The Origin Of Species

Links:
This is from story unfinished book "Surprising Book And Film Reviews"... www.stoneriley.com/GDRDS/Gdrds_Surpri...
This item printer friendly... www.stoneriley.com/originofspecies_ou...
................

The Origin Of Species

{ first-posted on 05-03-2018 by guest.scholar loop-now 05-03-2018 }

{ auto: header-note 'this episode has been designated number three in the essay series 'surprising book and film reviews' community-comment is 'community comment is welcome concerning episode number' }

Hello my dear, I know you're reading this even if you won't admit it! Who else is here are welcome too, if you don't mind me kissing your father now and then. I'm pregnant again, by the way, with every hope this child will live. And it's almost my darling non-husband's birthday! You see, legally the story now is that he is a castaway living by the docks and he comes to me disguised, for sex – him innocently misinformed that it is a thing ladies' lovers customarily do here – while I'm pretending to be asleep. His legally registered address is 'under a bridge somewhere'. Is it wrong of me to laugh at that? It is a serious legal fiction, maintained seriously, but it is fun. He deserted from an army where he used to live. Your costume!

It's also fun – although perhaps a little less – to be doing another one of these episodes, by the way. I'm choosing this topic from the backlog. But my gentleman caller and his little friend got out of bed and he says he wants to see me at my work. Our little friend is not saying that.

As I understand it, Charles Darwin's great achievement was to create materials and examples for people who wish to direct their thinking toward the nature of reality, by showing how they could accurately think about one of the most obvious and puzzling irruptions – an irruption of their own underlying reality – into the human awareness of their sub-sector of the continuum. Obviously, this was a great achievement in its time and remains so now, when I am writing this. I am a child of Darwin. I wrote this paragraph somewhere else, many months ago, and I am now retyping it.

What do I think of Charles Darwin? What should any intelligent and well informed person think of Charles Darwin? It's not as if I have some private information about the fellow. Or, formally, I have promised to direct my remarks toward this particular book of Darwin's.

The Origin Of Species. The book's final paragraph says it all for me. That last paragraph is especially audacious. You see, he is glaringly aware of the gaping holes in his theory. That is why he hesitated all those years to publish it. His theory has enormous glaring holes. And yet what was there was so strong and so convincing, and he had such courage, that the final paragraph prescribes the operating method by which the gaping holes would all be filled in, which was accomplished within two centuries of his life, with the opening of continuum information and many other repercussions and adjustments following.

End of book review, in my opinion. And a glowing book review it is. But I will write more.

Well, when I was a girl, my dear Uncle Hiredwriter coerced me into studying 'the time of Darwin', as my uncle called it, by which he meant the extraordinary period in the history of ideas that followed Darwin publishing his great twin discoveries, the discovery of the physical evolution principle, with it's seemingly shadowy twin the mental evolution principle. We are to take the first published book, The Origin, which I am dutifully reviewing for you here, as the starting point for this transition period in the history of ideas, even though this first book doesn't even clearly mention the mental evolution principle until that magnificent last paragraph I mentioned above.

So, you see, whoever you are that is still reading, you see that I am probably qualified to write this essay for you because of my youthful studies in this field of study. Right? Do I hear any objection? Thank you.

And oh yes! I have forgotten to say it, but you are welcome here. Yes, you too. All right. Thank you, dear. I'll say that.

I have just now recently heard it humorously quipped that all Charles Darwin ever did was just add up a very long list of vaguely written numbers and arrive at the correct answer. A no-sweat job. Haha. And fair enough, but that's not even nearly a complete picture of the fellow's situation.

They all imagined – everybody that was reading Sir Charles's books – still ridiculously assumed an approximately static and immobile universe. Why? As a result of a longstanding theological dispute, in my opinion, and I can offer a few candidates for which longstanding theological dispute perhaps it was that was so profoundly but almost invisibly hampering everyone's vision of reality in the moment before these books started coming out.

Anyway, Sir Charles was one of the mighty thinkers and not to be deterred. Yes, everyone around him just assumed that the physical world around them was X number of years old, that it had somehow begun when event Y was caused by situation Z, in other words, that what you see is what there is. Only the accurate values for X, Y and Z were sought, with all other questions to be laughed out of discussion. But mighty Sir Charles was not to be deterred. I think the evidence of his eyes drove him.

The kaleidoscopic forms of physical life in Living Earth are not a chronologically sequential phenomenon. The phenomenon is – to the most extremely utmost – too complex, and inter-stitched, and conscious to be accurately described by any such ludicrously simple logic. The living forms around you in Living Earth can only be seen as chronologically sequential if you squint really hard. You get a headache. It's called cognitive dissonance. The obvious view that all these living forms are always new irruptions of some blossoming fact from somewhere else, was out of vogue. That obvious view – held by so many human thinkers through the countless generations – was at that time accounted, instead, as a primitive superstition or as a cheap philosophical trinket imported from the Oriental colonies. What you see is what there is!!! Well, actually, no.

So bold Sir Charles boldly did the math (to revive a metaphor we started in jest above), so to speak, by which I mean he did the logic. And the sums did add up – life does actually exist – but the sums of the evidence did not add up the way expected. So in that logical space he discerned, transcribed and began solution of the gothicly elaborated syllogism of the flourishing of species. And 'cause and effect' is wondrously hazy in the logic of that riddle. I hope you like this paragraph.

What have I not mentioned yet? Do you have a mental picture of the book? What's missing from it?

'Irruptions' what's that word? I should explain it carefully just because sometimes the word is little used. An irruption – properly speaking, as I use the term – is an arrival or insertion of some information, generally, from a neighboring sector of the continuum. Have I made myself clear? As in a holy miracle, etc. (Classic example.)

Oh wait! Ladies & Gents this is my darling non-husband's first time in the studio while I am typing in. It's the point in my life story after the first child has died, and my heart is broken and yet somehow my heart is gay in love, and we are still in the gorgeous honeymoon we're still having somehow, after the death of a child, and my heart is telling me to cast a divination lot, or several lots. This is where we are.

So, the kind gentleman who makes a lady of me every dawn and dusk, this gentleman of my thighs, he has just now expressed a difference of opinion with me here in this nest of gibberish that we go on gibbering about day and night, we in the community discussions. This is the first time in a chat that my darling god – he doesn't mind me saying that – this is the first time he's expressed a demurral, expressed a disagreement with me in one of these chats! Here, press this button.

WHAT!! I CAN TYPE??? I CAN FRIGGIN TYPE!!! Thank God. Look here, this is just too much.

What? What's just too much???

You're making Charles Darwin, an actual person, into Super-Darwin. Just to drag in continuum information. Sir Charles, as he's known to some, is an empty figure of logic. Sir Charles, the stock character of logical discussion, the supposedly existent typical brilliant human before quantum physics who saw beyond quantum physics, not the Darwin actual person, nor either do I mean the actual Darwin person's actual works ought to be dismissed in the the slightest degree – but just the stock logical character, ought to be considered null and void. Sir Charles the Super-Darwin equals Empty Address.

What? What do you mean, my dear?

There was no typical human brilliant thinker, not in our terms now, until the quantum physics opened out to continuum information. Darwin didn't even have a dim inkling of it. Just try imagining yourself not knowing at least some basic information about the existence we exist in. Imagine not knowing any of that. It liberates human thought. Knowing the continuum is here, part of you and everything of everything, doing everything we see constantly see existence doing, that information changed everything in the mental life of humans.

Well, just to ask the obvious my dear, just how much are you thinking about abstruse physics when I decide it is the WOMAN of the house's turn to tickle the house MAN? Why do you exhibit so much delight? Are you looking at it as a chance to enjoy calculating some continuum sectors? Isn't it really chimpanzees bouncing around on the bed? Disporting themselves with Charles Darwin looking on from a nearby sector and smiling beatifically. Wasn't I motivated – when I was sending you all those fun invitations – wasn't I motivated entirely by trying to find my soul mate? So us and ours could flourish? Aren't we Darwin's children, and won't this new child of ours be one too?

My dear Orangutan – my dear Orangutan, the only female orangutan I would ever enjoy being a male orangutan with – ((LOOK! now nobody else here knows what sort of postures you and I have begun referring to, don't you agree?, yes!, so paradoxically now I think we can feel there is plenty of privacy for me to speak quite lewdly to you, my toy, my pet, if I am extremely clever and talk entirely in code!)) – (so I'm saying this to you in our special code: ) – I am sure that some correlation of our opposite views would lead toward mutual conclusion!!

Yes it always does, my dearest pet.

Oh. Yes. No, no I don't want to say anything! You! You! I want to watch you doing your typing in. I do. No, you just sit there and let me watch you do whatever you're doing. Yes! Please smile just like that. Like that! And do please believe me, there is no other desire anywhere in me right now at all, believe me. I have no desire in my being to do anything but lie exactly here and watch your breasts slowly filling while you smile like that while our new baby grows and you're doing whatever in the world you're doing. There's nothing left in the world for me to do right now but looking with these eyes of love on you. I can relax.

Don't go to sleep yet! I have another idea.

Hmmm?

I'll lie back down with you, but first I get my divination kit, and on the bed between us we draw a divination lot.

A divination lot for the child? So we must touch during the drawing but nothing more? Yes, let's do that.

No, not, no darling, seriously, Darling! Seriously! Don't bite my toe. We're not doing that now. Yes, you may have my left foot if you are good. But don't do that either.

Alright, I promise. How many lots should we pick? That's the important thing, how many?

No darling, it's what you've just done that matters most. We've just had very gentle and easy sexual intercourse. Very easy and gentle. That's what matters most. How many lots do you want to pick?

I want to pick five lots because there's five toes on your foot. Is five too many?

Five lots is probably too many, unless you have a whole team of fortunetellers like King Sollomon in the Bible. They had a whole team of fortunetellers but we don't. So less than five, please you kindly.

So I've heard the song 'two lots for Tuesday'. Isn't today Tuesday? Should we take two lots?

If that seems like a good idea, if it does, then two lots it is. What names should we give them?

Uh-oh that sounds like a trick question. What names should we give to our lots? I have no idea. Is that a trick question?

I have no idea if it's a trick question or not, I only know it works. If you pick two lots you give them names. There are mysterious rules. If you do the correct things in the correct order, then the Oracle of Lots works, presto the box opens and you get your free bonus gift for the evening – a piece of information that you didn't have before – so you see, we don't know how it works. But we have all the most competent continuum computing people working on that question right now just for you.

Darling, stop trying to make me chuckle any harder. We'll never pick the lots.

Laugh! Yes, laugh! Right! Now this is the very moment I have waited for … here is the little box … its little lid is open … smile! … So darling, choose two lots and I'll fuck you more. But tell me two names.

The Moon and Sun. Why not the Moon and Sun?

{ …the main box is still running… }