There is a mechanism behind sex. A way and process. A purpose. The taboo notion arises from the limited shallow view of it.
So far have my observations seemed a bit nebulous? Maybe I can make them easier to relate to.
Both the experiential path and the so called learning path make their mark on the autobiographical memory. We universally learn anything best in story form. The very core of our brain tells us stories. It’s actually the process that sorts our sensory awareness. Our brain seizes on the anticipated main characters. We look for the agents that drive our life, but there is not just one collection of agents, there are two. The one set of agents is our knowledge, the other set of agents is our feelings, and they tell complimentary stories. Puppets cast shadows so you have the puppet show and the shadow puppet show. For everything you have ever learned, there is a complimentary record of the experience, but this alternate record is framed in sensations and feelings. Everything characterized by what sort of instinctive impact it made on you. People rarely if ever “learn” from this experience, but they always intuit when a course of events and our behaviour conflict with that alternate recollection of experience. Every time you recall something you learned, every one of your rehearsed life lessons, you also trigger the shadow recall which is rarely harmoniously related to your conscious learning and makes almost everything we have supposedly learned also trigger misgivings, uncertainty.
This uncertainty arises because our thinking has almost always evaluated whatever experience we are thinking about in a counter instinctual or counter intuitive way. Our shadow recall of events does have a filter. That filter is more like the life signs readout you see in some sci-fi movies than like the map grid our so called knowledge overlays on things putting everything into little boxes. I promise you, as much as your mind is obsessed with pigeon hole boxes, your inner being dreads being buried under all that and actually works against it. Introduces flaws in your learning.
No matter how carefully or clearly calculated, the truth is not to be found in boxes. You have no free will in choosing between thing A or thing B, between the blue candidate or the red candidate. Your free will comes when your choices are considered in the context of your vital signs, of our sensory/feeling/moving dynamic consciousness. Thinking has amazing potential. It can empower us to do great things, but will do so only when it takes a subordinate place to the dance, to the rhythms, to our heart beat, feeling.
The greatest innovators in science were wildly imaginative. The same is true of the pioneers of industry. Their convictions were not rational. Einsteins insights were not arrived at because he made a rational decision to analyze a particular scientific issue. He didn’t just rationally pick a question. He was insatiably curious, and that particular idea captured his fascination, his sense of exploration, not his sense of order. He figured out the order of it after, not before.
Yes, and this is why I think theorists often go astray. Do tell? They aren’t exploring as much as trying to build a bridge before they even know how wide the river is. They theorize based on previous theory rather than intuitive exploration? Insane, no?
Well, it’s hubris I think. They refuse to swim. Instead, they intend to fill the river with trash and thereby walk across. Truth is only in the ambiguous swimming, moving through the shifting living mass of the mystery around us. We can learn to swim with such finesse that we can even intuit changes in advance. It might be what leads us to the hopeful singularity point. Nothing else will. This is why people are tripping out lately over the disruption of the principle of Moore’s Law. They expected things to move along smoothly and mechanically. Of course they would reach a break down, but it’s actually not in the dynamic that was advancing our technology. The symmetry guiding that was a valid observation. It’s from their own insistence on ignoring the forest for the trees.
How has the advancement of circuits been disrupted lately? Ah, they have hit a miniaturization threshold. They are able to make another step, but it’s becoming difficult to the point of ceasing to be practical.
The order our technology tunes into, well, let’s say technology does not fly in the face of nature. Our style of thinking does. Our unnaturally constrained system of rules making. Rule does not equal will. Will does not equal rule. The two are mutually exclusive. Even if you accept the notion that humans have no free will and their behaviour is all deterministic, then human behaviour still mirrors natural law and thus is not amenable to unnatural interruptions or blind exploitation. Exploit something with ignorance of its nature, any part of its nature, and the only end result is destruction. You can destroy a person that way. You can destroy a planet that way also.
So yes, free will, and to answer the question if there is free will… There is free will. It is a force of nature. It is what introduces the supposed randomness, variability and coincidence. They try to insist on mechanisms like Darwinian evolution, but nothing is that simplistic, nothing so cut and dried. We don’t arrive at reality by process of elimination. It’s a process of conclusion. We try to eliminate bacteria, nature responds with “yes and.” We try to eliminate viruses, nature responds with “yes and.” We try to eliminate other species, nature responds with “yes and.” We try to eliminate forces of nature, natural events, nature responds with “yes and.” It’s been indulging us so far, but it can’t be ignored. That will never be possible. Harmonization, yes. Human sovereignty, no. There can be no human sovereignty even over humanity itself. This is why our systems of government fail with increased and genuine understanding of human nature. Like the bacteria in your gut, a quarum can be successfully reached, living balance established, but not with anything that denies that.
I can summarize the spiral of life. It’s akin to the golden ratio. That same thing that shows up in a spider web, or a nautilus shell. It also shows up in your feelings, your sensations. Feelings and sensation taken together to make experiences. Just as violating the principles of structural and organic stability leads to failure, it does the same in a human mind and heart as well. It’s not a moral judgment. Nature doesn’t care for good boys and girls. Nature doesn’t make that sort of judgment. It just follows the spiral, “yes and.” Everything you do moves you along that swaying path. It dances with you, “yes and.”
I think we’ve still yet to learn the meta rules on how humans work. Perhaps we will. I will do my best to contribute to that. I do hope my offering helps.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.