What's "rational" then?
Being rational involves using a system of thinking/language which is based on or inextricably tanged with our conditioning. So our conditioning gets perpetuated by us behaving as what we think of as rational. Unless we make a rational decision to do something completely irrational (and that won't happen because we'll keep electing rational people who supposedly represent the average person but who don't really represent anybody) looks like some sort of apocalypse is the only way it's going to happen.
Innit.
When I say 'rational' like that I'm just kinda talking about how the 'rational' has been privileged since the Enlightenment. The way science/scientific thinking has come to be synonymous (culturally) with 'truth'. i.e. scientific truths are taken to be absolute truths rather than the conventional truths they really are, and that something which does not express itself rationally is not expressing anything at all.
Like, clearly, music, religion, art (though it's undergone a sort of pseudo-rationalisation) and things like that clearly mean something beyond what we can explain rationally. They hold meaning which cannot be rationalised but they are seen as being (in this context) meaningless (not valueless, just that they cannot ... lead to progress (I've not said that well)).
(science is work, meaning, truth while 'art' (broadly) is play, entertainment, distraction)
So yeah, just there's been a cultural shift toward the rational and away from anything that cannot be explained in rational language, and that's a shame because there are meanings which rationality cannot express - so we're currently (to whatever extent) incapable of expressing them/exploring the possibilities they lead to.
And yeah, I agree that rational language and conditioning are intrinsically linked. And that non-rational languages, being less rigid/digital offer us (better/easier) ways of thinking outside our conditioning., just due to the nature of the language - they're so indexical that you're kinda making up/defining your terms as you go along. 'course, they tend to be semantically inxact so you have to go to rational language to nail it down but I believe the thoughts/ideas will necessarily originate in the non-rational.
So we just need a counter-enlightenment.
<quote>women are better paid and are more likely to be in powerful positions than 20 years ago,</quote>
Although in some ways that's true, there's still a long way to go before anything approaching gennder equality is reached.
The gender pay gap in the finance sector, for instance, is 43%.
I know, I just like chucking in that statistic because it's fucking disgusting.
It's not very insightful anyway, as the main reason the gap is so big is nothing to do with gender. It still stands that the majority of top city finance positions (the huge salaries that skew the stats) are still given out to some bloke you were mates with at Eaton or whetever - gender isn't really a factor.
I reckon that if the rest of the populace (be that working or middle class) directed their efforts at challenging those systems it would have a much bigger impact on 'equality' shit.
No, my aim is a lack of conditioning in the <i>hope</i> they'll behave how I hope they'll behave. But so long as they behave how they want to behave when free from conditioning, then I'm happy. I acknowledge my expectations might be wrong.
If fascism is simply an ideology that maintains itself through conditioning and perhaps force (which seems to be what you're implying) then western capitalism is fascism. But of course, it's not, you're being disingenuous.
Fascism is authoritarianism characterised by an interest in nationalism and some form of racial or cultural protectionism contextualised via some sort of imagined ideal form. I don't have any of that, I'm absolutely anti-nationalistic.
So I'm just (as a step along the path) not averse to (explicit) authoritarianism.
I was talking this way the other day, (well, I was also mentioning about racism and rap music, and I referred to Bell Hooks who is also a feminist by chance) and someone called me, "Gloria Steinem with brain damage." To me, that was a sexist remark...not to mention mean. (He wouldn't have said it if I was a man.)
So, in keeping with this other guy's beliefs...you two are like Gloria Steinem with brain damage!
It's only rational.
:p
;)
I don't believe conditioning is ever positive when looking at the big picture. Sure, you can isolate small instances of positively-conditioned responses but they exist within a larger fucked-up framework (say, charity) and are rarely free of harm.
I hope people will behave unselfishly, for the most part, without conditioning. I'm not certain of it, but I'm willing to gamble, like. And yes, I'm certain we can rid ourselves of the concept. It's only necessitated by unnecessary and damaging structures.
She was very popular in the 70's as a feminist writer and activist for women's rights.