My Latest Symbol.

Dm.A.A.

The Results become Variables.

Problems with Scientific Epistemology (Positivism.).

I was lying in bed pondering an important decision. Ought I to invite Candace to dance with us at Stampede? She had all ready hinted that she wanted to see me again at Somewhere Loud, roughly a fort-night following our initial and dynamic meeting.

Obviously impulses were in favour of seeing her again. I had all ready texted her later the same night that she surprised me with a call. The following night, prior to the day of judgement, I found a song by Ciara. It was entitled Dance like We are Making Love. Ciara had matured. Of course if the song had not reminded me of Candace it was because its sub•conscious impetus had been her to begin with.

As the proper decision literally Dawned upon me I felt compelled instinctively to look upon the window at the front of my house, from the inside of my room.
It was as though the Sun had entered in. Apollo his self strode in with the authority of Hestia.

And I was reminded of how I had come to dis•possess my self of my Positivistic Idols in late Two Thousand and Thirteen.
Nietzsche had proclaimed that Dialectic destroyed philosophy. To be a reductionistic empiricist (as opposed to a radical one) one must lay 'both sides' against the same ruler to measure which is longer. Which is the leg? Which is the hypotenoose? Had it been true that contemplating the lesser of the two options and the greater of the two evils I had failed to look to that same window, I should have to totally ignore Apollo's Visit.
Given the sheer madness of that prospect I must forget it upon thought of it.

Re-creating the initial contemplation of the lesser path would have been just as fruit less. One cannot step in to the same river twice.
The archaic superstition of science is in that one could theoretically control one variable whilst allowing others to vary. This is insane. The authority leant to science is based upon the delusion that any two events could be 'repeated' and the reports believed upon the say-so of the participants, whose sole witnesses are usually their peers and whose rank determines their validity. This is atrocious.
No two thoughts can be repeated with the certainty that it had been so. At every moment the Sun sets. The leaves age. My memories mutate. Each attempt to repeat my initial ponderances are met with the brick wall of futulity, the hardened sediment of increasing self•consciousness piling up upon its self.

The ascetic ideal ruptures. With a force of Will I rise from bed and begin my walk to the bank. Along the way my eyes are seduced by Nature. A pine needle hanging from a branch tempts me, caressing my eyes remotely. I must stop to photograph it as the Sun stands behind, Apollo peering through the brush. I never arrive at the Bank. The human world with its pretensions has little hold on me. It is a mere seat•belt in the roller coaster of Life.

And only the bastards that would have called her unwitting would believe in Science.

Dm.A.A.

The Spider-man is having you for dinner to•night.

I realised that I became de-sensitised to rape because the politically correct community only referred to it in the context of rage, condamnation, moralism, exaggerated claims, fear, and the intransparency that comes with being forbidden to speak about some thing that every one talks about. Dm.

Anarchy as Solution for Rape.

Anarchy as Solution for Rape.

The problem with all attempts to legally regulate rape is that they require that we use Reason, but really what prevents us all from sexual violence towards one an other (and this would have to extend to moral violence, even towards people who are sexually violent) is Intuition.

1.       Language does not have a stable meaning; Derrida demonstrated the ways in which its meanings can and are differed.

a.       The alternative to this view is Linguistic Fascism, which is metaphysically naive.

2.       Human promiscuity occurs on a spectrum.

a.       Multiple women (and apparently some men) attest to (favourable*) fantasies of sexually deviant behaviours that involve being surprised and even sexually assaulted.

                                                              i.      This is of course not at all an unrealistic allegation, however deplorably unrealistic a fantasy in our still sexually priggish culture.

                                                            ii.      I should remind that Maslow indicated that the healthy growth and development of an individual depends upon breaking out of one’s culture.

                                                          iii.      Our culture is in decline.

                                                           iv.      Our culture is not progressing. Progressivism is the delusion of a degenerate culture.

                                                             v.      Huxley agreed to Maslow’s ideal.

                                                           vi.      In so far as our culture is binding upon individuals it is destructive and morally reprehensible.

                                                         vii.      I as an individual by virtue of Fact 2.a.vi do not need to provide a warrant for this fact.

                                                       viii.      [ By virtue of Fact VII, I do not need to provide a warrant for the tautology.

                                                           ix.      Most profound matters are reducable to Tautology, because exquisite ideas comprise systems that tend to be cyclical.

                                                             x.      Not all tautology is precise. ]

b.      *All though theoretically it is much too dualistic of me to specify this.

c.       That some women want to be caught unawares is evidence of a lingering hope for the Noble Savage to re-emerge as an ideal in our society.

                                                              i.      The Noble Savage is going extinct because of technological culture.

                                                            ii.      The Noble virtues of the Noble Savage:

1.       Capacity towards spontaneity.

a.       As social networking and law become intertwined it is exceptionally difficult to be spontaneous.

b.      Excessive defensiveness and self-conscious engender paranoia.

c.       One tends to hold others to the same Fascistic standards as one holds one’s self in order to justify one’s own cynicism.

d.      The self-conscious individual is a product of power structures. (Foucault.)

2.       Lack of dependency upon Reason. Greater trust of Intuition.

a.       This means a lesser dependency upon Directed Thought (language) and a greater sensitivity towards the world as it presents its self immediately (instinct and Non-directed or Visionary Thought).

b.      A greater appreciation for Nature, in the broadest sense, including the sense that one is an expression of one’s own environment.

c.       A lesser dependency upon the rules of others.

d.      A lesser tendency to USE symbols to rationalize behaviour which is intuitively cruel and self-serving.

3.       Lesser notion of “selfhood”.

a.       Greater empathy; chance to communicate non-verbally with all the Natural World as Thou, not It.

b.      Genuine Self as opposed to egoic self-conception as created by consumerist culture.

c.       Fun loving; tendency towards relatively harmless fun.

                                                          iii.      Individuals who want to be assaulted are in love with the intuitive danger that we left behind in our dying jungles. They are followers of Dionysus and visionaries who have not lost their touch with their animal natures. These are capable of genuine compassion. To them self-interest is non-existent, and their bodies have been made available for Life to make what use it wants of, not as property. They are the least objectified, for they refuse to objectify their selves. Their existence is purely subjective.

d.      The prevalence of sub-cultures such as Bondage and Sodomy and Rave are further evidence of this regressive habit.

                                                              i.      Of course, I use “regressive” favourably, and I use “favourably” without any derision.

                                                            ii.      Bondage and Sodomy takes the conservative approach, simulating these circumstances in exceptionally controlled circumstances.

                                                          iii.      Rave takes the more feminine approach, lending women authority on the dance-floor. Some of the most powerful women on the floor tend to want their partners to “just go for it” in approaching them and initiating physical contact.

e.      Our culture is becoming increasingly compassionate towards forms of sexual deviation.

                                                              i.      Were rape culture regarded as a culture with its own reciprocity, it would be accorded the dignity of the Homosexual Community, et al.

                                                            ii.      Currently, there is no place for these deviants to safely practice their preferences.

                                                          iii.      The imprisonment and worse the shaming of these deviants, in reckless and naive pursuit of partners, is akin to discrimination (structural violence) in the former case and hate crimes in the latter case.

                                                           iv.      These people are accorded Shadow projection as the scape-goats of our consent-normative, technological society.

                                                             v.      The worst violence tends to be towards people that we project our own repressed negativity upon, even when they have not done us or our loved ones DIRECT harm.

                                                           vi.      Of course as ALL WAYS the answer for why “rape culture” is leant a negative (and by negative I mean “unfavourable”, or derisive, connotation) is that we have FORGOTTEN THE FEMININE. People tend to imagine it, surely, to be patriarchal, but in fact men simply have to initiate contact in relationships of these sort. But WOMEN are in fact essential to this culture as participants full of regrettably unrequited longing in the status quo.

3.       Given how ambiguous rape truly is given all these variables, it is incredible that civilization even developed. In part I suppose that the Judeo-Christian ethic was a stepping stone towards the civilized state, but was a step up all so a step ahead, or are we climbing a ladder that is bending in on us?

4.       It is incredible that on the dance floor, in the bed-room, and just in general we manage to live in more or less harmony. Only our problem-solving mind over-looks this Glorious Harmony that does not change over time. (Watts.)

5.       We should work to cultivate awareness of this Harmony in the further development of our civilization. The Intuition is what tells us: I do not want to be violent. But it has been so debased that even people crusading against sexual violence, using the umbrella term “rape” indiscriminately and hate fully, use violence in their rhetoric, shouting “rape!” in order to silence all dissent. As though Silence were Dissent.

6.       Our vilification of Silence as Consent, et al, are all evidence of our dwindling Intuition and Empathy. I mean, this is obvious: We are constantly over-stepping boundaries that we cannot even imagine simply by the act of living. I can say just from my own experience that even doing Nothing can un-nerve people. If we are to survive ethnic tension, we must embrace what S. Kierkegaard said: All offense is a failure to comprehend the Paradox. Of course, this is in no way a form of Relativism that pardons genuinely selfish or violent behaviour. But it IS an attitude of recognizing Intent and Intentionality, Intuitively, out-side of and prior to any ideological consideration. At times, the Paradox DOES inform us in the form of negative feelings that compel our discretion. But that is not the same as an offence to our ego, except in the sense that our ego is subsumed by new information from the Self. (Jung.) The negativity here is authentic because it brings out a deeper aspect of the Self, rather than being just a reaction on the part of the ego to an Absurd situation.

This compels us as individuals in a collective to acknowledge that we cannot hide in Silence as though it made us perpetual victimhood. In the same way that we are morally obligated to SPEAK OUT against violence, we must be held responsible for our passive aggression, that kind people will tend to presume the best in the face of the Nothing, that Silence that unifies us all but that because it is FEMININE  it is repressed in our patriarchal society, and we must not be allowed to condemn people that we had miss-led with our silent non-verbals, an astute manipulative technique that debaters know because they often abuse the imagination by saying “I never said that” as though they were not OBLIGATED to speak out against oppression in the same way as it is the responsibility, in an environment where in people expect you to “just go for it”, one MUST use one’s ability to say “No” in order to ward off a silent suitor, for he (or she) too is acting out of an ethical obligation. After all, our responsibility is not only towards the self, with a lower-case “s”. Life demands that each day we do some thing frightening, slaying the dragons of “Thou Shalt”, and judging by our own ecstasy and rapture that we have fully lived and exposed our selves to Life in such a way that it would breed compassion and comprehension in our hearts.

Obviously, so long as there is no violent repression in a given circumstance, the ability to say “No”, to disconfirm, is not taken away. But with freedom comes responsibility. We must choose yet again either freedom or Fascism. Wittgenstein said, Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent. By the same token, of which one CAN speak, one MUST. One is never a victim so long as both the capacity to remain silent, as a way of communication, that very repressed feminine Nothingness that we so hate, and one’s masculine capacity to raise one’s voice, are intact. And if sexuality is ineffable, a true consummation of spiritual energies, then perhaps we ought NOT to feel obligated to objectify one another with words, forgetting our hidden spiritual kinship, which consumer capitalism in its neurotic competitiveness all ways tries (much too successfully) to hide.

7.        Most people have the Intuitive Empathy to know when they have harmed an other. Yet so long as we live too much in the world of law and symbols we lose this capacity, and we are capable time and again of incredible cruelty by rationalizing away our humanity with WORDS. So long as those Words are not their selves advocates for Silence, they are not Masculine, but Patriarchal by definition. And the conditioned ego caught in this web of power is over-whelmed and traumatized at the earliest instance. Maybe there is no such thing as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Salinger seemed to hate this habit of labeling psycho-analytically “neuroses”. Maybe he did NOT “have” some thing, but he simply saw more deeply into the Void – the Nothing, the Silent – than most of us. Is it unbelievable?

Dm.A.A.

Let’s Play: Spot the Fallacy.

Let’s Play: Spot the Fallacy.

1.       Premise One: Marxism justifies rape.

2.       Premise Two: Rape can never be justified.

3.       Conclusion: we must not be Marxists.

Response:

1.       Premise One and Premise Two are mutually exclusive.

a.       Premise One justifies rape. This renders the justification of rape a possibility. Premise Two denies this possibility.

                                                              i.      Marxism was established by us as a Should.

                                                            ii.      Should implies Can. (Rawles.) If we SHOULD be Marxists, then we CAN be Marxists.

                                                          iii.      If being Marxist justifies rape, either inevitably or incidentally, then it CAN be justified. If it could not, that would only be because we could NOT be Marxists, a condition that would pre-clude the possibility, at least by this avenue of reasoning.

2.       Premise one never passes judgement upon Rape, because it is merely an End. It never passes judgement upon Marxism, which remains an imperative Means.

3.       Premise two only passes judgement upon Rape, as an End. It never passes judgement upon Marxism, as a Means.

a.       The Means all ways justify the Ends. (Frankl.)

b.      The Ends never justify the Means.

4.       The Conclusion is there by arbitrary.

Dm.A.A.

The Disadvantages of Anti-Rape Rhetoric.

The Disadvantages of Anti-Rape Rhetoric.

1.       Anthropocentric. A.R.R. pre-disposes us towards condemning all forms of life that do not have our sexual habits (by our definition) and that do not APPEAR (to our frame of reference) to possess a language and culture that qualifies for “consent” within our culture.

2.       Ethnocentric. A.R.R. pre-disposes us towards condemning all cultural paradigms, indiscriminately, that do not have our sexual habits.

a.       This is not a relativist position. We need discrimination in cultures.

b.      By condemning all cultures that dis-agree with our illusory standards we are indiscriminate in our prejudices.

3.       Shadow Projection. Much of this rhetoric is violent and can only be symptomatic of an impulse to condemn an aspect of the repressed self.

4.       Anti-progressive. If the New Agers are right, the whole notion of the individual, with its “own self-interest”, its “own body and possessions”, and its “personal space” will eventually disappear, if all goes well. The only threat to this is violence, and there can be no question that people who crusade against rape are possessed of violent and fanatical urges. This is evidenced by their inability to provide warrants.

5.       Absolutistic. So let me get this straight. If I do some thing in California, it is a crime against Humanity, but if I do it in a state with a lower age of consent, or a more lenient alcohol tolerance, I am justified. Well DAMN does that ring of Nationalism and Fascism. Nationalism because one has determined one’s sanctity by borders, and Fascism because there is an implicit belief in an Absolute that ultimately must triumph over all deviations from it.

6.       Ultra-Pragmatic. Of course, if one uses the scare tactic of threatening rape then one is condemned as a terrorist. Are our opponents any different? If one PRESUMES it to be the worst fate, then Marx’s Deontological Imperative of abilities and needs can be skewed to sound like “rape rhetoric”, in conjunction with Nietzsche’s view of ability as the Will to Power and Maslow’s view of sexuality as a “need”. But this is just Totalitarianism. Yet if one PRESUMES starvation to be worse, the consideration is reversed. Rape can be a justified end in such a case of which the attempt to make people feel more entitled to their own needs, sufficiently that they might rebel against the State, as the radical Marxist means. Just to cite one hypothetical instance. To say “Rape is never justified”, as though to say it “CAN never be justified”, is blatantly hegemonic. All that it does is that it threatens people from following their ethical DUTY (such as to provide for one an other’s needs) because, by their own admission, it MAY PRODUCE this out-come as a by-product. This is utterly intolerable to the rational mind.

In place of condemning “undesirable ends” we have instead to focus on Means. What are the MOTIVES for a given act? Multiple motives may serve the same out-come, but the motive its self determines Guilt. Hence a warrant is necessary that the opponents may establish an ethical ground. Based upon this ground we might determine not only their standing but all so whether or not we agree and wish to be in good standing WITH them on this ground. Only then can we be said to be justified in our motives. And motives are the arbiter. A romantic who falls in love with a woman seven years his younger is divorced entirely in affect from a misogynist with a trouble childhood. A practitioner of Bondage and Sodomy that forgot to sign a paper and has a vindictive partner (which in a community that celebrates sadism and masochism is not unlikely) is not equal to a soldier that is an opportunist.

Can rape be justified? But of course! It is justified ALL THE TIME. It is not only justified in war, justified in prison, and justified in situations that reactionaries try to “level the playing field”. People JUSTIFY it by their own admission in condemning ideologies SUCH as Marxism by claiming it to LEAD to these ENDS by asking, “well what if what they want to be shared is the body?” This is by definition a justification. The argument is that “Marxism justifies rape.” Fair enough. We can live with that; the ends are non-unique, and the means are imperative. Only by claiming the ends to some how supercede the means can one engage in double think, saying, “our duty is to justify rape (as a by-product)”, and “Should Implies Can”, as Rawles attested, but rape can never be justified”. Try to figure THAT one out.

7.       Dangerously ambiguous and opaque. If no definition is provided for rape, how do I know where my healthy sexual appetites end and a crime begins?

a.       Even definitions are of course inert. I first encountered the word in a dictionary, and it meant to compel another to engage in sexual conduct against one’s own will. When two childhood play-mates, in an attempt to mock me for studying the patterns of snails migrating in their back-yard, arranged a cruel demonstration of human power by trying to force these snails to mate in a “marriage” (because as we all know “marriage is a right” and forcing life-forms to recognise this institution is ethically justified), I accused them loudly and exasperatedly of “raping” the snails. Was I wrong?

8.       Rape Apologetics. I mean, that feminists who crusade against rape are subtly advocating for it needs no more warrant than they seem to feel in justifying the position that rape is bad. Right?*

 *This is not of course to suggest that we do not have a file explaining this for people who want to be KNIT-PICKY.

Dm.A.A.

My Deep Archer from Zizek.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGNLj8P59dk

For the first time I must dis-agree with Zizek. Playing devil's advocate is precisely the way that one not only enflames sentiment (much like Zizek's precious "racist jokes", which all most certainly enflame some people), but it all so exposes one's true intentions. As Nietzsche (admittedly of a school distinct from Zizek's field of study) said: Distrust all those in whom the will to punish is great. I know from having participated in College Debate that people not only use "rape" (which in California now has actually become an ambiguous term owing to the flowing of political correctness into the legal system and the passing of some ridiculous laws under feminist auspices) and "feminism" (both interchangeably and together) as impenetrable (no pun intended) barriers to discussion that renders the community at risk from proto-Fascism because people are afraid to condemn feminism, but all so in many instances the very style of rhetoric is all so blatantly violent. And yet they get away with it, even as they argue against violence, without a second thought to their logical consistency! So obviously there is no longer a discussion at hand here. The best arbiter would be to ask: "Well now what is the WARRANT for why rape is bad?" It throws people, but it forces them to examine the fact that even though their position APPEARS ubiquitous, they cannot find a single argument for it, because in fact they are engaged in the kind of violent thinking that they are condemning. Dm.A.A.

Yes. I would love it if all people "woke up" and realised that there is no such thing as Racism or Sexism because both of these are reifications based upon logocentric readings of history.

But we all have to lower out standards.

Zizek can idealise all he wants. I have been so shocked personally by just the stupidity of college kids that I am past the point of taking these "real problems" seriously. WHY SO SERIOUS?

Dm.A.A.