Dialectic: A Useless Passion

This is an American dialectic--I can't say if it's the case in the American-equivalent countries. This is written in haste and lacks rigor. This might upset Father Lawless, and it hurts me to think so.

Years ago this dialectic rarely played out, perhaps only among the rich and sitting. Refer to all of Moraline's work to understand how we arrived and the interrelation of economics and gender roles. Again, I must point out I am a student of Moraline's work and this is a short paper I am writing for his class. I was supposed to have begun my paper last week, but I partied too much and now the paper is due for his 8 a.m. class. I might get a D, but I have to turn in the paper so at least he can dress me down during office hours. It has not even been proof read.

Past:
Years ago the alpha male sampled, took what he need, stayed with what he needed for as long as he needed. The beta male took what he could get from what was left and he had no choice in the matter. Was the alpha male ever challenged by the woman? Did she try to domesticate him?

Present:
The alpha and beta males are still here along with the women. The American woman wants the excitement of the alpha male, yet later on in her life (see below) the domesticated qualities of the beta male. As Moraline has observed, she spends her 20s dating like a man--they are her "me" years. She enters her late 20s and early 30s and arrives at the "us" years--"us" as in "our family," "us" as in "take me forever along some transcendental plane that no longer pursues and values alpha male instincts."

Yet she will always value the alpha male as the one who excites her and truly motivates her admiration. Her sudden turn to the beta male is out of shame for her neglecting her maternal instincts. It is punishment. Like a trader who punishes himself with an accounting vocation due to his failure in trading, a woman punishes herself with a beta male to make amends for the 'me' years of her 20s.

It is a slippery slope. If she finds an alpha male and attempts, through her 'love,' to turn him into a beta male ('for the family'), her project at once works for the family and her maternal instincts yet against the very characteristics which drive her attraction. In other words, she must destroy what she desires to have what she 'wants.' What she wants is precisely not what she wants. When she has settled with the ashes of her once alpha male, the coast is clear for her from the perspective of safety and security. Yet she suddenly lacks a man. Unable to destroy her family, she wishes to be taken away from the sudden confines of her family. She wants nothing more than to again be wooed by an alpha male. She wishes to again be taken by an alpha male, but while she knows she would be willing accept her being taken again, in self-deception she denies this. Hence she tells herself that she must be taken against her will, that suddenly the terms of a re-engagement with the alpha male *must* be beyond her consent. It would be unthinkable to 'cheat.' I have heard the parlance described as some sort of coerced fantasy.

Is this dialectic driven by the man or the woman? Does the alpha male find the same problems? The modern American alpha male may find certain dialectics. He finds a woman who pleases him, perhaps she is attempting authenticity. Yet the minute she demands that she be the last for him, he faces two things: remove the penis and cower in to the beta male position--push baby strollers in the local 5K while your woman wins the race. Or leave the woman, painful if she is cool. The alpha male wants more than just sex--he loves women. But he loves women, not a woman. When he lonely, he wants one more woman, yet when she wants him forever, he no longer wants her. His wants are impossible in they cannot be satisfied by a woman, but only by women, yet a man cannot experience women, only a woman. 'Women' is a reflective term.

And let me point out that fucking three women at a time does not resolve this dialectic. He must meet each woman on her own terms, in turn. 3 at a time or 10 at a time doesn't change this dialectic.

How melancholy for the woman and man. They will never experience the mode of being they seek, they will never obtain the object they want. It is the contradiction of seeking both the mode of being and the object somehow correlated with it. It is a deep-seated ontological problem. There will be constant wizardry, but happiness, never being an object to be had, is the dark chase of an abyss. There is no satisfaction. "Man is a useless passion. "

Woman

1017. Nothing is more tragic that a 'woman's' losing her soul. For, what now is left?

Human action

Many of the relationship-self-help books operate on suspect premises. On the one hand they intend to instruct women to get men to like or love them. But the problem encountered is that while we experience others as objects, and attempt to manipulate them as objects, we do not experience the 'other' as an object but through a mode of being. Hence our feeling loved or liked by another cannot be carried out through a ruse--it must be freely carried out by the man, and no matter what the promises of the relationship-self-help books, the woman will never experience this love if the premise of her 'attraction' is her dehumanization of a man. She wants the feeling, or the state of being, of love, yet she attempts to get love as if one were acquiring an asset, a plane ticket, a blouse, or a puppy dog.

A woman, so receptive to philosophical ideas, should be the very species to pursue what could be called an authentic approach to others. This approach does not embrace a crass, brute force method of human conduct. Rather, the women senses the limitations of how we experience others as objects and attempts to connect with the other through a state of being. The specifics of this state of being will be discussed in the works to follow.

Avoid women who do not pursue a project of authenticity. A woman who operates in tricks and games has lost her soul. Move away from her.