Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Cosmic Perverts & Your Transnatural Right to Truth

That question I posed at the top of yesterday's post: does man have a right to Truth? -- I'm not sure I answered it in the way I had intended. I didn't just mean this in terms of human institutions and whatnot. Rather, I meant it in cosmic terms, i.e., whether man qua man has this right.

It's actually a much more strange and radical question than implied by the rest of yesterpost, because it wouldn't constitute just a natural right, but a transnatural right to know Just What the Hell is Going On Down Here. Seems like a minimal request to me. But the secular world doesn't even believe in natural rights, let alone transnatural rights. Literally. The google machine has never heard of them.

What, there are transgendered rights but no transnatural rights? What then are transgendered rights grounded in? That's right: just a boot to the face, i.e., judicial bullying. For what else is there when we have no intrinsic, which is to say, cosmic, rights?

There are few things in life to which we are entitled. To say we have rights is not to say the world is fair; rather, vice versa: the purpose of rights is to create the possibility of justice.

One thing to which we are entitled is infantile omnipotence. Mature adults are entitled to little, but the helpless infant is genuinely entitled to everything (one reason why being the mother of an infant requires such superhuman strength). You cannot spoil an infant, and people who think otherwise can end up with a child who spends the rest of his life in search of the Lost Entitlement. Is it any coincidence that the growth of the state mirrors the growth of single and working motherhood, and that the latter are the most reliably Democratic LoFos?

If people thought about this beforehand, they wouldn't bring so many children into the world without being able to fulfill their entitlement.

For among other things, a child has the transnatural right to a loving mother and father in a stable and enduring union, without which he will be psychically handicapped from the very outset. No one could seriously argue that a child has a right to a mother only, or two fathers, or cheap daycare, let alone to be aborted. If abortion were a natural right, then it would be present at conception, and few babies would choose to abort themselves.

Back to our right to Truth. This is truly central to man, because what would man be in the absence of Truth? He would be an inexplicable cosmic freak, an existential birth defect, the hopelessly absurd case of an effect with no cause, that is, a tragically unrequited love of Truth.

Irrespective of whether we are children of the Light or merely sons of the bitch Gaia, man's standard equipment includes this inborn epistemophilia, a cosmo-global positioning system which is ultimately in theosynchronous orbit around the strange attractor that ceaselessly pulls us onward, upward, and inward.

I want to say that this is not debatable, nor is it figurative, but rather, literally true, for it is what is happening -- and why it is happening -- when we pursue Truth.

If not, then what are we doing? Just solipsistically chasing after a mirage, or our neurology, or tenure? This would be like being born with a lust for the opposite sex on a grotesquely asexual planet, like a man -- or worse, woman -- in a feminist studies program.

With rights come responsibilities. We have the transnatural right to Truth. What's the corresponding responsibility? Well, there are obvious things, like valuing it above all else; or, to put it inversely, Truth has its own rights, to such an extent that nothing is more privileged than Truth (although some branches are coequal, being that we live under tripartite cosmic rule).

So, we have every right to demand Truth, but Truth has every right to expect us to cherish it, defer to it, honor it, assimilate it, live it. We can only be in a reciprocal relationship to Truth, and then only because we are ultimately composed of Truth, as intelligence to intelligibility: these are just two sides of the same transcendent coin (just as the human unit, on another plane, is "man-and-woman"). Or, one might say that one side manifests as immanence (world), the other as transcendence (knowledge).

We could no more have an inborn spiritual relationship to falsehood and illusion than we could have an inborn sexual attraction to another species. Yes, that obviously happens, but it is called a perversion, and there are spiritual perversions just as there are sexual ones. Do some people have a textual orientation to the Lie? Ya' think?

Note that in such a case, the same metacosmic attraction is at work, only misdirected. Think, for example, of Obama's comically mendacious blowing smokesman, Jim Carney. If you are remotely normal -- i.e., not a cosmic pervert -- it is simply impossible to imagine doing his job. Can you see yourself casually but insistently peddling damaging and destructive lies to millions of citizens? What comes after irony?

So, Jim Carney earns his keep by denying us our transnatural right to Truth. What an unrelenting assoul.

About some of those epistemophilic perversions, or perverse attractions. Haven't you ever had an unnatural attraction to something other than Truth? What was really going on there? What were you searching after, and how did you come to accept {x} as the answer? And why were you so self-satisfied and belligerent about it?

If there's a problem here, I think it needs to be traced all the way back down to the foundation, the roots, the ground. For there are opportunistic parasites all along the way, just waiting for you to fall to the clayside, when we are always properly situated between the realms of clay and spirit.

Speaking of which, this wonderful translation of Genesis -- AKA The Origins of Everything -- can offer some clues. Let's zoom into Genesis 3. Alter has a footnote to the line about our embarking up the wrong tree, stating that the Hebrew word typically translated as "delight" actually means "that which is intensely desired," "and sometimes specifically lust." Thus, our inappropriate attraction is linked to a kind of intense lust.

Lust for what? Well, the text implies that it is bound up with the desire to be God instead of being in relationship to God. Thus, it is none other than the misplaced omniscience and omnipotence to which we are only entitled in infancy, a kind of grandiose spiritual infanity.

I don't have time to get into details, but I am reminded of how, at the root of a sexual perversion or fetish, is the pathological defense mechanism of omnipotence. In fact, I no longer remember the whole thing myself, but this guy explains it (interesting book, by the way): the "central feature" of sexual perversions is "the degradation of the object to an object under one's omnipotent control," etc.

Just transpose this to the key of Truth, and you have a perverse regime that insistently attempts to control reality with words, narratives, and childish Barrytales instead of being in a loving relationship to the one Truth that unites us.


Speaking of light and children, here is the boy visiting one of his baseball teammates in the hospital, where's being treated for leukemia. Poor guy is all puffy from the chemo, but has a great attitude:


julie said...

You cannot spoil an infant, and people who think otherwise can end up with a child who spends the rest of his life in search of the Lost Entitlement. Is it any coincidence that the growth of the state mirrors the growth of single and working motherhood, and that the latter are the most reliably Democratic LoFos?

Not only the growth of the state, but also the rise of helicopter parenting and a generation of young adults who can't function on their own in the world. On the one hand, a huge percentage of kids get shunted off to daycare in the first few months of life, where they can't possibly receive what they are entitled to at that stage; on the other, the time their parents do spend with them is so overscheduled and intensive (the "quality" that supposedly makes up for the lack of quantity) that they don't learn to be resilient and self-sufficient.

I keep seeing, here and there, articles that claim that parenting makes little difference in how kids turn out; that people are simply "hard-wired" to be who they are regardless of childhood circumstance, provided they don't end up being eaten by wolves or run over by a school bus somewhere along the way. And yet, this is patently untrue; further, it is contradicted by every other article out there (often in the same publications on the same days) that examines the damage people have suffered in early childhood, and how it has affected, for instance, their ability to form healthy relationships.

Van Harvey said...

'Lust for what? Well, the text implies that it is bound up with the desire to be God instead of being in relationship to God. Thus, it is none other than the misplaced omniscience and omnipotence to which we are only entitled in infancy. Thus, it is a kind of spiritual infanity.'

But enough about the aims of modern philosophy.

Gagdad Bob said...

Look what happened to Kirsten Dunst for deviating from Feminist Truth. I mean, she doesn't seem to know the first thing about gender theory! (The first thing about gender theory is that you have to be bitter, homely, stupid, or crazy to be attracted to it.) I'm sure Dunst is no prize, but she's some kind of primitive savant compared to feminists.

julie said...

They might as well be shrieking, "Burn the witch!!"

Gagdad Bob said...

The really disturbing thing is how Big Journalism just signs off with and helps propagate the Lie. No different from Pravda.

Magister said...

whether man qua man has this right [to Truth]

If there is no law other than what is defined in positive law, then man (at least in his collective form) has a legal entitlement to the truth in a court of law or contract. We have positive laws against perjury -- not that they appear to matter much, especially if you're a politician.

Genesis tells us that man lost his natural entitlement to the truth when he told God to bugger off, eating the one thing God said not to. As a result, man lost the intuition of truth and instead had to deal with the rocky soil of words words words. We have the natural capacity for truth, but we reject the conditions that make it possible.

We were made in the image of God, and for communion with Him, so surely it's possible. I think we lost the claim to be entitled to it, though.

julie said...

Re. Kirsten Dunst, it occurs to me that any woman opposed to abortion and off birth control is essentially off the feminist reservation. Setting aside those who use childbearing to get more goodies from the state, a woman who lives true to her femininity simply cannot afford to ignore nature.

julie said...

Magister, you have a good point. And yet, the Truth rains freely on the just and unjust alike...

Magister said...

Dunst is not paid to write gender theory so it shouldn't surprise anyone that she's kind of dumb about it

Awesome. All we have to do is be paid to write about something in order to be smart about it.

"Wife the fuck out." This phrase sure packs a lot of ignorance into a small package.

Gagdad Bob said...

I, Ms. G, and our son are all quite happy she wifed the fuck out. But then, none of us are paid to write gender theory.

Gagdad Bob said...

The only people who pay for gender theory are the people who fall for it.

Gagdad Bob said...

It's amazing that people can actually even say "gender theory" without irony. I remember exactly the last time I used the expression "person of color" without irony. I still wince.

Gagdad Bob said...

Most of what the left believes needs scare quotes, e.g., "income disparity," "war on women," "homosexual marriage," "Islamophobia," "white privilege," "homophobia," etc.

Van Harvey said...

'The first rule of Gender-Theory Club, is don't talk about Gender-Theory Club!'

ted said...

The boy's friend is a Red Sox fan. He should do fine!

Christina M said...

I have been saying lately that I feel these days like I'm trapped in a very dysfunctional family, where most of the family members are lying all the time, and they're also telling me I shouldn't trust anything I see with my own "lying'" eyes.

The last time I felt this frantic was during the Clinton years. The time before that was in my own family growing up.

julie said...

Speaking of epistemophilic perversions, perverse attractions, and feminism, I wonder how many feminists see the irony in the fact that feminism is all about obliterating that which is truly feminine?

Re. FL's friend, that's rough. I hope the chemo helps, and that he gets through it alright.

Gagdad Bob said...

He'd better. Playoffs start in May, and he's one of our best players.

James Sheives said...

Whenever you mention your son, I just think what a lucky kid to have you as a parent (and Mrs G too).

Joan of Argghh! said...

How did the Future Leader princeling grow so much? Have you been feeding him all this time? That must be it.

A very handsome young man. Compliments to his mother!

Gagdad Bob said...

As Lileks bleated this morning, "I don’t think kids plug all the holes in your life, but at least they’ll turn a fast drain into a slow leak."

mushroom said...

But the secular world doesn't even believe in natural rights, let alone transnatural rights.

I wish somebody would tell me what Ditty-Wah-Ditty means.

Gagdad Bob said...

I thought it was that ambiguous locale -- neither town nor city -- from where Bo Diddley's gal hails.

mushroom said...

Arthur "Blind" Blake pre-dates Bo -- not a bad recording once you get past the guy talking in the intro. Sweet, complex ragtime finger-picking.

It really puts Ry Cooder's version from "Paradise and Lunch" -- where I first heard it in '74, to shame.

mushroom said...

Anyway, that wanting to be God and be omnipotent should make a lot of players a little nervous. My daughter has made a lot of progress in her life, and one of the things she kept saying about my wife being sick was along the lines of accepting the limitations of our knowledge about what is going on. She said, "Maybe what we are supposed to learn from this is that we not only don't know everything, some things we aren't even supposed to know."

We may not agree entirely with that, but I think part of the root of her alcohol problem was that sense that she ought to be omnipotent and omniscient. So I was kind of encouraged by it.

Magister said...

Feminists seem to be perpetually at war with their own bodies. Ogled? Fight it! Fertile? Prevent it! Pregnant? Kill it! Etc.

It all looks like a long war against internal enemies. The last thing they want is some helpless internal immigrant messing up their liberated feminist economy.

Does any of this make the garden-variety feminist happier? Not that I can see. What seems most evident is massive amounts of projection and avoidance behavior.

Gagdad Bob said...


That's a really good point. Speaking of cosmic rights, the baby certainly has a legitimate right to the mother's body, which is why, you know, breasts. More generally, as we've discussed in the past, not only are our minds intrinsically intersubjective, but our bodies are too. Man and woman point beyond themselves and "refer" to one another. So to say that we "own" our bodies and that's that is a little simplistic, to say the least, and certainly not humanistic.

Magister said...

Now this is a chick.

*falls over*

Joan of Argghh! said...

No, here's the Real Deal.

Former swept-wing pilot, huntress, amazing cook, devoted daughter, now a Secret Squirrel CSI. And red hair.

One of the best writers on the Internet, as well.

Magister said...

Joan, I hope they all have daughters so my sons can marry. God help them if they marry anything less!