Thursday, October 22, 2009


Human cultures normally find a conceptual place in their scientific and/or technological understanding of the universe - whether primitive or advanced - for a supernatural entity such as 'God'. (In the Jewish tradition, such a name should not be voiced and, although not a Jew, I shall sometimes use the designation 'G-d' that, without a vowel, cannot really be spoken. Also, 'G-d' de-emphasizes the aspect of existence and points to, rather, a function.)

[In what follows (and other Posts) this blogger makes reference to "God", "the heavens and the earth" and "Adam and Eve" as described in the first few pages of the Judaeo-Christian "Bible". However, the Philosophy of Heterosexuality that is elaborated here does not depend on these classical references. It stands or falls on its own merits.

Nonetheless, it turns out that many elements of the beginning of the first Biblical book, "Genesis", can readily be read in a heterosexual way that corresponds quite nicely with this blogger's heterosexual thesis.

In addition, of course, my earlier 'non-sexual' education about Genesis may well have paradoxically cued my own heterosexual formulations. I may have (sub-consciously) 'heard' and 'read' this part of the Bible heterosexually from an early age.]


A. Aristotle's model of a cosmos composed of concentric spheres wherein the outer spheres determine the movement of inner spheres suggested the placement of an "unmoved Mover" (viz, 'God') in the outermost locale.

B. With the technological development of such mechanisms as clocks, 'God' was conceptualized as a kind of clock-maker and/or the one who wound up the clock.

C. The traditional reading of the very beginning of the Judaeo-Christian Bible (Genesis 1) has conceptualized a 'free-standing' and independently-existing "God" who, as a supernatural entity, creates the universe out of nothing. 'His', 'Her' or 'Its' productive capacity is perceived as non-sexual or 'uni-sexual' or, virtually, hermaphroditic.

Although no personal pronoun referring to "God" appears in early chapters of the Bible, male pronouns are used to identify God later, and Jesus certainly refers to God as "Father".

In the traditional Judaeo-Christian 'cosmos', then, God (more or less a male) is given the place of a free-standing and independently existing fabricator with, evidently, supernatural powers.

During thousands of years of reading/reciting Genesis 1, many men have conflated the concepts of (i) a non-sexual or uni-sexual or hermaphroditic God and (ii) a free-standing male creator God -- with the result that a male human being has often similarly thought of himself as independent and not really having want of a female co-creator other than as a womb/uterus to gestate and give birth to HIS children.

Contemporary 'political-correctness' conflates maleness and femaleness and, thus, reinforces the concept of hermaphroditic uni-sexuality, if not non-sexuality.


The extensively foot-noted edition of The New Jerusalem Bible (the authoritative contemporary Roman Catholic version) [ISBN 9780385142649] offers the following translation of the best Hebrew and Greek sources: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. God said, 'Let there be light, . . ."

This is an essentially traditional phrasing; and it is ambiguous regarding whether "God" made the "formless void" out of nothing or whether G-d acted on a pre-existing "formless void".

Then, The New Jerusalem Bible (in its foot-notes) also offers this translation: "When God began creating heaven and earth, the earth being then a formless void, with darkness over the deep, and a divine wind sweeping over the waters, God said, . . ." etc.

In this latter phrasing, it is evident that "the earth", as a "formless void" was already present when G-d began G-d's pro-creative endeavour. ('Creation' can be carried out by an individual alone; whereas 'procreation' requires interaction between a male entity and a female entity.)

The New Jerusalem Bible notes: "Both translations are grammatically possible: the one we retain here, with all the ancient versions, gives a more coherent rendering of the text."

This blogger perceives that the "coherent rendering" espoused by these editors involves an overlapping and mystifying uni-sexual or hermaphroditic 'coherence' between male and female functioning so that male human beings (whether identifying themselves as 'he', 'she', 'father' and/or 'mother') remain the 'be-all and end-all' of creation and procreation.

Without the latter editorial bias, it seems that the person who composed Genesis 1 perceived the universe as being the off-spring of G-d (male) and nature (female) with G-d's words, "Let there be light", etc. being the analogical equivalent of male genetic/chromosomal input that informed (ie, impregnated) the laws and possibilities provided by 'mother' nature so that She could give birth to light, etc.!

In this heterosexual formulation 'God' entirely lacks the female capacities to conceive, gestate, and give birth. He functions merely/exactly/only as an 'impregnating' male. (It can be noted that Genesis 1 does not state that G-d exists - only that G-d spoke.)

In summary, it seems evident that Judaeo-Christianity it founded on a scripture/writing that is (i) ambiguous regarding the 'sexual' character of G-d or (ii) clearly describes G-d as a male entity participating in procreative endeavour that requires complementary existence and power provided by "the heaven and the earth" (ie, nature and her power/laws).

God presents as the (archetypal) progenitor/sire/father (but not mother) to the universe. While composing/speaking data autonomously, He lacks independent existence- a mystery!
Accurately, Genesis 1 identifies God as a principle (not principal) of creation-procreation.

Monday, October 12, 2009

XII. The POWER of POSITIVE/CONSTRUCTIVE WORDS ADDRESSED to FEMALES and YOUTH is only dimly appreciated by most contemporary men.

When I was young, my mother, Kathryn, read and appreciated Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". While not minimizing the significance of this book (indeed, Peale, a male, was addressing words to my female mother, albeit impersonally), this blogger here describes an overt heterosexual and inter-generational formulation of a similar but more potent and all-inclusive concept.

A 'higher power' is frequently cited as an explanation for events (often positive) that a person experiences but cannot fit into his/her usual concepts of cause and effect.

Such, then, are perceived as the manifestation and evidence of the functioning of 'God', 'the gods', 'a guardian angel', 'karma', 'spirituality', 'lady luck' or some other kind of supernatural (as contrasted with naturally explainable) power and influence.

As noted in previous posts, I perceive that reality is generated (i.e., procreated) by male-female interaction - with the paradigm of this being the interaction between

(i) the spermatocyte and the ovum


(ii) "God" and "the heavens and the earth" as described in Genesis 1 - i.e., God (the mere male element) addressed the words, "Let there be light...etc." to "the heavens and the earth" (the female element).

If a male (especially an older male) addresses positive/constructive words to a female, she can 'give birth to' a favorable reality that seems unexplainable in terms of natural 'cause and effect' mechanisms. Thus, She is the source of the apparently supernatural phenomena. (This phenomenon, then, is directly analogous to the interaction between "God" and "the heavens and the earth".

[The latter (perhaps best conceptualized as the mathematical 'laws of nature') were/are virtually supernatural and magical in terms of their power to 'conceive' and 'give birth to' a new reality but could/can not do this without being effected/informed/defined (see previous posts) by a merely naturally-functioning (i.e., speaking) male element that is represented in Genesis 1 by "God". Yes, 'God'-function is here perceived as natural whereas 'nature' is seen as having apparently super-natural qualities.]

A female does not have to practice 'magic'; She is, in Her very being, 'magic' itself. And this not unlike the famous 'Genie in the bottle'. A man must be careful what he says to a female.

All to often, a man simply negatively complains (e.g., Adam complaining about Eve in 'The Garden of Eden') and, so, the reality the she can 'give birth to' by/with him is negative.

To a more limited extent the older generation may 'impregnate' or 'program' the younger generation by addressing positive/constructive or negative/destructive words to them.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009


Participants in Judaeo-Christian culture commonly perceive a beneficent God who invisibly resides somewhere above (viz, in 'Heaven') the Earth.

From above, He (sometimes also now referenced as 'She' in gender-neutral parlance) is reputed as providing everything that is good on Earth and in the cosmos.

Explicitly or implicitly, a hierarchy ('chain) of power, good intention and beneficence is conceptualized whereby God provides good things for the church, the church provides good things for the Government, the Government provides good things for social institutions, institutions provide good things for professionals, men provide good things for women and parents provide good things for children.

While it is obvious that a new-b0rn baby seems to need everything done for him/her, this blogger submits that in addition to providing emotional resources and a sense of well-being for those around him/her, the baby has 'spiritual' and virtually 'magical' power that provides a beneficial reality/environment for all concerned.

In a more complex manner, adults continue to be beneficiaries of what maturing children provide; but the former commonly fail to respect, constructively use and appreciate this - leading to emotional distress, misbehavior and drug use in the younger generation.

Similarly, while it is commonly perceived that a woman is dependent on the emotional resources and reality/environment that a man provides, this blogger believe that the situation is covertly very much the inverse. Drawing on the power of her existential affinity with Nature, she provides a 'universe' of time, space and events for him - the best possible in accordance with how the man has 'impregnated' (i.e., effected, informed, defined) her psychologically, socially and 'spiritually' (see earlier Posts).

In summary, this blogger submits that 'all good things come from BELOW' and that, in fact, everyone and everything in the universe loves and takes care of God. And the latter has no existence that is independent of that provided for Him by the cosmos - especially human beings.

Sorry, 'Virginia' and 'Virginio', there is no Santa Clause; and God has no 'free-standing' existence or capacity to love, provide for or take care of anything or anyone.

Monday, August 3, 2009


Male 'paternalism' of the bad-old-days whereby a man expected everyone to believe in him as a father has been replaced by a politically-correct male 'maternalism' wherein a man expects everyone to believe in him as a mother. (In each case, the man plays the role of 'the be-all and end-all'.)

Thus, a politically-correct man does not work to make money to purchase food (the traditional male fathering role) for his wife to prepare and cook (the traditional female mothering role) but, rather, demonstrates a compulsion to do the food preparation and cooking himself regardless of who has financed the purchase of the food. (Commonly, the female kitchen role is now limited to washing the dishes.)

This blogger suspects that this psycho-social 'breast' functioning of a man may, over the course of decades, result in a diminution of his physical phallic functioning - hence the epidemic of impotence, now known as "erectile dysfunction".

This hypothesis could readily be tested by seeing whether there is, in fact, a correlation between male family food preparation (as distinct from working as a chef in a restaurant) and the incidence of the currently famous E.D.

Addendum: The traditional Christian Grace before a meal thanks God for (directly) providing the food. God is implicitly ascribed an androgynous status as though he has a female functioning breast.

In the Jewish tradition, I understand, the pre-meal Blessing thanks God who (indirectly) through the Earth has provided the food. God is not perceived as having breast capacity; and a Jewish woman naturally takes her place qua nature in the preparation and serving of a meal.

Saturday, August 1, 2009


This blogger suspects that the original rendering of Genesis 1:1 was 'In the beginning God impregnated the heaven and the earth.'

Certainly, Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." is more than a little suggestive of female vaginal functioning. And, surely, "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" is readily analogous to the motion of a phallus leading to ejaculation.

This blogger submits that God's subsequent words, "Let there be light", etc., may be perceived as male 'soul' genetic input that animated and defined "the heaven and the earth" (viz, the laws of nature) in a process quite analogous to how the genes/chromosomes of a sperm cell inform/define the egg.

The God of Genesis 1 is, then, entirely and merely male; while every female life form is an incarnate "...heaven and the earth" for a male to impregnate - microscopically, macroscopically and psycho-socially.

[When a man says, "Let there be..." to a woman, she responds for him as did "the heaven and the earth" for God. But a woman has her own 'laws' - as nature (i.e., the heaven and the earth)had its own laws when responding for God. If the laws of nature had not provided for the possibility of light, God could have kept on saying, "Let there be light, etc." forever and no light, etc. would have ensured.]

Friday, July 24, 2009


Commonly, the terms 'destiny' and 'fate' are used somewhat interchangeably.

Here, this blogger submits a heterosexual view that they denote entirely different, distinct and complementary phenomena.

A male human being (whether he realizes it or not) speaks destinies/'destinations' to a female. She, in turn, has the power to provide a (path of) fate/reality so that he/they can reach the destiny that he has declared.

Thus, it is important for a man to be careful what words he addresses to a female. If he composes and declares a positive and constructive destiny, she will provide fate/opportunities for that; and if he composes and speaks a negative and destructive destiny, she is 'stuck with' providing paths of fate to arrive at a negative out-come (although she has considerable natural capacity to make the best of even bad input).

With a modicum of poetic license, this process is quite analogous to the interaction between a sperm cell and an egg cell: the genes or the former declare a destiny and the genes and cytoplasmic resources of the latter provide a 'path' of fate for a new life to develop.

When a man falsely denies that he has spoken words constituting a destiny to a woman, he is a jerk.

Friday, June 12, 2009


1) If 'Good' and 'Evil' exist, there is no such thing as a good man or an evil woman.

a) When a male tries to be good, he invariably does bad things. The history of Christianity is replete with barbarous acts committed by men in the name of Christ;


b) When a female appears to be bad, it is because she has been conceptually 'polluted'/impregnated by a male or an institution. When a river is polluted, one does not try to clean up the river immediately present, one must go up-stream and persuade those who are dumping toxic materials into the river to stop doing so. Analogously, one must persuade males and institutions to stop informing and defining the woman in negative, destructive and 'toxic' ways.

2) The difference between little girls and little boys: little girls know what's going on! A male needs a life-time to begin to figure it out.

3) Quoting from "Too Much Happiness", a story by Alice Munro published in Harper's in the August, 2009 issue. On page 56: "'Always remember that when a man goes out of the room, he leaves everything in it behind,' her friend Marie Mendelson has told her. 'When a woman goes out she carries everything that happened in the room along with her.'"


Monday, June 8, 2009


A common traditional formulation of marriage is "The two shall become one" (ie, two individuals become one individual). The arithmetic, 1+1 = 1, is faulty and perhaps, so, the concept.

If psychological functioning is, in fact, a manifestation of the soma/body (see Post V.), a natural formulation of marriage might be, 'The two (halves) become one (whole)" (ie, two half-individuals become one individual). The arithmetic is, then, 1/2 + 1/2= 1.

In the somatic realm, the sperm cell and the ovum each contribute half of the chromosomes of the new life entity; the man and the woman each contribute different and complementary halves of the procreational process.

B. The traditional '1+1 = 1' non-natural and the non-arithmetical formulation of marriage requires the intervention of a social contrivance such as the Church or the Government to be accomplished.

Also, there is no logical or natural reason to suppose that the '1+1=1' must be the adding together of individuals of two different sexes. Thus, the 'man + woman' traditional concept of marriage is quite arbitrary.

And, in any case, the sameness doctrine of 'political-correctness' entails that the male sex and the female sex are, interchangeably the same -- so that every '1+1 = 1' marriage is a 'same-sex' marriage.

C. However, if the '1/2 + 1/2 = 1' (viz., Two half individuals become one individual) formulation of marriage [based on the '1/2 + 1/2 = 1' natural model of somatic procreation (both microscopic and macroscopic - see Post V.)] is endorsed, the validity of male-female marriage is evident - with or without the intervention of social institutions.

'1+1 = 1' marriage may be termed, "Institutional Marriage", whereas '1/2 + 1/2 = 1' marriage is "Natural Marriage".

If both halves are male or both halves are female, this blogger submits that the interaction doesn't quite mesh - and to the extent that it does (eg, sodomy) the interaction is one of initiation and programming rather than impregnation, conception and birth-giving.

Same sex intimacy may be emotionally powerful, creative and productive - but lacks capacity for procreation (either somatic or psychological).

D. While contemporary Psychotherapy emphasizes the importance of a person maturing to become individualistically independent of others, this blogger submits that babies are born as whole, albeit dependent, individuals and the process of maturation involves a male person shedding many of his female attributes while a female sheds many of her male attributes. Psychological and anatomical features of the opposite sex become vestigial (eg, the usually non-functional status of male nipples).

Thus, each gradually becomes, more and more, a half-individual representing his/her own sex who finds fulfillment in procreative endeavor (psychological +/- physical) with the other.

However, social (eg, 'political correctness') and/or environmental (eg, the presence of estrogen-like chemicals in water/food) factors may inhibit or otherwise alter such maturation.

E. Perhaps 'to marry' is best regarded carefully as a transitive verb, (viz, expressing something that one entity does to another entity).

Then, regarding the interaction between the sperm cell and the egg cell (and the anatomical male and the anatomical female), one can say that the male element 'marries' (ie, does something to) the female element.

Analogically, the same principle may apply to psychological interaction such that a male's words do something to a female. They effect/inform/define her. The 'soul' that he, a protagonist, composes and addresses to her marries her 'spirit'/meaning/context.

[Reviewing the 'Garden of Eden' scenario, Adam tried to excuse himself before God by saying that Eve's words (ie, temptation) had done something to him! Adam said, in effect, 'But I'm a married man. What do you expect?']

This blogger submits that it is a man's role to marry a woman - not to be married himself. And it can be a life-time task for a man to competently marry one woman - so that she is thoroughly married.

Thursday, June 4, 2009



Is it valid to ascribe what are usually considered 'human' motivations, values and characteristics to a human being's (microscopic and macroscopic-anatomical) body itself?

Are animals, including human beings, essentially analog computers made out of flesh and bones so that the psyche (i.e., mind, 'soul', 'spirit') logically and unavoidably demonstrates the same patterns of function that are manifest in the body?

Certain 'conjugate' pairings of verbs may be pertinent to apprehend the nature of both physical and psychological heterosexual interaction - and, indeed, such is the source of all higher life forms.

Some complementary terms:
1. effecting-affecting,
2. informing-transforming,
3. defining-interpreting.

There may be others.

1.. male effects female while female affects male,
2.. male informs female while female transforms male,
3. male defines female while female interprets male.

These interactive phenomena may be initiated by the male element or the female element but the (complementary) male and female roles are fixed and invariant - unless the male human being verbally defines the female and their interaction in an inverted manner.

[The latter configuration severely decreases the procreational efficiency of the situation; and the Garden of Eden story in Genesis 2-3 provides a vivid example of the problem ('screw-up', 'f--- up') that results. When questioned by God about the events of the day, Adam replied, in effect, 'Eve effected/informed/defined me - so that I became disobedient and ate the fruit.' Or, more succinctly: 'Eve 'impregnated' me, she fu--ed me, she knocked me up', so what happened isn't really my fault.'

Also, when a man denies that he has effected/informed/defined a woman or a situation that he did, indeed, 'father', he is, precisely, a jerk.]


Inasmuch as the psychological realm is a mere product/manifestation of the physical realm, it should not be surprising that analogies present and characteristics are shared!

A. In the microscopic-cellular scale of the Physical Realm:

1. Effecting-affecting

Whether or not the microscopically tiny ovum affects the
microscopically very tiny sperm cell by attracting it by a process of chemotaxis ('perfume', so-to-speak), the ovum certainly affects the male element so that it ejects its chromosomes into the cytoplasm of the ovum after the sperm cell has attached itself to the wall of the ovum.
Via its contribution of half of the chromosomes necessary for new life, the sperm cell effects the ovum so that it becomes what it can become - a new living being.

2. Informing-Transforming

The chromosomes of the sperm cell inform the ovum (ie, contribute genetic information).
And the ovum transforms the sperm cell so that at least its chromosomes become part of new life - rather than being a 'lost cause'.

3. Defining-Interpreting

The genetic material of the sperm cell's chromosomes further define the information already present in the ovum (eg, whether the new life entity will be male 0r female - and many other characteristics) while the ovum's already present genetic material may be said to interpret the male input/information.

B. In the macroscopic-anatomical scale of the Physical Realm:

1. Effecting-Affecting

It is widely recognized that a female human being grooms and dresses herself (ie, her macroscopic-anatomical body) in such a manner so as to affect whether and/or how males (especially of her own generation) pay attention to her.

[This phenomenon is natural and virtually automatic - but does not excuse disrespectful and rapacious approaches by males.]

If this interaction leads to mutually suitable macroscopic-anatomical intimacy, the female element affects the male element to contribute the genetic material of semen while the latter effects the female body so what it becomes what it can become - a birth-giving mother.

2. Informing-transforming

In the event of male-female anatomical intercourse, the male phallus informs (ie. forms from the inside) the female's vaginal sexuality while the latter tends to transform the male element along with the man.

Although seeking 'sex', some men fear a woman's power to transform his sexual energy and associated personality.

[It may also be noted that in many aspects of pornography, the naked female body acts as a quasi-phallus to visually inform a man's consciousness - thus inverting the natural male-female interaction.]

3. Defining-Interpreting

Often a man does not realize that when he makes love to a woman in an anatomically intimate physical way (ie, by sexual intercourse), he defines the woman as his. He possesses (not 'owns') her. This is comparable to the religious concept of being possessed.

In turn, she assumes (and is 'stuck with') her power and responsibility to interpret his actions, words and wants and organize a future for/with him. In many ways, a female's 'sexual drive' comes into play after intercourse.

When a man makes love to many woman, he has many women experiencing sexual drive to organize a future for him - and this results in well-known complications.

Finally, in the same way that an ovum owns the genetic material that a sperm cell has donated to it, a woman owns (not 'possesses') the words, actions and wants that a man has addressed to her. In the case of a male making love to many females, they easily come into conflict in terms of who owns the words, actions and wants of the man.

C. In the Psychological (mind, soul, spirit) Realm

Although the terms 'soul' and 'spirit' are ofter thought of interchangeably, their (a) common usages and (b) etymologies are somewhat distinct. For example: (a) one may speak of "the soul of Rock and Roll" but, rarely, "the spirit of Rock and Roll"; and "the spirit of Christmas" is frequently cited whereas "the soul of Christmas" is uncommon. And: (b) the etymology of 'soul' has to do with animating principle whereas the etymology of 'spirit' tends towards meaning or context.

1. Effecting-Affecting

Analogous to how a sperm cell and its chromosomes animate and effect (ie, 'impregnate') an ovum so that it has the chance to become what it can become (ie, a new life), a male human being's words (and actions and wants) addressed to a female human being constitute soul that animates and effects (ie, 'impregnates) her spirit (ie, her meaning and context) so that she has the chance to become what she can become (ie, a new reality/future).

This latter, in turn, affects the male in terms of his further words (and actions and wants qua soul).

2,3 Informing-Transforming, Defining-Interpreting

This blogger will leave it to the kind Commenter to formulate the latter heterosexual interactions.

Monday, June 1, 2009


If one disavows the three commonly cited dualisms - (i) body-mind, (ii) brain-mind and (iii) body-brain, heterosexual male-female dualism presents itself.

Then it is feasible to postulate psychological mental and 'spiritual' differences between males and females arising from and analogous to the physical differences between the male body and the female body. [The famous Garden of Eden 'fig leaf' and the male-female sameness "screen" of politically-correctness disappear.]

In subsequent posts, I shall use 'conjugate' pairs of verbs such as affect-effect, inform-transform and define-interpret to present analogies amongst (a) the physical realm in both (i) microscopic and (ii) macroscopic scales and (b) the psychological realm of human heterosexual interaction. With only a modicum of 'poetic license' similarities in the various realms and scales are readily apparent.

Applying the principles of physical procreative interaction to some types of psychosocial interaction provides a novel model whereon to base hypotheses regarding male and female behavior.

It may be noted that neither creativity nor reproduction (ie, making more of the same) require male-female procreative heterosexual interaction (either physical or psychological). But the evolution of higher life forms, at least up to the present time, has largely depended on the latter.

The etymology of the word 'nature" is birth-giving - a phenomenon that is usually associated with heterosexual procreation.

Sunday, May 31, 2009


A. In the bad-old-days of paternalism, female human beings were, more-or-less, defined as being inferior to males.

Now, in the new cultural order of political-correctness female human beings are defined as being the same as men. This subjects them to being judged by standards of male success and accomplishment and sometimes simply being humored as being 'one of the guys' .

The 'sameness' tenet protects males from having to recognize that in some fields of human endeavor (eg, conceiving, giving birth, and breast-feeding) a woman is obviously vastly superior to a man.

The present blogger perceives that male functioning and female functioning are equally important in life and complementary but not the same. Also, in practice, a woman usually does non-sexual things such as managing a company, flying an airplane, or performing surgery better than many men.
Basically, if a man tells his wife, "You are just as good as me", it is a veiled insult because she is, in fact, better than he.

A female human being (and the man and children in her life) thrives when complimented, appreciated, and respected rather than judged (by any standard).

For the moment, I shall leave it to others to offer their ideas about what a male is naturally good at doing better than a female.

But I do offer that a male is able to, if it suits her: (i) relieve a female's self-sufficient boredom, (ii) give her a sense of purpose (with associated increase in self-esteem) and (iii) give her the chance to participate in the cosmic evolutionary project that is procreational birth-giving (nature itself).

The sexual sameness doctrine of the virtual 'cult' of Political Correctness is currently applied in such a way that there is a 'uni-sexual' ethos. In practice, this means that a woman's success in such fields as business and politics is not endorsed unless she has achieved it by miming traditional male stances, attitudes and dress.

For example Ms. Hillary Clinton covers her considerable innate female beauty by dressing in pant-suits, expressing herself with male speech patterns and logic and avoiding overt 'flirtation'. She is enthusiastically supported by disciples of 'political-correctness'.

On the other hand, Ms. Sarah Palin has been submitted to kind of auto de fe by 'crusaders' of 'political correctness' because she presents herself with overt female beauty by: (i) her manner of dressing herself, (ii) her charm (eg, 'flirting' with her audience by referring to the "lip-stick" "hockey-mom") and (iii) her traditional/natural female ways of thinking and expressing herself (eg, referring to Putin "raising his head" - almost visible from her home in Alaska). In her early life, she participated in a 'Beauty Pageant'!

It seems that, largely, acolytes of Political Correctness are bigoted and intolerant with a woman's success unless it has been achieved by 'aping' men.

C. (Addendum - July 5th)
The editors of Vanity Fair seem to feel that an overtly beautiful woman such as Ms. Sarah Palin should 'stay in her place': a fashion 'runway' or the fashion pages of the magazine. They express a kind of righteous indignation and hostility towards her functioning as a female politician rather than a female who imitates male politicians.

Every competent woman is intrinsically and naturally a "narcissist" who holds herself and her children as her highest and most important principles of functioning.

Male "power corrupts"; not female power! The latter is the essence of life and progress in the cosmos.

Descartes, the French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, advocated the concept that the (i) human mind (0r soul) and the (ii) human body are made of different substances: a duality of functioning.

While it seemed apparent that the mind and the body interact, Descartes was at a loss to know how connection between the two 'substances' occurred; but he speculated that the mid-line pineal gland in the skull somehow accomplished this.

During the second half of the 20th century, the matter of dualism has been re-addressed in the fields of poetry, philosophy and neurology.

In the poem/song Closing Time, Leonard Cohen describes, "...your body's really you."

In his book Consciousness Explained, the philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett describes human functioning as occurring without any "Cartesian theater" inside the brain where you or I are 'sitting' and (a) 'watching' what our eyes have detected and (b) 'pushing buttons' or 'pulling levers' to make our limbs and fingers move, etc. One's body/somatic functioning is one's consciousness. (Without body, there is no mind/soul!)

Gilbert Ryle, in his earlier book, The Concept of Mind, carefully and elaborately describes how a person mis-perceives his/her sensations, memories and consciousness as being independent of his/her body - a "ghost in the machine".

From a neurological perspective, Antonio Damasio's Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain draws asexual neurophysiological conclusions regarding the mind-body problem in terms of the basic structures and states associated with life. But he notes (p.190): "...the explanation of how mind and brain are related becomes more difficult when the brain-part of the body is divorced from the body-proper. Regrettably, this dualistic frame still works like a screen and does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes--namely the body in its broadest sense, and its relevance to the making of the mind."

Yet Damasio quotes Spinoza: "...the human mind is the idea of the human body."

Damasio's "screen" that "...does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes..." may be the sameness doctrine of 'political-correctness' - see Critique of Political-Correctness post # III.

Also, Damasio's "divorce" of "the brain part of the body" from "the body proper" is, merely, a kind of fiction. It is quite arbitrary to believe that the neurological apparatus located within the skull is essentially different than the network of nerve cells spread throughout "the body proper" (similarly the integratd hypophyseal-pituitary hormonal system does not distinguish between "brain part" and "body proper"). What is within the skull is simply a fantastically elaborate 'switching' system that mediates and moderates the interaction between sensory input and motor output.

The human being (and other animals) thinks and remembers with its whole neuronal and hormonal system. Surely, an accomplished pianist does not have his/her skill localized to the part of 'the brain' within his/her skull. He/she remembers how to perform a piece of music with his/her whole body - especially his/her arms and fingers.

But lack of a functional boundary between "brain part" and "body proper" entails that the highly innervated and anatomically different (complementary) procreational genitalia of a male and a female tend to produce heterosexually different (complementary) thoughts, emotions, and decision-making processes - a violation of the 'sameness' doctrine of 'political-correctness.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


In current North American culture, there are many popular terms referring to types of psychological and/or physical interaction between human beings: gay, homosexual, lesbian, straight, buddy, babe, dear, darling, male-bonding, etc.

However, another term is rarely used except to be disparaged and critiqued by homosexuals. This word is heterosexual - denoting complementary (as distinct from supplementary) interaction between two life entities representing the two different and complementary sexes involved in procreational endeavor (procreation as distinct from creation or mere reproduction)

ADDENDUM: Although, this present blogger will compare and contrast heterosexual marriage and homosexual 'marriage' in a later posting, it may be noted that, as of this date, the U.R.L. remains available for a homosexual to procure and use. I would read his/her ideas carefully.

The present blogger does here proffer his perception that male homosexuals achieve, in the present, an existential status akin to that of being An Immortal. Presumably, this phenomenon ends at the point of death because it is a mortal immortality.

ADDENDUM #2: It seems that, in contemporary politically-correct parlance, there is only one "sex" - but two "genders". Application forms now ask for a person's "gender" - male or female.