Without any digression on feminism, taking merely the division Gourmont
has given (Aristotelian, if you like), one offers woman as the
accumulation of hereditary aptitudes, better than man in the "useful
gestures," the perfections; but to man, given what we have of history,
the "inventions," the new gestures, the extravagance, the wild shots,
the impractical, merely because in him occurs the new up-jut, the new
bathing of the cerebral tissues in the residuum, in _la mousse_ of the
life sap.
Or, as I am certainly neither writing an anti-feminist tract, nor
claiming disproportionate privilege for the spermatozoide, for the sake
of symmetry ascribe a cognate rôle to the ovule, though I can hardly be
expected to introspect it. A flood is as bad as a famine; the ovular
bath could still account for the refreshment of the female mind, and
the recharging, regracing of its "traditional aptitudes;" where one
woman appears to benefit by an alluvial clarifying, ten dozen appear to
be swamped.
Postulating that the cerebral fluid tried all sorts of experiments,
and, striking matter, forced fit; into all sorts of forms, by gushes;
we have admittedly in insect life a female predominance; in bird,
mammal and human, at least an increasing male prominence. And these
four important branches of "the fan" may be differentiated according to
their apparent chief desire, or source of choosing their species.
Insect, utility; bird, flight; mammal, muscular splendour; man,
experiment.
The insect representing the female, and utility; the need of heat being
present, the insect chooses to solve the problem by hibernation, i.e.,
a sort of negation of action. The bird wanting-continuous freedom,
feathers itself. Desire for decoration appears in all the branches, man
exteriorizing it most. The bat's secret appears to be that he is not
the bird-mammal, but the mammal-insect: economy of tissue, hibernation.
The female principle being not only utility, but extreme economy,
woman, falling by this division into a male branch, is the least
female of females, and at this point one escapes from a journalistic;
sex-squabble into the opposition of two principles, utility and a sort
of venturesomeness.
In its subservience to the money fetish our age returns to the
darkness of medievalism. Two osmies may make superfluous egg-less
nests, but do not kill each other in contesting which shall deposit
the supererogatory honey therein. It is perhaps no more foolish to go
at a hermit's bidding to recover an old sepulchre than to make new
sepulchres at the bidding of finance.
In his growing subservience to, and adoration of, and entanglement in
machines, in utility, man rounds the circle almost into insect life,
the absence of flesh; and may have need even of horned gods to save
him, or at least of a form of thought which permits them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account