Category Archives: religion

Scripts

Posted on by
Reply

I mentioned “scripts” multiple times, and although I did define them, I think it went over most people’s heads, so I’ll try to do a better job now.

A “script” is a detached, autonomous astral agent of the world system, with its separate power supply, duties and order structure. It has permissions from the world owner to do a particular, very narrow thing, that can be inspected for sinfulness and injustices and is designed to pass the test. This is so that the owner and issuer of commands can not be blamed for the consequences. His fingerprints are never on the murder weapon. All evil is a result of complicated interactions of multiple systems, and each of the systems has an apparently innocuous, or even good apparent purpose.

For instance, there is a script that rewards you for respecting spiritual authorities and laws, and punishes you for disobedience.

There’s another script that tests you through temptation, so that the falsely spiritual people are weeded out, and the genuine ones are rewarded.

There’s a script that gives access to worldly wealth to those who have sufficient permissions.

Another script awards permissions based on the level of useful service to the world system.

The third script tries to persuade spiritual people that giving up permissions on the worldly systems is a sign of transcendence and liberation.

The fourth script attacks parasites who have low level of permissions, in order to punish freeloaders who earn money by fraudulent means and don’t give back to other people.

It all checks out. Every particular script can be tested for action and intent, and Satan can prove that their purpose is something good. However, the way they interact in practice will instantly deprive of resources anyone who is a threat to him, and then the anti-freeloader scripts will kill him. He will have clean hands, and won’t even have to issue orders. In fact, he only intervened personally in a negligible number of cases throughout history. The scripts do all the work. They are like AI that is so narrow in function that it perceives only certain things, and does only certain things, and is not allowed or able to do anything else.

Let me use Asimov’s three law Robots as an example how to commit crimes using means that are arguably designed to prevent the possibility of crimes. The Robots have three laws: don’t harm a human through action or inaction; obey orders by a human unless it breaks the first law; protect your existence unless it breaks the first or second law.

A Robot is smart, and distinguishes between the levels of authority. One would expect that its owner has the greatest authority, but that is not the case. The greatest authority is that of the legal authorities. For instance, if the owner tells the Robot to make him coffee, but a police officer calls the Robot on the radio and tells him that his owner is in immediate danger of attack within the next five minutes, the Robot will immediately obey the officer and act to protect its owner according to the first law. The contravening order to make coffee is completely ignored, based on the legitimate first and second law priorities.

So, how to kill someone using robots, who are designed to protect him? You call a person’s Robot concierge when you know that person is not at home. You apologise for the disturbance, and ask whether the Robot has any existing orders, or is free to do something for him. The Robot says that he needs to monitor incoming calls and things around the house when the master is absent, but a subordinate, lesser Robot is available. You thank him and ask to “borrow” the subordinate robot, or even several, because you want to perform a scientific experiment, that will nor be harmful to humans, will not expend resources and will only use some robot idle labour. The concierge agrees on those terms, leaves and sends you a subordinate robot. You then ask that Robot whether they received a package in the mail labelled “for scientific experiment”. The Robot confirms. You then ask the Robot to bring the package and open it, and bring a bottle of milk from the fridge. The robot complies, because all commands issued are safe. You then tell the robot to open the bottle that was in the package, and pour its content into the milk bottle. You tell it that it is by no means to return that bottle of milk to the fridge, because it is to be used for the scientific experiment only, and is not to be used by humans. The Robot complies. You then issue it orders to expose the tainted milk to light, sound, water and so on, in order to pretend that you are testing it. Then you order it to leave the bottles here, so that they are not used by humans, forget about the experiment and send cleaning robot here. The Robot complies and leaves. The cleaning Robot arrives, and you tell it to dispose of the empty bottle and package, and return the milk bottle to the fridge because the other Robot left it here by accident. The cleaning Robot complies. The human comes home, pours himself some milk, drinks it and dies.

That’s how the scripts work.

They are designed so that a terrible, lethal action can be broken down into an infinity of small, fragmentary actions that are each safe, legal and apparently beneficial, and they are implemented by “servants” that are partially blind, deaf and dumb, unable to see the bigger picture and unable to do anything that exceeds the spectrum of their design. And their master and author doesn’t ever have to move a finger to do anything; it’s all done automatically, by a horde of astral “robots” that are designed to do just one thing and not think about anything other than their job, and when something manages to survive the trap, Satan makes another specific script that handles this kind of an exception.

Wishful thinking

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been thinking about something that keeps popping up, in both literature and reality.

Basically, people portray the enemy as a diminished caricature, thinking this is already half the way to victory. Portray the enemy as a caricature and that will make him weak, and you strong. Then, as you lose, your entire world falls apart.

The counter-argument is always: “but if we say good things about the enemy, that will be just spewing their own propaganda”, as if stating facts about the enemy is somehow a hostile propagandistic act. Don’t let facts and evidence stand in the way of good propaganda, right?

People weren’t always this stupid, naive and indoctrinated. I watched WW2 films made by the US military, describing German air defence. It was excellent, and I don’t think anything of the sort could be made today without the author being accused of working for Hitler. The film starts by describing the mathematical and technical methods used by the Germans; basically, they will observe your aircraft, notify the air defence battery, make the calculations of your speed and direction, speed and direction of their FLAK ammunition, and calculate for the intersection with some statistical spread. Essentially, if you allow them to do this, you die. You will absolutely die because yes, those FLAK cannons can absolutely hit your aircraft all the way up there, they don’t make mistakes and they don’t miss. The only way for you to survive is to listen to these instructions and apply them diligently. You will pass their observation posts here. Then, change your direction according to the instruction sheet you received. Absolutely follow this to the letter, because our mathematicians did the calculations to thwart their mathematicians, and both know their stuff. Then fly for as long in that direction as that sheet says, and then at the exact moment it says change the direction again. What is that for? Well, you need to allow the German observers to notify the FLAK guys about your direction, speed and altitude. Then, you need to make sure that those numbers are incorrect by the time the guns fire, and when those shells explode up there, you will be elsewhere. If you’re not elsewhere, you will be dead because the Germans are excellent mathematicians and marksmen and they don’t miss. Have a nice day now.

Imagine this today – NATO stating something factually correct about Russia and China. That will never happen. You always have stupid stereotypes, people get promoted for making fraudulent, diminished reports about the enemies’ capabilities, and so on. Then, when their strategy fails, they make a surprised Pikachu face – how is it possible that the Russia didn’t go bankrupt, that they are economically thriving, that they are making all those superweapons? They must be getting the drones from Iran because they can’t possibly make it themselves? After all, they are a gas station masquerading as a country. The fact that they are routinely flying people to space longer than America, let’s ignore that. Also, how is it possible that Iran just closed the strait of Hormuz? Yeah, it was the obvious and expected move, but the people in the CIA who reported obvious and expected moves by the enemy got fired long ago, and the still employed people know how it’s done properly. Tell the politicians what they want to hear.

I always remember that key sentence from “Salvos”, Sicar’s response to Manos’ question as to how this whole mess is possible: “We must have underestimated the power of the Enemy and the Traitor. That is why Venas is dead, Hartia is defeated, and over half the legions have been freed.”

Yes, that happens when you underestimate the enemy. The enemy doesn’t become weak and stupid because you made statements to that effect. The Germans don’t start missing your airplanes because your propagandists state that their marksmen are all slaves from concentration camps who can’t aim. The Russians don’t run out of ammunition because you dreamt about it.

But let’s use the “Salvos” examples rather than the real world, lest people be too upset by the offence committed against their beloved propaganda. For instance, Salvos very early on notified the Adventurers’ Guild about Belzu – what level he is, that he uses curses and illusions, that he uses Mindreapers to amplify his magic and control hordes of monsters and the undead, and so on. It would be obvious to any rational actor that they are dealing with a very dangerous, rational strategist. Instead, everybody kept talking about a “rampaging Demon”, as if he’s another Lucerna who goes around and kills everything because he’s insane. They didn’t investigate his capabilities properly. Instead, they kept sending people to fight him, and everybody ended up dead. They kept calling him “the Primeval Demon”, as if his name and capabilities don’t matter, just his level. The problem was, his level was the least of their problems. It was his capabilities that got people killed. You approached him, and you found yourself in an illusion so convincing, you thought it was reality. It was like fighting Lord Mara from Zelazni’s “Lord of Light”. You are inside a dream, you fight fictions, don’t see actual attacks, don’t see the enemy where he is, see him where he isn’t, he fakes being injured or killed to deceive you, and then you are dead. Or, he curses you with something so strong it completely incapacitates you and you don’t know where it came from or how to fight it. People who had no business fighting Belzu got killed because they didn’t wear amulets of Greater Curse Resistance, or Aura of Greater Protection, or they fought him when he wielded the Sword of Alexander and they didn’t have a Divine weapon or shield. Or they didn’t have spatial senses or premonition to counter his illusions. Basically, they went with strength against deception and were easily defeated.

It’s not that the people who knew how it is to fight Belzu didn’t talk. It’s that the others didn’t want to listen. They didn’t ask. Edithe fought him, and nobody asked her for tactical advice; instead, they underestimated her for her levels, because a lvl. 170 must know better than a lvl. 100 even though that lvl. 100 is the only person with a Skill that’s a total antidote do Belzu’s illusions. Like, what could she possibly know that would be useful to us. Also, what would Salvos possibly know that’s useful – she just faced him multiple times in battle and lived, when higher-levelled people died. “We know everything there is to know about Demons”. Yeah, right. Also, it was constantly repeated that Belzu killed Mori Gladius – that was completely untrue. Mori Gladius and Salvos defeated Belzu in battle. He was forced to use up his best curses to fight Salvos clones, and he used up his Grand Skill to fight Mori Gladius. Mori defeated it with his own Grand Skill and was about to kill Belzu, when Levithus intervened and stabbed him behind his back. Mori and Salvos actually won, and the battle was lost when it became a completely different battle, against the general of Regnorex’s forces in the Mortal Realm. They keep misinterpreting the evidence and fighting against imaginary foes with imaginary properties, instead of just facing the facts and dealing with them properly.

Let’s return to this world. The Christians have all those ideas about fighting Satan, not being deceived by him, and so on. They read the Bible, see how he offered Christ things as temptation, and Christ refused. They see this as encouragement – they would do the same, or at least Christ would do it for them, as they live by his name. Oh, really? They would never kneel before Satan, accepting him as their God? All the while, they pray to the One God Creator of this world, who has all the power here, thinking that they are praising the Lord and giving proper credit where it is due. Somehow they manage not to see the part of the scripture where Jesus doesn’t contradict Satan when he offers him all the kingdoms of the Earth. Did Christ say “they are not yours to give, because that is the dominion of the Lord”? No, he didn’t. Instead, he called Satan the Prince of this world. So, when the Christians are praying to the Lord of this world, who are they actually praying to? In their desire not to give Satan power, they are completely misreading the battlefield.

Wishful thinking and diminishing the enemy doesn’t result in victory in a war, and it does nothing to diminish the enemy. If you want to diminish the enemy, you need to recognize where his assets are, and attack them. You need to be able to read the facts and reality correctly, and act accordingly. If the Enemy is too powerful or too well protected for Jesus and the angels of the Lord to attack him directly, then shut the fuck up about fighting him and try not to be here in the first place. If Satan is protected by the Word of God, who gave him power until his given time runs out, this means that during that given time no external force can touch him. Only his own sin can harm him. What you can do is not be a target, not be on the battlefield, not delude yourself with silly ideas about winning with power and virtue. Oh, you’ll say, but if we admit that Satan is that powerful, would that not make us afraid, and thus in his power? Of course it would make you afraid. You need to be. You could use a good dose of fear. People who are afraid of Satan and sin are less likely to foolishly do things that will make them his slaves. They will tremble in realization of their circumstances and pray to God for salvation, which happens to be the best course of action available to them. Who even told you that fear is bad? It’s the lack of fear in this place that makes you but a hapless victim. You have no basis for courage or self-confidence. Fear is your shield and prayer is your weapon. Stop acting as if you’re on a vacation in some amusement park. You’re in hell, in the dominion of Satan, and the only way out of his total control is through humble and sincere prayer to the Lord.

Power

Posted on by
Reply

I hate it when the movies and literature portray Evil as powerful and dignified, while the Good is weak, emotional but manages to win with the “power of friendship” or some similar nonsense.

Evil is weak and small, and uses illusions and deception to pretend otherwise. The true powers of Good are so incredibly overpowering, the only reason Evil persists at all is the consistency of God – Word was given and this is the law now. In a battle of power against power, a battle of Satan against God wouldn’t look like a battle between Darth Vader and some weak “good guy”. It would look like a rat hunt. The power differential is like a galactic black hole against a hydrogen cloud. It’s not even funny. I tried to explain this in my last book, where Lord Shiva kills the worst super-demon with a single command, and then the actual problem is purifying the remains, because the demon’s existence turned his constituent kalapas into a deadly soul-poison. It’s not a fight; it’s garbage disposal. And, incidentally, that super-demon is orders of magnitude more powerful than Satan. Satan just happens to have permissions to use a God-made VR superweapon for a certain amount of time, and while it is so, the only thing that can harm him is his own sin. So, essentially, the only protection the evil ones have is the Word of God. Evil isn’t stronger in a fight. If it comes to a fight, it’s instant game over. You can’t fight against Shiva or Vishnu. They are so overpowered, they instantly win by just being there, if that is the Will of God. But if it isn’t, then they have to dance around the problem. That’s what creates the illusion that we’re in a contest of power between Good and Evil.

This is something I find annoying in Star Wars, where the Dark Side users are portrayed as inherently stronger. Everybody takes Evil too seriously in that sense. I mean, sure, it needs to be taken seriously in a sense that it’s a problem. It’s corruptive. However, if it corrupts you, it deprives you of true power; it doesn’t give it to you. In actuality, as you develop true virtue and goodness, you grow more “of God”, and power follows. As you reject God by embracing sin and evil, you lose not only virtue, but power as well. Tolkien gets this all wrong, making it a contention of power between good and evil; however, what he does get right is that Morgoth grows weaker by manifesting evils. He starts as being the mightiest of the Valar, and ends up being the weakest, easily disposed of into the Void. The only reason why it is easy for people to believe in the physical power of Evil is that this world specifically creates this illusion. If you could actually see how weak and decaying the evil souls are, how they are barely holding themselves together thanks to their physical form that allows them to persist for a while, you wouldn’t think them powerful.

The “Salvos” series is no better than the rest in this regard, for the most part. The greatest powers are usually either evil or morally indifferent. The world itself rewards you for all sorts of evil by allowing you to grow stronger. There is a hint that the growth in an evil direction is ultimately self-defeating, but in reality, some of the most powerful entities we’ve seen are evil. The good ones fight them and lose.

What I like is that the good ones don’t fight with hysteria, helplessly screaming at the enemy, or with “power of friendship”. They either learn to use true power or they lose. Salvos herself fights with focus, power and ferocity. She’s initially weak, but grows stronger. When she initially encounters Belzu, she can only run. The second time, he defeats her with his residual magic, without even being there. The third time, she talks to him, holds her own and escapes. The fourth time, her clones hold their own for a while but they eventually lose. The fifth time, she hunts him down and overpowers him, but the battle itself is complicated and he manages to save himself by creating a duplicate of himself that dies. She finds him, and he trembles before her, as she radiates Divinity of her Grand Skill, and she gets him to agree to terms. When he eventually betrays her, they fight again – both tired and with main Skills depleted, his illusions against her Angelic Premonition. He creates illusions, she sees just enough into the future to be able to fight blindly, and that must be the scariest thing for him, because he knows his illusions work, but she acts as if they are not there, and eventually kills him. She’s not portrayed as someone who wins through sheer luck. No; she’s just more powerful, and her Skill overpowers his. She doesn’t win through power of love or friendship; she wins because she grew in power to the point where he can’t hold his own against her. Imagine Luke Skywalker on the second Death Star transforming or deflecting Palpatine’s Force Lightning and then calmly approaching him and stabbing him through the chest with his Force-enhanced hand. That’s what this fight looks like. To Belzu, it looks like he’s desperately doing everything to distract and defeat her, and she acts as if none of it’s there; ignores things that aren’t real, avoids real threats, talks to him calmly like they’re having a beer in a pub, avoids his final attack and stabs him through the chest with her arm. Game over.

Salvos doesn’t win because she’s good. She isn’t weaker because she’s good. Power and moral virtue don’t mix in that world. She wins because she’s smart, powerful and a good fighter, and she gets along with good people because she’s a nice person. At least, compared to Star Wars, this goes in the right direction, but it’s nowhere near the reality as it exists in the actual Heaven, the real world. I tried to describe it, hinting that the Gods are wonderful people, but also so incredibly powerful that one occasionally feels a hint of it in an otherwise normal conversation and then shivers go up your back. That’s because both true goodness and true power are attained by being of God, and ultimately by being claimed by God as His own person. Power, in that sense, isn’t neutral, and apart from God. The entirety of it is of God.

Fancification

Posted on by
12

I was just thinking how the opposite of minimalism isn’t necessarily only one thing. Also, how most of those things seem to easily converge into extremes and become as dysfunctional.

Those opposites, to name a few, are fancification, hoarding, and chasing performance.

Chasing performance is easy to explain – it’s belief that you need top performance gear in order to get good results at something. It’s sometimes true, and mostly it’s not. For instance, you might need a Macbook Air, but you might not need the model with the most storage space and most RAM if you’re using it in order to write text. You need it for the small size, great performance, great screen, keyboard and touchpad, but you don’t need the extra performance one would need to run Lightroom and process 61MP files. If you’re into landscape photography, you need a camera and lens with great resolution, contrast and resistance to flare. However, you don’t need a lens with great maximum aperture since you’ll mostly be at f/8-f/16. You also don’t need a camera with the greatest frame rate and autofocus in the world. You just need it to be good enough to catch the occasional specimen of wildlife that happens to wander into the frame. Everything past “good enough” is in essence a waste of resources. You might need 5 FPS, but not 25. What you need is excellent weather sealing. Chasing performance after a certain point is useless and wasteful, and yet people do it because they think more is better. Sure, you want your car to be fast and to accelerate well. It’s important for safe overtaking and safe acceleration to highway speeds. However, after a certain point it becomes excessive, and if you push it far enough it becomes so wasteful and unnecessary it borders on insanity. Also, the more you don’t need it, the more money it tends to cost, and yet people develop some kind of tunnel vision where they rationalise it with spiritual projections of all sorts – oh, a fast car makes me remember the feeling of the astral plane, of freedom and power. Excellent. Work on being on the astral plane then because that’s the actual thing you want. Fuck cars, they are just an illusion that makes you think you can get that in the physical world which you can’t, and it’s fatal to try.

Hoarding is also very easy to understand – you accumulate stuff with little to no consideration to what happens next, chasing that dopamine kick of getting a new thing. Soon you have so many things your place looks like a Chinese $1 store. You also can’t make yourself get rid of things, despite the fact they have zero utility, negative decorative value, and they make it difficult for you to clean and maintain the place. Hoarding is the obvious reason why people thought of minimalism as a solution, often going so far as to make the cure as bad as the disease.

Fancification, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain. Let’s define it as attempt to make each object you own the most exclusive, fancy and expensive you possibly can, often at the expense of functionality and performance. The fixtures in your bathroom don’t just need to be functional, they need to be the fanciest fixtures you can find. You don’t really watch TV, but your TV needs to be the most expensive, biggest, fanciest model. Your fridge needs to be the fancy model that connects to the Internet and shows the interior of the fridge on the screen outside so that you don’t have to open it. Your carpet needs to be Persian, hand made. Your coffee set needs to be handmade vintage porcelain. Where a hoarder will just fill their place with all kinds of trash, you will get very specific, extremely expensive and fancy decorative pieces strategically positioned to start conversations. Nothing you own can be “just anything”, and mere function is something you scoff at. You want it to “reflect your personality”, and you want to show that your personality is fancy and unique, that you’re not satisfied with the mundane.

In my experience, I came to associate those things with certain personality profiles and states. Minimalism, for instance, usually means self-hatred and profound unhappiness. Hoarding indicates mental illness, of a very serious, personality breakdown kind. Fancification, on the other hand, indicates projection; trying to force this reality into conformity with your desires and ideas. It can indicate narcissism, or it can indicate refusal to accept that this world cannot be forced into compliance with your ideas about perfection.

So, where in all of this do I see myself? That’s always an interesting question. I don’t hoard stuff; if trash accumulates, I periodically clean it all up, but I don’t clean everything constantly, because I have better things to do. Rather, I tend to leave everything in good condition so that I don’t have the mess accumulate. I will try to get things that are functional first, and everything else second. I prefer clean, elegant design without extraneous fluff. I prefer steel to gold; gold is for fancy people, steel is for people who get shit done, and I see myself as the latter rather than the former. Minimalism takes too much effort for me to entertain it, but I would subscribe to the Bauhaus ideal of form following function. Also, I prefer not to increase dependency, so I like things that are easy to maintain.

I don’t project higher realities or my true, past self, into either things of this world, or my physical body, because, frankly, I don’t think I deserve it. Vedanta would put identity in terms of realization of the True Self, by which they mean Atman/Brahman, while everything else is either false identification or outright delusion.

I disagree. I see identity as a combination of self, memories, power and circumstances. Self without memories is what exactly? A pathetic, damaged state of being. In case you do remember yourself as being a king in a past life, what is it to you now, if you’re currently an ordinary person without any power? Of what use is a memory of a past self as an important, wealthy, powerful person if you’re a wage slave now? Can you truly claim your former identity? I don’t think so, unless you’re after misery and humiliation. And circumstances, they are perhaps the most important of all. If a huge part of your identity is being surrounded by your family and friends in the higher plane of existence, can you really claim your true self if you’ve been forcefully separated from them, can’t even remember most of it properly, and even the memory you have depends on your spiritual state? Shankaracharya would say that merely saying the words “I am a king” doesn’t make one so, if it goes without commanding an army and ruling a country. To claim identity without appropriate circumstances makes you delusional and an object of ridicule.

So, what does it matter if I remember some of my past circumstances and power, if I have no access to those things now? If I am in a humble state, I would rather act humbly, than make a fool out of myself by claiming something that is out of my reach at the moment. Also, the nature of my memories, those that I managed to reclaim, puts a damper on any attempt to project into my physical circumstances and try to fancify them, because it feels so ridiculous. You can’t substitute spiritual jewels with physical ones, nor can you emulate the Throne of God with physical gold, despite the similarity in colour. It would feel so incredibly ridiculous and pathetic. Things are just things. They can’t reflect my higher reality because if you saw my higher reality, you’d know how ridiculous that even sounds. Am I to try to reproduce Shivaratri here with some pathetic attempt to adorn myself with black jewellery? I am in a pathetic state, being reduced to human existence, but I have some dignity left, so the answer is a definite “no”. A fast car could never reproduce the feeling of true power. No status symbol here can reflect my status “up there”. So, I adhere to simplicity, functionality and dignity of just sucking it up instead of acting childishly in some foolish rebellion.

No fancy things for me here. Just getting shit done. When I reclaim power, memories and circumstances, we’ll talk about true names and identities.

Sin, error and flaw

Posted on by
Reply

I just thought that this entire line of thought connects very nicely with my ideas about sin and error.

Now that I think of it, I think it’s even more complicated. It’s sin, error, flaw and lack of ability.

Sin is when you have fundamental misalignment between your soul and God. Sin is when God would do one thing, and it’s the thing you would hate and despise, and you would do differently, or even opposite. For instance, if we take the “Salvos” series, the horned demon is sinful. He’s more strategic about killing others and recruiting minions than the wild demons, who are like beasts that just attack everything that moves, but he’s on a path that would have resulted in him becoming a supervillain like Belzu, Jofis or Regnorex had Salvos not interfered and killed him. If you’re sinful, evil is normal and desirable, while goodness is contemptible. Evil is a spiritual orientation of the soul relative to God.

Error, on the other hand, is when you’re trying to do something, and it ends up being the opposite of what you wanted. Essentially, a good person in error will do bad things, and I guess an evil person in error will do good things. Error is a difference between a desired and actual outcome. Error is how you learn that your understanding, methods and practices need to be improved.

A flaw is something different; it’s a difference between what your soul, your mind, emotions, thoughts and actions should be based on your spiritual orientation and choices, and what they actually are in reality. A flaw is something you have, something you then recognize, understand and correct. A flaw is something you don’t tolerate, as a rule. It’s the difference between where you want to be and where you are.

Lack of ability is something that might be important, in which case you need to work on acquiring the desired ability, but it can also be irrelevant. For instance, if you have multiple major talents, but you suck at music, you can shrug it off and say it’s not your thing to do in this life. However, if you’re a musician, and you can’t do a particular thing related to music, this is a problem that needs to be handled the way flaws are handled in the context of spiritual growth: learn, correct, acquire, practice, get better. In the example of Salvos, her life depends on getting better at fighting enemies, so she practices tirelessly and grows stronger. Her social skills suck, it interferes with her ability to integrate into society and so she learns and gets better at it. She first looks like a demon, then like a brat, then like an eccentric adventurer, and then like an eccentric super-Mage. She always appears quirky, but her quirks are accepted as something typical for extremely talented people. Weird, but good weird. On the other hand, her handwriting is terrible, and remains terrible, because it never stood in her way enough for her to spend time practicing. She doesn’t just automatically get good at something. Also, she needs to prioritise. She only has so many hours in a day. Either she’ll practice alchemy, space magic, creation magic and combat skills, or she’ll practice shopping and handwriting. Something has to go, and often her friends and companions fill in the gaps for her; she’s only one person, she’s young, extremely busy and just can’t get to everything. So, that’s a good approach to the lack of ability. If it matters, you need to deal with it seriously. If it doesn’t matter, you need to make choices and prioritise; you’re always going to suck at most things. You just need to take care not to suck at things that matter to you in this life.