The Metamorphosis

When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin. He was lying on his back as hard as armor plate, and when he lifted his head a little, he saw his vaulted brown belly, sectioned by arch-shaped rips, to whose dome the cover, about to slide off completely, could barely cling. His many legs, pitifully thin compared with the size of the rest of him, were waving helplessly before his eyes.

“What’s happened to me?” he thought.

That’s how it’s done, folks. If you ever plan to write a book, follow Kafka’s example. As opening lines go, it’s perfect. The remainder of the book is a masterpiece, a one-sitting, forty or so page read, and highly recommended by the Areopagus. It’s a classic of modern literature, though no one is precisely certain of Kafka’s intent.

Nevertheless, every time I read those striking opening lines I ask myself, why wouldn’t I see myself as a monstrous vermin, even under normal circumstances? I’m quite convinced that most other species, terrestrial or not, with the possible exception of dogs and cats, would see me as a monstrous vermin–and certainly what we consider as monstrous vermin would see me that way. So is it my personhood that blinds me? Is it my existence within humanity that prevents an objective view from without?

Certainly, but let’s delve a bit deeper. What is there about my nature, or yours for that matter, that precludes our classification as just other vermin? Is there any fact or condition about the universe which mitigates our condition as vermin? Do we merely awake as lifeforms each morning, or is there something non-verminous in our blood? Gregor did not seem to think so. Indeed, his life resembled the vermin we detest: scurrying about to survive, only surviving to a mundane, monotonous existence of daily drudgery, and the pressures of existence. Is there more, or are we but sophisticated insects?

Some have suggested consciousness sets us apart from the vermin. But conceived as no more than emergent property of matter, consciousness only appears to add the pain of the realization of our discovery that we are indeed vermin. Many have stared down this abyss and embraced this nothingness. I applaud them for their courage. Others, with consciousness in tow, have dreamed that our choices somehow are the universal mitigators that free us from the nothingness.

“What’s happened to me?” he thought. It was no dream.

And it’s not a dream. We are vermin. Of course, one might convince himself that purpose and meaning may be created through choices, existential leaps, action, or a thousand other things. But these are the dreams of the vermin. It’s as Seth Brundell remarked in the remake of The Fly: I was an insect who dreamt he was a man, and loved it. But now the dream is over, and the insect is awake.”

And be we vermin, it’s a ghastly verminitude. The very consciousness that awakens us to our condition, awakens us to the horror of our nature. For insects are brutal, as Brundell also noted, but we humans are a fully aware, conscious, cruel vermin…vermin who delight in the brutality of our existence. There’s more evil in a schoolyard taunt, than in the combined ravages, pain, death, and pillage wrought by the entire insect world in all of recorded history, and beyond.

Yet, this just may be the mitigating factor of the universe. For when we vermin wake in the morning, we sense that we are more than scurrying creatures, bereft of meaning, purpose, and hope. The very evil that we confront is a clue that larger forces are at work. Indeed, there’s more to us than meets our fleshly, verminous eyes:

“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the exact times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.'”

And I’m certain I read somewhere that “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The mystery of Godliness is great: that God–if I may dare say it–became as one of the vermin, lighting the way to meaning, purpose, and hope. Men dreamt that they were animals, and reveled in it. But light has come into the world; the time for dreaming is ended for those willing to come into the light, rather than scurrying for dark corners. Think upon such things when you awake.

The Dark Man

dark-man-2 The Dark Man is now available from Marcher Lord Press. Click on the Marcher Lord Press link to the right to order. Charles Graves, Julia Jenkins, the Reverend Cleveland, Frank Cotton Graves, and (boo, hiss) Richard Fah-reese are all waiting for you. Oh yeah, the dark man is waiting for you to act as well, and he doesn’t like delays.

I’d enjoy hearing from you once you’ve read it: good, bad, or otherwise. You can reach me directly at the email link on this page, and at marcschooley.com. I answer all emails, and yours is no exception. That is, unless it comes through with a spam address like eruouoidkbhkhdskgherh23!@88&*&(*(.com or trythisnew678@eroitueori.com. You know what I mean.

And if your name is Jonathan J. Krismunbaldi the IV or Helen P. Gushmeyereldenstein, I’d prefer you not order the book as well. Anyone else should order without delay.

One more thing, if you’re a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (it doesn’t exist), I’d prefer you wait ten years before buying the book. The Dark Man contains a blueprint for the continued world domination by theists, and we wouldn’t want to reveal those plans prematurely, although they’ve been on display for 1000’s of years now.

Well, also if you’re an anarcho-syndicalist, you may not like this book.

That’s all for now,

MS Quixote, non-anarcho-syndicalist

Not so fast, Kozlowski…

It’s generally accepted in the western tradition that the Greek philosopher Thales predicted a solar eclipse on May 28, 585 BC—no need to check your screen, that’s BC, not BCE. This date represents a marker for the genesis of philosophy, and perhaps rudimentary science and mathematics, for many historians.

 

It’s probably safe to assume Thales was not calculating in a vacuum; his efforts most likely existed alongside other thinkers of his day. Nevertheless, classical philosophy operated from Thales’s day forward, virtually unchanged with respect to its foundational metaphysical assumptions for two millennia, before the advent of Hume and Kant, namely that reason, experience, and natural theology, properly handled, possessed the capability to lead a thinker to a true knowledge of God, the noumenal, and the supernatural.

 

There’s a sharp distinction in philosophic thought on either side of the Hume/Kant boundary. I do not wish presently to explore this divide in depth. Nonetheless, it’s clear historically that Hume and Kant ushered in thoughts which have blossomed into commonplace objections against theism, and Christianity in particular—objections we encounter routinely on the Internet: evidentiary challenges, questions of epistemic warrant, refutations of standard arguments for the existence of God, and agnostic principles, to name a few. It’s no stretch to claim that these two philosophers shaped modern thought as much as any other, including Charles Darwin.

 

Though many Christians demonize Kant, he’s actually sympathetic to theism in comparison with many subsequent thinkers who piggybacked upon his work. Here’s a highly surprising passage buried within Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which serves as a preface to his ensuing Critiques:

 

So I find that the psychological idea (however little it may reveal to me the nature of the human soul, which is elevated above all concepts of experience) shows the insufficiency of these concepts plainly enough and thereby deters me from materialism, a psychological concept which is unfit for any explanation of nature and which in addition confines reason in practical respects. The cosmological ideas, by the obvious insufficiency of all possible cognition of nature to satisfy reason in its legitimate inquiry, serve in the same manner to keep us from naturalism, which asserts nature to be sufficient for itself. Finally, all natural necessity in the sensible world is conditional, as it always presupposes the dependence of things upon others, and unconditional necessity must be sought only in the unity of a cause different from the world of sense. But as the causality of this cause, in its turn, were it merely nature, could never render the existence of the contingent (as is consequent) comprehensible, reason frees itself by means of the theological idea from fatalism (both as blind natural necessity in the coherence of nature itself, without a first principle, and as a blind causality of this principle itself) and leads to the concept of a cause possessing freedom and hence of a Supreme Intelligence. Thus the transcendental ideas serve, if not to instruct us positively, at least to destroy the impudent and restrictive assertions of materialism, of naturalism, and of fatalism, and thus to afford scope for the moral ideas beyond the field of speculation.

 

Great stuff. So, true enough, Immanuel’s not Immanuel. After all, who is, but the one? But certainly he’s not as far off as some might have you to believe.