Faux-Males and Females.

[John D. Brey]

RAEism: A belief in reality, all that is real and existent, as opposed to that which is imaginary or myth; that reality is knowable, and a humble acknowledgment that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known.

Wouldn't a humble acknowledgement that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known have to accept the possibility, as Karl Popper eventually did, that myth and imagination are greater organs for perceiving reality than is unquestioned empiricism, rationalism, and logic?



John

 

[MikeF]

Wouldn't a humble acknowledgement that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known have to accept the possibility, as Karl Popper eventually did, that myth and imagination are greater organs for perceiving reality than is unquestioned empiricism, rationalism, and logic?
John

First of all, if done correctly, empiricism or scientific inquiry would never ever go unquestioned. All of it can always be reviewed, reassessed. If there is new relevant data, then such reassessment is required.

As to myth, it is by definition antithetical to the perception of reality. It is expressly non-real, mythological.

I would argue that we can only acquire knowledge about real and existent things if those things are observed in some way. Since we human beings have the capacity to imagine that which is not real, what does not or cannot exist, we can only rely on what is observed. The big caveat to this is we cannot rely solely on our own personal observations, perceptions, or conclusions. There are a myriad of ways we can deceive and delude ourselves and therefore we must maintain a reasoned and reasonable skepticism about what we personally think and perceive. We get around this problem through inter-subjective corroboration of observations. By comparing the perception and experiences of many fallible observers, we begin to build a clear picture of what is real.

Reason and logic alone cannot determine what is real as we can draw reasoned and logical conclusions about the properties of imaginary things. Empirical observation is required before reason and logic can be applied.

Imagination is a great tool for problem solving and it is a primary feature that sets us apart from other animals. But what is imagined is never considered real until it is observed. It is only in this way that we can avoid stagnating in artificial constructs of reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logically speaking, until you have two genders, you don't really have gender at all. In that sense, before there were males, there was no gender and thus no females.

But in a general sense, being female entails having your body be able to produce, and if need be suckle, another body. The English word "female" is etymologically related to the concept of "suckling" young.

Before there were males, and bi-gendered sex, it was beholden on organisms to reproduce by their lonesome. Only women are that lonesome. Only women bleed as Alice might bleat.



John

You could just say you were wrong and thank me for pointing out the error.

 

[Clara Tea]

Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.

Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.

John

Thank you for clarifying that there are males, females, light, and dark, and some are different. Does this explain why moths are in love with lights? Did Adam have a flashlight? No wonder Adam's kids were bright.

 

[Clara Tea]

First of all, if done correctly, empiricism or scientific inquiry would never ever go unquestioned. All of it can always be reviewed, reassessed. If there is new relevant data, then such reassessment is required.

As to myth, it is by definition antithetical to the perception of reality. It is expressly non-real, mythological.

I would argue that we can only acquire knowledge about real and existent things if those things are observed in some way. Since we human beings have the capacity to imagine that which is not real, what does not or cannot exist, we can only rely on what is observed. The big caveat to this is we cannot rely solely on our own personal observations, perceptions, or conclusions. There are a myriad of ways we can deceive and delude ourselves and therefore we must maintain a reasoned and reasonable skepticism about what we personally think and perceive. We get around this problem through inter-subjective corroboration of observations. By comparing the perception and experiences of many fallible observers, we begin to build a clear picture of what is real.

Reason and logic alone cannot determine what is real as we can draw reasoned and logical conclusions about the properties of imaginary things. Empirical observation is required before reason and logic can be applied.

Imagination is a great tool for problem solving and it is a primary feature that sets us apart from other animals. But what is imagined is never considered real until it is observed. It is only in this way that we can avoid stagnating in artificial constructs of reality.

KNOWLEDGE OF REAL ONLY FROM OBSERVATIONS:

Much of the universe is not seen. This is because the fabric of space is stretching faster than the speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum-across-the-metric-of-space. According to Friedmann's Equation (derived from General Relativity), the mass of the universe expanded past the point that we can observe. Thus, we can't observe it, yet we know that it is there. It could be argued that we "sort of" do observe it by dint of its effect on the universe.

"COMPARING THE PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCES OF MANY FALLIBLE OBSERVERS, WE BEGIN TO BUILD A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT IS REAL:"

Millions loved Hitler. Does mob rule trump reality?

 

[blü 2]

According to biology, the Y chromosome, the phallus, and the male, are all secondary. We see this in fetal development. Ontogeny recapitulates ontology: the ovum begins female. And without the new and novel Y chromosome it stays that way.

On the bottom side of the phallus is a natural suture called the penile-raphe. It's where the labial flesh of the female body sutures together (if the Y chromosome is present) transforming the default female body into a male body.
John

So what?

It would appear that there are advantages to survival and breeding in the two-sex arrangement ─ we can imply as much from the outright dominance of this arrangement among more complex creatures.

If particular ways of surviving long enough to breed work, who cares about the metaphysics?

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't believe your concept of faux-male makes sense. Males are males and function as evolved. A faux-male would appear to be male but would not have the same characteristics.

I think you have gotten way off track with your male-female hypothesis.

"The west, where men were men, and women were women....a mighty good combinaton." (Blazing Saddles by Mel Brooks).

The boundaries have been a bit blurry over the years. Even back then Belle Starr may have been a bit male.

 

[MikeF]

KNOWLEDGE OF REAL ONLY FROM OBSERVATIONS:

Much of the universe is not seen. This is because the fabric of space is stretching faster than the speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum-across-the-metric-of-space. According to Friedmann's Equation (derived from General Relativity), the mass of the universe expanded past the point that we can observe. Thus, we can't observe it, yet we know that it is there. It could be argued that we "sort of" do observe it by dint of its effect on the universe.

Is this comment supposed to be a critique of what I said? It appears to only reiterate my point. If one can only infer something exists through what is observed in other phenomena, then we are beginning to know something about it, but would certainly not know it in its entirety. If we cannot perceive it directly or observe its affect upon other phenomena, then, if it exists, it is simply entirely unknown.

"COMPARING THE PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCES OF MANY FALLIBLE OBSERVERS, WE BEGIN TO BUILD A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT IS REAL:"

Millions loved Hitler. Does mob rule trump reality?

I believe you are conflating subjective preference of individuals with the concept of objective existence. That millions loved Hitler is an objective observation of reality. Mob rule can be an objectively observed behavior of a group of individuals. These are observations of reality.

Making a value judgement on whether one should love Hitler or whether mob rule can be appropriate or have value is subjective to each individual. Subjective values and preferences of individuals can be influences by a wide variety of factors, all of which is part of reality. Shared subjective values creates political power.

 

[viole]

Ironically, one of the most seminal passages in all scripture, John chapter one, justifies this scientific reality when it claims that by means of his virgin birth (from an asexual, non-gendered, conception), Jesus revealed himself as the only true male, in opposition to all faux-males, and, paradoxically, that he is therefore the true light of the world, the true photon, or in the Greek φωτός (photos) of the world, in opposition to all the faux-photons, all the false light that dimly illuminate the world.

Everybody can say that. Especially males like to feel like they have more testosterone than the other males.

Ciao

- viole

 

[John D. Brey]

Thank you for clarifying that there are males, females, light, and dark, and some are different. Does this explain why moths are in love with lights? Did Adam have a flashlight? No wonder Adam's kids were bright.

I wouldn't call Cain all too bright. Some go so far as to consider him the first melanoderm. His brightness isn't even skin deep.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

So what?

It would appear that there are advantages to survival and breeding in the two-sex arrangement ─ we can imply as much from the outright dominance of this arrangement among more complex creatures.

If particular ways of surviving long enough to breed work, who cares about the metaphysics?

MikeF's signature implies that mythology is contra-reality. And yet the Bible-myth of Genesis claims that the loss of cellular immortality was part of the trade-off that came with sex: you can get it on all you want but it'll cost you your immortality.

Science now knows the Bible-myth of loss of immortality in association with sex is scientific fact. But as you say, So What?

Well, as fate would have it, the Bible-myth doesn't leave mankind dangling like the less than limpid organ that destroys immortality. On the contrary. Not only does it correctly teach that loss of cellular immortality comes, so to say, when the less than limpid organ is less limp (the law of death passed by an act of sexual congress), but it says not to fret too much about it since cellular immortality was jettisoned, and bargained away, for something much greater than cellular immortality: everlasting life.

Really. Truly. That's what the Bible teaches in its so-called mythology: that cellular immortality wasn't casually traded away for a good ole roll in the hay, but that it was traded away to trick death in the most egregious way. Life traded away its immortality to stick the spear into death itself therein leading not back to mere immortality, as the Jews suspect, but to everlasting life as Christ revealed.

An immortal cell doesn't age, senescence, and fade a way. But if a rock falls on it it's dead anyway. Those who accept the gift of everlasting life (as opposed to a mere return to immortality) could have a rock the size of Gibraltar fall right on their crown and they'd just shake it off with a giggle or at worst a frown.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Everybody can say that. Especially males like to feel like they have more testosterone than the other males.

You could be missing the point? If Jesus is born of a virgin, he has no testosterone since the point of his birth isn't a giant whY? His conception isn't a big whY. We know why he was conceived of a virgin. So that he could prove to the world that he's not just a faux-male (a female body made to transform and deform by using a chromosomal additive that produces a facade of masculinity), but that he's the only actual male in the universe.

If we know this, we can know that one metaphysical attribute of masculinity, in contradistinction to femininity, is singularity. There is only One male. There are a multitude of females. True masculinity implies Oneness. Femininity implies a family or a multitude.

And right there we stumble into another proof of the facade of the faux-male. The female ovum is singular, while the seed of the faux-male is multiple. If the seed of the woman develops singularly, without the multiplicity of semen, it's male, but anytime it's made to develop from a multiplicity of serpentine swimmers, it develops into a female, or faux-male.

Only one male has ever been born when the seed of the woman began to divide apart from the whY's and wherefores of the realm of the female and the faux-male. As Morpheus might say: He is the One.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Wouldn't a humble acknowledgement that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known have to accept the possibility, as Karl Popper eventually did, that myth and imagination are greater organs for perceiving reality than is unquestioned empiricism, rationalism, and logic?​

First of all, if done correctly, empiricism or scientific inquiry would never ever go unquestioned. All of it can always be reviewed, reassessed. If there is new relevant data, then such reassessment is required.

There are no sensory `data'. Rather, there is an incoming challenge from the sensed world which then puts the brain, or ourselves, to work on it, to try to interpret it. Thus, at first, there are no data: there is, rather, a challenge to do something; namely to interpret. Then we try to match the so-called sense data. I say `so called' because I don't think there are sense `data'. What most people hold to be simple sense `datum' is in fact the outcome of a most elaborate process. Nothing is directly `given' to us: perception is arrived at only as a result of many steps involving interaction between the stimuli which reach the senses, the interpreting apparatus of the senses, and the structure of the brain. So, while the term `sense datum' suggests primacy in the first step, I would suggest that, before I can realize what is a sense datum for me (before it is ever `given' to me), there are a hundred steps of give and take which result from the challenge presented to our senses and our brain.

Karl Popper, The Self and Its Brain, p. 430.​

Popper clarifies the statement above further when he calls a gene a mere theory about how to respond to external stimuli. In other words, the elaborate process that delivers up what you seem to think of as simple sense data is not so simple or unchallengable since the genetic design of the eye is itself theoretical. Using electromagnetic wavelengths as guideposts for perceiving the external world has been effective for many organisms, but only a scientific illiterate believes electromagnetic wavelengths possess the color added as a quality (qualia) by the genetic design of the brain. There's no color in the universe. It's only a quality - a facade --affected by the brain.

We could say the first step in coming to grips with reality is to let loose the organ of our faux-masculinity, so to say, and start looking at the world aright. Those who won't let go of their toy might as well keep stroking since they're already blind and thus can't be threatened with impending blindness for doing what makes them feel good.




John

 

[MikeF]

There are no sensory `data'. Rather, there is an incoming challenge from the sensed world which then puts the brain, or ourselves, to work on it, to try to interpret it. Thus, at first, there are no data: there is, rather, a challenge to do something; namely to interpret. Then we try to match the so-called sense data. I say `so called' because I don't think there are sense `data'. What most people hold to be simple sense `datum' is in fact the outcome of a most elaborate process. Nothing is directly `given' to us: perception is arrived at only as a result of many steps involving interaction between the stimuli which reach the senses, the interpreting apparatus of the senses, and the structure of the brain. So, while the term `sense datum' suggests primacy in the first step, I would suggest that, before I can realize what is a sense datum for me (before it is ever `given' to me), there are a hundred steps of give and take which result from the challenge presented to our senses and our brain.

Karl Popper, The Self and Its Brain, p. 430.​

Popper clarifies the statement above further when he calls a gene a mere theory about how to respond to external stimuli. In other words, the elaborate process that delivers up what you seem to think of as simple sense data is not so simple or unchallengable since the genetic design of the eye is itself theoretical. Using electromagnetic wavelengths as guideposts for perceiving the external world has been effective for many organisms, but only a scientific illiterate believes electromagnetic wavelengths possess the color added as a quality (qualia) by the genetic design of the brain. There's no color in the universe. It's only a quality - a facade --affected by the brain.

We could say the first step in coming to grips with reality is to let loose the organ of our faux-masculinity, so to say, and start looking at the world aright. Those who won't let go of their toy might as well keep stroking since they're already blind and thus can't be threatened with impending blindness for doing what makes them feel good.

John

Talk about a non-sequitur, to go from how we perceive color to masturbation.

 

[John D. Brey]

Talk about a non-sequitur, to go from how we perceive color to masturbation.

If masturbation is seen as causing blindness, as the old wive's tale goes, then those who do it anyway trade carnal pleasure for blindness.

In my opinion that's what all but the most righteous lives are in this world: gross carnality for the sake of feeling good about our fleshly existence.

In my estimation, this world is a great crime, and a lie. Only the fleeting pleasures it provides explains why the majority of those trapped in this carnal prison aren't too concerned.



John

 

[MikeF]

IMO

If masturbation is seen as causing blindness, as the old wive's tale goes, then those who do it anyway trade carnal pleasure for blindness.

In my opinion that's what all but the most righteous lives are in this world: gross carnality for the sake of feeling good about our fleshly existence.

In my estimation, this world is a great crime, and a lie. Only the fleeting pleasures it provides explains why the majority of those trapped in this carnal prison aren't too concerned.



John

I certainly do not share your dark and dismal outlook toward the world. The world and the cosmos is what it is. We, as human beings, have only been involved in this process for a relatively short time given the time scales involved. The cosmos is indifferent to us, and we are in no way integral to it. I find it much more useful and enjoyable to make the best of my time here, and to make an effort to not make it worse for others, or find my enjoyment at others expense.

I find it sad that you view all human life experience as a carnal prison. Since you allude that the majority of us do not realize we are in your imagined prison, perhaps it is you that is trapped in misperception.

 

[blü 2]

MikeF's signature implies that mythology is contra-reality. And yet the Bible-myth of Genesis claims that the loss of cellular immortality was part of the trade-off that came with sex: you can get it on all you want but it'll cost you your immortality.

My view is that the bible not only doesn't say that but cannot say that, because those modern concepts had no meaningful counterpart 2500 years ago.

And regardless, things aren't true by reason of being written the bible. They're true by virtue of being accurate statements about reality.

 

[John D. Brey]

My view is that the bible not only doesn't say that but cannot say that, because those modern concepts had no meaningful counterpart 2500 years ago.

. . . What specifically are you implying the Bible doesn't say?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

IMO



I certainly do not share your dark and dismal outlook toward the world. The world and the cosmos is what it is. We, as human beings, have only been involved in this process for a relatively short time given the time scales involved. The cosmos is indifferent to us, and we are in no way integral to it. I find it much more useful and enjoyable to make the best of my time here, and to make an effort to not make it worse for others, or find my enjoyment at others expense.

I find it sad that you view all human life experience as a carnal prison. Since you allude that the majority of us do not realize we are in your imagined prison, perhaps it is you that is trapped in misperception.

I most certainly wouldn't want anyone who perceives the world through rose-colored lenses to see it the way I do. I see the ability to see the world in happy shades as a great and wonderful deformity. Perhaps even as the phallus is a great and wonderful deformity for those who get great pleasure out of it.

Three men have been the most influential in my epistemological development, Martin Luther, R.B. Thieme, Jr., and Rabbi Sampson R. Hirsch. Mind you until I was 10 or so I thought of Chick Tracts as scientific documentation.

See, says the law, God is just; He rewards for their goodness even those that hate Him and would gladly see Him removed from the scene in order that there may be no bar to their wrongdoing. Even these God rewards for the good they have done, but He rewards them in the sphere of their desires--- "in the sphere of their desires He repays them." If their activity is selfish, if it consists in earthly, external wrongdoing, if it aims only at external, and therefore transitory, prosperity and joy, then their reward also is only in the transitory. Let them enjoy their transitory wrongdoing, wealth and prosperity, and perish like what they have acquired. But for those who seek only God, and choose the fulfillment of His will as their life's task, for those who pursue only the eternal, the reward is also eternal. For a thousand generations they remain as a blessing with their doing and striving, their suffering and sacrifices. Look at the Patriarchs! The whole of humanity was to be their reward here below, and they themselves were without home or country, living in the future.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb, p. 31.​

John

 

[blü 2]

. . . What specifically are you implying the Bible doesn't say?
John

Anything linking the concept of immortality to modern perceptions of biology, like the cell, to take one example.