[atreestump]

I think in this context you mentioned it is likely that the meaning is something like “the development of woman has been stunted or suspended” as well as “woman a conceptual mind or active agency has become frozen with little to no contributions demonstrating active agency on its part or through demonstrable furthering or growth of the concept or its activities”.

Nice! Yes, that’s exactly it. Woman does not even become ‘one’ to become ‘other’. Irigaray examined Simone De Beauviours’ famous phrase ‘One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman’.

[atreestump]

The interaction of unity and multiplicity is called ConsciousNess* and regarded as an inter-extrapolation that relates in a viewpoint which manifests ConsciousNess.

Thelema = Dialectical Monism.

[atreestump]

​I made this thread to discuss natural homophobic tendencies within all or most people including those who self-identify as queer in some way.

I’m not sure it is natural, as it’s a tendency/preference I see it as something that evolved in culture. To be clear, I am not saying ‘not natural therefore bad’, just that queer sexuality for one thing, is a state that does not fall into the binary roles culture has formed.

[atreestump]

Bonanno makes a good point, anarchism is a disjunction.

[atreestump]

What an entrance to the forum!

[atreestump]

I’m long overdue a shroom day.

[atreestump]

If one admits that writing (and the mark in general) must be able to function in the absence of the sender, the receiver, the context of production, etc., that implies that this power, this being able, this possibility is always inscribed, hence necessarily inscribed as possibility in the functioning or the functional structure of the mark. . . . [T]his possibility is a necessary part of its structure.
[hr]
Much of what you mentioned is like how fictional and real life people are like archetypes.

[atreestump]

I would like robots to do most things and leave people to work on their interests and personal development in the ways which please them. Robots should do everything they can

Yeah, wasn’t that supposed to have happened by now? lol

[atreestump]

I found this PDF on Patriarchy to be a great example of the story telling you explained: http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf

I was referring to the internet limitations.

[atreestump]

‘Communist’ states like N.Korea do have dictatorship qualities, S.Korea is capitalist.

See my thread entitled ‘The capitalist state’. It describes the three branches of government you describe.

[atreestump]

What can we do? I totally agree @”schi” – neoliberalism seems so deeply entrenched that it’s hard to get under it or beyond it – solitary projects seem like the only way forward for now.

I also agree that ‘communism’ has never really ever flourished, or come to fruition, as such.

[atreestump]

In reality, or my delusion anyway, nothing at all is really moving. I am always in the same place, and I don’t really have any being of my own, the I or element of me which remains consistent, Experiencer, is what is generating and experiencing these experiences which give the impression of movement, space, and other people. I can not really touch them, or know them, they are just things made up as far as I am experiencing them. If they are viewing anything, it has nothing to do with what I am experiencing, and they would be in the same position as me, a completely independent and cut off screen of made up information.

In this sense, Occassionalism may not be far off Descartes radical scepticism, you are a thing that experiences and those experiences are due to God who can be the foundation of certainty.
[hr]
Which is known as metaphysical idealism.

[atreestump]

Though the finger points at the moon,
the moon is not in the finger,
Words express the truth, but the
truth is not in the words.
–Chinul

[atreestump]

Like it. Ghostly hauntings are a main aspect of Derrida.

[atreestump]

Great question actually. I suppose all I can in any sense create for others through description is a world of ideas, which are things too or made of things but I can’t get my things to them, I can only assume they are generating things which are at least close enough conceptually to agree upon or pretend we are understood.

Sounds a lot like a form of Idealism, maybe Actual Idealism.

[Author]

Replies