[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[John Carl]

Arlo, Andre the incomprehending, and others interested:

I'm going to try and be a bit more comprehensive, in the hopes of being a
bit more comprehended.

John:


> Sex is social.   sex takes two and
> occurs through a complex of social negotiation.
>
> Arlo:
>
> On the biological level, then, we have "sex", on the social level alongside
> the
> "rape stigma" I mentioned we have a lot of other social patterns attempting
> to
> guide and control and structure the path to this biological act.
>

John:

 "A lot of other social patterns" ...  ya think Arlo?  Because I'd certainly
say so myself.  A lot indeed.

A lot of intellect as well, is expended upon this "biological act".  For as
I've often asked/challenged this forum, when an intellectual man presents an
academic thesis, in order to land a good salary so he can marry and raise a
family (breed), what level is really in charge of this picture?  What level
is controlling which?  Who is in charge really?  I think that picture of
Aristotle as the horse, says it all.

What aspect of being is a relative "causation" in this happy little scene?
Sounds to me like the lowest is in charge.  Does that make this  an MoQ
immorality?  I sure hope not, because it's virtually the bedrock of all
successful civilization.  There has to be a higher value to this picture
than you people seem to believe in.

All social patterns are concerned with a chain of social relations - how am
"I" doing, in the esteem values of others?  We get very emotional about
these patterns.  We care, very, very much about them.  They seem to hold the
key to success in all our endeavors, and the implicit goal of virtually all
we do.  These, "merely" social patterns.  When we feel strongly about
something, it's because these patterns are disturbed.  We can also feel
strongly when our intellectual patterns are disturbed, but there's a
difference, and a dependency.  The dependency is upon our "we" - "our"
intellectual patterns,  where it is "we" which is the social construct -
created out of a social matrix of being.  If it wasn't for that caring
matrix, we'd simply spit out answers to questions  like an uncaring
computer and our intellectual debates would not exhibit the character and
thrust, they so obviously do.

you dunderheads.

:-)

See?  I was insulting, but only kidding, but deadly serious to make a point
the point that we have sociality as the center of our communication -
empathy is absolutely key to understanding.  Otherwise one doesn't even
actually speak the language of humans.


Language of humans.  Now we're getting into my beef with Andre and his
spewing of my suggestion that "language = consciousness".  But I'm afraid
we're going to have to do some actual metaphysics, Andre, in order to make
myself comprehended on this one.

I think Matt could explain what I mean, because him and his "Rortyian
conversation" seem pretty close to where I'm headed with this, but I'm going
to go at it much more simplistically.  Language is conceptualization.  Can
we start there?  Do you have a problem with language being
conceptualization?  For in it's most simplistic and well -understood
meaning, language is the mapping of concepts in our head, to the reality
that we sense, and the communication of that conceptualization to ourselves
and others.

I don't know what wiki says, but that's how it seems to me, anyway.

What is consciousness?  Consciousness is awareness.  We are conscious of
things in the same way that we are aware of them.  We hold ideas in our head
- contents.  That we hold ideas, is what makes us conscious, and outside of
any contents, there is no consciousness that I can see or imagine.  We think
about something, therefore we are.  This "conceptualization" then, is what
is at the root of language, and at the root of consciousness, therefor,
language is equated with consciousness.

And Quality.  Because this is the entanglement between.  This is the
birthplace of being.  This is where the rubber meets the road, baby, and if
you can't see that, maybe you oughta just hit the road, jack.

Ok.  Back to Arlo:



> If we consider "sadness", and make it a biological pattern, then wouldn't
> it be
> something like "the flu"? Your body just "gets sad" when a particular
> imbalance
> or virus or something infects your biological system.
>
>

John:

Interestingly you've got it exactly backwards.  I was on a long drive last
night, back from my daughter's college, There was a guy on coast-to-coast
last night, who sounded pretty much like a nut-job to me, but sometimes
people are nut-jobs only because they are really on to something that the
rest of society does not quite get, and they try and create rituals which
only make them look silly.   This guy's ritual was with magnets, and
"clearing" emotional blockages along energy meridians.  There's just enough
truth in such things, to drive a guy crazy, but aside from that, his facts
about the importance of emotions to biology were lined up -  plainly the
evidence is overwhelming and it'd be completely empiricially justified to
say that emotions cause biological reactions, much more more than biological
reactions cause emotions.  People get sick and die, because of social
rejections and such Arlo.  It happens all the time, and only our western
scientific world view is blind to this fact that more "primitive" societies
understand clearly how important  emotions are to well-being.  But otoh,
with ongoing scientific research and experimentation all the time confirming
that the views of the primitive is more accurate than our own.

You think you're sad because you're sick, because the two are coincidental,
but you'll find its much truer that you're sick because you're sad.


And speaking of sick and sad,



> Andre:
> Spot on Arlo. To suggest that sex is social is to misunderstand biological
> values. You make a very important point when you say that (most) emotions
> have a physiological basis. It reminds me of what James said (and turned
> this thing inside out); you do not cry because you are sad, no, you are sad
> because you cry... you do not run because you emote fear, you are fearful
> because you run.
>
>
John:  You or William ever run and play  with children Andre?  How about
running from a bear or a big man with a knife?  If you guys had ever run in
fear AND run in play, you'd know what a load of hogwash that is. Even though
the running is the same, the emotional context is the nearer cause.
Perhaps we know this better now in the modern age,  because we have so much
more experience with acting, but my MoQ point is that plainly our biology is
the servant of our emotions, providing physical feelings to accompany our
heartfelt emotional state.  Mistaking THAT cause and effect, really makes me
shake my head over the emotional intelligence of you, Andre.  And anybody
who thinks like you.


Andre:


> This does not apply to all instances of (social)emotive labeling. But the
> order in which responses happen is important...the value comes first then
> the labeling.
>
>
John:

And with that I do agree.  The value comes with the labeling.  The
understanding with the conceptualization.  The consciousness with the
language and conversation.

Andre:


> Boy oh boy, that some contributors to this discuss still have so many
> difficulties with this is incomprehensible to me.
>
>

And with that also,  I agree completely,

John