RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture

RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (Full Version)

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

Message

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 1:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys Personally when I see the word being used and talked about it's usually coming from someone who wants to lift themselves up as some suave and debonair ladies man... [sm=bowdown.gif] yeeeeeaaaah teeheehee I like those

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 1:25:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Real: I see your reasoning, but as an engineer, I'm personally more comfortable with facts. It's an interesting philosophy, but I'm curious what an actual historian would make of it? My deep suspicion is that they would belly laugh. Of course one would!!!!!!!!!! Because historians don't deal with ethics or philosophy or how the environment affects collective psychology. It's something that is inherently too abstract to be quantifiable, let alone the logistics of comparing basic morals of individuals of one era to those of another....

leadership527 -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 1:50:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight Of course one would!!!!!!!!!! Because historians don't deal with ethics or philosophy or how the environment affects collective psychology. They don't? blinks OK, now I've given myself a real task to find a PHD historian and ask some questions. I would very much expect to be able to have a very interesting and thoughtful conversation with a modern historian on how social currents and geopolitical events of the 20th century shaped the philosophy and ethics of the 21st. I strongly suspect that if I provided such a person my own personal definition of "goodness" they'd be quite capable of discussing the various ways that there is more and less of it and what the drivers for those changes were.

Icarys -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 3:43:19 PM)
quote: yeeeeeaaaah teeheehee I like those It's rarely the case that people are what they say they are, seem to be or what you think them to be.

PeonForHer -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 5:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight So people in the past were more naked to life's truths simply because things were harder for them. This made them either worse than they would be today, but most people- who are naturally good- were better than they would have been today because there were less distractions from 'direct experience' not mediated or interfered with - i.e., moments of communal ritual, loyalty, peace, friendship, intimacy, fortitude, spirit, inner strength, nature, death, sickness, pain. So I think individually people were generally more moral, yes. Wow. There was an awful lot in that post to talk about, RWK. I hope you'll forgive me for zeroing in only on the excerpt above. It's just that it reminded me of some argument I had to resolve for a bit of work I was doing some years ago in the context of how best to look after the environment. The argument involved two authors - Maurice Berman and his The Reenchantment of The World (1981) and Murray Bookchin's Re-Enchanting Humanity (1995). Berman's view was like your own, roughly: he thought that 'mediations' were the ruiner, that what we needed was direct experience. Murray Bookchin thought that this was claptrap and that it's precisely humanity's ability to experience in a mediated way that has brought out our best qualities in us. I concluded that it was both. You need that direct experience, and you need that abstracted, distanced and mediated experience, as well - even though each pulls against the other. You cannot get by with just one or the other, and assume that the one or the other experience would lead to your being a 'good person'. By the way, re the Buddha - I read Siddartha by Herman Hesse, ages ago - the 'story' of the Buddha's life and his learning. Hesse himself was a devotee of Carl Jung. Jung believed in exactly this idea of opposites and tensions. The long and short of it was that while the Buddha learned from his immediate experiences, he could only have done so as a result of his prior, very abstract meditations. The Buddha was no simple, direct-experiencing, non-thinking man, nor was he just an abstract thinker - he was both. That was the point. He'd taken both thinking and feeling to their nth degree.

Zevar -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 10:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka ~FR~ I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll do it anyway. Chivalry. In any reasonable permutation... is it extricable from love, and goodness, and caring, and other such common words? (some might add "courtesy," but I find that hollow by comparison.) Let go of the anachronisms (whereby, yes, chivalrous knights were horrible violent pigs, and even "gentlemen" were oppressors.) We are given as a species, I think, to having pretty fantasies about the past. But none of that matters. Speak to what is, precisely. "I believe that taking care of those I love, from the vastest things to the most trivial, is good and incumbent upon me as a controller." (or lover or pick-the-best-label.) Even that is not precise enough, but I offer it as an example. I, personally, would sort of wince at most who describe themselves as "chivalrous." The word itself does not inherently speak to surfaces vs. depths.... but I would tend to be suspicious that those who use it cannot distinguish between the two. It's lovely, of course, if a man wishes to open a door or pull out my chair.... but I'd rather have that arising from something between us than from an anachronistic abstraction. Apologies, Zevar. I've loved many of your posts here, and wish you very well indeed. But thought I'd toss out some unvarnished thoughts. --sravaka Good evening sravaka: In reading your entry it is evident that you did indeed speak your mind. I find that quite fine. Even if I opposed such that would have zero impact on your continuing to speak your mind. Perhaps that is none other than speaking the obvious here, aye? In all sincerity I do appreciate the ability to speak in a manner that does reflect what is true for others. What I greatly appreciated is your ability to disagree in a respectful manner. That is what is rare these days, it seems. The ability to speak in a manner that is not merely spoken to hear the words of oneself. Instead speaking in a way that is delivered respectfully. It reminds of a 5 star establishment that I was dining at one evening as a guest. One of my friends who I joined with a few others to share a meal discovered that the waiter was the most delightful host. His manners were not the high point of the evening. Instead his delivery style was graceful when he spoke AND even when there were issues with some of the dishes not being prepared as ordered he maintained a most balanced and poise demeanor. Indeed this is what I thought of in reading your words. Why you may ask? My perception is that your delivery style is done so, even though there is disagreement, in a manner that maintains your own dignity AND does not disgrace the one whom you disagree with. That is admirable in my eyes. Not that it matters to you or anyone. I say this because it is true AND yes we do disagree on many points regarding chivalry. However all differences are what they are, differences. Barriers appear when the choice is made to not assert an effort to understand someone who thinks or believes differently. Namely it is how one processes differences that light a many fires of unnecessary indignation when disagreement appears that I find unappealing. Again my own viewpoint. Obviously of no value to some while of value to others. Such is humanity in its many different hues. In closing I will say that what really matters is how one views their own self, chivalrous or not. The inner strength that is ever present through every tribulation known to humanity is what must remain intact, else internal defeat begins to erode at the fabric that suit’s the internal patterns of self dignity into a whole garment which clothes the soul with beauty and the heart with love. Chivalry in my eyes indeed is rich with deep intense love amidst many wonderful qualities that lend toward a life indicative of immeasurable goodness reflecting shades of beauty one day at a time to those I love and am blessed to know. * a side note...I find your screen name quite lovely... I wish you most well…

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 10:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: yeeeeeaaaah teeheehee I like those It's rarely the case that people are what they say they are, seem to be or what you think them to be. WRONG!!!!!! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a GODDAMN duck. Your thought here is probably a result of the postmodern hippie conflation of 'don't judge a book by its cover' with general pc-ness, mistakenly applied to everyone. For the record, you can totally judge the content of most books by their covers- not judge necessarily but learn of. Not by their their color or size perhaps, but their covers, yes. And we all do anyway. EDIT: if you're implying that a charming suave guy is not charming or suave, that is like saying I guy I think is hot, is not hot. If I'm attracted to him, I am. My point still stands.

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 10:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight Of course one would!!!!!!!!!! Because historians don't deal with ethics or philosophy or how the environment affects collective psychology. quote: They don't? blinks OK, now I've given myself a real task to find a PHD historian and ask some questions. I would very much expect to be able to have a very interesting and thoughtful conversation with a modern historian on how social currents and geopolitical events of the 20th century shaped the philosophy and ethics of the 21st. I strongly suspect that if I provided such a person my own personal definition of "goodness" they'd be quite capable of discussing the various ways that there is more and less of it and what the drivers for those changes were. You do understand that a good historian maintains a level of objectivity, correct? A 'social historian' , philosopher or psychologist would know more about the topics I mentioned. Not a regular historian. I can very much expect to have a very interesting and thoughtful conversation with lots of people on lots of things, so what's your point? I didn't mention social currents and geopolitical events, but referenced technology and media as the main culprits for lost morality. I don't care about your 'personal' definition of goodness- right there, from the get-go, you are working with an idea filtered through the liberal modern era. So your discussion could not prove your point. (Personally, I'd make an argument for objective morality and ethical standards. (In fact, I'd make the further argument that our current value of 'live and let live'/libertarianism/ general complacency is what has loosened them.)

sravaka -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 10:57:36 PM)
quote: You do understand that a good historian maintains a level of objectivity, correct? A 'social historian' , philosopher or psychologist would know more about the topics I mentioned. Not a regular historian. Hmmm. What exactly is a "regular historian" (so very tempted to make cracks about fiber in their diets, but forbearing) and how is it that social historians don't belong among them? Political/economic historians, social historians, intellectual historians, cultural historians, literary historians, historians of science, etc. etc. etc., are all pretty <cough> regular in my book. All use a range of written material and/or objects to attempt to speak intelligently about aspects of the past. Most of the types I list would be capable of saying a thing or two about chivalry and its various metamorphoses over the years. Philosophy, ethics and the like are absolutely within the purview of historians. If it's been written about, it's fair game. Sorry for the thread derail. --sravaka

sravaka -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 11:07:57 PM)
quote: In closing I will say that what really matters is how one views their own self, chivalrous or not. The inner strength that is ever present through every tribulation known to humanity is what must remain intact, else internal defeat begins to erode at the fabric that suit’s the internal patterns of self dignity into a whole garment which clothes the soul with beauty and the heart with love. Chivalry in my eyes indeed is rich with deep intense love amidst many wonderful qualities that lend toward a life indicative of immeasurable goodness reflecting shades of beauty one day at a time to those I love and am blessed to know. Hello Zevar, Many thanks for your exceedingly kind (dare I say chivalrous?) words.... I was surprised and touched to read them. I'm also very struck by the paragraph quoted above-- in the end, I am not sure that there is much disagreement here at all? My objection, such as it was, was almost entirely to the label... but behavior and convictions such as those you give here are quite impossible to disagree with. It all comes down to love in the end (or, if you prefer, "sharing light," as aldompdx describes it above), whether that love is directed to a soul mate or the most random stranger.... My screen name and I find you quite lovely in return. --sravaka

Zevar -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 11:13:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a GODDAMN duck. A chivalrous duck for you! [;)] Well, if you use your imagination could be, aye? [image]local://upfiles/566636/EF8628CDAEC04BAB8CA561359742DA0B.jpg[/image]

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/4/2010 11:52:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight So people in the past were more naked to life's truths simply because things were harder for them. This made them either worse than they would be today, but most people- who are naturally good- were better than they would have been today because there were less distractions from 'direct experience' not mediated or interfered with - i.e., moments of communal ritual, loyalty, peace, friendship, intimacy, fortitude, spirit, inner strength, nature, death, sickness, pain. So I think individually people were generally more moral, yes. Wow. There was an awful lot in that post to talk about, RWK. I hope you'll forgive me for zeroing in only on the excerpt above. It's just that it reminded me of some argument I had to resolve for a bit of work I was doing some years ago in the context of how best to look after the environment. The argument involved two authors - Maurice Berman and his The Reenchantment of The World (1981) and Murray Bookchin's Re-Enchanting Humanity (1995). Berman's view was like your own, roughly: he thought that 'mediations' were the ruiner, that what we needed was direct experience. Murray Bookchin thought that this was claptrap and that it's precisely humanity's ability to experience in a mediated way that has brought out our best qualities in us. I haven't read either book, but I have been highly drawn to Jung's ideas in my life. I believe Carl Jung is where the concept of 'direct experience' as being the only path to enlightenment or spirituality originated from. (aside/note to self: Damn I must really* remember to see the Red Book exhibit at the RMA before I leave New York..) Where was I? Oh yes. I've heard of Maurice Berman. In general I am quote fond of analytical psychology, and always feel closest to it in a deep and vital way as a person, it's where I go when I am happiest- I mean to that perspective. I use it in my work. quote:* I concluded that it was both. You need that direct experience, and you need that abstracted, distanced and mediated experience, as well - even though each pulls against the other. You cannot get by with just one or the other, and assume that the one or the other experience would lead to your being a 'good person'. Well, this may be true, except first of all it is inherently impossible to have only one. We wouldn't know how to recognize the other. Secondly the idea that I was arguing was that, the overall levels of one as opposed to another are off- way off- for the first time in history. The Roman gladiator matches don't compare- Cspan is on all the time. We can't seem to stop being mediated. There's nowhere to go. There's a great segment in Before Sunrise (Linklater romance) where Julie Delpy talks about being in a communist country in the 80s and the deafening silence, and the peace and contentment that comes over you. I was just thinking....overmediation is nothing less than a form of pathology. You see it in mental illness- their connection to the environment or to others is weak at best. quote: By the way, re the Buddha - I read Siddartha by Herman Hesse, ages ago - the 'story' of the Buddha's life and his learning. Hesse himself was a devotee of Carl Jung. Jung believed in exactly this idea of opposites and tensions. The long and short of it was that while the Buddha learned from his immediate experiences, he could only have done so as a result of his prior, very abstract meditations. The Buddha was no simple, direct-experiencing, non-thinking man, nor was he just an abstract thinker - he was both. That was the point. He'd taken both thinking and feeling to their nth degree. Yes I read it too and Hesse admired Jung . I wonder if our terms need to be defined a bit..my understanding of direct experience is not at odds with thinking, nor is it feeling- it can be either or both, I tend to be both a feeler and thinker myself- one thing I've realized is that I seem to only ever be able to do both at once actually, lol. I can't feel without sort of 'seeing' the whole situation, and I can not think/wonder/understand/act, without some meaning (not necessarily result). Your analysis of the Buddha actually brings another perspective on it to me, it sort of gave the left brain-word part the knowledge of what so far only the right brain had access to...lol, that's the only way I know how to explain it. I was just under the impression that both tactics the Buddha learned from in Hesse's account were results of direct experience, including abstract meditation, just opposing methods...it is the way I thought of it. I suppose I am defining direct experience differently... Thanks[:)]

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 12:09:29 AM)
oops

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 12:29:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka quote: You do understand that a good historian maintains a level of objectivity, correct? A 'social historian' , philosopher or psychologist would know more about the topics I mentioned. Not a regular historian. Hmmm. What exactly is a "regular historian" (so very tempted to make cracks about fiber in their diets, but forbearing) and how is it that social historians don't belong among them? Political/economic historians, social historians, intellectual historians, cultural historians, literary historians, historians of science, etc. etc. etc., are all pretty <cough> regular in my book. All use a range of written material and/or objects to attempt to speak intelligently about aspects of the past. Most of the types I list would be capable of saying a thing or two about chivalry and its various metamorphoses over the years. Philosophy, ethics and the like are absolutely within the purview of historians. If it's been written about, it's fair game. Sorry for the thread derail. --sravaka Yes, but I dont know how much of a derail it is, since I made some points regarding what I consider the heart of notions surrounding 'chivalry' and moral behavior.. it's not that off base at all. I am open to taking anything to email or starting another thread if anyone wishes me to do so. Haha, now by regular historian I simply mean I suppose, research historians or most of them. Social historians make up a subsection. It's like most psychologists are clinical psychologists, some are research and a smaller subsection of psychologists are for example, Jungian or 'transpersonal', lol. Ther of coure is overlap. They take in their work a particular perspective and subject matter. Unsure why this would be that confusing. It was basically semantics- my point was simply that most historians would laugh at some fuzzy notion of collective morality in one era compared to another..because they are historians as opposed to philosophers for example. Sure it is in their purview,as most things of the past are. I would also be in that of an anthropologist, sociologist or theologian. But not as much in th purview of a historian as in someone else's (see the above) I had made the point previously that a big part of why this would be is also that it is inherently an abstract, unquantifiable thing.

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 12:39:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zevar quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a GODDAMN duck. A chivalrous duck for you! [;)] Well, if you use your imagination could be, aye? [image]local://upfiles/566636/EF8628CDAEC04BAB8CA561359742DA0B.jpg[/image] [:D] [image]local://upfiles/1037931/41565851838444048CBF3288223169B3.jpg[/image]

sravaka -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 1:31:41 AM)
quote: Haha, now by regular historian I simply mean I suppose, research historians or most of them. Social historians make up a subsection. It's like most psychologists are clinical psychologists, some are research and a smaller subsection of psychologists are for example, Jungian or 'transpersonal', lol. Ther of coure is overlap. They take in their work a particular perspective and subject matter. Unsure why this would be that confusing. It was basically semantics- my point was simply that most historians would laugh at some fuzzy notion of collective morality in one era compared to another..because they are historians as opposed to philosophers for example. Sure it is in their purview,as most things of the past are. I would also be in that of an anthropologist, sociologist or theologian. But not as much in th purview of a historian as in someone else's (see the above) I had made the point previously that a big part of why this would be is also that it is inherently an abstract, unquantifiable thing. Thanks for your reply, RWK :) Note: I speak to you as a research historian, and yet not, I imagine, a regular one by your definition. [:(] Yes, most of us would laugh (or more likely sigh) at "fuzzy notions," such as have been posted in this thread.... But I swear to you that even fuzzy notions can be grounded and explicated until they become as-concrete-as-possible, and thence grappleable-with. History is only half social science; the rest is humanities, which is all about abstract, unquantifiable things. The trick is to find the best possible sources and explicate them in the most rigorous possible way, always conscious of and acknowledging what cannot be done with them, but exploiting what can be done with them fully. All of the types I mentioned are academic (research) historians. (what are we going to do, work for corporations?) You'll find more purely quantitative people in polisci, sociology, econ, etc. Not to quibble, just to give a view from the inside, perhaps. I would have more to say here if I were a medievalist, but I am not. --sravaka

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 3:31:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka quote: Haha, now by regular historian I simply mean I suppose, research historians or most of them. Social historians make up a subsection. It's like most psychologists are clinical psychologists, some are research and a smaller subsection of psychologists are for example, Jungian or 'transpersonal', lol. Ther of coure is overlap. They take in their work a particular perspective and subject matter. Unsure why this would be that confusing. It was basically semantics- my point was simply that most historians would laugh at some fuzzy notion of collective morality in one era compared to another..because they are historians as opposed to philosophers for example. Sure it is in their purview,as most things of the past are. I would also be in that of an anthropologist, sociologist or theologian. But not as much in th purview of a historian as in someone else's (see the above) I had made the point previously that a big part of why this would be is also that it is inherently an abstract, unquantifiable thing. Thanks for your reply, RWK :) Note: I speak to you as a research historian, and yet not, I imagine, a regular one by your definition. [:(] Yes, most of us would laugh (or more likely sigh) at "fuzzy notions," such as have been posted in this thread.... But I swear to you that even fuzzy notions can be grounded and explicated until they become as-concrete-as-possible, and thence grappleable-with. There was no negative connotation meant, it was simply an inexact word written in a rush. My post above explains what I meant by it. Some fuzzy notions couldn't possibly be measured, that's what I was referring to, teh logistics basically, not my idea's nature of being 'fuzzy' that would make it not amenable to quantiying and explication and grappling. quote: History is only half social science; the rest is humanities, which is all about abstract, unquantifiable things. The trick is to find the best possible sources and explicate them in the most rigorous possible way, always conscious of and acknowledging what cannot be done with them, but exploiting what can be done with them fully. All of the types I mentioned are academic (research) historians. (what are we going to do, work for corporations?) You'll find more purely quantitative people in polisci, sociology, econ, etc. Not to quibble, just to give a view from the inside, perhaps. I would have more to say here if I were a medievalist, but I am not. --sravaka It was just a sort of unspecific, overarching view that today is the first time in history we are throughly mediated, and as such, I sense that we are less in tune with spirituality, morals, proper values, community, our inner selves, etc. It was not directly related to 'real' chivalry, but the popular modern notion of it which is based on some of these ideals. I am sure no one agrees, but that's ok I'm used to it. [:o]

reynardfox -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 4:02:54 AM)
I am a gentleman Dom, I will not swear at you and will treat you as a lady until playtime starts, then you are for it. You will do exactly as I please. Vulgarity and sarcasm are the utlimate give away for the wannabee.

crazyml -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 4:34:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight It was just a sort of unspecific, overarching view that today is the first time in history we are throughly mediated, and as such, I sense that we are less in tune with spirituality, morals, proper values, community, our inner selves, etc. It was not directly related to 'real' chivalry, but the popular modern notion of it which is based on some of these ideals. I am sure no one agrees, but that's ok I'm used to it. [:o] I'm certain you have an interesting point to make, and if I had the faintest clue what your that point actually was, I'd be in a position to agree/disagree. We've established that the "popular" notion of chivalry doesn't seem to match well with yours, we've established that there is potentially a discussion to have about "manners", "respect etc" (whether you choose to - wrongly in my view - call these "chivalry" becomes a secondary question.) So... where are we going with this?

realwhiteknight -> RE: Chivalry among BDSM Community & society of Western Culture (8/5/2010 5:01:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight It was just a sort of unspecific, overarching view that today is the first time in history we are throughly mediated, and as such, I sense that we are less in tune with spirituality, morals, proper values, community, our inner selves, etc. It was not directly related to 'real' chivalry, but the popular modern notion of it which is based on some of these ideals. I am sure no one agrees, but that's ok I'm used to it. [:o] I'm certain you have an interesting point to make, and if I had the faintest clue what your that point actually was, I'd be in a position to agree/disagree. We've established that the "popular" notion of chivalry doesn't seem to match well with yours, we've established that there is potentially a discussion to have about "manners", "respect etc" (whether you choose to - wrongly in my view - call these "chivalry" becomes a secondary question.) So... where are we going with this? No, we haven't actually. I am sort of on the conservative side ethically, I simply don't like the way people act today. In my first post I said I dont think 'chivalry' ever existed. It seems people are just really stuck on the semantics and the etiology/etymology? of the word chivalry, and this doesn't interest me. Since when does anyone ask 'where are we going with this' on a forum...it's an open forum, things just sort of..go. Organically. If you're asking me specifically, I've said my piece, and I'm not going anywhere with an idea that I already outlined and stated is not amenable to quantifying. If you don'tunderstand my point(s), I don't know what else to say really, I'm not speaking another language. Not even a romance language, haha.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375