- Last post
- 93 Responses
I saw Almadobar's 'The Skin I Live In' last night. I saw the Hitchcockian influences, without a doubt. Then, this thread happened https://www.qbn.com/reply/401287… and it got me thinking about how there can be binary paths of thinking when it comes to the ethics of human freedom. The totalitarian wants to limit the human consciousness in an attempt to keep it in line with the 'natural way' the totalitarian has been trained to live in. This religious-friendly, divinity-based, self-righteous path may frown at body-transformation, suicide, and other perceived perversions. Then, of course, we have the non-repressive ethos. These ethos would allow someone to push the boundries of their realities to pursue that which their mind wants, with consequence to the vessel of the body, maybe. If the consciousness desires a change of gender to be at peace, these ethos would allow the freedom. If the consciousness desires a merging with technology, or a strange piercing or even euthanasia, it is these ethos that would allow the experimentation, and/or relaxation of the limitations we put on our fellow beings to fulfill their desires without judgement. The totalitarian's goal, in essence, is a parental-figure that wants to control the person to help that person be the ideal being that the totalitarian has visualized. The non-repressive ethos, which some label as 'liberal', would find satisfaction in the allowance of the being to find it's happiness on it's own. With it's own self-exploration, as macabre as it may be.