Archive for December, 2009


these lyrics are brutal.  sentimental stories
Words only spoken seemingly
That I’m warming your heart that way.

its “sentimental sorries, words only spoken seem lame and I won’t win your heart that way.”


Dear ramrodstest,

May I suggest there is a killer ironic switch of perspective in the lyric.

S/he is saying to her lover:

“These lyrics I sing to you are brutal. The sentimental stories that you tell me, are words only seemingly spoken. You are only saying to me that I am warming your heart that way.”

That’s why Tracyanne sings:

“You said I made you feel warm, said I made you feel warm inside. Oh, it feels like none of this is real…”

Regards and merry Xmas and ♥, andrea


Read Full Post »

Am I the only one who finds Colin McGinn pretty smug? The off-hand way s/he dismisses the plausibility of pan-psychism as “a very extraordinary view of course” [at 1:31], as if the very idea of entities having both sensuous, conscious properties as well as more “classically physical” properties, were just silly.

Noop, what’s daft is this initial schizoid splitting of reality into two realms, judged by some existential or phenomenological or epistemological demarcation. Typical of “masculine” styles of thinking, I observe.

There are no “philosophical” problems in our having deep emotional and attitudinal lives. We all know fairly well what it is to feel “such and such”, or to believe “this or that”, about ourselves and other people. Nor do most people doubt that their claims about other peoples and their own mental lives are more or less equally well founded. Unless you go on a philosophy course, the sense that one has an epistemologically privileged access to oneself isn’t commonplace.

The real puzzles are the patterns we have in our feelings and interpersonal lives, especially our half-conscious, half-unconscious models of each other’s feelings, beliefs and intentions. That’s why the art of conversation and romantic literature, and psychology, especially social psychology, all have great significance …. and why the philosophy of mind is a silly common-room hobby.

Things we can know in advance to be “a-priori” inexplicable by natural science? What is the “intrinsic” nature of something apart from its behaviour? A mixture of Kantianism and pure b*llshit mysticism.

My advice to CM? Go get a real job helping people in Tesco’s, to quote a better philosopher 🙂 Or more campaigning for better treatment of other species, which CM was quite interested in, in the early 90s.

Regards and ♥, andrea

Read Full Post »

Dear Coffee Wench 🙂

Way to go!

Just as my jaw was dropping and my anger thermometer going way over boiling point at KJ’s tosh (dressed up as ages-old Buddhist wisdom, of course), so your vid nails her nonsense.

You get my instant sub and friend invite, for Public Service to affection, sanity, hard-work, careful analysis, and the ability to share friendship and love and pleasure. Etc, etc, etc. The classical, life-enhancing virtues of Feminism.

This, of course, being a feminist politics and ethics available to everyone, not outmoded concepts of natural or essential sex-and-gender types. I always have to add that bit, in case someone calls me an essentialist backslider, who just pretends to believe in freedom from compulsory and constricting dimorphic identities.

Probably, I’m going to be told off for not wishing KJ happiness and a quick recovery. Phah, I’m not a bloody saint…. s/he just needs to drop that uptight, head in her arse, rigid, “I’m so transcendentally enlightened”, smug, veneration of “masculine” power and emotional isolation and autism.

Says KJ in watch?v=GyH6nU6eb2I

“Those who understand ultimate reality don’t experience emotion”.

You mean like sympathy, or outrage at injustice, or uncontainable love for ones friends and ones children? This dualistic disconnection between thought and feeling is one of the sickest twists in patriarchy. We need to replace it by a sensuous comprehension, in which to know and to feel run in deep tandem. Integration of the psyche, not schizoid disassociation.

What is strange about KJ is that s/he hovers between the wisdom of seeing the interconnectedness of all of us, but uses this as a pretext for denying the value of individuality (s/he likes to muck around with ideas like ego, self, consciousness, blah, blah), and by implication the significance of the suffering of others. Then s/he turns that into an excuse for veneration of proud, vain, isolated “masculinity”. I suppose that is what’s called paradoxical enlightenment 🙂

Maybe what’s going on (speculates Andrea the Wise) is s/he’s trying to trash some highly unpleasant element of her experience, by trashing the claim that her personal identity really exists? Sinister, very sinister ……

One of my “no-nos” is arguers who pretend not to take a moralised position, but claim to derive it almost against their will by clear thinking from facts. Eg KJ at watch?v=CuHrl0lnN4U 5:25-6:45

“Just as non-attachment in not about an emotional dissatisfaction, or psychological disassociation, so wise misogyny is not about hatred of women, it’s not an emotional satisfaction or revulsion, it’s not distaste. It’s basically just a rational conclusion and rejection of what makes up the feminine mind.”

Grrrr….. Pure contradiction; pure projection of self-hatred on to a realm of abstract rationality; insouciant attempt to pre-empt and dismiss valid criticism just by mentioning it; crap failure to grapple with the is-ought problem. 0 out of 10. What would dear Siggy have said, twirling her cigar, about this case, in “On Negation“?

Rarely have I come across someone who so admires what I regard as anathema to a womanly, beautiful, playful, social existence.

OK, diatribe over.

♥, andrea

Read Full Post »