“Diebert” wrote:It's strangely important to you while it's not considered to be "life core" in nearly any mature "stable" relationship which I know of. The children... perhaps a while. And all cases where it became that core were always the unhealthy, sick and destructive ones -- especially once all the relating declined. In a way you betray here your own unfamiliarity with maintaining sincere relationships. The way you're elevating all this is doomed my friend. And that's a kind warning.
I like the ominous note at the end. It reminded me of the klok-klok of frightful bones in the closet awaking to invocation.
I can’t imagine that you are not aware — but though you are clever overall I sometimes begin to ask myself if, perhaps, you really are a little dense in some areas — that I am speaking to a larger issue.
The Genius platform, directly influenced by Weininger,
is a form of homosexuality. And to the degree that one succumbs to the charms of that romantic yet perverse
pose and imagines that one can be, and should be, ‘free of woman’, one falls into a terrible mistake looked at
from any angle. It requires a real fool, one really hopped-up in
will of a perverse sort to make a life-path out of a homosexual road. And these sort of influences and currents are very very noticeable in our present and are in overt manifestation.
The current of nihilism is ultimately a process of self-destruction. And if one agrees to agree with those processes, I suggest, one quickly falls into self-destructive modes. I suggest that this is the fundamental error, in any case one of them, that motivated our Founders, yet I have gone on from that recognition to examine *the larger currents* and the *shifting metaphysics* that are the causal influences of self-destruction. I describe a position within a Greco-Christian perspective because I have come to understand Greco-Christianity, even with its warts, as being *life-affirming*. Just so my position is clear, Old Bean!
If I say that man’s relationship to women is *fundamental* I do not mean that a man must become a satellite revolving her emotionally, and this is in essence what the GF resistance to the ‘flowy’ feminine was about. A necessary and a proper position to have, mind you. But it is man’s work in relation to the female of the species in the context of family life that I am speaking about. I do believe, and I have come to understand, that this is crucial territory. And not territory to be sacrificed and lost through a child’s momentary rebelliousness, as your *philosophy* often seems to me to be and increasingly appears so.
I reverse your *curse* Diebert : I would say that those who fail to really grasp the important things, and those who tart up misperceptions into neurotic structures of pseudo-philosophy (that is, ungrounded from sound metaphysics) are defining a path that leads to the *doom* you envision.