Sunday, January 31, 2010
Female Narcissim. Stating the Obvious.
An interesting article in The Daily Mail. Note, narcissism seems to be increasing for both sexes but especially for the fairer sex.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thoughts on the Beautiful and Sublime: A Reply to Thursday.
Commentator Thursday put up quite a good post on the subject of the beautiful and the sublime. I thought I'd offer him a reply.
Whilst I am a conservative, I've never been a big fan of Burke. Burke's meditations on beauty, as his meditations on politics, seem to display more description of the fact rather than an understanding of the subject. His describes conservatism more than he understands it; likewise on the subject of beauty.
To a certain degree, I subscribe to the Platonic idea of Forms, and the more perfectly a thing resembles the form from which it partakes, the less flawed it is. Everyone, I imagine, has seen the comedy skit of the beautiful woman who enchants the man until she smiles,revealing her rotten teeth, at which point the man becomes repulsed. The "flaw" in the woman quashing the sensation of beauty. In fact it's quite interesting to speculate as to why there even is such a thing as perfect teeth. Why does a certain arrangement and colour of teeth give us pleasure and deviation from that ideal lead to the sensation of progressive repulsion?
It would appear, at least to my mind, that the mind has pre-concieved notions of how things should be or if you believe in the supernatural, the mind the has the capacity to recognise things as they are meant to be.
This capacity to recognise "perfection" is a sense of the intellect. In the same way we can feel pleasure from our physical sense organs, stimulatating the intellect through sense data, i.e sight can cause pleasure to arise in the intellect. Beauty is the pleasurable sensation felt in intellect's apprehension of the perfection of form. Ugliness, it opposite.
Thinking of beauty this way explains things which a first would seem incompatible. A gargoyle, which is physically repulsive, has its beauty insofar as it conforms to the perfect form of a gargoyle. War, something so horrible and destructive, can also generate a sense of beauty insofar as it is a perfect example of war. This why we can speak of things as "terrible beauties", things that are bad but perfectly bad.
The appreciation of beauty is also contingent on the intellect, that's why we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The ignorance or refinement of the intellect determines the conditional status of the perception of beauty. The cultivated man and the moron will disagree with regard to the nature of beauty as the dullard's intellect, through either deficiency or habituated neglect, is incapable of apprehending the perfection of form. To a dullard, beauty is reduced to its most primitive form; sexual. The refined man wants more because his intellect is habituated to demand more.
With regard to female beauty, I think its wrong to think that there is one type of female beauty, in the same way that one can err in thinking there is only one type of perfect colour. In order for a woman to be beautiful she must approach perfection as a woman and in the specific features that distinguish herself. Audrey Hepburn with a scar on her face does not equal Grace Kelly with a pimple on her nose. Rather each woman becomes more beautiful as she approaches the perfection of herself. The less flawed a woman is the more beautiful she becomes.
This of course leads us to the concept of the sublime. The sensation of the sublime become more apparent as the subject apprehended by the intellect approaches perfection. Then not only does the intellect percieve the subjects perfection of form but the subject in question is apprehended in its entirety. Mountains are meant to be thought of as dangerous, oceans and the night skies vast, the desert barren. A man standing on the beach alone infront of the vast sea is meant to be feel both beauty, awe and terror as the see is capable of inspiring all these things. As the the thing apprehended by the intellect approaches more perfectly it's form, it also becomes more efficient in transmitting to the intellect its nature. Marilyn Monroe "oozed sexuality" because she closely approached one of the forms of female sexuality. The intellect could apprehend her sexuality without effort. Thefore objects which are meant elicit fear become more efficient in eliciting the effect the more perfectly they approach the form of the thing they are meant to be. Tiger cubs progressively elicit more fear as they become adult tigers. It follows therefore that some of the fear associated with beauty arises from the nature of the thing considered beautiful.
However, there is another aspect of beauty that needs to be considered, and that is once beauty is apprehended, men seek to keep it in their gaze; they desire to posses it. Failure to achieve it is a cause of grief and pain. And just as beauty is a positive sensation arising from the sense of the intellect, fear is also a sensation of the intellect based upon the intellect's perception of potential loss. A fearful man is a man who percieves he is in a position where he can potentially lose something. Be it his material possessions, pscyhological well-being or his life. Once a thing lost, grief sets in. Grief is the intellect's sense of loss. It follows therefore the more beautiful a woman a man desires, the more fear their will be at his approach, since he wishes to gain what he finds beautiful. It is in the intellect's appreciation of the fear of rejection from whence the fear associated with beauty arises.
There fore the fear associate with beauty can arise from fear projected by the nature of the object apprehended by the intellect and by potential of pleasure that loss of that object.
The Bilble says that no man can see the face of God and live. For years I thought this meant that God would punish a man for looking at him, but I was wrong. Dante gave the first clue to my intellectual error. When Dante first gazes upon Beatrice she tells him to turn away from him, as her beauty will kill him. The film, Somewhere in Time deals with the same theme, of a man so capitvated by the beauty of the woman he loves that he simply wills himself to death.(Yes, I know its soppy) It think it is this mechanism that kills men when gazing upon God. Seeing him we will fall in love with him instantly and not wish to live on this earthly vale any more. The judgement of God will be in that moment where he decides whether to accept us or not. The terror for a moment will be horrifying since the potential loss will be everything. The damned will be those whom falling in love with God upon seeing him will be rejected. Their grief will be eternal. The terror of beauty is in its possible rejection of us.
Whilst I am a conservative, I've never been a big fan of Burke. Burke's meditations on beauty, as his meditations on politics, seem to display more description of the fact rather than an understanding of the subject. His describes conservatism more than he understands it; likewise on the subject of beauty.
To a certain degree, I subscribe to the Platonic idea of Forms, and the more perfectly a thing resembles the form from which it partakes, the less flawed it is. Everyone, I imagine, has seen the comedy skit of the beautiful woman who enchants the man until she smiles,revealing her rotten teeth, at which point the man becomes repulsed. The "flaw" in the woman quashing the sensation of beauty. In fact it's quite interesting to speculate as to why there even is such a thing as perfect teeth. Why does a certain arrangement and colour of teeth give us pleasure and deviation from that ideal lead to the sensation of progressive repulsion?
It would appear, at least to my mind, that the mind has pre-concieved notions of how things should be or if you believe in the supernatural, the mind the has the capacity to recognise things as they are meant to be.
This capacity to recognise "perfection" is a sense of the intellect. In the same way we can feel pleasure from our physical sense organs, stimulatating the intellect through sense data, i.e sight can cause pleasure to arise in the intellect. Beauty is the pleasurable sensation felt in intellect's apprehension of the perfection of form. Ugliness, it opposite.
Thinking of beauty this way explains things which a first would seem incompatible. A gargoyle, which is physically repulsive, has its beauty insofar as it conforms to the perfect form of a gargoyle. War, something so horrible and destructive, can also generate a sense of beauty insofar as it is a perfect example of war. This why we can speak of things as "terrible beauties", things that are bad but perfectly bad.
The appreciation of beauty is also contingent on the intellect, that's why we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The ignorance or refinement of the intellect determines the conditional status of the perception of beauty. The cultivated man and the moron will disagree with regard to the nature of beauty as the dullard's intellect, through either deficiency or habituated neglect, is incapable of apprehending the perfection of form. To a dullard, beauty is reduced to its most primitive form; sexual. The refined man wants more because his intellect is habituated to demand more.
With regard to female beauty, I think its wrong to think that there is one type of female beauty, in the same way that one can err in thinking there is only one type of perfect colour. In order for a woman to be beautiful she must approach perfection as a woman and in the specific features that distinguish herself. Audrey Hepburn with a scar on her face does not equal Grace Kelly with a pimple on her nose. Rather each woman becomes more beautiful as she approaches the perfection of herself. The less flawed a woman is the more beautiful she becomes.
This of course leads us to the concept of the sublime. The sensation of the sublime become more apparent as the subject apprehended by the intellect approaches perfection. Then not only does the intellect percieve the subjects perfection of form but the subject in question is apprehended in its entirety. Mountains are meant to be thought of as dangerous, oceans and the night skies vast, the desert barren. A man standing on the beach alone infront of the vast sea is meant to be feel both beauty, awe and terror as the see is capable of inspiring all these things. As the the thing apprehended by the intellect approaches more perfectly it's form, it also becomes more efficient in transmitting to the intellect its nature. Marilyn Monroe "oozed sexuality" because she closely approached one of the forms of female sexuality. The intellect could apprehend her sexuality without effort. Thefore objects which are meant elicit fear become more efficient in eliciting the effect the more perfectly they approach the form of the thing they are meant to be. Tiger cubs progressively elicit more fear as they become adult tigers. It follows therefore that some of the fear associated with beauty arises from the nature of the thing considered beautiful.
However, there is another aspect of beauty that needs to be considered, and that is once beauty is apprehended, men seek to keep it in their gaze; they desire to posses it. Failure to achieve it is a cause of grief and pain. And just as beauty is a positive sensation arising from the sense of the intellect, fear is also a sensation of the intellect based upon the intellect's perception of potential loss. A fearful man is a man who percieves he is in a position where he can potentially lose something. Be it his material possessions, pscyhological well-being or his life. Once a thing lost, grief sets in. Grief is the intellect's sense of loss. It follows therefore the more beautiful a woman a man desires, the more fear their will be at his approach, since he wishes to gain what he finds beautiful. It is in the intellect's appreciation of the fear of rejection from whence the fear associated with beauty arises.
There fore the fear associate with beauty can arise from fear projected by the nature of the object apprehended by the intellect and by potential of pleasure that loss of that object.
The Bilble says that no man can see the face of God and live. For years I thought this meant that God would punish a man for looking at him, but I was wrong. Dante gave the first clue to my intellectual error. When Dante first gazes upon Beatrice she tells him to turn away from him, as her beauty will kill him. The film, Somewhere in Time deals with the same theme, of a man so capitvated by the beauty of the woman he loves that he simply wills himself to death.(Yes, I know its soppy) It think it is this mechanism that kills men when gazing upon God. Seeing him we will fall in love with him instantly and not wish to live on this earthly vale any more. The judgement of God will be in that moment where he decides whether to accept us or not. The terror for a moment will be horrifying since the potential loss will be everything. The damned will be those whom falling in love with God upon seeing him will be rejected. Their grief will be eternal. The terror of beauty is in its possible rejection of us.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Mencken on Democracy.
Next time you wondering why government sucks and why they can't do anything right, ponder these thoughts by H.L. Mencken:
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.In a democracy, the fools that govern us have earned their right by popular assent. The morons in government are the mirror of the people. The people stink.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Idiot.
More wisdom from the Fairfax Press.
What do Haitians need most? To get away from Haiti
Haiti is dysfunctional society because it is run by Haitians. And while the disaster is Haiti is truly terrible: it is terrible and yet utterly predictable. Professor Hale has commented on the disaster and its causes and quite simply, he's right. Poor building practices in a corrupt society mean that building codes(which no one even to bothered to propose ) don't get enforced. When the inevitable earthquake happens, the predictable disaster ensures. Tragedy.
But poor building practices are not the result of government fiat, but of a culture. A culture that values the short term over the long and culture that places little value on life itself. The War Nerd wrote an interesting article on the culture of Haiti. Bottom line; a corrupt society from the top to the bottom. Once again for my pea brained detractors, not all Haitians are corrupt; only most of them. Now this may be cruel thing to say to a nation which has suffered so much misfortune, but facts are facts, Haitian culture does not seem to be able to produce men capable of disinterested service even in the midst of so much foreign aid.
Now I can understanding that people are moved by the plight of Haitian individuals caught up in the earthquake, but feeling good about oneself and actually doing something useful are two different things. Now Chris Berg's article is full of errors which will compound the problem instead of making it better but the question I want to ask is, should we be importing people from a dysfunctional culture which is the product of those same people?
People who are pro-immigration tend to ignore this fact. The influx of Italian migrants into Australia and the U.S. was not a one sided thing. In importing Italians, America and Australia profited from both a better cuisine and worse a criminal element, the Mafia. And whilst on balance, I think Italian migration a good thing, it serves to illustrate the point that when a man brings in migrants he brings in more than just the man, but his ideas, his culture and the way he lives. Of course the dominant culture also makes its mark, so what happens in the end that a fusion occurs, the flavour of which is dependent on the elements of the mix. S
Now the question to ask is, are there cultures which are bad, which are incompatible with our way of life? Do we want more Haitian culture in our society? A culture that seems to glorify the thug, the bling king, self interest and opportunism. A cursory look would suggest not, and idiot would propose spreading the contagion around the world.
To a pro-immigrationist, multiculturalism means a different cuisine every night, retiring home to your uppity white suburb at night. The wogs are good to visit but you don't really want to live with them. The problem though is though, if you bring enough people from a bad culture into your country you also bring a bit of that bad country in as well. As many your own poorer people who--because of economic necessity--have to live next to the newly arrived immigrants will tell you, not all immigrants are fun to be around with. But that demographic does not make social policy. The world does not need more Haitis.
In fact the only time Haiti ever seemed to have a period of prosperity was when American culture was forcibly imported into Haiti. Some cultures seem to bring more benefit than others.
What Haiti needs is not exodus of its people but good governance, and if the local culture can't produce men that can govern humanely then perhaps humane men should force good governance on Haiti from the outside. This of course is true but politically incorrect.
What do Haitians need most? To get away from Haiti
Haiti is dysfunctional society because it is run by Haitians. And while the disaster is Haiti is truly terrible: it is terrible and yet utterly predictable. Professor Hale has commented on the disaster and its causes and quite simply, he's right. Poor building practices in a corrupt society mean that building codes(which no one even to bothered to propose ) don't get enforced. When the inevitable earthquake happens, the predictable disaster ensures. Tragedy.
But poor building practices are not the result of government fiat, but of a culture. A culture that values the short term over the long and culture that places little value on life itself. The War Nerd wrote an interesting article on the culture of Haiti. Bottom line; a corrupt society from the top to the bottom. Once again for my pea brained detractors, not all Haitians are corrupt; only most of them. Now this may be cruel thing to say to a nation which has suffered so much misfortune, but facts are facts, Haitian culture does not seem to be able to produce men capable of disinterested service even in the midst of so much foreign aid.
Now I can understanding that people are moved by the plight of Haitian individuals caught up in the earthquake, but feeling good about oneself and actually doing something useful are two different things. Now Chris Berg's article is full of errors which will compound the problem instead of making it better but the question I want to ask is, should we be importing people from a dysfunctional culture which is the product of those same people?
People who are pro-immigration tend to ignore this fact. The influx of Italian migrants into Australia and the U.S. was not a one sided thing. In importing Italians, America and Australia profited from both a better cuisine and worse a criminal element, the Mafia. And whilst on balance, I think Italian migration a good thing, it serves to illustrate the point that when a man brings in migrants he brings in more than just the man, but his ideas, his culture and the way he lives. Of course the dominant culture also makes its mark, so what happens in the end that a fusion occurs, the flavour of which is dependent on the elements of the mix. S
Now the question to ask is, are there cultures which are bad, which are incompatible with our way of life? Do we want more Haitian culture in our society? A culture that seems to glorify the thug, the bling king, self interest and opportunism. A cursory look would suggest not, and idiot would propose spreading the contagion around the world.
To a pro-immigrationist, multiculturalism means a different cuisine every night, retiring home to your uppity white suburb at night. The wogs are good to visit but you don't really want to live with them. The problem though is though, if you bring enough people from a bad culture into your country you also bring a bit of that bad country in as well. As many your own poorer people who--because of economic necessity--have to live next to the newly arrived immigrants will tell you, not all immigrants are fun to be around with. But that demographic does not make social policy. The world does not need more Haitis.
In fact the only time Haiti ever seemed to have a period of prosperity was when American culture was forcibly imported into Haiti. Some cultures seem to bring more benefit than others.
What Haiti needs is not exodus of its people but good governance, and if the local culture can't produce men that can govern humanely then perhaps humane men should force good governance on Haiti from the outside. This of course is true but politically incorrect.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Ghost of Lionel Murphy.
I imagine most of my North American readers will not know who Lionel Murphy was. As part of the 1972 Whitlam Labour Government, Lionel Murphy was appointed as Attorney General of Australia. This government in my opinion was the most destructive and influential force to ever hit the social fabric of Australia.
To American readers, to get an idea of the effect of the 1972 Labour government on Australia, it was like being catapulted from 1950's America to 1972 America in the space of 3 years. It was a heady time that even I, in my childhood then, can remember
One of "Lionel's" most influential "achievements" was the introduction of "no fault" divorce. An idea whose malignity has corroded the core of the Australian family. I live the reality of the consequence of this socially progressive legislation every day. Impoverished and depressed single mothers, neglected and undisciplined children, lonely men and grandparents who have a new role in being the primary carers for their children. By and large the biggest losers of "no fault" divorce are women and children, and of course you can guess who were its strongest proponents; the "caring" Left and feminists.
It was this case (It's worth following the link)that got me thinking about Lionel. The good and well mannered father getting totally screwed over by the legal system. But the the real victims here are the children who will have his capricious wife's bad behaviour as example and who not have the example of their father. The other victims will be other women. What man in his right mind will want to marry on these terms? Through the mind of every young man that reads this story will run the thought that this too could happen to me. Just as each crime makes us a little more wary of strangers, so to does each unjust divorce make us wary of marriage.
The party that is premised on class war was never going to be a good planner of social cohesion.
The hundreds of thousands of kids who are going to bed tonight with one parent only, can thank Lionel. So can the single mums who are tired, alone and struggling to make ends meet. So are the men who are drinking themselves drunk out of loneliness. Lionel's ghost haunts them all.
For what its worth, Lionel Murphy died disgraced. Not that you would guess it from his fellow travellers. He was convicted of corruption but avoided jail because of prostate cancer. Still the Christian in me thinks that justice is being done. Pity the poor children.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Till Death Do Us Part................Sort of.
The HILDA Survey, run by the University of Melbourne, is a large survey into the demographics and opinions of approximately 19,000 Australians. Recently I was leafing through it searching for income distribution data when I came upon some data which some of my readers might find of interest. Considering that Australia is part of the Anglosphere, I think that it's findings could be considered as broadly applicable to rest of it.
The data in question concerned itself with attitudes towards marriage and relationships. The people surveyed were given specific questions and their answers are given below.
(click on the image for a clearer view)
1) That Marriage is an outdated institution.
Comment: It whilst the majority of people still believe in marriage, women are still its biggest supporters.
2) It is alright for an unmarried couple to live together.
Comment: I think this is a good measure of how de-Christianised the country has become. Practical Christianity as opposed to theoretical.
3) That Marriage is a lifetime relationship and should never be ended.
Comment: Whilst most people believe in marriage, it seems that serial monogamy is what they consider as "marriage".The majority of people do not believe that marriage is a permanent state. Curiously, that in this age where men are afraid to commit, except for the 20-24 age group, men seem more committed to the idea that marriage is permanent than women. Something that I wouldn't have expected given that women seem more preoccupied with getting married.
4)That it is alright to divorce even if you have children.
Comment: Once again, another surprising finding. It would appear that the majority of women, with the exception of the elderly, do not see the incentive in staying in the marriage for the sake of the children, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is detrimental to their well being. Sticking together for the sake of their children seems to be something men, especially younger ones, are prepared to do.
5) That it is alright for a woman to have a child as a lone parent.
Comment: Once again the "caring sex" shows that, especially in the child rearing years, self gratification overrides child well being. It must be admitted though, that the majority of both sexes see sole parenthood negatively.
6) That Children are happier living with both mum and dad.
Comment: I personally found these findings horrifying. Amongst the majority of women in their reproductive years, the ideal of a two person family had been abandoned. Please note that men did not share these views. It would appear that a majority of women have a more "flexible" idea of what constitutes and ideal family than men. It is then no surprise at what the results were when the following question was asked.
7) Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Comment: Whilst the majority of women don't support gay marriage rights, it would appear that an uncomfortably significant minority would support such a measure.
Looking at these findings it is of no surprise that the majority of divorce is instituted by women. Whereas men seem to see marriage as a commitment, women seem to see it more as a relationship. More importantly, women seem to see it solipsistically; their conception of marriage being a state recognised relationship rather than a commitment of two people to each other, through thick and thin. I make that statement on the observation that the well being of the children is secondary to the quality of the relationship. The idea that a mother and father are necessary for a child seems to be a concept that has been abandoned by a majority of women as an ideal. Children, according to the majority of women, can thrive equally in any type of "committed" relationship. This my friends is Bullshit. Men and women it would seem have different conceptions of what marriage is.
Now it needs to be stated that not all women think this way, but it would appear that the majority do. I really do like women and am not naturally misogynistic, but when I see figures like those above........................it really makes you wonder.
(Note: The above tables were reproduced without permission from The Statistical Report of the Third Hilda Survey found here. I have reproduced them in good faith on fair use grounds.)
The data in question concerned itself with attitudes towards marriage and relationships. The people surveyed were given specific questions and their answers are given below.
(click on the image for a clearer view)
1) That Marriage is an outdated institution.
Comment: It whilst the majority of people still believe in marriage, women are still its biggest supporters.
2) It is alright for an unmarried couple to live together.
Comment: I think this is a good measure of how de-Christianised the country has become. Practical Christianity as opposed to theoretical.
3) That Marriage is a lifetime relationship and should never be ended.
Comment: Whilst most people believe in marriage, it seems that serial monogamy is what they consider as "marriage".The majority of people do not believe that marriage is a permanent state. Curiously, that in this age where men are afraid to commit, except for the 20-24 age group, men seem more committed to the idea that marriage is permanent than women. Something that I wouldn't have expected given that women seem more preoccupied with getting married.
4)That it is alright to divorce even if you have children.
Comment: Once again, another surprising finding. It would appear that the majority of women, with the exception of the elderly, do not see the incentive in staying in the marriage for the sake of the children, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is detrimental to their well being. Sticking together for the sake of their children seems to be something men, especially younger ones, are prepared to do.
5) That it is alright for a woman to have a child as a lone parent.
Comment: Once again the "caring sex" shows that, especially in the child rearing years, self gratification overrides child well being. It must be admitted though, that the majority of both sexes see sole parenthood negatively.
6) That Children are happier living with both mum and dad.
Comment: I personally found these findings horrifying. Amongst the majority of women in their reproductive years, the ideal of a two person family had been abandoned. Please note that men did not share these views. It would appear that a majority of women have a more "flexible" idea of what constitutes and ideal family than men. It is then no surprise at what the results were when the following question was asked.
7) Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Comment: Whilst the majority of women don't support gay marriage rights, it would appear that an uncomfortably significant minority would support such a measure.
Looking at these findings it is of no surprise that the majority of divorce is instituted by women. Whereas men seem to see marriage as a commitment, women seem to see it more as a relationship. More importantly, women seem to see it solipsistically; their conception of marriage being a state recognised relationship rather than a commitment of two people to each other, through thick and thin. I make that statement on the observation that the well being of the children is secondary to the quality of the relationship. The idea that a mother and father are necessary for a child seems to be a concept that has been abandoned by a majority of women as an ideal. Children, according to the majority of women, can thrive equally in any type of "committed" relationship. This my friends is Bullshit. Men and women it would seem have different conceptions of what marriage is.
Now it needs to be stated that not all women think this way, but it would appear that the majority do. I really do like women and am not naturally misogynistic, but when I see figures like those above........................it really makes you wonder.
(Note: The above tables were reproduced without permission from The Statistical Report of the Third Hilda Survey found here. I have reproduced them in good faith on fair use grounds.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
