Existentialism

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

I have my entire life, most likely because I am a crossdresser, but it seems like it started before that, felt like I was on the outside. Like I didn't fit in to a society that everyone else did not seem to have a problem with.

I felt boxed in by social rules. I didn't like that wealthy kids had more rights than me. I didn't like that certain people would be treated differently depending on what church they went to. But mainly I objected to the fact that it was not permitted to think outside the box.

I objected because I was continually outside the box. Because the social rules did not favor me, I could not see why I would want to obey them. especially when I started thinking I was really a girl on the inside. I hated little league football. It was a humiliation. I was afraid to hit or to be hit. I used my eye injury as a reason to quit. My doctor said I had to. I did the same to get out of PE in Jr High and High School. That way I did not have to compete against the other boys.

In 7th grade I insisted that they let me take Home Economics, although no boy had taken it before. Once I did, they persuaded two other boys to do it. The following year, it became mandatory. One quarter of wood shop, the other quarter of Home Economics. For all students, girls and boys. Before the girls took Home Economics, and the boys took Wood Shop.

I learned to cook, to sew, to iron a shirt and other clothes. How to use a sewing machine. How to make bisquits. How to put out a kitchen fire. I got an A in this class. Plus, it was a room full of girls.

I was 12 years old when this happened. I already considered myself a transexual. I never told anyone, but that is what I thought in my own mind. I was clearly outside the morals of society. My thoughts about who I was, were not acceptable. No one was going to say this was ok.

I was 12 years old, I thought I was a transexual, I clearly was not the same as other boys, and did not like competing with them, except intellectually. I was afraid to fight. I could not live in the box I was supposed to. So I decided to live outside of it. I would live my life by the set of moral standards that I saw fit. I would decide what was right and wrong, because I could not live in the world where others decided. That world excluded me, because it in, I was on the list of wrongs.

It was this decision that took me away from religion. It was this decision that took me away from standard social order. I decided that I would not lie, cheat, steal, or harm others, but outside of that, I would do whatever I pleased.

This took away the guilt for feeling like a girl on the inside. It took away the guilt of masturbation and pornography. It took away the guilt for not being religious. It took away the guilt for wanting to live like a free person. Why should I let society decide what I could and could not do. Was it not my life?

I had kinky sex, I took drugs, I drank alchohol. I played rock and roll music that mocked everything including religion. I rented and watched pornography. But I followed my rules. My own set of morals. Because of who I am, I have always known that living by my own set of rules would set me apart. But what I cared about, was living as a free person. Not allowing others to control me. A keen awareness that I only had one life, and that if I let others live it, I could not be fullfilled.

So now you ask? Why did I read all of this, and why is the topic "Existentialism"? Well? it is because I found out that I am not the only one who holds such beleifs. It turns out that so many people have held this beleif that it is actually a philosophy. It is called Existentialism.

I found this interesting page on it.

http://www.connect.net/ron/exist.html

Here is the main idea if you don't want to read the whole page.

From web page

The 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, “I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.”

And

Other existentialist writers have echoed Kierkegaard's belief that one must choose one's own way without the aid of universal, objective standards. Against the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgment of right and wrong, existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be found for moral decisions.

I think that it is precisely because I beleive these things already, that my coming out has been rather easy. I beleive that many of you may be closet Existentialists. Wanting to live your life in this manner, but are either afraid of the consequences, or beleiving it, but in a life situation where your present commitments would violate your own moral code, if you did not live up to them.

I do beleive I am an Existentialist, and would welcome the comments of the members on thier feelings about this, the philosophy in general, and how it may apply to crossdressing. Are we indeed free people, to determine the outcome of our own lives?

Love always,
Elizabeth

[CJ]

Hi all,

Elizabeth,

Interesting post. A closet Existentialist, eh? There might be some truth to that. You know, the subject's come up before, in relation to some of Jean-Paul Sartre's thinking on the matter. He wrote L'Être et le néant (Being and Nothingness), the definitive statement of contemporary Existentialism. Anyway, there was mention, somewhere on the forum, of his idea about our mauvaise foi ("living in bad faith"). We live in bad faith, he said, whenever we "twist" ourselves, so to speak, in such a way that we don't live according to our own most cherished ideals and values. According to Sartre, we do this because we're afraid of assuming the consequences (and responsibilities) of our own freedom. This fear forces us to live a life we know for a fact to be poorer and less fulfilling than that we are capable of... something which, in turn, generates much anxiety and depression. An early example of existentialist thinking is found in Shakespeare's Hamlet, when Polonius says to his son, Laertes, "This above all: to thine ownself be true, / And it must follow, as the night the day, / Thou canst not then be false to any man." (Act I, scene iii)

I guess I could consider myself an Existentialist. Partly, anyway. I'm also very much a Cynic (in the classical sense of one who finds virtue in self-control and who has no pressing need to embrace the ways of men) and a Stoic (again, in the classical sense of one who calmly accepts those things that are part of either an alleged divine will or an alleged natural order and are, as such, unavoidable). You'll rarely see me seriously complain about the weather. Or about being a crossdresser, for that matter; these aren't things I really have any power to change. Best to accept them (even if others can't or won't).

Along with these "philosophies of life" (which I see more as philosophies for life), there is, in my own case, a profound feeling of being "connected" to the world around me--a world both broad and deep--that is the result of my religious or spiritual experiences. So, probably like most of you out there, my way of "being-in-the-world" (cf. Heidegger) is pretty much a mixed bag. I'm sure it's also a "bag" that holds quite a few surprises for me yet.

Love,
CJ

[Beauty]

Holy wow!

That's deep stuff Elizabeth. Thanks for bringing this very complex thought to the forum. Sheesh. I am kind of on the fence. I think I am an Ex', but then I kind of wonder is that a pipe dream? Meaning, do I think that I am, but I can't say I'm like you and CJ. You both have taken a stand for what you believe in. I don't feel I have.

CJ has come out to her co-workers and you Elizabeth have come out to your wife and family. I've told my wife and mom, but they aid me with keeping it secret. Ok,, so after kind of talking it out I can see that I'm not one, but I'd sure aspire to be.

lol.. I'm going to be thinking about this very deeply for a while. I may come back and contradict everything I just said (I hope not), but this is a very deep subject.

On one other note. You mentioned Home Economics. I so wanted to take that class, but I didn't because my parents wouldn't allow it. I totally give you mega kudos for doing that Elizabeth!!! I admit with testosterone racing through my body at the time, the girls were a great reason I also wanted to take it, but it was more because I felt that was more me than any other class that was being offered.

Thanks Elizabeth for a great thread and CJ your response was equally as intriguing. Thank you both for the wonderful enlightenment!

Beauty

[Jassmine(SO)]

Howdy Y'all

Great topic, Elizabeth!! I can very much relate to what you and CJ have posted. Even as a young 'un, I knew I was different. I prefered hanging out and playing with the boys. I prefered playing baseball over playing with dolls. I also prefered hanging out with the older kids and adults over hanging out with the kids my age. I joke with Ahzz that I was just born mature and responsible Even from a very early age I was rebelling against my parents and trying to walk my own path and lead my own life. I must have driven them batty

I didn't fit into society's constructs then, and I have no want nor need to fit them now

Viva La Difference!!!

*Hugs & Love*

[Loretta Ann]

Are we indeed free people, to determine the outcome of our own lives?

Elizabeth,

I do not see my self free to do that, as I was not given the freedom to choose if I wanted to live my life being a cross-dresser. Therefore who ever or what ever was/is responsible for that reality, has had a lot to do with determining the out come of my life. It is only to the extent that I line myself up with that (with who I am). That will determine the successful outcome of my life.

So although a lot of what you said has value, It is not with out some restrictions.

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

I am very much aware that we do not live in a world that permits existentialism. Hence our lack of being accepted. We, as humans have chosen to live in societies, or perhaps we have not, perhaps it is just our nature.

In any event by specializing tasks, we are able to accomplish much more, because each person does not have to hunt, farm, cook, heal, make clothes. This specialization has become particularly prominent in the last 100 years and has enabled us to accomplish incredible technilogilcal things because of our willingness to live in a society, or perhaps even our need to live in a society.

The cost of this society is the need to act on behalf of the greater good. Meaning make rules that create the best situation for the most amount of people, at the expense of individualism. We don't allow the strongest males to mate with whatever woman he can overpower. We don't allow the strong to take from the weak.

But in making these rules, we have set standards that are completely arbitrary. Most of them based in religion. In fact until just a hundred or so years ago, sins and crimes were virtually indistinguishable in this country, and still are in many parts of the world. There is a continuing debate about this still in this country. Should we outlaw homosexual marriage? This is, in my opinion, strictly a religious matter. Homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom, and indeed is not unatural.

Having said all of that. I understand that true existentialism can not be achieved. But only because our need to live in a society. Once rejected by society? Existentialism is not only a philosophy, but becomes a reality for many of us, when we dress in secret. When we watch pornography in secret. When we lust in secret. When we wish to die in secret. When we feel that no one is going to let us be happy, except ourselves, but only in secret.

This is what I meant when I said "closet existentialists". Defying society to live as a free person, in secret, and fullfill our needs, and indeed our desires, as much as possible.

It is this defiance of society that in my opinion creates the greatest fear of our SO's. We are trained from the time we are born, that we can not go against the will of society. We are forced to by our need to dress, but our SO's do not have this dilelma. They must choose to do this, out of love. And the fear of getting caught is real.

They must in turn think about the embarrassment of everyone knowing that they were willing to defy society. This is just too much for many people, especially those who don't have a need to.

So when I am talking about whether or not you are an existentialist, I am not talking about the actual practice of it. If you are dressing at all, in private or not, you have chosed free will. You have already chosen existentialism. You have said that you have more of a right to be happy personally, than society has a right to maintain a specific structure.

It is my belief that all crossdressers, whether in the closet or not, and all SO's who don't out thier DH's and conform to societies standards, have all chosen existentialism. They have chosen to live as free persons. To say "no" to the wishes of society and "yes" to personal choice.

As I look back at history, you can see the cycles of social pressures vs. existentialism. Free societies alway break down, because no one obeys any rules. They are replaced by repressive societies that take away almost all personal liberty, and slowly personal liberty and freedom are won back, until it collapses again, and the cycle starts all over.

So, to be a true existentialist, one must accept that there can be no objective standards by which anything can be judged. Who would set them? With no objective standards, you can not have government. So I guess what I want is a compromise.

Which is to live as free as I can. With the minimum of social intrusion. With the most civil rights for everyone. Reduce the influence of religion in setting the social agenda. Obviously you can not illiminate it. I mean murder, and stealing, and assaulting others are recognized by all religions as bad. So we are not going to get rid of it.

But victimless crimes can be eliminated. Like ending laws that discriminate against homosexuals, for example. For states to protect the transgenedered from discrimination, as another example.

So I guess what I want to know is, not can we live as free persons, obviously we can not, but do we want to? If you could live as a free person, and be totally responsible for the outcome of your own life. A realization that no one human has any rights over any other human. That no person has the right to subject his views onto others. That we are all truely equal. We are all, just human beings. Would you want to live your life like that?

Love always,
Elizabeth

[CJ]

Hi all,

Wow, feeling philosophical these days, eh Elizabeth? I love philosophical musings, too. There's a lot of "meat" in this thread. Food for thought.

Darlene has a point, I think. To the extent that we're "conditioned," in a way (whether because of our physiology or because of our upbringing) to be who we actually are, we're not really free. But then, in that regard, nobody is. We try to make do with creating a life for ourselves within those restrictions. And we all each find our own way of generating meaning, of finding a sense, to our lives. Thus, social restrictions come to represent different things to different people.

You, yourself, Elizabeth, touch upon many of these things in your latest post. Rousseau spoke of the "social contract" people who choose to live with others inevitably must adhere to. We willingly look after each other in order to promote the well-being of all, the weakest and most fragile of us included, in order to co-exist harmoniously. Rousseau thought human beings were fundamentally good, by nature. Hobbes pushed the need for basic yet authoritative social rules (although he was mostly speaking about the necessity of having a strong, centralized form of government) in order to prevent our aggressive and destructive nature from taking over. Without these rules, he said, no cooperation between people (thus no civilization) would be possible. He believed it was in our own best interest to adhere to these rules; in a famous line, he said that, otherwise, our lives would be "nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes believed human beings were fundamentally savage and selfish by nature. Mill, a founder of Utilitarianism, thought that the best we could hope for is to live in a society that would see to it that the greatest happiness possible would be available to the greatest number of people. Inevitably, when living with others, some people's needs and desires will never be adequately met. It's the price we must pay for choosing to live together. (As an aside, I often see, right here on the forum, Mill's Felicity Calculus--a "happiness equation," if you wish--at play: whenever a CD and an SO are tussling for the right to have their respective needs met, a very utilitarian process is going on. Where's the line at which each of the partners will accept that this, probably, is the greatest happiness they can hope to achieve? And what of the children [if children are involved]?)

Rousseau, Hobbes, and Mill were mostly trying to figure out what relationship we (must) have with society in order to be happy, fulfilled, and productive members of that society. The Existentialists, on the other hand (Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre), were trying to figure out what relationship we (must) have with ourselves in order to garner that happiness. There's a strong existentialist current in contemporary psychology. It's thought that we become neurotic to the extent that we forsake (or are unable to become, or are prevented from fully embracing) who we truly feel ourselves to be.

Of course, a person who has a transgressive gender identity (whether born that way or not) faces an uphill battle. After murder and incest, the strongest societal taboos revolve around sex and gender. Unlike murder and incest, however, the social consequences of transgressive gender identities are harmless. Not only do we not hurt anyone, but we argue that, by being allowed to be who we are, we also become happier, more fulfilled individuals, something that has a strong likelihood of enhancing the happiness of those we live with as well. To me, that's not too hard to understand. But, then again, as our loved ones often point out, we've had our whole lives to think on these things. Not so for them. So we need to give as much "breathing space" as we want to get. At least for a while. We can only hope that, long before it becomes clear to us that we can no longer live inauthentically (Sartre's "bad faith"), it'll become clear to our SO whether or not she can live with a husband or boyfriend who hasn't a high regard for this particular taboo (again, the transgression of which is not only harmless but potentially beneficial).

Love,
CJ

[Jassmine(SO)]

Howdy Y'all

This thread just keeps getting better!

I agree with Darlene and CJ, that we do undergo some form of conditioning, but I don't feel that such conditioning has to be permanent or unchangable. Take for instance a child raised in an abusive atmosphere, who doesn't continue the cycle of abuse. He or she has been "conditioned" to see abuse is a part of life, but has chosen, for whatever reason, to "buck" that conditioning. I feel that we have a choice to either allow external forces to influence who we are or not to.

As to "getting along" with society, I have made the choice to follow my own moral code: Do as ye will but harm none. I also have choosen to do the absolute bare mininum to survive in society, i.e. what I need to do to get and hold a job and what I need to do to live harmoniously in society , i.e. being kind, courteous, and civil. I choose not to allow others to influence me or control me in any way, shape, or form. I am the ONLY person responsible for my actions. Taking responsibility for my own actions and emotions allows me to live within society as freely as I wish to This also allows me the ability to be a very open minded and accepting person.

I am inclined to disagree with Mill. I do not see it as societies responsibility to meet others needs or desires, beyond basic humanitarian needs. Programs to help the poor. Programs that provide for a relatively inexpensive or free means for adult education and programs for health care and to help senior citizens, etc.... Beyond those basics it is up to each individual to make there own happiness and to see that their needs are met. It is also up to each individual to choose wether to work hard and give back to society, or to just take advatage of the kindess and help that is available. I feel that one of society's greatest problems is people thinking that they are owed something from it instead of taking responsibility for themselves and doing what is necessary to survive. They choose to lay the blame at society's feet.

CJ, you also touched on the fear of rejection. A real fear, that is learned, and is hence one that can be overcome. Fear is a survival mechanism meant to keep one alive. Surface level fears and phobias are learned and can be conquered. I have made a great deal of headway conquering my archnophopia. I still haven't reached the point of where I can be comfortable with a spider crawling on me, but I am getting there

if you wish--at play: whenever a CD and an SO are tussling for the right to have their respective needs met, a very utilitarian process is going on. Where's the line at which each of the partners will accept that this, probably, is the greatest happiness they can hope to achieve?

I have said this before and I feel that it bears repeating. One can avoid this sitituation completely if one takes the time to get to know themselves before they get involved in a relationship. One must know what they need from another first and foremost. How can one expect their needs to be met, if they don't know what they are. If one is a CDer and needs an accepting mate, then he MUST be open and honest about this need at the start. And if his potential mate has a problem with this then she must be open and honest about at the start as well. This is difficult but it will save a lot of heartache later on. One must also bear in mind that noone is responsible for making them happy, but themselves.

*Hugs & Love*

[Amelie-Laveau]

I have always felt and lived outside of society. I think I am this existentialist person you talk about. The bad thing is, because I've lived this way I didn't get an education(drop-out). So most of the stuff you all are talking about, I don't understand. I guess that is one of the consequences of wanting to be outside of societies rules.
Love Amelie

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

I have indeed been in a philosophical mood. Perhaps because I have made fundemental changes in my life, based on my own philosophical beleifs. I mean, what we are as humans is very much dependent on the philosophical beliefs held by the majority of people at any given time in history.

It has determined why some societies have advanced technologically, while others have remained fairly unadvanced. It has decided why some people enjoy a life of priviledge while others live in deep poverty. It has decided how much we are allowed to know about ourselves, as we recently seen in the USA as stem cell research has been stunted because of philosophical belief.

The whole reason we are here anonymously is because of this division in philosophical beleif. Here we are given a voice, but we are forced into anonymity because of our fear of the reprisals of society against us. We have one beleif that says we have a right to be who we are, and communicate this with each other and the outside world. But we can only do so in secret. Because if we publish our real identities we risk reprisals from those who are so entrenched in the grip of the so called society, that they would harm us, in fear that we might destroy all that they hold on to.

CJ wrote:

I guess I could consider myself an Existentialist. Partly, anyway. I'm also very much a Cynic (in the classical sense of one who finds virtue in self-control and who has no pressing need to embrace the ways of men)

I am always reminded of Ambrose Beirce's definition of "cynic" in "The Devil's Dictionary"

cynic(sin`ik) one who sees things how they are, rather than how they should be.

It is my beleif that one can not be an existentialist and not have self control, and a not feel a need to embrace the ways of men. To live by ones own values, one must possess self control and not care about the ways of men. I am more convinced than ever that these fundemental beliefs represent a firm belief in existentialim.

CJ wrote:

Along with these "philosophies of life" (which I see more as philosophies for life), there is, in my own case, a profound feeling of being "connected" to the world around me--a world both broad and deep--that is the result of my religious or spiritual experiences.

This is very much in line with the thinking of Ralph Waldo Emmerson and those who followed. The philosophy that whatever this entire universe is, that us and everything in it, are unextricably connected, phyically, emotionally, and spiritually. It is called "Transendentalism" But even this philosophy was rooted in a belief that we are all equal as human beings. That no person is any better, or more than any other. It was these beleifs that the idea that "All men are created equal and endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", arose from, although it was before Emmerson's time.

This may sound very mundane to us now, but at the time it was widely held that Kings and Popes and other clerics were endowed by the Creator to rule over other men. That they were indeed not equal. This was a huge philosophical break from what had been.

I do hold these truths to be self evident.

With every breath we take, we exhale 10²² atoms of ourselves into the atmosphere. So by the time we are 3 years old, taking into acount weather patterns and diffusion, there is at least one atom of ours in every quart of air on the planet. This is true for everyone. So that means that we breath in atoms from every human being in the world, living now, or that ever lived. Further take into account that the very atoms that we are made of are not natural to the earth, but are made inside of stars, and you can start to see that we are really all part of the same thing. Which may explain why CJ, me and many others feel like we are indeed just a part of something much greater. That indeed we are all connected to each other in ways that we can not even comprehend, yet are still able to feel it.

Darlene wrote:

I do not see my self free to do that, as I was not given the freedom to choose if I wanted to live my life being a cross-dresser. Therefore who ever or what ever was/is responsible for that reality, has had a lot to do with determining the out come of my life. It is only to the extent that I line myself up with that (with who I am). That will determine the successful outcome of my life.

There is no "society", in my opinion. Society is a collective that only lives in our minds. Really, everyone goes home just like you, sits at their dinner table and does not think they are "society". Society represents a collective will, that is tainted by wealth, power, and religion. No one person decided anything, as I see it. The beginning of living free is rejecting the notion that others have the right to determine the sucessful outcome of our lives. Only then can we start to make it a reality. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" Someone has to willing to say it. That is all I want. I can live by that.

Jassmine wrote:

As to "getting along" with society, I have made the choice to follow my own moral code: Do as ye will but harm none. I also have choosen to do the absolute bare mininum to survive in society, i.e. what I need to do to get and hold a job and what I need to do to live harmoniously in society , i.e. being kind, courteous, and civil. I choose not to allow others to influence me or control me in any way, shape, or form. I am the ONLY person responsible for my actions. Taking responsibility for my own actions and emotions allows me to live within society as freely as I wish to Smile This also allows me the ability to be a very open minded and accepting person.

This is the very heart of Existentialism. A beleif that you are free to live as a person, independent of other persons, to seek happiness as you see fit, to live by a moral code that suits you, and to live by it.

I really want to thank everyone so far. This was just the discussion I was hoping for. There are many more of you out there that it would be great to hear you chime in. I beleive there is something here for everyone, and since it is just philosophy, there is no right or wrong. I have already learned so much from this thread, I am just elated. Learning is one of my true passions. Because us crossdressers are naturally on the fringe of society, to say the least, I value your opinions more than I might someone elses who has never challenged the social order, or felt the pain of social rejection.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Loretta Ann]

Elizabeth wrote;
There is no "society", in my opinion. Society is a collective that only lives in our minds. Really, everyone goes home just like you, sits at their dinner table and does not think they are "society".

I am sorry I can not agree with you.
I am very much a part of society.

This forum is a society. We are a community, a broad grouping of people having common collective activities and interests

And we will in part always be governed to some degree by those parts, or groups of our community (that are called a society) that are best able to organize themselves through the voluntarily association of individuals for common ends; that are able to work together by periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession.

Our governments and religion are nothing more than separate societies that have been able to achieve this better than individuals.

You also state that;
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"

You have people from your life who are being left behind because they are stuck, failing miserably in their pursuit of happiness. Dose not appear to me that they are so empowered or endowed by their creator.

Main Entry: 1so·ci·e·ty
Pronunciation: s&-'sI-&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle French societé, from Latin societat-, societas, from socius companion -- more at SOCIAL
1 : companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY
2 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <move in polite society> <literary society> b : a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

[Kersten Lee]

Hi All,

This is my kind of discussion. Everything I would have said already has been stated. Our nation was founded in the belief that all men are created equal. That we are free to seek happiness as Elizabeth has already stated is what did make this country great. The civil war, women's rights to equality in this nation, the right for cross-dressers to express, the fight for gay rights and the current battle in Iraq all atest to this belief.
Part of our society is the current administrations philosophical views wanting to define by Bibilical extractions who is worthy to be free to pursue liberty and happiness. I with all my heart disagree with them. And I have come to accept that others here and in the country are a 180 degrees from me. I will not change this view and neither will they.

As I think Darlene said, society exists. The failings of our language helps create conflict. I have come to believe that society is used by me to describe in my mind all the different groups of people in my life have beat me down. They define me as a pervert because I love woman for what they represent, the continuation of life and civilizations. Men play their part in conquest but I define my views by typical stereotypical beliefs about women. Each of us would probably define society differently if we got specific. Some parts hurt me and others may see that part as helping them in their pursuits of happiness.

I am a modified extentialist. Don't look at my spelling too closely. But I also belief in the connectedness of all of us to each other and the universe.
It has been told so nicely by Elizabeth.

My brother contacted me after 25years of no communication. We brothers and sister haven't communicated in my belief because it was so hurtful being reminded of all the terrible things that were done to us. My brother talked of coming out to see me at Thanksgiving. I communicated my beliefs about life and he did to me. I needed to know that it would not be
a hateful encounter. All looked good and then I wrote to him of my cding.
I don't know if I wanted to sabotage the meeting or just needed my long lost brother to accept the path I am on. It's been two weeks and he has not e-mailed back. I find it quite interesting now. He stated that he was an atheist. People that hate cross-dressers must go beyond religious beliefs.
I wonder if he grew into a woman hater as my old man was.

Is hate for differences in people excluded from the definition of extentialism?

Kersten

[SophieLawson]

Elizabeth,

I'm gonna have to read this later when I have more time as this is so deep! But I need to read this.

All I will say now is I've always felt outside of the norm, cos I guess I am, but I have never beat myself up over it cos when I get home with the family etc it dont matter what anyone else thinks.

Hey CJ said about finding a meaning to life, I think mine is to be true to myself.

Sophie xx

[CJ]

Hi all,

Like Elizabeth, I'd also love to hear from others on this.

A few points:

Amélie,

Someone's education level is only one of the determining factors in how they view their own place in the world. It's not the be all and end all of valid opinions; philosophizing only requires a mind, not a B.A. or an M.A. If you're interested enough in a subject, you just need to look up any unknowns. This is what I do.

Jassmine,

What you say is true. You've said it before, and I'll agree with it again; you cannot expect others to know what your needs are if you, yourself, don't know what they are. "Gnothi seauton," said Socrates. Know thyself.

Darlene,

You bring up the definition of "society." I agree with the definition (and, yes, I do think that, as an individual, I must reckon with the not so abstract entity that is society). And there's the problem. Part of that definition reads as follows: 3b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. What happens to people when they discover that their "activities and interests" fall outside "the common traditions and institutions" of their "community, nation, or broad grouping of people"? We become outsiders. Not a particularly pleasant place to be. Especially not if we still wish to claim for ourselves the rights and regards of that "broad grouping of people." Which brings me to:

Elizabeth,

It seems to me that the founders of the Constitution had politically enfranchised, white males in mind when they formulated their self-evident truths. That women were considered non-citizens and that they believed slaves had the value of 3/5 of a white man seems to not have bothered them too much. Mind you, I'm not knocking the Constitution; I actually think it's a marvel of "amendable" thinking. It's flexible (however much there may be people who'd prefer it not be tinkered with) and it's noble in thought (however less noble in deed its "Fathers" may have been). All this to say that it matters more (to me, anyway) what you think are morally obvious truths than what some "authority" thinks. Because, if you decide to avail yourself of the rights encharted in the Constitution, you also give your implicit assent to abide by the (admittedly changeable) standards society embraces in its will to be governed by that Constitution (hence, Alexandra's contention that who sits on the Supreme Justices' bench makes a huge difference--their job is to interpret what the Constitution has to say about any given moral standard). Anyway, as a Canuck, I feel a little bit out of my element, here; I don't know the U.S. legal and political systems well enough to venture any farther. But I find it important that we come to our own "truths," based on our own experience, regardless of whether or not our doing so takes us outside the scope of our "community's common traditions" (say, religious or moral conformity) , "institutions" (say, conventional marriage or the Constitution), and "collective activities and interests."

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a rant. And I very well know that, if there's someone here that's been pushing her own boundaries, Elizabeth, it's you. In many ways, to my mind, you're quintessentially American--you're a fearless explorer. Call yourself what you will--Existentialist, Cynic, Transcendentalist--your view of yourself has certainly oriented your lifestyle and you've found a way to give meaning to your life. That takes courage (and not a little reckless playfulness). Hats off to you.

Love,
CJ

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

Great Posts!!!

CJ,

I made a point not to reference the US Declaration of Independence, because I did not want to be held to the political beleifs or realities that document created. Instead only wanted to point out a philisophical change in thinking. Indeed the men who wrote that document were hipocrits, as are all polititions, I only agree that I can live by those principles, not the political reality they created, when in actuality I am fighting that political reality as we speak.

Darlene,

I don't disagree with you, and the definition of society that you have presented, I further don't deny the reality of the society that exists currently. I am saying that, that reality can only change when people change their thinking. Thinking has to change first. In this regard I find you very much to be a existentialist. You clearly have adopted your own moral code that you live by, and it seems to bring happiness to your life, while recognizing that you are responsible for the outcome of your life. Being existential does not gaurantee that you will live a happy life, only that you will accept what happens to you when you chose to live by your own moral code.

Love always,
Elizabeth