Was it because Peter Klevius isn't a necrophile? And has US now become a global threat? Some individual, philosophical and global thoughts - all in one and only for you dear reader.
Dear reader, you can edit these hastily gathered thoughts by yourself. Enjoy the mess! Sooner or later you find yourself in it.The archeologist of knowledge
often finds her/himself (P. Klevius 1992).
Peter Klevius online analyses (possibly the most important on Geocities which was terminated 2009) of Edith Södergran struck something in Ann-Sofi Lindroos to an extent that she, out of her modest possessions* awarded Peter Klevius about the same amount as she gave her only brother (she had no sister). But Why? Apparently because Ann-Sofi Lindroos had got a completely false image of who Peter Klevius really was - until she could read him on the web.
* Like Edith Södergran, Ann-Sofi Lindroos never married. Apart from that Peter Klevius knows nothing about her life. He tried to contact her friend (the person she gave most of her inheritance to) but got no answer on email. And her brother has always avoided Peter Klevius - possibly as a consequence of him together with his dad hindering his mother from adopting Peter - which would have meant a third of a relatively big farm land near the capital. So when Peter was hence ousted a negative narrative came handy. However, rumours have it that Ann-Sofi gave away her part to her brother early on. This would certainly explain the huge difference in their possessions at her death.
I long for the land that is not,
For all that is, I am weary of wanting.
The moon speaks to me in silvern runes
About the land that is not.
The land where all our wishes become wondrously fulfilled,
The land where all our fetters fall,
The land where we cool our bleeding forehead
In the dew of the moon.
My life was a burning illusion,
But one thing I have found and one thing I have really won -
The road to the land that is not.
In the land that is not
My beloved walks with a glittering crown.
Who is my beloved? The night is dark
And the stars quiver in reply.
Who is my beloved? What is his name?
The heavens arch higher and higher
And a human child is drowned in the endless fogs
And knows no reply.
But a human child is nothing but certainty.
And it stretches its arms higher than all heavens.
And there comes a reply:
I am the one you love and always shall love.
Edith Södergran
Edith Södergran's poem with Peter Klevius comments* in brackets.
* The original comments were better but are on an other drive - and Peter Klevius is lazy. However, they also incl. some thoughts about Edith Södergran's path from the male seducer to Steiner only to eventually cross the paths of other disappointed women who married Christ instead. In her darkest final year she was abandoned by her closest female friend (Hagar Olsson) while a young male poet (Elmer Diktonius) took to travel all the way from Helsinki to her death bed in Karelia.You searched for a flower
(heterosexual attraction)
and found a fruit
(a mind)
You searched for a well
(to quench your thirst)
and found a sea
(a salty overwhelm)
You searched for a woman
(a body)
and found a soul
(a human being)
you're disappointed
The original Swedish text:
Du sökte en blomma
och fann en frukt.
Du sökte en källa
och fann ett hav.
Du sökte en kvinna
och fann en själ –
du är besviken.
„
РEdith Șdergran
Love by Edith Sodergran
My soul was a light blue dress the color of the sky;
I left it on a rock by the sea
and naked I came to you, looking like a woman.
And like a woman I sat at your table
and drank a toast in wine, inhaling the scent of
some roses.
You found me beautiful, like something you saw in
a dream,
I forgot everything, I forgot my childhood and my
homeland,
I only knew that your caresses held me captive.
And smiling you held up a mirror and asked me
to look.
I saw that my shoulders were made of dust and
crumbled away,
I saw that my beauty was sick and wished only to –
disappear.
Oh, hold me tight in your arms so close that
I need nothing.
At Nietzsche’s Grave - Poem by Edith Sodergran
Strange father!
Your children will not let you down,
they are coming across the earth with the footsteps of gods,
rubbing their eyes: where am I?
And here's why Peter Klevius isn't a necrophile*.
* Of course, women can also be necrophiles. However, their lack of "the male gaze" (HSA) mqkes their position different.Some men use to drug women for a "passed out fuck". Others go for partially "passed out fucks", and/or Casanova seduction, grooming etc.. And many men even escape nymphomanes.
Primate dimorphism is mostly about rapetivism. The chosy female in nature videos is most often a myth. It was easier for bigger males to rape smaller females. However, we humans have slowly departed from rapetivism - although some religions made it legal - and therefore we tend towards less dimorphism.
Peter Klevius, who never has had erectal etc. problems, would immedialtely have one if the woman had passed out, even partially - or just lacked interest.
Why? Because that would be synonymous with necrophilia.
Peter Klevius has never in his life had sex without heterosexual attraction (HSA) so as a woman Peter Klevius might have shown very little interest in sex - unless of course some other motivations had played in. This also means that Peter Klevius wouldn't like to have sex with a robot, no matter how human-like, because for Peter Klevius, it's precisely the woman's body made accessible by her mind (and only to a point she decides), that stands for good heterosexual attraction. And because Peter Klevius believes in women's equality with men (i.e. s.c. negative Human Rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration - i.e. the very opposite to the Saudi based and steered OIC's all muslims sharia declaration) he needs not only her consent but even initiative (so to avoid risking her just pleasing without getting something out of it for herself).
If Peter Klevius sees a naked woman with a perfect body, apart from the question of consent, he is also perfectly aware that her mind might be far from perfect - which means Peter Klevius can't get horny in the way king David and Mohammad allegedly were.
Peter Klevius can't stand the idea that if he were a woman she shouldn't be able to walk the streets clad as she likes without being seen as a "whore" - i.e. a target for sex. Moreover, deliberately covering her HSA potential in the name of religious "chastity"* out of supremacist ideas about the uncovered "infidel" is deeply offensive. It's like shouting at other women that they are less worthy "whores".
And women are fully entitled to play out their heterosexual attraction if they so wish, and Peter Klevius would most likely like it - and fully accept to get back to default at any point the woman so indicates.
The only "mystery" between women and men is heterosexual attraction which comes on top of reproduction. And due sex segregation/apartheid is a double edged sword.
* A classic Christian nun covers herself not out of supremacist idiocy, but as a sign of stepping out of the circle of marriage. And of course any woman is allowed to cover herself - as long that covering isn't a fascist sign of supremacism.
Peter Klevius "self"*biography/philosophy tutorial for those who deliberately (or out of pure ignorance) don't understand Ludwig Wittgenstein.
* As you dear reader already know, Peter Klevius doesn't have a 'self' because he's completely helpless without an assisting world (see Inside Klevius' Mind on Peter Klevius web museum from 2003). However, what Peter Klevius has, is a position as a modern and much more social Wittgenstein.The impossibility of a "private language"
* Peter Klevius is as far you can possibly get from the "overstuffed, excessively elliptical prose" that e.g. Gayatri Spivak has been accused of. Peter Klevius' only book (so far) Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) is just a few pages shorter than Ludwig Wittgenstein's only book Tractatus - and this only thanks to the foreword by Bertrand Russel who didn't even understand the book, much like Georg Henrik von Wright didn't understand Peter Klevius book entirely (e.g re. the importance of the last chapter Khoi, San and Bantu), but wisely, compared to Russel, (and perhaps cowardly) hesitated to write a foreword. Moreover, von Wright got the first draft to the article about the main theme already more than a decade earlier and very approvingly read it and later the book manuscript 1990-91. However, 1992 he published The Myth of Progress which "shadow over the future" seems to have been inspired by Peter Klevius writings. At no point during our correspondence did he mention it though.
No dude, Peter Klevius doesn't do navel-gazing. All this selfindulgence is done for you and your "self", dear reader.
As young Peter Klevius was castless, excluded and displaced from the socio-economic institutions of society. This strengthened and deepened his sociological understanding. However, finding himself in a hopeless situation he decided to live a very full life, but within limited means. This meant he could mostly appear as "extremely normal" while making high end deeply intellectual work outside institutions. Later he made a couple of university theses, mainly because it forced him to write in a limiting and boring academic way that at least couldn't be dismissed as "unacademic". This is also why most of Peter Klevius main thoughts appear in a tiny "unacademic" book without references but with a chapter warning for references.
Boasting about "having left one's Wittgenstein stage" is the definite proof that the person hasn't got it at all.
In the chapter titled Knowledge, in Demand for Resources (1992:36-39, ISBN 9173288411) Peter Klevius warned about the human fallacy of assessing humans against a non-human reference: What non-human should we ask? And although the answer is self-evident, many still wonder "how human can be so special in the world. In the chapter Knowledge (P. Klevius 1992) a comparison is made to East Asian thinking which uses nature as a mirror for one's standing but without pretending to build self-indulging comparative bridges between it and humans. Because everything belongs to "nature" then neither nature nor humans can be better or worse.This is also why human moral can't be expressed in any other way than Peter Klevius' "extremely normal", i.e. always changing but kept in the middle with the help of the (negative) Human Rights. That excludes any formalized religion which is always doomed to reform, i.e. changing when change is already overdue.
Religion and ethics is the "answer" to 'why?' and thereby already ortho"toxic".
Only humans can check and control human ethics and moral by accepting all humans.
Technology, i.e. change/evolution/devolution, will never stop.
Peter Klevius on existence, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):
If the basic element of existence is motion/change, the causality of events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution can be said to be the consequence of variables in causality over time where the complexity in older structures is enhanced. This development stays in apparent conflict with thermodynamics which theoretically leads to so-called maximum entropy, i.e. the total equilibrium of energy where time/motion stops. Fatalistically, one could say that evolutionary products, biological and non-biological, are in fact only temporary components of causality on its path towards uniformity. "The pure being and nothing are identical," wrote Hegel while, for example, Buddha on his deathbed 2500 years ago stated: "Perishable are all compound things." According to Buddha, therefore, humans, like things, are soulless (Klevius 1992:23).The modern concept of 'atoms' was a premature name giving. Leucippus' 'atom' is still to be found (P. Klevius 1992) - or rejected.
Cultural critics are per definition always abandoned by their own culture.
Chinese philosophy actually puts the individual closer to Human Rights than Western "monotheisms".
The West has repeatedly attacked China - but -China has never attacked the West. The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has repeatedly attacked the West - but Iran has never attacked the West. So why are little Iran and big China constantly painted as the main enemy and cyber threat etc.? Could it possibly be just the opposite, i.e. that US cyberattacks on China would be helped by China not defendig itself. And Iran is declared evil by its even more evil arch rival, the Saudi dictator family.
Can the bigotry and hypocrisy be any lower when China is criticized about Human Rights by Saudi allies who use Uyghur Islamic State terrorists against Syria, Iran, China etc. while handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban?!
And in the UK parliament right wing Saudi supporting Tories use BBC and the Labour party to attack their own leader Boris Johnson who they see as not Sinophobic enough.
US trusts in "god" - that's why US is rottening with accelerating speed.
The behavior of US (and its Western puppets) is now not only evil but also extremely dangerous.
The reason the most important Western philosopher of all time is abandoned by his own culture is because his analyses don't fit the schizophrenic "monotheist" triad of "machine", "ghost" and the ghost guard "god".
According to Peter Klevius (and him only, so far, but stay assured and tuned and you will hear it from other anthropologists as well quite soon - they just feel a little shy and embarrassed in their ivory towers), small humans evolved first in SE Asia and then mixed with bigger relatives from China and Siberia from where they then conquered the world by mixing and diluting with s.c. archaic Homos (see e.g. Peter Klevius' "The out-of-Africa hoax is much worse and worrisome than the Piltdown hoax). And due to the fact that the north always has been sparsely populated, it also managed to keep the highest concentration of this new human intelligence. This also explains why the north has been such a source for the south throughout history. Spoke-wheeled chariots, Sun etc. pre-Greek mythology and philosophy all seem to have come from the north where the Sun behaves in an extreme way compared to the boring sun of the south. And although Arctic people were short, the dumb but tall "kurgan" guys from the south stole smart wives from the north. Btw, Wittgenstein was about 168 cm and slender. Einstein 175 cm and slender. Trump is 190 cm and not slender.
A commentator on eurogenes' blog wondered re. y-haplogroup R1b "why a Mammoth Hunting Tribe adapted to extreme cold, suddenly prefered to Migrate through a Central Asian Desert rather than migrating and staying at the same latitude with the same type of ecosystem". As Petere Klevius so many times has pointed out, it was all about northern women breeding with big but dumber males, hence occasionally producing big "supermen" (also compare Kalevala and other northern epics and mythology).
Zoroaster, the first philosopher, got his talent from the Siberian background radiation of the original modern human intelligence - reflected in the sophisticated stone bracelet, needle etc. in the Denisova cave. However, his teachings became distorted into "chosen people" racism in Mideast.
The Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian (islam is just a late sectarian side-branch of the tree) "monotheisms", i.e. the Western mind-body cultural schizophrenia - which Peter Klevius abandoned at age 14 - is the estranged mother of the wayward child called Western philosophy, which already Wittgenstein put to rest. As Peter Klevius has hinted many times, Chinese and East Asian thought traditions (e.g. Buddha, Confucius etc.) may be seen as a product of the same origin, yet taking a completely different non-monotheist Atheist path.
At a time when Enlightenment was bothering religion Descartes made a silly but selling "ghost and its machine" wrapping for the soul-human-god triad by declaring that he existed because he thought he existed.
John Searle: Consciousness is the last in an endless row of conscious states.
Derrida, together with Freud, the best friend of feminist "theory", introduced the deliberate use of undefinable words - and/or definable words in context outside their definition. However, where Freud believed in a not yet discovered biological basis for his groundless theory, Derrida (and feminists) didn't really care.
Georg Henrik von Wright tried, in vain, to stay clear of reductivist views of the Cartesian ghost and its machine.
The reason Peter Klevius refers to von Wright as his "mentor" has nothing to do with philosophy, but all to do with his name, status and kindness. Whereas Wittgenstein started as extremely rich (and von Wright as the son of a wealthy aristocrat family), Peter Klevius started with nothing, no education, no family, no country of his own, not even a name or a language of his own, but with hefty debts he had no say over, and a child to take care of as a single father. So he was the perfect target for prejudice*.
*Most migrants today coming to Europe have both money and family/kinship connections and a welcoming system in the new country + when it comes to the biggest group, i.e. muslims, the additional support and protection against "islamophobia" etc. to an extent that makes many of them reliously motivated racist and sexist bullies.
Wittgenstein was exactly a similar Atheist as Peter Klevius, despite Wikipedia's stupid effort to "faith" him, e.g. by referring to him as the "fiercest critic of scientism". Who isn't?!
Football and chess are games - math isn't.
Football is pure gaming inside a pitch of rules - math is pure ruling with the rules that constitute the entirety of what can be done with math.
Kripke's "meaning skepticism" is just nonsense. The idea that for an isolated individual there is no fact in virtue of which he/she means one thing rather than another by the use of a word. Kripke's "skeptical solution" to meaning skepticism is to ground meaning in the behavior of a community - i.e. Wittgenstein's language game.
Recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation seems to boost the anti-China and pro-Saudi dictator family liturgy.
The preposterous religious supremacist view that "monotheisms" constitute the crown of human development - despite the fact that a majority in the world are Atheists (i.e. not believing in a "monotheist" "god").
The followers of the last and worst of the "monotheist" religions, archangel Gabriel's message to "the last messenger" aka islam, destroyed Zoroastrian texts in the library of Alexandria. Zoroastrian texts transferred to the Greeks was stored in the great library of Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy II Philapdephius. It has been estimated to have contained two million lines, i.e. some 800 rolls attributed to Zoroaster.
In AD 642, Alexandria was attacked by muslims. Several Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of caliph Umar who said "if those books are in agreement with the Koran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Koran, destroy them." And Peter Klevius says nothing could be more opposed to the Sunni caliph than Persian Zoroaster. Who else in history could have been more keen on destroying Zoroastrian texts?! Not to take this tectonic fact into account is pure charlatanism.
Archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures. Moreover, even an oral tradition fails by at least 1,000 years.
Whoever interested in what consciousness is and how the brain works, need to read Peter Klevius stone example (1992) and the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (1994).
In fact, Peter Klevius stone example should be compulsory reading for everyone - just like a vaccination against dumb or deliberately evil "spirituality".
That will cure much of your "religiosity" etc. bias.
Peter Klevius knows about aliens because he is one - you're too. Most parents see their children turning into aliens already in their teens (that's how the concept 'teenager' emerged). Changing education/job and location also alienates. And when we send humans on multi-generational space trips, their grand-grand-grand etc. -children will have absolutely nothing in common with the grand-grand-grand etc. -children to those humans who stayed on Earth or went to other places. So what would it mean to be a human?
The reason why Peter Klevius is so successful in scientific analysis is (except for his brain) the fact that he simply checks for bias (religious, political, economic etc) - and the results reveal themselves naturally. And according to Weiniger (who had a big influence on Wittgenstein), 'the Woman' is the main obstacle against women's emancipation, and according to Klevius, 'the Human' is the main obstacle against science. Klevius may accordingly be one of the last human scientists.
And of course, checking for all kinds of bias erases pretty much every possible source of support.
The first and most important redundancy to understand is to skip 'understanding' all together and replace it with 'adaptation'. That simple maneuvre will clean the playing field from distractions more than anything else.
We don't "observe" or "understand" - we adapt. And not only to our outer surrounding but eqaully to our own body incl. our brain. Or a brick turning into grovel/sand. Or a star etc.
Is the flying dust from what used to be a brick less or more "complex"? Or the supernova?
Although the brain/nerve system is more complex, it's no different from e.g. light skin that gets tanned in the sun.
And when Klevius says "we" he really means it. There's no "I" (other than as origo) or "self". As Klevius wrote on the web 2003: In creating this text Klevius would have been helpless without an assisting world". Wittgenstein showed the impossibility of a "private language" and Klevius showed (see the stone example below) that information is the flow of perception and that there's no difference between observation and understanding.
As a consequence there's no free will (even Luther realized this and threw it in the face of Erasmus) because free will is a linguistic mirage (although Luther called it dependancy on a "god").
Klevius stone example
My "monoexistentialistic" view was and is that there can only be adaptation.I exemplified it (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing (fotons) a stone and 2) telling (sound waves) about it to 3) someone who writes it down (text) to 4) someone else who sees (fotons) the text. 5) Then the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be made of paper-mache.
Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.
There's only now - not a "past" because no one can live in the past.
Exemplified (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing (fotons/understanding/language?*) a stone and 2) telling (sound waves/language) about it to 3) someone who writes it down (text/language) to 4) someone else who sees (fotons) the text. 5) Then the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be made of paper-mache.
Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.
1) is a specific perception (understanding) and thought (interpretation) synonymous with the individual's communicative use (compare Wittgenstein's "language game") of the concept 'stone'.
2) is the second individual's linguistic interpretation and understanding of a 'stone', but limited to this individual's specific communicative use of the term.
3) same as above
4) same as above
5) a new perception (understanding)
This last one isn't to be seen as a "correction" but just as part of a continuous flow of adaptation.
* some people understand without necessarily putting a word on it
In 1994 I developed my theory calling it EMAH ('the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis', alluding to Francis Crick's 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis). EMAH has been on the web since 2003. In the “book” I also warned how research is vulnerable to be choked by its own peer steered citation cartels. I finished the book by exemplifying a new division of human cultures in a chapter called Khoi, San and Bantu. My moral bedrock since my teens rests on universal (negative) Human Rights for everyone - incl. women.
Here's rough Google translate based "translation" from Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources:
What I want to say is that there is a culturally independent "thought intelligence" and that there is an intellectual difference between cats, monkeys and humans even when body? and environmental experiences are equated. A person can simply boast of experiences in a cat impossible way, no matter how dull the lives they both lived. Produced in this way, the matter seems obvious, but it is often diffused in the debate.
I also find it difficult to understand the relevance of the theory of the so-called The "Machiavellian Intelligence" which states that social manipulation skills would have shaped and driven our intelligence. For me, it seems as if successful% ocio play "today seems to lack intelligence and / or thought correlation. It is more exceptional, in relation to other factors, that fruitfully intriguing carries fruit. You can as well see memory capacity (in an ecological context ) as a consequence of the selection factor and social interaction.
An interesting detail in this context is that the large brain of man as well as of other animals is actually the "neck" upon which it so-called. the olfactory center (the odor organ) is associated with the brain stem. This "olfactory neck" has, in man, received its longest and most complex design, while man actually has denser accumulations of odor-producing fat glands than any other animal. One can therefore rightly assume that the odor organ has played a crucial role in designing the way in which we perceive / think the world. You just need to think about how strong and overwhelming emotions some smells that you have not known for a long time can induce. For me personally, it seems to apply mainly to smells and smells with positive associations from my childhood. At the beginning of my work, it appeared as something of an intuitive feeling that the "psychological" view of the brain so strong in the 20th century led us away from the evolutionary self-explanations of thought.
In line with the modern "hygiene", which seems to have the main purpose of concealing body scents and replacing them with artificial, allergies and immune problems increase. If you assume that thinking has a close connection with smells and scents, this is undoubtedly a reflection. Does this also affect us on other levels?
While in his book "The Scented Ape" Michael Stoddart pleads for the fact that man, when she started hunting in flock, would have lost large parts of his odor communication ability due to that the then necessary monogamy was threatened by sexual odor invasions from the females but at the same time one can come up with several alternative scenarios and objections. The "olfactory neck" complexity of man suggests Lex. that something closely related to the odor organ has' driven our intelligence. Lex's dogs. which have recognized good sense of smell, even the very strongly developed "olfactory neck" and therefore the brain's development, except possibly marginally, can be linked to or from simpler degrees of odor detection. In fact, we know quite a bit about the more subtle odor perceptions that man unconsciously occupies.
The connection between intelligence / intellect and its biological anchors can thus appear to be problematic on several levels. This applies inter alia to the connection between sensory impression and abstraction. In a remark about rational reconstruction, Jurgen Haberma makes a distinction between what he calls sensory experience (observation) and communicative experience (understanding). Against this, one can polemise if one sees the thought process as consisting of parts in memory patterns and experiences that must be processed / understood in order to be meaningful at all.
sees a stone = sight impression as understood by the viewer
I see a stone = opinion understood by another person
I suppose Habermas sees the latter example as communication because of the purpose (via the language) of the original stone viewer's visual impression of the stone and then to claim that this "extent" of the meaning in the opinion cannot be proved to be of a different nature from the thought / understanding process that lies behind the first example. This understanding of the stone does not differ from the understanding of an abstract symbol like Lex. a letter or a word, written or pronounced. The statement "I see a stone" is likewise a direct impression of mind which, like the stone as an object, lacks all meaning if it is not understood. Here one can object that the word stone in contrast to the phenomenon stone can transmit meanings (symbolic construction according to Habermas). Nevertheless, I would like to insist that this is also apparent and a consequence of our way of perceiving the language and Popper's third world (see below).
A stone can be perceived as everything from the printing ink in a word to an advanced symbolic design. It is not a matter of difference between observation and understanding, but only different, unrelated levels of understanding. Nor does the division "pure observation" and "reflective observation" have any other than purely comparative significance, since any delimitation (other than the purely comparative) does not make sense meaningfully. Doesn't it matter that communication takes place between two conscious, thinking beings? Certainly, Habermas and others are free to elevate communication between individuals to another group than the communication the stone viewer has with himself and his cultural heritage via reflection in the stone, but in this case this is merely an ethnocentric position without relevance to the distinction / observation distinction.
For me, it is therefore not a fundamental difference in the symbol combination in the sensory experience of a stone or of Habermas text. Of course, this does not mean that in any way I would express any kind of valuation of the Habermas or the stone. What it does mean, however, is that I want to question the division of observation / understanding and thus also the division of primitive / civilian thinking. In the name of justice, it should be said that Habara's example is based on a completely different chain of thought with a different purpose than this one mentioned, and that I only want to try to demonstrate the danger of generalizing the relationship between observation / understanding. In other contexts, it becomes almost unnoticed for a linguistic axiom (virus to take information technology as an example) that then both generates and cumulates differences that do not exist.
In the book Evolution of the Brain / Creation of the Self (with preface by Karl Popper), John C. EccIes notes among other things. that: '1t is surprising how slow the growth of World 3 (K. Poppers and J. EccIes division of existence and experiences; World I = physical objects and states, World 2 = states of consciousness, World 3 = knowledge in objective sense) was in the earlier of thousands of years of Homo sapiens sapiens. And even today there are races of mankind with negligible cultural creativity. Only when the societies could provide the primary needs of shelter, food, clothing, and security were able to participate effectively in cultural creativity, so enriching World 3. "
This quote shows Eccle's and Popper's legitimate concerns about the issue and partly the cultural-revolutionary retreat path they use to leave the question. (See the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu in this book) It also reveals a certain, perhaps unconscious, aversion to the idea that societies would voluntarily settle for meeting their "primary needs".
Karl Popper has, with reasons, made himself known as the freedom advocate and here I fully share his attitude. Freedom (implicitly a human and responsible freedom) is a clear deficiency in the modern welfare state. At the same time, it is so that the concept of freedom does not exist at all among the collectors / hunter cultures referred to in this consideration. The concept of freedom, like diamonds, is created only under pressure.
Klevius wrote before metoo:
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".
Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...
Women, from a male point of view, have wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce. And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect. Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.The sperm has to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However, the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men, but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than 2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.
However, even 20 times more Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words, Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings. However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.
And to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one. At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).
And you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic as 2+2=4.
1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females. Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman - compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males disguised as women).
2 Males have way more potential urge for sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please, don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white pepper and sneezing).
3 Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.
4 This means that all women, incl. asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel they're lacking one.
Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).
Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän
A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):
* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian, both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").
A perception (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare)
mirror a glimpse of your thought (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said (sagda)
by me and your expectation (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend ( min frände, min vän)
Women on sex and work
Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can (alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability) how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a "lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.
Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations
Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Islam, OIC - and Eurabia
Europe's fascist past reborn via religion
As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.
* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.
