Yes, I think Meghan Markle's decision to give herself away is a bold feminist gesture.

As a Canadian I couldn't possibly care less...

Some jerks sceptered a dingy isle, handed down their divine right to rule, conquered some foreign lands, got put in their place by modernity, and now function as marionette like figure heads on an aging runway of indignity. The original "Toddlers & Tiaras"...

Obnoxious pomp and silly circumstance...

Bourgeious escapism.

Royalism is dumb

Im wondering why we care so much about a wedding we were A.not invited to B.Isnt about us C.isnt involving people we personally know or deal with frequently

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

Who cares if people like the royal wedding? Liking the royal wedding could be bourgeois escapism, but not-liking the royal wedding is also bourgeois escapism. Calling the royal wedding bourgeois escapism is bourgeois escapism.

[edit] realized sherlock beat me to the punch

As my Dad always said whenever I criticized an ad- "well, we're talking about it, aren't we?"

but not-liking the royal wedding is also bourgeois escapism. — csalisbury

Them fighting words.

*cluck*

I guess it's finally time for me to reveal who I truly am *takes off mask* I'm Friedrich Engels/Meghan Markle (value pak). And I would have gotten away with it if you weren't for you meddling

[Delete] @Baden

I guess it's finally time for me to reveal who I truly am *takes off mask* I'm Friedrich Engels/Meghan Markle (value pak). — csalisbury

Now that's a twist I'd pay money for (screw you M N Shyamalan, the Village sucked balls).

As a Canadian I couldn't possibly care less... — VagabondSpectre

And yet it's our future Monarch we are talking about/aboot.

Thats like caring if Britney spares got a new idiot boyfreind.

Well, that is what made Trump so popular. People on both sides talk about him all the time, way too often.

That's what I mean tho

And yet it's our future Monarch we are talking about/aboot. — Akanthinos

Monarch is such a misleading term though. Constitutionally Canada is independent: the "Crown" proper retains power over ceremony and a few emergency levers (vetoing legislation, dissolving parliament), but beyond that they ain't got shit. (sorry!)

If the British monarchy, even in Britain, tried to meddle in democracy through veto or dissolution of parliament for any reason that was uncouth, it would be defenestrated faster than a bucket of shit in old Rome.

Congratulations to them both.

Thought on Royal Wedding

No. 2. It's God's punishment for TV watchers.

It's a marketing event for the promotion of porcelain goods.

It (the wedding) is an occurrence in space and time and is therefore worthy of thought.

As an institution the British Royals are very interesting (mostly to white westerners and those who aspire to some of the ideals and fairy-tale myth of white western 'culture'). In like manner the Kardashians are interesting, or 'brand BMW', or the entire superfluity of 'fashion' etc., All are 'interesting' in the evident control these apparently banal or superfluous 'things' can have over the collective consciousness of the human herd.

The fairy-tale myth of Prince and Princess, and the 'dream' of acquiring the 'riches' of Aladdin, appear to be pan-cultural. They seem to be embedded within the psyche, as they are deeply connected with something universal and instinctual.

From childhood, girls are encouraged to dream of Princesses, and boys are encouraged to become Princes and Kings. This intellectual primitivism (like the intellectual primitivism behind good sex) has persisted through the ages because it contains something enduring, something that is connected with our primordial instinctual imperatives towards being.

It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. In this sense, the wedding might be considered as an important (but entirely primitive) celebration of the importance of the mating ritual; through a vicarious participation in the ritual itself. The fact that they are both 'beautiful' in a 'Barby and Ken' sort of way; greatly expands and facilitates the Universal appeal of this universal orgy.

When adults participate in good sex, they/we do so, at the behest of 'instinct'. When, as adults, we find pleasure in the continued vicarious participation in the Princess-Prince myth, or we participate in an intellectually baseless consciousness of being 'fashionable' or 'becoming wealthy'; we are clearly executing superficial behaviors, that are motivated by deeper instinct. One who is willfully unawares of the relationship between his instinct and his behavior, might well be described to as deluded by those instincts.

At times we are all necessarily and wantonly deluded by our instincts, otherwise they cannot be enjoyed to the full.

These kinds of mass participatory weddings/rallies, represent an opportunity for those outside of them to remind ourselves that the human animal is motivated by instinctual rather than entirely logical or intellectual imperatives. Instinct and intellect may perhaps be mutually exclusive?

Any philosopher who imagines himself/herself engaged in the: grunting/sweaty, in-out-in-out, reality that is sexual intercourse, cannot escape the fact that it (sex) is an exposure of the truth; that (for most of us) Philosophy, or intellectual function, takes 'second place' behind brute instinctual imperative.

The real question, as it pertains to the function 'royal-wedding', is what is the instinctual imperative that is being satisfied through vicarious participation in the nuptials between: 'one normal average man who defecates', and 'one normal average woman' who also defecates?

The notions 'Prince' and 'Princess', are of course un-real, and assigned by the collective consciousness of the herd. We see in the affair, (alive and well) the raw instinct that has motivated the human animal from the very beginnings of human life. We glimpse, for an instant the ephemeral 'secret' language of nature herself. This 'force' is all-powerful, and whilst it might present in the guise of a fairy-tale; it also contains humanity's greatest potential for horror.

The affair has a parallel, in that similar instinctual imperatives clearly lie behind mass participation in 'fashion' the 'Kardashians', and even 'animal intercourse'. These participatory behaviors are the manifest form of instinctual imperative. Interestingly, of themselves their 'intellectual content', cannot be simultaneously participated in or explored. The intellectual content or experience of sex, strictly lies outside of its experience and enjoyment. The moment one begins to think about and analyze ones erection, is generally the point of it's departure.

Similarly the more one attempts to intellectually evaluate 'fashion' the more it's inherent pointlessness is exposed, and the less it can be enjoyed. High fashion and high intellect may well be mutually exclusive.

The wedding affair itself contains nothing intelligent and nothing inherently evil within it, other than the fact that it is a fresh version of a repetitive story. As it unfolds, it offers the participating subject the opportunity of vicarious participation in, and satisfaction of, a primordial instinctual imperative, in a superficially 'harmless' manner. It is after all in essence a 'beautiful' wedding.

The interesting question exposed (solely to non-participants), pertains to the animal-nature of the participants themselves. By this I mean that one cannot think upon, or thoroughly intellectually analyse one's instinctively motivated behavior during the behavior itself.

Therefore the wedding-affair reminds (those of us outside it) of a potential horror, vis: the dangerous and destructive potential of the human herd, when it is operating on the basis of a predominant instinctual imperative

We must therefore ask: What is the 'something inherent' within these apparently benign mass affairs and gatherings, that is mutually exclusive of reasoned intellectual function or analysis?

The affair might well be considered to be benign or even banal. However this is not entirely true as the affair contains a horror of sorts, one that is reminiscent of the all mass rallies. To those outside of the lure of the fairy-tale it contains a dangerous destructive power, one that is potentiated by the herd itself. A power who's first and most important victims are intellect and reason, once these are dispensed with, pure evil becomes entirely possible if not inevitable.

We must therefore ask: Is it possible that the un-intellectualized evil-myths perpetuated at the Nuremberg rallies, can be compared to the Capitalist and ecological evils, that are presently perpetuated by the persistence and pervasiveness of the Princess-Prince fairy-tale myth?

M

Who knows such things?

It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. — Marcus de Brun

:brow:

The wedding was much ado about something, done in a way both appropriate for persons involved and a benefit for anyone else who had an interest. As such it was a good thing well done and can and should be appreciated as such. Anything else is a nothing made with much ado.

It's pretty clear that most of the criticisms made here (and elsewhere) are of no substance, apparently from people who have little or no understanding or appreciation for what the event is. No one is obliged to care or be interested; for them, a silent going-about-their-business is right. But who's ego is so needy and fragile that they feel a need to display their ignorance to get attention?

Perhaps on a philosophy forum we could discuss the phenomenon: what was it? What does it mean? Stuff like that. Certainly there was an ethnic element that I thought a little bit over the line, but at the the time I have to ask myself what makes me think I'm any judge of where that line should be; in particular, perhaps where it is, is where it should be. I.e., some of it is theater, but there were substantive elements of history in play as well.

Bourgeious — StreetlightX

Were you aiming for "bourgeois" or "bourgeoisie". That a moderator would misspell such an important term--scandalous.

But yes, bourgeois escapism--and proletarian fantasy.

"It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual."
— Marcus de Brun

I think I make it clear that the Princess-Prince (Barby-Ken) mythology is apparently important to society (not necessarily to me). I am trying to understand why this might be so?

[Delete] @Baden

I could not as I was obliged to watch the wedding — René Descartes

There are alternatives, they're called books. Or any number of good and even useful alternatives. If you're being ironic, you got me. If not, then I'm sorry you're alive.

There are alternatives, they're called books. Or any number of good and even useful alternatives. If you're being ironic, you got me. If not, then I'm sorry you're alive. — tim wood

There is still an issue with the disgusting saturation of media forms with the celebration of a distinctly unjust power structure.