Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 2:31:51 AM   
Stusmobile


Posts: 145
Joined: 5/26/2008
From: No fixed abode
Status: offline 		I think the extraordinary man concept is of itself slightly flawed. The extraordinary man only becomes apparent with the passage of time and the introduction of hindsight, societal norms and acceptance of the extraordinary mans views as being "better" as a whole.

There are good men, bad men and great men around the world today but I hesitate to label any single one extraordinary, we just don't know who they are until after the fact. There are leaders, there are followers and yet sitting here thinking I cannot define one who I would term extraordinary, that will come from a jury of peers in years to come. There are some for who that extraordinary moment comes but once in a lifetime, others who seem to have a constant stream of something that makes us think of them as extraordinary.

One theme seems to ring true to the large majority of them, each was in their own particular time treated with disdain, often punished and criminalised or just generally ignored for putting forward an uncomfortable theory. Does that mean the extraordinary needs to flow from a criminal mind, not to my thinking, but it does mean that unless society as a whole is ready for an extraordinary concept then the owner of such an idea likely will become marginalised and criminalised. As society can afford to look in to and embrace those ideas then they begin the journey from criminal mind to forward thinker. Something I once read seems to ring true with regards the extraordinary man "A society will only have the morals it can afford". This gives someone who sees something they deem better for society the chance to become far more than an ordinary man. They may not be right, history is littered with those who had their vision of a perfect society and their legacy is built upon and subsumed by others. For those that see the changes coming and can voice and emote their ideals, they will become the people we remember as extraordinary, for those who fail their legacy becomes ignomany.

There are also those men who began something with the extraordinary thought and over time allowed that thought to become perverted. That perversion may have come about through illness, trying to do too much too quickly, corruption by power or by their own personal style of leadership. If you rally people to an idea by showing them tigers to be killed, then there needs to be a constant stream of tigers or the people will reflect and you chance losing them. Some men who began with extraordinary ideas have fallen into this trap, setting a people or idea in motion only to find that it gets embraced so totally that they have to find another scapegoat to continue to hold the reins of power.

There is one thought that keeps surfacing after reading this whole thread and the concept of extraordinary man. Whilst those who become extraordinary to the masses are few, in each of us there is the opportunity to become extraordinary to a few. This gives each and every one of us the chance to lead, to inspire, to make others think. That is the epitome of an extraordinary man, the "regular" person who can make a difference to just a handful and enrich those lives.




_____________________________

Goethe: "Whatever you do, or dream you can do, begin it - boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now."

EmlyKate is mine and I wouldn't wish for anything else.

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 3:13:44 AM   
RavenMuse


Posts: 4030
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline 		My first reaction was that most Dominants wouldn't care enough about other peoples perceptions of Them to want to 'bridge the gap'... however when looking at My own experience both in terms of BDSM and Paganism, One can cause a gap to be bridged simply by way of not being ashamed of what You are and being confident enough not to change that nor hide it in the face of closed-minded hostility, even without deliberatly setting out to build bridges.

When I worked at the Hospital many years ago, on both occassions I was 'outted' (Not that I was hidding and it certainly didn't bother Me. I don't hide, nor do I need to shout it from the rooftops) I weathered the storm of petty-minded vitriol by laughing back at them, they soon got tired of not having the effect they expected.... Others, both pagan and kink, who subsequently came 'out' got a much easier time because it had stopped being such a big issue, they had learned their 'ammo' was blanks without Me deliberatly setting out to build bridges.

So yes, I do believe You have some corralation between Dominants and Raskolnikov's Extraordinary Man

_____________________________

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Owner of metalmiss

(in reply to Leatherist)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 4:57:16 AM   
TysGalilah


Posts: 589
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline 		 
Hey Bita
 
  Your post was very thought provoking..Thank you for it.
 
What sprang into my mind was Rosa Parks.
 
  From any reading I have done about her
she wasn't typically a non-comformist, dominant nor a man.
Infact, if anything, was quiet and quite subserviant in nature.
    ( I have no idea is she was kinky or not...)
 
She did invoke change, by a moment where she felt her inner-strength and pride outweigh her basic nature and was compelled to take a rebels stand.
 An ordinary woman with extra-ordinary inner-strength and the courage to be moved into action?
Are there extraordinary men/people/women born and destined to change the world, or just ordinary people who have developed an extraordinary inner-awareness and courage ?


  As an s-type, I feel the rebel in me often.  It doesn't "look" like what you might see in my D-type, Tyson, and in the way he displays his "rebel"...but it is still in me and in the way I respond to him and towards my life in general.  I guess I make my mark in a different way and from more subtle approach.
 
thinkin.... I've always been attracted to the rebels.  In books, tv/movies, people, friends, loves.........interesting.
I hope I didn't miss your point : )
 
Cyndi

< Message edited by TysGalilah -- 7/6/2008 5:07:19 AM >

_____________________________

galilah

.."There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. " Edith Wharton

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 5:02:17 AM   
ExSteelAgain


Posts: 1803
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Georgia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Is it more likely that those of a dominant persuassion would fit into the Extraordinary Man Theory as opposed to those of a submissive mindset or given the theory itself, are they equally likely to fit?


No, it doesn’t mean anything. I go to the source. Dostoevesky was an extraordinary man and had the intellectual ability to be an existentialist, possibly even the father of existentialism, yet he clung to Russian Orthodox religion, ridiculed nihilistic views, was openly anti-Semitic and was constantly in debt from a gambling addiction.

He also was one of those you say who change the world with his writing as he left the staid Victorian novels for modern writing where people are not always good and bad. The existentialists realize they can’t define good and bad and that is what we are doing here in a way when we try to describe traits that make an extraordinary man.

Intellectual ability, talent and drive have nothing to do with SM practice. There have been too many great leaders who abhorred what we do. An extraordinary man may come from any persuasion or from none at all. And I also know many excellent Dominants who are laborers, clerks and barbers.    


_____________________________

You can paint a cinder block bright pastel pink, but it's still a cinder block. (By Me.)

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 5:13:29 AM   
NumberSix


Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

 Can a worm define *god*?


I suspect they create him in their own image.

Kinda like the sandworms in Beetlejuice.

6

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to Leatherist)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 6:57:43 AM   
Owner4SexSlave


Posts: 1311
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline 		I am not aquainted with the works of Raskolnikov's Extraordinary Man Theory as penned by Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment.

However, history has proven that the jails were filled with both the best of worse people of various societies.

I would dare change the title to be "Extraordinary People" instead of Man.  Much can be said in regards to Extraordinary people.  Debate can be engaged if these people were more D or s type in their nature.

If you consider interpersonal D/s or M/s relationships.  There is a form of Paradox, where the Dom is the leader, is the one in charge.   In many respects they are providing a service to the submissive.   When one takes charge, responsiblility for things, it's actually providing another a service.  It's paradox when one thinks in terms of service orientation.

Many people simply want to live their day to day lives without much interuption. They entrust other peoples to lead, protect and serve society.  It's a bit of a paradox here as well.  Many times society is not served, instead society winds up serving the leaders goals, ambitions or directions.

In many regards the orinary person, can be compared to a submissive.  However, society has limits too.  When people's day to day lives become difficult and challenged.   When people start feeling truely abused or used they revolt.   This has been known to happen in cultures with legalized slaverly as well.  Where decadance started to diminish the value of human life, even human slave life.  This can be a subject of great length to get into.  

I would dare suggest that it would required both a D and s type functioning together to make the Extraordinary Man theory to happen.   Let's see here.  Use Hitler for example.  He would have been powerless if he had had no followers.  People in Germany were desparate at the time, the country was in ruins.  Everybody needed a strong leader to give them hope, direction and one that would rebuild and make the country strong again.  Hitler promised this and more to the people.  He gave them something to believe it.   However, there was a price to be paid for desparation of a whole country.   It literally took, the submission of many people to bring Hitler to power.  Now, who to blame?  Hitler or the people that empowered him? Then there was everybody in between.  People that Hitler gave slices of power to.   He just needed to seek out others of similar mindset, put them in charge.  So there were many sub D types very willing to accept.   The whole Tier effect of social D/s going on. 

I would dare say... to answer your question.  It's my own personal opinion that both submissive and dominant mindsets equally likely fit.  Unless. one is a rouge Dominant that captures unwilling victims and forces them to submit through use of physical power or some other form of leverage.  The only other exception would be in the case of Legal slavery, where unwilling victims could be made to submit through physical force and leverage.  In that case the submissive free society could become slave owners.  Hence reinforcement of the tiered D/s, I mentioned earlier.

At times, a lot can be said for Dominants being good or bad.  Same thing goes with submissives and the act of submission.  The fact remains, if you submit to somebody bad.  You have made a poor choice in your submission.  Be this the DOM in your D/s relationship, the leaders you vote for, the political bullshit you buy into.  Not many people spend quality time, learning much about the people they vote for nor the issues.  Most people don't want to be concerned with this issues, unless it effects their day to day lives.   Then when issues to effect their day to day lives, they just want shit resolves ASAP.  They don't care what it takes, and they don't want to know much about the reasons why their day to day life has become fucked up.   They just want it fixed.  

So I believe if anything perhaps when it comes down to society, the number of people that submit plays the greatest role.  Next to the Dominants ability to communicate or Bullshit lie through their teeth.   Most people don't have enough time to educate themselves on the issues, and what is going on.  Everybody knows that most of the politics is full of bull shit anyways.  People just want to get on with living day to day life. 

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 7:24:53 AM   
Prinsexx


Posts: 4584
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline 		Dear BitaTruble
This is a far out set of questions........
will ponder and attempt to construct an intelligent answer equal to the question whist shopping and drying at the laundrette.......
although i really think there's been somewhat opf a paradigm shift since the didactic premise of War and Peace..........
Prin xx.



_____________________________

Owner of asterion

Metawhore.... the sound of a metaphore when gagged
Free woman
Resident thread finisher
To my stalker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN2lP_7J7GI&feature=fvwrel

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 7:34:06 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		"According, again to Raskolnikov, as the law of nature arbitrarily divides us into one of the two groups, which one would most likely host the majority of SM practioners and why? Is it more likely that those of a dominant persuassion would fit into the Extraordinary Man Theory as opposed to those of a submissive mindset or given the theory itself, are they equally likely to fit? "

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. But I still don't find those of a "dominant persuasion" to have any more likelyhood of being a "EMT" than many of us who are submissive. The whole of the argument seems to me to be a "sweeping generalization" therefore almost certainly false.


(in reply to Leatherist)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 7:57:31 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		Just what is the 'ExtrAordinary' man in this theory ? What is an extraordinary man. Does that mean he is just very, very ordinary ? I would much prefer the 'Exceptional' man theory. But couldn't that mean he is just very, very acceptable or...no exceptions or with every exception ? How 'bout acceptable ? Would that be getting closer to...extra-ordinary ?

The 'theory' is far too vague right along with the real meaning of the word.

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 1:54:48 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		~FR~

Stusmobile - "On Crime" didn't really speak to the passage of time, just that the theory itself places people into one of the two category's with the extraordinary man by default being a criminal since such men will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals whether or not it's recognized at the time or later in history.

I especially like what you said about someone affecting only a handful of people but in that view they would fall outside the paradigm since it specifically calls for change on a global order rather than a closed circle. I certainly consider myself rather regular, but don't doubt that I do affect a small group of people just as many others affect me though none of us have (so far!) affected the world at large.

RavenMuse - Opening minds (and keeping my own open to new ideas) is something of a passion with me, so I understand and agree completely with what you've written. Thank you for sharing.

TysGalilah - Rosa Parks.. what an excellent contribution!  You got the point exactly.

ExSteelAgain - Excellent points. I don't think the theory calls for perfectionism, so flawed would not prevent one from falling into the theory. Given that humans are by nature quite flawed, I just look upon it as a given and proceed from there. Do they have the ability to cause global change and do they take the action to cause that change? To my mind that's all that's required of the theory and I quite agree, orientation and gender mean little under the microscope.

Ron - I can think of no better creature to define God than a worm.

Owner4SexSlave - For someone not being acquainted with the theory, you sure as hell nailed it on the head! ::laughs:: Raskolnikov speaks at some length about the juxoposition of the two groups and postulates that the Extraordinary Man can not even exist without the scaffold upon which he stands being built by the ordinary man and that the Ordinary man cannot progress with the action of the Extraordinary man. Spot on! Good post.

Prinsexx - I look forward to reading your views.

Bipolarber - Ah, I think I see where the confusion lies. What you copied were questions I had, not arguments. The theory itself is broad and blanket. That may speak to its flaws right there, but I'd like to examine such, if you're of the mind, and see where, exactly those flaws may be? The first one which comes to my mind is the supposition of criminality as if the Extraordinary Man cannot achieve change by means which are other than ruthless or unrelenting. According to the theory though, if it is required, then the Extraoridinary Man will, in fact, use whatever means are necessary to achieve the desired ends so, perhaps that's not a true flaw of the theory after all! I'm trying to keep this all within the context of "On Crime" and the definitions which Raskolnikov used in putting forth the theory and within that small context, I'm hard pressed to find fault with it.

On the orientation issue, again, that was simply a question I put forth for pondering and believe that the theory itself answers the question but others may believe differently so I threw it out there for consumption. It was not meant to be insulting in any way. Hell, I'm a submissive myself - why would I put me up for insult!

Thanks to everyone who responded. It's a nice way to relax and stretch at the same time.

 

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 5:46:40 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		I accept this theory, to a point. I believe that the label of "criminal" is not something that one claims for oneself, but, in the sense discussed here, is something that is placed upon someone who fails to obey the tenets and boundaries of society. An act is criminal in nature, and an individual practicing such an act becomes a criminal when the masses determine that it is in their best interests in maintaining the 'status quo' to dig such free-thinkers and practitioners of free will from their midst. If a once-criminal act is found to exist among a sizeable portion of the population, it may be removed from 'criminal' status and relegated to "mentally instability" status -- if you are not a criminal, you must be mad.

In a way, the masses are right to do so, for in failing to extinguish the flame of individual responsibility (also known as the flame of heresy), they allow ideas into their midst that will draw away some portion of the sheep, as they follow the presenter of this new line of thought -- the status quo will shift, and life will no longer be as comfortable or as peaceful as it had been up until that point. Declaring the heresy and rooting it out is the only protection available to the masses.

My question is, if one learns that one has thoughts that broach the comfort of the masses, and one chooses to act on these and ignore the declaration of the masses that one is a criminal, or, perhaps, insane, what is one's responsibility to the masses from which one has broken faith? Do we remain among the sheep, and attempt to turn the sheep into something else, or do we break away, and embrace a societal structure that allows self-responsibility and creative thought to flourish?

Calla Firestorm


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory - 7/6/2008 6:15:01 PM   
stardancer00


Posts: 60
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline 		Thank you for this Bita.   It brought to mind a  quote i used to keep handy:

"Victim? The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are. Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized.
"All people who live subject to other people’s laws are victims. People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims. People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. (l am speaking here of revolutionaries) We outlaws, however, live beyond the law. We don’t merely live beyond the letter of the law - many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that-we live beyond the spirit of the law.In a sense, then, we live beyond society. Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the nature of society. When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe. We even raise it a little bit when we fail.
Outlaws don’t join forces with alarm clocks.
Outlaws, like poets, rearrange the nightmare. It is elating work.

Yes, and I love the trite mythos of the outlaw. I love the self-conscious romanticism of the outlaw. I love the black wardrobe of the outlaw. I love the fey smile of the outlaw. I love the tequila of the outlaw and the beans of the outlaw. I love the way respectable men sneer and say ‘outlaw.’ I love the way young women palpitate and say ‘outlaw.’ The outlaw boat sails against the flow, and I love it. Outlaws toilet where badgers toilet, and I love it. All outlaws are photogenic, and I love that. ‘When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free’: that’s a graffito seen in Anacortes, and I love that. There are outlaw maps that lead to outlaw treasures, and I love those maps especially. Unwilling to wait for mankind to improve, the outlaw lives as if that day were here, and I love that most of all.
Outlaws are can openers in the supermarket of life."

Still Life with Woodpecker - Tom Robbins

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: SM & the Extraordinary Man Theory Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078