Mother and Daughters
When deciding whether to sleep with a man,
a girl not a woman would do well to judge him depraved,
or not,
according more-or-less
to what her mother thinks.
That essentially her filial deference here implies
that it’s not her decision
what sort of conclusion she should make
regarding his virtues
in discriminating vice
from mere (for the sake of argument let’s call it that) sexual delight
she’ll take into account
and won’t be as inclined
to let that conclusion
influence her decision
to go to bed
with her prospective lover
as would be the case
if the conclusion
came from within,
based on her own faculties of perception,
rather than those of her mother.
I say, “correct”, “quite reasonable”.
But there is another consideration
(of course)
a consideration that I shouldn’t quite call a qualification,
for though it might slightly partake of some of the characteristics of that,
well,
the consideration concerns a different sphere,
lust
which to the previous discussion,
whether you should go to bed with me,
relates not nearly so much
as to how you should go to bed with me.
Should you really be entirely true to yourself
if and when
sex present or anticipated
has made it incumbent upon your person
to decide how much to lust for my penis?
Maybe you shouldn’t entirely be true to yourself
Maybe in some limited sphere
in bed
you should be true to your mom,
not yourself.
How much she wants you to lust (or not lust, though certainly I should hope this would not be the case) for
my level of moral discrimination
(judged by you externally, from her perception)
as regards identifying
depravity
correctly
not just inclusively
ought in my opinion
control you
more than you own want there.
If a girl rejects me
because her opinion of my
faculty
at separating
depravity
from its opposite
(strange I should say “opposite”, but it’s neither here-nor-there for me to judge why saying that makes a better poem,
until I know)
is something she knows came from without,
from her mother,
as they believe it significantly should,
and she (the girl)
figures,
“Why should I take a chance on him,
when it will be my mother who triumphs
or fails
instead
of
me?
It takes the fun
of taking
a
chance
half
away.
As follows from Mendellian genetics.”,
OK.
But if you don’t inform your lust,
to the extent your mother influenced your opinion of me
in the ways you want her to,
as much as she would want you to,
I can’t believe that a good thing.
If, indeed, your opinions
of those parts of my virtues pertaining to discriminating cleanly
are determined by your mother,
your mother,
triumphing or suffering
according to her own decisions,
will,
if she thinks me possessed of
quite the eye for discriminating
cleanliness from mess,
want you to lust for my penis
more than you want yourself to.
What moral principle
could guide her away
from trying to make you do as she wants
and needs
when
if girls don’t do as their mothers want here
men discriminating cleanly
won’t get lusted for so much
by little girls
as would men possessing
other virtues less important?
It would follow from epigenetics
that if girls are true to their own wants,
rather than their mothers’,
when deciding how much to lust for a
cleanly discriminating man
whom
the daughters concluded so to the extent of their own mothers’ certitude
as regards the innocuous snowlike cleanliness of his penis’s desire
to lovingly fuck her little angel’s cervix,
people
would evolve
to be very conformist
in discriminating (or should I say not discriminating) the most innocent and beautiful love there is,
from
depravity.
There is a sense in which mothers want their little angels
protected from lust for depravity
more than the daughters themselves want it,
Just like a mother can want her little angel to give up her cervix in lust
more lustful than what her little angel wants,
when why her little angel believes it safe
is that she trusts her mom.
I hope your mother doesn't think
I have written this
in response to something
I might have thought
she might have done.
I refuse
to use
any imagination
in deciding
whether
something is directive
(or not).
"Come on",
I might tell her,
pushing her away just slightly,
somewhat tauntingly,
it really wouldn't be moral of me
to be else,
Would it now?"
I don't want your mother
to have any fears of me,
not even that I won't fuck you hard enough.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
False rescuers
For some time I have wondered what group of people is most responsible for encouraging fears that have led society to take sexual freedom away from young females and those whom they love. I have been looking closer at the leading agitators for higher ages of consent, etc., and have come to something of a conclusion. The people who really agitate the hardest and most effectively against adolescent female sexuality seem to be men. Not just any men, I have decided, but men who in all likelihood have a preference for fallen women. It is not easy to seduce an innocent female. True, if a deceptive man has virtually nothing that a woman would want--if his deceiving skills are more-or-less his only ones--, the most effective mating approach for such a one would be to corrupt innocent, young, more easily corruptible girls. But even among sodomizers, it must be supposed that most have some skills, some abilities that females might want. If a sodomizer has at least a basic amount of skill he is probably going to be better off directing his appeal to older females. Not many children are born to teen mothers as opposed to older ones, presumably because typically a teen girl has to really believe herself greatly in love with a male before she naturally would want to have meaningful sex with him directly without waiting to see if her judgment changes. Probably, just because older females typically want a family presently more than teenage girls, the typical bad male even if foul usually finds it easier to seduce older females than younger ones.
It's too easy, probably, to fall into the trap of viewing all sodomizers as the same. Doubtless they have differing specialties. Physically abusive or terrifying ones probably do have a decided preference for young females with an innocence that largely precludes the dreaded sophistication that is a possibility among the fallen; viz., some fallen women are sufficiently sophisticated as to realize that the pleasure of sodomy doesn't have as much to do with who is the sodomizer as a freshly fallen naive female might think, and so sodomy tends not to be as exclusively controlling of such sophisticated females. Indeed, some depraved males are patently abusive, going after innocent naive girls and corrupting them with violence, terror, rape, forcible sodomy, etc. Some others perhaps are effective at making females think themselves more amenable to being controlled than is the case, and at creating confusion between innocuous captivation and disgusting captivity. Such men and boys also do probably prefer clean, young females to dominate. But not all bad men, nay, not even all bad sodomizing men are the same. Clearly there are advantages in specialization. The more common a particular evil is, the more females will have evolved effective defenses against it. If a male is more slick than seductive, better at controlling a female without her realizing it than at seducing her in the first place to try the behavior that allows him to control her, he will, in all likelihood, prefer fallen women. Not to rescue them from depravity, of course, but to inflict upon them his own depravities in place of the depravities of her past that were inflicted by other males.
Anyway, if a man has a certain amount of skill and success, then it is a convenient thing to do to a fallen women to convince her to try him by way of rescuing her from her past. Lots of females are messed-up as teenagers and in college, but then as a result of lack of success, say in getting good grades or in making money or in landing a successful husband, they come after using a little bit of sense to believe a reform is necessary. Indeed, in our commercialized society, people (unfortunately) are more likely to feel shame at lack of material success than at anything else. A strategy for a tolerably successful male who wants to get such a woman is to make her think she indeed needs reform. By making the woman feel good about a change, the man can more assuredly feel that she will indeed leave the other abusive men who in her past have been responsible for screwing-up her sensibilities. This is important for him, not because he wants to clean her up (in fact he wants to introduce his own dirt on top of the dirt she already has upon her), but because he doesn't want her past to compete with the depravities he himself wants to commit, thereby introducing sexual competition. He could just try to appeal to her by caring for her, but maybe he (perhaps rightly) believes his financial appeal is a good deal greater than his clean sexual appeal, and so he still finds the need to be foul in his sexual activities. What such a foul, rat-like male will likely strive for is to make the woman think her past romantic failures were merely as a result of her having had when young a lack of self-esteem that allowed her to give sex to controlling manipulative males that by nature she never would have given to anybody at that age. It is curious that one often hears people (e.g., in so-called feminist spheres) say that lack of self-esteem causes young females to excessively try sex, since I daresay a common-sense view of human nature is that a female who doesn't at all feel sure of herself, a female who lacks self-esteem and shames easily, is going to adopt a more conventional less confident approach to life, and it is not at all the case that teenage sex is something praised in conventional morality geared for the unthinking masses. It's just that girls, when they want sex, naturally tend to be submissive (see the last post or the discussion in my book about the importance of sex with young females being especially rewarding to males). This is bad basically if the submission takes place before the girl has decided to have sex. If it is after, the submission is not problematic in a girl, notwithstanding sexual submission in women is rather lame. If a girl doesn't love a man so well as in bed to trust him to an extent he could more or less control her if he saw fit to do so, then what would be bad would be her having had sex with him in the first place; bad men will exert such control to the extent they can regardless of what people think about it, and why shouldn't a good man cleanly exert a certain amount of control since there are good things he can accomplish with such, e.g., to encourage the girl he is having sex with to be more true to her own true sexual nature, which else would be difficult the younger the girl, youngsters being ignorant often becoming imitators from necessity. (Not that it at all bothers me if a girl would decide to have sex on account merely of having imitated a good friend--presumably no need for punishment or withholding emotional affection there--, but that is a different subject.)True, a hatred of young female submission, if general, might encourage girls to leave abusive males, but more than likely such a general hatred would mainly just cause girls to lack respect (on account of some submission being appropriate) for that part of society that else could rescue her. She might well think that reformists in society are stupid because they with a broad stroke reject submission, and thus make it more difficult for these reformers to argue their case against the evil of sodomy; better to try to make girls hate foul submission qua foulness rather than qua submission.
Anyway, in all likelihood the strongest forces against young-female sexual freedom are men who find it expedient to make females reject the males of their young-female sexual past without causing them to reject the depraved sensibilities mainly responsible for the females' failures. Adolescent female sexuality isn't just a red herring that the sodomizers of fallen women can point at when justifying their depravities, it is also something they directly need fallen women to see as responsible for their own material failures, lest they return to the males who first abused them. These foul men who insidiously go after fallen women do have more skills and success than typical sodomizers, and such skills make them rather effective manipulators of the popular attitude toward adolescent-female sexuality. They tend to have infiltrated certain feminist circles, warping a desire for female rights into a desire to take away young female rights. They are probably rather dangerous unscrupulous opponents who unfortunately must be dealt with by anyone trying to reform age of consent laws, etc., into more what they should be.
Of course, a good many people, especially females, really do probably from innocent lack of understanding think early female sexuality should be further discouraged, probably just because they have had more familiarity with others wanting to corrupt girls than with really beautiful feelings girls and males can have for one another. A female is lucky if when she young she meets a male she loves so well as for sex with him to be very beautiful and good, it is more likely she will meet unwanted not at all clean sexual advances (but such advances aren't particularly harmful so long as girls have the power to prevent men from initiating unwanted physical activity with them); it's unfortunate that girls need be scared of sodomy, but just outlawing their having sex won't make them safer from that. As for the dangers of unwanted advances they are rather phantom, it's not men being able to express unwanted desires to girls that hurts girls, but the men being able to act on and fulfill those unwanted desires, which alone would make girls excessively susceptible to sodomy; indeed, girls are pretty tough and are not really at all the china dolls, quaking and cracking in terror at every undesired advance, that they are made out to be.
It's too easy, probably, to fall into the trap of viewing all sodomizers as the same. Doubtless they have differing specialties. Physically abusive or terrifying ones probably do have a decided preference for young females with an innocence that largely precludes the dreaded sophistication that is a possibility among the fallen; viz., some fallen women are sufficiently sophisticated as to realize that the pleasure of sodomy doesn't have as much to do with who is the sodomizer as a freshly fallen naive female might think, and so sodomy tends not to be as exclusively controlling of such sophisticated females. Indeed, some depraved males are patently abusive, going after innocent naive girls and corrupting them with violence, terror, rape, forcible sodomy, etc. Some others perhaps are effective at making females think themselves more amenable to being controlled than is the case, and at creating confusion between innocuous captivation and disgusting captivity. Such men and boys also do probably prefer clean, young females to dominate. But not all bad men, nay, not even all bad sodomizing men are the same. Clearly there are advantages in specialization. The more common a particular evil is, the more females will have evolved effective defenses against it. If a male is more slick than seductive, better at controlling a female without her realizing it than at seducing her in the first place to try the behavior that allows him to control her, he will, in all likelihood, prefer fallen women. Not to rescue them from depravity, of course, but to inflict upon them his own depravities in place of the depravities of her past that were inflicted by other males.
Anyway, if a man has a certain amount of skill and success, then it is a convenient thing to do to a fallen women to convince her to try him by way of rescuing her from her past. Lots of females are messed-up as teenagers and in college, but then as a result of lack of success, say in getting good grades or in making money or in landing a successful husband, they come after using a little bit of sense to believe a reform is necessary. Indeed, in our commercialized society, people (unfortunately) are more likely to feel shame at lack of material success than at anything else. A strategy for a tolerably successful male who wants to get such a woman is to make her think she indeed needs reform. By making the woman feel good about a change, the man can more assuredly feel that she will indeed leave the other abusive men who in her past have been responsible for screwing-up her sensibilities. This is important for him, not because he wants to clean her up (in fact he wants to introduce his own dirt on top of the dirt she already has upon her), but because he doesn't want her past to compete with the depravities he himself wants to commit, thereby introducing sexual competition. He could just try to appeal to her by caring for her, but maybe he (perhaps rightly) believes his financial appeal is a good deal greater than his clean sexual appeal, and so he still finds the need to be foul in his sexual activities. What such a foul, rat-like male will likely strive for is to make the woman think her past romantic failures were merely as a result of her having had when young a lack of self-esteem that allowed her to give sex to controlling manipulative males that by nature she never would have given to anybody at that age. It is curious that one often hears people (e.g., in so-called feminist spheres) say that lack of self-esteem causes young females to excessively try sex, since I daresay a common-sense view of human nature is that a female who doesn't at all feel sure of herself, a female who lacks self-esteem and shames easily, is going to adopt a more conventional less confident approach to life, and it is not at all the case that teenage sex is something praised in conventional morality geared for the unthinking masses. It's just that girls, when they want sex, naturally tend to be submissive (see the last post or the discussion in my book about the importance of sex with young females being especially rewarding to males). This is bad basically if the submission takes place before the girl has decided to have sex. If it is after, the submission is not problematic in a girl, notwithstanding sexual submission in women is rather lame. If a girl doesn't love a man so well as in bed to trust him to an extent he could more or less control her if he saw fit to do so, then what would be bad would be her having had sex with him in the first place; bad men will exert such control to the extent they can regardless of what people think about it, and why shouldn't a good man cleanly exert a certain amount of control since there are good things he can accomplish with such, e.g., to encourage the girl he is having sex with to be more true to her own true sexual nature, which else would be difficult the younger the girl, youngsters being ignorant often becoming imitators from necessity. (Not that it at all bothers me if a girl would decide to have sex on account merely of having imitated a good friend--presumably no need for punishment or withholding emotional affection there--, but that is a different subject.)True, a hatred of young female submission, if general, might encourage girls to leave abusive males, but more than likely such a general hatred would mainly just cause girls to lack respect (on account of some submission being appropriate) for that part of society that else could rescue her. She might well think that reformists in society are stupid because they with a broad stroke reject submission, and thus make it more difficult for these reformers to argue their case against the evil of sodomy; better to try to make girls hate foul submission qua foulness rather than qua submission.
Anyway, in all likelihood the strongest forces against young-female sexual freedom are men who find it expedient to make females reject the males of their young-female sexual past without causing them to reject the depraved sensibilities mainly responsible for the females' failures. Adolescent female sexuality isn't just a red herring that the sodomizers of fallen women can point at when justifying their depravities, it is also something they directly need fallen women to see as responsible for their own material failures, lest they return to the males who first abused them. These foul men who insidiously go after fallen women do have more skills and success than typical sodomizers, and such skills make them rather effective manipulators of the popular attitude toward adolescent-female sexuality. They tend to have infiltrated certain feminist circles, warping a desire for female rights into a desire to take away young female rights. They are probably rather dangerous unscrupulous opponents who unfortunately must be dealt with by anyone trying to reform age of consent laws, etc., into more what they should be.
Of course, a good many people, especially females, really do probably from innocent lack of understanding think early female sexuality should be further discouraged, probably just because they have had more familiarity with others wanting to corrupt girls than with really beautiful feelings girls and males can have for one another. A female is lucky if when she young she meets a male she loves so well as for sex with him to be very beautiful and good, it is more likely she will meet unwanted not at all clean sexual advances (but such advances aren't particularly harmful so long as girls have the power to prevent men from initiating unwanted physical activity with them); it's unfortunate that girls need be scared of sodomy, but just outlawing their having sex won't make them safer from that. As for the dangers of unwanted advances they are rather phantom, it's not men being able to express unwanted desires to girls that hurts girls, but the men being able to act on and fulfill those unwanted desires, which alone would make girls excessively susceptible to sodomy; indeed, girls are pretty tough and are not really at all the china dolls, quaking and cracking in terror at every undesired advance, that they are made out to be.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Female lust responsible for authenticity
In this poem I try to describe how my feelings for girls and female-produced epigenetic modification relate to authenticity (cf. my last post). I don't apologize for using the word "orgies" down below. As mentioned, the word does not imply (according to my diction) alcohol or drug use. And as for the possibility of drug use, I should point out that drug- or sodomy-induced lust also presumably causes authenticity. Something I have noticed is that there is a certain type of person (they tend to hangout in science and math newsgroups, where they are often called cranks) who have bizarre theories which they argue for using a language that isn't just wrong, but incomprehensibly idiotic. Many of these people I suspect are people who have had many girl molesters/molested girls as ancestors, which is why despite they are stupid and bad they aren't conformist, but fall and rise on their own (often extraordinarily deficient) wits. The fact of the matter is that lustful orgies produce authenticity in both bad male and good males, whether the lust is defiled or innocent(though the authenticity produced in bad males by the female lust caused by the male's depravity (or the depravity of the other males who are in the orgy) tends to die out, inasmuch as such bad males tend to be so moronic as to have descendants that fail in natural selection). Of course, I was thinking of a multi-female orgy, but again, depraved orgies in which sodomy is involved produce more lust if more males sodomize. Enough said.
Being true to oneself
So hard it is
To be true to myself
When I am true to myself
I am true to that part of me most
that little girls have had sex with
in distant generations
No way
I say
can people be true
to that part of themselves
that is the best part of themselves
unless something makes them so.
Girls can do that
Because the part of me that is best
at getting them
is the part
that is most me.
No sex is more true
to a girl
than that which forces the girl
to be true to herself.
I will tell you what--
you’ll be less afraid if I enslave you
because if I do,
I can,
and if I can,
I will,
because I am sensitive enough to see what you are,
and real enough that you know sex won’t be near as fun for you
when I punish you by creating my own lust in me as I would
if you aren’t yourself
but some kind of conformist.
oh yeah it is scary being controlled during sex
but more scary having sex with a man who isn’t forcing you to be yourself
because it offers no proof that he could.
And I mean really, doesn’t your self know better what you want from sex than conformity does?
Aren’t you just like me?
Is not the part that is most you the part that has understood how to please little girls in bed
and make them lust?
You may not know whether that part of you,
a part of you I perhaps have turned on
is a true part of you
I’d be the first to admit (the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist I am)
for all you know I could be making you think yourself something other than you are.
Girls look at me from time to time
from the arms of their boyfriends
with steely eyes
that say
I had to be forced to find myself
that’s all what being forced is about
and don’t you really wish you were so potent
as to molest me like my lover could?
Mostly they think me some quaint naive person,
these females fallen from grace.
I can be rather generous toward their desire for authenticity
in me as well as herself,
can see in that perverse contempt,
the outlines of a natural admirable willingness
toward a kind of innocent captivation.
A captivation, unlike hers (well, I can’t prove her captivation corrupt, but. . .), that does not corrupt
a girl’s sense of her own natural sexuality
but demands it.
I’d give her a crucifix
that burns red hot when it gets too close
to the forehead of a vampire.
But I say all that doesn’t matter with you,
I know I am not the vampire, not the sodomizer,
nor a deceiver either.
At least that is what I know if I am worthy of you.
If I am worthy of you, if I can innocently force you to be you,
I should, and if you slept with me I could, should, and would,
at least to a large extent (nothing is perfect).
You’re not a fool,
you’d know this,
your mom too probably.
It isn’t really the problem per se that parents don’t let kids be true to themselves.
Think about it genetically, you’ll see that family should have just as much interest in your being true to/ yourself
as you do.
Unlike with you, it’s just as rewarding to a family member for you to be true to what the family member would do as to what you would do, and even more rewarding to him for you to be true to that part of you that you have in common with that family member, but so what?
The family member most true to himself will want you to be true to yourself more than you yourself want that, perhaps the most important consequence.
No, the problem is that parents aren’t true to themselves when it comes to parenting.
Parents all too often are conformist parents.
A parent, in my opinion, should decide when a daughter is making a big mistake,
and force her not to make it.
Mothers who choose wisely
what to let their daughters do
don’t get rewarded for authenticity
like a little girl would.
An authentic gene has its reward,
it evolves
better,
falling or rising
more according to its own worth.
If your mom’s a good parent,
does the right things
when intersecting your sex life,
there’s a good chance your children will be good parents too.
But it’s not as good a chance as the chance your children will
be sexually wise as teenagers
if you are.
You’re young,
your mind more plastic.
Very wise and informative you’d be
in bed
if you were yourself.
Yes, it would be enjoyable
to learn
what you would teach me
if you were yourself
such teaching would have
many applications.
So admittedly it’s not just that (if I’m good) you’ll
get more real pleasure by being yourself
if in bed with me.
It’s good for you to be yourself,
but largely it’s because I’m understanding that I want you to be so,
notwithstanding during sex to the extent I am good is the extent
my penis can force
you
to do what I want,
and what I want most
to force you to do
is
to force you
to be yourself.
Your mom may want you to be yourself,
at least she would when and if she has approved of you and I having sex.
But to really want you so, as much or more as I do,
once you and I have sex
I need to force you to want you to be yourself,
or she won’t respect me as much
or look at you steely-eyed
like she knows it will go easier for you
if she helps you find yourself
by stroking your hair
while telling you to submit
because it’s all so very innocent
and beautiful.
She will be especially true to herself
when and if her concern becomes how to help
you
get as much sex pleasure from me as possible.
Not that I wish to assert that I be so wonderful she couldn’t reject me notwithstanding
she be authentic.
No, it’s just that anyone genuinely interested in what pleases young girls sexually
must be true to themselves
because the part of a person that most understands that
is the part that girls over the generations have the most lusted for
and been drawn into bed by
Girl lust paints the genetic material it likes with what makes the desires of that material
in future generations
importunate
in a way the conformist cancer in our genes
can not resist
and doesn’t want to
when what little girls want
matters.
Conformity is a cancer of sorts.
Conformist genes
in the part of the genome that doesn’t matter
really don’t act like they would care if individuals they are in
evolve well.
They just would want to reproduce.
The important genes where evolution really matters,
they get overwhelmed by the junk,
and are forced by conformist genes not to live or die according to their own worth,
contrary to what the important genes would want (if somehow genes could want what was in their best interest).
Clearly, success should not be measured indiscriminately,
by the amount of genetic material that has passed down,
but by the amount of important genetic material that has done so.
The cancer of conformity in our genes
makes animals,
people too,
less successful than they could be,
when success is measured
using reasonable definitions.
Funny thing about cancer, though:
it is simple.
Conformist cancer lies
in the part of the genome
where nothing really important
ever evolves
hardly.
It doesn’t seem quite able to manage
to make us conform to just this or that.
So when it wants us not to conform,
like when it sees it is in its best interest
for the individual it is in
to really understand what pleases
young girls during coitus,
it has no choice,
but to give all the genes
the general reign
to the extent they are importunate,
and turn itself off.
You make me be myself.
If you want me,
I’ll make you be yourself.
If your mom wants us to have sex,
our sex will make her be herself,
and because mothers have so much control over our fears,
she’ll encourage my seduction of you
better than I can.
Even if conformity were had to the lesser, selfish extent,
morally it still would be excessive.
A good person would care about his genetic material evolving well
not just because that would benefit himself
but also because it would benefit the likely good mates his good genetic material
would love in future generations,
and because encouraging the evolution of beauty
is near to what goodness is.
What can humanity do to encourage
people to be true to themselves?
Only one thing ultimately really encourages people to be true to themselves, in my opinion.
If it goes away, people will gradually become conformist twits.
Young girls full of lust
do during copulation
and more especially copulation during a (multi-girl) orgy
[by the way, my diction does not assume that an orgy implies alcohol or drugs be involved, just many females]
paint the penis with chemicals.
These chemicals get absorbed by the male.
They create a coating of sorts on his genome that over generations
make regions loved especially well by girls
to be different from other regions,
more especially painted as it were.
The epigenetic “paint” on these regions causes the genes over which they are painted
to be especially importunate and powerful when it comes to demanding dominance
when their products are read.
As a result, the areas of little genetic importance,
where the conformist cancer lies,
they don’t get read as seriously
as the genetic regions where girls have consistently found past evolution
so pleasant
as to have lusted for it in
the sex that to a certain extent
created our ancestors.
We are all non-conformist
mostly just to the extent little girls in lustful orgies
have made us so.
Strange thing, though,
the pleasures inside you
that you will want
and let me enslave you
will awaken in you new wants
you won't be able to resist
forcing me
to be me.
You would probably be successful
since morally
we would see it appropriate
and I want you.
I won't be able to enslave you
without being me.
Being true to oneself
So hard it is
To be true to myself
When I am true to myself
I am true to that part of me most
that little girls have had sex with
in distant generations
No way
I say
can people be true
to that part of themselves
that is the best part of themselves
unless something makes them so.
Girls can do that
Because the part of me that is best
at getting them
is the part
that is most me.
No sex is more true
to a girl
than that which forces the girl
to be true to herself.
I will tell you what--
you’ll be less afraid if I enslave you
because if I do,
I can,
and if I can,
I will,
because I am sensitive enough to see what you are,
and real enough that you know sex won’t be near as fun for you
when I punish you by creating my own lust in me as I would
if you aren’t yourself
but some kind of conformist.
oh yeah it is scary being controlled during sex
but more scary having sex with a man who isn’t forcing you to be yourself
because it offers no proof that he could.
And I mean really, doesn’t your self know better what you want from sex than conformity does?
Aren’t you just like me?
Is not the part that is most you the part that has understood how to please little girls in bed
and make them lust?
You may not know whether that part of you,
a part of you I perhaps have turned on
is a true part of you
I’d be the first to admit (the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist I am)
for all you know I could be making you think yourself something other than you are.
Girls look at me from time to time
from the arms of their boyfriends
with steely eyes
that say
I had to be forced to find myself
that’s all what being forced is about
and don’t you really wish you were so potent
as to molest me like my lover could?
Mostly they think me some quaint naive person,
these females fallen from grace.
I can be rather generous toward their desire for authenticity
in me as well as herself,
can see in that perverse contempt,
the outlines of a natural admirable willingness
toward a kind of innocent captivation.
A captivation, unlike hers (well, I can’t prove her captivation corrupt, but. . .), that does not corrupt
a girl’s sense of her own natural sexuality
but demands it.
I’d give her a crucifix
that burns red hot when it gets too close
to the forehead of a vampire.
But I say all that doesn’t matter with you,
I know I am not the vampire, not the sodomizer,
nor a deceiver either.
At least that is what I know if I am worthy of you.
If I am worthy of you, if I can innocently force you to be you,
I should, and if you slept with me I could, should, and would,
at least to a large extent (nothing is perfect).
You’re not a fool,
you’d know this,
your mom too probably.
It isn’t really the problem per se that parents don’t let kids be true to themselves.
Think about it genetically, you’ll see that family should have just as much interest in your being true to/ yourself
as you do.
Unlike with you, it’s just as rewarding to a family member for you to be true to what the family member would do as to what you would do, and even more rewarding to him for you to be true to that part of you that you have in common with that family member, but so what?
The family member most true to himself will want you to be true to yourself more than you yourself want that, perhaps the most important consequence.
No, the problem is that parents aren’t true to themselves when it comes to parenting.
Parents all too often are conformist parents.
A parent, in my opinion, should decide when a daughter is making a big mistake,
and force her not to make it.
Mothers who choose wisely
what to let their daughters do
don’t get rewarded for authenticity
like a little girl would.
An authentic gene has its reward,
it evolves
better,
falling or rising
more according to its own worth.
If your mom’s a good parent,
does the right things
when intersecting your sex life,
there’s a good chance your children will be good parents too.
But it’s not as good a chance as the chance your children will
be sexually wise as teenagers
if you are.
You’re young,
your mind more plastic.
Very wise and informative you’d be
in bed
if you were yourself.
Yes, it would be enjoyable
to learn
what you would teach me
if you were yourself
such teaching would have
many applications.
So admittedly it’s not just that (if I’m good) you’ll
get more real pleasure by being yourself
if in bed with me.
It’s good for you to be yourself,
but largely it’s because I’m understanding that I want you to be so,
notwithstanding during sex to the extent I am good is the extent
my penis can force
you
to do what I want,
and what I want most
to force you to do
is
to force you
to be yourself.
Your mom may want you to be yourself,
at least she would when and if she has approved of you and I having sex.
But to really want you so, as much or more as I do,
once you and I have sex
I need to force you to want you to be yourself,
or she won’t respect me as much
or look at you steely-eyed
like she knows it will go easier for you
if she helps you find yourself
by stroking your hair
while telling you to submit
because it’s all so very innocent
and beautiful.
She will be especially true to herself
when and if her concern becomes how to help
you
get as much sex pleasure from me as possible.
Not that I wish to assert that I be so wonderful she couldn’t reject me notwithstanding
she be authentic.
No, it’s just that anyone genuinely interested in what pleases young girls sexually
must be true to themselves
because the part of a person that most understands that
is the part that girls over the generations have the most lusted for
and been drawn into bed by
Girl lust paints the genetic material it likes with what makes the desires of that material
in future generations
importunate
in a way the conformist cancer in our genes
can not resist
and doesn’t want to
when what little girls want
matters.
Conformity is a cancer of sorts.
Conformist genes
in the part of the genome that doesn’t matter
really don’t act like they would care if individuals they are in
evolve well.
They just would want to reproduce.
The important genes where evolution really matters,
they get overwhelmed by the junk,
and are forced by conformist genes not to live or die according to their own worth,
contrary to what the important genes would want (if somehow genes could want what was in their best interest).
Clearly, success should not be measured indiscriminately,
by the amount of genetic material that has passed down,
but by the amount of important genetic material that has done so.
The cancer of conformity in our genes
makes animals,
people too,
less successful than they could be,
when success is measured
using reasonable definitions.
Funny thing about cancer, though:
it is simple.
Conformist cancer lies
in the part of the genome
where nothing really important
ever evolves
hardly.
It doesn’t seem quite able to manage
to make us conform to just this or that.
So when it wants us not to conform,
like when it sees it is in its best interest
for the individual it is in
to really understand what pleases
young girls during coitus,
it has no choice,
but to give all the genes
the general reign
to the extent they are importunate,
and turn itself off.
You make me be myself.
If you want me,
I’ll make you be yourself.
If your mom wants us to have sex,
our sex will make her be herself,
and because mothers have so much control over our fears,
she’ll encourage my seduction of you
better than I can.
Even if conformity were had to the lesser, selfish extent,
morally it still would be excessive.
A good person would care about his genetic material evolving well
not just because that would benefit himself
but also because it would benefit the likely good mates his good genetic material
would love in future generations,
and because encouraging the evolution of beauty
is near to what goodness is.
What can humanity do to encourage
people to be true to themselves?
Only one thing ultimately really encourages people to be true to themselves, in my opinion.
If it goes away, people will gradually become conformist twits.
Young girls full of lust
do during copulation
and more especially copulation during a (multi-girl) orgy
[by the way, my diction does not assume that an orgy implies alcohol or drugs be involved, just many females]
paint the penis with chemicals.
These chemicals get absorbed by the male.
They create a coating of sorts on his genome that over generations
make regions loved especially well by girls
to be different from other regions,
more especially painted as it were.
The epigenetic “paint” on these regions causes the genes over which they are painted
to be especially importunate and powerful when it comes to demanding dominance
when their products are read.
As a result, the areas of little genetic importance,
where the conformist cancer lies,
they don’t get read as seriously
as the genetic regions where girls have consistently found past evolution
so pleasant
as to have lusted for it in
the sex that to a certain extent
created our ancestors.
We are all non-conformist
mostly just to the extent little girls in lustful orgies
have made us so.
Strange thing, though,
the pleasures inside you
that you will want
and let me enslave you
will awaken in you new wants
you won't be able to resist
forcing me
to be me.
You would probably be successful
since morally
we would see it appropriate
and I want you.
I won't be able to enslave you
without being me.
Fear the common, not the weird.
The other day, I got to thinking how peculiar it is that nowadays people tend to consider weirdness as something to be fearful and suspicious of. Occasionally, people will look at me or one of my original ideas as "so weird" and look slowly away from me like they are somehow more clean and respectable for having boring normal ideas. This, I say, is a modern attitude. Time was, people suspected you of being coarse to the extent you were common. "That is so common", I remember often hearing when young, and indeed, the insult is still occasionally used. The insult vulgar, used in a similar way, comes from the Latin vulgaris, meaning "of the mob" or "of the common people". True, there might be an element of elitism in such usage, but I claim the past attitude was preferable.
A good approximation is to think of goodness as love of beauty, where beauty is part goodness and part tangible useful qualities, i.e., talents. Since goodness involves love of itself, to avoid circularity, think of morality as partly love of talent, partly love of love of talent, partly love of love of love of talent,...; then define beauty as what morality loves and goodness as that part of beauty that is not talent, i.e., that which is love; from evolutionary considerations it is then reasonable to suppose that goodness is the same as morality, and that the components of beauty (as well as goodness) are weighted like a geometric distribution with ratio the fraction of beauty that is love.
The important point to distill from the immediately preceding (approximate) definition of goodness is that goodness is an ideal. Goodness is a desire to make the world more a certain way; to wit, to make the world a more beautiful place. Idealists can prosper more than selfish people because they will tend to be loved unselfishly by idealists who share their ideal. Idealists will tend to love one another unselfishly, while selfish people will never tend to be loved unselfishly, and so idealists can prosper better than selfish people. Of course, there are many ideals that people can have, so many different versions of idealism. Peacocks, for instance, would seem to have an ideal very similar to humans, but rather than considering abstract talent as beautiful in itself, they apparently consider fancy tail feathers as beautiful. Humans, being more able to handle abstract concepts, tend to find talent as the concrete, not-involving-love part of beauty. Indeed, idealists who want the world to be more full of talented complex people will tend to love unselfishly talented complex people by mating unselfishly with them. And if you are going to mate unselfishly with someone, you are going to prosper better if the mate you chose has talents, inasmuch as these talent are desirable both in raising the children and in ensuring the children themselves have genetic qualities suited to prospering.
Goodness is present in people (or rather in some people, to various degrees) because it is an ideal, namely love of beauty, and because love of beauty is more or less the most useful ideal that you can possess. The point I wish to make here is that if beauty is the most useful thing to love, its opposite may be presumed to be approximately the least useful thing to love. It is not at all reasonable then to suppose that people could arise who are evil from it being their nature to desire to further badness or ugliness. It is not reasonable to suppose that there could evolve to be people who are evil because they idealistically by nature want to make the world less beautiful; such would be approximately the least useful ideal. Badness is not, then, some complicated ideal contrary to goodness. Badness is merely absence of goodness in favor of selfishness; it is not an ideal, but rather selfishness. There is nothing special about selfishness, it requiring merely a knowledge of one's own self interest which it may be presumed both the good and the bad possess. Badness is not special; it is on the contrary common.
Yes, but one may argue that there are people who are beyond bad, who are what I call evil in that they actually do behave at times contrary to their own self-interest ostensibly perhaps just to destroy beauty. But I say these people are not by nature evil. Evil people are bad people who through their own mediocrity have come to believe the lies they have found it convenient to surround themselves with. For instance, a person who from a bad selfish nature finds it convenient to be controllingly abusive might to make himself more scary pretend it is the nature of bad people to desire to destroy those who are good, in as much as goodness is contrary to wanting to submit to him. If he too believes the pretensions he submits his girlfriend to, that could turn him from merely a bad abusive boyfriend into an evil murderer. Or take Hitler (from Mein Kampf):
The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is half-hearted and weak.
Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They are equally unaware of their shameless spiritual terrorization and the hideous abuse of their human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.
If Social Democracy is opposed by a doctrine of greater truth, but equal brutality of methods, the latter will conquer, though this may require the bitterest struggle.
Hitler's objective was to appeal to common (in the worst sense) people. People who wanted to support leaders as though they believed, among other things, the lie that females from "an indefinable emotional longing" want to be controlled. It is not all especially difficult to define such an emotional longing: it is a result of having gotten one's hindquarters screwed by a controlling man and is as vulgar as one might imagine. If Hitler had just pretended to believe in such a natural emotional longing, he merely would have been bad. He actually believed it, though, and lo it turned out that the masses in the non-fascist countries he presumably thought hated controlling types from love of weakness didn't love weakness much at all (it is not as though he or his soldiers could personally screw all their hindquarters) and were strong determined fighters who gave his country rather worse than it dished out, it all ending in a pointless dreadfully evil destruction of humanity.
A bad person if lacking worthwhile qualities might pretend that those who claim to have especially worthwhile qualities are just fake, and that if society has given someone particular responsibilities or acclaim from a sense the person was special, that is not a very important right society should have, and on the contrary society has been faked. When manipulating others to like him, he might try, e.g., to get them to read Catcher in the Rye or similarly deceptive media that degrades the respected so that (e.g., in mating) they won't care much about his (impossible to hide) mediocrity. An evil person, on the other hand, he is so mediocre as also to actually believe the fundamental idea of Catcher in the Rye, and so he goes out and tries to shoot the president or the most popular rock star or whomever. (Strong admiration for The Catcher in the Rye is known to be one of the best indicators of a potential assassin.)
There is nothing weird or special about evil. Evil is merely absence of goodness together with a particular sort of mediocrity of understanding.
But it isn't just that distaste for weirdness shows lack of discrimination that I disdain criticism of weirdness qua weirdness. People have a degree of choice as to how much they wish to follow their own authentic tendencies. Someone who is true to himself, yes, his faults (such as are displayed), they are his own, but like Stevenson's donkey, so too are his virtues. Succeeding or failing more according to your own tendencies is a nobler thing than just imitating the tendencies of others, for the former sort of behavior, if general would lead to much faster evolution of the complex sort of tendencies humanity needs. In particular, if you accept your moral system or mating tendencies, such as you have, ready made, say from some religious institution, well, you might be better than a purely selfish person, but you are a far cry from one with authentic moral values that come from within. And a good girl judges not so much from considering her potential mate's faults and deficiencies as from considering his virtues. Faults die out, they are short term. They hurt her, but they won't so much hurt the more distant future. Virtues, they grow. They might not grow into much during her life time, but by loving them now, she just might be enabling his special virtue to multiply into a powerful positive influence upon eternity. Virtuous girls are more accepting of quirkiness in a potential mate than less good girls are.
I must admit, authenticity of belief and love of quirkiness are not so easily found in our world as are other virtues.
I wrote the first part of this post (and saved it as a draft) in late June. I felt there was something else involved, which now I have a somewhat better handle on. Being authentic is akin to mating early. Good people wouldn't from mere altruism selection be supposed to mate nearly as early as would be moral, because the benefits to one's genetic material of mating early are distant. Similarly, on the face of it one can't see how an otherwise good person would evolve to be nearly as authentic and non-conformist as would be moral. Indeed, the benefit of authenticity is that it encourages future evolution by increasing the correlation between future evolutionary success and genetic worth. And traits that encourage future, faster evolution are so distantly rewarding they just don't get selected for well by what selects for idealistic and altruistic tendencies.
Notwithstanding there are not really forces that select for authenticity at the individual level, there are forces that select for it on the gene level. I.e., it is necessary to think in terms of competition between different alleles (in diploid individuals) rather than competition between individuals. These inter-allele competitive forces would not nearly select for authenticity as much as would be ideal (unless something else be involved), but they do select for it somewhat (also they select for early mating somewhat, though not nearly so much as the effects arising from sperm selection). I believe the lack of authenticity among the good is more general than lack of desire for early mating; excess conformity is quite a systematic obnoxious problem. That said, I am hesitant to say that people should be extremely more authentic, for though it would be good if somehow there were some way to make all otherwise good people be authentic, in fact, even though a typical good individual's genetic material would prosper more by being significantly more authentic, if a good individual were to become so exceedingly more authentic as to possess an amount of authenticity that would be in the best interest of good people as a whole for every good person to possess, then that good individual would likely suffer from his idiosyncrasy, which would be bad since his willingness to be so exceedingly authentic would encourage his demise, which would make the world more full of conformists.
More later. It turns out authenticity is I am inclined to think very much encouraged by female lust and the consideration that when describing evolutionary success it is reasonable to weight success of important genes more than success of unimportant genes. Female lust has epigenetic effects, in my opinion, which allow the genome to differentiate between important genes and unimportant ones. I have written a poem which outlines the idea--I'll probably post it. Then I think I'll post various other ideas I have been having lately about female lust, and in particular its likely epigenetic effects. Another thing I've been thinking lately is that cocaine is significantly more evil than people give it credit for being; indeed, I have come across papers (Researchers Find Alterations In Brain's Circuitry Caused By Cocaine) indicating that very recent research indicates cocaine effects gene expression in the brain by altering histones. Histone modification is as likely candidate as any for how female lust produces its epigenetic effects, histone modification having a certain inheritableness that is a hot topic among epigeneticists. Anyway I have concluded that if my worst fears are true, cocaine use might lead to alteration of the histone configuration about DNA that could last centuries if not millennia, which within a millennia or two would cause the world to become full of conformist twits who hate diversity. E.g., you'd tend to see lots of war and human sacrifice. Female lust would become totally pointless, and all its beneficial effects on the evolution of higher moral traits would disappear for a few millennia. In other words, if the war on cocaine isn't won in a few generations, it would follow mathematically that humanity will, if nothing is done to reverse these effects, with a very high probability, destroy itself in an orgy of mass murder within a millennia or two. But I will talk about that later, after I have studied the situation much better. There's so much complexity (and in particular, complex chemistry) involved, it is well I think about the situation for a few years or months (to clear away the fog of ignorance) before I publicize any conclusions I might reach. In particular I have to be clear what exactly are the defenses that prevent female lust chemicals from being effectively made otherwise than by females (e.g., by males or coca plants).
A good approximation is to think of goodness as love of beauty, where beauty is part goodness and part tangible useful qualities, i.e., talents. Since goodness involves love of itself, to avoid circularity, think of morality as partly love of talent, partly love of love of talent, partly love of love of love of talent,...; then define beauty as what morality loves and goodness as that part of beauty that is not talent, i.e., that which is love; from evolutionary considerations it is then reasonable to suppose that goodness is the same as morality, and that the components of beauty (as well as goodness) are weighted like a geometric distribution with ratio the fraction of beauty that is love.
The important point to distill from the immediately preceding (approximate) definition of goodness is that goodness is an ideal. Goodness is a desire to make the world more a certain way; to wit, to make the world a more beautiful place. Idealists can prosper more than selfish people because they will tend to be loved unselfishly by idealists who share their ideal. Idealists will tend to love one another unselfishly, while selfish people will never tend to be loved unselfishly, and so idealists can prosper better than selfish people. Of course, there are many ideals that people can have, so many different versions of idealism. Peacocks, for instance, would seem to have an ideal very similar to humans, but rather than considering abstract talent as beautiful in itself, they apparently consider fancy tail feathers as beautiful. Humans, being more able to handle abstract concepts, tend to find talent as the concrete, not-involving-love part of beauty. Indeed, idealists who want the world to be more full of talented complex people will tend to love unselfishly talented complex people by mating unselfishly with them. And if you are going to mate unselfishly with someone, you are going to prosper better if the mate you chose has talents, inasmuch as these talent are desirable both in raising the children and in ensuring the children themselves have genetic qualities suited to prospering.
Goodness is present in people (or rather in some people, to various degrees) because it is an ideal, namely love of beauty, and because love of beauty is more or less the most useful ideal that you can possess. The point I wish to make here is that if beauty is the most useful thing to love, its opposite may be presumed to be approximately the least useful thing to love. It is not at all reasonable then to suppose that people could arise who are evil from it being their nature to desire to further badness or ugliness. It is not reasonable to suppose that there could evolve to be people who are evil because they idealistically by nature want to make the world less beautiful; such would be approximately the least useful ideal. Badness is not, then, some complicated ideal contrary to goodness. Badness is merely absence of goodness in favor of selfishness; it is not an ideal, but rather selfishness. There is nothing special about selfishness, it requiring merely a knowledge of one's own self interest which it may be presumed both the good and the bad possess. Badness is not special; it is on the contrary common.
Yes, but one may argue that there are people who are beyond bad, who are what I call evil in that they actually do behave at times contrary to their own self-interest ostensibly perhaps just to destroy beauty. But I say these people are not by nature evil. Evil people are bad people who through their own mediocrity have come to believe the lies they have found it convenient to surround themselves with. For instance, a person who from a bad selfish nature finds it convenient to be controllingly abusive might to make himself more scary pretend it is the nature of bad people to desire to destroy those who are good, in as much as goodness is contrary to wanting to submit to him. If he too believes the pretensions he submits his girlfriend to, that could turn him from merely a bad abusive boyfriend into an evil murderer. Or take Hitler (from Mein Kampf):
The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is half-hearted and weak.
Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They are equally unaware of their shameless spiritual terrorization and the hideous abuse of their human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.
If Social Democracy is opposed by a doctrine of greater truth, but equal brutality of methods, the latter will conquer, though this may require the bitterest struggle.
Hitler's objective was to appeal to common (in the worst sense) people. People who wanted to support leaders as though they believed, among other things, the lie that females from "an indefinable emotional longing" want to be controlled. It is not all especially difficult to define such an emotional longing: it is a result of having gotten one's hindquarters screwed by a controlling man and is as vulgar as one might imagine. If Hitler had just pretended to believe in such a natural emotional longing, he merely would have been bad. He actually believed it, though, and lo it turned out that the masses in the non-fascist countries he presumably thought hated controlling types from love of weakness didn't love weakness much at all (it is not as though he or his soldiers could personally screw all their hindquarters) and were strong determined fighters who gave his country rather worse than it dished out, it all ending in a pointless dreadfully evil destruction of humanity.
A bad person if lacking worthwhile qualities might pretend that those who claim to have especially worthwhile qualities are just fake, and that if society has given someone particular responsibilities or acclaim from a sense the person was special, that is not a very important right society should have, and on the contrary society has been faked. When manipulating others to like him, he might try, e.g., to get them to read Catcher in the Rye or similarly deceptive media that degrades the respected so that (e.g., in mating) they won't care much about his (impossible to hide) mediocrity. An evil person, on the other hand, he is so mediocre as also to actually believe the fundamental idea of Catcher in the Rye, and so he goes out and tries to shoot the president or the most popular rock star or whomever. (Strong admiration for The Catcher in the Rye is known to be one of the best indicators of a potential assassin.)
There is nothing weird or special about evil. Evil is merely absence of goodness together with a particular sort of mediocrity of understanding.
But it isn't just that distaste for weirdness shows lack of discrimination that I disdain criticism of weirdness qua weirdness. People have a degree of choice as to how much they wish to follow their own authentic tendencies. Someone who is true to himself, yes, his faults (such as are displayed), they are his own, but like Stevenson's donkey, so too are his virtues. Succeeding or failing more according to your own tendencies is a nobler thing than just imitating the tendencies of others, for the former sort of behavior, if general would lead to much faster evolution of the complex sort of tendencies humanity needs. In particular, if you accept your moral system or mating tendencies, such as you have, ready made, say from some religious institution, well, you might be better than a purely selfish person, but you are a far cry from one with authentic moral values that come from within. And a good girl judges not so much from considering her potential mate's faults and deficiencies as from considering his virtues. Faults die out, they are short term. They hurt her, but they won't so much hurt the more distant future. Virtues, they grow. They might not grow into much during her life time, but by loving them now, she just might be enabling his special virtue to multiply into a powerful positive influence upon eternity. Virtuous girls are more accepting of quirkiness in a potential mate than less good girls are.
I must admit, authenticity of belief and love of quirkiness are not so easily found in our world as are other virtues.
I wrote the first part of this post (and saved it as a draft) in late June. I felt there was something else involved, which now I have a somewhat better handle on. Being authentic is akin to mating early. Good people wouldn't from mere altruism selection be supposed to mate nearly as early as would be moral, because the benefits to one's genetic material of mating early are distant. Similarly, on the face of it one can't see how an otherwise good person would evolve to be nearly as authentic and non-conformist as would be moral. Indeed, the benefit of authenticity is that it encourages future evolution by increasing the correlation between future evolutionary success and genetic worth. And traits that encourage future, faster evolution are so distantly rewarding they just don't get selected for well by what selects for idealistic and altruistic tendencies.
Notwithstanding there are not really forces that select for authenticity at the individual level, there are forces that select for it on the gene level. I.e., it is necessary to think in terms of competition between different alleles (in diploid individuals) rather than competition between individuals. These inter-allele competitive forces would not nearly select for authenticity as much as would be ideal (unless something else be involved), but they do select for it somewhat (also they select for early mating somewhat, though not nearly so much as the effects arising from sperm selection). I believe the lack of authenticity among the good is more general than lack of desire for early mating; excess conformity is quite a systematic obnoxious problem. That said, I am hesitant to say that people should be extremely more authentic, for though it would be good if somehow there were some way to make all otherwise good people be authentic, in fact, even though a typical good individual's genetic material would prosper more by being significantly more authentic, if a good individual were to become so exceedingly more authentic as to possess an amount of authenticity that would be in the best interest of good people as a whole for every good person to possess, then that good individual would likely suffer from his idiosyncrasy, which would be bad since his willingness to be so exceedingly authentic would encourage his demise, which would make the world more full of conformists.
More later. It turns out authenticity is I am inclined to think very much encouraged by female lust and the consideration that when describing evolutionary success it is reasonable to weight success of important genes more than success of unimportant genes. Female lust has epigenetic effects, in my opinion, which allow the genome to differentiate between important genes and unimportant ones. I have written a poem which outlines the idea--I'll probably post it. Then I think I'll post various other ideas I have been having lately about female lust, and in particular its likely epigenetic effects. Another thing I've been thinking lately is that cocaine is significantly more evil than people give it credit for being; indeed, I have come across papers (Researchers Find Alterations In Brain's Circuitry Caused By Cocaine) indicating that very recent research indicates cocaine effects gene expression in the brain by altering histones. Histone modification is as likely candidate as any for how female lust produces its epigenetic effects, histone modification having a certain inheritableness that is a hot topic among epigeneticists. Anyway I have concluded that if my worst fears are true, cocaine use might lead to alteration of the histone configuration about DNA that could last centuries if not millennia, which within a millennia or two would cause the world to become full of conformist twits who hate diversity. E.g., you'd tend to see lots of war and human sacrifice. Female lust would become totally pointless, and all its beneficial effects on the evolution of higher moral traits would disappear for a few millennia. In other words, if the war on cocaine isn't won in a few generations, it would follow mathematically that humanity will, if nothing is done to reverse these effects, with a very high probability, destroy itself in an orgy of mass murder within a millennia or two. But I will talk about that later, after I have studied the situation much better. There's so much complexity (and in particular, complex chemistry) involved, it is well I think about the situation for a few years or months (to clear away the fog of ignorance) before I publicize any conclusions I might reach. In particular I have to be clear what exactly are the defenses that prevent female lust chemicals from being effectively made otherwise than by females (e.g., by males or coca plants).
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Peace of Mind
My family and I have moved recently, from Maryland to North Carolina. I did not think it a good idea and still don't. Oh well. This poem is about peace of mind, and how I miss home.
Remind Peace of Mind
If I could be
More cool
What would, after all, be the consequences?
Would I forget to think about her?
Maybe feel too guilty to
walk in the woods
or weed?
Sometimes I consider these things
Sometimes I need to play games too much.
Peace of mind is difficult to obtain alone
in the midst of chaos.
The best thing, perhaps,
we could obtain from another
is sanity
Instead of being somewhat more sane than typical,
we could become very much more so.
Obsessions all, evaporate.
Dry observation:
You are beautiful when you play games,
exercise,
an augmentation of coolness to get.
But then, when you play like you’re trying to overcome
weakness,
to triumph over your tendency perhaps to not fight captivation,
or to not avoid sentimentality,
you seem like you are in danger of dying,
of not living your four-score and ten,
because instead of living you decided to
walk down an endless rut
from fear, I don’t know,
I might really be akin to one of the giant mutant rabbits in the horror movie,
that I could assure you do not exist,
cute and fluffy on the outside,
but inconsiderately bouncing on people to death and mistaking them for giant carrot sticks to be gnawed-up whole for nourishment,
head first.
Not that I am trying to be humorous.
I don’t like humor much.
I’d rather just be sad
and even.
It is not easy to be even, though.
Profundity comes,
here as well as other places,
but then it goes away
as though it wears me out
or required too much concentration
or a kind of balancing
that just can’t be maintained for long
,and,
,alas,
must needs end with a fall
more or less in proportion to the
profundity of the view
when balanced.
My impression, though,
is that profundity,
the sort of profundity associated with peace of mind
is NOT so much an activity
as a state
The activity is not the staying there,
a something within.
The activity is the bustle and assumptions from without
that must be cancelled.
Not perfectly,
which would be an exhausting undertaking,
worse than futile,
but still like a tree
that though it doesn’t change its place
when the wind blows
yet bends.
I have changed my place,
moved,
and yet inside
I can be mostly still
by being more alone
more like a tree
on Mount Washington
used to gales
and rooting in the least propitious
most rocky places.
If I were with you
I would be
more alone.
Perhaps it would be more clearly impressed upon
me
how mistaken people are
in their obsessions,
their idolatry,
to causes that kill
slowly
by displacement.
To beliefs in emotion
that belie their true natures
and in the process
to a certain variable extent
make our emotions
belie our true natures,
somewhat,
to the extent we are not alone
and unable to believe in the wisdom
of our own love
and maintain
sacred devotion
to our own inner self
from a sense that
people vaguely think
we strongly should smile
and laugh more—
be less serious or sacred--
because it be sweet
and the way successful rich people
behave supposedly.
What is between us so far
from trivial is
And that belief
I will guard
far from perfectly
as despite effort I don’t know how else
but determinedly.
Not that you are the only female
with the power to make me feel alone
or that when considered intellectually you are more special than a fair
other number of females I’ve met.
Nor, indeed, is it even wise from the point of view of maintain aplomb
to think of our relationship as something of unique and fundamental importance.
To make things out to be
more important
than they are
It is obsessive
and makes for a decrease in coolness and profundity.
Yet there is something for me to strike hard at
To ever make sure that I reflect my nature
and not just to give in
to general conformity
and its manipulations.
The truth a subtle mixture of worship and insouciant indifference requires
which you in me seem to encourage
or could
if you tried
kind of insouciantly indifferently.
To walk alone
with you
Someplace beautiful
Not really caring about much
Except trying to make you see the expediency
of viewing this
as more vain that it seems
to calm you down
and make you more cool
than even you are.
To come home and pull out a map
Look all intelligent as I trace the route
(on the map),
describing all its particularities,
the way to get to the desired location.
We have an intellectual discussion about it,
conferring like accomplished voyagers,
we fold the map up an set out,
thinking about the route—the expected twists and landmarks--rather than the destination,
which when we get there is a windswept place,
high up cold with scrubby pines barely holding on
unconcerned.
Around the bend there is a place of abandoned habitation.
"In the eighteenth century it was inhabited by Mssr. Ekbert Eclesmont,
with his four children, wife and a cat."
"Oh."
"Not that it matters."
In this poem I made it up, name, fore-name abbreviation, and all.
We’ll see streams and we’ll look at the ironwood trees
and I’ll pet the leaves on the beach trees,
left there from the previous year,
dry and papery,
not feeling the need to fall off.
I just can’t help feeling
that if I were with you
I would feel a kind of peace
if things were sort of right
and continually we tried to make
small efforts
(just small)
to keep it so
like to push the windswept hair off the side of your face
so that I can see you more clearly
and kind of frame your expression better
click like a camera.
I need to be more alone
I need to be with you
to see how to concentrate
on the truths that I know are true and important
much better than I am able.
I need to write more
less well
More like a diary
written casually
with no purpose but to say something
Good writing may come from writing well,
But compact writing isn’t always the best
and good writing isn’t what it lacks
but rather what it’s got,
to be judged rather on the extent of its virtues
than the extent of its inefficiencies.
I have a great deal to say
Why develop a style that is good just at saying a little because
it is too exhausting to be used when saying a lot?
Pshaw,
I’ll write well even
when I write well even.
Remind Peace of Mind
If I could be
More cool
What would, after all, be the consequences?
Would I forget to think about her?
Maybe feel too guilty to
walk in the woods
or weed?
Sometimes I consider these things
Sometimes I need to play games too much.
Peace of mind is difficult to obtain alone
in the midst of chaos.
The best thing, perhaps,
we could obtain from another
is sanity
Instead of being somewhat more sane than typical,
we could become very much more so.
Obsessions all, evaporate.
Dry observation:
You are beautiful when you play games,
exercise,
an augmentation of coolness to get.
But then, when you play like you’re trying to overcome
weakness,
to triumph over your tendency perhaps to not fight captivation,
or to not avoid sentimentality,
you seem like you are in danger of dying,
of not living your four-score and ten,
because instead of living you decided to
walk down an endless rut
from fear, I don’t know,
I might really be akin to one of the giant mutant rabbits in the horror movie,
that I could assure you do not exist,
cute and fluffy on the outside,
but inconsiderately bouncing on people to death and mistaking them for giant carrot sticks to be gnawed-up whole for nourishment,
head first.
Not that I am trying to be humorous.
I don’t like humor much.
I’d rather just be sad
and even.
It is not easy to be even, though.
Profundity comes,
here as well as other places,
but then it goes away
as though it wears me out
or required too much concentration
or a kind of balancing
that just can’t be maintained for long
,and,
,alas,
must needs end with a fall
more or less in proportion to the
profundity of the view
when balanced.
My impression, though,
is that profundity,
the sort of profundity associated with peace of mind
is NOT so much an activity
as a state
The activity is not the staying there,
a something within.
The activity is the bustle and assumptions from without
that must be cancelled.
Not perfectly,
which would be an exhausting undertaking,
worse than futile,
but still like a tree
that though it doesn’t change its place
when the wind blows
yet bends.
I have changed my place,
moved,
and yet inside
I can be mostly still
by being more alone
more like a tree
on Mount Washington
used to gales
and rooting in the least propitious
most rocky places.
If I were with you
I would be
more alone.
Perhaps it would be more clearly impressed upon
me
how mistaken people are
in their obsessions,
their idolatry,
to causes that kill
slowly
by displacement.
To beliefs in emotion
that belie their true natures
and in the process
to a certain variable extent
make our emotions
belie our true natures,
somewhat,
to the extent we are not alone
and unable to believe in the wisdom
of our own love
and maintain
sacred devotion
to our own inner self
from a sense that
people vaguely think
we strongly should smile
and laugh more—
be less serious or sacred--
because it be sweet
and the way successful rich people
behave supposedly.
What is between us so far
from trivial is
And that belief
I will guard
far from perfectly
as despite effort I don’t know how else
but determinedly.
Not that you are the only female
with the power to make me feel alone
or that when considered intellectually you are more special than a fair
other number of females I’ve met.
Nor, indeed, is it even wise from the point of view of maintain aplomb
to think of our relationship as something of unique and fundamental importance.
To make things out to be
more important
than they are
It is obsessive
and makes for a decrease in coolness and profundity.
Yet there is something for me to strike hard at
To ever make sure that I reflect my nature
and not just to give in
to general conformity
and its manipulations.
The truth a subtle mixture of worship and insouciant indifference requires
which you in me seem to encourage
or could
if you tried
kind of insouciantly indifferently.
To walk alone
with you
Someplace beautiful
Not really caring about much
Except trying to make you see the expediency
of viewing this
as more vain that it seems
to calm you down
and make you more cool
than even you are.
To come home and pull out a map
Look all intelligent as I trace the route
(on the map),
describing all its particularities,
the way to get to the desired location.
We have an intellectual discussion about it,
conferring like accomplished voyagers,
we fold the map up an set out,
thinking about the route—the expected twists and landmarks--rather than the destination,
which when we get there is a windswept place,
high up cold with scrubby pines barely holding on
unconcerned.
Around the bend there is a place of abandoned habitation.
"In the eighteenth century it was inhabited by Mssr. Ekbert Eclesmont,
with his four children, wife and a cat."
"Oh."
"Not that it matters."
In this poem I made it up, name, fore-name abbreviation, and all.
We’ll see streams and we’ll look at the ironwood trees
and I’ll pet the leaves on the beach trees,
left there from the previous year,
dry and papery,
not feeling the need to fall off.
I just can’t help feeling
that if I were with you
I would feel a kind of peace
if things were sort of right
and continually we tried to make
small efforts
(just small)
to keep it so
like to push the windswept hair off the side of your face
so that I can see you more clearly
and kind of frame your expression better
click like a camera.
I need to be more alone
I need to be with you
to see how to concentrate
on the truths that I know are true and important
much better than I am able.
I need to write more
less well
More like a diary
written casually
with no purpose but to say something
Good writing may come from writing well,
But compact writing isn’t always the best
and good writing isn’t what it lacks
but rather what it’s got,
to be judged rather on the extent of its virtues
than the extent of its inefficiencies.
I have a great deal to say
Why develop a style that is good just at saying a little because
it is too exhausting to be used when saying a lot?
Pshaw,
I’ll write well even
when I write well even.
Friday, August 12, 2005
The problem with internet forums
I am a person with many original ideas I hold to be important and of interest to the average person. After posting my book, Exact Morality for Today (I think if I had to name it over, I would call it Discriminating Morality for Today), on the internet, I decided the thing to do would be to get people more interested in my opinions by talking about them in internet forums. Especially did such an approach seem appropriate since people tend to be unusually conformist as regards what constitutes depravity, and I feel that my opinions are not much contrary to what it is the nature of the typical person to believe and feel if not confused (as unfortunately most people are). The average person is basically moral. Not that my opinions would appeal to an average person because they be conformist (they are not), but sometimes an idea can appeal to an average person because it is correct, because the average person is not stupid. By people seeing that my opinions were at least interesting and plausible to the average person, that would be an extra kind of advertisement that would further cause people to study my opinions more carefully.
What I failed to appreciate was that forums presenting themselves as easy places to access the public opinion as regards moral or philosophical issues, in fact vastly overrepresent the opinions of those who find it in their self-interest to lead the insecure astray. When a person vaguely doesn't feel like her parents are particularly clean or sane enough to protect her, she is likely (especially if young) to seek out the standard opinion and let that guide her as regards what is depraved. Such an approach is not an unreasonable one. It's very important that females, even fairly young females, be themselves as regards most matters; that's partly why young females tend to be emotional about love and why girls tend not to want to be viewed as studious--emotions are quicker than thought, and so a clean girl wondering whether she is in love can more quickly come to her own true self if emotional. But as regards large errors, it is very unfortunate that girls should make them. Better for a girl to defer to her mother (or her father if she doesn't think her mother is morally pure enough) when it comes to deciding what to be really scared of. A mother indeed should not guide her daughter's sexuality, but she should, I am inclined to think, more or less control her daughter's fears about sex. When she sees her daughter from misplaced fear is not being true to what otherwise would be her daughter's true nature, she should reassure and calm her daughter, rubbing her back when merely misplaced fears are keeping her from being sexual, encouraging her to pick out skimpier clothes when she wants to be sexy and mother knows its fairly safe, to write more erotically explicit lines where in her poems merely misplaced fear gets in the way of the sexuality underneath, etc. And on the other hand, when the daughter is screwed up or being insufficently prudent about some danger, she should be strong and tell her daughter she is screwing up her life or that she underappreciates the particular danger, beWARE. A smart and sensible mother makes her daughter feel pride to the extent she (the daughter) is able to discriminate depravity from innocent sexiness. It's not just a matter of praising her daughter when she is drug-free and free of sexual depravity, (say) maybe giving her a certificate of achievement attesting to her mother's sense of her (the daughter's) sexual purity. Also, for instance, when the daughter writes a sex poem or story that is very (cleanly) sexual in a cool way, where misplaced fear scarcely ever gets in the way of sexual explicitness and the desired erotic effect, the mother should put that on the refrigerator, too. (And not test scores or good grades; true, intellect is better at resisting abuse than emotion, and tests purport to more measure intellect, but really if a mother can do no better than to encourage her daughter to measure her cleanliness by her test scores, that is pathetic.) But sometimes (not infrequently correctly) the daughter just doesn't trust the mother, and doesn't particularly trust her father, either.
When a girl doesn't trust herself, her mother, or her father, she not infrequently turns to standard opinion as regards what constitutes depravity. What it is necessary to ask oneself is what exactly a girl is going to be viewed as by vulgar types, if she so much doesn't trust her parents or any other close relatives that she must rely on standard opinion to guide her sense of the common?
Prey.
Therein lies the problem with internet forums. Internet forums claiming to represent standard opinions, generally moderated by people who claim to only delete obscene or flaming posts, are usually in fact run and peopled by mostly obscene people. These are people who like to prey on the insecure individuals who are interested in what exactly constitutes typical opinions. A similar phenomenon occurs in Hollywood. I believe it goes without saying that many of the tabloids and self-advertising shows geared toward the glorification of entertainment celebrities are not morally enlightened. This is because people into celebrities tend to be insecure types looking for what is the most popular, since that gives evidence as to what an average person appreciates. The problem is not so much with what is popular or with what is commonly appreciated, the problem is with those who seek to influence those who, often on account of insecurity, especially care what constitutes normalcy.
Anyway, my advice to insecure people is that if you are going to be insecure, well, be bold in being insecure. Be wary of people who seem to be catering to your insecurity. Don't just accept what they have to say about what is normal. No, do your own polling. Approach a random sample of respectable-looking people and ask them what they think; don't ask people just because they make it unusually easy for you. So maybe someone will not be willing to chat with you because she (or he) thinks it too much of a waste of time? No disaster, they can always ignore you or tell you to stop talking--and loneliness is a more common problem than lack of time.
Blogs are I think better than internet forums. There is still a problem with blogs, though. There aren't enough really interesting blogs out there which link to other interesting blogs that it is easy to find interesting opinions by searching blogs. Blogs have a kind of mysteriousness about them that makes bloggers rather too often defer to normalcy and considerations of popularity. I can't quite put my finger exactly on what bothers me about them. I know that sounds rather paranoid, and maybe only that's the point--bloggers are rather like a lot of literary agents, so frustrated by false priggishness from paranoia, they excessively fear paranoia. A lot of it I'm hoping has to do with fear. Many internet forum types doubtless are into blogging as well, trying to be the blog that is most standard looking one with the most blogs linking to it (I often wonder whether many people linking to and respnding to posts on blogs and forums are sock puppets created by the self-same poster.) And these people prosper by scaring conformists into not being more bold in their insecurities. They want to make people afraid of just going up to people at random and asking their opinions. Insecure types are the most afraid of flaming, and the guardians of speech will call anyone being bold to express an opinion without genuflecting, etc., first to them (self-styled master of conformity) or without first posting hundreds of boring conformist posts, a "troll". It's singular, really, that the word "troll" would be used to represent someone who comes to a forum or newsgroup suddenly with a clamorous, thought-provoking post, because these guardians of the bridge into the forum are exactly like the troll in the folk tale. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when someone says a person secrectly has some fault after he argued against the fault, he in fact doesn't have the fault himself, and I must confess I find it dreadfully tedious and clueless when people tell me, e.g., that since I argue against sodomy, well, that suggests I'm homosexual; perhaps it is just a misguided attempt on the part of the shamed to fight fire with a similar fire. But the kind of people who try to be the conformist-appearing yet depraved guardians of the bridge into usegroups and forums that purportedly strive for openness, when they accuse billy-goat gruffs of being trolls, they are being just like the troll. I believe that is some sort of unconscious strategy or deception they have. I had some impression in my head of there being a popular concept of what flaming lowlifes were. It took me quite a while to realize that actually the concept is best represented by the troll in the fairy tale; somehow psychologically it didn't want to occur to me they were exactly what they call me. Anyway, the troll-like flaming of billy-goat gruffs by disgusting manipulators of conformity all too often in the blogosphere makes even quite secure people fearful of encouraging weird opinions in a discriminating way (by for instance admitting to finding them interesting by (say) linking to them).
Collaborative filtering is something I had hoped would take off more.
What I failed to appreciate was that forums presenting themselves as easy places to access the public opinion as regards moral or philosophical issues, in fact vastly overrepresent the opinions of those who find it in their self-interest to lead the insecure astray. When a person vaguely doesn't feel like her parents are particularly clean or sane enough to protect her, she is likely (especially if young) to seek out the standard opinion and let that guide her as regards what is depraved. Such an approach is not an unreasonable one. It's very important that females, even fairly young females, be themselves as regards most matters; that's partly why young females tend to be emotional about love and why girls tend not to want to be viewed as studious--emotions are quicker than thought, and so a clean girl wondering whether she is in love can more quickly come to her own true self if emotional. But as regards large errors, it is very unfortunate that girls should make them. Better for a girl to defer to her mother (or her father if she doesn't think her mother is morally pure enough) when it comes to deciding what to be really scared of. A mother indeed should not guide her daughter's sexuality, but she should, I am inclined to think, more or less control her daughter's fears about sex. When she sees her daughter from misplaced fear is not being true to what otherwise would be her daughter's true nature, she should reassure and calm her daughter, rubbing her back when merely misplaced fears are keeping her from being sexual, encouraging her to pick out skimpier clothes when she wants to be sexy and mother knows its fairly safe, to write more erotically explicit lines where in her poems merely misplaced fear gets in the way of the sexuality underneath, etc. And on the other hand, when the daughter is screwed up or being insufficently prudent about some danger, she should be strong and tell her daughter she is screwing up her life or that she underappreciates the particular danger, beWARE. A smart and sensible mother makes her daughter feel pride to the extent she (the daughter) is able to discriminate depravity from innocent sexiness. It's not just a matter of praising her daughter when she is drug-free and free of sexual depravity, (say) maybe giving her a certificate of achievement attesting to her mother's sense of her (the daughter's) sexual purity. Also, for instance, when the daughter writes a sex poem or story that is very (cleanly) sexual in a cool way, where misplaced fear scarcely ever gets in the way of sexual explicitness and the desired erotic effect, the mother should put that on the refrigerator, too. (And not test scores or good grades; true, intellect is better at resisting abuse than emotion, and tests purport to more measure intellect, but really if a mother can do no better than to encourage her daughter to measure her cleanliness by her test scores, that is pathetic.) But sometimes (not infrequently correctly) the daughter just doesn't trust the mother, and doesn't particularly trust her father, either.
When a girl doesn't trust herself, her mother, or her father, she not infrequently turns to standard opinion as regards what constitutes depravity. What it is necessary to ask oneself is what exactly a girl is going to be viewed as by vulgar types, if she so much doesn't trust her parents or any other close relatives that she must rely on standard opinion to guide her sense of the common?
Prey.
Therein lies the problem with internet forums. Internet forums claiming to represent standard opinions, generally moderated by people who claim to only delete obscene or flaming posts, are usually in fact run and peopled by mostly obscene people. These are people who like to prey on the insecure individuals who are interested in what exactly constitutes typical opinions. A similar phenomenon occurs in Hollywood. I believe it goes without saying that many of the tabloids and self-advertising shows geared toward the glorification of entertainment celebrities are not morally enlightened. This is because people into celebrities tend to be insecure types looking for what is the most popular, since that gives evidence as to what an average person appreciates. The problem is not so much with what is popular or with what is commonly appreciated, the problem is with those who seek to influence those who, often on account of insecurity, especially care what constitutes normalcy.
Anyway, my advice to insecure people is that if you are going to be insecure, well, be bold in being insecure. Be wary of people who seem to be catering to your insecurity. Don't just accept what they have to say about what is normal. No, do your own polling. Approach a random sample of respectable-looking people and ask them what they think; don't ask people just because they make it unusually easy for you. So maybe someone will not be willing to chat with you because she (or he) thinks it too much of a waste of time? No disaster, they can always ignore you or tell you to stop talking--and loneliness is a more common problem than lack of time.
Blogs are I think better than internet forums. There is still a problem with blogs, though. There aren't enough really interesting blogs out there which link to other interesting blogs that it is easy to find interesting opinions by searching blogs. Blogs have a kind of mysteriousness about them that makes bloggers rather too often defer to normalcy and considerations of popularity. I can't quite put my finger exactly on what bothers me about them. I know that sounds rather paranoid, and maybe only that's the point--bloggers are rather like a lot of literary agents, so frustrated by false priggishness from paranoia, they excessively fear paranoia. A lot of it I'm hoping has to do with fear. Many internet forum types doubtless are into blogging as well, trying to be the blog that is most standard looking one with the most blogs linking to it (I often wonder whether many people linking to and respnding to posts on blogs and forums are sock puppets created by the self-same poster.) And these people prosper by scaring conformists into not being more bold in their insecurities. They want to make people afraid of just going up to people at random and asking their opinions. Insecure types are the most afraid of flaming, and the guardians of speech will call anyone being bold to express an opinion without genuflecting, etc., first to them (self-styled master of conformity) or without first posting hundreds of boring conformist posts, a "troll". It's singular, really, that the word "troll" would be used to represent someone who comes to a forum or newsgroup suddenly with a clamorous, thought-provoking post, because these guardians of the bridge into the forum are exactly like the troll in the folk tale. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when someone says a person secrectly has some fault after he argued against the fault, he in fact doesn't have the fault himself, and I must confess I find it dreadfully tedious and clueless when people tell me, e.g., that since I argue against sodomy, well, that suggests I'm homosexual; perhaps it is just a misguided attempt on the part of the shamed to fight fire with a similar fire. But the kind of people who try to be the conformist-appearing yet depraved guardians of the bridge into usegroups and forums that purportedly strive for openness, when they accuse billy-goat gruffs of being trolls, they are being just like the troll. I believe that is some sort of unconscious strategy or deception they have. I had some impression in my head of there being a popular concept of what flaming lowlifes were. It took me quite a while to realize that actually the concept is best represented by the troll in the fairy tale; somehow psychologically it didn't want to occur to me they were exactly what they call me. Anyway, the troll-like flaming of billy-goat gruffs by disgusting manipulators of conformity all too often in the blogosphere makes even quite secure people fearful of encouraging weird opinions in a discriminating way (by for instance admitting to finding them interesting by (say) linking to them).
Collaborative filtering is something I had hoped would take off more.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Being sad toward the playful
This entry gives another take (quite different from the last post) on how a girl might go about ensuring a guy could be sad before and during sex with her if he also happens to want that.
This poem rather assumes that girls want me more than perhaps I have much evidence for, and just sort of takes for granted they are very much attracted to me and not much annoyed at my failures and deficiencies. No matter. To the extent the assumption is incorrect, the poem is irrelevant, and of course it doesn’t matter what irrelevant poems say. Poetic license.
Sexy girl at play
Sexy girl
Undressed
Wants it all
But not yet
I can see
the way she wants to play
Smiles and lightnesses
She’s ...
not quite ready to feel all the way.
When she is,
she’ll bring her hand over her face
and when it leaves below
she’ll show herself
all serious.
When at the surface
She’ll laugh—
make like she’s playing a game.
I’d join, but I’m not so keen on laughing.
I mean, she’s pretty and attractive
lightsome and cool besides.
I could think about her deep inside
About going all the way,
That might keep me serious,
But it is not worth it.
I’ll join.
Pretty girl, why are you so pretty
at play
in a smile and a laugh?
Is it lovely to pretend
I should
(or maybe just could)
on an emotional level
in every clean and lightsome way
fuck you?
Deeply it is for all sexier and better to be each total serious.
Perhaps your merriment at play like training is.
I ought to be able to resist it,
Maybe with practice I can,
and sadly play,
which if I could,
I would be more sad when we are not playing
and you’re total serious
and I make sexual love to you.
I don’t want you to smile at me in play
Unless
if you later let me go all the way
you’d let me feel smiles and laughs as I do it
and take every drop of your love
all for myself.
Not that I’d do that even if you let me,
but still,
that perhaps is irrelevant.
Sexually I love you.
(And I don’t mean “love” as a synonym for “want”,
though for sure I also want you sexually, at least to the extent it’s allowed.)
I want to be holy and good to you
in bed.
When I started writing this poem,
it was to be a mortification of sorts.
An exercise in description
of how beautiful it would be
just to play with you
whether it be tennis,
badminton,
or some other sport.
All true that as well as this.
I could accept your smiles
as beautiful
and maybe unavoidably smile back
but not for long.
I accept that you are sexier,
and more comfortable,
and at greater ease,
if you first have an opportunity to play.
Being serious,
fixating on your deepest needs,
it makes me like holy,
and sad,
but is rather putting the cart before the horse,
and thus might not set you in the greatest ease.
The ease is more important right now,
and I or you,
we might learn something too.
This, I say, is how things started out,
but the thought of you
and me
on the surface
accepting that
it makes me realize
play is about sex,
and between us,
just about completely so.
Greater acceptance of lightness,
could make me so much more sexual,
as girls get less afraid to go,
I’d be less afraid of their rebuke
of my being rather more open of my desires
and visions of naked girls
would glide through my brain
soft and beautifully.
We could be open
about sex
much more than we are
yet it be all
just play.
The surface makes me sexual
when I have the right attitude toward it
a most pleasing seduction of me, play,
and innocent.
The world looks at happiness,
so wrong,
Lightness no gift to a female in bed is.
Nor, indeed, does sadness in me
aught in common
with obsession has.
They would scoff at me,
making a poem like this,
my darkly saying “fuck” here and there,
like I can’t help it,
even in a poem about how play
sometimes preferable to seriousness is.
But lightness in you
only beautiful to me is
in play
I’m inclined to think.
When you are light,
I don’t really want to be
otherwise than dark,
except insofar
I can’t help being so.
My sadness
not a rebuke of your lightness is
Nor is your lightness a defense
against my darkness,
but just a kind of trick
to protect me with experience from the prevailing scoffing lie,
so when we’re both dark
and still
and quiet
sexually loving one another
in coitus,
my increased sadness,
my more minor mode,
when they are the most important
they’ll give us
more erotic pleasure from our having sex
than we otherwise would have.
Blessed are those who mourn
for they shall be comforted
by coitus with girls loving sexual pleasure.
I am going to miss you
I could be angry
and bitter
maybe I won’t be able to help
being that some,
but mainly
I will just be normal
No drama
no star-crossed lovers.
I know somewhat how strong girls tend to be;
A bridge to them that isn’t right,
they’ll burn it down
and not look back
perhaps
as much as they should.
An unfinished bridge
is not necessarily a shoddy one so far as it goes.
And a stoppage of construction
not always the fault of the builders.
It seems
oftentimes a girl will be special
and something will get in the way
and for years I’ll not give up
but nothing happens
even though
it seems to me
if the girl felt as she did,
why, she would try something,
see what has become of me,
leave a clue somewhere--
a way to finish the bridge
that merely never got finished built.
It doesn’t have to be that way
At worst, if you keep thinking about me
to no direct purpose
you’ll merely gain wisdom.
These stories
of people in love
who go berserk
when they can’t do anything about it
anytime soon
from no fault of their own,
they aren’t about me
or anyone who would think about my opinions.
I occassion no withdrawal symptoms.
And though frustration
and bitterness
can be the lot of the wronged,
with resignation to what can’t be changed
and with honest appreciation
that oppression
need not occasion
gloom
or subservience
as long as there is hope
of grasping freedom
through effort
and the intellectual resolve
not to see a bogeyman where
mere injustice lay,
I say,
though difficulty
may change the perfect
or almost perfect
into something less than that,
it mostly need not be more than a delay or a lessening,
and even if it turn out more than that,
well,
one shrugs one’s shoulders like a Frenchman
and goes on,
the best one can,
with sanity almost perfect
intact.
The pedestrian
non-disgusting evils,
they may displace the perfection
of love
at its most fine freshness,
but reality one accepts it and goes on.
Shoots a basket,
plays a game of solitaire,
and not less than the extent to which it makes sense,
tries to repair things
so we can patch love up
and have it later
still quite nice,
especially since reflection on a special past or future communications will have made new wisdom.
Sometimes dreams are more real
than what seems like reality
because fear, impatience or bitterness keep us from seeing that
definite real steps
can make dreams come mostly true,
preserving your love mostly like new.
It is OK to settle
for love that’s a little cracked or faded.
Maybe no great forces are aligned against us.
With somewhat greater freedom
and power
we could try again to please each other.
And if not possible
to settle,
or if you decide from the sorry state of the bridge to remain apart forever,
which wouldn’t surprise me, yes,
I’ll gradually come to be more saddened and a little more frustrated at times,
but it will be just a minor blip to my sanity,
and need not be any more than that
to you either.
No reason to seek an excuse why our parting was deserved by either of us.
I’ve never been the least bit angry at you and don’t know why I would be.
I will miss you.
This poem rather assumes that girls want me more than perhaps I have much evidence for, and just sort of takes for granted they are very much attracted to me and not much annoyed at my failures and deficiencies. No matter. To the extent the assumption is incorrect, the poem is irrelevant, and of course it doesn’t matter what irrelevant poems say. Poetic license.
Sexy girl at play
Sexy girl
Undressed
Wants it all
But not yet
I can see
the way she wants to play
Smiles and lightnesses
She’s ...
not quite ready to feel all the way.
When she is,
she’ll bring her hand over her face
and when it leaves below
she’ll show herself
all serious.
When at the surface
She’ll laugh—
make like she’s playing a game.
I’d join, but I’m not so keen on laughing.
I mean, she’s pretty and attractive
lightsome and cool besides.
I could think about her deep inside
About going all the way,
That might keep me serious,
But it is not worth it.
I’ll join.
Pretty girl, why are you so pretty
at play
in a smile and a laugh?
Is it lovely to pretend
I should
(or maybe just could)
on an emotional level
in every clean and lightsome way
fuck you?
Deeply it is for all sexier and better to be each total serious.
Perhaps your merriment at play like training is.
I ought to be able to resist it,
Maybe with practice I can,
and sadly play,
which if I could,
I would be more sad when we are not playing
and you’re total serious
and I make sexual love to you.
I don’t want you to smile at me in play
Unless
if you later let me go all the way
you’d let me feel smiles and laughs as I do it
and take every drop of your love
all for myself.
Not that I’d do that even if you let me,
but still,
that perhaps is irrelevant.
Sexually I love you.
(And I don’t mean “love” as a synonym for “want”,
though for sure I also want you sexually, at least to the extent it’s allowed.)
I want to be holy and good to you
in bed.
When I started writing this poem,
it was to be a mortification of sorts.
An exercise in description
of how beautiful it would be
just to play with you
whether it be tennis,
badminton,
or some other sport.
All true that as well as this.
I could accept your smiles
as beautiful
and maybe unavoidably smile back
but not for long.
I accept that you are sexier,
and more comfortable,
and at greater ease,
if you first have an opportunity to play.
Being serious,
fixating on your deepest needs,
it makes me like holy,
and sad,
but is rather putting the cart before the horse,
and thus might not set you in the greatest ease.
The ease is more important right now,
and I or you,
we might learn something too.
This, I say, is how things started out,
but the thought of you
and me
on the surface
accepting that
it makes me realize
play is about sex,
and between us,
just about completely so.
Greater acceptance of lightness,
could make me so much more sexual,
as girls get less afraid to go,
I’d be less afraid of their rebuke
of my being rather more open of my desires
and visions of naked girls
would glide through my brain
soft and beautifully.
We could be open
about sex
much more than we are
yet it be all
just play.
The surface makes me sexual
when I have the right attitude toward it
a most pleasing seduction of me, play,
and innocent.
The world looks at happiness,
so wrong,
Lightness no gift to a female in bed is.
Nor, indeed, does sadness in me
aught in common
with obsession has.
They would scoff at me,
making a poem like this,
my darkly saying “fuck” here and there,
like I can’t help it,
even in a poem about how play
sometimes preferable to seriousness is.
But lightness in you
only beautiful to me is
in play
I’m inclined to think.
When you are light,
I don’t really want to be
otherwise than dark,
except insofar
I can’t help being so.
My sadness
not a rebuke of your lightness is
Nor is your lightness a defense
against my darkness,
but just a kind of trick
to protect me with experience from the prevailing scoffing lie,
so when we’re both dark
and still
and quiet
sexually loving one another
in coitus,
my increased sadness,
my more minor mode,
when they are the most important
they’ll give us
more erotic pleasure from our having sex
than we otherwise would have.
Blessed are those who mourn
for they shall be comforted
by coitus with girls loving sexual pleasure.
I am going to miss you
I could be angry
and bitter
maybe I won’t be able to help
being that some,
but mainly
I will just be normal
No drama
no star-crossed lovers.
I know somewhat how strong girls tend to be;
A bridge to them that isn’t right,
they’ll burn it down
and not look back
perhaps
as much as they should.
An unfinished bridge
is not necessarily a shoddy one so far as it goes.
And a stoppage of construction
not always the fault of the builders.
It seems
oftentimes a girl will be special
and something will get in the way
and for years I’ll not give up
but nothing happens
even though
it seems to me
if the girl felt as she did,
why, she would try something,
see what has become of me,
leave a clue somewhere--
a way to finish the bridge
that merely never got finished built.
It doesn’t have to be that way
At worst, if you keep thinking about me
to no direct purpose
you’ll merely gain wisdom.
These stories
of people in love
who go berserk
when they can’t do anything about it
anytime soon
from no fault of their own,
they aren’t about me
or anyone who would think about my opinions.
I occassion no withdrawal symptoms.
And though frustration
and bitterness
can be the lot of the wronged,
with resignation to what can’t be changed
and with honest appreciation
that oppression
need not occasion
gloom
or subservience
as long as there is hope
of grasping freedom
through effort
and the intellectual resolve
not to see a bogeyman where
mere injustice lay,
I say,
though difficulty
may change the perfect
or almost perfect
into something less than that,
it mostly need not be more than a delay or a lessening,
and even if it turn out more than that,
well,
one shrugs one’s shoulders like a Frenchman
and goes on,
the best one can,
with sanity almost perfect
intact.
The pedestrian
non-disgusting evils,
they may displace the perfection
of love
at its most fine freshness,
but reality one accepts it and goes on.
Shoots a basket,
plays a game of solitaire,
and not less than the extent to which it makes sense,
tries to repair things
so we can patch love up
and have it later
still quite nice,
especially since reflection on a special past or future communications will have made new wisdom.
Sometimes dreams are more real
than what seems like reality
because fear, impatience or bitterness keep us from seeing that
definite real steps
can make dreams come mostly true,
preserving your love mostly like new.
It is OK to settle
for love that’s a little cracked or faded.
Maybe no great forces are aligned against us.
With somewhat greater freedom
and power
we could try again to please each other.
And if not possible
to settle,
or if you decide from the sorry state of the bridge to remain apart forever,
which wouldn’t surprise me, yes,
I’ll gradually come to be more saddened and a little more frustrated at times,
but it will be just a minor blip to my sanity,
and need not be any more than that
to you either.
No reason to seek an excuse why our parting was deserved by either of us.
I’ve never been the least bit angry at you and don’t know why I would be.
I will miss you.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Sadness a girl magnet
I'm clever. Indeed, I claim to be the discoverer of the purpose of sadness. Observation seems to indicate that people are sad when things don't turn out as well as they expect. Why should this be such an obvious emotion when for the most part people like to show off by displaying their successes and hiding their failures? The answer is subtle, and involves genetic crossover.
What matters in a chromosome region is not only the value of the individual alleles of the genes that make it up, but how these alleles harmonize with each other. Selection selects for this harmony just as it selects for the fitness of the individual alleles. (This is why horse breeders care not just about the performance of a horse, but also about the performance of his relatives--a horse may have performed badly just because his genes don't harmonize well with one another, and harmony being less genetically transmittable, it is less of a consideration to horse breeders than the actual fitness of the genes in the horse.) A chromosome is not just its parts, it is also how well the parts fit together. Because selection selects for how well alleles at different genes harmonize, genes that are close together on the same chromosome will tend in any given individual to harmonize more than one would expect from mere chance (i.e., compared with two alleles picked at random with probabilities in proportion to their frequency in the population). This is especially important because a little careful thought (which I won't outline here) shows that a gene whose alleles would tend to have harmonious or disharmonious relationships with the alleles of some other particular gene would more likely tend to arise or to become repositioned near and on the same chromosome as that latter particular gene.
As is taught in high school biology, during the meiosis that occurs in sperm and egg development, each pair of chromosomes may swap from one member of the pair to the other genetic material in a process called genetic crossover. Harmony that has been selected for between alleles on one side of the crossover point and alleles on the other side of the crossover point is destroyed. Accordingly, children from gametes in which much crossover has occurred are less likely to have (alleles of) genes which harmonize well with each other. Such children are less likely to be fit. So Why, then, does crossover occur at all? The answer lies in what Einstein supposedly called the most powerful force in the universe, compound interest.
True, usually genetic crossover tends to lead to a gamete less fit than the average fitness of the chromosomes from which it was composed. But on occasion, a gamete as a result of crossover is more fit. And a more fit chromosome region, because it is more fit, is likely to increase in frequency over the generations. With each generation, the expected population of the chromosome region becomes greater and greater. Like compound interest on an investment, the growth in population occurs mainly in the distant future, and can be enormous if the region stays intact frequently enough. A loss, on the other hand, can never be greater than total. And the loss is likely to be in the short-term. Genetic crossover occurs because sometimes it leads to new combinations that can lead to large long-term advantages. These occasional long-term advantages, by their occasionally being enormous, make up for the short-term losses that genetic crossover is more likely to bring. Genetic crossover has a large chance of giving to descendants short-term losses and a small chance of giving to descendants long-term gains. Since the long-term gains can be enormous while the short-term losses never are worse than total, crossover has evolved to happen.
The key point to note is that the gains from crossover, being long-term, are not very much able to be shared by the mate of the person in the gametes of whom the crossover has occurred. True, it is advantageous to mate with someone with genetic fitness, since this fitness is likely to make for more fit children, grandchildren, etc. But before very many generations, the genetic material of mates will mostly be separate from one another. In fact, it can be shown (assuming constant populations and an average amount of crossover) that about one-half of the consequence in descendants to your genetic material from your mate's genetic material will occur in your children. In other words, half the advantage to your mating well will occur because your children are worthier than otherwise. (The rest will occur because your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc., are worthier than otherwise.)The advantages of mating well are mostly short-term. The advantages of having worthy genetic material can, however, be very long-term indeed. It is rewarding to be fertilized by genetic material in which little genetic crossover has lately occurred.
It follows that your mate could be rewarded by discouraging genetic crossover in your gametes prior to fertilization. Females presumably can't do this since it is believed that genetic crossover is determined in the fetus in females. But I think males can. If a male loves a female well, she is holy to him, and this holy emotion in the male I posit is significant because it discourages genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Selfishly, what matters to the male is having the correct rate of genetic crossover over the generations, so his genetic material can mix with other genetic material to try new combinations, etc. It is of no harm to him if he and his male descendants over the generations encourage or discourage crossover according as a prospective mate deserves it or not. And the advantages to groups whose males vary their crossover rates thus would be enormous, it allowing females to be rewarded more according as is just, thereby encouraging evolution. And moral qualities too would be advanced, since it may be presumed females would quickly evolve an ability to detect such holiness, and good females would more tend to be rewarded by (likely good) mates according to their worth while bad females would more tend to be rewarded by holiness according to how much her mate deemed it necessary to attract her with it.
Fate, too, is important, however. Sometimes a male should and would be quite successful, but alas, he has had bad luck. Evolution works better to the extent selection is determined by fitness rather than luck. Accordingly, it is reasonable that if a male feels he is likely on account of past bad luck to have been less reproductively successful than he would otherwise have been, he is going to want to give himself an advantage. He can do this by restricting crossover in gametes. This is no real harm to himself. If a gene acts to restrict or encourage crossover according to bad or good fortune, that gene won't suffer--it will still have the same average rate (over the generations) of crossover, which is what mostly matters to it. When a man feels he has had bad fortune, his genes will make up for it a little by reducing a little his possibility of distant gain by making him sad. Sadness I suggest, like holiness, discourages crossover, and therefore is a girl magnet. Genes don't mind switching the girl magnet to SAD/ATTRACT in a male with bad luck so long as they are allowed to turn the magnet to HAPPY/REPEL in a male with good luck. Indeed, the genes' success will improve if they do so. Sadness in a male is a sexual turn on to females.
Lately it has been occurring to me that girls often try to make males sad. This is why girls like to surprise males when they give gifts. If you think a girl is going to have sex with you, it is hard for that not to make you happy. So more fun for the girl to make out like she doesn't feel anything for you, and to try to make you sad, and then after you've been sad for a few months, "Surprise! Time for sex." Or something like that. (A couple months or so elapse between the stage of crossover in spermatogenesis and ejaculation.) A lot of males make out like females like sometimes to make males sad because sadness hurts, but I like my explanation better, and do trust and hope I am correct. To be sure bad males are forever trying to give girls false understandings of their own (the girls', that is) tendencies, but that is another matter, I suppose. I guess I should point out that I am not really bothered by females hiding their affections in this manner, to make affection when it comes a surprise. No, on the contrary, if a male is quite good morally, I can see how it would be moral of her to in fact encourage him to be sad. The genetic material that will be together with his in future generations can't be expected to on average be so good as the average of his genetic material, so discouraging crossover in really good individuals at the expense of their likely good (but less good) descendants, seems a pretty good thing to do on the whole. Yes, probably girls are more moral about wanting really good males to be sad than the really good males themselves are. Alas, when like the clever fox one understands girls, one is rather too wise to be tricked by girls into being sad. Yes, this thought of girls manipulating me into sadness rather makes me feel a male fox standing on his hind feet dancing about in glee. I am clever, perhaps too clever at times for my own good or even the good. But then the fox really feels he has got something if he understands the female fox's manipulations to make him sad. I? I don't understand what the dancing fox has got. It is difficult for me to be otherwise than the sum of my parts. I think I could be sad just to attract a girl or girls, but it wouldn't be easy. My guess is that I could do it to the extent I'm pious, but not otherwise. Piety also discourages crossover, and I take it to do so because being moral attracts girls more than older females, and so if you mainly attract girls, you'd might as well do what girls want to the nth-degree by discouraging crossover and being pious (which piety is no real disadvantage if you really are so much into moral philosophy that understanding moral rightness is almost a continual quest). Piety take a lot of concentration and isn't the easiest thing to maintain in this busy world--I mean, unless you are a monk, but then monks aren't supposed to have sex with girls, which is the whole point of piety IMO.
What matters in a chromosome region is not only the value of the individual alleles of the genes that make it up, but how these alleles harmonize with each other. Selection selects for this harmony just as it selects for the fitness of the individual alleles. (This is why horse breeders care not just about the performance of a horse, but also about the performance of his relatives--a horse may have performed badly just because his genes don't harmonize well with one another, and harmony being less genetically transmittable, it is less of a consideration to horse breeders than the actual fitness of the genes in the horse.) A chromosome is not just its parts, it is also how well the parts fit together. Because selection selects for how well alleles at different genes harmonize, genes that are close together on the same chromosome will tend in any given individual to harmonize more than one would expect from mere chance (i.e., compared with two alleles picked at random with probabilities in proportion to their frequency in the population). This is especially important because a little careful thought (which I won't outline here) shows that a gene whose alleles would tend to have harmonious or disharmonious relationships with the alleles of some other particular gene would more likely tend to arise or to become repositioned near and on the same chromosome as that latter particular gene.
As is taught in high school biology, during the meiosis that occurs in sperm and egg development, each pair of chromosomes may swap from one member of the pair to the other genetic material in a process called genetic crossover. Harmony that has been selected for between alleles on one side of the crossover point and alleles on the other side of the crossover point is destroyed. Accordingly, children from gametes in which much crossover has occurred are less likely to have (alleles of) genes which harmonize well with each other. Such children are less likely to be fit. So Why, then, does crossover occur at all? The answer lies in what Einstein supposedly called the most powerful force in the universe, compound interest.
True, usually genetic crossover tends to lead to a gamete less fit than the average fitness of the chromosomes from which it was composed. But on occasion, a gamete as a result of crossover is more fit. And a more fit chromosome region, because it is more fit, is likely to increase in frequency over the generations. With each generation, the expected population of the chromosome region becomes greater and greater. Like compound interest on an investment, the growth in population occurs mainly in the distant future, and can be enormous if the region stays intact frequently enough. A loss, on the other hand, can never be greater than total. And the loss is likely to be in the short-term. Genetic crossover occurs because sometimes it leads to new combinations that can lead to large long-term advantages. These occasional long-term advantages, by their occasionally being enormous, make up for the short-term losses that genetic crossover is more likely to bring. Genetic crossover has a large chance of giving to descendants short-term losses and a small chance of giving to descendants long-term gains. Since the long-term gains can be enormous while the short-term losses never are worse than total, crossover has evolved to happen.
The key point to note is that the gains from crossover, being long-term, are not very much able to be shared by the mate of the person in the gametes of whom the crossover has occurred. True, it is advantageous to mate with someone with genetic fitness, since this fitness is likely to make for more fit children, grandchildren, etc. But before very many generations, the genetic material of mates will mostly be separate from one another. In fact, it can be shown (assuming constant populations and an average amount of crossover) that about one-half of the consequence in descendants to your genetic material from your mate's genetic material will occur in your children. In other words, half the advantage to your mating well will occur because your children are worthier than otherwise. (The rest will occur because your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc., are worthier than otherwise.)The advantages of mating well are mostly short-term. The advantages of having worthy genetic material can, however, be very long-term indeed. It is rewarding to be fertilized by genetic material in which little genetic crossover has lately occurred.
It follows that your mate could be rewarded by discouraging genetic crossover in your gametes prior to fertilization. Females presumably can't do this since it is believed that genetic crossover is determined in the fetus in females. But I think males can. If a male loves a female well, she is holy to him, and this holy emotion in the male I posit is significant because it discourages genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Selfishly, what matters to the male is having the correct rate of genetic crossover over the generations, so his genetic material can mix with other genetic material to try new combinations, etc. It is of no harm to him if he and his male descendants over the generations encourage or discourage crossover according as a prospective mate deserves it or not. And the advantages to groups whose males vary their crossover rates thus would be enormous, it allowing females to be rewarded more according as is just, thereby encouraging evolution. And moral qualities too would be advanced, since it may be presumed females would quickly evolve an ability to detect such holiness, and good females would more tend to be rewarded by (likely good) mates according to their worth while bad females would more tend to be rewarded by holiness according to how much her mate deemed it necessary to attract her with it.
Fate, too, is important, however. Sometimes a male should and would be quite successful, but alas, he has had bad luck. Evolution works better to the extent selection is determined by fitness rather than luck. Accordingly, it is reasonable that if a male feels he is likely on account of past bad luck to have been less reproductively successful than he would otherwise have been, he is going to want to give himself an advantage. He can do this by restricting crossover in gametes. This is no real harm to himself. If a gene acts to restrict or encourage crossover according to bad or good fortune, that gene won't suffer--it will still have the same average rate (over the generations) of crossover, which is what mostly matters to it. When a man feels he has had bad fortune, his genes will make up for it a little by reducing a little his possibility of distant gain by making him sad. Sadness I suggest, like holiness, discourages crossover, and therefore is a girl magnet. Genes don't mind switching the girl magnet to SAD/ATTRACT in a male with bad luck so long as they are allowed to turn the magnet to HAPPY/REPEL in a male with good luck. Indeed, the genes' success will improve if they do so. Sadness in a male is a sexual turn on to females.
Lately it has been occurring to me that girls often try to make males sad. This is why girls like to surprise males when they give gifts. If you think a girl is going to have sex with you, it is hard for that not to make you happy. So more fun for the girl to make out like she doesn't feel anything for you, and to try to make you sad, and then after you've been sad for a few months, "Surprise! Time for sex." Or something like that. (A couple months or so elapse between the stage of crossover in spermatogenesis and ejaculation.) A lot of males make out like females like sometimes to make males sad because sadness hurts, but I like my explanation better, and do trust and hope I am correct. To be sure bad males are forever trying to give girls false understandings of their own (the girls', that is) tendencies, but that is another matter, I suppose. I guess I should point out that I am not really bothered by females hiding their affections in this manner, to make affection when it comes a surprise. No, on the contrary, if a male is quite good morally, I can see how it would be moral of her to in fact encourage him to be sad. The genetic material that will be together with his in future generations can't be expected to on average be so good as the average of his genetic material, so discouraging crossover in really good individuals at the expense of their likely good (but less good) descendants, seems a pretty good thing to do on the whole. Yes, probably girls are more moral about wanting really good males to be sad than the really good males themselves are. Alas, when like the clever fox one understands girls, one is rather too wise to be tricked by girls into being sad. Yes, this thought of girls manipulating me into sadness rather makes me feel a male fox standing on his hind feet dancing about in glee. I am clever, perhaps too clever at times for my own good or even the good. But then the fox really feels he has got something if he understands the female fox's manipulations to make him sad. I? I don't understand what the dancing fox has got. It is difficult for me to be otherwise than the sum of my parts. I think I could be sad just to attract a girl or girls, but it wouldn't be easy. My guess is that I could do it to the extent I'm pious, but not otherwise. Piety also discourages crossover, and I take it to do so because being moral attracts girls more than older females, and so if you mainly attract girls, you'd might as well do what girls want to the nth-degree by discouraging crossover and being pious (which piety is no real disadvantage if you really are so much into moral philosophy that understanding moral rightness is almost a continual quest). Piety take a lot of concentration and isn't the easiest thing to maintain in this busy world--I mean, unless you are a monk, but then monks aren't supposed to have sex with girls, which is the whole point of piety IMO.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Jefferson
The other day I had the opportunity of visiting Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home. I'm sure the visit gave me a much better impression of what Jefferson actually was than I could have obtained in a comparable time merely reading about him. He was into architecture, and left a great deal of himself there. The value of a beautiful object is mainly in the message it presents, which unlike a book makes its presentation quickly. Put objects of beauty about you, and when you are in a foul mood, you only have to look up to be reminded of ideas that can put you aright. Such is what I can imagine Jefferson was about. Little geometric patterns, attractive maps, painting, art, etc., in a background calculated not to distract. None of the striving for perfection so charcteristic of childish ideas toward decoration. No emphasis on perfect polish, etc. Too often people when decorating reject beautiful items that aren't perfect and "virginal" looking, and instead concentrate on absence of imperfection. If a painting is a copy and not original, well, it is not perfect, so avoid it. If a painting is authentic, well, it is likely to have a condition reflecting that age, a not perfect condition, and so again, that scares people. How silly. Original paintings are better--much of a painting lies in its brush strokes, but their often extreme expense does of course prevent most people (like me) from buying them. Anyway, I have decided maybe I should try to decorate my living space more--to get rid of decorations or visual fields that both lack beauty and distract, and replace them with a few fine artworks, even if just copies (probably all copies, actually). The idea of hiding clutter away on one level seemed dishonest to me, like sweeping dirt under a carpet, but I see, I have decided, that is just an insane approach to take. Clutter distracts only when looked at, so if hidden, it is OK.
Everything about Jefferson's house suggests his desire for wisdom and understanding. Obviously I must admire him greatly for that. More than any politician nowadays, needless to say. When in his bedroom (which to me looked to be designed to make the right impression among those who in the future would be visiting his death bed) I could feel his presence so strongly, I felt a haunting chill (well, maybe it was just a draft, but possibly it was more).
I look back at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I wonder whether people nowadays read them in the correct light. Maybe in those days "Rights" had something of its original meaning. I.e., when the Founding Fathers said that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", the word "rights" was chosen partly because it still meant to some extent "those things that are right", i.e., "rights" as the opposite of "wrongs". The more conservative monarchists believed liberty in the pedestrian sense of freedom from arbitrary rule or despotism was a wrong, so it was necessary to emphasize that in fact it was a right. I suppose Locke is the one to read to elucidate this matter more clearly. There is in Monticello a painting of Locke, who according to the tour guide was one of the three men most admired by Jefferson. Accordingly, I've beeen looking at Locke more closely lately. I've never much put stock in his idea that all people are created equal (also in the Declaration of Independence), which seems quite contrary to observation and everything one knows about genetics, but looking at him more closely, I sense Locke's philosophy of understanding is much superior to his political philosophy. His arguments in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" are written with a craft more characteristic of fine authors than of what one has come to call philosophers. And his arguments that ideas are not naturally imprinted are at least when not carried to extremes quite full of common sense and carefulness. I suspect what is non-sensical about him results from his being too angry and pasionate in his struggles against those espousing absolute tyrrany, emotional responses which can lead to exaggerations all too easily.
Anyway, I think libertarianism is dangerous. Trying to call all or most freedoms rights is a dangerous thing. If the founding fathers called freedoms like freedoms of expression rights, maybe that should suggest to us that they considered these freedoms being right important justification for their being appropriate freedoms to declare inviolate. In particular, "freedoms" to hurt oneself or enslave others are not necessarily freedoms one should have.
Locke: (Second Treatise on Government, Chapter II "Of the State of Nature", 6)
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
So there you have it. Locke, who had such a hand in influencing Jefferson apparently feels man "has not the liberty to destroy himself" or to "quit his station willfully".
Like it or not, we as humans are in this world together. Everything we do affects everyone else. Even doing nothing is doing something. Not only is it is bad speaking to say that people should have the "right" to screw up their own life or to allow someone else to screw up their life for them, it's also bad speaking to say they shouldn't have these "rights", because they are not "rights". You hurt humanity by engaging in these behaviors, which accordingly should not be liberties. Such would not be rights, but wrongs. Liberty is not generally strengthened by being "free" to lose your liberty if (say) you think you want to. Sodomy, in particular, should be illegal. Alcohol and drugs also should probably be illegal, but perhaps only if sodomy is illegal (if sodomy is not illegal, the existence of drug addictions serves the useful purpose of reminding people that chemical addiction is a real phenomenon different from stupid behavior as a result of mere stupidity).
Everything about Jefferson's house suggests his desire for wisdom and understanding. Obviously I must admire him greatly for that. More than any politician nowadays, needless to say. When in his bedroom (which to me looked to be designed to make the right impression among those who in the future would be visiting his death bed) I could feel his presence so strongly, I felt a haunting chill (well, maybe it was just a draft, but possibly it was more).
I look back at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I wonder whether people nowadays read them in the correct light. Maybe in those days "Rights" had something of its original meaning. I.e., when the Founding Fathers said that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", the word "rights" was chosen partly because it still meant to some extent "those things that are right", i.e., "rights" as the opposite of "wrongs". The more conservative monarchists believed liberty in the pedestrian sense of freedom from arbitrary rule or despotism was a wrong, so it was necessary to emphasize that in fact it was a right. I suppose Locke is the one to read to elucidate this matter more clearly. There is in Monticello a painting of Locke, who according to the tour guide was one of the three men most admired by Jefferson. Accordingly, I've beeen looking at Locke more closely lately. I've never much put stock in his idea that all people are created equal (also in the Declaration of Independence), which seems quite contrary to observation and everything one knows about genetics, but looking at him more closely, I sense Locke's philosophy of understanding is much superior to his political philosophy. His arguments in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" are written with a craft more characteristic of fine authors than of what one has come to call philosophers. And his arguments that ideas are not naturally imprinted are at least when not carried to extremes quite full of common sense and carefulness. I suspect what is non-sensical about him results from his being too angry and pasionate in his struggles against those espousing absolute tyrrany, emotional responses which can lead to exaggerations all too easily.
Anyway, I think libertarianism is dangerous. Trying to call all or most freedoms rights is a dangerous thing. If the founding fathers called freedoms like freedoms of expression rights, maybe that should suggest to us that they considered these freedoms being right important justification for their being appropriate freedoms to declare inviolate. In particular, "freedoms" to hurt oneself or enslave others are not necessarily freedoms one should have.
Locke: (Second Treatise on Government, Chapter II "Of the State of Nature", 6)
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
So there you have it. Locke, who had such a hand in influencing Jefferson apparently feels man "has not the liberty to destroy himself" or to "quit his station willfully".
Like it or not, we as humans are in this world together. Everything we do affects everyone else. Even doing nothing is doing something. Not only is it is bad speaking to say that people should have the "right" to screw up their own life or to allow someone else to screw up their life for them, it's also bad speaking to say they shouldn't have these "rights", because they are not "rights". You hurt humanity by engaging in these behaviors, which accordingly should not be liberties. Such would not be rights, but wrongs. Liberty is not generally strengthened by being "free" to lose your liberty if (say) you think you want to. Sodomy, in particular, should be illegal. Alcohol and drugs also should probably be illegal, but perhaps only if sodomy is illegal (if sodomy is not illegal, the existence of drug addictions serves the useful purpose of reminding people that chemical addiction is a real phenomenon different from stupid behavior as a result of mere stupidity).
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Sexy moral girl
Today on a lark I typed "sexy moral girl" into Google. I got only "Did you mean sexy oral girl"? ("about 650 results") No. I want sexy moral girl.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Why it is so important to be discriminating
I have started this blog with the idea of putting down on the Web many of the nice little observations I have about life and, more particularly, morality. I have chosen the name "Discriminating morals" because I consider discrimination (in the old sense of the word, i.e., as the activity of a discriminating mind) as key to good moral sense.
On the great moral issues, there is disagreement as to answers. There are those who assert that unselfishness is stupid in an effort to make their selfishness seem smart. And there are those who assert that stupidity is unselfish in an effort to encourage stupidity in others. Thus, whenever some unselfish attitude resembles some stupid attitude, the group of people trying to berate the former and the group of people trying to praise the latter will encourage others to confuse the two.
Take sexual morality.
Certain elements of the right (and feminist groups) would have people believe that if a girl has sex without marriage and commitment, it is depraved or stupid. But what is commitment but a promise of resources? Why would a girl be depraved for loving a male without first receiving a guarantee of resources? Might it not often be expected to happen that a girl loves a male who (e.g., because he loves someone else more) does not love her sufficiently in return to want to marry her? Why shouldn't she please him by having sex with him? It's not like a man's having sex with another female is likely going to hurt a woman to whom he is married or otherwise commited. The simple truth is that a girl being willing to have sex outside marriage is unselfishness. In fact, the most important way for a female to be unselfish is for her to be more willing when in love to have sex without male commitment. Mostly, females should love through sex. Outlawing sex outside marriage or legally requiring (by creation of common-law marriages) commitment of a male makes the most important way females have of loving impossible, so to believe females having sex without commitment are depraved is a dreadful mistake.
What is also a mistake, however, is to react by pretending that nothing is depraved. There are those who assert that all moral beliefs about sex are just superstitions foisted on us by prudish people. After all, the belief in the sinfulness of females having sex without obtaining commitment really is that (or worse). In particular, it is claimed that sodomy is innocuous. (By sodomy, I mean behavior that allows semen to enter the digestive system.) But I am convinced sodomy is an evil addiction. Not in any religious superstitious sense as some might suspect because people who hate sodomy are often portrayed that way, but in the everyday sense of the word addiction. Semen contains addictive and terror-causing chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system (whose purpose is digestion, after all), but not by the reproductive system. Here is another reason discrimination is so very important. Sodomizers profit by encouraging confusion between sodomy and sex. Oral sodomy is called "oral sex" and rectal sodomy too is called "sex".
So there you have it, self-serving right-wingers criticize both depravity and female sexual love while self-serving left-wingers praise them both. Neither opinion has much force against the truth because they cancel each other out. Indeed, most people probably believe something in the middle: be intermediate in sexuality between a prude and a slut. But where the self-serving agree is that female sexual love and depravity are both basically the same thing. This is the widespread terrible delusion. Females can and should be blatantly sexual when in love. Moreover, they can and should be clean as snow. The two are not mutually incompatible! The truth is not a muddled compromise. Virtue in a female does not imply "sort of being willing to fuck or get fucked". "Fuck" has (at least) two meanings bad people are united in encouraging the confusion of (and no, it is not the dictionaries that matter). On the one hand, "fuck" means sex without male caring and commitment. A good female is good mainly because she is extra willing to get fucked in that sense if she should be in love. On the other hand, "fuck" meansto get sodomized to sodomize. Smart girls aren't willing to do that allow that to be done to them. So then, discrimination is not just good for the general reason that I mentioned to begin with, discrimination is good because to distinguish sex from sodomy is of fundamental significance, and it's literally just a black-and-white matter of one hole vs. another.
Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same.
My opinions are much too numerous to post in a few posts. I'll see where people's comments lie, and go from there. E.g., I can further criticize the evil of indiscriminately identifying "free" sex with depravity, or I can move on to another way in which too many are indiscriminate.
On the great moral issues, there is disagreement as to answers. There are those who assert that unselfishness is stupid in an effort to make their selfishness seem smart. And there are those who assert that stupidity is unselfish in an effort to encourage stupidity in others. Thus, whenever some unselfish attitude resembles some stupid attitude, the group of people trying to berate the former and the group of people trying to praise the latter will encourage others to confuse the two.
Take sexual morality.
Certain elements of the right (and feminist groups) would have people believe that if a girl has sex without marriage and commitment, it is depraved or stupid. But what is commitment but a promise of resources? Why would a girl be depraved for loving a male without first receiving a guarantee of resources? Might it not often be expected to happen that a girl loves a male who (e.g., because he loves someone else more) does not love her sufficiently in return to want to marry her? Why shouldn't she please him by having sex with him? It's not like a man's having sex with another female is likely going to hurt a woman to whom he is married or otherwise commited. The simple truth is that a girl being willing to have sex outside marriage is unselfishness. In fact, the most important way for a female to be unselfish is for her to be more willing when in love to have sex without male commitment. Mostly, females should love through sex. Outlawing sex outside marriage or legally requiring (by creation of common-law marriages) commitment of a male makes the most important way females have of loving impossible, so to believe females having sex without commitment are depraved is a dreadful mistake.
What is also a mistake, however, is to react by pretending that nothing is depraved. There are those who assert that all moral beliefs about sex are just superstitions foisted on us by prudish people. After all, the belief in the sinfulness of females having sex without obtaining commitment really is that (or worse). In particular, it is claimed that sodomy is innocuous. (By sodomy, I mean behavior that allows semen to enter the digestive system.) But I am convinced sodomy is an evil addiction. Not in any religious superstitious sense as some might suspect because people who hate sodomy are often portrayed that way, but in the everyday sense of the word addiction. Semen contains addictive and terror-causing chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system (whose purpose is digestion, after all), but not by the reproductive system. Here is another reason discrimination is so very important. Sodomizers profit by encouraging confusion between sodomy and sex. Oral sodomy is called "oral sex" and rectal sodomy too is called "sex".
So there you have it, self-serving right-wingers criticize both depravity and female sexual love while self-serving left-wingers praise them both. Neither opinion has much force against the truth because they cancel each other out. Indeed, most people probably believe something in the middle: be intermediate in sexuality between a prude and a slut. But where the self-serving agree is that female sexual love and depravity are both basically the same thing. This is the widespread terrible delusion. Females can and should be blatantly sexual when in love. Moreover, they can and should be clean as snow. The two are not mutually incompatible! The truth is not a muddled compromise. Virtue in a female does not imply "sort of being willing to fuck or get fucked". "Fuck" has (at least) two meanings bad people are united in encouraging the confusion of (and no, it is not the dictionaries that matter). On the one hand, "fuck" means sex without male caring and commitment. A good female is good mainly because she is extra willing to get fucked in that sense if she should be in love. On the other hand, "fuck" means
Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same.
My opinions are much too numerous to post in a few posts. I'll see where people's comments lie, and go from there. E.g., I can further criticize the evil of indiscriminately identifying "free" sex with depravity, or I can move on to another way in which too many are indiscriminate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)