posted
This has nothing to do with intuition or logic; it has everything to do with disagreeing with OSC's stance on gay marriage and making very subtle but obvious assumptions as to his orientation and motives.
Let's cut past the garbage, shall we?
It's a clever tactic attempted time and time again by those opposed to universal truth, but truth does indeed win out in the end.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think that logging on to the man's forum and presuming to try to give him unsolicited advice about how to live his life better--especially considering he's in his 50s and has done pretty damn well for himself so far--is an astounding display of hubris. I understand that you disagree with his opinion of homosexuality. So do I. But what qualifications do you have to tell him he's living his life wrong simply because you disagree with his opinion? Since when is living a healthy and happy life contingent upon "agreeing with Bryan"?
I don't have a problem with coming here and debating his opinions. He writes down his opinions and posts them on websites for anyone to read, so he's accepting the fact that people who disagree with him will read what he says and possibly write contrary opinions. So if you want to come here and debate the points he's made on homosexuality, or anything else, we'll be happy to indulge you. But all this stuff about how you want to help him get rid of his burden or keep him out of Hell or whatever it is you're going on about isn't going to be very well received--not by us, and definitely not by him.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested in playing psychological chess games with fellow fans of Mr.Card. What's said is said and if Card or his wife believes this to be untrue or completely unhelpful in any sense then it should be deleted, lest it be allowed to stagnate and negativity spawn from what others choose to read into it.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's said that a spoon full of sugar can help the medicine go down but sugar has never been my forte and it's wrong of me to pretend that I can produce sugar.
It would not be wrong to try.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, you have no interest in Hatrack and don't care a whit for anything we say and don't want to converse with us at all, but you have the Secret of Living a Happy and Healthy Life (TM), and in your boundless benevolence have decided to share it with Orson Scott Card because you think his life is sad and lacking and doomed to damnation and he requires your assistance to turn himself around. Okay, well, good luck with all that.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try? But I had tried. Really, *chuckles*, if you think I haddn't tried then perhaps that goes to show just how poor I am at it.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doomed to damnation? No, if by damnation you mean burning in the firey pits for all enternity. My idea of damnation is fear, guilt, anxiety and insecurity in the real world. Card does not need my assistence to turn his life around. First of all, this would be his choice and not mine. Secondly, I only provide the catalyst to start the reaction, provided that there is a seed of truth in any of my words. People can only help themselves, so I don't want to be "relied" upon.
I only address your points because I believe that Card and his associates are probably thinking along the same lines that you are. It is therefore helpful for us all to try to be honest and sincere so as to facilitate communication.
posted
I remember a few years ago when a reporter on Salon interviewed OSC about something and could not get off the topic of his attitude towards homosexuality; she was clearly hung up on the fact that an author with whom she sympathized, who wrote things that she found beautiful and moving, disagreed with her on some basic fundamentals of philosophy. It soured the interview, and I have no doubt that it's soured the books he's written -- for her, at least.
I have my own disagreements with Card's politics, and don't appreciate his tendency in later books to insert multi-page treatises on those politics in the mouths of his characters; it's jarring to me to see a character hijacked like that, and I'd rather he stick to what's essential to the story. (And if the polemics are perceived as being central to the story, I'd rather he came up with a story that didn't rely on polemic. I think he can aspire to more than, say, Tom Clancy. But I digress.)
The point, though, is that it was unfair of that reporter to assume that she knew Card well enough to judge his character, particularly when she started second-guessing motivations that he'd been perfectly clear in explaining in print before. You do the same thing, and don't even have the excuse of an interview; you've never even conversed with the man, unlike several of the people here and unlike that reporter, and yet are willing to make rather presumptuous guesses -- ones that undercut contradict his own stated reasoning -- about his life and philosophy.
Stick around Hatrack. You'll get the opportunity to see the Card family in action -- and I guarantee that will answer many of your unspoken questions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between me and that reporter on Salon was that she was projecting her own political ideologies and fears upon Card and card was unconsciously picking up on those fears. That's why Card appeared to be uncomfortable even though he had no reason to be. I don't pretend to be trying to advance some ideology here and I approach the matter sincerely without any fears or selfish agendas. If it were the case that I were trying to advance such an agenada, I would whine and complain if an administrator threatened to delete this thread in the same way that that the Salon.com interviewer would whine and complain if her superiors decided that it would be best to delete that information so that other people wouldn't get a poor opinion of Mr.Card. The only reason this is public is because I couldn't find a way to send this to Card personally.
Incidentally, I believe that the Salon.com article should be deleted because it is doing more harm than good for both the political left and right. There was a time when I shared in her frustration, but that was a time when I was left-wing. I have since disposed of such self-defeating ideologies since that time.
It is my contention that politics should be subordinate to psychology and not the reverse.
This whole thing tiptoes on the edge of the creepy fan -- the "I know what he feels and what he really means, what is really inside of him."
A few steps down the road is Mark David Chapman waiting outside the Dakota for John Lennon, Catcher in the Rye in one hand, a .38 special in the other.
Read the man's works and enjoy them for what they are. But remember, the actions of characters in a book, or even their words, don't necessarily reflect the beliefs and views of the author, especially a very good author. They are characters, fictions.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strawcatz, I think part of the problem was because it didn't taste so much like sugar as like rice paper. Kind of sticky and we aren't sure just exactly what it is, or even if it is edible.
It is this particular statement I'm questioning:
quote: I know this sounds presumptous of me, and if I came to these conclusions by logical deduction, it would be, but I came to these conclusions intuitively instead.
Why would logical deductions have been presumptious and your intuitive ones not?
Let me say plainly what I think you were trying to imply. You seem to believe that Orson Scott Card is homosexual, but is repressing it because he is part of a strict religious culture, and his statements are reflective of that inner conflict. Is that the burden you speak of?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between me and creepy fans who are a danger to the celebrities they adulate is that their creepiness is founded upon passion. Passion can consist of either love or hate, and I feel neither toward Mr.Card. I am trying to approach the matter as calmly and neutrally as possible.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me say plainly what I think you were trying to imply. You seem to believe that Orson Scott Card is homosexual, but is repressing it because he is part of a strict religious culture, and his statements are reflective of that inner conflict. Is that the burden you speak of?
That depends how you define homosexual. If a homosexual is a person who engages in homosexual acts then Mr.Card is not necessarily a homosexual. His writing gives me the impression that he would never, ever engage in such an act.
I'm merely implying that the degree to which we repress as certain part of our personality (in this case, what Jung would call the anima) is the degree that we that its psychological reality is projected upon others. If Card pities homosexuals, it means that he's pitying himself. I could suggest that Card has homoerotic urges, but I don't want to do this because this is not necessarily so, especially if he is not conscious of them. I just think it would be a great thing if Card could accept all parts of himself equally, and then he wouldn't have to worry about ever having something slip out in a way that he didn't intend, such as we saw in the Salon.com interview.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen in several places the idea that Harry Potter is about homosexuality. This is the same idea. I think...I think that when someone is an outsider, it is easy to assume that all outsiders are outsiders for the same reason they are. Especially if someone is ambivelent about that part of themselves, they think that if it is only that part that keeps them from the happy Shangria-lai the rest of the world lives in.
S, you're not the first to suggest it, but you're just as wrong as the others. OSC's a great writer and understands human nature. I also suspect that most people feel like outsiders for one reason or another - especially teenagers. It's well-documented and it's part of the story of ourselves that we tell to ourselves.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The difference between me and that reporter on Salon was that she was projecting her own political ideologies and fears upon Card and card was unconsciously picking up on those fears.
And you're not?
quote: I don't pretend to be trying to advance some ideology here and I approach the matter sincerely without any fears or selfish agendas.
Some how I don't get that impression. Sincerity and fear are oozing from your text.
quote: If it were the case that I were trying to advance such an agenada, I would whine and complain if an administrator threatened to delete this thread in the same way that that the Salon.com interviewer would whine and complain if her superiors decided that it would be best to delete that information so that other people wouldn't get a poor opinion of Mr.Card.
Whining and complaining are not the only ways to advance an agenda.
Your agenda is to "protect" Mr. Card from what you see as a flawed belief is it not? What he believes is irrelevant. It's what you believe about your self that matters.
posted
If fear is oozing from my original text, it is because, just before I posted this, someone told me to be very, very careful if I'm going to say these things, lest I get sued. I now realize that their fears were unfounded and I should not have seemed so defensive when I spoke about legal issues. As a human, it's natural that I would come to feel other people's fears, though I feel that I am in more control of them than are most people in most cases. And if I'm not in control, at least I'm aware.
quote: As a human, it's natural that I would come to feel other people's fears, though I feel that I am in more control of them than are most people in most cases. And if I'm not in control, at least I'm aware.
posted
That is at direct contradiction with what you said about empathy in your first article. Empathy suggests an ability to ascertain how someone is feeling about something that they have had no experience with.
Also, there was more going on in the Salon article, if I remember correctly. The author also repeatedly implied that Card had suffered some persecution from his older brother, and was fixated on how his writings revealed his psychological dysfunctions. That is what made Card uncomfortable, I believe, not any specific repression or part of his personality, but the presumption by the author that she knew his flaws better than he knew himself.
And that is exactly what you are doing.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your agenda is to "protect" Mr. Card from what you see as a flawed belief is it not? What he believes is irrelevant. It's what you believe about your self that matters.
The belief is only flawed if it fails to correspond to Mr.Card's actual needs and I could only venture a guess as to what those needs are. That's why it's up to him to decide if this is needful or unneedful. I felt an altruistic urge and decided to act upon it so that an alternative could be presented. If we can see no alternative, we have no choice and we are stuck in the same patterns for the rest of our lives. I don't ascribe a moral category to these patterns, but ask the other people to ask themselves if they are doing what they truly want to do with their lives.
But you're correct that I'm only responsible for my own needs. Just that, when you look out into the world that see that people don't seem to be very happy you wish you could do something to help without imposing on their freedom. Perhaps this is a paradox and I can do nothing at all. I fully accept the consequences of my actions.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If fear is oozing from my original text, it is because, just before I posted this, someone told me to be very, very careful if I'm going to say these things, lest I get sued.
This makes it crystal clear that you do not know Card even as well as the fans on this board.
You are claiming special knowledge. When doing so, we need to be very, very careful that we are not acting on our own needs, desires, and hubris. But your claim of such is ringing false in light of the misperceptions you have clearly shown of him.
I do, in fact, think that it is presumptious to give him advice based on your gut feeling that something is wrong with him when you have only read his books and a couple of articles.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just that, when you look out into the world that see that people don't seem to be very happy you wish you could do something to help without imposing on their freedom. Perhaps this is a paradox and I can do nothing at all. I fully accept the consequences of my actions.
However valiant your actions may seem, unsolicited advice is never respected. Example is what people respect the most.
posted
If I appear to be talking in matters of what is morally right or wrong, that is not my intention. Systems of universalized ethics are responsible for the gap we see between "good" and "evil", as "evil" people are those who have given up trying to conform to a standard that is too high for their own humanity. We are only able to assess our own way of being. Socrates never told someone that they ought to believe this or that, but rather he had them examine their own assumptions so that they could figure out for themselves if these assumptions were important enough to hold onto.
So I'm only "high and mighty" if you choose to uncritically accept your own system of morality and project it upon my words.
posted
Your motive is admirable. I can understand it.
But I do not believe the patterns are as you believe them to be, and you have already admitted you do not know his needs.
I once read a book called "Goodbye, I love you", by Carol Lynn Pearson. Her husband of some years decided he could no longer repress his homosexual desires. As a result, they parted, on very good terms. She remained his friend. She nursed him through dying of AIDS.
And all I could think was that he'd thrown away his entire life to fulfill his sexual desires. He lost his family. He lost a most precious woman who, despite his despising her own nature, never broke her vows to him. He left his job. And then he literally did lose his life. How much did he gain, really, for what he gave up?
Freedom, you say? Not being repressed?
I would rather be repressed with such a family, companion, and life as he had than lead the life he had after he abandoned them to chase after his sexual urges. I would rather die than hurt the ones I loved as much as he hurt them. I would never be happy, knowing what I'd done.
If we seek after our own happiness, we will inevitably lose it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would rather be repressed with such a family, companion, and life as he had than lead the life he had after he abandoned them to chase after his sexual urges. I would rather die than hurt the ones I loved as much as he hurt them. I would never be happy, knowing what I'd done.
posted
I think you might just be correct in your concerns...
I certainly don't want to hurt anyone, just as I certainly don't want to be crucified
So, should we have vote? If these "truths" are too dangerous to be spoken, this thread should not exist. If, instead, there is some pragmatic use of this thread existing, then let it be.
quote: So I'm only "high and mighty" if you choose to uncritically accept your own system of morality and project it upon my words.
Why did you even let that comment bother you?
quote: So, should we have vote? If these "truths" are too danger to be spoken, this thread should not exist. If, there is some pragmatic use of this thread existing, then let it be.
What should I do?
Vote on what? No one as agreed that any real "truths" have even been spoken. The debate will rage on. I've been on the Internet since 1987 and I can tell you this for sure.
Whenever discussions like these arise, they rarely end amicably if at all.
posted
I have never believed in deleting a thread I started.
No truth is too dangerous to be spoken in the appropriate place, and nothing you've said is inappropriate to this place, though many people may have disagreed with you on several levels. But disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even if we never come to coincide when it happens, we both learn something of ourselves and others.
Stay and be welcome.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes.. but if there is a middle-way, I don't know what it is. I merely admit my ignorance in how what I'm saying can be used for good.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I once read a book called "Goodbye, I love you", by Carol Lynn Pearson. Her husband of some years decided he could no longer repress his homosexual desires. As a result, they parted, on very good terms. She remained his friend. She nursed him through dying of AIDS.
And all I could think was that he'd thrown away his entire life to fulfill his sexual desires. He lost his family. He lost a most precious woman who, despite his despising her own nature, never broke her vows to him. He left his job. And then he literally did lose his life. How much did he gain, really, for what he gave up?
I read that book. I had several reactions, but first among was being absolutely appalled that he got married, knowing that he felt the way that he did.
To his credit, he told her about it before they got married. I couldn't believe she was dumb enough to marry someone KNOWING that he didn't desire her physically and that their life would always be an act for him. An act that he very much wanted to want, and that he would try very hard to live, but always still an act.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can't vote, because we don't share your basic assumptions: that you have revealed anything like a "dangerous truth" here, and that what is coming out of this is negativity. What we see is this: you have postulated a thesis. Some of us are debating your thesis, and others are commenting on what we believe to be a ridiculously presumptuous tone from you. Because anything you said is dangerous? No. Because it's what we do. Look around, and you'll see it all over the place. It's called discussion, and sometimes it does not go the way you want it to. But it is neither dangerous nor negative. It may not be what you intended, but, generally speaking, once you start a thread here, what you intended is irrelevant.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's called discussion, and sometimes it does not go the way you want it to. But it is neither dangerous nor negative. It may not be what you intended, but, generally speaking, once you start a thread here, what you intended is irrelevant.
posted
Yeah, that's why I put it in quotations, because neither of us know for sure whether it is true or false, since it is based on theories and faiths-claims that are not easily proven or disproven.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: While logic can be driven by our emotions, intuition is above that, at least in theory.
Your initial post aside, I find this statement the opposite of what I believe, and that is always interesting to me. I believe much of our experience is based on old tapes of prior experiences. I think our emotions are how those tapes are accessed. (This is based a lot on my reading of Emotional Intelligenc by Goleman). Actually, I think some of these tapes are instinctive, or if not instinctive in the sense of a behavior meant to preserve life, inborn.
I don't know if that is what you mean by intuition. I feel many important ideas are past logical scrutiny. But in general I distrust intuition. Insofar as logic can be used to support any argument, a position held due to emotion is no less likely to be logical than an unemotional one.
I have homosexual urges. I have urges to rob banks. I have urges to kill people. It's called mortality. Card wrote with alarming detail about Alvin Miller's desire to throw baby Alvin down the stairs. Does that mean Card secretly wishes to kill his children? Perhaps. I know I think of it, but I acknowledge the thought and then move on. The fact that there is homosexuality in Card's books shows he is not repressing it.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between logic and intuition, I believe, is that logic is a cognitive faculty while intuition is a perceptive category like seeing and hearing. That which we see does not make any sense on its own, but needs to be interpreted by our cognitive processes of mind.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*smirks* Yeah, I suppose that's a bad habit of mine. If I want to talk descriptively rather than normatively about matters, I should avoid "lest" since it is a normative word.
I suppose you could say that my language development was somewhat stunted.
posted
How I write is the way I write.. I use no thesauruses and such; I just write spontaneously. I blame reading way too much antiquated philosophy Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that intuition is perceptual is interesting. I would seem to me that if this were the case, we are constantly perceiving intuition, but it only becomes noticeable with it is at odds with logic or one of the other senses.
But then, I think everyone is continually broadcasting and receiving subtle messages about mood and mental state. We only notice when there is something worth noticing, just like we don't store or recall most of what we see. So while I didn't ever mock your initial statement about empathy, my view carries with it the belief that we also are receiving messages from God.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, when you really admire someone--who you think they are, what they do, how they seem --the desire to interact with them is overwhelming. Then, when you do meet them, (if you are so lucky) instead of revealing your cleverness and remarkable insight into life, you stumble, falling all over yourself trying to let them know every emotional connection you have felt reading their work or fantasizing about what a difference you can make in their life. So instead of making a real, honest connection, you simply reveal that you have a strong foolish side--and that you're nervous or maybe a little too earnes in your wish to communicate so much.
Maybe this is like that??
Maybe not.
OSC is a remarkably decent, caring man. My guess is he will take the good part I expect is there in your message, and the rest he will be gracious enough to discard as . . stumbling.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, according to a Google search, frozen custard is generally more thick and creamy than soft serve, and has a higher fat percentage. They also use eggs in custard, whereas many soft serve brands do not.
Glad I got that settled.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
