Thursday, September 25, 2014

Why are Feminists Such Pussies?

We are batting around this idea of a Cosmic Orthodoxy. If there were a Cosmic Orthodoxy -- a correct way to think and to act -- life sure would be less complicated, wouldn't it? We could just get on with it, instead of having to take time out of our day to battle the follies of liberalism and other cosmic heresies -- although I suppose it must be conceded that the heretics among us do unwittingly serve one purpose, in that they provide us with dense objects against which to burnish our sacred pliers with the blowtorch of love.

I suppose the rock bottom principle underlying the possibility of a Cosmic Orthodoxy would be one, i.e., one human nature and one truth which discloses itself in both material and immaterial reality.

In our quantitative age we seem to have no trouble agreeing that this is the case on the lower planes -- e.g., physics and chemistry -- because few people argue for a multicultural approach to these disciplines (although, to be sure, there are a few in every cloud).

Then again, these same people would disagree that these planes are "lower," since they reject verticality a priori. Thus, to the extent that reality exists, they would insist that it is physical, or electrochemical, or genetic, or what have you -- anything, so long as it isn't human, let alone divine (however, as we shall see, those latter two categories always manage to slip in through the backdoor).

Now, to even perceive the simplest object is to participate in transcendent oneness, otherwise perception would consist in perceiving only an atemporal formless blob with no outlines or divisions -- not even the self-evident distinction between the senses and the intellect.

True, our unaided senses would essentially reveal the murky contours of a blob, but the mind never actually stops there. Even infants learn almost right away that they live in a sea of objects, not just a sea. In other words, they are liberated into and then out of the senses -- and thus ushered into the world of transcendence -- as a birthright (unless something goes catastrophically wrong, as in severe autism or early tenure).

But for a human being, "unaided senses" is very much like the fanciful notion of an "unrelated person." In truth -- and this would be another element of cosmic orthodoxy -- humans are irreducibly intersubjective, meaning that they are members of one another from the ground up. For me, this is a reflection of Trinity (the ultimate metacosmic principle) in man, the microcosmos.

But this intersubjectivity also applies to the nonhuman world. In other words, we are thoroughly entangled with the world, which is precisely why we can truly know it. If this weren't the case, then we would indeed be trapped in Kant's phenomenal world, i.e., in the forms of our sensibility.

Chesterton provides a vivid analogy, writing that it would be as if all knowledge were nothing more than pictures we paint on the inside of our windows, and then mistake for the landscape outside the house.

Yes, Kantianism really is that stupid -- and infertile, since it is impossible for the intellect to mate with reality. Rather, it can only mate with its own images, which is to say, engage in cognitive onanism and call it truth.

This is very much like devoting one's sexual energy to pornography and calling it love. But self-love is an oxymoron. Love is other-directed, beginning in God. Thus, it is important to be lovable, so as to be worthy of the love received. Self-love bypasses this trinitarian circuit. The narcissist's soulmate is himself. Nice to know Obama has found his.

One of our cosmic principles is, of course, that the ultimate reality is not substance but person; or, one might say that the ultimate substance is a dynamic threeness, not any kind of isolated monad. The moment you think about this, it is soph-evident.

To cite one obvious and all-pervading example, there is the knower; there is the known; and there is knowledge. Like the Trinity, these are distinct but not radically divided from one another, or we couldn't really know anything. Rather, we would again be confirmed old bachelors consoling ourselves with mental masturbation, like Kant.

Thus, as Chesterton said -- but I will shout for emphasis -- "SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS WAS ONE OF THE GREAT LIBERATORS OF THE HUMAN INTELLECT"! How? Well, for starters, he liberates us into reality. I was reminded of this yesterday in viewing this short video on feminism. Think of the cosmic irony: the most self-styled "liberated" women in history are voluntarily enslaved to a masturbatory ideology!

Now, the Raccoon believes that if you are going to submit to an ideology, then make it a fun one, not a grim, resentful, joyless, and embittered one, right?

If Kant is right and perception is reality -- or the only reality we can know -- then at least perceive something pleasant, dammit! Besides, as alluded to above, your prime directive is to be lovable, not to imagine that you will finally love yourself if only men stop controlling your pathetic life. There is a reason feminists are unloveable and therefore filled with so much anger and resentment.

They are also weak-willed pussies. I mean, why the reliance on patriarchal government to somehow rid the world of patriarchy? Putting a woman in the White House will be every bit as effective in promoting female happiness as Obama has been in making blacks so deliriously happy. It will only highlight the fact that the state can't cure your misery.

source: Happy and not embittered Acres

14 Comments:

Blogger EbonyRaptor said...

I'd love to see a cage match between that female in the picture and any run of the mill Jihadi ... well, as long as the combatants wear some loose fitting clothes - no spandex. Please.

I'm thinking my money wouldn't be on the Jihadi.

9/25/2014 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Depends on whether she's allowed to include her army of cats.

9/25/2014 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

If Kant is right and perception is reality -- or the only reality we can know -- then at least perceive something pleasant, dammit!

Ha - that is good advice for anyone. But seriously, though, has there ever been such thing as a happy feminist? Or is that an oxymoron?

9/25/2014 10:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

"The Joy of Feminism"

Shortest book ever written.

9/25/2014 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger John Lien said...

Depends on whether she's allowed to include her army of cats.

LOL!

Since we are talking about trinitarian circuits, I realized a good one a few weeks back.

V=IR. Completely interrelated. Electricity doesn't make sense without all three.

Gonna stick my neck out and say:

R is like God
I is like the Son
V is like the Spirit

Well, I found it deeply meaningful. You grab your inspiration where you can.

9/25/2014 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger ted said...

John, It appears a good metaphor, and someone else whose book I read came up with the same idea.

9/25/2014 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9/25/2014 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

In other words, we are thoroughly entangled with the world, which is precisely why we can truly know it.

Worth the price of admission right there. It all makes sense.

9/25/2014 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9/25/2014 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

It's 2:00pm here, and I have not had enough coffee. One more time:

I'm not in any way good-looking, but what in hell do you cross to get an "Andrea Dworkin", and how do you keep them from eating one another long enough to breed?

9/25/2014 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Agreed. Usually an animal with scales wouldn't get along with an animal with tusks.

9/25/2014 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger EbonyRaptor said...

Now you guys are getting catty ... nyuk nyuk nyuk

9/25/2014 02:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminism is an excuse for ugly women to be in public

9/25/2014 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

What's amazing is the number of men who want in on that action.

I've noticed that not all feminists are necessarily ugly in essence. A lot of them could be normal. It's that they have such ugliness of character, their faces and bodies inevitably start to match. I actually feel sorry for a lot of them; it's clear that there is no small amount of mental illness in their ranks, and even though the movement is rife with manufactured victimhood, I do wonder sometimes how many of them maybe really were victimized, especially in light of the revelations about child trafficking in Rotherham and other places.

9/25/2014 06:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home