RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou?

RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 3:08:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang You gonna stick with that Pauline thing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it does. I'm pretty sure glib, unsupported, poorly articulated one-liners like "Think about it" don't qualify as discourse. Just noise.

mnottertail -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 3:15:03 PM)
In all that is said and done here; and I am not gonna go and gather all these posts up to support my lemma, but my principle still remains........... The notion of woman's submissiveness is wholly fantasy, they are just dominating from the long way 'round........... LOL, Ron edited because of carpal tunnel syndrome symptomatic typing.

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 3:17:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche I'm pretty sure glib, unsupported, poorly articulated one-liners like "Think about it" don't qualify as discourse. I'm not glib. You don't know what you are talking about. I have expanded the comment, BTW.

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 5:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang You gonna stick with that Pauline thing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it does. Paul is talking about agape - spiritual love between christians and from god towards mankind. Paul did all kinds of other dumb shit too - like advocate celibacy so that people could be better missionaries of the "word." In short, the guy was not exactly a friend to eros love. This conversation will not make any sense unless you can confine yourself to what precisely you mean. Taking quotes about one kind of love and discussing it in context with another kind of love is basically the beginnings of chaos here. I tried to make a point of this earlier. I am not sure what you are saying here. 1) Much better. 2) Paul used a "charity" koine word in that passage???? Well no shit. Half the Bible variants translate the word directly as charity. As I pointed out in the previous post, I'm talking about philia, storge, eros, agape - I'm talking about love in a comprehensive sense, and I certainly think that beautiful, poetic passage can be read in a broad sense. What Paul had to say about love speaks to parents and children, to couples in eros. 3) I wasn't aware infallability was a criteria for listening. I think Oscar Wilde had some compelling things to say about art in "The Decay of Lying" - by no means do I accept what he has to say wholesale. Matthew Arnold wrot some lyrical, compelling passages in Culture and Anarchy, and yet he was wrong in so many ways about polities and how they work. My contention isn't "Paul is infallible" but rather, "This is a resonant, lyrical piece of poetry that reveals truth applicable to the discussion at hand - care to listen?" No doubt at least once you've done "all kinds of other dumb shit too." Does that mean you are disqualified from ever speaking? 4) I feel absolutely comfortable taking something from one kind of love to another when it is applicable. I have no problem taking something I learned as a Marine Officer and seeing if it has application in parenting - and vice versa. Do you really mean that analogy and metaphor are so confusing to you they must be banned? Can you see why your first edition of the post was so offensive and churlish? Not "Hey, I disagree, here's some reasons why, here my antithesis, etc" but "You don't know what you're talking about." I may be wrong about a given point, but I think I have a decent enough liberal education to be at least allowed into the discussion.

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 6:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche 2) Paul used a "charity" koine word in that passage???? Well no shit. Half the Bible variants translate the word directly as charity. As I pointed out in the previous post, I'm talking about philia, storge, eros, agape - I'm talking about love in a comprehensive sense, and I certainly think that beautiful, poetic passage can be read in a broad sense. What Paul had to say about love speaks to parents and children, to couples in eros. We know Paul was addressing the Corinthians for a very specific reason. You are willing to take a description about agape and apply it to other modes of love? Well, to each their own - but that's sloppy thinking to my view. That's what Paul had to say about agape - if you have something to say about eros perhaps you could find some other words - even your own and which I am willing to read - rather than taking Paul out of context? As it happens, I am not a believer and find anything Paul has to say about agape practically useless to me. Now perhaps I speak only for myself - more than likely - but I don't find love to be comprehensive. I earlier posted that I personally find it helpful to talk about love with greater specificity than it is common to do. Within the context of your original post I found it useful to confine my thoughts to a) love as not part of the equation, b) philia love or c) eros love. While love gives us motive, it doesn't give us the actual tools to carry it out - or at least I would tend to disagree with a contrary view. And has been pointed out by more than one person, love is often not even the point of some relationships. I think you keep trying to say that love is somehow critical to a D/s relationship and I am not at all sure about that even if you want it to be true. Something like a mutually exploitive philia love might be better for many. In fact, I think arranged marriages use to work very successfully on that basis and eros love was not an impossible outcome. As some have already mentioned, service doesn't require love at all. Service only requires obeisance. FWIW, eros love - or romantic love - is often cited as the cause of considerable suffering. That kind of intense passion is literally the stuff of crazy-making. I think a quieter version of love is more useful as it is more conducive to discipline. But I know how it is, everyone wants the honeymoon type love to last forever. It doesn't. ... FRIAR LAURENCE: These violent delights have violent ends And in their triumph die, like fire and powder, Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey Is loathsome in his own deliciousness And in the taste confounds the appetite: Therefore love moderately; long love doth so; Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow. - "Romeo and Juliet," William Shakespeare

mnottertail -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 7:26:42 PM)
LMAO ... the christian slaves? BDSM and the bible? I love this fucking town. Ron

themischievous1 -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/10/2005 12:53:06 AM)
quote: Chaingang: FWIW, eros love - or romantic love - is often cited as the cause of considerable suffering. That kind of intense passion is literally the stuff of crazy-making. I think a quieter version of love is more useful as it is more conducive to discipline. But I know how it is, everyone wants the honeymoon type love to last forever. It doesn't. I'm inclined to agree with this thought because romantic love is fleeting, unpredictable, and shifts like sand. Passion burns hot but also turns to ash after a time. There has to be something deeper and more solid to sustain a union through cancer and his colostomy and the fact that he can no longer get an erection, or her sudden confusion and loss of memory as she approaches the beginning stages of Alzheimers disease. Real devotion is often based on a lot more than the emotion of love. I have to look at the times I've been ordered to do something I absolutely didn't want to do. Occasionally I didn't serve or obey out of love. Sometimes that emotion just wasn't something I could tangibly grasp onto at the moment an unappealing instruction was given. I fell back on serving because it's who I am and who I agreed to be. I fell back on pure loyalty and the commitment I made. I think love is extremely important to relationships and desirable, but I don't feel that love can be counted on to get us through the more grittier, unpleasant, survivor moments couples/families often face; thus I'm not sure it's wise for me to base my service and obedience as a submissive solely upon that. The combination of loving a Master and serving because it's who I am is probably more ideal.

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/10/2005 8:29:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang We know Paul was addressing the Corinthians for a very specific reason. You are willing to take a description about agape and apply it to other modes of love? Well, to each their own - but that's sloppy thinking to my view. Ok, so you get to call me a sloppy thinker - does this mean I should come back with a gibe about you being a narrow thinker, incapable of analogous thought, too dim for metaphor? If the best you can do is is call me names, great, I'll put you on ignore, and we can improve the board's signal to noise ratio. Or you can engage in discourse - your choice. Obviously I think that quote is contextual - obviously my reading of the text is that Paul (and his peers) didn't see loves as seperate orders, but rather higher and lower forms within one order. When Gen Lejeune said "The relationship between a senior and a junior is not that of a master to a servant, or an owner to a slave, but rather as a Father to a Son, or a teacher to a scholar, in that the senior is responsible for the physical, mental and moral well-being and education of the junior," was he a sloppy thinker? Was he wrong in drawing an analogy between parenting and leadership? Works for me. Anyway, on to the substance: 1) "While love gives us motive, it doesn't give us the actual tools to carry it out." Agreed. My anaolgy is Chapman's - love is not the engine, it is the fuel that runs the engine. 2) "I think you keep trying to say that love is somehow critical to a D/s relationship..." Certainly not saying that. As I explicitly stated, I see two main models of slavery, one relationship based, and one more of a self-actualization. The latter doesn't need love - my example in the OP was one where there is no love - perhaps even antipathy - but it is still a functioning D/s relationship. In I-Thou relationships, I do think love is essential, although I am curious why you keep trying to box me into eros. As I keep saying, I think multiple kinds of love fuel multiple kinds of relationships. Certainly in M/s relationships it is my observation that eros is the commonest form, but I can imagine a friendship love as well, or even a familiarity love. 3) I am entirely in agreement that eros can be dangerous, destructive stuff. The classical empahsis on Achillean, friendship love is explicitly articulated as it being superior to the madness of eros. I am to a degree suspicious of love, in that I think it is enormously powerful, but in no way self-correcting, or intrinsically right, or good - merely powerful. I see this as applicable to all the natural loves - parental love can become destructive as well as erotic. From CS Lewis: quote: We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to be come gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred. (If you aren't a deist, try sticking "The Good" in place of God and see if it resonates). 4) I'm not at all convinced that eros is a short, introductory stage in loving. I think the intense hunger of epithemia, soon slaked and turned to ash is often confused with the desire of eros lovers to be one with each other, but in my experience the fires of eros are banked not by time, but by the choices we make. I know old people who experience eros in the 30th year of marriage, and I know young couples who have poured water on eros, or even worse never knew it, in the first year of their marriage. My point in this thread was to hear how other people articulated the motive element in their M/s relationship, and that's happened. Plenty of people have eloquently spoken of how they don't need their partner to pull service out of them - they serve because they need or are meant to serve - others have expressed their need to put eyes on their partner and are compelled by what they see to serve. Both are great. What I found interesting is the number of: "I will serve because it is my nature, because it is right, but what I desire above all else is to serve so rightly under one I adore."

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/10/2005 9:19:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche Ok, so you get to call me a sloppy thinker - does this mean I should come back with a gibe about you being a narrow thinker, incapable of analogous thought, too dim for metaphor? Do as you please. I prefer tidier statements in context so that we can talk about them. I vehemently disagree with your view on the context of Paul's statement. I'm keeping it down to what I can know 100% is the context, and you wish to amplify that context to mean whatever you wish it to mean. Religious people are always doing that. I don't know if you are religious, but I am beginning to suspect that you are based on what interests you as a reader. BTW, metaphor is how we explain things we are having difficulty explaining more directly. Metaphor is not a higher mode of expression or anything like that. Metaphor is a band-aid solution for the imprecisions of language in expressing complex ideas. As I said before: if you have something to say about something, say it - if you can. Comparisons are fine for finessing a point, but I don't see it as the best way of getting at an idea directly. quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche When Gen Lejeune said "The relationship between a senior and a junior is not that of a master to a servant, or an owner to a slave, but rather as a Father to a Son, or a teacher to a scholar, in that the senior is responsible for the physical, mental and moral well-being and education of the junior," was he a sloppy thinker? Was he wrong in drawing an analogy between parenting and leadership? Yes. He's trying to be lyrical or poetic when he should be stating things as they really are. If I meet a guy like that on the street, I check for my wallet when I walk away. The U.S. Constitution lists something like 22-24 different legal statuses for natural persons. The legal status of most soldiers is just above that of a prisoner or slave. They own you. That's why you can't be AWOL. That's why they require your signature (a contract) and your oath as you essentially renounce your citizenship to be a soldier. Why be lyrical about it? Oh, right - because they own you and put a gun in your hand and tell you to kill people. Yes, it does require some serious bullshit to get people mind-fucked enough to do that. I'm not much for standing armies - originally the U.S. Constitution placed limitations on standing armies and the procurement of funds for the same. I like the idea of a militia composed of freemen in defense of their country better. quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche 1) "While love gives us motive, it doesn't give us the actual tools to carry it out." Agreed. My analogy is Chapman's - love is not the engine, it is the fuel that runs the engine. I would say: "love is not the engine, it may be the fuel that runs the engine." quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche Certainly in M/s relationships it is my observation that eros is the commonest form, but I can imagine a friendship love as well... I said the same thing in other words. quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche What I found interesting is the number of: "I will serve because it is my nature, because it is right, but what I desire above all else is to serve so rightly under one I adore." It is interesting. We all have our fantasies about the perfect situation.

Angrylibrarian -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/10/2005 11:41:32 AM)
the heart of the matter lies in what you stated. That devotion to duty is easily projected onto devotion to master. you restate it when you describe your relationship to your superiors in the marines (ever notice how no one notices that being in the military is primarily a submissive lifestyle? even the guys giving the orders are only doing it because they were ordered to--edit-- in searching for studies on submission and bootcamp I found this journal entry---"The straw that finally broke the camel’s back happened on a Sunday when I was all set to head out to the local drag strip and watch the Flathead Eights, (Don’t ask, you need to be from my generation!) whip up on the overhead engines. My father in his usual fatherly, kindly, and soft-spoken manner (Hah!) stated, “You're not going anywhere until your homework is finished” and I, in the role of the obedient and submissive son replied, “I’m going and you can’t stop me!” After I picked myself up off of the floor, and finished my homework……I decided that no one was going to tell me what to do ever again. I would join the Navy and See the World! Little did I know then that my days of being told exactly what to do, what to wear, when to arise, and when to go to bed had just begun. "---) And I am thinking that while your right love is critical to many relationships, theres a strong point to be made that slavery is not one of them.

luvdragonx -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/10/2005 2:35:41 PM)
Ok, requoting myself from another thread. quote: .......... I'd like to believe that I've learned how to temper Love with Logic, and vice-versa. In my world I like to think that because I Love, I'll do what's best. In spite of my Love, I'll do what's best. With my Love I'll do what's best. ...... Again, this comes from having learned from mistakes. This is basically what I think when it comes to Love vs Duty. A long time ago, I would have argued that Love Conquers All!! Now I know that isn't the case. There are equally successful relationships which either started from Love and grew into more, or started from something else and grew into Love. Integrity, compassion, understanding and good self-esteem are a some of the key components of good, lasting relationships. Love can be also, but it's not always necessary IMO. I may not love you, but if you're honest, hard-working, caring and self-assured, we could still have a solid relationship. Likewise, I could love you, but if you're dishonest, lazy, inconsiderate and insecure, our relationship won't last too long - at least not with considerable personal sacrifice on my part. But then what would that make me? In a loving relationship, I think that love is the factor that helps get you through the rough spots. Love allows you to be just a little more forgiving of someone else's faults. Love is the thing that can motivate you when nothing else will. Love is like BASF. It doesn't make the relationship. It makes the relationship _________(insert your applicable term) Edited to get my companies straight!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125