/lit/ - Literature

For me wanting to be a woman is just a really stupid childish wish I've had for as long as I can remember
I can't explain it nor can I rationalise it
It feels like a pure wish even if I've sexualised it since puberty
Am I just under demonic attack? I don't know

Are there any good books with prominent themes of parental neglect and parental abuse primarily emotional abuse and growing up in poverty and squalor, and also maybe around people high on drugs all the time? With some glimpses into the abuser's own small moments of remorse and confusion?

how difficult it is to just write. it just cannot come out easily. every letter is an effort. an effort to escape mediocrity, cliche, monotonous torture. we write because we must. pulling a boat on the river that is chained to you while you walk aside it on the shore. i am too afraid to take a step and destroy something. my world is built of sand and i dare not make a move. i cannot avoid losing something. nothing is right. nothing is coming out right. every thought a waste of time. every idea one we've treated before. we know the answer before the thought is even finished. i reach in to grab something good but there's nothing good left. i cannot ask god for help. i cannot help myself. there is no feeling. there is no proper sense. i am a blind unfeeling worm 300 miles from the surface. i cannot know what the right thing to do is. all i feel are impulses. addictions. my cravings are single minded.

the thoughts and feelings enter and exit so hurriedly, there's never time to get to know them. and each time they return they're more and more changed. all that remains is a singular essence of the thing. a "feeling" of the feeling. an imprint. an echo. until our lives are finally changed and the line is drawn posthumously. back and forth at uneven intervals between yourself and them. she is also just an echo. a complete stranger. what motivates me to this day has been long forgotten by her, probably by choice. nobody is left to cry over what never happened. i dont feel a lasting kindness anymore. i dont know if it was ever there. should i concern myself with trying to find what may never have existed.

the little frog traveled from his little pond to the ocean. he reached the ocean and did not know what to do anymore. he could no longer return. i try to move and get up without destroying anything. the ocean asks me if i want it to bring about a great wave and destroy the life of sand that has been built. i hesitate not wanting to lose anything. knowing that losing everything may be the only solution. the beach is not my home. i just want her. her who does not exist. i willingly torture myself. god will not let me have that pain. i must suffer this pain instead. to rub your face against her cheek. feels as though there is something to sacrifice a lifetime towards. a smile and a satisfied exhalation. a kiss and something warm to hold. i want the feeling to die. no image. no sound. no touch. no smell. no taste. anger. primal rage. injustice. exasperation. crying. i accept my own fault. why doesnt that fix anything. you admit everything is your fault. you are right. it is your fault, always has been, always will be. admitting it gives you no quarter. going insane seems like the only sane option.

Art is the technic (Greek for art is τέχνη) combined with the Logos.
An art piece carries the sacrifice required for the technic, in essence : the hundred of hours required to perfect the craft.
And the will of God.
Ultimate art is comprised of the gift from God, talent.
And the hard work of men, the technic.
The artist expresses the Logos through his work, by manifesting the gift of God, he his possessed by God, and by manifesting the sacrifice of men (hard work), he is possessed by mankind as a collective.
Art cannot exist without those two conditions. Which is why conceptual art is a complete sham.

I've been thinking about abortion for a while, and for a long time, I tried to adopt a technical outlook on the matter, because adoption is so deeply integrated into society. I didn't want to be an ideologue, whether it was pro or anti abortion.

I would set arbitrary definitions such as "When the baby starts having a neurological activity" as the limit for abortion. But it is foolish for two reasons :
The first one is that there is no limit once the justification for extermination arises. As soon as women were allowed to have abortions, we were set on a course on which the limit would be set further and further, everytime celebrated as "a huge societal progress". It is happening as we speak.
Science has no place in it, which brings me to my second reason :
There are things in human nature that simply cannot be explained and rationalised, they just are. Whether it is for evolutionary reasons, or because of a higher order.
let's take the example of a brutal murder.
you can deconstruct the consequences of murder brick by brick, and at the end you will find no satisfactory answer as to why it is not to be done.
"The structure of society relies on people not murdering eachother"
Yes, but I'm just doing it once, people get murdered everyday, and society hasn't collapsed so far.
"It hurts people"
What if I don't care if I hurt people ?
Etc.
The exact same is true for abortion, the moment you start discussing the technicalities of abortion, you have lost the battle, and you have allowed it, the second you allow women to murder their child, you lose control of the limit, and all that is left on the road are obstacles.
You don't discuss the technicalities of abortion, just like you wouldn't discuss how you should be murdered , what kind of weapon, what kind of place, you just refuse to be murdered. And if it should come, you will fight tooth and nails to avoid it.
The justifications of abortion are a series of delusional statements, you will see, in your life, how we shift from "a clump of cells" to "it's quick, the baby feels nothing" to "it wasn't ever alive to begin with".
This is an unstoppable course, because it is irrational by definition, just like how the main arguments are "but what about rape and invests" when we know more than 95% of abortions are not for those reasons.

When you are discussing abortion rationality doesn't exist, or at least shouldn't, there are things that for human dignity, should remain undebated.

It seems to me that men and women hold a fundamentally different understanding of spirituality.
From what I could infer, the strict distinction between the material and the physical world is much more pronounced in men.
In the case of women, spiritual beings manifest and exist almost entirely in the physical world, in a completely hylic manner.
Astronology, for instance, which is the belief of a tremendous amount of women, has pseudo scientifical claims (although it is purely anti-scientific), but isn't even remotely rooted into metaphysicality.
Stars influence our behaviours and caracters in a magic manner that could be natively interpreted as non material.
In reality, it is merely a lack of understanding from our part, rather than a truly unprobable phenomenon that is at the root of the presupposed influence of stars on us in the context of astrology.
When it comes to the traditional Christian God, the view shared by women is almost comedic, a bearded being sitting in the clouds. Some women even go as far as claiming that god could very well be a woman, thus emphasizing the fact that they clearly misunderstand what God is. a truly transcendent, metaphysical being.
What is the source of this?

L'homme moderne estime la tradition justifiée uniquement par ad antiquitatem, alors que ça n'est pas proprement l'ancienneté de la tradition qui la légitimise, mais bien sa pérénité.
Il est nécessairement portée une valeur intrinsèque forte par toute conception transmise de génération en génération. De la même façon qu'un ouvrage de littérature qui a été lu pendant des millénaires porte des richesses qui sont la raison de sa venue jusqu'à nous ; ça n'est pas son ancienneté qui justifie son existence, mais bien son existence qui garantit son ancienneté.
La tradition est donc balayée sans plus de considération, et relayée au statut de l'arbitraire. Ce statut permet de la déshabiller de toute valeur intrinsèque, et donc de commencer le travail de déconstruction.
Dans cette opération, l'homme moderne créé nécessairement une nouvelle collection de valeurs, et c'est cette collection qu'il juge juste, bien que l'histoire récente a démontré l'éphémérité criante de telles conceptions.
C'est par cet privation de la nourriture traditionnelle et juste que l'homme moderne se voit forcé de trouver un ersatz, car l'homme ne peut vivre sans morale, son combat contre la morale n'est qu'un combat de la morale présente vers la morale future.
C'est ce meme combat, couplé à la nature arbitraire de cette morale transitaire, qui accélère le changement du paysage moral du monde moderne.
Ainsi, dans les années 1970, la pédophilie effectuait une percée fulgurante en France, pour retomber quelques années plus tard, dans les années 1960, la libéralisation sexuelle se voyait freinée par le SIDA, pour s'adoucir au fil du temps.
Les années 1990-2000 étaient les années du multiculturalisme, aujourd'hui presque remplacé par une forme grandissante de communautarisme.
Les valeurs de l'homme moderne n'en sont pas, elles ne contiennent aucune vérité profonde, et n'existent que dans le sillage de leur époque, mue par une force qu'elles domptaient précédemment. L'interchangeabilité des valeurs est perçue comme une preuve de fertilité intellectuelle, mais si rien ne reste, l'esprit n'a rien produit de valeur.
Une plante qui produit des fruits inmangeables peut-être fertile, si elle ne nourrit personne, elle ne peut remplacer notre pain quotidien.
L'homme moderne rejette donc la tradition avec une véhémence qu'il ne comprends pas lui même, et s'accroche jusqu'à la radicalisation à des valeurs qu'il quittera, comme tout ses pairs, dans quelques années. C'est une bête, mue par les autres, esclave de son destin.
Un ersatz d'homme qui produit un ersatz d'idées.

>>12253482
Absolute pseud brainlet here, these are my 3
>Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
>Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivas
>O brother where art Thou