Part III
Kenshō-Dō
The way of looking into one's nature according to Niō Zen
Chapter 8
About the nature of human
This section is about Kenshō, which in Niō Zen is the science of looking into, or that is, discovering one's nature. In this chapter, I will endeavor to explain to whom Niō Zen applies, and to whom it does not. Two categories will be detailed in this section. First, I will detail the nature and disposition of humans, and then I will detail the nature and disposition of Manu, and what differences exist between them. Then I will build the argument for why Niō Zen is not for humans, but Buddhism is, and how it is for Manu who are under the conditions of humans and in need of being emancipated therefrom. This does not say what Niō Zen is, because Niō Zen can not be explained via the route of human nature alone. It needs the added proclivities of the Manu for it to be rendered in sensible terms and arrangement. This is to say, no human will embrace or conceive of Niō Zen in its right nature. Only a Manu who becomes self-realized will access the nature of Niō Zen, and one who may be a Manu, but conditioned to be human, is not self-realized, but is instead held in captivity.
This section will unfold in a matter of fact manner, examining the nature of humans and Manu from a scientific point of view. This is to say, I have conducted a great deal of my own investigations and experiments to confirm my position, and in no way am I resting upon the research and propositions of others. Therefore, no one shall be cited as an authority, because I am going off of my own authority. I affirm what I write and take responsibility for it.
At times, ancient philosophers will be mentioned and comparisons made. I will not name them, so to say, but simply say it has been said, if I am borrowing a phrase from another, whom I hold had said it well.
It is now time to lay the foundation for establishing the differences between human and Manu.
Taxonomical thinking
Kenshō, in Niō Zen, is not about meditating, or sitting looking at a wall, and watching your breath, or even catching your mind, all things that have a place, but also all the things that happened to retard Zen Buddhism.
Instead, Kenshō is analytical in Niō Zen. In order to be analytical, what is employed is taxonomical thinking.
Taxonomy is a scheme of classification and categorization. Take for example, modern humans are called humorously Homo Sapiens Sapiens (from Latin, which means "wise man"). Homo is the genus, or general form, and Sapiens is the species, or specific form. The more general set of characteristics of a thing has its own term, and then within the genus is described other species that share in the same general aspects. The species is that which has the general form shared with others, and then a form specific to its kind.
This genus and species arrangement, in nature, is quite potently clear, in that though classification is of a symbolic and abstract reasoning nature, the reality of the categories is present in nature, that is itself not in parts, so to say, but whole. Remember, the abstract reasoning mind discerns, by nature, judges, by nature, is even prejudiced, by nature, and therefore, whenever you hear one say, "I do not judge", then you have either a delusional and ignorant fool in front of you, or a liar, because it is impossible not to judge.
I love shaking them up by saying, "I most certainly judge, and I aim to do so as accurately as possible", because they lack sincerity, and then they admit they judge and all do, and they were now exposed to have been simply putting on social airs, and lying so as to shape a character in a way that could never be valid to the awakened mind, to the nature of the mind.
Genus and species thinking, that is, taxonomical thinking, is essential to intelligence and knowledge hierarchies.
The term animal, for example, simply means animus, or breath, or spirit, or that which is animated, versus inanimate. Mammal then becomes another category that is about the mammalian glands, and how the animal is formed, or that is, in what way, such as warm-blooded, vertebrate, distinguished by the usual possession of hair or fur, and the secretion of milk by its females that is then utilized by its young for nourishment.
When a category like this comes forth, it is about the general characteristics. So for example, a human female can choose never to have young; however, she is designed by and in nature to exactly do that. Therefore, she can be said to have strayed from her nature if she is a human female, but not if she is a female Manu. Now the same can be said about a human male. He is designed to impregnate a human female, and when he goes a life without doing so, he can be said to have gone against his nature, but not the same can be said of a male Manu.
Nature's prime directive in animals : the production of offspring
The physical make and model of a mammal is indeed centered around the production of offspring. This is animal nature. It is due to another potency in nature that seems to take the greatest priority, and that is the ever so propagating and replicating cell. That is to say, the nature of all animate beings is that their animation is concerned with replication.
This is essential to say at the start, because if one is to say Kenshō and to look into, or that is, come to discover one's nature, they must first look to not simply their specific nature, but the nature of being. This is what the discipline of ontology is supposed to be about.
That animation is seeking, in simplistic terms, replication, speaks to the nature of life. And that the race of humans and that of Manu are living things, then to discover their nature, they will need to see the primacy in this.
In the animal world, separate from that of the human aspect, ALL animals are primarily concerned with this natural drive to fornicate, propagate, sustain, and serve the interest of offspring.
Everything that is studied about other animals supports this notion. This nature of animation is the nature that is at the core of their being and their program, and they follow it, in submission and subjugation, without any other chance of deviation.
To be animal is to fornicate, propagate, replicate, sustain, serve, and sacrifice to the interest of offspring. This is extremely important in the study of animal behavior, and then that of animal primate behavior, and most certainly even that of human behavior, with the minor interruptions, in simplicity due to volition and conditional influences significant in human behavior.
Manu comes from humans, and therefore, what can be said of the route of becoming human can be said of the route of becoming Manu, meaning, one does not speak of Manu as its own thing, but as a deviation from being human. A Manu is a deviation and can even be considered a defected human, as I shall explain later.
The objective is to include in humans, though, that which preceded them.
So a human is an animal, in that it is animate, and in that it seeks to replicate itself and serve the interest of offspring. In human systems of association, the hierarchy is as follows : males serve the interest of females, so that females can produce offspring. Males then serve the interest of the females and her—as they are not his—offspring. Human females then get the offspring to serve her interest. The offspring are designed to thwart the human female custodian and human male custodian, so as to rise to supremacy and first priority of the resources, as per nature.
So the servile path is male human serves female human; female human produces offspring; and female human modifies his behavior to serve her interest, while she then fosters it. The offspring in humans is not served or considered in their interest. This is a human myth. The primary interest, in human social systems, is female human interest, with the male human being servile in its nature.
Other animals too have at the core the serving of the female interest, and then that of her offspring, but other female animals serve the interest of their offspring, and do not, and can not have an interest other than offspring. Human females can have, and do have more interest other than offspring, as do male humans, and this is where it gets more wild in behavioral analysis.
Humans are self-serving. This is innate. The servile nature of the male to that of a female interest is instigated internally by that of a self-serving mechanism, such as "feelings" of being needed, worth, place, role, social status, and so on. So then when the human male is not serving a female interest, he will have lower self-esteem, which is not the case for a Manu male.
Human females do not have an innate impulse to serve at all. They do not serve the interest of male humans or offspring, but they have the innate attraction to be served and provided for. The offspring acts as a provision for the female human's Sense of Self, role in life, status, fulfillment, and emotional collaborations and alliances.
Evolutionary/adaptive theory and the origin of humans
Now, to help develop this Reasoning and understanding, I am not going to dig deeper yet into humans; I am going to back it up with scientific comparison with the animals, the mammals preceding humans in what is believed to be their family tree: chimps.
Now, first, in saying, "believed to be"... Evolutionary theory is a theory, though it is being passed off as fact and guaranteed. It is based on observation of nature, a very well-founded, well-grounded, and potent theory, sort of.
Evolutionary theory is linear. This is problematic, because the nature of reality, or that of the corporeal realm, is not linear, but is conditional.
What do I mean? Conditions are the primary dictating factors to what is, and what is not, what was, and what shall be. Now first, I must admit that I do not spend time reading. The majority of the books I have read, I did so before I was eleven years old, and I may have read a dozen books since, but doubtful. I studied Darwin, as he was a part of the Harvard classics, finishing him when I was ten. So I can not say that I am well acquainted with later works, and therefore, I can be behind in my arguments. However, the principles here are the point.
In Niō Zen, time is not seen as a phenomenon. It does not matter that quantum physicists and all the great academic mathematicians and thinkers have all prescribed to this notion of time and space as phenomenon.
Time and space is not a phenomenon. Time is a measurement of change and the tags of the changing for mental reference. Time is a construct for mental reference, as is sense of space, and relationship.
The past is simply conditions that are no longer as they were. It is not linear, even though the keeping track of it, is. For example, being caveman is a condition. In evolutionary theory, which is incorrect compared to, say, a sense of adaptation and mutation theory, it shows humans and/or life progressing and changing in ways best suited for the environment, or that is to say, what will remain had to have been best suited, and therefore, when changes occur in the environment, a thing must adapt and overcome, or it will die.
Of course there is a truth to all of this, in the sense that such can be verified through experience, Reason, investigation, and experimentation. However, a deer has pretty much always been what it is, and what it will be. And clearly, this was not the case for some other chimplike animals or some ancestors of humans, being as young to this planet as they are.
But this does not mean linear account in development. It does not mean up out of a chimp, spider monkey, or whatever, but could mean alteration via many other possibilities, including as it is proposed. But all of these are factors of conditions. That if conditions are the whole as they interact with each other in their parts, their action, or instigation begets a response, a reaction, alteration, and/or mutation.
If evolutionary theory is called adaptive theory, or a theory of adaptation in regard to changing conditions, then I am down with it. For this does not imply that a thing was small, developed, changed, and evolved, and became more. This of course can very well be the case, as in from the start, however, it will not always be the case, in the sense of the whole. Meaning, look at humans today. Humans are domesticated, and because of this, their physicality and mental landscape are changing drastically to where they would not be the fittest if their infrastructure of domestication faded, or ceased. In fact, the most domesticated could essentially die like flies by event of infrastructure collapse, in a matter of months. Millions. Whereas those who would survive, not conditioned in domestication, would be closer to their original design, and therefore, prevail and sustain.
In appearances, due to technology and quality of life, the modern domestic humans appear in the linear sense superior, though in fact, they are rather inferior to their primal ancestors.
This is due to a matter of which conditions are more suited to that of the operating system of being human.
If the rabbit, for example, and other small preys are wiped out, then the wolf will follow. It may be at the best of its potential, but the change in conditions, in regard to its nutrition, means it would be wiped out. So then will nature produce another wolf from that of others forms? Are conditions more stable now than perhaps they were before?
The answer would likely be that the conditions of the "past" were so unstable and drastically changing that they produced such a diverse array of adaptations and alterations, and to that, I could agree. So then if they are more stable now, then there would be the absence of provocation, and thus, less adaptation.
Now, though, it can then be said that there could have been a pre-time where, too, conditions were stable, and things were much more different then. So aggressive conditions came, and aggressive adaptation had to take shape. In this case, still it is not linear in the evolution sense.
So then where evolution theory speaks of what adaptations could have led to present states, I have found immense value. But where such conclusions have been used to try to explain the origin of a species, I am not so convinced and/or impressed.
Meaning, when you remove the linear thinking of the theory of evolution, and see it as conditional adaptation, it then opens up the possibility of non-linear alteration, and also unsourced origin. Because it means intervention as conditional is a given, but not what kind of intervention.
In a matter of thoughtful consideration and intellectual challenge, there is the thought experiment. Anything I can think of could have been thought of, and can also be thought of in the "future", because it is conditional, not linear.
So then if human scientists today can and do genetically modify life forms, then too this could have been done in a past condition, and/or future condition. Because it is possible now, it was always possible. This is a fact, this is reality and can not be denied. The conditions, however, would have been taxonomically comparable for this to be the case. If dinos were walking around simply like the other animals, reptiles, or what have you, then they were not chilling in labs tinkering with their DNA. This would require, conditionally, abstract reasoning, and nature obedience and control.
Humans show this ability, and humans have a history supposed to be hundreds of thousands in unfoldment, but only six to ten thousand as "civilized" and well-tooled. Humans could have been with tech before, conditionally, then lost it, then found it, soon lost it again, and found themselves in the mud talking mythology with their young.
The course of life is not linear; it is conditional. A deer will be a deer in the same exact manner a million years from now, because the deer does not show eligibility of growth, or hyper adaptable behavior. But humans do because of abstract reasoning that grants a command over their physical make, model, and direction, which is not linear, but conditional.
Domestication and breeding of the wolf produced domesticated dogs. Many of them can not survive and live in the primal settings of the wolf, yet here they are, conditionally as they are.
I do not know the origin of humans, where they came from, or how. But I do not know that they came from another primate. However, what I know about the other primates is they sure seem quite related to humans, and nothing like Manu.
In bringing forth these works on Niō Zen, it is wise to account for the way those of today's conditions believe in human origins. So though there is none to offer up in Niō Zen, with no need to really do so, others have this need.
Evolutionary theory, the strongest seeming one, is widespread in academics and sciences for obvious reasons.
Some, many, still believe that a God or supreme deity made humans in his own image, and put him on this Earth for some godly reason. These are often called Creationists.
Then there are those who believe in the ancient astronaut theory, that proposes that other beings with abstract reasoning and tech ability mixed their DNA with that of local Earth primates, and brought forth that of humans.
Now the last one does not need to be extraterrestrial, because as I have said, if humans can do this now, humans could always have done it, that is, crossbreed and tamper with DNA. So then an intervening race of beings could have been before condition, and Earth originated. They do not need to be extraterrestrial, in the same notion of possibilities. It's the same thing, no matter where they came from.
The God creation concept is quite the same as the ancient being of another nature making humans through intervention. Because in God beliefs, the God and/or Gods interact with humans, and they are often able to possess form, speak, and interact in ways humans could receive them. Mythology is composed of humanized Gods with apparent technological feats.
Can humans of today, with tech, make themselves, in future conditions, liken to the Gods of mythology?
The answer is, if you Reason at all, yes. Can they then subjugate and alter the nature of those they deem inferior? The answer is yes.
Because they can do all of these things, someone, or some beings with abstract reasoning, including humans, always could have, and always can do this. Do you see what I mean by conditional, not linear?
This can not be escaped.
Now, rolling in evolutionary theory. Because out of nature, in evolution, has come an abstract thought being embodied, so then can nature have always and can always produce another in likeness. Therefore, in evolutionary theory, nature can produce beings with abstract reasoning that can tamper with other beings, including other beings with abstract reasoning. It can do so, and evolutionary theorists have to acknowledge it has done so, and therefore, they must acknowledge such could have been done under other conditions that predate the present set of conditions.
In other words, get rid of this linear sense, because it is not intellectually solid. Godlike beings could have existed, because they can possibly come to exist rather soon, at the hands of tech, AI, or what have you. Too could have existed crossbreeding by intervention of kinds, because in domesticating animals through breeding, such has occurred, and in tech, such is being done through DNA alteration; therefore, could have been done already.
This means one can not rest on evolutionary theory being Law, but see it as a well-grounded theory, as it is. In behavioral philosophy, evolutionary theory has been more valuable to me than these other potentials, because these other potentials do not add any influence that can impact decision making. Things are conditionally as they are, and at present, there is no other being of abstract reasoning to communicate with.
There would have been, if humans did not kill them all for their differences. Meaning, it is science fact, these days, that living among humans were other abstract reasoning beings like them, and perhaps born of the same route.
It has been proposed in the scientific realm that two million years ago, in Africa, several species of humanlike creatures trotted along the conditional scapes of the same. In appearance, many of them looked like each other, yet others had distinct different and defining characteristics.
Just recently, a new one was added to the list, now called the Homo Naledi.
The present so called human species is said to have come about 200,000 years ago. During that time, several other kinds were said to exist. But today, who has the kingdom of Earth to itself? Humans.
Humanlike species are called "hominins". With them gone, it is now said the closest living relatives are the great apes, which presently has six known species : chimps (or chimpanzees), bonobos, two species of gorillas, and two species of orang-utans.
It is believed that the early hominins mainly ate plants, and did not consume animals nor hunt. The conditional change would have been that of either their area being brought to desertlike Sahara conditions, or them having to move out of one area to an area not as bountiful with plant life.
Even in moving out to hunt, this too would mean the animals they hunted did not have much to eat, so if overhunting had occurred, and/or the pace of propagation could not keep up with the hunting of the hominins, then they would both die out and be extinct. Conditions are everything.
It has been said that 30,000 years ago, three other hominin species were about : the Neanderthals, in Europe region and western Asia, the Denisovans, in Asia, and the "hobbits" (yes, I said hobbits!), from the Indonesian island Flores, known as Homo Flores.
Yes, fact-check that, as I swear to you, you read me right. I said hobbits, and these were indeed hobbit-like hominins, so take the time to look them up, and rejoice in the beauty of a diverse past long gone.
The "hobbits" were said possibly to have been wiped out by a volcanic and natural disaster source or threat, not by war with humans.
Out of those hominins that were still existing with humans in the nearer conditions, and known most about were the Neanderthals.
The Neanderthals were fixed in their place of habitation. Human populations developed, boomed, and this led to humans encroaching upon the space of the Neanderthals, and during that time, their population came to be diminished, if not entirely wiped out.
It is said that Neanderthals were successfully living in Europe long before humans arrival, for over 200 000 years. Humans are said to have arrived 40 000 years ago, in that of Europe. They wore warm clothes, were formidable hunters, and had sophisticated stone tools.
Neanderthals were better adapted to hunt in woodland environments than modern humans, and Europe began to experience climate change that would force them to change their hunting habits, which they might not have.
The climate change had made the forest they hunted in become more open, more like the Sahara, so some argue this was a major cause of their demise, and the switch to open area made modern humans the better hunters.
Sounds cute, and very Disneyesque.
No doubt, humans had innovative and very adaptable inclinations to changing environments, and therefore, often produced far more offspring than other groups, that would be sustained and flourish so much that it would cause them to have to move into other areas. That humans moved into the areas where the Neanderthals hunted is clear, and this clear idea that they then prevailed because they hunted the changed environment better is not so convincing. Neither is it that Neanderthals could not adapt. They did so for 200,000 years. So you get climate changes, and you get human competition occurring at the same time, and then dead Neanderthals. Yeah... my bet is on human competition, not climate change and failure to adapt.
Humans likely had higher success in reproductive rates, and their numbers were likely greater. This would have led to overhunting the area, as the humans were nomadic, and it would have led to them crossing each other's path, and overwhelming the Neanderthals with threats they were not familiar with.
Some have come to argue that what has set the humans apart from the failed Neanderthals was that of the DNA elements that have humans being hyper-social, and in need of social expression.
As I previously stated, there is that overall natural element of the animate to replicate and sustain its replication, that is, procreate. The other hominins were more fixed to simply doing this, as it is proposed. They found their niche of getting resources, food, sustaining groups, having sex, producing offspring, and then repeat, not much different from modern humans. But where there is a difference is this need for social expression, greater symbolic roles, and complications. But this is an impulse element of hyper-socialization, and how it comes to be expressed has not innate telling, so to say. Meaning, as an impulse, it can manifest itself in many ways, as it so does.
As a young man, I was not simply out of place among humans. I was, by all social behavior, and by all sense of interest, simply not human. There was not much difference between the Neanderthal and that of humans, minus some appearances, but there was enough to refer to them as different species. Again, in linear sense, they lived among the humans and along their own lines, but humans, being the ones to win, create this sense that the Neanderthals were not as potent, as powerful, or that is to say, as capable. Though all the evidence is showing that they were not like they were believed to be earlier on, but far more sophisticated, and that some humans had actually crossbred with them, and living humans today have Neanderthal in them if their ancestors are European. FACT.
If the Neanderthal lacked this hyper-sociability and the humans had it, then would this go to say that human hybrids with Neanderthal would have a less potent hyper-sociability? Food for thought.
Now, I have two ingredients borrowed over from the biological history of humans. Their connection to that of being an animal and a mammal, in that the first ingredient is that their primary natural grounded interest is, like the forms that preceded them, replication, that is, breeding. In animals, breeding is this act and realm of cell replication, or self-replication on one's offspring.
This primary ingredient was shared with all the other hominins, but then humans came to have an added ingredient : that of, let's call it, hyper-socialization.
I will return to this list, over time, but for the time being, I need to deviate in order to secure the path. I need to look back further in the history of the human animal and bring forth its connection to its ancestors, before that of the divergence out of the Old World monkeys, said to be about 25 million years ago. Bare with me here, securing the route can seem tedious, and boring for some, but Kenshō is not acquired by staring at a wall, it is acquired by using the greatest aspect of your being, that of Reasoning upon one's self via a methodology. And all of this is essential towards that aim, and one can not know themselves without truly knowing this tree of deviation.
The main area I will turn to is called the Panina, or Pan, often stated to be chimps, but some debates exist around that. Humans are said to be of the line coming out of the australopithecines, which gave rise to the Australopithecus and two others before human advent. The Pan, however, is believed by others to have deviated before the australopithecines, becoming then that of the Panina.
It is like a path with less eligibility of growth and adaption that then came to a halt, while the path of humans would come to have a few more variants present.
In essence, for the sake of this argument, there is a simplicity in having the chimps to turn to, to engage the sense of "human".
On Pan
I will broach the Pan genus and its two members, so as to help illustrate a core element of the description I have of humans, and what makes them humans. Then I will give a classification of the human primary attributes, traits, and characteristics, so that every time the term human is used, all of it is contained and meant to be triggered in the term, in Niō Zen.
As a part of the great apes, Pan genus consists of two : that which is called the common chimp (Pan troglodytes), or simply the troglodytes, and then that of the bonobo (Pan paniscus).
These two are very significant tools of looking at human behavior in the classification likeness.
Pan troglodytes is called the robust chimpanzee. Robust is sturdy in construction, able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions.
Coming in, in opposite disposition to the robust, is the pygmy chimp, who is called the bonobo. Both are considered to be the sister taxon to the modern human.
What is meant by sister taxon?
A sister taxon is a phylogenic, or that of a relational history of groups, and as a term, it denotes the closest relatives of another given unit in an evolutionary tree.
So in this sense, the sister taxons to modern humans are the troglodytes and the bonobo. They are the closest relatives to that of humans. And boy, do they tell a lot of family secrets.
It is said by others that the human and chimp lines deviated from the gorillas about seven million years ago. And that the chimp line splits from the last common ancestor of the human line around six million years ago. It is often noted that this was a similar relation to the Neanderthal and that of humans. Now remember, hyper-social impulse being a determining factor in difference, with little else being the case.
Some have begun to argue that the common chimpanzee should be included in the human branch as Homo troglodytes.
On the troglodytes
Now, on the trogs, as I shall call the troglodytes chimp, as opposed to the bon, or bonobo.
Trogs are what most think of when they know of chimps. Their society or social order is male-dominated, and is a patriarchal hierarchy, as some would say, especially those captured by gender politics among humans.
Female trogs do not often stay with their native group, but mostly go off to be a part of another group. Therefore, the male lines are often kept intact, and the status of a male is known in this hierarchy.
The male trog is nursed till about three, then weaned off, and spends some more time around the females, but mostly becomes absorbed into the male social order of the trogs. There has been some movement in researchers to downplay this, and try
to word matters as if they spent more time with their mothers than not. As research into these two Pan develops, researchers are now made to stop lying and projecting, and it is starting to shine through that this factor, among the trogs and the bons, is key to their development.
Now, when I say stop projecting or lying, this is to say that when I was a young man, one of my first primates book, written by a human female researcher, sought to paint chimps as not warlike, and that humans were unique in that they gathered in groups and had tribal warfare. She supposedly lived among and studied the chimps, but she lacked basic understanding of resource conditions and their impact on aggression and behavior. So then many years later, she was forced to admit that chimps, indeed, not only engage in tribal wars, but raid, patrol, and organize warfare, even with tactics.
Years, I said. When I read the book initially, I doubted its research, because its wording was of an entirely different nature than the thing being described. This is very important. One sees themselves and their Sense of Life in the things they do, and often this will determine what they want to see, highlight, and blank out as not being there.
I began studying statement analysis and the effects of linguistical tampering on thought when I was near to eleven, found it fascinating and alarming. In this lady's work, whose name is not mine to give, she was not behaving scientifically; she was behaving personally, and wanting others to know that she had a cool hobby, and thought she did well at it, to which she did not.
A simple thing as an article saying the chimp is reared till three, then spends several years with the mother, implies seven or more than a couple, which is just not the case, except perhaps in captivity, where everything changes. But this must be defined and/or stated.
Male trogs are not with their mothers long after being fed from their tits. They enter the male trog social order, and perform the roles of the male trogs, going on patrol, raiding, scavenging, and foraging. There is a great deal of autonomy in trog kind, in that they will go off alone often, including the females. Most of the aggression that is inward will come from a returning trog male not knowing if political changes have occurred, and therefore, mostly with displays, not actual realized force, he will reassert his dominance.
Male trogs, in their social grouping, are political in the most loose sense of this term. They can not truly be political, when you know what this term means. But they do engage in social strategy, if you will, that has as a primary tool, that of gathering the support of other males and forming bands. They use this social strategy often, with a target of a third party to be oppressed and have power and influence exercised upon.
The offspring, in the trogs, is identified by its relationship to its father. This holds significance. Among trogs, the females too have their own hierarchy, and that hierarchy is determined by proximity to the alpha males and the baring of their offspring, and aggression exists; it most certainly does in female trogs, again under-reported even by admittance in circles of often timid academics doing the findings.
When I left Brooklyn and joined the army, I took a leave on assignment for research reasons, and had a full paid expedition into Tanzania, as well as undisclosed locations to conduct my own research into primates, so as to contribute to ongoing discussion in the army on matters of sociological and psychological considerations, in the development of advanced training regiments that address the primal aspects of the human mind. This project is not under my authority, and therefore, not my place to disclose on its material.
But it gave me an opportunity to go directly into the research myself, and not be subject to the findings of timid minds that had a hard time using their sight and consideration. The wealth of understanding I acquired was, well, "spiritual", and my Bodhidharma nature was at home in the space, and among the most primal state of interactions. To this point, I will not share much, as it has no relevance to the reader, but is about personal unfoldment.
My point is that this is not book talk to me, about some far-off world of theory and projection. But this has been a journey of mine into Kenshō.
The male hierarchy and interest among the trogs is simple. Power and aggression are their means of maintaining mates, their safety, and the production of offspring, and they raid, war, and push onto others for the sake of resource acquisition and sustainment. In the complexity of their order, they do this by forming bands, or gangs, but without the symbols.
Though the hierarchy in exercise is male trog dominated, all of what they do serves the interest of the female trog, but the offspring is seen as theirs. This is mostly because the females will not be present after they have been developed, but will go off and serve in the interest of the trog order. The males, however, remain and get pulled into the fold of the trog male role. When the foreign females arrive, they become assimilated in, and they are afforded the protection of the male structure. The key here is protection, as this will arise later.
The hierarchy is male among the robust, for the same reason why they are robust, viz. security. They are robust chimps because they are competitors for resources, and in the chimp world, the females are a resource to the males, and to the females, the male is a provider and resource acquirer.
When a chimp raid occurs and the males are either destroyed or scared off, the females are taken. If they have young, the young are often killed. The female trogs, being likely foreign to the first group of placement, do not have a loyalty sense, or sense of being that changes anything. They do not then act as if with this new conquering group, they are captive; instead, they simply go back to doing what they do.
Too, among trogs is that of the young male gangs that will assemble and try to challenge the hierarchy of the established males.
A robust, strong, and aggressive band serves in the stability and sustainment of the female trogs life and offspring. It does not serve another purpose, and where it differs is that the offspring is seen as his, and not hers, in the longer scope of things.
For this behavior, it is important to see an extreme side of the coin of interest, that because there is an extreme threat, there is an extreme structure to mitigate that threat, with internal workings. The threat is in region, in that foraging and/or hunting, if you call it that, in the same area, or territory, and then the threat against the females and/or offspring being injured, killed, or stowed away.
The trogs have a hyper-social aspect to them. It is all based around territory, offspring, and their females. The females are the core and central natural gauge of the social order. This will become clearer when bons are to be introduced.
On the bonobo
The bons are considered another route of the Pan in evolution, but they will by clear sight not of evolution, but conditional adaptation.
The bonobo is called the slender, or the gracile ape, or chimp; pygmy, dwarf, small, and so on. The bonobo, as a Pan, is called the Pan paniscus.
You can tell the bons from the trogs in that they have relatively long legs, pink lips, dark faces, tail tufts through adulthood, and parted long hair on their head.
These things straight look and act neurotic. But let me leave that
alone for now.
These kin are found in the Congo Basin, in that of the Republic of the Congo. These areas are highly unstable, making it a challenge for one who would be set upon seeking to observe them in the wild. One day, I will write a fiction piece about this.
That, combined with the fact that the bons are innately timid, means they are difficult to study. Neurotic is a factual thing about them, not an opinion.
Timid, a term used often as their primary characteristic, means showing a lack of courage or confidence, easily frightened. Synonyms include nervous, scared, frightened, cowardly, pusillanimous, and spineless.
Both the trogs and the bons are not proficient swimmers, so it is said to be that the Congo River, formed about 1.5-2 million years ago, possibly led to the speciation of the bonobo.
Bonobos live south of the river, and thereby were separated from the ancestor of the chimps who remained in the north.
It is believed that there are around 30,000 to 50,000 of them in existence. It is considered an endangered species.
Out of the two chimp kin, the bonobos are seen to be the most humanlike in many ways. The bodies are smaller than the trogs, but not by much, and certainly not so much to be called pygmy, like a certain people of Africa. The females have more protruding breasts than that of other apes and that of trogs, but not as much as humans. In matters of bipedalness, they will have about 1 percent sight in the wild, but with a potential increase to 20 percent when in captivity, and food is bountiful. Kanzi, the famous one, can often be seen with a human female who tends to its learning, and well, there is more likeness to each other than not.
When you hear the experts talk about bonobos, that means, the academics, there is some excitement that can be detected, as if they have found what they consider enlightened chimps, because, well, these chimps are more like them, than not.
They will begin the academic track of promoting the social characteristics they think are the virtues among humans, such as stating the bonobos are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity.
But here is the problem with the academics and the bonobos : they do not see why these characteristics are present in them, and not in the the troglodytes. Their first assumption is that they accredit it to the fact that the bonobos are arranged in what some have called a "gynecocracy."
Gynecocracy is that of a matriarchy; a system where the females are the power players and core holders in roles and that of establishing the nature of the social order.
Here now, we come to some major illuminating things. The trogs have a male hierarchy because of threats and protection being needed. They are big, strong, aggressive, curious, and investigative. Too, it is said that they use tools for all kinds of things. However, the bons are not curious; they are timid, and correlatively, they rarely use tools in the wild.
What could this all mean?
The bons have a major element about them that causes them to often be laughed at, and championed. They, out of the two chimps, are very sexual, and indiscriminately so. In essence, they have been called "hippy" chimps, because they all get it on with each other. Even in this sense, in trogs, same sex activities can occur, but is rare; in bons, it is common place. This is not to say neither this or that of that variable, but it points to a correlation between over-sexualization, and then lack of discernment in partners and standards.
Female bonobos spend much more time in estrus than female chimps do. When it comes to matters of aggression, in captivity, due to their timidity, bons show less aggression than chimps. Therefore, for the longest time, they were assumed to be less aggressive, whereas in the wild, this is not the case, and they show near to same aggression as the chimps, and a high level of female aggression towards the males.
In clear aspect, the determining factor of the aggression in either of them is resources. Trogs are hard coded to be more aggressive no matter the case, because they have always had to cope with resource scarcities, and therefore, in captivity, where the scarcity is not a problem, their hard coding remains the same. Whereas bons were set upon a condition where aggression was not needed, because they did not have competitors for the resources, and they could afford to become docile and timid. So then in captivity, they are timid as they are in the wild, but when resources become scarce for them, in the wild, they become aggressive, though be it more in a neurotic way.
How did bons become with a matriarchy?
When the Congo River divide took place, the soon-to-be species of bons found themselves in the land of plenty. There was no competitor to contend with. They were themselves a group, and their numbers were 1/4th or so that of the chimps, or the trogs.
However, the nature of the beings was still more like the trogs than not, but there was no role. This means, the aggression in the males, naturally needed for their sustainment and furtherance, had no direction, or focal point, outside of the tribe. The male role was not needed for the newly acquired condition, but instead then became problematic, and turned inward.
An onset of aggressive sexualization began, and in this process of all getting it on, there was a physical depravity that would occur in the males. That is to say, when they did not have to work for sex, they no longer needed to have robustness, or any form of alpha to them. Sex was free. And when males are oversexed, they loose their maleness. This is science fact, more on that later.
Because the females were the holders of the sex, so to say, the males needed their presence and value. The females, in essence, naturally then took point on all the matters. The males were no longer males realized in their nature; they became something else when their role was no longer needed.
They became timid, afraid, docile, meek, neurotic, and rather useless, by nature's standard. In the bon males, there is the program to be a trog. It has not gone away. But the conditioning, over generations, made it to where when all bred with all, they bred out the alpha, or potent ones.
In bons social order, the young are kept with their mother for extended periods of time, beyond that seen in trogs. Because the bons sex indiscriminately, they do not know who the father of the offspring is, and therefore, the social hierarchy is from the mother.
When the mother keeps the son for extended times, he is being pacified of aggressive behavior from scratch and for over-extended periods of reinforcement and aggression.
Bon males do not exhibit curiosity, and neither exhibit the use of tool interest. They exhibit greater sensitivity to social cunning, and all matters of excitement, including that of finding a new food source, will trigger sexual impulse and enduement. They do not sex, because sex is something noble. Sex is, among the bonobos, a pacifying process. Once the males had become pacified, the females became more expressive, more dominant, and with no care of sustaining a health that would attract an alpha male.
The result?
A neurotic, unhealthy, timid, weak, meek, overly sexed, emasculated, and rather sickly kind of chimp.
When the researchers can not see this, they show their ignorance in the nature of things and the causes. The conditions of the bons were that liken to a domestication of an animal. Bons, in essence, were always domesticated, because they did not stray far, or need to venture out and work for their survival. In this sense, with no one needing to do that, they became hyper-social, because there was nothing else to be. They did not need to be raiders, they did not need to be conquerors, and they did not need to be guardians. This condition of theirs erased this natural role.
However, it could not erase their natural impulses and the Laws of their identity. But what can begin the process of depleting a thing of its nature is that of causing its nature to turn on itself, and receive bad code. This is what happens with incest. When the trogs had their females off to live with other groups, and the males and their fathers were known, it then meant there was not going to likely be a case of incest. Instead, for strength to come about, there would be a diversity in the gene pool. But among the bonobos, incest occurs often. A female and a male could be the product of the same father, and this would not be known.
Overwhelmingly, it is known that incest leads to birth defects, and one who has observed the natural order of things can see that there are natural mechanisms at play that try to reduce incest all throughout the animal kingdom, as well, as some have concluded, as in plants.
Yet this factor in the bonobos is not often well addressed as a leading factor of why they are essentially mentally disturbed chimps. I have never heard others come to this conclusion of them being inbred, incestuous, overly sexed, timid, cowardly, neurotic, and in essence, broken chimps.
If there were competitive chimps placed upon them, they would cease to exist rapidly.
For the bons, the sexual element is clear. Unlike the trogs, except rare cases, the bons use sex for everything, and in all kinds of combinations. They do not care where things go, they just put them everywhere. I have heard some say, if you are looking to study bonobos, be ready to see some crazy "shit".
Not crazy, but very indicative.
The key point, with these two as an example, is not to say one's behavior is the right behavior, and the other the wrong behavior from an ethical point. This is not the case. They are doing as they will do, conditioned to do. But the point here is to point out the role conditions play in that of the nature of a thing.
The two routes here are that of expressed or repressed; realized or conditioned out.
The trogs were in the state that most animals could be said to be in, where competition of resources was everything, propagating offspring and securing it was the theme. This is nature's main theme. However, the bonobos, because of the river formation and separation, were created as a fluke, with conditions that were not nature's main theme. So a war ensued, and that war was females versus males. The female power was natural : it was the role of being sexed and producing offspring. Her role did not change, but his role, on the other hand, became obsolete.
Therefore, the female became overly expressed in her role, without any checks and balance in the natural order. The male became repressed in his role, and eventually bred into docility and to be the opposite of the natural trend preordained in his being.
Male and female animals are a balance to each other. When it comes to the chimps, some pacification of the males was needed, and often, this was done in the grooming rituals and the game of alpha gets.
The energy and aggression would find itself well-directed and have a point and purpose of expression and vent. A balance would be had.
Here is the thing, now, about nature, and that of the attributes and the proclivities : they are fixed. The potency of a thing is determined by freedom or hindrance of its expression by degree.
Say for example, the aggression. If it had, say, a single degree of potency, it would then be in need of getting cultivated and expressed, that is, developed further. So then its track would be to climb from one to, say, thirty.
The way the being reacts to itself, with or without self-awareness, is in these potencies. Meaning, in all beings, nature has a barometer that concludes whether it is being realized in expression, or it is not being realized in expression, with the ultimate aim of being expressed.
So when the attribute and/or the trait is brought to be unexpressed, the inner barometer of the thing is sending an error reading, metaphorically, to that of its nature. It is in error. The more and more the thing becomes suppressed in its nature, the more the error reading occurs. A thing's Sense of Self and its potency will then be determined by this degree of expression.
So a trog male can receive some pull back to 20 from 30, and then tomorrow rise back to 30, but to take it and then breed out of it the ability to express its aggression anywhere on the scale will have it in error. They will, in essence, become sick, as the bonobos are.
When you research the individuals who do research on the bonobos, look at them and ask : who are they more like? Bonobos or troglodytes? Most of them are the timid, meek academics, where if they are a male, they are likely an emasculated male who worshiped mommy, and if they are not a male, but a female, as many of them are, they will be led more to seeing human sense of behavior, or that is, anthropomorphism, in that of the observed.
The trogs are a metaphor, if you will, of human male primal direction, and the bons, in essence, are that of the female human interest and primal leanings.
The greatest thing that can be drawn from these two chimps is the consideration of domestication, and that of the unnatural quest to breed out aggression and masculine characteristics.
If you live in the domestic West, and you do not see it turning into a bonobo society, then you are ignorant, blind, and/or a bonobo.
As stated before, nature, as the general form, has at its call with animation, or life, that of cell replication, and/or, further on, that of a being, a kin, replicating itself through propagation and the production of offspring. This is the main and primary course that all other animal aspects serve.
The second added aspect, as it relates to humans, was hyper-socialization. However, in my example of the trogs and bons, I was hoping to illuminate the now sense of the male human and female human, and their natural roles as they were established in and by nature, and according not to domestic settings, but that of primal settings.
Primal settings mean resource competition, with adversaries and/or opponents, playing at the same resource game. It means resource scarcity, and that of threat cycles and continuation.
Nature, with the animals, has threats all about. The predator is a threat to the prey, and therefore, in their design, or their nature, is a mechanism that determines how this will play out.
So in the trogs, what can be seen is that the male role is not simply to impregnate. This is made clear in nature's development of the males of most kinds to be more aggressive, defensive, and risk-takers.
In the trogs, this was the case. They were risk-takers, curious, adventurist, bold, strong, aggressive, and outward going. Then added to this is that in the trogs, you see the formation of social strategy of building bands, or gangs, without symbols. This then allowed for an increase in power display by numbers, through cooperation and collaboration. All of this was a natural response to threat cycles often from without.
The females served the role in scavenging for food and attracting alpha males, so that they could produce stronger and stronger offspring, to which they then cared for, and upon the right timing, sent the females off to other groups, and moved the males into their defensive role to deal with the threat cycle and resource competition. All of this still around the natural prime directive to replicate, sustain, and make way. The male aspect is risk-taker; the female aspect, due to the womb, is risk averse.
The risk aversion in the female, and the pacifying nature is all grounded around the womb and the potential to act as a vessel of replication. In essence, the innate nature is to defend the replicating vessel for nature's purpose, and in defense of this and the role of this, it means avoiding risk and danger.
This can not be accomplished in most natural and primal conditions without there being a force to confront the danger and take the risk, and that natural role is in the male members of the trogs.
Then when we come to the bons, we see a corruption in the natural order, as the threat cycle was not present, but the beings who were in the condition were designed to deal in threat cycles. And so they turned inward in their displays of aggression, and they became overly sexualized beyond nature's prime directive to replicate. And instead of banding up for threat cycle aspects, sexualization of social interaction became the primary, and the bons got stupid with sex, and became a neurotic bunch.
Though this was the case, however, a strong thing can be deduced from this : nature does not see the conditions.
Meaning, when the conditions change, the inner barometer of the being does not change to recognize this conditional change. It goes on still seeking to be expressed. Therefore, it is still indicative that a nature will try to run its course from an inward potency, and not from a conditional dictation. So when the bon males had no external source for their nature to be playing upon, they turned inward, and the female nature was to sex, reproduce, and raise the young. Now, it was left with female and male young with no external roles, so they became more dominated in a social strategy around sex, and mother. The over sexing led to inbreeding, and with the lack of diversity in the gene pool, the bons would have reduction in potency. The males and females were not a product of breeding with the strong, but instead, breeding with any, including one's relations. Therefore, it led to a weakening of the species, and behaviors of neurotic sense that neurotic humans tend to call virtues.
In this aspect of consideration, the roles, again, are cored around offspring, propagation, and replication. Not seen is that of hyper-socialization, where then comes the need of social inventions that are outside of this prime directive. Something would need to change for this to occur.
So then a human is not a trog, and is not a bon. However, that which is displayed in them, cored around nature's prime directive, is still present in humans. In fact, humans and their social systems are not too far beyond serving the same interest of that of offspring production and serving the interest of nature in replication.
Human is an animal, and then further a mammal, and all of this is a big deal to what it means. Hyper-socialization and that of symbolic manifestation has humans designing a Sense of Self that ignores, or is ignorant of how much of most of what they do is simply because they are an animal, they are a mammal, they are human. Without this trend of thought, one will not be able to discover their nature.
The primary characteristics of a human
Human is from humus, meaning earth, ground, mud, and lowly, as opposed to and distinct from that of the Gods. This is the history of this term.
First important characteristic of a human is that of being, from bottom up, bipedal, that is, standing upon two feet. Some assert this occurred as a means to marathon run, the animals being hunted, and that this correlates with sweat glands, and that of being able to cool down better than the other animals who panted, and therefore, were collapsing after being chased for long hours. This means, do not think of a human overtaking a fast and a strong beast. Think of the human lasting longer, making it faint, and then spearing it while it's down; that is more likely. Two feet, and back on them granted an upright carriage to scan the hunt much better, and increase situational awareness.
The erect carriage of humans granted the arms to be freed up, moving down to the hands, being too, and purposed to be freed up for manipulation with an opposable thumb making such things greater in being carried out.
From the carriage, or the body of the human, moves then to the nature of its mindscape, or mental mechanics.
Here, one takes hold of the advent of a new mind mechanic, that of abstract reasoning. This means humans innately and automatically formulate generalizations that become symbolized, and the source of recollect, understanding, belief, knowledge, proposition, opinion, and symbolic communication.
This has been mentioned earlier, but is relevant and important to explain again. Abstract reasoning has the mechanics followed as such. From that of there being a physical realm to be perceived, there is the percept, which then excites the senses, and triggers the mind to form a recept, which is the mental imprint, or the phantasm of the percept that is then abstracted from, in that the mind mechanics draw from the recept, or the phantasm, a generalization. This is to say, it will focus on the discerning aspect of characteristics and attributes of a thing, focusing selectively and/or disregarding other units of data not of interest to the auto-process of the individual human. Potency of mind mechanics will determine how much abstraction the individual human has occurring. Some will abstract more sets of traits, whereas others will be limited to less.
This process is automatic, and the concept, or the idea of the thing, is the product. Humans do not deal in the mechanics of abstract reasoning, meaning, they do not catch the thought when it is a percept, a recept, or during abstraction, but arrive at a conscious consideration, and/or recall at the activation of the concept. Therefore, in humans, the abstract reasoning mechanic is that which makes permanent the mental presence of a symbolic Sense of Self, life, and the world. No human is dealing with the world as it is, but is dealing with it as they have symbolized it.
You were born with the general human nature. And from that nature, your thought is purely symbolic. This means, all humans must have a Sense of Self, or SOS, that is symbolic in nature. This is called a persona, or person in legal sense. Persona is derived from mask, or that is, the mask a character wears upon a stage, from the Etruscan root word phersu. When one observes phenomenon and thinks on phenomenon, what they are thinking on has gone through the SOL filter. Therefore, it is essential to understand one's SOL. In Niō Zen, the objective of Kenshō is to look into one's own nature. This is what is meant by this. One is directed to discover, to classify, and think on their SOL, and it is within this realm that the delusions will exist undetected, when one is not familiar with this cognitive mechanic.
When you are cultured by your family, you are receiving a blend of their ways, and the ways of their masters, that is, the collective society at large. Your parents are subjects, not Sovereigns.
So then as you develop in your symbolic Sense of Self, you are being told all along by the collective, through the collective of your family, "who you are", that is to say, what you are personified.
If you are akin to your parents, you will adopt this personification, because you will see in them the same as you, and mimic is the first means of learning and binding an individual to a people, or a collective. If you are human, your symbolic sense will be linked to their symbolic sense, and conform to the ways of the master source, that is, the culture creatives of your condition.
Humans are innately collectivist, because they must be in groups, get their identity from a group, and be sustained by the group, and propagate within the group, and call on the group to sustain and support their offspring.
When you are human, you just conform and run this course.
Born out of the mechanic of abstract reasoning is that of complex problem solving, that of complex symbolic communication, and that of complex social organization, cooperation, and collaboration.
The carriage of the human form has that of the primary characteristic of being a heterotroth, as do all animals. This means, humans must draw their sustenance from an external source, and do not produce such internally like, say, an autotroth.
Humans are divided into two kinds by way of sexual and reproductive organs, like the other animals, and are, therefore, a part of the animal prime directive of replicating their genes through that of propagating offspring.
Humans, as heterotroths, are too, like the other animals, in need of locomotion and other means to acquire, manage, and protect that of resource acquisition.
Humans, like other animals, have other animals and other humans competing in this heterotroth natured reality, whether they know it or they do not.
In addition to all these is another more controversial, but clear present trait : that of volition.
Volition is that trait that is more about the absence of a thing, versus the presence of a thing. What is absent, or rather low-degreed, are the passions and the urges that are seen in the other animals. This is to say, they are most certainly not absent, but they are certainly freed up more, and they are less potent.
This is the primary difference between the chimps and the humans, not opposable thumbs. I have come to conclude in my own research that the olfactory genes, that is, the smelling faculty and its sensitivity, have become far more different and reduced in humans than what is found in the chimps. This plays a major role, because chemical excretion has a huge role in provoking chemical response from one subject to the other. The reduced olfactory faculty in humans means, though influenced by chemical outputs by way of smell, humans can ignore them more than other animals, and disregard them. This is not to say that humans are not moved by or excited by them as they are. This is to say, they are not compelled to act on them in this excited or influenced stage, to some degree, or that is, to a lesser degree.
Therefore, humans have this free zone of choice and thought, however, not free from their innate proclivities and nature. They are free from urge subjugation. This is to say, the other animals will be exactly what they are, broken or expressed, because their operating system is a set of urges, odors, and other factors that they can not ignore, but are compelled to be in conformity to.
Humans have an absence in this area that is the cause of human confusion, and would have led to, perhaps, death and extinction, without human grouping, social rituals, and the mimic mechanic of human relation and engagement.
Volition is not freedom of choice. Volition is the capacity and/or ability to either be in accordance to one's nature, or in discord. To either be virtuous towards one's nature, or vicious, or that is, of vice. Volition is about either being for one's self, or against one's self, for others, or against others—normally a product starting with how one is first towards themselves.
The blank state of humans is in knowledge alone, not in that of the absence of impulses, and a natured identity that determines how they are to think, what they are to think on, and how they can proceed in action. This is all, like with the other animals, subject to identity.
In the cognitive realm, humans are dictated by their passions/urges, and the cognitive mechanics are subjugated to such primal urges. Humans do not deliberate upon the sciences of living; instead, humans draw from their passions/urges a sense, and then use language as a slave to serve that sense and express their positions.
They are, in essence, grunting their passions.
What do I mean by grunt? If you did not know what human meant, that it means lowly, of the earth, as opposed to the Heavens, of mud and dirt, and you used it to say, "that is, or I am a human", then you were grunting. Grunting is when you utter a combination of sounds for a desired effect, but you do not know the meaning, and are not transmitting meaning. So when you see a cat, a feline, or that with the general characteristics of all cats, and you simply point and go "CAT", but never do its characteristics get summoned in your mind, then you are grunting. This is why humans, for the most part, do not speak on complex matters of multiple compounded concepts, but instead, grunt about objects and their relationships, as a form of "reporting" to each other. Reporting is that general form of dialogue where humans say, "I went to the store; I had class today; I saw an attractive mate; I ate dinner; I changed my socks; I am hungry; I am full; I am tired; I want cookies; I want sex; they are the same thing", and so on. It's simply grunting, because no complex meaning is necessary to communicate, and none is. Human grunting has a large array of word expressions, but when one knows the nature of humans, one can see through the diverse choice of words and detect the primal grunt behind them.
Human is primal. This is not bad, nor evil, and that must be stated. A thing of nature can never be called evil. What determines its value is that which is observing it, and its relationship. So then to a rabbit, a wolf is discordant and against it, therefore, evil. But to a wolf, the rabbit is of great value, a prize well sought after, and thus, good, not evil. The nature of the thing determines the evaluation. This is what SOL is in humans. A wolf does not have a SOL, because SOL is a product of abstract reasoning.
Hominin is a base and general form, and among the base of hominins comes a diverse array of kinds that do not differ drastically in appearance, but instead, drastically in the cognitive realm. The masses or the majority of those appearing hominins on the planet are humans in the most base of degrees. Therefore, the masses are human, not Manu, and that which is society, or the dominant social order, is modeled off of being human, not Manu.
The natural proclivities of human male and female in original primal settings and their differences
Humans are born with innate proclivities that are mainly dictated by their sex. However, just like the other animals, this is subject to breeding rites and combinations. In the animal kingdom, health, strength, weakness, and defect are objective terms. However, among humans, these are not allowed to be spoken and/or confirmed. This is against political correctness and the timidness of the educated.
The human judgment of right, wrong, strong, and healthy is not according to domestic conditions.
Human operating systems, like the trog program, were developed biologically to be suited to specific conditions. Those conditions are that of primal conditions, where resources were scarce, threat cycles and changing climate conditions were strong determinants, and a division in the sexes required a division in the roles. Over hundreds of thousands of years, those roles would then have a huge impact on the physical carriage of the sexes, and in time, both biological base of the sexes would be best suited for specific things.
Therefore, when a male human child is born, its health is measured by its proclivity to engage the observable world by seeking to track moving objects, at a distance, and move to locomotion, and chase as soon as possible. "Give me a target" is innate to masculine and healthy human males.
In the male humans, they are far gazing and their FoV, or field of view, is more narrow than the female humans, who have a 180 degrees FoV. Human males were in motion, not rest, and they had to advance with speed towards objectives, and therefore, their FoV was more tunnel-like, more narrow, and their minds focused on gauging motion, and forming a sense of prediction of the external physical behavior of the moving target. Zoning in was innate to the human male. However, human males who would experience danger up close and around them, in resting tactics, would begin too to expand their narrow FoV to that of 180 degrees. So it has been shown that human males will have this changed, but human females do not have their 180 degrees FoV reduced to a narrow FoV for targeting.
The female FoV is innate to having to scan close, not far, and be aware of multiple activities in the spectrum of nearness, versus that of a singular target. Most female humans are born with 180 degrees FoV. This is because they were often stationary and needed to visually account for angles of approach. This means, they were in a "resting" position, or passive position, and as such, needed to detect danger as it came, not them moving towards danger. Too, were they more compounded with others, in social groups, and needed to take in more data from around them, with less head motion.
Therefore, the female human and their health is gauged, in the female human child, by coming to observe what is close to them, and manage that of objects in a nesting manner.
These primal proclivities are the two different aspects of the sexes, male and female. They are biologically preprogrammed to do this. When this begins to fade, it is not the sign of evolution or positive adaptation, it is the sign of bad breeding and the depletion of potency in those being born. I am saying this from a scientific point of view, not an empathetic, foolish dance of avoiding that which are breeding Laws in nature.
When a needy human mother thinks she is helping the human male child by forcing him to look at her face and worship her, she is wrong. She is breaking him; put him down and give him something to chase. When he can not yet chase, then get your face out of his so he can see the world.
He does not innately wish to worship her face, but she does. He will seem to, when the female human mother drowns him in oxytocin by smothering and doping him in chemicals that effeminize him.
Over time, by breeding and repeating this behavior, humans will have bonobo humans, just like what occurred with the chimps.
You know when this has pretty much happened when that is seen as a good thing, and the bonobos are praised.
Human male child minds, when they are healthy and in proper expression, will be curious, adventurist, and seek out a mechanical explanation of the world, and the utility of proficiency.
Human male minds are a subtle version of the troglodytes mind. Human males are innately required to have a band. They will form gangs, or bands, compete with each other, and develop in proficiency by comparison and measure. That band is centered around objectives, or targets, and they move into competition of skill sets with each other on this matter of acquiring and conquering the target. When they try to climb the hierarchy, they do so by becoming better at a task that is masculine and oriented to hundreds of thousands of years of biological programming.
Male humans are objective oriented, or that is, goal and/or target oriented. This means, the measurement of their role and rank is determined naturally by how well they do something.
Human females, young and developed, are not oriented towards the target, even though they will have the target as a secondary. Their primary orientation is on relationships, and human female bands are not "bands", so to say, they are "settlements". This term is derived from my early mention of the FoV, or field of view, being at "rest". Human female settlements are not centered around an objective or target, but they do become centered around a "personality", or single individual who becomes the matriarch.
Female humans are socially oriented, and they favor through proclivity that of cohesion and conformity. Conformity is the chosen term here, not cooperation, nor collaboration, for the reason that female interest and proclivities are not assembled around a task, a goal, or objective that is "outside of them" and would require cooperation, and collaboration.
This is, of course, explicitly in primal conditions, and not representative of modern reconditioning and changes. The primal conditions are correlated to the natural proclivities. Domestication will demand, and/or ask, and/or compel, and/or coerce individuals, no matter their sex of human, to perform in whatsoever the subjugating system has so determined. This means, the product is not up and out of the nature of the individual, but is the product of an external demand and force.
The process of seeing male and female humans from an inductive sense is the focus upon the proclivities, not in what they will end up doing and/or not doing.
Female proclivity is not objective and mechanical oriented, even if a female comes to take interest or be in condition of sorts.
There were no professions in the primal conditions; there were roles. In modern times, professions do not speak to proclivity. I would hardly think that most working a servile job would so easily say they were inclined to be a servant, and their lives would now be around that. Professions, division of labor, and social utility, in domestic conditions, are a design that is top down and compelled, not a product of a nature, or that of nature.
Female humans do not collaborate. Instead, the proclivity among them is to establish a conformed sense, and then through social strategy, bring others into its fold. The conformed state is not defined and/or needing to be mechanical. It is simply a conformity. This is driven from the proclivity of insecurity, and the need for safety, or that is, reduction of risk and instability. These states are not defined, or subject to mechanics. They are states subject to attitudes and feelings.
This is because in the human system, that is primal programmed, the conditions of the primal state were not complex and in need of being defined. The simplicity of the stimuli meant, more often than not, that the female human sense of security was going to be accurate, and the sense and/or need for conformity meant establishing routine and familiarity, because this acted as a screen for change and alteration out of the schematic control of the space.
Therefore, human females have a proclivity towards the implementation of schematic control that is not defined or based on mechanics, but is based upon security, safety, risk aversion, and stability.
Human males, under primal program, do not have the domain of the nest, or the house. It is not theirs. In primal conditions, a great deal of male human time was spent "in the field", that is to say, off to battle, off to hunt, forage, and so on. Their primal role, which is akin to their proclivities and not mere conditions, had them out of the nest and active. They would return their gains, the rewards of their effort, and the female humans, on their control scheme, would orient and manage the bounty, disseminate, and account for stability.
Primal humans, male and female, are based in close to that of the troglodytes; however, the passions and the urges were less, again, due to olfactory reasoning, and that of chemical stimuli and propagation. But the primal roles were still the same.
The added complexities are in that of the changes of the hunting and/or battlegrounds. The nest did not experience as diverse changes in conditions that were not environmental, or that of climate changes.
As human settlements grew and reproductive elements became more conducive, populations boomed, and the tribesmen would find themselves not competing only with the environment and its wildlife, but others of similar skills and abilities, in that of other human tribes.
When this was set to occur, the routes were either cooperation and collaboration, or battle. I say battle in this case, instead of war, as in this sense, though battle is war, war will often mean a campaign and not a skirmish. Early armed conflict was indeed war, in that it was a struggle and a conflict, but it was not a campaign. Skirmish was the nature. Fighting was the nature.
The male human hunters would now also need to become fighters, or collaborators. When one side had a dominant alpha male who was able to get others to band with him, you would often have the onset of absorbing other tribes, and creating the clan system, or the house system. This led to an elaborate development in the proclivity to band, that is in human males as it was in troglodytes males.
Where bands were formed, houses were formed, tribes were advanced into clans, and the clans would outnumber the tribes and fighters of the opposing side and defeat them.
Now, as is still the case with some human tribes in the Amazon, or wherever they are today, tribal war meant killing the males and taking the women, and killing their offspring, so that they would produce offspring of their new tribe. Sounds familiar? Well, that is because humans have a history, and some a present, where they did just as their sister taxon, the chimps, did. The routes humans have taken can be seen in both ways, trog and bon. Humans have an elaborate way of expressing and exercising the abstract reasoning faculty, but in the end, they do so to serve the same interest that the chimps served : the interest of procreating, replicating, sustaining, and securing the resources to do so.
Female humans are not the same as female chimps, just as male humans are not the same as male chimps. Human social orders, in the primal realm, were marked by this hyper-sociability and a sense of a people. However, history of human warfare shows that like with the chimps, the human females, when taken for another tribe, would conform, comply, and assimilate, and more often than not, the tribes were not that different from each other. It was not that one tribe was the oppressor, and the other the victim, it was that each tribe was trying to do the same thing to the other tribe, and it was a fact of their condition.
That there are tribes today, among humans, who still live this way and do this war against other tribes, kill the men, take the women, kill the offspring, get them new babies, begs the question, what changed for the masses to get them to stop doing this to each other?
Human males would be at the front of the changes in population growth, and the competition of resources, not human females. This is not because of males oppressing females in history. This is an academic myth. This is because of the natural proclivities of the human sexes. Female humans are by nature risk averse.
Now, some will likely wish to engage in romance, and declare that the army is now open to females in combat roles, and that they are proving me wrong. That would be desirable for me, as Manu-like. I do not desire human proclivities in females or males, I am about Manu proclivities in males and females. Manu does not have nesting females, and fighting males. The Manu is a warrior people through and through, and our females fight beside our males, like some of us did when your Rome came ah knocking. Nervii was a Manu society that Rome erased.
Those female humans are trying hard in the military to live up to the political nonsense that their bonobo academic parents are spouting, but they are failing. The females who were pushed through ranger school had reviews that declared they were given favoritism, and even then would not have made the cut, as they were incapable of making quick decisions of a tactical nature in the field. Yes, female soldiers can do administrative duties and management, as they have this proclivity, but in combat arms and in the field, they are going to get American fighting male humans killed. This is not me saying this, this is upper rank military tasked with testing this freak show.
Human female proclivity is not designed by nature for tactical and strategic military engagements. Manu is different, and you humans might take a Manu and call it human, but you are wrong.
You can train a female officer to mimic and spout out a history of strategies and tactics, and she can show she has conformed to this, as female humans do well. But when the time comes to enter dynamic and objective oriented thought, they will fall greatly behind those male humans who should have been doing this job.
All of the research into human behavior shows an undeniable lean towards that of proclivity, not conditions. The movements of today are trying to condition everyone in domestication to favor the argument of nurture, or that of condition over nature or proclivity.
Conquest code and conquest by government
When a force has been gathered, that is, raised against others, and the pursuit is land and resources, which is the nature of most use of force, then the victors become government, or rulers. This is the reality of government. Government is the product of victory in the use of force against another group that could not do the same to them. This does not mean the other group was a victim and lived by another code. Conquest code is human code, all human code. Native tribes on the North American continent had the conquest code, long before European humans came to it and became the victors in their conquest code expression. If the native tribes could have won out over the domestic European tribes, they would have.
Conquest code, as a theory of history, would be undeniable to all who have half a decent mind to read the signs of the past.
Conquest code is natural in humans. It is born from few elements. The first is that of producing offspring, and the offspring increasing the need for resources. Second, is that of the nature of the mother of offspring to "feel" insecure, unsafe, and always in doubt. Third, the male nature to serve the interest of the female and her offspring, and to reassure her of safety, security, and direction.
During the tribal level of the conquest code, the males are out serving the interest of the females and their offspring through war and/or hunting, and the females would never question this or upset this, but instead have a feminine culture of support and encouragement.
However, when the tribal level of conquest code has been run, and a tribe has risen to have conquered multiple tribes, they, for the level of conquest code, are called nation. The tribe of conquest then becomes a nation of conquest. More tribes means more females; more females means more offspring; and the male condition is to serve the female interest, and that of her offspring.
But when the nation has stabilized the resource management, settlements, and sectors, they move from a priority of conquest, in the conquest code, to that of the conquest code's manifestation in governance. Their force is not turned outward towards another tribe or nation, because they must now use the force against the tribes inside their own "domain".
If a nation does not police its subjects and keep them suppressed, more often than not, that subject populace will rise up, revolt, and seek to replace the nation governance. The conquest code can not be said to have been turned inward, as those who rule do not truly believe their subjects are their kin, and of and from them. They become human resources who work, who farm, and produce, and become taxable entities.
No conquest is most preferable in the conquest code than that of conquest by government. Over many generations, the subjects are taught to identify themselves as being one and the same with the government : of the people, by the people, though this is never true in nature and reality.
Conquest on the tribal level is masculine, overt, outward, and aggressive in disposition. The nature of the conquest is governed by the need to be on the move, adaptable, ever so changing, risk-taking, curious, and advancing.
Conquest on the domesticated or governing level is feminine, covert, inward, timid, insecure, fearful, doubtful, manipulative, deceptive, and deceitful.
Conquest code, in regard to tribal outward war, measures the value of individuals, and heroic deeds of daring.
Conquest code, in regard to domestication and governance, measures the value of groups, obedience, pleasantries, work, and servile efforts and acts.
The latter, that of conquest by governance and domestication, like that of tribal conquest code level, is centered around the same core force : the feminine sense of insecurity, fear, and doubt concerning resources, their management, and their access. Feminine energy, fears, and insecurities become generated not just in the females of humans, but also in the ruling males.
When male humans are no longer out on tribal conquest code, but kept in domestication with female humans, they become softened up, emasculated, and made to be feminine by those female humans driven by their insecurities.
Soft and effeminate males, domesticated and bathed in comforts, would come to seek positions of power and authority, where they would enlist as their force, among the populace, those more masculine dispositioned. And the masculine would come to die for the wars of the effeminate and soft male, as the masculine tribal male would risk his life and die for the interest of the female and offspring back at home.
This cycle is inherent in conquest code. Females are not against war, stealing, and conquest, when they are starving. They are only against it when they are well-fed, and being well-fed through the taxation of subjects, or local deprived subjects, is acceptable to the female, as if they were her children, simply serving her. It is when there appears to be bloodshed that she may too see others as her children and "feel" for them, and demand it stops. This demand would change if her comforts were in jeopardy. High in places of power is an effeminate and soft male who has been pushed there by his wife, and he rules as she would rule, out of insecurity, fear, doubt, and by the subjugation of others, made to serve their interest.
This is conquest code of humans, not of Manu. Manu is an abolisher and seeks not to have others be enslaved to their interest, and to avoid that of having to govern others.
Now, many will think these words wrong. But they can only do so because they are not awakened or aware of human nature and activity throughout history, nor that which is before them.
I have known far more females who were not natured this way, but were masculine in mind and power, and far more evolved than human females. So know that human is the key here, not female. I have yet to meet a male who did not serve female interest among humans.
Now, that said, if you despise as I say, then you did not read what I wrote about Buddha's statement about human female essence. He made it clear that none can enslave a male more than a female, by all that she does. But he did not discern between human and Manu. Manu can not be enslaved by any, whereas a human is supposed to be this way.
Human males should never be told they are not supposed to serve the interest of a female and her offspring. Yes, he is. This is nature's design in humans. It does not matter if it brings him hardship or not. This hardship of male humans serving female humans interest and their offspring is not the female's fault, it's the fault of domesticated conditions. Humans become very sick when they are comfortable and domesticated.
When humans became domesticated, starting about 10,000 years ago, during the agricultural revolution, and then 6,000 years ago, with the advent of "civilization", or that is, the city/state/nation large settlements, their primal operating system became in conflict.
What do I mean?
The Human Primal Operating System, or that of HPOS, did not and has not changed under domestication in the last 6,000 years. The conditions have changed, but the HPOS has not, and may not, unless genetic tampering occurs.
However, what has changed, due to domestication, is that of the potency, by degree, of the HPOS traits. So for example : a child human male, under domestication, placed in a school and forced to focus on a classroom, is lacking in the expression of the nature of his FoV. His FoV is not a standalone. As a male human, he has a great deal of other traits that are seeking to be expressed in that of acquiring a target, moving in on a target, and falling the target, or that is, "acquisition by conquest". Cognitively, this is the reason why first person shooters and video games, in general, are so male human dominated and sought after. For this is cognitive needs being met. However, their physical needs are being stunted and derailed.
When an animal, as humans are, does not express its traits, it is being harmed. Unrealized expression of traits leads to a decay and weakening of the degree of potency of the animal. Meaning, it leads to a sick animal. "Boys", that is, male human young, are being broken by the schooling so common in domestic social orders. Domestic social orders are more akin to the innate attributes and traits of human females than human males.
The domestic social orders of today in humans
Contrary to the common belief that Human Domestic Social Orders, or HDSO, are patriarchal, they are not, and there is no patriarchy among humans.
Human Domestic Social Orders are matriarchal. This is because human males do not experience stability in social ranks, but are in competition, and the ruling factor of gain is skill sets at target acquisition and conquest. When one overtakes the other, they are taking the role at the head of a "band", not the HDSO. This can be seen in the realm of competitive businesses, sports, and realms of competition and high-risk to high reward conditions. "HE" who is at the top of the "band" has to fight to stay there, and has competition looking to upset his power and position.
This is seen in "fields", as they are so rightly labeled. There are three kinds of metaphorical, symbolic fields, with exactness to them as well : "gathering fields", "hunting fields", and "battlefields".
All fields are a factor of resource acquisitions and defense. A "settlement" is not in the field, but is where the resources are managed, disseminated, and held.
Human males do not have a superior position over human females in a settlement. Human settlements are managed by human females. Where the human males are in a settlement, they are in a servile position.
This means, they acquire and conquer resources from or in a field, bring them to the settlement, and the female human manages and controls their flow and use.
In this present domestic social order, many are stating that this and that is a patriarchy. Their examples are not in the home, but in the fields, that is, professions, competitive markets, and so on. This is due to an inability of the children of humans to understand the nature of their own kind.
A human female who engages a human male field and comes to see a patriarchal system does not understand the field. What do I mean?
Government is a field, and the gov is not the settlement. The gov does not govern the settlement by providing resources, or providing a production of their own. Governments tax the settlement, and declare they exist to protect the settlement from the conquest of others, which is true, so long as the settlement remains the subject of the gov, or ruling body.
Government and that of politics are the field of warfare, not settlement. It becomes a government because it won the battles and the war, and it is now the reigning champion over the subjects. No matter how diverse one's grunting is about government, it is a simple and primal thing. It is a "gang" that has become the champion of conquest, and its prize is being able to use the settlement and the subjects within it as a resource by way of taxation, and/or filling its ranks.
Government and politics are war; there will be a winner and a looser. So when humans mostly educated in the domestic social order say politics is a patriarchy, they are failing to realize the role of politics. Politics is in the field, not the settlement. And when it is treated like the settlement, social rules will be used for human females to take control over it, like they do in a household, and rule over those outside their household, making them their subjects. But human females do not see the targets, the far threats, and the objectives. This is why the educated domestic humans will call these things patriarchal. This is a statement of relationships. It is saying, there are too many human males in here, in charge, and we need more females in charge; not, these humans are better at civilized war than these, and therefore, they are there because they serve the objectives best.
When it can be seen that the sense of male and female among humans is the most important in that of a social role, then human females are asserting and expressing themselves beyond the natural order, and they are creating relational power, not targeting power.
This can be seen as well in that of the overt force of the military of the gov. Because of the "resting" aspect, in regard to danger, the HDSO is converting its military, as it does its politics and businesses, into one umbrella of settlement.
This, for humans (which I am not one of), poses the greatest danger to their present direction. When the whole of a social order becomes a settlement, then they will have, in essence, become "slaves" without even knowing it, because it is only a matter of time that a horde, or band of human males, will come in and take their settlement.
Human males and human females are predesigned, or preadapted at different social roles. Human females are best for settlements, and human males for fields. They are not, by nature's design, supposed to interfere with each other's roles. This is made clear by the chemical differences between males and females of the human sort, in that it is a chemical fact that human females will weaken the resolve of human males, when human males are settled and rest far too often with human females.
In primal settings, the males were meant to be brave, daring, risk takers, roamers, arrogant, and masculine. This was to serve the role of hunting and battle. The female would then care for and calm his inner fighter, allowing him to rest and heal. If a male was too long with a female, he was worse off when needing to return to battle or to the hunt. This is due to biological reactions and the lowering of male testosterone when exposed to the stresses and lost of semen with a female.
This is not to say that any compulsion should exist, forcing human males into the fields, and human females into the settlements. No such compulsion could ever come from my kin, in suggestion or form. Instead, this is saying, if human females take to the fields, they need to be separated from human males. And neither a human male, nor a human female, should ever be in charge of the opposite sex of human. Human males should never be managed by human females, as is becoming very common place in the domestic social orders of the West. Human males should not manage human females neither. The two should be kept separated in their bands and in their settlements.
This is understood in more primal cultures. This is not only ignored in more domestic cultures, but the opposite is pursued with a massive amount of aggression. It is false that in humans, males are more aggressive than females. Male humans are more aggressive in their expression of aggressiveness, and their individual needs. Human females are more passively aggressive, and run long-term strategies of aggressive social gains through alliances and subversion. This is determined by the innate differences of the sexes.
Now, there will surely be those who will say : "not all human females and human males are the same". This is false.
Explanation.
Every individual human male and human female has a degree of realization in their kind. What this means is every individual has a degree of potency, power, ability in regard to their innate nature.
Chemically, if a human male is born and conditioned to be a "girl", they will never become so, in this sense meaning not a healthy girl. They can become a broken girl, but never a realized girl. The emasculation and effeminization of boys, in HDSO, is a human crisis that will not be fixed, and must run its course.
HDSO, in regard to the settlement, follow the rule of primal settlement, that is : human males do not return to the settlement, and use their targeting system and objectives, and only return to rest.
Under primal conditions, the human males used their targeting system and nature, and would become exhausted in the field. Then they would need to rest, and surely not target their own, and compete with their own in the settlement. Therefore, in primal settings, they returned to rest and be cared for. They did not have a role in the settlement. This is a myth to think they did. Those times when conditions were about kings and conquest were not primal hunter-gatherers, tribal war times.
Primal settings are, in many ways, prehuman population growth, where bands, for the most part, hunted and gathered, not necessarily warred with competing factions.
Human males are to be at rest in a settlement. However, this is only healthy and strong when they have been expressed in the field. Therefore, if human males, under domesticated social orders, do not get expressed on fields, they do not become at rest in settlements; they become restless. This then leads to them having to be cuddled, babied, and pacified by the human females who run the HDSO settlement.
Human females can not understand human males and their targeting system, and they do not care to. This is why most books on male and female relationships are that of trying to get the human male to understand the human female—a big mistake.
Human females are not complicated at all, to a nonhuman, but to humans, neither can understand each other, because they are vastly different from each other, and they are in themselves, not "out of themselves".
A human female, in a settlement, will get the human male to focus on relationships, and status of that sort. Human females are not predisposed to care for the interest of human males. They are predisposed to get human males to care for their interest. It does not matter, your opinions; this is nature.
Human males are predisposed to fight in the field, in order to serve a human female and her offspring. They are her offspring, not his. If a human male young does not get separated from the settlement and join his "uncle's" band, or another band, then he has never become a realized human male. If he is kept in a settlement under his human mother's rule, she will "drug" him with oxytocin, relationship bonding chemicals, and make the young human male serve her interest. This is nature.
When this has occurred, the human males, in their development, will be stunted, unexpressed, and broken of their male characteristics. They will become timid, docile, meek, unadventurous, and full of self-hate, doubt, insecurity, and depression.
A young human female will not suffer the same fate. Instead, in the settlement, she can prosper if she is exposed to more human females outside of her mother, and therefore, learn how to overthrow her mother's role as the prime, and become a prime of her own. Now, this would offend humans, but humans do not really read, unless they are academically arming themselves to do war with those not of their nature ways, and then they do not read well that of logical argument.
A human female young, in primal settings, would not remain with their originating band. Instead, they would marry off in alliance with other bands. This served multiple purposes. It reduced the chance of incest, it gave also the young human female her own servile males, and it stopped one of the hardest things in nature, so detrimental in domestication : that of the subversive social tactics of emotional burden transference in female groupings. Meaning, the worst thing for a maturing female is other females.
Human female social settlements do not see the same kind of shifts in power status, and influence. Often, the female who is at the top is naturally so. Now, of course, humans will grunt in denial of these things, ignoring that when you see a group of females and ask them who they all sync to and with, in regard to their "periods", whoever they all sync to is their "chief".
The natural drive of children to increase their Degree of Potency of Command
Degrees of potency can be called a Degree of Potency of Command, or DPC. One's DPC is two factored : potency of command of one's self, and then potency of command over one's conditions.
Young human males and females have an innate drive to increase in their DPC. In this innate drive, nature has placed a subversive inclination that is used by offspring to target their natural parents. What do I mean?
Explanation.
Human young are not born in subordination to their mother or their father. In primal settings, the father or the male would be in the field. Therefore, the primal operating system is not about power struggles with the father, though in domestication, this occurs. The human primal operating system is based on the power struggle with the mother.
The offspring are under her care for the first seven years aggressively. A human female mother is defined by her role as a caretaker. In this role, the benefit she receives is chemical. She has innate inclination, in essence, to get the offspring to serve her interest, as she does with the male human. In this case, the interest is relational. She innately wants to be the "star" to them. This same innate sense is what plays a role in the human female social power structure. The head of the female structure is the "star" that they turn to, and is often considered the "mother" of the group. She uses the social strategy of compassion to know the secrets of the rest, and she manages by being the emotional receiver of their emotional burden, and facilitates the release of the euphoric positive chemicals that come at the end of frustrated emotional expression.
This is cyclically significant. When a mother has offspring, human that is, she is automatically the "star". When she handles the female offspring, the female offspring begins the social gaming by mimicking the expression of the mother, confirming to the mother that the mother is bringing "joy", or positive emotion to the child. However, this is not "joy"; this is human mimicry. In other words, it is the mirror neurons firing off, and they are used for human cognitive development.
If the male offspring is potent, he will not want to look at the mother's face. However, she will ignore this, because she is human, and therefore, ignorant by default, as is the human male, who will let this all take place. Ignorance becomes a natural problem, in humans.
The young male offspring wants to track a target in motion. But the human mother will forcefully get the potent human male boy to look at her, and "worship" her, serve her interest, as she is now generating her SOL completely around having produced offspring.
The human mother, in a primal condition, would not be raising the young on her own, but there would be elders among the females. Most of the elder females, in primal conditions, would have by then known to "let the boy be", as some primal cultures express today. They do not say "let the girl be", but they have expressions of "let the boy be". This would be the best for a young human male to experience an elder mother who has lived a life of watching the differences between a smothered boy and a freed boy.
Primal societies had the females doing tasks, and they could not be at rest with children in their arms all the time. And therefore, the mobility of the children came faster, and the children would group and move about, often without containment.
I have lived among some primal peoples of today, seeing this repeated. I did not need to go far for an experience of observation of a Sudanese child, maybe aged two or three, in the middle of a road, playing with no adult anywhere, when I was in Vermont, in a refuge area. Cars were not passing through, and I was lost. So I was. That little man looked at me like, "what, this is my road, best go around". Brooklyn of the eighties and nineties, my area of development, was more like this than that of the common sheltering of white folk.
But in domestication, this is less common. The place where I live is a domestic social order, and today, this child would have been taken from the parents for neglect, a foolish notion.
Domestic mothers in settlements, especially in houses, will hold the children more than they should be, and will respond to them more than they should. If this is done with a human female offspring, she will become weak, and her potency of command, brittle. If this is done with a male human offspring, it will be the same, but with the added meekness and timidity, and an aggressive need to define himself based upon his service to a female.
The female human mother makes or breaks the potency of command of the offspring. Human female mothers are not born with an innate sense of how to raise a child, what its nature is, and what its needs are. The human motherly expression "it's my child, I know what it needs" is absurd.
There are said to be over 8 billion humans on this planet today, and no one with any bit of Reasoning would characterize them as having potent command. Instead, humans have proven to be servile, easy to subjugate, kept in line, docile, timid, and taxable.
Therefore, if it was innate for mothers to know how to raise a child, there would be children raised with a greater potency of command. I would go so far as to say, the human mother is the most important player in human development.
Now, I have experimented with, and trained human mothers. The results were amazing. I have shown objective and easy to verify results, in that of the increase in potency of command in children. Then as a part of the test, I would have to remove my command over the human mother and offspring. When I do this, ALL human mothers—and there has been many—revert back to taking potency of command away from their young, and centering it around her.
Nature had this in the primal operating system. It makes it to where the offspring are programmed to try to overthrow the mother, and in primal conditions, this was not necessary, because by time puberty would come about, the girl would be off to start her own family, hosted in the husband-to-be band. And the boy, around seven years of age, was with a band of older boys, developing their ways towards banding in the field. Therefore, no human young was kept with the mother past puberty. And the human males were not kept around the human females, around that of seven. They were in boys bands, if you will, and I do not mean Nsync.
Human females would be around their mothers till they were nearing that of becoming of age. Often, they were moved out to another band before their chemical body began to change. This was so that they did not have to cope with the hormonal changes at the same time as conditional change. Therefore, often, for a female, it was around ten, and they would be moved to another band, and assimilated.
Also, in primal times, a household could not support the young, and they would be married off so that resources became balanced. Primal conditions could not ignore resource management, and most decision were made around this variable.
Today, nature still provokes the young child to leave the nest when they are hitting puberty and to begin their own family, but human societies and the master-slave nature of humans cause the parents to hold on to their young and dominate them past the natural limit, thus suppressing nature from running its course.
Potency of Command and cravings in female and male humans
The source of human urges is inner-directional. This means, it is all within. So therefore, when human grunting is about outward conditions, and right and wrong, there is a good chance it is not about what is out at all, but what is in.
In this case, nature fits humans to be self-interested. But this self-interest is that of "cravings". The urges and the passions are about a craving. Craving is a part of humans being insatiable, or that is, unpleasable, or unable to be satisfied. Satisfaction, in a primal operating system or sense, would lead to inactivity, and "rest". This inactivity would then result in lower resource acquisition, and eventual death.
Insatiability is a prime urge of being a heterotroth, that is to say, one dependent upon acquired resources of an external source for one's own sustenance. In essence, because you need to drink and eat, you can never be satisfied as a human. As a human, though, is the key.
So then when one seeks satisfaction, they will become displeased with the results, and instead of realizing they should not seek satisfaction, they blame the target, and/or conditions for not being what they wanted. This is where craving becomes an enemy of the human mind, when the human mind is ignorant of itself.
The human mother, as is the human female, has the craving of being accepted by a group, and to be validated by her place in it. Though the human female has the craving to be at the head of the social group, they are not inclined to pursue the head, at risk of being exposed. This means, human female tactics are first concerned with how they appear, versus what the objective is. They need to believe that in the pursuit of their cravings, they will not be detected. In essence, smoke screens are more common in female humans.
Human cravings are internal. The human male craves a target, and a pursuit. Ignorance will make it to where the human male does not know what to target, or needs a reason why. This leads him in competition with other human males, even if this competition can be moved towards that of subversion and undermining the objective. A human male will fail at the objective if his craving to compete and outshine other human males is prioritized over the objective.
This is a factor in potency of command.
A human female with potency of command does not form in human female groups. She will not have her left and right hand girl, but instead, she will become objective oriented, and seek out cooperation that transcends that of the sex of the cooperating team.
A male human with potency of command will drop that of the competitive aspect with other males and will instead focus on the development of their skill sets, proficiency, and measure their sense of success not based on a band, but on that of the objective's quality of control.
The human female with potency of command will not prioritize the quality of the objective over the quality of the cooperation. She will sacrifice the quality of the objective for that of the quality of the cooperative group. A human male will sacrifice the quality of the the band cohesion and/or collaboration for the quality of the objective.
As I mentioned previously, when others will challenge this sense that not all human males and females are the same innately, I then would affirm yes they are, and it is for this reason.
A human male who is impotent in command over self and conditions will not serve an objective, will not hunt, and will not war for that objective. An impotent human male, in regard to potency of command, not sexual impotence, will be left in a state of a human male offspring, under the control and command of his human mother, or her replacement in a "girlfriend", or wife. In essence, a human male impotent will behave like a broken girl who was not allowed to leave home to join a new band, but is under the control and command of a matriarch.
If human males do not have predominant field time, but remain in a settlement of matriarch, ALL OF THEM will be impotent in potency of command. Therefore, when I say, ALL human males are primarily directed to an operating system concerning the field, banding, competition, and objective conquest, and one will say, this does not apply to them as a human male, then my answer is you are more than likely impotent. Again, impotent is not a sexual term. It means without power, and in this context, without potency of command.
If you are a female human who thinks this does not apply to you, it could be that you have a higher potency of command and are engaged not in female circles, but male circles. But if you are surrounded by human males of impotency, and they are cored around you in service to you, it is the same as if they were impotent females.
This, you see more in domestic social orders. You see females pulling impotent males around. The female is more potent than her servant male. And they may even have a few around them. They will think they are not being a "female", but start to believe they are the male potency. They are not. They are the result of everything being out of whack, out of natural order. They are not objective oriented and potent in command and control over self and objective. They are potent in command over others. This is a different direction, and is not potency in control and command at all.
They are in essence like the human mothers, who compel their offspring to worship her, and use "smothering" in oxytocin to attain this, as well as destabilizing emotional states, so that the reward of euphoria in expression can be had.
This emotional cycle, mostly feminine, is injurious to the entirety of the human race. Removing this cycle, as I have done in experimenting with others, has shown that the subjects acquire almost rapidly a greater potency in command of self and conditions, and that they never wish to return. This is among females and males. Out of the males, they were all confirmed to be human afterward, as they revert quickly. Out of the females, more of a chance they were Manu, and not human.
Human females do not engage in emotional intelligence. This is absurd. As an investigative and experimental behavioral philosopher, I have been asked this by females in my audiences many times, as well as effeminate males.
My answer has been simple : there is no such thing as emotional intelligence. Emotions are not the source of knowledge, and intelligence is not about what you know or think you know, intelligence is in how knowledge is acquired. Knowledge is acquired through that of observation, investigation, and the employment of a method to test the validity of the affirmed or the denied. Emotions are something one becomes intelligent about. You can become aware of them, but an intelligence of emotion would have to imply a freedom from their confines, and an ability to observe them and come to know the origin and nature of them, as they manifest. This is not emotional intelligence; this is an intelligence concerning that of emotions and the nature thereof. This nonsense of declaring that one can be emotionally intelligent is the sell out and servile nature of desperate males placating to human female interest. Female humans (and many male humans now) use emotions as a weapon, and/or a tool for social strategy. There is a cunning to using emotional manipulation, and it is only this cunning that can be called emotional manipulation, but can not be called intelligence, as it is innate to female humans to employ these primal strategies, subconsciously, and often not in a state of awareness that they can state the why and the how.
Intelligence is a factor of Reasoning. Emotion and Reason are not two sides of the same coin. Emotions are a product, not a source. Reasoning is a system, a source, and track. Emotions are a conditional and/or innate primal setting. It has been proven, time after time, that emotional conditioning can lead to any desired outcome, such as with the Little Albert experiment, where a young baby was shown to have no fear present when handling a diverse array of forms of animals and objects, but then when an uncorrelated discordant sound was initiated, whilst engaged in handling an object, the baby Albert would associate the discordant sound and feeling with the other sense stimuli, and it would become emotionally tagged as undesirable. At no time did baby Albert, in his emotional body, require an explanation or intelligence about the cause; his emotional body simply implemented the relationship, and by all reasoning, there was no relationship other than simultaneous occurrence. Therefore, it is too easy to see how one's emotional body, passions, and urges do not come with an intelligence or a sense of validity, or reasoned correlation, but instead subject to manipulation and assignment via conditioning and experience.
Humans have primal emotions as a tool for expedient action under what would be dire situations. As a tool, this, as a part of the human primal design, is brilliant, in primal conditions. In domesticated conditions, however, the human primal emotions are equivalent to flatulence that has been conditioned to occur as a reaction to accidental and/or intentional stimuli. Emotions are not a valid source of decision making, life orientation, and/or motivation.
They are best to be programmed to be a product, in the sense that one programs their own emotions to favor pride inducing states, motivation towards excellence, joy in achievements, and a Sense of Self that is fortified in chemical consistency.
Breeding Laws and sexual urges in humans
When human females breed with impotent males, they will create impotent offspring. Breeding Laws, in regard to animals, apply to humans, even if humans do not want to hear it.
Most domestic humans are the product of impotent mating, and therefore, they are weak in stature and potency of command of self and condition. Too, is lowered their adaptable trait. Impotent offspring is less adaptable.
Nature tells humans this, but they can not grasp it. When a female is ovulating, she has an increase in attraction to alpha males. When she is not, she has an increase in attraction to beta males. This means to say, alpha for breeding, and servile, more docile for serving her interest beyond breeding.
An original experiment on this was conducted, too called into question by humans, who seem to wish to always grunt down the facts of how animal they are.
I am not speaking to any opinion. When it comes to knowledge through investigation and experimentation, I have conducted my own studies. So then when one disagrees with me, the question is, what then have they come to conclude, and what were their means of investigation? More often than not, the grunting human can not answer to this. It is easy to grunt a nay, but for humans, it is difficult to explain a reason.
This is science fact. So much that in behaviorism and in profiling, these aspects are dominant and all over the place.
The more primal the conditions, the greater chance that one or two of a human mother offspring will be high potent in control and command, from an alpha father, and then one or two, seemingly not of the same father, more docile, timid, and weak. The myths of visiting spirits were needed to make sense of this, versus the moving in of a beta male not suited for the field, left back to settle the servile needs of the female by way of sensitivities.
"Bad boys", in the human sense, and human female attraction to them is often because they are more alpha than the servile beta ones. So then if the female is in "heat", she will be looking for the "bad boy". But when she is not, she will be looking for the nice servile male.
The HIT, or Human Impotent Tribes, atavistically all look like they come from the same people, even though they could have come from all over the world. This is because the more impotent is the human, male or female, the more it is lacking in diversity in their gene pool. Human breeding, where impotent breed with impotent, cause a specific look among humans that brings most of the humans into a tribal likeness, no matter the color of skin, eyes, and so on. Impotence becomes, in essence, the mark of a people. The HIT are a genetic people, in the sense of being united under impotence and the nobilization through grunting thereof.
So if they are white skin, they will look like cousins, and those with darker skin will look more like them than not, and they will look soft compared to the other dark skin folk from, say, more rough places.
This can be seen in America, as the dominant domestic social order, where no matter the color of skin, hair, or eyes, the HIT are forming out of the impotent offspring of a long softened so called people.
Humans, in America, are not a people. They do not have shared values and shared language, but are a basket, or melting pot of others. However, when a domestic social order prospers, those different values get dropped. The values of a people are not sincere in other than the Manu would prescribe to them. The masses only wear the values as a uniform, so as to appear a part of the tribe. When they become free from that tribe and around those more like them, often impotent like them, they all drop the ways that came first, and revert to the calling of the impotent rage of childhood and expression. Then they become a people not sharing in values, but impotent impulses, and they are fused in all different shades, but still the same. They are the Human Impotent Tribes, and HIT, for short, is perfect, because their cravings drive them to, like nature has human children programmed to do, usurp and subvert the power structures they have access to.
The greatest threat to humans is when their offspring are the product of impotent breeding. This leads to a suicidal people, I call the HIT.
All over the Western world of Eastern thought is the HIT. They have adopted its robes and words to match the cravings of their grunting, and thus, have converted Buddhistic thought into HIT thought, which is petty and subversive.
Because the majority of humans can be considered domesticated and the product of impotent breeding, they are HIT. And HIT males have become more experienced with serving the emotional needs of female HIT. A HIT male could not serve the emotional needs of a healthy human female, because she would consider him broken and defected.
Alpha human females prefer alpha human males when they are young, and beta (but healthy) human males when they are older.
A human beta male is not defected or impotent, so to say. They can be healthy, and they can move towards that of a potent command of self and condition, only so much as they are free to.
Most of the humans now are not alpha or beta humans, they are HIT, Human Impotent Tribes. Impotence is the common factor among domesticated humans, not alpha and beta. Alpha and beta applies to primal conditions, which can seem to manifest in that of high risk and high reward fields, but not in the settlement.
This is not to say, domestic social order humans do not have the elements of alpha and beta. They do, but they have been altered for the condition and degree of impotence, and manifest themselves in sick ways.
In this domestic world, these days, there is a great deal of males and females of the human kind being born in ways that make them see themselves more suited to the same sex, when it comes to sexual expression and gratification. Domestic society calls this "homosexual", though such is not accurate, nor true to form.
I do not believe there is a such thing as homosexual. Sexual appetite is not connected to male or female, as this society would teach you. There is no heterosexual, homosexual, or other. There is sexual appetite and urge that must be, in those it is strong, met. This is why one can self please without a "target", or object of interest. It's just an urge. The urge is there to provoke replication, or producing offspring, but in humans, there is no instruction to create offspring, it simply expresses the urge.
If one is born with this sexual proclivity—which it can be said they are—and yet their conditioned environment comes to term it an undesirable thing, then throughout the natural development of the individual and their Sense of Self, they will be hitting this conditioning of Sense of Life that tells them they are an error, and/or undesirable.
This then, in turn, gets pressured back to their Sense of Self, and they come to filter their experiences through this, and upon the formation of a concept, it will be tagged with these values.
Now, it would be irresponsible to not speak on this matter further with insight. There is, in nature, in its ways, for it to tag a Sense of Self that is inherently against the self. I wish this was not the case for humans, because under domestication, it means a human can be born naturally "defected", if you will, and then have a tagged Sense of Self that is "feeling" error in its being, and therefore, can not come to see itself in the light of excellence, but only decadence. This is not simply a matter of sexual proclivity; I do not hold that this is true that one's sexual interest is innate, so to say.
Those who are born with a sexual defect, seemingly, do not actually have it in the sexual area. They are instead born with a timid and weaker fortitude, if they are males, and if females, they may be born with a more square and unexciting set of feminine characteristics. In essence, males more feminine and females more masculine do not have to do with their sexual preference, but it does have to do with their sexual opportunity. Therefore, so called "gay" males have a better chance of sexual interactions with others like them, defected, and females, so called gay, the same. It is not "gay" or homosexual, it is material or physical defect choosing likeness in others of physical defect. It is a proven fact that this is innate and born with, though how they call it is not proven; innate, yes, homosexual, no. Innate defect, in many areas, and then socially, that of grouping with likeness and despising that which is unlike. This is why the masses of those identifying as homosexual are not, by objective standards, attractive. This does not mean that one can not doll up, or use other forms of artistry to increase their attractiveness to others. But it means, by nature, a healthy human would not find attractive a defected human. This is simple. But in domestication, these rules and standards do not apply. Opportunity and conditions often dictate for who one finds themselves with.
Now, when I say defect, those who would be offended will be so because they are ignorant, and well, perhaps defected. Technically, I am defected, not in the realm of fortitude and attractiveness, as I am considered a healthy and attractive male by other healthy females, but defected, because nothing in me compels me or urges me to procreate, serve female and offspring interest. As I have said, this is unnatural, and this is the standard of accurate judgment.
If I was to make the standard of judgment conform to my ways, I would declare that it is unnatural for humans to be so consumed in serving female and offspring interest, and the destiny of humans is a divine one, and about the soul. This would be me assigning to nature my characteristics, and not giving right mind to the evidence and data of what is or is not nature.
Those who are considered other sexual are defected, because they are rejected by those who would be healthy mates, and therefore, under primal conditions, would not spread their seed over. So when they find others like them to express sexual urges, it is not about attraction, it is about likeness and opportunity, and as same sex is often the case, they would not produce offspring. In nature, this is a defect. So both their condition and my own can be considered a defect.
Because I am a healthy and attractive male, as well as seen by humans to be an alpha, I have always had my pick of females. But because I do not care whether I have sex or not, being low urged, I have chosen not to act on this for the most part, and instead, am more a monk. If I am to be sexually expressive, it will be with females, because my mind is still measuring that I am to mate with suitable female mates. So I judge beauty not from a defected perspective, but from a healthy perspective. Those who are defected will have their Sense of Life and Self guided by that defect. So they will not see beauty the same, and may in fact forsake natural beauty and call what is objectively ugly, beautiful.
This is a natural condition, and those who call me stating facts and understandings as hatred are ignorant, and seeking to use social stupidity as a weapon against those who would dare speak the truth. I am not sexual, therefore, I do not give a damn about how one must exercise their urges; that is a human concern. I do not know if a defected human can be a Manu, I have not seen the conditions yet to study the possibility. If one was considered a homosexual in this society, thus defected, and came seeking to be counseled and guided to Manu-ness, I would most certainly test the possibility and capacity of this, and let the evidence be revealed to be in the facts of the condition.
On this matter, another important expression needed, about those of you of a soft and effeminate character, be ye male or female, or what have you, is that Buddhism did not have the original nature of being all-inclusive, as is a feminine characteristic, but in its pursuit to uphold the sense of virtue, it had many exclusions to who could be accepted as ordained, so much to have even included that of "sexual deviation", or having gone astray by way of sexual libido.
The term they used for this was pandakas.
Now, for many reasons, the early Buddha was looking to be a success in the establishment of the monastic orders. And what had been occurring was that many who had come to join and become monks were of a greater sexual nature than the commons. These would be males whose libido was so high that they sought to entice other males to sex, and/or sought to see others perform in sexual acts, and were deemed a deviation or having gone astray, and a bad image for a mission of portraying virtue.
It is inevitable that I will be called to answer on this matter, which I can, far greater than those of the past, having a greater awakenedness or awareness on this matter.
Pandakas is a term that has to do with the chemical disturbance mostly considered in the males of the time of the term. When a male was far effeminate, he tended to have the passions of a female, and he tended to seek and illicit attention, sexually, like a female would. This is the same today when considering the so called category of "gayness". When the male is effeminate, he will carry on in many female ways, and he will seek to entice other males. This is not about attraction to the same sex, thus, gayness, this is an obsession and attraction to getting sexual attention, the easiest kind to get. This is a self-serving element of the individual, where a craving exists inside them to be expressed.
This can be said to be the same and true to a so called overly sexual heterosexual. They have a craving in them that needs to be expressed. This is a product of nature, in both. The difference is that the natural state of the hetero is healthier for breeding than the homo, so the homo becomes removed from the competitive field of mate attraction of females, less they be in power, and the hetero will often have an increased attractiveness to them, but an unstable relational element, that in times of domestication, decreases their likelihood of steady mate, or monogamy. The hetero becomes promiscuous, as will then the homo, if there are more who have been naturally marked in the same manner they are, baring the same phenotypical indicators of kinship. Both have the natural inclination to express and be connected to their urges as a form of identity. This is a natural error in both the hetero/homo.
In both cases, the hetero and the homo having heavy sexual appetites would both be incompatible with the pursuit of Bodhi, or awakened states. This is stated because of the belief that where there be the urges in overload, or potency, the mindstream is inhibited, and suffering ensues.
There will inevitably be higher suicide rates among both kinds that define their existence based upon sexual categories : the male who sees his offspring as everything, and the male who sees his freedom to sex males as his ultimate Sense of Self. Where sex is the primary for a human, they will be the most displeased of the population.
This is not allowed to be said today, and this will be highly mischaracterized by mental midgets.
I, myself, avoid overly sexual individuals no matter their identification, be them hetero or homo. This is what is meant when it is said that Bodhisattva should avoid pandakas. It is that avoiding over-sexualized existence is key.
However, then is the extreme forbiddance of sexual activity, it too being unnatural. And then there is the blame weak males have placed on enticing females or males, based on their own libido. These are marks of ignorance and bad character. No blame should ever be placed on the enticing force. If a male or a female is enticed towards sexual wishes, they should not forbid themselves and exclude such from their lives. All should move towards what they are and "feel". Self-denial would mean that the path is not right for them denying. If the Buddha had declared that all were to become enlightened and were suited to Buddhism, then he would prove not to be a Buddha, and quite ignorant.
The Buddhist doctrine is not for everyone. And those without emotional and passion control will suffer more, or lie more to fit into its path. And this lying is common place.
In humans, nature has provided the sexual urges in its kind. These urges will have a degree of potency that is individualized in each subject. This means, some will be more sexual and impulse driven than others. Too, then will they also experience more anger and emotions of wants in other areas, accompanied with emotions of displeasure when they do not get what they want.
Sexual potency, or that is, the urge of sexualization, by its degree will be connected as well with the level of satiability in all matters of the individual. Those who are more sexualized will be more displeased, no matter the target of their sexual expression.
This too is why in this society, the displeased and the subversives use sexualization to target the young, and make all things about sex, because in their Sense of Self, and therefore, Sense of Life, it is all about sex.
But nature's design of the human sexual experience is the true factor of reality, not what sexualized humans think.
And only when one is not sexualized can they then come to see the nature of this state. Whilst in it, one is processing all they come to experience through this filter, and such gives rise to the social justice warrior movements and the identity politics that are plaguing the domestic realm of today's condition.
Nature's proclivity is that humans are subject to breeding Laws, the same as all animals. Nature, that is, the reality of the identity of humans, is to put strong humans with strong humans, have them prevail and replicate, creating strong offspring. In primal conditions, this meant the strong would survive. However, domestication is not the same as primal conditions, and therefore, cunning will win out over strength and endurance in domestication, and those who are not the strongest will be attracted to the cunning and subversive means of securing power and influence.
Under primal conditions, those who would be alive would be assumed the strongest and the fittest, so the way they would have expressed their urges would have been directed at females. This is because separate from the sexual urge is this notion of attractiveness. Naturally, the human mind measures the health level of the would-be mating partner. It, through an automatic system, measures best mating conditions. But this auto-system is broken in humans. Humans will mate more opportunistically and not use a system of measurement, unless they have a freedom of option. The more attractive the individual is, and the more access to others who are attractive they have, the higher the outcome they will have an attractive mate and produce healthy offspring.
When one is not attractive, they will have their opportunities reduced. Lower attractiveness means not having as much choice in who you mate with.
Because of this natural state of things, not my affirmations nor opinion, but as nature has informed all scientific minds about its build, the human sexual space is a marketplace, and all individuals have a "Sexual Marketplace Value", or SMV. However, though this has become the common expression for this, it is not entirely accurate. Marketplace value is not the same for males and females of the human and normative sort. For males, if they are "non-defects", their evaluation of a female is that of her physical features, as well as suitability to protect and carry the young.
The human male mind, in the way nature intends, measures the attraction of the female by her physical carriage and health. Now, the key here is the nature scheme of strength and endurance under primal settings. When they say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, this is a lie. Beauty is settled upon in regard to opportunity and access. Meaning, one will convince themselves that an unhealthy and unattractive mate is sufficient, when they can not do better. Now, this is nature, so any sensitive folk should not get mad at me for daring to speak about this matter in an objective seeming way. Blame nature, not me, for this. This is not the way my mind and character works, but this is how nature has predisposed the human experience.
A healthy male is attracted to a healthy female, but the sexual urges do not have an innate calculation in humans. Meaning, humans have volition, which is the ability to either be in accordance with their nature, or discord with their nature. And worse of all, humans do not innately recognize and know their nature. So humans are born without a solid Sense of Self, in a state that is ignorant, and then must make choices, but do not draw from internal mechanism evaluation of values, but instead acquire them through external forces of cultivation. Bad place to be.
Female humans measure the health and level of the male based on resources and servileness potency.
Nature has programmed human males to be servile. What this means is that the male role, in human normative sense, is to find a female, serve her interest, replicate offspring, and then serve their interest, even if it means in sacrifice of their own interest, and/or a loss of their own life. This is natural programming.
Females, in the human normative sense, are the masters in the program, but they are not like that of masters who make themselves by force. They are masters by cunning, and by the faint of weakness, need, and vulnerability.
The history of this, in the human race, has made it to where females have smaller carriages, and are not as physically strong as male humans, or at least, it used to be that way. Yet in their minds, they mature faster and are more socially in tune, cunning, manipulative, and self-aware.
Ants are a good example of why this is the case. There is slavery among ants, where there is a master ant and a slave ant. If you remove the slave ant that feeds the master ant directly, and put the food before the master ant to be consumed, it will not consume it, but will even die. It does not have a relationship to food consumption outside of receiving it from the slave ant.
In essence, a master slave system does not just oppress and hurt the slave, as the movies and media depict : both are slaves. The master and the slave are both servile by their natures, and bound to each other in a cycle that is rather not so good.
Females, in the human race, are not the weaker of the two. This is a myth. Human minds are the primary elements of human relief and progress. Therefore, them who display more management proclivities will always win out, over time, of those brute in force, lacking in sense.
The truth of history and Reason is that since the very beginning, female humans have been in charge, and they have directed servile males to build civilizations for them, defend them with their lives, raise and provide for the offspring, and reduce the burden of their living, and human males exist to do this. This is the nature of the relationship.
This is why, in the natural innate Sense of Self of a male, he wants to solve the problems of a female. This is servile natured. In the innate nature of a healthy human male, he wants to compete with other healthy males, and stand up and shine among them, declaring he is the best and should, therefore, have an increase in his choice of a mate.
Humans exist to acquire resources, and as males, to compete with and outpace other males, to attract a female, then to serve her interest, and then to replicate and produce offspring, and then serve the interest of both with their lives, having no other meaning or purpose.
This, being the case, begs the question : why then, if this is true, are humans so unhappy and dissatisfied? The answer is simple. This is what it is supposed to be under primal conditions, which is what the human make and model was programmed for. However, the conditions are now, and have been for six thousand years, domestication, and humans get sick when they are domesticated, and they become more confused, less expressed, stuck, and conformed to a Sense of Life that is very disagreeable with the innate Sense of Self of a human.
Domestic societies exist through governments, or bands of pillagers forming legislation and order with the decree of security, so that they can have ready and available taxable sources and resource production for their own interest.
Humans are by their very nature slavers, in the sense that humans, as collectivist and altruist, seek to make all others serve their interest, their emotions, and their whims. And this, because they are inclined to be servile to each other, but only by some very light impulse, with no other apparent impulse to another option or alternative.
This servile and slaver nature of humans causes some to rise to the top, and adopt more overt slaver mentalities, and then play on the natural servile nature of the masses.
