so what is necesarily 'fraudulent' about a marriage entered unto with a 'purely pragmatic' intent? Can anyone state this out loud?
from A Short History of England
I know of no way in which fair-haired people can be prevented
from falling in love with dark-haired people; and I do not believe
that whether a man was long-headed or round-headed ever made
much difference to any one who felt inclined to break his head.
To all mortal appearance, in all mortal records and experience,
people seem to have killed or spared, married or refrained
from marriage, made kings or made slaves, with reference
to almost any other consideration except this one.
There was the love of a valley or a village, a site or a family;
there were enthusiasms for a prince and his hereditary office;
there were passions rooted in locality, special emotions about
sea-fold or mountain-fold; there were historic memories of a cause
or an alliance; there was, more than all, the tremendous test
of religion. But of a cause like that of the Celts or Teutons,
covering half the earth, there was little or nothing.
Race was not only never at any given moment a motive, but it
was never even an excuse. The Teutons never had a creed;
they never had a cause; and it was only a few years ago that they
began even to have a cant.
then it is all down to what we may now realiably call fifth generation warfare
aka - a calculus of covenants!
WHO would ever settle for LESS!
and it is *levels of intention* that comprise the very soul of what we should be talking about (non-calm, unhappy as a claim, exclamation mark)
for Crisp's sake, one does not just 'sincerely believe in all that religious stuff', one believes precisely because there is an Object right before ye whose significance is such that all other objectives are for the time being subordinated to that Object's presence in your midst - this is the 'mystical materialism' that has accompanied corporate Christendom from the moment she first shot out of Rome. and which is furthermore recapitulated with every anthropological advance of the truly scientific nation!
i take no overt selbstbefriedigung whatsoever in anything
i am only after an ever closerand more intimate inspection of the fundamental difference between the formal and the institutional, or if you're up for a tipple of ac-yak, the play between the synchronic and the diachronic - and simply put, what i see evinced hereon is more institutionally-driven than ever..
a person must do no less than turm his mind almost completely upside down to even come close to understanding history
since the last time i wandered around WHAT point?
the point that the 'education' of so many new zealanders i meet seems to me to have proceeded from, or at least been eclipsed by, so much fall-out from the the tongue of Eric Idle or someone?
and is this flicking to take place upon my ear, or what?
again, i perceive that the unexamined langauge of 'power' is all over this commentariat, no conception or appreciation whatsoever is evident here of just how we really came by those enlightened moral sources whence cometh our rhetoric of such smug & snug denunication..
QUOTE: "There are more than enough replacements from the successive generations to keep the traditions of ignorance, suppression and intolerance that this lot call their wisdoms and teachings alive"
if that is not evidence of the most lazy, bilious & dire exercise of a purely resentful imagination vastly divorced from all fact, fable, legend and tradition generating Culture then hey. see you in hell with Monty Python's Flying Circus, aye!
The crimes of the recent years follow in a direct line from hundreds of years of years of pain, misery and the use of the church to control, often with violence a potentially unstable mass.
do be a good fellow and point me to at least some of your historical sources here? And what do you think might have happened if ye olde 'potentially unstable mass'(sic) had gotten ITS way?
the word 'power' is being used to refer to way too many things at once, surely!
on the one hand, the Church has not even the power to control so much as a single priest in the field
and on another Hand an individual has not the 'power' to exercise control over so much as her own sexual orientation>>>>
but simultaneously may manage to bring this 'power' to bear over another individual whose wicked resources may radically fall short of his own!
i think i am bold enough to say that i can only imagine such a conjunction - between myself and another human supposed to be but the pure helpless victim/result of my voluptuous presence in his midst
as, as some sort of miracle!
almost like, like, "spiritualaity' without religion!