A Tale of Blame.

I read one of Lynne Floto’s quotes from the list that she dis-

tributes to her high school students.

The quote seemed to follow the lines of: ‘asking her whether or not she was wearing a seat-belt is like asking a rape victim what she was wearing.’ The simile is of course null and void in terms of evaluative impact, and ironically in the absence of such an impact the objectivity of the analogy looms dubious as well. Either question would of course occur to me.

Along with many others? Why was she on the road? Why did she

seek out that peculiar path to walk down at night? Why did she do what she did, or, to put it an other way, have happen what she had? How did it occur to her? I love that idiom, for its meaning seems even more en-

ticing than the literal meaning. To say: It occurs to me, is to say: I recognise.

I THINK. I question.

But it is no surprise that a quote used by Lynne would repress what if not the ASKING of Questions.

In debate, my response would be:

So do you mean to suggest that the latter woman is just as responsible for HER tragedy as the former is responsible for hers? And when my opponent tries to insist that I had heard the meaning of the analogy in reverse, I would reply:

Does the one meaning not imply the other?

Sartre said that we are totally responsible for what happens to us.

So does yoga. I disagree, but with one qualification: Regret. Nothing is more beautiful than to gaze upon

Claire Boucher of Grimes and to say: All that has happened to this Goddess was her own doing.

For nothing do I hate more than the thought of a female victim.

I have come to the conclusion that Americans are those people who love to blame the Other. Why should I be afraid to ask what she was wearing? Would others not learn from her missed take? Or is prevention of secondary import to punishment? Why should I hesitate?

For fear of being labeled a rape apologist? So long as the Other – the rapist – is blamed, the ‘victim’ is not.

And so she is power-less.    Dm.A.A.

A Tale of Giving Thanks;

For Thanks-giving, I am thank full for the opportunity to sit down with my family and enjoy a home cooked meal, go jogging in the frigid air when all the restaurants are closed, experience satori out side my favourite pizzeria, and get caught in the rain, listening to Christmas music, and chatting with my friend’s neighbor who plays guitar. Oh. And living in a country where at least for the time being I do not have to listen to b.s. propaganda about how I am not supposed to be here because I an immigrant/white person. But can choose to. Just like you can choose which side you wish to hate from. Dm.

Critique of Pragmatism. One.

One of the advantages of idealism is actually the cession of individual, isolated responsibility to DUTY. No longer is the question one of “what I chose to do” or “what I did not choose to do”, but rather “What was NEEDED of me” and “whether or not I succeeded”. What was the duty? What was the requirement? Fear can never totally conquer the idealistic deontologist, for one all ways knows that one has refuge in only one haven, and one only REQUIRES refuge in that: “It felt like the right thing to do.” NOT “it felt right at the time”, though that idiom may just as well be used to express the idea that only the former idiom can express*. But the latter idiom has an other meaning: “It felt like it would make me happy, and what bad consequences came of it would not affect me detrimentally.”  This is quite obviously a self-defeating strategy, which is ironic given that it is so self-aggrandising. When the strategist tries to advantage his self, the strategy destroys its self.

If you were suicidal and I called you, it would be on the authority of this critical intuition: I think that you are in danger. And I HOPE that you are okay. but beyond that hope there is the anxiety that the hope may not be realised without action. Were you to reprimand me later for the act, I could never be blamed. If the call its self were to intrude upon your psyche and push you into the act, I at least had meant well. And if you know this you know better than to distrust me, for you’d know that you owed me your allegiance at least for my good will.

But a pragmatist would never see it as “what needed to be done” but “what was arbitrarily chosen”. And now each of the players is held EQUALLY responsible. Yet of course this dis-incentivises any one from ever being a player. In stead, every one becomes isolated and begins to pursue one’s own dubious “self-interest”. And this is totally anti-social. Now rather than thanking me for caring you meet me with suspicion and lead me to carve out my own spiritual innerds until I cannot distinguish my self from the villain. And then what can I rely upon? There is no moral scalpel to discern my concerns from mere whims, and on your own whims you may condemn me not as caring but as over-bearing and tyrannical. And so no question arises as to how one might identify the difference between the friend and the tyrant. For, you see, to arrive at that sort of assessment of virtue one must first make the theoretical DISTINCTION. No experiments, mental or other wise, can be performed without theory.

 *obviously, I mean to say: only the former idiom can express it without question as to another meaning. Or: The former idiom ONLY expresses THIS meaning (the meaning that both the former and the latter idiom share in common).

Dm.A.A.

A Tale of Spouses. CONCLUDED.

A Tale of Spouses.

Once there were a woman and a man who lived together. They were engaged in a monogamous relationship. The woman daily left their home to go to work at her place of employment. The husband mean while stayed at home to watch the dog.

One day, after a considerable day at work and a rough happy-hour, the woman of the house returned home in a rage. She screamed at her husband, throwing pot and pans, denigrating him as a loafer and a free-loader and sloth.

“Why don’t you ever DO any thing?” she proclaimed.

The husband replied: “I WOULD, but who will watch the dog?”

And at the thought of being compelled to surrender her career as her husband worked, the offended lady divorced him.

Whose fault was it? Before you make your assessment, note this: The husband was a minority. Not simply by being a male. But by being an introvert.

The woman sought an other mate. But her pride had been so irrevocably bruised that she could not tolerate the thought of dating an other loafer. In every photograph she saw, every feminist poster, depicting a bruised woman, her ego found solace and rage.

So she decided to embrace what was called Equity Theory. She had heard rumour of a thing called Gender Norms. APPARENTLY, men who slept with many women were applauded by “society” as “alpha males”, whilst women who slept with many men were deplored as “sluts”.

The origin of this mentality apparently originated in the Bible, though only certain Christian sects really professed the “alpha male” idea.

Fancying this unfair, the woman decided that she would settle the score. She did this by sleeping with an alpha male. Yet to do this she had to use the alpha male’s best friend, an introvert and a virgin.

Apparently, the way to settle the score was to up the alpha male’s game. For every point that she gained with him he gained one with her. But in her mind the situation was reversed: For every point that HE gained with HER SHE gained one with HIM.

In this way at least she felt that she had the last word. Even if the last word that she had was HIM.

Mean while, the alpha male’s friend remained at zero. This way, equity was achieved and the woman was no longer a SLUT.

Obviously, the alpha male was still one-up on the girl. No matter what she tried. So she moved on. She found a young man to stay with who was AVERAGE. So she went drinking with him one night. His best friend drove them to the bar and drove them home.

As the new boy-friend was asleep, past out from drinking, the best friend made a move on the girl. She consented to sex, and in the boy-friends dreams he could hear their love-work.

In the morn, the best friend had left. The boy-friend came to, awaking, and he exclaimed: “I had the most awe full night-mare! I dreamt that you slept with my best friend!”

And to which the girl replied: “Do not worry. He is not your best friend any more.”

The woman ended up suing the best friend and imprisoning him for having been sobre at the time of seduction. This helped her to pay for her divorce, for she had all ready married the cuckolded young man.

Finally she decided just to start talking to a nice boy that she met one fortuitous night in the parking garage of her University.

The young boy was an introvert. He was a charmer and a gentleman with very stern but malleable morals. He saw the best in most people, including his troubled extraverted friend. So he and the girl related in respect to their own troubled, extraverted friends. At least SHE related with the stories of the troubled extravert.

The introverted young man had long lived in the shadow of his extraverted brother. He did not mind to too great a degree. He admired his friend despite his absence of envy for the extravert’s polyamorous life-style. When ever the two attended a party, social gathering or drum circle, the extravert managed to attract the attention of every young lady that the introvert tried talking to. But the introvert did not mind. He knew that one day he would find a girl who would love the introvert for who he really was. Monogamy was the name of the introvert’s game.

One day, the introvert FOUND such a person. She is the heroine of this story. He courted her for a month in writing, finally daring to say that the time was ripe for the two to meet. A few times they missed their appointments, chiefly owing to emotional distress either on the part of the boy or the girl’s extraverted friends having mental break-downs.

Finally, they met again, at a concert that the introvert and the extravert were both playing in. And yet again the extravert got the girl. This time, the introvert did mind. He told him self: “That man is a douche,” and he refused to ever speak to the extravert again.

Do you remember what I said about the virgin’s tally remaining at zero?

So it remained. Yet the introvert got his hopes up when the young woman told him that she wanted to meet with him again.

To the introvert’s chagrin and travail, the young woman was in a rage. “How dare you hurt him by betraying him like that? What gave you the right to abandon him? I LOVED him.”

And to this the man replied: “What gave you the right to love him? HE betrayed ME. And YOU abandoned ME.”

To this she fumed: “He made me HAPPY!” Of course, this was only literally true. The extravert had made her happy until she realised that he did not love her. This came around the time that he forgot her birthday, for despite his being an extravert he was trying to develop his introversion by ignoring her systematically.

And the introvert replied: “Be that as it may, *I* was left UNHAPPY. And surely he expected me to be happy FOR him and for YOU. Yet allow me to explain what had gone wrong.

“I would have expected him to say: I am sorry. But this is my best friend. He will be devastated to learn that you do not love him as he had so hoped for so long. I must stand beside him at this difficult time. It would drive him MAD to learn it by seeing his own best friend with his imagined lover.

“And I would have expected you to say: I am sorry. I cannot allow you to betray your own best friend. I was wrong to have led him on and thought to use him and the opportunities he provided by his hospitality in order to GET to some one like you.

“And I thought both of you would say: He deserves better.”

And the woman simply gave the introvert the finger and stormed off.

Dm.A.A.

A Tale of Spouses. EXTENDED:

A Tale of Spouses.

Once there were a woman and a man who lived together. They were engaged in a monogamous relationship. The woman daily left their home to go to work at her place of employment. The husband mean while stayed at home to watch the dog.

One day, after a considerable day at work and a rough happy-hour, the woman of the house returned home in a rage. She screamed at her husband, throwing pot and pans, denigrating him as a loafer and a free-loader and sloth.

“Why don’t you ever DO any thing?” she proclaimed.

The husband replied: “I WOULD, but who will watch the dog?”

And at the thought of being compelled to surrender her career as her husband worked, the offended lady divorced him.

Whose fault was it? Before you make your assessment, note this: The husband was a minority. Not simply by being a male. But by being an introvert.

The woman sought an other mate. But her pride had been so irrevocably bruised that she could not tolerate the thought of dating an other loafer. In every photograph she saw, every feminist poster, depicting a bruised woman, her ego found solace and rage.

So she decided to embrace what was called Equity Theory. She had heard rumour of a thing called Gender Norms. APPARENTLY, men who slept with many women were applauded by “society” as “alpha males”, whilst women who slept with many men were deplored as “sluts”.

The origin of this mentality apparently originated in the Bible, though only certain Christian sects really professed the “alpha male” idea.

Fancying this unfair, the woman decided that she would settle the score. She did this by sleeping with an alpha male. Yet to do this she had to use the alpha male’s best friend, an introvert and a virgin.

Apparently, the way to settle the score was to up the alpha male’s game. For every point that she gained with him he gained one with her. But in her mind the situation was reversed: For every point that HE gained with HER SHE gained one with HIM.

In this way at least she felt that she had the last word. Even if the last word that she had was HIM.

Mean while, the alpha male’s friend remained at zero. This way, equity was achieved and the woman was no longer a SLUT.

Obviously, the alpha male was still one-up on the girl. No matter what she tried. So she moved on. She found a young man to stay with who was AVERAGE. So she went drinking with him one night. His best friend drove them to the bar and drove them home.

As the new boy-friend was asleep, past out from drinking, the best friend made a move on the girl. She consented to sex, and in the boy-friends dreams he could hear their love-work.

In the morn, the best friend had left. The boy-friend came to, awaking, and he exclaimed: “I had the most awe full night-mare! I dreamt that you slept with my best friend!”

And to which the girl replied: “Do not worry. He is not your best friend any more.”

The woman ended up suing the best friend and imprisoning him for having been sobre at the time of seduction. This helped her to pay for her divorce, for she had all ready married the cuckolded young man.

Dm.A.A.

A Tale of Spouses.

A Tale of Spouses.

Once there were a woman and a man who lived together. They were engaged in a monogamous relationship. The woman daily left their home to go to work at her place of employment. The husband mean while stayed at home to watch the dog.

One day, after a considerable day at work and a rough happy-hour, the woman of the house returned home in a rage. She screamed at her husband, throwing pot and pans, denigrating him as a loafer and a free-loader and sloth.

“Why don’t you ever DO any thing?” she proclaimed.

The husband replied: “I WOULD, but who will watch the dog?”

And at the thought of being compelled to surrender her career as her husband worked, the offended lady divorced him.

Whose fault was it? Before you make your assessment, note this: The husband was a minority. Not simply by being a male. But by being an introvert.

Dm.A.A.

Aphorizm. (II.)

That I am right and that it hurts me to be right does not prove YOU right. You presume of course that you have cornered me. For now that I am right and unhappy it evidences how silly my project of being right was to begin with. But in fact my being unhappy does not disprove my being right. Rather if any thing it proves that I was right all along, for I had no vested interest in being right. It never brought me joy. And this disappointment in being right is of course familiar to me.

Dm.A.A.

Aphorizm:

It is not as though finding the best in people is a form of self-love because it promises an accommodation, however fickle and unwarranted the promise. Rather it is that one can preserve one’s own dignity more easily from accusations of hypocrisy if one is not all too judge/mental.

Dm.A.A.