A Woman Looks Back at her Life.

A Woman looks back at her Life.

I always wanted to have babies, ever since I can remember. As a toddler I wanted a doll to simulate a baby, and subsequently I asked for (and was given, as a birthday present) a stroller into which I could place my “baby” and care for it (as I would my child, when that would happen.

Those who militate against “gender warping” by categorising the types of toys which are given to male and female children. These are the peculiar outliers at the far extremes of the bell curve. Perculiar might not be a strong enough word. They are pathological, and represent a hazard to the structure of societies. Indeed, by adopting those extreme and curious views, these people designate themselves as aberrant humans, who have no place to dictate their perverse views.

As a young girl I early recognised the need to attract males, or perhaps better, to ensure males were attracted by me. In my early teens, about the time of menarche, I became a “mall rat”. These were little shoals of girls of similar age (and similar aims) who collected in shopping malls (which were crowded on Friday nights) to give ourselves best exposure to youthful males.

We knew early, perhaps intuitively, perhaps by meme, that these youths would become fertile males. In the words made famous in “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”, “The want to stick their thingies into you”. “Why?” some girls asked, but I knew. Was that instinctive?

I later learned that males are designed as inseminating machines. Whatever the outward cloak, their purpose was to inseminate fecund females. That was, and is, the way it is. Accept it.

I masturbated every night before sleeping from an early age. My first sexual encounter was a “cold turkey” affair, with the resident in the next apartment after my first degree. We had spoken several times about sex (and I think it was his first time also), so he bought a condom and it was all very clinical. No romance, but pleasurable.

During my second degree I worked as a prostitute for a relatively short time, out of a “brothel”. Officially I was an escort, since no sex was allowed on the premises.  That meant that I would go on a “date” with the man, and to a restaurant. That I enjoyed much as it was glamorous, and a novelty for someone (like me) with a small-town background. But then we would go to the man’s apartment or a hotel for the sex. I did not like that, as I felt vulnerable. The money helped me through the second degree at university. This was not uncommon, even for women in established relationships, including marriage. It was regarded them as harmless, inconsequential “moonlighting”.

The contract therefore became “sex was made available in return for a meal ticket for the woman and any children resulting from that sex”. This makes it difficult to understand the concept of “marital rape”. Physical abuse, torture or painful assault is, of course, an entirely different matter, prosecuted in terms of other law.

Some women, now in the age of reliable contraception, allow “test drive” sex on both an occasional and a long term basis.

Of course, as is always the case with biology, there are a myriad of tempering counter-currents. A male is unlikely to move to (and seduce) other women without restraint.  If he is attracted to, and likes and cares for, a particular woman, and if she gives him sexual pleasure regularly and predictably, he will stay with her. If she bears his children then physiological changes will occur in him, and that will further constrain him (These changes have been demonstrated). This type of male (and not all are this type) will endeavour to provide for this family, and commit himself, lifelong, to this endeavour. Should he invest heavily in infrastructure (mostly the case) he will have a vested interest in maintaining his place with the family.

I wanted a husband to do this, provide for his family, whilst I also provided for him. I would allow him to have sex with me, more or less on demand, and I would run the household, feed and clothe him and the children. He would go out and work. Even if I did not feel like sex, he could use me as a repository for semen (perhaps needing lubrication). That was part of the deal.

So I selected a husband. Make no mistake; it is the women who select the male (whatever the rituals deny). At times women have bought their way in with a dowry.

The man is expected to make the first  ”move” to indicate his desire for physical (and sexual) contact. It is therefore the male who shoulders the risk of rejection and the associated humiliation. The woman might play a reciprocating game of allure-rejection-encouragement-rejection (the “stop it I like it” game) [Harvey Weinstein, you are not unusual or abnormal! Those women disliked your power, and wanted to claw some of it out of you, and humiliate you. They all had an exit strategy open to them, which they chose not to use, because that believed that they had sufficient manipulating skills. They brought their humiliation upon themselves. They should be scorned]

It is not all that it seems, though. An accepted ritual is for the male to invite the female on a “date”, conventionally to eat with him (or his family). This can be interpreted as proving that the male can provide food for a mate. Naturally it gives both the chance to appraise “table manners”. Does he grab it all? Does she order the most expensive item? How does he treat the waiter?

My husband was ordinary. OK, he was kind and gentle (what more could I ask?), but never outstanding. I knew most women would settle for the “ordinary / average”. It has to be that way. Yes, I grieved when he died, but that always happens. Grief is a universal emotion. In the same way, almost all women and men succeed in finding a mate. That is based primarily on their age, with perhaps a minor aspect of attraction, being symmetrical and the absence of observable disease. To that end, humans inherently have a highly developed capacity to judge age.

What restrains marital relationships, and keeps them in place?  In time past it was society. Any breach of the “proper” was condemned and social disapproval was a sufficient disincentive aglifainst any union breaking up. Weddings played an important role, since the entire community (usually) was invited to witness the vows of the marital couple, and carry the memory of that, and the concurrent duty to abide by those vows, forward throughout the life of the couple.

However, that was disrupted with the breakdown of societal strength. In part this was the anonymity of urbanization. At that point the lawyers began to capitalise, and ultimately all control marital unity was encompassed and held by the law, and their monopolist protected lawyers. In making it a profitable industry for themselves, lawyers devised means of making divorce profitable for the wife (or ex-wife). Constructs such as “the ex-wife must live in the fashion to which she was accustomed” became entrenched. Thus yet another (potential) restrain on marital dissolution was not only removed, but reversed. There is no logic associated with that, only emotion. It is certainly not conducive to later family harmony. In parallel, the division between male custody and female custody was widened, sinc this gave the female further monetary leverage (and of course legal fees were ramped up, both because the “reward” of divorce was increased, but because ongoing, stuttering legal actions were given grounds in law. In any event the economics of marital union survival do not allow that. In time past the economic stress on the marital union was recognised by society, and a number of “allowances” were generated and offered by society. These took the form of rebates on taxation, and similar. However when socialistic politics arrived, and “industrialised compassion” pervaded, that opened the door for many to “suck the system”. Gays clamored for the same “marital” (economic) rights – originally designed to help support the young, breeding, couple.

I often have heard women say “I want to do something important. I do not want to be just a baby making machine.”  Really? What could be more important, more miraculous than creating a new human? What could be more important than perpetuating your race and culture? What greater achievement than extending the human species for another generation?

What they are saying is that they want money, and that money is more important than everything else.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Woman Looks Back at her Life.

I always wanted to have babies, ever since I can remember. As a toddler I wanted a doll to simulate a baby, and subsequently I asked for (and was given, as a birthday present) a stroller into which I could place my “baby” and care for it (as I would my child, when that would happen.

Those who militate against “gender warping” by categorising the types of toys which are given to male and female children are the peculiar outliers at the far extremes of the bell curve. Perculiar might not be a strong enough word. They are pathological, and represent a hazard to the structure of societies. Indeed, by adopting those extreme and curious views, these people designate themselves as aberrant humans, who have no place to dictate their perverse views.

As a young girl I early recognised the need to attract males, or perhaps better, to ensure males were attracted by me. In my early teens, about the time of menarche, I became a “mall rat”. These were little shoals of girls of similar age (and similar aims) who collected in shopping malls (which were crowded on Friday nights) to give ourselves contact with, and put ourselves on the best exposure to youthful males.

We knew early, perhaps intuitively, perhaps by meme, that these youths would become fertile males. In the words made famous in “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”, “The want to stick their thingies into you”. “Why?” some girls asked, but I knew. Was that instinctive?

I later learned that males are designed as inseminating machines. Whatever the outward cloak, their purpose was to inseminate fecund females. That was, and is, the way it is. Accept it.

I masturbated every night before sleeping from an early age. My first sexual encounter was a “cold turkey” affair, with the resident in the next apartment, after my first degree. We had spoken several times about sex (and I think it was his first time also), so he bought a condom and it was all very clinical. No romance, but pleasurable.

During my second degree I worked as a prostitute for a relatively short time, out of a “brothel”. Officially I was an escort, since no sex was allowed on the premises.  That meant that I would go on a “date” with the man, and to a restaurant. That I enjoyed much as it was glamorous, and a novelty for someone (like me) with a small-town background. But then we would go to the man’s apartment or a hotel for the sex. I did not like that, as I felt vulnerable. The money helped me through the second degree at university. This was not uncommon, even for women in established relationships, including marriage. It was regarded by them as harmless, inconsequential “moonlighting”.

The marriage contract therefore became (to me) “Sex was made available to the man in return for a meal ticket for the woman and any children resulting from that sex”. This makes it difficult for me to understand the concept of “marital rape”. Physical abuse, torture or painful assault is, of course, an entirely different matter, prosecuteable in terms of other laws.

Of course, as is always the case with biology, there are a myriad of tempering counter-currents. A male is unlikely to move to (and seduce) other women without restraint if he is attracted to, and likes and cares for a particular woman, and if she gives him sexual pleasure regularly and predictably, he will stay with her. If she bears his children then physiological changes will occur in him, and that will further constrain him (These changes have been demonstrated by scientists). This type of male (Most, but not all are this type) will endeavour to provide for this family, and commit himself, lifelong, to this endeavour. Should he invest heavily in infrastructure – including a home – (mostly the case) he will have a vested interest in maintaining his place with the family.

I wanted a husband to do this, provide for his family, whilst I provided a household for him. I would allow him to have sex with me, more or less on demand, run the household, feed and clothe him and the children. He would go out and work. Even if I did not feel like sex, he could use me as a repository for semen (perhaps needing tube lubrication). That was part of the deal.

So I selected a husband. Make no mistake; it is the women who select the male (whatever the rituals deny). At times women have bought their way in with a dowry.

It is not all that it seems, though. An accepted ritual is for the male to invite the female on a “date”, conventionally to eat with him (or his family). This can be interpreted as proving that the male can provide food for a mate. Naturally it gives both the chance to appraise “table manners”. Does he grab it all? Does she order the most expensive item? How does he treat the waiter?

The man is expected to make the first  ”move” to indicate his desire for physical (and sexual) contact. It is therefore the male who shoulders the risk of rejection and the associated humiliation. The woman might play a reciprocating game of allure-rejection-encouragement-rejection (the “stop it I like it” game) [Harvey Weinstein, you are not unusual or abnormal! Those women disliked your power, and wanted to claw some of it out of you, and humiliate you. They all had an exit strategy open to them, which they chose not to use, because that believed that they had sufficient manipulating skills. They brought their humiliation upon themselves. They should be scorned]

My husband was ordinary. OK, he was kind and gentle (what more could I ask?), but never outstanding. I knew most women would settle for the “ordinary / average”. It has to be that way. Yes, I grieved when he died, but that always happens. Grief is a universal emotion. In the same way, almost all women and men succeed in finding a mate. That initial attraction is based primarily on their age, with perhaps other minor aspects of attraction, such as being symmetrical and the absence of observable disease. To that end, humans inherently have a highly developed capacity to judge age. The belief that male selection of females contrubutes to “evolutionary selection” is probablyhooeee.

What else restrains marital relationships, and keeps them in place?  In time past it was society. Any breach of the “proper” was condemned and social disapproval was a sufficient disincentive against any union breaking up. Weddings played an important role, since the entire community (usually) was invited to witness the vows of the marital couple, and carry the memory of that, and the concurrent duty to abide by those vows, forward throughout the life of the couple.

However, that was disrupted with the breakdown of societal strength. In part this was the anonymity of urbanization. At that point the lawyers began to capitalise, and ultimately all control of marital unity was encompassed and held by the law, and their monopolist protected lawyers. In making it a profitable industry for themselves, lawyers devised means of making divorce profitable for the wife (or ex-wife). Constructs such as “the ex-wife must live in the fashion to which she was accustomed” became entrenched. Thus yet another (potential) restrain on marital dissolution was not only removed, but reversed. There is no logic associated with that, only emotion. It is certainly not conducive to later family harmony. In parallel, the division between male custody and female custody was widened, since this gave the female further monetary leverage (and of course legal fees were ramped up, both because the “reward” of divorce was increased, but because ongoing, stuttering legal actions were given grounds in law.) In any event the economics of marital union survival do not allow for this disparity in benefit.

In time past the economic stress on the marital union was recognised by society, and a number of “allowances” were generated and offered by society. These took the form of rebates on taxation, and similar. However when socialistic politics arrived, and “industrialised compassion” pervaded, that opened the door for many to “suck the system”. Gays clamored for the same “marital” (economic) rights – originally designed to help support the young, breeding, couple.

I often have heard women say “I want to do something important. I do not want to be just a baby making machine.”  Really? What could be more important, more miraculous than creating a new human? What could be more important than perpetuating your race and culture? What greater achievement than extending the human species for another generation?

What they are saying is that they want money, and that money is more important than all else.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Misnaming and misunderstanding.

 

Many terms develop to become derogatory, despite originating with a benign meaning.

Thus some terms transmogrify to become catagorised as “vile” or “despicable” and many other deprecating terms. This reflects the common human heuristic (a short cut), demonstrating the inability to quantify within a spectrum. Humans rely upon “binary” neurology. Therefore the instant (emotional) categorization (heuristic) is either “good” or “bad”, “desirable” or “undesirable”, “repulsive” or “attractive”.

Where a spectrum is presented, new and specific words are evolved to demarcate each position on the spectrum as a distinct entity: This is illustrated in the colour spectrum, where a multitude of words have been evolved to describe each component of that spectrum.

What if this wording goes wrong? What if the wrong word is accepted as valid?

In orthopaedic surgery, in relation to the descriptions of the commonest deformity suffered by humans, such a misnomer is universally accepted, which has allowed an incorrect concept to evolve. Subsequently a plethora of incorrect surgical procedures have been invoked and inflicted upon an un-suspecting public.

That word is “metatarsal” when it is (incorrectly) applied to the longest bone supporting the great toe. That bone is, correctly, a phalanx. Thus the (human) great toe has  – like all the other toes  and fingers  – three phalanges. What determines the correct appellation? Many bones have characteristic sites of the “growth plates”, seen only in the growing bone.  In the phalanges that growth plate is “proximal” that is towards the head. In the metatarsal it is “peripheral”, that is away from the head.

http://www.fpnotebook.com/_media/orthoLegFootOssificationCentersGrayBB289.gif

Therefore the great toe, correctly, has three phalanges.  The true metatarsal is reduced to become the short “medial cuneiform”.  Such changes might be related to the evolution of an “opposable” first ray in both the hand and the foot (as an atavistic expression in the foot). This is an important concept because the commonest deformity of the great toe exactly emulates the (similar) deformity in the second toe, which is named “clawing” in the lesser toes (if untreated that might become a “hammer toe”).

Thus the cause of this deformity of the great toe duplicates exactly the cause of a “clawed” second toe. Consequently the appropriate treatment of the great toe deformity should duplicate the treatment of a “clawed” lesser toe.

Hallux valgus (and “metatarsus primus varus”, another fallacious term) recurs, following “conventional” surgery. This has spawned a number of scientific papers addressing the question “Does excessive laxity of the ‘metatarso-cuneiform joint’ predispose to recurrence of the condition?”. This is fatuous, since the anatomy of that joint has no bearing on the cause of the pathology. That joint only has a bearing on the “Hallux Paradox” (see elsewhere)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Patrimony

Patrimony “inherited from father”, i.e. the assumption is that the father creates wealth which is transmitted down the generations. This word does not fully encompass the concept which will be described below. In this sense it means that fraction of a nation which is shared among the population. To illustrate further, the sum total “wealth” of a nation can be assumed to belong, as the appropriate fraction, to every member of that national community. It is vaguely understood is some contexts. Thus the scenery is spoken of as “our beautiful land”. But it goes further – there is a “commonwealth’. This is that portion of the agriculture, the fisheries, industries, services, within a land which can be considered to belong – in the appropriate fraction – to each “citizen”. Of course it cannot be claimed directly by each citizen. Except in a few isolate circumstances such as a “commonage”, or (in English law) right of passage. But it is available as “drop down”. Thus the inhabitants of a wealthy country tend to be wealthy, benefiting from the affluence of the rest of the community.

Other factors abut on the residents of a given nation (or sub-section of that nation), such as the compassion, charitibility, and generosity of that community. Also included is the “filiality” of the community (the extent to which (most) feel an allegiance to their fellows, and are prepared to act as their “brother’s keeper”). This varies with community, and it is likely that the smaller the community, so the greater is this filial concern. [It is noteworthy that as populations condense, so the need to assert “individuality” increases. That is to say individuals projects their needs as individuals over (and in competition with) the needs of the community. Ultimately the individual competes against the state in an attempt to extract maximally from that state.]

This is the “patrimony” inherited by dint of the existence, and approval of that existence, by the community. It is valuable, and guarded by the community – at times by physical isolation, such as in an island or by building fortified walls about the community. It is a value not easily dispensed or sacrificed by most communities.

This “protection” of the “laggard” is demonstrated in many social animal communities.

What the immigrant does is to dilute the “patrimony” by that fraction represented by an individual, or multiplied by the size of that alien intrusion.

Approval.  This is the binding agent of societies. Each individual seeks approval, by controlling (inhibiting) behaviour to accord with the expectations of, and the approval of, that society. The precise strategies will vary with the society, its culture, and the threats to that society.

In this context “politeness” warrants introduction. What is politeness? It is suggested that this is a behavioral pattern which “recognizes that a system of behavior is in place”. The entire system might not be understood, at least initially. Once it is understood – or partly understood – the participants in this behavioral pattern will rapidly assert their social” rights”. That enhances and reinforces the behavioral patterns, and has the sub-purpose of demonstrating the existence of a behavioral pattern to the novice. To illustrate: a newcomer to a church congregation will demonstrate “politeness” by keeping voice down (which serves to establish that “he” is not assertively intruding, and probably accepts a seat to the back, behind the “established” congregation (which members of that congregation will readily demonstrate by the confidence with which they occupy “their” place in the chancel.)

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Language | Tagged | Leave a comment

Pleasure, Happiness and Comfort

Large regions of the brain have recently been mapped and labeled as “centers of pleasure”[1]

Happiness, however, appears to be an emotion which is recognised retrospectively. It is preceded by “pleasure” the complex result of an interpretation by the brain of external factors received through the conscious senses. These (essentially binary) imputs are selectively amplified (as described in an earlier post).

Pleasure at this introductory stage is interpreted in terms of those (selectively amplified) external factors, which become symbols or tokens of “pleasure”. That association remains identified with the source, so that sexual pleasure (for example) is associated with a particular female. This has a “lock-in” effect and ties the male psychologically to that female.

“Happiness” is then the reterospective appraisal, as stored in memory.

In a similar way, food which appeals is associated with pleasure and is thereafter sought preferentially.

Similar mechanisms can be associated with “comfort”, such as an environment offering shelter, warmth and protection. That entity is then sought selectively in a search for the pleasure of “comfort”.

“Reward” can be considered the satisfaction of fulfilling expectation.

[1] Richard L. Peterson, M.D.

Collaborating Researcher, Stanford University

Managing Partner, Market Psychology Consulting

San Francisco, CA , USA

Telephone:  415.267.4880

Email:  richard@peterson.net

Last updated January 3, 2005

Published in: Brain Research Bulletin

 

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Sex and Society | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do Humans Dominate the Earth?

It has been frequently pondered why humans have become the dominating animal species. Amongst the answers which have been punted are the human capacity to use hands, the “reasoning” which allow the use of instruments and the “superior intellectual capability”.

It is probably none of those.

An alternative explanation is the human capacity for mobility, in a fashion unequalled by most other animals. The mobility of most animals is usually contained and constrained by particular habitats. Humans, distinctly, have had the capacity to adapt to, and hence travel into (and through) multiple habitats. This capacity, like all biological qualities, demands multi-factorial capabilities and is the end result of a combination of capabilities, of which adaptability is probably predominant.

Why travel? A variety of social behaviour is associated with the capacity (or necessity) for travel. One of which is the tendency for large communities to break  up into smaller communities which, like hiving bees, will spread into other territories and so correct the congestion and overcrowding of excessively large communities (and the potentials for conflict which will arise in crowded, disparate, and hence competitive communities ).

This capacity for and need to migrate has clearly played an important part in the domination of the Earth by humans.

Fragmenting of social groups into social strata appears have both beneficial and negative effect historically. However, factors such as avarice, jealousy and acquisitiveness produced tensions within a heterogeneous community. The resulting stress, caused by this “evolving” behaviour, prompts the need to “migrate”.

Needless to say the search for resources or acceptable climates also plays a part in prompting travel.

 

Bipedalism might play a part, making it possible to traverse “uneven territory”, (including the climbing of mountains and trees) more readily. The concentration of muscle bulk in the lower limbs made for a greater weight efficiency (and hence the greater energy efficiency). The grasping ability of the hands and relatively light weight of humans enabled climbing trees, of mountains and the transportation of acquisitions – including food, weapons and other humans – such as babies.

Vertical adaptation. This allows bipedalism. Adjunctive to the vertical behaviour became the necessity to protect against falling (failsafe falling) and complex protective mechanisms of energy dissipation necessitated by both running and jumping from heights. In particular, such mechanisms of energy dissipation protect the brain from jolting, direct impact, and other assaults (such as falls or striking the head). The vertical stance had other benefits, including the capacity to survey surrounding territory both for travel direction and the avoidance of hostile factors (including other humans). It enabled reaching for “higher fruit”

Energy acquisition and transportation. The human is (and during migration was) able to carry efficiently sufficient reserve energy, both in terms of fat distribution and gut content.

The gut as a reservoir. This reservoir capability allowed retention of excreta until disposed of by discreet selection of the site of deposition. This had the advantage of preventing the “trailing” of the human by smelling animals and also the benefit of reducing transmissible disease. Indeed, if it were only possible to ensure that disposal of excreta was prevented from contamination of utilisable water a number of diseases would be entirely eliminated – including schistosomiasis.

Adaptation to new terrain and differing contexts required the evolution of “conscious” sensors and commonly quoted are the “five conscious senses”. This allowed an incorporation into, and harmonizing with, new biological environments.

Sensory input. In order to adapt to new environments, the capacity to perceive the variations of environments required sophisticated sensory skills. A common belief is that humans have “all encompassing “skills of perception, which allow humans to have a “total view of their environment”, and stemming from that the assumption that humans (in concert) either “know all” or “will know all” (via “science”, exploration or “evolution”)

Sensory blindness.  However there are a great number of sensors operative in the human which are not consciously perceived: For example, the sense of gravity, which is only partially perceived. It is possible for humans to perceive some of the effects of gravity, upon which balance is made possible. This is imperative, since the human is primarily a balancing machine – a human who cannot balance is totally incapacitated (and more impaired than a tetraplegic). However, much of the sense of gravity is not consciously perceivable, such as the atmospheric pressure. This is often explained as “we are so used to the crush of atmospheric pressure that we do not notice it”. However if the pressure is substantially reduced (by ascending altitude) to the point of anoxia, the human is incapable of perceiving that change. in much the same way the human is incapable of perceiving ( consciously) changes in blood pressure and heart rate, although these are actively and finely measured forms of sensory input, which are constantly operative (but without conscious perception).

Re-sampling of movement (both relative and absolute) is a highly developed capability of humans, whereby the inputs from “conscious senses” (notably visual) are reassessed repeatedly. That allows enhanced movement skills, such as catching or orientation in space. This capacity seems to be more developed in some individuals – such a successful racing drivers – and less so in others.

 Pregnancy. Verticality necessitated adaptation of pregnancy and parturition to travel, primary expressed by changes in the pelvis. This allowed support of the fetus by a bony structure. Nevertheless, this bony structure was so adapted as to allow delivery of the mature infant through the pelvis.

Food. Adaptation to new environments, as is necessitated by travel, requires adaptation to new forms of nutrition. Humans have the capacity to adapt to a wide variety of foodstuffs, probably associated with changes in their metabolic pathways. It might be that many of these alterations to metabolic pathways occurred early in life, perhaps within the first year of feeding. It is also possible that these metabolic pathways are changed with ageing. This results in factors such as the redistribution of fat, allowing, amongst other reasons, the capacity to perceive the changes of ageing – so important in mate selection.

 Language. Confluent with the ability to travel probably arose the ability to verbally distinguish “like kindred” from “aliens”. This took the form of divergent languages and dialects (which continue to play an important part in both the identification and the separation of humans.)

Assessing cause and effect. A factor assisting adaptation to new environments seems to have been the capacity to assess cause and effect. In the process of adapting to new environments and contexts, that capacity became important, along with its associate, memory. Memory enables the human animal to both recall and predict the cause-and-effect relationship discerned previously by the “conscious senses”.

 

This desire to “migrate” is now constrained by the shackles of “capitalist behaviour”.  One result is accumulation of humans into restricted areas (such as cities).

However, those urges to migrate (said another way, to move from restrictive environments, caused by behavioural evolution) are now demonstrated by dissident groups forced to accumulate into city squares and other open spaces, as “protests”. Those groups represent (what should be) the “hiving” humans, who in times past would simply move away from the “mother group”.  That is now impossible, because of “capitalist constraint”

What is “capitalist constraint”? This is the “lock-in” effect of capitalism (and for capitalism read “possessivisim”, the dependence on material possessions). Thus the “worker”, in order to accumulate “money” must be restricted to a work-place, and similarly the children are restricted to a “school-place”, and movement must be restricted to a “transport network”. An alternate term could be “commercial bondage”.

Such crowded communities will evolve local “clans” and the contestation between these factions.

Spontaneous migration is therefore near impossible. If it does occur (as demonstrated by “asylum seekers”,) reaction from the inhabitants of the “host area” is unlikely to be favourable. Expressing this is the historical defense of occupied areas, in the past by physical barriers, now by that and additional bureaucratic barriers.

What does the brain do, and why is it so big?

It creates emotions which are essential for the adaptation to novel environments.

Emotions can be considered the end result of all neurological sensory acquisition. Emotions calibrate the sensory inputs, provide an amplifying (and of course diminishing) process, which modifies, and enhances the (simple) binary input from each of the “five conscious senses”.

The complex assembly of interpretations, which are expressed as the “emotions”, arises from the integration of multiple sensory experiences, which (amongst other features) incorporates the “learning” contributed by memory. It also incorporates – and so includes – the “hard wired” intuitive, in order to produce a more emphatic response (from any assessments of the immediate context.)  It appears that the entire complexity of the brain has as it goal the construction of “emotions”.

The memory component of “emotions” and various pattern recognising skills necessary for the construction of emotional interpretation can also be used to develop complex mathematic and other “creational” skills.

Language is an important contributor to “emotion”, because it can (also) be used as a tool for interpreting the environment. There are examples, which illustrate this, in comparative biology. One is demonstrated in the development of the new-born zebra. This neonate learns, almost immediately, to recognise (and never forget) its mother’s stripe pattern – with the obvious survival benefit.

So it is with humans, which develop complex language skills far earlier than other complex skills. Even the complex skill of walking independently is learned later than early language

See separate essays on the emotions as they pertain to sexuality and successful reproduction. This is associated with the fecundity necessary to compensate for the attrition associated with travel and adaptation to new environments and climates.

Copyright JP Driver-Jowitt 2017

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Language, Sex and Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The weapons of manipulating moral righteousness, avarice, jealousy and acquisitiveness.

Moral righteousness is a meme. That is a behavioural attitude which can spread through a society influencing decisions and allowing evaluation both “negative” and “positive”.

Moral righteousness is probably impossible to define. However, it has the effect of conjoining human behaviour and therefore is important in the unification of society and a unity of behaviour.

It is, however, possible to use “moral righteousness“  in a nefarious fashion via “propaganda”. [It might be that it is required that there is a certain minimal loading of this type of meme before it becomes self-generating and universal.] The analogy with”viral” information spread via social media is pertinent: the spread of a contrived “moral rectitude” can be illustrated by this comparison.

At times it might be a single word which becomes associated with abhorrence or will induce abhorrence, under the guise of “moral rectitude”. One was the term “apartheid” which was powerfully injected into the human social consciousness of the West. This might have been an instrument of Communist propaganda, since it followed the well-known strategies of used by Communists. It might equally well have been used by other interest groups intent on destabilising Africa. Perhaps both existed simultaneously.

Jealousy, avarice and acquisitiveness appear to be part of the human “competitive” quality. These behavioural patterns are likely to have survival benefits for the individual. However, the elements of individual survival often run contrary to those of societal benefit (and survival) in a finely tuned “balance of interests”.

Therefore, in agglomerated societies the inhibition of avarice, acquisitiveness, and jealousy are desirable societal qualities.

Christianity is only one example of the doctrine of inhibition of qualities (which are inherent in the individual) but which are adverse to societal integrity. These facets of the individual’s inherent make up seem to be readily perverted by appropriate propaganda. It is this propaganda which has been used forcefully to introduce the (nebulous) “social righteousness” of “anti-money-laundering” and “anti- drug monitoring”.

In this way it is possible to induce entire populations into a (financial) behavioural pattern, luring and placating individuals as they succumb to the bait, which allows worldwide hegemony of finances and worldwide control of monetary systems.

There appears to be only one route available to defeat such supranational control by using the weapons of “moral righteousness”. That is the fragmentation of societies into relatively small groups, in which the group protects itself by strongly promoting the interests of the group and rejecting (and becoming aware of) these attempts at universal supranational control.

There do appear to be some indications of a stirring of discomfort, in the “nationalist” movements of a number of groups, notably the language groups which includes the Basque, Catalonians and Celtic language groups. Israel is a similar example, defined by its unique language, Hebrew. Several nations have already devolved, such as Czechoslovakia (into language groups), Yugoslavia, East Timor and Britain.

More will surely follow.

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment