ellauri097.html on line 467: One way of arguing against homosexuality is to say that males were not intended to have sex with other males, and we can tell that by the way sexual organs appear to be intended to function. Because men were not intended to have sex with other males, and they do so, then they are violating their natural teleology, their natural function. But notice that in the nature of the argument we are making a moral claim implicitly up front. We’re saying, We ought to use things the way they were intended by their Maker to be used, consistent with their teleology. This isn’t that way, therefore it’s wrong. It’s not arguing merely on how bodies are naturally, but how they are intended to function naturally. The teleology is the moral term in the premises.
ellauri119.html on line 714: Your claims against Ayn Rand don’t stand up to scrutiny, though. She never advocated Social Darwinism, either explicitly or implicitly. In my readings, I have read quotes where she damned a CEO who uses only a tenth of his ability and praised a janitor who strive to improve himself.
ellauri142.html on line 720: The four classes were the Brahmins (priestly people), the Kshatriyas (also called Rajanyas, who were rulers, administrators and warriors), the Vaishyas (artisans, merchants, tradesmen and farmers), and Shudras (labouring classes). The varna categorisation implicitly had a fifth element, being those people deemed to be entirely outside its scope, such as tribal people and the untouchables. Eli paariat.
ellauri198.html on line 794: Roland is not mediated by his precursors; they do not detach him from history so as to free him in the spirit. The Childe's last act of dauntless courage is to will repetition, to accept his place in the company of the ruined. Roland tells us implicitly that the present is not so much negative and finite as it is willed, though this willing is never the work of an individual consciousness acting by itself. It is caught up in a subject-to-subject dialectic, in which the present moment is sacrificed, not to the energies of art, but to the near-solipsist's tragic victory over himself. Roland's negative moment is neither that of renunciation nor of the loss of self in death or error. It is the negativity that is self-knowledge yielding its power to a doomed love of others, in the recognition that those others like Shelley. more grandly had surrendered knowledge and its powers to love, however illusory. Or, mos simply, Childe Roland dies, if be dies, in the magnificence of a belatedness that can accept itself as such. He ends in strengh because his vision has ceased to break and deform the world, and has begun to turn its dangerous strength upon is own defense. Roland is the Kermit modem version of a poet-as-hero, and his sustained courage to weather his own phantasmagoria and emerge into fire is a presage of the continued survival of strong poetry.
ellauri236.html on line 206: Until recently the characteristic adventure stories of the English-speaking peoples have been stories in which the hero fights against odds. This is true all the way from Robin Hood to Pop-eye the Sailor. Perhaps the basic myth of the Western world is Jack the Giant-killer, but to be brought up to date this should be renamed Jack the Dwarf-killer, and there already exists a considerable literature which teaches, either overtly or implicitly, that one should side with the big man against the little man. Most of what is now written about foreign policy is simply an embroidery on this theme, and for several decades such phrases as ‘Play the game’, ‘Don't hit a man when he's down’ and ‘It's not cricket’ have never failed to draw a snigger from anyone of intellectual pretensions. What is comparatively new is to find the accepted pattern, according to which (a) right is right and wrong is wrong, whoever wins, and (b) weakness must be respected, disappearing from popular literature as well. When I first read D. H. Lawrence's novels, at the age of about twenty, I was puzzled by the fact that there did not seem to be any classification of the characters into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Lawrence seemed to sympathize with all of them about equally, and this was so unusual as to give me the feeling of having lost my bearings. Today no one would think of looking for heroes and villains in a serious novel, but in lowbrow fiction one still expects to find a sharp distinction between right and wrong and between legality and illegality. The common people, on the whole, are still living in the world of absolute good and evil from which the intellectuals have long since escaped. But the popularity of No Orchids and the American books and magazines to which it is akin shows how rapidly the doctrine of ‘realism’ is gaining ground.
ellauri262.html on line 215: In addition to his scholarly work, Lewis wrote several popular novels, including the science fiction Space Trilogy for adults and the Narnia fantasies for children. Most deal implicitly with Christian themes such as sin, humanity's fall from grace, and redemption.
ellauri389.html on line 85: Another show of Lamb's "economy" of romantic imagination is his essay, "A Dissertation upon Roast Pig" (1822), which also implicitly recognizes the porcelain industry as a primary theater of contemporary British imperial dominance.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 226: Of course he’s exploiting her. It’s his book, and he made her up. He owns her, she is her property. He is free to fuck her, rape her, do whatever he wants. The character is his creature, to be exploited up a storm. Yet the reviewer chides that “special care should be taken with a story that’s not implicitly yours to tell” and worries that “Cleave pushes his own boundaries maybe further than they were meant to go.”
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 227: What stories are “implicitly ours to tell,” and what boundaries around our own lives are we mandated to remain within? I would argue that any story you can steal is yours to tell, and trying to push the boundaries of the author’s personal experience by usurping other people's is part of a fiction writer’s job. At least of drivelists like me.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 243: For it can be dangerous these days to go the diversity route. Especially since there seems to be a consensus on the notion that San Francisco reviewer put forward that “special care should be taken with a story that’s not implicitly yours to tell.” Why on earth? Isn't it just the opposite? If it is somebody else's story you are free to do whatever you want, since you don't know it, so you can give free reins to your imagination! Chances are your all-white panel don't know the people either, so anything goes.
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 434: Arguably the strongest moment: when he is at absolute rock bottom, right before his suicide, Judas breaks into a reprise of Mary's "I Don't Know How to Love Him." When Mary sings it, it's implicitly about romantic love. And while Judas's version stops before "And I've had so many men before," it concludes with the anguished cry, "Does he love me, too? Does he care for me?"
11