seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:03 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:50 pm
The tendency on forums like this is that people take up a position behind the barricade of a given position and then engage in the endless bicker-wars. But I find it much more interesting to try to see into our specific 'formations' (what has informed our opinions and ideas and why).
So then, if you are against "bicker-wars" and are truly interested in trying to understand what has informed our opinions and ideas, do you think that provocative comments such as this...
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:50 pm
Now in regard to
the kerfuffle as you have charmingly termed it, my suggestion is that you and Seeds should help the Vegetable Taxidemist to
properly sing Kumbaya. Yes, you heard me right! You and Seeds never really sung it right and properly, and I have strong doubts that the Taxidermist ever did even
try to sing it. You must hit
all those notes! Since it refer to *my Lord* I am assuming Immanuel can get on board with this. So a peyote session where you man the didgeridoo (if you are not adept enough bring your Aboriginal neighbor!) and Seeds handles the psychedelic post-Christian chanting is where things need to go now.
...is going to promote an air of mutual respect and cooperation and thus aid you in your quest for understanding?
One thing that we must never lose sight of is our sense of humor. In my view it is entirely fair to use humor, even acidic humor, but it always has to be carried out with a sort of lightness of heart.
I am not sure if what
I am after is mutual respect and cooperation, in any case I would not have used that phrasing. What I think is that there are irreconcilable differences that cannot be bridged, and will not be bridged, and yet it is still possible to carry on in such a way that a productive conversation takes shape. Since there are differences that will not be bridged, and yet we are here, we should destroy the other's position
artfully. What other way to pass the time is there?
But shall I *interpret* and *translate* my humorous blurb? It is a re-statement of things I've already been saying:
I see you and Brother Harry as having internalized
the Christian ethic. The ghost of Jesus has evaporated --
poof! -- but yet there still hang in the air the Moral Song like the smile of the Cheshire Cat. Harry goes into romantic-emotional
transports over the terrible things that have been to Aboriginals and other victims ("someone's crying my Lord...") and you have identified a Satan who should have, but didn't, receive that bolt of punishing lightening in the form of Donald Trump. You have presented the forum with what I call *an emblem* of the detested lower-frequency evil that needs to be 'overcome'. I've peppered some of my comments with references to psychedelic mushrooms because, I have gathered, you've been enlightened by entheogens. It is part of your larger discourse, is it not?
Cranky Vegetarian Taxidermist will have none of any of this! If you defend Social Justice you identify yourself as woke, and woke is non-good and
ridiculizable. But if you defend something that should not be defended (I got whacked because I pointed out that Gregory and Travis McMichael, convected for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, were acting
nominally in accord with a law on the books in Georgia) ten tons of abuse will fall upon you.
"What's the fucking matter with you?" she bellowed, haranguing me because I was not seeing correctly
The Truth. [I do not think those men were convicted by
Justice, I think they were convicted by
Revenge and I would develop this perspective by reference to a Kafka story
In The Penal Colony which is an amazingly brilliant rephrasing of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals). That whole enactment of Justice
was not that at all. It was something else and something else (nearly) entirely.]
Is it improper, on a philosophy forum, that I point out that her reasonings, though they feel so genuine, so 'true', can still be examined critically and possibly, just possibly,
seen differently? True, I do so through a humorous avenue but I do not think I am
overtly insulting her (or anyone). If anyone needs to sing Kumbaya, and really get lost in the part, it is Vegetarian Taxidermist! Presently, her songs are completely discordant. Indeed they really have no musicality at all.
I only referenced Immanuel Can indirectly -- he who handles & wields the
Surrogate of God he calls Jesus. A really rather brutal ventriloquy and fable-raising. He its into the character, as it were, of those who cling to a vanished god-concept and demand belief
or else. And he is ultra-convinced of the veracity and the real existence of his Surrogate.
So am I behaving so wrong? Can't I have a bit of fun and try at the same time to 'speak truth'?