Rut of Personhood

Oregon Trail ruts

Does the Rut of Personhood completely distract one from existence?


Does it shut off the ability to ‘wonder at the existence of the world?’ Does it blind people’s Sight?— the ability to think outside certain language games, challenge, search.

“My friends, they’re all useless lens, they don’t SEE anymore.” -Devendra Banhardt


Precisely +NAP.  There is no escaping the ‘frame of personhood’ , at least not for extended periods.  [outside it meaningless, or so meaningful it blows the frame to smithereens?…]  A rich multiplicity approaching a ‘totality’ would be a goal.  But a person in the rut doesn’t have this goal, they are blinded by acquiescence in illusory futures, stuck in a limited framework of devotion to an ideal of personal/professional well-being.  A communal experience of boredom.  The rut calls out, “do not seek to go beyond the self, beyond the world.  Embrace the common assumptions, and work within them.”  This is more a comment on a trend I have been noticing than any deep truth.


~ by njpeters on November 8, 2008.

3 Responses to “Rut of Personhood”

  1. If there is an “existence” outside the frame of personhood (notice the connotationless replacement for “rut”), I would venture to say it would be meaningless. I think what you’re getting at is that a narrow or constricted frame of personhood (read: Palin) fails to incorporate a richer multiplicity, which is required to even begin to approach a “totality” concept…but what do I know?

  2. Consider for a moment that a totality is overwhelming. What i mean is that a totality is also an ideal of personal well-being, that it cannot be proven otherwise. Consider also, that a well founded but narrow, in the context of totality or infinitum or plane of consistency, is another ideal of well-being, even if that narrowness claims to be self-developed. What I’m trying to say is that to have a discussion of well-being ideals implies that there is a solution or a best way, but we would only be able to establish that if we were all “gods” or better yet, if we were all everything. So it becomes circular in my opinion to try to establish a best well-being from a place that is implicity limited, or more coloquially, from a human space. (read: human, what the hell is that defined as? well, that’s the question isn’t it.) At the foundation is all of this is either the acceptence that we’re human and that we share “something” (language, reason, passion, etc.) so we need to abide a basal rule. Or we can assume that none/some of us are not human and can become, I suppose, the Overman (I don’t like the vertical bias that implies, but allow me some latitude.) if we choose the latter, we are never conclusive, and we are always in judgement – which is part of what constitutes becoming godly might mean in, i want to emphasize, human terms.

  3. It is a rut particularly if you are trying to remain constant to some aspect of personality perceived by others over time. We all have limiting lenses. Some we are born with, and others acquired. If we make our choices according to our deepest desires, then we create the person we are meant to be, which is all we can hope for, limited as we are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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

%d bloggers like this: