I think I made more progress than I realized I did not understand a shit
I find myself always reading books, watch movies or wrong at the wrong time. I do not think a person are influenced by what they read or see a movie, but it happens sometimes that a movie or reading contain, do not say the answers, but you do understand something about the reasons for which a bit '.
happened some time ago with Trainspotting.
not speak on the drug, it would be too easy. But the "side story" of the character Tommy showed me things I had not noticed. And of course, from there became one of my favorite movies. Then there is the case
Fight Club, which unlike Trainspotting did not give me answers. But it gave me the questions, and above all a different perspective on many things.
Fight Club is a book, for example, that I read in this period. Currently, the topic is.
But I'm doing? I read "Gang Bang" more and Palahniuk.
Ok, how can like may not like. From a first impression I thought it was boring. Palahniuk is a writer
extreme, leads to excess content is almost as if trying to turn up their noses to the reader, and often succeeds.
In the case of "Gang Bang" all you can imagine the topic being discussed.
On each page you do not speak of nothing but of all the perversions of the secrets that people may have about it.
But what I'm thinking about writing this does not want to be a review about a book that is driving me crazy, I analyze it.
My reflection is that it actually is not the book I should read right now, as I said.
In a time when I try to avoid the demonization of sex as it happened with the anger and violence, the hymn to what perversion "Gang Bang" can not be that harmful.
now is to rediscover the pure side of sex. The animal does not act for its own sake with whom I have punished at the expense of too many people.
The search for purity. And 'that everything revolves around it now.
The elimination of false friendships, the search for truth always, even and especially when it is not pleasant. The positive side of things. Even just
sex, no more an exchange of fluid, a vent. But a union of souls.
love, no longer try to meet or be met.
But as I argued in an earlier post , an excess is not always mutually exclusive. Indeed.
E 'curious, in this case is a strange paradox, if you grant me the word. Greater purity is more often than not a lack of corruzzione, quite the contrary.
seems impossible that more than one element, or a person if you want, it proves pure, the hidden side is corrupt. As if each one of these poles do not exclude the other, but almost the food.
It occurs to me that true purity is the ambiguity.
as if a person obviously did nothing but pure nasondere its corruption, and then look the opposite polarity.
Einstein was to say that evil was merely the absence of good as well as the darkness is merely the absence of light?
My concept of purity is similar in effect. The purity of itself does not exist, because the purity is nothing but the absence of corruption.
Think, when you define an area clean? When it is dirty, or if you want, when there is no dirt that alter its status.
Otherwise instead a surface when it is dirty dirt.
So cleaning is the absence of something that by its presence alters the definition of its status. So dirty.
Ergo, when an entity is called pure?
When you have negative or positive in the absence of an element that corrupts.
Attention, Clarity does not necessarily have to mean something positive. Let such as colors, so it is easier to me to express my concept: White is a pure color, right? It has no influence of any other color because it is not the absence of all colors. So expresses its purity with the absolute lack of any contamination by other agents. Black
but it can be understood as an element of maximum corruption because it is more than the sum of all colors, or if you want what you have if you make the maximum number of contamination by the white of all colors known. But we are talking about perfection here is not it?
In black are all the existing colors, and each one of them is for the most part.
In the code of the color black is when all four core values \u200b\u200bare set to 100, then the maximum. This totality of corruption, this equality, if you will, in the amount of elements can not be seen as a form of purity?
A perfectly good person, you are looking at everything and at all times good, having good thoughts always, can be defined as a pure person is totally immune to the negative things, every aspect of the contaminant at each meanness, pettiness and everything else.
But a person who is the exact opposite of this, namely, a perfectly bad, having only anger and hate, you think only evil vice and perversion. A person is completely immune to all sorts of feelings that can also be scored as a positive feeling. This can also be classified as pure no?.
The extremes in negative or positive, then both can be considered pure as no other by characteristic if not their own.
So "pure" is not necessarily a bad thing, and the same goes for "corrupt".
So the opposite of "pure" is not "evil" but "ambiguous".
far I have talked absurdly, that is taking the case purely ideological.
not exist in reality something really pure (in the sense that both can be understood).
In reality everything is contaminated in negative or positive. It is to understand which is the dominant part. And over here nothing new right?
Especially in the case of people often over-purity ( one pole or the other) hides an equal if not greater, presence of the opposite. And 'as if only the opposing elements in the human psyche rather than exclude each other is exponentially nourish, strengthen them, feeding them.
Someone obviously good often conceals one thousand perversions. And a wicked person, evil can often hide a good side that is suffering from a life that has to live.
So where is the purity when it comes to human soul?
possible that there is ambiguity its purity? Just in
corruzzione there is purity?
where Li is not all the elements of corruption nor the complete absence of the same, there is purity?
The person is pure, then, what is neither good nor bad and / or are both? The so-called "neither fish nor fowl"?!
