The Feminine and the Rehabilitation of the West

Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 926

11 Oct 2018, 6:18 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I went back and found the discussion I was thinking of.

He was talking about Chantal Delsol's 'Icarus Fallen'.

This is the panel discussion he brought it up on and he chats about it for about two minutes (17:15 - 19:15):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgEMPI-xI1k

shlaifu wrote:
To return to the "divine feminine"- it's what feminists are accusing the partiarchy of: putting femininity on a pedestal.
The term divine female sums it up anyway.... I mean: in the Jung/Campbell/peterson world, ideal men are heroes, and ideal women are nurturing godesses. Women are the prize, the boon. - the trophy.
So .... basically Peterson is saying to women: be the trophy, because why would you want to be like an economically unfree man?

I think, we need a third option.


What seems kind of obvious to me is that today's male hero isn't yesterday's gladiator or even soldier. There are a lot of different ways it can be achieved and so many of them are higher-order abstractions of the motif.

I think that third way would clearly be women abstracting the best of what femininity is and doing what they'd want to do with it, creating their own sort of hierarchy of value out of that and letting that hold as a structure that, as I was thinking in my OP, could counterpoise to masculine power structures in helpful ways. I would argue that between the two sexes they seem to be the, on average, more grounded and its the guys who've at least historically tended to buffalo stampede off of cliffs with bad ideas more readily.



regarding that discussion of Icarus fallen: they forget that globalized capitalism has also failed to fulfill its promises, not just fascism and communism.
Yaron Brook is a Randian, so of course, he's got a blind spot there. Plus his insistence on individualism and an "objective" view of reality.... the oh-so-dreaded postmodernists - the real ones, not the strawmen the rightwingers make up, argued convincingly that there is no objective view of the world, that the necessarily subjective view consists of the language that describes it (as in: stories, but also choice of words and the structure of grammar that suggests certain intuitiins but not others - this is where the PC madness comes from).
the strawman version is that any view is therefore as good as any other.
the actual Derrida argued that interpretation of texts- worldviews, actions, etc. is never finished, and that interpretations are always a product of the times and the lives of whoever did the interpretation.
Derrida did something worse, in a sense, than stating some mad everything's-equally-valid-idea: he introduced permanent doubt. - not that everyhting's right, but that there is no one, right way to read a text that will always stay right.

the two of them are having a rather muddled argument about things, really.
which is normal for people who neglect to talk about class and try to solve things solely by solving the contradictions in race, culture, gender.

regarding taking the best from the hero archetype: the 20th century encouraged venturing out into the unknown, and people who don't leave their safe home stayed behind. the result is a speed of development in which I can't ask anyone of an older generation (the father) for advice, because they older people have little that can be applied to my life, a generation later, in which everything is shifting and mutating all the time...


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,806
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

11 Oct 2018, 6:41 am

shlaifu wrote:
Yaron Brook is a Randian, so of course, he's got a blind spot there. Plus his insistence on individualism and an "objective" view of reality....

Yeah, Yaron seems a bit dogmatic and Randians tend to be like any group who tries to oversimplify the world to fit a narrative. I was mostly watching it to hear Douglas Murray.

shlaifu wrote:
regarding taking the best from the hero archetype: the 20th century encouraged venturing out into the unknown, and people who don't leave their safe home stayed behind. the result is a speed of development in which I can't ask anyone of an older generation (the father) for advice, because they older people have little that can be applied to my life, a generation later, in which everything is shifting and mutating all the time...

That makes me wonder, if we're slaves to the pace, if we've also become a lot less adaptive by that single-focus. My guess is that this progress either won't go on at the same speed or it'll move far enough that it leaves everyone in the dust. We'll need a new game to play soon, especially if we launch the AI javelin at the sky and it does end up lighting a canopy of intelligence over and above us of a sort that we could never fathom - ie. our efforts would be largely obsolete by that point. My guess at what the answer to that later situation would be - we'd have to turn back inward, to some extent social games and competitive sports could soak things up for the most extroverted but things would be so chaotic that the only reliable friend a person could hope to find and develop would be their own interior and we'd have to wring the chaos and dividedness out of ourselves better in order to grapple with a world that wasn't just out of our control in the cycles of nature or predatory animal sense but in a hyper-intelligent manner.


_________________
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 926

11 Oct 2018, 6:00 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Yaron Brook is a Randian, so of course, he's got a blind spot there. Plus his insistence on individualism and an "objective" view of reality....

Yeah, Yaron seems a bit dogmatic and Randians tend to be like any group who tries to oversimplify the world to fit a narrative. I was mostly watching it to hear Douglas Murray.

shlaifu wrote:
regarding taking the best from the hero archetype: the 20th century encouraged venturing out into the unknown, and people who don't leave their safe home stayed behind. the result is a speed of development in which I can't ask anyone of an older generation (the father) for advice, because they older people have little that can be applied to my life, a generation later, in which everything is shifting and mutating all the time...

That makes me wonder, if we're slaves to the pace, if we've also become a lot less adaptive by that single-focus. My guess is that this progress either won't go on at the same speed or it'll move far enough that it leaves everyone in the dust. We'll need a new game to play soon, especially if we launch the AI javelin at the sky and it does end up lighting a canopy of intelligence over and above us of a sort that we could never fathom - ie. our efforts would be largely obsolete by that point. My guess at what the answer to that later situation would be - we'd have to turn back inward, to some extent social games and competitive sports could soak things up for the most extroverted but things would be so chaotic that the only reliable friend a person could hope to find and develop would be their own interior and we'd have to wring the chaos and dividedness out of ourselves better in order to grapple with a world that wasn't just out of our control in the cycles of nature or predatory animal sense but in a hyper-intelligent manner.


well... to return to the female question - now in light of accelerationism: our stories, mythologies and so on, haven't really adapted to a world of oral contraceptives. But also, social models haven't adapted to people moving from place to place, and what's certainly a problem for the wealth of nations is brain-drain: what happens to india, if all the gifted indians become IT entrepreneurs in california?
then of course, a bit of googling makes a grandma's lifetime of knowledge home-remedies obsolete.
personally, I often feel vastly superior to my older colleagues - because I had the possibility to grow up on ...ehem... "free" access to all the world's films, from any part of the world, and any decade. They have years of experience of doing the same thing over and over again - now, most of the things they had to learn the hard way are simply not applicable to digital anymore.

Jung and Campbell have the archetype of the wise old man, and while they speak of archetypes stemming from a collective unconscious, I'd rather think that human experience was quite uniform, everywhere, for millennia.
It would have been just normal that a person of knowledge of the world would be older, and probably male for women were busy rearing children. so far so good.
today, you can put a teenager with a phone in your story to serve as that archetype, and it would not upset an audience.
take that, collective unconscious, I guess.

the hero archetype is also amazingly useless in face of problems that require collective action, like global warming.
global warming is a big problem, from a narrative perspective, because individual actions change nothing about it.
not even a whole people's/nation's actions can change it. it need sto be solved technocratically. through trial and error legislative changes that lead to incremental social, economic and behavioural change. that's not a great story to tell to humans with anthropocentric brains - precisely because you need to take the anthropocentrism out of the story for it to describe the data.

and yes, AI will do that. take the anthropocentrism out .... of the anthropos.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,806
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

11 Oct 2018, 8:05 pm

I think the mistake you're making here is considering archetypes to be a synonym for tribal knowledge. That's not quite the way to look at them. They're more like laterally circumscribed concepts that don't have a height or depth cap and are likely to only gain complexity with their circumscribed terrain. The ones we've mapped are also keyed into core human volitional trajectories so unless we upload ourselves Kurzweil-style and bank a really hard left or right we're unlikely to ever leave their shadow but far more likely extend it. It's a bit like differential calculus never voided addition, subtraction, multiplication , or division or how a rainbow now, unless we've completely destroyed our atmosphere, will be a rainbow ten thousand or ten million years from now.

Another thought, part of why I take triumphalism less seriously with each passing year is it seems to just be a really vogue, stylish, and sciency-looking form of Dunning Kruger. It reliably misses the complexity of things, only discovers that when grandiose plans go nothing like expected, and that pattern's not likely to stop in my lifetime. Anytime people say we're truly in new territory or truly leaving where we came from I have to take it as hyperbole. It's more like them saying that we haven't leveraged a particular angle as well as we're about to but it's always some blend of things that have always been here and as long as that remains the case (likely indefinitely) we're not leaving our ground of causality nor the dynamics that began our propulsion to where we're at to begin with.


_________________
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 926

14 Oct 2018, 1:46 pm

I get what you mean with my mistaking archetypes for tribal knowledge. However, I don't fully agree - yes, archetypes are extendable concepts, and maybe my "kid with a phone" was poorly chosen...

you mean this strange modern triumphalism, that now everything's different, and everything before was "primitive"?
of course that's a bit dumb, but I have the feeling man is very much in the process of waking up and realizing that there are inborn traits, species-specific behaviours etc. that hinder him from ever becoming "modern" in the sense he thought himself to be, or at least on the verge of becoming, for a few centuries now. That should however not fool you - time moves in one direction, and technological advances change the rules of the game, faster and faster.
There are issues that we never had to address before, and answers from only a few decades ago don't suffice anymore - I mean things like: what does gender mean if you can choose? - Once humans are grown in artificial amniotic sacks - which so far has already been tried on sheep embryos - what will biological sex mean then? the metaphorical categories will need to undergo some serious stretching, to the point of becoming meaningless as concepts, to keep up with how the real concepts change and evolve.

I do get that the hero today is not the literal hero of myths, and it's all being read as universal metaphor - but at some point, the simplicity of the metaphor either makes it irrelevant, or it loses its simplictiy. .... in the words of Joseph Campbell "only the hero has a destiny." well... if there's no destiny, though....


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,806
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

14 Oct 2018, 4:24 pm

I think with where we're at, at least politically, the next few generations will be trying to find more technological ways to decentralize power and make global problem-solves, like with global warming, non-bioldegradables, other delerious human population problems, or even issues like mass coronal ejection insurance on electrical grids or asteroid protection, more internationally viable. I do think a lot of people's attention will be elsewhere, on bigger things. I'd also add that it's rare for a person to really be deep into issues like philosophy, mysticism, or any somewhat unrelated but 'knowledge about life' topics without society sort of having dropped them and put them in a position where they had to figure these things out - thus it's more likely that if people are paying mindful attention to archetypes it will have more to do with political contagions or moral panics in terms of figuring out which primal button got pushed to start the stampede.

As far as the future and complexity are concerned though I have a couple predictions that I think will pan out:

1) Science will attempt to pick higher and higher fruit as the low-hanging stuff is cleared away, meaning it will at some point need to take a leap into deeper layers of complexity than it has in the past. They might be able to outsource the complexity issues to AI to an extent so as to keep it from being a Sisyphean task.

2) Materialism will increasingly become less 'material'. We're already a long way from contact-mechanics or images of billiard balls sticking together or hitting each other but I think the rabbit hole of interactions will get a lot more incestuous. This is where holographic effects will be better understood and quite likely interactions of information, consciousness, etc. will likely be found to be holographic as such. In a way Arthur C Clark's prediction that 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' may become quite true albeit in terms of the result more than the method.

I think in this sense most of our really challenging problems, aside from maybe the current century's issue of making sure everyone can eat or find shelter or making sure we don't destroy the planet with our byproducts, will come in the form of needing to calm down our approach to life. What I'd agree with you on is that a hero myth for the future can't be Julius Evola's man finding his manhood and his God on the battlefield in arms against another country, we're too powerful for that now, it will have to be abstracted into creative endeavors, self-cultivation, etc..


_________________
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.


traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,787

15 Oct 2018, 11:53 am

La femme-enfant est plutôt bien vue dans la société./ The woman-child is rather welllooked upon in society.
(And as consumer)

What does the term “femme enfant” mean to you?
Simon Porte: The femme enfant is this very French idea of a woman who never quite left childhood behind. You couldn’t quite tell whether she is a girl, a woman, or a girl trying to be a woman. It could be a 20 year-old girl or a 40 year-old woman who, taking her kids to school, realises in some ways she is more childish than they are. My own mother is a bit like that, but she always expresses it in a very subtle way. A true femme enfant is never too obvious or exaggerated.
Why did you decide to make a film about her?
Simon Porte: The femme enfant was the inspiration behind my collection. I’m quite obsessed with the idea of childhood, the fun, the playfulness, the carelessness… and I think it always shows in my collections; but this season, as I was designing, I started to imagine all this story about a young femme enfant who lives like children live: she plays, she draws, she eats… and I translated all that into the naïve shapes, the colour contrasts and the oversized graphic shapes of the collection. And, since the collection started with a story, it quite naturally turned into a short film.
http://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/art ... mme-enfant

"In 1970 the movement was called 'Women's Liberation' or, contemptuously, 'Women's Lib'. When the name 'Libbers' was dropped for 'Feminists' we were all relieved. What none of us noticed was that the ideal of liberation was fading out with the word. We were settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a condition of self-definition and self-determination. The aim of women's liberation is to do as much for female people as has been done for colonized nations. Women's liberation did not see the female's potential in terms of the male's actual; the visionary feminists of the late sixties and early seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men. Seekers after equality clamoured to be admitted to smoke-filled male haunts. Liberationists sought the world over for clues as to what women's lives could be like if they were free to define their own values, order their own priorities and decide their own fate. (The Female Eunuch was one feminist text that did not argue for equality." in Greer, Germaine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Eunuch)

"Breton's conception of the femme-enfant as an enchanting, liminal and rebellious figure has often been dismissed as a conservative, and ultimately sexist, idealisation. According to W Chadwick, the surrealist search for the woman-child' was one for a figure whose presence 'inevitably, and perhaps more than any other single factor,' worked 'to exclude woman artists from the possibility of a profound personal identification with the theoretical side of Surrealism."
from somewhere in here > https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/p ... 98933b322c).html/papersofsurrealism/journal9/acrobat_files/McAra%2013.9.11.pdf


A Companion to Dada and Surrealism
David Hopkins
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/boo ... 1118476215
or i read on google ,from down to up :lol:



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 926

15 Oct 2018, 2:12 pm

traven wrote:
La femme-enfant est plutôt bien vue dans la société./ The woman-child is rather welllooked upon in society.
(And as consumer)

What does the term “femme enfant” mean to you?
Simon Porte: The femme enfant is this very French idea of a woman who never quite left childhood behind. You couldn’t quite tell whether she is a girl, a woman, or a girl trying to be a woman. It could be a 20 year-old girl or a 40 year-old woman who, taking her kids to school, realises in some ways she is more childish than they are. My own mother is a bit like that, but she always expresses it in a very subtle way. A true femme enfant is never too obvious or exaggerated.
Why did you decide to make a film about her?
Simon Porte: The femme enfant was the inspiration behind my collection. I’m quite obsessed with the idea of childhood, the fun, the playfulness, the carelessness… and I think it always shows in my collections; but this season, as I was designing, I started to imagine all this story about a young femme enfant who lives like children live: she plays, she draws, she eats… and I translated all that into the naïve shapes, the colour contrasts and the oversized graphic shapes of the collection. And, since the collection started with a story, it quite naturally turned into a short film.
http://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/art ... mme-enfant

"In 1970 the movement was called 'Women's Liberation' or, contemptuously, 'Women's Lib'. When the name 'Libbers' was dropped for 'Feminists' we were all relieved. What none of us noticed was that the ideal of liberation was fading out with the word. We were settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a condition of self-definition and self-determination. The aim of women's liberation is to do as much for female people as has been done for colonized nations. Women's liberation did not see the female's potential in terms of the male's actual; the visionary feminists of the late sixties and early seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men. Seekers after equality clamoured to be admitted to smoke-filled male haunts. Liberationists sought the world over for clues as to what women's lives could be like if they were free to define their own values, order their own priorities and decide their own fate. (The Female Eunuch was one feminist text that did not argue for equality." in Greer, Germaine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Eunuch)

"Breton's conception of the femme-enfant as an enchanting, liminal and rebellious figure has often been dismissed as a conservative, and ultimately sexist, idealisation. According to W Chadwick, the surrealist search for the woman-child' was one for a figure whose presence 'inevitably, and perhaps more than any other single factor,' worked 'to exclude woman artists from the possibility of a profound personal identification with the theoretical side of Surrealism."
from somewhere in here > https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/p ... 98933b322c).html/papersofsurrealism/journal9/acrobat_files/McAra%2013.9.11.pdf


A Companion to Dada and Surrealism
David Hopkins
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/boo ... 1118476215
or i read on google ,from down to up :lol:



hmm. thanks, these are interesting. the designs do look like a five year old who dressed herself.

there is a point to that, though, and I have reason to demand the homme enfant!
after all, growing up does mean, today, being "reasonable" and going with the system, accepting the system in practice, but of course, not in theory - that is, knowing that it's not working in the way it pretends to work, but going along with it anyway.
pointing out the system's hypocrisy and demanding change is considered "immature", and accepting it is "naive" - leaving the only "grown up" option to accept that things are not working that well, but cynically playing along anyway.

I wonder if there is a point to be made for the other option: naively believing in the system and immaturely not playing along. .... is that what Elon Musk is doing?


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,806
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

15 Oct 2018, 10:41 pm

shlaifu wrote:
I wonder if there is a point to be made for the other option: naively believing in the system and immaturely not playing along. .... is that what Elon Musk is doing?

Lol, I don't think he can, it's like sticking a knife in his own soul any time he tries probably.


_________________
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,692

29 Oct 2018, 2:34 am

Concerning Freud and others like him, there is no inferior sex. The sexes of a species are complimentary to the extent that the species may continue to exist. One is not lacking in their purpose over the other. However one sex may appear inferior to the other if one measures that sex against the standards of the other, which is the mistake Freud and those like him made...measuring females against the standards and ideals which pertain to males.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,806
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

02 Nov 2018, 2:14 pm

Richard Tarnas on Rebel Media. He had some interesting things to say on bifurcating the mascule and feminine into a solar and lunar of each (sort of like a sub-masculine and sub-feminine within each). For a lot of people that rings of the four elements in their triangle representations.


_________________
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,279

02 Nov 2018, 6:34 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dg-g7t2l4

A 'Quick OverView', on 'Particle Physics', Is Interesting; but yes,
What It Lacks Is This Other YouTube Source of Richard Tarnas; Thanks For Providing both.

Science Can And Will be Rather Dry in/as Mind/Body/Whole; With No Soul (Psyche); And as We Know, Feel,
And Sense What We Feed Ourselves from Birth is What We Come to Be Far More Than Just Bread and Water.

Almost everything that Richard says 'here', now; i've already Put into Free Verse Poetry Coming 'Spiraling'
From Within. And sure; that's not the First Instance by Far that others; where many others have put it all in
Different Words as Form where The Essence is Familiar and Easy to Find Again For Those Who Can and Will
See more through Metaphors than Black and White, Literal Think. It's Like the New Testament and somehow
Getting Lost in 'Revelation'; not realizing how many Anonymous 'Writers' Then, Put the Whole Book together
in terms of the 'Editors', who did, to the Whims of whatever Suited them then. Never the Less, i for one Can
and Will find Most of this in the New Testament Still For Soul Rather Than Card Board Homes, just waiting
for Some Gaslit Reality Spoon Fed From Birth in a Dirt Nap when 'That Big Book' Clearly relates with a Duh
For me that Heaven is the Deeper As Within Now That Verily Makes every Second of Life Delicious, now;
For Those
Who
Seek
And Find
And Master
Their Inner Multi-Uni-Verse
of Life to Literally Do/Be Their Metaphorical Bliss; More Now.

This is a 'Tough' Crowd 'here' to Discuss the Deeper Parts of Existence
to Synthesize A Whole of Being With 'All That Is' Now; But, it's Like Running
A TreadMill with a Cloth Mask Covering one's nose; some folks do it for the
Challenge; where Consumption of Oxygen is Reduced like Running in the Mountains
as the Body Adapts for Challenge for Greater Human Potentials in Fruition. This Website is like that
For me; Much More Potential to be Gained When Resistance is Plentiful; Just like Lifting Weights, too.
Anyway; Definitely A Bright Spot Here with the Insight of Richard Tarnas; even if he is only speaking to
A Choir of Relatively Few, here at least. Western Culture Has been Sick out of Balance with 'Divine' Balance
of Feminine and Masculine for as long as i can see. Eastern Culture, not so much; but the Ascetic Non-Flavors
of Many of those Philosophies Doesn't Mesh with Nature and is no way for me. We Need the Form and the Essence;
the Balance of Divine Masculine and Feminine; or the Metaphor of Lunar for Feminine and Solar for Masculine too,
to get out of the Realms of the Places where folks cannot get the 'Reproductive' smaller Parts out of their Head into
Freedom of 'Spirit' More. In other Words, We need a Balance of Yin and Yang; and that is verily no new Philosophy;
but for all i Can and Will 'See' It Is True Within, Inside, Outside, Above, So Below and All Around All Is Interconnecting
As "Field";
of
Dreams
Too NoW;
And With
Enough Innate
Instinct and Intuition
We 'rule' An 'All' From Within
Through the Instinct and Intuition
of what we are born with as Gift, Now.
The Internet, Provides all the Resources
one Can and Will Use to 'Seek' and 'Find' 'This' Greater
Human Potential And Not unlike the Movie, 'The Matrix';
It's up to each
and every
individual
"Neo" to
Unplug
As Truly this is
STiLL FULLY An "Inside Job"
to Get Done, Now; No Matter
the Second, the Minute, the Hour
in Increments of 60 WitH A Dance And Song
That Works Individually Created And Worn by Each Individual NoW..:)

Richard Tarnas, in Summary, Basically Gives A Speech That "Robin Williams"
Did/Does in 'The Dead Poet Society'; A Speech Our Ancestors Used to Live Before We
coMe
to
Drop
the Art
Out of SMart Falling As Such;
WithOut smART MoVeS (Dance) too;
And sure, with the Patience of Small Moves and Steps
too; And Yes, Short Words as Song like Seize The Present Now.
i'M Not one For 'Haiku'; As A Science oF iT SMothers Art Closer to Death As Life.

A Dead Poet's Society

Lives For NoW;

No Zombie Apocalypse;

Silent Never NoW.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,645
Location: Adelaide, Australia

11 Nov 2018, 10:14 pm

If feminism anti-femininity? If it is that would cause me to like it even more.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short