526. The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

526.  The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

This is my personal, subjective opinion:

The difference between genuine and pseudo intellectuals is their subjective identity.    Those cognitive capacities, which are generally attributed as to be those needed for intellectuality only exist in human brains, not in any animal.   

The genuine intellectuals identify with these cognitive capacities as the essence of their person, they identify with what is only typically human, they identify with the cognitive distinction as not being animals.  

The pseudo-intellectuals identify as animals with special additional cognitive abilities.  

In both cases, the subjective identity includes the actual self and the ideal self.    

I define an intellectual man as someone, who experiences and considers sexual activities as a dull, but unavoidable banality not worth wasting time and effort on it.   His cognitive needs for intellectual, cultural and creative pursuits and activities are so predominant, that in comparison he considers physical stimulation by food and sex as unattractive and unimportant.  

He is aware and in peace with the body's needs to be healthy and to keep the brain in the best possible functional state to ascertain the joy of intellectual pleasures.   

Such an intellectual copes with his physical needs for homeostasis in a way, that does not hurt women's dignity.  The cognitive basis of his way of life includes all aspects and thus also his attitude towards women and his awareness and interest concerning how women experience his behavior.  

He never commodifies or objectifies a woman.    He restricts his needs for homeostasis to non-damaging and non-abusive interactions.   He accepts a fair exchange, where he fulfills a woman's needs for being an exclusive companion for shared intellectuality in a monogamous arrangement.

An intellectual man focuses his reaction to the perception of his dishomeostasis on finding such a companion and on treating her with dignity, appreciation and respect.    The homeostation inside the relationship enables him to be not effected by any sexual stimuli from any third party.   

Instead of being triggered by pornography or by any other stranger's sexual intrusion into his perception, he just gets annoyed or he does not even notice it.   

He is not or little susceptible to such triggers to animal instincts, instead he is very perceptive to the attraction of a woman's mind and personality. 

Genuine intellectual men identify as their cognition, while they are aware of the necessity of some instincts to enable the survival of their brain.   But they do not see themselves as animals, they identify with all those cognitive capacities, which only humans have, but animals do not.

Genuine intellectual men are not driven by urges to commodify women by a blurred brain oblivious of what they are doing.    Their clear brain enables them to be free to use their cognition to be considerate and responsible. 

By the definition above I am describing a rare minority of men, because I am looking for a man as a partner.   If I would define women in an analogous way, the definition would be different.   While women lack the biological urge for proactive sexual homeostasis, they are more prone to be driven by the biological urge to procreate, which then lures them to comply with being abused by men's urges.   So genuinely intellectual women are childfree, because they experience raising children as dull, boring and unappealing.     

Pseudo-intellectuals share with genuine intellectuals the cognitive capacity to enjoy intellectual pursuits.   But they are afflicted with so much animal instinctive urges, that these urges partially deactivate or blur their cognition in their treatment of women.    Whenever their instincts are triggered, this effect is stronger then their cognition. 

When pseudo intellectual jerks objectify women, they are not any better than moronic jerks.   For the suffering of an abused woman, it makes no difference, if the jerk is always a moronic animal. or if he is a brilliant man all the time in all other aspects of life, but turns into a moronic animal only whenever interacting with a woman.    Their cognition is dysfunctional, whenever they fail to recognize the damage done by the objectification of women.  

Pseudo-intellectuals accept to be animals, they are comfortable when identifying with their instinctive urges and their entitlement to follow them.   They even consider their most primitive instincts as something valuable, because they subjectively experience it as pleasure, independent of the cost for the victims.   They do not value cognition by itself, only as a tool to serve their instincts.

Prototype 1 is Sartre.   While he wrote philosophical texts of high value, which were mostly independent of his primitive instincts, in his personal behavior, he was nothing more than a jerk and a pseudo-intellectual.    He and Beauvoir could have been the model of a monogamous companionship of two caring and exclusively bonded partners.   They could have been the ideal intellectual couple.   

Instead they both left behind them an insensitively cruel trail of hurt, abused and objectified women and men.    He was a jerk, because he was ruled by his most primitive instincts feeling entitled to abuse any woman, whom he could manipulate into compliance.   Beauvoir imitated him.   She was at least his equal as a jerk, because she most probably had not the same biological proactive urge for homeostasis, as men have due to their biology, but she was as abusive as a man.  

Prototype 2 is Casanova.    Sartre wrote intellectual texts, which were not under the influence of his affliction, he became an animal only when abusing women.    Casanova was even worse.   His intellectual capacities were never free to be used for their own sake and benefit, they were reduced to be only a tool dominated by his instincts.    He used all his cognitive abilities to serve his instinctive goals of acquiring supply for his never ending urge to abuse.    And his cognition was so blurred, that he misinterpreted his abuse as beneficial to women.    Some pseudo-intellectuals are very dangerous. 

My mindmate to be found is a genuine intellectual according to my definition and he agrees with this definition.     

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.