|
xssve -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/11/2009 9:06:57 AM)
|
I think that here youquote:
ORIGINAL: DemonKia
But see, that very 'body versus spirit' dualism that shows up over & over again, whether within a structure of balancing extremes or battling ones, is (to me) an artifact of us, not something that's necessarily 'real' . . . . . . & thus all that's really displayed is the structure of the human mind far more than some way that the world actually is . . .. . . It becomes a projective tool more than a disclosive one . . ...
If you enjoy the classification process, great, but for me it doesn't really add much to note that something can be dichotomized & / or to spend much time allocating in one direction or the other, ultimately . . . . . . & this seems true of spiritual stuff even more so . . . . . .
I think that here you are expressing your confusion between the act of making distinctions between things and the act of assigning value - making value judgments about those things.
In fact, they are separate processes that are often confused since the latter is necessarily dependent on the former: a value judgment is predicated on a comparison to something else, a distinction, and then a value assignment based on that distinction.
Thus, you find those who denigrate all BDSM practices because they are "sick", i.e., a value judgment based on a perceived distinction.
You find male dominance promulgated in both BDSM and Christianity for example, they share views on discipline, and even have a few other fetishes in common, sometimes to the point you cannot find any substantial difference between them in terms of behavior - the differences are purely philosophical.
Thus "sick" is contrasted to some abstract construct of "healthy", which may or may not be empirically demonstrated to actually be healthy, or healthier, etc.
I've mentioned the Quiverfulls, Andrea Yates was under the restrictions of a philosophy similar to the Quiverfulls - from Wikipedia (Quiverfull):
quote:
Seelhoff and others claim that Andrea Yates was a victim of Quiverfull thought. Yates and her husband Rusty described themselves as nondenominational Christians who did not use birth control, agreeing to accept as many children as God sent their way. Andrea Yates had a history of post-partum depression and was strongly advised by her psychiatrist not to have more children, but her husband, Russell "Rusty" Yates, persuaded her to stop taking her medication and conceive her fifth and last child. Andrea also homeschooled all her children, and Rusty led a "home church" wherein he was the sole interpreter of the Bible.
On June 20, 2001, Andrea murdered her five young children, ages six-months, two, three, five, and seven, by drowning them in their home bathtub. She was originally found guilty of murder in the first degree, but her conviction was overturned through appeal due to false testimony of an expert witness hired by the prosecution. A second trial determined she was not guilty by reason of insanity. She was confined indefinitely in a Texas state mental health facility.
Her husband, Russell Yates, was advised by her doctor not to leave his depressed wife alone (apparently because she had a history of suicidal thoughts); however, he began leaving her alone with the children for an hour in the morning and evening just prior to the drownings, against the objection of Andrea's mother. Although his actions suggested negligent endangerment of his children, the Texas District Attorney decided against prosecuting him after a brief investigation. Russell eventually divorced Andrea and remarried two days prior to the scheduled but postponed retrial.
Quiverfull adherents argue that the Yates' never specifically self-identified as Quiverfull and thereby reject that they were actually part of the movement. However, they were adherents of a preacher named Michael Peter Woroniecki, who espouses ideas similar to those in the Quiverfull movement.[37][39][40][41][42][43] Probably not the direct result of breeder ideology, but it apparently exaggerated certain instabilities in her personality with tragic results.
In short, value judgments are technically separate from taxonomic distinctions, but often indistinguishable from same when expressed in self-other form - i.e., fear of, or competition with, "the other" whether "the other" is philosophy, gender, morphology, class, etc.
|
|
|
|
