It is my judgment that my fundamental difference with Homo sapiens, the nature of which has brought about the current economic malaise around the world, is in my way with making marks on paper. It is therefore only possible to advance economically for Homo sapiens if it moves to understand my way and to incorporate it into Homo sapiens' own ways, possibly leading to a new species if it means that only certain units of the species are able to adapt in this.
The economic malaise results from my ways because they create a one person versus the species eccentricity with regard to the animate stability that formerly was some type of normal distribution around all individuals.
I suppose it depends what kind of trajectory this message takes within Homo sapiens, just what adaptive effects occur. As a document, it actually is secondary because it is not marks on paper and cannot incorporate directly my most original work. But if adaptation is possible, some accommodations to Homo sapiens ways will surely be a part of it. And so I offer these lines of guidance.
Showing posts with label homo sapiens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homo sapiens. Show all posts
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Monday, August 3, 2009
on homosexual policy
The purpose of my policy regarding homosexuals is not to punish them. I am not a believer in retribution. The policy of a death penalty for the first offense of a homosexual having contact with children is a measure of discouragement from that conduct, not punishment. Under this policy it is necessary to strengthen the provisions for individual rights of homosexuals--the prohibition of discrimination primarily. Gay bashing is contrary to a solution to the problem posed by homosexuality. I suspect it is done only because no prior policy based on understanding of both the crisis and the poignancy of homosexuality has existed.
The distinction between individual rights and mating rights is critical. Under my policy, which may or may not be endorsed by the ruling elite of the United States, homosexuals will get no mating rights, none whatsoever. This means not only that they cannot marry, but that public displays of affection, which is a de facto mating right rather than an individual right, is prohibited to them. It is my interpretation that the rights of consenting adults in private, which allow homosexuals to conduct their sexual affairs, are an extension of individual rights and are not actually mating rights. The right to take a coupling anywhere in society, as certified and regulated by marriage, is a mating right, and it is not to be extended to homosexuals. This is a deviation from present laws and will not be easy to achieve in actual manifestation.
Homo sapiens is a compassionate species. This is why leniency with homosexuals is currently a winning proposition. Compassion will yield to understanding when understanding reaches a state of greater persuasiveness than compassion. Understanding and compassion are both eonic processes and both their effects, including leniency for homosexuals, are to be respected. I believe the transition from leniency for to elimination of homosexuality will be similar to the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Great weight is enjoyed by the forces lenient to homosexuality, just as it was enjoyed by the church on the matter of the earth being universally accepted as the center of the universe. Only time will tell whether the crisis of homosexuality is to get equal attention as does its poignancy.
The distinction between individual rights and mating rights is critical. Under my policy, which may or may not be endorsed by the ruling elite of the United States, homosexuals will get no mating rights, none whatsoever. This means not only that they cannot marry, but that public displays of affection, which is a de facto mating right rather than an individual right, is prohibited to them. It is my interpretation that the rights of consenting adults in private, which allow homosexuals to conduct their sexual affairs, are an extension of individual rights and are not actually mating rights. The right to take a coupling anywhere in society, as certified and regulated by marriage, is a mating right, and it is not to be extended to homosexuals. This is a deviation from present laws and will not be easy to achieve in actual manifestation.
Homo sapiens is a compassionate species. This is why leniency with homosexuals is currently a winning proposition. Compassion will yield to understanding when understanding reaches a state of greater persuasiveness than compassion. Understanding and compassion are both eonic processes and both their effects, including leniency for homosexuals, are to be respected. I believe the transition from leniency for to elimination of homosexuality will be similar to the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Great weight is enjoyed by the forces lenient to homosexuality, just as it was enjoyed by the church on the matter of the earth being universally accepted as the center of the universe. Only time will tell whether the crisis of homosexuality is to get equal attention as does its poignancy.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Crystal's deadline--in two weeks
My nursing home has refused to let me enter the discussion of my girlfriend Crystal's restriction from leaving the facility. She seems to be the victim of stigma of being mentally ill. I would help her fight the stigma if they would let me enter the discussion but they won't. I have consequently told Crystal that if she is not able to win the argument she and I have no future. I have given her 2 weeks, and after that if she hasn't gotten them to admit she is right that she did nothing wrong then i'm calling it quits with her.
This is very troubling. If I fail with Crystal then what hope for me is there with a normal girl? At least the mentally ill have distance from the species. the normal do not and will consequently be even more difficult to fit into my plans for a new species. Homo sapiens are saturated with commitment to the grip of homo sapiens on real estate. It may come to war.
This is very troubling. If I fail with Crystal then what hope for me is there with a normal girl? At least the mentally ill have distance from the species. the normal do not and will consequently be even more difficult to fit into my plans for a new species. Homo sapiens are saturated with commitment to the grip of homo sapiens on real estate. It may come to war.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
anthropocentrism
Homo sapiens individuals are fond of reciting the view that they are superior to all other species. certainly they are one of the more populous species of the past few thousand years. I would like to offer the contrary view. Homo sapiens is making the most of a competitive advantage over some other species, an advantage which is temporary and which does not extend to superiority over all other species on a limitless time scale.
As a result, however, of this belief that they are superior, which can be called its anthropocentrism, homo sapiens loses its place as a member of all its other divisional levels, up to kingdom, preferring instead to label all those species in all those shared divisions as vastly inferior. they may be doing this because they have never witnessed the extinction of a whole division or phylum, and so take a myopic posture relative to the survival of all of the various divisions. Or it may be they have a pathological leadership structure. this is the more likely explanation since war remains a regular habit for them. Consequently, they do not recognize upper ranks of other species, since their own, present company being excludable, do not have sufficient independence to recognize species-independent mastery.
It's a matter of what one does with his time once he becomes one of the elite of the species. Does he spend it solidifying his advantage over the rest of the species, or does he spend it learning his biological environment.
As a result, however, of this belief that they are superior, which can be called its anthropocentrism, homo sapiens loses its place as a member of all its other divisional levels, up to kingdom, preferring instead to label all those species in all those shared divisions as vastly inferior. they may be doing this because they have never witnessed the extinction of a whole division or phylum, and so take a myopic posture relative to the survival of all of the various divisions. Or it may be they have a pathological leadership structure. this is the more likely explanation since war remains a regular habit for them. Consequently, they do not recognize upper ranks of other species, since their own, present company being excludable, do not have sufficient independence to recognize species-independent mastery.
It's a matter of what one does with his time once he becomes one of the elite of the species. Does he spend it solidifying his advantage over the rest of the species, or does he spend it learning his biological environment.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
