ah a few tech problems today, I see.
One stumbled upon as far as why there were hardly any posts here...Call it my "newbie-ness" in not catching that...I assumed that *all* posters could do so anonymously on blogspot.com...
Feel free to comment and engage me in any dialogue you see fit to engage in!
Also am noting problems when i try to put spaces in the "title" area of posting to this blog.
Finally, I noted that the number of alleged visits to this site appears in error... Oh well, can I do anything about it having not the funds to have more control over that? I don't think so!
Will keep going from time to time, and may measure the value of such by how many (or few) the comments.
cheerz!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
another response to the BBC blog, re: "morality" (see first below)
The BBC asks:
do you believe in the notion of ‘moral authority’? Are some people or countries morally superior to others?
Are there some countries or people who do behave in a way that give them an ‘authority’ to pass comment on the actions of others? Or do we all have our hands dirty, and to take a stance about someone’s conduct is to embrace hypocrisy?
My given response:
"if the standards of the Nuremberg trials were applied [to the u.s.a.], then every post World War II American president would have been hanged as a war criminal."--Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rage/ ...see question #5)
I don't want to say that the u.s.a. is the "only" immoral state in the world, but in its current position as "global enforcer state" for those whom have used deceit and lies to now "own" the entire world (i.e. through financial hegemony), the country I find myself in is quite the apostle of severe alienation, incorporated. Including the origins of the u.s.a.
But I think every state is an "immoral" organization, no matter how allegedly democratic. Every state forced, in one way or another, to subordinate to nato and the wto, and so on and so forth. The very idea of entrenchable hierarchy vying for positions of *power over* others! The very idea of *forcing* people to "the will" of the majority or any portion there-of; the very idea of formalized dualities, where people's humanity gets squashed under the weight of a very alienated idea of "the common good". And the very idea of war as we have been manipulated to believe is any sort of "solution."
States and all the coercions that come with them (i.e. propaganda as considered by Jacques Ellul) are obsolete if we wish to be frank about "morality." It all comes back to *severe alienation* and the perpetuation of that.
To evolve beyond the same old again would mean to re-learn the values of living in harmony not only with Mom Earth, but also each of our own powers which scream within us to speak our truths. For me, this would mean exploring "radical" strategies that allow our hearts to speak our depths.
Others have said that "morality" changes with time and place; but i say that all depends on how the hierarchy (or state) of each era plays its perpetual alienation games. The bottom line goes beyond each era's propaganda, and settles upon informal humanity's intuitive longing to speak truths unallowed by whichever hierarchy. For me, this brings us towards societies *wanting* input from its dissenters, say, in the form of the *vision quest* (as articulated by indigenous people the world over) and similar openings.
-----(end of letter to bbc's blog)------
NOTE: To keep to the "radical" underpinnings of this site, i'd like to also include the ideas of post-left anarchist ways of seeing "morality". Excerpts:
"Compulsory morality involves self-subjugation to a system or set of values that are, for one reason or another, believed to require mandatory compliance-even if the person believing this is unable to-as the cliché goes-"live up to them." Although compulsory morality can potentially be grounded within an individual's subjective experience, it is almost always instead grounded somewhere outside the realm of directly lived human experience."
(...)
"Science is one example of a source of many forms of modern, enlightened compulsory morality. I have capitalized it above to indicate that it is not the actual practice of experimental exploration of nature in pursuit of knowledge (science) of which I'm speaking, but an ideological construct (Science) of particular fetishized scientific ideas taken out of their finite, experimental contexts and elevated into general, quasi-religious principles....The formal structure of the various scientific moralities is, once again, the same as that for religious morality: sacred values from an unseen source to be followed by a relatively worthless human being whatever the context. Like religious morality, scientific versions of morality attempt to limit and determine what is supposed to be humanly desirable and possible, narrowing the choices that can be made by true believers."
See his article:
Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/moralism.htm
do you believe in the notion of ‘moral authority’? Are some people or countries morally superior to others?
Are there some countries or people who do behave in a way that give them an ‘authority’ to pass comment on the actions of others? Or do we all have our hands dirty, and to take a stance about someone’s conduct is to embrace hypocrisy?
My given response:
"if the standards of the Nuremberg trials were applied [to the u.s.a.], then every post World War II American president would have been hanged as a war criminal."--Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rage/ ...see question #5)
I don't want to say that the u.s.a. is the "only" immoral state in the world, but in its current position as "global enforcer state" for those whom have used deceit and lies to now "own" the entire world (i.e. through financial hegemony), the country I find myself in is quite the apostle of severe alienation, incorporated. Including the origins of the u.s.a.
But I think every state is an "immoral" organization, no matter how allegedly democratic. Every state forced, in one way or another, to subordinate to nato and the wto, and so on and so forth. The very idea of entrenchable hierarchy vying for positions of *power over* others! The very idea of *forcing* people to "the will" of the majority or any portion there-of; the very idea of formalized dualities, where people's humanity gets squashed under the weight of a very alienated idea of "the common good". And the very idea of war as we have been manipulated to believe is any sort of "solution."
States and all the coercions that come with them (i.e. propaganda as considered by Jacques Ellul) are obsolete if we wish to be frank about "morality." It all comes back to *severe alienation* and the perpetuation of that.
To evolve beyond the same old again would mean to re-learn the values of living in harmony not only with Mom Earth, but also each of our own powers which scream within us to speak our truths. For me, this would mean exploring "radical" strategies that allow our hearts to speak our depths.
Others have said that "morality" changes with time and place; but i say that all depends on how the hierarchy (or state) of each era plays its perpetual alienation games. The bottom line goes beyond each era's propaganda, and settles upon informal humanity's intuitive longing to speak truths unallowed by whichever hierarchy. For me, this brings us towards societies *wanting* input from its dissenters, say, in the form of the *vision quest* (as articulated by indigenous people the world over) and similar openings.
-----(end of letter to bbc's blog)------
NOTE: To keep to the "radical" underpinnings of this site, i'd like to also include the ideas of post-left anarchist ways of seeing "morality". Excerpts:
"Compulsory morality involves self-subjugation to a system or set of values that are, for one reason or another, believed to require mandatory compliance-even if the person believing this is unable to-as the cliché goes-"live up to them." Although compulsory morality can potentially be grounded within an individual's subjective experience, it is almost always instead grounded somewhere outside the realm of directly lived human experience."
(...)
"Science is one example of a source of many forms of modern, enlightened compulsory morality. I have capitalized it above to indicate that it is not the actual practice of experimental exploration of nature in pursuit of knowledge (science) of which I'm speaking, but an ideological construct (Science) of particular fetishized scientific ideas taken out of their finite, experimental contexts and elevated into general, quasi-religious principles....The formal structure of the various scientific moralities is, once again, the same as that for religious morality: sacred values from an unseen source to be followed by a relatively worthless human being whatever the context. Like religious morality, scientific versions of morality attempt to limit and determine what is supposed to be humanly desirable and possible, narrowing the choices that can be made by true believers."
See his article:
Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/moralism.htm
of late: BBC blog response and a bus wizardesse
In reply to the bbc.co.uk's blog, http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/would-you-like-to-know-what-i-think-about-iraq/ where they ask: "...He says it’s time for journalists to come clean about their views. Would it be more honest and more impartial if we told you what we think?"
My response (being moderated); (did it show up?):
The more honesty in the chain-of-command called journalism, the better. Imperfect, but at least we are less misled. Traditionally, all in “lower” chains of command (i.e. here, journalists), have had to subordinate their humanity to the hierarchical norms sent down from “on high” (i.e. here, editors and owners). If they didn’t, they were “weeded out”. Today, the game of journalism begins on the foundation where journalists have to have the right “internalized values”, and if they don’t, they find themselves on paths similar to Gary Webb and many others forced to fend for themselves when it truly matters. Thus, all you nice journalists are “left, center, and right” within the stupidity of colonization as usual, where ideas and truths beyond the limits of so-called “freedom” aren’t even considered as “reputable” and so on and so forth; and since they don’t “fit” within the prescribed “right, centre, left” scenario, then they’re out.
By the way, this idea that “we” readers and such “set the agenda”–what a farce! You take topics that *agenda setters* set and then tell the public that *they* somehow set the agenda! What lies!
The BBC is “nice” to the liberal game players of colonization (not that being “nice” to the centre and right would be any different) and remains steps ahead of such naive simpletons, appearing to be “objective” while confining the limits of human responsibility by playing as though promoting contexts to “news” is not your “job”! Who gets to define these foundations upon which you build your so-called objectivity?? Not any democratic form, that’s for sure!
In other news,
had an interesting time on the bus through a dangerous side of town at a dangerous time of night lastnight. A woman got on and appeared to be in the throes of some drug. Most people did what's "normal" in urban places, ignored. Except there was another woman with a baby nearby.
My response was intuitive and tainted with "radical" creativity. i moved closer in once the man she had come in with had been raved at to get "the fuck" out. Intuitively i found myself looking into this lady's eyes as much as possible and as directly as possible. She reminded me of a raucous male friend of mine, anyway; a smaller version, but potentially just as cantankerous. With her one hand having long fingernails and her black leather coat and all her cussing. She was obviously having a rough time of life, like so many of the rest of us.
When I'd first sat down near her, i'd said to her that she was a wizard. She sat, silently, and we spoke much with our eyes. Her eyes could look into mine to verify that i wasn't messing with her. She then covered the more feminine aspects of her clothing (some pink shoes i had noticed), and i psychicly braced myself.
She challenged me, finally. "What are you looking at?"
"Your powerfulness," I said.
She said, "what?"
I repeated.
Pretty wild, eh? What was i getting myself into?
Well, i went further, calling her a wizard "or whatever other word you would use", and she feigned energy towards me as tho i was irrational; she succeeded in making eye contact with another rider, who smiled away, but said nothing (verbally anyway); i *let her* try to put me down at "my expense" (avoiding getting caught up in the "normalized" idea of competitive social appearance), accepting, aloud, that i must be talking to myself; i got on her level...wearing my weird art clothing and all... Nearing my exit, i somehow mentioned she must know of the Rainbow people, such was her vibe. And then we parted saying "peace" to each other.
What might have happened hadn't i been there? Likely she would have been met by the police or psych squad (public buses get so many of such folks, they *must* have such kinds of response things, right??); but somehow, a little "radical" interaction in the crucial arts made a difference...
What i was trying to instill:
The idea that we are all powerful. That we are "wizards"; that we have powers and how do we want to see ourselves, most? What do we want to do with our powers, when we begin to see them? Do we want to perpetually flail? i don't think so!
My response (being moderated); (did it show up?):
The more honesty in the chain-of-command called journalism, the better. Imperfect, but at least we are less misled. Traditionally, all in “lower” chains of command (i.e. here, journalists), have had to subordinate their humanity to the hierarchical norms sent down from “on high” (i.e. here, editors and owners). If they didn’t, they were “weeded out”. Today, the game of journalism begins on the foundation where journalists have to have the right “internalized values”, and if they don’t, they find themselves on paths similar to Gary Webb and many others forced to fend for themselves when it truly matters. Thus, all you nice journalists are “left, center, and right” within the stupidity of colonization as usual, where ideas and truths beyond the limits of so-called “freedom” aren’t even considered as “reputable” and so on and so forth; and since they don’t “fit” within the prescribed “right, centre, left” scenario, then they’re out.
By the way, this idea that “we” readers and such “set the agenda”–what a farce! You take topics that *agenda setters* set and then tell the public that *they* somehow set the agenda! What lies!
The BBC is “nice” to the liberal game players of colonization (not that being “nice” to the centre and right would be any different) and remains steps ahead of such naive simpletons, appearing to be “objective” while confining the limits of human responsibility by playing as though promoting contexts to “news” is not your “job”! Who gets to define these foundations upon which you build your so-called objectivity?? Not any democratic form, that’s for sure!
In other news,
had an interesting time on the bus through a dangerous side of town at a dangerous time of night lastnight. A woman got on and appeared to be in the throes of some drug. Most people did what's "normal" in urban places, ignored. Except there was another woman with a baby nearby.
My response was intuitive and tainted with "radical" creativity. i moved closer in once the man she had come in with had been raved at to get "the fuck" out. Intuitively i found myself looking into this lady's eyes as much as possible and as directly as possible. She reminded me of a raucous male friend of mine, anyway; a smaller version, but potentially just as cantankerous. With her one hand having long fingernails and her black leather coat and all her cussing. She was obviously having a rough time of life, like so many of the rest of us.
When I'd first sat down near her, i'd said to her that she was a wizard. She sat, silently, and we spoke much with our eyes. Her eyes could look into mine to verify that i wasn't messing with her. She then covered the more feminine aspects of her clothing (some pink shoes i had noticed), and i psychicly braced myself.
She challenged me, finally. "What are you looking at?"
"Your powerfulness," I said.
She said, "what?"
I repeated.
Pretty wild, eh? What was i getting myself into?
Well, i went further, calling her a wizard "or whatever other word you would use", and she feigned energy towards me as tho i was irrational; she succeeded in making eye contact with another rider, who smiled away, but said nothing (verbally anyway); i *let her* try to put me down at "my expense" (avoiding getting caught up in the "normalized" idea of competitive social appearance), accepting, aloud, that i must be talking to myself; i got on her level...wearing my weird art clothing and all... Nearing my exit, i somehow mentioned she must know of the Rainbow people, such was her vibe. And then we parted saying "peace" to each other.
What might have happened hadn't i been there? Likely she would have been met by the police or psych squad (public buses get so many of such folks, they *must* have such kinds of response things, right??); but somehow, a little "radical" interaction in the crucial arts made a difference...
What i was trying to instill:
The idea that we are all powerful. That we are "wizards"; that we have powers and how do we want to see ourselves, most? What do we want to do with our powers, when we begin to see them? Do we want to perpetually flail? i don't think so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
