Wednesday, July 30


Life is horrific.

What we call life, this endless variety
Of organized matter that developed tissue
Differentiation, body plans, digestive systems,
Locomotion, nerve centers, musculature,
Weapons, armor, better weapons, better armor,
And better weapons is just what it seems:
An arms race to compete for a scarcity of
Resources. It is the desire to procure resources
At the expense of others that drives life onward,
That, indeed, IS life. No other motive, no art,
No wonder of gazing upon stars, postulating
Any higher purpose, no desire to build for aesthetics,
No propoganda of righteousness, no inner reflection,
No knowledge for its own sake, no experimentation,
No pleasure seemingly benign or existential,
No sense of beauty or springboard of new ideas
To propel us into the stars or into the future,
No altruism, no city-building, no bright exchange
Of colorful words, beguiling music, no religion
Or feeling of wonder nor diversity of culture,
No race to cure disease or dreams of the noble savage;
Not one of these things can offer a greater reason
For our existence, and for the existence of all that
Walks, crawls, writhes, swings, digs, or flies
Around us, than that very coarse and humiliating
Base fact that belies the motivations of them all.




images used under 'free use' act. all rights reserved.

21 comments:

Unknown said...

I like way you've used the images - just look how we've 'evolved'.

Metamatician said...

Thanks. You've gotten my point exactly.

Unknown said...

It was well made, so easy to get.

Maalie said...

It sounds like you've had another Dawkins fix. I am sure he would be astonished (and delighted) at the way you have portrayed this.

By the way, it is Lammas Day today. I hope you have a fine Lammas Day.

Unknown said...

And an excellent choice for the first picture too. It's very peaceful, makes me want to go to the beach and submerge myself completely for a few moments - the bath tub's just not the same.

Hans said...

Life isn't horrific - it's just what it is. You're right, it's the ol' fight for survival and we try to find pleasure along the way. Each of us in our short life-span might as well make the most of it. Whatever brings you peace or happiness. I believe we are organisms that are born, live, and die - evolving with every generation. Nothing more, nothing less. It's depressing to think there isn't more to it, so people hope there is, therefore religions, etc. Anyway, good essay - I couldn't see the photos well, so I'll get back on Windows to see those. I'm sure they are fitting.

Metamatician said...

Well, what you've said is spot-on of course, but...

"It's depressing to think there isn't more to it"

...I guess is my point.

Unknown said...

I'm unable to find it depressing that there isn't more. We all have the capacity to learn and love and most of us, to chose how we want to live. All those choices and opportunities are enough for me. I'm happy to live my time here as well as I can and I don't wish for any more after that, unless, if I'm being greedy, another lifetime to learn and experience more of what I couldn't in the first.

What is depressing is how some people decide to spend the time they have.

And yes, I know I need to read The Selfish Gene ;)

Anonymous said...

Well, it's perfect.

and, AND: I'm with Raelha, I think. It doesn't depress me that there isn't more. My depression is different; it comes from a weaker place. The part of me that can mull this over is invigorated by the nothingness. The perfect blankness of it all. What kind of thinking can I do if I can reject every precept? If there is no belief, only thought: what can we really think? and do?

I fall down at it all the time, but I've got a thing for getting scraped knees, I guess.

And, of course, that's my city that you've included as the "evolution" of life. That's not nearly the most horrific block in midtown, btw...

Metamatician said...

Maalie me old oyster, why yes, I HAVE just read the third edition of The Selfish Gene (last time I read it in was in its second edition). Thank you as always for taking the time to read my little poem and for the compliment - I'm not sure if Dawkins would be delighted at it or dismiss it as 'poetic nonsense glorifying the very straightforward nature of the thing,' but I'll take your suggestion because it makes me feel better.

Happy belated Lammas Day to do as well! I have commented where appropriate on your own web log.

lorenzothellama said...

Hello Meta. That's bloody great mate.

Metamatician said...

Thanks Lorenzo!

Metamatician said...

Georges,

What ARE the worst intersections in the big application?

Do you still ride?

Metamatician said...

Raelha, that is an entirely valid opinion - or may emotional response is a more accurate label for it. My brother feel the same way. He's the most agnostic person there is (well tied with me and a lot of other folk), but the though of there suddenly being "nothing" doesn't bother him one bit. It's like before you were born, or when you go under general anaesthesia... it's not "like" anything. It's surely not horific or depressing.

What would inevitably be depressing or Elvish in the Tolkien sense would be endless life, stretching your memories and very fabric of being thinner and thinner of the eons even as your knowledge skyrocketed. Living in Heaven would be truly horrible.

But that's still not what my point is. I'm not talking about thing AFTER life is over. I'm talking about the mechanism of life itself. It's a horrible gladiatorial battle for survival where most species aside from humans don't die of "old age"... they die because they get savagely eaten but a fitter specimen when they've lost their competitive edge. It's savage, and horrific.

The word may seem extreme, but I think it fits. When others honor life with such words as "beautiful" and "majestic," I at least want to throw my equally strong term into the ring for what it really is, to me. It's awful.

Maybe necessary (whatever that means), maybe inevitable (most probably), maybe... whatever. But to me it's awful at a gut level. I can talk myself out of that sort of feeling but it's an intellectual rather than natural process. When you're in the wild, and you see how life (not us, but everything else) really ekes out its living, it's totally cutthroat and hard to call "beautiful" if we're going to use such emotionally charged terms at all.

I maintain it's "horrific," because I like that word, and because life is, in real gut sense that I've felt many looking with grey eyes over the undulating tops of crowds flowing like army ants in the concrete nests of this world.

JOVIAN said...

do you have another brother i don't know about?

Unknown said...

Meta, aren't opinions always valid to the person who has them?

But anyways, it was more a reply to Empath's comment than to your orignal post. I'd agree with you (discounting the human animal for a moment, assuming s/he dies of old age) that life is savage, lean maybe, but it can also have it's majestic moments.

However, humans are capable of far more savagery than other species and what we do to those other species is far more brutal than what they do amongst themselves in the name of pure survival (my own argument falls down here when I think of my own cats hunting purely for pleasure - I was gifted a dead mole on the stairs last night - but then again that could be seen as the fault of humans too for domesticising them and taking away their need to hunt for food).

Metamatician said...

Humans never domesticated cats. Cats are more like partners than pets. I've a whole book that goes into this I'd be happy to loan you that makes excellent distinctions between the relationship we have with them versus that which we have with dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, or any other pets or domesticated animals. Cats and their relationship with humans appears to be unique.

But anyways, yes, you've rather made my point that life is savage and brutal. It may have its moment of glory, usually in the form of scoring a kill or eating when you've got an empty stomach (I'm thinking of nonhuman animals, but this is true for us as far as eating when in the grips of hunger). I'm not sure how triumphant it is just to escape destruction.

Now if you're going to get into love, religious feelings of grace, and so on, that's another conversation. I personally believe that can be explained materialistically / "selfishly" to propagate genes too, which would make me either a cynic or a realist, depending on what YOU (the other person in this argument) believe.

There aren't any answers. Just opinions, and yes of course your point about all opinions being valid is correct.

Anonymous said...

Ride? Erm, no, not so much these days.

Worst intersections in Manhattan generally involve bridge/tunnel approaches. There are plenty of bad-traffic intersections, but nothing else can really compare to the approaches to the Holland (~Canal Street) and Lincoln (various approaches between 31st and 40th Streets) tunnels: clusterfuck city.

I think Canal Street may be my least favorite to drive. Fortunately, I hardly ever have to!

On a bike, Manhattan becomes kind of perfect. Sure, there are some deadly spots around town and cabs/trucks are vicious, but there are hundreds of miles of dedicated bike paths.

It's hot and rainy in NY today. Blurg.

Unknown said...

Meta, I never realised that about cats. Although of course I always knew they were special. Yes please on the book - add it to the pile ;)

I´d prefer to read the Selfish Gene - and any other relevant material before discussing your other point. However, how would express those opinons to a woman who has no wish of her own to have children because she thinks there are already too many people in the world but still likes to help others whenever and however she can?

Metamatician said...

To a true "gene-centric" view, helping others who have similar values and/or are kin related has the same net effect of preserving the genes you have. It's not the individual organism or even his or her offspring which count; these are the "survival machines" the genes have constructed around them to be their senses on the world. It's the survival or similar genotypes which the gene "favours" (though this type of language is anthropomorphic and of course the reality posits no conscious will at the genetic level) and that natural forces conspire to give you your values (via your brain chemicals, upbringing, etc.) to favour altruism toward those most similar genetically to you.

I'm not defending or rejecting the idea, just giving you and idea of how the book (and Dawkins and his school of thought) might start in upon your inquiry. Good question though, I asked the same myself whilst reading the book and still have questions. I'm not a "Dawkins Man" by any means, but he does provide lots of good examples after the technical and statistical explanations to make his point and certainly has thought about these kinds of seemingly at-odds cases with some rigour. You may agree or disagree that his explanation is plausible, but it's not as though he neglects such cases in his theories.

I guess that will have to do until you read the book for yourself. On a different vein I'd recommend bumping "The Seven Daughters of Eve" as far forward as possible on your nonfiction queue as it's turned out to be a wonderfully readable and fascinating account of European (primarily, though other cultures are touched on) descendance and inheritance utilising the very newest techniques (into the 2000s) of mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal descent) analysis to come to some starting conclusions about our (ancestral Europeans') origins.

My book of the month. :)

Metamatician said...

lord auch,

So you mean the movie "Clovertown" pretty much got it all correct and was an absolutely accurate portrayal of the traffic patterns and entries and egresses from Manhattan? That and that other stalwart film of NYC realism I base my life around, "Live Free or Die Hard"? ;-)

I just love how NYC morphs from film to film to become whatever the director needs for his particular, preposterous plot to seem plausible. (p-p-p-p-p...)

Archived Posts

Search The Meta-Plane