You know? I tried to read her yesterday, when I was drunk and high, but it was so awesome, I had to put it away to look at it, the next day, I said to myself, when I'm straight ...because it's that good. I have to say, I read only the first page of the "Preface" and not even the whole page, when I knew what I was dealing with. Thank you Michael. You're so fucking brilliant. This lady is truly something else. And I could tell, through anything, that this was something worth reading. And iiiit iiiis.
Sexual Personae, Art and Decadence From Nefertiti To Emily Dickinson, by Camille Paglia 1990
And then today, when I began reading it all over again, one of the first things I saw which prompted me to write out, is this: "I demonstrate that Romanticism turns almost immediately into Decadence"
Why? Because, listening to Unslaved.com podcasts, Michael Tsarion was saying how humanity had reached a point of ascending, of advancing out of this pit many times, and that every single time, those negative forces bore down upon them so cruelly, that they never made it past that point. He said that in the Renaissance age, it happened to them. Hence, that quote up above. And even Andrew Bartzis, the Galactic Historian, said that mankind had reached that point in the 60s and 70s, that they were about to ascend, but along came the vulture again, poisoned them with bad LSD and murdered those musicians who were planning to bring everyone together and lift up through.
"The first volume of Sexual Personae examines antiquity, the Renaissance, and Romanticism from the late eighteenth century to 1900. I demonstrate that Romanticism turns almost immediately into Decadence, which I find throughout major nineteenth-century authors, even Emily Dickinson."
Well hey, with a name like that? Hahahaha I guess she was being jostled around too!
Hahahaha! This is hilarious! Next excerpt:
"What is art? How and why does an artist create? The amorality, aggression, sadism, voyeurism, and pornography in great art have been ignored or glossed over by most academic critics. I fill in the space between artist and art work with metaphors drawn from the Cambridge School of Anthropology."
Hahahaha! That's art. Right there. She fills in the spaces between the artist and its sicko works of 'art' with a dictionary word out of some book called 'Anthro-pology' or something like that...a metaphor.
I like this too. So well said:
"I show how much of western life, are, and thought is ruled by personality, which the book traces through recurrent types or personae ( "masks" )."
Hahahahaa. "My title was inspired by Ingmar Bergman's cruel, dreamy masterpiece, Persona (1966)."
This is such a deep book. Better than any masonic form of symbolism. That which is in this Lady's Book, is wicked. Ouch! Can you comprehend just what may be meant by this artistic placement of words?
"I want to show meaning arising from simple everyday things---cats, grocery stores, bridges, chance encounters--- and thereby to liberate criticism and interpretation from their imprisonment in classroom and library."
Love it. Well, I'm finally finished reading the first page, albeit not exactly fully in comprehension of it. Will have to go over it a few times. But, in the meantime, got to go read. Signing off. Miss Books.
6:44am
Hahaha fucking hilarious:
"To this day, communities are few in regions scorched by heat or shackled by ice." Hahhahah
"Women have borne the symbolic burden of man's imperfections, his grounding in nature. Menstrual blood is the stain, the birthmark of original sin, the filth that transcendental religion must wash from man."
If that's the case, better get all your female animals that also menstuate and have your transcendental religions wash them up too! Hahaha.
And here's another thing I can argue about: "The male contribution to procreation is momentary and transient. Conception is a pinpoint of time, another of our phallic peaks of action, from which the male slides back uselessly. The pregnant woman is daemonically, devilishly complete. As an ontological entity, she needs nothing and no one."
Many errors there, nevertheless automatonic society has been doing it just that way for too long. Man and woman need to be of the same mind together, and with great love inside themselves, so that when they come together, both of them create the child into this existence, and give the child much blessed divinity because of their care. The woman, first off, needs the man, his sperm, and the man needs the woman, her egg. Once she is pregnant, she definitely needs him to help her with things, such as getting food, and helping to clean house, as well as warmth, love, caring, because it's not that simple and easy being a pregnant female with the future of a child's health all on her shoulders only. It takes two to do it properly.
And don't give me that stupid excuse that woman's body is a whole unit that will perform the forming of the child. Duh. It is so pathetic to think like that, because you can look at the man and say the same thing. He doesn't toil at creating his sperm. His body makes it. So you see? They both have a laboratory inside. Just two different kinds, but that work together.
There is so much staring right in our face and some people still don't notice. A man's body works at a fast pace, and a woman's body works at a slow pace. You get a Torus with a man on the outside stream and the woman on the inside stream. In order to keep the balance of the inner stream, the male's speed moves quickly over the outer surface to get back to the middle where the female energies move much slower, and of course all in balance together.
No comments:
Post a Comment