Karlo Z. Valois
People today live in a world that lacks any trace of modesty, intimacy and is build mostly on routine. Routine is the visible cause of the other two factors. If we don’t look at the situation linearly, but from a point of view that precedes all three elements, it is rationalism and a material weltanschauung that stems from the general tendency of involution, that could be identified as the main cause, but we spoke about this elsewhere.
Routine is the opposite of ritual. It is important to start with this, because when looked at it from „below”, the two looks the same. In reality however the two represent two different forms. The content of a ritual is a symbol, the content of routine is an object or a practical act (performance). The difference between an object and a symbol is the observer. Only a superior observer sees symbol in an object or an act: a symbol is always the precipitation of something higher, the representation of the superior on an lower plane.
There is no room to describe the differences between the superior and the inferior individual in details here. In this context it is enough to note that an individual is superior to the degree he is able to realize high(er) principles in himself or has already actualized them.
The individual is in constant crisis. If the individual is not striving toward the superior, the general crisis is pulling him down towards the inferior. Even the conscious, focused effort to reach higher levels mostly results in stagnation, standing still, which is comparable to standing still in a strong, powerful current of a river. If this effort is missing, the individual is falling unconscious, like a stone, blindly subordinating his consciousness to the general tendencies of involution. This blind inertia is routine.
In every moment, when the individual takes on the style elements of negative tendencies and his actions are not carried out in the context of striving upward, his actions are routine thus he is obeying negative tendencies.
To perform a routine means that there is no actor: the individual is not present. It’s not the individual who performs the activity but something else. Today, routine has levels. Not hierarchies of course, but quantitative levels. Whole life segments have emerged that are maintained by activities that are not connected to higher context: they require routine.
The strongest of these are the segments that emerged around entertainment (in growing complexity): radio, television, most books, magazines and places of entertainment. The need for entertainment is so strong that even at work people act like in a pub or disco most of the time. It is of course work where routine is most dominant and we couldn't find one instance when the individual does anything from a higher perspective. People have become mechanized at work, like robots and when they are entertaining, they are just as mechanical (see dancing and conversation formulas as examples).
Entertainment and mechanism has become the foundation also for the relationship between men and women. People are so confused that they associate to entertainment when it comes to the opposite sex.
The basis for the relationship between men and women has become routine and as we can see routine is inferior, it means blindly obeying (negative) tendencies without resistance and without awareness. Among other things negative, involutive tendencies undermine the principles of distinction and tension-filled separation in all areas of life including fundamental differences between men and women. From the characteristics describing men and women respectively, we have chosen two: modesty and intimacy.
We’ll look at the symbology of two common, every day occurrences to shed light on how these characteristics disappear because of routine. These are communications in general and meetings in particular.
Intimacy is part of the woman. The woman is fundamentally dual, divided, man is fundamentally an undivided unity. A woman is fundamentally social while a man is fundamentally distant, „single”. Man does not belong to any woman. The woman belong to a (one, single) man.
One aspect of being social means sharing, which is analogous with dividing. Another aspect of women is attachment (identify with the other, gain identity from submitting to one man). A man is detached since he has his own principle in himself. Attachment undermines the masculine principle and a man who becomes attached (to people, things or situations) is inferior, to the degree of his attachment itself.
Without control, which is insured by superior principles present in the man, the urge of the woman to share is limitless. Since this is coupled with a drive to attachment, this uncontrolled sharing results, when taken to the extreme, in the woman becoming a whore, or rather, the whore emerging from the woman.
We have no intention to look at the phenomenon of whores here, however it is relevant to note that the drive of attachment drives whores not towards the superior, but towards the inferior. For some of them the inferior element, the inferior object of attachment maybe the pimp running them, for others it maybe the client, physical pleasure, money or other factors. Romantic notions according to which whores could be changed, are groundless.
The true meaning of intimacy, like all other feminine characteristics is connected to the presence of man. The presence of the man maybe real, meaning there is a man in the woman’s life, or potential, meaning that the woman hasn’t attracted the man into her life yet; in this case the man is potentially present given that the woman is ready to attract him. Being ready to attract a real man into her life means that the woman is standing against most negative tendencies and she has a more or less correct concept of the real man in her mind. This concept is invariably different from those suggested by the mass media, or any mass individual, who propagates the same (as the mass media). For the mass individual, who is unable to differentiate qualitatively, the mass media (due to it’s quantitative might) is unquestionable, thus the suggestions which the mass media is bombarding the mass with act as elements that are accelerating the process.
Intimacy exists between one woman and one man and it has several levels, since sharing is possible on several levels. Sharing on the highest level is only possible if the woman is close to the absolute woman state. In this case the woman experiences her submittal to the man with a profound intensity and experiences man as the foundation of her existence. According to this, the woman’s behaviour reflects this high level existential experience in all areas of life. In the center of her thoughts and her inner images stands the man she belongs to, or wants to belong to. She recognizes other superior men as well, as the modalities of her own man/husband and her faithfulness towards her man is the symbol of her respect towards the high principle also present in other superior men. In her man the superior woman experiences the stable, unchanging principle of One and not merely the physical man.
She perceives less superior and inferior men according to this. She is aware of her own superiority in relation to some men, who are farther away from the state of the absolute man than she is from the state of the absolute woman. She is also aware of her inferiority in relation to the masculine principle. Besides her man, she doesn’t share herself with anybody (man or woman) on any level. Since in the center of her existence there is the man, her behaviour reflects this man. Even though she thinks about and spends time with other people, she does this with control and in a context provided to her by the man. For a superior woman, just like for a superior man a meeting, and a conversation is more of a ritual than a routine. Each act, even the smallest one, serves a purpose. Women who are less superior often give in to the suggestions of the mass.
There are 3 areas of routines that determine mistakes less superior women may make. These are the routines of emotion, perception and intent.
All these are present simultaneously in most situations. Today the most common situations are conversations and meetings. At this point we can disregard the various forms of entertainment, because they can be simply avoided, by not going to discos or watching television. Entertainment has relevance only as much as it determines behavior.
In case of meetings, perception routine means that it is considered normal that anybody can meet up with anybody else without any particular reason. The reason given is typically to „have a conversation”, a drink, coffee, etc. We are still talking about intimacy as a characteristic of woman.
In this context meetings are analogous with the woman sharing time. Time maybe shared with men or with other women. This is typical to the workplace where people are unfortunately forced to take part in senseless and destructive meetings, so the workplace must be handled differently than the non-work environment.
Superior women never initiate and when possible refuse all invitations for meetings without a clear purpose even in the work environment. If she has to accept it she does so only with the purpose to solve a problem, thereby giving it a purpose. Invitations for meetings out of work is always refused by superior women.
Less superior women accept invitations to meetings both within and without the working environment. They do so because of the perception routine: they don’t question why this should be acceptable. For them the man in their life has a physical presence only, so when he’s out of sight, he’s out of mind. They don’t realize that by accepting the invitation of any men for a meeting without purpose, they are no longer intimate with their own man.
When the woman listens to a man talking about his private life, the woman is intimate with him, consequently she is no longer intimate with the man in her life. Being intimate with two men is not possible. Especially not with two men in the same time. This way the woman, when she routinely accepted the invitation, was never intimate with her man. If she was, it was only lower level, physical intimacy, only for the moments of being together.
Women on the lowest level of course can’t have intimacy at all; they are close to whores. Even when they are together with a man, they are not intimate because they make the man they are with part of a continuous sharing process. In conversations they share themselves with everybody: with all men and all women. Essentially, everybody knows everything about them. Since sharing mostly happens through the mouth, perhaps this is why men in little longer marriages no longer what to kiss their wives on the mouth. Also, this is why it was never customary to kiss a whore on the mouth.
Men always want intimacy from women. Inferior men indiscriminately from all women, superior men with control, attentively and discretely. Men give, women receive.
Men give invitation and observes the woman. He wants to see how it is accepted. A woman with a man always asks why the invitation is extended. Once the purpose is established that becomes the context of the meeting and it is disrespectful to change it. If the purpose given is not acceptable (just talk, coffee, a beer, etc.) superior women avoid the meeting.
Women without man almost always accept the invitation without asking; in such cases the context for the meeting is the concept in their mind about the meeting and the same goes for men. Naturally it is the concept on the man’s mind that dominates the outcome of events in the course of the meeting.
Low level women with man also accept the invitation without asking. Accepting the invitation without a set objective is already a subtle symbology of sex.
If she accepts, the man continues giving at the meeting. This time he gives information about himself and observes the woman; by now he has created the conditions for deepening the intimacy he had already established when they agreed on a date. If she accepts the information given by the man, the act continues. He asks the woman questions, first carefully, delicately, then more and more directly, increasingly personal questions, all the while observing her.
By this time the situation is intimate. There is a back and forth flow of thoughts and information between them, and the symbology of sex is so strong that it is present on both of their minds.
This is further strengthned by drinks.
Even when they are in a restaurant, the drink is always given to the woman by the man. After the subtle act of back and forth flow of thoughts, the drink is a solid form of sensuality. The woman accepts it, takes it to her mouth and tastes it, while the man is watching her. Intimacy is deepened even more. Then the man asks the woman for more of her time, extending the communication beyond the usual frame (to home or work, etc.). Just by getting involved in such communication, the woman is „working with the man”. By this time intimacy has become the context of their communication: the context is the two of them. The words no longer matter, because every sentence, word, style element is a symbol in this intimate context. The woman shares more of her thoughts and feelings either verbally or by the way she communicates. Not only has the man been suggesting the woman all this time that he wants her (through his acts), but due to the intimate context he created, their communication is already the symbology of sex. Actual sex is just a question of the right moment.
Lower level women put themselves in such situations almost on a daily basis. Most of them of course never get to the point of actually having sex with the man (men), but they get very close.
This is the symbology of meetings and communications (phone, email, personal, sms, etc). On a lower level, neither men, nor women are aware of the symbology. Even though they never think about meetings and communication in this sharp, symbological context, they still obey the power hidden in the symbols. They are blind and they think and do whatever they must (which is often the same what they routinely want), just by being in the situation. In such cases the woman is often very surprised when she eventually finds herself in situations where the man is making direct references to sex, trying to kiss her or invite her to his home for the next drink (some women would go there even despite their surprise) and she does not understand why this is happening to her. Some men also don’t understand why they say what they say; others have a feeling for the symbology of communications and, although they don’t understand it, they use it successfully.
Since man symbolizes undivided unity (One), he can’t be intimate, since it would undermine his essential self. Women share, men give. Men give, women accept, they take, they take in. Accepting what comes from the man (including any kind of initiative) is an intimate moment. This is where superior women exercise control, this is the moment when their man is present as a force of control, even when he’s not there physically. The rationalization, that it is only about an innocent conversation is the result of the perception routine, which unfortunately results in women losing their intimacy by sharing themselves with everybody.
Due to emotional and perception routines women on a lower level demand intimacy from their men, while they discuss everything about their lives with their girlfriends or even male colleagues.
It is important to note here that a superior man, who exercises control, radiates the principles he represents to everybody. As opposed to women, a man can’t divide himself, therefore anybody and anything can belong to him. Just as he can’t share himself, he also must not be attached to anything: not to women, objects or situations. Since he is not holding on to anything, he can have everything. Since he doesn’t depend on anything, he can exercise full control.
Women are intimate and men aren’t.
Men are modest, and women are not.
For the principle nature of man both sexuality and physicality (bodily nature) is foreign, while both of these constitute the natural composition of the woman.
It is difficult to find an appropriate word instead of modesty in English. Some vocabularies indicate bashful, chaste, coy, prim, even shamefaced and shy as it’s synonyms. Most of these imply either timidity, awkwardness or abstinence, all of which are far from the meaning that concerns us. Prim, decorous could be closer, since they refer to appropriate attitude and behavior. In the Hungarian language the word they use (literally translated) is the one with coins on his eyes, referring to covering the eyes, which of course is in analogy with discretion. The examples taken from women’s behavior will explain the meaning more precisely.
When it comes to nudity, for women, unless an inhibition developed in them for any reason, including low self esteem, or that they are not happy with their body, etc., exposing their body to other women is quite natural.
For men however exposing their body to anybody (to women, men or even family members) is unnatural. Expressions like shy, or shamefaced apply to cases where a man is forced into such situations. Naturally, superior man is not stuck on the bodily plane, but by realizing his essential self, he’s been trying to transcend it.
Unfortunately today routine, that comes forth through emotions, perception and the will is pervasive, disabling men to actualize the masculine principle and women to become absolute women.
Emotional routine made sentimentalism the accepted „sensation” in all areas of life. It taught men about compassion, feeling with and for the other instead of acting detached, concerned only about the truth, making decisions that are essential to a man’s purpose.
This went as far as that people respect the „sensitive man”, who identifies with the victim. Men today are crying openly with their women or secretly in their room over sentimental stories, sinking deep into a haze, where even a distant sign of control is hopeless. It’s interesting to note that the “heros” today, like corporate “leaders”, bankers, boxers, politicians, etc. are openly crying in public, either honestly or for good PR. In one of his books, that he wrote about Gerry Swartz, the Canadian corporate hero, Peter Newman didn’t fail to mention it as a positive trait that Gerry often cries when he watches romantic movies.
Especially in North America we often come across with situations, where sharing is directly and openly assigned specifically to men. Men are expected to share their life with a woman, share their thoughts and feelings with others, etc.
There really is a lot of sharing going on. There are swing clubs where couples share their partners with total strangers. The emphasis is of course not on “strangers” but on “sharing”. The real problem of course lies in the man sharing his woman with another man and also in him sharing the woman of another man. Since this does simply not belong to the principle of man, it is unacceptable.
A man, especially if he is a superior man, can have more than one women. The reason for this is precisely his detachment; the fact that he does not depend on the woman on any level. If the man is attached to/dependent on the woman or physical pleasure, he has no right for more than one woman, and if this dependency is very high, he has no right to any women at all, since he himself represents predominantly feminine tendencies.
It is enough to mention only the question of female and male equality among the perception routines. Without touching on the causes and features of feminism it is enough to consider the phenomena whereas women pretend modesty and demand intimacy.
At this point we must mention that in certain moments the woman really is modest. This moment is when sexual potential openly presents itself, or when the woman unexpectedly suspects sexual thoughts from a man. This modesty is however temporary. Her body is very natural and important to the woman and exposing it is also natural.
Today some inferior men “learned” that body exhibition is a masculine trait. Not only identify these men with their body, but quite often they identify with one or two parts of their body only and they put these on public display.
Man, who is supposed to represent individuality, detachment, singleness, lives the same kind of chit-chatting social life like women do – often even taking on the role of “the friend of a woman/women”- and in addition to this, he’s forced to live a collective life, which demands the same kind of behavior that is natural to women only. Most of the time they are preoccupied with their body, they go to fitness centres, where they run around naked in front of each other, etc.; the behaviour between men has become almost the same as the behavior between women.
One level lower the perception routine says that the mixing of men and women, is ok not only at work and parties but also in the realm of nakedness or near nakedness. They go together to massage salons and saunas where men and women are sweating together with an almost complete lack of real tension between them. This is one typical instance of no intimacy and no modesty, whereas the differentiation between men and women are almost non-existent.
The perception routine that makes men look at their bodies as women do, actually further increased the feminists’ claim of equality, since women are naturally at home in the domain of the body and the men, who follow them there maybe considered to be women, more so then men.
In addition to women routinely pretending modesty, and men routinely giving up modesty, there’s another aspect of the perception routine, which is not acceptable.
This is when women demand intimacy from men, based on feminine principles, practically using these principles to undermine the masculine principles. In such cases the woman actually wants her man to share/divide himself with her, to become intimate, like she is, to share his feelings with her, talk to her about his thoughts and act like he is her best friend. In such cases the false concept of faithfulness is always a factor; faithfulness is only possible towards the superior. When the woman demands that the man divides himself with her, she is also demanding faithfulness from him, and vice versa.
This request is based on the false assumption that only one woman may belong to one man. This is of course false from multiple aspects, and it is the One, the principle of man that renders the opposite true. Man is one and undividible. No woman can divide him, while more women may belong him, as to the representation of One.
Since today the majority of men are farther away from the principle of the absolute man then the majority of women from the principle of the absolute woman, this claim that a man has no right for more women has merits. But only from this point of view, and not on the basis of the two being equal, with equal „rights” .
Most men today instead of trying to transcend the body sink into it even more, and try to get more women, driven by sexual desire, while working on their appearance (for seduction, just like women), or they are eating and drinking uncontrollably (taking in: again, just like women).
We have mentioned the routine of intention/will, as well, but we don’t have to touch on this one in details. It concerns the object of desire, which is invariably material in nature.
To sum it up, let’s return to the style elements of men who are close to the state of absolute men.
These men experience the interaction with the mass as a personal war and their behaviour is in polar opposition to all manifestation of the masses.
Everything they do is a ritual, everything they see is symbology. Each of their acts is purposeful.
They remain detached and they strive to reach super human levels. They may be alone on their path or they maybe with one woman or with more. Whatever the situation maybe the masses can’t understand them and any kind of explanation from them to the mass would be senseless, below their rank and unacceptable.
Whoever follows them from lower ranks, must adapt to them and make „upward” adjustments, which as an absolute minimum means that women must try to acquire the absolute woman quality, and men must realize the principle of One in themselves to the maximum of their potential.
