From the original drives maybe. Redpill ‘wise as serpents’ stans know there are ways to con one another out of carnality, through carnality.
In the same way a woman can’t really be inspired to submit except through some signs of superiority or heavenly love, men probably need to be inflated by a woman strategically, both require insight into the darkest aspects of our sex instincts.
There’s will in the sense of personal drives, wants, vying for control against those of another’s, but I also get the intuition that biblical womanhood involves a transubstantiated will, something she refines through spiritual activity, without which none of these ideals where a woman can transform her husband from below is possible.
I think men struggle with this ideal a lot in a Christian upbringing, this dutiful but uncompensated wife, because it’s highly unnatural and requires same amount of sly ‘from-above’ restraint to keep from abusing power. Subordinated behaviour is one thing, conscious duty is another, but it crosses a wire with entitlement/self-image when men encounter this ideal, as many men’s self-image is closely tied to a woman’s subordination.
There’s no way to fulfill this role except with understanding and cunning. For men, the same, because they can’t extract this ideal from a woman except by playing on her in a way that fosters natural affection and recognition without abuse of his gift. Either that or he finds a highly ambitious concubine.
Belcutassi first observed something was terribly wrong with himself, that his inner processes seemed to not proceed with “sane logic.”
What is exceptional is that this self-observation fostered an impulse to wish to change, rather than making excuses, rationalizing, comparing his irrationality to others who are worse and declaring it ‘not so bad.’ He didn’t let pride, egotism, vanity, etc., totally cried out his voice of reason, in other words.
What’s even more exceptional is he embarked upon and saw through a plan to correct himself and try to act according to this “sane logic”, which, part of him could initially perceive, darkly.
He “began making sincere observations” on himself, on the things he perceived, and on the impressions (automatic chains of ‘thought’ and mental associations) it produced in him. He used whatever level of objectivity he had to verify, compare, how his different ‘parts’ perceived these data.
This video on Gurdjieff’s “Self observation” by Richard Ruach is sublime.
I attached my personal mediocre scattered notes of the explanation.
However you must watch it yourself to get the full picture.
One of the greatest videos of all time.
Novalis, Hymns to the Night:
“What heaven, what pleasure does your life offer which outweighs death’s delights? Doesn’t all that inspires us bear the color of the Night? It bears you mother-like, and you owe all your magnificence to her.”
@oldmantelegram Doctrine limiting salvific potential of female monastics mainly happens during political consolidation in which holy orders start being standardized by the state btw.
@oldmantelegram Why female tantrikas are more susceptible to, receptive to, ‘impure’ but higher forces that call them home via the entourage, why the yogini always appears in the desert at the fitting moment to assist in the wanderer’s arising, why saints usually have pious mothers
“…there was gradually formed in the latter, of course unconsciously, along with the already existing attitude towards women as mothers, yet another attitude towards women as simply females.
[…]
He would treat her as his own sister; and even if she herself should manifest organic [illicit sexual] actions towards him, he would only pity her the more, and regard her as “possessed by an unclean power” and would try his best to help her free herself from this misfortune.
And the same […] man will, in a normal condition, also treat a woman of the second category, that is, a prostitute, as a woman-female, since, however young and beautiful she may be, he will inevitably experience an organic aversion to her; nor could he treat her as a woman unless there had been introduced into his organism the toxic products, maleficent for people, which I have enumerated.”
—Beelzebub’s Tales: Beelzebub in America. An alternative, conscience-founded theory contra the ‘Madonna-Whore complex.’
This is so terrifyingly true and explains why men hate “onlyfans” working women for not suffering enough. They NEED to consume that content, but they hate that women aren't suffering. So they take up that role themselves in the comments after jerking off, then call her worthless
@KeenanMiller7 I think it boils down to the fragmentation of the self. It’s not surprising that killers defile then kill, and then plaster a story over top. Most of us do the same thing when faced with our own lust.
Men have aversions to prostitutes if they have moral or spiritualized political instincts intact.
If they get their wires crossed and succumb to illicit sex with sluts, they’ll engage in dual-minded aggression that punishes but uses but self-gratifies etc.
Pretending they have an instinct, or mimicking an instinct, that treats nearby women as ‘sisters’ in order to trick them, that’s recursive self-degradation.
https://t.co/j5T2oF7sib
I’m observing that aggression by men against sluts is partly a revulsion rooted in self-protection from their own lust-based decisions, but that revulsion can manifest as sexual violence, because they also seek to subjugate those women for easier sexual access.
It’s not coherent, but sluts nevertheless incite men to acts like public humiliation, punitive rape, etc., and it can be hard to draw the line on whether they’re acting on behalf of social order or sexually gratifying themselves.
And these drives manifest on the personal level and social/political at the same time. A man can act to uphold an overall public standard by shaming a slutty woman, but those ‘costs’ also make her more immediately vulnerable to him.