Author Comment    
Joy



Jun 1, 05 - 3:13 AM
First greetings, and a question

Greetings Ladies,

I found your group by rather a fluke a few days ago, and have been fascinatedly reading various articles and tidbits on your websites since.

I am quite curious about your group, and I have many questions, but, first, the following question is foremost in my mind.

To my understanding, you classify people as either Aristasians (in one or another of the circles), or as one of three mutant types. I am curious how you would classify a lady such as the following:

Externally: Essentially a Type-1. Dresses plainly and simply; essentially as non-ugly as possible given a rather limited budget, very limited shopping time, and standard department store selection. Sensible shoes, neutral slacks, simple cardigans and blouses, etc.

Internally: A rebel against what you call the Pit, but an obedient adherent to Universal Good, as best she can discern it through education, intuition, and reasoning. That is, an absolute rebel against the Pittish credo that nothing is Real, nothing is Good, but very much a non-rebel in terms of Real Good.

Essentially, as the Internal is concerned, this is my question. You seem to define Type-3s as rebels against Standards, even against the meagre, pathetic standards of the Pit (well, except, they do not reject a key, inherently-contradictory Pittish standard: "there are no real standards"). In light of this, what do you make of those who rebel against some of the Pit's standards (for example, the pit standard of promiscuity, or the pit standard of TV addiction, or the pit standard of extremely disgusting fashion), but do so because they are seeking Real standards, and because they prefer to adhere to what they can discern of the Real standards? Are they still Type-3s by virtues of rebelling against the Pit? If so, I am confused, as it seems to be that a core part of being a Type-3 is rebellion against all standards. That is to say, it seems to me, that which makes Type-3s the most Pittish of Pit-creatures is their embrace of Pittish credo "there are no standards". If a Pit-creature latches on to the idea of Absolute Standards, this is both rebellion against the Pit, and acceptance of Standards. How is such a creature categorized in your system?

Assume further this is someone who prefers to live with (carefully chosen) gentlemen in her life, and who believes that doing so (carefully, and in terms of only certain traditional roles) is quite in accordance with Absolute Standards, and who would therefore probably not enter into any of the Aristasian circles.

As you may have guessed by now, the type of lady described above is based on yours truly. I am quite curious about where your system would place someone like me, so please be honest and do not worry too much about offending me, if your honesty must lead you there. Still, to my thinking, the core of your philosophy (as I understand it so far) seems to predict people as described above; you admit of Absolute Standards, and you believe that human beings have longing for this Standard (as evidenced by, for example, the fact that you consider those studies in which a 1950s couple is consistently chosen by children as the ideal "mommy and daddy" significant enough to mention on one of your group's websites). Would this not predict that perhaps some people, even just a handful of people, outside of your group are pushed by this longing to discover, and strive to live by, the Standard? If so, how would you class them, if such people were either ladies with gentlemen in their lives, or perhaps even gentlemen themselves? If not, why not?

Cordially,
Joy

P.S.: For the sake of the curious, I have not had a television since early 2002, and even that television was the doing of rather insufferable roommates, from whom I parted as soon as the lease allowed. Excepting technical academic books, my reading tends to consist of books written prior to 1960; recent and current examples include G.K. Chesterton's What is wrong with the World (1910), C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain (1940), S.N. Kramer's Sumerian Mythology (first published in 1944), C.S. Lewis' 'Till we have faces (1957), "The Literature of Ancient Egypt" ed. W.K. Simpson (1972), the Mayan religious text, the Popul Vuh (1986 translation).
Isabel Trent



Jun 1st, 2005 - 5:35 PM
Re: First greetings, and a question

I for one would classify the theoretical lady described above as a potential chum. Does that help at all, dear?

Someone brighter than I am (the full and glorious supply of Trent Intelligence was collared by certain other people long before my time) is sure to pop in and set your mind at rest about type-threes, but in the meantime I think the key thing to point out here is that as long as you are genuinely female and you endeavour to comport yourself as an Aristasian while frequenting Aristasian precincts, what you do with the rest of your life is none of our business. In the outer circles, anyway. So do pull up a wingback and tell us a little more about what drew you to Aristasia. We're fearsomely keen to know!
Joy



Jun 1st, 2005 - 7:49 PM
Re: First greetings, and a question

"I for one would classify the theoretical lady described above as a potential chum. Does that help at all, dear?"

Yes, quite, and thank you very kindly.

-----

"So do pull up a wingback and tell us a little more about what drew you to Aristasia. We're fearsomely keen to know!"

Well, I found out about Aristasia by fluke; by following a variety links out of interest while taking short, intermittent breaks from work I am doing on my computer, until I landed on one of your websites.

Regarding why I chose to read many of the writings on the Aristasian websites, rather than skim over and pass on, and regarding why I chose to write to the message board, I have one reason. Almost nobody really tries to think about femininity and its role in a sane social structure anymore. I have ideas, the precious few sane people I know have ideas, and thinkers of the past have (usually rather fully-developed) ideas, about this issue.

It seems that your group also has ideas on this issue. As the issue is important and interests me, I decided to take the opportunity to begin corresponding with you all, in order to better understand your ideas.

-----

"[...] but in the meantime I think the key thing to point out here is that as long as you are genuinely female and you endeavour to comport yourself as an Aristasian while frequenting Aristasian precincts, what you do with the rest of your life is none of our business. In the outer circles, anyway."

I am indeed genuinely female. However, I am not quite certain to what extent I must comport myself as an Aristasian while frequenting Aristasian precincts.

I must be honest with you ladies about what I believe, and I will let you decide what is to be done with me. If my beliefs are insufficient to permit me to frequent Aritasian precincts in good faith, I ask that you either kindly inform me so, in order to permit me to politely excuse myself, or else that you to attempt, via polite discussion, to correct any crucial flaws in my thinking .

Essentially, I do not desire to be part of an exclusively feminine world; rather my ideal is to be a perfectly feminine creature in a world which recognizes and respects uncorrupted femininity, but which also has a place for a non-perverted, uncorrupted (and therefore somehow bounded) masculinity. As such a world is what I think to be Ideal, I believe a key part of pursuing the Ideal is discerning the systematic ways in which the uncorrupted feminine can coexist with and interact (for the Good) with the uncorrupted masculine. I believe the context provided by such an interaction system is an important part of the development and rediscovery of the feminine, insofar as defined boundaries are an essential element in the development and uncorrupted existence of an entity - even an abstract entity. (I also think such an interaction system is important for discerning ways in which to correct the corruption of the masculine, but that is a peripheral issue.)

(As a rough analogy, carving a figure of Venus or Diana or Isis or Mary from a block of stone requires as much attention to which parts of the block to remove -- that is, which parts of the block are not be be within the statue's physical domain -- as to which parts of the block to incorporate as part of the statue. Should one be living in a society in which all but the most obscure, ancient, hidden statues of Venus, etc., have been violently smashed to dust, I would hold that trying to reintroduce the stone forms of Venus, etc., crucially relies upon rediscovering which parts of stone blocks are, and which parts are not, to be part of such statues.)

Please do not mistake this for preaching! I am, rather, trying to honestly elucidate where I stand, so that you may decide, in light of the situation, whether my continued correspondence is quite acceptable to you. In your terminology, I suppose you might say I reject the Pit but aim for Real Telluria rather than for Aristasia; given this situation, am I welcome to discuss topics here?

I will not deny these beliefs of mine in order to be able to chat with you; it would be unfair to both you and I. However, I would like to engage in polite discussion with others who are thinking seriously about Femininity and the Real. If our differences are sufficient to render my presence here unwarranted, please let me know. If you believe my different goal is not merely different in terms of a desire to pursue different realms of Good, but is instead different in such a way that you believe it to contain a Corruption of some sort, I would be much appreciable if you would kindly inform me of what you discern that corruption to be.

I hope I've been clear. Please let me know what you think, or let me know if there is anything here I should clarify.

Kind regards,
Joy
Sushuri Novaryana



Jun 6th, 2005 - 5:26 PM
Re: First greetings, and a question

Dear Miss Joy,

A very warm welcome to you. I am sorry for not replying earlier, but many of us have been rather rushing about over the last week!

You have said so much that you must forgive me if I do not reply satisfactorily to everything. Please feel free to raise any points again if that seems desirable.

To get down to the fundamentals of your questions: in the first place it is not really true to say that Aristasians hold that ALL people are either Aristasians or one of the three types of mutant. If that impression is sometimes given, it is probably a sort of "shorthand" (it is hard to "cover all bases" every time one says something). There are many people outside the modern West who do not fall into any of those categories, and some within it. However, for most of us in the West, it is something of a struggle to shake off the powers of deracination, and most Aristasians feel the need to work at it.

Aristasians have never held that Aristasia is the only possible form of secession. Indeed, The Feminine Universe speaks encouragingly of the possibility of other forms and looks forward to their development. I shall reprint the relevant passage in a further posting, as it exceeds the character-limit!

As Aristasians, we have never felt that the development of such forms was directly our affair, but we have also often felt that much of the intellectual groundwork we are doing may well be of use to other secessionists.

Exactly what forms other initiatives may take is not something we have tried to set out, but as you will be aware, our attitude toward traditional forms in Telluria has always been respectful - for example, our discussion of "Gay Marriage" attempts to consider the issues from many points of view and to understand the matter from a Tellurian as well as an Aristasian perspective.

To answer your question directly: you would be most welcome to come here and join in our discussions. Clearly we are not going to get terribly involved in things about traditional masculinity and such, because it just isn't our area of discourse; but as you will have seen, we are pretty wide-ranging and like to examine all sorts of topics.

Your perspectives will, I am sure, be interesting to us; and if we can give you things that you can take and apply to your own thought and life, we shall be more than happy to have been of service.

Miss (Alice) Trent has said that she always hoped that people who did not appreciate the "femininist" side of her work would still gain things from the other chapters. In fact, I think you would probably appreciate all of it.

So do pull up a chair and join in the conversation. We are delighted to have you among us.
Sushuri Novaryana



Jun 6th, 2005 - 5:45 PM
Re: First greetings, and a question

Here is the promised passage from The Feminine Universe:

Blake wrote "I must create a System or be enslav d by another Man s". The poet and visionary was enunciating the fundamental truth that no one, at any time, is free from the complete domination of ideas.

The multi-millionaire, the leading politician, the controllers of vast inter­national consortia. are not free agents. All of them think the things they think, do the things they do, want the things they want and are what they are beause of the controlling ideas and images in their minds. Ideas and images which they did not create and over which they have no control.

Wealth and power do not confer freedom; only a greater ability to act out the ideas and images already implanted in the mind; to obey the 'System' of thought and vision by which one is 'enslaved'.
The same is true of any group of individuals who may wish to create a reality other than the Pit. Without a full and complete alternative system, it is impossible. Without a Vision to pit against the 'images' of the Pit, those images will usually dominate the individual and always dominate any group. Where two or three are gathered together, the Pit will be present. For it is a fundamental law of the alchemy of the human group that any group will manifest the image-system, the iconology, that inheres in the minds of its members whether it wishes to or not.

The only way of creating a separate reality is by having a separate system of thought, a separate image-system, and this is no light task. To have a healthy and satisfying reality, furthermore, that image-system must be based on the fundamental symbolism of the Primordial Tradition. A 'System' merely created by an individual mind or group of minds without reference to essential Truth will be ultimately barren.

But, conversely, the knowledge of essential Truth and of the funda­mental verities taught in the rest of this book and elsewhere, is not in itself sufficient to effect an escape from the mental and spiritual domination of the Pit. It cannot, by itself, create a separate reality from the corrupt image-sphere foisted upon us. For that we need both theory and prac­tice Wisdom and Method.

There are essentially two ways out of the Pit. The first and highest is by sainthood; by a complete spiritual transcendence that leaves one wholly unaffected by the things of this world and purely existing in the realm of the Spirit, or else, in pursuance of this, following a life entirely dedicated to the Spirit, forsaking the fruits of all material activity, all material satisfaction. This way is open to only a few who have the voca­tion and the qualification for it.

The second way is by adopting a system that can replace the dom­inance of the Pit's image-world. As we have said, the creation of such a system, such a way, is not easily undertaken. It requires great intellectu­al power, years of work and talents of many different kinds, as well as imagination of a most extraordinary order. It could not be the work of a single mind, but of several very remarkable ones working in concert, each contributing her own particular ability. It is possible that in years to come, as the Pit becomes increasingly intolerable, and as the ground­work laid by others (of which this book is one fruit) makes the task a lit­tle easier, several such ways of escape may be made, and it is to be hoped that, however different their approaches, they will have the wisdom to cooperate one with another.

At present, however, only one such way exists. It is a way that is not for every one, and, indeed, is only open to one sex which is why the eventual emergence of other ways is desirable.

From chapter 12 of The Feminine Universe




Back