of male issues is indeed a problem - though I can't make it into 'the
problem' and still find some of it embroiled with 'wimmin' and even
revenge against men not playing to the old rules. I would raise
bimboism in this area as about a non-gender (yet gendered) issue of
the triumph of presentation over content. I don't mean in this the
characterisation of the blonde bimbo as a feckless dummy around for
some male's apres travail - but more the Tony Blair syndrome and BBC
news by and for bimbos. I can take my commentary from an old woman
dressed as a bag lady, but it's more than this - it's now hard to
ignore the 'easy on the eye' of it all (I find myself repelled).
In terms of threats to existing power there is a form of 'instruments
of torture' operating in practical affairs deeper than the male stuff
(which is often so reinforced by wimmin) in economic stupidity. My
wonder is whether we could rearticulate this "stuff" to get a better
notion when it is getting in the way.
On Sep 28, 1:14 pm, "rigs...@yahoo.com" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We might be stuck with a patrilinear world/institutions. We can trace
> beyond Socrates, who rejected myths in favor of logic and science
> (Phaedrus) so now we live in the Age of Machines and Technology where
> a Blair can influence history with lies presented as truth. Even
> liberated women in the West are operating/reacting/manipulating unde
> The idol you seek may be the White Goddess (Robert Graves) but she is
> long gone and forgotten. While envionmentalists might claim her we can
> already see how products and causes are often a ruse. Perhaps the mind
> is the last sanctuary and influence limited in scope.
>
> On Sep 26, 10:22 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've had to read a lot of dross as an academic and I find it gets into
> > my writing in ways I don't want it to. I rarely find myself excited
> > or inspired by the academy outside of some science. Occasional
> > writers like Lyotard or Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' appeal to my
> > enjoyment delayed humour. One particular aspect of 'great writing'
> > that worries me is that one gets sucked into the arguments made and
> > yet know at the same time the ability to make them did not shift the
> > writers from what we now regard as glaring injustices like slavery. I
> > know people like Moses (the war criminal of Numbers 31) and Plato and
> > Aristotle (slavery OK were men of their time, but that isn't my
> > point. Even John Locke argued slaves taken in just wars deserved
> > their fate.
>
> > The Greeks knew it was fairly easy to make equally powerful and
> > contradictory argument. I (for instance) favour modern reliableism
> > and structured realism as a philosophic base but prefer to say I'm a
> > tropical fish realist - this at least admits philosophy isn't my first
> > consideration. Some won't have a clue what I'm on about. Mostly,
> > I've learned most arguments are suspicious and based on assumptions
> > that don't 'ground' (like gods, human nature in economics) or are
> > subjective in the sense that allows liars like Blair and most
> > politicians to lie and tell us they tested information they made
> > decisions on in personal integrity. In the meantime, modern slavery
> > goes on in the sense of war and economics taking us down the road to
> > serfdom. I see little hope of philosophical answers to any of this
> > because they have a long history of failure.
>
> > I'm led to a view that our societies are based on selfish madness -or
> > at least that we should examine what's going on as we might examine
> > religious belief in its dafter forms. I'd start with our common
> > virtue ethics. I'm aware of 'Beyond Virtue' (McIntyre) but feel we
> > need a darker analysis based more on social Idols. Any takers for a
> > go?
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário