Yes, I think Meghan Markle's decision to give herself away is a bold feminist gesture.
VagabondSpectreMay 19, 2018 at 00:42#1797700 likes
As a Canadian I couldn't possibly care less...
Some jerks sceptered a dingy isle, handed down their divine right to rule, conquered some foreign lands, got put in their place by modernity, and now function as marionette like figure heads on an aging runway of indignity. The original "Toddlers & Tiaras"...
Reply to René Descartes Im wondering why we care so much about a wedding we were A.not invited to B.Isnt about us C.isnt involving people we personally know or deal with frequently
Who cares if people like the royal wedding? Liking the royal wedding could be bourgeois escapism, but not-liking the royal wedding is also bourgeois escapism. Calling the royal wedding bourgeois escapism is bourgeois escapism.
Reply to Akanthinos I guess it's finally time for me to reveal who I truly am *takes off mask* I'm Friedrich Engels/Meghan Markle (value pak). And I would have gotten away with it if you weren't for you meddling
And yet it's our future Monarch we are talking about/aboot.
Monarch is such a misleading term though. Constitutionally Canada is independent: the "Crown" proper retains power over ceremony and a few emergency levers (vetoing legislation, dissolving parliament), but beyond that they ain't got shit. (sorry!)
If the British monarchy, even in Britain, tried to meddle in democracy through veto or dissolution of parliament for any reason that was uncouth, it would be defenestrated faster than a bucket of shit in old Rome.
It (the wedding) is an occurrence in space and time and is therefore worthy of thought.
As an institution the British Royals are very interesting (mostly to white westerners and those who aspire to some of the ideals and fairy-tale myth of white western 'culture'). In like manner the Kardashians are interesting, or 'brand BMW', or the entire superfluity of 'fashion' etc., All are 'interesting' in the evident control these apparently banal or superfluous 'things' can have over the collective consciousness of the human herd.
The fairy-tale myth of Prince and Princess, and the 'dream' of acquiring the 'riches' of Aladdin, appear to be pan-cultural. They seem to be embedded within the psyche, as they are deeply connected with something universal and instinctual.
From childhood, girls are encouraged to dream of Princesses, and boys are encouraged to become Princes and Kings. This intellectual primitivism (like the intellectual primitivism behind good sex) has persisted through the ages because it contains something enduring, something that is connected with our primordial instinctual imperatives towards being.
It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. In this sense, the wedding might be considered as an important (but entirely primitive) celebration of the importance of the mating ritual; through a vicarious participation in the ritual itself. The fact that they are both 'beautiful' in a 'Barby and Ken' sort of way; greatly expands and facilitates the Universal appeal of this universal orgy.
When adults participate in good sex, they/we do so, at the behest of 'instinct'. When, as adults, we find pleasure in the continued vicarious participation in the Princess-Prince myth, or we participate in an intellectually baseless consciousness of being 'fashionable' or 'becoming wealthy'; we are clearly executing superficial behaviors, that are motivated by deeper instinct. One who is willfully unawares of the relationship between his instinct and his behavior, might well be described to as deluded by those instincts.
At times we are all necessarily and wantonly deluded by our instincts, otherwise they cannot be enjoyed to the full.
These kinds of mass participatory weddings/rallies, represent an opportunity for those outside of them to remind ourselves that the human animal is motivated by instinctual rather than entirely logical or intellectual imperatives. Instinct and intellect may perhaps be mutually exclusive?
Any philosopher who imagines himself/herself engaged in the: grunting/sweaty, in-out-in-out, reality that is sexual intercourse, cannot escape the fact that it (sex) is an exposure of the truth; that (for most of us) Philosophy, or intellectual function, takes 'second place' behind brute instinctual imperative.
The real question, as it pertains to the function 'royal-wedding', is what is the instinctual imperative that is being satisfied through vicarious participation in the nuptials between: 'one normal average man who defecates', and 'one normal average woman' who also defecates?
The notions 'Prince' and 'Princess', are of course un-real, and assigned by the collective consciousness of the herd. We see in the affair, (alive and well) the raw instinct that has motivated the human animal from the very beginnings of human life. We glimpse, for an instant the ephemeral 'secret' language of nature herself. This 'force' is all-powerful, and whilst it might present in the guise of a fairy-tale; it also contains humanity's greatest potential for horror.
The affair has a parallel, in that similar instinctual imperatives clearly lie behind mass participation in 'fashion' the 'Kardashians', and even 'animal intercourse'. These participatory behaviors are the manifest form of instinctual imperative. Interestingly, of themselves their 'intellectual content', cannot be simultaneously participated in or explored. The intellectual content or experience of sex, strictly lies outside of its experience and enjoyment. The moment one begins to think about and analyze ones erection, is generally the point of it's departure.
Similarly the more one attempts to intellectually evaluate 'fashion' the more it's inherent pointlessness is exposed, and the less it can be enjoyed. High fashion and high intellect may well be mutually exclusive.
The wedding affair itself contains nothing intelligent and nothing inherently evil within it, other than the fact that it is a fresh version of a repetitive story. As it unfolds, it offers the participating subject the opportunity of vicarious participation in, and satisfaction of, a primordial instinctual imperative, in a superficially 'harmless' manner. It is after all in essence a 'beautiful' wedding.
The interesting question exposed (solely to non-participants), pertains to the animal-nature of the participants themselves. By this I mean that one cannot think upon, or thoroughly intellectually analyse one's instinctively motivated behavior during the behavior itself.
Therefore the wedding-affair reminds (those of us outside it) of a potential horror, vis: the dangerous and destructive potential of the human herd, when it is operating on the basis of a predominant instinctual imperative
We must therefore ask: What is the 'something inherent' within these apparently benign mass affairs and gatherings, that is mutually exclusive of reasoned intellectual function or analysis?
The affair might well be considered to be benign or even banal. However this is not entirely true as the affair contains a horror of sorts, one that is reminiscent of the all mass rallies. To those outside of the lure of the fairy-tale it contains a dangerous destructive power, one that is potentiated by the herd itself. A power who's first and most important victims are intellect and reason, once these are dispensed with, pure evil becomes entirely possible if not inevitable.
We must therefore ask: Is it possible that the un-intellectualized evil-myths perpetuated at the Nuremberg rallies, can be compared to the Capitalist and ecological evils, that are presently perpetuated by the persistence and pervasiveness of the Princess-Prince fairy-tale myth?
It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual.
"It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual."
— Marcus de Brun
I think I make it clear that the Princess-Prince (Barby-Ken) mythology is apparently important to society (not necessarily to me). I am trying to understand why this might be so?
There are alternatives, they're called books. Or any number of good and even useful alternatives. If you're being ironic, you got me. If not, then I'm sorry you're alive.
There is still an issue with the disgusting saturation of media forms with the celebration of a distinctly unjust power structure.
My thoughts on the wedding - as a media event, has to be 10/10. The architecture, setting, artefacts, vehicles, ornamentation, guests, and weather were perfect. Oh, and the minister. I liked the cellist in particular. (Who I now know is called Sheku Kanneh-Mason, won BBC Young Musician of the Year in 2016, and was personally asked by Meghan Markle to perform. I didn't watch the long sermon, I feel that kind of American religious enthusiasm is rather vulgar, to be honest.)
I'm not either royalist or republican - here in Australia, Queen is technically still head of State, but I don't have really strong feelings on the matter. But I've come to like the Royal Family because they're not useful or instrumental or economically justifiable and they haven't been rationalised out of existence yet (among other things).
what exactly is the distinctly unjust power structure, and how is it unjust?
I guess you have a wide choice here. Royalty, marriage, royal marriages, royal inheritance laws, the colonial dynamic still in place that means that me, a Francophone with a familial history of war against the English, must be subjected to this display of inequity.
Please make clear what the disgusting saturation is. I do agree there can be saturation coverage of some events, but not disgusting.
I guess that you don't realize what the English Crown stands for to many people. To me it's the sign of our subjugation. It's the sign of the War Riots, when in 1910 the Canadian army on orders from the British opened fire on Francophone war protesters, something for which the Crown still hasn't apologized. It's the sign of the enemy of the Patriotes. It's the sign of Louis Riel's execution, of my great great grandfather's exile.
So it sounds like all your difficulties are personal in nature.
Euh, so, what the fuck does that have to do with anything. So it's not a superstructural systematic issue, so what? Yes, it's a personal issue, which stands for a certain personal-yet-historical point-of-view. Big whoop.
Besides, if you fail to recognize that Markle's marriage into the royal family is extremely interesting for all kinds of reasons, and that the wedding itself was as well, then you lack historical perspective, and imagination, and empathy.
Yes, if I don't care about the most meme'd and internalized social display there is, then I'm a sociopath. How about, if you fail to recognize that Markle's marriage into the royal family is extremely otiose to everything relevant, then you lack historical perspective, imagination, and intelligence? There, fixed it for you.
Not much of a barque to carry one's flag, and he appears tainted by Scott.
Eh. What? He executed Scott. Actually, he fell under the pressure of my great great great grandfather Ambroise-Didyme Lepine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambroise-Dydime_L%C3%A9pine) who forced Riel to agree to execute Scott. Scott had spent his trial shouting racist insults and death threats at the judge (Riel).
Louis Riel was a proper saint. He did everything to defuse the Red River situation, up until the Reds decided to start burning Metis houses, at which point he agreed they had no choice but to start to kick some asses.
If it is ok with the moderator I will move my post here to its own thread, as the questions it raises in respect of the perpetuation of the Barbey-Ken Princess-Prince myth do not appear to be relevant to this thread.
Comments (42)
Some jerks sceptered a dingy isle, handed down their divine right to rule, conquered some foreign lands, got put in their place by modernity, and now function as marionette like figure heads on an aging runway of indignity. The original "Toddlers & Tiaras"...
Obnoxious pomp and silly circumstance...
[edit] realized sherlock beat me to the punch
Them fighting words.
Now that's a twist I'd pay money for (screw you M N Shyamalan, the Village sucked balls).
And yet it's our future Monarch we are talking about/aboot.
That's what I mean tho
Monarch is such a misleading term though. Constitutionally Canada is independent: the "Crown" proper retains power over ceremony and a few emergency levers (vetoing legislation, dissolving parliament), but beyond that they ain't got shit. (sorry!)
If the British monarchy, even in Britain, tried to meddle in democracy through veto or dissolution of parliament for any reason that was uncouth, it would be defenestrated faster than a bucket of shit in old Rome.
Congratulations to them both.
No. 2. It's God's punishment for TV watchers.
As an institution the British Royals are very interesting (mostly to white westerners and those who aspire to some of the ideals and fairy-tale myth of white western 'culture'). In like manner the Kardashians are interesting, or 'brand BMW', or the entire superfluity of 'fashion' etc., All are 'interesting' in the evident control these apparently banal or superfluous 'things' can have over the collective consciousness of the human herd.
The fairy-tale myth of Prince and Princess, and the 'dream' of acquiring the 'riches' of Aladdin, appear to be pan-cultural. They seem to be embedded within the psyche, as they are deeply connected with something universal and instinctual.
From childhood, girls are encouraged to dream of Princesses, and boys are encouraged to become Princes and Kings. This intellectual primitivism (like the intellectual primitivism behind good sex) has persisted through the ages because it contains something enduring, something that is connected with our primordial instinctual imperatives towards being.
It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. In this sense, the wedding might be considered as an important (but entirely primitive) celebration of the importance of the mating ritual; through a vicarious participation in the ritual itself. The fact that they are both 'beautiful' in a 'Barby and Ken' sort of way; greatly expands and facilitates the Universal appeal of this universal orgy.
When adults participate in good sex, they/we do so, at the behest of 'instinct'. When, as adults, we find pleasure in the continued vicarious participation in the Princess-Prince myth, or we participate in an intellectually baseless consciousness of being 'fashionable' or 'becoming wealthy'; we are clearly executing superficial behaviors, that are motivated by deeper instinct. One who is willfully unawares of the relationship between his instinct and his behavior, might well be described to as deluded by those instincts.
At times we are all necessarily and wantonly deluded by our instincts, otherwise they cannot be enjoyed to the full.
These kinds of mass participatory weddings/rallies, represent an opportunity for those outside of them to remind ourselves that the human animal is motivated by instinctual rather than entirely logical or intellectual imperatives. Instinct and intellect may perhaps be mutually exclusive?
Any philosopher who imagines himself/herself engaged in the: grunting/sweaty, in-out-in-out, reality that is sexual intercourse, cannot escape the fact that it (sex) is an exposure of the truth; that (for most of us) Philosophy, or intellectual function, takes 'second place' behind brute instinctual imperative.
The real question, as it pertains to the function 'royal-wedding', is what is the instinctual imperative that is being satisfied through vicarious participation in the nuptials between: 'one normal average man who defecates', and 'one normal average woman' who also defecates?
The notions 'Prince' and 'Princess', are of course un-real, and assigned by the collective consciousness of the herd. We see in the affair, (alive and well) the raw instinct that has motivated the human animal from the very beginnings of human life. We glimpse, for an instant the ephemeral 'secret' language of nature herself. This 'force' is all-powerful, and whilst it might present in the guise of a fairy-tale; it also contains humanity's greatest potential for horror.
The affair has a parallel, in that similar instinctual imperatives clearly lie behind mass participation in 'fashion' the 'Kardashians', and even 'animal intercourse'. These participatory behaviors are the manifest form of instinctual imperative. Interestingly, of themselves their 'intellectual content', cannot be simultaneously participated in or explored. The intellectual content or experience of sex, strictly lies outside of its experience and enjoyment. The moment one begins to think about and analyze ones erection, is generally the point of it's departure.
Similarly the more one attempts to intellectually evaluate 'fashion' the more it's inherent pointlessness is exposed, and the less it can be enjoyed. High fashion and high intellect may well be mutually exclusive.
The wedding affair itself contains nothing intelligent and nothing inherently evil within it, other than the fact that it is a fresh version of a repetitive story. As it unfolds, it offers the participating subject the opportunity of vicarious participation in, and satisfaction of, a primordial instinctual imperative, in a superficially 'harmless' manner. It is after all in essence a 'beautiful' wedding.
The interesting question exposed (solely to non-participants), pertains to the animal-nature of the participants themselves. By this I mean that one cannot think upon, or thoroughly intellectually analyse one's instinctively motivated behavior during the behavior itself.
Therefore the wedding-affair reminds (those of us outside it) of a potential horror, vis: the dangerous and destructive potential of the human herd, when it is operating on the basis of a predominant instinctual imperative
We must therefore ask: What is the 'something inherent' within these apparently benign mass affairs and gatherings, that is mutually exclusive of reasoned intellectual function or analysis?
The affair might well be considered to be benign or even banal. However this is not entirely true as the affair contains a horror of sorts, one that is reminiscent of the all mass rallies. To those outside of the lure of the fairy-tale it contains a dangerous destructive power, one that is potentiated by the herd itself. A power who's first and most important victims are intellect and reason, once these are dispensed with, pure evil becomes entirely possible if not inevitable.
We must therefore ask: Is it possible that the un-intellectualized evil-myths perpetuated at the Nuremberg rallies, can be compared to the Capitalist and ecological evils, that are presently perpetuated by the persistence and pervasiveness of the Princess-Prince fairy-tale myth?
M
Who knows such things?
:brow:
Were you aiming for "bourgeois" or "bourgeoisie". That a moderator would misspell such an important term--scandalous.
But yes, bourgeois escapism--and proletarian fantasy.
"It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual."
— Marcus de Brun
I think I make it clear that the Princess-Prince (Barby-Ken) mythology is apparently important to society (not necessarily to me). I am trying to understand why this might be so?
There is still an issue with the disgusting saturation of media forms with the celebration of a distinctly unjust power structure.
I'm not either royalist or republican - here in Australia, Queen is technically still head of State, but I don't have really strong feelings on the matter. But I've come to like the Royal Family because they're not useful or instrumental or economically justifiable and they haven't been rationalised out of existence yet (among other things).
What TV channel, and when's it on?
I guess you have a wide choice here. Royalty, marriage, royal marriages, royal inheritance laws, the colonial dynamic still in place that means that me, a Francophone with a familial history of war against the English, must be subjected to this display of inequity.
Quoting tim wood
I guess that you don't realize what the English Crown stands for to many people. To me it's the sign of our subjugation. It's the sign of the War Riots, when in 1910 the Canadian army on orders from the British opened fire on Francophone war protesters, something for which the Crown still hasn't apologized. It's the sign of the enemy of the Patriotes. It's the sign of Louis Riel's execution, of my great great grandfather's exile.
Quoting tim wood
Euh, so, what the fuck does that have to do with anything. So it's not a superstructural systematic issue, so what? Yes, it's a personal issue, which stands for a certain personal-yet-historical point-of-view. Big whoop.
Quoting tim wood
Thank you, Jordan Petersen. :vomit:
Quoting tim wood
Yes, if I don't care about the most meme'd and internalized social display there is, then I'm a sociopath. How about, if you fail to recognize that Markle's marriage into the royal family is extremely otiose to everything relevant, then you lack historical perspective, imagination, and intelligence? There, fixed it for you.
Eh. What? He executed Scott. Actually, he fell under the pressure of my great great great grandfather Ambroise-Didyme Lepine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambroise-Dydime_L%C3%A9pine) who forced Riel to agree to execute Scott. Scott had spent his trial shouting racist insults and death threats at the judge (Riel).
Louis Riel was a proper saint. He did everything to defuse the Red River situation, up until the Reds decided to start burning Metis houses, at which point he agreed they had no choice but to start to kick some asses.
M
Quite interested in your attitude about the whole issue.
Posty
When you say 'attitude' do you also mean 'observation'? Or are you intimating that perhaps I was in a bad mood or good mood when I wrote the piece?
M
One has to wonder, was it an accurate observation? I think there is much to talk about this issue.
Indeed there is much to be considered.
I am working through the interesting pieces you have posted in relation to your thread on 'Sufficient Reason' More of this anon.
:)
M