Originally Posted by Czymra
Well, let me try to illustrate what, from my perspective, makes this way of posting difficult.
When you say you want to be compelling, it comes across as either a need to be mysterious (pretence) or as a need to feel superior (arrogance) and a message with such a signifier is hard to be heard for it is covered over by this attitude.
I do know that any text, like the one I write now, has a signifier of it's own. I give away of myself, good and bad, and so does anybody else, and I also leave that signature of mine which is supposedly a hint at my character or maybe the content of my post.
I respect the notion of encouraging people to think for themselves greatly. However, I do feel that what you do is the opposite, by clouding things, you make them turn away even more.
Language is a ruse (inherently in my believe), so I think one should work to lay open it's deceptions rather than add all the more, for it breeds oversaturation, overflow, ambiguity (hidden commands) and thus hypnosis. A state of which I have more than enough and need no more 'mystery to marvel at' without being fed.
Also, thinking of these NLP techniques doesn't really make me think of the benevolent, non-advantageous purpose.
Also, saying that perversion is only a narrow minded concept is like saying that evil is only a narrow minded concept.
I can agree with that somehow but it moves the discussion away from the actual topic.
A perversion is 'the alteration of something from its original source, meaning or state to a distortion or corruption of what is first intended'.
The question here is then not whether perversion is there, but rather whether it is relative or not, that is, can there be such a thing as an original source, an original meaning of something and if so can it be identified (today).
I can not answer these questions with yes or no but I have the strong feeling that the nature of woman can to some degree be identified, merely by the function (sorry ladies, no degradation intended) of giving life. If then women take life, that is by definition a perversion. I'm sure the same can be said for men but nowadays we are made to believe that men are inherently murderous so I won't go that far.
Of course I have reduced the idea of woman to only it's function and all this is too simplified but I think it is evidence for the existence of perversion as such, at least on a level, and not just as a morale issue.
Furthermore, the denial of perversion actually being an issue by proving that some people see perversion in natural sexuality only proves that some throw out the baby with the bathwater, and not that we all are frigid and prude. Rather, it seems to be the old 'extreme black and white' technique of blatancy that turns good and bad upside down.
Yes, I'm trying to think in singularity but that does not mean I shall stand in ignorance to word twisting.
So here I go, my ego has spoken.
I am aware that this post might be taken offensively as it criticises your mode of expression. I don't think I have been respectful enough to be able to say 'don't take it offensive' either but I fail to see how I can express these things differently at the time. Apologies.
Anyway, I'd love to read your comments.
|
01-06-2009, 12:22 AM
Re: Symbols, Images & Emasculation
Hybrid Mode
