Do you prefer inner beauty, or outer beauty? But, yet, your gender is so obvious to me, I should rather pretend it more relevant to the case of who you are, sexually. How presumptuous of me to think that my convenience, sensibly to typify, ought derive more certain values -sexually to orient persuasion- than are most obviously, more likely, quite more complex in issue than anything as meets the eye!
Its purely subjective upon contingent values (and not necessary ones), which are contemporary (and not ephemeral, or eternal), to our civilised modern mindset that we accept to typify or discriminate, at all, on a basis of gender AND persuasion.
The divide of our times could just as easily as gay or straight, considering its necessary basis, be aesthetic AND persuasion e.g. do you like beautiful people OR do you like ugly people...and thence allowing the remark of type, "oh, then, you're beautisexual" - incorporating males or females of purportable beauty. While "uglisexual people" would, perhaps, bemoan the title (for obvious reasons of its openness to characterisability), wishing instead to be classed in something more neutral or obvious, like, perhaps, gender, in their persuasions (as we have it, how we currently typify, in our modern mindset's frame).
"Are you a tits or ass person?" could variously draw the dividing line. 'Titisexual' OR 'assexual'? Why ought gender - an open, PUBLIC, and SIMPLE certainty - be seen as yet so certain in deriving values which are PRIVATE and COMPLEX? And, these value types of any typifiable worth to maintain all of the curiosities of growing and maturing into a habitual lifestyle, preferable in a regime of consent and choice, sexually?
There is nothing of intrinsic value -to a modern public mindset- as determines this with any certainty as worth relying upon - any more or less than, say, elsewhere, instead of referring to rich man/poor man divides, relating rather saving/spending divides, as habitual, and therefore typical!
Extroverts and introverts ought just as happily take upon themselves, as public, a title in mindset; while, then, those who dare 'mind their business' might reveal further their persuasions when needed. And, regarding this leeway of all possible frames to entitle our differences, toward a value-set which is UNIVERSAL, in its outlook, and thus with all manageable rights as are applicable in a fair and tolerant society, it becomes clear: we needn't have delved so far at all as to typify gender AND persuasion at all!!!
Are we certain of gender only as much as death and taxes? And yet abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are all matters of our times in deciding values in law, that it ought seem something of our era, a complexity level to absorb in issue, to resolve in conceptual mindset, in order to form a collective value-set worthy of a civilised frame. Death is 'all or nothing', a certainty, to us, to relate - being 'alive' or 'dead'. Gender is similarly such an 'all or nothing' to us, to typify or discriminate.
Persuasion, however is more complex (as are a lot of issues in discussing causes in morbidity and taxation, likewise). How ought a complex persuasion value set, align with a simple certainty of being male or female, not to leave unfair any intrusion into what is private knowledge of inner thoughts and feelings, as are often, various and diverse, persuading us?
Surprisingly, diversity of currency exchange in economics, of all things, (despite universally sufficiently similar biology across nations) becomes interesting for its problem-set and tool-kit requiring, conceptually, to understand, as application study, when after looking far enough at the subject of gender in linguistics. Only as diverse as values for gender and persuasion, it would seem, are those such values as would necessitate drawing value and currency into the frame in economics.
This would show that there is as much to be learnt from one as the other, if developing any ideas in either, and all hopefully harmoniously, with respect to rates of progress and change which is possible in perceptions which are key. Why valence ought exist at all in any frame of currency becomes an important issue of pertinent contemplation when discussing general issues of the subject of exchange. Pertinent rather than urgent to resolve, it would seem, as a matter of our times, for humankind, are these and similar problems.
For its problems of its diversity, currency exchange, and for those of its certainty, the justice of morbidity (and how we base more than merely laws concerning death, upon a fear based rationale, which stems from our mortality, as beings), these subjects and also the politics of gender and persuasion discrimination (as discussed herein), are each as interesting for such values as would show conspicuousness or anomaly at similar levels of complexity in concepts dealt with, within each subject.
When each of all of these such spheres have all been worked out in their determined outlook, and resolve their respective normalities in value-sets which find popular appeal across-the-board, to meritable solutions, proposable, and in any clearly definable time-frame, what arises may be suprisingly of little or no coincidence: that they might all have to wait upon one another in order to progress.
For, the level of complexity in deriving such values as are universal, necessary, and objective, in each topic -that in a mindset, contemporary and progressive, as it is, deriveable, being, all such values in such fields, but only, as respecting, each -one another - they can, collectively and culturally, evolve. It bodes, harmoniously, a similar era for humankind to enjoy each, their progress, and as a pallettable debate of our times, and hopefully one not overdue, in its fullest discourse.
It becomes important, showing how similar tools are required for understanding what is demanding of us -in a modern frame of humanity in the 21st century- to work toward values which are universally definable; and, thus, to rely less upon that which is subject to any possible mistakes or misunderstanding in allowing typification, where it ought show no difference in treatment but than that which is fair to all parties concerning.
What defines an inequality? If state police have more powers than ordinary citizens, are they treatable unequally respecting one another? What is the important difference between 'being a bigot', and 'being bigotrous' in sociable conversation? Why ought we empower words which are only semantic, after all, over ideas, which are incontrovertible to such whims? Such are the questions as might similarly allow humankind to progress, when answered sufficiently.
So, no hurry in wondering whether bisexuals aren't the ones who are confused...I for one, am not!
Its purely subjective upon contingent values (and not necessary ones), which are contemporary (and not ephemeral, or eternal), to our civilised modern mindset that we accept to typify or discriminate, at all, on a basis of gender AND persuasion.
The divide of our times could just as easily as gay or straight, considering its necessary basis, be aesthetic AND persuasion e.g. do you like beautiful people OR do you like ugly people...and thence allowing the remark of type, "oh, then, you're beautisexual" - incorporating males or females of purportable beauty. While "uglisexual people" would, perhaps, bemoan the title (for obvious reasons of its openness to characterisability), wishing instead to be classed in something more neutral or obvious, like, perhaps, gender, in their persuasions (as we have it, how we currently typify, in our modern mindset's frame).
"Are you a tits or ass person?" could variously draw the dividing line. 'Titisexual' OR 'assexual'? Why ought gender - an open, PUBLIC, and SIMPLE certainty - be seen as yet so certain in deriving values which are PRIVATE and COMPLEX? And, these value types of any typifiable worth to maintain all of the curiosities of growing and maturing into a habitual lifestyle, preferable in a regime of consent and choice, sexually?
There is nothing of intrinsic value -to a modern public mindset- as determines this with any certainty as worth relying upon - any more or less than, say, elsewhere, instead of referring to rich man/poor man divides, relating rather saving/spending divides, as habitual, and therefore typical!
Extroverts and introverts ought just as happily take upon themselves, as public, a title in mindset; while, then, those who dare 'mind their business' might reveal further their persuasions when needed. And, regarding this leeway of all possible frames to entitle our differences, toward a value-set which is UNIVERSAL, in its outlook, and thus with all manageable rights as are applicable in a fair and tolerant society, it becomes clear: we needn't have delved so far at all as to typify gender AND persuasion at all!!!
Are we certain of gender only as much as death and taxes? And yet abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are all matters of our times in deciding values in law, that it ought seem something of our era, a complexity level to absorb in issue, to resolve in conceptual mindset, in order to form a collective value-set worthy of a civilised frame. Death is 'all or nothing', a certainty, to us, to relate - being 'alive' or 'dead'. Gender is similarly such an 'all or nothing' to us, to typify or discriminate.
Persuasion, however is more complex (as are a lot of issues in discussing causes in morbidity and taxation, likewise). How ought a complex persuasion value set, align with a simple certainty of being male or female, not to leave unfair any intrusion into what is private knowledge of inner thoughts and feelings, as are often, various and diverse, persuading us?
Surprisingly, diversity of currency exchange in economics, of all things, (despite universally sufficiently similar biology across nations) becomes interesting for its problem-set and tool-kit requiring, conceptually, to understand, as application study, when after looking far enough at the subject of gender in linguistics. Only as diverse as values for gender and persuasion, it would seem, are those such values as would necessitate drawing value and currency into the frame in economics.
This would show that there is as much to be learnt from one as the other, if developing any ideas in either, and all hopefully harmoniously, with respect to rates of progress and change which is possible in perceptions which are key. Why valence ought exist at all in any frame of currency becomes an important issue of pertinent contemplation when discussing general issues of the subject of exchange. Pertinent rather than urgent to resolve, it would seem, as a matter of our times, for humankind, are these and similar problems.
For its problems of its diversity, currency exchange, and for those of its certainty, the justice of morbidity (and how we base more than merely laws concerning death, upon a fear based rationale, which stems from our mortality, as beings), these subjects and also the politics of gender and persuasion discrimination (as discussed herein), are each as interesting for such values as would show conspicuousness or anomaly at similar levels of complexity in concepts dealt with, within each subject.
When each of all of these such spheres have all been worked out in their determined outlook, and resolve their respective normalities in value-sets which find popular appeal across-the-board, to meritable solutions, proposable, and in any clearly definable time-frame, what arises may be suprisingly of little or no coincidence: that they might all have to wait upon one another in order to progress.
For, the level of complexity in deriving such values as are universal, necessary, and objective, in each topic -that in a mindset, contemporary and progressive, as it is, deriveable, being, all such values in such fields, but only, as respecting, each -one another - they can, collectively and culturally, evolve. It bodes, harmoniously, a similar era for humankind to enjoy each, their progress, and as a pallettable debate of our times, and hopefully one not overdue, in its fullest discourse.
It becomes important, showing how similar tools are required for understanding what is demanding of us -in a modern frame of humanity in the 21st century- to work toward values which are universally definable; and, thus, to rely less upon that which is subject to any possible mistakes or misunderstanding in allowing typification, where it ought show no difference in treatment but than that which is fair to all parties concerning.
What defines an inequality? If state police have more powers than ordinary citizens, are they treatable unequally respecting one another? What is the important difference between 'being a bigot', and 'being bigotrous' in sociable conversation? Why ought we empower words which are only semantic, after all, over ideas, which are incontrovertible to such whims? Such are the questions as might similarly allow humankind to progress, when answered sufficiently.
So, no hurry in wondering whether bisexuals aren't the ones who are confused...I for one, am not!
No comments:
Post a Comment