tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post3468587809356059633..comments2023-10-18T09:35:55.767+02:00Comments on LUDWIG'S ROHRSTOCK-PALAST: Byzantine AffairsLudwighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14975294529532823252noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-25984500092336649552008-09-28T19:32:00.000+02:002008-09-28T19:32:00.000+02:00Sure, Altair, a Lupus movie set in ancient Rome wo...Sure, Altair, a Lupus movie set in ancient Rome would be very interesting. There wouldn't be anything typically Czech about it, of course, but as a one-off with a great deal of novelty value, I would definitely want to see it.<BR/><BR/>And I'm sure you would be great as the fat perverted senator. Take an example from Charles Laughton in "Spartacus", which has to be my favourite "fat senator" performance of all time. He is the good guy in that movie, of course, and much too nice, but I'm sure you would have no trouble changing the character and injecting him with the required dose of sadism!Ludwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14975294529532823252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-87085999301344042342008-09-26T02:25:00.000+02:002008-09-26T02:25:00.000+02:00Your perverted ideas are interesting and yes, not ...Your perverted ideas are interesting and yes, not even werewolves could shoot that, unfortunately.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I prefer the earlier times of the Roman Empire, especially the end of republican period. I don't like the general and widespread destruction. At the times I prefer, the basics of the civilization as we know it were laid. Yet the differences between noble/rich and poor were very clear and pretty much any kink could be set there.<BR/><BR/>I hope that some day I'll convince Thomas Marco to shoot some story from that place and period. I will personally opt for role of fat perverted senator abusing young and pretty slave maids :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-70533084449217123922008-09-22T13:15:00.000+02:002008-09-22T13:15:00.000+02:00How very interesting. Who would have thought there...How very interesting. Who would have thought there was so much history in this sort of thing?The Headmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05536548176644716762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-55110124614051509342008-09-22T11:06:00.000+02:002008-09-22T11:06:00.000+02:00For me, it's witnessing that makes the difference....For me, it's witnessing that makes the difference. Gurdjieff called it "remembering oneself" but this description is dependent on belief in the solidity of ego. When I heard the buddhist phrase "illusory nature of ego," I dropped language that assumed solidity of ego. So "I am witnessing" became "witnessing is happening." Being conscious in the moment is essential buddhist practice, as in "every-minute-zen." The problem with this is that it makes a practitioner miserable if forgetting takes place, so my own version is "every-OTHER-minute-zen."<BR/><BR/>You describe yourself as agnostic. I feel the same way. Since buddhism is psychological practice rather than a belief system, I'm comfortable with it.<BR/><BR/>But now, back to more important matters....<BR/><BR/>Yrs in pervery, AdrianAdrian Hardhandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08587469858694158420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-46285692913509359512008-09-22T04:56:00.000+02:002008-09-22T04:56:00.000+02:00Thanks, Adrian, I hadn't heard about yabyum. I'm a...Thanks, Adrian, I hadn't heard about yabyum. I'm an agnostic myself when it comes to spiritual beliefs, but I've always subscribed to the theory that it's worthwhile and rewarding to read religious and spiritual texts even if you don't necessarily believe in the metaphysical framework. For one thing, they make great literature, and there is a lot of interesting philosophy there, too.<BR/><BR/>I've tackled kink and Catholicism in my post "Penitentiam Agite!" back in March, in a tongue-in-cheek way (I have a followup to that in the works, by the way). There are also people - believers -, though, for whom kink and religion is a very serious subject. Like a German group called "Sadomasochism and the Church". I remember, they were distributing leaflets during the Pope's visit to Bavaria in 2006 (even as an agnostic, I went out to see the Pope - it's the kind of event you shouldn't miss when you are a historian).<BR/><BR/>"*Anything* consensual goes (DEFINITELY including kink), provided witnessing is taking place."<BR/><BR/>I'm all for witnessing. CP with an audience is twice the fun, be it the "virtual" audience when you put it on film or a real, live one.<BR/><BR/>On the subject of Buddhism, I wonder if you have heard of the German movie "Erleuchtung garantiert" (English title "Enlightenment Guaranteed")? It's not set in Tibet, but in a Japanese zen monastery. Delightful little film:<BR/><BR/>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177749/Ludwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14975294529532823252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-21629385779606672442008-09-21T13:43:00.000+02:002008-09-21T13:43:00.000+02:00Hello LudwigThe essential symbol in Tibet's Ma...Hello Ludwig<BR/><BR/>The essential symbol in Tibet's Mahayana / Vajrayana Buddhism is the yabyum (father/mother) male & female deities in sexual union, symbolising the union of wisdom (passive) and compassion (active).<BR/><BR/>But I'm happier keeping things much simpler: *Anything* consensual goes (DEFINITELY including kink), provided witnessing is taking place.<BR/><BR/>Yrs very much in pervery, AdrianAdrian Hardhandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08587469858694158420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-78105056073072103512008-09-21T04:15:00.000+02:002008-09-21T04:15:00.000+02:00Smallhanded: That's an interesting book you mentio...Smallhanded: That's an interesting book you mention. And isn't it fun that the guy's name is Paul Kennedy? Har bloody har...<BR/><BR/>Adrian: Thanks for your comment. I'm always trying to find the right balance with these "historical" posts. To provide something that is interesting, hopefully, and that gives the blog a bit of a personal touch, but it should also be fun and kinky and inspiring - at the end of the day, it's a spanking and CP blog, not a lecture on history. There are far better and more comprehensive sources for that!<BR/><BR/>So what you read here about the Byzantine Empire is obviously very simplified (for one thing, the reasons for the events of the Fourth Crusade are far more complex than simply "that's what a church schism does for you"). It's just a bunch of little anecdotes, really, because those are fun to read. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I see nothing wrong with going off-topic in the comments section. You raise an interesting point here, so let me answer to that:<BR/><BR/>I think you are being a little harsh on Constantine (and Helena). Yes, he did create an opening for the monotheists by becoming the first emperor who converted to Christianity. However, he did not, as is often claimed, make Christianity the state religion. I'm sure you know that it is Theodosius who is responsible for this, and who outlawed all forms of pagan worship, destroyed many temples and so forth.<BR/><BR/>In between the two, there were men like Julian ("the Apostate"), who rejected and persecuted Christianity. And after Theodosius, there was another brief "pagan revival". Et cetera. So on the whole, the Christianization of the Roman Empire is a long and complex process, and even though Constantine undoubtedly played an important part, you can't pin it all on him. His conversion did neither mean a full acceptance of Christianity within the Empire nor the end of persecution. And actually, his Edict of Milan implemented a far more balanced policy than successors like Theodosius did.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I believe that the rise of Christianity was far from inevitable even after Constantine. Had some events played out differently, it might have been reversed. That is all speculation and "alternate history", of course, but not entirely unfounded. In any case, it seems incontestable to me that there are other figures who played an important role here just as Constantine did, maybe even a more important one.<BR/><BR/>Of course it's interesting to compare the rise of Christianity with the rise of Buddhism. Or with the spread of other religions, for that matter. Various studies do this, both in the field of history and religious studies. It's a little out of place on a spanking blog, though!<BR/><BR/>I'm not entirely "Eurocentric" or ignorant of the rest of the world, but admittedly, I know less about Asian history than about the West. I know about the basic beliefs of Buddhism, of course, and I've heard of Ashoka, for instance. Other things you mentioned didn't ring a bell (well, Google helps!). "What about the Tun Huang Caves?" Well, what about them? If you have something to say, say it, don't just drop these names and awaken my curiosity and then walk away. *grins* <BR/><BR/>Buddhism is a fantastically interesting belief system, that's for sure. And tellingly perhaps, it's not responsible for countless religious wars like the Abrahamic faiths. Moreover, Western historians still tend to be too ignorant of India, China etc., even though things have improved in the past few decades. I'll put my signature to all of that right away.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I used to read quite a lot about Buddhism when I was younger. Maybe I'll even raise the subject on this blog one day. I'm not sure that there is much in Buddhism which I could deliberately misconstrue as kinky, though. They all seem to be so damn ascetic! Then again, maybe I just haven't looked hard enough yet.Ludwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14975294529532823252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-83201713333524092992008-09-21T00:52:00.000+02:002008-09-21T00:52:00.000+02:00Hello LudwigConstantinople: Constantine & his ...Hello Ludwig<BR/><BR/>Constantinople: Constantine & his mother have a lot to answer for, giving the monotheists an opening. Until then the Roman Empire had been theologically liberal (just accept that the Emperor is divine!) but Constantine ruined that. It would be revealing to put the rise of Constantinople against the rise of Buddhism to the East, Ashoka & his pillars, Taxila, Nalanda (the great Buddhist university); as the Hagia Sophia was built in the sixth century, Buddhism was gaining ground in Tibet (4th to 7th century, leading to Padmasamhava's magickal gains in the 7th century, followed by the second transmission of B to Tibet in the 10th century (Lotsawa Rinchen Zangpo & Atisha); in the sixth century Bodhidharma transmitted Chan to China. And what about the Tun Huang Caves? The Venetians were, of course, responsible for the Rape of Constantinople since they financed it.<BR/><BR/>I find history most interesting when events are put into historical context.<BR/><BR/>Something that still puzzles me: Why the West had to wait until the 19th & 20th centuries to learn about acupuncture.<BR/><BR/>Yrs in pervery, AdrianAdrian Hardhandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08587469858694158420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-616982860776135414.post-34883907488433753782008-09-20T14:55:00.000+02:002008-09-20T14:55:00.000+02:00Although it's about the XVIth Century onwards, I t...Although it's about the XVIth Century onwards, I think you've just given me the impulse to read Paul Kennedy's <I>Rise and Fall of The Great Powers</I> again. <BR/><BR/>There's a certain je-ne-sais-quoi about decadence and the ending of great organizations (or cultures, or civilizations for that matter) that I've always found fascinating :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com