Who We Are Part 1: A Summary of the Roles of Nature and Nurture

Once upon a time there were two good friends, nature and nurture. Nature consisted of all that was genetically oneself. And Nurture was the resulting person formed when one's Nature gained consciousness. It would be easy to say that Nurture is the effect of different peoples' Natures, as I previously contended, but this I now realize would be to belittle the significance of Nurture. It is in actuality, the end result, the person created based upon the rules outlined in the genes of man, Nature. Nurture is one's total being, both conscious and subconscious. It is the result of an interaction with another and one's Nature, the rule book.

Nature is solely your genes. It labels your tendencies and your desires. It creates the basic model for your life. All information and stimuli that pass through you in one manner or another must be translated by your Nature into a response suitable its genetically implaced rules. Nature determines when you get happy, when you get sad, the job you'll desire, the dreams you will have. However, you future is not pre-written by your Nature. As I said, Nature is only rules, not the result. That is what Nurture is.

Nurture represents everything you are. While Nature is the reason why you do something, nurture is the doing of the action. Nurture decides your dreams. Nurture decides your desires. It is an assemblage of hopes, urges, and effects that create your personality and too your person itself.

How is this so? Your Nurture is only the end result. It does not actually exist as an entity, concrete in the world as Nature, your genes, are. However, it is the grouping of all that makes you the person that you are. It is the filler between birth and death that distinguishes you from everyone else. It's worth saying that everyone is different because of their Nurture. Two people with different sets of Natures will have different reactions to stimuli, that is different Nurture variations. Therefore, no two people are the same and likewise, if no two people are the same, there is no basis for comparison (except for in the vaguest terms) and you cannot predict fully one's actions. That is, there is no predestination.

Now that we understand what Nature is (the rule book) and what Nurture is (the filler reactions of your life), we can begin to understand the vast (that is total) affect that it has on who we are and who we will become.

SEXUALITY
Please allow me to thoroughly irritate you by saying outright that your sexuality is fully dependant on your Nurture. You have no control over it. And, there is no gene that decides it for you. As close as we can come to Nature's role in sexuality is this: Evolutionarily, man's first role is to survive to breeding age and man's second role is to reproduce. Thirdly, one can argue raising children to reproduction age could also be one of Nature's rules for man. After that, Nature's rule regarding evolution has finished it's job and man can move onto something else.

This Natural Rule of Reproduction (or Specieal Survival, if you will) is one of the strongest of Nature's Rules. However, it can be broken. Easily, given the right conditions. Will you not sacrifice your life to save a loved one, whether you are sexually interested in them or not? Will you not forgo sexual reproduction if an attractive member of the opposite sex isn't available. (Although it's notable that one's requirements for a mate do tend downwards as they get older and continue to fail to find a suitable person with whom to produce the next generation.)

One of the largest breaks of the Natural Rule of Reproduction is of course the occurrence of non-heterosexual tendencies in all their forms. They are not in the norm insofar as they are not the majority and thereby must be somehow deviant from said norm. This is not necessarily a bad thing unless you are the Natural Rule of Reproduction and desire solely to reproduce. (People in whom this gene is strong, or overtly-strong, tend to foster ill will towards non-heterosexuals incidentally.)

I did say however that it is not a gene that causes non-heterosexuality. And it's not. The gene (the Natural Rule of Reproduction) is only a guide and when acted upon by an outside force with great enough strength will crumble just as any other Natural Rule will. This outside force is usually, although not always, another person. I will say that you cannot be "turned" non-heterosexual, you are born with the Nature that you have throughout your life and what ever you become you become based on those rules. However, it is certain that at some point in a non-heterosexual's life they will appear to deviate from the norm. Sometimes this happens at puberty. Sometimes this happens earlier or later as determined by the end result of your Nature coming in contact with another's Nurture. That is, you may realize that you are non-heterosexual when you meet someone who's Nurture is so significant enough to your other Natural Rules that the Natural Rule of Reproduction is forsaken. Maybe it's because you find them attractive. Maybe it's because of their intelligence. It may be any number of different stimuli that they provide that causes you to forsake the Natural Rule of Reproduction. For instance, "I knew I was a lesbian the moment I got to know her. She made me happy to be alive. I enjoyed myself with her more than with anyone else. We complimented each other."

The only difference between heterosexual relationships (which work of the same premise as the last example) and non-heterosexual relationships is that the Natural Rule of Reproduction must be broken. That is why there are fewer non-heterosexuals than heterosexuals, because it is easier to perchance a stimuli (be it a person, event, or series of events) that will not amount to enough to break the Natural Rule of Reproduction than it is to perchance a stimuli great enough to overcome the pull of the Natural Rule of Reproduction. That is, everyone has the potential to be all sexualities, if the right stimuli are present. Although, for some people, it is more difficult to break with the Natural Rule of Reproduction because either the stimuli isn't present or not present in great enough quantity, in effect that the Natural Rule of Reproduction is more dominant in that person than it, by de facto results, in the other who broke the Rule of Reproduction.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG USAGE AND DEPRESSION
Alcohol and drug usage are similar to sexuality in a few respects, however genes do NOT, I repeat DO NOT, cause alcoholism or drug use. They are the products of a larger problem. Allow me to introduce another of Nature's Rules, the Natural Rule of Happiness. It is Natural, that is it is in your genes, to be happy. The Natural Rule of Happiness is linked heavily to the Natural Rule of Reproduction. A happy creature is a productive creature and therefore is most likely a reproductive creature. Depression has no benefit to your life or your reproduction, therefore it is a result of a breach of the Happiness Rule. If your Happiness Rule is not sufficiently strong enough in a particular instance then you will become depressed by the Nurtural stimuli received. That is, you will become depressed. Alcoholism and drug usage are physical means to dull the senses to avoid overcoming depression. (I will come back to what overcoming is later.)

People who live in a climate conducive to alcohol and drug usage are more likely to do so. Yes. However, that is because they too are in the presence of the same mitigating factors' attack on the Natural Rule of Happiness in say your parents or siblings as well as other mitigating factors that will result in depression. That is, their Nurture is more likely to realize that their other dreams are less likely to come true, be those dreams be of a loving family, a safe home environment, healthy social relationships, or any number of other things one can desire.

Therein this we can find the solution to alcoholism and or drug usage. Find an alternate way to satisfy these desires. Find a way to create a loving family by getting your parents, siblings, spouse, etc., help dealing with their problems, expand outside the home and create strong social connections, etc. as the desire requires. However, it is also necessary to point out that sometimes, the Happiness Rule can be broken so well that one cannot fix it on their own and that another person must help them achieve their dreams in order to fix their depression and thereby their addiction or familial's addiction (and likely pending personal addiction). Some people can be so far gone that they don't know that they need help and may even become irritated or violent because of their depression. However, by understanding the underlying causes for alcoholism and drug usage, a breach of the Rule of Happiness, one can help them cure it or one can cure it for themselves if they are not too far gone.

How do you keep a person who has family members who are addicted and/or depressed (tending towards addiction in time)? Find out what would make them happy and make it happen. Sometimes, just fulfilling one or two of these desires, say for a stable home life or a strong social life, can boost them enough so that they can fix the rest of the problem themselves.

Also be aware that alcohol and drugs are not the only addictions. Anything that obscures one's sense of reality in any way is an addiction. I contend that anyone who uses these things at any point whatsoever has some level of depression and some internal problem that they desire to fuzz over. Perhaps they drink socially. They aren't satisfied with their social life or they feel too introverted. Perhaps they smoke for the pleasure it brings them. They are lacking true pleasure in their lives, particularly in an emotional or sexual sense. Regardless, on some level they feel empty or missing something.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION
Those who have a weaker Natural Rule of Survival of the Fittest tend to be egalitarian. The Natural Rule of Survival is the precursor to the Natural Rule of Reproduction (survive to reproductive age). People with a weaker Natural Rule of Survival of the Fittest when acted upon by outside stimuli showing others who are less advantaged then themselves or less advantaged than they believe one should be (even if they too are disadvantaged, perhaps even more) will attempt to help them. Likewise, a second Natural Rule could exist to the same effect, the Natural Rule of Society. This Rule states that man will help his fellow man so that society as a whole will rise up and profit. Consider it a big example of sharing excess if you will. These people will be designated Type A or Survival of the Fittest Weak or Society Strong. As near to an actual political group as I can designate them, they would be equivalent to post-Napoleon French Liberals. Warren Buffett, Ted Kennedy, and Oprah Winfrey would be examples of these people, those who tend to care for the common man.

Those whose Natural Rule of Survival of the Fittest is stronger than stimuli tend to favor personal well being (and perhaps familial well being) over the well being of Society as a whole. These people have a weak Natural Rule of Society. In today's society, these people tend to care more about money and other tradeable assets than anything else. They are today's stereotypical Big Business Executives or (equivalent to) French post-Napoleon monarchists and nobles. People who are good examples of this are Adolf Hitler and any number of other dictators or absolute monarchs.

HOW TO SWAY POLITICAL LEANINGS
The only way to sway political leanings is to satisfy enough of one's Nurture's desires to overcome the difference in their Natural Rule of Survival 0f the Fittest / Society. It is the same method used to decide sexuality and the same to foment happiness. However these Rules are weaker than the other two mentioned and therefore are easier to influence.

OVERCOMING AND MAKING UP FOR RULES
Overcoming a predisposed Nurtural condition, say unhappiness, is done by finding factors that will make them happy. The process of doing this is called Making Up for the Rules. Making Up for the Rules is the process by which one uses other Rules to Make Up for a weakness or strength in another. The example of a stable home and strong social life is an example of this. However, it can be taken the opposite way as well. You can make someone unhappy by removing Nurtural stimuli that fortifies the Natural Rule of Happiness.

WHAT THIS MEANS
This means that we all play by the same type of rule book, Nature. Each person's Nature is different, because Nature is your genes. Each persons' Nurture, that is the content of your life from birth to death, is different because it is processed through the rules of your Nature, which as I said are different in everyone, and because you do not receive the same stimuli as everyone else.

Furthermore, people's Nurtural being can be influenced if one knows which stimuli to use. All people are able to control and manipulate all people if they have the ability to comprehend other people's Natural Rules with some accuracy by providing stimuli and understanding the Nurture produced and the context within.

And finally, given the right stimuli resultant from the accurate knowledge attained from other stimuli about another's Nature, one can manipulate them at will. It is done subconsciously and consciously (especially by politicians) every day. Therefore, we must be constantly vigilant that we are not being exploited by others for their means, and although we cannot change our Nature, I hope sincerely that this stimuli has in some way affected your Nurtural being in a way so as to make it possible for you to realize that you have the power to resist exploitation.

FLYFREEFOREVER!

Useful Useless Quotations

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -Mark Twain

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen

"On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does." -Will Rogers

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain." -Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

"Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none." -William Shakespeare

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -George Bernard Shaw

"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race." -George Bernard Shaw

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." -Samuel Johnson

"You have to know how to accept rejection and reject acceptance." -Ray Bradbury

"It is an illusion that youth is happy, an illusion of those who have lost it; but the young know they are wretched for they are full of the truthless ideal which have been instilled into them, and each time they come in contact with the real, they are bruised and wounded." -W. Somerset Maugham

Nature and the Creation of False Logic

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

Hmm... this one had me thinking for a while because, if you've been keeping up with my philosophy, I have previously mentioned that man does not gain knowledge; he steals it; man does not create something new; he builds on something old. Essentially what I was saying is that there is no originality in human thought because we are incapable of actually creating a new thought. Think of any invention that we've made; they're all a fusion of two or more different old ideas. It is the evolution of thought.

That brings me to the aforementioned quote "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." Usually, when I read something at some point during the reading I come to a conclusion about what they were trying to say, what their stance was, and especially in politics or philosophy, what they really meant.

Analyze any speech or essay and you'll learn a great deal about why the author is writing and what the world is like when he's writing it. Example: analyze Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech and you'll understand a great deal about the 1960's civil rights movement, even if you don't call it that by name.

However, upon reading this quote, I was stuck. This marveled me, modesty aside, I don't frequent the realms of dumbfoundedness. What made this so eye-catching for me? Well, it follows my logic, that man cannot create something that doesn't already exist, and then takes it to a completely opposite conclusion, that there is a god.

Of course, I realized that both of us couldn't be right and likewise both of us cannot be wrong. There either is a god or there isn't, there is no middle ground. Even politicians can't find a gray area for this one. Then again perhaps I'm giving them too little credit. At any rate, one of us has to be wrong. And, therein I saw my problem. Either of us could be true based on the logic we provide. As we can't both be correct, there must be some flaw in our logic.

It got me to thinking about where knowledge came from and I realized just that, it comes from somewhere. That is, we don't have it already; we must discover it. Knowledge comes from our interpretation of nature. Remember that we are all part of nature and that without nature we would cease to exist, purely on a feeding level in the least. Therefore when we talk about whether or not a god exists we have come to two different solutions based on two different chains of interpretation.

Of course, and here's where human error comes in, we don't always go back to nature to find truth. Sometimes we solely look to man and other people's interpretations. So to find out who is right, we must trace back our chains of interpretation back to nature, to the truth. It goes as follows, in my opinion.

I believe that based on the laws of nature, there can be no omnipotent being. That is, to be omnipotent we must be devoid of time and if devoid of time, we cannot do anything because the moment we do there's time again and omnipotence cannot exist again. A paradox, an omnipotent being cannot exist without not existing.

All this serves to do is remind us that there is no middle ground. Either god exists or doesn't. In the opinion of G.K. Chesterton, because Atheists exist, god must. But what if all his logic was just a lie manufactured under the premise of truth, fused with other truths to create fiction. The sum of all parts and the total all of the parts taken individually mean different things remember.

When it comes right down to it, after all the muck is sifted through, he will say that his faith proves that god exists. However, we must ask ourselves where his faith came from. Well, directly, likely family or teachers or perhaps society as a whole. But really, it comes from the Church. And what does the Church want more than anything? Your redeemed soul? No, actually they want your money. That's all, they are the biggest example of a greedy corporate interest in the history of the world.

Of course some say they exist to unveil the secrets of the world. No, this is not true. Science does this job. Religion only seeks to prove the world based on a set of rules that earns them power and money. Greed. Corporatism run amok.

So what have I learned from this quote. There is false logic. The sum of the parts of true logic can be assembled to create false logic and from that false logic stem the evils of society. The creators of Church doctrine realized that to profit themselves they can combine the truths contained in the laws of nature and the truths in the desire of man to understand the truths of the laws of nature. This fusion of ideas leads to the understanding that man can gain profit off man by combining truths to make lies. Knowing this, the founders of the Church pieced truths together like "the universe was created" with truths like "there was a beginning of the universe" and "there was something before there was the beginning of you" and extrapolated these ideas onto the universe errantly to create a doctrine of false truths in order to brainwash man into giving them money because it is the key to salvation.

So which of us is right? Well, false logic is never true. So G.K. Chesterton must be wrong. And if you can either be right or wrong, and he's wrong, then I must be right even if I couldn't prove it, which I can and have.

Rantings of a Mad Man XVII: Unadultered Truthiness

Morgan Freeman is god; he's merely playing an actor.

Near bankruptcy, Pepsi once offered to sell the Pepsi brand to Coke. They rejected. Oops.

I write these things because I can't think of ways to make these things into full entries.

You will spend in upwards of 30 years of your life sleeping.

Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez both are ahead of Barry Bonds in home runs for their ages.

Green eyes are a mutation.

A chromosome controls whether or not you can curl your tongue lengthwise.

Annual flowers must be replanted every year, yet annual events happen every year of their own volition.

Evolutionarily, penis size is shrinking.

Apparently, making out in the backseat of a car is now a sin to the Catholic Church.

The guy that plays on The Shield is the only person who could play the Kingpin if they choose to have him appear in the Spiderman movies. Seriously, you know which guy I'm talking about.

There is trace amounts of cocaine in Coke.

Democrats sandbag failed candidates while Republicans run the same failed candidates again and again. Nixon and McCain for instance.

Want less acne? Sweat more, it clears the pores.

They say that everyone needs more fiber. Then, everyone needs more calcium. Then everyone needs more Vitamin D. Fucking hell! Can't we all live in peace?

If you think all batteries are the same... erm... realize that Energizer batteries are the longest lasting of ALL batteries. I mean, hasn't every fourth grade science fair ever proven this? The same goes for Bounty paper towels as most absorbent and strongest paper towel. What else... drinking fountains are dirtier than public toilets. Use Brita filters because our drinking water has far too much lead in it. Volcanoes are cool... well, at least the first sixteen times. Earthquake models are NOT experiments! And finally, there are FAR too many websites giving free science fair ideas, it's not rocket science, really. Well, unless it is rocket science...

What is the big problem we have with nudity? Honestly, I think we'd learn a lot about what we value in society if we all get rid of clothes for a year.

Of course conjugal visit sex is great, that way you can tell Bubba that you have a headache that night.

What is the big deal about personal space? Hey you, you've invaded my personal space! The United Kingdom of My Knuckles are going to impact the Confederation of Your Teeth if you don't apologise? C'mon.

Why doesn't Last Comic Standing get ratings? It's far better than Dancing with the Stars, America's Got Talent, and Big Brother 9(?). In the very least, it's different every night.

What's the deal with ripping telephone books in half? Seriously those things are useful. How about ripping apart a book I won't need for the rest of the year. The Bible anyone? Please? The edges are gilded and it's leatherbound, might pose an interesting challenge if you're interested.

What does the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and god have in common? That's right, they all cost way too much money to support especially if you're dating someone.

With all the men who've died in wars, general stupidity, and whatnot, there still is a basic 50-50ish split between the male and female population. Not to mention the live expectancy gap. See, men need to be promiscuous , it keeps the balance in check. Either that or women start killing themselves in greater quantities. Maybe that's why ancient tribes sacrificed virgin women. See they were on to something.

Too much salt leads to high blood pressure. Too much sugar leads to diabetes. Too much fat leads to obesity. Too much cholesterol leads to heard disease. Do you see a pattern? Only in America could one or more of these things be a factor.

The United States, Canada, Belize, South America, India, Australia, and New Zealand were all, in part or whole, English colonies. Yet, India is the only one which rejected the English language after the end of imperialism.

Why are dimes smaller than pennies and nickels?

And finally... AOL used to be the shit. Now it's just shit.