The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least three characters.

I don't think it is so much that the brain exists for sex as, if accepting your hypothesis, that it exists to "enhance reproductive sucess". The genitals exist for sex in the same as mentioned, the kidney exists to "secrete urine". Clearly, reproductive success involves much more than knowing how to girate your hips or move in and our of the vagina, or how to orgasm. Other animals have sex, and their brains do not nearly come close to ours in terms of size or capability. Reproductive success would seem by virtue of our evolutiobnary path to imply the mechanisms that make our reproduction very complicated and messy. Gestation is around 9 months, the baby needs care and education from the parent for much more longer periods than the other animals. The female is practically indefensible when the critical moment of birth approaches, and therefore protective measures must be calculated, etc etc. The factors that guard the very processes of birthing, rearing, etc are much more complicated and require the higher fucntions of the brain that the act of sex in itself. Besides, the brain's functionality with regards to the senses (sight, smell, etc) is another thing the brain is needed for, our feeding patterns, etc.

But yes, Sex is essential in how we evolved as a species and therefore must have had some effect in the development of the brain. But I cannot accept that it is for that reason that why we have the brains we do.

Fountainhed:
The genitals exist for sex in the same as mentioned, the kidney exists to "secrete urine". Clearly, reproductive success involves much more than knowing how to girate your hips or move in and our of the vagina, or how to orgasm.
There is no "knowing" involved in the act, moron.
And its not the gymnastics I'm concerend with- reproductive success, if you read properly, is the selection process becoming more successful per generation.

This is the part where you point out to me that idiots procreate all the time.
Irrelevant.
Really, my 'ephiphany' is obvious. Its simply that I always imagined man tortured by psychology because he is the only phenomena on earth with what seems to be a 'magically' analytic brain. Not sexuality.

Other animals have sex, and their brains do not nearly come close to ours in terms of size or capability.
Which is why they don't dominate our planet.
My point.

But I cannot accept that it is for that reason that why we have the brains we do.
Because you're too busy enraptured with science or literature or abstracts or myth in order to see it.
What's it for, bubba? Reading "Mein Kempf?" or "African History 101", maybe?

And there is an extra 'that' in your sentence that should not be there.

Does having a bigger brain end up enhancing your survival possibilities?
Certainly, that is something close to the standard darwinist outlook, though i dont know much about it.

"But an ascetic does not seek to destroy the torments in his mind, so what does he seek to repress?
He, like morality or friendship, represses the very things that draw us, as mammals, to each other and it cannot be a need for sanity or creativity that has men seeking company. It has to be sex."
Nope. Thats drawing the line too shallowly. To put it simply, there is more to be had form friendship, sanity or creativity than just sex. Sex is simlpy the most deeply buried motivator, the one you cant really stop, the one in the vast majority of us. But outside those who need sex every day, sex is more just a part, often a subordinate part. Now, you could say that everything we do, such as jobs, hobbies, is focused upon sex. But that can only be said by assuming that sex underlies everything. Do Eunochs give up on life because they cant reproduce? Or rather do people who dont want/ cannot have sex curl up and die? Of course not.

[Actually, for your research gendy, do you know that on Pitcairn Island in the Pacific,(size- 2 miles across) theyre trying several of the adult men for rape and sexual abuse of several women when the women were young. Now, whilst several have complained and had the action brought, several more have said no no, we all had consensual sex underage and it was fine. Given the population of the island is based upon several families and is something around 50 today, theres more than enough for Mr Freud to get to work on.]

But anyway, I dont see that human civilisation (what all of them?) is built upon denial of sexuality, or that it need be or not be built so.

And if I read you correctly, are you saying you want to get to a state where you dont think very much at all?
;)

Fountainhed:
There is no "knowing" involved in the act, moron.
Knowing as in being instinctive. There has to be an organ in charge of motion.

And its not the gymnastics I'm concerend with- reproductive success, if you read properly, is the selection process becoming more successful per generation.
The selection process in itself-- the selection of a mate with whom we mate has been refined to the point that it is almost innate. The very same attributes we seek in a mate: strength, protcetion, etc are the same for all human socities. Thus, the processes by which we developed the ability was acquired fairly early in our evolutionary process. The complexities of reproductive success in itself stems beyond the selection of a mate, as I have already mentioned.

Really, my 'ephiphany' is obvious. Its simply that I always imagined man tortured by psychology because he is the only phenomena on earth with what seems to be a 'magically' analytic brain. Not sexuality.
He developed his analytical brain. He was not born with a brain that is "magically" analytical. Furthermore, the evolutionary process by which he developed his brain depends on more than what you presented. Sorry. Man tortures himself with psychology because man is doing what he always does: adapat to his environment. It should be simple to envision an environment where man could give a shit about Freud and would not have produced him.

Which is why they don't dominate our planet.
My point.
Clearly you miss mine. The characteritics which we desire in a mate are not that different from the other primates. Thus, the brain's functionality and thus use, the reason why we have the brain, is for much more than for sex.


Because you're too busy enraptured with science or literature or abstracts or myth in order to see it.
What's it for, bubba? Reading "Mein Kempf?" or "African History 101", maybe?
No, I simply decided that it wasn't rational. Clearly, for a species to survive, it has to be able to reproduce. But for a species to survive, it also has to develop mechanisms that help in its srvivability. Thus, our defense mechanisms developed in combination with our reprocutive mechanisms. Our makeup therefore is a combination of both. The brain therefore exists as much for responsibility in motor movement and the regulation of the organs, fucntionality of the senses, etc as it does for the process of reproduction. The development of the brain however into what it is now had to have occured as an adaptability in our quest to survive. Quite frankly, the refinement of the selection process does not require a brain that can conceptualize the speed of light. The ability to however adapt in an environment whereby we could defend and survive with what we had depended however on a brain that could analyze and think conceptually.

And there is an extra 'that' in your sentence that should not be there.
shrug

Guth:
Nope. Thats drawing the line too shallowly. To put it simply, there is more to be had form friendship, sanity or creativity than just sex.
And what you get out of each is more friendship, sanity and creativity.
Something wholly unnatural.

I'm concerned more with the reasons for the first one.
You, sir, are a mammal as much as I am. All of us fancy little monkies with our dictionaries, contemplating the unknowable and raising up storms and storms of philosophies and structure- which of us will deny that all of it shuts down when mating?

Do Eunochs give up on life because they cant reproduce? Or rather do people who dont want/ cannot have sex curl up and die? Of course not.

No.
And we're never conscious of it.
I have a heard time believing a fancy socialite would admit she even *thinks* of sex.
My point, Guthrie.

Read the thread, Gutrhie.

"Language, logic, literature- all of them are useful slaves and I, like these neuroscientists, have been presumptuous, narrow and silly to separate both man and myself from the kingdom simply because of the ‘magical’ nature of our brain when all that magic could simply be man’s most powerful tool to facilitate his staying in denial.
Human civilization, therefore, is a gigantic beast fed with denial and we tame it by a clever alchemy that makes a fragile need for love and social acceptance from the most viscous of desires- sex."

For example:
But anyway, I dont see that human civilisation (what all of them?) is built upon denial of sexuality, or that it need be or not be built so.
You need something strong and generalized not to simply hold men together but keep them together.

And what Freud would call instinctual passions is stronger than any reasonable interests in common- something like work or education or creativity would probably draw men together but not keep them there.
But if you make them fear losing warmth then you’ve got them.
You have to intrigue the warmth in the mammal but not enough that it destroys the commune- therefore something like the sexual urge is tamed down or hacked up into something called friendship.
Something mellow enough to exist long enough to keep men together.

This would be civilization.

I love the ad --

Why religion?
About one of the strongest motifs, most fruitful, in human life

***************

Gendanken,


I think you are commiting reductionism here.


Language, logic, literature- all of them are useful slaves and I, like these neuroscientists, have been presumptuous, narrow and silly to separate both man and myself from the kingdom simply because of the ‘magical’ nature of our brain when all that magic could simply be man’s most powerful tool to facilitate his staying in denial.

I can imagine where this separation comes from -- it's the classical "man is better than animal or plant". Which I do not see how it can ever be scientifically justified. (Except by more scientific presumptousness, narrowness and silliness.)

In terms of survival, a man certainly has and does value himself as better than animal or plant, and this is what rational agents usually do. However, this is an *evaluation* that has its place in common sense, but not in science. This, a scientist should be aware of. -- Yet, as the history of science, teaching us how magically absolutely wonderful, equisitely exceptional the human brain is, has proved, science hasn't been aware of that imanent value postulate of man being better than animal or plant. It acted on it and took it as a fact. In this regard, science has been a continuation of the oh so despised common sense, whereas this very common sense was science's core.
Science has no inherent values -- other than those ascribed to it by other systems in the society, this much ought to be clear.


This:

Human civilization, therefore, is a gigantic beast fed with denial and we tame it by a clever alchemy that makes a fragile need for love and social acceptance from the most viscous of desires- sex.

I see to be the logical consequence of trying to overcome the separatistic thinking of

Language, logic, literature- all of them are useful slaves and I, like these neuroscientists, have been presumptuous, narrow and silly to separate both man and myself from the kingdom simply because of the ‘magical’ nature of our brain

So right now, you only have a thesis and an antithesis, but no synthesis.

Guth:

And what you get out of each is more friendship, sanity and creativity.
Something wholly unnatural.

I'm concerned more with the reasons for the first one.
You, sir, are a mammal as much as I am. All of us fancy little monkies with our dictionaries, contemplating the unknowable and raising up storms and storms of philosophies and structure- which of us will deny that all of it shuts down when mating?
Why are friendship, "sanity" and creativity unnatural? Are humans natural creatures or not? Have we been created by "nature"?
I wouldnt say that it all shuts down during mating for everyone, but certainly, perhaps sex helps shut out the philosophies. Or the image of our own eventual death.


No.
And we're never conscious of it.
I have a heard time believing a fancy socialite would admit she even *thinks* of sex.
My point, Guthrie.

Read the thread, Gutrhie.
Fancy socialite? A creature of your imagination. I have met many of the socialite class, and they would happily admit to thinking about sex.
read the thread? I'm trying to. Maybe I am just too tired after all to understand.


"Language, logic, literature- all of them are useful slaves and I, like these neuroscientists, have been presumptuous, narrow and silly to separate both man and myself from the kingdom simply because of the ‘magical’ nature of our brain when all that magic could simply be man’s most powerful tool to facilitate his staying in denial.
Human civilization, therefore, is a gigantic beast fed with denial and we tame it by a clever alchemy that makes a fragile need for love and social acceptance from the most viscous of desires- sex."
But yet we had this set up before civilisation. Surely? Humanity has apparently had love and social acceptance long before anything like modern civilisation. But its nice to see you admit you have been presumptuous to separate yourself from the animal kingdom.


For example:

You need something strong and generalized not to simply hold men together but keep them together.

And what Freud would call instinctual passions is stronger than any reasonable interests in common- something like work or education or creativity would probably draw men together but not keep them there.
But if you make them fear losing warmth then you’ve got them.
You have to intrigue the warmth in the mammal but not enough that it destroys the commune- therefore something like the sexual urge is tamed down or hacked up into something called friendship.
Something mellow enough to exist long enough to keep men together.

This would be civilization.
Maybe its the way you put it, but it soundsl ike we're all pawns in the hands of some overbeing, that civilisaiton has a mind of its own. When all it has is hordes of little people running about, following some of their own, and some of other peoples, programming.

Maybe its the way you put it, but it soundsl ike we're all pawns in the hands of some overbeing, that civilisaiton has a mind of its own. When all it has is hordes of little people running about, following some of their own, and some of other peoples, programming.
Does that thought frighten you, Guthrie, when you finally see it? That civilisation actually is a mindless juggernaught, with it's own agenda and its own purpose? We gave it life, and purpose, somewhere back in the beginning. Gendanken has given you an idea of how this came about. Now, it simply endures, gathers momentum. The whole having become independant of its parts. The Wicker Man. We have ours, they have theirs. Each juggernaught formed from the belief system of its creators, but now, in turn, perpetuating those belief systems. Mutual feeding. That overbeing you mentioned is us. Humanity. But it is not self aware in the way a few of its components are.

Think of it like an ants nest. Watch up close.
Each ant appears to be an individual - this one is carrying a bit of leaf, this one a bread crumb. This one is on its way outside the nest, this one is serving the queen. All appearing to be individuals, all appearing to be something different.
Now sit back. Step away. View from a distance.
All of it becomes a picture - there are no individual ants anymore. It is now a nest, with its own purpose. Does this mean the nest is self aware? No. Does it mean the nest is an overbeing? No. But if you watch long enough, if you imagine the whole thing in your mind, concentrate on it - you can see it as one. What made the nest appear alive, like an overbeing? The ants. The ants purpose. What is it which guarantees the survival of the ants? The nest. Do the ants know of their purpose? No.
You might call ants a successful species, and they are. But they will never be any more than ants. There is no need for more ants. They have a niche, a function. Their survival is assured by that function.

What function do humans serve? We have philosophy, we have art. Literature, drama. We think of things, separate each part from the whole and turn it over in our minds like a pretty rock in our hands. But of what use are these things to the earth?
Each of us appears an individual in our own right, and the tendency has always been to perpetuate that fiction. The concept of the whole has formed to give us form, direction. A warm cloak over all, to give warmth and security. Friendship. Companionship. Society. Solidarity. And the juggernaught lives.
But what is our purpose? What niche do we occupy?
Gendanken is saying that the brain has come to be what it is to ensure the survival of the species, in effect. What in its most basic form ensures the survival of the species? Sex. Reproduction. The more we have it, the more we do it, the more of us there are, and humanity survives.
We give ourselves purpose. Except that we don't know about it. What a delicious irony that it is those who know the least who become the most succesful of the species in the long term. The individual who comes closest to independance, to full knowledge of the self, the species, is the least likely to reproduce.
The truest individual is an abberration. But it can be no other way.

Humans, as far as I can discern, occupy no necessary niche in ecology, in nature. We serve no purpose, no right to continue to survive. We only have the ability.
From whence does that ability come? Our brains. Abstract concepts.
Society gives direction. It gives friendship, it gives love. All of these concepts serve no real purpose but reproduction. Friendship ensures those of like mind commune, stay together and reproduce accordingly. Love, philosophy. Abstract concepts.
Without these, we'd be akin to monkeys in the bush. Surviving, possibly. But successful in the way we are? No.

“What is (the brain) for? If you are considering the evolution of the kidney, you want to know what the kidney is for- that is to secrete urine…the same is true for the brain. Most neuroscientists are, remarkably, unable to answer this question but evolutionary biologists know the answer right away- the brain is for making better decisions about how to enhance reproductive success. That is what the brain is for, no more no less. In its capacity to carry out that task, it can do a lot of other things, which come along for free and are what researchers have come to study while leaving unexamined the reason for why the brain exists”

From an evolutionary perspective, this is true to some extent. But not quite so simple. Let's do this in steps. First, let's deal with the importance of reproduction on evolution of the body as a whole and on organs in particular.


1. We all know that it is through sexual reproduction that our species and most species of complex organisms maintain themselves. And we also know that evolution occurs through the mixing of genetic material during sexual reproduction. So, the advancement of our entire bodies throughout time are utterly dependent upon the mixing of genes through sex. Over time those forms of life that are more likely to reproduce will "win out" over those who are less likely. Therefore mutations and adaptations that favor successful reproduction are likely to congregate over time. Therefore we can say that our bodies (every last cell and organ) have a purpose. And that purpose is sexual reproduction. To pass on the genes which we carry. Those bodies that don't do this vanish in evolutionary terms.

So, by this logic, the kidney's purpose is not to "secrete urine". But rather to "secrete urine to keep the blood free from contaminants to increase the likelihood that the body will survive in order to successfully engage in sexual reproduction." Every part of the body is only there in order to increase the likelihood of reproduction. Pancreas. Spleen. Little toe. Appendix.


2. Do you really think that it's fair to compare the evolution of the kidney with the evolution of the brain? The kidney is a relatively simple organ with a relatively simple function, to secrete urine (ignoring the logic of point 1.) But, the brain is not so simple. Nor is it as homogenous as the kidney. The brain is composed of layers that have evolved seperately over time. One layer building on the next layer. I think you are fully aware of the complexity of the interactions between the various portions of the brain. Such an interaction does not take place in the kidney. Perhaps to make the comparison my realistic, we should consider the kidney as part of the circulatory system as a whole. And also toss in the bladder and the urethra...

Anyway, in this manner, it becomes difficult to truly seperate the parts of the body. One must take the body as a whole or not at all. One part of the body cannot function without the rest. There are parts of the body that might be removed safely and have the body still function adequately afterwards (even to have successful sex.) In fact, large parts of the brain might be removed without reducing significantly the likelihood that the recipient will successfully reproduce. But, for the most part the body is designed to work as a whole and any lessening of its design hampers its efficiency.


3. How exactly is it that selection takes place? Consider the kidney. Selection for the kidney did not take place directly. It is rather the effects that the kidney has on the body. A body with unhealthy kidneys is less likely to reproduce. So, more and more efficient kidneys would appear over time. The same could be said for most of the other organs of the body. However, the brain is different, isn't it?

I originally meant this to contradict Gazzaniga's view on sex being the function of the brain, but I have the feeling that this is going to turn. Let's see, shall we? This might just be interesting. Think peacock tail.

The brain is different than any other organ in the body. The brain is the overlord of the body. The brain affects everything about us in a way that no other organ does. The brain links all the functions of the various organs into a whole. So, let's say that the original function of the brain might very well have been to coordinate the functioning of the various organs and to ensure survival of the body. Sex in primitive creatures is a rather simple affair and there is not much for the brain to do. Sure, brains damaged in specific ways would not reproduce, but on the whole there was a lot of leeway in the way brains would have been selected for at the time. As long as the brain was able to perform the mechanics of the act (some of which might have been handled by nerve bundles in other areas of the body) and knew when the time was right, everything would be cool. Selection was not so much for intelligence and bigger brains as it was for brains that functioned "well enough".

As animals began to become more and more complex the brain had to keep track of more and more things. The biology of the organisms grew more complex and therefore the parts of the brain that regulated autonomic functions would have to increase in complexity. Social interaction became more complicated and therefore the parts of the brain that regulated social functions would also increase in complexity. Now, here's an interesting (and unlooked for) point. The body grew more complex and the brain grew to compensate. It is easy to say which came first right? Of course, in many ways they could be said to have happened at the same time, yet the brain is clearly compensating for a more complex body. It is reacting. The brain didn't become more complicated and then push the body to become more complicated to follow suit (or did it?). But, what about social activity? Is it possible that the brain acted in a reactive manner to rising social complexity as well? Did the bodies of the animals in some way begin the process forcing the brain to catch up? It would seem more intuitive that in this case the brain change came first and the body followed after. After all, social behavior is caused by the mind right? But, how much is body and how much is mind? This is an interesting line of questioning, I feel. And maybe we can explore it further. I'll leave it here for the moment.

So, anyway, the body and the brain were growing more complex. We started out with ganglia. Then progressed to the archipallium (reptile) brain composed of the brain stem - medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, the oldest basal nuclei - the globus pallidus and the olfactory bulbs. Next, came the limbic system (paleomammalian brain). Lastly came the neocortex. That convoluted mass in which "we" apparently reside. The magical analytical brain that you refer to.

At what point in this does selection towards a bigger brain occur? At what point does "mind" appear and begin to select sexually for a "pretty brain"? I mentioned peacock tails earlier. It's a commonly known fact that when a feature is selected for aesthetically rather than functionally the result is a peacock's tail. The Bonobo's nose. A hundred other garishly selected traits in various species where this special type of selection takes place and is allowed to run haywire. But, the question is is this what happened with the brain? Is the brain a peacock's tail? At the beginning of this train of thought I had begun to form the thought that it might be and yet now I'm not so sure once again. Why? Because of the keyword "functional". The brain could never be selected for aesthetically. Never. Why? Because it, like the kidney, is buried inside and the only means of selecting for it is by function. Only it's effects can be determined. Only it's effectiveness. It's apparent effectiveness.

So, in this way, the brain (like the kidney) is only vicariously oriented towards sex. However, the mind is another matter. The mind is the outward expression of the brain's most apparent function. Not necessarily it's most important function. But certainly the most noticeable. Especially in any process of selection. The mind might very well be considered to be aesthetic. But, at the same time selection would occur for more than aesthetic reasons. Survival is key here. The mind takes credit for survival. Especially in us. And likely in our early ancestors as well.


4. And now we move on to the next point. Survival. The likeliest explanation for the big brains of our species is the habitat of our ancestors. The move from woodlands to savannah. From an environment where little thought was needed to gather food and to avoid predators to and environment where food was scarce and predators were plentiful. Now, you can claim that survival is only useful in surviving to reproduce, and you'd be right, but it is the combination of factors that pushed for selection of a larger brain. Of a more intelligent mind.


5. For if a bigger brain was so universally beneficial for successful reproduction then why are we the sole beneficiaries of this drive? Are we alone in our method of sexual reproduction? Certainly not. Are we alone in our social behavior? Assuredly not. What we are alone is the size of our brains relative to body size and the intelligence which it has given us. The chimpanzee is our closest relative on this earth. And look at the differences between us in brains size and intelligence.

This from Calvin about ape society and language:
Indeed, the most remarkable thing about ape society is that it does so closely resemble our own. We see the same maneuvering for status, the same family feuds, we see parental and filial affection, the forming and reforming of alliances, altruism, cheating, loyalty, revenge, betrayal. About the only differences between them and us is that we tend to hide our emotions more, bear grudges longer, and accompany all our actions with a torrent of words. Language on top of primate social life is like a mural on a wall -- it adds interest and decoration, but it really doesn't change the the structure of the wall. -- Lingua Ex Machina
What might be interesting to comment on about chimpanzee society is the excessiveness of sexual behavior in their society. In a typical chimpanzee troop everybody fucks everybody. Even infants take part in this sexual behavior. It (along with grooming) has become a means of cementing social bonds. So, chimps have it too easy. Food is abundant. Predators are scarce and easily avoided (except for man, of course.) And sex is plentiful and fun for all. What need have they of a more complex brain? They do fine with what they have. Remember, the brain is expensive. It would be more economical to have the smallest brain that works good enough under the given circumstances.


6. Lastly, consider this. Who gets laid more? The smart or the stupid? Smart people think themselves out of sex. How many nerds have had some hot, sexy little thing (or at least wet and willing) on the line only to screw the whole scenario because he just wouldn't shut the fuck up? Because he kept displaying wit instead of acting (i.e. grabbing her tits or crotch, kissing her, pushing her back on the bed, etc... (This can also be applied to the female as well as male.)) How many times has the body lined up nookie only to have the brain shoot it down?


Metaphorically speaking, human physiology is a bicameral one and roughly analogous to the government- its composed of two legislative branches, mind and body, with each empowered to veto the exploits of the other.

I'd say that calling it veto power is a bit strong. The mind and body seldom agree to even the extent where one might cancel the will of the other. I see it more like two kids in the back seat of the car on a long ride. "Will you stop touching me? Quit it! Stop! Don't! Stop! Mom! Tell him to stop! Stop touching me!" And the veto is more like when one decides to spitefully ignore the other and pretend it doesn't exist for awhile. I suppose the question for this metaphor is who is in the front seat driving the car? We all know who thinks it's in command, but on closer examination it doesn't seem to be quite so apparent.

And don't forget the mind is not exactly singular. And also in many ways the body is part of the mind. Perhaps this is where the divide comes from. We don't really know our bodies. But rather the simulacrum of our bodies constructed within our minds. Just like the world about us. All that we know is simulated within our mind and due to interpretive errors on account of this.

Also from Gazzaniga (second paragraph of the book in fact):
Reconstruction of events starts with perception and goes all the way up to human reasoning. The mind is the last to know things. After the brain computes an event, the illusory "we" (that is, the mind) becomes aware of it. The brain, particularly the left hemisphere, is built to interpret data the brain has already processed. Yes, there is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. The interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgement. The clue to how we are built is buried in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made during reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive.
The mind and body can never be one because they've never even met. Mind is a fiction that thinks it's in charge and will tell any story in order to make it so. And damn convincing stories at that.


This has always seemed to me a Will to Sanity (even if lazy)- akin to Frankl’s Will to Meaning in how men seek to gain control of self. But if the practice involves the suffocation of the body, and the body‘s main function is that of reproduction, does this not betray a repulsive fear of the genitals?

Heh. Always go for the throat, don't you, Gendanken? Or in this case, for the crotch. (Heh. This reminds me of a quote by you: "Next time you see her, follow her around like a puppy and when she turns around to ask what the fuck is wrong with you, grab her crotch and pronounce her a liar by telling her that it's wet. Even if it isn't wet, deny it for the rest of your life. -- Gendanken")

Anyways, I don't really disagree with you on this point although I would use my examples above to perhaps try to downplay the importance of sex somewhat. And yet at the same time, it can't be downplayed entirely because evolutionarily speaking sex is what it all comes down to. Reproduction. The mingling of genetic material.



This is getting long. I'm going to cut it short here. Plenty of time to talk later about the rest. So, I'll part with this thought.

We interpret much of our lives after the fact. And much of the time interpret it wrongly. We take credit for things that "we" did not do. Yet, there are aspects of lives where this denial is weak. Where we accept the body's role. Sex being one of the dominant aspects in this group. We use euphemisms like, "Thinking with the little head" and others. We accept this. Even in our interpretive denial, we accept it. Therefore, those who seek to sharpen the "self" and the "will" would try to eliminate these drives. To master them. To deny them their voice.


Apologies for not devoting more attention to the ascetic side of your topic. The physical side concerning the brain grabbed me and prompted me to speak out as I did. I feel that much of what you are saying on asceticism is dead on, especially if one takes the basic argument given by Gazzaniga as full truth. This is why I concentrated on the physical rather than the mental in this first post. Don't worry, we've got plenty of time to hack out the rest.

Does that thought frighten you, Guthrie, when you finally see it? That civilisation actually is a mindless juggernaught, with it's own agenda and its own purpose? We gave it life, and purpose, somewhere back in the beginning. Gendanken has given you an idea of how this came about. Now, it simply endures, gathers momentum. The whole having become independant of its parts. The Wicker Man. We have ours, they have theirs. Each juggernaught formed from the belief system of its creators, but now, in turn, perpetuating those belief systems. Mutual feeding. That overbeing you mentioned is us. Humanity. But it is not self aware in the way a few of its components are.
Not really, its roughly how I've seen civilisation for years. I think the language is somewhat confusing though. Reification is tricky. I would say however that the parts have become independent of the whole. Instead of the brain and body working towards survival and sex, they spin off into all sorts of alleyways, dead ends, intellectualisms. (bit like sciforums really)




What function do humans serve? We have philosophy, we have art. Literature, drama. We think of things, separate each part from the whole and turn it over in our minds like a pretty rock in our hands. But of what use are these things to the earth?
Function? Dissipators of free energy perhaps? Users up of the finitude of delta G, running down the entropic slope ever faster?
The earth is indifferent to us, it has no mind, no emotions. To ask what the human function is is to ignore the human ability to create our own functions. Something not everyone can do so much or so well as others, but hey, its worth a try is it not?


Each of us appears an individual in our own right, and the tendency has always been to perpetuate that fiction. The concept of the whole has formed to give us form, direction. A warm cloak over all, to give warmth and security. Friendship. Companionship. Society. Solidarity. And the juggernaught lives.
WEll, we are individuals, but also not really. The old image of a web comes to mind, or a dance. After all, form and direction are needed even to give you something ot rebel against.


But what is our purpose? What niche do we occupy?
Gendanken is saying that the brain has come to be what it is to ensure the survival of the species, in effect. What in its most basic form ensures the survival of the species? Sex. Reproduction. The more we have it, the more we do it, the more of us there are, and humanity survives.
We give ourselves purpose. Except that we don't know about it. What a delicious irony that it is those who know the least who become the most succesful of the species in the long term. The individual who comes closest to independance, to full knowledge of the self, the species, is the least likely to reproduce.
The truest individual is an abberration. But it can be no other way.
Thanks for explaining it a bit clearer than her. Our ecological niche has grown rather small for us anyway. I always find it funny how a fair number of people go against their biological programming, and dont reproduce. And often they are interesting intelligent people, but many of the ones I have known are still not quite as aware of the species etc. They just dont want children, out of purely "selfish" motives. As for th truest individual, good to see you call them an abberation. I would assume you think of yourself as one of them. Remember, the species always needs its variations, to guard against the ultimate catastrophe of total extinction. But this dooms large parts of humanity to lives less than fulfilling, since these individuals are the requisite variations.


Humans, as far as I can discern, occupy no necessary niche in ecology, in nature. We serve no purpose, no right to continue to survive. We only have the ability.
From whence does that ability come? Our brains. Abstract concepts.
Society gives direction. It gives friendship, it gives love. All of these concepts serve no real purpose but reproduction. Friendship ensures those of like mind commune, stay together and reproduce accordingly. Love, philosophy. Abstract concepts.
Without these, we'd be akin to monkeys in the bush. Surviving, possibly. But successful in the way we are? No.
Ahh, are you coming back to the good old tension between opposites type arguement? Anyway, as for humanity not occupying any ecological niche, I wonder at what point we ceased to do so? 100,00 years ago? 10,000 years ago? On the other hand, I can think of various people who are intelligent and intellectual who use their brains, but wont reproduce, and vice versa. So, at what point does the "complete" man exist, fusing animal brain with intellectual brain? I have no idea anyway.

The underlying incentive of all human thought and action is not sex.
Sex is but a biological strategy against the real universal motivator, which is mortality and the powerlessness it entails.

As reason and logic gain the upper hand over instinctual primordial drives the central importance of sexuality diminishes, since new methods to confront the foe are found through the intellect.

Death is what lies under all human thought and action.
Sex is but an ingrained biochemical tactic that confronts it and because it is so ingrained and ancient it holds sway over all our faculties and assessments.

If man were immortal then sex would become obsolete and a remnant of a bygone primitive era.

The distinction between mind and body is based on a fallacy where the ‘I’ is separated from the ‘Me’ as William James put it.

Reason and logic are often associated with the ‘I’ whereas all other human drivers are blamed on the ‘Me’ and its material primitiveness.

Sex is just the ‘I’ trying to save the ‘Me’ from the inevitable consequences of existence.
What causes the error is when consciousness forces the distinction between external and internal phenomena according to its perceptions of them.
What is sensually perceived is external, what is not is internal.

Reason, freed from its original mission, has come to the conclusion that the external is but a myth and that all reality is internal and therefore the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ are both prejudiced assessments that can be blamed on human limitations.

Sex is therefore an unconscious recognition that there is no individual and that the needs of the one must be sacrificed for the betterment of the entirety.
Reason is insulted by this and seeks to detach itself from these self-effacing motivations so as to become independent, self-sufficient and sovereign, by the acquisition of personal power through understanding and knowledge.

Awareness is not an aphrodisiac.

Invert:
You have.........inundated me with the purely biophysical:
2. Do you really think that it's fair to compare the evolution of the kidney with the evolution of the brain? The kidney is a relatively simple organ with a relatively simple function, to secrete urine (ignoring the logic of point 1.) But, the brain is not so simple. Nor is it as homogenous as the kidney. The brain is composed of layers that have evolved seperately over time. One layer building on the next layer. I think you are fully aware of the complexity of the interactions between the various portions of the brain. Such an interaction does not take place in the kidney. Perhaps to make the comparison my realistic, we should consider the kidney as part of the circulatory system as a whole. And also toss in the bladder and the urethra...

Sure, not as simple as the kidney but still an organ for an organism.
Its easy to not think in these terms with the mind so busy being an "I" and not a "Me".

Such 'complex interactions' don't have to take place inside that kidney, but a kidney is not an organ responsible for the orchestration of every last cell in that body.

In all that you typed, this stands out best:
At what point in this does selection towards a bigger brain occur? At what point does "mind" appear and begin to select sexually for a "pretty brain"? I mentioned peacock tails earlier. It's a commonly known fact that when a feature is selected for aesthetically rather than functionally the result is a peacock's tail. The Bonobo's nose. A hundred other garishly selected traits in various species where this special type of selection takes place and is allowed to run haywire. But, the question is is this what happened with the brain? Is the brain a peacock's tail? At the beginning of this train of thought I had begun to form the thought that it might be and yet now I'm not so sure once again. Why? Because of the keyword "functional". The brain could never be selected for aesthetically. Never. Why? Because it, like the kidney, is buried inside and the only means of selecting for it is by function. Only it's effects can be determined. Only it's effectiveness. It's apparent effectiveness.

No, it would not be a peacock's tail.
More like a functional organ laden with the task of picking the best tail in the bunch. Literally.
And none of this is new…its just…never quite hit me as it has.

But we think its something else, reasonable little creatures that we are.
Look at normative ethics- what are they based on? A need for acceptance.
Literature, art, love, friendship, moral duty appeared as something like background noise to keep reasonable men together.
It made music from the noise- which would be consciousness, a thing that refuses to even think of its mortality.

To itself, its a specter apart from the world and connected to a purpose it imagines in it. Examine the word- a human being.
He not only is but insists on his being for some purpose, something higher he creates from his reason.

We have no purpose. Why should we think we add much more to the world with our poetry or buildings when compared to a beaver who's piled up sticks?

Wanderer:
The underlying incentive of all human thought and action is not sex.
Sex is but a biological strategy against the real universal motivator, which is mortality and the powerlessness it entails.
And mortality is conquered by the genital.

Man tries his mightiest to conquer it with the pen, but those that have are aberrations. Which is why nature, in her ways, keeps them few and far between.

As reason and logic gain the upper hand over instinctual primordial drives the central importance of sexuality diminishes, since new methods to confront the foe are found through the intellect.
And those that try go insane.
They lose their humanity and become enclaves. They become fiends and deviants, useless monks.

I don't say sexuality is of central importance- I'd be an idiot to think that what moved Frank Lloyd to build his structures was sex.
Its simply that I've always found the need for ascetic disciplines to be a kind of taming insanity or finding meaning in destruction.
A concentration camp where men were stripped of everything left souls scampering for meaning.
Not sex.

Now I've realized something that's left me at an impasse.

If man were immortal then sex would become obsolete and a remnant of a bygone primitive era.

The distinction between mind and body is based on a fallacy where the ‘I’ is separated from the ‘Me’ as William James put it.

Reason and logic are often associated with the ‘I’ whereas all other human drivers are blamed on the ‘Me’ and its material primitiveness.
Good fucking point.
But screwed up on the details:

Sex is just the ‘I’ trying to save the ‘Me’ from the inevitable consequences of existence.
What causes the error is when consciousness forces the distinction between external and internal phenomena according to its perceptions of them.
What is sensually perceived is external, what is not is internal.

More like trying to wrest the 'Me' away from the 'I' long enough to continue the vulgar act of procreation that reason so despises.

Reason would have us all "I's" sitting at home contemplating its I-ness and dissecting its purpose in complete oblivion to its species.

We're like gas molecules in a gas chamber.
Gas itself has the properties of volume, pressure, temperature but if one looks at the molecules making it up, all have neither of these properties that give gas purpose.
All we are for is to multiply and give mass to that entity.
We are, quite simply, simple random movement with the absurdity of each molecule thinking it has a purpose of its own.
If it weren't for kinetic energy underlying it all, no more gas.

The underlying incentive of all human thought and action is not sex.
Sex is but a biological strategy against the real universal motivator, which is mortality and the powerlessness it entails.

As reason and logic gain the upper hand over instinctual primordial drives the central importance of sexuality diminishes, since new methods to confront the foe are found through the intellect

Death is what lies under all human thought and action.

Enter redemptive religion with the belief in an eternal afterlife.

If man were immortal then sex would become obsolete and a remnant of a bygone primitive era.

Nonsense. Unless, of course, by "sex" you mean "reproduction". I've never had sex with procreational purposes, and still it hasn't become obsolete.

Rosa:
Enter redemptive religion with the belief in an eternal afterlife
Which is inconsequential to my discernment.
Reasonable men not just drawn together but kept together by need for love, not fear of death.
Love being a sexual mutant.

Fadeway:
Nonsense. Unless, of course, by "sex" you mean "reproduction". I've never had sex with procreational purposes, and still it hasn't become obsolete.
Slash.

I don't say sex in reproductive terms either.
Why are people so fucking thick?

The underlying incentive of all human thought and action is not sex.
No, it is not. Freud didn't go far enough.
But it does form the basis of thought. More - it is the reason the brain has come to know abstract concepts. The tribe. Companionship. Anything which allows humans to reside together in comfort.

Sex is but a biological strategy against the real universal motivator, which is mortality and the powerlessness it entails.

As reason and logic gain the upper hand over instinctual primordial drives the central importance of sexuality diminishes, since new methods to confront the foe are found through the intellect.
Yes, but how did the brain evolve to be what it is? Gendanken's original thought was that the brain evolved as something to facilitate human survival. The vehicle for survival is procreation - in its mammalian form, sex. The vehicle for species survival. We have spread all over the face of the planet without occupying any major niche in ecology, or at least none more vital than that of other primates. Why? Is there a single evolutionary reason why we should have done so? Intelligence, we say. From whence comes intelligence? It didn't spontaneously appear - it developed. It grew. There must have been an underlying factor which prompted and succoured that growth.

Death is what lies under all human thought and action.
Sex is but an ingrained biochemical tactic that confronts it and because it is so ingrained and ancient it holds sway over all our faculties and assessments.
Death underlies human thought and action - but only now that we understand it. Prior to this, though, there was only survival - without the comprehension of death. You're thinking in modern terms, of the modern human, the human which understands and fears death. He looks for immortality by any means at his disposal, the most common form being procreation - even if done unaware of what it is he seeks to cheat. But how did that comprehending, aware human come to be?
You need to think further back to understand this, Wanderer. Forget your argument of death being the underlying motive - it might have become so, but only as a result of the comprehension of it, and not as a base cause.

Man came to be - he procreated. But he did not do so in any great numbers until relatively recently. He stayed in his small instinctive packs... he was not any more succesful than any other animal. Then, a Darwinian accident - he began to develop abstract concepts. Religion. Family. Tribe. Language. The concept of commonality in a basic, primitive form. More humans having sex with each other. Increased procreation as the result of an increased capacity to understand the concept of group. Man had both a reason to fuck, and someone to do it with almost on demand.

If man were immortal then sex would become obsolete and a remnant of a bygone primitive era.
Man is not immortal. The brain is not the result of the biological knowledge of immortality. If we were to become immortal, then perhaps we would evolve beyond the desire for sex. But man as he was, and is, can not.
Thus your point is moot. Gendanken is not speaking of man as he is. She is speaking of how he, the brain, came to be.

A last point. Does not the very fact that those who cannot or will not subscribe to the values of their "tribe" are the least likely to procreate (generally speaking) prove Gendanken's point rather than refute it?
The least aware are those most likely to procreate. The human herd breeds exponentially compared to the individual. The human capable of individual thought serves only to give the herd a common ground, a philosophy, a reason to group - and thus have more sex, more often. The search for meaning is a search for commonality.

We're like gas molecules in a gas chamber.
Gas itself has the properties of volume, pressure, temperature but if one looks at the molecules making it up, all have neither of these properties that give gas purpose.
All we are for is to multiply and give mass to that entity.
We are, quite simply, simple random movement with the absurdity of each molecule thinking it has a purpose of its own.
If it weren't for kinetic energy underlying it all, no more gas.
And there she goes painting a picture in prose. Has my Lady not yet learned the art of slow torture?

fadeaway humper

Nonsense. Unless, of course, by "sex" you mean "reproduction". I've never had sex with procreational purposes, and still it hasn't become obsolete.The fact that you don’t understand why you desire to have sex at all makes you a slave to your own nature.

As Xev once put it, “…emotion is the interface between mind and body”
It is how the body asserts itself upon reason.
There is no duality here only a differentiation of how different drives make themselves understood.

RosaMagika
Enter redemptive religion with the belief in an eternal afterlife. And much more.

gendanken
Which is inconsequential to my discernment.
Reasonable men not just drawn together but kept together by need for love, not fear of death.
Love being a sexual mutant.And what is the "need for love" rooted in, but in the fear of death.

Fenris Wolf
No, it is not. Freud didn't go far enough.
But it does form the basis of thought. More - it is the reason the brain has come to know abstract concepts. The tribe. Companionship. Anything which allows humans to reside together in comfort.Freud also believed that there were two conflicting drives within man: the desire to live and the desire to die.
I have not read it myself so I am not aware of the details.

The basis of all thought is survival; love is but a mechanism towards that end.

I once started a thread on this matter. I think I had titled it ‘Life and Death’, in which I tried to expand on the notion that what life is is simply a reaction to death and existence defines itself by its opposition to non-existence.
Life is the act of resisting death.
Sex, love, hate and all the emotions are but methods of achieving this.

Yes, but how did the brain evolve to be what it is? Gendanken's original thought was that the brain evolved as something to facilitate human survival. The vehicle for survival is procreation - in its mammalian form, sex. The vehicle for species survival. We have spread all over the face of the planet without occupying any major niche in ecology, or at least none more vital than that of other primates. Why? Is there a single evolutionary reason why we should have done so? Intelligence, we say. From whence comes intelligence? It didn't spontaneously appear - it developed. It grew. There must have been an underlying factor which prompted and succoured that growth. Isn't that what I'm saying?
I’m pointing out that sex is relevant only because it is a biological answer to mortality, but as reason and logic come up with new alternatives [innovation, creation, understanding, power, invention] the sexual drive becomes a remnant of the past.

Since when did you become a spokesperson for gendanken? You quote her as if she’s some sort of deified expert.
That the brain evolved to facilitate is not a novel idea nor is it the creation of your goddess. It’s an obvious fact.
Do you possess your own voice?
Get a spine will you?
It’s getting disgusting.

Do have some insight or some answers to the rhetorical questions you pose or are they to be answered by gendanken?

Death underlies human thought and action - but only now that we understand it. Prior to this, though, there was only survival - without the comprehension of death. You're thinking in modern terms, of the modern human, the human which understands and fears death. He looks for immortality by any means at his disposal, the most common form being procreation - even if done unaware of what it is he seeks to cheat. But how did that comprehending, aware human come to be?
You need to think further back to understand this, Wanderer. Forget your argument of death being the underlying motive - it might have become so, but only as a result of the comprehension of it, and not as a base cause.
Comprehension is the conscious awareness of phenomena, but there is also an unconscious awareness, which I recently have become interested in.
I’ve opened a thread titled ‘Intuition’ concerning it.

For me, there is a far greater perception of reality through unconscious means, which affects the psyche and expresses itself through emotions and feelings, than I originally considered.
Vast amounts of detail and sensual information is never brought into consciousness and so escapes understanding but it manifests itself anyways, through the subconscious, or is lost forever.
We only perceive a tiny fraction of reality and we are aware, consciously aware, of an even smaller fraction of that.

Now, since the mind can only involve itself with phenomena that it is aware of and therefore utilizes logic and reason to understand and to dissect them, all that other unnoticed information expresses itself through alternative means.

We enter a room and we feel tension or that something is wrong, without immediately comprehending why. Afterwards, and depending on our detail awareness and our memory accuracy, we can deduce the details that affected us.

This is a survival mechanism which makes reaction quicker than analysis.

Animals also have an emotive awareness of death, even if they lack the faculties to have a reasonable comprehension of it.
They connect to the underlying motivation through instinct, intuition and feeling.

Reason can discover or uncover the foundations of nature and, from that, surmise the motivations and mechanisms involved but nature has its own set of rules with which it gathers information, based on trial and error.
What are genes but a genetic unconscious memory?
This information still holds sway over the intellect, since the intellect and the ensuing reason it produces, is rooted in it.

Man is not immortal. The brain is not the result of the biological knowledge of immortality. If we were to become immortal, then perhaps we would evolve beyond the desire for sex. But man as he was, and is, can not.Thank you for stating the obvious.

The example I give is meant to inspire the imagination into analyzing how mortality underlies everything, even the sexual drive.

A last point. Does not the very fact that those who cannot or will not subscribe to the values of their "tribe" are the least likely to procreate (generally speaking) prove Gendanken's point rather than refute it?Who’s refuting her point?
I’m expanding on it and offering my opinion on how sex itself is but a reaction to mortality.

Sex is the apparent foundation of all human interaction and thought but under sex there is another more profound drive to survive, to live, to exist.
Nature was unable to overcome the universal flux and to find solutions to cellular reproduction limitations, and so the survival of the individual became an impossibility.
The focus of nature isn’t the individual, which is the focus of reason, but the group, the species.
Her mechanisms, for that reason, are geared towards species survival.

Individuality is the product of the mind and those suffering from extreme individuality can be seen as being burdened with a powerful mind.
A mind that finds offense with the natural mechanisms that treat it as a means to an end, when it is interested in the self, as the end.

The least aware are those most likely to procreate. The human herd breeds exponentially compared to the individual. The human capable of individual thought serves only to give the herd a common ground, a philosophy, a reason to group - and thus have more sex, more often. The search for meaning is a search for commonality.Now we are talking.

But the search for a commonality is a product of weakness and helplessness, as the self deteriorates and passes away or as the self cannot survive alone within a given environment.

Even this board is a product of this search.

Weakness and helplessness are intrinsic parts of existence, since what exists, exists within something else greater than it.
So the differences between individuals are in degree, not is substance.

Let us not start patting ourselves on the shoulder, just yet.

Gendanken,

You have.........inundated me with the purely biophysical:

I know. I'm sorry. But it just grew and grew. I did number my points to make them more easily understandable.

Sure, not as simple as the kidney but still an organ for an organism.

I think the brain should be reclassified as several organs. Or perhaps organelles. It performs more than one function. Far more. I suppose the problem with reclassifying in older times (and to some extent in modern times) is the difficulty in understanding what part does what exactly. But, it should be at least split into the three organs wrapped on each other like an onion skin.

Such 'complex interactions' don't have to take place inside that kidney, but a kidney is not an organ responsible for the orchestration of every last cell in that body.

Neither is the brain for that matter. It only orchestrates portions of the body. And those portions regulate the rest. But, this is beside the point.

***Edit to add***
Also, only portions of the brain are dedicated to controling other portions of the body. This is another reason why the brain should be considered multiple organs. Much of the brain is concerned with nothing except for that which is in the brain. The body is a figment... to the mind.
***End Edit***

In all that you typed, this stands out best:

Yes. I liked the peacock tail part too. But, take a closer look at point 5. I think it's the most important in regards to selection protocol for the brain. If a large brain is so beneficial to reproduction then why don't all animals have a large brain?

Rosa: Enter redemptive religion with the belief in an eternal afterlife.

Gendanken: Which is inconsequential to my discernment.
Reasonable men not just drawn together but kept together by need for love, not fear of death.
Love being a sexual mutant.

Wait a minute, Gendanken. Not so fast. Rosa has made an excellent point. Let me dig into it for a moment.

Your point is about how ascetics withdraw from the body so that their souls can become one with god. Well, your point is more about the importance of sex in social behavior, but you've used the ascetic as an example. Rosa has just used Wanderer's statement to provide an excellent reason for this deviation among ascetics.

Wanderer says that reproduction is a biologic strategy against death. And this is just so. Can't be denied. He then goes on to say that as reason and logic (intelligence and abstraction in my opinion) grew the importance of sex as a means of combating death are found through these new biologic strategies.

Now, the simplest way for intelligence to combat death is by extending life span. Increasing the time that an organism has before taken by death. Also in decreasing the number of deaths among the young. In this way, more and more of the organism is alive at any one time. Intelligence did this, right? There are 6 billion humans on this planet because we have the intelligence to outwit death for longer and longer periods of time. It is entirely conceivable that eventually the strategy of our big brain might very well conquer death altogether.

But, this is long term strategy. But, for the short term it seems that death is not conquered. One does not live an immensely longer time than one's parents (well, we do but that's because of the acceleration of technology. Before this it was slow.) But, still the drive to survive (to beat death) exists. We want to live. We don't want to die. Even mice have this feeling and they don't even need their cortex to behave in a normal mousey fashion. The survival drive is as deep as the sex drive. It has to be.

Anyway, so we have this drive to survive. Even primitive life forms have it. But, in the end we all lose. Everyone, everything that has ever been born has died. We slowly win through our strategy of intelligence. But, slowly winning does not give one the charge that one gets when actually surviving. When you escape that brush with death and are rewarded with endorphins and adrenaline and god knows what else you feel good. Indescribably and hopelessly orgasmic. But, slowly expanding lifespan doesn't give that thrill.

However, religion does. First it provides the abstraction of an afterlife so death doesn't really mean death anymore. And then it provides the incentive for denying the other biologic strategy against death, sex. The body dies and is therefore dirty and filthy. Anything pure would never die. The body dies. Sex is of the body. Sex is death.

Following me?


For some reason, that scene from Dr. Strangelove is occuring to me. Where the crazy colonel is going off about his bodily fluids and whatnot. How sex drains him of vital life force.

I don't say sex in reproductive terms either.
Why are people so fucking thick?

While you are talking of sex as a social glue, much of your original post was devoted to reproduction and evolution. Sex without reproduction does not promote evolution.

As to being thick. I thought women liked thick men. Provides more sensation, don't you know.



Fenris,

From whence comes intelligence? It didn't spontaneously appear - it developed. It grew. There must have been an underlying factor which prompted and succoured that growth.

You don't say single underlaying factor, but it appears that you imply it. Why must it be just one thing? It would be more proper to say underlying factors.

Successful reproduction was likely one motivation. But another greater consideration is survival in a tough climate. Read my point 5 above. It must be more than about sex and reproduction, else all animals would have enormous brains and be fucking like... beasts.

Death underlies human thought and action - but only now that we understand it. Prior to this, though, there was only survival - without the comprehension of death.

Yes. But comprehension is not necessary in order for biological strategies to form combatting it. Evolution takes care of it. The latter-day comprehension of death doesn't create the need for sex. It creates the need to deny it. Religion.

More humans having sex with each other. Increased procreation as the result of an increased capacity to understand the concept of group. Man had both a reason to fuck, and someone to do it with almost on demand.

So, increased sexuality came from our intelligence? How do you explain the chimpanzee then? It fucks far more than us humans. Look at it's testicles. They're huge.

As to more humans having sex with each other. This is because intelligence has increased life span and decreased death rate. Intelligence is beating death. Slowly. Only the ascetic doesn't want to wait. The ascetic fools himself into believing that he is beating death on his own.

Man is not immortal. The brain is not the result of the biological knowledge of immortality. If we were to become immortal, then perhaps we would evolve beyond the desire for sex. But man as he was, and is, can not.

Good point. I was going to make a similar point but you stole it from me.

Anyway, sex would probably not vanish but if we were to somehow become truly immortal then the mind behind the deed would likely be intelligent enough to realize that reproduction would have to halt or at least be severely curtailed. But, sex is a good way to pass a millenia or two of boring immortality, right?

Captive animals become oversexed and chronic masturbators. Would we be any different if we became captured by life?



Wanderer,

Comprehension is the conscious awareness of phenomena, but there is also an unconscious awareness, which I recently have become interested in.
I’ve opened a thread titled ‘Intuition’ concerning it.

Should have called it To Cognize (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/cognize.html).

For me, there is a far greater perception of reality through unconscious means, which affects the psyche and expresses itself through emotions and feelings, than I originally considered.

All reality is perceived unconsciously and then delivered on a plate to the conscious all neat and packaged with a pretty pink ribbon on it.

However, perception is not necessary for evolution. Evolution works through success and failure. Not recognition of reality. Evolution doesn't care if you know you're going to die. The fact is that you are going to die and so if the physical acts that 'beat' death in some way don't occur then you lose. Death beats you and evolution moves on to the next experiment.

Perception and understanding removes us somewhat from evolutions grip. We now make conscious choices (based on unconscious perceptions) and in the process domesticate ourselves. Evolution in humans has become husbandry.

Fenris:
No, it is not. Freud didn't go far enough.
But it does form the basis of thought. More - it is the reason the brain has come to know abstract concepts. The tribe. Companionship. Anything which allows humans to reside together in comfort.

Every form of ethic is based on man's need for acceptance.
Its this need to be accepted, to belong, to be with that I'm focused on and its not some antiquated tripe about immortality.
Seems you got it.

And there she goes painting a picture in prose. Has my Lady not yet learned the art of slow torture
No, I like other forms of torture.
Don't you know?


wanda:
Since when did you become a spokesperson for gendanken? You quote her as if she’s some sort of deified expert.
That the brain evolved to facilitate is not a novel idea nor is it the creation of your goddess. It’s an obvious fact.
Do you possess your own voice?
Get a spine will you?
It’s getting disgusting.

Do have some insight or some answers to the rhetorical questions you pose or are they to be answered by gendanken?

Sweet.
My name jutting out and everything so that I could quote it out and, like, everything..

Quicklike- in your rush to presume and present me with some overly masticated theory you've been carrying around about life, you, like all flies, not only fail to realize I've said what you did about me for you.
One.
That I'm focusing on ascetic analogues- like friendship.
Two.
And that seeing what seems obvious to others has come to me only after analyzing it biologically- that's three.
We are a million some odd species who've somehow become obsessed with reason yet still seek each other out- and don't know about you but friendship is not a symptom of death-phobia.
But of course you'll be too busy flexing puny muscles now that Fenris (Fenris, Fenris, Fenris) has shown up to even notice your palaver.

Vert:
Neither is the brain for that matter. It only orchestrates portions of the body. And those portions regulate the rest. But, this is beside the point.


***Edit to add***
Also, only portions of the brain are dedicated to controling other portions of the body. This is another reason why the brain should be considered multiple organs. Much of the brain is concerned with nothing except for that which is in the brain. The body is a figment... to the mind.

***End Edit***

Evertying is controlled by it.
Even the long winded explanations of intuition- and brain does not mean reason.
Think limbic system.


Your point is about how ascetics withdraw from the body so that their souls can become one with god. Well, your point is more about the importance of sex in social behavior, but you've used the ascetic as an example. Rosa has just used Wanderer's statement to provide an excellent reason for this deviation among ascetics.

Actually no.
I really don't care for procreation or immortality or any what-have-you's that have become side issues.

Look (took a while to find it):

"The mother normally does not accept the 'crude and passionate' elements in the child's instinctual strivings, but acts intuitively to replace these with sublimated forms of tenderness and affection. Since the child begins learning to love by identification, he also learns to reject and repress these crude impulses and follows the examples set, gradually internalizing parental prohibitions."- Hamilton's Psychotherapy in Child Guidance

Those instinctual drives are what is exploited by ethics.
This is what I am getting it.
As in- the mating age being postponed, the interval in between is filled with a longing satiated by the abstracts of poetry and "intellectual" coquettry exploited by love.
So, the interval in between this rift between mind and body is satiated by the emotional blackmail of acceptance in abstract forms- like friendship.

Following me?

Yes, but it was a side issue.

invert_nexus
Should have called it To Cognize.
Should have.

However, perception is not necessary for evolution. Evolution works through success and failure. Not recognition of reality.
Doesn't the accurate recognition of reality lead to success or failure?

Perception and understanding removes us somewhat from evolutions grip. We now make conscious choices (based on unconscious perceptions) and in the process domesticate ourselves. Evolution in humans has become husbandry.Good point.

gendanken
I love how, as soon as you get miffed the pejorative wanda makes its appearance.
It’s part of your, oh so subtle ways.
Makes you special.

I'm sure that biting wit can come up with more clever ways to insult me than the old feminine approach. :eek:

Sweet.
My name jutting out and everything so that I could quote it out and, like, everything..I knew you would like it.
I did it to make sure you would notice, since, like every other male on this Forum, I’m so interested in your good will and affections.
A kind word from you and I melt like…..like….what’s the simile I’m looking for…like…Fenris Wolf, let’s say. :rolleyes:

Quicklike- in your rush to presume and present me with some overly masticated theory you've been carrying around about life, you, like all flies, not only fail to realize I've said what you did about me for you. One.
So?
Why does that matter?
Are you trying to prove you are my sister again?
‘Flies’ was a term coined by me during that spookz fiasco and, in this case it fails to accurately describe my actions.


That I'm focusing on ascetic analogues- like friendship.Two.And?
My comments were directed at my old friend Fenris who has a knack for making himself embarrassingly obvious.
I’m still waiting for him to bend over and kiss your ... avatar.
But you don't have one.

Haven't you gotten tired of worshipers yet?
I mean, I’ve had my share and I know they can be good for the ego and the soul but I quickly grew weary of their predictability and repetitiveness.

You spent an entire summer under the Forum spotlight and the masses uttered your very alias with reverence; multiple threads were started in your name and you expressed mocked embarrassment and humility as they called for your return from exile.

Did you not tire of it?


And that seeing what seems obvious to others has come to me only after analyzing it biologically- that's three.
Good for you.
Where did I comment on your methods of understanding?

I know that some find it hard to empathize and lack that social talent of connectivity which leads to understanding through relation but that topic never came up.

Now back on topic:
We are a million some odd species who've somehow become obsessed with reason yet still seek each other out- and don't know about you but friendship is not a symptom of death-phobia.Of course it is.
Communion and herding of any sort is a defense mechanism that promotes survival.

You make friends because they offer you an ally against possible threats or an avenue to defuse anxiety, fear, anger and frustration when faced with reality.
In return you offer him the same.

Who gains the most is determined by the social positioning of each within the group, even within a group of two.

There’s nothing wrong with this nor does it detract from the power of love, whether it be romantic or friendly. We can both recognize the mechanics of things and value them as important in our lives.

Reason is relatively young and it has only begun to affect human behavior.
We seek each other out for the same reason that we still copulate, even if we do not want to procreate.
Our reason has advanced us beyond needing certain things but the body still has the genetic memories of environments where the need still persists.
Thusly we get a struggle between reason and instinct.

For example, our eating habits were established through evolution within environments with low protein and sugars.
We therefore crave them.

Reason has enabled us to create environments with high protein and sugar environments and so it understands that intake of these energy sources should be curbed because the physical body cannot tolerate them in high dosages.
Reversely our genetic programming and our hunger force us towards indiscriminate consumption, despite reasons warnings.

Which part most often wins?
If we take obesity statistics reason most often fails and instinct wins.
It’s telling that in Muslim countries where adultery is punished by death many still commit it. Reason and logic may warn but instinct demands.

But of course you'll be too busy flexing puny muscles now that Fenris (Fenris, Fenris, Fenris) has shown up to even notice your palaver. I think you will find that I notice more than what I let on.

Fenris, Fenris, Fenris has shown up before this, wearing an old disguise hoping thatit would hide him from me and explaining it with trite excuses.
He, perhaps, underestimates my perceptive abilities, still.
So be it.

What I find offense with, in him, besides that old instance where he dared to attack me with no provocation (besides the fact that he felt threatened), is the blatant way in which he grovels and follows and that 'not so clever' way in which he tries to compare himself, without having to prove a thing.

But boys will be boys. I’m sure your exploration of biology must have given you some insight into that.
But let us not forget either that girls will be girls. :cool:

With various agreed assumptions, the function of the brain is to increase reproductive success.

That is a very different thing from what the function of the mind is: It is a serious mistake in my thinking to deduce that because the brain's 'function' is to promote reproductive success, then the exact mechanics of the brain's product, our conciousness, is exactly that.

Our minds ultimately lead to greater reproductive success but there is almost certainly not one line of genetic brain 'code' that says "Do whatever it takes to ensure you pass on your genes". It takes a huge amount of calculation to ensure reproductive success. This not only includes selecting suitable partners but also protecting your young - and hence yourself.

Sex will be right up there, so to speak, but will not be the sole dominating factor behind our motivations.

(Not so important this bit)

With regard to a popular point, I would guess that a 'pretty mind' is selected on mainly by nature. Sexual selection may involve looking for a pretty mind, but during the period of man's evolution there may have been other more serious traits that affect survival and hence reproductive success. In such circumstances a partner who selected on the basis of a pretty mind would have had less reproductive success themselves and be bred out, as their offspring would not compete with the less clever but overall more fitting peers. Conversly, perhaps the reverse has it's argument - an ugly mind is a definate no-no, and because rating is only posible though relative comparison, pretty minds have a selective pressure.

And this is really digging back I know, but,
Other animals have sex, and their brains do not nearly come close to ours in terms of size or capability.
Which is why they don't dominate our planet.
My point
We do not dominate this planet! Neither in numbers nor total mass (nb. it is reproductive success that is relevant here).

Blue_UK
That is a very different thing from what the function of the mind is: It is a serious mistake in my thinking to deduce that because the brain's 'function' is to promote reproductive success, then the exact mechanics of the brain's product, our conciousness, is exactly that.
No ‘consciousness’, through understanding, becomes a reaction against it.
That’s how we get asceticism.

Genes tell us to reproduce and to value things from a materialistic perspective, tying us to the real focus of nature, the success of the species.

The mind becoming conscious, rebels because its focus is the self.

I think reason is a genetic mutation that winds up resisting the very natural rules that brought it about.

Our minds ultimately lead to greater reproductive success but there is almost certainly not one line of genetic brain 'code' that says "Do whatever it takes to ensure you pass on your genes". It takes a huge amount of calculation to ensure reproductive success. This not only includes selecting suitable partners but also protecting your young - and hence yourself.The calculations, you speak of, are done unconsciously. Reason only comes into it with man.
We instantaneously deduce the others fitness through subconscious awareness dictated by genetic predispositions.

Sex will be right up there, so to speak, but will not be the sole dominating factor behind our motivations.I’ve made the point that survival is the real motivator and sex is but another strategy.
But besides these two motivations can you mention another?

We do not dominate this planet! Neither in numbers nor total mass (nb. it is reproductive success that is relevant here).We dominate it in the only way that matters. We control it.

Our reproductive success has been curbed because of reason.

The reproductive success you mention is quit a primitive one.
Success can be measured by quantity or quality.

Forgive me if this has already been said, I would like someone to confirm:

Gendanken, is this what you are saying --
"The essence of organisms living together in a society is a modified and sublimated sexual activity." ?

Namely, non-societal organisms live together only when mating and parenting, while outside of that time, they are loners. While they are together, what is keeping them together is sexual activities and what is directly connected with that, ie. parenting.

Living together permanently, ie. being societal organisms, required certain modifications and sublimations of sexual activities, which are displayed e.g. as friendship.


However, phylogenetical development is not repeated in the ontological development of an individual organism of a societal species (at least I don't know of any proofs of that in any field), and therefore saying that an individual modifies and sublimates his or her sexual drive into friendship is a hasty generalization.
The individual does not invent patterns of modification and sublimation, it is likely that they are passed on genetically or with early socialization.

Gendanken :
Every form of ethic is based on man's need for acceptance.
Its this need to be accepted, to belong, to be with that I'm focused on and its not some antiquated tripe about immortality.
Seems you got it.
Indeed. Although I admit becoming lost in a chicken/egg quandary for a while. It seems that some are failing to grasp that the search for immortality only comes after the understanding of mortality, and that that knowledge only comes after the brain had developed significantly to begin with. Wanderer has attempted to explain this away by simply saying we "sense" things on an unconscious level.

I'm thinking a lot about Bonobos at the moment.

No, I like other forms of torture.
Don't you know?
Intimately. Though your technique and motive vary depending on the indvidual you are addressing, yes?

Wanderer :
The basis of all thought is survival; love is but a mechanism towards that end.

I once started a thread on this matter. I think I had titled it ‘Life and Death’, in which I tried to expand on the notion that what life is is simply a reaction to death and existence defines itself by its opposition to non-existence.
Life is the act of resisting death.
Sex, love, hate and all the emotions are but methods of achieving this.
Yes, but your self promotion has no place here. This thread was started by Gendanken, and is concerned with questioning the presumption that the brain developed independantly of such base concerns as sex.

Isn't that what I'm saying?
I’m pointing out that sex is relevant only because it is a biological answer to mortality, but as reason and logic come up with new alternatives [innovation, creation, understanding, power, invention] the sexual drive becomes a remnant of the past.
Procreation is the biological answer to mortality. Sex is merely the vehicle. And in spite of (because?) reason and logic have come up with alternatives, sex has not diminished in importance at all. Only procreation has, and only in those parts of the world where thought is more prevalent than others.

Since when did you become a spokesperson for gendanken? You quote her as if she’s some sort of deified expert.
That the brain evolved to facilitate is not a novel idea nor is it the creation of your goddess. It’s an obvious fact.
Do you possess your own voice?
Get a spine will you?
It’s getting disgusting.
Actually, I believe that prior to this post I quoted her once and you.. around four times. By this reasoning, it appears it is you I lust after and not her. I must admit, this has caused me some concern.
I'm sorry, Gendanken. It does appear wanderer has usurped you in my affections. The evidence is insurmountable. Can you ever forgive me?

Do have some insight or some answers to the rhetorical questions you pose or are they to be answered by gendanken?
I suggest you check the definition of "rhetorical", and then reconsider the above quote.
Oh dear. How many times have I quoted you now? My lust knows no bounds.
A/S/L?

Lastly :
Fenris, Fenris, Fenris has shown up before this, wearing an old disguise hoping thatit would hide him from me and explaining it with trite excuses.
He, perhaps, underestimates my perceptive abilities, still.
So be it.
Actually, I'm beginning to think I may have overestimated them.
A disguise? Tch tch.

Invert :
So, increased sexuality came from our intelligence? How do you explain the chimpanzee then? It fucks far more than us humans. Look at it's testicles. They're huge.

As to more humans having sex with each other. This is because intelligence has increased life span and decreased death rate. Intelligence is beating death. Slowly. Only the ascetic doesn't want to wait. The ascetic fools himself into believing that he is beating death on his own.
No, you're still thinking in terms of the modern human. Go back to where it all began - Our intelligence did not help us live longer at all.

As to the chimps :
Bonobos leave the chimpanzees dead in the water. Their society is also markedly different.

But no. You yourself clarified evolutionary principle not long ago in this very thread. That we came up with the intelligence to dream up concepts such as love, friendship or what have you was probably the result of a mutation at some point. The difference between human and animal intelligence is more marked in the capability to understand the abstract than the concrete. Humans became less migratory, more "social" in various guises. We didn't fuck more, those who understood such concepts merely had more opportunity to do so under the guise of whatever held the groups together. A "happy accident" for humanity.

So much to write, so little time.

Fenris Wolf
Intimately. Though your technique and motive vary depending on the indvidual you are addressing, yes?My, my, what clever little messages you exchange.
Let me be the tortured.

Yes, but your self promotion has no place here. This thread was started by Gendanken, and is concerned with questioning the presumption that the brain developed independantly of such base concerns as sex.It developed with the base concerns of survival.
Isn’t self-promotion an aspect of this?
But you are too above this base motivation to even perceive it in yourself.

Ah, reason forever denying its roots in the mud of the subconscious.

Little Fenris, do you think I buy into the delusions you use to comfort yourself with?

Procreation is the biological answer to mortality. Sex is merely the vehicle. And in spite of (because?) reason and logic have come up with alternatives, sex has not diminished in importance at all. Only procreation has, and only in those parts of the world where thought is more prevalent than others.Can you comprehend why the eradication of the sexual drive lags behind that of the eradication for the reproductive one?

No, I didn't think so.

Actually, I believe that prior to this post I quoted her once and you.. around four times. By this reasoning, it appears it is you I lust after and not her. I must admit, this has caused me some concern.
I'm sorry, Gendanken. It does appear wanderer has usurped you in my affections. The evidence is insurmountable. Can you ever forgive me? What witty little ways we use to spread inkblots on our trail.

Little Fenris, I didn’t comment on you quoting, your master and secret lust, but in how you place your interpretations of her opinions in place of your own and in how you come to her defense searching for a pat on the head and a flattering remark as a reward for your loyalty.
Haven’t you learned anything from your past experiences with me?

But even in your sarcasm you expose your affections. You actually use them as a vehicle to express them. :bugeye:
Little Wolfy.
How tame you are.
Do you seek her affections through grovelling?
You lose her respect instead and behind her kindness resides female scorn for all men that worship a female fallacy.
How little you understand human beings.

I suggest you check the definition of "rhetorical", and then reconsider the above quote.Oh this is precious, you teaching me the finer points of linguistic expression.

Let me check the Dictionary…….let’s see……rhapsody….rhesus….ahhhh, here it is….rhetorical: expressed so as to sound impressive ….rhetorical question: one used for dramatic effect, not seeking an answer.

Ok, and?
Oh dear. How many times have I quoted you now? My lust knows no bounds.
A/S/L? Why is it that you only appear in certain Threads and not other ones?

Actually, I'm beginning to think I may have overestimated them.Good, just the way I like it.

A disguise? Tch tch. Now we both know you weren’t aware that I knew about your multiple aliases, little Fenris.

Fenris:
Indeed. Although I admit becoming lost in a chicken/egg quandary for a while. It seems that some are failing to grasp that the search for immortality only comes after the understanding of mortality, and that that knowledge only comes after the brain had developed significantly to begin with. Wanderer has attempted to explain this away by simply saying we "sense" things on an unconscious level.

I'm thinking a lot about Bonobos at the moment.

The need to commune is older than the need to contemplate.
The reasonable “modern” being, however, debuts and segregates his position- no! My being drawn to others like some filthy mammal is a biological fear of death, its simply my genes harassing my mind to procreate.
So never mind that we are drawn to others by things like hate - for example, Wanderer has been dying to say this to me:

"Haven't you gotten tired of worshipers yet?
I mean, I’ve had my share and I know they can be good for the ego and the soul but I quickly grew weary of their predictability and repetitiveness.

You spent an entire summer under the Forum spotlight and the masses uttered your very alias with reverence; multiple threads were started in your name and you expressed mocked embarrassment and humility as they called for your return from exile.

Did you not tire of it? "

Muhahahahahahhaha.... gadfly, I want to swat it.
And never mind that we are drawn to others of like gender.
Never mind also that the foundations for ethics - normative and applied ethics- have as much to do with procreation as the Pentateuch.

We were, according to the reasonable mind that reasons so hygienically, philosophically in tune with mortality eons ago in our communes.
I can only imagine a world of AI's- all shacked up in their little corners too busy being reasonable to formulate a civilization. No sexual impulse transmuted into so many emotions in a rational being , no civilization.

In other words, I need a good fucking, Mr. Wolf. Satiate your goddess.

Blue_Uk:
With various agreed assumptions, the function of the brain is to increase reproductive success.

That is a very different thing from what the function of the mind is: It is a serious mistake in my thinking to deduce that because the brain's 'function' is to promote reproductive success, then the exact mechanics of the brain's product, our conciousness, is exactly that.

Our minds ultimately lead to greater reproductive success but there is almost certainly not one line of genetic brain 'code' that says "Do whatever it takes to ensure you pass on your genes". It takes a huge amount of calculation to ensure reproductive success. This not only includes selecting suitable partners but also protecting your young - and hence yourself.

Sex will be right up there, so to speak, but will not be the sole dominating factor behind our motivations.
You are way too busy hygienically separating mind from brain.
You come off as all “I”.

This was my problem.


Rosa:
Gendanken, is this what you are saying --
"The essence of organisms living together in a society is a modified and sublimated sexual activity." ?

Namely, non-societal organisms live together only when mating and parenting, while outside of that time, they are loners. While they are together, what is keeping them together is sexual activities and what is directly connected with that, ie. parenting.
No, more like the essence of a permanent organization made up of reasonable organisms.

There is absolutely no reason to war, for example- it is logically absurd.
I can count off a dozen logical solutions to war that philosophers have also contemplated.
Yet it remains……….. among rational beings.
Marx, for example, believed that men were drawn together economically. He very rationally attempted to keep men together but failed because of the ascetic methodology.
You need to manipulate the only things that cannot only draw reasonable beings together but keep them there in order for a human commune to thrive.
These things being those human qualities based on sexuality- emotions.


wanda:
I love how, as soon as you get miffed the pejorative wanda makes its appearance.
It’s part of your, oh so subtle ways.
Makes you special.

I'm sure that biting wit can come up with more clever ways to insult me than the old feminine approach.
Like saying you're a miserable wretch who despises both society and women oh so clumsily?
Where is the fun in that?
You're too special.

Some subtlety to chew on- how do I know why your replies have changed now that your better has debuted?
How do I know the miserable, resentful little bitch that you are?
How do I know?

Can you comprehend why the eradication of the sexual drive lags behind that of the eradication for the reproductive one?

No, I didn't think so.

Neither can you.

So?
Why does that matter?
Are you trying to prove you are my sister again?
‘Flies’ was a term coined by me during that spookz fiasco and, in this case it fails to accurately describe my actions.
No, you idiot.

Being civil with you was the perfect bait- it proves why you are here.
Now kindly remove the 'sister' and replace with 'chambermaid'

Little Fenris, I didn’t comment on you quoting, your master and secret lust, but in how you place your interpretations of her opinions in place of your own and in how you come to her defense searching for a pat on the head and a flattering remark as a reward for your loyalty.
Haven’t you learned anything from your past experiences with me?

But even in your sarcasm you expose your affections. You actually use them as a vehicle to express them.
Little Wolfy.
How tame you are.
Do you seek her affections through grovelling?
You lose her respect instead and behind her kindness resides female scorn for all men that worship a female fallacy.
How little you understand human beings.

Still at it, huh?

Tell me- do you have your pants down when you type about little Fenris groveling at my 'temple'?
Do you, like the ugly little boys in 3rd grade who can't stand seeing prettier little boys kissing girls, complain with your hands in your pockets?
You're a predictable little fly, my dear.
How little you understand human beings.

Edit:
And fly, my dear, was Nietszche's term.

gendanken
Muhahahahahahhaha.... gadfly, I want to swat it.
And never mind that we are drawn to others of like gender.
Never mind also that the foundations for ethics - normative and applied ethics- have as much to do with procreation as the Pentateuch.And what is procreation a response to, queen of the retards?
Muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Is this pronounced with an evil twist to it, meant to be menacing, or is it more sarcastic and mocking?
Very theatrical.
I like it.

Your ‘nobility’ humbles me, my queen.
You are royalty amongst beggars and I am but a simple beggar.

How could you tolerate human touch when it soils you and diminishes your personal space and idea of self-purity?
You touch but are never touched. It would defeat you.
There is a battery of tests that must be passed before the privilege of caressing your tender skin will be allowed.
Does your minion understand how you pity and disrespect him?
Or must the illusion be maintained so that your purposes are served?


In other words, I need a good fucking, Mr. Wolf. Satiate your goddess.You won’t have to ask that twice.

But aren’t you claiming that sex underlies all human interaction?
Of course you try to escape your own premises by claiming friendship is an ascetic response to it, so as to not give yourself away.

I claim that beneath sex lies the struggle against death and oblivion. That it is a response against the feelings of vulnerability and helplessness it forces upon the mind.

Morality? A socially binding mechanism beyond the instinctual one of emotion and with alternate motives.
But why be accepted within a group, why tolerate and be tolerated, why have shared goals and interests?
Survival. The struggle against death.
When a species is too weak to survive on its own, like man is, it groups it makes alliances.
What are alliances? Shared interests that often demand a sacrifice of personal ones.

Hate? A reaction to a threat or something that entails peril and degrades survivability.

Friendship between same sex individuals? Safety in numbers offering a safe environment.
There is always sexual tension between individuals, no matter their gender.

But what brings it forth? What causes it?
Sexual tension doesn’t always mean desire; it can mean domination, power, control, violence, hatred, compassion, tolerance, friendship, humility, respect.
:D

There is absolutely no reason to war, for example- it is logically absurd. Really? I can think of many logical reasons for war.

These things being those human qualities based on sexuality- emotions.Sexuality and emotions are the ways human beings bind themselves to each other and tolerate their diverse interests for the sake of common ones or the dominant one....survival!
Death forcing compromises on free-will, liberty, pride, self-interest.

Take away the fear of death and you get anti-social behaviour.
Place death at a distance, such as in youth, and you get rebellion.
Place death close by and you get communion, compassion, socialization, religion.

When humans are more vulnerable to death, such as in infancy and old age or when injured or sick, they become more tolerant, religious, social, compassionate, loving etc.

Since death cannot be escaped by an individual as a whole entity, the next best thing is to preserve the fundamental particles of an individual for eternity, through procreation and the passing on of genes or through the maintenance of the group with which we share genes.

Survival through surrogate means.

An omega wolf preserves its own genes by taking care of and protecting the packs young, with which it shares a genetic past.

Reason says: “This is not good enough. It is the ‘I’ that must be preserved. Damn the parts of me, damn the community of shared being, damn children.”

The search for power and control begins.
Society and anything that preaches selflessness becomes hateful; emotions and instinct become resented. Reason becomes god.

Like saying you're a miserable wretch who despises both society and women oh so clumsily?I no more despise women and men and society than you do.
That phrase coming from you, of all people, is quit funny.

I’m beginning to warm up to society now that I've given up trying to change it.

I’ve never hidden my misanthropy.
Are you doing it now?
:confused:

What's this:
The reasonable “modern” being, however, debuts and segregates his position- no! My being drawn to others like some filthy mammal is a biological fear of death, its simply my genes harassing my mind to procreate.
So much love there for your mammalian ancestry.
But why does that “filthy mammal” mind want to procreate? It may not be conscious of it but what draws it to such, sometimes, extreme ends and sacrifices and to such risks?

Some subtlety to chew on- how do I know why your replies have changed now that your better has debuted?
How do I know the miserable, resentful little bitch that you are?
How do I know?Because you see it in yourself.

That was subtle?!!
You can do better than that.

Go ahead, take another swing.

Being civil with you was the perfect bait- it proves why you are here.
Now kindly remove the 'sister' and replace with 'chambermaid'.The queen flexes her muscle.
How much you would like for the above to be true.

Tell me- do you have your pants down when you type about little Fenris groveling at my 'temple'?I thought that it was implied. :o

Do you, like the ugly little boys in 3rd grade who can't stand seeing prettier little boys kissing girls, complain with your hands in your pockets?No, looks were never my problem.
Shyness was.
But I'm getting over it.

I like the theatrical symbolisms you use, though.
Very feminine.

Edit:
And fly, my dear, was Nietszche's term.Was it?
In which book?

wanderer:
But aren’t you claiming that sex underlies all human interaction?
Of course you try to escape your own premises by claiming friendship is an ascetic response to it, so as to not give yourself away.
How quaint.
And simpleminded- latching on to a concept in order to maintain those cute vendettas of yours.
I do the same thing, little boy.

Never occurred to you I examined myself, huh? Still thinking "friendship", huh? Good.


I claim that beneath sex lies the struggle against death and oblivion. That it is a response against the feelings of vulnerability and helplessness it forces upon the mind.

Now, isn't this the same idiot that said this?:

"Oh, they like to pretend they are more than just animals or that they have risen above the mud, but watching them, as I have, over the years, is like watching a documentary on Chimps. All that hooting and hollering and creating a ruckus and underneath it all a basic need pulling the strings.
By the way everything is sexual…..everything!
Or is it that way only for me?!
Hmmmmm…………………………"

Of course, my little Wanda thinks about death when she's fantasizing.

Your ‘nobility’ humbles me, my queen.
You are royalty amongst beggars.

Said the bullfighter with his broken mirror.
OOhh.
By the way, this was funny:

"multiple threads were started in your name and you expressed mocked embarrassment and humility as they called for your return from exile. "

Goofyfish was, like, totally effective.

You touch but are never touched. It would defeat you.
Touched, but not by you, means not touched.
See?
This is why you're easy.

Hate? A reaction to a threat or something that entails peril and degrades survivability.
Now expand it.
Hate is also mitigated by a need to destroy.
Women, like you, neither threaten survivability nor entail peril yet inspire a need to eradicate.
And both neither know why.

Friendship between same sex individuals: Safety in numbers offering a safe environment.
There is always sexual tension between individuals, no matter their gender.
But what brings it forth? What causes it?
Sexual tension doesn’t always mean desire; it can mean domination, power, control, violence, hatred, compassion, tolerance, friendship, humility, respect.

And who thinks of sex as simple "desire"?
Those with the weakest grasp on humanity, usually found whispering sweet nothings- all tension is borne from emotion.
And all can be tied to sexuality.

Oh, but we're speaking of friendship right?
Any time one holds their impulses in check when confronted by mass is a value judgment placed on friendship- you can manipulate this all you like and say this happens everyday among humans contemplating their mortality when its easy to see that these very people are likelier to think about soaps than they are the perils of life, for one.
And would, like canines, devour themselves when alone. For two.
Do I see your point?
Of course I do- and its irrelevant to my thread.



Really? I can think of many logical reasons for war.

So can I.
So?

Sexuality and emotions are the ways human beings bind themselves to each other and tolerate their diverse interests for the sake of common ones or the dominant one....survival!
Get your head out of Fenris' colon and either think and read without being an insult to both arts.

Why are we here, you idiot? Survival?
Its idiotic to think that as organisms we're no longer concerned for it, but that is not the premise of this thread.

The queen flexes her muscle.
How much you would like for the above to be true.
I think you'd like it better than I would.
Strike one.

Because you see it in yourself.

'course it was subtle.
The tense you use, specifically in this sentence, is thrilling.

You won’t have to ask that twice.

I'll ask a hundred times, then.
This is getting…… boring.

Take a good swing this time, Simplicio. Right here, on my bare chest where the nipples show.
You know, to put me in my place and all.

*edit*
I no more despise women and men and society than you do.

Oooh.
The difference being that for you- if it wasn't for the pigsty, you'd have no reason to keep clean.

Disclaimer: if you clicked on this for tits or dicks or pics of chicks with jugs, go away



Eh. You are having a threesome here, only that it is a charade a trois. It's "tits, dicks and pics of chicks with jugs" ... only in prose. I mean, really. Huh. It's rather comical.

***

The look of love alarms,
Because it's fill'd with fire;
But the look of soft deceit
Shall win the lover's hire.


So help me Blake.

Tic-Tak-Toe and off we go..... :)

gendanken
Or should I refer to you as, Your Highness?
I’m bored so here goes, once again...majesty.

How quaint.
And simpleminded- latching on to a concept in order to maintain those cute vendettas of yours.
I do the same thing, little boy.Wait….did you just call yourself…simpleminded?

Never occurred to you I examined myself, huh? Still thinking "friendship", huh? Good.I never doubted that you examined yourself.
Everybody examines themselves to some extent.

I examined myself yesterday. :D

How accurate or precise they are, is another matter.

But, given the average, you do ok.

Now, isn't this the same idiot that said this?:

"Oh, they like to pretend they are more than just animals or that they have risen above the mud, but watching them, as I have, over the years, is like watching a documentary on Chimps. All that hooting and hollering and creating a ruckus and underneath it all a basic need pulling the strings.
By the way everything is sexual…..everything!
Or is it that way only for me?!
Hmmmmm…………………………"

Of course, my little Wanda thinks about death when she's fantasizing.Where’s the contradiction?! Where's the idiot?!
Oh wait, that's me...right?

I never said that sex isn’t a very dominant preoccupation.

I’ve just come to realize that there is something beneath it.
Something more fundamental, that sexuality is a product of.

Little hint about female defensive and offensive tactics:
They always involve sex.
Why?
It’s their only influence over men.

Here’s something I was thinking of posting in a new thread after some events in a thread called ‘Rosa’.
I originally decided against posting it because it would lead to obvious attacks, but what the hell, it’s fun.

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped,
and short-legged sex the fair sex; for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up.
More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.
Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity; if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please.
This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows.
Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. - Arthur Schopenhauer

And the battle of the sexes is sustained with another shot across the bow by the great curmudgeon himself.
Now, any man that knows what’s good for him will be wise to stay out of this fight and remain, safe and sound, on the sidelines of silence where no cutting female tongue can touch him.
But, being not too wise and in possession of a foolhardy demeanor that wishes to stir the vile waters of sexual relations which will, undoubtedly, result in much hypothesizing about my psychological makeup, as it is laid bear by all those finding offense in my opinions, I fearfully throw my tiny pebble into the murky depths… and I duck….

1. That women hold the scepter of sexual power, is not to be denied; it takes religious dogmatism and paternalistic force, to tear those powers from her hands.
In a sense, we can say that women reign supreme over matters of instinct but lag behind over matters of reason.

2. Many men go to great lengths to prove their genetic worth to and to garner sexual favors from, women.
No surprise then that most women have such a low opinion of most men, for in their need to become desirable, men often sacrifice pride, honor, dignity and sometimes risk life and limb in the process.
This sort of exuberant desire and risk taking may appear to be charming and attractive to the instinct, but to reason it appears foolish and garish.
A woman holds a much lower opinion of herself, than any man can, and so any form of desire, directed towards her, is taken as either hypocritical or overstated, making the males indulging in this type of behavior silly frauds.
In time, if the attentions and behaviors persist, a woman may begin to believe her own worth, as it is displayed in the desire of men, and she will demand a higher cost for her affections.

3. Even the most disciplined and powerful man will usually allow a woman to gain a temporary upper-hand, if this will eventually lead to a sexual encounter.
Men see it as a smal