dancing with porcupines – (en)

The functions of all living beings are to be born, survive (i.e. nurture and ward off), multiply, and die. We’ll talk about ethics in other moment. What matters now is that selfishness is associated to reproductive function, and cooperativeness to survival. Caveman —as with other mammals— usually cooperated to hunt, gather or defend their band societies, and competed to fuck and reproduce. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has not changed that much, because he hasn’t had time to genetically evolve according to the laws of Nature —our so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived just around the corner some 200,000 years ago. Today’s man is the same as he was before the Flood, though we’ve invented the umbrella, and although the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, and so our capacity of bullshitting. And I’m referring to “man” including both genders, because they —women— are not going to get away scot-free from this sweeping earful.
If you agree with above, to embrace competition as economic catalyst for mere survival is plane nonsense. Tribal wars in the Stone Age, although also had an economic, territorial component, ended up —unfailingly— with the appropriation of the females of the defeated. We could see, then, that any competitive act smells pussy —like any candle in a cloistered convent.
In a time, when you’re not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more —it’s speciesist— and you have to call them pre-petroleum persons, all the above has been travestied. The privileges’ manipulators, sorry … the outcome engineers have intimately embedded in the minds of the mass that men value in this world is not rights but privileges.
So let’s get serious now and use something that expresses values that reflect the cosmos, including orderliness, balance, harmony, logic, and abstract beauty. I’m talking about mathematics, moron!
Privilege implies exclusion from privilege, just as advantage implies disadvantage. In the same mathematically reciprocal way, profit implies loss. If you and I exchange equal goods, that is trade: neither of us profits and neither of us loses. But if we exchange unequal goods, one of us profits and the other loses. Mathematically. Certainly. Now, such mathematically unequal exchanges will always occur because some traders will be shrewder than others. But in total freedom —in anarchy— such unequal exchanges will be sporadic and irregular. A phenomenon of unpredictable periodicity, mathematically speaking.
Now look about you —raise your nose from your great blog and survey the actual world as it is— and you will not observe such unpredictable functions. You will observe, instead, a mathematically smooth function, a steady profit accruing to one group and an equally steady loss accumulating for all others. Why is this? Because the system is not free or random, any mathematician would tell you a priori.
Well, then, where is the determining function, the factor that controls the other variables? You could name it yourself: the Great Tradition. Privilege, I prefer to call it. When A meets B in the marketplace, they do not bargain as equals. A bargains from a position of privilege; hence, he always profits and B always loses. And… and there is no more Free Market here than there is on the other side of the Great Wall. The privileges, or Private Laws —the rules of the game, as promulgated by the Central Committee of the Communist Party on that side and by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Board on this side— are slightly different; that’s all.
And it is this what is threatened by anarchists, and by the repressed anarchist in each of us.
Coming back to point, intellectual honesty should lead us to assume cooperation in the economic, and relegate competition to the playful fields. And I don’t mean the deferred competition, that of the hooligans of a football team, but the real one, which leads to childbearing.
Evidence compels the recognition of truth: the entrepreneur channels part of his sexual energy into competition and success in economic/social areas, because he believes that’s the right way, perhaps even shorter, to get some females to fuck. Had he made it in public schools, and not with the Jesuits, he would not compete with his peers with teeth like a pit-bull, but would partner with them to achieve the same ends —in a much less harmful way to environment, to himself and to the rest of humanity— and would devote his free-time to court females, a system that produces better and faster results than first dehorning yourself by working to line up the kidney.
Strong, right? So I will be even more ruthless, and I’ll say it in a way any Social Security shrink —tenured officer— could corroborate: Entrepreneurship and competition, so lauded in business schools, are just fucking sexual deviations.
But, but, but …
So many times the entrepreneur comes home late at night, more tired than the Titanic’s plumber, not wanting anything but sleep … leaving intercourse for weekends … and … as every woman carnally unmet tends to disorder and chaos as a parade of lame, here appears the first opportunity for anarchy: Many of the children of the very great neoliberal bastards are genetically anarchists: sons of Alfa males who greet each other with both hands clasped, and fuck with enthusiasm, tenacity and taking their time. And from behind.
Dancing with porcupines – By Dugutigui

About Dugutigui

In the “Diula” language in Mali, the term « dugutigui » (chief of the village), literally translated, means: «owner of the village»; «dugu» means village and «tigui», owner. Probably the term is the result of the contraction of «dugu kuntigui» (literally: chief of the village).
This entry was posted in Education, English, Humor, Politically Incorrect Language, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to dancing with porcupines – (en)

  1. ane says:

    Homo sapiens human body has not changed significantly, but human consciousness did.

    • Dugutigui says:

      Consciousness. Well. This is a matter of never-ending discussion.

      Nearly everyone — even the most enthusiastic zombie aficionado (of whom there are a remarkable number these days) — agrees that most people, most of their waking lives, are conscious. In fact, consciousness could well be a sine qua non, necessary but not sufficient for humanness, all of which leads inevitably to the question: why has consciousness evolved?

      Let me put it another way. Why should we (or any conscious species) be able to think about our thinking, instead of just plain thinking, period? Why need we know that we know, instead of just knowing? Isn’t it enough to feel, without also feeling good — or bad — about the fact that we are feeling? After all, there are downsides to consciousness. As the American cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker put it, “The idea [of consciousness] is ludicrous, if it is not monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of self, deep inner feelings, and excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression — and with all this yet to die”.

      For Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, consciousness and its requisite choices comprise a vast source of human pain (one that he obviated by telling people how to think and what to believe).

      To finish, to be able to think about what we think is not a guaranty that we are thinking properly!

      • To answer your question of why consciousness evolved the science has some hypothesis, but every single one of them answer rather the question “how it happened? what were the reasons for natural selection?” more than “why? what is purpose behind that?” – the metaphysical remix of this question. So why should we think then? I stand in line of those who think that because mind capable of such things like art, poetry, conscious thinking rather than intuitive thinking works like a peacock’s tail.

        But hey, many people today feel that consciousness is a bit hard to bear with, our attention span is shorter and shorter (and practically attention is synonymous to consciousness) and those people tend to multiply just fine xD. So smart as new sexy may not prevail very long 😉

      • Dugutigui says:

        I’m mostly agreed with you. Today’s people demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use, most of them don’t understand you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Thanks a lot for your comment!

    • Dugutigui says:

      From Wikipedia (sorry for my lack of time right now):

      The validity of the concept “consciousness”

      Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is. While most people have a strong intuition for the existence of what they refer to as consciousness, skeptics argue that this intuition is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of ‘consciousness’ we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings. More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness.

  2. ane says:

    Quantum consciousness – QC – would probably be the next step in the evolution of human mind, it would be our salvation

    • Dugutigui says:

      I start speaking about fu..ing -somehow, and we are now on Quantum consciousness!. It’s clear my audience is much more educated than I am 🙂 which is fine to me, being the only way to learn and expand horizons. Thank you for that!

      An approach to the mind-body problem based on physical laws has been advocated by several thinkers. Quantum Theory has been particularly intriguing for scientists eager to provide a physical explanation of consciousness.

      Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood, at least for me 🙂 : what they certainly have in common is a degree of “magic” that makes both mysterious and unattainable…

  3. FLYNN says:

    Reblogged this on The Blogging Path and commented:
    Best to retain our gender roles than to loose our children to dysfunctional family values…

  4. ane says:

    promise you not to bother 🙂

  5. Hello,
    I’ve nominated you for The Super Sweet Blog Award.
    Check it out http://liveonne.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/the-super-sweet-blog-award/

    • Dugutigui says:

      Sorry for the delay answering you. I’ve been travelling quite a lot lately, and silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone. So, thanks a lot for your nomination!
      One last question: where I have to go to collect the cash? 🙂

  6. “Consciousness. Well. This is a matter of never-ending discussion.”…Exactly. The answer is, there are no answers we, as humans, are capable of perceiving.

    • Dugutigui says:

      I subscribe your opinion 100%. On other hand if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. 10Q for commenting!

  7. MikeW says:

    Well, I’m reading this book, and it is profound on these premises:

    • ane says:

      “only when we realize that God and the soul are real and that death is not the end of personal existence but only a transition can true health be achieved”, It is very true! I have reason to believe.

    • Dugutigui says:

      As could be understood by reading my blog, I am not at all a believer, nonetheless I respect anyone’s opinions. In fact I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. Furthermore all that stuff about gods and souls and so on, is simply that we ask the wrong questions … the real question of life after death isn’t whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves…
      Thanks for your comment!

      • MikeW says:

        I can respect that.

        I would, if I were you, read the book, even if you check it out from a library or borrow it. First, the author, Eben Alexander was Chief of Neurosurgery at Harvard University Medical School when he went into a 7-day coma. The author’s entire cerebral cortex showed no activity b/c of an infinitesimally rare and unexplained contraction of e-coli bacteria infecting his cerebral spinal fluid. His fluid was so infected that it came out a milky whitish green — it was full of puss. Sorry to be gross. He should have died or have been severely brain damaged, and should have had no after-life experiences because the part of his brain that it is believed to be solely responsible for intelligent, lucid consciousness, is the cerebral cortex and all scans, neuro exams, and tests showed no activity as those brain cells were under attack by the bacteria.

        You should read what he has to say if you have an open mind, and consider the implications of his after-analysis of his medical record and his internal experiences while in the coma.

      • Dugutigui says:

        If I could find some time –maybe better: lack of direction, not lack of time, could be my problem: we all have twenty-four hour days-, I will try to read the book -there’s always someone who knows something-, and I am of the opinion that to know is always better, no matter what the answer might be. Nevertheless, the truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true.

      • MikeW says:

        wise words,

      • Temi says:

        Hi Dugutigui, do you believe in God? and that heaven actually exists?

      • Dugutigui says:

        If for god you mean that there’s an invisible man … living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. No, I don’t believe.

        I am one of those who can’t readily accept the god formula, so the big answers don’t remain stone-written for me. I am of the kind that adjusts to new conditions and discoveries. I’m pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. I’m here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. I’m here to drink wine. To kill war. Here to laugh at the odds and live my live so well that Death will tremble to take me to wherever it would be: heaven or hell. You know, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

        Re paradise, you know, in heaven, all the interesting people are missing 🙂

        Thanks a lot for your comment, though!

  8. sweetoothjames says:

    Fucking A. Damantigui! Entrepreneurship and competition ARE just sexual deviations! You are spot on. I’ve thought that for years but then again i’ve always been poor 😦 Just this morning i saw this old guy in a convertable ferrari driving around with some 25ft tall blonde woman in the passenger seat. I also read a magazine article a few minutes ago about Ronnie Wood’s new 29-year-old hot bride. It’s going on everywhere! Why did Hugh Hefner start his Playboy empire? Poon! Poverty repels women like a toothbrush repels homeless men. Would whatsername have even looked twice at out-of-date mullet man Mr Wood if he had worked in WalMart? Unless he was giving away free shoes then i very much doubt it so this is what we [men] must do:
    The best way that men can go about getting sex from women though is to deny them (for an appropriate length of time) our ‘man-seed’. For that is what they desire even more than hearing gossip or watching ‘talent’ shows on telly. If we can just all hold out for long enough (and there are enough websites out there or so i’ve heard…) then the fairer sex will be begging the hairier sex for, er, some hairy sex. Obviously, i will be at the front of any resulting queue as i am a ground-breaking blogger but everyone else would eventually get their turn, i promise. Anyway, where was i? Oh yes, your argument is fundamentally right in so much as men should stop competing with each other etc., but my complementary argument adds a very tasty cherry on top. We must protect our prescious love-beans with all the willpower we can muster and if any man should become weak, we must come together to back him up and keep him strong! For the meek [for ‘meek’ read ‘poor’] may inherit the earth but they don’t often get much poon.

    • Dugutigui says:

      Hahahahaha!!! Man you’re right! Kissing the frog to get the prince is a waste of a perfectly good frog. Hahahaha! And yes, we should embrace our inner lunatic -fun times guaranteed-, and deny them our ‘man-seed.” But we have to be careful with that, because –as I wrote in the post- every woman carnally unmet tends to disorder and chaos as a parade of lame, so timing is the key until we get there: “Please, please be some sex-starved nutcase who wants to kidnap me and make me your love slave -she screams silently”. Po poon!!! Hahahaha! You know, we must master the vices. You know that if a thing is worth doing it’s worth doing well. If, however, a thing is not worth doing then it’s worth doing fabulously, amazingly, with grace, style and panache.
      Thanks a lot for your support!

      • sweetoothjames says:

        I am proud and honoured to be able to give you my support D. However, i am very worried about your assertation that every woman carnally unmet tends to disorder and chaos as a parade of lame. It would certainly explain the behaviour of the women on my council estate though…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s