Skip to content


Last updated on 6 Feb 2013

Who put the holism into chocoholism? Why, I did. Here’s why:

As every First Philosopher has known since at least the fall of the Roman Empire, the universe is composed of four contrarieties. This is a fancy way of saying that there are four things that form opposites. This view is often ascribed to Hippocrates, or Aristotle or even Pythagoras. It is in fact a corrupt view of the Revealed Truth of Chocoholism.

Aristotle thought the world was composed of the contrarieties Hot-Cold, Wet-Dry, which were formed from the four elements Fire, Air, Earth and Water:

Four Elements

Air and Fire were Hot, Fire and Earth were Dry, Air and Water were Wet, and Water and Earth were Cold. Things made of substances of proportions of these elements had proportionally those properties. This became the theory of the Four Humours (a humour is a substance in the body):

Four Humors

The four humours blood, choler, melancholy and phlegm were the “elements” of the living body. When they were in balance, the body was in health, but when it was too dry, or too cold, it suffered and the balance had to be restored; this is the foundation of Galenic medicine.

We may laugh at these simple theories today, but they echo a much deeper Darkity* – the underlying structure of the metaphysical. And it is not mere physical properties that we should be considering this way. Physics is physics; we are after the foundation of the physical, the moral, and the aesthetic. It is in Taste that we find true relief.

There are four Tastes that comprise the Universe, and each one has its virtue and its vice, its haecceity and its privation, its passion and its passivity. These Tastes are Salt, Sweet, Sour and Bitter. In their right proportions they constitute all the flavours of the world.

Now I am not suggesting that these are always literal flavours. They are metaphysical properties that underwrite all experiences. Literal sweetness is an instantiation of Sweet, but not everything that instantiates Sweet is sweetness. A mother’s love for her child is sweet, because it instantiates Sweet. When the capital letter is used we are dealing with something like Platonic Forms, except they are not unembodied, ever. They are the properties of the world, not Plato’s Heaven.

So we get this:

Four Flavours

But where is the Chocolate, I hear myself ask? Well, since Chocolate (and its earthly instantiation, chocolate) is not reducible to the sum or proportion of any of these Flavours (or flavours; remember the capital letter is significant), and yet all physical things are composed of these elements, Chocolate is more than the sum of its flavours:


Everything that Chocolate touches becomes transcendent, more than the merely physical.

More revelations as they take me. It is mere coincidence that the time between revelations coincides with the free time I have available. The cosmos works that way.

* A Darkity is a deep and umbrifying notion that brings relief to the light of knowledge, so that we may see the deeper structure thereby. It in no way is a statement of confusion or a barrier to knowledge. I base this term on Daniel Dennett’s term “deepity”, which is a statement that when true, is trivially so, and when deep, is false. However a Darkity is always true (just never illuminating, which would defeat the whole purpose), and always very deep.


  1. John the Plumber John the Plumber

    Awesome – most instructive – especially so to find that a humour is a substance in the body. There was I thinking it was just a whimsical thing. This will surely help in my profession.

    Many people take plumbers for granted, not realising the depths of philosophy into which they often have to sink. The other day for instance I was faced with a faulty boiler fitted with micro-chip self diagnostics – little lights flashing – that kind of thing. One light was flashing so I referred to the helpful manual. It said, ‘If the light is flashing on and off, the fault is with the fan. If the light is flashing off and on, the fault is with the fan sensor.’

    I was obliged to think how the designer’s brain worked – reason and argument you understand – even thinking. – If I switch the power off then back on, will I catch the light off before it flashes on, so then I’ll know if its flashing off and on or on and off. – This troubled me as it seemed to make no difference. – I soon solved it though by poking about with a screwdriver. The boiler came back on, the light went off. I hastily took my leave.

    Of course you’ll be saying, what’s this got to do with philosophy?

    Well its like this. If light has its place in enlightenment and darkity its place in endarkenment, can darkity flash on and off or off and on, in the same way the boiler designer thinks light can?

    Following this line of thought obviously leads to the question, is there chocolate in dark matter?

    The flashing off on or on off concept also bears on the question of which comes first, reason or argument.

    I would be most grateful if you would endarken me on all this.

    • It is not that the light flashes on, but the darkity flashes on, and sometimes doesn’t. Light is merely the background against which you can see detail. God did not say “Let there be light” because, as the Bible and other useless religious tracts inform us, God is light and so there always was light (has nobody but me picked up on this fundamental contradiction?); but “Let there be dark”, upon the act of creation. God needed dark so that he could see himself!.

      There is no chocolate in dark matter, but there should be Chocolate (remember the capitals). And argument and reason both imply there are alternative positions to hold. Alternative positions contrast with each other. Nothing can contrast unless they are different in their detail. Therefore Chocolate came first.

  2. John the Plumber John the Plumber

    Thank’s for your erudition. I’m clearly in the dark about Chocolate now – and its a very satisfying feeling.

  3. john harshman john harshman

    As a quinarian, I am forced to accept the existence of umami. What’s your position on that?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      As I said in the initial post

      do not believe heresies that suggest there is a fifth flavour, unami; this is the faux flavour of the deceiver

      You have been led into the light, and blinded by mere facts.

      • john harshman john harshman

        You have committed a spelling heresy, and must be purified by flame. A spelling flame.

        • As Holy Profit I never commit typogarphical errors. Therefore everyone else must have been misspelling it all these years.

  4. John the Plumber John the Plumber

    I feel I’m really getting a taste for this – but not umami. Surely tomatoes are as lost as a beefburger when it comes to endarkenment. There is one thing that puzzles me though. Recently it was reported that scientists have implanted a fish gene into mice – not chocolate mice you understand – real mice – to produce a flourescent mouse – though what one is supposed to do with a flourescent mouse I dread to think. – I pressume that to the mouse this would definitely be endarkenment.

Comments are closed.