Yes, but how to do we fight what Orwell feared?
Darx
by not thinking with our lower-level instincts, but by using our higher ones 
We all possess these levels, but are taken out by life: at the level we react on - I don’t know if this ‘reaction level’ is changeable or fixed in each individual, but until higher-level thinking kicks in across humanity: humanity will continue it’s treadmill existence of self-destructive behaviour…
It had a strange sense of humour and a theory you aparently don’t agree with. It wasn’t mindless. It was rather bizarre.
What Reich is referring to is the life giving power of the orgasm. He sees the universe as one big orgasm - and he isn’t exactly wrong - stars, our sources of energy, consist of continuous nucleair fusions. A star can with a little bit of imagination e seen as am orgasm lasting a few billion years.
The sexual excess in the US is reason for pause - I don’t know what to make of what Sauwelios aptly calls ‘’‘our’’ porn-culture’ exactly. What I think is that 2000 years of sexual repression is having it’s consequence. If there is a causal relationship with the decay of the intellect of the middle class, I think that, since noone believes in education anymore, people occupy themselves with something fulfilling on a more basic, simple level.
Okay, this guy is really talking out of his ass. After being bored stiff for a couple of minutes, I skipped through it to hear him state that ‘Universes often take the shape of logaritmic spirals’ 
I assume he read somewhere that galaxy’s take the shape of Fibonacci spirals, remembered the word ‘spiral’ (or he saw a picture), and now tries to impress girls with his knowledge.
Is he making sense anywhere in his lesson? If so, could you summarize it?
While I do agree with your view about education, the notion of “repression” is too deterministic as written. “Sexual liberation” was a highly propagandised event, requiring massive brainwashing of the population to achieve. It was not a spontaneous thing, somehow arising from the grassroots of the population; it was an addictive drug pushed from the top.
Summarise “Beyond Psychoanalysis?” In essence, in combination with “The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party” and others, he is penetrating to the heart of Hegel’s phenomenology, as part of a tradition leading to Feuerbach and Marx, to isolate an intelligible, first-person representation of the nature of bourgeois degeneracy and how, in priniciple, to extricate a given personality from its clutches and upraise him to a condition of sexually and politically potent love based on a proper cognitive definition of humanity.
If you want a metaphor for it instead, it is this:
A naked man sits cross-legged on the floor in the middle of a dim, quiet, slat-walled wooden room, surrounded by a square of lit candles, slowly, but with keen intent, fondling and pondering the workings of an ornate, quasi-Oriental puzzle-box in his hands…
Darx
Whereas I would go along quite far with ideas such as those I’ve read of LaRouche concerning economics and warfare, I stop at the idea that sexual liberation and the music of that era was a thing forced by bankers - or at least, only that.
You seem to hold in esteem the practices of the church concerning sexuality - to me, these were nothing short of barbaric - if not worse. If you speak of manipulation, having a people believe that their biology is reason for shame needs to be adressed before condemning stimulation to enjoy that biology.
Whether it was engineerded or not doesn’t matter to me - engineering is part of the process. What is possible will be done. The truly humanistic view to me would be to accept this human ‘weakness’ as a law of nature - a thing of truth and beauty - and build from there.
I suppose this must stand opposed to the hippie idea that proper definition of humanity is derived of sexually and politically potent love.
I think both have merit, but neither is a definitive truth.
Does it have to be quasi-oriental? If not, I see myself last weekend.
Sexuality poses a conundrum, for, while the Church’s fundamentals are largely sound regarding the sacredness of marriage and the attack on pornography and other debasements, it calls into question the notion of whither “creativity†in terms of sexual expression itself, outside the creativity of reproduction per se. My hypothesis is that most of what people nowadays term “sexual freedom†is, in fact, sexual neurosis–deranged forms of self-expression by neurotic existentialists that should be analysed in terms of etiology rather than existential value-neutrality. But, I go further and suggest that as with the work of J.G. Ballard, this etiology can be extended into the realms of the economic, architectural, artistic, ergonomic, political, even linguistic, and that there is much material here worth investigating if an efficacious critique is to be made, rather than a reactionary one.
But, it was your third paragraph that stunned me:
“What is possible will be done. The truly humanistic view would be to accept this human ‘weakness’ as a law of nature – a thing of truth and beauty – and build from there.â€
Nuclear holocaust? Economic-moral collapse into a New Dark Age? Gladiator pits and imperial decrees? We are about a generation from the Middle Ages, if not less, and beyond to something worse. We are to simply accept on your intuition that these things are a function of some unstoppable, mindless universal physical principle you declare to be a “thing of truth and beauty� Except, “goodness†got dumped by the wayside.
No, we don’t accept that. That is Manichean. Evil is not a principle of the universe. The hippies wouldn’t know what “politically potent love†was if it knocked them on the head. They were ahistoricists like most of the other revolutionaries in the Twentieth Century, including Marxists, fascists, anarchists, and the like. Your proposition of fatalism is in the same category and must be rejected. If there is a solution, it involves changing the direction of history. That is where LaRouche steps in as a guidepost to this history that has long been forgotten by the masses and even most of the elites.
I would ask you your thoughts on this detournement, but we have to be on the same page regarding the nature of man, history, and political potential before my question would compute.
Darx
It seems to me that all civilization, or what we call civilized culture, depends on the control or suppression of sexual instincts - sexuality being the primary response to mortality and so the central motivator of our species.
Now how these repressed and sublimated sexual drives, a product of millennia of evolution, finds a way to the surface of consciousness and a way to relieve itself is an interesting subject.
This simple fact explains much about the need to control female sexual power, which made civilization possible, and the current state of things we call modern civilization.
Not only my essay on the Feminization of Man becomes comprehensible but the decline of the traditional family as well as the rise of hyper-masculine displays as well as increasing homosexual and a-sexual tendencies become understandable.
Interesting, thanks for the link. If I can find time to read it I’ll surely respond, though not on the 59-page thread! I already disagree with your very first sentence!
Darx
Satyr,
Sexuality per se is the primary motivator of animals, and perhaps plants and monocells, but in humans, who properly form their own Kingdom of life and are not animals any longer, sexuality has been inextricably fused with Agape. This creates a horrible tension in us, being raised as we are in environments unnatural for the fostering of Agapic consciousness, between animal sexuality–and human immortality through the discovery of ideas.
And, that’s where I take issue with your interesting “Feminization of Man†where you bandy about the word “natural†as if its meaning were self-evident. The biosphere is not “natural†for man! Nor are the wretched synthetic environments we have built for ourselves. Man’s natural environment is something rarely, if ever, seen in history, and consequently we suffer for it. It is in this context we must treat with the animal sexual instincts, both how we default to them, and how they interface with our higher, proper, subsuming human nature.
This is not to suggest that the instincts are not powerful; au contraire, I would agree. And, the “woman question†is certainly one worthy of analysis, especially as it factors into the definition and defense of heterosexuality. The modern rise of radical feminist lunacy, itself a product of Freudianism, and Marxism (with Darwin as a special reinforcing case), examples how this question is more timely than ever, because we have a situation where the intrinsically feminine cult of the Image, has usurped the masculine textual cult of the Word. Well, the fact you’re even arguing using words proves which side you must, for the sake of your own sanity, be on.
How do we engage this, then? Have we established our terms, or do we perceive each other as lurking in separate and incommensurable spheres?
Darx
Empty statement as far as I can see. Why is the church sound? How come humans live longer and healthier since the church has been pushed back from it’s dominance? How come the most dominantly atheist state, the Netherlands, has the highest life expectancy?
And from what causes would you say this neurosis stems? Just it being force fed by the Biritish bankers? So far you make interesting statements - I wonder if you have arrived at them through a thought process or if you copy them from some source.
I am not speaking from value neutrality, but from awareness of certain irreversible trends, and an ability to place these into a much larger context - which I attempt to unfold as far as I am capable, carefully, step by step. I do not pretend to see the future, but I certainly am not blind.
A critique of what? Sex? Modern man?
Is a critique ever not reactionary? Can a reactionary critique not be efficacious?
The bombs have been dropped allready - as I say, everything possible needs to be done. Not overdone, though. Man needs to know the cosequences of the fruits of his mind. You can disagree with this principle, but I expect you’ll find that time and time again not to be relevant.
Rather than a fairytale of time travel into ancient history, I would propose the nightmarish possibility of a sexual religion enforced through technology and backed by economic polarization.
The metaphor ‘Middle Ages’ as used to indicate a moral and political trend you disapprove of doesn’t really make sense to me - I associate the Middle Ages with a stagnation of science, technology, art and religion, in that order of consequence. As sciences and technology prosper, no Middle Ages are in sight.
Or, like me, you could observe and think through the nature of man, the steps of evolution and the possibilities of science, and arrive at a less idealistic and much wider perspective.
You could also choose to think about it, logically, instead of judging it as an intuition from a dogmatic position.
Goodness could either be synonymus with truth and beauty in terms of proportion and relation or a subjective moral judgement. In any case I found it useless to include the word. I do not believe one can impose goodness on a people when it isn’t technologically ready to live by it’s standards without straining itself.
First build the foundation, then the building and finally decorate it. You seem to want to decorate a heap of rubble.
In theological terms; Evil is a consequence of free will. As you know, Satan rejected the idea of free will when God came up with the dangerous plan. Evil is a consequence, God knew this.
The time has come for you to describe ‘politically potent love’. Meanig I am beginning to wonder if you actually refer to a ripened idea, or some hunch or catchphrase.
What proposition did I make, exactly? And why does it fall in the same category as the idealists you mentioned above? It seems to me your zealous drift to improve mankind fits better into the category of revolutionaries.
Changing the direction of history can only be done opportunistically - by utilizing to one’s ends the trends that are allready in motion. You cannot be seriously ignoring this - it is the only way man has ever taken control of his destiny successfully.
Man is a creature of science. History is the history of science. Political potential is the potential of science. The only thing man can choose is whether he dominates science or whether science dominates him.
Dominating science at this point is perhaps the hardest task man has ever had to face. He has touched the borderline between matter and mind - and the result is fear and confusion, because, without relying on determinism, man feels he has no identity - no will, or no knowledge of it. He has to find the audacity to be a master of his destiny. For that, he needs to be able to oversee all possible consequences of his scientific powers in order to navigate the unstoppable tide of technology towards a vision of beauty. Beauty in the sense of perfectly balanced growth - parttaking in which is as close to Truth an imperfect perspective can come.
Having read your latest post in the Nietzsch thread and your response to Satyr, I have gotten more interested in your division of the word and the image, and think I understand it, and agree with it. As I am myself occupied with film and tv, it is of particular interest to me. I have since my first attempt at a film been facinated with and seduced by the self-negating powers of film.
It is true that the rule of the image is much more fickle and unreliable than that of the world. I thought up to this point that only dicipline and a sense of what I guess amounts to classical humanism was needed to use the image as a great culture bringer - indeed - to let the word ride the image. But a stronger desire has been to let the image ride it’s own laws - which takes it beyond logic, beyond the word. The word isn’t subdued, but left alone; it is sporadically brought in above to give an impulse of interpretation to the force otherwise undiscriminating assault on the psyche.
I seem to have accepted that the image, when not commanded by the word, is a force of chaos, destruction.
My differentiation between natural and unnatural is very specific.
A beaver building a dam or a bird building a nest or a lion killing an antelope are willfully intervening in their environment but their lack of consciousness or awareness of their motives, as far as we can tell, constitutes their willing a product of natural selection and the path-of-least-resistance and blind need. Their interventions are minimal and not powerful enough to completely usurp natural tendencies.
Here trial and error is more at play rather than a focused, awareness with a particular motive or goal in mind (an ideal) - not that man is totally conscious of his own underlying motives or compeltely aware of his own goals.
We are all agents of nature, as we are products of the universe we are determined by.
We intervene to ‘correct’ nature or to reshape nature in accordance with our needs and ideals.
The underlying and often hidden motives are still self-serving but the artificiality comes into play by the ideals we use to mask them. The Artificial is duplicitous.
For instance man creates environments that lessen the risk to him. He excludes the previous environmental conditions in the process creating a manmade bubble around his existence. Within this bubble he tries to maintain ideal, for him, circumstances resulting in often dire, for him personally, repercussions and/or costs.
Of course we can take this process as a result of natural selection but my definition remains precise in the differentiation between man-made and non-man-made environments.
edit
For me the difference can be seen this way, as well:
An organism living in accordance with its nature is affected by its environment to a greater degree than it affects it.
Whereas an organism living in conflict with its nature is one that affects its environment in equal or a a greater proportion than it affect it. This results in an organism that indirectly affects its own nature by affecting the environment that, in turn, affects him creating a circular cause and effect cycle.
For man is the only animal that lives in conflict with his essence, sometimes hoping and idealizing death and non-existence. What other animal questions is own very survival and threatens it, as a result?
We may not call man unnatural, if by nature we mean all that exists, but man is certainly anti-nature.
This is why man is capable of far more cruelty and madness than any other animal.
He is angered by his very existence and expresses hatred for self and resentment towards the very universe that makes him possible. This anger and self-hatred turning outward to relieve itself by making another suffer to a greater degree than it is, and so feel this difference as empathic pleasure.
This was noted by Baudrillard in Simulacrum & Simulations.
In time this Bubble becomes an enclosed reality where it imitates itself imitating nature, or simulating itself simulating nature.
It creates a culture that begins taking as real the very mechanisms which hide reality or as natural the very methods that overcome nature, and a culture that begins imitating itself.
We see this effect in western culture that now produces art which takes other art as its inspiration - and reality is excluded in a Dali like monstrosity.
Art ceases to reflect the world and the world begins to reflect the art.
'Truth" then becomes a democratic popularity test - a Wikpedic vote on facts - and the human mind begins to be the creator of reality and not its discoverer or interpreter.
That’s when Perspectivism is used to argue any version of reality as being equally valid to any other and intellect loses its promise.
Stupidity becomes the new virtue as it offers the comforts of certainty and the bliss of ignorance.
When the natural costs of stupidity or error are eliminated or kept down to acceptable costs, then stupidity becomes necessary to maintain the structure that protects it from itself and all opinions are equally subjective and only a matter of taste.
But this bubble or circular, self-sustaining unity cannot exclude reality altogether. It only quarantines itself away from it, building walls and automatic mechanisms and devices to keep it out and to repair any subsequent leaks.
Here we see the system, the social unity, imitating an organism in that it attempts to detach itself from the surrounding, constructing a membrane to exclude the unwanted and to engulf a piece of reality so as to order it towards completion.
It becomes a super-organism leveling all diversity and artificially producing other forms of diversity, such as specialization, so as to both create harmony and stability and to meet its own requirements.
The individual ceases to be one - despite the fact that individualism is worshiped as an ideal which is supposed to create the illusion of free-will - and becomes a particle of the whole, its sense of self compeltely associated with this greater Self- Nationalism, Idealism, Patriotism for example.
Let us read what that great and honest curmudgeon, Schopenhauer says on an aspect of this civilization:
But he may have not considered the “whithering” effects of civilization, as appetites atrophy from lack of exercise.
And does not our system value money above all else, as a natural replacement for a suffocating nature?
Let us read some more from his Ethics essay in Parerga and Parelipomena:
And more wonderful stuff:
But who is shocked more if not the naive idealist that has taken his repressed, atrophied nature to be his true self, even while he suffers the symptoms of his controlled persona?
How hilariously, obscene to listen to the obtuse express astonishment - as if - at some news event that exposes man’s true nature, when they remain above such behavior due to much effort, shame, fear and moral pressures.
In fact it is the height of perversity, a product of this repressed atrophying nature sustained through quarantine, to listen to these retrained individuals pretend that gender is a product of culture rather than nature which is given limits and symbols by culture.
Jakob,
Instead of harrowing through a page of disagreements, why don’t we start with what we do agree with and proceed toward further agreement?
I would agree with your agreement, about the uncommanded word as a force of chaos and destruction. With that, I suggest we take a hint from Satyr’s essay “Feminization of Man†and realise that female sexuality is a player here.
Females instinctually truck in tokens (A means B, like fondling a lighter waiting for a suitor to provide a cigarette) and signals (A means A or B ambiguously; or A means ?, like a hair-flick or lip-lick), as a method of compensating for their physical inadequacies through the generation of a social environment that will raise the cost of sex to their advantage. Males instinctually seek to lower the cost of sex, and prefer markers (unambiguous indications of involvement, like wedding rings) and handles (fixed statement-response indicators, like getting a girl’s telephone number).
The image provides the highest concentration of information per square centimeter, and, so, the highest potential for tokens and signals. The text provides the highest concentration of concepts per square centimeter, and, so, the highest potential for clarity, rather than ambiguity. Words themselves when in a Platonic dialogue are pushed toward maximal clarity of being markers (unambiguous meaning) and handles (“And thus is thus therefore, such. Dost thou agree?†“I am not so sure, Yocrates. What do you mean?†etc.).
A society of the Image is, thus, an uncontrolled feminine society dedicated to annihilating Platonic dialogue, and, by extension, clear-thinking itself—except by the elites who use and promote this “tyranny of ambiguity†to better divide, conquer, and manage.
Darx
This is what I just talked about with a woman - she said the word can provide clarity - either something is so, or not. Images can convey several contradictory messages at the same time. In that sense, the image left to it’s own devices is a source of disruption of the mind and remover of meaning.
This quality of the image also has it’s advantages over the word in bridging the gap between conflicting ideas within one context (for example a person) the word fails to synthesize. As the image can uncover ideas, thoughtforms without describing them, without qualifying them, it is a useful tool for the evolution of ideas where the word reaches the limit of it’s dialiectic powers.
I can see the sexual parallel, but I don’t need it neither do I find it useful - as my experience with women is aparently different from most philosophers. I agree most of them shouldn’t be expected to carry out a rational line of thought, but neither should most men. I agree a woman with sound cognitive faculties, mastery of the word, is more rare, but the exception doesn’t prove the rule. And what is far more dangerous to reason than a helpless female mind is a masculine mind which uses masculine devices, but is notheless cognitively incompetent.
In fact this metaphor for the word and the image as male and female is itself an image. It is ambiguous. It can be as soundly agreed with as disagreed with - as I’ve just demonstrated. Feel free to anthropomorphize away, but I prefer to stick to the concepts themselves. Satyr’s feminization of man is a different case, as he directly adresses biology. Thinking of his thread, I am reminded of the words of another woman perfectly capable of conceptual thinking, kabbalist Dion Fortune; “How many of today’s male city-dwellers would be able to grow a patriarchal beard?” In this sense man’s feminizing is unmistakable and unambiguous. As a metaphor for information-carriers, not so.
Sexuality is always an appealing metaphor in any conceptual discourse, but I see it more as a masculine expression of sexual drive - animal drive - to employ this tool. It is pleasurable to put women in their place, to dominate them. A way to do this is take away their claim to reason.
I’ve often seen good thinkers go down with this ship, proud flag high in the mast, water down below. In cases where they don’t go down but alter course, it’s not seldom because of a woman in whom they meet their dialectic match, forcing them to abandon this animal means which is meaningful only amongst men, and resort to more universally human ways of thinking.
The feminization of man has been thought through by Satyr to great length - the masculinization of woman hasn’t. It is a different case alltogehter - if men may be losing their proper ground, women may be gaining theirs. Men just need to compete better, not bitch about how they really are naturally supposed to come out on top, but have the criumstances against them.
Caesar confided only in women. Agamemnon conquered for a woman. I don’t think this was because they were good on bed - many women are.
Nietzsche said that the highest type of woman is more rare than the highest type of man - but also higher. I think he was speaking of the female intellect, which in rare cases matches an exceptional physical fitness, beauty, strength.
If I don’t write this following disclaimer I risk a Sauwelios or likeminded pirate to quote the quote about intellectually inclined women having trouble with their sexual organs; Nietzsche speaks of rareness in the former, exalted aphorism - in the second, baser one, of commonness. It is consequently very well possible that most men have never met a thinking woman.
Mind you, they do exist.
I have thought about the “Masculinization of Woman” and I see it as a byproduct of the Feminization of Man.
When maleness is restricted or monopolized by institutions, then anyone can become a representative, a symbol of this institution, which displays masculine traits and power but is asexual.
That’s when even females can become figureheads of masculinity even though they lack the attributes and possess only the effects as they are produced by the institution they represent.
But psychologically this feminization is producing a void. A void women complain about as in “There are no real men left.” or words like that.
The primordial desire and attraction towards that which dominates and is superior to them is hidden behind cultural necessity and indoctrination producing confusion and dissatisfaction.
Anyone that has watched the Dog Whisperer on T.V. can find some entertaining parallelism here.
This expert on dog behavior is really an expert on human and animal behavior.
He regularly says that the dog exhibiting unwanted dominating behavior, craves for the human to dominate and lead it; it needs structure and the safety of being given guidelines/rules - such is the need of weakness.
When the human treats it as an equal the dog assumes the dominant position that is left vacant. It intuitively assumes that the attitude of the human is a sign of weakness and it capitalizes on it.
It then believes it is something great until someone takes this sense away from it and disciplines it - dominates it.
Women and children do the same thing, taking this ‘equality’ or undiscriminating respect as a sign of weakness and of their own value.
We see this in a change of attitude.
But most of them still crave to be put in their place and to be given structure and the safety and irresponsibility of being dominated.
It is a natural phenomenon as all interactions are competitions and depend on a hierarchy - power balances.
Women fill this gap of masculine energy they expect from males, not feeling fulfilled by it but compromising nevertheless.
This because males are trained to be passive, respectful, tolerant…in other words feminine and because the ethical standards of the cultural environment and the institution of marriage/monogamy forces compromises.
So we get lesbian or homosexual relationships, in essence, even while the sexual relationship might be heterosexual.
We see here why the culture then accepts homosexual relationships as not that out of the ordinary or disruptive. Also because reproduction isn’t so necessary and can be achieved without intercourse.
This results in dissatisfaction where both parties feel unfulfilled but not knowing why.
The deterioration of the family ensues.
Women sometimes call it, this sexual attraction to the dominating and superior male,“chemistry” because they cannot rationally explain it other than as this innate, incomprehensible, connection or feeling.
This “cost of sex” for males is a socially and culturally imposed one. In nature their responsibilities end at insemination.
It is the costs of reproduction to females which is eliminated using technologies and innovations in both medicine and culture.
And men don’t?
Undiscriminating respect seems to be the core of your, and our collective, issue of rank and function, not the issue of dominance of one gender over the other. Even if in many individual cases this might very well be at the root of the problem.
Man is no longer automatically in control. He has to take charge, own up to it. Many men aren’t capable of this anymore as women evolve intellectually - many men are directionless goofs. But I know a good deal of masculine men, intellectually sound, and expressing their dominating nature with natural ease and to the satisfaction and happiness of the women they are involved with - I need to mention that they don’t belittle women in rational conversation, only in playful talk. Perhaps what we have here is an example of the survival of the fittest on a cognitive level; only men who have their head straight - who know reason and fallacy when it comes their way, coming from either man or woman - are sexually prosperous.
Why do you assume that maleness, as I mean it, is that muscled bouncer and not the one that dominates him intellectually?
Particularly these hyper-masculine displays, such as bodybuilding, rap, or guns, drugs and Rock n’ Roll and even martial arts, attract the males that are the most emasculated by the system.
They are displays meant to exhibit a masculine spirit that is, mostly, absent in the individual that seeks it.
They are exaggerations of what is most lacking and so a compensation.
It is a major part of it.
What value does love have when it is given freely to everyone and when all are told that they deserve it?
What value does the embrace of a whore have, besides the economic supply and demand one?
Thing about respect, as many fail to acknowledge, is that it is intimidation.
There’s an element of fear in respect.
When it is given as a ‘right’ the mind intuitively takes it as a sign of its own value even though it does not deserve it and has not earned it.
The ‘sanctity of life’ is another such concept.
That all life is noble and holy or that it deserves, just be being life, dignity is contradicted by nature.
The ‘sanctity of life’ mostly implies human life, with man’s domesticated, necessary supportive species benefiting from it through association.
Here we see a supposed human benevolent idea hiding deep rooted hubris and an undiscriminating premise which constitutes life worthless…as it is quickly becoming.
Women evolve nothing. Women adopt and submit to any ideal and idea they are offered by the dominating male, in this case institutionalized power and maleness.
This dumbing down simply makes those that were already down there seem equal or not as dumb anymore. Leveling implies that what is above is lowered making that which was low seem to rise.
One need belittle women just as much as one need beat his dog.
It’s all about attitude.
Power is sometimes exuded without a word.
I don’t. To me, it is clear that the one that dominates them is the most powerfully masculine one. He stands a the top of that hierarchy of strength.
As this is a case of specific people, I will respect your opinion but don’t think it applies here. They’re all pretty rough and unajusted.
Easy to judge people you don’t know. Since you misuderstood me here - I never suggested otherwise than that the guy with the superior mental powers was the masculine dominator - I can’t place this comment into a constructive context.
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed. The downside of democracy. A solution needs to be found - although you seem nto convinced that this is possible.
The sanctity of life is indeed different from the sanctity of human life. And as Darx explained, and with which I find myself in agreement, not all humans are properly human. Risking to be seen as racist here, the sword slinging religious pluderers in Borneo resemble apes more than humans from my perspective.
I think human life is potentially sacred. It depends how it is lived.
Egalization is quick to recognize only the common and toss out the interesting - is that what you mean?
Absolute nonsense. The women I know and respect have been in constant struggle with the authorities in their lives - from their fathers, mothers, political movements, friends, and are constantly evolving. I pity you for now knowing such women. I wouldn’t have any respect for the human race if I didn’t.
Not all is leveled. There is my fundamental disagreement with you, rooted deep into my experience of life .
Most times.
William Reich was an imbecile whose theories were completely discredited. Why, oh why must we invoke the name of a well-forgotten pseudoscientist as an authority in this topic?