Lustful Love

Khajuraho Lakshmana Temple

I was thinking about passionate erotic love today. 
Two persons desiring each other badly.
And then, games, touches, wet lips, smells, brutality sometimes... Joie de vivre!
We all know those familiar scenarios but how can this be possible between two individuals?
What factors are playing the descriptive roles shaping all the attitudes? 

Common path is that usually, you meet someone and you spend some time with this person, then sexual attraction rises. Finally, sexual intercourse starts. Most likely, this period takes place at the beginning of the relationships. In time, the level of sexual desire between persons decreases...

I think, this lustful interaction between people is possible if you "reify" the person whom you are in a relationship with. You need to perceive the one in front of you as he/she is a "thing" that you really need to occupy. The elements supporting this "desirable object" might be eyes, fingers, breasts, muscles, hair, legs, ankles, toes, moves, voice, nipples, smell, hips etc. all possible proven attributes that sex industry has already packed and served. After adjusting the materialization process, you become able to use the person on purpose: You can touch, grab, taste, eat, penetrate, tie, lock up... anything you'd like. And, of course, most of the times, this is a mutual way of doing things.

I know that I may sound like a director of a BDSM movie but according to my "so called" hypothesis, it is very difficult to keep the lustful love alive in a relationship if you approach your partner as a fragile human being who actually has multi-dimensional qualities, thoughts, pains, weaknesses, deep feelings, traumas etc. Because, all those make the relationship complex, heavier, deeper and too much "humane". On the other hand, in sexuality, things must be done in a light hearted and naughty manner. Actions must be bolder than thoughts are. Thinking too much distracts you, simply kills the fire. This must be a joyful game, a sort of exciting exploration. Therefore, people need to create contexts where they can reify their partners. In other words, set the scene properly for firing things up. Be a mad lover, not a tender mother/father.

In our lives, we are playing our roles in the pre-defined contexts. You may name it office, school, street, family, army, city so on and on... Then you come back home, to your partner, and consider this gathering "real", not a role any more. This is your private life, so intimate... Actually, our "private" lives are not exceptions to the pre-defined context we're already in. If you attracted by this illlusion and try to get real too much, boredom and  pain are the inevitable moods you are to meet. This is not a curse, this is not "you" but this is existential crisis.  For lustful pleasure, we'd better move away from the "reality".

Keep the joy alive :\
  

Law & Order


We are living strange days. 
Days that teach us the lives, we were thinking they are rising on strong pillars, are just the simulations and illusions. In theory, I have already been aware of the concept of perception based contexts surrounding us. However, experiencing it at first hand shocked me deeply. It's just a real life experiment which makes me feel my life is an experiment with the conditions, set by others.

The feeling of safety, order, trust, security, truth, crime, responsibility, good, bad... everything has just been mixed. I belong to no one. I'm a member of no camp. The only important thing I know is I need to provide a safe environment for my family. 
But... 
It is not upto me. It's beyond my will and capability.

I believe that the life is something, people need to overcome the minor personal issues in their daily routines such as killing the pain in their heads, finding the right pair of shoes for their bags, taking their cars from service depot fast etc. The human condition itself is a complex thing enough to deal with. Therefore, big narratives are not needed actually. There's no absolute right or wrong in most of the categories that we can understand. 

Reality is far from us.
Simulacra.
We are floating in the pool of the signs and symbols referencing nothing real.
We are watching the world from the window which is as narrow as a life time of an average human being and assuming the values, virtues, states, instutions and everything we think we can understand is stable, permanent and strong. But they are not, they just seem so. Widen the window for 200 years and see the change... 

It's a paradox.
I watch the crowds yelling, moving, humming, provoking each other...
I watch high levels of emotions driving blocks of people.
I watch the leaders.
I watch the followers.
And I see the behavioral patterns that are natural and primitive and expected.
And irrational.
What we need is our lives. Our authentic and "so called" peaceful lives.
What we need is the feeling of freedom where the existence of the biopower is proven.
What we need is a fresh breath until our death.  

Nasihat

bezme yarim, bezme hayat balından
üzme yarim, üzme tatlı canından
gel, çekeyim bir nefes sıcak teninden
gönlüm emanet, bırakma elinden
                                        28-3-2013

Sebep

senden gelir benim
           ben olmam senden
kalplerimiz kaynamış aynı cevherden
neşem senden,
           kederim senden
yüzümde aydınlık,
           gönlümde haz senden
kirpiğinin kenar yerinden.
                                 25-4-2013

Bölüm 1: Rüzgardan Oluşan Kız Hikayesi


Kızım edebiyat parçaladı:
Rüzgar süzülüyor, kız ortaya çıkıyor
Rüzgar ona iyi geliyor
Tüm insanlar onu çok seviyor...

Tolerance and Respect

Struggle of the Two Natures in Man, 1888 by George Grey Barnard

There is a common statement, "I don't support your idea but I respect that", which is accepted as a virtue in the civilized world. I was just trying to analyse the structure and the nature of this idiom and now, I am just thinking aloud: What makes one respect the ideas that make no sense to him?

I think there must be a common thing between two parties, whose ideas are different from each other, in order to make them respect each other's ideas. This common thing must be the method followed by the different parties for reaching their ideas, such that if both parties can understand and give credit to the mental process, the general context and the nature of the dynamics fostering the thoughts of each other, then they may still argue about the opposing outcomes of the process but they are very likely to respect the opponent's conclusions and interpretations.

This is why it is very common to see mutual respect when you examine the words of religious leaders of different religions. Their common points are the context and the method: All of them are talking about the concepts of religion such as god(s), messenger(s), spirits, afterlife etc. Besides, scientists can have totally opposite interpretations after conducting their experiments on the same area of research but as the criteria that regulate the ways of doing scientific research are accepted by both of the parties having different outcomes, they can easily respect each other. This is a way of reflective proof by saying that "Okay, we have different conclusions but we all accept that there is a system called religion, science etc.".

What if you don't believe the path followed by the party stating an idea that you find very stupid? How can you respect that idea? Imagine a group of people saying that they can move remote objects by using their mental power collectively. How can you respect their indication? I cannot. However, I can invite them to prove their claim by using the methods we all agree on. Otherwise, there is no way for me to respect their argument.

Another aspect of this sort of transaction is the power, I think.The party that has less power relatively has to respect the other's thoughts. At least, the weak party needs to pretend to be respectful. Moreover, the more powerful side usually tolerates the other regarding its red lines. Tolerance is promoted as a virtue too but in my understanding, there is no room for tolerance because being tolerated is accepting that you are the weak one, the little brother who talks nonsense. It is the manfestation of inequality even in the realm of the ideas. A world where tolerance is a brilliant value, you can be sure that minorities will stay silent and behave which is very good for order and governance but is not a cradle for freedom and free-will.

I know that this post needs to be enriched by a long list of references but I am a lazy guy spending his lazy Sunday on his couch :) Just tolerate. 

Sen Bana Aşıksan Ben de Sana Aşığım


Kızım bugün şiir yazdı :)

Sen Bana Aşıksan Ben de Sana Aşığım
Belki daha güzel kokabilir
Belki daha güzel olabilir
Ama kimse onun kadar sevgili olamaz.
                                                              22 Mart 2013