Robert Hayes Kee,
I want to buy my partner something nice for our upcoming anniversary, but I have very little money. I want to express my feelings, but I am concerned that without capital, I can only be rude. What can I do?
Few things are more overvalued than expression. Expression is a blockage in communication. Direct communication requires an engagement with a second party. This cannot be done in an expressive mode; expression is a mode of self-address. Expression is meant to translate oneself, for the benefit of oneself. It is a mirroring function without a primary relation to others. It can only be regarded as solipsism.
For this reason, it would be a tragic misstep to try to express yourself on this occasion of celebrating a union. Do I try to express myself to you, dear readers? Of course not. Such a translation is not necessary. I can speak to you without this willfully cryptic self-masking of expressivity. You should do likewise, reader.
The most cognitively vacuous members of our social body state that art is some kind of expression of inner self. This kind of speaking is to be expected from the vacillatory Sunday solace-goer, but not of a creative practitioner of etiquette. If one does not possess the means of thought or praxis to act without obfuscation, one should avoid serious creative pursuit.
I want to move out of the domicile I currently inhabit. I wish to do without offending my current cohabitants or appearing to show them disfavor. How can I do this?
Abrupt changes to one’s living situation can be a penurious hindrance to developments and cause real disruption to one’s life’s praxis. For this reason, the prime concern in any engagement with stakes of this nature is to avoid encumbering one’s cohabitants.
You, dear reader, know that you desire to leave this situation because it is limiting the development of your active forces. The acceptance of dissatisfaction is a sine qua non of Ressentiment and must be avoided at any cost. You should abandon this situation with all available alacrity and pursue higher ground. Should this pursuit be limited by fiduciary considerations, consider an act of fiscal appropriation damaging only to institutions of a deleterious nature. The immediacy of result should be the prime consideration.
One may desire to inform one’s former of cohabitants of their shortcomings as such and offer sagacities as one exists ultimately. Do not heed this lower call. Those whose praxis creates unfulfilling results are not capable of the advancements one wishes to see. One can only simulate these developments with a Leninist zeal. Such zeal does not make one a cordial companion.
I am prone to lateness. I do not desire to encumber my interlocutors, but I find it very difficult to do otherwise. Is this lateness rude?
Time is a force rarely considered correctly. To create concepts that account for its metaphysical considerations is an elevated concern. Presuming the ability and interest in elevated concerns amongst all of one’s interlocutors is an error of great magnitude. One is well within one’s prerogatives to deny company to those who seek to set limitations with universal extension. Do so with a broad consideration for one’s practical needs.
A correct consideration of time is crucial to organizing one’s priorities correctly. Escaping a linear consideration is a requirement for all who seek understand and develop meaningful returns of will.
A linear time is a weak time. One suited only to grossly mundane tasks. We must, however, never assume our elevation to be an elevation above res terra. Thus, one will find oneself obligated by executions of secondary motions of timekeeping. It may thus seem that one should be obligated to correctly follow these motions and appear and act in a timely fashion. This formulation should ring false to attuned ears. Demands of timeliness are demands to deny our extensions. Do not create conflicts in this area, but act according to ones own movements.
I perform many tasks and have many considerations. While the participation in my friend’s art is certainly amongst them, I do occasionally miss a friend’s performance or esthetic consideration. How should I handle these conflicts to minimize rudeness?
One is not obliged to participate in another’s art by occasional social interaction. Some advance this notion to attempt to extort attendance in an audience from an interlocutor. Do not credit this distasteful theorem. It is a ruse on its best day, sustained by those of inferior aesthetic practice. Avoid creating these obligations resolutely.
Choosing one’s friends should take their aesthetic practice into prime consideration. One should develop a society that extends the possibilities of one’s own praxis. To benefit from one’s friends is a necessity. If your presence cannot be provided to such a friend, send your sincere regrets in an innovative manner. The notion of the hand is central to the communication of sincerity as is blood. Attempt to combine these when stating one’s regrets. Ink made of the blood rivals, taken to finest parchment, is the platonic ideal in this act of affirmative communion.
I have been invited to ‘creative tie' event, what does this mean and how should I dress?
I rarely favor the inclusion of a term of this caliber in my missive to you, dear readers. The careful editing of submissions to obviate the mention of inferior social practices is time spent well and pleasingly. I use this preamble to highlight the importance of focusing on this phrase’s continued use.
If one’s sartorial praxis is sufficiently involved, one is both creative and communicative in one’s wardrobe. There is no alternative to this formulation. However, this phrase’s literary failings are but a shadow of its denotative transgressions.
Formality is crucial to etiquette; any practitioner recognizes its foundational functioning. This pseudo-class of sartorial formality rejects its premise and misunderstands formality’s purpose. This formulation seeks an expression from each of the event’s attendees. Deny this at all costs. Communicate your appreciation of your status as xenos with correct costume. One should own correct evening costume, doing otherwise is an insuperable limitation to one’s social practice.
I live in quarters bordering the quarters of others. I have found myself disagreeing with another over the volume of music used to accompany one’s daily activities. How do we establish an aural praxis that is mutually tolerable?
At a certain limit, compromise may seem the only solution. However, this limit is grounded on addressing the problem falsely. Mutually agreeable sound is a concept that is convenient but untenable. The grounding for consonance is culturally conditioned, a byproduct of an erroneous view of humanity as a shared essence or nature. Never affirm unity as a primary force, transhumanity cannot be grounded in this styrofoam. Difference is the primary force in all productive metaphysics. Affirm this difference in sound liberally at any time.
I regularly correspond with a great number of people, using many channels. I have, on occasion, allowed the timeframe of certain replies to slip past usual standards. Is this rude?
Correspondence is of vital importance to the maintenance of a powerful social praxis. Its obligations are amongst the most serious. If one does not desire to process the contents of one’s correspondents, those correspondents must be ceased. If one is avoiding commercial correspondence, continue to do so. Those desirous of fiscal interaction use a developed means to locate their interlocutors and resistance to this methodology requires a more creative and concerted effort from your unfortunate counterparty. Always encourage creativity amongst your contemporaries.
A friend of mine has stated that his relations should be forgiven for their opprobrious and asinine opinions because of their age or relative infirmary. I do not wish to confirm their opinions conversationally. How can I politely disagree?
Changed minds are changed diapers. The changing of a mind is not a meaningful difference in kind. Do not commit to this kind of work. There is always an ideologist at hand for this kind of weeding. Understand and pursue return as a positive creative force and do not will the return of yet another weed merely to continue a petty duality.
The dregs of our socius see ossified compliance as the only tolerable praxis regarding the revered. This is their reactive tendency. They are distant from the understanding of their involvement in retrograde forces. This is to be expected. Avoid mention of it. If you must, question their premises, but not their conclusions. This will only incite discomfort.
Many see debate as a foundational element of discourse and genuine intellect. This view is hangover of the philosophes that falsely presupposes an opposed duality of discrete rational individuals. Those who see this world as composed thusly will be cut down by forces much stronger than those of your rhetoric. Allow this culling.
Please submit your own etiquette queries to Robert in whichever way seems most polite. It is very likely that your submission will be included in a future installment.