E tenebras, lux dormiens

Someone has pointed me out toward reading "The Ordinary Doom" by Eli Siegel because of the post I made about being trapped between "wanting to be famous" and "wanting to keep myself hidden," and although I was unable to find it on the Internet, I have seen enough of Aesthetic Realism to reject it humbly on the sole basis of one fact--it is in close alliance with Christianity, and thus view homosexuality as evil.

Splendid.

Maybe it's something I simply don't have the wisdom to see, but I am not getting this Aesthetic Movement, nor any of Siegel or his supporters' philosophy.

Although I don't like linking to sites that I disagree with, in fear that it raises the ranking of that site, and also in fear that I will be retributed, I must do so. In this article at http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/nci/homo/h89kt.htm, I find "Homosexuality, according to Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic Realism, grows out of contempt for everything in the world outside of self (particularly one's mother, and then all women), and a desire to conquer and dominate. The man becomes a 'vanquisher of the world,' by conquering the world through another man. The shame that results is changed into anger, or displeasure with the world." (Paragraph 9)

Pardon me, but I really respect my mother and do not want you to talk about how much I have contempt for her, or the desire to please her, or even the desire to replace God with her!

http://www.freedomsring.org/66feature.html has a statement from Aesthetic Realism trying to avoid the topic of changing the identity of homosexuality.

O.K. You're almost forgiven, almost, but not quite.

Since I don't know what is the content or the message of the Ordinary Doom, I can't comment. It's almost, but not quite, possible for me to separate an idea from the person that formulates it. It's even a possibility that I can separate an idea from another idea, and unlike the attempt to "make one of opposites," I try to make multitudes of one, not necessarily opposites.

It seems almost that perhaps Siegel, as an American philosopher, might be seeing the world in a duality.

I'll have to go to San Francisco Public Library to try to borrow a book that has the essay, because I want to read it and know whether it reflects me really well, or not.

What I am getting though, is that human beings in their contempt for the world, feel a desire to separate from it. Human beings, in their contempt for the world, feel a desire to conceal themselves from it.

O.K.

http://www.elisiegelcollection.net/Lectures-in-TRO/Tro1300.htm

It is possible that my mind is so feeble that I cannot understand what Siegel is saying. If so, ignorance may indeed be bliss.

But I have to find out what the rest of this essay is before I can make a judgment about it.

I am not trying to be hurtful, to attack ad hominem, but to make a critique of the message. It may be an evidence that I am far gone.

Since I have contempt for this article, does that mean that I have contempt for myself. Sadly, that is quite true. Maybe it has hit the mark. Theoretically, if I lose contempt for myself and for the world, replacing it with respect, then I will be happier.

Well, so far, they seem to have described me perfectly. /sarcasm I wonder . . . I have contempt for them, so I have proven their message with clarity. Well, that's muddlesome. They've surely got myself in a web that I certainly can't argue myself out of.

It's not that I have contempt, though, but it's probably a feeling that could become bound in the umbrella term of contempt. It's apprehension, it's doubt, it's uncertainty. It's the frightening belief that I, in trying to reduce this philosophy, have become the spokesperson for it. In trying to reduce it, I have effectively made it encompass me. In trying to say that I am different/better/superior/smarter/greater than this philosophy, I am become the merest worm for the birds.

So then. It seems that I can't win. Because any parallel can be drawn. The outside world could be my classmates, my friends, anyone. To make more of myself by making less of the world. Hmm.

So how should it be solved? Should I change? Or should the world change? Now that you brought up, I do want to like the world. And yes, I do dislike it. The easiest statement anyone can make is that misery in all the world is caused by contempt. The belief that all is unequal to one. Well, duh.

More links:

1. http://www.carolmccluer.net/twelfth-night.htm


2. http://www.elisiegel.net/Education_TRO1325.htm

BUT let me make it more clear.

1. When I said in my previous post that I wanted to separate my private self from my public self, it was not for the reasons that "aesthetic something something" expressed. The reason was that I wanted to make two weblogs, one for the purpose of being a journal--where I can explicate my life, and one for the purpose of being a true weblog--guiding other readers to articles that I find interesting.


You need only look at kottke.org, What's in Rebecca's Pocket?, or InstaPundit, to find the true forms that I want to emulate for a weblog.


2. When I said that I don't want it brought up, I mean that I am not ready to be stalked. That is the true essence of wanting privacy. People don't want to be violated, to be kidnapped, to be psychologically traumatized, to be hurt. That is expressed by the "aesthetic something," and I agree with the meaning in that way.



3. When I said I don't give links to my blog to other people, it is not because I want to be private, but because it is exactly the same as writing in a diary. And, as many would point out, the beauty of the Internet is the ability to be public and yet unknown, all at the same time.



4. When I don't reveal myself to other people, it is not out of contempt, but out of fear. If it is in the something doom described, then I stand corrected.



5. Lastly, when I posted that article, it was not about revealing myself, but about my pensive thought for the future.

I almost didn't want to make this post, but I am certainly insulted. I probably feel the same as the other person whom I might have insulted--you know who you are.

|