Vibe Check #1

I should start off by saying I feel innate joy. A joy I haven’t felt in years.

A lot has been going my way of late, so when you hear everything else I have to say in this post know that it’s me wrestling with different thoughts.

(Edit: actually, I should say what comes next is stuff I’ve been reading on and thinking about; discussions in the comment section are welcome)

These vibe checks will help me come clean about all the things I think about without necessarily making entire posts for each one of them.

Think of this as one big status update with all the juicy bits; in case you’re curious about what I get up to.

********

A DETOUR TO ACE VILLE

Being an asexual is something else, man. I’ve seen insecurities fly out of ladies who expected me to ask for sex on a first date.

I’ve seen insecurities fly out of men who thought I was doing some reverse psychology on the ladies.

These are just some of the negatives that come with being asexual. The benefits however are insane.

For example, I have a high appreciation for good fashion in men and women. As odd as it might sound, I also know the difference between a good make-up artist and a bad one — has to do with growing up around many sisters. But other than that, I am able to look past all of that and see who you are.

If someone has a nice body, I don’t get aroused sexually. To describe the feeling I get, it’s a little like seeing a beautiful sunset or an aurora. It’s aesthetically pleasing, but I don’t want to do anything physical with it.

I’d like to believe it’s helped me stay incredibly open-minded about people. Because I know how annoying it is to be misunderstood. The quality of good listening is depreciating rapidly ladies and gentlemen.

And I refuse to be a part of it.

*******

NARCISSIST CLEANSE

“You win”

That’s what narcissists want to hear. They don’t even know what they’re winning at.

Are they winning at their delusional games? Life?

That reasoning sounds about right; because only a moron believes they “win” by overpowering others. Only a moron believes life has winners and losers — a scarcity mindset to spiritual fulfilment that carries roughly the same energy as toddlers fighting over crayons in a pencil case.

Narcissists are the type of children that decided to taste their own faeces one day because they were convinced each slurp would taste different. I pray to God they stopped when they tasted the first one, wouldn’t put it past them to still be sampling.

I would ask “For how long?” narcissists plan to manipulate their way through relationships with family, friends or lovers. But the only thing I’ll be getting at the end of that is either rage or sophist arguments. A cocktail of mental ineptitude I don’t nearly have the bandwidth nor patience for.

People often ask me why I talk about narcissists so much. It’s because I grew up with them.

I know the damage these people inflict, especially on young people. I won’t name drop family members, not out of respect — god no. If I could, I would expose every single one of them for the world to see. But because they’ll get narcissistic supply from it, I’d rather not. They’ll misinterpret all of this as a jab at them when all I’m trying to do is inform others so they don’t have to go through the same thing I went through.

Once you know you’re not alone in dealing with people like this, it becomes easier to see the patterns and you’re more likely to seek help which is an absolute win in my opinion.

********

A GREEK ROAST

René Girard said, “Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others in order to make up his mind.” i.e “people don’t know what they want”

There are two interpretations to this statement (let me know in the comments if there are others):

To begin with, a majority of people don’t know what they want because they haven’t taken the time to explore themselves. To see their strengths, their weaknesses, what brings them shame, what brings them joy and accepting all of it. Most people prefer to keep that hidden and get angry when it’s brought up, even when the intention is to understand, not hurt.

Second, people at their core may not know what they want because desire is mimetic. And that’s no one’s fault. You can say you want to be an astronaut because you saw one and it inspired you. That’s not a wholly original thought. In many ways, you were given what to want, and what to think about what you want. You weren’t the first person to think that very thought.

Before that, you likely had no idea what you wanted. And you could just as easily change your mind if what you want doesn’t mesh well. Or if you’re inspired by something else.

I think the first interpretation works well for those looking to be part of relationships. You can’t be romantically involved with someone who doesn’t know what they want. Because in the end, it will fall on you to make and keep them happy. And that, my friend, is a heavy burden.

I think the second one can be used in many places but I would direct it toward my fellow artists. Plato argued that art is mimetic. He believed that the ultimate reality existed in the realm of ideas and that art was a poor imitation of it.

He uses the example of a chair: So a carpenter thinks of a chair, in the realm of ideas and he manifests it in reality by making a wooden chair. An artist sees this chair and makes a painting of it. Plato’s main argument with his theory of mimesis centred around how things like poetry and art are twice removed from reality and by that very notion, they add no value or teachings.

Cool story bro, but I disagree… and so did Aristotle.

Aristotle countered Plato by mentioning how poetry is not a simple reflection of reality, much like a mirror. He added that:

“Art cannot be a slavish imitation of reality. Literature is not the exact reproduction of life in all its totality. It is the representation of selected events and characters necessary in a coherent action for the realization of the artist’s purpose.

“He (the artist) even exalts, idealizes and imaginatively recreates a world which has its own meaning and beauty. These elements, present in art, are absent in the raw and rough real. While a poet creates something less than reality he at the same time creates something more as well. He puts an idea of the reality which he perceives in an object. This ‘more’, this intuition and perception, is the aim of the artist. Artistic creation cannot be fairly criticized on the ground that it is not the creation in concrete terms of things and beings. Thus considered, it does not take us away from the Truth but leads us to the essential reality of life”

My word, what a burn. But Aristotle wasn’t done roasting his mentor lol

“Plato again says that art is bad because it does not inspire virtue, and does not teach morality. But is teaching the function of art? Is it the aim of the artist? The function of art is to provide aesthetic delight, communicate experience, express emotions and represent life. It should never be confused with the function of ethics which is simply to teach morality. If an artist succeeds in pleasing us in the aesthetic sense, he is a good
artist. If he fails in doing so, he is a bad artist. There is no other criterion to judge his worth”

Furthermore.. 

“Morality teaches. Art does not attempt to teach. It merely asserts it is thus or thus that life is perceived to be. That is my bit of reality, says the artist. Take it or leave it – draw any lessons you like from it – that is my account of things as they are – if it has any value to you as evidence of teaching, use it, but that is not my business: I have given you my rendering, my account, my vision, my dream, my illusion – call it what you will. If there is any lesson in it, it is yours to draw, not mine to preach.”

I think that’s a good way to end this post.

The past informs the future and the future informs the past. There is no present.

God, I love being a poet!

– O.D. ©2022

Art by: Vetyr

References:

“Plato’s theory on Mimesis”

Girard, “Generative Scapegoating”, in Robert G. Hammerton-Kelly, eds., Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation, p. 122