![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatDid actually read a good portion of my Friend's List this morning before my eyes began to blur and I ran off to the eye doc. (Routine check-up to get contacts, nothing to worry about it.)Made it back to October 28th, I believe or was that Oct 27th?
Favorite posts or posts that made me pause and think are two of Rahael's, where she discusses Self and LittleJohn, and what it is like to be a miniority seeking aslym in England in 2004. Received a few "ah-hah" moments reading these posts. Also informed a discussion I had with my pal Wales regarding American politics. Now, how, you may ask, can a British political discussion influence an American one? Particularly since what I know about British Politics you can place in thimbal?
Well, we were discussing the following topics: 1) history, 2) power,
3) colonization, 4) demonization of people who don't agree with us.
First off, ever since 9/11 I've been suffering from a tendency to blame organized religion for everything. And *not* all organized religions, just the top three in power: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (which includes Catholicism). Personally have no problems with the Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists at the moment, they're cool. It's the daddy-issue patriarchial religions that I want to slap upside the head. Whenever our favorite terrorist shows up on the old tv set, I find myself wishing that those three religions would disappear from our culture entirely, heritage, customs, ideology. Part of me realizes this wish is *very* wrong. It is wrong to blame a religion, when in actuality it has nothing to do with religion per se, but the people practicing it. Also lots of good things come from keeping a heritage or custom alive. No, the problem lies with the decision to place a cultural heritage or ideology above life. It's not the ideology that is wrong - nothing wrong, I think, with patriotism, nationalism, marxism, socialism, catholicism, judasism, buddhism, mulism, islam, etc. I think the problem is when someone decides that being (fill in whatever it is that is your ideal or heritage: ________)is more important than anything and anyone else, that the state of BEING _______ makes them special and unique in the universe and they are willing to kill others to support their right to be _______ and the rights of other _____ and to create a ________state, where only _____ can join, and only ____ understand and are worthy, and to ensure others realize that _______ is better than anything else. And if you aren't _______, you just aren't worth anything and are scum. Not just human life, but all life. To make an *ideal* or *heritage* more important than individual people or animals or living things or the environment we inhabit. That is dangerous. No ideal should be worth killing, torturing, maiming, disfiguring, abusing, raping, pillaging others. But the fear of losing the right to be or practice ________ seems to make people crazy enough to kill.
I was watching Farscape last night - and there's a character, named Stark, in it who has the ability to capture the thoughts of others as they pass over in death. When we first meet Stark, he is raving about sides: "My Side, Your Side" He says over and over, crazily. We think he means the cell he is in. Actually he is talking about the two races at war, two races that he has in his head. Both equally horrible to each other. Neither right. Yet both see themselves as being right and just. I had an "Ah-HAH" moment watching the mini-series, when I realized that Stark was talking about the two sides of himself in conflict. When the two sides make peace, Stark is finally at peace inside himself. I had a similar A-HAH moment reading several of Rahael's posts, where she takes me inside the head of someone who is discriminated against on a continuous basis. Followed by a post on Self (left-wing liberal) vs. LittleJohn (right-wing, conservative) and a discussion with apotch on it.
That post made see again the "my side/your side" scenario. Crystallized in a discussion with Wales today, when she was ranting about the election and how completely wrong America is, how wrong Bush is, and why can't anyone see it?
Are they stupid?
Complete polarization. Both sides believe they are right. Neither is willing to look at the other one or listen. Rahael recreats a transcript of a radio conversation between Self/Littlejohn. Both have written books. It is being moderated by Nick Campbell the host. Self's book hasn't been read by anyone but Self. LittleJohn's book has been partially read by Self (200 of 400 pages), not at all by Campbell. Yet they all argue as if they've read each others works, have all the information, know everything, confident and secure in their belief they are right. Of the three, the one who has the most information is Self. Is Self right? (well, I agree with him but does that make him right?) I'm not going to tell you what the disagreement was about, suffice to say that each side was guilty of demonizing the other or someone who did not fit with their beliefs. Instead of trying to understand this other side, they turned them into bad guys. Why? Fear? I keep thinking it must come back to fear somehow. But of what? Losing power? What power?
I watched the Apprentice and Joan of Arcaida this week. Neither that entertaining, to be honest, but both touched on similar concepts from opposite angles. The Apprentice discussed how you have to take power and hold on to it.
Take control. Yet, at the same time listen to the people around you, the client, etc - to find out what you need to do. The individual who got fired this past week - was guilty of not listening, whining about everyone being against her, and not taking control of the situation or leading the group - instead she made it about sides. "They are all against me!" "No one Likes me!"
And how she didn't have enough control. One character mentions in the same episode, how the goal of life is to get power and once you get it no one will take it from you. Then there's Joan of Arcadia, who is put in a situation where she can have power, she does take control - yet ends up causing disaster.
She seizes an opportunity to make money off of a jacket donated to a homeless drive she is volunteering at. She sells the jacket to a thrift store, thinking she can buy more jackets, makes enough money that she can actually buy her boyfriend, who is struggling with school and work, a lap-top to make his life easier (so he can work at school). Of course she gets caught. Has to return the money and the lap-top. And explains it to her boy-friend. Who tells her: "We have so much already, Joan, why do we need more? We are already rich."
The Apprentice seems to be about gaining power, and how money, power, and fame make one happy - you have it all (yet, no one on that show looks happy to me. )
Joan is about how doing for others makes one happy and how we have enough.
Both have characters who don't listen to the people around them. Too busy focusing on sides and winning a game, that I'm not sure can or should be won.
I'm beginning to wonder if that's the problem? That some of us are living life as if it were a game to be won or lost, when it's neither? Don't know.
Not sure any of that made a whit of sense, but posting it anyways in case someone gets something out of it.
Is it just me or is my writing sucking as of late? Methinks I need a brownie and some down-time.
Completely Off-Topic Aside - Why is it that I come up with the best snatchs of dialogue and description for a story when I have no writing material on me, can't pause to write or are in a place where writing is impossible. While when I'm home in front of my computer screen or a blank pad of paper - na-da??
Favorite posts or posts that made me pause and think are two of Rahael's, where she discusses Self and LittleJohn, and what it is like to be a miniority seeking aslym in England in 2004. Received a few "ah-hah" moments reading these posts. Also informed a discussion I had with my pal Wales regarding American politics. Now, how, you may ask, can a British political discussion influence an American one? Particularly since what I know about British Politics you can place in thimbal?
Well, we were discussing the following topics: 1) history, 2) power,
3) colonization, 4) demonization of people who don't agree with us.
First off, ever since 9/11 I've been suffering from a tendency to blame organized religion for everything. And *not* all organized religions, just the top three in power: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (which includes Catholicism). Personally have no problems with the Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists at the moment, they're cool. It's the daddy-issue patriarchial religions that I want to slap upside the head. Whenever our favorite terrorist shows up on the old tv set, I find myself wishing that those three religions would disappear from our culture entirely, heritage, customs, ideology. Part of me realizes this wish is *very* wrong. It is wrong to blame a religion, when in actuality it has nothing to do with religion per se, but the people practicing it. Also lots of good things come from keeping a heritage or custom alive. No, the problem lies with the decision to place a cultural heritage or ideology above life. It's not the ideology that is wrong - nothing wrong, I think, with patriotism, nationalism, marxism, socialism, catholicism, judasism, buddhism, mulism, islam, etc. I think the problem is when someone decides that being (fill in whatever it is that is your ideal or heritage: ________)is more important than anything and anyone else, that the state of BEING _______ makes them special and unique in the universe and they are willing to kill others to support their right to be _______ and the rights of other _____ and to create a ________state, where only _____ can join, and only ____ understand and are worthy, and to ensure others realize that _______ is better than anything else. And if you aren't _______, you just aren't worth anything and are scum. Not just human life, but all life. To make an *ideal* or *heritage* more important than individual people or animals or living things or the environment we inhabit. That is dangerous. No ideal should be worth killing, torturing, maiming, disfiguring, abusing, raping, pillaging others. But the fear of losing the right to be or practice ________ seems to make people crazy enough to kill.
I was watching Farscape last night - and there's a character, named Stark, in it who has the ability to capture the thoughts of others as they pass over in death. When we first meet Stark, he is raving about sides: "My Side, Your Side" He says over and over, crazily. We think he means the cell he is in. Actually he is talking about the two races at war, two races that he has in his head. Both equally horrible to each other. Neither right. Yet both see themselves as being right and just. I had an "Ah-HAH" moment watching the mini-series, when I realized that Stark was talking about the two sides of himself in conflict. When the two sides make peace, Stark is finally at peace inside himself. I had a similar A-HAH moment reading several of Rahael's posts, where she takes me inside the head of someone who is discriminated against on a continuous basis. Followed by a post on Self (left-wing liberal) vs. LittleJohn (right-wing, conservative) and a discussion with apotch on it.
That post made see again the "my side/your side" scenario. Crystallized in a discussion with Wales today, when she was ranting about the election and how completely wrong America is, how wrong Bush is, and why can't anyone see it?
Are they stupid?
Complete polarization. Both sides believe they are right. Neither is willing to look at the other one or listen. Rahael recreats a transcript of a radio conversation between Self/Littlejohn. Both have written books. It is being moderated by Nick Campbell the host. Self's book hasn't been read by anyone but Self. LittleJohn's book has been partially read by Self (200 of 400 pages), not at all by Campbell. Yet they all argue as if they've read each others works, have all the information, know everything, confident and secure in their belief they are right. Of the three, the one who has the most information is Self. Is Self right? (well, I agree with him but does that make him right?) I'm not going to tell you what the disagreement was about, suffice to say that each side was guilty of demonizing the other or someone who did not fit with their beliefs. Instead of trying to understand this other side, they turned them into bad guys. Why? Fear? I keep thinking it must come back to fear somehow. But of what? Losing power? What power?
I watched the Apprentice and Joan of Arcaida this week. Neither that entertaining, to be honest, but both touched on similar concepts from opposite angles. The Apprentice discussed how you have to take power and hold on to it.
Take control. Yet, at the same time listen to the people around you, the client, etc - to find out what you need to do. The individual who got fired this past week - was guilty of not listening, whining about everyone being against her, and not taking control of the situation or leading the group - instead she made it about sides. "They are all against me!" "No one Likes me!"
And how she didn't have enough control. One character mentions in the same episode, how the goal of life is to get power and once you get it no one will take it from you. Then there's Joan of Arcadia, who is put in a situation where she can have power, she does take control - yet ends up causing disaster.
She seizes an opportunity to make money off of a jacket donated to a homeless drive she is volunteering at. She sells the jacket to a thrift store, thinking she can buy more jackets, makes enough money that she can actually buy her boyfriend, who is struggling with school and work, a lap-top to make his life easier (so he can work at school). Of course she gets caught. Has to return the money and the lap-top. And explains it to her boy-friend. Who tells her: "We have so much already, Joan, why do we need more? We are already rich."
The Apprentice seems to be about gaining power, and how money, power, and fame make one happy - you have it all (yet, no one on that show looks happy to me. )
Joan is about how doing for others makes one happy and how we have enough.
Both have characters who don't listen to the people around them. Too busy focusing on sides and winning a game, that I'm not sure can or should be won.
I'm beginning to wonder if that's the problem? That some of us are living life as if it were a game to be won or lost, when it's neither? Don't know.
Not sure any of that made a whit of sense, but posting it anyways in case someone gets something out of it.
Is it just me or is my writing sucking as of late? Methinks I need a brownie and some down-time.
Completely Off-Topic Aside - Why is it that I come up with the best snatchs of dialogue and description for a story when I have no writing material on me, can't pause to write or are in a place where writing is impossible. While when I'm home in front of my computer screen or a blank pad of paper - na-da??