the_transaction.md.md 6.5 KB
Interrogation
So who are you to judge
transhumanism transgenderism autogynephillia paraphilia Attraction to things to Objects fetishizing objects for their form or function their conception and representation the symbols which they evoke, and the symbols which they are The question is whether someone who is criticizing the transgender impetus of society as it stands today is doing so out of hate and what the accusation of transphobia entails Who are you to judge what others do why are you demanding something of others well was I really ever demanding anything? It's completely the other way around I have been asked to perform a function or, at least, if tasked with performing that function, implicitly, to perform it with the parameters which have been prescribed and to not change them regardless of their meaning well what do you mean, what's wrong with the meaning? the meaning is that of being accurate, that of hcoosing the correct term with the appropriate qualities But that's completely wrong, as well. The meaning is something which is produced from our relationship and the interaction the reality of the interaction is what produces the meaning, because our active participation, through active decision and agreement for the choice of which structures to illuminate our understanding of these structures and our understanding of one another's perspective on those structures What does it mean, to have a perspective on those structures? well the structures are a configuration of symbols and degree of significance some might say a hierarchy and also, necessarily, the choice of symbol affects the set, as it implies relationships between teh other symbols as they interface to the common issue being understood and given that these have value in making determinations about that which is being understood they also affect the value of one another in any given choice of context for analysis so with that in mind, we can't really get around our choices of symbols without also performing the analyses of their particular relationships amongst one another
this is a task of infinite complexity, and this is why the ground rules are so important since there is an infinite amount of work, and an infinite number of interpretations for aspects that can be enumerated amongst the work we need for two things to be applied in order to be able to perform the task with any degree of utility and any degree of trust the first is that we must establishing use objectivity to guide our analysis the second is that we must begin with good faith in the process this can only be done if we are in an agreement that the first principle has not been defied and we can only do this by addressing one another's concerns about the process there is no way around this, because the only way to restore utility is to choose a subject among many as it relates to our pursuit of analyzing that which we've targed to understand and a behaviour within that subject in order to systematize and define in terms which can be evaluated and studied but without an agreed upon objective process by which to determine which subjects to choose we are left in a state where every choice will certainly not be trusted be at least one side therefore it becomes nothing but a power struggle and if one side is basing their reasoning over presuming a moral failure in the face of an environment with no process for using objectivity to reason about in our transaction then there is no transaction except violence because all paths lead to that end therefore the choice to avoid objectivity is one which is insisting on violence it is the disengagement which makes this apparant apparent the fact of one side declaring that the process of reasoning has ended because the natural state of conscious interaction is one where reason is to be demonstrated even at the basic level with animals who can't communicate abstract concepts and that is to apply the reasonable amount of survival force with respect to the survival needs of each participant at this basic level, which isn't actually basic at all, but is basic in the sense of the removal of linguistic dialogue but at this basic level, there is a transaction about what sort of behaviour is being tolerated given the resource requirements for a given context and once a certain threshold has been surpassed by one of the parties, the behaviour of the relationship / interaction changes to one which involves violence which threatens the survival of one or both of the participants and so in this case we can see that it is a reasonable transaction, to the extent that the participants are capable this is a system in that we see that there is a continuity of these organisms or entities if there was no success in the chronology of the relationship, then we wouldn't have the demonstration of their continued existence one might say that it could very well be the case that there have been other relationships which ceased to exist, and that this had nothing to do with the logic of the interactions but the logic is that there is a predisposition towards survival and that the actions which are undertaken by the organisms are ones which are chosen given their impact on survival this is always done to some degree, if even jsut by unconscious neurological activation patterns which appear to be performed without deliberate thought but even these are demonstrating the logic and are, particularly in some cases, initiating or affecting the interaction of the participant that these natural pulses of natural biology potentiate survival is an obvious indication that it is reasonable to potentiate one's survival and that these impulses potentiate the survival of an organism in the presence of other organisms and that the fact of there being a plurality of organisms who experience an impact on their survival by unconscious neurological impulses suggests that the reasonable and logical engagement of each organism in its interaction with one another is one which is perpetually evaluated on each organism's survival impact it is for this reason that the only feasible choice of methodology for analysis and resolution of a concern shared by multiple organisms is one whose specification declares most explicitly the expectation of equal application and discrimination for each participant because there is no other conception of a system which expresses by nature of its specification a desire for an equal relationship among participants regardless of whether there exists equality, there can only be an expression for a desire to have equality by the explicit choice to value a system which could ever possibly enumerate the possible selection of equality