The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I's funny how arguments or theories of "reproduction strategies" are used to promote non-reproduction. There is no place for responsibility, commitment or honour. Usually all what these theories can be reduced to is "because animals do its, so we should as well, it's natural". Well, animals do what they do on the street, why do these theoreticians of human behaviour use toilets?

Yes, and this simplistic "we're no different than animals" -argument is quite a red flag. It's normally used as an excuse to a moral question/reaction, to justify hedonistic behavior, and in some cases could reveal that the person using it may simply lack the capacity for conscience and moral judgement. I recently watched the documentary 'An Open Secret', where pedophile Marty Weiss manipulatively uses in a recorded conversation this exact argument to justify his actions. In a way the argument is true in his case and I'd say it ultimately originates from a pathological/psychopathic worldview, and normal people may end up accepting it's usually more sophisticated versions.

 

[fabric]

Alpha qualities are mostly bestial attributes.

That was my impression as well when it came to categorizing people as either Alpha or Beta. It’s too simplistic and if anything brings us down to the level of animals. Tomassi subtly twists it to say it’s just ‘a state of mind’ but every example he has given demonstrates this state of mind looks more like that of a very clever sociopath. It’s not something anyone should want to emulate.

 

[genero81]

In fact, the impression I got from Tomassi was that 'Alpha' was more akin to having strength of character rather than external trappings like a large bank account or notches on the bedpost.

At the risk of speaking for luc, I think the point was that high level/ functioning males (who could be thought of as Alphas) are successful in many areas of life, including financial. And those males are often monogamous with only a few children. But I agree with Fabric, let's not incorporate any schizoidal declarations into our vocabulary and thinking.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Worrying about STS wholly removed??? Now there's a juxtapositional turn in the journey's course toward thought-evolution of consciousness for STO candidacy!


Yet learning to break free of imprisoned knowledge and limitation is the greatest of all "Learnings" - thus making free will all the more... Meaningful.

Like the vid-clip, below, reminds us: the higher the densities we progress, the more limitations are removed thus things get "easier"... But "easy" also equates to learning lessons lesser (hmm... now there's an interesting similarity of 2 words?)
Its the difficult lessons that teach us the most about ourselves. I wonder... When the C's say 4D STS can be enlightened, could this be what is meant: For someone has to remain in STS-land to keep the school running 'lessons'?

In retrospect, I think its both. The concept of applying free will that comes of "choice" is denied to Jesus because he is without Original Sin aka STS. The Abrahamic religions teach that it was our free will that caused us to "fall" into sin because, it would seem, we didn't know what we were doing, therefor it must also be the other way round too. We had to "fall" to "Learn" how to use free will in actual actuality. Without the "fall" into STS we couldn't learn the experience of exercising - as in applying - Free Will in a meaningful way. The "fall" is what it means to going to school.


Anyhow... I love this vid-clip. I found it quite recently though it was made a few years ago. I play it to remind me when I find myself feeling a bit lost and cast adrift... I think its apropos because it sums up the core of what everything IS - as this thread has taken a turn (its apropos for just about any other thread here then... Heh)
The music goes very well with it too I thought. Im sure the C's would approve

What a lovely video, and yes, the music is lovely as well. Thank you.

 

[John G]

I liked Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel story better and maybe you can find some meaning from that Sodom and Gomorrah passage but what if it is not totally accurate.

I am not disagreeing on pig wallowing or wallowing in physicality just don't have the fondness for quoting the Bible like I used to do.

The Bible shares some concepts like hospitality, divine councils, and comet/plasma imagery with Greek myths and the Cs cosmology so in those areas I tend to be OK quoting the Bible. Even history-wise, you can do things like compare the Bible and Herodotus. As long as one isn't single sourcing with the Bible, I'm OK with it. For the deserve death thing, it's more like we as a species don't deserve to keep living on this planet the way we've been living so we as a whole kind of deserve a cosmic cleansing. Paul probably could get a bit brutal driving this idea home down at the individual level.

 

[Renaissance]

As long as you are confident that this verse is one of Paul's lines and are confident that others will interpret Romans Chapter 1 as you do and realize even Paul's contribution is possibly 30% tampered with according to one of the Cs sessions I see no reason to make any issue out of it.

That's a tall order! It sounds like you actually do have an issue with it. That in itself is fine but it's probably better to see what that is rather than getting fixed on 'the C's have spoken...and so it was'. You mentioned you used to quote bible verses. It seems like the way you quote the C's does have the some flavor of how fundamentalists quote the bible. Since you used to quote the bible, perhaps there is some type of loyalty conflict between the two? If so, you may be missing a lot of what is in the C's messages with such an approach. Seems more productive to me to explore concepts based on their content. I think giving allowances for a bit of nuance in interpretation can be helpful too.

It seems likely to me that there could be more meaning to what Paul was saying than how we currently interpret it. The offending statement was, "They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die." I think it could also be understood as saying 'They know what is right and wrong, and those who practice wrong (and encourage it in others) are bringing on death.' As AI mentioned Paul often talked metaphorically about death. So it seems a plausible interpretation about this line was pretty simply that these guys corrupt life and seek the death of the soul. Paul probably was condemning, but it seems he could have also been relating how these types condemn themselves and others through their corrupting behavior.

 

[luc]

I'm not sure I totally follow your logic here, luc. I don't think that 'Alphas' and 'Betas', as Tomassi is using them, really has much to do with rich and poor or how many children a man has (in fact, he specifically states it doesn't have anything to do with money - there are rich betas and poor alphas). I think it has more to do with subservience as a mating strategy (or life strategy, for that matter), like the current memes of the male feminist and 'soy boys'. I'm not saying the terms have value, necessarily, and I'm not defending the perspective of the manosphere, but I also think there's something to this and that we shouldn't simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, the impression I got from Tomassi was that 'Alpha' was more akin to having strength of character rather than external trappings like a large bank account or notches on the bedpost.

You are right, I think my post was a bit ranty and also didn't have a lot to do with Tomassi's work. To perhaps clarify my thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong: I kind of don't like this talk about "Alpha" and "Beta", partly because it seems to reduce men to "how many girls they can get", which is associated with reproductive success (the connection only lost some of its meaning because of modern contraception), which in and of itself seems like a pathological Darwinian idea. That's actually where I was coming from: the argument against Darwinism that clearly, "reproductive success" isn't associated with status in humans. But the PUAs seem to send the strong message that men should be Alpha's in the sense that they should work hard to get the girls, or at least to be as attractive to them as possible? My point then was that there are many more and different goals in life, getting rich being one of them, but most importantly more noble goals. Which as you say might even reduce your "girl-getting" appeal - like becoming that boring, conservative rich guy. But even if Tomassi and such guys are more about "building character" (not sure about that!), the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" still have some weird emotional content that doesn't seem healthy to me. If you want to talk about good leadership, then use these words; if you want to talk about assertiveness, use that word; if you want to talk about noble character, then use that. Why "Alpha" with its particular connotation of "leader of the gang who gets all the girlz"?

Well, we can't really be sure about that, can we?

Ha, always that! I know you didn't imply that, but I think we also should be careful not to become too cynical about such things. We shouldn't consider human beings as mere animals who can't help themselves. There seems to be this cynical trope so fashionable these days: to deny that sexual restraint is even possible. Like "oh, the catholic priests are all lying, in truth they are all perverts", that sort of thing. But sexual restraint or even abstinence has always been a thing. Men are not animals, they can have nobler goals. Sure, many are hypocrites, but many aren't. So perhaps Kant and Mill and the rest really were sleeping around because they couldn't help themselves. But maybe they just valued thinking about deep stuff more than sleeping around or even having many children. Again, we shouldn't reduce humans to mere animals as our default assumption!

 

[goyacobol]

That's a tall order! It sounds like you actually do have an issue with it.

I think I do have an issue with trusting Bible quotes and I apologize if I offended Approaching Infinity or anyone else. For now my only bright thoughts on the New testament would come from Paul's writings which are supposed to be at least 70% accurate. I am not quite ready to stop quoting the Cs when I see relevant information discussed. I tend to grab on to what I think is true and hold on for dear life. I suppose I am still in recovery seeing the programming by which I was blinded (not quite a Damascus road incident as with Paul).

I need to chill out more and it's something I know I need to improve upon.

I think Laura's detailed approach to revealing the origins of the Bible and now the interest in the origins of Islam makes sense. Just quoting portions of most religious texts seems to leave more room for confusion to me.

 

[genero81]

I am not quite ready to stop quoting the Cs when I see relevant information discussed. I tend to grab on to what I think is true and hold on for dear life.

Understandable. I'm actually glad you quote the C's as often as you do. It's a great way to review answers they've given within the context of a discussion. I see the interaction with the C's as an interactive experience, as a general process of unveiling and becoming. They are us in the future, we are them in the past. And as they've suggested, we want to incorporate many sources into the process.

Just quoting portions of most religious texts seems to leave more room for confusion to me.

Without context that may be true. When one is seeing something about some aspect of reality, there could be any number of sources that really elucidates the point, including some scripture.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think I do have an issue with trusting Bible quotes and I apologize if I offended Approaching Infinity or anyone else. For now my only bright thoughts on the New testament would come from Paul's writings which are supposed to be at least 70% accurate. I am not quite ready to stop quoting the Cs when I see relevant information discussed. I tend to grab on to what I think is true and hold on for dear life. I suppose I am still in recovery seeing the programming by which I was blinded (not quite a Damascus road incident as with Paul).

I need to chill out more and it's something I know I need to improve upon.

I think Laura's detailed approach to revealing the origins of the Bible and now the interest in the origins of Islam makes sense. Just quoting portions of most religious texts seems to leave more room for confusion to me.

No offense taken, goyacobol. Maybe it will help if I share a bit of my own perspective on the Bible in particular and texts in general. Let's say I read something in the writings of Paul. There will always be a question of whether or not Paul actually wrote it. If he didn't, there are a number of possible motivations and outcomes for the person who did: maybe they are injecting something contrary to Paul's original intentions, or maybe they are actually inserting something that Paul would have agreed with. This happens all the time in the editing process of books published today, only it usually happens with the author's consent. For instance, an editor may make a note saying, "I think this explains better what you're trying to say." And the author may say, "Yes, actually it does, I will include that in the text." (Usually this happens with a citation, but ancient others didn't bother so much with the niceties of modern publishing etiquette.) So even if Paul didn't actually write it, it may still reflect his thought. Of course, it might not.

And let's say Paul actually did write it. Even that doesn't make it true. There are many bits in Paul I don't agree with. Yes, I admire the man, his character, and his thought. But there isn't a person on this planet that I agree with 100%. Reading something I don't agree with by a writer like Paul whom I admire may provoke a desire in me to think, "Well, if I don't agree with it, maybe Paul didn't write it." Well, maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, really. Again, I don't agree with ANYONE 100%, so it doesn't bother me very much. My heroes were all humans, so I try not to hold them to impossible standards.

This goes for anything and everything. So with the Bible in general, I have no problem quoting anything from it if I think it expresses something I think is true. I don't care who wrote it. The circumstances in which I DO care who wrote it is if I am actually trying to figure out who wrote it. But an idea by itself is true or false regardless of who wrote it. And the only thing I have to go on is my current level of discernment and knowledge. It's all anybody has. So the only good way through the maze is to devote myself to finding out as much as I can.

As for grabbing on to things you think to be true and holding on for dear life, that can be good under certain conditions, but also dangerous. They may be wrong. Again, the best way forward is probably to constantly expand your knowledge base, testing those ideas and making them your own. And remind yourself that it's okay to be wrong, because chances are that you're wrong about a LOT. We all are.

 

[dugdeep]

But even if Tomassi and such guys are more about "building character" (not sure about that!), the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" still have some weird emotional content that doesn't seem healthy to me. If you want to talk about good leadership, then use these words; if you want to talk about assertiveness, use that word; if you want to talk about noble character, then use that. Why "Alpha" with its particular connotation of "leader of the gang who gets all the girlz"?

I agree, which is why I said I'm not sure the terms really have value. Overall, I think Peterson's approach of building yourself up by starting with small tasks in making your life, and the lives of others, better is much more nuanced, and more useful, than the simplistic "alpha" and "beta" terms.

 

[Laura]

I've spent many years studying Paul, so a few fun facts. Paul wrote about 20% of the New Testament - that is, the letters that I consider authentic. There is some redaction, but once you know the tricks of the thinking and writing of the time, you can usually spot it. The book of Hebrews was most likely written by a follower of Paul.

So, that would make about 25% Paul influenced writing in the NT. The rest is pretty much myth and theological manipulation, that is, about 75%.

There IS a lot of "history" in the OT, though it is heavily redacted, distorted, and re-written as the history of a people it did not belong to. But if you know that, you can find gems there, too.

I would suggest that before anyone criticize the writings of such as Paul, or any other ancient writer, please walk a few miles in their shoes, live in their world, see and understand as they did. To learn how to do this, read Collingwood.

 

[goyacobol]

As for grabbing on to things you think to be true and holding on for dear life, that can be good under certain conditions, but also dangerous. They may be wrong. Again, the best way forward is probably to constantly expand your knowledge base, testing those ideas and making them your own. And remind yourself that it's okay to be wrong, because chances are that you're wrong about a LOT. We all are.

Approaching Infinity,

I see "holding on for dear life" as a kind of a danger too. Any belief can be counterproductive if that belief turns out to be even only partially true which happens more often than not it seems. I am trying to trust the Universe and view this life as a school where lessons are learned or repeated if necessary depending on my choices. If you "expand your knowledge base, testing those ideas and making them your own" hopefully you make better choices.

I suppose "trusting the Universe" is a very difficult goal to achieve 100%. I notice that you usually give descriptive posts when using religious or philosophical references and I think that is a gift. I am less verbose and not so eloquent in expressing my thoughts and that doesn't always work for expressing the fine points in complex concepts. I think the brevity of my posts may be why others tried to help by expanding with their understanding of what Paul really meant and adding more nuances. In essence they were saying (as you said) this "expresses something I think is true".

Thanks for the idea that we can quote something for the meaning that we have found in it without necessarily knowing the total accuracy of who really was the original source. It is the "Truth" we are searching for and as you say "it's okay to be wrong, because chances are that you're wrong about a LOT. We all are."

 

[Laura]

Yes, that's from Romans 1:32. Now, is that from the 70% disinformation or the approximately 30% valid information in the bible. That chapter has much to say about sexuality but in light of many things the Cs have said how does it fit with a bigger information database.

I can see that much of what Tomassi applauds is on the "pig-level" but saying who deserves "to die" is a little above my level.
I don't know, it is not so black and white for me and I don't have all the answers.

I forget sometimes that people don't have in their heads certain info that I have.

If you study Romans, Paul, his other writings, etc etc, you understand that the text of Romans is pretty much a sophisticated argument for the grace/forgiveness of Christ vs the harsh decrees of the Jewish law.

He was taking aim at a very specific group of people, and those people "know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". Paul was in no way expressing an opinion or a judgment or wishing death on anyone, he was setting up the platform for his following arguments.

The more I think about it, the more I think that people shouldn't read the Bible at all without taking a training course in how to read and understand it. And I'd like to be the one to design that course!!!

 

[Jacques]

And I'd like to be the one to design that course!!!

I will happily take that course if you do so.