Monday, December 21, 2009

When Beauty Attacks! (or, The Birds & Beatitudes)

Might as well continue with the topic of yesterday's post, which, oddly enough, touches on the little controversy set off by one of our readers, who enjoys sharing the details of his -- wait for it -- sexual attraction to women! Unlike you poor repressed or married (a distinction without a difference) folks, he has managed to convert this biological attraction into a spiritual practice by.... indulging it. Wow, what a concept! Love the one you're with. Why didn't I think of that?

Obviously, anything that is powerful -- from religion to government to electricity to sex -- can be dangerous and destructive. In Meditations on the Tarot, Unknown Friend discusses the dangers of beauty. I would say that on the whole, men are more aware of this danger than women, being that women are the primary danger.

But the danger to women lies in unconsciously becoming the object of beauty in order to feel the rush of primordial power over men (for whom they will secretly feel contempt). For the most powerful man in the world -- say, Bill Clinton -- can be reduced to a mere pawn if he isn't master of his own domain.

A man could hypothetically rule the world, but if he himself is ruled by his zozo, what does this mean? Well, for starters, it will mean that the world is ruled by the seductive "spirit of Eve" that pulls Adam from the center to the periphery, so that the serpent is actually in charge by proxy.

Can Truth, Love, and Beauty have a "dark side?" Of course. It mainly happens when one of them gets separated from the other two -- like when a sock falls out of your drier and tries to go it alone. To paraphrase Professor Seinfeld, the lone sock doesn't get very far, does it? Oh sure, it's thrilling at first to feel the static electricity coursing along your heel, as you cling to another item of clothing in order to make your great escape. But then what? You fall off into the street, somewhere between the laundromat and car -- maybe even the gutter. That's when you find out the truth about maverick socks. And it isn't pretty.

Here's how UF explains it: the good severed from the beautiful "hardens into principles and laws -- it becomes pure duty." This goes to what I mentioned a couple of posts ago, that virtue ultimately results from consciousness of a plane of reality, not just from a kind of repressive, top-down moralism. An exclusive reliance on latter approach will not just alienate people, but often be the source of rebelliousness. I know it was for me. For example, as Oldbob might have thought to himself, whatever that hypocritical gasbag Jerry Falwell is, I will be the opposite. I will Falbadly.

Likewise, "the beautiful which is detached from the good... becomes softened into pure enjoyment -- stripped of obligation and responsibility." This is the "art for art's sake" of an aesthetic hedonism that soon becomes luciferic at best. But it also speaks to anyone who is foolish enough to imagine that sexuality and morality can be detached from one another without vacating oneself from humanness as such. In other words, one must become an animal (but really, not even an animal, but an infra-human).

UF continues: "The hardening of the good into a moral code and the softening of the beautiful to pure pleasure is the result of the separation of the good and beautiful -- be it morally, in religion, or in art. It is thus that a legalistic moralism and a pure aestheticism of little depth have come into existence."

On the one hand, you can have the narrow and clenched religious type without joy or art (or, conversely, with a joy and art that are equally kitsch). This type co-arises with its shadow, the increasingly antisocial artiste who is more or less detached from objective truth and virtue (or, conversely, becomes a tedious purveyor of political correctness as a substitute for truth and decency).

Soon enough beauty falls down the cosmic wayslide, so that art no longer even justifies its own existence. For man has no cosmic right to produce false and ugly art. Nevertheless, for the postmodern hack, "transgression" exists for its own sake, thus transgressing against the very purpose of, and justification for, art, i.e., truth and beauty.

You will notice that when the Creator was finished with his own artistic creation, he said to himsoph, it is good. Which is why this creation is infused with so much inexhaustible -- and beautiful -- truth. Which is none other then the Divine Light in all its metaphysical transparency.

So, the arcanum of The World is here to offer a gentle but firm warning to those who would mess with the Creator's woman, because Sophia is your sister (Proverbs 7), not your wife, got that? For it is written, the moment you become "wise in your own eyes," you become either a wise guy or a wise ass.

Now, just as there are true illuminations from the Holy Spirit, "so there are intoxications from the spirit of mirage," which UF calls the "false Holy Spirit." Here we are dealing not just with Maya, but the dark side of Maya, or her evil twin sister. On the one hand, Maya is the power of "cosmic illusion," but on the other, the Creator's divine consort, or Shakti, which means conscious force (forgive the Hinduisms, but it just so happens that they have a very precise language to describe these maters and paters, whereas Christianity often speaks of them in more metaphorical language that must be decoded, e.g., the polarities of Mary-Eve or Sophia-Word).

UF outlines the criteria for distinguishing between the two: if you seek only "the joy of artistic creation, spiritual illumination and mystical experience," it is ineveateapple that you will "more and more approach the sphere of the spirit of mirage" and become increasingly seduced and hypnotized by it. Remember, the satanic is the spirit of seduction and hypnosis, not compulsion and force. Been there, done that.

BUT, if you first seek for truth in the above referenced activties, "you will approach the sphere of the Holy Spirit" and open more and more to its influence, which brings with it an entirely different mode of joy and coonsolation, for it is in no way "egoic." Rather, it tends to reverse the hostile forces that result in either hardening or dispersion of the ego. Call it a "soft and supple center," which is none other than the divine slack and d'light immaculate that abides in "Raccoon Central," or "Toots' Tavern" -- where it is always "happy hour."

UF discusses the nature of mirages, which are not the same as hallucinations, as they are rooted in something that is "really there" -- like when the desert asphalt up ahead on the way to Vegas looks "wet," or when you think you can beat the house once you arrive there. But the mirage is a sort of "floating reflection of reality," which is nonetheless one step removed from it. And this is indeed the problem with what most people call "truth," including the truth of our scientistic jester, which floats atop the Real like a missing sock that I'd like to stuff in his mouth, to put it poetically.

I remember back in my college days, you'd occasionally hear a guy say that he wanted to meet a girl who didn't play games. Well, that's what Maya does, all day long. Her "lila" goes on unceasingly, which is why we need to get "beneath her veils," if I may put it so indelicately. This is because on the one hand, she "reveals God by manifesting him," but on the other hand "hides him by covering him."

Correction. It's not so much that we remove the veils, but appreciate what they are hiding, which is pretty obvious if you've ever seen the annual Victoria's Secret show -- which I've only heard about through Dupree. The point is, the veils -- we're speaking of reality now, not the supermodels.... no, I suppose we're talking about both -- simultaneously reveal and conceal, depending upon the spirit with which you look. As part of our standard equipment, we are all given a pair of X-ray Specs with which to see through the veils to the "ground." Sadly, they don't work on the supermodels.

56 Comments:

Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

On a related note, Tristan -- who is right in the middle of the oedipal stage -- just said to Mrs. G., "Can we go to the park today, my special lady?"

12/21/2009 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

There's also a simple reason to "put a sock on it" when one feels the itch to share one's sexuality with a wider audience: consideration of others. I don't need to be "enlightened" to notice that such sharing makes a lot of folks uncomfortable.

This is nothing new. Supposedly, Henry the Eighth once said, "I don't care what the people do, as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses."

And right about age 30, Will Durant wrote: "You must accept the conventions which society exacts of you, in order that you may take a little liberty with its laws; it will allow you to do anything, if you do it gracefully, and do not talk about it."

Ehh, very old-fashioned. And repressive.

My own opinion is that, just as virtue derives from a certain plane of consciousness, so does dignity. And so, I aim for that.

12/21/2009 09:06:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Or as Theodore Dalrymple has observed, the absence of privacy means the loss of intimacy.

12/21/2009 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Walt
Ho!
Famous laughed words, "I did not see those "horses" coming."
Awe man that's a good one.
RR

12/21/2009 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

So Bob, whucher sayin is, The Prez is beautiful n all, but it's not enough?

12/21/2009 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Jack said...

I am reading "Life at the Bottom". It is like a moral disinfectant. Living in a lefty college town, it is a bracing shock to the system to read him. A welcomed one.

12/21/2009 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walt stated sexual sharing makes others uncomfortable.

I would point out that discomfort is the first clue that an area should be investigated.

People are born of sex, have sex all of their lives, live, breathe, and think sex constantly. We are first and foremost sexual beings.

It should ALWAYS be the primary topic of inquiry. There is nothing that cuts closer to the bone.

So shy away if you must but don't put a moral spin on your fear. It is garden variety willies because facing the self is scary.

Gazriel of yesterday's thread is courageous. The rest of you wimps,not so much.

12/21/2009 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

So shy away if you must but don't put a moral spin on your fear.

Didn't do that. Suggested that consideration of others is a virtue. If that means shyness, morality and fear to you, then we disagree.

It should ALWAYS be the primary topic of inquiry.

Yes, it is obvious you believe that. And for all anyone knows, I may believe that too -- the difference being, how/where I express it.

12/21/2009 11:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Jack said...

Anon- Hardly courageous. In fact it is typical garden-variety "spiritual but not religious" tripe. Maybe 50 years ago one might have had a case for "courageous". These days when an often debased, self-indulgent sexuality is hardly hidden away it might be "discretion" that is courageous.

I don't think you'd find anyone who comments on this blog as as puritan but when "getting off" becomes sanctified many here will call the bluff.

The prophets of free sexuality claimed that our unhappiness was due to repression. I'm not sure their case is supported by the facts.

12/21/2009 11:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Rodney "Danger" Field said...

What “goes on” between me and my wife is none of my damn business!

RR

12/21/2009 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Gazriel said...

While I could sit here for hours addressing the abundance of issues that have arisen from my world-view I have presented, I am going to stick with one subject.

Bob said..."Likewise, "the beautiful which is detached from the good... becomes softened into pure enjoyment -- stripped of obligation and responsibility." This is the "art for art's sake" of an aesthetic hedonism that soon becomes luciferic at best."

This is an incredible point, but what I have discovered is that if one treads down that path you very, very quickly become aware of the separation from God. You just don't feel Goodness radiating from within and realize that you have erred.

So the question is, what is Goodness and Truth in sex? Better yet, why even sex? Let me draw the line between sexuality and sensuality. As I said yesterday, hugging a person and allowing myself to become aroused is just as much of a blessing as physically uniting all the way, and in my mind is something that can and should be replicated many times over with many different women.

But what is the INTENTION?

You see? If it is just purely enjoyment and drunkenness odds are that you are going to experience a repercussion of some kind. But if you turn it into a PRAYER, if your focus remains on God, if you set your will to unifying the radiant Light of the Holy Spirit to the material form of the body of the planet (or even the universe) and all of its inhabitants, then you are becoming a channel of Goodness and Love and a Force for self conscious evolution in this dimension.

Having very specific intentions for all activities is important, but even more so for those which carry power.

Bridging sex and spiritual life (specifically through so-called tantric practices) can indeed be very a tough job. There are ups and downs on the path, and mistakes can be made, leading to some of the dangers mentioned in Bob's fabulous post. But as stated above, if you have truly surrendered to God it will become apparent very quickly when something is out of whack in your behaviour. Things will become unpleasant, and you will either self-analyse and adjust or keep suffering.

That is my view, at least. If what I say offends some of you, well, good luck with your path and just skip right past what I say. I do that all the time with the loud-mouths present on this blog!

Maybe more later...

12/21/2009 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Walt said it beautifully. And Bob is absolutely right... "Likewise, 'the beautiful which is detached from the good... becomes softened into pure enjoyment -- stripped of obligation and responsibility.' This is the 'art for art's sake' of an aesthetic hedonism that soon becomes luciferic at best. But it also speaks to anyone who is foolish enough to imagine that sexuality and morality can be detached from one another without vacating oneself from humanness as such. In other words, one must become an animal (but really, not even an animal, but an infra-human)." Sickanon's 72 virgins post a case in point. Self on the throne, others there for my use.

12/21/2009 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Well, Gaz, we have on reliable witness that there is no sex in heaven. So tantric stuff might heighten and perhaps spiritualize the experience a bit, but it would seem to be decidedly a lesser thing than say, fasting.

I suppose that it may address a particular problem that could become a major roadblock to sanctification, but if we're talking in terms of overall importance, fasting deals with a general human problem present in some form in all places.

Besides, think of how much people talk about wine and cheese; and then think of how much more pleasurable sex is than either. So it only makes sense that there would be an obsession.

12/21/2009 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Gazriel said...

"Self on the throne, others there for my use."

How about everyone on a throne, we'll all use each other to commune with the Divine?

And no sex in Heaven? Please. Angels be gettin' freaky all the time, just in slightly different ways than us humans. I think Swedenborg touched on this in Heaven and Hell, something to the effect that the way in which humans make love pales in comparison to that which happens above. The bonding of two souls is one of the greatest gifts the Creator has bestowed upon us as individuals and is not deviant from Communion and Oneness, but in fact strengthens it.

Ya'll just ain't doin' it right!

12/21/2009 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

"Zozo" was a new one on me.

Seems like it also might be a good nickname for Jiz & Aninny.

Damn, I'm sure glad that folks like this are around to point out how Christians are all terrified Puritans who've probably never even, like, had sex. I mean, everybody knows that, right? If they'd just, you know, "open up" a little bit, they could really profit from the kind of spiritual enlightenment that J&A could bestow....

The idea that quite a lot of Christians (the converts, at least) are former sex and/or pornography addicts, who have more sexual experience and knowledge than these two Mama's boys would be likely to get in ten lifetimes, and who were saved from this sub-human state by the intercession of the Holy Spirit, has apparently never penetrated J&A's pointy little heads. Or their pointy big heads, either.

The cock-sure naivete of these two is hilariously entertaining. Please don't chase 'em off just yet!

12/21/2009 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Doing it right

"...She [wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
those who hold her fast are called blessed.

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;
by understanding he established the heavens..."

12/21/2009 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Red Flag!
Dupree, the same Dupree who watches Victoria Secret, was leaving messages for Theofilia for the purpose of "innertunement."

(if curious to see what Theofilia is up to? spiritspeaks-theofilia.blogspot.com)

12/21/2009 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous mr. peepers said...

That was "inner-a-tunement", doinker!
Go back and look it up, and wear yer glasses this time.

12/21/2009 12:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be that as it may peepers, here's what the Master says:

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mattew 5:26/28

12/21/2009 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

No, there's no sex. Absolutely none. There are times in which the way two souls are joined which is described in terms which are copulative, but this is a paucity of language at work, not a picture that sex is somehow a 'little' taste of a big thing.

Rather, it should be observed that sex is the way which life is spread, but also corruption. Therefore you have the problem of them being inseparable in this life.

To exalt the act as it is to the heavens is to commit a terrible error: corruption, a form of evil, is a form of nonbeing, therefore in exalting sex you either cease dealing with sex (as with some description of the joining of souls) or the copulative and bestial aspect consumes the other leaving nothing but a monstrous joke.

It is more proper to say that sex is one expression of the new reality of marriage, of being one flesh.

It has two flaws: The first is that it enslaves to pleasure; the second is that it easily becomes a power struggle while remaining pleasurable.

As the Man said, "They will neither marry nor be given in marriage..."

No flights of fancy, hopped up on a dopamine rush will cancel the Real.

12/21/2009 01:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Stu said...

Gazriel said:

"...hugging a person and allowing myself to become aroused...is something that can and should be replicated many times over with many different women."

Not so long ago I shared many of your views on sexuality, sensuality and spirituality.

But when I fell head-over-heels in love with ONE woman, it became obvious that my "enlightened" views were just artificial constructs.

I had created and used these constructs (mind parasites?) to avoid the responsibilities that come with manhood and real intimacy.

As a recently married man who is near to you in age, perhaps you will listen to something I have to say on the matter. Namely:

The whole spiritual sexuality/ sensuality thing you are raving on about is just an excuse to fuck who, how and when you want.

Same with the mind-fucking, meditation, mind-melding or whatever thing you described yesterday. That's just a convoluted excuse to indulge in your elaborate fantasies.

It's an idol. It's not real. It's a product of immaturity and sex obsession.

And it is a VERY weak substitue for true commitment and marriage, which is truly the best, if not only, shot men have at fully resolving, transcending and integrating their sexuality.

I'm no psychologist, but I know from my own experience that Bob is 100% on the money when he characterizes your attitude as immature, infantile and narcisstic.

And seriously, get some boundaries. Way too much information. I am still trying to block out thoughts of you coming home from your poetry session to "meditate."

12/21/2009 02:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Stu said...

Unrelated question from a curious Jew about the transcendance/ immanence of God within the Trinity.

Is the Trinity best understood as:

1) Transcendant Father, Immanent Christ and Holy Spirit creating a dialect between the two?

2) Three persons who are wholly transcendant and immanent within themselves?

or)

3) both.

If 1), then it would seem difficult to have a personal relationship with God within the confines of rabbinical Judaism.

I can see why Mrs. G. made the choice she did...

12/21/2009 02:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stu, Warren, other marriage proponents:

The basic problem with conventional mores about marriage is revealed when your spouse has a fling with another person and you find out.

You may become somewhat unhinged.

If you do get upset, and you probe deeply enough, you will see it is because at some level you have expectations of your wife. That she will be loyal, faithful, monogamous to you and for you.

But realistically, you don't (can't) "own" someone's behavior and cannot dictate their attitudes. That is slavery.

It is an impingement that is really indefensible.

Think about it: the only true love must be free of conditions.

Therefore, until you can let the spouse fly free (and you the same) to go and do as she and you will, you have a bad set-up. It is bound up in obligations, expectations, and must descend sooner or later into the land of "me first, and others for my use."

Gaz and his free-floating arousal may represent a step in the direction of freedom. I argue it is not a regression, but an advancement.

Walt, sorry about the misunderstanding earlier. I don't think you conflate morality with sex but are just sensitive about harming others.

12/21/2009 02:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Jack said...

Anon-

It is interesting that you put the condition of unconditional sex in your definition of unconditional "love". In fact as far as I can tell most earthly love *is* conditional and none the worse for it. I would hardly call that "slavery".

Do you put the conditions of honesty, respect for personal property and host of other expectations on your friends and family? Or is it just a free for all? If you do, then by your own admission you are attempting to make slaves out of them. Shame on you!

Conditional love, at least if based in honesty, respect and kindness, is not only far from your idea of slavery, but the very precondition for any healthy, stable relationships at all.

12/21/2009 02:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Stu said...

Anonymous said:

"But realistically, you don't "own" someone's behavior and cannot dictate their attitudes. That is slavery."

Yeah, dude. I just read The Sahck too...

And I guess I must be a slave, because not only does my wife expect me to pay the mortgage and car payments, etc. She ALSO expects me to love her and be there for her always. Just like a trusty servant.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Or perhaps it is only in meeting expectations, sacrificing to something larger than ourselves, and becoming what we are not yet, that we truly become free.

12/21/2009 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"You may become somewhat unhinged." Not that betraying your covenant with another is *wrong* or anything. Not if one lowers one's expectations enough...

12/21/2009 03:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Gazriel said...

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

This statement goes to the very heart of what I said yesterday: WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE ALREADY ONE WITH ALL BEINGS AND INTERACT ON AN ENERGETIC LEVEL THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO LUST AFTER ANOTHER!!!

How can you lust after or attain what you are already conjoined with? When this realization is fully integrated the soul and energy body of other's becomes a Grace, naturally flowing in and out of Communion. This doesn't change the rules of common decency, meaning the natural flow of physical relations taking its course.

Stu said..."And it is a VERY weak substitute for true commitment and marriage, which is truly the best, if not only, shot men have at fully resolving, transcending and integrating their sexuality."

Disagree completely. Marriage works for raising children and is of the Divine, but the expression alive in our people now is archaic, at best. Read "Island" from Huxley.

This could go on forever. I said my piece, and now I am full. If someone out there received the wisdom of my experience, wonderful.

Hilarious, all these reactions of feigned disgust. Acting like I got my balls out, or something.

Bows of respect all around.

12/21/2009 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Not feigned. Where's the scientistic jester?

12/21/2009 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Two days of this, and I'm wondering on what pretext I can keep my precious girls at home until they marry... Perhaps I should print this out as a cautionary tale for them.

12/21/2009 03:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Stu said...

"I said my piece, and now I am full. If someone out there received the wisdom of my experience, wonderful."

Who talks like this? Seriously? Are you for real?

You are sure full of something. Arrogance and ignorance among other things...

And your stench is rubbing off on me. I need to go back to lurk before I get sucked in even more...

12/21/2009 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

Well, obviously if you're married - or something like it - to a person who is not trustworthy, you can't reasonably have other than low expectations.

And if someone is not trustworthy in other things, then they probably aren't trustworthy in a marriage covenant either. In that case, one may be better off without said covenant.

Generally if someone is a narcissist, then low expectations are simply a subset of realism. With two narcissists shacking up, it may be better to not have expectations at all, but just get the popcorn ready.

There are still a few people out there who are not decadent, depraved and otherwise dehumanized, and if all goes well they may continue like that. It may take one to know one, I'm not sure.

12/21/2009 04:19:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

Stu (the curious Jew),

Re your Trinity question. FWIW, I would vote for #3.

Hope that doesn't seem like a cop-out (as in, "hey, everything's true in a way"). But quite honestly, of the options you offered, I think #3 is closest to the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity as I understand it.
YMMV, of course.

12/21/2009 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Susannah:

Something to think about:

You're girls may not tolerate your efforts to shield them. "Cautionary tales" do not suffice for adolescents. They will rebel. They will seek out the danger. It's human nature.

On the other hand, it doesn't always play out that way. I hope peace reigns in your home.

12/21/2009 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Stu:

I think it's both/and. There's the ontological trinity of inter-trinitarian relations, and the economic trinity of extra-trinitarian relations, the latter of which is where the relationship between Christ and man comes in. I'm no expert, but I believe it would be correct to say that through Christ's taking on human form, we may participate through adoption in the eternal life of the trinity. He is like an invitation to that otherwise inaccessible circle.

12/21/2009 05:26:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

If home is a great place to be...

12/21/2009 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"Thou our Father, Christ our Brother, all who live in love are Thine..." Romans 8:15

BTW, It's a total myth that adolescents *have* to rebel...homeschooling families disprove it year after year. They certainly come into their own in the "rhetoric" years, and rethink everything they've been taught, but given the right context by their parents, they don't have to rebel to do that.

12/21/2009 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

I think my girls would likely appreciate it if I armed them with pertinent info, esp. if they were to attend, say, a poetry session in mixed company, in a room furnished with small couches.

Bleah.

Maybe I can convince them to attend their daddy's college. In addition to the tuition savings...Daddy packs heat. :)

12/21/2009 08:29:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Gaz,

What do you do with the woody once you've hugged all the guests at the company Christmas party?
Do you then go in to the boss on Monday and ask for a raise?
BTW, for whatever reasons, I've always envisioned you a girl until these most recent posts. Interesting.

12/21/2009 08:36:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

And the reactions of those girls on the couch? They probably thought you looked like their uncle, that is, until you went home and ruined it by "meditating".
Go with the simple explaination, it'll save you the grandiose fantasies and also the arrest for voyeurism which manifests a little later. :^(

12/21/2009 09:12:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

mixed company: human and infrahuman...

12/21/2009 09:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Gazriel said...

I am going to address the following, because it is a perfect example of what happens when a shamed and split off aspect of self is attacking a person so badly in their subconscious they feel compelled to twist facts in order to appease their appetite for blood. Projection...

hoarhey said..."What do you do with the woody once you've hugged all the guests at the company Christmas party?
Do you then go in to the boss on Monday and ask for a raise?"

The implication in the above statement is so far removed from the actuality of what I said that it is laughable. Even if it is just a joke (which it isn't) it is in bad taste because it undercuts the validity of my view-point.

There, of course, is a time and place for everything. The act of hugging in and of itself shouldn't be sensualized. It should be regarded as a viable option for the replacement of sexual congress between willing and consenting partners because it has the capacity to extend into realms of transcendent bliss.

Go howl at the moon some more, hoarhey.

12/21/2009 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"So, the arcanum of The World is here to offer a gentle but firm warning to those who would mess with the Creator's woman, because Sophia is your sister (Proverbs 7), not your wife, got that? For it is written, the moment you become "wise in your own eyes," you become either a wise guy or a wise ass."

;-)

Even the One liners here have more wit and wisdom than many volumes worth of essays elsewhere.

12/21/2009 10:14:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

gazriel said "Disagree completely. Marriage works for raising children and is of the Divine, but the expression alive in our people now is archaic, at best."

Archaic... at best. Ah. Of course, looking at 'our people now' one could almost say the same of Virtue, manners and respect for the Truth as well... are you really saying that the number of people, in a people, affect whether or not what is true, is true? Using the 'A million frenchmen can't be wrong' argument might fit with your argument, but it's still a worthless argument.

Obviously you don't get the whole Marriage & monogamy thing, but you'll have to pardon the rest of us who do, for dismissing your opinion as being mere fluff.

12/21/2009 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"

You see? If it is just purely enjoyment and drunkenness odds are that you are going to experience a repercussion of some kind. But if you turn it into a PRAYER, if your focus remains on God, if you set your will to unifying the radiant Light of the Holy Spirit to the material form of the body of the planet (or even the universe) and all of its inhabitants, then you are becoming a channel of Goodness and Love and a Force for self conscious evolution in this dimension."


Whata bunch of bullshit!
You can't channel Goodness, Truth and Beauty through hedonism.
Trust me, I'm an expert on this. I tried every which way to justify my hedonism: material, spiritual, both, otherwise....don't effin' matter gazriel.
It's still hedonism in the end and there ain't no justification for it no matter how you slice it.

For part I got AIDS for my efforts.
Don't effin tell me or anyone else it's some kind of justified trancendentilism, 'cause it ain't!
It's effin' hell!

You can't possibly justify yer fillosophy without Truth, Beauty n' Goodness.
If you continue to try you'll end up like me...or worse.

On second thought, not quite like me...'cause I gno better...now.
But the consequences remain, as well they ought.

12/21/2009 11:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Chivalry over pride I say.
And who can practice chivalry without honor?
You might wanna try it, Gazriel.
But only if yer serious about it. otherwise, carry on bein' a fool.

12/21/2009 11:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Woman said...

Gazriel, since you consider yourself to be at one with everyone, I'm going to take the liberty of speaking as everyone of the female persuasion; after all I'm all of them and they're all me, according to your philosophy.

The fact that you don't recognize the sacred gift of the uniqueness and individuality of persons who are not you is grossly offensive and in fact counter to the creator's purpose. If all is one in the way you claim, then existence is nothing but cosmic masturbation. And frankly, an eternity of masturbation really does get old, even if you personally haven't tired of it yet.

Your words:
How about everyone on a throne, we'll all use each other to commune with the Divine?

No.

The very fact that you view sexuality - and therefore intimate relations with other people - as something to be used to bring you personally closer to the divine demonstrates that you don't view individuals outside of yourself as being unique and separate entities at all. And you certainly don't see them as being worthy of appreciation with any great depth or intimacy, such as that which can only develop over years of love, devotion, and the kind of real challenges and serious growth that take place within the sacred confines of marriage.

As woman, I am revolted.

You would consume my precious selves with as much gusto as a gourmand slurps down french fries, and in doing so receive just as much nourishment. I have so much more to offer in this life than base carnal mergers, but you will experience none of that so long as you are ruled by your all-encompassing libido.

Your words again:
How can you lust after or attain what you are already conjoined with?

Newsflash: just 'cause you've managed to prod your member into a few tight spaces does not mean you are conjoined with anyone in any way that matters. You imagine it is so, and in imagining it becomes acceptable for you to take spiritual liberties with women who almost certainly don't like the idea of spending their eternity conjoined with you.

You. Are. Not. Me. In fact, you haven't been truly unified with a woman since I weaned you from the breast when you were a wee babe, and quite frankly there's no going back to that primal paradise. Only forward and alone, small and merely human.

Just because all comes from god, this does not mean that all is god, any more than a hair that has fallen from my head is equal to myself or a child birthed from my womb is anyone but his own person.

In denying the sanctity of individuality, you deny that there is anyone or anything of value outside of yourself. You deny me humanity. You deny me my own holiness, my own spirituality. You deny me the freedom to find my own path to God, one which may not include you. Ultimately, you deny my very existence. You look upon female beauty, Narcissus, and see only your own "beauty" reflected back at you, and this you call holy. For all that you permit me to be myself, you'd get just as much depth of experience from an inflatable doll.

I AM. I am not you. I wonder if you will ever see that.

12/22/2009 12:12:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

It was a joke when I wrote it. But apparently not when processed through your skull.
Try not to take yourself so seriously was the message you missed.

12/22/2009 12:33:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

And I really did think you were some sort of hippie chick before your disclosed "revelations". Must have been the melding you've been experiencing.

12/22/2009 12:36:00 AM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

I am not sure if it is reasonable to expect someone who is not a monotheist to be monogamous. After all, if your spirit is intimate with many different entities, it would be only natural for the body to do the same, would it not?

12/22/2009 12:38:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Stu!

I'm glad to see you commenting again. Please continue, 'cause you have a lot to offer.

12/22/2009 01:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

BUT, if you first seek for truth in the above referenced activties, "you will approach the sphere of the Holy Spirit" and open more and more to its influence, which brings with it an entirely different mode of joy and coonsolation, for it is in no way "egoic." Rather, it tends to reverse the hostile forces that result in either hardening or dispersion of the ego. Call it a "soft and supple center," which is none other than the divine slack and d'light immaculate that abides in "Raccoon Central," or "Toots' Tavern" -- where it is always "happy hour."

A happy hour that endures for eternity. :^)

12/22/2009 01:12:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Gaz,

Here's a new tag line for ya.

I am New Age Man! Hear me ROAR!!!!!

See if that helps.

You're just one of a vast multitude of preening, new age androgenous males, and the sooner you figure that out and get beyond it, the better off you'll be.
Through your hubris you've exposed yourself by extrapolating into others and coming to the conclusion that people here were open to something "new" when in fact it's been long ago rejected in their lives as perverted and creepy regardless how pure it may seem to you. Oh, but we're just "too stupid to get it". We got it decades ago.
Make no mistake, you're standing here looking to the whole world like the fool that you are.
So now your time here will never be the same. Even if you change your name you'll still smell the same.
It's no wonder you're down with Obama. Same clueless moron with the "teachable moment" vibe.

12/22/2009 01:47:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Relieved settlers: "Who was that masked Woman?"

12/22/2009 03:39:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I say we hand 'im from the yardarm.
Or her.

RR :-)

12/22/2009 03:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe Unlie said...

Hey, Bob, did you inspire this?

http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090929

B'Atman indeed...

12/22/2009 04:26:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

Jiz said:

>> it is in bad taste because it undercuts the validity of my view-point.

Are you sure that this isn't an Obama quote?

12/22/2009 07:28:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home