viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012

The merit of human

To praise other species, noted human traits and to mark the passing of women, noted masculinization.

Have not you noticed that when describing other living things we do from the overweening arrogance of considering higher? Have not you noticed that when we want to highlight some of the other species trait, that trait coincidentally resembles a human trait (stand on two legs, hugging a fellow, look at us with "human tenderness")?

Well, humans have the conviction that we are superior to other living beings.

To reinforce this idea, to emit a signal that we are even-handed, objective, thoughtful, imagine the Martians and Venusians as superior to humans, but not by chance, we have never had real contact with them.

Our idealization and even our fear of aliens, achieves the goal of reaffirming the belief that "science does not lie, that his observations are indisputable, that the human mind perceives only the real."

I remember now the movie E.T. The alien (USA-1982), in which the course being from another planet, looks human, has special powers, suffers misunderstanding of all but a few human children and, when he has to leave our 'wonderful world', it very heartfelt note.

Therefore, when humans narrate something, we do it in the interests of the teller. "History is made by historians," says a proverb, laconic, ironic, caustic.

When the story of the male and female actions, we see something similar happens: it's great that more and more women into male places assume responsibilities traditionally masculine (govern, lead, drive trucks), as if they resemble men were a advance, an achievement, a way to overcome.

When this happens, we reaffirm that human beings are slightly imbecile.

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El mérito de ser humano.

(This is the Article No. 1675)

The tie of the bankers

The use of the tie between those working in the financial system, suggests rationality in the administration of the money deposited.

We agree that the money can be used for purposes both noble and ignoble purposes. Both can use it to buy the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter), as we can use it to buy supplies to kill (weapons).

Another distinction can make thinking that we can use both rationally and passionately, both to stimulate production to stimulate wasteful spending.

Both can use it with an attitude austere, to produce as many beneficiaries as a spendthrift attitude, to squander it on a few luxuries, vices, ostentation.

Our mind is predisposed to think that from the neck down our instincts are more earthly, worldly, hedonistic and, from the neck up (head, brain, mind), staying the ideas, spirit, art, sublime, religiosity, intelligence that puts us above the rest of living beings.

This predisposition to think so is just that: a prejudice. Actually we are a unit. The Cartesian division heart and soul is an unprovable concept ... but for those who can not imagine living without it would be impossible to leave this dualism.

These considerations preface my comments referred to using his tie as a pledge almost exclusively male.

While it is true that this piece of cloth could represent the penis, in which case there would be a perverse exhibitionism, also seems to indicate more significant separation between the body drastically lower and the higher mind.

Note that the use of the tie is almost mandatory in the financial system, where depositors are telling them something like, "will manage their money fairly, without squandering it on vices."

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La corbata de los banqueros

(This is the Article No. 1656)

jueves, 30 de agosto de 2012

The role of the seductive female

If the woman who attracts and subdues the man, then have a seductive feminine attitude.

Instinct is the operating system pre-installed for nature in our body while culture is more like the utility applications (Office, Photoshop, Ares) that the user adds to his computer body.

A cursory observation may make us think that Windows does not exist because all we use and we are the manifestations of the utilities, but none of these work without Windows.

Continuing the comparison, culture would not be operational in the performance of someone lacking human instincts.

As far as I can understand, our culture says men seduce women and also says that they accept the man who manages to "conquer."

However, everything leads me to assume that the human animal instinct works differently when not distorted by cultural whims.

It is very likely to be women who would like to be fertilized by some men because they sense that those elected have the best genetic endowment to combine with their own.

This view leads us to believe that we are making a mistake when we pretend to be men who waste their time seducing women who are not interested by them genetically.

Our culture has a clear bias aggressive, bellicose, arrogant and under this feeling that we necessarily have to think (culturally) that the strongest conquest, seduces and wins over the muscularly weaker.

Our culture does not allow stupid that is intelligence, seduction, glamor which achieves the irresistible attraction of the man who is actually subdued (placed under the yoke [1]).

If the woman who attracts and subdues the man, then have a seductive feminine attitude.

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El rol femenino de los seductores
(This is the article Nº 1.674)

The maternal ambivalence and disgust for the money

Children who do not know if Mom loves or repudiates its poop, poop repudiate ... and money, which both seem!

To most of us it is hard to live with ambivalence, with double standards, with the "double discourse" of our family, friends, politicians.

Our psyche feels better when things are presented to us in "black and white" in "cute and ugly" into "good and bad".

Doubts cause us discomfort that definitely would want away.

However, the experience seems determined to frustrate. When we have clear ideas about a controversial issue, some will present an argument that we fracture that certainty.

Some people are horrified when they feel that someone says, "yes, but ...", because they know that will threaten their certainties.

When we are young, our mothers are awaiting our performance. Almost no sleep listening to our breath, watching our diet, examine our excrement.

A loud siren is turned on its head if something deviates from expected.

With fecal droppings something very ambivalent, dual, with "double discourse".

They are happy with our first well stools, as if these were something wonderful, ... and they are in the psyche of the mother and a legion of advisers (grandmothers, aunts, pediatricians), because their minds think something like "if your bowel works fine, everything works well inside."

But small, we have no such notion of mental function, know the signs of the desperate ambivalence of our protectors: "my shit like or dislike?" She thinks when I thought the child begin to adapt to this environment "the more uncomfortable than comfortable that I was expelled from the uterus still not sure why."

Many end up repudiating the poo ... and money, it both looks!

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La ambivalencia materna y el asco por el dinero

Other mentions of the term 'money = shit':

Los trabajos de mierda
(This is the Article No. 1655)

miércoles, 29 de agosto de 2012

The fear of the end of prohibition of incest

Those who are appalled by some prohibitions to do so because they subconsciously believe they also end the "prohibition of incest".

In Uruguay are discussing (year 2012) two major issues: the legalization of abortion and the legalization of marijuana marketing for recreational purposes, ie not necessarily medicated as already authorized in several countries.

They are two very controversial issues, which call passionate defenses and attacks.

What is being discussed is to abandon the doctrine of prohibition, which is to punish severely those practices that are considered harmful to the citizens and society.

In the United States had the most popular example referred to the prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and, for better handling of the media, was called metaphorically "Prohibition" (1).

I mention this handling of the media because all prohibitions are the providers of material that reporters fill pages and minutes of television and radio, in different media.

It then escapes the phenomenon, that the prohibitions have great concrete benefit, that is, give employment to millions of workers worldwide.

However, the bans are ineffective. The prohibition only encourages criminals.

With a sense of humor could say that:

Violent methods are so counterproductive that it would not be a bad idea to prohibit young people to study, to work and to clean his room.

With a similar approach, it might be advantageous to force them to have sex, masturbating, watching TV, playing, talking on cell phones and consume "fun drugs".

Now seriously say to people who are appalled by some prohibitions to do so because they subconsciously believe they also end the "prohibition of incest".

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El temor al fin de la prohibición del incesto

(This is the Article Nº 1.673)