This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - flash player
« on: April 29, 2011, 04:19:57 PM »
Well, I don't think it's a big deal, 0.9999999999999... is pretty much 1, it's not exactly 1, but it is still very very close to...
Hahaha - this is so fuking funny dru!
« on: April 29, 2011, 04:17:24 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masculine nor feminine, neither man or woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations.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.
« on: April 29, 2011, 04:11:01 PM »
Wernicke's area is in the posterior temporal lobe and surrounds the primary auditory area. That is quite obvious, because of the links between listening and speaking. Words reach A1 and, then, Wernicke's area, which contains sound images of heard words. Hence, thanks to this area, we can comprehend the words we hear. The information is sent to the Broca's area by the arcuate fasciculus. Broca's area is situated in the left inferior frontal region and creates those programmes for moving the organs we use to articulate words (mouth, tongue, etc.)
The mind in not the brain. The mind is an energy field. The brain is a physical 'switchboard' between the mind and the body. Research has shown that words are stored in a specific area on the left side of the brain. What is not so well known is that there is an equivalent area in the right half of the brain which is also involved with language. Both these areas are called the Wernicke's area. According to Professor Julian Jaynes, lecturer in Psychology at Princeton University, up until around 3,000 years ago, mankind was basically not conscious as he is today. He did not think in terms of concepts, and he was not introspective (i.e. he did not 'turn inwards and think about himself). Instead he operated with what is called a "bicameral mind". The bicameral mind was man's mind before he developed self consciousness. Early man did not make any decisions on his own. The concept of "self", of being independent and self-reliant, did not exist. Whenever a decision had to be made, early man looked for a "sign" from an outside authority, such as a king or a god, to tell him what to do. For example, if he went along a road which divided into two roads, he might throw some stones into the air to see which way they fell, to tell him which road to take. Other signs that early man used to determine what action he should take when he was faced with a decision were often "voices" which he heard in his head and which brought immediate obedience. Experiments have shown that if the Wernicke's area in the left half of the brain is electrically stimulated during speech, it will interfere with the ability to talk properly, almost halting speech.
Here it is a related post in this forum related to Wernicke's area:http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3003243.msg5289560#msg5289560