Mansplaining the Metaphysics of Masculinity.

[John D. Brey]

Philo's implication that masculinity is essentially invisible (even meontological), ergo "spirit," lends itself to unifying anthropology, theology, philosophy, and religion, in a fundamental and powerful manner. Unfortunately, the truth of an invisible "masculinity" (invisibility being its most crucial or pure element) makes using this masculinity to explain "masculinity" implicitly derogatory as in mansplaining "masculinity" since the explanation can't help but employ "visible" props as the primary man-ifestation of an otherwise meontological logic of masculinity.

The "mansplaining" nature of such and endeavor is exponentially true if and when "spirit" and "invisibility," also imply "singularity" (contra "materiality" and the multifarious elements needed to be material), since then, the masculine-spirit attempting to explain "masculinity" must by practice and by nature of the endeavor be condescending to whomever the explanation is being given since if masculinity is singular and invisible, the person describing it is by describing it being condescending to whomever the explanation is being given since if they don't already know masculinity is invisible and singular (if they did they wouldn't require or be subject to mansplaining) then they're not part and parcel of the realm of the "masculine" and are then merely visible avatars of the materiality, and visibility, of the feminine. Any explanation of "masculinity" to them is "mansplaining" and thus condescending (but not necessarily pointless). It's this counterintuitive truism that explains why the tremendous power of employing "invisible" masculinity as a logical tool to the solve the problems of anthropology, theology, philosophy, and religion, hasn't fully taken place despite the boon to humanity such an event would likely entail.

The unseen suffers precisely from its continued nonappearance in any form and desires only access to a mode of appearance.​

​

Jean Luc Marion, The Crossing of the Visible, quoted in Wolfson's, Imagination, Theolatry, and the Compulsion to Worship the invisible.​

John

 

[GoodAttention]

I quite enjoyed reading this John.

For the record, you mentioned feminine once, spirit and condescending three times each, mansplaining five times, invisible/ity seven times, masculinity 14 times, and humanity also once.

It definitely has a vibe.

 

[John D. Brey]

For the record, you mentioned feminine once, spirit and condescending three times each, mansplaining five times, invisible/ity seven times, masculinity 14 times, and humanity also once.

Naturally you picked up on the gemetrial nuances that undergirded the less important semantic undertones.




John

 

[Kathryn]

I am more surprised that it has no reference to phallic symbols. Or maybe it does - I didn't read the whole thing.

 

[Tomef]

I am more surprised that it has no reference to phallic symbols. Or maybe it does - I didn't read the whole thing.

If only you women would listen, and were able to understand, we'd be able to explain, like, everything, by means of our invisible masculinity. Like when you wake up at night and your dog is staring at you, and you don't know if it is experiencing some sort of moment or if it just wants to go out for a ****.

 

[Kathryn]

If only you women would listen, and were able to understand, we'd be able to explain, like, everything, by means of our invisible masculinity. Like when you wake up at night and your dog is staring at you, and you don't know if it is experiencing some sort of moment or if it just wants to go out for a ****.

This is true. Which is why I have two cats. Only.

 

[viole]

The unseen suffers precisely from its continued nonappearance in any form and desires only access to a mode of appearance.

Like all theists should have realized by now.

Ciao

- viole

 

[John D. Brey]

I am more surprised that it has no reference to phallic symbols. Or maybe it does - I didn't read the whole thing.

As the French philosopher Jacques Lacan points out, the phallus is, ironically, most invisible when it's engaged, so to say, in its most seminal act. It disappears into the womb it inseminates (and is thus invisible to the eye) when it's performing its most limpid (transparent) act; the phallus is most limpid (its purpose is most transparent) when it's least limp (when it's in fact ithyphallic). It's invisible in the ithyphallic act that's its most seminal purpose.

The point of this thread is to engage the fact that the statement just made, though it's true and meaningful, is, unfortunately, the dictionary definition of "mansplaining," since for someone to be engaged by the intercourse of the words in the preseeding paragraph, they must submit to them for the pleasure of the semantic intercourse desite knowing full-well they just might find the belly of their mind beginning to enlarged a bit as a result of the intercourse. For those, the majority, who didn't come here to become intellectually pregnant, reading the paragraph above requires an immediate abortion, and thereafter a verbal lawsuit, or attack, against the allegedly perverted perp who gave them more than they bargined for when they casully wandered in unawares of what goes on in these red light and incense threads.

Most won't even read the words in these threads since for them, this kind of mansplaining is at best akin to full-frontal semantic nudity. Which is to say most people who read the first paragraph of this response will find it profane or just plain self-ingratiating gibberish. Point being, that this thread is about the difficulty of breaking through the membrane of metaphysical-virginity to force a thoughtful thought into minds that have become inundated with the insolent ideological fantasies fostered by a feminine spirit that would rather remain barren than submit to mansplaining of any kind.



John

​

 

[Secret Chief]

I am more surprised that it has no reference to phallic symbols. Or maybe it does - I didn't read the whole thing.

Yeah I was disappointed too. Never mind, I'm sure the next one will have circumcision in the very first paragraph.

 

[Kathryn]

Point being, that this thread is about the difficulty of braking through the membrane of metaphysical-virginity to force a thoughtful thought into minds that have become inundated with the insolent ideological fantasies fostered by a feminine spirit that would rather remain barren than submit to mansplaining of any kind.

I think you mean "breaking."

 

[Secret Chief]

****.

or a ****.

 

[Tomef]

Point being, that this thread is about the difficulty of braking through the membrane of metaphysical-virginity to force a thoughtful thought into minds that have become inundated with the insolent ideological fantasies fostered by a feminine spirit that would rather remain barren than submit to mansplaining of any kind.

I think you mean "breaking."

No, braking, it gets slippery in there.

 

[Tomef]

or a ****.

a 4 star ****?

 

[John D. Brey]

This is true. Which is why I have two cats. Only.

Two pussies? That I can understand (who has a pain-threshold for more than two wives). . . But two cats! . . . That's just uncivilized (says the mansplainer who has 16). [ . . . Cats, not wives.]



John

 

[Kathryn]

Two wives? That I could understand (who has a pain-threshold for more than that). . . But two cats! . . . That's just uncivilized (says the mansplainer who has 16). [ . . . Cats, not wives.]



John

Yes, I have two cats. I had three dogs at one time but am now down to only cats and will probably stay that way for a long time.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, I have two cats. I had three dogs at one time but am now down to only cats and will probably stay that way for a long time.

. . . I love cats. Dogs too. But the latter are, like wives ( I have just one) too damn demanding. I have 16 cats. Which is like one big happy family. But there's a lot of litter and cleaning up to do. I wouldn't recommend having more than 8 or 9.




John

 

[viole]

If only you women would listen, and were able to understand, we'd be able to explain, like, everything, by means of our invisible masculinity. Like when you wake up at night and your dog is staring at you, and you don't know if it is experiencing some sort of moment or if it just wants to go out for a ****.

Dogs? What makes you think all women like dogs?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tomef]

Dogs? What makes you think all women like dogs?

Ciao

- viole

Inverse.

 

[Secret Chief]

a 4 star ****?

Hopefully.

 

[John D. Brey]

Point being, that this thread is about the difficulty of braking through the membrane of metaphysical-virginity to force a thoughtful thought into minds that have become inundated with the insolent ideological fantasies fostered by a feminine spirit that would rather remain barren than submit to mansplaining of any kind.

I think you mean "breaking."

. . . I beat you to the punch. Nevertheless, as @Secret Chief points out, the next paragraph would likely start with "circumcision" which, as those who've read more than just a smattering, or splattering, of these words around here would know, is like putting a "brake" on breaking the hymen so that a truly righteous messianic-mansplaining savior can open that membrane on the way out (with his hand), since his father put "brakes" (circumcision as ritual emasculation) on his own jus primae noctis.



John