quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
.
But I think philosophizing breaks down ideology, and ideology sustains power in its present (dangerous, insane) form.

but philosophy promotes idealogy - ideas are thrown at us and we cling to them or discard them - humanity survives on idealogy and has done for millenia - youre suggesting therefore that mankind should drop all their maps on how to get through life one way or another and question all aspects based on survival and then you say.....

'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.

the world of man is in crisis (possibly) but im sure mankind has felt that over the millenia also as shifts occurred, wars raged, disease, grinding poverty etc., - its all relative.  the planet itself i dont believe is and im sure will continue to suvive long after we've blown ourselves to bits or a virus eventually sorts itself out and wipes us of the face of the earth.  the arrogance of mankind to assume the world is 'us' and we are the world is half the problem. 

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!

what the fuck is a 'zero level short circuit' and how does that relate to a word describing something.  the word slave 'here' describes a submissive of a certain intensity - its shorthand for - a person who freely hands decisions, control and choice over to someone they trust and respect - its just quicker to say 'slave' - nothing earth shattering is occurring here, no world changing event hangs on the use of this word.  philosophizing over a word in context with changing the world of man is a bit chronic.  and absolutely noone is suggesting that there is any parrallel at all with actual slavery.  it is a descriptive, a shorthand word to describe an intensity of committment and emotion to another human being within a relationship that means lots to them but bugger all to anyone else. so why do we have to pick at it like the word is of some cataclysmic importance.  its of value to the very small percentage of people who use it. let them have it, what difference does it make to anyone actually.

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.

but what is worth sharing here - the white noise is deafening. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
.
But I think philosophizing breaks down ideology, and ideology sustains power in its present (dangerous, insane) form.

but philosophy promotes idealogy - ideas are thrown at us and we cling to them or discard them - humanity survives on idealogy and has done for millenia - youre suggesting therefore that mankind should drop all their maps on how to get through life one way or another and question all aspects based on survival and then you say.....

'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.

the world of man is in crisis (possibly) but im sure mankind has felt that over the millenia also as shifts occurred, wars raged, disease, grinding poverty etc., - its all relative.  the planet itself i dont believe is and im sure will continue to suvive long after we've blown ourselves to bits or a virus eventually sorts itself out and wipes us of the face of the earth.  the arrogance of mankind to assume the world is 'us' and we are the world is half the problem. 

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!

what the fuck is a 'zero level short circuit' and how does that relate to a word describing something.  the word slave 'here' describes a submissive of a certain intensity - its shorthand for - a person who freely hands decisions, control and choice over to someone they trust and respect - its just quicker to say 'slave' - nothing earth shattering is occurring here, no world changing event hangs on the use of this word.  philosophizing over a word in context with changing the world of man is a bit chronic.  and absolutely noone is suggesting that there is any parrallel at all with actual slavery.  it is a descriptive, a shorthand word to describe an intensity of committment and emotion to another human being within a relationship that means lots to them but bugger all to anyone else. so why do we have to pick at it like the word is of some cataclysmic importance.  its of value to the very small percentage of people who use it. let them have it, what difference does it make to anyone actually.

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.

but what is worth sharing here - the white noise is deafening. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

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.And yes, I think there is a bit of delusion in the participants. Slaves think they are more enslaved than they really are (if they are at all REALLY enslaved), Masters think they own their slaves more then they really own them (if they REALLY own them at all).

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.

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.

I have to go along with this.
A recent and ongoing experience with a vanilla couple confirmed something to me.
This couple are not within our world and yet its very obvious that he leads and she follows. He structures and she takes on board. He is in charge and she enjoys him being in charge. He is her daddy, her ruler, her boss and of course her very contented lover. Being with them is like being in a successful M/s household and yet its not M/s its just them finding the correct partner.
What this confirmed to me was this oblivious reality that they have put together in such a structured way is possible without having to go down the route of learning about S/m or D/s. The reality is, it can and does happen within the vanilla world. These people are vanilla and yet she is like his slave and he is like her Master.

I think that when we get into this lifestyle and decide upon our route, we become perfectionists within our own fantasies. We become more demanding of what we want. Submissives/slaves can turn dominant men away in droves because they don't quite fit within their needs. Dominants can demand the ridiculous and if we are not careful it can all start to become a life of roleplay and hidden lifestyles. We refuse vanilla dates because if they are not in this lifestyle they will probably bore us stupid and yet I plainly sit watching a dominant vanilla man get it perfectly right with his submissive vanilla partner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

and absolutely noone is suggesting that there is any parrallel at all with actual slavery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

But Lally, philosophers learn from the exchange of ideas, which is, ahem, perhaps not happening here.
~laughs~

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
..

'Ideology' when I use it (and most other people) is usually a 'bad thing'.

... not when i use it [:)] - to me ideology is all about ideas, its all about coming up with something and moving things forward - we can adopt or discard, our choice, but the idea is already out there and philosophers can then tear it to bits or turn it into their own palatable version.

A short circuit occurs when, for instance, you place a mic in the direction of its speaker. It's when meaning overlap across layers, usually in an unexpected, unintentional way.

eh???

The ideology that man survives on for millenia is mostly religious, which I think comes from a position of defensive weakness, that of the priest. It's notable that these individuals are sworn to chastity (another short circuit, in terms of D/s) yet reemerge across nearly all forms of civilization (apparently ruling out evolution and genetic disposition) -- and this behavior occurs again in elements of D/s.

again ... eh?? - man survives because man survives there is no ideology attached to that and has nothing at all to do with religion - i dont understand what youre trying to say here at all.  youre going back to white noise instead of actually making a clear statement.
 
'religion' has been going on since caveman, since long before jesus christ, allah and all the rest of them emerged - the ideology of religion back then was all about ensuring a good hunt/crop/fertility/battle, it was not defensive weakness it was recognising that the planet had the last word on everything and they felt it might do them some good to suck up to the deities in charge, it was survivalism, proaction, optimism, hope.  modern religion is all about alot of things to many many different people and can not be lumped into 'defensive weakness' as one job lot, thats far too simple and insulting.   very very few people now rule out evolution or genetic disposition.  what behaviour occurs in elements of Ds


I wonder, then, what D/s would look like in the absence of a State (upon which to model itself)...

people would either find each other or not - like the couple that allthatjazz has mentioned - nature finds a way (jurasic park II)


In related news, I think the idea of a word's describing something misses a whole lot about the spontaneous nature of language. Despite attempts to dictate it, despite the ill influences of advertising and state education, language still has a 'mind of its own', for which we should commend ourselves.

The ignorance is not to assume that we're the world but to assume that we're not the world -- by now, the human species has control over almost everything, even if it does not have control over that control -- this is the problem with global warming.

the world is its own living organism, it has its own circulatory system, its own lungs, its energy is goverend by the sun and its rythems by the moon, oak trees connect to mars and beech trees to saturn.  no single super nova can occur in our galaxy without the trees on earth knowing about it.  this planet is extraordinary and we have had no part in making it.  if we are anything to this planet we are parasites, we take and give nothng back.  like i said to my exbank manager when he had the temerity to tell me we were in partnership - 'if you were my business partner i would have booted you out by now, in fact, youre fired'.  the ignorance my friend is that we assume this planet belongs to us and that we can continue to treat it and the other things that rely on it as ours to do with as we wish and 'we' collectively should be ashamed of ourselves.

What I don't buy is this postmodern 'everything is relative' mantra -- that's an ideology of convenience propping up oppression while disavowing its very existence (to return to the issue of knowing something, but not knowing that you know it).

im sorry but i like that ideology and its true anyway - what we're talking about has been talked about before and will be talked about again, different people, different takes, different societies, different times, and it will all be relative to them at that moment in that given time.  you should stop living in the microscopic and move to macroscopic, the view is better from here.
 
what oppression - whose oppressed (apart from the obvious people) im not, youre not, no one here is, i dont feel oppressed by anyone or anything, its a matter of perspective surely -

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

and absolutely noone is suggesting that there is any parrallel at all with actual slavery.

Just to reiterate, A LOT of people question the parallel. There's another thread going on right now that somewhat obliquely addresses the issue.

What I find curious is that -- to simplify it, I'd prefer using other words -- the attempts to deny d/s slavery's connection to historical slavery amount to an almost impossible attempt at dictating ('enslaving') language itself.

That's a 'short circuit'.