?

Log in

Asinine Thought
formerly known as Cheeri-Oats
"Literary Reflections of mid-20th Century Radical Conceptions of the Nut" 
13th-Aug-2006 09:37 pm
JCSC
(as written by mysticalglitter and mylifeisdukka86)

The phenemonological leanings of many of the leading authors discussing the nut led to a dearth of materials dealing with the possible unreality of "nut" as a meaningful perceptual and conceptual category. While many authors delved into such issues as taste and ability to be stored, the deeper epistemelogical issues were largely untouched until the Nut Rennaissance, which is widely considered to have begun on December 14, 1923, when many thinkers were forced to consider the possibility of the nonexistence of nuts, as they no longer had the strong empirical evidence which underlied previous assumptions.

Then they fucking starved to death.

The deaths of these thinkers led many to abandon the contemplation of the nut's nonexistence in favor of a return to more experiential interaction with nuts. Which, of course, led to a return to the religious roots of Nut worship, spawning what has since been called New Age Nuttery, in which the nut is viewed as the organic model embodying the insular nature of the universe, with God as the benevolent tree. God of course is never referred to as such, but the idea remains the same: a pandimensional, omniscient being from whence all knowledge and experience emmanates.

This led to a counter-culture movement that denounced the Tree-As-God notion as merely a phallic fallacy. Feminist nut gatherers preferred the alternative Hole-in-the-ground-As-God theory, however were marginalized for their divergent belief system. The alternative model of the feminuts postulated that the God-as-hole-in-the-ground model was representative of God's ultimately protective and nurturing essence, being the soil in which the nut thrives and becomes a tree. God is not the tree; rather, evolutionary processes bring organic beings to an eventual tree fulfillment, where it becomes the moral duty of the organic beings to begin the cycle anew. This lies in direct conflict with the previous clockmaker tree theory, of let go and forget. Many criticized the feminut model as excessively vaginal, to which the feminuts responded that the real pussies were the New Age Nuttists and their unwillingness to explore other theological possibilities.

This conflict, interestingly, gave birth to a philosophy that essentially synthesized these views into a paradoxical core belief statement: "God is the tree as much as god is the soil. The nut is us, who will eventually become god, and then eventually us again." While not significantly talented with words, the NeoNuts neverless hold firm convictions in karmic reincarnation and hold the chipmunk to be the holiest animal. The linguistic connection between chipmunks and monks, however, according to the NeoNuts, is completely coincidental, and has no bearing on the animal's spiritual significance. "Chipmunks, after all," they claim, "are not bald. They also do not hum in a silly way, or wear stupid sandals." It's this fine distinction between what constitutes chipmunkery and classical monkery that is the radical contribution to postmodern philosophical paradigms--and, vicariously, contemporary Nut Literature analysis.
Comments 
This page was loaded Feb 22nd 2017, 3:28 pm GMT.