Thursday, November 02, 2006

Freedom vs. Bread - the Brotherhood of the Bell

Here is a link to the Brotherhood of the Bell via Rigorous Intuition in a post about John Kerry's gaffe.

I think it is also worth considering the description of the problem in Vonnegut's Player Piano. Conditioning, sweet bread, false forms of masculine freedom disguised as tradition that doesn't go back further than the 1800's and the advent of mechanization, the one size fits all society, that the G.I. bill extended the college experience to a very temporary middle class, a comfortable illusion for serfdom, and knighthood of cold warriors, fighting for illusory freedoms against shapeshifting enemies, who themselves fought for different forms of freedom, coming from a different context of mechanized, one-size fits all modernity. Freedom from serfdom, wars of national liberation, etc.

David Deida says women love a man based in part on his capacity for freedom, and to kill (though that's a fictional man, a myth, in most cases):

When "the feminine" aspect of a woman's nature is not filled with real love from a real man (and how often does that happen?), they often then move on to "man-substitutes" - they fill themselves instead with soap operas, fantasies, romance novels, food, worry, cleaning the house, conversation...

Men, or those with a "masculine" sexual essence, search fundamentally for freedom.

"The masculine in each of us struggles for greater freedom
and tries to achieve it through financial, creative, or political challenges."

Men's fundamental drive is the dynamic behind men's fascination with football, sports, war movies, philosophy, sex, beer, cars, and other "typical guy" pursuits: they all provide experiences, in one form or another, of "freedom."

"As a woman, you want to be filled by sex . . .
But most men want to be emptied by sex.
Your man probably treats you as a receptacle
for his tension, his frustrations, his burdens . . .
he wants you to absorb everything and leave him empty."

Both aspects of love and freedom are essentially a state of fulfillment, pursued and experienced in different ways. These fundamentally different strategies between men and women, when not understood, breed a swarm of inevitable misunderstandings and conflicts. [an introduction to David Deida,]

There remain very few real choices between the two major parties in the statewide races, few candidates who are motivated by freedoms more than bread, and the chattering class is rife with paid supporters, people already paid their sweetened, shortening stuffed bread for endorsements and/or silence. Too much professionalism in politics removes the real essence of it, but preserves the option for paychecks derived from participating in the fake struggle most of these campaigns are waging. THe real struggle over values happened this spring, and to some extent on September 12th. There is still a struggle to tell the real story in a compelling way, without the distractions of the false media-inspired consensus of the moment.

Communicating, creating a message, careful voting, and organizing to encourage more of it, real pollwatching, this stuff still matters, if just a few of the really purely motivated candidates get through, and are held to their promises by continuing engagement of voters.

Speaking clearly about your beliefs, living by them, engaging in the political process fully, as if it really mattered, is manly, and based on your results, your women may love you for it. Try, recapture some of the machismo you might have had as a natural human being, before the noise and distraction of this world colonized your brain, like the soft and lonely interior lives of 1950's housewives, with worry, and product envy, and soap opera drama.


Post a Comment

<< Home