Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part L
“Whereof one cannot think casually, thereof is one invited to think ecstatically.”- AoA, Cactatus Lego Philosophicus, (Santa Fe & Frisco, 1967).
Is sexy another word for beautiful? Is there anything beautiful which isn’t sexy? Is there anything sexy which isn’t beautiful? “Does spontaneity have use of the sexy?” Itwethey wonders. "There must be some quality, not really of the sex act, intercourse, of foreplay, or whatever else is pre-, post-, or concurrent to sex, nor directly attached in one or several ways to perception of the genitalia or “erogenous” zones (though in the mentioning of “erogenous” zones, an ambiguity begins to enter into this line of questioning because where erogenous zones begin and end has none of the anatomical certainty of where, for example, a penis or testicles begin and end.) “Sexy” is a kind of global quality (though it can attach to localized or specific areas)—it’s amorphous as beauty is,(though of course beauty attaches to specific forms, some forms are beautiful and others aren’t, but it is amorphous in terms of which are and aren’t beautiful: the form “beauty” is amorphous.) No one would call judgments of “sexy” disinterested, as Kant called judgments of beauty (though Kant calling judgments of beauty so may have been an early warning of systematic mishap. Kant couldn't have considered that his response to the beautiful was sex-charged); “sexy” is interested in doing something, too…
" 'Sexy' can’t be detached from the bodily as judgment of beauty can, it even has much less the feeling of being a judgment—it’s not being handed down from on high, but is coming up, from below, in a pleasant sensation. It’s a nascent lusting, and there might be more a feeling that we are subject to 'sexiness', not we judge or judge it not. In other words, it is involving (which may be another way of saying it is not disinterested.) It seems less likely that we would contemplate sexy (though maybe that’s what Itwethey is doing now.) We would fantasize about the sexy." Itwethey does not have that much confidence in the distinction between these two mental states, contemplation and fantasizing, to know whether and to what extent the difference is significant. We are emotionally involved in a fantasy, while contemplating we use the intellect? And what does that mean?
" 'Sexy' is more natural-inclining than beauty; as it does not involve (in the same way and to the same extent) comparison, reflection, and abstraction (though it does involve abstraction to a great extent, as mentioned above, and this is important) as beauty, it feels more immediate; those inclining to spontaneity might speak more freely and readily in terms of sexiness than beauty. Does the sexy get more contemporary attention and consideration than the beautiful? Is the beautiful more embarrassing now than the sexy? "
Is sexy another word for beautiful? Is there anything beautiful which isn’t sexy? Is there anything sexy which isn’t beautiful? “Does spontaneity have use of the sexy?” Itwethey wonders. "There must be some quality, not really of the sex act, intercourse, of foreplay, or whatever else is pre-, post-, or concurrent to sex, nor directly attached in one or several ways to perception of the genitalia or “erogenous” zones (though in the mentioning of “erogenous” zones, an ambiguity begins to enter into this line of questioning because where erogenous zones begin and end has none of the anatomical certainty of where, for example, a penis or testicles begin and end.) “Sexy” is a kind of global quality (though it can attach to localized or specific areas)—it’s amorphous as beauty is,(though of course beauty attaches to specific forms, some forms are beautiful and others aren’t, but it is amorphous in terms of which are and aren’t beautiful: the form “beauty” is amorphous.) No one would call judgments of “sexy” disinterested, as Kant called judgments of beauty (though Kant calling judgments of beauty so may have been an early warning of systematic mishap. Kant couldn't have considered that his response to the beautiful was sex-charged); “sexy” is interested in doing something, too…
" 'Sexy' can’t be detached from the bodily as judgment of beauty can, it even has much less the feeling of being a judgment—it’s not being handed down from on high, but is coming up, from below, in a pleasant sensation. It’s a nascent lusting, and there might be more a feeling that we are subject to 'sexiness', not we judge or judge it not. In other words, it is involving (which may be another way of saying it is not disinterested.) It seems less likely that we would contemplate sexy (though maybe that’s what Itwethey is doing now.) We would fantasize about the sexy." Itwethey does not have that much confidence in the distinction between these two mental states, contemplation and fantasizing, to know whether and to what extent the difference is significant. We are emotionally involved in a fantasy, while contemplating we use the intellect? And what does that mean?
" 'Sexy' is more natural-inclining than beauty; as it does not involve (in the same way and to the same extent) comparison, reflection, and abstraction (though it does involve abstraction to a great extent, as mentioned above, and this is important) as beauty, it feels more immediate; those inclining to spontaneity might speak more freely and readily in terms of sexiness than beauty. Does the sexy get more contemporary attention and consideration than the beautiful? Is the beautiful more embarrassing now than the sexy? "
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 7:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home