Only very recently have a fully accepted the “theory” of evolution as fact. (A little slow, I know.) Since then, just about everything we can observe around us in regard to life can be contextualized as a part of that. Still, though, don’t take this to mean I’ve adopted some sort of individualist, survivalist, reductionist, or Freudian standpoint to gender, and everything else. Actually, beginning with evolution leaves the door open for endless expansion and possibilities, not reduction.

The following is the content of miniature “rant” on facebook in my attempt to put an end to the chicken and the egg question:
What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither. The process of laying eggs evolved from cellular asexual reproduction. 

 

Anywho… lets apply my conclusion about “The Chicken and the Egg” to the “The Culture and the People.”


What came first, the culture or the person?

At once, people behaved in a way that was most advantageous for a certain circumstance, that “method” self-replicated when the group expanded, and remained and developed independently of the external circumstance.

Ideas, concepts, and systems, and processes are platonic, symbiotic life forms that use people to replicate.

When a species of “culture” evolves, it will condition the people within its sphere of influence for its own self-replication and expansion, but a culture can be killed, a culture can die…

 

…And most importantly, a culture can be an evolutionary dead end that will relentlessly drag the people into extinction with it.

 

That’s why the truth, rationality, communication, and education are so important to our survival…

Elsewhere, I joked that bacteria “masturbated to give birth to clones.”

And I put these labels on this process from a standpoint where all these concepts are divided. A-sexual presupposed a sex-centered worldview. Even puts brackets on the definition of sex.  Until now, I’ve defined “sex” as “interpersonal genital stimulation.” Now, I’m not so sure…

If life forms originally had no gender, and circumstances led to the aberration of sexual divergence, and subsequently gender. Then everything else makes sense… PERFECT sense.

I’m going to make a huge leap from asexual reproduction and homosexuality. My apologies. Whenever I speak on this matter, I always remember the identical twins that were of differing sexual orientations. IF orientation is biological, but not exclusively genetic, then this leads me to the conclusion that it may be hormonal, within the womb. Of course… I now contextualize sexuality to “biological predisposition to preferring…”

Think of it this way, if we’re biologically predisposed to reacting favorably to certain foods in terms of taste. Then similarly can be said for certain aesthetic tastes, then following its logical conclusion to sexual taste. However, over the course of out lives, we “learn” and “acquire” certain other tastes over time. Fundamentalists might site certain prison behaviors as an example that “homosexuality is a choice.” The action may be, but it doesn’t negate what they’re biologically predisposed to liking more.

Advertisements