gnidrologs ([info]gnidrologs) rakstīja,
@ 2019-12-05 01:18:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
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.


(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]snauts
2019-12-05 18:13 (saite)
Un ja nu gnidrologs sevi augšuplādēs 1000000 veļas mašīnās, dosi katrai balss tiesības?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]ctulhu
2019-12-05 18:26 (saite)
Nu sanāks ka jādod katrai, jo tie būtu gnidrologa pēcnācēji/ turpinājumi.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]snauts
2019-12-05 18:35 (saite)
Un nākamajās vēlēšanās sievietēm tiek atņemtas balsstiesības.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gnidrologs
2019-12-05 19:13 (saite)
:D

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]ctulhu
2019-12-05 21:48 (saite)
Nē, jo saproducēti jau būs ne tikai gnidrologi.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]snauts
2019-12-05 22:33 (saite)
Tam kuram būs vairāk naudas, tas varēs atļauties vairāk saproducēt, un demokrātija pārvērtīsies par oligarhiju.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]ctulhu
2019-12-05 22:45 (saite)
Nu tagad kam vairāk naudas tie organizē vēlēšanu kampaņas, tas pats vien sanāk

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]ctulhu
2019-12-05 18:29 (saite)
Vai atkal tā: ielādē snautu veļasmašīnā, tiesību nav. Pārlādē no tās izaudzētā cilvēkveida ķermenī, hops tiesības uzradās. Pārlādē teiksim helikopterī, atkal nav. Kaut kā nekonsekventi sanāk.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]snauts
2019-12-05 18:34 (saite)
Es neredzu nekonsekvenci, ja mēs esam bioloģisku humanoīdu supremacisti.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]ctulhu
2019-12-05 21:48 (saite)
Bet bioloģiskais nesējs ir ar problēmām, velk max 200 gadus, jūk ārā, var gadīties ka mums būs no tā jāatsakās, ja neizdomāsim kā viņu stabilizēt.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


(Lasīt komentārus) -

Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?