** The most extensively 'human' is the one described in the original anti-fascist Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which states (article 2) that 'everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration, without distinction of any kind. In other words, whoever person you meet is a human with these rights - not an "infidel".
Ontology is existencecentrism
1979 drawing by Peter Klevius. Do note the single-helix steel trap ('trap' comes from Old Nordic/Swedish 'trappa' (originally from Proto-Germanic/Gothic *trep) which used to mean trap but today is used for stairs because of the connection between that on or into which one steps. Peter Klevius love to remind you that English is a Fennoscandian creol "language" - i.e. distorted Old Swedish and similarly affected by Latin. The DNA ladder symbolizes both entrapment and a way out.
real "gender dysphoria" is the fact that cultural sex segregation
violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states (article
2) that 'everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as (e.g.)
word exist, from Latin existere - to emerge and reveal itself - as well
as the word existence, nowadays has the main meaning to exist, i.e.
something that has already emerged and is now present in the mind.
Whereas for most human cultures it has been more or less selfevident
that nothing can pop into existence from nothing*, monotheistic sects
(Zoroastrianism and its subdivisions Judaism, Christianism and
Arianism/islamism) still harbour this impossibility. Trying to place an
"allmighty god" outside existencecentrism immediately "humanizes" it.
* Not to be confused with existencecentristic cosmological theories about entropy which describe states that are lacking motion/change, i.e. lacking space and time. A "god" would negate such theories.
To be, i.e. existence, constitutes our viewpoint when we consider the surrounding reality (i.e. our collected perceptions centered around our origo - see Klevius EMAH theory on how the brain works and why it's often confused with absolute free will and a mysterious 'consiousness' that pretends to be something else than simply awareness) in time and space. We are existencecentered. Existence prevents godly all-understanding but also easily leads to self-glorification. The word anthropocentrism (human centered) covers some but not the whole meaning of the concept 'existencecentrism' which limits us from meta-existence (P. Klevius 1992:21).
Existencecentrism - i.e. the understanding that you (or e.g. humankind, a brick etc.) are the subject (or object if you like) of experience in a particular origo. A brick - or "self" - is only an object seen from other origos/points of reference. However, the brick's "experience" constitutes its "subject". However, the "self" of you (or the brick) is all created outside your origo through external interactions. This "outer world" also includes the thoughts in your brain or the use etc. of a brick. From this analytical view there is no difference in building a house or a person.
Understanding existencecentrism opens the gate to the most sacred understanding of what it really means to be a human because what you share with all other humans is the impossibility to assess or be assessed by a non-human as a human. This is also the very foundation of negative Human Rights.
Reality* is always confined within the borders of existencecentrism. "Metaphysics hence is simply the acceptance of existencecentrism. So whatever "universe", "reality" or "spirit" is contemplated, it always resides within the borders of existencecentrism. While existence is motion/change, the borders of existencecentrism are unchangable. No matter what new insights are made they cannot change this because there is no "reality" beyond existenecentrism that could be used as reference. The size of the "still unknown" is always infinite.
* The ignorant idea that "there's a physical reality" independent of humans, Peter Klevius abandoned in his early teens. The concept of "physical reality" is inevitably and only connected to humans, so without humans (or something sharing human understanding) no "physical reality". "Reality" has no mysterious "essence" other than what humans inject "it" with. A 'stone', a 'brick, a 'table' etc. have no 'essence' but are, like e.g. numbers, only operational, i.e. context bond. And the only essence humans have in common is the axiomatic "being human". It's just foolish to think that you get closer to the "essence" of a table with the aid of microscopes or whatever tools.
On the level of humankind this means that it cannot be assessed, compared, evaluated etc. against other "kinds" other than by using a meaningless "humankind" comparison. And if someone stupidly tries introducing an "alien" into the formula this "alien" stops being alien in this context.
However, as the very meaning of life is uncertainty due to ever ongoing changes (P. Klevius 1981, 1992), then doxic moral foundations are impossible. By accepting negative Human Rights as well as the continuum of changes, the ultimate moral position is always in the middle. This is why the author calls himself "the extremely normal" while complaining that this position also creates the most adversaries as long as negative Human Rights aren't fully respected.
On the individual level there's a similar setting which excludes the meaningless concept of "self". A person is the sum of adaptation to every now and due re-evaluations based on the past. So because all adaptations are coming from outside your point of awareness/"consciousness" (the Thalamus as described in my EMAH theory 1992-94) there is no room left for any other "self" than messing around with these adaptations - which is just new adapatations. The foundation for this analysis is perhaps best decribed by my stone example from 1992:
Reality is always confined within the borders of existencecentrism. "Metaphysics hence is simply the acceptance of existencecentrism. So whatever "universe", "reality" or "spirit" is contemplated, it always resides within the borders of existencecentrism. While existence is motion/change, the borders of existencecentrism are unchangable. No matter what new insights are made they cannot change this because there is no "reality" beyond existenecentrism that could be used as reference. The size of the "still unknown" is always infinite. On the level of humankind this means that it cannot be assessed, compared, evaluated etc. against other "kinds" other than by using a meaningless "humankind" comparison.
EMAH is extremely simple - yet not "simplistic" at all. However, the culprit is what humans are most proud about, i.e. language. By giving something one doesn't comprehend but wants to put in a package, a name, will continue to contain its blurred definition. This is why EMAH only deals with 'now' and the body of past this now lands on. Of course this leads to everything having "consciousness". A brick "remembers" a stain of paint as long as it's there - and with some "therapeutical" investgation in a laboratory perhaps even longer. And a stain of paint on your skin is exactly the same. However, unlike the the brick you've also got a brain that was affected by the stain. This could be compared with a hollow brick where th paint has vanished from the outside but submerged so that when cutting the brick it "remembers" it and tells the cutting blade about it. And for more "sophistication" just add millions of differect colors unevenly spread.
Although the brick example may be challenged by mentalists - they in turn will be refuted by the Homunculus language paradox, Wittgenstein's private language problem, etc..
And according to the stone example in EMAH there is no in this context meaningful separation between observation and understanding. The relation between a new observation that contradicts an earlier one is not consciousness but can of course be titled 'understanding'. And the totality of our understanding is just the temporal body of adaptations bordered against the future by a now. In other words, future doesn't exist per se.
One way of helping to understand EMAH is to think about an internally active two-way display/monitor with ever changing "meetputs" ('nows' - i.e. stream of "images") between input and output.
If we want to break the borders of human navel-gazing we also need to clean up crossborder concepts.
stone example unifies all modes of observation and commuication - and
ultimately language as just an arbitrary but celebrated part of
In the 1980s, while reading Jurgen Habermas' The Theory of Communicative Action, I criticized his division observation and understending as I had always used to do in other contexts. However, my respect for Habermas made me wondering why even he used such a meaningless distinction.
This Google translated text from my 1992 book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) describes the philosophical foundation of what 1994 became called the EMAH theory (the even more astonishing hypothesis - alluding to Francis Crick's fantasy theory in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis):
The connection between intelligence/intellect and its biological anchors may appear problematic on several levels. This applies e.g. to the connection between sensory impressions and abstraction. In a remark regarding rational reconstruction, Jurgen Habermas makes a distinction between what he calls sensory experience (observation) and communicative experience (understanding). Against this can one argue if one sees the thought process as consisting of parts of memory patterns and experiences that must be processed/understood to be meaningful at all.
Someone sees a stone = visual impression understood by the viewer
I see a stone = utterance understood by another person
I presume that Habermas sees the latter example as communication due to the reference (via the language) to the original viewer's visual impression of the stone and then wants to claim that this "extent" of the meaning of the statement can not be proven to be of a different nature than the thought / understanding process behind the first example. This understanding of the stone does not differ from the understanding of an abstract symbol like Lex. a letter or a word, written or pronounced. The statement "I see a stone" is also a direct sensory impression which, like the stone as an object, has no meaning if it is not understood. Here one can then object that the word stone in contrast to the phenomenon of stone can transfer meanings (symbolic construction according to Habermas). Still, I want to insist that this too is apparent and a consequence of our way of perceiving language and Popper's third world (see below). A stone can be perceived as everything from the printing ink in a word to an advanced symbolic construction. It is then not a matter of difference between observation and understanding, but only different, mutually indefinite levels of understanding. Nor does the division "pure observation" and "reflective observation" have any other than purely comparative meaning, since no delimitation (other than the purely comparative one) can be made in a meaningful way. Does it not matter then that the communication takes place between two conscious, thinking beings? Certainly, Habermas and others are free to elevate communication between individuals to a group other than the communication the stone observer has with himself and his cultural heritage via mirroring in the stone, but in this case this is only an ethnocentric stance without relevance to the observation / understanding distinction.
For me, therefore, there is no fundamental difference in the symbol combination in the sensory experience of a stone or of Habermas text. Of course, that does not mean that I would in any way express any form of appreciation of Habermas or the stone. What it does mean, however, is that I want to question the division observation / understanding and thus also the division primitive / civilizational thinking. In the name of justice, it should be said that Haberma's exemplification is based on a completely different chain of thought with a purpose other than the one discussed here and thatI only want to try to demonstrate the danger of generalizing the observation / understanding relationship. In other contexts, it becomes almost unnoticed to a linguistic axiom (virus to take information technology as an example) which then both generates and accumulates differences that do not exist.
In the book Evolution of the Brain / Creation of the Self (with foreword by Karl Popper) John C. EccIes notes i.a. att: '1t is surprising how slow the growth of World 3 (K. Poppers och J. EccIes indelning av existens och experiencer; World I = physical objects and states, World 2 = states of consciousness, World 3 = knowledge in objective sense) was in the earlier tens of thousands of years of Homo sapiens sapiens. And even today there are races of mankind with negligible cultural creativity. Only when the societies could provide the primary needs of shelter, food, clothing, and security were their members able to participate effectively in cultural creativity, thus enriching World 3. "
This quote shows both Eccles and Poppers' legitimate concerns about the issue and the cultural-revolutionary retreat path they use to leave the issue. (Cf. chapters Khoi, San, and Bantu in this writing) It also reveals a certain, perhaps unconscious, aversion to the idea that societies would voluntarily content themselves with meeting their "primary needs."
Karl Popper has, with good reason, made himself known as a champion of freedom and here I fully share his attitude. Freedom (implicitly a humane and responsible freedom) is a clear shortage in the modern welfare state. At the same time, it is the case that the concept of freedom does not exist at all among the collector / hunter cultures referred to in this consideration. The concept of freedom is created, like diamonds, only under pressure.
(P. Klevius 1992:31-33).
Negative Human Rights for a positive human future
Human Rights - i.e. the last resort for individual freedom among other
similarly free individuals. Klevius called it 'pluralism' in Angels of
Antichrist (1996). An individual's "margin of appreciation". The freedom
of the individual rests entirely on the freedom of others. The ultimate
moral democracy. For those (e.g. hateful "islamophobia" shouters) who
have a problem understanding it: Do consider a traffic system where some
people* have special rights as road-users. Moreover, only some of them
sign that they belong to this group. Socialists don't like negative
Human Rights because it clashes with their contempt for the individual
and their love of the inhumane collective, while religious right wings
see their "beliefs" threatened. Confucius' love for others (551–479
BCE): "Do not do onto others what you would not want others to do onto
you." That's the very basis of the truly negative Human Rights in the
1948 Universal Declaration. The positive rights are "b-righs" (aka
* People otherwise like you, i.e. not the police etc.
The individual person
Peter Klevius on existence, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):
'The basis of existence is motion/change*, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity.'
* Consider you're absolutely still while perceiving an absolutely still surrounding. Now. also consider you have no clue about the spatial dimensions of what you see. This scenario would be similar as to one where all you see is (somehow) "glued" to your retina - just like the fotons which build up the scenario really are.
As individuals we consist of a "black hole" singularity, i.e. an empty coordinate, our origo, which defines our unique locality but not who we are as a person. The "event horizon" is defined by existencecentrism.
As Peter Klevius* wrote in his book Demand for Resources (1992), the hermit is the most social person, because without us others s/he would lose her/his "hermital identity". Just like Peter Klevius would be socially helpless without an assisting world.
* When the author of the text refers to himself this is meant for those prejudicial readers who can't distinguish between clarity of thought and its package (see chapter Science and References in Peter Klevius book Demand for Resources, 1992). Peter Klevius' "controversial" (why?) interdiciplinary writings often clash with precisely those peers who are supposed to be the "guardians of science". Compare e.g. Peter Klevius EMAH theory: out of SE Asia theory: heterosexual attraction/sex segregation analysis etc.
Individual: The unique origo (coordinate) that distinguishes a particular individual from everyone else.
Person: The active sum of experience centered around an individual origo.
only "metaphysical" is our understanding that we aren't able to take a
single step towards "infinitely wise gods". There's nothing to see
outside our ever changing interpretation of the world, locked as it is
in our existencecentrism. Existencecentrism is the fundamental bias that
defines and locks existence as part of the unknown/unreachable (aka
"reality", "god" etc.).
In Peter Klevius first published writing on the theme in 1981 the changes within existencecentrism is the very meaning of life.
The individual self is in every aspect construed by the surrounding world. There is no internal 'self', only personhood which may be described as the reaction and adaptation to and of an individual. The feeling of "thinking", according to Peter Klevius EMAH analysis, is no different from other awarenes other than temporally.
and femininity, i.e. cultural 'gender', may be defined as always
contradicting each other like a bar between two persons which makes it
impossible to reach eachother, no matter which direction they try to go.
Feminists lock in girls and women in a gender prison with walls made of masculinity.
Negative Human Rights do the very opposite.
Sex segregation and gender dysphoria
Sex segregation has covered the biggest human social problem. Sex segregation is rooted in evolutionary (biological) heterosexual attraction, but ornamented with various cultural practices.
Heterosexual attraction*/sex segregation/sex-apartheid - i.e. understanding that there's an equally pronounced general difference in sexuality between the sexes as there is a physical one, and that this difference in no way should alter an individual's negative Human Rights sphere (equality). Islam is an ideology based on sex segregation/apartheid, meaning that islam can never accept full Human Rights to women and "infidels". And whereas, e.g. a nun's attire only signs celibacy and a choice of life, a muslim woman's islam induced attire signs supremacy and rapist contempt against other women, tied as it is to islamic sharia. In accordance to this analysis and to the spirit of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948, a woman ought to be able to use whatever attire - exept when it offends equal (negative) Human Rights of others.
* The concept heterosexual attraction (HSA) is very sensitive to misunderstanding. That’s why Klevius uses to refer to bees and male fishes having sex with eggs without ever even meeting the mother fish.
When a surgeon asks someone to cover the patient's 'genital area' it has nothing to do with sex. However, if his/her knife is looking for an uterus and sees a penis then it matters - but it still has nothing to do with what feminists try (but fail) to talk about because they avoid 'heterosexual attraction' by simply dismissing it as "the male gaze".
The erotic "female gaze" is only cultural whereas the erotic "male gaze" is both cultural and biological.