Criticism of RW sexuality

Second, having read the article under this title, with a great deal of relish and appreciation, I might add, the following points of criticism are needed at each of the 7 strata of discourse it intersects. It predicates across the gamut of sign uses, mostly for objects in the Upper Triad (words for fantasy; stories), thus is a performance of the corresponding order:


7 -as theological perfomance

- The following is a double self-refutation:

[quote]-There is no more reason, essentially, for a man’s choosing a woman as his mate rather than a man, than there was for the Hebrews to name God Yah rather than El. The man may of course want children, and having a woman for a mate would obviously facilitate that desire, but that is as it happens. Sexual difference is no more an essential part of the relations between man and woman, and of a man’s sexual being as a man (A), than the vowel “ah” is an essential part of the name of God(B).

If this is not pure gibberish, it appears to be a confused expression of a 60's-originating idea of sexual language as a psychological constrict. (B). The sounds of the flame letter Hebrew alphabet were part of the "name of God", which didn't communicate to its original users what "name of" communicates today (was a way of summoning, etc.). (A) is apparently supposed to be refuted by whatever flumbunster point (B) was supposed to make, which is entirely unclear, since the Hebrews didn't "choose" either the names "Yah" or "EL", so it remains sounding absurd.

-The remarks on what might be loosely taken as philosophy of language. Language is variously predicated on as: a metaphor, communal, a habit, a concept, ripped off by the Left for its own agenda without exploring its depths, like he does... never as a epistemic condition, which requires sentences, truth and falsehood, subjects and predicates (if its truths are to have application anywhere outside language), implication and rules of inference. That is, the language of science. Systematic elaboration of the conditions of such a language that would be (a) consistent; (b) adequate (for reconstructing mathematics and the formal part of theories; (c) thorough-going (as in Kant's Third Analogy of Experience: applicaple to whateve can be part of experience). The elaboration of the formal requirements of this are grounded in the history of philosophy in the pre-Socratic concept of Being, as a term for universal totality.

6 -as philosophical performance
Esolen's maunderings about whether what he calls "language" is "arbitrary" or not, where intelligible at all (uncited "Leftist" doctrine he is refuting here) seems to confuse the syntax and semantics of a constructed language (the language of science) with that of ordinary --natural spoken -- language. Wherever actual tokens are referred to, Ex. "The Bible", "Yah", etc., natural, not artificial language is intended. The language of science has no proper names (though it has individual reference designators, e.g., 'GMT'), and no pronouns except "it" (the variable 'x'). Transcribing the cognitive content of a given segment of discourse ("language" in his sense, particularized) into a true or false logical format is a learned skill of a high intellectual order. (Makes it "left" already in some schemes.) One wouldn't want to bother Esolen, who knows what he means if not quite how to mean it.

5 -as existential performance

It shows what a sensitized male Right Wing 60's hater can put together, after stealing what the Left created. See 3 below.

4 -as a moral performance

A challenge to Kant's thesis that a good will is the highest moral value. This is good will twisted into Right Wing negation of the positive. I accept the argument that male friendship is disfigured when "Are they queer?" is the automatic pre-programmed response to every show of male affection. I hate that. And I blame "movement" homosexuals for foisting such mentality off on us. I love youse guys asses on this fuckin' board (some of them). Who TF wants to have to say such shit? So I blame whatever pushed that in my/our face to have to say. But this goes back to roght wing gaynxiety, I hold, not to the "sexual revolution". Given twisted sign uses, acts motivated by good will can lead the actors and fruends straight to hell.

3 -as judgment about material reality (the shared world of 3 dimensions)

The titled content doesn't seem directly related to material, or economic reality but there is a connection through the politics of its use.

There is a litmus paper test available for correctness on this today. Does this entity (the author, and the effect reading him has on the flow of subjective process) associate or disassociate itself from GW Bush and the Zionists politics of Death? What with their pre-emptive strikes, and "us against them" ultimatums vs. "Islamofascists", no neutral or common ground of friendship can exist here. Therefore, by existential performance as anti-Left (5), when GW Bush is Right,
as a material performance this is pro-Death.


2 -as phenomenal performance (piece of literature)

Not bad. At times, cogent. (Not: with the syllogisms already)

1. -as neoro-psychical transfer.

Got it off his chest.

These don't need adding up now. What he says that is positive doesn't need this Right - Left frame, though the way it has worked out historically I can see where he gets it. I am actually more sympathetic with what he is saying than with orgone box hippies, but somebody has to got to hold out for the de facto historical diagonal between Ideal Language philosophy and Actual Psychohistory.