You were raised in a military academy by a preatorian guard. The men out doing the fighting probably developed the easy familiarity so characteristic of combat vets, but not you.
You were a little soldier, and you were probably a really good one, but you cuoldn't fight because you were a girl. Later in life you took up combat sports.
Communicatinig with you is very comfortable for me because, to be honest, you don't communicate in a way that is classically feminine.
I don't think you're a feminist. I think you appreciate feminism and the freedom it's given you, but you strike me as something else entirely.
I've been wildly wrong about things in my time, but this seems to be true to me.
Something I didn't know before is that Rhodesia was basically started by lieutenants and such who had served Britain in World War 2. They were given land in the colony as a reward for service.
I really miss those guys and the cultural atmosphere they created. Certainly women did not get to participate in that society as much as I would have wanted, but in general everybody got things done without sniping at each other and being petty.
Then at university you were surrounded by left-leaning people who mean well, but who couldn't possibly understand your ubringing. Then there are the outright Marxists. And the feminists. A lot of pressure to fit in, I'd imagine.
Not exactly. The first university I went to was to do fine arts. I met people there who were not precisely well meaning, but a few who were very dogmatic about their leftism. Apparently there had been all sorts of propaganda in Australia about how white people from Africa were uppity and evil and that sort of thing. I hadn't been informed, not having been there at the time.
I changed my course and went to a more well-established university, which did not make much about my "identity" but taught a lot of postmodernist nonsense. I was only to find out that it was nonsense after I graduated and ended up in a job in a labor union, where, once again, the not-so-well-meaning radical liberals decided to use my 'identity' against me for the sake of office politics. Actually, it was a very dysfunctional workplace with a lot of pathological people in it. In Australia, the right wing faction of the labor movement, which is what this workplace consisted of, is made up of masochistic and sadistic catholics.
Also my father decided that he couldn't bear the psychological burden of financially supporting me and my sister, after we left high school (but had not yet found our feet). He was also extremely hostile to anything that wasn't right-wing and fundamentalist Christian. He had turned to a fundamentalist strain of religion to cope with the trauma of migrating and losing everything in middle age -- having to start again. I guess after you have sacrificed for a particular set of values, it is painful to see them all rendered into nothing.
Thus began my 'shamanic initiation -- torn apart by 'spirits'.
I had no idea that Mel Gibson's father represented a cultural movement. I just thought he was mentally ill.
It's strange to think that there is a place where a far right wing labor union exists. You just don't see that over here.
I looked at "Thus Spake Zarathustra." I know that it has something to do with Zoroastrianism, but to be honest I don't seem to have the cognitive horsepower to deal with a text like that.
They're not Mel Gibsonites. They're the right faction of a left wing organisational movement: a lowbrow, anti-intellectual and dogmatic cult of suffering. I didn't mean to imply they were on the right, just in terms of the factional split within the left.
Zarathustra is just a kind of ironic rewriting of the religious agenda for humanity. It's written in a pseudo-religious way, but it's actually deep psychology. In particular, it relates to the fact that humans tend to congeal together as a form of safety. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (TSZ) recognises that there is a price for such safety and that is, you are going to be morally policed and kept in a stunted state by the morality police.
TSZ is a covert argument for the need to break out of this stunted, policed state. In effect, it uses the language or religion against itself to argue for the need for a genuine individuality that does not rely upon the approval of received values or the values of the group.
7 comments:
You aren't.
You were raised in a military academy by a preatorian guard. The men out doing the fighting probably developed the easy familiarity so characteristic of combat vets, but not you.
You were a little soldier, and you were probably a really good one, but you cuoldn't fight because you were a girl. Later in life you took up combat sports.
Communicatinig with you is very comfortable for me because, to be honest, you don't communicate in a way that is classically feminine.
I don't think you're a feminist. I think you appreciate feminism and the freedom it's given you, but you strike me as something else entirely.
I've been wildly wrong about things in my time, but this seems to be true to me.
Something I didn't know before is that Rhodesia was basically started by lieutenants and such who had served Britain in World War 2. They were given land in the colony as a reward for service.
I really miss those guys and the cultural atmosphere they created. Certainly women did not get to participate in that society as much as I would have wanted, but in general everybody got things done without sniping at each other and being petty.
Then at university you were surrounded by left-leaning people who mean well, but who couldn't possibly understand your ubringing. Then there are the outright Marxists. And the feminists. A lot of pressure to fit in, I'd imagine.
Not exactly. The first university I went to was to do fine arts. I met people there who were not precisely well meaning, but a few who were very dogmatic about their leftism. Apparently there had been all sorts of propaganda in Australia about how white people from Africa were uppity and evil and that sort of thing. I hadn't been informed, not having been there at the time.
I changed my course and went to a more well-established university, which did not make much about my "identity" but taught a lot of postmodernist nonsense. I was only to find out that it was nonsense after I graduated and ended up in a job in a labor union, where, once again, the not-so-well-meaning radical liberals decided to use my 'identity' against me for the sake of office politics. Actually, it was a very dysfunctional workplace with a lot of pathological people in it. In Australia, the right wing faction of the labor movement, which is what this workplace consisted of, is made up of masochistic and sadistic catholics.
Also my father decided that he couldn't bear the psychological burden of financially supporting me and my sister, after we left high school (but had not yet found our feet). He was also extremely hostile to anything that wasn't right-wing and fundamentalist Christian. He had turned to a fundamentalist strain of religion to cope with the trauma of migrating and losing everything in middle age -- having to start again. I guess after you have sacrificed for a particular set of values, it is painful to see them all rendered into nothing.
Thus began my 'shamanic initiation -- torn apart by 'spirits'.
I had no idea that Mel Gibson's father represented a cultural movement. I just thought he was mentally ill.
It's strange to think that there is a place where a far right wing labor union exists. You just don't see that over here.
I looked at "Thus Spake Zarathustra." I know that it has something to do with Zoroastrianism, but to be honest I don't seem to have the cognitive horsepower to deal with a text like that.
They're not Mel Gibsonites. They're the right faction of a left wing organisational movement: a lowbrow, anti-intellectual and dogmatic cult of suffering. I didn't mean to imply they were on the right, just in terms of the factional split within the left.
Zarathustra is just a kind of ironic rewriting of the religious agenda for humanity. It's written in a pseudo-religious way, but it's actually deep psychology. In particular, it relates to the fact that humans tend to congeal together as a form of safety. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (TSZ) recognises that there is a price for such safety and that is, you are going to be morally policed and kept in a stunted state by the morality police.
TSZ is a covert argument for the need to break out of this stunted, policed state. In effect, it uses the language or religion against itself to argue for the need for a genuine individuality that does not rely upon the approval of received values or the values of the group.
That's a nice summary. I'll try...
Post a Comment