2013-09-04 From and to F.

Little fagot things…

Russian athletes first, now Delon. France and Russia are resisting They believed in the Revolution, which is a serious thing, and that is why he faces these little fagot things. Let’s see if we lose the fear of what correctness. If homosexuals want to exist, they exist, what are they going to do. But do not tell us that it’s normal. The most extended neither, of course not. And in favor of nature, of course neither do they go.

Cats didn’t purr? I only see scratches and bites around here …

F., analysis, analysis!!!!

I will only make statements:

  1. Origin of homosexuality. Mainly, it is believed to have a genetic origin. Then it is no longer so against nature, since it’s nature that creates it spontaneously. In fact, in other species there is homosexuality, but only in the human species is homophobia.

  2. While it is true that it is not something that brings new offspring to the species, as human beings, they must be respected, and offensive comments such as “unnatural” is not respect. Furthermore, the bad thing about these comments is not the words, but the attitudes and the possible consequences and repercussions that these may have in this social sector.

  3. The creation of a law against homosexual propaganda is a restriction of a right and freedom that is not harmful to the population, and that causes negative discrimination in these citizens.

  4. Although it is not the “normal” or the most widespread tendency, homosexuals are human beings in the same way as the others, and they must be treated as such. I know many homosexuals who are beautiful people, and they have taught me to love (love is a very big word, you know) men more even than women, but in a different ways.

And as a typical and topical example, homosexuality practiced by the Greeks of Classical Greece, the cradle of some of the greatest thinkers in the West.

F., do not take the email as an attack on your ideas, I like that you share this information with me, because they connect me with a reality and a society with which I often disconnect. But what I am going to like the most is what T. will answer, and the probable article in Último Cero that he is going to write.

With love from man to man,

Carlos, The goody-goody.

Carlos,

  1. Nature also creates cancers.

  2. Everyone must be respected. Against nature is equivalent to say that it is not in favor of sustaining the world, it is not in favor of evolution, of conception. Let’s take a radical example: tomorrow we all become homosexual. The Earth, after a few years, as long as science doesn’t give up creating little children out of nothing, would become extinct. But they are few and we can continue to manage.

  3. I notice a gay fashion. I’m not uncomfortable with others taking out a banner against it. I enjoy.

  4. I also know excellent homosexuals.

  5. Homosexuality in Greece was above all vice, pleasure, sex, desire. Here, it is presented equated to heterosexuality.

Howls.

C., with whom in the end you are going to have a lot in common, uses a term that we make us laugh. “Tree”, he calls a large number of people: trees. People without curiosity, with little motivation. Trees like to take root. You water them from time to time, they get the sun, they do photosynthesis and they live so happy wherever you plant them.

He believes that the danger is in the trees, and not in technology or science. It is the trees that are dangerous, those that can misinterpret ideas, and unleash terrible acts. I do not believe in goody-goody philosophies, because I know the enormous human stupidity. That is the real danger of radical and extremist ideas, and more so when they go against a sector of the population.

I am not so scared or too disturbed about educated people with the capacity to defend ideas I don’t share about homosexuality, politics, etc.. It disturbs me more how trees can interpret these ideas. Worst of all, trees here are not fixed to the ground by roots. Their branches have access to a technology that can be very harmful …

Purrs

PS: I have Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats at home (Eliot 2014). I bought it in London last year. You live less than two minutes distance by bike, and 5 walking. Don’t force me to bring it to you.

I begin this review with the famous, and polemical, declaration by T. S. Eliot. Although it is only some sixty-seven years since he published, in 1948, his essay Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, when we reread it today, it seems to refer to a very remote era, without any connection to the present.

T. S. Eliot assures us that his aim is merely to help define the concept of culture, but, in fact, his ambition is much greater, for, as well as specifying what the term means, he offers a penetrating criticism of the cultural system of his time, which, according to him, is becoming ever more distant from the ideal model that it represented in the past. In a sentence that might have appeared excessive at the time of writing, he argues, ‘I see no reason why the decay of culture should not proceed much further, and why we may not even anticipate a period, of some duration, of which it will be possible to say that it will have no culture.’1 (Anticipating my argument in Notes on the Death of Culture, I will say that the period Eliot is referring to is the one in which we are now living.)

That ideal older model, according to Eliot, is a culture made up of three ‘senses’ of the term: the individual, the group or class, and the whole society. While there is some interaction between these three areas, each maintains a certain autonomy and develops in a state of constant tension with the others, within an order that allows the whole of society to prosper and maintain its cohesiveness.

T. S. Eliot states that what he calls ‘higher culture’ is the domain of an elite, and he justifies this by asserting that ‘it is an essential condition of the preservation of the quality of the culture of a minority, that it should continue to be a minority culture’ (p. 107). Like the elite, social class is also a reality that must be maintained, because the caste or group that guarantees higher culture is drawn from these ranks, an elite that should not be completely identified with the privileged group or aristocracy from which most of its members are drawn. Each class has the culture that it produces and that is appropriate to it and although, naturally, these cultures coexist, there are also marked differences that have to do with the economic conditions of each. One cannot conceive of an identical aristocratic and rural culture, for example, even though both classes share many things, such as religion and language.

Eliot’s idea of class is not rigid or impermeable; rather it is open. A person from one class can move up or down a class, and it is good that this happens, even though it is an exception rather than the rule. This system both guarantees and expresses a social order, but today this order is fractured, which creates uncertainty about the future. The naive idea that, through education, one can transmit culture to all of society is destroying ‘higher culture’, because the only way of achieving this universal democratization of culture is by impoverishing culture, making it ever more superficial. Just as the elite is indispensable to Eliot’s conception of ‘higher culture’, so also it is fundamental that a society has regional cultures that both nurture national culture and also exist in their own right with a certain degree of independence. ‘It is important that a man should feel himself to be not merely a citizen of a particular nation, but a citizen of a particular part of his country, with local loyalties. These, like loyalty to class, arise out of loyalty to the family’ (p. 52).

Notes on the Death of Culture – Vargas LLosa (Llosa 2015)

Noted.

Forceful low hitting… I guess that you’ll have an unfinished and unfinishable list.

Still, it may be that current times are not the right path, but the past wasn’t either.

Think of T.’s father. Let’s believe (1st plural from of the imperative of believe, not recognized in the RSA dictionary4) in opportunities. (Goody-goody striking back…)

You have protection, so hits don’t hurt. Well seen the title. A title that I have praised as much as criticized. I retire with the angels, who will not visit me tonight.

Good evening, and do not underestimate the help of Google (internet, science, technology, society, collaboration, cooperation, community, trees that write empty things in blogs …), nor overestimate my ability.

I will give your address to the angels, to see if in this way…

References

Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2014. Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats: With Illustrations by Rebecca Ashdown. Faber & Faber.

Llosa, Mario Vargas. 2015. Notes on the Death of Culture: Essays on Spectacle and Society. Macmillan.

  1. Spanish nuance: Creamos can be the imperative form of creer [Let’s believe] or present of crear [We create] ↩