Sexy?

It was rather odd how I had never thought to ever examine this very commonplace term that has so dominated my life and will continue to in many ways.
The process of examination and analysis started only after I watched one of my very beloved modern day philosophers Alain De Botton and heard his view on the colloquialism found here  .
He termed it a truly deep category involving a lot of human psychology which was jarring to say the very least. And I suppose not only to me. Not to mean that the term is a shallow one or pejorative in any way I just never thought it had much depth to it, a view which he too discusses.
In my life I have encountered the term to mean something akin to lustful and even in recent times the lust aspect of it has been re-appropriated to mean attractiveness and wholesomeness not simply a curvature of the neck or slinky dress rather a holistic adjective to describe a person. Although even with much re-appropriation ‘sexy’ may still very well mean something rather dirty or obscene. As was in Jhumpa Lahiri’s short story titled ‘sexy’, in that context it was a term used to define a woman so attractive that she leads men into adultery, a sort of siren, and so you can see that the stain on the term may never fully be washed off.
Regardless, I rather liked De Botton’s approach or if I may say so, answer to what the term truly meant, he started by mentioning that indeed on our very surface there really is much insight into who we are, who we really are inside. And it is when this insight aligns with another’s needs do we find them ‘sexy’ and apparently this insight or traits are usually things we do not possess ourselves. Say if we see that another is very patient where we are not that can make them sexier, at least in our eyes.
I found this very well-reasoned but only a little bit specious, mainly because of two points it looks at ‘sexy’ in only one instance. When it is said to another whom we admire for whatever reason.
The solution ironically rather ignores a lot of human psychology at play and other instances of the word in use.
Firstly, we don’t only ever use this term with regards to another. Sometimes we ourselves feel ‘sexy’ and in that case what does the word mean? Does it mean that we have gone a little way in achieving some of the traits we admire in others, does it mean we are satisfied with ourselves? Or is it simply just a thank you to ourselves for maintaining ourselves? What does it mean exactly?
Secondly, the earlier view seems to assert the assumption that has rolled around for many years, probably even centuries. The view that ‘opposites attract’ that we admire those who are not like us. But this isn’t the only cause for admiration now is it? We’ve seen before how we can admire something in another simply because we possess it as well? And in that case what does ‘sexy’ mean? When it is an inclination to a quality we already possess. Do we want an addition to our own quota or is it just admiration for admiration’s sake?
And finally I find myself in horrible disagreement with the view that perception and reality are one and the same. An assumption underlying the view that we find someone ‘sexy’ or ‘they turn us on’ by the deeply coded physical traits we see on them. And my reason for disagreement is simple, just because you see something doesn’t mean it is there and at times it has been placed there just to distract or misconstrue your perception of the true reality, sleight of hand, like a magician. Haven’t we all had the perception of a certain trait on someone only to later learn that it may very well have been a figment of our imagination? We hardly ever perceive reality as it is, in fact we mold the reality as we perceive it that’s why two people can read the same book, watch the same movie even go through the exact same experience and carry out of each two very differing accounts.
What I did agree on though was that ‘sexiness’ is not a totally superficial or shallow category. It has its depth that I will say. But with humans as with any pool there is always the shallow and the deep end, I do believe there is a bit of that term ‘sexy’ that may have a lot to do with just hormones and genitals and no more. But as usual that isn’t the whole story, in the same breath there is a lot about being ‘sexy’ that has to do with deep identification of positives in another and self-actualization. The issue remains I suppose in the determination of what the term means in certain contexts which may well be a question we may never truly answer or one I may not be well suited for.
The unfortunate part of this article is that it seems it has left us with more questions than answers but maybe at times the solution comes to you in the way of a question so I ask. What does the word ‘sexy’ mean to you?

Advertisements

I always knew fear has an unnecessary effect on people….

an isostatic life?

At a much simpler time I was introduced to the geographical concept of isostasy , a sort of self-check system that maintains gravitational equilibrium between the lithosphere and asthenosphere basically just the earth’s crust and mantle despite varied horizontal and vertical movements if my memory serves me right that is.

This concept explained much of the peculiar formations on the earth’s surface and as it turns may very well help at the very least enlighten us on the current world situation.

In the wake of the terrific Belgium attacks that devastated many to say the very least, today is the beginning of holi ,a most beloved hindu festival which depending on what Wikipedia origin story you rely on is either about Prahlada’s triumph over his evil aunt or a celebration of Radha and Krishna’s love which in many ways however you slice it is reminiscent of the popular concept of the eventual triumph of evil over good.

Such a beautiful festival filled with color and love falling immediately after the dreary bloody wake of one of the most horrific terror attacks, don’t forget the up and coming Easter weekend, ironically so.

However, if you were to splice these events they appear to be cancelling each other out, don’t they? A sort of isostatic adjustment so as to mitigate any superfluous happiness or tragedy.

Which from an empiricist’s standpoint evokes the question, if neutrality is the universal law because this has happened countless times before, a perfect example that I am versed with being the age of the industrial revolution all while many persons Africans notably languished in abject poverty and slavery.

Why then must we strive for the so called ‘triumph of evil over good’ if it isn’t at all possible?

For as long as the earth’s core is much closer to me in relation to other bodies why should I ever dream of falling upwards(without  external manipulation of course)?

that science is perfect, is it really?

Probably, definitely, right?

I actually don’t think so. And no I’m not a religious nut or a mole who hasn’t seen the way and progress of science.

I just have this demonic spirit of Thomas in me. And yes you are correct if you guessed the biblical Thomas, the eternal skeptic. Of late I have noticed that the magic words to convincing anyone of anything is saying either the words, ‘scientists have found’ or ‘a study has found’ and immediately the discussion stops. After all the scientists and studies have spoken_ because they are so infallible?

Science is great of course in fact I’d rather like to refer to myself as one of these very scientists and this is why I of all people must call science out on this. How many times have test tubes been mislabeled, statistics incorrectly estimated or equipment has gone bust, and these are just instances of accidental mistakes. What about when an agenda is attached? I have watched so many scientists fall in love with ideas and concepts that they engineer the experiments to accommodate their expectations, an area they are acutely skilled if i might I add.

When was the last time you actually heard of a new break-through in the scientific arena and read the said study and went to great lengths to demonstrate its truths yourself?

Most of the insurgents of scientific beliefs have slammed tradition and religion for its lack of cross-examination yet this is exactly what science has come to.

Scientists have become prophets and the practice has become a religion with dogmas of its own. This is just to call attention to the fact that science is nothing without us, humans, the most important ingredient for the scientific sauce and we are far from perfect to say the very least then why has science become so perfect a craft? Above all scrutiny, true scrutiny.

In fact there isn’t at all anything wrong with traditions or religion if not the humanistic aspect, we are the ones who misconstrue truth and fantasy and imprison ourselves in the pride of our misconception. So why aren’t we ready to confront science and all its proclamations with the same hostility that we accord tradition and religions? And I know at that the rate at which people are writing publications and papers that simply isn’t practical but I think it is something we’d rather die trying to do than resign to.

I recently watched a talk by the National Science Foundation and why they have devoted a considerable number of resources to encourage science literacy so that we stop relying on these ‘experts’ who at an instant can manipulate the entirety of certain fields of scientific thought. Let us have some ownership for the truths we choose to perpetuate an ownership that can only ever be achieved by constant skepticism of them. Someone wise once said truth welcomes doubt if at all it is true and I am inclined to believe this, hesitation must not factor when it comes to clarification.

I have watched too many videos, lost too many arguments to people deriving their subject matter from studies, experimental trials and scientists with this ‘untouchable’ authority then go ahead to make these absurd correlations that may or may not even truly exist. And I think that is the true tragedy here loss of curiosity which is actually perpendicular to the true scientific spirit that encourages check-points and further research even on research itself.

Take up the challenge and own your scientific truths.

permission to speak freely

Recently I watched a documentary on Edwardian times, the manners and opinions of that era and even its profound impact of this particular part of British history on modern-day Britain and the rest of the world really.
What stuck out to me obviously was the meaning of the term ‘woman’ what she was, what was expected of her and how she was to go about her affairs be it decorum, marriage, family you name it.
The interesting thing about it was that the kind of woman that was generally referred to was the aristocrat. And yet the chains clanked just as loud as for any other woman.
She was to marry well which threw out most hopes of choosing a partner out of love, her reputation was her gilded shield and would forever protect her from shame but of course human nature was very present even then and so you would see women rushing up and down to cover up their dirty linen.
Raising children as their siblings, vacationing in distant lands for 9 months, rendezvousing carefully and in the dingiest parts of town risking life and limb if only to not be cited and be branded she who lost control of her passions and forgot inhibitions. But also the times were changing ushering in new customs, new money and new traditions.
Thus it was made all the more necessary for the aristocrats to hold fast and steady to the olden traditions practicing them with even more fervor than before, which suffocated women especially.
Definitely the history lesson in all that was quite an education for me but I also observed a common denominator in it and my African culture, some Arabic culture and even some Asian cultures. Notice that I am quite literally now talking about totally distant societies that developed to some degree autonomously and yet they all had the common denominator of the mistreatment of women some of which continues on even up till now.
The issue of feminism is definitely not an original one or even a particularly new one, the suffragettes have had their go, so have black women, so have the Arabic women and the struggle continues.
My qualm is why did this kind of unfair system though clearly prescribed differently manage to develop almost everywhere?Its origin is unsettling.
A woman was to be a slave, to cater but not be catered to.it was at times a miracle act if a woman was loved at all in any part of her life whether it be as a daughter, as a wife or even as a mother. Where and why does this resentment for women stem?
Even in religion let me speak of the Bible for that is what I am familiar with, mention of women is few and far apart. I am sure that women too were just as chosen, as brave, eloquent as the men then why weren’t they referred to as much? Even a female prostitute would attract more rebuke as compared to her probably respectable married male consort.
While standing in front of the facts that have burdened some of us for oh so long its astonishing to discover that this kind of inhumanity is naturally occurring in the mean of man.
I have always been devoted to following observations and the correlations they proclaim to wherever they may lead me but it is times like these that the lands they lead me to are stranger and more shocking than anything i had envisioned.
I had always hoped for the world’s sake maybe even humanity’s sake to attribute women’s suffering to a singular demonic person who lived and managed to sway each everyone’s will to bend to his. But to discover that the demoniac quality of desecrating another’s dignity for this long was always a quality we possessed a rite that must be passed that is truly discouraging for the hope of our species and whatever other dark qualities lurk within all of us, not as a matter of choice but simply as a matter of fact.

the approach

In all my various professions those past and present and in all those that I have observed others partake I have come to conclude that there are but two ways to profess your profession. Either artistically or practically and these terms I use to refer to all manner of professions, by artistically I mean that you practice the profession only so as to bask in its elegance or beauty of it if you will, like doctors who are floored by the engineering of the body and just want to learn it and understand its intricate workings and hopefully discover understandings that are yet to be uncovered or a poet who writes just so as to parlay the language and diction into greater heights and dance along at the accomplished wordplay.
By practicality I mean practicing your profession solely to draw the utility from it for example a mathematician who is not just enthralled by the technique or the solution but who is interested in its application and what it can do for the world or the physicist who wants to understand the laws of nature and try to adapt their implications to inventions that can simplify the way in which we live. Of course each approach has its own underlying advantages and cons as well but which is the optimal choice or which combination of the two yields the optimal professionalism.
Personally I have mostly been a professional student and I have always been artistic in that profession because I revel in the sheer beauty of knowledge and my mastery of it but many at times that is all there is while in fact I could be implementing the suppositions from that very knowledge into bigger and better ideas. Though as a poet and philosopher I have been quite practical always being careful to read only that which has relevance and implementation for the current world. Same goes for my poetry it is always packed with a message a moral to the story not just a beautifully spun tale without a purpose.
But in all this I have had the lingering ‘what if’ pummel me relentlessly ,the opportunity cost of not choosing the other way has me at my wit’s end trying hard to uncover what is the optimal choice of approach?