> If some people are like, truly, actually, totally, or more like
> basically a bunch of rattlesnakes under all the stupid looking
> backward baseball caps, and the crumby looking tattoos, the vain
> looking ear, eye, nose and belly-button rings; the flappy-ass, dumb
> looking, too-long-to-be-shorts--too-short-to-be-long pants they got
> hanging off their ass . . .
>
> Okay, does this mean--it's a philosophical question--that on account
> of the fact that some people really are just a bunch of nearly
> mindless, cold-blooded rattlesnakes underneath a sometime facade of
> warmth, sense and civility, then here's your proof, little did you
> know, that if some are rattlesnakes, therefore that's what ALL people
> are, bar none?
>
> Figure it out!  People are people and rattlesnakes are rattlesnakes.
> BUT we all got that in our evolution, in our genes so that every damn
> one of you, way back in it, deep in the hoary past, baby, you got a
> reptile in your family for a great, great, great (exponentially great)
> grandmother. Yeah!  You got a way-gone-great to the gadzillion power
> great grandfather back there in the tall grass of the pre-historic
> Paleozoic past who had no arms or legs and just went slithering around
> wherever he'd go, shooting out that long forked tongue, and shedding
> his skin every now and then.
>
> Yeah so, you just go on and keep talking, bragging about being one of
> these kind of high-born types with a heritage of "good genes". Heh. Is
> that what you got stuffed up that long, coiling, shit-filled
> alimentary canal of your blue-blood ass? You got the "good genes" you
> say?  You got the genes of a goddam rot-mouthed Gila monster and a
> devil-tailed stingray, let alone a shapeless, spineless, no-count,
> going-with-the-flow amoeba, and a creepy little chamelion ready to
> change his color to shit-brown at the drop of a dead leaf on your ass,
> or to blue if you should happen upon a large puddle of spit with the
> color of a cloudless sky reflected in it.
>
> And that's what it is with the tattoos and nose-rings; that's how you
> blend in with the environment, little Mr. or Ms. Lizard; that's what
> gives with the camouflage design for your floppy ass pants that don't
> even make it down so far as your ankles; that's exactly what's the
> haps with those absurd looking too-long sleeves you got drooping over
> your hands down so far as your knuckles: chameleons and amoebas, man:
> that's what's you! It's all you are when you're sitting around sipping
> your Naked Lunch of latte and slurping on that sweet pussy-smelling
> sushi in the stinking ass of Starbucks, bragging about your "good
> genes".
>
> If one human being is a deadly dangerous, low-crawling rattlesnake,
> ALL human beings are rattlesnakes, and it ain't that some people are
> like this and the other 'bad' ones are like that.  Only a rattlesnake
> can think like that.
>
> You think on that. And stop relying on what those frauds in the black
> square caps with the rattlesnake tail for a tassel have sold you
> behind the high-tuition tag of "neuro-science" because it will not be
> long, not many years into the future from this day, when it comes to
> be revealed that all they've been teaching you about a genetic
> component to the human personality is JUNK, so far as any ability to
> scientifically predict who's going to be 'good' and who's going to be
> bad--well, I'll tell you right off the bat that the bad ones are
> exactly the kind of drop-dead dupes for a contemporary intellectual
> fad who are conformist enough and so cluelessly uncritical as to fall
> for any such fascist flattery of elitist crap as that!
>
> There is totally a place where the claims of science (and "neuro-
> science" is nothing of the kind, when it comes to the rigors of the
> scientific method, as any properly learned hard-science physicist or
> chemist by one look at the complete lack of evidence and proof for
> their theoretical claims can tell you)--where the claims of science
> are found to run afoul of what ought to be recognized for the limits
> of human decency . . .
>
> And you pay attention now!  At that limit, where human decency runs
> out, when it does, that's when you KNOW that something is wrong with
> the claim of science you are looking at, and that means 'wrong' in the
> sense of being unscientific, half-baked and incorrect.  How can we
> know this?  It's very simple: there is no distinction between the laws
> of science and the laws (which remain largely ignored or unlearned)
> which govern the logic of human decency.
>
> Laugh!  Go ahead, that's just the thing to do when you are faced with
> a thought so far over the limits of your learning, experience and
> understanding, that you can only misjudge what you've heard for
> something too simple-minded to believe. Hey! This is no stink-pot,
> baby-poop, born yesterday, wet-behind-the-ears "cognitive neuro-
> science" we are talking about here, but the very stuff of the true,
> time-honored, therapeutically proven, medical ART of "psychology"
> properly so-called.
>
> The word was invented by the Greeks, and first developed as school of
> knowledge by Aristotle. The term "psychology" literally translated
> means "soul science". But you don't know what the 'soul' is, Jack! Oh,
> no you don't Jane. Not so long as you deny there can be any such
> entity, which is the proof of your misjudgment concerning it, because
> it totally is not what you think, to so falsely identify it as
> 'religion', thus to intellectually flop around like a flounder, as a
> fish out of water, for a gasp of breath from a substance of thought
> too airy, refined and subtly defined to comport with the gross, watery
> medium of knowledge you are used to, and which keeps you happy,
> quenched of thirst and feeling quite secure in the realm of what is to
> you the better known--or so you have thought.
>
> NO. You haven't the first fricking funky inkling of what Socrates,
> Plato and Aristotle were talking about when they began to direct their
> inquiries into the greatest, grandest mystery of all, which is the
> question of what Man really is at the innermost essence of his being.
> Bah! you say, what's that, you ask? Nearly two millennia later, when
> Immanuel Kant came to confrontation with the same question, he arrived
> at an intellectual epiphany that shook him so thunderously behind the
> light of what he had seen that he could only compare this revolution
> of thought that had come to triumph in his mind, to that grandest of
> all revelations in the understanding of Copernicus--and it had all to
> do with psychology, even though he seldom came out and applied that,
> the most pertinent term of all to it--for it was the very nature of
> mind, mind itself, that formed the soul and center of what he was
> talking about.
>
> The trouble Kant had was finding the way to explain it clearly and
> systematically, let alone simply and plainly. He failed in that effort
> so sorely that the number of people presently on this planet who have
> had the will and patience, the sheer power of concentration to puzzle
> it out from the immense length of his sentences and paragraphs, are
> just about right next to NONE--and I am pleased to count myself with
> that number, as I continue to grapple with those ideas with no less
> exertion than any mountaineer going up the rocky, ice-glazed face of
> Annapurna, Everest or the Matterhorn.
>
> The *Prolegomena* is the Matterhorn.  Annapurna is the *Critique of
> Pure Reason*, but Everest? That is the *Critique of Practical Reason*--
> and who, how many here present are able to make the claim that they
> have read it and understood it to the fullest extent that may be
> possible? I daresay there is not one.
>
> Not one.
>
> But only ask, and I will explain it for you, the most tremendous body
> of understanding ever to be presented to the mind of man, and yet left
> so entirely ignored for something unremarkable or so useless as the
> molted skin of the ostensibly 'primitive' creature of nature that had
> worn it. But when you have picked it up to admire the delicacy of the
> fine translucent imprint, what's presented to the wondering eye in the
> dizzying, serpentine pattern of its construction, is something that
> comes to the solar-plexus with a daunting, if not queasy sensibility
> that what you hold is something far more than you can ever now dare
> know about the living, magnificently writhing body that formerly had
> been so entirely, so perfectly, if not dangerously there.
> --
> JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.comhttp://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com