuse me a moment while I…
    …BOOGEY DOWN.

    (Source: Spotify)

    • 1
    • 1
  • Also those countries which use the Westminster Model and are Constitutional Monarchies are all part of the Commonwealth of Nations, what used to be the British Empire, with one exception: Japan.

    • 1
  • Anonymous asked : Would you rather have a republic like the us or a monarchy like canada? I can't decide which is functionally most efficient . I love the idea of constitutional monarchy but I detest the idea of the prime minister simply being the winning party's leader. Thoughts?

    carpeumbra:

    I’m… Not… British ???

    Anon is basically asking whether you approve of the Presidential Model government or the Westminster Model government, those being the two most wide-spread forms of government on the planet.

    Interestingly not all Westminster Model governments are constitutional monarchies - some have an elected head of state, usually a President, who fills the ceremonial roles thereof while allowing a Prime Minister to fill the roles of a head of government. And obviously it’s a spectrum with some ‘ceremonial’ presidents having more real power than others.

    To answer Anon’s question:
    Neither of them are really more efficient than the other. A bicameral congress doesn’t really move faster or slower than a bicameral parliament, although the nature of the Prime Minister’s election process does mean that parliaments tend towards coalitions - one of the reasons the Westminster Model is slightly more popular.

    • 4
  • My grandmother asked me tonight to explain the current international state of affairs. At the end of it, she, utterly bewildered, asked my why they didn’t just ‘make peace’.

    Lacking a better idea, I a few lines of this.

    (Source: Spotify)

    • 2
    • 2
  • theheadlesshashasheen:

    coldalbion:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    Pythagoras: We’d know a lot about him, except a lot of ancient assholes wrote conflicting things.

    Thanks a lot, Romans.

    Do not forget that even the Greeks disagreed on him, and warped him to their own ends. See Plato and Aristotle.

    True enough!

    I’m just cruel to the Romans because it’s easy. I’ll return to being scornful about Plato eventually.

    [insert standard quip about barbarians.]

    • 23
  • awgusteen:

    prosperosfootnotes
    DW?
    Doctor Who

    Yeah I forgot it was on tonight. Fortunately, DVR is a thing and Past Me was not so forgetful.

    • 1
  • kushl0rd:

    prosperosfootnotes:

    kushl0rd:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    Pythagoras: We’d know a lot about him, except a lot of ancient assholes wrote conflicting things.

    Thanks a lot, Romans.

    A lot of the Romans had a pretty hardcore Roman bias, i.e., then, as in now, nationalism was a huge factor in distributing information about other lands. So if anything the Romans should sit down and shut the fuck up.

    You know there’s a strong debate in political science about whether or not Nationalism per se is something that’s ancient or requires modern innovations in communication to reach a critical mass.

    And I’m over here like

    You know The Aeneid is a thing, right?

    That’s total bullshit. Letters were a thing. Proclomations were a thing. Common works, as you cited, like The Aeneid, only needed the memorization of poets and lyricists to spread from nation to nation, colony to colony, and arguably all of Rome’s mythology is a testament to their national pride. Their mythology, unlike the Greeks, is much more specific in its time, place, and names. I think this is less because Rome was anal but more because Rome wanted to seem more mythological sound than other nations. 

    Um, no.

    Well to be fair when I say “modern communication” I mean “the printing press”. But, essentially: Yeah, what you said.

    • 23
  • kushl0rd:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    Pythagoras: We’d know a lot about him, except a lot of ancient assholes wrote conflicting things.

    Thanks a lot, Romans.

    A lot of the Romans had a pretty hardcore Roman bias, i.e., then, as in now, nationalism was a huge factor in distributing information about other lands. So if anything the Romans should sit down and shut the fuck up.

    You know there’s a strong debate in political science about whether or not Nationalism per se is something that’s ancient or requires modern innovations in communication to reach a critical mass.

    And I’m over here like

    You know The Aeneid is a thing, right?

    • 23
  • theheadlesshashasheen:

    Pythagoras: We’d know a lot about him, except a lot of ancient assholes wrote conflicting things.

    Thanks a lot, Romans.

    Yooooooooooou’re welcome!

    • 23
  • theheadlesshashasheen:

    prosperosfootnotes:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    prosperosfootnotes:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    I get the distinct feeling that prosperosfootnotes and I played very different D&D classes. lmaoirl.

    Gonna say you were…rouges, generally?

    Wizard and ranger, actually.

    We built the world with good/neutral characters, and then for the last round of gaming, systematically destroyed it with evil characters. (I mean, once you hit epic levels, things kind’ve can get old.)

    The Chaotic Good ranger was a blast to play, though.

    I was generally either a Sorcerer(artillery-based), Cleric, or, when playing 4thE or when all other party slots were filled, Bard.
    Gotta love them Face characters.

    Bard is fun times. Sonic spells FTW. Plus Bluff.

    "You somehow manage to bluff the ancient Demi-Lich, keeping him occupied until the Paladin gets into position and begins Smitewanking."

    I once, as a bard, convinced an enemy that the combat-cleric in the party was, in fact, a Greater God of War. Mid-combat.

    Which sounds really good, until you realize we were in Sigil and we had just irritated the ever-living-fuck out of the Lady of Pain…

    • 6
  • theheadlesshashasheen:

    prosperosfootnotes:

    theheadlesshashasheen:

    I get the distinct feeling that prosperosfootnotes and I played very different D&D classes. lmaoirl.

    Gonna say you were…rouges, generally?

    Wizard and ranger, actually.

    We built the world with good/neutral characters, and then for the last round of gaming, systematically destroyed it with evil characters. (I mean, once you hit epic levels, things kind’ve can get old.)

    The Chaotic Good ranger was a blast to play, though.

    I was generally either a Sorcerer(artillery-based), Cleric, or, when playing 4thE or when all other party slots were filled, Bard.
    Gotta love them Face characters.

    • 6