phoenix and women

Started by GalacticStorm7 pages

Either way the Feron and Merlyn incident has been scrapped as you can see from the change to Galactus' origin and the other changes to the phoenix concept. As per the 86 retcon phoenix was created by the big bang it was the embodiment of that moment ( lame 🙄 lol) it resided as ambient energy until Feron touched it psionically and gave it shape and purpose.

Now that theres been a reversion to the previous and better concept you know that theres no way this could have happened when phoenix has always been around and is actually responsible for the creation of the universe Merlyn resided in. Jean chose the name Phoenix but apparrently shes always been phoenix she just never knew it until recently.

can't argue that it wasn't named the phoenix force prior to jean. the fact that it gained a level of sentience and took on the firebird visage prior to that (in accordance with the 86 retcon,) is what designates it as the "phoenix force" as opposed to simply a cosmic entity untouched by man or magic. along that same line, i was "joe" from the instant i started burbling in the womb, long before my parents settled on the name. was i joe in name? no. was i 'joe' in the sense that my name does not define the nature of my being, or my existence itself? yep. the phoenix force didn't change once it got its formal name. it was the same cosmic embodiment of all life it had been just after it was shaped into a 'phoenix.' all that, of course, is outdated now by the new interpretation of the phoenix, but still holds true to comic history.

and if the faux-alien wizard of timeless origin who ran otherworld is what you believe to be "marvel's interpretation of merlin," perhaps you should go back and reread the original tales of excalibur. similarities? you bet. but he's no more merlin than the beyonder was god.

Originally posted by Disappear
can't argue that it wasn't named the phoenix force prior to jean. the fact that it gained a level of sentience and took on the firebird visage prior to that (in accordance with the 86 retcon,) is what designates it as the "phoenix force" as opposed to simply a cosmic entity untouched by man or magic. along that same line, i was "joe" from the instant i started burbling in the womb, long before my parents settled on the name. was i joe in name? no. was i 'joe' in the sense that my name does not define the nature of my being, or my existence itself? yep. the phoenix force didn't change once it got its formal name. it was the same cosmic embodiment of all life it had been just after it was shaped into a 'phoenix.' all that, of course, is outdated now by the new interpretation of the phoenix, but still holds true to comic history.

Following history Jean chose the name Phoenix in phoenixes first comic book appearance.

Given the alterations that have been made i.e Phoenix not being born as a result of the big bang and not being a shapeless cosmic force (86 retcon) that never happened. Current continuity completely disregards that and has made it so that wasnt possible. Therefore you can argue that it wasnt named Phoenix force before Jean. Either way im not too fussed on the name issue im just fussed over these references to Feron and Merlyn youre still making and about them having something to do with Phoenixes origins which as you hopefully now know wasnt possible.

Originally posted by Disappear
and if the faux-alien wizard of timeless origin who ran otherworld is what you believe to be "marvel's interpretation of merlin," perhaps you should go back and reread the original tales of excalibur. similarities? you bet. but he's no more merlin than the beyonder was god.

The above has nothing to do with me and should be directed at someone else.

wasn't toward you, O:GS. you should've picked up on my level of fondness for quotations by now... come on, we've been bitter rivals for all of four pages!

and i'm not referencing the "original" phoenix origin as it pertains to the here and now, simply as how it was presented after the 86 retcon. in all aspects, the "phoenix force" as it was named by jean was the same semi-sentient cosmic entity feron played footsies with hundreds of years prior, but without a name. and, considering this isn't the neverending story [wherein such things as a name could counteract a cataclysmic deconstruction of all that is,] there's no arguable reason not to refer to the 'phoenix force' as the phoenix force, despite referencing its existence pre-jean.

and yes, none of that matters now, but it's a matter of principle.

Originally posted by Disappear
if you can find a transcript in the kaballah doctrines, the torah, or whatever other jewish-derived readings you stumble across that describe the place of any of the cosmic entities (namely eternity, or the living tribunal or whomsoever LT works for) as sentient bodies, or which explains the "spiral" brought forth in x-man, or even the multiverse-governing bodies in otherworld, i'd be more inclined to agree with you. but until interpretations of the phoenix find their way into changing the presence or foundations of these and similar institutions in the marvel universe, i'm inclined to say there are certain flaws in this latest presentation of the phoenix. no out of line speculation. no theories invented for this instance.

I have argued this point and others with GS numerous times, I never get a decent answer🙂.

about the "Kabbalah" - whilst some people call do spell it as GS its generally accepted this is the wrong translation and spelling - All search engines correct to Kabbalah and anything on its spelling corrects to this. I agree with you lots of forums have exploded the Jean and Phoenix are one bit, and Jean is part of god etc.
The Xornetto business, the shards of Phoenix all prove it.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I have argued this point and others with GS numerous times, I never get a decent answer🙂.

about the "Kabbalah" - whilst some people call do spell it as GS its generally accepted this is the wrong translation and spelling - All search engines correct to Kabbalah and anything on its spelling corrects to this. I agree with you lots of forums have exploded the Jean and Phoenix are one bit, and Jean is part of god etc.
The Xornetto business, the shards of Phoenix all prove it.

Just as much as Spectre being defeated by Earth level heroes and having no power over common thieves disproves his connection with God. 🙄

Either way we've all managed to come to an agreement here mate and i answered the questions posed sufficiently for Disappear and that is all that matters.

How was your exile? 🙂

OK so i didnt get to have any of pheonix endsong so i dont know wat happened in it can some 1 fill me in on this thread or in PM o and i saw this 1 pic with the pheonix inside 1 of the cuckoos eyes can u tell me bout dat?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Just as much as Spectre being defeated by Earth level heroes and having no power over common thieves disproves his connection with God. 🙄

Either way we've all managed to come to an agreement here mate and i answered the questions posed sufficiently for Disappear and that is all that matters.

How was your exile? 🙂

the old giant scans which show little ploy GS 😂 that still working for you with some people 🙂

exile 😂 expected a lot sooner 🙂

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
the old giant scans which show little ploy GS 😂 that still working for you with some people 🙂

exile 😂 expected a lot sooner 🙂

I see the bitterness is ever present. 😉

Let it go Whirly. You tried and failed 😮

End this vendetta of yours it would be an awful shame for you to get banned again 🙁

Why does Jean say "Oh my God" if she is part of God ?

Failed at what spelling Kabbalah properly 😕 nope thats you still🙂

Bitterness 😕 what? over correcting your spelling? 😕

Taken from another forum I belong to - dated 2004

The writer is a girl and comparative religion major from the US

Thoughts

in the interest of the poster's self-glorification, of course
>
>
> -Jean Grey, the mutant Yogi:
>
> OK, since this is, after all, a superhero comic, what follows may seem out of place. But don't underestimate Morrison's own pretentiousness
>
> In the last issue of the run, Cassandra says that "according to my Shi'ar files, the Phoenix consciousness accesses its host through the Chakra placed at the crown of the head" or something to that effect (I don't have the issues handy so I'm quoting from memory). This throwaway line is Morrison's main contribution to clearing up the Phoenix continuity.
>
> Chakra is the Sanskrit work for circular motion. According to Tantrism, a chakra is a spherical energy centre affected by everything around us. In Hindu Tantrism there are seven main chakras, while in Buddhist Tantrism there are five, all arrayed along the vertebral column. The chakras are supposed to be the points from which the "ethereal" vital energy of the astral body flows (the astral body, that trope from classic Marvel which Dr. Strange, Xavier and even Magneto are so keen to switch into).
>
> The chakra of the crown (top of the head) is called Sahasrara, and it resonates with the energy of wisdom, insight, and TRUTH. It is also referred to as "the many-petalled lotus".
>
> Tantrism tries to "open" the chakras, by making the passive, "earthly" energy situated at the lowest chakra (represented by the snake Kundalini) clamber up the spine. The hardest one to open is of course the uppermost one, the lotus. Jean's mutation, which would allow her to tap into the/a Phoenix entity, is that her chakras are open. That's "the mind over matter" thingy she herself identifies with telekinesis (when she addresses the U-men while stopping their onslaught against the X-mansion).
>
> For more superheroines with chakra-derived powers, see Multi-girl from Alan Moore's "Top 10". Or the issue from Moore's "Promethea" where Promethea has tantric sex with her magical mentor Jack Faust.
>
> (That mister Morrison tends to get so jerky when he refers to Moore's work may have to do with the fact that they are natural competitors, being interested in the same stuff and such. Moore's writing is better IMO, more human and accessible).
>
> So Jeannie has ultimate enlightenment built into her genome. That's why it's probably deliberate that Morrison writes her as "angelic"*. When the Phoenix appears, she waltzes around as an avenging angel, uncompromisingly truthful. That's all she tells Bishop during "Murder", and that's all she does when she interrupts Emma's psychic romp with Cyke. she peels away all the layers of armour and lies of the ice queen, revealing her flaws and therefore redeeming her: Emma admits that she's shallow, manipulative, and that she's in love. The execution is less than ideal and Emma remains pretty faithful to her bitchy self after that, but I find the concept is kinda touching.
>
> (* "seraphic", to be more specific. Seraphs are referred to as the most exalted angels of all, fiery spirits often depicted around the crowned Godhead. Since the serried ranks of Phoenixes (Phoenices?) from the last issue look a lot like a heavenly host of sorts, the "white Phoenix of the crown" thing may be a play on words).
>
> Once the Phoenix connects with her, Jean practically becomes the only diamond without flaws, the one character without doubts or fears. Jean White, as it is. Even when Mags bumps her off, the Phoenix remains "invictus". That's not too "relatable", but since in Morrison's run mutation/change is synonymous with conflict, I suppose he needed to place a character above the din of the struggle. You have to wrap up your run, you know.
>
> (BTW, Quentin turns/taps indeed into a Phoenix-like entity when he dies, feeding off the "humus" left in the wake of Kick overindulgence. That's why Xorn says "a flower of light is opening in your head". He could have said "a lotus of light" too).
>
> -Why the run feels so disjointed:
>
> OK, she's not supposed to be omniscient, and yet, if Jean is so swell, how come she does not uncover Sublime's little scam with her searing glance? The fact is that Morrison seems to realize his ominous wild card is too big for the stories he's telling, specially after "Imperial". The result is that Jean gets really little time on camera. That cheapens the love triangle with Scott and Emma.
>
> And that's the problem with the run seen as a whole. The motive of "thinking outside the box" is central in the stories, and yet, when taken to its logical extreme, leads (as a dying, transfigured Quentin says) to "rooms that are larger than the world". That's fine and dandy in another context (the Invisibles, for example), but it does not gel all too well with X-corp, murder mysteries and restive teenagers. For the sake of closure, Morrison drops the ball on the motives he has established early on and shortchanges the reader by enacting a cosmic endgame where everybody discards their masks and very additional depth is gained in exchange.
>
> (As for the cosmic endgame: the idea of Jean as deluded servant of the Beast and victorious Phoenix resembles Promethea's double role as Babylonian whore and angel of Judgement Day. Again, Moore and Morrison share the same niche).
>
> There's no real crescendo leading up to the apocalyptic finale. Morrison wastes his biggest shot at the beginning, with Genosha's destruction*. The dissonance that is "Planet X" does not elicit a sense of foreboding or resolution, only of restlessness, and any dramatic effect it aims for is tarnished by indulgent parody and the shoddiness of "Assault on weapon plus".
>
> (*The giant sentinels are a variation of the hoary old motive of machine development outstripping biological evolution. Perhaps because it is regarded as "vulgar", the idea is only dealt with cursorily afterwards, in the form of nano-sentinels, E.V.A. etc.)
>
> -Diamonds are forever?
>
> I end up feeling that Morrison's run is, well, quite flawed. But it does shine at places, and it has piqued my interest in a franchise I'd always found too commercial and convoluted. Cassaday on art OTOH is 90% of an automatic purchase for me, so I'll be checking out "astonishing".

That was excellent, lurker. See, one of the biggest problems I've had with Morrison's run isn't Morrison, but his fanatic followers "interpreting" Morrison in the X-books, pulling nonsense out of their rear-ends, *oh, Grant means this,* and *Grant believes in this,so it must equal that*. Morrison DID have some symbolic content, as you so expertly point out, and he did have some shining moments, and he did put together some interesting ideas, but I'd say 50% of what his followers are claiming is some great multi-layered "meta-text" is BS. Or, rather, a lot of what Morrison apparently started to portray and tried to make multi-layered, didn't work, for many of the reasons you outline above.

Your analysis of how Morrison tripped himself up in "Planet X" for example, according to what I've heard, is right on the money. I would only add that there was a measure of "shoddiness" about "Planet X" as well, and blaming everything on Kick/Sublime doesn't solve the problem.

What you outline is exactly what I have to give MOrrison credit for. His use of the Chakras, his use of Biblical symoblism. Give Claremont credit for introducing the Phoenix as fiery angel and Tiphereth of the Sephiroth (and the solar plexus chakra). Morrison botched the connection to the kabbalah, and I really laugh when I read fans trying to piece that one together. As you say, Moore did a much more exact, careful, and insightful job of merging the paths of the tree of life, the ladies of the major arcana, and the chakras. In other words, when Morrison gives some thought and time to the symmetry and synchronicity of his symbols and meanings in his stories, he's good. WHen he makes a half-assed effort, or makes a superficial attempt to throw symbols together, putting plot and character second, he falls flat on his face. In my opinion, of course.

Several other forums went throuoght the same stuff

Keep the faith its spelt Kabbalah

Stay Whirly

lots of essayists out there some are better than others.

Some other forums I belong to shred the Kabbalah link even more - I look forward to posting them.

Re: Why does Jean say "Oh my God" if she is part of God ?

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Failed at what spelling Kabbalah properly 😕 nope thats you still🙂

Bitterness 😕 what? over correcting your spelling? 😕

Taken from another forum I belong to - dated 2004

The writer is a girl and comparative religion major from the US

Thoughts

in the interest of the poster's self-glorification, of course
>
>
> -Jean Grey, the mutant Yogi:
>
> OK, since this is, after all, a superhero comic, what follows may seem out of place. But don't underestimate Morrison's own pretentiousness
>
> In the last issue of the run, Cassandra says that "according to my Shi'ar files, the Phoenix consciousness accesses its host through the Chakra placed at the crown of the head" or something to that effect (I don't have the issues handy so I'm quoting from memory). This throwaway line is Morrison's main contribution to clearing up the Phoenix continuity.
>
> Chakra is the Sanskrit work for circular motion. According to Tantrism, a chakra is a spherical energy centre affected by everything around us. In Hindu Tantrism there are seven main chakras, while in Buddhist Tantrism there are five, all arrayed along the vertebral column. The chakras are supposed to be the points from which the "ethereal" vital energy of the astral body flows (the astral body, that trope from classic Marvel which Dr. Strange, Xavier and even Magneto are so keen to switch into).
>
> The chakra of the crown (top of the head) is called Sahasrara, and it resonates with the energy of wisdom, insight, and TRUTH. It is also referred to as "the many-petalled lotus".
>
> Tantrism tries to "open" the chakras, by making the passive, "earthly" energy situated at the lowest chakra (represented by the snake Kundalini) clamber up the spine. The hardest one to open is of course the uppermost one, the lotus. Jean's mutation, which would allow her to tap into the/a Phoenix entity, is that her chakras are open. That's "the mind over matter" thingy she herself identifies with telekinesis (when she addresses the U-men while stopping their onslaught against the X-mansion).
>
> For more superheroines with chakra-derived powers, see Multi-girl from Alan Moore's "Top 10". Or the issue from Moore's "Promethea" where Promethea has tantric sex with her magical mentor Jack Faust.
>
> (That mister Morrison tends to get so jerky when he refers to Moore's work may have to do with the fact that they are natural competitors, being interested in the same stuff and such. Moore's writing is better IMO, more human and accessible).
>
> So Jeannie has ultimate enlightenment built into her genome. That's why it's probably deliberate that Morrison writes her as "angelic"*. When the Phoenix appears, she waltzes around as an avenging angel, uncompromisingly truthful. That's all she tells Bishop during "Murder", and that's all she does when she interrupts Emma's psychic romp with Cyke. she peels away all the layers of armour and lies of the ice queen, revealing her flaws and therefore redeeming her: Emma admits that she's shallow, manipulative, and that she's in love. The execution is less than ideal and Emma remains pretty faithful to her bitchy self after that, but I find the concept is kinda touching.
>
> (* "seraphic", to be more specific. Seraphs are referred to as the most exalted angels of all, fiery spirits often depicted around the crowned Godhead. Since the serried ranks of Phoenixes (Phoenices?) from the last issue look a lot like a heavenly host of sorts, the "white Phoenix of the crown" thing may be a play on words).
>
> Once the Phoenix connects with her, Jean practically becomes the only diamond without flaws, the one character without doubts or fears. Jean White, as it is. Even when Mags bumps her off, the Phoenix remains "invictus". That's not too "relatable", but since in Morrison's run mutation/change is synonymous with conflict, I suppose he needed to place a character above the din of the struggle. You have to wrap up your run, you know.
>
> (BTW, Quentin turns/taps indeed into a Phoenix-like entity when he dies, feeding off the "humus" left in the wake of Kick overindulgence. That's why Xorn says "a flower of light is opening in your head". He could have said "a lotus of light" too).
>
> -Why the run feels so disjointed:
>
> OK, she's not supposed to be omniscient, and yet, if Jean is so swell, how come she does not uncover Sublime's little scam with her searing glance? The fact is that Morrison seems to realize his ominous wild card is too big for the stories he's telling, specially after "Imperial". The result is that Jean gets really little time on camera. That cheapens the love triangle with Scott and Emma.
>
> And that's the problem with the run seen as a whole. The motive of "thinking outside the box" is central in the stories, and yet, when taken to its logical extreme, leads (as a dying, transfigured Quentin says) to "rooms that are larger than the world". That's fine and dandy in another context (the Invisibles, for example), but it does not gel all too well with X-corp, murder mysteries and restive teenagers. For the sake of closure, Morrison drops the ball on the motives he has established early on and shortchanges the reader by enacting a cosmic endgame where everybody discards their masks and very additional depth is gained in exchange.
>
> (As for the cosmic endgame: the idea of Jean as deluded servant of the Beast and victorious Phoenix resembles Promethea's double role as Babylonian whore and angel of Judgement Day. Again, Moore and Morrison share the same niche).
>
> There's no real crescendo leading up to the apocalyptic finale. Morrison wastes his biggest shot at the beginning, with Genosha's destruction*. The dissonance that is "Planet X" does not elicit a sense of foreboding or resolution, only of restlessness, and any dramatic effect it aims for is tarnished by indulgent parody and the shoddiness of "Assault on weapon plus".
>
> (*The giant sentinels are a variation of the hoary old motive of machine development outstripping biological evolution. Perhaps because it is regarded as "vulgar", the idea is only dealt with cursorily afterwards, in the form of nano-sentinels, E.V.A. etc.)
>
> -Diamonds are forever?
>
> I end up feeling that Morrison's run is, well, quite flawed. But it does shine at places, and it has piqued my interest in a franchise I'd always found too commercial and convoluted. Cassaday on art OTOH is 90% of an automatic purchase for me, so I'll be checking out "astonishing".

That was excellent, lurker. See, one of the biggest problems I've had with Morrison's run isn't Morrison, but his fanatic followers "interpreting" Morrison in the X-books, pulling nonsense out of their rear-ends, *oh, Grant means this,* and *Grant believes in this,so it must equal that*. Morrison DID have some symbolic content, as you so expertly point out, and he did have some shining moments, and he did put together some interesting ideas, but I'd say 50% of what his followers are claiming is some great multi-layered "meta-text" is BS. Or, rather, a lot of what Morrison apparently started to portray and tried to make multi-layered, didn't work, for many of the reasons you outline above.

Your analysis of how Morrison tripped himself up in "Planet X" for example, according to what I've heard, is right on the money. I would only add that there was a measure of "shoddiness" about "Planet X" as well, and blaming everything on Kick/Sublime doesn't solve the problem.

What you outline is exactly what I have to give MOrrison credit for. His use of the Chakras, his use of Biblical symoblism. Give Claremont credit for introducing the Phoenix as fiery angel and Tiphereth of the Sephiroth (and the solar plexus chakra). Morrison botched the connection to the kabbalah, and I really laugh when I read fans trying to piece that one together. As you say, Moore did a much more exact, careful, and insightful job of merging the paths of the tree of life, the ladies of the major arcana, and the chakras. In other words, when Morrison gives some thought and time to the symmetry and synchronicity of his symbols and meanings in his stories, he's good. WHen he makes a half-assed effort, or makes a superficial attempt to throw symbols together, putting plot and character second, he falls flat on his face. In my opinion, of course.

Several other forums went throuoght the same stuff

Keep the faith its spelt Kabbalah

Stay Whirly

lots of essayists out there some are better than others.

Some other forums I belong to shred the Kabbalah link even more - I look forward to posting them.

Ummmmm and your point is?🙄

The person disputing at the end admits theres a link he even congratulates Claremont and Morrison for interpreting Phoenix as "fiery angel and Tiphereth of the Sephiroth". He just thought a bad job was done of introducing it to Marvel. Good interpretation, bad execution. Thats all. 🙂

despite GS' impressive scans, i actually went back and reviewed x-men forever before conceding my points. it's implied that at some point jean will evolve to the point where she replaces the phoenix force in the cosmic heirarchy. not only does that play perfectly off the 'omega' angle i've been trying to explain in another thread, it also makes it very, very difficult to find a logical way to argue against the Jean is Phoenix standpoint, particularly when paired with other evidences (all of which i confirmed on my own, because i'm a dick that way.)

so, there's my standpoint. no need to take underhanded digs at we bystanders in your comedic banter with GS...

Originally posted by Disappear
despite GS' impressive scans, i actually went back and reviewed x-men forever before conceding my points. it's implied that at some point jean will evolve to the point where she replaces the phoenix force in the cosmic heirarchy.

Really?!! Thats interesting. What part made you think that?

Re: Re: Why does Jean say "Oh my God" if she is part of God ?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Ummmmm and your point is?🙄

The person disputing at the end admits theres a link he even congratulates Claremont and Morrison for interpreting Phoenix as "fiery angel and Tiphereth of the Sephiroth". He just thought a bad job was done of introducing it to Marvel. Good interpretation, bad execution. Thats all. 🙂

Its a she not a he read it more carefully 🙂

Re: Re: Re: Why does Jean say "Oh my God" if she is part of God ?

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Its a she not a he read it more carefully 🙂

After your previous flop you had to try and score one point over me at least didnt you? No matter how minor. 🙄 😂

jesus... i need to start getting some cash back in these pockets so i can actually BUY some comics, and not just rely on my buddy at the shop to let me read them. i can't hold onto specific examples worth shit.

basically, i got the idea from xavier's description of omegas, mixed with what stranger says later in the series about jean's transcendence. i doubt there's any text saying 'jean might do this,' but that's what i got from it. the whole 'everyone bowing to jean' thing doesn't really hurt the argument, either. i could be wildly off base, but after a few run throughs, spaced months and months apart, that's the conclusion i came to. still hypothetical, but yeah...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does Jean say "Oh my God" if she is part of God ?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
After your previous flop you had to try and score one point over me at least didnt you? No matter how minor. 🙄 😂

one point I explained to you what Omega point was - as you only had this "comic" understanding. You might want to check out my Singularity thread from April or May where I explain it in great detail 🙂

Showed you how to spell Kaballah

highlighted Xornetto

proved why your understanding of the Kaballah is flawed (because you can't spell it) and you have a pseudo understanding, as do I but I can spell it 🙂

Still need an explanation as to how she can be almighty and in shards and have to die to go places 🙂

minor? not really can you say GS has to clutch at straws🙂

Keep the faith 🙂

Stay Whirly 🤘

Whirly's beack from being banned and right back to trolling. . .

Pssh, Why do atheists say "Oh my god!"?

Because its an expression. 🙄

Wait because a person spells it in a different manner they don't understand what they're talking about?

LMFAO

Yes whirly, looking at your last post you can tell quite clearly who is grasping at straws.

what the smurf is that thing in your sig supposed to be, cresh? i've always just assumed its some robot wolverine majig...