Of course it's not. Many people are playing games with adopting these identities to tweak the noses of the powerful, get some attention, make money, control people, whatever. Some type of gain for themselves. It's the new, modern grift.
Of course it's not. Many people are playing games with adopting these identities to tweak the noses of the powerful, get some attention, make money, control people, whatever. Some type of gain for themselves. It's the new, modern grift.
If you go back to Foucault, it’s a way to give oneself permission to transgress moral norms, which are hegemonic social constructs imposed on true freedom.
Yes - I've bumped into this in my reading - an interesting take.
Transgressing moral norms. I'm not completely opposed to transgression - depending on the purpose and outcome. Sometimes norms need tweaking - for instance those which kept women bound into subservient roles for most of history. But, in spite of leaning libertarian and being pretty hands off about governing adult human sexual behavior, I do think there are some norms that are not oppressive and which are in place for good reasons. For instance those which protect children from sexual predators.
It's a tricky thing. I am not at all supportive of religious orthodoxy. But, on the other hand, the absence of traditional religion has been replaced by a secular religion that I find even more onerous due to a lack of the concept of redemption in the dogma and the focus on using shame to control people. Not that traditional religion didn't indulge in some of this as well. But, there was typically an out - a way back. Regressive left ideology allows no way back, just a life of simmering shame and inner struggle for those who have "transgressed" by using wrong words or having the wrong color of skin or the worst sin of all, not being sufficiently oppressed by the system.
And, finally - what is true freedom? It's so subjective and personal that there really is no answer. I suppose Foucault chafed at norms that prevented him from pursuing his appetites and sought a rationalization via his philosophical musings. That's not really that special. We all do this - try to rationalize and justify what we desire. To me, the line is consent. And children can't give it meaningfully so they should be off limits. Period.
"even more onerous due to a lack of the concept of redemption in the dogma and the focus on using shame to control people. Not that traditional religion didn't indulge in some of this as well. But, there was typically an out - a way back. Regressive left ideology allows no way back, just a life of simmering shame and inner struggle for those who have "transgressed" by using wrong words or having the wrong color of skin or the worst sin of all, not being sufficiently oppressed by the system."
"No way back," you say. When I think of "no way back," I think of Buddhism and the lack of discipline to free oneself from samsara. That is truly unforgiving. The opposite of Christianity.
The Left's offer of redemption is total submission. And membership in the club. For human psyches, that counts for a lot. Even secular people have to depend on their "myths."
Yes, membership in the club or tribe. My problem is that I am one of those people who finds it difficult to sacrifice who I am to belong. To go against my inner truth and pretend and play mind games - simply to score the perks that come with belonging to the tribe. I can't and won't submit beyond what I have to do to survive and even these actions must accord with my own code of honor. Submitting to their code would destroy who I am and make me into a lap dog. And I don't wish to live like that. I wish to be an authentic human being and an artist - I need my voice to be my own and not a parrot of someone else's.
My youthful naivete lead me to believe that the left was for true personal freedom - this message was everywhere in the art of those periods - the music, the comedy, the media, etc. I failed to see the seeds of the current monster hidden in the rhetoric of the 60s and 70s. I did not pursue college due to poverty and was not exposed to post modernist theory. I had scholarships, but not in what I wished to pursue. So, I walked away from this path and built my life from the ground up - no network, few references - very little outside of my own wits. It was a bumpy ride for a while because I am not very witty. ;-)
I noticed the PC push in the 90s but hoped it was a fad. I reassured myself that Enlightenment principles would stand the test of time. Nothing to worry about. And here we are, in an authoritarian nightmare that hasn't come from the government or trad religions - but from academia, the supposed bastion and protector of Enlightenment values. The extreme left have been very clever about subverting the will of the people by capturing institutions behind the scenes instead of pushing for change through direct legislation. It's almost diabolical how effective they have been at this.
Anyway, I digress. Back to your comment - the lack of redemption rankles. It's simply not fair to ascribe any human as "evil from birth" due to some arbitrary immutable trait. This is so dehumanizing, a state of being (with which I am intimately acquainted having survived child abuse). Without the chance to be forgiven, to start again, to try to do better - we are nothing but meat sacks taking up space. We have to make room for second chances, for atonement, we have to exercise a generosity of spirit - to stay human, to matter. And at the end of the day, we all matter. This slicing and dicing "These people matter and these people don't" is toxic and simply a reversal of the bigotry of the past. It's not a solution toward a more just society - which I do believe in, btw. I believe deeply in equality of opportunity - as much as we can manage it.
Also, "even secular people have to depend on their myths" - yes, we all need a model of the world through which we filter reality. It has been an object lesson for me to learn that the propensity for even atheists and non-believers to leverage fanaticism to achieve power and control (utopia) is just a high as it is for orthodox religions. Dogmatism is not merely an orthodox failing.
My “education and erudition” is a joke compared to your clear thinking. Don’t sell yourself short, Lightwing. You are much more perceptive than you give yourself credit for.
Of course it's not. Many people are playing games with adopting these identities to tweak the noses of the powerful, get some attention, make money, control people, whatever. Some type of gain for themselves. It's the new, modern grift.
If you go back to Foucault, it’s a way to give oneself permission to transgress moral norms, which are hegemonic social constructs imposed on true freedom.
See https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/france-s-reverence-for-intellectuals-shielded-michel-foucault-from-scandal/
Yes - I've bumped into this in my reading - an interesting take.
Transgressing moral norms. I'm not completely opposed to transgression - depending on the purpose and outcome. Sometimes norms need tweaking - for instance those which kept women bound into subservient roles for most of history. But, in spite of leaning libertarian and being pretty hands off about governing adult human sexual behavior, I do think there are some norms that are not oppressive and which are in place for good reasons. For instance those which protect children from sexual predators.
It's a tricky thing. I am not at all supportive of religious orthodoxy. But, on the other hand, the absence of traditional religion has been replaced by a secular religion that I find even more onerous due to a lack of the concept of redemption in the dogma and the focus on using shame to control people. Not that traditional religion didn't indulge in some of this as well. But, there was typically an out - a way back. Regressive left ideology allows no way back, just a life of simmering shame and inner struggle for those who have "transgressed" by using wrong words or having the wrong color of skin or the worst sin of all, not being sufficiently oppressed by the system.
And, finally - what is true freedom? It's so subjective and personal that there really is no answer. I suppose Foucault chafed at norms that prevented him from pursuing his appetites and sought a rationalization via his philosophical musings. That's not really that special. We all do this - try to rationalize and justify what we desire. To me, the line is consent. And children can't give it meaningfully so they should be off limits. Period.
You write:
"even more onerous due to a lack of the concept of redemption in the dogma and the focus on using shame to control people. Not that traditional religion didn't indulge in some of this as well. But, there was typically an out - a way back. Regressive left ideology allows no way back, just a life of simmering shame and inner struggle for those who have "transgressed" by using wrong words or having the wrong color of skin or the worst sin of all, not being sufficiently oppressed by the system."
"No way back," you say. When I think of "no way back," I think of Buddhism and the lack of discipline to free oneself from samsara. That is truly unforgiving. The opposite of Christianity.
The Left's offer of redemption is total submission. And membership in the club. For human psyches, that counts for a lot. Even secular people have to depend on their "myths."
Yes, membership in the club or tribe. My problem is that I am one of those people who finds it difficult to sacrifice who I am to belong. To go against my inner truth and pretend and play mind games - simply to score the perks that come with belonging to the tribe. I can't and won't submit beyond what I have to do to survive and even these actions must accord with my own code of honor. Submitting to their code would destroy who I am and make me into a lap dog. And I don't wish to live like that. I wish to be an authentic human being and an artist - I need my voice to be my own and not a parrot of someone else's.
My youthful naivete lead me to believe that the left was for true personal freedom - this message was everywhere in the art of those periods - the music, the comedy, the media, etc. I failed to see the seeds of the current monster hidden in the rhetoric of the 60s and 70s. I did not pursue college due to poverty and was not exposed to post modernist theory. I had scholarships, but not in what I wished to pursue. So, I walked away from this path and built my life from the ground up - no network, few references - very little outside of my own wits. It was a bumpy ride for a while because I am not very witty. ;-)
I noticed the PC push in the 90s but hoped it was a fad. I reassured myself that Enlightenment principles would stand the test of time. Nothing to worry about. And here we are, in an authoritarian nightmare that hasn't come from the government or trad religions - but from academia, the supposed bastion and protector of Enlightenment values. The extreme left have been very clever about subverting the will of the people by capturing institutions behind the scenes instead of pushing for change through direct legislation. It's almost diabolical how effective they have been at this.
Anyway, I digress. Back to your comment - the lack of redemption rankles. It's simply not fair to ascribe any human as "evil from birth" due to some arbitrary immutable trait. This is so dehumanizing, a state of being (with which I am intimately acquainted having survived child abuse). Without the chance to be forgiven, to start again, to try to do better - we are nothing but meat sacks taking up space. We have to make room for second chances, for atonement, we have to exercise a generosity of spirit - to stay human, to matter. And at the end of the day, we all matter. This slicing and dicing "These people matter and these people don't" is toxic and simply a reversal of the bigotry of the past. It's not a solution toward a more just society - which I do believe in, btw. I believe deeply in equality of opportunity - as much as we can manage it.
Also, "even secular people have to depend on their myths" - yes, we all need a model of the world through which we filter reality. It has been an object lesson for me to learn that the propensity for even atheists and non-believers to leverage fanaticism to achieve power and control (utopia) is just a high as it is for orthodox religions. Dogmatism is not merely an orthodox failing.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Back to work... :-)
Very eloquently said. And you speak more clearly for me than this over educated fool (me) ever could. Thanks for the inspiration.
I admire and envy your education and erudition. We all bring gifts to the table. :-)
My “education and erudition” is a joke compared to your clear thinking. Don’t sell yourself short, Lightwing. You are much more perceptive than you give yourself credit for.
Foucault and a large group of his intellectual contemporaries tried to get the age of sexual consent reduced to 13.
I will send a longer response to your thoughtful comment once I have thought about it!
Every year before sixteen that a girl has sex for the first time increases her change of becoming schizophenic by a factor of four.