Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society & Its Pathologies / Social Epistemology / Sentience & Semiotics /
The audience watches Macbeth make up his (and Lady Macbeth’s) mind to push fate along by murdering King Duncan: that’s while Duncan is a guest in Macbeth’s castle. Hoo Boy, now Macbeth is king: and the audience watches him plot to foil fate by murdering others in the royal line.
Notice one thing for now: everyone in the audience will believe that murder is wrong! especially murder for political, social, economic blah blah gain. Even Lady Macbeth knew it was wrong, and she’s the one who pushed Macbeth’s mind toward expedience.
OK pk, what’s the the point? (the other half of the point?) Just this: it wasn’t always so. Macbeth is an old story, Cain and Abel is an old story (with more than one interpretation), but then there’s the very old story of the King of the Wood. (See Frazer, Golden Bough.) There, anyone (anyone male) can become king: all you have to do is kill the king. Kill the king and then you’re King of the Wood!
(And whether you reign for an hour or a year, you’ll never sleep again!)
King of the Wood
(game graphic, thanx blacklibrary
Yes, of course, my mythology, my reasoning, is fast and loose, I know: it’s one of my greatest virtues. Roll with me anyway because here’s a big glide:
Whoever kills the king is king. Whoever invented all this garble about bloodlines, reasons, legitimacy … Clear it all away: whoever kills the king is king:
We killed Jesus! Jesus was God! Therefore … ! Are we now God?
It’s reasoning: no worse than most human reasoning. Uh … and here comes all that baggage: blood lines, logic, fact …
While Macbeth is parading around calling himself king and being called king by everyone under threat of his sword, his army, is he really king? Does God know different?
Does it matter what God knows while everyone under threat of Macbeth’s sword is calling him king?
Does what God knows matter so long as we hold the hill?
We hold it, not God.
And we’ll put everyone in jail who murmurs about it.
Does it matter what freedom would really be in a free society while we’re all under nuclear threat, massed under the 49th parallel? c. 4,000 miles of fence.
If everyone agrees that the earth is flat, or that tobacco is harmless, or that believing in Jesus guarantees your slipping into heaven, no matter what you’ve done, if everyone believes that giving all your money to the AMA cures your cancer, how can it possibly matter what the truth might be?
What right do humans have to talk about the truth?
Is God really such a fool? Or does pk have no more right than another human to talk about God or the truth?
Face it, get used to it, it’s no longer new: we can talk about anything.
I pay a sort of service above to majority views and also to longevity of view. Murder has been believed to be wrong by a majority of the civilized for a long time. Hospitality has been regarded as sacred for a long time as well: Duncan was supposed to be safe in Macbeth’s castle even if Macbeth was his enemy, not his vassel. Your bedouin host has to protect you in his tent for the first three nights: after that you’re once again just another bit of wilderness: fair game.
Even a hotel of thieves shouldn’t rob the guests the first three nights.
A PS on a concept related to age, seniority, is coming.
In brief, if my society can put me in school against my will, back in the 1940s, can teach balderdash to me despite its falseness being stentorian, why then the society can interrupt me in the 1950s, and 1960s, and 1970s, and 1980s, and 1990s, and 2000s, as well, and continue to in the 2010s. No explanation is necessary: just like the deposed King of the Wood’s blood, once spilled by the new king’s knife, won’t go back into the old king’s body, won’t reanimate the old king. We killed Jesus? He’s dead, Man.
We prevented reason from developing? Cut off and stunted the reason that had developed, Hey, it’s stunted, Man.
The broken eggs won’t hatch chickens.