Full Title:
The Systematic Dialectic of Human Sexual Orientations/Preferences.
Dear Readers,
This blog entry exemplifies the ‘classificatory’, ‘‘‘taxonomic’’’,
‘‘‘
systematic’’’, and
synchronic application of
F.E.D.
Dialectics,
and of the Seldonian
NQ_ dialectical algebra, to order the
presentation of
actualities that are all
synchronously present together in a
dialectical interconnexion [as
distinct from their application to the
modeling and
presentation of
historical dialectics, i.e., to
past actualities that have
presented themselves
diachronically,
temporal-sequentially, in what we term a
‘meta-genealogical’
historical series,
in which preceding actualities
causally “give birth to”
succeeding
actualities].
This blog entry illustrates such
synchronic applications by means of a timely and vivid
example:
human sexual orientation.
Enjoy!
Regards,
Miguel
The Systematic Dialectic of Human Sexual Orientations.
.
The typology [ontology] and
phenomenology of human sexual orientations --
heterosexual,
homosexual,
bisexual, and
transsexual -- observed with regularity across
historical time, and across multiple disparate instances of ‘the human phenome’
-- can be compactly modeled,
‘dialectical-mathematically’, and systematically
ordered and encompassed, connotatively and mnemonically, along with some of the
more complex ‘sub-structure’ of this domain, by a compact,
systematic-dialectical,
Dyadic Seldon Function formula, using the
category of
heterosexual
orientations as the «
arché»
category,
or
starting category.
Model.
The
Dyadic Seldon Function model for the
dialectical systematics of this domain
of‘‘‘
Human
Sexual
Orientations’’’, denoted
HSO, with
heterosexual orientation,
denoted by
HSOh,
as the
starting category,
can be rendered, in ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’
format, as follows --
HSO)-|-(sHSO
= ( HSOh )2sHSO.
Substantiation of Claim.
To test this claim, let us solve the equations, for as many ordinal
steps,
s, as make sense to us,
intuitively, given the content of this domain to-date, as stipulated in our
Claim.
Test step
0.
step
sHSO = 0. Our
general ‘dialectical
meta-model
meta-equation’ for this
domain of human experience, denoted
HSO --
HSO)-|-(sHSO
= ( HSOh )2sHSO, for
step
sHSO = 0
-- becomes the
step-
0-
specific ‘equation-model’ --
HSO)-|-(0 = ( HSOh )20 = ( HSOh )1 =
( HSOh ) = HSOh.
This,
0th,
step merely
re-asserts the [possible] existence of the «
arché»
category, or
starting category, of
heterosexual orientation,
connoted by the symbol
HSOh.
In ‘phonogramic translation’, our
step
0 solution -- our solution so far -- can be expressed
as follows --
The category ‘
HSO)-|-(sHSO’,
representing the «
genos»
super-
category --
the general category of human sexual orientations-/preferences-in-general
-- as HSO)-|-(0, implicitly ‘‘‘
contains’’’
only the special category of
heterosexual orientations alone,
so that the «
genos»
category and the «
species»
category here collapse into a single,
monolithic category.
The cognition of
authoritarian,
arbitrary,
dogmatic,
anti-rational personalities often halts here,
at
step
zero, in a
violent and hysterical, repressive denial of any
dialectic at all -- of any
‘intra-duality’, of any
‘self-duality’ -- or
‘self-multiality’ -- of any
‘in[ternal]-tension’,
of any
“internal contradiction”, or «
species»
‘self-differentiation’, within the «
genos»
in question, whatever it may be.
The
ideology of such
personalities might therefore quite rightly be named
‘‘‘zeroism’’’.
This issue reverberates also in ancient times.
Porphyry the Phoenician, in his classic letter / essay, the
circa 270 C.E. «
Isagoge», writes as follows --
“Our predecessors also give this definition:
difference is that by which
species exceeds the
genus.”
“
Man, for example, possesses more than
animal, namely the
rational and the
mortal [M.D.: i.e.,
possesses two “attributes” which may also be called “characteristics”, “predicates”, or “determinations”].”
“Now
animal is none of these, for, if not, how could the
species be
different from one another
?”
“Nor does
animal posses all
contradictory differences, for the same thing at the same time
would have
contradictory characteristics.”
“They maintain, however, that
animal possesses
potentially,
not actually, all the
differences
of the subordinate
species.”
“Nothing then arises from not-being,
nor will contradictories exist at the same time in the same thing.
”
[
Porphyry the Phoenician, «Isagoge», translated by Edward W. Warren, The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, [Toronto: 1975], p. 46, bold, italic, underlined, and colored emphases added by M.D.]
.
The translator/editor, valuably footnotes the passage by Porphyry above, as follows --
“ ... Since the characteristics are contained
potentially in the
genus, they are
not nothing.”
“Ammonius states the difficulty which Porphyry is trying to remove: “If the
differences exist in the
genera,
opposites will exist in the same thing at the same time, as mortal and immortal, rational and irrational.
This is impossible. If
differences do
not exist in the
genera, from what source do they arise in the
species?” (p. 101, 17-19).
”
[
ibid., p. 46, emphases added as before]
.
The progress of our
dialectical,
systematic presentation, so far -- or, rather, our
lack of progress so far, since
step
zero is only its barest beginning -- can be represented pictorially as follows --
Test step
1.
step
sHSO = 1. Our
general ‘dialectical
meta-model
meta-equation’ for this
domain of human experience, denoted
HSO --
HSO)-|-(sHSO
= ( HSOh )2sHSO, for
step
sHSO = 1 --
-- becomes the
step-
1-
specific
‘equation-model’ --
HSO)-|-(1 = ( HSOh )21 = ( HSOh )2 =
( HSOh )1 x
(
HSOh )1 = ~(
HSOh )1 =
HSOh ( HSOh ) =
HSOh “of” HSOh =
HSOh ~+~ Delta( HSOh ) =
HSOh ~+~ HSOqhh
-- wherein the symbol ‘
~’ denotes the operation of finding the existing category, if any, which
is the
dialectical, «
aufheben»
negation, i.e., the
‘contra-category’, or
‘next-opposite-category’,
of/to its operand category-symbol, and wherein the symbols-formation ‘
~+~’ denotes an
‘addition of qualitative opposites’,
i.e., that
HSOh, and whatever
HSOqhh denotes,
not only
possibly
co-exist within the
‘cumulum’ of the sub-totality / domain of
human experience denoted
by
HSO, but that
HSOh
and
HSOqhh are also
dialectical opposites:
HSOh ~ HSOqhh.
Thus, our task for this
step is to solve for the unknown ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ term --
i.e., for the
HSO
domain category -- whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ description involves a double-
h
predicate, ‘
hh’,
as its [post-]subscript epithet.
The
F.E.D. standard solution algorithm
for such category-symbolizing terms includes searching
for an existing category
of the given domain which is some kind of
opposite, or
antithesis,
to the
category out of which it arises, by ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ of the category denoted by
HSOh,
and by ‘self-critique’ of this category as encompassing / exhausting / fulfilling the total content
of the given domain as known to prior,
“chaotic” [Marx] --
unsystematic,
or
‘not-yet-systematized’, not-yet-‘‘‘theorized’’’
-- human experience.
That is, the symbols-formations ‘
HSOh( HSOh )’, and
‘
HSOh "of" HSOh’,
connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject/agent of thought, denoted by the
‘
HSOh( . . . )’ portion of that symbols-formation,
subjectively [be]holding
the
category
HSOh, as held in your mind, or as written out, on paper,
“objectively”, denoted
by the ‘
. . .( HSOh )’ portion of that symbols-formation, and, as that
category, held
“subjectively” and
actively, reflecting upon that category,
as
[a mind also mentally-embodying]
that category,
and
comparing
that category,
HSOh,
to the/
its
“domain”,
HSO
-- the
totality of reference for category
HSOh -- as to
whether
or not this category,
HSOh,
“comprehends” and explains the totality of the phenomena /
[ev]entities encountered by all of the human experience, in / of that domain,
HSO, that is
recalled by /
known,
directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded
earlier than the life-time of you, the subject/agent in question]
to this subject / agent
of thought -- i.e.,
to you -- or as to whether
another,
second category comes to mind, a
second category
that is needed to advance -- to further ‘‘‘complete’’’
-- the systematic,
scientific [experiential-data-disciplined] comprehension / explanation of
the experiential
content of the domain in question, namely, the domain denoted herein by
HSO.
For all but those with the least personal experience of this domain, and those
in deepest
dogmatic denial of the human experiences of this domain -- across the many
epochs of
recorded human history, and across many cultures/instances of ‘the human
phenome’--
the first category,
HSOh,
will be found wanting in terms of covering the totality of the
human-experiential content of the sub-totality/domain
HSO, and at least a
second
category
will immediately “come to mind” as needed:
HSOqhh, with the meaning
‘‘‘
homosexual orientation’’’,
connoted herein by
HSOm.
We therefore assert [‘
|-.’]
that the solution to the domain-
specific meaning of the term
HSOqhh is ‘‘‘
homosexual orientation’’’ -- that ‘‘‘
homosexual orientation’’’,
denoted by
HSOm,
is the
first ‘contra-category’ to the
category of ‘
heterosexual
orientation’, for
the domain of
Human
Sexual
Orientations,
HSO -- as follows --
HSOqhh |-.= HSOm
-- and our “solved”
step
sHSO = 1 equation
becomes --
HSO)-|-(1 = ( HSOh )21 = ( HSOh )2 =
( HSOh )1 x
(
HSOh )1 = ~(
HSOh )1 =
HSOh ( HSOh ) =
HSOh “of” HSOh =
HSOh ~+~ Delta( HSOh ) =
HSOh ~+~ HSOqhh |-.= HSOh ~+~ HSOm.
In ‘phonogramic translation’, our
step
1 solution -- our solution so far -- can be expressed
as follows --
‘
The general category of human sexual orientations-/preferences-in-general
implicitly ‘‘‘
contains’’’
the special categories of heterosexual orientations and of
homosexual orientations,
each as a synchronically co-
existing qualitative opposite
of / to, the / its, other’.
-- by which we posit that, at least in this
specific case, but perhaps more
generally --
A ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’ category opposes a
‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category, so far as if
forming / expressing a radical dualism, without any resolution of this opposition in any
third, ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’, category.
Our
synchronic,
systematic-dialectical meta-model of the
domain of
Human Sexual
Orientations / Preferences,
HSO, thus asserts, per our
full solution of its
initial,
step
sHSO = 1, ‘self-iteration’, that this
domain consists of the following [possible]
ontological content --
heterosexuality +/& homosexuality.
The human-
species
phenomenon of
homosexual activity, whether
or not a
category
of
exclusive homosexual orientations was
extant in the local variant of ‘the human phenome’, and whether such activity
was socially condemned and punished, or accepted and even embraced by the given
local culture, was recognized, and represented, within virtually all major geographical
loci of the Terran ancient historical record.
For example, consider the following assertions, but noting that they fail to
--
dialectically -- distinguish, clearly, between
homosexual
activity as a
part
of
bisexuality, versus
of
exclusive homosexuality --
“It is not homosexual relations, but
overt homosexuality, which is
the distinctive feature of the [M.D.:
ancient] Greeks.
From the end of
the seventh century BC[E
-- M.D.] they
used the same words for homosexual as for heterosexual emotion ... and the same
for physical consummation ..., a [
M.D.: male ancient] Greek who said ‘I’m in
love’ would not mind being asked ‘With a boy, or with a girl?’, nor would he
mind answering ‘With a boy’, in the assurance that he would get sympathy and
encouragement from his elders and peers.
The law did not penalize homosexual copulation
per se, nor were
there religious sanctions against it.
”
[
Wayne R. Dynes, Steven Donaldson, Homosexuality
in the Ancient World, Routledge [NY: 1992], pp. 127-128.]
The progress of our
dialectical,
systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --
Often, in such
dialectical-mathematical meta-models as this, the «
monads»,
units, or
“logical individuals”, of
the
second category will be found to
be existing in an «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship
with the «
monads»,
units, or
“logical individuals”,
of
the
first category,
in which
each unit of the
second category is made
up out of a usually heterogeneous
multiplicity of some of the
units of the
first category.
However, in this case, I do
not
detect such an «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship in
the
qualitative
otherness of
the
category HSOm, and of
its units, in relation to the
category
HSOh, and
its units.
A Dialogue with Karl Seldon.
Sometime after I had posted the paragraph above, Karl Seldon, the co-founder
of
Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, engaged me in a
dialogue on its topic.
He noted to me that he had recently found indications that there may be,
after all, a subtle «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship
between
individuals
of
heterosexual
orientation and
individuals of the
homosexual orientation.
He agreed with me, that the ‘cross-Phenomic’ persistence of the phenomenon
of
homosexual orientation
suggested at least, in part, a human-Genomic contribution.
Then he stated that the problem, from the perspective of a Darwinian account
-- and of a ‘meta-Darwinian’ account, in the case of
F.E.D.
-- was to explain how our hypothesized genetic contributors to
homosexual orientation
could persist in the human gene pool despite the low probability that the
carriers of those generic contributors who exhibit a more or less
exclusive
homosexual orientation
would contribute to that persistence, by
heterosexual reproduction.
He then called my attention to a
15 August
2008 New Scientist e-article by
Tamsin Osborne, regarding work by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of
Padua, Italy.
The crux of that article reads as follows --
“Bisexual men might have their “hyper-heterosexual”
female relatives to thank for their orientation.”
“
Andrea
Camperio Ciani and colleagues at the University of Padua, Italy, showed
that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children,
suggesting that genes on the X chromosome are responsible.” . . .
“ “It helps to answer a perplexing question - how can there be
‘gay genes’ given that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation?” says
Dean
Hamer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, who was
not involved in the work.”
“ “The answer is remarkably simple: the same gene that causes men to like men also
causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children.”
“The researchers asked 239 men to fill out questionnaires about
their families and their past sexual experiences. On the basis of their answers, the men were
classified as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.”
“The results showed that the maternal aunts, grandmothers and
mothers of both bisexual men and homosexuals had more children than those of
heterosexual men.”
Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a “gay
gene"”, this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual
attraction to men in both men and women.”
“This would influence a woman’s attitude rather than actually
increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children.”
“
Simon LeVay,
a neuroscientist and writer based in West Hollywood, California, describes this
as a sort of “hyper-heterosexuality” and explains how it would help to ensure
that homosexual behaviour was passed on through the generations.”
“ “The positive effect of an X-linked gene on female fecundity
tends to outweigh the negative effect of the gene on male fecundity.”
“According to Camperio Ciani and colleagues, the same genetic
factor appearing to be present in both bisexual and homosexual men provides
further support for the idea that sexuality is determined by a complex mix of
genes and experience.”
“ “We understand that the genetic component has to interact
with something to produce different phenotypes,” says Camperio Ciani.”
“Genetics is not determining the sexual orientation, it’s only
influencing it.” ”
Designate an X chromosome bearing the hypothesized gene(s) as X’.
This hypothesis, of a gender-linked -- X-chromosome-linked -- gene or genes
that tend to induce a heightened attraction, on the part of their bearers,
female and male alike, to individuals
of male embodiment -- i.e., on the part of female, X’X and X’X’ individuals,
and on the part of male, X’Y individuals, alike -- would, if further
corroborated, support the following:
It would support an «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship
between X’Y males of
homosexual
orientation and their
heterosexually-oriented X’X and X’X’ female
relatives.
The very continued existence / reproduction of X’Y male,
homosexually-oriented
individuals, bearing the tendentially
homosexually-orienting gene(s), requires a
heterogeneous multiplicity of X’X or X’X’,
heterosexually-oriented female blood relatives
of such male individuals, who thus also carry the gene(s) in question, and who
reproduce at a higher rate, on average, than do XX female individuals, lacking
the same genetic contributor(s).
In that sense, each X’Y
homosexually-oriented
male individual, so oriented at least in part as a result of bearing the
X-chromosome-resident gene(s) in question, «
aufheben» “contains”, or is
“made up out of”,
a heterogeneous multiplicity of X’X or
X’X’ blood-related, predecessor,
heterosexually-oriented female relatives, who
bear the same X-chromosome-resident gene(s), and who made the X’
gene-influenced
homosexual
orientation of that male individual possible.
Seldon then pointed out that this situation would place the
‘dialectical antithesis’ relation of
heterosexual orientations
with/to
homosexual
orientations in an exceptional, highly asymmetrical
configuration, in that the relation of female [hyper-]
heterosexuality to male
homosexuality would be «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’, but, at least
by the X’X’/X’X/X’Y hypothesis alone, the relation of male
heterosexuality to female
homosexuality would
appear
not to be
likewise «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’.
This anomaly had led Seldon to hazard the speculative hypothesis, which he
then shared with me, of a complementary, X’’X’’/X’’X/X’’Y
‘‘‘hyper-heterosexuality’’’ mechanism contributing, at the level of the human
Genome, to female homosexual orientations as well.
Designate an X chromosome bearing the hypothesized gene(s) for
male hyper-heterosexuality as X’’.
By Seldon’s speculative hypothesis, male individuals with the X’’Y genotype,
thus bearing the gene or genes that tend to induce a heightened attraction, on
the part of their bearers,
male and female
alike, to individuals of female embodiment -- i.e., on the part
of male, X’’Y individuals, and on the part of female, X’’X and X’’X’’
individuals, alike -- would, if further corroborated, support the following:
It would support an «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship
between X’’X and X’’X’’ females of
homosexual orientation and their
heterosexually-oriented
X’’ male relatives.
The very continued existence / reproduction of X’’X and X’’X’’ female,
homosexually-oriented
individuals, bearing the tendentially
homosexually-orienting gene(s), requires a
heterogeneous multiplicity of X’’Y,
heterosexually-oriented male blood relatives of
such female individuals, who thus also carry the gene(s) in question, and who
reproduce at a higher rate, on average, than do XY male individuals, lacking
the same genetic contributor(s).
In that sense, each X’’X or X’’X’’,
homosexually-oriented female individual, so
oriented at least in part as a result of bearing the X-chromosome-resident
gene(s) in question, «
aufheben»
“contains”, or is
“made up out of”,
a heterogeneous multiplicity
of X’’Y, blood-related, predecessor,
heterosexually-oriented male relatives, who
bear the same X-chromosome-resident gene(s), and who made the X’’
gene-influenced
homosexual
orientation of that female individual possible.
Seldon further speculated that the X’’ version of the X chromosome, even
when present in female individuals who did
not develop exclusive
homosexual orientation, might still contribute
to a propensity for female-female solidarity, even among
heterosexually-oriented
females, that, starting with the earliest, forager band human-social
formations, and continuing into later-emerged human social formations, would
promote a “checking-and-balancing” against, and would thereby tend to reduce, the
intra-band strife due to female-versus-female jealousies, and even murderous
vendettas, arising from competition over males perceived as “advantaged”,
“leading”, “resource-rich”, etc., per said females, that might otherwise tend
to compromise the reproductive success of the entire band, or of the entire
later social formation.
If both the Ciani hypothesis and the Seldon hypothesis were to be upheld
empirically, we would then have a situation in which -- at least for that portion of
homosexual orientations that would then be explained by these X-linked genetic factors -- male
homosexual orientation would be «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadologically’ related to
female [hyper-]
heterosexual
orientation, and in which female
homosexual orientation would be «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadologically’ related to
male [hyper-]
heterosexual
orientation, symmetrically, so that, overall, an «
aufheben»
‘meta-monadological’ relationship of some
homosexual orientations
to some
heterosexual orientations
would be empirically supported.
Questionnaire-based survey research regarding contemporary
homosexually-oriented
female populations, complementary to the research reported by Ciani,
et al.,
that provided evidence supporting the ‘hyper-heterosexuality’ hypothesis to, at
least in part, explain male
homosexual
orientation in a [meta-]Darwinian way, could be engaged to
ascertain whether or not Seldon’s speculative hypothesis regarding a
complementary genetic basis for female
homosexual orientation exhibits empirical
merit, and deserves further investigation.
Test Step
2.
step
sHSO = 2.
Our next
step,
step
sHSO = 2,
in our consideration of this sub-totality / domain of human
experience, denoted
by
HSO, is to
reflect upon the question as to whether or not the
‘cumulum’
sum of
two categories that we
attained as of
step
sHSO = 1,
suffices to complete the categorial
comprehension / systematic-scientific
explanation of the total experiential content of this domain,
or whether (an)
additional categor(y)(ies) (is)(are) needed to complete this
system of categories
as a systematic,
taxonomic, scientific “containment” of this domain of experiential reality and of our knowledge of that realty.
Our
general ‘dialectical
meta-model
meta-equation’ for this domain of human experience,
denoted
HSO --
HSO)-|-(sHSO
= ( HSOh )2sHSO, for
step
sHSO = 2 --
-- becomes the
step-
2-
specific
‘equation-model’ --
HSO)-|-(2 = ( HSOh )22 = ( HSOh )4 =
( HSOh )2 x
( HSOh )2 =
( HSOh + HSOm )1 x ( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
( HSOh + HSOm )2 =
~( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh + HSOm ) ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ~+~ Delta( HSOh + HSOm ) =
( ( (HSOh ~+~ HSOm ) ~+~ HSOqmh ) ~+~ HSOqmm )
-- wherein the final symbols-formation above is intended to assert a
four-term,
four
category-symbol
‘oppositionary
sum’, or
‘dialectical cumulum’, in which
not only is
HSOm
a categorial,
qualitative
opposite [‘
~’] of / to
HSOh,
but in which also
HSOqmh is a categorial,
qualitative
opposite
of / to
both HSOm & HSOh
individually,
and of / to their sum, or
‘cumulum’,
( HSOh ~+~ HSOm ),
collectively, and
in which
HSOqmm is a categorial,
qualitative
opposite
not only of / to
HSOqmh,
and of / to
HSOm,
and of / to
HSOh,
individually, but is also a categorial,
qualitative
opposite to their
‘cumulum’ / sum
collectively as well.
Our task for this
step,
step
sHSO = 2,
is to solve for the
two
new, initially
unknown,
‘‘‘algebraic’’’ terms -- i.e., for the
HSO domain categories -- whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’
descriptions
involve, respectively, a mixed predicate, ‘
mh’, as [post-]subscript epithet, and a
double-
m
predicate, ‘
mm’,
as its [post-]subscript epithet.
The
F.E.D. standard solution algorithm
for a
“hybrid”
category-symbolizing term, like
HSOqmh,
includes searching for an existing category of the given domain which is
some
kind of
combination, ‘complex unity’, or
dialectical synthesis,
to the
two categories
out
of which
it
arises, by interaction / ‘inter-[re-]flexion’ of the
first category, denoted by
HSOh,
with / by the
second category,
denoted by
HSOm,
and by the ‘‘‘mutual critique’’’
of each category by the / its other category, in terms of either, or of both,
merely
“summed” together, achieving the encompassment / exhaustion / fulfillment of
grasping
the total content of the given domain as known to prior, “chaotic” [Marx] --
unsystematic, or
‘not-yet-systematized’
-- human experience, as well as in terms of
what
has already come to be known
systematically, so far, via the systematization consummated
up to and through
step
sHSO = 1.
That is, the ‘
HSOm x HSOh’,
or the ‘
HSOm ( HSOh )’,
or
the ‘
HSOm “of” HSOh’,
or the
~m( HSOh ) component of the symbols-formations --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) x ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm )( ( HSOh + HSOm ) )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- or --
‘
~( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject, or agent, of
thought,
again [be]holding the
first
category,
HSOh,
in your mind, or written out / described,
“objectively”,
and
statically, e.g., on paper,
or on screen, with your mind acting as / simulating the
second
category,
held
“subjectively”
and
actively, in your mind,
and reflecting upon / evaluating
that category,
as [a mind mentally-embodying]
the
second category,
and
mutually
comparing
that first category
and/with its
consecutive, second,
other-category,
HSOm,
that you are‘mentally-incarnating’, in relation to the domain in which
both of these
categories
inhere -- at least for the ‘human phenome’ you have inherited, and that you
also
instantiate -- i.e., to the/
their “domain”,
HSO -- the
totality of
reference for
both
categories -- as to whether or not the
first
category,
HSOh,
in ‘additive opposition’,
or in ‘oppositionary addition’, to the
second category,
HSOm, as forming an
‘ideo-cumulum’, or ‘categorial cumulum’ of just
two category-symbols, or
‘category-references’, together “span” -- “comprehend” and “contain”, and
“explain” -- the totality of the
phenomena / [ev]entities encountered by all of
the human experience, in/of that domain,
HSO, that is recalled by /
known,
directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded earlier than
the life-time of you, the subject/agent in question]
to this subject/agent of
thought -- i.e., to you -- or as to whether yet
another,
third category comes to
mind, a
third category
that is necessary to advance -- to further complete -- the systematic,
scientific [experiential-data-disciplined] comprehension / explanation of
the experiential
content of the domain in question, the domain that we have designated, hereon, by
HSO.
To our lights the existing
category -- the “populated”; “instantiated”, empirically
observed
category
-- that combines
features /
qualities of the
HSOm
category, with
features /-
qualities of the
HSOh
category, thus fulfilling the
model-equation-generated description
of, or “specs.” of, and thus “solving for”, the initially, “algebraically”
unknown”
category description HSOqmh, has the meaning ‘‘‘
bisexual orientation’’’,
connoted herein by
HSOb.
We therefore assert [‘
|-.’]
that the solution to the domain-
specific meaning of the term
HSOqmh is ‘‘‘
bisexual orientations’’’ -- that the category of ‘‘‘
bisexual orientations’’’,
denoted by
HSOb,
is the
first ‘uni-category’ to the “antithesis-sum”
formed by the ‘cumulum’
of the
category
of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’, in
‘additive opposition’ to the
category
of ‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’,
for the domain of
Human
Sexual
Orientations,
HSO
-- as follows --
HSOqmh |-.= HSOb
-- and our so far
partially
“solved”
step
sHSO = 2 model-equation becomes --
HSO)-|-(sHSO = ( HSOh )2sHSO, for
step
sHSO = 2, which is
--
HSO)-|-(2 = ( HSOh )22 = ( HSOh )4 =
( HSOh )2 x ( HSOh )2 =
( HSOh + HSOm )1 x ( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
~ x
( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
~( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
( HSOh + HSOm )2 =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh + HSOm ) ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ~+~ Delta( HSOh + HSOm ) =
HSOh ~+~ HSOm ~+~ HSOqmh ~+~ HSOqmm |-.=
HSOh ~+~ HSOm ~+~ HSOb ~+~ HSOqmm.
Note that the newly-solved-for
third
category, that of ‘‘‘
bi-sexuality’’’, when described as that of ‘
bi-sexual sexual orientations’,
almost rings like it is thereby being ‘misnomered’, because the concept of ‘‘‘
bi-sexuality’’’ seems more like a
suspension of ‘sexual orientation’,
like a
negation
of each / both of the
two
preceding, “standard” sexual orientations -- i.e., of ‘
heterosexual sexual orientations’,
and of ‘
homosexual sexual orientations’,
alike -- like a
‘non-orientation’,
or, more aptly, like an
‘omni-directional’,
‘omni-sexual’ sexual orientation, relative to the
two predecessor
categories of mutually-oppositely-directed sexual orientations.
It seems so because this
third category, that of ‘‘‘
bi-sexuality’’’, incorporates
both of its
two predecessor,
previously disparate -- previously
opposite -- categories of possible directions
of
sexual orientation.
Will the ‘‘‘relativity’’’ of this
third category, and of its predecessor
categories,
vis-a-vis
the
fourth category,
HSOqmm -- the still as yet
unsolved-for possible
category first
‘explicitized’ in
step
2
-- change that perception of
category
three?
Our next and final task, for this
step,
step
sHSO = 2,
is to
solve-for that very
fourth,
new,
initially
unknown,
possible-
category-representing ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ term, i.e., for
the
final
step
sHSO = 2,
HSO domain category-symbol, or
‘‘‘algebraic’’’ category-
description, whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ specification involves a double-
m
predicate, ‘
mm’,
as
its ‘[post-]subscript-epithet’:
HSOqmm.
In preparation for such tasks, we have found it useful to scrutinize, in
greater detail, with greater concreteness, determinateness, and specificity than previously, e.g., herein,
the qualitative nature
of that complex ‘multi-opposition’ inherent in the
so-far-solved-for first triad of human sexual orientations / preferences categories,
viz. --
HSOh ~+~ HSOm ~+~ HSOb
-- i.e. --
( (HSOh ~+~ HSOm ) ~+~ HSOqmh )
-- or, in ‘phonogramic translation’ of the ideograms above --
‘
The general category of human sexual orientations- / preferences- in-general
implicitly ‘‘‘
contains’’’
the special categories of heterosexual orientations,
homosexual orientations,
and bi-sexual orientations,
each as a synchronically
co-
existing qualitative opposite to each of its others’.
-- by which we posit that, at least in this
specific case, but perhaps more
generally --
The ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’ category opposes the opposition /
‘‘‘dialectical
antithesis’’’
of the ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category and the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’
category,
collectively,
and,
also,
‘‘‘distributively’’’,
opposes the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’
category individually,
and also,
likewise,
opposes the
‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’
category individually.
Our
synchronic,
systematic-dialectical model of the domain of
Human Sexual
Orientations / Preferences,
HSO, thus asserts, per our
partial solution of its, we
hold,
final [final for the limited --
Claimed -- mission of this text],
step
sHSO = 2, ‘self-iteration’, that this domain consists of the following [possible]
ontological content --
heterosexuality +/& homosexuality +/& bi-sexuality
+/& an as yet-unsolved category.
The human-
species
phenomenon of
bi-sexual activity
-- i.e., of human individuals engaging sexually
both with other
individuals of their opposite gender,
and with other individuals of their own
gender -- whether or not a
category of
bisexual orientations was extant in the local
variant of ‘the human phenome’, and whether such activity was socially
condemned and punished, or accepted and even embraced by the given local
culture, was recognized, and represented, within virtually all major geographical
loci of the Terran ancient historical record.
For example, the following passage, which is also of great interest from the
viewpoint of ‘psychohistorical dialectics’, or of ‘dialectical psychohistory’,
in that it reflects upon the epochal differences in «
mentalité», and in ‘categorial m
emesis’,
between the ‘human phenomes’ of classical antiquity versus of the modern Occident
[at least] -- implicitly suggests that
bisexuality was far more prevalent, in human
population percentage terms, than was
homosexuality,
in the classical ancient Occident, though not recognized, by either of these
terms, and
categories, by the classical ancients --
“I had made extensive use of the terms ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ -- terms that the
[M.D.: ancient] Greeks and the [M.D.: ancient] Romans would not even have understood.”
“Indeed, ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ are modern words for modern concepts.”
“It was for this reason that, in the original preface, I pointed out that for ‘the [
M.D.: ancient] Greeks and Romans ... homosexuality was not an exclusive choice. Loving another man was not an option falling outside the norm, a different or somehow deviant choice. It was just one part of the experience of life ... [which] during one
’s lifetime... would alternate and even interweave (sometimes simultaneously) with the love of a woman
’, and that
‘in both Greece and Rome ... the fundamental opposition between different types of sexual behaviour was not the heterosexual/homosexual contrast but the active/passive contrast’ [pp. xv-xviii below].”
“Thus I sought to use these terms to describe sexual behaviour rather than a consistent sexual preference.”
“The choice of the modern term
‘bisexuality
’ in the title was intended to underline this.”
“However, as some recent studies have pointed out, the emphasis placed on sexual behaviour may lead to misunderstanding.”
“In fact there is a risk involved in wholly accepting Foucault
’s idea that homosexuality is a social construction and that in antiquity
‘the homosexual was not a species
’. ... . The risk is that one may forget that sexual preference did exist in the ancient world.”
“In other words, even if the gender of a person
’s sexual partner was not the central issue in ancient society
’s view of sex roles, individuals who preferred to have sex, or who fell in love, principally with persons of the same sex existed also in antiquity.”
“Let us consider, for example, the case of men who were passive partners in sexual intercourse with other men.”
“Some were prostitutes who behaved
‘like women
’ independently from their sexual preferences; others were men who liked being penetrated by other men.”
“At least some of the men termed
katapygones in Athens were homosexuals in the modern sense of the word..., as were their Roman counterparts, the
cinaedi... .”
“And these individuals experienced discrimination similar to that suffered by modern homosexuals: in Rome the discrimination was both social and legal (as indeed this book shows), while in Athens it was only social.”
“Nonetheless, one should use the term
‘homosexual
’ with great care.”
“These individuals were not the victim of abuse and discrimination because they liked to have sex with persons of the same sex. This was not reproached
per se.”
“They were discriminated against because they were penetrated: the men who penetrated them, whatever the reason for this behaviour, did not suffer any discrimination.”
“Roman laws punishing homosexual behaviour punished the passive sexual partner alone, not the active one.”
“Thus
‘homosexuals
’, in the modern sense of the word, were seen as comprising two (or more) groups rather than one.”
“Which brings us back to our starting point:
‘homosexuality
’ in the modern sense of the word existed in the ancient world, but [
M.D.: at least the classical-Occidental] ancient societies did not recognize
‘homosexual
’ as a [
M.D.: singular] category.
”
[
Eva Cantarella, Bisexuality in the
Ancient World, Yale University Press [New Haven: 2002], pp. viii-ix.]
The progress of our
dialectical,
systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --
We can more deeply define the
three categories of sexual orientations surfaced, and
solved,
so far, by taking into account the
subjective versus the
objective sexual configurations -- meaning, exclusively, the configuations of their physical-biological genitalia at birth -- for the human
individuals exhibiting these orientations / preferences, distinctions that are implicit, but
not explicit, in the categorial-level that is captured by our ‘meta-model’.
From that
subjective/
objective genital’ aspect, the «
species»
category of sexual
orientations
named “
heterosexuality”
is that of the sexual preference exhibited by those of the
same at-birth genital configuration, female or male,
subjectively and
objectively, and who are sexually
attracted to those who are of the
opposite genital configuration, male or female,
subjectively
and
objectively.
Indeed, this
first
«
species»
category of sexual
orientations, that of “
heterosexual
orientations”, breaks out into two
sub-«
species»
sub-categories --
1.
The
heterosexual orientation of
subjectively and
objectively female humans who are
sexually attracted to
subjectively and
objectively male humans;
2.
The
heterosexual orientation of
subjectively and
objectively male humans who are
sexually attracted to
subjectively
and
objectively female humans.
From this same aspect, the «
species»
category of sexual orientations named
“homosexuality” is that of
the sexual preference exhibited by those of the
same at-birth genital configuration, female or male,
subjectively
and
objectively, and
who are sexually attracted to those who are also of the
same at-birth genital configuration, female or male,
subjectively and
objectively, as well.
Again, this
second
«
species»
category of sexual
orientations, that of
“homosexual
orientations”, breaks out into two
sub-«
species»
sub-categories --
a.
That of the
homosexual orientation of
subjectively and
objectively female humans who are
sexually attracted to
subjectively
and
objectively female humans;
b.
That of the
homosexual orientation of
subjectively and
objectively male humans who are
sexually attracted to
subjectively
and
objectively male humans.
From this same aspect, the «
species»
category of sexual orientations named
“bisexuality” is that of
the [relative lack of] sexual preferences exhibited by those of the
same at-birth genital configuration,
subjectively
and
objectively, and
who are sexually attracted to those who are of the
same at-birth genital configuration,
subjectively and
objectively, and
also to those who are of the
opposite at-birth genital configuration,
subjectively and
objectively, as well.
So, also our
third
«
species»
category of sexual
orientations, that of
“bisexual
orientations”, breaks out into two
sub-«
species»
sub-categories --
i.
That of the
bisexual orientations of
subjectively and
objectively female humans who are
sexually attracted to
both
subjectively and
objectively female humans,
and to
subjectively and
objectively male humans;
We may also consider that there are
sub-sub-«
species» of this
sub-«
species», e.g. --
i.
i That of
subjectively and
objectively female bisexuals who are somewhat
biased, in their sexual
preferences,
toward subjectively
and
objectively male humans, and somewhat
biased
away from other
subjectively
and
objectively female humans;
i.
ii That of
subjectively and
objectively female bisexuals who are somewhat
biased, in their sexual
preferences,
toward other
subjectively
and
objectively female humans, and
somewhat biased
away from subjectively
and
objectively male humans;
i.
iii That of
subjectively and
objectively female bisexuals who are
neutral -- essentially
equal in their sexual
preferences toward other
subjectively
and
objectively female humans, and toward
subjectively and
objectively male humans;
ii.
That of the
bisexual orientations of
subjectively and
objectively male humans who are
sexually attracted to
both
subjectively and
objectively female humans,
and subjectively and
objectively male humans.
Again, we may also consider that there are
sub-sub-«
species» of this
sub-«
species» too, e.g. --
ii.
i That of
subjectively and
objectively male bisexuals who are somewhat
biased, in their sexual
preferences,
toward subjectively
and
objectively female humans, and
somewhat biased
away from other
subjectively
and
objectively male humans;
ii.
ii That of
subjectively and
objectively male bisexuals who are somewhat
biased, in their sexual
preferences,
away from subjectively
and
objectively female humans, and
somewhat biased
toward other
subjectively
and
objectively male humans;
ii.
iii That of
subjectively and
objectively male bisexuals who are
neutral -- essentially
equal in their sexual
preferences toward
subjectively
and
objectively female humans, and toward
other
subjectively
and
objectively male humans.
The
category represented as
HSOqmm, that arises out of
the --
‘
HSOm x HSOm’,
or the ‘
HSOm ( HSOm )’,
or
the ‘
HSOm “of” HSOm’
-- operation, as one of the two ‘‘‘moments’’’ within the overall
step
sHSO = 2
‘self-reflexion’,
‘self-critique’,
‘immanent critique’,
‘‘‘internal critique’’’, or
‘dialectical
self-negation’
of the
step
sHSO = 1
‘categorial cumulum’
( HSOh + HSOm ),
namely --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) x ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm )( ( HSOh + HSOm ) )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- is expected, per the
Encyclopedia Dialectica
standard
‘dialectical interpretation of
the NQ meta-numbers’,
to be a
‘second antithesis category’, i.e., an
‘antithesis to the
first antithesis’ category -- in this case, with respect to the
category HSOqm =
HSOm.
Given our solution for the
‘first antithesis category’,
HSOqm =
HSOm,
as connoting the
category
of
‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’,
this
‘second antithesis category’,
HSOqmm,
is therefore expected to connote some kind of
‘‘‘non-homosexual’’’, or
‘contra-homosexual’, or
‘‘‘anti-homosexual’’’
orientation -- i.e., to be
a
category
embodying a
‘‘‘dialectical negation’’’ of the
category of
‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’,
HSOqhh |-.= HSOqm = HSOm.
However, this
category,
described as
HSOqmm in our application, herein, of the
NQ_,
dialectical,
categorial-combinatoric algebra,
is also expected to be a
supplementary
category to
category HSOqhh
|-.= HSOqm = HSOm, and,
indeed, a
supplementary
category to
all of the
categories of
this model, surfaced, and solved, herein, so far.
The
category
specified as
HSOqmm is
not
expected to simply and ‘circularly’ return us to
category HSOqh = HSOh, as would
a mere formal-logical,
propositional
negation --
|-. not-not-p = p.
Category HSOqmm is expected to be a ‘‘‘helical’’’,
‘‘‘supplementary opposite’’’ to, and
“above”, each and all of the
three categories
elicited earlier in this exposition.
So far, we have surfaced
three
categories -- representing
heterosexual,
homosexual, and
bisexual orientations, respectively -- that are
‘inter-mutually’,
dialectically
opposing categories, each to each of its
two others, i.e., with
‘dialectical «
differentia specifica»’, dividing,
internally, the unitary «
genos»
of human sexual orientations/preferences,
as we have seen above.
Despite these
‘dialectical
«
differentia specifica»’
-- this
‘‘‘internal
contradiction’’’ between
‘hetero-’ and
‘homo-’, as the
‘intra-duality’,
‘self-duality’, or
‘intra-multiality’
within the unitary «
genos»
of
human sexual
orientations / preferences -- all
three of these
mutually-opposing categories are
united by -- have in common -- an alignment of
subjective and
objective sexuality, i.e., objective sexuality in terms of physical genitalia at birth, one which, we hold, is
not
exhaustive of, or definitive for, or ‘essence-ial’ to, this «
genos», but only to the
first three sub-categories /
sub-«
gene» / «
species» thereof.
The
categories of ‘
heterosexual orientation’,
‘homosexual orientation’,
and ‘
bisexual orientation’
all involve ‘sexual orientees / preferees’ who are each personally aligned in
terms of their
subjective
gender identity -- of their affective gender identification -- and in terms of
their
objective
gender identity, i.e., of their genotypic and phenotypic gender -- of their
objective genital configuration,
their
objective secondary
sexual characteristics, etc. -- as either
subjectively and
objectively female, or
subjectively and
objectively male [leaving out of our consideration, for
the present, the
category
of
objectively --
i.e., of ‘genotypically’ and ‘phenotypically’ --
hermaphroditic ‘sexual orientees /
preferees’].
We hold that the
next,
fourth,
‘‘‘dialectical antithesis’’’ category -- that the
second
‘contra-category’ -- should mark a
break with / a
‘dialectical-categorial
negation’,
of this
subjective /
objective ‘gen
deral’ alignment,
shared by all previously-evoked
categories of this domain / «
genos».
We hold that the
next
category, the
fourth
category, the
final
category of
step
sHSO = 2, algebraically identified by the descriptor ‘
HSOqmm’,
i.e., thus
represented as being the
‘self-combinatoric self-hybrid self-critique category’
based upon
category
‘
HSOqm’, should be a
category ‘essence-ially’
involving the
“non-alignment”,
‘‘‘dis-alignment’’,
‘‘‘cross-alignment’’’, or
‘contra-alignment’ of
subjective and
objective gender identity.
The
F.E.D. standard solution algorithm
for a
“self-hybrid”
category-symbolizing term,
like
HSOqmm, includes searching
for an existing, experienced category of the given
domain which is some kind of
opposite,
or
antithesis, to the
category out of which it
arises, i.e., by ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ of the
category denoted by
HSOm, and by
‘self-critique’ of this
category
as encompassing / exhausting / fulfilling the total
content of the given domain
as it was known to prior, “chaotic” [Marx] --
unsystematic
/ not-yet-systematized’, not yet ‘‘‘theorized’’’ -- human experience,
i.e.,
as achieving the encompassment / exhaustion / fulfillment
of -- as grasping --
the totality, the total content of the given domain as known to prior, “chaotic”
human experience, as well as in terms of
what has come to be known
systematically,
so far, via the systematization consummated up to and through
step
sHSO = 2
of our model-guided
method of
presentation.
That is, the ‘
HSOm x HSOm’,
or ‘
HSOm ( HSOm )’,
or ‘
HSOm “of” HSOm’
component of the, ‘squared’, ‘self-application’ /-
‘self-operation’ / ‘self-reflexion’ /
dialectical self-negation /
self-«
aufheben» /-
‘‘‘self-critique’’’ symbols-formations --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) x ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm )( ( HSOh + HSOm ) )’
-- or --
‘
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm )’
-- connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject, or agent, of
thought,
again [be]holding the
second
category,
HSOm,
in your mind, or written out/described,
“objectively”,
and
statically, e.g., on paper,
or on screen, with your mind also acting
as
/ simulating that
second category,
thus held also,
“subjectively”
and
actively, in your mind,
and reflecting
upon / evaluating
that
category,
as
[a mind mentally-embodying]
that
very category, and
self-comparing
that category,
‘
...( HSOm )’,
thus [be]held
objectively, externally,
with/to/against
itself, by/as/in
‘
HSOm ( ... )’, thus
as held-in-[your-]mind,
subjectively,
internally, in that you are also then ‘mentally-incarnating’
that category,
in relation to
the DOMAIN in which
that category
inheres -- at least for the ‘‘‘human culture’’’,
the
‘human phenome’ that you have inherited, and that you also instantiate -- i.e.,
in terms of
this candidate category’s
‘‘‘completeness’’’ with respect to
its DOMAIN
--
here
HSO,
the
totality of reference for
that category,
HSOm -- that
is, as to whether
or not
that
category,
HSOm,
is sufficient for the human mind, grasping
it, as well as
what has preceded
it, in the
systematic categorial-progression
exposition of its
DOMAIN,
to ‘‘‘complete’’’ the “comprehension”, the cognitive “containment”, and the systematic
“explanation”
of the totality of the phenomena / [ev]entities / content encountered by
all of the
human experience, in / of that domain,
HSO, that is recalled by /
known,
directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded earlier than the
life-time
of you, the subject / agent in question],
to
this subject / agent of thought -- i.e.,
to
you -- or as to whether yet
another,
fourth category
comes to mind,
a
fourth
category that is necessary to advance -- to further ‘‘‘complete’’’ -- the
systematic, classificatory,
taxonomic,‘ratio-nal’, scientific [experiential-data-disciplined]
‘theoretic’ comprehension /
explanation of the human-experiential content
of the
DOMAIN
in question, in this case, of
HSO.
To our lights, the existing
category
-- the “populated”; “instantiated”, long-empirically-
observed
category
-- that
specifically
completes, by
‘supplementarily
opposing’,
the
HSOm
category, thus fulfilling the model-equation-generated “specs.” of, and thus
“solving for”, the initially, “algebraically”
unknown”
category description, HSOqmm,
is the
category
of ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’, connoted
herein by
HSOn.
Those of ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’ are
not ‘‘‘
homosexual’’’.
They are sexually
attracted to other human individuals who are,
subjectively and
objectively, of
the
opposite gender
to the gender to which they assign themselves
subjectively.
Those of ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’ are
‘subjectively heterosexual’ in their
sexual orientation.
They are, in some
sense,
‘objectively homosexual’
in their
sexual orientations,
but, in the
domain
of
human sexual orientations, it is the
subjective
dimension of
sexual
orientations that is
definitive and decisive.
They may be
mistaken for
those of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’
because,
objectively,
i.e.,
in terms of genotypic and phenotypic genitalia, they are of the same
gender as those
to whom they are sexually attracted.
However -- and on the contrary
-- those
of ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’ constitute a
sexual orientations category of
contrariety with respect to
the
category
of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’, and
also a
category
in part
akin to, but still also
qualitatively
different from, and,
overall,
qualitatively
opposite to, as well as
supplementary to, the
category of ‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’.
Because, in the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual
orientations’’’, subjective
and objective gender
do not coincide, the
category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual
orientations’’’ is a further ‘contra-category’ to each of the categories of the HSO domain evoked earlier in our [method of] presentation, and to all
of these three earlier categories,
collectively, as a unity, since, for all three,
subjective and objective gender do coincide, whereas, for the fourth category, of ‘‘‘trans-sexual
orientation’’’ -- the second ‘contra-category’ of this dialectical categorial progression
-- they do NOT.
The category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual
orientations’’’ involves a dialectical negation of a determination which all three previously-presented categories of human sexual orientations / preferences all share, namely, a qualitative, dialectical negation of the determination of subjective
and objective gender alignment.
The
determination of subjective
and objective gender DIS-alignment which characterizes the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual
orientations/preferences’’’ is therefore a ‘‘‘determinate negation’’’ of the the determination of subjective
and objective gender ALIGNMENT which characterizes each of the three previously-presented categories in this categorial progression.
We therefore assert [‘
|-.’]
that the solution to the domain-
specific meaning of the term /
category-symbol / category-description / category-specification /
symbols-formation
HSOqmm is ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’,
that ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’, herein
denoted by
HSOn,
is the
second ‘contra-category’ to the
“synthesis sum”, or
“synthesis
triad”, formed by the
‘triadic cumulum’ of the
category of ‘‘‘
bisexual orientations’’’,
in ‘additive opposition’ to
both the
category of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’, plus --
and in its own right, also in ‘additive opposition’ to -- the
category of ‘‘‘
heterosexual
orientations’’’,
for the domain of
Human
Sexual
Orientations,
HSO, as follows --
HSOqmm |-.= HSOn.
Our now
fully “solved”
step
sHSO = 2 equation is then --
HSO)-|-(sHSO = ( HSOh )2sHSO, for
step
sHSO = 2,
which becomes --
HSO)-|-(2 = ( HSOh )22 = ( HSOh )4 =
( HSOh )2 x ( HSOh )2 =
( HSOh + HSOm )1 x ( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
~ x
( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
~( HSOh + HSOm )1 =
( ~HSOh +
~HSOm )1 =
( HSOh + HSOm )2 =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh + HSOm ) ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) “of” ( HSOh + HSOm ) =
( HSOh + HSOm ) ~+~ Delta( HSOh + HSOm ) =
HSOh ~+~ HSOm ~+~ HSOqmh ~+~ HSOqmm |-.=
HSOh ~+~ HSOm ~+~ HSOb ~+~ HSOn
-- or, in ‘phonogramic translation’ of the ideograms above --
‘The
general category, of human sexual orientations- / preferences-
in-
general,
implicitly ‘‘‘
contains’’’ /
connotes the special categories of heterosexual orientations,
of homosexual orientations,
of bi-sexual orientations,
and of trans-sexual orientations,
each as a synchronically co-
existing qualitative opposite to each of its
others’.
-- by which we posit that, at least in this
specific case, but perhaps more
generally --
The ‘‘‘dialectical second antithesis’’’
category opposes the ‘intermutual’ opposition
of
the ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’
category,
opposing the opposition
/
‘‘‘dialectical
antithesis’’’ of the ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category and the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’
category,
collectively,
and it also,
‘‘‘distributively’’’,
opposes the
‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’
category individually,
and also,
likewise,
opposes the
‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’ category individually,
and also,
likewise,
opposes the
‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’
category individually.
Our
synchronic,
systematic-dialectical model of the domain of
Human Sexual
Orientations / Preferences,
HSO, thus asserts, per our solution of its, we
hold,
final [final with respect to the limited --
Claimed -- mission of this text],
step
sHSO = 2
‘self-iteration’, that this domain consists of the following [possible]
ontological content --
heterosexuality +/& homosexuality +/& bi-sexuality +/& trans-sexuality.
The phenomenology modernly named by phrases such as ‘
trans-sexual sexual orientations’ is harder to detect, with any certainty, in the typical historical records / ‘psychohistorical aritifacts’ [or ‘psychofacts’] of ancient civilizations, than are the phenomenologies of ‘
heterosexuality’, ‘
homosexuality’, and ‘
bi-sexuality’.
For example, no ancient records of the kind of
full gender-conversion surgical / hormonal operations of which modern civilization has become technologically capable, starting
circa 1830 C.E., are known to us B.C.E., apart from forms of castration of
objectively male trans-sexuals -- which
might be regarded as a kind of
partial gender-conversion operation, e.g., as among the Gallae, or Galloi, of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and, perhaps, ancient Phrygia, and as among the Hijras of ancient [and modern] India.
Nevertheless, abundant representation of specimens of “transvestism” are available in the ancient Terran historical record,
some of which may
possibly be associated with cases of “
trans-sexual” orientations as modernly defined.
The
2004 dictionary/encyclopedia-like book by John Younger, entitled
Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z, identifies a number of specimens of such data, individually, under its consecutive entries for “TRANSSEXUALITY” and for “TRANSVESTISM”.
In this book’s entry for “TRANSSEXUALITY”, we read --
“the change from one sex to the other. Ino-Leuothea raises the young DIONYSUS as a girl; ... Lucius Mucianus claimed to have seen two transsexuals at Argos and Smyrna; and Pliny reports four in 171 BCE and himself inspected one from Thysdrus (
HN 7.23; Aulus Gellius 9.4.12 ff.).
”
In this book’s immediately following entry, for “TRANSVESTISM”, we read --
“. . .Part of the characterization of EFFEMINACY (CINAEDI; PROSTITUTES) is the man's attention to his body, to wear make-up and act like a woman (Suetonius,
Caligula 52). A set of late Archaic kylikes [
M.D.: a type of cup for drinking wine] depict “male symposiasts reveling in extravagant eastern garb,” interpreted as enacting
habrosúnê, refined sensuality [
M.D.: “lushness”] (Boardman and Kurtz 1986; Kurke 1997: 132), but they may also be mocking women.”
[
John Younger, Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z, Routledge [NY: 2004], p. 197].
The progress of our
dialectical,
systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --
‘“The Morals of this Story”’.
The most crucial “moral of this story” is the continually empirically-validated precept to confront the phenomena of human experience honestly, factually, and rationally -- i.e., scientifically --
not persisting in denial of experienced actuality, and not repressing empirical truth.
Not only the phenomena of
heterosexuality, but those of
homosexuality,
bi-sexuality, and
trans-sexuality as well, are attested to by recorded data of many kinds, spanning the entire history of recorded human civilizations, across many revolutions in ‘the human phenome’, in “human cultures”.
This suggests that all four categories of human sexual phenomena have roots in the human genome, and
not merely in some few, rare, variants of ‘the human phenome’.
True,
heterosexuality is the category most directly and obviously related to human social reproduction, and to the expansion of that human social reproduction.
This fact, however, provides no grounds for the repression or persecution of these other -- persistently-manifested --
species of human sexual orientation / preference.
Indeed, the persistence of the other three categories might make us ask ourselves --
“¿Are there really only
two human genders, or are there, in fact, actually
four, or -- taking into account the
sub-categories of the
four categories that we have considered -- even
eight, or
eleven?”
Another key learning about dialectics that this
specific
dialectic instantiates: Not in every [case of]
dialectic is the ‘
synthesis category’ necessarily more desirable than, or superior to, the ‘
antithesis category’, or the ‘
antithesis category’ more desirable than, or superior to, the ‘
thesis category’ .
Sometimes, all of these kinds of
dialectic categories can reside upon a level plane of ‘peeriority’.
In our exploration of
the systematic dialectic of TV Series --
http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-interlude-dialectic-of-tv.html
-- we saw that some ‘
synthesis categories’ can represent anomalous, or even undesirable -- unsuccessful -- cases.
In our exploration of
the systematic dialectic of Modern Computerware --
http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-b-interlude-dialectic-of.html
-- we saw that some ‘
synthesis categories’ can represent
exceptional, or rare, little known, cases.
In our exploration of
the systematic dialectic of the Basic Operations of Standard Arithmetic --
http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-c-interlude-dialectic-of-basic.html
-- we saw that some ‘
synthesis categories’ can represent ‘operatorial entities’ that are scarcely ever recognized as such in their own right.
If the «
genos» of
dialectics -- and the
generic ‘meta-numerals’ of the Seldonian first
dialectical arithmetic -- are true
universals, able to embrace, and to encompass, the
vast diversity of
specific
synchronic domains, and of their
synchronic
sub-domains; of
diachronic
histories, and of their
diachronic
sub-histories, then the
generic meaning and definition of such
dialectic categories as
‘dialectical syntheses’ must also be -- well -- very
generic, with almost endless
specializations, or
special case meaning variants, assimilable to -- not excluded by -- those meanings and definitions.
Formulations of this domain’s content in terms of the later, richer dialectical algebras of the Seldonian systematic dialectic of dialectical
algebras.
The Seldonian
NQ_ [---) q2 dialectical algebra system, i.e., the
dialectical algebra system
which corresponds to the,
generic -- i.e., to the
set NQ -- ‘meta-numeral’
q2 in Seldon’s
‘multi-systematic dialectic of the
dialectical algebras’, is capable of
implicitly modeling
two
levels --
two ‘qualo-fractal scales’ -- of the
systematic dialectic of human sexual orientations /-
preferences, by representing
explicitly
only the
second, the «
species» level / scale, with
HSO)-|-(2, the ‘‘‘«
asumbletoi»
sum’’’ of the «
species», representing,
implicitly,
the
first, the «
Genos», level / scale, but
only ‘multi-vocally’, as a
‘multi-ontic cumulum’.
[The implicit
bottom level / scale, represented using color-code
red[-ish], is typically, per
Encyclopedia Dialectica convention, reserved for the
ultimate, most concrete, most
determinate units, or «
monads» -- for the
ultimate,
directly observable,
members,
elements,
«
henads»,
‘‘‘holons’’’, or
‘‘‘logical indivi-duals’’’ -- that reside at the
base and
ground of
the superstructure of categories, and into which that superstructure of categories “sorts”
these
ultimates].
Likewise, the Seldonian
Nq_BA [---) q24 dialectical algebra system is capable of
explicitly modeling
two levels --
two ‘qualo-fractal scales’ -- of
the
systematic dialectic
of human sexual orientations / preferences, in a manner which we typically also term a
‘«
Genos»
/«
species»
qualo-fractal’, or a
‘qualo-Numerator / qualo-denominator
un-continued fraction’, i.e., a
‘purely-qualitative division / «
diairesis»
division-of-the-«
Genos»
-into-its-«
species»
-operation’, by representing,
explicitly, together,
‘co-vocally’,
both the
second, «
species» level /
scale, and the
first, the «
Genos», level / scale,
in the form of a minimal -- i.e., as a
two-layer --
‘trans-Platonian «
arithmos eidetikos»’.
These
two representations can be visualized together as follows --
Beyond the descriptive capabilities of either the
NQ_ [---) q2 system of
dialectical algebra,
or of the
Nq_BA[---) q24 system of
dialectical algebra, is the
Nq_GBA[---) q56
system of
dialectical algebra, which is capable of
explicitly modeling
three levels --
three
‘qualo-fractal scales’ -- of
the
systematic dialectic of human sexual orientations / preferences,
in a manner which we term a ‘«
Genos»
/«
species»
/ sub1-«
species»
qualo-fractal’, or a
‘qualo-Numerator / qualo-denominator / qualo-sub1-denominator continued fraction’, i.e., a
‘purely-qualitative division / «
diairesis»
of-the-«
Genos»
-into-its-«
species»
-and-its-
sub1-«
species»
operation’, by representing,
explicitly, together,
‘co-vocally’, the
third, the
sub1-«
species» level / scale,
and / plus the
second, the «
species» level / scale,
and / plus the
first, the «
Genos», level / scale, in the form of a
three-layer
‘trans-Platonian
«
arithmos eidetikos»’.
This representation can be visualized as follows --
However, the Seldonian
dialectic of the dialectical algebras is
not limited to the kind of
n-level,
n-scale
‘qualo-fractal’, “
purely”-qualitative categorial algebras that we have illustrated
above via the three foregoing examples.
Its
first,
or «
arché»,
axioms-system of
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
is the “purely”-
quantitative”, ‘pre-vestigially’-
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
axioms-system, that of the
‘“first-order”’ “
Natural” numbers axioms-system of
abstract
quantifiers,
which we denote by
N_:
N_ [---) q1.
Its numerals represent
‘unqualified quantifiers’.
Its
second,
‘first antithesis’ axioms-system of
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
is the “
purely”-qualitative dialectical-categorial
arithmetic/algebra of ontological-category
qualifiers, which we
denote by
NQ_:
NQ_ [---) q2, as we have seen above.
Its ‘meta-numerals’ represent
‘unquantifiable categorial qualifiers’, or ontological
category symbols.
Therefore, its
third,
‘first synthesis’ axioms-system of
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
is the dialectical
‘‘‘complex
unity’’’ of that
first and that
second system, which we denote
by
qQN = NU_:
NU_ [---) q3.
This
third
system of
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
is thus an axioms-system for a
hybrid,
‘qualo-quantitative’,
or ‘
quanto-qualitative’,
dialectical
ideography, thus
one whose ‘meta-numerals’ are
compound,
‘qualified quantifiers’, or
‘quantified qualifiers’,
of the form
unuon, such that, for
NU_, the
‘quantifier’
component of this
compound
‘meta-numeral’ formation,
un, is an element of
N, and
uon, the
‘qualifier’ component, by itself,
‘unquantified’ [or, actually,
‘quantified’, at least implicitly, by the
minimum magnitude N ‘quantifier’,
un = 1], represents
one
unit, or one «
monad», of the
nth ontological
category, or ‘ontological «
arithmos»”,
in the categorial progression in question.
The ‘
o’
superscript signifies the
‘quantifiablity’
of this
‘‘‘qualifier’’’, a feature which the
NQ_ ‘ontological-categorial
qualifiers’, for example -- per
their axioms -- do
not
exhibit.
The
qQN = NU_ system’s ideographical
language is thus capable of expressing,
not
only the
‘‘‘qualitative determinations’’’,
the
‘‘‘ontological determinations’’’,
or
‘ontological dimensions’
-- i.e., the
species
categories -- that make up a «
genos» or domain, as the
NQ_
language can.
The
qQN = NU_ language can also
express the [
present]
‘‘‘quantitative determinations’’’ of each such
qualitative / ontological
category, or “kind” category, in terms of the number of units of that category
that are
present,
or that are
presently
extant.
In the form of
un(t)uon, the
NU_
language can even express the entire “
time
evolution” of the “population” of the
nth «
arithmos» / ‘‘‘kind’’’.
For example, using the
NU_ language, we can
summarize the findings of the study, published in April
2011, by the Williams
Institute, and authored by Gary J. Gates, as to the
~ present sizes of the
sub-populations, for United States adults, of persons of
homosexual orientation,
of
bisexual orientation,
and of
trans-sexual orientation,
as follows --
HSO^o(s = 2; USA,
2011,
adults) =
uh(2011)uoh + um(2011)uom + ub(2011)uob +
un(2011)uon =
(227,842,105)uoh
+ (4,026,316)uom
+ (4,263,158)uob
+ (710,526)uon.
Moreover, the
seventh
system of
dialectical arithmetic/algebra
in the Seldonian progression of
dialectical ideographical
languages, whose most useful variant for present purposes we
denote by --
RqMQN = RqMU = Rmu [---) q7
-- is capable of expressing an even richer rendition of the
step
s = 2
‘cumulum’ of sexual orientations ontology.
The image above provides views of our ‘systematic dialectic of human sexual
orientations’ from the vantage point of a selection of five of the Seldonian
‘meta-system’ of axioms-systems of
dialectical arithmetics
/
algebras.
In the first view of this
‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’,
that afforded by the
NQ_ [---) q2 ‘Seldonian First Dialectical
Arithmetic’,
each of the four
step
2
categories is placed on an equal footing, as a discrete ‘psycho-ontological
category’, in its own right, qualitatively opposing each of the other three.
In the ‘ontology-only’, ‘quality-only’ language of the
NQ_ arithmetic /
algebra, there is no way
to distinguish the relative degree of prevalence of one category vis-a-vis the
other three, except, perhaps, by ordinality.
From that, ordinal, viewpoint the
explicit definition of the category of
‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’ is
the least complex, least “determinate” of the four, requiring the smallest
minimum word-determinations for its
explicit characterization.
The category of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’ is
the second simplest, next most “determinate” of the four, requiring a larger
minimum of word-determinations for its
explicit characterization, relative to
the
explicit characterization word-count for
the category of ‘‘‘
heterosexual
orientations’’’.
The category of ‘‘‘
bisexual
orientations’’’ is the next more complex, next more “determinate” of
the four, requiring yet a larger minimum of word-determinations for its
explicit
characterization, relative to the
explicit characterization word-counts for
the categories of ‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’ and
of ‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’,
respectively.
Finally, the category of ‘‘‘
trans-sexual orientations’’’ is the most
complex, most “determinate” of the four, requiring the largest minimum of
word-determinations for its
explicit characterization, relative to
the
explicit characterization word-counts for
the categories of ‘‘‘
bisexual
orientations’’’ , of ‘‘‘
homosexual
orientations’’’ and of ‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’, respectively.
This ‘gradient of determinateness’ can be ‘explicitized’, for example, as
follows --
‘‘‘
heterosexual orientations’’’
= females oriented sexually to males; males
oriented sexually to females.
‘‘‘
homosexual orientations’’’
= females oriented sexually to other females,
and
not to males;
males oriented sexually to other males, and
not to females.
‘‘‘
bisexual orientations’’’
= females oriented sexually to other females,
as well to males, with or without bias toward one or the other; males oriented
sexually to other males, as well as to females, with or without bias toward one
or the other.
trans-sexual orientations’’’
= ‘objective females’ who are also ‘subjective
males’, aspiring to male embodiment, and oriented sexually to other ‘objective females’;
‘objective males’ who are also ‘subjective females’, aspiring to female
embodiment, and oriented sexually to other males.
In the second view of this
‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’,
the one afforded by the
qQN = NU_:
NU_ [---) q3 ‘Seldonian Second Dialectical
Arithmetic’
--
which is a ‘
Qualo-qua
Ntitative’
dialectical arithmetic, as opposed to the
NQ_
“purely”-
Qualitative
dialectical arithmetic -- the estimated relative
prevalence of the four,
step
2, ‘psycho-ontological categories’ can be made
explicit in terms of their estimated sub-population census counts, in this
case, for the contemporary U. S. population as a whole.
We can see that the ‘monadic numerousness’ of the
uoh «
monads» of the
HSOh category /
«
arithmos» is by far the
greatest, exceeding
227 million human individuals, followed by the
‘monadic numerousness’ of the
uob «
monads» of the
HSOb category
/ «
arithmos»,
at over
4
million
263
thousand persons, and then the
uom «
monads» of the
HSOm category
/ «
arithmos»,
at just over
4 million human beings, with the
uon «
monads» of the
HSOn category
/ «
arithmos»,
at under one million people, being the least prevalent of the four sexual
orientations ontologies.
We might -- naively, as it turns out -- have expected the ‘prevalence
gradient’ to have strictly followed the ‘gradient of determinateness’, but that
is
not what we find
empirically, per the Williams Institute study.
In the third view of this
‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’,
the one afforded by the
RqMQN = RqMU = Rmu [---) q7 ‘Seldonian Seventh Dialectical
Arithmetic’
--
which is, once again, a ‘
Qualo-qua
Ntitative’
dialectical arithmetic, as opposed to the
NQ_
“purely”-
Qualitative
dialectical arithmetic -- the estimated prevalence of each
category is quantified as a conventional, standardized, ‘“normalized”’,
percentage part-relation
to the whole of the estimated contemporary U.S. population.
That is, the Williams Institute estimated ‘monadic population’ of each
distinct category / «
arithmos»
is divided by that total “present” U. S. ‘individual human units’ population,
and then multiplied by the “dimensionless”, or “units
÷ units”, or “units of
degree zero” ‘
quanto-qualitative’ factor ‘‘‘
100%’’’.
Via this view, one can directly read-off the prevalence of each of the four
ontologies relative to the whole that they, together, constitute.
In the fourth view of this
‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’,
the one afforded by the
NqBA [---) q24 ‘Seldonian
twenty-fourth Dialectical Arithmetic’ --
which is a “purely”-qualitative
dialectical arithmetic,
like the
NQ_
“purely”-
Qualitative
dialectical arithmetic -- this
dialectic is
portrayed as a minimal, two-scale ‘qualo-fractal qualitative fraction’:
as a unary ‘
Beta-level’ «
genos»
category / «
arithmos»
that is «
diairesis» divisible,
non-amalgamatively and
non-reductively, at its
step
2 degree
of elaboration, into four ‘
Alpha-level’ «
species»
categories / «
arithmoi».
In the fifth view of this
‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’,
the one afforded by the
NqGBA [---) q56 ‘Seldonian
fifty-fifth Dialectical Arithmetic’ --
which is, again, a “purely”-qualitative
dialectical arithmetic,
like the
NQ_
dialectical arithmetic -- this dialectic is portrayed as a
three-scale ‘qualo-fractal qualitative fraction’:
as a unary ‘
Gamma-level’ «
genos»
category that is «
diairesis» divisible,
i.e., in the sense of a
non-amalgamative
and
non-reductive,
‘contental’, ontological ‘‘‘division’’’, at its
step
2 degree of elaboration, into four ‘
Beta-level’
«
species»
categories, each of which
is further «
diairesis»
divisible into a further three, or, in one case, into only two, ‘‘
Alpha-level’
sub-«
species»
categories
/ «
arithmoi».
‘Homeomorphic Defect’ of this systematic-dialectical model of the
HSO
domain.
As a recent reviewer of this model aptly pointed out, this model still completely leaves out certain widely known and long-experienced categories of human sexual orientation / preference.
Such missing categories include, at one extreme,
celibacy, as practiced by some members of the
Foundation sisterhood-brotherhood, and, at an other extreme,
zoophilia or
bestiality, as practiced, for example -- according to a generally disputed legend, but, reputedly, with deadly consequences -- by Catherine the Great. The Kinsey interviews suggested that, in their times, at least one episode of
bestiality occurred in the lives of
8% of American men, and of
3.6% of American women.
If Terran humans, in the future, encounter
alien --
non-Terran -- humanoids, then it is possible that a category of
‘xeno-sexuality’, contrary to / ‘oppos[it]ing’, in ‘psycheo-ontological quality’, all categories of
‘koino-sexuality’,
including even
zoophilia or
bestiality, may come into experiential, empirical manifestation.
Also, the ‘‘‘discretization’’’ of ontological categories that is inherent in the limitations of the
NQ_ system / language of
dialectical ideography, as the
first,
simplest dialectical ideography, presents what may be more realistically rendered as a more ‘‘‘continuum’’’-like
spectrum spanning, inclusively, from the extreme pole of exclusive
heterosexual orientation, to the opposite extreme pole of exclusive
homosexual orientation, with a equally-balanced
bisexual orientation mid-point in-between.
