I don't think it's exaggeration. I'm only talking about locally, in first-world countries. It's not a reality, people aren't actually becoming middle class, but they believe they are, and that's what matters. It's a cultural/ideological shift rather than an economic one (the 'new' middle classes don't have any meaningful stake in the means of production, they're just indoctrinated so as to believe they have an ideological stake).



'Correct' (as in 'better'). Again, in the first world. I just mean the result of stuff like feminism slowly seeping into the collective understanding of things, combined with (although I realise this partly stems from that < ) a semi-acceptance, culturally, of absolute relativism (not that I agree with it).

In more concrete terms: women are better paid and are more likely to be in powerful positions than 20 years ago, people are less likely to be overtly racist, positive discrimination is fairly widely practised etc.. Not that I think much has changed below the surface, but it's movement at least.



I disagree. I believe people act correctly when they're free from being shown grass and the yaps of dogs. I'd rather attack that which is making them behave incorrectly than try to show them how to behave (because I can't tell them, for the same reason that I wouldn't be able to speak fluent french after reading a french dictionary).



I'm not a pacifist. Or rather, ideally I am but I surrender to pragmatism here. I'm quite happy for violence to be used in order to clear the way for progress. Partly in response to the naturalised (and thus somewhat invisible) violence embedded in the current systems (from our military exploits to our treatment of the second and third worlds to the existence of a judicial system and police force to the prevalence of misogyny and commodification etc. in our cultural forms). I firmly believe that pacifism cannot win against an ideology prepared to use violence. But aside from all that I can accept some short term moral-wrong in order to put things right.

So I disagree with that stuff about paradoxes. There's no paradox. Sticky situation, yes, but just a choice and I would happily choose to destroy that which is currently doing violence with the intention that after that occurs, no violence is done. Destroy that with an interest in ongoing violence. I see that as akin to self defence - to me, defending onseself with force is morally wrong, but I would always choose to do it because my intention is to end the violence.



China's quite definitively second world, and that's important. India, arguably solidly third world but altered by its relationship with the British Empire. I don't think either are typically third world. Those labels are a bit meaningless anyway since the old of the cold war - or at least need some re-alignment. India's handling itself quite well at the moment - for once a country is actually thinking about its' long term future and particularly its farmers. They're still making what money they are by doing the menial tasks of the first world, though. China is a special case and one so complex it's not going to make a good example of anything, really.

When I talk about the third world I really mean countries like (in terms of standard of living etc.) most central African countries.

I don't see the economic struggle as important in the same way you do. I don't see it as desirable for second and third world countries to 'get where we are' because they can't get to where we are economically without getting to where we are culturally and ideologically (one of the things which makes China so complex - there seems to be a belief in the western media that China desires this). All these countries are fighting an uphill battle against out trade regulations etc.. Like you imply, 'they''ll never get anything from 'us' unless it's to our advantage. ButI'm working on the assumption that they really don't want to get to where we are - /we/ just see it that way due to historicisation - they must want what we have because what we have tis the pinnacle of development thusfar. Arrogant, blind and hopefully wrong.

I've meandered all over the place and have no real point - just responding to stuff you've brought up.

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 did follow that with "Not that I think much has changed below the surface, but it's movement at least.".

I agree it's not gone anywhere near far enough. And I don't really think it really represents much actual cultural change, it's mainly just paying lip service to political correctness (knowing what you should do but not why).

Just saying there has been some movement in the right direction in recent times.

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.

W3rd to that.

Your aim is reconditioning. You want people to think what you think, not what they want to think. Admit it: you're a fascist.

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.

How do you expect people to behave when free of conditioning? Whilst conditioning can be applied for negative ends, it can also, potentially have benefits in certain areas - are you genuinely certain we can rid ourselves of the concept?

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'm sure that'd make more sense if I knew who Gloria Steinem was :s

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.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem