Love As Efficient Organ

The formation of a living body is the miraculous un-miracle of billions of years of millisecond dice rolls. There is a certain genius, to anthropomorphize, about the incessant onslaught of variation and time. Fewer resources in an environment will facilitate an eventual, accidental exploitation of such a situation by the decrease of overall body size of a species; there is a latent efficiency in evolution, and an animal, which can develop as many functions as possible into one organ is going to be the more successful than an animal that develops two -- on sheer fact that two organs will most likely necessitate greater body mass and greater need for sustaining resources. The human sex organ is a very simple example of this efficiency and utility. Many of the parts of the organ used for the purposes of reproduction are also used in the excretion of waste in a relatively harmonious way; there are a thousand other examples of this and all have intimate knowledge of it upon reflection. But why stop at the body, why not include the mind if we are to be good physicalists, good scientists and decent thinkers?

If the mind is the end product of the operations of the brain, which if we are to comfortably side ourselves with any contemporary scientific thought we must simply accept regardless of convoluted philosophical difficulties the body-mind connections create, then how can we not look for the efficiencies of our own brain. The phenomenon of love, as discussed previously, is the sort of dream-work of the brain that our consciousness perceives as real and essential. Most likely though, this is just a projection that we can ascertain, understand, explain, use and manipulate accordingly like a mask. The hard ground, the blood and guts behind the mask is nothing like this phenomenon of love, but is most likely hard-wired, relatively unalterable biological drives. From that, do we not find further evidence in the ambiguity of love how it is the same feeling, same word, same comprehension that exists between parent and child as two sexual partners?

Now of course there are some differences here, and I am not saying that anybody who loves their child actually wants to have sex with the child and vice-versa, but rather, we can all access how closely related these love emotions are between partners, parent and child, and a plethora of other relationships that use the word love. Is the brain not developed by the same principles that evolution develops the body? Then perhaps, very likely, the feeling of love and its ability to be used between a host of different relationships for different gains is an efficient use an aspect of the brain. It is not the failure of language to correctly distinguish the various types of love that exist towards various objects, but actually, language is often correct in its large, generalized groupings of the feeling love, as it is a dream-like projection of an emotion that stems from an efficient use of one aspect of the brain repeatedly in different situation. A single organ, the penis, urinates and ejaculates as much as a brain, and its various developed, specialized areas, most likely uses the stimulation of neural pathways again and again for what, on a phenomenological level seems like very disparate mental events.

On Love and Animals

When the word, in its trivial, transient shapes in the air, beat clicking, sputtering, competing with the humidity to signify the meaning of the concept of love was it used between two people(?) -- a mother to newborn, an infant to parent, between partners formed in in the pursuit of various goals? Was it simply a narcissism or perhaps was it between a person and something supernatural?

An ocean of difficulties presents itself, and an juxtaposed coast of methodologies to embrace such complexities exists simultaneously expanding either side of us. No anthropological or archaeological work can ever allow us a clear entry into the lived emotional lives of prehistoric man, nor is it possible to ascertain the mental faculties of our humanoid ancestors beyond the measurements and shapes of skulls, projecting the developed and undeveloped mind located in the brain. Ambiguous symbols of proto-cultural artifacts leave only the cinders of the fire of the earliest experiences by humans. What were the sensations that must be eternal, structured in the brain of Homo sapiens that have been vital to our survival and success, that could never leave the species without its destruction? Was there love in the earliest people?

How do we remove ourselves from the contextual difficulties of our hermeneutics regarding history? Has love as it is conceived, generalizing, in a Western, contemporary notion existed beforehand, at least on a basic level where some qualities that are essential to love are equivalent to the love used by humans throughout history? Are we not always in some extent guilty of a relativistic history that melts away and coagulates as history itself is processing itself eternally? How do we talk about love as something more than this love, at this very second, that might slip away into undecipherable nonsense for the flux of humanity, as ancient texts are for us today?

How do we separate the love and identify the love that we seem to share with other advanced lifeforms? May we even use that word? For many, the love of a dog is love as much as there is love between contemporary humans, and we, as a recent historical occurrence, have broaden greatly our notion of love as something that we share with many other mammalians, especially in the form of maternal care and group or pack behavior; the necessary existence of primordial sympathy and empathy to allow for a group of animals to live together, becoming more fit and successful in their environment through group cooperation. When we speak of love, as love between humans, are we not struck by the alarming quality that even a bird, not only an animal but also not a mammal, is capable on a consequential level to maintain the behaviors necessary in order to raise chicks? Nurturing, caring for, protecting, teaching and a willingness to die in order to protect their young, how do we separate these seemingly similar formations of love from our own?

Why complicated it? Why be so long-winded and muddy-up the ease of the pragmatics of language? Love is always changing and evolving by who the user is, the user's placement in the universe and his desired meaning. To some extent this is true, no matter what I say, love as a concept and as an everyday word will continue to slither around, difficult to pinpoint and catch, and will continue to be used as it has ever been used; however, in the interest of truth, and higher levels of scrutiny, we have to analyze how often love as a concept is moving like water, but suddenly, becomes stiff, brutal and violent as if a wave crashing against rocks. What is that which rises from the ocean and strikes us?

Love is the goal, the aim, the meaning by which all contemporary humans strive; it is the very core of life, and any denial of it brings mental and physical violence to and from humanity. Though it is at times aimless, unclear and ambiguous, love as a concept will reveal itself as the hard soil of everyone's existence. You must love your children, you must love yourself, you must love all humanity, you must love life -- above all other things, all goals and all thoughts, love is the one that is the indomitable, eternal and immortalizing emotion. You fight war with love, death with love, and you seek death, the absolute termination of everything, to constitute love to save the entire universe with love.

And we never think, how simply the mechanistic behavior of the ducks in the pond may be exactly the same love as the love you have for your children, for your God, for your life. Something evolutionary so simple as a ordering of your brain to guarantee you will "love" your children no matter what against a will you may call yours. It is rather the other faculties human has, not a special formation of love. It is self-awareness, unmatched memory and an ability to project causally into the future, that humans have what makes love seemingly more intense, more important and easier to manipulate for the purposes of gratification of biological needs; horses snort because it causes a release of pleasurable chemicals in their brain, they through a crafty intelligence abuse their own biological structures to essentially -- masturbate! Loving God or any supernatural being, is the cunning manipulation of biological structures of mammalian love; God is a masturbatory fetishistic item, an internal drug releasing endless pleasurable feelings, but the core of this love, the structure is one of the most base developments of the shrew-like mammal that crawled out of a hole hundreds of millions years ago with the ability to "love" its offspring but not to abstract and manipulate, then to go on to be able to at a basic level sympathize with its species to allow them to work together and survive.

Love begins to shatter under the pressure of a shadowy, sinister, animalistic, expansive reality that the human, the historical, the cultural conception of love covers. Love is contextual and difficult to pinpoint because it has a dual existence. There is the cultural conception of love that is always changing and being informed by the lovers, artists and priests that appear and disintegrate through historical flux, determining what it is as a cultural phenomenon. But in many ways culture acts as a veil to the brutality, to the animalism of truth that is horrific and sublime. One cannot say Yhwh's name, Moses could not look upon God's face, Zeus too would destroy man that looked upon his true form -- these myths hold the psychological terror humanity holds to the truth, to the divine. The unforgiving, the emptiness, the structured mechanistic forms that are hurtling and exploding through space that is expanding and tearing apart. One can never quite look upon the truth, but only relay it to the best of their ability in costumes and abstractions. This is the other side of love; the side of love that does not exist in nature, but rather, a thing that we have taken to be love that is rather, not love, but the uncontrollable, accidental mechanistic unfurling of mammalian structures that have no true meaning in a human sense.

Miserable Women

I was at work and I caught some blip on the television. A typical trash news or entertainment news agency, whichever term you prefer, CNN, was going through the involuntary digestion and expulsion of the latest supposed news-worthy event. Some study came out that documents the rising unhappiness in the general female population that correlates with their rising equality over the past thirty years, I believe -- forgive me for not knowing the exact details. Men, on the other hand, are getting happier.

What does this mean? Why would women become more unhappy as they attain greater levels of social and economic freedom, slowly creeping up to men? It is a foolish and often abused idea stemming from an Enlightenment, rationalists understanding of human psychology that happiness and freedom are somehow related. They are not. Such a thought is dangerously simplistic and frighteningly out of touch with the last hundred years. A relinquishing of responsibility and engagement in the world is what allows for the greatest level of happiness. The dream that forever destroying institutions and beliefs that stand in the way of rationality will bring about a great joy is just that a dream -- utopian notions are as damning as the dogmatic institutions they fight. We've seen the rationalist's psychology fail in various rising and failings of fascist regimes. We've also seen it fail in the complexification and secularization of societies that often leads to, if I may borrow Durkheim's concept, anomie; a general sense of confusion, anxiety and isolation in regard to social expectations and society resulting in levels of sadness and unproductive behavior.

Another study that came out a couple years back, which furthers my point, is that religious persons often report the greatest levels of happiness compared to their secular neighbors. Simply believing in a god significantly reduces your anxiety and depression levels. While some bad theologians would like to build the idea that belief in Christ is actually liberating and allows for a greater level of freedom and responsibility, those with any decency in their psychological assessments will rebuke such a claim. The belief in god allows for an assumption of control and an appearance of patterns in the world that allows for false comfort, it also doubles the world allowing for one to remove themselves from their Earthly responsibilities and focusing on things as means toward a new, unseen world like Heaven.

But before we get too far into that tangent, in sum, the greater level of freedom and personal responsibility one brings upon themselves, the more miserable they will become. Anxiety and dread will be so unbound it will be tangible; this is the condition of modernity, and all of us honest, and not so honest, atheists are usually overcome by intense fits of despair. Touch your pills in the medicine cabinet if you take them, I'm sure if you don't everybody around you does. These are the little formed stalactites growing in our caves. The usage of medicines, illegal and pharmaceutical, are everywhere to relieve the mental anguish.

Why are women so sad? Because women are becoming more free through the growth of their material wealth, the development of their own self-interested identities, and their greater levels of intelligence through education and leisure. The responsibility is incredibly heavy.

They are also becoming more sad because the powers that have slighted women and always made them secondary voiceless, faceless beings to men have slipped away and returned in new forms. No longer is a woman controlled, regulated and manipulated as ruthlessly by the social expectations of fulfilling household work, but instead, many women are endlessly presented with images and displays of what the perfect woman is like. There is not a tough man, a father, a brother or a husband to use his economic and physical power against her, but rather, a social organization through an onslaught of media to show women -- you are free to do whatever you want and be happy! But the best women do these things: where you can list off a thousand expectations of what intelligent, beautiful, free, happy women do. Women are also more miserable now then ever because the things that once controlled them are waning but a new, very nuanced and very psychologically vicious control is taking place in the use of symbols and unspoken expectations. Women are self-regulating more than ever, and slowly driving themselves insane trying to attain all of these new goals that they expect for themselves and society expects for them as well.

The Rigor Of Spasticity

What is life? What is abstraction? How do we access pure becoming, pure presence that is not a crystallization and ultimately an alienation from the our real world? Each thought we conceive is one step away from the absolute truth that it was extracted from; how do we access that pure resource of life, of truth.

Our tools, technology must be more exacting; our steps must grow faster and we must attack aggressively, reaching out for this ultimate reality. The great prejudice of our age is that the rigorousness of language, a simpler language that is exactingly total, all encapsulating, is the key to reality; a man-made language like symbolic logic that captures the ultimate forms of human language and thought is the ground of epistemic fertility. The notion that theoretical physicists will write equations, with limited symbols that communicate the absolute truth of physical reality is one of the manifestations of this prejudice. The building blocks of the universe continue to get smaller, and more numerous, endlessly we find that which comprises, which comprises, which comprises, down into the limits of our latest exacting scalpel. We'll find that true, exact word that denotes that exact thing that comprises the entire world. Is it an atom, a neutron, a quark, what is next? Until then, let us blindly continue to let technology blossom like a stainless, serpentine flower, growing, coiling endlessly.

My philosophy is simple. For everything that has been thought and done, never assume that it cannot be done in the exact opposite way -- strike out to do the exact opposite of what is customary. The universe is comprised of energy as best as I can understand as a layperson. The categorization of that plastic, explosive, ubiquitous yet nonexistent energy is, as Nietzsche would term it, human -- all too human.

The universe can be counted endlessly, divided, dissected, added and multiplied, but, the universe is not any of those things. Humans are by their nature the ones that attempt to arrive at a number, a being, a thing in which they can think about, to manipulate and to use. But, looking into evolutionary patterns, we realize the formation of attributes and behaviors in a species has little interest in a definitive truth. Evolving a being into something that efficiently ascertains an external truth about reality with either its mind or body is highly complex and difficult. Evolution starts simple, and therefore, would evolve a being up until a point where its chaotic flailing and gesticulations would ever so often allow them to hit some cosmic truths to make them successful. Evolution did not create efficient beings, but rather, it create something simpler: many, many tiny buck shots, the hundreds of billions of tiny humanoid that have lived, that shoot out into reality and with many different slight variation in each member of the species, eventually allows for gradual trends in certain members of the species. One way in which our very distant ancestors came to be successful was by their mechanical adaptations that arbitrarily thrusted them out into reality, unaware of it, unattached but deeply embedded in it. Their random behaviors, basic mental tools that by successful combination eventually led to a very gradual development of the human mind that perceives the universe in its own highly evolved, yet comically simplistic way.

Mathematics seem as if they are highly complex, necessarily true by the access to reality they give us, but in truth, these mathematics that are locked in the natural structure of our brain are the end products of billions of years of senseless and arbitrary bodily deterministic mechanics being thrusted out into reality, eventually allowing for some of these mechanics to work and latch on to a tiny portion of reality. Our rigorous proofs, our basis for all science and empirical data, for all exacting languages -- is there any more of an exacting language than mathematics -- 1 = 1! -- could this all really be just the relatively successful baggage of highly evolved spastic machines waving their limbs and ideas out in the air of reality hoping to latch on to something to allow them to be successful?

What is that for truth? Is that truth? Could it not be that all we say and do is actually false -- 1 = 1 is not true, but rather, it is some false short cut that works like if a schizophrenic person kills somebody who is about to kill them, but they killed them because the voice in their head told them to, not because they perceived the threat and took care of their well-being. 1 = 1 works not because it is surely true, but rather, it works because it works. It has allowed us to do things, to survive and strike out successfully in the world, but it could be no different than a successful schizophrenic who by accident, induced by other causes in his unbalanced, spastic brain continues to make the right decisions unaware of the real decisions that need to be made. Sounds impossible, but consider if you have billions of year to fail over and over again, until the perfect failed system is able to exist perfectly, blissfully unaware resolving all of its issues by accident through shortcuts -- no =, not the pretty unity of thought and reality, but rather a giant explosive burst of mental excrement that shoots out into the world and hits the few nuances of reality by a luck that took billions of year to achieve.

Dare we do the unthinkable and abandon science for something else? What kind of truth might the language of poetry contain? Is poetry really the abstract medium?

Modality of Praxis

I want to develop this idea more, but like everything else I think and write, I'll just start with the cursory. I have rejected ethics and morality. I no longer believe that they are viable, true or beneficial. You can understand this assertion by reading through my blog. Simply, I wish to justify life with life, and never, justify any aspect of life with abstraction or idealization. I want a radical abandonment of metaphysics and any justification that requires a metaphysical framework.

Why are you vegetarian then? Does that not build a lifestyle on moral principles?

Yes, vegetarianism, the common-usage of the term, requires a moral framework to allow for it to sensibly exist. The issue that first needs to be clarified is what do I mean when I refer to myself as a vegetarian?

For one to be an individual, a novel thinker and a person that is not alienated from his own ideology, he must be highly idiosyncratic, which creates semantic difficulties when communicating your ideas. I use the term vegetarian loosely as a quick way to reference myself as a person identified with those that are concerned. The primary difference between a vegetarian, and its subgroupings, and those that eat traditional diets is an issue of concern. Vegetarian are motivated by the presence of new awarenesses and new relationships that occur when one becomes concerned. Traditional diets are monolithic, silent ruins that say nothing and simply exist; the transformative power of concern is not present. Alienation from particular realities are highly present in a traditional diet. The attempt to jump this chasm of alienation, brought to you through concerns is an essential feature of vegetarianism. This is why I use vegetarian to describe myself, because I am concerned, and I am made aware.

Language operates in generalities and labels provide simple summaries. For one to have a truly unique idea, to think differently and to be fully creative, one must invent a new language to accurately describe it. Fortunately for you, I am not Heidegger, and I am not going to spend 200 pages redefining numerous words idiosyncratically and explain them in order to just build my new philosophy. Vegetarianism works as a pragmatic term I use to differentiate myself from those that persist on traditional diets.

Ideology and Praxis
What is the nature of my brand of vegetarianism? There are two modes in which one can practice an ideology. I will label them the dogmatic/religious approach and the experimental/scientific (more in line with the broader, weaker Wissenschaft than the hard English term science).

What is the dogmatic approach? It assumes core axioms that are believed to be evident. In vegetarianism, we can arrive at this with the assertion that the consumption of meat causes environmental damage; environmental damage is wrong because it will cause suffering and death; therefore consuming any meat is wrong because it is causing suffering and death. Another one would be, all living beings have some formation of a nervous system which causes pain when killing the entity. Causing pain is wrong because of the Kantian universalization of the principle (i.e. the golden rule, do on to others as you would want on to you.) Therefore killing any living animal is wrong because it causes pain. These are the unfurling of logical arguments with axioms and justified consequences.

We suddenly enter a very structured prison. You can never consume meat ever in the dogmatic position. Your logic requires justifications, and a contradicting action unhinges the entire project. The person becomes rigorous, inflexible and highly insincere. Their behavior must always be justified beforehand by their deterministic logic, that they love as a ferocious shield against detractors, but malign when they feel trapped and hypocritical.

Humans, as humans, do not function well in this sort of system. It is unnatural, as the justification for the behavior seeks out abstraction and logic, when naturally human behavior is highly passionate, capricious and strange. The dogmatic approach demands us to deny the human, to deny the body, to deny life in the pursuit of ideals, metaphysics and logic. Humans do not operate long on mathematics though; numbers do not sustain; the entire project decays in the total denial of the human condition -- something like a vegetarian anorexia nervosa sets in, a paralysis like Christianity. Passion is lost and the world no longer justifies the person's existence. Wasn't that the whole point though, to save the world so we could have it? The dogmatic approach is a great irony, for it asks us to save the world by throwing it out from our hearts, but then why save it?

The experimental approach is how I've chosen to pursue vegetarianism. There are no axioms, no mathematics to build, no metaphysics to justify life. Life is life -- in absolute purity. One ceases to eat meat as a way of sharpening, intensifying life to strengthen it and make it a canvas of potential creativity. To merely choose and act thrusts you into the world, and allows for a host of realities to appear to you. Some choices allow for a greater expression and understand, while other choices are shallow and superficial and lead no where. To try vegetarianism, as a thing you try everyday in experiment, uncovers a world or perhaps creates a world of intense meaning, where one becomes more connected with their primary source of being in the world -- food. Fauna is different, flora is different, the world seems to be alive again because you are merely just more aware of it through concern. Nothing in the world changed though, you just dared to experiment to see the world differently like an unknown artist paints a tree in a way that it has never been painted before. You become directly invested and connected with life.

Rules are to be used as if rules in a poem form or in a style of artwork; this is what dead ethics can be, where misery is abound and nothingness reigns -- a great art blooms like graffiti on a Church's weathered steeple. The motivation for life reveals itself not as a mathematics, rather, the flux of becoming, the shadowy, black desires that are the vital forces of life and people begin to make their presence available. My vegetarianism was justified by many rational thoughts, but in reality, the rational thoughts were merely justifications for the much more complex and true-to-life passion that I felt for such a lifestyle. I chose to feel and think the way I did before I ever had a truly good justification for it; one seeks justification only after one has been convinced of its vital power in the world by coming in contact with it.

The terror of the nihilism that will onset once values and ethics reveal themselves to be hallow have been a main concern for the last century, but if we do the unthinkable, and dash the whole project and accept morality as hallow, we can suddenly use them again; no longer conceived as universal, necessary truths but rather as creative tools to strengthen our lives through discipline. Our passion and vital energies are no longer lost by the sickening structures of morality's mathematics; our rules are dumbbells that we may use to exercise our lives. We can touch what once belonged to God and manipulate them to rip them from the Heavens to benefit our vital human energies.

In my diet, I choose to eat fish on occasion. I am not a hypocrite because there are no axioms to contradict; only the perpetual experimentation of new ideas and new ways of being. What stays, what fades away? Like good art or an indelible poem there is something that is beyond words to justify why it is great. An experimental practice of something, allows for the eventual creation of something that works, just clearly works well by how it allows for life as life to exist in a meaningful, fulfilling and empowering way. There won't be a quiet abstract equation for life in the future, only a fertile and healthy human body engaged in life.

Jesus Will Return One Day: Nameless, Faceless, Nonexistent -- Who is Jesus?

The desire for equality is lecherous and self-destructive. The notion of equality is the affirmation of another's power, the establishing of yourself as the other to an absolute measure. If you are to be free, do not seek equality, fairness or justice. Seek an absolute individuation, a narration of self, become reclusive, refuse a dialectic that defines you relative to anything other than yourself. Eradicate language, create new languages through art, become joyfully mad, exactingly hysterical. New concepts, new modes of being paved by the un-thought words that appeared from nothingness into a naturalized, essentialized fact like Abraham's god. There is no God part of the human brain, no God gene, perhaps there is a predisposition for mysticism; all cultures have developed mystical thoughts, but only one main cultural source formulated a monotheistic notion of those primal feelings that developed into an metaphysical plague that ensnares every word and therefore everything thing. Ideas are alive by our unknowing and unwilling participation in their absolute permeating quality in every aspect of life. What if gods and passions reappeared to us one day by the force of a person madder than Abraham, as they float down from unknown worlds and sweep us into a cultural development that free us of our sickening, Christian (Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Platonic) relationships to the material world, to our bodies, to the primal, absolute realities of the complexes and dynamics of true life. A new metaphysics, a new mathematics, a new epistemology, a new ethics; it is bound to happen in our age of nothingness and meaninglessness. Everything is an empty cliche that has been coined by a slavish, vengeful, petty ghost from some Near East slum that the earth had rightfully quashed underneath its sands. These brittle, crystalline structures of language and meaning that shine unabashed, hide their empty caverns, and blind us from the reality that they will all cave in on themselves and new signs and symbols will be formulated again.

Texts and Oceans

The body is a text? Perhaps, but texts are written upon blank pages -- a tabula rasa. If we were to write upon the body as a text, suddenly there are signs, there is meaning bleeding through the pages. "I did not write this, I must erase it," thinks the theoretician, but upon erasing the inconsistency, the glaring and marring blood, new stains begin to seep through. We write incessantly, transforming the body, adorning the body, seemingly creating the body, but we keep losing what we have written in the pooling blood. The body speaks before we write, perhaps we should listen to it? It may be too hard to read the bloody runes of our body because once understood, once brought into a dialectic with our minds, it is like hearing the voice of God and being annihilated by the sheer power of his presence; one must accept the truth of mortality, of the runic blood and organs, the shit and sweat "penned" by billions of years of incessant, mouthless forces. The power of our wielded pen is made meaningless by the endless flux of constant becoming of billions of imperceptible, undefinable forces that hit an amusingly small lottery -- like a win of 5 dollars on a 2 dollar scratch ticket that allowed the imperfection of humanity to arise.

Every sign we adorn to the body, we think is a definitive mark and relegates the being and its behavior, but really, the mark is a romantic notion, and its study is the business of the romantic and painfully all-too-human philosopher. The mark is scrawled on a piece of parchment that floats on top of a ocean with unknowable depth and size. The waves move the piece of paper accordingly, the sign is washed away or remains by the force of the ocean, a rather trivial event if it stays or remains.