XXXIII - ADDENDUM: ON MONOSEXUAL TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHY
On page 126 of his Must We Mean What We Say? (updated edition-2008), Stanley Cavell writes:
"And philosophy is what thought does to itself. Kant summarized it in the opening words of the Critique of Pure Reason: 'Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which...it is not able to ignore, but which...it is also not able to answer.'"
EUREKA! This conundrum is understandable and resolvable if one comes to terms with the fact that traditional philosophy has been generated by male thought processes, logic and language usage (even if occasionally composed by a female) that constitute only the male HALF OF REALITY. There is ANOTHER (complementary) female HALF.
Similarly, emotionally/existentially, a man sometimes finds that he is neither able to ignore a woman nor to conclusively answer the questions and situations she poses.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
POST XXXII - EPILOGUE: SOME HETEROSEXUAL WISDOM
With regret and apology, I cannot recall where I came across the following quotation:
"Women hardly ever marry for love. A woman has regular sex because of her killer body and yet she fails and fails and fails to fall in love. Her killer body, meanwhile, is running covert genetic-compatibility tests and reminding her, with constantly updated and worsening fetal-retardation statistics, of how little time she has left to improve on the fool kneeling before her."
So much for Patriarchy!
With regret and apology, I cannot recall where I came across the following quotation:
"Women hardly ever marry for love. A woman has regular sex because of her killer body and yet she fails and fails and fails to fall in love. Her killer body, meanwhile, is running covert genetic-compatibility tests and reminding her, with constantly updated and worsening fetal-retardation statistics, of how little time she has left to improve on the fool kneeling before her."
So much for Patriarchy!
Thursday, June 23, 2016
POST XXXI - HETEROSEXUALITY AS THE FOUNDATION/CONTEXT OF THE COSMOS
Contemporary cosmology is close to fully clarifying the physics of how the universe of time, space and events came to be - but has no idea where it comes from. Similarly, a theist is certain that God created the universe of time, space and events - but has no idea where God comes from.
In the preceding two POSTS, I have described 'Divinity' and the 'Supernatural' as being complementary - with the former a manifestation of male functioning and the latter characterizing the female.
I suspect that the very universe of time, space and events back to and 'before' the 'Big Bang' comes from ongoing and PRESENT interaction between heterosexual 'Divinity' and the 'Supernatural'. There is nothing OTHER - such as a free-standing 'God' Thus, time, space and events take place and evolve in the context of male-female procreative sexual interaction rather than vice versa as commonly thought.
And such heterosexual interaction CHANGES THE PAST. And when the PAST changes, there is then a new PRESENT and a new FUTURE.
Of course there is no way to prove that the PAST has changed - because if the PAST has truly actually changed IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY!
St. Augustine broached the possibility that the PAST, the PRESENT and the FUTURE are all one and the same. And contemporary particle physics suggests that some phenomena are most easily understood if one thinks of time as moving BACKWARDS.
The anatomy of the cosmic heterosexual intercourse situation would be as follows:
1) The is a point- for-point correlation between a woman's sexuality and the universe of time, space and events wherein a man lives.
2) When a man's phallus enters a woman's vagina, he (if he pays any attention at all) learns the nature and characteristics of the universe of time, space and events wherein he lives.
3) And when the man's phallus informs (ie, forms/shapes from the inside) his woman's vagina, he also informs the world of time, space and events wherein he lives (Cf. POST #V) and potentially impregnates such.
[When a person's vagina is entered, the person is subject to being impregnated. When a person's rectum is entered, the person may become programmed.]
Contemporary cosmology is close to fully clarifying the physics of how the universe of time, space and events came to be - but has no idea where it comes from. Similarly, a theist is certain that God created the universe of time, space and events - but has no idea where God comes from.
In the preceding two POSTS, I have described 'Divinity' and the 'Supernatural' as being complementary - with the former a manifestation of male functioning and the latter characterizing the female.
I suspect that the very universe of time, space and events back to and 'before' the 'Big Bang' comes from ongoing and PRESENT interaction between heterosexual 'Divinity' and the 'Supernatural'. There is nothing OTHER - such as a free-standing 'God' Thus, time, space and events take place and evolve in the context of male-female procreative sexual interaction rather than vice versa as commonly thought.
And such heterosexual interaction CHANGES THE PAST. And when the PAST changes, there is then a new PRESENT and a new FUTURE.
Of course there is no way to prove that the PAST has changed - because if the PAST has truly actually changed IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY!
St. Augustine broached the possibility that the PAST, the PRESENT and the FUTURE are all one and the same. And contemporary particle physics suggests that some phenomena are most easily understood if one thinks of time as moving BACKWARDS.
The anatomy of the cosmic heterosexual intercourse situation would be as follows:
1) The is a point- for-point correlation between a woman's sexuality and the universe of time, space and events wherein a man lives.
2) When a man's phallus enters a woman's vagina, he (if he pays any attention at all) learns the nature and characteristics of the universe of time, space and events wherein he lives.
3) And when the man's phallus informs (ie, forms/shapes from the inside) his woman's vagina, he also informs the world of time, space and events wherein he lives (Cf. POST #V) and potentially impregnates such.
[When a person's vagina is entered, the person is subject to being impregnated. When a person's rectum is entered, the person may become programmed.]
Monday, June 6, 2016
POST # XXX - SERENDIPITY, REALITY, RELIGION: AND ONE MAN'S TESTIMONY
Preamble:
(a) As a child, I attended a Christian Church that sometimes invited members of the congregation to stand and give their religious "Testimony".
(b) Before I left my Original Wife, she sometimes proffered: "You don't know what you want".
(c) Immediately on leaving my Original Wife, I began to do what I wanted to do rather than what I should do or would like to do - and began to notice the occurrence of a plethora of coincidences in my favor, ie., SERENDIPITY.
Next, I will quote from John Hick's Introduction to the Second Edition of his An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (p. xxiv):
"But whilst we cannot apply to the Real in itself such terms as loving and wise, which presuppose personality, we can use a more general concept and say that in relation to us the Real is serendipitous or benign. The term 'serendipity' was invented by Horace Walpole to refer to the course of events when they turn out well for us. They are happiness-making and as though planned for us by a benevolent power. Accordingly, serendipity can be experienced either as the structure of the cosmos or as the work of a personal Being. Likewise 'benign' can be used in both personal and non-personal senses: we speak of a benign ruler and a benign climate. And so the benign or serendipitous character of the Real , in relation to us, can be expressed both theistically as the benevolence, goodness, love of a personal deity, and non-theistically as the process leading to nirvana or moksha or being at one with the Tao, the eternal order... These are different human ways of conceiving and experiencing what I have called (Chapter 4) the cosmic optimism of the great world faiths."
My Analysis:
Along with some other contemporary theologians/philosophers, Hick finds it appropriate to apply the definite article 'the' to the term 'Real' ie., "the Real" - producing a noun, a thing, rather than writing about what is "real" (an adjective). In doing so, some supposed reality becomes a free-standing semantically 'manufactured' transcendent entity as "the Real".
On the other hand, in previous POSTS, this blogger has posited reality as being 'conceived' and 'born' as a product of male-female procreative interaction - rather than being a manifestation of a mysterous transcendent thing or person - "the Real".
By thinking/writing without considering the possibility and implications of male-female differential and complementary 'religious'/'spiritual' functioning, Hick - as is the norm for Western philosophers and theologians - obviates the conceptual possibility that both (i) divinity and (ii) the supernatural are natural manifestations of real human heterosexual functioning rather than aspects of a transcendent "the Real".
If the natural serendipity that is commonly experienced by males* is identified as being supernaturally provided by a Transcendent entity, it is easy to make a religion out of the matter with priests, etc., who offer to teach people how to 'harness' and control such good fortune by ritual, worship, prayer, etc.
*I believe that a female is a critical part of the generation of serendipity for males, rather than being its beneficiary - except indirectly by her relationship with the male. One woman offered that serendipity, for her, is a positive happy feeling and mood rather than events producing such.
A woman is less likely to kowtow to a transcendent 'Higher Power' because she correctly recognizes that her very Being personifies such. This is the essence of the 'Garden of Eden' story up to the point where Adam humilated both himself and Eve by blaspheming her.
Testimony:
In this blogger's personal experience, I found that when I, so to speak, simply answered God without blaming any woman, God disappeared!
[The question presents itself: Is the very existence of the Judaeo-Christian "God" founded on men blaming women?]
Preamble:
(a) As a child, I attended a Christian Church that sometimes invited members of the congregation to stand and give their religious "Testimony".
(b) Before I left my Original Wife, she sometimes proffered: "You don't know what you want".
(c) Immediately on leaving my Original Wife, I began to do what I wanted to do rather than what I should do or would like to do - and began to notice the occurrence of a plethora of coincidences in my favor, ie., SERENDIPITY.
Next, I will quote from John Hick's Introduction to the Second Edition of his An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (p. xxiv):
"But whilst we cannot apply to the Real in itself such terms as loving and wise, which presuppose personality, we can use a more general concept and say that in relation to us the Real is serendipitous or benign. The term 'serendipity' was invented by Horace Walpole to refer to the course of events when they turn out well for us. They are happiness-making and as though planned for us by a benevolent power. Accordingly, serendipity can be experienced either as the structure of the cosmos or as the work of a personal Being. Likewise 'benign' can be used in both personal and non-personal senses: we speak of a benign ruler and a benign climate. And so the benign or serendipitous character of the Real , in relation to us, can be expressed both theistically as the benevolence, goodness, love of a personal deity, and non-theistically as the process leading to nirvana or moksha or being at one with the Tao, the eternal order... These are different human ways of conceiving and experiencing what I have called (Chapter 4) the cosmic optimism of the great world faiths."
My Analysis:
Along with some other contemporary theologians/philosophers, Hick finds it appropriate to apply the definite article 'the' to the term 'Real' ie., "the Real" - producing a noun, a thing, rather than writing about what is "real" (an adjective). In doing so, some supposed reality becomes a free-standing semantically 'manufactured' transcendent entity as "the Real".
On the other hand, in previous POSTS, this blogger has posited reality as being 'conceived' and 'born' as a product of male-female procreative interaction - rather than being a manifestation of a mysterous transcendent thing or person - "the Real".
By thinking/writing without considering the possibility and implications of male-female differential and complementary 'religious'/'spiritual' functioning, Hick - as is the norm for Western philosophers and theologians - obviates the conceptual possibility that both (i) divinity and (ii) the supernatural are natural manifestations of real human heterosexual functioning rather than aspects of a transcendent "the Real".
If the natural serendipity that is commonly experienced by males* is identified as being supernaturally provided by a Transcendent entity, it is easy to make a religion out of the matter with priests, etc., who offer to teach people how to 'harness' and control such good fortune by ritual, worship, prayer, etc.
*I believe that a female is a critical part of the generation of serendipity for males, rather than being its beneficiary - except indirectly by her relationship with the male. One woman offered that serendipity, for her, is a positive happy feeling and mood rather than events producing such.
A woman is less likely to kowtow to a transcendent 'Higher Power' because she correctly recognizes that her very Being personifies such. This is the essence of the 'Garden of Eden' story up to the point where Adam humilated both himself and Eve by blaspheming her.
Testimony:
In this blogger's personal experience, I found that when I, so to speak, simply answered God without blaming any woman, God disappeared!
[The question presents itself: Is the very existence of the Judaeo-Christian "God" founded on men blaming women?]
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
POST #XXIX - METAPHYSICS OF HETEROSEXUALITY: LIFE'S NATURAL SUPERNATURALISM
A. WHAT'S NEW?
Creation is accomplished by one or more people (or, perchance microorganisms) using (i) materials at hand and (ii) Classical cause-and-effect physics and chemistry and/or (iii) the probabilities of quantum mechanics to make something new.
[Sometimes the "God" of Genesis 1 is reputed to create without any materials already being at hand (ie, ex nihilo)]
Procreation is accomplished by the intimate interaction of one male and one female entity. The male element contributes (genetic) information, while the female element contributes both (genetic) information and materials used in the making of the new thing. [cf. POST #V]
Interestingly, Genesis 1 easily can be read as an interaction between the (male) "God" who donates (verbal) information (eg. "Let there be light, etc.") to "The (female) heavens and the earth" so that the latter can 'give birth to' light, etc. [cf. POST # XIX]
Serendipity is defined by Merriman-Webster as "the faculty/phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought after"; and the OED as "(a supposed talent for) the making of happy and unexpected discoveries by accident or when looking for something else; such a discovery."
Over the years, I have had occasion to ask men whether they are "religious". Commonly, men offer the answer that they simply believe there is "a Higher Power" - because they have had experiences wherein events turned out better than they expected.
I suspect that such men have simply experienced (as has this blogger) serendipity; a natural phenomenon.
But this experience is so universal and puzzling that some men have invented various supernatural religions in an attempt to 'harness', 'control' and 'sell' this phenomenon. (John Hick - see below - does not proffer such a direct and mercenary connection.)
When I have asked a woman whether she is "religious", she commonly replies that she is "spiritual".
I suspect that such a woman simply perceives that she is, naturally, an incarnate manifestation and resource of serendipity for the man/men in her life.
B. NATURALLY SUPERNATURAL
In POST #XIX, I have described male words and wants as having the effect of "Divinity".
Here, I additionally propose that female Being/existence itself is properly construed as "Supernatural".
Thus (as I have noted in previous POSTS), when a man addresses words/wants to a woman who loves him, she has the (even magical) capacity to 'conceive', 'gestate' and 'give birth to' a reality/future corresponding with what he has said and wants.
In addition, I suspect that a female has the very cosmos (ie, "the heavens and the Earth") as her agent to supply serendipity to men in general.
When men feel 'spooked' by such apparently supernatural female power, they tend to critically identify the woman as a "witch" rather than simply respecting and appreciating what she provides.
While not considering male authorial "divinity" or female "supernatural" power, John Hick, on page xxiv of the Second Edition of his An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (2004) writes about serendipitous events: "They are happiness-making and as though planned for us by a benevolent power. Accordingly, serendipity can be experienced either as the structure of the cosmos or as the work of a personal Being."
C. IN SUMMARY
Whether a man realizes it or not, a woman naturally perceives his words and wants as being, to all intents and purposes, 'Divine' while she, unavoidably, orchestrates 'Supernatural' power/capacity in his favor.
The Genesis 'Garden of Eden' story describes what happens when a man fails to understand that he functions as a Divinity and his wife functions Supernaturally: A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT RENDERS A FREE-STANDING "GOD" IRRELEVANT.
AND A MAN MUST BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL TO ADDRESS ONLY POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE WORDS/WANT TO A FEMALE.
She is, after all, something of a 'Genie in the Bottle' that must be considered and addressed very carefully and respectfully.
D. ADDENDUM
The concepts 'divine' and 'supernatural' have usually been thought of as essentially synonymous. Here, this blogger identifies them as being complementary, rather than interchangeable. Similarly, in POST # XV, I describe 'soul' and 'spirit' as complementary, rather than synonyms.
Historically, physics could not advance until the difference between such concepts as 'force' and 'momentum' was clarified. I believe the same principle applies to terms in philosophical-theological formulations.
And, a man does not have to tell his Wife that his words/wants are as though 'divine'. She has always known this in the core of her Being --- THAT'S WHY SHE LOVES HIM!
A man may endlessly try to prove that a supernatural "God" exists while his supernatural Wife clearly exists - right in front of him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)