The Art of Vice

THE ART OF VICE

1.

The greatest deceit of the new God was to make us pagans the prisons of the old gods. Now we confine these old deities within the padlocked doors of our darkest closets, as demons, as “evil”. Eros, that once beautiful and profound artist, lies chained and whipped by the leather of our chastity. Aphrodite has been stripped naked by our shame and left to weather in the dust and darkness, shunned. Ares has been disarmed and ordered into unnecessary battles. And the great Athena is suppressed beneath the deafening sound of our ignorance, while Dionysus has no cause for wine. Sooner or later, these gods revolt beneath our whips and chains, if only to be free; and the great war between good and evil continues, with us as its battle-wearied soldiers.

Thankfully, God was stupid enough to leave us the wardens—“free-will” they call it—perhaps too confident that his promises of eternity were any sort of valuable enough recompense for our servitude. But we too revolt beneath our whips and chains, if only to be free of his sadistic slavery, his “love”. We have no free-will until wecan control it.

With key firmly in hand, held with confidence and dexterity, open these doors and padlocks. Let’s let the old gods out.

2.

The vices of men are simply the virtues men fear most. We fear them because we are not confident enough in our strength to control them. We refuse to be Zeus. Better to castrate ourselves so as to suppress our impulses rather than utilize them. Circumcision is an extreme example of this. That is what the new God teaches us—extirpation of the self, the suppression of our powers, the silencing of our animal nature, the body, in favor of attaining inhuman ideals as set forth by human men, and doing whatever it takes to get there. Perhaps rightfully so, as the old gods rarely listen to those who are not Zeus, to those who cannot lead their pantheon, but allow a series of parables and doctrines to do it for them. In the hands of the weak, the gods become devils, and the good, evil.

3.

Sigmund Freud speaks of sublimation, the utilization of culturally unacceptable impulses to produce acceptable behaviors. This idea might have merit, being that we all grapple with our various impulses in one way or another. But as the monotheistic moralities propose, we must castrate those impulses with the blunt edge of self-diminution and self-flagellation—various forms of asceticism—believing ourselves thought-criminals if we allow an impulse to sound for too long, weakening them with constant disuse. That impulse lacks an outlet; that energy, nowhere to go, but to fester infectiously within the confines of our prisons. The result? Shells of human beings; enemies of the world and the beings within it.

It is this infection which caused those who wrote of the world and the flesh to condemn it as evil. A world without the satisfaction of the flesh loses its beautiful luster, that we cannot wait to be rid of it. This is why acolytes of such doctrines fear others, rather than recognize within others the possibility of beauty. They wish to see others as eunuchs too, so they do not have to suffer as eunuchs alone.

4.

Can one utilize his vices to become virtuous? Witness the genius artists, who through great power, releases the old gods not on others, but on himself, in a frenzy out of which flowers the greatest art. He becomes the only victim to his tyranny, his lust, his greed, his violence, his war, his envy, and out of this chaos plucks the most beautiful order. How he is willing to suffer under the conditions of his own impulses. In creation, he does not silence a pre-determined set of impulses over others, but becomes one complete impulse through the utilization of all of them, willing to go into the darkest of depths where others refuse to wander.

5.

The progression of society has been propelled by these people, the geniuses and artists, while those who silence themselves simply remain silent, or worse, hinder the progression by slandering all around them, blaming violence, greed, envy, lust, on the proliferation of egoistic impulses, rather than understanding that it is the misunderstanding and suppression of these impulses that result in the greatest atrocities humankind has ever committed.

It is no wonder then that the world is evil in their eyes. A world without art is a world not worth living in.

a reply to: Aphorism

The ultimate conclusion of circumcision is that the truly sanctified will emasculate themselves. You owe your entire member to God, but in good faith, show him that you are at least willing to offer up "just the tip" thus marking yourself as self-sacrificing. Well, it turns out faiths which produce too many Eunuchs wipe themselves out of history, and faiths which ask for adult circumcision generally don't get many converts, thus infant circumcision comes onto the scene. How lovely!

There is nothing wrong with lust. There is something wrong with rape. There is nothing wrong with hunger. There is something wrong with cannibalism. There is nothing wrong with anger. There is something wrong with murder. It is not the impulse that needs taming, but the activity that is born out from that impulse. If you use lust to procreate with your lover, you have brought new life into the world. If you use hunger to become a great chef, you have born prosperity into the world. If you use anger to create the courage to face the discomfort of uncertainty and to change the world, you have brought progress into the world.

A humanity which denies its vices is hobbled from the outset and is hopeless in my opinion. We must learn how to orchestrate the good with the bad to create virtuous outcomes. Only then do we become the authors of our own destiny.

a reply to: Nechash

Thank You.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

Some of my best orgasms have been offered freely to the absolutely ridiculous long before the knew they were orgasmic.

Some of my best orgasms have been offered freely by the absolutely ridiculous long before I knew they were orgasmic.

OMG existence moves in both directions! What a surprise!!!!!!

a reply to: Aphorism

Is the conclusion you draw; that great things come from a human 'tampering with "bad" things', one of, or relating to, the idea of personal sacrifice for the greater good being ok? Or that, vices (maybe in moderation, or, just the pure exploration of human freedom, to whatever mean and end) is the ultimate good, and good has come from this, so it cannot be ultimately bad?

What would you say if a great inventor or artist, became addicted to a substance, and quickly stopped producing work, and started living out on the streets and then died shortly after (an exaggerated example of the absolute theme, of negativity of vice, or 'physically/mentally destructive use of time'), is your stance; freedom is always freedom and that is always only what matters? Take the bad with the good? Or, are you willing to admit, that in circumstances it may not be best interest for an individual and the ones that love them (though you may argue if they truly love the individual they would wish above all, for them to freely act on their own accord) to abuse vices to their own degradation?

The point of emphasis of my comment can be boiled down, if you want an arguing point, to the potential value, in slight sacrifices of absolute momentalistic freedom, in the name of moderation.

a reply to: ImaFungi

That sounds like a slippery slope to me, you can justify all sorts of horrific things with questions like that. I've already seen it done in this life alone, and I am just one man. For me, a person's independence is the only real virtue that matters ultimately. Without independence, human beings are transformed into amoral creatures and without the possibility of being vicious we cannot have the possibility of being virtuous. I'd honestly rather be dead and independent than alive in shackles, because this slavery is no life at all as far as I can tell.

Ultimately, I think you've offered a false dilemma. Artists can work very well within limitations they've established for themselves, but I think socially enforced limitations are crippling to the very creative process and modern art which seeks to express itself outside of the confines of the limitations classical artists established seems to be screaming that loudly for the world to hear.

a reply to: Nechash
I dunno... let's see... let's say someone wants to offer their entire physical existence to the artistic expression of an "other" that you find offensive.

Do we allow it even if their offering comes from a place of experiential ignorance, or do we shut it down and subsequently block all similar attempts to reach us regarding our own behavior from alternative perspectives?

a reply to: Nechash

Lets say your 7 year old son and 18 year old son, develops a nasty heroin habit, and is in no time doing nothing but doing heroin; let freedom reign?

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

I'm uncomfortable with slavery of any kind, but let's say people hated living and they found a video game designer who could send them into a virtual world forever and they chose to do this knowingly, then who am I to intervene? I'd request the designer include a release button inside the game so people could find their own way out if they changed their mind later on, but how can you parent people to that level? If I were to strip someone of their liberty, I'd have to be absolutely certain that it was truly in their best interest beyond any doubt. I could never do that to someone just because of my own personal preferences. And I could never strip someone of their independence permanently. For me, that is equivalent to murder.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Umm. If I had a 7 year old son, it would be impossible for him to have a heroine habit. Let's say somehow this theoretical 7 year old son is sneaking candy or refusing to brush his teeth, he's a child. His welfare is my duty to him. If I don't intervene and force him to brush his teeth, then I've injured him through negligence.

My theoretical 18 year old son would be a different story entirely. By 18, I should have equipped him with the tools he needs to make his own decisions in life and I have no business controlling him. I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't enable him in any way. I'd offer him whatever support he needed to get clean, and I'd let him know that I would always love him no matter what he chooses and that I'm sorry for not preparing him better for the world. I think that's all I could logically do at that point.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: ImaFungi

Umm. If I had a 7 year old son, it would be impossible for him to have a heroine habit. Let's say somehow this theoretical 7 year old son is sneaking candy or refusing to brush his teeth, he's a child. His welfare is my duty to him. If I don't intervene and force him to brush his teeth, then I've injured him through negligence.

My theoretical 18 year old son would be a different story entirely. By 18, I should have equipped him with the tools he needs to make his own decisions in life and I have no business controlling him. I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't enable him in any way. I'd offer him whatever support he needed to get clean, and I'd let him know that I would always love him no matter what he chooses and that I'm sorry for not preparing him better for the world. I think that's all I could logically do at that point.

The key point in the second part, is the equipping him with the tools. Education. Woudlnt you admit this education of any kind, is the taking the 'spirit' of the human from a state of 'complete freedom' and/or 'complete ignorance', or a path of natural knowledge growth (not unlike that of the animals), and sacrificing some of that freedom, with knowledge?

If you note the last paragraph of my original reply, I state; all I was suggesting is the potential that there is value in moderation. That ultimate freedom may not ultimately good. I suppose, the question that is then begged is; 'is what is ultimately good, ultimately good', or, how does the value of good or ultimate good compare to the value of freedom or ultimate freedom?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Well, children are dependent upon their parents for the first dozen or so years of their life, so they aren't truly independent/free in realistic terms. That is when this education should take place. So obviously, absolutely unfettered freedom from day one is not optimal or maybe even possible with humans.

Even on a global level, look at when we invented the Atomic bomb. We weren't ready for that responsibility. We were still enamored with industrial militarism and the awesome ability to kill thousands of people and now we stepped it up to the entire next level overnight. I honestly still don't think we're ready for that yet, but Pandora's box has been opened now. What are you to do?

Liberty, Power, Responsibility, Virtue are all forces that ideally would remain in a state of equilibrium with one another so that you don't hand the keys to a Boeing Jet to a 5 year old, pat them on the back and wish them luck.

Ugh. I think I see where this is going. ;p Crafty.

a reply to: Nechash

My view is that all value systems start with the primal: Human life is good.

It then follows that, that which corrupts human life, destroys human life, is bad.

If a person acknowledges that their life is good, that they want to live, but then succumbs to vice, it is possible that they would admit that their vice is bad.

All I meant to suggest was moderation. That vice does not need to be incredibly destructive, but also, that it can be.

And that it being so, can be considered bad.

And so an outsider, and insider, who views life as good, and wishes to live a long healthy life, who has succumbed to vice, may both be in agreeance that their vice is not good.

Thus their freedom to succumb, is not good.

It is possible both parties would admit, that if their vice did not exist, their life would be better. And this is how I see, the individual choosing to restrict their freedom, as a potentially good thing. Of course it takes freedom to restrict ones freedom. But one who freely choose to succumb to vice can also be considered a slave to such their substance.

In your first reply, you even stated perfectly, that the extremes of freedom are bad, rape, murder, etc. That the restricting of possibilities, the restricting of freedoms, can produce more desirable results. I think this is an extremely beautiful and powerful lesson, unavoidably present in the nature of our nature.

originally posted by: Nechash
Ugh. I think I see where this is going. ;p Crafty.

Truth is quite a mess... thus all the effort to distract... yes?

/hug

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

I'm uncomfortable with slavery of any kind...

Even if it was voluntary and productive?

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

Only if it's kinky and temporary, otherwise, it bothers me.

originally posted by: Nechash
Only if it's kinky and temporary, otherwise, it bothers me.

So only if the expressed dynamic satisfies your individual standards?

a reply to: ImaFungi

You're going to have to give me some time to let that process. That was a foundation stone. I can definitely say you've fixed my eyes on something I've never considered before. I could accept temperance as a virtue. The Romans did, who am I to say they were wrong.

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

So long as the expressed dynamic satisfies the individual standards of the voluntary and consensual participants in a non threatening way and non permanent way.

originally posted by: Nechash
...who am I to say they were wrong.

You are the very expression of existence... you have every right to say they are wrong.

That said... existence has every right to say you don't know what you are talking about.

Holiday!!!! /hug