Meta-Moral Deontological Concerns: An Epistemological Survey of the Neo-Primitivist Construct in Human Interacts

Throughout time, man has striven to understand the origins of the moral, legal, ethical, religious, and moral systems by which he interacts with his fellow man in order to maintain a cohesive, albeit fractious, society, such as the one in which we currently live; indeed, this question is one of the most basic and fundamental concerns of modern existence[1] as well as ancient philosophy.[2] While this question is essentially unanswerable, I believe that the beginnings of a proto-response can be deconstructed in a post-modern context by heuristic analysis of the human spirit.

The most basic understanding of these problems stems from Starr’s seminal work that outlines the basis of a simple and basic but basically workable basic basis of basic human social institutions. Among the key insights are that “Gaussian electromagnetic disturbances… [played a role in the origins of human spirituality and social] evaluation.”[3] and that “heterogeneous epistemologies”[4] have been implicated as the original form of both the post-Hobbesian social contract and Keynesian economic/structuralist model of dualism. Using this framework we can further develop a full understanding of religion in non-patriarchal circumstances.

La verdad es que la mayoría de lo que entendemos de la religión no es simplemente religioso sino también creado por la influencia de las leyes de la naturaleza, que intercambian más que reconocemos aun hoy, cuando nos consideramos liberados de la traición de los instinctos más básicos del animal.[5] Cuando tratamos de separar las facultades y los constructos del resto del alma humano, se puede reconocer la imposibilidad de entender el hombre y su origen como objectos distinctos. Somos los productos de la evolución, ni más ni menos, y por eso nos pertenece el problema de pelear contra la oscuridad (y es la oscuridad de que Kant trataba de sacar un poco de la luz del razón[6]) en que se esconde la verdad de la ley, la fe, y las éticas.

One potential explanation for the why we have religion and law and things like that is that without them we were all pretty much hopeless wrecks who couldn’t even cooperate until we organized. Or maybe God was like, “Yo, have some religion. Also some Mosaic Law. Talmud will be coming later, dudes. Be patient!” At least that’s what the Bible says.[7] Or I guess maybe people who believe in stuff like laws and morals tend not to get killed by other pissed off dudes, or maybe they’re better at killing pissed off dudes or something, and have hella babies and that’s why they reproduce more and we have Darwinian justice (and the law of the jungle) have evolved.

On the other hand, leading scholars, among them Starr, have suggested other explanations. Although not unchallenged, one of Starr’s bolder claims asserts the primacy of the emergent properties of neural networks inherent in human neuro-circuitry as the basis for most social abilities.[8] Primitive law, notably the Code of Hammurabi, and object-oriented programming languages have certain striking similarities in syntax that have not escaped notice by leading scholars.[9] Further analysis will be necessary before experts have determined with certainties whether these represent convergent evolution or a true case of homology in parsing mechanisms.

In conclusion, the only certainty among the many complexities of religion, law, and stuff like that is that this shit is complicated. Furthermore, Ceiling Cat is watching you masturbate. I have a deadline and it’s like now, so the paper has to end here. I’ll slip you a 20 if it’ll help, okay?

P.S. Call me! XOXO

[1] Heidi. “WTF is life about?” 18 November 2007. Buzznet. <http://xhottiexwithaxbodyx.buzznet.com/user/journal/1325241/>. Retrieved 21 June 2008.

[2] Aristotle. Ethics. Greece: Philosophers P, A Really Long Time Ago.

[3] Starr, Norton. “A Case for Evolutionary Programming.” SCIgen 58.2 (2008) 789.

[4] ibid 791.

[5] Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. London: John Murray, 1871. Chapter 3.

[6] Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Allen Wood, tr. New Haven: Yale U P, 2002. 142.

[7] God. The Holy Bible. Heaven: Almighty God P, B’reishet. Somewhere in Exodus, probably.

[8] Starr, 801.

[9] Cite this later.