The Teleology of Prairie Oysters and Convergent Evolution

That there is a Pacu, a fish that specializes in eating people’s testicals.

roadtrippers.com/stories/testic … ican-lakes

Now… I also know Canadians, especially in Midwestern areas like where Gib lives, love to eat balls, and Canadians have very similar looking teeth. They call these balls “Prairie Oysters”.

Notice the aquatic reference, despite the fact they come from inland cattle, and not seafood at all.

So we here have a case of convergent evolution:

Two unrelated species converging upon parallel forms. Both specialize in seafood that really isn’t seafood, but rather, are male reproductive organs.

Its reminiscent of the twentieth century fixation in philosophy on Thanatos and Eros, but it combines the two into one, singular act. Both the Canadian, and the ball biting fish, live and kill simultaneously potentiality in life… the very capacity to generation, in destroying what is masculine, for their own immediate pleasure.

Can they live off other sources of food? Yes… both species can eat walnuts and if provided for, even cheeseburgers, but they prefer festive testicals.

So this has lead me to question just what is the Teleology of Convergent Evolution, as far as adaptation to ecological forces are concerned.

The ancient Greeks had Menaeus. Here are two relevant quotes from fragments:

demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:musaeus_fragments

There is a natural selective teleology to nature, known through the pleasure and discomfort of observation of natural phenomena, and it seemingly moves in a great circle of selectivity. It is not survival of the fittest, but aesthetics, which rules natural selection, for life and death must balance itself out in a way most pleasing to the poet, not the scientist, for it is not in axiomatic theories, but in the life force of creatures that evolution takes place. For every birth, there is a place, for every death, there is a grave. This is the natural refutation to John Ruskin’s Pathetic Fallacy:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy

If life force exists only in science, and not in nature, then it is not real, either subject or objectivity can stand on it’s own leg. Concepts like Ecology, and Circles of Life, loses meaning. For generation to take place in counterbalance to death, the forces have to reside in nature itself, not just biological, but in all organic processes. We can only observe the beauty that is life, through the pursuit of the underlining extraction of minerals and vitamins for reproduction. From this, beauty gives us meaning… we look out one idealic vision of a lush, primordial valley, we see life at it’s cusp, advancing and digesting… growing. As predators, we find it inviting, and desire to eat it all, and find comfort in its avaability, it’s lushness. We want nude women dancing naked around in their reproductive prime so we can make many strong and healthy babies.

Canadians don’t desire this though, especially in the Midwest. Their population isn’t naturally sustainable save through immigration, they live in fridgid cold places with mountains and glacuers, or in dry, dying deserts, and people in log cabins without toilets speak French, and pretend not to know English. They only desire to eat festivals, the very means of generating new life. They seemingly found a niche in the ecology, but this niche is naturally at odds against St the ecology in it’s intentions, it shows they wish to live outside of the insights of Museaus, beyond the dualistic confines of birth and death, living and thriving, beauty and ugliness, and want to instead eat the system itself, to become the ultimate predator to life, outside of life, making the universe sterile.

But why the aquatic aspect? What is the teleogy outside of time?

I am reminded of the fish that would reside under the tree roots in the watery Mesopotamian underworld, and the sea creatures governing life and death in it’s southern ocean.

Perhaps Telelogy itself has a Teleology, and it’s convergent itself to the needs of archetypal representation.

Only question is, are these fish becoming Canadian like, or are Canadians becoming fish like?

Or is it something else altogether coming, outside of evolution, evolving independently of natural selection… a unnatural, thanatic selection, trying to destroy the world of possibilities, of differentiated life, or ecosystems?

This is some deep shit.

Sheldrakes field theory around the morphology of forms is one take on this.

Never heard of him… wow.

I would point rather to the element of size in cellular mitosis, the larger functions and behaviors of animals are limited to the operations within the cells, Organelles… RNA and DNA operations, in the pursuit and maintaince of their functions… the parts of the body are congruent to the logistics of suppling the cells.

As long as the Macroscopic morphology supplies the microscopic needs of the cells, anything is possible, its why the lifeforms in the Cambrian explosion looked so damn weird.

Multi-Cellular organization is limited by size, both too small, and too big. Perception and Apperception arises out of organizational needs of bodies maintaining coherance and function as it grows in size and complexity. I would say size dictates symbiosis, and symbiosis life (even for single cell organisms, they have a lot going on inside).

Life on different planets, with similar sizes, will resemble one another if they use cellular reproduction after enough similar mass extinction events… such as toxic oceans or gamma ray bombardment. Reason why, in a larger environment, the more exotic life forms won’t be able to survive when the ecology starts radically breaking down… the ones that survive possess advantages from their niche specialties. For example, Cronoids and Jellyfish used to dominate the life forms of the world’s oceans, but now it’s Jellyfish and Chinese Fishermen… because Cronoids aren’t mobile… they can’t set off to look for food, find shelter, or build shitty fishing boats. Jellyfish are primitive, but mobile.

This doesn’t begin to explain why Canadians eat testicals, and why Gib has a similar set of teeth to that creepy fish. He is half middle eastern though, so it does explain the Half Man, Half Fish issue… kinda. Would explain why Dan is into magic.

(I call the above part in my second post as a aspect of my overall focus on The Philosophy of Size, I’ve mentioned it occasionally on this site in the past. Not really related to the first post, which is a example of twisted, comedic logic and how the Genesis of scientific theory and interconnections aren’t as full proof and as rational as we like to think they are in scientific discourse. I wasn’t expecting someone to of actually adopted a parallel theory, and believed in it.)