The most beautiful thing I have ever seen in my life was a few blades of grass growing out of a few cracks in a sidewalk in downtown Atlanta, the only grass in eyeshot as everything else around it had been covered in concrete, asphalt, etc. - yet here were these few blades of grass trying with all they had to exist despite the futility of the attempt...
Perhaps in another few hundred years - the grass will win over man...
Probably an example of writing like I think, rather than in a way to be understood by others. What I was thinking was in relation to writing about specific issues and whether or not doing so would tag me as an 'x' person (one who is defined by issue 'x'), and at what point that might happen. What should have been a maybe more accurate initial sentence would have been something like this:
Is it vanity to assume one has control over what issues are perceived to define one?
Altering language to suit one's self can lead to unethical paths. That said, if you want to expand a definition, or construct an identity you certainly have a right to do so. And you have the right to correct a mis-definition applied by others, in fact perhaps an obligation to do so.
Much of the problem here falls under what I've called "xaxlebax problems" in the past, where certain definitions contain bundled self-contradictions. Much of these problems come from blurring the line between identity and definition. If someone wants to define "man" as "that which has a penis" that's fine. But they cannot then say "you must also have X,Y and Z traits because you are a man" - this is a subtle point that unfortunately is too difficult for most people to follow. Most language is corrupted* and contains hidden implication statements that are usually not true. (the hidden implication in my example is that "that which has a penis, always has X Y and Z traits")
* this corruption may or may not be intentional, depending on the circumstances... in the case of gender constructs, there are certainly reasons for the Powers That Be to wish to corrupt the language this way, but perhaps the current PTBs are merely the ones that exist because of the corruption.
I too suffer from this, all the time. I feel coerced to alternately hyper-feminize or hyper-masculinize myself inconveniently in order to relieve social pressure. I feel like I can fight this, but only in small, gradual ways.
People act like seagulls or fish swarms, they react based on the transmission of others. Reality constructs itself around identifiable groups, who contain enough transmission power to alter the behavior of others.
In time, one person being firm enough in their self-construction can warp the behavioral reality field, but in the meantime (and it is a mean time indeed) they will be under considerable pressure to re-enter the fold.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 04:58 pm (UTC)Just ask Georgia O'Keeffe. ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 05:50 am (UTC)The most beautiful thing I have ever seen in my life was a few blades of grass growing out of a few cracks in a sidewalk in downtown Atlanta, the only grass in eyeshot as everything else around it had been covered in concrete, asphalt, etc. - yet here were these few blades of grass trying with all they had to exist despite the futility of the attempt...
Perhaps in another few hundred years - the grass will win over man...
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 05:34 pm (UTC)Is it vanity to assume one has control over what issues are perceived to define one?
1. the philosophical answer
Date: 2007-01-06 06:52 pm (UTC)That said, if you want to expand a definition, or construct an identity you certainly have a right to do so.
And you have the right to correct a mis-definition applied by others, in fact perhaps an obligation to do so.
Much of the problem here falls under what I've called "xaxlebax problems" in the past, where certain definitions contain bundled self-contradictions. Much of these problems come from blurring the line between identity and definition.
If someone wants to define "man" as "that which has a penis" that's fine. But they cannot then say "you must also have X,Y and Z traits because you are a man" - this is a subtle point that unfortunately is too difficult for most people to follow. Most language is corrupted* and contains hidden implication statements that are usually not true.
(the hidden implication in my example is that "that which has a penis, always has X Y and Z traits")
* this corruption may or may not be intentional, depending on the circumstances... in the case of gender constructs, there are certainly reasons for the Powers That Be to wish to corrupt the language this way, but perhaps the current PTBs are merely the ones that exist because of the corruption.
2. the psychological human answer
Date: 2007-01-06 06:59 pm (UTC)I feel like I can fight this, but only in small, gradual ways.
People act like seagulls or fish swarms, they react based on the transmission of others. Reality constructs itself around identifiable groups, who contain enough transmission power to alter the behavior of others.
In time, one person being firm enough in their self-construction can warp the behavioral reality field, but in the meantime (and it is a mean time indeed) they will be under considerable pressure to re-enter the fold.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 04:21 pm (UTC)Thanks...