Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XLVI

Come to think of it, insofar as Itwethey believes equating “achieving” spontaneity with the ability to or the act of creating or producing beauty, (as a side note: why is it that creation is a word we might artsy-fartsily embrace, while production, which might be very similar in meaning, has that metallic, industrial, mass “produced” ring to it which we artsy-fartsily reject? What if we tried to inject into discourse phrases such as “these widgets were mass-created at Dink-a-Dink, Inc.’s Tokyo plant” would we help to eliminate some measure of an unreasonable exclusion of human “creative-productive” worth?) and insofar as Itwethey was saying this equation led to desexualization, Itwethey was accusing the acolytes and apostles of “openness” (AoA) of being desexualized.

Nudity and all. Pride to the point of arrogance at having achieved, “being, like totally, unrepressed,” and all. The nudity of the AoA has this feeling of being unsexy, and what’s even more, of being “preachy.” Itwethey thinks so, anyway.

Itwethey says, “Listen sometime, if you get the chance, to some naked AoA sweeties singing some pretty songs, chanting, or lyrically reciting recitations of lyrics, and tell me if you do not notice—the words, the lyrics, the libretto—is it not ‘preachy’?” Itwethey further remarks, “If it is religiously inclined, it will be the religious inclination to judge, and it will be hard to avoid feeling it as being judgmental, condemning.” (If something is being judged, it is being condemned. Let us be very clear about that.)

This is a little philosophical problem the AoA have (and of which they do not wish to become aware.) Their ecstasy, spontaneity, nudity and “naturalness” is anti-social. It is explicitly amoral (amoral understood as not caring a damn about whatever it is the social cares about) and individual (individual understood as the opposite of the social or the collective.) However, the AoA do not wish to be, and in fact are not, anti-social. They are as informed, as connected, as engaged, as involved, participating in the social and the political (and the ethical) as any other group, if not more so. This does not change the quality of their ecstasy, spontaneity, nudity, and “naturalness” from anti-social to social. That it does not isn’t very fair. If things were fair, reality should be more than glad to change the quality. It shouldn’t even need to be asked. This is so glaringly obviously deserved by the AoA. They really are good. Their bodies really are superior, (if you ask Itwethey, who favors toned, tanned, abundantly hairy bodies, no silicone, no cosmetic surgery, little makeup, etc.) If the way they manifest is anti-social and yet we know (we do know!) they are exemplary in their sociality, that ought to be good enough for reality, and in reality we would, without qualms, accept them as social!