You’d think a hyper-individualistic society would involve people actually hyper-reflecting on and hyper-developing their own inner nature, but apparently no, its mostly outward signalling, little to no inner substance.
Am I reading this wrong or is the concept of being honest with yourself here literally represented as death?
Maybe its more accurate to just say we have a hyper-extroverted society, than a hyper-individualistic one.
Life lesson I learned from an actress playing a computer program playing a kindly old lady, in some movie, from around 20 years ago now:
In some ways, for some things, yes, in other ways, for other things, no.
Compare a baby screaming because it is hungry to an adult person who consistently finds themselves in abusive relationships.
They’re both outwardly signalling something.
The baby is arguably barely conscious, but you as an outside observer are probably pretty sure that it either is hungry, needs to poop, is too cold or hot, etc.
The abused lover person… might actually actively, persuasively deny their current status, maybe even their past.
But an outside observer might be able to more easily see that they have just a very fundamental kind of low self esteem, lack of sufficient respect for themselves, on a level that the abused lover really just is not aware of, hasn’t really ever concieved of.
I’d argue that the abused lover has significantly more complex of an inner universe than the baby… but both of them might be approximately equally unaware of the signals they are sending, why they are sending them.
So… to your question… yes, but also no, but also it can be quite complicated.
Am I reading this wrong or is the concept of being honest with yourself here literally represented as death?
I checked the author’s page and it seems to me the floating skull has nothing to do with death, it’s more like some inner voice of the other character, offering them a counterpoint:
Taking what you’re saying into account, perhaps it’s a representation of the character’s inner demons? Because I think your interpretation here is rather sensible:
‘Talking to your inner self isn’t really that scary, even if it might look like it will be, at first glance.’
‘Challenging or confronting your own inner workings may seem to resemble death, but it actually isn’t.’
Basically yeah, I would say your Jungian Shadow, but thats pretty close to the same idea as ‘your inner demons’.
Its… maybe a little less total than like, wholly integrating the parts of you you don’t want to acknowledge into a cohesive and fully self aware… self…
But it is a good way of showing how starting that process can feel and play out, acknowledging that it can seem scary, but can also proceed without catastrophe.
You’d think a hyper-individualistic society would involve people actually hyper-reflecting on and hyper-developing their own inner nature, but apparently no, its mostly outward signalling, little to no inner substance.
Am I reading this wrong or is the concept of being honest with yourself here literally represented as death?
Maybe its more accurate to just say we have a hyper-extroverted society, than a hyper-individualistic one.
Life lesson I learned from an actress playing a computer program playing a kindly old lady, in some movie, from around 20 years ago now:
Temet Nosce.
Know Thyself.
But doesn’t outward signaling need some inner base?
I find that to be a very interesting question.
In some ways, for some things, yes, in other ways, for other things, no.
Compare a baby screaming because it is hungry to an adult person who consistently finds themselves in abusive relationships.
They’re both outwardly signalling something.
The baby is arguably barely conscious, but you as an outside observer are probably pretty sure that it either is hungry, needs to poop, is too cold or hot, etc.
The abused lover person… might actually actively, persuasively deny their current status, maybe even their past.
But an outside observer might be able to more easily see that they have just a very fundamental kind of low self esteem, lack of sufficient respect for themselves, on a level that the abused lover really just is not aware of, hasn’t really ever concieved of.
I’d argue that the abused lover has significantly more complex of an inner universe than the baby… but both of them might be approximately equally unaware of the signals they are sending, why they are sending them.
So… to your question… yes, but also no, but also it can be quite complicated.
I checked the author’s page and it seems to me the floating skull has nothing to do with death, it’s more like some inner voice of the other character, offering them a counterpoint:
Well, I mean… a floating skull seems to me to represent death.
Pretty general human cultural phenomenon of a skull representing death.
And… introspection… is portrayed as… talking to it.
Though I guess if there are this many panels of this kind of a set up… the author is likely using this as an established trope…
‘Talking to your inner self isn’t really that scary, even if it might look like it will be, at first glance.’
‘Challenging or confronting your own inner workings may seem to resemble death, but it actually isn’t.’
Taking what you’re saying into account, perhaps it’s a representation of the character’s inner demons? Because I think your interpretation here is rather sensible:
Basically yeah, I would say your Jungian Shadow, but thats pretty close to the same idea as ‘your inner demons’.
Its… maybe a little less total than like, wholly integrating the parts of you you don’t want to acknowledge into a cohesive and fully self aware… self…
But it is a good way of showing how starting that process can feel and play out, acknowledging that it can seem scary, but can also proceed without catastrophe.
deadly earnest truth maybe?