Not spam!
I repeat…not spam!
Why do I return to these subjects?
Because they are prohibited, by moderns…wihsing to preserve their mythologies, and their well-being. Their sense of safety and belonging in an ideological collective.
Herd psychology.
Because race/ethnicity, sex/gender, and homosexuality, or paraphilia, are sacred concepts for moderns/postmoderns - Americanized psyches.
Their sacred ideals, and I want to expose them and why they have become so popular.
Race is to the homo sapient species what breeds, types, kinds are to other species.
Sub-species.
Sub-species are essential in natural selection, describing an intermediate state, before speciation is completed.
There exist multiple examples of such sub-species, that can still interbreed but are considered disticnt.
Genetically transmitted memories.
What are memories?
Stored experiences, first- or second-hand.
Experiences that participate in determining willful actions.
Experiences that guide a will’s actions: judgements, choices etc.
Is free-will the illusion or is the illusion its denial?
What came first…the action or the words used to dimiss actions?
What is true, the dismissal of race, as a “social construct” or is the social construct its denial?
Are we to deny what our senses reveal to affirm a linguistically transmitted comforting theory?
What do we trust more…centuries of naturally selected senses, with only one motive, i.e., survival, or theories, coming form brains with concealed motives and self-serving objectives?
Is nature the trickster?
Satan?
Has nature conspired to fool us with illusions?
Then how did we survive, when we’ve been fooled to such a degree?
What is NOT an illusion?
A perspective lacking completeness, is not an illusion.
Or is man the ultimate trickster and hypocrite?
Can someone explain to me how a species can be environmentally affected physically, developing a diversity of phenotypes, without being affected psychologically, mentally?
Is training diverse peoples to behave in uniform ways, adopting the same behaviours, ideals, objectives, ethical systems, evidence that they are not genetically different?
A lower life-form can be trained to behave in accordance with a higher life forms rules… has it become tis equal?
Does this justify violence or exploitation?
Do we exploit and violate our domesticated pets?
Is it not a marker of superiority how it treats its inferiors?
Must we lie to those who cannot match this standard?
If so, why must we also believe the leis we tell them?
Is lying part of philosophy?
It might be part of political philosophy, but not philosophy.
If modern science has become dependent on funding, has it not lost its objectivity/
Hs it not, also, become dependent on the funder’s ideals and motives?
How do newscasters and newspaper writers get promoted in a media corporation?
What criteria determines their access to the masses?
How does their politics, the values and ethics that got them in that privileged position, affect how they spin a storyline?
Apply it to scientists.
Can they not, spin, their finding, as well?
Data is one thing, how data is interpreted, is another.
“The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”
— Charles Darwin
Degrees, always degrees… not absolutes.
“I am inclined to give up the attempt as hopeless. Those who do not understand, it seems cannot be made to understand.”
Try to convince Mary of anything?
She’s trapped herself in decades of emotional investments.
To even begin to be skeptical of her own beliefs, her own nihilistic methods, her own objectives - unconscious as they may be - is to hope that she can survive a life-threatening trauma.
As man ages he becomes rigid… sclerotic.
Men become fixed in their ways. Same for women, like Mary Land. More so, in fact. Dependence makes the rigidity firmer, more resistant.
Reason cannot break through all that solidified anxiety.
Qur’an 49:13 - O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.
Not spam.
Just empty bollocks.
Not even wrong. As scientists say. just hot air.
Race-hate and race-appreciation.
Both are forms of racism.
So, you aren’t supposed to love or hate
a race-culture.
Is “racism” the act of generally stating there are, or recognizing racial differences between people or is “racism” strictly only when unjustified prejudice is directed against a particular race or a person of a particular race based only on their race?
It seems as though many academic scholars use the term “racism” as only involving unjustified prejudice. Noticing or stating that someone is of a particular race based on whatever essential characteristics, in itself, seems pretty innocuous.
For those who use the term “racism” as the act of simply perceiving racial differences, that’s not saying the same thing as people who use the term “racism” only to refer to the act of unjustifiably discriminating against someone based on race.
Since there are those two distinct definitions, it seems as though it might be wise to be careful not to commit a fallacy of equivocation when talking to someone else regarding what “racism” is. The first step ought to be defining the terms that are being used by both parties in order to compare like words with like words. Otherwise, it could lead to misunderstandings.
Here’s how i see it. Since mankind is a spook and there are only individual nothings, classifications like race are meaningless. So when i see a kneegrow, i don’t see The Kneegrow anymore than i see The Human Being. I see a kneegrow, a unique one among other unique ones, each which i judge according to my own personal tastes. This judgement is bound only by what gives me pleasure. So, for example, Herbie Hancock and Denzel Washington are good kneegrows, Puff Daddy, Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson are bad kneegrows.
Race is fact.
But race is arbitrary
There are more variations within races than there are between them.
Race is a pointless fact.
RaCe iS a SoCiAL cOnStrRuCkt DuH!
This is errant bollocks.
It is a confusion between learning and instinct.
No memory, no lived experience is ever, nor can it ever be encoded in the genome.
Jung had no idea about the genome where all instincts are encoded, and probably was foolled by Lamarck’s failed and discredited concepts of evolution- which are even implied in the earliest editions of On the Origin of Species, by Darwin. Though later expunged.
The simple fact is that women are already born with the eggs that they contribute to the next generation, and grow no more during their life ,and for men there is no mechanism by which anything like a memory could be encoded in the DNA of their sperm. It is emprically true that the code of human germ cells cannot be altered by the lived experience (memories).
If you do not see how these facts relate to the absurdity of race memory, let me know and I can spell it out for you.
Jung was a mystic, and most of what he said is discredited.
Such absurd misconceptions may have contributed to fallacious racist concepts of the early 20thC
"In research that casts cells as curators of their own history, Harvard Medical School researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have discovered that adult tissues retain a memory, inscribed on their DNA, of the embryonic cells from which they arose.
The discovery led to one even more intriguing find—that the memory is fully retrievable information: under certain conditions, cells can play the story of their development in reverse to switch on genes that were active in the fetal state."
…oh lookie. Memories, lived experiences, are being encoded in the genome.
Guess you don’t know what you’re talking about , eh?
Absolutely false, if memory, experience, and learning could not be encoded into genetics, then Evolution would be physically impossible.
Wrong I know exactly what I am talking about.
The problem here is that you simply do not understand what you have posted.
Why not go back and actually read the article.
If you use your brain you will see that nothing in the article contradicts ANYTHING I said.
I know the world is going down a rabbit hole of simple questions and simple answer but it would do you good if you paid more attention to what is going on around you.
Seriously Dude.
It is quite the opposite of what I say.
“remembering embryonic origins” is the exact opposite of remembering lived experience…
It can be very painful contributing to this Forum
LOL.
Evolution is based on the differential reproductive success of individuals within groups that favour some traits and behaviousr over others. The difference is due to variations.
No learning, No memory, or any experience can be encoded into the genetics
You are clueless.
You die with exaclty the same genome that you were born with. If this were not the case then you could never do genetic ID testing.
Try and think it through a bit.
The bloke is right, RealUn. At best, you can breed behaviors that get organisms into novel kinds of trouble and challenges that result in epidemiological change in the genome, but this is not the same as inheriting memes. Say an overbold individual organism behaves in such a way that makes his environment more hostile to him. In doing so, he epidemiologically forces his environment to retaliate and apply pressure on his genes. He literally shapes his environment and, therefore, indirectly guides his own evolution.
Memory is encoded as in the encoding of genes that create brains with good memories. But this is not what you mean. You mean John’s son will inherit his father’s memory of the picnic by the lake in 87. No.
The greatest leaps in variation occur when a single line of organisms faces a new problem that puts pressure on it. This is why dangerous behavior can be advantageous for the line. It forces it to enhance itself. That’s where, maybe, really cool evolution happens when genes that get individuals into difficult experiences are passed down.
