"In truth, the seductive element of the Sirens' music does not stem from a nature-like sensuality, as Adorno still mistakenly supposed. Rather, it seems to be the nature of these singes not to display any charms of their own… The secret reason for the irresistibility of the Sirens is that they, with a peculiar lack of scruples, never perform their own repertoire, only the music of those who pass by; the very idea of a melody of their own is foreign to them; even the sweetness of their voices is not a musical quality irremovably tied to their performance, and in tradition their voices are more often termed shrill than beautiful. The Sirens found eager victims in all listeners up until Odysseus - and especially in him - because they sing from the listener's own place. There secret is to render precisely those songs in which the passing sailors' ears yearn to immerse themselves. Listening to Sirens thus means entering the core space of an intimately touching musical key and wishing to remain at the source of this indispensable sound from that point on. The fatal singers compose their songs in the ear of the listener; they sing through the larynx of the other. Their music is that which finds the simplest solution to the problem of accessibility of otherwise closed ears.
The Siren's art is to place the subject's own self-arousal into its soul.
The meaning of irresistibility in this case is transporting the subject to the center of the hymnic emotion that seems to well up in itself and transports it to a place among the stars.
Seduction is an awakening of the source of that melody which is absolutely mine to sing.
"Remarkable Odysseus, halt and hear the song we two sing out: Achaean chief, the gift our voices give is honey-sweet. No man has passed our isle in his black ship until he's heard the sweet song from our lips; and when he leaves, the listener has received delight and knowledge of so many things. We know the Argives' and the Trojan's griefs: their tribulations on the plain of Troy because the gods had willed it so. We know all things that come to pass on fruitful earth." [XII, 184-191]
Siren music rests on the possibility of being one step ahead of the subject in the expression of its desire. Perhaps such an ability to be ahead is the anthropological reason for the interest of modern artists, which reached its zenith in modern societies and passed it in postmodern ones. Thus the Sirens' song does not simply move the subject as if from without; it rather sounds as if the own most sentiment of the subject, which now rises up, were being uttered in perfection and for the first time.
Did Homer already know that bonds can only be broken by more bonds? Was it already clear to him that culture in general, and music in particular, is essentially nothing other than a division of labor in bewitching? What is the nature of this desire to get closer?
What primal scene of being-close might it be that plunge towards the singers reenacts?
From where does the principle of transference take effect in the are of this acoustic enchantment?
Only at the second listen does the particularity of the Siren scene become clear: if such music is irresistibly sweet for this one and only sung-about and singing listener, it is because it feigns to the hero that his constitutive wish has been fulfilled. The singers hold the key to the listening subject's heavenly ascension, and their method of secudtion gives the decisive flue to the intimate zone of the hearing sense, which is willingly open to certain insinuations.
The Siren song as such is the medium in which the wish originally forms. The song, the wish and the subject have always belonged together.
In truth, the subjectivity of heroic times can only form through listening to the epic and mythical glorification. In the nurseries of advanced civilizations, as in most pre-literate societies, the ego is formed in a promise of song: a future of notes is sent ahead of the ego's own existence.
I am a sound image, a verse flash, a dithyrambic feeling, compressed into a form of address that already sings to me in my infancy who I can be. The hero and the heroine: they will be those whom they hear in advance - for life in the age of heroic subjects is always on the way to versification.
Only monotheistic priests revel in the self-referential misconception that man wants to be like God.
Being on the way to the rhapsodic moment gives one's existence the feeling for its forward and upward motion. An immemorial inclination towards frothing up in the cantilena precedes the ego; its frequency is its substance. That is why, to this day, tenors and prima donnas can arouse entire stadiums and make large houses tremble; they show even the most musically impoverished a simple route to the frothing of the self in vocal exhibitions.
Pop stars descend even further into the underworld of ego orgasms at discount prices by simulating their emergence with jaws locked around the microphone. But tenor subject is led to itself.
In its early acoustic or rhapsodic memory, a few magical rhythms and sonic gestures accumulate and ring ahead of the individual like leitmotifs from a hymnic heaven - as yet unplayed and postponed, yet always on the point of finally being performed. This is how I sound - and this is how I will be once I am.
I am the frothing up, the sound block, the liberated figure, I am the beautiful and bold assuage, I am the leap to the highest note; the world echoes with my sound when I show myself as I have been promised to myself.
It is no coincidence that according to Greek traditions outside of the Odyssey, the Sirens normally performed a lament for the dead. Their power is borrowed from the underworld and its lords, Hades and Phorcys; hence their voices are especially suitable for humans of praise and songs for the dead. Their foreknowledge concerns human destinies and their unknown end. The ancient authors describe the Siren voices as simultaneously honey-sweet and shrill - which perhaps reminds us that the music of antiquity did not produce its oft-cited magical effects through those elements known to post-Romantic listener through a form of ecstatic relentlessness - magically over-articulated, penetratingly incisive and sustained to the point of exhaustion.
Siren components come into play whenever humans abandon themselves to moved listening. In listening to the outer voice, the listener's most native, personal emotional wells up. So it is when sirens - that is, sounds that move and demand unconditional affirmation - become audible that things become serious for the subject's sense of self.
Hearing sirens means hearing "oneself"; being called by them means moving towards them out of one's "own most" desire.
It is, incidentally, one of the typical self-revelations of the twentieth century - and one of its characteristic cynicisms - that it referred to the wailing machines on factory roofs, and in wartime also the alarm systems that spread panic in cities being attacked from the air, as "sirens". This choice of name plays with the insight that sirens can trigger archaic feelings among those who hear them, but it distorts this with wicked irony by associating the siren with a forced alarm. The most open form of listening was thus betrayed to terror, as if the subject were only close to its truth when running to save itself. At the same time, this renaming of the siren voice inappropriately coarsens it, instrumentalizing it for the most brutal mass signals.
When we speak here of a siren effect, on the other hand, this refers to the intimate accessibility of individuals by sonic messages that transmit a form of hypnosis via happiness, a feeling of attaining the fulfilled moment. That some listeners can be reached and awakened by certain sounds would be unimaginable if the sound itself were not met by a spontaneous urgent accommodation on the recipient's part. As our reflections on the effects of the Sirens' recitation about Odysseus have shown, the irresistibility of song rests not on a sweetness particular to music, but rather the alliance of the sound with the subject's most discreet listening expectations. The ear comes with its own selectivity, which waits persistently for the note that is unrecognizably its own; if hat note does not sound, the intimate sonic expectations stays in the background and the individual continues its everyday business unmoved - literally - often without even the possibility of sensing an other condition.
One must seemingly assume that once pregnant women notice their condition, they begin to speak for the intimate witness in their body - and, to an extent, directly to it. In listening closely, the ears carry out the primal act of the self; all later instances of "I can", "I want" or "I come" by necessity follow on from this first manifestation of spontaneous liveliness. If a woman's acknowledgement of her pregnancy is accompanied by positive feelings, a fabric of delicate anticipations of togetherrness with the new life develops in her behavior, and the mothers behind to act as if they were under discreet observation from now on. The human being is the more or less well-greeted animal, and if its center of feeling is to be reactivated, one must repeat the greeting that originally marks its initiation into the world. The correct greeting or welcome is the deepest correspondence a subject can experience. The good mothers' voices invite the witnesses in their wombs to begin their own existences energetically.
If we take this audio-vocal act of intimacy as the criterion, then christain evangelism also partakes in the siren effect in several ways: the angelic greeting obliges the mother of the extra-ordinary child to look forward to the coming event at the highest spiritual frequency. What characterizes Christianity as cultural power is that time and again, it has managed to find a balance between the individualizingg and community-forming components in the effects of evangelistic communication - an equilibrium between the muse and the siren, one might say. While siren religiosity releases intimistic and mystical tendencies, in precarious cases also sect magic and suicidal madness, the muse's religion leads to communal integration and the coherence of the people's church, but at its dangerous extreme also mass psychoses and belligerent chosenness offensives.
This shows that humans emerge without exception from a vocal matriarchy: this is the psychological reason for the siren effect. But while Homer's Sirens produce sweet obituaries, the mother's siren voice is anticipatory: it prophesies a sounding fate for the child. in listening to it, the fetal hero embarks on his own odyssey. The irreplaceable voice utters fulfilling prophecy: "you are welcome" or "you are not welcome". Thus the mother's vocal frequency becomes a Last Judgement shifted back to the beginning of life." [Spheres: Bubbles]
That sure is a nice eye. Believe them to be the basis point of human beauty. All else is either less vital or can be highly molded. But the eyes never do lie. Mabey the organ of vision is a two-way street.
What of the Siren who sings her song and after a brief pause to listen, nobody pays attention?
With seduction a male must become used to being rejected, but how does the one with the natural choice deal with it?
Odysseus tells us a story of rejection. How enraged the mermaids must have been. They dove into the blue, their tails swaying, and who has heard of them since, except in a sailor's drunken tale.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
A siren sings her song and the more ears she can entice at a time, the more powerful her song becomes. A siren prefers the open sea, it should be a spot where ships pass by but still away from established shipping lanes - it would become a mundane attraction, not a magical encounter. The unknown holds potential, for the dreamer as well as the tipsy.
Now, what is all the art of seduction - It's just the cultivated art of creating the situation and frame of mind in which a beautiful woman has always found herself to be in, since ancient times.
Seduction is not on the object of desire, it is in the mind of the one who desires. It is not what it is, it is in what could be. The seducer need not do more than provide the possibility.
I agree with phonee faker. Idealism and possibility is the essence of seduction.
People do not seduce based on what is, but, what can become. Females are beautiful based on the possibility of their healthy appearance. A fit, young girl, offers the highest probability of healthy children. So males will seek this type of female first and foremost, before other, uglier females. Beauty and sex is what female have to offer males, not much else. Usually uglier females will need to compensate for their lack of genetic possibility, a lack of potential. Uglier females are driven to work, have a career, earn money, study harder, and waste most of their reproductive life on traditionally masculine areas. The feminist "working woman" myth is shrouded in ugliness.
Beautiful women don't need to work. It is more of a luxury to work, effortless. Therefore beautiful women don't care about quitting a job, or being fired. Women have less responsibility to their career, because they don't need to work, as men do.
Male attraction is based on confidence, trust, and security. Women are sexually attracted to men's possibilities. Women want a man who is already successful. And male success is measured in many diverse ways, opposed to a woman's singular way. Male success is measured in intelligence, strength and prowess, fighting ability, social charisma and charm, political popularity, economic wealth and savings, etc. etc.
Beautiful women want to trade their beauty for different types of male success. The more beautiful a woman is, the more choice of men she has. Likewise a "successful" man is as attractive as he is successful. And male success is multifaceted, based on real measurements. Male success and sexual attraction is real, actual, scientific. Men need to "do things" to be successful. A woman needs not do anything.
A man's success, and seduction, is active. He needs to do something to "achieve" it. A woman's success, and seduction, is passive. She needs to only "maintain" or preserve it.
A woman can maintain her beauty with a restrictive, selective diet. She maintains a thin weight with healthy nutrition, not much fat and sugar. That's it. She doesn't need to do anything else, in life.
A woman doesn't need to act. Men do, and, men's actions are the essence of male seduction. A man seduces by his action, where his actions prove "successful" in life.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Agreed. Thus the more the seducer reveals, the more possibilities are narrowed. A seducer who reveals nothing creates no possibility. A seducer who reveals too much limits the seduced's ability to imagine the possibilities that might exist.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Seduction is not on the object of desire, it is in the mind of the one who desires. It is not what it is, it is in what could be. The seducer need not do more than provide the possibility.
Finally...some light in that dark tunnel of luuuuuuuv.
Yes....desire, the libidinal form of need, and want the conscious form of it, focuses the will upon an object/objective.
The object/objective, is a projection...of the mind. It is a means towards an end, if the end is not taken as an absolute....a finality. If it is then it is always disappointing.
The end opens up new ends, new possibilities...probabilities. Probability is a higher form of possibility, a qualification of probability, based on a perceived pattern.
The beautiful, the more ordered, that which is perceived as possessing a higher, more rare, degree of symmetry, is not absolute, in that it is never perfect, never complete. It is always lacking, and so it never satisfies, gratifies, eliminates need, completely, but it does open up a promise for a higher, more rare, form of order.
The object/objective is the projection of a perceived pattern... It is seductive, attractive, full of potential, full of promise, in the mind that perceives it, because it appears to be superior, rare, in an entropic temporality.
It is not an end because it is always, or almost always, disappointing, because the ideal never meets the real. Ideal = noumenon Real = phenomenon The degree to which the mind has perceived and understood and projected accurately, correctly, precisely, determines the degree to which it's expectations will be met.
And the absolute fulfillment of need is never attained.
The end of need would be God. God, as a theoretical Being, has no need....is independent, free, self-determining, etc. He would not care, if He were understood in the way He is defined by those who worship Him as a Reality. He would be indifferent, for indifference is a sign of power, and care is a symptom of need.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Agreed. Thus the more the seducer reveals, the more possibilities are narrowed. A seducer who reveals nothing creates no possibility. A seducer who reveals too much limits the seduced's ability to imagine the possibilities that might exist.
The more the seducer reveals the more imperfection is revealed.... The seducer, if his motive is to seduce with a promise he cannot deliver, remains laconic, secretive, elusive...
Some have called this charm.
A grifter, a con-artist, does not place a need in the mind of the one he is manipulating. He uses the one already present. He directs it with an idea, an object/objective. He feeds a need exposed to him, one he has perceived....and he feeds it, feeds into it....guiding it with subtly.
Marketing. Politics. Flirtation.
The worse thing a seducer can do is speak a lot, or disclose his mind. This is why it's funny when women claim they want the man to reveal their "hearts" to them.
The hypnotist manipulates what is present in the mind of the one who then places himself in a trance.
A true conspiracy directs what is already occurring...either not intervening or intervening in a manner that would direct the other towards an end he prefers. human beings are not gods....they are manipulators.
Does man invent the forces of nature? No. He manipulates them.
Man does not invent sex, for example, he intervenes, represses, suppresses, funnels.
Revealing too little is also ineffective. The seducer must keep its audience engaged. The process of seduction is not an endless one. If the seducer stops revealing, the one being seduced realizes the inexistent possibility and loses interest. As little by little is revealed, the one being seduced may find something he does not fancy, and loses interest. If all that is revealed fancies him/her, each new element causes a build up on expectation, an increase in desire. Until all is revealed and enjoyed, but only for a moment. Then it is on to something new.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The act exposes the need, dear soul. So says this primitive old fart.
Like when you came here. Like when you feign disinterest, trying to sever the string leading back through the labyrinth of your cavernous...void. Helloooo...hello... hello...hello...hellohello No answer. Nobody's home, in this spider's lair.
Like when you try to avoid the need behind your seductive presence, enticing us with the promise of an overflowing abundance - a brimming pleasure cup, full of....full of....full of? *sniff* *sniff* Feces?
That too is fertilizer for seeds wanting, desiring, needing to sprout. We must find a silver lining... I've seen yours.
I resist pulling on it....fearing your royal dress might come undone.
The act exposes the need, dear soul. So says this primitive old fart.
Why else, would the seducer seduce?
Quote :
Like when you came here. Like when you feign disinterest, trying to sever the string leading back through the labyrinth of your cavernous...void. Helloooo...hello... hello...hello...hellohello No answer. Nobody's home, in this spider's lair.
Like when you try to avoid the need behind your seductive presence, enticing us with the promise of an overflowing abundance - a brimming pleasure cup, full of....full of....full of? *sniff* *sniff* Feces?
That too is fertilizer for seeds wanting, desiring, needing to sprout. We must find a silver lining... I've seen yours.
I resist pulling on it....fearing your royal dress might come undone.
Well dear, then make room for those who want to pull it. Turn away.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Maybe it's worth thinking about phoneutria's comments with reference to yourself, as the seducer---not her. If anyone has been led astray (seduced), to here, isn't it phoneutria..? --And the seducer still wants, something...
Look how interested she is, in you. Could your long strings of text sewn together act like...a curtain? Did it fall, for a moment, in the Chatbox before you pulled it back up, and draped yourself in more text? Didn't she call you a pretty woman, somewhere?
Take these comments for whatever they're worth. Perhaps, (maybe inadvertently), she's telling you something.
Just some speculation...
Satyr wrote:
Why would I end my pleasure so quickly? An old man, like me, has to keep what he can find, for as long as he can.
I've already seen all I need to see. Now, it's about making you undress for me.
Hm...
Last edited by Mo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Higher quality organisms require higher degrees of seduction to sway and convince.
The highest requires the highest effort.
What is the highest quality of female? Is she an ugly hooker who $20 will get you a full night of whatever? Is this it? Or, is it a beautiful, young, tiny little tart, who no man can afford? Does her looks match her price? Let's discuss modern women pricing themselves out of the market, why not? What does a female lose, by closing her legs? Does her value depreciate, doesn't her looks depreciate in time? Wrinkles form. What is her value at 40, compared to 14?
Men? Men start at 0. Zero. Disposable. All men know this basic truth. Whereas females must, eventually, lower their price to complete a transaction, men must gather the bills. We must accumulate worth and value. We collect it, hoard it, store it. This is the male gravitas, the accumulation of power, energy, life force. Females are the sellers. An exchange is made, male value for female value.
Not everyone is a fair deal. Some deals are final, no return policy. Sorry, little girl, you whored yourself at a much cheaper price than you could have afforded, if you had some wisdom and brains to guide you. But you didn't. You gave yourself away, practically for free. Better have the beauty to back it.
A year is a decade for a woman. 30 years old, no marriage, childless? May as well be 50. What kind of men will work, fight, and sacrifice for a 30 year old woman? I wouldn't. If I'm going to fight for a woman, then she better be young, pretty, smart.
Or you can settle for less. Many men will, settle down, with a 35 year old ex hooker. No big deal. Why not? Because that's what men can afford. Some men are practical buyers, some women are practical sellers. Sex is a trade, how much seduction is actually necessary?
Seduction is something other than carnal sexual desire. A man goes and pays a hooker, money for pleasure. Who gets off? Do they both enjoy sex? Equally?
Is a hooker seduced?
No, seduction is something else. Females have very little, or no, "actual" seductive power. Because women provide beauty and health. Women offer a womb, but why this womb over another? What does this pretty face have, exactly, that an ugly face does not? A genetic promise. Again, this is passive. The wombman, she does nothing.
Her seduction is a nuisance more than anything, a distraction. A woman exists to be gawked at. She does not gawking at men. She is an object. Men are subjects. Females are sexually objectified. Feminists who claim that males can be sexually objectified are nihilists and want to invert reality. They want to change nature, human nature.
Go ahead, objectify men all you want. Do men have a passive beauty?
Let's simplify, what is the most seductive action, or being, or thing, imaginable? What is the most seductive essence of all?
I promise you....eternal life! You will live forever, immortality. Ah, the religious know about seduction, don't they? They promise eternal life, can you do the same? It is within this eternal idealism, that seduction has its greatest power. It doesn't have to be physical. It doesn't have to be female beauty, or male success. It can be neither.
Ideals are seductive. Ideas, ideologies, culture, thoughts, beliefs, dreams, fears. All seductive, forms of seduction. Doesn't higher intelligence offer more seductive promises? How does intelligence and seduction connect? Is intelligence seductive?
What is intelligence? Consideration of all possibilities. The more expansive the mind, the more open to all possibilities, the most intelligent? The most intelligent type is aware of possibilities that none else are. The most intelligent has access to most possibilities, and therefore, has access to the widest range of choice.
The highest intelligence is freest. And within freedom, the promise of freedom, is also seductive.
What is more seductive than absolute freedom? Unlimited choices, you can do anything and everything. Yes, feminists and liberals, you can even overturn nature. Nothing is impossible.
Also a seductive possibility. But it requires your belief and faith. You must believe, have faith, perhaps in an impossibility. You must be swayed by a possibility, or, impossibility. For the religious, they put all their eggs in one basket. It's in God's hands.
Eternal life. What is more seductive an idea? Can you think of one?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Maybe it's worth thinking about phoneutria's comments with reference to yourself, as the seducer---not her. If anyone has been led astray (seduced), to here, isn't it phoneutria..? --And the seducer still wants, something..
Really? Was she trying to imply something about me?
How, subtle of her. I must have missed it, boy...in all that artsy-farsty shiat. Me being all primitive, and old, and stuff.
Mooooooooooooooooo wrote:
Look how interested she is, in you.
Is she. I did not feel a thing. I only feel the little hairs on her tiny feet, brushing up against my balls.
Tell me more.
Moooo wrote:
Could your long strings of text sewn together act like...a curtain?
I pull the shades when the Queen walks in. I want to preserve the image, I have of her, in my own head.
Moooo wrote:
Did it fall, for a moment, in the Chatbox before you pulled it back up, and draped yourself in more text? Didn't she call you a pretty woman, somewhere?
I'm an old man, dear young boy.
You are cute.
Mooo wrote:
Take these comments for whatever they're worth. Perhaps, (maybe inadvertently), she's telling you something.
And this after you told her she was the only one you were interested in, and that you had nothing to say to me? Huh? Fascinating.
Moooo wrote:
Just some speculation...
Oh, dear boy, it's more than that. More than a spontaneous 'just because'. But you stay there.
Are you miffed?
I'll be the grifter you want me to be. All subtle-like....like you girls like it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And we all know who Æon is...and it's not only because of the Æ... Did you find a way to pick a lock, or did you realize the door had been left open all along?
Æon wrote:
Higher quality organisms require higher degrees of seduction to sway and convince.
The highest requires the highest effort.
What is the highest quality of female? Is she an ugly hooker who $20 will get you a full night of whatever? Is this it? Or, is it a beautiful, young, tiny little tart, who no man can afford? Does her looks match her price? Let's discuss modern women pricing themselves out of the market, why not? What does a female lose, by closing her legs? Does her value depreciate, doesn't her looks depreciate in time? Wrinkles form. What is her value at 40, compared to 14?
Men? Men start at 0. Zero. Disposable. All men know this basic truth. Whereas females must, eventually, lower their price to complete a transaction, men must gather the bills. We must accumulate worth and value. We collect it, hoard it, store it. This is the male gravitas, the accumulation of power, energy, life force. Females are the sellers. An exchange is made, male value for female value.
Not everyone is a fair deal. Some deals are final, no return policy. Sorry, little girl, you whored yourself at a much cheaper price than you could have afforded, if you had some wisdom and brains to guide you. But you didn't. You gave yourself away, practically for free. Better have the beauty to back it.
A year is a decade for a woman. 30 years old, no marriage, childless? May as well be 50. What kind of men will work, fight, and sacrifice for a 30 year old woman? I wouldn't. If I'm going to fight for a woman, then she better be young, pretty, smart.
Or you can settle for less. Many men will, settle down, with a 35 year old ex hooker. No big deal. Why not? Because that's what men can afford. Some men are practical buyers, some women are practical sellers. Sex is a trade, how much seduction is actually necessary?
Seduction is something other than carnal sexual desire. A man goes and pays a hooker, money for pleasure. Who gets off? Do they both enjoy sex? Equally?
Is a hooker seduced?
No, seduction is something else. Females have very little, or no, "actual" seductive power. Because women provide beauty and health. Women offer a womb, but why this womb over another? What does this pretty face have, exactly, that an ugly face does not? A genetic promise. Again, this is passive. The wombman, she does nothing.
Her seduction is a nuisance more than anything, a distraction. A woman exists to be gawked at. She does not gawking at men. She is an object. Men are subjects. Females are sexually objectified. Feminists who claim that males can be sexually objectified are nihilists and want to invert reality. They want to change nature, human nature.
Go ahead, objectify men all you want. Do men have a passive beauty?
Let's simplify, what is the most seductive action, or being, or thing, imaginable? What is the most seductive essence of all?
I promise you....eternal life! You will live forever, immortality. Ah, the religious know about seduction, don't they? They promise eternal life, can you do the same? It is within this eternal idealism, that seduction has its greatest power. It doesn't have to be physical. It doesn't have to be female beauty, or male success. It can be neither.
Ideals are seductive. Ideas, ideologies, culture, thoughts, beliefs, dreams, fears. All seductive, forms of seduction. Doesn't higher intelligence offer more seductive promises? How does intelligence and seduction connect? Is intelligence seductive?
What is intelligence? Consideration of all possibilities. The more expansive the mind, the more open to all possibilities, the most intelligent? The most intelligent type is aware of possibilities that none else are. The most intelligent has access to most possibilities, and therefore, has access to the widest range of choice.
The highest intelligence is freest. And within freedom, the promise of freedom, is also seductive.
What is more seductive than absolute freedom? Unlimited choices, you can do anything and everything. Yes, feminists and liberals, you can even overturn nature. Nothing is impossible.
Also a seductive possibility. But it requires your belief and faith. You must believe, have faith, perhaps in an impossibility. You must be swayed by a possibility, or, impossibility. For the religious, they put all their eggs in one basket. It's in God's hands.
Eternal life. What is more seductive an idea? Can you think of one?
You must give-up your absolutist thinking.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Did it fall, for a moment, in the Chatbox before you pulled it back up, and draped yourself in more text? Didn't she call you a pretty woman, somewhere?
...became this...
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
Old Fart wrote: Why would I end my pleasure so quickly? An old man, like me, has to keep what he can find, for as long as he can.
I've already seen all I need to see. Now, it's about making you undress for me.
Hm... Last edited by Mo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
In bold the sudden realization.
At my age if all it took is some snatch spreading itself for me, then....how wonderful life would be.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
[quote="Satyr"]The young boy edited his post, after I replied.
This...
Moo wrote:
Did it fall, for a moment, in the Chatbox before you pulled it back up, and draped yourself in more text? Didn't she call you a pretty woman, somewhere?
...became this...
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
Old Goat wrote:
Why would I end my pleasure so quickly? An old man, like me, has to keep what he can find, for as long as he can.
I've already seen all I need to see. Now, it's about making you undress for me.
Hm... Last edited by Mo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
In bold the sudden realization.
At my age if all it took is some snatch spreading itself for me, then....how wonderful life would be.
It is not me who is oblivious to degree. There are lowest and highest ideals of seduction. As mentioned, this is the reason why the bulk of humanity, the masses, are attracted to religion. People are attracted to possibilities, ideals, choices. Especially impossibility.
People want what they cannot have. Fantasy is a crucial aspect of seduction. How often does reality, blandness, seduce people? What does monotony do to seduction? How are long term relationships possible when seduction has already occurred, and must be maintained like changing oil in a car?
There is a difference between seducing a girl in a dance club with some stylish moves, and maintaining a 10 year marriage.
Not all seduction is male or female, as mentioned with idealism. Do ideas have gender?
I bring up eternal life, because it is the most pertinent, popular, and easily understood form of seduction. You remind people of death, and once convinced and taken by fear, offer them a way out, a path to survival. The most insidious form of social control is done through religion, by reminding people the imminence of death, and then, when hope is lost, hope is rekindled by impossible ideals.
Sex is analogous to religion. Because it is through a woman's womb that any semblance of immortality can be granted, and made real. Once a man and woman coupling is given, through sex, then realistically, a group of genes can repeat forever.
Otherwise life is an impossibility.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A Dialogue Concerning Religion Let me describe the moments involved in the kind of experience that religion structures. The best way of doing this is to return to the primitive man and the question of the origin of religion (chapter #5). Recollect, if you will, that one of the reasons for the origin of religion – as people argued – had to do with the alleged experience of the primitive man, who experienced nature as ‘chaotic’. As I said then, I reiterate now, there is no way the primitive man could have confronted chaos. If anything, he would have been impressed by the orderliness of the world. Besides, why should he assume that it is in the nature of the divine being(s) to impose order and, furthermore, why should these be “hidden, causal forces” – as Hume put it? Let us reconsider these issues in the light of what has been said about the Biblical structuring of the experience of the world (chapter #9), and my suggestion about religion as the root model of order for the West. The Bible conveys that the Will of The Sovereign governs the world. If religion – to the extent the Biblically inspired movements are religions – shapes the basic experience of the world-as-an-order, how could we describe such an experience? Let me distinguish three conceptually distinct moments in this experience by taking our primitive man as an example. To begin with, he has a naive experience of order. This naive experience is merely that of the regularities of his world: seasonal, astronomical, natural, and biological. Let us further suppose that he comes across unfamiliar (unanticipated, unexpected) events. Now his world consists of two groups of events: the familiar and the unfamiliar. The group of unfamiliar events, generally speaking, undergoes reduction in size as time progresses. Regular encounters with the strange and the unfamiliar transform them into the familiar, even if they remain unexpected and unanticipated. Thus he would have gone to his grave, had he not had the fortune of meeting a member from a religious culture, a certain Mr. David Hume by name. “Look here, old fellow”, as an imaginary Dialogue Concerning the Necessity of Religion might have gone on, “why do you think there was thunder when the sky was cloudless, and there is no rain on the plains?” Our primitive, let us not dignify him with baptism yet, scratches his head, looks up at the blue sky, blinks in puzzlement, and admits that it never really struck him to ask this question. “I forgive you for this lapse, not being Scottish and all that”, continues our Mr. Hume, “but tell me, dear chap, why the sky is blue, why do pigs have no wings, or even why your father died the other day?” Our primitive gapes at the extraordinary acumen of the interrogator and replies that things have always been that way ever since he was a young boy. The sky is blue when there are no clouds on the horizon; many people he has known have died; and as to why the pigs do not have wings, well, there is this story his grandmother told him… “Yes, yes, I know all that”, interrupts Mr. Hume impatiently. “But why, my dear fellow, Why?” Without waiting for an answer, Mr. Hume goes on: “You see, thunder strikes from a cloudless sky, the sky itself is blue, people die, pigs do not have wings…and you do not even know why. There is no rhyme or reason to any of these things. In fact…” Pausing PROLEGOMENA TO A COMPARATIVE SCIENCE OF CULTURES 405 ominously for a moment, Mr. Hume lowers his voice to a dramatic whisper. “Don’t you see, old man, the world is a chaos. Things just happen…” In other words, the second conceptual moment must deny the naive experience of order, focus attention on the unexpected, unanticipated, and the unfamiliar. Having done this, it must then reinterpret the familiar and the expected in terms of the unfamiliar and the unexpected. (For a description of science as an activity of reducing the known into the unknown, see Popper 1972, 1979.) At this stage, the world does appear chaotic in the light of an account that has re-described the world. The third conceptual moment reintroduces order into this chaotic world. This too is part of an account: the ordering force is invisible; it is hidden below the surface. It is not an empirical given, but one which manifests itself in the form of the ‘order’ the world has or appears to have. As David Hume put it: The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind; that is, a mind whose will is constantly attended with the obedience of every creature and being. (Hume 1740: 633, n. 1; Hume’s italics.) Perhaps, this ‘omnipotent mind’ was in Hume’s mind when he wrote to a friend in 1754 (cited in Davies 1982: 77): But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause: I only maintain’d that, our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source. These, then, are the conceptual moments involved in the experience of the world-as-an-order in a religious culture: the bracketing away of a naive experience of order, postulation of chaotic phenomena, and rediscovery of an underlying force to account for the apparent phenomenal order. Hume’s description of the origin of religion is not an account of how religions came into being, but an expression of his own and his culture’s experience of the world. It involves the postulation of a hidden force to reduce the ‘chaos’ the world is. Precisely this account makes the world appear chaotic in the first place. Such an experience of the world (i.e. the world as an entity governed by rules) requires that the experience is structured by an account. It has to be an account, linguistic in nature, because both ‘chaos’ and the underlying ‘order’ are “theoretical” notions and not any part of a naïve experience of the world. The concepts of chaos, randomness, and regularities that connect descriptions of phenomena are meta-concepts relative to a given theory or used while contrasting theories about the world. (See, e.g. Kuntz, Ed., 1968.) That is to say, one experiences the world-as-an-order in terms of a particular kind of order. No experience without categorisation, as the slogan goes. That is why the world is alleged to be a “bloomin’, buzzin’ confusion” to a child that has not yet learnt to categorise. In this sense too are these explanations about the origin of religion, as I said in chapter #5, “the results of the development of religion” but not its “experiential presuppositions”. Religion makes the world into an explanatorily intelligible entity, and does so as an account. In other words, religion structures the experience of the world so that, in the absence of deeper and underlying laws, the phenomenal world seems chaotic. Human beings have never experienced a chaotic world, outside and independent of an experience of the world-as-anorder. Yet, those who belong to a religious culture are convinced that such is the case. Consequently, they attribute an experience of chaos to the primitive man, who could order his world only by postulating an invisible set of powers to regulate chaos and provide order.
Heathen In His Blindness --- Balagangadhara, N
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Consider this seductive pair... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Do they need to know, to understand, why they are seductive? All they need to know is how, and what.
Their brains becoming participants in the affair is inconsequential. In fact, if they did know it would reduce the effect, or, perhaps, prevent it from happening.
It's their "spontaneity", their shallow "just because" that makes them effective and, at the same time, vulnerable to their own effectiveness.
To deny need, to not understand it, is to become vulnerable to it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
There is a difference between the "seduction" of human sexual attraction, which can represent gravity and objective forces.
For example, a man and woman become sexually attracted to each other, without knowing the whys and hows, "chemistry". And they probably don't want to know they whys and hows to their inning and outing. Best leave it a mystery.
But the gravity is undeniable. There is a "force of nature" at work, which the religious speculate divine entities manipulating these forces. That's a different topic.
Gravity, magnetism, chemistry, these are objective forces. Seduction is subjective insofar as it is humans, animals, and people participating in its attraction or repulsion. The opposite of seduction is, what?
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Odysseus tells us a story of rejection. How enraged the mermaids must have been. They dove into the blue, their tails swaying, and who has heard of them since, except in a sailor's drunken tale.
I consider that from another point of view;
Sloterdijk remarks the word siren, and the word for the rope that Odysseus ties himself to the mast is the same in Greek;
"siren mid-14c., "sea nymph who by her singing lures sailors to their destruction," from O.Fr. sereine, from L.L. Sirena, from L. Siren, from Gk. Seiren ["Odyssey," xii.39 ff.], perhaps lit. "binder," from seira "cord, rope.""
The rope that he ties himself to, with his ears shut, is like re-navelizing himself, preventing himself from birthing out... he cords himself back to an immobile state where nothing can move him.
His regressus is to his memory [mother and memory share the same root of measure. In the old days, the ship stood for one's self, one's senses, steering it was "way-faring"...].
Life IS seduction; it is the will to birthing out... to come out... to flow out... but, you could say death is certain for the one who severes that umblical cord of his own memory, his own past, his own essence.
"Symbol: Water.
The song of the Siren is liquid and enticing, and the Siren herself is fluid and ungraspable. Like the sea, the Siren lures you with the promise of infinite adventure and pleasure. Forgetting past and future, men follow her far out to sea, where they drown." [Greene, Siren/The Art of Seduction]
Life is dangerous, and to venture into it without a self-binding, can prove fate-al, in the sense, Jung said,
"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.",
"Whatever is rejected from the self, appears in the world as an event."
Fate is the unconscious that Befalls us,,,Destiny is the conscious that we stake, that we Hazard.
To me, the encounter between the siren and the siera-bound Odysseus, is one between the unconscious and the conscious, between fate and destiny.
Fate is like the waves playing, alluring; Man finds his Destiny without succumbing to Fate, with Balance.
Quote :
"Man at the beck of passion is in many ways like a particle with no will of his own, since reason, especially morals, is the sole source of a man's ability to govern himself. Once gratification of passion becomes the definition of liberty, then liberty becomes synonymous with bondage because he who controls the passion controls the man." [Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control]
Zarathustra says, "what Fate could befall me now that Is not Already My Own?"...
There is a difference between the "seduction" of human sexual attraction, which can represent gravity and objective forces.
For example, a man and woman become sexually attracted to each other, without knowing the whys and hows, "chemistry". And they probably don't want to know they whys and hows to their inning and outing. Best leave it a mystery.
But the gravity is undeniable. There is a "force of nature" at work, which the religious speculate divine entities manipulating these forces. That's a different topic.
Gravity, magnetism, chemistry, these are objective forces. Seduction is subjective insofar as it is humans, animals, and people participating in its attraction or repulsion. The opposite of seduction is, what?
This is where you are not in tune. The metaphor stands.
Slave/Master...are not contradictions they are part of the same paradigm.
This is the same in politics with right/left, or something/nothing, in philosophy.
It's the linguistic trap of dualism, which can make nihilism appear as being multiplicity, to the one enclosed within its paradigm, when it is uniformity.
The needy one sees need in the other, even while denying it in himself/herself. The truth being that if (s)he did see it in the other it would be a turnoff. It's indifference that attracts her...like the earth's gravity attracts the moon without caring, without intent - simply by being what it is, displacing space, exuding force, as part of its Becoming.
The needy one, denies need, because (s)he considers it deplorable, an insult...and so (s)he project it upon the other to make it familiar.
