“S/he came to my place. S/he said s/he had to see my face. S/he hopes we can still be friends. In her way s/he loves me to the end. S/he came to my door, wanting to know for sure. My love gets up and goes, I’m sorry but it had no place to go. Oh, my love for you is stronger don’t you know? Can’t you see you belong with me? Oh, you broke me, and I thought I knew you well. I looked deep within my self. I got scared by just how hard I felt.”

Un bello canzone di frenaggio del cuore.

♥, andrea

Wickedly correct, dear gOdip,

(i) those unintelligible divine things are vehicles for the projection of elements of the psyche

(ii) the projected elements are usually powerful fundamental interpersonal feelings, such as (a) I love you, (b) I wish to be intimate with you, (c) I strongly dislike you, (d) I am strongly offended by your beliefs and feelings about me

(iii) one cause of the development of projective mechanisms, is that the Oh So Righteous Ones have been prevented from acknowledging or expressing or receiving in a balanced and constructive way, the same fundamental interpersonal feelings. Schizoid parenting styles, if you ask me.

(iv) both the fact of the projection, and the origins within the self of the projected feelings, are very difficult for the OSROs to recognise. Just ask Flanders….

(v) one technique the unconscious uses for masking the origins of projected feelings, is to transfer the divine thing into a realm of the metaphysical or ineffable. “God is just too mysterious for you ever to understand”. Yeah, sure, right…

Now, why (iv) is true is an interesting question. Answers, anyone

♥ andrea

“My affair with the Duchess of Vincennes was on an altogether higher plain than any of you hobbledehoys can conceive. Do you know what it was cemented our love? We used the same coloured varnish for our toenails.”

Why haven’t I watched this series before? Tut, tut. Too much distracting Youtube

Lovely English Oxfordian 20s wit, from a post-war perspective, that is.

Regards and ♥, andrea

Dear StrangeGlobal,

Hello sometime inhabitant of London

Top quality vids.

You have my partial agreement. But then I am a shameless advocate of an objective “Legal Empire” of negative rights. Roughly, those negative rights that are the minimal set required (at any particular time) to get close to Pareto optimality for all persons, so that it can reasonably be said they are acting with free-will, and developing and expressing their sense of self, as identified by themselves. Or something like that

Certainly I’ve no time for (i) legal enforcement of ideological doctrines, ie theocratic law; or (ii) pure paternalism, based on what you perceive as “good” for me even if you have reasonable knowledge that I don’t want that “good”, and no third party interests are involved. And no cheating – third party interest does not include mere moral outrage on their part at something I should not be doing. So, if I shout at the top of my voice in the town square that Mohammed is a child rapist, or Jesus spent 40 nights of erotic intimacy with mountain goats, no one gets to call the police to have me thrown in the clink. Provided I don’t hog the public space so as to disqualify others from their advocacy slots :-0

Nor do I like bureaucratically administered social welfare smuggled in under the guise of rights. Sure people have a right to health care and education, but if that means anything, it means freedom to purchase it through a transparent and efficient market, with multiple buyers and sellers. Sure, there will be less well-off people. The answer is taxpayer funded welfare vouchers, and/or philanthropic charity from ones co-citizens.

I would like to hear a little more on this “fighting for” human rights, as codified in the UDHR. You’re keen on using a broad degree of free-expression to counter bad ideas. Yoh, the disinfectant of sunlight

So, would you fight merely to protect its present operation? To extend its jurisdiction? Does that include justified confiscation of property, restricting liberty, potentially injuring, or foreseeable killing?

You readily and rightly accept that most rights schemas try to rule out trade-offs between rights or between rights-bearers, eg Art 30. And you correctly say that force used to defend rights is patently different from unjust harm.

But then we get to the messy question of what is “necessary, proportionate and rationally connected” enforcement of the promulgated rights.

Over to you for some justified examples of enforcement …. Maybe you want to work your example several times, using different agents, eg wronged individual, private defence agency, state actors.

Regards and ♥, andrea

StrangeGlobal Hey!

Thanks for your message!

I’m afraid you’ll have to get a little more specific with regards to your questions though. You’re asking a multitude of them that have to be distinguished from one another. I would be committing an injustice if I started voicing general ideas concerning the implementation of human rights.

Cheers!

Dear StrangeGlobal,

You are so scrupulous Concerned about avoiding injustice, even in the context of discussions on YT ! Way to go, conversationalist onesto.

Excellent sequence of increasingly satirical interpretations of Rays banana beliefs.

Hmmm, you are right about the melange of issues in my earlier comment. But first, good cheese is interesting – Port-Salut, chilled Pinot Grigio, warmed khobz, a crate of bursting Cabernet Sauvignon grapes brought back by someone one loves, good humous with oil and chilli, perfect company and talk. Hmmmm…

So, a more particularised first question. Taking the UDHR as an organic body of rights, rather than concentrating on any sub-section, would you be prepared to use force to defend a pre-existing jurisdiction in which the Declaration was, more or less effective? If so, what degree of force?

Or would you be prepared also to use force (not just whoopee cushions) to eliminate a regime where state police powers were used systematically to deny large numbers of its citizens even basic rights, such as due process before imprisonment, or where there is widespread torture and killing by state operatives?

I say yes to both, because (a) I have no problem with objective universal rights deriving from our existence as conscious beings united in humanity, and (b) I have little time for pragmatic arguments about “international stability” through respecting the sovereignty of tyrants.

However, for me, with my attempted pacifism, “force” should mean assisting citizens in a jurisdiction to resist or overthrow tyrannical government. If you try to topple governments by invading powers, unless you contemplate the horror of total war to stifle all civil society, you create chaos and invite armed thugs (usually XY-SNC people driven by paranoia and thirst for domination) to coalesce and occupy the vacuum of non-government.

BTW, being straight-up, my minimal state, free market, libertarian presumptions (open to falsification of course) imply I do not subscribe to Art 22 to Art 29. It starts to go wrong when social security is defined as a right, instead of being a duty upon individuals, to purchase, eg, income insurance; or to hold deposits sufficient to meet minimum expenses for, eg, 3 months. It gets much worse when buying and selling labour time and skills in a market is subjected to a notion of fair price, or an entitlement to have your offer accepted by someone even if you overprice yourself. Nonsense, and destructive of many peoples actual employability, because of wage inflation.

Art 29 is a prototypically nasty piece of authoritarianism, spurious collectivism and pure tyranny. “The just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare” – ha, I can hear Cardinal Richelieu laughing with glee, whilst signing the warrants for midnight arrest and for secret, indefinite detention, all in accordance with The King’s latest lawful decree, as properly justified to maintain “public order”.

Regards, ♥ andrea

The first 1:20 is some of the most inspired instrumental writing in the whole Motown, funk, disco arena.

The opening slightly syncopated piano chords and those “Philly Strings”. Knock-out.

And the lyrics, talking of just the most grown-up, bittersweet tastes of momentary love in The Modern City.

“Music plays, everyones dancing, closer and closer. Making friends and finding lovers …. Searching for someone to set you free from New York City.”

Thx for the wicked sound

♥, andrea

Dear Bisexual Cyborg, a very wayward path lead me to your myspace. I’m in a lyrical mood.

One day, the distractions of sex-and-gender spectrums will have been tossed on the junk pile. One day, we will use all our technical potential to create a world where the primary interpersonal relationship is the bond of the transcendental erotic. A time when to know and feel each other, and to sensuously engage with the world, will be like holding hands and looking across the Himalayas, scorched by the sunrise, deafened by a shattering c-major cadence. When sharing thoughts would be like the touch of someones tongue on my clitoris, or the brush of my fingers on her nose and lips. We will adore each other, without illusions projected onto each other. Knowing each other completely, we would see, in Blake’s words, that we, rather than that tyrannical metaphysical folly called monotheism, are indeed the image of the actual divine.

For Mercy has a woman’s heart
Pity, a human face;
And Love, the human form divine;
And Peace, our woman’s dress.

Then every woman, of every clime,
That prays to her lover
In worship and in delight,
Prays to the human form divine:
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

A chaos of billions of irrepressible, creative, erotic beings. A feminist realm of reverence, knowledge and delight, directed by Athena and Aphrodite, so to speak.

What then? We could fully recode our sensuous existence in the electromagnetic spectrum, and broadcast our song of love for each other across the universe. Imagine our traversing space, light year by light year, playing catch-up to the echo of the BigBang, so that our love for each other became like an endless consummation of that initial singularity. Would we be fulfilling some destiny to become the erotic, adoring consciousness of the universe? Maybe.

And, we could look back at the prehistory of this tsunami of love, and perhaps, in your cute terminology, sing a melancholy hymn for when our beautiful consciousness grovelled in the dirt, before the moment when horny machines and humans got it together

Regards and love, andrea ♥

Ahh, someone who enjoys the Pleasures of Technically Perfect Piracy

“Real to real is living verity. People stop and stare at me. We just walk on by. We just keep on dreaming.”

As much an homage to a complete philosophy of life and love as, ohh, Blade Runner.

Thx for posting,

♥ andrea

6:50 – 7:20 “For it solicits a certain multilateral symmetry of uniform parallelism. Yet it surrenders to an unascertained precariousness of ungoverned fragility. And this sympathetic amalgamation I find most harmonious indeed.”

Priceless. I think I shall have some new Escort Gal cards printed with these very bon mots, extolling the virtues of the dialectical unity of the concept of humanity, viz my pleasure and profession in dating XX and XY couples.

♥ andrea

Dear majesstic786,

I don’t like this. In its condescending and patronising manner, this video encapsulates the Islamic Ideology’s patriarchal contempt for Divine Feminine principles.

The message pushed is “be yourself, be strong enough to ignore expectations”. Fine words indeed to any independent minded person.

However, the implied consequence is that I should be happy to accept wearing the bin-liner; and hiding myself under a costume of shame; and be thankful that my beautiful sensuous erotic person is invisible to everyone – except of course, to some patriarchal XY-SNC person, who just happens to claim ownership of my person and control of my behaviour.

So, the expectations to be ignored are those of individualism and freedom of choice in love and affection, and each persons uniqueness. The expectations to be accepted are that one should grovel in sycophantic admiration for that child-molester called BigMo; and worship the delusional nonsense called allah-the-god-thing; and accept ones life as constantly managed by jealous and infantile XY people.

I don’t think so. We are sensuous, social creatures, constantly advertising our erotic selves to each other. There are no gods. We have only the beauty of ourselves, and feminine principles such as truthfulness, trust, love and cooperation, and our capacity to create new life – these are the things I admire.

Regards, andrea

Dear ABBA-channel,

Sometimes you come to the classics and realise why they are so good.

Now, only fools believe in the merits of monogamy. But one may still seek the sense of security and dedication built when you are lovers, and the yearning for that always to continue. These lyrics are so heartfelt:

“I was in your arms, thinking I belonged there. I figured it made sense, building me a fence. Building me a home, thinking I’d be strong there. But I was a fool, playing by the rules….”

It isn’t really about erotic and affectional rivalry. It isn’t that I, for instance, regret my lovers being able to kiss others. Far from it, one takes pleasure in their happiness with other people. It is that my heart breaks whenever I realise that love cannot last forever. Believing it can is the illusory rule written in the soul of every romantic, including me :-/

Regards and ♥, andrea