Kenosis |
|
My Other Weblog: Monday, July 26, 2004 Sheer Beauty and Precision: Saturday, June 19, 2004 The Saint was writing specifically of the Ten Commandments. The sheer precision, immeasurable wisdom, G'dly insight of this single, simple sentence literally strikes awe into me. It summarizes so much truth so easily, so simply, and so clearly that I am simply left to stand in appreciation and gratitude for such revelation. All the writings on the divine dignity of the human person, of the source of true conscience and right reason, and the metaphors of writing on our hearts are totally and completely revealed in this single line of text. That is the Holy Spirit working through words, and it is awesome (in the true sense of that word). Never have I seen such distilled, precise, theologically vital words. "Never have so few done so much for so many," Churchill said of the soldiers defending Britain in WWII, but I think it fits the quote of St. Augustine just as well. Thanks be to G'd. [This post is mirroed on my LJ as well. I usually update my LJ these days.] Other Weblog: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 --Cy-kun out Thoughts Provoked, hmm?: Friday, April 30, 2004 Tomo-sama, her April 30th post. And Gringageek's April 29th post. First, allow me to point out that I'm not really speaking of tactics, such much as what the final solution really is. There must be steps on the way. Since so many people *are* having sex, it's a good idea to inform them that both it's a bad idea generally, and that there are specific precautions to take if consquences are to be avoided. I'm Roman Catholic, sincerely, not just in title. While I offer social and scientific arguments, in the end, i'm really on the spiritual side of the issue. i.e. Sex is a gift from G'd to wife and husband, as an expression of love within Him, intimacy, bonding, and such a miraculous and pure event that it can allow us to join with G'd in the act of creation. Note that I don't consider procreation the only value of sex (nor does Catholicism...) Sex is a pure thing. We, however, can totally abuse and miss-use it. However, socially speaking, you're of course correct. The problems I was addressing would all but vanish if people would simply take more care in their sexual activity, even if they didn't stop completely. Progress is progress in my book. I'm neutral on the issue of sexual taboo. I simply believe there is a right time and place for sex, for which it was intended. Outside of that, it's an abuse of a sacred act. I dont' care if people talk about it, indeed, education is always good. Any kind of incorrect behavior is more a symbol of the person than the nature of the behavior. Humans are responsible for their actions, as I tried to point out. But there are direct causes between reckless sexual behavior and many of society's ills. I never claimed sex was the ultimate cause of all ills, I was simply speaking about how horrifyingly big the chunk of the ills it does create is. Obviously if a person was behaving rationally and reasonably, they wouldn't behave sexually in a reckless manner, like yourself. But I was not addressing reasonable people like you, but rather the hormonal masses who really don't care (whom you yourself pointed to as the problem). We are actually agreed, we're simply going about it in different ways. "Whenever desired? What if it is not so wildly desired? What if the desire to have sex is a sincere emotion, not felt at the drop of a hat (or the drop of a pair of pants)? If it is a controlled urge, which some people have, is it so horrible?"-gringageek Again, I was addressing the 'unreasonable masses', whom you also were mentioning. And finally, the answer to your question is no. It's not *so* horrible. Controlled sexual behavior will of course do far less damage than reckless sexual behavior. However, as a Catholic, I believe there is still a big problem. Obviously you come from a different outlook on life, and please know that I don't get angry over such things. I'm not unreasonable or blind. I do believe you are mistaken, or I'm a hypocrite, but by no means do I believe you are a 'bad person'. I don't believe anyone is a 'bad person', honestly. There are behaviors with which I take issue. ""The stability of the human condition". That could have several different interpretations. Our culture has said that relationships and individuals need good intimacy and sex, not all the time like rabbits, but now and again is good for social and mental health. I'm not sure that choosing sex is neglecting or damaging human condition. If chosen wisely, I'd think it would benefit human condition." We are in total agreement. We simply disagree on specifically when/what the 'wise choice' is. I require Marriage to be involved first, then the proper, focused use of the desire is totally appropriate and good. Indeed, it's the very purpose of it. On the secular aspects, we agree. I'm simply religious beyond that. I'm not trying to make sex the boogeyman. I'm trying to make sure sex is treated with its proper value. Really, in truth, these people aren't having sex, they're masturbating together through coitus. Some Issues: Thursday, April 29, 2004 Unwanted children, sexual assault of any kind, abortion (null and void as an issue), STDs would all but vanish (including AIDS, quite specifically). Directly proceding from these problems are: abused, orphaned, and/or abandoned children, destruction of the family unit, substantial numbers of divorces, literally millions of lives every year (STDs), the cultural subjection of women in numerous parts of the world, various psychological problems relating to family, intimacy, bonding, and (duh) sexuality itself, a huge chunk of crime (entire categories would simply vanish). Even more so, as the family is the starting source of our understanding of the world, it produces the individuals of the future, which establishes that the family is the foundation of society. Not to mention the immeasurable aspect of human dignity, which is often attacked sexually compared to other methods (addictions (non-sexual), non-sexual violence, racism, etc.) When it comes to the choice of sexual pleasure whenever desired and the stability of the human condition, virtually the entire human race chooses sex. Am I the only person who views that as utterly pathetic and degraded? No one denies that sex is a powerful drive. Four billion years of evoluation are going to do that. That doesn't mean we're supposed to indulge whenever we want. Am I saying never have sex? Of course not. But it should be a whole lot less than the amount we're obsessing over now. Unless you're willing to accept the possiblity of children, you shouldn't have sex (even the best contraceptives occasionally fail due to user-error (at least)). Men? Keep it in your pants, sit down, and shut up. You act like an animal, you'll be treated like one. Women? Keep your pants ON, and go back to slapping men into place. Instead of elevating your positions in response to the rampant sexism pervading worldly society, the vast majority of 'feminist' accomplishments seem to involve dropping women down to the level of men behaving like pigs. Why don't I hear the leftist feminists crying for higher standards of male behavior, but rather complaining of a 'double-standard', which is used as an excuse for women to act like dogs (i.e. men ignoring their duty as humans). Women, men are responsible for their own actions, but a little help wouldn't hurt the matter, would it? Yes, any woman should have the right walk butt-naked down the street and not even get a second-glance. Until we drag men up to that maturity level, some help in the 'dragging' would be really appreciated. (And it would prove all feminist points of superiority to men until we get up to that level). Men, if I ever hear another whiny, pointless, wheezing, sniveling complaint of 'she was asking for it', or 'she's a tease!', or some other nonsense, I will have to resist the urge to throttle you like a doll. As said above, I really *don't* care if she was walking butt-naked down the street. If you so much as look at her funny, *you're* the one I'm coming after. Of course, in our current reality, any woman would be rather foolish to actually excercise the 'naked walking down the street' rule, simply because of the men who will not behave as they should. It's not a good risk to take. Men are totally responsible for their actions, women are totally responsible for their own safety in all possible precautions (each person is responsible for their own safety). But just because a woman makes a mistake about her own safety doesn't mean any man has the remotest excuse to attack and/or violate her. Some woman walking down the street naked may be foolish, but any man who attacks her is a rapist. One is a simple mistake to learn from, the other is an abhorrent act for which forgiveness is most certainly not to be expected or assumed (though it may be given). It's not about 'men's rights' or 'women's rights'. It's about rights, period. You have the right to behave as a reasonable, rational, HUMAN. You have the freedom to do what is right, not whatever you feel like. This is the difference between freedom and licence. And that's my rant. Livejournal: Sunday, April 18, 2004 Systemic Agitation: Thursday, April 15, 2004 I greatly enjoy talking, spending time with others, and care deeply for others. I also greatly appreciate the view of women whom I personally consider physically beautiful. However, despite the simple biological imperitive behind sexual desire, I find women far more interesting as human beings than when I think of them as beautiful creatures placed on a pedestal. A woman who is intelligent and beautiful, to my view, brings rather a great feeling of comfort and pleasantness, no amorous desire. I take pleasure in company, may appreciate beauty, and have so little pressure added to the situation that I can actually enjoy myself. It's a wonderful gift. Yet, even realizing this, I still screw up. What's truly strange, is even while I screw up this wonderful perception of reality, I'm aware of how stupid it is to do so, and how unpleasant. What mystifies me is how both can exist concurrently in the same mind, body, and Soul. That, while objectifying a woman, I can see how horrific and awful that is, be disgusted on behalf of G'd, women, and myself, an yet still objectify a woman. Yet I can see I'm sincere in both ways. It all boils down to a choice. I am in control of what tempts me, what I desire, and what affects, by the grace of G'd. I am simply frustrated that I can be so respectful, and so wretched, at the same time. It's also disconcerting to be partially aware of how fine the line is between loving devotion and sexual attraction, as well as the appreciation of beauty and objectification. I am never surprised when relationships fail, I can see it coming a mile away. It's rather a miracle when they work out, and only then am I surprised. I will promise anyone reading this one thing, and it is free of any judgement or condemnation. It's a simple warning, and you can take it or leave it. If you are currently sexually involved with your other, and have only known each other for less than a year, your relationship is in serious danger. If you can't understand how each other think, you certainly shouldn't be experiencing the most intimate physical expression of affection. I've known some people for my whole life, and I still don't know how they think. A working relationship is a miracle, there is no doubt of that. We humans are too frail to actually stick together without some kind of force keeping it going. Now That's What I'm Talkin' About: Thursday, April 8, 2004 - Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See: L‚Osservatore Romano (January 11, 2002). Gotta love it... An Artist?: Tuesday, April 6, 2004 There are the playful aspects of it, such as how the character looks, what attire they wear, what weapons they may use, the specifics of their race if they may be a difference species, etc. But then there are the deeper elements, the ones that make a character really come alive. More often then not, these are the weaknesses of the character, and most importantly, how they react to their weaknesses, how they misbehave. A character's personal code of ethics is what makes them who they are, even if inversely. Of course the strengths, successes, and positive aspects of the character are vital to a rounded, complete one, but its the negative, the chinks in the armor, that make them seem more real. I have several types of characters I really love: the light-hearted, but down to earth, humorous type. They don't run from reality, but they know enough to laugh just when things are getting rough. More of then then not, a touch of adorable shyness sneaks into these kinds of characters. Which leads to the next type: the adorable character. Cute, generally small, innocent, gentle (my versions usually are anyway), and naive in all the best ways (the ways you privately wish you still were after everything you 'learn' in life). A classic character-type is the 'brooding-loner'. Cold, distant, but generally skilled, powerful, and respected (the only reason their horrible social skills are tolerated). Of course this usually hides a heart of gold, and the cold shell starts to crack as the story progresses, until you finally see the strength or weakness that made them so cold in the first place. And finally, a very interesting character type. The noble, wise comrade. Understanding, shrewd, kind, gentle, incredibly powerful, and seems downright angelic. The healthiest characters, because they understand their faults and strengths, and live according to that understanding. Balanced. My avatar, 'Cyrex' was the brooding loner, who went through so many stories that he turned into the first type of character, the down-to-earth, humorous, shy one, but with a bigger 'guilt-factor' than usual for such a type. My villains tend to be less varied, because evil characters are hard not to cliché. Type 1: a seducer. Dark humor, always subtle, even when violently enraged. Smooth-talking, but usually with power just oozing out of their narrow, evil eyes. Type 2: the tortured avenger. A good person who turned evil because something horrible happened, and it made their view of reality shatter painfully. These are the villains who eventually reach the break-down point, and either destroy themselves, or come to painful realization of their own mistakes, and try to make amends. Type 3: The worst kind. Absolutely evil. Pain, suffering, violence, and horror bring pleasure, and enjoys being unpredicatable, keeping everyone around them terrified. Jumping from flat-faced to murderous rage, and then laughing at the results. Type 4: the 'common' villain. The ones who are simply self-absorbed, normal people who screw other people over looking out for their own interests. Well that's my discussion of characters and character-type in writing. That Poster...: Sunday, March 28, 2004 Inuyasha is, so far, one of my favorite animes of all time. The only way they can really spoil it is to kill off members of the main cast, Sesshomaru, Rin, or have certain couples go 'too far' (you all know what *I* mean by that). If I ever get money, I'll start buying it up. I bought an issue of the Evangelion manga, and may collect that as well (again, if I ever get money). Issue 3, in fact, the first one with much attention paid to Ayanami-sama. Yessss. My Ghost in the Shell poster is *still* on my wall, but I find myself very rarely looking at it. It's also rather amusing how much of my room is covered with images of beautiful women. Of course, the images I collect *tend* to keep women fully clothed. (Yeah, and then I post a completely naked cyborg woman on my wall...) Well so long as, with the grace of G'd, I keep my thoughts clean, I won't be a complete hypocrite on the matter. (It *is* a very tasteful nude, after all.) I would put up a more entertaining format for this weblog, but I lack image-manipulation software of any kind, and can't afford any (besides, I'd invest in other things first). I also lack any web-hosting for the images if I created them, so it's all a bother. Some Comments: Monday, March 22, 2004 To change topics completely: Some of you, I suspect, know of the movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. When it came out, artists claimed it was expression, conservatives were outraged because it depicted Jesus as wanting a relationship with Mary Magdalene. As a result, no one in my family bothered to watch the movie. Not a point of interest. Well it's been airing on TV to catch the tails of the Passion's success, and I have to admit, I'm a bit puzzled. It's so pathetic and bad that I can't be offended by its contents. The characters are unrecognizable, the intent, actions, and events are completely altered by the characters. In fact, the only thing in common with the actual Gospels is the names of the major characters. Why was such a big deal made? This movie killed itself. The ideas, if applied properly, could be offensive to Christians, but it was just so... pathetic. I was caught between laughing and feeling bad for the director that he had such a warped view of his own religion. It was just sad. And I haven't seen the whole movie, I've seen several different scenes. All of which were bad, pathetic, and sad in the same ways. Forget controversy, it was just an awful flick. Birthday: Thursday, March 18, 2004 I have the two Eva Director's DVDs now, an awesome poster of Motoko Kisaragi (Ghost in the Shell's Major) [she happens to be naked, but it's an awesome poster. I'm not sure if I can put it on my wall or not...], and the game Nightshade. Heeee. Nightshade=Shinobi - Hotsuma + Hibana (really cool female ninja). In otherwords= Cy-kun's fantasy game of all time. Female ninja blitzing around with SPINNY SWORDS OF DOOM!!! Taki on crack! Tack! YES! And instead of Hotsuma's corny scarf, Hibana has TWO STREAM ENERGY SILKY THINGS!!! Heeee. She's soooo cool. I want Hibana fan-art... (clean and fully clothed, thank you very much...). I may have to copy-sketch her into my art-book. She's up there with Kos-Mos, Kasumi, and Samus Aran. The irony? I still haven't beaten the final boss on Shinobi. In fact, even after learning the lock-on technique (heee), I seem to be having a harder time to playing the level than before... Ah well. I've also been playing FF9 again (shout out to Yo-tan). Fun, fun, fun. Oh, Sharky-sama. I love the B-day card. Non-specific, but very spiffy. Thanks! By the way, I just want to note that I DON'T consider revealing my birthday some 'big thing'. I just don't care about hiding it anymore. (So no, I'm not trying to suck presents out of everyone... myarf) Of course if you WANT to... Yo, yo, my homies, it's the Cy-DAWG signing out! Yo! Now that I've terrified anyone who knows me, I'll trot along. Mwahahahaha... ...Hibana-sama is my hero(...ine)... Spring: Sunday, March 14, 2004 Dating?: Thursday, March 11, 2004 The big problem here is that since I do intend to be a Priest, it would be rather unfair to the young woman (who we're already assuming even tolerates me) to go into a relationship that most likely won't go anywhere serious. I deduce that simply being honest and saying I intend to be a Priest, but that I'm willing to see how things go, would suffice, but I'm still concerned. And I'm not sure I'll ever date, but I've had the idea in my mind for a while (plus I'm male...), so the 'experiment' is possible. Shifting Gears: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 As a writer, I've been active for nearly 7 years now. Start to present, seven years. I still have my first story on my computer. I can't stand to read the stuff I wrote before 5 years ago. The stories that started before that marker, have required complete rewriting. Why do I bring this up? Because I know what writer's block is like, and how important positive feedback is to keep writing. My writing was not seen by anyone outside my family for the first year, and then only by people online who didn't care for the next four. Thus, I got mostly positive reinforcement, which is how I got past writing absolutely crap, and can now actually be compared to published authors (which isn't actually saying much if you browse the fantasy section of any bookstore). Writer's black takes many forms, but mostly it is comprised of the following: lack of ideas, laziness regarding actual physical action of writing, and a severe disgust and hatred of own work. It passes, and then I love my present work again, and often write in binges. But I would never have gotten to that confidence in writing if I hadn't been told to keep it up, that what I'd done was good for when I was doing it. (They just said 'That's great! Keep it up!') So to everyone who writes, and who may feel that their writing sucks, especially after a particularly severe critique-session, don't let it get you down. Keep writing. Your work is great, but it can always improve. Keep going, keep writing, keep focusing and honing the skills you've acquired, and continue to acquire new ones. But never, ever, ever stop. (When you've got writer's block, yeah, you've gotta walk away for a bit, but always come back. Keep battering against the block until it finally gives in.) Overall lesson. Never base long-term decision on a single day's events. Wait. If you still feel the same three days later, think about the problem then. |
Ithillean Beliefs: Roman Catholic; practicing/traditional. Right and wrong, good and evil, exist, and are absolute. Personality: A content loner. Adaptation without sacrificing or degrading the self is a chief ability which has been developed. Can dissaprove without acting angrily or 'bigoted' as others would believe it. Attempts to be an example, and never backs down from a Theological question or issue. Seems distant, but very simple. Enjoys the 'mysterious' persona, but understands it to be childish.
The Forge
First Archive Name: Cyrex Wingblade, Cy-kun, Cirus, Cyril, Cy. AKA; Paragraph, P-squared, Peterson Hobbies: Writing, video-games, listening to music. General imaginative mayhem under my control, under G'd unless I'm being stupid... again... |