When I’m 80 I Won’t Care!

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

The real question is not how would “Middle Aged” look at 80 but how does he look right now! In other words, the question is how low can you go? Middle-Aged’s tattoos are a real, yes a real, marker of membership in the Halifax Underclass (of which there is none lower). It’s all there, the mind, the language, the occupation. What a cretin.

Was he a legless, blind drunk when he got them? Does he work in a circus or as a waiter in a down-market tavern on the wrong end of Barrington? Clearly he doesn’t wear a shirt to work – forget about the tie and – the worst part – he wants to DISPLAY the markers of his Underclass status! Usually, the type appears as a fat, bloated white man without hair but with these gross tattoos on his flabby arms. God, that’s so bad, but of course “Middle Aged” just wants to “get on with his life,” whatever that might mean. His stupidity, of course, is what fundametally marks him as a member of the lower reaches of the Halifax Underclass, just above the criminal classes (of which there are many). What a horror!

Why is he allowed on this site? Why must we behold this spectacle? Why doesn’t he just go away?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: TTFN (May 21, 8:46PM) – Not THAT bold!

– May 22, 10:30AM) – Nice reply to randomwhatever.

: Skully (7:16AM) – No dear, I am NOT one of those “fat middle-aged men” but, Skully (ooo, what a name!) you sound like an old fashioned Irish harridan. I bet you’d do well in a bar fight, Skully. Am I right?

– Come on Skully, you don’t know any Doctors or Lawyers. (Firefighters, well, okay.) Stick with your kind, ie. the Halifax Underclass!

– “and ‘He’ is a ‘She'”? Skully, what are you talking about? Have another Guinness and then get down to the parlour for another tat. Any free skin left? No, I don’t mean there, Skully!

: Randomwhatever (7:34AM) – “sick sadism?” Random, whatever do you mean? Is there ever a “healthy” sadism? Write back with your “thoughts,” Random.

: Unforgiven (11:03AM) – I bet that tat warmed your heart, you bloody Nazi!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THEORIZING THE TATTOO (II)

My previous post dealt with the geographical aspects of the tattoo, i.e., its prevalence in certain regions of Halifax frequented by the members of the Halifax Underclass. While all such members do not have tattoos of course, all those who do are members of the Halifax Underclass. The tattoo, in other words, is uniquely emblematic of the Halifax Underclass. However, further refinement of the concept is required. For example, why do typical members of the Halifax Underclass get a tattoo?

The typical member of the Halifax Underclass gets a tattoo because he (and of course, she) has “fetishized” his own body. Having no mind, for the tattooed one’s body is identical to one’s identity. But, and here’s the theoretically interesting part, one’s body may be conceived in different ways. I have identified three:

1. The body as message board: Lacking any skills to articulate his “thoughts,” the tattooed member of the Halifax Underclass has his “message” tattooed in a prominent place, usually on the upper arm. The message, like his mind, is simple to the point of banality – “Death Before Dishonour,” that sort of thing.

2. The body as “artistic” canvas: The body here is fetishized as the background of some sort of design. The point, however, is that the design is not that of the tattooed but rather of the tattooer. Lacking any artistic skills himself, the tattooed submits his skin to the tattooer who, of course, has obtained his designs from another source. The tattooed member of the Halifax Underclass is therefore twice removed from any sort of creative activity. He is totally passive, a plaything of the tattooer.

3. The body as a source of evil: Here we go deep diving, psychologically speaking. Tattooing here is a branch of self-mutilation, in the same family as piercing and slicing. But why mutilate oneself? The only answer is that the tattooed member of the Halifax Underclass sees his own body as a source of evil, a source of temptation, that must be chastized, even humiliated. The design is usually in the form of mythical horror creature.

So there we have it, Monsieur’s analysis of the significance of the tattoo seen both in sociological (i.e. class) and psychological (the fetishization of the body) terms. Yet again, another triumph of his analytical skills.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs –

THEORIZING THE TATTOO (II)

: Tommyjules (1:30PM) – As usual you missed the point(s): (1) I am not against people for “exercising their freedoms” as you seem to suppose. My interest, as I thought I explained in my post “Theorizing the Tattoo (II” was disintedrested: it was simply an exercise in clarifying the habits of the Halfax Underclass. By their tattoos ye shall know them. (2) In the same way, I don’t “discredit” or “trash” the members of the Halifax Underclass: they simply are who they are and I simply observe their antics. Tommy, try to focus your mind. Pretty Kitty might be getting discouraged.

: Cranky (2:39PM) – Must the cancer specialist have cancer in order to diagnose the disease? Try to reason logically, Cranky. Work with Tommy and focus your minds.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

“THEORIZING THE TATTOO (II)”

: Cranky May 23, 8:06PM) – An excellent point Cranky. Sometimes I wonder myself.

– 8:29PM – Cranky, you don’t have any thought to waste.

:troondog4 (10:28PM) – Troondog, you do a lot of presuming. In respect to body painting you write that “it has been part of the human experience for as long as humans have practiced art presumably. The reason I might presume this is that indigeneous cultures … mimic, in many ways, what is known about the earliest ‘modern’ humans.” Troon (may I call you “troon?”) if these indigeneous cultures ARE indigeneous by virtue of the fact that they have had “little or no contact with modern civilization,” how are they to be distinguished from the “earliest ‘modern’ humans” who, PRESUMABLY, also had little or no contact with “modern civilization”? In other words, Troon, if two things (indigeneous cultures and earliest modern humans) share a central common feature (little or no contact with modern civilization) are they not, culturally speaking, identical? Can you throw additional light on this, Troon? Would you do it now?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

Philosophy 101 (“Remedial Logic”)

:Cranky (8:39PM) points out that my reply to his question was pretty well what “we” expected, “a nice dodge and a lot of fluff.” Cranky obviously doesn’t understand my point which concerned a form of logic called “analogical reasoning.” It wasn’t a dodge or a lot of fluff, Cranky. That is just your impoverished understanding of logic in general and of analogical reasoning in particular.

I don’t need to have a tattoo to “know so much about people who have them” (i.e., their class and psychology) in the same way that I don’t need to have cancer to know so much about people who do,(i.e., the fact that it is a very serious disease and that they are, to varying degrees, frightened). You do see that, don’t you Cranky? It is simply a matter of common-sense reasoning, commonplace even at the lowest levels of rationality (which I’m beginnng to think you have yet to attain).

You ask what I get out of all this. Well, Cranky, I get a chance to correspond with intellectuals, with people like you. But, Cranky, I am curious as to why YOU are curious about what I get out of it. What are your reasons, Cranky? Do you have any? Can you articulate them, Cranky?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. It isn’t because of social delicacy that the “Parasite” doesn’t want “to touch this one.” Like Cranky, he is simply unable to grasp the concepts involved. Don’t write back.