Modesty, Intimacy and Routine

This article is entirely written by Karlo Z. Valois and is used by kind permission

People today live in a world that lacks any trace of modesty, intimacy and is build mostly on routine. Routine is the visible cause of the other two factors. If we don’t look at the situation linearly, but from a point of view that precedes all three elements, it is rationalism and a material weltanschauung that stems from the general tendency of involution, that could be identified as the main cause, but we spoke about this elsewhere.
Routine is the opposite of ritual. It is important to start with this, because when looked at it from „below”, the two looks the same. In reality however the two represent two different forms. The content of a ritual is a symbol, the content of routine is an object or a practical act (performance). The difference between an object and a symbol is the observer. Only a superior observer sees symbol in an object or an act: a symbol is always the precipitation of something higher, the representation of the superior on an lower plane.
There is no room to describe the differences between the superior and the inferior individual in details here. In this context it is enough to note that an individual is superior to the degree he is able to realize high(er) principles in himself or has already actualized them.
The individual is in constant crisis. If the individual is not striving toward the superior, the general crisis is pulling him down towards the inferior. Even the conscious, focused effort to reach higher levels mostly results in stagnation, standing still, which is comparable to standing still in a strong, powerful current of a river. If this effort is missing, the individual is falling unconscious, like a stone, blindly subordinating his consciousness to the general tendencies of involution. This blind inertia is routine.
In every moment, when the individual takes on the style elements of negative tendencies and his actions are not carried out in the context of striving upward, his actions are routine thus he is obeying negative tendencies.
To perform a routine means that there is no actor: the individual is not present. It’s not the individual who performs the activity but something else. Today, routine has levels. Not hierarchies of course, but quantitative levels. Whole life segments have emerged that are maintained by activities that are not connected to higher context: they require routine.
The strongest of these are the segments that emerged around entertainment (in growing complexity): radio, television, most books, magazines and places of entertainment. The need for entertainment is so strong that even at work people act like in a pub or disco most of the time. It is of course work where routine is most dominant and we couldn’t find one instance when the individual does anything from a higher perspective. People have become mechanized at work, like robots and when they are entertaining, they are just as mechanical (see dancing and conversation formulas as examples).
Entertainment and mechanism has become the foundation also for the relationship between men and women. People are so confused that they associate to entertainment when it comes to the opposite sex.
The basis for the relationship between men and women has become routine and as we can see routine is inferior, it means blindly obeying (negative) tendencies without resistance and without awareness. Among other things negative, involutive tendencies undermine the principles of distinction and tension-filled separation in all areas of life including fundamental differences between men and women. From the characteristics describing men and women respectively, we have chosen two: modesty and intimacy.
We’ll look at the symbology of two common, every day occurrences to shed light on how these characteristics disappear because of routine. These are communications in general and meetings in particular.
Intimacy is part of the woman. The woman is fundamentally dual, divided, man is fundamentally an undivided unity. A woman is fundamentally social while a man is fundamentally distant, „single”. Man does not belong to any woman. The woman belong to a (one, single) man.
One aspect of being social means sharing, which is analogous with dividing. Another aspect of women is attachment (identify with the other, gain identity from submitting to one man). A man is detached since he has his own principle in himself. Attachment undermines the masculine principle and a man who becomes attached (to people, things or situations) is inferior, to the degree of his attachment itself.
Without control, which is insured by superior principles present in the man, the urge of the woman to share is limitless. Since this is coupled with a drive to attachment, this uncontrolled sharing results, when taken to the extreme, in the woman becoming a whore, or rather, the whore emerging from the woman.
We have no intention to look at the phenomenon of whores here, however it is relevant to note that the drive of attachment drives whores not towards the superior, but towards the inferior. For some of them the inferior element, the inferior object of attachment maybe the pimp running them, for others it maybe the client, physical pleasure, money or other factors. Romantic notions according to which whores could be changed, are groundless.
The true meaning of intimacy, like all other feminine characteristics is connected to the presence of man. The presence of the man maybe real, meaning there is a man in the woman’s life, or potential, meaning that the woman hasn’t attracted the man into her life yet; in this case the man is potentially present given that the woman is ready to attract him. Being ready to attract a real man into her life means that the woman is standing against most negative tendencies and she has a more or less correct concept of the real man in her mind. This concept is invariably different from those suggested by the mass media, or any mass individual, who propagates the same (as the mass media). For the mass individual, who is unable to differentiate qualitatively, the mass media (due to it’s quantitative might) is unquestionable, thus the suggestions which the mass media is bombarding the mass with act as elements that are accelerating the process.
Intimacy exists between one woman and one man and it has several levels, since sharing is possible on several levels. Sharing on the highest level is only possible if the woman is close to the absolute woman state. In this case the woman experiences her submittal to the man with a profound intensity and experiences man as the foundation of her existence. According to this, the woman’s behaviour reflects this high level existential experience in all areas of life. In the center of her thoughts and her inner images stands the man she belongs to, or wants to belong to. She recognizes other superior men as well, as the modalities of her own man/husband and her faithfulness towards her man is the symbol of her respect towards the high principle also present in other superior men. In her man the superior woman experiences the stable, unchanging principle of One and not merely the physical man.
She perceives less superior and inferior men according to this. She is aware of her own superiority in relation to some men, who are farther away from the state of the absolute man than she is from the state of the absolute woman. She is also aware of her inferiority in relation to the masculine principle. Besides her man, she doesn’t share herself with anybody (man or woman) on any level. Since in the center of her existence there is the man, her behaviour reflects this man. Even though she thinks about and spends time with other people, she does this with control and in a context provided to her by the man. For a superior woman, just like for a superior man a meeting, and a conversation is more of a ritual than a routine. Each act, even the smallest one, serves a purpose. Women who are less superior often give in to the suggestions of the mass.
There are 3 areas of routines that determine mistakes less superior women may make. These are the routines of emotion, perception and intent.
All these are present simultaneously in most situations. Today the most common situations are conversations and meetings. At this point we can disregard the various forms of entertainment, because they can be simply avoided, by not going to discos or watching television. Entertainment has relevance only as much as it determines behavior.
In case of meetings, perception routine means that it is considered normal that anybody can meet up with anybody else without any particular reason. The reason given is typically to „have a conversation”, a drink, coffee, etc. We are still talking about intimacy as a characteristic of woman.
In this context meetings are analogous with the woman sharing time. Time maybe shared with men or with other women. This is typical to the workplace where people are unfortunately forced to take part in senseless and destructive meetings, so the workplace must be handled differently than the non-work environment.
Superior women never initiate and when possible refuse all invitations for meetings without a clear purpose even in the work environment. If she has to accept it she does so only with the purpose to solve a problem, thereby giving it a purpose. Invitations for meetings out of work is always refused by superior women.
Less superior women accept invitations to meetings both within and without the working environment. They do so because of the perception routine: they don’t question why this should be acceptable. For them the man in their life has a physical presence only, so when he’s out of sight, he’s out of mind. They don’t realize that by accepting the invitation of any men for a meeting without purpose, they are no longer intimate with their own man.
When the woman listens to a man talking about his private life, the woman is intimate with him, consequently she is no longer intimate with the man in her life. Being intimate with two men is not possible. Especially not with two men in the same time. This way the woman, when she routinely accepted the invitation, was never intimate with her man. If she was, it was only lower level, physical intimacy, only for the moments of being together.
Women on the lowest level of course can’t have intimacy at all; they are close to whores. Even when they are together with a man, they are not intimate because they make the man they are with part of a continuous sharing process. In conversations they share themselves with everybody: with all men and all women. Essentially, everybody knows everything about them. Since sharing mostly happens through the mouth, perhaps this is why men in little longer marriages no longer what to kiss their wives on the mouth. Also, this is why it was never customary to kiss a whore on the mouth.
Men always want intimacy from women. Inferior men indiscriminately from all women, superior men with control, attentively and discretely. Men give, women receive.
Men give invitation and observes the woman. He wants to see how it is accepted. A woman with a man always asks why the invitation is extended. Once the purpose is established that becomes the context of the meeting and it is disrespectful to change it. If the purpose given is not acceptable (just talk, coffee, a beer, etc.) superior women avoid the meeting.

, by victor This entry was posted in Basic Concepts. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • Men of little ability, too, by depending upon the great, may prosper; A drop of water is a little thing, but when will it dry away if united to a lake?

     

    - Subhashita Ratna Nidhi, stanza 173