Sunday, November 3, 2019

THE LIBIDO AS LIABILITY



The following is a passage from Andy Nowicki's A Final Solution to the Incel Problem, now available in paperback and on Kindle.

The Master said:

Do you not know, distracted adept, that your libido is your worst liability?

It works forever against your interests, to the detriment of your well-being. Why, then, do you insist on viewing it as some kind of ally? By what lapsed logic do you reach such a conclusion?

Your libido actively commits treason against you. In a sense, it is cunning in this regard. It makes every effort to bring you low, to cause you pain, humiliation, and embarrassment. If it were a sentient being, its soul would be malicious to its very core.

Yet beneath this base cunning in fact dwells a mere beast, albeit a spiteful one. It is a beast which wishes to be fed, which thrives on satiation, and is forever addicted to validation.

The validation it seeks is of the crudest sort, although it gets transmogrified by your psyche into something of a more complex nature. It simply wants what it wants, then takes pride in getting what it wants, as if satiation conferred worthiness. Despite its beastly crudity, this beast nevertheless has the power to hold your psyche hostage, if you allow it to do so.

You must tame this beast, shame this beast, crush this beast.

          **************************************

Yet despite yourself, O distracted adept, you view your libido, this beast, as an ally, because you associate it with pleasure, fulfillment… and validation.

Since you associate your libido with the notion of your libido’s satiation, you therefore regard it as an ally, rather than a liability. But think about this proclivity of yours… Does this proclivity extend to other primal drives or desires? Do you associate hunger with the sensation of being nourished with food? Do you draw a parallel between thirst and being refreshed by drink?

In fact, you do neither, because you know that hunger and thirst are great and grave liabilities, particularly during a time of famine or drought. But eating and drinking, as well as breathing, are bodily needs, drives which one must satisfy in order to ensure one’s survival.

Your libido, however, is not needed to ensure your survival. It is, nevertheless, still a need of sorts, being the biological imperative towards procreation. As a need, therefore, it must be dealt with like other needs. Yet being a need, it may also be a symptom of a liability, since as a need its needfulness is in fact an equivocal matter. The satisfaction of one’s libido is, again, not a requirement for survival. 

In fact, the satisfaction of this need-- which is to say, the feeding of this beast—is ultimately an egoic, rather than an animalistic, endeavor. The ego, thus, being an outgrowth of the beastly drive for satiation and validation, seeks fulfillment by setting forth to indulge its lusts.

Unlike in the animal kingdom, where sex is an automatic process, causing the animal to behave in a manner over which it has no real control, among men sexual engagement is a voluntary act, which obtains egoic significance: it becomes a means by which one feels pride in oneself, and engages in ego--burnishment.

As an egoic pursuit, rather than a mere effort for physical (and thus animalistic) self-gratification, the libido becomes especially nettlesome, not only because the drive to feed one’s ego is inherently degrading and debased, but also in the more practical respect that the ego, unlike the body, can never truly reach any lasting sense of satisfaction.

That is, if a man achieves what he construes as sexual success, this “goes to his head,” filling him with a notion of having been validated as a man, since he has managed to get a woman-- or perhaps many women-- to sleep with him. But the ego always wants more: more validation, more vindication, more affirmation. In this sense, the libido—and the ego, which invariably accompanies this manifestation of perceived affirmation upon the acquisition of a “conquest”—is little better than an addiction, or at the very least, a compulsion, to be perpetually fed.

Again, it isn’t merely a question of obtaining pleasure in sensual indulgence; it is also, and much more significantly, the ego’s eager hunger for ever-elusive satiation, which propels it along in its continually-escalating addiction, creating in turn the degrading torment of egoistic desperation. That is to say, the more you feed this beast, the hungrier it becomes.


3 comments:

  1. God wants us to serve him with both inclinations. Our purpose on earth is to utilize the physical for spiritual purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thinking even more about it, I am almost losing my faith in Christ about it.

      How could God create such a horrible, awful mechanism?

      Since there will be no marriage in heaven, sex cannot be wholly good.

      I see sex as a punishment God inflicted on man due to his disobedience in Garden Eden.

      And it is the only way mankind would ever have been fruitful in this cursed world -- after the fall, procreation's goal was mostly the birth of Christ. In Garden Eden, procreation most likely would have taken on a different (holy) form.

      Lord Byron:

      Our life is a false nature—’tis not in
      The harmony of things, this hard decree,
      This uneradicable taint of sin,
      This boundless Upas, this all-blasting tree
      Whose root is earth, whose leaves and branches be
      The skies, which rain their plagues on men like dew—
      Disease, death, bondage—all the woes we see—
      And worse, the woes we see not—which throb through
      The immedicable soul, with heart-aches ever new.


      It is depressing, extremely so. How mindlessly is a new soul thrust into this penal colony, as both Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard (The Moment Vol. VII) called this sorry earth.

      No real thought is going into it: both men and women are mostly driven by their petty, base lusts. I am not saying that I am a saint, but that:

      1) marriage has to be mandatory again if sex is desired.
      2) eugenics is necessary, so that people like me are spared their horrid existence full of genetic defects. For one brilliant genius like Kierkegaard, there are thousands of mediocre no-name losers dragging through their crappy, lousy, rotten and stinking life. Only to be quickly forgotten, maybe even damned forever. I hate the idea of a Judgement Day. I cannot not believe anymore, though, so I have to suck it up. Paraphrasing Don Colacho: the Christian is a vanquished unbeliever.

      I am a hunchback _and_ mentally ill: I started to lack any zest for life around the age of 14/15, hanged myself at 23.

      As a Christian, I have to believe that it is my own fault, and that had I succeeded with my hanging attempt, I would be in hell and deserve it.

      Still, I cannot believe it. I believed even as an atheist that our hearts are evil; I have no trouble understanding that I fall short of the harsh morality the New Testament requires of me -- meaning I might still end up in hell regardless. It is truly a kind of wager. Quoting Gómez Dávila:

      "Faith is part intuition and part wager."

      So I stay alive; conscience does make cowards of us all. What's the point, though? I never liked my life.

      But I cannot explain and understand why some are born healthy -- physically and mentally -- and others aren't.

      Kierkegaard tried to explain himself being born a hunchback as well as being sick in his mind—as he calls his melancholy condition in his later journals—by believing that otherwise he might have been lost -- that he may have become a seducer, or something similar, leading to eternal torture in the end.

      I understand we now only see through a glass darkly, that His ways are beyond our understanding.

      Still, having been born-again around two years ago, I feel that life has, in a sense, become a chore again, even though it is more bearable than suffering from meaninglessness, since I am now in a state of apathy, though I still have some outbursts of rage from time to time due to having been born into this world, with the horrible afflictions I suffer from on top.

      And in such a manner! If I had been created by God Himself, like Adam, it surely would feel different than being the result of this horniness.

      That I will, in some form unbeknownst to me, exist f o r e v e r is actually pretty terrifying, no matter if in bliss or torture. And all because, quoting Kierkegaard, "they were unable to control the flame of lust."

      I cannot reconcile how a holy, powerful being that is purely good christens that debasing drive as "good."

      A drive creating so much harm as well! Much more than many of our other bodily functions.

      Delete
  2. No. Lust is wicked, marriage is the pardon, as St. Augustine correctly writes in De bono viduitatis and De bono coniugali.

    God "gave" me a horribly ugly and sick body; except, He didn't: a worthless father satisfied his wicked lust and flung me into this world. God gives us the eternal soul -- as hard as it is to believe that this dirty and wicked drive leads to it.

    I would not have chosen this life had I been asked. Kierkegaard neither, he prayed regularly for death.

    Even Vox Day understands that -- direct quote from him -- "the Bible teaches it's best not to marry."
    After all, as Nowicki laid out in Vol II of his "Ruminations", the New Testament supports celibacy.

    The Orthodox don't even link marriage to procreation:

    https://hamlet.nfshost.com/#procreation

    Also, Christ never says "be fruitful and multiply", quite the opposite.

    I am sick and tired of those who claim to know what God wants. Even two Christians on Vox Day's blog commented on his post about a book project called "What would you ask Jesus?"
    or so by writing "What do you want me to do, Christ?".

    It is not clear. And monks hardly live physically, they die off to the world. Quoting Colombian Catholic reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

    Religion is the only serious thing, but one need not take seriously every declaration of homo religiosus.

    God does not ask for our “cooperation,” but for our humility.

    Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.

    The heart does not rebel against the will of God, but against the “reasons” they dare attribute to it.

    Triviality never lies in what is felt, but in what is said.

    The two most insufferable types of rhetoric are religious rhetoric and the rhetoric of art criticism.
    One could object to science that it easily falls into the hands of imbeciles, if religion’s case were not just as serious.

    If we believe in God we should not say, “I believe in God,” but rather, “God believes in me.”

    Christianity is an impudence which we must not disguise as kindness.

    ReplyDelete