Sunday, January 28, 2007

Why Ask Why? We've Got Answers!

Let's play Coonball!

Yesterday, reader "anonymous" -- who certainly gets around -- posed 20 "Coon Questions," apparently hoping to engage Petey's bi-cosmic attention. To make it a bit more fun, I only glanced at them quickly, so Petey couldn't read my mind and cogitate on them ahead of time. We want this to be a purely spontaneous exercise in improvisational metaphysics, otherwise known as "flinging the C.S."

First up, "Why do I exist?"

As an aside -- no doubt the first of many -- where else but Raccoon Central can you go and have your cosmic riddles rattled one by one? Where else in cyberspace can you experience eternal life while you wait, or triple your crappy old karma back? Sam Harris' website? Oh sure, you could try. But unless he says "your questions are both meaningless to me and unknowable by me," whatever he might come up with, he would be lying. Metaphysically, he knows of what he speaks, which is to say nothing, precisely.

Now, "Why do I exist?" First of all, this is not a simple question but a compound one that contains within it no less than three mysteries, specifically, "Why" (or, WTF?!), "I" (or "Who, me?"), and "existence" (or, "Wo, dude!"). We can even pose these in a purely abstract way. In the Coonifesto, I refer to them as (?!), (•), and ( ), respectively. Each is an inevitable aspect of the other.

Why is there a why? One of the things that defines our humanness is the existence of this question, "why?" For billions of years -- 14 billions, give or take -- there was no "why," there was only "is." Although, even then, it is somewhat fraudulent to say that this was the case -- that the cosmos "existed" prior to the "why?" -- for, strictly speaking, it is not possible to say anything about the cosmos at a time when no observers were present within it.

As a matter of fact, this is one of the many ways the bi-cosmic Raccoon reconciles so-called "creationism" with science, because one cannot conceive of a cosmos without injecting subjectivity into it, as if it were always there -- which, of course, it was. Think of it: scientists, without giving it a second thought, are easily able to think about a time when scientists not only didn't exist, but couldn't possibly have even have gained tenure. This is similar to how we are able to look at a star that existed long prior to our being here. This is so because the cosmos is so entangled with itself, across barriers of space and time.

But if the materialist wishes to think consistently about the pre-life cosmos, he must not only remove himself from the picture, but remove all perspectives and standpoints. Otherwise he is engaged in a hopelessly naive and parochial anthropomorphism that makes Pat Robertson look sophisticated.

Prior to the emergence of life some 3.85 billion years ago, there was no "place" in the cosmos. There was only "noplace all at once." There was no "center," no point of view, no scale, no before or after, nobodaddy or mamatall.

In the absence of a human center (which, to paraphrase Schuon, represents the Divine center at the periphery), what arbitrary point of view should we adopt? Should we look at things from the scale of a billion light years, where the universe appears rather boring and homegeneous? From the point of view of an atom? A quark? But don't think in visual terms, because vision is a property of eyes, and eyes do not exist. Do not think in terms of hot or cold, hard or soft, solid or gas, loud or quiet, bright or dim, violent or gentle, because these are all properties of nervous systems that do not exist. Although we call it a "big bang," this is nothing more than whistling past the old grooveyard. Whatever it was, it was neither "big" nor "bang." From the perspective of eternity, it was equally a "small whimper." Or "medium sized groan." Or "soft sigh." Or "dropped tool box on my foot. Ouch!" It almost doesn't matter, so long as you know that you don't know.

As the very naughty -- but occasionally good, for heresy is often a disproportionate or isolated truth -- Hegel recognized, "there is no unmediated knowledge of the particular," or of our middling relativities. As Raccoon emeritus Whitehead wrote, "apart from the experiences of subjects, there is nothingness, bare nothingness." Or as Schopenhaur -- who has much to recommend, and is somewhat like a very grumpy and dyspeptic old Vedantin -- observed,

"If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must vanish, as this world is nothing but the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject, and is a species of the subject's representations."

Just as the cosmos breathed into existence ex halio some 14 billion "years" ago, a bios magically appeared after about 10 billion of those years had passed. Nevertheless, the cosmos still did not exist, meaning the strict totality of all interacting objects and events. Forget about amoebas, bacteria, crustaceans, Cindy Sheehan, and other lower forms of life. My dog -- and she is a very good dog, mind you -- doesn't know anything about a "cosmos." She doesn't ask "why?" Rather, life just happens. While we can say that with the existence of life there is an "is," nevertheless, this is is simply what it is. It cannot rise above itself and ask Petey, "why is?"

Thus, the emergence of "why" is coterminous with human existence, which is to say, the birth of the cosmos, which is to say consciousness of the absolute. Why consciousness of the absolute? Because "why?" can only be meaningfully asked if it implicitly partakes of absolute transcendence and absolute objectivity, and therefore, absolute truth. In short, "cosmos" and "why" emerge simultaneously, because this duality ultimately comes down to the manifestation of the whole within one of its parts. We can only ask "why?" because we already know the answer, the answer being because He expectorated a mirrorcle, now you're the spittin' image." Furthermore, this explains why the cosmos is a tree of life for those whose wood be leaf. After all, all of these beautiful green truthy leaves don't just hang suspended in mid air. They are connected to branches, and branches are connected to the trunk, and the trunk is connected to roots which are firmly planted in the ground above.

Let's glance this wound from another mangle. You cannot ask "why?" unless you know about the existence of answers. And you cannot know about answers unless you know about the existence of truth. And you cannot know about truth unless you know that it is absolute, otherwise it has no right to the name. Thus, to say "human subject" is ultimately to say "knowledge of absolute truth."

It is perfectly reasonable to say that man, or the human subject, was made to know absolute truth, which also happens to be the absolute subject -- the One who sponsors all this inexplicable truth and subjectivity to begin with. In other words, to get back to our original question, "why do I exist?," the much deeper mystery is why do I's exist?, and why do they know so much? A deer, or a lion, or a lizard, is perfectly adapted to its environment. It only knows what it needs to know in order to survive. This is the "knowledge" that Darwinian evolution "programs" into the organism: "knowledge of the environment," mostly what to eat, what to be frightened of, and who to have sex with. Only humans can have sex with the wrong thing, such as Cindy Sheehan. That someone did so is a mystery that Darwin could never explain.

(This is also, by the way, why Eckhart could say "those who blaspheme praise God," for falsehood is a kind of testimony to truth.)

When we look at human subjectivity, we must ask, "to what is it an adaptation?," because it is so perfectly adapted to worlds that transcend the senses and which played no part in our Darwinian evolution. For example, the human subject is perfectly adapted to the world of music, or the world of mathematics, or the world of beauty, and of course, the world of metaphysics. Thus, in order to answer the question, "why," we can "reverse engineer" the human subject, and say that the answer lies in considering the nature of that to which we are adapted. This approach will yield many unswers to your questings.

As Schuon wrote, "The first ascertainment which should impose itself upon man when he reflects on the nature of the Universe is the primacy of that miracle that is intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- and consequently the incommensurability between these and material objects, be it a question of a grain of sand or of the sun, or of any creature whatever as an object of the senses.... [T]he evolutionary leap from matter to intelligence is from every point of view the most inconceivable thing that could be."

Exactly. It is not difficult to prove the existence of God, or the absolute Subject, for the same reason that eyes prove the existence of light. No one needs to be shown that light exists, for our eyes are perfectly adapted to it. Likewise, no one needs to prove the existence of God to one whose consciousness is adequate or "proportionate" to the Subject. Knowledge of the Absolute is proof of the Absolute. The phenomenon of human subjectivity proves the existence of that to which it is so adequately proportioned, or not even science could exist.

As Schuon has written elsewhere, unlike any mere animal, the human subject is comprised of 1) love, 2) will, and 3) truth, or virtue, freedom, and knowledge. As for "our purpose in the herebelow" (question #2), it can only be to love what is beautiful, to will what is good, and to know what is true. This constitutes an existential mission of which we cannot possibly be unaware, for even the most academonic among us would probably not say that the purpose of existence is to know falsehood, to do bad, or to have sex with Cindy Sheehan.... although you never know about the latter. Dennis Kucinich might.

Another way of saying it is that human beings are free to grow in love and knowledge. With regard to truth, it can only be prolonged and extended into the horizontal by the ceaseless exercise of "why?," so the purpose of why is to prevent the answer from becoming the disease that kills curiosity, and therefore, man and God. It also prevents cognitive "saturation" (the opposite of faith) and helps us to become what we already are and proceed where we are to go. However, being bi-cosmic, the Raccoon simultaneously shrugs his shoulders and simply asks, "Why not?," knowing we are always already there anyway.

That's the Iambivalent reason for existence in a notshall.


jwm said...

Sorry to go OT before reading the post, but check out Kevin McCullough's article "Why Liberals hate Christians" over at this morning. Especially see the responding posts by 'an american liberal'. they are the distilled essence of every moonbat troll we've ever seen here. What stunned me, is that I realized that there was a time I would have agreed with everything 'an american liberal' said. I think I've changed, or something. Just what I get for hanging around here... Now to read.


interlocutor said...

Your lecture was good, albeit a bit dry. I felt no closer to God than when you started, however.

The asides regarding Cindy Sheehan tarnish your utility as a spiritual leader, although enhancing your stature as a commedian and satirist.

Which of these roles do you wish to serve? To try for both is to dilute your power.

bubba's best friend said...

Bob, a related question:

Do you think your fine dog 'loves' you and your family, or do humans project feelings of love onto the animal which is really incapable of this emotion? I would swear I love my master, but can I prove it?

Gagdad Bob said...


Why, I strive to be a stand-up cosmologist, of course.

I regret if I have in any way contributed to your dryness, your lack of closeness to God, your perception of Dear Leader's diluted power and tarnished spiritual leadership, and your absence of humor.

NoMo said...

Interlocutor - It is only when one is himself the joke, that one can't see the humor. You are hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh!

juliec said...

Ahh, sweet synchronicity strikes again... I was just reading "Biogenesis" this morning, while waiting for your post.

Referencing various comments in the last couple of days, I have had to expand my vocabulary somewhat in reading the Coonifesto this past week. It is truly an interesting (and expanding) experience to try to grok, as much as possible, the concepts therein. Whatever you may think about the sales figures, and however rigid and unexpandable certain int- minds may be, you have indeed put into words concepts I have tried to think, but had no vocabulary to express and therefore comprehend before. Thank you.

Joan of Argghh! said...

"Go to, Interlocutor. Of what is the Bob accused? You're far too clever to be understood."

Dogberry-type trolls are my favs!

juliec said...

Yeesh - I just realized I used "expand" three times in one paragrapg. Clearly, my vocabulary can't get much smaller...

walt said...

What I sensed as I read was not closer to God, but rather an increasing "closeness to God." This stuff is getting dowright, impersonal!

The idea of "adequate and proportionate" strikes me as key. I was introduced to that concept many decades ago, but while reading today's post it became very three-dimensional, and in-my-face. I've been looking for "proof of God" and can now see it staring at me through my own eyes.

Where else, INDEED?
Comedian....satirist....magician: Gracias!

juliec said...

If I may go off on a tangent, I was just reading part of an article about food and diet that might actually be more of a parallel to some of the ideas in the Coonifesto. From "Unhappy Meals," by Michael Pollan, in (of all places) the NY Times (and my sincerest apologies if the link doesn't work):

"Most nutritional science involves studying one nutrient at a time, an approach that even nutritionists who do it will tell you is deeply flawed. “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,” points out Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, “is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.”

Again, an interesting bit of synchronicity, I thought.

Or maybe I'm just coming way out of left field, I don't know.

juliec said...

Reading further (it's a long article), there are definitely some parallels here. If you're interested in food, it's well worth a read.

Joan of Argghh! said...

Think of it: scientists, without giving it a second thought, are easily able to think about a time when scientists not only didn't exist, but couldn't possibly have even have gained tenure.

Come for the funny, stay for the Truth.

I'm just shivering here in North Florida, smiling to myself because winter arrived anyway, right on time for us, despite the Globally Warmed Chicken Littles' (okay, now I'm hungry, somehow...) postulations to the contrary. Heck. Not even the warmest winter on record.

Time for the hot-tub. It's a Raccoon's life for me!

Gagdad Bob said...

Julie C:

You're definitely on to something. This is the true meaning of "integral," which is that the whole is anterior to the parts. Indeed, parts -- whether temporal or spatial, it doesn't matter -- can only exist because they partake of the whole. From the standpoint of space, this whole is called the Infinite. From the standpoint of time, it is called the Eternal. Taken together, they constitute the Absolute.

ms. E said...

"This is the "knowledge" that Darwinian evolution "programs" into the organism: "knowledge of the environment," mostly what to eat, what to be frightened of, and who to have sex with.

WARNING: Do not click that three letter colored word if you do not have the ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.

ms. E said...

Correction: make that incoongruous.

Gagdad Bob said...

I guess I have to take back what I said about only human beings not knowing what to have sex with.

But the photo does address Bubba's question, in that dogs may or may not love us, but Raccoons certainly love their dogs

Col. J. C. Beaglehole said...

I say, I object to this obscene photo. No one messes with a Beaglehole.

ximeze said...

Juliec: thanks for the link to "Unhappy Meals."

As a lifelong Foodie, have been fascinated by the various cultural "takes" on the role & function of food.

You might be interested in a Trade Mag called "Food Processing".

Right in line with your link: a behind the scenes look at what goes on in the industry, from the "favorable" POV.

You get to see how ingredients "fit" trendy buzzwords like Organic, LowFat, HighFiber, LowSugar, HighProtein & "pass" various Gov labeling "restrictions."

Always feel as tho I'm secretly reading the intimate diary of an adversary or something. Somehow a taste of access to forbidden knowledge, stuff better-not-known to the average consumer. And they're so proud about it too: "lookit what we can now do!"

Just makes me want to make most food myself & limit intake of stuff in packages.

ms. E said...

Everyday, all day, I'm reminded of my favorite version of Genesis. It goes something like this: In the beginning, God created Man and and Woman and when he saw how miserable they were he gave them a dog.

Col. Beaglehole,
What can I say that Bob hasn't said already.
Coonfests are so unpredictable.

ms. e & "miss lilly"

Coondog said...

Brilliant, Bob, God shows off with you.
> Pet Diary entries from a dog and cat
> Excerpts from a Dog's Daily Diary:
> 8:00am Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30am A car ride! My favorite thing!
> 9:40am Walk in the park! My favorite thing!
> 10:30am Got rubbed and petted! My favorite
> 12:00pm Lunch! My favorite thing!
1:00pm Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00pm Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
> 5:00pm Milk bones! My favorite thing!
>7:00pm Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
>8:00pm Wow! Watched TV with my master! My
>favorite thing!
11:00pm Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

Hanacat said...

> Excerpts from a Cat's Daily Diary:
> Day 683 of my captivity: My captors continue to
>taunt me with
bizarre dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh
>meat, while theother inmates and myself are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets.
Although I make my contempt for the rationsperfectly clear, I
nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength. Theonly thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape.
>In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the floor.
> Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped itsheadless body at
their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts,since
> it clearly demonstrates what I am capable of.However, they merely made
> condescending comments about what a "good littlehunter" I am. The audacity! There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices
tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration
>of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food.I overheard that my
> confinement was due to the
power of "allergies." Imust learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage. Today I was almost successful in an attempt to
assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I musttry this again tomorrow -- but at the top of the
stairs. I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He isregularly released and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviouslyretarded!
> The bird has got to be an informant. I observe him
>communicating with
the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my
>every move. The
captors have arranged protective custody for him inan elevated cell,
so he is safe.......for now....

cousin dupree said...

It couldn't be more obvious.

Conservatives are dogs. Leftists are cats.

/apologies to cats

debass said...

Ms. E,

That racoon was performing a Heimlich manuever.
Although, that beagle did look a bit like Cindy Sheehan.

NoMo said...

Juliec - Thanks for the link -- definitely something I will want to study in depth.

NoMo said...

"(This is also, by the way, why Eckhart could say "those who blaspheme praise God," for falsehood is a kind of testimony to truth.)"

If the reason of creation is to glorify God, even the fools who say in their hearts there is no God (Psalms 14:1), glorify God by so saying. The Hebrew words translated "fool" refer to someone who is morally deficient. There is only one way the morally deficient can hope to justify themselves -- get rid of the One to whom they are ultimately accountable. How very frustrating to have to work so hard to get rid of something that is not even there.

catdog said...

Still surprised and delighted after reading for 3 weeks. Today was a pinnacle though - life the universe and the meaning of existence - not a bad mornings work! And it rings true.
I was a bit shocked by the tone of the posts initially but now I see that is exactly what is needed. For too long we have been on the retreat from the march of the life denying atheist. Attack is the best form defence they say and now I see why. Humour and satire - they either snap like wounded dogs or run for the cover of dark like cockroaches - much better than a "rational" debate which can never get us anywhere with those with eyes that can not see and ears that can not hear. I think that these people really have a sort of spiritual autism – they may be very clever intellectually, savant like in their field but the rest of life escapes them and passes them by. Of course if we tell them that they will tell us that we are hallucinating. Really?!

I can not understand the small audience either - maybe because this worldview does not fit any mould and crosses all sorts of boundaries - funny how life seems to do the same thing.
Sincere thanks Bob for liberating what has been suppressed inside me for some time - now no need to justify, just sound the message and get on with seeking the beautiful, the good and the true. Ah, that feels good.

Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, regarding those occcasional attacks -- the atheists hit very hard, so I'm just hitting back as hard as they do. They call us delusional, or fascist, or childish, but then expect our "spiritualty" to stop us from kicking them right in the brisket. But I think they have an idiotic and dangerous ideology that must be challenged and defeated, so I don't hesitate to call these fools what they are.

ximeze said...

FERGUS! Wake up you sloth!

Cos Dup has clearly been hitting the bottle WAY too much & last of his brains have been pickled, probably for good this time.

No wonder those homeless guys wander around with only DOGS for company, only one of THEM would be that dumb!

Get your butt off that pillow & help me out here!

That dope CD has insulted Cathood & should not go unchallenged!

It is clear to All Who Have Eyes To See that Cats are Anterior to dogs & to most humans for that matter.

"Leftist" indeed! Have you ever heard anything sooooo ignorant!

Only a looooser, who has to routinely break into the garage to find a place to sleep in out of the rain, would say that!

Cats, being SUPERIOR, have no need for such stupid human labels.

Joan of Argghh! said...

Cats superior? They still gotta live down that stupid, mewling Broadway monstrosity before they'll get any shrift from me.

And they cause schizophrenia. Like, sure, they're all, "touch me! then you'll know what happiness is." Sheeayah. Then I'll know what zoloft is, more likely.

And, Ximeze, they eat birds.

ximeze said...


I like you & all, but you're dead wrong on this one.

Andrew Lloyd Weber must be a Dog Person to have gotten Cats so wrong.

Don't you find all that Dogfawning annoying?

I mean: geez dog, get a life & get some self-respect!
Quit it with those pathetic eyes, all wet & sorry-looking.

Oh, and Beaky wants you to know: her best friend is a Cat.

Van said...

The pinacle of nightmarish images in my mind, up to this point, was from my early teens - The Exorcist, with Linda Blair... head rotating, pea soup spitting, steamy eyes glaring...ugh.

I thought that was as bad as it got. But nooooo, now I've got an even more horrific image to avoid letting my inner eye touching upon:

" or to have sex with Cindy Sheehan.... Dennis Kucinich might."

ohhh-ugh, gag, gasp. the horror....

Booger the Cat said...

Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Helen Thomas, Maureen Dowd, and Hillary are all dogs.

Charles Johnson, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Tammy Bruce, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and (of course) Gagdad Bob, are all cool cats.

and my buddy Fergus toosdus

Booger the Cat

ms. E said...

"miss lilly" thought she heard some hissing so I opened this window to see what was causing her alarm: "Oh", I said, "just a little ole cat harm done."

robinstarfish said...

tequila sunrise
eat the worm ouroboros
father son are one

ximeze said...

Booger: Well Said!

uss ben said...

"As an aside -- no doubt the first of many -- where else but Raccoon Central can you go and have your cosmic riddles rattled one by one? Where else in cyberspace can you experience eternal life while you wait, or triple your crappy old karma back?"

So profund!
..."Experience eternal life while you wait..."
I can't get it outta my head.

The more I wait to experience Eternal Life,
The more I experience Eternal Life while I wait.

As for the doggone catatomic zoobraha, I say dogs are best for home defense, while cats are more suited as governors of slack.

Skully said...

Booger the Cat said...
Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Helen Thomas, Maureen Dowd, and Hillary are all dogs.

Jackals Booger, Jackals.

ximeze said...


Yup, you're there.

GLASR said...

Catch the atheist person inviting young folks to denounce GOD and or fill in the blank your choice YouTube type experience? Was one of those folks, you know, lights your radar more than doesn't quite fit ocularly. That thought you never articulate pings when you intersect with whatever they are. ewwwy!

This may, could, might, turn into, become, interogativulate or ....... Thresh the trollafe to the breeze. 'coons are ID'd several ways, Coo-knighted, bestowed, self. Then there's the rest of us, the sum of subtraction, additionally distracting, interesteding surely reverse anthropomorphising or to the effect. Are you what? Have always been hypo-allergenic serpentine/dependent(never touched a "game", do know a few "gamers")water? All a mystery. Always worked well with Raccoons even BN(Before Nocturnal). It says "Choose an identity" - Other. No, GLASR has nothing to do with the night time sky or what holds windows in their frames. Too easy. heh heh C'mon, even I understand overcoonopulation. I'm listening .........

GLASR said...

Was that a question?

Who makes words or sentences from the Word Verification letters?

Why is the dude in the 'chair holding up one end of the box? Answer me that .............

Booger the Cat said...

Hey, can I have a hit of that stuff?


jwm said...

Damn cat hijacked my account.



fergus the cat said...

Booger, you and me, buddy. Dogs smell like wet cardboard, and they disgrace themselves with their yearning to be liked. Well, let me put that again - they disgrace themselves with their *overt* yearning to be liked, and trust me, that makes a world of difference.

All right, Xims, I'm awake. Sheesh. On a Sunday, too. Anyway - look, my neighborhood is full of liberal yuppies and their DOGS. Not cats. DOGS. OK, some of the dogs are not bad, they can't help what they are. But fact is, they are preferred by liberal yuppies, which speaks volumes about the psychic persona of dogs.

Here's a no-brainer for you: which of us, dogs or cats, have inspired more poetry, more point-of-purchase books, more ruminations on myth, legend, symbolism, magic, and metaphysics?

Oh, and who did the Egyptians mummify in numbers that outweighed that of humans? Right, felines. And why? Because the Egyptians recognized that the CAT is halfway between heaven and earth. We partake of both essences equally. Meanwhile, Fido is over in the corner begging for a Milkbone and drooling on the linoleum.

And who is more capable of inspiring a meditative/contemplative state of mind - a fidgety, emotional canine with its mouth open like the entrance to a fun house tunnel, tongue hanging out like a loose bedsheet? Or a sinewy, slithery cat that curls like smoke in the air?

OK, that should settle that. I'm going back to sleep now.

River Cocytus said...

Thanks again, Bob.

God(tm) brand: Making possible possible, all eternity long.

Without the appeal to the absolute, you can't very well 'describe' the universe prior to the human eye.

I mean, without the absolute, how can there be Planck's constant?

I can see how easy it would be to fall into the trap of 'matter ain't real! Its all an illusion...'

Then you get hit by St. Peterbilt on the Highway to Hell-- what chagrin, to discover the herebefore only in the hereafter!

I thought of Why do I's exist as more of an Ebonic question.

Trying to work into my 4/10 slot... 'Six days shall you labor, and one shall you slack...' When I get a shot across the bow from work! The young gal I met at goes offline before I get to my messaging client...

It was a true 'ugh' moment for me. Needless t' say, I'm quite convicted to chaing my work haveits, I had a strong imprison that putting my work on from dawn to dusk for six daze might just fuel the change in mined I need to grab the next rung in Jacob's laddoor.

What is the slack quotient? 1/7? that sounds like too little...

But One over Seven-- sounds complete!

I recall the first time I realized that this God stuff was actually, you know, going on.

My first question to myself after the shock of it passed was, "Well, Why not?"

Sometimes it just can't be any other way.

JHoward said...

Bob, a couple of questions:
(First, I'd say, "because we already have the answer." Knowing it could be another thing entirely...)

Is observing the existence of the very real question "why" within what's considered the Universe's non-sensory, non-scientific reality either analogous to (or the inverse of) using science (or purely sensory reality) to "prove" the sum and substance of that reality? Because reality isn't wholly sensory, right?

Factoring in that the sheer physical nothingness -- or "faith" -- of sub-atomic quantum "reality" still supports all daily, Newtonian, physical reality (matter is actually probability and abstractions, based as it were, on metaphysical thin air) the premise aspiritually scientific reality-seekers balk at might be this very one: One may (or must) use science itself to not only defeat physical science as the be-all exclusive domain of "reality", but too to show that there's no answer for why "why" so thoroughly exists except an equivalent measure of, well, faith.

Which might be to say that "disproving God" by means God simply cannot be demonstrated by in the first place probably isn't a valid exercise.

We know that science does not and cannot "prove" reality's sum, yet that same reality includes evidence and even sub-physical structure, if you will, that logically supports no view but simply accepting that what it is is merely what it is.

As you imply, we have the answer. How we perceive it is perhaps how to "know" it, and since perception isn't unanimous or designed, knowledge of reality therefore cannot be taught or even transferred without difficulty, if at all.

At any rate, I'm relieved to find that I'm not alone asking why why exists.

bubba's best friend said...

I apologize for perhaps being in some part responsible for the deterioration of the usually fine and on topic comments.

So, I pass this along with further apologies:


A newly discovered chapter in the Book of Genesis gives us the story of how pets came to be.

Adam and Eve said, "Lord, when we were in the garden, you walked with us every day. Now we do not see you any more. We are lonesome here, and it is difficult
for us to remember how much you love us."

And God said, "No problem! I will create a companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love me even when you cannot see me.

Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourselves."

And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam and Eve, and it was a good animal, and God was pleased.

And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and Eve, and he wagged his tail.

And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal."

And God said, "No problem. Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call
him DOG."

And Dog lived with Adam and Eve, and was a companion to them and loved them.

And they were comforted.

And God was pleased.

And Dog was content and wagged his tail.

After a while, it came to pass that an angel came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam and Eve have become filled with pride. They strut and preen like peacocks and they believe they are worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught them that they are loved, but perhaps too well."

And God said, "No problem! I will create for them a companion who will be with them forever and who will see them as they are. The companion will remind them of their limitations, so they will know that they are not always worthy of adoration."

And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam and Eve.

And Cat would not obey them. And when Adam and Eve gazed into Cat's eyes, they were reminded that they were not the supreme beings.

And Adam and Eve learned humility.

And they were greatly improved.

And God was pleased.

And Dog was happy.

And Cat didn't give a sh!t one way or the other.

faris said...

Slacktacular essay, way above average.

recommend Kobayashi Maru 'Pinker on Consciousness'

Sancho said...

Bob, your remarks about Cindy Sheehan are those of a petulant boy, not a man.

Sheehan is acting on her convictions in a the public arena, a most American activity. You don't agree with her views, so ergo she is sexually repulsive. Sure, that follows.

Calling it "humor" is a weak rationalization. Your remarks aren't funny.

Any racoons out there have enough sack to speak out on this?

No? I didn't think so.

debass said...


Since you asked and answered your own question, you obviously have already made up your mind, therefore further discussion is a waste of time.
Cindy Sheehan is a tool of the left and the media who has disgraced the memory of her own son so she can be in the limelight. She is a piece of shit who craves attention and will do anything to get it. She has no convictions. She is a media whore.
Sorry, Bob. I can't take these whining assholes anymore. I've had a racoonaissance.

Fat Freddy's Cat said...

This cool cat much prefers this understanding of Reality with a capital R.

Reality itself is what is. Reality itself is egoless and indivisible. It is the one and indivisible and self-existing and self-radiant Self-condition of all that apparently arises. Reality itself includes all-and-All, and inherently and perfectly transcends al-and-All.

Reality itself is not separate, not elsewhere, not other. Reality itself is the condition of all conditions that apparently arise, therefore it transcends the location of every possible condition. It transcens every possible point of view or locus in space and time.

The ego is point of view, located in space and time. It is presumed separateness. It is the dramatization of you dont love me--always.

GLASR said...

booger the cat, NO! I would never hit a cat, with intent, raCCoon either, dog, nah. If I was playing "Pick it, stick it, flick it". I would flick a booger.

River Cocytus said...


I find the best way to get people to answer your questions is to personify your own insults.

It's an easy way to get them to NOT answer, thus proving the pronouncement you've disguised as a question to be true.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sancho passed the stupidity level before he decided to proclaim it.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Nice shootin'!

Joan of Argghh! said...

Ximeze, all that doggie devotion turns into snarling, menacing, biting trouble for anyone whose intentions were to harm me or mine.

Cats only love you cuz you got opposable thumbs and can open the can of cat food.

At any rate, cats never seem to have a destiny or sense of mission.

bubba said...


Although I have tiny testicles, a small scrotum and am a known coward, I too recoil at Bob's characterization of Ms. Sheehan. She is one of God's beautiful children. Even Jesse Jackson can see this!

bubba said...

The link was clipped, just finish SHEEHAN in upper case.

sancho said...

I tried the link, which shows Sheehan hugging Rev. Jackson. Nothing there to get excited about.

I'm stinging from the rebuke delivered by "debass."

Why does she think that Sheehan craves attention so badly? Was she that way before her son was killed? It just doesn't make sense that she'd suddenly develop an outsized ego like that.

The theory that she is altruistic seems more logical than the "media whore" hyposthesis.

Lisa said...

Hey Sancho-

If you think Cindy Sheehan is so hot, why don't you go fuck her!?

Seriously, like right now and get lost and stop polluting such a funny thread! Loser...

PS. Dogs Rule!

Joan of Argghh! said...

Sancho, I'm not sure which planet you're from, but you've obviously never been swept up in media attention. Everyone wants to know what YOU think! Everyone loves YOU! Tell us more! The media know exactly what to play to in order to secure the sound-bite. Up to this point, you've been spared that scenario since you've done nothing spectacular nor suffered something horrible. Either way, you're not on their radar. In the first sense, we're lucky. In the second, you are.

Even the best of our leaders, those with sturdy underpinnings, can fall prey to the allure of being the center of attention. A woman deprived of her son is a sorrow I couldn't contain, and I would stand aside in judging her pain or outbursts. But her fragility has been played mercilessly by ravenous media wolves. And her human weakness was there long before he son died. Many other mothers have lost their sons, have decried the war, and yet, have not abused their sorrows or their families with parading their unenviable and lamentable status around the globe.

Now, Bob jibed the Sheehan-as-Media-Puppet which is a legitimate target inasmuch as she has assented to the position. She has become a caricature of what the media has made her. This does make her sub-human in Bob's context.

He said nothing about her "sexual allure" which I find interesting in that you assumed he did.

Stick around, Sancho. You've got issues.

Lisa said...

This constitutes an existential mission of which we cannot possibly be unaware, for even the most academonic among us would probably not say that the purpose of existence is to know falsehood, to do bad, or to have sex with Cindy Sheehan.... although you never know about the latter. Dennis Kucinich might.

Not to argghhue with you, Joan, but actually Bob did and it was funny especially the Kucinich add on. Even though I could not really close my eyes too long after thinking that! Your analysis is spot on of the woman. Some people just need to develop a sense of humor and are not quite ready to be entertained by our Dear Leader yet. There is nothing more unattractive than a person with a horrible sense of humor.

Lisa said...

Sorry, forgot to quote the first paragraph that was from Bob's piece.

Joan of Argghh! said...


Oh my! I didn't even see that the first time! That's what comes from working all the time. I try not to comment around here much because there's so MUCH to read and I'm afraid I'll miss important things like that! LOL! (Sancho still has issues, however.)

So, in taking a moment to re-read the offending graph, hmmmm... oh yes. That's definitely beneath Bob's status as a Cosmic Cult Leader. Very disappointing. That will definitely hurt his chances at tenure. Personally, I think he did it just to troll-bait the Google monster. Bob can be a victim of his own Raccoon sense of mischief. Whaddaya gonna do? He did call it, "flinging the C.S."

When there's so much ripe material in the media dumpster, even the best of the Brothers Under the Pelt can be tempted to dive in and take on less-than-fragrant scents and sense.

But I'm a weak Raccoon. I did laugh at that.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Wow Lisa!
You moiderized da bum!
Ha ha!
Debass shot him, and you nuked him!
There was not enough left to extract a dna sample from.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"We want this to be a purely spontaneous exercise in improvisational metaphysics, otherwise known as "flinging the C.S."

Heckler gets dismembered at Raccoon at eleven.

Lisa said...

I shall curtsy and accept the compliments(thanks Ben) and congratulate myself for not getting into a bitchfight with Joan (I always think twice before contradicting her!) ;0)

Julie-Thanks for the link to the article on nutrition. It is so true. I have found the best way to lose weight is to limit the actual food intake/quantity and not to limit food type. Use salad plates as your plate for a meal, fill it, and enjoy one plate. Take a walk after dinner with your loved one, human or otherwise, that is where cats are deficient! Also as stated in article, food is best when eaten as close to it's original form in nature. The longer it takes you to read or figure out what is in it, the worse off it is nutritionally. Stick to the basics and you can't go wrong. Clean food, small amounts thoughout the day and night, and movement of the body should do the trick. It's really all about mathematics and numbers. Eat less and move more. Very simple, even some dopey Libs can figure that one out, look at Hollywood.

River Cocytus said...

I was told by one of my more educated friends that there is no such thing as 'common sense'.

Which I guess says a lot about the guy?

Wouldn't common sense constitute that which can be understood as sensible no matter how common you are?

Thus I would say the dictum of: "Eat less, move more, eat less processed foods" is about as common-sense as you can get.

PS- The mass media seems to do a great job-- even with crappy best-seller books-- of messing up good common sense.

Joan of Argghh! said...

I'm hurt, crushed, Lisa, that any God-fearing 'coon would be even the slightest bit afraid of me! The path of my disdain is actually quite narrow, and a good 'Coon has to try mightily to find it. For instance, Ximeze's much brighter and funnier than I, and I serve merely as her comic foil. It's all good sport for sister raccoons. (She's got that "cats" thing going, however. Points lost, there.)

A troll has merely to show up. It really doesn't matter how clever they are, the same spirit that goes into their post comes out when ones reads it. And they wonder why we won't address their particulars, when really all one can see is their spirit. They never figure it out, apparently.

ms. E said...

I heard Cindy Sheehan participated in the anti-war rally in D.C. this weekend. An alert blogger posted this Sheehan moment.

Lisa said...

Dearest Joan,
I'm not so much afraid, it's just that I don't want to have to get another manicure! Please try not to be offended by my twisted sense of humor...We sister coons gots to stick together! Ximeze is smart and funny, although I have always been deathly afraid and creeped out by birds in the house.

Joan of Argghh! said...

Ah well, yes, manicures are expensive these days. That's why, here in the South, we save our nails and merely mew out, "bless her heart!"


ximeze said...

Thanks for the kind words, my SistersUnderthePelt.

Smart & funny is it? Ummmm....
Can't you work in humble? Perhaps loyal...? You know: Doggie stuff?

'Course, once again blew my own cover, this time by coming out for Cats.

Er, don't Dogs hunt & kill Coons?

Beaky was on my shoulder when she read "I have always been deathly afraid and creeped out by birds in the house."

She took it real personal like & asks that you elaborate a bit. She has heard "noisy" & "dirty" but not "deathly afraid" or "creeped out."

Reminded her that you two have not actually met & large black mandibles can look & sound scary to psittacine newbies. Took alot of kisses to her head (love those tinytiny ovate feathers) to buck up her self-esteem.

Jenny said...

Bob, I agree with your post. Very well put. And I also like the Cindy Sheehan asides, but aren't you being a little too harsh on amoebas and other lower life forms by comparing them to her? :)

Jenny said...

River Cocytus said
"I recall the first time I realized that this God stuff was actually, you know, going on."

I do too. I was in my car on the way home from work pondering things and my heart started beating faster and I felt a thrill wash over me and I just kept thinking over and over - "this is friggin wild, this is friggin wild."

Lisa said...

Please apologize to Beaky for me. It's been that way since childhood. Don't get me wrong I have a great respect for birds and their abilities but I don't like them flapping around and flying near my face. In fact I would not mind being a bird one day as long as it is outside. Although, I would like to see Beaky and Pinky meet. Pinky is my 4 pd chi. that chases cats and fetches beany babies.

River Cocytus said...

Jenny: It was for me, a 'life is a C.S. Lewis novel?' kind of moment. It was like my mind had instantly reduced it all into a little zen garden and was lifting up each of three stones, one after the other, going, "Gosh. Geez. Well, that's just... well, why not?"

Ah, the momentary ecstasy of clarity!

micheal said...

eloi eloi lama sabacthani