From kiddie rows to the grandest scale warfares, from kindergarten crayon sketches to great cultures, from personal beliefs to institutionalized religions, from enmity to the highest intimacy and from individuals to the biggest nation, mine-r-better/bigger-than-yours psychology, or interpretation of it, is so common that we may treat it like the air we inhale and exhale. As we compare and contrast (or refer and defer) in our conscious moments, it goes beyond passive mode of complacency toward self-righteousness &/ self-justification. More often than not, they r emotional rather than rational.
How does this kinda "mineness" come about? Is it a priori or posteriori? The selfish gene theory doesn't seem suffice for the explanations. It is intermingled also with entrenchment of relevant meanings in our mind and will to power.
While we know it can be overcome, it doesn't follow that we have to do away with each and every diversities we have now. The rogue competitions as well as total distrust effected should be our main concerns.
2/19/08
Sex
No matter how one idealizes, romanticizes or moralizes sex, it is, per se, can't escape from its fetish, raw, natural and even pragmatic parts. The desire is there; the need is there; the sensation is there; the use is there; so as the supply and demand, be it legal or illegal, orgasmic or not. To avoid bombardments from moralists &/ goody-goodies, please take note that these r just pure factual statements.
In a forum thread I asked: "As one of the most common activities of homo sapien, why is it still so controversial after millennia of civilisations?" What's the complexity really working behind the moral scene?
One of the keyword I found out is: "Control", as in contrast with the stronger word of Michel Foucault--"repression"--in his multi-volume The History of Sexuality. We don't like others to c us losing composure, thus self-control and act and speak morally in public. Composure is one of the rituals society wants us to perform so as to appear normal. Some ancient rulers might utilize sex morality in their attempt to improve production rather than procreation, control violent crime, or control the population so as to control competition of limited resources etc. Will to power played a crucial role here. The morality usually passed on and further accumulated after temporal-spatial changes. Often, the codes were integrated into law.
Parents want control over their kids in order to protect them and of various degree, exert their power. It's still quite common to c people try to control their (prospect) partners with morality, not just over male side as in propositions of Foucault. In our efforts to control STD, AIDS especially, many people have insisted on stricter sex morality, which imho has worsen the situation.
"Order is good; chaos is bad." kinda presuppositions also create urge in us to control social "discipline", be it just in appearance only. Pre-quantum-theory ontological world views requires certain kinda totality and thus it was logical to c, what I'd like to called, severe conflicts of totalities, when they crashed into one another.
Finally, in a process of attaining control of powers, one may resort to moral competitions, thus reinforcements or even new creations and further accumulations. Whether these urges of control are freaky or not is for psychiatries to decide on case by case basis.
These r not exhaustive narratives, ofc. And, I'm not against any "proper" value.
In a forum thread I asked: "As one of the most common activities of homo sapien, why is it still so controversial after millennia of civilisations?" What's the complexity really working behind the moral scene?
One of the keyword I found out is: "Control", as in contrast with the stronger word of Michel Foucault--"repression"--in his multi-volume The History of Sexuality. We don't like others to c us losing composure, thus self-control and act and speak morally in public. Composure is one of the rituals society wants us to perform so as to appear normal. Some ancient rulers might utilize sex morality in their attempt to improve production rather than procreation, control violent crime, or control the population so as to control competition of limited resources etc. Will to power played a crucial role here. The morality usually passed on and further accumulated after temporal-spatial changes. Often, the codes were integrated into law.
Parents want control over their kids in order to protect them and of various degree, exert their power. It's still quite common to c people try to control their (prospect) partners with morality, not just over male side as in propositions of Foucault. In our efforts to control STD, AIDS especially, many people have insisted on stricter sex morality, which imho has worsen the situation.
"Order is good; chaos is bad." kinda presuppositions also create urge in us to control social "discipline", be it just in appearance only. Pre-quantum-theory ontological world views requires certain kinda totality and thus it was logical to c, what I'd like to called, severe conflicts of totalities, when they crashed into one another.
Finally, in a process of attaining control of powers, one may resort to moral competitions, thus reinforcements or even new creations and further accumulations. Whether these urges of control are freaky or not is for psychiatries to decide on case by case basis.
These r not exhaustive narratives, ofc. And, I'm not against any "proper" value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)