Re: Mind's Eye turning the world Greek

Another thought: violence cannot be excluded from sex anymore than
tenderness. I think one must give the full range of possibilities
based on the situation and those involved. And what do you mean by
violence? Physical violence or other forms of cruelty? I think self-
preservation trumps and one could be violent to escape, for instance.
The scenarios are probably endless.

On Sep 6, 4:36 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One might say, in politics, the way real argument is silenced is done
> by argument itself - almost in the 'does he take sugar?' sense of our
> treatment of disabled people.  Methinks the lady does protest too much
> is hardly new thinking and it's mostly women buying Fifty Shades of
> Grey.  Quite why anyone would want to base the notion a woman saying
> no is teasing on pornography (or any of the idiot romance movies) or
> other idols of gossip is beyond me.  I feel much the same way about
> the politics in which we insist on great leaders and economic
> pathology.  I wonder what the category of 'men' used by women like
> Hornsby is - I never know what is going on in sexual encounter much
> beyond wanting to exclude violence from it.  I think economics would
> benefit from this rule too.
>
> On 6 Sep, 18:04, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jennifer Hornsby also deploys speech act theory to explain how
> > pornography silences women. According to Hornsby, pornographic
> > materials reinforce ideas about women that deprive their utterances of
> > their ordinary illocutionary meaning (Hornsby 1995, 227). For example,
> > pornographic works may convey the idea that the women which men find
> > sexy are eager to satisfy their sexual appetites, so that when these
> > women say "no," their utterance constitutes not an act of refusal but
> > an act of teasing. In this way, pornography reinforces social codes
> > that allow men to systematically misread and discount women's speech.
> > Women may be silenced, then, not by having their speech suppressed but
> > by changes to the background conditions necessary for successful
> > speech acts, such as refusal. If pornography interferes with the
> > ability of women to communicate, then women cannot contest the harm of
> > pornography with more speech, but only by suppressing pornographic
> > materials.
> > Hornsby, J., 1995, "Speech Acts and Pornography," in The Problem of
> > Pornography, S. Dwyer (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
> > Company.
>
> > Hegel was waffling on (Phenomenology of Spirit) about the social
> > construction of self-awareness, as is the above.  Our cultural
> > construction rarely satisfies me.  Type "scat sex" into Google and be
> > appalled.  My own book explores rigsy's theme that sexual and
> > financial politics are related more than we admit.  I tend to
> > biological explanations and the idea we don't have to be constrained
> > to them.  The moral issue seems to me to be about what one becomes in
> > asking anyone else to be a slave.  I think we find this in teaching
> > relationships where essays on content and process work motivation are
> > set rather than allowing students to assess their own experience.
> >  I've seen this captured in several Chinese films where the son wants
> > to be an artist but the mother wants him to slave away doing the
> > esoteric exams of the State bureaucracy.
> > On 6 Sep, 17:24, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We know pretty concretely now, rigsy, that psychopaths usually have
> > > screwed communication between parts of the brain.  Everything seems
> > > relational, but it's rare we see arguments that relate facts.  I
> > > watched Clinton last night and he was awesome.  Yet how old was
> > > Monica?  Who was responsible for the control fraud deregulation of
> > > finance (etc)?
>
> > > Matt Stoller had this to say on the relations between Democrat
> > > promises in 200 8 and reality.
> > > #
>
> > > Here's a list of some of the broken promises from 2008.
>
> > > We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight
> > > to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
>
> > > This did not happen. The labor law never passed.
>
> > > We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety
> > > officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to
> > > bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at
> > > the Federal Aviation Administration.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so
> > > that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing
> > > their livelihoods.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We will also ensure that every American worker is able earn up to
> > > seven paid sick days to care for themselves or an ill family member.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > To help workers share in our country's productivity, we'll expand the
> > > Earned Income Tax Credit, and raise the minimum wage and index it to
> > > inflation.
>
> > > Didn't happen. And the minimum wage hike is actually in the 2012
> > > platform, again.
>
> > > We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media,
> > > promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse
> > > viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of
> > > broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
>
> > > Well, Comcast did buy NBC.
>
> > > We will ensure that the foreclosure prevention program enacted by
> > > Congress is implemented quickly and effectively so that at-risk
> > > homeowners can get help and hopefully stay in their homes. We will
> > > work to reform bankruptcy laws to restore balance between lender and
> > > homeowner rights.
>
> > > Larry Summers and Tim Geithner opposed cramdown, so it didn't happen.
> > > And I think it's safe to say that foreclosure prevention was not a
> > > priority for this administration.
>
> > > We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free
> > > Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American
> > > countries.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We will put all non-emergency bills that Congress has passed online
> > > for five days, to allow the American public to review and comment on
> > > them before they are signed into law.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We will require Cabinet officials to have periodic national online
> > > town hall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they
> > > live.
>
> > > "Obama Fights to Retain Warrantless Wiretapping".
>
> > > We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who
> > > are not suspected of a crime.
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a
> > > misguided war.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including
> > > Arab-Americans and Muslim- Americans, do not become the scapegoats of
> > > national security fears.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven
> > > century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own
> > > detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > These aren't just broken promises, these are all broken promises that
> > > have to do with the economic and political rights of the relatively
> > > powerless. Privacy, union rights, debtor's rights, activist rights,
> > > etc – they were promised tangible stuff, and didn't get it. It looks
> > > like the Obama campaign will get a bounce from the convention, because
> > > the convention is well-organized and a good show. Just recognize that
> > > this show in 2008 had nothing to do with the ultimate policy that was
> > > enacted, and it's likely that the 2012 convention will see a similar
> > > outcome.
>
> > > I paste this as someone ho thinks the GOP is lunatic - less than 5% of
> > > scientists vote Republican.  Labour in the UK is as bad as Obama-
> > > Clinton.  I think what I meant by turning Greek is the shattering of
> > > the labour-spread of wealth compact and the debasing of non-elite
> > > freedoms.  I was never a close reader of Hegel - some awful dross on
> > > seven as 'god's magic number' put me off.  The big idea is history
> > > teaches us something - but the question of what history is the real
> > > problem, just as any focus on language is meaningless without
> > > awareness of how much of it is deception and compromise.  I was a
> > > union man as an academic, but always despised the self-interested
> > > focus.
>
> > > The biggest 'unions' today are professional groups like banksters,
> > > lawyers, doctors and accountants.  An old Spanish poet and philosopher
> > > Ortega Y Gassett once said Nazism reversed persuasion - coercion -
> > > violence and what facilitates this is debasing points of resistance
> > > like unions and worker solidarity.  I can no more be pro old fashioned
> > > unions (or their professional equivalents) than pro abortion, but I
> > > can believe in proper representation of all decent rights and a
> > > woman's choice.
>
> > > Exposing workers to Chinese serf wages is not an economic answer to
> > > anything and I suspect its based in hatred.  Liberalism often seems to
> > > pussy-footing to me (though our female cat has a habit of seizing my
> > > hand in claws as she is smoothed to apparent ecstasy) in respect of
> > > justice.  In test-tube baby work, they may fertilise 6 eggs in vitro.
> > > Only two can be chosen for implant (I'm not sure this is law,
> > > resourcing or both).  Ask yourself which eggs you would choose if you
> > > knew 4 of them likely to develop painful disability?  There is no
> > > complete answer, but in practice I'm going to choose the healthier
> > > suspects.  My guess is we face something similar in labour
> > > organisation and reward/benefits - we evade the real issues in favour
> > > of cracker-barrel ideologies - the social theory of disability being
> > > the example in moral choice in the in-vitro conundrum.  There are hard
> > > choices.
>
> > > Read more athttp://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/broken-democratic-platform-pro...
> > > On 6 Sep, 14:13, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How does a Hegelian relationship between unequals figure into this?
> > > > Dug out an interview with
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--