Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
Hello again Mars,
A misunderstanding of philosophy seems at work here. For example, while indeed Hoff's "Tao of Pooh" is an excellent book, anyone claiming a strong understanding of Taoism from this work alone would be met with polite, patronizing smiles. And, as indeed Gorean ideas come from the Gor books, reading them is a prerequisite for anyone to be taken seriously on the subject. Granted, the writing is atrocious, even for an academic, but as Marianne Moore explains regarding poetic form, "I too, dislike it...reading it, however,...one discovers that there is in it after all, a place for the genuine...these things are important not because a high sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because they are useful." And naturally, "the same thing may be said for all of us, that we do not admire what we cannot understand."
Certainly even a casual reading would showcase much drawn from Plato and Nietzsche, as well as a wealth of historical and cultural contexts. Norman is taking a close look at the attitudes and assumptions active in our society, certainly those involving gender roles, but also the impact of technology, the loss of identity with our primal natures, and our place as part of the ecosystem of a planet. Many have misstated this as "natural order" and the typical Christian view of superiority over nature along with misconceptions about Darwinian selection. Norman, instead, uses the term "order of nature," which indeed nature has--and man is not at the top of the chain.
Philosophy is not a set of conclusions, but rather a thought process. This is why philosophy continues, instead of just publishing the answers in The Big Book of Philosophy. The Trekkie and Scientology examples used are gilb--Goreans know what Priest-Kings are (recognize the concept from Plato? The Philosopher-Kings?), for example. The Christian example is misplaced--certainly Christians argue all the time over what Christianity is and/or should be. That's why all the different denominations (which don't even have the same ten commandments in the same wording or order), and that's why people in the same denominations don't always see eye to eye. But they do have a consensus, as do Goreans, as you can see from the Gorean boards, on central principles. Certainly not "disagreements on the basics."
Your last paragraph is just a rant. No, Gor has nothing to do with feeling superior to others. And yes, it attracts some "holier-than-thou assholes," as does Scientology, Christianity, BDSM--indeed, any collection of people. And certainly within any community, disagreement and debate and discussion are both inevitable and even useful. Hell, I've seen knock-down drag-out fights among BDSMers over what the acronym BDSM stands for. That doesn't mean I would dismiss all of BDSM as a group of people who need to "get their act together on this" to achieve credibility. It just means people disagree.
And people will often latch onto a simple answer, even a wrong or incomplete one, if it allows them to escape real thinking and analysis with an easy dismissal of differing views. That's how flawed cultural attitudes and assumptions become institutionalized in a society, and that's why Norman and others have plenty of room and reason to step back and reexamine.
Live well.
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/9/2009 5:00:36 PM >
|
RE: To Gor or not to Gor... - 
Profile
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