?

Log in

skimming the existence meniscus - Because Nobody can eat 50 eggs
April 2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 
 
 
 
 
nyarhotep
nyarhotep
-- Mrkgnao! the cat cried.
Mon, Mar. 19th, 2007 03:08 pm
skimming the existence meniscus

quiet weekend, all told. saw The Queen with Maestra - good piece of cinema ESPECIALLY if you're an anglophile (not that i am, particularly). though i'm sure the movie took liberties, i never realized how distraught Britain was with the death of Diana; the movie suggested this was a national catastrophe, one which had the power of potentially toppling the entire monarchical system. i can't think of a US analog: someone who, in passing, would polarize and possibly plunge the country in civil war. MLK, mayhap, but present day examples are scarce. VERY pro-Blair, very. i took it as another example of the seemingly intrinsic instability and disease within large-scale theocratic governments. in global governments, the inflexible premises just seem to shallow

cooked Spaghetti Carbonara with Sun's Sis and, apparently, it turned out fairly well; though i didn't eat it. ¿why?, you ask, ¿would you not eat the fruits of your bacon, egg, and spaghetti labours? good question. for whatever reason (who knows these days why i do anything, i'll hang this hat on the peg of eccentricity), i decided after returning from Italy to subsist on mostly bread and water until the equinox (next Wednesday). partially self-amusement, partially applied experimentation, partially self-discovery, it's more a dalliance in the shallow end of of self-restraint than anything else. i still drink tea (¡need the 'feinne!), the occasional hard-liquor, and have been choosing interesting breads (multi-grain, sourdough, the like). so, it's not a particularly severe diet. i have, however, drawn rather arbitrary lines at cheeze-bread, raisin-bread, and other such 'indiscretions'. haven't noticed a severe lack of energy or gastrointestinal troubles, so i must be doing something right. i don't kid myself about its intensity, but it has eased me into a place where i can contemplate the outer fractal edges of ascetics, self-flagellation, spiritual rites, sacrifice, self-awareness/mandates, and the like. we'll see if anything comes of it

oh, and a group has been hired from my consulting agency to come into BP and do what i was originally hired to do two years ago (but this time, for a different DB). so, being the resident expert (smirk), i'm teaching people to be me - surreal. i'm unsure if this full-circle deal is comforting or poignant. though, to be honest, it's nice thinking i have 8 people who report directly to me for guidance, direction, and reference (¡OH THE POWERZ!)

4CommentReplyShare

somerled
somerled
somerled
Mon, Mar. 19th, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)

I think in the UK the monarch is head of the church about like she might be head of the national bridge association or certain university colleges: not functionally speaking a theocracy. But you know that, so I'm not sure what you're meaning with the instability of theocracies. I agree true theocracy is unstable beneath its veneer, but constitutional monarchy tends to be extraordinarily robust.

Having a monarch means the space a dictator might take is occupied, and removing the monarch from government means that the monarch herself cannot assume power; the civil service can simply pocket veto her edicts. A republic achieves the same thing by splitting the lawmakers from the administration.


ReplyThread
nyarhotep
nyarhotep
-- Mrkgnao! the cat cried.
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 09:48 pm (UTC)

i get edgy whenever religion plays any part in government since, it seems, one of the prime premises of religion seems to be entitlement. that is, this group (because of tribal, regional, or arbitrary rational) are superior than that group. for example, Royals are Chosen By God to be Royals. end of line. ¿how do you argue with that? more to the point, ¿what do you do when common sense, equality, and the public need contradict Theocratic Decree? i grant you, having individual or individuals who personify the State, some kind of Figurehead, is usually a good thing. however, as soon as those Icons become people, you get problems. as is suggested by this movie

since Monarchs don't have any real power in Government, ¿why do they exist? the "dictator" rational doesn't really hold because that kind of power can simply be assumed by the elected official - any government can fall prey to Cults of Personality. however, while monarchies and dynasties suffer under these cults for generations, Republics, in theory, only suffer for the official's term in office

about the only bonus i can see for Royals is to tie the country to legacy and tradition. the "¿Remember When?" factor. that's a crutch - or, more accurately, that's training wheels. once the new system is in place, works effectively, and has the will of the people, ¿why do you need such an obvious boondoggle? seems sentimentalism, at best


ReplyThread Parent
arghreality
arghreality
arghreality
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 11:21 am (UTC)

Man, no monarchy was going to be toppled with Diana's death. That was not going to happen. It was just an annoying overblown display of public grief, a grief which necessarily had its origin in the media (as our only experience of diana was through the media) and so was pretty much a simulacra of grief. The only people that strongly felt something about the issue were either over 50 or lived by themselves in a flat and didnt go out much.


ReplyThread
nyarhotep
nyarhotep
-- Mrkgnao! the cat cried.
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)

alright, that contextualizes the movie's bias. one of its prime premises was that Diana's death was a watershed moment for the Monarchy: either the Royals get wise to the "new" involvement media and public sentiment plays in government or they start filing for unemployment. however, you're saying it was just yellow media, which i'm more likely to believe. the Royals seem to be more mascots or cult-icons than Heads of State - this, in my republican Manifest Destiny eyes

though, i did come away with the sense the Royals really have no concept what century they're living in. "out of touch" seems too kind a descriptor - "schizophrenic" seems closer


ReplyThread Parent