[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of self vs politicalconstructions of identity


>From what I can see, in light of the recent discussion of religions and their impact upon society has to do with this function of categories and the idea that these categories are 1) the only (allowed) categories; and 2) nothing can exist beyond them. If there are entities which exist beyond these categories, somehow they fall into yet another category that is an observance to somehow their existence. It is the non-category category.

I think this is a serious problem borne by religious practice that requires sober consideration, because the difference between moderates and fundamentalists illustrates a spectrum of, on the one side, that these rejects can be rehabilitated or assimilated into "worthy" categories, or, on the other side, they must be destroyed.

It's a matter of degree.

I can appreciate that this would cause many to reject the basis of a given religion, which would be God, however a god might be rendered. Given the atrocious history of Western Europe there is every reason to question that kind of god, and its basis for existing as such, if such a god causes people to act they way that they have. "God made me do it."

This is why, perhaps, the discussion of LBGT is revelatory. Gayness is a perfect example of how, as a "non-category," it is typically handled. Assimilate or reject. But over time, sexual-identities are solidifying into "acceptable" categories.

Acceptance of transgendered citizens will be the real test, I suppose, because transgender defies all category making of those who would make them in to one.

It is my sense that we will live in a more perfect union when we can let go the categories once and for all.

Meaning to change the subject (not the subject line), this is also noteworthy:


<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/barack-obama-donald-trump-president-republican-party>Obama has come down not only on Trump as being unfit, but he has called into question Republican leaders who denounce Trump's words, but they do not denounce the man as being unfit for the job.

It feels like a revealing of an open secret we have always known, that Republicans do not need a person there to act as President unless it is just an act as President, and that is why Trump is a viable Republican nominee. How else can this be explained? For them, there is no Being President just appearing as one.

Kind regards,