"'The funny part,' Saul said, smiling while a few tears still flowed, 'is that I'm not ashamed of this. Two days ago I would have rather died than be seen weeping--especially by a woman.'
'Yes,' Mavis said, 'especially by a woman.'
'That's it -- isn't it?' Saul gasped. 'That's their whole gimmick. I couldn't see you without seeing a woman. I couldn't see that editor, Jackson, without seeing a Negro. I couldn't see anybody without seeing the attached label and classification.'
'That's how they keep us apart,' Mavis said gently. 'And that's how they train us to keep our masks on. Love was the hardest bond for them to smash, so they had to create patriarchy, male supremacy, and all that crap--and the 'masculine protest' and 'penis envy' in women came as a result--so even lovers couldn't look at one another without seeing a separate category.'"
BOOOM!
That's all there is to it, period, end of story. There is a "We are all one" blog coming, with rationalizations and everything. You've been warned.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
why rationalize the "we are all one" when you can just believe it.
Mainly for people like me who want/need/like rationalizations for every belief structure. My brain rejects faith based belief (meaning non-rationalized belief) and embraces well rationalized belief, and for some reason when many different rationalizations coalesce into a big cohesive idea- I get the tingles.
so you believe in rationalization itself. you can just as easily (or difficultly) rationalize "we are all different" or "we are all unique"
Yes, I believe in logic, and therefore believe in rationalization. So far, logic has proven itself correct in the face of all other possibilities. No I don't think that it would be as easy to rationalize "we are all different", however, yes you could rationalize it. I think there is far less evidence/logic supporting the uniqueness of the individual. The point being that based on Occam's Razor- you'd throw out the difficult rationalization, and keep the easy rationalization, in this case being we are all one.
but by admitting that the 'uniqueness of the individual' can be rationalized, aren't you confirming it as truth? So this means that 'we are all connected' is simply a better truth? me, being DIFFERENT than you in this regard, thinks that both statements are true. To you, moths that fly into a fire are "incorrect". i can agree, but i say they are happy.
Woah, um I have no idea what you just said, however, I think I get the jist.
There is a big difference between rationalization and truth.
Consider the following example; You are a dude who digs up a big ass bone. Way the hell bigger than anything living, and when you do some tests, you find that it is very old.
A person could rationalize the following: 1. This bone is from some weird crazy thing that lived a really long time ago. 2. God put this big bone here and made it look really old as a test to separate out the believers from the non-believers.
These would both be rational conjectures of finding a big ass old bone. However, I think that one is simpler and more directed, and using Occam's Razor, I think that the first one is the truth. However, they are both rationalizations.
What I am saying is that I am finding rationalizing the idea that we are all one is much easier and simpler than trying to rationalize the uniqueness of self, thus it seems that the truth is much more closely related to the interconnectedness of everything (we are all one-thing).
i just believe they are both equally valid and correct. without contrast, one cannot see/the sum depends on all parts kinda gig. and im perfectly ok with being irrational!
Post a Comment