On Wed, 28 May 1997, Andrew S. Bonci, BA, DC, DAAPM wrote:
> Karl Mac Mc Kinnon wrote:
> However, does this require a philosophy? Let's say I'm born
> anencephalic (without higher cortical brain function). I can't think,
> but I can eat, crap and breath.
Actually, you can't eat. You lack the brain part that alows the
swallow reflex.
Does carnality require philosophy? It depends on your definition
of philosophy, I guess. If your idea of philosophy is the divine science
of the human mind ala DesCartes. It all breaks down to epistmology, with
LaVeyan epistmology on one side and Geertzian (?) on the other. I've
never read any Geertze exept for enought o make me HATE HATE HATE the man
and want to kill him and everyone who agrees with him. I think it was
about one paragraph, but he was talked about a lot in one of my classes.
Geertzian epistomology would be something like this.
Subject <---- Conception <----- Object.
So when we see a door, we think "Door." All our perceptions are
linquisticly qualified, and we think in terms of language.
LaVeyan epistomology states that although words are the
solidification of thoughts, we don't NEED words to understand life. We
can understand EVERYTHING through the flesh. This absolute psysical
sensation is called "Undefiled Wisdom." Deep LeVayanism is pretty much
Platonism/Pythagorianism. In that the realization is made that sensation
is calabrated towards survival, and not towards perception. Occasionally
some will see "the sunlight in Plato's cave," which as I understand it is
pretty much what Nix makes you see in Lord of Illusions. You -see- the
object like a strand of speghetti, where NOW is just a cross section of
time. Most LaVeyan's have only an intellectual understanding of Deep
LeVeyanism becuase, as I have said, humans do not function in this mode of
perception.
The bottom line is that a linquisticly based human, what Geertz
calls "homo symbolicus," does not know what he likes to eat, not really.
To him, "I like to eat meat." is a sentence with maybe some pictures and
a memory or two attached to it. It's words. To the carnally bassed
human, what LeVey calls normal, "I like to eat meat" is a Pavlovian
response to the smell of meat.
What was I talking about? Anyway, if I was to 100% follow my
instincts I would be a sugar junky. The instinct is desinged to go after
the brightest, sweetest, most calory dense food around. Even the
frankenfruits we eat today are nothing compared to Cap'n Crunch OOOPS!
All Berries. THAT'S instinct. NeanderThin requires that we use our
lopsided little minds to say, "yes" and "no" to foods we don't normally
think about. While this may be considered control over instincts, and
therefore evil, I remind you that antifreeze is one of the biggest sweet
things around.
> For me a paleodiet allows me to yield
> to more primal drives; food and exercise. Relying on my mind for
> dietary choices is contrived and ultimately artificial (See Nicholson on
> Naturalism and Kylberg on "intuitive therapy").
Bullshit. "Is this poisonous?" is WHY ominvores in general
(including primates) have large brains.
> It becomes interesting
> that the manufactured structures of the mind become hurdles for us to
> rediscover what is natural, healthy, and what animals do without
> philosophizing. Bill Cosby says that we have to go to school to learn
> natural child-birth.
Geertz believes that without culture human being wouldn't even be
able to fuck. I went to cold upon hering that. It is so totally oposite
of LeVeyan philosophy. The Pythagorian word for Geertz's "humans" is
Thanatos. I use the quotes because Pythagorians don't even consider that
type of person a human being, and I agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Alexis McKinnon|I live as the beasts in the fields, rejoicing in the
SP2 |fleshly life. I favor the edible and curse the inedible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
