Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: lcn on January 20, 2006, 11:10:37 PM

Title: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: lcn on January 20, 2006, 11:10:37 PM
I fled to US because of a blood vendettas. I damaged family honour, we are Muslim and I fell in love and married a Catholic without family permission. My brothers have sworn they will kill us and our two children. It is the law of the place where we lived. They have already killed my brother-in-law. These are strict, codes of laws governing marriage, birth, death, hospitality and inheritance, which has been handed down orally through the generations and used as a system for administering justice, in territories historically remained isolated from central government law.

Do you think we'll be given asylum in the US? We've already filed but are not sure whether we'll be approved or not.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: sammie on January 20, 2006, 11:17:56 PM
I for one have heard about the Sicilian Mafia (and/or its branches in the US,) people who are tightly bound through blood and marriage, making the organization extremely difficult to penetrate. When caught in midst of such a horror, a person trying to escape from his/her responsibilites s/he is supposed to fulfil as a member of the family, has definitely a difficult time to do so. I am not sure what kind of proof you have to document the blood vendettas going on between the families involved, but it looks like you definitely have a claim, at least theoretically, to be granted asylum in the US. Good Luck To You!
Title: Mafia's History -- Here It Is What I Found
Post by: theresa on January 20, 2006, 11:28:31 PM
In 1282, the French Angevins "held a tight grip on Sicily," and a secret society arose to defeat this oppressive organization. The battle cry of this rebellious group was: "morte alla Francia Italia anelia!" (Italian for "death to the French is Italy's cry!"), and if the first letters of the verse are taken, the anagram MAFIA is deciphered. The word Mafia was first published in 1862 in a play by Giuseppe Rizzuto, called "I Mafiosi della Vicaria" (The Mafia in the Vicarage") about a secret criminal group in the prisons of Palermo. In Sicily, the word mafia tends to mean "manly", and is often applied to someone without necessarily meaning they were a criminal. Sicily has had to adapt to numerous invasions: Arabs in the ninth century, Norman's in the 11th century, French in the 12th, Spanish in the 15th, as well as invasions by the Germans, Austrians and Greeks. Secret societies in the hills were needed to resist foreign rulers. These societies were formed not only to try and defeat the French rulers but also to protect and feed the Italian families in the villages of Palermo and surrounding areas. Since most of the villagers were related, each village picked a member to head their family. These heads of families were called (capodecina or capos for short). The capodecina would pick men from the village to take with him to the hills. Before the men left for the hills they would have to pledge their loyalty, support and Omertá . The oath in English sounded like this:

"I (NAME GIVEN) want to enter into this secret organization to protect my family and to protect my brothers. ""morte alla Francia Italia anelia!" With my blood. (A knife is used to place a cut on the right index finger or hand) and the blood of all the saints, and the souls of my children. (The sign of the cross is made) I swear not to divulge this secret and to obey with love and omerta. I enter alive into this organization and leave it only in death."

1. A code of silence - Never to "rat out" any mafia member. Never to divulge any mafia secrets. Even if they were threatened by torture or death.

2. Complete obedience to the boss - Obey the boss's orders, no matter what.

3. Assistance - To provide any necessary assistance to any other respected or befriended mafia faction.

4. Vengeance - Any attacks on family members must be avenged. "An attack on one is an attack on all."

5. Avoid contact with the authorities.

Once safe in the hills, all the capodecina's would get together and pick someone to be in charge of all the members of this secret society. The head of all the members was called (Capo di tutti capi) the boss of all the families. Food was scarce, conditions deplorable, the French controlled everything and if you didn't do what the French Angevins wanted, they would torture and kill you. The members of the society would raid supplies and weapons from the French and distribute their wares throughout the villages. They had to operate in complete secrecy. This was necessary to protect the members and their families from torture. This was an honorable society in the fact that you had to believe totally in the cause and be willing to die to protect the members. The villagers also respected and honored the soldiers from the hills. They knew there was a chance for freedom from the French but only if they remained silent about their fellow Italians in the hills. Joining the society was like joining a religion. It was a lifetime commitment, stronger than any ties to other religions, state or even family. You could not retire from it. This society has survived through centuries, it is secret and only members know other members. No one would ever admit to being a member nor tell you who other members are. That would violate Omertá and be punishable by death. Throughout the centuries the leaders and soldiers have changed the society, some for the better, some for the worst. The men from the hills once stole to feed and protect their families and friends. They were very good at it. So good, they ended up with more food and supplies then they could ever use. In order to get things that they could not steal; they traded with mainland Italy and other countries. This was the start of the black market. The society has always been a powerful force in Italy. Not everyone in the society is a criminal nor are all Italians in the society.

What Americans call Mafia in this country [the American branch of the mafia, named La Costra Nostra ], is believed to be started by Don Vito Cascio Ferro, who fled to New York following the murder of banker Emanuele Notarbartolo in Sicily, in 1893. More society members fled to America during the 1920s, when Mussolini attempted to eradicate the Mafia in Sicily. When the Allies liberated Italy in World War II, they freed anti Mussolini prisoners, including many society members. Some were installed in positions of power, and thus began to interweave politics and organized crime in Italy. The society moved from the rural hills to the cities of Sicily. The Sicilians have developed co-operative agreements with other secret Italian societies, the Camorra and Ndrangheta, but remain the controlling organization. The Sicilians are flexible and can work with many nationalities. The major threat to the Sicilians and the society is their own periodic blood-letting feuds.
Title: Mafia's History
Post by: theresa on January 20, 2006, 11:29:13 PM
The Mafia is name for a loose association of criminal groups, sometimes bound by a blood oath and sworn to secrecy. The Mafia first developed in Sicily in feudal times to protect the estates of the landlords. By the 19th century the Mafia had become a network of criminal bands that controlled the Sicilian countryside. The members were bound by Omerta, a rigid code of conduct that included avoiding all contact and cooperation with the authorities. The Mafia had neither a centralized organization nor a real leader; it consisted of many small groups, each secret within its own district. By employing terroristic methods against the government figures, the Mafia attained political office in several communities, thus getting influence with the police and obtaining legal access to weapons.

Benito Mussolini's Fascist government succeeded for a time in suppressing the Mafia, but the organization emerged again after World War II ended in 1945. Over the next 30 years the Mafia became a power not only in Sicily but all over Italy as well. The Italian government began an anti-Mafia campaign in the early 1980s, leading not only to a number of arrests and sensational trials, but also to the assassination of several key law-enforcement officials in getting revenge. Public outrage was tempered by the arrest in 1993 of the reputed Mafia leader, Salvatore Riina.

Beginning in the late 19th century, some members of the Mafia immigrated to the United States. They soon became involved in American organized crime, especially in the 1920s during Prohibition. After the ending of Prohibition in 1933 so did most bootlegging, the Mafia moved into other areas, such as gambling, labor racketeering, prostitution, and, in recent years, narcotics. Links with the Italian Mafia were also maintained. As in Italy, prosecution of reputed Mafia leaders in the United States increased in the 1980s and 1990s.

Responsible groups of Americans have, at times, waged campaigns in the media to obliterate any assumption that crime in the United States is dominated by people of Italian descent, claiming that the existence of an American Mafia had not been fully established. It has not been until later times that the realization that the mafia still exists has taken place.

There were many famous figures in the mafia who had come to power. Al Capone has become one of the most famous to have gained such publicity. Al Capone was an Italian-American gangster of the Prohibition era, also known as Scarface because of a knife cut to his cheek. He was born and given the name Alphonse Capone in Naples, Italy, and raised in Brooklyn, New York. He left school at an early age and spent nearly ten years with gangs in Brooklyn. In the 1920s he took over a Chicago organization dealing in illegal liquor, gambling, and prostitution from the gangster Johnny Torrio. In the following years he eliminated his competitors in a series of gang wars, culminating in the Saint Valentine's Day massacre of 1929, that won him control of Chicago's underworld. Convicted of income tax evasion in 1931 and sentenced to 11 years in prison, he was released on parole in 1939. Crippled by syphilis, he spent the rest of his life in his Miami Beach, Florida, mansion.

Some of the most brutal attacks from the mafia came in their native land in Italy. The Red Brigades, a mafia sect, launched a big wave of assaults on politicians, police, journalists, and business executives. The attacks ended with the 1978 kidnapping and murder of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. The Red Brigades subsequently disintegrated as police arrested and imprisoned members and supporters of the gang. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Sicilian Mafia lead a series of terrorist attacks in reaction to the Italian government's prosecution of leading Mafia figures. The Uffizi Gallery in Florence was among the targets of a series of terrorist bombings in 1993 alleged to be the work of the Mafia.

Vendettas were used by mafia families that were in personal wars with each other. A Vendetta was a practice of a family taking vengeance on the person who shed the blood of one of its relatives. Vengeance is taken in kind, that is, an eye for an eye, and may also be taken on one of the offender's relatives. The vendetta's purpose was to punish crimes in societies where governments did not yet exist or where they were not trusted. It was practiced particularly in Corsica and Sicily, where it was part of the code of the secret society of the Mafia. A form of vendetta used to be common in certain areas of the southern U.S., where it was known as a feud. It was a practice that some of the Mafia families continued to practice even after immigrating to the United States.
Title: Mafia Is The Enemy Of The State
Post by: korine on January 20, 2006, 11:37:40 PM
The mafia is a threat against the State because of its particular nature. For instance, the mafia became soon a serious problem because the mafiosi were able to organise themselves in small organisations, called families, and take what was in effect military control of some areas, especially in Western Sicily. In doing so, the mafiosi created a system of power which was not compatible with the existence of the State. First of all, the mafiosi undermined the sovereignty of the Italian State by preventing it from taking military and judiciary control of the whole Italian territory. Secondly, the mafiosi hindered the State's building process by progressively taking possession of some prerogatives that any State considers its own monopoly: violence, taxation and law. In fact the mafiosi used violence to achieve their tasks, charged "taxes" (protection racket) to people and settled disputes between individuals. Finally, the mafiosi used these prerogatives by completely ignoring the "raison d'ętre" which permits the State to claim legitimately the monopoly of violence, taxation and law: the defence of collective security and peace on behalf of the people. On the contrary, the mafiosi take no responsibility for the outcome of their decisions as the purpose of their "judicial" activity is nothing but protecting those who can pay for their protection - who often are threatened by the same mafiosi. Moreover, there is no fairness in their "sentences" which change according to the damage suffered by the mafioso rather than the crime itself.

Thus the mafioso manipulates the State's prerogatives for his own interests. When a conflict arises between the interests of the mafioso and those of the State, the mafioso uses institutional instruments in order to prevail.

The result is that a power, which is other than the State, replaces the State without fulfilling its duties.

In this respect the relationship between the State and the mafia is the same as that
between two different States - even though the mafia is not a State in the strict sense. The relationship can be peaceful so long as government and mafiosi are in agreement, but it can be turbulent when they compete for the same resource, particularly if the government tries to take control of territory. Moreover, there is another reason why the relationship cannot be defined as peaceful. The enlargement of the electorate, especially after the Second World War, helped the mafiosi to control those candidates who were elected to national and local Parliament due to the mafia's votes. This process - which can be defined as infiltration of the mafia into the State - was not devoid of political aspects. Although the aim of the mafiosi was to render cohabitation with the State safer - pressuring politicians, prefects, local chief of police and prosecutors into turning a blind eye to mafia business - and to use the local public administration to access national resources, the process of infiltration had the side effect of weakening the State and depriving it of its ability to defend itself as some of its representatives were no longer loyal. In doing so, the mafia became a parasitic body inside the State - like any other political power trying to manipulate the State. This last feature likens the mafioso to the terrorist. Although their "missions" differ because the latter wants to destroy and replace the State and the former wants to manipulate it for its own interests, their activities find a common ground in the end result of threatening the sovereignty of the State and undermining the collective security. Thus the mafia is an enemy of the State and a political problem.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Rohit on January 21, 2006, 08:07:22 PM
But, of course, korine!

When a defendant in a 1960s Mafia trial was asked if he belonged to the Mafia he responded, "I don't know what the word means". This criminal was not so much evading the question as confessing a real perplexity. Mafiosi never call themselves, or one another, mafiosi, but rather amici (friends) or uomini d'onore (men of honour). In the words of one noted mafiologue, the defendant above "knew individuals who are called mafiosi, not because they belong to a secret sect but rather because they behave in a particular fashion, that is in a Mafia-like fashion".

What does it mean to behave in a Mafia-like fashion? "It means to make oneself respected, to be a man of honour, capable of vindicating by force any offence against his enemy," writes Mafia expert, Pino Arlacchi. Honour and respect clearly have rather different meanings here than those that most people attach to them. A man is an 'uomo d'onore' when he acts according to the prevailing codes of courage, cleverness and ferocity, never hesitating to resort to violence and trickery to gain the upper hand. What gradually emerges from this portrait, however, is a sort of confusion between the Mafia as a "state of mind, a philosophy of life, a moral code, prevailing among all Sicilians", and organized criminal activity, delinquency and social deviance. In southern Italy, the border between the two is often unclear.

Two aspects of southern Italian culture in particular seem to have contributed to the birth and development of the Mafia as a criminal organization. The first is the generally positive value this culture has given to assertiveness, aggression and the ability to impose one's will on others. The meek, mild and naive may be saints in their afterlives, but in this life they are, quite simply, fools. The fundamental Neapolitan phrase, 'ca'nisciun e'fesso' ("I'm no fool") - with its implication "you won't get the best of me" - sums up the milieu of dominance and submission in which the southern Italian lives. A second, related aspect is the southern Italian attitude towards the state. Even today, the relationship of the southern Italian (and of many northern Italians as well) to the state is one of profound distrust. The state, its institution and laws, are not something in which one participates as a citizen but are rather things which challenge the citizen's independence, interfering with his family's sacred autonomy. This attitude towards the state may have its origins in the long succession of invading powers that ruled southern Italy over the centuries (Norman, French, Catalan, and so on.) And also in the distance that separated the mass of peasant-farmers (contadini) working on huge estates (latifondi) from their absentee landlords residing in Naples or Palermo. Certainly Unification did little to help matters in the south, transferring as it did the capital from Naples to Rome and replacing the Bourbon monarchy with the Turin-based House of Savoy. Whatever the case, the space of distrust between citizen and state is the space in which the Mafia has prospered.
Title: In The Movies
Post by: .*. on January 21, 2006, 08:13:43 PM
The great classic, the definitive, superb Mafia movie was The Godfathers I and II, in which Francis Ford Coppola poured out a work of genius, grounded in his own and novelist Mario Puzo's cultural history, which he has never approached since. The key to The Godfathers and to success in the Mafia genre is the realization and dramatic portrayal of the fact that the Mafia, although leading a life outside the law, is, at its best, simply entrepreneurs and businessmen supplying the consumers with goods and services of which they have been unaccountably deprived by a Puritan WASP culture. The unforgettable images of mob violence juxtaposed with solemn Church rites were not meant, as left-liberals would have it, to show the hypocrisy of evil men. For these Mafiosi, as mainly Italian Catholics, are indeed deeply religious; they represent one important way in which Italian Catholics were able to cope with, and make their way in, a totally alien world dominated by WASP Puritan insistence that a whole range of products eagerly sought by consumers be outlawed.

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the H e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. In many cases, especially where "syndicates" are allowed to form and are not broken-up by government terror, the various organized syndicates will mediate and arbitrate disputes, and thereby reduce violence to a minimum. Just as governments in the Lockean paradigm are supposed to be enforcers of commonly-agreed-on rules and property rights, so "organized crime," when working properly, does the same. Except that in its state of illegality it operates in an atmosphere charged with difficulty and danger.

It is interesting to observe the contrasting attitudes of our left-liberal culture to the two kinds of crime, organized versus unorganized. Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive. Unorganized, or street, crime, in contrast, is random, punkish, viciously aggressive against the innocent, and has no redeeming social feature. Wouldn't you know, then, that our leftist culture hates and reviles the Mafia and organized crime, while it lovingly excuses, and apologizes for, chaotic and random street punksviolence which amounts to "anarchy" in the bad, or common meaning. In a sense, street violence embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: since it constitutes an assault on the rights of person and property, and on the rule of law that codifies such rights.

One great scene in The Godfather embodies the difference between right and left anarchism. One errant, former member of the Corleone famiglia abases himself before The Godfather (Marlon Brando). A certain punk had raped and brutalized his daughter. He went to the police and the courts, and the punk was, at last, let go (presumably by crafty ACLU-type lawyers and a soft judicial system). This distraught father now comes to Don Corleone for justice. Brando gently upbraids the father: "Why didn't you come to me? Why did you go to The State?" The inference is clear: the State isn't engaged in equity and justice; to obtain justice, you must come to the famiglia. Finally, Brando relents: "What would you have me do?" The father whispers in the Godfather's ear. "No, no, that is too much. We will take care of him properly." So not only do we see anarcho-capitalist justice carried out, but it is clear that the Mafia code has a nicely fashioned theory of proportionate justice. In a world where the idea that the punishment should fit the crime has been abandonedand still struggled over by libertarian theorists it is heart-warming to see that the Mafia has worked it out in practice.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: profdmeanr on January 23, 2006, 01:36:51 AM
Looks like the very concept of Mafia shouts: "NO STATE"!

Yet, as much as one may abhor the concept of the State, I believe that tribal/clans/Mafia-based "solutions" as to how the world should/can be run are anachronistic, so backward for the 21st century in which we live.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: mohan on January 24, 2006, 03:18:47 PM
You'll probably need a couple of witnesses (nationals of your country) to testify that such rules and codes actually exist in your country, given the fact that you're saying those rituals and rules are not actually written in some book (in written form) You'll need to show evidence of deaths that have taken place as well as the reasons why they happened (through written testimony of a knowleadgeable person on that issue.) Good Luck To You! (I'm assuming you're Italian)
Title: Correction
Post by: mohan on January 24, 2006, 03:19:09 PM
....(I'm assuming you're not Italian)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: demakopoulos on January 26, 2006, 03:57:23 AM
Mafia, with its omerta (bloody secrecy oaths) and its arcane symbols and its vendettas (blood feuds) bears similarity with Freemasons. Omertŕ literally means "manhood," and refers to the idea of a man resolving his own problems, but the term has become synonomous with the Mafia's code of silence. The Mafia's arcane rituals, and much of the organization's structure, were based largely on those of the Catholic confraternities and even Freemasonry, colored by Sicilian familial traditions and even certain customs associated with military-religious orders of chivalry like the Order of Malta. The duel, for example, gave way to the vendetta, but both were known among Sicilian feuding families in times past.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: decemberist01 on January 26, 2006, 05:06:46 AM
lcn, I think the US would consider this an "honor killing" case.  What would be helpful for your application:  affidavits from relatives or friends who are familiar with your country's laws, can affirm that these types of killings happen in your society, etc; news articles, reports from non-governmental human rights organizations, the UN, or anyone else, which talk about honor killings in your country. 

You might also try to get in touch with the Tahirih Justice Center:  www.tahirih.org.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: thisfriday on January 26, 2006, 11:12:37 PM
"BUFF"
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: obviousl on January 30, 2006, 12:06:25 AM
I fully agree with mohan. Take his advice to handle this case.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: T on May 27, 2006, 02:54:41 AM
tag
Title: Re: In The Movies
Post by: kaplan on May 29, 2006, 06:59:26 PM

It is interesting to observe the contrasting attitudes of our left-liberal culture to the two kinds of crime, organized versus unorganized. Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive. Unorganized, or street, crime, in contrast, is random, punkish, viciously aggressive against the innocent, and has no redeeming social feature. Wouldn't you know, then, that our leftist culture hates and reviles the Mafia and organized crime, while it lovingly excuses, and apologizes for, chaotic and random street punksviolence which amounts to "anarchy" in the bad, or common meaning. In a sense, street violence embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: since it constitutes an assault on the rights of person and property, and on the rule of law that codifies such rights.


(http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_ca_red.jpg)
Anarchy is Order. The A is for anarchy and the circle is represents the order.

Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". The words anarchy and anarchism are a bit problematic. Anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority.

The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc. Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers.

And thus anarchy means a) coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), downwards to the bottom, i.e. in a coercive manner. b) Thus, anarchy is higher forms of economical and political/administrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management  from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy,  from "the top downwards to the bottom".

The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

Thus, the State, administration of State, government, authority/ies, must not be mixed up with public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, 'res publica', as the negation of the private sector and sphere, because State, goverment etc in this context are about special forms of organization (or disorganization), i.e. all systems where the influence on the societal management and coordination goes mainly from the top towards the bottom, slavery and tyranny - chaotic included. Thus public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, organized significant horizontally, are anarchist - and thus not the State, authority/ies etc. or a part of it. The concept of 'central' is here referring mainly to general matters, things concerning the whole country or all of the citizens, and must not be mixed up with centralist, centralism or centralization, the negation of decentralist, decentralism and decentralization.

Anarchism is political systems and organizations coordinated as anarchy in the above meaning and manner, but also the political tendency advocating anarchy understood this way, and the scientifical knowledge about anarchy and the ways to reduce non-anarchist tendencies.
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs. perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). "Coercion" is defined as restraint, hindrance, compulsion and government by force, ruling, i.e. repression, etc.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: kaplan on May 29, 2006, 06:59:41 PM
Anarchism is one of four main quadrants of the economic-political map, and economically based on socialism, i.e. the negation of plutarchy (capitalism), and political/adminstratively based on autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on plutarchy without statism, fascism based on plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without plutarchy.

(http://www.anarchy.no/anorg_e.jpg)

The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimensions, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants:

1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map.

2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively. A large part of marxist collectivism and a part of the social democratic sector, are semilibertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too statist to be anarchistic.

3. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with left and right populism above towards the middle.

4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. A part of the social liberal sector, and a large part of individualism are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too capitalistic to be anarchist.

The closer to the anarchist ideal, the more democratic is the economic-political system.

The middlepoint of the map is defined as the turning-point where the influence on the societal managment and coordination seen all in all, aggregated, shifts from a) more from the bottom, the people, and upwards - than from the top downwards to the bottom, i.e. 50-50, economical and politica/administrative, to b) the opposite - more from the top - the authorities, towards the bottom - the grassroots, economical and/or political/administrative. In other words the middlepoint is a point of the map where the different forms of archies with respect to social organization turns over (revolts) to anarchy. Societies, organizations and social systems may shift coordinates related to the map in jumps, small jumps, steps or small steps. But any significant shift of coordinates is in reality a revolution, as reforms principally are just changes within a given system, i.e. with the same system-coordinates. A significant shift of system-coordinates may be soft as velvet, a velvet revolution, or more dramatic. Passing a border of the anarchist quadrant is in all cases a significant shift, and thus revolutionary, a small or big revolution.

Although theoretically and principally a certain and simple two-dimensional vector-figure may express a systems coordinates, described as a fixed, certain point on the map at a given time, practical mapping and data may be stocastical and influenced by the methods of aggregation. Thus a system's or society's coordinates on the map, may practically be noted just as a most likely figure and/or given by a confidence area that covers the real point on the map by some given probability. And thus, close to the borders of the anarchist quadrant, the real nature of the system, whether it is anarchist or not, may be discussed, and just a most likely, not certain, conclusion may be the result of an investigation, i.e. mapping of a social system. Similar problems of course may occur related to map in general.

The definition of the middlepoint is an independent axiom or assumption, related to the map, defining principally what is real democracy, i.e. identical to anarchy in an objectively way related to the de facto circulation of the influence on the management and coordination of a system or society from the people's perspective. It is however also possible to calibrate the map in more subjective ways. Say, a person 'allergic' to authority may subjectively think the above defined middle point has significant authoritarian degree, say, being fascist ("the Sex Pistols punk perspective"), and thus implicitely placing the 50-50 case in the fascis/populist quadrant on the map, setting a subjective higher standard for the definition of democracy. The opposite tendency, where an undemocratic system is thought of as real democratic, and thus in reality placing the 50-50 case definition above the middlepoint of the map, is also possible. The objective definition, based on the 50-50 influence case, is however also a politically based axiom, and thus in a way subjective or arbitary or conventionally based, but not based on subjective impressions, it is a more politically neutral or balanced definition, related to the flow or circulation of the influence on the management from the people's perspective, whether this flow or circulation de facto mainly is in the favour of the people vs the authorities. Thus, it is objective in a neutral or matter of fact politically oriented way, related to the real meaning of the word democracy, not objective in a non-political way.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: niggalaw on May 31, 2006, 07:57:57 PM
Wow!
Title: Re: In The Movies
Post by: elly on June 02, 2006, 03:19:57 AM

It is interesting to observe the contrasting attitudes of our left-liberal culture to the two kinds of crime, organized versus unorganized. Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive. Unorganized, or street, crime, in contrast, is random, punkish, viciously aggressive against the innocent, and has no redeeming social feature. Wouldn't you know, then, that our leftist culture hates and reviles the Mafia and organized crime, while it lovingly excuses, and apologizes for, chaotic and random street punksviolence which amounts to "anarchy" in the bad, or common meaning. In a sense, street violence embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: since it constitutes an assault on the rights of person and property, and on the rule of law that codifies such rights.

One great scene in The Godfather embodies the difference between right and left anarchism. One errant, former member of the Corleone famiglia abases himself before The Godfather (Marlon Brando). A certain punk had raped and brutalized his daughter. He went to the police and the courts, and the punk was, at last, let go (presumably by crafty ACLU-type lawyers and a soft judicial system). This distraught father now comes to Don Corleone for justice. Brando gently upbraids the father: "Why didn't you come to me? Why did you go to The State?" The inference is clear: the State isn't engaged in equity and justice; to obtain justice, you must come to the famiglia. Finally, Brando relents: "What would you have me do?" The father whispers in the Godfather's ear. "No, no, that is too much. We will take care of him properly." So not only do we see anarcho-capitalist justice carried out, but it is clear that the Mafia code has a nicely fashioned theory of proportionate justice. In a world where the idea that the punishment should fit the crime has been abandonedand still struggled over by libertarian theorists it is heart-warming to see that the Mafia has worked it out in practice.

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation. However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle." This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the statusquo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:

"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order."

The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule."

Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique. For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations. Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. This opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour.

Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism ... of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and ... the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind. Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. When one examines the writings of classical anarchists... as well as the character of anarchist movements... it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state. And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, they wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities.

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism -- there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists on "the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man. All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State. More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." For anarchists, a person cannot be free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: elly on June 02, 2006, 03:22:22 AM
So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, "in common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And... they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum... and that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy. Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the current one denies. Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin pointed out,

The urge to destroy is a creative urge.

One cannot build a better society without understanding what is wrong with the present one.

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.

LIBERTARIAN is one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will. SOCIALISM is a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields: LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind. Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done. By so doing workers would free themselves from the terrible bondage of capitalism. Anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" and so on. We just concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now.

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "so long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism is that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought ... State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour. For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the association ... has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force (i.e. surplus) ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production. The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: elly on June 02, 2006, 03:22:42 AM
Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune. Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman... will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate ... In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience... In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen... he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave ... we need not hesitate, for we have no choice... it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers ... because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two... castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society. So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

Quote
"it is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."


Therefore, Daniel Guerin's comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings. Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:

Quote
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."


Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia. Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his labour theory of value. Marx himself was heavily influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far from Lenin.

Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of equals. Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer." Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist ... which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: meister on June 04, 2006, 05:44:05 AM
rhea it all began withu female private part
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: notabiggie on June 05, 2006, 05:49:40 AM
Hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the marginalisation and disempowerment of those without authority. This has negative effects on those over whom authority is exercised, since "[t]hose who have these symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary], ... [so] the mind is lulled into submission by cliches...[and] people are made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust their eyes and judgement." Or, in the words of Bakunin, "the principle of authority, applied to men who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a monstrosity, a source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity."

This is echoed by the syndicalist miners who wrote the classic "The Miner's Next Step" when they indicate the nature of authoritarian organisations and their effect on those involved. Leadership (i.e. hierarchical authority) "implies power held by the leader. Without power the leader is inept. The possession of power inevitably leads to corruption...in spite of...good intentions... [Leadership means] power of initiative, this sense of responsibility, the self-respect which comes from expressed manhood [sic!], is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their initiative, their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his... [and the] order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the men, from being independent thinkers into being 'the men'...In a word, he is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy." Indeed, for the "leader," such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader "sees no need for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion." Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a negative effect on those subject to them, who can no longer exercise their critical, creative and mental abilities *freely*. As Colin Ward argues, people "do go from womb to tomb without realising their human potential, precisely because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, judging, and deciding is reserved for the top men" (and it usually *is* men!). Anarchism is based on the insight that there is an inter-relationship between the authority structures of institutions and the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals. Following orders all day hardly builds an independent, empowered, creative personality. As Emma Goldman made clear, if a person's "inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master" (such as a boss, as most people have to sell their labour under capitalism) then little wonder such an authoritarian relationship "condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities."

As the human brain is a bodily organ, it needs to be used regularly in order to be at its fittest. Authority concentrates decision-making in the hands of those at the top, meaning that most people are turned into executants, following the orders of others. If muscle is not used, it turns to fat; if the brain is not used, creativity, critical thought and mental abilities become blunted and side-tracked onto marginal issues, like sports and fashion. Therefore, "[h]ierarchical institutions foster alienated and exploitative relationships among those who participate in them, disempowering people and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority....Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very characteristics of those subordinate to them .... Anarchists argue that to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves soon come to doubt their own capacities. . .[and have] difficulty acting on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and expectations." Thus, in the words of Colin Ward, the "system makes its morons, then despises them for their ineptitude, and rewards its 'gifted few' for their rarity." [Op. Cit., p. 43] In addition to these negative psychological effects from the denial of liberty, authoritarian social relationships also produce social inequality. This is because an individual subject to the authority of another has to obey the orders of those above them in the social hierarchy. In capitalism this means that workers have to follow the orders of their boss, orders that are designed to make the boss richer (for example, from 1994 to 1995 alone, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation in the USA rose 16%, compared to 2.8% for workers, which did not even keep pace with inflation, and whose stagnating wages cannot be blamed on corporate
profits, which rose a healthy 14.8% for that year).

Inequality in terms of power will translate itself into inequality in terms of wealth (and vice versa). The effects of such social inequality are wide-reaching. For example, poor people are more likely to be sick and die at an earlier age, compared to rich people. Moreover, the degree of inequality is important (i.e. the size of the gap between rich and poor). According to an editorial in the British Medical Journal, "what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society." Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kapla and his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared it to the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged: the more un-equal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate. In other words, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state. ["Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways." This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, a greater percentage of people without medical insurance, greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight, higher murder rates, higher rates of violent crime, higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection. As the gap grows between rich and poor (indicating an increase in social hierarchy within and without of workplaces) the health of a people deteriorates and the social fabric unravels. The psychological hardship of being low down on the social ladder has detrimental effects on people, beyond whatever effects are produced by the substandard housing, nutrition, air quality, recreational opportunities, and medical care enjoyed by the poor.

The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by god, nature or some other superhuman force. It has been created by a specific social system, its institutions and workings - a system based upon authoritarian social relationships which effect us both physically and mentally. All this is not to suggest that those at the bottom of hierarchies are victims nor that those at the top of hierarchies only gain benefits - far from it. Those at the bottom are constantly resisting the negative effects of hierarchy and creating non-hierarchical ways of living and fighting. This constant process of self-activity and self-liberation can be seen from the labour, women's and other movements - in which, to some degree, people create their own alternatives based upon their own dreams and hopes. Anarchism is based upon, and grew out of, this process of resistance, hope and direct action. If we look at those at the top of the system, yes, indeed they often do *very* well in terms of material goods and access to education, leisure, health and so on but they can lose their humanity and individuality. As Bakunin pointed out, "power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them." Power operates destructively, even on those who have it, reducing their individuality as it "renders them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling."

When it boils down to it, hierarchy is self-defeating, for if "wealth is other people," then by treating others as less than yourself, restricting their growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals have, so impoverishing your own life and *restricting your own growth.* Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places the individual *within* society, one that recognises that relationships with others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class-based society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."
Title: What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?
Post by: notabiggie on June 05, 2006, 05:52:36 AM
Capitalism produces a perverted hierarchy of values -- one that places humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues, "the use [i.e. exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the system of values underlying the capitalistic system.

*Capital, the dead past, employs labour -- the living vitality and power of the present.*

In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands the person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between capital and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity." ["The Sane Society", pp. 94-95]Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a *thing*. Instead of being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts. This debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time is spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn carries over into the way he/she acts in other areas of life. If one is regarded as a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and others in that way also. Thus all social relationships -- and so, ultimately, *all* individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism, literally nothing is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it dignity, self-worth, pride, honour -- all become commodities up for grabs. Such debasement produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism" is one example which can be traced directly to the commodification of the individual under capitalism. To quote Fromm again,

Quote
"THINGS have no self, and men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour market] can have no self"


However, people still feel the NEED for self-hood, and so try to fill the emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately, since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for self-hood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course, encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy what we don't need because it will make us popular/happy/free/etc (delete as appropriate!). But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by creative, self-directed work. This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher living standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise that liberty and a good life are only possible when one does not have to worry about having enough food, decent housing, and so forth. Freedom and 16 hrs of work a day do not go together, nor do equality and poverty or solidarity and hunger. However, anarchists consider consumerism to be a distortion of consumption caused by the alienating and inhuman "account book" ethics of capitalism, which crushes the individual and his or her sense of identity, dignity and selfhood.
Title: How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation created?
Post by: notabiggie on June 05, 2006, 05:56:52 AM
Hierarchical, authoritarian institutions tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both "respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so called "Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who support the status quo.

Wilhelm Reich has given one of the most thorough analyses of the psychological processes involved in the reproduction of authoritarian civilisation. Reich based his analysis on 4 of Freud's most solidly grounded discoveries, namely, (1) that there exists an unconscious part of the mind which has a powerful though irrational influence on behaviour; (2) that even the small child develops a lively "genital" sexuality, i.e. a desire for sexual pleasure which has nothing to do with procreation; (3) that childhood sexuality along with the Oedipal conflicts that arise in parent-child relations under monogamy and patriarchy are usually repressed through fear of punishment or disapproval for sexual acts and thoughts; (4) that this blocking of the child's natural sexual activity and extinguishing it from memory does not weaken its force in the unconscious, but actually intensifies it and enables it to manifest itself in various pathological disturbances and anti-social drives; and (5) that, far from being of divine origin, human moral codes are derived from the educational measures used by the parents and parental surrogates in earliest childhood, the most effective of these being the ones opposed to childhood sexuality.

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society, primitive libertarian communism (or "work democracy," to use Reich's expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other, patriarchal society, a private property economy, economic class stratification, and sexual repression. As Reich puts it:

Quote
"Every tribe that developed from a [matricentric] to a patriarchal organisation had to change the sexual structure of its members to produce a sexuality in keeping with its new form of life. This was a necessary change because the shifting of power and of wealth from the democratic gens [maternal clans] to the authoritarian family of the chief was mainly implemented with the help of the suppression of the sexual strivings of the people. It was in this way that sexual suppression became an essential factor in the division of society into classes."

"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. To safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings" ["The Mass Psychology of Fascism",p. 90] The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives (sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality, which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, *** began to be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had indeed become through the creation of secondary drives. Thus:

Quote
"The patriarchal-authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the revolutionary processes of latter-day [matricentrism] (economic independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom, making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of economic subjugation. From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed"


Once the beginnings of patriarchy are in place, the creation of a fully authoritarian society based on the psychological crippling of its members through sexual suppression follows:

Quote
"The moral inhibition of the child's natural sexuality, the last stage of which is the severe impairment of the child's genital sexuality, makes the child afraid, shy, fearful of authority, obedient, 'good,' and 'docile' in the authoritarian sense of the words. It has a crippling effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear; and since sex is a forbidden subject, thought in general and man's critical faculty also become inhibited. In short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must learn to adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment required of him later. Man's authoritarian structure -- this must be clearly established -- is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear" in the person's bioenergetic structure.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: notabiggie on June 05, 2006, 05:57:07 AM
In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying, running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in creating reactionary personalities. This is why every reactionary politician puts such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and promoting "family values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy, premarital chastity, corporal punishment, etc.).

Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in the individual structures of the masses with the help of the authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction has to regard and defend the authoritarian family as THE basis of the "state, culture, and civilisation...." [It is] POLITICAL REACTION'S GERM CELL, the most important centre for the production of reactionary men and women. Originating and developing from definite social processes, it becomes the most essential institution for the preservation of the authoritarian system that shapes it. The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first few years, from the time of birth to about 6 yrs of age, during which time they are mostly in the charge of their parents. The schools and churches then continue the process of conditioning once the children are old enough to be away from their parents, but they are generally unsuccessful if the proper foundation has not been laid very early in life by the parents. Thus A.S. Neill observes that "the nursery training is very like the kennel training. The whipped child, like the whipped puppy, grows into an obedient, inferior adult. And as we train our dogs to suit our own purposes, so we train our children. In that kennel, the nursery, the human dogs must be clean; they must feed when we think it convenient for them to feed. I saw a 100,000 obedient, fawning dogs wag their tails in the Templehof, Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler whistled his commands.

The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence, when sexual energy reaches its peak. This is because the vast majority of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue undisturbed sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact actively discourage such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist Christian families) demanding complete abstinence -- at the very time when abstinence is most impossible! Moreover, since teenagers are economically dependent on their parents under capitalism, with no societal provision of housing or dormitories allowing for sexual freedom, young people have no alternative but to submit to irrational parental demands for abstention from premarital sex. This in turn forces them to engage in furtive sex in the back-seats of cars or other out-of-the-way places where they cannot relax or obtain full sexual satisfaction. As Reich found, when sexuality is repressed and laden with anxiety, the result is always some degree of what he terms "orgastic impotence": the inability to fully surrender to the flow of energy discharged during orgasm. Hence there is an incomplete release of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic bioenergetic stasis. Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding ground for neuroses and reactionary attitudes. In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive" societies, such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community houses where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy undisturbed sexual relationships -- and this with society's full approval. Such an institution would be taken for granted in an anarchist society, as it is implied by the concept of freedom.

Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family. A child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the basis of all family ties. Subjectively, the emotional core of the concepts of homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother is the homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in miniature." According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal of Hitler's "National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct continuation of the family tie and are rooted in a FIXATED tie to the mother. As Reich points out, although infantile attachment to the mother is natural, FIXATED attachment is not, but is a social product. In puberty, the tie to the mother would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual relations, IF the unnatural sexual restrictions imposed on adolescents did not cause it to be eternalised. It is in the form of this socially-conditioned externalisation that fixation on the mother becomes the basis of nationalist feelings in the adult; and it is only at this stage that it becomes a reactionary social force. Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of creating reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of his analysis to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual ones, that are imposed on children and adolescents. Rianne Eisler, for example, in her book "Sacred Pleasure", stresses that it is not just a ***-negative attitude but a PLEASURE-negative attitude that creates the kinds of personalities in question. Denial of the value of pleasurable sensations permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the common idea that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the "animalistic" (and hence "bad") side of human nature, as contrasted with the "higher" pleasures of the mind and "spirit." By such dualism, which denies a spiritual aspect to the body, people are made to feel guilty about enjoying any pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that does, however, prepare them for lives based on the sacrifice of pleasure (or indeed, even of life itself) under capitalism and statism, with their requirements of mass submission to alienated labour, exploitation, military service to protect ruling-class interests, and so on. And at the same time, authoritarian ideology emphasises the value of suffering, as for example through the glorification of the tough, insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and inflicts "necessary" suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless ideal.

Eisler also points out that there is "ample evidence that people who grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments are the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents. There is also ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and women)" This repressed anger then becomes fertile ground for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually rests in part on scapegoating minorities for society's problems. As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in "The Authoritarian Personality", people who have been conditioned through childhood abuse to surrender their will to the requirements of feared authoritarian parents, also tend to be very susceptible as adults to surrender their will and minds to authoritarian leaders. "In other words, at the same time that they learn to deflect their repressed rage against those they perceive as weak, they also learn to submit to autocratic or 'strong-man' rule. Moreover, having been severely punished for any hint of rebellion (even 'talking back' about being treated unfairly), they gradually also learn to deny to themselves that there was anything wrong with what was done to them as children -- and to do it in turn to their own children"

These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear freedom. Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its "values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the pleasure-denying, pain affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in most schools. In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian, non-repressive child-rearing practices and educational methods whose purpose is to prevent, or at least minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals, allowing them instead to develop natural self regulation and self-motivated learning. This, we believe, is the only way to for people to grow up into happy, creative, and truly freedom-loving individuals who will provide the psychological ground where anarchist economic and political institutions can flourish.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: eatsy on June 14, 2006, 11:43:30 AM
Holy smokes, I can't believe what I read here!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: retail theft on June 21, 2006, 07:29:17 AM
Anarchism is one of four main quadrants of the economic-political map, and economically based on socialism, i.e. the negation of plutarchy (capitalism), and political/adminstratively based on autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on plutarchy without statism, fascism based on plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without plutarchy.

(http://www.anarchy.no/anorg_e.jpg)

The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimensions, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants:

1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map.

2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively. A large part of marxist collectivism and a part of the social democratic sector, are semilibertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too statist to be anarchistic.

3. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with left and right populism above towards the middle.

4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. A part of the social liberal sector, and a large part of individualism are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too capitalistic to be anarchist.

The closer to the anarchist ideal, the more democratic is the economic-political system.

The middlepoint of the map is defined as the turning-point where the influence on the societal managment and coordination seen all in all, aggregated, shifts from a) more from the bottom, the people, and upwards - than from the top downwards to the bottom, i.e. 50-50, economical and politica/administrative, to b) the opposite - more from the top - the authorities, towards the bottom - the grassroots, economical and/or political/administrative. In other words the middlepoint is a point of the map where the different forms of archies with respect to social organization turns over (revolts) to anarchy. Societies, organizations and social systems may shift coordinates related to the map in jumps, small jumps, steps or small steps. But any significant shift of coordinates is in reality a revolution, as reforms principally are just changes within a given system, i.e. with the same system-coordinates. A significant shift of system-coordinates may be soft as velvet, a velvet revolution, or more dramatic. Passing a border of the anarchist quadrant is in all cases a significant shift, and thus revolutionary, a small or big revolution.

Although theoretically and principally a certain and simple two-dimensional vector-figure may express a systems coordinates, described as a fixed, certain point on the map at a given time, practical mapping and data may be stocastical and influenced by the methods of aggregation. Thus a system's or society's coordinates on the map, may practically be noted just as a most likely figure and/or given by a confidence area that covers the real point on the map by some given probability. And thus, close to the borders of the anarchist quadrant, the real nature of the system, whether it is anarchist or not, may be discussed, and just a most likely, not certain, conclusion may be the result of an investigation, i.e. mapping of a social system. Similar problems of course may occur related to map in general.

The definition of the middlepoint is an independent axiom or assumption, related to the map, defining principally what is real democracy, i.e. identical to anarchy in an objectively way related to the de facto circulation of the influence on the management and coordination of a system or society from the people's perspective. It is however also possible to calibrate the map in more subjective ways. Say, a person 'allergic' to authority may subjectively think the above defined middle point has significant authoritarian degree, say, being fascist ("the Sex Pistols punk perspective"), and thus implicitely placing the 50-50 case in the fascis/populist quadrant on the map, setting a subjective higher standard for the definition of democracy. The opposite tendency, where an undemocratic system is thought of as real democratic, and thus in reality placing the 50-50 case definition above the middlepoint of the map, is also possible. The objective definition, based on the 50-50 influence case, is however also a politically based axiom, and thus in a way subjective or arbitary or conventionally based, but not based on subjective impressions, it is a more politically neutral or balanced definition, related to the flow or circulation of the influence on the management from the people's perspective, whether this flow or circulation de facto mainly is in the favour of the people vs the authorities. Thus, it is objective in a neutral or matter of fact politically oriented way, related to the real meaning of the word democracy, not objective in a non-political way.

Awesome summary!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: cokevpepsi on June 25, 2006, 02:07:25 PM
*  *  *
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: erase on July 07, 2006, 06:12:58 PM

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. [...] As Reich puts it:

Quote
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. To safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings." The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives (sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality, which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, sex began to be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had indeed become through the creation of secondary drives."



So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: blu on July 10, 2006, 02:58:03 AM

So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?


But of course, don't you see that animals who don't care about money and the like have sex whenever they want to, wherever they can?!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: zztop on July 10, 2006, 05:06:10 PM
;)
Title: The Sexual Commune
Post by: del ray on July 10, 2006, 05:56:03 PM
Hierarchical, authoritarian institutions tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both "respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so called "Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who support the status quo.


So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: emperorsnewclothes on July 10, 2006, 06:02:16 PM
del ray, I don't understand you, in your other post you are okay with exclusive homoeroticism, here you are saying doesn't have to be that way?? Are you homoerotic or not?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: groupschychology on July 11, 2006, 06:45:08 PM
emperors, you're so funny!

Don't forget that A free, non-repressive society is possible!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3243.msg37198.html#msg37198
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: summarilye on July 21, 2006, 06:52:41 PM
So basically what you guys are saying is that your average gay guy out there is less homoerotic, less "homosexual" than the "normal" homoerotic homophobic heterosexual?!
Title: Re: The Sexual Commune
Post by: mailbonding on August 24, 2006, 12:23:20 AM


Hierarchical, authoritarian institutions tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both "respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so called "Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who support the status quo.


So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.


Great posts!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: puede on September 13, 2006, 04:43:49 AM
Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.

The rationale continues that in this radical culture of disappearance certain "Elements of Refusal", partly unconsciously and partly consciously, are to be employed. Simply not voting -- "apathy" keeps over half the nation from the polls; anarchism never accomplished as much! There are positive parallels: "networking" as an alternative to politics is practiced at many levels of society, and non-hierarchic organization has attained popularity even outside the anarchist movement, simply because it works. Refusal of Work can take the forms of absenteeism, on-job drunkenness, sabotage, and sheer inattention -- but it can also give rise to new modes of rebellion: more self- employment, participation in the "black" economy -- all more or less "invisible" activities compared to traditional leftist confrontational tactics such as the general strike.

Embracing all sorts of non-authoritarian forms of spirituality, from "unchurched" Christianity to neo-paganism. Or the "free religions" -- small, self-created, half-serious/half-fun cults influenced by such currents as Discordianism and anarcho-Taoism -- that can be found all over marginal America providing a growing "fourth way" outside the mainstream churches, the televangelical bigots, and New Age vapidity and consumerism. And of course, construction of "private moralities" in the Nietzschean sense: the spirituality of "free spirits." Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. And finally refusal of the Family, which is clearly expressed through divorce, or some other "breakdown." Life can be happier without the nuclear family, whereupon a hundred flowers bloom -- from single parentage to group marriage to erotic affinity group.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: pappy on September 13, 2006, 05:20:09 AM
Sounds like a passive-aggressive strategy!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: melissa on September 13, 2006, 03:45:23 PM

So basically what you guys are saying is that your average gay guy out there is less homoerotic, less "homosexual" than the "normal" homoerotic homophobic heterosexual?!


That's called "normal" homosexuality, as opposed to "gay" homosexuality.
Title: Men's Place
Post by: mane on September 17, 2006, 05:02:33 PM

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society, primitive libertarian communism (or "work democracy," to use Reich's expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other, patriarchal society, a private property economy, economic class stratification, and sexual repression. As Reich puts it:


By Annalee Newitz

Scientists in Norway have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction. The way it happened was that somewhere at a university in Oslo, a bunch of researchers decided to perform a rather mean experiment on a bunch of lizards. They created a group of lizards whose population was three-quarters male, then another that was three-quarters female, and compared the behavior of both to a control group with gender balance. It turns out that when male lizards are in the majority, female lizards die younger, have fewer babies, and receive two to three times as many wounds from male lizards during the mating process. Over time, the population skews more and more male and shrinks precipitously. Eventually, the researchers speculate, a male-dominated lizard group would simply die out. They call this process an "extinction vortex." Female-dominated lizard groups, on the other hand, are models of happy cooperation, growing larger and flourishing over time.

Somehow this made me think of Maureen Dowd and her new book, "Are Men Necessary?" One of Dowd's basic ideas is that men aren't necessary to the reproduction of the species because women don't depend on them for anything crucial like financial support (most women have jobs) or making babies (that's what sperm banks are for). In addition, Dowd says, men aren't interested in high-powered career women like her anyway. "I think it's turned out that men … oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them," she said on CNN during an interview.

Looked at from this perspective, homo sapiens is doomed. The more powerful women become, the less they'll want to have sex with men -- and the less men will want to have sex with them. What would our friends the lizards think about Dowd's scenario of a looming and dangerous indifference of the human sexes toward one another? Will female dominance among homo sapiens cause an extinction vortex? Or will female-dominated humans thrive, just like the female-dominated lizards did? Personally, I think we should conduct a series of experiments on humans to discover the answer. Instead of making women dominant in terms of population size -- the way the Norwegian scientists did with their lizards -- let's make women dominant by altering their biology. I'd like to see a band of radical biopunk feminists emerge who take Dowd's ideas one step further. Instead of saying that women have the same earning power as men and are therefore equal to them, why not build a new generation of women who are physically as big and strong as men?

Let's take genetic engineering into our own hands and eliminate the last of the differences between the sexes! OK, we'll keep the fun, "ice cream" differences that feel nice on warm nights. But with a little gene doping, we could have women whose upper-body strength is equal to men's and who run just as fast. We could manipulate women's hormones so that they only get their periods when they want. Same goes for getting pregnant. Suddenly, it would start to seem stupid that men and women don't compete against each other in sports events. And there would be absolutely no good reason to keep women out of infantry duty in the army. In truth, I think this is a great idea. What, exactly, would happen to sexism in a society where women could kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's?

What I'm afraid of is that precisely nothing would happen. There would be a lot of outraged editorials about how unnatural it all was. Then people would get used to it and go back to watching our male president -- who happens to be a lot smaller and less physically coordinated than many women -- tell his largely male staff and the largely male Congress that we're going to continue our war with another male-dominated society. I think biology is largely irrelevant when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if women don't need men to reproduce and bring them food anymore, men still dominate because they hold so much more political and social power than we do. That's why sometimes, when you're a feminist, it sucks not to be a lizard. At least lizards know why it's a bad idea to leave the men in charge
Title: Re: Men's Place
Post by: prides on September 17, 2006, 05:08:50 PM

By Annalee Newitz

Scientists in Norway have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction. The way it happened was that somewhere at a university in Oslo, a bunch of researchers decided to perform a rather mean experiment on a bunch of lizards. They created a group of lizards whose population was three-quarters male, then another that was three-quarters female, and compared the behavior of both to a control group with gender balance. It turns out that when male lizards are in the majority, female lizards die younger, have fewer babies, and receive two to three times as many wounds from male lizards during the mating process. Over time, the population skews more and more male and shrinks precipitously. Eventually, the researchers speculate, a male-dominated lizard group would simply die out. They call this process an "extinction vortex." Female-dominated lizard groups, on the other hand, are models of happy cooperation, growing larger and flourishing over time.

Somehow this made me think of Maureen Dowd and her new book, "Are Men Necessary?" One of Dowd's basic ideas is that men aren't necessary to the reproduction of the species because women don't depend on them for anything crucial like financial support (most women have jobs) or making babies (that's what sperm banks are for). In addition, Dowd says, men aren't interested in high-powered career women like her anyway. "I think it's turned out that men … oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them," she said on CNN during an interview.

Looked at from this perspective, homo sapiens is doomed. The more powerful women become, the less they'll want to have sex with men -- and the less men will want to have sex with them. What would our friends the lizards think about Dowd's scenario of a looming and dangerous indifference of the human sexes toward one another? Will female dominance among homo sapiens cause an extinction vortex? Or will female-dominated humans thrive, just like the female-dominated lizards did? Personally, I think we should conduct a series of experiments on humans to discover the answer. Instead of making women dominant in terms of population size -- the way the Norwegian scientists did with their lizards -- let's make women dominant by altering their biology. I'd like to see a band of radical biopunk feminists emerge who take Dowd's ideas one step further. Instead of saying that women have the same earning power as men and are therefore equal to them, why not build a new generation of women who are physically as big and strong as men?

Let's take genetic engineering into our own hands and eliminate the last of the differences between the sexes! OK, we'll keep the fun, "ice cream" differences that feel nice on warm nights. But with a little gene doping, we could have women whose upper-body strength is equal to men's and who run just as fast. We could manipulate women's hormones so that they only get their periods when they want. Same goes for getting pregnant. Suddenly, it would start to seem stupid that men and women don't compete against each other in sports events. And there would be absolutely no good reason to keep women out of infantry duty in the army. In truth, I think this is a great idea. What, exactly, would happen to sexism in a society where women could kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's?

What I'm afraid of is that precisely nothing would happen. There would be a lot of outraged editorials about how unnatural it all was. Then people would get used to it and go back to watching our male president -- who happens to be a lot smaller and less physically coordinated than many women -- tell his largely male staff and the largely male Congress that we're going to continue our war with another male-dominated society. I think biology is largely irrelevant when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if women don't need men to reproduce and bring them food anymore, men still dominate because they hold so much more political and social power than we do. That's why sometimes, when you're a feminist, it sucks not to be a lizard. At least lizards know why it's a bad idea to leave the men in charge


I'm not sure that the term 'exploitation' can be applied to anything except human interactions. I am sure that 'survival of the fittest' was the way 19th century European Imperials chose to interpret Darwin's 'natural selection' hypothesis -- and putting it just that way is one of the reason American Populists have feared and loathed "Darwinisim" from that day to this.

I think the thought experiment on aggressive females needs more thought. First of all, the "all-female society" you postulate exists in any number of species. Off-hand I can think of 5 species of highly intelligent and social matriarchal animals: Elephants, Sperm Whales, Lions, Hyenas, and one species of Baboon. In each case males are driven out of the group as they become sexually mature. But it is not the 'most aggressive' females who leave the most offspring. Basically, it's the 'most skillful mothers.' and only the female baboons assert dominance through aggression.

Nor does aggression guarantee the best reproductive success in male-dominated societies. With Chimpanzees, or example, alpha males sire most of the babies. However, the biggest, meanest, most aggressive males don't stay alphas very long. Chimps, like people are political creatures and form alliances. They assign status based on a number of characteristics, most of which involve some version of 'works and plays well with others.' A big chimp who cannot get along with other males soon faces an alliance of hostile rivals. One who is unsafe around babies is driven out by the females.

Getting back to people ... all we can really say about aggression and male dominence is: until very recently, women were too valuable as breeders to risk as fighters. When groups needed their fighters, warriors sired a lot of children -- one way or another. Under other circumstances ... sometimes it was the good singers. Or dreamers. Or organizers. Or descendents of good fighters. Whatever the women found attractive and useful.
Title: Lions v Hyenas
Post by: clan on September 17, 2006, 05:15:33 PM

[...] Off-hand I can think of 5 species of highly intelligent and social matriarchal animals: Elephants, Sperm Whales, Lions, Hyenas, and one species of Baboon. In each case males are driven out of the group as they become sexually mature. [...]


Speaking of lions and hyenas, here it is an interesting video:

http://media.planetvids.com/pvids/Lions_Versus_Hyenas1.wmv
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: broad on September 17, 2006, 05:44:10 PM
Wow! Hee it is a video by NG regarding the Eternal Enemies, Lions and Hyenas.


(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/6304474636.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1122570523_.jpg)

Although we romanticize lions as mighty kings of the jungle, their reign is in fact a tenuous one. It is challenged daily in southern Africa by vicious packs of hyenas that compete for prey. Between the two species exists an ancient feud, and it unfolds in Eternal Enemies with all the drama of the warring Capulets and Montagues. Watch as lions bring down a zebra, only to be attacked themselves by a pack of hyenas that chases them into the trees. Glowering, the big cats watch as the thieves devour their dinner. Days later the lions exact revenge, killing the hyena leader but leaving her uneaten as a warning to the rest of the clan. Other scenes in this video are equally impressive, including life inside a hyena den--which captures the sounds of lions growling outside--and a tense encounter between a snake-bitten lioness and a pack of hyenas. With its gripping story line, Eternal Enemies is a standout among animal documentaries. -- Demian McLean

Trek into the hidden battlefields of northern Botswana where lions and spotted hyenas clash in overlapping territories. With never-before-seen footage, much of it filmed at night, you'll uncover an intense and vicious blood feud that has been waged for millennia. Follow the Southern Clan, led by a powerful hyena matriarch whose firstborn female cub kills her sister at birth to assure her succession as leader of the clan. Lurk in the shadows as a lioness from the Central Pride gives birth to three cubs and then encounters a deadly Egyptian cobra. You'll be stunned by breathtaking chase scenes as the hyena matriarch is brutally killed by a male lion, throwing the clan into chaos. Discover nature's savage conflicts in this ancient rivalry between ETERNAL ENEMIES: LIONS AND HYENAS.

And while we've all heard about the lion in details, hyena is a less known animal. Here it is what I found

Prey: Hyenas are both scavengers and hunters feeding on carcasses, killed or scavenged, and utilize every part of the body including bone. They will even pursue young, weak, diseased, injured, or dead prey. Hyenas are clearly carnivores and will eat just about anything. Some of their most common prey include wildebeest, gazelle, zebra, rhinocerous, and other ungulates.

(http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/roles/nopest2.jpg)

Hunting: Hunting occurs either alone or in packs led by their female leader. For specific prey, zebra for example, clan members will purposely hunt together to ensure success. The problem with this strategy is that whenever two or three hyenas feed on a carcass, competition and squabbling is inevitable, attracting other pack members as well as other competitors such as lions to the prey. If there is competion amidst hyenas, females most always win because they bigger and more aggressive. Hunting is usually done at night though they do occasionally hunt during the day. They hunt down their prey at speeds of up to 60 km/hr and kill their prey by disembowelling them. When around carcasses, in fights, and attacking prey, they scream, giggle, whoop, laugh, growl and snarl explaining why they are known as the "laughing hyena." Usually, females leave the kill site and eat away from the kill. They have even been known to cache food underwater. One hyena can eat up to 14.5 kg. per meal and digest bones, horns, hooves and even teeth within twenty-four hours.

(http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/roles/3kitty3.jpg)

Predation: The hyena's biggest predator is the lion. Lions and Spotted Hyenas are often engaged in a power struggle. The male lion will even occasionally go out of their way to kill clan matriarchs since hyenas are major predators of lion cubs. Curiously, Lions and hyenas will put up boundaries against each other as they would against members of their same species and threaten each other at the borders with snarls, roars, urine, and paste. Lioncrusher's Domain support this unique rivalry between lions and hyenas but further propose that lions steal more hyena kills than the reverse. Randall L. Eaton did a study in 1979 on the relationship between the spotted hyena and several of their competitors including the lion, leopard, cheetah, and wild dog. He found that between equal size groups, lions win more than 95% of the encounters and initiated about 70% of them. Groups of hyenas can win against a single lion, especially if the lion is female. The majority of competitive interactions are for food, and aggression is more prevalet than predation. Another thing that makes the relationship between lions and hyenas so interesting is that lions rarely eat the hyenas they attack and kill. There seems to be no apparent benefit of lions attacking and killing hyenas. As for the spoted hyena's other competitors, the hyena, especially if in groups, is rarely dominated and can successfully steal their food. An interesting fact about hyenas in regard to humans: in many African societies, because of its ghostly whooping call and nocturnal ways the hyena is regarded as a witch or an evil spirit.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: even on September 17, 2006, 06:01:39 PM

One hyena can eat up to 14.5 kg. per meal and digest bones, horns, hooves and even teeth within twenty-four hours.


I'm not surprised! Snakes, when snakes eat animals who have bones (or humans like a baby or small child) they completely digest all of their bones. The interesting thing is that hair isn't digested. Because snakes don't produce urine like mammals do, they convert their nitrogenous waste into insoluble uric acid crystals. So, a snake pellet will be composed of fur, and white powder, which will partly be bone but will also be uric acid crystals.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: sesi on September 18, 2006, 06:34:07 PM

Wow! Hee it is a video by NG regarding the Eternal Enemies, Lions and Hyenas.


(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/6304474636.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1122570523_.jpg)

Although we romanticize lions as mighty kings of the jungle, their reign is in fact a tenuous one. It is challenged daily in southern Africa by vicious packs of hyenas that compete for prey. Between the two species exists an ancient feud, and it unfolds in Eternal Enemies with all the drama of the warring Capulets and Montagues. Watch as lions bring down a zebra, only to be attacked themselves by a pack of hyenas that chases them into the trees. Glowering, the big cats watch as the thieves devour their dinner. Days later the lions exact revenge, killing the hyena leader but leaving her uneaten as a warning to the rest of the clan. Other scenes in this video are equally impressive, including life inside a hyena den--which captures the sounds of lions growling outside--and a tense encounter between a snake-bitten lioness and a pack of hyenas. With its gripping story line, Eternal Enemies is a standout among animal documentaries. -- Demian McLean

Trek into the hidden battlefields of northern Botswana where lions and spotted hyenas clash in overlapping territories. With never-before-seen footage, much of it filmed at night, you'll uncover an intense and vicious blood feud that has been waged for millennia. Follow the Southern Clan, led by a powerful hyena matriarch whose firstborn female cub kills her sister at birth to assure her succession as leader of the clan. Lurk in the shadows as a lioness from the Central Pride gives birth to three cubs and then encounters a deadly Egyptian cobra. You'll be stunned by breathtaking chase scenes as the hyena matriarch is brutally killed by a male lion, throwing the clan into chaos. Discover nature's savage conflicts in this ancient rivalry between ETERNAL ENEMIES: LIONS AND HYENAS.


This is without question the most violent, horrific animal documentary I have ever seen; the fight for survival between the lions and hyenas is brutal, but goes beyond fighting over food, to actual territorial warfare. The cruelty shown in this footage should not be seen by children, but is extremely educational for those who have the stomach for it.

It is a matriarchal society, where the males are smaller, and their role in the pack quite marginal. The females also have the appearance of hermaphrodites, and engage in "mock mating", caught on film here for the first time. We also witness their habit of fratricide, where the most powerful of the young will kill its weaker brother or sister. The ferocity of the hyenas, coupled with their "laughing" sounds, make these scavengers truly "the horrors of the night".
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Uranus9 on September 19, 2006, 08:09:02 AM
It is indeed a stunning, riveting, enlightening documentary and -- for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear -- a commentary on our (U.S.) culture.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Patricia on September 19, 2006, 07:59:20 PM


Lions and Spotted Hyenas are often engaged in a power struggle. The male lion will even occasionally go out of their way to kill clan matriarchs since hyenas are major predators of lion cubs.


Just like these alien predators:

http://www.predatoryaliens.com/
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: E e y o r e on September 20, 2006, 03:20:59 AM
 :o
Title: Re: In The Movies
Post by: mr. big on September 23, 2006, 11:14:38 PM

(http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_ca_red.jpg)


Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all

Chorus:
So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one Earth on which to live

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bamboleo on September 23, 2006, 11:34:21 PM
The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a wood-worker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter.

The "Internationale" referred to is the International Working Men's Association, the so-called First International (1864­76), part of which had supported the Commune. It has been used across the world as a song of resistence to oppression. Perhaps its most dramatic use in recent years was its repeated singing by the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 - although, curiously, the western press did not comment on this.
Title: Here it is in Persian
Post by: excalibur on September 23, 2006, 11:37:07 PM
(http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/3231/inter.gif)

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/3231/inter.htm
Title: Re: Men's Place
Post by: m a r g e on September 30, 2006, 09:01:22 PM

Off-hand I can think of 5 species of highly intelligent and social matriarchal animals: Elephants, Sperm Whales, Lions, Hyenas, and one species of Baboon.
 

It appears that matriarchy is a form of society in which power is with the women and especially with the mothers of a community. Matriarchy is distinct from matrilineality, where children are identified in terms of their mother rather than their father, and extended families and tribal alliances form along female blood-lines. For instance, in Jewish Halakhic tradition only a person born of a Jewish mother is automatically considered Jewish. Hence Jewish descent is passed on from the mother to the child.

Matriarchy is also distinct from matrilocality, which some anthropologists use to describe societies where maternal authority is prominent in domestic relations, owing to the husband joining the wife's family, rather than the wife moving to the husband's village or tribe, such that she is supported by her extended family, and husbands tend to be more socially isolated.

Matriarchy is a combination of these factors; it includes matrilineality and matrilocality. But what is most important is the fact that women are in charge for the distribution of goods for the clan and, especially, the sources of nourishment, fields and food. This characteristic feature sees every clan member dependent beyond matrilineality and matrilocality and grants women such a strong position that these societies are now considered matriarchal.

The unclear concept of matriarchy, and of its replacement by "patriarchy" can be linked to the historical "inevitabilities" which the nineteenth century's concept of progress through cultural evolution introduced into anthropology. Friedrich Engels, among others, formed the notion that some primitive peoples did not grasp the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. They therefore had no clear notion of paternity, according to this hypothesis; women produced children mysteriously, without necessary links to the man or men they had sex with. When men discovered paternity, according to the hypothesis, they acted to claim power to monopolize women and claim children as their own offspring. The move from primitive matriarchy to patriarchy was a step forward for human knowledge.

This belief system was the result of errors in early ethnography, which in return was the result of unsophisticated methods of field work. When strangers arrive and start asking where babies come from, the urge to respond imaginatively is hard to resist, as Margaret Mead discovered in Samoa. In fact, while prior to the discovery of egg cells and genetics there have been many different explanations of the mechanics of pregnancy and the relative contributions of either sex, no human group, however primitive, is unaware of the link between intercourse and pregnancy. The fact that each child has one unique father has come more recently, however; Greek and Roman writers thought that the seed of two men might both contribute to the character of the child. By the time these mistakes were corrected in anthropology, however, the idea that a matriarchy had once existed had been picked up on in comparative religion and archaeology, and was used as the basis of new hypotheses that were unrelated to the postulated ignorance of primitive people about paternity.

One of the most persistent claims of feminist historians who concentrate in ancient and pre-historic societies has been the rebuttal of a possibility to a matriarchal society anytime in the distant past. It seems to be a way for them to legitimize their feminist research by distancing themselves from such outrageous extremities. On the other hand, several popular writers, like Riane Eisler, have energetically promoted ideas of an ancient Great Goddess, and the matriarchal society which worshipped her. Some archaeologists, like Marija Gimbutas and Lucy Goodison, have also contributed to the science of old goddesses by digging up and interpreting prehistoric finds from a new perspective.

It is unfortunate that the discussion of a possibility for female dominance in prehistoric or early historic societies has to be so strongly ideologically colored. First of all, there is no reason for even ardent feminists to take either positive or negative view into the question on ideological reasons. The oppression of women in many present-day societies remains the same even if patriarchy is proved universal, thus the need for improvement in women's status is as urgent were there any matriarchal societies in the past or not. Maybe anti-feminists feel like gaining ideological ground if it is proved that males have always been dominant. On that ground it could be seen as a biological necessity, but the logic is so weak that I wish to steer away from such argumentation.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: rolodex on September 30, 2006, 09:13:41 PM

It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a wood-worker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter.


Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Paris Commune?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: zen on September 30, 2006, 10:04:02 PM
Hey rolodex, the Paris commune is one of the greatest events in human history. France had been defeated by the armies of Germany which stood at Versailles, a few miles away from Paris. The leaders of French capitalism, statesmen, and soldier, were on their knees before the German conquerors, anxious to save their hides and the plunder that they had accumulated during the war. They were ready to sell out France to the conquered. The French people had proclaimed the French republic, and these capitalist politicians knew that one great obstacle stood in the way of their conspiracy with Bismarck. This obstacle was the armed republicans of Paris. Working in the closest association with the German invader, the French ruling class attempted to disarm the Parisians but the workers of Paris, emaciated by a five month's famine, did not hesitate for a single moment. They seized the power in Paris and established the Paris Commune. What exactly was this Commune? There have been many interpretations. The interpretation of Karl Marx remains unchallenged in its simplicity and its penetration. "It was essentially a working class government, the product of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of man."

The Paris Commune was first and foremost a democracy. The government was a body elected by universal suffrage. None of its functionaries was paid more than the wages of a skilled worker. It did not expropriate the property of the bourgeoisie, but it handed to associations of workingmen all closed workshops and factories, whether the capitalist owners had run away or simply had decided to stop work. It lasted for 71 days. It was destroyed by a combination of its own weaknesses, chiefly a lack of decision, and the treacheries of the French bourgeoisie in shameless alliance with the German army. The murderous brutality with which the fighters of the Commune were shot, tortured, and deported, remained a landmark in European civilization, until the days of Hitler and Stalin.

Today, to the American proletariat, there are many lessons to be drawn for the history of the Commune. Perhaps the most important for the advanced workers are the methods by which Marx approached its study and conclusions which he drew. For him, the Commune, despite its failure, was a symbol of inestimable value. It was a symbol in that it showed the real women of Paris -- heroic, noble, and devoted like the women of antiquity. It was a symbol in that it showed to the world: "working, thinking, fighting, bleeding Paris -- almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the cannibals at its gates -- radiant in the enthusiasm of its historical initiative." It was a symbol in that it admitted all foreigners to the honor of dying for the immortal cause. It was a symbol because even before peace had been signed with Germany, the Commune made a German working man the Minister of Labor. It was a symbol because under the eyes of the conquering Prussians on the one hand, and the Bonapartist army on the other, it pulled down the great Vendome column which stood as a monument to the martial glory of the first Napoleon. Marx saw in these actions not accidental gestures but organic responses of the revolutionary proletariat to the barbarous practices and ideology of bourgeois society.

The capitalist army, the capitalist state, the capitalist bureaucracy, cannot be seized by the revolutionary proletariat and used for its own purposes. It had to be smashed completely and a new state organized, based upon the organization of the working class. In 1905, and later in 1917, the Russian working class, by the formation of Soviets, or workers councils, laid the basis of a new type of social organization. It was by his studies of Marx's analysis of the Commune that Lenin able to recognize so quickly the significance of the Soviets and to establish them as the basis of the new workers' state. Today the advanced American worker needs to know the history of the international struggles of the proletariat. From these he will most quickly learn to understand his own.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: naom on October 06, 2006, 03:40:29 AM

The capitalist army, the capitalist state, the capitalist bureaucracy, cannot be seized by the revolutionary proletariat and used for its own purposes. It had to be smashed completely and a new state organized, based upon the organization of the working class. In 1905, and later in 1917, the Russian working class, by the formation of Soviets, or workers councils, laid the basis of a new type of social organization. It was by his studies of Marx's analysis of the Commune that Lenin able to recognize so quickly the significance of the Soviets and to establish them as the basis of the new workers' state. Today the advanced American worker needs to know the history of the international struggles of the proletariat. From these he will most quickly learn to understand his own.


Any serious discussion of the prospects for socialism — and, therefore, of the future of mankind — must involve an examination of the October Revolution. This Revolution can be supported or opposed, but it cannot be ignored. The answers one gives to the problems of the present day are inseparably linked to one's assessment of the October Revolution, its aftermath, fate, and legacy. If the October Revolution was doomed to failure; if the Bolshevik seizure of power was, virtually from the start, a fatal enterprise; if Stalinism was the unavoidable outcome of Bolshevism; if the crimes of the Stalinist era flowed from the very concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; and if the final breakdown of the Soviet Union testifies to the bankruptcy of socialist economics, then Marxism, it must be confessed, has suffered a devastating political, intellectual and moral shipwreck. This is, at the present time, the dominant view among university academicians.

If, on the other hand, the October Revolution realistically contained within it other possibilities; if Stalinism was not the outcome of Bolshevism, but its antithesis; and if the rise of Stalinism was, in fact, opposed by Marxists, then the historical situation of revolutionary socialism is very different. The International Committee of the Fourth International upholds the second position, and this necessarily brings us into conflict not only with the outright and unabashed defenders of reaction, but also with the mood of skepticism, demoralization and political renunciation that is commonly found among so many who, at least until recently, considered themselves socialists.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: harris on October 08, 2006, 11:53:06 PM
Stalin was a piece of *&^%, Lenin not so much. Marx and Engels were geniuses.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bangbang on November 23, 2006, 08:14:37 PM

The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a wood-worker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter.

The "Internationale" referred to is the International Working Men's Association, the so-called First International (1864­76), part of which had supported the Commune. It has been used across the world as a song of resistence to oppression. Perhaps its most dramatic use in recent years was its repeated singing by the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 - although, curiously, the western press did not comment on this.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=fPFlyrvEb8M

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNaFP9o2Xz4
Title: !Q
Post by: cleverhans on December 07, 2006, 03:14:49 AM

tag


So you register just to tag 3 threads?! Is that right?!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Lynn Cox on May 26, 2007, 04:51:40 AM

[...]

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the h e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. [...]


But of course, what sense does it make to kill people for the hell of it?! I mean, not that it really makes sense to kill people for a purpose, but it is even more crazy to kill people for no particular reason ..
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: interestoninterest on May 26, 2007, 08:57:14 PM

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the h e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. [...]


.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and noone doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: regulus on May 28, 2007, 02:10:23 AM

.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and noone doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.


It kinda contradistincted it to the "chaotic/random street punksviolence which amounting to "anarchy," that somehow embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: an assault on the rights of person and property, on the rule of law codifying such rights."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bigotlaw on May 29, 2007, 01:41:21 AM
Well, from the Mafia's perspective, there are no absolute moral truths. As a result, ethical standards must be created, or, more precisely, a perspective from which to view the world must be chosen. From their vantage point, murder is not a particularly significant act. It's just murder. For example, their killings are no more alarming than humanity's role in destroying the earth under the hospices of the word "industry." Not to mention that all creatures and even the earth itself, are destined to die. From this perspective, murder, like death, is neither moral nor immoral; it is just a fact.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: internist on June 03, 2007, 12:19:24 AM

Well, from the Mafia's perspective, there are no absolute moral truths. As a result, ethical standards must be created, [...]


Well, there are codes of behavior that may apply to one group, but not others. Mafia ethics, for instance, allows people to lie and cheat and kill those outside the family, those who threaten the family, but you must be honest to those in the family. It's not what you do, it's to whom you do it. So the "ethics" or "moral truth," or whatever you wanna call it, of Mafia's actions is the "family."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: hiliter on July 10, 2007, 01:54:10 AM

Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.

The rationale continues that in this radical culture of disappearance certain "Elements of Refusal", partly unconsciously and partly consciously, are to be employed. Simply not voting -- "apathy" keeps over half the nation from the polls; anarchism never accomplished as much! There are positive parallels: "networking" as an alternative to politics is practiced at many levels of society, and non-hierarchic organization has attained popularity even outside the anarchist movement, simply because it works. Refusal of Work can take the forms of absenteeism, on-job drunkenness, sabotage, and sheer inattention -- but it can also give rise to new modes of rebellion: more self- employment, participation in the "black" economy -- all more or less "invisible" activities compared to traditional leftist confrontational tactics such as the general strike.

Embracing all sorts of non-authoritarian forms of spirituality, from "unchurched" Christianity to neo-paganism. Or the "free religions" -- small, self-created, half-serious/half-fun cults influenced by such currents as Discordianism and anarcho-Taoism -- that can be found all over marginal America providing a growing "fourth way" outside the mainstream churches, the televangelical bigots, and New Age vapidity and consumerism. And of course, construction of "private moralities" in the Nietzschean sense: the spirituality of "free spirits." Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. And finally refusal of the Family, which is clearly expressed through divorce, or some other "breakdown." Life can be happier without the nuclear family, whereupon a hundred flowers bloom -- from single parentage to group marriage to erotic affinity group.


Will to Power as Disappearance, I guess!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Madame Desiree on July 21, 2007, 11:41:25 PM

The capitalist army, the capitalist state, the capitalist bureaucracy, cannot be seized by the revolutionary proletariat and used for its own purposes. It had to be smashed completely and a new state organized, based upon the organization of the working class. In 1905, and later in 1917, the Russian working class, by the formation of Soviets, or workers councils, laid the basis of a new type of social organization. It was by his studies of Marx's analysis of the Commune that Lenin able to recognize so quickly the significance of the Soviets and to establish them as the basis of the new workers' state. Today the advanced American worker needs to know the history of the international struggles of the proletariat. From these he will most quickly learn to understand his own.


Any serious discussion of the prospects for socialism — and, therefore, of the future of mankind — must involve an examination of the October Revolution. This Revolution can be supported or opposed, but it cannot be ignored. The answers one gives to the problems of the present day are inseparably linked to one's assessment of the October Revolution, its aftermath, fate, and legacy. If the October Revolution was doomed to failure; if the Bolshevik seizure of power was, virtually from the start, a fatal enterprise; if Stalinism was the unavoidable outcome of Bolshevism; if the crimes of the Stalinist era flowed from the very concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; and if the final breakdown of the Soviet Union testifies to the bankruptcy of socialist economics, then Marxism, it must be confessed, has suffered a devastating political, intellectual and moral shipwreck. This is, at the present time, the dominant view among university academicians.

If, on the other hand, the October Revolution realistically contained within it other possibilities; if Stalinism was not the outcome of Bolshevism, but its antithesis; and if the rise of Stalinism was, in fact, opposed by Marxists, then the historical situation of revolutionary socialism is very different. The International Committee of the Fourth International upholds the second position, and this necessarily brings us into conflict not only with the outright and unabashed defenders of reaction, but also with the mood of skepticism, demoralization and political renunciation that is commonly found among so many who, at least until recently, considered themselves socialists.


Intriguing, naom!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: sinuous on August 01, 2007, 03:51:32 PM

Stalin was a piece of *&^%, Lenin not so much. Marx and Engels were geniuses.


How it is possible that most geniuses are either German or French? No Russian genius philosophers, for instance, let alone American ones!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: tg on August 01, 2007, 04:30:15 PM

How it is possible that most geniuses are either German or French? No Russian genius philosophers, for instance, let alone American ones!


Genius is the sublimation of sexual libido onto cultural and political goals. Libidinal sublimation enables the genius to work toward cultural or political goals with exceptional passion and energy. Philosophic genius is the rarest type of genius. Some societies are capable of producing artistic geniuses, but not philosophical geniuses. Russia, for example, has produced several great imaginative writers, but it hasn't produced any great philosophers. Nations that haven't produced great philosophers have a lower level of consciousness than nations that have produced great philosophers.

Can a person have more than one kind of genius? Samuel Johnson thought that a genius could work in any field; "Had Sir Isaac Newton applied himself to poetry," said Johnson, "he would have made a very fine epic poem... The man who has vigor, may walk to the east, just as well as to the west." Some have argued that Bacon wrote the plays that are attributed to Shakespeare, and thus that Bacon had both philosophic and artistic genius. There have been a few versatile geniuses, such as Leonardo and Pascal, but it's very unusual for a person to have more than one kind of genius. Most geniuses can work in only one field. If Newton had applied himself to poetry, he wouldn't have written "a very fine epic poem." Since Newton knew his own limitations, he never applied himself to poetry. Most geniuses never attempt to work outside the field for which they were born.

What is the origin of genius? Schopenhauer, who thought that character came from one's father and intellect came from one's mother, said that genius was the product of an exceptionally strong-willed father and an exceptionally intelligent mother. Karl Abraham, one of Freud's disciples, thought that genius emerged from a family that was declining in vigor and strength, but that still managed to produce one or two people who combined a neurotic disposition with rare intellectual gifts. As an example, Abraham cited Ikhnaton, an Egyptian pharaoh whose ancestors were vigorous, practical and warlike, and who combined neurotic traits with genius.

Genius can see into the future. The Roman writer Seneca foresaw the discovery of the Americas. In the 13th century, Roger Bacon foresaw the automobile and the airplane. Leonardo foresaw many mechanical inventions, including the steam engine, the airplane, the parachute, the submarine, the tank, and the machine gun. Heine foresaw Nazi militarism and genocide; Heine predicted that the forces found in German philosophy would someday "erupt and fill the world with terror and amazement," and that, "a play will be performed which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll." Kafka predicted that men "will try to grind the synagogue to dust by destroying the Jews themselves." Nietzsche foresaw the psychology of the unconscious, the world wars and the rise of Russia. 

During turbulent times, nations often raise men of genius to positions of leadership. Examples are Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

Throughout his life, Hitler acted like one who was the agent of fate. When he wrote Mein Kampf in the 1920's, Hitler sketched the history of the 1930's and 1940's. He anticipated a great war, and he anticipated that Germany might be destroyed by the war. Hitler felt that his life and his actions were the result not of accident or of choice, but of fate. With fate supporting him, he felt that he possessed great power, that he was invincible, hence he had complete confidence in himself. His confidence enabled him to speak with passion, energy, and conviction, and it enabled him to captivate a nation. Hitler relied on his unconscious to reveal what was fated to occur; he relied on hunches and intuitions. "I go the way Providence dictates," said Hitler, "with the assurance of a sleepwalker." Hitler's dependence on fate and on his unconscious was so complete that he lost touch with reality, and wasn't wholly sane. Napoleon, whose career resembled Hitler's in many ways, felt, like Hitler, that he was the agent of fate, that he could foresee the future, and that he didn't control events but rather was controlled by them. "I always had an inner sense," said Napoleon, "of what awaited me.... Nothing ever happened to me which I did not foresee." Napoleon thought that any attempt to assassinate him, before his fate had run its course, was certain to fail — and in fact, many such attempts did fail.

How is genius able to see into the future? Partly because genius has a high level of consciousness, and partly because genius is in close contact with the unconscious. The prescience of genius is the result of unconscious feeling, as well as conscious thought. The genius draws from his unconscious ideas, images and intuitions. Because the genius is in close contact with his unconscious, he runs the risk of becoming insane. Many geniuses have gone insane; examples are Tasso, Newton, Swift, Comte, Gogol, Ruskin, Hölderlin, Schumann, Nietzsche, Strindberg and van Gogh. Many geniuses were partially insane, if not wholly insane; many geniuses lived on the borderline between sanity and insanity. Schopenhauer is an example of a genius who was partially insane.

Schopenhauer had many irrational fears and anxieties; fearing that people would misinterpret a trance as death and bury him alive, Schopenhauer "stipulated that his remains be left unburied beyond the usual time." Cézanne is another example of a genius who was partially insane. Cézanne experienced "chronic paranoia"; when his friends threw a party to celebrate his birthday, he left abruptly, thinking they were making fun of him. Gödel was so afraid of being poisoned that he stopped eating, and starved to death. It is an indication of the genius' partial insanity that he goes to extremes and is one-sided. The genius lacks moderation. Dostoyevsky, for example, said, "I go to the ultimate limit everywhere and in everything; all my life long I have always approached the limit!" A second indication of the genius' partial insanity is that he's moody, more so than most people are. Genius often oscillates between elation and depression. Kierkegaard is an example of a moody genius. Kierkegaard's mental state was described as "depression, alternating with, but more commonly blended with, a condition of exaltation." Strindberg was also moody; "throughout [Strindberg's] life," wrote one of his biographers, "his moods varied from elation to the blackest depression." The moodiness of genius tends to take the form of depression rather than elation; genius is melancholy. Kafka is an example of a melancholy genius: "every day," said Kafka, "I wish myself off the earth."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: tg on August 01, 2007, 04:31:10 PM
A third indication of the partial insanity of genius is that genius often has a tendency toward illness. Examples of geniuses who were chronically ill are Epicurus, Pascal, Lichtenberg, Schiller, Leopardi, Darwin, Nietzsche and Proust. Illness often has a psychological cause, and chronic illness is often the result of psychological problems. Certain illnesses, such as epilepsy and asthma, almost always have a psychological cause. Several geniuses were epileptics, including Muhammad, Dostoyevsky and Flaubert. Proust's asthma was a symptom of his psychic state, a plea for maternal attention. While the ideal man, according to the adage, has a healthy mind in a healthy body (mens sana in corpore sano), the genius often has an unhealthy mind in an unhealthy body. Is it surprising, then, that so many geniuses die young?

Genius is childlike. Genius approaches the world with naiveté, as if it were new and strange. Leonardo is an example of a childlike genius; "the great Leonardo," wrote Freud, "remained infantile in some ways throughout his whole life... As a grown-up he still continued playing." It was said of Mozart that, "in his art he early became a man, but in all other respects he invariably remained a child." Though genius is melancholy, it is also, paradoxically, cheerful. Cheerfulness can coexist with melancholy; as the French say, le coeur triste, l'esprit gai ("sad heart, gay spirit"). The cheerfulness of genius is an indication of its childlike nature; like the child, the genius can enjoy things that other people have ceased to enjoy. Kant is an example of a cheerful genius; Herder said that Kant, "had the happy sprightliness of a youth." Kafka is another example of a cheerful genius; despite his extreme melancholy, Kafka was said to be "always cheerful."

Why do geniuses have some feminine traits and some childlike traits? What do geniuses have in common with women and children? Women and children have a tendency toward narcissism, and genius also has a tendency toward narcissism. Because of their narcissism, geniuses are often solitary and friendless. "I have no friends," said Michelangelo, "need none, and will have none"; Michelangelo was said to be "lonely as a hangman." A woman who had known Kierkegaard and Ibsen said, "I have never seen in any other two persons, male or female, so marked a compulsion to be alone." As a result of their narcissism, as a result of their self-love, geniuses have difficulty loving another person. The love affairs of geniuses have sometimes been suspected of having a narcissistic nature. It was said of Beethoven that he "loved only love, not women." Ortega said that Stendhal and Chateaubriand, though they were frequently involved in love affairs, never actually loved. Because it's difficult for them to love another person, geniuses are often bachelors. If they're married and have children, they usually aren't good parents. Rousseau, for example, wasn't a good parent; Rousseau put all his children in an orphanage. Hitschmann said, "If the children of men of genius do not succeed or turn out badly... the narcissism of the fathers should not be forgotten as an explanation." Examples of geniuses whose children turned out badly are Goethe, Melville, Joyce, O'Neill and Einstein.

Just as everyone is to some extent insane, so too everyone is to some extent a homosexual. While the average person has some homosexual proclivities, the genius has even more; the genius is closer to homosexuality than the average person is, just as the genius is closer to insanity than the average person is. Many geniuses were homosexuals: Verlaine, Rimbaud, Whitman, Swinburne, Baudelaire, Wilde, Proust, Gide, Forster, Auden, etc. Why does genius have a proclivity for homosexuality? Geniuses and homosexuals both tend to be effeminate and narcissistic. The narcissism of homosexuals prevents them from loving a body different in gender from their own. If all geniuses are effeminate and narcissistic, why aren't all geniuses homosexuals? The nature of one's relationships to one's parents is an important factor in determining whether one becomes a homosexual. Freud thought that male homosexuality originated in early childhood, and could usually be traced to one of the following causes: an especially close relationship to the mother, a mother with a dominating, masculine personality, an absent father, or a bad relationship with the father. Any one of these causes could hinder the son from identifying with his father, and from acquiring his father's masculine traits. Geniuses who, as a result of one of these causes, couldn't identify with their fathers became homosexuals. Proust, for example, had an especially close relationship to his mother; Forster's father died when he was a baby, and Forster was raised by his mother and his aunts; Gide and Wilde had dominating, masculine mothers. The proclivity of genius for homosexuality is due to both environmental factors and constitutional factors.

Some geniuses, instead of lingering in adolescence, mature quickly, both sexually and intellectually. Examples are Byron and Rimbaud. According to Freud, "sexual precocity often runs parallel with premature intellectual development." The combination of sexual and intellectual precocity, though it may be found in artists like Byron and Rimbaud, is never found in philosophers. Philosophers generally arrive at their central ideas while they're young, but they never develop and express those ideas until they've reached at least their late twenties. Philosophy requires a high level of consciousness, which is attained by repression of the unconscious, and repression of the unconscious precludes sexual precocity. Repression of the unconscious sometimes precludes all sexual activity, hence many philosophers have been sexually abstinent. It was said of Plato that he "never touched a woman," and the same is probably true of Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche. Scientists, like philosophers, often attain a high level of consciousness by the repression of their unconscious. This repression sometimes precludes all sexual activity; according to Eissler, Newton "never had intercourse," and the same is probably true of Mendel. Art, unlike philosophy and science, doesn't require the repression of the unconscious, but rather the participation of the unconscious. Accordingly, artists are often sexually uninhibited.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: montparnos on August 01, 2007, 05:49:08 PM

[...] It was said of Plato that he "never touched a woman," and the same is probably true of Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche. [...]


This simply tells me they were all fagz.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: sinus on August 01, 2007, 06:17:12 PM

[...] Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

[...]


Interesting, could you please elaborate a bit more on this?

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: harbinger on August 01, 2007, 08:29:27 PM

[...] Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

[...]


Interesting, could you please elaborate a bit more on this?


Here it is a somewhat relevant post,


[...]

Like authenticity, the topic of fate recurs throughout NBK. "Do you believe in fate?" is one of the first questions that Mickey asks Mallory. During the conversation in the prison after Mickey has been apprehended for grand theft, he tells Mallory that nothing can stop fate. (Fate is defined as the inevitability of a course of events predetermined by God or other agency beyond human control. Fatalism is the acceptance of all events as inevitable.) He also describes himself to Wayne Gayle as "fate's messenger." Mickey is a fatalist, which is to say that he accepts all events as inevitable. As a result, he is unburdened by any sense of responsibility for his actions. Ironically, it is Mickey's rejection of the concept of free will that makes him so free to be authentic. In his world all events are determined by factors beyond his control, thus the concepts of good and evil or guilt and innocence, are artificial constructs. This theory was also that of Nietzsche, who rejected free will and joyfully embraced fatalism. Nietzsche writes:

Quote


The fable of intelligible freedom: Now one finally discovers that this human nature, too, cannot be accountable, in as much as it is a necessary consequence and assembled from the elements and influences of things past and present: That is to say that man can be made accountable for nothing, not for his nature, nor for his motives, nor for his actions, nor for the effects he produces. One has thereby attained to the knowledge that the history of the moral sensations is the history of an error, the error of accountability which rests on the error of freedom of the will...The proposition is as clear as daylight, and yet here everyone prefers to retreat back into the shadows and untruth: from fear of the consequences.


Like Nietzsche's superman, Mickey embraces fatalism and places himself beyond the categories of good and evil. Unburdened by guilt and responsibility, he is free do whatever he wants. Needless to say, Mickey is an unsavory example of what denial of free will and personal responsibility might lead to. As Nietzsche points out, the arguments against free will are very convincing but one is loathe to accept them because of the possible consequences. For Nietzsche, human beings have not only an instinct to survive, they incessantly strive to amplify and intensify their life experience and constantly endeavor to express their own vitality and strength. [...]

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: usr on August 04, 2007, 03:48:39 PM

How it is possible that most geniuses are either German or French? No Russian genius philosophers, for instance, let alone American ones!


"American genius"?! Don't you think it sounds kinda funny even to say those two words, one after the other?
Title: Re: What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?
Post by: aver on August 10, 2007, 10:20:54 PM

In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands the person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between capital and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity." Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a THING. Instead of being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts. This debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time is spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn carries over into the way he/she acts in other areas of life. If one is regarded as a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and others in that way also. Thus all social relationships -- and so, ultimately, ALL individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism, literally nothing is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it dignity, self-worth, pride, honour -- all become commodities up for grabs. Such debasement produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism" is one example which can be traced directly to the commodification of the individual under capitalism. To quote Fromm again,

Quote
"THINGS have no self, and men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour market] can have no self"


However, people still feel the NEED for self-hood, and so try to fill the emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately, since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for self-hood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course, encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy what we don't need because it will make us popular/happy/free/etc (delete as appropriate!). But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by creative, self-directed work. This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher living standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise that liberty and a good life are only possible when one does not have to worry about having enough food, decent housing, and so forth. Freedom and 16 hrs of work a day do not go together, nor do equality and poverty or solidarity and hunger. However, anarchists consider consumerism to be a distortion of consumption caused by the alienating and inhuman "account book" ethics of capitalism, which crushes the individual and his or her sense of identity, dignity and selfhood.


Monumental lines!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: escheat on August 12, 2007, 12:36:17 AM

Schopenhauer, who thought that character came from one's father and intellect came from one's mother, said that genius was the product of an exceptionally strong-willed father and an exceptionally intelligent mother.


A couple of interesting facts about Schopenhauer: Schopenhauer's father had strong feelings against any kind of nationalism and he selected the name "Arthur" for his son especially because it was the same in English, German, and French. As far as his mother is concerned, well, he never got along with her; when Goethe, who was a friend of hers, told her that he thought her son was destined for great things, she objected: she had never heard there could be two geniuses in a single family :)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: pulchritude on August 12, 2007, 03:16:29 AM

A couple of interesting facts about Schopenhauer: Schopenhauer's father had strong feelings against any kind of nationalism and he selected the name "Arthur" for his son especially because it was the same in English, German, and French. As far as his mother is concerned, well, he never got along with her; when Goethe, who was a friend of hers, told her that he thought her son was destined for great things, she objected: she had never heard there could be two geniuses in a single family :)


An interesting point that Schopenhauer makes I think is that philosophy is the world itself. The force he calls "Wille zum Leben" or Will (literally will-to-life) is the forces driving man to remain alive and to reproduce, a drive intertwined with desire. This Will is the inner content and the driving force of the world. For Schopenhauer, Will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempting to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was a rare philosopher who considered philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain charitable practices ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline. Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire — i.e., Will. He proposed that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire. The role of desire in Schopenhauer is similar to the role of Kāma, sensual gratification, which is treated as one of the goals of life relating to the second stage of life in the Hindu tradition.

These ideas have strong parallels to the notion of purushartha or goals of life in Vedanta Hindu/Buddhist thought, with Schopenhauer drewing attention to these similarities. His philosophy is similar to Buddhism in many ways. Buddhism teaches what it calls the Four Noble Truths:

1. There is suffering or dukkha;
2. Suffering results from desire;
3. Desires can be totally eliminated (the eventual state of Nirvana)
4. Following the Eightfold Path leads to Nirvana.

Schopenhauer's philosophy asserts the first three of Buddhism's four truths in that it associates will with desire, appetite, and craving. However, instead of the fourth truth, Schopenhauer describes a twofold path. Denial of the will is attained by either:

1. Personal experience of an extremely great suffering that leads to loss of the will to live; or
2. Knowledge of the essential nature of life in the world through observation of the suffering of other people.

Buddhist Nirvana is equivalent to the condition that Schopenhauer described as denial of the will. Occult historian Joscelyn Godwin has said that it was Buddhism that inspired the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, and, through him, attracted Richard Wagner. This Orientalism reflected the struggle of the German Romantics, in the words of Leon Poliakov, "to free themselves from Judeo-Christian fetters"
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: legerdemain on August 12, 2007, 04:05:32 AM

An interesting point that Schopenhauer makes I think is that philosophy is the world itself. [...] In attempting to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was a rare philosopher who considered philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain charitable practices ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline. Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire — i.e., Will.


Because of this it has been argued that he did not have much philosophical thought in him; it would be wrong, though, to see his philosophy as something merely derived from other all philosophical discourse that preceded him (he studied in particular Plato and Kant). He was completely original. More or less the same charges against Nietzsche; much of Nietzsche's philosophy has a critical flavour to it, and much criticism of his work has arisen from the fact that "he does not have a system." However, Nietzsche himself expressed a general disdain for philosophy as the construction of systems — indeed, he says in the preface of "Beyond Good and Evil" that many systems built by dogmatist philosophers have relied more on popular prejudices (such as the idea of a soul) than anything else.

Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence, for instance, was addressed by Schopenhauer. It is a purely physical concept, involving no "reincarnation," but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical. By the way, Eternal Recurrence is a concept which posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur in the exact same self-similar form an incomprehensible and unfathomable number of times. The concept has roots in ancient Egypt, and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. With the decline of antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the concept fell into disuse, though Friedrich Nietzsche briefly resurrected it. The basic premise is that the universe is limited in extent and contains a finite amount of matter, while time is viewed as being infinite. The universe has no starting or ending state, while the matter comprising it is constantly changing its state. The number of possible changes is finite, and so sooner or later the same state will recur.

Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and J. Richard Gott have proposed models by which the (or a) universe could undergo time travel, provided the balance between mass and energy created the appropriate cosmological geometry. More philosophical concepts from physics, such as Hawking's "arrow of time," for example, discuss cosmology as proceeding up to a certain point, whereafter it undergoes a time reversal (which, as a consequence of T-symmetry, is thought to bring about a chaotic state due to thermodynamic entropy).
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: truant on August 12, 2007, 04:34:25 AM

Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence, for instance, was addressed by Schopenhauer. It is a purely physical concept, involving no "reincarnation," but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical. By the way, Eternal Recurrence is a concept which posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur in the exact same self-similar form an incomprehensible and unfathomable number of times. The concept has roots in ancient Egypt, and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. With the decline of antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the concept fell into disuse, though Friedrich Nietzsche briefly resurrected it. The basic premise is that the universe is limited in extent and contains a finite amount of matter, while time is viewed as being infinite. The universe has no starting or ending state, while the matter comprising it is constantly changing its state. The number of possible changes is finite, and so sooner or later the same state will recur.


The thought of eternal recurrence is central to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. As Heidegger pointed out, Nietzsche never speaks about the reality of "eternal recurrence" itself, but about the "thought of eternal recurrence." Nietzsche conceived of the idea as a simple "hypothesis", which, like the idea of Hell in Christianity, did not need to be true in order to have real effects. The thought of eternal recurrence appears in a few parts of his works, in particular §125 and §341 of "The Gay Science" and then in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." It is also noted for the first time in his posthumous fragment of 1881. In "Ecce Homo" (1888), he wrote that the thought of the Eternal Return was the "fundamental conception" of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche's conception of the eternal recurrence of all things differs from other seemingly similar hypotheses, insofar as it is intrinsically related to Zarathustra's announcement of the Übermensch and the ethical imperative of overcoming nihilism. On a few occasions in his notebooks, Nietzsche discusses the possibility of eternal recurrence as cosmological truth, but in the works he prepared for publication it is treated as the ultimate method of affirmation. According to Nietzsche, it would require a sincere amor fati (Love of Fate) not simply to endure, but to wish for, the eternal recurrence of all events exactly as they occurred — all the pain and joy, the embarrassment and glory.

Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing," and says that its burden is the "heaviest weight" ("das schwerste Gewicht") imaginable. The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life:

Quote
What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]

As described by Nietzsche, the thought of eternal return is more than merely an intellectual concept or challenge; it is akin to a koan, or psychological device that occupies one's entire consciousness, stimulating a transformation of consciousness known as metanoia.

In Nietzsche scholarship, the cosmological hypothesis of eternal recurrence is of extreme interest, being a crucial axiom of his philosophy. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part III, chap. 2, #2, "Of the Vision and the Riddle," Nietzsche confronts his aforementioned inner demon and proves to him the reality of eternal recurrence, and this leads to a self-awakening in which the demon is exorcised. Nietzsche also described himself as "the bringer of eternal recurrence" in "Twilight of the Idols." Much effort is still expended in attempts to understand Nietzsche's notebooks' fragmentary mentions of eternal recurrence. In Carl Jung's seminar on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Jung claims that the dwarf states the idea of the Eternal Return before Zarathustra finishes his argument of the Eternal Return when the dwarf says, "'Everything straight lies,' murmured the dwarf disdainfully. 'All truth is crooked, time itself is a circle.'" The translation of Nietzsche's eternal return is from the German ewige Wiederkunft. The German word ewige also means perpetual. Though always translated as eternal it is worth noting this potential dual meaning.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: rend on August 12, 2007, 01:01:22 PM

Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and J. Richard Gott have proposed models by which the (or a) universe could undergo time travel, provided the balance between mass and energy created the appropriate cosmological geometry. More philosophical concepts from physics, such as Hawking's "arrow of time," for example, discuss cosmology as proceeding up to a certain point, whereafter it undergoes a time reversal (which, as a consequence of T-symmetry, is thought to bring about a chaotic state due to thermodynamic entropy).


The concept of cyclical patterns is very prominent in dharmic religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism among others. The Wheel of life represents an endless cycle of birth, life, and death from which one seeks liberation. In Tantric Buddhism, a wheel of time concept known as the Kalachakra expresses the idea of an endless cycle of existence and knowledge. Related to the concept of eternal return is the Poincaré recurrence theorem in mathematics (the latter says that a system having a finite amount of energy and confined to a finite spatial volume will, after a sufficiently long time, return to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of its initial state; the Poincaré recurrence time is the amount of time elapsed until the recurrence). It should be noted that "a sufficiently long time" could be much longer than the predicted lifetime of the universe.

However, Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann has described a proof originally put forward by Georg Simmel, which refutes the claim that a finite number of states must repeat within an infinite amount of time:

Quote
Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.


It can be argued that this proof is flawed. Even if a system contains an infinite number of states as considered from the perspective of classical mechanics, applying quantum mechanics reveals that the system will repeat after an arbitrarily long time due to discretization.(Classical mechanics is only a rough approximation to the physics that goes on at the atomic scale). However, not all quantum-mechanical operators have discrete spectra.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: the grasshopper on August 15, 2007, 02:20:26 PM
Quote
"Behold this gateway, dwarf!" I continued. "It has two faces. Two paths meet here; no one has yet followed either to its end. This long lane stretches back for an eternity. And the long lane out there, that is another eternity. They contradict each other, these paths; they offend each other face to face; and it is here at this gateway that they come together. The name of the gateway is inscribed above: ‘Moment.’ But whoever would follow one of them on and on, farther and farther – do you believe, dwarf, that these paths contradict each other eternally?"

Quote
"All that is straight lies," the dwarf murmured contemptuously. "All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle."

Quote
"You spirit of gravity," I said angrily. "Do not make things too easy for yourself! Or I shall let you crouch where you are crouching, lame-foot; and it was I that carried you to this height.


Quote
"Behold," I continued, "this moment! From this gateway, Moment, along, eternal lane leads backward: behind us lies an eternity. Must not whatever can walk have walked on this lane before? Must not whatever can happen have happened, have been done, have passed by before? And if everything has been there before – what do you think, dwarf, of this moment? Must not this gateway too have been there before? And are not all things knotted together so firmly that this moment draws after it all that is to come? Therefore – itself too? For whatever can walk – in this long lane out there too, it must walk once more.


Quote
"And this slow spider, which crawls in the moonlight, and this moonlight itself, and I and you in the gateway, whispering together, whispering of eternal things – must not all of us have been there before? And return and walk in that outer lane, out there, before us, in this long dreadful lane – must we not eternally return?"

Quote
"…O Zarathustra, who you are and must become" behold you are the teacher of the eternal recurrence – that is your destiny! That you as the first must teach this doctrine – how could this great destiny not be your greatest danger and sickness too?

Quote
"Behold, we know what you teach: that all things recur eternally, and we ourselves too; and that we have already existed an eternal number of times, and all things with us. You teach that there is a great year of becoming, a monster of a great year; which must, like an hourglass, turn over again and again so that it may run down and run out again; and all these years are alike in what is greatest as in what is smallest; and we ourselves are alike in every great year, in what is greatest as in what is smallest.

Quote
"Now I die and vanish… the soul is as immortal as the body. But the knot of causes in which I am entangled recurs and will create me again. I myself belong to the causes of eternal recurrence. I come again, with this sun, with this earth, with this eagle, with this serpent – not to a new life or a better life or a similar life: I come back eternally to this same, selfsame life, in what is greatest as in what is smallest, to teach again the eternal recurrence of all things..."


Though Nietzsche briefly touches on "eternal recurrence" a few more times in other works, the quotes given above are the most fundamental, and stand out like two supporting pillars of the doctrine. Right off the bat one can see from these quotes, "eternal recurrence" is a thread woven out of thin air, a simple fantasy presented without any argument. It is a tale, a story told as part of the narrative of that old oracle, Zarathustra, along with his eagle, serpent, spider and other animals. This narrative, which at its very best, is only a fabrication of the writer's imagination, does not amount to a reasoned argument in support of a theory or doctrine. In the narrative, "eternal recurrence" is just a hypothesis put forward by the author. None of the exhaustive arguments, axioms, theorems, syllogisms, etc., required to prove or support a "philosophical" theory, are ever given either here, or any other works of Nietzsche. Eternal Recurrence is just an idea, a concept, thrown at us much like a ghost story. There are those, who, like little children, believe any ghost story at face value. But there are also some of us who demand a more substantive and objective proof before we can accept an idea.

The strongest of the "pseudoscientific" arguments, put forward to support this doctrine by the followers of Neitzsche, is a mixture of statistical mathematics, physics and astrophysics. It goes something like this: -- "...Time is infinite, an endless eternity, but since space and matter in the universe are finite, limited, all the matter in the universe, therefore, can be combined, arranged and rearranged in a finite number of permutations. Given the eternity of time, these permutations must therefore, repeat themselves over and over again, and must already have repeated themselves many, many times in the eternal past. And they will also continue to repeat themselves going in circles in the eternity of the future." Bingo! Therefore, they say: eternal recurrence is a scientific fact!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: the grasshopper on August 15, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
Here it is a simplified version of what permutation means and a brief introduction to the concept. If we toss a coin, the most probable outcome of heads or tails coming up is 50/50, (50%) That means, since the coin has only two sides, a throw of 100 times will probably result in heads and tails coming 50 times each. This is only "probability," though. There is no absolute way of knowing for sure. To simplify the example, let us examine only 10 throws. According to the statistical probability we are very likely to get 5 heads and 5 tails. But from experience we know it is also possible to get all 10 heads and 0 tails; or 9 heads and 1 tail; or 8 heads and 2 tails; or all the other combinations of heads and tails up to 1 heads and 9 tails; and 0 heads and 10 tails. That is why mathematics can only give us the statistical "probability." Taking each of these combination of heads and tails and performing some mathematical operation would then give us the famous "bell curve" which shows the percentage probability of each combination of heads and tails. The 50/50 heads to tails ratio would have the highest probability at the top of the dome, right on the top of the bell. The 9 heads to 1 tail and 9 tails to 1 heads would be at each wing of the bottom of the bell curve, having the lowest probability of occurrence. We are still left without any way of knowing with "certainty" what the next coin throw will produce. It can be a head or tail. Not only that, but the next 10 throws can be all heads and 0 tails, or all tails and 0 heads. Put bluntly: we have no way of knowing what the future holds. That precisely, is the reason why fortune-tellers, Tarot card readers, the entire horoscope industry, the Las Vegas slot machines, the horse races, the dog races, and all other forms of gambling will always be in business.

Regardless of the odds, the gambler keeps hoping, and betting that the next few coin tosses or dice throws will bring a series of results favorable to him. Occasionally, this turns out to be true, and the gambler wins, proving all the statistical probability wrong! In the case of the dice, since it has 6 sides, each face has a one 6th probability of coming up on top. That is a smaller percentage than the coin. That is only 16.66% as compared to 50%. But when we apply the mathematical operation on the combinations of the dice, we still end up with the bell curve. The 16.66% for every face on the dice coming up will be on the top of the bell, but all other combinations will be spread on the bell curve from the top all the way to the bottom fringes. To simplify the theory of eternal recurrence further and give one more concrete example, suppose we have a necklace with an arrangement of a variety of colored beads on a string. These colored beads can be arranged in a sequence: red, blue, yellow, orange, green, purple... etc. Suppose that we keep a record, and change the sequence of colors after wearing the necklace every day. Since there are a limited number of beads on the necklace, we soon find that we will have exhausted all possible sequence of colors, and would need to repeat a sequence previously used. If we continue this for a long time, we will have pattern after pattern repeating again and again. That, in short, is the sum total of the doctrine of "eternal recurrence," and its proof. The colored beads would represent "matter" while the string in which the beads are threaded represents "space."

From this simplistic "pseudoscientific" explanation, one is expected to arrive at that horrendous conclusion that we must have lived this same life many times in the past, and everything goes on and on in an ever repeating "single" circle. So we have no alternative or power to do otherwise, but to come again and again and relive this very same life over and over again through all eternity. That is the basis of the doctrine or philosophy, if you will, of "Eternal Recurrence." God can then be seen as a child with a single film, audio or videocassette, and who replays that single tune or film again, and again, for eternity. What poverty of imagination! What total pauperism of the intellect that this doctrine should be advocated by a mind as rich and as fertile as that of Nietzsche! This betrays a linear mind and a limited view. The above "proof" of Eternal Recurrence, so well camouflaged in the terminology of western thought, painted in heavy "pseudoscientific" makeup, and supported by physics and statistical probability to boot, on closer inspection, begins to give off a strong smell of curry and vindaloo. It reminds us of that dinner we had many years ago in an Indian restaurant. The only difference being that in the Indian menu it was referred to by another name -- Reincarnation/Karma. Those two names too, recurrence and reincarnation begin to sound more and more alike. Has that German chef, Nietzsche, moved from traditional baking of chocolates and cakes to the cooking of spicy, Oriental dishes? The reincarnation/karma combo, usually marinated with Madras curry, is a traditional Indian dish, served with rice!

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple. The law of Karma too, fatalism, is about the powerlessness of man to change or do anything about his fate, that whatever is written is what will take place, and one lives one's life only in the way that the law of Karma dictates.

So, Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence is just a form of reincarnation and karma. Along with the book of Manu, Nietzsche must have come across one or more of the many kinds of Indian religions, absorbed their teachings, and regurgitated some of those thoughts in his writings under the new name -- Eternal Recurrence. So much for originality! This is an old shoe, so common in many Oriental thoughts, and the quote above, '"O Zarathustra, who you are and must become" behold you are the teacher of the eternal recurrence -- that is your destiny! That you as the first must teach this doctrine...' is simply not true, and has no basis. This doctrine is an ancient concept, taught in various forms by many Oriental teachers throughout the ages, and Zarathustra was not the first to teach this doctrine. Why then does Nietzsche make the claim of being the first to teach it? The answer is simple. It was customary in those days for European travelers to come to Africa or Asia, ask native guides to show them the way to the source of a river, or to the top of a mountain, and then turn around and claim it as their discovery. They would then name it after themselves or their king or queen. Nietzsche's claim of originality and of being first to teach this doctrine must be seen in that light. He could claim of introducing it to Europe. That is all. There is nothing original about it.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: the grasshopper on August 15, 2007, 02:38:23 PM
The above argument, using time, eternity, finite matter, statistical probability...etc., might sound as if a scientific proof has been rendered, making an open and tightly shut case of the theory. However, this is not the case. Let us examine the above argument carefully. Even if we accept that time is infinite and matter and space are finite in the universe, it does not immediately follow, therefore, "Eternal Recurrence" is a fact. That, indeed, is a farfetched conclusion. First of all, let us take the "proof" at its face value and accept it fully. Even if true, it is only a mathematical "probability," not a mathematical "certainty." As we mentioned at the end of the mathematical description, there is no way to predict the future. Furthermore, the premises that space and matter are finite while time is infinite, has yet to be proved. Science has, so far, failed to confirm or deny the finitude of the universe. Astrophysics has yet to map the entire universe, and even the very possibility of that idea is becoming arguable and doubtful. We still have no way of knowing as to whether space or matter in the universe has any limit. The further away we look, we find galaxies and more galaxies, all speeding away from us at faster and faster rate of velocities, accelerating away from us.

We try to measure velocities with the speed of light and distances with light years, and still, the universe has become so vast, velocities so great, that even as we write the numbers, we are hard pressed to imagine or comprehend their meaning. Furthermore, the universe continues to expand at greater and greater pace, suggesting that space is not limited or finite. The concept of finite matter and space in physics is becoming much like the Medieval concept, the "Dome of the sky," the ceiling above the earth, beyond which God was believed to reside, sitting on his "golden throne of glory." We now know that there is no such ceiling above us called "sky." It is just empty space, the atmosphere. So, the very foundation of the above "pseudoscientific" argument is flawed. There simply, is no evidence to support the statement that space and matter in the universe are finite. These assumptions are simply not true. Matter and space may very well be, and most likely are, infinite. The doctrine of Eternal Recurrence has no legs to stand on in science. Matter, space and time are proving ever more elusive, and appear to be merely different forms of one and the same fundamental substance of the universe -- energy. Perhaps, that may be the new name for God?

Even within finite matter, the possibility for infinity does, indeed, exist. The ancient Greek legend of Achilles, racing 10 times faster than a turtle but forever unable to catch up comes to mind. If I have a glass of water and always take a sip of only one tenth of the water, and leave nine tenth in the glass, the water in the glass will never run out. And I can sip from one glass of water forever and ever, as long as I sip only one tenth of if. Here is an example of infinity within that which is finite -- a glass of water. We can have an infinite recurrence -- sipping -- even within the finite substance. This proves the foundation, as well as the conclusion of the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, to be totally baseless. In order for a "natural" event to take place there are a host of other events, by coincidence or design, that need to come together and happen at exactly the same time. Many chemical reactions in the lab often fail to take place precisely because, either the quantity of one, or other of the ingredients, the temperature, pressure, type of mix, the grind, or blend, some or all of the above, were not at exactly the correct point during the experiment. Such failures occur in spite of the full and active participation and cooperation of the chemist, who keeps repeating and trying his hardest to get the reaction to take place. Now, imagine if these chemicals were left to themselves to roam randomly throughout the universe and an eternity of time to elapse, and we would expect for the chemical reaction to come about by sheer coincidence or luck.

Even though, with the above arguments, we have already debunked both the foundation and the conclusion of "Eternal Recurrence," to further illustrate its absurdity, let us consider this. We can start with a flask, totally evacuated and begin to introduce a few molecules into the vacuum. Left to them selves, the molecules would randomly float all over the space inside the flask. To make this illustration more realistic, let the size of the flask be as large as the sky and as wide as the horizon. When one looks at the horizon as far as the eye can see, it is about a fifty miles radius and a hundred miles in diameter. The height of the sky too, up to the upper mesosphere is about a hundred miles. So let us imagine a balloon shaped flask, which has been evacuated. Let us also increase the size of these molecules to the size of an average potato to make it easier to visualize. Into this flask let us introduce a spinning gyro, which is free to roam randomly, anywhere and everywhere. If we color two potatoes, one red and one blue, and glue them each on opposite periphery of the gyro and let it spin, it would spin in the flask forever and ever, but the two potatoes will never come together. Just because space is finite and matter too, does not immediately follow that things can arrange and rearrange themselves in any number of permutations.

It is possible that any and even all arrangements can be prevented because of forces that prevent the limited matter from ever coming together. This is the real meaning of Enrico Fermi's law of gaps in the spectrum of energy/matter. Energy, and thereby, matter can exist only in specific places (energy bands.) The concept of randomness is immediately cut to pieces. The things that happen can only happen in specific energy bands, and not everywhere else. A mathematical can, and might permutation might exist, but it may be just that. It can exist only as a concept in our imagination, but there could be physical impossibilities that prevent its becoming a reality. Therefore, we have many "mathematical permutations" that will never take place even if we wait forever and ever, even as the two potatoes glued at opposite ends of the spinning gyro that can never meet, no matter for how long the gyro spins in the flask.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: the grasshopper on August 15, 2007, 02:38:57 PM
Now, there are also other phenomena that never repeat even in a limited space and limited material arrangement as we have constructed in our experiment. Here is an example: Suppose we take out the gyro and introduce the red and blue potatoes into the flask all by themselves, one at a time. As these potatoes randomly float in the vacuum, it is possible, given enough time that they will come together and collide. The blue potato crashes against the red potato. Depending on how violent the collision was, some damage will be sustained. It is possible that one side of the potato could be smashed up and many pieces fly away. After the damage is sustained the potatoes are permanently, and irreversibly altered in size and shape. Not only that but now we have small pieces of potatoes flying about in our flask. These collisions can be repeated many, many more times, but every time a new deformation will take place and more pieces of potatoes will fly away. From this we see what is known as "entropy," or the arrow of time. We can accept that time is endless and eternal, but it has only one direction of motion, forward. It is irreversible. It might be possible for pieces of flying potato to stick together from time to time and form a chunk of potato. But Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence teaches that all these flying pieces of a potato will come back together to form each of the original red and blue potatoes in the same exact shape and form as before. This concept obviously, borders on insanity.

Potatoes can disintegrate but there is no way for the smashed up pieces of potato to come together by themselves and get reconstructed into the original potatoes with skin and all, no matter how long eternity lasts. And if these two plain and simple potatoes cannot come back into their original shape by sheer coincidence, or permutation of matter, how would it be possible for two airplanes that crash to get reconstructed into their original shape by sheer permutation of matter? Eternal Recurrence is even worse, in that it tells us not only airplanes, but human beings too, and elephants, and cows, serpents, spiders, and eagles… get reconstructed not once, but over, and over again by sheer permutation of matter. Therein lies its sheer insanity. How is one to accept this doctrine? Energy is given off and dissipates; a candle can burn off and the wax, melt. Left to them selves, all natural events can only happen in one, and only one direction, in the direction of "the arrow of time," or "negative entropy," as it is known in chemistry. But there is no way that the light given off by a candle can come back and get collected, or the melted wax come together and stand erect again. We can give this experiment millions or billions of years, but the probability of a smashed up potato, or a burnt up candle ever coming back whole all by itself, due to "Eternal Recurrence," is zero. Only in the religious realm do we find the dead, like Lazarus, coming back to life. In the science of the real world, however, this is not so -- hence, the total bankruptcy of the doctrine of "Eternal Recurrence."

One final point: among those who support the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence some say, it has an ethical and moral dimension. If one is to come and live this very life over and over again, one should try to live it in a way that one wants to come and relive it. That is, they tell us: "One should live it to the utmost, and without leaving anything regrettable." This sounds nice, and we would have nothing against it. In fact, some people might even be moved and motivated to live life to the utmost because of the ethical interpretation of this doctrine. However, it is not even necessary to conduct a controlled social experiment to see how this doctrine affects the majority of mankind. A social experiment several millenniums old, is still going on. Just look at India, a country that has lived under the shadow of karma and reincarnation for the longest time. It is a nation where Brahmins, the highest caste, have systematically ruled and dominated the whole society and kept the Sudra or chandala, (untouchables) as their footstools, without any hope, or dream of salvation.

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: "If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless." This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

If one wants to teach Eternal Recurrence as a religion, fine. We will not object to that. But to present this as a serious philosophy is simply unacceptable. It does not surprise us that Nietzsche advocated this doctrine. He did not have much of mathematics or scientific training, which has proved to be his Achilles' heel. As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don't believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche's evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the "Superman" and the "Super race," to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very "Superman" and the "Super race" Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: barcode on August 15, 2007, 04:05:13 PM

The above argument, using time, eternity, finite matter, statistical probability... etc., might sound as if a scientific proof has been rendered, making an open and tightly shut case of the theory. However, this is not the case. Let us examine the above argument carefully. Even if we accept that time is infinite and matter and space are finite in the universe, it does not immediately follow, therefore, "Eternal Recurrence" is a fact. That, indeed, is a farfetched conclusion. First of all, let us take the "proof" at its face value and accept it fully. Even if true, it is only a mathematical "probability," not a mathematical "certainty." As we mentioned at the end of the mathematical description, there is no way to predict the future. Furthermore, the premises that space and matter are finite while time is infinite, has yet to be proved. Science has, so far, failed to confirm or deny the finitude of the universe. Astrophysics has yet to map the entire universe, and even the very possibility of that idea is becoming arguable and doubtful. We still have no way of knowing as to whether space or matter in the universe has any limit. The further away we look, we find galaxies and more galaxies, all speeding away from us at faster and faster rate of velocities, accelerating away from us.

We try to measure velocities with the speed of light and distances with light years, and still, the universe has become so vast, velocities so great, that even as we write the numbers, we are hard pressed to imagine or comprehend their meaning. Furthermore, the universe continues to expand at greater and greater pace, suggesting that space is not limited or finite. The concept of finite matter and space in physics is becoming much like the Medieval concept, the "Dome of the sky," the ceiling above the earth, beyond which God was believed to reside, sitting on his "golden throne of glory." We now know that there is no such ceiling above us called "sky." It is just empty space, the atmosphere. So, the very foundation of the above "pseudoscientific" argument is flawed. There simply, is no evidence to support the statement that space and matter in the universe are finite. These assumptions are simply not true. Matter and space may very well be, and most likely are, infinite. The doctrine of Eternal Recurrence has no legs to stand on in science. Matter, space and time are proving ever more elusive, and appear to be merely different forms of one and the same fundamental substance of the universe -- energy. Perhaps, that may be the new name for God?

Even within finite matter, the possibility for infinity does, indeed, exist. The ancient Greek legend of Achilles, racing 10 times faster than a turtle but forever unable to catch up comes to mind. If I have a glass of water and always take a sip of only one tenth of the water, and leave nine tenth in the glass, the water in the glass will never run out. And I can sip from one glass of water forever and ever, as long as I sip only one tenth of if. Here is an example of infinity within that which is finite -- a glass of water. We can have an infinite recurrence -- sipping -- even within the finite substance. This proves the foundation, as well as the conclusion of the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, to be totally baseless. In order for a "natural" event to take place there are a host of other events, by coincidence or design, that need to come together and happen at exactly the same time. Many chemical reactions in the lab often fail to take place precisely because, either the quantity of one, or other of the ingredients, the temperature, pressure, type of mix, the grind, or blend, some or all of the above, were not at exactly the correct point during the experiment. Such failures occur in spite of the full and active participation and cooperation of the chemist, who keeps repeating and trying his hardest to get the reaction to take place. Now, imagine if these chemicals were left to themselves to roam randomly throughout the universe and an eternity of time to elapse, and we would expect for the chemical reaction to come about by sheer coincidence or luck.


In 1954 Albert Einstein asked the question rhetorically, "Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" And he responded himself later, "The results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical. I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in favour of the hypothesis of a finite universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to interactions between it and the other bodies in the universe, as indeed, ever since Newton's time, gravity has been completely reduced to interaction between bodies."

And then he says,

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self ... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: accolade on August 16, 2007, 05:12:08 AM


[...] and supported by physics and statistical probability to boot, on closer inspection, begins to give off a strong smell of curry and vindaloo. It reminds us of that dinner we had many years ago in an Indian restaurant. The only difference being that in the Indian menu it was referred to by another name -- Reincarnation/Karma. Those two names too, recurrence and reincarnation begin to sound more and more alike. Has that German chef, Nietzsche, moved from traditional baking of chocolates and cakes to the cooking of spicy, Oriental dishes? The reincarnation/karma combo, usually marinated with Madras curry, is a traditional Indian dish, served with rice!


You are quite obviously a racist pig! So much for the "scientist" that you consider yourself to be!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: abominate on August 16, 2007, 05:42:40 AM

Just look at India, a country that has lived under the shadow of karma and reincarnation for the longest time. It is a nation where Brahmins, the highest caste, have systematically ruled and dominated the whole society and kept the Sudra or chandala, (untouchables) as their footstools, without any hope, or dream of salvation.

And I thought this was the case here in America! Poor me!

Quote

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless. This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, [...]



That\'s your interpretation! As for Nietzsche, he held that a sincere amor fati (Love of Fate) is required not simply to endure, but to wish for, the eternal recurrence of all events exactly as they occurred — all the pain and joy, the embarrassment and glory. The wish for the eternal return of all events marks the ultimate affirmation of life. It is all obvious that were someone to tell you that you are to live your life again as you now live it, you would kill yourself. That is how much your life sucks. That is why you are so afraid of the idea of Eternal Recurrence. 
 

Quote

As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we do not believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche s evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the Superman and the Super race, to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very Superman and the Super race Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.


Karma and fatalism means you have to discover what Fate has reserved for you -- it means living your life as it was meant for you. If you feel deep down yourself you are selected to be a chandala, then live as a chandala. If you feel you were meant to be a master, then live your life as a master! You decide it for yourself!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: affable on August 16, 2007, 06:00:30 AM
I think grasshopper is terrified to accept the fact that deep down himself he believes in the idea of Eternal Recurrence -- otherwise he would not give reason after reason in his diatribe in order to "discredit" Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Recurrence. The "scientific proof" he gives is all hogwash relying on suppositions of the kind "even if that was true, his theory is still flawed because" -- he's trying so hard to find inconsitencies that when he fails to do so persuasively he resorts to racial slurs and ad hominems.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: burnish on August 16, 2007, 07:50:59 AM

[...] The "scientific proof" he gives is all hogwash relying on suppositions of the kind "even if that was true, his theory is still flawed because" [...]


I just wanted to say that conditional statements are not statements of causality. :) Since many different statements may be presented using "If...then..." in English, they are commonly confused; they are distinct, however.

For example all of the following statements are true interpreting "If... then..." as the material conditional:

1. If George Bush was president of the United States in 2004, then Germany is in Europe.
2. If George Washington was president of the United States in 2004, then Germany is in Europe.
3. If George Washington was president of the United States in 2004, then Germany is not in Europe.

The first is true since both the antecedent and the consequent are true. The second is true because the antecedent is false and the consequent is true. The third is true because both the consequent and antecedent are both false. These statement are trivial examples. Of course, none of these statements express a causal connection between the antecedent and consequent, but they are true because they do not have the combination of having both true antecedent and false consequent.

The ordinary indicative conditional seems to have some more structure than the material conditional - for instance, none of the three statements above seem to be correct under an ordinary indicative reading, though the first is closest.

Another sort of conditional, known as the counterfactual conditional has a stronger connection with causality. However, not even all counterfactual statements count as examples of causality. Consider the following two statements:

1. If A were a triangle, then A would have three sides.
2. If switch S were thrown, then bulb B would light.

In the first case it would not be correct to say that A's being a triangle caused it to have three sides, since the relationship between triangularity and three-sidedness is one of definition. It is actually the three sides that determine A's state as a triangle. Nonetheless, even interpreted counterfactually, the first statement is true.

That said, such a deterministic worldview is one in which the universe is no more than a chain of events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. To hold this worldview, as an incompatibilist, there is no such thing as "free will". However, compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with, or even necessary for, free will. Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Übermensch" (English: "overman or "superman") that Nietzsche speaks of extensively in his philosophical writings. Existentialists have suggested that people have the courage to accept that while no meaning has been designed in the universe, we each can provide a meaning for ourselves. Though philosophers have pointed out the difficulties in establishing theories of the validity of causal relations, there is yet the plausible example of causation afforded daily which is our own ability to be the cause of events. This concept of causation does not prevent seeing ourselves as moral agents.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: abstemious on August 17, 2007, 06:25:35 AM

Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Übermensch" (English: "overman or "superman") [...]


Does your keyboard have a button for the letter Ü?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: accretion on August 17, 2007, 06:37:15 AM
??
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bedizen on August 17, 2007, 07:18:42 AM

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bilk on August 17, 2007, 07:36:50 AM

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: \"If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless.\" This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

If one wants to teach Eternal Recurrence as a religion, fine. We will not object to that. But to present this as a serious philosophy is simply unacceptable. It does not surprise us that Nietzsche advocated this doctrine. He did not have much of mathematics or scientific training, which has proved to be his Achilles\' heel. As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don\'t believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking.


Spinoza maintained that there is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: abash on August 17, 2007, 07:54:45 AM

Potatoes can disintegrate but there is no way for the smashed up pieces of potato to come together by themselves and get reconstructed into the original potatoes with skin and all, no matter how long eternity lasts. And if these two plain and simple potatoes cannot come back into their original shape by sheer coincidence, or permutation of matter, how would it be possible for two airplanes that crash to get reconstructed into their original shape by sheer permutation of matter? Eternal Recurrence is even worse, in that it tells us not only airplanes, but human beings too, and elephants, and cows, serpents, spiders, and eagles… get reconstructed not once, but over, and over again by sheer permutation of matter.


OMG, this guy is a genuine ass! It's not strange by any means, though, engineer types think strictly in linear terms and totally lack any sort of imagination. 
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: actuate on August 18, 2007, 04:53:45 AM
LOL abash! ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: abut on August 18, 2007, 03:00:22 PM

Quote

As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we do not believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche s evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the Superman and the Super race, to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very Superman and the Super race Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.


Karma and fatalism means you have to discover what Fate has reserved for you -- it means living your life as it was meant for you. If you feel deep down yourself you are selected to be a chandala, then live as a chandala. If you feel you were meant to be a master, then live your life as a master! You decide it for yourself!


Interesting point of view!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: chide on August 18, 2007, 03:49:34 PM

Though Nietzsche briefly touches on "eternal recurrence" a few more times in other works, the quotes given above are the most fundamental, and stand out like two supporting pillars of the doctrine. Right off the bat one can see from these quotes, "eternal recurrence" is a thread woven out of thin air, a simple fantasy presented without any argument. It is a tale, a story told as part of the narrative of that old oracle, Zarathustra, along with his eagle, serpent, spider and other animals. This narrative, which at its very best, is only a fabrication of the writer's imagination, does not amount to a reasoned argument in support of a theory or doctrine. In the narrative, "eternal recurrence" is just a hypothesis put forward by the author. None of the exhaustive arguments, axioms, theorems, syllogisms, etc., required to prove or support a "philosophical" theory, are ever given either here, or any other works of Nietzsche. Eternal Recurrence is just an idea, a concept, thrown at us much like a ghost story. There are those, who, like little children, believe any ghost story at face value. But there are also some of us who demand a more substantive and objective proof before we can accept an idea.

The strongest of the "pseudoscientific" arguments, put forward to support this doctrine by the followers of Neitzsche, is a mixture of statistical mathematics, physics and astrophysics. It goes something like this: -- "...Time is infinite, an endless eternity, but since space and matter in the universe are finite, limited, all the matter in the universe, therefore, can be combined, arranged and rearranged in a finite number of permutations. Given the eternity of time, these permutations must therefore, repeat themselves over and over again, and must already have repeated themselves many, many times in the eternal past. And they will also continue to repeat themselves going in circles in the eternity of the future." Bingo! Therefore, they say: eternal recurrence is a scientific fact!


You are obviously someone who thinks "science" is the solution to the problem of humanity. The way one sees and interprets the events in one's life determines how one responds to them -- that is, how one behaves. Each person dwells in a subjective world, and even the so-called objective world of the scientist is a product of subjective perceptions, purposes, and choices. Because no one else, no matter how hard he tries, can completely assume another person's "internal frame of reference," the person himself has the greatest potential for awareness of what reality is for him. In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: cleft on August 18, 2007, 04:32:21 PM
The thought of eternal recurrence was addressed by Nietzsche; he never spoke about the reality of "eternal recurrence" itself, but about the thought of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche conceived of the idea as a simple "hypothesis", which, like the idea of Hell in Christianity, did not need to be true in order to have real effects. However, he does discuss the possibility of eternal recurrence as cosmological truth, although in essence the concept is treated as the ultimate method of affirmation in the course of overcoming nihilism.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Santa Baby on August 18, 2007, 09:46:58 PM

[...]

Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence, for instance, was addressed by Schopenhauer. It is a purely physical concept, involving no "reincarnation," but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical. By the way, Eternal Recurrence is a concept which posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur in the exact same self-similar form an incomprehensible and unfathomable number of times. The concept has roots in ancient Egypt, and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. With the decline of antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the concept fell into disuse, though Friedrich Nietzsche briefly resurrected it. The basic premise is that the universe is limited in extent and contains a finite amount of matter, while time is viewed as being infinite. The universe has no starting or ending state, while the matter comprising it is constantly changing its state. The number of possible changes is finite, and so sooner or later the same state will recur.


Nietzsche never hid the fact that he was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer and his non-rational philosophy of will expressed in The World as Will and Idea after he transferred to University of Leipzig. However, by nature Nietzsche was not rational, but was, from the beginning of philosophical study, deeply attracted to non-rational elements of reality, which in Schopenhauer's philosophy was the concept of will. 
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: consort on August 18, 2007, 10:59:46 PM

[...] It was said of Plato that he "never touched a woman," and the same is probably true of Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche. [...]


This simply tells me they were all fagz.


Nietzsche was not a fag. It was actually Wagner who, after Nietzsche and Wagner split, conducted a relentless and vindictive campaign against Nietzsche on the grounds that he was homosexual. Unless you think Niezsche should have been gay just because he wrote "The Gay Science" (it's "Die Froeliche Wissenschaft" in German btw :) you'd have to take into account the fact that when Nietzsche first met Richard Wagner in 1869, the magisterial composer was more than twice the age of the fledgling philologist. Wagner had also just been banished from the royal court of Bavaria for his adulterous affair with Cosima von Bülow. Although the friendship between the two men began rather well, it would famously degenerate into a bitter intellectual and emotional feud. The thing is that Wagner was a manipulative jerk and that Nietzsche and Cosima, who both suffered miserably in youth, were psychologically vulnerable to Wagner's seductive but emotionally abusive behavior. He would "advise," for example, in a letter to an homosexual friend to "try to cut down a little, on the pederasty"...
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: defile on August 19, 2007, 12:38:16 AM

You are obviously someone who thinks "science" is the solution to the problem of humanity. The way one sees and interprets the events in one's life determines how one responds to them -- that is, how one behaves. Each person dwells in a subjective world, and even the so-called objective world of the scientist is a product of subjective perceptions, purposes, and choices. Because no one else, no matter how hard he tries, can completely assume another person's "internal frame of reference," the person himself has the greatest potential for awareness of what reality is for him. In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


This doesn't sound like one's awful caring about being moral and the like... which appears to be in line with the theory of karma and its cousins.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: recriminate on August 19, 2007, 01:07:56 AM

[...]

Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence, for instance, was addressed by Schopenhauer. It is a purely physical concept, involving no "reincarnation," but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical. By the way, Eternal Recurrence is a concept which posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur in the exact same self-similar form an incomprehensible and unfathomable number of times. The concept has roots in ancient Egypt, and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. With the decline of antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the concept fell into disuse, though Friedrich Nietzsche briefly resurrected it. The basic premise is that the universe is limited in extent and contains a finite amount of matter, while time is viewed as being infinite. The universe has no starting or ending state, while the matter comprising it is constantly changing its state. The number of possible changes is finite, and so sooner or later the same state will recur.


Nietzsche never hid the fact that he was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer and his non-rational philosophy of will expressed in The World as Will and Idea after he transferred to University of Leipzig. However, by nature Nietzsche was not rational, but was, from the beginning of philosophical study, deeply attracted to non-rational elements of reality, which in Schopenhauer's philosophy was the concept of will. 
 

legerdemain was talking about the Eternal Recurrence concept, Santa. Looks like both concepts were addressed by Schopenhauer.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: downthechimney2nite on August 20, 2007, 04:20:12 PM

Nietzsche was not a fag. It was actually Wagner who, after Nietzsche and Wagner split, conducted a relentless and vindictive campaign against Nietzsche on the grounds that he was homosexual. Unless you think Niezsche should have been gay just because he wrote "The Gay Science" (it's "Die Froeliche Wissenschaft" in German btw :) you'd have to take into account the fact that when Nietzsche first met Richard Wagner in 1869, the magisterial composer was more than twice the age of the fledgling philologist. Wagner had also just been banished from the royal court of Bavaria for his adulterous affair with Cosima von Bülow. Although the friendship between the two men began rather well, it would famously degenerate into a bitter intellectual and emotional feud. The thing is that Wagner was a manipulative jerk and that Nietzsche and Cosima, who both suffered miserably in youth, were psychologically vulnerable to Wagner's seductive but emotionally abusive behavior. He would "advise," for example, in a letter to an homosexual friend to "try to cut down a little, on the pederasty"...


Wagner appears to have been a hell of a lot like law professors.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: dissipate on August 21, 2007, 07:23:19 PM

Nietzsche was not a fag. It was actually Wagner who, after Nietzsche and Wagner split, conducted a relentless and vindictive campaign against Nietzsche on the grounds that he was homosexual. Unless you think Niezsche should have been gay just because he wrote "The Gay Science" (it's "Die Froeliche Wissenschaft" in German btw :) you'd have to take into account the fact that when Nietzsche first met Richard Wagner in 1869, the magisterial composer was more than twice the age of the fledgling philologist. Wagner had also just been banished from the royal court of Bavaria for his adulterous affair with Cosima von Bülow. Although the friendship between the two men began rather well, it would famously degenerate into a bitter intellectual and emotional feud. The thing is that Wagner was a manipulative jerk and that Nietzsche and Cosima, who both suffered miserably in youth, were psychologically vulnerable to Wagner's seductive but emotionally abusive behavior. He would "advise," for example, in a letter to an homosexual friend to "try to cut down a little, on the pederasty"...


Wagner appears to have been a hell of a lot like law professors.


LOL down! ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: execrable on August 21, 2007, 07:57:34 PM
In 1850 Wagner published "Das Judenthum in der Musik" (originally translated as "Judaism in Music," by which name it is still known, but better rendered as "Jewishness in Music") under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. The essay began as an attack on Jewish composers, particularly Wagner's contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but expanded to accuse Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Wagner wrote that the German people were repelled by Jews due to their alien appearance and behavior: "with all our speaking and writing in favor of the Jews' emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them." He argued that Jewish musicians were only capable of producing music that was shallow and artificial, because they had no connection to the genuine spirit of Christian Germans. He also argued that Jews composed music that would likely achieve the greatest popularity and, therefore, financial success as opposed to created truly great and original works of art. To Wagner, the Jews lacked creativity and sought both popular and financial dominance. To Wagner, Jews involved in music were detrimental to the welfare of Germany.

The initial publication of the article attracted little attention, but Wagner republished it as a pamphlet under his own name in 1869, leading to several public protests at performances of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Wagner repeated similar views in several later articles, such as "What is German?" (1878), and subsequent memoirs of him often recorded his derogatory comments on Jews. Although many have argued that he suggested only that Jews should suppress their Jewishness, others have interpreted sections of his writing literally, to mean wiping out or burying the Jewish people. Despite his disparaging views concerning Jews, Wagner continued to have Jewish friends, colleagues and supporters throughout his life.

Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Wagner's music, and saw in it an embodiment of his own heroic mythology of the German nation. There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi thinking. As with the works of Nietzsche, the Nazis used those parts of Wagner's thought which were useful for propaganda and ignored or suppressed the rest. For example Joseph Goebbels banned Parsifal in 1939, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, due to the perceived pacifistic overtones of the opera.Although Hitler himself was obsessed by "the Master" many in the Nazi hierarchy were not, and, according to the historian Richard Carr, most Nazis deeply resented the prospect of attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence. As a consequence of this appropriation by Nazi propaganda, Wagner's operas have never been staged in the modern state of Israel. Although his works are broadcast on Israeli government-owned radio and television stations, attempts to stage public performances in Israel have been halted by protests, including protests from Holocaust survivors.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: moelaw on August 26, 2007, 08:33:56 PM

In Carl Jung's seminar on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Jung claims that the dwarf states the idea of the Eternal Return before Zarathustra finishes his argument of the Eternal Return when the dwarf says, "'Everything straight lies,' murmured the dwarf disdainfully. 'All truth is crooked, time itself is a circle.'"


Jung had a life long fascination with Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), but he distanced himself from Nietzsche for fear he would would suffer the same fate, mental illness in his old age.

Jung's book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Also Sprach Zarathustra) chronicles the wanderings and teachings of Zarathustra, Zoroaster, the ancient Persian prophet who founded Zoroastrianism.

(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2746/untitledme1.jpg)
Zarathustra

Also Sprach Zarathustra is also the title of a symphonic poem by Richard Strauss, composed in 1896 and inspired by the book. It is best known for its use in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is postulated to have been inspired by the book, at least in part. The opening section is used three times, most famously in the opening title sequence of the film.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: tantrum on September 13, 2007, 04:30:42 PM

[...] The only difference being that in the Indian menu it was referred to by another name -- Reincarnation/Karma. Those two names too, recurrence and reincarnation begin to sound more and more alike. Has that German chef, Nietzsche, moved from traditional baking of chocolates and cakes to the cooking of spicy, Oriental dishes? The reincarnation/karma combo, usually marinated with Madras curry, is a traditional Indian dish, served with rice!

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple. The law of Karma too, fatalism, is about the powerlessness of man to change or do anything about his fate, that whatever is written is what will take place, and one lives one's life only in the way that the law of Karma dictates.

So, Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence is just a form of reincarnation and karma. Along with the book of Manu, Nietzsche must have come across one or more of the many kinds of Indian religions, absorbed their teachings, and regurgitated some of those thoughts in his writings under the new name -- Eternal Recurrence. So much for originality! This is an old shoe, so common in many Oriental thoughts, and the quote above, '"O Zarathustra, who you are and must become" behold you are the teacher of the eternal recurrence -- that is your destiny! That you as the first must teach this doctrine ...' is simply not true, and has no basis. This doctrine is an ancient concept, taught in various forms by many Oriental teachers throughout the ages, and Zarathustra was not the first to teach this doctrine. Why then does Nietzsche make the claim of being the first to teach it? The answer is simple. It was customary in those days for European travelers to come to Africa or Asia, ask native guides to show them the way to the source of a river, or to the top of a mountain, and then turn around and claim it as their discovery. They would then name it after themselves or their king or queen. Nietzsche's claim of originality and of being first to teach this doctrine must be seen in that light. He could claim of introducing it to Europe.


Are you sure you really understand Buddhism and its concepts? Because even Nietzsche may not have really understood the point of it. Buddhism is very complicated for the Western mind to fully grasp in its entirety. For example, According to Nietzsche, Buddhism can be described as an effort, through restraint from action, to escape suffering and pass into absolute non-existence. But is this description accurate? Dukkha is the Sanskrit word commonly translated as 'suffering'. Its full meaning, however, is much more extensive, and this has important implications for the interpretation of Buddhist doctrine, because it is an integral constituent in the articulation of the fundamental Buddhist doctrine, the Four Noble Truths, as expressed in the Vinayapitaka:  

Quote
'And this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, and old age is dukkha, and disease is dukkha, and dying is dukkha, association from what is not dear is dukkha, separation from what is dear is dukkha, not getting what you want is dukkha - in short, the five aggregates of grasping are dukkha.'

Understood simply as 'suffering', the word dukkha in this central Buddhist passage expresses only simple pessimism. The common translation of dukkha as suffering has quite likely been the cause of a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of the non-Buddhist world. In fact, 'dukkha' comes in three flavors. The first is dukkha-dukkhata, suffering qua suffering in its direct physical and mental manifestations. The second is vapirinama-dukkha, or suffering through transformation. This refers to the awareness that one's happiness is highly contingent and dependent on factors beyond one's control. Though you may be happy now, it could change at any moment, and this is due to the ungrounded and fluctuating nature of existence itself. The most important type of dukkha, however, is sankhara-dukkha, an existential incompleteness due to spiritual ignorance. This incompleteness arises from being limited to one's own contingent and unenlightened perspective. Panna is the word used to refer to the transcendental consciousness of those who have attained enlightenment and are thereby free from sankhara-dukkha and existentially complete. For those who have attained Panna, even the most blissful existence as a deva in one of the Buddhist Heavens would seem to be a miserable Hell. This is because any of these existences of a relative nature (more or less blissful, painful, etc) are only results of the spiritual ignorance that results in sankhara-dukkha.  

Interpreted in this way, it is easy to begin to see how the statement of the First Noble Truth takes on a much deeper meaning than was assumed by Nietzsche. Not only are birth, death, and disease painful, they are products of spiritual ignorance. To say that they are 'dukkha' implies that they are, as co-dependently arising oppositions, ultimately unreal. It is not, therefore, merely pain that the Buddhist wants to overcome, but the perspective within which these illusions (as well as their happy counterparts) are taken to be real. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the primary motivation behind Buddhism is not simply suffering qua suffering is the fact that out of the 121 classes of conscious experience listed in Buddhist psychology, only three have to do with pain, while 63 are joyful. Both the joyful and the painful, however, are considered sankhara-dukkha -- products of spiritual ignorance. Kamma-niradha is the Sanskrit word for 'cessation of action'. This state is achieved through adherence to the eight-fold path, which guides the Buddhist into kusula, or 'skillful action'. Therefore, it is not simply ceasing to perform actions that the Buddhist believes will eventually lead one to his or her goal. Rather, the type of actions that are performed is the deciding factor. Likewise, it is wrong to conclude that just because one has attained Nirvana that one ceases to act. Such a conclusion implies a misconceived interpretation of kamma-niradha, as it is understood in Buddhism. This is the misconception Nietzsche seems to have made in characterising Buddhism as being centered on the guideline not to act. That such an interpretation is indeed misconceived is apparent when we consider the life and words of the Buddha. After attaining enlightenment and Nirvana, he continued to lead an active life for the next forty-five years. Again, it is the nature of the action that differentiates the enlightened, described in the following passage from the Vinayapatika:  

Quote
'I, monks, am freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. And you, monks, are freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. Go, monks, and wander for the blessing of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the blessing, the happiness of devas and men. Let not two (of you) go by one (way). Monks, teach the Dhamma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, and lovely at the end.'

As this passage illustrates, there are certain kinds of actions that are enjoined on the enlightened. However, it is inaccurate to use the word 'enjoined' in this context because the skillful actions are naturally done by the enlightened Buddhist, and are no longer performed as if they are obligations in a code of behavior. Following the Buddhist 'code', the eightfold path, is merely a means to the end of making it obsolete upon enlightenment. This is because of the way 'skillful action' is defined in Buddhism. The action that ceases is not activity in general, but only the unskillful actions that originate in spiritual ignorance. An action originates in spiritual ignorance when it is affected by one of three biases. These biases are sense desire, desire for some future form of existence, and spiritual ignorance. Buddhism further classifies actions into three categories. Wrong actions run counter to the goal of enlightenment and are driven by one or more of the biases. Of right actions there are those that tend toward enlightenment but are still driven by one the biases and those that are completely free of the biases and based on the correct understanding of the enlightened agent. Examples of the former are actions performed by aspiring Buddhists who have not yet attained enlightenment and behave according to the Buddhist guidelines because they are enjoined on them by the religion itself. Upon enlightenment, the cessation of action that takes place is a cessation of the actions that are driven by the biases and, hence, unenlightened.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: tantrum on September 13, 2007, 04:31:25 PM
By interpreting the Buddhist conception of inaction as a cessation of all action, Nietzsche presented Buddhism as an escapist, and 'weary' ideology. Rightly understood, however, the Buddhist ideal of kamma-niradha actually comes closer to Nietzsche's ideal -- being, in his own words, action that is 'beyond good and evil,' or outside the moral categories of a dogma. Now that it has become clearer that Buddhism does not involve a retreat simply from pain, and that it does not prescribe complete inertness, we must ask ourselves about the goal toward which its genuine recommendations are directed. The most crucial point of contention over Nietzsche's criticisms of Buddhism might be the question: is Nirvana really an 'Oriental Nothing? 'Do Buddhists really seek, by developing panna and performing kamma-niradha, to exterminate themselves beyond the possibility of re-birth? 

Quote
'Since a Tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him - of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal - that after dying the Tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not ...'

(Majjhima-Nikaya)


It is hard to imagine that Nietzsche misinterpreted the concept of Buddhist Nirvana completely inadvertently, given the sheer amount of Theravada literature that exists on the topic. In so many passages, the texts insist that Nirvana transcends the difference between the four sets of categories given above (being, non-being, both, and neither), and that it is therefore inaccurate to say of Nirvana that it is nothingness - and just as inaccurate to conclude that it must be something. Nirvana is postulated as a state quite beyond the realm of reason and language. In the Suttanipata, the Buddha explains: 

Quote
'There is no measuring of one who has gone to his setting, Upasiva,' said the Blessed One. 'That no longer exists for him by which people might refer to him. When all conditions [dhammas] are removed, then all ways of telling are also removed.'

All points of reference by which one makes descriptions and explanations are products of the unenlightened perspective. Nirvana, since it is beyond this perspective, is beyond description by way of these relative concepts and categories. It can only be understood by way of attainment? of losing spiritual ignorance in exchange for enlightened understanding. That, according to Buddhism, is why it is so problematic to give an explanation for it. The Buddha replies to the bewilderment expressed by a disciple, Vacchagotta: 

Quote
'It is enough to cause you bewilderment, Vaccha, enough to cause you confusion. For this truth, Vaccha, is deep, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. It is hard for you to understand when you hold to another view, accept another teaching, approve another teaching, pursue a different training, and follow a different teacher.'

Admittedly, having not attained the state of enlightenment described by the Buddhists, I find it perplexing to conceive of. It appears that in order to understand the concept one must transcend rationality itself and operate on some plane completely outside of anything we can imagine. In other words, only the enlightened can understand the goal they have achieved (at which point it ceases to be anything like a 'goal'). Though only a fool denies the reality of a thing based solely on the fact that one has not yet experienced it, it is quite understandable that in so many cases a concept that requires such direct experience should be completely misunderstood by those who have lack the experience. In such a case, one unenlightened onlooker has really no point of reference by which to test the accuracy of another unenlightened explanation. Indeed, it appears that any words used to explain Nirvana, according to the Buddhist postulations, would be horrendous mistakes. And so it is with this in mind that we should examine a statement by Schopenhauer (in The World as Will and Idea), who was a major influence on Nietzsche, regarding the subject.
 
Quote
'...We must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma, or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather, do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky ways - is nothing.'

Obviously, Schopenhauer, after being so influenced by Hindu and Buddhist ideas about the effect that desire and will has on binding us to continued existence, completely dismissed the perplexing descriptions of Nirvana as 'meaningless words'. Unable to conceive of a state beyond the categories of being and non-being, he concluded that the final state that is entered into after dissolution of the will is complete non-existence. Hence, his diagnosis that the philosophers who postulated inconceivable states were merely 'evading'the nothingness that they feared. Diagnoses of 'psychological dishonesty'such as this became, in some form or other, staples of later existentialist thinkers. Nietzsche, of course, made similar attacks against Christianity as well as Buddhism.  The fact is, Nirvana can only be explained to the 'unenlightened' by negation. The Buddhist texts tell us what it cannot be thought of as, but the only positive descriptions of it tend toward non-existence. An example of this is the simile of the fire that the Buddha uses in his dialogue with Vacchagotama. He asks whether the fire, when it is extinguished, can be said to have gone north, south, east, or west. Of course, the obvious answer is that the fire no longer exists. Nirvana, however, cannot be described as existing, not existing, both existing and not, or neither existing nor not. For Buddhism, even nothingness is constituted by the relative contingencies that arise co-dependently as samsara. 

For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed. This explains their sharply opposed responses to the human condition as they understand it. Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths' and yet maintaining them and continually creating them -- wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) -- represents an ideal response to existence. So both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer greatly misunderstood Buddhism, by interpreting Nirvana as non-existence. The Buddhist response to them both would be that they failed to understand the system fully because they failed to adopt Buddhist practices aimed at enlightenment -- at which point they would have developed the capacity to conceive of Nirvana. 'Sire, Nirvana is', says the Buddhist disciple, Nagasena, 'cognizable by mind: an ariyan disciple, faring along with a mind that is purified, lofty, straight, without obstructions, without temporal desires, sees Nirvana.'
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: unexceptionable on September 17, 2007, 09:31:33 AM

Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Übermensch" (English: "overman or "superman") [...]


Does your keyboard have a button for the letter Ü?


Hold ALT and tap U.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: syn on September 20, 2007, 05:50:20 PM

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!


Quite interesting username and post, bedizen! ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Möbius on September 20, 2007, 07:41:06 PM

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!


Quite interesting username and post, bedizen! ;)


You too, syn! ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: CogentCom on November 17, 2007, 07:47:57 AM

[...] In the narrative, "eternal recurrence" is just a hypothesis put forward by the author. None of the exhaustive arguments, axioms, theorems, syllogisms, etc., required to prove or support a "philosophical" theory, are ever given either here, or any other works of Nietzsche. Eternal Recurrence is just an idea, a concept, thrown at us much like a ghost story. [...]


I wonder whether even such axioms as the the ones that follow would be accepted by this person as "proper foundations" for a system of thought :)

Axiom 1: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
Axiom 2: If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.
Axiom 3: If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
Axiom 4: Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
Axiom 5: The whole is greater than the part.
Postulate 1: It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.
Postulate 2: It is possible to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
Postulate 3: It is possible to describe a circle with any center and any radius.
Postulate 4: It is true that all right angles are equal to one another.
Postulate 5: It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, intersect on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

It is often and erroneously asserted that Euclid's parallel postulate is equivalent to Playfair's axiom, named after the Scottish mathematician John Playfair, stating that "Exactly one line can be drawn through any point not on a given line parallel to the given line." This axiom is actually more powerful than Euclid's parallel postulate, as it assumes that a single parallel line exists. This does not follow from Euclid's postulate. In fact, it is possible to develop spherical geometry without contradicting the parallel postulate, as it does not assert that the lines will not meet again on the side of the obtuse interior angles. Euclid himself believed he had shown in his Proposition 1.27 that parallel lines exist independently of the parallel postulate, which would have ruled out spherical geometry. However this proof depends on an implicit assumption made in Proposition 1.16 which Euclid does not appear to have recognized. This assumption along with the parallel postulate are together equivalent to Playfair's axiom.

Some of the other statements that are equivalent to the parallel postulate or to Playfair's axiom appear at first to be unrelated to parallelism. Some even seem so self-evident that they were unconsciously assumed by people who claimed to have proven the parallel postulate from Euclid's other postulates. Here are some of these results:

- The sum of the angles in every triangle is 180°.
- There exists a triangle whose angles add up to 180°.
- The sum of the angles is the same for every triangle.
- There exists a pair of similar, but not congruent, triangles.
- Every triangle can be circumscribed.
- If three angles of a quadrilateral are right angles, then the fourth angle is also a right angle.
- There exists a quadrilateral of which all angles are right angles.
- There exists a pair of straight lines that are at constant distance from each other.
- Two lines that are parallel to the same line are also parallel to each other.
- Given two parallel lines, any line that intersects one of them also intersects the other.
- In a right-angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides (Pythagoras' Theorem).
- There is no upper limit to the area of a triangle.

However, the alternatives which employ the word "parallel" cease appearing so simple when one is obliged to explain which of the three common definitions of "parallel" is meant - constant separation, never meeting or same angles where crossed by a third line -- since the equivalence of these three is itself one of the unconsciously obvious assumptions equivalent to Euclid's fifth postulate.

Two alternatives to the parallel postulate are possible in non-Euclidean geometries: either an infinite number of parallel lines can be drawn through a point not on a straight line in a hyperbolic geometry (also called Lobachevskian geometry), or none can in an elliptic geometry (also called Riemannian geometry). That other geometries could be logically consistent was one of the most important discoveries in mathematics, with vast implications for science and philosophy. Indeed, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity shows that the real space in which we live is non-Euclidean.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/731/figure1ow3.jpg)
The parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry states, for two dimensions, that given a line l and a point P not on l, there is exactly one line through P that does not intersect l, i.e., that is parallel to l. In hyperbolic geometry there are at least 2 distinct lines through P which do not intersect l, so the parallel postulate is false. Models have been constructed within Euclidean geometry that obey the axioms of hyperbolic geometry, thus proving that the parallel postulate is independent of the other postulates of Euclid.

(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1324/600pxhyperbolictrianglejz9.jpg)
A triangle immersed in a saddle-shape plane (a hyperbolic paraboloid), as well as two diverging ultraparallel lines.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: edta on January 01, 2008, 12:56:31 PM

I fled to US because of a blood vendettas. I damaged family honour, we are Muslim and I fell in love and married a Catholic without family permission. My brothers have sworn they will kill us and our two children. It is the law of the place where we lived. They have already killed my brother-in-law. These are strict, codes of laws governing marriage, birth, death, hospitality and inheritance, which has been handed down orally through the generations and used as a system for administering justice, in territories historically remained isolated from central government law.

Do you think we'll be given asylum in the US? We've already filed but are not sure whether we'll be approved or not.


What a drag! I read some time ago about this Turkish woman who basically was saying that the notion of a sexually active woman is as utterly taboo even there, as it is in far more fundamentalist Muslim countries, like Pakistan, for instance. The process of Turkish accession to the European Union may well require a wholesale modernization of the country's attitudes to women and freedom of expression. Case in point, a high number of people living in Turkey today regard virginity as crucial and would not contemplate the idea that their daughter might have sex before marriage!!! In some cases, this morality may well be utter hypocrisy -- after all, many sexually active young women visit some back-street doctor for a bit of "corrective" surgery before marriage -- yet, for the majority of Turkish women losing her virginity means a lot.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: burka on January 01, 2008, 02:18:22 PM
Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monnies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiatiors. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: 39729 on January 08, 2008, 01:11:24 PM
Wow, a very interesting expose, burka!
Title: Re: The Sexual Commune
Post by: al so on February 05, 2008, 12:04:20 PM


Hierarchical, authoritarian institutions tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both "respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so called "Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who support the status quo.


So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.


The very fluidity and temporality of networks created proves to be one of the fortes, instead of a downside, of the arrangement indeed.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: GSSG on February 08, 2008, 01:32:49 PM

[...]There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


Interesting twist!

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Bence J. on February 09, 2008, 01:01:09 PM

[...]There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


Interesting twist!


"Twist," GSSG?!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: cen on March 18, 2008, 11:31:41 AM
Here it is a course related to the thread's subject

http://cgi2.www.law.umich.edu/_classschedule/aboutcourse.asp?crse_id=030026
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: vignette on March 31, 2008, 03:53:45 PM
Here it is a course related to the thread's subject

http://cgi2.www.law.umich.edu/_classschedule/aboutcourse.asp?crse_id=030026


Interesting, cen, I did not know such a course existed in the first place!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: y s a on June 13, 2008, 11:52:38 AM

[...] In some cases, this morality may well be utter hypocrisy -- after all, many sexually active young women visit some back-street doctor for a bit of "corrective" surgery before marriage -- yet, for the majority of Turkish women losing her virginity means a lot.


Actually the state should pay for sexually active women to revert to virginity (or at least pay for an operation that will allow them to give the impression that they are virgins). France does, even though France is such a militantly secular nation that hijabs are banned in school, and even though the only women interested in "hymenoplasty," as the procedure is known, are Muslims for whose intended husbands their non-virginity will be a deal-breaker. Dr. Bernard Paniel is an obstetrician-gynecologist for France's public health system, and over many years has become the go-to guy for Muslim women who need to be "mended" before their wedding night, or face the wrath of their shamed, traditionally-minded grooms and the probable annulment of their marriage.  Dr. Paniel "mends" about 30 broken hymens a year with a simple procedure that can be performed with a local anesthetic. He considers himself the "oil in the machine" that allows tradition to carry on, and is teaching the procedure, which he learned as a visiting doctor in a Tunisian hospital in the 1960s, to his younger colleagues. Dr. Paniel doesn't issue "virginity certificates" as some of his colleagues do, but perhaps just as controversially -- and resulting in the same effect -- he does provide his patients with vials of blood to produce on their wedding night. It is an understatement to observe that such (in our culture) medieval-era proofs of virginity -- blood on the wedding night sheets displayed to witnesses -- is utterly outmoded, a relic of pre-enlightened times in Judaism and Christianity. But the continuing, and consequential fixation with virginity amongst observant Muslim men is a reality, and the practice of hymenoplasty has now become a legal and political hot chestnut in France.

For in April a court in the northern French city of Lille annulled a marriage between a convert to Islam and a French woman of North African provenance on the grounds that her husband had discovered on their wedding night that she was not a virgin. It is expected that the ruling will encourage Muslim men with retrograde views of women's obligations to believe the state supports their perspective. This will escalate demands for premarital virginity inspections, which in turn will up the demand for hymenoplasties. The verdict was only made public two weeks ago, and it is causing a ferment of denunciation. Last week 150 members of the European Parliament denounced the ruling as an act of "serious regression." Those who stand to lose the most from the ruling are modern Muslim women. The Muslim women's rights group "Ni putes ni Soumises" (neither prostitutes nor submissive) claim surgeons performing the intervention have overstepped their professional bounds. Illustrating this well-taken point, gynecologist Jacques Milliez, head of the ethics committee of the London-based International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, admits that he routinely issues certificates attesting to the "virginity" of his patients, and says many other colleagues do as well, whether the women are sexually active or not. Sihem Habchi, the group's president,  asks: "Does it really help? Doesn't it just bolster this tradition and this hypocrisy?" Dr. Milliez justifies his actions on the grounds that he is saving women from being ostracized by their communities. Nevertheless he is worried about the effects of the ruling and is organizing a "summit" around the procedure's ethics to be held in October.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: multiplechoice on August 02, 2008, 08:26:14 PM

[...] Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

[...]


Interesting, could you please elaborate a bit more on this?


sinus, my brother, what kind of @ # ! * i n' elaboration do you think it's needed?! You are saying it all yourself!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: just sex on August 07, 2008, 09:19:51 PM

Think of all the fun I've missed
Think of all the fellas that I haven't kissed
Next year I could be just as good
If you'd check off my Christmas list
Boo doo bee doo


Great signature, downthechimney!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: mapit on August 16, 2008, 11:48:49 AM

.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)


??
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: grand/grand on August 26, 2008, 02:02:56 PM

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: rent a car on August 27, 2008, 11:13:59 AM

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."


Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Quote
Linus: I'm aware of my tongue... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up... I can't help it... I can't put it out of my mind... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth...

Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: m a y a on August 29, 2008, 12:19:41 PM

Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Quote
Linus: I'm aware of my tongue... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up... I can't help it... I can't put it out of my mind... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth...

Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.


No offense to Sartre and company, but I was feeling exactly like the guy he writes about when I was homeless a couple of years back!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: small turkey man on August 29, 2008, 04:40:34 PM

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."


Living a life defined by one's occupation, social, racial or economic class, is the very faith of "bad faith", the condition in which people cannot transcend their situations in order to realize what they must be (human) and what they are not. It is also essential for an existent to understand that negation allows the self to enter what Sartre calls the "great human stream". The great human stream arises from a singular realization that nothingness is a state of mind in which we can become anything, in reference to our situation, that we desire. Additionally, an important tenet of bad faith is that we must enact a bit of good faith in order to take advantage of our role to reach an authentic existence. The authentic domain of bad faith, is realizing that the role we are playing is the lie. The goal of authenticity can be traced back to the works of Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground who is often declared "The Grandfather of existentialism". To live and project into the future as a project of a self, while keeping out of bad faith and living by the will of the self is living life authentically. This is perhaps one of the main goals of Sartre's opus.

One of the most important implications of bad faith is the abolition of traditional ethics and morality. As being a "moral person" requires one to deny authentic impulses (everything that makes us human) and change one's actions on the will of another person. Being a moral person is one of the most severe forms of bad faith. Essentially Sartre characterizes this as "the faith of bad faith" which is and should not be, in Sartre's opinion, at the heart of their existence. Sartre has a very low opinion of conventional morality for this reason, condemning it as a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the masses. Examples such as signs that say "Keep Off The Grass" deriving "its being from its exigency and not its exigency from its being."

The Look

The mere appearance of another person causes one to look at him/herself as an object, and see his/her world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, it is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others. Sartre describes being alone in a park, at this time, all relations in the park (e.g. the bench is between two trees) are available, accessible and occurring -- for him. When another person arrives in the park, there is now a relation between that person and the bench, and this is not entirely available to him. The relation is presented as an object (e.g. man glances at watch), but is really not an object, it cannot be known. It flees from him. The other person is a "drainhole" in the world, they disintegrate the relations of which Sartre was earlier the absolute centre. This transformation is most clear when one sees a mannequin that they confuse for a real person for a moment.

Quote
While they are believing it is a person, their world is transformed, and everything exists as an object that partially escapes them. During this time the world comes on to you differently, and you can no longer have a total subjectivity. The world is now his world, a foreign world that no longer comes from you, but from him. The other person is a "threat to the order and arrangement of your whole world…Your world is suddenly haunted by the Other's values, over which you have no control."

When they realise it is a mannequin, and is not subjective, the world seems to transfer back, and they are again in the center.


This is back to the pre-reflective mode of being, it is "the eye of the camera that is always present but is never seen". The person is occupied, and too busy for self-reflection. This process is continual and unavoidable. Subjectivity is competitive. This explains why it can be difficult to look someone in the eye. Sartre does mention another man in the park who is reading a newspaper. This man is different because he is so engaged in a project, that he allows himself to be completely the object -- "a man reading."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: in lieu of on August 29, 2008, 06:43:54 PM

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!


Are you being sarcastic? If that's the case, I seriously urge you to reconsider your position, attitude and words!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: c l o g on September 02, 2008, 08:56:53 PM

[...]

Like authenticity, the topic of fate recurs throughout NBK. "Do you believe in fate?" is one of the first questions that Mickey asks Mallory. During the conversation in the prison after Mickey has been apprehended for grand theft, he tells Mallory that nothing can stop fate. (Fate is defined as the inevitability of a course of events predetermined by God or other agency beyond human control. Fatalism is the acceptance of all events as inevitable.) He also describes himself to Wayne Gayle as "fate's messenger." Mickey is a fatalist, which is to say that he accepts all events as inevitable. As a result, he is unburdened by any sense of responsibility for his actions. Ironically, it is Mickey's rejection of the concept of free will that makes him so free to be authentic. In his world all events are determined by factors beyond his control, thus the concepts of good and evil or guilt and innocence, are artificial constructs. This theory was also that of Nietzsche, who rejected free will and joyfully embraced fatalism. Nietzsche writes:

Quote
The fable of intelligible freedom: Now one finally discovers that this human nature, too, cannot be accountable, in as much as it is a necessary consequence and assembled from the elements and influences of things past and present: That is to say that man can be made accountable for nothing, not for his nature, nor for his motives, nor for his actions, nor for the effects he produces. One has thereby attained to the knowledge that the history of the moral sensations is the history of an error, the error of accountability which rests on the error of freedom of the will...The proposition is as clear as daylight, and yet here everyone prefers to retreat back into the shadows and untruth: from fear of the consequences.

Like Nietzsche's superman, Mickey embraces fatalism and places himself beyond the categories of good and evil. Unburdened by guilt and responsibility, he is free do whatever he wants. Needless to say, Mickey is an unsavory example of what denial of free will and personal responsibility might lead to. As Nietzsche points out, the arguments against free will are very convincing but one is loathe to accept them because of the possible consequences. For Nietzsche, human beings have not only an instinct to survive, they incessantly strive to amplify and intensify their life experience and constantly endeavor to express their own vitality and strength. [...]


In Gay Science, Nietzsche puts the news of God's death in the mouth of a madman. People take no notice of him -- yet the image is striking: he carries a lantern in the morning, searching everywhere for God who cannot be found.

We have killed him, you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Realizing that no one believes him, the madman considers the bystanders: "I come too early. My time has not yet come. This great event is still on its way, still traveling; it has not yet reached the ears of men... This deed os still more distant from them than the most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves." Later that day, he visits the churches in the town and sings a requiem aeternam deo. "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: marshallah on September 03, 2008, 04:39:40 PM

[...]

Like Nietzsche's superman, Mickey embraces fatalism and places himself beyond the categories of good and evil. Unburdened by guilt and responsibility, he is free do whatever he wants. Needless to say, Mickey is an unsavory example of what denial of free will and personal responsibility might lead to. As Nietzsche points out, the arguments against free will are very convincing but one is loathe to accept them because of the possible consequences. For Nietzsche, human beings have not only an instinct to survive, they incessantly strive to amplify and intensify their life experience and constantly endeavor to express their own vitality and strength. [...]


A virtuous (i.e. good) person is praised by others for the good he does to them. The virtues -- obedience, chastity, justness, industriousness, etc. -- will actually harm the person who possesses them! If you possess a virtue... you are its victim! Thus we praise virtue in others because we derive advantages from it.

And as far as moral beliefs are concerned, they are always group beliefs, and the group is greater than any dissenting individual. With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the mass. Moral censure and control can only emerge through social consensus. Morality is thus the herd-instinct in the individual. It represents the power of those who are individually weak but collectively strong. Their moral laws will (they hope) protect them, as well as justify them and the way they live.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: happy accident on September 04, 2008, 08:00:06 PM

In Gay Science, Nietzsche puts the news of God's death in the mouth of a madman. People take no notice of him -- yet the image is striking: he carries a lantern in the morning, searching everywhere for God who cannot be found.

We have killed him, you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Realizing that no one believes him, the madman considers the bystanders: "I come too early. My time has not yet come. This great event is still on its way, still traveling; it has not yet reached the ears of men... This deed os still more distant from them than the most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves." Later that day, he visits the churches in the town and sings a requiem aeternam deo. "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"


(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1113/godisdeadpostermt6.jpg)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: saysesame on September 04, 2008, 08:26:37 PM

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!


Are you being sarcastic? If that's the case, I seriously urge you to reconsider your position, attitude and words!


Hahaha - you're so funny, in lieu of! ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: le mains sales on September 05, 2008, 07:29:58 PM

In Gay Science, Nietzsche puts the news of God's death in the mouth of a madman. People take no notice of him -- yet the image is striking: he carries a lantern in the morning, searching everywhere for God who cannot be found.

We have killed him, you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Realizing that no one believes him, the madman considers the bystanders: "I come too early. My time has not yet come. This great event is still on its way, still traveling; it has not yet reached the ears of men... This deed os still more distant from them than the most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves." Later that day, he visits the churches in the town and sings a requiem aeternam deo. "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"


(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1113/godisdeadpostermt6.jpg)


Excuse my naďvité, but what does the bike stand for?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: cosinger on September 08, 2008, 02:21:59 PM

A virtuous (i.e. good) person is praised by others for the good he does to them. The virtues -- obedience, chastity, justness, industriousness, etc. -- will actually harm the person who possesses them! If you possess a virtue... you are its victim! Thus we praise virtue in others because we derive advantages from it.

And as far as moral beliefs are concerned, they are always group beliefs, and the group is greater than any dissenting individual. With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the mass. Moral censure and control can only emerge through social consensus. Morality is thus the herd-instinct in the individual. It represents the power of those who are individually weak but collectively strong. Their moral laws will (they hope) protect them, as well as justify them and the way they live.


It is difficult for people to accept that human nature might be aggressive to the point of being called "evil." The introduction of the death drive has some fundamental implications not only for drive theory, but also for the psychoanalytic view of culture and religion. Christians invented the devil as a way to account for evil; the problem with this explanation is that God would also be responsible for the devil's existence.

Now culture serves as a tool to neutralize aggression. This is achieved by turning aggression back against the ego, and the instrument for this inversion is the superego. Freud writes:

Quote
Aggressiveness is introjected, internalized, it is, in point of fact, sent back to where it came from, that is, it is directed against his own ego. There it is taken over by a portion of the ego, which sets itself over against the rest of the ego as super-ego, and which now, in the form of conscience, is ready to put into action against the ego the same harsh aggressiveness that the ego would have liked to satisfy upon other, extraneous individuals. The tension between the harsh super-ego and the ego that is subjected to it, is called by us the sense of guilt; it expresses itself as a need for punishment. Civilization therefore obtains mastery over the individuals dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.
 

The garrison is the superego, the conquered city is the ego, and the attacking army is civilization insofar as it provokes the ego’s aggression through the demand for drive renunciation. Human nature itself is under attack because it is now seen as dangerous. The conflict that characterizes the human being is the clash between the pursuit of happiness and aggressiveness, and this creates a barely civilized, ferocious animal, endowed with reason. For Freud, civilization is a means of protection against the human being’s very own nature; and sometimes this mechanism can fail.

The existing social and political organizations are the products of a given society's efforts to domesticate this fundamental aggression, but sometimes the struggle is lost, and the resulting madness in the name of a state or an ideology can become unimaginable. Freud knows from his own experience what political repression and discrimination is, but he does not endorse Marxism or any other philosophies of liberation, although he strongly sympathizes with the critique of capitalism and of the poverty that results from it. Freud wants to explore the mechanism behind the superego as precisely as possible. For him, guilt has two sources: the fear of external authority and the fear in relation to one's own superego. The second source is crueler, because one cannot hide the intentions to do bad things from it. This impossibility heightens the fear in relation to the superego and produces the consciousness of being a sinner. Occasionally, such a person wishes to be punished as a way to discharge the feelings of guilt, even if no crime or violation of the law is committed. From the standpoint of the superego, no actual wrongdoing has to be committed in order to judge the subject as bad: the actual deed and the intention to commit it are not very different for an intra-psychic agency.   

External authority can be satisfied through an act of drive renunciation, but, since drive renunciation in most cases does not eliminate the wish, the superego will continue to cause a sense of guilt, which leads to the need for punishment. At this point, the direction of causation changes. Initially, the superego is conceived of as the continuation of external authority through an act of identification and internalization, and therefore it causes drive renunciation.  At some point, however, the process becomes inverted. The presence of the superego causes even more guilt, and this leads to drive renunciation beyond the originally necessary amount. The superego has now gained a certain independence and feeds itself on the inhibition that it effects in the operation of the drives. The reversal is best understood from an economical viewpoint: drive energy that is not released due to drive renunciation is taken over by the superego and turned against the ego. Freud explains this process in the following passage, which contains some remarkable statements.

Quote
By means of identification he takes the unattackable authority (of the father, JB) into himself. The authority now turns into his super-ego and enters into possession of all the aggressiveness which a child would have liked to exercise against it. The child's ego has to content itself with the unhappy role of the authority – the father – who has been thus degraded. Here, as so often, the real situation is reversed: 'If I were the father and you were the child, I should treat you badly.' The relationship between the super-ego and the ego is a return, distorted by a wish, of the real relationships between the ego, as yet undivided, and an external object. That is typical, too. But the essential difference is that the original severity of the super-ego does not – or does not so much – represent the severity which one has experienced from him (the father), or which one attributes to him; it represents rather one's own aggressiveness towards him. If this is correct, we may assert truly that in the beginning conscience arises through the suppression of an aggressive impulse, and that it is subsequently reinforced by fresh suppressions of the same kind.

The identification with the external authority leads to a split within the subject. The ego itself remains identified with the real father, who appears now, after the creation of the superego, as degraded authority. The creation of the superego reverses the direction of the original aggression back against the subject. An external threat becomes internalized; this process enhances the subject's primary aggression and distorts the perception of the threat: What the subject experiences in relation to the external threat is not so much the real situation but the strength of its own aggression against it. Conscience arises thus from the suppression of an aggressive impulse and increases in strength with each successive repression.

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: batteries not included on September 10, 2008, 06:29:11 PM

The Look

[...] Sartre describes being alone in a park, at this time, all relations in the park (e.g. the bench is between two trees) are available, accessible and occurring -- for him. When another person arrives in the park, there is now a relation between that person and the bench, and this is not entirely available to him. The relation is presented as an object (e.g. man glances at watch), but is really not an object, it cannot be known. It flees from him. The other person is a "drainhole" in the world, they disintegrate the relations of which Sartre was earlier the absolute centre. This transformation is most clear when one sees a mannequin that they confuse for a real person for a moment. While they are believing it is a person, their world is transformed, and everything exists as an object that partially escapes them. During this time the world comes on to you differently, and you can no longer have a total subjectivity. The world is now his world, a foreign world that no longer comes from you, but from him. The other person is a threat to the order and arrangement of your whole world ... Your world is suddenly haunted by the Other's values, over which you have no control. When they realize it is a mannequin, and is not subjective, the world seems to transfer back, and they are again in the center.


Man, Sartre is so full of nothing - I mean when you go to a park there is this tendency on your part to socialize with people, not consider them "drainholes" and the like!

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Teach Me Tiger on October 07, 2008, 06:31:34 PM

Actually the state should pay for sexually active women to revert to virginity (or at least pay for an operation that will allow them to give the impression that they are virgins). France does, even though France is such a militantly secular nation that hijabs are banned in school, and even though the only women interested in "hymenoplasty," as the procedure is known, are Muslims for whose intended husbands their non-virginity will be a deal-breaker. Dr. Bernard Paniel is an obstetrician-gynecologist for France's public health system, and over many years has become the go-to guy for Muslim women who need to be "mended" before their wedding night, or face the wrath of their shamed, traditionally-minded grooms and the probable annulment of their marriage.  Dr. Paniel "mends" about 30 broken hymens a year with a simple procedure that can be performed with a local anesthetic. He considers himself the "oil in the machine" that allows tradition to carry on, and is teaching the procedure, which he learned as a visiting doctor in a Tunisian hospital in the 1960s, to his younger colleagues. Dr. Paniel doesn't issue "virginity certificates" as some of his colleagues do, but perhaps just as controversially -- and resulting in the same effect -- he does provide his patients with vials of blood to produce on their wedding night. It is an understatement to observe that such (in our culture) medieval-era proofs of virginity -- blood on the wedding night sheets displayed to witnesses -- is utterly outmoded, a relic of pre-enlightened times in Judaism and Christianity. But the continuing, and consequential fixation with virginity amongst observant Muslim men is a reality, and the practice of hymenoplasty has now become a legal and political hot chestnut in France.

For in April a court in the northern French city of Lille annulled a marriage between a convert to Islam and a French woman of North African provenance on the grounds that her husband had discovered on their wedding night that she was not a virgin. It is expected that the ruling will encourage Muslim men with retrograde views of women's obligations to believe the state supports their perspective. This will escalate demands for premarital virginity inspections, which in turn will up the demand for hymenoplasties. The verdict was only made public two weeks ago, and it is causing a ferment of denunciation. Last week 150 members of the European Parliament denounced the ruling as an act of "serious regression." Those who stand to lose the most from the ruling are modern Muslim women. The Muslim women's rights group "Ni putes ni Soumises" (neither prostitutes nor submissive) claim surgeons performing the intervention have overstepped their professional bounds. Illustrating this well-taken point, gynecologist Jacques Milliez, head of the ethics committee of the London-based International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, admits that he routinely issues certificates attesting to the "virginity" of his patients, and says many other colleagues do as well, whether the women are sexually active or not. Sihem Habchi, the group's president,  asks: "Does it really help? Doesn't it just bolster this tradition and this hypocrisy?" Dr. Milliez justifies his actions on the grounds that he is saving women from being ostracized by their communities. Nevertheless he is worried about the effects of the ruling and is organizing a "summit" around the procedure's ethics to be held in October.


Take it for what it's worth but I know a young woman who'd do it from behind so that she'd remain a virgin; she married her husband when she was 33.
Title: Re: The Sexual Commune
Post by: a g a p e on October 24, 2008, 08:13:34 PM


Hierarchical, authoritarian institutions tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both "respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so called "Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who support the status quo.


So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.


The very fluidity and temporality of networks created proves to be one of the fortes, instead of a downside, of the arrangement indeed.


Could you expand a bit?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: photogenic on October 26, 2008, 06:48:58 PM

In Gay Science, Nietzsche puts the news of God's death in the mouth of a madman. People take no notice of him -- yet the image is striking: he carries a lantern in the morning, searching everywhere for God who cannot be found.

We have killed him, you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Realizing that no one believes him, the madman considers the bystanders: "I come too early. My time has not yet come. This great event is still on its way, still traveling; it has not yet reached the ears of men... This deed os still more distant from them than the most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves." Later that day, he visits the churches in the town and sings a requiem aeternam deo. "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"


(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1113/godisdeadpostermt6.jpg)


The modern world has seemingly undertaken a serious experiment with regard to whether  or not a man can live without any god or religion. "God  is  dead," said Nietzsche. This was the destiny of modern European  civilization  because of science and technology. Rene Descartes is said  to be the founder of modern European philosophy. According to Hegel, Descartes is truly an originator of modern philosophy as long as modern philosophy claims "thought" as its principle.  After he doubted everything, Descartes reached a "thinking ego" whose existence cannot be doubted. This "thinking  ego," that is, reason or intellect, was the starting pointof his philosophy. It was not only the starting point of the Cartesian philosophy, but of the whole  modern philosophy or civilization, insofar as it demands the sundering of mind from nature and a subsequent mechanical conception of nature, and implicitly affirmed the need for, and right of, man to control this nature for his own purposes. Now this event in modern civilization is no longer confined to the European world. European civilization, particularly its science and technology, conquered the whole world by its rich productivity and powerful weapons. There is no country in the world which is not affected by Western science and technology. Thus the fate of the European civilization has become the fate of the whole world.
           
However, as Nietzsche saw,a formidable atheism is inherent in the early stage of modern civilization. "God is not simply dead, but we killed Him." God became useless to man when man developed a complete  trust  in his own reason and set about to exert an absolute  control over the material world at his own will. God is dead, and man and material nature took over the position of God. Dostoevsky, a prophet of historical destiny like Nietzsche, speaks through  the mouth of Ivan: "There is neither God nor immortality. As there is neither God, nor immortality,  man is allowed to do everything." He means that there is no morality without God. Karamazov asked his son Ivan: "Have we been deceived by priests for such a long time if there is neither  God nor immortality (as you say)?" Ivan answered, "There would not be our civilization if there were neither  God nor immortality." As Ivan says, all civilizations heretofore have been founded on religion. However, contrary  to Ivan's  words, a civilization  is now about to be formed  without God and immortality. It is time for us to ask with Dostoevsky: Can man secure his existence in a civilization without God? Will the day come when mankind must pay its debt for indulging in a fantasy? Or will the day of reckoning never come since that day would at once be the day of the total collapse of civilization?
           
Martin Heidegger is neither a proponent for returning to Christianity like Berdyaev or Dawson, nor an atheist like Marx or Sartre. God is dead, and a new god has not yet revealed himself. In order to receive a new god, Heidegger must first prepare a place for him. In order to prepare  the place we should find the place where the old god had revealed himself. The place where the old god had revealed himself is the place for the new god. In Heidegger's philosophy the key issue is whether or not he has discovered the place where the old god had revealed himself and whether or not he has prepared the place for the new god. Is it the case that the place for god argued for by Heidegger is not only appropriate for Christianity, but that it is also an appropriate place for the god in any other religion? Can the place for god thought by Heidegger can be a right place from the viewpoint of Buddhism? The central issue of Heidegger's  philosophy has always been "What  is  being?" "Being" had been regarded as self-evident in the European tradition of thought. But Heidegger throws doubt on "being" when thought of as self-evident. What is being? Being is not simply that which exists. A notebook exists here and a table exists there. But they are not being itself. The distinction between "being itself" and "beings" Heidegger calls the ontological difference.
         
Heidegger thinks that the meaning of "being itself" is to be disclosed through an actual being whose mode of existence is distinctly superior to all other modes of existence. What is this actual being? It is one whose mode of existence  is superior in the sense that it has awareness of its own existence. Heidegger thinks such actual being  is man (Dasein). Thus, Heidegger  claims that we must examine the meaning of Dasein, that is, human existence in order to reach being itself (Sein). What is the meaning of human existence? Heidegger seeks the meaning of Dasein  in terms of time. What he means by "time" is neither time  objectively conceived nor time subjectively perceived. According  to Heidegger, "time" means "finitude." "Finitude"  means "being unto death." This is to say, Dasein is temporal and man, being temporal, is finite, that is, a being unto death. His criticism of ontology since Plato is made from the standpoint  of conceiving human existence in terms of finitude, that is, death. In the  tradition of European ontology, being is sought after through  that which exists (das Seiende), but not through the existence of man (Dasein). Things which exist are projected in such a way that they are simply stared at (begafft) by man. When man becomes the subject who absentmindedly stares  at the world, things look as if they are simply existing before us. Heidegger calls such an existence Vorhandensein. Heidegger thinks that such a manner of conceiving things is due to the  ordinariness of Dasein. Man ordinarily forgets his death which is his essence and lives with this or that thing. Living in this manner, he conceives of being in terms of the function of things.

In contrast to this understanding of existence, Heidegger opens the way for a new understanding of being. It is a way of understanding which reaches being itself through Dasein as the finite   being, that is, the  being unto death. Heidegger in his "Being and Time" refers to this task of understanding as fundamental ontology. He tried to develop this fundamental ontology by adopting the methodology of Husserl's phenomenology, but he came to realize  that it is impossible  to develop his new way of understanding being within a phenomenology whose theme was the analysis of subject-consciousness. The  "turn"  or "reversal" in his thinking (Kehre) seems to begin from this realization.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: photogenic on October 26, 2008, 07:02:33 PM
For the Oriental, natural death is ideal. Man is born from Nature and returns to Nature. Returning  home, returning to the  motherly earth is the ideal of the Orient. The form of death must be painless. 'Saakyamuni Buddha returns in peace into Nature after he has lived for 80 years. In the East the man whose death is not natural is not qualified to be a saint. In this regard the spiritual tradition  of the West differs from that of the East. Here a question  arises as to why a man who was murdered can be the most ideal man in the West. There arises yet another problem. What does the death  of Socrates or Jesus mean in the spiritual history of the  West? The death of Socrates  means neither the mere end of his life, nor a return to nothingness, in the Buddhist sense. Socrates, facing death, proved the immortality of the soul.  And he died  without  fear, as if he were  going  to another splendid world. The soul which cognizes the eternal is also eternal like the eternal Idea. If the soul is eternal, it does not fade away at death. Facing death Socrates imagines the realm of the spirit awaiting his soul.  Death here does not mean the returning to nothingness as in the case of Buddha. Death, for Socrates, is an assurance of eternal life for man.
           
In the case of Jesus Christ, his death also does not mean returning to nothingness. Jesus was the Son of God. As the Son of God, Jesus is essentially immortal. His Crucifixion was to atone for the sin of man. But he was resurrected from death and he will come again to bring the Kingdom of God. Such death cannot  mean what death truly means. His death is to mean the proof  for eternal life -- it is a much more decisive  proof  than Socrates' death. Through His death the atonement for man's sin as well as immortality of the soul are promised. Jesus is in eternal Heaven after the Resurrection. Through Him man may ascend to eternal Heaven. In other words, man is promised his eternal life as well as the coming of the new Kingdom of God. The death of Jesus promises much more than that of Socrates. If such is the case, we would  think  as follows: The  two deaths as the highlights of European tradition are not death as we understand it. They are seemingly  deaths, but they are in fact proofs for eternal life. Through those two deaths eternity is brought into the European world.       
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: dearlove on October 27, 2008, 02:01:44 PM
Great expose, photogenic, but what relation does it bear to Eastern thought? That's what what's at point here.

An unexamined belief in Western philosophy is that "things" change over a linear time sequence. Eastern writers have challenged this notion, saying that a belief in time as a past, a present, and a future is just another conceptual illusion which is a result of physical attachment, and instead propose an ever-present. Time is illusory, urging us to aim for the eternal now, beyond space and time. In Heidegger, as in Western tradition generally, man has to awaken to an authentic mode of historical existence, to an awareness and acceptance of his essential facticity and mortality. Man remains the mortal man of finitude. There is no complete surrender and merger, or even loss of self, in Heidegger's thinking. More specifically, there is Heidegger's discussion of temporality. Temporality is the foundational structure of Dasein's Being (i.e., of existentiality, facticity, and fallenness) and does not consist of the linear passing of discrete "now-points." The past, the present, and the future do not follow one another in sequence. Rather, they exist simultaneously in a dynamic process in which each gives rise to the other. Consider, for example how a patient in psychotherapy "lives" both his or her past and future in the present. Lastly, consider the Hindu belief that consciousness transcends the individual. Consciousness is generally believed to be a relatively private matter; that is, each one of us is "conscious," but each consciousness is unique to that person and is in no way shared by others. In Hindu thought, however, individualized ego consciousness is considered to be only a partial manifestation of a more global condition. The universe and all that comprises it is made up of consciousness, not a personal consciousness of, but pure consciousness.

At first glance, Heidegger's notion of consciousness appears to be very similar to the Eastern conceptualization. Dasein's consciousness (Being) does not rest simply within but reaches out beyond itself and toward the world and other beings. For Heidegger as a phenomenologist, however, consciousness is always a consciousness of something; that is, consciousness is intentional. It always has an object. Dasein, however, not only reaches out and transcends itself in this fashion, it is also conscious of Being, since it is Being that allows Dasein to exist, or to be as it is. Even though Heidegger seems to be constantly dwelling in the vicinity of the mystical and of self-transcendence, he does not speak explicitly of the mystical union as an experiential moment of eternity. Rather, for Heidegger, there is a mystical openness possible in authentic Dasein for the calling and depth of Being manifesting in things as an experience of meditative thinking, of reflective quietude, still ontologically conceived rather than exponentially and existentially described. Heidegger conceives of the task as one of bringing revealed Being into language, of saying the unsaid, of thinking the unthought, of bringing the event of Being into language. His own meditative thinking discourse is done in terms of
concrete universals, a marriage of poetic and philosophical diction.
Title: Heidegger and Eastern Thought
Post by: d e a r l o v e on October 27, 2008, 02:44:15 PM
There is a shared "striving" in both to transcend the world of opposites and subject-object separation and to encounter and make contact with true Being and reality. Whereas in the Eastern tradition this involves a rigorous working on oneself in the social context of a school of meditational practice under the guidance of a master, for Heidegger it is the articulation of a personal path of thinking that can show the way. There are, of course, also a number of differences between the world of Heidegger and that of Eastern, especially Hindu, thinking. The doctrines of reincarnation and karma find no correspondence in Heidegger's thinking, and the experience of personal enlightenment in meditation is not entered into explicitly by Heidegger. But there is sufficient similarity in the radicality of both traditions to warrant continuing comparison and dialogue. There is the shared vision and effort to break the self-limiting boundaries of human rational intelligence, the vision of metaphysics, and a mindfulness as a whole in order to establish once again a more vital, inspired, and primordial relationship with all beings and the ground of Being in the form of the awareness of one's involvement in the "cosmotheandric network of relationships" which Dasein is.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern traditions also transcend a secular-materialistic point of view, and insist on the reality of height/depth, or "theo-dimension" which lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary everyday existence, and yet carries more weight, significance, power, and value. The modem world has seemingly undertaken a serious experiment with regard to whether or not a man can live without any god or religion. Heidegger attempts to provide a new spiritual foundation in trans-denominational terms: he proposes a new philosophical problem to the entire world in two ways. It is in one sense an inquiry into the foundation of the novel spiritual situation where nihilism is latent within the European scientific civilization, a civilization which nonetheless has succeeded in unifying the whole world. But this civilization lacks a spiritual foundation. In exposing European scientific civilization to total criticism, Heidegger is perhaps one of the first thinkers of the West to provide a place of dialogue and confrontation between the European principle and the non-European principle.

For psychology, this new and emergent philosophico-religious anthropology, the result of an East-West integration, that reveals that man is the being concerned about the meaning of his own being and the meaning of Being, offers us a new starting point. We realize that man lives out his ontic/ontological concerns in the way in which he dwells and shapes his life and world into a harmonious, ecological balancing of the powers of earth and sky and the interplay of the mortals and the divinities. In the discussion of "the thing," Heidegger elaborates a little on these powers, but their evocation and circumscription remain suggestive and groping for expression carried by a deep mystical intuition:

Quote
Earth is the building bearer, nourishing with its fruits, tending water and rock, plant and animal. When we say earth, we are already thinking of the other three along with it by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The sky is the sun's path, the course of the moon, the glitter of the stars, the year's seasons, the light and dusk of day, the gloom and glow of night, the clemency and inclemency of the weather, the drifting clouds and blue depth of the ether. When we say sky, we are already thinking of the other three along with it by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The divinities are the beckoning messengers of the godhead. Out of the hidden sway of the divinities the god emerges as what he is, which removes him from any comparison with beings that are present. When we speak of the divinities, we are already thinking of the other three along with them by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The mortals are human beings. They are called mortals because they can die. To die means to be capable of death as death. Only man dies. The animal perishes. It has death neither ahead of itself nor behind it. Death is the shrine of Nothing, that is, of that which in every respect is never something that merely exists, but which nevertheless presences, even as the mystery of Being itself. As the shrine of Nothing, death harbors within itself the presencing of Being. As the shrine of Nothing, death is the shelter of Being.... When we say mortals, we are then thinking of the other three along with them by way of the simple oneness of the four.


Heidegger's style and rhythm, four times repeating the unity of the four: "When we say....," feels like a hymn or even a prayer to the quaternion, the fourfold field of tensions that constitutes our sacred openness, our world. Heidegger's new image of man as the shepherd of Being, the steward of the earth, the builder and custodian of culture, gives us a calling, a vision, a task. It is in our hands to create a way of living which might truly be called dwelling.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern traditions are concerned with the liberation of man from the restrictive and self-limiting habits of his own cultural mind, from inauthentic modes of being and thinking. Both agree that we need a transhuman theo-dimension in the region beyond depth and beyond height, beyond human willfulness, which is the source of illumination, fulfillment, and truth for man — the transpersonal. Both traditions develop paths toward liberation. For the Eastern ways, this is a peak-experience in consciousness that completely transforms one's relationship to the world and reality as a whole. For Heidegger, the path is one of thinking oneself through into a great simplicity of openness to the revelation of Being. Heidegger makes a double move — for all of us — and thus radically changes our perception of and our participation in reality. First, he jumps into the gap, the in-between of the subject-object split, and bridges the rift with his understanding of Dasein as beingin-the-world, as unfolding relationship, as event. Second, Heidegger makes a figure-ground gestalt-switch by saying: Let the figures go (the beings, the ten thousand things), attend to the ground (Being); go beyond theory and metaphysics, beyond concepts and representations, beyond story and originary myth, beyond names, into the splendid openness and fullness of Being, into a new presence to the real. Heidegger calls this new mode of presence meditative thinking. Is it also embodied poetic presence?

It was probably an important part of his life when Heidegger returned to his simple hut in his mountains, forests, and high meadows and the life of elemental nature which found such eloquent voice in his later works. There he found the splendor of the simple still present, far from the madding crowd, in the participation in a holistic way of life in the flow of the seasons and the processes of nature, within the precincts of the Zen monastery or in the temple of selfregenerative nature. His advice on how to deal with technology was releasement (Gelassenheit) and openness to the mystery (Offenheit für das Geheimnis), a change in attitude, but basically a non-interfering observance. But we also live in the urban modernity powered by the calculative thinking of technology and its overpowering success.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern attitudes are somewhat nostalgic and reactionary in their call for quiet, for a return to the simple and essential. Their vision and practice for modern man has to remain a counterpoint, a counterfoil, perhaps, a co-existing alternative. Just as work and celebration are rhythmically organized in the calendar in weekdays and sabbath, so we can institute a new day for the working-recreating-celebrating presence to nature — Country Day — if we are drawn into this way so akin to Heidegger and the East. Everybody can institute this in his own calendar, as an act of freedom of choice, as a space of time in which dwelling in the fullness of Being, the foursome giving rise to the teeming of life in ecological proliferation and wonder, can be easily actualized. We are and live and dwell between Earth and Heaven in the tension between Mortality and Divinity, and this living realization still flourishes easily in the environs of our heartlands, in the play of the elements in the wild.

May this be the secret and unspoken spiritual practice of Martin Heidegger; be the path that is available to almost everybody? And is this practice, born from the marriage of Zen and Western fundamental-ontological thinking, not ongoing in many places? Heidegger and the Eastern traditions offer Western psychology a new and ancient value-orientation, a new and ancient posture of gratefulness, of thanksgiving to Being and the powers in which we find ourselves. They offer us liberation through an expanded vision of human life including the spiritual dimensions beyond ordinary rationality. Heidegger and the Eastern sages offer us a vision for a psychology of Being, for a psychology of higher life, for a psychology of genius, of creation, of vision, of inspiration, of revelation, of "theo-psychology," which lies close to the heart of man's life.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: kehre on October 28, 2008, 04:10:50 PM

In 1282, the French Angevins "held a tight grip on Sicily," and a secret society arose to defeat this oppressive organization. The battle cry of this rebellious group was: "morte alla Francia Italia anelia!" (Italian for "death to the French is Italy's cry!"), and if the first letters of the verse are taken, the anagram MAFIA is deciphered. The word Mafia was first published in 1862 in a play by Giuseppe Rizzuto, called "I Mafiosi della Vicaria" (The Mafia in the Vicarage") about a secret criminal group in the prisons of Palermo. In Sicily, the word mafia tends to mean "manly", and is often applied to someone without necessaily meaning they were a criminal. Sicily has had to adapt to numerous invasions: Arabs in the ninth century, Norman's in the 11th century, French in the 12th, Spanish in the 15th, as well as invasions by the Germans, Austrians and Greeks. Secret societies in the hills were needed to resist foreign rulers. These societies were formed not only to try and defeat the French rulers but also to protect and feed the Italian families in the villages of Palermo and surrounding areas. Since most of the villagers were related, each village picked a member to head their family. These heads of families were called (capodecina or capos for short). The capodecina would pick men from the village to take with him to the hills. Before the men left for the hills they would have to pledge their loyalty, support and Omertá . The oath in English sounded like this:

"I (NAME GIVEN) want to enter into this secret organization to protect my family and to protect my brothers. ""morte alla Francia Italia anelia!" With my blood. (A knife is used to place a cut on the right index finger or hand) and the blood of all the saints, and the souls of my children. (The sign of the cross is made) I swear not to divulge this secret and to obey with love and omerta. I enter alive into this organization and leave it only in death."

1. A code of silence - Never to "rat out" any mafia member. Never to divulge any mafia secrets. Even if they were threatened by torture or death.

2. Complete obedience to the boss - Obey the boss's orders, no matter what.

3. Assistance - To provide any necessary assistance to any other respected or befriended mafia faction.

4. Vengeance - Any attacks on family members must be avenged. "An attack on one is an attack on all."

5. Avoid contact with the authorities.

Once safe in the hills, all the capodecina's would get together and pick someone to be in charge of all the members of this secret society. The head of all the members was called (Capo di tutti capi) the boss of all the families. Food was scarce, conditions deplorable, the French controlled everything and if you didn't do what the French Angevins wanted, they would torture and kill you. The members of the society would raid supplies and weapons from the French and distribute their wares throughout the villages. They had to operate in complete secrecy. This was necessary to protect the members and their families from torture. This was an honorable society in the fact that you had to believe totally in the cause and be willing to die to protect the members. The villagers also respected and honored the soldiers from the hills. They knew there was a chance for freedom from the French but only if they remained silent about their fellow Italians in the hills. Joining the society was like joining a religion. It was a lifetime commitment, stronger than any ties to other religions, state or even family. You could not retire from it. This society has survived through centuries, it is secret and only members know other members. No one would ever admit to being a member nor tell you who other members are. That would violate Omertá and be punishable by death. Throughout the centuries the leaders and soldiers have changed the society, some for the better, some for the worst. The men from the hills once stole to feed and protect their families and friends. They were very good at it. So good, they ended up with more food and supplies then they could ever use. In order to get things that they could not steal; they traded with mainland Italy and other countries. This was the start of the black market. The society has always been a powerful force in Italy. Not everyone in the society is a criminal nor are all Italians in the society.

What Americans call Mafia in this country [the American branch of the mafia, named La Costra Nostra ], is believed to be started by Don Vito Cascio Ferro, who fled to New York following the murder of banker Emanuele Notarbartolo in Sicily, in 1893. More society members fled to America during the 1920s, when Mussolini attempted to eradicate the Mafia in Sicily. When the Allies liberated Italy in World War II, they freed anti Mussolini prisoners, including many society members. Some were installed in positions of power, and thus began to interweave politics and organized crime in Italy. The society moved from the rural hills to the cities of Sicily. The Sicilians have developed co-operative agreements with other secret Italian societies, the Camorra and Ndrangheta, but remain the controlling organization. The Sicilians are flexible and can work with many nationalities. The major threat to the Sicilians and the society is their own periodic blood-letting feuds.


Rome (dpa) - The Sicilian Mafia's 'honour code' doesn't bar members from being poets, but a jailed suspect's penchant for writing verse led his fellow mobsters to assume he was gay, so as punishment, they gang-raped him. The alleged assault on the 20-year-old-man, a convicted foot- soldier for a Catania-based crime-family, has been brought to light by his lawyer, Antonio Fiumefreddo. "Writing poetry is considered stuff for an 'iarruso'," said the lawyer, referring to a Sicilian slang word meaning 'buttocks', but also used as a derogatory term for homosexual men. Speaking on an internet current affairs programme, Klauscondicio, Fiumefreddo declined to name his client, who he says was sodomized by 8 men in 2006 and is still in jail. 'I don't even know if he really is homosexual, but for his sensitive ways, and the fact that he wrote love poems, he is thought of as gay and treated accordingly,' Fiumefreddo said in a video interview posted on Monday. Italian gay-rights activists have reacted with outrage at the report, condemning authorities for their alleged inaction.

'It is stupefying that news of a prisoner's rape has only surfaced 2 years after the attack,' the president of the Arcigay association, Aurelio Mancuso, said. Equal Opportunities Minister Mara Carfagna has asked Italy's Justice Department to provide more details on the matter to establish if the case represents an 'act of violence based on sexual discrimination.' Fiumefreddo said his client was treated for the injuries he sustained in the rape at the Catania prison Piazza Lanza's medical centre. Apparently the attack was not reported to authorities and no charges were laid against the alleged assailants. The lawyer said the decision to 'go public' with news of the alleged rape followed remarks by one of Italy's top anti-mafia prosecutors, Antonio Ingroia, who said the Mafia's gay bosses are afraid of coming out because they would get tossed out of the organization. Ingroia, citing US mafioso Johnny 'Boy' D'Amato, recently said that being gay was more of a taboo for the Sicilian mafia than for its United States-based equivalent.

Despite rumours he was gay, D'Amato rose to the top of the New Jersey-based DeCavalcante crime family before he was murdered in January 1992, Ingroia said. The character of Vito Spatafore, a gay mafia boss in the hit US television series The Sopranos was reportedly inspired by D'Amato. Ingroia argues that the Mafia's violent reaction towards affiliates who declare themselves gay or are 'outed' as such, exposes a weak-link in the secretive organization's dealings. 'The mafia's vision of (traditional) masculinity serves to emphasize its power and its claim of being 'set apart' from (modern) society where there is growing openness to the role of women and gay people,' Ingroia said in an interview with the daily Corriere della Sera. But there are 'growing signs' that the barrier erected by the mafia between itself and modern society is crumbling, Ingroia said. He cited Mafia turncoat, Enzo Scarantino, a suspect in the 1992 bombing which killed anti-Mafia magistrate Paolo Borsellino in Palermo. Scarantino moved in gay circles, 'yet he was given the delicate task' of preparing the car bomb which killed Borsellino and the 5 members of his police escort, Ingroia said. During the trial, lawyers defending the alleged masterminds of the bombing, scorned Scarantino's testimony, saying that as a homosexual, he could could not have been a mafioso.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1421359.php/Mafia_&quotpoet%22_attacked_for_being_gay__News_Feature_
Title: Re: Heidegger and Eastern Thought
Post by: dwelling on October 29, 2008, 01:42:20 PM

There is a shared "striving" in both to transcend the world of opposites and subject-object separation and to encounter and make contact with true Being and reality. Whereas in the Eastern tradition this involves a rigorous working on oneself in the social context of a school of meditational practice under the guidance of a master, for Heidegger it is the articulation of a personal path of thinking that can show the way. There are, of course, also a number of differences between the world of Heidegger and that of Eastern, especially Hindu, thinking. The doctrines of reincarnation and karma find no correspondence in Heidegger's thinking, and the experience of personal enlightenment in meditation is not entered into explicitly by Heidegger. But there is sufficient similarity in the radicality of both traditions to warrant continuing comparison and dialogue. There is the shared vision and effort to break the self-limiting boundaries of human rational intelligence, the vision of metaphysics, and a mindfulness as a whole in order to establish once again a more vital, inspired, and primordial relationship with all beings and the ground of Being in the form of the awareness of one's involvement in the "cosmotheandric network of relationships" which Dasein is.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern traditions also transcend a secular-materialistic point of view, and insist on the reality of height/depth, or "theo-dimension" which lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary everyday existence, and yet carries more weight, significance, power, and value. The modem world has seemingly undertaken a serious experiment with regard to whether or not a man can live without any god or religion. Heidegger attempts to provide a new spiritual foundation in trans-denominational terms: he proposes a new philosophical problem to the entire world in two ways. It is in one sense an inquiry into the foundation of the novel spiritual situation where nihilism is latent within the European scientific civilization, a civilization which nonetheless has succeeded in unifying the whole world. But this civilization lacks a spiritual foundation. In exposing European scientific civilization to total criticism, Heidegger is perhaps one of the first thinkers of the West to provide a place of dialogue and confrontation between the European principle and the non-European principle.

For psychology, this new and emergent philosophico-religious anthropology, the result of an East-West integration, that reveals that man is the being concerned about the meaning of his own being and the meaning of Being, offers us a new starting point. We realize that man lives out his ontic/ontological concerns in the way in which he dwells and shapes his life and world into a harmonious, ecological balancing of the powers of earth and sky and the interplay of the mortals and the divinities. In the discussion of "the thing," Heidegger elaborates a little on these powers, but their evocation and circumscription remain suggestive and groping for expression carried by a deep mystical intuition:

Quote
Earth is the building bearer, nourishing with its fruits, tending water and rock, plant and animal. When we say earth, we are already thinking of the other three along with it by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The sky is the sun's path, the course of the moon, the glitter of the stars, the year's seasons, the light and dusk of day, the gloom and glow of night, the clemency and inclemency of the weather, the drifting clouds and blue depth of the ether. When we say sky, we are already thinking of the other three along with it by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The divinities are the beckoning messengers of the godhead. Out of the hidden sway of the divinities the god emerges as what he is, which removes him from any comparison with beings that are present. When we speak of the divinities, we are already thinking of the other three along with them by way of the simple oneness of the four.

The mortals are human beings. They are called mortals because they can die. To die means to be capable of death as death. Only man dies. The animal perishes. It has death neither ahead of itself nor behind it. Death is the shrine of Nothing, that is, of that which in every respect is never something that merely exists, but which nevertheless presences, even as the mystery of Being itself. As the shrine of Nothing, death harbors within itself the presencing of Being. As the shrine of Nothing, death is the shelter of Being.... When we say mortals, we are then thinking of the other three along with them by way of the simple oneness of the four.


Heidegger's style and rhythm, four times repeating the unity of the four: "When we say....," feels like a hymn or even a prayer to the quaternion, the fourfold field of tensions that constitutes our sacred openness, our world. Heidegger's new image of man as the shepherd of Being, the steward of the earth, the builder and custodian of culture, gives us a calling, a vision, a task. It is in our hands to create a way of living which might truly be called dwelling.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern traditions are concerned with the liberation of man from the restrictive and self-limiting habits of his own cultural mind, from inauthentic modes of being and thinking. Both agree that we need a transhuman theo-dimension in the region beyond depth and beyond height, beyond human willfulness, which is the source of illumination, fulfillment, and truth for man — the transpersonal. Both traditions develop paths toward liberation. For the Eastern ways, this is a peak-experience in consciousness that completely transforms one's relationship to the world and reality as a whole. For Heidegger, the path is one of thinking oneself through into a great simplicity of openness to the revelation of Being. Heidegger makes a double move — for all of us — and thus radically changes our perception of and our participation in reality. First, he jumps into the gap, the in-between of the subject-object split, and bridges the rift with his understanding of Dasein as beingin-the-world, as unfolding relationship, as event. Second, Heidegger makes a figure-ground gestalt-switch by saying: Let the figures go (the beings, the ten thousand things), attend to the ground (Being); go beyond theory and metaphysics, beyond concepts and representations, beyond story and originary myth, beyond names, into the splendid openness and fullness of Being, into a new presence to the real. Heidegger calls this new mode of presence meditative thinking. Is it also embodied poetic presence?

It was probably an important part of his life when Heidegger returned to his simple hut in his mountains, forests, and high meadows and the life of elemental nature which found such eloquent voice in his later works. There he found the splendor of the simple still present, far from the madding crowd, in the participation in a holistic way of life in the flow of the seasons and the processes of nature, within the precincts of the Zen monastery or in the temple of selfregenerative nature. His advice on how to deal with technology was releasement (Gelassenheit) and openness to the mystery (Offenheit für das Geheimnis), a change in attitude, but basically a non-interfering observance. But we also live in the urban modernity powered by the calculative thinking of technology and its overpowering success.

Both Heidegger and the Eastern attitudes are somewhat nostalgic and reactionary in their call for quiet, for a return to the simple and essential. Their vision and practice for modern man has to remain a counterpoint, a counterfoil, perhaps, a co-existing alternative. Just as work and celebration are rhythmically organized in the calendar in weekdays and sabbath, so we can institute a new day for the working-recreating-celebrating presence to nature — Country Day — if we are drawn into this way so akin to Heidegger and the East. Everybody can institute this in his own calendar, as an act of freedom of choice, as a space of time in which dwelling in the fullness of Being, the foursome giving rise to the teeming of life in ecological proliferation and wonder, can be easily actualized. We are and live and dwell between Earth and Heaven in the tension between Mortality and Divinity, and this living realization still flourishes easily in the environs of our heartlands, in the play of the elements in the wild.

May this be the secret and unspoken spiritual practice of Martin Heidegger; be the path that is available to almost everybody? And is this practice, born from the marriage of Zen and Western fundamental-ontological thinking, not ongoing in many places? Heidegger and the Eastern traditions offer Western psychology a new and ancient value-orientation, a new and ancient posture of gratefulness, of thanksgiving to Being and the powers in which we find ourselves. They offer us liberation through an expanded vision of human life including the spiritual dimensions beyond ordinary rationality. Heidegger and the Eastern sages offer us a vision for a psychology of Being, for a psychology of higher life, for a psychology of genius, of creation, of vision, of inspiration, of revelation, of "theo-psychology," which lies close to the heart of man's life.


Great post, dearlove!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: munee on October 30, 2008, 03:33:07 PM

Actually the state should pay for sexually active women to revert to virginity (or at least pay for an operation that will allow them to give the impression that they are virgins). France does, even though France is such a militantly secular nation that hijabs are banned in school, and even though the only women interested in "hymenoplasty," as the procedure is known, are Muslims for whose intended husbands their non-virginity will be a deal-breaker. Dr. Bernard Paniel is an obstetrician-gynecologist for France's public health system, and over many years has become the go-to guy for Muslim women who need to be "mended" before their wedding night, or face the wrath of their shamed, traditionally-minded grooms and the probable annulment of their marriage.  Dr. Paniel "mends" about 30 broken hymens a year with a simple procedure that can be performed with a local anesthetic. He considers himself the "oil in the machine" that allows tradition to carry on, and is teaching the procedure, which he learned as a visiting doctor in a Tunisian hospital in the 1960s, to his younger colleagues. Dr. Paniel doesn't issue "virginity certificates" as some of his colleagues do, but perhaps just as controversially -- and resulting in the same effect -- he does provide his patients with vials of blood to produce on their wedding night. It is an understatement to observe that such (in our culture) medieval-era proofs of virginity -- blood on the wedding night sheets displayed to witnesses -- is utterly outmoded, a relic of pre-enlightened times in Judaism and Christianity. But the continuing, and consequential fixation with virginity amongst observant Muslim men is a reality, and the practice of hymenoplasty has now become a legal and political hot chestnut in France.

For in April a court in the northern French city of Lille annulled a marriage between a convert to Islam and a French woman of North African provenance on the grounds that her husband had discovered on their wedding night that she was not a virgin. It is expected that the ruling will encourage Muslim men with retrograde views of women's obligations to believe the state supports their perspective. This will escalate demands for premarital virginity inspections, which in turn will up the demand for hymenoplasties. The verdict was only made public two weeks ago, and it is causing a ferment of denunciation. Last week 150 members of the European Parliament denounced the ruling as an act of "serious regression." Those who stand to lose the most from the ruling are modern Muslim women. The Muslim women's rights group "Ni putes ni Soumises" (neither prostitutes nor submissive) claim surgeons performing the intervention have overstepped their professional bounds. Illustrating this well-taken point, gynecologist Jacques Milliez, head of the ethics committee of the London-based International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, admits that he routinely issues certificates attesting to the "virginity" of his patients, and says many other colleagues do as well, whether the women are sexually active or not. Sihem Habchi, the group's president,  asks: "Does it really help? Doesn't it just bolster this tradition and this hypocrisy?" Dr. Milliez justifies his actions on the grounds that he is saving women from being ostracized by their communities. Nevertheless he is worried about the effects of the ruling and is organizing a "summit" around the procedure's ethics to be held in October.


Take it for what it's worth but I know a young woman who'd do it from behind so that she'd remain a virgin; she married her husband when she was 33.


Hahaha! I know exactly what ya mean ;)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: did on November 06, 2008, 11:05:06 AM

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: \"If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless.\" This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

If one wants to teach Eternal Recurrence as a religion, fine. We will not object to that. But to present this as a serious philosophy is simply unacceptable. It does not surprise us that Nietzsche advocated this doctrine. He did not have much of mathematics or scientific training, which has proved to be his Achilles\' heel. As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don\'t believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking.


Spinoza maintained that there is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity.


There is this inherent insecurity about the consequences of your actions (related to the absurdity of the world), and to the fact that, in experiencing your freedom, you also realize that you will be fully responsible for these consequences; there is no thing in you (your genes, for instance) that acts and that you can "blame" if something goes wrong. Of course, most of us only have short and shallow encounters with this kind of dread, as not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, our lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread), but that doesn't change the fact that freedom remains a condition of every action.

Sartre calls it "bad faith" when you deny the concept of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing yourself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where you act as "you should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm. This does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude you takes to your own freedom, and the extent to which you act in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something you have done on the grounds that you just did "as one does" or that your genes determined you to do as you did. Lying to yourself might appear impossible or contradictory. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: qualia on November 06, 2008, 02:34:25 PM

A major difference between Sartre and Camus is that the latter suggests that some things and situations are out of human control (for example, death), whilst the former believes everything can be changed and manipulated, regardless of the situation or individual.


Here it is a Wikipedia description of the differences:

(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2550/logovp6.gif)
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2206/logokm9.gif
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: die Sage on November 07, 2008, 10:49:22 AM

Spinoza maintained that there is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity.


There is this inherent insecurity about the consequences of your actions (related to the absurdity of the world), and to the fact that, in experiencing your freedom, you also realize that you will be fully responsible for these consequences; there is no thing in you (your genes, for instance) that acts and that you can "blame" if something goes wrong. Of course, most of us only have short and shallow encounters with this kind of dread, as not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, our lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread), but that doesn't change the fact that freedom remains a condition of every action.

Sartre calls it "bad faith" when you deny the concept of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing yourself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where you act as "you should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm. This does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude you takes to your own freedom, and the extent to which you act in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something you have done on the grounds that you just did "as one does" or that your genes determined you to do as you did. Lying to yourself might appear impossible or contradictory. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be.


The existentialist concept of freedom is often misunderstood as a sort of liberum arbitrium where almost anything is possible and where values are inconsequential to choice and action. This interpretation of the concept is often related to the insistence on the absurdity of the world and that there are no relevant or absolutely "good" or "bad" values. However, that there are no values to be found in the world in-itself doesn't mean that there are no values: each of us usually already has his values before a consideration of their validity is carried through, and it is, after all, upon these values we act.

For one, Sartre was no hippie, but a serious, even austere thinker, with the soul of a moralist. He maintained that being human means being free. The freedom to make yourself, and your acting on this freedom, are what you are. In his more hyperbolic moments, Sartre goes so far as to say that a human being is freedom. Nothing left to lose? If existence precedes essence, we're not only free to create ourselves; we're also free of any inherent, built-in baggage. Because we're nothing, nothing is compelling or prejudicing our choices or our actions. Any choice is possible. That kind of freedom can be overwhelming, and Sartre doesn't think it's anything to take lightly.

Condemned To Be Free (And Responsible), Whether You Like It Or Not. And Sartre calls this an optimistic philosophy? Well, yes, he does. But it's always an optimism about where we can go from where we start. This discussion deals with the human condition -- the starting place, which he admits can look pretty bleak at times. The sense in which that starting place (freedom) is something we're "condemned" to basically has the following two aspects: the first is the inescapability of that freedom. You're free in life to make any choices, but whether you'll be free isn't one of them. It's an inescapable part of your human condition, like it or not. The second aspect is the weight of freedom. You experience your freedom as a great burden because it's a tremendous responsibility. If your freedom is inescapable, so is your responsibility.

Finally, Free Choice Creates Value And Meaning. If God doesn't exist, no eternal, objective measure of value exists, and nothing has any inherent meaning. This doesn't mean, however, that life has no meaning, or value at all. It's just that every meaning and value is a human meaning or a human value. And because human beings have no human nature and no inherent values or meaning, we're constantly creating those human meanings and values.

You see, Sartre, was not some kind of naturalist who equates human beings with animals or sees a human being as miniscule speck of dust before the grandeur of the universe. The universe is filled with objects that are conscious of nothing, feel nothing, choose nothing, and value nothing. The Milky Way, for all its vastness, is as dumb and senseless as a rock. Only human beings make choices and make themselves into something. Although it's true that we start as nothing, we have the power to make something of ourselves and the freedom to determine what that will be. Freedom is the source of human dignity.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: das Geviert on November 09, 2008, 06:42:26 PM
Well, thanks a lot, Sartre, for all the freedom you provide me with, but I'll be go with fatalism/karma!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: scarborough on November 11, 2008, 04:51:14 PM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monnies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiatiors. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


I would not characterize such traditions and customs as pertaining to the Middle East countries only. Mafia families in Southern Italy, for instance, have similar rules in place. It all derives from their concept of Honor. Ultimately, the gaining of an honorable reputation can be made and maintained only through force and physical violence. Indeed, in 19th-century southern Italy, where state institutions were unable to provide protection or govern conflicts, there was no better way to prove one's honor than committing a murder or some other arrogant act. It is no coincidence that all members -- other than those affiliated because of their high political or social rank -- must prove their honor by carrying out a murder or some sort of violent action that demonstrates their physical strength and courage. The ability to use violence is the primary criterion for assessing the value of a "man of honor." Murder in particular leads to prestige in a mafia family. This is the test by which the value of a man of honor is demonstrated.

Members must also follow conservative norms concerning sexual and family morality, derived from this concept of honor. Though women are excluded from the mafia group, which is a society of men, the mafia ideology often makes reference to female purity. Every "man of honor" has, first of all, to safeguard the chastity of his female relatives -- his sisters, his wife, and his daughters -- in order to enter and remain a member of the mafia group. Mafia does not accept, thus, illegitimate sons or men who have failed to avenge an attack on their honor, especially the betrayal of their wives, as members. Sound and proper behavior is also expected of the "men of honor" themselves: divorce is still prohibited and even extramarital relationships are condemned. For instance, the Calabrian defector Serafino Castagna recalls that in the late '60s an adherent to his 'ndrina was expelled because he was unwilling to murder the man who had seduced his sister.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Katerini on November 12, 2008, 05:11:52 PM
Quote


Hello:I'm from Bulgaria and my husband is suffering from a terminal disease.Doctors say he has no more than 3 months to live.Can my children get a visa in my native country to attend the funeral of their father? Please someone help me with advice.


To attend the funeral of an immediate family member (mother, father, brother, sister, child, spouse, grandparent, or grandchild) in the US you should submit evidence that the deceased is an immediate relative and a letter from the funeral home director stating the contact information, details of the deceased, and date of the funeral.
Title: Rebel Without a Cause ... But with a Smile!
Post by: CoQ10 on November 13, 2008, 02:29:54 PM

Here it is a Wikipedia description of the differences:

(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2550/logovp6.gif)
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2206/logokm9.gif


I see the third column (absurdism) has been clicked on - I guess it'd had to be explained a bit that for absurdism people may create meaning in their own lives (which may not be the objective meaning of life) but that still provides something for which to strive. But they must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd lest the fictitious meaning take the place of the absurd.

Camus introduced the idea of "acceptance without resignation" and asked if man can "live without appeal", defining a "conscious revolt" against the avoidance of absurdity of the world. In a world devoid of higher meaning, or judicial afterlife, man becomes absolutely free. It is through this freedom that man can act either as a mystic (through appeal to some supernatural force) or an absurd hero (through a revolt against such hope). Henceforth, the absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion.
Title: 10-Foot Boa Constrictor Found Inside Car Engine
Post by: xwhhr on November 13, 2008, 03:51:45 PM

I'm not surprised! Snakes, when snakes eat animals who have bones (or humans like a baby or small child) they completely digest all of their bones. The interesting thing is that hair isn't digested. Because snakes don't produce urine like mammals do, they convert their nitrogenous waste into insoluble uric acid crystals. So, a snake pellet will be composed of fur, and white powder, which will partly be bone but will also be uric acid crystals.


PUNTA GORDA, Fla. -- It took animal control officers in southwest Florida 45 minutes to get a 10-foot long boa constrictor out from under the hood of a car. The snake twisted itself inside the car's engine in Punta Gorda Monday. Officers tried to force it out with water, but it didn't work. They pulled the reptile out after officers turned on the car and the engine started to heat up.

http://www.wftv.com/news/17887236/detail.html
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Carmelita on November 14, 2008, 02:33:36 PM

Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.

The rationale continues that in this radical culture of disappearance certain "Elements of Refusal", partly unconsciously and partly consciously, are to be employed. Simply not voting -- "apathy" keeps over half the nation from the polls; anarchism never accomplished as much! There are positive parallels: "networking" as an alternative to politics is practiced at many levels of society, and non-hierarchic organization has attained popularity even outside the anarchist movement, simply because it works. Refusal of Work can take the forms of absenteeism, on-job drunkenness, sabotage, and sheer inattention -- but it can also give rise to new modes of rebellion: more self- employment, participation in the "black" economy -- all more or less "invisible" activities compared to traditional leftist confrontational tactics such as the general strike.

Embracing all sorts of non-authoritarian forms of spirituality, from "unchurched" Christianity to neo-paganism. Or the "free religions" -- small, self-created, half-serious/half-fun cults influenced by such currents as Discordianism and anarcho-Taoism -- that can be found all over marginal America providing a growing "fourth way" outside the mainstream churches, the televangelical bigots, and New Age vapidity and consumerism. And of course, construction of "private moralities" in the Nietzschean sense: the spirituality of "free spirits." Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. And finally refusal of the Family, which is clearly expressed through divorce, or some other "breakdown." Life can be happier without the nuclear family, whereupon a hundred flowers bloom -- from single parentage to group marriage to erotic affinity group.


Waiting for the revolution, while making the culture jam? Creating cognitive dissonance, disseminating as many seeds of truth to as many people as you can, with the ultimate goal of toppling existing power structures ... practically so? What of the anarchist dream, the Stateless state, the Commune, a free society, a free culture? Are we to abandon that hope in return for some existentialist acte gratuit? Well, as it has been argued, revolution has never yet resulted in achieving this dream. The vision comes to life in the moment of uprising -- but as soon as "the Revolution" triumphs and the State returns, the dream and the ideal are already betrayed. Second, even if you replace the revolutionary approach with a concept of insurrection blossoming spontaneously into anarchist culture, our particular historical situation is not propitious for such a vast undertaking. Absolutely nothing but a futile martyrdom could possibly result now from a head-on collision with the State, the megacorporate information State. Its guns are all pointed at us, while our meager weaponry finds nothing to aim at but a society of capitulation ruled by the image of the Cop and the absorbant eye of the TV screen.

Hakim Bey proposes as much more realistic an uprising which does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it. You know, hillbilly enclaves. Strike and run away. Keep moving the entire tribe, even if it's only data in the Web. "Strike" that evades the violence of the State, which is no longer a meaningful violence. The strike is made at structures of control, essentially at ideas; the defense is "invisibility," a martial art, and "invulnerability" -- an "occult" art within the martial arts. The "nomadic war machine" conquers without being noticed and moves on before the map can be adjusted. As to the future -- Only the autonomous can plan autonomy, organize for it, create it. A bootstrap operation.
Title: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: P e r i c l e s on November 19, 2008, 10:16:17 AM

I see the third column (absurdism) has been clicked on - I guess it'd had to be explained a bit that for absurdism people may create meaning in their own lives (which may not be the objective meaning of life) but that still provides something for which to strive. But they must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd lest the fictitious meaning take the place of the absurd.

Camus introduced the idea of "acceptance without resignation" and asked if man can "live without appeal", defining a "conscious revolt" against the avoidance of absurdity of the world. In a world devoid of higher meaning, or judicial afterlife, man becomes absolutely free. It is through this freedom that man can act either as a mystic (through appeal to some supernatural force) or an absurd hero (through a revolt against such hope). Henceforth, the absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion.


(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7991/dionysus20kleophradesvp6.jpg)
Dionysus had the power to inspire and to create ecstasy

Compare it with Nietzsche's Dionysus: chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.

And then you have the Apollo: the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.

In the doctrine of will to power, Nietzsche's philosophy matures fully and the earlier dichotomy of Dionysian and Apollonian which had a Hegelian dialectical flavor to it, becomes absorbed into the Will to power and thus becomes one, just as all other drives do. The Will to power becomes a vehicle for the revaluation of decadent values, which for him were the result of two thousand years of slave morality. The Dionysian energy becomes merely a material for will to power which is the most important drive in nature. Thus Nietzsche says:

Quote
This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!

Nietzsche's will to power, unlike Schopenhauer's Will, cannot be fully defined, since it cannot be known directly but rather through its manifestations. This Will to power is what rules the world and its historical behavior; it is the will to power which governs an individual's actions in this world. So fundamental is this Will to power that life could not be even possible without it. Both life and Will to power presuppose each other. Nietzsche has, as appears clearly, inherited the concept of becoming from Heraclitus for whom the concept of being smells of stagnation. Everything is a becoming. Everything is in flux. Will to power in itself is for Nietzsche nothing but becoming. This nature of becoming implies that all values too needs new valuations. Thus the revaluation of values too is a function and manifestation of this will to power. Everything that lives is an expression of will to power. The living beings must discharge their energy and even if it remains suppressed it will seek an outlet, and this energy is released in the form of power, whether in the form of art and music or architecture, or even war. Thus life is nothing but will to power for Nietzsche:

Quote
A living thing seeks above all to vent its strength — life itself is will to power.

This will to power of life is not the Darwinian self preservation of species since, 'self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of it.

I argue that in spite of the fact that Nietzsche's will to power has some destructive aspect to it, it is moving towards creativity. Similar to Freud's concepts of Eros and Thanatos, will to power too must destroy to create, for in the process of becoming everything is constantly being destroyed and created anew. What it will destroy is decadent and degenerated values with the 'Revaluation of values' and will replace them with more noble and healthy values. The example of a carpenter cutting down a tree to shape it into a chair should serve a good illustration of how will to power has to be both destructive and constructive to create what is grand and noble and the apparent destruction and construction is only manifestations of this will to power eternally becoming. The most accurate portrayal of will to power is the drive to create. The desire to be at our best creativity is an important component of this will to power.

For Nietzsche humans are always trying to impose their superiority and will upon each other in one way or the other. Whether the person is physically harming another person, or giving him presents, or praising him or claiming to be in love with someone, the psychological and underlying desire remains the same; to inflict one's will on them. This implies that human beings are basically egoistic by nature and not altruistic as Christianity takes them to be. In fact, Nietzsche accuses Christian concept of bringing inferior ranks of people on equal footing with the superior ranks of people as a hidden Will to power, as he says that the will to equality is the will to power.

Nietzsche's will to power is a life affirming attitude. In this, the creatures affirm their instincts to acquire power and dominance. On pains and sufferings one's back is not shown but rather these are embraced as a necessary part of life. For Nietzsche, lasting pleasure and satisfaction come about as a result of being able to live according to one's instincts or authenticity and to exert will to power and not by running away from one's own nature. Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. Nietzsche's Will is in a perpetual becoming, a monster of energies gushing constantly. And it is his idea of eternal recurrence, already discussed, which gives this constant becoming of will to power a stability.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: inspired minds on November 19, 2008, 12:28:16 PM

I see the third column (absurdism) has been clicked on - I guess it'd had to be explained a bit that for absurdism people may create meaning in their own lives (which may not be the objective meaning of life) but that still provides something for which to strive. But they must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd lest the fictitious meaning take the place of the absurd.

Camus introduced the idea of "acceptance without resignation" and asked if man can "live without appeal", defining a "conscious revolt" against the avoidance of absurdity of the world. In a world devoid of higher meaning, or judicial afterlife, man becomes absolutely free. It is through this freedom that man can act either as a mystic (through appeal to some supernatural force) or an absurd hero (through a revolt against such hope). Henceforth, the absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion.


(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7991/dionysus20kleophradesvp6.jpg)
Dionysus had the power to inspire and to create ecstasy

Compare it with Nietzsche's Dionysus: chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.

And then you have the Apollo: the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.


Camille Paglia writes about the Apollonian and Dionysian in her "Sexual Personae." The two concepts split a set of dichotomies that create the basis of Paglia's theory. For her, the Dionysian is dark and chthonic, and the Apollonian is light and structured. The Dionysian is associated with nature and women and sex, and the Apollonian is associated with clarity and solidity, and sexless goal oriented progress. Paglia attributes all the progress of civilization to men revolting against the Dionysian force of women, and turning instead to Apollonian ordered creation. The Dionysian is a force of chaos and destruction which is the overpoweringly alluring real state of nature, and the turn away from it towards societally constructed virtues accounts for the prevalence of asexuality and homosexuality in geniuses and in the most culturally prosperous places such as ancient Athens. Extending the use of the Apollonian and Dionysian onto an argument on interaction between the mind and physical environment, Abraham Akkerman has pointed to masculine and feminine features of city form.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: figure the literal on November 19, 2008, 01:45:53 PM
Wow! Hee it is a video by NG regarding the Eternal Enemies, Lions and Hyenas.


(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/6304474636.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1122570523_.jpg)

Although we romanticize lions as mighty kings of the jungle, their reign is in fact a tenuous one. It is challenged daily in southern Africa by vicious packs of hyenas that compete for prey. Between the two species exists an ancient feud, and it unfolds in Eternal Enemies with all the drama of the warring Capulets and Montagues. Watch as lions bring down a zebra, only to be attacked themselves by a pack of hyenas that chases them into the trees. Glowering, the big cats watch as the thieves devour their dinner. Days later the lions exact revenge, killing the hyena leader but leaving her uneaten as a warning to the rest of the clan. Other scenes in this video are equally impressive, including life inside a hyena den--which captures the sounds of lions growling outside--and a tense encounter between a snake-bitten lioness and a pack of hyenas. With its gripping story line, Eternal Enemies is a standout among animal documentaries. -- Demian McLean

Trek into the hidden battlefields of northern Botswana where lions and spotted hyenas clash in overlapping territories. With never-before-seen footage, much of it filmed at night, you'll uncover an intense and vicious blood feud that has been waged for millennia. Follow the Southern Clan, led by a powerful hyena matriarch whose firstborn female cub kills her sister at birth to assure her succession as leader of the clan. Lurk in the shadows as a lioness from the Central Pride gives birth to three cubs and then encounters a deadly Egyptian cobra. You'll be stunned by breathtaking chase scenes as the hyena matriarch is brutally killed by a male lion, throwing the clan into chaos. Discover nature's savage conflicts in this ancient rivalry between ETERNAL ENEMIES: LIONS AND HYENAS.

And while we've all heard about the lion in details, hyena is a less known animal. Here it is what I found

Prey: Hyenas are both scavengers and hunters feeding on carcasses, killed or scavenged, and utilize every part of the body including bone. They will even pursue young, weak, diseased, injured, or dead prey. Hyenas are clearly carnivores and will eat just about anything. Some of their most common prey include wildebeest, gazelle, zebra, rhinocerous, and other ungulates.

(http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/roles/nopest2.jpg)

Hunting: Hunting occurs either alone or in packs led by their female leader. For specific prey, zebra for example, clan members will purposely hunt together to ensure success. The problem with this strategy is that whenever two or three hyenas feed on a carcass, competition and squabbling is inevitable, attracting other pack members as well as other competitors such as lions to the prey. If there is competion amidst hyenas, females most always win because they bigger and more aggressive. Hunting is usually done at night though they do occasionally hunt during the day. They hunt down their prey at speeds of up to 60 km/hr and kill their prey by disembowelling them. When around carcasses, in fights, and attacking prey, they scream, giggle, whoop, laugh, growl and snarl explaining why they are known as the "laughing hyena." Usually, females leave the kill site and eat away from the kill. They have even been known to cache food underwater. One hyena can eat up to 14.5 kg. per meal and digest bones, horns, hooves and even teeth within twenty-four hours.

(http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/roles/3kitty3.jpg)

Predation: The hyena's biggest predator is the lion. Lions and Spotted Hyenas are often engaged in a power struggle. The male lion will even occasionally go out of their way to kill clan matriarchs since hyenas are major predators of lion cubs. Curiously, Lions and hyenas will put up boundaries against each other as they would against members of their same species and threaten each other at the borders with snarls, roars, urine, and paste. Lioncrusher's Domain support this unique rivalry between lions and hyenas but further propose that lions steal more hyena kills than the reverse. Randall L. Eaton did a study in 1979 on the relationship between the spotted hyena and several of their competitors including the lion, leopard, cheetah, and wild dog. He found that between equal size groups, lions win more than 95% of the encounters and initiated about 70% of them. Groups of hyenas can win against a single lion, especially if the lion is female. The majority of competitive interactions are for food, and aggression is more prevalet than predation. Another thing that makes the relationship between lions and hyenas so interesting is that lions rarely eat the hyenas they attack and kill. There seems to be no apparent benefit of lions attacking and killing hyenas. As for the spoted hyena's other competitors, the hyena, especially if in groups, is rarely dominated and can successfully steal their food. An interesting fact about hyenas in regard to humans: in many African societies, because of its ghostly whooping call and nocturnal ways the hyena is regarded as a witch or an evil spirit.


Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhtYvQOZO4U

The primate has advantage because he uses the arm to kill the leopard (in addition to being much bigger, of course).
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: good cop bad cop on November 19, 2008, 07:17:03 PM

Groups of hyenas can win against a single lion, especially if the lion is female. The majority of competitive interactions are for food, and aggression is more prevalet than predation.


Similar to the way 30 lions would group together to kill an elephant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=882gYUK_bzc&NR=1
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: fromadistance on November 20, 2008, 05:07:57 PM
I don't know what ethos the original poster (the one who first posted about animals) is trying to convey, but when it comes to them (animals) killing other animals is first and foremost about survival. I was watching this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UztB1gRCFn0&feature=related

and the speaker saying at a certain point, "How could you shoot such beautiful animals?" Beautiful and rare as Siberian tigers are, they regularly kill brown bears to eat and survive. They are killers, just like other animal species.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: miska on November 20, 2008, 08:31:36 PM

[...] This implies that human beings are basically egoistic by nature and not altruistic as Christianity takes them to be. [...]


So ingrained in people's minds is this notion that when you say to someone s/he is a good person they will take it as an offense and do something towards you that makes them look like bad a s s e s.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: teafairn on November 22, 2008, 12:46:44 PM
I don't know what ethos the original poster (the one who first posted about animals) is trying to convey, but when it comes to them (animals) killing other animals is first and foremost about survival. I was watching this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UztB1gRCFn0&feature=related

and the speaker saying at a certain point, "How could you shoot such beautiful animals?" Beautiful and rare as Siberian tigers are, they regularly kill brown bears to eat and survive. They are killers, just like other animal species.


Great avatar, from a distance - are you using it to your best advantage? 
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: borsellino on December 01, 2008, 05:24:57 PM

There is this inherent insecurity about the consequences of your actions (related to the absurdity of the world), and to the fact that, in experiencing your freedom, you also realize that you will be fully responsible for these consequences; there is no thing in you (your genes, for instance) that acts and that you can "blame" if something goes wrong. Of course, most of us only have short and shallow encounters with this kind of dread, as not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, our lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread), but that doesn't change the fact that freedom remains a condition of every action.

Sartre calls it "bad faith" when you deny the concept of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing yourself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where you act as "you should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm. This does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude you takes to your own freedom, and the extent to which you act in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something you have done on the grounds that you just did "as one does" or that your genes determined you to do as you did. Lying to yourself might appear impossible or contradictory. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be.


MAn, don't get me started with Sartre, cuz it'll get really really cold in here .. Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. He sums up his view (if "sums up" is ever an appropriate term in existentialist writing) thus: "The Nature of consciousness simultaneously is to be what is not and not to be what it is." And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm ("Being and Nothingness")[1943]

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough, another book that came out in 1943, "She Came To Stay," by his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) to watching a woman in a restaurant ignore the fact that her male companion has begun stroking her arm: "it lay there, forgotten, ignored, the male's hand was stroking a piece of flesh that no longer belonged to anyone." As well as this one:

Quote
It's impossible to believe that other people are conscious beings, aware of their own inward feelings, as we ourselves are aware of our own," said Françoise. "To me, it's terrifying when we grasp that. We get the impression of no longer being anything but a fragment of someone else's mind."

Curiouser and curiouser, although the two books came out in the same year, Simone de Beauvoir's was written some time earlier, and Sartre read the drafts avidly on his brief army leaves before commencing "Being & Nothingness." Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

Sartre even records in his diary how Beauvoir had to correct him several times for clumsy misunderstanding of existentialist philosophy. It turns out that Sartre simply borrowed all Beauvoir's ideas and used them (unacknowledged) in his own work. The only unknown is why Beauvoir was content to allow this, indeed, repeatedly denied any credit for Sartre's work. But then the Sartre-Beauvoir relationship, although much celebrated and something of a philosophical icon, is also completely misunderstood. Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

And the true sexual tale belies the professional one, oft-related, of Sartre the genius aided by Beauvoir the frustrated would-be wife turned into dutiful secretary. On the contrary, in truth, Beauvoir had both the intellectual and the literary edge on her younger partner. Beauvoir, from a convent school that no one was supposed to progress beyond, managed to pass France's highest philosphy exam a year early, while Sartre, with all the resources of privilege, struggled to pass on his second attempt. Sartre later claimed this was due to an excess of originality in his answers, but in truth this must have been a new departure if so. Up to then the greatest display of creativity he had shown had been when as a child he had carefully copied out stories from comics, adding in extra details from his grandpa's encyclopaedias. He had then passed the whole lot off as his 'novel' to admiring parents. In "The Words" Sartre acknowledges, with refreshing frankness, these early examples of 'bad faith' noting how his mother would bring visitors into the dining-room so that they could surprise the young creator at his school-desk. He would pretend to be too absorbed to be aware of his admirers' presence. They would withdraw on tiptoe, whispering that he was too cute for words, that it was too-charming...

Which play-acting brings us back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning. They are indeed actors, as they have a role to carry out, and, of course, like actors, they have an audience watching them (even people like Sartre and Beauvoir, sometimes). So let's use a different analogy instead. That of the philosophy intellectual:

Quote
Their speech is a little too sonorous, the emphasis on words a little too firm. Their gesticulations seem ungainly in their self-consciousness, their eyes gaze a little too eagerly, their voice occassionally dropping in a pretend confidence as they struggle to communicate the essence of their latest theory, or rising, a note of disappointed incredulity coming in, if there is any dissent, as if sensing a lost equilibrium which can only be re-established by a flurry of paper...
Title: Café de Flore
Post by: Birkena on December 05, 2008, 07:32:12 PM
[…] most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. […] It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm ("Being and Nothingness")[1943]

[…]

 

Café de Flore
172 Boulevard Saint-Germain, 75006 Paris

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/883/398856788860735bc8evr0.jpg)

Stop by Café de Flore  to indulge in Camus' 'local' after he had a falling out with Sartre and Beauvoir. Popular also among the surrealists, existentialists and la bande ŕ Prevert, apparently Johnny Depp hangs out here too.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: PCRev on January 02, 2009, 11:36:48 AM

It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm ("Being and Nothingness")[1943]

Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

Which play-acting brings us back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning. They are indeed actors, as they have a role to carry out, and, of course, like actors, they have an audience watching them (even people like Sartre and Beauvoir, sometimes). So let's use a different analogy instead. That of the philosophy intellectual:

Quote
Their speech is a little too sonorous, the emphasis on words a little too firm. Their gesticulations seem ungainly in their self-consciousness, their eyes gaze a little too eagerly, their voice occassionally dropping in a pretend confidence as they struggle to communicate the essence of their latest theory, or rising, a note of disappointed incredulity coming in, if there is any dissent, as if sensing a lost equilibrium which can only be re-established by a flurry of paper...


All professions have a similar obligation imposed on them. There is the "ceremony" or the "dance" of the grocer, the auctioneer, the tailor. The public demands of them that they undertake this ceremony in order to prove that they are nothing but a grocer, an auctioneer, a tailor. A grocer who dreams is offensive. We don't want an auctioneer who tells us about the messy divorce he is going through. This demand is most obvious in the military, where the new soldier is instructed that he is not saluting the man, but the uniform. When the command "Eyes left!" is given when marching past the General's review stand, woe unto the soldier if his eyes actually make contact with the General's! (It may be difficult for young conscripts fresh from the farm to kill other young conscripts, but easier to kill other "uniforms.")

We are in bad faith when we try to turn the other person into a thing with our gaze (into "the waiter," "the tailor," "the auctioneer," "the soldier") but these individuals can also put themselves in bad faith by trying to be nothing but their roles. In fact, a waiter cannot BE a waiter in the sense that a rock is a rock, or an ashtray is an ashtray. That is, he cannot be it inthe mode of being-in-itself. If you are a waiter, you are so in the mode of not-being-a-waiter. Being-for-itself can never become a THING, even if it wants to. The issue here seems to be this: although the grammar of the verb "to be" is identical in these two sentences --

"This is a waiter"
"This is a rock"

in each instance the meaning of the verb is radically different. In the human case it cannot be part of a definition, for the being of the "for-itself" is always indefinable and incomplete, and even capable of self-cancellation. Therefore "good faith": A freedom which wills itself freedom is in fact a being-which-is-not-what-it-is and which-is-what-it-is-not, and which chooses as the ideal of being, being-what-it-is-not and not-being-what-it-is!
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: modeld after on January 08, 2009, 12:24:59 PM

[...] Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. [...]


(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness. Jung explains the shadow with his notion of the archetypes:

Quote
When it [shadow] appears as an archetype...it is quite within the possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: neneh on January 08, 2009, 12:44:07 PM

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness. Jung explains the shadow with his notion of the archetypes:

Quote
When it [shadow] appears as an archetype...it is quite within the possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.


As Jung again said of Schopenhauer: "He was the first to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil -- all those things which the others hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all-embracing harmony and comprehensibility." It is an awareness of this aspect of the world that renders the religious ideas of "salvation" meaningful; yet "salvation" as such is always missing from moralistic or aesthetic renderings of religion. Only Jung could have written his "Answer to Job." Placing God in the Unconscious might strike most people as reducing him to a mere psychological object; but that is to overlook Jung's Kantianism. The Unconscious, and especially the Collective Unconscious, belongs to Kantian things-in-themselves, or to the transcendent Will of Schopenhauer. Jung was often at pains not to complicate his theory of the Archetypes by committing himself to a metaphysical theory -- he wanted the theory to work whether he was talking about the brain or about the Transcendent -- but that was merely a concession to the materialistic bias of contemporary science. He had no materialistic commitment himself and, when it came down to it, was not going to accept such naive reductionism. Instead, he was willing to rethink how the Transcendent might operate.

The Problem of Evil, which for so many people simply denuminizes religion, and which Schopenhauer used to reject the value of the world, became a challenge for Jung in the psychoanalysis of God. The God of the Bible is indeed a personality, and seemingly not always the same one. God as a morally evolving personality is the extraordinary conception of "Answer to Job." What Otto saw as the evolution of human moral consciousness, Jung turns right around on the basis of the principle that the human unconscious, expressed spontaneously in religious practice and literature, transcends mere human subjectivity. But the transcendent reality in the unconscious is different in kind from consciousness. As Jung said in "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" again: 

Quote
If the Creator were conscious of Himself, He would not need conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures, are the outcome of purposeful intention. Natural history tells us of a haphazard and casual transformation of species over hundreds of millions of years of devouring and being devoured. The biological and political history of man is an elaborate repetition of the same thing. But the history of the mind offers a different picture. Here the miracle of reflecting consciousness intervenes -- the second cosmogony [ed. note: what Teilhard de Chardin called the origin of the "noosphere," the layer of "mind"]. The importance of consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting the element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the monstrous, apparently senseless biological turmoil, and that the road to its manifestation was ultimately found on the level of warm-blooded vertebrates possessed of a differentiated brain -- found as if by chance, unintended and unforeseen, and yet somehow sensed, felt and groped for out of some dark urge.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: d i f f e r e n c e on January 10, 2009, 01:02:21 PM

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness. Jung explains the shadow with his notion of the archetypes:

Quote
When it [shadow] appears as an archetype...it is quite within the possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.


As Jung again said of Schopenhauer: "He was the first to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil -- all those things which the others hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all-embracing harmony and comprehensibility." It is an awareness of this aspect of the world that renders the religious ideas of "salvation" meaningful; yet "salvation" as such is always missing from moralistic or aesthetic renderings of religion. Only Jung could have written his "Answer to Job." Placing God in the Unconscious might strike most people as reducing him to a mere psychological object; but that is to overlook Jung's Kantianism. The Unconscious, and especially the Collective Unconscious, belongs to Kantian things-in-themselves, or to the transcendent Will of Schopenhauer. Jung was often at pains not to complicate his theory of the Archetypes by committing himself to a metaphysical theory -- he wanted the theory to work whether he was talking about the brain or about the Transcendent -- but that was merely a concession to the materialistic bias of contemporary science. He had no materialistic commitment himself and, when it came down to it, was not going to accept such naive reductionism. Instead, he was willing to rethink how the Transcendent might operate.

The Problem of Evil, which for so many people simply denuminizes religion, and which Schopenhauer used to reject the value of the world, became a challenge for Jung in the psychoanalysis of God. The God of the Bible is indeed a personality, and seemingly not always the same one. God as a morally evolving personality is the extraordinary conception of "Answer to Job." What Otto saw as the evolution of human moral consciousness, Jung turns right around on the basis of the principle that the human unconscious, expressed spontaneously in religious practice and literature, transcends mere human subjectivity. But the transcendent reality in the unconscious is different in kind from consciousness. As Jung said in "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" again: 

Quote
If the Creator were conscious of Himself, He would not need conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures, are the outcome of purposeful intention. Natural history tells us of a haphazard and casual transformation of species over hundreds of millions of years of devouring and being devoured. The biological and political history of man is an elaborate repetition of the same thing. But the history of the mind offers a different picture. Here the miracle of reflecting consciousness intervenes -- the second cosmogony [ed. note: what Teilhard de Chardin called the origin of the "noosphere," the layer of "mind"]. The importance of consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting the element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the monstrous, apparently senseless biological turmoil, and that the road to its manifestation was ultimately found on the level of warm-blooded vertebrates possessed of a differentiated brain -- found as if by chance, unintended and unforeseen, and yet somehow sensed, felt and groped for out of some dark urge.


Jung claimed to have identified three stages of religious evolution. The first stage was the archaic age of the Shamans. This was followed by the ancient civilisation of prophets and priests. Then came the Christian heritage of mystics. At every stage of religious history, all human beings share in the inner divinity, the numinous. When Jung talks about God, he is really talking about the God within, the self. He was once asked if he believed in God. He answered: "I don't believe. I know." Thus Jung made an act of faith in the existence of the collective unconscious and archetypes and he interpreted Christianity in the light of his beliefs. As a example, let us examine the doctrine of the Trinity. For Jung, this doctrine is replete with psychological meaning. The Father symbolises the psyche in its original undifferentiated wholeness. The Son represents the human psyche and the Holy Spirit the state of self-critical submission to a higher reality. For this myth to be authentic, it must be found in other cultures and Jung found similar Trinitarian ideas in the Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek mystical traditions.

However, he believed in a Quaternity, the fourth person being the principle of evil. Without the opposition of satan, who is one of God's sons, the Trinity would have remained a unity. In Jungian terms without the opposition of the shadow or the fourth person, there would be no psychic development and no actualisation of the self. Jung came to believe that Mary became the fourth person following her Assumption. She is the necessary feminine element, the opposition of the shadow. His idea of wholeness means that God approves of evil. He wrote: "since I knew from experience that God was not offended by blasphemy, that on the contrary, he could encourage it, because he wished to evoke not only man's bright and positive side but also his darkness and ungodliness, God in his omniscience arranged everything so that Adam and Eve would sin. God intended them to sin." Thus Jung blames God for the fall of Adam and Eve. He causes them to sin because He Himself is both good and evil. In his essay on Job, Jung contends that Yahweh desired the love of mankind but behaved like a thoughtless and irritable tyrant, indifferent to human misery. Like Adam, who is mythically married to Lilith, daughter of Satan, and to Eve, so is Yahweh married to Israel and to Sophia, who compensates for Yahweh's behaviour by showing human beings the mercy of God. Her appearance in the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel leads to a fundamental change. God transforms himself by becoming man. Yahweh has wronged the creatures who have outdone Him and only by becoming man can he atone for His injustice.

Jung appears to have lost his faith during his childhood. He wrote: "Lord Jesus Christ was to me unquestionably a man and therefore a fallible figure." Maintaining a tradition put forward by Gnostics, he believed that Christ is the symbolic representation of the most central archetype, the self. However, the sublime goodness of Christ means that from a psychological perspective, he lacks wholeness. Missing is the dark side of the psyche, the element of evil. Christ receives wholeness in the person of the Anti-Christ. The Church teaches that Christ died in order to save us. For Jung, this is a misleading rationalisation for an otherwise inexplicable act of cruelty. The angry Yahweh of the Old Testament is full of guilt and is in need of atonement. Jesus dies on Calvary to expiate the sins of God the Father. To conclude by way of quotes from three eminent Psychiatrists. The Catholic Psychiatrist Doctor Rudolph Allers wrote: "For Jung, God is not a transcendent reality of whom man may achieve some knowledge by natural reason but, rather, an archetype, a basic tendency in human nature. The idea of God and of a future life are not seen as expressing reality but as a corresponding subjective need."
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: three_lotteries on January 13, 2009, 12:50:22 PM

Jung appears to have lost his faith during his childhood. He wrote: "Lord Jesus Christ was to me unquestionably a man and therefore a fallible figure." Maintaining a tradition put forward by Gnostics, he believed that Christ is the symbolic representation of the most central archetype, the self. However, the sublime goodness of Christ means that from a psychological perspective, he lacks wholeness. Missing is the dark side of the psyche, the element of evil. Christ receives wholeness in the person of the Anti-Christ. The Church teaches that Christ died in order to save us. For Jung, this is a misleading rationalisation for an otherwise inexplicable act of cruelty. The angry Yahweh of the Old Testament is full of guilt and is in need of atonement. Jesus dies on Calvary to expiate the sins of God the Father. To conclude by way of quotes from three eminent Psychiatrists. The Catholic Psychiatrist Doctor Rudolph Allers wrote: "For Jung, God is not a transcendent reality of whom man may achieve some knowledge by natural reason but, rather, an archetype, a basic tendency in human nature. The idea of God and of a future life are not seen as expressing reality but as a corresponding subjective need."


So basically God is a projection on the man's part (of himself)? And that just like the man, God is both good and evil?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Peter s Father In Law on January 23, 2009, 09:39:07 AM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: caracosta on January 25, 2009, 02:43:33 PM

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness.


I tend to believe there is no consensus over whether either good or evil are intrinsic to human nature.

Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency.

A variety of Enlightenment thinkers alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures.

Evolutionary speaking, humans are biologically adapted to carry out a variety of game theory strategies, some of which may promote individual utility at the expense of group utility, which, if the disparity is extreme enough, would be termed evil.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: show_my_IP on January 27, 2009, 10:21:29 AM

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness.


I tend to believe there is no consensus over whether either good or evil are intrinsic to human nature.

Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency.

A variety of Enlightenment thinkers alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures.

Evolutionary speaking, humans are biologically adapted to carry out a variety of game theory strategies, some of which may promote individual utility at the expense of group utility, which, if the disparity is extreme enough, would be termed evil.


Interesting caracosta - four simple fragments - but thoughtful ones!
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: chainlaw on January 27, 2009, 10:28:57 AM

Jung appears to have lost his faith during his childhood. He wrote: "Lord Jesus Christ was to me unquestionably a man and therefore a fallible figure." Maintaining a tradition put forward by Gnostics, he believed that Christ is the symbolic representation of the most central archetype, the self. However, the sublime goodness of Christ means that from a psychological perspective, he lacks wholeness. Missing is the dark side of the psyche, the element of evil. Christ receives wholeness in the person of the Anti-Christ. The Church teaches that Christ died in order to save us. For Jung, this is a misleading rationalisation for an otherwise inexplicable act of cruelty. The angry Yahweh of the Old Testament is full of guilt and is in need of atonement. Jesus dies on Calvary to expiate the sins of God the Father. To conclude by way of quotes from three eminent Psychiatrists. The Catholic Psychiatrist Doctor Rudolph Allers wrote: "For Jung, God is not a transcendent reality of whom man may achieve some knowledge by natural reason but, rather, an archetype, a basic tendency in human nature. The idea of God and of a future life are not seen as expressing reality but as a corresponding subjective need."


So basically God is a projection on the man's part (of himself)? And that just like the man, God is both good and evil?


I wouldn't put it in exactly those words..
Title: Existentialism vs. Buddhism
Post by: that-which-is-not on January 28, 2009, 01:17:13 PM

Are you sure you really understand Buddhism and its concepts? Because even Nietzsche may not have really understood the point of it. Buddhism is very complicated for the Western mind to fully grasp in its entirety. For example, According to Nietzsche, Buddhism can be described as an effort, through restraint from action, to escape suffering and pass into absolute non-existence. But is this description accurate? Dukkha is the Sanskrit word commonly translated as 'suffering'. Its full meaning, however, is much more extensive, and this has important implications for the interpretation of Buddhist doctrine, because it is an integral constituent in the articulation of the fundamental Buddhist doctrine, the Four Noble Truths, as expressed in the Vinayapitaka:  

Quote
'And this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, and old age is dukkha, and disease is dukkha, and dying is dukkha, association from what is not dear is dukkha, separation from what is dear is dukkha, not getting what you want is dukkha - in short, the five aggregates of grasping are dukkha.'

Understood simply as 'suffering', the word dukkha in this central Buddhist passage expresses only simple pessimism. The common translation of dukkha as suffering has quite likely been the cause of a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of the non-Buddhist world. In fact, 'dukkha' comes in three flavors. The first is dukkha-dukkhata, suffering qua suffering in its direct physical and mental manifestations. The second is vapirinama-dukkha, or suffering through transformation. This refers to the awareness that one's happiness is highly contingent and dependent on factors beyond one's control. Though you may be happy now, it could change at any moment, and this is due to the ungrounded and fluctuating nature of existence itself. The most important type of dukkha, however, is sankhara-dukkha, an existential incompleteness due to spiritual ignorance. This incompleteness arises from being limited to one's own contingent and unenlightened perspective. Panna is the word used to refer to the transcendental consciousness of those who have attained enlightenment and are thereby free from sankhara-dukkha and existentially complete. For those who have attained Panna, even the most blissful existence as a deva in one of the Buddhist Heavens would seem to be a miserable Hell. This is because any of these existences of a relative nature (more or less blissful, painful, etc) are only results of the spiritual ignorance that results in sankhara-dukkha.  

Interpreted in this way, it is easy to begin to see how the statement of the First Noble Truth takes on a much deeper meaning than was assumed by Nietzsche. Not only are birth, death, and disease painful, they are products of spiritual ignorance. To say that they are 'dukkha' implies that they are, as co-dependently arising oppositions, ultimately unreal. It is not, therefore, merely pain that the Buddhist wants to overcome, but the perspective within which these illusions (as well as their happy counterparts) are taken to be real. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the primary motivation behind Buddhism is not simply suffering qua suffering is the fact that out of the 121 classes of conscious experience listed in Buddhist psychology, only three have to do with pain, while 63 are joyful. Both the joyful and the painful, however, are considered sankhara-dukkha -- products of spiritual ignorance. Kamma-niradha is the Sanskrit word for 'cessation of action'. This state is achieved through adherence to the eight-fold path, which guides the Buddhist into kusula, or 'skillful action'. Therefore, it is not simply ceasing to perform actions that the Buddhist believes will eventually lead one to his or her goal. Rather, the type of actions that are performed is the deciding factor. Likewise, it is wrong to conclude that just because one has attained Nirvana that one ceases to act. Such a conclusion implies a misconceived interpretation of kamma-niradha, as it is understood in Buddhism. This is the misconception Nietzsche seems to have made in characterising Buddhism as being centered on the guideline not to act. That such an interpretation is indeed misconceived is apparent when we consider the life and words of the Buddha. After attaining enlightenment and Nirvana, he continued to lead an active life for the next forty-five years. Again, it is the nature of the action that differentiates the enlightened, described in the following passage from the Vinayapatika:  

Quote
'I, monks, am freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. And you, monks, are freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. Go, monks, and wander for the blessing of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the blessing, the happiness of devas and men. Let not two (of you) go by one (way). Monks, teach the Dhamma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, and lovely at the end.'

As this passage illustrates, there are certain kinds of actions that are enjoined on the enlightened. However, it is inaccurate to use the word 'enjoined' in this context because the skillful actions are naturally done by the enlightened Buddhist, and are no longer performed as if they are obligations in a code of behavior. Following the Buddhist 'code', the eightfold path, is merely a means to the end of making it obsolete upon enlightenment. This is because of the way 'skillful action' is defined in Buddhism. The action that ceases is not activity in general, but only the unskillful actions that originate in spiritual ignorance. An action originates in spiritual ignorance when it is affected by one of three biases. These biases are sense desire, desire for some future form of existence, and spiritual ignorance. Buddhism further classifies actions into three categories. Wrong actions run counter to the goal of enlightenment and are driven by one or more of the biases. Of right actions there are those that tend toward enlightenment but are still driven by one the biases and those that are completely free of the biases and based on the correct understanding of the enlightened agent. Examples of the former are actions performed by aspiring Buddhists who have not yet attained enlightenment and behave according to the Buddhist guidelines because they are enjoined on them by the religion itself. Upon enlightenment, the cessation of action that takes place is a cessation of the actions that are driven by the biases and, hence, unenlightened.


Both the Existentialist and Buddhist realize there is ultimately no value in anything.

The Existentialist creates his own worldly values.
The Buddhist values nothing.

The Existentialist embraces suffering for a cause.
The Buddhist runs away from every cause to run away from suffering; this is his very starting point and noble truths.

The Existentialist realizes that there is no reason not to enjoy life, laugh, and be happy.
The Buddhist enjoys his emptiness or Nirvana and piety.

The Existentialist embraces life and is active.
The Buddhist denies life and is passive.

The Existentialist aims towards goals in the outside world.
The Buddhist aims towards goals in the mind.

You can't claim the Buddhist is non-egoistic -- his whole purpose is to avoid suffering. There is no such thing as "non-egoistic."
Meanwhile the Existentialist realizes suffering is ultimately no better or worse than happiness and actually required for the best happiness.

Buddhism is the next best thing to suicide.
Existentialism is living to your fullest capacity.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: parasdr on January 31, 2009, 11:44:57 AM

I tend to believe there is no consensus over whether either good or evil are intrinsic to human nature.

Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency.

A variety of Enlightenment thinkers alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures.

Evolutionary speaking, humans are biologically adapted to carry out a variety of game theory strategies, some of which may promote individual utility at the expense of group utility, which, if the disparity is extreme enough, would be termed evil.


Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the "dark side of God". People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. But from a psychological point of view to be evil is to refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in one's own personality. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow. There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the root of violence is the very concept of "evil" or "badness." When we label someone as bad or evil, Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do things to other human beings that they normally would not do. He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, they are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others, as opposed to punishing them. Psychologist Albert Ellis makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy or REBT. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone, is almost always related to variations of implicit or explicit philosophical beliefs about other human beings. He further claims that without holding variants of those covert or overt belief and assumptions, the tendency to resort to violence in most cases is less unlikely. Prominent American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck on the other hand, describes evil as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals. According to Scott Peck, an evil person: 1) Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others; 2) Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so; 3) Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency; 4) Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints. He also considers certain institutions may be evil, as his discussion of the My Lai Massacre and its attempted coverup illustrate.

(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5022/mylaimassacrezz2.jpg)
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: qiverori on February 01, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.
Title: Self-Deception & Falsehood
Post by: Quadro on February 08, 2009, 11:16:33 AM

Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. He sums up his view (if "sums up" is ever an appropriate term in existentialist writing) thus: "The Nature of consciousness simultaneously is to be what is not and not to be what it is." And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'?


It's been asserted that consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness of its being. In a prohibition or a veto, for example, the human being denies a future transcendence. But this negation is not verifiable. My consciousness is not restricted to considering a négatité. It constitutes itself in its own substance as the annihilation of a possibility which another human reality projects as its possibility. For that reason it must arise in the world as a Not; it is as a Not that the slave first apprehends the master, or that the prisoner who is trying to escape sees the guard who is watching him. There are even men (e.g., caretakers, overseers, gaolers) whose social reality is uniquely that of the Not, who will live and die, having forever been only a Not upon the earth. Others, so as to make the Not a part of their very subjectivity, establish their human personality as a perpetual negation. This is the meaning and function of "the man of resentment" – in reality, the Not. But there exist more subtle behaviors, the description of which will lead us further into the inwardness of consciousness. Irony is one of these. In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to to believed; he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness. Thus attitudes of negation toward the self permit us to raise a new question: What are we to say is the nature of man who has the possibility of denying himself? One determined attitude which is essential to human reality and which is such that consciousness instead of directing its negation outwards turns it toward itself is self-deception (mauvaise foi).

Frequently this is identified with falsehood. We say indifferently of a person that he shows signs of self-deception or that he lies to himself. We'll grant that self-deception is a lie to oneself, or a condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general. Lying is a negative attitude, but this negation does not bear on consciousness itself; it aims only at the transcendent. The essence of the lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken. The ideal description of the liar would be a cynical consciousness, affirming truth within himself, denying it in his words, and denying that negation as such. Now this doubly negative attitude rests on the transcendent; the fact expressed is transcendent since it does not exist, and the original negation rests on a truth; that is, on a particular type of transcendence. As for the inner negation which I effect correlatively with the affirmation for myself of the truth, this rests on words; that is, on an event in the world. Furthermore the inner disposition of the liar is positive; it could be the object of an affirmative judgment. The liar intends to deceive and he does not seek to hide this intention from himself nor to disguise the translucency of consciousness; on the contrary, he has recourse to it when there is a question of deciding secondary behavior. It explicitly exercises a regulatory control over all attitudes. As for his flaunted intention of telling the truth ("I'd never want to deceive you! This is true! I swear it!") – all this, of course, is the object of an inner negation, but also it is not recognized by the liar as his intention. It is played, imitated, it is the intention of the character which he plays in the eyes of his questioner, but this character, precisely because he does not exist, is a transcendent. Thus the lie does not put into play the inner structure of present consciousness; all the negations which constitute it bear on objects which by this fact are removed from consciousness.
Title: Muslim in America: a 'voyage of discovery'
Post by: coban on February 12, 2009, 07:10:46 PM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


Me too noticed that when reviewing the thread, qiverori. 
Title: Re: Muslim in America: a 'voyage of discovery'
Post by: barabar on February 12, 2009, 08:10:05 PM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


Me too noticed that when reviewing the thread, qiverori. 


coban, it's all about gender inequality. Women are treated as * & ^ % in Muslim countries - they have no rights, they're simply considered the "property" of men.
Title: Re: Muslim in America: a 'voyage of discovery'
Post by: Yourgangee on February 22, 2009, 02:30:50 PM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


Me too noticed that when reviewing the thread, qiverori. 


coban, it's all about gender inequality. Women are treated as * & ^ % in Muslim countries - they have no rights, they're simply considered the "property" of men.


Note, barabar, that even in the US way too many men consider their wives their "property." You'd stand corrected, though, when saying that "honor" killings like those happening in the Gaza Strip and West Bank talked about here would never happen in the US!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Aunt Dicka on March 02, 2009, 04:22:37 PM
Yourgangee, who cares about the Gaza Strip and West Bank? Why don't you leave us alone?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: timed out session on March 31, 2009, 12:53:05 PM

Throughout his life, Hitler acted like one who was the agent of fate. When he wrote Mein Kampf in the 1920's, Hitler sketched the history of the 1930's and 1940's. He anticipated a great war, and he anticipated that Germany might be destroyed by the war. Hitler felt that his life and his actions were the result not of accident or of choice, but of fate. With fate supporting him, he felt that he possessed great power, that he was invincible, hence he had complete confidence in himself. His confidence enabled him to speak with passion, energy, and conviction, and it enabled him to captivate a nation. Hitler relied on his unconscious to reveal what was fated to occur; he relied on hunches and intuitions. "I go the way Providence dictates," said Hitler, "with the assurance of a sleepwalker." Hitler's dependence on fate and on his unconscious was so complete that he lost touch with reality, and wasn't wholly sane. [...]


I'd not say not only "fate" dictates whether they'll become or not ... I mean, without significant others to excite their interest and open pathways for their genius to roam, the remarkability of these individuals  can go unnoticed. Take Newton, for instance -- if not for his uncle, the headmaster of Trinity College who interceded on his behalf, Sir Isaac Newton may have been a farmer, albeit an absent-minded one.

These people's drive is not ego, money, or applause, but expression of self. Some have others who stand beside them with moral and money support, like Theo van Gogh for his brother Vincent, who otherwise may have spent the fate of being ignored and forgotten. Work is how these people communicate best and preferably with others. Through their work, they show and share their love.

For theirs is a characteristic preoccupation with it. When they love what they are doing, rare can and does result -- which is reason enough for business and industry to actively seek their employ. Be warned, however. To them mundane is pain/bane and bore. It was rumoured that Albert Einstein only owned one suit, a brown one. Actually he had many suits, though all of same cut, color, and cloth. Details of what to wear, what colors, what shoes, were too trivial for him to waste time on. Removing mundane freed him to work more.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: doorbell on April 04, 2009, 06:10:56 PM

[...] Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. [...]


Hahaha - you've got to be kidding me, puede!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Q.Stud. on April 04, 2009, 07:23:35 PM

[...] Refusal of Home as well: "homelessness," which most consider a form of victimization, not wishing to be forced into nomadology. But "homelessness" can in a sense be a virtue, an adventure. [...]


Hahaha - you've got to be kidding me, puede!


But, of course, door, it's funny - watch "Lost in America" for a benign version of "dropping out" of society - which ain't that funny, after all...
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: zaba on April 08, 2009, 08:16:22 AM

Yourgangee, who cares about the Gaza Strip and West Bank? Why don't you leave us alone?


Unfortunately, it's not only Gaza Strip/West Bank that women are treated this bad. I was reading some time ago a report of OMCT (The World Organisation Against Torture) on violence against women even in Greece, a country presumed democratic and civilized enough to be part of EU. Unequal power relations between men and women lead to the domination of and discrimination against women, which in turn may lead to violence against women. Women frequently experience physical and psychological violence at the hands of State agents as well as within the domestic sphere by their own family members.

Greece has not enacted specific legislation addressing domestic violence, a basic human rights violation. Although women may be able to prosecute their husbands or boyfriends for assault under various laws, these laws do not recognize the particular difficulties faced by women victims of domestic violence, such as familial and societal pressure not to press charges or the immediate need for protection through restraining orders, shelters, and other such mechanisms. Without specific laws concerning violence in home, women will not likely press charges, or if they do choose to press charges initially, they will likely withdraw their complaint due to pressure from the family and surrounding community, as well as inadequacy of police and judicial officers to effectively address the issue of domestic violence.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: d r e on April 09, 2009, 08:11:45 AM

Yourgangee, who cares about the Gaza Strip and West Bank? Why don't you leave us alone?


Unfortunately, it's not only Gaza Strip/West Bank that women are treated this bad. I was reading some time ago a report of OMCT (The World Organisation Against Torture) on violence against women even in Greece, a country presumed democratic and civilized enough to be part of EU. Unequal power relations between men and women lead to the domination of and discrimination against women, which in turn may lead to violence against women. Women frequently experience physical and psychological violence at the hands of State agents as well as within the domestic sphere by their own family members.

Greece has not enacted specific legislation addressing domestic violence, a basic human rights violation. Although women may be able to prosecute their husbands or boyfriends for assault under various laws, these laws do not recognize the particular difficulties faced by women victims of domestic violence, such as familial and societal pressure not to press charges or the immediate need for protection through restraining orders, shelters, and other such mechanisms. Without specific laws concerning violence in home, women will not likely press charges, or if they do choose to press charges initially, they will likely withdraw their complaint due to pressure from the family and surrounding community, as well as inadequacy of police and judicial officers to effectively address the issue of domestic violence.



Greece is a very misogynistic country. Watch this movie for example.


[...] Here it is another dramatic scene - the great Irene Papas is the widow looking for her goat. Giorgos Foundas is smoking in the cafe. Alan Bates offers his umbrella to Irene and Anthony Quinn is sitting outside with him. [...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN6AhB3sajE&feature=related

Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: soft power on April 14, 2009, 08:31:21 AM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


qiverori, a very good idea on your part to clarify that - there's a tendency on this board to ascribe this type of mentality to Islamic countries and cultures only. While it is a fact that treating women this bad is characteristic of every society that governs itself not "bureaucratically" but polices "itself." So basically, women property of men, with the latter that can do whatever they want with them (their women).

However, as another poster highlighted, in Western countries, too, many men consider women to be their "property." Thus, even in Western countries there are instances like that, that is, cases when men pay authorities (payoff) so that no charges will be filed against them after they badly assaulted their wives (just an example among many).
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: I Create Therefore I Am on April 15, 2009, 10:24:58 AM

However, as another poster highlighted, in Western countries, too, many men consider women to be their "property." Thus, even in Western countries there are instances like that, that is, cases when men pay authorities (payoff) so that no charges will be filed against them after they badly assaulted their wives (just an example among many).



soft, what exactly are you saying here? I mean in Western countries what you're saying does not happen that often! We've certainly heard about "high-society" defendants charged with some white-collar/gambling type of thing getting off thanks to payoffs, but assault charges dropped after men beats their own wives up?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: kamma niradha on April 16, 2009, 08:19:06 AM

[...]

For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed. This explains their sharply opposed responses to the human condition as they understand it. Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths' and yet maintaining them and continually creating them -- wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) -- represents an ideal response to existence. [...]


Great post, tantrum! It has to be pointed out, though, that just like Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understand Buddhism and have taken one thing for another, you, too, may be giving a not-quite-right interpretation of what Nietzscheanism is about.. 
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: A Faster Way on April 16, 2009, 09:33:48 AM

Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Übermensch" (English: "overman or "superman") [...]


Does your keyboard have a button for the letter Ü?


Hold ALT and tap U.


In Microsoft Word go to Insert > Symbol and select Ü.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: loany on April 20, 2009, 09:06:49 AM

Great post, tantrum! It has to be pointed out, though, that just like Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understand Buddhism and have taken one thing for another, you, too, may be giving a not-quite-right interpretation of what Nietzscheanism is about.. 


I don't think Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understood Buddhism, kamma!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: mame on April 21, 2009, 08:13:26 AM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


qiverori, a very good idea on your part to clarify that - there's a tendency on this board to ascribe this type of mentality to Islamic countries and cultures only. While it is a fact that treating women this bad is characteristic of every society that governs itself not "bureaucratically" but polices "itself." So basically, women property of men, with the latter that can do whatever they want with them (their women). 


Muslim families treat women bad. Muslim men treat women with no respect, beat them, oppress them and sometimes kill them. The typical case of an oppressed Muslim woman is that of one given into marriage when she is but a child. Men are promiscuous and their wives usually know that they have affairs with other women. Children are also beaten by their fathers - they are beaten, their theory being that unless children are beaten they will become spoiled.

Caregiving and raising children is done exclusively by the women and men who share even just a bit on the above are not considered 'real' men. Children in Muslim countries are seen as property of their parents. They are called "amana," they are viewed as "on loan" from God, and parents are entrusted to care for them. Children are expected to be obedient and parents discourage premarital intimacy and unsupervised dating and parties. Children are expected to take care of their elderly parents and those who do not are seen as 'bad' children.

Muslims value highly relationships with extended family and friends, so families try to live close to one another. The elderly and disabled are viewed as blessings and are cared for within the family or close-knit community.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: part v. whole on April 23, 2009, 09:29:12 AM

Great post, tantrum! It has to be pointed out, though, that just like Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understand Buddhism and have taken one thing for another, you, too, may be giving a not-quite-right interpretation of what Nietzscheanism is about.. 


I don't think Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understood Buddhism, kamma!


loany, just because they were smart it does not necessarily mean they had the right attitude to fully grasp in its entirety Buddhism!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: corsica on June 03, 2009, 07:55:42 AM

I don't think Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understood Buddhism, kamma!


loany, just because they were smart it does not necessarily mean they had the right attitude to fully grasp in its entirety Buddhism!


Could you offer your perspective on the issue, part?
Title: Re: The Sexual Commune
Post by: Wine-A-Rita on June 19, 2009, 07:37:00 AM

So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.


According to Dallas Kenmare's strong words in "The Philosophy of Love," "It would be safe to say that all our troubles originate in a misunderstanding of sex and it is not an exaggeration to assert that, traced to its source, almost every human tragedy is a tragedy of love." Simply stated, the evils of ancient and modern civilization have been caused by our frustration about and failure to understand the meaning of sex. In "The Art of Loving," Erich Fromm proposes that "love" in the modern world is a highly individualist, marginal phenomenon, and not the social force it is meant to be, since love is the only power which can solve the global problems.

The Metaphysics of Sex

A global vision of the reproduction of the planet is called for. Such reproduction requires us to engage in philosophical eros. In planetary reproduction, biology and morality, sex and love, nature and idealization, must unite since there can be no creation without union. Through sexual union we understand the great mysteries of life, the renewal and fertility of the animal and plant kingdoms.

Lynn White, in his famous essay "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis," firmly teaches us that traditional Christian dogma and its transcendental God, who has the power of virgin human conception, is responsible for the ecological breakdown our technology and science has caused. He writes, "More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one." Creating a new religious myth of creation requires the utter destruction of the existing structures of thought which means, first of all, destroying the concept of the sexless virgin birth. Joseph Campbell thought that the scientific cosmology in the Bible was scientifically outdated even before the text was put together in the last centuries B.C. and first A.D. He writes, "To be effective, a mythology must be up to date scientifically, based on a concept of the universe that is current, accepted, and convincing. In this sense, the myth of the Virgin Birth is the most dangerous scientific lie!

(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4106/gaiareligion.gif)
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4106/gaiareligion.gif

In the Judeo-Christian story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Eve disobeys God's command not to pick the fruit off the Tree of Life, which curses the first woman and man on Earth with the knowledge of good and evil. The Serpent Goddess is seen as Satan, who is responsible for their demise. Whitmont writes, "Good becomes what is practical and collectively approved. Bad is what brings about visible harm or damage and is not in keeping with custom." Consequently, sex-knowledge is associated with evil. Blaming woman for the fall of man from paradise made Eve, Adam's spiritual twin, his first enemy. Since sex-knowledge was considered evil, the possibility of mutual ecstasy of erotic union is no longer permissible. Their love for each other became a crime of disobedience, and their children were later believed to be afflicted with their "original sin." Their paradisiacal bliss and supernatural powers were taken from them as they became ashamed of their own bodies. Work then dominated over pleasure. "Her desire became his dominion" as she became his submissive, unhappy wife. Lost was the inner, spiritual, and poetic connection they once had. She was now his external possession. In God's kingdom, "eros was superseded by agape ["brotherly" love]." Spontaneous attraction was replaced by orthodox laws. Human and animal sacrifices were performed to vent man's violent, destructive, and sadomasochistic urges, and to "renew" his hatred of the sin and his guilt for taking part in "evil" acts. Those who found themselves outside the dominant group became scapegoats: animals, slaves, non-conformists, dissenters, prisoners of war, lawbreakers, and anyone outside the group or offenders against the group. In a word, outsiders were considered enemies.

Yahweh was a jealous God who demanded Eve to love Him with all her heart, mind, and soul; before the Fall, Eros was inclusive, but after the Fall Eros was repressed. "The love between the two welcomes the love and companionship of many." Consequently, after the Fall, love became a sterile commandment enforced by His will. Ever since, Eve has tried to convince Him that using physical force, electric shock treatments, or psychological drugs on her was not going to stop her from longing for the time when her Word was sacred. While the Greeks believed the ideal of the beautiful defined the highest communal good, the Hebrew God commanded one to love Him above all else. Following His commandments was the way to the good world. But it was impossible for Eve to love a world where men ruled over her. God had prevented sexuality and destroyed equality between the sexes. Consequently, the war between the sexes began.

(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3150/denialoferoticlove.gif)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3150/denialoferoticlove.gif

To return to the childlike, beautiful state of the Garden is possible only with proper understanding of love and of the sacramental sex act. The new Eve, if we but chose to embrace her, dares Adam to become "consciously aware of one's depth and of life as an undivided whole." She uses the serpent power of the Word to convince him that the survival of the planet depends on the construction of her Neutopian vision and that the greatest social need of the epoch is for him to sow the seed. In order to work her miracle, she uses dialectical progression rather than dualism. She points out to man that the apostles of true love had neither wealth, military armies, communication networks, nor any other means of worldly influence, but still their creative love made the world more conscious of its human potential. Their power came not from appealing to envy, greed, selfishness, or lust, but by becoming examples of living spirits in the flesh. She asks him to recall the fact that the greatest conquerors and revolutionary leaders do not compare with these apostles of love in the magnitude and durability of the change brought about by their activities. Through their love, they could redirect destructive energies into a creative direction of building the ecocities of eroticism. As Phyllis Trible asserts in "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality," all nature extols the love of female and male. All animals serve love. And the way to achieve this remarkable harmony is for his desire to become her delight. As spiritual equals no one tries to dominate the other or treat the other as a possession. She is no longer called his wife and the bearer of his offspring, but their "sexual play intertwines with work."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: R R on July 01, 2009, 12:43:18 PM

Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.


This sounds very much like Baudrillard's strategy of ironic hyperconformity.
Title: Pregnant with Future
Post by: Luigi on August 14, 2010, 12:57:10 PM

(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7991/dionysus20kleophradesvp6.jpg)
Dionysus had the power to inspire and to create ecstasy

Compare it with Nietzsche's Dionysus: chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.

And then you have the Apollo: the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.

In the doctrine of will to power, Nietzsche's philosophy matures fully and the earlier dichotomy of Dionysian and Apollonian which had a Hegelian dialectical flavor to it, becomes absorbed into the Will to power and thus becomes one, just as all other drives do. The Will to power becomes a vehicle for the revaluation of decadent values, which for him were the result of two thousand years of slave morality. The Dionysian energy becomes merely a material for will to power which is the most important drive in nature. Thus Nietzsche says:

Quote
This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!

Nietzsche's will to power, unlike Schopenhauer's Will, cannot be fully defined, since it cannot be known directly but rather through its manifestations. This Will to power is what rules the world and its historical behavior; it is the will to power which governs an individual's actions in this world. So fundamental is this Will to power that life could not be even possible without it. Both life and Will to power presuppose each other. Nietzsche has, as appears clearly, inherited the concept of becoming from Heraclitus for whom the concept of being smells of stagnation. Everything is a becoming. Everything is in flux. Will to power in itself is for Nietzsche nothing but becoming. This nature of becoming implies that all values too needs new valuations. Thus the revaluation of values too is a function and manifestation of this will to power. Everything that lives is an expression of will to power. The living beings must discharge their energy and even if it remains suppressed it will seek an outlet, and this energy is released in the form of power, whether in the form of art and music or architecture, or even war. Thus life is nothing but will to power for Nietzsche:

Quote
A living thing seeks above all to vent its strength — life itself is will to power.

This will to power of life is not the Darwinian self preservation of species since, 'self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of it.

I argue that in spite of the fact that Nietzsche's will to power has some destructive aspect to it, it is moving towards creativity. Similar to Freud's concepts of Eros and Thanatos, will to power too must destroy to create, for in the process of becoming everything is constantly being destroyed and created anew. What it will destroy is decadent and degenerated values with the 'Revaluation of values' and will replace them with more noble and healthy values. The example of a carpenter cutting down a tree to shape it into a chair should serve a good illustration of how will to power has to be both destructive and constructive to create what is grand and noble and the apparent destruction and construction is only manifestations of this will to power eternally becoming. The most accurate portrayal of will to power is the drive to create. The desire to be at our best creativity is an important component of this will to power.

For Nietzsche humans are always trying to impose their superiority and will upon each other in one way or the other. Whether the person is physically harming another person, or giving him presents, or praising him or claiming to be in love with someone, the psychological and underlying desire remains the same; to inflict one's will on them. This implies that human beings are basically egoistic by nature and not altruistic as Christianity takes them to be. In fact, Nietzsche accuses Christian concept of bringing inferior ranks of people on equal footing with the superior ranks of people as a hidden Will to power, as he says that the will to equality is the will to power.

Nietzsche's will to power is a life affirming attitude. In this, the creatures affirm their instincts to acquire power and dominance. On pains and sufferings one's back is not shown but rather these are embraced as a necessary part of life. For Nietzsche, lasting pleasure and satisfaction come about as a result of being able to live according to one's instincts or authenticity and to exert will to power and not by running away from one's own nature. Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. Nietzsche's Will is in a perpetual becoming, a monster of energies gushing constantly. And it is his idea of eternal recurrence, already discussed, which gives this constant becoming of will to power a stability.


The terms 'Uberman' and 'Dionysian Man' are used almost interchangeably by Nietzsche, and they are exemplified in his character Zarathustra. In his later work Nietzsche develops the concept of Dionysian pathos until it becomes almost a synonym for his ideal of the Uberman ('overman'.) This overman is a person who is self-overcoming, who constantly overcomes himself so that he can become 'better'. He is Dionysian, and accepts all aspects of life. Nietzsche saw Dionysian pathos as the highest state of affirmation of existence, since the Dionysian man does not cower from the negative aspects of existence, and instead accepts that both the terrifying and the beautiful exist. In this sense, he sees the Dionysian attitude as belonging to one who is stronger and 'healthier' than normal men: the Dionysian man "meets with courage and good humour that which makes the weakling shudder."

Nietzsche also sees it as being irrevocably linked to his concept of the will to power, in that the Dionysian is governed by the Greek God Dionysus, who every year is said to be cut into pieces so that he can be reborn again - better, like the overman overcoming himself. This is linked to the will to power because a necessary pre-requisite for this will is to self-overcome, thus becoming stronger and better. Nietzsche saw this Dionysian overcoming as a vital change undergone by the strong, in whom "...the desire for destruction, change, becoming can be the expression of an overfull power pregnant with the future."

The Dionysian pathos is a justification of life even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious, and is in direct opposition to the pessimism that Nietzsche rebelled against:

Quote
"At the same time I grasped that my instinct went into the opposite direction from Schopenhauer's: toward a justification of life, even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious; for this I had the formula 'Dionysian'"

In this way, the Dionysian or tragic pathos became a superior counterforce to the denial of life that pessimism and pessimistic nihilism advocated, and offered in their stead an acceptance of life, no matter how terrible. It is important to understand however, what Nietzsche thought of pessimism, since this will tell us precisely what the Dionysian pathos is not, and it is in such a way that Nietzsche most often explains it. Usually we see optimism as the opposite of pessimism, but for Nietzsche this was not the case at all. He despised optimism as much as he did pessimism, and saw both as diseases to which the Dionysian pathos was the tonic. He maintained that both optimism and pessimism are over generalized judgements based on isolated personal experiences, and since we cannot extend our personal afflictions into the form of universal judgements, both optimism and pessimism make a fatal mistake. The pessimist judges the value of existence based on the appearance of pleasure and displeasure and because he sees the existence of displeasure he concludes that it is better not to exist at all. But he is weak, because the 'healthier man' (and by this one assumes Nietzsche means 'overman' or the Dionysian man,) realizes that the "value of life is certainly not measured by the standard of these 'trifles.' Nietzsche also says that suffering might predominate, but in spite of that a "powerful will might exist, a Yes to life." So, the Dionysian man does not judge the value of existence based on either his isolated, personal experiences, nor on the appearance of pleasure and displeasure. He does not judge at all, but instead simply accepts (says Yes to) all aspects of life, both the pleasure and displeasure - no aspect of life is subtracted or expendable. This is further expanded by Nietzsche's concept of Amor Fati - love of fate. This love of fate is quite simply the love of the overman for all of life, including the terrible: instead of hating 'fate' for sometimes being cruel, the overman accepts it and learns to love it.

Quote
"The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: eternally reborn and returning again from destruction"
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: conversionist on September 25, 2010, 01:39:02 PM

[...] Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. [...]


(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/7954/Baphomet.jpg)
Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness. Jung explains the shadow with his notion of the archetypes:

Quote
When it [shadow] appears as an archetype...it is quite within the possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.


John Sanford rightly has said that our shadow personality is often obvious to others, but unknown to us. Jung maintained that everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.

If only it were all so simple? If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: let s work together on September 29, 2010, 11:40:47 AM

John Sanford rightly has said that our shadow personality is often obvious to others, but unknown to us. Jung maintained that everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.

If only it were all so simple? If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?


Jung saw the shadow as an archetype of the repressed, hidden side of the personality: the parts of experience that have not been integrated into the conscious ego structure. As the ego develops, it cannot integrate all of its experiences because they are too terrifying, too bizarre, too ugly, etc., to be tolerated. They are then banished to the unconscious, i.e., repressed, out of sight, out of mind. If the repressed material is not faced or confronted and in some way integrated into the conscious self later in life as normal steps in maturity, the danger exists of the self being controlled by the shadow.

Shadow as Evil

Yet, there is a tendency to regard shadow as evil, particularly from Western religious perspectives. Steven Diamond, whose 1991 article, "Redeeming our Devils and Demons" (found in Zweig and Abrams' Meeting the Shadow), deals with psychology's struggle with the concept of evil. Following psychologist, Rollo May, Diamond resurrects the word "daimonic" to represent a more balanced idea of the "demonic." Diamond quotes Rollo May: "The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both... Our age is one of transition, in which the normal channels for utilizing the daimonic are denied; and such ages tend to be times when the daimonic is expressed in its most destructive form." Commenting now himself, Diamond goes on, "These turbulent times force us to come face-to-face with the ugly reality of evil. For lack of a more psychologically accurate, integrating, and meaningful myth some people seize upon the timeworn symbol of the devil [demonic] to express their disturbing encounter with the destructive side of the daimonic [i.e., the shadow]...... The problem appears to lie in the split between good and evil promulgated by Western religious tradition, a rigid dualism that condemns the daimonic as being evil, and evil only."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: it takes 2 babe on September 29, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Here it is an interesting depiction of the archetypes

The Unconscious

There are two types of unconscious, the personal unconscious and the collective. The personal unconscious is pretty much self defining and doesn't need to be perceived as mysterious or supernatural (though it is occult in the truest sense of the word - 'hidden'). The personal unconscious contains all the stuff that simply isn't conscious. It contains stuff that can be made conscious by simple act of will, stuff that requires some digging, as well as stuff that may never be recalled to consciousness ever again. It is made up of the things you've experienced every day of your life. I'm not sure if it is strictly true that nothing is ever really and truly lost, totally forgotten, but it seems that the psyche is very reluctant to let much go in the event that it might come in handy someday. The psyche is a pack rat, the unconscious full of its stuff.

(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5131/psyche.gif)

The Big Five

The Big Five are the Persona, the Ego, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and the Self. Each has a specific role or quality which is why I prefer to think of them as functions.

The Persona

The Persona is that which we present to the outside world. It isn't really our selves, though there is a danger we can identify too much with it and believe it to be so. It is a mask. It's not a bad thing to have, in fact it's necessary for getting along with others. Jung seems to talk about it in the singular, but I suspect that a well adjusted person has several masks and is adept at juggling them and knowing which one is appropriate when and just how opaque it needs to be. In any event, singular or plural, it's a fact of life. Ask a doctor what he does and he won't say, "I do medicine", he's unlikely even to say, "I practice medicine". What you'll likely hear is "I'm a doctor". Occupation isn't the only shelf where masks are pulled from. Religion, sexual orientation, politics, the social sciences....

The Ego

The ego is the centre of consciousness. It is identity. It is 'I'. But it is not the totality of the psyche. Being the king of consciousness amounts to dominion over a small but important land surrounded by a wide world of terra incognita. The more aware the King is of lands beyond his domain the more secure he will be on his throne, but he must not be tempted to open the borders to it all. In Jungian theory the unconscious is far too vast to ever be made fully conscious, poking about in it is not without danger, yet ignoring it is also a mistake since it leads to a brittle fixedness which at best impedes growth, at worst can break when under the pressure of the 'threat' of change.

The Shadow

I was a couple of sentences in on Anima/Animus, before I noticed that I had forgotten the Shadow. That is the nature of this archetype, it is the receptacle for all of that which we have for one reason or another disowned. There seems to be a movement on to 'redeem' the Shadow, as evidenced by such books as Your Golden Shadow, but in truth there's a great deal that's very, very unpleasant here, since we have good reason for wanting to disown our darker natures. The avenue for an attempted redemption of the Shadow lies in the belief that everything disowned winds up here. A person who grew up in a family where level headedness prevailed and such things as art making were not given much value may discover some artistic aptitude hiding out in their shadow. There are treasures here, but they are buried in stinking muck.

The Anima/Animus

The Anima is the female soul image of a man, the Animus the male soul image of a woman. That is the most simple definition, and one which many struggle with, since Jung seems quite absolute in defining a person's soul image as gender opposite. "Soul image" sounds very pretty, but the Anima/Animus is not without a negative pole as well. Jung's anima whispered to him that what he was doing was "art". He rejected this and pushed ahead as a 'scientist' which was much better in a society which regards science as 'serious' and art as less so. If one is on good terms with one's Anima/Animus he/she can prove a valuable messenger between the unconscious and the conscious, a connecting link - a veritable Hermes.

The Self

The Self is simply the centre and the totality of the entire psyche. It is the archetype which contains all the other archetypes and around which they orbit. It's something of a paradox, and extremely difficult for the conscious ego to accept.


Archetypes and the Individuation Process

According to Jung, one must get in touch with the Shadow and Anima/Animus before one can truly get in touch with the Self. The order is sequential, and as tempting as it may be to try and skip the Shadow or deal only superficially with it, it is here that we begin. Jung referred to this initial step as "the First Act of Courage". And the first thing that is necessary in coming to terms with one's own shadow is simply to acknowledge that it exists. It sounds obvious, but there are those for whom the thought of actually having a darker side to their nature is extremely uncomfortable. Yet this is one of the primary reasons for undertaking the 'Shadow work' in the first place, since that which we have yet disavow in ourselves will be projected outwards.

One of the clues to projection of shadow content is the degree of negative emotion aroused in us by something in the outside world - often other people. It can be something they do, or even just the way they look. Projection is accompanied by emotion. Jung distinguished between 'feeling' (a function which evaluates) and 'emotion' (a physiological affect). If there is no projection of something which is at the root personal, it is possible to evaluate something (or someone) external as being 'bad', without being greatly upset, experiencing, at most, a sense of regret or pity. If the emotion is stronger than that, then we may want to ask ourselves what of ourselves we see in what is making us feel that way. That said, it is important to note that not all projection is negative, that at some level it may all be projection given our subjective perspectives, and that there is a place in the world for righteous anger which motivates social action for change.

One of the advantages of withdrawing one's shadow projections and owning our own 'stuff' is that the external world may brighten up a little for ourselves and those around us, since we won't be projecting so much of a negative nature outwards and saying, 'That's just how the world is, life's a b i t c h and then you die.' There is also truth in the 'Golden Shadow' observation that there are things of value which we have disowned, both aptitudes and qualities, in the Shadow. The person who blushes, and qualifies, and resists, and is generally tremendously uncomfortable when asked to sing may have a part of them which wants nothing more than to belt out a round or two of something raucous, commanding the admiration of those around. Thus the popularity of having a few in a Karoke bar. Also, without going into great detail, life energy (libido) is locked up in the Shadow, energy we could all probably use more of.

The downside to the shadow work is that it involves confronting parts of ourselves which are located in the Shadow precisely because they are frightening or shameful. Jungian analysts advise that this work be done only under the supervision of a Jungian analyst, ignoring the fact that this eliminates a large class of people who cannot afford the services of such a professional. Another book (ref?) suggests that at very least one should do the work with the help of a very close friend whom one trusts in order to have a reference in the external world, an anchor and safe haven and source of reinforcement when dark realizations seem to be all out global truths of complete personal unworthiness. It isn't a journey to be undertaken lightly. At some vaguely defined point evolving naturally out of the process (?!) it becomes possible to begin the work of getting in touch with the Anima/Animus. There is less written on this stage than that of the Shadow, which is as one would expect, given that fewer have made it this far.
Title: Re: Everything is in Flux!
Post by: Very Truly Yours on September 30, 2010, 12:20:21 PM

[...] The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both...[...]


These would be Freud's unconscious instinctual drives in other words...
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: callover on October 03, 2010, 12:17:58 PM

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.


One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.


Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.


qiverori, a very good idea on your part to clarify that - there's a tendency on this board to ascribe this type of mentality to Islamic countries and cultures only. While it is a fact that treating women this bad is characteristic of every society that governs itself not "bureaucratically" but polices "itself." So basically, women property of men, with the latter that can do whatever they want with them (their women). 


Muslim families treat women bad. Muslim men treat women with no respect, beat them, oppress them and sometimes kill them. The typical case of an oppressed Muslim woman is that of one given into marriage when she is but a child. Men are promiscuous and their wives usually know that they have affairs with other women. Children are also beaten by their fathers - they are beaten, their theory being that unless children are beaten they will become spoiled.

Caregiving and raising children is done exclusively by the women and men who share even just a bit on the above are not considered 'real' men. Children in Muslim countries are seen as property of their parents. They are called "amana," they are viewed as "on loan" from God, and parents are entrusted to care for them. Children are expected to be obedient and parents discourage premarital intimacy and unsupervised dating and parties. Children are expected to take care of their elderly parents and those who do not are seen as 'bad' children.

Muslims value highly relationships with extended family and friends, so families try to live close to one another. The elderly and disabled are viewed as blessings and are cared for within the family or close-knit community.


So  what is the point of your post? Somehow suggesting that the Western way of life is superior to these countries' and that the U.S. intervention in their interior affairs is justified in the name of "democratizing" them?
Title: Re: In The Movies
Post by: Yes Virginia on October 03, 2010, 12:40:46 PM

It is interesting to observe the contrasting attitudes of our left-liberal culture to the two kinds of crime, organized versus unorganized. Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive. Unorganized, or street, crime, in contrast, is random, punkish, viciously aggressive against the innocent, and has no redeeming social feature. Wouldn't you know, then, that our leftist culture hates and reviles the Mafia and organized crime, while it lovingly excuses, and apologizes for, chaotic and random street punksviolence which amounts to "anarchy" in the bad, or common meaning. In a sense, street violence embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: since it constitutes an assault on the rights of person and property, and on the rule of law that codifies such rights.


(http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_ca_red.jpg)
Anarchy is Order. The A is for anarchy and the circle is represents the order.

Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". The words anarchy and anarchism are a bit problematic. Anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority.

The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc. Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers.

And thus anarchy means a) coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), downwards to the bottom, i.e. in a coercive manner. b) Thus, anarchy is higher forms of economical and political/administrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management  from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy,  from "the top downwards to the bottom".

The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

Thus, the State, administration of State, government, authority/ies, must not be mixed up with public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, 'res publica', as the negation of the private sector and sphere, because State, goverment etc in this context are about special forms of organization (or disorganization), i.e. all systems where the influence on the societal management and coordination goes mainly from the top towards the bottom, slavery and tyranny - chaotic included. Thus public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, organized significant horizontally, are anarchist - and thus not the State, authority/ies etc. or a part of it. The concept of 'central' is here referring mainly to general matters, things concerning the whole country or all of the citizens, and must not be mixed up with centralist, centralism or centralization, the negation of decentralist, decentralism and decentralization.

Anarchism is political systems and organizations coordinated as anarchy in the above meaning and manner, but also the political tendency advocating anarchy understood this way, and the scientifical knowledge about anarchy and the ways to reduce non-anarchist tendencies.
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs. perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). "Coercion" is defined as restraint, hindrance, compulsion and government by force, ruling, i.e. repression, etc.


Never thought I would read this post in a law students forum..
Title: Re: The Sexual Commune
Post by: after hours on October 20, 2010, 11:46:43 AM

So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.


According to Dallas Kenmare's strong words in "The Philosophy of Love," "It would be safe to say that all our troubles originate in a misunderstanding of sex and it is not an exaggeration to assert that, traced to its source, almost every human tragedy is a tragedy of love." Simply stated, the evils of ancient and modern civilization have been caused by our frustration about and failure to understand the meaning of sex. In "The Art of Loving," Erich Fromm proposes that "love" in the modern world is a highly individualist, marginal phenomenon, and not the social force it is meant to be, since love is the only power which can solve the global problems.

The Metaphysics of Sex

A global vision of the reproduction of the planet is called for. Such reproduction requires us to engage in philosophical eros. In planetary reproduction, biology and morality, sex and love, nature and idealization, must unite since there can be no creation without union. Through sexual union we understand the great mysteries of life, the renewal and fertility of the animal and plant kingdoms.

Lynn White, in his famous essay "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis," firmly teaches us that traditional Christian dogma and its transcendental God, who has the power of virgin human conception, is responsible for the ecological breakdown our technology and science has caused. He writes, "More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one." Creating a new religious myth of creation requires the utter destruction of the existing structures of thought which means, first of all, destroying the concept of the sexless virgin birth. Joseph Campbell thought that the scientific cosmology in the Bible was scientifically outdated even before the text was put together in the last centuries B.C. and first A.D. He writes, "To be effective, a mythology must be up to date scientifically, based on a concept of the universe that is current, accepted, and convincing. In this sense, the myth of the Virgin Birth is the most dangerous scientific lie!

(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4106/gaiareligion.gif)
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4106/gaiareligion.gif

In the Judeo-Christian story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Eve disobeys God's command not to pick the fruit off the Tree of Life, which curses the first woman and man on Earth with the knowledge of good and evil. The Serpent Goddess is seen as Satan, who is responsible for their demise. Whitmont writes, "Good becomes what is practical and collectively approved. Bad is what brings about visible harm or damage and is not in keeping with custom." Consequently, sex-knowledge is associated with evil. Blaming woman for the fall of man from paradise made Eve, Adam's spiritual twin, his first enemy. Since sex-knowledge was considered evil, the possibility of mutual ecstasy of erotic union is no longer permissible. Their love for each other became a crime of disobedience, and their children were later believed to be afflicted with their "original sin." Their paradisiacal bliss and supernatural powers were taken from them as they became ashamed of their own bodies. Work then dominated over pleasure. "Her desire became his dominion" as she became his submissive, unhappy wife. Lost was the inner, spiritual, and poetic connection they once had. She was now his external possession. In God's kingdom, "eros was superseded by agape ["brotherly" love]." Spontaneous attraction was replaced by orthodox laws. Human and animal sacrifices were performed to vent man's violent, destructive, and sadomasochistic urges, and to "renew" his hatred of the sin and his guilt for taking part in "evil" acts. Those who found themselves outside the dominant group became scapegoats: animals, slaves, non-conformists, dissenters, prisoners of war, lawbreakers, and anyone outside the group or offenders against the group. In a word, outsiders were considered enemies.

Yahweh was a jealous God who demanded Eve to love Him with all her heart, mind, and soul; before the Fall, Eros was inclusive, but after the Fall Eros was repressed. "The love between the two welcomes the love and companionship of many." Consequently, after the Fall, love became a sterile commandment enforced by His will. Ever since, Eve has tried to convince Him that using physical force, electric shock treatments, or psychological drugs on her was not going to stop her from longing for the time when her Word was sacred. While the Greeks believed the ideal of the beautiful defined the highest communal good, the Hebrew God commanded one to love Him above all else. Following His commandments was the way to the good world. But it was impossible for Eve to love a world where men ruled over her. God had prevented sexuality and destroyed equality between the sexes. Consequently, the war between the sexes began.

(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3150/denialoferoticlove.gif)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3150/denialoferoticlove.gif

To return to the childlike, beautiful state of the Garden is possible only with proper understanding of love and of the sacramental sex act. The new Eve, if we but chose to embrace her, dares Adam to become "consciously aware of one's depth and of life as an undivided whole." She uses the serpent power of the Word to convince him that the survival of the planet depends on the construction of her Neutopian vision and that the greatest social need of the epoch is for him to sow the seed. In order to work her miracle, she uses dialectical progression rather than dualism. She points out to man that the apostles of true love had neither wealth, military armies, communication networks, nor any other means of worldly influence, but still their creative love made the world more conscious of its human potential. Their power came not from appealing to envy, greed, selfishness, or lust, but by becoming examples of living spirits in the flesh. She asks him to recall the fact that the greatest conquerors and revolutionary leaders do not compare with these apostles of love in the magnitude and durability of the change brought about by their activities. Through their love, they could redirect destructive energies into a creative direction of building the ecocities of eroticism. As Phyllis Trible asserts in "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality," all nature extols the love of female and male. All animals serve love. And the way to achieve this remarkable harmony is for his desire to become her delight. As spiritual equals no one tries to dominate the other or treat the other as a possession. She is no longer called his wife and the bearer of his offspring, but their "sexual play intertwines with work."


A strict sexual division of labor is nowdays no longer socially necessary, in fact its perpetuation presents a fetter even to the continued viability and continued profitability of capitalism. The decline of traditional patriarchal family, the massive movement of women into full-time paid labor force, the development and dissemination of modern birth control and the liberation od sexuality from necessary association with reproduction -- all these contribute towards enabling the emergence of a greatly expanded sexual culture, one focused directly upon the fulfillment of sexual desire and enrichment of sexual interaction. Such creates the precondition for the beginning of the development of a truly human sexuality: a sexuality founded upon the genuinely free, equal and voluntary sexual association of human beings.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: after hours on October 20, 2010, 12:07:55 PM
The gender system we have instituted in our society dominated by the sexist culture involves the domination of men over women and institutionalized heterosexuality. It is by means of the abolition of this gender system and class that human beings really can change, really overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

What happens is that the biological category of "sex" gets transformed into the cultural category of "gender." The creation of "gender" is the construction of social identities of "man" and "woman" based upon a supposed parallel with the biological sex differences of "male" and "female," and this construction always operates to create a rigid binary division of these social identities and a hierarchically unequal relation between those assigned to the dominant, masculine position and those assigned to the subordinate, feminine position. Gender is socially constructed and not naturally predetermined. In fact, the new human being will be of a kind that would seem to us as intrinsically both masculine and feminine, as both a man and a woman, and because of this, really neither masculine nor feminine, neither man or woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations. Not only would this future human being seem to be what we would describe as "bisexual," but also this new human being would likely seem to us to be far more gay than straight (especially in the way this new human being engages in relations of intimacy and affection, friendship and love).
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: please log in on October 20, 2010, 12:34:38 PM
The gender system we have instituted in our society dominated by the sexist culture involves the domination of men over women and institutionalized heterosexuality. It is by means of the abolition of this gender system and class that human beings really can change, really overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

What happens is that the biological category of "sex" gets transformed into the cultural category of "gender." The creation of "gender" is the construction of social identities of "man" and "woman" based upon a supposed parallel with the biological sex differences of "male" and "female," and this construction always operates to create a rigid binary division of these social identities and a hierarchically unequal relation between those assigned to the dominant, masculine position and those assigned to the subordinate, feminine position. Gender is socially constructed and not naturally predetermined. In fact, the new human being will be of a kind that would seem to us as intrinsically both masculine and feminine, as both a man and a woman, and because of this, really neither masculine nor feminine, neither man or woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations. Not only would this future human being seem to be what we would describe as "bisexual," but also this new human being would likely seem to us to be far more gay than straight (especially in the way this new human being engages in relations of intimacy and affection, friendship and love).


I'd like to add that, as things are, nowadays it is gay people that are engaged in the freest and most equal relationships. They are already outside of the family and they have already, at least in part, rejected the "masculine" and "feminine" roles that society has designed for them. For straight men and women it is impossible to escape their rigid gender roles and those of oppressor and oppressed. Gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psychosexual needs, and lesbian women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor. Homosexuality, love between people who are alike, is decisively distinct from heterosexuality in its structural feature that two people who are lovers of a third can themselves also, in principle, be lovers. Such provides an absolute precondition if rivalry and hate are to be ended.

I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

The breaking down of divisions between gay and straight is not going to happen by gay and straight meeting half-way. Because straight, by definition, is consonant with the gender system, the ground on which gays shall gradually converge with their straight brothers is on their side of the fence. If straights are serious about undermining masculinity, then they must accept the fact of their own deviance as defined by the existing order, and as long as they resist the idea and the reality of homosexuality, we can only see this as a deep-seated allegiance to the masculine gender that belies their professions of anti-sexism. Gays for their part refuse to accept that they are permanently set apart as the minority. This is a static view of the situation - viewed dynamically, they are the thin end of a wedge. Gayness is the wedge that splits open the gender system, in which feminine and masculine men fit together in the sexual division of labor: a double wedge in fact, as the rejection of heterosexuality and all it implies proceeds in parallel among both women and men. As more and more people follow gay people's lead and the gender system crumbles, they shall have to redefine themselves, no longer as a deviant minority but as the new majority, having only pity for the stubborn minority who still cling for a while to the traditional path.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'
Title: Re:
Post by: ooo on October 20, 2010, 01:25:40 PM

[...]

I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

[...]

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'


For one Freud has pointed to the sexual, and indeed the homoerotic, origins of political authority. He studied totemism and sought to locate the origins of the group, publishing "Totem and Taboo" in 1913. Although this is a very debatable work on his part, he did maintain in his later works that paternal proscription of sexual relations with the women of the clan passes to exogamy through homoerotic bonding. Freud locates the origins of the sons' collective organization, their ability to challenge the father's sexual monopoly, in "the homosexual feelings and activities which probably manifested themselves during the time of their banishment." The father's imposition of heterosexual austerities on his sons pushes them into mutual erotic identification, "into group psychology." After killing the primal father, the sons agree that all the clan's women would be denied them. In "Totem and Taboo" Freud made homoerotics into a substitution for heteroerotics, one standing at the origin of the first social contract, the sons' renunciation of the women of the clan as sensuous objects, and their conversion into sexual property to be exhanged exogamously. If exogamous heterosexuality is an original consequence of social organization, endogamous homosexuality is its original source. He never wavered on this foundational basis of modern social organization. Indeed in "Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego" Freud makes heterosexual desire into an enemy of social organization, whereas "desexualized, sublimated homosexual love for other, which springs from work in common" is a "civilizing factor." There is no room for woman as a sexual object, he writes, in the great artificial groups of society. The implication is, of course, that there is a place for men as sexual objects. "It seems certain," he writes, "that homosexual love is far more compatible with group ties, even when it takes the shape of uninhibited sexual impulsion..." If in his mythico-history he makes the homoerotics of the rother clan the mediation between the primal horde and exogamous patriarchy, in his clinical studies he makes homoerotics integral to the formation of the male individual ego, to masculine identification, and to the psychic operation of authority more generally.

Paternal identification also transmutes a homosexual object-choice, one that is at the heart of sociality. Just like the totemic clan the individual subject is formed through bodily representation. In "Ego and Id," he argues that the self - the ego - is first figured through an imagined body, a sexed morphological imaginary. The imagined body in whose bounded image ego formation takes place during the "mirror stage" has a sex. The male self is both formed and sexed as a resolution of an inhabitation of the bodily form of paternal authority, an outside which is in us, but not of us, but the condition for our being. This homoerotic loss initiates the ego as a perceptual object, as a container for reflexively turned, unavowable erotic desire and sadistic rage at its loss and unhabitatibility. That desire is both refused and retained in a melancholic gender identification, an ungrievable loss. Men want to have the femininity they can never be and want to be the masculinity they can never have. The habitable space of gender is grounded in an uninhabitable space of sex. Paternal identification solves not one, but two problems in this sexual economy. Group formation likewise operates through paternal identification, which, like his murder, is enabled through homoerotic solidarity among the sons. Immediately after explaining in "Group Psychology" that the introjected paternal object is a substitute for the libidinal object tie with the woman, Freud launches into the genesis of male homosexuality, the boy's failure to give up the mother as a cathected object, the "negative" Oedipal complex, the transformation of the male ego on the model of the female. Boy becomes girl mirroring the way in which he has the man, through the matrilineal totem, becoming woman. Group formation is a quintessentially masculine, yet involves men being womanly.

Freud makes homosocial energy the basis of solidarity in complex groups and locates the origin of the social in a renunciation of heterosexual desire. He derives the experience of consubstantiality of totem and man from a fleshy family, from the mother-child bond and the son's deferred identification with the father. Durkheim, in contrast, derives consubstantiality from the experience of a wider social, a representation of embodied oneness with other men. Freud's is an imaginary resolution to a scarce heterosexual economy, while Durkheim's is an imaginary expression of a fulfilled homosocial congress. In point of fact, Freud's clinical theory of individual development is more consistent with Durkheim's account of totemism than is his own historical mythology. In turn, Durkheim, points to the truth, and indeed a liberatory aspect, of Freud's homoerotic theory. For what in Freud is a feminizing, violent subordination to masculine hierarchy, is, in Durkheim, a masculinizing, non-violent, non-hierarchical assimilation. Freud eroticizes power; Durkheim does not. Both Durkheim and Freud make somatics into a constituent of semiosis, an immanent relation between individual and collective bodies, as metaphor, mechanics, and energitics of collective representation. Is it possible that the establishment of the state is itself a sexual act, a double separation of two sexes, woman and man, heterosexual and homosexual, that the state not only has a sex, but is a sex?
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Laudate omnes gentes on November 21, 2010, 01:03:20 PM
I find it interesting to make a comment with respect to the two diametrically opposed kinds of homosexuality talked about in the last few posts - maybe I am being redundant, but the kind of homosexuality "ooo" talks about, normal homosexuality, is sanctioned by the society, while the kind that "please log in" talks about, gay homosexuality, stand in clear contradistinction to the former, in that it is frawned upon, repressed and called subversive.

To define yourself as gay... even in the minimal sense of accepting the judgement of the environing society that there is something different about you, is to recognize that your homosexuality has something different about it that is radically incompatible with the prevalent normality — that you are 'bent', 'queer' i.e. in no way a 'proper' man. In fact, gay men...really are effeminate. Gayness is a function of a deviance from the gendered system that is anchored in our personalities in the course of childhood experience, and the choice to build our lives around the homosexual preference that this induces. Even those gay men that seem to be quite masculine, and cultivate seemingly very "macho" forms of expression and communication of their homosexuality are still, by and large, more "effeminate" — more feminine — than most straight men. Even such a "masculine gay man" is unprepared for the inter-male struggle for dominance that accepting and conforming to the conventional heterosexual norm requires, and he is especially unable ever to view women first and last as simply "objects to @ # ! *." Moreover, even the masculine gay man "reduces himself" to the status of a woman in his readiness to fall in love with his peers among his fellow men — and it is important, moreover, to recognize that he is ready to fall totally in love; ready to seek out a total, and especially physical, expression and communication of attraction and desire; and ready to make himself dependent upon and vulnerable to the other, an extremely "un-masculine" position, and an extremely difficult and precarious position for anyone who is produced to be a "man" in a patriarchal sexist and heterosexist culture.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: b r e a c h on November 30, 2010, 12:43:33 PM

[...] Even such a "masculine gay man" is unprepared for the inter-male struggle for dominance that accepting and conforming to the conventional heterosexual norm requires, and he is especially unable ever to view women first and last as simply "objects to @ # ! *." [...]


I doubt it that all straight men consider women, at least their wives, simply as "whores."
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Laura s on January 15, 2011, 12:36:04 PM

I'd like to add that, as things are, nowadays it is gay people that are engaged in the freest and most equal relationships. They are already outside of the family and they have already, at least in part, rejected the "masculine" and "feminine" roles that society has designed for them. For straight men and women it is impossible to escape their rigid gender roles and those of oppressor and oppressed. Gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psychosexual needs, and lesbian women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor. Homosexuality, love between people who are alike, is decisively distinct from heterosexuality in its structural feature that two people who are lovers of a third can themselves also, in principle, be lovers. Such provides an absolute precondition if rivalry and hate are to be ended.

I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

The breaking down of divisions between gay and straight is not going to happen by gay and straight meeting half-way. Because straight, by definition, is consonant with the gender system, the ground on which gays shall gradually converge with their straight brothers is on their side of the fence. If straights are serious about undermining masculinity, then they must accept the fact of their own deviance as defined by the existing order, and as long as they resist the idea and the reality of homosexuality, we can only see this as a deep-seated allegiance to the masculine gender that belies their professions of anti-sexism. Gays for their part refuse to accept that they are permanently set apart as the minority. This is a static view of the situation - viewed dynamically, they are the thin end of a wedge. Gayness is the wedge that splits open the gender system, in which feminine and masculine men fit together in the sexual division of labor: a double wedge in fact, as the rejection of heterosexuality and all it implies proceeds in parallel among both women and men. As more and more people follow gay people's lead and the gender system crumbles, they shall have to redefine themselves, no longer as a deviant minority but as the new majority, having only pity for the stubborn minority who still cling for a while to the traditional path.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'


I find this post quite interesting (to say the least) - I was reading the other day smth along the same lines. I am quoting the whole thing as I found it:

Quote
ANONYMOUS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, WHILE HAVING AS MUCH AS SEX AS POSSIBLE, AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF REAL GAY LIBERATION.

LOTS OF ANONYMOUS GAY SEX IS THE ANSWER TO THE 'TYRANNY OF THE NORMAL' TO BUTTRESS ANTI-GAY ARGUMENTS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE OUT TO SUBVERT THE MORAL ORDER.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: countryman on January 29, 2011, 04:29:06 PM

I find this post quite interesting (to say the least) - I was reading the other day smth along the same lines. I am quoting the whole thing as I found it:

Quote
ANONYMOUS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, WHILE HAVING AS MUCH AS SEX AS POSSIBLE, AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF REAL GAY LIBERATION.

LOTS OF ANONYMOUS GAY SEX IS THE ANSWER TO THE 'TYRANNY OF THE NORMAL' TO BUTTRESS ANTI-GAY ARGUMENTS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE OUT TO SUBVERT THE MORAL ORDER.


I am not sure in what sense you use the phrase "to subvert the moral order," but you (person you quote) are certainly not the first to use and actually practice it .. take for instance, Roger Baldwin, who aligned himself with Lenin's totalitarian regime in Russia. Baldwin described it as ''the greatest and most daring experiment yet undertaken to recreate society in terms of human values.'' He lauded the Soviet state for the liberty of anti-religion.

During World War II, Baldwin sought to legitimize the work of civil liberties in the eyes of the establishment. He focused on the courts as the best and surest path to radical reform. Instead of subverting the moral order of the nation and its institutions openly through revolution, he draped his subterfuge in the rhetoric and aura of constitutionalism, liberty and patriotism.
   
The ACLU is all about achieving socialist humanism in America, which denies God and moral absolutes. Former USA Communist Party Chief Gus Hall stated, ''Our battle will be won not when freedom of speech is finally taken away, but when Americans become so adjusted and conditioned to getting along with the group that when they finally see the threat, they say, 'I can't afford to be controversial.''' Our freedoms require us to be controversial.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: bystander on February 09, 2011, 02:41:01 PM


Quote
ANONYMOUS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, WHILE HAVING AS MUCH AS SEX AS POSSIBLE, AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF REAL GAY LIBERATION.

LOTS OF ANONYMOUS GAY SEX IS THE ANSWER TO THE 'TYRANNY OF THE NORMAL' TO BUTTRESS ANTI-GAY ARGUMENTS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE OUT TO SUBVERT THE MORAL ORDER.


I just do not get it why one wants to do a revolution to become a whore, you can be a whore without having to do any revolution at all!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: end in itself on February 12, 2011, 10:19:19 PM

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the h e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. [...]


.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and no one doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.


That surely doesn't mean you can try to @ # ! * with Mafia for the hell of it, thou!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: My Bonnie on February 16, 2011, 07:51:32 PM
Jesus, end in itself, I was for a while kinda "What the hell is this?" until I finally figured it out - you are right!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Dominick on February 22, 2011, 12:15:43 AM
What, Bonnie, what did ya figure out? Excuse my ignorance, but I simply cannot tell!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: shevardnadze on February 22, 2011, 07:23:08 PM

Actually the state should pay for sexually active women to revert to virginity (or at least pay for an operation that will allow them to give the impression that they are virgins). France does, even though France is such a militantly secular nation that hijabs are banned in school, and even though the only women interested in "hymenoplasty," as the procedure is known, are Muslims for whose intended husbands their non-virginity will be a deal-breaker. Dr. Bernard Paniel is an obstetrician-gynecologist for France's public health system, and over many years has become the go-to guy for Muslim women who need to be "mended" before their wedding night, or face the wrath of their shamed, traditionally-minded grooms and the probable annulment of their marriage.  Dr. Paniel "mends" about 30 broken hymens a year with a simple procedure that can be performed with a local anesthetic. He considers himself the "oil in the machine" that allows tradition to carry on, and is teaching the procedure, which he learned as a visiting doctor in a Tunisian hospital in the 1960s, to his younger colleagues. Dr. Paniel doesn't issue "virginity certificates" as some of his colleagues do, but perhaps just as controversially -- and resulting in the same effect -- he does provide his patients with vials of blood to produce on their wedding night. It is an understatement to observe that such (in our culture) medieval-era proofs of virginity -- blood on the wedding night sheets displayed to witnesses -- is utterly outmoded, a relic of pre-enlightened times in Judaism and Christianity. But the continuing, and consequential fixation with virginity amongst observant Muslim men is a reality, and the practice of hymenoplasty has now become a legal and political hot chestnut in France.

For in April a court in the northern French city of Lille annulled a marriage between a convert to Islam and a French woman of North African provenance on the grounds that her husband had discovered on their wedding night that she was not a virgin. It is expected that the ruling will encourage Muslim men with retrograde views of women's obligations to believe the state supports their perspective. This will escalate demands for premarital virginity inspections, which in turn will up the demand for hymenoplasties. The verdict was only made public two weeks ago, and it is causing a ferment of denunciation. Last week 150 members of the European Parliament denounced the ruling as an act of "serious regression." Those who stand to lose the most from the ruling are modern Muslim women. The Muslim women's rights group "Ni putes ni Soumises" (neither prostitutes nor submissive) claim surgeons performing the intervention have overstepped their professional bounds. Illustrating this well-taken point, gynecologist Jacques Milliez, head of the ethics committee of the London-based International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, admits that he routinely issues certificates attesting to the "virginity" of his patients, and says many other colleagues do as well, whether the women are sexually active or not. Sihem Habchi, the group's president,  asks: "Does it really help? Doesn't it just bolster this tradition and this hypocrisy?" Dr. Milliez justifies his actions on the grounds that he is saving women from being ostracized by their communities. Nevertheless he is worried about the effects of the ruling and is organizing a "summit" around the procedure's ethics to be held in October.


Take it for what it's worth but I know a young woman who'd do it from behind so that she'd remain a virgin; she married her husband when she was 33.


Hahaha! I know exactly what ya mean ;)


So @ # ! * i n' funny indeed money!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: carmen on February 26, 2011, 07:40:04 PM

What, Bonnie, what did ya figure out? Excuse my ignorance, but I simply cannot tell!


Exactly Dominick, me too is perhaps too slow to figure out what Bonnie figured out..
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: Prends Garde ŕ Toi! on February 26, 2011, 08:36:06 PM


Quote
ANONYMOUS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, WHILE HAVING AS MUCH AS SEX AS POSSIBLE, AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF REAL GAY LIBERATION.

LOTS OF ANONYMOUS GAY SEX IS THE ANSWER TO THE 'TYRANNY OF THE NORMAL' TO BUTTRESS ANTI-GAY ARGUMENTS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE OUT TO SUBVERT THE MORAL ORDER.


I just do not get it why one wants to do a revolution to become a whore, you can be a whore without having to do any revolution at all!

bystander, if you could have looked a little bit more carefully, you would have noticed that what you say have been already underlined by another poster - trying to play the "smart ass" here?

(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1792/quoute.jpg)

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3003617.msg5386642#msg5386642

We all know that, "as is" today, the kind of behavior that you mention, would naturally not be tolerated the society - and I would not expect even the most arduous gay activist to think he can be a pig out there in public (even in the name of some "revolution") and not dealt appropriately by the authorities!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: fleur-de-lis on March 13, 2011, 03:02:38 PM

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the h e l l of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence. [...]


.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)

It's pretty much common knowledge that Mafia is in the "business of killing" and no one doubts it. And there's nothing good about it, yanno.


That surely doesn't mean you can try to @ # ! * with Mafia for the hell of it, thou!


end-in-itself, just do not push it any further, the more you do it (try to make people aware of the violence perpetrated by an organization such as the Mafia), the more they will make comments like the ones you commented on.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: folate on April 25, 2011, 12:58:06 PM

Moreover, even the masculine gay man "reduces himself" to the status of a woman in his readiness to fall in love with his peers among his fellow men — and it is important, moreover, to recognize that he is ready to fall totally in love; ready to seek out a total, and especially physical, expression and communication of attraction and desire; and ready to make himself dependent upon and vulnerable to the other, an extremely "un-masculine" position, and an extremely difficult and precarious position for anyone who is produced to be a "man" in a patriarchal sexist and heterosexist culture.


Masculine men (especially those who go with women too) have a much easier time at fooling people they're gay, though!
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: flash player on April 29, 2011, 02:17:24 PM
The gender system we have instituted in our society dominated by the sexist culture involves the domination of men over women and institutionalized heterosexuality. It is by means of the abolition of this gender system and class that human beings really can change, really overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

What happens is that the biological category of "sex" gets transformed into the cultural category of "gender." The creation of "gender" is the construction of social identities of "man" and "woman" based upon a supposed parallel with the biological sex differences of "male" and "female," and this construction always operates to create a rigid binary division of these social identities and a hierarchically unequal relation between those assigned to the dominant, masculine position and those assigned to the subordinate, feminine position. Gender is socially constructed and not naturally predetermined. In fact, the new human being will be of a kind that would seem to us as intrinsically both masculine and feminine, as both a man and a woman, and because of this, really neither masculine nor feminine, neither man or woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations. Not only would this future human being seem to be what we would describe as "bisexual," but also this new human being would likely seem to us to be far more gay than straight (especially in the way this new human being engages in relations of intimacy and affection, friendship and love).


I'd like to add that, as things are, nowadays it is gay people that are engaged in the freest and most equal relationships. They are already outside of the family and they have already, at least in part, rejected the "masculine" and "feminine" roles that society has designed for them. For straight men and women it is impossible to escape their rigid gender roles and those of oppressor and oppressed. Gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psychosexual needs, and lesbian women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor. Homosexuality, love between people who are alike, is decisively distinct from heterosexuality in its structural feature that two people who are lovers of a third can themselves also, in principle, be lovers. Such provides an absolute precondition if rivalry and hate are to be ended.

I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

The breaking down of divisions between gay and straight is not going to happen by gay and straight meeting half-way. Because straight, by definition, is consonant with the gender system, the ground on which gays shall gradually converge with their straight brothers is on their side of the fence. If straights are serious about undermining masculinity, then they must accept the fact of their own deviance as defined by the existing order, and as long as they resist the idea and the reality of homosexuality, we can only see this as a deep-seated allegiance to the masculine gender that belies their professions of anti-sexism. Gays for their part refuse to accept that they are permanently set apart as the minority. This is a static view of the situation - viewed dynamically, they are the thin end of a wedge. Gayness is the wedge that splits open the gender system, in which feminine and masculine men fit together in the sexual division of labor: a double wedge in fact, as the rejection of heterosexuality and all it implies proceeds in parallel among both women and men. As more and more people follow gay people's lead and the gender system crumbles, they shall have to redefine themselves, no longer as a deviant minority but as the new majority, having only pity for the stubborn minority who still cling for a while to the traditional path.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'


Thinking about being gay in such a way means to make a job out of it.
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: B a i k a l on July 31, 2011, 11:46:45 AM

I'd like to add that, as things are, nowadays it is gay people that are engaged in the freest and most equal relationships. They are already outside of the family and they have already, at least in part, rejected the "masculine" and "feminine" roles that society has designed for them. For straight men and women it is impossible to escape their rigid gender roles and those of oppressor and oppressed. Gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psychosexual needs, and lesbian women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor. Homosexuality, love between people who are alike, is decisively distinct from heterosexuality in its structural feature that two people who are lovers of a third can themselves also, in principle, be lovers. Such provides an absolute precondition if rivalry and hate are to be ended.

I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

The breaking down of divisions between gay and straight is not going to happen by gay and straight meeting half-way. Because straight, by definition, is consonant with the gender system, the ground on which gays shall gradually converge with their straight brothers is on their side of the fence. If straights are serious about undermining masculinity, then they must accept the fact of their own deviance as defined by the existing order, and as long as they resist the idea and the reality of homosexuality, we can only see this as a deep-seated allegiance to the masculine gender that belies their professions of anti-sexism. Gays for their part refuse to accept that they are permanently set apart as the minority. This is a static view of the situation - viewed dynamically, they are the thin end of a wedge. Gayness is the wedge that splits open the gender system, in which feminine and masculine men fit together in the sexual division of labor: a double wedge in fact, as the rejection of heterosexuality and all it implies proceeds in parallel among both women and men. As more and more people follow gay people's lead and the gender system crumbles, they shall have to redefine themselves, no longer as a deviant minority but as the new majority, having only pity for the stubborn minority who still cling for a while to the traditional path.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'


Thinking about being gay in such a way means to make a job out of it.


What exactly do you mean flashplayer? That thinking about being gay as having some kind of "mission" in life causes you so much trouble that you feel just like you're having a full-time job - one for which you're not being paid though? I'd assume this is the deduction one would normally make, although I'm sure someone out there could make the exact opposite argument starting from exactly the same premises..
Title: Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
Post by: conenact on August 02, 2011, 01:01:35 PM

[...] Even such a "masculine gay man" is unprepared for the inter-male struggle for dominance that accepting and conforming to the conventional heterosexual norm requires, and he is especially unable ever to view women first and last as simply "objects to @ # ! *." [...]


I doubt it that all straight men consider women, at least their wives, simply as "whores."


breach, irony is frowned upon here! :)
Title: Re:
Post by: contain on August 05, 2011, 12:48:18 PM

For one Freud has pointed to the sexual, and indeed the homoerotic, origins of political authority. He studied totemism and sought to locate the origins of the group, publishing "Totem and Taboo" in 1913. Although this is a very debatable work on his part, he did maintain in his later works that paternal proscription of sexual relations with the women of the clan passes to exogamy through homoerotic bonding. Freud locates the origins of the sons' collective organization, their ability to challenge the father's sexual monopoly, in "the homosexual feelings and activities which probably manifested themselves during the time of their banishment." The father's imposition of heterosexual austerities on his sons pushes them into mutual erotic identification, "into group psychology." After killing the primal father, the sons agree that all the clan's women would be denied them. In "Totem and Taboo" Freud made homoerotics into a substitution for heteroerotics, one standing at the origin of the first social contract, the sons' renunciation of the women of the clan as sensuous objects, and their conversion into sexual property to be exhanged exogamously. If exogamous heterosexuality is an original consequence of social organization, endogamous homosexuality is its original source. He never wavered on this foundational basis of modern social organization. Indeed in "Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego" Freud makes heterosexual desire into an enemy of social organization, whereas "desexualized, sublimated homosexual love for other, which springs from work in common" is a "civilizing factor." There is no room for woman as a sexual object, he writes, in the great artificial groups of society. The implication is, of course, that there is a place for men as sexual objects. "It seems certain," he writes, "that homosexual love is far more compatible with group ties, even when it takes the shape of uninhibited sexual impulsion..." If in his mythico-history he makes the homoerotics of the rother clan the mediation between the primal horde and exogamous patriarchy, in his clinical studies he makes homoerotics integral to the formation of the male individual ego, to masculine identification, and to the psychic operation of authority more generally.

Paternal identification also transmutes a homosexual object-choice, one that is at the heart of sociality. Just like the totemic clan the individual subject is formed through bodily representation. In "Ego and Id," he argues that the self - the ego - is first figured through an imagined body, a sexed morphological imaginary. The imagined body in whose bounded image ego formation takes place during the "mirror stage" has a sex. The male self is both formed and sexed as a resolution of an inhabitation of the bodily form of paternal authority, an outside which is in us, but not of us, but the condition for our being. This homoerotic loss initiates the ego as a perceptual object, as a container for reflexively turned, unavowable erotic desire and sadistic rage at its loss and unhabitatibility. That desire is both refused and retained in a melancholic gender identification, an ungrievable loss. Men want to have the femininity they can never be and want to be the masculinity they can never have. The habitable space of gender is grounded in an uninhabitable space of sex. Paternal identification solves not one, but two problems in this sexual economy. Group formation likewise operates through paternal identification, which, like his murder, is enabled through homoerotic solidarity among the sons. Immediately after explaining in "Group Psychology" that the introjected paternal object is a substitute for the libidinal object tie with the woman, Freud launches into the genesis of male homosexuality, the boy's failure to give up the mother as a cathected object, the "negative" Oedipal complex, the transformation of the male ego on the model of the female. Boy becomes girl mirroring the way in which he has the man, through the matrilineal totem, becoming woman. Group formation is a quintessentially masculine, yet involves men being womanly.

Freud makes homosocial energy the basis of solidarity in complex groups and locates the origin of the social in a renunciation of heterosexual desire. He derives the experience of consubstantiality of totem and man from a fleshy family, from the mother-child bond and the son's deferred identification with the father. Durkheim, in contrast, derives consubstantiality from the experience of a wider social, a representation of embodied oneness with other men. Freud's is an imaginary resolution to a scarce heterosexual economy, while Durkheim's is an imaginary expression of a fulfilled homosocial congress. In point of fact, Freud's clinical theory of individual development is more consistent with Durkheim's account of totemism than is his own historical mythology. In turn, Durkheim, points to the truth, and indeed a liberatory aspect, of Freud's homoerotic theory. For what in Freud is a feminizing, violent subordination to masculine hierarchy, is, in Durkheim, a masculinizing, non-violent, non-hierarchical assimilation. Freud eroticizes power; Durkheim does not. Both Durkheim and Freud make somatics into a constituent of semiosis, an immanent relation between individual and collective bodies, as metaphor, mechanics, and energitics of collective representation. Is it possible that the establishment of the state is itself a sexual act, a double separation of two sexes, woman and man, heterosexual and homosexual, that the state not only has a sex, but is a sex?

Freud's "Totem and Taboo" was one of the more controversial additions to the literature of religious theory. The two major hypotheses of the work are the parallel between ontogenetic and phylogenetic evolution, and the primal horde parricide. The first hypothesis has rarely been taken seriously. The second, although never verified with anthropological evidence, has generated further hypotheses based upon its value as a symbolic representation rather than an actual occurrence. It has been suggested that the primal horde parricide hypothesis possesses characteristics similar to those of most social contract theories. "Totem and Taboo" can be considered a kind of social contract, although it has never been thought of this way. "Totem and Taboo" can be seen as comparable to Rousseau's "Social Contract," in which human nature, politics, myth and mathematics merge. Implicitly "Totem and Taboo" contains a novel theory of the political development of society.