At five years old, I said I wanted to be an author of medieval fantasy. I still very much do--I'm completing my seventh year as a freelance writer/editor & am outlining a sci-fi novel as well; but as I've gown I've realized that that was just one dimension, which reflected many other deeply-rooted convictions & interests, usually related in some way to storytelling and its power; but also to philosophy, psychology, physics, tech, futurism, and so on.
The human experience, I suppose--and perhaps even broader, if we someday discover complex alien life! Join me as I try to explore this universe with courage, empathy, and hope.
- Philosophy---free will; ethics & metaethics; morality; cosmology . . . .
- Anthropology??? The formation & shifting of different cultures & perspectives across the globe
- Storytelling---what audiences are looking for. What a good story actually is. How to reconcile the two
- Sci-fi/Futurism---possible technologies of the future & how they may shape us
Пікірлер
This video was overdue. I like Forrest and RR, but they are a caliber below Richard. They have abandoned science and the associated method. Sorry skepticism is a universal positive thing including in biology.
RR was looking smug today. At RD. Seriously? Do you know how many prices the guy has won? How many has he won? He is a youtuber. Dawkins a professor.
Like listening to Jordan Peterson
Thank you and keep on making these!
Is fundamental 01 Thought material? 010
I find your fusion of non-dualism and Kierkegaard quite interesting, especially as it pertains to the ephemerality of the self. It’s not a perspective I’ve considered before, but Kierkegaard clearly states that we often are mistaken as to our own identity. The difference between the two seems to be the approach each ultimately has toward desire and identity. Non-dualism seeks to overcome desire and identity whereas Kierkegaard is telling us how to ideally desire and identify ourselves (by way of faith). To add my two cents to the discussion, my interpretation of Kierkegaardian faith is quite similar to a Nietzschean life-affirmation. Despair emerges in the gap between what is and what we think ought to be. This is the tension, as you laid out, between potential and actuality. While we cannot rationally justify our absurd existence (why things are one way and not another), we can affirm said existence in an act of faith. Said faith is perfectly contained in both Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence and the third commandment: The affirmation of existence as it is. To not take its name in vain. Essentially, the self without despair (faith) is one that affirms supposed absurdity as ultimately good and desirable. This is all quite ironic given Nietzsche’s position on Christianity, but I believe that he most perfectly outlines a definition of secular faith that heals despair in the self. Anyways, I’m glad I found your channel and look forward to future videos!
I love these small channels with valuable information - good luck to you
Thanks for the engagement! It's extremely appreciated. Be sure to let me know your thoughts below! I always want to know where I'm wrong. I'm starting to publish more regularly now and hoping to grow. These videos take a lot of work (especially editing) and I'd love to hire a team eventaully. Please consider supporting me via Patreon or Paypal: PATREON: patreon.com/JesseTate PAYPAL: paypal.me/jessedtate
Consciousness being fundamental doesn't imply panpsychism, it implies metaphysical idealism. Panpsychism is very much still metaphysically dualist, where physical objects are just as fundamental as consciousness.
Great video keep going
So glad this appeared on my home page, keep up the awesome vids!
Your last description of the "action-heavy emotionally shallow" describes all Nolan movies. The dude is the most autistic filmmaker ever. Tenet is a monumental mess and thank you for pointing it out. I'm sick of being told I'm not smart enough to 'get it" because I think it doesn't make a lick of sense.
There is the theory that microtubules in the brain interact with quantum particles in a way that gives rise to a form of Panpsychism where consciousness originates from a dimension that is folded within ours and our mind has developed structures to access this.
Man, great video. I was NOT expecting this high of quality when I clicked. I have a difficult time while thinking of consciousness, but I think your discussion of people with DID was really intriguing and sort of grounded the discussion to a concrete point that made it easy for me to follow along. Nice work!
Consciousness is fundamental to science?
Keep going brother 🥂
Thank you 🙏🙏🙏 I will! I have four more videos ready and am hoping to publish twice a week from now on.
Thanks for the engagement, be sure to let me know your thoughts below! I'm starting to publish more regularly now and hoping to grow. These videos take a lot of work (especially editing) and I'd love to hire a team eventaully. Please consider supporting me via Patreon or Paypal: PATREON: patreon.com/JesseTate PAYPAL: paypal.me/jessedtate
If you are moving bsckwards in time, on a planet moving forwards in time - won't you fly off into space?
very good Job
Thanks! Appreciate it! Trying to figure out the best system. I reacted to RZ's vid all in one take but it was super long so I decided to cut it up. We'll see if it gets any momentum or if I need to do a more streamlined presentation. Stay tuned for part II
7% of the most deadly'st wars but this redeemer conveniently left that out.
I haven't researched it much tbh, but yeah I'd be curious. I feel like you can draw lines between cause of war, casualties, ideology (and therefore POTENTIAL casualties) and so many other geopolitical factors. Also identifying a single cause for war is pretty reductionist I'd say.
@@JesseTateskeptical today wars are waged over- disputes over political power, territorial and ethnic issues, and societal stresses such as injustice and poverty some things stay the same but it is as you say reductionist since every thing in that era was in its infancy. that being said religious conflicts are identifiable. be it on land, water, money, labour or power, status, values. here is where it get interesting the WHY i think you can figure that out mainly focus on the ideology of religion.
Yahweh and his son Yeshua are imaginary characters created by anonymous writers thousands of years ago. Neither Yahweh nor his son have ever made a public appearance for us to see and record as evidence.
If we compare the track record of people who followed divine revelation with the ones who claim to arrive at objective rational morality the answer become obvious. Our objective morality is shaped by our limited experiences that's why for the most part of human history people have sot of glorified wars and treated women as sub humans.We are perhaps the only generation to denounce wars(because of horrors of WW) completely and traditional gender roles(because we are afraid of putting any responsibility on women) both of which in my opinion are wrong. In short we humans are incapable of reaching perfect morality/system of governance because of our limited experience in this life. Every generation in history of this planet has thought that what they are doing is right(ex-commies,nazis,Romans etc) so how are we different from our ancestors?
what do you think about simulation theory?
Good question, I've been thinking about it recently actually in (hopeful) preparation for a series on Fermi Paradox solutions. Obviously my channel's quite small and I need to focus on output. Sometimes I struggle with having too many interests and I plan lots of 'series' without ever doing them. But this Fermi one is really fascinating and has some fun overlaps with philosophy of religion, free will, conscious experience, and so on. I would say if we're NOT in a simulation, I expect the universe to be crawling with life. It's tough because with the Drake Equation (I imagine you're somewhat familiar) we are working with so many uncertain numbers. We basically just have to guess. But it still SEEMS, with what we do know, that the odds of us appearing alone are extremely small. Maybe there's some fringe chance that we just came super early, AND in an isolated pocket of the universe/galaxy, AND the chances of abiogenesis are much smaller than we'd expect, AND planets with tectonic plates and comparable moons and gas giants are super rare . . . . and so on, and so on. Maybe we just got lucky. But what I would expect would be within the next 10,000 years we either: - Find tons of microbes in deep space and realize that simple life is super common, which fills us with dread because intelligent life ought to be there somewhere, likely watching - See a massive portion of the galaxy fill up as some species appears - Find nothing, and it seems more and more likely we are in a simulation It's just very difficult for me to imagine that we are the only ones. A simulation seems far more likely, and could explain why no one else appears. As far as how that relates to questions of god, morality, free will, and consciousness . . . . I need to think about it more. Again it seems like the only things we will ever be able to methodize and interact with fall under a naturalist framework. We can engage in reason and philosophy and discuss the trasncendent or 'phenomenological' elements of being; but we can't really posit a 'system' or a 'functioning' of things outside of science. I guess the longer we go without finding alien life, the more likely I will think it that we are in a simulation, and therefore the more likely that AI is capable of consciousness? Does that make any sense? Lol Great question, thanks! Gave me at least one video idea
Great job
Thanks! I'm still new to this so trying to nail down a style that's efficient, doesn't take loads of time to produce, but still feels somewhat polished and put together. I tried a more organic 'react' style here, unscripted, and am pretty happy with how it turned out but obviously I need to work on eliminating pauses (or not jump-cutting them) and having a delivery fast enough that it will appeal to even casual viewers.
Brah Put the bong down. and back away from the computer.
You can do a much simpler thought experiment. Let's say I watch the lottery numbers, then write them down and then inverse. Next, I have to give the paper to my past self, which means I had the lottery numbers all along. But to get the numbers, I HAVE to go back in time after the lottery, which means I can never enjoy my millions. Or do I get cloned when time inversion starts, which makes me stuck in a time loop and my clone happy with his millions? But why should I do this? It's so confusing.
18:42 lol, Targaryen family tree
I think gabriel it wasn't that bad boy.... i think Elsa was much much stronguer by the fight... all it was script convenience... Elsa is a strongest than gabriel.. it make's no sense Elsa is dead...
Daemon Targaryen is so badass he sends thugs to kill toddlers
This whole issue is getting old. Dawkins hasn't done anything wrong. He is not transphobic. He simply follows the science & wants precise language & definitions used. RR & FV have completely missed the point Dawkins was trying to make.
It's interesting to hear a KZreadr reference GoT season 8 in a positive light whatsoever 😅 I'd enjoy hearing your other thoughts about that show! I subscribed- good video!
It´s not a time travel movie, its a multiverse theme. The paradox of the man in the wall exists in other reality, but showing the time flow of other reality and other universe is impossible, so you just follow the unique POV of the protagonist as me messes up reality and creates different multiverses. I try to think like the Butterfly effect rahter than a Back to the future movie
Lol you completely missed the point.
These are my thoughts too... I refused to watch the movie because I know I would be borderline irritated by these impossibilities xD
Hey guys...I am sorry for telling you this, but i am SURE that Ilsa is dead. Here are some reasons for this differend opinion: 1. Christopfer McQuarrie (producer) said in an interview, that ilsa is really dead and that we should'nt hope that she is still alive (think thats an huge thing...). He also said, that it was planed for a long time, to kill rebecca fergusons character bcs they didn't want "Mission impossible" to become a romance, bcs the Mission and Ethan should be the main thing of mission impossible. He also mentioned, that they wanted to keep the fact that Ethan's loves have to die or that he has to loose them. 2. Another point is, that Rebecca Ferguson, the Actress of Ilsa, said, that she was finished with the mission impossible franchise. She said that it takes lot of her freetime to shoot this films. She pointed out, that she'd like Ilsa to become more rough and that she wanted to explore Ilsa's Darkside. Ferguson also said that she isn't interested in the character anymore and that she didn't want Ilsa Faust to become a team member of Ethan's Crew and she said that she kinda saw that right this situation was coming. 3. the title could by the way also be a hint for the fact that she wont come back, bcs ethan will be "reckoning" with gabriel bcs he took away two rlly important persons from him (Ilsa and Mary) 4. You can already watch the teaser trailer of part 2 and we just hear luther saying: "Sometimes, you'll have to accept that you can not save us all. This wont bring her back" For me, this is a clear sign that Ilsa WONT come back I just want to mention something else. Sure, I loved Ilsa and I kinda watched mission bcs of Ilsa...I often watched the film until Ilsas death scene and then I just turned off the TV bcs I am not interrested in the other part of the film bcs I feel like Grace just substituted Ilsa in that Part. I also want to talk about other fakt that will probably make the next film exciting. So first I feel like there will be some crazy new twists and new reveled facts in the next film or some sectrets we can already find out with just watching close. I mean Ilsa and Ethan looked at each other like they had planed sth or that ilsa was Like "So you see? I was right" about three times (on boat, after gabriel said that one of them will die that night, when ethan said "Run as far as you can"). I am also confused, bcs Ilsa fought with her left hand, but in the past her main hand was the right one...maybe just a filmfail but who knows? And why did she lost? She already fought against other badguys who had crazy weapons and knifes and she didn't have any but still won. And now she had a SWORD and Gabriel had a KNIFE (also tha fact that Grace is not good in fighting so WHY tha Fu** did she survive???). I am also wondering why paris just put her sword on he table so ilsa could just grab it? I also think it would be a great twist ("great" with the meaning of huge and not good...) if Grave would be Ethans daughter but i kinda feel like ethan is a little to young and i gueass they tried to make some romance out of them. And why does luther go away? Ans why does ethan just risk Ilsas life I mean he obviously KNEW and SAID that they were all in danger so why did he took ilsa? To Hailey Atwells charcter I can just say: I can not understand why Grace shall be part of IMF, she can not drive a car and she can not even fight and she is actually just annoying. I think it will all make sence when we'll get new informations and watch the next part of film. Well it's right that ferguson left the door open because she said "But you never know, right?" but I still think that we'll all be disapointed bcs she won't come back. I can just tell you to google about informations all by your self and make up your own opinion.If you do that, you'll probably have the same opinion like me. And hey if you reached this sentence, congratulations you red this WHOLE report... Sry I know it is too long... :') Hope this helped you...^^
Dawkins is either lying or willfully ignorant about the binary of sex in biology. It causes one to have to categorize intersex persons as flawed or broken, which is nonsense.
it doesn't make sense even in the most simplest way because if they explain that inverted people cannot interact normally with mediums when in time flowing forward they shouldn't even be able to see because the medium of light would not be able to be perceived by the inverted people because that light would flow normally in time and the inverted person wouldn't be able to process that since they also explained that oxygen cannot be processed by an inverted person since it would kill them, same with sound and everything else .. this movie requires you to suspend your disbelief heavily to work
Late to the party, but if Ilsa died like this I'm going to be annoyed. They chose to set her up as a love interest in Fallout, then immediately started her role in DR with a death fakeout, kept her out of the film for a large amount of time while introduding a potential replacement for her BEFORE she is even dead, and then is killed off unceremoniously. It's just such a weird story decision.
stupid film
why do you need fast internet to edit screenshots? And don't try to understand, feel it 🙂
What's happened has happened, which is an expression of faith in the mechanics of Christopher Nolan
Daemon isn't George's favorite Targaryen for no reason.. Daemon is the pinnacle of a "grey" character, acting both noble and ignoble, to get the job done. Much like Bloodraven (another very popular and mysterious Targaryen/Blackwood) later on, for Daemon, the ends justify the means. The thing is, there's shades of grey; Roose Bolton is another grey character, but we mostly find him honorless and creepy. Daemon's "grey" is courageous; he doesn't stray from a fight, he's passionate and hot-blooded, so many things that (especially young) women find irresistible, in spite of the danger of associating with him. He's the "bad boy" every girl wants, and every women knows is bad for her, but she wants him anyway.
Ilsa Faust is the only character that can give Ethan a happy ending. Shes the only one that fits.
Was mistake the isla dead, i hope that she alivie , she Is very sólo soooooo much extremedly inportant in mission imposible
I dont ,I hate him
Hi, I am bit of a Tenet enthusiasts and I whatch videos praising and criticising them alike, I liked your video, I hope you allow me to reflect on your line of thoughts thorugh your examples to show a different point how to observe inverted events - summons in his mind , that is not what is happening, he drops the bullet, in a reverse motion, from our perspective the inverted object is 'summoned' because it's entropy runs backwards, this is well established in the movie in the sentence: 'The bullet would not have moved if you hadn't put your hand above it' 'Cause things to occur without causality'- this is also incorrect, as also explained above, to our experience (forward time) the cause seemingly is followed by the effect, due to the inverted entropy of given interacted obejct / person.. but there is always a cause! inverted bullet continuity: how the movie explains it the object itself is continous, and in the wall in our past yes, it's effect (bullethole) however is fixed over some time as it is flowing aginst the dominant entropy of the world, thus before it is 'unshot' the bullet damage materializes then gets unshot. This is also highlighted in the movie with the Protagonist's arm injury.. it starts unhealing during the 1 week inverted time in the shipping container to Oslo, and gets more serious until the time of himself getting stabbed by his past self. The problem with your explanation of paradox is you do not correctly follow the entrophy, and run into a self created paradox, despite the movie establishing these, The objects/ people inverted or not have a constant existence in their own timeline, the cause and effect casuality rule also applied, but we always have to apply this in the directon the person/object is currently moving in time in case of the 'walled in solider at Stalk 12 battle, he or she did not got born into the wall, that is absurd, Rather we saw it from our perspective ( forward time ) , from the solider's perspective, they wer standing in an explotion on the wall, ( caused by a for them future explotion ) but since the inverted person's perspective is backwards for forward time events ( normal rocket hitting the wall) they could not anticipate the explosion in time and got inverted hit by it, dying by getting smashed by a seemingly reconstructing wall. You tend to misinterprit the events 'Shown to us' by fixating from the entropy it was shown, the movie is brilliant, because there are 3 scenes where we can see both forward time and inverted time perspectives, what eventually helps us understand/ visualize how all this works. the inverted guy killed by normal guy - similar situation as the end scene of the movie: Inverted Neil takes a bullet for Protagonist, but since he is inverted, from our forward perspective he becomes unshot, then opens the gate, yes! From inverted Niel's perspective he Closes! the door then stands in front of Volkov's gun to take his shot and sacrafices himself and remains dead in his future, which is everyone else's past... But of course this is the end of his life ( it just happens it happend in a point of a timeline, that is before the present, meaning after his death he does exists ( as he is talking with Ives and protagonist after saving them with the jeep) hard to get your head around it but this is how inversion works, and it is obeying the rules of casuality. FUN! Finally again, Neil inverted could not have killed Goon = Volkov, because if he did from forward time perspective Volkov would have died before the algorithm was 'succesfully buried by the explotion making future Sator on the yacht on a line phone line aware that his plan was not succesful. That is why Neil only could sacrafice himself by taking the bullet, be also aware that he did not Open the door, ( it looks like from Protagonist and Ives perspective) he Closed it! from inverted pespective also to ensure enough time passes so that Sator on the phone thinks his plan worked and he can proceed to kill himself... its really brilliant if you think about it, and how aware inverted Niel had to be to think as such as an inverted person! Try to wrap your head around entropy flow perspectives, as you always get into paradoxes with your explanation as you always view events from forward perspective, and then claim casuality is broken, but it is not! Hope some of my explanations help and you can enjoy this brilliant movie from another point of view ;) Whatch some (not my) videos where this is very well explained with visuals (both for objects, effects, non lethal, and mortal wounds, and object continuity) kzread.info/dash/bejne/p3WblMWvgpy1p6g.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIqYpK6jfrWbhLg.html - objects kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6phxKyCk73LksY.html - death/injuries
I was thinking the same thing as you: Why didn't Paris use a spear instead of a pipe? The pipe totally took me out of the scene.
Awesome video, great channel, discovered your channel today under my guilty pleasure about watching humans ripping Rings of Power apart, i cannot wait for the content and entertainment season 2 will provide me, i can only hope for it to be worst, i am passed being offended and now its like watching “The Room”. Its like watching something made by scientists to see what -1 on the scale of talent would be like in our reality…. So weird Anyway, about the last 1.5hrs …. Your are clear, understandable, coherent, brings up real basic points that people cannot refute or just attack a strawman or more often just personal attack are the first reflexes…. Yhea i got the luck to read your comment section and it is so sad to see 2 people you watched for years get struck by cognitive dissonance that hard and not seeing it is crushing, i was a big fan of those guys too, just hard to take them seriously now. You took the time to be precise and open minded. Never expressed anything other than your opinion on the subject with a call to discussion and still you get attacked like if you were an heretic and people still don’t see the parallels with religion. Extremism from any side is bad, everyone used to be on agreement on that, but now if you want a debate and not agree with the groupthink agreements you are excommunicated… the bubble of censorship have to burst, its affecting the capacity of doing actual meaningful work and changes in so many fields now it is unsustainable. English is my second language, i never voted, i live in the woods in a french speaking province in the most progressive country in the world, i let you guess. And people call me a political far right person since i didn’t support people burning the cities while the rest of us were locked inside our homes. At least we got truckers who don’t care about being “fashionable” Rational thinking and logic are tools we should use for all our decisions and seeing something like asking a question of what a woman is being so powerful is so weird to witness. Two rational guys making mental gymnastics about justifying a circular and contradictory argument, or again, personal attacks.. sad Anyway, not sure if that make sense, long comment, very late, again second language, but you got great videos
Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtful comment! I am actually now enjoying Canada, visiting some friends near Ottawa. I guess not quite into the French-speaking region yet, but on the border. The nature here is beautiful and the people very friendly--but I'm in a small small town and yes, even here (where you'd expect to find more conservatives) there are a lot of progressive views I consider extreme. The truckers was shocking to me, truly. I don't consider myself aligned with any political party nowadays. My family has always been republican but for me the party is going too extreme and hysterical in many regards, especially with recent stuff on Trump and Putin. Still not as bad as Canada or Australia though! Hah I hope things do get better. Don't worry about your English, it is fantastic as far as I can tell. I hope to learn French soon. It seems a fairly easy language to be honest (as I already speak a couple Latin languages). I'm trying to figure out where to go with the channel. The film reviews do much better than the philosophy videos I make from scratch, but film/TV isn't really my primary passion. I do enjoy the critiques, and they let me be a bit more humorous, but they aren't as fulfilling. I always hope to weave a "story" focus into my philosophy, because for me it's so fundamental to who we are; but I would hope to weave the film stuff together with philosophy, making a series of deeper and more free-flowing analyses like Just Write or Like Stories of Old. Great channels, check them out. Anyway, I try to be precise and humble and earnest in my thoughts. I do have stronger thoughts on several philosophical matters but I like to only present the arguments I've thought through "all the way down to the root," so to speak. I'm sure I still make mistakes. There was a bit of the script I cut but forgot to cut entirely, which another commenter pointed out. I should probably pin the comment so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to hide it. My comment too was somewhat rambly! Anyway I hope you're doing well, thanks for the engagement.
I like that you do actually criticise Rhaenyra. The fact is, she wanted to be Queen but didn't want to accept the responsibilities of being Queen. Was it unfair to her? Yes. The expectation of a monarch to produce heirs is far more taxing on the woman than the man. And it's totally understandable that she felt insulted by people constantly trying to undermine her claim just because she was a woman. And yes, while often neither a male or female ruler gets to marry for love, it's common for people to ignore the male ruler sleeping with whoever he wants on the side, whereas noble women can be killed for that. That is horrifically unfair and Rhaenyra has a right to be pissed off. BUT. Here's what matters more. Rhaenyra knew her claim was going to be contested, and not just with insults at court. As soon as Viserys had sons, she knew this was more serious. At that point, choosing to sire not one, not two but THREE bastards was INCREDIBLY irresponsible. Yes I get no one should have the right to tell a woman whose children she gets to have, but as unfair as it is, Rhaenyra KNEW this alone could cause a civil war, endangering her children, herself, her husband, AND the boys' true father, not to mention hundreds or thousands of soldiers who would be sent to fight a preventable war. She should have taken Moon Tea and prevented the pregnancies. But she was so angry at her father from the last time she got caught and how he had sent her Moon Tea that she had the children to spite everyone. Yes she was mistreated but her way of handling it literally gets people killed. That is worse and honestly downright cruel, if not intentionally cruel. Rhaenyra should have prevented pregnancies from Harwyn Strong, and then, given Laenor was unable to get Rhaenyra pregnant, she should have seceded the throne. Not because she was a woman, but because she had no heirs, and therefore was inviting a another succession crisis. She should have spoken with her father, had HIM renounce his former declaration, and making display in court to try to persuade the nobles that this was Rhaenyra's idea. It would have won her a great deal of popularity, for deliberately sacrificing her claim to the throne for the stability of the realm, as opposed to her just having it taken away and being seen as another royal brat wanting the pointy chair. And that credibility would help secure the legitimacy of whoever they chose to succeed Viserys. And now you might be wondering, wouldn't this then cause Aegon to become king? When his favourite pastimes are excessive drinking and sexual assault? That's a terrible idea. And Yes, it is a terrible idea. But Aegon was a relatively contained problem before Otto and Alicent put a crown on his head. There is a MUCH better candidate. Aemond. And keep in mind in this timeline, Aemond still failed to bond with the egg they placed in his cradle, and therefore was still just as brutally bullied by Aegon for not having a dragon. Which means he still claims Vhagar. So they don't have to worry about the second son betraying the crowned Aegon because he has a bigger dragon and thinks he can get away with it. Instead, it's Aegon who would be scared to challenge Aemond. Not only that, but Aegon didn't even WANT the throne until they put him on it. He straight up told Aemond that he'd let him have it. So we have the smarter, more educated, more respected and significantly more moral candidate chosen as heir, and to boot he has the biggest dragon. He'd be seen as the strongest Targaryen heir in generations. Now, there are some discontented parties. While this would bring peace between Rheanyra and the Hightowers, as either Aegon of Aemond on the throne is good for Otto, there's still Corlys and Daemon to worry about. This would be not one, but two marriage pacts with the Velaryons that Viserys has tossed out. And the first time around Corlys was so pissed off that he went off to fight a war independently of the Crown, declaring without words that ultimately he was the actual protector of Westeros. It was a HUGE challenge to Viserys authority and given Corlys invited Daemon, it was obvious Corlys was making it clear that if it came to it, he'd back Daemon should Daemon stage a coup. How do you deal with this? Well after Laena's death, Daemon left one of his daughters at Driftmark to be fostered by the Velaryons, only taking one to Dragonstone with Rhaenyra. While I don't think Daemon goes to Dragonstone with her in this scenario, I do think it's likely he'd leave a daughter at Driftmark. Probably both to be honest. Because keep in mind in this version, Rhaenyra has no incentive to marry Daemon. There was no fight after Aemond claimed Vhagar. She has no sons that she worries Otto will one day assassinate. Jayce, Luke and Joffrey don't exist. And again we're pretending in this version that Rhaenyra is making sacrifices to ensure stability, so even though I expect she sleeps with Daemon, she doesn't marry him. That means there's no comfortable family life awaiting Daemon on Dragonstone to raise one of his daughters. So honestly I think he'd leave them both on Driftmark, not just one. But one is all you need. Marry one of Daemon's daughters to Aemond. Again, he's left at least one, probably both on Driftmark in this scenario, so if Viserys and Rhaenyra arrange the marriage with Corlys and Rhaenys and cut out Daemon, he's not going to be able to prevent the wedding. And again, in this scenario Jayce and Luke don't exist. Corlys has no marital link to the throne like he wanted. Obviously he knew the bastards weren't his real grandsons, but for him the name Velaryon was enough. And he and Rhaenys are a lot less pissed off, because staging Laenor's death was only prompted by the fight between Rhaenyra and Alicent's sons on Driftmark, and Aemond taking Vhagar. Rhaenyra and Daemon knew a fight was coming and married to strengthen their position. So in this version, Laenor's still around, and therefore Corlys and Rhaenys are more amenable, and Corlys ultimately gets most of what he wanted. That leaves the only issue to be Daemon. And honestly Daemon is such a wildcard I really don't know what he does in this scenario. He's good at sewing chaos and a big part of what seemed to convince him to give up pursuing the throne the first time around was that Rhaenyra had her own heirs already in addition to Viserys' sons. Who no longer had a good claim and so his only chance at power was to back another party. But in this version, he knows his only real obstacle is Aemond. Aemond is the linchpin that makes the entire plan work. Aegon could not be trusted to not attack Rhaenyra if crowned. Aemond (who in this version has no grudge against Rhaenyra given he has both of his eyes) could be relied upon to keep his word. And with Rhaenyra on team Green in this scenario Otto has no reason to assassinate her. His ambitions are directly aided by her presence. So the only play Daemon has is to kill Aemond. Given Aemond is a reknowned fighter and Otto would take Aemond's security seriously (even if just to ensure Aegon doesn't do something stupid), a knife in the dark ain't gonna work. Although Daemon's knowledge of the hidden tunnels in the Red Keep would cause him to get closer than most. He doesn't really have an agent close enough to Aemond to poison him, and he has too little power to ensure such an agent wouldn't just go to Otto immediately for a payout. A duel in open court isn't going to work because even IF Daemon can beat Aemond, Aegon's backup number 1 and in the books Daeron is backup number two. And Corlys only has reason to be pissed at Daemon if Aemond dies, rendering his marriage void. Honestly, I think Daemon's only play that has a chance of working is kind of similar to how their final confrontation goes in Fire and Blood. The only way to take out Aemond and actually make enough of an impression to intimidate Aegon and Daeron into backing off is to find Aemond mid flight and attempt a surprise attack with Caraxes. It's way riskier, but the only option that would make the political dent he needs. Plus we saw in the Stepstones the level of danger Daemon will put himself through just to make a point. Daemon had about an 80% chance of dying in the ploy that won him the war in the Stepstones, and he did that just so they could win before Viserys sent reinforcements. Even if he died in the battle Daemon wanted all to remember this was HIS victory. And had the battle been lost, well Daemon would be too dead to care. I think he'd accepted that already. If he's bold enough to do that, he's bold enough to challenge Vhagar. And given Fire and we know that means both dragons and both riders go down. In the show this is a pretty terrible situation for Rhaenyra, with Aegon now first in line given she seceded and has no heirs. But if we're going off the books, this still works fine, since Daeron is an easy backup. The issue down the line here is by this point, Aegon might have gone from not really caring about getting the throne to being pretty insulted at being passed over twice. Given he offered to sail away from King's Landing in the show when he offered the crown to Aemond, I think if Daeron is too protected he flies across the Narrow Sea living as a prince in exile similar to Daemon once upon a time.
I started the MI journey because of Ethan (Tom). I have continued the journey because of Ilsa (Rebecca).