Love & The Best Sex

Today we had an interesting conversation about love and sex. More specifically, can a person love a partner and yet find the best sex possible in another person? Here's the gist of the conversation as best as I can remember it (ie. I might have take certain liberalities with the conversation in order to shorten it.):

S: The best sex is dependent on the body of the person. If the figure of the person is much better than your wife's and the other party's skills are better then surely the sex would be better.

Me: But if you love your wife enough wouldn't you find that she will give you the best sex possible? Wouldn't the sex provided by the other party be lacking somewhat? If you do not love her as much as you think you do, that will give you the incentive to find fulfilment elsewhere. Afterall sex is 90% mental.

S: But you not wanting to fool around might be because of the responsibility that you feel towards her rather than the love that you think you have for her.

Me: Granted that it's true but it's also very possible that I love her so much so that the responsibility is second nature. Afterall, with love come responsibility and everything else that follows. On the contrary, one might feel responsible to somebody without loving him or her. For example, if a woman save you from an accident you can continue to feel responsibile for her condition but without the love.

S: But that's introducing a whole load of other variables into the situation.

Me: Ok but what if we just abstract the situation that you're just feeling responsible to somebody? It's definitely not definite that you'll feel love for her. On the other hand if you love someone you'll necessarily feel responsible for her. Anyway back to the topic, the condition of love is that the sex cannot be detached from it. If we give a situation whereby you have a wife who loves you and you love her just as deeply. The only thing is that her figure is not the best over the years that passed. On the other hand you have a woman who's figure is the best and her sexual prowess is also the best. Thing is...you don't feel anything for her. I would still think that the best sex is what my wife can give me. The emotional cannot be detached from the physical.

MX: But some people just don't want to cheat because they don't want to break up the family. They are afraid of stuff like alimony, procedures etc.

Me: Yeah then all I can say is that they are the hypocrites. Just like the man who does charity at the old folk's home to impress his gf and the man who does it out of genuine compassion and pity, you can never tell which is which.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(More stuff was said but I can't fuggin recall.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
MX: Ok we put it this way, who will you save if your mom and wife is drowning?

Me: If I love my wife enough I will save her. But this means that if I love a person enough I will be the biggest bastard in history who's going to hell.

ZQ: I guess the only thing is that everyone can only speak for themselves. You may have one way of looking at love but you can't say that for the person beside you.

Me: Yeah but you must understand that I don't expect any of you guys to think the same way as I do. It's just what I believe in and strive for.

OBK: Wah your conception of love is very dangerous. And idealistic. It's too perfect. And it's dangerous too. It's just like the Christian love.

Me: Yeah but the Christian love is not necessarily erotic and I am a very erotic man. How is my love Christian-like?

OBK: I'm talking about the kind of love that is unconditional.

Me: But no what, I expect reciprocity. She must love me enough that she will not fuck around. It's very dangerous I know because I'm aware that there might come a day that should the girl I love ever come to betray me I might just die a wasted man. And even if this kind of standard that I'm trying to measure up against is too perfect, the least I can do is to strive for it. In the event that I can't achieve it and I become the economic man in relationships, I will be the first to say that I am a hypocrite and condemn myself.

ZK: Waaaah then you better get ready to be V1 liaoz .
========================================================

On the bus I was just thinking about the choice of having to save the woman you love and your mom. On hindsight it's an unfair question because we cannot compare saving a person's life and infidelity on the same level. Even if it could, I will just have to admit that I do not love the person whom I did not save enough. But the dilemma does prove that I love them both. For if it was responsibility, I have a responsibility towards both. So what would make me choose one over the other? Love. Simple as that. Furthermore it proves my theory further that with love come responsibilty but not necessarily the other way around.

With regards to the possibilty of a best sex, it is not being able to separate itself from the emotional because the emotions forms the perceptions that you have of your partner. As the Master once said, the moment you fall in love with a prostitute, she ceases to be one. Love enobles and puts your partner on a pedestal. She can nearly do no wrong that is so bad you can't forgive her. Love overlooks the minute imperfections that the other party possesses. On the other hand, love exacts its price on you for giving you the perfect image. In your honour of the angelic figure that love created, you make the harshest demand on yourself. You stifle your desire so that you may respect the other. The pain that your harshness inflicts on you is only mitigated, if not overridden, by the sweetness that comes with love. One becomes a masochist when love takes root.

The Philosopher

The Philosopher is an anomaly. He is caught between the vulgar masses that demand that his conformity to conventions; and his pursuit of the truth that is from nature, of nature and is nature. As part of society, the philosopher faces the stress of abiding by the conventions that society places upon him. Contemplation is not a luxury that is accorded to him by his contemporaries because only contemplation requires leisure. To be free to contemplate means that he is not a useful member of society because he does not contribute in any tangible manner. He is deemed to be from society but not of society. Furthermore, as someone who has access to the truth, he is obliged to let people know the truth, to help them escape from the metaphorical cave. But like the sun, the truth burns the eyes of people who are used to seeing the shadows dance on the walls. The truth hurts. Literally. And as creatures of convention are wont to do, they fear change - even if it's for the better - and persecute relentlessly all who fail to conform. The philosopher is no exception. He will be hunted down and no amount of apology (απολογεια) will suffice.

Is there no solution to bridge the gap between philosopher and philistine? Is the "imagined Republic" the only method to achieve this? For only in the Republic does convention and truth coincide. And even then it takes a monumental effort for this coincidence to come about. The political must shape the nature of people to be open to the truth in order that it will not hurt. Only a city with the Philosopher-King in charge is able to elicit such a change in the natures of people.

Liberal Democracies might be tempted to think that they have the answer - toleration - to this dilemma. In order to be consistent, they will have to tolerate the philosopher and his contemplation. This is because in having freedom of choice, what immediately follows is freedom of thought. Without freedom of thought there can be no genuine choice; only choice as prescribed by the elites. They have to tolerate his professions of what is the truth when he is ready to share and liberate. But is this really true in reality? The Philisopher is a lover of truth. His eros runs so deep that it is virtually unshakeable. He knows that he knows and that everybody else must know. But to let everyone know would result in a fundamental change in how society is ordered and functions at present. It is clearly a political problem. Under the guise of tolerance, the philosopher is exiled to the University and ordered to keep his contemplations within the boundaries (in every sense of the word) of the institution. He is not to allowed to fufil his duty of liberating one and all from the cave. In my opinion, Liberal Democracies have only solved half of the problem - the persecution of the philosopher. In the University, not only is the philosopher allowed to indulge his eros of learning safely, he is encouraged to; so long as it remains within the University itself. He is safe insofar as he remains there for outside of it, tyranny of the majority still reigns supreme and it has the backing of the body politic. Such are the dangers of the philosphic life.

F-U-C-K-E-D U-P

This is why I'm ashamed to be human...if the motherfucking sons of bitches can be called humans at all...

SAY NO TO FUR!!!

Anyone reading this blog, if any of you have blogs or anything please post this on your blogs. Either that or pass the link around. The motherfuckers gotta pay.

Perfection

In The Closing Of The American Mind, Bloom indicated that people crave perfection even though they know that perfection, by definition, is unattainable. So why pursue it? Because in their pursuit, they feel perfect for that very fleeting moment. I think this is why I am so relentless in my pursuit of perfection. Because I want to be perfect. But I cannot be, so this must be some sort of luxury/illusion/delusion that I allow myself.

Weird logic one might say but comprehensible in my pov. If all life is a will-to-power as Nietzsche asserts, then everything that I do as I strive towards that perfection is a mark of overcoming and, thus, demonstrates the perfection of perfection (poor articulation I know but I do have this problem from time to time). It's not easy, it's masochistic but nobody promised me that just because I am doing something admirable (same goes for other things like great, right or noble etc) the road leading to it has to be lined with beds of sweet smelling roses to make the journey pleasant. If perfection is really that desirable, then it being the destination should be attractive enough that the pleasantries by the road should not even be a factor in my decision to pursue it. And this is not something unimaginable and out of this world. In the Glauconian restatement of the truly just man, he suffers the greatest injustices (360b-360e & 361e-362a). But he continues being just anyway because he sees it as worth the pursuit in and of itself. So this must be the same with the perfect form of things that I seek. I made the choice and I have to live with its consequences. But better a wrong choice than non whatsoever.

Kalos, Eros & Buddhism

Kalos (καλος): The beautiful. Also carries an added dimension of nobility.

Buddhism: Advocates detatchment from the material world in order to transcend suffering. One should be able to let go of the feelings that grip us and the material that attract us.

From the 2 definitions above, it would appear that they cannot be reconciled. This is a problem for me since I am strongly moved by beauty and yet I am still a Buddhist. The beautiful/noble invokes in me passions that motivates me towards perfection. It makes me pass over the crass and vulgar while I strive towards that end in all I do. The Nietzschean concept of the beautiful is exactly the same as what the ancient Greeks expounded - beautiful and noble at the same time. It is also what I have adopted. But what is it about this Καλος that attracts me so? I believe central to my desire for Καλος is my Ερος. Much like Cyrus, I'm very moved by the abstract, metaphysical forms of beauty that exists. Never mind what the eye sees. It's what the mind perceives that matters. As such I understand that nobody can ever meet that kind of standard. One has to be the Platonic form of beauty in order to satisfy me.

So maybe I satisfy one part of being a good Buddhist - no strong attachment to the material. But I'm still, essentially, an erotic man. Καλος moves me. I can't help but have my innermost feelings roused by it. Buddhism asks for a person who is able to let go. I still cannot do it. In this respect I can fully empathise with Anakin in Starwars. The only way I can reconcile these 2 at the moment is that Nirvana is the most beautiful thing that can ever exist. Does this imply that in trying to achieve Nirvana I have to be the most erotic person? In achieving true beauty, I might have reached the point when it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe Hegel can explain this up to a certain extent. In trying to know something I must be able to conceive of its opposite. I must know of its negation. Only then will I fully understand what is. Presently, this seems to be the most plausible way of reconciling both.

Καλος

"Why do you need beauty to be perfect? Do you want it to be perfect for something else?"
- Haig

The question above was posed to me by Prof Haig after I argued, or at least I tried to, for perfect beauty rather than the crass and vulgar kind that democracies are capable of. Defending Nietzsche has always been a contentious position but at the very least his teachings are close to my heart. Problem is, it wouldn't be such a difficult question to answer if I weren't a vain (slightly) person at all.

"You remind me of Glaucon. He's sort of masochistic in the way he defends justice."
- Haig

As a person I make heavy demands on myself. Do it to the best of my ability or not do it at all. There is no in between. So naturally I demand that certain notions are perfect in themselves or I just reject them. Beauty/Aesthetics is just one of them. Question I've never asked myself was "Why?".

While I want to do things well because I hate to regret, I can't deny that a tiny portion of me wants to satisfy my amor propre. Hence in trying to answer the question, I started to wonder if my want for perfect kalos is an extension of this amor propre, my vanity. All this while I've taken for granted that I want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. Could my vanity actually extend itself to crave perfection of notions such as justice and beauty for my sake?

Each time I come to a conclusion, I suddenly waver and feel that the other position is just as defensible. But deep down inside I really feel that I can really want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. I just wasn't sure how to articulate it.

Having thought about it thus far, it finally dawned on me why I want beauty to be perfect. Beauty in my eyes is an entity, so to speak, that I don't want sullied. I just want it to be perfect for the sake of being perfect. Jeremy likens it to a plebeian appreciating classical music because of its form and architecture. He does not like classical music because he wants to be seen as sophisticated or higher up the social ladder than he really is. I know I like jazz and classical because it gives me pleasure. Not cuz I want to impress some girl or act classy. I just like it. I guess the same can be said of wanting beauty to be perfect. It must be perfect or it isn't beauty anymore. Anything less destroys the foundation and form that is beauty or, more accurately, καλος.

Irony

You know what's cool about irony? It's usually true up to a certain extent.

I Have A Soul!!!

Before, I was disillusioned. I was angry and pissed off with the world. I didn't care about anything and everything. It was all meaningless to me. Nothing really mattered, people can suffer for all I care.

Then I took Political Philosophy.

It taught me to care again. It taught me "to take seriously the most serious things". It gave me hope once again. Suddenly things don't look so bleak. I thought I had lost my soul and, with it, any capacity for compassion. Glad to see it's still around.

How long will this intellectual orgasm last? It gives me a high that cannot be described. A high that has to keep on rising infinitely......

Human, All Too Human - A Rejoinder

Had a conversation with Jeremy today regarding overcoming the damn problem. Apparently it ties back to recalcitrance - do we continue to do so inspite of or mend our ways? Do we want to make the effort to treat divinity for its own sake or carry on being the self-centred, pompous bastards that, imo, we are. This, of course, if we take the moral standard and divinity to be true regardless.

If we do take it to be otherwise, then is it a normative ideal that is not suited for us humans? The utopian beauty that cannot be attained? If so, do we review the theories and try to draw up another that is achievable? Hmm...once again I find myself falling back into the same spiralling trap that sparked this whole thing off ---> acting as if we're above divinity. So much so that we think we can rewrite morality to be that much more palatable. Hypocrisy or not? Lowering the standards...hmm...

Human, All Too Human

I never really thought about god (in the generic sense) thoroughly all this while. But just now I was wondering why do we worship him/her(?). It's like if I worship him for security then am I not using him as a means to an end? Doesn't it make god instrumental in that sense? And because he's so omnipotent, why should he take all this shit from me? More importantly, because he's so omnipotent, who am I to treat him so?

So the counterargument goes: If I worship god for his own sake, then I should not ask anything of him. But I still do. So doesn't that make me that much more fucked up? Knowing and still doing it. I try to tell myself that whatever happens happens for a reason and that reason is his to know. But I'm still insecure about life and its frailties which makes me ask him for greater security. How how how how how?

Virgin Musings

Welcome to Exoteric Esotericism - my untouched sanctum where I seek solace from the plebeians who speak of issues like they know it all. Just like philosophy is deemed too dangerous for the vulgar masses, be sure that my blog is not meant for mindless comments.

Since philosophy is too much for plebeians to handle, this is the only haven where I can voice out my philosophical musings. Like Socrates, I share his love for philosophical inquiry into the epistemological nature of things. Sadly, I do not have an intelligent* crowd capable of satisfying this longing.

*: My friends, however, are far more intelligent than I but I do not see them often enough these days.