Jump to content

.H.

Members
  • Content count

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About .H.

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The U-easy-ana

Recent Profile Visitors

7,309 profile views
  1. This is literally more enjoyable than Season 8 to me and had a more satisfactory conclusion.
  2. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, what I was trying to discuss last page is related to this, but one, I am not smart. Two, I am bad a communicating. Three, I don't think anyone really is interested in engaging the idea. Basically, if we imagine that a "patriarchy" exists, and we can definite that in any way we really want, it sort of necessarily has to be the elevation of "maleness," "masculinity," "male identified traits/behaviors" in some way, even if we still only want to think about it in terms of "Power." So, if "Feminism" (again, define it however you want) is at least in some way set on removing, disestablishing, subverting, whatever, this "Patriarchy" is, then it seems reasonable to me to question the movement of women into "male roles" and calling that "action against Patriarchy." Because, in a sense, that isn't removing the Patriarchy, it's just putting (elevating, if you will) women in the role of the patriarch. And this is what I was trying to discuss a potential way to look at what Bakker was doing. This is why I framed it within the idea of Marcuse's idea of the "one-dimensional man" in the sense that if we ascribe value to a particular way of being, then we necessarily limit what we view as viable ways to just be a human. So, I think Marcuse was mostly thinking about it in term of economics, how if you don't follow the ideal of what a "good capitalist worker" would be, then you are somehow sort of defective and that needs to be rectified, in some sense. So, would seem plausible to me to frame gender relations in that sense as well, at least to some degree. I'll likely be accused to "rigidly defining femininity" again, or something, but that it not what I am trying to do at all. No, really I am trying to "place no limit" on what women could/should/would be at all. Or on what men could/should/would be. The point is to be the human best fit for you to be. Humans (perhaps through culture as well) categorize things necessarily, because it makes the overtly, overwhelmingly complex world easier to assimilate into our mental frameworks, but categories necessarily fail at the level of any individual. So it is no surprise to me that ways of being get "gendered" as a matter of course. And some of those ways get "valued" to greater or lesser extents. But, to "flip the script" and say, well, lets take category X and flip it's value with Y does not solve the "problem" with their being unequal valuation between X and Y. Rather, it only places the shoe onto the other foot. So, in a blunt way, to me, to say that women should just be put in "traditional male roles" is a bit of an insult to women and what being a woman could be. In fact, it would seem to be pure violence, because it still places the value of someone contingent upon how well they align with "masculine virtue." So, I guess I am taking a long-winded way to say that I think I agree mostly with what you are saying. I mean, as far as I think I can, still having not seen the movie in question. But maybe I am just delusional and don't understand a damn thing really.
  3. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    I wasn't aiming at taking offence, I just have found there are more ideas about what Bakker's "point" is, seemingly, than there are numbers of Bakker readers. So, more honesty curiosity what "it" was in this context. I'll try giving both movies a shot when I have some time.
  4. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    To reimagine Blood Meridian? I'm not sure what "the point" you are describing actually is. What are Zahler, Bakker and Miller "trying to do" in this sense? I mean, I've never seen either of those movies, so I am certainly missing what the connection should be.
  5. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Sort of like what Sartre wants to say about facticity vs. transcendence? So, if one really wants to be individual, that is, a self apart, one must necessarily transcend just the mere facts of existence. I think it is possible that some people never do transcend ideology or culture, or what have you. That is interesting. Although, if I follow what you are saying, really, a "finite" speed of light, that is c, does actually have a Final Cause, being that if it was not the case, that if a massless particle moved infinitely fast, then it would take an infinite amount of energy to have matter exist (that being M=E/c²). So, really, c being a finite number does have a final cause, that being so that matter can exist. But indeed, it would seem to a monkey brain like me, is that the exact number that it is, would be, well, rather "arbitrary" in the sense of it could have been 186,283 mps and some things in the universe would like be a bit funky, but things would essentially still be. So, why is it that number? I mean, maybe some day we discover that, but I think for now, it's just what it happens to be. But maybe it's the case that we can ascribe a sort of goal, or final cause, to anything, even things with the facticity of truth.
  6. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, I agree, but there is a level and more levels though, right? I mean, in the sense that anything outside of what we could ascribe a (seemingly certain) Final Cause to could also be just seen as arbitrary? Which sort of robs the word of any meaning to me. So, why isn't it the case that E=mc­² and not E=mc³? I mean, in isolation, that seems rather arbitrary. But there are foundational reasons why it is specifically a 2 and not a 3 (or another other number, for that matter). So, in a sense, yes, it is "arbitrary" that some trait got a "male" distinction and some other a "female" one, but there was likely some reason for it in the past. Unlikely that our ancestors were flipping coins on what would be what. Now, that is not to say they were/are good reasons though. Now, to be clear, I am not out to get this into the Is-Ought quagmire. I'm not saying just because it was/is means it how it must/should be. In fact, just the opposite, it could well be the case that the use of the function as outlived the usefulness of the function. But, I do sort of see this as part of the whole Eärwan "Damnation system" that it is in fact hot garbage, because it literally is completely arbitrary (because, Bakker made it all up). You are pretty much damned no matter what you do, you only have a tiny track to walk to try to skirt the whole rigged system. Which makes sense, that Eärwa is a "damnation factory," a "granary" and there is only a tiny window out. And in any case, you lose your Self. Maybe then, again, possibly out of delusion, I am seeing this a a critique of modernity? (Post-modernity? I'm not sure.) That we are in a "system" that regardless of what we choose, we lose something of our individuality? We lose it to biology, we lose it to society, we lose it to technology, we lose it to religion, maybe even to philosophy or rationality? But then again, I have this idea, this sense, that I'd rather not fall to reductio ad absurdum either. This is why what little I have seen from Deleuze strikes me, something about parts of a whole. Or am I just raving at this point? I not even sure what I am saying most of the time now. Maybe I should brush up on Heidegger, but maybe that is a waste of time...
  7. .H.

    MLB Offseason 2018: Harper, Your Herald Boras Sings

    Except that is not what I was trying to say. I was just pointing out that it isn't something that can be definitively known, as if it were a fact. Indeed I never even mentioned 5 of the 6 players you mentioned. The point is, you can't know, definitively what the answer would be. Which is why you are right that it is a stupid question, because the answer is not knowable, but your above point is really apropos of nothing.
  8. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Word on the street is that, yes, he is writing, but as to what and how much, we don't know. He made a vague comment about it before he disappeared from his own blog, but it wasn't any detailed information. I'd be willing to bet something gets done, but then when is not at all a certainty at all. If I had to guess, I'd think 2021 is a real possibility, but that is not based off much (which is all we have).
  9. .H.

    MLB Offseason 2018: Harper, Your Herald Boras Sings

    Well, yeah, I mean, it is indeed, stupid, which is why I asked it. And, honestly, depending on how you operationalize "best hitter" it's not clear if Stanton is or is not. Again, a "stupid question" but yet, one that can be asked by stupid people like me. To quote that article: So, indeed, very stupid to question those kinds of numbers, and yet, here I am. What I dislike about Stanton is that he appears (to me, again, a proven stupid person) that Stanton is a dead-guess hitter and that doesn't seem to yield particularly good results in the "clutch." Now, when he gets it right, he gets it real right, but makes (a stupid person like me) wonder about the extent it's useful in actually winning baseball games, long term. How much does that matter? Probably another stupid question and one that I am not quite stupid enough to know the answer to. But I can tell you that I'd much rather see Judge up in a tight spot than Stanton. But that doesn't preclude that a second inning 2-run, 1 out, homer has no value. It's just harder to quantize that's exact value within the set of runs it would represent.
  10. .H.

    MLB Offseason 2018: Harper, Your Herald Boras Sings

    I guess the question is, not that we could possibly know, is, are we "better off" with the kids in there, or not? I mean, small sample sizes are small, but the tactical difference of a Tyler Wade is really different than a "hit the ball as hard as a you can" sort. I can't even recall the last time I saw someone on the Yankees steal third, maybe Gardner in the old, old days? I guess we are going to find out, though it would be great if some sort of synthesis could be found.
  11. .H.

    MLB Offseason 2018: Harper, Your Herald Boras Sings

    Ah, OK, figured maybe I had things mixed up, now I do sort of recall that.
  12. .H.

    MLB Offseason 2018: Harper, Your Herald Boras Sings

    I thought I recalled reading that he already did, but with so many people on the IL, maybe I am remembering wrong. This ESPN article a couple days ago said something like maybe a week or so and he might be back: Yeah, if they can play a sort of hybrid sort of way, it could be real effective. Unfortunately, I think Stanton is a absolute brick tied to the team's leg though, but I guess we'll see how it comes together. Imagine entertaining even the vague possibility that a team is "better off" with Tyler Wade than Stanton. Crazy pills...
  13. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, I think I might have been wrong, as I think maybe this idea is actually a mash up of what is in One Dimensional Man and what is in Eros and Civilization. Along with something of what is in this speech, Maxism and Femanism. I guess it "made some sense" to me because it's an idea I had seen before, that a "recasting" of women in "traditionally male" roles only maintains the idea of such "masculine traits" being sort of "dominant" or "superior." This doesn't really liberate anyone, only recasts the role those traits are played out by, that is, everyone. So, if it is the case that society "socially enforces" they idea that men should be "aggressive" and so then we turn the wheel and say, "well now women should be aggressive too" no one has been "liberated," really, from the tyranny of "enforced aggression." Rather, people have just been homogenized. Likely this though is part of where Marcuse goes wrong, if he ever was right, though. While he'd sort of lament reducing humans to "one dimensional" he sort of ends up doing exactly that. But I can't help but feel that likely what Bakker throws into the setting, how the fundamental metaphysical principle is not a dominant hierarchical force, rather a passive foundational one, is a jab right at the nature of a sort of "patriarchal ontology." Or at least, so it seems to me in my deluded thinking.
  14. .H.

    Overlaps, Based on True Events, and Historical Fictions

    Under what auspices are we to imagine that such a dichotomy can describe the totality of everything written?
  15. Right, I mean, Elvi specifically stayed there to study him and whatever else she could learn from those kids. So, it would seem implausible to me that he is totally out of the story. But likely he is no longer a "main" pro/antagonist.
×