“Every man who believes in something in an absolute fashion is the mortal enemy of “truth“ and “reality”.
Fanaticism – vibrant stupidity bewitched by a ludicrous Unconditional. Transforming one facet of Becoming into the sole reality; converting one aspect of the spirit into a fixed point of reference; elevating an “event“ to the rank of unappealable symbol – that is the mechanism of violating diversity which defines the intolerance of any faith. (…)
The partisan of a political sect experiences the obsession of things spelled in uppercase just like any believer. All the evil and the little good that we know in time derive from the truncated vision of fanaticism. The transformations of society – on the pretext of unqualifiable “progress” – are possible through resistance to clear sight, to contradictory existence, through suppression of the descriptive spirit. Prolific ages are fatal to the spirit. Because every creation is obtained at the expense of understanding and impartiality. Taking part in something means reducing yourself to a system of acts that exclude all others; suppressing the divergent neighbor; resorting to the state or the police, in any case to a uniform, to decide on controversies that have made philosophers fail; and, ultimately, channeling breath in a single direction.
Therefore, one can only breathe in sterile ages – those ages in which each individual takes part – at the very most – in themselves.”Emil Cioran – Razne (Digressions), Paris, 1945-46 (translated from Romanian by the owner of this blog).
“Education, in the sense in which I mean it, may be defined as the formation, by means of instruction, of certain mental habits and a certain outlook on life and the world. (…)
The search for an outside meaning that can compel an inner response must always be disappointed: all “meaning” must be at bottom related to our primary desires, and when they are extinct no miracle can restore to the world the value which they reflected upon it.
The purpose of education, therefore, cannot be to create any primary impulse which is lacking in the uneducated; the purpose can be only to enlarge the scope of those that human nature provides, by increasing the number and variety of attendant thoughts and showing where the most permanent satisfaction is to be found.”Bertrand Russel – Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays (1910)
One epidemic calls forth another
and one infectious protein spawns
Mental representations spreading like viruses.
Alert! Long lines before inoculation centers.
Demand for fiction is high.
Trust has been thrown off-kilter.
Too little truth produced
to fight this lethal disease.
No medicine as yet against the fever of
Maintain a safe distance
and epistemological hygiene.
Refrain from visiting the specters of panic.
To stop the proliferation,
Stay home, in your consciousness,
and disinfect it.
Specious is bad
for the species.
To my dear readers:
Hi guys, I hope everyone is doing well! I was wondering if any of you might like to help me with my new linguistic pet project. I was wondering how far the equality of the sexes has come and what it feels like to be a woman in our day-to-day interactions in the 21st century. What are women allowed to do? What are they supposed to want? What is still perceived as taboo? How do people speak about women where you live?
I am therefore collecting instances of oppressive language directed at women and used to keep them “in their place”. For now I am only interested in SPOKEN language, so expressions YOU YOURSELVES HAVE HEARD OR OVERHEARD DURING YOUR LIFETIME. Things like (but not limited to): “What kind of profession is that for a woman?”, “That’s not a girl colour/activity”, “The wife shouldn’t be smarter than her husband”, “All women want children”, “You women are so… emotional/hormonal/impossible”, “Women can’t be top managers because they lack…”, “Women can’t join the clergy because their looks will distract the congregation from God” (as if there are no distractingly handsome clergymen 🙂) or even disturbing stuff such as “She deserved what happened to her because she was too…. opinionated/provocative etc.”
If you have been confronted with this kind of prejudice or you’ve heard it in the workplace, on the street, at a friend’s house, from relatives, on TV/radio or whatever, and you’d like to contribute (anonymously), please submit your examples via the Google Form that can be found at the following link:
Multiple submissions possible.
The data I need is: the expression used; when it was said (what year, approximately); the country in which it was said; whether it was said by a man or a woman and what role/job/relationship that person was to you (boss, friend, colleague, family member, teacher, stranger in the street etc.), and the kind of tone that was used. If you also want to include how that particular utterance made you feel, please do. But please only contribute stuff that you have heard yourselves (i.e. stuff said in your presence). 🙂
I am also interested in sexist jokes that are still current and popular in your region. Things like: “If your wife can come out of the kitchen to nag you, you’ve made her leash too long.”
Eventually, if this actually turns into something interesting, I might add a section on supportive language (instances where women were encouraged to pursue their goals/ambitions/ideals and reach for the stars). It would be interesting to see how these differ in paraverbal terms (intonation, pitch etc.) and in non-verbal behavior (body language, eye contact etc.) from the dismissive comments above.
Many thanks for participating, I really appreciate it!
“In itself, every idea is neutral, or should be; but man animates ideas, projects his flames and flaws into them; impure, transformed into beliefs, ideas take their place in time, take shape as events: the trajectory is complete, from logic to epilepsy . . . whence the birth of ideologies, doctrines, deadly games.E.M. Cioran – “Genealogy of fanaticism” in A Short History of Decay (Paris, 1949).
Idolaters by instinct, we convert the objects of our dreams and our interests into the Unconditional. History is nothing but a procession of false Absolutes, a series of temples raised to pretexts, a degradation of the mind before the Improbable.”
So little left to express.
The signifiers have lost their signifieds and are straying.
Ideas, heavy as rock, sink to the bottom of rivers
waiting to be swept away by a sudden flood of effervescence
or settle, with the mud, along the banks of dam lakes
Occasionally, some debris resurfaces – a severed head still smiling,
an arm, the fuselage of last year’s vacation… (or was it the year before last?!)
only to be whirled away with the rest of the waste.
Emptied of meaning, the words denote nothing.
Imponderable, impalpable, floating.
The slightest gale will whisk them up to the barren sky
like balloons (escaped? released?) out of the hands of children.
Never to return.
I don’t really miss them.
There is so little left to express.
“Understanding a people’s culture exposes their normalness without reducing their particularity. (…) It renders them accessible: setting them in the frame of their own banalities, it dissolves their opacity.”Clifford Geertz – The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books Classics)
“If too few opportunities for curiosity are available, if too many obstacles are placed in the way of risk and exploration, the motivation to engage in creative behavior is easily extinguished. (…) So, if the next generation is to face the future with zest and self-confidence, we must educate them to be original as well as competent.”M. Czikszentmihalyi – Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (Harper Collins e-books)
On vice and broadmindedness:
“Human wickedness, if accepted by society, is changed from an act of will into an inherent, psychological quality which man cannot choose or reject but which is imposed upon him from without, and which rules him as compulsively as the drug rules the addict. In assimilating crime and transforming it into vice, society denies all responsibility and establishes a world of fatalities in which men find themselves entangled. (…) If crime is understood to be a kind of fatality, natural or economic, everyone will finally be suspected of some special predestination to it. (…) The seeming broadmindedness that equates crime and vice, if allowed to establish its own code of law, will invariably prove more cruel and inhuman than laws, no matter how severe, which respect and recognize man’s independent responsibility for his behavior.”H. Arendt – The Origins of Totalitarianism (Penguin Classics, 2017)
“To live “in diaspora” is to reside in one place but to keep in motion an emotional, cultural, or political relationship with another, whether it is the site of one’s nativity that subsequently became a point of departure or an ancestral “homeland” virtually conjured but never visited. (…)
Diasporas (…) are platforms where received notions of cultural affiliation, religious inclination, and political persuasion can come undone or become entrenched and exaggerated. (…) They can be sites of recycling as much as of reinvention. (…)
But (…) all migrants, across a wide range of social positions, nonetheless share the experience that their movement results in a certain degree of expulsion from their territorial, political, juridical, or economic status. Even if the end result of migration is a relative increase in money, power, or enjoyment, the process of migration itself almost always involves an insecurity of some kind and duration. (…) The gains of migration are always a risk, while the process itself is always some kind of loss.”S. Illot, A.C. Mendes, L. Newns (eds.) – New Directions in Diaspora Studies (Rowman & Littlefield, London, 2018)
“To yield to the mere process of disintegration has become an irresistible temptation, not only because it has assumed the spurious grandeur of ‘historical necessity’, but also because everything outside it has begun to appear lifeless, bloodless, meaningless, and unreal. (…)
Comprehension does not mean denying the outrageous (…). It means, rather, examining and bearing consciously the burden which our century has placed on us – neither denying its existence nor submitting meekly to its weight. Comprehension, in short, means the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality – whatever it may be.”Hannah Arendt – The Origins of Totalitarianism (Preface to the First Edition, summer 1950).
Words that still resonate.