Understanding Joshua Mauldin (Man Who Microwaved Baby)

angelica

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

The notion of universalism is in fact colonial-expansionist, and designed in as the root of nationalism gone large. Its mindset is flea-small and Bushite big: in terms of consciousness, it contracts. Universalism as a concept is like a crazy person's projective identification, and an insistence on absolute Law, the opposite of the relativistic principle of tolerance that maintains and stretches the universe.

What do you mean that universalism contracts in terms of consciousness?

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Then read some Derrida.

ah jacques, my education would be incomplete without your pearls of wisdom.

p.s. i hate the way you've made me think sometimes when i didnt want to.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

ah jacques, my education would be incomplete without your pearls of wisdom.

p.s. i hate the way you've made me think sometimes when i didnt want to.

I like winding you up, cate. You're funny when you go off.

But I love ya, too.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

What do you mean that universalism contracts in terms of consciousness?

it makes one eurocentric. that is if you are from europe or have european heritage. it makes all other outlooks and opinions that are contrary to the eurocentric(in this instance) view irrelevant and basically non existent.
the universal concept of motherhood for example in the portrayal of the madonna and child. this is only and can only be representative of a christian ideal in a society that knows who the madonna and child are and what they represent. therefore to hold madonna and child up as a universal symbol of motherhood is wrong and discounts the majority of the world, whose contrary view is dismissed. what counts is what the dominant society decides irrelevant of whether it is 'truth' or not.
of course i could be misunderstanding. help me out fins.

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I like winding you up, cate. You're funny when you go off.

But I love ya, too.

glad to be of use fins.

and that was hardly going off. i just have a love-hate relationship with deconstruction.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

it makes one eurocentric. that is if you are from europe orr aahve european heritage. it makes all other outlooks and opinions that are contrary to the eurocentric(in this instance) view irrelevant and basically non existent.
the universal concept of motherhood for example in the portrayal of the madonna and child. this is only and can only be representative of a christian ideal in a society that knows who the madonna and child are and what they represent. therefore to hold madonna and child up as a universal symbol of motherhood is wrong and discounts the majority of the world, whose contrary view is dismissed. what counts is what the dominant society decides irrelevant of whether it is 'truth' or not.
of course i could be misunderstanding. help me out fins.

I'm still looking forward to hearing Fins' take on it.

And I thank you for your answer, cate. So when you are referring to "universalism" here, are you referring to a defined school of thought? I would like to hear a definition of "universalism" as you have defined it, or as Fins describes it.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I'm still looking forward to hearing Fins' take on it.

And I thank you for your answer, cate. So when you are referring to "universalism" here, are you referring to a defined school of thought? I would like to hear a definition of "universalism" as you have defined it, or as Fins describes it.

oh im waiting for fins explanation as well. he's smarter than me for sure and im not even confidant im understanding it correctly anyway. i'm here to learn.

what i am referring to is cultural imperalism basically and how just cause 'we', 'the West' say something is so, it is taken as gospel by us. that anything else on the subject from an alternative other cultural viewpoint is dismissed or submerged.

justam

catefrances wrote:

why is luck seen as a gift?
personally i don't believe in luck. things dont just happen. there is always a cause. just because the cause can't be seen, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think luck exists, but I still think it's a gift because it isn't given to everyone.

Abookamongstthemany

justam wrote:

I think luck exists, but I still think it's a gift because it isn't given to everyone.

I think luck exists for those who believe they are lucky thus giving it a cause. So it's not so much as being lucky as it is being open to the positive.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

oh im waiting for fins explanation as well. he's smarter than me for sure and im not even confidant im understanding it correctly anyway. i'm here to learn.

what i am referring to is cultural imperalism basically and how just cause 'we', 'the West' say something is so, it is taken as gospel by us. that anything else on the subject from an alternative other cultural viewpoint is dismissed or submerged.

Okay, thank-you, cate.

I was curious, because the way I have been referring to universals is as a concept that is not in any way defined by anyone or any system. By it's universal nature, it cannot be defined. No one can hold a market on it. And when one tries, they reveal that they are not talking about that which is universal. Given this concept, it fully encompasses consciousness, allowing it to be it's full potential. So I see the idea of "contracted consciousness" as a definition of some sort, whether personal or as defined within a school of thought.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

it makes one eurocentric. that is if you are from europe or have european heritage. it makes all other outlooks and opinions that are contrary to the eurocentric(in this instance) view irrelevant and basically non existent.
the universal concept of motherhood for example in the portrayal of the madonna and child. this is only and can only be representative of a christian ideal in a society that knows who the madonna and child are and what they represent. therefore to hold madonna and child up as a universal symbol of motherhood is wrong and discounts the majority of the world, whose contrary view is dismissed. what counts is what the dominant society decides irrelevant of whether it is 'truth' or not.
of course i could be misunderstanding. help me out fins.

That's a difficult one, because if you posit an anti-universalist image of motherhood, which is different and "other" - deliberately outside the dominant Eurocentric view - you unwittingly reinforce that self/other binary that is at the heart of Eurocentric discourses of control. See what I mean? It's better to subvert the structures of dominant discourses from within, as long as you're not liable to too much bribery and corruption.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've a full day tomorrow. Night, everyone!

justam

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've a full day tomorrow. Night, everyone!

G'nite.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

Okay, thank-you, cate.

I was curious, because the way I have been referring to universals is as a concept that is not in any way defined by anyone or any system. By it's universal nature, it cannot be defined. No one can hold a market on it. And when one tries, they reveal that they are not talking about that which is universal. Given this concept, it fully encompasses consciousness, allowing it to be it's full potential. So I see the idea of "contracted consciousness" as a definition of some sort, whether personal or as defined within a school of thought.

well. we're all curious angelica. but when you talk of universality as all encompassing; affecting and concerning or involving all. or a premise or concept as something used and understood by all, it brings up assumptions not in evidence. universality is a construct based on imagined community.
you are right, no one holds a market on it, but as a concept (albeit a flawed concept) it can be defined and has been. but in labelling something as universal, you yourself are guilty of that which you are protesting. the fact is you and i and everyone else who takes their lead from Western civilisation will have their view askewed in favour of the dominant hegemony. it is only when one acknowledges that their view is biased and therefore NOT universal that the patriarchal rhetoric can broken down and challenged.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

well. we're all curious angelica. but when you talk of universality as all encompassing; affecting and concerning or involving all. or a premise or concept as something used and understood by all, it brings up assumptions not in evidence. universality is a construct based on imagined community.
you are right, no one holds a market on it, but as a concept (albeit a flawed concept) it can be defined and has been. but in labelling something as universal, you yourself are guilty of that which you are protesting. the fact is you and i and everyone else who takes their lead from Western civilisation will have their view askewed in favour of the dominant hegemony. it is only when one acknowledges that their view is biased and therefore NOT universal that the patriarchal rhetoric can broken down and challenged.

I realize all our views are biased. I'm talking about what is universal and of the universe, within and beyond our individuality. We are all still one with all that is universal, and embraced by all that is universal. We personally channel all that is universal each day, through our thoughts, words and deeds. Everything about us stems from the universal source. We can focus on what is universal and attune to it. We can align with and sense the Presence of this oneness in all aspects of life, through our individuality. I'm not talking about academic concepts of "universal" that are dependent on contexts--I'm talking about the ultimate context of what IS, beneath what we learn in school and beneath everything. Many, many people speak to experiences with the underlying presence of Oneness. From all around the world and beneath the human slants and the cultural perspectives, there remains universiality with such experience. Even to the degree that it's been uncovered and studied neurologically as pertaining to buddhists to Christians. I can understand it if based on your personal experience you disagree.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I realize all our views are biased. I'm talking about what is universal and of the universe, within and beyond our individuality. We are all still one with all that is universal, and embraced by all that is universal. We personally channel all that is universal each day, through our thoughts, words and deeds. Everything about us stems from the universal source. We can focus on what is universal and attune to it. We can align with and sense the Presence of this oneness in all aspects of life, through our individuality. I'm not talking about academic concepts of "universal" that are dependent on contexts--I'm talking about the ultimate context of what IS, beneath what we learn in school and beneath everything. Many, many people speak to experiences with the underlying presence of Oneness. From all around the world and beneath the human slants and the cultural perspectives, there remains universiality with such experience. Even to the degree that it's been uncovered and studied neurologically as pertaining to buddhists to Christians. I can understand it if based on your personal experience you disagree.

oh this is just semantics. you are using the term universal as the adjectival form of universe. this is where the communication breakdown is.
you are binding all mankind within the same universe, yes?

angelica

catefrances wrote:

oh this is just semantics. you are using the term universal as the adjectival form of universe. this is where the communication breakdown is.
you are binding all mankind within the same universe, yes?

I'm referring to the: totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

It is all that is. the totality of it underlies everything. edit: this totality is universal to everything.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I'm referring to the: totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

It is all that is. the totality of it underlies everything. edit: this totality is universal to everything.

as i said, semantics. you're applying universal to universe.
when i speak of something that is universal i'm not usually talking of the universe as an homogenous entity. im not actually speaking about the universe at all. when i speak of the universe, those are the words i use - of the universe. i think, and it appears im not the only one, of universal as something else. though you are correct angelica, so are we.

Ahnimus

I don't see what any of this has to do with Joshua Mauldin

angelica

catefrances wrote:

as i said, semantics. you're applying universal to universe.
when i speak of something that is universal i'm not usually talking of the universe as an homogenous entity. im not actually speaking about the universe at all. when i speak of the universe, those are the words i use - of the universe. i think, and it appears im not the only one, of universal as something else. though you are correct angelica, so are we.

Of course.

gue and I were discussing the concept, and then Fins agreed with gue. And made the comment about universalism contracting in terms of consciousness. I was interested in what context he meant that, because it didn't fit with what I was seeing and universals. And as with my context, other contexts of universiality are what they are relative to the parameters of such contexts.