“I hear there has been a discussion about the colour of blood best suited for national leadership,” noticed Mr Sir Orange, Minister of Art & Fisheries of Orange County (formerly Southern Province) and celebrity aristo-cat. “Personally I am of the opinion that nothing beats blue blood, but,” he added with fake modesty, “I might be biased.”
This in reference to the century old association of his ancestors with the House of Orange; royalty of the Lowlands since 1813 and princes of the same since the early 1600’s!
“I know black cats,” Mr Sir Orange proceeded, “who love to have white blood. And I know white cats who say they have black blood. How peculiar this all is. Where are the folks who say they are happy with their blood as it is,” Mr Sir Orange asked not entirely free of a rhetorical inclination, “folks happy with their “Blut an sich” so to speak; blood as we should perceive it in its true phenomenological essence (sic!) and such blood is red. RED. The blood on the cross of the late J. C. was red. Not white, not black, not blue. It was real blood. Folks talking about non-red blood are talking about non-real blood. They talk about conceptual blood, symbolic blood, metaphysical blood, spiritual blood; you name it, as long as it is non-observable blood. Observable blood, also in a non-phenomenological perspective, is red. RED. Non-observable blood is fictive blood and such blood being fictive may be attributed with whatever colour the fictiver deems fit. Blue blood is one such fiction. How aristocracy came to be associated with blue blood can only be answered by speculation; and my reasoning is precisely that blue is not red – it stands in opposition to it just as aristocracy stands in opposition to the common folks. We therefore find in this a complex metaphorical relationship expressed as follows:
aristocracy : common folks :: blue : red.
On theoretical grounds we may argue that the term blue in this expression could have been any neutral colour other than red (red being an attribute of the commons) but practically, as the great French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss would agree with me, such associations are or may be historical incidents. In this case the historical incident is that the colour blue in medieval Europe was a very expensive pigment that only the rich could afford. It was an imported pigment “coming from overseas” – ultramarine – won from the precious stone lapis lazuli. The rich guys in early medieval Europe mostly belonged to the nobility and in this manner “blue” and “aristocracy” became associated. That is not all. Ultramarine was not the only expensive pigment. Cinnabar, a natural mineral composed of sulphur and mercury, was another one and there were more.
The significance of ultramarine,“ Mr Sir Orange detailed, “is not merely incidentally derived from its exotic overseas origin. More important is its natural and real character; that is, its very blueness that cannot be but associated with the heavenly spheres above us. We now see an ideological complex unfolding,” Mr Sir Orange explained, ”in which nobility, blue, heaven and highness are associated in opposition to the common folks who in any case are not-high, not-blue and not-heavenly. The common folks are at best down-to-earth and if that is the case they may as well be black (conceptually or real). Now, if the good common man outwardly is black, he, inwardly, should be white (conceptually or real). As it happens both colour designations, white and black, are not neutral. Their value or meaning varies according to the region or culture. For us in Orange country (formerly Southern Province) these terms are in opposition, thus:
Black : White :: Bad : Good
In conventional Euclidean mathematics this expression could be re-written as:
Black x Good = White x Bad
but a sensible (orange) cat would question the appropriateness of such a statement.
Now, for a white man to say: “I have black blood”; or for a black man to say: “I have white blood” is in fact a postulation of the union of opposites; and that union precisely is the form, content and embodiment of leadership.”
(Dear readers, no matter what you think of Mr Sir Orange's recourse to French structuralism, the conclusion of his reasoning happens to be a profound truth: the true leader is a union of opposites! Whether these be material or conceptual: man and spirit; black and white; water and fire; heaven and earth – it does not matter: the principal is the same and if you happen to have leadership aspirations: go by this rule. You see, if you manage to accomplish, to be a union of opposites, you elevate yourself to a class logically and practically above those of the constituent elements of the union that you embody. Bingo! I know it is a tiring job to be above it all but it tends to be quite rewarding!).
This in reference to the century old association of his ancestors with the House of Orange; royalty of the Lowlands since 1813 and princes of the same since the early 1600’s!
“I know black cats,” Mr Sir Orange proceeded, “who love to have white blood. And I know white cats who say they have black blood. How peculiar this all is. Where are the folks who say they are happy with their blood as it is,” Mr Sir Orange asked not entirely free of a rhetorical inclination, “folks happy with their “Blut an sich” so to speak; blood as we should perceive it in its true phenomenological essence (sic!) and such blood is red. RED. The blood on the cross of the late J. C. was red. Not white, not black, not blue. It was real blood. Folks talking about non-red blood are talking about non-real blood. They talk about conceptual blood, symbolic blood, metaphysical blood, spiritual blood; you name it, as long as it is non-observable blood. Observable blood, also in a non-phenomenological perspective, is red. RED. Non-observable blood is fictive blood and such blood being fictive may be attributed with whatever colour the fictiver deems fit. Blue blood is one such fiction. How aristocracy came to be associated with blue blood can only be answered by speculation; and my reasoning is precisely that blue is not red – it stands in opposition to it just as aristocracy stands in opposition to the common folks. We therefore find in this a complex metaphorical relationship expressed as follows:
aristocracy : common folks :: blue : red.
On theoretical grounds we may argue that the term blue in this expression could have been any neutral colour other than red (red being an attribute of the commons) but practically, as the great French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss would agree with me, such associations are or may be historical incidents. In this case the historical incident is that the colour blue in medieval Europe was a very expensive pigment that only the rich could afford. It was an imported pigment “coming from overseas” – ultramarine – won from the precious stone lapis lazuli. The rich guys in early medieval Europe mostly belonged to the nobility and in this manner “blue” and “aristocracy” became associated. That is not all. Ultramarine was not the only expensive pigment. Cinnabar, a natural mineral composed of sulphur and mercury, was another one and there were more.
The significance of ultramarine,“ Mr Sir Orange detailed, “is not merely incidentally derived from its exotic overseas origin. More important is its natural and real character; that is, its very blueness that cannot be but associated with the heavenly spheres above us. We now see an ideological complex unfolding,” Mr Sir Orange explained, ”in which nobility, blue, heaven and highness are associated in opposition to the common folks who in any case are not-high, not-blue and not-heavenly. The common folks are at best down-to-earth and if that is the case they may as well be black (conceptually or real). Now, if the good common man outwardly is black, he, inwardly, should be white (conceptually or real). As it happens both colour designations, white and black, are not neutral. Their value or meaning varies according to the region or culture. For us in Orange country (formerly Southern Province) these terms are in opposition, thus:
Black : White :: Bad : Good
In conventional Euclidean mathematics this expression could be re-written as:
Black x Good = White x Bad
but a sensible (orange) cat would question the appropriateness of such a statement.
Now, for a white man to say: “I have black blood”; or for a black man to say: “I have white blood” is in fact a postulation of the union of opposites; and that union precisely is the form, content and embodiment of leadership.”
(Dear readers, no matter what you think of Mr Sir Orange's recourse to French structuralism, the conclusion of his reasoning happens to be a profound truth: the true leader is a union of opposites! Whether these be material or conceptual: man and spirit; black and white; water and fire; heaven and earth – it does not matter: the principal is the same and if you happen to have leadership aspirations: go by this rule. You see, if you manage to accomplish, to be a union of opposites, you elevate yourself to a class logically and practically above those of the constituent elements of the union that you embody. Bingo! I know it is a tiring job to be above it all but it tends to be quite rewarding!).
