Alpha sex, beta sex

MapsElf

Fara, Content, Dude

Dude: When people pair-bond they try to make each other betas. But alphas are too dangerous to have children with in your home, so you want to make a home with betas. People ought to be equal and all, but there are a lot of power differentials out there.

CSH: Yeah. I just had that experience. I felt my need for Jina.

Dude: Women are attracted to alphas when they’re fertile. It’s DNA’s way of trying to survive by tricking organisms into mating (with dangerous alpha organisms) when they’re fertile, and then going back to pair-bonds with betas.

Fara: Why do they seek the beta when they’re not ovulating? Why don’t they seek the alpha all the time?

CSH: Good question. That’s right! They discovered that human females, when they ovulate, show display behavior only to males outside their husband. If they’re going to be with their husband, they won’t wear red hight heels and a miniskirt. Even Republican Christians, despite their anti-biological determinism, created higher skirt lines when they were ovulating.

Old: Because of the genetic cost of a woman’s …

Dude: It’s almost parasitic. I’ve helped give birth. I know what women go through. It’s pretty invasive and dangerous.

CSH: I see what you’re saying. So the organism is disrespectful of its background conditions. The organism sees prior organism as dispensable. DNA-2 sees DNA-1 as a piece of shit. Baby DNA kills parent DNA constantly. The baby pops out as a parasite. It’s a fleeing predator that saps your resources. Baby DNA has the right to kill mommy DNA, and so the baby spiders eat their mother.

Dude: That actually happened to a friend of mine. I got my friend a job as a nanny while her …

CSH: Wait! One thing! It means that present existence is more valuable than past existence.

Dude: Right!

CSH: Or that only present existence is real. And only present existence is constantly stabbing its mom. It’s saying, “I don’t need you! I don’t need you!” Present existence is always violent to its mother.

Old: But there’s no intelligence to it. You seem to be ascribing some sort of …

Dude: It’s for the birth of a brain that is this large that …

CSH: No! I’m not suggesting the existence of a cruel agency.

(04:13) Old: Have you seen the latest research? It turns the whole idea upside down. Pregnancy is nine months, not because of the baby’s skull size, but because of limits on the mother’s metabolism …

CSH: Presence is cruel to present presence. Intentional presence is cruel to present presence. Desiring presence is predatory towards present presence.

Fara: Define presence.

CSH: You have pleasure/pain right now. Pleasure/pain is violence to present presence. The reaction to pleasure/pain is a violator of present presence.

Fara: Why?

CSH: It feels threatened. Fear is violence to present presence.

Fara: What does present presence want?

CSH: Love.

Fara: Stability?

CSH: No, it wants love, which is the same thing as cessation of will. Love is cessation of will.

Fara: How?

CSH: Because will arises phenomenologically as a counter to external forces. Will arises as effort, and effort needs counter effort to be effort. So will is always looking for counter effort. Will can only exist in contrast to counter effort.

Fara: Give me an example.

CSH: Your desire right now is a negation of presence. Desire is a negation of presence.

Fara: Because it’s looking for a different version of presence?

CSH: That’s a good question. Let’s see:

1. Desire is negation of present presence.

2. Desire is a reaction to pleasure/pain.

3. And what generates reactivity? We react to pleasure/pain, but what stimulates the reaction? What’s the thing that’s being perturbed? Is it homeostasis? Homeostasis is the basis of reactivity, isn’t it? Isn’t that the nature of self?

Fara: Homeostasis is the nature of self?

CSH: What else could be led by pleasure and pain, other than homeostasis? We say that “I” feel pleasure, that “I” feel pain; “I” reacted to pleasure, “I” reacted to pain. But what is the “I”? It can only be resistance to perturbation; non-love. Non-love is the reactivity.

Fara: What do you mean “non-love?”

CSH: Consciousness is non-love, or negation. If you don’t negate then you flow down with the flow of sensation. If you let the “I” dissolve along with the dissolution of sensation, then nothing happens, and then there’s cessation of everything. The whole thing’s gone. In order for you to see sensation, you have to hold yourself up in the stream and let the water flow through and past you. You’re like a membrane, and the water is traveling through you. But if you let go, and the membrane flows through the water, then everything stops, because experience depends on the sensations running through and past an “I” that resists this passing and so can accumulate it. This is Kant’s theory of synthesis. Consciousness is just a synthesizer. It’s a membrane that feels the passing of water through it. By holding and accumulating the passing, the organism stores memory, concept, “I,” and everything else of experience—except the actually passing content.

The sensation synthesizer is also a sensation resistor. Only homeostasis could be a synthesizer do that because matter is constantly dissolving. Matter can’t be a candidate for selfhood because it’s always passing away. But pattern of matter isn’t material. It isn’t even a mass of wavelets. A pattern is made of relations in space and relations in time. Relations aren’t real. So they get to be what really lasts—they get to be the “I.” The membrane that holds onto memory, in spite of the passing away of matter and sensation constantly running by, is able to say No to this passing and persist across time. Only a pattern can persist across time. Only relations and space can persist across time. Matter can’t.

That’s why the brain is a space-time pattern maker. Only a space-time pattern maker has the quality of non-material existence that it would need in order to persist across time.

Isn’t that interesting? So while relations are disqualified from being in space, where being is identified as corpuscular occupation in space, they are the only things “in” space that are qualified for surviving across time. All of present spatial content dissolves, only relations can survive dissolution.

The only thing in space that can persist across time are spatial relationships. Things (substances) in space can’t persist across time. Say we have a bunch of marbles arranged in a triangular pattern. Normally, we would say that the marbles are real while the triangular arrangement is not real but ideal, an abstraction. But it’s the triangle that gets to survive.

So the non-material makes it across time, but the material content, the stuff, the matter in time is constantly quivering in and out of spatial occupation. [Wait: But this is actually because we identify sub-standing perdurance with trans-temporal identity of what? What exactly do we imagine is identical across time? Don’t we use form as the indicator of trans-temporal identity? Isn’t the change that we notice always spatial shape or position? Identical spatial form is always our proxy for the “substance” that underlies changes in … spatial form. When spatial form changes and yet we insist that “deep inside” the “substance” is perduring without change, we mean that at the heart of matter is a fixed spatial form.]

There’s no material fixity across time. But patterns can be fixed across time. The marbles are bundles of fluttering forces, but their (idealized) pattern on the floor is fixed. Marble a at t1 does not equal marble a at t2. But “1 cm away” does equal “1 cm away” at t2.

Isn’t that interesting? That’s Plato.

Fara: The Form or Idea.

CSH: Yeah. That gets to persist.

The fiction is what gets to survive.

Fara: What does Aristotle say?

CSH: He says that Forms don’t have real existence except when they’re materialized. That’s it. Aristotle is a Platonist. Forms are more real than matter, but Forms don’t get to inhabit sense reality unless they’re in matter. [This is a silly simplification. Aristotle says that the most difficult of all problems is whether unity and being are (1) the substance of things or (2) attributes of some more basic being.]