fluff_of_choice

The fluffy hedonism is not only art. It’s an attitude.
I wish the lotuses were red.

two tomcats--


my kitty--

A blog hardly can do without somebody’s random musing. And so, one day, on the Net, I was called a philosopher--which is odd enough, and which is allowing for the fact that I never read any books on philosophy and am not about to do it, and one more fact that a woman cannot be a philosopher--however, all right. If so, my philosophy is in the following. Every cat must live a happy life, because a cat is too small to be worth being unhappy. The weaker, the holier. This my firm belief makes me negate anarchy as a teaching. In primal times, first human settlements were initially created as a protection from the adverse outside world. Then the settlements turned into cities. Then the cities grew fluently transforming into states. Any state as an institution, any state Constitution was initially made in order to protect average citizens that is the vulnerable persons like me, and a struggle for destroying this institution sounds odd to me. An anarchist well may be a kind man, loving cats and other animals, saving every cat, which he sees on his way, having a pet at home--it’s true. Thus, the cats’ lives depend on how kind the man is, how cat-loving he is. It’s like in case of an absolute monarchy: lives of the subjects depend on what a king is on the throne, kind or wicked--which is absolutely wrong, for the Law must rule and guard subjects of any country and not an individual’s will. The same ought to be with animals and wild nature. There is no use to tell about the Law and order here on the website, because all my online friends, Christian as well as pagan are aware of this. I tell about this for the one, who by chance is not aware. So, de Sade and others used to have the “alcove philosophy” (which makes me shrug, and which seems to conquer the world), and I have the “feline philosophy”. The weaker, the holier. Although a big healthy tomcat hardly may be called weak--and he cannot be called an anarchist, since he has no thought of destroying an institution.

Apropos, there is an interesting question in this regard: would anyone like the idea of having one’s private zoo at home, like some celebrities do? (For my part, I have not anything of the kind, believing a home zoo is kitsch/platitude, unless the home zoo owner saves the animals from death in this way, or the home zoo owner is a mentally ill person who must be cured by the very presence of the animals at his home.)

The picture above is entitled “Portrait of Duchess Samoilova Departing from the Ball with Amalicia Paccini, Her Adopted Daughter” (1842) by Karl Briullov (1799–1852). The mask is taken off. A moment more, and the heavy velvet curtain falls behind the woman and her daughter, separating them from all the trumpery of high society, forever. It’s her choice, you know, and an awful drama is left behind the curtain.