Veganism UPDATED
Assertion: the consumption of animal flesh prevents humans from functioning on any moral platform.
When we engage the dialectic of morality--when we grade behaviour as being wrong or right, as being good or bad--we engage the moral machinery of our world. This machinery is powered by a mythopoeia, an engenderment of myths arising from codices. These codices are locuses from which meaning emanate. And so all observable phenomena are observed through the lens of these mythological constructs--religion, psychoanalytic theory, marxism--these are dialogues (narratives) which we use to construct meaning. It is the nature of the tribe (of the human) to explain, to narrate, to tell, to speak, and thus we engage narratives of every type in order to continue that tradition.
However, when we question how American mythology has come into being or which narratives survive and which die, we end at one conclusion: the precession of the masculine or the hegemony of the male over the female. It is the masculine presence which subverts, controls, and impedes the flow of context and of information.
Textbooks are inundated by the white male. Everyday is a celebration of the white. So much so that we are required to have a Black History Month. But this is a misnomer, as Black History Month is not solely the history of the blacks, but the history of America. Any social movement does not solely affect those directly participating in the movement. Consider feminism. Radical feminism challenged society's definition of male and female. The simple presence of social revolution causes all parties to be involved. That Black History Month still exists serves to delegitimize black identity and continues to engage the narrative of racism which pervades our patriarchal culture.
The codices we use to determine which behaviours are right and which are wrong will be codices that have been chosen by the majority. By virtue of being less than the majority, minorities are muted. Minorities do not have a voice. They do not have access to opposing texts. Why? Texts which could possibly challenge patriarchy's grasp over meaning are demonized so much so that whatever value they may hold is deleted. Thus, the sheer presence of a majority (a white patriarchy) ridicules and cancels opposition.
How is it that the masculine presence does this? From the precession of mythology, we see a vilification of the female. Look, even, at the language we use: male. -fe-male. Even our language represents our inherent bias against the feminine nature. And so, in our words there is a demonstration of the demonization which occurs in our everyday lives. But, specifically, consider what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. Men are seen as virile, powerful, able. Women are seen as prey, weak, emotional. But this goes back further. What does it mean to exist? What does it mean to thrive? Are we to infer that existence requires strength, virility, sexual promiscuity, or stoicism? Existence requires only one thing. 1 ) Motivation. If there is no motivation, if there is no urge, there is no life. If there is no life, there is no existence. Thus, to exist, you need only be present.
In other words, masculinity and femininity are societal frameworks through which we must navigate and out of which our codes for interpersonal communication emanate.
That said, consider the nature of food. Consider the above axiom: existence requires only one thing: motivation. What does it mean to be motivated? It means to be hungry. I mean this both in the literal and symbolic sense. We are hungry for sustenance. Sustenance in the form of a moral architecture, sustenance in the form of meaning construction, sustenance in the form of end result--that which sustains is sustenance. Thus, existence requires motivation which suggests the necessity for sustenance.
If the establishment of a moral architecture is sustenance, than we must ask: who establishes this framework and how is it maintained? Is sustenance perverted by the mis-perception of masculinity and femininity? Do we mis-interpret morality, meaning, progression--background and foreground--due to a false understanding of perception? Yes. And so our presence is thus malfunctioned as well.
Consider the role of the animal. There is no distinction between nonhuman and human animals other than the one we superimpose. Our moral architecture is such a perversion--perverted by the omnipresence of phallocratic social impulses--that the distinction becomes camouflaged. Camouflaged as natural. It is only natural that animals are not humans--or, should humans be in fact animals, we are far different than our nonhuman animal sisters. And the reasons behind that logic are legion--but they are meaningless and I'd rather not drown in their minutiae.
Thus, the human's moral architecture contains a glitch. It is not moral to eat human flesh and yet it is moral to eat animal flesh. The glitch is here. Humans are animals. Cannibalism, Carnism...these are variants of the same ideological constructs.
And our society not only consumes animals every day but it also commodifies, objectifies, exploits, disenfranchises, marginalizes and ignores other minority groups. Thus, to suggest that the machinery of morality is functioning properly is terribly incorrect.
B
When we engage the dialectic of morality--when we grade behaviour as being wrong or right, as being good or bad--we engage the moral machinery of our world. This machinery is powered by a mythopoeia, an engenderment of myths arising from codices. These codices are locuses from which meaning emanate. And so all observable phenomena are observed through the lens of these mythological constructs--religion, psychoanalytic theory, marxism--these are dialogues (narratives) which we use to construct meaning. It is the nature of the tribe (of the human) to explain, to narrate, to tell, to speak, and thus we engage narratives of every type in order to continue that tradition.
However, when we question how American mythology has come into being or which narratives survive and which die, we end at one conclusion: the precession of the masculine or the hegemony of the male over the female. It is the masculine presence which subverts, controls, and impedes the flow of context and of information.
Textbooks are inundated by the white male. Everyday is a celebration of the white. So much so that we are required to have a Black History Month. But this is a misnomer, as Black History Month is not solely the history of the blacks, but the history of America. Any social movement does not solely affect those directly participating in the movement. Consider feminism. Radical feminism challenged society's definition of male and female. The simple presence of social revolution causes all parties to be involved. That Black History Month still exists serves to delegitimize black identity and continues to engage the narrative of racism which pervades our patriarchal culture.
The codices we use to determine which behaviours are right and which are wrong will be codices that have been chosen by the majority. By virtue of being less than the majority, minorities are muted. Minorities do not have a voice. They do not have access to opposing texts. Why? Texts which could possibly challenge patriarchy's grasp over meaning are demonized so much so that whatever value they may hold is deleted. Thus, the sheer presence of a majority (a white patriarchy) ridicules and cancels opposition.
How is it that the masculine presence does this? From the precession of mythology, we see a vilification of the female. Look, even, at the language we use: male. -fe-male. Even our language represents our inherent bias against the feminine nature. And so, in our words there is a demonstration of the demonization which occurs in our everyday lives. But, specifically, consider what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. Men are seen as virile, powerful, able. Women are seen as prey, weak, emotional. But this goes back further. What does it mean to exist? What does it mean to thrive? Are we to infer that existence requires strength, virility, sexual promiscuity, or stoicism? Existence requires only one thing. 1 ) Motivation. If there is no motivation, if there is no urge, there is no life. If there is no life, there is no existence. Thus, to exist, you need only be present.
In other words, masculinity and femininity are societal frameworks through which we must navigate and out of which our codes for interpersonal communication emanate.
That said, consider the nature of food. Consider the above axiom: existence requires only one thing: motivation. What does it mean to be motivated? It means to be hungry. I mean this both in the literal and symbolic sense. We are hungry for sustenance. Sustenance in the form of a moral architecture, sustenance in the form of meaning construction, sustenance in the form of end result--that which sustains is sustenance. Thus, existence requires motivation which suggests the necessity for sustenance.
If the establishment of a moral architecture is sustenance, than we must ask: who establishes this framework and how is it maintained? Is sustenance perverted by the mis-perception of masculinity and femininity? Do we mis-interpret morality, meaning, progression--background and foreground--due to a false understanding of perception? Yes. And so our presence is thus malfunctioned as well.
Consider the role of the animal. There is no distinction between nonhuman and human animals other than the one we superimpose. Our moral architecture is such a perversion--perverted by the omnipresence of phallocratic social impulses--that the distinction becomes camouflaged. Camouflaged as natural. It is only natural that animals are not humans--or, should humans be in fact animals, we are far different than our nonhuman animal sisters. And the reasons behind that logic are legion--but they are meaningless and I'd rather not drown in their minutiae.
Thus, the human's moral architecture contains a glitch. It is not moral to eat human flesh and yet it is moral to eat animal flesh. The glitch is here. Humans are animals. Cannibalism, Carnism...these are variants of the same ideological constructs.
And our society not only consumes animals every day but it also commodifies, objectifies, exploits, disenfranchises, marginalizes and ignores other minority groups. Thus, to suggest that the machinery of morality is functioning properly is terribly incorrect.
B
posted by B at 9:53 PM
0 comments
