90. Three Months of this Blog

Three Months of this Blog

When I started this blog, I thought that in maybe a dozen entries I could explain my quest, and then hope to be found.   Now I am on entry 90, because the more I write, the more keywords bring me into google searches.

By now, this blog and how to contact me can be found by a clever search.   But I am disappointed by the lack of cleverness of some men, who make no attempt to find me even though they seem to be interested in contacting me.   

I have profiles on some paying sites, where none paying members can either have no contact, or only nudge, or only read mails or there are other limitations.    I am not breaking their rules by smuggling any contact information into my profiles.   But by the way of presenting myself, there is enough information available to enable someone to find this blog on google, would he try.   Nobody so far has ever done it, at least not found and contacted me.

Those, who like me are not paying, sometimes nudge me and then they just wait.  If I cannot react, they just nudge another.  Maybe they want a woman, who is rich enough to pay.   Maybe they are just stupid sheep.     

Those, who are paying, obviously seem to think, that the dating site has to present the women to them on a silver salver.    When they nudge or write to me, and I cannot reply, they just demand the next one on a salver.      

There is the proverb:   Necessity begets ingenuity.   Translated into an equation:
Survival = Resources + Skills.   

From this point of view, being affluent is a handicap, it deprives people of the opportunity to develop skills.   A rich man buys a new computer every year, and when it does not work properly, he pays someone to repair it.   He always has a working computer, but he stays ignorant about how it works and remains dependent on the skill of others.  
A poor person like me buys spare parts on eBay, learns how to take a computer apart and reassemble it in no time.   Such a person pays in ten years less to have a functioning computer than the rich guy pays in one, but picks up a lot of skill on the way and is never helpless, when there is a problem.  

I like the skillful guys much more than the affluent ones.   If ever anybody would see my profile on a site, paying or not, and would find this blog, I would appreciate his cleverness very much.    This of course does not refer to somebody reading the information about this blog on a free site.   That is too simple to be clever.   

I am still waiting........

89. The Lottery Question

The Lottery Question

On some dating-sites, one of the questions asked is about what one would do with the money after winning the lottery.

Here is my answer:   I would fund a research project to develop a spray, that is an antidote to men's secretly used pheromones and an antipheromone, that would deactivate a man's instincts the same way as pheromones are activating instincts.   

When I was younger, I would have paid more for such a substance than for gold.    So many times I got into contact with a man, no matter in a shop, at a job, travelling, when all I wanted was to be taken for serious and be treated with respect as a person.    Instead just the presence of my body triggered those male animals into the wish to get me into bed, into flirtation and sometimes attempts at seduction.    At 61, it has got better.   I was average looking and not a beauty, and this did not happen to me any more than to other young women.   But while some of them feel flattered, I felt my dignity trodden upon.   

There is a lot, that a decent and self-respecting woman can do with such a spray.   
It can help her to be treated as well as any man, when dealing with salesmen, agents, banks business contacts or customers.  
It could enable a woman to accept to talk to a stranger during vacation in a Mediterranean country and just have an interesting conversation about the country, its culture and its customs.
It can help a woman to find a decent and compatible mate.   She just uses it while dating someone, whom she does not know very well.   They can have a serious relaxed communication while deciding, if they are really compatible for a future together, without being driven by instincts to wrong rush involvements.
It can help an employee to keep her married boss at bay and make her working situation so much less stressful.  

These are just a few examples, where a woman could enhance her quality of life by temporarily converting compulsive studs into pleasantly hypoinstinctive humans able to act and think rationally.     

88. Absurd Dating-Advice

88.   Absurd Dating-Advice

Sometimes I have been reading the advice pages on some dating-sites.   The latest I came across was the advice for men not to appear desperate, not to chase women, but make women chase men.   Others advice to play hard to get and similar expressions.

That sounds to me like an immature children's play attitude.    For serious people in search of a lasting monogamous relationship, such games are very irrational.   

1.   People vary a lot in their personal needs.   For some, a partner has high priority, for others career, friends, hobbies are relatively more important.    For the harmony of a couple, it is important that they are compatible in the mutual importance and priority in life.    To be a good match in this area, it is important that both show in sincerity, what role a partner will have, how much they need a partner.    By playing hard-to-get games, people risk to be mismatches.   One following the advice, hides his true needs with someone, for whom a relationship is not such an important part in life, and they end up very unhappy.

2.   Harmony in a relationship is the result of hard work in solving lots of conflicts.   The older people are, the more.    People act economically.   The more they want something, the more they are willing to pay and to invest.   This is not only the case with material goods, but also with emotional goods and strain, stress and effort as the price.   
If someone is happy alone, and a partner would only bring a little additional benefit to his life, then the relationship has no high value for him and at the first major conflict he just runs away with the illusion to find someone else, where there are less conflicts.  
But if someone is needy, desperately lonely, and he admits it to himself, then a relationship to him is something valuable and precious, worth investing, whatever it needs to make it work, and he considers conflicts as a task to resolve.

3.  Decent and profound men, who respect women as persons, either enter the combined emotional, intellectual and physical intimacy with a woman in a relationship, or there is no intimacy with a female body.   Therefore decent men become much more lonely and desperate than those filthy alley dogs, who have flings, uncommitted affairs with women wanting more, who go to prostitutes and consume pornography, thus abusing women's bodies as a valve to keep from feeling needy and desperate.   The probability, that a desperate, lonely and needy man is decent is much higher than if he appears independent and cool.


Therefore, if there is compatibility in all other aspects, the more a man is needy, lonely and desperate, the more I will welcome him.    

87. Attempted Wordsmithry

Attempted Wordsmithry

Lately I got aware, that my attempt of wordsmithry created a Latin-Greek chimeric word.
It would have better been an all Latin word as is subanimality or an all Greek word as would be hypozoonity.  

But when googling, I discovered that the word subanimality has already been used, but with a very different meaning from my hypoanimality.  

Subanimality is used to mean something like subbestiality, something worse than what is usually human, but not completely beastly.    Hypoanimality is the contrary, it is a predominance of human rationality with low developed instinctive animal behavior.   So I let hypoanimality be chimeric, the word expresses, what it is supposed to express.   

86. The Myth of Altruism

The Myth of Altruism

Altruism is usually understood as an act, that is of benefit for another person, at the cost of a sacrifice and without neither a benefit nor the expectation of a future benefit for the self, and that is a choice. 

This kind of alleged altruism is typical for people with the particle identity.    They interpret the behavior of others as altruistic, quite often they also believe their own behavior to be altruistic.

This is very different from doing a first beneficial step in a tit-for-tat strategy.    Hyponanimalistic individuals attempt to find a balance of giving and taking without either taking advantage nor making sacrifices.   They do not attempt to be altruistic. 

But I am convinced, that altruism of the definition above does not exist at all.   Even for those with the particles identity, every apparently altruistic act brings an adequate benefit to the actor.    This benefit might just be completely inexplicable and invisible to others, because it may be derived from a delusion or innate instinctive urges.  

I cannot think of any apparently altruistic act, that cannot be explained somehow as having hidden benefits.   

1.  There can be the delusion of a reward.    Typically the reward is expected from the deity in the afterlife, getting a better reincarnation or such.  

2.  There can also be the paranoia of punishment to be avoided by the apparent altruism.  

3.   The act of apparent altruism can acquire praise, status, power and importance and it can add to the self esteem.

4.  The apparently altruistic behavior can repair or enhance the self esteem by diminishing an incongruency between the perceived self and the ideal self.    This could be in the case of amends because of guilt and remorse. 

5.  When someone's strong need to have a purpose is connected with a strong ought self, that requires altruism, the apparently altruistic act just serves to reduce the tension of the urge. 

6.  The urge to ensure the survival of the own genes is generalised to the survival of genetically related persons and to the entire ingroup, because the progeny depends on the survival of the ingroup.    Apparently altruistic acts are just serving the survival of the own genes in a wider context. 

7.   Some apparently altruistic acts are not chosen, when the refusal of taking a risk would be punished. 

8.   Some apparently altruistic acts may be experienced instead as thrill, entertainment or rewarding in themselves in any other way. 

85. Identity, Ideal Self and Self-Esteem

Identity, Ideal Self and Self-Esteem

The ideal self, or one major aspect of it, is the acknowledgment of what behavior is morally right and what is not, and that depends on the values and basic attitudes. As I outlined in entry 43, I consider the basic values as the conscious representation of the relative strength of the amount of hard-wired instinctivity and gullibility or rationality and cerebrality in the brain.

The perceived self is the way, that someone experiences subjectively his own behavior, no matter, how it is perceived by others. The more someone perceives both selves as congruent, the better he feels about himself.

The ought self is the knowledge about rules and norms, about what mainstream society expects from people.

Therefore the formation and development and the rules for behavior of the ideal self depend very much on the kind of identity, someone has hardwired into his brain.

Hypoanimalistic individuals, who are guided by rationality, have an ideal self much based upon rationality and a fair exchange of giving and receiving, on tit-for-tat and on treating others as individuals too. The ought self cannot influence them, whenever it is irrational for the individual. They choose carefully, who is worthy to mix with, and then they accept to allow mutual influencing only with those chosen.

Breeders with the particle identity are very different. Their ideal self represents the urges of all the instincts, that are hard-wired into their brain and form their identity. Their ideal self tells them to procreate, to fight for power and resources in a hierarchy, to favor their progeny, and as particles to have a purpose in life pleasing that something higher, their deity. As particles connected with other particles, they incorporate a lot of the ought self into the ideal self. That ought self can add belief-based elements to the ideal self like earning advantages in an afterlife. They need other particles and are therefore prone to be influenced by those, whose influence is detrimental.

For hypoanimalistic individuals, self-esteem is derived mainly from achievements, if behaving in a way, that the perceived self closely resembles the ideal self, also is considered as an achievement. For particles, the esteem of others can modify their self-esteem substantially.

One ingredient to live in harmony is the situation of the esteem of significant people being in sync with the own self-esteem.

Hypoanimalistic individuals need to be rationally convinced by either own experience or given evidence of failure to adjust their self-esteem.

Particles are very prone to adjust their own self-esteem to the opinions of others due to how they are treated. They depend on others, on competition, on comparing themselves for their self-esteem.

The representation of the self-esteem is expressed in what someone feels entitled to deserve in all aspects of what is important to him. Material and immaterial entitlements are very different, I am only referring to immaterial entitlement.

This brings me back to entry 82 (Identity and Forgiving). A transgression is a behavior, which at least in the perception of the transgressee is below of what he is entitled to be impacted with. In the moment of the transgression, the esteem of the transgressor for the transgressee is considerably lower than his self-esteem.

This causes a disruptive imbalance. Forgiving corrects this by reestablishing the congruence between the self-esteem and the perceived esteem of the other.

Earning forgiveness means, that the transgressor adjusts his esteem to the self-esteem of the transgressee and adjusts therefore also, what he considers as appropriate behavior with him. For a hypoanimalistic individual, this is the only solution, else the transgressor is unworthy for further contact.

For particles, who need the entanglement with other particles more than their own self-esteem, the situation is different. In obedience to their deity, they forgive a transgression, even though the transgressor continues to consider is adequate to the transgressee. But in this case forgiving means to lower the own self-esteem to match the low esteem of the transgressor.  Both have implicitly accepted future repetitions of the transgression, because the transgressee has indirectly acknowledged by forgiving, that it was really not a transgression at all, but a behavior, that he is willing to be exposed to again.

Thus, particles lower their own self-esteem in the aspects of the transgression, but there is the deity as the third party of the triad in the background. For them, obedience, submission, sacrifice for the deity is also perceived as an achievement. What self-esteem they loose to the low esteem of the transgressor, they gain again from the achievement of being docile to the deity.

84. Geese and Bees

84.  Geese and Bees

Analogies comparing humans with animals are of limited validity, because all animals breed by instinct, while my distinction between the prototypical humans with individualistic and with particle identity is that the former has out-evolved the instinctive urge to breed.

But in looking at the connection between an individual and society other than potential mates, there is an analogy.    Individualistic identity is bonding with one partner exclusively, just as do geese, while particle identity is feeling connected with many or all others as are the bees.  

Geese are bonded as a pair, and the other geese around are of lesser importance, if of any at all.

Bees are connected to the entire colony and they are driven to fulfill the function and the purpose, that has been genetically wired into them. 

I have been exchanging a few emails with someone, who has very distinctively the particle identity, he identified himself with it.    

We had an interesting impasse.   For him, continuing his deactivated intimate relationships on a small scale, which means in his way of putting it, keeping friendly contact with his divorced ex-wives, is something absolutely normal and unproblematic, and he considers it the same for all other people.

For me, being integrated into such an polygyny compound would be a degradation, as the partner would this way bluntly tell me, that I am not good enough to be his one and only intimate partner at the same time.  

We both did mutually take in the information about the different perceptions without being able to have any empathy for the other's emotional perception.    I cannot emphasize his normality and he cannot emphasize the pain, such a constellation would cause me.   

After some pondering, I think I can see one major reason to explain this difference.   It is the hierarchy and competition instinct.    That of course has nothing to do with my analogy of the geese and bees.  

A male, who acquires the power over the body of a female, and a female, who acquires the position of getting a male's resources by competition, get a higher position in a hierarchy of fitness, and those, who have lost that power, are lower in the hierarchy and not dangerous.   The existence of losers in the competition, including the former owners of her body and his resources, are the living proof of superiority.  

Therefore it is plausible, that for such a person the deactivated intimate partners of the active intimate partner are perceived as testimonies of their own superiority and fitness.  They may well make them feel good as the winners.   What makes the relationship with the active partner unique to them is the power over that person, which the deactivated partners has lost.  

For egalitarian people void of the instinct for competition, the focus is on bonding and on the quality of the bond being unique and exclusive.  Therefore the situation is very different.   As long as there is a wish to be in friendly contact with the deactivated intimate partner, the bond is still there and the actual partner has no position of specialty and exclusivity.   Being given only a bond not better than persistent other bonds hurts an egalitarian person with self-esteem and dignity.   

People with the particle identity, with the competition instinct, breeders and wanna-be-breeders are the vast majority of society.   They create the norms and they are those, who treat and define minorities as weird.    But I refuse to be told, that there is something wrong with me, when I declare, that a man's friendship with deactivated partners hurts.    I am proudly a hypoanimalistic egalitarian, I deserve to be as much the exclusive one and only of a partner, as he is to me.    Anybody, who disagrees with this, can accept the separating ditch of incompatibility, but he has not right to call my differently wired brain weird or worse.   

83. Mindmate Checklist

Mindmate Checklist

I have moved the contents of this entry to a separate page and I have deleted the original entry here to avoid problems with Google finding duplicate content.  

82. Identity and Forgiving

Identity and Forgiving

In entry 19  (Myth of Unconditional Love) I already mentioned the fundamental difference between forgiving as a process between two partners in a dyad and people, for whom forgiving includes a deity between, so that a triad is involved.

There are also two different principles of forgiving, earned forgiving and self-abasing forgiving, and it is related to the two identities.  

People with the identity of individuals choose, with whom to be and whom to avoid.    They judge, who deserves to be with, and who not.   People with the particle identity, especially breeders, get themselves often entangled with people without a choice to end the entanglement.  

1.   Two hypoanimalistic individuals can decide to become committed and to create together an emotional home, supplying mutually safety and security, based upon being trustworthy, reliable and predictable.    Transgressions would destroy this.  

To avoid transgressions, both need to share enough basic values and attitudes to have consent, what they would consider as transgressions.  

Once a transgression has happened, an ethical disequilibrium has been created.   The one, who has done wrong, has a moral debt to the other.   The one, who has been wronged, feels injustice, outrage, anger.    The one, who has done the wrong, may either feel guilt and remorse or not be aware of the transgression.  
In both cases, repairing the emotional home requires that the transgressor earns forgiving in a way, that the transgressee can overcome the bad feelings and can rely on the probability, that the same transgression will not be repeated in the future.    Earning forgiveness needs to heal the hurt pride and dignity of the transgressee, whatever it takes from the transgressor.  
This implies the rational insight of the transgressor of what exactly he had done wrong, acknowledging it, feeling and expressing remorse, making amends and a pledge not to repeat it.   Those steps lead to a rational justification for the transgressee to forgive by having been given justice.    The emotional home is repaired.

But if the transgressor refuses to earn forgiveness, then the relationship is fundamentally destroyed.    The transgressor has put himself above the transgressee, he has degraded him as someone deserving unacceptable treatment.   This is a humiliation, that the transgressee with pride and dignity cannot allow himself to submit to.    In this situation, the transgressee has only one option to preserve his self-esteem and dignity, that is to remove the unworthy transgressor radically out of his life.   If a transgressor does not earn forgiveness, then he has forfeited to be good enough to be in contact with.   

Therefore two partners in the ERCP either end every transgression with earning forgiveness to restore the equilibrium, or they end the relationship.    Unearned forgiving would destroy equality as a consequence of the devaluation of the partner, who had been wronged without amends.

2.  People with the particles identity, who are entangled with people, whom they are either legally or genetically connected to as parents and children, siblings and even self-chosen and dependent on, are getting into a difficult situation, when they get seriously wronged by someone, who refuses to earn any forgiving.   For various reasons, they cannot just severe all ties to the unworthy transgressor, and the transgression hurts deeply.    This is, where the deity comes in again.  They cannot forgive without a justification, but they need to heal.   Forgiving without amends it self-abasement and they do not want to feel this.   So they forgive as a perceived duty to the deity, with the delusion, that the deity at some time in the future, either in this or in the next life, with create justice and make the transgressor pay his debts.  

Unfortunately, while unearned forgiving in hope for deity justice helps the transgressees to avoid feeling the self-degradation and self-abasement of it, they have the concept, that it would be good for everybody.   Worse, if they think that as they forgive unearned, they can expect to also be forgiven by others without earning forgiveness.    This might even lower their own threshold for allowing themselves to transgress.    

Therefore, like for many other reasons, for persons with an individualistic identity, close contact with persons with the particles identity can be emotionally a big hazard.  

Personally, I will never ever forgive anything, except my forgiveness is earned, and my mindmate with be the same and he will never expect to be forgiven without having it earned.   

81. Pegs and Holes

Pegs and Holes

I like the metaphor of the pegs and the holes.   

There is a lid for every pot.  There is a hole for every peg or a peg for every hole.    But then there is the problem of the square peg and the round hole.    It sound like a very simple problem.    But on further scrutiny, it becomes much more complex, when considering the material and the relative size.
 
There can be pegs, of which the diagonal is bigger than the diameter of the hole.   By forcing it in, the part that is of softer material, gets damaged.    Criminals are like steel pegs damaging the vulnerable society.   There are also the marginalized people, who are the wooden pegs getting damaged when forced into the steel hole of a merciless society.

But there are also other square pegs with a diagonal not bigger than the diameter of the round hole.   The peg can be inserted without any damage, but it does not fit, with the least movement, it just falls out.   Imagine a peg with a head like a nail, that covers it, and the peg looks as if it would fit, even though it does not.   There are countless holes, wherein the peg looks as if it would fit, but it doesn't.  That is the kind of peg, that I am.  

I got this feedback:  "I get the feeling when I read your blog that you do not tolerate people who don't fit your ideal."    I would not tolerate and accept a man as a partner, who is in any fundamental way different from my ideal.  But this has nothing to do with my general attitude towards people.  The world is full with people, who are different, they are everywhere, they are my neighbours, people at my job, or anybody I would meet at any leisure event.   I can and I do mix with them, but I feel more or less detached and alienated.    I do not need to look for them, and I need even less to write a blog to get in contact with any of them.   

Therefore this blog is putting all emphasis on how I consider myself as different.   Let the whole world around think that I am a round peg with a head in a round hole.   On this blog, I am a square peg, and I want to show it.   Finding my mindmate is this blog's only purpose.   If on the way I get in contact with any woman friend, who shares some of my basic attitudes, this would just be an extra benefit.     

80. A Wanna-Be-Artist

A Wanna-Be-Artist

I never publish a real picture of myself on the web.   

Some years ago, I put plants on the scanner and made, what was meant to be some funny self-portrait.   

79. Thoughts on Cheating

Thoughts on Cheating

This is a continuation of entry 76 and also related to entries 47 and 48. 

Cheating is breaking the agreement of exclusivity, on which two persons base the justification for entering and maintaining an intimate relationship.   (Persons, who copulate like dogs without any mental or emotional justification to do so are below the scope of my considerations.)

In any polygamous system, where exclusivity is not a part of the agreement, logically there is no cheating.    In polygyny the man demands onesided exclusivity from the women.    If such a woman then reacts with also getting involved with another man, this cannot be called cheating, but the woman's getting equality and justice for herself.  

The definitions of cheating are as different as are the definitions of the practical monogamy of breeders (in this entry including wanna-be-breeders) and of true emotional monogamy of hypoanimalistic individuals.

In practical monogamy, cheating is simply the breaking of the accepted obligation of physical exclusivity with the actual partner.   Nothing else is considered as cheating.   

But in true, emotional monogamy, based upon the ERCP, cheating is a much more complex problem.   By definition, this form of monogamy means to be attached by a unique, special, exclusive bond of the combined physical, emotional and intellectual intimacy.    Cheating is getting engaged in the same profound and close intimacy in one of the three elements with another person of the partner's gender, without having first ended the bond by ending all contact.  
This of course excludes the emotional ties, that someone has been born into, with the family of origin, and it excludes professional closeness with co-workers in the same intellectual realm.   But in true emotional monogamy, the emotional and intellectual intimacy with the partner is noticeably closer than that with friends.     

Cheating is felt as pain by the partner, feeling that pain is called jealousy.   For healthy, decent people without double standards, their jealousy is in sync with their perception of monogamy.  

Breeders may well accept emotional polygyny or even be not much affected by cheating.   Hypoanimalistic people may well feel a lot more pain by perceiving a lot more behavior as cheating.  

Many times people are accused of pathological jealousy.   In reality, pathological jealousy as a mental dysfunction is rare, the attribution is mostly the consequence of a mismatch.   Behavior, that is normal for a breeder, like continuing the friendship with a previous partner or having close emotional friendships with persons of the gender of the partner, can be extremely painful to a hypoanimalistic person, who defines the same behavior as cheating and would never do it.

Cheating is cruel and inconsiderate equally by both, by the one, who is partnered, and by the one, who knowingly participates.   

Cheating breeders are driven by instinct to cheat, whenever this has an advantage for the survival of their genes.   
Hypoanimalistic people have little inclination to cheat, as it is contrary to their own needs and value system.  

A hypoanimalistic person with self-esteem would never share a partner with someone else, and respects other people's relationship as taboo.    I am one of them.   
When I get into contact with a man, who has a partner, then she was there first, and I will not interfere.   Even if he wants to leave her any way, I am not the person to be even indirectly the cause of her suffering.   
Also I do not want to start any kind of friendly contact with him.   I do not know, where her personal limit is to feel emotionally cheated.   
Since I am looking for my mindmate, and since I will not even consider to take someone away from an existing relationship, any contact with a man, who is not free, is wasting my time.  
I perceive other women's men just not as men, but as half couples with one part invisible.   I recoil emotionally, because the invisible other half is present all the time.      

When a breeder informs me, that he is, from his own perspective, still friends with at least one previous intimate partner, I perceive him as not available, he is still another woman's man.    The other woman was first, and logically I would be the intruder and the one participating in cheating.   He may call her a friend, but to me he is still in a relationship with her.   When a man is still friends with more than one previous partner, then he is really the partner of the first and emotionally cheating with the others.   
As a description, I called it emotional compound polygyny in entry 76, but when seen from the social norm of practical and legal monogamy, it is cheating.    

78. Cultural Differences - Acquired or Hard-Wired?

Cultural Differences - Acquired or Hard-Wired?

I just watched a documentary on Cultural Psychology.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1662427912715121093#

They compared Asian and western perception of the person in connection to others.    They call the western culture independent, and the Asian culture interdependent.    This seems quite similar to my dichotomy between the individualistic and the particlistic identity.  

Cultural influences of the personality are acquired and I understand the documentary as comparing cultures.  

But it leads me to a speculative question.   If external distinctions between populations, like the form of the eyes and the color of the skin, are inherited, could the end points of the scale of hypoanimality to animality also be inherited and differ? 

Are the observed cultural differences an expression of the predominance of different hard-wired tendencies in the brain, or are the different cultures overriding in a different way, what is equally hard-wired?    Is culture determined by the hard-wiring, or is the hard-wiring differently modified by different cultures?    

Does more hard-wired hypoanimality in western societies cause the independent individualistic identity, or does the culture of a more independent identity allow the hard-wired hypoanimality to be expressed and perceived more often and more freely?  

77. Identity and External Influences

Identity and External Influences

My objective of this blog is to find my mindmate, somebody at the same end of the scale of hard-wired identity.   That scale has at one extreme the hypoanimalistic non-breeders with an individual identity, and at the other extreme the animalistic breeders with the particle identity.   This of course is a deliberate simplification meant to point out, who I am and who can be my mindmate.

The scale from hard-wired individual identity at one end and particle identity at the other end would probably be a bell curve.   The hard-wired identity is more or less modified by upbringing, culture, circumstances, restrictions or liberty to act, reward or punishment, pressure, manipulations and a lot more.   
Those influences are roughly the same for everybody, but they are less powerful in comparison with the strongest hard-wired identity of people at both ends, while the influence for modification is strongest in the middle of the scale.   There the subjective identity and the breeding behaviour are drastically modified and altered by external influences.    

Just as there are those pseudo-non-breeders already mentioned, there are also many people, who have been lured, manipulated, brainwashed into breeding, even though this is in discord with their hard-wired identity.   Only when it is too late do they realize, that they did not really have an inclination to breed, but then they raise the children, because they feel responsible for the consequences of their mistakes.
  
Many people are very gullible, and they never get aware of their genuine inclinations.   They breed, because it is expected from them.  They mistake themselves as christians, because everybody around does it too.   They compete, because they imitate the majority.   They exploit other countries, because everybody else justifies the racism of the ingroup-outgroup difference.   
The external influences are strong, so these people act in contradiction to their own true inclinations but consciously they do not know it.   Yet their true inclinations are still there and make them feel unhappy and uncomfortable.   Hard-wired non-breeders raising children, hard-wired rational skeptics in a struggle to be conform and believe obvious non-sense, people, who want to cooperate in harmony but are coerced to compete against their wish, they all suffer and are prone to become sick, depressed or worse.    Maybe the discrepancy between the hard-wired and the acquired identities contribute to the causes of mental illness and psychiatric troubles.

In any society, where animality is the norm, the pressure to be more animalistic than their brains are hard-wired for, is a serious hazard for all people with hypoanimality.   But there are cultural differences.  
The cultures of some, mostly western countries are more individualistic than those of other, more particlistic* traditional countries.    Maybe in more individualistic countries, it is easier for individualistic non-breeders to be in sync with the hard-wiring of their brains and be conscious in their choice to refuse breeding.    Maybe the people with the particle-identity in  a country with a particlistic culture are more in sync and therefore more people are induced to breed and add to the overpopulation of the globe.   

_____________________________
* I did not create the word 'particlistic', I found one occurrence in Google.    But maybe somebody can suggest a better word for feeling as a particle of something bigger?    Is there also maybe a better word instead of particle-identity?

76. Ex-Partners - Monogamy or Polygamy?

Ex-Partners - Monogamy or Polygamy?

Legally, the difference between polygamy and monogamy is clearly defined.   But seen from the perspective of subjective emotional ties and bonding, some forms of apparent polygamy and apparent monogamy may be just the same.

In breeding-oriented and male-dominated societies, where polygyny is either legal or socially accepted, there are basically two models: 
Harem-polygyny, when one man has parallel intimate relationships with several wives.  

Compound polygyny (described in entry 23), when one man has one active intimate relationship with one  of several wives for a limited phase of time, while the others are temporarily deactivated but available for their turn.    Some can be deactivated to be never reactivated, but they are still part of the compound.  

There are also two fundamentally different forms of monogamy, emotional and practical monogamy.    I consider only emotional monogamy as true monogamy, while practical monogamy is pseudo-monogamy and it is just another name for compound polygyny, with only one difference.  The intimate relationship with one is meant to last, and the previous ones are permanently deactivated.   But the continued friendship or friendly contact with the deactivated partners makes it a kind of a compound.

I assume, that difference between the two forms of monogamy is connected with the difference of the two identities.   

True, emotional monogamy means, that two hypoanimalistic individuals choose each other to create the special bond of combined intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy, that makes that one partner special and more important than anything else in the world.   As a consequence of that special bond, both perceive the relationship and the partner as first priority in life.    This bond is exclusive with one partner in monogamy, could it exist with several persons at the same time, then this would be polygamy.    The bond can only be recreated with another partner, after the bond with the previous partner has first been severed.   
The bond is severed, when one or more factors of the intimacy are so much destroyed, that the relationship has become dysfunctional beyond endurance of one or both.  As long as a person feels the bond, he wants to be together with the partner.   The severed bond means, that there is no more reason or wish to be together, but that there are unpleasant and painful reasons to consciously decide to be not together.   Therefore there is no reason to continue any contact.  
In the case, that the bond is only severed in the perception of one partner, then the only method for the other is to let time fade the bond into oblivion by ending all contact.  

That bond cannot be annihilated as if it never has existed.     A platonic friendship between a man and a woman, who have never been intimate, is fundamentally different from a deactivated physically intimate relationship of a couple, even when both are determined to never reactivate the intimacy.   Of course, I am only referring to hypoanimalistic individuals, who restrict entering physical intimacy to be inseparable from the wish to create the deep bond.  
As platonic friends, there may be circumstances to keep them in ignorance, if they would have reasons to form a bond or not, would they try.   After a severed bond, they have experienced the existence of reasons impeding and destroying the bond.  


For breeders and wanna-be-breeders, for the people with the particle-identity, nothing of the above is valid.    They have an urge to procreate, and the urge to physical intimacy is a part of it.   Couples form for the purpose of breeding, and practical monogamy means for a man to ensure only to raise the bearers of his own genes and to a woman to ensure to have a provider for her progeny.    Monogamy is a method to enhance breeding success under specific circumstances, it is not considered as vital for the emotional wellbeing of breeders.

Therefore, whenever I get in contact with a man and he mentions his continuing his contact with one or several previous partners, this is a bunch of several huge red flags.   
1.   Is he a wanna-be-breeder or even a copulating dog, for whom entering physical intimacy is not inseparably related to creating an exclusive bond?     Is he one of those, for whom physical intimacy with a woman's body means nothing more than ridding his body of some substance similar to emptying his bowels?
2.   Is he not capable to create the bond of true monogamy?    Does he not even know, what such a bond means or that it can exist?
3.   If it is just one previous partner, does he still feel that unique bond with her, that has been severed only in her emotional experience, but never for him?    Would he therefore not be available for such a bond with any other woman?
4.   Does he even know, that making a woman part of a system of compound polygyny, without giving her the special meaning of being the only one sharing the special bond, is a degradation and depreciation of a woman, who would onesidedly honor him with having that special bond only with him?

My mindmate will be someone, who knows the meaning of true emotional monogamy, he will not even consider to continue any contact with his previous partners.    For him, as for me, an ex-partner is someone, with whom there is no more contact, because such contact has no attraction and no benefit.   As long as a partner is still good enough to be considered a friend worth staying in contact, there is not enough reason to ever end the relationship.   Friendship with a previous partner means, that the relationship has never really ended, but instead has only been converted from an active intimate relationship into a deactivated intimate relationship.    The deactivated intimate partner continues to be a part of the polygyny compound.   Only in this case, the compound is not a physical area, but a mental entanglement.   This is no monogamy, but emotional polygamy.  
Only the end of all contact converts a deactivated previously intimate partner into an ex-partner and ends the relationship.   
.  

75. Pseudo-Non-Breeders

Pseudo-Non-Breeders

Most non-breeders are lacking an urge to breed, they are hypoanimalistic and have an individualistic identity.   
But there are also pseudo-non-breeders, who in reality are wanna-be-breeders appearing as if they were non-breeders.   Due to lots of factors, medical, lack of a willing co-breeder, other circumstances they were impeded to become the breeders, that being they considered as their purpose in life. 

Pseudo-non-breeders can be a hazard to real non-breeders, because the different identities can have very disruptive consequences upon a relationship.   

Wanna-be-breeders have a particle identity, which is connected with their unfulfilled urge to breed.  They perceives themselves as if they were meant to serve a purpose to the whole, the higher entity.   When breeding as the primary self-sacrificing purpose is impeded, they are driven to find substitute purposes as an outlet or to fill a void.  
There are many varieties of such a purpose, it can be caring for other's progeny, voluntary work of any kind, political activism.  

The purpose is their priority in life, and since they perceive themselves as mere particles, they automatically perceive a partner also as a particle with a purpose.    Their own urge justifies their giving priority to their own purpose, and they take it for granted, that a partner should have the same urge for a purpose and would therefore agree on the priority of the purpose over the partner.  

But for an individualistic person like me, who wants a mindmate for the couple's mutual benefits and who does not accept to have a purpose, the difference would create a very onesided and asymmetrical situation.
The particle identity partner would give first priority to his purpose, while the partner comes second.   The individualistic identity partner would give priority to the partner, while there is not other purpose in life.  

74. Identity and the Use of Money

Identity and the Use of Money

As mentioned before, I consider Animality = Instinctivity minus Rationality and Hypoanimality = Rationality minus Instinctivity.    I assume that hypoanimality makes people perceive themselves as having the identity of individuals in exchange with their social environment, while animality makes people perceive themselves as being an part of something superior above themselves, prescribing their roles as perceived by instinctive urges.  They have an identity determined by perceiving themselves as particles.  From now on, I call this the particle identity in contrast to the individualistic identity.
    
Due to the requirement of survival in a difficult environment, and even more in the complexity of modern life, one person cannot acquire enough skills to be completely self-sufficient in providing for his own shelter, food and other basic needs.   Survival depends on a division of labor in the form of distributed skills of several or many people.   

For egalitarian people with the individualistic identity, division of labor means a specialization of skills, and a fair exchange of the products of the skills.    Egalitarian people do not demand chores from others, because they feel themselves too good to do these chores themselves.  They sell the product of their particular skill to those, who cannot produce it themselves due to lacking the skill and or the tools and means for the production.

For animalistic people having the particle identity and who are driven by the hierarchy instinct, division of labor means to gain power over the product of others, in disregard of their skills.   They are in the possession of a rank in the hierarchy of the fittest, they feel justified by the acquisition of the resources for the survival of the own progeny.   They feel as much submissive to those higher in the hierarchy as they feel entitled to take advantage of those below them.   They feel entitled to have their position, because they were able to attain it.   They attribute the institution of the hierarchy as given by a deity or nature or some other higher power.   The higher power justifies the hierarchy of servants and masters.  

For these two identities, money has a fundamentally different meaning.   In the egalitarian concept, money is a unit to calculate, what is a fair deal.  Two equal partners agree upon a price, when they bargain, or someone determines a price of his product, and the other can buy it or not.   

In the hierarchical concept, money is power, and paying by condescension, what one is willing to pay, is experiencing this power.    On a small scale, giving tips is an example.    In German, tips are called 'Trinkgeld', which means drinking money.  It was giving money to the underlings to allow them to get drunk.   In the moment of giving a tip, the tipping person puts himself momentarily into the role of a master higher in the hierarchy than the servant, who receives.   It is a humiliation, even though most people receiving tips probably do not perceive it as such.    They are considered so low, that they are not partners working for a price, that they are allowed to fix themselves.  They are just thrown at the amount, that the whim of the temporary master considers as right.     

Two examples:

1.  A hungry person not at home has several options.   
He can go to a supermarket, get the food from the shelf, carry it to the cashier and pay a predetermined sum.   He can go to a self-service place, carry the food himself to a table and clear the table himself.   Also here he pays a predetermined sum.    In both scenarios, he pays for the food and for the wages of those, who make it possible for him to eat.    They are not his servants, but his partners in supplying food for his needs.

But he could go instead into a restaurant.   Here he sits at a table, and orders food to be served right under his nose.    The word ORDER says it all.   He does not buy food, he becomes the master ordering it.    The servants are called waiters, it sounds nicer, but it makes no difference, they are just temporary servants.    The work of those servants it not valued enough to have a price determined in advance, they get a tip thrown at them depending on the generosity and condescension of the temporary master.   

2.   There is AAA in the USA, ADAC in Germany and so on.   They have those helpers for drivers with car trouble.    I needed them a few times, and I admired the skill and magic they did on my old cars.    For me, it was unthinkable to even consider for one moment to call one of those skillful specialists for something as trivial as a flat tire.   I took it for granted that anybody driving a car and not being able to change a tire was considered as dumb and laughed at by most people.  

Great was my amazement, when in my presence somebody not only called the car helpers to change his flat tire, but did not allow me to do it.  Since I had changed tires often enough, it would have been easier and faster than waiting like helpless dummies for rescue.    I felt ashamed not to do it myself, but the owner of the car felt, that as he is paying, he is entitled not to get his fingers dirty but to have someone become his temporary servant and do the dirty work for him.   

A bit simplified, people with the identity of egalitarian individuals use money to buy, what they cannot produce themselves.    People with the identity of particles in a hierarchy use money to buy the superiority over temporary servants, they buy power over people.  


As mentioned before in earlier entries, on a big scale, the rich countries dictate the low prices of the products of the poor countries, and once the hierarchy is established, they condescend to give back a fraction of what they had usurped before, and they call it charity and developmental aid.    Giving tips on a small scale is based on the same unfair principle as is giving charity and developmental aid on a big scale to poor countries.    

73. The Pseudo-Chivalry of the Door-Coat-Ritual

The Pseudo-Chivalry of the Door-Coat-Ritual

Reading profiles, I sometimes come across men putting emphasis on their chivalry, how they open doors for women and help them into their coat.     Sad enough, there are obviously still enough women gullible to be taken in by this.

Long, long ago, I was mounting snow chains onto the wheels of my car.   Those chains were very simple, awkward and unpractical, it needed a lot of hard pulling at the limit of my physical strength.    It was snowing and cold.    I struggled for more than half an hour, maybe it was even an hour, until I finally managed to get those chains onto the wheels without any help.    
This happened at the side of a busy street, next to the exit of a busy gas station.   During all this time of me visibly struggling, not one man stopped and offered to help me.  

Ever since that day, whenever a man attempts to open a door for me or help me into my coat, I automatically wonder, if he would have stopped and helped me with the snow chains. 
I doubt it.  

Real chivalry means to help, when help is needed.    The door-coat-ritual is in the best case just hypocrisy, in the worst case outright manipulation.   Because it costs no effort, no sacrifice, nothing.   As soon as he would risk to get his precious fingers wet and dirty, the truth about a pseudo-chivalrous hypocrite becomes obvious.    By applying the door-coat-ritual, he gains a false reputation of being courteous, caring and therefore trustworthy.    That prepares the gullible women to be taken advantage of the more easily later on.   

Since I succeeded to put the chains on the wheels, the door-coat-ritual does not impress me anymore.   It has become preposterous.

72. Something Different

Something Different

In 71 entries, I have presented the way, my brain is wired.    But I have other sides too.

Yesterday, I took this picture of a rose from my garden.

This does not mean at all, that I would ever expect a partner to buy roses for me.    But I would like to meet someone, who has his eyes and his mind open to see the beauty of things.       

71. Breeders' Domination over Hypoanimalistics' Responsibility

Breeders' Domination over Hypoanimalistics' Responsibility

I defined my use of the word breeder in entry 66.   But there are two kinds of breeders, who behave differently. 
1.  The automatic breeders.   They are those, whose instinctivity outweighs a low rationality, they breed without even reflecting about it.
2.  The conscious breeders.   They are those, whose very high instinctivity outweighs a much higher rationality than that of the automatic breeders.   They breed, because they consciously consider breeding as their purpose in life, they have an identity of being a part of some system more important than the individual.  Their rationality is a tool to enhance success in breeding.   They are very often those, whose religion commands them to breed. 

Both kinds of breeders put the wellbeing of their progeny above their own wellbeing and above the wellbeing of unrelated living people, but in a fundamentally different way. 

The automatic breeder focus directly on advantages to bestow upon their progeny during their own lifetime.   The fight for power as a way to acquire resources, they usurp resources to use in favor of their offspring, ruthless to all genetically not related persons.
The conscious breeders think further ahead.    They focus on long term benefits not only for their direct progeny, but also for many more generations of the bearers of their genes.   They want to improve the world, they are willing to make own sacrifices and they want to force the same sacrifices on everybody.  

Both kind of breeders compliment each other, but both attempt to impose sacrifices in favor of the bearer of their genes on other living individuals, breeders or hypoanimalistics.  

Example 1 - Garbage

Automatic breeders can quite often be those, who take their brats to a picnic somewhere out in nature and then carelessly leave the garbage behind.
Conscious breeders want to preserver nature for the progeny of their progeny, so they are willing to be the volunteers to participate in activities to clean other people's garbage.
As an hypoanimalistic person, I feel responsible to my own self and my own values, and on an individual level to all those people, with whom I am in direct contact.    That means, I do not litter nature with garbage, because I would feel ashamed doing it.    But I have my pride too.   I am not the servant of the automatic breeders and other inconsiderate persons.   I have no reason to clean after others.    I am an individual, I am responsible for what I do, not more and not less.

Example 2 - Accommodation

In more or less arid areas, water is scarce.   As a fair deal, water should be available to everybody for a fair price, and should be predominantly used for the basic human household needs and to grow food. 
To Los Angeles and the area around, water is pumped from some place up in the mountains, but it is taken in such amounts, that it causes damage to that area.    Under such circumstances, the Californian lawn system is preposterous and inconsiderate.    Lawns are kept short by mowing them about twice a month.   But the shorter the lawn, the more water it needs, so huge amounts of water are used in elaborate sprinkler systems to keep the lawns growing fast.   It is madness, but the breeders dominate and set the norm, because they want to have a huge green playground around their houses for their brats.

In the USA, if people can afford it, they have a chance to live in a separate house with some ground around, as is beneficial for their brats.   In Germany, the conscious breeders dominate.    Their idea to preserve nature for the future of many generations of their own progeny is restricting the area of allowed use for housing to densely populated cities.    Those, who make the laws and decide, where houses may be built, usually can and do themselves afford a house with ground around.   But the majority of people are supposed to live in apartments in houses of several floors. 
It is cruel to put people into apartments like rabbits into cages.   Most of those buildings have been built without any consideration to make them in any way sound proof.   Therefore, either by rules or by social pressure, people after 10 pm are not supposed to play music above whispering level, take a bath, run the washing machine or do anything else, that causes noise.  

To live under such conditions is a heavy strain on the health of people, both on those, who have to control every of their expression of being alive, and on those, who feel disturbed otherwise. 
I think that having control over the acoustic environment in both ways, the free expression and being spared acoustic pollution, is a basic need to stay healthy, and this need is denied in such apartments.   I am convinced, that the sickening effects of living crammed into those rabbit cages contributes to a lot of social problems, be it aggression and criminality, be is addictions and other psychological troubles.   

The living individuals are forced to make sacrifices for future generations, no matter, if they are breeders or not.   Nature is treated like a holy cow.   Buildings can be removed as they can be built.   People, who cannot afford a house and ground, should have an alternative to the rabbit cages, by being given small plots of land as a lease, where they are allowed to live in the way they feel comfortable.   It could be a caravan, a shack, a hut of any kind.    The importance is the freedom to a minimum of creativity and self-realisation in their lifestyle, enabling them to take responsibility for themselves. 
In the USA people are at least allowed to live in trailer parks.    Over here, all is very restrictive.    People are made sick in the rabbit cages, until they are incapacitated by enough disadvantages, and then they are kept on a meager welfare, some for their entire life time.    

70. Dire Consequences of the Clinging-Phobia

Dire Consequences of the Clinging-Phobia

Reading profiles of men in my age group, I again and again find them putting emphasis on independence, personal space, being more involved in work then lonely, not being needy,  being happy alone and other ways of putting words to what in reality is a clinging phobia.

So many men above 60 seem to be in full denial, that by submission to the clinging phobia, they are determining now their own fate when older.

They are in full denial of several facts:

1.   Breeders hope, with or without justification, that their progeny will take care of them, when they are getting old.  
If single non-breeders live long enough, they will most probably spend the rest of their lives in a nursing home.   
Couples can support and help each other mutually, when they get frail and sick, together they can avoid or delay the need for a nursing home.

2.  Their life expectancy is at stake:

"While for many years demographers found that men in spousal relationships lived longer than women in the same situation, recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data on death rates shows people living in intimate relationships - both men and women - have lower death rates than single people in almost all age groups. "

"The difference spikes in the 70-84 year old age group where the death rate for single people is almost double that of their married friends."

Source:
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2008/09/03/2354566.htm

3.  At 60, even when still being fully healthy, it is an illusion to expect to have an unlimited time of health and wellbeing ahead.   Serious illness could strike at any moment.  

4.  I bluntly admit this, and if people were honest to themselves, most of them would agree: 
I am not a nurse nor a caretaker.   I am not on this globe to make onesided sacrifices for others.   For this reason I neither want children nor pets, as I explained already.   If someone is already seriously ill, I am not motivated to get involved with him to support and care for him immediately.   
But a relationship for the rest of the life is for better and for worse, and once there is commitment, I will not hesitate to do anything possible for a partner and not desert someone, who needs my care. 

What would motivate me to care, would be a bond of deep attachment.   Infatuation for young people can start at first sight.   But such a deep bond needs time to grow by sharing rewarding experiences and getting to know each other really well.    As long as there is enough mental and physical health, my mindmate and I could spend some years creating such a bond, focusing on travelling together, hiking together, visiting museums, art exhibitions and ancient sites together, communicate about our impressions and thoughts, but also about books and movies and much more.   
The bond does not grow automatically with the duration of the relationship, if both live separate lives, even when they share the same roof.   The bond grows with communication and quality time shared.    A bond is more than the habit of someone's presence. 
If someone has the clinging-phobia, if he restricts the common ground and shared times, if he excludes me from much of his life, if too much other matters are more important than the partner, then he impedes the growing of a deep bond.  

After creating such a bond, taking care of each other would not be an unpleasant duty or a sacrifice, as for me it would be of any being, that has no brain to enable this kind of attachment.  

Therefore, every man (or every person) above 60, who has the delusion not to need anybody and still having a long life ahead, should better wake up and face reality.

69. Mindmate Statistics

Mindmate Statistics

The following are rough estimates.    

From 100.000 men in my age group:
30 % may be neither in a relationship nor entangled in an emotional harem of ex-partners converted into pseudo-friends.  
==>  30.000
10 % may be bratfree, with no progeny of any age and no pets
==>  3.000
20 % may have at least spent some years at a college or university, with or without a degree
==>  600
10 % may be atheists and skeptics, who are not gullible to irrational claims of any kind, they share basic attitudes and a leaning towards leftist thinking
==>  60
25% would refuse a fling, when a woman is willing (source: entry 55)
==> 15
66% may not have any hazardous habit, like smoking, excessive drinking, overeating or a dangerous hobby like riding a motorcycle.   
==> 10

How many of those 10 are mature, responsible, sincere, capable to make a relationship emotionally beneficial for a woman?

How many have a personality to be attracted to the ERCP?
How many share some interests and tastes with me?

How many are looking for a person like me?


Logically, my quest is not limited by distance, it is only limited by the need to have good enough communication skills in one common language.  


I have links to this blog on several dating-sites, and sometimes I suggest new contacts to read this blog to find out more about me.   If you reading this now are one of the statistical few of my quest, and if I am too far away or if you think, that the world is full of potential mates, then I suggest, that you make your own statistics.    

68. Breeding Supplies Potential Time Bombs

Breeding Supplies Potential Time Bombs

In entry 66, I derived the word brat from BRood And peT, and in this sense I am bratfree.   That means my personal choice not to be a caretaker for any being, that requires being fed, sheltered and cleaned without the availability of the reward and benefit of mature and intellectual communication.   And I am looking for a bratfree mindmate.   Of course, my refusal to be a caretaker of brats is no refusal to care for a mindmate, when he gets sick and frail.   

But I am indifferent to other people's children.   They neither disturb nor attract me.    They are just a part of the social environment.   As a consequence of the overpopulation of the globe, people should breed as little as possible.

I am on some childfree forums, and some people there are militantly against children, and resent, that their taxes are used for the upbringing of children.    The latter is a dangerous attitude.   Breeders supply society with potential time bombs.    Without prevention, later on the juvenile delinquents and lifelong criminals could rob, mug, break in and even kill.  I could be the victim, as anybody else could be too.  
Once a breeder has done, what he could not refrain from, the society should do its best to make sure, that the raw material, called baby, will be converted into a valuable member of society, who will never do harm to others and take care of himself without taking advantage of others.  
It is much better to invest the tax money as early as possible into providing kindergarten facilities, good schools, social workers, education advice, rather then spending it later on prisons, correction institutions and a huge police force.   

67. Hypoanimality

67.   Hypoanimality

In the discussion on the dating-site (entry 66), I was accused to have started it as publicity for the childfree movement, which until then I did not perceive as a movement, but as people supporting each other in the expression of a trait of a minority.   
So far, I have been or am still in forums and mailing lists of several such movements, childfree, atheists, left-wing, feminists.  

For a while I even had a profile on an asexual forum, because I hoped to find there a partner, who is not driven by instinct to copulate with any haphazard female body like a dog.   But I got aware, that asexuality is not, what is required for a man to value a woman's mind and brain so much, that for him physical intimacy is exclusively a part of bonding, when it is inseparable from intellectual and emotional intimacy.  
All these groups, tendencies and movements are independent of each other, as if they have nothing in common.    But to me, they do.   I have read about some scientific evidence, that intelligence and atheism are correlated, and that less intelligent people have more children.  

I am using the prefixes hypo and hyper as meaning considerable lower or higher than the average.    I was wondering in entry 59 about a label.    After some thinking, I have found it:

Hypoanimality 

Luckily enough, this word seems not to have been used yet for anything else.  According to google, that word did not exist until the moment, when I typed it.   So I am free to define its meaning.


I have already outlined in entry 22, what I consider as truly human, and when I discovered being backed up in this by a quote, I wrote entry 58.  
But it is not a dichotomy, that someone it either human or an animal.   There is a gradual scale between hypoanimality and animality.   There is no hyperanimality though, because nobody can be more an animal than an animal.    But the more someone is hypoanimal, the more I consider that person as truly human.    But since the word human has so many different meanings, I prefer to call my special meaning hypoanimality when putting emphasis on the distinction from animals.  
Of course there is no question of being not at all an animal.  There are basic survival instincts, that nobody can overcome, as far as I know.   I have never heard of anybody being able to decide to just stop breathing by will power.  
   
As I also have explained before, the amount of animality is the difference between instinctivity and rationality.   This would much better be called cerebrality, but unfortunately a group of people with genius level intelligence has hijacked the word cerebral.
I just did not call the difference animality until now.  
I assume that the magnitude of instinctivity and rationality are both independently hardwired into the brain.   I assume this, because people can be irresistibly overwhelmed by the force of an urge to do something, while they rationally know at the same time, that they will regret it later.  

Basically, hypoanimality can be
- hypoinstinctivity overruled by rationality
- instinctivity overruled by hyperrationality.   
As an example, childfree people can be non-breeders for two reasons:  
- They can just not feel any urge to breed, and need no special reasons not to do, what they do not want to do.  I call them the urgeless non-breeders.
- They can be aware of an instinctive urge to breed, but are rationally aware that there are good reasons not to put children into this world, or they are aware that if they get themselves forced into parenting 24 hours a day for many years to come, they would not want this.   Or they can have both reasons combined.  I call them the conscious non-breeders.  

In both varieties, hypoanimality means, that rationality, intelligence, cerebrality are not tools serving procreation, but are tools for the enhancement of the subjective wellbeing of an individual.  


Hypoanimality can be noticed in every sector of human life, where animal instinct can interfere with rational human behavior:

1. The procreation instinct
Hypoanimality here of course means not breeding.   But indirectly, atheism is also an expression of hypoanimality.   This seems paradox, since animals have no awareness to even think about religion.   But since the instinct to procreate seems so absurd to any person with the identity of being an individual, the urge to procreate needs an indirect representation modifying the identity as not being an individual, but only a small part of something superior.  
In reality, the something superior is just the eternal survival of the genes, but it has found its way into the brain as the submission to some higher power, be it called nature, god, or a never dying soul.   Therefore the rationality of the species homo sapiens has to be partially deactivated or limited to allow the procreation instinct to rule the overall behavior as a procreating animal. 
Hypoanimality also means reserving physical intimacy to the bonding as a couple, instead of copulating haphazardly for the purpose of procreation, even when consciously not planning to do so.

2. The competition and hierarchy instinct
Any concept of equality between all people and between the genders are an expression of hypoanimality, because the survival of the species requires advantages for the fittest, who ruthlessly usurp those advantages by fighting with and dominating over the less fit.   

3. The ingroup-outgroup instinct
Any refusal to treat ingroup members better than outgroup members is an expression of hypoanimality.   As an example, this can be any person, who objects to become a soldier, because killing outgroup members is not more acceptable than killing the neighbour.   Hypoanimal are all political groups, who protest against the economical exploitation of poor countries.

4. Obsolete survival instincts
Hypoanimality also means self-control over instincts, that had been beneficial for survival in the past in a radically different environment, but are rationally obsolete, like overeating.   Such self-control in a more general way helps not to get addicted easily.


I wished, there were a hypoanimality movement or group.   It is there, where I would have a better chance to find a mindmate.     

66. The Difference Between Breeders and Parents

The Difference Between Breeders and Parents

One dating-site, that focuses on serious long term relationships, once in a while offers 'Free Communication Weekends'.    They claim to match people on 26 factors, but while there is a matching criteria for not having children under 18, there is no matching for not having any children at all.  
I had 4 new matches yesterday, of whom 2 mentioned their progeny in the text.    I got very frustrated, wondering how many of the other matches also are breeders. 

Therefore I started a discussion on their advice forum suggesting to add 'no children at all' to the criteria.   In a moment of frustration of half my matches being worthless, I used the word brats.   The following discussion ended with me being censored from further posting.  

But it made me aware of my unreflected and arbitrary use of words like breeders, brats, progeny, parents, children.    I was asked in the discussion thread, what I considered to be the difference between breeders and parents, but then it was not possible to post my reply.  


Parents and children are social roles to teachers, social workers, politicians or whoever is dealing with existing members of society.  

Using the words breeding and progeny means seeing the species homo sapiens from the perspective of psycho-biology and evolutionary psychology, concerning the question, what is uniquely human, and where is homo sapiens just an animal.   
A breeder having progeny is the animal homo sapiens, driven by instinct to procreate and sacrifice the individual wellbeing in favor of the survival of the genes and the species.  

Whenever someone is defined mainly by the fact of having procreated, I call that person a breeder.    When the question is more about the person's role in society and about how to deal with the situation as a consequence of being a breeder, then I call the person a parent.  

Most people think, that parents had a choice.   I disagree.    Breeders had no choice, they followed their instinct as all animals do.    Only non-breeders had a choice to become consciously childfree and progenyfree and bratfree.  

Brats are beings, that are by their stage of brain development onesidedly receiving benefits and advantages without being able to give back anything of real value to a rational adult human.    Children, the younger the more, and pets are brats in my definition.    Brats require from their caretakers investment of money and time to keep them fed, sheltered, health taken care of.    In return, the brats make noise and dirt, they annoy, disturb, but cannot be hold responsible due to their mental limitations.  
Brats are not suitable and apt to have a rational and intelligent conversation with them.  There is no reciprocity, no balance of giving and receiving. 
Brats are worthless to a person, who values the company of other human beings as partners for interesting exchanges of ideas in a museum, about a book, a movie or human interactions, who value other humans predominantly because of their intellectual capacities.  


The word brat in my definition above can be understood as derived from BRood And peT.   
 

65. Fending Off Scammers

Fending Off Scammers

This continues entry 64 and is also a follow up to entry 53.

When I restarted to connect me to the Tchatche, I was ignorant, that it had become a major base of operation for scammers from the Ivory Coast.    When I was contacted by any man, whose presentation indicated him to be in the right age and from a western country, at first I assumed this to be true.  

I had been aware of English language scamming from Nigeria, I have deleted countless emails offering me large sums of money in weird schemes, without thinking twice.    I have been contacted on dating sites with messages, that were so obviously absurd, that I did not bother about them.   Bad English, always some god-fearing guy with children.    Nobody ever was any annoyance to me.   
I have been amusing myself at some time to read the funny story of scambaiters.   Therefore I knew, that they needed their prey on an instant message system.   When they presented their story of a catastrophe as the reason to ask money from their victims and fast, this had to be presented in a dialogue as urgent.   Sending emails and wait a day for a reply would not work for such a scheme.   Therefore I knew, that the scammers were operating upon the msn-messenger, but I was still completely ignorant, that the world center of scamming had moved to Abidjan on the Ivory Coast and had been adapted into French.  

My French is far from perfect, but I have learned some basic rules at school, for example, that -é, -ée, -et, -est and -er at the end of a word all sound the same, but which one to use is strictly and logically derived from grammatical rules.   Any educated French person with the Bac knows those rules, but uneducated people, who have learned French in the streets of Abidjan, do not.      

So when I got contacted on Tchatche with a nice 'good afternoon, my name is ... , how are you', in correct French from a man apparently in Belgium or France, I reacted friendly, with no suspicion.   After some short questions I was asked for my msn, but when I explained, that I would write emails, but I am not running msn-messenger, it got confusing.    The guy seemed to be completely incapable to even comprehend the difference between using the same address for writing emails or for using the msn-messenger.    He seemed not even to know, what emails are.   And the French got bad all of a sudden too.    At that point I stopped replying.  
But when this same thing started to get several repetitions, the sentences being very similar all the time, like following a script, and several others also did not know, what an email is, I started to see, that something was fishy.  

Therefore, as soon as someone asked for msn, I just blocked him.   But it was still a drag having to reply a dozen times to each scammer before knowing enough to get rid of him.   They seemed all to follow a script, asking for the name, then if married, if children, the job.   So I started not to reply, but to ask them questions back, that they were not prepared for, and all of a sudden, their French was very bad, some times they even did not understand me, and when they replied to my questions, that yes, French was their native language, and that by education they were lawyers, engineers and such, I blocked them even faster. 
 
Somehow they all were so dull and seemed not to have any personality.    Once I had got aware, that I was contacted by scammers, I usually discovered them after not more than five minutes each.   Admittedly, maybe I have blocked a few authentic guys too as scammers.   But since they were so obvious scammers to me, I started to nearly feel pity for them, as I assumed them to be pestering me with such an endurance, because they were just so stupid, that nobody would ever fall for their lies.     

At that time, I had dealt with hundreds of them, and I had managed to verify a few times, that they are indeed on the Ivory Coast. 
I started to google and I found a local discussion board from the Ivory Coast.   Some decent people from there were in a heated debate with the scammers.    The scammers are full of raging hatred for the white people, they feel fully justified for what they do, they are convinced that they are taking back, what the first world had stolen from them and what was rightly theirs.   

But what surprised me the most, was the discovery, that according to a report, they are successful, and that some of them are really making a lot of money.    I considered them as stupid, but obviously they have found victims, who are even more stupid.      

As I have written in entry 53, the rich countries are exploiting poor countries like the Ivory Coast, and yes, we have a heavy debt towards them to give them back, what was taken through a history of imperialism, first in a brutal and drastic way, nowadays in a more subtle hidden way.   But these scammers have just one flaw in their logic:   They do not demand anything from the rich and powerful, instead they make victims of the vulnerable, who have nothing to do with what the people of financial power of their country do.    The scammers are justified in their demands, but criminals in their methods.  

The world's hacking order is established: the financially strong exploit the financially weak countries, and the poor there exploit the stupid from the rich countries.    Some of the victims might be driven into getting welfare as a result, which is indirectly paid by the taxes of the financially strong.   The circle is closed.

At that point, I started to reply to suspicious contacts on Tchatche with a message, that in English is about like this:

Attention:  9 out of 10 of the men, who contact me here, are scammers.   I know their routine.   I block everybody, who asks me for MSN.   I discover all scammers.   I have already blocked hundreds of them. 
If you are one of them, your attempt to make me a pigeon is a waste of time.   You better do not reply.  
But I would be very glad, if you were an authentic European and able to convince me, that you are one to get into a serious contact.

By now, I have copied this text several dozen times, and not one European has ever answered.

64. Chatting and the Limits of Cultural Globalization

Chatting and the Limits of Cultural Globalization

I am looking for a compatible partner from anywhere on this globe.   But even if I would want to restrict my search by distance, frontiers in the mind would be an obstacle.
When I draw a circle with a radius of 450 km around my home, it includes areas of 4 languages spoken, English, French, Dutch and German, and 4 capitals, London, Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris.    But the capital of Germany, Berlin, is not inside the circle.   
When I draw a circle with a radius of 90 km, it still includes areas, where people speak German, French and Dutch.

Lately I had some annoyance in fending off romance scammers mainly from the Ivory Coast, while I never had such trouble with the ones from Nigeria and English speaking African countries.   I will write another post about that.   But I got aware of some differences in the paradigms of how dating sites are working, and those differences are making the romance scammers from French speaking African countries much more of a nuisance.

When dating-sites started, computers and Internet connections were slow, and there was not much else to do but have profiles and make contact by messages.   But when the technical possibilities advanced to allow instant messaging, and there were more choices, there were different developments.    The English speaking world, copied by the German and Dutch, developed chat rooms, the French speaking world developed dialogue systems and they are also using the possibilities differently.  

As two typical examples, I am using the English site Ukchatterbox, and the French site Tchatche.   
Both systems show a list of who is connected, with gender and age directly visible, the Tchatche also gives the location.   And in both sites, people can click on a name and start a dialogue or private chat.   Tchatche allows to make a selection, who is shown in the list, the chatterbox is divided into chat rooms.  
Those chatrooms are the fundamental difference.    Tchatche only enables one to one dialogues, while the chatterbox has chatrooms, where at least a dozen, probably many more people write statements, that appear all mixed up.   People reply to statements, that have already disappeared at the top of the window, and every time, someone joins, everybody greets that person.    What they do blur out to the room or to a target person in it, is usually banal.    Such chat rooms are like mental diarrhea.
Chatrooms may work fine, as long as up to 5 persons talk about one common topic.   But what goes on in a chatroom with 20 persons blurring out nonsense, to me is so preposterous, that I just cannot see myself take part in it.   To the 50+ room of the Ukchatterbox, there are usually about 100 persons of both genders connected.   While the mass-gibberish is running at high speed, only about every few hours, somebody contacts me for a private chat, and then many times it is someone so much too young, that I wonder, what he even does in a 50+ room.

In contrast, Tchatche is a very active site.   Sometimes, there are nearly 25.000 persons connected at the same time.   Of these, about 300 to 400 are men in the age group, that I am looking for.     Since Tchatche only serves the one purpose to have one to one dialogues, it is very active.    I have no clue, why guys half my age from Africa contacting me even expect to get a reply, but blocking them is just one simple click.    So in the Tchatche, I am contacted frequently.  
But here is again one difference.   The chatterbox allows to enter a full profile, that can be looked at before contacting.   But most men there do not fill in any information, and they contact me as a haphazard person, without even looking at my profile first.   I prefer to be chosen by my profile.
Tchatche limits the information to a few sentences in the presentation.   Therefore I perceive a dialogue on Tchatche as a first step of superficially getting to know some basic facts about someone and if there is basic affinity start a correspondence.

I do not really like instant messaging.   It leads to superficiality.   When I write an email, I can think carefully, how to structure my thoughts, I can look up words in the dictionary, I can take my time to do this.   In an instant message system, I have to answer fast, as the other is waiting.   Also of course I too am waiting for a reply.   I could stare at the screen and wait, when I know, that the other is only talking to me, but many times, someone may be chatting with several persons or be busy with other things too.  So instead of staring at the screen, I switch the window, start to read something and then just forget the chatting, and then the other is waiting.   
 
Therefore I prefer emails, but to get in contact, I wished there were sites in all languages, that would combine the activity and the one to one dialogue of Tchatche with an extensive profile, where I could check first, if I want to start chatting with someone or not, and where the other would first read my profile, and then initiate contact.   

But in spite of the economical globalization, people still continue to have language frontiers in their minds.    They stick to their own language and those, who decide on the paradigm of dating sites are ignorant of how things are different in the sites of another language.    Only cosmopolitans like me sit on the fence and look upon both sides.