A Kritik of Attempts to Stifle Beauty.
You are not defined by your perception of your self alone,
but all so by your perception of the World around you. The beauty* of Art is in
that it divulges the disparate ambiguity of Human Perceptions and casts doubt
upon the existence of a Noumenal, objective world. Ideology moves in the
opposite direction, operating upon a lower beam entirely. Ideology seeks to
unify all consciousness into one “whole”. Yet just as there is no evidence for
the existence of a Thing in Its Self, so there is no evidence that such a
Hegelian unity could be possible. The condition of Fascism is probably one of
mutually assured isolation, wherein every individual perceives the world as he
is inclined to, in isolation, but this isolation becomes narcissistic because
it is presumed to be “The Truth”, and in the absence of free criticism it is
impossible to challenge this delusion.
Why I have the right to call women beautiful:
1.
Art is
Phenomenologically important. It is a mode of perception. Beauty, in its
true sense, is the perception of a love object. It is not limited to one
person, as in an obsession, all though such a peculiarity (as in a dream
wherein a gray world is populated by only one coloured feminine figure) could
be benign and sentimental. Without the perception of Beauty, a “complete”
picture of Reality could never exist.
2. Beauty is a perception of Love. Beauty
is a style of perception wherein the distinction between Subject and Object
dissolves. Peculiarities are seen to be unitive rather than divisive. Because
they are peculiarities, a woman’s beauty will all ways be distinct, both from
that of other women but all so from that of men in general (depending upon the
observer), even in a world that is revered on the whole.
3. Beauty is a feminine quality. This is
not the same thing as a female quality, all though women are supposed to possess
more feminine qualities. The integration of the Anima into the Male Ego, as in
a symbolic reading of the Damsel in Distress archetype, will tend to create the
perception of Beauty and the honoring of femininity, whereas the absence of
this (in the case of an inflated ego responding to the tyranny of patriarchal
ideology [and Feminism is entirely patriarchal]) will created turgidity and put
all things at the proverbial “distance of objectivity as though she were an
enemy to be shot”.
4. The Ethos is self-contradictory. If the
Collective is permitted to judge my actions without access to my psyche and
motives, I should be allowed, with relatively little derision, to make
observations of other’s aesthetic appearances, since phenomenologically the two
are practically indistinct. IDEOLOGICALLY, they are severed from each other,
but in its raw form it is one process: The perception of Reality as it Appears
rather than a presumption upon its True, “hidden” (and probably non-existent) “Nature”.
5. The perception of one’s own “Beauty”, in a
Fascist state, cannot happen without the Collective. The only way to do
this would be to reconcile Individualism with Collectivism by insisting that
Aesthetics are entirely an individual phenomenon, rejecting collective
judgements as not “truly” aesthetical. (Were they, they would be equally
adequate.) Yet if the Society is not responsible for one’s self-image, then why
criticize how others perceive you, if they can be safely presumed to simply be
perceiving you NOT according to the oppressive trends of some sociological
phenomenon but according to, in fact, their own aesthetic tendencies, entirely
individuated except expressed in relatable language?
6. To blame others for one’s own insecurities
is irresponsible. Just as we depend, if any kind of Collectivity could
exist at all, upon others to criticize us morally, even if ultimately we can be
the solitary judges of our own characters, so it follows that the same
principle can apply in aesthetics. Others can call you beautiful (to be treated
with respect) or ugly (to be treated with derision, for that is what was
intended usually), but ultimately these will be at your disposal in constructing
your own self-mage.
7. To value your self-image over the perceptions
of others is Narcissistic. That is okay, but why should I join your
Collectivist movement, lying down before your harsh moral imperatives, if I am
to be barred from any true Solidarity of consciousness that can only come about
whenever another Contradicts me?
I could go on.
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment