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


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

Excellent news.

Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy. No, I’m not being sarcastic. The emphasis in my comment is on the term democracy. Or better still, a realm of individual liberty and security of person and property.

Anyone fool enough to think that The Islamic Ideology does not have as its primary aim the overthrow of democracy and the subjugation of all persons to Clerical Fascism…well, such a person had better study “The Book of Hate”, aka Quran, esp sura 9:029.

Being barred from a particular architectural design for your Political Office for the Promotion of Clerical Fascism, ha, that doesn’t seem to me to be too wrongful a balancing act between your freedom of expression and my entitlement to live in a society where there is not a surfeit of bearded nut jobs who want to see me in a bin liner or to rape me.

Religiously programmed patriarchal Zombies of Hate (almost always XY-SNC) who regard my physiological type as moral, political and existential trash … well, as far as I’m concerned, their ideology can be shredded into the f*cking dustbin. They are free to shout their hatred in the public square, but I won’t lift a finger to facilitate it, and that includes not acquiescing in planning laws that permit construction of their broadcast towers.

My ears are pricked, aching to hear from a progressive crew of these monotheists, who have rejected the patriarchal elements of their moral-political brew, joined the world of physical evidence and reasoning by logic (PEaRL), and who now express their love of all things womanly. Who shout out that their hearts are as warm as sacks of golden honey in the sun for feminine ideals. Forgive me if I fall asleep waiting….

Regards, andrea

“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

Dogs Vs G.O.D.

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.


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