Wonder is Woman
To the extent to which the feminine is considered divine, it attracts two kinds of seekers: those who want to drink of its stillness and those who want to ravage her.
Fooled By Medium
Perhaps we can be fooled by many things. And I don’t know whether I should be sad or not that such is the case. One such case where we are easily fooled is media.
One may ask how it is possible to be fooled by media. And it is not that the man in the news lies. Maybe the news is true; or not. But by no means am I saying that someone concocts a lie to fool us the readers, listeners, or viewers. What I am saying is that we are susceptible to mental dispositions that a medium we engage with forces one to assume; meaning, the medium is the massage.
For instance, a lengthy written rant in all its rambles, if without any noticeable errors, may tire us out and we will silently admit that it has meaning despite the fact that it tires us out. We will not be quick — unless the author makes a deadly gaffe right at the beginning — to assert that the author is ignorant of his subject. We will read the entire note, weigh the matter, and conclude whether the reader is ignorant or not. In other words: we will have to evaluate what was written. But this is not the case for other mediums.
Say with the Television. A stutter is enough to fool the viewer into thinking that the person who speaks on television may just be ignorant. A timid look and a sweaty nose aggravate this perception. On the other hand, a confident speaker who offers you no breaks or stutter or sweat may run away with our inference that he does know what he says.
How many times have the less knowledgeable debater ruled the day simply because he was more fluent? And how many times has the guy who knew the intricacies of the matter shaken his fists at the air in the restroom because he gifted the audience a few stutters?
I am certain that many a fluent talker would prefer to pelt their heads at concrete than to be concrete on paper. The written word is always under scrutiny; talk allows you to glide. Thinking is different from speaking; they are two different skills.
Lastly, being fooled by media kills real dialogue. To the extent that you are allowed to stop and think mid-conversation; to the extent that you are allowed to say “I might have to restate what I said earlier”; to the measure that you are allowed to carefully choose your words so that you can be precise about your point rather than offering vague platitudes, is the extent to which you are doing real dialogue. Every other thing is just games.
The Science Changes
For starters, drag anyone who calls it “the science” outside the city and pelt them with stones. That term is hideous to my eyes and ears.
Having purged ourselves of those elements, let us discuss the real thing.
There is nothing, I get the impression, our science and materialist bros would like more than Heraclitus’ ‘everything is flux.’ There has never been a better dodge presented than the thought that everything is constantly changing. And this change — especially a forward progression — is the strength of the natural sciences as a field.
They say “we didn’t know this decades ago but we know it now; there is no reason to take an unchanging, definitive stance now when more can be revealed later.” But I say to myself: “if only they would listen to their own chorus.”
If everything is constantly changing, on what do you pin your certainties that you derive your authority? Authority, I mean here to be that the fervour with which they state the nemesis of “everything is changing” — namely “the science is decided.”
The science is decided. Are you sure about that? Are you sure we are not getting anything new that would cause you to repeal your words and decisions? If you ask this, the response immediately flies out that “we did what was best based on what we knew at the time.” So, knowing that your cudgel is only plastic, needing only time to melt away, you hit your neighbour hard over the head with it?
You know, it is one thing to challenge an interlocutor that they have a generally unscientific attitude — which just means a non-rigorous one — and another thing to deride them for challenging a specific “scientific” result. It is in the same vein that I find it fallacious that people who are skeptical of a particular vaccine are tagged “anti-vaxxers” as if they have never received a piece of immunization in their entire lives.
It appears to me clearly that when I find people like that, with their impoverished arguments of course, they generally need to be catered for in the sense that they need to be validated that they are just on the right side. Whether they invoke the ‘harm’ argument or not, they need something else: the prestige that comes with being right.
If the science changes — and it does, perhaps a genuine scientist’s honor is not in the excitement of their results. It is in their rigour. I know most people will disagree with that. Because as Nicholas Taleb said, science has a boring procedure with exciting results. We love and are enchanted by the exciting results. Nevertheless, if Robinson Crusoe stuck alone on his island, makes a brilliant discovery by accident that proves to be useful in the natural sciences without having any studious rigour, it is a brilliant discovery but it is not scientific. A scientist’s pride is rigour; his results are just fleeting awards.
Wonder is Woman
The enthralling aura of femininity is the best physical approximation of wonder in philosophy. No wonder wisdom is called a she and Sophia as in philo-sophia is rightly feminine.
It is no surprise that men or humanity approach wonder with two distinctive attitudes: reverence and brutality.
To the extent to which the feminine is considered divine, it attracts two kinds of seekers: those who want to drink of its stillness and those who want to ravage her.
I think it is instructive that violence against women is common for the same reason that ‘simps’ of redpills and pop culture exist. Those that reverence her are willing to serve and lose their minds if only they can get some of the divinity she serves. And because her divinity is also potent for propagation, some come at her with brutality, willing and ready to take her by force, to make her divinity serve them; at whatever cost.
I have no doubt that reverence is the better approach. And that is because I do not now speak of women but wisdom. For there are two kinds of individuals who beholding the wondrous serenity of nature cook their agendas and intents on what to do with such magnificence.
Now, it is wrong to court knowledge and wisdom as only useful for propagation in the same way that it is wrong that although the woman has the womb that carries the child, you value her only for her capacity to bear children. Although wisdom is useful, Solomon the wise advises that you “do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Esteem her, and she will exalt you; embrace her, and she will honor you.” (Proverbs 4:8-10)
It is ridiculous to love what is a means to an end. Why then does Solomon love wisdom? Perhaps, there is an element to wisdom that surpasses its problem-solving capacity. Perhaps there is a part of it that simply nourishes and refreshes; that fortifies your confidence knowing that she is on your side; knowing that when you wake up in the morning and you turn to your side she is watching you with a beautiful smiling face and ruffled lush hair.
To come at wisdom, at nature, at wonder, only with a rapacious intent to use their wombs is a desecration that all of us should find abhorrent. And I tell you, most of us already find it abhorrent when we think of women as merely womb carriers. But when the context changes to the beauty of nature, we lose such sensitivity.
For instance on changing context: doing reading and all reading and all learning as always a means to do something or a way to be useful is damage to reading and learning. Else, Sam Bankman-Fried would not have conceived let alone uttered that books should only be six paragraphs blog posts. That, reader, is the mind of someone who conceives of all reading as mere information carriage or transmission and nothing else. Such is the cerebrality of someone whose ideal about knowledge is about finding the next few steps to achieve X; always a means to an end. Bankruptcy.
My recommendation is simple: let us not praise people who are intent on fabricating artificial things but have no regard or appreciation for the things that are given, present, and beautiful. Let us beware of those who hate being human so much that their only way of escape for us is transhumanism. Let us abjure those who leave us no room to be bored and wonder, who according to Pavel Brodsky, steal our attentional commons. Don’t let us adore those who hold it absolutely that more is better; who leave no room for leisure and think that all things, as in all things, are means to an end. Let’s love wisdom and not forsake her.
Here, of course, is your meme:
