Alpha Submission.

Trawling through the pabulum of the blogosphere yields usually not much more that the inane ramblings of the inane, but every now and then you hit an iceberg which stops you dead in your tracks. One such post, by commentatrix Aoefe, deserves high praise. Read it here.

I've got to admire Aoefe for "coming out" and admitting that she likes being submissive. In these days of enforced behavioural androgyny masquerading as equality, I found it refreshing to hear from someone who does not feel the need to boss someone around and is quite happy to let someone else take control. The comments box makes for interesting reading and it got me thinking, what exactly is submissivity? Or, more importantly, what is feminine submissivity? I got the impression the Aoefe had some trouble articulating the type of submissivity that she had in mind. I hope this helps.

As we are trying to understand the male female dynamic, our understanding needs to be relational and distinctive. I propose to look at this from the male perspective, and define femininity as it is understood in the real world, as the features present in a woman that make her attractive to a man. Some may quibble with this definition but the attraction a man feels towards a woman can be pretty much predicted on the basis of on the universally recognised qualities that a woman can possess. It also needs to be recognised that there will be a degree of variance in the perception of femininity dependant upon the particular tastes of the male, but common sense tells us that there are certain self-evident norms which can be distinguished.

Assuming we are not asking the simian end of the bell curve, we begin by asking ourselves what qualities man finds pleasing in women. Factors such as high intelligence and orginsationa skills are qualities that a man may find attractive in both sexes so they really aren't to be considered feminine. What we are interested in the qualities that are particular to women. The list, though by no means exhaustive, would include things like physical beauty, refinement in speech and action, a certain delicacy of being, emotion, cleanliness and so on. These features are the the ones which attract men to women, men consider them feminine, men find them pleasing.

Femininity also tends to be a bit of all or nothing affair. A woman who looks great, speaks politely in public and is gracious, does not have it if she farts in public. Likewise, a woman may have good manners and girly emotions, but if she is morbidly obese she is not really considered feminine. A woman who yells and argues at her husband, even if justified, in public is not considered feminine. Femininity tends to be a quality that requires a certain amount of self-control to achieve and hence femininity is a choice; an act of the will.

This line of thinking is confirmed in women who choose to act in ways that is considered unfeminine. Many porn stars are physically attractive but most men do not consider them feminine. Many feminists usually act in ways which are deliberately masculine and are said to be feminine only in their physical sex and are devoid of any femininity.

Now what the will does is determined by the nature of the person; an evil man does ill, a good man good, a rude and brutish man will perform rude and brutish acts and so on. A woman then with a feminine nature feminine way and since we have said that our definition of femininity are the qualities of a woman which a man finds attractive, a consciously choose to be feminine will deliberately act in a way which pleases men; it's in her nature. I think Aoefe is right, that a feminine woman wants to act in a way that appears superficially submissive; the femine woman wants to be pleasing to her man.

Now the important point here is to consider why she is acting in this way. What are her psychic drives? What motivates her to this course of action?

Well in the first instance, a woman may chose to act in this way because she wants to. In other words, her actions are not forced by external pressure or internal psychological factors. This woman is content with herself and her actions. She retains what psychiatrists would call an "internal locus of control"

Eternal observers of this woman's relationship with a man would view the woman's relationship as submissive. The woman in this relationship would aim to please her man and may appear to be making many sacrifices for him. But they would fail to recognise that the woman is doing this out of choice and not coercion and that there is no submission at all. Thus your traditional woman who freely chooses to stay at home and live the Stepford wife lifestyle, is pilloried by her feminist sisters who mock her "submissive" lifestyle. The feminists are the one's who have got it wrong. The woman and the man in this type of relationship have complemented each other and they are actually psychological equals, this is a relationship of equality. The feminists, through social opprobrium are the ones trying to get the woman to accept their ideology; they are the coercives.

Many people who have astutely observed the nature of many Mediterranean marriages will recognise this woman. She has her man, she looks after him through her marriage and regards feminists, particularly Anglo-feminists, with contempt. In no way is she coerced by her husband to do anything, she runs the house and he whatever else. Labour is not divided according to negotiation but through natural adaptation.

It also needs to recognised that the "externalities" of the relationship don't really matter. A woman may have a highly successful career and the husband may stay at home. The point being that the husband and wife have both achieved a mutually satisfying relationship within the context of her feminine nature. They complement each other. But the important point here is that she hasn't negotiated the position like a business partner or an "equal", rather she has found a man who both compliments her femininity and her ability; a sort of lock and key relationship. So, for instance, a traditional woman of this type marries a traditional man, while a more modern type of woman will marry a man with more modern views but within a traditional framework. This woman's mate is her complement, not her equal.

Aoefe is Alpha feminine. She wants an worthy man whom she can please. Note that the important point here is a worthy man (something I wish to get into at a later post), her "submission" is only to her man of her choosing. Paradoxically, she is still in control when she submits. To men whom she does not feel a romantic attachment to, there is no submission.

The next type of relationship is the one that is commonly seen in women from the Protestant influenced countries(they are the ones most strongly influenced by Feminism), these are the beta females. This is a woman who, through social conditioning, has developed traits which are disagreeable to men but who still wants a relationship with a man. This type of woman is torn between living a life that she wants and getting a man to love her. Her socially conditioned repugnance is at odds with her desire to find a mate and her adaption to this situation is one of internal submissively. She has some control over her life but lives in mortal dread of spinsterhood and this dread compels her to do whatever is appropriate to find a mate. This type of woman wears femininity like a mask, using it as a useful expedient and dropping it once she is psychologically secure in a relationship.

This is the type of woman who "changes" after marriage. Prior to getting married her femininity is proportional to the degree in which she wants to get married. After she is married "the inner beauty within" comes out and the woman which the man has married becomes the disagreeable and unfeminine woman that she is. The other victim of course in this type of marriage is the man, who thought he was purchasing one bill of goods and instead ended up with another. The fun loving beautiful sexual woman he thought he was marrying becames a emotionally cold asexual shrew. When the inevitable divorce happens, she assumes her mask again till the cycle is repeated. It is from this cohort of women that the feminists come from. They want men to love them even when they are unlovable, and believe that the problem is with men for this state of affairs. Men need to change they say. They constantly blame other factors for their unhappiness beside themselves, the classic behaviour of those with an "external locus of control".

In their instance their external locus of control is actually internal. Their culturally conditioned behaviour is at war with their natural desire to find a mate. This type of woman is the beta submissive: Submissive to her fear of loneliness. The "betaness" of these women is in proportion to both their absence of feminine traits and their desire to get married. The more beta, the less happy. Some of the women never drop the mask, such is their fear of loneliness, instead living their years in the "comfortable concentration camp" of marriage. These women chafe at the situation that they are in, and as such are miserable and asexual. Universalising from her own particular situation she believes that all marriages are like hers and pillories both the institution, the women who find happiness in it and men who find her unattractive.

The greater beta's of this group of women are those who allow their men to "rule" over them, fearing a loss of love if they do not submit. They follow their masters orders out of fear of rejection, not love and chafe at their loss of dignity. The alpha submissive has usually picked a mate whom she knows will probably not ask her something stupid and who will value her advice when she disagrees with him. He will consult with her rather than rule over her though every now and then he will put his foot down, but this will be the rare exception rather than the rule.
She will submit. Frequently he will be right, and when he is wrong he will admit it.

Finally, at the bottom of the list are the omega women. These women are so devoid of femininity and normal norms of human behaviour that men treat them with utter contempt. There is no degradation that they will not submit to in order gain some form of masculine approval. These women will turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse by their partner, pimp out their bodies and are willing to be the subject of any abuse. These women usually settle for the utter dregs of society. Sluts with a known reputation, aged hookers, drug users, etc. form this bottom rung of society. Their life is miserable and a warning to the observant.

The whole point about the submissisivenss that Aoefe advocates, is that it is the submissiveness of a woman in control of herself and happy in her relationship, this is the submissiveness of femininity. Aoefe wants to be no one's chattel, she wants to be their complementary mate. She is to be commended for swimming against the tide.

Gladiators and Pansies.

Continuing our analysis of Game and its relation to Aristotlean/Thomistic tradition, I want to raise the issue of something I've been musing about over the past few days. Now,to recap, according to this tradition a thing is good insofar as it conforms to the way it is is meant to be. For example, a perfect car has no faults, but a car that has a few minor scratches and dents is deficient in someway to the perfect car and is said to be privated with respect to the ideal; it's got some faults. Now that car can still be good enough to buy even though it's got a few faults( such as the scratches) but the more faults that the car accumulates the "less good" the car becomes. Finally the point is reached were the car is deficient in some way that makes it a bad car. Faulty gear box, cracked cylinder head and so on.

Now according to Christian tradition we are good insofar as we are free from sin. Our acceptability to God is in many ways like the acceptability of a car. We will still accept the car with minor faults, but will reject it if the faults are grievous. The faults of human beings are our "sins" and the Christian tradition classifies these faults pretty much along acceptable and unacceptable lines. Venial sins are like the scratches on a car and while rendering us imperfect, God still finds us acceptable if we posses them. Mortal sins on the other hand are faults so severe that God rejects the possessor of them outright.

Now our habits, behaviours and internal dispositions are the features which make up a man's character. Now a man's spirit is reflected in his character so therefore the behaviours and characteristics a man has render him either acceptable or non acceptable to God.

St Paul, the ever helpful fellow, wishing to save as many Christians as possible and his letter to the Corinthians lists a few faults which render a man unacceptable:

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Pretty comprehensive list. Now the fault here that I wish to concentrate on is effeminacy. The actual Greek word from which it was derive was malakia, which literally means "softness" and various different translators have interpreted it differently. A cursory Internet search will reveal how wide and varied the interpretations have been, frequently to conform to the interpreters own personal agenda.

I think its fairly reasonable to assume that in order to understand the meaning of a word it is important to know how the word was used and so a brief understanding the ancient world's concept of "softness" is needed.

The ancient world placed a great emphasis on a man's moral strength, his ability to do the right thing no matter what the circumstance. Indeed, in St Thomas's reply to the objections(in the malakia link) he mentions that failing a test under heavy tribulation is pardonable while failing to put up any sort of effort is morally repugnant. It's interesting too, that in that bloodthirsty arena that made the ancient world, too much sex was seen was seen as a sign of weakness and a hedonist who practiced too much heterosexual sex was seen as malakoi. Perhaps its most accurate translation lays in the concept of sacrificing principle for pleasure. The Ancients thought that inappropriate amounts of pleasure seeking was as just as much a sign of weakness as was an inability to bear a certain amount of emotional pain. Hedonists were given short shift in the ancient world.

The ancient concept of manhood associated itself with a sense of dominance and control; not only of one's enemies and family, but of one's self. The man who couldn't control himself and who surrendered himself to emotion or circumstance was seen as weak and effeminate. Masculinity was not so much an anatomic fact but a psychological state of being. Female prostitutes and seductresses were seen as manly since they behaved like men in that they were actively seeking sex. Today's homosexual community thinks along the same line assigning partners in a homosexual relationship either a "butch" or "femme" role.

The morality of the Romans, who were pretty liberal even by today's standards, was pretty harsh when transgressed. Roman men were on the top of the social heap and as such he was expected to take the dominant role in sexual relations. To a certain degree it really didn't matter whom a Roman took to bed, what mattered was the position one assumed in the sexual act. Romans did not feel that homosexual acts compromised a mans masculinity, what compromised it was assuming the receptive position, or in other words, assuming the feminine role in the sexual act. They tended to view sexuality in terms of social structure and power dynamics and the Roman citizen who assumed the role of the receptive or submissive partner in the sexual act was seen with utter contempt. Submission was the vice of the weak; mastery, the virtue of the strong. Since the Roman male was meant to be strong, voluntary submission was seen to be a repudiation of manhood.

A Roman male could not have homosexual sex with another male since as a "giver" he would be subjugating his fellow Roman, which was banned, but should a man choose to be a "receiver" he would earn societies contempt mainly because he would have allowed himself to be subjugated by another man, which was contrary to the Roman ideal.

It should not be thought that this concept of psychological dominance only applied to the sexual arena. The Romans like the Greeks also believed that giving in to your fears or pleasures made you "soft." A man who fled in battle was not only a coward, but soft. So was a man who failed to attend his duties due to an inordinate love of pleasure. He had yielded to his sensuality. He failed.

The Romans had many slurs for this type of man but the Roman and Greek words for this type of "softness" were Molles and Malakia. They seemed to have the same connotations as in today's use of the terms: "pansy" ,"fag", "mummy's boy" or "wuss". The terms conveyed the idea of a man without masculinity. It's also interesting to note, that the Romans thought that a man who pursued normal heterosexual pleasure excessively part of this group. Today's players would have been considered "fags": Beta's in Roman society.

The man weak( as women are weak) in self control, in resisting pleasures, will be pathic:the texts reveal a complex of overindulgence in wine food and sex. Thus, paradoxically from our point of view; the man obsessed with women is passive; hence the well-known picture of the cultus adulterer, for whom we have our own curiously ambiguous phrase "ladies man".

Roman sexualities By Judith P. Hallett, Marilyn B. Skinner p58

Now the Greek term for "softness" from which the English translation "effeminacy" is derived is Malakia. is Now some translators of the Bible--and it really is quite interesting to see just how many different interpretations there are--have translated the term malakia as "receptive male partner"or "male prostitute". I'm not so sure about these translations since the Greeks and Romans already had a specific terms for that type of individual; cinaedi and pathici (Gk. kinadoi--literally meaning arse shaker), why use a general term when a more specific term was available? St Thomas's commentaries on the passage also seem to indicate a moral weakness rather than a specific sexual act. Why is this important?

What I think Paul(And St Thomas) were getting at was the condemnation of the common characteristic which characterised these deviants. Not only was the act despicable but so was the moral quality quality which allowed the man to perform the act. Paul was condemning "softness" of character. A man was meant to resist vices and not placing demands upon yourself to live according to the ideals of masculinity was a sin which excluded you from the kingdom of heaven. (Note too, that what Paul wasn't condemning was the desires, only the choice of not resisting them) Trying to translate the term into a specific instance of "softness" missed the point.

Paul was condemning men who don't act like men but he seemed to be condemning it within at least some of the ideals of classical masculinity and by doing so condemned a whole host of "deviancies" in one stroke. St Paul would have viewed a man who subscribed to the modern feminist inspired ideals of masculinity as having the same moral fault as assuming the man submissive position in the sexual act. (For those of you who think Paul was happy with men assuming the dominant position in any sexual act the next term in his list of condemnation specifically condemns male same sex acts. He was consistent) For a man to be a proper man he had to live according to the ideal and not sacrifice the ideal for any supposed comfort.

The man who sacrificed his dignity for regular access to sex, "marital harmony" or an attempt to make his wife happy all the time would have been as contemptuous to him as to the Romans; the man would be considered "weak". The man who let the woman wear the pants for whatever reason was malakia or molles.

This did not mean that within the Christian vision that the man was meant to arbitrarily lord over his family and that the woman was some chattel which he could use as he wished, rather it meant that he was in control of the marriage all the time even if it meant lots of work or responsibility was delegated to other parties. The Christian man was quite happy to let his wife run the family affairs but it was his duty to step in and take command if things started to go wrong. He did not cede power in a relationship, he delegated it. Moreover, this power over the household was given in the context that the man was responsible for the psychological, moral and material well being of the family. A man was given power in order adequately serve the interests of his family, not himself: all the while maintaining his dignity and masculinity. The Christan man had inner strength as so as not to yield to his passions and do the right thing always. The term used by the Seduction community for this type of virtue is "inner game", a moral quality self-control over ones emotions, to the extent that one will not sacrifice their dignity for the sake of female pleasure.

The current problem however is that western culture has been profoundly influenced by Feminism and limp wrist versions of Humanism and Christianity. Furthermore, with the effective banishment of the transcendental from the contemporary culture, the imperative in life is hedonistic. Men have become slaves to their sensuality, with the result being that many men today are devoid of masculinity. (This topic is worthy of a whole post which will be done later) Simple markers of masculinity are devoid in many men: the ability to fix and do things, hold down a regular job, be emotionally continent(When did crying and hugging become acceptable?), excessive concern about their appearance and engagement in the civic life are all absent. Instead the average western male devotes his time to "looking good", screwing around and spending days on X Box. We don't need to guess what St Paul would have thought of such men.

Words fail me.

Just when you thing the world can't get any worse, it does.

Unbelievable.

I imagine every one of the 15 abortions was a "traumatising and agonising decision."

Thomistic Game.

The great glory of St Thomas was that he was able to form a synthesis between Christian Theology and Greek Philosophy, with that in mind we will now attempt to look at Game through the Christian light and within the spirit of Thomism.

And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. Gen 2:18

It is a small passage from the Bible but viewed in light of Greek philosophy full of profound significance.

The fact that it was "not good" for a man to be alone would, according to Aristotlean philosophy, imply that a man was in some way privated by being alone; a man was in some way deficient. Being deficient of a good of which a man was supposed to possess would, according to Aristotle, lead to unhappiness. Lonely people are unhappy: a self-evident truth.

Now a Christian man is supposed to possess Charity. In the Aristotlean sense, Charity is directed toward the perfection of things. Charity seeks to "un-private" the thing to which it is directed. Now Charity in a man is not only directed to things outside himself but to himself as well. Therefore a Charitable man will seek the ridding of his imperfections.. Hence it would imply that activities directed towards finding a mate are a good, since the remedy of a privation is a good.

It also follows that the "goodness" of a remedy is in proportion to the degree in which it is restorative of the privation. Now as traditional dating advice has pretty much been a dismal failure when it comes to finding a mate, whilst Game has been enourmously successfull, the Christian interpretation of Game is that it is a moral good.

Now the Christian commandments do not permit fornication. For the simple, that means pre-marital sex. Picking up girls is a moral good, taking them to bed outside of the context of mariage is not. It follows therefore that Game is permissible insofar that it facillitates male female interactions withing the context of the Christian moral norms.

Game however should not be thought of as a "pickup technique", rather as an applied knowledge of the understanding of the female psyche when it comes to what women regard as sexually and emotionally attractivenes. Attractiveness being the trait that draws one to the thing which possess it, it follows that a quality which maintains attractiveness are traits which are going to strengthen the marriage. The Christian perspective of marriage is that it is institution which has both a unitive and procreative purpose through which man finds happiness. An unhappy marriage is a marriage that is privated and hence things which "un-private" the marriage are to be considered moral goods. Game practiced to strengthen the marriage is a moral good.

Comment 1: Now a man may remedy his privation by companionship with others rather than females but we know that there are enough biblical injunctions against homosexuality to know that is not an option. So a man is left with two choices:

1) Either find a woman.
2) Find God. i.e live the consecrated life.Note it should be noted that only deliberate celibacy is meritorious since it chosen state in which a man seeks to come closer to God. Not getting any because you can't is not celibacy, it's famine.

Comment 2: It also follows that a man who is not looking for a mate is somewhere deficient in Charity, since that man is lacking in the remedial impreative to of his privation. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) men who have renounced the companionship of women could be seen as acting without charity. In a Christian sense they could be said to be sinning.

Comment 3:Since the remedy of a privation is a good thing in itself, since it restores the defect to its perfected in nature, it follows that human companionship is a good; especially female companionship. The Misogynists view that is contrary to nature and hence sinful. Criticism of sex specific morally repugnant behaviour is not Misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred of women, not the hatred of sex specific moral failures.

Comment 4: Since a mate must come to us voluntarily, it follows that a man infused with charity will act in such a way to make himself attractive to a mate, failure to do so shows a lack of charity.

Nicomanchean Game.

Aristotle's book, The Nicomanchean ethics, deals with the fundamental question of how to lead a happy life. Aristotle's answer to the problem was that by living "virtuously"men would be able to find happiness.. Now virtue, in the Aristotilean sense, should not be confused with Christian concepts of virtue, rather it should be more thought of having the skills to live "correctly". This correct living was necessary if men were to find happiness, and while Aristotle realised that a happy life was also dependant on certain externalites, the main factor in the achievement of human happinesss was the cultivation of the "correct life skills" or virtues.

According to Aristotle, a deficiency of a virtue would make happiness unattainable. For example, courage was needed if a man were to fight off his adversaries and maintain a certain independance of action. People who were too cowardly to stand up for themselves were unhappy people and Aristotle argued that what a man needed to remedy the situation was the virtue of "courage". Aristotle also realised that the virtues had to be "harmonised". Courage had to be tempered by prudence, generosity by prudence and thrift. Virtues then were then a package of traits which gave happiness. The Nichomanchean ethics then goes on at length to discuss the nature of these traits.

Aristotle also argued that should a man be deficient in one or more of these virtues, it was possible to acquire them through practice until they became habituated. A man became just, by performing just acts, couragous by acting bravely and so on. The habituated practice did more than just give the appearance of virtue, but was transformative of the man's character itself. While the initialy attempts to practice the virtue would be poor and forced, with practice the virtue would be come habituated and the it become "natural". The man practicing good acts, became good. The couragous acts transformed a coward into a brave man, so that in the end, given a threatening situation, he could be counted on to act bravely. Furthermore, this transformation of character resulted in the man being happier

As mentioned before, Aritsotle also realised that virtue was not enough and that a man needed certain "externalities" outside of his character in order to find happiness. A certain amount of wealth, friendship and luck and so on were also required. However these externalities were wasted if the character was deficient. A man who inherited wealth would loose it if imprudent, friends would be lost if untrustworthy and so on. It also followed that the achievement of these externalities were facilitated by certain virtues of character. Wealth could be enlarged by industriousness and social standing by good character. In essences a man's fortune with regard to these externalities was dependent on his virtues.

It could also be demonstrated that individual human beings possessed the virtues in various degrees. Some men were "naturally" industrious, other naturally brave and so on. Most men seemed to have a mixture of the virtues and were absent in others. In order to be happy, the role of the reflective man was then to honestly examine himself, identify his deficiencies and then set about through practice to remedy them. Failure to do so, was a culpable vice against a man's own self.

Now one of the externalities which seem to be self-evidently necessary for the happiness of man is the companionship of the opposite sex. Therefore character traits which facilitate this companionship are a virtue. A man possessing these virtues would attract members of the opposite sex in the degree to which he posseses them. In a man these characteristics may be thought of as the masculine virtues; in a woman, the feminine. Some men through good luck will possess these virtues naturally but others will not. In order to be happy, men deficient in these virtues are obligated to cultivate them if they wish to be happy. As alluded to before, not only does a man become more attractive by practicing these virtues to the opposite sex, but by practicing the virtue he becomes more masculine and happier. His "outer Game" builds his "inner Game". An example of this can be found here.

It also needs to be remembered that without practice, the virtue becomes atrophied and with regard to game, a man who doesn't practice it will loose it. His attractiveness to the opposite sex will diminish with time. The hen-pecked husband is contemptible to his peers and to his partner as well. Therefore just as a man cultivates piety by attending Church regularly, so too does a man build up his game by its regular exercise. A husband seeking to maintain the attractiveness of his wife needs to practice it regularly.

Game fits withing the Aristotilean understanding human character and is a virtue which needs to be cultivate if a man is to be happy. As any lonely person will attest, the misery of loneliness is a self-evident truth. Therefore a man "owes it to himself" to practice the virtue in order to find a partner, failure to do so is a vice.

Game Theory.

Many of the readers who frequent this blog would no doubt be familiar with the concept of "Game". For those of you who are not, check "here"

Several Social Conservatives have voiced their disapproval of game, particularly religious types seeing it as nothing more that a manipulative technique to get women into bed. Curiously, Feminists too believe this as well. They point to Game's most eloquent proponent, Roissy, to show how it is a deeply immoral lifestyle which is contrary to Christian teaching. Indeed a superficial analysis of the phenomena of Game gives the appearance of a totally immoral system of male/female relations(from a Christian point of view). This view I think is profoundly mistaken.

Firstly what exactly is Game? Broadly speaking, it is the capacity to successfully attract and seduce women. A man who has Game is successful with women while a man who has not isn't

It can thought of as a body of applied knowledge that was developed over time by men who were initially unsuccessful with women, and who through trial and experiment, developed consistent techniques which made them successful. Game is a skill based upon an empirical knowledge of what works when it comes to the seduction of women.

Aristotle had a name for this type of knowledge, it was called Techne, a form of knowledge that produced practical results. The complement of Techne was Episteme, which can be defined as:

Pure science, in the strict sense disinterested, objective, without "telos" meaning without further aim, hence the meaning "knowing for its own sake". This form of knowledge stands in contrast to techne which is knowing with purpose, i.e. practical knowledge. Episteme may also be translated as theoretical science.

In modern parlance with reference to Game, techne is the practical skill of seducing women, episteme is the body of knowledge upon which that skill is based: Episteme is theory, Techne is practice. The important point here is that what intellectually underpins Game--Game's Episteme--is certain empirically validated notions about the nature of women. Furthermore Episteme is non-imperative and like all knowledge is morally neutral.

Now it is important to recognise what these notions are. This is not an exhaustive list but the important points are:

1) Women have a nature that is different to men's.
2) This difference is innate and hardwired.
3) Women think differently to men.
4) Women aim to choose the best mate possible.
5) Female mate selection is based on sexual attraction.
6) Women have sexual urges which seek gratification.
7) What women find sexually attractive is different to men but is discernible and predictable.
8) It has been repeatedly observed that what women find sexually attractive in a man are:

a) High relative social status.
b) Psychological dominance
c) The ability to elicit positive emotions in a woman
d) Superficial physical appearance.
e) The appearance of sexual satisfaction (i.e that the man does not appear to be sexually needy but can walk away from the deal if not on his terms)

9) Moral qualities generally rank low on the list of features which a woman finds sexually attractive.
10) Women are much more affected by their emotions than men and that women will gravitate towards positive emotional experiences.
11) The female emotional state is intrinsically intertwined with her thinking. Her rationalisations align with her emotional state. Emotional congruence is superior to intellectual consistence. " I know he is bad for me but he makes me feel good."
12) A woman who chooses a mate that does not satisfy her nature(beta) will become unhappy.

These observations may be considered as the axioms of Game theory which are at the core of Game's episteme.

Now for the pedants out there, these are broadly applicable "Rules of thumb". Some women will have preferences and act in a way that is different to the mean, but these are the exceptions and not the norm. Statistical outliers do not negate the validity of the mean.

Now while many Christians may recoil at the concept of Game, the episteme of Game or "Game theory" would be consistent with the Christian weltanshauung as espoused by St Thomas. Firstly, Game asserts the existence of a female nature or "essence". It recognises that the difference between men and women is more than just physical but lay in the natures of the sexes. It asserts that these natures are intrinsic to the being and not just "social constructs", and that by acting contrary to our nature human beings will become unhappy . The axioms of Game are Christian axioms. The basis of this congruence between the principles of Game and the Christian understanding of the sexes is the epistimology in which both systems of thought were developed, namely in a desire to understand reality.

As such, game theory is intrinsically opposed to the vision of Feminism. The more radical versions of Feminism, which see sex as a social construct, are repudiated by the Game's episteme
which sees the differences betwen the sexes as innate. Furthermore Game also poses a challenge to the more moderate versions of Feminism, which views spousal "equality in all facets of the marriage" as a precondition to marital bliss. Even these milder variants of Feminism are fundamentally flawed with regard to the nature of women, since they propose an idealised man who fails the psychological needs of a woman. For a woman's nature to be satisfied, she needs a partner whom she cannot subordinate and whom she can defer to. This too is consistent with the Christian vision which places the husband at the "head" of the family. A woman who "wears the pants" is acting contrary to her nature . Sensitve New Age Guys are deeply unsatisfying. As many beta divorcees will attest to, trying to keep a woman happy all the time will only earn her contempt and fuel her desire for a more dominant man.

Christian and Social Conservatives have also voiced their criticism of Game because of the Hedonistic lifestyle its practitioners espouse. But it is my opinion that their criticism is ill founded and based on a very superficial analysis of the Headonists. Many commentators have confused the Hedonistic lifestyle as practiced by Game's most eloquent proponents with the body of knowledge that is Game itself. Game is non imperative. It is a techne or episteme which can be used for good or evil. The hedonism which is associated with its most eloquent proponents is a more a consequence our current irreligious cultural climate which effectively denies a moral dimension on human acts.

It should be remembered that the greatest Christian theologians saw no problem in incorporating the insights of ancient Greek philosophy into Christianity despite the fact that the knowledge was proposed and promulgated by Pagans. Likewise conservatives should not be afraid of Game's episteme and techne despite the fact that its most eloquent champions are hedonists. I would propose that the knowledge of Game is a moral good since its insights are congruent with reality.

There is no doubt that there is currently a very serious and deep problem with relationship between the sexes. The years of Feminism have not yet delivered the promised Nirvana of female happiness. Indeed, there seems to be evidence that women were happier before the feminisation of the Western male and masculinisation of the female. This state of affairs would have been on no suprise to St Thomas or any of the modern proponents of Game. Men and women have been taught to act contrary to their natures with the predictable consequences.

The Christian male can profit from Game's episteme and techne in his relations with women. Firstly, in developing the skills to attract women he can be more selective about his mate. Secondly, by understanding the operating principles of female psychology he can endeavor to operate and act in such a way as to satisfy his partner and strengthen his marriage. Thirdly he can learn to recognise problems in his relationship well before they become irreparable. Fourthly, it will serve as an armour against feminist imperatives with regard to male behaviour which make him act contrary to his nature and render him therefore less attractive to women. Game is knowing how to be a man around women.

Some of the critics of Game suggest that it presents an unflattering and inaccurate view of women. Once again I think it is the critics who are wrong with this view. Firstly, many men from different cultures and social strata have found that once they have incorporated the principles of game in their lives, their relationship with women has drastically improved. The cross cultural/social extent and breadth of the reported change validates the underlying epistime. A theory is validated by demonstration.

Secondly, perhaps the Games relatively unflattering view of female nature may be as a result of the unrealistic or unnatural view of women that critics, especially social conservatives have of them. It is not that Game is unflattering to women its that some the of the conservative views with regard to women are unrealistic. Game puts a strong emphasis on the carnal reality of women, something traditional society has been loathe to admit. Supporting evidence of this comes from males who have tried traditional approaches with regard to attracting women and been rewarded with nothing but failure. ( I think commentator Thursday alluded to here. It is something I wish to write more about in the near future.) The

What needs to be understood is that Game serves to facilitate sexual promiscuity because of current society places no limitations on sexual behaviour. A man without moral limits, who understands how to attract and seduce women will exploit this to the full. His success being proportionate to the perfection of his Game. Likewise a Christian man, operating within a moral framework which places limits on his behavior, can use game to improve his relationships with women within that moral framework, benefiting both the man and the woman, since what Game ultimately teaches is what makes women happy. Game is not pro-promiscuous, that's Hedonism; rather Game is based on an accurate understanding of female nature. It is not just a techne on how to seduce women, but an episteme with regard to female nature. The fact that its practitioners are enjoying enormous success suggests that they're onto something.

Apologies

Firstly, I wish to apologise to my few long suffering readers who have been checking in on the blog. The reason that I have not been posting for the past two months is that I have been on holidays with My family in Europe and during that time I made a promise to myself and family to stay away from the computer. Haphazard transmission will now resume as per normal.

Living in Hell.

Amongst the blogs that I frequent, the topic which has received the most discussion is the one dealing with George Sodini(Pictured), the man who recently murdered three women in a gym. What's interesting about this fellow is that he left quite a bit of information about himself on the Web. People often speculate about the mind of a mass murderer and frequently these speculations are way off the mark, but the snippets of information that Mr Sodini left on the Internet are worthy of some reflection so as to be able to speculate as to what kind of man Mr Sodini was.

Reading his diary postings and other assorted paraphernalia, one certainly gets the impression of a profoundly lonely man. Whist most of the media have commented on his sexual deprivation, it's also apparent to the slightly less superficial observer that he was starved of common friendship and love as well. He lacked both male and female friends and believed others were the source of his woes. The blindness to personal failings is usually a sign of a narcissistic personality.

The themes that run repeatedly in his writings is of his inability to find a mate and of his incompleteness and emptiness. So the question that comes to my mind is why did he want to destroy the thing he most wanted.? Why did he want to kill the very sex that that he so desperately craved?

Perhaps the idea that can help us the most in understanding this unfortunate man is the concept of Poena damni, the pain of loss, a Christian idea on the nature of suffering of the soul in Hell.

In Christian theology, the worst terror of Hell is not the "fire and brimstone" but the sense that we are permanently separated from God and the associated happiness that that would bring. People who have not thought about the matter deeply imagine this loss as a loss God's company, sort of not getting to hang around God, but they are wrong. The best way of imagining this pain of loss is by looking at it's opposite, the beatific vision. Acceptance by God, is like being accepted and loved by your sweetheart. It's not just the local effect of possessing your beloved, but the "spillover" effects are as important as well. When you're in love, life is sweeter, injuries are born easier, life is beautiful, there is a sense of goodwill to all; we want others to share our happiness. The beatific vision is not "just" the possession of God's favour, but the state of being in God's favour. It is this state of existence is what we mean by being in heaven.

Being rejected by the thing we love or desire creates the opposite effect. Nothing gives us joy, everything is bleak, and if we know we will never have the thing we want, despair or resignation sets in. However, more often than not ,we come to hate the thing the we love. The boy who was spurned by his high school sweetheart,is still is still bitter toward her years later and wants to get back at her. The girlfriend who is dumped by her partner sets out to destroy his life. Hatred and despair are the companions of those who suffer poena damni. They hate that which they want to love, but which does not love them back.

George Sodini's actions, seen in this light, are perfectly understandable. The women that he so desperately wanted rejected him, engendering in him a sense of poena damni which reached it's cumulation in the shooting of the innocent women at the gym. Now while Sodini's actions are understandable, they are in no way justifiable. The women who were killed or injured in no way had personally injured Sodini, their capital offence was that they were women. He stands condemned.

Is Sodini's hatred legitimate? Are women to blame for Sodini's plight? Amongst some of the more "sympathetic" analyses of Sodini's actions, the opinion is put out that Sodini's anger was legitimate, the consequence of a breach of social contract. As the theory goes, a educated,hard working, quiet man is meant to be rewarded by female affection. After all, in days gone bye such a man would have made good husband material. Quite reasonably, in the 50's, such a man would have no problems getting married. But this assumption is flawed in several ways.

Firstly, the consequence of this line of though is that in the 50's people viewed marriage as an exchange of goods. A woman weighed up her options and picked the best mate on the basis of what she could get for her sexual favour. This of course is rubbish, in most instances in the West, women and men married for romantic motives rather than for the transactional benefits. This trope is common with Evo-Bio thinking which has to reduce all human action within the confines of its reductionist metaphysic. Love was the primary motive for most couples, not the transactional benefits. Indeed until recently, the "gold digger" was a woman who was culturally derided.

Secondly, this line of thinking assumes that certain behaviours are meant to be rewarded with sexual favour. Something that no intelligent person in the West has ever assumed. There has never been a formulaic answer with regard to attracting the opposite sex. There were rules for increasing the odds for attraction but they were never guaranteed. No morally legitimate station in life was ever guaranteed to give you access to sex. Ever.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that engenders a sense of entitlement after accomplishment. It lays the intellectual groundwork for the perception of personal injury where there is none and provides a motive for unjustified retribution. Sort of like yelling at your parents for not getting a good enough present for your birthday, the perpetrator forgets that no one is owed a gift. No woman was ever obligated to give Sodini sex, no matter how buffed, rich,hardworking or nice he was. No woman had to "pay" because he couldn't get any action. Sodini suffered because he couldn't get what he wanted, not because he couldn't get what he was owed.

I feel that most men can empathise with sadness and bitterness associated with female rejection. However we should not confuse empathy with the perpetrator with sympathy of for his crime. He coldly, methodically and with measured deliberation had planned the murder of innocents who had in no way caused him harm. The Catholic Church teaches that the deliberate killing of an innocent is a mortal sin, and the souls of such sinners go to Hell. Still the Church also teaches that we cannot be sure of what the state of a soul is after death. I do not know where George Sodini's soul rests, as he was a seriously disturbed and depressed man and perhaps this may have attenuated his culpability, but I do know that while he was alive he lived in this world as if it were Hell.

My sympathies and condolences to the victims and their families.

The Northern Light.

Although The Social Pathologist is about as Conservative as you can get, he does have an immense liking for Progressive Trance Music as I have always thought it akin to classical music. I know the many of my audiophile friends regard it as junk, however I've always felt it moved me in ways only classical music could.

Now, what do you get when you get a Finnish church organist who loves both classical music and progressive trance? Enjoy; it's out of this world. It's amazing.



Petri Alanko you are the legend of the day. Just when you thought all hope was lost, something like this comes around to restore your hope in civilisation. Western Civilisation.

Talking Past Each Other.

Recently I was engaged in a an interesting discussion over at Clio's blog. Namely, has the definition of rape changed? The discussion was basically a continuation of two previous discussions; one from Roissy's and one from the 2Blowhards site. Link 1 and Link 2.

Basically my assertions were that:
1) That in cases of rape, there is a degree of legal and social prejudice which renders the presumption of innocence ineffective.
2)Women interpret things differently to men.

It's on this second point that I wish to concentrate since the discussion itself turned out to be a fascinating example of my second point.

It is my belief, that men and women process information differently and this in turn affects the way that the they interpret events. Male/female misunderstanding is a common enough experience which seems to confirm my belief, but where this misunderstanding can lead to potentially tragic outcomes is in the area of human sexual relations, where frequently consent is not explicitly given but implied

Now in normal human intimacy, sexual escalation does not usually proceed through negotiation, the partner does not explicitly ask if he can kiss the woman, he proceeds and then waits for her response. If the man initiates actions which the woman finds agreeable, the combination of non-resistance, moans, etc. is enough to imply consent. The point here is that the escalation of human intimacy usually occurs through implicit rather than explicit communication.

Now the point of all this is that men are frequently terrible at understanding implicit meaning. A girl may be quite friendly to a man and having only friendly intentions while the same man may think the girl's actions are an attempt to initiate a relationship. This of course may cause offence to the girl and embarrassment to the man without any malice actually being present. For example a man my wish to complement a woman but she may interpret it as a form of harassment, once again without any malice being present.

Communication between parties can be though of as occuring in a first and second order manner. First order communication is unambigous transfer of information without implicit meaning. Implicit communication is what I would term as second order communication, perception is dependent on both the mental make up of the perceiver and the message. So for example a woman who is a militant feminist may interpret a complement as sexual harassment another woman who is not, won't. The point here is that the signal has a different effect depending on the "software/culture" of the receiver.

When Viagra first came on the market, I was surprised at the number of women who would not let their husbands take it or got angry when their husbands did. Initially, I interpreted this as the woman not wanting to be sexually bothered by the man. Until one day I was having a discussion with a lady who was unhappy about her husband using Viagra and I asked her why. "I should be able to get it up for him without him needing medicine". Upon further questioning it became apparent that this woman was unhappy about her husbands Viagra use because it confirmed her self-perceptions of unattractiveness. The husband, whom I knew well, thought his wife was gorgeous and he felt that his wife--whom he felt other men regarded as gorgeous--would leave him if he did not sexually satisfy. Now this was a classic situation where two people drew different conclusions from the same situation. Anecdotally, when I now prescribe Viagra I tell my male patients to go home and reassure their wives. The men are frequently quite perplexed when I point this out but surprised when they find out that their wife was anxious about their sexual allure.

Now what seems to have become apparent to me in my years of practice, is that human thinking tends to be a mix of first and second order communication. While both sexes are capable of both, men in general seem to operate more on a first order basis while women on a second order basis.

Now second order communication has both its benefits and its drawbacks, and these will be dependant on the culture of the recipient of information. Now, if a woman is obsessed with sexual politics she is going there is going to be a very wide variety of "signals" which she is going to interpret in sexuo-political way. More importantly, prejudices of any kind have a profound impact on second order thinking, since information is interpreted in context of the prejudice.

Where second order thinking assumes a dangerous dimension is when the second order thinker asserts that their interpretation is objective and not subjective.

A perfect example of this second order thinking is expressed by Clio in my exchange with her. Clio consistently imputes to me opinions which I do not hold. Now I can see how she could interpret my comments in such a way, but I would ask the reader to go over our little exchange and see if I explicitly make any of the claims she imputes to me.

For example:

Here’s a snippet of what you said to me in your last comment:
(The Social Pathologist)Now a sane and rational man would look at the facts in toto with due regard to each of them and come to the conclusion that this woman was grossly irresponsible in her behaviour. She did not deserve anyone’s sympathy or support. Yet your interpretation of the facts would nullify pertinent features because the conclusions would be “distasteful”.

(Clio) This is the comment to which I was responding when I took your words “personally” and argued in support of my own detachment. It certainly implies that I had been irrational and unreasonable.

It logically implied nothing of the sort, yet Clio perceived it to. Now it could also mean that a sane and rational woman would look at the facts differently. It does not logically follow that a different opinion is necessarily the opinion of an an insane or irrational person. Now it is possible that my writing was ambiguous, but if there was any lack of clarity on my part I suppose the appropriate thing would have been to seek clarification. I am quite capable of stating that women are idiots(even though I don't believe it) or utter other disagreeable comments if the situation arises. The point here is that Clio attributed sentiments to me which I did not posses and then proceeded to vigourously assert that I possessed them. Interestingly she self-identified with her position, perceiving an rebuttal to the subject at hand as an injury to her self.

This is the typical Men are from Mars, Women from Venus, stuff and quite frequently both the source of both mirth and marital misery. A fair portion of my time is spent counselling couples who are in marital strife because of the differences in their perceptions of their marriage.

Now this type of thinking assumes dangerous implications when it comes to sexual harassment (and rape) Suppose a man makes an ambiguous comment which is interpreted as an unwanted sexual advance by a woman. Now the man may have meant one thing but it has been interpreted as another. Whom do the courts believe; the woman who has "experienced" sexual harassment, or the man who has not intentionally offended? A man is dead in the water if his legal system is feminist prejudiced.

The point here is that we as a society need to recognise that men and women both think and perceive differently and take account of it. This does not mean that one is superior than the other. In fact, both forms of thinking have both the benefits and drawbacks, the point is however, that non-recognition of this fact does an injustice to both sexes and is a source of much male female grief.

Here is a LINK to a video by Deborah Tannen, a linguist who has studied how men and women miscommunicate. It's well worth the view.

Further proof that masculinity and femininity are not social constructs; they are innate.

Thank God That We Have Rid Ourselves of a Knave.

Robert Strange McNamara is dead.He died peacefully in his sleep, aged 93. He now joins the fifty eight thousand or so American sons, husbands and fathers who died less peacefully as a result of their involvement in the Vietnam war, a war which he so very much dictated the conduct of.

The Vietnam War was the polarising issue in the U.S. (and Australia) in the 1960's, the cultural and political forces that were unleashed as a result of the political and cultural debate on the matter were one of the principle motive forces that powered the cultural change of the 60's. And for what its worth, from my perspective, the cultural changes really started happening about 1965 and ended about ten years later. The America that entered the 60's was a totally different America than the one that emerged from it. In the space of a decade America was transformed from a country that was sure of itself, its sense of destiny and power to an America that seemed totally unsure of itself an powerless, an America as epitomised in the Carter presidency.

What had changed? What had so sapped American potency and might?

The rot was a long time gestating and began to make it appearance well before the 60's, however the old world still tenaciously hung on, hung on at least till the Kennedy Administration came into power, after which the old world was thoroughly swept aside. The Kennedy Administration was to the U.S what the Whitlam Administration was to Australia; transformative. The "Best and Brightest" of a generation gave their services and enthusiasm to the new administration. The hope was that new, young, enthusiastic men with transformative ideas were going to change America and the world into a better place. The hope was misplaced.

Chief amongst these "Best and Brightest" was Robert McNamara. His biography can read at Wikipaedia. The war in Vietnam was known as McNamara's war and rightly so, as he set out to fight it. And there was the problem, he was not a combat commander, he was a business analyst.

Indeed McNamara was one of the first of the new breed of "scientific managers'(currently today's MBA's) who ran things according to key performance indicators. Body counts, tons of bombs dropped, number of acres of forest cleared, etc. Errol Morris's Fog of War manifestly illustrates the point. He instituted corporate management for the military, not only in the orginisation of the American Military but in the conduct of its operations. To put this more bluntly, given the vast resources of the U.S, its superpower military, its total tactical domination of the enemy, the question is why didn't the U.S win the Vietnam war? The U.S lost the war because it was being run by accountants, not soldiers.

McNamara's evil lay in not knowing his limitations. Prior to McNamara, the Secretary of Defence's job was to provide the military with what it needed to get the job done. With McNamara, he was going to tell the military how to fight the war. Indeed in Morris's Fog of War, McNamara frequently refers to himself as a commander and of the strains of command. The problem was that he was not militarily trained. To quote his arch enemy; a good hospital administrator is not necessarily a good brain surgeon. McNamara dabbled in the surgery. He moved beyond his circle of competence. But he did more that just that, he made sure that surgeons operated according to how he wanted them to. If they didn't, they were isolated or fired and new more "compliant" surgeons were employed who were prepared to do their masters bidding.

His lasting legacy was in the transformation of the "culture" of the Pentagon. Yes-men generals and admirals were hired to replace military who were too outmoded in their thinking. He ensured that the president only got the advice that the he felt that the president wanted to hear. He maneuvered to have the Joint Chiefs of Staff politically isolated from the President so that dissenting voices would not heard. A good account of the politics of the time can be read in the book "Dereliction of Duty" by Robert McMaster. He did what no foreign tyrant was able to do to the U.S military, he "decapitated" its head and replaced it with soldiers and academics who were politically acceptable. Competence took second place to loyalty and ideology.

McNamara did not just lose the war, he broke the U.S. military by shooting it in the head. He destroyed its culture of success.

There was however a lone voice in the wilderness. McNamara's pathology was well understood by this man. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who believed in the sanctity of civilian control of the military, he was powerless to stop McNamara. Though, in no uncertain terms expressed his views at McNamara's ineptitude in private and amongst his peers and in official reccomendations, He was powerless to speak out in public as a result of his soldiers oath. However upon retirement wrote a book on the subject, warning his fellow Americans of the dangers that the McNamara and his ilk were exposing America to. The book, aptly titled "America is in Danger" is out of print, though is still worth the effort reading. Reading it is chilling especially especially in how it predicied intelligence failures as a result of McNamara's changes under the guise of efficiency. In light of the intelligence failures of September 11, the book is prophetic The author recognised that military affairs cannot always be quantified and that a military leader must always operate knowing that his decisions are clouded by the "fog of war". Furthermore he realised one tampered with a successful culture at one's peril since it was very difficult to produce a culture of success. Indeed this man was so worried about his country that he was prepared to tarnish his unblemished reputation in order to get a public audience for his message by running as a vice presidential candidate with a morally repugnant man. He was McNamara's arch enemy, his antithesis. He was Curtis LeMay.

That Smile.

The Smile.

(Hat tip, The Sartorialist)

Your life is never really the same after a vision like that.

Christian love. (Charity)

Charity is a potency which in actualisation, perfects.

Use the Force, Luke.

Commentator Tom made the following comment in the previous blog entry:

If someone's love for you is truly unconditional and does not depend on what you are and what you do, what about you is truly being loved?

I've been mulling about this for a few days and for the few of those that are interested in my thoughts here they are.

When we think of love, we though our culture, are conditioned to think of it in a sentimental way. The feelings which are associated with love are pleasurable. The love we have towards our children, friends, partners and things is a positive experience, and we delight being in being in it's state. Couples who have drifted apart try to "rekindle" that feeling in order to draw themselves closer to each other. We associate love with a positive feeling which comes about as a result of existence of the beloved.

Considered that way, in the absence of a beloved , there can be no love. In fact conceptualised as such, love is a second order phenomena; there must be a beloved before there is love. This however makes love a response, a reaction to something, a responsive sentiment. The object which elicits this sentiment usually is in possession of some excellence or good which we recognise and respond positively to. We may love a woman because of her beauty or character, our country because of its particular features, our friends because of their good natures, the love is always a consequence of some excellence in the beloved. Our beloved generates feelings in us which continue to be sustained in the presence of the beloved and since the feelings are pleasurable, we seek to maintain them. Should we loose our beloved, the ensuing deprivation grieves us and we seek the beloved return.

It should also be apparent then devoid of excellences, a thing can be unlovable. A hideous man or woman elicits repulsion, a bad character, disgust and so on. Indeed our reactions to other things may be that of indiffernce or repulsion. We pass people on the street and think nothing of them, we read about awful criminals and are revolted by their behaviour, not seeing any goodness in either we a devoid of the loving sentiment toward them and hence don't mourn their loss.

Clearly then, love thus conceptualised, is a pleasureable sentiment elicited by the qualities in another. This type of love seeks is sustained by the pleasure elicited by another, it is sustained by hedonic satisfaction. Once the pleausure stops so does the love.

When a couple say they have fallen out of love, what they are saying that they are not getting any pleasure from the existence of the other. The husband, whom the wife would at one time love with all her heart, farts in her presence, ignores her reasonable demands, is a brutish and boring lover and has grown a beer gut. There is nothing attractive about him, his character qualities are overshadowed by his repulsive nature; she loves him no more. His presence does not elicit pleasurable sentiments and at best she becomes indifferent to him and at worse is repulse him.

Now this concept of love as a responsive sentiment is a natural and dare I say it Pagan one. It is how the pagans conceptualised love. Their love was hedonic in that it only existed as long as the beloved gave pleasure. Looking at love in this light, this passage from Luke 6:32 takes on a different meaning:

³²"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. ³³If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ³⁴If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

In all the instances cited above the lover is getting a benefit from the loved, and clearly Christ thinks that that form of love is nothing special. What precedes that bit of text and what follows is Christ's idea of Love.

‘But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ²⁹If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. ³¹Do to others as you would have them do to you.

and,

³⁵But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. ³⁶Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Now clearly in these two passages the type of love that Christ is taking about is a love that gets no pleasure from the object of its attentions. In fact that lover may be repulsed by the beloved but the lover still wishes good to the beloved. For years I interpreted this text as meaning one must do good and have pleasant sentiments towards the wicked, but I was wrong; my feelings while performing good works don't matter. The basis of Christian love is asentimental.

This has profound consequences for our understanding of Christian love. Unlike hedonic love which is a second order phenomena, Christian love is a first order effect, it exists prior to the existence of the beloved and independent of the nature of the beloved. Christian love is the intent of perfection manifest in self, others and the world. More importantly it can't be seen as a sentiment or a feeling, but rather a perfecting "force" present in Christian nature. When Christian love is actualised it is directed towards the perfection of its object regardless of how the actor feels about the object of his actions. Christian love is the force that can love what gives us no pleasure. So when Tom asks what is unconditional love? The Christian replies it is what I give to you(even under sufferance), not what you give to me. To the pagans this concept would have been ridiculous.

Love in the time of Hedonism.

Recently over at Roissy's there was a stoush between the Errant Wife and Himself. The Errant Wife objected to Roissy's vitriol and replied in vicious kind. I really did not see what the fight was about, since both parties have essentially the same philosophy of life; Hedonism. Roissy has often said that he loves Love and the Errant Wife seems to be in search of it. The question in my mind through this exchange is how does a how does a Hedonist "love"? Or more importantly, what is the nature of Hedonistic love?

Hedonism, being a teleology which aims toward satisfaction of the self, is inwardly focused towards the individual. The goods of life have their value insofar as they provide pleasurable satisfaction to the individual. In other words, the goodness or badness of a thing is really a measure of how it pleases the individual apprehending the thing. Now clearly according to this philosophy, things of little pleasure will have little value, while things of great pleasure will have great value. Now clearly, being loved-both physically and emotionally--is perhaps the greatest pleasure possible and a hedonist the will value the lover as long as the lover pleasures them: The love of a hedonist is conditional.

But the nature of Hedonistic "love" is not the same as the nature of unconditional love, although they may appear the same they in fact polar opposites. Hedonistic love is the love of the utility of the loved individual. Its a love that exists as long as it is satisfied, it is innately selfish. The lover of a Hedonist must continually "provide" in order to be loved. Once the provision stops so does the "love". The hedonist lover is continually "taking" from his "beloved" and what he or she gives to their beloved is purely incidental to their being as the object of hedonistic love is the self.

The "marriage" of two hedonists will have all the appearance of a marriage. The partners will take delight in each other and will appear in love. However after the novelty of each other wears off and the pleasure that each receives from each other lessens, they will "fall out of love". Now it is true that the Hedonist lover can feel pain at the loss of his source of pleasure, but it is the pain of loss of loosing the pleasure not the pain of the loss of the thing itself. Since what is valued is the pleasure and not its source. A man may love the beauty of a woman but when that beauty fades so does the "love".

Unconditional love on the other hand, has as it's object the other; it is extrinsic to one's self. The love of the unconditional lover delights in the other regardless of the pleasures or grief that the lover receives from the loved. Indeed the perfect unconditional lover loves when there is no pleasure there at all except for the existence of the loved. To quote Percy Sledge:

When a man loves a woman
Can't keep his mind on nothing else
He'll trade the world
For the good thing he's found
If she's bad he can't see it
She can do no wrong
Turn his back on his best friend
If he put her down

This is perhaps where the vow stands as the perfect symbol of unconditional love. Made of our own free choosing, at the moment when we have glimpsed the beloved in their perfection, it is our desired promise, publicly proclaimed that the love we offer the beloved is unconditional. That thick or thin, our love is always there. It is a promise, not a fleeting feeling of the moment. When we keep our promises we love unconditionally. Love is sometimes a pleasure and other times a duty. In fact duty to our beloved can be a form of love.

Today I had a patient whose wife of 55 years died recently. He was clearly distressed as he missed her terribly. They were not the most glamorous couple and walking down the street, one would not notice them for any particular reason. They argued and fought, she bossed him and he annoyed her but he was always there for her and she for him. When she died he was cleaved in two, he and his partner had become one.

Intended Objects of Actors.

An act is a specific operation of a being which results in a change in the ontic state. Or in more common parlance: An act is an operation which results in a change in reality. An act instantiates change.

Since in human acts, the will effects the cause of instantiation, the effects of such acts are attributable to will. Hence the person who initiates an act is the originator of it and thus responsible for it.

If the change effected is a result of the operation of the Will, it is voluntary, otherwise it is involuntary. Furthermore, voluntary actions seek to instantiate a desired ontic state, this state being the object of the act.

The intent on the other hand is the state of reality which the intellect seeks to ultimately bring about; the ontic state which it desires, its' intended object.

Intent is realised through act or acts. However this does not mean that what is instantiated is what is intended. Indeed there may be several acts which may need to be done in order to achieve the intended state.

It appears then that the acting person has two types of motive objects. The object that we directly bring about through an act, the instantional object and the the state of affairs we wish ultimately achieved, the intentional object.

When morally considering actions a consideration of the both the instantional and intentional objects must be made in order to correctly consider the act. For an act to be good both the instantional object and intentional object must be good.

Of note, the intention of the Will can be instantiated by means outside the operating being. If for instance, we wish a man to be killed and by some other means not connected to ourselves, the man is killed, the will's intention is actuated, even though it has not occurred as a result of a specific action of our will. This is why ill will alone is viewed as moral negative.

Taylor Swift: Beautiful Girl.

I'm not a big fan of country music. But the song in the link above is quite catchy and is what my wife would call a "happy song". It's sweet, innocent and traditional and a refreshing change to all the rubbish and soft porn that is peddled by the Music industry.

I must admit I was quite arrested by the appearance of the singer whom I find beautiful. While this girl is erotically attractive-(I'm old enough to be her father)-her beauty in a way overrides it and I find her attractive in an aesthetic sense. She is just so damn pretty and feminine. Throughout the clip her appearance changes from modern college student to traditional damsel. Interestingly her femininity seems enhanced by the traditional clothing that she wears and she is more beautiful because of it. I suppose it just goes to show how powerful an affect fashion makes on a woman's appearance. She is pretty in the modern garb but stunning in the traditional wear.

Enjoy the tune. Yes, I'm a soppy sentimentalist.

And Yet Another Thought.

The innocent man is by necessity inculpable, however the inculpable man is not by necessity innocent.

Some More Thoughts for the Day on Moral Objects.

Intention of will(Finis Operantis): The appetite directed toward a certain ontic state; the desired state being its "object".

Intention of act(Finis Operis): The ontic state to be instantiated by the act; the acts' "object".

Realising our intentions: The process of instantiating the object of our will through the the instantiation of the objects of our acts.

The realised ontic state of the will may be achieved through one or many acts.

Both acts and intent have objects and these objects become moral when subjected to the standard of the morality. Without morality, there is no moral object.

Through the Finis Operis we achieve the Finis Operantis.

Thought for the day.

When we act, we attempt to instantiate our intentions.

Psychological axioms.

The ultimate female fantasy is to have the one man that all the other females desperately want , but HER special uniqueness, her beauty, her feminine charms has “tamed” and “captured” him into committed monogamy.

(HT David from Hawaii)

Too much flesh, not enough class.

Summer in Australia is a feast for the lecher but a famine for the aesthete. I'm by no ways a prude but I must admit that I find that excessive displays of flesh rather off-putting. Not so much for the display of flesh itself, rather what it tends to signify of the barer. Others may disagree, but I've tended to notice that the girls that bare the most are usually either dull or morally unscrupulous, both undesirable features.

Most women usually take great care of their appearance: They want to appear attractive. People are visual creatures, and the choices a woman makes with regard to fashion, determine what features she wishes to bring to attention or accentuate. A woman who walks around with near exposed breasts and a skirt that barely covers her bottom is going to send the signal to men that she wants to appear as sexual, in a way that a woman covered head to toe is not. Still its not just an issue of display of flesh, display of form should be considered as well. A skin tight jump suit can be as erotic as baggy track pants are not. A woman not wishing to appear as sexual would make choices which will leave something to the imagination while still accentuating her femininity.


Jayne Mansfield was endowed with enormous breasts, which she unashamedly displayed. She was cognizant that they were her main attraction and she deliberately flaunted them. Apparently she could speak six languages and purportedly had an IQ of 163 but who would know. She complained that people did not want to know about her other attributes, while at the same time emphasising her breasts. She plied the skin trade for all that she could get, arranging for "wardrobe malfunctions" when they would be most noticed. She deliberately pushed the boundaries of good taste in order to expose her "attractive assets". As her career started to nosedive, her efforts at notoriety doubled finally posing in Playboy as a centerfold. She deliberately cultivated an image as a sex symbol; a monodimensional personality. Her personal life was a wreck, she married five times, was an alcoholic and died tragically in an automobile accident. Overt sexuality: Low class. Notice whom she is sitting with; much more classy.

Beauty Queens

Both of these women are attractive and yet one is more beautiful than the other. Both were contemporaries and both were the object of much media speculation. Both met tragic ends. One died alone and unhappy by a barbiturate overdose, the other a princess in a car accident

I suppose the question to ask is, what makes these women attractive? Which of course leads to the question, what is attractiveness anyway?

I shall posit an answer: Attraction is a force that compels us towards its source. It can also be thought of as like magnetism, in that it has "polarity". The thing in possession of an attractive feature can be thought of as "positive", while the thing deficient of the attractive possession can be thought of as the "negative" pole of the force. Therefore a proper understanding of attraction involves the analysis of both poles. The potential of attractiveness therefore comes form the "potential difference in attribute" between the attractive and the attracted.

An individuals total attractiveness can be thought of as the rough sum of the attractive potentials of an individuals attributes when considered in from the point of view of the attracted. Therefore deficiencies in one area may be made up by excesses in another.

Marilyn Monroe's attractiveness lay in her sexuality and in her ability to project it, and while she is physically attractive, I don't think one could call her beautiful. Her attractiveness lays in the potential for sexual satisfaction, which would appear to be in abundance. However she appears mono dimensional in having nothing else to offer. (Remember I'm only talking about her appearance)

Grace Kelly's attractiveness lay in feminine beauty. The is also a sense of sexuality in Grace Kelly but it seems subordinated to her overall femininity, her sexuality is more restrained and refined. There is a sense of "grace", in Grace Kelly which is absent in Marilyn Monroe. So while she does not appear as sexual a Marilyn Monroe, she satisfies on many different planes. The sum of her many attractive potentials are greater than Marilyn's superlative one.

However the other point to consider is that of the attracted. A person who just wants to "get laid" is going to find Monroe more attractive than Kelly, but a person seeking beauty, sophistication and sex will find Kelly more attractive than Monroe. Monroe's attractiveness in more primal, Kelly's attractiveness more refined. Since civilised pleasures are refined pleasures, Kelly is the objectively more beautiful.

Saying that though, I would not of married either. Both were promiscuous before they were married. Big turn off.

Deceptive Packaging.

It's a sad fact of life that you can't judge a book by its cover. Likewise it's also true that you really can't judge people's characters on the basis of their appearance. Still in the real world, appearance is what most people go for and numerous studies have shown that the beautiful seem to have an unfair advantage over the ugly. Studies have shown that they get better jobs, are perceived as more intelligent and morally upright than the unattractive.
Human beings place a very considerable importance on physical beauty. I suppose it's because in our minds, the beautiful is synonymous with the good, and hence an object worthy of attainment. I suppose a great deal of human misery could be explained away be the realisation that what looks good is not necessarily good, but sometimes the beauty is so arresting, so perfect, so desirable that other considerations are put aside in order to attain the beautiful.

Young Laura Zuniga certainly does present the visage of the beautiful. An articulate pre-school teacher, she was a Mexican beauty queen. I must admit looking at her, she presents the picture of beauty, charm, intelligence and goodness. And yet the image lies.

You see, young Laura likes to spend her time with her drug cartel friends; Laura is not really that nice. I imagine that at her trial it will come out that she had low self-esteem, was pressured, was under the influence of hormones, etc. The fact would be, that these excuses would all be lies. As an incredibly attractive woman, Laura could of had her pick of men, from CEO's, movie stars, and attractive but honest men. Beautiful women get to choose their mates, and unlike the less attractive members of her sex, her choices in nearly all instances are not forced. I imagine the advances of many good decent and upright men would have been rejected in preference to the company of vicious evil men. Her preference is for bad boys.

It is said that the Angels can see not only our visage, but its composite with our natures. Perhaps if Laura's nature could be seen, it would look something like this. I want you to try to form a composite image of the beautiful body encapsulating that hideous form, in doing so you will have gained a more accurate image of the nature of this woman. Her beauty is skin deep, the ugliness goes to the bone. The beautiful is sometimes not the good, something a man or woman should remember when on the dating scene. A man is never more likely to be deceived than when enthralled in the beauty of a woman. In making our assessment of potential mates its well to consider that the packaging may not be indicative of what's in the can.

The Day the Earth Got Bored.

I went out with a friend tonight to see the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. My advice to potential viewers, stay at home. Don't even borrow the DVD. To quote a fellow movie goer, "That was a waste of two hours of my life." The movie had every cliche imaginable. Keanu Reeves actually acted quite well but even that could not save the movie. Utter rubbish.