Madame Blavatsky... the Universe as an acting being

Miscellaneous General
301

I believe this man has captured the essence of the entirety of my philosophy. And I’m not being snarky, I’m completely serious.

To be moral is to make correct choices. What is a correct choice? It cannot be anything other than what makes you happy, that is, what satisfies you. What is satisfying? Well, the answer to this question is strictly particularistic - it depends on who you are at the moment the question is asked and the answer is only valid for you at that moment. The sincerity of your answer is not determined by fervor but by your actions… what you actually choose to do. But the question still remains - what, in general, is satisfying? Is there not one, overriding end - or a small number of overriding ends - that far and away can be said to be the end?

I think the answer is, clearly, yes. There is an overriding end and that end is reproduction. It is higher than reason, higher than virtue, higher than philosophy, higher than science, higher than war and empire, higher than theology, cosmology or any other aspect of human experience. This is not merely an opinion or a prejudice, it is a fact of human nature easily deduced a priori from the logic of biological continuation (reproduction is necessarily the most important telos of any living organism) as well as easily confirmed by the observation of the behavior of any living organism, including humans.

What this means, in practical terms, is that almost every* individual - if he wants to be wise, that is live morally - will order his or her life in line with this fact of his nature. No, that doesn’t mean “everyone should do what Ed Houben is doing”… of course not. For the vast majority of people, it will mean settling down and having a family in the traditional sense. If you don’t have a family, preparing yourself for it is your overriding purpose. It is your summum bonum.

The misanthropes in the video hating on Houben are oozing this anti-human mentality. “He’s doing it for the sex”. Well, OK, would it be more moral if he experienced excruciating pain during the orgasm? This is just a cheap ad hominem. The parting shot is a bit of unsolicited psychoanalysis - he’s doing it for the immortality without intimacy. Why should a particularly conception of intimacy be the cover charge for reproduction (“immortality”). Once again, it’s just another cheap ad hominem.

Houben himself admits, (paraphrase) if you dig into it, yes, you will find ego-maniacs but he is not one. And, clearly, he is not. But he has found his “center”, the ultimate expression of who he truly is inside. Perhaps he isn’t good with intimacy and that’s what made him a good fit for this particular role in the natural order. But my thesis stands: the highest end is reproduction.

To extend the thought even further, we can see that there is a very large mismatch between the social order as-it-is and this “prime directive”, as it were. You only need to look at some of Houben’s customers: lesbians, a bisexual woman and single mothers. He has also assisted traditional couples (including via the natural method!) but the point is that demand for his services is higher than it otherwise would be by virtue of the up-ending of social mores as a result of State subsidy of “alternative” lifestyles, especially single motherhood. Also, state interference in adoption increases demand (lesbian couples have difficulty adopting in Germany).

The deepest cause, I believe, is monogamy. Well, not monogamy… anti-polygamy. In particular, anti-polygyny. In a polygamous society, the demand for Ed’s services would be smaller. Why get pregnant by Ed when you can marry a wealthy, desirable man who already has multiple wives?

At this point, we have to delve into evolutionary psychology to strip the reproductive exchange down to its barest terms - women reproduce with men in exchange for material support. This is true whether women work, whether society is feministic, whether prostitution is legal or illegal; it is true regardless of the legal superstructure that is placed on top of the natural order. It turns out that humans have always been polygynous (not polyandrous). It is part of human nature. And while the plurality of men who reproduce do so with only one woman, the fact of polygyny completely alters the meaning of reproduction for men versus women. Both men and women share in common the preference for a more genetically excellent partner over a less genetically excellent partner. But men have a much wider “range of success or failure” than women do - that is, many more men will die without children than women will die without children. That’s because men are “disposable” from Nature’s point-of-view… sperm is cheap (not costless, but still cheap). And, on the flip side, men can be much more reproductively successful than women can be (no woman could ever have 85 children as Ed has done, at least, it’s only barely become possible in the modern era and would be fantastically expensive).

One of the greatest ills of the modern social order is the demonization of the desire to reproduce outside of certain parameters. Sex has been decontextualized from its end and has been made into an end-in-itself. That’s what Cosmopolitan and racy Super Bowl ads (and most pornography) is all about. Sex for the sake of sex. But if you engage in a little introspection on the nature of sexual pleasure, you will discover that sexual experience is pleasurable in direct proportion to its suitability for reproduction. Stated as bluntly as possible: any form of birth-control makes sex less pleasurable, ceteris paribus.

In men, the primary expression of the desire to reproduce is to sire as many children as possible (ala Ed). On the flip side, for women, the primary expression of the desire to reproduce is to get the best arrangement they can get in exchange for reproducing. There is no necessary “best” or “correct” arrangement which we can determine will emerge from these two facts but I think we should view any aspect of the social order that attempts to attenuate or demonize the frank expression of man’s highest end as anti-human.

What this means, in terms of public policy recommendations, is that governments need to stop obstructing reproduction in whatever way. If two women want to marry one man, so be it. If a lesbian couple wants to receive artificial insemination from Ed, so be it. And so on.

And what it means in terms of individual action is that the wise person - male or female - will orient his or her life around the fact that the deepest satisfaction - the highest end - that can be attained is to reproduce, and the more, the better. You will see children painted as a “cost”, a “hassle”, “more difficulty than benefit” and so on but these are all lies.

To reinforce this point, I think that Nature implants within the mind a massive, almost wholly unreasonable angst about death within the mind of non-parents. As a teenager, I remember feeling awful dread at the thought of dying. The probability of dying as a teenager is lower than in any other age group - you’re solidly past the risks of childhood and you’ve not yet even started to face the risks of aging. And here you are going into a cold-sweat in the middle of the night, biting your nails with worry that you might die. Why? I believe that this is the angst not merely of dying, but of dying without issue. And women experience it, too. The proverbial “biological clock” nearly drives some women mad who defer childbirth into their reproductively older years (30s+). You can either have a child or you can expend your time and energy attempting to exorcise yourself of that angst. Nature cannot be fooled and its insistent voice will not be ignored. As reproduction is the highest end, so the angst that comes from not reproducing is the greatest suffering**.

OK, I’ll close with one qualification. Biologists hold that non-reproductive behaviors (i.e. suicide in defense of the brood) can be selected for by Nature if their effect on the survival of the offspring is in proportion to the genetic relatedness of the individual. For example, if a genetic uncle foregos having one child and thereby enables his sibling to have 2 or more children, this behavior can be selected for by Nature. It is all about reproduction… whether that means being Ed Houben or something else entirely. The key is that the wise individual will assess how his life is contributing to this overriding, ultimate end and will order his life accordingly.

“What we do in life ripples through eternity” - Marcus Aurelius

And you thought I couldn’t possibly get any further out… :wink:

Clayton -

*There are people for whom it is clear that reproduction cannot be their highest end, namely, people who cannot reproduce whether for genetic, developmental or even psychological/emotional reasons.

**ceteris paribus… i.e. I’m not comparing it to cancer.

302

if a genetic uncle foregos having one child and thereby enables his sibling to have 2 or more children, this behavior can be selected for by Nature

Just to nit-pick: aren’t siblings related with degree 2 (roughly speaking, 1/4 of common genetic material)? This would mean the sibling in question should have more than 4 marginal kids as a result of the uncle’s losing one kid in order for this to be advantageous for the uncle. Am I missing something?

303

Andris: Yes, you’re right - I think 2 is for grandparents… if a grandparent forgoes having one child and enables one of his or her children to have 2 or more, then it’s at least a break-even. Good catch.

Clayton -

304

Also, I want to point out that I’m not advocating some kind of “alternative lifestyle revolution” - quite the opposite. In fact, I’m arguing that the natalism of traditional religions is not too far off the mark. You will be happiest living your life as part of a family to produce a family, or even contributing to it in less direct methods, for example, providing care for children to help those with families, e.g. the “happy uncle”. It is the deepest satisfaction that any person can attain.

The point in posting Ed Houben’s story is to demonstrate the “extreme” ways in which this can manifest itself. For the vast majority of people, it just means settling down and having a family. But I’m trying to get at something bigger than just rubber-stamping natalism… I’m trying to point out that the essential evil of all propaganda that is contrary to human liberty, human dignity and wise living is that it is attempting to persuade the individual to oppose his own highest ends, to become a traitor to himself and to his kin.

This effect is particularly pronounced in men. Stated as bluntly as possible, it is in the interests of “genetic imperialists” to persuade other men to simply not reproduce at all. Imagine that Ed Houben not only does what he does, but heads a cult of other men who do what he does. In addition, this cult supports every population control organization and promotes propaganda for birth-control and so on - propaganda that they themselves roundly ignore. That is a simplified description of what the “genetic imperialist” memes are, in fact, doing.

Finally, what of population control? Ten thousand years ago, feeding another child was a very costly choice. Many more children never made it to adulthood at that time than today (even 150 years ago, a staggering number of children would not make it to adulthood). Starvation of the children or the parents was a very real risk. The answer, here, is that families had to engage in birth control once they reached a certain size. Nature took care of most of it… if you had 7 children, odds were that only a few of them would make it to adulthood. But if you could only feed three children, a fourth could spell disaster.

Before the invention of modern birth-control methods, people used a combination of abstinence, withdrawal (this merely slows the rate of pregnancies and will not stop them altogether) and non-vaginal sex to achieve birth-control. But how did they know to engage in birth-control? My theory is that this is what old people are for… they’re the ones who know about how much it costs to raise a child to adulthood (because they’ve done it) and they can help younger people know when it is time to call it quits. But I think it generally worked not through elders saying ‘enough’ but rather the opposite… they cheered it on until it was enough. Compare the glee of new grandparents at their first grandchild to that of subsequent grandchildren. It goes down with increasing children. The same for parents, too. There’s a “maringal utility” effect here, I think. :wink:

The modern social order breaks down these kinds of calculations by dispersing and isolating families. Social Security pays to keep gramps and grammy in the nursing home, safely away from where they can encourage their children to reproduce or even to call it quits. Irresponsible people have many children and no one is there to say “what the hell are you thinking??”… conversely, many responsible, intelligent people have their obligatory 1 or 2 children and then stop. Watch Mike Judge’s Idiocracy for an entertaining take on this. Also, I recommend watching this Hoppe lecture for more insight.

Clayton -

305

Also, I want to point out that this is 1/4 of unique genetic material in common. Humans share almost all their DNA in common with one another (I can’t seem to find the percentage online, but it must be north of 99.9%). We even share a great deal of DNA in common with many animals, which I think explains why love for animals is so strong within humans. I’m pointing this out to say that the unique-genetics-only view (family heredity view) is overly narrow. People who cannot reproduce themselves for whatever reason may orient their life towards helping others in their family or, if not that, then other strangers or, if not that, even animals and plants to live, thrive and reproduce. This “life orientation” is not about making Life an end-in-itself… you don’t need to do that, Life will look out for itself no matter what you do… it’s about finding ataraxia - satisfaction - by aligning your action with your highest end.

Clayton -

306

Yes, you’re right - I think 2 is for grandparents… if a grandparent forgoes having one child and enables one of his or her children to have 2 or more, then it’s at least a break-even. Good catch.

Oops, actually I think I was confused by degrees of relatedness as defined by law (at least in the countries where I know this law). It defines both grandparents and siblings as 2nd degree relatives. Combinatorically, though, siblings should share 50% of genetic material (on average, and assuming their father and mother do not share genetic material at all). For grandparents this should be 25%. This occurred to me while walking with the kids after I posted my initial nit-picking comment. I also mused on whether the fact that father and mother in fact share a lot of material makes almost irrelevant the calculation at all - helping grandson or nephew is practically as beneficial for you as helping your son.

307

There are a lot of effects that all play into it - for example, if you have a child and you help your nephew or niece, it is more likely that - in the future - that nephew or niece may be in a position to help your child (since they are cousins). In other words, kin loyalty is a general survival-enhancing mechanism. But I do think that genetics are surprisingly fine-pointed - just look at sibling rivalry, for example. Despite the fact that siblings share fully 50% of DNA with one another, they are still at each other’s throats due to the competition over family resources. Also, the “Oedipus complex” shows that there can even be antipathy in the most intimate genetic relationship of all (besides identical twins): the parent-child relationship.

Clayton -

308

Clayton -

309

Wow, I didn’t realize how much envy and malice has been directed at Gunther von Hagens (creator of Body Worlds). His only crime is that he is a consummate entrepreneur and a visionary. The world is filled with so many people who never accomplish anything of their own ability and discipline except to find others who have and attempt to shake them down.

Clayton -

310

The ocean is electrically conductive. The ocean is more saline and warmer (thus, more conductive) near the equator than near the poles. Does this relate in any way to telluric currents? Also, I’m thinking about the Moon’s effects on the tides… mechanically rotating an electrically condutive fluid must have a magnetic side effect.

Wow, look at that. This source says, “The character of the diurnal variation during the winter solstice (particularly January and February) is found to be quite different from that observed during the rest of the year. Evidence is presented to support the hypothesis that the major source of the telluric current field near the magnetic equator is the equatorial electrojet.” Holy crap!

Clayton -

311

mechanically rotating an electrically condutive fluid must have a magnetic side effect.

Why?

Moving a conductor in a magnetic field may produce electric current, and a conductor carrying current in a magnetic field will be subject to a mechanical force, but you must have meant something else?

312

Precisely.

Clayton -

313

LOL, I was looking at that Wiki article on the IMF again and realized that the Plasma cosmology folks are so right in their criticisms of mainstream representations of electricity in space: “Since the solar wind is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas. For example, it is highly electrically conductive so that magnetic field lines from the Sun are carried along with the wind.”

The highlighted portion is actually incorrect on several counts. First of all, there are no such thing as “magnetic field lines”. The magnetic field fills space, it is not restricted to certain “lines”. Second, the magnetic field does not depend on any medium… the words “so that”, above, imply that the Sun’s magnetic field would not be extended in space if it were not for the plasma. Finally, the wind itself doesn’t “carry along” the magnetic field - as noted already, the field would extend into a vacuum. Rather, the Sun’s magnetic field affects the Solar wind because it is a plasma, that is, charged particles are influenced by the magnetic field. In this sense, the effect of the Sun’s mangetic field can be seen to be “propagated” along through the Solar wind but it’s a gross misinterpretation to suggest that the Sun’s magnetic influence would not otherwise be extended into space if it were surrounded by a vacuum.

Clayton -

314

I’ve heard a bit about Plasma cosmology, where should one go to read more about it? There are a lot of things in mainstream cosmology that seem more like assumptions, not science.

And I want to read debates between them and mainstream people, preferably.

315

the Plasma cosmology folks are so right in their criticisms of mainstream representations of electricity in space

Is it fair to treat a popularized article by some random guy on Wikipedia as the mainstream representation?

316

@Andris: I think it is representative in this case. Factual/grammatical problems tend to at least get flagged on Wiki surprisingly quickly.

Clayton -

317

The problem with Wikipedia is you never know how many William Connolley’s lurk beneath the surface (not that there’s anything untoward about the Interplanetary Magentic Field page though - it looks fine).

318

@hk: Just google it (“plasma cosmology” “electric universe” “hannes alfven” “kristian birkeland” “anthony peratt”).That’s how I’ve found whatever I’ve read.

Clayton -

319

Clayton -

320

The problem is Mainstream physcists attack plasma cosmology, saying it doesn’t have enough “equations”. Equations are silly in economics but they mean more in Physics.

Also Standard Model people say that P.C. has not been developed much since the 1990’s. Those are some of the (paraphrasing them) arguments made against Plasma Cosmology. It doesn’t seem to be as popular as the School of Austrian economics for example, so it seems less developed scientifically.