Заметки алкоголика и придурка

5. Decembris 2019

01:18

Masculinity is essentially the creative entity, while femininity is the receptive one. Masculinity is the "spirit of God hovering over the waters" while femininity is the chaos that was unformed and void. Which is not to say that femininity is "bad" in and of itself because in it's higher state femininity is an extension of divine purity. As chaos, she is Eve, the temptress, the first to take the apple from the serpent. As purity, she is the Virgin, who trampled the serpent under her heel. This is why things like modesty, propriety and virtue were imposed on women in the past, in order to suppress the aspect "chaos" in an effort to bring out the aspect of "purity". And this is also why women are at the forefront of everything that relativistic and modern whenever they are allowed to descend to their lower nature.

As for men, they can sometime adopt an objectivity that is too hard and lacking in sophistication and spiritual depth. The role of femininity, in many cases, is that of making men a bit softer in order for them to rise up to higher states of being (this was actually one of the subplots of Sanjuro).

But beyond all that, we also need to remember that men and women are essentially two halves of a single being, and without the feminine element men have a tendency to either wither away or becoming even more obtuse and harsh, where as without the masculine element women tend to descend further and further into chaos. Men takes his life force from woman while woman takes her stability from man. Pure potentiality without form becomes chaos and essence without potentiality becomes inaction and sterility.

Incels, men existing without the feminine element, sort of demonstrate the kind of excessively harsh "objectivity" (AKA the black pill) that is devoid of any subtlety or transcendence, where as feminists, women who aren't anchored to the spiritual stability of men, demonstrate an absolute chaotic state.

07:29

The paintings of Madrid based hyperrealist Pedro Campos (1966) , present a world that shines. His subjects -- aluminum coke cans, apples wrapped in plastic, glass marbles, and the spines of coffee table art books -- have an aura of glossy, sanctified perfection about them. They are hand painted essays about purity in which mundane items shock the senses with their virginal splendor. Source: https://www.pedrocampos.net/about

Un tagad iedomājieties, ka augstāk minētais tekstiņš ir uz piecām lappusēm. Modernā māksla ir tik sarežģīta un intelektuāla, ka vienkārši tā nesapratīsi, bet palasot šādus apgaismojošus tekstiņus, pavērsies jauni apvāršņi. Protams, plebam tāpat diez vai pieleks:


(jāsaka, ka mēnešreižu šļaksti pa sienu salīdzinājumā ar šo ir gandrīz vai interesantāki, bet tur jau neiztiks bez kvalificēta akadēmiķa klātbūtnes, lai neapjuktu domas dziļumā un formas lakonismā - ar eseju sējumu var nepietikt)

17:11

"All scientists say you should give us all power over every aspect of the economy in order to save the world" is not very far away from, "We deserve all power over every aspect of the economy, because we act on behalf of the workers and you do not". I used to wonder why greenies were so obsessed with this too to the exclusion of far more pressing issues like direct pollution, but once you line it up with the socialist cause it stops being mysterious at all. Just more lusting over centralized authoritarian power.
Powered by Sviesta Ciba