O Body, where art Thou? – Part 1


September 19, 2015 by Dr. Geyser

Censorship of the human body is absurd, in addition to being the most crapulent form of violence since the invention of the shotgun. It takes about that much deftness to tell someone that their nipples are showing, and that this is likely to cause the viewer to have an erection that will, in the end, land them in prison.

My opinion is that perhaps these tightey whitey moralists would be better off living in their own penal system. Perhaps our jails would be less violent, if they were instead filled with those who seem to need them the most. The prison community would be more like an abbey, filled with monks who make beer and provide moral guidance while actually living the type of life they most desire of others. Instead of imposing morals, they could offer the most celibate, censored, and intelligent sorts of wisdom, rather than attempting to live with one foot in the Bible and the other foot on the head of those drowning beneath the weight of their stultifying moral supremacies.

Why should moral censorship be more important than the body?

Why is the body the only conceivable origin of our shame?

Those who attempt to embody the European concept of ‘beauty’ (see footnote) are likewise misguided – some bodies are ugly, deformed, hairy, prolapsed, decaying, filthy, infected, flabby, intertriginous, and frankly indecent. This is no one’s fault, and certainly cannot explain or counteract the moralistic penetration of the internet by those who are fundamentally ashamed of who, how, but not why God made them the way they are. Ugly bodies can coexist with hot bodies, provided we do not let the overbearing Western concept of ‘beauty’ turn individuals against each other by forcing them to compete within a fundamentally Christian moral code.

The inversion of Nature – the act which makes Nature seem so natural, organic, and emptied of human artifice – begins with the immaculate conception. Since God does not actually have sex with Mary, the chain of biological causality which invests the act of sexual intercourse with abundant meaning is short circuited. The link between generations is no longer sexual, but moral and doxological. Children must be trained to yield to an arbitrary tradition by their parents, who to this day work harder than ever to construct their children’s sexuality on non-biological terms.

The body is destroyed by Christianity. Life is closeted away, as if the dead could one day rediscover their old wardrobes, and live again.

Paradoxically, the notion of eternal life seems bound closer than ever to family, as if participation in society could never be enough, could never achieve the sort of glory that Christians achieve through the invention of a heel-dragging drama queen dubiously referred to as ‘God.’ Eternal life is the second means by which Christianity short circuits the meaning of life. Deprived of death, what precisely does life come to mean? What joy is there in obtaining eternal life without risk, sacrifice, and the glory of achievement on the battlefields of life?

Death demands of the living that they imbue their sexuality – their acts of intercourse, propagating in the next generation – with as much meaning as life itself. Our knowledge of death frees the body to more actively participate in the ultimate act of self-sacrifice – to prolong the suffering of life, so as to make the final act that much more meaningful. This is the gift the mind gives to the body, the gift which is ground to a pulp by the constant moralizing of those who claim to be closer to death than doctors, atheists, and those who have given themselves namelessly to the immediate vicissitudes of European and American world wars.

The abundant stupidity of moral censorship makes the sting of loss that much more acute, while reminding us that the body must be incredibly powerful, if it requires this much effort to keep it concealed, sacred, and Christian. However, the feeling of power is not power itself, but rather a reminder and, perhaps, a hopeful prelude. It makes me fraught with inattention to know that I myself needed to be reminded that the body is powerful; that a strong education had essentially drilled this knowledge out of my mind; that the body itself had much to say about the supposed duality that exists between thought and action. At the risk of sounding apologetic, there was a day and an hour when I felt, for the first time in my life, that my body knew something that I did not; that this information was being withheld because my body is much older than my mind; and that I would never know, if I could not first respect, the power of my own body.

Once learned, and not forgotten: the duality of mind and body is absurd, superstitious, disrespectful, and is probably the cause of schizophrenia, madness, and all of the other wonders of Western civilization.

As an aside – the American obsession with plagiarism is caused by outright denial of normal ancestry. Academic citation is too similar to the reviled ancestral voices that Western doctors frequently misdiagnose as schizophrenia to be ignored as a source of correctable institutional injustice. If we must moralize, let us start with those who actually care enough about being right to research their epistemic moral codes.
Science strokes my conscience without destroying my body.

  1. The embodiment of ‘beauty’ is distinct from the search for beauty outside of the body, as one might do as a biologist studying glasswing butterflies in the field. In the case of the former, elevating a particular body type to the level of the ideal short circuits our ability to see beauty in particular aspects of our normal bodies. As an ideal form of the body, ‘beauty’ tends to make the world more ugly than it would otherwise be.  In the case of the latter, the pursuit of beauty wherever it may be found tends to make the world more beautiful, since there is very little incentive to covet what cannot be embodied. Obviously, with respect to luxury fur coats, the covetousness of human beings knows no bounds.

Pardon my French, but I speak English.

I love you all as if you were myself, and this probably makes me a tyrant.

Narcissism is attractive, self-love is contagious and often altruistic.

Contradictions are caused by an overestimation of the powers of language, and are functionally impossible.

What does ‘impossible’ mean?

The actual content of a word is probably a handful of protons and electrons, if I had to make physical assumptions about metaphysical B.S.


Tune in next week (or whenever) for the latest installment of “O Body, where art Thou?” @Dr. Geyser’s health and wellness blog. Your thoughts, comments, are welcome.


One thought on “O Body, where art Thou? – Part 1

  1. Neeland says:

    Thanks for the post, Doc.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: