make it a brown christmas

The Tao of Poo: The Unbearable Lightness of Being, by Milan Kundera. (Part III)

Posted 07.24.2001 by Dave (11657)
The following passage is taken from The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. English translation copyright ©1984 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. You should buy this book!
Did you read part II?

-----

In the fourth century, Saint Jerome completely rejected the notion that Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse in Paradise. On the other hand, Johannes Scotus Erigena, the great ninth-century theologian, accepted the idea. He believed, moreover, that Adam's virile member could be made to rise like an arm or a leg, when and as its owner wished. We must not dismiss this fancy as the recurrent dream of a man obsessed with the threat of impotence. Erigena's idea has a different meaning. If it were possible to raise the penis by means of a simple command, then sexual excitement would have no place in the world. The penis would rise not because we are excited but because we order it to do so. What the great theologian found incompatible with Paradise was not sexual intercourse and the attendant pleasure; what he found incompatible with Paradise was excitement. Bear in mind: There was pleasure in Paradise, but no excitement.

Erigena's argument holds the key to a theological justification (in other words, a theodicy) of shit. As long as man was allowed to remain in Paradise, either (like Valentinus' Jesus) he did not defecate at all, or (as would seem more likely) he did not look upon shit as something repellent. Not until after God expelled man from Paradise did He make him feel disgust. Man began to hide what shamed him, and by the time he removed the veil, he was blinded by a great light. Thus, immediately after his introduction to disgust, he was introduced to excitement. Without shit (in both the literal and figurative senses of the word), there would be no sexual love as we know it, accompanied by pounding heart and blinded senses.

-----

The dispute between those who believe that the world was created by God and those who think it came into being of its own accord deals with phenomena that go beyond our reason and experience. Much more real is the line separating those who doubt being as it is granted to man (no matter how or by whom) from those who accept it without reservation.

Behind all the European faiths, religious and political, we find the first chapter of Genesis, which tells us that the world was created properly, that human existence is good, and that we are therefore entitled to multiply. Let us call this basic faith a categorical agreement with being.

The fact that until recently the word "shit" appeared in print as s--- has nothing to do with moral considerations. You can't claim that shit is immoral, after all! The objection to shit is a metaphysical one. The daily defecation session is daily proof of the unacceptability of Creation. Either/or: either shit is acceptable (in which case don't lock yourself in the bathroom!) or we are created in an unacceptable manner.

It follows, then, that the aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch.

"Kitsch" is a German word born in the middle of the sentimental nineteenth century, and from German it entered all Western languages. Repeated use, however, has obliterated its original metaphysical meaning: kitsch is the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the figurative senses of the word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially unacceptable in human existence.

Jaybowel (73) -- 07.24.2001

My question is, why IS shit so objectionable? There are other bodily functions I feel are far nastier that seem to be perfectly acceptable in public. On the voluntary side, it's perfectly acceptable to sit at your desk and blow your nose, while taking a shit on your desk would be considered horrific. As far as involuntary functions, sneezing is fine, farting is gross. Why is this? Essentially, both shitting and nose blowing involve spewing bodily debris onto tissue paper. Sneezing, I feel, is actually worse than farting. Sneezing spreads harmful germs while farting is merely pungent. Even in terms of language, why is "shit" a "bad" word while "snot" is acceptable? I think the answer lies within the same institution discussed in the passage. The church. It's not hard to imagine that the folks who brought you "the earth is the center of the cosmos" even when confronted with evidence to the contrary could conceive that anything not "spiritual" (and therefore physical and biological) is objectionable and vile. Sneezing was thought to be demonic possession, which is where "God Bless You" comes from. Why is there no similar blessing for farting? I think if you're going to decide that a particular body function is the voice of Satan, you'd be more concerned about noises (and odors) emanating from your ass than your face. But then again, that's the church for you.

Post new comment



Prove you're not a spambot: what bodily function is this site about? Four letters, begins with p...

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

*

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
20,000 character limit / Flood control: 60 seconds between comments and no more than 10 comments per hour

crapola banner

 


About PoopReport | Advertise! | The PoopReport Press Room | Report Your Poop | Contact Dave | Copyright 2000-2008 PoopReport.com