(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

In the big discussion on my journal today, I made a sweeping generalization I should not have. I retracted it later, but still, I'm very disgusted with myself.

I guess I should learn how to let myself be wrong sometimes, but it's so hard. Especially when it is an error I should not have made, in light of the volunteer training I just went through. I feel like I have to go back to square one now.

Comments

Square minus one.

[kwarizmi.livejournal.com]

I didn't follow the original discussion, but your comment above made me go flip through it.

I am reminded of why I didn't follow the original discussion. Gender politics, especially of the kind that pops up regularly in your writing, I find distasteful in the extreme.

But that's neither here nor there. My comment apropos is that, for someone who spends so much mental energy decrying the "dehumanizing" nature of "dualist" world-views, you seem to miss a glaring fact: that all Aristotelian generalizations (that is, generalizations of class) create dualities and inconsistencies. Aristotle himself got around these by very precise and quite pedantic rules of thought that today we call "logic".

Statement :: IF "no {B} is not {A}" THEN "all {A} are {B}".

Does not follow!! But this fallacy is ubiquitous, and utterly, violently aggresive when applied to human beings.

As genteel and constructive critique, may I suggest a thorough brushing up on your study of logic? This way you may avoid instinctively lashing out with the very sword of your enemies.

Re: Square minus one.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I excelled in logic in school. ::glances at the math degree on my wall::

I also know its limitations. Did you read the entry I wrote on "listening to anger"? The main point in that post is that language is meant for expressing human experience, not just logic. Logic does not give us a yardstick by which to measure every single utterance. It is a useful tool, but I see it also misused as a tool by which to distract from the real topic, when the topic is oppression.

I do strive to be logical and rhetorical, but it doesn't always happen. I've been very straightforward and contrite about that, and apologetic about every lapse. In response you have brow-beat me several times for "failure in logic" on the topic of sexual politics, when I was explicitly describing experience that I admitted from the outset was not logical. I said at the time, that I was not proud of my feelings, I was not happy about my experiences, but they are what they are, because I've been traumatized.

The human brain doesn't care about logic when you're being raped, okay? It doesn't care about logic when you're trying to figure out how to incorporate fear into your life and learn how to deal with human beings that you're afraid of. Talk to me about logic all you want, it has no bearing on fear and trauma. It cannot make fear and trauma magically disappear.

An honest discussion on this topic has to include feelings and perceptions, and why those feelings and perceptions are what they are.

Re: Square minus one.

[kwarizmi.livejournal.com]

I excelled in logic in school. ::glances at the math degree on my wall::

I'm sure it must be very pretty. No disrespect, but you must be aware that the considerable bias you exhibit negates any weight that your studies might contribute to your argument?

Your counterpoint is very valid, but as you allowed yourself a clarification, I must hereby tender my own.

There's nothing inherently wrong with arguing a position that is illogical. There is nothing inherently wrong with arguing a logical position in an illogical fashion. What is completely wrong (morally wrong, because it misleads those whose thinking is vulnerable to such rhetoric) is to use the tools and constructs of logic to attempt to legitimize an argument that cannot be sustained by logical devices, and furthermore, may not even need to.

This is why I strongly agree with your contention that logic, or rather, the outward trappings thereof, can be used for obfuscation and deception. But it cuts both ways; if it can be used by others as a smokescreen for the topic we want discussed, we can also use it to distract others from a topic we don't want discussed.

My strongest critique of your rhetoric is, and has always been, your insistence on what I call "using the weapon of the enemy." You feel marginalized, so you marginalize in return. You feel segregated, so you segretate in return. You feel vituperated, humilliated, wronged on many levels, so you do the same unto others, in the safe haven of the mostly sympathetic confines of LJ.

"But you don't understand", will be the inevitable reply. "You can't understand, you're not a victim like me!" Well, madam, my ability to empathize with your plight goes exactly as far as your willingness to alienate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation) me.

As evidence, this choice quote:

The human brain doesn't care about logic when you're being raped, okay?

Brace yourself, I'm about to cut loose.
What a perfectly abhorrent rhetorical device. Completely uncalled for. In a single stroke, you rationalize your prior lapses by taking on the mantle of the Victim (and not just any victim, mind you, but the victim of the repulsive act of rape) as an all-inclusive, get-out-if-the-jail-of-rational-argument card which of course trumps any opposing position, but also construct the argument in a way that I cannot counter without either appearing unsympathetic (and by extension, complicit to the rhetorical, non-existant rape).

So, having now been characterized as an insensitive clod (and a probable rapist, given half the chance), I cannot now include myself in your thinking in an agreeable way, for the same limbic reasons you alude to. Eye for an eye, ad infinitum. Where does it stop?

Look out, she's armed with... a LiveJournal! And she's not afraid to use it

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

My strongest critique of your rhetoric is, and has always been, your insistence on what I call "using the weapon of the enemy." You feel marginalized, so you marginalize in return. You feel segregated, so you segretate in return.

So in your eyes, that makes me Just As Bad?


So, having now been characterized as an insensitive clod (and a probable rapist, given half the chance), I cannot now include myself in your thinking in an agreeable way, for the same limbic reasons you alude to.

Are you seriously trying to imply that any indignation you've endured here, reading the words I and others write in my journal, is traumatic? You're going to need therapy to help you cope with the flashbacks, the despair, the self-scorn you feel after reading my LiveJournal?

BTW, when I mentioned rape, I was not referring to it in a rhetorical way. I was not trying to imply, as you apparently read it, that I take criticism of me as metaphorical rape. Sometimes it's triggery, but that wasn't what I referred to either. I don't use rape as a metaphor, because there is no metaphor for being pinned down and trapped in a way you can't breathe while being forcibly sodomized when you're eleven.

On top of that, there's no metaphor for having parents who spend 20 years making sure you know they disapprove of any effeminacy you might display, feeling justified in doing so because it's what the church, the government, and the culture wants.

So, I don't know what "non-existent metaphorical" rape you thought I was talking about. Why did I bring up rape at all? Because the emotion it's left me with is my constant companion. It makes me less than perfect, it makes me flop around and respond in illogical ways, it makes me feel guilty for that and leaves me scratching my head wondering why I do it.

And you'll note, in all of the things I've written about "dehumanizing" "dualism," I never said I'm above it. As I wrote recently, this is not me as guru expounding from a hilltop about things I have transcended, this is me in the thick of it trying to make some sense out of the world, including my own faults. Maybe the fact that I'm articulate is some kind of curse.

Re: Square minus one.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Secondly, I did explicitly concede in those discussions that my feelings and perceptions -- my fears towards and resentment of all Christians -- constituted a logical error. I did concede that logic demands that I not think of every Christian as a potential anti-queer bigot or every man as a potential sexual predator.

If you can get that through to my limbic system, I would be very grateful. I've been trying to get it to listen for years, but it's stuck in a loop.

Re: Square minus one.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take some time soon and re-read my entries and discussions to see if there is any chance that I'm misleading myself. I recall being clear about the occasions when my intent was to describe experience without advocating that others "should" feel the same way, but in case I wasn't, I will rectify it. I do want to be very clear on those occasions when I am not advocating a view but merely expressing my feelings. (If, on the other hand, I *was* being clear, I don't know what else to say.)