-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
karbytes_19_september_2024.txt
63 lines (35 loc) · 13 KB
/
karbytes_19_september_2024.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
/**
* file: karbytes_19_september_2024.txt
* type: plain-text
* date: 18_SEPTEMBER_2024
* author: karbytes
* license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
*/
17_SEPTEMBER_2024: This would be bad to put into a public note because it would set the blog “back”. Hell, I might as well…
I see no virtue in being female or feminine. I see femininity as essentially nothing more than outsourcing one’s own masculinity and hence being relatively dependent, powerless, and lacking in personal accomplishments. (I would also add that I don’t think women are inherently less violent, selfish, or lacking in compassion than men (based on my own experience and what I have heard other people say). Instead, what I am suggesting is that women are generally more conditioned than men are to mask those “unsavory” brutish traits because their survival and fortune has largely depended on exhibiting a relatively angelic persona (which, to me, comes across as “comically” insincere, petty, and cede). What I mean to suggest is that women are just as (if not more so) power-hungry, selfish, and banal as men are but women have profited by masking those qualities or having other people do “dirty” business on their behalf).
What I really would like to emphasize instead of gender differences is rendering everyone essentially genderless rather than polarized towards either the pole of “masculine” or else “feminine”.
What I mean to imply by the previous sentence is that I think that masculinity is the default set of personal characteristics which are idealized by humanity in general such as intelligence, strength, bravery, and originality (i.e. establishing one’s own personal brand as unique rather than merely imitating someone else (like what I think women are more prone to do than are men because of how women have been historically socialized to have relatively no life outside the home and family which she spends her whole life insulated away from the larger world inside of while the men go out to make names for themselves and pioneer new discoveries and inventions)).
I also want to suggest that, in the past, there were fewer phenotypal differences between men and women than there currently are. What I think happened is that the masculine “prehistoric” women did not reproduce nearly as often as the comparatively feminine women of their respective societies did. What I think happened is that those masculine women were relegated to “masculine” roles such as hunting and combat while the more “feminine” women were reserved almost exclusively for sexual reproduction and child care. Hence, only the genetically-transferable traits of those relatively “feminine” women were preserved because that is what was apparently necessary to prevent a community from going extinct. Over time that selection process eliminated from the gene pool women who had comparable strength and size to men while preserving the traits which have made women smaller, physically weaker, and grossly exaggerating of secondary sexual characteristics which advertise a woman’s fertility.
I think that humans are reaching a point in the human species’ evolution where androgyny is returning to vogue due to technology making it easier for people to enjoy a much higher standard of living than did their relatively primitive ancestors. As countries become more technologically advanced and culturally liberal, the average intelligence and money-earning potential of women increases while the number of babies they have decreases. I think that is because the relatively educated and affluent women enjoy reclaiming their status on par with men and do not want to revert back to being relatively subhuman.
This is a good thing (in my opinion) because the global population already seems sufficiently large and I think the population will, if allowed to self-regulate, shrink down to a size which does not get much smaller than that (i.e. some range of equilibrium) and which enables humans to survive for an indefinitely long period of time (either through longevity-extending interventions for individual humans and/or through some humans choosing to give birth to babies and/or human babies being entirely generated through artificial means (which employ computer-optimized genomes, gametes cloned from stem cells, zygotes being incubated inside of artificial wombs, and babies being raised by an expert community (run by many people who rotate shifts) setting instead of by individual households (run by less than three people who devote themselves more intensively to the task of rearing children (which I think “cheapens” the quality of adult life by forcing parents to have too limited of an experience and too little flexibility in how they spend their time and resources)))).
I personally appreciate that people can express themselves in ways which defy strict notions of what gender because what those people are doing is taking gender (and sexuality) outside the context of population survival and, instead, allowing it to be “just for fun” (which seems to align with what my personal ideals of a utopian society are: all people getting to do things because they want to instead of because they are forced to against their will (and some things I think humans were historically forced to do against their will was be drafted into combat roles or sexual/reproductive slavery roles)).
Speaking of utopia, I was reading about an experiment conducted in the 1950s called “Utopia 25” which involved allowing a population of mice living in captivity to grow so large that the mice eventually stopped reproducing and started becoming cannibalistic. Homosexuality emerged in those mice seemingly as a mechanism for preventing the population from growing even larger than what was an optimal population size to enable the mice to harmoniously coexist.
* * *
18_SEPTEMBER_2024: I posit that what mainly distinguishes a man from a women (culturally speaking) is that a man’s sense of “purpose” centers on his intellectual, creative, athletic, or business-related ACHIEVEMENTS while a woman’s sense of “purpose” centers on her interpersonal (especially familial) RELATIONSHIPS. I liken this to the analogy of a man being more like the independent variable (e.g. x) of a function (y = f(x) = (2 * x) – 3) and a woman being more like the dependent variable of that function (i.e. y). y changes in response to x but not vice versa. y needs x in order for y to have a sense of definition or meaning but x does not need y in order for x to have a sense of definition or meaning. What I mean to suggest is that a man has more of a sense of self-sufficiency and internal locus of self-control while a woman has more of a sense of being incomplete without other people more frequently telling her how to think and behave and such that her locus of self-control is external rather than internal. That makes man the initiator of social, economic, and intellectual activity while woman is merely a responder to such initiations; rendering her more of a sycophant and imitator than an autonomous agent which does not rely so much on external approval to act on its own behalf.
As a corollary to what I said in the previous paragraph, I have been contemplating the fundamental nature of reality as a whole (and not merely as an abstract and arbitrary construct fabricated by the human imagination) and hypothesize that, deep down, there is no absolute locus of self-control control for any finite allocation of nature. What that means is that I think it is very likely that free will is merely an illusion which shields its respective “owner” from being more cognizant of that information processing agent’s being governed by fundamentally deterministic processes which extend beyond its own body and mind.
* * *
I wanted to add a few more thoughts to this note which help render more complete the rather incomplete thoughts I appended to this note as of 18_SEPTEMBER_2024…
Firstly, in the aforementioned analogy involving the algebraic variables named x and y, I meant to suggest that one y can depend on another y in a recursive manner, but there ultimately must be a base case involving an x. Pragmatically what I mean to suggest by that analogy is that women need other people in their lives as the primary substance of those women’s lives (but, without at least one man somewhere in that network of socioeconomic influence, that substance is not very substantial and is instead not capable of thought beyond only the most primal concerns).
Secondly, I wanted to partially redact what I said about my hypothesizing that free will (at least for spatially and temporally finite allocations of nature) is merely illusory. I am a proponent of panpsychism and therefore think that free will (or any phenomenon for that matter) could spontaneously arise literally out of nothingness at any location in space or time (because, according to my own notions of panpsychism, nothingness is actually a ubiquitous field of consciousness capable of generating any and all figments of imagination).
* * *
For whatever reason, I keep forgetting to add this one last final thought to this note seemingly because it is so “in my face” on a regular basis: the annoyingly prevalent phenomenon of female humans portraying themselves (and being portrayed by others) as being what I think is excessively preoccupied with their superficial physical appearance (especially in terms of heterosexual sex appeal (with males being the ultimate target audience of such exhibitionism) and of social conformity (especially as docile, demure, and appropriately emotive (and, hence, non-serious about more intellectually-rigorous (i.e. professional), impersonal (i.e. non-anthropocentric), and non-ephemeral (i.e. timeless) matters)).
* * *
One last remark before I close this note off to further edits: I am presently neither heterosexual nor homosexual nor pansexual (nor even sapiosexual). Instead, I am merely asexual (with a strong preference for living alone and generally being asocial except for online and asynchronous interactions with other people (especially in the form of blogging and using social media platforms)).
Some people have suggested that I deserve to be ostracized and dismissed as “just a child” or as “excessively selfish” merely for not being as motivated as they and seemingly most other humans are to pursue sexual, romantic, and familial or even platonic intimacy. Oh well. I might as well settle for being maligned or misunderstood by humans other than myself for not being as interested in those things as they are (even if doing so limits my employment prospects, longevity, and quality of life (because I value being authentic over being fake to “earn my keep”)).
To those who protest that I’m insinuating (in the previous sentence) that I think they are being fake, I retort by saying, “This is about me; not you. Speak for yourself! Get your own damned blog!”
Some people proclaim that the “purpose” of life is LOVE. Sure, I could say I love someTHING; just not someONE. What I mean by that is that my devotion and affection and sense of emotional attachment is more for ideas and activities which appeal to me rather than for specific persons.
At the bottom of this note, I say that I love information technology (or, more specifically, computation) and information (and the seemingly universal and timeless body of knowledge known as mathematics (which I think gives fundamental structure to all physical phenomena (or at least is concurrent with physical phenomena))) more than just about anything. Within that classification of things I most love is, of course, karbytes (both the body of intellectual property referred to by me as karbytes and the sentient information processing agent which authored that body of intellectual property (with myself being its author-intended target audience and, perhaps eventually (if not already), a living extension of that intellectual property)).
* * *
Arrg! Alas I feel the need to add one last section to this note…
A few days ago I was reading an article on the web about how dogs are arguably better pets than cats are especially for the alleged fact that dogs tend to be both more dependent on humans for survival needs and, perhaps for that reason, more emotionally attached to and supplicating towards their human “owners”. Meanwhile, the article suggested that cats are not worth having as pets because cats are more aloof, autonomous (i.e. self-motivated rather than human-driven), and independent (i.e. adept at hunting local prey to feed themselves).
I am honestly a bit “turned off” (i.e. disgusted and even contemptuous) by humans with that entitled attitude towards “their” pets, children, employees, or intimate/domestic partners (which sounds like, “Make me your god instead of making nature your god.”). The argument implied in that article about a dog being more loving than a cat is fallacious. The dog is engineered (through selective breeding and training) by humans to have less autonomy than what a cat has. That’s not “more love”. Instead, that is less autonomy and more fear (due to being more helpless and more needy for human investment than the cats are).