Do Not Fuck the Fish (to Nits)

You're not going to see many people who get sexually aroused by goldfish and who hoard bobby pins as if the greatest treasure, but there likely is at least one in this world. Anyway, I think that between you and me there's little deviation in the kinds of aesthetics and material we'd appreciate; I think we're pretty common that way. Put us in a room with twenty random people and we'd probably agree upon which are attractive. Place us in front of randomly selected artifacts, paintings, sculptures, furniture, we'd also probably broach the same conclusions, though here the taste is less defined by the media and therefore our respective experiences will inflect our choices far more (and the taste is less defined by the media precisely because the body and all of its vain accoutrements prove more psychologically accessible, pliant and urgent to people in terms of soliciting from them purchases. Nothing sells like selling the necessities of life: food, sex, shelter, clothing. Tapping into basic, primal needs is, like inducing fear, a very persuasive way of selling something).

("Common" is not a bad word in all instances and to be a contrarian merely to avoid any stigma associated with it is itself, ironically, "common;" because the self-defeating messages paving a free path for rank consumerism include the idea that individuality, being different from everyone else, is either a "right" or morally desirable or what one ought to be (depending on the context, "individuality," like "freedom" or "reason" is a word whose meaning changes according to the "needs" of the elite exploiters of the world who bind concepts in an insidiously deceptive way to induce a specific attitude in the populace that allows them to continue being elite exploiters. It's a conundrum. Hence how a jean company can advertise actors glowering defiantly at the camera, each saying "I'm me, I play by my own rules," to sell a mass-produced textile so produced with the explicit aim of homogenizing it for as much profit as possible for the producer: people do not seem to realize the contradiction, the absurdity).

My point is more than one but there's one I'd fasten on: our brains have been programmed from the get-go. This is not an evil or bad but entirely natural, biologically-necessitated means of survival within the species. The program itself needs to be examined; what we'll teach our offspring to give them a better shot at survival and a better life, a means to fulfill their own biological imperative and reproduce in a way that's perpetually viable for us until we learn the thing we're here to learn; or conversely never learn to the point of some finalizing conclusion. How do we put them closer to God?

When I asked if you would prefer a muscled stomach or a diamond ring, reflexively there's a cringing from you as from most people who know that we're not long physically for this earth and that there's something more to us than sacks of undulating flesh. Yet answering the question one way or the other, even if by saying both are equally desirable, doesn't make you superficial. Or put another way, it makes you superficial on some plane of your existence, one that many share; but it doesn't define you. Stomach or diamond. Sex or food. Necessities (the first a species-necessity; the second, both an individual and species necessity, although true asexuality in humans is extremely rare). Boils down to ancient precepts, central to the very gnostic philosophy or theology I mentioned not long ago I'd been reading about, one where gnosticism and the traditional Abrahamic (not to mention Buddhist!) religions meet: there is the spirit and there is the body. Jesus fuses the two at least in Catholic ritual when wine becomes blood; food, flesh (very fitting; my kind of thinking). Appreciating material and appreciating a body for the food and sex they represent's no shame. But here's the crux of it: like wine into blood, the apt metaphor is the interdependency between the body and the spirit, not how they differ. Chris Langdon, an American and one of the most intelligent humans on the planet (he's a bouncer at a bar :), proclaims he can mathematically prove that there is an afterlife. And, again, Christ says here is body and here is spirit and never do the two run in opposition or detached parallel tracks. In our death our bodies do persist as energy recycled.

And again, returning to an earlier point and binding it to the one I wish to make in relation to us and how, where, our perceptions and beliefs meet, I say that the biological necessities, of themselves blameless as the body of an infant, as needy, as wholesome, are appropriated by exploiters of humanity and used with language, imagery, law, and military might to coerce us and deceive us into enriching them materially so that their offspring alone will perpetuate (this is the capitalist form of euthanasia, a program laughably identified as originating with the Nazis when in fact its a concept at least as old as the ancient Spartan, and with a very long tradition of advocates). And in short, we end up fulfilling our needs--all of them good and natural, keeping these vessels intact so that the spirit might soar always--according to truly self-destructive because totally illogical pathways. A woman who gets a boob job to have huge tits does so in obedience to a script that is precisely fucking designed to make her the most unreliable mother in the world; and the illogical part is how a physical attribute which in the natural world denotes for a male a good prospective mate because she can feed his offspring amply (such is the instinctive reaction) becomes inverted: she cannot feed his offspring amply because those mammalian glands are fake and produce nothing but poison. The qualities that make a person a good catch are really the ones that lead to, enrich, and in all ways harmonize with the spirit: loyalty, endurance, faith. And you are a very fine example of a good catch, Nits. And if you were not, I don't think I could help loving you anyway.

If you'd have asked me the same question, diamond or "nice" tits/ass, both constructed representatives of real needs, I would have said both are the same in importance: you can't have sex if you're dead from hunger; and what good's being fed if you can't help fulfill your biological imperative to perpetuate the species? The thing is a diamond is not directly food; and the form of a body is not directly sex.

As an related aside, I'll end saying this: some people say perpetuating the species is not merely overrated but pointless; they say this because they have no faith in anything or think they don't; it's been stripped from them by concepts like "individuality" which align and are used to both support and be used as support for other concepts, like true nihilism. The fact that their very bodies cry out to assert the value of reproduction eludes them; and they absurdly render sex (illusorily) meaningless; they are, in short, mad, bungled by the circular, counter-intuitive beliefs that the system pathologizes in the population.