To the extent that we cannot know with absolute certainty why evolution happened and continues to happen (a question that also places us in the equation, even more along the mystery of the sex divide), to that extent also, albeit, negatively, we can account for how this question of whyness is important to be problematized.

Yet whyness is not a question that we can answer satisfactorily except in a roundabout howness (this makes knowledge therapeutic, as Wittgenstein would say), by a process of approximation in which language is an important functionality. Because language can simply loiter around the how of this questioning it is always doomed to communicate painfully ever more this ‘why’. With this painful process alone, the why question ceases to be expressible in human terms, which by the way humanizes us in a different way (there will be more poetry as this communication becomes ever more painful) but better if the way it ceases to be a why question yields instead a more fundamental awareness.

It is the awareness that we co-exist as objects with other objects in this marbled planetary parliament of things (now at the receiving end of the last assault of establishment humanism against infertility, against the happy community of cyborgs that do not reproduce the unhappy humanism of capital, of the Law of the Father, those who are irreducible to the definition of animal rationale [those who love for love’s sake?]), not as a subject privileged by language.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s