Re[2]: Obscene Feminists

Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com
Wed, 15 May 2002 16:05:45 -0400 (EDT)


>>>>> "c" == carey  <carey@tstonramp.com> writes:

    c> For instance, call me delusional (crazy?) but I currently am
    c> and will be practicing the states of student, daughter,
    c> traveller, friend, employee, philosophiser and bitbitch :)

Can you hear the fan on your computer?  Which of these were you
while you checked?  If your mind wanders in class, are you still
a student?

    >> I can /intend/ to do friendly (like wrest you of your delusion)
    >> but be seen by you as hostile; am I friend or foe? If you
    >> haven't noticed, we're waxing buddhist here.

    c> Indeed.  But while you may not apply a label to yourself, you
    c> are being labeled.  In tit for your tat, does the mere being
    c> labeled by someone else mean you 'are' actually labeled?  

if Label is a verb, ie, you do some labelling; I checked my skin
and there is no mark there.  Thus it is not I who was tagged.

    >> How do you empirically show person A is an 'X' as distinguished
    >> from them, simultaneous to other 'states', simply doing
    >> apparently X-ish behaviours?

    c> ...  If I said we have ONE label to be, (feminist) and we could
    c> only be one label, you'd be right.  Your test would obviously
    c> point out the illogic in my statement.  But why one cannot be
    c> simultaneously many things, many different labels to many
    c> different people (feminist, writer, FoRKer, friend, bitch) is
    c> beyond me.

You're avoiding the question.  By what test do you decide there is
a label.  Given two people in a classroom, which one is the student?

Daughter is easier, but having worked with "Survivors", it's about
as descriptive (to your dictionary definition) as saying they are
organic, which is also factual but largely useless except in certain
questions.

Being a daughter, just as being human, ok, that I will grant you
because the test is easy: we take a blood sample.  But how do you
measure affiliation to the abstractions?  "Are you now or have you
ever been a communist?" ?

Here's a tricky one: Obesity.  Comparing an empirical weight to a wall
chart, doctors will saddle someone with this label, yet the research
(by Peter Newman, U of T, c1975) shows the danger is not the weight,
but the release of fatty acids which occur when the otherwise healthy
person goes on The Diet; it's just that only a /small/ percent of
"underweights" do the diet thing, so they show up (as a myth-labelled
group) as having a lower rate of heart attack, whereas those over the
median graph line are the ones "pressured" (by media, even their
doctors) to take the plunge, so there's more of them per-capita on the
diet track, and thus more of them in the morgue, and thus are doctors
re-inforced into thinking that the myth-label of "obese" is the alarm.

    >> Do you appeal to the DSM-II? (if so, you're stumbling
    >> into my favourite target range ;)

    c> I can only guess, MPD?  ;) THats a different delusion
    c> altogether having more to deal with a personality possibly
    c> trying to strive for one label, per personality :)

I missed a sequiteur here.  Please rephrase.

    c> Labels suck only when you're capable of being only one.
    >>  Is a one-label state possible?  Even transiently?

    c> Well there is _one_ one label state I know that can exist.  A
    c> dead unknown person.  S/He has no one to bestow other labels
    c> upon them.  Merely that they are dead.

Are they not also "maggot food" or the subject of "what is that
stink?"?  Are they not also indeed still a daughter/son/human even if
now an ex-X?  True, they are now no longer a Communist/AlQueda or
whatever, so does that mean we're now sorry we killed them? (oops)

    >> Even an 2-label state, or any bounded N-lable state? Can you
    >> give an example?

    c> I'm missing what you're asking for here?

I'm asking for an exact empirical example of one human being who can
be defined by a static and bounded list of labels.  

You said you had problems with people who are only one label but can
tolerate multiple affiliations, but I am proposing that you still
could count in that singular-label person the 142 Names of God and
not exhaust even just the present moment.

This is why the DSM-II fails, and why we (teledyn.com/fun/CL) get so
many refugees from western therapy.  It's an easy trap to fall in,
especially when the media /needs/ you to be label-able so they can
target you with advertising.

    c> http://www.litkicks.com/Texts/SunflowerSutra.html

You beat me, by moments (as is now evident)

    c> Back atccha.  Even ginsburg understands we're not just the
    c> thing we appear to be.  We have more.  I dont' disagree at all.

Exactly.  So you concede that the label is at best a convenience of
speech, typically intended to belittle and demean, but at best
intended to obscure the essential Sunflower? To tye in Epicurus: In a
philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he learns
the most.

-- 
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)