** 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
The
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.)
sex'.
Existence
The
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.
Brick communication
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.
The
stone example unifies all modes of observation and commuication - and
ultimately language as just an arbitrary but celebrated part of
"observation/understanding".
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
Negative
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
"Stalin rights").
* 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.'
(Klevius 1992:23)
*
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.
Ontological foundation
The
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.
Sex
Masculinity
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment