I sounded curt. Sorry.

Now that I quickly familiarized myself with what you meant, I already realized my presumptiousness.

What I was saying can be seen as falling in with biological reductionism.

But briefly, here is how I would say a modified or qualified BR.

1. Of course science is--within conventional terms--right that all of our experiences have at the root neurons and chemistry. There must be that fleshy infrastructure.

2. Mind isn't that fleshy infrastructure. It has evolved a "life of its own" but it is not structured by matter. It is structured by the images in memory saved by the organism to create the appropriate triggers for survival. They now operate autonomously giving "us" as in the flesh, a displacement of our organic being, with an illusion of meaning, linear narrative, etc. etc. It qualifies the BR with an existent, but empty, thing displacing the BR "stuff" with its dynamics. It is not Dualism, because Mind is empty, structured by representations, not Real.

3. Back to that fleshy infrastructure. Ironically, BR fails to do it justice. Everyone, including BR wants Mind to be real. So they just say Brain is Mind. But Mind is empty. And the Body is the locus of the real being. We look at BR and scoff at how they reduce mind to brain function. While ironically, brain functioning is our Reality. The Narrative mind is the Fiction we are inescapably attuned to.

Unfacetiously, I don't know "what" my overall thinking on the matter might be labeled, if labeled it must be. But if the concept expressed in that sentence quoted sounds like biological reductionism, so be it. And if biological reductionism is somehow anathema (I don't know that it is, I'm assuming) perhaps it is redeemable with some fresh modifications. Perhaps I'm intellectually reckless. My ego prefers "open minded."

:up:

That is Mind. In one of its seemingly infinite possible forms of becoming. Right on.

And yet, did it occur to Moore, brilliant as "The Watchmen" is; has it really occurred to any of us, especially in this locus of history, that we, too, are just superimposed creations; not just our world, but all which we consider our selves; and, that we are not bound by our creations, be they dark or beautiful. We are not that.

We are--from the perspective of our Fiction's arrogance--that dumb lump of flesh. Not "no meaning, save what we choose to impose," just, no [place for] meaning. Life, free from our evolved, autonomous need for fabricating meaning, the thing making both dark and beautiful out of what is simply Natural, and inherently meaningless, alien to meaning.

Though there is value in it, and I mean this respectfully, why restrict the discourse to an analysis of the present state of scholarship?

Take dogs, for instance.

Save for my deficiency in Scientific terminology and precision, is this not what our dogs are in Reality? As much as we fantasize about their human qualities. If we’re being honest, isn’t it this? That for dogs, they are not these human-like experiences of love and desire to please, arising out of some advanced empathy, or out of any of the other qualities we superimpose upon them.

But rather, aren’t dogs really an organism which evolved (was bred?) to bond with humans? For them, a most-fit-for-survival-trait. And how are they driven to so bond? Is this where the love etc. comes in? No. They evolved to receive feelings of bliss when we engage in bonding, react positively toward them, and negation of bliss if our bond seems threatened.

There is no story to it but the ones we superimpose upon that natural bond with our Minds’ Language. Signifiers are constructed to displace what is Real. Dog wags tail and licks face: the Signifiers “good boy, I love you too,” displace what in reality was a triggered response to the treat, the contact, or so on.

Now folks may stubbornly reject that, but imagine you accept it, if only for safe passage to the next paragraph.

Now. Why isn’t it obvious that it’s the same for all organisms, sentient and sophisticated ones too, including humans? Why have we, in all our millennia of mythologies and philosophies not settled upon that we are not in God’s image, endowed with an independently willful soul which must be located, but that we are only a conceited ape?

We too, in Reality, are beings driven by evolution to respond to triggers in various ways. What is real human consciousness? Aware-ing those processes, those triggers, drives, responses, organically. What is beyond that for humans, no less than for dogs, is what Mind, a system of evolved Signifiers, superimposes on those drives and responses. Signifiers become the almost exclusive triggers for organic responses, like feelings and movement; empty, fleeting images stored in memory, autonomously constructing Fiction in ways evolved over dozens of millennia, and still evolving, and displacing Reality; usurping sensation, displacing it with perception, feelings with emotions, and image-ing with ideas.

What is Mind? A layer of autonomously dynamic Signifiers displacing being with time and its Narratives. Consciousness, for Humans is displaced by that fiction. Not Real. Always, only Becoming.

What is Reality? For the humans, as for dogs, it is the Organism in its organism-ing. Always present. Being.

Nice. A perfect remedy for thanatophobia!

If there is any modicum of "you" in the afterlife, what is that "written upon"? Presumably, even for dualists, the Brain provides the infrastructure for the memories, emotions, ideas. Even if there is an inner Being benefitting/directing (which i doubt). Even if there is a soul, how does it extend these things beyond the existence of the Brain?

If there is an "afterlife," I submit that it cannot in any possible way resemble this life.

Then, at least a partial answer to your original question, "what can I know with 100% certainty," is "concepts." Generally, concepts can be known with 100% certainty?

Or, rather, you can be certain about "things" conceptually?

Or, is your answer revised, you cannot be certain about "100%" even conceptually?

In the alcohol induced version we would have to say “I am drinking, therefore I am.” Or “I am tipsy, therefore I am.” — Fire Ologist

I think you are correct. Note the pattern though: I am [doing] therefore I am. Descarte's conclusion is flawed because it was to narrow. What defines us as Real existing beings, is the [x]ing.

Thinking, specifically, is not the ontological tool he thought it was. It has no special place in any [potential] hierarchy of Being or Reality. On the contrary, it is no less "mundane" "empty" than "painting" or "bicycling."

Any thought that "I'm bicycling therefore I am" is less persuasive than his cogito, arises as an illusion.

In fact, I would take it a step further. Thinking is proof of being. But thinking about x-ing does not bring x-ing to a "superior" ontological status, but the contrary. At the instant of thinking about x-ing, "Being" is "once removed," from Being and that Reality is displaced by the thinking.

Are you certain regarding the certainty of 100% certainty?

Don't you think it's no different than for any language/linguistic tool?

A person who believes the answers to her questions regarding subject x are best arrived at through correctly applying logic and reasoning, should learn how to use those tools.

A person who believes the answers to her questions regarding subject x are best arrived at through correctly applying Calculus and Cartesian geometry, should learn how to use those tools.

Or, have I misunderstood/oversimplified your query?

Without interference, perhaps, but philosophical thoughts are posted here on the Forum before they pass. — jgill

I was carelessly using Soto as an analogy. I.e., like for Soto, the reward in Zazen is not in the purported goal of Satori, but rather, in the sitting itself. The sitting is Enlightenment.

Thus your point too, might be addressed as follows.

If you are after "mindfullness" whatever that is, let the [philosophical] thoughts [posted here, or otherwis] just pass without interference.

If, on the otherhand, philosophy is what you're after, do philosophy (which necessarily requires "interference"), not with a goal in mind, but simply for the sake of doing philosophy. As suggested below:

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
Gotthold Lessing

Has any existentialist ever existed? — Corvus

The question has a second, and more apt meaning if the emphasis on "existed" is interpreted, not as "were there any (existentialists)" but rather, did any who wrote "existentialism" do existentialism? Did any make the final movement which they themselves called for: I e., the leap, the becoming authentic, and so on?

Of what value is a philosophical idea if it does not change lives? — jgill

As it is for just sitting, in Soto Zen, the reward is in the doing.

Yes, I see that he personally could not "transcend" to the leap. I meant for SK, ideally, a leap from reason, also a suspension of the ethical; all of which brings me back to seeing a subtle resemblance Zen. Not that either SK nor Zen deny reason and ethics their proper functions; but both recognize a "ultimate" truth/Reality which I'd not accessible by either means.
But your reply is informative. Thank you

This IS what is missing in Heidegger, Kant, Hegel, and even in Kierkegaard himself: it is one thing to reason and believe, quite another to be nailed to a cross of push the knife into your child. — Astrophel

Wait. Why missing in Kierk? Isn't that exactly his point? Arriving at belief through reason is "inferior" to arriving by a leap.

Would Sartre contend that freedom is a product of our biology ontologically speaking? — Justin5679

I cannot say what Sartre would contend, but climbing upon his shoulders, at least, I can see this. The biological being, I contend to be the only ultimately real being, the being in itself, Being, has radical freedom from the ultimate emptiness of the becoming, the being for itself (and other).

where religion scores, because it recognizes and addresses the need for "metanoia" or conversion. Yet one can find traces of it in what is said in philosophy. — Ludwig V

Yah, like in Nietzsche's, Heidegger's, Sartre's et. al. call for self actualization or authenticity.

Perhaps it's as much a matter of reconciling oneself to the actual, rather than working out something else. — Ludwig V

Yes. The actual, not the becoming (of Mind and its empty, fleeting attachments; its incccessant workings out); but the Being (of the human Organism, and its breathing etc.).

normal living is all there is to be in one's finite existence. This puts a person in a threshold existence that thematically runs through existentialism, this tension between freedom and existence. — Astrophel

a radical and onerous method, serious meditation. But it pushes one outside of philosophy. A strange matter to say the least — Astrophel

I found your entire reply very edifying, sincerely. I see the tie-in with Heidegger, and the basic struggle which similar "existentialists" addressed in modified ways. You presented that eloquently. Thank you.

I lack your eloquence, am not always confident in my word choice or the strictly academically, most suitable terminology but, coincidentally, that fact contributes to my next query.

On this locus of philosophy and the strangeness of, e.g. Zazen, with respect to, how can it fit in (again, I presume--and acknowledge where I mis-presumed before)

While I recognize and respect there are strong arguments in favor of orthodox reading in philosophy, or readings which are true to authorial intent, please bear with me as I offer a modification.

First let me preface it with a brief reasoning, also unorthodox. I would view Philosophy, as a discipline, to have as its ultimate goal, the pursuit of Truth or, if one is inclined to believe that capital T Truth is inaccessible to Philosophy, then the latter necessarily becomes the endless pursuit of Understanding. If anything resembling that definition is acceptable, in contrast to a definition like, Philosophy is the Science of properly grasping the Philosophers gone by, then there may be benefits to reading Philosophers beyond their intent, or prior to, or hidden in, their intent.

I even dare say, misreading philosophy might bear fruit, if the misreading has results which are functional to ones locus in History.

Now my query, which I admit, adds nothing new, but attempts to clarify my earlier post, and ride atop your quotes above.

Regarding his constructions of the knights of infinite resignation, faith; and, the absurd, I see in those reflections, some more steps.

The knight of infinite resignation who wavers and cannot complete the leap (emphasized in your excerpt from F&T), is an alien in the world and suffers the existential tension of knowing the mundane, to put it simply, is not ultimately true or what ultimately matters*, while at the same time incapable of faith that he Already is what ultimately matters. By contrast one who doesnt even know is happy in the mundane, ... So far, so good, right? ...

I add, and do not think this a step further than SK, but you may tell me differently, That Knight of Infinite is what traditional philosophy is; those who pursue, like Heidegger and Hegel before him, the Infinite, because he knows it is there, but does not make the leap.


and the knight of faith... here is where I think SK was moved by a real intuition conditioned by his locus in History, but we dont need that back story: whether he said this or not, this is my bold read: The KOF is happy in this world, knowing the mundane is not ultimate, not because of faith in the crucifixion, the absurd historical fact that god died a criminal. Thats SK's locus. The KOF is happy because he can abide in both. He knows conventional existence is mundane and empty, he also knows it is inescapable But he also knows he already is the Infinite Truth as a living breathing being. Yes, there is the painful sub-reality of the becoming; but there always has been the Ultimate Reality of the living being.

*(I'm deliberately trying to avoid Phil. terms because I've been conditioned to expect a debate on the terms. I can explain later if needed)

living and breathing IS a meditation. Interesting comparison to Kierkegaard whose knight of faith is simple yet penetrating, living entirely in the confidence and light of something that overrides all mundane meaning, yet being still embedded in familiar affairs, carried through as if all things were the same, but they are not the same at all. There has been a transformation. Something not demonstrable or arguable, any more than one can "argue" pain or happiness. Kierkegaard longed for this simplicity, but it was beyond him. It is the bane of being a philosopher that the very thing that lead the world to "visibility" is thought, yet for something to be purely visible requires at its core the cancelling of this very thinking. — Astrophel

I am with you on this. Presumptious of me, but I will briefly detail why I think so.

It's a bit problematic to bring SK into this because his knight of faith (kof) is tied in with Christianity, Abraham being a model--resignation, obedience and so on.

But. I think SK had an intuition about something useful which, owing to his specific locus in History, he interpreted in his (deficient) christocentric way.

Here's what that was, and how I think you expressed it above.

The kof is one who "returns" (my term, not his--he said something more like, "is opened to") to its True Self, not the self who is troubled by the mundane, but the living being which is in its Truth a breathing organism; i.e. the real self displaced by attunement to the mundane.

Hence, your "living and breathing is...meditation" fits. The kof carries on embedded in the mundane and nobody even knows it. It's not because, in the kof's newly acquired superpower the kof can fool everyone. No. The kof cannot leave the mundane. No one born into History can. But the kof simultaneously "knows" its real self is not the mundane, but rather the [eternal] "that" which is presently breathing.

The being which is thought to be pursued in an inquiry into Human ontology is, tragically, not the true self which is breathing, but the very mundane self caught up with the mundane. That is, as you aptly noted, SK like all (most?) philosophy, at least Western, intuited that the Truth was in the breathing, but remained trapped in the mundane, the thinking.

Some eastern approaches, particularly, (not the philosophy of Mahayana, but) the physical practice of Zazen, seems to have grasped the locus of the kof. That is, in being, not thinking.

It's a difficult word to tackle because of semantics but as far as I gathered, they meant has a lack of an "I" sensation/experience of self, therefore little to no agency to apply to a self, and act mindlessly on mere precribed impulses. — Benj96

How do you imagine an intelligent animal presents that "I' or "self" to itself?
To clarify my question, for me, its easy, I use those words "I" and "myself" and variations thereof.
Even if I "think" I am contemplating "myself" silently, without reference to those words, those words underlie such thinking.
How, I wonder, for animals?

My, potentially unique, perspective, for what it may be worth to you.

By self reflection, you are already creating the conditions which may be contradicting what you are truly after (I am being presumptuous regarding what you may be "after"). "self" reflection already imposes the limiting adjunct "self" onto the reflection.

If, by self, you intend to mean the Subject; the one which appears to occupy the driver's seat in all narratives in which you partake, then we are doing that almost consistently, and a deeper, more focused reflection will only yield like results concerning the mundane, the "space" that subject occupies. No matter how seemingly profound an insight, it will be an insight about the Subject and the mundane world it occupies.

If by self-reflection, you mean, reflection into (for lack of a better, or more readily accessible word, given the time frame) the real Being "you" (i.e., not this mundane self) are, then the process is not as we usually think. Western "metaphysicians," from Descartes to Heidegger were not, in my humble estimation, engaging in that.

Any reflection employing language etc., is not a reflection upon that. In fact, I submit, reflection upon that "Being" (please remember I do not purport here to conclusively define that so called Being, by using the term "Being"), does not even require reflection. The conventional ideas about reflection (i.e., deeply observing and focusing on your inner mind or that mundane self, the subject) amounts to observing the stories more closely. It is not "located" in "presence," but, rather, takes place in re-presentation, and uses, as its tools, re-presentation. This is by no means futile, but it yields insight only into becoming, into the story.

"Reflection" which "aims" at that so called real "Being" does not require reflection at all. Re-flecting, is re-presentating. Rather it is in be-ing. That is where that (hypothetical) reality is "located," in presence, in being, not becoming.

So how do you do that? I submit, Zazen, and specifically, Soto Zazen has come up with the closest "technique". But I am delivering it here, without reviewing Soto literature, without providing academic reference etc. This is not a scholarly depiction of Soto, but rather my interpretation.

You do not count your breaths, remind yourself you are breathing, or repeat the phrase "breathing," nor any variation. You do not make effort to empty mind of the stories. They will carry on just as your body carries on while the stories are front and center. What you do is simply become the breathing. And you are not really becoming, because you always were anyway. You focus that aware-ing body which has always subsisted and will continue to do so until it is extinguished, on breathing. You are not Benj96, you are not a tennis player, doctor, accountant, or brother/sister; you are not even an aspiring zen disiciple. You are not refecting, not constructiong, not setting out to attain Satori and with that super power, save all sentient beings. You are (just) breathing (neither as noun, adjective, or present participle verb); organism living, its organic aware-ing focused on its living.

I think you might discover that the "seat" of your being has always been there, and always will (until it is extinguished).

my life is a complete failure. It’s full of wrong decisions, (in)actions, regrets, mistakes after mistakes, that I honestly think maybe it’s already too late to “fix everything” (eg: I’m losing all the good chances/opportunities, as I’m getting old now). It’s really ironic & tragic, because a lot of people always say that I’m very talented especially in music (I used to be quite an active musician & composer/songwriter, but sadly I’m still not famous & successful), smart, a deep thinker, a highly sensitive person, etc etc. — niki wonoto

Acknowledging I do not have access to your full story, may I suggest:

Breathe, that is really your "life." Is that failing? Eating? Being?

That other stuff you call "failure," is not your life, but the stories you and those within your circle have constructed. It is not ironic that you are talented (which anyone can readily see) and feel this way.

What I think is ironic is that you ascribe those things to your life, when your life is hopefully succeeding, assuming you are still living. Mental suffering is not a sign of life failing; but rather a sign of the need to implement changes.

So, as for those things, use your talent to revise and edit; like you might a post you are not fully satisfied with, before manifesting it to the rest of the world.

Easier said than done? Probably. Why not start by breathing. Not saying, I am breathing, not counting breaths or focusing on the breathing. These too are the story. Try being breathing. If you really do that, I think it is inevitable that your life will "see" that it carries on just fine while your stories are adjusting.

Most of the problems I have found in discussions on this topic seem to stem from the way people use words and the fact that the words themselves having so many ways to use them — Sir2u

I've learned a lot of valuable things to help guide my thinking from these posts.

None as compelling as your quote above.

I'll be more careful.

Thank you

I think that the issue which arises from your op, is that ultimately it is the mind which decides what is good or bad, needed or not needed, morally or socially acceptable or not, and the judgement of "natural" need not be relevant to the judgement of "good". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that is what I have been--apparently ineffectively--saying. That Mind decides what is good or bad; [that such a process is ultimately artificial--square bracketed because I almost dare not repeat that]; and that accordingly on issues like the one at hand, we have no business bring natural into the equation.

I never said that things were or were not artificial, I simple said that they were natural. Artificial things (artifacts) are made by natural beings out of natural material, could that be counted as — Sir2u

The Eiffel Tower is made of iron, this we know. But it appears to be something other than iron, right? Otherwise why call it the Eiffel? Why not just some Iron. If a Chimpanzee looks at it, she doesn't see Eiffel or Iron. Both in fact are "artificial" whatever that word means. In whichever way a hypothetical we, in mutual agreement define artificial, we see Eiffel as something other than what it "was" in Nature. If we can't agree on that, I'm either having a brain freeze or am just so inaccessible to the information you have, that I can't see why Eiffel is not other than iron.



So like I said, call that "other" artificial. My original point is that for humans now, and arguably since the dawn of culture, sexuality is something other than what it was in Nature. Even whatever we hypothetically agree is normative.

Therefore the normative are in no position to say "yes but our sexuality is what it was in Nature, yours isnt, therefore...and so on."

If it was just that last statement, we might be on the same page?

So the question is what do we mean by artificial? Or what does being artificial mean? Does it make the thing unnatural? No. You're right. It remains natural. And I've said that all along regarding sexuality--procreation, if that's what ee want to call it, for lack of a better word, was and remains Natural. But romance, marriage, condoms, and fetishes, etc. etc. etc. are not. They are other. They are artificial.

Or hetero-sexuality falsely thinks it has exclusive claim to the Natural, when it too is other than natural. While, yes, procreation--whatever you wish to mean by the natural sexuality--remains what it is, present and natural, hetero-sexuality is something other than that.


But, even if you say hetero-sexuality, is, by definition that: procreation or natural, at least if isolated from all of those things I listed which are incidental etc., that is, in essence, I still say "hetero-sexuality" whatever it is in its essence is, the instant we think or speak of it, a concept invented to serve a uniquely human function. It is still as other from what I'm calling procreation, as Eiffel is from Iron. And so "hetero-sexuality" has no justified claim to being Natural in its hypothetical opposition to other artificial human sexualities.

What could be unnatural about the Eiffel Tower? — Sir2u

Ok, but that's actually my point. What do you think of this? Yes the materials are Natural, it complies with the Laws of Nature. But it is the Eiffel Tower that has displaced those natural "things" with something artificial. The nature of course still is, but for us, and our perhaps inescapable condition, we see only the artificial form*.

How's that my point? Because same goes for human sexuality. The procreation/organic arousal/drive part are Natural, and that Nature still is, but for humans with our presumably unique Mind, that Nature is displaced by something artificial. And my point is that artificial nature applies to so called hetero-sexuality and so called LGBTQ +, alike.

I mean, alternatively, all sexuality is Natural. But I am more persuaded its all similarly artificial.

the need not to have more children than you can feed is also part of nature. — Sir2u

Ok, I was wondering, as I descended your stairway of responses, now I am more certain, it's possible I have an idiosyncratic way of defing Natural. I agree the need for shelter/cover, to attract mates, to bond, and survive are Natural. I think the Eiffel Tower, an Armani suit, and vaccines are human made.


*(Yes, we can look and see steel, but if one must stretch it that far, then really? Is that steel what was Natural to the earth or has it been manipulated into something so human-made tgat you're not seeing steel? And let's not forget, this was an analogy)

Neither. Why we shouldn't tell others what preferences they have - whether social or sexual - because, as long as they're hot hurting anybody, their preferences are of our damned business, and oppression, especially in the realm of personal conduct, is bad for the welfare of a society. — Vera Mont

Now I think we're just approaching the topic in different ways. Obviously that's fine. We agree people shouldn't dictate others' sexuality. But as to the means at arriving there, we take divergent paths. I completely understand that my means is unconvincing to you. I don't entirely understand why? So be it. My weakness. Thank you.

Maybe it's the supernatural which ought to be described as fictional. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting. Assuming that what I'm really getting it is that Nature is (ultimately) Real, and Mind is artificial (formerly Fictional) [this part I am not elaborating on at this moment]. In that case, then Mind is Super natural. But you don't mean supernatural in the conventional understanding. You mean "exterior to" Nature, right? And yet, throughout the history of metaphysics, and one of the things I grapple with, Mind has been associated with spirit or soul--for dualists, at least.

I know you don't mean spiritual, yet there is that connotation in convention.

So, yes, the human soul is Fictional (To relate my perspective to your suggestion that maybe the supernatural be described as Fiction).

That doesn't alter the substance of what I was saying.

The Body responds to certain natural drives which are tied to procreation. The soul, a thing, we think of as -unique to humans*-has displaced Body's procreation with its multifarious made-up forms. Some individual souls believe their made-up forms to be Natural to the Body, and accordingly "right." But they are the workings of the soul, supernatural, made-up. Their form has no better claim to natural than those of other souls.

*I know, some think animals have "souls"

if nature permits or makes something possible then I doubt it can be called unnatural. So I would guess that any and all types of sex would be natural. — Sir2u

That might be helpful.

But the following question may also illustrate my point.

Beavers build dams; bees hives, birds build nests. Natural.

Prehistoric humans built their shelters. Natural.

But is the Eiffel Tower natural? I mean, maybe it is. Maybe 1000 philosophers will tell me why, and maybe I will be impressed enough by their reasoning to throw in the towel. Is it?

Some birds dance as mating ritual; some mammals fight. Maybe prehistoric humans danced and fought. Natural.

But is a marriage certificate natural? An article of clothing? A condom? Etc.

I agree that people should not tell other people what their sexual preference or practice ought to be, except insofar as they're protecting potential victims. But it's not tied to truth and falsehood; it's tied to social values. And they're not all rational or practical. — Vera Mont

Ok. Then so I understand, these social values, they're natural?

Your disagreement is not in the "social message," but relates to how I arrive there, relates primarily to the fact that you believe sexuality from its base procreation, to fetishes, proclivities and social values, is all natural. We shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is natural (as opposed to my, we shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is artificial--for post prehistoric humans).?

Archeologists and anthropologists spend a good deal of time and thought on the reconstruction of how human cultures evolved, so you can to a large extent trace our laws and mores backward through changes to their influences and discover the probable reasons they came about. — Vera Mont

Ok, but how do any of my points suggest archeology/anthropology cant? Or how does the fact that they can trace the root of our laws etc. suggest they are not artificial, or that being artificial, they are simultaneously natural?

So I assume that you are saying that "artificial" is just a special type of "natural". Then I suggest to ENOAH that the "fictional" is a subdivision of the artificial, which is a subdivision of the natural. And, it makes no sense to try and divide the artificial into natural and unnatural because it's all natural.
5h — Metaphysician Undercover

No thank you. I liked your suggestion about replacing Fictional with artificial becauease it leaves open the ability to contrast fact and Fiction. But the whole purpose of using either artificial or Fictional is to contrast it with Natural, and therefore, according to my submission at least, Real.

Someone please explain, can artificial be natural? And I don't accept that because it arises out of the activities of a natural species, therefore it is. If artificial can be natural, then to hell with that, I'm reverting to Fictional.

Sorry friend. Clearly I am not communicating my thoughts effectively.

Instead of addressing all of your points which equally reflect that my submissions were not clear, I'll address the first.

I am not saying there should be laws imposed or not imposed. Rather the opposite. Since sexuality is, in my submission, artificial, no one practice is "true."

Now as for suggesting that the only "functional" law might be one protecting against harm etc., I am not saying the opposite. I am suggesting that we cannot impose normative forms of sexuality on one another, given that they are Fictional, while recognizing there are limitations which might be functional (such as protecting those without the full capacity to consent).

Stating sexuality is artificial, and therefore cannot be divided into true forms and false forms, while acknowledging that Truth or Falsehood aside, there are functional limitations which might be artificially imposed...I don't see the contradiction you do.

So you think all the current rules and social norms regarding sex and reproduction should be replaced by one principle, written as law? Your principle - with no metric for the definition of 'harm' - while admirable, is just as artificial as any other human-created law. — Vera Mont

No. I definitely do not think that, nor is that what I intended to suggest.

In fact, it's more the opposite. I'm thinking that the "laws", any and all of them--which, to my mind, have evolved to displace the "natural" practices--are artificial, might therefore be recognized as artificial, and that none of them, therefore, should be imposed; and, especially not imposed under the guise that they are so imposed because they are true or natural.

As for your earlier points (in the most recent post from which I've quoted) about what I am calling artificial constructs being, in your reckoning, merely the natural expressions of a natural species, I still can't agree.

That might be said about the beaver's dam, an ant colony or a behive: that these are not artificial but rather the natural expression of a natural species. But for human mind, and experience, we've gone too far, and are literally at a point of no return (to our real natures).

Mulling over. Some helpful points. Thank you. Will respond after tge events of today.

Nice. Thank you!

I'm not even given to saying sexuality is mutable. One can be unaware of their sexuality, or an aspect of it, but it seems to me saying that its either fictional or constructed is wrong and both violates my intuitions, and my understanding of fight for rights. — AmadeusD

The physical act triggered by the Organic drives might be immutable. But to simplify it (at the risk of wandering away) all of the "associations" humans have with the word "sexuality," everything beyond organic stimulus/organic response, aren't these, to use @Metaphysician Undercover term, "artificial"?

As for "fight for rights" I don't follow. If you mean taking the position that non-normative sexuality must be "naturalized" to be accepted; that's the very thing I'm liberating. "Accepted," for an artificial existence, has proven many times over to be artificial. Why in this unique category do we insist on natural?

I can live with "artificial"--thank you.

Is the reason artificial fits better connotative or denotative? Is it for e.g. that "artificial" properly opposes natural and fictional properly opposes factual, or is it that "artificial" softens the blow?

Patriarchal societies included rules that strictly enforced the rights of males (and inferiority of females) in order to assure fathers of the genetic purity of their offspring - usually for the purpose of land inheritance. — Vera Mont

I don't get it. It seems like you're providing more "evidence" that what we've constructed is not natural.

I mean, I agree with you. Patriarchy (institutional/systemic), as you might be suggesting, (now, admittedly reworded by me) emerged out of the evolution (gradual construction out of the trial and errors of human made concepts) of sexuality from its natural process of procreation. You didn't say that, but surely you don't mean it evolved by natural selection--I.e., those male humans who engaged in the systemic oppression of women were naturally selected as the fittest. You don't mean that, for e.g.?

Of course there might be species which evolved behaviors over time, but none have evolved such a complexity as human Mind which effectively displaced the Organic and natural with its constructs, or stories, as you are agreeable to calling them.

So, why does this need saying?

Because we are attacking one another by weaponizing Truth, and no position is true.

Note, I am not, by insisting sexuality is Fiction, calling for a return to Nature, an abolition of sexuality. I'm suggesting that since we are all enmeshed in these Stories, which you seem to agree, even providing fresh examples, none of us is in a position to say, my story is the truth, natural, or normal. That claim cannot be the basis for the so-called sexually normative to judge the so-called sexually divergent.

The only functional judgment one can make--and as far as I'm concerned, in human existence, functional is as close as one can get to truth--is to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable, all else is just one of our stories.

My persistence is not intended to be contentious. You might be correct that human sexuality, since the dawn of history, has been and remains natural, if that's what you're saying. It's just that either I am failing to see how your points demonstrate that, or I have not effectively explained my thinking. Either way I feel compelled to clarify.

The mating rituals to which we are accustomed may be invented by human cultures, but the fact of mating rituals goes back 500,000,000 years. — Vera Mont

Yes. And those natural drives are the source, in Reality or Nature for the Fiction which we construct. I would speculate that the human's version might have been fore the male to present some physical potential, and for the female to present a certain pelvic feature. What has evolved, uniquely for humans, is no longer a "symbol" triggering a Natural Drive while the Organism maintains its aware-ing in Nature; it is now for us aware-ing exclusively in the symbols. Believing the Symbols, like "I" have the essence/substance and Nature becomes either only the flesh infrastructure or worse, the ugliness that craves. I say the stories displaced procreation with Fiction, and that Therein lies the craving etc.

Humans are story-tellers. We weave stories around everything, and more stories around the things that have the most profound effect on us — Vera Mont

Right. And those stories become "realities" we live and die by, and they are exactly stories.

Not all of it is to our detriment obviously. See cures, art, love etc. But some is, see prejudice and bigotry.

That's all I'm saying.

I can agree that you have given a very reasonable assessment of the very same processes I am referring to. And, sure, we can stop there and dig no deeper.

Also, "Fictional" might be too strong a word, but it is effective at contrasting these processes described differently by you and I, with what I am proposing to be the NonFiction, Nature.

And what I am getting at is that we aren't describing the things we naturally do in human sexuality--all across the so-called spectrum--we are constructing sexuality, an evolutionary process, slowly over eons, as a thing "beyond" procreation (if we accept that as the Non-fiction, natural "thing"). So that, now, hetero-sexuality has no "better" claim to being natural, "normal," etc., than other forms which this evolution has taken.

Procreation might be Real and Natural, but sexuality is not. Or at least, any Real and Natural "aspect" which still exists--to wit, the continuation of births--has been displaced by the Fictional "stuff" which has become our experience.

Finally, while I'll reassess your reply because it is reasonable, I can't help but reflect upon Reason too, and how it gets caught in the same trap: human invention to help us name and organize things such that eventually these inventions come to overshadow or displace Nature/Truth.

And sometimes to our detriment

What is the "I"? That seems to me to be the root of the problem. What even is "certainty"?


This is not a perfect thought experiment but the point might still be there.

What if eons ago, humans created an exercise with breathing, one which became socialized into each offspring, such that it became second nature. For e.g., what if with each breath, is the thought I am breathing. Such that today, we believe breathing involves the will, even if subtly.

Can you conceive of that creating the following:

1. I breathe therefore I am
2. How do I breathe in deep sleep? There must be two beings, the one which breathes with volition; and the Body breathing. My Body is one thing, but my breath must be a Spirit which is coming and going with the air.

And so on.

Is it really evident that there is any being, let alone the Real Being, "I" at the source of thinking?

Or, you know what? Forget that admittedly shitty thought experiment.
Alter it.

What if the same exercise took place and was socialized etc. for 200 millenia, but humans never developed language of any kind.

Would we still be faced with, I breathe therefore I am? How do I breathe in deep sleep? Is the "locus" of my Being in the Body which carries on breathing, autonomously in sleep, or in the I who breathe willfully?

Of course not, there wouldn't be an I, a Body, sleep, or multigenerational exercise, etc.


The things we believe with 100% certainty, are contingent upon the use/existence of Language. In fact, I submit, they are ultimately just constructions.


The 100% certainty is something more like, Body breathes, eats, bonds, mates, thus Body is. But of course that too is both expressed and formulated by Language.


"Certainty," itself is a fiction.


The Truth is in the Body being without attention paid to the I or the I's supposed certainty.