1. None of us here are communists, if I know what you are. But that should not preclude us from taking note of sensible things that people we disagree with say. Here is something about Lenin by Zizek (on freedom):
"This is what Lenin's obsessive tirades against "formal" freedom are about, and therein resides their "rational kernel" worth saving today: when he underlines that there is no "pure" democracy, that we should always ask whom does a freedom under consideration serve and where is its role in the class struggle, his point is precisely to maintain the possibility of the true radical choice. This is what the distinction between "formal" and "actual" freedom ultimately amounts to: "formal" freedom is the freedom of choice within the coordinates of the existing power relations, while "actual" freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates. In short, Lenin's point is not to limit freedom of choice, but to maintain the fundamental Choice - when Lenin asks about the role of a freedom within the class struggle, what he is asking is precisely: "Does this freedom contribute to or constrain the fundamental revolutionary Choice?""
- Slavoj Zizek-Bibliography/What is to be done (with Lenin)?
2. I enjoyed reading this:
"While we are still among the most religious nations in the Western world, the Parade Magazine poll shows barely half of respondents practice the religion with which they grew up. Americans, it seems, have a tendency to customize belief.
Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College in New York City, and an Episcopal priest, described a composite character he had in mind: "A good, say, Presbyterian, and yet does tai chi in the park on Sunday Morning, consults the astrological tables in the newspaper and does yoga when she comes home from work at night, and sees no sense of contradiction among these various sorts of activities.
"You have all these religious options out there, and we Americans are good consumers," Balmer laughed. "And the criterion seems to be, what can this do for me? How can this make me a better person? How can this make me happier?"
If that all sounds very "New Age-y," consider this: the term "New Age," in fact, was used in the mid-1800s by followers of a Swedish mystic named Emanuel Swedenborg. To this day, there's a Swedenborgian Christian church in New York City.
"And the first minister at this church, upon the building's completion, was a Swedenborgian and spiritualist named George Bush," said Mitch Horowitz. "
- God, Mystics, Yoga: What Americans Believe - CBS Sunday Morning - CBS News
3. And then I enjoyed reading this too: delighted, to tell you the truth. It is written so very well- it almost reads like a story, but no, this is for real:
I'm drawn to girls with nice tasting names - it was part of the attraction. If the name tastes nice, then it's a plus, but it has got me into trouble a few times.
Some girls have had lovely names but disgusting temperaments. It's my synaesthesia choosing wrongly for me.
I could never go out with someone called Helen - the mucus flavour is overpowering. Barbara, on the other hand, tastes of rhubarb, and Jemma of melted sweets.
My partner is called Jeanette, which is nice, as she's a mild bacon flavour. I'd rather she was called Genna or Gemma or Hanna or something sweet like that, but such is life.
At least she's not called Jane, which has a dusty taste.
- The man who can 'taste' words: 'Gordon Brown tastes revolting, while Tony Blair tastes of desiccated'
Good day.
Wish you great many things!
No comments:
Post a Comment