Cyclical vs. Linear History

[ottohauser1977]

Myself, I lean more toward the cyclical view, especially in light of the pendulum shift between business and government. This is a useful, if precarious balance. Too much of a swing, and people naturally react to the overreaching by either government or corporations. The excess power breeds corruption and triggers a backlash. This is because of fundamental facts of human nature. Particularly, we have free will, but we also have irrational impulses. These impulses often cloud judgment, leading to mistakes and reactions.

So, the pendulum shifts again. For now. Until the Left expands government too much again, and the Right takes advantage of a new backlash. And they will, because they are human.

 

[Stella_Omega]

We really do need a political forum.
Otto, your five posts here have nothing to do with erotic writing-- you dropped in to talk theory, right?

 

[CharleyH]

We really do need a political forum.
Otto, your five posts here have nothing to do with erotic writing-- you dropped in to talk theory, right?

Oh, I thought he was dropping in to discuss a short story by Aldous Huxley called (a fave of mine I might add) Usually Destroyed. Too bad for me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I thought he was dropping in to discuss a short story by Aldous Huxley called (a fave of mine I might add) Usually Destroyed. Too bad for me.

We could discuss it-- I've never read it though....

talk to me, baby!

 

[CharleyH]

We could discuss it-- I've never read it though....

talk to me, baby!

It's been 10 years, at least, since I read it and I don't have it here at my disposal, but if memory serves ... it's a story of a dude who travels and visits many places (I think in the Middle East. My memory fails on this point, but I think middle east). Mostly, the author is struck by a young tour guide who tours him to all the major cities, describing the history and culture so nonchalantly as the observer is simultaneously awed by what he sees and experiences. The main line that the tour guide says in every place is "usually destoyed, usually rebuilt." That's what resonates with me, Stell.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I've got one story submitted to Lit. But I am not sure if it will be accepted. So I'm trying to put the erotica part out of my mind for the moment.

 

[freshface]

I've got one story submitted to Lit. But I am not sure if it will be accepted. So I'm trying to put the erotica part out of my mind for the moment.

Welcome to the AH.

One of the nice things about this place is that if your story is rejected, you can usually get someone to take a look at it and offer suggestions for how to fix it. But why put the erotica part out of your mind for the moment? Where's the fun in that?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've got one story submitted to Lit. But I am not sure if it will be accepted. So I'm trying to put the erotica part out of my mind for the moment.

Put it right back, dammit!

your story WILL be accepted, unless it makes the reading bot think that;
a) you've used faulty grammer, in which case you just re-submit with a note explaining you meant to do it that way,
b) your characters are under the age of eighteen and having sex, in which case you have to decide if you can raise their ages and still have a hot story.

I further suggest you get busy on your next submission.

 

[Weird Harold]

Cyclical vs. Linear History?

Neither.

History is a chaotic system where countless small cycles interact with each other so that every moment since time began is unique and every moment to come will also be unique.

Government and Economic cycles are only a very small part of "History."

 

[ottohauser1977]

Cyclical vs. Linear History?

Neither.

History is a chaotic system where countless small cycles interact with each other so that every moment since time began is unique and every moment to come will also be unique.

Government and Economic cycles are only a very small part of "History."

Interesting take on this.

 

[JagFarlane]

We really do need a political forum.
Otto, your five posts here have nothing to do with erotic writing-- you dropped in to talk theory, right?

-sigh- consider the amount of political threads...it would be no surprise to see someone come in to talk politics.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

No one ever talks about writing here. If we're not talking about politics we're talking about the color of our underwear or what we take in our coffee.

 

[Weird Harold]

Interesting take on this.

I'm not sure that the authors and fans of "alternate history" fiction would word the concept quite the way I did, but that take on History is pretty much the foundation of the whole Alternate History genre.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

No one ever talks about writing here. If we're not talking about politics we're talking about the color of our underwear or what we take in our coffee.

The underwear is sugar and cream, and there's light blue in my coffee.... dammit I hate getting those mixed up.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I see plenty of talk about writing, among other things. And about politics.

And I see cliques. Opinionated newbies are apparently personae non grata. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[SimonBrooke]

No one ever talks about writing here. If we're not talking about politics we're talking about the color of our underwear or what we take in our coffee.

I deny that our talk here is not political. The existence of Literotica is a political statement and our participation in it is a political act. Every single story posted here constitutes a burnable book, a narrative which in mainstream western cultures within the past century it would have been illegal to publish, punishable to read. The fact that we consider human sexuality something which should be freely part of public discourse necessarily marks us all to the libertarian quadrant of the compass, wherever we may sit to the left or to the right.

We also sit uneasily with the mores of the United States, under which our stories are published. We all know that human beings have sex before the age of eighteen; we all know that some of the most interesting and troubling (and exciting) aspects of human sexuality relate to the emergence from nymph to imago. We all know that the issue of consent in sexuality is complex, and that interesting (and troubling and exciting) things happen when consent is blurred or stretched, and sometimes even when it is simply violated.

We write about rape. We write about incest. We write about abduction. We write about adultery. We write about fornication. We write, in guarded terms, about the margins of paedophilia. Practically the only aspect of human sexuality we don't write about is sex between a married couple in the missionary position at night in bed with the light off. We consider our narratives not only fit to be discussed in public, but possible to be enjoyed. We are pushing quite hard at the edges of what our society sees as acceptable.

It wouldn't take much of a shift in the centre ground of politics to define us all - every single writer of erotic stories, for sure, every reader too, possibly - as sexual deviants, of people to be recorded on the sexual offenders register, to be tracked, to have our compulsory ID cards compulsorily tagged with 'pervert'.

The world is political. Everything we do in the world is political. But writing in public about sexuality (or the colour of ones' underwear) is more political than most things.

 

[matriarch]

I deny that our talk here is not political. The existence of Literotica is a political statement and our participation in it is a political act. Every single story posted here constitutes a burnable book, a narrative which in mainstream western cultures within the past century it would have been illegal to publish, punishable to read. The fact that we consider human sexuality something which should be freely part of public discourse necessarily marks us all to the libertarian quadrant of the compass, wherever we may sit to the left or to the right.

We also sit uneasily with the mores of the United States, under which our stories are published. We all know that human beings have sex before the age of eighteen; we all know that some of the most interesting and troubling (and exciting) aspects of human sexuality relate to the emergence from nymph to imago. We all know that the issue of consent in sexuality is complex, and that interesting (and troubling and exciting) things happen when consent is blurred or stretched, and sometimes even when it is simply violated.

We write about rape. We write about incest. We write about abduction. We write about adultery. We write about fornication. We write, in guarded terms, about the margins of paedophilia. Practically the only aspect of human sexuality we don't write about is sex between a married couple in the missionary position at night in bed with the light off. We consider our narratives not only fit to be discussed in public, but possible to be enjoyed. We are pushing quite hard at the edges of what our society sees as acceptable.

It wouldn't take much of a shift in the centre ground of politics to define us all - every single writer of erotic stories, for sure, every reader too, possibly - as sexual deviants, of people to be recorded on the sexual offenders register, to be tracked, to have our compulsory ID cards compulsorily tagged with 'pervert'.

The world is political. Everything we do in the world is political. But writing in public about sexuality (or the colour of ones' underwear) is more political than most things.

The doc never said that our talk wasn't political. He was bemoaning (tongue in cheek, I hope), that we either talk politics, or discuss the colour of our underwear or what we take in our coffee. In other words, from the sublime to the ridiculous.

What he was bemoaning, was that we don't very often talk 'writing'.

And I agree with him completely.

~Auntie~

 

[matriarch]

I see plenty of talk about writing, among other things. And about politics.

And I see cliques. Opinionated newbies are apparently personae non grata. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Opinionated newbies are fine, we all were once. What's important is how you express those opinions.

 

[gauchecritic]

Opinionated newbies are fine, we all were once. What's important is how you express those opinions.

Except for me. I've never been an opinionated newbie. (except the newbie part)

ETA and the opinionated.

 

[rgraham666]

Most people prefer mythology to history.

 

[gauchecritic]

It's not history that repeats itself, it's the people and the reason 'we' never learn from history is that 'we' weren't there at the time.

Besides that history isn't usually about people, it's about Peoples (often 'led' by persons) In general all people want to do is enjoy life and earn a living until some 'person' comes along and decides that a) they want what someone else has or b)... come to think of it, there isn't a b.

When I was researching the Roses and Civil wars (note the caps, I'm referring to proper history here) I was quite astounded (and pleased) that for all the 'raising of armies' it seems that only local people fought local battles. If there was a long enough lull or one side was victorious then the 'conscripts' simply went home to get on with their lives

 

[ottohauser1977]

I deny that our talk here is not political. The existence of Literotica is a political statement and our participation in it is a political act. Every single story posted here constitutes a burnable book, a narrative which in mainstream western cultures within the past century it would have been illegal to publish, punishable to read. The fact that we consider human sexuality something which should be freely part of public discourse necessarily marks us all to the libertarian quadrant of the compass, wherever we may sit to the left or to the right.

We also sit uneasily with the mores of the United States, under which our stories are published. We all know that human beings have sex before the age of eighteen; we all know that some of the most interesting and troubling (and exciting) aspects of human sexuality relate to the emergence from nymph to imago. We all know that the issue of consent in sexuality is complex, and that interesting (and troubling and exciting) things happen when consent is blurred or stretched, and sometimes even when it is simply violated.

We write about rape. We write about incest. We write about abduction. We write about adultery. We write about fornication. We write, in guarded terms, about the margins of paedophilia. Practically the only aspect of human sexuality we don't write about is sex between a married couple in the missionary position at night in bed with the light off. We consider our narratives not only fit to be discussed in public, but possible to be enjoyed. We are pushing quite hard at the edges of what our society sees as acceptable.

It wouldn't take much of a shift in the centre ground of politics to define us all - every single writer of erotic stories, for sure, every reader too, possibly - as sexual deviants, of people to be recorded on the sexual offenders register, to be tracked, to have our compulsory ID cards compulsorily tagged with 'pervert'.

The world is political. Everything we do in the world is political. But writing in public about sexuality (or the colour of ones' underwear) is more political than most things.

True. Just look at de Sade's writings.

 

[epiphany65]

Most people prefer mythology to history.

Sometimes I find it difficult to tell the difference. Truth should never get in the way of patriotism. "Let's roll!"

 

[ottohauser1977]

It's not history that repeats itself, it's the people and the reason 'we' never learn from history is that 'we' weren't there at the time.

Besides that history isn't usually about people, it's about Peoples (often 'led' by persons) In general all people want to do is enjoy life and earn a living until some 'person' comes along and decides that a) they want what someone else has or b)... come to think of it, there isn't a b.

When I was researching the Roses and Civil wars (note the caps, I'm referring to proper history here) I was quite astounded (and pleased) that for all the 'raising of armies' it seems that only local people fought local battles. If there was a long enough lull or one side was victorious then the 'conscripts' simply went home to get on with their lives

I believe that it was a great American politician, a liberal Democrat named Tip O'Neill, who once said that "all politics is local". Fundamentally, there is something true about this. After all, I am in a minority. Most people die where they were born, usually in the very same community, even if they travel some times in their lifetimes. My sister will probably never set foot out of Berlin. She has no desire to. That's just one example. I keep trying to convince her to visit me, but she claims that she fears the "crime rate" in America. In other words, it's new, strange, foreign, and scary. It's the fear of the unknown.

I am a bit of a dunce about British history. That is British history to which you're referring, right? I know what little I do know of it from the study of American history, which is rooted in England. Anyway, the Roses and the Civil War (isn't that also called the Great Rebellion), those were about politics and who would govern England, right? Bear in mind that we Germans had our own little deal happening at that time, called the Thirty Years' War. Which was quite destructive. Was the English Civil War that bad?

The Thirty Years' War was more of an anomaly, since there was a lot of foreign intervention and a lot of mercenaries involved, rather than simply local militia.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Most people prefer mythology to history.

Naturlich! After all, mythology is safe. It doesn't really require us to learn as much.