Jewel, Symposium, And Power

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I was browsing through some quotations of Jewel Kilcher, a feminist singer. I found this and it struck me as quote on quote worthy.

She also stated, furthermore, that she was inspired by Plato’s “Symposium”.

Which lead me to reading it and I came across these quotations.

"And does he possess, or does he not possess, that which he loves and desires?"…

…"What is given by the possession of beauty?"… “Let me put the word ‘good’ in the place of the beautiful, and repeat the question once more: If he who loves good, what is it?”

This brought forth a few questions of mine:

When a rapist rapes a woman, is he jealous of her beauty? When a rapist rapes a child is he/she jealous of its innocence? Is that what makes him evil? His longing for good through vengeance of those who possess it directly? Should we be optimistic rather than cynical?

When we have power, we long for weakness. Our notion of power is of people. The people without power have a greater access to direct power. What strengthens the indirect powerful is the powerless. If they’re so powerless, why are the powerful left powerless without their weakness? My conclusion: There is no power; there is a blind balance. Instead of striving for good optimistically and indiscriminately, the powerful strive for good cynically and socially. We’re being reaped when we’re raped by the powerful. Reaped of good and innocence. If only the powerful knew of our means of profit, they wouldn’t be so quick as to steal it.

“We’re so worried about saving our souls. Afraid that god will take his toll that we forget to begin.”- Jewel

So worried about ourselves, that we’re not going to make it, that we forget to be us, we forget to love. We want what we can’t have sometimes, but I think that just shows that we’re illusioned into thinking we have less than we do, that we’re less alike than we are, that there’s power when there isn’t.

2

See, this is what “female” “depth” is like, it’s not “male” “depth”.

It’s formatted, spiritually, more in line with female spirit and feminine consciousness.

Thus it could be seen as ‘too simple’ or ‘so obvious’, etc., but still, is incredibly legitimate/meaningful…

Okay, now for replies:

Not really.

In prisons, etc. Men rape men, it’s not just women and children. But, women and children are easier targets, they have less defense, etc.

Rapists are just insane, evil, etc.
Too complex and twisted to explain.
No single explanation.

The sexual satisfaction is not love or anything, it’s just sadistic, a thrill-sport. Causition of pain is falsely interporated as control over pain, life, problems, etc.

Evil parasite beings try to exploit, overpower and control art, consciousness and form.

???

That’s the ticket!

“Power” is just a sensation, about a certain situation and a certain outcome.

Remember, there’s a difference between “the powerful”, and the parasitic.

Social parasites and social predators, spiritually non-humans, waring human skin, exist.

Too much word-virus, ego, judgment, math, etc.

If I say anything is good, bad, large or small, it is a bitter insult towards reality.

Having infinitely various potentiality, and infinite time, and invincible, shape-shifting existence, all instance is infinite, forever, beyond.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=153522
^
I was writing a bit about this here, but this damned earth english makes everything I express into stupid math.

3

Jewel a feminist singer? Don’t you mean feminine?
I know her work quite well and have not heard a verse where she ‘stands up for women’ or something political like that. She’s a poet, and as poets do she uses the divide between the sexes, doesn’t seek to bring them closer together.

You put her clean pure thoughts in a rather sick context here, and a very illogical one at that. her thoughts on optimism are clear enough - it is much harder to remain optimistic in the face of adversity than to be cynical. Cynicism is born of fear and seems smart to the cowardly, optimism is couragous and seems foolish to them.

"But if we really put all of our passion into something, it will breathe, like a good sculpture, like a good Michelangelo, or Klimt I love. So what a beautiful thing to make your life your artwork, you know… "

She’s just talking of art. Not of rape. Neither was Plato. A rapist does not possess beauty.

Yes, a heart can hallucinate
If its completely starved of love
Can even turn monsters into
Angels from above

4

And does not the one that loves, not covet the other’s spirit and are we not jealous of their soul?

Disturbing when some needs are characterized as morally superior to others or when some desires are painted black to absorb our scorn and nervousness, and others pure white, to reflect them back into our eyes and blind us to their essence.

Innocence: A concept which insinuates an absence of responsibility.
Ignorance, its best weapon, as the righteous can claim purity by never considering the full implications of their actions and of their existence, and who feel ‘good’ because they speak kind words of compassion.

Innocence is a man stepping on bugs and killing them on his way to the park.

Innocent are people, working and participating in a system which relies on the exploitation of resources around the world, and whose life-styles and excesses contribute to miseries and tragedies they want to remain oblivious to; only awakening when the downtrodden retaliate and screaming “fowl” when their actions result in an equal and opposite reaction.

Innocence?
Where – Who – What?

A mind, either accepts responsibility for his entire active existence, accepting the benefits and the costs of his life, or he spends his time groveling before chance, claiming innocence and begging for lenience.

5

Is that so? I’ve always felt in love the joy of not having, not being, seeing the world as greater and more beautiful than I knew. The idea that desire of being united with this other spirit is a matter of jealousy seems very petty to me.

Disturbing - do you mean ‘morally wrong?’
Are you trying to make an argument for the moral validity of the rapists desire? Is it not simply a cosequence of depravity that should be accepted as a reality, but judged nontheless? In war, a situation where morals don’t apply, there is plenty of opportunity for rape. Let that me enough.

On the contrary. The carrier of innocence is responsible for the value of the world. The innocence of becoming is the only justification of existence. You make innocence into something that only children possess. I see it as something to be conquered, as the world taken back from cynics and moralists who think that the world is ugly and parasitic and behave accordingly.

"That nobody is held responsible any longer, that the mode of being may not be traced back to a causa prima, that the world does not form a unity either as a sensorium or as "spirit"—that alone is the great liberation; with this alone is the innocence of becoming restored … " - Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Yes, innocence is cruel to the botched, to the bugs. It takes delight in itself, in peceiving the world as beautiful. Are you here to advocate the rights of bugs and rapists and to deny the innocent theirs?

You confuse two types of selfishness:

“Ye constrain all things to flow towards you and into you, so that they shall flow back again out of your fountain as the gifts of your love.
Verily, an appropriator of all values must such bestowing love become; but healthy and holy, call I this selfishness.-
Another selfishness is there, an all-too-poor and hungry kind, which would always steal–the selfishness of the sick, the sickly selfishness” - Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

The first is innocence, you speak of the second, those who must proclaim themselves ‘good’ to justify their deeds. The innocent cares not of she (Jewel in this case) is good or evil - she has no need to divide existence in two, she is complete, and accepts the cosequences of her existence without remorse.

“The foulest of all theologians’ artifices aimed at making mankind “responsible” in their sense, that is, dependent upon them … Here I simply supply the psychology of all making-responsible.— Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work.” - Twilight of the Idols

6

Milikowskian

If someone can characterize an act as “morally wrong” or a vice, then why cannot one do so for every action or emotion?

How easy to pretend that some actions and desires are based on jealousy while others are not.
I see hidden power struggles even in giving and proclamations of selflessness and innocence.

Is the lamb really innocent or simply dumb?

I’m saying that, if you can paint a rapist as deprived and as someone who covets the other’s ‘beauty’, flattering the “victim” while insulting the “victimizer”, then why can you not do the same for the more “noble” sentiments?
Why the double standard?

The easiest way to excuse someone’s awareness and stupidity is to call them innocent.
Funny how many often call themselves that.

One man’s “innocent victim” is another’s collateral damage…and the bullshit goes on.

No. I’m saying innocence is non-existent.

There is no such thing.
Ignorance is misconstrued as innocence.

One is deemed “innocent” when he is unaware of the repercussions of his/her actions and of his/her very existence.

It’s a way of making one’s self a ‘victim’ and to absolve one’s self from responsibility.

Existence is about action.
Action is about affecting the environment, the other, the object.
One manipulates and affects everything around it’s self, the moment one comes into being one acts upon otherness and otherness upon it, even if he or she isn’t aware of them.

If I walk to the park and I kill bugs along the way, my unawareness does not make me innocent in relation to their death.

I’m here to dispel delusions of grandeur in those that speak innocently about things they have thought little about.

How easy is it to place responsibility on the rapist for his actions, as it should be, and then excuse the one being raped from hers.
How easy to call the “victims” of 9/11 innocent, because they had no idea how their lives affected others around the world.

7

Where did I say that I did? I just don’t like rape. It’s a matter of taste.Not all judgement is moral. Not all estimators are moralists.

Aparently you see jealousy in all power struggles. I don’t, thankfully. You haven’t really provided an argument for it, have you?

Erm, it was you who spoke of coveting beauty. Or SS, I don’t remember. Not me.

I could easily call you stupid, (you’ve lazily misunderstood everyhing I wrote so far) but not innocent.

Sigh. Why not read a post before you reply to it? I’ve shown how innocence can be seen as independent of ignorance.

What victim? Are you still hung up about the rape story? Who said the rape victim was innocent? Not me.

Yes. And?

You wouldn’t be morally culpable. That is a completely unworkable view.

I did not place responsibility on the rapist. I said he was depraved.
Work on your reading Satyr. And choose another name. You’re not exactly Dionysian.

8

Milikowskian
Firstly, relax….take a deep breath and then exhale.

There you go.
And how are your “tastes” formed?

I never said that.
I am saying that everyone covets something or someone.

Then…call me “stupid”!
Oh…you already did.

Where did you do that?
You equate “innocence” with becoming and I say that’s ignorance.

You use terms like “cynic” or “parasitic” and “innocent” without qualifying any of these concepts.
And you talk of “parasitism” and “moralizing”?

Aren’t both these concepts based on a moral evaluation?

I don’t believe in “innocence” and therefore I do not believe in “guilt”.

Since you and the original author of this thread believe in the concept of “innocence” then perhaps you can provide a definition.

Is the one that has failed to take precautions and fails or finds him self in a predicament “innocent” because he never considered the possibilities, or is he simply stupid or ignorant, at best?

So, a tragedy resulting from stupidity and ignorance is excusable?
I would say the 9/11 “terrorists” are ignorant about what they are doing and they certainly are stupid for doing so; are they not “innocent” then?

Ouch!!!
I know I am not Dionysian. I aspire to be more so.
I am, and forever will be, Apollo’s child.

Somehow, madness and the abandonment to chance, doesn’t appeal to me.
I’ve always been a control junky.

I need to know everything. I need to know how everything works.
It’s my defense mechanism and my method of self-empowerment.

You have yours.

9

You still haven’t understood much of what I mean, but at least you give an interesting reply. I suppose I take much to be self evident that isn’t. It’s a bad habit.

By breeding, ethics. Many confuse ethics and moralis, I do not take you to be such a one. But do you know the difference? If not, I will be glad to explain. If so, it should be clear morals are not the root of taste but rather vice versa.

Firstly, a statement about ‘everyone’ is meaningless, except that it means that the maker of the statent thinks he is God. It might be true, but does not at all mean that jealousy all power struggles are caused by jealousy. I know jealousy well. It occurs in me sometimes when I desire something and someone else has it. It is the most miserable sentiment I know and on ethical grounds I work to eliminate it. But when I love someone, I am not jealous of that someone for being her. I find sweet joy in knowing that she has herself. Please abstain from deconstructing this feeling from a distance - we don’t know aech other’s hearts so let’s not pretend we do. (ethics)

Not at all, I use the phrase innocence of becoming. This tells something about what I understand the word innocence to mean, it does not say that all becoming is innocent.

-Cynic is derived of ‘kunos’, greek for dog. Garbage and feces-eating, animal loyal to anyone that beats him hard enough. I see cynics as the intellectual equvalent of such an animal. My rejection of it is on ethical grounds. Morally cynics may be superior to me, I care not.
-Parasitic is a description of a biological mechanism. Moral judgement would be to say that it is either good or evil. All I said was that I dont like it. There is much so called ‘evil’ that I prefer on grounds of taste to much so called ‘good’.
We have a different understanding of innocence, but I do certainly not believe that the people who died on 9/11 were innocent - I did not know a single one of them. Neither do I know those who killed them.

Good question, very difficult to answer. I do not ‘believe’ in innocence. I think ‘innocence of becoming’ is a good formulation to indicate a healthy, fertile way of living. It is a cruel way, like all other ways, but a very rewarding one. It is not hypocritical because one affirms the harm one inflicts. It does not seek to eliminate suffering.
So what is innocence to me? I would have to say ‘childlike.’

One can be innocent, stupid and ignorant at the same time. I would have to know the specifics. Give me an example if you will, describe the person and the situation.

I would guess you are, like me, ignorant about the engineers and executors of the 9/11 thing. Let’s not base our reasoning on the nature and knowledge of people we don’t know the first thing about. 9/11 is about the worst examplecase I know of - it could be in the dictionary as an explanation of the word ‘ambiguous’. If you don’t mind I’d like to not talk about it.

So have I. But why ‘Satyr’? Why aspire to something that doesn’t appeal to you?

My reason to be on these fora is to tear down my structures of knowledge. I seek grinding stones. Not with a lot of success lately. I used to discuss with hard line facists, they were worth more than me, intellectually. I learned a lot. I believe in self empowerment through detroying defense mechanisms. “From life’s military school - what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” [Twilight]