Rats, non-judgmentalism, and Eloihood

In the same thread as my comment about the possible connection between sexual immorality and Eloihood, which I had linked in the context of the discussion about the Western non-response to the London bombings, I came across this comment by Jim Kalb:

It’s more a matter of the status of sex than the quantity of experience I think, although quantity does matter.

The current theory is that sex is what you make of it, which means that in and of itself it means nothing whatever. So an all-pervasive aspect of life, the thing that by nature is the most intense and all-embracing connection to another human being possible, means nothing whatever unless you happen to want to make it mean something. Once you accept that how can Eloihood possibly be avoided? If you see someone drowning how can it be anything but a ho-hum?

Posted by: Jim Kalb on January 22, 2003 08:13 AM

Just before reading the above comment, I had been walking home on my block in New York City, about 12:30 a.m., and saw a shocking thing I had never seen before—two large rats chasing each other back and forth in the middle of the street. There were three young women walking in the same direction as I and I said to them, “Did you see that?” They acted as if it was nothing, “Oh sure, there are rats as big as cats, this was nothing, on the subway they come right up to you and you can feed them. You didn’t know this? How long have you lived in the city?” Things like that. To them, there was no disgust, no shock, no outrage. Their attitude was, rats are part of the cool decadence of everything. As I turned from them and walked into my building, I thought, “Eloi.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 11, 2005 09:49 AM | Send