Lesbians and Atheism2/24/2022 »Many Amerindians believe that animals have descended from humans rather than humans from animals. Within these cosmogonies, in the beginning everything was human. Then the world ended and from that cataclysm the many species, forests, rivers, stars, and minerals were formed. This dispersion ended the mythic state of primordial cannibalism, when everything was undifferentiated and thus ate its own kin in order to feed itself. All these entities, regardless of their species or form, remain human. There are only some of us who, despite our technologies and sciences, cannot sense the disguised humanity of others. The Yanomami believe that the sky fell on earth and that it had a forest on its back«. Look Above, the Sky is Falling: Humanity Before and After the End of the World Pedro Neves Marques I wish to make a clear statement that non-westerners (amerindians in this case) don't believe in cosmo-techno-lopolis I advocate for in this article! They would say that cosmo-techno-lopolis tend towards uniforming (systemtizaying) singularity while they believe in multitude of worlds, mediated by different ontologies. I should say that I too believe in diversity! I also like their way of thinking that animals came from humans and that we should have a respect and feeling for animals because there is something humane in them therefore I sense their humanity despite our technologies and sciences. I know animals are not beneath us and there is nothing shameful in animals. If you have animal(s) and live with them you treat them as your beloved one(s) with love, kindness, respect, care and empathy. In this respect, their (Amerindians's) way of thinking denounces the so called 'anthropocene' religions and philosophy (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrism, ancient Greek philosophy) with its world of transcendence (unearthly domain) and glorifying human species above all living beings on the planet earth. This thinking is 'similar' to why I am an atheist. Most lesbians, including myself, I know are atheists. The reason is clear: prejudices and degradation by religion throughout the world. Thus I am often surprised why someone would assume that lesbians have any connection to any kind of faith although some can be religious. It would be also correct that most of philosophy is conservative and prejudical since Plato started the condemnation of homosexuality in his works The Republic and Laws as being unnatural and unfruitful. As we can read Plato in the Laws (Book 1) opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is unnatural (636c). In Book 8, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838–839d) It took me quite some time to really acknowledge that it was actually Plato that started both asexuality and heterosexuality as some kind of ideal position for a man educated in divine matters although in Symposium and Phaedrus states otherwise. Roman politeism and Christian religion followed Plato's lead in the form of Neoplatonism. Nowadays atheism is most ardently argued for and promoted in science fiction. I already wrote about atheism in TV series The Westworld, another series is Raised by Wolves where atheism is the central topic of the series. It took me a while to realize why is that: it goes well with the so-called Transhumane or Fourth industrial revolution (4IR) that mostly relies on every kind of technology or as you can read at Anders Sörman-Nilsson website: »We are all cyborgs; a fusion of biology and technology. With the introduction of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ... Just as robotics and mechanical exoskeletons can amplify our physical capabilities, AI and digital data analysis now help augment our brains. This is the age of transhumanism. Though the idea of a human/-robot is most commonly depicted through science fiction, the truth is that humanity has always used tools as extensions of ourselves. With the help of smarter digital devices, we are now able to do more, sense more and experience more than what is biologically possible ... In the future, you get to dictate what sets you apart from artificial intelligences – or what makes you similar«. Transhumane revolution relies on people and their ability to improve themselves through technology – there is nothing else and noone above or elsewhere to rely on. This realization that almost the only means for the promotion of atheism nowadays is science fiction came to came by reading philosophers, phenomenologists, and existentialists to be precise (which are usually right-wing anti-technology people but not necessarily) who criticize technology, order of logic, and systematization while at the same time using it. They say that the human ratio or mind is to blame for this cosmo-technopolis of systematization but is it not mind and logos that philosophers most ardently support, cherish and strive for? For this same reason, homosexuality was banned and for this reason, I was mostly being ignored in my endeavor of philosophy of love and sexuality in the manner what has this to do with reason, science, and logic? Well, anyway back to technology. I grew up listening to electronic music. It is the most appealing music to me, although I occasionally listen to opera and classical music (only once in a while I like to listen to Donizetti, Saint-Saëns, Mozart, Satie, Grieg and others while I can listen to melodic techno and lounge every day.) The same philosophers (phenomenologists and existentialists) criticize also electronic music and everything that comes with it too (for instance CDs) and argue for analog music. I also grew up playing computer games and I play them even today, again the same philosophers condemn this kind of relaxation and playfulness saying that computer games immerse us into non-human, AI interactions at the expense of authentic common human relations. But when it comes to authentic common human relations they again complain they have been corrupted by ratio logic order of systematization when men are measured to men-power, productivity, effectiveness, and uniformity. They also complain saying that people lost their sense of belonging and 'home' in the megalopolis. Why is that? Because megalopolis spatial imprint as the postmetropolitan era, according to Baudrillard, Deborah and Jameson are considerably larger than in the early twentieth century, yet its power structure is not predominantly anchored in real space. »It supports itself instead through information technology, thereby creating social bonds beneath and across phenomenal space over an area spanning all human settlements — planet Earth and, in sf narratives, orbital settlements. The object of the sublimity of the postmodern megalopolis is accordingly no spatial feature.« (Tandt, 2012: iv) In short, megacities don't map themselves on the earth but on all kinds of new technologies and mostly on information tools and gadgets. Maybe what phenomenologists and existentialists simply try to say is that they don't feel connected to all that technology offers to our life? Indeed, virtuality on one hand and mega spaces where you lose a sense of the anchor/center on the other hand is one of the strongest features of megalopolis but maybe that could be interpreted as some kind of Plato's ideal world of forms? And this brings us back to the topic of atheism and divinity. The way as I understand it and I am going to use only one example because it was supposedly given as an example by a woman. It is about Diotima (we don't know whether imaginary or real), Socrates adviser on matter divine in connection with love. Diotima claims that because Sophia is the love of wisdom, Eros must be a philosopher, »... that is a lover of wisdom who stands in between the fair and the foul, the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful.« (Plato, 1960: 96). And what does it mean to be a lover of wisdom? Diotima, Socrates respectively claims that: Thus men who are concerned more with the physical level take care of children and love a woman, and those who are concerned about the spiritual level take an interest in justice, virtue, and the highest mystery of all (beauty per se). And how do we get to this Beauty/Goodness/Truth? »At first, one should love one fair form, and then many, and learn the connection of them; and from beautiful bodies, he should proceed to beautiful minds, and the beauty of laws and institutions, until he perceives that all beauty is of one kindred; and from institutions, he should go on to the sciences, until at last the vision is revealed to him of a single science of universal beauty, and then he will behold the everlasting nature which is the cause of all and will be near the end. In the contemplation of that supreme love, he will be purified of earthly things, and will behold beauty, not with the bodily eye, but with the eye of the mind, and will bring forth true creations of virtue and wisdom, and be the friend of God and the heir of immortality. And for this reason, Plato says not everything can be an object of desire – only the beautiful, the truthful, and the good, the Divine.« (Majerhold, 2016: 34) I am to simplify this by saying: the divine is something we create with our mind and in our mind, it can be a thought, an action, feeling, emotion which we try to materialize in our everyday life and there is nothing transcendent about it. If it can be called 'transcendent' it is only because it connects it to the nobleness of action, attitude, feeling and decision for being a responsible and ethical person that puts aside what (s)he prefers to what is the right thing to do and what we define the right thing to do is to go beyond our primary narcissistic impulse to do good only for ourselves (for this reason it can be sometimes also ecstatic as ex-statis means to be or stand outside oneself). I found out it is also a quite rewarding thing to act in such a way in two ways. Because first, you have to do something that goes beyond your natural instinct or bias and you have to involve more of your energy and focus and thus you learn more and second, because you make the other person happy and satisfied (if she feels at least a bit of gratitude is reward even higher). To me, the divine is therefore not something transcendent but that is here and now. It is about an ethical action, an action that transcends your everyday attitude of not wanting to do something because you found out that you don't like that person or task, that you don't like what that person does, represents, believe in or when you found out that person wasn't interested in you when you expressed feelings for her. Therefore to me, the divine is everything that is and not which isn't! Divine is what is properly addressed and treated here and now and that is what atheism is also about – not relying on some unearthly imaginary power/being 'out there somewhere' but on to yourself and do best you can depending on your knowledge, skills, feelings, emotions and your character. And of course, this character should be cultivated and 'developed' through time-space, experiences, and knowledge. You live in this world and you take care of yourself but not only for yourself. Have you ever wondered about altruism in nature, about altruism among living beings on this planet Earth? I often do.
0 Comments
Some Thoughts on Fashion and Sander2/20/2022 As a young philosopher interested in fashion I wrote several articles about philosophy of fashion and philosophy of beauty from 1994 to 1998. I also regularly wrote and translated articles about latest fashion shows. I won't go into details and bore you with the topics of sewing techniques, innovative fabrics, movement of the clothes interwoven with the notions of body, time and culture and what mostly interested me in Issey Miyake, Martin Margiela, Rei Kawakubo etc. But I also always wondered how come that there have been so many gay fashion designers and almost no lesbian fashion designers? The same as I used to dance modern dance in my adolescent and student years and there have been plenty of gay dancers and almost no lesbian dancers. Where these disproportions came from I always wondered? I finally found the answer and it has something to do with what these fields represent in society: they are associated with femininity, beauty, grace, ellegance and style, in short with femme women and we know that femme women are minority in lesbian world as well. And why on earth lesbian(s) can not have a good taste in clothes, design and women? Yeah, we heard before, because it is objectifying and repeating the heterenormativity but is that really so? It seems that this world still can not comprehend that two beautiful feminine women are attracted towards each other. And obviously I am not the only lesbian who noticed and is baffled by the fact that lots of people think that fashion is mainly for straight women and gay men: Where Are All the Lesbians and Queer Women in Fashion? A queer history of Fashion, Queer Women Are Still Fighting for a Seat at High Fashion's Table. But this still doesn't give the answer which is simple: love between women has never been properly acknowledged and encouraged in the men's world. Although women were never appreciated and valued (for their intelligence, character, desire, stamina, power) they were never allowed to be free and independent because of being the bearer of progeny. And that is the fact. If you read for instance Shusterman's Ars erotica through different cultures and time lovemaking is written by and predominantly for men. Namely, I recently read 440 pages on the art of lovemaking through time and the word 'lesbians' have been mentioned only four times and exactly two sentences written about them, which is less then 1% of the contents of the book. Lesbianism was prohibited, discouraged, ignored and overlooked and then you wonder why there are so few lesbians and why there haven't bee more lesbian role models, like gay men have. This fact stems from literally all cultures across the globe and its impact is still shown everywhere and especially in the fields promoting heternormativity. Anyway, this article is dedicated to 78 years old lesbian fashion designer and icon Jill Sander. As I read, Jill was together with her partner Angela Mommsen for nearly 30 years. From November 2017 until May 2018 Jill Sander had her first ever solo-exhibition 'Jil Sander. Present Tense' of her 40 years long fashion designer career in Frankfurt's Museum Angewandte Kunst (Museum of Applied Arts). Jil Sander launched her first collection in 1973 as a 30 years old woman, creating modern, minimalist clothes that would go on to redefine the working woman's wardrobe. Sander can best be described as fashion’s first feminist and has the strongest claim for empowering women through what they wear. As she said herself: »I never thought of myself as a feminist, but maybe I was, since I was not happy with the way women presented themselves,« the designer said. »I think my work was more about the rapprochement of the sexes and a more androgynous look for men and women. I was looking for more supportive ways to dress myself as a working woman. And since my needs were collective needs in the era of women entering the business world, my work turned out to help them.« The exhibition showcased everything from Sander's expertly tailored coats and dresses to her popular cosmetics line and artistic collaborations, highlighting her lasting impact on what is considered modern in fashion even today. Some other famous lesbian fashion designers I could find are Patricia Field (stylist of TV-shows such as Sex and The City and Younger), Anita Dolce Vita, Jenna Lyons (who used to be 26 years president and executive creative director of J. Crew) and Courtney Crangi (sister of fine jewelry Philip Crangi). Lyons and Crangi were together as a couple from 2012 to 2017. Future of (lesbian) love2/18/2022 As I said before Western nations of love are intertwined with different historical concepts of love, all these Western concepts have a common feature: tragic notions of love, beginning with Aristotle's concept of tragedy and the tragic familial and partnership relations. Yet I propose (lesbian) love as a peaceful happy creative democratic and thoughtful vision. Namely, the lesbian concept of love does not follow Aristotle notion's of love, the Christian notion of love as mother's blind devotion to her son and her son's sacrifice for his father, troubadour's notion of unfulfilled and unconsummated love due to the unattainability of the loved woman, Shakespeare's tragic notion of love where both partners involved die (commit suicide because they can't be together), Rousseau's notions of unequal love of a heterosexual pair Emile and Sophia where Sophia serves as an uneducated mother to her husband and his children, Freud's transference (triangle) notion of love where partners are haunted by their father's presence, defined as the superego and thus forcing partners into the repetition of their primary family roles and pattern. Lesbian love pursues the joy and satisfaction of (women's) sexuality which offers pleasure and fulfillment to both women involved. Lesbian love involves mutual respect of wishes and desires, respect for each other's intelligence, emotions, spirit, and body, it values reciprocity, two-way communication, personal growth, freedom, creativity, openness, democracy, and equality. We are against Aristotle's notion of love form because we disagree with his notion of family and life that promotes inequality among people and especially among sexes. As we read his Nichomachean Ethics, books VIII and IX he explicitly tells that man is above women and children and they all need to obey him just because he is a man and not according to his merits. He also promotes and puts oligarchy and royalty above all people. In his opinion, only the upper class and royalty can serve as role models in the artwork which could teach ordinary people the most important life lessons, catharsis through empathy and compassion, and which we should even reproduce by seeing it on the stage. The same inequality between sexes promotes Rousseau in his book Emile or on Education in book V. where Sophie is destined only for the role of mother and wife of his husband Emile, not to mention Thomas Aquinas most notorious example of women's inevitable submission by saying that women are by nature deficient and misbegotten and last but not least Freud's Bildungsroman (novel of education) which focuses on the psychological and moral growth of the male protagonist from youth to adulthood (coming of age). There is also a notorious book by Denise de Rougemont, Love in the Western World. If we could summarize his message into thought it would be with his own words: The Westerners way of learning things is by and through suffering (and mostly in connection to religious suffering, especially as he argues for the gnostic and Cathar beliefs of purity, goodness, and truth and in context of Mary Magdalene). If that isn't the most concise version of Westerner's way of thinking I don't what it is. Is it also an echo from an old Egyptian, old Jewish, old Greek, and Buddhist way of thinking? But do we really agree with these since we know all that is aimed at the disdain for this and now earthly existence towards some kind of (more)enlightened but nonexistent, non-real spiritual afterworld as they try to convince us and we can attain it only through faith and belief? By studying the history of spiritual and religious theories and practices I found out there has been only one spiritual thought that praises what is 'here and now' as sacred and that is Shinto religion (but the fact is that Shinto religion has been also behind Japanese pride during the WW II. Thus the only ancient spiritual thought that could have any validation for us is marked with an ugly history that has nothing to do with sacred and worshiping life, gentleness, nourishment, solidarity, freedom, and democracy). We try to pave a new way that Westerners haven't known yet. The way is to take care of our everyday, ordinary relations, and interactions. This is what matters the most: how we talk, act, and do in the most common and everyday interactions with all beings, humane, animals, and even plants. Our vision stems from Nussbaum's thoughts about love in the western world. For instance in the third chapter of her Upheavals of Thought, Ascents of Love (The Transfiguration of Everyday Life: Joyce, Democratic Desire: Whitman), she presents love as something that has not only to do with going upwards on the love ladder, as presented in Plato's and St. Augustine work on becoming an impenetrable shining rock, but also downward, as presented in various works of literature, especially in Joyce's Ulysses, (a love story between Molly and Leopold Bloom), Whitman's democratic desire for equality, compassion, and reconciliation of the sexes in all areas of everyday life, (from politics to marriage), Proust's In Search of Lost Time, Swan's Way, (a love story between Albertine and Marcel), and Beckett's Molloy, Malone Dies and The Unnameable. Instead of having love only as soul-based, striped of bodily passionate love, which makes man dormant to his own desires and consequently also to his lover, as Plato and Augustine complain, or seeing a lover only as an interest-(object)based fulfillment of his appetites without true and mutual fulfillment (Kant), Nussbaum shows that love is as much upward abstract, in a universal and soulful way as it is downward by concrete (sexual) partial and bodily experience; that spirit is as important as flesh and both are sacred. That is why Nussbaum keeps saying that love in a modern world is free, democratic, individual, mutual, (reciprocal), sensual, erotic, and compassionate, reparative love. And besides love and sexuality, Nussbaum puts a great deal of emphasis on another important emotion; she calls it the central theme of society, compassion. In Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, Nussbaum makes an experiential argument for emotions as judgments of value. Starting from Aristotle’s account, she considers compassion as a painful emotion directed at another person’s misfortune or suffering. She then unravels the cognitive structure of compassion. The first cognitive requirement of compassion is a belief or appraisal that the suffering is serious rather than trivial, the judgment of size. The second is the belief that the person does not deserve the suffering, the judgment of non-desert. The third is called the eudaimonistic judgment: this person or creature is a significant element in my scheme of goals and projects, an end whose good is to be promoted. »Compassion makes thought attend to certain human facts, and in a certain way, with concern to make a lot of the suffering as good, other things being equal, as it can be – because that person is an object of one’s concern. Often that concern is motivated or supported by the thought that one might oneself be, one day, in that person’s position. Often, again, it is motivated or supported by the imaginative exercise of putting oneself in that person’s place. I have claimed that, other things being equal, the compassionate person will acquire motivations to help the person for whom she has compassion.« (Nussbaum, 2001: 342). Compassion is linked with benevolent action. For Nussbaum, a central challenge for a society that wants to cultivate broad and appropriate compassion would be to produce people who can live with their humanity, who can surrender omnipotence (i.e. awareness and understanding that we are not the only one here and that not everything needs to revolve around us all the time but that t-here are also others. Essentially, this means that we know how to limit ourselves and that we drop emotions, such as possessiveness, envy, jealousy, and that people we love have also time for themselves and their interests, hobbies, and friends besides us although we are someone's partner, daughter, friend, etc.). For Nussbaum, compassion includes the thought of common humanity, which should lead us to be intensely concerned with the material (also bodily) as well as emotional, mental, and spiritual happiness of others. Love, sexuality, reciprocity, and compassion are the most important alongside proper communication, freedom, and upbringing. Katarina Majerholdphilsopher, lesbian, editor Archives
May 2023
Categories |