proof is in the eye of the beholder. For the things math cannot portray. Can math show why lieing is bad? No statistics can. Thus statistics will always be open to interpitation of the variables.
What variables will science be able to test when the soul comes into play. If the soul is depressed wouldn’t it’s energy change. The part of the brain that responds to this energy will never be testable. For the ghost isn’t the air it passes through,… but merely charges the air it passes through.
Now what if the soul learns to like being choked while having sex. Why isn’t it saticfing with sex, without the violence and danger? Maybe because doing it right was one failure after another to when they gave up and accepted the violence,… they learned to like it. Thus their soul is caloused to the world.
…
I guess through circumstances, the soul changed it’s prioreties to ignore what it couldn’t have to begin with.
Now when prioreties change, so do motivations as to why. Forget the original why, and lose site of the spiritually sound how.
The fact is depression is a lack of hope in the soul. Yet medications help,… kinda. It takes changing the way of your thinking. Now if biochemistry was the cause and effect of depression, then medication would be all you need. Yet you block off showing psychology of the soul as the answer.
Space and time are side effects of matter. When by all logic they should be constants and not effected by variables. What does this prove to you?
Ummm, I thought we were talking about sexuality, but ok.
IF space and time are side effects of matter then they cannot be constants, and will have to be affected -that is what makes them side effects. All that proves to me is a truth by definition.
IF you define space and time as side effects it is inevitable that they will not be constants.
This doesn’t prove anything to me.
But I’d love to see the link you’re going to make with sexuality… I know it’s going to have something to do with the thread, I just know it.
“I bet there is no difference between a metro sexual and homosexual”
I’m a man of very simple tastes, and dislike the overstimulation of bright colors and so forth, but I must say that the above statement isn’t true.
The animal kingdom shows us that the male is frequently the most colorful and attractive between the sexes, and up until the industrial revolution, and perhaps the rise of Protestantism, men where much the same way.
Factory work brought short hair and militaristic dress all to serve the capitalist masters, who still wore silk suits and drank with their pinky out.
Having the desire to be a dandy has a much longer history than the twentieth century male minimalism, and it has next to nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuals are some odd pantomime of a certain type of female personality, while the confident dandy wears his finery like a lions sports his mane.
This is not feminine behavior, but rather typical male behavior. Meanwhile, other men are like the bull, the ram, the panther, the fox, and that is how they display their worth.
Well put. I was thinking about the Greeks and Romans keeping their hair short (presumably for martial reasions), but couldn’t get the thought together.
I find the “metro” trend very interesting… I guess it was inevitable that L’oreal would tap into to the vast undiscovered country of male beauty products.
Their slogan: “Because men are worth it too”
I think theAdlerian makes a great point:
I agree completely. I also think that its not heterosexual to do anything short of having sex with a different-sex partner. I’ll have to think more about what this may mean for things like wanting to get married, and wanting a family.
I think these statements are useful in helping change the way we define “what” people are. It seems as if these definitions may help us come to make a distinction between people based on their actions not on the fact that they may use beauty products, or may have certain attitudes.
I also find it interesting that we as a society are so hung up on whether or not people are gay or hetero…
i think that’s typical of a sociologist. does she shake her head sadly when she reads of yet another example of ‘biological determinism’. maybe she shld read steven pinker’s book ‘the blank slate’.
my only other comment is that there are currently a lot of very simplistic ideas in circulation concerning human behaviour, sexuality in particular. in a weird reversal of the actual situation, biology has been tagged as the source of all reductionism & determinism, yet in my 20 odd years of post graduate work in animal behaviour & neurobiology i have never lost my original wonder at the vast subtlety & complexity of nature. it is the narrow, ideological dogmas constructed in the halls of the humanities that seem (to me) deterministic, reductionist & as arid & 2 dimensional as graph paper.
It shows that there is a hidden cause in matter that causes space and time. What action of matter causes space and time? Well I can logically theorize that the creation of matter causes space and time. For without matter there would be no space and time. Yet further into this I see that the creation of matter would have to cause space and time. For without matter there would be no need for space and time. What action in matter can you see to cause space and time???
Maybe you see the movement of matter as the variable that effects space and time? All this proves is that a factor that preceeds the movement of matter also causes space and time. What could this be that has such an affect??? How about the creation of matter causes space and time.
First there was matter,… then to make matter have effect there had to be space. Yet for matter to have effect it took time. You couldn’t create one without the other so space and time must be two equal and opposite side effects to matter.
Now useing logic to determin if proposed sexuality is reason enough to rewrite the Bible???
If the soul is an energy that charges the body. In order for energy to be transfered there has to be a perpendicular resistance that changes the energy. This would have to be the brain, and it’s many different chemical actions causeing different energy frequencies for the soul to interact with. Now in order for sexuality to be caused by the brain, there would have to be a special section of the brain responciable for this. There would have to be a unique chemical action souly responcable for this. The section of the brain responcable for the nose would have to show an involintary change with the introduction of male or female chemical variations. Then this would trigger an endorphine release. Yet this would so easily be discovered. Yet isn’t.
Well since this is gonna digress, I would like to too:
Which came first, eating or sex?
Going way back to pre-DNA self-replacating molecules, I have the impression we have to say food: matter to pair with the strand. As asexual reproduction comes before sexual, that makes food more basic, doesn’t it?
Maybe I’m mistakesn in suddenly thinking that this undermines all the priority I had imagined sex having in the great order of being?
I agree with you in so many ways. It sometimes seems that the humanities, particularily sociology, are far too far into the nurture side of the the debate rather than the nature side. It seems like they often say things like:
“Well, its because they were socialised that way” But then can’t actually demonstrate the exact sociological differences.
I think the real answer to the questions of what makes us who we are, and what makes us act the way we do lies in the sum of nature and nurture. Our genes and physiology motivate us to act in certain ways, and to require certain things, of that we can be sure.
However, our socialisation and social circumstances play critical roles in our development, and affect the expression of genetic factors. One very interesting up and coming area of inquiry are the social determinants of health.
I strongly believe that genetic determinism is a myth, my genes play an imoprtant, but non-exclusive role in who I am.
I also think the reversal of conceptions about who is the source of wrong ideas lies at the heart of empire building aspirations. And let’s face it, there is a media furthered misconception about the power of genes.
Yes, well there is zero proof that nature is the cause of behavior and plenty that culture and other forces affect behavior. A Chinese kid born in the US is nothing like a chinese kid born in China.
What I’m saying is that our social systems have evolved within specific frameworks that are affected by our biology. Am I genetically more likely to like donuts because I’m canadian? Likely not.
But, at the same time, does my body react differently when I put a donut in my mouth than when I put a piece of tofu in my mouth? And if it does react differently, is it possible that my body’s processes may affect future choices?
genes are expressed in the context of an environment. honestly i can’t understand why people have so much difficulty w/ this. a giraffe is tall, but if you amputate it’s legs, it isn’t. is that so hard?
Adlerian i can’t believe you wld make such a facile remark. are you serious? for the record, a Chinese kid born in the US & a chinese kid born in China share, among other things that might impact significantly on behaviour, bilateral symmetry, dopamine, puberty, eyebrows, the earth… need i go on.