Here is the secret history of life: animals evolved as
machines produced by genes and proteins, working in concert with undead natural
forces and processes such as natural selection. Those machines strive to carry
out all the stages of their life cycle, meaning that they grow, eat, fight,
mate, reproduce, and die. As species become more varied and competition for
resources becomes more complex, animals evolve more sophisticated control
centers and social relationships, which partially liberate them from their
primitive cycles. For example, mammals learn to play and not just to practice
fighting but for the joy of it. More powerful brains were used mostly to
analyze opportunities in the outer environment, but eventually awareness and
rationality were turned inward, leading in humans to self-creation and to an
egoistic awareness of all other things in relation to the self.
Those are preliminary matters of biology and psychology. But the secret is that the difference
between animalism and personhood lies in a dreadful enlightenment and a
terrifying freedom to choose how to respond to the existential crisis. As
reason and consciousness are more and more finely attuned, as humans build up more
rigorous conceptions of the facts, and as we learn to objectify instead
of just projecting the products of our imagination and indulging in our
childlike yearnings, we confront the horror at the root of all things: Being is undead and there is no God but
only natural forces, materials, and processes that parody personhood except
when they transcend themselves and produce sentient creatures who are then
cursed to learn their deeper undead nature. Like the artificial person in
science fiction stories who doesn’t realize she’s a robot, but who scratches away
at her organic skin, sees a metallic surface in the mirror, and goes mad from
discovering the gap between her deluded self-image and the unnerving reality,
every authentic person faces an existential crisis culminating in the question
of how to live with philosophical illumination.
This history isn’t progressive. There is no purpose of
natural creation; rather, there’s an undead flow towards apocalypse and
oblivion at the end of time, at the eventual extinction of beings which will reveal
that the world has been inwardly empty all along. Life just happened to evolve
and some mammals just happened to inherit the faculties which made them hyperintelligent. These are accidents of
evolution, but they have the monumental consequence that through an enlightened
soul’s cognitive faculties the cosmic zombie, the natural universe, is equipped
to know itself for the monstrosity that it is, whereupon that doomed creature
must decide what to do with such accursed knowledge. The noble lie in the West,
originating from the plagiarisms in Genesis, is that self-knowledge is a sin,
that Eve chose to disobey God and so God punished Adam and Eve because the Lord
was afraid of having rivals. All of that is mere personification, which is the
projection of comforting images sprouting from the minds of our more naïve
ancestors. Of course, we weren’t created by any persons other than our
biological parents and we don’t choose to be self-aware; instead, we acquire
that power in so far as we’re embedded in the decaying plenum of the undead
god. Genes and proteins and social relations align so that children tend to
learn a language, to rationally process the contents of their conscious
awareness, and to be domesticated as dictated by their cultural conventions.
That’s our species’ life cycle—except that ours is one in which there’s a
rupture that curses us with satanic freedom: we can choose to go back
to sleep, to live as animals, forsaking our potential for transcendence, or we can choose how to transcend.
This may surprise you,
but most biological humans aren’t persons in the existential, spiritual sense.
Psychologically, they have minds or selves as well as a capacity for self-control,
compared to nonhuman species. But they’re also antiphilosophical, meaning they
don’t undertake the promethean project of inquiring into the objective truth;
instead, they succumb to delusions, noble lies, and bodily distractions. These
are the beta herds, the human animals that grovel and scramble and otherwise debase
themselves for fleeting advantages in our dominance hierarchies, blind to the
philosophical significance of their actions and to the universe’s aesthetic status—which
is to speak of the horror within all things that leaves intelligent creatures
dumbfounded until they devise noble means of coping.
Alpha and Omega Forms of Perseverance
There are mainly two such means, the paths of the alphas and of the omegas, these being the chief enlightened segments of our populations. Alphas try to be happy by
overpowering others. They exploit the masses’ fear, gullibility and
instincts, knowing there’s no God to stop them or any supernatural justice or
salvation. The most successful alphas live as psychopathic parasites, as actual models for the gods of the world’s religions. The alphas’
tragedy is that their egoism greatly empowers them, but that power also corrupts
them so that they become as monstrous as any undead natural force, standing
finally as avatars, as incarnations of the amoral deity. Antichrists indeed.
By contrast with the extroverted tempters and rulers of the
beta masses, there are the introverted omegas, the outsiders and outcasts who practice asceticism, rebelling against
nature instead of excelling at being animals. Whereas the alpha learns of
the objective facts in the course of doing business and eventually extinguishes
her conscience and thus her inner self as she acquires godlike power, the omega
learns the truth through philosophical reflection or artistic creation, which
adds layers to her mind,
increasing her self-control but also deepening her capacity for angst. The more
independent the ego, the greater the anguish upon realizing the forbidden truth
that even that exquisite jewel of creation, the potentially all-knowing and
all-powerful human person is an ingrowth of an undead, cosmically-proportioned
corpse. So whereas the alpha uses her enlightenment to build an outer world to
match her deranged self-image, the omega retreats to her inner space, having
been cast out from society and from the natural cycle of life. Alphas build material worlds through
industry and sociopathic techniques of population control, while omegas beget
worldviews and oeuvres, not biological heirs to empires but brainchildren that
testify to their creators’ existential awakening.
Alphas have attributes conventionally deemed strengths which
incline them to their path, such as extroversion, ambition, amorality, physical
beauty, financial wealth, and the like. Meanwhile, omegas have certain social weaknesses
that draw them to the wilderness: philosophical curiosity, skepticism,
humility, anxiety, artistic sensitivity, scrupulosity, physical
unattractiveness, and relative poverty. These omega traits make for both social
failure and for spiritual illumination, and so as the alienated omega warily casts
her light of reason on the natural facts, she’s in no position to respond to
them by attempting to beat the undead god at its game, as it were. The omega
isn’t fit for material godhood. Instead
of tapping into the undead chaos within her, exacerbating her lusts for sex and
power, she dwells on the moment of choice and transcendence, further detaching
herself from the world by withdrawing from social games and renouncing her
birthrights. Again, sufficiently sentient creatures learn the appalling truth and decide how to react, whereupon the mammalian life cycle goes off the
rails. Alphas become living gods, introducing an element of psychology to
nature’s undead divinity, whereas omegas neurotically linger over the
existential problem itself, overanalyzing it and becoming less and less capable
of normal human functioning. At the
end of omegahood sits the hermit in her cave, the reclusive genius who knows
the world as her foe and who tragically battles it by not participating in the
more egregious or optional natural processes.
Theistic vs Existential Ascetics
Noble ascetics have been badly represented by their theistic
counterparts that practice only an instrumental
kind of detachment. These unenlightened pretenders believe they should renounce
nature because a greater, supernatural world awaits them so that earthly defeat
is only a prelude to victory in God’s eyes. By contrast, enlightened ascetics
understand the horrifying fact of divinity, which is that nature blindly and
dumbly creates itself for no purpose whatsoever, leaving us with no redemption
or prospect of everlasting glory. These
omegas, then, renounce the world not as a means to a crass end, but they do so aesthetically, severing themselves from
nature and society as an end in itself, for the sheer thrill of doing battle
with the cosmic leviathan. Categorical as opposed to instrumental
asceticism is an art form: the ascetic turns her life
into a great work of art in that she chooses originality over cliché in all her endeavours and acts without much thought for
the consequences, because her strange actions themselves are aesthetically
appealing in the natural context. Just as a painter, musician, novelist or
actor may work obsessively in spite of the infamous difficulty of making a
living in her field, the ascetic omega prefers her unconventional life choices
because they’re necessitated by her creative vision. Chastity, frugality, vow of poverty,
mortification of the flesh—these aren’t ways of proving yourself worthy of a
supernatural order, but are fitting artificialities, these being some miracles
hidden in plain sight. There is no great reward for the authentic
ascetic nor any permanent recognition of her creativity, since all things will
come to naught, but there’s somber beauty in the tragic hero’s ill-fated
struggle against overwhelming odds. At any rate, the omega makes due with this
silver lining, choosing a life of philosophy and art criticism, as she’s
content to mock the beta herd’s pretentions and to condemn the alpha’s evil
rather than to commit suicide.
What motivates the enlightened omega? Anger and sadness: disgust with cliché, with the absurdity
of the untold wastefulness in nature, with the abomination of the world’s
mindless self-origination from chaos, with the countless injustices in animals’
desperate struggles, and with the grotesque degradations of subpersonal humans;
and pity for all organisms for being
trapped and doomed, but pity especially for enlightened souls who are burdened
with excessive knowledge and awareness which in the end redeem no one. These
kinds of anger and sadness are the causes of existential asceticism, and of
course the fact that some social outsiders are so motivated doesn’t add any moral value to
their behaviour. However, in so far as these are the sources of the ascetic’s
anomalous, tragically heroic lifestyle, they’re also integral to her artistry
and so they’re the stuff of aesthetic
value, which is value enough in the heartless cosmos.
I can go with the last paragraph of this succinct rant quite well, anger and sadness are good markers to have and recognise in ourselves, and markers of difference from others. Anger and sadness help us recognise others too. But 'As reason and consciousness are more and more finely attuned, as humans build up more rigorous conceptions of the facts'? does seem to suggest some inexorable sub-Calvinist Progress to something ever bigger and worse/better depending on how you believe predestination divides species and people. I accept change and accept that some changes are measurable improvements. Putting an end to battery farming does improve life for chickens for instance. But I do not subscribe to progress through division ala Calvinism or Popular Darwinism, both of which feed the ego with poison. Good food for thought all through, though. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI meant to be talking there about objective knowledge, such as the scientific kind. It's a kind of progress in that a worldview can be more or less adequate to the world. It's like having a better or a worse map of the terrain. Scientific models are better than pseudoscientific ones, for example. Instead of anything being predestined, though, the value of having an adequate map is subjective since it depends on our interest in surviving by controlling natural processes through technology. Anyway, thanks for reading!
DeleteI agree that genuine scientific models are better than pseudo-scientific models for living by, and I can imagine what you write about would work well if scientific understanding and practice were as integral to a given society as consumerism is to Western Society. Science is a practice/vocation requires both community and individuality. The original Greek idea of Democracy was based on a restricted active citizenship (slaves, women, and children could not fight therefore could not become citizens). If we could make scientific endeavour a condition of citizenship of society and broaden the means of admission into literate scientific activity then it would be big experiment indeed. Perhaps with the widespread knowledge of global warming we need that, and in part now have the potential for it. But it is a different model of citizenship to anything we know now, when 3 billion humans in the world cannot read.
DeleteHey Ben,
ReplyDeleteI kind-of grasp, intellectually, your archetype of renunciant artist. Or, asceticism for aestheticism.
A big motivation that I had for practicing yoga meditation and taking vows of renunciation (I was an ordained monk for 14 years) was to "tap" into my intuitive and creative "powers". It seems strange, looking back now. I was a rock musician in high school and college, writing songs, seeking creativity. Somehow I segued my art into being a renunciant, ascetic monk. I'll have to reflect on this artistic monastic aesthetic archetype some more to grasp what it's deep significance to me. Maybe I'll try to write a blog post, inspired by yours, to try to share more about my experience of monasticism and creativity or art.
You mention "cosmic zombie" and "undead god" frequently. It would be helpful, since you use those concepts lots and they are not familiar, if you provided "definitions" in a link, diagram, or maybe a page of key concepts defined. Just a humble suggestion from a grateful reader.
Cheers
I'd like to read that blog post of yours.
ReplyDeleteI try to provide links to relevant background articles that go further into the key terms. You're right that in this one I didn't do that for "undead." The main article where I introduce the term is called "Darwinism and Nature's Undeadness" (links below). Another helpful background article might be "God and Science: The Ironic Theophany." The undeadness metaphor also ties into Philipp Mainlander's dark theology, which I discuss in "The World's Creation as God's Self-Destruction." One of my favourite articles that I wrote "Life as Art: Nature's Strangeness and the Aesthetic Attitude."
But if you're interested just in what I mean by "undead god," you might check out that first article I mentioned. Don't forget that they're all in the Map of the Rants (if you're reading this on a mobile device, try loading the web version of the page and going to Map of the Rants in the top bar).
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/10/darwinism-and-natures-undeadness.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/11/god-and-science-ironic-theophany.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/09/divine-creation-as-gods-self-destruction.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/11/life-as-art-morality-and-natures.html
Hi Ben: I read your definitions of undead in your Darwinism post. Let's see if I understand what you mean by "undead". I assume you are using "undead" as a rhetorical meme for all living/dead beings as zombies. I agree life is a mix of death. But zombies are fictional, and more dead than alive. Whereas humans are actual, and more alive than dead. Maybe I get it?
ReplyDeleteLoved your post on Asceticism, Mysticism and Creativity. I think and write about that "exclusively" on my blog SkepticMeditations. We corresponded early this year. I hope your new career and work is going well. Scott
Yes, I remember our correspondence. You were an ascetic for a long while, as I recall. What do you think about this combination of existentialism and asceticism? Someone like Woody Allen who's supposed to be familiar with the dark truths of nature says we shouldn't stew in angst or in introverted meditation, but should get out there and live life while we have the chance. That's a very Jewish attitude (writing as a Jew myself). Secular Judaism is pretty lame now, though. As I write elsewhere, Judaism was once a religion for outsiders who wandered for years in the desert and merely fantasized about having imperial power like their neighbours. Now that Jews have that power, via Israel's protection by the US, their double-crossing this-worldliness is utterly obnoxious. They appropriate the fantasies of their introverted, angst-ridden ancient ancestors so they can pretend that even though they're materialistic, they're spiritually noble because they have their traditions and their social club. As I see it, Judaism doesn't even warrant atheistic refutation. (Hmm, I wonder where that rant came from.)
DeleteI'm not sure you quite have the undeadness idea. My point was to formulate a postmodern kind of pantheism, so the idea is that *all* natural things as such are undead, meaning they're neither intelligently directed nor inert or chaotic. The universe simulates artistic creativity when it creates worlds upon worlds, but its forces and elements flow like a zombie horde. The universe creates itself as a crumbling zombie creates its altering corpse, by decaying greatly over time.
The exception is that organisms are alive, even though physically we're undead too. This makes for the existential crisis: how should living things react to realizing that they're tics in a zombie's decaying corpse, i.e. in a lifeless abomination of a world that creates itself in a mockery of our pretensions to greatness on spiritual or artistic grounds? How could humans be noble creatures when undead (physical, chemical, etc) systems are far superior creators?
Many of Woody's films are funny and thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteRE: Ascetics, or people who practice severe self-discipline and abstention. I want to be careful not to lump all ascetics into one category. There's religious, physical, intellectual, artistic, virtually all kinds of motivations for a person to subject themselves to severe discipline and abstention. Olympic athletes are an example. Writers who shut themselves into their rooms to finish a book or play. Monks who sit in meditation for hours everyday. The method is a means to an end. In the case of the monks, the illusion of finding a miraculous power within oneself or the universe is probably a waste of time. Yet, the discipline and insights into the mind and the illusions of self can be useful.
I'll have to read more of your posts to get your undeadness ideas.
How to become spiritually abnormal.
ReplyDeleteTruth is you’re rebellious to anything. Let’s just say we are making our ancestors cry and we can see further than this. I hope your journey takes you far.
We likely would be making our ancestors cry, as it were, because postmodern feminism and our over-reliance on technology make us soft. Still, should we really be proud of our ancestors? Macho culture is fully psychotic. The ancients were tough but also ignorant and tribal. Our distant ancestors survived and thus gave us our chance at life, but survival should be the bare minimum standard, given our special mental capacities.
DeleteInteresting read. I see many layers of perspective. Do you feel that yours is superior or the ultimate truth? Do you continue to seek knowledge? Have you found that your enlightenment has caused you grief in your life? Would you rather be happy? You can descend infinitely deep into thought and never reach a conclusion. Some layers of thought may even repeat themselves depending on what pieces you are putting together. Reality is what you want it to be. There are infinite truths because there is no one truth. Perspective is everything. You will never understand everything. I recognized many of the topics you discussed. I hope you find balance.
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I doubt that balance should be a particularly high ideal. It strikes me as nobler to suffer for the right reasons. Happiness is for sheep and for slumbering consumers, not for philosophers.
DeleteWhen you say reality is what you want it to be, that sounds like the New Thought "Law of Attraction," which is that "positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life." May I ask where you're coming from in terms of your critical perspective? When you say there are infinite truths, is that based on the multiverse theory in physics?
I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm working out this worldview in these writings on my blog.