The Bloodline

The Bloodline

Samuel Bird

My aware mind joins my now moving body before the thinking mind has a chance to share thoughts. The soft light dances through the window across my thick pile of warm blankets, greeting me into the land of the waking after my return from the dreamworld. Few times in one’s life does seemingness feel so precise than at the waking of such an afternoon nap. Time is gently idling by as I am exactly where I find myself. A thought comes to minds of thoughts to think about. I am greeted by the character I have written myself to be. The mythos of the troubled thinker who attempts to save the human soul is held in my hand. I will assume the character soon, but for a moment I seek blessed reprieve. I close my eyes as the diffused sunlight basks my face in this rare occurrence, a smile. My being is nothing more than what it is, and while I have no idea what that is, I revel in its mystery. A feeling, a thought, and then a present concern. My tooth aches. Must be a fiber of muscle from the steak I ate before my nap. I open my mouth and begin to feel around for it in my back molars. As I do, my knuckle is grazed by my canine. How odd, while it didn’t hurt, I was surprised how sharp it was. Somehow my mind failed to know the teeth so close to where it’s associated brain was located. Humans don’t have canines right? It was animals that had canines? Something felt more true than what words could say. I pulled out my finger to see the nail was surprisingly sharp, as if it was a claw. Humans don’t have claws but animals. I was present in a moment ripe with countless wisdom for me to construct. I stumbled out of bed to the mirror as I leant over the sink. The eyes, the nose, the hair, the lips, the teeth, I feel now what I know. I am animal. I am an animal who is aware, linguistic, and touched by the divine, but I am at least partially this animal. A rare day from labor, and I spent it within doors? I should have spent it barefoot on the riverbed attempting to catch fish with my bare hands. I should have wandered through the woods in a natural posture and forgotten customary behavior. Yes, I am consciousness, and I am mind, but I am also organism. This organism is the animal. I sought to be what I was, and to be that was to fully be this part. In the age of materialism, we forget the material we are made of. We forget to be animal. In the age of denial of the mind, we hope the mind can escape the material. Flesh to us is cursed to rot and die. In our humanism, we build up this rational, impartial, enlightened beast that can assume God’s empty throne and with it His view of reality. We misplace of death by never admitting we are life. The ontology of freewill aside, we correctly find that we can seem to effectively make choices whose doing changes our being. However, we are not a empty thing available for anything. We are a certain sort of being who happens to be versatile, but there are limits to what we can be versatile to, based on our being. While not full essentialism, this makes a thing only able to do certain sorts of actions, which at least prima facie is very reasonable. While new advancements in our being are adjusting to environments, there is a given series of environments we are designed to survive and thrive in, and another series we are not. We can not socialize, will, or adapt past this without having the rest of our being be at odds with this faux new aspect. We can build all the systems of information we desire, but the physical portion of cognitive processing is barely any different than when we were allowed to be fully animal. While not full determinism yet, we find ourselves to some degree doomed from the womb as much of our being is made up before we are aware of it. This is “thrownness” as we find ourselves in a given world as a given sort of being. We can attempt to adjust facets of either, but are left to do so with the same sorts of things we were given. This leaves us to faithful resignation. Not all men can be trained to be record runners, lifters, or specialized thinkers. This inequality is brim in nature and found in us at least much as we are natural. We are welcome to curse our being and destroy ourselves in the effort to bring about homo deus, or we can reside ourselves to the wisdom of fate that made us be so. Given that we are a certain sort of thing, this gives a sharedness to our values that we are in dire need of. What sort of values would an organism have? 

The organism would seek to be as the core the consciousness held within seeks to be. This is not to say that it seeks to live, though I will need to meditate on the distinction. An illustration of our organism not holding living as a primary value is that our body is willfully permitted to die no matter the resources at hand. However, that death is permitted only after a very particular part of our development that points to the real aim of the organism. Another resource to identify the aim of our organism is to see what behaviors it incentives via the qualia or seemingness of pleasure. Food, especially when high in energy, is pleasurable to eat. Sleep is pleasantly restful as I exemplified earlier. These smaller pleasures are designed to keep us alive. We would now look for the thing we would do in the prime of our lives and our organism seeks to reward us most for doing. You may have guessed so, but this is sex as conception. These pleasures are not for their own sake, but for this end. This is life’s aim for life. Some will note this is not an essential telos as life doesn’t “want” to make more life, but happens to do so based on what lives were able to perpetuate. We would only want to make life because of the trajectory and momentum of the lives that preceded us. Regardless of how it “is,” we know how it “seems.” This is of course often called “natural selection” or “Darwinism.” You might wonder how I coincide this with my faith in God, but for some reason I don’t seem to care. This is terribly unphilosophical and may need addressing, but I find both of these things as how I find the world. For now we can say that Darwinism is at odds with the contingent story around God, but it is not at odds with the necessary nature and consequences of God. However, we will later address that it is necessarily at odds with modern assumptions of humanism, blank slate theory, socialization, and non-variant based equality. The question of Darwinism is: Who succeeds to perpetuate in the world God handed us? You may note and we will later address the issue of how this process works in the world man remade in his image. At the very least we can say, what bloodline can perpetuate will be found in the next generation. This is of course to a given environment, but there is a multiplicity of such found naturally. Animals survive the desert, marsh, and forest to varying degrees and for that reason we don’t find Saharan penguins or Artic ostriches. These qualities are simple and valueless facts that make us more likely to survive. However, given that we value being alive to a degree, we would also value these qualities to a degree. We value strength not for its own sake solely, but because strength helps us exact resources and forgo their loss. With any quality, a given quality is also not best maximized as the cost to reward hits a nexus where any more given amount of that quality would not be worth the cost. For example, our cognitive limits have in part to do with the caloric dependent function of cognition. As I have said before, to see a monkey in a cage is not to see a monkey in its fullness. We are inseparable from that place fate made and placed us. This is why the mismatch between an organism’s initial environment and lived environment can make it deathly ill. One will never fully know their humanity without knowing his primacy and animalism. While I say that some qualities are more effective for survival than others, this may seem as if I am saying that those qualities are more valuable. Rather, what I am saying is they are more causally sufficient to obtain. A key part of this chapter is this contrast of moral and causal ought. I will have many readers that read this chapter and say that I am evil as all life ought to live. Morality finds us saying so, but nature and fate deny us. Life is a leap to death and a hope to create life midair. We can scream at the world that it is unfair, but we are still left to abide by how we find it. For example, if we seek out and fail to obtain, we can feel we are morally derived from our objective and we feel we are morally owed. However, what we can say is we causally failed to obtain, which is not a moral claim. We now can see our plight at hand more clearly, while also not cursing it. 

A certain sort of animal best survives long enough to produce offspring in the world we found ourselves in. What of the inconsistent, hubris filled mess that is the world we made? To say that the threads of thought become nearly untraceable here is to speak lightly of it. As we are now speaking of the complex social world, we are now totally talking about what is called “social darwinism.” This is the question of what organisms are being selected for perpetuance given the world we have now made. This idea is incredibly controversial for reasons I will name later and I had to meditate to ask if it was worth some reflection given so. As Darwin came out with one of the most elegant and reproducible ideas ever to be synthesized, modernity looked at it as a tool to kill God. This idea did not prima facie coincided with the mythos as it was purported. With that, they killed God and yet chose to take His place and ignore this new idea as it applied to them. You will note that this is the ratcheting fallacy and in order to not also commit it, I will need to make a possible case at some point, but I am tapped for now. In making humanity into this new sort of modern mythos that always progresses, can be any sort of thing, and is impartially rationally, we deny what we are at least in part. Humanism’s name attempted to not allow us to see that its assumptions were anti human and instead purely modern. We can try to create our own world, but what “we” will be created in it? We find ourselves thrust into a world that is brim with complex causal systems we can’t possibly identify in whole even ad hoc. We then assume we can go in and change portions of that system we can’t possibly comprehend and hope that system changes only what we want and not to destroy the system. Really think about this process and how absolutely foolish it is. We synthesize a new compound that maximizes some short-sighted value, but in doing so it poisons the system. We begin to meddle in the world we don’t understand. This makes a world that is unstable though we might use more pleasant words like “progressive.” Here is the issue, we are now in a world we are not made for, and by the time we would even start to adapt to it, that world would have shifted to be a new sort of world. This leads us exhausted, not what we are, and destroys the world for a morsel of our pleasure. This is of course when we also forget what that pleasure was mounting towards. I have been finding all the ways modernity has lied to me. One of which is it’s assumption that the past was very dogmatic and we are now enlightened. I can’t find a book published in the last decade that was willing to be critical of its assumptions or at least the modern Zeitgeist. I find even ancient religion was less certain that it must think toward the end of its systems as there is still some curiosity available for detection. This places me at odds and now poised to commit modern heresy. Given the world we have, who is having children, and what world will those children make? Really think about this, who is having children and who isn’t? Outside of if we value those people, would those people be able to keep up the modern trajectory? Progress is designed to crash to zero if it doesn’t progress, though I will need to defend that model later. What bloodlines are being permitted to persist and can they make a world persist. No doubt upon hearing this, I will be accused of going against parties that are considered oppressed and therefore in the modern system, superior. Firstly, if I came to a conclusion true and impermissible, I would yet conclude. Secondly, it is in your mind who you found to be able to perpetuate our world, not mine. Perhaps it would even place our elite in question. I am at peace if those that have the qualities to survive, survive. However, our systems bring about people’s perpetuance who would both not survive in the world we came from, nor the world we go to. For example, why are the elite the elite? Is it their physical strength? Simply no. Is it their ability to participate well in social systems? Notably, no. Is it their superior intellect? Very much not the case. So, why do they succeed? I find the commonality is their acceptance of aribtrating value from a system. What made them successful is then essentially their disregard for the value in the system we share. I will later talk about this. This is where my claim of morality as often being the tool of the elite to exact the value they don’t abide by. This is not to hate the mighty, but to hate the weak for keeping the mighty from might given their unnavigable and counter-intuitive social systems. Is this a world the next generation will have time to change to or is not self-extincting? Furthermore, can these people make a world that can make that world persist? I have expressed concern for those I am allowed to. What of those that are not able to survive? Modern medicine allows increasingly sicker people to have increasingly sicker offspring. We then tout our low infant mortality while also wondering why we are all so ill. I will not say that it is morally acceptable for people to die young, but I will ask what world will we bring this way? You are likely disgusted at my asking and I would agree if not for a very careful qualifier here. The issue is that we have too much control of the world. If nature chooses for us to live or die, we can resign ourselves to fate and prepare our rituals. The issue is that we now have the power of life and death in our hands, and at some point will need to choose death if we seek to still hold this power. It is once again an example of technological advancements ruining the delicate system at hand. This is the question of eugenics. If some are not fit to survive and they won’t die naturally, should we kill them? The issue here is that they would not be allowed to die naturally. I deny eugenics not out of morality, but our of arbitrariness. Do we once again assume hubris now to assume who is best to live and die? Go ahead, hate me and call me a villain, but where is this causal sequence to you affirm and deny? Morality as permissiveness would tell us we need to keep all alive, but what world would this make? What indignity to allow people to be the animal they are and pass on when fate concludes? Trust me, I feel troubled to ask these questions, but what will the world be like in a millenia if we continue at this rate? I am not saying I have an answer, but I am troubled that this question is unquestionable. The only answer I have that is neither horrific nor extinction is the natural. We need to feel pain but it is vile to give the pain. What is then best is to allow fate’s world to hurt us as needed. Otherwise, we become impetulant children that have no one to tell us no, and our wants are endless and inconsistent. No matter the metric, there is a massive disparity to how much a given person holds that metric. This inequality is nature’s variety trying to find what life can bring about life. The issue of sorts of people is so prevalent and heated that I find wisdom in ignoring it for now. However, if we were to ask what sorts of people ought to live on, we can find some facts of which to think on. Every variety of people that were there when society started were sufficient to survive in that environment they came from, at the least. We can’t say for that reason that one initial sort of people is unfit to exist. This defense of all initial sorts of people is not to say there are no sorts, variances, and specialization. I look past a large pointy nose to read this that was designed to heat cold air slightly before it came to the nasal cavity. I am then advantaged towards a given environment that is given on earth, which is true of all initial people and with fate all new current people. I have not sufficiently explored the ideas needed, but I both worry some horrors will be done in its name and that the world will try to forgo Maximism out of hatred of the prophecy of their behavior leading to their end. I will leave you with your thoughts and ask for nuance. For example, it is fraught to assume a given sort of human is less adapted to survival. Do not have hubris to assume such. We are only hoping for an allowance of fate and not to make ourselves judge. 

It is not just the negation of life via death that allows fate her right to bring about which bloodline she wills. It is also who is to be born. Before birth there is need for conception, one instance excluding. What we think something is for drastically changes how we use it. This epistemic assumption would then change the moral imperatives, even given the same moral framework. Let us note that this conception as sex is costly to the organism. Not only does it take many calories to commence in, but a refined body carries sex organs, and the body is structured with secondary sex characteristics such as to woo a potential mate. The effort commenced by our organism demonstrates its central nature, but that centrality is toward our bloodline. Again, I am careful to sound like this is an essential teleological fact of organism, but at least in our seemingness it is an effective desire given what organisms had this desire prior to us. Metaphors and comparisons to human sexuality abound, but if they stop at the sexual and do not include the parental, they fall short. For that reason I think of father sky and mother earth. They bring about life, but then have to continue their roles in nurturing that life. With all of our aspects, the aspect of organism is created at birth via this conception followed by gestation. This will to life as the bursting bud from the ground pulls at every heart that also possesses life. As we will speak on the next-order processes of reproduction, let us note that this is the “why” that we are beings with a sexual quality. The pleasure behind it is for no reason than to perpetuate the bloodline. To make it a thing to itself would then make it the objective, and not the reproduction of a life. Any incidental life is then tossed to the side in a parental failing that I don’t hope for your mercy. The child then does not have the care that it needs while the would-be parents who succeeded in childless sex, have lives that miss it’s material objective. The child uncared for is not worth the pleasure of a million orgasms. Sex is for the creation and connection needed for the child to have a foundation for life. You will rightly be suspect of the “for.” I will later ground this quality, but for now we can remark that this system produces offspring that do not have the nurtured psyche to make a people persist. I will be told I am antiquated and don’t understand the grandeur of sexual liberation, but I don’t care. A society that cannot rear and care for its children ought to die in an epistemic sense. However, in a sense of value, I will watch with ire to see that people fail. It is not that you are selfish, but you do it so shortsightedly and without wisdom. No amount of copulation is more vital than the care of a child. If we make sex about pleasure, it will become a litany of decadence and debauchery, but whether or not thought ought to be, that is not what sex is “for” and hence is not an option. 

 The selection process for a mate consists of both mother and father looking for a mate with qualities worth the possessing for the offspring. These qualities of health, vitality, sociality, and intellect are then found to be attractive in a mate with the hope to find that quality in the next generation. This is why the body exists. Modern notions of many romantic experiences or humanistic mythos fail to grasp this. We do not exist for fine art, pleasure, or even quality of life. We live long enough for the conceiving and rearing of children. As this drive is powerful and includes much in the way of offering up one's values for the values of the offspring, wise fate rewards us with this. The human gestation period is taxing with no ready comparison in the animal kingdom. The human child is then still born before it is ready to be anything less than completely in need from the parents. This places the mother in a position of desperation. How will she exact resources from a scarce world while she is wearily and wonderfully creating life? What our ancestors did that has since spread to us is familial ties where the bloodline is preserved and defended by peripheral members. No member is more vital to this than a mate. In organic specialization, the male and female body and brain varied in abilities to specialize in capacities. While the mother is in travail, the father’s more rugged bone structure, visual processing, and causal cognition put him in a position where he is then able to access resources via effort and thought. The woman is able to handle this tremendous pain, care for the child once out of the womb, and be the child's first world. In my age, as foretold, everyone is oppressed by everyone else. Women and men think the other is failing to live up to their role and metrics for this hate are available for viewing. The secret is that this mate pair as the nucleus to a family is radically independent, it is past the oppression of what powers that be do have the resources at hand. This issue between the sexes is manifest in a horrific rift in the delicate and vital period courting needed for the dance of the ages. This oppression is manifest by each being told the other is privileged and they are without. The secret lie doesn’t hate men or women more than it hates the human in its ironic and deceitful name. In the age that men are alleged to rule, there is no masculine zeitgeist available. In the age of alleged female liberation, the powerful seemingness of soul that women are specialized at is oppressed. There is no human beauty that is not instantiated in sex. What qualities make a beautiful person? Impossible to say without ridding ourselves of our aesthetic values. What makes a beautiful man or woman? Secondary sex characteristics are now available as they are instantiated to that sex, ripe for the wondering. The “heldness” of the woman to the heart, the seemingness of her soul and permissiveness toward death is needed to fully be what we are. The defiance to survive which crushes anxiety, and the mind that can analyze data is needed to fully be what we are. In what we do not find ourselves, we seek for in our mate. Every child deserves a mother with a warm embrace and a father with strength. 

Familial bonds brought economies of scale, cooperation, and preservation in bloodline making the unselfish selfish in purest love. The bond between these two mates is the most vital and paramount form of this. In the age of the secret lie, I have already said too much on the variance between man and woman and must be precise, concise, and aggressive. The man cares for the mind and body while the woman cares for the heart and soul. The same that cry it is oppression to see this, will note that deep pain found in the lifestyle they have that forgo this. I wish every young mind came into awareness to flourish under this vital structure. For the rest of your life, the seemingness and emotion and in the warm presence of your mother as you carry it with you. Behind your back as you think and exist, you feel the powerful force of your father. What therapeutic healing is in this simple feeling one lives with? Over socialization and social engineering seek to make man what he is not nor has the option to be. I first thought this was from epistemic falling, but now wonder if the secret lie was manifest in malice. I will likely be told that the rough dynamic I am proposing here was socialized into my mind as that is all anything can be to them. However, I was raised contrary to this and identified that it was non-opportune given the fixed sort of thing I am. Yes, family dynamics can vary in how they are, but it is necessary that they are. No other dynamic places your existence as so self serving as to give you all the resources you need. Nepotism is wisdom that makes one’s bloodline opportune. We could have family tribes, communes, villages, led by great-grandparents, grandparents or just parents, but we need some instance of the bloodline manifesting its will to life in service of others. Modern man engineer this at your own peril. I think this hubris comes from a need to validate itself. We must be right that man is perfectible and not an animal. We will prove so by pulling him from his world, placing him in a cage, and leaving him without a family. See, we were right. He did not die and did what we said! But then I look in this child’s eyes and see a denial of life. He is not dead because his wishes abandon him too. How could you do so cruelly to the children of humanity, modernity you manmade satan? Modernity will then pull out its mathematical lies. They note that life expectancy is more than before. Yes, because sick children live sick lives instead of joining the earth again in dignity. More lives and made to be lived sicker. We don’t run, think, and live until we don’t but slip further and further into sensual poisons until we are officially no more. It thinks we can be socialized to a limit. However, where did the first socialization come from? Who first brought experiences into the world? Why are mindscares given from certain sorts of experiences, no matter what community you find yourself in? In my love for you and the deep “no” said to your soul, I have so much I can say of this modernity, but I will prepare those thoughts for another day. Let us minimally here conclude that a people who don’t allow for the courting, creating, and caring of children via family systems, will both die, and deserve it. 

Man exists for himself, but that for himself is most effective for him, when this “for” is for his God, his mate, and his offspring. We are and ought to be externally free. We then are and ought to be externally convicted. Ideas conduit to the heart and there become beautiful imperatives. In this as passions, they become imperatives we seek to bring about or preserve. Esse Maxim is the centrality and system of this effort, but the family, the mate, the children, and the bloodline is worth consideration in the placement and ramifications from one’s subjective Esse Maxim. This bloodline is the continuance of life from its first welling up in prehistory to ourselves. From our point in time, we then look forward to where this may lead. The wild wish for each bloodline is for the last descendant of man to be one’s prodigy. I think so much of all that I will to be good and want to bring about in the world. I stay up late into the night in feverish, pacing speeches. The world needs, I hear it, and it resonates within me. It is so slight that these passions within me do not turn to a revolution of swords and shouts over the pen. I am only brought peace by one fact: My kingdom is not of this world. The effort to bring sufficient value from this life is so fraught, I have resigned and abandoned myself from it. I still have dreams of saving the world as my arrogance sees it ought to be. However, I am to be reminded I have made my conceptual system not in need of this life giving me all I will have. However, past any brave or deceitful stoicism, there is one thing that I want from life that I can’t now imagine how I would reconcile myself if I did not obtain it. I wish to be a husband and father. The rage I have expressed today was on your behalf, but some of it was also on mine. In means and methods that would be dated and dark to share, I doubt if I will ever claim this dream most central to me. I want to be a father. I want to bring about life. This is what it is to sire a child. However, additionally and perhaps more centrally, I seek to father their minds. Do you know why I philosophize as I do in such a unique way? I prepare my simple wisdoms for my beloved children that I may never have. To even admit the possibility of not having them breaks my heart. I have held my son in my dreams and walked along with my daughter. I will never forgive modernity for tampering in the tender effort for life to life within the human family. If I may step far from the role I am told to play, I have something to ask. If heaven hedges and hell halts me in this most divine of efforts to me, would you be my child? I can never sire your body, but can you take the wanting wisdom of a childless father? For that self-created part of your mind, can I be with you in your self-creation? I would describe much of the hurt my age to be this empty fatherlessness. In as far as you need, so I offer it to you. Lay yourself on these pages and let the words carry you when I could not. I have explored much territory for us to be at odds, and while I don’t mind ideological loyalty, I don’t want to lose sight of my objective, you. I have said many things today on delicate issues, and I may be wrong. I hope in my efforts, I did not alienate you. This effort may place me in a position to affirm or deny things, but it is always for you. After all, this is the love of a father. I have spent my life learning, watching, and reasoning out how to be a good father and I have found some things. Sometimes you need to be aggressive, as I was on your behalf today. You need to be stable and securing. You need to be strong and capable. You need to be smart in knowing and directing, but wise in how you do so. Inevitably, you will choose what relationship you and I have. However, what it is you were left for in want, what your soul yearns for, what I can have pretension to offer, I would for you.