topical

[ashcanprobably]

We can accept the idea of a deficient divinity, a divinity that would be forced to create the world out of poor materials and, thinking in this way, we would eventually arrive at Bernard Shaw, who said: God is in the making. That is to say, God is not something that belongs to the past and God is possibly not something that pertains to the present

Comments

buttons and levers

[ashcanprobably]

Support what, exactly? I'm not trying to assemble an army here. That bit about women was meant as passing impressions, nothing truly definitive. It's like feeling a slight tremor in the ground and then wanting to ask people if they felt it as well. Apparently, I'm the only one that feels this way, I guess I imagined it all! I get frustrated when I can't reconstruct a woman's face in my memory. It's easier to give her any woman's face to a certain point. She becomes an abstraction, but then she's actually useful, I can think about her. Generalization helps me to think.

Sarah, I'm sure you've noticed that I have a very base understanding of feminism. In thinking these thoughts... am I in violation? Feminism has never interested me at all. Perhaps I consider it as Swift did science. I am quite blind to its achievements, but I sense its goodness and acknowledge its pervasiveness. Everyone should be a feminist, I suppose, but like anyone else, I find the die-hards absurd and hilarious, they seem like caricatures. I understand that it exists for the purpose of rectification. However, it's a pity that it has to exist at all. It's a pitiful subject then, so I'd rather not think about it or take up my time with it. In practice, pity tends to feel like a morbid kind of happiness, and I prefer the real thing. A possible example, I'm thankful for the small bacteria that are responsible for decomposition, and I realize that they are necessary, but I see no beauty in it, it doesn't bring me to admiration, such that a rotting log is simply not appealing to me. I don't want to subject my mind to thinking this or that is horribly awry and must be corrected, unless I'm worrying about a draft. Now, written drafts are probably as stubborn as men who resist the concept of feminism, because they're so hard-wired into the old system, but at least it's something I can hold in my hands, something I can tell what for! The best I can be is chivalrous, and that's my general public style.

Did you dig all those right[?]'s though? That's about as persuasive as I'd like to be online. I'm trying to be modest here! I don't think I'm reeling off sentences with so much finality, like a Nietzche or a William Blake. Of course, I never considered you among the very intelligent women that I've known, you shouldn't feel slighted, because you know that I don't mind you as a woman. You certainly don't mind yourself either, except perhaps when you're hankering or when you're trying to run in heels. Anyway, you don't apply. The fact that you write excludes you. I should say, it disfigures you, it breaks you apart. Writers are above both men and women, right? They must be, if they're going to be any good, in order to look down upon both sexes and realize them as believable characters. No, you're no woman, you're the hotlavamonster. That is, you're scary, and you've got a heavy flow. Well, I find you scary, and that's the closest I come to loving someone I haven't met.