Fruit without Seeds!

Fruit without Seeds!

Download this poem as a PDF (link open in new window)

Manuchehr Jamali, translation G.Yegane Arani-May

Man knows that truth is a fruit without seeds,
Truth, he knows, must pacify and satisfy your palate,

Hadn’t it been paradises fruit that he’d eaten,
And of which he’d spat out its seeds in disgust,
And said why God would have to place in fruit with sweetness,
teeth breaking rocks,

The devil though knew, that ripe fruit would bear heavy stones.
And seeds of “visionary fruits” would break the “questions” of the teeth!

The devil planted the seeds, that man spat with anger,
And over time grew another plant, and he’d create another paradise.
One that would produce fruit without seeds, and sights without questions!

And man, thrown out of paradise for eating God’s fruit,
Was so put back into God’s paradise,

And went with Satan’s paradisical insights,
Offering taste and comfort,

And the fruit, within him, would contain no seeds of questions.

Tired from painfully planting the seeds and cultivation,
And from the burden of growing and work,
The task became a bane.

Since then the devil would be in heaven,
That “knowledge without doubts” was achieved,
And a truth of “fruit without seeds” known,
And the truth without question be swallowed.

And man did not know that truth is the Creator,
Whose seeds become questions,
And that the knowledge that these questions developed, he would not find,
and thus not have the truth.

So he named the devil’s paradise, God’s paradise,
And God’s paradise would be named: a lie that’s past!

From individual to individual

Speciesism and homocentrism are the external manifestations of patterns in thinking that deny animal intelligence, and instead overvalue human intelligence. Humans are mostly behaving contractualist, unpredictable, unreliable, unfair, … and the list could go on in pretty negative terms. I wonder why that is the case, and I think it does not have to be that way.

I think it is possible for a human to be ‘animal intelligent’, to be non-contractualist, predictable, fair, tolerant, loving, … and that list could go on in positive terms. From my experiences with animals I learned about the possibility of ‘animal intelligence’:  The animals I have lived with truly were my best friends.

I think for a person who is truly nonspeciesistic in his/her thoughts and critical about homocentrism  it should be technically possible to really make the shift and start to become a better individual than what humans have per definition been so far, and even prided themselves with.

The time of human intelligence is over for me.

I am glad I defend animal rights from a standpoint of true ‘animal independence’ (of any human paradigm: biology, ethology, philosophy, religion … ).


Fragmentary thoughts:

The border around the castle ‘HUMAN’ is the one of scientifical categorizing. Within the castle we claim to be ‘complete’.


How can absolute objectivity be captured? With which parameters to measure against? Humans’ objectivity claim relies on subjective interests.

Ethical behaviour is one of the components taken out of the frame of an allround objectivity.

Animals get denied for their actions to be viewed as not insinctual.

Subsequently the VALUES of behaviour get ruled out from being within the ethcial scale of social actions between the species, etc.

A term such as ‘ethical’ desribes something that is existent, it’s not an idea in itself – otherwise it would not exist in the correlations…

Just thoughts, 17th Oct 2012

Farangis Yegane, Deer, acrylic on canvas


Not that I’d assume there is an obvious form of a “good” and a “bad” that is equally visible to everybody at every given time, but an unobvious form of these phenomena exists.


If you have an enemy, try not to face him directly – he may not even recognize you.


You can win the heart of a potential friend over by: being generally considerate towards the concerns that binds the pain and joy of all hearts together.


What you are crazy? The world falls apart, and where are you? Be you crazy or not – where are you?


Private matters = how the person relates with her “I” (self-conception) to the world.


Not ease, but comfortability in wisdom.



An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality

The human continuum with its cultural values is not necessarily one, and can’t necessarily be unified with its diverseness.

Every individual has the right to hold her or his own views.

Thus I can be for Animal Rights INASMUCH as I can be for Human Rights, for example.

No philosophical school can propose me their argumentation as valid IF it asks me to see nonhuman animals other than I see them now as an Animal Rights person.

Philosophy should stay out of attributing different “life forms” with their labels of value or meaning.

Otherwise philosophy becomes as bad as how religions function – as doctrines based on belief. Homoncentrists believe that nonhuman animal life matters less than human life,  and they believe that the world relevant to nonhuman animals and the systems meaningful to nonhuman animals life must not be regarded as a complete world in its own rights in their own terms.

universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Why criticize universities, they are the only real location where you can develop your free thinking together with others on an intelligent and sensible plane … ???

The reality of universities is more than an ambiguous one. Hanging between reasonable discourse and hierarchical oppression. Language, logics, proof, deduction, induction, theories, argumentation, discussions cloak so many truths unspoken of.

Without the noble and legitimate dress

a naked truth glimpses through, that seeks to escape another type of truth. One that you can only find in the nightlight, within the space inbetween being and notbeing.

… but compassion


is not something
that’s FELT from a higher position up

imagine your are in a prison
feeling compassion for your tortured co-inmate

you feel her/his pain, because you
You KNOW their pain.

when I feel sorrow for somebody I can’t understand, then my understanding might stay on the level of only feeling pity for somebody who suffers an injustice or fate that I wouldn’t want to suffer. I stay distanced to him or her.

when I feel the PANGS of compassionate feelings, that only those kinds of feelings can produce, then an understanding must have preceded this emotional response in me.


All included

the political ramifications of:

what I say, whereever I happen to be
what I do where I am
how i decide, and how I come to a decision
how I influence my environment posivitely

You say that only politcal parties are political?
I say:

whatever you do, and whatever I do
has political ramifications
on the grassroots level
no matter what

It depends on what you consider “political” to be.

The plane in life of deeds and words is a large and impactful one.