Sauce for the Goose…

by Glenn Fairman6/12/15

If any wretch who barters his manhood for a corset is now to be accorded our admiration and esteem, why can’t a Caucasian who claims to be a negress be afforded equal regard? If truth lies within the eye of the subject, then we can do as we choose and be what we wish. Untethered from reality and reason, will we not treat the world to its final lurid spectacle? Confusion– a fitting epitaph for the end of a broken age.


Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1922 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Sauce for the Goose…

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I thought about editing your name just for this blog post to “Glenda.” But the humor might have been lost on most, and I thought it would have been taking too much liberty.

    By the way, my gender today is sunny with partial cloud cover.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Perhaps you could have made at Glinda — as in Glinda the Good. A lot better than Caitlyn, anyway.

  2. Glenn Fairman says:

    Glenn or Glenda…..a spectacle worthy of Ed Wood…..

    a good editor takes risks……..

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      a good editor takes risks……..

      LOL. I’m still learning. And it would have been taking liberties. This may be a D.I.Y.D/D.I.Y.D situation.

      Back to the matter at hand…

      I was thinking about this this morning while watering the garden. Man is such a unique creature in that he can adopt many identities. He can be father, boss, husband, Rotarian, etc. All at once or one at a time.

      He can think of himself as a scholar, a writer, a scoundrel, a lawyer (redundant, I know), a teacher, a librarian, a philosopher, or many other things. What a grand thing it is to be like the America of Field of Dreams

      erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again

      Does that mean, as many modern secular thinkers believe, that we are then nothing but image, that there is nothing solid and real underneath upon which we hang our personas? The modern mind would say one’s image, one’s identity, is whatever one puts on, as relative as our laws and customs. There is no “real” you.

      And this thought led me to another one, and it stems directly from my reading of intelligent design and neo-Darwinism. It is not enough to say that “things evolved,” if even on the macro level which is well within the range of “natural selection.” Natural selection does not explain at all, for instance, where the things come from that can be selected for (or, as has been said, “natural selection explains survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest”).

      Another way to look at this — and surely the correct way — is that variability itself can be a specific attribute of a very complex system. It’s like selling Mr. Potato Head toys. The ability to creatively change things according to whim (or whatever) is built in. Planned. This system of variability may be taken for granted, is hidden, is disguised, or is skipped over because of the requirements of secular dogma.

      Well, so it is with human identity. Yes, we can, in the macro, apparently be anything we want to be. It is almost a cultural requirement to join in on this optimistic buzz. We can even go so far as to claim we are a boy one day and a girl the next. Actually, big money can be made in this kind of role-playing. It’s called acting or being a writer.

      But just as we can don various personas or identities, little thought is given to the fact that we have this ability to do so built in. We’re not a blank slate. There is a slate. And etched into the surface of that slate is male or female.

      This is why it is not cuckoo to think of oneself as a doctor (if one indeed has a license to practice medicine). But if you are a boy and declare that you now identify as a girl, you are past the bounds of the normal plasticity of identity and have gone straight into cuckoo.

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    An interesting question arises here: in purely materialist terms, are the male and female archetypes unique and mutually exclusive, or are they wandering points on a arbitrary continuum that human law and culture give meaning to? If they are natural, then the question arises about Mankind’s obsession with novelty and its smoldering war against the visible boundaries of existence that any wild-eyed child readily perceives.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Male and female are generally parsed in one of two ways:

      + A purposeful creation representing at least one valid archetype (valid to a mind that could even imagine it in the first place)

      + A mechanism for spreading genes, at the service only as a “survival engine” for DNA (presumably the mixing of the genes aids and abet staying ahead of evolving viruses, bacteria, and such, and allows for useful variations to arise)

      The first does not exclude the second. The second excludes the first. But as for male and female being “natural,” they may in some way be logical if you set up a system whereby you wish a mixing of genes (and other epigenetic stuff) for whatever purpose. Then egg and sperm make logical sense. Physically this duality makes much sense.

      But male and female are much more than physical. As for the root of the archetypes — what makes “maleness” and “femaleness” what they are — we might as well ask why red is perceived as red and green perceived as green. These are questions way beyond necessity or chance.

      But one can see, upon reflection, why an atheistic creed would wish to dispense with them. Those two sexes are reminders that we are not blank slates. Granted, an insane “just do it” pop culture drives much of this, and I doubt most people have the brain power remaining to even be in rebellion. It’s just dullness taking over and creating habit (driven, for sure, by people who do have the brainpower and will to be in conscious rebellion).

  4. Glenn Fairman says:

    Hence the orientation of liberalism away from fixed Archimedean points in the moral spectrum and the reliance on brute probability to describe the web of living and unliving beings. Anything that smacks of teleology, purpose, or mindful design is tossed aside for the grim autonomy that comes with anarchy’s ethical wasteland.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Glenn, in a book I read the free preview of (but didn’t buy, so I forget the name), it listed four or so things that are tenets of the Left. One of them is that they consider themselves The New Prometheans. They bravely stare into the face of nothingness for all mankind and declare victory.

      What makes the issue so difficult is that there are fixed points and there is contingency. The latter couldn’t likely exist without the former, for what sense does it makes sense to say something is random or contingent if there are no constants?

      Atheists believe it is contingency all the way down, thus anything that looks like a constant (such as the apparent fine-tuning of the universe) has to be circumvented. I believe there is more logic, reason, and dignity in the mind of a child who believes in the Tooth Fairy than in those adults who grasp at the absurd straw of the multi-verse, an idea so obviously constructed out of thin air for a specific ideological purpose and clothed with the word “science” to try to dignify it.

      The reality is that no one can conceive of how anything could exist if it was contingency and randomness all the way down. Quantum theorists, for example, are certainly barking down the wrong tree when they see randomness as the basic element of the universe. Upon what does this randomness stand? They can’t say and won’t say. But it must stand on something or it could never spew out its smooth and predictable randomness.

      I typically over-estimate human beings. I figure a belief in randomness all the way down wouldn’t really effect social outcomes and cultural ideas. After all, at best, even if true, it can only ever be an intellectual idea. This is a strength or weakness of mine because I have no problem playing with ideas like an artist does with paints. But the artist doesn’t believe he can walk into his own landscape.

      But I’m surprised every time how these basic beliefs drive the issues. Without Darwin, Freud, and Marx, there’s no Obama, global warming, or sex change operations. It is entirely true as Chesterton said (I think it was him), when people stop believing in god they don’t believe in nothing. They’ll believe in anything. Or something like that.

      And I find that is true. A mind not anchored in solid absolutes is a mind grounded only in conceit, fashion, fads, and political considerations. He is such a mush he makes a grey area seem starkly solid. There is no truth for this kind of mind, large-“T” or otherwise. Man is shrunken down until quite literally he puts himself on par with a slug.

      By the way, I just installed a new plug-in that will also search the comments for terms you enter into the search box at the top right of the page. It seems to work fine. What it doesn’t do is highlight the word on the search page results that comes up, but be assured your search term is there if you click on the article and then use your browser’s search function to find that word. It’s a little clumsy, but many a time I wanted to search for something I know someone said in the comments but the previous search function didn’t cover that.

      I don’t know how many use the search function. Let me know if you like this better or not or even notice a difference. Anyway, I did this just now because I was trying to find the book that mentioned “The New Prometheans” as one of the tenets of the Left. I actually found three references to the term, but none mention the book. But this does seem to work.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That could be useful with the right book. Many years ago, I came across an interesting item in one of John Keegan’s books (I don’t remember which now, but it was a general military history that covered the 18th Century among others). It seems that “well-regulated” in military terms then referred to a national force rather than a largely mercenary force. One can see the great relevance to the Second Amendment. But when I went back to locate it, I never could. It’s hard to search a book for something that isn’t listed in the index.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I only wish more of these Leftists fools believed they were Superman and tried flying off the Golden Gate Bridge, or any other edifice of sufficient height to induce migration into the great beyond.

    If that seems to harsh, I would settle for them believing themselves battering rams and running their heads into walls. Perhaps that would shake them up just enough to bring them back to reality. A type of electro-shock therapy without the electro.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    George Neumayr has a good article about this: Limits to the Left’s Subjectivism?

    The Rachel Dolezal story has put the Left in an awkward spot. An obviously white woman who has long presented herself to the world as black, Dolezal is testing the Left’s commitment to its own radical subjectivism.

    Frustrated by comparisons of Dolezal to the transgenderism they embrace, many liberals have declared the two cases completely different. But they have failed to show one, at least not a substantial philosophical difference. In both cases, a human being seeks to erase an immutable trait in order to assert a “self-definition” that exists in the mind, not the body.

    If humans have a right to define the “authentic self” without regard to their given human nature, why should that right be restricted to one fixed trait but not all of them? The Left has no answer to this question. All it can do is flail and argue that being transgender is somehow morally better than being transracial because the former is more trendy and societally approved.

    I wonder if those who support homosexual marriage (primarily because it was trendy and approved in their social circle) now understand that “any damn thing you can think of” isn’t a good anchorage for laws and social mores.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Wait until an obvious heterosexual says that he “feels” he is homosexual even though physically he isn’t. Of course, this isn’t much different from so many adult men with children who decide that they’re really homosexual. But if “gender identity” is fluid, why not sexual preference? And that leads to some questions the homosexualists don’t want anyone to consider.

  7. Brevity is the soul of wit…and wisdom. Great commentary.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Susan, it’s nice to hear from you. By coincidence, I was just over at your sit browsing around. Love your take on the Pope. He’s probably drunk on Leftism more than anything, but that’s a quibble.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Because the Left has blurred the boundaries of Fantasy Land — global warming, Heinz 57 flavors of gender, you name it — it’s difficult for me to say that Rachel Dolezal is that far out or that far gone. She seems, rather, the logical product of the “Progressive” point of view. And lest we think her case is all that unique, who are these people pretending to be who are covering themselves from head to toe with tattoos?

    Last time I looked, cable TV (some of them interesting) featured a plethora of shows about doing “makeovers.” The culture is full of references of “reinventing yourself.” She did. If she’s crazy then the culture is crazy. And you know what I think about that.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Megyn Kelly reported last night that Dolezal has some offers to do a reality TV show. Is anyone surprised?

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on a minute, Timothy. Let my try to assimilate that. Let’s see. Someone immersed in total fantasy is going to do a reality show? It’s that a double-negative? Does that cancel out like adding +4 to −4? Just what is “reality” in this context?

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Welcome to America 2015, where up is down, black is white and everyone sits on their heads.

          This place makes Alice’s Wonderland look normal.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Perhaps Wonderland was part of Orwell’s inspiration (even though Dodgson was a staunch Tory). And Orwell was certainly a major inspiration for modern liberals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *