Friday, March 09, 2007

Sacredness and posting more

I know I haven't been posting much of late. It were well, I think, to post more often, even if that means a higher post length-to-profundity ratio, because somehow I feel doing so would give people a much better impression of what my life is like. My impression is that some of the people around me (family) wouldn't particularly like for me to talk about them, what with the inevitable juxtaposition that would cause of them with all my weird and therefore (to them) embarrassing ideas, and so partly because of that and partly perhaps because of a tendency to fear excessively being trifling or slow, I wonder whether people get a very good impression of what my life is like and what I'm like as a person. So this morning it seems like a good idea to try to be more regular if rambling in my postings. The topic for today will be sacredness.

First, my impressions. Let me list the things sacredness is different from.

Sacredness is not holiness, which (imo) is significant in males because it restricts genetic crossover in spermatogenesis. A beautiful female inspires holiness because genetic crossover is more likely to lead to less fit children than more fit children, what since it removes whatever harmony (between genes on opposite sides of a crossover on a chromosome) that has been selected for (by selection) in previous generations. Occasionally chance would have it that a crossover causes harmony to increase rather than decrease, but this is an advantage that only the male is going to be able to take much advantage from because, like compound interest on a long term bank deposit, most of the gain happens (when it does happen) in the distant future, when the female's genes in descendants will be mostly separated from the male's genes (and in particular from the chromosome region where the crossover occurred).

Sacredness is also not male "eternal love" emotion or "universal love" emotion. Though lately I have been thinking there is much more to these emotions, e.g., in their allowing females to affect gene conversion, and maybe even in their possessing some sort of strange magical (i.e., involving chemical and scientific processes that are majorly not understood or even seen as possible) quality, mostly I think these love emotions in males have to do with establishing long-term bonds between their genetic material and the genetic material of the wife or well-loved mate, by encouraging genetic crossover in daughters' oocytes. This would explain why females' eggs develop very early, while they are still in the fetal stage--this said early development allows the egg development (in my theory) to be influenced by the particulars of the chemicals that the emotions of her father has placed on the sperm that produced her. What seems strange to me about this lately, is that my imaginings seem to indicate that this emotion is something I can have for some but not for all the females I would be having sex with. It's not that I don't pretty much want to have these loving emotions for mostly every fairly pretty girl I would be having sex with (especially if I am having sex with a well-loved girl simultaneously), it's just that somehow myself and more particularly females rather like the idea of using this emotion (or rather the withholding of it) as a sort of weapon to make sure that, e.g., girls are lustful, trusting, and let us say tantric (behaving so as to encourage intraejaculate sperm selection). Holiness makes for a better weapon in a way, but it is not fair to use withholding it as a weapon when more than one female is involved, because that would be unfair to the other females one is having sex with or will have sex with a couple months or so later (sperm development takes a while). Love emotion seems like it is something a male can tailor to just one female he is having sex with. It's something he can add to his imminent ejaculate drops right well right before the instant he introduces the said semen drops into the female, probably. This is very scary and therefore confusing to females, I posit. The idea of a male becoming very loving toward a female he is having sex with right before he moves on to have sex with the female he actually is feeling love for, right before those love-affected drops of semen come out but while the less-loved female being joined to him can experience, being in coitus, the full sensory experience of impending love, well, the female so slighted is likely to feel this some sort of horrific taunting cruelty, but really more than like he would want to feel the love for the slighted girl too, it's just she needs to be more obedient to his sexual wishes, that's all, and he feels like he can force her to do that by using love as a sort of carrot weapon. Since he know he is good, she will benefit just as he will by behaving as though she believes he is good, and so his willingness to risk scaring her away by his controlling behavior is quite magnanimous, said scaring her away being an enormous loss to him, much greater than their more mutual loss of her not being lustful and trusting. What is strange to me is that somehow it seems as though girls love the idea of men using this love emotion as a weapon (to control other females); somehow they don't seem to mind the male going back-and-forth between herself and the girl he feels (even if temporarily) no love for. This back-and-forth seesaw-like sex of course allows sex to select for studly sperm, but it is surprising that (what is my impression of their sexual sensibilities) girls can like males to punish females they are also having sex with at the same time by withholding love emotions. If sex and sperm goes back-and-forth, What is to keep the well-loved girl from being fertilized by a sperm meant for the other girl, a sperm that has not been painted with "eternal" or "universal" love emotion? Indeed it is surprising well-loved girls don't seem to mind (in fact, quite the contrary), or at least it would be surprising, except that I feel sort of the same way. It is as though there is some sort of magical encryption involved, something that I don't understand (but which I thought of last summer when thinking there might also be some sort of magic involved with love that can transform a female into possessing some sort of magical power), and unfortunately, electron physics is something hard to shoot for an understanding of, especially to someone as myself who thinks well mostly when he thinks lazily and in the exact order he is interested in things. (Aim-and-shoot science and math is something I'm not very good at it.) Also, it seems to me that when I was young, I would think of this love emotion as "universal love", and now that I'm older, I think of it more as "eternal love" emotion. It's as though young males have a greater tendency to possess this "loving" emotion. Holiness I think is the opposite. Now it is hard for me to imagine not feeling holiness for a female I have sex with, whereas when I was young, a girl being holy seemed like she must be a goddess, and that it meant obviously I should be willing to marry her. I'm not clear about how age relates to these differences, and how general these differences are (i.e., not particular to my own circumstances). Anyway, though I can (and probably will in a future post) say some more about this eternal-love emotion, I don't understand magic or what exactly can cause me to be magic or make magic, so there is not much point in going on now about this, especially since this was supposed to be a post about something else. Maybe I'll finish after breakfast or tomorrow. No use to feel determined about things when determination can't help. Nothing to do but collect data when it offers itself and try using a kind of poetical sensibility to develop the understandings as intimations of understandings come, and in the meantime, try to understand pedestrian topics better, like math, physics, botany, or whatever I feel I can learn about today. To do otherwise would be impatient. And impatience is not particularly seemly and is not sacred. Which will lead to my next post, what this post was supposed to be about.

No comments: