RE: Believing in M/s (Full Version)

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



Message

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:09:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
I'm always fascinated how many people will claim without a blink they live 'real' M/s relationship. (Maybe, with only a blink, you 'Last Man' you!)

Then again, some of us are analytical and logical and have examined what the word "slave" means including it's etymology. We have examined what "ownership" means across multiple cultures. We have put that thinking together into a cohesive whole that does in fact hang together.

Then again, some of us don't give a rat's ass whether our relationship is 'real M/s' It's a label that is useful to get someone from the BDSM world into the right general ballpark in terms of thinking about our relationship. I find saying, "We are an M/s couple without any whips and chains" seems to facilitate communication quite nicely.

It would also appear from reading your post, that some people confuse words and reality. Words are only symbols used to portray reality. As such, they are always incomplete and inaccurate. But if in talking to you, you'd find the description, "We are a married couple following traditional beliefs. My wife obeys me in all things." to be more communicative, I could easily (and do frequently in different circles) refer to her as my obedient wife.


I hesitate to say that words are only symbols to portray reality. Reality itself is only symbolic.

Your profile picture, while containing no 'words' in the traditional sense, is composed entirely of symbols.

Good sex necessitates a whole system of symbols instantiated in a complicated way. (And pain, for the sadomasochist, functions as a type of symbol).

I'm just delving into the structure of believing and knowing. It's worth the effort to witness the dance -- I feel sorry for those people who reduce themselves to a crude functionality (not you, but many people), as if the only wonder they can appreciate is the wind and the stars. Yes, I have that, but, oh, there's so much more!




Jeffff -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:10:51 AM)

I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.



crazyml -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:13:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Zizek is the philosopher arguably I know best. He's stated many times that he's an 'Atheist Christian'. Only because of him I know about Chesterton, who very early developed this contradiction within Christianity. Like me, his idea is that this makes Christianity that much more effective.



You're absolutely correct when you state that Zizek has been identified in that way. But a) you misunderstand this description intention. He is absolutely, 100% atheist. He has a lot of interesting things to say about the power/potential of Christianity. and b) You don't explain how you manage to morph this into a belief/unbelief riff.




crazyml -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:16:46 AM)

And I ought to apologise for the snitty remarks in my post. I was in the process of removing them when you posted I suspect.



Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:22:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Zizek is the philosopher arguably I know best. He's stated many times that he's an 'Atheist Christian'. Only because of him I know about Chesterton, who very early developed this contradiction within Christianity. Like me, his idea is that this makes Christianity that much more effective.



You're absolutely correct when you state that Zizek has been identified in that way. But a) you misunderstand this description intention. He is absolutely, 100% atheist. He has a lot of interesting things to say about the power/potential of Christianity. and b) You don't explain how you manage to morph this into a belief/unbelief riff.


C'mon, I obviously know that.

What I'm doing is combining traditional epistemology with elements from psychoanalysis. So, for instance, were you to construct a truth matrix, the subconscious would correspond with unknown-known (the things you don't know that you know).

Also, I have a few examples where you know something, but you don't know that you know it (that is classic epistemology). But then, there's an emotional twist. For instance, when someone is lying to you, and you call it out, and suddenly they get angry--- as if they knew they were lying to you, but didn't want to suffer the indignity of reflecting upon this knowledge (i.e., approximately, knowing that they knew) (or, similarly, they knew that you knew, but you 'had not right' to demonstrate your knowledge, etc. etc.).



leadership527 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:27:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
I think that M/s dynamic is just a concept, hyperbolic to some extent and has nothing to do with individual "M/s" relationships, which are usually somewhat short of what concept of pure M/s really means.
That would depend on what concept you're talking about though wouldn't it? I certainly agree that much of what I read on the internet is ludicrous. A much smaller amount of what I hear in real life is blatantly false.

quote:

So, yes - I think all these relationships are a little too much influenced by prescriptive theories of M/s found in books, even more so are minds of participants influenced by concepts from books.
I absolutely concur. Even worse, in my mind, is that the prescriptive theories themselves are terribly flawed and thus lead people who otherwise might've succeeded down ridiculous paths that are doomed to failure. One of my earliest key learnings was that I needed to ignore pretty much everything the BDSM world thinks about M/s in order to successfully have an M/s relationship.

quote:

Actually, if there weren't books and concepts in the first place, almost no one would develop the concept on their own and incorporate it in relationship.
Most of Masters and slaves would never become what they are if they didn't learn about this concept from books, blogs, websites etc, or from local M/s or BDSM community.
True but misleading. Yes, I had to be introduced to the idea that it was both possible and healthy to have a non-egalitarian marriage. Society in the US so strongly tells us otherwise. But once introduced to the idea from those aforementioned sources, I had to then ignore them. It quickly became apparent that I understood an awful lot more about the actual mechanics of leadership, influence, power, and control than almost anyone in the BDSM world. All I needed the BDSM world to do was to connect the dots for me... specifically:

  • Leadership is leadership. You can call it managing, leading, dominating, or whatever else... but in the end, it's all the same thing.
  • I'm a good leader outside my marriage and the results of that are positive and healthy for those I lead.
  • I can do the same thing inside my marriage and it ought to have the same results.

M/s is just the BDSM finery word for "I expect obedience". And honestly, I expected obedience of my employees at work also. Granted, I expected that obedience within the proper domain of work activities. But given that Carol is my LIFE partner, not my employee, it seems perfectly rational to say that I expect her obedience in LIFE.

And again even without any of this, Carol and I have always been who we are. From our very first meeting you can see the dominance and submission playing out. You can see us struggling to fit a D/s based relationship into an egalitarian mold throughout the first 12 years of our marriage. It's reasonable to say that putting labels on it allowed us to distill it all so it became a more prominent feature in our marriage, but the basics were there all along.

NOTE: All of the above speaks to the authority dynamic part... the rational part. There is also the ownership angle which is not rational. But it feeds me and in feeding me, feeds her. I could speculate endlessly about the "why's" of that but honestly, I can't actually explain why I like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. It just is.



crazyml -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:37:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Zizek is the philosopher arguably I know best. He's stated many times that he's an 'Atheist Christian'. Only because of him I know about Chesterton, who very early developed this contradiction within Christianity. Like me, his idea is that this makes Christianity that much more effective.



You're absolutely correct when you state that Zizek has been identified in that way. But a) you misunderstand this description intention. He is absolutely, 100% atheist. He has a lot of interesting things to say about the power/potential of Christianity. and b) You don't explain how you manage to morph this into a belief/unbelief riff.


C'mon, I obviously know that.#


Argh! Then you'll appreciate that it doesn't support atheism riff at all ;-)

quote:



What I'm doing is combining traditional epistemology with elements from psychoanalysis. So, for instance, were you to construct a truth matrix, the subconscious would correspond with unknown-known (the things you don't know that you know).

Also, I have a few examples where you know something, but you don't know that you know it (that is classic epistemology). But then, there's an emotional twist. For instance, when someone is lying to you, and you call it out, and suddenly they get angry--- as if they knew they were lying to you, but didn't want to suffer the indignity of reflecting upon this knowledge (i.e., approximately, knowing that they knew) (or, similarly, they knew that you knew, but you 'had not right' to demonstrate your knowledge, etc. etc.).


Now this is an interesting thought. In terms of your matrix - I would think that you would have more than one correspndance?

The addition of emotion to "knowing" - is the addition (surely) of irrationality to logic... The anger of exposure has been covered a lot (now as you rightly pointed out earlier - that doesn't deny you the right to explore it but.... check out Peter Singer and Baudrillard, Kant and Newman on that topic) but if you could a) develop a coherent matrix and then tie this into the second para you'd have a v interesting story on your hands -


The problem is, and I say this frankly, you've picked the wrong place to punt these ideas - they're not that well formed and really would benefit from a bloody good beating - and you'll get a much better beating by fronting up to a Philo forum than a Kinky one.

And the "Structural Impossibility" Riff - I know you've grown fond of it - but if you are as sharp a Philo as you purport to be you know damn well that you can't be allowed to get away with using it without being made to defend it properly and at length.





leadership527 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:39:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
I hesitate to say that words are only symbols to portray reality. Reality itself is only symbolic.

In the cartoons, the coyote runs off the edge of the cliff and he keeps running without falling. Eventually, he notices that he has run off the edge of a cliff and then he plummets to his doom. Non-cartoon reality, however, is a bit more persistent than that. In reality, when you run off the edge of a cliff, you fall. You do so immediately. There is no need for you to realize reality. It realizes itself.

quote:

Your profile picture, while containing no 'words' in the traditional sense, is composed entirely of symbols. Good sex necessitates a whole system of symbols instantiated in a complicated way. (And pain, for the sadomasochist, functions as a type of symbol).
Agreed and agreed, but from my own viewpoint entirely relevant since none of this is eroticized to me. I so often forget that for almost everyone else, it is.

quote:

I'm just delving into the structure of believing and knowing. It's worth the effort to witness the dance -- I feel sorry for those people who reduce themselves to a crude functionality (not you, but many people), as if the only wonder they can appreciate is the wind and the stars. Yes, I have that, but, oh, there's so much more!
Actually, I DO in fact reduce myself and my marriage down to "crude functionality". But this is kind of like the kinky vs. vanilla debates. I see myself as "vanilla" and I don't feel like that's some sort of condemnation. It's how I am. Similarly, I see myself as an engineer and I see it as entirely laudable to be well grounded in "crude functionality".... I call that "reality" and I find that a solid grounding in reality is useful for getting along in the real world.

Note, I'm not really arguing with you. There is no right and wrong here... this exchange of posts is about what you'd expect when a philosopher and an engineer talk.



thishereboi -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 12:30:56 PM)

I'm always fascinated by how much some people worry about how others live their lives. How exactly does it impact you when someone in Detroit identifies as a slave on CM? 



sunshinemiss -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:07:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
Actually, if there weren't books and concepts in the first place, almost no one would develop the concept on their own and incorporate it in relationship.
Most of Masters and slaves would never become what they are if they didn't learn about this concept from books, blogs, websites etc, or from local M/s or BDSM community.



Not to sound condescending, but who do you think wrote the books?





Ah LadyPact.... so succinct... and right on target.
Best,
sunshine



AnimusRex -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:17:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lucylucy

I'm confused. Is there a question or discussion starter that I'm missing?


Yeah, and nobody told me there would be math and physics involved.



Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:40:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
I hesitate to say that words are only symbols to portray reality. Reality itself is only symbolic.

In the cartoons, the coyote runs off the edge of the cliff and he keeps running without falling. Eventually, he notices that he has run off the edge of a cliff and then he plummets to his doom. Non-cartoon reality, however, is a bit more persistent than that. In reality, when you run off the edge of a cliff, you fall. You do so immediately. There is no need for you to realize reality. It realizes itself.




But it's a mistake to assume the laws or functioning of the physical world transcribe clearly onto social reality.

Even before the financial crisis, the jig was up -- but it took collective consciousness (of the rich, whose votes (money) actually affects, effects reality) to realize this fact before the consequences (for ordinary people) set in.

This is why, in the same way, belief and knowing don't follow the laws of physics (except, perhaps, quantum physics, etc. etc.... certainly not good 'ol Newtonian intuition).

(In terms of the God paradox, I like to relate quantum physics' indeterminacy (wave? particle?) as similar to something out of the Truman Show -- God never expected human consciousness to go quite that far, so He naturally left it blank.)

In another thread, the issue of slave-the-word has resurfaced -- I think here we must recognize a critical ambivalence. It's denial (plunged into the subconscious) to say there is no connection between historical and cosmopolitan instantiations (of slavery). There certainly is, and we should explore it -- that doesn't mean necessarily swearing off BDSM, but it means accepting one's own complexity for what it is.




Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:44:32 PM)



There's more to it, though I can say it's still something of a work in progress.

I think, for instance, the unknown-unknown corresponds with anxiety and terror -- remember the whole WMD ordeal?



Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:48:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The problem is, and I say this frankly, you've picked the wrong place to punt these ideas - they're not that well formed and really would benefit from a bloody good beating - and you'll get a much better beating by fronting up to a Philo forum than a Kinky one.



I don't actually know of any good philo forums. The key is a certain amount of traffic to keep discussions fresh.

I search every once in a while, but no luck so far.

Feel free to link to one.



Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:52:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8



There's more to it, though I can say it's still something of a work in progress.

I think, for instance, the unknown-unknown corresponds with anxiety and terror -- remember the whole WMD ordeal?


You got to watch this:

Donald Rumsfeld's Theory of Epistemology


Notice the missing fourth term -- unknown knowns (the subconscious... the very heart of the American dilemma...)




IronBear -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Some of my material derives from the hugely influential Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek.

Some of it comes from Freud.

Feel free to cite your sources, if you have any.



So, would I be correct in thinking that you have stuidied Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis and possibly have even attained some form of degree in one or more of these? Perhaps, if not you have passion for these subjects. Personally, I would prefer Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Carl Gustav Jung. Many psychoanalysts make the basic mistake in working from their preconcieved concepts often based on what they understand morality (albeit Christian morality) to be. This can be also said for many counsellors. When they are dealing with or their findingd are refered to people from a different culture or sub-culture as the the case of kink/BDSM, there are rather large gaps which can result in a patient being treated in an incorrect manner. I have a number of case histories from my own practice dealing with this. This is why I generally refuse to enter into debates such as this because I generally fail to see the real time relevance of such things where as philosophically looking at nature and the elements becomes a far more rewarding  experience. However that is just my personal view, no more no less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Then again, some of us are analytical and logical and have examined what the word "slave" means including it's etymology. We have examined what "ownership" means across multiple cultures. We have put that thinking together into a cohesive whole that does in fact hang together.

Then again, some of us don't give a rat's ass whether our relationship is 'real M/s' It's a label that is useful to get someone from the BDSM world into the right general ballpark in terms of thinking about our relationship. I find saying, "We are an M/s couple without any whips and chains" seems to facilitate communication quite nicely.



I agree Jeff. The important element in all this is not about the "reality" or historical accuracy, but sane, rather sensible, thinking people who have through teaching from other experienced folk ogf the same or similar interests together with trial and error, have cobbled together a system which not only works but also suits their and those they have in their lives on how to live and remain generally within societies structures. The use of lebles is neither here nor their. M/s, D/s, Gorean or Victorian only vaguely describes how each live as the definitive description varies with each relationship and it's changing dynamic.



leadership527 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:55:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
In another thread, the issue of slave-the-word has resurfaced -- I think here we must recognize a critical ambivalence. It's denial (plunged into the subconscious) to say there is no connection between historical and cosmopolitan instantiations (of slavery). There certainly is, and we should explore it -- that doesn't mean necessarily swearing off BDSM, but it means accepting one's own complexity for what it is.
I recognize no critical ambivalence. Such a concept would require that the opinions of people other than Carol and I mattered within the context of our marriage -- which they do not. Insofar as the word itself, I hold that it simply a word.... a way to portray one aspect of what is, in the end, an extremely complicated relationship with a great many facets to it. I believe it is technically accurate in a limited sort of way. But it would be folly to think that the word "slave" described that which exists between Carol and I any more than the words "friend", "lover", or "wife" do.

In the end, reality is as it is. All the conceptual philosophizing in the world does not change it. If the other 6 billion 4 hundred million people on the planet thought something about Carol's and my relationship, it would not change the reality of it one iota.

Now... if you are one of the privileged elite like Elisabella... those rare few gifted with absolute knowledge of the TRUTH(tm), then that would be a different matter. Do you so claim?



Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 10:18:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
In another thread, the issue of slave-the-word has resurfaced -- I think here we must recognize a critical ambivalence. It's denial (plunged into the subconscious) to say there is no connection between historical and cosmopolitan instantiations (of slavery). There certainly is, and we should explore it -- that doesn't mean necessarily swearing off BDSM, but it means accepting one's own complexity for what it is.
I recognize no critical ambivalence. Such a concept would require that the opinions of people other than Carol and I mattered within the context of our marriage -- which they do not. Insofar as the word itself, I hold that it simply a word.... a way to portray one aspect of what is, in the end, an extremely complicated relationship with a great many facets to it. I believe it is technically accurate in a limited sort of way. But it would be folly to think that the word "slave" described that which exists between Carol and I any more than the words "friend", "lover", or "wife" do.

In the end, reality is as it is. All the conceptual philosophizing in the world does not change it. If the other 6 billion 4 hundred million people on the planet thought something about Carol's and my relationship, it would not change the reality of it one iota.

Now... if you are one of the privileged elite like Elisabella... those rare few gifted with absolute knowledge of the TRUTH(tm), then that would be a different matter. Do you so claim?


I think my perception of certain limited things, like psychology, is, in some limited ways, fairly keen.

But my view, at present at least, tries to avoid presumption while entertaining possibilities -- basically, it's just thinking, not shooting a gun, might as well think first and, well, think later as well.

But I think philosophizing breaks down ideology, and ideology sustains power in its present (dangerous, insane) form.

'Act now! The world is in crisis!' -- or its obverse, Dr. Sunshine's 'Don't worry! Be yourself!' -- this is the zero-level of ideology. If anything, everyone should be philosophizing, that is, everyone who has any interest in bringing grandchildren into a world worth living.

Sexual matters can be very revealing, yet they can be very concealing.

The short circuits that occur, like in the word 'slave', are where repressed truth emerges. That's why, for instance, in another thread, people are proposing changing it! As if language can be dictated! ... like, well, slaves! ... this is also a kind of zero-level short circuit!

That's the point. That's the method. That's how I propose thinking. That's my limited technique, that maybe can be synthesized with other techniques to achieve some common understanding that, well, is worth sharing.



lally2 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/29/2010 3:03:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

.The problem is, and I say this frankly, you've picked the wrong place to punt these ideas - they're not that well formed and really would benefit from a bloody good beating - and you'll get a much better beating by fronting up to a Philo forum than a Kinky one.
.



which is no doubt why he is here - using jargon and language in an attempt to dazzle us and is just a whole load of white noise to me. 

the art of discussion and the measure of a persons ability to discuss is to actually step out of their ego and convey themselves in a way that doesnt blow over the heads of the majority.  i have plenty to say on all of this but the white noise is getting in the way.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/29/2010 3:13:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I'm always fascinated by how much some people worry about how others live their lives. How exactly does it impact you when someone in Detroit identifies as a slave on CM?


I am totally with this, there have been a spate of posts on cm at the moment that make me seriously wonder what the posters are trying to achieve. This is a pseudo intellectual discussion on something that clearly has no impact on the op's life which is mind boggling



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02