The pervasive fantasy behind the Royal Wedding, and the Myth of the Prince and the Princess
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 mass rallies in general. 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
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 mass rallies in general. 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
Comments (44)
That is just awkward, although there was a part of me that enjoyed the parallel between the Kardashians and animal intercourse. Visualising baboons with botox.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I don't know what possessed you to write this strange thesis and I also have no idea the comparative you are making here. Are you attempting to convey some sort of propaganda is used in these public marital activities that reinforce the elitism of the monarch? For most normal people who are indifferent to the wedding, it is just a nice whatever day that they really don't want to be a part of - both those who zealously love and zealously hate it - but it verifies a shift in cultural concepts of 'purity' that had long gripped the royal 'bloodline' and thus proving that we are improving. I hardly think that is equal to Nuremberg, so I do wonder about your state of mind here buddy.
Calm down.
Actually this article is boring, since the myth of rights, of sex, of inclusivity: all tire the gentleman of breeding. All pall.
Is it simply the truth of your humanity that you seek to hide behind this prosaic language.
Speak or write in plain English. I fear you have nothing to offer but petals of poetry.
M
I don't understand why "prosaic" means "poetry"? Your lack of acumen in language comprehension surprises me. It is, at least clear: the Anglo-Saxon tongue is not your forte!
@Marcus de Brun has a phenomenal grasp of English. Do not be mistaken for you are in the presence of a genius.
Nonsense.
You haven't even addressed the thread...?
Someone who is unable to see that taking away one set of myths, and setting up another is not a "resolving of hierarchies" is an idiot, not a genius. One might consider the word muthos here.
This reminds of the American hippies of the 60's, with their absurd claim to be without laws. They were arrestingly counter-cultural in the full sense of the word counter: they were against; setting up another set of laws or nomoi. Long hair, not short. This dear one puts out one more thoughtless political missionary position among the infinite boring constellations and claims to be the end all and be all of openness. One more political person alongside each other senseless political person we herein catch in the fruitless act of doing contemporary poli-art; nothing to see here but a sleepy lack of acumen in thought. And an appalling refusal to learn.
The point I was getting at is whether we can think collectively instead of this artificial role playing game we are brought up to participate in and is perpetuated by such ritualistic happenings like the weddings of the elite or other ceremonies...
Can we overcome the pretense to only satisfy psychological needs and wants?
Why is the world totality not an "artificial role playing game"? What can artificial mean here, bad? Something one doesn't or ought not like? Or, does it mean constructed rather than by "nature", i.e., by the constructed Western conception phusis, said in order to distinguish form art and law. If artificial means produced, then wouldn't any collective activity be an artificial, i.e., a productive act? A conscious rather than a blind or natural act.
So you want me to specify what's wrong with it? Your assumption that it is wrong is what I wonder. Yet you failed to address my only question in the post which elucidates the matter. Will you address it?
What assumption?
I asked: "Why is the world totality not an "artificial role playing game"?"
I asked: "What can artificial mean here, bad?"
I asked: "Or, does it mean constructed rather than by "nature", i.e., by the constructed Western conception phusis, said in order to distinguish form art and law."
--
"Will you address it?"
What question?
Are you going to wait for me to invest time in answering (again) and then make an absurd answer to keep up appearances, i.e., in order to pretend that you are reasonable for polemical purposes?
Well you seem to be making an equivalent status of these parades, ceremonies, and habitual rituals with what is actual and normal. Is that not a type of fallacy if I am not mistaken?
This:
Quoting Posty McPostface
And it's not just apes: Male homosexual black swans pair up, build a nest, then steal eggs from heterosexual swans and proceed to hatch and rear the chicks.
Your post is 2 months old, so you may already have recovered, but if not -- help is at hand.
"Can we overcome the pretense to only satisfy psychological needs and wants?"
It's not patently cogent to say that sex is not psychological, if that's the kind of issue you mean. Observe squirrels. Sex is muthos, eros is in the psyche. Madonna says, thinking about sex is sex. Heidegger says, the being of a leg of lamb is the same in memory, so does Bergson in another way, less intense experience as memory. So the thesis starts by assuming something that not everyone grants. Question begging for those who don't grant the premise.
Put another way, if I judge something has happened, I drink water, my psychology is the ground of certainty. Think of the phrase "an enviable lunatic", i.e., someone who takes the greatest pleasure from gaping thoughtfully at a wall, e.g., Leonardo de Vinci.
Now, one must answer: Why would one want to reach empty "reality" without story or muthos? It is an artificial production of the technology of manipulating the human being as thing (mystical powers of the cosmic material as haunting dream). However, it is not cogent that it exists, some say it does, some the reverse, of those serious persons who have carried out an examination of the issue.
I'm not talking about sex. But since you raised the issue, male virgins are viewed as queers, even moreso than homosexuals, why is that? Can't a man enjoy life without sex? Why has it been defined as a psychological need instead of a want? It boggles my mind.
Quoting InternetStranger
Oh, well then fantasies are more real than reality, I know where this is going to end, in need of psychotherapy and intensive reality checks by the patient.
"I'm not talking about sex."
Then what?
Because it leads to less suffering, anguish and pain.
There's a mission for you. Fine. Others pursue diverse goals.
Sex used to be a private activity between two partners, and it should stay that way for the sake of intimacy and not trivializing the activity into Oblivion...
I take that as a confession you were talking nonsense the whole while. In order to justify your dreary claim that the poster is a genius.
I stand by what I have stated.
Which is to state nothing but rhetorical static.
Of course, I grant, e.g., Marcuse is worthy of study. Since he had some education worthy of the name. But, that is something quite different from this claim of yours that the post is the work of an extraordinary being.
Then let's wait and see what @Marcus de Brun has to further state.
Don't you see a glimmer of genius in stating that it is the very nature of fulfilling fantasies and irrealities that creates discontent from our very own nature?
There's some glimmer in the post, but it is beset by the stark trickster fool of political hubris, unavailing of reason.
Posty
I can only assume that the reference to 'genius' originates from a kind heart that is perhaps like my own, all to infrequently warmed by glimmers of truth. Such glimmers are so rarely encountered that it might well be fair to refer to them as 'genius'.
In which case I return the compliment and doff my cap to your own consistent honesty, which is in itself a rare form of 'pure genius'.
Genius if it exists, must exist as a pure correlate with truth alone. There are many kinds of honest genius. When Newton identified the equation of gravitation, this was 'genius' in as much as it was or is an enduring truth to the point of quantum physics and general relativity. Indeed quantum physics and relativity are an expression of genius, to the point of their inevitable usurpation, by a different truth or different genius. The quality that unites this 'genius' is the ever closer approximation to truth.
There is then, beyond the science and the descriptive genius that is applied to subjective and objective reality, another kind of genius or 'truth'; the truth of the soul, or the inner self (whatever that innerness may be). This type of genius is an honesty of self, and it is the only genius that is worthy of and capable of productive and evolving philosophical dialogue.
One encounters on fora such as this varying degrees of 'self-honesty' and varying degrees of potentiality to strike at truth. The greater the honesty the more productive is the dialogue, and the greater the potential philosophy. After a time, engaged in dialogues such as these, opinions are exposed as not being based upon, nor interested in, philosophical premise or conjecture. Rather such opinions are held and proffered for ulterior and more primitive motivations: self advertisement, intellectual onanism, or simple anger and rage at ones mortality and impotence. It is easy for instinct to dress itself in the attire of Philosophy. Unfortunately time and dialogue must be invested, before the nakedness of the emperor can be exposed.
This discussion is interesting from the perspective of 'self-honesty' alone. The actual basis of the discussion 'the instinctual imperatives behind behaviors' has been abandoned and the Emperor's clothes are now the subject of discourse.
Personally I remain unimpressed with 'muthos' and 'the laws of nomoi'; this spiritual mumbo-jumbo appears to me as a spectacular garment, made of nothing. There is no point here, and no counter-point, there is no philosophy.
I await a logical criticism of my initial post (typed in her majesty's English as opposed to her dress).... and thank you once again for your honesty and kindness.
M
No, I agree with pretty much everything in the OP. I just am unsure about the root Schopenhauers will in all this? Is this a natural state of affairs, seemingly so?
If so, then the next logical question in my.mind is whether or can overcome these psychological needs and ideals. If not then the situation is hopeless or incorrigable
Some of Lib's family are evident on philosophy forums.
Lib tard?
What does it matter ...left wing or right wing.. This is a philosophy forum. Truth is the shared objective. Do you find comfort in hiding behind labels? If you have a point ... Then find the courage to make it.
M
Matter? Wings? It is merely an observation combined with a joke.
I am equally unsure, but it does seem that Schopenhauer's 'will' is synonymous with instinct. If this be so then much philosophy is predicated upon an understanding of human instinct.
Absolutely not offended, but more interested in your Philosophy?
I think philosophy can be a bigger laugh, as ultimately we are trying to figure out if the 'universal joke' is either within us or upon us :)
It sounds like a trite truism; but, it's undeniably true.
My philosophy? What do you mean by “philosophy” when you apply it as being a thing of someone’s?
Are you able to answer as to whether you have a particular philosophy?
Nonetheless, within the context of this ongoing dialogue, and in a semantic sort of way, I would (and do) assert that I have a philosophy. If we apply the caveat that this 'philosophy', declares only a certain manner of discourse; one that is somewhat sublime and deeper than the superficial discourse that is generally applied to: things systems and ideas.
In this sense, l believe I do posses a philosophy of: self, of things, and of certain systems that I have formal knowledge of.
So, the short answer is yes. I do indeed have a philosophy. All that l am uncertain of is the suspicion that l also have a 'self'.
M
You say you are interested in my philosophy. Is this not the same thing as asking me what my philosophy is?
No
M
No not at all. I suspect there is a distinction between your 'Philosophy' and that which is your philosophical view or consideration upon a subject, vis the subject at hand. You have not shared your own philosophy on the subject, merely joined the current thread with a joke about lib-tard (an admittedly funny joke) as yet you have offered no philosophical input?
I must certainly admit that I am rather fond of my own philosophical opinions, but do try not to let my fondness for myself, override the philosophy of others, if I can see that philosophy, and if it has some merit at least as I see it.
You have yet to share, on this particular topic.
M
Well I don’t invest in a philosophy. So many overlap, good point here and there, other points useless.
“Philosophical” is another matter. An action rather than intellectual masturbation (like, as you say, “fondleness of self”).
Less potential complications, cheaper by far, and readily accessible, particularly so for the ambidextrous.
To continue the metaphor one must ask then, are you merely here to watch others 'masturbate' rather than join in the fun, if so voyeurism might be a little more unhealthy than jumping in and getting ones hands dirty, so to speak.
M