The ‘Bridge’ between two mathematical worlds, at 60 (6) (HCN graphs) Click on graph once to magnify once, then again to magnify morePosted: November 6, 2015
(A given reader may find either that some or all of the following is ambiguous, or that it is ‘perfectly clear’ while not realizing that the ‘clearness’ is not the kind I intend. You may misinterpret while taking for granted that you have interpreted correctly. Or, you may struggle to figure out what point(s) I even might be making, if any.)
The deepest, most abiding, and by far most important, kind of personal autonomy for a person is his or her sexuality. This normally means, especially for someone like me, his or her sense of feeling validated as a sexual being; both in a) and b), following.
a) in the sense of being respected in one’s wish to withhold whatever sexual feelings one might in a particular context or to a particular person wish to withhold, including such feelings’ personally concomitant behavior,
b) in the sense of being fully approved for existing as as much of a sexual being as one at any time either happens to feel or has the ecological and eco-social right to express (including expressing offense at being treated in a way which effects oneself adversely either in a) or in b)).
Congruently—and contrary to what it may seem that Richard Dawkins meant in his comment about the indifferent drive of our genes to reproduce themselves—the genetic instinct of humans to produce offspring through sex is not a drive to produce offspring as such, but a drive to produce sexual human beings which are at once adored and successfully assisted to attain to sexual maturity.
And, to hope to be clear, by ‘sexual maturity’ I here do not mean sexual potential, as if the sexual maturity of a person has attained its own end in mere potential. Rather, what I here mean by ‘sexual maturity’ is that which consists in nothing less than the ideal to which the socio-sexual act itself may generally aspire. As someone like the Buddha would put it, ‘the universe loves sex.’ If I were limited to putting it in those same terms, I would say:
The universe loves persons’ autonomy, in which the central purpose of that autonomy is sex and sexuality—like the two sides of a coin. Or a tornado of stars. Even empty space is not indifferent: it is lost without the stars.
The degree and manner of young people’s mate-selection behaviors depend on the degree and manner of their information of the persons and processes involved. This information is a factor of the behaviors of the persons involved, and it is those behaviors that determine the processes.
Many Fundamentalist Christians today are under the impression that the reason young people in the unfallen world would have had no sin in the matter of mate selection is because unfallen young people would willingly be in submission to their parents regarding mate selection. In other words, unfallen young people would be sinless in sexual matters by virtue of possessing the restraint which young people in the fallen world so often lack. But, this impression presupposes, at least in effect-and-sentiment, that the socio-sexual dynamic which is most natural to humans was not designed by God, but is directly and inherently wicked.
This sentiment, on the part of parents and other elders, naturally drives young people toward the very things which then seem to prove the truth of the sentiment. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So, normal young people, under such a burden, tend to choose whatever combination of these two damnations which they individually can best abide. Some parents tend to be vicarious, but others end up being vicarious by their very non-vicariousness. You can’t win, and you can’t lose, unless someone in position of authority says so: “I shall encourage everything before it’s time, for sake of my own naive good will, but I reserve the right to say no if it all goes to hell.” Too late, you fool. Too late every time. There is no honor to prophets in their own city; and no one, on any side, has any true knowledge, nor any true culture, left.
In a socially and physically unfallen world, young people’s God-given nature as socio-sexual beings would not have found disharmony, thus would not have had any need of civil restraint. But, in the fallen world, this restraint is necessary—like all civil government—to prevent the unwholesome disharmonies which result without it.
The reason these unwholesome disharmonies result is because the fallen world is one of disharmony in the states-and-processes between, and within, every thing. By contrast, the reason the unfallen world would have had none of these unwholesome disharmonies is not because of civil restraint, but because civil restraint was unnecessary. [not to do with general human nature as God created it, nor with human socio-sexual ] The unfallen world would have been in total, natural harmony within itself, including each person within him- and her-self physically and spiritually, and each person and group with others, and with the ground, and with all other life on the planet.
But, in the present, fallen world of disharmony, there is a need to work not just for basic material wants (other than, say, atmospheric pressure, gravity, and breathable air), but for social and socio-economic harmony. This means that only a mentally and physically mature, and socially and materially wise, person is able to sustain the costs of supporting and defending self, mate, and any eventual children.
So, in the present world, when, either for cultural or age reasons, young people lack critical cautionary information regarding mate selection, their selection behaviors tend to lack the civil restraint required to establish key compatibilities, maturity, and wisdom, which together, aside from rare luck, are what constitute a stable foundation for engaging socio-sexually (as ‘sweethearts’ ‘dating’, etc.).
The social dimension of the human parent-child relationship is primarily for fostering the social half of the immature human. And, this is for future relation to a mate, and for future parenthood.
Parenthood is a product of the totality of the human creature as a social-sexual being. But, in the fallen world, people easily can get the impression that conception is most essentially an inconvenience. But, many people even today know that conception is essentially an ultimatum directly of the attraction between mates, not something opposed to their attraction by the burden it poses on the biological parents and their community. Children, as such, are not a burden. Fallen children in a fallen world are, with the emphases on the ‘fallen’.
As in the beginning, so even in the fallen world: the matter of long-term harmony in a potential marriage ought to be inspired by a consideration of the full range of natural mate-love. But, even as they were created in the beginning, so much more in the fallen world: the validity of a potential marriage ought not to be established by way of sexual attraction. This is because, even as it was in the beginning, such attraction normally has sufficient power to tend to itself. And, in the fallen world, in which there usually is anxiety to obtain a mate in the first place, the dynamic of that attraction is not a reliable guide to long-lasting love, or to commitment. Commitment is not an instinct, regardless how much it may be motivated by instinct. Commitment is a civil act in face of burden.
The ‘harmony’ of mutual romantic attraction is not at issue when it does exist. And, it normally is not the real issue for a potential couple even when one of the pair is met with a lesser or non-existent interest from the other. While it is natural for the more attracted person to use their own attractiveness to try to inspire an attraction in another, such behavior is not civilized. [manipulate, natural thing for the more attracted person to do in such disparities, is not the civilized thing.
When their continually naive efforts meet too much negative experience, most young people adopt as wisdom whatever ‘lowest common denominator’ they individually can tolerate given both the positive and negative potentials of pairing behaviors. And, not all of them have an equally low denominator.
In the fallen world, what needs tending are the deeper things upon the harmony of which the requisitely civil union ultimately depends.
Seven young men consecutively fostered the heart of, then rejected-for-‘someone-better’, a certain young woman named Andrea.
I was the eighth young man, though I never fostered her heart. Her good Christian parents had naively wished I had, since it’s only natural. Me, Superman, in their world of natural kryptonite. A world they didn’t know was so naturally bad, partly because they had no concept that a Superman can be injured at all, much less by what to themselves in their non-super-ness is a harmless green rock.
“This is Mission Control. All systems are Go.”
Not if I’m flying this thing!
In terms of a legacy of progress and its necessary civil moderation, no rat ever won the Rat Race. Marx, Rand, and everyone in between, are all idiots!
At Aish.com is an article titled Abraham’s Discovery (http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48909077.html), in which it says:
And God said to Abram: ‘Go out from your country, from your birthplace, from the home of your father, to the land which I will show you …’ [Genesis 12:1]
This Torah portion begins with the Divine directive to Abram (later to be known as Abraham) to leave his home for a destination unknown.
Who was this man Abram and why was he chosen for this special directive? How had he merited God’s attention? Why was he, of all people, destined to become the first of the patriarchs, the father of many nations?
Regarding all these questions, the Torah is silent.
Of course, the Midrashic literature ably fills in all the gaps, recounting Abram’s many trials and tribulations as a child and young man. We are told of his lonely spiritual quest and eventual discovery of the One God. While we have no question about the authenticity of the Oral Tradition, why does the Torah itself not share these details with us?
Of course, such a question could be posed about any section of Midrash, but, in this instance the complete lack of explanation of Abram’s special status in the Torah leaves us especially puzzled.
The article goes on to note that Abr(ah)am got metaphysical inspiration about ultimate origins from observing that his brother, Nahor, was named after their father’s father.
The article seems to imply that this was the source of Abr(ah)am’s initial metaphysical inspiration. Perhaps it was, but the seed which sprouted into becoming that inspiration was planted at some point prior to that actual inspiration, likely in Abr(ah)am’s childhood. As even a Roman Catholic source (http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/melchizedek.pdf) points out about the long lives within the geneology of Abr(ah)am:
the sacred author…wants us to be able to see the connection between Shem/Melchizedek and Abraham; otherwise this genealogy which gives all these [long] ages would not have been included.
No revelation is recored as having been given to Shem, and his name is not expressly connected to the name ‘Melchizedek’. The reason the Torah is silent about where Abr(ah)am got his inspiration is because Abr(ah)am was to be the father of a new world order, just as Adam had been the father of the old. This meant that Shem was more onlooker than participant, seed-planter than waterer, tiller than protector-guide, in Abr(ah)am’s story. The main thing Shem did was to bless Abr(ah)am, and he did this while having entirely down-played his own role in it, by having it recorded that Abr(ah)am was blessed by a title: Melchizedek. In other words, Shem was a humble man, not only despite his god-like long life relative to those then living, but in light of his own somber sense at how feeble was the one he blessed.
To Shem, his own long life was a trivial fact. But, he knew that its express connection to Abr(ah)am could only end up becoming a greedily worshipped legend—the sort of greedy worship which he knew could only take limelight from the role which Shem’s title must play for Abr(ah)am’s own, far greater, story. The title, and its connection to the life-span of its owner relative to Abr(ah)am’s own short duration, was that role.