SEXUAL EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY / SEXISTENTIALISM?

The problem I see with that one is they will still be arguing it when you & I and everyone here is in the grave.

We hunger for something we can use here and now. A breakthrough for us, for Now.

I mean its so predictable. It seems you can almost write it in 2 sentences:

"I believe in Science and Evolution" vs. "I believe in fundamentalist writings."

And the two camps are firmly in their camps. And after thousands of words and pages, it still comes down to faith vs. science...and personally I don't even see its that valuable of a fight. Lets have faith and science and move on to the next level.

Oh, by the way, just do not tell us what to have Faith in. If we choose Fellini, so be it.

COMICS.

The Committe Organising Mesmeric Incidents Concerning Stupidity.

E.M.

"Thousands of words and pages".

Your understatement is too much for an Englishman.

Well I hate those that exaggerate.

Unless its an Englishman telling me how to seduce a west end girl. Even then, I'd like something that works here and now.

Alas, I think a lot of serious posters may avoid this thread, because of its title, and reputation ...

Name. Names are important.

Sexistentialism is good, but we know in reality it wouldn't quite work.

One would have to give the school some inaccessible intellectual sounding name, yet still be true to the core...

maybe one should translate sexistentialism into the Greek or Latin, or at least Renaissance French or German, and use that?

Its just a bit too Monty Python as it stands...

S,

Now what the hell is this COMICS thing?

Though I forgot to add Clockwork Orange to my schools of thought. I think that should be included there somewhere.

Wasn't Clockwork Orange Sexistentialist, at least a certain sect of the movement?

You're the expert.

The day is young.It must be warm.Take bills to riffle and Bob's your uncle.Research underway.

Seduce?SEDUCE!!??Who do you think you are?

I don't quite understand your meaning here...

"Utterly Dominate" would be more appropriate?

I meant that if you think you are the seducer you are having yourself on.

Leaving out Germaine Greer's qualification.

shi shi shi shi!

Hey, are you and Mathos actually duelling or do you secretly like M?

Alternatively,

Do any two Englishmen get along? :wink:

(as always, feel free to ignore any question, or better yet, give some bullshyte answer with an obscure almost invisible barb toward the intended)

B/S answers take time.

I will sleep on it.

What day is it there?I can't figure out if it's Sun.Mon or Tues.

Sunday, 2.52 pm now. And there?

I would be honored by any nomination such as that, coming from you, Spendius.

Agree on 20% Freud is too much cred. to give him at this point. Perhaps one of the best things we can do is disregard him totally. I mean you spend so much time going down rabbit holes that only lead to dead ends or pointless dreams...

E.M.:-

It is now,a minute or two before I post,I hope,1151 hrs GMT.We are 8 hrs ahead of post time and you are 3 hrs behind that which means you are just about to pass into Monday which is a Bank Holiday here so I have bugger all to do except sit here and play with this thing.

Hands off cocks on socks as the RSM used to say jocularly at return to the daymare time.

I have been skimming Mailer's doorstop on Gary Gilmore simply for the bits of Mailerese.The other stuff is mere incident.I have jotted down a few of his bits of wisdom which might be useful on this thread and they will be posted in due course where they seem relevant.

But first from Cannibals and Christians-

"All interviews are existential so far as they are not edited,and are descriptive of the mood of the conversation.Which is another argument for trying to express one's ideas in this form.It gives the reader a sense of the present.('scuse me my arse is itching)That's the first notion to grasp about existential philosophy.The underlying assumption is that nothing in one's metaphysical scheme is as important as one's sense of the present.The truth is found first in the Gestalt.Not in the abstractions of logic."

Which is a good job seeing as how we are discussing our lady friends.We need to think of them in the round.As a totality.Not as we would like them to be.

We might,say,be discussing the excitation-contraction coupling process in the organisation of muscle cells when a prize specimen crosses our field of vision and causes a certain initiation of sensory nerve impulses which,though we go on talking normally,causes our voice to change very slightly and this is picked up unconsciously by our listeners who find themselves looking at what we are looking at due to the Gestalt being modulated to a degree directly proportional to the priziness of the specimen and resulting in a new Gestalt which moves in a certain direction at a speed which is also directly proportional to how pissed we are.Once we arrive in a zone where the speed of the Gestalt changes is asymptoting with the speed of light the only safe method to prevent oneself metamorphing into a energised vibration is to imagine perfection in the specimen and nature will do the rest.

I thought EM had more sense than say a daft thing like



esp. the hinder part.

Didn't he leave Honolulu/Hawaii with his gun, cross the mainland, with his gun, find Lennon, shoot him dead with his gun outside the Dakota building, whilst carrying a copy of Holden Caulfield's 'Catcher In The Rye?

Maybe the powers that be thought John was diverting some of his cash to a movement. A movement that was not appreciated by themselves.

You wanker !