Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Art, Sex and Anarchy!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MichaelZittergong, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    We're gonna change the whole damned thing: http://zittergong.blogspot.com/

    Please argue with me - I won't moderate anyone, ever. Moderation is primarily for sissies ;-)
     

  2. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    dunno, i only get a "problem loading page" following the link right now - so i guess you want to argue here?

    first argument would be: "we" are no animals - we are nothing better than other species, but our evolution has raised our species somehow out of or above the foodchain, we know at least a little bit who we are besides the need for self-preservation most other living beings are capable of - and we are not the only species in doing so:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
    the bonobos are only one example that not every "animal" is really like our cliche-view of "animals" tells us - too bad, that sciences like comparative anthropology are still in their "childrens shoes" - it took until 1933 to "discover" the bonobos as a separate species and their special social traits took even longer to be noticed.

    i am a bit short on time now, so i'll leave it with this first argument - as a start, but the topic might get very interesting dealing with the rest of your blog statement - and especially my favorite line from your you-tube clip: i want to live as a child of my nature...
     
  3. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    @lil'apple: Off course you can argue, that we are the superspecies of this planet. You are are right, that is an inevitable fact. But on the other hand, don't you agree that our fighting wars for territory and going into conflicts for personal status are the maybe most prominent problems in the world? This behaviour works better among animals, including the apes, as the damage they can cause is so extremely limited compared to the destructive potency of the human being, right?

    We cannot live without nourishing our more primitive needs - no more than the bonobos (very fascinating species) or any other living creatures. And that's a main point for me: How can be BE what we actually ARE, too, children of our nature? For instance, like bonobos, we're very fond of sex.. and hooray for that, sexuality is a mighty force which can help healing humanity - but we have to reach new levels in communication and in some ways we are in a process of getting there. And mind you, I'm not selling any specific religion or ideology here ;-) Just humans, men and women, where sex is every kind of mutual attraction due to the differencies. The massive communication, increasingly extending on the Internet, can help us on our way.

    And here is where Art and Anarchy comes in. As I see it, art obeys no rules, art is sublime communication, so. let's LIVE art, shouldn't we? I try it myself.

    What do you think?

    /btw I'm glad that you liked my "Anarchy of Zittergong" on youtube!
     
  4. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    i don't think we are the "superspecies" - we just had a very special evolution that allowed us to become what we are, making up for our weaknesses with a great versability, so we were able to overcome difficulties like no other species. but take us out of our familiar surroundings - and we're in trouble...
    i agree that aggression and competition are more than serious problems today, but i strongly oppose that their motives have anything to do with our "nature" - "we are territorial animals" sounds like a very old and very wrong cliche to me, maybe kinda excuse for our actual apathy.
    taking the bonobo example: male bonobos patrol the claimed area and attack male foreigners on sight - female bonobos don't patrol but wander between groups or change to and integrate in a group of foreigners...
    i don't want to stress the gender question - female humans aren't better/smarter/more peaceful or more tolerant than male humans - but aggression and competition are no biological standard behaviors - especially not for our species blessed with the ability to make choices. we can overcome the cliche and evaluate our behavior - even against atavistic instincts and i think that this made our evolution so successful.
    on another topic one of my mates wrote that the time we started to wage war and claim territory is only 10 000 years in the past - out of 250 000 years since the first modern homo sapiens sapiens appeared.
    what have we done in the 240 000 years before the neolithic revolution - wandering around and following the herds of our hunting prey in small groups constantly threatened by inbreeding or natural desasters?
    aggression and competition would have been pretty useless under such circumstances - quite the opposite would have been very useful and beneficial - mutal tolerance and fundamental acceptance of equality.
    i agree, our ability to do damage is by far greater than that of any other species - but there are some examples too, especially when the ecological balance is disturbed - so again it's not a monopol of the human species AND we have the ability to choose... and I hope this special will save us as soon as possible.
    so why are we aggressive and competative today - or - why we have changed?
    i think we have to find out WHAT we really are - special here: under todays circumstances, without any illusionary "back to hunting and gathering" while ignoring the damage we've already done - or misanthropic phantasies about killing 90% of the worlds population just to enter an empty paradise... and we have to consider not only ourself - what about the influence of economic and political systems becoming culture and shape character and personality?

    i knew that the bonobos favorite pastime would find your approval :D everybody's found of it - but before the fun the questions who takes out the trash and who's doing the dishes comes first - at least for me sometimes.
    anarchy isn't absolute total freedom or i-can-do-what-ever-i-want - it's responsibility first, fun second.
    communication is very important in every way possible and i wish that arts would be free enough to play a major role in spreading ideas or just giving a special point of view - sublime as you already said - but very impressive sometimes and saying much more than words.
     
  5. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    @lil'apple: Thanks for your response - and let's focus on what to do now, ok? As far as I see it, we must embrace (!) aggression too, as it is part of the way we are. For instance testosterone produces aggression, no way of avoiding it. And we shouldn't try to, then it just turns to control us in twisted ways. Let's use aggression to cut down trees, shout, when we're angry, take part in sports, play punkrock and attack oldfashioned, obsolete ways of thinking. Aggression can work for us - and especially men get a kick out of it BUT off course we should not be violent or oppressive to one another, that's clearly NOT the Anarchy way.

    I can elaborate a little on my views on Art as a liberator: I - as many others - have experienced that artistic cooperation produces bonding, very deeply, between people, and people bonding like that can form small groups, micro-societies, to inspire the consumer-lot around them to go for other values in life. What makes this very relevant right NOW in this day and age Is the escalating communication in the world. And, as we agree, good art is sublime understanding of the world, expression and communication. Politics should be based on these insights, art cannot be based on anything else of pure going for truth and meaningfullness, I think.

    What's your opinion about this?
     
  6. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    sorry, but quite the opposite is true:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone
    "In fact, aggressive behaviour has been associated with hypogonadism and low testosterone levels and it would seem as though supraphysiological and low levels of testosterone and hypogonadism cause mood disorders and aggressive behaviour, with eugondal/normal testosterone levels being important for mental well-being. Testosterone depletion is a normal consequence of aging in men. One possible consequence of this could be an increased risk for the development of Alzheimer’s disease."
    sorry again: about what exactly do we speak if we discuss "aggression" - guess we have to find some common base/definition to find out what we want - here's some suggestion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

    cutting down trees or even hunting and killing for prey isn't aggression i think - it's just what we have to do to survive.
    to me the terms meaning gets really serious if "we" do more than just that - against ourselves, against others of our kind and other species or nature in general - i guess it's better to put this aspect off until we have found the common ground to discuss it.
    yes, i'm quite a bit fickle about things that smell like
    first step in climbing up the tree of knowledge is to distinguish between the strong and the already rotten branches - cliches and obsolete ways of thinking are the rotten stuff we should avoid.
    AND: i think it's important to find out too, where we - suffering from the side effects that we aren't living like the children of our nature - prolong the unnatural living we are born into/have to suffer by continuing to think in the "old" way that keeps us in captivity and prevents us from breaking free.
    are they really "primitive"? using the term "primitive" is a sublime assessment too - and i don't feel primitive when i try to satisfy my adult needs - and to me it's somehow interesting that the "mute"/incapable of verbals bonobos "communicate" in this way - besides and independent to their sexual needs. years ago i spend lots of time diving deep into human evolution - and the aspect that we became able to reproduce/have sex 365 day a year during our development might be important for our social evolution too, because it allowed the development of family bonding, continous care for the young and the elder in return...

    but i go completely conform with your view on liberating arts and it's social relations founding nature. we have a number of punk veterans among us, people who witnessed the explosion of creativity and community in berlin for example - the city was kinda hot spot in the early 80's for punks and the more radical alternatives. the movement had everything, from music to visual arts, painting, sculpting (? spelling?), writing including poetry and political texts, making movies... in groups and collectives that fought together for the squatters struggle and against the cops repression on the street.
    it's a constant theme for debates around here - we still suffer from the lack of places where the scattered rebels and mainstream dissidents can meet and join each other in doing projects of any kind of arts or education. everybody i meet at the moment complains about the isolation and the difficulties to overcome just to "do something" or just to meet others.
    i actually live in a overcrowded commune brimming with german, polish, irish people - some sleep on the kitchen floor or in the basement, we eat in shifts and sometimes the stress level rises so bad that one or the other starts again to talk about moving out - but surprise, surprise: whats happening between all those individuals doing collective arts and educational stuff or community activism most of the time keeps them sticking together - and we plan to move out all together if we can find a place offering more space to live in. working the ordinary outside jobs just for the living already proves hindering - slipping in and out of the community just for wage slaving - and i wonder how serious the idea to start an autonomous/self-determined working project will get in the future.
    and the aspect that we could inspire the consumer lot with a working example of counter-culture is... just too fantastic to miss. i think that's the main reason that keeps the mainstream people the way they are now - already disillusioned by the systems false promises - but still agonized because of the lack of a alternative in real life and outside the books and newspapers dealing with the problem of future social opportunities.

    too bad that time is already running out again - i have to do my job - and i would like to discuss a special aspect of
    concerning communication - maybe it will need some clearing too because this wikipedia page is only the best i could find to compensate my language problem - but it's not really good dealing with the idea:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertiveness
     
  7. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    I'm curious: Are you a woman or a man? A woman, right?

    I appreciate your documentation, but I won't be using much of it myself. Ain't got the time for it. Maybe I will burn for it, let's see, no problem if you frie me, I love truth (!) and can change eventually my opinion, but let's not wordtwist, so:

    Tell me: Who loves fighting psysically, if not the male sex? It IS very much a physical thing, we're built for it. To me, complying with all-feminine word-fighting ways would be a mixture of deep frustration and boredom hell.
    For instance, take a look at this outburst from some of my existential-anarchistic heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8Rcw3pkrU
    He's fucking angry.. and loveable too, methinks. Vengeance of a singing abortion :)

    And as goes for "primitive".. we have a body, dont ever forget that. That alone makes us primitive. And "primitive" is fundamentally nice! I'm very happy that we're not like totally new age airheads. That way we can freely enjoy the pleasures of the body, zero distance. No doubt that we're very much "mind", too, but "mind" is a property of the flesh, right? And when we're dead, we're gone, except for the loving (and maybe less loving :)) memory of the ones left in life.
    What am I getting at?
    I state that it's utterly important that we realize, even embrace, what we are, aggression included. Aggression meaning the overwhelming force to fight against some of our problems, break down evil barriers. "Aggression" in my (and eg as a sexologist, I'm certainly not alone) opinion is necessary for sex, it's part of the sexdrive. Aggression is NOT only war and oppression in that definition.

    Fighting force is also necessary when you practice art in opposition to varous groups perception of this and that. The problem with assertion here, as I see it, is, that if you cannot show bad feelings while communicating, it takes power out of the conversion. What really is something if you can allow BOTH expression of feeling, any felling, and reasoning. THAT is the new thing here; starting on the Internet. It takes guts to take shitloads, but if you go through it, it's relief for all participating in the relation. In other words, you're not in it only for "better" but also for "worse" :) And I'm off course not only addressing traditional marriage here.
    I'm absolutely not a politician making plans for everybody. I think a real change start in close relations; with communication. Assertiveness, ok, but with an addition for the tough going certain tough ways. And, remember, I won't EVER promote bullying with ones ways, it would just be.. oppression.
    So when all that's said, I'll go with you a long way in your views, too. And I deeply respect that you try to live out your political views in practice. Maybe we could meet one day and talk this over. I'd like to see you in your environment ;-). I'm totally into inspirering "the consumer lot with a working example of counter-culture"!

    So where in the world can I find you?
     
  8. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    following my existentialist heroine Simone de Beauvoir: i am a construct, "the opposite" and condemned to immanence - in old time views of the world - and i get the notion that you are still full of it, so the answer is:
    i am a human - everything else is a matter of...
    no, usually i don't burn no one and use my little box of matches only for a spark of enlightment here and there, so you always have the chance to participate - at least as long as you can take all the shine without closing your eyes again just for convenience.
    to me a statement like this is so abysmally caught in the old black and white view, but i think it's a fine example of the problematic differences between your view and mine.
    you should have read the stuff - i think we still talk about "aggression" from more than inadequate points of view:
    hooligans love to fight out of frustration and the boredom (!!!) of their otherwise conformist everyday life, lacking the vision that would allow them to break out of the vicious circle they are captured in.
    males unsure about themselves love to fight and find some kind of weird self-affirmation in it that keeps them unable or at least very handicapped dealing with any kind of social contact outside their illusions.
    madmen love to fight because they for - whatever reason - never learned to use the special social abilities avaliable to our species.
    fighting is a physical thing - but i and the males i live with and many others have better uses for their bodies than fighting without a reason other than self-defence - and i'm a militant, so i see our militant resistance as self defence against a inhumane and murderous system.
    men are build for it? - how will you explain the growing numbers of aggressive and violent girls and women in western societies - you should have read the wikipedia aggression...
    history is full of fighting women, breaking the limits of conservative societies or enjoying societies not limiting female strength and ability - the celts, the skythes even before them, jeanne d'arc or the women of the mexican revolution, the october revolution, spain 1936, the female batallions of the red army in wwII, viet cong, the female sandinistas... unnatural?
    when i was younger i had to experience male/"fascist" violence against me very badly, i decided never to become victimized again and started learning to compensate the lack of weight and muscles with some martial arts training - since then i had to deal more than once with my bad feelings watching some idiot bonehead bleeding because he thought - i'm a man... i had a bad surprise for those fucks, i'm not just or only a "woman".
    i don't love fighting but i am capable to fight like any male.
    i think you should choose your heroes more carefully - to me rotten john is an aging actor already short on breath, flogging the dead horse of his self-dramatization since decades, quite boring in the meantime - did you know that he's selling perfume too? there is already a tread about the pex sistols and the crab they sell - and somehow i wonder how you can relate them to existentialism and anarchism - anarchy in the uk was brilliant for the blink of an eye - 1976, but it completely lost it's value in the very next moment when punk broke loose in basements and garages with kids starting to torture second hand equipment to express their feelings without any thought of money.
    looking for heroes?
    too bad that my only quick recommendation has become dubious too in the meantime:
    try one of those you-tube-clips from the dead kennedys live, i remember especially a "nazi punk fuck off" clip from a gig somewhere in the u.s.:
    the singer a halfnaked, sweating turmoil of rage and firmness admist the raging sea of the audience taking the stage, enraged, determined, united and one single movement inspired by sound and lyrics...
    don't put me in the "intellectual" drawer, we are like the totally new age airheads, the only difference is that they are airheads and a step to short after they started to walk away from the "primitive" view.
    my body isn't primitive - it's a very sophisticated reality, allowing me to feel and experience my life each and every moment i am awake and even beyond that. i love my body and i praise evolution each day for the gift we were given by nature and coincidence to enable us to spread across the whole planet.
    what is "primitive"? why should it be nice to be only roughly shaped, too simple, inadequate and in need for improvement - we aren't like that by now and maybe we'll get even better in the future.
    i had a lot of talks with girls and younger women asking me for my view about their sexual problems or the self doubts resulting from these problems - and i was getting problems with the vocabulary most of them used to describe themselves - textbook hardcore pornography - completely unaware of the immanent assessment to be rather an object than a subject - just like they are told to be/just like males are told to see them.
    mind me getting the notion that you tend to fall into the very same trap - degrading us to something we aren't in such an obvious way? i agree that the airheads have overdone their thing going up in the opposite extreme.
    mind and body aren't different things, they are one unit, simple proof: one is nothing without the other or looses much of it's abilities if the other part is disabled. i think the tendency to separate them like you do is one of the worst mistakes possible, smelling like 19th century liberalism - i'm in the 21th century right now.
    mind isn't a property of the flesh, it's the necessary completion enabling us to become so very special in comparison with our less gifted fellow other species or "animals" if you like. no doubt that this makes us dangerous to the world too - especially if we remain in old time thinking - but it's also the chance to become fully what we could be and do better in the future.
    this one is really bad - and i had to get another coffee first before sitting down again to type - you should study sexology, mr. sexologist - this statement is so very far from everything sciences offers us for inspiration that i need another coffee right now again:
    sexdrive has nothing to do with aggression, it's an aspect in itself and "aggressive" behavior is no biological standard - just read at the bonobo article - they use sex to communicate and deescalate aggressive tensions. your understanding sounds like the old cliche of the "conquering male" and the female to be conquered - oh oh.
    threatening gestures and display behaviour in nature are directed against the own sex - not the opposite.
    remember the male bonobos patrolling and fighting off other MALE strangers - and the females switching between groups - the males aggression supports the possibility of inbreeding - they keep new genes away to spread their own again and again - in the long run of evolution this behavior would cause them to degenerate and vanish out of history... so much about the biological part.
    i have growing doubts that you would like to find ME - and i'm quite a bit wicked here:
    try Tahrir Square in Cairo where both genders stay together and refuse to give away what they achived together, or the refugee camp in northeast Thailand where my younger sister will to be on guard duty this night - armed with a M-16 to keep conquering males away and unprotected femals and children safe from rape and abuse - she's working for the british/australian refugee assistance supporting the H'mong refugees still fleeing from Laos. but i guess she wouldn't be found ouf your views too... so it Tahrir!
     
  9. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    Thanks for not wanting to burn me :) But do you understand, that (primarily) for a man this form of confrontation/ enlightenment is not necessarily bad? Anyway, I'll off course try not to close my eyes on the enlightenment, you bring me - and hope the same for you the other way round.

    I have no heroes or heroines. That, to me, is free thinking. But I'm not compulsively tring to oppose you and I do understand, that Simone de Beauvoir is not your god. And her point of view does not equal "truth" as no other living (or has been) person ever represented "truth". She was interesting woman - and I bet you know more of her than I do.

    But calling the human being a "construct", can you elaborate on that? This extreme point of view tells me of a person who is (though brilliant in all sorts of ways) too much mind and too little body. Off course we're definitely the most selfdefining animal that ever existed, but we also are flesh, bones, marvellous bodies. Even two d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t sexes - and if we do not understand the impact of the physiologial differences, we will never really understand eachother; man and woman.

    Black and white view.. that's a bit black and whit to say ;-) I just focus on the differences between the sexes because they cause som much mis- and non-understandin inbetween us. This interest in these differences is, btw, part of what made me a sexologist. It's extremely important for us to understand and thus accept these differences - if we don't, we will try to suppress eachother with a "truth" lacking this information.
    I understand your points of view on aggression based on your background. I understand it more than you think, probably. My father never beat me up, but my mother could be pretty violent and otherwise suppressive. So NEVER female suppression again! OR male, mind you :). No one one should be violated or violently dominated. And I, too, will certainly feel like taking anyone - I mean anyone - fucking down if they attack me physically.

    I don't think women will ever match men physically - but as long as we go along together in peace, what's the problem? And you're right, normal males tend to attack males - unless in a war with females shooting at them ;-)

    Hooliganism and other roque violence is meaningless crap, I agree.

    As an existential anarchist per se I don't care if John Lydon sells perfume or whatever.. as log as he does not deal drugs or alike.. what I care about are the songs which accepts NO political correctness, just sheer expression of feeling. Playful and honest to me. Behold that I am always, always, always a personal anarchist before being a political. Everything starts with personal integrity and ability to express oneself and just be freely. And he is not my hero, he is just like a dear friend to me, feels like a close relation more than any politician (for obvious reasons) can be. Politicians must evolve from personal anarchy, never the other way round. Political correctness (goes for political anarchists, too).. it's a load of words, compromize, built on something deeper from the core of our existence.
    Anyway, I go for the dead kennedys and their "nazi punks fuck off", "holiday in cambodia" and "kill the poor" tunes. I even sang "Let's lynch the land lord at an audtion for lead singer in a punkband once. Loved it!

    I think out twist around "primitive" is more of a definition issue than anything else. So let's just drop it, shall we. I'm just referring to the most basic, inherited qualities of the human being. Including the physical implementation of our senses wired to areas in our brains... and often triggered by our minds in sophisticated ways, too, off course.
    Pornography - I don't say either/ or, I say both/ and. Nothing wrong with looking at erotic scenes and get aroused that way. Nothing wrong with looking at a butt and get attracted. Absurd to deny a very fundamental reflex in us - mostly men - part of the gift, sexuality is, that we (still mostly men) get attracted that easily. It's free, it's a gift from nature! It does not rule out all the other parts of the relation. If it does, it's clearly just not that much of a relation. But it'as not wrong. All that said I totally agree with you that this consumer society is so much focused on drugs (alcohol included), McDonalds and sex without feelings. Etcetera! The easy way to control us, to avoid problems instead of dealing with them. Be sure I'm with you there.

    Funny, nice - I agree with you that mind and body are one thing. Religion has tried to separate them, but that's - again - to gain control of a population.

    Aggression and sex - I'm no way talking violation here. I am, as a matter of fact, very peaceful with women. But again, we use words differently here. I use aggression in the tantric definition, as a first and foremost male force (but I have definitely met my share of aggressive women, too, eg my mother could be very aggressive, as I told you). But like in properly danced tango the woman must invite, before the man get's to her! And please understand, that I have never been and will never be a violator. But on the other hand I have met quite a lot of women - often somewhat dominant most of the time - who liked me to "take over" in the sexual act. But if they, on the other hand, want to control things, I gladly throw myself on the back :)
    Why should I not want to find you? I'm not afraid of anyone who are not out to kill or molest me. But I doubt I'll risk going to Egypt in the moment.. or to any other warzone. Above that I feel that we're fighting way to many wars.. for many wrong reasons. But I wish you the best where you are.
    It takes so many words sometimes to get mutual understanding. Sometimes it's easier to talk. But I think we're dealing with interesting issues here.. in interesting ways, too!

    So believe me, I really thank you for your participation.

    /Michael
     
  10. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    oh, don't mention, usually i am the witch wished to be burned :'( , so i don't feel much pleasure in the idea and on the other hand i think we discuss big and important aspects of human living, so it's worth writing about it as long as we keep reasonable and have genuine opinions to state - and critisize in return - and finally we don't even have to agree, but people reading our stuff can make up their minds - and by the way: i would really apprechiate if others would participate too - it could take away the odd high noon atmosphere coming up.

    i never meant to shove you into the violent drawer, your dissociation from the weirdos honours you and after rereading my post i think i should have taken more time and draw something like a line between the "everyday" mess of the avarage gender relation to the worst atrocities possible, i went a quite a bit straight to the extrem - but again: i didn't connect you with any kind of violation.

    taking the shine isn't everybodys thing, i already had some females closing their eyes too after they had to take my point of view, some simply didn't understand it, some are frightened by the consequences, some still discuss their point of view against mine.
    male or female - doesn't matter, except maybe that males tend to show some more resolve to stand their position, while some girls still like rather to be seen than heard and princesses are rarely renowned for their delight in using their grey stuff - it's always a question of who/which individual is on the other side.

    and yes, i learned quite a lot from males, especially from those giving up their traditional masculinity and smashing my remaining feminity/feminism by doing me the favour of elevating me out of it - simply by asking me to to take responsibility like every one of them.
    i guess i was already on the way slowly picking up theory and a little experience, quite a bit like Mdm. Beauvoir at her time - but finally falling for the anarchist punks accelerated the process, it was a necessary step to take and thanx punk i found them instead of mr. sartre or wasting more time looking for the light at the end of the tunnel.
    we are still walking in the dark, but we keep moving, and yes, the little sparks of enlightment aren't the truth per se and written in iron. even if i tend to back up my arguments with some scientific evidence - there is no guarantee that sciences will offer the very same explanation tomorrow after it gave it today - knowledge is a relative reality, there is no final truth, only progress.

    No, Mdm. Beauvoir isn't really a heroine of mine - and existentialism - including her contribution to it, which is regarded now by many feminists as an early basic of their ideology - is in my opinion stopping too short - and the existentialists never made the next step resulting from their insight. the whole thing keeps floating around and getting messed up with nihilism and other disorientated crap - not my cup of tea for eternity.
    to me the same applies to feminism and Mdm. Beauvoir was delivering the reason why:
    „On ne naît pas femme, on le devient.“
    „One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" (the translation is still discussed)

    in our sophisticated society - which origins raised us above the sheer biological necessities/the foodchain, but went so very wrong afterwards - our biological gender doesn't matter much anymore, but we are still limited and determined by our social gender and it's abuse for profit and upkeeping of the pecking order.

    Simone B. wrote "The Second Sex" about this (and btw: it's the only one of her books i finished reading quite some time ago) and she argued that in patriarchalism men made women the "other" gender by defining them after their male needs and wishes - without any regard to "female" needs and wishes - and enforced this by using the authority of a higher hierarchy of males above the lower hierarchy amongst "females". i'm not sure right now, if she argued further that the same happened using other categories of "obvious" differences between humans: the colour of skin, other ethnical differences, social class or like john lennon wrote:
    "women are the n...ers of the world."

    another aspect - too bad that i don't remember where i found this little glowing shard admidst the darkness...

    thats what i meant when i wrote that i am "a construct" - in the old view of the world, seen through the eyes of the ruling power - the males/men - i think there is no reasonable doubt that we are living in patriarchy?
    so in defining myself as a "woman" i would acknowledge this limitation, degration, the chauvinism.
    and I don't acknowledge it.
    education, technology and even martial training erase the gender-hierarchical division of labour more and more, along with stereotypes of masculinity/femininity and the individual behaviour of women and men even in capitalism and authoritarian communism, there is no reason to treat females with special care - we can do the same jobs like everybody else. but still females have to suffer... quota system and the mobbing warfare afterwards, or the blame you get from the christ democrats for wanting something like a career and not children first...
    and neither existentialism nor feminists took the next consequent step:
    outside the very private/personal sphere of sex (no longer related with reproduction/breeding but becoming more and more a way to communicate/establish relations) - and intentional reproduction/breeding in relationships, is nothing like a "gender" - as i said before: we can do the same job like everybody else.
    to continue propagating "gender" means to continue setting limitations and degrations and finally to prevent equality and freedom and keeping hierarchy and authoritarianism alive.

    not as long as we rely on the make-up constructs made up so long ago an out of nothing else than hierarchy and pure egoism.
    if you look for me - "the woman" - you won't find me, because i'm not like "this woman" you look for.
    if you try to understand me - "the woman" - you can't - because im not the image you try to recognise.
    the existetialists would say that you put essence before existence - i say: you paint an abstract picture while trying a realistic portrait.
    again: what are we in comparsion to everything we assume in animals: bare instinct, characteristic/specific behavior, species conservation drive, dependence on specific habitat - with our gifts of re-cognition and choice?
    where is the impact of d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t sexes in casual homoerotix or homosexual relationships?
    (DON'T tell me that they aren't natural - you will get us both burned at the stake!!!)
    it wasn't only me and my background involved, the background of the offender accounted too, the general background... I would like to use our mothers to explain it from a certain "neutral" perspective - but that's too much for now, i'll do it the next time because i think it's another proof that it doesn't matter which biological gender the offender has.
    why should we - and from the heterosexual point of view:
    women and men are a perfect match - at least sometimes.
    (and some weird evolution theory i was reading some days ago: we will become the biological fitter gender one day - mutation and natural selection will be the culprits responsible - guess which one it will be? (clue: xx)
    about the heroism, it's too good to miss after i found it again today:
    that's the last quote for today, it was quite a day and i'm tired - everybody else is already asleep...
    i would like to fiddle quite a bit about your mothers "female aggression" - i have some similiar experience with my mother and i'm a mother too, i think i could throw some light onto this mystery again from a neutral perspective - but it's too late now.
    pssst - we are living in a warzone - it just a cease fire right now but i don't believe that we will not have to face the next round of barrages coming, not as long as we let the wrong people pull the trigger... and don't forget about the class war
    we have still to win...
    tonight i'll be with my sister again, carrying 4,1 kg of technology across her back and doing her job just like any of her colleagues, keeping people safe and sound while hoping for a quiet night.
    so it's: a good and quiet night from this position at the frontlines!
     
  11. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    A slip of the tongue perhaps?
     
  12. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    Absolutely not a slip of the tongue. I'm for extreme freedom of speech, choice of words, no political correctness, no moderation. The only way we will ever be able to free ourselves from within out!

    PERSONAL ANARCHY RULES.. and no one get's oppressed ;-)
     
  13. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    lil'apple, thx for you very interesting last reply - I'll get back to it soon :)
     
  14. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Ok then in that spirit, implying that anything is made 'less of' by attaching a homophobic slur such as sissies, to imply a lessening of 'manhood', and defending that stance with the catch-all 'personal anarchy' makes you a great, great human.

    :ecouteurs:
     
  15. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    The main point is that the masculine part of me (pretty dominant as I am a man) tells me to be straightforward in my ways, whenever not causing serious damage. But I am in no way a homofobic, I can love a homosexual human being just as much as any other, I'm just not attracted nearly as much sexually as to females.
     
  16. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    @lil'apple:

    Thanks for your extended writing, I have addressed a substantial part of it here - please repeat from the rest, if you feel I'm neglecting something.

    First: Relax, I am not and will never become a homofobic! And homoeroticism is also a part of nature. I just (sometimes to extremes) prioritize being straightforward, that's kinda like a religion to me. Punk style, from the old days existentially anarchistic types of punks (existential in my way of using the word, do you get it?). Would be a sad sexologist that way, too, right? :)
    In homoerotic relations - long - or shortlived) the partners often often differ in the one being more masculine and the other more femine. Or, as they put it themselves: "active" and "passive". So masculine and feminine plays a role there, too. And often the roles are pretty fixed.

    I agreed that we're all, and women in specific ways, culturally suppressed. Dig a lot of what you write about it. And off course, no women should be culturally suppressed - and I support their liberation from that. Period. And my relations should only obey the freedom of choice - I'm not afraid of that, because (great) chances are, after all, that we choose to love eachother :) In full respect of respective psysical differences, I must say. No selfsuppression, either.

    Why did you choose to go to a warzone? Two of my three boys chose, with (and would have without :) my blessing not to join the military.
    But whatever reason I really wish you well on your watch.

    I totally sympathize with your Marcos figure as a symbol of solidarity with any suppressed humans on earth.

    On the other hand, I must admit that I'm a bit mystified about your protesting about humans being priitive, biological, physical - and at the same time you - as I - do not distinguish between mind and body (mind as I see as a supreme quality of the flesh). But I reckon we've been through that discussion? Just comment, if you like and leave it, if you don't.

    If we end up with one sex, which I hope we will never do, it must some hermafroditical being - else the xx's (or xy's) will bore themselves to death, I think :)

    I dig what you write about backgrounds.. and would like to have the "neutral" perspective if and when you feel like bringing it up.

    This was a bit scattered, I'll admit to that - but have to go see a friend now.

    I hope we can address the (in my opinion) winning combination of art, sex and anarchy here. What do you think of my idea of the winning aspects of that?
     
  17. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    So again by implication, to allow for human dignity and respect one must be attracted sexually? This has nothing to do with being 'Politically Correct' but with moving forward for freedom, equality, equity, and empathy for all living beings without imposing your machismo. I'm not trying to impose a lesson in manners upon you, just pointing out that there is room in all of our lives for growth and improvement as humans and anarchists.
     
  18. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    Thanks for not trying to each me manners. I've worked long, hard and efficiently to tear loose from some social conventions concerning protocol :)

    Furthermore: It's way too buddhist for me to go for the same affinity to all beings. That's more like religious nonsense to me. I'm all for ecological balance and not harming animals, but I values humans the most because I AM one. Humans I value equally, basically. But I AM a man and that may collide with "feminismo". So be it, I say. I'm neither for machismo nor for feminismo. But sure understand men better and therefore in certain respects breathe freer among men - but on the other hand I am more attracted to women and it's and unsurpassed feeling to practice love, physically and mentally with a woman.

    And what the freaking hell is the problem with that?

    And what do you think and feel about my melting pot with art, sex and anarchy?

    :)
     
  19. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    BIIIG MISTAKE!
    i wasn't sure about the "sissies" - english is not my first language - and i wanted to use the dictionary to find out, but missed to do it - my mistake.
    BUT:
    Punkmar asked you politely - and you felt the need to defend your personal freedom with a barrage against simple human favours like decency, respect, care about how to say something despite that PC became a pejorativ (do you know who made it a pejorativ? but i guess you wouldn't care about that too...)?
    by being careless and degrading others to "less than" - just to be "free"?
    your "personal anarchy" may rule you/keeping you caught - but in my eyes it takes you far away from the side of the really oppressed... and i don't think i want anything to do with your side.

    despite that, Punkmar offered you a bridge to the "other" less-than-side you created:
    and you made yourself a fool waving your petty peacock's fan :
    and Punkmar was absolutely right about you and i could'nt say it better and i wouldn't be able to keep being so polite:
    but again you staged "personal anarchy":
    again: human aspects like decency, caring for respecting others and my personal favorite: empathy - are social conventions to tear loose from? and you call yourself what...?
    (very necessary very deep breath)
    and you still wonder why your mother was violent against you? how much do you resemble your father, or his father, or hers?

    in your "tantric" view of the world - is there anything you know more about than just petty platitudes?

    and
    really make me going straight forward:
    discussing "your melting pot with art, sex and anarchy?" doesn't make any sense, just because you know nothing about sex and anarchy - and art? after what i've seen from you - huh...
    you are only abusing terms for your petty self dramatisation because you are caught in your own system of values and to me it's the very same system that anarchists oppose: using egocentric isolation and competition, cliches and stereotypes to divide people from each other and keep them ignorant of each other - and yes, the system worked very efficiently on you.
    but it doesn't work FOR you, it isn't meant to do so - so you think you start running against the stream:
    personal anarchy, total freedom - ah, yes, total freedom of speech too:
    too bad that you have nothing to say because you know nothing, not about steroides for example, or aggression, gender, sex and sex pistols or anarchy - you know nothing about it, never learned anything, never cared for anything but yourself - making a fool of yourself using all those platitudes of love and understanding... and i doubt they work very effectively?
    but i think i've heard enough of it, i'm out of the debate - and still with all those sissies who are "less than" like me.
     
  20. MichaelZittergong

    MichaelZittergongMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2011
     
    lil'apple:
    Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I need . So I'll treat you like a friend of mine even if you don't act like one:

    Personal anarchism is about being oneself together with others, no oppression; not machismo and not feminismo. Do you know that female suppression is hell, too? Unbearable. We must be able to BE what we are. I always address this issue when the condition is hard to reach. And Sex Pistols, btw, was all about being direct and NOT polite - an indispensable supplement to political anarchism. Don't ever tie yourself up in ideology!
    Thus I use everyday language like inviting not to be "sissies". I want us to be REAL. I, myself, take ANY crap from people as long as it's real. For better AND for worse. Relations are not tv sets where you can zap away from programmes, you don't find pleasant.
    I don't blame you for withdrawing, you gotta do what you gotta do. I wanna be me and you must say the same for yourself.

    The "really oppressed".. we're all the "really oppressed" in some ways. And stating that I don't let alone the need of political, even military, struggle in certain countries/ regions of the world.

    Waving petty peacocks fan.. am I invading your territory or something? No. Just putting something to right, to challenge "unisex" ideas.

    "decency, caring for respecting others and my personal favorite: empathy", you say. believe me, I've got all that. Practicing it, too. But I see a problem with feminists in that respect. They are often very cocky about being men's equals, even superior to man, just as outgoing, somewhat copying men's ways - but when men treat them like equals they get very traditional womanish, like "uh, you're bullying me", like other men don't. It's a laugh and it's a cry, Id say.

    "and you still wonder why your mother was violent against you?".

    Are you serious? Is this YOUR empathy? I was about two years old, or less, I don't know, when it began. The treatment I recieved makes fucking killers (if one survives). You had some of the same experience, just from male side, didn't you. Ok, find your empathy there, sweetheart :) And listen.. I did not repeat that pattern on my children, I was NEVER violent to women or children, I'm NOT out in the world waving my gun at people, I only use my sex pistol and that works waaay better, believe me :)
    And no, I'm not the one with the clichés, I'm the one trying to break up words that have lost their meaning.

    Nice way of ending a debate, too: "You know nothing about anything" :)

    A feminists way out - or a sissys?

    /My last word to you (unless you change your mind, off course): We simply have to embrace eachother like we really are - we're lost if we politicize what's personal in relations
     
Loading...