Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:08:32 +1100 From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> Subject: Re: love and difference - feeling, reacting This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g) Steve, 1) For some reason your story reminds me of the book, "White Teeth". 2) Although I basically accept your decision theory, I think the mind-brain is a physical bio-instrument which, like a computer, is an input-output device. Twenty-plus years of living brain-history is the basis of a PhD's mentality, including the ability to decide. One is one's memories and without them, has the lack of cognitive ability typified by a victim of terminal Alzheimers. One decides, what one's history presents and what the "mind" executes.. Somthing in computer memory responds to the appropriate stimulus. Same with brain. regards, Hugh Hugh The issue is a political one - related to social and economic class. Just because you are born into a particular class position does not mean that you have to inherit the most reactionary moments of that class position. The queen effectively chose those positions - over a long lifetime they were and are her 'personal' class positions. Back in the 1930s - when the british state for it's own reactionary class reasons decided not to support the Spanish Republican govenment it arguably condemmed the world to an appalling war, at that point the british monarchy like the british ruling class made an unfortunate choice - the point being that whilst we are determined by our social and class positions we do have the power to make choices. Yesterday on TV there was a short and enlightening film about a British Sikh family - the usual sad reactionary religious/cultural issues showing the ongoing death of a horrible set of cultural values as there children and changed by existing in a more secular society - however what was interesting was their presumption that because a young woman had run away from her forced marraige (they called it arranged) and had dissapeared from her marriage, her paternal family that she was dead. Watching it I realised that she had probably gone to one of the asian women's refuges perhaps in souhall or brixton... and has now reconstructed her life... regards steve hbone wrote: Steve/All, Yes, we cry for different things. To each his/her own. I don't conceive of genetic or legal inheritance as a choice.If so, all would choose to be rich, powerful, beautiful, magnanimous......whatever. A few years ago I read about the Bush-Fascist connectionyou mention, on the Internet, It sounded authentic. I'm inclined to believe it. I suppose books are available with details, for those who want them. Even God cannot change the past, but sometimes mere mortals may profit from it. ~*^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^~^*~^~^~*~^*~^* >Hugh >It's a matter of choosing sides. Things are actually much more black and white than you >appear to want them to be... >To inherit a role whether it is 'queen' or as in Bush's case the inheritence of money from >a grand farther who should have gone to jail for supporting and making mloney from the >German Fascists... is also a choice. Even if, and i will allow this much, she was >constructed and oppressed in the process of becoming 'queen' just as I would accept >that any women can be seen to be oppressed by the social-religious environment they >live in. >Nonetheless her death will not cause me tears or anger, unlike say the looting of the >Baghdad museum caused by your fellow countryman... >steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ hbone wrote: Steve, There have always been people who laugh at others' grief and pain, and I'm surprised you admit such laughs. If its part of your inheritance, the way you were taught, the ethics you have absorbed, the friends you have, the life you live, I don't agree with your views, but respect your right to express them. regards, Hugh laughs - would like to think so - but really how can anyone respect inheritence like this... s hbone wrote: Steve/Geof/All, The Queen, and all the rest us us, like yourself and other readers of the pomo-French and neo-Marxists persuasions, has IMHO, known love and grief. Like us, I would assume she chooses words, of speechwriters or anyone else, which resonate with her own experience in loving and losing, in grieving, sharing and attempting to console those who mourn. I think everyone is entitled to their own emotions, even if they have lead the sheltered lives of royalty. The Queen, being older than most of us, has likely experienced more love and grief. Women on the List may feel and express difference(s) from what we males have written. I wouldn't despise the words of a professional writer, Shakespeare, for example, or a chair-holding philosopher just because they have more advantages, more money, more fame and attention than you or I. All of us are sovereigns of our own feelings, loves and griefs. Others have only secondhand knowledge gleaned through our words and other languages of the senses and the arts. I think first-person feelings/emotions are the basis of what Lyotard called the "social bond" and that bonding and loving is the basis of community and humanity. And finally, the basis of a dream or vision of a better society. regards, Hugh I It wasn't the queen of england - but a professional writer - she is merely a rather sad actor who has been constructed to repeat words and feelings... --Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g)
HTML VERSION:
--Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g)--Hugh
The issue is a political one - related to social and economic class. Just because you are born into a particular class position does not mean that you have to inherit the most reactionary moments of that class position. The queen effectively chose those positions - over a long lifetime they were and are her 'personal' class positions. Back in the 1930s - when the british state for it's own reactionary class reasons decided not to support the Spanish Republican govenment it arguably condemmed the world to an appalling war, at that point the british monarchy like the british ruling class made an unfortunate choice - the point being that whilst we are determined by our social and class positions we do have the power to make choices.
Yesterday on TV there was a short and enlightening film about a British Sikh family - the usual sad reactionary religious/cultural issues showing the ongoing death of a horrible set of cultural values as there children and changed by existing in a more secular society - however what was interesting was their presumption that because a young woman had run away from her forced marraige (they called it arranged) and had dissapeared from her marriage, her paternal family that she was dead. Watching it I realised that she had probably gone to one of the asian women's refuges perhaps in souhall or brixton... and has now reconstructed her life...
regards
steve
hbone wrote:
Steve/All,Yes, we cry for different things. To each his/her own.I don't conceive of genetic or legal inheritance as a choice.If so, all would choose to be rich, powerful, beautiful, magnanimous......whatever.
A few years ago I read about the Bush-Fascist connectionyou mention, on the Internet,It sounded authentic. I'm inclined to believe it. I suppose books are available with details, for those who want them. Even God cannot change the past, but sometimes mere mortals may profit from it.~*^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^~^*~^~^~*~^*~^*>Hugh
>It's a matter of choosing sides. Things are actually much more black and white than you >appear to want them to be...
>To inherit a role whether it is 'queen' or as in Bush's case the inheritence of money from >a grand farther who should have gone to jail for supporting and making mloney from the >German Fascists... is also a choice. Even if, and i will allow this much, she was >constructed and oppressed in the process of becoming 'queen' just as I would accept >that any women can be seen to be oppressed by the social-religious environment they >live in.
>Nonetheless her death will not cause me tears or anger, unlike say the looting of the >Baghdad museum caused by your fellow countryman...
>steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hbone wrote:
Steve,
There have always been people who laugh at others' grief and pain, and I'm
surprised you admit such laughs.
If its part of your inheritance, the way you were taught, the ethics you
have absorbed,
the friends you have, the life you live, I don't agree with your views, but
respect your right to express them.
regards,
Hugh
laughs - would like to think so - but really how can anyone respect
inheritence like this...
s
hbone wrote:
Steve/Geof/All,
The Queen, and all the rest us us, like yourself and other readers of the
pomo-French and neo-Marxists persuasions, has IMHO, known love and grief.
Like us, I would assume she chooses words, of speechwriters or anyone
else,
which resonate with her own experience in loving and losing, in grieving,
sharing and attempting to console those who mourn.
I think everyone is entitled to their own emotions, even if they have
lead
the sheltered lives of royalty. The Queen, being older than most of us,
has likely experienced more love and grief.
Women on the List may feel and express difference(s) from what we males
have written.
I wouldn't despise the words of a professional writer, Shakespeare, for
example, or a chair-holding philosopher just because they have more
advantages, more money, more fame and attention than you or I.
All of us are sovereigns of our own feelings, loves and griefs. Others
have
only secondhand knowledge gleaned through our words and other languages
of
the senses and the arts.
I think first-person feelings/emotions are the basis of what Lyotard
called
the "social bond" and that bonding and loving is the basis of community
and
humanity.
And finally, the basis of a dream or vision of a better society.
regards,
Hugh
I
It wasn't the queen of england - but a professional writer - she is
merely a rather sad actor who has been constructed to repeat words and
feelings...
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005