Rambling stream
Jan. 23rd, 2003 10:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
adrienmundiI don't know why I can't ignore those I don't know or don't really care about; why can't I manage to build a context strictly out of the Pantheonic people I know? In part, I know it's because I feel/suspect/fear that institutions have more power than individuals, as well as the fear that individuals manifest this institutional power without consciously knowing it more often than not. Of course, this relates to gender in large bits; it's quite hard for me to accept the "just be human" argument from so many, as I know/suspect/fear that gender is important to them, if not personally, maybe in terms of desire(?). I have grave doubts about the ability of The Rules to be lifted for me and me alone.
And yet, I desperately want to take the Pantheonic at their collective word. Part of the reason I loved the X Files so much, particularly in the beginning, was the focus on the desire for belief, and the extreme need for proof to justify that belief. For me, because I WANT to believe, the criteria for proof it that much higher; I have to be certain that I'm not just seeing what I want to see, but that it's really actually there. Does this mean I doubt things that, were they directed at others, I'd take as certain? More likely than not, yes; fear makes me all the more rigourous in my evaluation. I don't intend to be dismissive, or doubtful; in a stupid, inefficient, totally fucked up sort of way, I doubt because it's important that I be able to believe you all.
Power is a problem. Belief/proof is a problem. Pleasure, of course, remains a problem. Aesthetics are problematic, as applied to myself. Trust, particularly of my perceptions, and my desires as they colour my perceptions, is problematic. Fucking words and definitions are problematic. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Someone show me the steps, because all I can see is what has yet to be accomplished.
And yet, I desperately want to take the Pantheonic at their collective word. Part of the reason I loved the X Files so much, particularly in the beginning, was the focus on the desire for belief, and the extreme need for proof to justify that belief. For me, because I WANT to believe, the criteria for proof it that much higher; I have to be certain that I'm not just seeing what I want to see, but that it's really actually there. Does this mean I doubt things that, were they directed at others, I'd take as certain? More likely than not, yes; fear makes me all the more rigourous in my evaluation. I don't intend to be dismissive, or doubtful; in a stupid, inefficient, totally fucked up sort of way, I doubt because it's important that I be able to believe you all.
Power is a problem. Belief/proof is a problem. Pleasure, of course, remains a problem. Aesthetics are problematic, as applied to myself. Trust, particularly of my perceptions, and my desires as they colour my perceptions, is problematic. Fucking words and definitions are problematic. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Someone show me the steps, because all I can see is what has yet to be accomplished.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-23 08:21 am (UTC)I wish that I could help.
Perhaps after I resolve my own faith issue? I dunno.
But in the meantime, I am honored to listen to your thoughts.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-23 08:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-23 08:50 am (UTC)And that would be enough, in and of itself.
And they are the thoughts of friend; so moreso.
load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-23 08:40 am (UTC)At least from my standpoint, because i do not think that "gender" means the same thing, and is important in the same measure and way to me as it does to you, "man" "woman" "greenery" are schemas as individually diverse in content as they are categorically common, and mostly because what you perceive of as "The Rules" (even more so than "institutions") are NOT what I think of as rules, neither in content, severity, importance, relevance, (im)mutability, power etc etc etc.
And I am not sure how I feel about the fact that you seem to take as granted that either (a) we DO, deep down share them and the rest is just rhetorical fluff on my part and/or (b) I may live in a Bourdieuian universe where we are all dupes of our own constructs, blind to the power and control over our existance we created them to have.
Do you really think that a general heuristic tool of quick classification for the purposes of as low-impact transaction as possible when dealign with strangers/people you nave no reason to care about beyond a certain capacity at any one point in time (wo/man, police officer, child, fensepost) will remain in precedence over considerations of the nuanced person who is *by necessity* "the human" we see and to whom we relate? Do you really think we relate to yo as gender first, everythingelse second?
In the end, much of what you see wrong about gendering, I understand but do not share, not in the constraints I feel placed upon me, but certainly NOT in the ways i see/understand/interpret/relate to you. (sidenote here, one of the reasons you are a Superior Hominid, and my relationship to you is what it is, would indeed relate to the fact that I feel it to be a very level, equitable, non-judgemental, non-preconception laiden, fertile, generative, free space. And with time, it feels like this space is made even more free of stupid constraints)
To me you are an emotionally expressive person. Maybe you want to be more so, but on an average of humanity, you most certainly are on the expressively freer side. What I find beautiful/attractive about you is not what would make me about to recognize what makes paegent winners (how many of us really fit that kind of ideal after all? and such a good thing. In the end, that is NOT attractive). There could be countless things to say here of what it is I see in you that are either genderless, or (according to some gender classifications :-p ) would be 'transgressive' or 'queer' or whatever.
Granted, my view is but one within a sea of humanity, and all in all, -i think you'd know this but just in case ;)- i am NOT trying to dismiss your issues, because, on top of everything, you are quite right about much of the stupid restraints to pleasure, behavior, whatever, sociocultural 'mainstreamness' places on everyone.
But do not for a moment dare think that you are anything to me but this: one of the best examples I've ever found, of what humans should be like
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-23 09:30 am (UTC)What disturbs me is that, while I don't mind rigorous examination of my motivation/actions, I don't feel like I get a *fair* rigorous examination. You seem to only collect data points that fit your fears and ignore data points that might support other hypotheses. Aside from this being flawed science/logic, I worry that I can never pass the examination, because of methodology.
So, I feel about lost, trying to figure out how to get all my generated data points tallied, rather than mostly the negative ones. Thus far, shock collar is the only thing that comes to mind ... ;-)
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-23 09:55 am (UTC)I understand the method of removing facts/data simply because they affirm what I want or something positive, but the only response one can rightfully give is "what the fuck?"
It seems so much like simply trusting people, which you have difficulty with, sure - but who doesn't?
I don't think you did a background check on Janiene here, and my school records probably haven't been dug up in the 5+ years I've known you. So you don't have an ironclad criteria for those closest to you (I won't be so assumptive as to say "Pantheonic" for me -- perhaps a stableboy in Aegea?) in order to trust them -- there's still the level of uncertainty. Why? Because in a variation of the old tale: "The Emperor of China told his wisest advisor to find an expression that could be used in any situation. The advisor replied 'This, too, shall pass.'" -- or if you like, from a discussion with a friend the other day:
"Life is uncertainty."
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-23 11:26 am (UTC)Screw that; false modesty won't get you tossed out of the pantheon. You're in, pal, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-23 03:11 pm (UTC)I luuv you maaaaaaaaan
*tons of less-than-threes*
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-29 08:12 pm (UTC)Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-30 08:23 am (UTC)(though when i first saw it i thoguht it was a butt with a party hat. AND DONT YOU DARE CALL ME AN ASS FIEND!)
Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-30 08:46 am (UTC)Re: load of self-babble
Date: 2003-01-30 09:26 am (UTC)*grin*