Printable View
so let me get this stairt the gorean life stlye is a lifestyle in which the owner and slave are bounded to each other ( which both duties to be followed by both slave and owner). Yet, because of a few odd balls and misundestanding it is hated... am i on the right track
Pretty much, I know their are more than a few haters out there still, alltough most of them made their apperance in early on when the books were first published, proponents of feminism were among the number one detractors for various reasons.
But it's often the case that people all too easily fall into hate when it comes to something they don't really understand. Though hate is mabey a rather strong word, most just didn't understand it's core principles and assumed it was automatically about what it's primary detractors haranged against it unjustly.
And yes according to Gorean philosophical precepts every one dom/ sub or otherwise has a duty to preform to each other as well as themselves (as previously mentioned in the thread) in such a manner that is both true and honorable.
Ahh...
I am reading the first book in the Gor series...(yes, I am aware this isn't exactly a thread "on the books,") but.... I had to mention this. So, I am reading the beginning of the chapter with the spiders - I HATE SPIDERS - and...you will never freaking believe what was on the table next to me. A wolf spider. I almost freaking died.
It was being extremely crappy and not letting me smush it into a thousand little bits too, but I finally killed it with a hardcover book.
*Still shuddering.*
Okay sorry, back on topic.
LMAO Hopper
Hugs and Kissess Boo,
ps:and where did you find an actual book? or is it an e-book?
I ordered it from B&N. :) They said the books are printed on demand, not available until they are paid for.
that sucks but thanks for the infoQuote:
Originally Posted by hopperboo
Nah, it doesn't suck at all. I ordered this...not even a week ago and I got the book today.
Pretty sweet actually.
I am gonna start getting them ordered for my hubby, his collection was destroyed by a huricane
Ture, can i ask what is the first book
Sure thing sweetie,
They can be ordered online or from the store desk through Barnes & Noble and in most cases delievred right to your door.
Here is a list of the books:
John Norman's Chronicles of Gor in the order written
Tarnsman of Gor
Outlaw of Gor
Priest-Kings of Gor
Nomads of Gor
Assassin of Gor
Raiders of Gor
Captive of Gor
Hunters of Gor
Marauders of Gor
Tribesmen of Gor
Slave Girl of Gor
Beasts of Gor
Explorers of Gor
Fighting Slave of Gor
Rogue of Gor
Guardsman of Gor
Savages of Gor
Blood Brothers of Gor
Kajira of Gor
Players of Gor
Mercenaries of Gor
Dancer of Gor
Renegades of Gor
Vagabonds of Gor
Magicians of Gor
Witness of Gor
with the 27th book Prize of Gor due for release in December of 2008
Also by Norman
The Telnarian Histories
The Chieftain
The Captain
The King
Historical fiction
Time Slave
Ghost Dance
Nonfiction
Imaginative Sex
The Cognitivity Paradox: "An Inquiry Concerning the Claims of Philosophy" written as John Lange
cool i'll start buying one at a time (im tight on cash right now)
my introduction into the world of Dominance and submission was at the hands of a Gorean Master, and at first i thought it was kind of unusual to have a whole way of life sparked from fiction, but these people had their own sets of rules and protocols, and from what i heard, Gorean Masters were very strict...i was being groomed to belong to Him exclusively, although many readily shared their subbies, each could 'pick and choose' whatever tenets they wanted to, and he was not willing to share me with anyone, although i found out later on he had other subs, which i was unaware of and who he shared freely with other Doms.
one thing i thought was fascinating was that Gorean women could not bind (braid) their hair...it was a sign of disrespect. so, of course i am kind of a tester sometimes, so i met Him for lunch and wore my hair in braids. He looked at me with that look and it was not an appreciative one, rather, one that said 'ok, i see what you are trying to do' and i got punished deliciously for that. but He did tell me in all seriousness never to do that again, so i never did.
anyway i found their world fascinating...they even had their own music.
In the books everything from mannerisms, clothing, forms of speach, etc etc, all the way to yes, the hair is often done differently between free and slave.
It is actually in the books very common for Free Gorean Women to braid thier hair.
Only slaves in most of the cultures presented on Gor are commonly forbidden the braid.
It is one way to draw a distinction between the slave and the free.
Music is also described and it's importantance to many different cultures in the fictional setting of the books is addressed numerous times. Some descriptions are so detailed people have actually been able to create postulated instruments based upon them.
The music itself however is impossible to reproduce. Norman didnt give us any sheet music, all we have to go on is his discriptions of various themes, which varied from culture to culture, just like they do here on earth.
i had one of those songs one time, and put in on my web site (which is no more)....i think it was called 'magic traveler', as i recall. it was a really nice work; very melodic and nicely flowing - pan flute and nice percussion. i should have preserved the file because i lost it when that computer died :(
Now there are some other areas where one would think infering from the text that Gorean bdsm practicioners differ from the rest of us that have not yet been discussed. The following may seem paradoxical at first as we into bdsm use pain as a way of achieving pleasure, but bear with me. Look at this quote from the books:
"The major point of the restraint is to restrain not hurt. Indeed, pain can interfere with many of the diverse subsidiary values of restraints, physical and psychological. It can be distractive. Pain is a bit like the whip. The slave is subject to the whip, and truly subject to it, but this does not mean that she is necessarily whipped; that she could be whipped, and will be whipped, if she is not pleasing, is what is important, not that she need be whipped. Why should one beat a pleasing slave?"
Renegades of Gor - Page 327
Does it sound like Goreans shouldnt whip thier slaves for play purposes now?
Or is it ok becuase both the submissive and Master in our society derives pleasure from the act?
Thanks for the clear up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
"The needs of human beings are a matter of biology. The values in a culture are the values of certain men. Many people take the values of their culture for granted, as though they were somehow a part of the furniture of the universe. They should realize that the values they are taught are the values of particular men, and often, unfortunately, of men who, long ago, were short-lived, ignorant, uninformed, unhealthy and quite possibly of unsound mind. Perhaps human beings should, from the viewpoints of contemporary information and modern medicine, re-evaluate those perhaps anachronistic value structures. Values need not be something one somehow mysteriously 'knows,' a result of having forgotten the conditioning process by means of which they were instilled, but could be something chosen, something selected as instruments by means which to improve human life. It is not wrong for human beings to be happy."
- EXPLORERS OF GOR, Pg. 361-362
"'Beyond Good and Evil' begins a new phase of Nietzsche's work, focusing on the 'revaluation of all values' and an explicit 'critique of modernity.' The book attacks the dogmatism that has afflicted philosophy so far, particularly regarding the nature of truth and morality. Philosophers' pretense to objectivity is just a pose. In fact, any philosophy of morality is an 'unconscious and involuntary memoir' of the person who presents it.
Nietzsche calls for 'new philosophers' who would create new values through a process of open-minded experimentation. The philosopher, accordingly, has a significant political role, directing cultural development. Nietzsche urges philosophers to articulate an outlook that is 'beyond good and evil,' in other words, beyond the simplistic, judgmental moral categories employed as basic terms in the Christian worldview. While the articulation of new values is a challenging ambition, it is not an impossible dream. Moral values have already historically changed along with circumstances, so they are clearly malleable."
From - What Nietzsche Really Said Pg. 76-77
- Robert Solomon & Kathleen Higgins
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
denuseri, you had just mentioned my favorite quote and one that needs to be repeated over and over here. In fact, Marauders is my favorite book because it is here, as we see in the end of the book, where Tarl finally comes around and accepts that he is no longer of earth but of Gor.
Very lively discussion and I so enjoyed seeing Marcus of Ar being mentioned as when I first started out on Gor I had heard of him and printed out most of his works so I can read offline. I still have them to this day tooQuote:
My delirium this time, interestingly to me, had been much different than it had when, long ago, the poison had first raged in my body. At that time I had been miserable, and weak, even calling out to a woman, who was only a slave, to love me. But, somehow, in the north, in Torvalds¬land, I had changed. This I knew. There was a different Tarl Cabot than ever there had been. Once there had been a boy by this name, one with simple dreams, naive, vain, one shat¬tered by a betrayal of his codes, the discovery of a weakness where he had thought there was only strength. That boy had died in the delta of the Vosk; in his place had come Bosk of Port Kar, ruthless and torn, but grown into his manhood; and now there was another, one whom I might, if I wished, choose to call again Tarl Cabot. I had changed. Here, with the Forkbeard, with the sea, the wind, in his hall and in battle, I had become, somehow, much different. In the north my blood had found itself, learning itself, in the north I had learned strength, and how to stand alone. I thought of the Kurii. They were terrible foes. Suddenly, in¬credibly, I felt love for them. I recollected the head of the giant Kur. mounted on its stake, in the ruins of the hall of Svein Blue Tooth. One cannot be weak who meets such beasts. I laughed at the weaknesses instilled into the men of Earth. Only men who are strong, without weakness, can meet such beasts. One must match them in strength, in in¬tellect, in terribleness, in ferocity. In the north I had grown strong. I suddenly realized the supreme power of the united Gorean will, not divided against itself, not weak, not crip¬pled like the wills of Earth. I telt a surge of power, of un¬precedented, unexpected joy. I had discovered what it was to be Gorean. I had discovered what it was, truly, to be male, to be a man. I was Gorean.
MARAUDERS OF GOR p. 289-90
just something small on my part; the gor novels were what gave me my first real ideas on how dominance could be made, through my own discipline, to be a thing of beauty.
they helped me look beyond prejudices and directly influenced my life.
not bad for science fiction:)
A note about the use of "Tal" the Gorean word for "greetings".
Some controversy surrounds this word as to which levels of honnorifc addresss are allowed.
Many believe that it is only to be used between free people of equal status.
Is the use of Tal reserved to free men and women only?
"Tal," cried Ute, greeting me as a free person.
Captive of Gor
It is unclear whether this quote means "greeting as free persons would" or "using the word free persons do to greet".
Or this reference that seems to mean its a warriors greeting only:
“He looked at me.
‘I give you greetings of the caste of warriors,’ he said.
‘Tal,’ said I.
‘Tal,’ said he.”
Beasts of Gor
Or with this quote it would seem that "Tal" is not enough, that some other identification of status would be required.
“He stood before the table of Cernus and though Cernus was Ubar of his city he merely lifted his hand in common Gorean greeting, palm inward.
‘Tal,’ said he.
‘Tal,’ responded Cernus, seeming somehow in awe before this mere boy.”
Assassin of Gor
Further searches have, on many occasions, slaves both using the word to greet, AND being greeted by it.
"Tal, Kajirae!" cried one of the men, waving.
Captive of Gor
"Greetings, Ute," said I, smiling.
"Tal, El-in-or," smiled Ute
Captive of Gor
The girls stood straight, proud under the gaze of a warrior. "Tal, Master," said many of them, as I rode slowly by....
Tribesmen of Gor
"Tal, Master," they said to me.
`Tal, Slave Girls," I said to them.
Tribesmen of Gor
This leaves the reader in a position where he cannot quite clearly establish whether this exclusive use of the word is in fact, a habitual thing, a local custom, or a rule.
Since the word is clearly defined in the books as being a direct translation of the word "greetings" is it possible that its usage depends on the addition of other honorifics in the context of a sentence to clairify the intent?
Why am I talking about "Tal" at all?
Well for on, where as Goreans are ussually conserned the proper form of address is a way of showing Honor to another.
Followers of Gorean philosophies highly value thier honor.
Just as the use of Sir and or Maam is considered proper in polite society, so too amongst Goreans.
Now in the books on the world of Gor all slaves are to address all free persons as Master or Mistress and the use of a free persons given name without permission is a terrible offence, just as slaves are supposed to use a form of third person speach when refering to themselves in a free persons presence out of respect for thier status.
Yet if given permission it is acceptable to do otherwise.
Of course here on earth thats not allways feasible and may even break the rules of ettiqute for a given situation.
For instance if one were to call every free male or female Master or Mistress in the chat room, or in a bdsm setting in real life one may even find themselves to be censured for thier efforts as many in our community feel like the words Master and Mistress are only appropriate forms of title to be used if one is in thier collar personally.
When in Rome as they say.
For simular reasons one may not find or expect every kajira out there to be commonly using third person forms of speach as some consider this offensive, degrading, or an example of "sceneing" etc. (one reason you will see me use "I" in here)
Where in other situations it is quite all right to do so.
This girl hopes that the above post was helpful for all conserned.
Gor seems very complex and very detailed so my qusteion is there in offical guide of gor ideals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkingdude225
There are a few good gorean sites I go to whenever I want to find out a few things. If you like, I can send them to you in your PM or even here on the Board. I will say that Gor has changed a lot from when I first logged into it back in 1998.
The only official site I know of is the one endorsed by John Norman himself.
http://gorchronicles.com/modules/wfchannel/
Alltough there are many others mentioned here in this thread and in other sites on the web.
den,
I owe you a philosophical quotation on another thread, but I'll post one here, since it is appropriate to this discussion. The quotation applies to virtue ethics generally, but is especially applicable to Gorean thought, which seems to assume that because many women prefer to submit, all women should submit.
"In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, "is," and "is not," I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an "ought," or an "ought not." This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this "ought," or "ought not," that expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."
David Hume
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
That is a good one. One that I refer to often is http://www.geocities.com/delphius2002 which is Luther's Gorean Education Scrolls. The reason I recommend Luther is because he also goes into the backgrounds and cultures from which Norman derived Gor from. For instance, he derived heavily on Greek and Roman culture for the cities (obvviously) and even mentioned Sparta.
It just bears the question. Was the Greek philosopher Pythagoras teling the truth abotu a counter earth for real? Is there one out there?
In my humble opinion what Norman is realy saying is that the strong should take the responsibility to keep those in thier dominion in the best way possible so that the whole thrives as opposed to allowing the system to run itself blindly with no guildence into corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.C. Holland
It does sugest and rightly so as history can attest that Men are more predetermined to dominant in this regard and that all females may have a biologically predisposed orientation to then submit to those that prossess those traits of virility that are desireable in a mate. (Otherwise for the vast majority of known history patriarchial societies would not have flourished nor would the vast majority of women preffer strong intellgent men for mates as opposed to frail weak willed individuals they can easily dominate) Hence the bilogical essence of the philosophy sugested by Norman.
He also says that any woman in question will not submit to that which she can dominante herself. That in effect if she is refused the dominance her biological inner self may crave she will quickely replace it with her own and with verve. Thus explaining much of the animosity we see in marriges today.
The message is simple in the regard of explaining how a hierarchy of dominion exists not only on "Gor", but here on earth as well.
The difference here is that the men have in general allowed themselves to become far weaker willed with time and a large degree of role reversal as come to the fore.
It is really in many ways a plea for men to become men again as much as it is an explanation of why we as human beings are the way we are.
Hume's point (and mine, too) is that Norman and others in the tradition of virtue ethics assume that we ought to care about "corruption in the system," when in fact we're free to have just about whatever values we like.
Even if we assume that women are born with an innate tendency to submit, it doesn't follow that it is a moral obligation for them to submit. I might be born with a tendency to throw with my right hand, but if I learn to pitch left-handed, we don't think it's a moral issue.
The obligation is (i repeat) not on the women to submit.
It is rather the onis of moral responsibility is on the males to reasert thier place of dominance in the hierachy.
And when we dont care, when we excuse the responsibility of each of us to the other we become part of the population that does nothing to contribute or worse drags on the others to support it.
Who stands up and acts with virtue?
Where are morals when no virtues are embraced?
What are we if we ignore our surroundings, if we ignore ourselves.
Wher goes the essence of what it means to be a man or a woman when no one listens with thier heart, and excludes its song for that of theroretical reason alone?
If it's the place of men to assert their natural place of dominance, there must be a corresponding duty on the part of women to submit to that dominance, no? I assume any woman who doesn't submit by choice will be forced to submit. And the women who don't really want to be submissive, they are forced (literally) to ignore themselves, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
What evidence is there that these women who don't want to submit will eventually be happier if they are forced? This is anything but a "theoretical" question.
This is anything even remotely like a theoretical answer:
In short the answer is "No" . According to what Norman has written so far not all women submit to the same level as a slave if at all outside of that capacity where in they find males that are worthy of submitting too.
He has the vast majority of them in his "world" as free, alltough he does portray them for the most part as never truely being happy in that capacity. (he also has portrayed male slaves in many capacities)
As they say to assume makes an ass of u and me (play on spelling and words not a personal jibe) . So too assumptions in absolutes would make for absolute assess of all of us.
He never says that the female of the species should be catagorically forced into submission.
What he does sugest is that truely dominant men never relinquish thier dominance, nor allow it to wrested from thier grasp as it appears to be in the proccess of doing here in our modern day society.
Don't take this the worng way E.C. Holland but what part of denuseri's points on this topic are you having trouble understnading. It seems pretty clear to me... sorry Mr. Holland i say this with respect but how man times dose Denuseri needs to repeat her self for you ?
P.S.
Denuseri i hate to ask this (becuase you may have answered this already) but since im a sub dose that make me a weak male in the Gorean ideals
That depends on ones deffinition of weak, does it not walkingdude?
Phisically I would not presume to guess.
Willpower wise?
I have seen submissives display amazing feats of willpower.
Weaker than your Domme in regard to the capacity to exert the force of one's will over another?
I would presume by that meaning then one could say yes, you are weaker than your dominant.
Such a distinction is of course dependent upon an individuals point of view.
Your preception of your dominants power over you could be termed as "strength" if you wish to see it as such.
Though it is my humble opinion that to consensually submit to the will of another that one precives as more dominant (or powerful or stronger or whatever you wish to call it) than ones self also takes a certian kind of strength as well if not a great deal of courage.
ok, that makes sense
This thread is fascinating! I've always been a bit curous about Goreans. There's a Gorean forum on collarme, but I can't make much sense out it. They tend to not like outsiders asking stupid questions, so I've refrained since I don't know the proper way to address my questions. I have to admit that denuseri and Kuskovian are the most "normal" Goreans I've come across. Too bad I can't think of any questions at the moment....
I suppose my interest lies in the fact that I tend to agree somewhat with the view that men "should" be dominant as well as honorable, and while some women choose to remain free, most crave domination. Otherwise, why all the sales of bodice-ripping soft porn disguised as romance novels? I suppose some of my feelings are derived from my Christian roots, but I can honestly say that no one is forcing submission on me. I was raised by a feminist after all. What has been forced on me is trying to be something I'm not, i.e. head of household/relationship, by emasculated males. Hmm....maybe I should make an effort to read the books and find out more.
Hey sisa feel free to ask all the questions you wish my boo.
Are there individual women who should be forced into submission? Who are they, and who decides?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I'm confused about whether the rules of this brand of virtue ethics applies only to those who choose to take on these obligations, or if Norman's claims about what is good and right for human beings is a fact and applies to people generally. If it is the first, then it seems to me more like a role playing game than an ethos. If it is the second, then it seems like it ought to be acceptable (in theory) to enforce the rules even on those who disagree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by walkingdude225
Denuseri seems to be having it first one way, then another.
So then by that suposition you propose that if any ethical system is established it should be unviversally enforced in a catagorical sence?
I wonder if any society has ever succesfully accomplished that for very long.
How very Kant of you to say we can't have an ethical system than doesnt apply as an ethical system unless it applies to everyone.
In actual reality the truth of it is that each and every one of us accepts those ethical values that we choose to accept and applies them as we each see fit.
We may say that what we believe is the right way for all of humanity but that doesnt change the fact that others may disagree. Nor does it mean that we must be at war forcing them to do so unless they are physically threatening us.
It is no more a "role playing game" for those of us who embrace the ethical virtures expoused by Norman than it is a role playing game for Taoists, Epicurians, or Stoics etc etc.
To imply that it is is farcical to say the least and just as insulting (which I am sure it was ment to be) as if one said all you do with your submissive in bdsm is "role play" with no consideration for any code of ethical behaviour attached like two animals rutting in the dark.
I also allready answered your question in a previous post Holland and I will say it again in case you are having trouble understanding.
Norman never says that the female of the species should be catagorically forced into submission.
What he does sugest is that truely dominant men never relinquish thier dominance, nor allow it to wrested from thier grasp as it appears to be in the proccess of doing here in our modern day society.
Here you differ from all the virtue ethicists I can think of off the top of my head (including Aristotle, Aquinas, MacIntyre, and...especially...Ayn Rand) who believe that their system of morality applies not just to those who happen to agree with it, but also to everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
If you think that moral systems are merely a matter of personal choice and disposition, you're not aligned with virtue ethics, but emotivism.
But at the heart of any brand of moral realism is the threat that members might ethically enforce their way of thinking because it is, in fact, the right way of thinking. (you quoted Norman earlier as saying that even women who are first forced eventually find fulfillment--the implication is clearly that that the ends justify the means).Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
No, it's more a role-playing game for you, because when you're pushed on its real-world consequences, you back off and say its only true for those who want it to be true. I think you'll find that the Taoists and most brands of Greek philosophers consider their theories to apply to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
And I already asked you and you haven't answered (in case you're having trouble understanding)...are there specific women who should be forced to submit? If so, who decides who and when? The dominant male?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I think we are mis-comunicating here.
Let me clairify:
To answer your question I must address the false assumption that it is based upon which should hopefully answer your question in the process.
I do believe that the virtues and general philosophical explanations for human behavior expoused by Norman do apply in the sence that it is just as true and valid as any other recognized ethical systems postulations.
However I do not beliveve the "practice" of any ethical system should be forced upon another in the regard that you are sugesting. Ie by force etc.
Nor does Norman if you have actually read any of my posts or his books and paid attention to exactly what he says in context.
I have not to my recollection ever quoted Norman as saying that women who are first forced eventually find fulfillment.
The implication is not clearly that the ends justify the means in fact I have been saying the opposite of that throughout this thread and many others.
"No, it's more a role-playing game for you, because when you're pushed on its real-world consequences, you back off and say its only true for those who want it to be true. I think you'll find that the Taoists and most brands of Greek philosophers consider their theories to apply to everyone." (your words from above.)
Yet the don't enfore them on every one do they?
Nor should they.
The "means" are every bit as important if not more so to Goreans.