Mon, Feb. 15th, 2010, 12:19 am
Here's my apunctual valentines.
I'm starting to see why ye old biblical euphemism for sex is "knowing", or "knew", or whatever, you know what I mean. I'm also certain I'm wrong, but it's my head and I'll do with it what I like.
My perspective is thus: I've always thought it would be the absolute shit of if I could just get into people's heads and touch them like you would touch a lover's body, and feel that pulse of love and wanting, right? Don't get me wrong, sexual contact is an important part of anybody's life, it's just part of our lot as social mammals. I've always thought it wasn't enough. I went to go right past their body and let our minds mate. I think a lot of the mysticism of sex is kind of catching reflections of what imagine it would/ought to be like.
Don't worry: I'm not becoming an ascetic or something over here. I'm just talking some shit.
God I love the whole lot of you.NNGH!
Mon, Feb. 15th, 2010 02:12 pm (UTC)
I always thought I'd like to get to know
Mon, Feb. 15th, 2010 09:17 pm (UTC)
I grok the fullness of thee. ;)
Thu, Feb. 18th, 2010 03:36 pm (UTC)
Here's an Interesting Fact:
Most European languages have more than one word for, "to know." The word meaning, "to have knowledge of information," is almost always different from, "to be personally acquainted with somebody."
So, that whole, "to know in-the-biblical-sense," may not have all that much of a biblical sense. Hebrew is a very different language than English and its other Indo-European cousins. Plus, it's usually very, very difficult to recognize, much less translate, euphemisms in texts written in a foreign language… nevermind one that hasn't been spoken for millenia.
So again, is it really, "to know in-the-biblical-sense," or is it instead, "to know in-the-mediaeval-European-sense?"
Thu, Feb. 18th, 2010 10:12 pm (UTC)
That's certainly true, but most English speakers of a few centuries ago were pulling much of their language from the King James bible. Those weird translation artifacts became everyday lingo, and soul-scratchingly obtuse and troublesome as that is to modern sensibilities. That's the frame from which I was operating, more than the true historical contextual source of the language. It's easier to think about what the Mennonite guy at the grocery store said rather than... well, you know what I mean.
Thu, Feb. 18th, 2010 11:28 pm (UTC)
But that doesn't mean that those of us who know better have to put up with it and can't try and educate others to the contrary. ^_^
Fri, Feb. 19th, 2010 07:39 am (UTC)
Go forth, o curmudgeons, and fight the good fight.
Thu, Feb. 18th, 2010 03:44 pm (UTC)
My perspective is thus: I've always thought it would be the absolute shit of if I could just get into people's heads and touch them like you would touch a lover's body, and feel that pulse of love and wanting, right?
You're not alone in that thought. I've had it, too, many times, and in forms extending beyond feeling, "that pulse of love and wanting."
As one of the Uumo Belatens said in response to questions about sexuality, "We're telepaths
— we can do things far more intimate