The advantage
If our bodies purpose is to propagate our genes, then there must be some correlation between the advantage of genes and their species' behavior.
As far as a gene is concerned, its alleles are its deadly rivals, but other genes are just a part of its environment, comparable to temperature, food, predators, or companions. The effect of the gene depends on its environment, and this includes other genes. Sometimes a gene has one effect in the presence of a particular other gene, and a completely different effect in the presence of another set of companion genes. The whole set of genes in a body constitutes a kind og genetic climate or background, modifying and influencing the effects of any particular gene.
But now we seem to have a paradox. If building a baby is such an intricate cooperative venture, and if every gene needs several thousands of fellow genes to complete its task, how can we reconcile this with my picture of indivisible genes, springing like immortal chamois from body to body down the ages: the free, untrammeled, and self-seeking agents of life? Was that all nonsense? Not at all. I may have got a bit carried away with the purple passages, but I was not talking nonsense, and there is no real paradox. We can explain this by means of another analogy.
One oarsman on hi sown cannot win the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues. Each one is a specialist who always sits in a particular part of the boat--bow or stroke or cox etc. Rowing the boat is a cooperative venture, but some men are nevertheless better at it than others. Suppose a coach has to choose his ideal crew from a pool of candidates, some specializing in the bow position, others specializing as cox, and so on. Suppose that he make his selection as follows. Every day he puts together three new trial crews, by random shuffling of the candidates for each position, and he makes the three crews race against each other. After some weeks of this it will start to emerge that the winning boat often tends to contain the same individual men. These are marked up as good oarsmen. Other individuals seem consistently to be found in slower crews, and these are eventually rejected. But even an outstandingly good oarsman might sometimes be a member of a slow crew either because of the inferiority of the other members, or because of bad luck--say a strong adverse wind. It is only on average that the best men tend to be in the winning boat.
The oarsmen are genes. The rivals for each seat in the boat are alleles potentially capable of occupying the same slot along the length of a chromosome. Rowing fast corresponds to building a body which is successful at surviving. The wind is the external environment. The pool of alternative candidates is the gene pool. As far as the survival of any one body is concerned, all its genes are in the same boat. Many a good gene gets into bad company, and finds itself sharing a body with a lethal gene which kills the body off in childhood. Then the good gene is destroyed along with the rest. But this is only one body, and replicas of the same good gene live on in other bodies which lack the lethal gene. Many copies of good genes are dragged under because they happen to share a body with bad genes, and many perish through other forms of ill luck, say when their body is struck by lightning. But by definition luck, good and bad, strikes at random, and a gene that is consistently on the losing side is not unlucky; it is a bad gene.
One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in and cooperate with the rest of a crew. This may be just as important as strong muscles. As we saw in the case of the butterflies, natural selection may unconsciously 'edit' a gene complex by means of inversions and other gross movements of bits of chromosome, thereby bringing genes that cooperate well together into closely linked groups. But there is also a sense in which genes which are in no way linked to each other physically can be selected for their mutual compatibility. A gene that cooperates well with most of the other genes that it is likely to meet in successive bodies, i.e. the genes in the whole of the rest of the gene pool, will tend to have an advantage.
For example, a number of attributes are desirable in an efficient carnivore's body, among them sharp cutting teeth, the right kind of intestine for digesting meat, and many other things. An efficient herbivore, on the other hand, needs flat grinding teeth, and a much longer intestine with a different kind of digestive chemistry. In a herbivore gene pool, any new gene that conferred on its possessors sharp meat-eating teeth would not be very successful. This is not because meat-eating is universally a bad idea, but because you cannot efficiently eat meat unless you also have the right sort of intestine, and all the other attributes of a meat-eating way of life. Genes for sharp, meat-eating teeth are not inherently bad genes. They are only bad genes in a gene-pool that is dominated by genes for herbivorous qualities.
This is a subtle, complicated idea. It is complicated because the 'environment' of a gene consists largely of other genes, each of which is itself being selected for its ability to cooperate with its environment of other genes.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Burdened with hope
I'm beginning to wonder if the smiles from Miss Sapphire are hiding something. She's been out-of-state for about a month and things have started to change. I like change, but secrets can be hurtful during those changes.
While she has been away, I made it a point to show her I wanted to see her again. She seemed certain that it wasn't true. I don't know why, but I've been reminding her otherwise. I wanted to remove that doubt, be genuinely sweet to her, and make her smile. So among other things, I sent her a haiku:
Held still in amber, a song from the skies of spring. And the leaves will grow.
It was a nice sentiment. And while I doubt it, she said she deleted it. Alright, maybe she did delete it, but probably to make space in her phone. But still, why would she say something that could hurt me?
And that's what I'm wondering. Why do I feel like she's resistant to my kindness? Like my intentions are cruel. Then she keeps indicating that she's part of some "experiment" or master plan. And I don't get it.
I want to feel to whatever extent I can in the time we have together.
It might be that I'm being "too nice." Something some say about Colette. And if that's it--it's a compliment, even if it's misunderstood. Or if it questions our willingness to give again. There's no such thing as being too nice, but they still say it. I guess what they mean is that she's unbelievably nice. That her kindness is fake, a way to exploit us. That's not it though and it's saddens me to think that we, as a whole, lack trust.
Maybe there is no secret. Maybe I expect too much.
But here's me thinking me thinking I have some sort of importance in her life. She said she was "burdened with hope." I don't know, that sounds like something. And all I can do is be my self and see if things fit together.
Definitions
One can choose what to do, but not what to want.
Arthur Schopenhauer
A direct translation reads: der mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will. Or man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. That much is true. Some may even say that we've developed more problems than solutions by restraining our society.
Let's consider a sample of people who've experienced trauma. In a study, those who had something to hide had a greater frequency of health problems. And...
Follow-up surveys conducted with other participants showed that health problems seemed to ensue only when people who were traumatized early in life failed to tell other of their experience. The studies indicate that victims of traumas who do reveal their thoughts and feelings to others tend to feel awful during the confession--but show measurable improvements in immune function and general health, as well as reduced physiological signs of stress, in the months that follow.
Daniel M. Wegner, White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts
These are quite often those who were sexually repressed and abused. Yes, very very unfortunate and disgusting, but important in what it says about how we function: the freedom of self-expression is pivotal to our health.
Yet, between the legal, religious, and social influences of society, we've become discomforted by our own thoughts and individual beauties. In turn, we isolate our self from the judgement and criticism of others and "escape" reality by indulging in the entertainment of a more pleasant perspective.
Or, some of us sample the severity of our circumstances (horror movies, news, etc) to justify their lack of social participation. They feel connected to the truths of reality. Still, the fact that millions of people work a quarter of their lives to escape from "pressures" of society, it's indicative of social decline.
We're an absolutely fantastic and absurdly gorgeous existence. Why escape it?
Instead, we should be committed to mutually satisfying activities: sex being one of them. It's atrocious that we restrain those interested in pleasuring others as a means of self satisfaction. There's no reason to guilt or label criminal those who benefit another's existence.
Meanwhile, war and torture remains legal.
When indeed it's our laws that raise capital for both opponents in conflict. For instance, the laws prohibiting drugs are supported by our taxes. Then there's those who will pay the production costs and any additional costs necessary to evade the law.
It's the taxes, evasion, and additional losses (life, liberty, etc.) that determines the total cost of established law. Our laws create economies, that's the optimistic perspective, but it's more blissful than anything. Yay! Millions of consumers travel to cities with fewer legal and social consequence to spend their hard-earned paychecks on inflated prices which wouldn't exist if not due to their own taxes.
Ah--let's not get upset though, the economy has importance to our society, but there's a difference between prohibition and regulation. The difference is the money we spend supporting it. And if it become a substantial cost, then it's possible that we're holding others to unrealistic standards.
Maybe we're not creating a dream, but a nightmare. Where we're surrounded by bureaucracy and restraint called freedom; that we're free to be what's chosen for us. Until we're living a paradigm that's peppered with the illusion of choice. A labyrinth of production with the tease of escape; is that what we've become?
It feels like it. And if we're to return to something healthier standard, then we should live by an ideal:
To treat others as they want to be treated.
It's not the same as do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It accounts for their perspective and requires the effort of understanding their opinion. A person should be allowed to experience anything they choose to, under the provision that it doesn't inhibit the livelihood of others.
It's saying we don't need to meet conditions to have an abortion or marry. Rather it eliminates the condition, saying we must be empathetic to them if they give empathy to us. That's what's healthy for us; that's freedom.
Feeling it
Colette is sick. It's difficult for her to breathe and talk because of an inflamed throat. This is the third instance in the last six months. And as much as it pains me to see her suffer, I love recording her sick.
Her unusual voice and not being able to move too much. It's irresistible.
But that's besides the point. Something else is bothering her, it's about Mister Silk. She's crushing on him. He's funny, kind of a nerd, and tries to please. Except, he can't stop talking about himself. Which isn't unusual, it's what people do. But if she doesn't feel like she's involved in the conversation, it seems like he's after sex. That being precisely what she thought.
They got down anyways.
Things continued to be going well, right up until she told him (on their fifth date) about me. That's quite a wait to let somebody in on some startling information about yourself, but she wasn't sure if she wanted to continue seeing him until the previous date. It's not always the most enjoyable of conversations either.
In this instance, he wasn't particularly mature about it. His immediate reaction was competitive. Asking her if she thinks I would be alright with her dating a doctor. Which is absolutely absurd! I would never let my girlfriend sleep with somebody that she finds intellectually attractive. Oh wait.
Then he went on to blame open relationships as the primary reason for poverty in black communities. Which is racist.
He was having a really hard time confronting the situation, which is completely understandable. And the next day he sounded a far more reasonable:
The funny thing about all this is that you've really made me confront myself and ask what I'm all about. I've been arguing your argument forever now, and now confronted with this form of its reality, I cloak myself in traditionalism. My hypocrisy knows no bounds I suppose. The true irony being that I both want what you have and that I am unable to accept it. I want to have my cake and eat it too.
To which she responded:
It is interesting because I too went through the same process with myself. And I had questions as well as concerns that continue to come up. But, once I delved into this, it was quite humbling, in that I know now it is possible. I am happy and looking for someone I can be happy with in addition to what I have.
He needs time to think about it, but while she waits, she's feeling guilty. About waiting too long to tell him. About seeing his sadness. I have seen that sadness too; it looks as if you ripped the magic from a smile.
She's sad too.
She didn't expect him to care. He certainly didn't act like it. And to see that you're having a profoundly negative effect on somebody, it hurts. He had her question the purpose and sustainability of our relationship. As in, the possibility of a serious relationship developing and what it means in respect to our living situation. The possibility that we aren't going through a phase.
It's certainly uncertain.
And not having an outcome is unsettling, but who wants to settle anyways?