Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part LI

If the “sexy” attached (attached meaning similar to “referred to”) to the “erogenous zones” and if the “beautiful” attached to “subliminitous” zones (either type of zone being of the body or the body of the earth or of the body of the cosmos, or of a Hoover vacuum cleaner) and if, (though these two zones never intersect in an equivalence relation,) we will call sexy and beautiful different concepts.

If...blah, blah, blah. Itwethey had a funny joke with the “subliminitous zones” thing, she thought, but it was about to stop being funny as it expanded into a set theoretical method for examining candidate answers to the question of whether or not sexy was another word for beautiful. This was going to veer us off course, when for now, what suffices is to voice the suspicion: beauty is “in front of” the sexy as a fakery hiding being turned on, for disowning, disavowing, or being untrue or inauthentic to, impulses from the body. “Beauty” is “sexy” which is unopened to its own vitality, power, creative capacity, joy, dancing involvement with life.

Itwethey will focus on the change, the social change-- the lifeworld change-- manifesting between “beautiful” and “sexy”.

Part of the fun will be to mock and cast aspersions on Immanuel Kant’s sex life. Itwethey might get really wild and crazy and start mocking Nietzsche’s, too. Itwethey can hardly wait to throw ad hominem attacks onto frail, boring, “stuck in a rut” old Manny. Let it be known from the outset,however, the other idea is to recapture some sense of the intensity, dedication, sincerity, adventure, intrepid spirit, courage, impeccable integrity, and audacity lost or lowered or betrayed, between the “beautiful” and the “sexy.” We want both. (Itwethey would say, “We must (as necessity)have both. We need a better concept of both.”)


Post a Comment

<< Home