The Feminization of Man

Satyr wrote:

By the way, the thesis has, once more, been revised.

I think, for the better.

GRRRR

Can you post it here? Or PM an attachment? No point viewing and responding to an earlier version.

That's fine for reading...........I mean so that I can 'physically' respond to it.

maryshelley wrote:

That's fine for reading...........I mean so that I can 'physically' respond to it.

You want to bear his children already?

That was fast. -- well done Satyr.

Unreasonable wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

That's fine for reading...........I mean so that I can 'physically' respond to it.

You want to bear his children already?

That was fast. -- well done Satyr.

I already have a child that doesn't require a womb, incubating. The Satyr has progeny already, I think. But to hedge any bets a visit to the sperm bank might be an idea as I hear that's where all the alpha women are headed these days in search of quality. Why, unreasonable, maybe you should 'go down' there too. What better way to fool all the dumb bitches into taking it from you.

Or you could go out and rape something. Same result probably.

Once again, the essay has been upgraded.

Things subtracted and things, mostly, added.

Read if it matters to you.

Well done.

The Feminization of Man wrote:

because the essence of all existence is activity.

I disagree with this, but you and I have obvious metaphysical differences concerning a deeper sense of existence-itself.

It seems superficial to address within the context of your essay though.

The Feminization of Man wrote:

The secret liaison of the deprived instinct finding release away from the prying eyes of cultural control, is now unmasked as another human farce.
The lovers are uncovered and their shocking activities revealed.
Romanticism is dead, along with God. Along with both the notion of vulgarity and shame follows the end of sin and guilt.
So much for the mystique.
Mankind is given back his shamelessness.

I agree, except for your conclusion that "Romanticism is dead, along with God."

There is a little bit of Roman in every Roman-tic anyway. As long as Man has hope, then the Roman spirit lives.

God then also lives by implication: Justice, the Good.

The Feminization of Man wrote:

What was freed was female sexual choice from surrogate authority figures.
She was freed from having to settle for sub-standard males and from the constraints of monogamous concessions, that had produced the notion of sexual shame, and the distinction between slut, whore and lady.
Finally a woman is unveiled as no lady at all; the very idea of it a gradually atrophying remnant of that bygone romantic age that had made of women innocent, helpless girls, that had to pretend to be what they could never hope to be - innocent.

You are mistaken and presumptuous to claim that women are not still little girls. They are. Virginity is still the highest value of a child.

Women and emasculated men are 'children' by every essence of the meaning. They all must be coddled and cuddled for self-reassurance.

Therefore, Romanticism cannot die. In fact, it becomes exasperated! Within their infantile mentalities, they request more slavery, not freedom.

The Feminization of Man wrote:

Unavoidably sex must be discarded as primal or else one must submit to the premises that make sexual behaviour pleasurable.

How does this make sense? Sex is pleasurable because it is primal. Eating feels good because it is primal.

Maybe I miss your point.




Some afterthoughts:

In a feminized world, men & women alike must act lesser than what they actually-are in order to procreate successfully. The answer to this is a return to Hellenic and Romantic-Christian virtues: Man must reassert himself (violently if need be) as the head of the household, a new ideology to replace Feminism perhaps, and Women must learn their proper places in Future Society (Futurism) as the body of the household. Once the classical dualism is reconciled, then both parts can work separately while in unison with one another. Until that happens, the Traditional Western Family will continue to fragment and break apart, which only breeds further moral decadence. I am unsure whether the East is experiencing this same problem as I am unaware of the affects Feminism & Globalism are having upon them. I imagine that East Asia will experience an even more exponential & advanced form of feminization, since I can hardly-even tell apart Japanese males from females. They are quickly-devolving into unisexual, hermaphroditic organisms.

The Feminization of Man wrote:

Having no significant repercussions, even her promiscuity slowly turning into a display of her newfound power, she wields her sexuality relentlessly and every man, who is dependent upon her ruling, is exonerated or condemned by her decree.
His “fitness”, in this case both his genetic and, most importantly, his social fitness, is decided by her.
She is the bearer of social judgment, as a willing instrument of power.
She is nature unleashed from all rational controls; pure, cruel, selection.

The progeny is the symbol of his reputation.

This is kind of what I was aiming at by saying that men must disavow sex completely. -> make it useless. Because without a woman's sexual power, then she is reduced to nothing. This is the method that will prove most successful in the 21st century concerning sexual relations. If the sex drive is driven out of the male, then he becomes *COMPLETELY* indifferent. I feel this happening inside me-myself, biologically-speaking. I am coming up on 26-years-old and I feel no sexual desires toward women, except where they provide me with intellectual stimulation. But, even then, I will not see them-selves as intellectually-stimulating. Rather, I will find their 'ideals' sexually-stimulating, or in other words, wherever they got their ideas & ideals from. If they have no father present in their lives (which is increasingly probable as the traditional family falls apart), then I will in fact *KNOW* for certain where they got their ideals from, because they must then be socially-originated. This puts an extreme (sexual) value on the traditional families that stay together under the pressures of the 21st century Feminism. If you are part of a family, where the mother & father were both virgins when they married, never strayed from their sanctified union, produce children who grow up to keep their virginity, then this model will itself become the paradigm upon which the alpha-male ideology becomes reinforced and reestablished.

Christianity fights for this virtue, despite its being mortally-wounded by Nietzsche's failosophies. Thus, Hellenic-Christian Monogamy will not die in the end.

Unreasonable wrote:

I disagree with this, but you and I have obvious metaphysical differences concerning a deeper sense of existence-itself.

Your opinions are your own. if they do not correspond to observable phenomena, then they are delusions and figments in your mind with no actual substance.

Like the center of a circle your thinking is shallow and inflexible...at best.
You think in absolutes and you have no nuance in your reasoning. You have...ahum....how can I put this gently?...a feminine mind.
Ironic, isn't it?

Your posts are full of hyper-masculinity, trying to compensate for a feeling of inadequacy by using displays of bravado that have little substance.
Your declarations of victory or your goal to win, exposes a needy mind trying to prove itself as soemthing it is not.

That you think them "deeper" is belied by the fact that you cannot support them...just as you cannot support the notion of sex as "rape" or that women do not think...at all.
As if they belong to a different species or as if there is an organism, possessing a brain, that can be said that is "not thinking".
We can say that certain brains have a different quality in thinking but not that they do not think at all.
Nuance, little boy, nuance.

This, again, is based on a desperate black/white, absolutist thinking process.
I suspect there are deep seated psychological issues involved and I can speculate...but I really don't care enough to do so at any length.

Your attraction to Christianity, for instance, is very indicative of a need to submit to what is more than you, and find power through association. Christian ethics, for example, will return your world to where it ought to be and you will benefit from it by simply being a follower of it...again a very feminine tactic.

No engagement with the world as it is, adapting yourself to it, willfully manipulating it on your own, but a need to hide behind another Will, a more powerful one, that will correct it for you.
Everything for you, like with your alter ego buddy McMiserable is either black or it is white. All good or all bad.
In this case all is bad due to an implied state where all is imagined to be good - a perfect state to which the world stands as an imperfection. .

Sex may be intrusive and it may demand a submission but rape constitutes a violent act where the victim's will is not taken into consideration but is overpowered.

Rape has a specific meaning and does not denote the simple act of dominance or dominance through seduction.
A willful capitulation is not rape. Seduction may be dominance but so is convincing someone of a truth....or of your perspective. It can also use lies and hypocrisy to achieve its goal.

Rape, like violence, has a particular meaning which entails a forced capitulation where the other's will is not convinced or seduced and so dominated that way, but forcefully subdued, forcing a reaction to the action.
there's a difference between a follower and a slave.
Degree, little boy, degree. Words matter.
A simple mind jumbles them all into simple concepts.

The choice of words is very important because each word may describe a similar phenomenon but also has a particular nuance to it. Nuance is where you fail continuously.
For you all is either/or.

I can say that the labels Perfect, God, Self, Here, Now, One are all similarly describing the absence of an absolute, and only mental abstractions with no reference to anything outside the brain's simplified, ambiguous models, but each has a particular angle which makes the difference in the usage essential when communicating. Each has a hue, that exposes the mind that uses it and if idealized it exposes the psychology of the other.

A woman's metaphysical needs are met, through sex, no less than a man's are, in the encounter.
Her compromise is not in reference to him but to her own existential needs.
He is for her, as she for him, a means to an end. They act different pats in the same play.
The end is imposed and the means are determined by a genetic, and currently a mimetic, past.
The female's need, for instance, is satisfied by surrendering to a man's need.
Master/Slave dynamic.

The driving force is need, which is the essence of existing and not something that happens to the organism. The organism is need and how this need finds ways to satisfy itself results in these behaviors and determines the strong from the weak. Strength being a degree of weakness.
Degree, little boy, degree...no absolutes.

Like with your buddy Mcmiserable, you come from a position of imagined purity, a paradise lost, a fallen angel, a perfect life a Utopian world, or omnipotence where all that befalls a man is then rape...or suffering...or injustice.
Suffering, for you two, (separate but the same) is what happens TO an organism. It is an imposition on its "perfect" state of bliss; not that need IS the organism, a mental translation of its essence, that can reach the degree of suffering if this essence is threatened. Not that imperfection is the essence of the organism and it only has meaning, as a word, in reference to an imagined absolute state of perfection - accomplished by taking the actual and imagining the opposite of what is.

Your errors being reactions...emotional ones.
Feminine ones.

Quote :

It seems superficial to address within the context of your essay though.

My essay has to do with more than sex.
Metaphysics underlies its premises.

Quote :

I agree, except for your conclusion that "Romanticism is dead, along with God."

There is a little bit of Roman in every Roman-tic anyway. As long as Man has hope, then the Roman spirit lives.

God then also lives by implication: Justice, the Good.

And does He not still live amongst the weak and amongst females? Do not females need a powerful masculine entity to guide them and offer them hope?
Does He not still live in YOUR heart? Are you not, still, romantic?

Yes...quite feminine.

Quote :

You are mistaken and presumptuous to claim that women are not still little girls. They are. Virginity is still the highest value of a child.

You fail, once more, to think beyond your rigid absolutism, guided by some mental ailment, I presume.
My thesis on male/female has more to do with a spirit of becoming, rather than a clear cut delineation along biological sexual types.
There are biological females that exhibit far more masculine spirit than most men do.

I call them women. Wo-Man.
The same spirit, although to a lesser extent, because nature determines limitations, but one worthy of standing next to a male, not as an equal but as a respectable mate...an ally...a necessary partner; made necessary by death...by the very reality man finds himself in and imposes limits upon his existence; by his very essence as mortal, ephemeral becoming.
A sacrifice to posterity, perhaps, if he so chooses to find purpose in that.
If not then a male is the spirit solitude, or distancing from all. A rejection of all that is alien to it, unless they are useful to him - a capitulation to his essence as manifested need.
All are resources to be used and he does not romanticize them into gods or ideals. He knows that his own ideals are merely destinations he will never reach but only define him in his purpose. He does not wish to reach his ideals because that would negate him...he resists even his own finality.

Feminization affects females no less than it affects males....even if this disposition is prevelent amongst them and it agrees with their natural inclinations, as they have been shaped by their sexual roles and then their social ones.

The masculine spirit is that which denies even the power of nature upon him and so denounces the sexual types altogether.
He only uses them as manifestations of his environmental conditions which display a pattern that he can sue to his own advantage.

That this propensity comes more naturally to biological males, due to their biological sexual roles, is why I called the opposite propensity, or the trend towards a uniformity, feminization.
The feminine, as a metaphysical phenomenon, manifesting in a physical reality, possesses the traits that make it easily integrated within trends, willful trends when minds are involved...but unconscious ones, such as with the feminine eastern disposition which surrenders to the flux with no resistance...because resistance, even through the idea of a self, increases need and need leads to suffering.

The feminine is not undesirable, but only so when it is taught as a communal virtue that dominates the system; only when it monopolizes the environment as a product of a superior force - the State or the Church, for example.

All men must have a bit of the feminine in them as a counterbalance. In fact they cannot help but be a bit feminine because the male is a mutation of the female. Man comes from a woman's rib...to use that analogy.

Female represents nature, existence, and man a resistance to it. A mutation that came to be due to the reproductive necessity.

The feminine must be controlled, even inside them, or else chaos ensues; man then abandons himself to the forces of nature, to instinctive behavior with no rational limits.

The masculine is the one that seizes the reigns, binds, directs, controls, but does not deny; the feminine is the abandonment to the flow, a surrender and congruence with it, with no resistance, a madness unleashed - pure nature which the masculine energy resists and rejects so as to replace the disordering with ordering.

But like all power and control it is partial. Man is never a complete master of his domain or his nature, but only a partial one and powerful only in relation to another and then only in degree. Man must cotnrol the feminine inside of him or else it will be controlled by another, more powerful masculine will, and he will be his victim.
Surrender to the flow entails a surrender to a powerful flow, a flow with direction, towards...a towards an ideal. So, the feminine surrenders to the most powerful flow that comes along.

Nuance, dear child, nuance.
The Dionysian to the Apollonian.
He rejects God not because He is order, but because He is not his order and because He is a fake order, an absolute ONE, he must then submit to as only part of its power. A man rejects all, even the absolute nothingness, because he is rejection - the spirit of resistance to the flow.

THAT is the masculine that is being feminized. And your Christian ethics are but another form of it.
You are merely proposing a different kind of feminization, not a rejection of it.

You've equated male with penis.

continued....

.....

Quote :

Women and emasculated men are 'children' by every essence of the meaning. They all must be coddled and cuddled for self-reassurance.

Therefore, Romanticism cannot die. In fact, it becomes exasperated! Within their infantile mentalities, they request more slavery, not freedom.

Your absolute thinking is only less rigid when it comes to men...why is that, I wonder?
As there are gradations of the male/female spirits within each individual, so are there gradations within the female population of these inclinations...as there are amongst male populations.
That biology determines a higher potential is part of the evaluations.

I may have the potential to be tall, and my heritage and sexual type may increase my potential, but I will not necessarily become as tall as I could or taller than all females, who may have less potential, and my heritage may be substandard in comparison to a female's.
So my male sexual identity does not necessarily mean that I will have a masculine disposition, in comparison to all females.
My sex may increase the possibility, but my heritage may decrease it, and then the environment may nurture or it may inhibit this potential from reaching its fullness.

I repeat, there are biological females that exhibit more masculine energy, sometimes without losing their heterosexual drives or their sexual appeal, than most biological males do. In a increasingly feminized world this is becoming more and more probable, because under these conditions the masculine is inhibited from reaching its full potential.
Get it yet?

The Feminization of Mankind has more to do with social trends and systemic forces imposing the feminine traits upon all, ALL, humanity, because these traits are more conducive to harmonious coexistence and because the environment offers no alternatives...no ways out, no frontiers to escape into, no peripheral zones, as with lion prides, where males can live either biding their time or in preferred isolation - self-sufficient.

In this world all frontiers are staked, zoned out, owned as rewards for loyalty, fenced off and accessible only with permission.

Quote :

How does this make sense? Sex is pleasurable because it is primal. Eating feels good because it is primal.

Maybe I miss your point.

The satiation of a need is what makes it pleasurable. A negative effect.
The momentary negation of the actual - a flood of endorphins that distract the mind from its normal state of need.
A taste of conscious death. Inebriation.

Sexual need, being a need that is secondary, since many can and do live without it, is an evolutionary adaptation which makes it possible to reproduce using the method of copulation.

If one wishes to overcome its limitations and determinations one must, theoretically, overcome the entire past that brought it about. It would entail that one make of one's self asexual.

One cannot do away with eating or drinking, similarly.
Sex isn't crucial and that is why love/lust has to be employed, as a method of overcoming the natural fight/flight instinctive mechanism.
This mechanism, in turn, evolves into the social instinct and facilitates cooperative unities.

Quote :

Some afterthoughts:

In a feminized world, men & women alike must act lesser than what they actually-are in order to procreate successfully. The answer to this is a return to Hellenic and Romantic-Christian virtues: Man must reassert himself (violently if need be) as the head of the household, a new ideology to replace Feminism perhaps, and Women must learn their proper places in Future Society (Futurism) as the body of the household. Once the classical dualism is reconciled, then both parts can work separately while in unison with one another. Until that happens, the Traditional Western Family will continue to fragment and break apart, which only breeds further moral decadence. I am unsure whether the East is experiencing this same problem as I am unaware of the affects Feminism & Globalism are having upon them. I imagine that East Asia will experience an even more exponential & advanced form of feminization, since I can hardly-even tell apart Japanese males from females. They are quickly-devolving into unisexual, hermaphroditic organisms.

Yes Ade, your Christian submissions are coming through loud and clear...as always.

There is no relation between Hellenic and Christian virtues.
That you choose to grab onto the traditional family, as a necessary aspect to civilization, to draw similarities exposes your neediness to excuse your own feminine submission to a Christian God.

You are under the impression that I am advocating a return to a previous cultural ideal, that never actually worked as perfectly as it pretended to...monogamy and marital unions were all based on a sham and on heavy doses of duplicity and repression, in both men and women. The sense of responsibility a man had to endure, is a social imposition.
Men, also, settled for whatever female they could get and then had to endure this alliance for life....divorce was frowned upon and peer pressure, as well as religiuos myths, forced a compromise.

The family is as "natural" as Christian ethics are or as Communist ideology is.

You, once more, fail to see that in your past, ideal world, where women were in the kitchen and "men were men", they were only symbolically so. Emasculation was as present there as it is now.
If anything feminism is returning mankind to a more natural, primal, state, because these instincts have been thoroughly warped, over generations of social engineering and the manipulation of populations has found more sophisticated methods of integrating and repressing the male instincts, as well as the female ones.

Read Bernays, the nephew of Freud.
There is an interesting BBC documentary called "The Century of the Self" which goes into how modern methods of marketing and mass manipulation came about.
Watch it.
It might man that you have to take your head out of your ass, though.
Good luck whit that.

Quote :

This is kind of what I was aiming at by saying that men must disavow sex completely. -> make it useless.

They almost have, haven't they.
Isn't the obsolescence of sex, as a reproductive method, slowly freeing the act from its original purpose and making it a plaything, entertainment, and also making it only a function of its secondary social utilities?

It is because sex is losing its significance and its original purpose that men can now marry men, homosexuality is an acceptable alternative life-style, and the family unit is deteriorating as a remnant of a paternalistic past that relied on repressing a woman's natural sexual powers and imposing upon men a sense of ethical responsibility.

Women have been freed from the slavery of family and men from its burden.
Both with a cost.

Quote :

Because without a woman's sexual power, then she is reduced to nothing.

And what is a man reduced to?
The identification with a biological sexual role depends on the mechanism and attributes this necessitates.

Quote :

This is the method that will prove most successful in the 21st century concerning sexual relations. If the sex drive is driven out of the male, then he becomes *COMPLETELY* indifferent.

Then you are speaking about a different species and you must consider the consequences.
Being indifferent to sex, to whatever degree you can be, would make you asexual - not male or female. The designations ceases to be applicable and reproduction either finds another way or the species perishes.

If you grow children in test-tubes and you make sex a thing of the primitive past, this still does not do away with the necessity of imposing certain traits upon the individual in reference to the system.
Ants are asexual, yet most of them are female, and all of them are mindless drones.

Quote :

I feel this happening inside me-myself, biologically-speaking. I am coming up on 26-years-old and I feel no sexual desires toward women, except where they provide me with intellectual stimulation. But, even then, I will not see them-selves as intellectually-stimulating. Rather, I will find their 'ideals' sexually-stimulating, or in other words, wherever they got their ideas & ideals from. If they have no father present in their lives (which is increasingly probable as the traditional family falls apart), then I will in fact *KNOW* for certain where they got their ideals from, because they must then be socially-originated. This puts an extreme (sexual) value on the traditional families that stay together under the pressures of the 21st century Feminism. If you are part of a family, where the mother & father were both virgins when they married, never strayed from their sanctified union, produce children who grow up to keep their virginity, then this model will itself become the paradigm upon which the alpha-male ideology becomes reinforced and reestablished.

What a highly artificial construct.

The father, in your traditional family, is not an "alpha-male" when he is submissive towards the system and teaches his children the common virtues....such are your precious Christian ones.
He is only a mouthpiece, a symbolic representation of the true power, the true dominant male entity being the institution - whether this institution is the state or the church or the king, combining aspects of the two previous ones.

Quote :

Christianity fights for this virtue, despite its being mortally-wounded by Nietzsche's failosophies. Thus, Hellenic-Christian Monogamy will not die in the end.

Monogamy is a social necessity and not a Christian nor a Hellenic invention.
All social unities must control sexual behavior and integrate males within it, by forcing a quota on sexual encounters and subjugating female choices to communal needs. This also subjugates male sexual behaviors to communal needs.

Nietzsche's philosophies were very Hellenic, if you actually knew what you were talking about, and anti-Christian, for that reason.
He never advocated feminism or the obliteration of the family.

Hellenism is very masculine, is comparison to Christianity, because it does not teach a surrender to a ONE God, absolute, masculine entity, as Christianity does.
Christianity is a very feminine tradition, as its dogma proposes total surrender to authorities, and only allows masculine displays as a matter of its methods...such as the male leader of a household and the control over female sexual choice so as to ensure that these males stay in line and remain disciplined and loyal mouthpieces of its authority.

Christianity is a direct outcome of this overpopulation that forces a more feminine disposition.
A dogma of feminization.
The only "failosophy" is the one you vomit across the internet as evidence of your dangerous mind and your superiority.

As is usual a position is warped by the reader to adjust it to his requirements and so you've latched onto a superficial understanding of my views to support your own, which are antithetical to my intentions.

Your intent is to return mankind to an earlier time, more conducive to your personal needs - a traditional past.

My intent is to expose social trends for what they are, calculate the costs and the benefits, so as to explain the world around me and so to aid me in preserving my own principles within it.
My goal is not to make myself feel like a man, in reference to a female the system forces to submit to me, but to be a man in reference to the very system that submits us both, often contrary to our nature, to its premises - imposed upon us by its will.
Personally I may be attracted to the idea of a traditional family, as it hypothetically used to be but never actually was, buy rationally I cannot accept the subjugation of women as being part of my higher, or highest, principles.

My objection to feminism is that it does not take responsibility for what its ideal results in, besides enumerating the many benefits; that it tries to avoid certain genetic truths by making it all blamable on nurturing or human intervention(men), which is dishonest, to say the least, and that, because of this feminism appears naive, childish and always a victim of its own failures.

I really do not care about changing the world. My intent is to merely describe it.
What I care about is finding a few people to share it with and to invent ways of preserving the ideals i deem are superior to those of the common man or the ones that are popular.
I care about exposing dishonesty and delusions so as to find clarity and use this clarity to construct succesful strategies which will increase my possibilities within the environment I find my self in.
I don't care about enlightening the masses - their obtuseness suits me fine -, not that I ever could, but to understand them and so be able to manipulate them, as much as I can, to achieve my goals or ....if I dare hope the odds, to find a few gems amongst the piles and piles of shit I am surrounded by.

You are truly confused.

Good luck with that.

I wrote up a long response for a couple hours, but then it got lost when I tried to copy & paste it into these pathetically-restrained block-post sections that are limited by word-count.

So, I will just sum things up to you old goat:

1) You are mostly-incorrect about the things I think, clearly, and you project things onto me which are clearly-erroneous to me.

2) I already know and agree with many things concerning the Feminization of Man; in fact I probably understand them better than you do.

3) The things that I want in my life is the same, but different, than you. I love both simplicity and complexity. I think in absolutes & degrees.

4) The Feminization of Man is going to happen regardless of me or you; I already-know that. However, when you become masterful at describing reality, like you and I are, then our words can & do have an affect on everything, including others, with or without our necessary intent. That is just the way the world works. That is just the way Philosophy works. I cannot help but be what I am. And I am both proud and humbled by that. I really don't care what others think. Your judgments, no matter what they are, merely-help me to further myself. Everything a person says to me, including you, adds to my so-called 'strength'. That's fine with me, obviously-speaking.

I will be living my life doing what I want, and I know where thoughts originate. Women and children do not 'think'; they intuit. Only the alpha-male ideology truly-affects our minds, you and me, everybody, because it is the most descriptive and explanatory term of reality. In other words, if you or I can replicate what is happening exactly with the world and with ourselves, all of us, everybody, everything, then people will come to you because they merely-intuit what you are saying is the Truth of Things, the Theory of Form. Therefore, the burden of truth is always on you, or whoever is the most adept in these matters. It is not until another comes along and describes & explains things more efficiently that you will be replaced. People go to where they go.

I have no contentions with any of that, or with you personally-speaking. We will argue/fight where we will. So be it.

I revel in Reason. I love it more than anything. I would make an art out of it, if I could. I think it is greater than you or I.

I love it more than anything, any man, woman, child, or even myself. Call that bowing to an ideal; call it what you will.

I love Reason. It defines me.

Satyr wrote:

.....


My intent is to expose social trends for what they are, calculate the costs and the benefits, so as to explain the world around me and so to aid me in preserving my own principles within it.
My goal is not to make myself feel like a man, in reference to a female the system forces to submit to me, but to be a man in reference to the very system that submits us both, often contrary to our nature, to its premises - imposed upon us by its will.
Personally I may be attracted to the idea of a traditional family, as it hypothetically used to be but never actually was, buy rationally I cannot accept the subjugation of women as being part of my higher, or highest, principles.

My objection to feminism is that it does not take responsibility for what its ideal results in, besides enumerating the many benefits; that it tries to avoid certain genetic truths by making it all blamable on nurturing or human intervention(men), which is dishonest, to say the least, and that, because of this feminism appears naive, childish and always a victim of its own failures.

I really do not care about changing the world. My intent is to merely describe it.
What I care about is finding a few people to share it with and to invent ways of preserving the ideals i deem are superior to those of the common man or the ones that are popular.
I care about exposing dishonesty and delusions so as to find clarity and use this clarity to construct succesful strategies which will increase my possibilities within the environment I find my self in.
I don't care about enlightening the masses - their obtuseness suits me fine -, not that I ever could, but to understand them and so be able to manipulate them, as much as I can, to achieve my goals or ....if I dare hope the odds, to find a few gems amongst the piles and piles of shit I am surrounded by.

Ah, Satyric evolution in evidence.

Eyes with which to see.
Articulated thumbs to manipulate.
Brains to preceive what is seen and unseen.
Imagination to symbolise and render.
Emotion to understand, empathise and feel.
Language to question and emote.
Writing to describe and represent.

I give you human.

maryshelley wrote:

Satyr wrote:

.....


My intent is to expose social trends for what they are, calculate the costs and the benefits, so as to explain the world around me and so to aid me in preserving my own principles within it.
My goal is not to make myself feel like a man, in reference to a female the system forces to submit to me, but to be a man in reference to the very system that submits us both, often contrary to our nature, to its premises - imposed upon us by its will.
Personally I may be attracted to the idea of a traditional family, as it hypothetically used to be but never actually was, buy rationally I cannot accept the subjugation of women as being part of my higher, or highest, principles.

My objection to feminism is that it does not take responsibility for what its ideal results in, besides enumerating the many benefits; that it tries to avoid certain genetic truths by making it all blamable on nurturing or human intervention(men), which is dishonest, to say the least, and that, because of this feminism appears naive, childish and always a victim of its own failures.

I really do not care about changing the world. My intent is to merely describe it.
What I care about is finding a few people to share it with and to invent ways of preserving the ideals i deem are superior to those of the common man or the ones that are popular.
I care about exposing dishonesty and delusions so as to find clarity and use this clarity to construct succesful strategies which will increase my possibilities within the environment I find my self in.
I don't care about enlightening the masses - their obtuseness suits me fine -, not that I ever could, but to understand them and so be able to manipulate them, as much as I can, to achieve my goals or ....if I dare hope the odds, to find a few gems amongst the piles and piles of shit I am surrounded by.

Ah, Satyric evolution in evidence.

Eyes with which to see.
Articulated thumbs to manipulate.
Brains to preceive what is seen and unseen.
Imagination to symbolise and render.
Emotion to understand, empathise and feel.
Language to question and emote.
Writing to describe and represent.

I give you human.

All too human.

Should I be ashamed?

I give you individual manifestation of the general type of human.

Humans appear bound to worship.....

Humans create gods.
Early deities symbolised the cycles of life which appeared indifferent both to suffering and to the absence of suffering.
But worshipping life; as symbolised by animals, planetary bodies, the seasons and fertility itself did nothing to affect change. There was still suffering!
Humans thought some more about their gods and goddesses. Symbolically they become more humanistic in appearance and began to represent behavioural ideals that humans aspired, but could not live 'up' to; they being animals and therefore subject to 'beastly' tendencies.
Humans thought some more about gods and humans.
Perhaps suffering was humanity's own fault? Nothing to do with gods at all? Self eradication might then be the answer. And many would find this route to end suffering a logical one. The eradication of self. Of perception.
Either way gods become unwieldy. Perhaps too much choice confuses humans. Regardless, multiple deities have done nothing to change things for humanity. Civilisations rise and fall. They are still subject to nature which man must conquer in order to rise above it.
So the gods become god. Perhaps that would finally 'work'.
One god above all things but man created in the image of god. Truly a match made in heaven!
Man is now above all things on earth; but conveniently still some way below god. Man, still can only aspire to but never reach. Beautiful.
Of course god is only fully accessible after a long, productive and rigidly controlled life. Control being asserted by self appointed 'intermediaries' who 'speak' on god's behalf and even write down what god has 'instructed' for HIS followers.
God becomes more and more like the intermediaries. Who created whole texts with which to guide the followers.
But against the will and effort of the intermediaries the followers began to read. They noted the contradictions in the texts and thus in the intermediaries. And they began to question.
Yet the path to god is very seductive. Life after death or another kind of life; all free of man's beastliness.
God does so like his subjects to confess, cleanse, wash or burn away their beastliness. That which we have done and said and thought. There goes our humanity rinsing down the drain; or up in smoke....
But then if there is no cleansing god; nothing to promise the ease to our suffering....

A replacement is required; another system or systems of control modelled on all that came before.
Requiring obedience and a good, long, productive life in exchange for a few moments of comfort; just enough to keep them buying into it?
Quid Pro Quo.


Where there are inlets there must also be outlets. A closed system has a very short 'life-span'. There is no equilibrium.


Perhaps we should all worship Epicurus. He's as good as anything we are bound to deify.

Ah, Satyric evolution in evidence.

Eyes with which to see.
Articulated thumbs to manipulate.
Brains to preceive what is seen and unseen.
Imagination to symbolise and render.
Emotion to understand, empathise and feel.
Language to question and emote.
Writing to describe and represent.

I give you human.

Quote :

All too human.

Should I be ashamed?

I give you individual manifestation of the general type of human.

Why should you be ashamed? Why 'should you' be anything other than yourself?

Satyr wrote:

All too human.

Should I be ashamed?

I give you individual manifestation of the general type of human.

Too human? An interesting phrase.

In what way is it possible to be 'too human'? If one is 'too human' is one more like a beast or more like a god? Or not human enough in some metaphysically ideal sense?

And a general type of human? Would that be 'too human' like you, or 'not human enough' like someone else? I create beasts just as nature intended for the both of us. Neither of us require brains to do that. So why do we have brains if we don't need and rarely use them? Us individual manifestations of general humanity.

maryshelley wrote:

Satyr wrote:

All too human.

Should I be ashamed?

I give you individual manifestation of the general type of human.

Too human? An interesting phrase.

In what way is it possible to be 'too human'? If one is 'too human' is one more like a beast or more like a god? Or not human enough in some metaphysically ideal sense?

And a general type of human? Would that be 'too human' like you, or 'not human enough' like someone else? I create beasts just as nature intended for the both of us. Neither of us require brains to do that. So why do we have brains if we don't need and rarely use them? Us individual manifestations of general humanity.

you've obviously never read Nietzsche. It's the title to one of his books.

It means that I accept the entirety of what it means to be human...of being what I am.

The difference between a homo sapient and another animal species is intelligence.

Degrees of intelligence implies degrees of difference from other species and other manifestations of the species homo sapient.

A human being is the one possessing, also, the courage to accept this, as it applies to himself.

I did say I hadn't read Nietzsche!!

I do find the phrase an interesting one though. I hear it quite often. Said without really thinking about the implications!

And for those who have accepted their humanity and all that entails; what then?

When one recognises that one is susceptible to manipulation and is wary of such; what then?

When one recognises human propensity towards greed; of consuming beyond need; what then?

When one recognises the systems which humans erect to conquer and control; what then?

I find the satyr very good at exposing what lurks beneath surfaces. As any creature with a fully functioning brain might; but doesn't or chooses not to. What then?

When gone are Gods; Society; Tradition; Artifice; Marriage; 'Family values'.....

What then?

Therein lies my interest.

They change forms; they're never "gone" in the sense that you probably mean.

Lest I be misunderstood:

'Gone' as in rejected by an individual.

maryshelley wrote:

I did say I hadn't read Nietzsche!!

I do find the phrase an interesting one though. I hear it quite often. Said without really thinking about the implications!

And for those who have accepted their humanity and all that entails; what then?

When one recognises that one is susceptible to manipulation and is wary of such; what then?

When one recognises human propensity towards greed; of consuming beyond need; what then?

When one recognises the systems which humans erect to conquer and control; what then?

I find the satyr very good at exposing what lurks beneath surfaces. As any creature with a fully functioning brain might; but doesn't or chooses not to. What then?

When gone are Gods; Society; Tradition; Artifice; Marriage; 'Family values'.....

What then?

Therein lies my interest.

Your interest would require a book to get into.

Briefly:

Quote :

And for those who have accepted their humanity and all that entails; what then?

They use it for whatever purpose they think is deserving of contributing their life to.

Quote :

When one recognises that one is susceptible to manipulation and is wary of such; what then?

One becomes immune to manipulation.

Quote :

When one recognises human propensity towards greed; of consuming beyond need; what then?

One tries to control these parts of himself.

Quote :

When one recognises the systems which humans erect to conquer and control; what then?

One is partly freed by the knowledge itself and the knowledge offers him the potential to further this independence.

Quote :

I find the satyr very good at exposing what lurks beneath surfaces. As any creature with a fully functioning brain might; but doesn't or chooses not to. What then?

I cannot offer you a purpose for information and insight. I can only offer you my perspective which may or may not be accurate and so insightful.

If I offered you a goal then I would be a preacher.

Quote :

When gone are Gods; Society; Tradition; Artifice; Marriage; 'Family values'.....

What then?

Freedom is the option of finding a purpose on your own.

Satyr,

Do you believe the fact that the last 3 presidents of the United States have had only daughters is surprising or a coincidence?

Quote :

[quote="Satyr"]
Your interest would require a book to get into.

I have time, I think, to read a few more.

Quote :

Quote :

And for those who have accepted their humanity and all that entails; what then?

They use it for whatever purpose they think is deserving of contributing their life to.

Just the one 'purpose'?

Quote :

Quote :

When one recognises that one is susceptible to manipulation and is wary of such; what then?

One becomes immune to manipulation.

You think? There are so many ways......

Quote :

Quote :

When one recognises human propensity towards greed; of consuming beyond need; what then?

One tries to control these parts of himself.

I don't think it is so hard. There is something very unpleasant about feeling overstuffed! A body doesn't really like it.

Quote :

Quote :

When one recognises the systems which humans erect to conquer and control; what then?

One is partly freed by the knowledge itself and the knowledge offers him the potential to further this independence.

Ah but if I want to wander onto 'owned' land I could get shot for that. I used to do it a lot as a child. I'm slightly more risk averse now.

Quote :

Quote :

I find the satyr very good at exposing what lurks beneath surfaces. As any creature with a fully functioning brain might; but doesn't or chooses not to. What then?

I cannot offer you a purpose for information and insight. I can only offer you my perspective which may or may not be accurate and so insightful.

Well that's what I asked for. Your perspective.

Quote :

If I offered you a goal then I would be a preacher.

If I asked you for one I'd be an idiot.

Quote :

Quote :

When gone are Gods; Society; Tradition; Artifice; Marriage; 'Family values'.....

What then?

Freedom is the option of finding a purpose on your own.

I have always assumed that freedom. Freedom costs....

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr,

Do you believe the fact that the last 3 presidents of the United States have had only daughters is surprising or a coincidence?

Insufficient data.
A possible trend.

maryshelley wrote:

Just the one 'purpose'?

That is up to you.

Quote :

One becomes immune to manipulation.
You think? There are so many ways......

Then one becomes immune to that kind of manipulation.

Quote :

I don't think it is so hard. There is something very unpleasant about feeling overstuffed! A body doesn't really like it.

A joke, right?
We also consume art and ideas and objects and various resources.

Is food the only thing you consume?
Human beings consume one another, daily.

Quote :

Ah but if I want to wander onto 'owned' land I could get shot for that. I used to do it a lot as a child. I'm slightly more risk averse now.

Risk aversion, fear, is natural.
The opposite, as it has been proposed, is a product of manipulation and sheltering.

Quote :

Well that's what I asked for. Your perspective.

You are asking me to divulge personal information about how I used these insights.

I will only say that how each person chooses to use or react to an insight or to information is a personal affair.
A personal affair determined by his strengths and weaknesses, his experiences, his needs and above all else, his ideals and his desires and his psychology.

My reaction is expressed through my more artistic writing - poetry, prose.

My rational responses attempt to keep my emotional ones out of it.

Quote :

If I asked you for one I'd be an idiot.

Then what are you asking for?

You ask a lot.

Quote :

I have always assumed that freedom. Freedom costs....

It does.

freedom demands effort to overcome...primarily the forces inside you that bind you to primal needs.

Freedom is solitude.
Freedom is independence, self-sufficiency, responsibility, distance.
Freedom is choice.
Freedom is indifference.

Are you willing to become indifferent to the things you most cherish and then be more worthy of them....but still unmoved?
The paradox of freedom.

Quote :

Quote :

Just the one 'purpose'?

That is up to you.

I know much of what is me. My purpose is to live. I was asking you about yours, but no matter.

Quote :

Quote :

I don't think it is so hard. There is something very unpleasant about feeling overstuffed! A body doesn't really like it.

A joke, right?
We also consume art and ideas and objects and various resources.

Is food the only thing you consume?
Human beings consume one another, daily.

I meant consume stuff. Any kind of stuff; most of which is utterly useless anyway, and ultimately bad for maintaining a 'well' being. Ideas I'll always at least consider whether dressed up as art or science or opinion.

As for what human beings do to one another; well I have no control over that; nor much of an appetite for it.

Quote :

Quote :

If I asked you for one I'd be an idiot.

Then what are you asking for?

You ask a lot.

I question a lot, yes. I wasn't asking you for a goal for me to aim at. I was asking for a perspective because yours is bound to be different to mine. If it's too much to ask of you then so be it.

Quote :

Quote :

I have always assumed that freedom. Freedom costs....

It does.

freedom demands effort to overcome...primarily the forces inside you that bind you to primal needs.

Freedom is solitude.
Freedom is independence, self-sufficiency, responsibility, distance.
Freedom is choice.
Freedom is indifference.

Are you willing to become indifferent to the things you most cherish and then be more worthy of them....but still unmoved?
The paradox of freedom.

Well I'm not sure I want to overcome my primal needs. They are what bind me to the earth after all. Recognise and acknowledge them, yes. But overcome? I'll have to think on that. But to spend a lifetime on earth and remain unmoved by it.....may as well be an automaton; not a thinking, feeling human being.

As for what I most cherish? The ability to walk, bend, see, listen, smell, feel, articulate...read, grasp; although admittedly I am limited in all these things by body and mind. I strive; I aspire... to understand.

The people I cherish, well they will be lost to me one day (as everything will, eventually) so I try to appreciate those few who cherish and/or challenge me in return.

And last but not least are the responsibilities. These are multiple and varied. I try not to shirk them but sometimes they do rest heavily on the shoulders. Such is the price and value of freedom.