Creatures that abuse children need to convince the child they are abusing that they are omnipotent. The abuser is so powerful they are beyond the reach of reason, law, prison, jail sentences, death sentences. The abuser exerts itself to convince the child that it can not go to anyone or anywhere to elude their abuser. The abuser will always retain control of the child even if it attempts to seek assistance. In fact, the abuser will kill the child if it does so. In fact, the abuser convinces the child that it is willing to die. They will retain control even if it means their own death.
Of course, this is compounded by the constant programming the child is subject to that glamorizes or otherwise misrepresents the abuser. The abuser is a victim. The abuser is helpless. The abuser is not really in charge of himself. The abuser works on convincing the child that it is acting out of an uncontrollable, unpredictable "fit". This "fit" is an act of God just as an earthquake or hurricane or tornado. As such the abuser exempts itself from the legal system. In fact it is casting itself as "God" - they are unpredictable, uncontrollable and a feature of reality. Their abuse is all of reality.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
My Current Understanding of the Human Species
There are many species of humans on the planet today. There is competition between these species of humans for resources such as land to live on, food to eat, water to drink. There is also a fight for survival between the various species of humans to survive each other. Some species of humans are compatible and form alliances. In most cases, the different species of humans prey upon, consume, enslave, exploit and destroy species of humans they are biologically inclined to destroy. Each species of human has a particular nature and a particular function in the ecosystems they inhabit and in the larger global pool of creatures that exist on the planet.
Because of the constant warfare between the various species of humans there is no such thing as a fixed territory or habitat (in modern geopolitical parlance "country") any one particular species occupies. Species of humans are either nomadic or settled depending on their strength to fight off other species of humans to defend their particular mode of existence. Having said this, there are certain zones various species of humans thrive in or find especially suited to their physiology. Some species are most suited for living in tropical climates. Others are more suited to living in temperate climates. Within these climatic zones these species of humans play a role in the circle of life endemic to each zone. Humans are no more exempt from participation in the circle of life than any other living thing on this planet.
Mutations in species of humans that allow them to thrive in vastly different territories or at minimum be indifferent to the environment would have been key for survival against the constant threat of more powerful species of humans that are intent on annihilation them. Many species of humans on the planet today seem to have arrived at this point. Older species of humans that were dependent on the ecosystem in which they existed had to remain in their native biospheres. If they were threatened, they had to either be able to defend themselves or be able to move. Those species that were able to move when they were threatened to new environments were able to survive. This is perhaps the basic reason for the constant moving of populations of species of humans. At this time, most species of humans on the planet can live in diverse range of environments in comparison to older species of humans that were fixed to one habitat. For these species this lack of adapatability meant their ultimate demise when new species emerged that were inimical to their continued survival. Of course the new mutations will have their own limits - for example they cannot live underwater without assistance nor can they live in outer space without assistance. But both of these "frontiers" will eventually be populated if the various human species don't annihilate each other so that no one remains standing.
There are also cognate species that result from planned inter species mating or as a result of forced appropriation of genetic materials through rape and genetic mutations. The offspring of inter species matings are in a difficult position of having to straddle in one body different propensities and requirements of the various species that constitute their lineage. Since each species has its own biological requirements vis a vis food, clothing, shelter, self-maintenance, internal orientation and interpretation frameworks of reality, biosphere, a hybrid of human species faces extra challenges for survival. In most cases, one species will be dominant and the individual will fall into one or another style of existence favored by its progenitor species. The hybrid has to manage all the various voices of the species which go into its makeup. On the other hand, the hybrid is in the unique position of being able to have an interior view of many different species of humans. Of course this sort of internal species management will require an enormous amount of mental "computing" power to keep each species and its requirements distinct.
When a new species is born as a result of genetic mutation, the species in which this new mutation takes birth is unaware of the difference. This new mutation stands in an interesting position. Depending on their biological mandate, they can be of immense assistance to the species in which they have taken birth or they can be the seeds of the ultimate eradication of the species in which they have taken birth. The birth of an enhancement mutation would probably occur as the species is struggling to establish itself. The birth of mutants that will eventually eradicate the species probably occurs when the species is well established. But this does not have to be the case. Positive mutations (that enhance the well-being and development of the species) or negative mutations (that lead to the annihilation of the species) can occur at any time in the life cycle of a species. Regardless of when such a mutation occurs in the life cycle of a species, the occurrence of such development within a species is inevitable.
Morality and ethics in this context is defined by the good of each species. What is moral and ethical is defined by whatever facilitates the existential logic of each species. For example, in inter species interactions where one species preys upon another, the predator species is biologically programmed to engage in open warfare and hostilities or engage in covert operations to access its prey. Most forms of covert attack require the predator species to mimic the prey species modes of existence. The most lethal predators that practice this form of inter species predation are usually mutations in the species that gave it birth. As such they are biologically programmed to be destructive to their birth species.
When this mimicry is done by a foreign species, it can be done in the service of destroying the other species or in the service of forming mutually beneficial alliances. When the prey species is destroyed, harmed, exploited, harvested, the morality that is evident in such an interaction is one of biological imperative. There is no inter species morality established in such an interaction. If the two species cooperate and work toward each other's well being and survival, then there is the possibility of the establishment of an inter species morality.
When predator species practice mimicry as a result only of biological mandate, they do not have transcendence over their biological imperative. Since their biological imperative is to destroy its prey species, the manners and modes of existence of the prey species will be assumed with no interior significance attached to this adoption. Just as a chameleon will adopt the color of the leaf it might find itself on without becoming a leaf, similarly a predator species will adopt the manners and modes of its prey species precisely in order to camouflage itself and thereby gain access to its prey to destroy it. In doing this the predator species is doing what it is biologically mandated to do.
Insofar as all the species of humans are merely acting out their biological imperatives, they are exhibiting and participating in the circle of life which dictates all existence on this planet. All the species of humans obey the dictates of evolutionary pressure. Species of humans survive depending on their fitness to compete in a world governed by biological imperatives. At one time, if the fossil records are to be believed, this planet was covered with an extraordinarily rich and diverse populations of dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs that flew, dinosaurs that could paddle about in water. There were herbivore dinosaurs and carnivore dinosaurs. Dinosaurs lived in all sorts of ecosystems, biospheres. Now they are all extinct and gone. Only a few vestigial species remain on the planet. Human species will also be forced to follow this path of extinction unless each species of man transcends its own particular biological imperative.
Because of the constant warfare between the various species of humans there is no such thing as a fixed territory or habitat (in modern geopolitical parlance "country") any one particular species occupies. Species of humans are either nomadic or settled depending on their strength to fight off other species of humans to defend their particular mode of existence. Having said this, there are certain zones various species of humans thrive in or find especially suited to their physiology. Some species are most suited for living in tropical climates. Others are more suited to living in temperate climates. Within these climatic zones these species of humans play a role in the circle of life endemic to each zone. Humans are no more exempt from participation in the circle of life than any other living thing on this planet.
Mutations in species of humans that allow them to thrive in vastly different territories or at minimum be indifferent to the environment would have been key for survival against the constant threat of more powerful species of humans that are intent on annihilation them. Many species of humans on the planet today seem to have arrived at this point. Older species of humans that were dependent on the ecosystem in which they existed had to remain in their native biospheres. If they were threatened, they had to either be able to defend themselves or be able to move. Those species that were able to move when they were threatened to new environments were able to survive. This is perhaps the basic reason for the constant moving of populations of species of humans. At this time, most species of humans on the planet can live in diverse range of environments in comparison to older species of humans that were fixed to one habitat. For these species this lack of adapatability meant their ultimate demise when new species emerged that were inimical to their continued survival. Of course the new mutations will have their own limits - for example they cannot live underwater without assistance nor can they live in outer space without assistance. But both of these "frontiers" will eventually be populated if the various human species don't annihilate each other so that no one remains standing.
There are also cognate species that result from planned inter species mating or as a result of forced appropriation of genetic materials through rape and genetic mutations. The offspring of inter species matings are in a difficult position of having to straddle in one body different propensities and requirements of the various species that constitute their lineage. Since each species has its own biological requirements vis a vis food, clothing, shelter, self-maintenance, internal orientation and interpretation frameworks of reality, biosphere, a hybrid of human species faces extra challenges for survival. In most cases, one species will be dominant and the individual will fall into one or another style of existence favored by its progenitor species. The hybrid has to manage all the various voices of the species which go into its makeup. On the other hand, the hybrid is in the unique position of being able to have an interior view of many different species of humans. Of course this sort of internal species management will require an enormous amount of mental "computing" power to keep each species and its requirements distinct.
When a new species is born as a result of genetic mutation, the species in which this new mutation takes birth is unaware of the difference. This new mutation stands in an interesting position. Depending on their biological mandate, they can be of immense assistance to the species in which they have taken birth or they can be the seeds of the ultimate eradication of the species in which they have taken birth. The birth of an enhancement mutation would probably occur as the species is struggling to establish itself. The birth of mutants that will eventually eradicate the species probably occurs when the species is well established. But this does not have to be the case. Positive mutations (that enhance the well-being and development of the species) or negative mutations (that lead to the annihilation of the species) can occur at any time in the life cycle of a species. Regardless of when such a mutation occurs in the life cycle of a species, the occurrence of such development within a species is inevitable.
Morality and ethics in this context is defined by the good of each species. What is moral and ethical is defined by whatever facilitates the existential logic of each species. For example, in inter species interactions where one species preys upon another, the predator species is biologically programmed to engage in open warfare and hostilities or engage in covert operations to access its prey. Most forms of covert attack require the predator species to mimic the prey species modes of existence. The most lethal predators that practice this form of inter species predation are usually mutations in the species that gave it birth. As such they are biologically programmed to be destructive to their birth species.
When this mimicry is done by a foreign species, it can be done in the service of destroying the other species or in the service of forming mutually beneficial alliances. When the prey species is destroyed, harmed, exploited, harvested, the morality that is evident in such an interaction is one of biological imperative. There is no inter species morality established in such an interaction. If the two species cooperate and work toward each other's well being and survival, then there is the possibility of the establishment of an inter species morality.
When predator species practice mimicry as a result only of biological mandate, they do not have transcendence over their biological imperative. Since their biological imperative is to destroy its prey species, the manners and modes of existence of the prey species will be assumed with no interior significance attached to this adoption. Just as a chameleon will adopt the color of the leaf it might find itself on without becoming a leaf, similarly a predator species will adopt the manners and modes of its prey species precisely in order to camouflage itself and thereby gain access to its prey to destroy it. In doing this the predator species is doing what it is biologically mandated to do.
Insofar as all the species of humans are merely acting out their biological imperatives, they are exhibiting and participating in the circle of life which dictates all existence on this planet. All the species of humans obey the dictates of evolutionary pressure. Species of humans survive depending on their fitness to compete in a world governed by biological imperatives. At one time, if the fossil records are to be believed, this planet was covered with an extraordinarily rich and diverse populations of dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs that flew, dinosaurs that could paddle about in water. There were herbivore dinosaurs and carnivore dinosaurs. Dinosaurs lived in all sorts of ecosystems, biospheres. Now they are all extinct and gone. Only a few vestigial species remain on the planet. Human species will also be forced to follow this path of extinction unless each species of man transcends its own particular biological imperative.
Two Points of Clarification on Emily Dickinson Post
First, I believe I took the term "mystic" as a primitive because I couldn't locate a definition in the texts that I consulted. Emily Dickinson was therefore just a definition of the term.
Second, I was stymied by the apparent "normalness" of the term "mystic" as I understood it and the sense that got that Emily Dickinson's "specialness" stemmed from her "mystic" nature. I did not know how to reconcile this seeming contradiction at the time.
Second, I was stymied by the apparent "normalness" of the term "mystic" as I understood it and the sense that got that Emily Dickinson's "specialness" stemmed from her "mystic" nature. I did not know how to reconcile this seeming contradiction at the time.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Mystic Emily Dickson ?
When I was a first year student in college I wrote a paper on Emily Dickinson. I referred to several books when doing research for the paper. One epithet used to describe Miss Dickinson that captured my imagination was "mystic". Back then and even now to some extent, certain words move me by their sounds and the meaning the sounds themselves evoke in my mind. For example, in high school, I was captivated by the sound and possibilities suggested by the word "quintessential".
Let me return now to Emily Dickinson and the term "mystic" (applied to her by at least one biographer of the several I consulted for my paper) . I was probed for a definition of "mystic" by my professor after he read my paper. I can only assume that I must have used the word with abandon when referring to Emily Dickinson in my paper. In any case at the time I was truly stumped for an explanation. Her poems were understandable to me. I liked them because they expressed a viewpoint which was transparent to me. I did not find her work remarkable - I found her poems reassuring, comforting. It was a viewpoint that seemed understandable to me. Her poems served to comfort me in a time when much of what I read was incomprehensible.
Just as a child learns to associate "mom" with the friendly reassuring female that nurtures and feeds it, I associated the word "mystic" with Emily Dickinson. Mystic didn't mean anything special to me. Instead it was as normal as rain falling from the sky. Being the way she was (at least as far as I could make out from reading her biographies and reading her poems) was just being normal and everyday. When I was pressed as a freshman for a definition of 'mystic" I was very confused. Was this a trick question? How would you define "mom"?
I thought of the term "mystic" as a given, a primitive as in mathematics proofs. In math when we start a proof we have some given information. We don't question this given information. This information is primitive. Similarly, the term "mystic" was a primitive for me and I happily applied it to Emily Dickinson since it seemed to fit. I was inchoate and unable to explain how I understood the word apart from the evidence of her poems. "Mystic" is just being and living and looking and experiencing. Since Emily Dickinson's biographers used the term "mystic" in reference to her, I just blindly accepted it without really digging too deeply to discover their definitions of "mystic". It was a simple case of getting a word for a concept I had developed by reading Emily Dickinson's poems. It was not yet abstracted away from living simpliciter.
As a college freshman "mystic" just meant "everyday", "normal". Now I know better. Mystic is not a word one can apply to everybody. It is not an everyday aspect of existence for everybody. As a freshman, I understood "mystic" the way I might understand "boy", "girl", "woman", "man". I didn't really see what distinguished a "mystic" from others. Just as there are all sorts of manifestations of girls, similarly I interpolated there are all sorts of manifestations of mystics. Mystics may be female or male. Mystics may be kings or paupers. But not everyone is a mystic. A mystic is someone who is able to see reality. A mystic is someone who, at least for a little while, can enjoy and exult in the beauty of existence. And insofar as Emily Dickinson (or whoever wrote the poems attributed to her) was able to do this for a minute or an hour or a second or a season, she is a mystic.
Let me return now to Emily Dickinson and the term "mystic" (applied to her by at least one biographer of the several I consulted for my paper) . I was probed for a definition of "mystic" by my professor after he read my paper. I can only assume that I must have used the word with abandon when referring to Emily Dickinson in my paper. In any case at the time I was truly stumped for an explanation. Her poems were understandable to me. I liked them because they expressed a viewpoint which was transparent to me. I did not find her work remarkable - I found her poems reassuring, comforting. It was a viewpoint that seemed understandable to me. Her poems served to comfort me in a time when much of what I read was incomprehensible.
Just as a child learns to associate "mom" with the friendly reassuring female that nurtures and feeds it, I associated the word "mystic" with Emily Dickinson. Mystic didn't mean anything special to me. Instead it was as normal as rain falling from the sky. Being the way she was (at least as far as I could make out from reading her biographies and reading her poems) was just being normal and everyday. When I was pressed as a freshman for a definition of 'mystic" I was very confused. Was this a trick question? How would you define "mom"?
I thought of the term "mystic" as a given, a primitive as in mathematics proofs. In math when we start a proof we have some given information. We don't question this given information. This information is primitive. Similarly, the term "mystic" was a primitive for me and I happily applied it to Emily Dickinson since it seemed to fit. I was inchoate and unable to explain how I understood the word apart from the evidence of her poems. "Mystic" is just being and living and looking and experiencing. Since Emily Dickinson's biographers used the term "mystic" in reference to her, I just blindly accepted it without really digging too deeply to discover their definitions of "mystic". It was a simple case of getting a word for a concept I had developed by reading Emily Dickinson's poems. It was not yet abstracted away from living simpliciter.
As a college freshman "mystic" just meant "everyday", "normal". Now I know better. Mystic is not a word one can apply to everybody. It is not an everyday aspect of existence for everybody. As a freshman, I understood "mystic" the way I might understand "boy", "girl", "woman", "man". I didn't really see what distinguished a "mystic" from others. Just as there are all sorts of manifestations of girls, similarly I interpolated there are all sorts of manifestations of mystics. Mystics may be female or male. Mystics may be kings or paupers. But not everyone is a mystic. A mystic is someone who is able to see reality. A mystic is someone who, at least for a little while, can enjoy and exult in the beauty of existence. And insofar as Emily Dickinson (or whoever wrote the poems attributed to her) was able to do this for a minute or an hour or a second or a season, she is a mystic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
