PLOTINUS: Beauty, like any faith, has form and formlessness: the highest, most sublime and most exclusive, and yet crude folk worship amulets and idols - icons amidst the ugliness of Earth.
ME: The lyric of a smile’s line, with and by the symmetry of cheeks and chin.
PLOTINUS: Do you have the virtue of a saint?
ME: Not any more.
PLOTINUS: But art and sex don't change.
ME: Beauty embarrasses artists too now.
PLOTINUS: Good!
ME: Why do you say that?
PLOTINUS: If it means those madmen leave it in peace.
ME: And stop expressing it?
PLOTINUS: The inexpressible! That's why they're mad. They copy it in impure forms and fail, but if you leave the world and live in beauty, the liberated spirit swims in bliss. Tell me, why waste your life with pen or paint, when you can seek and find your perfect beauty?
ME: By love?
PLOTINUS: The highest love - the love of truth.
ME: Not human love?
PLOTINUS: NO not human love. That is the love of shadows! No, Devotion to the moment of release, the love of freedom.
ME: Who’s religion is this?
PLOTINUS: The priests of beauty are philosophers.
ME: What, an academic discipline of logic?
PLOTINUS: The logic of the soul is pure delight - philosophers are lovers.
ME: And vice versa?
PLOTINUS: We're the best lovers - lovers of the best!
ME: Where is this perfect beauty?
PLOTINUS: Everywhere and nowhere! It's the true reality. Listen - we need to find the perfect being: the perfect being must have perfect beauty.
ME: How do we do that?
PLOTINUS: Close our earthly eyes, awaken pristine vision - see the soul. The soul is beautiful, but look beyond the soul - the beauty of pure intelligence - look deeper.
ME: Beyond the heart?
PLOTINUS: Beyond the sweetest sense - divine perfection, uncreated beauty, the primal, transcendental absolute.
ME: An ecstasy of silence.
PLOTINUS: A shrine of mind - the inner sanctum of eternity.
ME: What world-creating radiance we bring when we return to breathing!
PLOTINUS: Why return?
ME: In order to share it.
PLOTINUS: What's already universal? Our lives - the faintest traceries upon it. Stay where the light shines brightest.
ME: Safe at source? No grey of rain, no strangeness of the night, and no feelings of ghosting through us? Is this freedom?
PLOTINUS: No, I meant our birth from death.
ME: From all the cares of life?
PLOTINUS: Eternal contemplation of perfection.
ME: But human beauty...?
PLOTINUS: Is a contradiction!
ME: Sometimes the unmiraculous is lovely.
PLOTINUS: Beauty is heartless.
ME: Perfect beauty too?
PLOTINUS: Consider someone beautiful. What causes their vague, ascetic sense of self-betrayal - the petulance that praising them ignores them?
ME: They feel their beauty isn't theirs.
PLOTINUS: They're right. It's a disguise of which their lives are lost behind.
ME: Despite the power it gives them?
PLOTINUS: They are still its victims.
ME: But they might be philosophers, like us.
PLOTINUS: Wise images? That’s very unlikely.
ME: Yes, of course, philosophers are always ugly.
PLOTINUS: No! Though we're no longer objects of desire - the self-absorption of the soul in beauty makes it pure subject.
ME: Masks of cold perfection, alienate the witness like the wearer, it's true. But there are other beauties too - a childlike gravity before replying, the bathing gaze, and the soft smiles of gentleness.
PLOTINUS: Tiny reflections - blurred and brief as teardrops - of the oceanic light of perfect being.
ME: A teardrop, cinematic with emotion, or an extraordinary, empty ocean?
PLOTINUS: An easy choice: what dies or what's eternal?
ME: Is an eternal flower more beautiful than one that fades?
PLOTINUS: It will be soon.
ME: But now? Or rather, not more beautiful, more precious, more lovely to the heart?
PLOTINUS: Yes, but not the soul - eternal beauty is the soul's own nature, therefore more precious.
ME: More precious than a mystery? Maybe I don't mean beauty then - I mean love - although love is beautiful by nature too.
PLOTINUS: And beauty is the source of love.
ME: Not solely. There's love of beauty and more human love.
PLOTINUS: Love of what isn't beautiful?
ME: That's right. Beauty inspires a solitary love: poetry, certainty, incandescent visions and dark obsession - self-love of the soul - but not the deeper love that meets and shares.
PLOTINUS: Reciprocated love? Don't be absurd!
ME: It's possible.
PLOTINUS: Do you love someone?
ME: Yes.
PLOTINUS: A golden chain that links us to the gods breaks when we fall in love.
ME: You're optimistic.
PLOTINUS: Tell me about this person of whom you love. Does she love you?
ME: No.
PLOTINUS: Your Beatrice!
ME: Isn't she past your bedtime?
PLOTINUS: Beauty's timeless - she's beautiful?
ME: What really floods the heart isn't her beauty, nor her intelligence - the moments of love's deepest tenderness come from the clumsy, quirky, shy or wrong - simple surprises of what's ordinary - not perfect beauty, but its imperfections open the soul to overflowing love.
PLOTINUS: Tell me, would you still praise these imperfections if beauty hadn't made you fall in love?
ME: The siren shock of beauty awes us, scares us - what lights our love are qualities of feeling.
PLOTINUS: Yes, they are very beautiful as well.
ME: But they're alive, and not to be contemplated in order to relate to.
PLOTINUS: The soul can only contemplate perfection by self-perfection - that's why it's worthwhile, and this is the reason why love of beauty is the way to freedom - it purifies the soul's intrinsic state or condition.
ME: I still think humble love is more profound than even the most transcendental wonder. Not love of likeness, but the soul's surrender to what's mysterious, unknowable, the unpredictability of life. Each moment dances! Is it logical to say that the absolute excludes the world? It's full of all its earthly opposites - what's fallible and fades, our needs and passions - the intimate as well as infinite. It's freedom of another sort - a way to unconditional, unbounded love.
PLOTINUS: Do you know anyone for whom this works?
ME: I don't know anyone set free by beauty.
PLOTINUS: Beauty is fire.
ME: A heat that leads to heaven?
PLOTINUS: I saw a fly swallow across a flame, scorching its wings. Another swallow soared high in the summer sky, danced in its light - the iridescent ether of the sun.
ME: Love is like water - when a little stream reaches the sea, the tides of every ocean on every coast throughout the world, rise higher and higher.
PLOTINUS: Water and fire are opposing elements - are love and beauty?
ME: Call the soul a spring - its source of the sun and fire is beauty - and love is its fountaining stream.
Wednesday 29 September 2010
No Tone Unburned
Thorough-irony versus rigid and ironic-literalism
in debate
After writing my previous mental health article, I remembered that I was going to write something about the vital element of irony in debate, and about being thorough, penetrative, and leaving no stone unturned. This important element of intelligent irony in debate, is about thoroughly challenging the real validity of an argument or agenda by questioning others, seeking a new synthesis or alternatives of opposing views, but not necessarily or entirely rejecting what is being challenged or questioned.
It is a debating style that can be misunderstood as to its functions and benefits, or it is unrealised on a group level, and carried over into passivity, disorganised chaos, or over-literal interpretations. This is what I call literalism in debate.
Without intelligent and creative irony in debate, there can’t be any solid, dynamic, or constructive common ground, because we can’t identify or weigh up all aspects of the opposing issues. Intelligent irony also guards against being naive and gullible towards posed agendas and statements, and safeguards against ourselves being literalist and thinking that we are always right. This is also what it is genuinely and positively ironic, and irony is such an important aspect of debate, because it allows us to explore all areas and stones unturned, uncover hidden or suppressed areas or dilemmas, to create a degree of thoroughness, and to also question ourselves as part of the self-thinking process.
A more rigid or narrow approach to debate that polarises issues and individuals, is what often leads to literalism - a view that everything has to be literally interpreted as merely an opposing factor, or stated and perceived in terms of either-or, instead of either-or-or-or terms. In this respect, you could also say that literalism is a black and white way of thinking, and a conservative or reactionary response, although any dogma can fall prey to it. Irony is dynamic, and I would argue it is the essence of debate, whilst literalism is polarising, narrow, and static, and doesn’t progress or shift much from the agenda-setters.
Some individuals in the psychiatric and medical profession use irony as a one-sided weapon to suppress rational, trans-rational, creative, and shared dialogue, because they want others to think that only they are right. This is another form of literalism, and it is a misuse of irony in dialogue or debate, which can only then lead to conflict, repression, ignorance, or to a kind of neutralism in order to evade or counter-pose it.
This form of ironic-literalism is often used to intimidate, provoke, or catch people out, but if we can point out or identify this misuse of irony in questioning and debate, then we can protest that it is an unsatisfactory or corrupt method, play those who use it at their own game (leaving no tone unburned), apply an appropriate use of ironic dialogue and debate, or go elsewhere for what we need or want.
in debate
After writing my previous mental health article, I remembered that I was going to write something about the vital element of irony in debate, and about being thorough, penetrative, and leaving no stone unturned. This important element of intelligent irony in debate, is about thoroughly challenging the real validity of an argument or agenda by questioning others, seeking a new synthesis or alternatives of opposing views, but not necessarily or entirely rejecting what is being challenged or questioned.
It is a debating style that can be misunderstood as to its functions and benefits, or it is unrealised on a group level, and carried over into passivity, disorganised chaos, or over-literal interpretations. This is what I call literalism in debate.
Without intelligent and creative irony in debate, there can’t be any solid, dynamic, or constructive common ground, because we can’t identify or weigh up all aspects of the opposing issues. Intelligent irony also guards against being naive and gullible towards posed agendas and statements, and safeguards against ourselves being literalist and thinking that we are always right. This is also what it is genuinely and positively ironic, and irony is such an important aspect of debate, because it allows us to explore all areas and stones unturned, uncover hidden or suppressed areas or dilemmas, to create a degree of thoroughness, and to also question ourselves as part of the self-thinking process.
A more rigid or narrow approach to debate that polarises issues and individuals, is what often leads to literalism - a view that everything has to be literally interpreted as merely an opposing factor, or stated and perceived in terms of either-or, instead of either-or-or-or terms. In this respect, you could also say that literalism is a black and white way of thinking, and a conservative or reactionary response, although any dogma can fall prey to it. Irony is dynamic, and I would argue it is the essence of debate, whilst literalism is polarising, narrow, and static, and doesn’t progress or shift much from the agenda-setters.
Some individuals in the psychiatric and medical profession use irony as a one-sided weapon to suppress rational, trans-rational, creative, and shared dialogue, because they want others to think that only they are right. This is another form of literalism, and it is a misuse of irony in dialogue or debate, which can only then lead to conflict, repression, ignorance, or to a kind of neutralism in order to evade or counter-pose it.
This form of ironic-literalism is often used to intimidate, provoke, or catch people out, but if we can point out or identify this misuse of irony in questioning and debate, then we can protest that it is an unsatisfactory or corrupt method, play those who use it at their own game (leaving no tone unburned), apply an appropriate use of ironic dialogue and debate, or go elsewhere for what we need or want.
Tuesday 28 September 2010
Social and Family Obligations, Freedom, Fairness, Equality, and Moral Options, Moral and Ethical Availabilities, and Moral and Ethical Choice
No one is morally obliged to associate and love anyone by coercion and/or force, but they may be freely morally obliged to love and support other similar poorer and/or less fortunate people, as a moral option and choice, which should at least be available and reachable for them in these ways. The film, A Clockwork Orange, makes a very good point about choice being very necessary for some morality, and I tend not to agree with those who use state coercion, terrorism, or force for this.
However, moral coercion and force, and moral freedom and choice, are two separte moral and ethical issues, and whilst there may be a need for some moderate grey areas or a balance here, the two somewhat separate issues, can be sometimes merged too much into one compound notion - but again, I very much still think and believe that moral obligation for loving and supporting others, has to be at least somewhat of a free choice - otherwise it isn't truly moral, nor is it true love and support.
I have clarified and worked out my view and position on all of this for myself and/or for others, whilst accepting that in some situations and circumstances, there can be some moderate balance or grey areas, although I overall prefer positive persuasion, positive motivation, and fair, free, and/or equal rewards on the grey area coercion and force matter.
However, moral coercion and force, and moral freedom and choice, are two separte moral and ethical issues, and whilst there may be a need for some moderate grey areas or a balance here, the two somewhat separate issues, can be sometimes merged too much into one compound notion - but again, I very much still think and believe that moral obligation for loving and supporting others, has to be at least somewhat of a free choice - otherwise it isn't truly moral, nor is it true love and support.
I have clarified and worked out my view and position on all of this for myself and/or for others, whilst accepting that in some situations and circumstances, there can be some moderate balance or grey areas, although I overall prefer positive persuasion, positive motivation, and fair, free, and/or equal rewards on the grey area coercion and force matter.
The Different Types of Competition
On the whole matter of the different types of competition, people of all political persuasions, have tended to monofy, over-simplify, and blur and merge categories of various types of competition, through lack of information, knowledge, and understanding. These political people in the past, have repeatedly argued, claimed, and said, that all competition is very much and completely male-dominated, and a very patriarchal way of thinking, feeling, and behaving, which causes and creates war, inequalities, bullying, and abuse, whilst many people who claimed and said all this in the past, were in my experience of them, very aggressively competitive people themselves, and in that way and manner, totally contradictory and hypocrites.
Exploitative competition, without some clear and solid civility, boundaries, and ground rules, can indeed involve and lead to abuse and bullying, but other types of competition are very important, fine, and without them we would never progress as individuals, nor as a society and a human race, and the newly-elected local female Conservative MP very clearly states and recognises on her website, that free co-operation and some altruism or mutual aid between people in society, are also very important as well.
Exploitative and/or aggressive competition, again, without some clear and solid civility, personal boundaries, and ground rules, is often presented as atomistic, interpersonal, and purely individual, when in actual fact, it is a form of extreme group-conformity, loss or diminishing of important intrinsic and social individuality, and in these ways a very dangerous, unethical, immoral, form of social control.
One such different type of competition, which is very important, is moral competition, and which is about competing against social injustices, and righting wrongs, and very democratic types of competition, such as the kinds which are necessary in free speech an debate, are also very important.
Some forms of competition, are very hierarchical, and not competition in the true individual and social sense of the term or terms, such as when people compete for a third person, group or party, to overall benefit and take all the winnings and credit, for their hard work and efforts, and in that way denying the individual of their own potential credits and success; but again, I am in no way assuming, that the local newly-elected Conservative MP is arguing for, nor advocating this kind of false or pseudo-competition, because from what I’ve read on her website, she very clearly isn’t advocating or saying this at all.
Whilst it is very stupid, false, and ignorant, to say that all competition is male-dominated, patriarchal, and that it all involves or leads to abuse and bullying, it is true that there are different types of competition between women and men, and that there are some gender variations and clear differences at times. For example, in relationships and debate, women tend to focus - and many men say over-focus - on content and isolated or petty details, whilst men tend to focus on mechanisms, major themes, and form. Men will therefore, tend to compete for and towards, individual or social pure ideals, ideas, and forms, and major individual and social goals, whereas women tend to compete more for principles and ideas in terms of their actual existence, being, and mental and physical sensations and passions.
Exploitative competition, without some clear and solid civility, boundaries, and ground rules, can indeed involve and lead to abuse and bullying, but other types of competition are very important, fine, and without them we would never progress as individuals, nor as a society and a human race, and the newly-elected local female Conservative MP very clearly states and recognises on her website, that free co-operation and some altruism or mutual aid between people in society, are also very important as well.
Exploitative and/or aggressive competition, again, without some clear and solid civility, personal boundaries, and ground rules, is often presented as atomistic, interpersonal, and purely individual, when in actual fact, it is a form of extreme group-conformity, loss or diminishing of important intrinsic and social individuality, and in these ways a very dangerous, unethical, immoral, form of social control.
One such different type of competition, which is very important, is moral competition, and which is about competing against social injustices, and righting wrongs, and very democratic types of competition, such as the kinds which are necessary in free speech an debate, are also very important.
Some forms of competition, are very hierarchical, and not competition in the true individual and social sense of the term or terms, such as when people compete for a third person, group or party, to overall benefit and take all the winnings and credit, for their hard work and efforts, and in that way denying the individual of their own potential credits and success; but again, I am in no way assuming, that the local newly-elected Conservative MP is arguing for, nor advocating this kind of false or pseudo-competition, because from what I’ve read on her website, she very clearly isn’t advocating or saying this at all.
Whilst it is very stupid, false, and ignorant, to say that all competition is male-dominated, patriarchal, and that it all involves or leads to abuse and bullying, it is true that there are different types of competition between women and men, and that there are some gender variations and clear differences at times. For example, in relationships and debate, women tend to focus - and many men say over-focus - on content and isolated or petty details, whilst men tend to focus on mechanisms, major themes, and form. Men will therefore, tend to compete for and towards, individual or social pure ideals, ideas, and forms, and major individual and social goals, whereas women tend to compete more for principles and ideas in terms of their actual existence, being, and mental and physical sensations and passions.
The Illusory and Self-deafeating Dialectic of Extreme and Non-consensual Forms of Sexual, Social, Moral, and Political Sadism
... Such as all forms of totalitarianism, such as Fascism, Nazism, and most types of so-called Marxism, and the Inner and Outer Unresolvable Contradictions and Inner and Outer Conflicts of all of this
A friend recently emailed me and said and asked me: What kind of woman masturbates to your photo whilst you cry? I cant think of any that are humane. To which I replied to him: Why did you ask me what kind of woman masturbates over a man crying? Has this happened to you?, or do you think this has happened to me?
A woman who does that sort thing to or about a man, has more than likely been abused or bullied in some way by a man, possibly in childhood, and repeatedly made to cry, and so she associates happiness and pleasure with seeing a man cry and taking pleasure in it, because this is how she relates and views her own crying when she was bullied and/or abused by a man and repeatedly made to cry.
Also, the kind of woman who does this sort of thing to a man, will then go on to do this to another woman, because there is an inevitable gradation and association in that kind of reversed masochism or extreme and non-consensual sadism. A typical political example of this, is when the Nazis invaded Poland, they slaughtered a lot of the animals there, and then immediately afterwards they slaughtered some of the polish people. Hence, they started doing this to animals, and by gradation and association they then did this to the polish people. Many sociologists would describe this as symbolic terrorism, but this is very abstract, and a very partial and incomplete explanation psychologically, socially, and politically.
This friend also said and asked me: Isn't misandry just as bad as misogynism? To which I replied: Yes, misandry is just as bad as misogynism, not least and again, because by gradation and association it also leads to misogynism, as misogynism also leads to misandry. The two things are very connected, but which most misandrists and misogynists don't realise or admit to.
Another reason, and in fact one of the main underlying reasons for all this gradation and association of sadism (or at least non-consensual or extreme forms of sadism), is because sadists are a form of extreme humanists on the one hand, in the sense that they desire, view all human beings, and believe in androgyny (rather than seeing people as personal and collective different genders as well as (purely) human), whilst at the same time, mainly because they have been abused and/or have witnessed terrible things about human beings - such as the Marquis De Sade who experienced and witnessed very anti-human, barbaric, murderous and gory scenes of war - and like De Sade, they have a kind of aversion about and towards, a hatred, and a very cynical view of humans, human existence or human nature, and so they paradoxically and very contradictorily also don't want to see themselves or other people as human beings, but rather they want to see themselves as animals in a very sentimental, lustful and erotic, and also in a very idealistic way and sense, whilst they see actual animals as also very inferior to humans and see and treat other people as either very inferior animals (and it was no coincidence that for example Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian, and yet he murdered six million innocent Jews and others), or they want to see themselves and others - as Hitler and the nazis also did - as either superhuman, god-like, or divine.
Hence, for example, Hitler and the Nazis saw themselves as German national socialists, and in the form of racism and racist eugenics, as superior or god-like, whilst they saw the Jewish people, liberals, other socialists, trade unions, communists and Christians and others, as sub-human, and with the Jewish people as comparable to animals like rats and vermin or as bugs to be gassed.
All of these contradictions between the extreme or pure humanism of sadism, and the anti-humanism of it, leads to both inner and outer conflicts psychologically, socially, and politically, of thoughts, desires, and actions, which cannot be resolved and which become self-defeating, as it did with the Nazis socially and politically, who ended up sacrificing most of the German people to and in war and of eventually losing the war.
Many sadists believe that there is a dialectic (for want of a better word), to all of these contradictions and conflicts of both extreme or pure humanism and anti-humanism - along with the sadistic gradations, associations, and inevitable connections that go along with it such as with misandry and misogynism - and that all these inner and outer contradictions and conflicts can be resolved with another or a third kind of being, existence, or type of human and personal nature third or alternative solution, but this is a total delusion and/or illusion that they desire and believe in, but this is often what they very futilely and somewhat self-destructively are struggling for and towards.
This is the total idiocy of extreme or non-consensual forms or types of sexual, moral, and political sadism and totalitarianism, which mythologises, is totally ignorant, or lies and deceives themselves and others about all of this, but this article reveals more or less the whole reality and truth of all these matters.
A friend recently emailed me and said and asked me: What kind of woman masturbates to your photo whilst you cry? I cant think of any that are humane. To which I replied to him: Why did you ask me what kind of woman masturbates over a man crying? Has this happened to you?, or do you think this has happened to me?
A woman who does that sort thing to or about a man, has more than likely been abused or bullied in some way by a man, possibly in childhood, and repeatedly made to cry, and so she associates happiness and pleasure with seeing a man cry and taking pleasure in it, because this is how she relates and views her own crying when she was bullied and/or abused by a man and repeatedly made to cry.
Also, the kind of woman who does this sort of thing to a man, will then go on to do this to another woman, because there is an inevitable gradation and association in that kind of reversed masochism or extreme and non-consensual sadism. A typical political example of this, is when the Nazis invaded Poland, they slaughtered a lot of the animals there, and then immediately afterwards they slaughtered some of the polish people. Hence, they started doing this to animals, and by gradation and association they then did this to the polish people. Many sociologists would describe this as symbolic terrorism, but this is very abstract, and a very partial and incomplete explanation psychologically, socially, and politically.
This friend also said and asked me: Isn't misandry just as bad as misogynism? To which I replied: Yes, misandry is just as bad as misogynism, not least and again, because by gradation and association it also leads to misogynism, as misogynism also leads to misandry. The two things are very connected, but which most misandrists and misogynists don't realise or admit to.
Another reason, and in fact one of the main underlying reasons for all this gradation and association of sadism (or at least non-consensual or extreme forms of sadism), is because sadists are a form of extreme humanists on the one hand, in the sense that they desire, view all human beings, and believe in androgyny (rather than seeing people as personal and collective different genders as well as (purely) human), whilst at the same time, mainly because they have been abused and/or have witnessed terrible things about human beings - such as the Marquis De Sade who experienced and witnessed very anti-human, barbaric, murderous and gory scenes of war - and like De Sade, they have a kind of aversion about and towards, a hatred, and a very cynical view of humans, human existence or human nature, and so they paradoxically and very contradictorily also don't want to see themselves or other people as human beings, but rather they want to see themselves as animals in a very sentimental, lustful and erotic, and also in a very idealistic way and sense, whilst they see actual animals as also very inferior to humans and see and treat other people as either very inferior animals (and it was no coincidence that for example Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian, and yet he murdered six million innocent Jews and others), or they want to see themselves and others - as Hitler and the nazis also did - as either superhuman, god-like, or divine.
Hence, for example, Hitler and the Nazis saw themselves as German national socialists, and in the form of racism and racist eugenics, as superior or god-like, whilst they saw the Jewish people, liberals, other socialists, trade unions, communists and Christians and others, as sub-human, and with the Jewish people as comparable to animals like rats and vermin or as bugs to be gassed.
All of these contradictions between the extreme or pure humanism of sadism, and the anti-humanism of it, leads to both inner and outer conflicts psychologically, socially, and politically, of thoughts, desires, and actions, which cannot be resolved and which become self-defeating, as it did with the Nazis socially and politically, who ended up sacrificing most of the German people to and in war and of eventually losing the war.
Many sadists believe that there is a dialectic (for want of a better word), to all of these contradictions and conflicts of both extreme or pure humanism and anti-humanism - along with the sadistic gradations, associations, and inevitable connections that go along with it such as with misandry and misogynism - and that all these inner and outer contradictions and conflicts can be resolved with another or a third kind of being, existence, or type of human and personal nature third or alternative solution, but this is a total delusion and/or illusion that they desire and believe in, but this is often what they very futilely and somewhat self-destructively are struggling for and towards.
This is the total idiocy of extreme or non-consensual forms or types of sexual, moral, and political sadism and totalitarianism, which mythologises, is totally ignorant, or lies and deceives themselves and others about all of this, but this article reveals more or less the whole reality and truth of all these matters.
One Fairly Good, and A Second Excellent Dispatches Documentary of Which I have Pasted the youtube.com Links at the Beginning of this Article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEj-aUEqeE&feature=hp_SLN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vWazRB5uHM&feature=related
Please watch these two very good Dispatches documentaries. The first documentary, about the Unions - whilst I don't agree with all of it - in order to summarise makes three main points, criticisms, complaints, and protests.
The first point it makes is that many Unions are undemocratic, because only a third of their members agree with or want to strike as a protest against the Tories public and service spending-cuts, their increasing job-cuts, and their welfare and benefits-cuts, and that this is also very wrong because some of these Union members are carers and if they strike they will be neglecting the very poor and vulnerable.
On the first point of this matter and issue, I disagree with this first Dispatches documentary, because I think the Unions have to strike and protest against the jobs, services, benefits and welfare-cuts of the Tory government, even if only a third of their members disagree with this (otherwise they would all be like the Bolshevik political Party in Communist Russia, where they could only strike and so on, if the majority of workers and/or Union members agreed to this), when it is a very strong and powerful point of both necessity and principle that the Unions strike against the Tory government's job, services, welfare, and benefit-cuts), whilst I also disagree with the bullying, coercion, and threats and actions of ex-communication and expulsion of other or all other union members, who disagree with their Unions and of whom for whatever valid reasons don’t want to go on strike.
The second point, criticism, complaint, and protest which this first Dispataches documentary makes, is that some Union leaders and thier members, are being given million-pound homes by their Unions, which I agree with this documentary is very wrong, because it is elitist, and unfair and unequal privilege, which the Unions say and are not supposed to believe, encourage, create, or support.
The third point, criticism, complaint, and protest of this documentary, is that many male Union members are being paid much higher wages by some Unions via their councils than many women Union members, and who are being expelled from their Unions if they criticise, complain, or speak out about this.
The male Union member street-cleaners and so on, and their work, are seen by some of these Unions via some councils, that these men and male-workers both deserve and need much higher and more wages, than the cooks and carers, because they say and believe that this will make these men more productive - that these men’s work is also seen as the home providers, whilst the women’s work is seen as pin money jobs and roles - and these women's and female Union members work is not seen as real work and deserving equal pay to these men and male Union members.
Whilst this sex and gender discrimination, sexism, and economic inequality between men and women by some Unions does undoubtedly exist, this might have come across as over-generalising about these Unions or about some of them, but as I have always said, socialism and communism is still very much and too patriarchal, and this Dispatches documentary in their points, criticisms, complaints, and protests about some of these Unions sexual and gender discrimination and economic inequality, beween some fo these female and male Union members, exposes and reveals all of these injustices, contradictions, and gender inequalities, which still exist by some Unions, and which the Unions must all come clean about all of this and make amends and corrections.
Despite some of this first Dispatches programme's criticisms of the Union organisation Unite, the second Dispatches documentary I have also pasted a youtube.com link to here, shows and reveals, that the migrant women's domestic workers rights group - are all an integrated part and members of the Union-organisation Unite - and who are all very vital and a most excellent organisation, and who all fight for and defend the rights, freedom, protection, sociai justice and safety of the quite literally enslaved, extremely verbally abused, bullied, extremely exploited, sexually and physically abused, tortured, and in some cases even murdered by their employers, and that what’s more, both child and adult-slavery - child slave-labour and the slavery of women - have not been abolished neither in the world, nor in this country and society.
Anyone who is racist and/or makes sweeping-statements and over-generalisations about all immigrants who come to this country stealing white British workers jobs, or of all being benefits scroungers and taking white British working people’s tax paying money - and that they all supposedly do not want to and refuse to work - should watch this second excellent Dispatches documentary, in order to know and realise that the very real and literal slavery of women and children, and child-slave labour, have not been absolished in the world nor within this society, and they should watch this second Dispatches documantary, in order to get the real and whole facts and reality of all of these things, matters and present-day events, and to get the complete truth and picture on all of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vWazRB5uHM&feature=related
Please watch these two very good Dispatches documentaries. The first documentary, about the Unions - whilst I don't agree with all of it - in order to summarise makes three main points, criticisms, complaints, and protests.
The first point it makes is that many Unions are undemocratic, because only a third of their members agree with or want to strike as a protest against the Tories public and service spending-cuts, their increasing job-cuts, and their welfare and benefits-cuts, and that this is also very wrong because some of these Union members are carers and if they strike they will be neglecting the very poor and vulnerable.
On the first point of this matter and issue, I disagree with this first Dispatches documentary, because I think the Unions have to strike and protest against the jobs, services, benefits and welfare-cuts of the Tory government, even if only a third of their members disagree with this (otherwise they would all be like the Bolshevik political Party in Communist Russia, where they could only strike and so on, if the majority of workers and/or Union members agreed to this), when it is a very strong and powerful point of both necessity and principle that the Unions strike against the Tory government's job, services, welfare, and benefit-cuts), whilst I also disagree with the bullying, coercion, and threats and actions of ex-communication and expulsion of other or all other union members, who disagree with their Unions and of whom for whatever valid reasons don’t want to go on strike.
The second point, criticism, complaint, and protest which this first Dispataches documentary makes, is that some Union leaders and thier members, are being given million-pound homes by their Unions, which I agree with this documentary is very wrong, because it is elitist, and unfair and unequal privilege, which the Unions say and are not supposed to believe, encourage, create, or support.
The third point, criticism, complaint, and protest of this documentary, is that many male Union members are being paid much higher wages by some Unions via their councils than many women Union members, and who are being expelled from their Unions if they criticise, complain, or speak out about this.
The male Union member street-cleaners and so on, and their work, are seen by some of these Unions via some councils, that these men and male-workers both deserve and need much higher and more wages, than the cooks and carers, because they say and believe that this will make these men more productive - that these men’s work is also seen as the home providers, whilst the women’s work is seen as pin money jobs and roles - and these women's and female Union members work is not seen as real work and deserving equal pay to these men and male Union members.
Whilst this sex and gender discrimination, sexism, and economic inequality between men and women by some Unions does undoubtedly exist, this might have come across as over-generalising about these Unions or about some of them, but as I have always said, socialism and communism is still very much and too patriarchal, and this Dispatches documentary in their points, criticisms, complaints, and protests about some of these Unions sexual and gender discrimination and economic inequality, beween some fo these female and male Union members, exposes and reveals all of these injustices, contradictions, and gender inequalities, which still exist by some Unions, and which the Unions must all come clean about all of this and make amends and corrections.
Despite some of this first Dispatches programme's criticisms of the Union organisation Unite, the second Dispatches documentary I have also pasted a youtube.com link to here, shows and reveals, that the migrant women's domestic workers rights group - are all an integrated part and members of the Union-organisation Unite - and who are all very vital and a most excellent organisation, and who all fight for and defend the rights, freedom, protection, sociai justice and safety of the quite literally enslaved, extremely verbally abused, bullied, extremely exploited, sexually and physically abused, tortured, and in some cases even murdered by their employers, and that what’s more, both child and adult-slavery - child slave-labour and the slavery of women - have not been abolished neither in the world, nor in this country and society.
Anyone who is racist and/or makes sweeping-statements and over-generalisations about all immigrants who come to this country stealing white British workers jobs, or of all being benefits scroungers and taking white British working people’s tax paying money - and that they all supposedly do not want to and refuse to work - should watch this second excellent Dispatches documentary, in order to know and realise that the very real and literal slavery of women and children, and child-slave labour, have not been absolished in the world nor within this society, and they should watch this second Dispatches documantary, in order to get the real and whole facts and reality of all of these things, matters and present-day events, and to get the complete truth and picture on all of this.
The Distinctions Between Truth and Reality
Reality can be verified, tested, and objectively and scientifically proven. However, truth, is essentially both an assumed subjective notion, a philosophical notion, and something which cannot be proven one way or another in a purely past or present context, reality and sense, because it is existentially and essentially, a process and, very much a progress of events.
What's more, truth is not a noun thing, but it is actually a verb, and to do with action. Truth has in the past, seemed to described an objective thing, or a subjective notion and subject-object relation, but truth it is essentially what we do, in the continuing progress of past, present, and future, and it is neither what metaphorical or ironic descriptions imply.
This is not to rule out lies, myths, and distortions of reality, but a subjective and superstitious creation of either an objective or subjective truth, covers up and distorts our relation, involvement, and the force or chosen non-participation in our interaction with reality, ourselves, and other people.
The other thing, is that legalistically, truth is very strongly associated with events, but separated from reality, this belies and abstractly represents a notion that truth itself is a myth connected from reality to another reality, and this denies the dialectical nature and reality of how the two things - of both reality and truth - are both separate and related.
Of course, truth cannot be separated from prejudice, belief, and distorted and impartial interpretations, but truth essentially implies that it is opposed to falsity or original sin in a religious context, when the superficiality of this creates a polarity between truth, myths, and lies, which in these ways then thus denies or assumes the social and personal reality and so-called nature of events.
What is true can be described as a straight line, without natural irregularities or inconsistencies, or a pure, simple, and unrealistic superficial loyalty. This is essentially and existentially, a projection of human qualities, upon a ejaculated speculation of what is true, unfounded, and pre-disposed to internally externalised and introjected feelings, sensations, and notions.
There is also, never a connected nor disconnected aspect of truth - as often instructed by deluded and false teachers - as this all implies a teacher and disciple, or a hierarchical relationship, when all relationships are a combination of falsity and truth, loyalty and betrayal between lust and love, and the combined desire and love for intimacy, detached and displaced longing, and then betrayal.
On the matter of the legalistic reality, essence, and existence of truth, this consensus can at times seem overwhelming, but no-one asks, protests, or considers, whether those judging the passive and blamed recipients and assumed creators of truth, such as judges, are being true themselves to the whole or fragmentally displayed and influentially or ideologically conditioned nature of truth.
The other thing, is that those who exhibitionist display, or make a fictional corrective and involved pretext and pretence of truth, without any active personal participation, never realistically portray, and perceive how this is layered and disconnected from the truthful nature of actual reality. If reality was true, it wouldn't be full of contradictions, resolutions, and somewhat continual hypocritical material events.
There is indeed a truthful reality, but can there be a reality truth? This all seems plausible and laughable to me, but then again I am full of irony, deliberately obscurantism, and I am not the judge or jury or a philosophical prince or princess.
What's more, truth is not a noun thing, but it is actually a verb, and to do with action. Truth has in the past, seemed to described an objective thing, or a subjective notion and subject-object relation, but truth it is essentially what we do, in the continuing progress of past, present, and future, and it is neither what metaphorical or ironic descriptions imply.
This is not to rule out lies, myths, and distortions of reality, but a subjective and superstitious creation of either an objective or subjective truth, covers up and distorts our relation, involvement, and the force or chosen non-participation in our interaction with reality, ourselves, and other people.
The other thing, is that legalistically, truth is very strongly associated with events, but separated from reality, this belies and abstractly represents a notion that truth itself is a myth connected from reality to another reality, and this denies the dialectical nature and reality of how the two things - of both reality and truth - are both separate and related.
Of course, truth cannot be separated from prejudice, belief, and distorted and impartial interpretations, but truth essentially implies that it is opposed to falsity or original sin in a religious context, when the superficiality of this creates a polarity between truth, myths, and lies, which in these ways then thus denies or assumes the social and personal reality and so-called nature of events.
What is true can be described as a straight line, without natural irregularities or inconsistencies, or a pure, simple, and unrealistic superficial loyalty. This is essentially and existentially, a projection of human qualities, upon a ejaculated speculation of what is true, unfounded, and pre-disposed to internally externalised and introjected feelings, sensations, and notions.
There is also, never a connected nor disconnected aspect of truth - as often instructed by deluded and false teachers - as this all implies a teacher and disciple, or a hierarchical relationship, when all relationships are a combination of falsity and truth, loyalty and betrayal between lust and love, and the combined desire and love for intimacy, detached and displaced longing, and then betrayal.
On the matter of the legalistic reality, essence, and existence of truth, this consensus can at times seem overwhelming, but no-one asks, protests, or considers, whether those judging the passive and blamed recipients and assumed creators of truth, such as judges, are being true themselves to the whole or fragmentally displayed and influentially or ideologically conditioned nature of truth.
The other thing, is that those who exhibitionist display, or make a fictional corrective and involved pretext and pretence of truth, without any active personal participation, never realistically portray, and perceive how this is layered and disconnected from the truthful nature of actual reality. If reality was true, it wouldn't be full of contradictions, resolutions, and somewhat continual hypocritical material events.
There is indeed a truthful reality, but can there be a reality truth? This all seems plausible and laughable to me, but then again I am full of irony, deliberately obscurantism, and I am not the judge or jury or a philosophical prince or princess.
Saturday 25 September 2010
The Limitations of Political Self-descriptions and Self-Labelling and Labels
Many people very ostentatiously and very superficially describe to themselves and others, and very theatrically tell others and present to others about themselves, that they are a conservative, or a liberal or libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, but why should anyone believe these very tendentious, very partial, and very limited and abstract superficial labels and self-descriptions that people tell others about their so-called being and their existence?, and what’s more, why should anyone else believe them about any of any of this or what they say and tell others about any of this?
I say all of this, firstly, because if many people say and describe these things about themselves, are they talking about their social, material, and economic influences and conditions?, their so-called human essence or human nature?, or their existence which as an somewhat partial existentialist I believe precedes essence and being?
Whilst I disagree with Marxist political solutions - not least because like very right-wing socialism, Marxists haven’t progressed much, only in a superficial and deluded academic sense - the part of existentialism and Marxism that I believe in, is Dialectical Materialism - which some may say is the engine-block of Marxism, because I believe that we experience the material world and the thing first, and then we name and describe it, ourselves, and others.
There is also a big difference between experiences - again which are primary and come first - and actual perceptions, which are secondary like language, descriptions, and the vast majority of written, spoken, and language so-called meanings and explanations.
Shared meanings and language are still very important though - as in a lot of ways language is all we have got - and as Thomas Szasz says, language is also a like the material world in that it is another body, existence, and then a being that we all live within, but that this being or beings is both created by our material world and language and also created by ourselves by our actions, thoughts, feelings, desires, our experiences and then our perceptions, and then also created and re-created by the words and language that we use, which re-influence, re-creates, and which all then effect and affect our secondary experiences termed as our perceptions.
Sometimes it is a very good thing to transcend or break-out from shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings, especially is there is a very false, misconceived and misinterpreted, very rigid, and very limited or fake consensus with these things, although a person can get labelled as insane for doing this, but again, shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings and a genuine creative and scientific consensus and understanding of all of this are very important as well.
Getting back to the ostentatious, very superficial, very tendentious, very partial and very abstract labels and self-descriptions which many people have of themselves, when they tell and very theatrically present to others that they are a conservative, or a liberal or a libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist - firstly, these things can only be validated and verified albeit still very limitedly - by a person’s actions, and not by their very ostentatious, abstract, very limited, partial, and very reversible descriptions of themselves, and how they want to see themselves to themselves and others in these ways.
What’s more, it is usually the case, them when many people self-describe themselves as a conservative, a liberal, a social or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, in their actions they are usually quite the opposite of all these things, as these self-descriptions which they superficially and theatrically present and project to others about themselves, are to a great extent very partial, limited, and deceitful to themselves and others, about both what they actually do and what they actually are as individuals and as existent human beings.
All these very partial, very reversible, and very theatrical self-descriptions many people make of themselves and present to others, as kind of actors playing a role or part in a rather outdated, boring, and tired play, are all actually some aspects of ALL human beings - even though again they are still all very partial, very theatrical, and limited descriptions - and if anyone tells you or anyone else otherwise, then they are lying about all of this.
I am not being very anarchistic or nihilistic about all of this, as I do accept that in some ways people have a sort of right, and are in a way accurate about these so-called political self-descriptions and very partial and limited labels about themselves, but I personally feel and believe, that it is not up to people to tell others what they are, when these things deny the somewhat totality of all of these aspects of every single human being, and because it is up to other people to decide about all of this about individuals and people collectively, and for others to evaluate and/or judge or describe people upon their actions, and not upon their very abstract self-descriptions.
Another reason why many people just use one part of all these partial aspects of all human beings - and which I agree with some so-called socialists are all influenced and conditioned by social, material, and economic or class factors - is that people choose one aspect of all these factors of human beings, and they decide that this is the path they want to follow - and which then makes them feel superficially very high in self-esteme and very good about themselves, and which also makes them feel very safe and secure amidst the somewhat uncertainty, flows, breaks, and changes, and the somewhat chaos and meaninglessness of many aspects of nature, society, the universe, and life.
Everyone has a conservative, a liberal, a socialist and communist, and an anarchist and a fascist character trait, which again, often than not because they deceive themselves and others about all of these things, deny and suppress these other aspects of themselves, and then project this onto others and protest too much, and then the reversal of all these aspects of every human being then come out with a vengeance, revealing their ignorance, extreme hypocrisy, superficiality, tendentiousness, very superficial and very poor and bad-acting theatrical role-play, and their inautheticity to be fairly honest about, realise, act upon, and present to others their real true selves, as individuals, social, material, and mindful beings.
What’s more, as existentialism reveals to us and says, and in order to realise their material and social influence and conditions, they and we all need to first realise that their and all our existence is primary - it is experienced and comes first - and then after they or we all experience the material thing, they and we all then name it and describe it to themselves, ourselves, and others.
I say all of this, firstly, because if many people say and describe these things about themselves, are they talking about their social, material, and economic influences and conditions?, their so-called human essence or human nature?, or their existence which as an somewhat partial existentialist I believe precedes essence and being?
Whilst I disagree with Marxist political solutions - not least because like very right-wing socialism, Marxists haven’t progressed much, only in a superficial and deluded academic sense - the part of existentialism and Marxism that I believe in, is Dialectical Materialism - which some may say is the engine-block of Marxism, because I believe that we experience the material world and the thing first, and then we name and describe it, ourselves, and others.
There is also a big difference between experiences - again which are primary and come first - and actual perceptions, which are secondary like language, descriptions, and the vast majority of written, spoken, and language so-called meanings and explanations.
Shared meanings and language are still very important though - as in a lot of ways language is all we have got - and as Thomas Szasz says, language is also a like the material world in that it is another body, existence, and then a being that we all live within, but that this being or beings is both created by our material world and language and also created by ourselves by our actions, thoughts, feelings, desires, our experiences and then our perceptions, and then also created and re-created by the words and language that we use, which re-influence, re-creates, and which all then effect and affect our secondary experiences termed as our perceptions.
Sometimes it is a very good thing to transcend or break-out from shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings, especially is there is a very false, misconceived and misinterpreted, very rigid, and very limited or fake consensus with these things, although a person can get labelled as insane for doing this, but again, shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings and a genuine creative and scientific consensus and understanding of all of this are very important as well.
Getting back to the ostentatious, very superficial, very tendentious, very partial and very abstract labels and self-descriptions which many people have of themselves, when they tell and very theatrically present to others that they are a conservative, or a liberal or a libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist - firstly, these things can only be validated and verified albeit still very limitedly - by a person’s actions, and not by their very ostentatious, abstract, very limited, partial, and very reversible descriptions of themselves, and how they want to see themselves to themselves and others in these ways.
What’s more, it is usually the case, them when many people self-describe themselves as a conservative, a liberal, a social or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, in their actions they are usually quite the opposite of all these things, as these self-descriptions which they superficially and theatrically present and project to others about themselves, are to a great extent very partial, limited, and deceitful to themselves and others, about both what they actually do and what they actually are as individuals and as existent human beings.
All these very partial, very reversible, and very theatrical self-descriptions many people make of themselves and present to others, as kind of actors playing a role or part in a rather outdated, boring, and tired play, are all actually some aspects of ALL human beings - even though again they are still all very partial, very theatrical, and limited descriptions - and if anyone tells you or anyone else otherwise, then they are lying about all of this.
I am not being very anarchistic or nihilistic about all of this, as I do accept that in some ways people have a sort of right, and are in a way accurate about these so-called political self-descriptions and very partial and limited labels about themselves, but I personally feel and believe, that it is not up to people to tell others what they are, when these things deny the somewhat totality of all of these aspects of every single human being, and because it is up to other people to decide about all of this about individuals and people collectively, and for others to evaluate and/or judge or describe people upon their actions, and not upon their very abstract self-descriptions.
Another reason why many people just use one part of all these partial aspects of all human beings - and which I agree with some so-called socialists are all influenced and conditioned by social, material, and economic or class factors - is that people choose one aspect of all these factors of human beings, and they decide that this is the path they want to follow - and which then makes them feel superficially very high in self-esteme and very good about themselves, and which also makes them feel very safe and secure amidst the somewhat uncertainty, flows, breaks, and changes, and the somewhat chaos and meaninglessness of many aspects of nature, society, the universe, and life.
Everyone has a conservative, a liberal, a socialist and communist, and an anarchist and a fascist character trait, which again, often than not because they deceive themselves and others about all of these things, deny and suppress these other aspects of themselves, and then project this onto others and protest too much, and then the reversal of all these aspects of every human being then come out with a vengeance, revealing their ignorance, extreme hypocrisy, superficiality, tendentiousness, very superficial and very poor and bad-acting theatrical role-play, and their inautheticity to be fairly honest about, realise, act upon, and present to others their real true selves, as individuals, social, material, and mindful beings.
What’s more, as existentialism reveals to us and says, and in order to realise their material and social influence and conditions, they and we all need to first realise that their and all our existence is primary - it is experienced and comes first - and then after they or we all experience the material thing, they and we all then name it and describe it to themselves, ourselves, and others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)