more moore morphological-neurological darwinian cognitions
So, as I contemplate morphological change viz 'augmentation'; that word takes on a new meaning. If I had some congenital defect that left my breasts unformed e.g. in their present state, I could have my insurance pay for the correction of this 'defect'.
Or not, as michael moore explores in his new film, the fact that capitalism is capitalism... that is, companies which distribute dollars among a pool of risk decide that some get treatments and others don't. The problem is when your promotion is based on denials, and cost-cutting... So, things that are REAL problems like TMJ, not covered by most ins. co's. And you get a disease, and suddenly you get dropped, or you get jacked up premiums (now that I understand to some degree), which seems to go against the pooling of the risk...
Probably the real problem there is the creative accounting which shifts numbers from column to column and from department to department, leaving real problems in the real world related to fuzzy math...
Anyway, like Nip/Tuck has done in their narrative of the fall with regard to the human condition, what is 'normal'?
So, I have no 'congenital defect' to speak of, yet my latest shopping trip to Limited Too where I found "The Perfect Bra".... and no pants or underwear that fit confirms that I have the hips of a middle aged woman and the breasts of a 12 year old (or younger I guess, since girls mature younger and younger these days).
Lets examine three levels of morphology that are current:
neurochemical - serotonin
cystitis - antibiotic
physiological - implantation
(By the way, environment here is paramount since there are as few as 40 practicing psychiatrists and we are in a CRISIS having our medical machinery decimated by that stupid storm that everyone thinks is gone. So, I have some work to do to even find a doctor to treat each level of my biological dysfunction.)
Thought... You know pastor Cannata is really right that the gospel is what drives us, (*I guess even if we are moving sand around*), to rebuild. Because, I mean how much could he possibly get paid? And we can't get any stupid doctors down here???
Ahhh... at least my spiritual care is free (or reasonably so).
Back to the levels of morphology -->
What constitues progress within the species? Me taking an antibiotic so I can rid myself of some bacteria which got where it shouldnt'a. I mean sometimes my body can fight these off, given that I cut back on the things which irritate that system. -ahem. (but of course that might infringe on the rights of others.) And these antibiotics help now, hurt later, in generational terms.
Me taking antidepressant so that I can function well within society, passing on risk of psychological deficiencies to potential genetic offspring.
Me 'augmenting myself' which would be actively participating in the culture of beauty which favours certain proportions, and consequently rewards them monetarily and sociologically. Which in some way determines if I get to be one of the participants in the act of genesis.
(all of this assuming that the environment is such that I can even find providers of these services, since tort lawyers have ruined the medical profession, such that the only profit is to be found in the 'augmentation' procedures.)
In some sense these are the sorts of choices which have microcosmic effects. Is 'letting nature take its course' wisdom or is the imperative of 'dominion' the guiding principle? Totally serious... there was a guy *I think on NPR* who was arguing that in the big scheme, who are we to decide that 'global warming' (or global climate change) is a 'bad' thing for the earth, I mean come on, that's a little anthropocentric. When the center does not hold...
So, is it possible to step outside ourselves as a species, and decide that we are not the arbiters of good and bad on a global scale? It's kinda stupid, the idea of entitlement... I've been taking anti-biotics for bladder infections since I was a child. If it's best for the species, should I step outside myself and say, so be it, I should die from complications of a minor infection if it will extinguish a non-preferred member of the species, re-allocating resources to a member with better resistance?
I have ethical choices to be made which have a microcosmic effect on the future of the species.
Further, I hate when I see the hotel staff feed the pigeons, because I'm convinced that it can bring nothing but evil our way. First, we live in a state that has West Nile virus, and increasing bird population, increases mosquito population, which increases cases of West Nile in the human population. And if not West Nile, I'm sure there's HSN-V or something in the excrement of these birds which is ubiquitous now thanks to the nice staff which provide a species something non-native to ensure their presence.
These are pigeons, and I find them detestable. I have no idea which species are preferred and why... All I know is that their impact on my life is negligible except for the excrement that they leave, which I find a nuisance. So, why subsidize that which contributes little good and only causes nuisance? This is what Stephen Colbert had to say about the Bald Eagle's return from the endangered species list, after all it's just "Welfare for animals", to the ....wombat, you see a whole species can pull itself up by it's talons, 'I don't care if you grew up in a burrough, lose some weight and get a job.'
All that is to say, competing interests - global environmental, human, and sub-human - show one of the points that I was meaning to draw out earlier. The knowledge of 'good and evil', really amounts to knowing between good and evil, and then further, we are in a quandry because in our limited capacity, we cannot KNOW 'good from evil'. I mean part of the curse is that we are relegated to our own judgement. We can only be anthropocentric! Further, we cannot see beyond our own species, community, political interests, and such. As such we are out of harmony with God or the cosmos [if Adam is reading this], and we cannot find our way.
Or not, as michael moore explores in his new film, the fact that capitalism is capitalism... that is, companies which distribute dollars among a pool of risk decide that some get treatments and others don't. The problem is when your promotion is based on denials, and cost-cutting... So, things that are REAL problems like TMJ, not covered by most ins. co's. And you get a disease, and suddenly you get dropped, or you get jacked up premiums (now that I understand to some degree), which seems to go against the pooling of the risk...
Probably the real problem there is the creative accounting which shifts numbers from column to column and from department to department, leaving real problems in the real world related to fuzzy math...
Anyway, like Nip/Tuck has done in their narrative of the fall with regard to the human condition, what is 'normal'?
So, I have no 'congenital defect' to speak of, yet my latest shopping trip to Limited Too where I found "The Perfect Bra".... and no pants or underwear that fit confirms that I have the hips of a middle aged woman and the breasts of a 12 year old (or younger I guess, since girls mature younger and younger these days).
Lets examine three levels of morphology that are current:
neurochemical - serotonin
cystitis - antibiotic
physiological - implantation
(By the way, environment here is paramount since there are as few as 40 practicing psychiatrists and we are in a CRISIS having our medical machinery decimated by that stupid storm that everyone thinks is gone. So, I have some work to do to even find a doctor to treat each level of my biological dysfunction.)
Thought... You know pastor Cannata is really right that the gospel is what drives us, (*I guess even if we are moving sand around*), to rebuild. Because, I mean how much could he possibly get paid? And we can't get any stupid doctors down here???
Ahhh... at least my spiritual care is free (or reasonably so).
Back to the levels of morphology -->
What constitues progress within the species? Me taking an antibiotic so I can rid myself of some bacteria which got where it shouldnt'a. I mean sometimes my body can fight these off, given that I cut back on the things which irritate that system. -ahem. (but of course that might infringe on the rights of others.) And these antibiotics help now, hurt later, in generational terms.
Me taking antidepressant so that I can function well within society, passing on risk of psychological deficiencies to potential genetic offspring.
Me 'augmenting myself' which would be actively participating in the culture of beauty which favours certain proportions, and consequently rewards them monetarily and sociologically. Which in some way determines if I get to be one of the participants in the act of genesis.
(all of this assuming that the environment is such that I can even find providers of these services, since tort lawyers have ruined the medical profession, such that the only profit is to be found in the 'augmentation' procedures.)
In some sense these are the sorts of choices which have microcosmic effects. Is 'letting nature take its course' wisdom or is the imperative of 'dominion' the guiding principle? Totally serious... there was a guy *I think on NPR* who was arguing that in the big scheme, who are we to decide that 'global warming' (or global climate change) is a 'bad' thing for the earth, I mean come on, that's a little anthropocentric. When the center does not hold...
So, is it possible to step outside ourselves as a species, and decide that we are not the arbiters of good and bad on a global scale? It's kinda stupid, the idea of entitlement... I've been taking anti-biotics for bladder infections since I was a child. If it's best for the species, should I step outside myself and say, so be it, I should die from complications of a minor infection if it will extinguish a non-preferred member of the species, re-allocating resources to a member with better resistance?
I have ethical choices to be made which have a microcosmic effect on the future of the species.
Further, I hate when I see the hotel staff feed the pigeons, because I'm convinced that it can bring nothing but evil our way. First, we live in a state that has West Nile virus, and increasing bird population, increases mosquito population, which increases cases of West Nile in the human population. And if not West Nile, I'm sure there's HSN-V or something in the excrement of these birds which is ubiquitous now thanks to the nice staff which provide a species something non-native to ensure their presence.
These are pigeons, and I find them detestable. I have no idea which species are preferred and why... All I know is that their impact on my life is negligible except for the excrement that they leave, which I find a nuisance. So, why subsidize that which contributes little good and only causes nuisance? This is what Stephen Colbert had to say about the Bald Eagle's return from the endangered species list, after all it's just "Welfare for animals", to the ....wombat, you see a whole species can pull itself up by it's talons, 'I don't care if you grew up in a burrough, lose some weight and get a job.'
All that is to say, competing interests - global environmental, human, and sub-human - show one of the points that I was meaning to draw out earlier. The knowledge of 'good and evil', really amounts to knowing between good and evil, and then further, we are in a quandry because in our limited capacity, we cannot KNOW 'good from evil'. I mean part of the curse is that we are relegated to our own judgement. We can only be anthropocentric! Further, we cannot see beyond our own species, community, political interests, and such. As such we are out of harmony with God or the cosmos [if Adam is reading this], and we cannot find our way.