I've read about certain bands that don't write songs in the usual way. Rather, they just jam and fool around until they stumble upon something that sounds like a song. Then the jam begins to suggest what it's about lyrically, and eventually crystallizes into a composition. The Rolling Stones sometimes did it this way. R.E.M. too.
If it's good enough for ancient man -- i.e., Keith Richards -- then it's good enough for me. I'll just start jamming and see where it goes.
What is man that man should be mindful of him? Other animals don't give a hoot, honk, or hiss about their nature. But humans never stop hollerin' about it, especially the ones who insist there is no such thing. Hee-haw!
If these asses are correct, then Homo sapiens is the animal whose nature it is to deny its nature.
Moreover, we are the only such animal, since human beings -- even young children -- easily recognize the nature of other animals. We don't confuse dogs and cats, or snakes and birds -- nor, for that matter, do we mistake a cock for a hen. If we take a bull for a cow there will be serious consequences. Yes, that's a warning.
Here again, Homo sapiens is the only species that can make systematic -- not merely accidental -- mistakes about its own nature. For example, from time to time we hear rumors of this or that animal that engages in same-sex behavior, but no animal does so systematically or it wouldn't exist.
To put it another way, homosexuality is obviously contingent; if it were essential, then it would place an absurdity at the foundation of our nature. If we can't agree that sex has a telos, then we might as well say that babies come from storks, or that two men can marry.
The moment we say Everybody Knows this or that, Somebody will insist otherwise, hence the existence of tenure.
As the cliche goes, there is nothing so stupid that a professional leftist hasn't believed it. It's their nature to believe the unbelievable. Credo quia absurdum, and the more absurd the more credible. Some on the left still believe the conspiracy theory that Biden legitimately won the election, albeit fewer every day.
But let's try to stay focused. Better yet, what is the focus of this post? I would say human nature, which, first of all, either does or doesn't exist. We, of course, believe the former, although we do not necessarily believe it's a slam dunk. The reason I say this is that I am still waiting to meet someone who reminds me of me, i.e., who shares my nature. Am I my own species? Or are there others?
Yes, there's obvious overlap. But never a perfect fit. This is probably what Sartre meant with his crack about hell being the existence of other people.
However, in his case the operational term is existence, being that he was an existentialist, and the essence of existentialism is the denial of essence, precisely. Therefore, each person is not only an island monad cut off from all the others, but man invents himself -- makes it up -- as he goes along. Which is why his most famous work of philosophy is called Being and Nothingness.
(Spoiler alert: being is. You, on the other hand, are nothing.)
Believe it or not, this is one of the first philosophy books I ever read. It would have been back in the late '70s, when I assumed that philosophy, like science, must be progressive, so why not just skip ahead and get to the point? Reading Aristotle or Thomas to learn about man would be as anachronistic as reading Galen to learn medicine or Ptolemy to learn astronomy.
In reality, some things progress, some remain the same, and some deteriorate. Confusion enters because man is indeed capable of "progress," but only in certain areas.
More to the point, the principle of progress is not, nor can it be, change or progress. Rather, the very possibility of progress is rooted in and oriented toward something that does not change. Call this principle what you like -- even just an empty placeholder such as O -- but without it, we are Ø. Without a paddle.
Well, that was fun. And easier than digging up quotes from other experts. I think we have the outlines of a melody. With any luck, the words to the song will further reveal themselves in the next post. But this I know: there is an objective and universal anthropology, and it is rooted in a trans-cosmic meta-anthropology. That's for certain.
10 comments:
I am still waiting to meet someone who reminds me of me, i.e., who shares my nature. Am I my own species? Or are there others?
Unfortunately, we'll probably have to pass to the other side to find out.
Me, I'd be content with simply being understood.
An amusing romp of a post today.
Gagdad mentioned "Well, that was fun. And easier than digging up quotes from other experts."
I applaud this, as I think have mined quite enough expertise that NOT YOU. Yes, you respect other great minds, but they have had their say. Now you have yours.
The point being, you ARE a "separate species." There is no other being that can take your place, or play the role you have been assigned to play in the Cosmos.
You are a unique, custom-fitted part, fully intended to be exactly as your are. Play ball. Let your freak flag fly.
That's not going to give you immunity against criticism. You will still be subject to the censure of your peers.
Could Genesis 1; 26-28 infer that God is a composite of good and evil and explain why the nature of Jesus and His Father appears to be poles apart. As below so above.
No, that's a purely Luciferian form of wishful thinking.
No, because one of the central themes of Genesis is that there is one transcendent God who is the source of good, and that evil is a privation that has no ontological reality. Having said that, evil exists "necessarily" even though it is illicit, in the sense that the creation is not the Creator, and only God is good.
It's like having a child: you're not willing your child to do evil, even though you're willing the possibility of evil by bringing the child into the world.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
I always saw this to mean that Jesus is to God as we are to our spiritual selves. Jesus didn’t just die on the cross to do what God-Jesus does for his fallen creations, but to demonstrate what we-our spiritual selves really are, a two part conscious entity. In short, you don’t want to die and catch the wrong spiritual boat.
But then the trannies come along and say: “Aha! Is God not also male and female then?”
I think that some parts of the Bible are a bit like that band Yes, from their older-middle “subject to your own interpretation” phase. Close To The Edge makes no sense whatsoever until it does makes sense. And so we too here jam until we divine a catchy tune that makes sense.
But then there’s always that bandmate who proclaims that Biden lost without any credible evidence whatsoever, often using trannie logic. And it’s usually the bass player. I think that bass players are just guitarists who’re too afraid to just pick up the guitar. And so we wind up with bands like Primus. Maybe this place is more like Primus than Yes, especially during their Wynona's Big Brown Beaver video phase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg
I like that video. I've noticed that no video was ever made about Close To The Edge.
Out of your element.
I met a starship trooper once. I asked him if he was the Yes kind or the Heinlein kind. But he kept speaking to me in sweet accustomed ways, about stuff like sister bluebirds and proud sons and daughters. So I punched him in the mouth. The wooden shoes he was wearing flew wildly after he hit the ground and made loud clacking sounds as they bounced upon the concrete. That's when I realized he was Paul Verhoeven. I sure hope you're not Paul Verhoeven.
Worthy fuckin' adversary.
Post a Comment