While society is concerned and paranoid about the sources of abuse from without, and views those who bring harm to children unknown to them as inhuman devils gnashing teeth and dancing on bones, much of society openly advocates the routine abuse of children. Discipline is healthy, and a child spared of discipline could almost be considered handicapped, because no one should get a free ride through life. However, the line between abuse and discipline is a tightrope, and its walkers are often thrown in perilous different directions--either abuse is mistaken for discipline, or discipline mistaken for abuse. In either extreme, children are at the mercy of the overreaction of an adult--either they are deprived of healthy discipline, taken out of healthy homes and placed in traumatizing state care, or routine abuse is seen as "consistent" punishment. As above, the abuse of children is often permitted in society for various reasons.
Irrational people make tirades justifying the abuse of children. It almost seems like the abuse society hates the most is the kind that happens by social rogues in one-child, one-shot affairs, and the abuse society hates least, and even advocates for, is the routine, daily recurring abuse from people society invariably trusts. By the same note, welts and bruises of the same magnitude are examined and understood differently based almost entirely on whether or not society trusts the category of human being they originated from. This is not especially widespread, and most parents usually agree that any "discipline" that leaves physical marks such as bruises or lacerations is in fact abuse, but there are irrational people who will trust that a child has been correctly dealt with so long as those markings were caused by parents, teachers, or people whom society trusts. If dealt by people society hates--rogues, minorities, pervert slugs--only then has a tragedy occurred.
In all objectivity though, markings are markings, regardless of who made them, regardless of whether it's a parent or a child molester, so it makes no sense to treat them differently according to where the perpetrator falls in society's prejudices. A word of caution though ought to be had when determining the course of action stemming from an incident of abuse. It makes no sense to turn one bruise dealt by an otherwise caring parent into a lifetime of systematic, institutional abuse for that child under state care, which can and does happen. It makes no sense to treat parents as potential devils in disguise, as the rouge members of society have been cast. It is hypocrisy on the part of our culture to condone abuse from some sources, almost jokingly, and despise abuse from other sources vigilantly.
In reality, no human being is objectively a "monster" or a "beast," and such characterization (a sick glorification of the abuse) does nothing for the victim of the abuse. They are simply people with various psychological malfunctions, as in the case of child molesters or kidnappers, or they are people who have been culturally force-fed this notion that because children are a subservient class of person, they deserve nothing short of the physical assertion of adult dominance in their daily life to grow healthy. The later group are the aforementioned irrational people, the ageists. People who deal abuse don't have to don horns or sprout wings or dance on bones to abuse a child, sometimes they just have to be a part of the population that western culture doesn't understand. Sometimes they just have to believe in something western culture has understood for centuries--the so-called superiority of the adult. From these two things, all child abuse spews forth.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Pity the Mudslingers
I'm going to preempt the opposition and get the misunderstanding out in the open before it can do any damage to anyone, including those who are bound to make it. I've been blogging for too long not to expect the inevitable coming down the pike whenever an alternative perspective concerning children rears its head. For one, "Innocence Game" does not imply that the author of all this is playing some type of innocence game (as if something illegal were happening here), so all naysayers out there can commence feeling foolish now that their cheeky sneak jab isn't going to be as fresh as they thought it would be. For two, "Innocence Game" does not imply that any child's lack of experience ought to be played with in a way that could be damaging, or however the reader might construe it.
"Innocence Game" takes its derivation from the song "Patriot Game" by Dominic Behan, and refers to the way society places ideology over human life. In this case, the ideology is the concept of childhood innocence, and how society turns it into a game by upholding it at the expense of real live children. Jingoism and innocence are linked in that they both marry one's perspective to an artificial ideology of self-preservation, and then use that extreme emotional over-compensation to justify the villainization and victimization of other people. What could be more hazardous to a growing child than a society made up of that? Furthermore, it is the purpose of these writings to offer an alternative perspective--to call it out as the sensationalist, sentimental, and dangerous game that it is.
The message here will not appeal to the blinded at all, even this explanation. They will continue to see monsters on the prowl here because that is what they want to see. True monsters can't help but see their terrifying selves in others, and those who hurl accusation of "monster" at particular individuals who are advocating no such thing are only attempting to divert attention away from their own carnal lusts. I pity those who go around feeling victorious for shouting at the shadows of inanimate objects under the impression they are monsters. I pity the mudslingers.
"Innocence Game" takes its derivation from the song "Patriot Game" by Dominic Behan, and refers to the way society places ideology over human life. In this case, the ideology is the concept of childhood innocence, and how society turns it into a game by upholding it at the expense of real live children. Jingoism and innocence are linked in that they both marry one's perspective to an artificial ideology of self-preservation, and then use that extreme emotional over-compensation to justify the villainization and victimization of other people. What could be more hazardous to a growing child than a society made up of that? Furthermore, it is the purpose of these writings to offer an alternative perspective--to call it out as the sensationalist, sentimental, and dangerous game that it is.
The message here will not appeal to the blinded at all, even this explanation. They will continue to see monsters on the prowl here because that is what they want to see. True monsters can't help but see their terrifying selves in others, and those who hurl accusation of "monster" at particular individuals who are advocating no such thing are only attempting to divert attention away from their own carnal lusts. I pity those who go around feeling victorious for shouting at the shadows of inanimate objects under the impression they are monsters. I pity the mudslingers.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Keeping Up the Fight
CL is not child protectionism under a different set of rules. It doesn't wear anyone else's mask, it lives by it's own terms and still manages to fit comfortably into society undetected. It calls out the vigilantes, the ageists, the protectionists, the molesters--downpressers of all varieties--and seeks to preserve the dignity and integrity of not just children, but of the society to which they are members. Indeed, the protectionist's heaven would be the CL's hell, and vice versa.
The protectionist's heaven would be a society motivated by fear, where children are put in jeopardy by the institutionalized, bureaucratic safety mechanism itself, which would only justify its own existence in doing so. It would be a society running on the fears caused by the inadequacies that power it's engine. The vigilante's heaven would be a society where justice is perverted such that they rule the streets to gratify their sick lust for power over their personal adversaries. The heaven of the true child molesters would be a society where they are able to perform their sick deeds without guilt, somehow escaping justice and justifying their own actions however they see fit.
It should be easy to see how any of these scenarios would be the CL's hell, because in none of them are children or adults forefront on the priority. All three are primarily motivated selfishly, and only the vigilante may or may not have insight into how children factor little into their real motivation for action. So let there be no mistaking the CL and these groups who also find themselves hovering around society's youth. Just as much as the downpresser's heaven is a threat to CL though, the CL's heaven is a threat to the downpresser, which is why we have to keep up the fight to make it real.
The protectionist's heaven would be a society motivated by fear, where children are put in jeopardy by the institutionalized, bureaucratic safety mechanism itself, which would only justify its own existence in doing so. It would be a society running on the fears caused by the inadequacies that power it's engine. The vigilante's heaven would be a society where justice is perverted such that they rule the streets to gratify their sick lust for power over their personal adversaries. The heaven of the true child molesters would be a society where they are able to perform their sick deeds without guilt, somehow escaping justice and justifying their own actions however they see fit.
It should be easy to see how any of these scenarios would be the CL's hell, because in none of them are children or adults forefront on the priority. All three are primarily motivated selfishly, and only the vigilante may or may not have insight into how children factor little into their real motivation for action. So let there be no mistaking the CL and these groups who also find themselves hovering around society's youth. Just as much as the downpresser's heaven is a threat to CL though, the CL's heaven is a threat to the downpresser, which is why we have to keep up the fight to make it real.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Indigo Children
An increasingly popular New Age ideology posits that certain children being born today are the next evolution of mankind, as predicted, supposedly, by the indigo shade of their auras at birth. These children, as it is said, through their meta-cognitive proficiency and behavioral unpredictability, are hence setting the stage in the world today for the coming of the next breed of super human, the children of the Chrystal Vibration, who will effectively eliminate all the problems of mankind. The indigo children are simply calling our attention to our own faults as a human society, and in the future, supposedly, will set to eliminating human fear (the one enemy the children of the Chrystal Vibration) , which will in turn create a haven for the forthcoming newly evolved children to be born into.
Auras are pseudoscience, and maintain the same validity as Rorschach tests. Both are the result of the intriguing fallacy of the human psyche in interpreting meanings (or finding meanings) in objects and ideas that are already products of delusion or pure fantasy. Psycho-analysis is guilty of the same grievance. People see what they want to see, and if they see a rise in "abnormal behavior" occurring in children these days, whether or not there really is, than they can and will interpret it in many ways, and people will profit off selling the interpretations.
As for indigo children, they are the result of a society increasingly nerved by the idea that their children may in any way be abnormal. Parents, it seems, would rather have a special child than a defected child, at least in their own minds, inventing and buying into (often monetarily) the mythologies presented by new age authors and philosophies. Yet, this delusion is entirely human--childish fantasy projected from an adult mind which supposedly is capable of maintaining rational thought. There is nothing out of the ordinary about human beings deluding themselves into thinking the cause of any particular thing is metaphysical when a naturalistic explanation isn't as satisfying, that the time we are living in now is more unique and special than at any other point in history.
The only thing abnormal here is the rise in ADHD and ADD diagnoses (anywhere from 5% to 50% of the children in any given area in the United States and Canada), which is a called a "disease" although there is no diagnostic test proven to check for "symptoms." As it stands, pharmaceutical companies stand to make a lot of money prescribing antedotes for any child struggling with what is actually the syndrome of natural childhood, just as the New Age authors stand to make millions of dollars selling methodological nurturing suggestions to parents who suspect their child is indigo and may need special attention.
Whether that special attention comes in an orange bottle or out of a New Age book, that child is going to be affected, and it will no doubt echo in their behaviors, their meta-cognitive perspectives, their sense of self, their connection to other "non-indigo" children, and their sense of responsibility to the rest of society. Any special divination given to that child will upset the child's natural growth, whether they are labeled ADHD/ADD or Indigo, and will reflect in that child's behavior, which will only serve to reaffirm the doctors, parents, and mystics of their child's status, special abilities, or deformities. This is a dangerous ideology either way, because now that child is growing up in a bizarre world of delusion, neuroses, paranoia, and outright lies on their behalf, which won't make for a future any more brighter than the one we are already living in the present, and certainly no place for the so-called "chrystal children."
After all, when one is so paranoid that their child is anything but perfect that they are willing to realign the universe so that everything about their child seems justified in their own head, it doesn't seem as if these Indigo children are doing a very great job at "destroying human fear."
The controversy over the abundance of prescription medication treating undiagnosable "diseases" like ADHD causes a whole different set of realistic concerns. Certainly there will be children who fit the category and the condition can be proven to be having significant adverse effects on their ability to live an effective lives, but there is little doubt that most diagnoses are the result of a paranoid overreaction and the shrewd business practices of pharms. Statistically, behavioral disorders are not common enough to effect 1 out of every 2 children. Character is being misdiagnosed as ADHD, and if anything is at stake, it's a child's character--their ability to live a healthy life.
All this goes to show how adults, supposedly the rational minds at work in the world, often think with no better clarity than a child does about events in the world around them. We are paranoid and neurotic creatures from birth to death, regardless of what cognitive Piagetian stage we're in, regardless of whether we are prescribed medication for it or not, and our paranoias and neuroses are either encouraged or discouraged through our environment. Collectively we are in the process of a slow maturation, science and skepticism has been our best tool toward this end. And while there are some children who are encouraged to think with a rational mind, (natural children) whether through education, through parents, through medias, there are always children who are encouraged to think with a deluded mind (Indigos and misdiagnoses) by the same methods. These "children" don't have to be children in the traditional sense...anyone who holds beliefs to be true that are actually fantasies remains a child--regardless of age.
Either way, there's going to be a lot of paranoid and neurotic adults in the future. Is this the next evolution of mankind? Definitely not--looks like more of the same.
Auras are pseudoscience, and maintain the same validity as Rorschach tests. Both are the result of the intriguing fallacy of the human psyche in interpreting meanings (or finding meanings) in objects and ideas that are already products of delusion or pure fantasy. Psycho-analysis is guilty of the same grievance. People see what they want to see, and if they see a rise in "abnormal behavior" occurring in children these days, whether or not there really is, than they can and will interpret it in many ways, and people will profit off selling the interpretations.
As for indigo children, they are the result of a society increasingly nerved by the idea that their children may in any way be abnormal. Parents, it seems, would rather have a special child than a defected child, at least in their own minds, inventing and buying into (often monetarily) the mythologies presented by new age authors and philosophies. Yet, this delusion is entirely human--childish fantasy projected from an adult mind which supposedly is capable of maintaining rational thought. There is nothing out of the ordinary about human beings deluding themselves into thinking the cause of any particular thing is metaphysical when a naturalistic explanation isn't as satisfying, that the time we are living in now is more unique and special than at any other point in history.
The only thing abnormal here is the rise in ADHD and ADD diagnoses (anywhere from 5% to 50% of the children in any given area in the United States and Canada), which is a called a "disease" although there is no diagnostic test proven to check for "symptoms." As it stands, pharmaceutical companies stand to make a lot of money prescribing antedotes for any child struggling with what is actually the syndrome of natural childhood, just as the New Age authors stand to make millions of dollars selling methodological nurturing suggestions to parents who suspect their child is indigo and may need special attention.
Whether that special attention comes in an orange bottle or out of a New Age book, that child is going to be affected, and it will no doubt echo in their behaviors, their meta-cognitive perspectives, their sense of self, their connection to other "non-indigo" children, and their sense of responsibility to the rest of society. Any special divination given to that child will upset the child's natural growth, whether they are labeled ADHD/ADD or Indigo, and will reflect in that child's behavior, which will only serve to reaffirm the doctors, parents, and mystics of their child's status, special abilities, or deformities. This is a dangerous ideology either way, because now that child is growing up in a bizarre world of delusion, neuroses, paranoia, and outright lies on their behalf, which won't make for a future any more brighter than the one we are already living in the present, and certainly no place for the so-called "chrystal children."
After all, when one is so paranoid that their child is anything but perfect that they are willing to realign the universe so that everything about their child seems justified in their own head, it doesn't seem as if these Indigo children are doing a very great job at "destroying human fear."
The controversy over the abundance of prescription medication treating undiagnosable "diseases" like ADHD causes a whole different set of realistic concerns. Certainly there will be children who fit the category and the condition can be proven to be having significant adverse effects on their ability to live an effective lives, but there is little doubt that most diagnoses are the result of a paranoid overreaction and the shrewd business practices of pharms. Statistically, behavioral disorders are not common enough to effect 1 out of every 2 children. Character is being misdiagnosed as ADHD, and if anything is at stake, it's a child's character--their ability to live a healthy life.
All this goes to show how adults, supposedly the rational minds at work in the world, often think with no better clarity than a child does about events in the world around them. We are paranoid and neurotic creatures from birth to death, regardless of what cognitive Piagetian stage we're in, regardless of whether we are prescribed medication for it or not, and our paranoias and neuroses are either encouraged or discouraged through our environment. Collectively we are in the process of a slow maturation, science and skepticism has been our best tool toward this end. And while there are some children who are encouraged to think with a rational mind, (natural children) whether through education, through parents, through medias, there are always children who are encouraged to think with a deluded mind (Indigos and misdiagnoses) by the same methods. These "children" don't have to be children in the traditional sense...anyone who holds beliefs to be true that are actually fantasies remains a child--regardless of age.
Either way, there's going to be a lot of paranoid and neurotic adults in the future. Is this the next evolution of mankind? Definitely not--looks like more of the same.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Post-Sympathy Society
Sympathy, when given on volition, is really what we're striving for as a society, but all too often it's twisted out of us by the powers of sensationalism. When sympathy is given freely, it is a blessing, but when given at the behest of manipulation, is only a sad sorry excuse. Feeling bad for someone on the basis of some group's political or commercial agenda is a waste of our tears and a diversion away from those who could actually benefit from that shedding.
And since the amount of sympathy twisted out of the tear-ducts of adults on behalf of children is unparalleled, no other group of people seems to suffer more as a result. No other group of people are loosing out to our diverted sympathies than children. This forms the basis of our sympathetic society. A "post-sympathetic" society would be one were people feel sympathy for people they can actually reach out and touch rather than those at such great distances that no amount of feeling bad for them could ever hope to reach across. It is a society where sympathy is not a commodity, a means to an ends, but an ends in and of itself, a charity.
In short, it's the idea that those around each and every one of us is more deserving of our sympathies and assistance than those who we can't hope to reach or contact in any way. No amount of feeling sorry for the child kidnapped in California is going to bring them back home where they belong if you happen to live in New Jersey, for instance. Human beings will naturally react to such a story with pity and remorse, and such is fine, but the near pathological sadness and depression brought on by the constant media barrage bent on ringing our collective sympathies into a fever pitch of hysteria and mob-mental hatred is never going to do these injustices any good. It thrusts a sense of endless victim-hood on those affected, and associates whole groups of people sharing the characteristics of the perpetrator with his evil deeds. It does nothing to bring the kidnapped child home, and in those instances, may help reinforce the perpetrator's reasons for not stepping forward to release their possession.
In a post-sympathetic society, people would feel sympathetic for those around them, and not those the television tells them to feel sympathetic for. This is an ideal, of course, and therefore probably unattainable, but a genuine one that most people may indeed feel sympathetic toward given enough media exposure. In such a society, they'd not bicker at the children riding their big wheels in the condo parking lot for making noise and then come inside and shed a tear for the missing child on the news -- unless they are somehow associated with that child the way they are with the children outside their door. They wouldn't sanctify the dead and ignore the living.
One can dream.
And since the amount of sympathy twisted out of the tear-ducts of adults on behalf of children is unparalleled, no other group of people seems to suffer more as a result. No other group of people are loosing out to our diverted sympathies than children. This forms the basis of our sympathetic society. A "post-sympathetic" society would be one were people feel sympathy for people they can actually reach out and touch rather than those at such great distances that no amount of feeling bad for them could ever hope to reach across. It is a society where sympathy is not a commodity, a means to an ends, but an ends in and of itself, a charity.
In short, it's the idea that those around each and every one of us is more deserving of our sympathies and assistance than those who we can't hope to reach or contact in any way. No amount of feeling sorry for the child kidnapped in California is going to bring them back home where they belong if you happen to live in New Jersey, for instance. Human beings will naturally react to such a story with pity and remorse, and such is fine, but the near pathological sadness and depression brought on by the constant media barrage bent on ringing our collective sympathies into a fever pitch of hysteria and mob-mental hatred is never going to do these injustices any good. It thrusts a sense of endless victim-hood on those affected, and associates whole groups of people sharing the characteristics of the perpetrator with his evil deeds. It does nothing to bring the kidnapped child home, and in those instances, may help reinforce the perpetrator's reasons for not stepping forward to release their possession.
In a post-sympathetic society, people would feel sympathetic for those around them, and not those the television tells them to feel sympathetic for. This is an ideal, of course, and therefore probably unattainable, but a genuine one that most people may indeed feel sympathetic toward given enough media exposure. In such a society, they'd not bicker at the children riding their big wheels in the condo parking lot for making noise and then come inside and shed a tear for the missing child on the news -- unless they are somehow associated with that child the way they are with the children outside their door. They wouldn't sanctify the dead and ignore the living.
One can dream.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Children's Charities
Not only do many official children's charities help to drive sentimental hysteria, they are very active in fomenting it. Charities like Childline and Kidscape in the UK were expressly set up as anti-pedophile mechanisms (rather than pro-child ones), while the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) has been completely taken over during the last 20 years, and now channels huge resources into child-hysteria-fueled television propaganda. The Swiss Charity Terre de Hommes was instrumental in pressuring governments around the Far East to toe the line with western hysteria, and alter their laws and policing priorities.
More to that, children's charities have become a kind of state-sanctioned kiddy-porn industry, exploiting the faces of small children to separate donors from their cash, and using entirely spurious and bogus "sponsor a child" schemes to imply some level of personal connection between donor and recipient. This new-variant kiddyporn is such a winner, we now have many annual nationwide fund raising events channeling funds exclusively to "children's charities" while ignoring less photogenic needy people. It's patently western to work off one's guilt for abundance through the drive-through nature of children's charities.
Once again, this set up has more to do with adults--this time, alleviating gluttony guilt rather than fear--than it does with making a meaningful contribution to a child's welfare, and for that reason alone it is ubiquitous. Does anyone actually care what child they get paired with? Of course not, any child cute enough will do, imagine the realization then that perhaps dozens of others have been paired up with the same child. They need multiple donors, seeing as the majority of the donated money is flowing towards the charity organizers, it's surprising anything trickles down.
The "children in need" appeal has been running every year since the 1980s, a ghastly spectacle of people doing sponsored stunts to get themselves onto TV. Often of course, campaigns that claim to be support the children drives turn out to invest their funds in third world communities, and not directly to children at all. The so-called innocent faces are often used to get foreign funds to police outfits in third world communities under the guise of "urban development" for which the local political regime can better use to brutalize and subjugate its population.
Now that "children's charities" (many of which are directly supported by the taxpayer) have become the fund source of "child protection agencies," we should be pleased to see these "charities" fold. When people stop believing they can buy away their guilt by indirectly supporting the agendas of these agencies (distracted by the starving child bait), perhaps it will open people up to the real benefits of giving one's time and self over to children on the local, face-to-face, hand-to-hand level instead. This is the only charity that actually works, and the only one CLs ideally endorse. However, the constraints of modern life impose too much--the bureaucracy involved in helping out a real child is designed to scare us away--and sadly, most people run for the hills at the mere suggestion.
More to that, children's charities have become a kind of state-sanctioned kiddy-porn industry, exploiting the faces of small children to separate donors from their cash, and using entirely spurious and bogus "sponsor a child" schemes to imply some level of personal connection between donor and recipient. This new-variant kiddyporn is such a winner, we now have many annual nationwide fund raising events channeling funds exclusively to "children's charities" while ignoring less photogenic needy people. It's patently western to work off one's guilt for abundance through the drive-through nature of children's charities.
Once again, this set up has more to do with adults--this time, alleviating gluttony guilt rather than fear--than it does with making a meaningful contribution to a child's welfare, and for that reason alone it is ubiquitous. Does anyone actually care what child they get paired with? Of course not, any child cute enough will do, imagine the realization then that perhaps dozens of others have been paired up with the same child. They need multiple donors, seeing as the majority of the donated money is flowing towards the charity organizers, it's surprising anything trickles down.
The "children in need" appeal has been running every year since the 1980s, a ghastly spectacle of people doing sponsored stunts to get themselves onto TV. Often of course, campaigns that claim to be support the children drives turn out to invest their funds in third world communities, and not directly to children at all. The so-called innocent faces are often used to get foreign funds to police outfits in third world communities under the guise of "urban development" for which the local political regime can better use to brutalize and subjugate its population.
Now that "children's charities" (many of which are directly supported by the taxpayer) have become the fund source of "child protection agencies," we should be pleased to see these "charities" fold. When people stop believing they can buy away their guilt by indirectly supporting the agendas of these agencies (distracted by the starving child bait), perhaps it will open people up to the real benefits of giving one's time and self over to children on the local, face-to-face, hand-to-hand level instead. This is the only charity that actually works, and the only one CLs ideally endorse. However, the constraints of modern life impose too much--the bureaucracy involved in helping out a real child is designed to scare us away--and sadly, most people run for the hills at the mere suggestion.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Fighting Decadence
The most potent question for resolution in all these musings may be over whether the CL is fighting a battle for inclusion or exclusion--that is, the difference between thinking children ought to be included with what adult's have determined to be the "human society," and the thinking that they ought to be excluded from adult civilization because they shouldn't need the permission of their taskmasters to claim human dignity for themselves. The question boils down to the same fundamental disagreement that has haunted the entire evolution of every youth movement in history: do children belong in an adult world or in their own?
Decadence defines all adult social interactions and motives for action. It is not a wrongful behavior, just a pervasive one built into the very nature of socially constructed adult life. It is a lifestyle of culturally-assigned self-indulgence--for our purposes, we could understand self-indulgence on the part of the adult to be benefits granted to the individual adult by other adults, but systematically denied to those not termed "adult," such as children. The right to vote could be considered a self-indulgence. The right to express one's sexuality would be considered a self-indulgence.
Thus we can understand an adult's decadence in these spheres of self-imposed freedoms and the lack thereof imposed on young people for the preservation of their own indulgence, similar to the balance of power kept between ethnic groups, "the first world" and "the third world"--essentially, divide the world into those who get to enjoy the decadence and those who can not. It is this aspect that the CL, as an adult, seeks to go beyond. They may perform the functions of an adult, even the decadent ones, but not in a way that reeks of deceit and false pretense.
What makes the CL distinct is that while they may and do work within the system, their ideal is to perform their good works for a child they love on the basis of pure charity. By doing such, they work to toss off adult society, with all it's shallow conceit and false pretense, and carve out a role for themselves as human beings separate from the so-called "age defined" limitations of culture. Casting aside the decadence that adults have reserved for themselves in light of their flaws is a show of revolt against culture. It is a show of humility in the face of that decadence to then devote oneself to being a peer to children, but the task is not so much to just raise them up to that very same level of adult decadence, but to supersede it--to go beyond it as well.
Thus it could be said the ultimate mission of the CL is an existential one, emphasizing the essential humanity of young and old and downplaying all the socially contrived nuance that typically defines adult and child interactions. Working within the system produces healthy young person fit to be the followers of a conceited adult social system. Working as a rogue individual doesn't produce anything, but gives the child room to experiment in the infinite possibilities available to human beings from the word go.
Decadence defines all adult social interactions and motives for action. It is not a wrongful behavior, just a pervasive one built into the very nature of socially constructed adult life. It is a lifestyle of culturally-assigned self-indulgence--for our purposes, we could understand self-indulgence on the part of the adult to be benefits granted to the individual adult by other adults, but systematically denied to those not termed "adult," such as children. The right to vote could be considered a self-indulgence. The right to express one's sexuality would be considered a self-indulgence.
Thus we can understand an adult's decadence in these spheres of self-imposed freedoms and the lack thereof imposed on young people for the preservation of their own indulgence, similar to the balance of power kept between ethnic groups, "the first world" and "the third world"--essentially, divide the world into those who get to enjoy the decadence and those who can not. It is this aspect that the CL, as an adult, seeks to go beyond. They may perform the functions of an adult, even the decadent ones, but not in a way that reeks of deceit and false pretense.
What makes the CL distinct is that while they may and do work within the system, their ideal is to perform their good works for a child they love on the basis of pure charity. By doing such, they work to toss off adult society, with all it's shallow conceit and false pretense, and carve out a role for themselves as human beings separate from the so-called "age defined" limitations of culture. Casting aside the decadence that adults have reserved for themselves in light of their flaws is a show of revolt against culture. It is a show of humility in the face of that decadence to then devote oneself to being a peer to children, but the task is not so much to just raise them up to that very same level of adult decadence, but to supersede it--to go beyond it as well.
Thus it could be said the ultimate mission of the CL is an existential one, emphasizing the essential humanity of young and old and downplaying all the socially contrived nuance that typically defines adult and child interactions. Working within the system produces healthy young person fit to be the followers of a conceited adult social system. Working as a rogue individual doesn't produce anything, but gives the child room to experiment in the infinite possibilities available to human beings from the word go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)