So, the point I was attempting to make yesterday wasn't really an aesthetic one but an ontological one. I was trying to use an experience-near example to think about evolution, discontinuity, and higher spaces; or, to be precise, the discontinuous evolution into these higher worlds.
Just like Darwinian evolution, this process cannot be reduced to a single level, flatland cosmology, on pain of rendering the whole cosmic system nonsensical. For example, to place humans and animals on the same level merely obliterates the space where truth can be known, and a truth-bearing animal is infinitely higher than one without this capacity. Looked at this way, the distance between man and animals is as discontinuous as the gap between truth and falsehood, since no animal can know truth. Darwinists may insist that apes gradually shade off into humans, but a lie doesn't gradually shade off into the truth, so the distance between man and apes is likewise infinite.
As a matter of fact, the lie is obviously entirely parasitic upon the truth, whereas truth is independent and autonomous, and is by no means dependent upon the lie. It stands alone and endures, even if not a single human being believes it. But a lie can only exist if someone knows the truth. Therefore, a liar is someone who knows truth but places other things above it.
For example -- and I don't want to get sidetracked, so this will be brief -- if you watched any of the Democrat infomercial last night, you could see how much of it revolved around truths that are known but must be denied. Looked at this way, a lie is just an inverse way of illuminating a truth. It is a kind of "luminous darkness."
The PowerLine boys addressed this subject, noting that Michelle Obama's speech "all but shouted: We are normal! We are like you!" The whole exercise was a result of the urgent need to remake her into someone who wasn't ashamed of her country until a few months ago. That wasn't the Michelle Obama I know, the one who bitterly clings to her dreary leftist ideology and paranoid church.
When someone is shouting at you for no apparent reason that they are patriotic and normal and just like you!, you can probably take it to mean that they are anything but -- that their words are simultaneously concealing and conveying the opposite sentiment.
I'm very accustomed to this sort of thing in conducting psychological evaluations, during which you must always assess a patient's credibility for the quality of information they are providing you. (Yes, you too can earn cash money by developing your very own bullshit detector!) In that case, if the patient starts insisting upon how abnormal they are before their seat is even warm, that's usually a clue that you're dealing with a malingerer. The craziest people often don't even feel their craziness; rather, you feel it for them. In other words, mind parasites, by their very nature, are projected into other people, and you can feel the projection when it's taking place (this is called "projective identification").
Anyway, once you realize that truth is both higher and discontinuous (if you try to understand it from the bottom up), the whole materialistic paradigm -- including Darwinism -- falls apart. Let's even accept at farce value the Darwinist's claim that the human being has evolved toward Truth. If that is true, then we can never embrace the sterile idea that evolution "ain't goin' nowhere."
Rather, if truth exists and humans may know it, then evolution can be nothing less than a gradual unveiling of reality. And this unveiling is synonymous with what is called the spiritual ascent. Evolution = the irreducibly spiritual ascent into higher degrees of reality. In so doing, the nonlocal ladder is anterior to us, even though we must paradoxically build the local rungs as we make the climb.
Darwinists claim that "all is flux" and that is surely a partial truth. But to make such a banal claim is to insist that at least one thing is not subject to change, and that is the truth that "all is flux." And once you realize the full implications of this, then you understand -- well, as Petey expressed it in a koan the other day, you understand that Man is a diaphanous / gem of light suspended on / a fine web of truth.
Now, you may ask yourself: why is Bob bringing this up today? I thought we were talking about Hitler. Then we're suddenly talking about the Beatles. What's going on here? This is not my beautiful post.
Right. Your point is well taken. As I have mentioned, Hitler & His God spends the first 522 pages discussing the Nazi phenomenon from every possible conventional angle, before making a sort of discontinuous leap, at which point it looks to the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo to make sense of it all.
Why are people so fascinated by World War II in general and Hitler in particular? I think part of the reason is that it is a kind of numinous experience to contemplate that level of evil, which "surpasses" (I suppose "subpass" would be a better term) all our faculties.
Remember, "numinous" does not necessarily have positive connotations, for it mainly signifies confrontation with an object that is strange, mysterious, and "other." An encounter with God is always numinous, but so too is a brush with Death. For those of you who have lost a loved one, you are familiar with that experience of being ushered into an eery, numinous space. People are simultaneously attracted to, and repelled by, this space. It is why, for example, we enjoy horror movies. Much of the romantic movement was explicitly infatuated with Death, which I suppose is why so many of those poet-johnnies committed suicide. Will will know.
During the course of 522 pages, Van Vrekhem provides the testimony of any number of historians, who have conceded that, in the end, Hitler and Nazism simply exceed our ability to understand them. On the one hand, history is there to teach us "what happened." And yet, in this case, we can know exactly what happened "on the surface," and yet, don't truly understand it at all. I'm guessing that there are more books on Hitler and World War II than most any other subjects, and yet, what do we really know?
Van Vrekhem begins with the modest proposal that in attempting to wrap out minds around an "effect" of such magnitude, there must be a cause of equal magnitude. Looked at this way, then Hitler can't possibly be explained by such comparatively trivial causes as resentment over the Treaty of Versaille, or economic hardship, or even rabid nationalism. Any number of countries have been humiliated in war, but they don't start putting people in ovens to cope with their bruised feelings.
So we are confronted with a mystery. Yesterday I was attempting to use an experience-near example to talk about another mystery, that being the obvious discontinuity between even the greatest virtuoso and the true genius. Genius clearly transcends mere virtuosity, and can never be reduced to it. Rather, the musical genius partakes of and transmits a kind of palpable mystery, through which we may have the experience of entering a higher world that is shockingly different from the ordinary musical space. As a number of people pointed out, one can say the same of Van Gogh's paintings. If you are open to them, they truly are shocking, even breathtaking. Why is that? How can that be?
In my opinion, it is because Van Gogh introduces us to the real world. His paintings are particularly vivid examples of how great art is not on the same plane as "reality," and surely not a lower dimensional representation of it. Rather, it is a higher dimensional representation, so to speak. Yes, Van Gogh was an artist, but he was also a seer, or perhaps you might say a "visual prophet," just as Beethoven was an "aural prophet," transmitting information about higher spaces with pure sound. Again, how can such a thing be possible? What kind of cosmos is this, anyway?
Back to Hitler. To begin at the end, Van Vrekhem demonstrates how Hitler's ideology was in many cases a mirror image of Sri Aurobindo's evolutionary philosophy. Again, I don't want to get sidetracked, but I don't think it would be particularly difficult for some enterprising theologian to recast Christianity in evolutionary terms. In fact, I am quite sure it's already been done, not just by Teilhard de Chardin, but, for example, by this guy, about whom I know nothing.
I don't intend any scurrilous attacks on Darwinism, but Van Vrekhem quotes one prominent Nazi who said that National Socialism is applied biology. Think about that for a moment. If someone is foolish enough to believe that biology reveals the truth of man, then exactly what prevents him from drawing the ultimate implications from this: that nothing is absolute and everything is permitted?
It doesn't bother me that simpleminded Darwinists such as Queeg exist. What I do mind is that they try to pretend they're something other than what they are, which is intellectual barbarians. Such offenses must come, but we don't need to participate in their absurd self-flattery to the effect that the lower one falls, the higher one is. These liztards all clamor to the bottom, proud to declare the truth of no-truth, the virtue of indecency, and the beauty of ugliness.
Again, the Lie is parasitic on Truth. That's just how it is. As a result, you might very well say, "the greater the Truth, the bigger the Lie." But conversely, you might also say, "the bigger the Lie, the greater the Truth it is attempting to deny and conceal." Feel free to take this as a metaphor, so long as you understand its higher truth: Satan is first and foremost a parasite on Truth, Light and Beauty. Second, little parasites are everywhere. Oh, and you can learn a lot about God from a demon like Hitler.
In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility. --Adolf Hitler
to be continued....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theme Song
64 comments:
As a question, the historian Barbara Tuchman posited that the Germanic character, as it were, that allowed a people to embrace the horrors of Nazism, was formed by the carnage of the Thirty Years war of 1610-1640. It is often contended that this war killed two thirds of the population of the Germanic principalities, some ten to twelve million people.
Well but did they embrace the horrors of Nazism, or did they simply choose the course of least resistance, seeing where they wanted to see and passing over politely anything convenient but unseemly? It seems a bit like an abusive relationship in which there is a lot of denial and self-blame, a self-doubt and unhealthy shame about who they are that allows that kind of leadership, precisely what the left of today is still trying to foist on us in the US - be ashamed of your country, of its history and its power. We should rather learn from the past to continue to project light in the darkness, as every country should.
It is rare in history that any effect can be explained wholly by a single cause. I call this the 'domino fallacy'.
It goes as follows: "if this event had not happened, x would not have happened." Or, "because this event happened, x occurred later." These are both true statements. But it does not follow that event x can be explained completely in terms of that event, nor can that event be said to accurately be completely culpable for the event. This also runs the other way; you can target any domino you want and say (accurately) that it was the cause. Targeting a domino earlier than another is a way to selectively 'move' blame.
For instance people are blaming the U.S. for the whole Russia/Georgia debacle since our 'democratic imperialism' preceded Putin's latest stint of determinism and regional hegemony. The problem with this accusation is that it assumes that if domino y did not fall, domino z would not fall and x would not happen.
However, since it did happen that way we can speculate all we want and it doesn't change the possibility that another cause would have 'triggered' the other.
That's to say, Putin's aggression may have been inspired or enabled by our foreign policy; but there were other things that could have inspired it or enabled it as well, such as Georgian weakness, European inaction, the vulnerability of the pipeline, etc. There is also not just one 'line' of dominoes falling.
So back to Hitler. He's the 'biggest' domino of the bunch, and its obvious from his life that he put himself in the path of the other falling dominoes. He saw the trend towards this kind of 'transcendent' evil and embraced it.
My impression is that a long series of events leading up to WWII shaped and turned the German character into what it was for Hitler to grab hold of it. He of course still made the choice, as Putin did in his aggression, and as the Islamists did in their various attacks.
I doubt that we will dig 'deep' enough and find a giant domino that 'explains the whole thing'. Part of the mystery is simply the synchronicity of the whole thing.
Dominoes.. still fallin'.
"(Yes, you too can earn cash money by developing your very own bullshit detector!)"
Hm. That "Great Story" link is setting mine off. On the one hand, the ideas espoused there sound reasonable. On the other, the whole site is all about the hard sell, especially for such nebulous concepts as this:
"The Great Story is radically open to multiple interpretations."
"The Great Story manifests synergistic coherence between science, religion, and the needs of today's world."
Something about that second one reeks of the same mentality behind the "living constitution." But of course, I could be totally wrong.
Yes, evolution doesn't work unless you turn the cosmos right-side up, and see it as evolution toward the Absolute as a result of the prior involution of the Absolute. It has no room for any kind of relativism.
"As a matter of fact, the lie is obviously entirely parasitic upon the truth, whereas truth is independent and autonomous, and is by no means dependent upon the lie. It stands alone and endures, even if not a single human being believes it. But a lie can only exist if someone knows the truth. Therefore, a liar is someone who knows truth but places other things above it." and " ... Rather, if truth exists and humans may know it, then evolution can be nothing less than a gradual unveiling of reality... "
Yes, and if you refuse to see that unveiling, then you must be actively veiling it, draping it, denying it and cursing each time you break your toe upon it as you try moving by it as if it doesn't exist. If you persist in denying it, you're going to be forced to revel in the collision while also denying their source.
"An encounter with God is always numinous, but so too is a brush with Death. For those of you who have lost a loved one, you are familiar with that experience of being ushered into an eery, numinous space. People are simultaneously attracted to, and repelled by, this space. It is why, for example, we enjoy horror movies. Much of the romantic movement was explicitly infatuated with Death, which I suppose is why so many of those poet-johnnies committed suicide. Will will know."
The big kick-off for Romanticism, built upon the denial of our ability to know reality, and that the savage was more noble and worthwhile than Western Civilization, got things going with a bang by introducing to modernity the moody, angry and suicidal artist; from my latest Liberal Fascism: The Spiral of Knowledge and the Flattened Worldview of the Left pt. 3,
"This dissolution of our ability to grasp reality and the consequent inability to know ourselves, was soon reflected in the destruction of Art. The first signs were a passionate desire to return to more authentic, back to nature drives in Painting, Poetry and Literature in the Romantic movement. Sturm und Drang, anxiety and despair were the new keywords which replaced dignity and nobility… did such art elevate? Examine Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther”, about a sensitive, angst ridden artist ‘in love’ with someone else’s girl, who eventually after there was no more room to wallow in, commits suicide. The results of this runaway best seller, was an epidemic of suicides that swept Europe. Art always gets and conveys the message of its theme, even when we sophistically seek to evade it, but nevertheless the message was all is hopeless, you are unable to know anything, give up and die."
Natural selection. Is there anything it can't explain?
"I don't intend any scurrilous attacks on Darwinism, but Van Vrekhem quotes one prominent Nazi who said that National Socialism is applied biology. Think about that for a moment. If someone is foolish enough to believe that biology reveals the truth of man, then exactly what prevents him from drawing the ultimate implications from this: that nothing is absolute and everything is permitted? "
Yeah!
From wiki on Pragmatism, the philosophical denial of Truth and Principle, "The epistemology of early pragmatism was heavily influenced by Darwinian thinking. Pragmatism was not the first to see the relevance of evolution for theories of knowledge", and radical pragmatism, IMHO, is the ultimate foundation of and excuse for justifying, all the actions Fascism seeks to do.
"What I do mind is that they try to pretend they're something other than what they are, which is intellectual barbarians. Such offenses must come, but we don't need to participate in their absurd self-flattery to the effect that the lower one falls, the higher one is. These liztards all clamor to the bottom, proud to declare the truth of no-truth, the virtue of indecency, and the beauty of ugliness.
Again, the Lie is parasitic on Truth. That's just how it is. As a result, you might very well say, "the greater the Truth, the bigger the Lie." But conversely, you might also say, "the bigger the Lie, the greater the Truth it is attempting to deny and conceal." Feel free to take this as a metaphor, so long as you understand its higher truth: Satan is first and foremost a parasite on Truth, Light and Beauty. Second, little parasites are everywhere. Oh, and you can learn a lot about God from a demon like Hitler. "
Yes! Really Robin Hooding it today! One arrow after another hits the bullsey, and is then split down the center by the next!
Heh. At Homer's link, this link comes up: Humans: the Strangest Species
Of course that's only really true if humans actually are just another species. But if we're just another species, how can anything about us actually be strange? It's all completely, 100% natural.
Earl said "... the Germanic character, as it were, that allowed a people to embrace the horrors of Nazism, was formed by the carnage of the Thirty Years war of 1610-1640..."
And after that, and well before Germany tried to gobble the world, we should remember that it was the French Louis XIV, the "Sun King" (not to mention Napoleon after that) who were trying to gobble the world... and also very nearly did it - the feeding frenzy each time stopped by the most free nations, led by England. If you can find a copy of Churchill's "The age of Revolution", buy it! What has been evident, has been as the spiritual and intellectual regard for Principle has faded, and pragmatic views (read pretexts for powerlust) have risen among 'intellectuals', the carnage and body count have sky-rocketed.
River said "That's to say, Putin's aggression may have been inspired or enabled by our foreign policy"
Yeah, rather than trying to find that ultimate domino to be properly scapegoated as 'the cause', what we should be paying more attention to is that our foreign policy didn't disuade Putins's aggression. That's the only thing we have a chance of controlling and ensuring.
Our foreign policy of 'persuading' and 'encouraging' proper behavior of tyrants or savages, is folly itself.
>> . . . any number of historians, who have conceded that, in the end, Hitler and Nazism simply exceed our ability to understand them<<
Well, unless one comprehends the reality of metaphysical evil, then Nazism will remain a mystery, particularly to the secular mind. Still, as you point out, the numinous factor continues to fascinate.
C. Manson, too, is another figure who exerts a similar fascination. There have been plenty of other warped American criminals who seemingly had some kind of power to compel, to get people to do their evil bidding. Manson, though, seems to eerily float above the usual rabble. You can dismiss him as a bozo, a preening clown, just as you can with Hitler - and in many respects, both are Chaplin-esque figures - but it's hard to escape the feeling that there is something truly mystical there. (and I mean antithetically mystical, of course)
Even the hard-boiled V Bugliosi got creeped out by the odd series of synchronicities surrounding Manson, including those involving Manson's belief that the Beatles' White Album was somehow addressed to him and his evil mission. (and speaking of Dennis Wilson and his demise . . . )
Secular historians pause briefly over the fact that a guy who could not raise himself above corporal during 5 years of warfare somehow ended up being Reichsfurher of Germany 15 years later. Well, something came along and invested Hitler with a meta-power, but most historians skip right past this.
And what sense to be made of the fact that even as Germany became aware that it was losing, would lose the war, instead of cleaning up the death camps and making themselves look as good as possible when the Americans finally liberated the camps, the Nazis, on the contrary, put even more manpower and resources into killing off as many Jews as they could? It doesn't make any sense at all . . . unless one understands that human blood sacrifice has always been part of the satanic ritual, and that an evil power is gained by such, and that the Nazis were undoubtedly hoping that this would perhaps tip the balance in their favor.
It's all a mystery, yes, but it really isn't much of a mystery at all.
Will said " It doesn't make any sense at all . . . unless one understands that human blood sacrifice has always been part of the satanic ritual, and that an evil power is gained by such, and that the Nazis were undoubtedly hoping that this would perhaps tip the balance in their favor."
Yep. The liar doesn't curse being found out, so much as he does the Truth for being True, which he is convinced is so, in order to spite Him. They aren't trying to succeed at anything other than wiping out what is Good and Beautiful and True - Denial of the GBT is an interior drapery for them so they can pretend that they are actually trying to do something. The Truth is that they are in reality trying to do no-thing. They are trying to disintegrate, to rip apart - to Destroy.
To the utmost possible extent possible.
Christian or Marxist? Jesus make us all Democrats or State becomes religion.
Here is the transcript from the closing prayer given by Donald Miller at the Democrat Convention on Monday.
The speeches and the activities at this convention are eye openers for anyone with discernment. Don't expect the media to be reporting on any of it. It doesn't fit the "we're just like you" agenda.
“Father God,
This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.
We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.
We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.
Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.
Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.
Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.
Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.
Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.
Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.
We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.
Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.
A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.
Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.
Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.
Lastly, father, unify us.
Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.
And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.
God we know that you are good.
Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.
I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.
Let Him be our example.
Amen.”
Hoarhey, that ‘prayer’… OMG!
The message is "God! Hey! Fix things for us and give us our STUFF!"
And I think the key is right at the beginning, "We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy."
Tempted towards... what? Evil? Ni! We shall not say it! (oh! I said it... argh! I said it ag... ARGH!! [tis a silly place]). No way will they say something like 'lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil'... no, no, no... what sits better is 'leave us not without goods, but deliver us without effort'
I'm not sure who or what is intended to receive a prayer that fears identifying evil and asks to provided comfort because we deserve it... but I'm pretty sure that the proprietors of the pearly gates will mark it return to sender.
If you can, listen to Monday's opening prayer. They had to show their "diversity" by having all religions involved speaking in unison. It sounded like a bunch of Satanists chanting in a zombie horror film.
Or the speech by Sister Helen Prejean, cut right out of the Jermiah Wright racist mold.
"Help us serve people, not just causes."
I'm sure that he'd say what he meant by "just" there was "merely" or "only." But the rest of his prayer makes it clear that the true meaning of "just" in this context is "righteous."
As in, "Help us serve people, not righteous causes."
As Van said, the essence of this prayer is "Oh Lord, give us a handout." A patently absurd request; if denied, in the minds of the askers it serves only to demonstrate that God is a meanie. If granted, the "blessings" bestowed would send us all that much more quickly into utter wretchedness.
Idiots.
Julie said;
"....in the minds of the askers it serves only to demonstrate that God is a meanie."
What it really means is that those evil Neocons are thwarting the Will of God as "chanelled" by the Dems.
(Okay, this is waaay off topic [or is it? It's certainly symptomatic of some real sickness in our own culture], but the sheer mundane awfulness of this woman - and the mentality she represents, which is supposedly fairly prevalent among women of a certain demographic - is shocking. I give her marriage three years, max - either her husband will be so appalled by the article that he'll finally realize what a harpy he married and dump her, or she'll walk out on him, thinking she'll find greater happiness as a cougar on the prowl, in which case she'll probably end up a bitter clone of Maureen Dowd, wondering why she can't find a man who will make her happy.)
(D'oh - a link would be helpful...)
She's lucky. Only a very oblivious and detached man would put up with her.
Santa Vaca! Just watched a coonish tour de force presentation "How Modern Liberals Think" by Evan Sayet via the Heritage Foundation. It's 48 minutes long & worth every second.
Send this man a ringtail hat!
In one day, we've learned from Darwinism that all humans are insane and that Neanderthals were as smart as us! Is there anything it can't explain?
Transcript of Sayet's talk is here.
Hey! The press release for the event got et:
Evan Sayet has been a top Hollywood writer and producer for more than 20 years. His credits range from “The Arsenio Hall Show” to “Politically Incorrect.” After the Sept. 11 attacks, Sayet decided to step from behind the camera and speak out in his own voice – that of one of the nation’s top political satirists. At Heritage, his entertaining yet quite serious lecture will examine the modern liberal “mindset” and how it can lead to siding with evil over good and behaviors that produce failure rather than success.
According to accounts by Mirra Alfassa, Hitler had the sponsorship of a being from the vital world that he conferred with.
Not to be confused with a manifestatin of his own mind--this was a bona fide "daemon" if you would, and it fed Hitler the information on when to attack, what to say, who to say it to, etc, in making descisions. He had the guidance of a nefarious being from another plane.
Mirra claims to have seen the thing herself (she had the ability to see beings). It was blue (like the abdomen of a horsefly), and shiny, and glittery, and spoke with a great booming voice. Hitler was awed and entranced by the appearance of power it radiated. He unquestioningly did everything this being suggested to him.
Sounds nuts, but there you have it.
Yes, I'm saving the best for last...
From Homer's article:
"When we think of Neanderthals we need to stop thinking in terms of 'stupid' or 'less advanced' and more in terms of 'different'.""
Apparently, some of these archaeologists have been taking the Geico Caveman commercials a tad too seriously...
"Their work suggests the tools Neanderthals used were just as efficient, if not more so, than those developed by Homo sapiens."
And as Ray should say, what more is there to ask for?
... or maybe, in view of the previous article, evolution just naturaly selected for the hominid that managed to attain the skill of insanity.
I think it's a reflection of the same impulse that makes these academics hate America and love Castro or Chavez. They detest Homo sapiens but idealize Neanderthals.
It never even occurs to these academics that Neanderthals were not as intelligent as the conservatives for whom they express such contempt.
At least I'm consistent -- I have no use for liberals or Neanderthals (at risk of making a distinction without a difference).
If there's a difference, I'd guess it's that liberals tend to be less hairy, what with the comparative lack of testosterone.
Oh... well, obviously the homo sapiens unfairly won out, I mean... come on!
I mean, how can you get any more Noble in the savage dept, than the species we speciestically exterminated, #1 on the the list of species Mankind has made extinct?
I mean... you just know that the Neanderthals (French, don't you know) had that wizened gaze, tinged with a knowing hint of sadness, sure that their beloved ice age would eventually be globally melted away by these materialistic housemen homo-sapiens!
($@*%!#$ homo-sapiens probably ruthlessly cornered the stone-ax market by putting the Neanderthal Mom & Pop family ax stores out of business with cut-throat rockWal-Marts)
Well, I read the essay that Julie linked for us. The first three quarters read like sourpuss central, the grown up equivalent of a spoiled brat having a tantrum.
But the concluding paragraphs were spot on. De glamorize your relationships, all of them, if you want a life of ease and grace. If you load relationships with expectations you will create misery.
Sex, money, and conversation. Those are the basic perks of having a mate. Any more is gravy. Find your bliss elsewhere.
If a mate fails to deliver services, then you may in all fairness, if they be of sound body, release them to somebody else who can make use of them. Hanging on is not a good thing for anyone.
New mates are plentiful and easy to come by; if they deliver good sex, can talk to you, and do not drag you into financial ruin, bingo, you've got game.
Thanks for the wisdom, Hef!
Anon,
Would you classify yourself as a sex perv?
The concluding paragraphs? You mean, like this one:
"Maybe one day, marriage -- like the human appendix, male nipples, or your pinky toes -- will become a vestigial structure that will, in a millennium or two, be obsolete. Our great-great-great-grandchildren's grandchildren will ask each other in passing, "Remember marriage? What was its function again? Was it that maladaptive organ that intermittently produced gastrointestinal antigens and sometimes got so inflamed that it painfully erupted?""
Or was it this part:
"The more readily we acknowledge the solid utility of marriage (as one friend's husband put it, "I'm essentially a checkbook and a sperm bank -- but I'm okay with that!")"
No marriage - no human relationship, for that matter - is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is setting themselves up for major disappointment, I agree.
But.
"If you load relationships with expectations you will create misery."
You mean, expectations such as fidelity, trust, partnership, friendship? Why in the world wouldn't you have those expectations? This is a relationship which, ideally, will last as long as you both live. If you don't have a few very basic expectations, a few transcendent ideals which you strive to attain together, you're going to be deeply miserable. The loss of any of the above expectations would probably be a deal-breaker for me. There is far more to a good marriage than sex, money and conversation.
Life is too short and precious to spend it with someone who doesn't bring you joy, more often than not. I realize that's a rare and precious thing to find these days, not least because to have true joy in someone else you must be able to be happy within yourself. But it's an Absolutely worthy goal.
Well, Julie, I see your point. Settling for the absolute minimum is not the best way to live. Some happy medium would be the best; sex, money, converstation, and a little something more...
And, I don't agree that marriage should be done away with. Children need their parents in one for psychogical stability.
But aside from that, the hunt for the mate that "makes you happy" is a spiritual blunder. Better to be mateless than to load the union with the burden of your happiness.
"Ease and Grace." These are the good things; peaceful serenity is the state you seek. Your mate cannot give this state to you, nor take it away. That is the take-home message.
So, the woman in the essay, in her roundabout way, was trying to say just that. Divorce is an option that you need in your arsenal of options, just like the option to quit a job, hire an employee, take a sabbatical, or what have you. If no exit can be seen for the marriage, then the inevitable resualt is high anxiety.
So, be ready, willing, and able to "fire" your mate if they become untenable. If you can't face losing your mate, then you are pinned and cannot have ease and grace.
That prayer... man. I might become a priest just so I can stand up in things like that and say "O Heavenly King..."
(Not a good reason to become a priest, but still...)
Oh, and anony
You can't fire your mate
Can you fire your leg?
Not without a saw...
Anon,
Is "delivering good sex" a "must have" expectation?
Should it be on a regularly scheduled delivery or on as "as needed" basis?
Which partner carries the delivery burden?
Which determines the need?
And which partner has the ultimate authority in determining the schedule?
Does your universe revolve around your crotch?
And lastly, are you serious?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Hoarhey said "Does your universe revolve around your crotch?"
Ooh! One of the best lines ever!
" And lastly, are you serious?"
Yes, Why ssso ssserious?
I'm guessing it's the "80% of my posts revolve around my sexual proclivities" anon.
"You can't fire your mate
Can you fire your leg?
Not without a saw..."
Precisely what I was thinking. Just not quite so graphically. :)
Yeah, the 'all relationships are power-struggles' one.
yawn.
Van, Julie:
*sigh*
You two obviously have no idea of how the brutal hand of Natural Selection sweeps one specie (Neanderthals) aside for another (that would be us). You see- Homo Sapiens evolved music and dance as a way to get babes. Neanderthals depended on the the tried-and-true, 'catch her from behind and club her a good one' mthod. Eventually all the Neanderthal chicks started trying to hang out with the Sapiens dudes, but the Sapiens dudes would have none of it. Who wants a chick who's hairier than you, eats her meat live, and can kick you ass in a fight? Well- if the truth were known, some of the Sapiens dudes would sometimes get a little too drunk on cave beer, and go for a Neanderthal chick if they thought no one was looking- that's how we got hippies.
Anyway- the Neanderthal guys weren't getting any loving. They were too stupid to get the hang of music, they couldn't even rap. So they got the Blues, but couldn't make songs about it. All that Blue backed up inside them, and they just got too sad to carry on. The Neanderthals just faded away, man.
JWM
"Well- if the truth were known, some of the Sapiens dudes would sometimes get a little too drunk on cave beer, and go for a Neanderthal chick if they thought no one was looking- that's how we got hippies."
Oh, so that's where they came from. Obviously, I was never taught the True facts of life.
:D
Hey!, that's the most realistic picture of Neanderthal I've ever seen! Kind of reminds me of some of the people I know. :O) HO!
Just my personal off-the-cabeza domino effect theory of history about the mess that some the northern Europeans are in: the neanderthals never really died! The form just changed and indwelling spirits transmigrated to humans who now occupy much of the geography of that area! HA! It explains everything! :O) HO!
That dissafected dame mentions the Clash song "Should I Stay or Should I Go". The song that comes to mind for me is, "Keep away from Runaround Sue".
Also, interesting how Darwinists and libs both persist in their denial of the existece of pure evil. I think there may be two reasons for that:
1. It would force them to acknowldege the existence of God. Gaia Forbid!!
2. It would shatter their Utopianism, that inconvenient fact that there is inherent evil inside mankind. That lurking evil makes having a worldwide Koombayah campfire rather unlikely, just as it brought a quick end to the Summer of Love in Frisco. Evil is with us always, and makes such unpleasantries as war and punishment necessary to reign it in to the extent that civilization can function. When the events of the last chapter of Revelation are fulfilled, it will cease, but, until then, we must persist in combatting it wherever it rises up, whether that be Burma or Berkeley.
Ricky, I just posted along the same lines this morning, The Sad History of Current Events,
"What, after all, does a tyrant like Putin see when looking at what they know they hold together by might alone, by emotion and the fist keeping the pieces knocked together, there's no inner cohesion of integrated truth to rely upon, no rights or laws people can trust in and with you, only emotion for mother russia overcoming the shame of defeat, and the might to enforce it. With that perspective, what is the status of the Republic of Georgia on it's borders? No matter the corruption present, they stand for Republicanism, for Freedom... that dear friends, is a poisonous threat! Poland? Latvia? Lithuania? Estonia? Threats! How can Putin possibly use his fists from the outside, to hold together what is pulling apart from the inside? And as the KGB knows only too well, such thoughts spread across borders sooo fast."
We expect them to abide by 'international law' (a meaningless term if there ever was one)... we should take a look at the population of our prisons to judge what regard criminals have for real law, let alone faux laws.
Van Vrekhem begins with the modest proposal that in attempting to wrap out minds around an "effect" of such magnitude, there must be a cause of equal magnitude.
Earthquakes and avalanches have lots of little causes, not different in kind, that add up to a big effect.
Van - And as Ray should say, what more is there to ask for?
Ah, yes. Of course. Tool use is the only thing that I've ever said distinguishes humans from all other species. Guess I should take a page from Nomo. :->
For example, to place humans and animals on the same level merely obliterates the space where truth can be known, and a truth-bearing animal is infinitely higher than one without this capacity.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Infinitely" != "orthgonal to"
Ray - I thought that'd smoke you out. Just missed you.
(and of course it was true, but that's beside the point)
;-)
Ray, btw, good choice with the Nomo link... you should read that again, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Psst! Ray! In the context of One Cosmos, Vertical is not an orthogonal reference.
And for the non-C, Java, etc programmers out there, "!=" equals "Not equal to".
Also very apropos of Ray.
Bob expounds about "parasites on truth" and Ray shows up quoting scripture. Perfect.
Van - In the context of One Cosmos, Vertical is not an orthogonal reference.
I glanced over the Beatles bit before, and that's not really true. The Beatles were playing a different game than anyone else, they were not "literally infinitely" superior. sure, they sounded similar to others, but baseball looks a lot like cricket to the uninitiated. Points in a phase space don't have to be "infinitely" far away from each other to have completely different characters.
Van - I actually have a life (that's not at all parasitic on this website, surprisingly) and I was off living it for a few days. But then, you don't believe in coincidences... :->
Ray said "I was off living it for a few days. But then, you don't believe in coincidences... :->"
Have you noticed how... creepy your smiley looks? Kind of alien-looking-in-the-window-ish?
Maybe if you put a hat on it,
(:->
no,
{:->
uh-uh,
=:->
no. Just kind of... oh... I dunno... devilish, I suppose.
Coincidence? Hmmm.
The most fascinating thing about the VanRay experience is that it often seems to happen yesterday.
It might start today, but it never stays there.
It's always receeding into the past.
Ever read any Barbara Tuchman Ray?
Post a Comment