Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Alex T. Jacob]

Pye writes: But Alex, this is exactly the crust I'm talking about - crust built up around a valuable thing and assumed withheld from others, these 'untouchable' fruits.

You certainly have the right to speak about whatever you see and feel and think, but less about what I think and feel and see, in the sense of defining what I mean or mean to say or what I am 'really' saying. What often happens here in this space is that what a person means is restated by some other in some other way and then their restatement is made the topic of conversation. It is better I think to really try to find out what another means. But, and you should know this, what I say, given that I take very strong positions 'against' certain people and certain idea-structures and perspective-structures within this space, will ever be entertained or accepted. I know this. 'People' seem to deal in their deliberate mishearings, and you in this instance, I think, are doing the same thing.

I am not speaking about 'constitutional incapacity' and I also recognize that, in this sense, the 'Library' (center of learning) is the place to be. Again, it is all about coming into contact with the best of the best, interacting with it, and acting in the world while that fermentation is occurring. 'Elitism' comes into play with levels of commitment, with internal decisiveness, and also with talent: dispensation. I would never say that someone or some class of people are 'constitutionally incapable', but I would definitely say that those men (and women) who live in and take in and embody 'the best of the best' represent an elite. We---on in any case I---value them in a different way, appreciate them in a different way. When for example one reads a compendium of wise thoughts on certain subjects, by men who have sacrificed their time and energy to those pursuits, what is there it is seen and understood very differently from that of men (and women) who have not made those sacrifices to knowledge (or art, or poetry, etc.) In my experience, it is the great men who quite strongly set the tone and move the world. It is in that sense I would use the term 'elitism'. But it is just those men (and women) too who know how to listen and to see and appreciate and value persons who are, say, completely illiterate. A very common theme in Russian literature, say Turgenev or Chekov or Korolenko or Solschenizyn, is to be able to 'see' into the beauty of people, where in fact the 'vulgar man' might not at all.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Laird wrote: I don't find you to be particularly guilty of that type of imposition in your personal interactions, but it comes along for the ride when you set up a vision of superior versus mediocre, which easily becomes 'those who know best' versus 'those who need to be led'. In fact your choice of words, 'controlled', makes this dynamic explicit. Switch 'women' to 'mentally unwell', and your attitude becomes very personal for me, as it already is for the women who inhabit this board, who have been very restrained given what you're saying about them.

You are again couching this in the territory of your person struggles with the State and the mental health system of your country, but I don't think you are comfortable if that conversation were broached. For it to be broached you will need to be aware of the following: 1) it is not impossible that you could be very offended by what I wrote, 2) my general position in life is very different from yours. There are many things I 'do' that you do not agree with. For example, I am not opposed to eating meat which means killing animals (though I tend to enjoy a pure vegetarian diet, but not always); I have businesses and function within a capitalist economy; and own property some of which is rented, and this you have said your consider 'exploitive'. My ideas about men vs women seem very different than yours. It goes on and on. I have no problem discussing anything at all but I 'fear' that you may have reactions. Do you really want to go forward? To do so, you'd have to give me a complete and unconditional permission. Signed! ;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

You have been to some countries wherein you could have played out the sex-in-exchange-for power system. Myself would have been a very rich and privileged woman, indeed, had I taken up some of these sex-in-exchange-for offers, and not in any 'third-world' circumstances, but in the 'polite' and living streams of power, privilege, wealth, and position in america. Marriages, vacations, promotions, special 'career considerations,' secret avenues of influence and power that run through the veins of some man's sexuality straight to the 'withheld' goods. (My mum used to refer to me [with a kind of loving exasperation], as "downwardly mobile" :) I also could have had a very different life-time, but am greater satisfied with thorough-going independence, marriage-less-ness, relative poverty, sex only in exchange for itself, and woe betide the male who tries to attach something else to it. Woe betide myself, who refuses to attach anything to it, either :)

It's fair to say you were faced with a set of options.

Forks in the road.

Taking the power/control/money route which was available to you.
( and you not being given to self-aggrandising fictional accounts, ie, reliable witness)

At the fork there,
the turning away.

We're standing there in the road OK,
the fork in the road,
the options.

a failure to be and a cost.

taking the money as a failure to be and the cost.
putting oneself in protective custody.

[Pye]

Dennis writes: Taking the power/control/money route which was available to you.
( and you not being given to self-aggrandising fictional accounts, ie, reliable witness)

(thanks, I didn't mean to sound aggrandizing.) . . . My thoughts were occupied with the withholding portion of the exchange and not the opportunities-implied. The sometimes incredible generosity of men in the sexual exchange hides the same pathology of power that Alex is trying to be honest about here. I found now and again that when I outwardly refused the exchange system of sexually inspired generosity, it seemed to take the thrill of withholding away from the man. That, in itself, is pretty telling . . . .

anyway, the joke's on me, given the long-endured stresses of my dialectically material reality :) on the serious note, we encounter whole cultures designed around the prostitution of women in just this sex-in-exchange-for something scheme. Marriage is just such a thing, if there is misbalance in access to the materials of life and the opportunities within it, and if sex is the only avenue toward them.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Pye wrote: The sometimes incredible generosity of men in the sexual exchange hides the same pathology of power that Alex is trying to be honest about here.

I have an interesting little book by Dwight Bolinger called 'Language: The Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today'. Your sentence might have been used as an example of how positioning of words, in an apparently benign design, actually disguises the real message, the 'barb' as it were in this case.

We have the notion of 'generosity' is relation to sex and sensuality, but then the phrase 'pathology of power' as a foregone conclusion also linked, associatively, with the aforesaid generosity. And then a statement, which I hardly believe you believe, about my 'honesty'. As I said earlier, you tend to get more turgid and, shall we say 'tricky' as it becomes more and more difficult to say what you mean. Dyphemistic rhetoric? (But one can't exactly know: your prose begins to act chameleon-like). ;-)

I think this is one of the very damaging effects of an intellectual world dominated by Politically Correct thinking. The a priories 'force' one, intellectually, to certain conclusions even before you start.

[guest_of_logic]

I have no problem discussing anything at all but I 'fear' that you may have reactions. Do you really want to go forward? To do so, you'd have to give me a complete and unconditional permission.

I don't particularly want to give you a platform to air views to which I am opposed, nor to give you permission to make the details of my personal life relevant, but if the conversation is shut down, then neither of us gets the chance to air our views, and nobody else gets to see the exchange. I also don't particularly want to be spoken to offensively, and nor do I want to offend you, which, potentially, some of my views would do given your activities, but that seems a pretty sad way to end our engagement. Shrug.

Just to clarify: I don't consider operating a business in and of itself to be exploitative, but businesses certainly can be run in exploitative ways, and multinational, profit-driven capitalism tends to reward them when they are. Do you want me to elaborate my views on the rental market or do you think that I might offend you in turn?

[guest_of_logic]

An example of a business exploitative in several senses: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-19/p ... ng/4436506.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Too many restrictions! ;-)

I don't need to be given a platform to air unpopular views. I seem to be fairly good at assuming that platform without any help. For the record you cannot offend me unless you were to get irrationally aggressive which is not in your nature. I accept and work within ambiguity and contradiction and I accept all of that inside myself. In this specific sense, it would seem, I am 'free' of what I have been calling 'politically correct' views. Well, not exactly 'free' to be accurate since I am still under their influence. But I think I have managed to get away at least to some degree from them. To be able to see them operate. Also, I don't see it as 'sad' at all to decide not to have such a trenchant discussion.

Might you select from out of your post some particular area you'd like me to address but subtract the equivalency of my patriarchal and imposing tendencies with the authority of the mental health system in your country?

And does Pepe the Duck have that much money? All the ducks I know are 'downwardly mobile'.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I wonder if any of these philosopher chicks are hot, does any body know?

And Alex,

The 'argument' about it is really a non-argument, and similar to John's entire position represents the end of all possible conversation or exchange of ideas.

"Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know."
-"Tao Te Chingy" Quote

Look man, just because you don't know....

haha, also it isn't the end of all conversation and ideas, it's only the end of conversation and ideas based on ignorance, which is the refusal or non-ability to recognize the at first seemingly dreadful nature of ultimate reality and thus live accordingly. (With non-attachment, non-desire, no pretending to know, simple, no future or past in mind)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Swami Sock-it-to-me:

Oh Master mine and friend divine! :::sheepish look:::

As you see I am having a relapse!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

See if you knew, there wouldn't be the case of 90% of what you say being bullshit ^

[guest_of_logic]

Well, I could ask you to clarify some of the things you've said, but I'm not sure I really want to go there. For example, I've interpreted your comments about "controlling" women as charitably (from my perspective) as I can, to really mean that you want to control the circumstances in which you relate to women - perhaps, keeping in mind Dennis's view that I am "leading the witness", this interpretation is optimistic (again, from my perspective), and in fact you actually and literally mean controlling women themselves. Do I really want to know?

I might also ask you to respond to the first paragraph I addressed to you of my post from yesterday, in particular the first sentence, but again, I'm not sure I really want to know.

A discussion less likely to become trenchant is one that focuses on independence and self-realisation. Neither of us, in fact, no one that I know of on this forum except Pam and Kunga (edit: oh, and Ataraxia, and SeekerOfWisdom; edit2: not to mention Elizabeth and Unidian... hmm, a few more than I realised at first), have chosen to marry or co-habit with a long-term partner, and it could be that we all have similar reasons for that choice. You talk of the need for men "becoming much more self-conscious, self-contained, and self-constructing than they now are. [You] recommend all manner of different activities and doing to become more of what they are (or can be) naturally". Aside from the fact that you have limited your recommendations to men, they might be shared by all or at least the majority of contributors here, possibly worth exploring. They're at least aligned with the recommendations of the forum, and could be related to the (lack of) relationship choices that we've (almost) all made.

[skipair]

The ethical question depends on how the individual aligns himself with groups in the world and how he dispenses value. If it's a jesus-like figure then his group is all humanity, loving all people equally and advocating not only the same opportunities, but maybe even the same rewards. If it's more a family man, then the family comes first and he will always when necessary put others to lose for the benefit of the family....

[Dennis Mahar]

My thoughts were occupied with the withholding portion of the exchange and not the opportunities-implied. The sometimes incredible generosity of men in the sexual exchange hides the same pathology of power that Alex is trying to be honest about here. I found now and again that when I outwardly refused the exchange system of sexually inspired generosity, it seemed to take the thrill of withholding away from the man. That, in itself, is pretty telling . . . .

Tells it all because the charade is inauthentic role playing.
most people experience it as normal.
if you throw a spanner in the works by not playing along the guy is confused.
The guy is all about having control of the 'goodies' and putting the chick on a 'drip feed' access.
The guy is so completely dishonest intellectually and emotionally the vicious circle is the basis on which his self-esteem is founded.
If the chick doesn't take his 'goodies' which are his security blanket, he experiences a loss of meaning. peacock with fallen crest, crestfallen.


I'm interested in disclosing the being of human being.
the being that is always/already present that's not the survival options.

it's the feminist gestalt.
what women had been doing is putting themselves under the protective custody of men.
the fully alive woman was compromised for what?
Men's vanity?
priming the peacock.

to put oneself under the protective custody of another human is a failure to be that comes with a cost.
the cost is too high.

to take a prisoner is also a failure to be that comes with a cost.

assuming culture is the arbiter of who 'I' should be is a failure to be.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You guys over complicate things way too much moving further away from simple truths.

The easiest way to handle every situation is to not do anything. What issues are left?
This is how I've delt with all those past problems due to responsibilities I once had, and my life is perfect, why will no one try this?

[Dennis Mahar]

What issues are left?

ticking us off.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's my whole business

[Pye]

Alex, I wrote this:

The sometimes incredible generosity of men in the sexual exchange hides the same pathology of power that Alex is trying to be honest about here.

and you went on like this:

I have an interesting little book by Dwight Bolinger called 'Language: The Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today'. Your sentence might have been used as an example of how positioning of words, in an apparently benign design, actually disguises the real message, the 'barb' as it were in this case.

We have the notion of 'generosity' is relation to sex and sensuality, but then the phrase 'pathology of power' as a foregone conclusion also linked, associatively, with the aforesaid generosity. And then a statement, which I hardly believe you believe, about my 'honesty'. As I said earlier, you tend to get more turgid and, shall we say 'tricky' as it becomes more and more difficult to say what you mean. Dyphemistic rhetoric? (But one can't exactly know: your prose begins to act chameleon-like). ;-)

I think this is one of the very damaging effects of an intellectual world dominated by Politically Correct thinking. The a priories 'force' one, intellectually, to certain conclusions even before you start.

Of course my original statement is barbed with complexities. The situation to which it refers is barbed with complexities - the word 'generosity' in this context needs called into question; the level of honesty you're willing to apply to your own topic needs looking at ("trying"); the 'pathology' of anything is benign by nature, but something to express its thought-linkage, its course, etc . . . .

I think you retreat into these speeches about speech to avoid the thing-at-hand. The last time I responded with pressure to you, you went on about a turgidity of my writing style or something. These things are why I find it largely unedifying to respond to you. You ask for response and then deflect it away from content into form. Form's an interesting subject, too; one could go on and on about it as you do. But the sentence is there, with everything you want to ferret out about it; I'd be happy to deal with that head on.

[Pye]

Seeker writes: I wonder if any of these philosopher chicks are hot, does any body know?

Seeker, I think you are a remarkable person/thinker, and pardon that your age factors into this observation, but it does and must. Because of that, I sport some confidence that you might someday dissolve this blindspot toward the spirit of every living thing, rather than demonstrating it. :)

[Pye]

Dennis . . . I get you; I've always gotten you, and no matter how many verses you write that come to the aid of the disclosure of being, I will always read them and always geddit, for it always takes this kind of alertness to the human projects and formulae that restrict this disclosure, that understands this freedom as the nothing that it is, in addition to the necessity that it be able to ever-open onto itself, this freedom, more and more of the opening, wherein being can become. Like Sartre, we assume the failure of all project even as it is undergone, and all project comes to mind out of a lack, out of the 'nothing' of freedom, which really really is something, this infinite opening-onto itself of being. Human projects that stand in the way of being are the concern of freedom fighters - not a romantic term, but one of the concrete work of thought and action in support of the disclosure of being. I see here everyday some other spiritualists that have also directed their sentiments and sentences to this freedom, to the reminder-of, to the unchained mind, etc., however one wants it said. I judge all of us/those of this kind of ilk working on the same 'side.' :)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Pye writes: "I think you retreat into these speeches about speech to avoid the thing-at-hand. The last time I responded with pressure to you, you went on about a turgidity of my writing style or something. These things are why I find it largely unedifying to respond to you. You ask for response and then deflect it away from content into form. Form's an interesting subject, too; one could go on and on about it as you do. But the sentence is there, with everything you want to ferret out about it; I'd be happy to deal with that head on".

In fact I only sometimes understand you. You write in a style which, for me, is hard to grasp. But this paragraph is crystal-clear. I read everything you write, though, and often more than once. I think it would also 'help' you to understand that there are many barbed levels of complexity within the participants in this present conversation. One person employs the 'message' of a given person to support their own position, whatever it might be. That is the 'form' of many conversations here. It is quite different from the content. I believe that in conversations charged with the 'politically correct' and vast idealisms, one is sort of stuck in 'form'. In order to speak about the Idea you have to defeat the (false?) form.

I am working on something that will, at least, provide insight into my own background in relation to these questions. At the very least it may, I hope, be interesting.

PS: As with your post to Dennis, above, I find your writing so non-specific and open-ended that I only 'geddit' as a sort of reflection of what you mean, the trace of it. I end up guessing.

[Pye]

Alex writes: PS: As with your post to Dennis, above, I find your writing so non-specific and open-ended that I only 'geddit' as a sort of reflection of what you mean, the trace of it. I end up guessing.

Fair enough, Alex. This is helpful, so thanks. I know I am given to a con-density of writing, but I'm trying to assure you that it is ever and always connected by whatever tendrils language can connect itself to lived experience. What you often see as academic abstraction I know to be wholly rejected by academicians precisely for its connection to the lived experience. The paragraph to Dennis is admittedly a kind of romping shorthand through a big gathering of thinking that I happen to know Dennis is familiar with by virtue of what he's written here. You aren't the first to complain; so I take note.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird,

Just as a side note, with respect to your closing paragraph: "I've lived in impoverished and patriarchal countries, India and Vietnam, and being rich by contrast have felt the seductive lure of thinking I was elite and special and could take advantage. That kind of intellectual and emotional dishonesty is abhorrent".

I far prefer it when you write like this, in rich and intelligible sentences. You are more believable and relatable when you write that way; I find it a lot easier to take you seriously as a human being.

I don't mind the jargon.
You want the lived experience.

Where can we meet in the conversation?

The presence of love?

Can you front up coming from that?

What does that look like to you?

Have you failed to be that and others have failed to be that and 'kept at it' as the greatest possibility?

Can the complaint about the 'mental health system' be transformed into another possibility for the 'mental health system'.

Fronting up to the 'mental health system' in a complaint.
What's the point?

The complaint 'takes you as its prisoner'.
There's no freedom to be in a complaint.
There's no possibility for the presence of love to show up in a complaint.

This kind of reasoning may look like jargon.
What if it was 'lived experience'?

[Alex T. Jacob]

[Funny. In my vision of things, if someone were to speak to me with the sort of pretension just addresses to Laird, they'd deserve a smashed up face. And hopefully theyd then turn the other cheek to get more of the same. Stoned hippy talk. Politically correct do-gooder hiding subterranean aggressiveness tarted up in psychobabble. *Vomit!*]

[Dennis Mahar]

[Funny. In my vision of things, if someone were to speak to me with the sort of pretension just addresses to Laird, they'd deserve a smashed up face. And hopefully theyd then turn the other cheek to get more of the same. Stoned hippy talk. Politically correct do-gooder hiding subterranean aggressiveness tarted up in psychobabble. *Vomit!

That's a place to come from too.
that's fine.

It's useless to Inquiry though.
the point of the Inquiry isn't generating vomit.

Also you are 'leading the witness'.


I 'get' Laird as a lover not a fighter and he 'digs in' on issues.
I could have it wrong.
Sue me.

He helped me see my error in relation to 'puppy'.
He offered me money to put it right.

He's a legend.

Anyway,
at the risk of witness tampering,
I listened to a radio show featuring a forensic neurologist,
he was saying brains in the evolutionary sense are being built generationally,
that bipolar is a bigger brain with connectivity stuff to sort out,
circuitry 'jams'.
causes/conditions.

In line with Buddhist thinking.
Instead of deciding 'I am awful'.
It's more accurate to realise the causes/conditions have me feeling awful from time to time.
I'm fine.

In that context the presence of love can show up and 'elbow' the complaint aside.